Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

An LCA methodolody for assessing the environmental impacts of building

components before and after refurbishment
Tajda Potrč Obrecht a, *, Sabina Jordan a, Andraž Legat a, Marcella Ruschi Mendes Saade b,
Alexander Passer b
a
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Dimičeva 12, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
Technical University Graz, Working Group Sustainable Construction, Waagner-Biro Straße 1000, 8010, Graz, Slovenia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Bin Chen Refurbishment is one of the most important measures for reducing the environmental impacts of the construction
sector in the near future. According to the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology for buildings, the environ­
Keywords: mental impacts of refurbishment measures should be assessed within the whole life cycle of the building and
Life cycle assessment (LCA) reflected in separate modules. However, in practice, refurbishment is often treated as the beginning of a new
Refurbishment
building life cycle. This leads to difficulties in correctly assessing the environmental impacts for the components
Allocation approaches
that are reused or recycled after the refurbishment. The division of a building’s life cycle into two separate life
Residual value
Reference service life (RSL) cycles indicates that the environmental impacts must be divided between the life cycle before and the life cycle
after the refurbishment for a correct assessment of the environmental impacts and a calculation of the residual
value.
We propose a newly developed methodology for calculating the environmental impacts and the residual value
of refurbishment measures that also involves a division between life cycles. The new methodology is a combi­
nation of already exiting methodologies that are innovatively combined and consists of four sequential steps. In
the first step, the input, output and reuse flows between the life cycles before and after the refurbishment are
defined. In the second step, the environmental impacts are assessed using the chosen allocation approach (i.e.,
the cut-off, cut-off with module D, avoided-burden, 50:50 and the product environmental footprint (PEF)). In the
third step, a maintenance scenario is implemented according to the selected reference-service-life (RSL) data­
base. In the fourth step, the residual value is estimated. The methodology was tested on selected building
components. A sensitivity analysis for different allocation approaches and RSL databases was performed to show
how the choice of these parameters can influence the results. The differences between the selected allocation
approaches emerge if materials with recycled content are used or if the materials are being recycled or reused at
the end of their life cycle. The developed methodology reliably estimates the environmental impacts as well as
the residual value of the life cycle before and after the refurbishment. We expect that this research will stimulate
practitioners to avoid the negligence of previous environmental flows, bringing scientific consistency to future
assessments of refurbishment measures.

1. Introduction Existing buildings have to be renovated rapidly to increase their energy

efficiency, since in Europe 80% of the buildings that will be occupied in
The construction sector’s potential to reduce its environmental im­ 2050 already exist (Dixit, 2019; Röck et al., 2019; Vilches et al., 2017a).
pacts and consequently tackle climate change are highlighted in various Several policy documents, for example, the European Green Deal (EC,
reports, e.g., UN Environment (UN Environment Programme, 2018; 2020), are considering refurbishment as one of the most important tasks
UNEP, 2020), the International Energy Agency (IEA and UNEP, 2019), to reduce the construction sector’s environmental impacts in the near
and scientific papers (Röck et al., 2019). According to these findings, future.
new buildings must become fossil-free and nearly zero energy by 2020. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is recognized as an appropriate method

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T.P. Obrecht).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129527
Received 5 March 2021; Received in revised form 28 September 2021; Accepted 27 October 2021
Available online 28 October 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

(Asdrubali et al., 2013; Denac et al., 2018; Ortiz et al., 2010; Ramesh the refurbishment changes the functional equivalent (…)”.While the
et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 2011) for quantifying environmental impacts. European standard does not clearly mention how the practitioner should
It assesses products’ and processes’ environmental impacts throughout address the materials and components that are remaining after the
their entire life cycles in a iterative approach, divided into four steps: refurbishment, according to ISO 14044 the reuse of previously adopted
defining the goal and scope of the study, collecting data and analyzing materials in a new product system (i.e., in a new building’s life cycle)
the inventory, assessing the environmental impacts and interpreting the calls for an allocation procedure. ISO 14040 emphasizes that allocation
results (ISO 14040:2006., n.d.). The LCA method for the buildings sector should be avoided either by dividing the unit process into two or more
in Europe is additionally regulated by the standards EN 15804 (EN independent sub-processes or by expanding the scope of the study to
15804:2012 + A2:2019, n.d.) for products and components and include the additional functions related to the co-products (ISO
EN15978 (EN 15978:2011, n.d.) for entire buildings. They propose a 14040:2006., n.d.). If allocation cannot be avoided, a division between
modular approach to cover the whole life cycle of the building and two life cycles should be made. The recognition of an allocation need is
divide it into the production stage (comprising the stages of seldom observed in published studies, especially for buildings.
raw-material extraction, A1; raw-material transport, A2; production of To bridge the gap between the common building-refurbishment LCA
construction materials, A3; their transport, A4; and their installation, practice and the international standard’s requirements, it is crucial that
A5), the use stage (including use, B1; maintenance, B2; repair, B3; the practitioners consider the distribution flows between previous and
replacement, B4; refurbishment, B5; operational energy use, B6; and new life cycles (Allacker et al., 2017; Ekvall, 2000; Ekvall and Tillman,
operational water use, B7), the end-of-life (EoL) stage of the building 1997; Frischknecht, 2010; Kim et al., 1997; Mirzaie et al., 2020)). There
(comprising the deconstruction, C1; the transport of materials, C2; the are several approaches to allocate the environmental burdens and ben­
waste treatment, C3; and the final disposal phase, C4) and the stage efits between two product systems (Allacker et al., 2017). In this paper
beyond the life cycle of the building, module D (scenarios of reuse, we used the (1) the recycled-content approach, (2) the module-D
recycling and energy recovery from obsolete materials and the envi­ approach, (3) the avoided-burden approach, (4) the 50:50 approach
ronmental impacts associated with them). and (5) the PEF approach. It is important to mention that the approaches
The results of the LCA are the input for the residual-value calculation are mainly discussed for the recycling of materials or products. In the
of separate materials and components. According to the definition of SIA case of building refurbishment, the situation is similar to recycling,
2032:2020 the residual value is the sum of the not-yet-amortized envi­ except that mostly the materials and components are being reused.
ronmental emissions of embodied energy evaluated at a specific moment Compared to recycling, this means that no additional recycling pro­
in the life cycle, whereas embodied energy includes the production stage cesses and their related environmental impacts are involved.
(modules A1–A5), maintenance (B4) and the EoL stages (modules The current approach for assessing environmental impacts neglects
C1–C4) according to EN 15804. In the ideal case, the building materials the materials and components that remain in the building after the re­
and components should be amortized within the reference service furbishments. Neglecting materials and components used prior to the
period (RSP) of the building, and at this point the building should be refurbishment is scientifically questionable, according to the re­
either refurbished or demolished. This is seldom the case, however. In quirements outlined in ISO 14044. If only the materials substituted
practice, at the end of the RSP the building materials are often not during the refurbishment are considered in an LCA study, we produce a
amortized and the building is demolished, and some materials are still gap at the end of the building’s new life cycle, where all the materials
intact (Vilches et al., 2017a). Therefore, the economic and environ­ (the materials reused during the refurbishment and the newly added
mental residual values of the components should be assessed. The re­ materials) are “discarded”, an issue already highlighted in the study of
sidual value indicates how much damage is done to the environment if a Vilches et al. (2017a). Additionally, no information about which impacts
certain component or material is replaced, recycled or discarded pre­ have already been considered in the past, carries the risk that some of
maturely. However, the residual value is dependent on the calculation the impacts are double-counted. For example, a material that has
methodology and the input data (e.g., the life cycle-inventory database already been described as burden-free at the beginning, because it
used, the RSL database, etc.) (Kohler et al., 2010; Severin, 2018). consists of recycled content. If we do not have this information in the
A special case is the evaluation of the environmental impacts and the later stages, we can also assign it the benefits of recycling at its EoL. Thus
residual values of buildings that were refurbished. The refurbishment of the benefit of recycling is assigned twice to the same material (Frisch­
a building should be assessed in module B5 according to the standard EN knecht, 2010). It is crucial that the impacts which are considered before
15978 (EN 15978:2011, n.d.). This includes: and which are considered after the refurbishment of the building are
clearly indicated.
• production of new building components, The solution to the presented problems is a newly developed meth­
• transportation of the new building components (including produc­ odology for the assessment of the environmental impacts and the re­
tion of any materials lost during the transportation), sidual value of components and materials before and after a
• construction as part of the refurbishment process (including pro­ refurbishment. The methodology builds on the LCA methodology and
duction of any material lost during refurbishment), the SIA2032 standard that is used to evaluate the residual value. These
• waste management of the refurbishment process, are upgraded by the allocation approaches of the impacts between the
• the EoL stage of replaced building components. life cycle before and after the refurbishment. For the allocation of the
impacts, different existing allocation approaches can be used, which are
However, several studies (Corrado and Ballarini, 2016; Ferreira chosen based on the scope and goal of the study. The connection of the
et al., 2013; Häkkinen, 2012; Häkkinen et al., 2016; Oregi et al., 2015; X various existing methodologies into a new methodology is innovative
Oregi et al., 2017; Passer et al., 2016; Vilches et al., 2017b) indicate that and allows a reliable estimation of the environmental impacts and the
the environmental impacts of a building’s refurbishment are not residual value at a certain moment in time. This information facilitates
addressed as the phase B5 of the whole life cycle, but are treated as the decisions about the further use of different components and materials.
beginning of a new life cycle (Anand and Amor, 2017). In other words, The new methodology is verified on two different case studies where
the environmental impacts of the refurbishment materials and processes the sensitivity to various allocation approaches and selected reference-
are addressed in modules A1 to A5 (the production stage of the building) service-life databases was also assessed.
of the life cycle after the refurbishment. This practice is still in line with
EN 15978, which states that “if a building is refurbished and the refur­ 2. Methods and materials
bishment was not taken into account at the outset, i.e., in any previous
assessment, a new assessment should be carried out, particularly where The following subsections describe the stages of this research. First,

2
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

the four-step methodology for the assessment of the environmental downcycling of materials, and the other to introduce the market demand
impacts and the residual value of refurbished buildings is described in for recycled products (Gervasio and Dimova, 2018). However, these
detail in subsection 2.1. The subsection 2.2 describes the validation of factors are sometimes difficult to determine due to a lack of data (Spi­
the methodology on two case studies (two different building compo­ rinckx et al., 2018). The graphical presentation of the approaches is in
nents of a multi-family building). Fig. 2.
The ISO standards do not dictate which to adopt, relying on the
practitioner’s judgement to determine their appropriateness. The results
2.1. Methodology description of this step are the absolute environmental values of separate life cycles,
and these are an input for the calculation of the residual value. For the
The newly developed calculation approach to measure the refur­ materials that are replaced or kept during the following life cycle,
bishment measures’ environmental impact and residual value has four additional information is needed for the calculation of the residual
steps (Fig. 1). In step 1, the inputs and outputs of the building’s life cycle value, which is provided in the next step. The formulas for the allocation
before and after its refurbishment are determined. For each life cycle we are derived from Gervasio and Dimova, and Allacker et al. (Allacker
must indicate which inputs are virgin materials and which consist of et al., 2017; Gervasio and Dimova, 2018). To facilitate the interpretation
recycled materials. Similarly, this step also defines which materials are of results, the total environmental impact for each allocation approach
disposed of at the end of the life cycle, which materials are recycled and was further subdivided into the subcategories proposed in Table 1: A,
which are reused (e.g., reuse of the structural components after the production; C, EoL; and D, beyond the building life cycle. These sub­
refurbishment). The scope of the study should be chosen so that it shows categories are divided into parts that represent impact virgin (environ­
the relationship between the first and the second life cycles. This step mental impact of the virgin materials), impact recycled content (impact
establishes a logical background for the calculations performed in step 2. related to the use of recycled materials), impact disposal (environmental
Step 2 is the most time consuming. The environmental impacts of the impact of disposal), impact EoL (environmental impact of EoL), recy­
materials, components or buildings are calculated and distributed be­ cling impact (environmental impact of the recycling) and credit module
tween the life cycle before the refurbishment and the life cycle after the D (environmental impact avoided because of the benefits of reuse,
refurbishment using the chosen allocation method. The connection be­ recycling, incineration with waste recovery).
tween the first and second life cycles and the choice of the allocation In step 3, a timeline with the replacement times and maintenance
schemes is an important topic, especially when materials are reused or actions for each component or material is established according to the
recycled. The allocation approaches between the life cycles of a building
selected reference service life (RSL). Materials and building components
lead to very different results (Allacker et al., 2017). have different RSLs and are amortized at different times of the observed
The cut off (also called the 100:0 or the recycled content) approach
reference service period (RSP) of a building. For the determination of the
considers that the environmental impacts of the production phase for a RSL various sources can be used (Grant and Ries, 2013). Often, they are
product are attributed to the first use of this product and follow the
acquired from RSL databases. Generally, the data for various materials
“polluter pays” principle (Gervasio and Dimova, 2018). The second use or components differ from one database to another. In a previous study
of the product only bears the environmental impact of collection and the
we found that due to different replacement rates, the environmental
preparation of the product for its subsequent use. In some cases, the impact can vary significantly (Potrč Obrecht et al., 2019). In the
collection is also attributed to the first use of the product. However, the
developed methodology, this step provides the information about the
materials that are used for the second time do not bear any environ­ replacement rate and maintenance procedures and consequently also
mental load from the primary production process (Allacker et al., 2017;
about the remaining RSL of the building materials and components.
Frischknecht, 2010; Gervasio and Dimova, 2018). The cut off approach Finally, in step 4 the data from the two previous steps are used to
with module D tries to introduce the circularity stimulus to the previous calculate the residual value of the material, a component or a building.
approach by the introduction of module D. This is the phase beyond the The environmental values calculated in step 2 are linearly distributed
system boundary of the building’s life cycle that includes possible ben­ accordingly to their remaining RSL (which was determined in step 3).
efits or loads due to recycling, reuse and energy recovery. However, in The residual value is calculated following the approach presented in
module D the difference in quality of the material before and after the SIA:2032 (Severin, 2018). As already mentioned, the residual value of a
recycling process is not assessed. The avoided burden approach (also material, component or building is the sum of the not-yet-amortized
called the End-Of-Life approach or 0:100) considers the benefits of the environmental emissions of embodied energy evaluated at a specific
potential recycling or reuse and accredits it in the first life cycle. The moment in time, whereas the embodied energy includes the production
50:0 approach divides the burdens and benefits equally between the first stage (modules A1–A5), maintenance (B4) and the EoL stages (modules
and second life cycles. It allocates 50% of the benefits of using recycled C1–C4) according to EN 15804 (EN 15804:2012 + A2:2019, n.d.;
materials in the production stage and 50% of the benefits of recycling at Severin, 2018). The residual value of a material component of a building
the EoL stage to the observed life cycle. It can be seen as a compromise can be determined at any point during the observed life cycle period.
between the recycled content and the avoided-burden approach. The The formula for the calculation of the residual value is based on SIA
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) approach builds on the 50:50 2032:2020:
approach and introduces two factors: one to take into account the

Fig. 1. Methodology for the assessment of environmental impacts and the residual value of components and materials before and after a refurbishment in four steps.

3
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the allocation approaches: A) Cut-off:

LC1 has all the environmental impacts (EI) of the production; LC2 has the
EI of the refurbishment measures and the EI of the recycling and reuse; B)
Cut-off with module D: LC1 has all the environmental impacts (EI) of the
production and the benefits of module D; LC2 has the EI of the refurbishment
measures and the EI of the recycling and reuse; C) EoL LC1 has all the
environmental impacts (EI) of recycling and reuse, LC2 has the EI of the
refurbishment measures and the avoided burdens in LC1; D) 50:50 LC1 has
half of the environmental impacts (EI) of production, LC2 has the EI of the
refurbishment measures and half of the environmental impacts (EI) of pro­
duction; E) Product Environmental Footprint (PEF): LC1 has half of the
environmental impacts (EI) of production, LC2 has the EI of the refurbish­
ment measures weighted by the quality factor Qf and half of the environ­
mental impacts (EI) of production.

4
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Table 1 Table 2
Formulas for calculating life cycle modules according EN 15978 for the different Life cycle Inventory (LCI) of the slab.
allocation approaches. SLAB 1m2
Formulas
Thickness [cm] Mass [kg]
Modules EN A-production C-EoL D-beyond the building life
Sawn wood 1.5 8,4
15978 cycle
Precast cement floor 5 110
Allocation EI EI rec EI disposal EI EoL EI, rec, open EPS 3 0.6
approach virgin content rec loop (credit Reinforced concrete 15 360
module D) Base plaster 1.5 24
Alkyd paint / 0.28
CUT-OFF (1-R1) R1*Erec (1-R2)*Ed 0 0
Ev
CUT-OFF þ (1-R1) R1*Erec (1-R2)*Ed (R2-R1) -(R2-R1)*E*v
D Ev *Erec,eol
AVODIED Ev 0 (1-R2)*Ed R2* Erec, -R2*E*v
BURDEN eol
50:50 (1-R1/ R1/ (1-R2/2) R2/ -R2/2* E*v
2)Ev 2*Erec *Ed 2*Erec,
eol
PEF (1-R1/ R1/ (1- R1/2- R2/ -R2/2* E*v*
2)Ev 2*Erec R2/2)*Ed 2*Erec, (Qprod,out/
eol Qprod,in)

Where:
Ev = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the Fig. 3. Slab.
acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material.
E*v = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the
acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material assumed to be substituted by Table 3
recyclable materials. Life cycle Inventory (LCI) of the wall.
Erec = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the EXTERIOR WALL 1m2
production process of the recycled material, including collection, sorting and
Thickness [cm] Mass [kg]
transportation processes.
ErecEoL = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from Cover coat 1.5 28
the recycling process at the EoL, including collection, sorting, transportation and Rock wool 30 30
recycled material production processes. Concrete brick 29 440
Adhesive mortar / 30.45
Ed = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from
Base plaster 0.015 24
disposal of waste material (e.g. landfilling, incineration and pyrolysis).
Alkyd paint / 0.28
R1 = recycled content of the materials.
R2 = recycling share at the end of the life cycle.
Qprod,out/Qprod,in = difference in the quality of the primary Qprod,in and
secondary materials Qprod,out.

∑ EIi
RV = EIi − × yUSE
i
y RSL

where.

• RV = residual value
• EI = environmental impact of the production and EoL phases of the
material
Fig. 4. Exterior wall.
• yRSL = estimated RSL in years
• yUSE = years in use
• RSL databases

2.2. Method validation by case study In step 1, the flows between the life cycles before (LC1) and after the
refurbishment were determined (LC2). For the calculation of the allo­
The application and verification of the methodology are presented cation, it is important to know the recycled content of the input mate­
for two selected components of a typical Slovenian, multi-residential rials and the reuse, recycling, incineration or landfill rates of the
building from 1980. The components were deliberately selected so materials at the end of each life cycle.
that they differ greatly in composition, the use of recycled materials and After defining the flows (inputs, outputs and reuse) between the life
refurbishment measures. The first component is the slab between the cycles before and after the refurbishment (step 1), we calculated the
stories (Table 2 and Fig. 3). This component was selected because it environmental impacts of the individual materials. The input informa­
contains a material that has recycled content already in the first life tion for the assessment of EI is presented in the Appendix.
cycle (the reinforcing steel). In step 3, we compared three different databases containing data
The second component selected for the illustration of the method­ about the RSL of building components and materials. The first database
ology is the outer wall (Table 3 and Fig. 4). In this case material’s is Pravilnik o vzdrževanju stavb and is used in Slovenia; the second
thermal insulation was added during the refurbishment. database is derived from Bewertungsystem für Nachhaltinges Bauen (Bbsr,
A sensitivity analysis was performed along with the validation to 2011) and is often used in Germany; and the third database is from
show the dependence of the residual value on the following parameters: SIA2032:2020 (Severin, 2018) and is used in Switzerland. The com­
parison will show how the residual value of a building can vary
• allocation approaches, depending on the RSL database used for the study.

5
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

In step 4, the residual value was calculated for each life cycle (the 3.3. Step 3
LC1 before the refurbishment and the LC2 after the refurbishment) after
two arbitrarily selected periods. It is estimated that each of the life cycles For each component, maintenance and replacement scenarios were
has a RSP of 60 years. The first calculation of the residual value was established according to three different RSL databases: SLO, BNB and
performed after 30 years (on the half of the observed RSP). The second SIA. In the case of the slab, it is necessary to regularly repaint the ceiling
calculation is made after 50 years (10 years before the end of RSP) of the and also replace the floors once during the period of the life cycle, which
individual life cycle. is 60 years. In the case of the floor replacement, the EoL of the previous
The methodology can be applied to every material, component or floor is included. In the refurbishment phase everything except the
building and can be used for every environmental impact category. In concrete and the reinforcing steel was replaced (Fig. 8).
the study we present results for the greenhouse-gas emissions (GWP The exterior wall has to be regularly repainted on the inside and the
impact category) since it is the most prominent indicator. The database cover coat has to be replaced once in the observed period according to
used in the study is Ecoinvent 3.6 (Wernet et al., 2016). The charac­ the data in the three different databases. When the cover coat was
terization factors used for the calculation are derived from IPCC 2013 replaced in the first cycle (before the refurbishment), the impact of the
(Heijungs et al., 2013). disposal of the old cover coat is also included in the environmental
impacts of this action. During the refurbishment, thermal insulation is
3. Results added to the exterior wall. In LC2 the walls were regularly repainted and
after a certain period the base plaster on the inside was exchanged.
3.1. Step 1 When replacing the base plaster the impacts of the disposal of the old
base plaster were also taken into account. Additionally, the exchange of
Initially, in step 1, the basic flows between the first and second life the thermal insulation requires that the cover coat is replaced. The im­
cycles were determined. The material flows between the first and second pacts of the disposal of the old thermal insulation and the cover coats
life cycles are illustrated for the slab and the exterior wall in Fig. 5. The were also considered.
figures show which virgin materials were used, their recycled content,
which materials are recycled or reused, and also how individual mate­ 3.4. Step 4
rials were treated at the end (landfill or incineration).
The results of the residual-value calculation are illustrated in Fig. 9.
3.2. Step 2 Generally, the residual value is higher after 30 years than after 50 years.
In the cut-off approach, the residual value should be lower in LC2,
The GWPs for the slab were calculated with five different allocation because during the refurbishment some materials were reused. For
methods (cut-off, cut-off with module D, avoided burden, the 50:50 and example, in the case of the slab, the concrete and the reinforcing steel
the PEF) for the first life cycle of the building component (LC1) and the are reused, while in the case of the exterior wall the bricks are reused.
life cycle after the refurbishment (LC2). The results are illustrated in However, in the case of the wall, the thermal insulation is added and
Fig. 6. The differences between LC1 and LC2 only emerge for materials consequently the impacts are sometimes higher in LC2. In the case of the
that are reused after the refurbishment, i.e., the reinforcing steel and the cut-off with module D, the residual values are lower for each RSL
concrete. In the cut-off approach no credits for reuse were assigned, as in database, compared to the previous approach. This is because the ben­
the case of the cut-off with module D. In the avoided-burden approach efits of module D for recycling or reusing the materials at the end of life
the credits are the same as the negative value of the virgin impact, while are also included in the calculation of the overall impacts. On the other
in the 50:50 and PEF approaches they are halved when compared to the hand, the avoided-burden approach has higher impacts in LC2. As for
previous two approaches. In the second life cycle the credits are given the wall, the impacts are considerably higher because additional thermal
because the reinforced steel and the concrete are recycled at the end. In insulation was added. If we compare the results of the 50:50 and the PEF
the case of steel, 95% is recycled for steel production. The recycled approaches, they are similar for the separate RSL databases. For the slab
concrete is used instead of gravel, in other words it is downcycled. they are also similar for LC1 and LC2.
Therefore, the credits gained for the recycling of concrete are also Generally, the residual value in LC1 is the lowest in the case of the
minimal. avoided-burden approach, where the impacts are shifted to the life cycle
For thermal insulation, base plaster and paint, which are completely after the refurbishment. This approach clearly rewards the recycling and
disposed at the EoL, no allocation exists so the impacts are the same in reuse at the EoL. Also, the cut-off with module D has small residual
LC1 and life cycle 2, since the same amounts are used in both life cycles. values in the first LC, because the materials are credited for recycling
They also receive no credits, because they are disposed at the EoL. For and reuse at the EoL. In the 50:50 and PEF approaches these credits are
the cast cement floor and sawn timber, which are recycled at the EoL, distributed between LC1 and LC2. Therefore, the residual values are
the impacts in LC1 and LC2 are the same because everything is handled higher than those obtained with the cut-off with module D. The highest
within the observed life cycle, and hence there is no allocation between residual values were observed in the case of the cut-off approach.
the life cycles. In LC2 it is important to note that in the case of the exterior wall the
The application of the methodology on the outer wall provided residual values are higher because a new material, namely the thermal
similar insights (Fig. 7). The differences are noticeable for the materials, insulation, was added during the refurbishment. Otherwise, the impacts
which are reused in LC2 after the refurbishment, i.e., adhesive mortar would be similar for both life cycles in the case of the 50:50 and PEF
and concrete bricks. Again, in the first life cycle those two materials get approaches, smaller in the case of the cut-off and cut-off with module D
credit for being reused in all the allocation approaches, except for the approaches and higher in the case of the avoided-burden approach.
cut-off approach. On the other hand, the differences are minor for the The differences in the results caused by using different RSLs, namely,
materials used only in one life cycle. These materials have a similar the SLO, BNB and SIA databases, are difficult to compare. In the case of
impact for different allocation approaches in both life cycles. The only the slab, the RSL are similar for the SLO and BNB database, while the use
difference between the approaches is how they treat the recycling at the of the SIA RSL values results in smaller residual values. In the case of the
end of each life cycle. This means that the results for different allocation wall, the residual values are the highest if we use the SLO database, and
approaches differ from each other, but are the same in the life cycle the lowest if we use the BNB database. On the other hand, when looking
before and after the refurbishment. It is also important to notice that in at the residual value after 50 years for the LC2, the residual value is
LC2 the thermal insulation was added. This material addition influences higher if the BNB database is used. This proves that the results can be
the residual-value calculation. very different depending on which database we use and therefore it is

6
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Fig. 5. Step 1 - Distribution of the environmental impacts (EI) between the life cycle before the refurbishment (LC1) and life cycle after the refurbishment (LC2) of
the slab and exterior wall.

7
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Fig. 6. Step 2 - GWP results for different allocation approaches before the refurbishment (LC1) and after the refurbishment (LC2) for the slab.

very important to include data about the RSL and the maintenance of The allocation of environmental impacts before and after the refur­
different materials in the study to ensure transparency and bishment is seldom discussed in the literature (Allacker et al., 2014,
reproducibility. 2017). On the other hand, the discussions about the allocation ap­
Due to the different environmental impacts for production, reuse, proaches are far more often at the level of commercial products
recycling and disposal of each material, it is impossible to make direct (Frischknecht, 2010). This is most likely due to the products’ shorter
comparisons between allocation approaches. Therefore, only general service lives, which makes the need for allocation more understandable
conclusions about the choice of the allocation approaches and RSL da­ than at the building level, where the service periods are relatively long.
tabases can be made. The newly developed calculation methodology for environmental im­
pacts and residual value before and after a building’s refurbishment
4. Discussion enables a more comprehensive determination of the results, since no
previous environmental exchanges are ignored. In an LCA of building
Today’s approach to calculating the environmental impacts of re­ refurbishment, the previous life cycle is usually ignored, and conse­
furbishments focuses only on the life cycle after the refurbishment. quently, as previously discussed, the benefits of refurbishment could be
Consequently, an allocation of the impacts is not possible and there is a overestimated. With the increasing demand for refurbished buildings to
gap in the information for the materials that remain in the building after allow for high energy efficiency, the effect of that negligence will
the refurbishment. On the other hand, neglecting the life cycle before become progressively larger – which holds the potential to disturb the
the refurbishment could lead to incorrect conclusions. The proposed reduction predictions to meet the targets set for 2050.
methodology helps to allocate the environmental impacts according to The environmental impacts can be distributed between primary and
the scope, and it reduces the information uncertainties related to the life secondary product systems in various ways and double counting should
cycle before the refurbishment. be avoided (Allacker et al., 2014; Eberhardt et al., 2020; Frischknecht,

8
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Fig. 7. Step 2 - GWP results for different allocation approaches before the refurbishment (LC1) and after the refurbishment (LC2) for the wall.

2010; Schrijvers et al., 2016; Weidema, 2000). Different allocation approach is a compromise between the cut-off and avoided burden
methods have been developed and each of them has its own theoretical approach. It credits both the use of recycled materials as the recycling
background as well as strengths and weaknesses. Some of the ap­ potential of the materials. The PEF builds upon the 50:50 approach and
proaches promote the use of recycled materials (e.g., cut-off), some introduces factors for the quality differences between primary and sec­
promote recycling at the EoL (e.g., avoided-burden approach) or try to ondary materials. Since each of the allocation approaches has its own
distribute the impacts across both life cycles (e.g., 50:50 and PEF) purpose, the choice of the allocation approach should be aligned with
(Allacker et al., 2017; Gervasio and Dimova, 2018). The cut-off the goal and scope of the study. Since the idea of a circular economy is
approach is most commonly used, since it is easy to apply and reduces not promoted by all the allocation approaches equally, it is assumed that
the uncertainties connected to future recycling and reuse scenarios. It the PEF method and the cut-off method with module D, which include
awards the use of recycled materials. On the other hand, it does not the aspects of circularity, will prevail over the other methods.
promote the use of materials with recycling potential within the system. For a proper impact allocation between the life cycles, it is crucial to
This weakness is partly reduced with the introduction of the module D, define the scope and the boundaries of the life cycles before and after the
which sums the benefits and the burdens of recycling, reuse and incin­ refurbishment. In this study we have determined the scope and the re­
eration. This module was optional in the previous version of the lations between the life cycles before and after a refurbishment (e.g.,
EN15804 (EN 15804:2012 + A2:2019, n.d.), but has become mandatory Figs. 8 and 9) (Xabat Oregi et al., 2017). In these figures we have indi­
in the latest version (EN 15804:2012 + A2:2019, n.d.). With EN 15804’s cated which inputs and outputs are related to which life cycle and which
amendment, it has become more comparable with the PEF approach and of the materials are reused or recycled at their EoL. So, basically, a clear
should promote the circular use of materials, which is also in line with definition of the scope should prevent errors by allocating the impacts
the sustainable development goals of the UN (United Nations, 2019). and the possibility of double counting.
The avoided burden approach awards the creation of recycled materials We also found that the calculation of some of the allocation methods
but neglects the benefits of using recycled materials. The 50:50 requires specific input information, like the difference in the quality of

9
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Fig. 8. Step 3 - The maintenance and replacement timeline for the slab and the exterior wall.

the virgin and the recycled material or the impact of virgin materials very different in selected RSL databases, although the geographical
that will be replaced by the recycled materials, etc. This information is circumstances are similar. Further research has to be devoted to this
generally difficult to find in the literature and therefore presents a great field to test the uncertainties and differences that result from these pa­
challenge when the allocation of the impacts is modelled (Eberhardt rameters (Goulouti et al., 2020; Hoxha et al., 2017).
et al., 2020). Often the information is available only for closed-loop
recycling (the material is recycled into the same material with the 5. Conclusion
same quality, e.g., steel), but generally the information is lacking for
open-loop recycling (the recycled materials are used for other purposes, Today, the environmental impacts of a building’s refurbishment are
e.g., crushed concrete is replacing gravel). To calculate the environ­ not addressed as the a sub-stage of the whole life cycle according to EN
mental impacts, these data should be provided. This data gap is a po­ 15978, but are calculated as the new life cycle of a building. This is
tential area for future research. possible within the current standard, if no assessment has been carried
During the study, impacts related to the EoL (modules C) and phases out prior to the refurbishment or if the functional equivalent changes
beyond the life cycle of the building according to EN15978 (EN during the refurbishment. Since the majority of the buildings have not
15978:2011, n.d.) (module D-reuse, recovery, recycling, energy export) been assessed yet, this actually applies for almost all cases. Conse­
were assessed. Reporting these impacts became mandatory for envi­ quently, the impacts have to be distributed among the life cycles before
ronmental product declarations (EPDs) in 2019 according to EN and after the refurbishment correctly. Therefore, a new methodology
150804:2012+A2:2019, which also proves the increasing importance of has been developed to assess the environmental impacts and the residual
the circular economy in the construction sector. Gathering the infor­ value of buildings, which also includes the allocation of the impacts
mation about the EoL processes and the reuse, recycling and recovering between the life cycles before and after the refurbishment, as well as the
processes is very challenging and introduces great uncertainties into the maintenance scenarios according to the RSL. The new methodology
LCA (Ng and Chau, 2015). We have observed several authors with the combines already exiting methodologies into a novel approach that has
same experience (Spirinckx et al., 2018). The EPDs are ordered by not been applied before. It enables a more correct distribution of the
manufacturers, which have information and control relating to the environmental impacts between the life cycles.
production process, but generally they do not have any control over The allocation approach and the RSL are the variable parameters of
what happens to their product during the construction, use and the EoL the methodology. The sensitivity analysis of the allocation approaches
stages. Therefore, generic data for the disposal and the recovery process showed that differences between the assessed environmental impacts
are often used (Lasvaux et al., 2015). Recently, a guidance document and residual values emerge if materials with recycled content are used or
with basic principles and recommendations for describing the disman­ if the materials are being recycled or reused at the end of their life cycle.
tling, post-use, and disposal stages of construction products were For materials with no recycled content and for those disposed of at the
developed (Agency, 2020). It proposes the establishment of documents end of the observed life cycle, there is no significant difference caused by
where the manufactures of the construction products and the disposal the selection of the allocation approach. The results indicated that
practitioners (recyclers, waste-management companies, etc.) exchange greater differences between the allocation approaches were visible in
information, determine the recycling and recovery prerequisites or the second life cycle after the refurbishment, where larger shares of
conditions, etc. These documents should provide realistic and compa­ reused and recycled components were present. The sensitivity study also
rable life cycle-assessment data for modules C and D for buildings and so confirmed that the choice of the RSL database has a great influence on
close the current information gap in this area. the maintenance scenarios (replacement rates) and leads to different
Since the choice of the different RSL databases can have a major residual values of the materials and components, and consequently also
influence on the results when observing the entire life cycle of a build­ of buildings. For this reason, it is crucial to indicate which RSL database
ing, it is very important that each study indicates which RSLs were used is used in the estimation procedure.
for the calculation or refer to the selected RSL database (Potrč Obrecht Due to the ambitious targets set by European governments to reduce
et al., 2019). We have noticed that the RSL for the same materials can be the built environment’s contribution to climate change, the

10
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Fig. 9. Step 4 - Residual value of the slab and the exterior wall calculated with different allocation approaches after 30 and 50 years of the observed RSP for the life
cycles before (LC1) and after the refurbishment (LC 2).

11
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

refurbishment of buildings and also the recycling and reuse of materials Dixit, M.K., 2019. Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings : a
review. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
are strongly encouraged and will become everyday practice. Hence, the
jclepro.2018.10.230.
application of the developed methodology will become progressively Eberhardt, L.C.M., van Stijn, A., Rasmussen, F.N., Birkved, M., Birgisdottir, H., 2020.
necessary. In this sense, we believe that our developed approach will not Development of a life cycle assessment allocation approach for circular economy in
only improve environmental impact assessments and contribute to the the built environment. Sustain. Times 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12229579.
circular economy of the construction sector, but it will bring scientific EC, 2020. European green deal call [WWW document]. Eur. Comm. URL file:///C:/
consistency to the future estimation of refurbishment measures. It is Users/mlsf/Downloads/European_Green_Deal_Call___1_billion_investment_to_boost_
expected that this research will encourage professionals to avoid the the_green_and_digital_transition.pdf. accessed 4.24.20.
Ekvall, T., 2000. A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour.
negligence of previous environmental flows, relying on the very nature Conserv. Recycl. 29, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(99)00057-9.
of LCA: a strong methodological framework able to consider broad Ekvall, T., Tillman, A.M., 1997. Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures.
scopes and connections between different product systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978810.
EN 15804, 2012. + A2:2019, n.D. Sustainability of Construction Works —
Environmental Product Declarations — Core Rules for the Product Category of
CRediT authorship contribution statement Construction Products.
EN 15978, 2011. n.d. Sustainability of construction works - assessment of environmental
performance of buildings - calculation method. International Standard.
Tajda Potrč Obrecht: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Ferreira, J., Duarte, M., Brito, J. De, 2013. Refurbishment decision support tools review
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Sabina Jordan: Supervision, — energy and life cycle as key aspects to sustainable refurbishment projects. Energy
Pol. 62, 1453–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.082.
Writing – review & editing. Andraž Legat: Supervision, Writing – re­
Frischknecht, R., 2010. LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in
view & editing. Marcella Ruschi Mendes Saade: Writing – original view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int. J. Life
draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Alexander Passer: Su­ Cycle Assess. 15, 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0201-6.
pervision, Writing – review & editing. Gervasio, H., Dimova, S., 2018. Model for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Buildings.
https://doi.org/10.2760/10016. JRC Technical Reports - JRC110082.
Goulouti, K., Padey, P., Galimshina, A., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., 2020. Uncertainty of
building elements’ service lives in building LCA & LCC: what matters? Build.
Declaration of competing interest Environ. 183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106904.
Grant, A., Ries, R., 2013. Impact of building service life models on life cycle assessment.
Build. Res. Inf. 41, 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.730735.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Häkkinen, T., 2012. Systematic Method for the Sustainability Analysis of Refurbishment
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Concepts of Exterior Walls, vol. 37, pp. 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.07.084.
the work reported in this paper. Häkkinen, T., Ala-juusela, M., Shemeikka, J., 2016. Usability of energy performance
assessment tools for different use purposes with the focus on refurbishment projects.
Energy Build. 127, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.062.
Acknowledgement Heijungs, R., Settanni, E., Guinée, J., 2013. Toward a computational structure for life
cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,
The authors would like to thank Dr. Roman Kunič for his support. 1722–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0461-4.
Hoxha, E., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., Chevalier, J., Le Roy, R., 2017. Influence of
Although no longer among us, he will remain a valuable member of our construction material uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability. J. Clean.
team. The authors would also like to thank Karen Allacker from KU Prod. 144, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.068.
Leuven for her valuable inputs, improving the research methods and the IEA and UNEP, 2019. 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, UN
Enviroment Programme.
manuscript.
ISO 14040, 2006. n.d. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian framework. ISO 14040:2006.
Research Agency (research core funding No. P2-0273 and the funding of Kim, S., Hwang, T., Lee, K.M., 1997. Allocation for cascade recycling system. Int. J. Life
Young Researcher No. 38191). Cycle Assess. 2, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978418.
Kohler, N., König, H., Kreissig, J., Lützkendorf, T., 2010. A Life Cycle Approach to
Buildings, A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings. DETAIL. https://doi.org/10.11129/
Appendix A. Supplementary data detail.9783955531706.
Lasvaux, S., Habert, G., Peuportier, B., Chevalier, J., 2015. Comparison of generic and
product-specific Life Cycle Assessment databases: application to construction
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. materials used in building LCA studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1473–1490.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0938-z.
Mirzaie, S., Thuring, M., Allacker, K., 2020. End-of-life modelling of buildings to support
more informed decisions towards achieving circular economy targets. Int. J. Life
References Cycle Assess. 25, 2122–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01807-8.
Ng, W.Y., Chau, C.K., 2015. New life of the building materials- recycle, reuse and
recovery. Energy Procedia 75, 2884–2891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.0
Agency, G.E., 2020. Basic Principles and Recommendations for Describing the
7.581.
Dismantling, Post-use, and Disposal Stage of Construction Products.
Oregi, X., Hernandez, P., Gazulla, C., Isasa, M., 2015. Integrating Simplified and Full Life
Allacker, K., Mathieux, F., Pennington, D., Pant, R., 2017. The search for an appropriate
Cycle Approaches in Decision Making for Building Energy Refurbishment: 354–380.
end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5020354.
Footprint initiative. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 1441–1458. https://doi.org/
Oregi, X., Hernandez, P., Hernandez, R., 2017. Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for
10.1007/s11367-016-1244-0.
environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment projects.
Allacker, K., Trigaux, D., De Troyer, F., 2014. An approach for handling environmental
Energy Build. 136, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.057.
and economic conflicts in the context of sustainable building. WIT Trans. Ecol.
Oregi, Xabat, Hernandez, P., Hernandez, R., 2017. Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for
Environ. 181, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.2495/EID140071.
environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment projects
Anand, C.K., Amor, B., 2017. Recent developments, future challenges and new research
PHASE. Energy Build. 136, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.057.
directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67,
Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J.C., Díez, G., Castells, F., 2010. The environmental impact of the
408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058.
construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective.
Asdrubali, F., Baldassarri, C., Fthenakis, V., 2013. Life cycle analysis in the construction
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 832–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy Build. 64,
resconrec.2010.01.002.
73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018.
Passer, A., Ouellet-plamondon, C., Kenneally, P., John, V., Habert, G., 2016. The impact
Bbsr, 2011. Nutzungsdauern von Bauteilen für Lebenszyklusanalysen nach
of future scenarios on building refurbishment strategies towards plus energy
Bewertungssystem Nachhaltiges Bauen (BNB) [WWW Document]. URL. accessed
buildings. Energy Build. 124, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.0
4.9.20. https://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/fileadmin/pdf/baustoff_gebauededaten/
4.008.
BNB_Nutzungsdauern_von_Bauteilen_2017-02-24.pdf.
Potrč Obrecht, T., Kunič, R., Jordan, S., Legat, A., 2019. Roles of the reference service life
Corrado, V., Ballarini, I., 2016. Refurbishment trends of the residential building stock :
(RSL) of buildings and the RSL of building components in the environmental impacts
analysis of a regional pilot case in Italy. Energy Build. 132, 91–106. https://doi.org/
of buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 323 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.022.
1315/323/1/012146.
Denac, M., Obrecht, M., Radonjič, G., 2018. Current and potential ecodesign integration
in small and medium enterprises: construction and related industries. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2034.

12
T.P. Obrecht et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 327 (2021) 129527

Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., Shukla, K.K., 2010. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an UN Environment Programme, 2018. UN Environment Annual Report.
overview. Energy Build. 42, 1592–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.0 UNEP, 2020. Sustainable Buildings | UNEP - UN Environment Programme [WWW
5.007. Document]. UN Environ. URL. accessed 4.10.20. https://www.unenvironment.org/e
Röck, M., Ruschi Mendes Saade, M., Balouktsi, M., Nygaard, F., Birgisdottir, H., xplore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities/sustainable-buildings.
Frischknecht, R., Habert, G., Lützkendorf, T., 2019. Embodied GHG emissions of United Nations, 2019. The Sustainable Development Goals Report.
buildings – the hidden challenge for e ff ective climate change mitigation. Appl. Vilches, A., Garcia-martinez, A., Sanchez-monta, B., 2017a. Life cycle assessment ( LCA )
Energy 258, 114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107. of building refurbishment. Lit. Rev. 135, 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Schrijvers, D.L., Loubet, P., Sonnemann, G., 2016. Critical review of guidelines against a enbuild.2016.11.042.
systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for Vilches, A., Garcia-Martinez, A., Sanchez-Montañes, B., 2017b. Life cycle assessment
recycling in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/ (LCA) of building refurbishment: a literature review. Energy Build. 135, 286–301.
s11367-016-1069-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.042.
Severin, L., 2018. SIA2032: graue Energie – okobilanzierung für die Erstellung von Weidema, B., 2000. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol.
Gebäuden, pp. 1–37. 4, 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819800300106366.
Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Sethi, M., Shree, V., Varun, 2011. Life cycle assessment of Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
buildings: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 871–875. https://doi.org/10 The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life
.1016/j.rser.2010.09.008. Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
Spirinckx, C., Thuring, M., Damen, L., Allacker, K., Mirabella, N., Ramon, D., Passer, A.,
Röck, M., 2018. Study on the Application of the PEF Method and Related Guidance
Documents to a Newly Office Building 428. https://doi.org/10.2779/23505.

13