2023-Comparative Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

Journal of Building Engineering 67 (2023) 105921
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
Comparative life cycle assesment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis
(LCCA) of precast and cast–in–place buildings in United States
Tanmay Vasishta a, Mohammed Hashem Mehany b, *, John Killingsworth b
a
Data Center Construction Manager, Amazon Web Services, United States
b
Construction Management Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: As precast construction is becoming more commonly used across the United States, many eval
Life cycle assessment (LCA) uation tools have been used to assess the environmental and economic impacts of this system.
Life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) are some of the most widely
Precast used tools to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of buildings’ entire life cycle. The
Cast-in-place research presented in this paper was designed to understand the comparative life cycle envi
Sustainability
ronmental impacts and costs over the complete life cycle for precast and cast-in-place (CIP)
building systems. As such, a cradle-to-grave approach was used to develop a framework for
assessing these impacts for precast and cast-in-place building systems constructed in the United
States (US) while utilizing Open LCA software and NIST handbook for LCCA. A case study precast
building in the U.S. was used to assess the environmental impacts and costs associated with the
four phases (raw material extraction and manufacturing, installation/construction, operation,
and demolition) were calculated and compared to a cast-in-place building system. The research
findings showed that precast systems using sandwich panel building systems had 21% lower life
cycle costs (LCC) compared to cast-in-place building system. The construction phase and opera
tion phase also had 38% and 24% lower LCC compared to cast-in-place building systems. Addi
tionally, lower life cycle environmental impacts towards nine environmental impact indicators
were recorded for precast building systems. This study concluded that precast methodology has
lower life cycle environmental and economic impacts than cast-in-place and can serve as a more
efficient and sustainable construction method. The developed framework for LCA and LCCA could
be applied to all concrete construction projects across the world and could be used as a platform
for conducting future LCA and LCCA studies as well.
1. Introduction
The concept of construction sustainability has been gaining traction ever since several reports were published regarding the
improvement of social, economic, and environmental sustainability bottom lines in the construction industry [1–3]. The construction
industry has a sizeable environmental impact as it consumes plenty of resources, materials, and energy during the lifetime of a project,
and requires a broad spectrum of on and off-site operational activities. These environmental impacts include but not limited to global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, high-energy use, air and water pollution, deterioration of ecological systems, and improper waste
management [4,5].
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tavasish@amazon.com (T. Vasishta), MSH@Colostate.edu (M. Hashem Mehany), j.killingsworth@colostate.edu (J. Killingsworth).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105921
Received 27 October 2022; Received in revised form 15 January 2023; Accepted 16 January 2023
Available online 24 January 2023
2352-7102/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Vasishta et al. Journal of Building Engineering 67 (2023) 105921
Consequently, with the increasing awareness of environmental issues, sustainable construction evaluation using comprehensive
environmental impact assessment has been promoted [6–9]. Various evaluation tools have been developed to consider and measure
the different sustainability impacts [10] such as Environmental Impact Assessment [11], System of Economic and Environmental
Accounting (SEEA), Environmental Auditing, and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) [12]. Among many, LCA is one of the most extensively
used tools because of its much more detailed and systematic approach [13].
LCA is an investigative method used for evaluating the environmental impacts of a system or a product over its complete life cycle
[14]. Building construction involves a complex process of design, material selection, construction methodology, operation, and
maintenance. Therefore, LCA consider the different environmental impacts of each phase within a specific study scope. There are four
specific phases considered in the LCA, namely raw material extraction & manufacturing, installation and, or construction, operation,
and demolition, or deconstruction. However, evaluation of environmental life cycle performance can be difficult to evaluate without
studying the life cycle economic impacts. International Standards Organization (ISO) 14040 suggests that other evaluation tools might
be combined with LCA for more extensive assessments. LCCA is an older method in comparison with LCA. Yet, the idea of combining
LCA and LCCA is a recent research consideration. Comparatively, LCCA is an economic method of calculating life cycle costs of
ownership, construction, operation, maintenance and disposal of a project [15]. The integration of both methods can effectively
provide upfront life-cycle environmental and economic evaluation for a building.
Concrete is one of the most established construction materials as 102 million tons of cement were produced in 2019 in United States
[16]. However, cement production, the main ingredient of concrete, has a significant environmental impact which accounts for 5% of
carbon dioxide emissions annually [17]. The traditional concrete construction method, cast-in-place, is one of the major sources of
carbon emissions due to on-site construction activities such as mixing, placing and curing [4]. In the meantime, precast concrete offers
an improved environmental and economic performance over cast-in-place concrete but still accounts for some environmental impacts
in construction and operation and maintenance phases [18,19]. The environmental burden related to concrete is not just limited to CO2
emissions and requires a holistic analytical approach of life cycle assessment [17]. Therefore, the integration of LCA and LCCA to assess
the different precast and cast-in-place concrete systems can help compare environmental and economic impacts between the two
options. LCA and LCCA can be used to explore new solutions to decrease effect of precast concrete on the environment as we consider
the potential as a viable, partial replacement to cast-in-place concrete.
This research will focus on using a comprehensive LCA and LCCA approach to assess the impacts on different building systems using
cradle-to-grave analysis. Cradle-to-grave analysis include an examination of materials from raw extraction, manufacturing, con
struction, operation, end of life use, and demolition or deconstruction. Because the use of precast construction also has environmental
and economic impacts, this comparative study between cast-in-place and precast construction contributes to the necessary debate
among industry and research scholars to consider and experiment with better solutions that contribute to more sustainable con
struction methods. Although various phases of life cycle of precast concrete buildings have been considered in previous studies, the
complete life cycle from raw material extraction to the demolition phase (using cradle-to-grave approach) has not been addressed in
our search of relevant, published studies.
2. Literature review
The two primary concrete construction methods used in the industry are; cast-in-place, and precast concrete [20]. Precast concrete
can be defined as the concrete which is prepared, casted and cured in a semi-controlled environment, then shipped to the place to be
installed [21]. A general transition from conventional methods of cast-in-place to precast concrete systems has increased following the
formation of the Precast Concrete Institute (PCI) in 1954 [19]. The precast concrete industry aims to maximize its economic benefits
using products and elements that have created in a controlled environment such as double-tees, hollow-core slabs, square or rect
angular columns for column-deck frames, precast concrete piles, raker beams. etc. Precast concrete has its applications in residential,
commercial, institutional, and various infrastructure projects [22]. As per the PCI Design Handbook [22], precast concrete offers many
benefits to all stakeholders associated with the precast concrete industry. Unlike cast-in-place, which requires additional on-site labor
and plenty of space for formwork and pouring equipment, precast offers a better and faster way by eliminating these variables and
enables greater control over quality in a controlled environment, unlike open weather conditions in cast-in-place.
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA is one of the few internationally standardized environmental assessment methods [23]. It is defined by ISO 14040 as the,
“compilation and evaluation of all inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle”
[24]. LCA is extensively used to analyze the environmental impacts of resources and materials used from raw materials accession phase
to end-of-life phase, and thus it can assess a cradle-to-grave approach [25,26]. There are four phases in LCA: (1) goal and scope
definition, (2) life-cycle inventory (LCI), (3) life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and (4) interpretation. Defining the goal and scope of
a study gives a comprehensive view of the research context which includes determining the functional units, system boundaries, life
span, data requirements, assumptions and limitations, along with establishing the reason for carrying out the study, its application, and
the intended audience. LCI analysis is the data collection process aimed at quantifying the inputs and outputs of the system considered.
LCI is an iterative process based upon new data requirements wherein the data collection methods are changed, or adapted to meet
goals of the intended study. [25]. Based upon the inventory flow data, the next phase, LCIA, accounts for the potential associated
environmental impacts [24]. The selection of a relevant impact assessment method and the associated impact categories depend upon
the goal and scope definition. The impact categories or environmental indicators (used interchangeably) might include greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, eco-toxicity, resource uses, eutrophication, acidification, land and water use, oxygen depletion, and use of renewable
2
and non-renewable resources. According to the type of environmental indicators considered in research, the environmental mecha
nism can be chosen by linking the LCI results to impact categories or environmental indicators. The results from the LCI and LCIA
phases are then summarized in the last phase of the LCA. According to Ref. [27]; “the purpose of this phase is to analyze the results,
reach conclusions, explain limitations, and provide recommendations based on the findings of the preceding phases of LCA”.
2.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

Life-cycle-cost (LCC) of a product or system is comprised of the total, or comprehensive project costs including acquisition,
operation, maintenance, and ultimate disposal [15]. Thus, LCC is considered as the total cost of ownership [28]. The purpose of LCCA
is to compare the cost-effectiveness of investing in alternate decisions as it accounts for all the direct costs to a decision maker during
the investment’s complete economic life. LCCA has been considered an important analytical approach in past studies and has been
widely implemented in empirical building construction research [29]. The costs included in LCCA are those associated with devel
opment, construction, agency, occupancy, and environmental considerations. The results of LCCA depend on the number and accuracy
of its input parameters.
The first step in LCCA is the selection of design options based on economic considerations. For any developer, the financial
feasibility of any capital improvement project must be met – before considering environmental and social benefits. Therefore, for each
design option, a schedule and estimated costs must be included in the assessment [30]. Finally, the total life-cycle cost associated with
each item is calculated after considering the costs represented in land procurement, design, equipment, material, workers, and
operational costs. Hence, when considering design options, an evaluation of each building system’s useful life is fundamental. For
example, a building’s water heating system will most likely have a different life expectancy than the structural system. Similarly, the
flooring finishes will most likely have an even shorter useful life. It is also imperative to consider all such uncertainties while applying
LCCA, including lifespan of building systems, future costs of operations, maintenance, and system replacements. Additionally, the
discount and inflation rates are essential terms to calculate the LCCA of a project [15]. Several techniques such as sensitivity analysis,
fuzzy approach, and probability-based approach have been proposed to assess these uncertainties [31]. There have been several
studies about LCCA on buildings [32–35], however only few comparative studies of precast and cast-in-place buildings have been
conducted.
2.3. Sustainability concept in precast concrete

Sustainable development establishes a balance of economic, social, and environmental impacts. As such, the construction industry
has great potential to reduce negative impacts in all three of these areas. This is especially true with environmental impacts since the
construction methods or processes consume huge amount of natural resources, refined materials, and energy. According to U.S Green
Building Council (USGBC), buildings in the United States consume 10% of global energy use [36]. In a cradle-to-grave approach, most
of the environmental impacts related to precast concrete are inclusive to the processes associated with producing the precast concrete
product. Additional environmental impacts are associated with equipment used to store, ship, and place the precast product at the site
– but additional byproducts or environmental impacts are negligible until the product reaches the end of its useful life. At this point, the
product can be re-used, downcycled, or disposed of. Yet, during the production stage of precast concrete products, the materials used to
manufacture concrete (cement, aggregates, and admixtures) and support precast plant operations have substantial environmental
impacts. Therefore, the comparative analysis began with an examination of environmental impacts from the production processes of
both precast and cast-in place concrete. In precast construction life cycle, the precast concrete plants themselves are responsible for
contributing 16% to global warming impact and 27% of primary energy use. After leaving the precast plant (at the gate), transportation
of precast components accounts for up to 20% of environmental impacts associated with global warming, acidification, and primary
energy use (Morrison Hershfield & the [37]. LCA aims to comprehensively evaluate the environmental impacts for a cradle-to-grave
approach [25]. Therefore, LCA of precast systems helps provide benchmarks to be used in the evaluation of environmental impacts
associated with precast concrete. Considering also the potential environmental benefits of precast concrete due to waste reduction,
further assessment is needed to validate the process throughout the entire lifecycle [4].
2.3.1. LCA of precast concrete

Generally, most of the construction-focused LCA research studies conducted are either for building materials and components
(BMCs) or entire buildings [38]. The former (BMC’s) focusses on LCA of environmental impacts and energy use [39–41] while the
latter (LCA of an entire building) accounts for the environmental impacts of each process in buildings’ complete life-cycle [11,42,43].
There have been substantial LCA studies to assess the environmental impacts of the construction industry. For instance, the study by
Ref. [44] was one of the earliest LCA studies to investigate the environmental impacts of building technology. LCA studies on precast
concrete have been performed to study the specific environmental impact comparison of cast-in-place and precast concrete floor
construction [41].Another LCA study examined two single-story residential buildings using precast and cast-in-place concrete con
struction [45], while an LCA of commercial buildings in Canada was performed by Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute,
[18]. Similarly, more than ten different LCA studies of vertical construction have been published [46]. There is a precedent for LCA
studies, and this study seeks to advance the use of LCA and LCCA and its application and comparison between precast concrete and
cast-in-place concrete. The limited nature of existing studies on the subject, left a gap in the associative knowledge and research.
2.3.2. LCA studies in precast building industry

Past LCA studies on precast systems have made use of cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-site and cradle-to-grave approaches to define the
system boundary for the intended research [4,20,47,48]. The choice of the LCI method and the tools used for LCIA vastly determine the
3
nature, extent, and the study outcome [25].The following section will thoroughly discuss the past literature on precast systems’ LCA
approach.
2.3.2.1. Functional unit and life span. Different functional units have been used for conducting buildings’ LCA [49]. For instance,
meter (m), meter square (m2), meter cube (m3) are frequently used for residential buildings. In precast concrete buildings, the
quantitative functional unit is mostly used in volumetric scale cubic meter (m3) [19,49,50]. Another approach is to use different
functional units for various active and inactive materials and resources which are incorporated in the building LCA [76]. Active
materials and resources refers to those resources and materials that are not part of the building but are operated within it to meet the
residential needs such as combustion (furnaces) and electric (electric space heaters) sources whereas, inactive materials and resources
are generally stationery and includes fixed building products, furniture and finishing products. Uncertainty analysis has been used in
past studies to calculate the service life span since several products and materials used in a precast construction project have different
lifetime within the same building [51]. The lifespan of buildings plays a vital role in the result of LCA as it determines the total energy
consumption in the building’s operational phase. The life span of 50 years was considered in majority of past LCA studies on precast
concrete buildings [52].
2.3.2.2. System boundaries in LCA. For precast concrete structures, several system boundaries have been used such as cradle to gate,
cradle to site and cradle to grave [50,53]. Such boundaries specify the extent of research conducted in upstream and downstream
processes where the boundaries are set based on the LCA practitioner’s scope of work. For example, particulate emissions at con
struction site during excavation activities, manufacturing of aggregate and admixtures, concrete waste disposal, procurement of water,
maintenance of precast plant equipment were excluded in recent LCA studies [25,46]. Contrarily, material procurement, trans
portation of precast elements to installation site, cement manufacturing, transportation of labor, and emissions (e.g. CO2, SO2, CO),
and water and soil emissions were included in many studies [19,20,54]. Past studies did not consider supply-chain flow for electricity,
fuel production for cement, and the amount of CO2 and other gas emissions which depends on the type of fuel used for generating
electricity, which vary geographically [46].
2.3.2.3. Inventory analysis. Life cycle inventory (LCI) involves data collection for system inputs and outputs. These datasets can be
collected from the building industry databases, site investigation reports, review of bill of quantities, project reports, environmental
product declarations (EPD) and various databases (e.g. Eco invent v.2.2) [46]. The results of the inventory analysis can vary due to the
multiple data sources and data collection methods [55]. [56] stressed the need to setup a standard methodology for calculation of
embodied energy which adheres to ISO. In past studies, LCA analysts have often faced difficulty in choosing data sources when the
required data is unavailable [51,57] have proposed guidelines related to this issue. Several databases in LCA platforms such as Eco
nomic input output-life cycle analysis (EIO-LCA) data have also been used to account for factors such as service sectors, upstream
effects, and operation and maintenance of construction equipment [47].
2.3.2.4. Impact assessment and interpretation. Mostly, previous LCA studies considered primary energy use and GHG emissions as the
major environmental impact assessment indicators [58]. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) has used the U.S. EPA “Tool
for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts” (TRACI) impact assessment method to consider
global warming potential, acidification, respiratory effects, eutrophication, photochemical smog potential and ozone layer depletion
as mid-point indicators [59]. Another study on precast has considered water use, abiotic resource depletion, and renewable as well as
non-renewable sources for precast commercial buildings [18]. Currently, there are various LCIA’s used specifically for buildings’
assessment. The options of several impact categories for a specific software depends upon the impact assessment methodology the
software uses. For instance, Gabi and SimaPro software packages give several methodological options regarding diverse impact
category assessments which can be tailored according to the defined scope and system boundary. Athena and Building for Environ
mental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) are other software packages extensively used for the assessments of buildings. For
example, Athena can compare embodied energy, life cycle operation and several environmental impacts which makes it easy to for LCA
practitioner to analyze the parameters considered in the study scope. In previous studies, TRACI was also used via Open LCA tool to
study life cycle assessment of precast concrete structures [60].
Past research showed the application of LCA for studying various phases of a building’s life cycle. However, a novel comprehensive
study using cradle-to-grave approach (from raw material extraction and manufacturing, construction, operation and maintenance to
demolition) has not been addressed. Each building life cycle phase has different environmental and economic impact, therefore,
cradle-to grave evaluation helps in quantification of all the impacts considered in the scope of study. Lack of comparison of envi
ronmental and economic impacts of different building systems in U.S have been absent in the past studies as well. Therefore, a
comparative analysis with integrated use of LCA and LCCA for evaluating life cycle environmental and economic impacts of precast
and cast-in-place building systems should help in determining an objective comparison of these methods in comparison to one another.
This research will focus on filling these gaps and achieving the below discussed research objectives.
2.3.2.5. Research objectives.
1. Evaluate costs and environmental impacts of precast building systems over a complete life cycle using cradle-to-grave approach
2. Derive a comprehensive system boundary using cradle-to-grave approach which can be used as a framework by research scholars to
study the environmental as well as economic impacts and provide a platform for future research studies.
3. Study, compare, and assess Precast (normal precast and sandwich panels) and cast-in-place building systems in terms of total life
cycle impacts and costs.
4
3. Research methodology
To achieve the objectives, this research study employed a quantitative research method to study and compare the environmental
and economic impacts of precast and cast-in-place construction methods using LCA and LCCA approaches. The scope of the research
study includes the unit processes from ‘cradle-to-grave’, which included raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, on-
site construction and installation, operation, and demolition phases.
The research study compared the life cycle environmental impacts and costs associated with building constructed with precast
using sandwich panels, cast-in-place and precast without sandwich panels. A precast building located in the state of Colorado was
selected for this research study and was designated as the baseline building to standardize and limit the comparison to the type of
building system and eliminate variabilities regarding the HVAC systems and material types (e.g. windows and doors). The 31,000
square feet building was constructed using precast sandwich panels as the exterior envelope. Therefore, three Building Information
Modeling (BIM) models were created to alternate the exterior envelope between the three different systems. Thus, the three buildings –
(1) precast using sandwich panels, (2) cast-in-place and (3) precast without sandwich panels acted as individual building systems for
the purpose of this research. This procedure of changing the building systems using the same building with different models for
comparative life cycle assessment has been observed in past studies as well [4,20]. Accordingly, the environmental and economic
impacts were studied and analyzed through an integration of LCA and LCCA approaches.
3.1. Life cycle framework

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the research approach established the life cycle framework for the different phases and their derived
processes. Fig. 1 shows the life cycle framework which is derived from the four step life cycle assessment framework by ISO [24]; as (1)
goal and scope definition; (2) life cycle inventory analysis; (3) life cycle impact assessment, and (4) analysis interpretation. Each of
these steps were vital to capture all the phases of the building from a cradle to grave approach. The framework’s four steps and their
elements are detailed in the following sections.
3.1.1. Goal and scope definition

During this stage, the lifespan and the system boundaries are set, and the functional unit is defined. This research study set the life
span of the building for 50 years which has been used by researchers for similar structures in past LCA studies [61–63]. To quantify the
impacts annually throughout the complete life cycle and ensure comparability of different building systems, this research set a
functional unit of one square feet (1 ft2) of gross floor area (GFA) per year. The GFA was calculated using the BIM model based upon the
total enclosed space that meets the functional requirements of the building. Based on this functional unit, the results determined the
environmental impacts and costs per gross square feet (GSF) of the building. The building life cycle was evaluated using a
cradle-to-grave approach as shown in Fig. 2, where the system boundary starts from the raw material extraction phase (Cradle Start)
and end up with the demolition phase (Grave) across four different lifecycle phases. The individual phases (raw material extraction and
manufacturing, precast installation/construction, operation and demolition) are all part of the cradle-to-grave approach used in this
research and each phase is further discussed in detail.
3.1.1.1. Raw material extraction and manufacturing phase. The environmental impacts and cost analysis begin with raw materials’
identification for concrete manufacturing. Since concrete was an integral part of the three systems (precast sandwich panels, cast-in-
place and precast without sandwich panels), all unit processes associated with concrete manufacturing were considered. Therefore, as
Fig. 1. Research methodology - life cycle framework.
5
Fig. 2. Life Cycle Phases considered in a Cradle to Grave Approach.
shown in Fig. 2, this phase includes the raw material manufacturing as well as the resources consumed during its manufacturing and
transportation processes. The raw material included mining and/or manufacturing of sand, gravel, cement, cementitious materials,
and admixtures as unit processes (inputs) for the manufacturing of concrete. Additionally, all the resources consumed during these
processes such as fuel consumption, water consumption, electricity, and all associated costs for every unit process were included in the
system boundary.
3.1.1.2. Construction/installation phase. Precast and cast-in-place building systems have a unique and different set of unit processes
due to their different construction methodologies as shown in Fig. 2. However, building systems such as precast sandwich panels and
precast without sandwich panels had the same precast plant operations. For precast plant operations, concrete mix-design was fol
lowed by setting of formwork systems (factory ready forms) according to the size of the required structural members, installation of
rebar as per specifications, and placement of concrete and curing, the storage and transportation to the construction site, and the
6
installation.
Differently, cast-in-place concrete building system included a concrete batching plant (ready-mix concrete manufacturing) and
transportation of the concrete to the area of concrete casting using mobile concrete mixers. Other on-site activities are the custom
formwork erection and rebar installation followed by the pouring operations using different equipment (Chute, Pump, etc.) according
to the height of the CIP. The transportation of steel for rebar, water for curing and casting operations, and the formwork systems were
also included in the system boundary to evaluate the costs and environmental impacts along with the electricity and fuel consumption
of on-site construction equipment.
3.1.1.3. Operation and demolition phases. The building environmental impacts and costs in the operation phase were evaluated based
on the annual energy consumption of the different systems as shown in Fig. 2. After constructing a BIM Model for the building, energy
modeling was performed for all three building systems using Insight plugin to calculate the annual energy consumption per square feet.
The purpose of analyzing the energy model was to observe the difference in annual energy consumption for the different building
systems. For external validation, the same BIM model for different building systems was run by two different industry experts as well.
The fuel and electricity consumption of construction equipment required for demolition and the subsequent landfill were also included
in the system boundary.
3.1.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis

This stage included the data collection and calculations necessary to quantify the costs of unit processes (LCC) and the energy inputs
and outputs (LCIA) of the building. The cost data for the building materials was obtained from the bill of quantities (BOQ) and project
estimate. The research study considered the three main transportation phases in a building life cycle: (1) from resource extraction site
to manufacturing plant, (2) from manufacturing plants to construction site and, (3) construction site to disposal facility. The trans
portation data used for the research was selected from the nearest manufacturer to the building location. The construction phase of the
building included all the material and energy use for on-site construction activities such as electricity and fuel consumption for
construction equipment as obtained from the general contractor records. Thereafter, the impacts of operation phase were measured in
terms of the annual energy consumption, using energy modeling in Revit. Finally, the demolition phase included on-site demolition
activities and transportation of building components to a landfill. There are several software tools and databases available for con
ducting LCA but due to the wide range of construction materials used in the industry and variety of construction techniques, it is
essential to select the most suitable software and database based upon the scope and location of study. Since this research evaluated life
cycle impacts of buildings in the U.S, OpenLCA software with Ecoinvent database was most suitable to analyze the life cycle inventory
data for upstream and downstream processes. It also provided a flexible wide range of materials, construction techniques, locations,
Fig. 3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) model.
7
manufacturing differences, energy sources and supply assumptions. Therefore, life cycle environmental impacts and costs were
evaluated through OpenLCA software, and the economic assessment was later performed using the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Life Cycle Costing Handbook for the different building systems.
3.1.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

The LCIA stage evaluated the environmental impacts and associated life cycle costs based upon the LCI results and data collection.
Among several impact assessment methods implemented in the database - Ecoinvent, TRACI 2.0 (Tool for Reduction and Assessment of
Chemical and other Environmental Impacts), CML (Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden procedure) and ILCD (International Reference
Life Cycle Data System) were used to classify and assign the inventory data to the selected environmental and human health impact
categories. Fig. 3 represents the LCIA model which shows the selection of environmental impact categories (far right) guided by the
scope of the study and environmental impacts (middle column) of the life cycle phases considered as part of system boundary phases
(far left column). For example, the construction phase of building systems resulted in CO2 emissions which were characterized into
Global Warming Potential for time horizon of 100 years (GWP100). Similarly, the classification of environmental impact categories
(assigning inventory data to impact categories) into CO2, NOx, SOx, CH4, NH3, PO4, and HCFC was followed by the characterization
(modeling of inventory data into impact categories) into eutrophication potential, global warming potential, ozone layer depletion,
acidification potential, photochemical oxidation and non-carcinogenic respiratory effects, land use and water use effects. These impact
categories were derived from the impact categories listed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the most
impactful ones for assessing the life cycle environmental impacts [64].
3.1.4. Analysis interpretation

The final step of the research methodology was the application of the framework in a case study for three different systems: precast
using sandwich panels, cast-in-place and precast without sandwich panels. A two-tiered analysis of environmental impacts and costs of
the three building systems was performed; (1) Overall comparison and (2) Phase-wise comparison. The overall comparison helps in
understanding the costs and environmental impacts of the different building systems for the complete life cycle of 50 years, while the
phase wise comparison explains the impacts for every phase considered (raw material extraction and manufacturing, construction,
operation and maintenance and demolition) to identify the phases with highest economical and/or environmental impact. The life
cycle environmental impacts of all three building systems were calculated per the functional unit (GSF/year) and the quantification of
environmental impacts contributing towards GWP was compared with established benchmarks. Additionally, life cycle environmental
impact costs due to GWP, Land use Potential and Water use were also calculated based on the USEPA and other relevant national
guidelines.
4. Results and discussion

The research study results were arranged to follow the two-tiered comparisons, overall and phase wise comparisons, according to
the same life cycle phases for the same building while applying the different systems to the model. The precast sandwich panels
consisted of two concrete wythe with insulation between them, with the first precast concrete layer was 3.5 inches with rigid insulation
of 3 inches followed by another concrete layer of 6 inches. The cast-in-place system had exterior walls converted to cast-in-place
concrete walls in the BIM model with a concrete panel thickness of 9 inches followed by 2 inches of rigid insulation. Finally, the
precast without sandwich panels was a 9-inch exterior precast panel followed by 2 inches layer of rigid insulation.
4.1. Phase-wise comparison of building systems LCC and environmental impacts

Using the defined system boundary along with the unit processes of each phase as explained in the methodology, the three building
systems were analyzed for the life cycle environmental impacts and costs of all four phases.
4.1.1. Raw material extraction and manufacturing phase

In the first phase (Raw material extraction and manufacturing), all the upstream and downstream processes to produce concrete
(extraction of raw materials, preparation of raw materials, pyro processing, clinker production and transportation) were included as
these operations has major environmental impacts in terms of global warming potential, non-carcinogenic respiratory effects and land
use. The major inputs during this phase were extraction of raw materials (gravels, sand, admixtures, silica and limestone), energy
consumption in the form of fuel (diesel and natural gas) and their upstream and downstream processes. These inputs were majorly
responsible for the environmental impacts and costs for the raw material extraction phase. As per the NIST Handbook 135 for Life-
Cycle Costing Manual, the life cycle costs associated with raw material extraction and manufacturing phase were considered as
investor costs (excluding costs related to planning, design and purchasing of land) [15]. Thus, these initial investment costs of raw
materials were relatively considered as present value costs as these project costs occur before the operation phase of building. The
annualized life cycle costs associated with the three building systems were calculated using engineering economics equations as shown
below in Equation (1), using annualized life cycle costs calculation [65].
Equation (1): Annualized life cycle costs calculation
d(1 + d)n
A= ×P (1)
(1 + d)n − 1
Where, A = annualized costs, d = discount rate and n = life span of building, P = present costs.
4.1.1.1. Precast using sandwich panels. The associated costs during raw material extraction and manufacturing for precast building
8
systems were mostly attributed to the raw materials required to produce concrete. The total costs associated with this phase,
considering the unit processes included in the system boundary, was $662,500 with an annualized building LCC of $48,004.65 per year
at a discount rate of 7% as the current value recommended in Life Cycle Costing Manual developed by NIST. Table 1 shows the various
annual environmental impacts per GSF for the raw material extraction and manufacturing phase. As shown in.
Table 1, this phase’s GWP is 0.32 Kg CO2-Eq which was majorly attributed to the production of cement clinker, sinter production of
iron ore, and hard coal. Particularly, the portland cement’s related mining, transportation and processing had the highest impacts as a
raw material during the extraction phase. The transportation of raw materials from mining and quarrying sites to factories and
construction sites contributed towards most of the 1.15 Kg Toluene-Eq of respiratory effects. Emissions from clinker production and
sinter production operations in the blast furnaces contributed towards the photochemical oxidation 8.4E-04 Kg NOx-Eq. Water con
sumption in the manufacturing material processing was about 6.40E-04 M3. Finally, the raw material extraction phase also included
several mining operations for sand, gravel and aggregates which affected the organic matter content of soil and contributed towards
Land Use Potential impact, expressed in terms of 1.118 Kg SOC.
4.1.1.2. Cast-in-place. The unit processes included in the system boundary for raw material extraction phase of CIP building system
were similar to precast using sandwich panels, with the same system boundary. Using the same calculation procedures, the total costs
associated with raw material extraction and manufacturing phase, considering the unit processes included in the system boundary was
$718,750 with an annualized building LCC of $52,080 per year. The marginally higher costs for cast-in-place building systems
compared to precast was due to the different quantity of raw materials which can be attributed to extra material loss in site
transportation.
Table 1 shows the various annual environmental impacts per GSF for raw material extraction and manufacturing phase. Both direct
and indirect carbon emissions originating from the energy consumption during on-site and off-site activities (such as mining, pro
cessing and transportation) as well as upstream and downstream processes were the contributors to the 0.44 Kg CO2-Eq of Global
Warming Potential. Due to the slightly larger quantities, the mining operations increased the Land Use Potential impact to1.23 Kg SOC,
compared to the sandwich precast panels. Similarly, the transportation to construction sites increases the non-carcinogenic respiratory
effects to 1.48 Kg toluene-Eq. As illustrated in.
Table 1, the marginally greater environmental impacts for CIP building compared to precast building system were mostly due to the
different quantities of raw materials required for cast-in-place building system.
4.1.1.3. Precast without sandwich panels. This building system was different from precast with sandwich panels in terms of exterior
insulation only and thus the system boundary for raw material extraction and manufacturing phase was same for both the building
systems and therefore, rendered the exact same results (total = $662,500, and $48,004.65/year) for this phase. For example, the type
and quantity of raw materials required to produce 1 cubic yard of concrete were same and thus, the environmental impacts for both the
building systems were same but vary with cast-in-place building system. Similarly, the total environmental impacts per GSF/year
associated with this phase yielded very similar results for the precast sandwich panels as illustrated in Table 1.
4.1.2. Installation and construction phase

The installation phase of precast building systems, with and without sandwich panel, involved transportation of precast compo
nents and installation equipment (e.g., Cranes) as the predominant unit processes included in the system boundary. The major resource
consumption for installation equipment during precast installation phase were diesel (liters) and electricity (kWh). However, the cast-
in-place building system included many on-site construction activities which contributed towards more environmental impacts and its
associated costs. Using similar calculations through Equation 1and Open LCA outputs, the annualized life cycle costs for installation
and construction phase were determined and the life cycle environmental impacts were calculated respectively. Table 2 describes the
total environmental impacts per GSF/year for all unit processes considered in the system boundary for the three different systems.
4.1.2.1. Precast using sandwich panels. The precast concrete systems were produced in a nearby plant, 22 miles from the project site.
The precast units’ transportation was the major factor in contributing towards emissions with a Global Warming Potential of 4.39E-03
Kg CO2-Eq. However, this GWP was 41% lower than the GWP for the CIP building system and thus have a lower environmental impact.
In addition, construction equipment such as gantry cranes, forklifts, travel lifts, welding and grouting machines used for the instal
lation of precast components contributed towards 0.071 non-carcinogenic respiratory effects which was 29% lower than CIP building
system too. The constant fuel consumption in terms of diesel, natural gas and electricity throughout the precast installation phase
accounted for the non-carcinogenic respiratory effects of 0.071 Kg Toluene-Eq. The off-site precast plant operations for constructing
Table 1
Environmental impacts for three building systems during raw material extraction and manufacturing phase.
S⋅NO Environmental Impact Indicators Units Precast using sandwich panels Cast-in-Place Precast without sandwich panels
1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 0.32 0.35 0.32

2 Ozone Layer Depletion Kg CFC-11-Eq 2.0E-08 2.10E-08 2.0E-08
3 Eutrophication Potential Kg N 6.79E-06 6.90E-06 6.79E-06
4 Photochemical Oxidation Kg NOx-Eq 8.40E-04 9.50E-04 8.40E-04
5 Respiratory Effects (Non-Carcinogenic) Kg toluene-Eq 1.15 1.48 1.15
6 Acidification Potential Kg SO2-Eq 1.33E-03 1.53E-03 1.33E-03
7 Resource Depletion Kg Sb-Eq 1.86E-05 2.22E-05 1.86E-05
8 Land Use Kg SOC 1.118 1.23 1.118
9 Water Use M3 6.40E-04 7.80E-04 6.40E-04
9
Table 2
Environmental impacts for three building systems during installation/construction phase.
1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 4.39E-03 0.70 4.81E-03

5 Respiratory Effects (Non-Carcinogenic) Kg toluene-Eq 0.071 0.10 7.80E-02
8 Land Use Kg SOC 0.018 5.6 1.80E-02
9 Water Use M3 5.37E-05 4.50E-03 5.78E-05
building components contributed to a 60% lower photochemical oxidation potential, expressed in Kg NOx-Eq, compared to CIP
building system. The transportation of precast components from precast plant to construction site, use of construction equipment such
as cranes to install the building components and welding and grouting machines were the major construction related operations that
contributed towards this phase’s life cycle costs. The total costs associated with the precast installation phase, considering the unit
processes included in the system boundary, was $234,210 with an annualized cost of $16,970.82 per year.
4.1.2.2. Cast-in-place (CIP). As the construction phase of CIP consisted of much more on-site activities (erection of formwork, laying
reinforcement, pouring and curing concrete), the environmental impacts and associated costs were significantly more. The total costs
associated with construction phase was $382,700 and the annualized costs were $27,730.38 per year, which is 39% higher than the
precast building systems. Table 2 shows the environmental impacts per GSF/year for the CIP construction phase. The CIP system has
considerably greater environmental impacts towards all impact indicators as compared to the other systems. The on-site construction
activities for CIP were major sources of GHG emissions, photochemical oxidation and non-carcinogenic respiratory effects, mainly due
to energy consumption (in terms of natural gas, electricity and diesel) in heavy equipment and material transportation. Overall, the
associated environmental impacts were found to be significantly more using CIP. For example, both precast and CIP had considerable
environmental impacts towards non-carcinogenic respiratory effects but due to greater on-site construction activities as compared to
precast installation, CIP recorded 29% more respiratory effects (0.10 Kg toluene-Eq) than precast as well as 62% higher photochemical
oxidation due to the fuel burnt while using heavy construction equipment for on-site operations.
4.1.2.3. Precast without sandwich panels. Precast without sandwich panels are installed in the same manner as precast sandwich
panels. Thus, no additional costs with regards to precast sandwich panels were incurred for the transportation of precast panels
without sandwich panels and the annualized life cycle costs for this phase were calculated as $16,970.82. The environmental impacts
associated with the installation phase had very small differences compared to the precast using sandwich panels since the method of
installing the precast components after transportation from precast plant was same. The total life cycle environmental impacts per
GSF/year for precast without sandwich panel building system are illustrated in Table 2.
4.1.3. Operation phase

The operation phase of all three building systems constituted the major part of their life cycle and thus, had the largest environ
mental impacts associated with it. The annual energy consumption for all three building systems were calculated by creating energy
models to calculate the life cycle costs for each system.
4.1.3.1. Precast with sandwich panels. The annual energy consumption was calculated by performing energy modeling using Insight
plugin on Revit which resulted in annual energy consumption of 53.6 kbtu/sqft/year. The energy models were also piloted for vali
dation by industry experts and the energy modeling results were compared with ASHRAE – Standard 90.1.2016 [66]. According to
ASHRAE – Standard 90.1.2016, a medium office building of 53,628 square feet has 88.2 kbtu/ft2/year and thus, the baseline building
had considerably lower value in comparison with national average. The purpose of performing energy modeling was to observe the
difference in annual energy consumption for the three different building systems using the BIM model shown in Fig. 4. The annual
Fig. 4. BIM Model (Shown is the Precast sandwich panels).
10
energy consumption for this building system (Precast Sandwiched panels) was found to be under the national average. Based upon
average electricity ($0.124/kWh) and natural gas ($7.84 per 1000 cubic feet) [67] rates for commercial buildings, life cycle costs of the
precast building system was calculated at $0.90/GSF which resulted in $27,900 in annual energy consumption for the building (31,000
GSF). Since, the operation costs are considered as future costs (in different years) in LCC [15], the present value of operation phase,
using 7.0% discount rate, was calculated at $385,020. The impacts were noticeably higher than raw material extracting and
manufacturing and installation phases. As illustrated in Table 3, most of the environmental impacts were the highest in this phase as it
represents the longest and most impactful phase of the complete building life cycle. The environmental impacts contributing towards
global warming potential and non-carcinogenic respiratory effects were 0.423 Kg CO2 Eq and 1.25 Toluene Eq respectively. The total
environmental impacts per GSF/year associated with this phase are illustrated in Table 3.
4.1.3.2. Cast-in-place. Using the same procedures for modelling and calculation, the CIP annual energy consumption was calculated at
58 kbtu/sqft/year. Though, it was greater than precast using sandwich panels but was still lower than the national average of
88.2kbtu/ft2/yr. Based upon average electricity ($0.124/kWh) and natural gas ($7.84 per 1000 cubic feet) [67] rates for commercial
buildings, life cycle cost of the cast-in-place building system was calculated as $1.18/GSF, which resulted in $36,580 in annual energy
consumption for the whole building (31,000 GSF) and the present value of LCC for the operation phase was calculated as $504,804. As
illustrated in Table 3, the environmental impacts contributing towards global warming potential (0.47 Kg CO2 Eq) and
non-carcinogenic respiratory effects (0.128 Toluene Eq) were significant due to the length of life cycle operation phase. The total
environmental impacts per GSF/year associated with this phase are illustrated in Table 3.
4.1.3.3. Precast without sandwich panels. The annual energy consumption for this system was 54.5 kbtu/sqft/year. It was greater than
precast using sandwich panels due to the difference in the insulation effectiveness. Life cycle costs per GSF/year of the precast building
was calculated as $0.95 which was lower in comparison with cast-in-place building system. Thus, the annual energy consumption for
the whole building of 31,000 GSF was $29,580 and the present value of for the operation phase was calculated as $408,204. The life
cycle costs were slightly more in comparison with precast using sandwich panels as using sandwich panels gives better insulation
which leads to lesser environmental impact over the life cycle of building.
4.1.4. Demolition phase

The demolition phase constituted the smallest percentage of the complete life cycle of the building. All the unit processes that
included demolition of three building systems and transportation of building components to landfill sites were considered in the system
boundary. No further recycling of the buildings’ debris was considered in the research scope. The annualized life cycle costs were
calculated assuming there was no change in general prices (no inflation and deflation) when the demolition was performed at the end
of 50 years.
4.1.4.1. Precast using sandwich panels. The total costs associated with demolition phase, considering the unit processes included in the
system boundary was $189,304.60 and the annualized life cycle costs for this phase was calculated as $13,717 per year. As illustrated
in Table 4, environmental impacts towards photochemical oxidation and GWP were 6.5E-04 Kg NOx-Eq and 0.02 Kg CO2-Eq per GSF/
year respectively. This was prominently due to transportation of precast components to land fill sites and the land use. In addition, the
use of heavy machinery (such as hydraulic excavators and bulldozers) to demolish the building safely, subsequent transportation to
landfill sites and emissions were also prominent factors [77] which led to 6.5E-04 Kg NOx-Eq of photochemical oxidation. Overall, this
system had lower environmental impacts compared to CIP building system as shown in Table 4.
4.1.4.2. Cast-in-place (CIP). The total life cycle cost of the CIP system demolition phase was $243,020.46 and the annualized life cycle
was $17,609.23 per year. CIP had marginally higher GWP and photochemical oxidation with 0.028 Kg CO2-Eq and 6.80E-04 Kg NOx-
Eq respectively, compared to precast building systems. This might be attributed to the fact that the demolition of cast-in-place systems
usually takes longer than precast building systems. In addition, the demolition phase for cast-in-place system had greater dust and air
emissions in form of hydrocarbons, oxides of sulphur, and carbon monoxide which led to more GWP and photochemical oxidation.
4.1.4.3. Precast without sandwich panels. The environmental impacts associated with the demolition phase of precast without sand
wich panels were the same in comparison with precast using sandwich panels. All environmental impacts for demolition phase were
similar to precast building systems.
4.2. Complete life cycle Environmen1tal impacts and costs comparison of three building systems
The research study’s comparison of three building systems over their total life cycle showed significant difference in environmental
Table 3
Environmental impacts for three building systems during operation phase.
1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 0.423 0.45 4.50E-01

5 Respiratory Effects (Non-Carcinogenic) Kg toluene-Eq 1.25 1.9 1.30
6 Acidification Potential Kg SO2-Eq 0.0019 3.50E-03 2.50E-03
8 Land Use Kg SOC 2.26 5.6 2.26
9 Water Use M3 5.37E-03 4.50E-03 3.36E-03
11
Table 4
Total environmental impacts during demolition phase for all three building systems.
1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 0.02 0.028 2.20E-02

5 Respiratory Effects (Non-Carcinogenic) Kg toluene-Eq 3.0E-05 3.20E-04 8.00E-05
8 Land Use Kg SOC 0.064 0.07 7.00E-02
9 Water Use M3 8.23E-07 8.24E-06 8.23E-07
impacts and costs between precast using sandwich panels (and without) and CIP building systems. The total life cycle environmental
impacts and costs for the three building systems are illustrated in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.
As shown in Table 5, GWP was more than 48% lower for precast in comparison to CIP due to lesser environmental impacts with
respect to onsite construction activities (installation/construction phase) and better environmental performance during the operation
phase, which is slightly higher than, yet close to, the 40% reported by Ref. [18]. About 23% higher water use was observed for the CIP
system due to on-site casting and curing operations of CIP components. Also, the construction phase for CIP was longer than the
installation phase for the precast systems which resulted in 29% higher non-carcinogenic respiratory effects. Moreover, the air
emission due to fuel burnt in on-site heavy construction equipment resulted in 35% greater photochemical oxidation. The marginal
differences observed for precast using sandwich panels and precast without sandwich panels in GWP and Acidification Potential were
3% and 6% respectively. However, CIP had 27% higher non-carcinogenic respiratory effects and 44% higher GWP, mostly due to the
higher impacts in operation phase.
Overall, the LCC for CIP was 21% higher than precast using sandwich panel system which is mostly attributed to the construction
and operation phases of precast using sandwich panel building system which are 38% and 24% lower respectively, as compared to CIP.
However, precast without sandwich panels had marginally higher (3%) LCC in comparison with precast with sandwich panels. Thus,
the total life cycle environmental impacts and costs for precast using sandwich panel building system was the lowest compared to other
two building systems.
The research study has also compared the environmental impacts according to specific benchmarks set by the USEPA State In
ventory Tool which was lastly updated in 2017 to monitor various environmental impacts for all the states across the U.S [36].
However, the USEPA does not provide benchmarks for all the environmental impacts indicators considered in this research which
could not be translated into thresholds per gross square feet of building for the state of Colorado. This might be one of the main reasons
where various past studies have struggled to cite any standard benchmarks and have compared the results relatively within their
research instead [4]; Ji et al.; [18]. Therefore, this research study compared the GHG emissions of the three systems with the recent
Climate Mobilization Act passed by New York City Council in April 2019 as the closest reasonable benchmark. The Act established
limits on greenhouse gas emissions for buildings over 25,000 square feet and aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% by
2025 and 50% by 2030. All the three building systems were under the threshold limit of 4.53 Kg CO2-Eq. Among the three building
systems, precast using sandwich panels produced the least emissions at 0.76 Kg CO2-Eq per year/GSF.
Additionally, the study calculated the environmental impact costs of land use potential, GWP and water use. According to United
Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [68] and ecosystem services framework [69], these environmental impacts affect
the climate change and the global well-being. As shown in Table 6, The GWP and Land use potential was measured in social cost of
carbon (damage done by carbon dioxide emissions in one year) and water use in Kilogallons. The social cost of carbon was calculated at
$42/t [70,71]. However, since the water consumption rate per kilogallon differ across the different states in the U.S, the water
consumption rate of $3.74/kgal (Kilogallons) was selected for the state of Colorado [72]. In terms of environmental cost impacts, the
CIP had 24% higher water use and 50% higher GWP than precast using sandwich panels. However, there was not much difference for
precast without sandwich panels. Thus, collectively, precast using sandwich panel building system had the lowest environmental
impact costs among the three systems and has an advantage in meeting the UNSDGs when compared to CIP or precast without
sandwich panel building systems.
Table 5
Total environmental impacts for three building systems.
S. No Environmental impact indicators Units Precast using sandwich panels Cast-in-Place Precast without sandwich panels
1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 1.19E+06 2.37E+06 1.24E+06

2 Ozone Layer Depletion Kg CFC-11-Eq 1.49 2.02 1.51
3 Eutrophication Potential Kg N 2.36E+02 1.19E+03 3.45E+02
4 Photochemical Oxidation Kg NOx-Eq 2.61E+03 4.05E+03 2.74E+03
5 Respiratory Effects (Non-Carcinogenic) Kg toluene-Eq 3.83E+06 1.28E+07 3.92E+06
6 Acidification Potential Kg SO2-Eq 7667.54 1.40E+04 8.75E+03
7 Resource Depletion Kg Sb-Eq 33.03 5.38E+01 3.30E+01
8 Land Use Kg SOC 5.34E+06 9.86E+06 5.37E+06
9 Water Use m3 6285 8.21E+03 6.29E+03
12
Table 6
Environmental Impact cost.
S. Environmental Impact Units Threshold Precast using sandwich Cast-in- Precast without sandwich
No Indicator Rate panels Place panels
1 Global Warming Potential Social cost of carbon $42/ton $49,957 $99,472 $51,872
(GWP) (scc)
2 Land Use Potential Social cost of carbon $42/ton $ 224,595 $ 414,296 $ 225,540
(scc)
3 Water Use Kilogallons (kgal) $3.74/kgal $6,209 $8,116 $6,216
5. Conclusion
Precast construction is one of the fastest growing construction methods in the U.S construction industry and has been a modular
alternative to conventional CIP construction. This research study investigated and compared the life-cycle environmental impacts and
costs of three building systems by developing a framework with a comprehensive system boundary. The comparative assessment used a
cradle-to-grave approach, which included the raw material extraction and manufacturing, construction/installation, operation, and
demolition phases to assess the life-cycle environmental impacts and costs of each phase. While this research study was conducted in
the U.S, the dynamic LCA and LCCA framework developed in this study can be potentially applied on other precast and CIP building
projects across the globe.
The findings in this study illustrated that adoption of precast construction can lead to better environmental performance since its
total life-cycle environmental impacts were considerably lower than the CIP system. For instance, life-cycle environmental impacts
contributing towards GWP was 48% lower for precast compared to CIP. The precast building system also proved to be more
economically efficient compared to CIP as the total life cycle costs were 21% lower. The operation phase was consistently the highest
contributor towards environmental impacts and costs for all three building systems. However, precast sandwich panel system had
lower environmental impacts and 24% lower costs compared to the other two building systems due to the better insulation of sandwich
panels which helps in reducing the operational costs during the building life cycle’s longest phase.
Further consideration of research findings suggested that improving the sustainability of construction industry, within the concrete
systems, by using precast construction can substantially contribute to more sustainable buildings by reducing the life cycle envi
ronmental impacts and costs. For example, the life cycle environmental impact costs due to GWP, land use potential and water use were
the lowest for precast using sandwich panel system and thus contribute towards achieving United Nations Sustainable Development
goals (UNSDGs) as per the given benchmarks. The two-tiered analysis (phase-wise and overall) provides a vantage point to industry
experts and research scholars to determine if any improvements can be made in precast concrete construction methods to further
reduce the environmental as well as economic impacts compared to CIP construction by understanding the whole processes of CIP and
precast methods. Moreover, it also provides a beneficial perspective on the most impactful phases of the precast or CIP lifecycles, which
can optimize future efforts to greatly reduce the negative impacts of the entire lifecycle. The framework developed in this research
study is also beneficial to research scholars to analyze and quantify the total and phase-wise life cycle environmental impacts and costs
for precast and CIP building systems and further investigate how the environmental impacts and costs can be further reduced. This can
benefit different stakeholders across the world to target specific life cycle phases to achieve the most impact reduction based on their
geographical location and climate’s effect on the life cycle.
The results of this research study and the assessment framework can be used by industry experts, sustainability consultants, general
contractors and clients to understand the environmental and economic impacts of precast construction for the complete life cycle of the
building or compare the different building system alternatives during the planning phase. This will encourage various industry
stakeholders to adopt precast construction methods over conventional CIP, whenever feasible, and promote sustainability in con
struction industry. The comparison between precast systems, with and without sandwich panels, also prove that upfront costs of using
sandwich panels is justifiable due to cost savings and lower environmental impacts over the building life cycle. In addition, LCA and
LCC approaches used in the current research study can be used to calculate the life cycle environmental impacts and costs upfront and
make necessary design changes for a more sustainable decision-making while selecting between design alternatives. The application of
LCA and LCC on building projects proposes a significant guidance to the decision makers to increase the building performance
throughout its life cycle and promote public health. Using these methodologies, stakeholders can also monitor the building perfor
mance through LEED v4.1 which is a well-known and widely used building rating system in U.S. Finally, although the model purposes
and benchmarks addresses the U.S specifically, the framework and the approach presented in this research can be easily replicated in
other regions using different threshold rates an benchmarks according to that region’s sustainability metrics.
6. Study limitations and future research

Although the findings of this research study could be very helpful to decision makers as it addressed the different phases of the three
building systems, it nevertheless has several limitations that can be addressed in further studies. This research study did not consider
the maintenance or rehabilitation environmental impacts due to the volatile nature of such phases and how different owners can treat
maintenance and rehabilitation policies and procedures differently. Such difficulty of standardized processes for maintenance and
rehabilitation can eased through, yet very difficult to achieve, following procedural standardized operation and maintenance manual
across federal or state buildings that are very similar in their design and have the same ownership. Also, the precast plant used for this
research study was 22 miles away from the construction site and the environmental impacts due to the transportation of precast
13
components from precast plant to construction will vary from one project to another. Hence, users should consider the viability of
product access according to the travel time and the amount of the delivered precast product. The model also compared the CIP System
as concrete wall systems similar to certain building types (e.g., warehouses, parking garages, etc..) which was easier to model, and
although a CIP and cold steel framing system can be cheaper in construction, the thermal bridging will have a bigger impact during the
operation phase as well. Therefore, modeling thermal bridging across the different climates can affect the impacts as well as the
benefits achieved by implementing different systems in different region.
Another limitation of the study is that it did not cover a cradle-to-cradle approach where no recycling of building components after
demolition was considered in the research scope. Due to the versatile nature of precast, it offers designers to develop sustainable
solutions by designing for a reuse and/or recycle stage which can further reduce the environmental impacts and can be considered in
future research studies. These can be achieved in further studies where, for example, a precast garage can be reused as a hotel or
storage facility. Finally, deterministic life cycle assessment approach has been used to calculate the environmental and cost impacts
and a probabilistic analysis of annual costs associated with the complete life cycle of the building can be a future research opportunity.
Due to the complexity of construction and data constraints, labor costs and price escalation were not considered in the scope and
further research studies can include them in consequent LCC studies. As sustainability is not just limited to environment and economy,
the social indicator should also be taken into consideration for a more holistic life cycle analysis. There are no studies that consider all
dimensions of sustainability impacts of precast buildings, and this study provides a robust platform to further analyze the life cycle
social impacts by conducting Social-LCA and embrace the triple bottom line (environmental, economic and social) components of
sustainable construction.
Author roles in the paper according to the credit statements in ELSEVIER

MSHM: Conceptualization,Methodology,Validation,Investigation,Resources,Writing - Review & Editing,Visualization,Supervision,
Project administration, T.V: Conceptualization,Methodology,Software,Validation,Formal analysis,Investigation,Data Curation,Visu
alization, J.K: Validation,Writing - Review & Editing,Visualization,Supervision, Tanmay Vasishta (T.V), Mohammed S. Hashem M.
Mehany (MSHM), John Killingsworth (J.K)
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors can share the model and the data boundaries (OpenLCA) which was built for this journal manuscript
References
[1] J. Bennett, A. Crudgington, Sustainable Development: Recent Thinking and Practice in the UK, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Engineering Sustainability, 2003.
[2] C. Du Plessis, Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries, CSIR Report BOU E, 2002, p. 204.
[3] Environment, W. C. o., & Development, Our Common Future: Report of WCED, 1987.
[4] Y.H. Dong, L. Jaillon, P. Chu, C. Poon, Comparing carbon emissions of precast and cast-in-situ construction methods–A case study of high-rise private building,
Construct. Build. Mater. 99 (2015) 39–53.
[5] L. Shen, V.W. Tam, Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20 (7) (2002) 535–543.
[6] J.S. Damtoft, J. Lukasik, D. Herfort, D. Sorrentino, E.M. Gartner, Sustainable development and climate change initiatives, Cement Concr. Res. 38 (2) (2008)
115–127.
[7] A. Enshassi, B. Kochendoerfer, E. Rizq, An evaluation of environmental impacts of construction projects, Revista Ingeniería de Construcción 29 (3) (2015)
234–254.
[8] D.J. Flower, J.G. Sanjayan, Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5) (2007) 282.
[9] M. Freedman, B. Jaggi, Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting
industries, Int. J. Account. 40 (3) (2005) 215–232.
[10] M. Buyle, J. Braet, A. Audenaert, Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26 (2013) 379–388.
[11] C. Scheuer, G.A. Keoleian, P. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications, Energy Build. 35 (10) (2003) 1049–1064.
[12] G. Finnveden, Å. Moberg, Environmental systems analysis tools–an overview, J. Clean. Prod. 13 (12) (2005) 1165–1173.
[13] A. Singh, G. Berghorn, S. Joshi, M. Syal, Review of life-cycle assessment applications in building construction, J. Architect. Eng. 17 (1) (2010) 15–23.
[14] G. Rebitzer, T. Ekvall, R. Frischknecht, D. Hunkeler, G. Norris, T. Rydberg, D.W. Pennington, Life cycle assessment: Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition,
inventory analysis, and applications, Environ. Int. 30 (5) (2004) 701–720.
[15] NIST, NIST handbook - 135, Retrieved from, https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/nist/criteria/nist-handbook-135, 2020.
[16] PENTA, Capturing Value in the U.S. Cement Industry with A Grinding Plant Utilizing Imported Clinker, PENTA Engineering Corp, 2021. https://www.penta.
net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PENTA-Cement-Industry-WhitePaper_Jan2021.pdf.
[17] A.P. Gursel, E. Masanet, A. Horvath, A. Stadel, Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: a critical review, Cement Concr. Compos. 51 (2014) 38–48.
[18] M. Marceau, L. Bushi, J. Meil, M. Bowick, Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainable Design of Precast Concrete Commercial Buildings in Canada, vol. 1, Green
Building Library, 2012.
[19] D. Ramsey, A. Ghosh, A. Abbaszadegan, J. Choi, in: A.Z. Phoenix (Ed.), Life Cycle Assessment of Pre-cast Concrete vs. Cast-In-Place Concrete, University of
Arizona state, School of Sustainable Engineering and the build environment, 2014.
[20] Y. Ji, K. Li, G. Liu, A. Shrestha, J. Jing, Comparing greenhouse gas emissions of precast in-situ and conventional construction methods, J. Clean. Prod. 173
(2018) 124–134.
[21] Y. Chen, G.E. Okudan, D.R. Riley, Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings, Autom. ConStruct. 19 (2) (2010)
235–244.
14
[22] PCI, PCI DESIGN HANDBOOK, 2010.

[23] W. Kloepffer, Life cycle sustainability assessment of products, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (2) (2008) 89.
[24] ISO, I., Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and Framework, British Standards Institution, London, 2006, 14040.
[25] G. Finnveden, M.Z. Hauschild, T. Ekvall, J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, S. Hellweg, S. Suh, Recent developments in life cycle assessment, J. Environ. Manag. 91 (1)
(2009) 1–21.
[26] S. Joshi, Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques, J. Ind. Ecol. 3 (2-3) (1999) 95–120.
[27] M.M. Khasreen, P.F. Banfill, G.F. Menzies, Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: a review, Sustainability 1 (3) (2009) 674–701.
[28] D. Elmakis, A. Lisnianski, Life cycle cost analysis: actual problem in industrial management, J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 7 (1) (2006) 5–8.
[29] B.H. Goh, Y. Sun, The development of life-cycle costing for buildings, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (3) (2016) 319–333.
[30] R. Hass, S.L. Tighe, L.C. Falls, Beyond Conventional LCCA: Long Term Return on Pavement Investments, Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Conference of the
Transportation Association of Canada, Calgary, 2005.
[31] M. Arja, G. Sauce, B. Souyri, External uncertainty factors and LCC: a case study, Build. Res. Inf. 37 (3) (2009) 325–334.
[32] L. Aye, N. Bamford, B. Charters, J. Robinson, Environmentally sustainable development: a life-cycle costing approach for a commercial office building in
Melbourne, Australia, Construct. Manag. Econ. 18 (8) (2000) 927–934.
[33] B. Cui, D.-c. Gao, F. Xiao, S. Wang, Model-based optimal design of active cool thermal energy storage for maximal life-cycle cost saving from demand
management in commercial buildings, Appl. Energy 201 (2017) 382–396.
[34] L.N. Dwaikat, K.N. Ali, Green buildings life cycle cost analysis and life cycle budget development: practical applications, J. Build. Eng. 18 (2018) 303–311.
[35] A.J. Marszal, P. Heiselberg, Life cycle cost analysis of a multi-storey residential net zero energy building in Denmark, Energy 36 (9) (2011) 5600–5609.
[36] USEPA, Energy resources for state and local governments, Retrieved from, https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/download-state-inventory-and-projection-
tool, 2019.
[37] Morrison Hershfield, & the Athena Institute, a. V., Glaser & Associates, Life cycle assessment of precast concrete belowground infrastructure products, Retrieved
from, http://precast.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/LCA_Belowground_Infrastructure_Complete_Report_2010.pdf, 2010.
[38] J. Hong, G.Q. Shen, C. Mao, Z. Li, K. Li, Life-cycle energy analysis of prefabricated building components: an input–output-based hybrid model, J. Clean. Prod.
112 (2016) 2198–2207.
[39] R. Azari-N, Y.-W. Kim, Comparative assessment of life cycle impacts of curtain wall mullions, Build. Environ. 48 (2012) 135–145.
[40] L. Kosareo, R. Ries, Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs, Build. Environ. 42 (7) (2007) 2606–2613.
[41] B. Lopez-Mesa, A. Pitarch, A. Tomas, T. Gallego, Comparison of environmental impacts of building structures with in situ cast floors and with precast concrete
floors, Build. Environ. 44 (4) (2009) 699–712.
[42] G.K. Ding, Life cycle energy assessment of Australian secondary schools, Build. Res. Inf. 35 (5) (2007) 487–500.
[43] G. Treloar, R. Fay, P. Love, U. Iyer-Raniga, Analysing the life-cycle energy of an Australian residential building and its householders, Build. Res. Inf. 28 (3)
(2000) 184–195.
[44] A. Jonsson, T. Bjorklund, A.-M. Tillman, LCA of concrete and steel building frames, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 3 (4) (1998) 216–224.
[45] C. Dattilo, P. Negro, A. Colombo, Application of LCA to a single-storey prefabricated building, Comparative Analysis of the Environmental Impact of
Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Cast in situ Structures (in Italian) 23 (2012) 38e47.
[46] C.K. Anand, B. Amor, Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67
(2017) 408–416.
[47] M. Bilec, R. Ries, H.S. Matthews, A.L. Sharrard, Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 12 (4) (2006) 207–215.
[48] I. Holton, J. Glass, A.D. Price, Managing for sustainability: findings from four company case studies in the UK precast concrete industry, J. Clean. Prod. 18 (2)
(2010) 152–160.
[49] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416.
[50] A.F.A. Rashid, S. Yusoff, A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45 (2015) 244–248.
[51] J.D. Silvestre, A. Silva, J. de Brito, Uncertainty modelling of service life and environmental performance to reduce risk in building design decisions, J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 21 (3) (2015) 308–322.
[52] G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo, The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings, Energy Build. 42 (6) (2010)
869–880.
[53] B. Ye, Q. Lu, J. Li, K. Chang, Coal power GHG emission intensity model and its application, J. Harbin Univ. Sci. Technol 5 (2011), 027.
[54] C. Ingrao, A.L. Giudice, C. Mbohwa, M.T. Clasadonte, Life Cycle Inventory analysis of a precast reinforced concrete shed for goods storage, J. Clean. Prod. 79
(2014) 152–167.
[55] S. Lasvaux, G. Habert, B. Peuportier, J. Chevalier, Comparison of generic and product-specific Life Cycle Assessment databases: application to construction
materials used in building LCA studies, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (11) (2015) 1473–1490.
[56] M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fernández-Solís, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 16 (6) (2012) 3730–3743.
[57] C. Peng, Calculation of a building’s life cycle carbon emissions based on Ecotect and building information modeling, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 453–465.
[58] J. Heinonen, A. Säynäjoki, J.-M. Junnonen, A. Pöyry, S. Junnila, Pre-use phase LCA of a multi-story residential building: can greenhouse gas emissions be used
as a more general environmental performance indicator? Build. Environ. 95 (2016) 116–125.
[59] PCI, Comparative life-cycle assessment of precast concrete commercial buildings overview/executive summary, Retrieved from, https://www.pci.org/PCI_
Docs/Design_Resources/Sustainability/LCA-White-Paper.pdf, 2009.
[60] I.M. Ahmed, K.D. Tsavdaridis, Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost (LCC) studies of lightweight composite flooring systems, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018) 624–633.
[61] A. Arena, C. De Rosa, Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in
Mendoza—Argentina, Build. Environ. 38 (2) (2003) 359–368.
[62] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy assessment of a typical office building in Thailand, Energy Build. 41 (10) (2009) 1076–1083.
[63] K. Van Ooteghem, L. Xu, The life-cycle assessment of a single-storey retail building in Canada, Build. Environ. 49 (2012) 212–226.
[64] M.A. Curran, Life-cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA,
2006.
[65] C.S. Park, G. Kim, S. Choi, Engineering Economics, Pearson Prentice Hall, New jersey, 2007.
[66] R. Athalye, M. Halverson, M. Rosenberg, B. Liu, J. Zhang, R. Hart, M. Zhao, Energy savings analysis - building energy codes, October 2017 Retrieved from,
https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/02222018_Standard_90.1-2016_Determination_TSD.pdf, 2017.
[67] USEPA, Average prices, Retrieved from, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a, 2020.
[68] S.D. Keesstra, J. Bouma, J. Wallinga, P. Tittonell, P. Smith, A. Cerdà, W.H. Van Der Putten, The Significance of Soils and Soil Science towards Realization of the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, Soil, 2016.
[69] S.L. Wood, S.K. Jones, J.A. Johnson, K.A. Brauman, R. Chaplin-Kramer, A. Fremier, L. Mandle, Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable
development goals, Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018) 70–82.
[70] E.A. Mikhailova, G.R. Groshans, C.J. Post, M.A. Schlautman, G.C. Post, Valuation of soil organic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the
avoided social cost of carbon emissions, Resources 8 (3) (2019) 153.
[71] USEPA, The social cost of carbon, Retrieved from, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html, 2017.
15
[72] D. Water, 2020 business water rates, Retrieved from, https://www.denverwater.org/business/billing-and-rates/2020-rates, 2020.
[76] S.R. Wu, D. Apul, Framework for integrating indoor air quality impacts into life cycle assessments of buildings and building related products, J. Green Build. 10
(1) (2015) 127–149.
[77] A. Anuranjita, G.H. Berghorn, D. Bates, M.M. Syal, Life cycle assessment framework for demolition and deconstruction of buildings, Construct. Res. Congr.
(2018) 339–349.
16

2023-Comparative Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023-Comparative Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering 67 (2023) 105921

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

2.1. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

2.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

2.3. Sustainability concept in precast concrete

2.3.1. LCA of precast concrete

2.3.2. LCA studies in precast building industry

3.1. Life cycle framework

3.1.1. Goal and scope definition

Fig. 1. Research methodology - life cycle framework.

Fig. 2. Life Cycle Phases considered in a Cradle to Grave Approach.

3.1.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis

Fig. 3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) model.

3.1.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

3.1.4. Analysis interpretation

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Phase-wise comparison of building systems LCC and environmental impacts

4.1.1. Raw material extraction and manufacturing phase

4.1.2. Installation and construction phase

1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 0.32 0.35 0.32

1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 4.39E-03 0.70 4.81E-03

4.1.3. Operation phase

Fig. 4. BIM Model (Shown is the Precast sandwich panels).

4.1.4. Demolition phase

1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 0.423 0.45 4.50E-01

1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 0.02 0.028 2.20E-02

1 Global Warming Potential Kg CO2-Eq 1.19E+06 2.37E+06 1.24E+06

6. Study limitations and future research

Author roles in the paper according to the credit statements in ELSEVIER

Declaration of competing interest

[22] PCI, PCI DESIGN HANDBOOK, 2010.

You might also like