Seminar “Carbon Footprint and LCA” 25 July 2017, EURAC, Bolzano (Italy) LCA to support decision-making on building demolition & re-construction versus refurbishment. Integrating LCA in the optimization of refurbishment design decisions. Lisanne Havinga, PhD Architecture, History & Theory and Building Physics, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)

1. LCA to Support Design Decisions
demolition and reconstruction vs. refurbishment
&
optimization of refurbishment design decisions
Lisanne Havinga MSc.
Doctoral Candidate
Architectural History & Theory
Building Physics & Services

2. 1945-1970

3. 1945-1970

4. 1945-1970

5. 1945-1970

6. 1945-1970

7. 1945-1970

9. 2017

13. 14 Post-War Neighbourhoods
Urban Expansions - Modern Architecture & Urbanism
High Energy Use - Lowest U-value of existing stock
Overdue Maintenance
Threathened by demolition with the argument that new
construction will be more sustainable
Wederopbouwkernen
01. Hengelo binnenstad
02. Katwijk aan Zee Boulevardzone
03. Den Haag Atlantikwallzone
Kijkduin-Zorgvliet
04.Rhenen binnenstad
10. Nagele
11. Amsterdam Westelijke Tuinsteden
12. Hengelo Klein Driene I en II
13. Apeldoorn Kerschoten
14. Den Haag Mariahoeve
15. Leidschendam-Voorburg Landelijke gebieden
30 wederopbouw-
gebieden
Wederopbouwkernen
Naoorlogse woonwijken
Landelijke gebieden
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
29 30
d heeft in 2011 dertig
de periode tussen
ot deel van Nederland
totaal andere manier
bieden geven met
ht, gebouwd en
ouwd als toonbeelden
scheiden zich nationaal
wege de kwaliteit van
d van stedenbouw of
ft de gebieden in drie
uwkernen (herstelde
ken (planmatige­
delijke gebieden
htingsgebieden).
ten uit de rijksnota
ed en ruimte die op
Onderwijs, Cultuur
structuur en Milieu
de Tweede en Eerste
gt in de eerste plaats
ng. Daarnaast wil het
chappen, de kwalitei­
n een tijdperk 30 wederopbouwgebieden
In lijn met de Beleidsbrief Modernisering Monumentenzorg
(TK 2009­2010, 32 156 nr. 13) wordt hier in juridische zin
invulling aangegeven – niet door aanwijzing als beschermd
stads­ of dorpsgezicht – maar als uitvloeisel van de verplichting
om cultuurhistorie onderdeel te laten zijn van de belangenaf­
weging in het kader van de totstandkoming van bestemmings­
plannen, zoals opgenomen in artikel 3.1.6 lid 5 onder a van het
Besluit ruimtelijke ordening.
Nu zo’n zestig jaar na de realisatie bouw of aanleg, zijn deze
wederopbouwgebieden als gevolg van maatschappelijke en
sociaaleconomische veranderingen, object van (ingrijpende)
vernieuwingsoperaties. De uitdaging hierbij is om ontwikkelin­
gen en vernieuwing hand­in­hand te laten gaan met het
behoud van het bijzondere karakter van deze gebieden.
Kennis, inzicht en begrip van de cultuurhistorische waarden van
de wederopbouwgebieden en hun ruimtelijke ontwikkelings­
geschiedenis zijn van belang bij het maken van weloverwogen
keuzes in de planvormingsprocessen. Dit gebiedsdocument is
bedoeld ter ondersteuning hiervan en brengt de bijzondere
kernkwaliteiten van één van deze gebieden in beeld:
de naoorlogse wijk Mariahoeve.
Wederopbouwkernen
01. Hengelo binnenstad
10. Nagele
11. Amsterdam Westelijke Tuinsteden
gebieden
Wederopbouwkernen
Naoorlogse woonwijken
Landelijke gebieden
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29 30
Mariahoeve

14. The Hague - Mariahoeve
Photography School Building (1968)
Demolition & New Construction
vs.
Refurbishment & Rehabillitation
Wederopbouwkernen
01. Hengelo binnenstad
02. Katwijk aan Zee Boulevardzone
03. Den Haag Atlantikwallzone
Kijkduin-Zorgvliet
04.Rhenen binnenstad
10. Nagele
11. Amsterdam Westelijke Tuinsteden
12. Hengelo Klein Driene I en II
13. Apeldoorn Kerschoten
14. Den Haag Mariahoeve
15. Leidschendam-Voorburg Landelijke gebieden
30 wederopbouw-
gebieden
Wederopbouwkernen
Naoorlogse woonwijken
Landelijke gebieden
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
29 30
d heeft in 2011 dertig
de periode tussen
ot deel van Nederland
totaal andere manier
bieden geven met
ht, gebouwd en
ouwd als toonbeelden
scheiden zich nationaal
wege de kwaliteit van
d van stedenbouw of
ft de gebieden in drie
uwkernen (herstelde
ken (planmatige­
delijke gebieden
htingsgebieden).
ten uit de rijksnota
ed en ruimte die op
Onderwijs, Cultuur
structuur en Milieu
de Tweede en Eerste
gt in de eerste plaats
ng. Daarnaast wil het
chappen, de kwalitei­
n een tijdperk 30 wederopbouwgebieden
In lijn met de Beleidsbrief Modernisering Monumentenzorg
(TK 2009­2010, 32 156 nr. 13) wordt hier in juridische zin
invulling aangegeven – niet door aanwijzing als beschermd
stads­ of dorpsgezicht – maar als uitvloeisel van de verplichting
om cultuurhistorie onderdeel te laten zijn van de belangenaf­
weging in het kader van de totstandkoming van bestemmings­
plannen, zoals opgenomen in artikel 3.1.6 lid 5 onder a van het
Besluit ruimtelijke ordening.
Nu zo’n zestig jaar na de realisatie bouw of aanleg, zijn deze
wederopbouwgebieden als gevolg van maatschappelijke en
sociaaleconomische veranderingen, object van (ingrijpende)
vernieuwingsoperaties. De uitdaging hierbij is om ontwikkelin­
gen en vernieuwing hand­in­hand te laten gaan met het
behoud van het bijzondere karakter van deze gebieden.
Kennis, inzicht en begrip van de cultuurhistorische waarden van
de wederopbouwgebieden en hun ruimtelijke ontwikkelings­
geschiedenis zijn van belang bij het maken van weloverwogen
keuzes in de planvormingsprocessen. Dit gebiedsdocument is
bedoeld ter ondersteuning hiervan en brengt de bijzondere
kernkwaliteiten van één van deze gebieden in beeld:
de naoorlogse wijk Mariahoeve.
Wederopbouwkernen
01. Hengelo binnenstad
10. Nagele
11. Amsterdam Westelijke Tuinsteden
gebieden
Wederopbouwkernen
Naoorlogse woonwijken
Landelijke gebieden
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29 30
Mariahoeve

15. Wederopbouwkernen
01. Hengelo binnenstad
02. Katwijk aan Zee Boulevardzone
03. Den Haag Atlantikwallzone
Kijkduin-Zorgvliet
04.Rhenen binnenstad
10. Nagele
11. Amsterdam Westelijke Tuinsteden
12. Hengelo Klein Driene I en II
13. Apeldoorn Kerschoten
14. Den Haag Mariahoeve
15. Leidschendam-Voorburg Landelijke gebieden
30 wederopbouw-
gebieden
Wederopbouwkernen
Naoorlogse woonwijken
Landelijke gebieden
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
29 30
d heeft in 2011 dertig
de periode tussen
ot deel van Nederland
totaal andere manier
bieden geven met
ht, gebouwd en
ouwd als toonbeelden
scheiden zich nationaal
wege de kwaliteit van
d van stedenbouw of
ft de gebieden in drie
uwkernen (herstelde
ken (planmatige­
delijke gebieden
htingsgebieden).
ten uit de rijksnota
ed en ruimte die op
Onderwijs, Cultuur
structuur en Milieu
de Tweede en Eerste
gt in de eerste plaats
ng. Daarnaast wil het
chappen, de kwalitei­
n een tijdperk 30 wederopbouwgebieden
In lijn met de Beleidsbrief Modernisering Monumentenzorg
(TK 2009­2010, 32 156 nr. 13) wordt hier in juridische zin
invulling aangegeven – niet door aanwijzing als beschermd
stads­ of dorpsgezicht – maar als uitvloeisel van de verplichting
om cultuurhistorie onderdeel te laten zijn van de belangenaf­
weging in het kader van de totstandkoming van bestemmings­
plannen, zoals opgenomen in artikel 3.1.6 lid 5 onder a van het
Besluit ruimtelijke ordening.
Nu zo’n zestig jaar na de realisatie bouw of aanleg, zijn deze
wederopbouwgebieden als gevolg van maatschappelijke en
sociaaleconomische veranderingen, object van (ingrijpende)
vernieuwingsoperaties. De uitdaging hierbij is om ontwikkelin­
gen en vernieuwing hand­in­hand te laten gaan met het
behoud van het bijzondere karakter van deze gebieden.
Kennis, inzicht en begrip van de cultuurhistorische waarden van
de wederopbouwgebieden en hun ruimtelijke ontwikkelings­
geschiedenis zijn van belang bij het maken van weloverwogen
keuzes in de planvormingsprocessen. Dit gebiedsdocument is
bedoeld ter ondersteuning hiervan en brengt de bijzondere
kernkwaliteiten van één van deze gebieden in beeld:
de naoorlogse wijk Mariahoeve.
Wederopbouwkernen
01. Hengelo binnenstad
10. Nagele
11. Amsterdam Westelijke Tuinsteden
gebieden
Wederopbouwkernen
Naoorlogse woonwijken
Landelijke gebieden
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29 30
Mariahoeve
The Hague - Mariahoeve
Photography School Building (1968)
Demolition & New Construction
vs.
Refurbishment & Rehabillitation
Amsterdam - Western Garden Cities
Apartment Complexes (10 ensembles | 1953-1969)
Optimizing Refurbishment Design Decisions - Integrating
Life Cycle Assessment, Hygrothermal Risk Assessment
& Heritage Impact Assessment.

16. Case Study
Mariahoeve
Photography School (1968-2000)
Case Study
Mariahoeve
Photography School (1968-2000)

17. Case Study
Mariahoeve
Photography School (1968-2000)
Case Study
Mariahoeve
Photography School (1968-2000)
1968 20161968 2016

18. Case Study
Mariahoeve
Photography School (1968-2000)
Case Study
Mariahoeve
Photography School (1968-2000)
1968 20161968 2016
No Monument Status
Recent Recognition of Significance
Plans to Demolish and Built Apartments
No Monument Status
Recent Recognition of Significance
Plans to Demolish and Built Apartments

19. Comparison of Demolition & Re-construction vs. Refurbishment
Demolition & New Construction - Standard Sustainable Apartment
EPC: 0,16 (current minimum since 2015 = 0,4 | aim is to move to almost 0 by 2020)
The Rc‐-value of the roof, floor and walls is 5,0 m2
K/W
Installations include PV panels and a solar boiler, HR heating and tap water system and mechanical ventilation
Materials are according to standard details of SBRCUR (Sbrcurnet, 2015)
Refurbishment Case
Curtain Wall is replaced by triple glazing with aluminium framing, 150mm sheepwol insulation
Installations the same as in new construction case
Method
Database: UK BRE Dataset, partly based on Ecoinvent
LCIA Method: CML
Software: IMPACT Suite (integrated in IES VE)

20. Chapter 3 ‐ Results
Figure 34: Comparison of the operational energy (kWh/year)
3.4.3 LIFE CYCLE STAGES
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Elektricity Gas
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
stallations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
mparison of the operational energy (kWh/year)
E CYCLE STAGES
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Elektricity Gas
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
Figure 34: Comparison of the operational energy (kWh/year)
3.4.3 LIFE CYCLE STAGES
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Elektricity Gas
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
Figure 34: Comparison of the operational energy (kWh/year)
3.4.3 LIFE CYCLE STAGES
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Elektricity Gas
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
Figure 34: Comparison of the operational energy (kWh/year)
3.4.3 LIFE CYCLE STAGES
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Elektricity Gas
New
Construction
No
Transformation
Optimized
Refurbishment
Design
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
re 34: Comparison of the operational energy (kWh/year)
4.3 LIFE CYCLE STAGES
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
Operational energy (kWh/year)
Elektricity Gas
Operational energy
(kWh/year)

21. POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
UILDING COMPONENTS
mparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
lding components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
hase (B).
shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
rmation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
sign. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
n be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
ns in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
ock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
impact of the building.
NVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
nput by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
onverts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
rs.
rteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
ntal indicator Unit
ming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
action m³ water extracted (gross)
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
d building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
sign
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
New
Construction
No
Transformation
Optimized
Refurbishment
Design
BRE Ecopoints
per building component

22. POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
TAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
arison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
t a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
aph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
ese graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
f the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
ng in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
s only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
e conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
ew No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and bu
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different bu
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is crea
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not t
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolitio
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the cas
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in compariso
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comp
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as ste
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Mater
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 201
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and buil
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different buil
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is create
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not tak
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the co
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in compa
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Material
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
UILDING COMPONENTS
mparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
lding components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
hase (B).
shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
rmation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
sign. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
n be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
ns in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
ock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
impact of the building.
NVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
nput by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
onverts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
rs.
rteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
ntal indicator Unit
ming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
action m³ water extracted (gross)
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
Water Extraction m³ water extracted (gross)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
d building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
sign
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq (100 yr)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
Chapter 3 ‐ Results
3.4.4 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Figure 38: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in building components. In this graph only the impact of the phases A and C are assessed, so not the impact of the
operational phase (B).
Figure 38 shows only the optimal conversion design (step six) compared again to building new and
no transformation. The impact of phase A and C is for the new building two times as high as for the
optimal design. The impact of the optimal design is two times higher as when nothing would happen
to building. Where in the optimal design the influence of the windows and the external walls is the
largest, for the new building the roof and floors account most. The high value for the roof of the new
building can be explained by the use of EPS insulation, where for the walls is made use of rock wool.
Calculations in the LCA program Impact result in an environmental impact 220 times higher for EPS
than for rock wool (with a thickness of 100 mm). So the choice can have an immense influence on
the overall impact of the building.
3.4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The data input by the program Impact translated into 13 environmental indicators with its own unit
(Table 11). It is not possible to sum these indicators because of their different unit. However, the
program converts the impacts into BRE Ecopoints with the same unit, resulting into one impact for
all indicators.
Table 11: Thirteen environmental indicators as a result of LCA in Impact
Environmental indicator Unit
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per building component
Doors
Windows
External wall
Roof
Floor
Internal walls
Beams, Columns
Foundation
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
New
Construction
No
Transformation
Optimized
Refurbishment
Design
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
step one of the conversion (Traditional conversion design) and even five times as high as step six.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 35: Comparison of the six design steps to building new and no transformation, divided into the different building
phases
In order to get a good comparison between the different building phases, Figure 35 is created. Note
that in the graph the construction and building operation of the building until 2016 is not taken into
account in these graphs, as this phase is for every option the same.
The impact of the demolition of the building in 2016 is obviously higher for the demolition of the
whole building in the case of building new than for parts of the building in the case of the
conversion: 0.38 to 0.14 ecopoints, more as two times as much. In comparison to the complete
impact, this is only a small number. The construction of the new building in comparison to the
conversion is that the impact of the construction of building is two times higher in comparison to
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
New No
transformation
1. Traditional
conversion
design
2. Interior 3. Façade 4. Installations 5. Materials 6. Same
installations as
reference
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C ‐ Demolition 2016 A ‐ Conversion/Building new 2016
B ‐ Building operation 2016‐2066 C ‐ Demolition 2066
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
New
Construction
No
Transformation
Optimized
Refurbishment
Design
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
component service life is shorter than the building service life. Compared to the new building, the
share of refurbishment is higher compared to the new building, so components are replaced more
often. Small component service lives create flexibility in use, which is an advantage of the
conversion.
From stage C, the demolition stage, only C4 (Disposal) is represented, so no further division is
possible. Stage D, benefits and loads beyond the system boundary, is in total not represented. So the
ability to lower the environmental impact by recycling, recovery or recycling is not reviewed.
0
2
4
6
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
component service life is shorter than the building service life. Compared to the new building, the
share of refurbishment is higher compared to the new building, so components are replaced more
often. Small component service lives create flexibility in use, which is an advantage of the
conversion.
From stage C, the demolition stage, only C4 (Disposal) is represented, so no further division is
0
2
4
6
8
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
component service life is shorter than the building service life. Compared to the new building, the
share of refurbishment is higher compared to the new building, so components are replaced more
often. Small component service lives create flexibility in use, which is an advantage of the
0
2
4
6
8
10
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
The largest share of stage B, the building in use, is the operational energy use. Refurbishment (B5) is
the impact when building components are replaced during their building lifespan, because the
component service life is shorter than the building service life. Compared to the new building, the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
and seven percent in the optimal design.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
supply, transport and manufacturing of materials) is the largest share. A4 takes to account three to
four percent of the total impact of stage A. Transport is in the new building three percent of stage A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
POST WAR HERITAGE & LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | Conversion of a school into dwellings versus demolition and building new
Figure 37: Comparison of the optimal conversion design to no transformation and building new expressed in BRE ecopoints,
divided in life cycle stages.
Not all life cycle stages are present in Impact. The life cycles, according to EN 15804/ EN 15978,
which are part of the calculations are:
 Module A1 to A3 – Raw materials supply, transport, manufacturing
 Module A4 – Transport to the site
 Module A5 – Construction installation process
 Module B1 – Use
 Module B5 – Refurbishment
 Module B6 – Operational energy use
 Module B7 – Operational water use
 Module C4 – Disposal
Figure 37 shows the share of the different stages to the total impact. In stage A, A1 to A3 (so the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No transformation New Optimal design
BRE ecopoints
BRE ecopoints ‐ per life cycle stage
C4
B7
B6
B5
B1
A5
A4
A1 to 3
New
Construction
No
Transformation
Optimized
Refurbishment
Design
BRE Ecopoints
per life cycle stage
BRE Ecopoints
per building component