Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

A case study on life cycle energy use of residential building

in Southern India
Pinky Devi L., Sivakumar Palaniappan ∗
Building Technology and Construction Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036,
India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The life cycle energy of a building consists of construction energy, operational energy and demolition
Received 4 February 2014 energy. Construction refers to initial construction as well as recurring maintenance and repair work.
Received in revised form 17 May 2014 Initial construction represents manufacturing of construction materials, transportation and site related
Accepted 24 May 2014
on-site construction processes. Only a few studies focused on life cycle energy use of Indian residential
Available online 2 June 2014
buildings. However, the energy use due to on-site construction processes is either ignored or not modelled
with adequate level of detail at present. This paper presents a case study on life cycle energy analysis of
Keywords:
a residential development consisting of 96 identical apartment-type homes located in Southern India.
Life cycle energy
Embodied energy
Energy use due to transportation of materials and construction equipment use at site are quantified.
Residential homes Sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the influence of building service life and monthly electricity
Residential apartments use per home on the relative significance of construction energy and operational energy. The construction
On-site construction processes energy is found to be a significant component of life cycle energy of residential buildings with partial or no
air-conditioning. Further, reduced building service life period and increased energy efficiency achieved
in the operational phase makes the construction energy as important as the operational energy with
respect to life cycle.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The construction industry is a major consumer of natural
resources such as materials, energy, land and water. Buildings use
40% of energy and generate 33% of green house gas emissions
globally considering both developed and developing countries [1].
In India, the construction industry solely contributes to about
24% of CO2 emissions of all the sectors [2]. There is a dire need
to modify the construction industry practices so that the result-
ing environmental impacts could be reduced [3]. True progress
towards sustainable built environment requires a life cycle think-
ing approach i.e. a holistic evaluation of all phases of a building
life cycle [4,5]. The building life cycle consists of four major phases
namely production, on-site construction, use or operation and end-
of-life. The life cycle energy of a building is the aggregate of (i)
initial embodied energy, (ii) recurring embodied energy, (iii) oper-
ating energy and (iv) demolition energy. Initial embodied energy is
the energy used during the production phase (indirect energy) and
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 22574258; fax: +91 44 22574252.
E-mail addresses: sp@iitm.ac.in, sivakumar.palaniappan@gmail.com
(S. Palaniappan).
the on-site construction phase (direct energy). Energy used during
the production phase is based upon mining of raw materials, trans-
portation, processing and manufacturing of construction materials.
On-site construction refers to the final installation/erection of the
building at the construction site. Energy used for on-site construc-
tion processes is based upon the transportation of human, material
and equipment resources to site, use of construction equipment at
site and energy used for operating temporary site facilities. Opera-
tional energy is the energy required for building operation during
its service life. It refers to lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation.
Recurring embodied energy is the energy required for maintenance,
repair, replacement and refurbishment during the entire building
service life. Demolition energy refers to demolition/deconstruction,
transportation of waste and land filling.
Initiatives towards sustainable built environment have mainly
focused upon reducing the operational energy use through
advanced building envelope materials and high performing equip-
ment thereby increasing the significance of embodied energy
[6–8]. The significance of construction energy (i.e. materials and
on-site construction) increases as the energy efficiency of the
operational phase reaches a threshold. The construction energy is
expected to be a significant component of life cycle energy for nat-
urally ventilated or partially air-conditioned residential buildings.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.05.034
0378-7788/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
248 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259

Earlier studies on building life cycle energy use in India do not
include the energy use of on-site construction processes [9–11].
The objectives of this study are to perform life cycle energy use
analysis of a residential building located in Southern India includ-
ing on-site construction processes, assess the relative contribution
of construction energy and operational energy with respect to life
cycle energy use and understand the variations in the relative con-
tribution using sensitivity analysis.
The housing sector plays an important role in the present sce-
nario of rapid urbanization. The percentage growth in the number
of households for the period 1991–2001 is about 37% (Census of
India, 2001 as referenced in [12]). The total requirement of hous-
ing during the 11th Five Year Plan period (2007–2012) inclusive
of previous shortage is about 26.5 million [12]. Significant increase
in the housing demand and the associated need for conservation
of natural resources underscores the need for design, development
and implementation of sustainable construction practices in the
housing sector considering life cycle thinking.
2. Literature review
Many studies were carried out to determine the energy distri-
bution across building components and materials. It was found that
concrete and reinforcement steel represent the highest embodied
energy of the structure [6,13–18], although the materials used in
the building envelope represents a lower but significant amount
of the total embodied energy [14]. A study carried out in India
concluded that brick, cement and steel are the three significant
construction materials which contribute to 80–90% of the material
energy in residential buildings [19].
There is potential to reduce the embodied energy of buildings
by 30–45% through the use of alternative and local construction
materials [20]. A study on the comparison of nine types of envelope
materials shows that use of alternative building materials provide
better energy efficiency than traditional brick [21]. Study of an
adobe house using low energy intensive materials concluded that
there is scope to reduce the embodied energy by 50% [22]. This
study compared a low energy house (4.75 GJ/m2 ) with a conven-
tional home (7.20 GJ/m2 ).
The embodied energy of a building is based upon both the quan-
tity and the energy intensity of each material used. Variations and
inconsistencies in the energy intensity of materials reported in
literature can be attributed to several factors. These factors are:
system boundaries, uncertainty in data collection, life cycle assess-
ment methods used for embodied energy calculation, geographic
location of the study area, climatic conditions, raw material qual-
ity, production processes, technology, economic data, fuel mix of
energy produced, transportation, age of data sources, source of data,
and completeness of data [7,15,23–27]. The need for standardiza-
tion is emphasized in order to reduce the challenges in assessing
the environmental effects of material production processes [8,7].
Buchanan and Honey [13] quantified energy use and emissions
of a house construction using different options for design and struc-
tural materials in New Zealand. This study concluded that the
embodied energy is of the same magnitude as that of the oper-
ational energy for a building service life of 25 years. A study by
Adalberth [28] on the life cycle energy use of three single-unit
dwellings shows that the energy required for on-site construction
processes (crane lifting, space heating on building site, excavation
and transportation of soil and materials) is approximately 1% of
total life cycle energy for a service life of 50 years.
The components of life cycle energy of a building is found to
be as follows: initial embodied energy (10–20%), operating energy
(80–90%) and demolition energy (less than 1%) [8,15–17,29,30]. The
construction energy (energy needed for production of materials
and on-site construction activities) is found to represent 10–20%
of the life cycle energy use. The energy use for on-site construction
could be significant at the aggregate level [31,32]. The construction
energy represents as high as 41% of the life cycle energy for an edu-
cational building located in North India [11]. However, energy use
of on-site construction is not considered in this study.
Progress towards energy efficiency in the operational phase
through advanced building envelope materials and high perform-
ing equipment increases the significance of embodied energy [6–8].
Studies on life cycle energy use of residential building shows that
building with added insulation reduces the operational energy
[9,33,34]. Selection of low embodied energy materials and pas-
sive measures at design phase decreases the life cycle energy of
a building [35,29]. Studies on the comparison of overall energy
use of low energy building and conventional building shows that
low energy building reduces the net energy demand with an
increase in the embodied energy. There is a possibility of reduc-
ing the embodied energy of materials by using recycled materials
[36,37].
Consideration of the local climatic condition along with the aes-
thetics at the design stage is important for the performance of
energy efficient building [38]. Use of single wall envelope for high
rise residential buildings in Indonesia was found to increase the
energy use by 60% compared to double walls envelope [39]. A study
of single family house in Brazil shows that the embodied energy
comprises 30% of the total life cycle energy, wherein both the recur-
ring energy (maintenance) and the initial embodied energy shares
are of equal magnitude [40].
A study on the comparison of different walling elements of a
residential building shows that increase in wall thickness and insu-
lation leads to reduction in the life cycle energy [9]. Another study

Table 1
Comparision of life cycle energy use studies.

Authors and year EE CE OE DE Area (m2 ) OE kWh/m2 /year LCE (kWh/m2 /year) Building life Country
span (years)
√ √
Buchanan and Honey (1994) × × 94 5.6–96 35–156 25 New Zealand
√ √ √ √
Adalberth (1997) 129–138 128–148 152–176 50 Sweden
√a √
Fay et al. (2000) × × 128 267–292 403–422 50 Australia
√a √ √
Pullen (2000) × 170 225 282 50 Australia
√a √ √
Utama and Gheewala (2008) × 55 76–86 87–92 40 Indonesia
√ √ √
Utama and Gheewala (2009) × 82 16–32 24–39 40 Indonesia
√a √ √ √
Paulsen and Sposto (2013) 48 97 137 50 Brazil
√ √ √ √
Keolean et al. (2001) 228 115–353 157–391 50 United States
√ √
Ramesh et al. (2012) × × 85.5 167–174 194–203 75 India
√ √
Ramesh et al. (2012) × × – 240–380 75 India
√a √
Mithraratne et al. (2004) × × 94 19–35 33–47 100 New Zealand

EE – embodied energy, CE – construction energy, OE – operating energy, DE – demolition energy, LCE – life cycle energy.
a
Embodied energy including recurring energy.
 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259
Table 2
Classification of housing [51].
Housing category Income class (INR Average apartment size
Million p.a.)
ft2 m2
Low income 0.2–0.5 400–800 37.2–74.3
Mid income 0.5–1.0 800–1000 74.3–92.9
Higher mid income 1.0–2.0 1000–1300 92.9–120.8
Higher income 2.0–5.0 1250–1750 116.1–162.6
Luxury 5.0+ 2500+ 232.3
shows a reduction of 5–30% of life cycle energy through the use
of insulation on roof and wall along with double glass windows
[10]. Incorporating PV panels and wind turbine in building leads
to reduction in the life cycle energy and increase in the embodied
energy. Habert et al. [41] compared the energy and power require-
ment for the construction and operation of two residential homes
located in Southern France. A stone masonry based home and a
concrete home were compared. These homes were found to be
comparable in terms of energy use. However, the power require-
ment for stone masonry home was found to be significantly lower
than the concrete home. Peuportier [42] compared the environ-
mental impacts of three types of residential buildings located in
France with different specifications for wall, roof, slab and insu-
lation. A comparison of studies related to life cycle energy use of
residential buildings is presented in Table 1.
3. Case study
The case study refers to a multi-storey residential build-
ing apartment located within the Indian Institute of Technology
Madras campus in the City of Chennai, India. Chennai is located
13.04◦ N 80.17◦ E on the southeast coast of India and is in the north-
east corner of Tamil Nadu. Among the five climatic zones namely,
hot and dry, hot and humid, moderate, cold and composite, Chennai
falls into hot and humid category. The temperature during summer
ranges from 35 to 40 ◦ C. This residential case study consists of four
blocks (building) and each block consists of a ground floor and six
floors above the ground floor. The ground floor is used as a common
parking space. Each floor has four identical homes and the usable
floor area per home is 112.15 m2 . There are 24 homes per block.
The total number of homes considering all four blocks is 96. There
are two lifts and two staircases in every block.
Table 2 presents the classification of housing based on home
size and income earned by occupants. This case study fits into the
Higher Mid-income housing category. Fig. 1 shows the floor plan
of one residential home considered in this study. The Work Break-
down Structure (WBS) of residential building construction is shown
in Fig. 2. The major components are structural frames, building
envelope, services, finishing and site work.
Building envelope comprises of all the walling elements. Exter-
nal, terrace parapet and utility walls are based on 230 mm cement
blocks and internal walls are based on 110 mm flyash block. Cement
mortar 1:4 of 10 mm thickness is used for building envelope. Ser-
vices include mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire fighting
related work. All sanitary items are considered suitably as per the
manufacturer’s specifications and bill of quantity. In the services
category, plumbing work is considered.
Finishing work comprises of plastering, painting and flooring
(tiling/granite fixing). Flooring involves the use of ceramic tiles.
Terrace flooring involves the use of lime concrete. Flooring for car
parking involves the use of 100 mm thick M25 grade concrete.
Kitchen cladding, platforms, windows sill and lift cladding uses
25 mm thick granite. All doors (frame and shutter) are provided
with 35 mm thick red padak and teak wood and windows frames
with 35 mm thick red padak wood. Celestial windows are based
249
on 6 mm thick glass and MS Grill. Cupboard shutters are based on
35 mm thick wood. The use of a variety of hardware such as hinges,
bolts, locks, handles, peephole and door chain has been considered.
Fire rated doors are not considered in this study.
On-site construction refers to construction equipment use and
transportation. This study considered the energy used by equip-
ment and transportation of materials. Energy use for transportation
of labour and equipment are not considered in the scope due to
data unavailability. Further, the energy used for site work such as
landscaping, road work and drainage work are not included in the
scope.
4. Methodology
The life cycle energy is determined by assessing the energy
used during the four major phases – production of materials, on-
site construction, building operation and the end-of-service life.
To estimate the energy used for the production of materials, the
building drawings and the specifications of building materials are
used. The bill of quantities and the bill of materials were prepared
based on both as-planned and as-built scenarios. Bill of materials
based on as-built scenario was used for calculating the embodied
energy of materials. Embodied energy calculation is carried out
using two sources namely, Indian data [43,20,22] and Inventory
of Carbon and Energy [44]. For items such as hardware, sanitary
items, pipes & accessories and MS Grills, embodied energy is cal-
culated by considering the material’s embodied energy. The energy
spent for manufacturing these components is not considered due to
lack of access to data. To assess the energy use during on-site con-
struction phase, all construction activities are listed and further
classified into equipment intensive and labour intensive activi-
ties. The physical energy expended by the construction worker is
not considered in this study. The energy use for transportation of
materials and construction equipment use were calculated based
on numerous field visits and meetings with site office person-
nel. Energy use for building operation per home was determined
by gathering the energy metre readings of 96 homes for about
21 months. Data corresponding to partial monthly occupation of
homes were excluded. A service life of 50 years is used for per-
forming life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) and sensitivity analysis.
LCEA is carried out in the form of primary energy use. It is assumed
that the building operational energy will be same throughout the
building life cycle though there may be variation from one year to
another year depending upon user behaviour, number of occupants,
and weather conditions. Energy used during the end-of-service life
refers to demolition/deconstruction, transportation of demolished
waste and land filling. It is tedious to predict the choice of methods
used for demolition, transportation and land filling after 50 years
of service life. Hence, it is assumed that the energy use of end-of-
service life will be 3% of the total initial embodied energy[6]. The
energy use for maintenance, repair, and renovation is not consid-
ered in this study.
5. Life cycle energy analysis (LCEA)
5.1. Production phase
The material flow summary for the construction of four resi-
dential blocks (96 homes) is presented in Table 3. The embodied
energy intensity of construction materials based on Indian data
and ICE database are compared in Table 4. Base case presented in
Table 4 is an adapted version of Indian data. The embodied energy
values of putty, iron, stainless steel, brass, nylon and porcelain in the
base case are based on ICE database. Items such as excavation for
trenches, drainage, piping and cable, lifts, atrium glazing, fire rated
250 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259

Fig. 1. Detailed floor plan of the residential home.

Table 3
Material flow by building component for four blocks (96 homes).

Building component Construction materials used Weight (kg)

Structural frames/concreting work (RCC, Cement 4,060,454.9

reinforcement, PCC and lime concrete) Sand 10,465,555.6
CA 17,219,981.7
Lime 1,444,680
Rebar 1,182,395.5
Building envelope (cement blocks and cement Cement 582,607.2
mortar) Sand 2,493,558.8
Cement block 6,991,286.4
Finishing (plastering, painting and tiling) Cement 772,561.2
Sand 2,919,161.9
Ceramic tile 428,731.4
Granite 207,628.2
Putty 210,196.8
Primer 13,679.9
Paint 31,608.5
Doors and windows (wood, hardware for doors Wood 88,445.1
and windows and MS Grills) Iron 296.5
Steel 25,321
Stainless steel 9450
Brass 1057.2
Nylon 43.4
Sanitary installations Iron 19,599.6
Porcelain 16,830
PVC 99.2
Glass 58.5
Pipes and accessories (plumbing and water Iron 17,120.2
pipes) Stainless steel 593.9
Brass 1117.4
PVC 1698.7
Steel work (tubes for atrium glazing and Steel 41,438
stainless steel accessories) Stainless steel 8731.9
 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259 251

Structural frames/RCC MEP works

Foundation
Plinth beam
Water Supply and Sanitary
Sub-structure Underground Sump for
installations
Recycled water
Pipes ( PVC/Cast iron/GI)
Underground sump for
Water Closet
general water
Oval wash basin
Pipes ( PVC/Cast iron/GI)
Mirror
Structural frames/RCC Others
Columns
Beams
Slabs Fire fighting
Lintel beams
Loft and shelves Electrical
Staircase
Shear wall Lifts
Balcony parapet walls
Fire tank
Lift machine room
Recycled water tank
Portable water tank Plastering
Car parking Internal walls
Internal Ceiling
External walls
Others
Building Envelope
Masonry work (230mm /
Super-structure 110mm walls)
Terrace parapet wall Doors, windows and
Residential Building celestial windows
Utility wall
Doors & window-wood frames
Doors-wood shutters
Windows-Glazed shutter
Services and others
Windows & balcony-MS grills
Stainless steel tubes bars
Hardwares and fixtures
Finishing

Steel work ( frames, guard

Transportation of bar ladder, railings atrium
materials to site glazing, balcony, staircase
Concrete and ladder railings)
Tiles
Cement Granite
Steel Hardware's
Sand Fixtures Painting
Blocks Paint Internal wall
Plaster of Paris Internal Ceiling
Structural steel External wall
Plumbing fittings Doors/windows-Primer
Doors & windows Melamine polish
Stainless steel
Sanitary Items Flooring
On-site All floors and terrace
construction Tiling/Granite work
Rooms
On-site Equipment Use Utility
Excavation Balcony
Backfilling Passage
Dewatering Toilet wall
Concrete pump & vibrator Toilet floor
Rebar cutting machine Staircase
Pump for concrete Kitchen Cladding
Tower Crane Wardrobe shelves
Material hoist Kitchen granite platforms,
SMC mixer windows sill, etc.
Lift cladding

Site work Culvert work

Road work
Drainage work
Landscape

Fig. 2. Work Breakdown Structure for residential building construction.

door, electrical wiring and fittings, fire protection related work,
road work surrounding the buildings, culvert and landscaping work
are not considered in the scope for calculation of embodied energy.
The embodied energy of formwork and shuttering is excluded since
they are reused for several projects.
The embodied energy analysis is carried out by using the Indian
data (base case) and ICE data. Table 5 presents the summary of
bill of materials, embodied energy calculation and the relative
contribution of each material. The material flow per unit floor area
is found to be 4.6 tonnes/m2 . Another study carried out in India
concludes that the material flow is 3.7 tonnes/m2 [22]. It is noted
that the two most significant materials are cement and steel. The
relative contribution of cement and steel (all types of steel) are
29– 32% and 37–39% respectively. Cement and steel together rep-
resent 66–71% of material-based embodied energy. The production
of steel and cement is found to be more energy intensive in India
252 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259

Table 4
Comparison of embodied energy of construction materials: India and UK.

S no. Description Embodied energy (MJ/kg)

Indian data ICE: Inventory of Base case

[20,22,43] Carbon and Energy [44]

1 Cement 5.9–7.8 (avg. 6.85) 4.6 6.85

2 Sand 0.1–0.2 (avg. 0.15 0.1 0.15
3 Coarse aggregates 0.4 0.1 0.4
4 Lime 5.63 5.3 5.63
5 Cement block 0.745 0.81 0.745
6 Rebar 28.2–42 (avg. 35.1) 24.6 35.1
7 Ceramic tile 3.33 9 3.33
8 Granite 1.08 13.9 1.08
9 Putty – 5.3 5.3
10 Primer 144 68 144
11 Paint 144 68 144
12 Wood 7.2 8.5 7.2
13 Iron – 25 25
14 Steel 28.2–42 (avg. 35.1) 24.4 35.1
15 Stainless steel – 56.7 56.7
16 Brass – 44 44
17 Nylon – 67.9 67.9
18 Porcelain – 29 29
19 PVC 104–108 (avg. 106) 67.5 106
20 Glass 25.8 15 25.8

Table 5
Bill of materials and embodied energy for four blocks (96 homes).

S no. Material Material flow Embodied energy

Weight (kg) Relative Base case ICE database

contribution (%)

EE (MJ) Relative EE (MJ) Relative

contribution contribution
(%) (%)

1 Cement 5,415,623.3 11 37,097,019.6 31.90 24,911,867.2 28.80

2 Fine aggregate 15,878,276.3 32 2,381,741.4 2.00 1,587,827.6 1.80
3 Coarse aggregate 17,219,981.7 35 6,934,393.8 6.00 1,721,998.2 2.00
4 Lime 1,444,680 3 8,133,548.4 7.00 7,656,804 8.80
5 Concrete block 6,991,286.4 14 5,208,508.4 4.50 5,662,942 6.50
6 Rebar 1,182,395.5 2 41,502,081 35.70 29,086,928.6 33.60
7 Ceramic tile 428,731.4 1 1,428,961.6 1.20 3,858,582.3 4.50
8 Granite 207,628.2 0.40 224,238.5 0.20 2,886,032.2 3.30
9 Putty 210,196.8 0.40 1,114,042.9 1.00 1,114,042.9 1.30
10 Primer 13,679.9 0.03 1,969,898.4 1.70 930,229.8 1.10
11 Paint 31,608.5 0.10 4,551,625.7 3.90 2,149,378.8 2.50
12 Wood 88,445.1 0.20 636,805 0.50 751,783.6 0.90
13 Iron 37,016.3 0.10 925,407.2 0.80 925,407.2 1.10
14 Steel 66,759 0.10 2,343,240.9 2.00 1,628,919.6 1.90
15 Stainless steel 18,775.8 0.04 1,064,587.1 0.90 1,064,587.1 1.20
16 Brass 2174.6 0.00 95,680.7 0.08 95,680.7 0.10
17 Nylon 43.4 0.00 2949.6 0.00 2949.6 0.00
18 Porcelain 16,830 0.03 488,070 0.40 488,070 0.60
19 PVC 1797.9 0.004 190,576.7 0.20 121,357.8 0.10
20 Glass 58.5 0.0001 1509.3 0.001 877.5 0.001
Total 49,255,989 100 116,294,886 100 86,646,267 100
Per unit floor area 4.6 tonne/m2 10.8 GJ/m2 8.1 GJ/m2

than UK. Similar analysis carried out in India [19] concluded that
brick, cement and steel are the three significant materials in the
building which contributes to about 85% of the material energy
used.
The embodied energy of construction materials is found to be
in the range of 8.1 GJ/m2 (ICE data) to 10.8 GJ/m2 (Indian data/base
case). Studies carried out in India earlier concluded that the embod-
ied energy is in the range of 4.21–7.2 GJ/m2 [19,20,22]. Studies
carried out in other countries report that the embodied energy val-
ues are in the range of 4.4–5.0 GJ/m2 [34], 8–10 GJ/m2 [45], and
7.0 GJ/m2 [37].
Table 6 presents the embodied energy analysis by building
component. It is found that the structural frames and concreting
work contribute about 74% of the embodied energy. Finishing and
building envelope represents 13% and 8% of the embodied energy
respectively. The structural frames, finishing and the building enve-
lope together represent about 95% of the embodied energy. Cole
and Kernan [6] concluded that the structure, envelope, finishes and
services represent about 88% of the embodied energy of a concrete
building. Pullen [35] shows that wall construction contributes to
about 36% of the total embodied energy and walls, services, internal
finish and roof contributes to about 82%.
5.2. On-site construction phase
On-site construction phase can be classified into three types
such as activities that happen at site, off-site construction (e.g. pre-
fabrication and batching plant) and extended supply chain. On-site
 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259
Table 6
Embodied energy by building component (base case).
Building component Embodied Relative
energy (MJ) contribution (%)
Structural frames and 85,953,972.6 73.9
other concreting
work (RCC, rebar,
PCC and lime
concrete)
Building Envelope 9,573,401.6 8.2
(cement blocks,
cement mortar)
Finishing (plastering, 15,018,685.8 12.9
painting, tiling)
Doors and windows 2,118,264.2 1.8
(wood, Hardware for
doors and windows
and MS Grills)
Sanitary installations 990,083.5 0.9
Pipes and accessories 690,904.0 0.6
(plumbing and water
pipes)
Steel work (tubes for 1,949,574.8 1.7
atrium glazing and
stainless steel
accessories)
construction includes energy use for equipment intensive activi-
ties at site. This includes excavation, concreting, transportation of
material to the site as well as within the site, use of tower crane,
water use, waste generation, electricity and fuel use by different
construction equipment. Off-site construction includes the trans-
portation of material from the supplier to site, transportation of
workers, and transportation of equipment. Extended supply chain
refers to energy spent in the manufacturing of equipment required
for construction process, transportation as well as manufacturing
equipment. The direct energy associated with construction pro-
cesses constitute about 7–10% of the total initial embodied energy.
Process LCA is used to determine the energy use of on-site
construction activities. A process model of all equipment inten-
sive construction activities was created. This model described the
sequence of various construction activities. The listed activities are
classified into equipment intensive activities and labour intensive
activities. The type of resources used for every activity (equip-
ment, worker, material, fuel, and electricity) was documented. The
physical energy expended by the construction worker is not con-
sidered. Table 7 presents a detailed summary of energy use for
on-site construction equipment. The equipment intensive activi-
ties considered are excavation, backfilling, cutting and bending of
reinforcement, lifting using tower crane and builders hoist, con-
creting (mixing, transportation using transit mixer, lifting using
pump and compaction). The field data collection was completed
using two sources: data log/records maintained by the contractor
and interviews with project site engineers responsible for manag-
ing day-to-day operations. It was found that the concreting work
in this project use approximately 50% ready-mix concrete sup-
plied from a nearby batching plant and 50% site-mixed concrete.
The fuel source of construction equipment such as concrete mixer
and tower crane varies from one project site to another. For exam-
ple, both electric-powered and diesel-powered concrete mixers are
used in practice. Based on the feedback provided by site engineers,
it is assumed that approximately 50% of site-mixed concrete is
produced using diesel-powered concrete mixer and the remaining
quantity is produced using electric-powered concrete mixer. For
pouring/lifting of concrete, it is assumed that ready-mixed concrete
is lifted using concrete pump and site-mixed concrete is lifted using
tower crane. Concrete pump operating time is same as the operat-
ing time of the compaction equipment assuming that there are two
vibrators used in parallel. For lifting of material, it is assumed that
253
tower crane is used for site-mixed concrete, lime concrete for ter-
race floor, reinforcement steel, 10% of the block for envelope/walls,
MS Grills for windows and structural steel for atrium glazing. All
other remaining items are considered to be lifted using material
hoist. These include cement, fine aggregate, 90% of the block for
envelope/walls, wood for doors and windows, hardware – hinges,
bolts, locks, handles, peephole, door chain, etc., ceramic tile, gran-
ite/marble, wall putty, paint, primer, sanitary items, stainless steel,
pipes and accessories.
Among the off-site construction processes, only the transporta-
tion of materials is considered. The energy used for mixing the
concrete and transportation from the plant to site are considered
for ready-mixed concrete. For site-mixed concrete, the energy use
for transportation of cement, fine aggregate and coarse aggregates
from the manufacturer to site and the mixing of concrete at site
are considered. Appropriate truck size and truck fuel mileage are
assumed. Table 8 presents the summary of energy use calcula-
tion for transportation of materials. The extended supply chain
related processes are not considered in this study. The transporta-
tion of equipment and construction workers to site, the temporary
structures like scaffolding/formwork, construction of site office
and material storage yard, electricity use to support site office,
wastages, installation of tower crane and builders hoist, water use
for construction and transportation of water are not included in the
scope due to lack of data.
The total energy use for on-site construction (equipment use and
transportation of material) is found to be 14,073 GJ, i.e. 1.31 GJ/m2 .
The energy use for on-site construction represents about 11% of
the total initial embodied energy (transportation energy – 7% and
equipment use – 4%). The energy use in terms of electricity and
diesel are then converted into primary energy by using a factor of
3.4 [33] and 1.2 respectively [46,47].
The on-site construction energy for residential buildings
reported in other countries are: 0.18–0.27 GJ/m2 [28], 0.23 GJ/m2
[35], 0.146–0.172 GJ [38] and 0.86–0.88 GJ [39]. Cole [48] shows that
the construction energy for a concrete structure is 11–25% (includ-
ing worker transportation) of the total initial embodied energy.
Due to lack of data, some studies have considered only trans-
portation for calculation of on-site energy. Moreover, several
studies have approximated the energy use during the construction
phase by considering that the on-site construction and demolition
phases consume less than 1% of the total life cycle energy [9–11].
5.3. Operation phase
To determine the average actual operational energy used per
home per month, data from energy metres of four blocks (96
homes) was gathered for a period of 21 months. Some homes
were handed over to home owners in the middle of a month.
Hence, energy use for those months corresponding to partial occu-
pation of homes was excluded from the data set. The operational
energy depends on the user behaviour and the number of occu-
pants. It is important to note that the residential homes considered
in this study are not centrally air-conditioned. Among 96 homes
considered, some homes are partially air-conditioned and there
are homes which are not air-conditioned at all. Hence, opera-
tional energy depends on lighting, ventilation, and partial or no
air-conditioning. These 96 homes have same usable floor area
i.e. 112.15 m2 per home. Table 9 presents the summary of 1852
data points corresponding to 96 homes. The average operational
energy used by the occupants per home per month is found to be
320 kWh. This corresponds to 0.42 GJ/m2 /year in the form of pri-
mary energy. It is found that the operational energy determined in
this study closely matches with the finding of Adalberth [28] which
is 0.46–0.53 GJ/m2 /year. It is important to note that the immediate
outdoor environment surrounding a building block influence the
254 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259

Table 7
Energy use for on-site construction equipment operation.

S. no. On-site construction activities Quantity Fuel/electricity use rate Total Unit

1 Excavation 4385 cu.m. 0.36 L/cu.m. 1578.6 Litres

2 Backfilling 3329 cu.m. 0.2 L/cu.m. 665.8 Litres
Total quantity of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) 10,746 cu.m.
3 RCC production at batching plant (50%) 5373 cu.m. 2 kWh/cu.m. 10,746 kWh
4 RCC – site mixed concrete (50%) 5373 cu.m.
4a Site mixed concrete (diesel powered concrete mixer – 50%) 2686.5 cu.m. 0.5 L/cu.m. 1343.3 Litres
4b Site mixed concrete (electricity powered concrete mixer – 50%) 2686.5 cu.m. 3.5 kWh/cu.m. 9403 kWh
5 Total quantity of PCC 1275 cu.m.
5a Site mixed concrete (diesel powered concrete mixer – 50%) 637.5 cu.m. 0.5 L/cu.m. 318.8 Litres
5b Site mixed concrete (diesel powered concrete mixer – 50%) 637.5 cu.m. 3.5 kWh/cu.m. 2231 kWh
6 Pouring/lifting of concrete
Concrete pump for lifting RMC 5373 cu.m. 0.42 L/cu.m. 2256.7 Litres
7 Compaction
7a Compaction using vibrator (RCC) 10,746 cu.m. 0.21 L/cu.m. 2256.7 Litres
7b Compaction using vibrator (PCC) 1275 cu.m. 0.21 L/cu.m. 267.8 Litres
8 Rebar/Reinforcement
8a Cutting machine 1182 MT 1 kWh/MT 1182 kWh
8b Bending machine 1182 MT 1 kWh/MT 1182 kWh
9 Lifting of material (material hoist) 14,896.5 MT 3.1 kWh/MT 46,179 kWh
10 Lifting of material (tower crane)
10a Concrete 8262.5 cu.m.
Concrete (diesel powered tower crane – 50%) 4131.25 cu.m. 6 L/cu.m. 24,787.5 Litres
Concrete (electricity powered tower crane – 50%) 4131.25 cu.m. 20 kWh/cum 82,625 kWh
10b Steel and others 8240.4 MT
Diesel powered tower crane – 50% 4120.2 MT 6 L/MT 24,721.2 Litres
Electricity powered tower crane – 50% 4120.2 MT 10 kWh/MT 41,202 kWh
Total fuel use (diesel) 58,196 Litres
Total electricity use 194,750 kWh
Total primary energy 4,846,827 MJ

Note: 1 L diesel = 35.27 MJ; 1 kWh electricity = 3.6 MJ; factors for converting secondary energy into primary energy: 1.2 (diesel), 3.4 (electricity).

operational energy. Although the residential building considered
in this study, is located within the Chennai City, it is located in an
area with lot of greenery. The annual operating energy of a compa-
rable building that is located in a dense urban setting (surrounded
by several other buildings) would be different from this case study
due to urban heat island effect.
5.4. Life cycle energy
The life cycle energy of a building refers to the sum of initial
embodied energy (materials and on-site construction), recur-
ring embodied energy, operation energy and demolition energy.
Table 10 presents the summary of life cycle energy for the

Table 8
Energy use for transportation of materials.

S no. Materials Quantity Unit Capacity of trucks Unit No of trips One way travel Fuel use (diesel in
distance (km) litres)

1 Cement 3,385,396 kg 200 bags 339 297 57,455

2 Sand/FA 11,884,788 kg 12 cu.m. 619 50 17,686
3 CA 10,930,498 kg 12 cu.m. 695 13 5073
4 Rebar/Reinforcement 1,182,395 kg 12 tonnes 99 997 56,136
5 Lime 1,444,680 kg 200 bags 144 418 34,507
6 Cement block 6,991,286 kg 10 cu.m. 388 20 4439
7 Woodworks 149 cu.m. 10 cu.m. 15 319 2721
8 Hardware 10,847 kg 4 490 1120
9 Ceramics Tile 428,731 kg 10 tonnes 43 287 7023
10 Granite/marble 207,628 kg 10 cum 8 348 1501
11 Sanitary item 36,587 kg 10 tonnes 4 735 1680
12 MS Grills 25,321 kg 10 tonnes 4 605 1383
13 Steel 41,438 kg 10 tonnes 4 605 1433
14 Stainless steel 8732 kg 10 tonnes 4 605 1383
15 Ready mix concrete 25,321 cu.m. 6 cu.m. 923 21 9627
16 Transportation of 4385 cu.m. 6 cu.m. 731 4 1462
excavated earth
17 Wall putty 210,197 kg 200 bags 21 1808 12,668
18 Paint 31,609 kg 10 tonnes 3 75 79
19 Primer for woodwork 13,680 kg 10 tonnes 4 75 100
and painting
20 Pipes and accessories 20,530 kg 6 tonnes 4 400 533
Total fuel use (litres) 218,008
Total primary energy use for transportation of materials (MJ) 9,226,971

Note: (1) 1 L diesel = 35.27 MJ; factors for converting secondary energy into primary energy: 1.2. (2) Truck mileage for Item number (1–14) as 3.5 km/L; Item number (15–16)
as 4 km/L; Item number (17–20) as 6 km/L.
 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259 255

Table 9 per year when the service life increases (when the recurring energy
Energy use for operational phase.
is not considered).
S No Electricity use Number of Percentage (%) Previous studies on residential buildings report that the relative
(kWh per month samples contribution of construction (embodied) energy and the opera-
per home)
tional energy is in the range of 10–20% and 80–90% respectively for
1 31–100 72 4 a building life cycle of 50 years [28,8,29]. A recent study of a school
2 101–200 493 27 building finds that the construction energy and the operational
3 201–300 537 29
energy represent 41% and 59% of the life cycle energy respectively
4 301–400 281 15
5 401–500 190 10 [11]. It is important to note that the construction energy would
6 501–600 110 6 increase with the service life when the recurring energy required
7 601–700 67 4 for maintenance, repair and replacement is also considered. Other
8 701–800 38 2
studies on residential buildings show that the life cycle energy use
9 801–900 28 2
10 901–1000 15 1 is 0.12–0.56 GJ/m2 /year [13] and 0.08–0.12 GJ/m2 /year [49]. Study
11 1001–1788 21 1 of an air-conditioned residential building with fire clay external
Total number of samples 1852 walls shows that the life cycle energy use ranges from 0.69 to
0.73 GJ/m2 /year for a service life of 75 years [9]. Table 11 presents a
comparison of embodied energy, operational energy and life cycle
energy of this case study with other residential building case stud-
ies reported in the literature [50,8,35].
residential development consisting of 96 homes. For a building
service life of 50 years, the relative contribution of construction and
operation energy is found to be 36% and 63% of the life cycle energy 6. Discussion
respectively. Sensitivity analysis has been performed to study the
influence of service life on life cycle energy use and the relative Sensitivity analysis was performed to study the influence of vari-
magnitude of production, on-site construction and the operational ation in operational energy and service life on the total life cycle
energy. Three service life periods have been considered namely 50 energy. The operational energy is varied from 80 to 2000 kWh per
years, 75 years and 100 years. It is noted that the decrease in the home per month and the service life is varied from 50 to 100 years.
service life of the building increases the relative contribution of Table 12 presents the summary of test cases and the total life cycle
construction energy. When the service life varies from 100 years to energy for each test case. Case-1 refers to the average electricity use
50 years, the relative contribution of construction energy increases (320 kWh per home per month) based on 1852 samples gathered.
from 22% to 36% with respect to life cycle energy. Energy needed Case-2 refers to 50% energy efficiency with respect to Case-1. Case-
for building operation is found to be in the range of 62–77% of life 3 refers to 75% energy efficiency with respect to Case-1. Details of
cycle energy. Demolition energy is found to be about 1% of life cycle other test cases are presented in Table 12. Fig. 3 shows the influence
energy. of operational energy on the relative contribution of construction
To obtain the energy per unit floor area, the total energy energy and operational energy for a service life of 50 years. The ‘X’
presented in Table 10 is divided by the number of homes (96 axis in Fig. 3 shows the variation in the monthly electricity use per
homes) and the floor area per home (112.15 m2 ). Considering home. The primary ‘Y’ axis shows the construction energy as a per-
a service life of 50 years, the construction energy, operational centage of life cycle energy (represented by label ‘+’). The secondary
energy and life cycle energy is found to be 12.1 GJ/m2 , 20.9 GJ/m2 ‘Y’ axis shows the operational energy as a percentage of life cycle
(0.42 GJ/m2 /year), and 33.4 GJ/m2 . The life cycle energy use per unit energy (represented by label ‘’). It is observed that the relative
floor area is 0.66 GJ/m2 /year, 0.58 GJ/m2 /year and 0.54 GJ/m2 /year contribution of construction energy increases when the monthly
for a service life of 50 years, 75 years and 100 years respectively. electricity use per home decreases. The intersections of these two
There is a decrease in the life cycle energy use per unit floor area curves represent an equilibrium point where the contribution of

Table 10
Influence of service life on life cycle energy use (for four blocks consisting of 96 homes).

Life cycle phase Influence of service life

50 years 75 years 100 years

Energy (MJ) Relative Energy (MJ) Relative Energy (MJ) Relative

contribution (%) contribution (%) contribution (%)

Production 116,294,886 32.3 116,294,886 24.6 116,294,886 20

On-site construction 14,073,798 3.9 14,073,798 3 14,073,798 2.4
Operation 225,607,680 62.7 338,411,520 71.6 451,215,360 77
Demolition 3,911,061 1.1 3,911,061 0.8 3,911,061 0.7
Total LCE (MJ) 359,887,425 100 472,691,265 100 585,495,105 100

Table 11
Comparison of life cycle energy use with earlier studies.

Size (built-up area in m2 ) Embodied energy (kWh/m2 ) Operational Energy (kWh/m2 /year) Life cycle energy (kWh/m2 /year) Life span (years)

91 2850 194–208 252–265 50

96–120 450–4550 12–333 51–424 50
120–163 1150–3150 167–333 190–388 50
This case study 3363.5 116.42 185.72 50
164–228 700–4750 44–417 63–512 50
>236 800–4000 62–330 78–357 50

Source: [50,8,35]
256 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259

Table 12
Influence of operational energy and service life on total life cycle energy.

Test cases Operational energy (kWh per month per home) Total life cycle energy (primary energy kWh/m2 /year)

50 years service life 75 years service life 100 years service life

Case 1: base case 320 186 163 151

Case 2: 50% efficiency of base 160 127 104 93
case
Case 3: 75% efficiency of base 80 98 75 64
case
Case 4: average electricity use 380 208 184 173
during summer (April to July
for 2 years
Case 5: average electricity use 257 163 140 128
during winter (October to
February for 2 years)
Case 6 500 251 228 217
Case 7 1000 433 410 398
Case 8 1500 615 592 580
Case 9: maximum energy use 1788 720 697 685
based on collected samples
Case 10 2000 797 774 762

Note: 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ; multiplication factor to convert electricity use from secondary to primary energy: 3.4.

Fig. 3. Relative contribution of construction and operational energy (service life = 50

Fig. 5. Relative contribution of construction and operational energy (service
years).
life = 100 years).

construction and operational energy is same with respect to life

cycle energy. This equilibrium point corresponds to 185 kWh per
home per month for 50 years service life. Figs. 4 and 5 show similar
plots for a building service life of 75 and 100 years. Figs. 3–5 indi-
cate that reduction in the service life and reduction in the monthly
electricity use per home increases the significance of construction
energy with respect to life cycle energy.
The relation between the operational energy and life cycle
energy is found to be linear. However, the consideration of recur-
ring energy may change the type of relationship between the life
cycle energy and operational energy. Due to lack of data, recurring

Fig. 4. Relative contribution of construction and operational energy (service life = 75 Fig. 6. Relation between construction energy and operational energy (50 years
years). service life).
 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259
Fig. 7. Relationship among home size, embodied energy and operational energy.
Source: 115 samples compiled from [40,50,8,35].
energy is not considered in this study. It is observed that increase
in the operating energy increases the total life cycle energy use,
however it decreases the average life cycle energy use per year per
unit floor area.
The findings of sensitivity analysis are summarized in Fig. 6. The
test cases are classified into three groups based on the electricity
used per home per month: Group-1 consisting of test cases 2 and 3
(less than 200 kWh/month/home), Group-2 consisting of test cases
1, 4, 5 and 6 (200–500 kWh/month/home) and Group-3 consist-
ing of test cases 7, 8, 9 and 10 (1000–2000 kWh/month/home). The
construction energy is in the range of 50–70% of life cycle energy
for Group-1. For Group-2, the construction energy is in the range of
20–50%. The construction energy is less than 20% of life cycle energy
for Group-3. The operational energy is in the range of 80–90% for
Group-3, 50–80% for Group-2 and less than 50% for Group-1. When
the electricity consumption is 80 kWh per home per month (refers
257
to 75% energy efficiency compared to base case), there is a sig-
nificant change in the relative proportion of construction energy
(68% of life cycle energy) and operational energy (30% of life cycle
energy).
7. Comparision with previous studies
Findings of previous studies related to life cycle energy of res-
idential building were compiled from [50,40,8,35]. A total of 115
samples were compiled from these three studies. The size of the
building ranges from 48 to 1520 m2 . Fig. 7 shows the relation-
ship among home size, embodied energy and operational energy.
Fig. 7(a) shows the relation between home size and embodied
energy. It is found that the home size for 60% of samples is less
than 200 m2 . The embodied energy for these samples ranges from
9 to 66 kWh/m2 /year and the operating energy ranges from 12
to 353 kWh/m2 /year. Fig. 7(b) shows the relation between home
size and operational energy. Fig. 7(c) shows the relation between
embodied energy and operating energy. There is an increase in the
operating energy when the embodied energy per unit area per year
increases.
When the embodied energy is less than 30 kWh/m2 /year, the
relation between operating energy and embodied energy is found
to be linear. When the embodied energy is in the range of
30–60 kWh/m2 /year, there are two types of relation. For the sam-
ples that correspond to top curve, the home size is between 1404
and 1484 m2 wherein the energy required for operating the home
for 8 years is equivalent to the energy required for constructing
the home. For the samples that correspond to bottom curve, the
home size ranges from 48 to 200 m2 wherein the energy required
for operating the home for 10–16 years is equivalent to the energy
required for constructing the home.
8. Summary and conclusions
There is a need to consider the energy use due to on-site con-
struction such as transportation to site and construction equipment
use in the life cycle energy use analysis of residential buildings.
Often the energy use due to on-site construction is either ignored or
approximated due to challenges in gathering accurate data related
to site work. Life cycle energy analysis considering on-site construc-
tion in addition to materials and building operation promotes the
concept of life cycle thinking and helps to evaluate the building
performance in a holistic manner. A case study on life cycle energy
use of higher-mid income multi-storey family housing located in
Southern India is presented including on-site construction pro-
cesses. The residential building consists of four blocks and a total of
96 identical apartment-type homes. The usable floor area per home
is 112.15 m2 .
The material flow of the residential building is 4.6 tonnes/m2 .
In terms of total weight, coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, con-
crete blocks and cement are found to be significant among all
materials. This implies that the energy use for transportation of
these four materials to site would be significant compared to other
materials. Embodied energy due to building materials is in the
range of 8.1–10.8 GJ/m2 . The two most significant materials are
cement and all forms of steel and iron. Cement represent 28–32%
of energy due to construction materials. All forms of steel and iron
represent 38–40% of embodied energy of materials. The other sig-
nificant materials are lime, coarse aggregates, cement blocks, paint
and tiles. Analysis by building component indicates that structural
frames, building envelope and finishing work represent 74%, 8% and
13% of total embodied energy of materials. The energy use for on-
site construction processes is found to be 1.31 GJ/m2 . Energy use for
on-site construction represents 11% of the total embodied energy
258 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259
due to initial construction. Transportation and construction equip-
ment use represent about 7% and 4% of initial embodied energy
respectively.
The average operational energy used by the end-user is found to
be 320 kWh per home per month based on 1852 samples gathered
over a period of 2 years. In terms of primary energy, this corre-
sponds to 116 kWh/m2 /year (0.42 GJ/m2 /year). Analysis of life cycle
energy indicates that the production of materials, on-site construc-
tion processes, building operation and demolition represents 32%,
4%, 63% and 1% of life cycle energy for 50 years building service
life. The construction energy represents 36% of life cycle energy
when the building service life of 50 years and average operational
energy use is considered. The life cycle energy ranges from 0.66
to 0.54 GJ/m2 /year when the building service life varies from 50 to
100 years. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to study the influ-
ence of change in the monthly energy use per home on the relative
significance of construction energy. When the energy efficiency of
operational phase is in the range of 50–75% compared to the base
case, the construction energy represents as high as 50–70% of life
cycle energy. The construction energy represents anywhere from
10% to 70% of life cycle energy depending upon variation in the
operational energy.
The relative significance of construction energy would be much
higher if the items that are not included in the scope with respect to
materials and on-site construction are taken into account. It is con-
cluded that the construction energy is as important as operational
energy in case of three scenarios: (a) residential buildings with par-
tial or no air-conditioning, (b) the energy efficiency of operational
phase reaches 50–75% of operational energy of a conventional case
and (c) reduced building service life period.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Chairman and
the staff members of Engineering Unit at IIT Madras for their sup-
port. The information provided by different contractors involved
in this project is gratefully acknowledged. The financial support
provided by the Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research of
Indian Institute of Technology Madras via a seed grant (no. CIE/11-
12/549/NFSC/SIVK) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] UNEP-Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative, Buildings and Climate
Change: Summary for Decision-Makers, UNEP, DTIE, Paris, France, 2009.
[2] J. Parikh, M. Panda, A.G. Kumar, V. Singh, CO2 emissions structure of Indian
economy, Energy 34 (2009) 1024–1031.
[3] R. Spence, H. Mulligan, Sustainable development and the construction industry,
Habitat International 19 (3) (1995) 279–292.
[4] A. Horvath, Construction materials and the environment, Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 29 (2004) 181–204.
[5] O. Ortiz, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the construction indus-
try: a review of recent developments based on LCA, Construction and Building
Materials 23 (2009) 28–39.
[6] R.J. Cole, P.C. Kernan, Life cycle energy use in office buildings, Building and
Environment 31 (4) (1996) 307–314.
[7] M.K. Dixit, J.L.F. Solis, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Identification of parameters for embod-
ied energy measurement: a literature review, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010)
1238–1247.
[8] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings – an
overview, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 1592–1600.
[9] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of a residen-
tial building with different envelopes and climates in Indian context, Applied
Energy 89 (2012) 193–202.
[10] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K. Shukla, Life cycle approach in evaluating energy per-
formance of residential buildings in Indian context, Energy and Buildings 54
(2012) 259–265.
[11] A. Varun Sharma, V. Shree, H. Nautiyal, Life cycle environmental assessment of
an educational building in Northern India: a case study, Sustainable Cities and
Society 4 (2012) 22–28.
[12] MoUHPA – Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation CT Report on
estimation of urban housing shortage, in: Ministry of Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation, 11th Five Year Plan: 2007–2012, Government of India,
2007.
[13] A.H. Buchanan, B.G. Honey, Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building
construction, Energy and Buildings 20 (1994) 205–217.
[14] A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa, Energy and environmental indicators related to con-
struction of office buildings, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008)
86–95.
[15] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy assessment of a typical office
building in Thailand, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 1076–1083.
[16] C. Scheuer, A.K. Keoleian, R. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environmental
performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1049–1064.
[17] S. Junnila, A. Horvath, A.A. Guggemos, Life-cycle assessment of office buildings
in Europe and the United States, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 12 (1) (2006)
10–17.
[18] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling
home in Scotland, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1391–1394.
[19] A. Debnath, S.V. Singh, Y.P. Singh, Comparative assessment of energy require-
ments for different types of residential buildings in India, Energy and Buildings
23 (1995) 141–146.
[20] B.V.V. Reddy, K.S. Jagadish, Embodied energy of common and alternative build-
ing materials and technologies, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 129–137.
[21] P.S. Chani, Najamuddin, S.K. Kaushik, Comparative analysis of embodied energy
rates for walling elements in India, IE (I) Journal 84 (2003) 47–50.
[22] A. Shukla, G.N. Tiwari, M.S. Sodha, Embodied energy analysis of adobe house,
Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 755–761.
[23] M.K. Dixit, J.L.F. Solis, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Need for an embodied energy mea-
surement protocol for buildings: a review paper, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 3730–3743.
[24] N.J. Santero, E. Masanet, A. Horvath, Life-cycle assessment of pavements.
Part I: critical review, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011)
801–809.
[25] S. Kara, S. Manmek, C. Herrmann, Global manufacturing and the embodied
energy of products, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 59 (2010) 29–32.
[26] R.J. Cole, D. Rousseau, Environmental auditing for building construction, Build-
ing and Environment 4 (1992) 23–30.
[27] J. Monahan, J.C. Powell, An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 179–188.
[28] K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: exam-
ples, Building and Environment 32 (4) (1997) 321–329.
[29] G. Keoleian, S. Blanchard, P. Reppe, Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies for
improving a single-family house, Journal of Industrial Ecology 4 (2) (2001)
135–156.
[30] K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method, Building
and Environment 32 (4) (1997) 317–320.
[31] M. Bilec, R. Ries, H.S. Matthews, A.L. Sharrard, Example of a hybrid life-cycle
assessment of construction processes, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 12 (4)
(2006) 207–215.
[32] A.A. Guggemos, A. Horvath, Decision-support tool for assessing the environ-
mental effects of constructing commercial buildings, Journal of Architectural
Engineering 12 (4) (2006) 187–195.
[33] R. Fay, G. Treloar, U. Iyer-Raniga, Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case
study, Building Research and Information 28 (1) (2000) 31–41.
[34] N. Mithraratne, B. Vale, Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses,
Building and Environment 39 (2004) 483–492.
[35] S.F. Pullen, Energy used in the construction and operation of houses, Architec-
tural Science Review 43 (2000) 87–94.
[36] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
energy buildings, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 249–257.
[37] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle-its embodied energy, energy
need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment 37 (2002)
429–435.
[38] A. Utama, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy of single landed houses in Indonesia,
Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1911–1916.
[39] A. Utama, S.H. Gheewala, Indonesian residential high rise buildings: a life cycle
energy assessment, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 1263–1268.
[40] J.S. Paulsen, R.M. Sposto, A life cycle energy analysis of social housing in brazil:
case study for the program “MY HOUSE MY LIFE”, Energy and Buildings 57
(2013) 95–102.
[41] G. Habert, E. Castillo, E. Vincens, J.C. Morel, Power: a new paradigm for energy
use in sustainable construction, Ecological Indicators 23 (2012) 109–115.
[42] B.L. Peuportier, Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of
single family houses in the French context, Energy and Buildings 33 (5) (2001)
443–450.
[43] Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMPTC), Development
Alternatives: Energy Directory of Building Materials, BMPTC, New Delhi, 1995.
[44] G. Hammond, C. Jones, Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), Version 1.6a,
University of BATH, United Kingdom, 2008.
[45] M. Suzuki, T. Oka, K. Okada, The estimation of energy consumption and CO2
emission due to housing construction in Japan, Energy and Buildings 22 (1995)
165–169.
[46] A. Barber, A. Campbell, W. Hennessy, Embodied fossil energy and net green-
house gas emissions from biodiesel made from New Zealand tallow. Report
prepared for the energy efficiency conservation authority, CRL Energy Ltd.,
Wellington, 2007.
 P.D. L., S. Palaniappan / Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259 259

[47] A. Barber, New Zealand fuel and electricity total primary energy and life cycle
greenhouse gas emission factors 2010, www.agrilink.co.nz, in: Life Cycle Man-
agement – Carbon – Energy – Water – Soil, 2011.
[48] R.J. Cole, Energy and green house gas emissions associated with the
construction of alternative systems, Building and Environment 34 (1999)
335–348.
[49] I.M. Johnstone, Energy and mass flows of housing: a model and example, Build-
ing and Environment 36 (1) (2001) 27–41.
[50] B. Berggren, M. Hall, M. Wall, LCE analysis of buildings – taking the step towards
net zero energy buildings, Energy and Buildings 62 (2013) 381–391.
[51] KPMG India (2010). Affordable housing – A key growth driver in the real estate
sector? Technical report, KPMG India, Mumbai.