Home / Current Issue / Paper 1720253
Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment of Green Construction Strategies in a Hot-Dry Climate: A Comparative Study of an Institutional Building in Jaipur, India
Subject area: Science,Engineering and Technology · Area of research: Civil Engineering
DOI: https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV10I1-1720253
Abstract
Green-building ratings encourage energy, water and material efficiency, but they do not by themselves quantify whether environmental burdens are reduced across the complete building life cycle. This study presents a comparative whole-building life cycle assessment for a four-storey, 6,000 m² academic building in Jaipur, India. Three functionally equivalent scenarios are assessed over 60 years: a conventional code-aligned building (CB), a green building (GB), and a circular-green building (CGB). The system boundary covers product stages A1–A3, transport A4, construction A5, replacements B4, operational energy B6, operational water B7, end of life C1–C4, and benefits beyond the boundary in Module D. The method follows ISO 14040/14044 principles and the RICS whole-life-carbon reporting structure. Inventory quantities, operational demand, photovoltaic generation, water use, replacement cycles and recovery assumptions are integrated in a reproducible scenario model. The central whole-life global warming potential is 22,544, 12,286 and 6,393 tCO₂e for CB, GB and CGB, equivalent to 3757, 2048 and 1066 kgCO₂e/m². GB and CGB reduce whole-life GWP by 45.5% and 71.6%, respectively. Structural material specification reduces upfront carbon, while lower electricity demand, rooftop PV, and water efficiency dominate use-stage improvements. CGB also reduces modeled primary energy, freshwater use, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation and landfill waste by 40–65% relative to CB. A 5,000-run Monte Carlo analysis gives a median CGB reduction of 71.3% and a 100.0% probability of exceeding 50%. The comparative outcome remains favorable under uncertainty, although grid decarbonization, operational performance and product-specific GWP factors materially affect magnitude. The study demonstrates how whole-building LCA can convert a general green-building objective into stage-specific carbon budgets, procurement priorities and post-occupancy verification requirements.
Keywords
Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment, Green Building; Sustainable Construction, Embodied Carbon, Operational Carbon, Circular Economy, GRIHA, Jaipur
How to cite this paper
@article{1720253,
author = {Vijay Saini, Sunil Kumar, Anshika Yadav, Ashutosh Luhania},
title = {Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment of Green Construction Strategies in a Hot-Dry Climate: A Comparative Study of an Institutional Building in Jaipur, India},
journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
year = {2026},
volume = {10},
number = {1},
pages = {3384-3404},
issn = {2456-8880},
url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1720253.pdf},
abstract = {Green-building ratings encourage energy, water and material efficiency, but they do not by themselves quantify whether environmental burdens are reduced across the complete building life cycle. This study presents a comparative whole-building life cycle assessment for a four-storey, 6,000 m² academic building in Jaipur, India. Three functionally equivalent scenarios are assessed over 60 years: a conventional code-aligned building (CB), a green building (GB), and a circular-green building (CGB). The system boundary covers product stages A1–A3, transport A4, construction A5, replacements B4, operational energy B6, operational water B7, end of life C1–C4, and benefits beyond the boundary in Module D. The method follows ISO 14040/14044 principles and the RICS whole-life-carbon reporting structure. Inventory quantities, operational demand, photovoltaic generation, water use, replacement cycles and recovery assumptions are integrated in a reproducible scenario model. The central whole-life global warming potential is 22,544, 12,286 and 6,393 tCO₂e for CB, GB and CGB, equivalent to 3757, 2048 and 1066 kgCO₂e/m². GB and CGB reduce whole-life GWP by 45.5% and 71.6%, respectively. Structural material specification reduces upfront carbon, while lower electricity demand, rooftop PV, and water efficiency dominate use-stage improvements. CGB also reduces modeled primary energy, freshwater use, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation and landfill waste by 40–65% relative to CB. A 5,000-run Monte Carlo analysis gives a median CGB reduction of 71.3% and a 100.0% probability of exceeding 50%. The comparative outcome remains favorable under uncertainty, although grid decarbonization, operational performance and product-specific GWP factors materially affect magnitude. The study demonstrates how whole-building LCA can convert a general green-building objective into stage-specific carbon budgets, procurement priorities and post-occupancy verification requirements.},
keywords = {Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment, Green Building; Sustainable Construction, Embodied Carbon, Operational Carbon, Circular Economy, GRIHA, Jaipur},
month = {July},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV10I1-1720253}
}