Life Cycle Assessment 

and Environmental Building 

Declaration for the Design 

Building at the University of 

Massachusetts

Hongmei Gu

Richard Bergman

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest

Service

Forest Products

Laboratory

General Technical Report

FPL–GTR–255

February

2018
Abstract

With the world’s increasing focus on sustainability in the 

construction sector through green building systems, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been actively engaged in green building advocacy in the United 

States through USDA Tall Wood Building competitions 

and follow-up research on use of mass timber for nonresidential buildings. The USDA Forest Service, Forest Product Laboratory (FPL) funded the study of environmental 

performance of the pioneer mass timber building (the John 

W. Olver Design Building) built at University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2016. The Athena Sustainable Materials 

Institute conducted the whole building life cycle assessment 

(LCA) using the Impact Estimator for Building software. 

Secondly, the reported LCA results led to development of an 

environmental building declaration (EBD) in conformance 

with European standard EN 15978. Environmental building declarations summarize the embodied and operational 

environmental impacts during the full building life cycle. 

An EBD is much like an environmental product declaration 

(EPD) which is intended for marketing and educational use, 

but instead of covering individual products like an EPD, an 

EBD covers the whole building. Lastly, the LCA results of 

the Design Building were then compared with a functionally 

equivalent steel and concrete building to acquire the whole 

building LCA credit in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) v.4 for green buildings. With the 

Contents

Introduction..........................................................................1

Background..........................................................................1

Methods................................................................................2

Results..................................................................................4

Summary..............................................................................5

Acknowledgments................................................................5

References............................................................................5

Appendix 1—Environmental Building Declaration ............9

Appendix 2—LEED Whole Building LCA 

Credit Submittal.................................................................63

Appendix 3—EBD Summary Print-Ready 

Poster and Brochure...........................................................71

Conversion table

English unit

Conversion

factor SI unit

square feet (ft2) 0.092903 square meters (m2)

cubic feet (ft3) 0.028317 cubic meters (m3)

pounds (lb), mass 0.45359 kilograms (kg)

tons 0.90718 tonnes (t) (×103 kg)

February 2018

Gu, Hongmei; Bergman, Richard. 2018. Life cycle assessment and environmental building declaration for the Design Building at the University 

of Massachusetts. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-255. Madison, 

WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products 

Laboratory. 71 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726-2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, 

offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by 

USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign 

Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.

gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632–9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250–9410; (2) fax: (202) 690–7442; or 

(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

mass timber use in the Design Building, the building qualified for the whole building LCA credit in LEED v4. With 

this project, FPL is helping to standardize environmental 

performance reporting and advanced mass timber building 

sustainability.

Keywords: mass timber building, environmental building 

declaration (EBD), life cycle assessment, cross-laminated 

timber (CLT), LEED
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental 

Building Declaration for the Design Building 

at the University of Massachusetts

Hongmei Gu, Research Forest Products Technologist

USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Richard Bergman, Project Leader

USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Introduction

Sustainability in the construction sector is becoming 

increasingly important. The USDA Forest Service, Forest 

Products Laboratory (FPL) has long been providing valuable research to support the wood industry’s sustainability 

profile in the marketplace (Ritter and others 2011). With 

growing awareness of the nature of our living environment, 

wood is replacing steel and concrete as the architectural 

material of the 21st century (Frearson 2016). Wood in general is recognized for its sustainability, overall low environmental impact, natural beauty, and speed of construction 

(Salazar and Meil 2009; Jakes and others 2016; Ramage 

and others 2017). These attributes have inspired architects 

and engineers interested in creating wood buildings with 

improved environmental performance (Asdrubali and others 

2017). For instance, cross-laminated timber (CLT) — a new 

option for constructing mass timber buildings in the United 

States — offers advantages including renewability of the 

raw material, lower carbon footprint, long-term carbon storage within completed structures, and smaller mass requirements for foundations and footings (Pei and others 2012, 

2016; Hammond and Jones 2011; FPInnovations 2013; 

Mallo and Espinoza 2014; Asdrubali and others 2017). In 

particular, Canadian CLT buildings have shown a lower 

carbon footprint relative to other materials (Grann 2013; 

Robertson and others 2012). Regardless of these benefits, 

research to support code approval and standardized design 

approaches is still needed for CLT in North America (Pei 

and others 2016).

USDA has been actively engaged in developing policies 

to support green buildings (Ritter and others 2011; USDA 

2011), including mass timber structures through activities 

such as the USDA Tall Wood Building Prize Competition 

(USDA 2014, 2015). In conjunction with the advocacy efforts of USDA, FPL is actively engaged in research on mass 

timber including CLT. In November 2015, FPL hosted a premier mass timber workshop, which identified research needs 

in the United States (Williamson and Ross 2016). Research 

needs included fire resistance (Pei and Zelinka 2017), 

seismic performance (Amini and others 2016; Pei and others 

2016), and CLT supply chain analysis, along with potential 

economic contributions and environmental implications of 

increased mass timber building construction (Kelley and 

Bergman 2017).

Background

This project assessed the environmental impacts for the 

John W. Olver Design Building recently completed at the 

University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass) campus. It 

is the home of three departments with various educational 

spaces for classrooms, studios, labs, lounges, seminar and 

conference rooms, a wood shop, and office spaces. The 

Design Building is intended to exemplify the University’s 

commitment to innovative design and use of sustainable 

materials and to demonstrate emerging wood construction 

technologies. It is a four-story 87,500-ft2 structure. The 

building’s structural system consists of CLT roof panels, 

composite CLT floor panels with reinforced concrete topping (second through fourth floors), reinforced concrete 

slabs (ground floor), reinforced slabs on grade, and a mix of 

glulam and structural steel framing. The building’s lateral 

resistance is provided by the elevator and stair-core CLT 

wall panels and glulam cross-bracing. A zipper truss system 

consisting of glulam members and steel rods supports the 

low roof courtyard. 

Detailed building elements and a bill of materials can be 

found in the tables in Appendix 1. The building features 

a three-story, folded, grand CLT staircase in the atrium. 

According to the designer (Leers Weinzapfel Associates, 

Boston, Massachusetts), this building was, at the time of its 

construction, the largest and most technologically advanced 

academic contemporary wood structure in the United 

States and was also the first in the United States to use a 

wood–concrete composite floor system. Figure 1 shows the 

architectural rendering of the building and a photograph of 

the completed structure.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

2

Methods

The goal of this study was to conduct a whole building life 

cycle assessment (LCA) of the mass timber Design Building at UMass. This LCA would evaluate the environmental 

performance of the whole building and compare it to a steelframed functionally equivalent alternative. The LCA outputs 

were also used to produce an environmental building declaration (EBD). An EBD is a transparent summary report of 

comprehensive environmental footprint data for a building. 

It declares the life cycle impacts according to a standardized format. This was the first EBD for a U.S. building 

performed by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. 

The Design Building EBD summarized the embodied and 

operational environmental impacts during the full building life and served marketing and educational purposes for 

UMass to present at the Design Building opening ceremony 

in April 2017.

Scope

The scope of this LCA was a cradle-to-grave assessment of 

the material effects of structure, envelope, and interior partition assemblies and operating energy and water use during 

a 60-year period modeled by the Athena Impact Estimator 

for Buildings (IE4B) version 5.1.0102 (ASMI 2016). The 

system boundary for the LCA assessment is demonstrated in 

Figure 2. The white blocks B1-Use and B5-Refurbishment 

were excluded from the comparative assessment because of 

the assumption of no difference between the two building 

types in the use stage and lack of empirical data for refurbishing CLT buildings. The assessment drew on three life 

cycle inventory (LCI) data sources, including the Athena 

LCI database v5.2.0104, the U.S. LCI database (NREL 

2012), and the ecoinvent LCI database v3.3 (Ecoinvent 

2016). The IE4B accounts for transportation of material 

Figure 1. The Design Building at University of Massachusetts Amherst as a demonstration project 

for mass timber in building structures.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

3

to the sites, construction energy use, construction material 

waste, stage of material use, operational energy and water 

use, and demolition energy use. Material waste outcomes 

and waste transportation were included in the assessment 

with assumptions based on practical availability of the data.

Data Collection

The assessment started with data collection during the construction phase of the UMass Design Building. With help 

from the staff at UMass, the Athena team gathered detailed 

project information on the physical characteristics of the 

building to determine material types and quantities, as well 

as estimates for operating energy and operating water consumption. These are the key parameters for whole building 

LCA modeling (ASTM 2016).

Software Tool

The IE4B is a tool that provides a cradle-to-grave LCI profile to estimate a whole building’s environmental footprint. 

The inventory results comprise the flows from and to nature: 

energy and raw material inputs plus emissions to air, water, 

and land. The material inputs for LCA came from the building’s design blueprints and were included in the final report 

(Appendix 1). A 60-year time period was selected as a typical service life for a commercial structure (ASTM 2016). 

The cradle-to-grave LCA data found within the various LCI 

databases conform to ISO 14040/14044 standards (ISO 

2006a, 2006b). The specific building LCA was conducted 

in accordance with EN 15978 (CEN 2011) and adjusted for 

a North American context, that is, the life cycle impacts 

were evaluated with the TRACI v2.1 (Bare 2011) category 

midpoint characterization method.

Environmental Building Declaration 

Development

UMass intended to promote the building’s contemporary 

concepts and mass timber use benefits, which led to the development of an EBD in accordance with EN 15978 (CEN 

2011) for building LCA assessment. The EBD contains 

detailed LCA results for the Design Building and provides 

information on the building, LCA method, data sources, and 

LCA assumptions (Appendix 1).

Comparative Assertion for Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design Credit

The LCA results for the Design Building were then compared with those for a functionally equivalent alternative 

design based on conventional construction. The alternate 

design was modeled with a floor and roof structure that 

came from an earlier light-steel-frame design iteration; all 

other building details are the same for the two design options. Detailed building materials for the two designs are 

listed in Appendix 2. The two sets of results were compared 

to determine the LCA credit in Leadership in Energy and 

Figure 2. Assessment system boundary for University of Massachusetts Amherst Design Building.

A1

Raw material supply

A2

Transport

A3

Manufacturing

PRODUCT 

Stage

A4

Transport

CONSTRUCTION 

PROCESS 

Stage

B1

Use

B2

Maintenance

B3

Repair

B4

Replacement

B5

Refurbishment

B6

Operational energy

B7

Operational water

USE

Stage

C1

Deconstruction

Demolition

C2

Transport

C3

Waste processing

C4

Disposal

END OF LIFE 

Stage

D

Reuse

Recycling

Recovery

potential

SUPPLEMENTARY 

INFORMATION 

BEYOND THE 

BUILDING LIFE 

CYCLE

A5

Construction

Installation

process
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

4

Environmental Design (LEED) v4. LEED is a building 

rating system devised by the U.S. Green Building Council 

(USGBC) to evaluate the environmental performance of 

a building and encourage market transformation toward 

sustainable design. The Athena IE4B has a LEED reporting 

feature that was used for this purpose.

Results

A whole building LCA was conducted for the Design Building on the UMass campus, a four-story 87,500-ft2

 building 

with mass timber components including CLT and glulam. 

The LCA results were also compared with a baseline steel 

alternative to evaluate for LEED credit. In addition, an EBD 

was developed from the whole building LCA results. Seventeen impact indicators were provided in the LCA results, 

including global warming, depletion of the stratospheric 

ozone layer, acidification potential of land and water, 

eutrophication, formation potential of tropospheric ozone 

photochemical oxidants, abiotic resource depletion potential 

of fossil fuels, renewable primary energy, nonrenewable 

primary energy, secondary material, secondary renewable 

and nonrenewable fuels, net use of fresh water, and hazardous and nonhazardous waste disposed, etc. The six most 

commonly presented LCA indicators were used to produce 

the EBD. Results of these six indicators are presented in 

Table 1. A complete report on the LCA results can be found 

in Appendix 1. These results are for the whole boundary 

system shown in Figure 2, from product stage to construction stage to use stage (including operational energy and 

water) to final end-of-life stage.

Contribution analysis based on the LCA results provided 

the resource-type contributions to the total LCA results, 

material-type contributions to the material use LCA results, 

and fuel-type contributions to the operational energy LCA 

results. The analysis showed that operational energy use 

caused the most impact on global warming (~83%), acidification (~85%), and fossil fuel depletion (~87%) potential 

in the total LCA results, which was more than the material 

use and operational water use contributions. The operational 

energy was mainly from natural gas and electricity for 

this whole building LCA study. For the material use LCA 

results, most impacts came from the concrete and steel use 

in the building for most of the LCA categories. For example, 

steel use in the building contributed 23% and concrete use 

contributed about 38% to the total global warming potential 

(GWP) in the material use LCA, whereas wood or CLT use 

only contributed about 10% to total GWP.

The EBD developed in accordance with EN 15978 (CEN 

2011) was verified internally. The EBD contains detailed 

LCA results for the Design Building and provides information on the building, LCA method, data sources, and LCA 

assumptions. The Design Building EBD was summarized 

in one page to address embodied and operational environmental impacts during the full building life and to serve as a 

brochure or a poster for presentation at the Design Building 

opening ceremony for marketing and educational purposes 

(Appendix 3). This is the first EBD for a U.S. building done 

by the Athena Institute.

For evaluating the Design Building for LEED v4 whole 

building LCA credit, a comparative LCA was conducted 

on an alternative functionally equivalent building called 

the Baseline Building. The Baseline Building was designed 

with the same size, functions, and orientation as the Design 

Building. The Baseline Building reflects more conventional 

construction with steel-framed floor and roof structures and 

average concrete mixes. The operating energy for the two 

buildings was assumed to be essentially the same because 

the thermal resistance of the exterior walls was the same for 

the two buildings. Therefore, in this comparative analysis, 

the operational energy (B6) and operational water (B7) 

within the system boundary (Fig. 2) were not included in 

the LCA results. Table 2 lists the comparative LCA results 

for the six most common indicators and percentage differences. Global warming, ozone depletion, and nonrenewable energy depletion were all more than 10% lower for the 

Table 1—Life cycle assessment environmental impact summarya for 

the 87,500-ft2 Design Building at University of Massachusetts Amherst 

for 60 years

EN 15978b environmental impacts Unit Total

Global warming potential kg CO2 eq. 3.10E+07

Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer kg CFCc-11 eq. 8.05E–02

Acidification potential of land and water kg SO2 eq. 2.49E+05

Eutrophication potential kg N eq. 5.96E+03

Formation potential of tropospheric ozone 

photochemical oxidants

kg O3 eq. 1.12E+06

Abiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels MJ surplus 6.96E+07

a

Including operational energy and water consumption.

b

CEN (2011).

c

CFC, chlorofluorocarbons.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

5

Design Building with mass timber construction than for the 

Baseline Building. According to the LEED v4 (building life 

cycle impact reduction, option 4) credit for LCA impact, the 

whole building LCA would reflect at least a 10% decrease 

from a baseline building in at least three categories and 

allow up to a 5% increase in other categories. The comparative LCA results (Table 2) showed that the Design Building demonstrated a 10% decrease in three categories and a 

decrease or no change in all other categories. Therefore, the 

Design Building would qualify for the LEED LCA credit 

based on our study analysis.

Wood buildings can store carbon for long periods. For 

example, based on an estimation by UMass, a total of 

70,000 ft3 of wood was used in the Design Building. This 

quantity of wood removed (pulled) 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during forest growth and now is 

stored long-term in the building (https://bct.eco.umass.edu/

about-us/the-design-building-at-umass-amherst/) (70,000 ft3

wood * 31.2 oven-dried (OD) lb/ft3 * 0.5 lb carbon/1.0 lb 

OD wood * 44 kg CO2/12 kg carbon * 1 ton/2,000 lb = 

2,000 tons CO2).

Summary

As a mechanism for transparent reporting of measured 

environmental performance data, an EBD from the whole 

building LCA is similar to an environmental product 

declaration (EPD). An EPD is a verified and registered 

document that communicates transparent and comparable 

information about the life cycle environmental impact of 

products according to ISO 14025 (ISO 2006c). Although 

product manufacturers are increasingly publishing EPDs 

and demonstrating their willingness to report environmental 

impacts, this is not happening yet at the level of the whole 

building. The Design Building EBD is only the fourth building in North American and first in the United States to have 

an EBD published. With this project, the Forest Products 

Laboratory is helping to standardize environmental performance reporting and build accountability in the sustainable 

building design community.

Acknowledgments

The USDA Forest Service, Forest Product Laboratory funded Athena Sustainable Materials Institute through a Joint 

Venture Agreement 16-JV-11111137-090 to complete this 

LCA work and EBD development for the UMass Design 

Building. We greatly acknowledge support from University 

of Massachusetts Amherst for background and data sharing 

on the Design Building and from WoodWorks, the Wood 

Products Council, for information related to publishing and 

communications. Also appreciated are the valuable reviews 

from Dr. Jim Bowyer from Dovetail Inc., Dr. Patrick Lavoie 

from FPInnovations Inc., and Dr. Neethi Rajagopalan from 

North Carolina State University.

References

Amini, M.O.; van de Lindt, J.W.; Rammer, D.; Pei, S.; Line, 

P.; Popovski, M. 2016. Determination of seismic performance factors for CLT shear wall systems. In: WCTE 2016, 

World conference on Timber Engineering, August 22-25, 

2016, Vienna, Austria.

Asdrubali, F.; Ferracuti, B.; Lombardi, L.; Guattari, C.; 

Evangelisti, L.; Grazieschi, G. 2017. A review of structural, 

thermo-physical, acoustical, and environmental properties 

of wooden materials for building applications. Building and 

Environment. 114(2017): 307-332.

ASMI. 2016. Athena impact estimator for buildings. http://

www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impact-estimator. 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Athena Sustainable Materials 

Institute (July 18, 2017).

ASTM. 2016. E2921-16a. Standard practice for minimum 

criteria for comparing whole building life cycle assessments 

for use with building codes, standards, and rating systems. 

West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and 

Materials International. DOI: 10.1520/E2921-16A.

Bare, J. 2011. TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and 

assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 

Table 2—Comparison of the life cycle assessment resultsa for the two functionally equivalent 

buildings with 87,500 ft2, 60 years of service

Life cycle assessment impact measuresb Baseline Building

Design 

Building Units

Percentage 

difference

(%)

Global warming potential 4.61E+06 4.01E+06 kg CO2 eq –13.1

Stratospheric ozone depletion 8.53E–02 7.67E–02 kg CFCc-11 eq –10.1

Acidification of land and water 2.38E+04 2.18E+04 kg SO2 eq –8.9

Eutrophication 1.38E+03 1.38E+03 kg N eq 0.0

Tropospheric ozone formation 3.82E+05 3.68E+05 kg O3 eq –3.6

Depletion of nonrenewable energy resources 5.65E+07 4.81E+07 MJ –14.8

a

Does not include operational energy and water consumption.

b

Three measures had at least a 10% decrease (LEED v4 MR credit) (a decrease corresponds to a negative value percentage 

difference compared with steel baseline). 

c

CFC, chlorofluorocarbons.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

6

2.0. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy. 13(5): 

687-696.

CEN. 2011. EN 15978:2011. Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of 

buildings - Calculation method. Amended by Corrigendum, 

January 2012. ISBN 978 0 580 77403 4. Brussels, Belgium: 

European Committee for Standardization.

Ecoinvent. 2016. 3.3 database. Institutes of the ETH Domain and the Swiss Federal Offices. http://www.ecoinvent.

org/database/ecoinvent-33/ecoinvent-33.html. (July 18, 

2017).

FPInnovations. 2013. CLT handbook. Montreal, Canada: 

FPInnovations. 572 p.

Frearson, A. 2016. Architects embrace “the beginning of 

the timber age”. https://www.dezeen.com/2015/11/09/crosslaminated-timber-construction-architecture-timber-age/. 

(July 18, 2017).

Grann, B. 2013. A comparative life cycle assessment of two 

multistory residential buildings: cross-laminated timber vs. 

concrete slab and column with light gauge steel walls. Montreal, Canada: FPInnovations.

Hammond, G.; Jones, C. 2011. Embodied carbon: The 

inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). Bath, UK: University 

of Bath.

ISO. 2006a. ISO 14040. Environmental management — life 

cycle assessment — principles and framework. Geneva, 

Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 

20 p.

ISO. 2006b. ISO 14044. Environmental management — life 

cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines. Geneva, 

Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 

46 p.

1SO. 2006c. ISO 14025. Environmental labels and declarations — principles and procedure (Type III environmental 

declarations). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 25 p.

Jakes, J.; Arzola, X.; Bergman, R.; Ciesielski, P.; Hunt, C.; 

Rahbar, N.; Tshabalala, M.; Wiedenhoeft, A.C.; Zelinka, S. 

2016. Not just lumber – utilizing wood in the sustainable 

future of materials, chemicals, and fuels. Journal of Materials. 68(9): 2395-2404.

Kelley, S.S.; Bergman, R. 2017. Potential for tall wood 

buildings to sequester carbon, support forest communities, 

and create new options for forest management. Research 

in Progress. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. https://www.fpl.

fs.fed.us/documnts/rips/fplrip-4851-018-NCSU-TallBldgsBergman-Kelley.pdf.

Mallo, M.F.L.; Espinoza, O. 2014. Outlook for crosslaminated timber in the United States. BioResources. 

9(4): 7427-7433.

NREL. 2012. Life-cycle inventory database project. http://

www.nrel.gov/lci/. (July 18, 2017). Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Pei, S.; Zelinka, S. 2017. Fire risk with different adhesives 

in cross-laminated timber (CLT). Research in Progress. 

Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/

documnts/rips/fplrip-4723-031-COSchoolofMines-FireRiskZelinka-Pei.pdf.

Pei, S.; Popovski, M.; van de Lindt, J.W. 2012. Seismic design of a multi-story cross laminated timber building based 

on component level testing. World Conference on Timber 

Engineering (WCTE), Auckland New Zealand, 15–19 July 

2012.

Pei, S.; Rammer, D.; Popovski, M.; Williamson, T.; Line, P.; 

van de Lindt, J.W. 2016. An overview of CLT research and 

implementation in North America. In: WCTE 2016, World 

conference on Timber Engineering, August 22-25, 2016, 

Vienna, Austria. 10 p.

Ramage, M.H.; Burridge, H.; Busse-Wicher, M. 2017. The 

wood from trees: the use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 68(2017): 333-359.

Ritter, M.; Skog, K.; Bergman, R. 2011. Science supporting 

the economic and environmental benefits of using wood and 

wood products in green building construction. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. FPL–GTR–206. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 9 p.

Robertson, A.; Lam, F.C.F.; Cole, R.J. 2012. A comparative 

cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: laminated timber or reinforced 

concrete. Buildings. 2012(2): 245-270.

Salazar, J.; Meil, J. 2009. Prospects for carbon-neutral 

housing: the influence of greater wood use on the carbon 

footprint of a single-family residence. Journal of Cleaner 

Production. 17(17): 1563-1571.

USDA. 2011. USDA leads the way on green buildings, use 

of wood products. Press Release No. 0143.11. https://www.

fs.fed.us/news/releases/usda-leads-way-green-buildingsuse-wood-products. (July 17, 2017). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

USDA. 2014. USDA announces support for innovative, sustainable wood building materials to protect environment and 

create jobs. Release No. 0041.14. https://www.usda.gov/

media/press-releases/2014/03/18/usda-announcessupport-innovative-sustainable-wood-building. (July 17, 

2017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

7

USDA. 2015. U.S. tall wood building prize competition 

winners revealed. Release No. 0259.15. https://www.usda.

gov/media/press-releases/2015/09/17/us-tall-wood-buildingprize-competition-winners-revealed. (July 17, 2017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Williamson, T.; Ross, R.J., eds. 2016. Proceedings, mass 

timber research workshop 2015. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–

GTR–241. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 364 p.
8
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

9

Appendix 1—Environmental Building Declaration

Design Building

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

An Environmental Building Declaration According to 

EN 15978 Standard

January 2017
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

10

1

Table of Contents

List of Tables......................................................................................................................................2

List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................3

1.0 General Information on the Assessment .......................................................................................4

1.1 Purpose of the Assessment ............................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Identification of the Building ............................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Assessment Verification .................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment.........................................................................9

2.1 Functional Equivalent........................................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Reference Study Period ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Object of Assessment Scope............................................................................................................ 10

2.4 Building Design Description............................................................................................................. 11

3.0 Statement of System Boundary Used in the Assessment..............................................................12

4.0 Statement of Scenarios Used in the Assessment..........................................................................15

4.1 Transport of Materials to Site.......................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Construction Energy Use ................................................................................................................. 15

4.3 Construction Material Wastage....................................................................................................... 16

4.4 Use Stage Material Use ................................................................................................................... 16

4.5 Operational Energy Use................................................................................................................... 17

4.6 Operational Water Use.................................................................................................................... 17

4.7 Demolition Energy Use .................................................................................................................... 17

4.8 Material Waste Outcomes............................................................................................................... 18

4.9 Waste Transport.............................................................................................................................. 18

5.0 Additional Information...............................................................................................................18

5.1 Module D......................................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Carbon Sequestration...................................................................................................................... 19

5.2.1 Biogenic Carbon Sequestration of Wood Products................................................................... 19

5.2.2 Concrete Carbonation............................................................................................................... 20

6.0 Environmental Data....................................................................................................................21

6.1 Data Sources.................................................................................................................................... 21

6.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions............................................................................................... 22

6.3 Data Quality..................................................................................................................................... 22

7.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results.................................................23

8.0 Communication of Assessment Results .......................................................................................24

8.1 Life Cycle Results............................................................................................................................. 25

8.2 Contribution Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 25

8.3 Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 25

8.4 Additional Results............................................................................................................................ 26

Appendix A: Contribution Analysis Charts.........................................................................................33

Appendix B: Building Element Design Summary ................................................................................39

Appendix C: Whole-building Bill of Materials....................................................................................40

Appendix D: Scenario Tables ............................................................................................................42

Appendix E: LCI Data Source Tables ..................................................................................................51
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

11

2

List of Tables

Table 1: Assessment Information Summary ............................................................................................... 4

Table 2: 60-year Design Building Life Cycle Environmental Impact Summary............................................. 5

Table 3: Project Directory ........................................................................................................................... 6

Table 4: Functional Equivalent.................................................................................................................... 9

Table 5: Object of Assessment Summary.................................................................................................. 10

Table 6: Assessment System Boundary and Scope Summary ................................................................... 14

Table 7: Reported Environmental Indicators ............................................................................................ 23

Table 8: UMass Design Building LCA Results............................................................................................. 27

Table 9: Information Module Contributions to Environmental Impact Indicator Results......................... 28

Table 10: Information Module Contributions to Resource Use Indicator Results..................................... 29

Table 11: Information Module Contributions to Waste Category and Output Flow Indicator Results ..... 30

Table 12: Sensitivity Analysis Results........................................................................................................ 31

Table 13: Additional Information Results.................................................................................................. 32

Table 14: Building Element Design Summary............................................................................................ 39

Table 15: Whole-building Bill of Materials................................................................................................ 40

Table 16: Scenarios – Transport of Materials to Site (modules A4, B2, B3, B4)........................................ 42

Table 17: Scenarios – Construction Energy Use (modules A5, B2, B3, B4)................................................ 43

Table 18: Scenarios – Construction Material Wastage (modules A5, B2, B3, B4)..................................... 43

Table 19: Scenarios – Maintenance (module B2) ..................................................................................... 45

Table 20: Scenarios – Repair (module B3) ................................................................................................ 45

Table 21: Scenarios – Replacement (module B4) ..................................................................................... 46

Table 22: Scenarios – Annual Operational Energy Use (B6)...................................................................... 47

Table 23: Scenarios – Annual Operational Water Use and Wastewater Discharge (B7)........................... 47

Table 24: Scenarios – Demolition Energy Use (modules B2, B3, B4, C1) .................................................. 48

Table 25: Scenarios – Waste Outcomes (modules A5, B2, B3, B4, C3, C4) ............................................... 48

Table 26: Scenarios – Waste Transport (modules A5, B2, B3, B4, C2) ...................................................... 48

Table 27: Scenarios – Module D Assumptions.......................................................................................... 49

Table 28: Scenarios – Wood Product Biogenic Carbon Assumptions ....................................................... 49

Table 29: Scenarios – Concrete Carbonation Assumptions....................................................................... 50

Table 30: Scenarios – Particle Size Distribution of Crushed Concrete....................................................... 50

Table 31: Data Sources Summary ............................................................................................................. 51

Table 32: LCI Data Substitutions ............................................................................................................... 52
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

12

3

List of Figures

Figure 1: Building section............................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2: North exterior, along campus path .............................................................................................. 7

Figure 3: Commons (rendering) .................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 4: Commons under construction...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5: The building under construction .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 6: Assessment System Boundary ................................................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Information Module Contributions to Total LCA Results ........................................................... 33

Figure 8: Resource Type Contributions to Total LCA Results..................................................................... 34

Figure 9: Construction Element Contributions to Material Use LCA Results............................................. 35

Figure 10: Material Type Contributions to Material Use LCA Results ....................................................... 36

Figure 11: Fuel Type Contributions to Operational Energy LCA Results.................................................... 37

Figure 12: Municipal Service Contributions to Operational Water LCA Results........................................ 38
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

13

4

1.0 General Information on the Assessment

This document presents a whole-building environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of the University of 

Massachusetts (UMass) Design Building, an educational building in Amherst, Massachusetts. The LCA

was commissioned to publicly declare the environmental performance of the building.

The assessment has been conducted in conformance with the Committee for European Standardization

(CEN) standard EN 159781

, which stipulates an LCA-based calculation method and reporting

requirements for whole-buildings or building parts. While European in scope, EN 15978 provisions are 

quickly becoming the standard for whole-building LCA worldwide. We therefore applied our North 

American interpretation of EN 15978 as a suitable methodological choice to meet the purpose of the 

assessment. 

Table 1: Assessment Information Summary

Client for assessment US Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

Assessor Matt Bowick (M.A.Sc.), Senior Research Associate, 

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute

Internal verifier Jamie Meil (M.Sc.), Research Principal, Athena 

Sustainable Materials Institute

Date of assessment December 2016

Assessment timing Construction completed (December 2016)

Period of validity 5 years

The scope of LCA is a cradle-to-grave analysis of the material effects of structure, envelope, and interior 

partition assemblies, and operating energy and water use, over a 60-year period. The LCA primarily 

draws on data from the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute's ISO 14040/44 conforming Impact 

Estimator for Buildings software database, and augmented with the Institute's secondary databases. 

Life cycle impacts were evaluated according to TRACI v2.1 category mid-point characterization 

methodology2 and the LCA modeling was performed with a customized Excel-based tool.

Seventeen indicators covering environmental impacts, resource use, waste, and output flows leaving the 

system are reported – see Table 2 for summary results of the six environmental impacts most commonly 

reported. Various contribution and sensitivity analyses are provided, along with additional information, 

including avoided impacts and burdens occurring beyond the life cycle and carbon sequestration of 

wood and concrete products.

 1 EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings -

Calculation method. 2 http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

14

5

Table 2: 60-year Design Building Life Cycle Environmental Impact Summary

EN 15978 Environmental Impact Indicator Unit Total

Global warming potential kg CO2 eq. 3.10E+07

Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer kg CFC-11 eq. 8.05E-02

Acidification potential of land and water kg SO2 eq. 2.49E+05

Eutrophication potential kg N eq. 5.96E+03

Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants kg O3 eq. 1.12E+06

Abiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels MJ surplus 6.96E+07

 Table 2 note: eq.=equivalence

1.1 Purpose of the Assessment

As per EN 15978, the goal of the assessment is to quantify the environmental performance of the object 

of assessment by means of compiling environmental information.

This assessment was commissioned for the following purpose:

To publicly declare the environmental performance of the Design Building.

This document presents a model derived estimate of the environmental performance of the Design 

Building according to a standardized format in order to publicly communicate results in a transparent 

and comparable manner. The intended use of this assessment is for educating/informing building and 

wood-industry stakeholders about the environmental implications of the Design Building design, and 

wood-based low-rise construction in general. 

1.2 Identification of the Building

The building of study is the University of Massachusetts Amherst Design Building, a four-storey, 8,147 

m2 (87,573 ft2

), structure located at 551 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, Massachusetts – see Table 3 

for the project directory and Figure 1 through Figure 5 for building photos. 

The Design Building will be home to the University's Architecture + Design, Building and Construction 

Technology, Landscape Architecture, and Regional Planning departments, and includes various 

educational spaces (classrooms, studios, labs, lounges, seminar and conference rooms, wood shop) for

students, and office space.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

15

6

1.3 Assessment Verification 

While studies compliant with EN 15978 do not specifically require verification, the standard stipulates a 

set of requirements when it is to be performed. This LCA has been internally verified for compliance 

with the standard.

Statement regarding verification of this assessment:

The internal verifier has determined that this LCA-based study 

meets the requirements for methodology, data, and reporting in EN 

15978, and is consistent with its principles. Jamie Meil, Research Principal, 

Athena Sustainable Material Institute

Table 3: Project Directory

Owner University of Massachusetts

Architect & Design Lead Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects Inc.

Structural Design Engineer Equilibrium Consulting Inc.

Structural Engineer Of-Record Simpson Gumpetz & Heger

MEP & Fire Protection BVH Integrated Service, P.C.

Site Utilities BVH Integrated Service, P.C.

Code Consultant Howe Engineers

Civil Consultant Nitsch Engineering

Landscape Architect Stephen Stimson Associates

Site/Hazmat Weston and Sampson

Sustainable Design & Lighting Atelier Ten

Acoustics & Audiovisual Acentech

Geotechnical Consultant GZA Geoenvironmental Inc.

Accessibility Kessler McGuiness & Associates

Cost Estimating Faithful & Gould

Hardware Campbell - McCabe

Specifications Steven McHugh

Wood Shop/Digital Fabrication Consulting Radlab

Figure 1: Building section
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

16

7

Figure 2: North exterior, along campus path

Figure 3: Commons (rendering)
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

17

8

Figure 4: Commons under construction

Figure 5: The building under construction

Graphics courtesy of Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects Inc.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

18

9

2.0 General Information on the Object of 

Assessment

2.1 Functional Equivalent

EN 15978 requires identification of a functional equivalent for the building to enable a valid basis for 

future comparisons to other buildings. According to EN 15978, a functional equivalent is “the 

quantified functional requirements and/or technical requirements for a building or an assembled system 

(part of works) for use as a basis for comparison.” In other words, the functional equivalent is a set of 

design criteria that both buildings must have in common to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. 

Table 4 defines the functional equivalent of the Design Building.

Table 4: Functional Equivalent

Building type Educational

Technical3 and functional4

requirements

Massachusetts Base Code (8th edition); LEED Gold certified

(pending)

Pattern of use

Typical for the functions provided, 82 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

building occupants (74 full-time, 8 part-time); 1,000 daily average 

transients, 384 peak transients

Required service life5 60 years6

2.2 Reference Study Period

While the functional equivalent requires a statement of a building's required service life, it doesn't 

necessarily have to be the same as the reference study period, which is defined in EN 15978 as "the 

period over which the time dependent characteristics of the object of assessment are analyzed." For this 

declaration, the reference study period of the assessment is the same as the assumed required service 

life of the building, 60 years.

 3 Defined in EN 15978 as the "type and level of functionality of a building or assembled system which is required by 

the client and/or by users and/or by regulations."

4 Defined in EN 15978 as "type and level of technical characteristics of a construction works or an assembled 

system (part of works), which are required or are a consequence of the requirements made either by the client, 

and/or by the users and/or by regulations."

5 Defined in EN 15978 as the "service life required by the client or through regulations." 6 The building has no required service and therefore a service life of 60 years was assumed assessment purposes.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

19

10

2.3 Object of Assessment Scope

The object of assessment is a definition of what is to be analyzed; EN 15978 stipulates that “the object 

of assessment is the building, including its foundations and external works within the curtilage of the 

building’s site, over the life cycle.” However, when conducting whole-building LCA, not all aspects of a 

building can typically be assessed given finite project resources and data limitations. 

The object of assessment of this study is the Design Building and includes materials from the 

construction elements noted in Table 5, along with the operating energy and water end-uses noted.

The construction elements assessed broadly include structure, envelope, and interior partition 

materials, which corresponds to the current modeling capacity of the Athena Impact Estimator for 

Buildings (IE4B). The assessment considers the paint on interior gypsum board to be a finish and 

therefore paint is not included in analysis.

Other notable material omissions from the included elements are:

 Some lateral load resisting connections and steel zipper truss connections (main members 

included);

 Non-structural connections;

 Surface treatments (e.g. fire retarding coatings);

 Adhesives and sealants;

 Soffit, drain covers, vents, roof hatches, etc.;

 Temporary works used during construction and demolition/de-construction phases (e.g. shoring, 

formwork).

Table 5: Object of Assessment Summary

Material Use

(UniFormat)

Operating Energy Use

(end-uses)

Operating Water Use

(end-uses)

 A1010 Standard Foundations  Space Heating  Water Closets

 A1020 Special Foundations  Space Cooling  Urinals

 A1030 Slab on Grade  Ventilation (fans)  Showers

 A2020 Basement Walls  Domestic Hot Water  Lavatory Taps

 B1010 Floor Construction  Lighting  Kitchen Taps

 B1020 Roof Construction  Auxiliary Energy (pumps)

 B2010 Exterior Walls  Plug Loads

 B2020 Exterior Windows  Exterior Lighting

 B2030 Exterior Doors

 B3010 Roof Coverings

 B3020 Roof Openings

 C1010 Partitions

 C1020 Interior Doors

 C2010 Stair Construction
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

20

11

2.4 Building Design Description

The Design Building is intended to exemplify the University's commitment to sustainable and innovative 

design via its LEED Gold certification (pending) and demonstration of emerging wood construction 

technologies.

The building’s structural system consists of cross laminated timber (CLT) roof panels, composite CLT

floor panels with reinforced concrete topping (second through fourth floors), reinforced concrete slabs 

(ground floor), and reinforced slabs on grade, and a mix of glulam and structural steel framing. The 

building's lateral resistance is provided by the elevator and stair core CLT wall panels, and glulam Xbracing. A zipper truss system consisting of glulam members and steel rods supports the low roof 

courtyard.

The building's perimeter is supported by concrete basement walls on strip footings; columns along the 

perimeter are supported by piers integrated into the basement walls (i.e. wall thickenings) and pad 

footings, whereas interior columns are supported by concrete columns/piers at the basement level and 

pad footings.

Double-glazed, low-E insulating glass curtain wall with 1.65 W/m2 °C U-value (0.29 Btu/hr-ft2-°F) and 

solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) of 0.27-0.38 make up approximately 58% of the building's perimeter 

walls. The building is otherwise clad in bluestone veneer (between grade and the ground floor), and 

aluminum panel rainscreen (above the ground floor) with steel stud wall back up – these walls generally 

have a 4.30 RSI value (R-value of 24.4). The roof envelope generally consists of a TPO membrane 

assembly with 8.38 RSI value (R-value of 47.6).

Partitions are for the most part light gauge steel stud walls with fibreglass batt sound attenuation 

insulation and 16 mm gypsum board.

Table 14 (Appendix B) presents a more detailed summary of the construction element assemblies – see 

Table 15 (Appendix C) for the resulting whole-building bill of materials. We calculated material 

quantities based on "Conformance Set" drawings, which include architectural drawings produced by 

Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects Inc., and structural drawings produced by Equilibrium Consulting 

Inc. (dated September 25, 2015).
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

21

12

The building draws on UMass Amherst Campus Central Utility Plant7 for hot water, chilled water and 

some of the electricity consumed. Other building integrated technologies have been employed to 

reduce energy demand, including8

:

 Lighting Power Densities reduced below ASHRAE 90.1-2007 with occupancy sensors in select 

perimeter office spaces;

 Automatic daylight dimming controls in perimeter spaces;

 Air-side supply air reset temperature;

 Dual Enthalpy economizers on air handling units; and

 Energy Recovery Ventilators on the Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS).

3.0 Statement of System Boundary Used in the 

Assessment

The assessment system boundary defines which life cycle activities (undergone by the object of 

assessment) are to be included in the analysis. As illustrated in Figure 6, the system boundary according 

to EN 15978 is characterized by the temporal flow of the building life cycle – i.e. Product, Construction 

Process, Use, and End of Life stages. The various processes that occur at each stage are classified and 

grouped in information modules (or simply "modules"), labeled with alpha-numeric designations "A1" 

through "C4". This modular structure provides a consistent and transparent reporting format for 

building assessments as well as environmental product declarations (EPDs) in conformance with the 

standard EN 158049

.

Accounting for the life cycle of a building is complete when all its constituent materials reach a state 

where they are no longer considered waste – an allocation methodology known as the polluter pays. 

The potential environmental benefit or burden arising from subsequent use of secondary materials and 

energy recovered from the system of study is optionally accounted for as additional information in 

module "D" – e.g. the net benefit of a reused wood beam substituting a new manufactured wood beam.

The system boundary of this assessment is cradle-to-grave and includes the information modules shown 

as green boxes in Figure 6, and Table 6 provides further details about the various life cycle activities 

accounted for by each module. 

 7 The Central Utility Plant "Provides steam heat and electrical power to campus by means of a combine cycle plant. 

The Central Heating Plant has three boilers, capable of firing natural gas and ultra-low number two fuel oil at 

125,000 pounds per hour each and one heat recovery steam generator for an additional 100,000 pounds per hour. 

Total annual steam generated approaches 1.2 billion pounds. Electrical power is supplied by two generators that 

can produce a total of 14 megawatts. One generator is driven by a combustion turbine; the other is driven by a 

steam turbine." Source: https://www.umass.edu/physicalplant/utilities-0 8 Source: CA Phase Energy Analysis Report (atelier ten). 9 EN 15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the 

product category of construction products
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

22

13

Figure 6: Assessment System Boundary

Two modules were not included for the following reasons:

 B1: there is currently insufficient consensus in terms of methodology and data to practically 

quantify these effects for all products used in the building.

 B5: at this time, there is no known planned refurbishment for the building and no available 

scenario information on typical refurbishment activities for this type of building.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

23

14

Table 6: Assessment System Boundary and Scope Summary

Information 

Module Name Included? Processes Included

A1 Raw material supply Y primary resource harvesting and mining

A2 Transport Y transport up to manufacturing plant gate

A3 Manufacturing Y manufacture of raw materials into products

A4 Transport Y transport of materials to site

A5 Construction-installation 

process

Y

construction equipment energy use, and 

production, transport and waste management of 

materials lost during construction

B1 Installed product in use N not applicable

B2 Maintenance Y

production, transport, construction and waste 

management of materials used for maintaining 

building components during use

B3 Repair Y

production, transport, construction and waste 

management of materials used for repairing 

building components during use

B4 Replacement Y production, transport, construction and waste 

management of replaced materials during use 

B5 Refurbishment N not applicable

B6 Operational energy use Y energy production, transportation and use

B7 Operational water use Y water supply and wastewater treatment facilities

C1 De-construction 

demolition Y demolition equipment energy use

C2 Transport Y

transport of waste materials from site to disposal 

facilities; transport of steel to preprocessing and 

recycling facilities

C3 Waste Processing Y sorting/preprocessing facility equipment energy 

use

C4 Disposal Y landfill and incinerator energy use and site effects

This assessment assumes that once the material is either [1] separated for recycling, reuse, or energy 

recovery purposes or [2] disposed of (i.e. either via landfill or incineration), it has reached its end-ofwaste state10. For example, a wood beam left on-site for the purpose of reuse has reached its end-ofwaste state provided it does not require further sorting from other waste. In this case, no further 

environmental burdens (e.g. from transport to storage facility) associated with the beam are allocated 

to the building.

The one exception to this approach is recycled steel products, since the production stage of the steel LCI 

data used does not include preprocessing of secondary steel (scrap processing and transport). 

Therefore, steel preprocessing effects are allocated to the appropriate modules in which steel is 

recycled. 

 10 This is the same approach as that taken by the IE4B software.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

24

15

4.0 Statement of Scenarios Used in the Assessment

Because not all information is practically available to the assessor and because buildings have long and 

uncertain services lives, scenarios (i.e. assumptions) are required to provide a complete description of 

the building beyond the Product stage. 

For this assessment, a scenario is defined as information generally required to calculate inputs for the 

process-based environmental data used. For example, the distance a material is transported to site is

required to calculate the tonne*km input of the modal transportation life cycle inventory data (LCI) used 

in the assessment. 

This section describes the scenarios assumed that are relevant to the object of assessment and its 

system boundary, and are based on current practice. All scenario tables can be found in Appendix D.

4.1 Transport of Materials to Site

The assumed plant-to-site material transportation scenarios are presented in Table 16. The modes and 

distances for the following products were estimated based on the location of the project's actual 

product suppliers, and comprise the majority (an estimated 81%) of the building's mass:

 Curtain wall aluminum extrusions

 Cast-in-place concrete

 Cross laminated timber; glulam

 Galvanized studs

 Hollow structural sections; hot rolled sheet; screws, nuts & bolts; steel plate; wide flange 

sections; wire rod.

Estimates for all other products are taken from the Athena Transportation Database for New York – the 

closest available location to Amherst, MA.

4.2 Construction Energy Use

Construction phase equipment energy use (module A5) was provided by Suffolk Construction and 

allocated to the various construction elements and materials types on a mass basis. In order to estimate 

fuel usage for maintenance, repair and replacement activities (modules B2, B3, and B4), the energy 

consumption provided for module A5 was scaled to these other modules based on the mass of materials 

used.

Construction fuel usage is presented in Table 17.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

25

16

4.3 Construction Material Wastage

On-site construction waste due to cut-offs, or unused, lost, or damaged materials require greater 

quantities of materials to be purchased than what is specifically required in the constructed building. 

The assessment accounts for these additional quantities by multiplying materials required by the 

building by Construction Waste Factors. The assumed scenarios presented in Table 18 are estimates 

from the Athena Construction Waste Factor Database.

4.4 Use Stage Material Use

Maintenance, repair and replacement activities (information modules B2, B3, B4, respectively) typically 

involve periodic tasks (i.e. material replacements) to ensure the continued functional performance of 

the building. This assessment calculates the number of times a task occurs over the lifetime of the 

building according to Equation (1), which is the methodology used by the IE4B software.

Nx = (S – Fx) / Fx (1)

where,

Nx is the number of times task x occurs

S is the building reference study period (years)

Fx is the task frequency for task x (years)

This methodology typically results in only a percentage of the final task being allotted to the building. 

For example, if the service life of a building is 65 years and the replacement frequency of a window unit 

is 15 years, only 33% of the window replacement occurring at year 60 (5 years/15 years) is allotted to 

the building. 

Equation (2) deviates from the methodology outlined in EN 15978. The standard requires that [1] only 

whole replacements are to be considered, and [2] if the remaining service life of the building is short in 

proportion to the estimated service of a product, the actual likelihood of the task shall take into account 

the required technical and functional performance for the product. In other words, the assessor may 

have to make value judgments as to whether the final task occurs. It is our opinion that this causes 

inconsistency between assessments.

Equation (2) was used to calculate the total material quantities replaced over the building lifetime:

Qx,y = Nx My Px,y (2)

where, 

Qx,y is the total quantity of material y replaced due to task x

Nx is the number of times task x occurs

My is the total quantity of material y in the assembly

Px,y is the percent of My replaced due to task x
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

26

17

Task frequency (Fx ) and percent of material replaced (Px,y) estimates assumed are presented in Table 19, 

Table 20, and Table 21, along with the various sources used.

The reporting format and calculation methodology of the sourced task frequencies (Fx) and material use 

percentages (Px,y) are not compliant with ISO standards 15686-111 and 15686-812, as required by EN 

15978. However, it is our opinion that until service life planning is a more established practice in North 

America, the sources from which the estimates were developed are both consistent and of sufficient 

quality for this building assessment.

4.5 Operational Energy Use

The annual operational energy use scenario presented in Table 22 reflects estimates from simulations 

performed by Atelier Ten as part of the building's LEED certification. The natural gas and electricity use 

reported are the net consumption at the District Plant that has been allocated to the building. It is 

assumed that this energy consumption represents a typical annual demand over the 60-year building 

service life. In other words, it is assumed that the building's energy systems, thermal performance, and 

local climate do not change over the 60-year reference study period. Similarly, it is assumed that 

purchased energy sources do not change over the building's required service life, e.g. purchased 

electricity is assumed to be generated using the same energy source mix.

4.6 Operational Water Use

The annual operational water use scenario presented in Table 23 reflects estimates calculated by Atelier 

Ten as part of the building's LEED certification. Wastewater flows are assumed to be equal to the 

demand since [1] there is no water reported for irrigation, and [2] water consumed by occupants is 

assumed to make up a small portion of total usage. Water system technologies and their rate of use are 

assumed not to change over the 60-year required service life.

4.7 Demolition Energy Use

This assessment assumes that diesel-fuelled equipment is used to demolish construction assemblies. 

The fuel use estimates for each building case found in Table 24 were calculated based on information 

from the Athena Demolition Energy Database.

 11 ISO 15686-1:2011 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - General principles and framework 12 ISO 15686-8:2008 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - Reference service life and service-life 

estimation
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

27

18

4.8 Material Waste Outcomes

After a building assembly has been demolished and/or deconstructed, there are several possible 

outcomes for the resulting waste materials. The waste may be disposed of via landfill or incineration, or 

reused, recycled or converted to usable energy, and may undergo processing (e.g. sorting). 

All materials are assumed to be first sent to the Western Processing Facility located in Wilbraham, MA.

The assumed waste outcomes post-sorting presented in Table 25 are taken from the Athena End of Life 

Database. Landfilled waste is assumed to be disposed of at the neighboring Chicopee Landfill.

4.9 Waste Transport

The relevant assumptions for waste transport presented in Table 26 include the distance from building 

site to the Western Processing Facility, the distance from the Western Processing Facility to the Chicopee 

Landfill, and steel scrap transportation distance estimates for New York City from the Athena End of Life 

Transportation Database. New York City is the closest available location to Amherst, MA.

5.0 Additional Information

This section presents the methods and assumptions used to quantify the additional environmental 

information reported in Section 8.4. This information has been treated separately from the core 

assessment because the topics addressed either are not part of the life cycle study or the methodologies 

used to calculate the information are not currently standardized within the EN 15978 calculation 

framework. All additional information scenario (i.e. assumption) tables can be found in Appendix D.

5.1 Module D

Module D quantifies the future potential net benefit or load of materials and energy sources recovered 

from the building and exiting the system boundary. These output flows are assumed to substitute for 

materials or energy production from existing technologies and/or current practice. 

This assessment estimates the potential benefits and/or loads from the fraction of concrete, steel, and 

aluminum products that are recovered for recycling.

Substitution effects were calculated according to Equation (3): 

LCID = NF * PY * (lci1 - lci2) (3)

where, 

LCID is the module D substitution effects LCI of the secondary material/fuel 

NF is the net output flow of the secondary material/fuel 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

28

19

PY is the process yield of the recycling, reuse, or energy recovery process (e.g. >1kg scrap is 

required to produce 1kg steel) 

lci1 is the unit process LCI (e.g. per-kg-product) for producing the material/ energy that is 

substituted 

lci2 is the unit process LCI for producing the materials/energy from secondary sources which 

substitutes primary production 

The net output flow (NF) is the difference between the recovered secondary material/fuel leaving the 

product system and the secondary material/fuel that was used by the system, for all relevant 

information modules included in the life cycle of the object of assessment. It represents the net amount 

of secondary material/fuel added-to, or removed-from, the technosphere. The assumed net output 

flows presented in Table 27 were calculated with information from Athena databases.

PY (lci1 - lci2) is the net value of producing materials/energy via secondary vs. primary production, per 

unit net output flow. 

This assessment assumes the following:

 Recycled steel materials substitute for primary metal production. PY (lci1 - lci2) is therefore the 

difference between primary and secondary metals production (i.e. the “scrap value”).

 Recycled aluminum materials substitute for primary metal production. PY (lci1 - lci2) is 

therefore the difference between primary and secondary metals production (i.e. the “scrap 

value”).

 Recycled concrete materials are crushed on-site and substitute for aggregate. PY (lci1 - lci2) is 

therefore the difference between the effects primary aggregate production (i.e. quarrying, 

crushing, transporting) and crushing of concrete. Relative transportation effects are assumed to 

be the same and ignored.

Substitution benefits and burdens for other materials are not considered in the assessment.

5.2 Carbon Sequestration

5.2.1 Biogenic Carbon Sequestration of Wood Products

This assessment accounts for the net biogenic carbon sequestration from landfilling of wood products. 

The global warming potential benefits of sequestration have been estimated using FPInnovation's 

Carbon Tool B2C v2.1813 – see Table 25 for the assumed percentages of wood products landfilled, 

incinerated, and recycled at end of life and Table 28 other assumptions.

 13 For more information on the tool used and its methodology, see: 

https://fpinnovations.ca/ResearchProgram/environment-sustainability/epd-program/Pages/default.aspx
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

29

20

5.2.2 Concrete Carbonation

Carbon dioxide is a product of the chemical reactions that take place during cement production, a 

process known as calcination. Carbonation is the reverse chemical process, whereby CO2 reacts with 

hydration products such as calcium hydroxides (CH) and calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H) in the presence 

of water to produce calcium carbonate (CaCO3). 

The chemical reactions that occur are well-understood, but the speed at which the reactions occur in 

concrete products is still under study. Lagerblad14 gives the depth of carbonated concrete as a function 

of time according to Equation (4), which is based on Fick’s 1st Law of Diffusion:

x(t) = s * b * k * t0.5 (4)

where,

x(t) is the depth of carbonated concrete (mm) at time t

s is a correction factor based on surface treatment and cover, which ranges 

between 0.7 and 1

b is a correction factor based on the type and quantity of binder additive used, 

which ranges between 1.0 and 1.3

k is the carbonation rate coefficient (mm/year0.5), which ranges between 0.5 and 

15 based on the concrete compressive strength and type of exposure 

t is the time elapsed (years)

The mass of CO2 sequestered via carbonation is given by Equation (5) (Collins15):

mCO2(t) = x(t) / 1000 * A * c * CaO * r * M (5)

where,

mCO2(t) is the mass of CO2 sequestered via carbonation at time t (kg)

x(t) is the depth of carbonated concrete (mm) at time t

A is the exposed surface area (m2

)

c is the quantity of ordinary Portland cement in the concrete (kg/m3

)

CaO is the calcium oxide (CaO) content of ordinary Portland cement, assumed by 

Collins to be 0.65

r is the proportion of CaO in fully carbonated ordinary Portland cement

converted to calcium carbonate, assumed by Lagerblad (2005) to be 0.75

M is the molar fraction of CO2/CaO, which is 0.79

Carbon sequestration from carbonation of concrete products has been quantified in accordance with 

the Equations (4) and (5) – see Table 29 for relevant assumptions. 

 14 Lagerblad, B. (2005). Carbon dioxide uptake during concrete life cycle : State of the art. Oslo: Nordic Innovation 

Centre.

15 Collins, F. (2010). Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their 

carbon footprint. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(6), 549–556.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

30

21

Two carbonation values are reported:

1. Module A-C sequestration results include carbonation that occurs during the 60-year building 

use phase and 100 years of carbonation of the waste fraction that is landfilled. It is assumed that 

landfilled concrete waste is composed of 100mmx100mmx100mm rubble. 

2. Module D sequestration results are the substitution credits that the recycled concrete waste 

fraction receives. The crushing of concrete is assumed to produce aggregate with a range of 

particle sizes as per 

Table 30. Over the course of the recycled aggregate's assumed 60-year service life, it becomes 

completely carbonated. 

6.0 Environmental Data

6.1 Data Sources

Whole-building LCA typically draws on environmental product declaration (EPD)16 and/or life cycle 

inventory (LCI)17 environmental data sources. This assessment does not use EPDs as a source of data 

since there is a general lack of consistency between EPDs of different product categories and a lack of 

EPDs which include all EN 15978 indicators. 

The assessment draws on the following three LCI data sources:

 The Athena LCI Database, v5.2.010418

 The US LCI Database19

 The ecoinvent LCI Database, v320

Table 31 presents a summary of LCI data sources used for the various information modules considered 

in the assessment. In general, the Athena LCI Database is the primary source for process data; this 

database in turn draws on the US LCI Database for energy combustion and pre-combustion processes, 

including those related to electricity generation and transportation. The ecoinvent LCI Database was 

used for processes not available in either Athena or US LCI databases, in particular waste processing and 

landfill effects. Since ecoinvent data is European in context, the datasets used were adjusted to better 

reflect an American or Massachusetts system boundary context, as outlined in Section 6.2. 

 16 An EPD is a third-party verified document that reports environmental data based on LCA and other relevant 

information.

17 An LCI is a list of primary resource input flows and emissions (air, water, land) output flows attributed to an 

industrial process or group of processes (e.g. a building life cycle) 18 http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ 19 http://www.nrel.gov/lci/ 20 http://www.ecoinvent.ch/
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

31

22

6.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions

In order to improve geographic representativeness and data consistency, the following adjustments 

were made to ecoinvent LCI Database processes used in the assessment:

 European energy use profiles were substituted with data from the US LCI.

 Material processes were substituted with data from the US LCI, if available.

 Infrastructure effects were removed from the processes to retain consistency with current 

North American LCA practice.

LCI data for some of the building's materials were unavailable. In order to include these materials in the 

scope of assessment, materials from the Athena LCI Database deemed to most closely approximate their 

environmental profile were substituted. In some cases, the resulting estimates required a combination 

of more than one LCI profile. Some of the substitutions also required scaling the material takeoff to 

adjust for differences between the products. See Table 32 for a summary of LCI data substitutions.

6.3 Data Quality

Precision: all LCI data sources used were compiled in accordance with ISO 14040/14044 procedures and 

requirements. The data adjustments and substitutions noted in Section 6.2 introduce inaccuracies.

Completeness: all relevant, specific processes, including inputs (raw materials, energy, water) and 

outputs (emissions and production volume) are considered and modeled to represent the object of 

assessment (the building).

Consistency: the assessment draws primarily on a single LCI database (Athena LCI) with consistent 

system boundary and scope. Ecoinvent processes were adjusted to align with Athena/US LCI Database 

system boundaries.

Reproducibility: the data used is available in the LCI databases noted; the document specifies the 

adjustments and substitutions made to data such that they are generally reproducible.

Representativeness:

 Time related coverage-while the most recent validation of some LCI data sets used are beyond 

the EN 15978 limit of ten years, these processes are of limited significance to the total 

environmental effects of the whole-building assessment

 Geographical coverage - at minimum North America and representative of the region (USA, 

Massachusetts) where the building is located.

 Technological coverage - average, reflecting the physical reality of the products found in the 

building. 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

32

23

7.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and 

Expression of Results

A summary of the environmental indicator results required by EN 15978 is presented in Table 7. 

Indicators excluded from the assessment were not evaluated because the underlying LCI datasets used 

do not sufficiently support them. 

Table 7: Reported Environmental Indicators

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator Methodology Unit

Environmental Impacts

Global warming potential TRACI v2.1 kg CO2 eq.

Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer TRACI v2.1 kg CFC-11 eq.

Acidification potential of land and water TRACI v2.1 kg SO2 eq.

Eutrophication potential TRACI v2.1 kg N eq.

Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants TRACI v2.1 kg O3 eq.

Abiotic resource depletion potential for elements not in scope

Abiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels TRACI v2.1 MJ surplus

Resource Use

Renewable primary energy excluding energy resources used as raw material CED MJ

Renewable primary energy resources used as raw material CED MJ

Non-renewable primary energy excluding resources used as raw material CED MJ

Non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw material CED MJ

Secondary material Sum of LCI flows kg

Renewable secondary fuels not in scope

Non-renewable secondary fuels not in scope

Net use of fresh water Sum of LCI flows m3

Waste Categories

Non-hazardous waste disposed Sum of LCI flows kg

Hazardous waste disposed21 not in scope

Radioactive waste disposed not in scope

Output Flows Leaving the System

Components for re-use Sum of LCI flows kg

Materials for recycling Sum of LCI flows kg

Materials for energy recovery (not being waste incineration) Sum of LCI flows kg

Exported energy Sum of LCI flows MJ

CED= Cumulative Energy Demand (v1.08)

 21 North American LCI datasets generally do not track waste flows by type; a limitation of this study is that some 

hazardous and radioactive wastes have likely been characterized as non-hazardous.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

33

24

The environmental impacts considered were evaluated according to the EPA’s Tool for the Reduction 

and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) v2.1 life cycle impact assessment 

(LCIA)

22 methodology. TRACI provides a North American context for the supported measures, with a 

result that some of the indicator units are different than those required by EN 15978. This has been 

deemed acceptable for this assessment since North American adoption of a standard like EN 15978 

would presumably be structured on the use of TRACI as LCIA methodology.

Energy resource use was evaluated according to Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) methodology. All 

other indicators considered were evaluated by summing elementary LCI flows (e.g. net use of fresh 

water) or intermediate LCI flows (e.g. non-hazardous waste disposed) over the building life cycle.

Please note the following:

 Net use of fresh water is a summation of primary fresh water withdrawals, including water 

consumed and water discharged after withdrawal.

 Use of secondary material is a summation of the use of recycled and reused materials in 

products that make up the building.

 Non-hazardous waste disposed is a summation of the final waste flows landfilled and 

incinerated.

 Output Flows Leaving the System indicators include only flows that are downstream from the 

building, i.e. they do not include flows leaving the system from the Product Stage (one exception 

to this is steel waste from fabrication).

8.0 Communication of Assessment Results

This section presents LCA results tables for the Design Building; please note the following:

 Table entries marked "xx" refer to information modules or environmental indictors that are not 

included in the study scope.

 EN 15978 stipulates that results for non-building-related operational energy (e.g. plug loads), 

should be disaggregated from building-integrated technical system operational energy results

(e.g. space heating), however this type of breakdown was unavailable and therefore module B6 

is presented as a single set of results including plug loads in this report.

 As a declaration of environmental performance, results synthesis and conclusions regarding the 

building's level of performance are left to the reader.

 22 Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is the process of evaluating the environmental effects of an LCI – e.g. 

evaluating global warming potential from various greenhouse gas emissions
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

34

25

8.1 Life Cycle Results

Table 8 presents 60-year total life cycle results for the Design Building, along with results normalized 

per-m2 (gross floor area), per-occupant, per-year, per-m2

-year, and per-occupant-year.

8.2 Contribution Analysis

As required by EN 15978, total life cycle results are presented by information module in Table 9 through 

Table 11.

Figure 7 through Figure 12 in Appendix A graphically present the following contribution analyses:

 Information Module Contributions to Total LCA Results

 Resource Type Contributions to Total LCA Results

 Construction Element Contributions to Material Use LCA Results

 Material Type Contributions to Material Use LCA Results

 Fuel Type Contributions to Operational Energy LCA Results

 Municipal Service Contributions to Operational Water LCA Results

8.3 Sensitivity Analysis

EN 15978 requires that “the significance of the influence of the data chosen for the building assessment 

shall be determined (e.g. through a sensitivity analysis) and reported.” For the most part, the 

assessment draws on data from a single source (Athena LCI Database), which has a high degree of 

methodological consistency.

The following five sensitivity analyses were conducted; each aims to explore the sensitivity of aspects 

whose assumed scenarios, LCI datasets, and/or material quantity calculations could measurably change 

life cycle results: 

 Scenario 1: operational energy use estimates are increased by 10%

 Scenario 2: operational water use estimates are increased by 10%

 Scenario 3: cross laminated timber and glulam quantities are increased by 10%.

 Scenario 4: concrete and rebar quantities are increased by 10%

 Scenario 5: Wide flange and hollow structural steel section quantities are increased by 10%

Table 12 presents the ratios of the total life cycle results of these sensitivity cases to the baseline case.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

35

26

8.4 Additional Results

Table 13 presents indicator results for the following additional information outlined in Section 5.0:

 Modules A-C, wood carbon sequestration

 Modules A-C, concrete carbon sequestration

 Module D, steel recycling

 Module D, aluminum recycling

 Module D, concrete recycling

 Module D, concrete recycling carbon sequestration
General Technical Report FPL

–GTR–255

36

27

Table 8: UMass Design Building LCA Results

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator Unit Total Per-m2 Peroccupant Per-year Per-m2- year Per- occupant- yearEnvironmental ImpactsGlobal warming potential kg CO2 eq. 3.10E+07 3.81E+03 3.78E+05 5.17E+05 6.34E+01 6.30E+03Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer kg CFC-11 eq. 8.05E-02 9.89E-06 9.82E-04 1.34E-03 1.65E-07 1.64E-05Acidification potential of land and water kg SO2 eq. 2.49E+05 3.06E+01 3.04E+03 4.15E+03 5.10E-01 5.06E+01Eutrophication potential kg N eq. 5.96E+03 7.31E-01 7.26E+01 9.93E+01 1.22E-02 1.21E+00Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants kg O3 eq. 1.12E+06 1.37E+02 1.36E+04 1.86E+04 2.28E+00 2.27E+02Abiotic resource depletion potential for elements kg Sb eq. xx xx xx xx xx xxAbiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels MJ surplus 6.96E+07 8.55E+03 8.49E+05 1.16E+06 1.42E+02 1.42E+04Resource UseRenewable primary energy excluding energy resources used as raw material MJ 1.23E+07 1.51E+03 1.50E+05 2.05E+05 2.52E+01 2.50E+03Renewable primary energy resources used as raw material MJ 2.03E+07 2.50E+03 2.48E+05 3.39E+05 4.16E+01 4.13E+03Non-renewable primary energy excluding resources used as raw material MJ 5.31E+08 6.52E+04 6.48E+06 8.85E+06 1.09E+03 1.08E+05Non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw material MJ 1.80E+06 2.21E+02 2.19E+04 2.99E+04 3.68E+00 3.65E+02Secondary material kg 6.89E+05 8.46E+01 8.41E+03 1.15E+04 1.41E+00 1.40E+02Renewable secondary fuels MJ xx xx xx xx xx xxNon-renewable secondary fuels MJ xx xx xx xx xx xxNet use of fresh water m3 9.01E+04 1.11E+01 1.10E+03 1.50E+03 1.84E-01 1.83E+01Waste CategoriesNon-hazardous waste disposed kg 5.42E+06 6.66E+02 6.61E+04 9.04E+04 1.11E+01 1.10E+03Hazardous waste disposed kg xx xx xx xx xx xxRadioactive waste disposed kg xx xx xx xx xx xxOutput Flows Leaving the SystemComponents for re-use kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Materials for recycling kg 4.64E+06 5.70E+02 5.66E+04 7.73E+04 9.49E+00 9.43E+02Materials for energy recovery (not being waste incineration) kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Exported energy MJ 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

37

28

Table 9: Information Module Contributions to Environmental Impact Indicator Results

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator

Environmental Impacts

Global warming 

potential

Depletion potential of 

the stratospheric 

ozone layer

Acidification potential 

of land and water

Eutrophication 

potential

Formation potential of 

ozone troposheric

photochemical 

oxidants

Abiotic resource 

depletion potential for 

elements

Abiotic resource 

depletion potential of 

fossil fuels

kg CO2 eq. kg CFC-11 eq. moles of H+ eq. kg N eq. kg O3 eq. kg Sb eq. MJ surplus

A1 Raw Material Supply, A2 Transport, A3 Manufacturing 2.59E+06 6.44E-02 1.27E+04 8.22E+02 1.61E+05 xx 2.31E+06A4 Transport 1.52E+05 6.12E-06 1.63E+03 1.09E+02 5.64E+04 xx 2.91E+05A5 Construction Installation Process 4.41E+05 1.73E-03 2.41E+03 1.16E+02 4.43E+04 xx 7.60E+05B1 Use of Products xx xx xx xx xx xx xxB2 Maintenance 1.35E+03 6.81E-06 8.29E+00 2.71E-01 1.25E+02 xx 7.16E+03B3 Repair 3.64E+05 2.09E-03 2.26E+03 1.20E+02 4.27E+04 xx 3.63E+05B4 Replacement 3.75E+05 2.96E-03 2.27E+03 1.21E+02 3.47E+04 xx 5.09E+05B5 Refurbishment xx xx xx xx xx xx xxB6 Operational Energy Use 2.68E+07 9.90E-05 2.26E+05 2.38E+03 7.28E+05 xx 6.49E+07B7 Operational Water Use 3.93E+04 1.48E-03 4.83E+02 2.13E+03 2.96E+03 xx 5.50E+04C1 De-construction and Demolition 9.49E+04 3.94E-06 1.14E+02 9.35E+00 2.76E+03 xx 1.88E+05C2 Transport 8.71E+04 3.33E-06 8.74E+02 5.70E+01 2.92E+04 xx 1.59E+05C3 Waste Processing 5.27E+04 3.37E-03 4.99E+02 2.18E+01 8.58E+03 xx 9.61E+04C4 Disposal 2.65E+04 4.39E-03 2.22E+02 6.79E+01 5.82E+03 xx 4.37E+04Total 3.10E+07 8.05E-02 2.49E+05 5.96E+03 1.12E+06 xx 6.96E+07
General Technical Report FPL

–GTR–255

38

29

Table 10: Information Module Contributions to Resource Use Indicator Results

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator

Resource Use

Use of renewable primary 

energy excluding energy 

used as raw material

Use of renewable primary 

energy resources used as 

raw material

renewable - Use of non

primary energy excluding 

energy used as raw 

material

renewable - Use of non

primary energy resources 

used as raw material

secondary material Use of 

Use of renewable 

secondary fuels

renewable - Use of non

secondary fuels

Use of net fresh water

MJ, net 

calorific 

value

MJ, net 

calorific 

value

MJ, net 

calorific 

value

MJ, net 

calorific 

value

kg MJ MJ m3

A1 Raw Material Supply, A2 Transport, A3 Manufacturing 6.36E+06 2.00E+07 2.88E+07 1.15E+06 6.66E+05 xx xx 1.61E+04A4 Transport 9.93E+02 0.00E+00 2.04E+06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 0.00E+00A5 Construction Installation Process 1.62E+05 2.20E+05 6.62E+06 3.55E+04 1.61E+04 xx xx 4.64E+02B1 Use of Products xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxB2 Maintenance 2.43E+02 0.00E+00 1.43E+04 3.89E+04 0.00E+00 xx xx 5.03E-01B3 Repair 8.17E+04 5.57E+02 3.27E+06 2.23E+05 6.38E+03 xx xx 2.65E+02B4 Replacement 1.11E+05 1.65E+05 4.39E+06 3.53E+05 7.43E+02 xx xx 6.34E+02B5 Refurbishment xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxB6 Operational Energy Use 5.53E+06 0.00E+00 4.82E+08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 1.80E-03B7 Operational Water Use 2.61E+04 0.00E+00 6.76E+05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 7.26E+04C1 De-construction and Demolition 5.73E+02 0.00E+00 1.31E+06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 0.00E+00C2 Transport 5.12E+02 0.00E+00 1.12E+06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 0.00E+00C3 Waste Processing 4.18E+04 0.00E+00 9.39E+05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 3.47E+00C4 Disposal 3.34E+03 0.00E+00 3.62E+05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 xx xx 4.51E+00Total 1.23E+07 2.03E+07 5.31E+08 1.80E+06 6.89E+05 xx xx 9.01E+04
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

39

30

Table 11: Information Module Contributions to Waste Category and Output Flow Indicator Results

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator

Waste Categories Output Flows

Non hazardous waste 

to disposal

Hazardous waste to 

disposal

Radioactive waste

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy 

recovery

Exported energy

kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ

A1 Raw Material Supply, A2 Transport, A3 Manufacturing 1.50E+05 xx xx 0.00E+00 5.12E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00A4 Transport 1.60E+03 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00A5 Construction Installation Process 1.74E+05 xx xx 0.00E+00 1.95E+05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00B1 Use of Products xx xx xx xx xx xx xxB2 Maintenance 2.17E+03 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00B3 Repair 2.12E+05 xx xx 0.00E+00 3.52E+04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00B4 Replacement 2.25E+05 xx xx 0.00E+00 1.75E+04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00B5 Refurbishment xx xx xx xx xx xx xxB6 Operational Energy Use 3.66E+05 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00B7 Operational Water Use 6.57E+02 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00C1 De-construction and Demolition 1.03E+03 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00C2 Transport 8.27E+02 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00C3 Waste Processing 5.93E+02 xx xx 0.00E+00 4.39E+06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00C4 Disposal 4.29E+06 xx xx 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Total 5.42E+06 xx xx 0.00E+00 4.64E+06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
General Technical Report FPL

–GTR–255

40

31

Table 12: Sensitivity Analysis Results

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator Unit

Scenario 1: 

10% 

increase in 

operating 

energy use

Scenario 2: 

10% 

increase in 

operating 

water use

Scenario 

3: +10% 

CLT & 

Glulam

Scenario 

4: +10% 

Concrete 

& Rebar

Scenario 

5: +10% 

W 

Sections 

& HSS

Environmental ImpactsGlobal warming potential kg CO2 eq. 1.086 1.000 1.001 1.005 1.001Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer kg CFC-11 eq. 1.000 1.002 1.026 1.039 1.009Acidification potential of land and water kg SO2 eq. 1.091 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.000Eutrophication potential kg N eq. 1.040 1.036 1.005 1.009 1.001Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants kg O3 eq. 1.065 1.000 1.007 1.007 1.002Abiotic resource depletion potential for elements kg Sb eq. xx xx xx xx xxAbiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels MJ surplus 1.093 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.000Resource UseRenewable primary energy excluding energy resources used as raw material MJ 1.045 1.000 1.048 1.003 1.000Renewable primary energy resources used as raw material MJ 1.000 1.000 1.097 1.000 1.000Non-renewable primary energy excluding resources used as raw material MJ 1.091 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.001Non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw material MJ 1.000 1.000 1.021 1.000 1.000Secondary material kg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.034 1.024Renewable secondary fuels MJ xx xx xx xx xxNon-renewable secondary fuels MJ xx xx xx xx xxNet use of fresh water m3 1.000 1.081 1.001 1.005 1.002Waste CategoriesNon-hazardous waste disposed kg 1.007 1.000 1.017 1.050 1.000Hazardous waste disposed kg xx xx xx xx xxRadioactive waste disposed kg xx xx xx xx xxOutput Flows Leaving the SystemComponents for re-use kg n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aMaterials for recycling kg 1.000 1.000 1.002 1.088 1.003Materials for energy recovery (not being waste incineration) kg n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Note: values presented in this table are the total life cycle sensitivity scenario results divided by the baseline results
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

41

32

Table 13: Additional Information Results

EN 15978 Environmental Indicator Unit

Modules 

A-C, 

wood 

carbon 

sequest.

Modules AC, concrete 

carbon 

sequest.

Module D, 

steel 

recycling

Module 

D, 

aluminum 

recycling

Module 

D, 

concrete 

recycling

Module D, 

recycled 

concrete 

carbon 

sequest.

Environmental ImpactsGlobal warming potential kg CO2 eq. -9.61E+05 -1.47E+05 7.57E+04 -1.61E+05 -1.22E+04 -1.69E+05Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer kg CFC-11 eq. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -2.63E+00 -7.70E-06 -3.24E-07 0.00E+00Acidification potential of land and water kg SO2 eq. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.73E+02 -1.14E+03 -1.37E+02 0.00E+00Eutrophication potential kg N eq. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.01E+00 -1.75E+01 -6.01E+00 0.00E+00Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants kg O3 eq. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.69E+03 -8.76E+03 -3.10E+03 0.00E+00Abiotic resource depletion potential for elements kg Sb eq. xx xx xx xx xx xxAbiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels MJ surplus 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.20E+02 -1.05E+05 -2.31E+04 0.00E+00Resource UseRenewable primary energy excluding energy resources used as raw material MJ 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -1.02E+06 -1.50E+04 0.00E+00Renewable primary energy resources used as raw material MJ 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Non-renewable primary energy excluding resources used as raw material MJ 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.29E+05 -1.63E+06 -2.05E+05 0.00E+00Non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw material MJ 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Secondary material kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -4.99E+04 0.00E+00 3.98E+06 0.00E+00Renewable secondary fuels MJ xx xx xx xx xx xxNon-renewable secondary fuels MJ xx xx xx xx xx xxNet use of fresh water m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -1.16E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Waste CategoriesNon-hazardous waste disposed kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -1.88E+03 -6.66E+04 -6.18E+01 0.00E+00Hazardous waste disposed kg xx xx xx xx xx xxRadioactive waste disposed kg xx xx xx xx xx xxOutput Flows Leaving the SystemComponents for re-use kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Materials for recycling kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Materials for energy recovery (not being waste incineration) kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Exported energy MJ 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Note: a negative value means a sequestration or avoided impact
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

42

33

Appendix A: Contribution Analysis Charts

Please note that some of the indicator names in this Appendix have been modified for conciseness.

Figure 7: Information Module Contributions to Total LCA Results

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Global warming potential

Ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential

Eutrophication potential

Smog potential

Abiotic depletion potential, fossil fuels

Renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Renewable primary energy, feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, feedstock

Use of secondary material

Use of net fresh water

Non hazardous waste to disposal

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy recovery

Exported energy

A1/A3 A2 A4 A5 B2 B3 B4 B6 B7 C1 C2 C3 C4
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

43

34

Figure 8: Resource Type Contributions to Total LCA Results

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Global warming potential

Ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential

Eutrophication potential

Smog potential

Abiotic depletion potential, fossil fuels

Renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Renewable primary energy, feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, feedstock

Use of secondary material

Use of net fresh water

Non hazardous waste to disposal

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy recovery

Exported energy

Material Use Operational Energy Use Operational Water Use
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

44

35

Figure 9: Construction Element Contributions to Material Use LCA Results

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Global warming potential

Ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential

Eutrophication potential

Smog potential

Abiotic depletion potential, fossil fuels

Renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Renewable primary energy, feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, feedstock

Use of secondary material

Use of net fresh water

Non hazardous waste to disposal

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy recovery

Exported energy

A1010 Standard Foundations A1020 Special Foundations

A1030 Slab on Grade A2020 Basement Walls

B1010 Floor Construction B1020 Roof Construction

B2010 Exterior Walls B2020 Exterior Windows

B2030 Exterior Doors B3010 Roof Coverings

B3020 Roof Openings C1010 Partitions

C1020 Interior Doors C2010 Stair Construction
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

45

36

Figure 10: Material Type Contributions to Material Use LCA Results

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Global warming potential

Ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential

Eutrophication potential

Smog potential

Abiotic depletion potential, fossil fuels

Renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Renewable primary energy, feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, feedstock

Use of secondary material

Use of net fresh water

Non hazardous waste to disposal

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy recovery

Exported energy

Steel Aluminum Concrete

Gypsum Glass Wood

Other Inert Plastics Other Fossil Fuel Derived
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

46

37

Figure 11: Fuel Type Contributions to Operational Energy LCA Results

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Global warming potential

Ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential

Eutrophication potential

Smog potential

Abiotic depletion potential, fossil fuels

Renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Renewable primary energy, feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, feedstock

Use of secondary material

Use of net fresh water

Non hazardous waste to disposal

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy recovery

Exported energy

Electricity Natural Gas
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

47

38

Figure 12: Municipal Service Contributions to Operational Water LCA Results

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Global warming potential

Ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential

Eutrophication potential

Smog potential

Abiotic depletion potential, fossil fuels

Renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Renewable primary energy, feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, excluding feedstock

Non-renewable primary energy, feedstock

Use of secondary material

Use of net fresh water

Non hazardous waste to disposal

Components for reuse

Material for recycling

Material for energy recovery

Exported energy

Water Supply Wastewater
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

48

39

Appendix B: Building Element Design Summary

Table 14: Building Element Design Summary

Element Design Summary

A1010 Standard Foundations  350-900 deep reinforced concrete pad footings 

 300-600 deep reinforced concrete strip footings

A1020 Special Foundations  600-1625 deep reinforced concrete grade beams

A1030 Slab on Grade

 150 reinforced concrete slab (+ 75 topping at first floor) with 15 mil 

polyethylene, 50 XPS insulation

 100 housekeeping pads

A2010 Basement Excavation not included in scope

A2020 Basement Walls  300-500 thick reinforced concrete walls

B1010 Floor Construction

 Columns: 400x400, 450x450, 600x600, 550x750 reinforced concrete

(basement); 356x563, 356x638, 356x788 glulam, 100-250 diameter hollow 

structural steel

 Beams: 300-1825 deep reinforced concrete (basement); 356x375, 356x413 

glulam; 125-825 deep W sections; misc. hollow structural steel

 Floor: 250-600 reinforced concrete slab (first floor); 175 CLT with 100 

reinforced concrete topping, 25 rigid insulation

 Walls: 245 CLT

 Braces: 356x356 glulam

B1020 Roof Construction

 Columns: 356x563, 356x638 glulam; 200 deep hollow structural steel

 Beams: 150-525 deep glulam; 125-200 deep W sections

 Truss: 225-450 deep hollow structural sections

 Braces: 356x356 glulam

 Roof: 175 CLT with 100 reinforced concrete topping, 25 rigid insulation; 245

CLT; 38 deep metal deck

 Walls: 245 CLT

B2010 Exterior Walls

 Aluminum plate rain screen, 100 mineral wool insulation, membrane air/vapor 

barrier, 150-200 deep light gauge steel stud wall, 38 spray foam insulation, 16 

gypsum board

 100 bluestone, 38 drainage panel, 65 polyisocyanurate insulation, membrane 

air/vapor barrier, 65-200 deep light gauge steel stud wall, 38 spray foam 

insulation, 16 gypsum board

B2020 Exterior Windows  Low-e double glazed, aluminum framed curtain wall

B2030 Exterior Doors  Aluminum rail and stile glass, glass bifold, hollow metal doors

B3010 Roof Coverings

 60 mil TPO membrane, tapered polyisocynurate insulation (R-35 min), roof 

vapor retarder, roof board underlayment

 Mix of vegetative roof and wood decking with 150 XPS insulation, drainage 

mat, protection layer/root barrier, 215 mil reinforced hot rubberized asphalt

B3020 Roof Openings  Low roof skylights

C1010 Partitions  Light gauge steel stud walls @400 (65, 90, 100, 150 deep), fibreglass insulation, 

16 gypsum board

C1020 Interior Doors  Hollow metal, solid wood doors
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

49

40

Element Design Summary

C1030 Fittings not included in scope

C2010 Stair Construction  175 CLT with glulam treads

 6 thick plate with concrete topping, structural steel channel stringers

C2020 Stair Finishes not included in scope

C3010 Wall Finishes not included in scope

C3020 Floor Finishes not included in scope

C3030 Ceiling Finishes not included in scope

Table Notes: 

1) all dimensions given in mm; 

2) for conciseness, not all assembly/assembly components are listed;

Appendix C: Whole-building Bill of Materials

Table 15: Whole-building Bill of Materials

Material Quantity Unit

1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 1093.700 m2

5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 2015.627 m2

5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 16764.278 m2

6 mil Polyethylene 5095.480 m2

Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet 9.758 Tonnes

Aluminum Extrusion 22.096 Tonnes

Bolts, Fasteners, Clips 0.843 Tonnes

Coarse Aggregate Crushed Stone 836.474 Tonnes

Coarse Aggregate Natural 12.563 Tonnes

Cold Rolled Sheet 0.073 Tonnes

Concrete 4000 psi, 25% fly ash 633.583 m3

Concrete 5000 psi, 25% fly ash 1955.111 m3

Cross Laminated Timber 1586.124 m3

EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 269.912 kg

Expanded Polystyrene 4238.921 m2 (25mm)

Extruded Polystyrene 8600.967 m2 (25mm)

FG Batt R11-15 8069.284 m2 (25mm)

FG Batt R20 4492.182 m2 (25mm)

FG Batt R30 629.036 m2 (25mm)

Fiber Cement 2795.199 m2

GAF Everguard© white TPO membrane 60 mil 2187.400 m2

Galvanized Decking 0.819 Tonnes

Galvanized Sheet 8.991 Tonnes

Galvanized Studs 38.610 Tonnes

Glazing Panel 63.203 Tonnes

GluLam Sections 556.740 m3

Hollow Structural Steel 46.905 Tonnes
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

50

41

Material Quantity Unit

Hot Rolled Sheet 8.942 Tonnes

Joint Compound 12.040 Tonnes

Laminated Veneer Lumber 3.526 m3

Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 14.161 m3

Modified Bitumen membrane 1992.178 kg

Mortar 8.849 m3

MW Batt R11-15 7256.932 m2 (25mm)

Nails 0.896 Tonnes

Natural Stone 368.960 m2

Paper Tape 0.145 Tonnes

Polyester felt 0.012 Tonnes

Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 16140.355 m2 (25mm)

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 211.514 Tonnes

Roofing Asphalt 1325.248 kg

Screws Nuts & Bolts 7.100 Tonnes

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 13.261 m3

Softwood Plywood 1812.567 m2 (9mm)

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 31.219 L

Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding 70.550 m2

Steel Plate 126.135 Tonnes

VR 1/2" Drainage Mat 1525.193 m2

VR 20 mil Root Barrier 295.800 m2

Water Based Latex Paint 85.459 L

Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 21.054 Tonnes

Wide Flange Sections 102.752 Tonnes

Wire Rod 6.907 Tonnes

Please note that the reported quantities are those required by the building at initial 

construction and do not include wastage.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

51

42

Appendix D: Scenario Tables

Please note that the table captions include references to the relevant information modules.

Table 16: Scenarios – Transport of Materials to Site (modules A4, B2, B3, B4)

Material

Road 

Short 

Haul, 

diesel 

(km)

Road 

Long 

Haul, 

diesel 

(km)

Rail, 

diesel 

(km)

Barge, 

residual 

fuel oil 

(km)

Ocean, 

residual 

fuel oil 

(km)

1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 346 496 0 0

5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 346 496 0 0

5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 346 496 0 0

6 mil Polyethylene 826 261 0 0

Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet 997 292 0 0

Aluminum Extrusion 1,868 547 0 0

Bolts, Fasteners, Clips 305 735 0 0

Coarse Aggregate Crushed Stone 45 0 0 0

Coarse Aggregate Natural 45 0 0 0

Cold Rolled Sheet 13 411 0 0 0

Concrete 4000 psi, 25% fly ash 13 0 0 0

Concrete 5000 psi, 25% fly ash 13 0 0 0

Cross Laminated Timber 850

EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 498 388 0 0

Expanded Polystyrene 798 558 0 0

Extruded Polystyrene 405 0 0 0

FG Batt R11-15 468 0 0 0

FG Batt R20 468 0 0 0

FG Batt R30 468 0 0 0

Fiber Cement 185 468 0 0 0

GAF Everguard© white TPO membrane 60 mil 1,398

Galvanized Decking 401 342 0 0

Galvanized Sheet 365 571 0 0

Galvanized Studs 169

Glazing Panel 966 797 0 0

GluLam Sections 850

Hollow Structural Steel 60 456 405 0 0

Hot Rolled Sheet 321 486 0 0

Joint Compound 558 0 0 0

Laminated Veneer Lumber 1,497 1,083 279 0

Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 45 910 0 0 0

Modified Bitumen membrane 740 347 0 0

Mortar 330 0 0 0

MW Batt R11-15 522 522 0 0

Nails 298 0 0 0

Natural Stone 500 0 0 0
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

52

43

Material

Road 

Short 

Haul, 

diesel 

(km)

Road 

Long 

Haul, 

diesel 

(km)

Rail, 

diesel 

(km)

Barge, 

residual 

fuel oil 

(km)

Ocean, 

residual 

fuel oil 

(km)

Paper Tape 888 0 0 0

Polyester felt 736 694 0 0

Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 188 40 0 0

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 293 175 0 0

Roofing Asphalt 33 642 590 0 0

Screws Nuts & Bolts 60 456

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 797 1,200 0 0

Softwood Plywood 900 2,225 0 0

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 530 0 0 0

Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding 1,842 956 0 0

Steel Plate 60 456 310 0 0

VR 1/2" Drainage Mat 300 0 0 0

VR 20 mil Root Barrier 300 0 0 0

Water Based Latex Paint 530 0 0 0

Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 830 25 0 0

Wide Flange Sections 60 456 405 0 0

Wire Rod 60 456 310 0 0

Table 17: Scenarios – Construction Energy Use (modules A5, B2, B3, B4)

Module

Gasoline 

(L)

Electricity 

(kWh)

A5 94,635 205,765

B2 13 28

B3 2,134 4,639

B4 1,670 3,630

Table 18: Scenarios – Construction Material Wastage (modules A5, B2, B3, B4)

Material

Construction 

Waste 

Factor

1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 1.1

5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 1.1

5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 1.1

6 mil Polyethylene 1.02

Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet 1

Aluminum Extrusion 1.01
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

53

44

Material

Construction 

Waste 

Factor

Bolts, Fasteners, Clips 1.03

Coarse Aggregate Crushed Stone 1

Coarse Aggregate Natural 1

Cold Rolled Sheet 1.01

Concrete 4000 psi, 25% fly ash 1.05

Concrete 5000 psi, 25% fly ash 1.05

Cross Laminated Timber 1.01

EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 1.03

Expanded Polystyrene 1.05

Extruded Polystyrene 1.05

FG Batt R11-15 1.05

FG Batt R20 1.05

FG Batt R30 1.05

Fiber Cement 1.1

GAF Everguard© white TPO membrane 60 mil 1.03

Galvanized Decking 1.01

Galvanized Sheet 1.01

Galvanized Studs 1.01

Glazing Panel 1

GluLam Sections 1.01

Hollow Structural Steel 1.01

Hot Rolled Sheet 1.01

Joint Compound 1.07

Laminated Veneer Lumber 1.01

Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 1.05

Modified Bitumen membrane 1.03

Mortar 1.15

MW Batt R11-15 1.05

Nails 1.03

Natural Stone 1.05

Paper Tape 1.05

Polyester felt 1.01

Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 1.05

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1.01

Roofing Asphalt 1

Screws Nuts & Bolts 1.03

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 1.08

Softwood Plywood 1.05

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 1.02

Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding 1.1

Steel Plate 1.01

VR 1/2" Drainage Mat 1.02

VR 20 mil Root Barrier 1.02

Water Based Latex Paint 1.02
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

54

45

Material

Construction 

Waste 

Factor

Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 1.02

Wide Flange Sections 1.01

Wire Rod 1.01

Table 19: Scenarios – Maintenance (module B2)

Assembly/Building Element Replaced Materials

Task 

Frequency 

(Fx)

Material 

Use % 

(Px,y)

Sourcea

Exterior hollow metal doors Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 10 100 1

Interior hollow metal doors Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 4 100 1

Interior hollow wood doors Water Based Latex Paint 4 100 1

Interior solid wood doors Water Based Latex Paint 4 100 1

a 1 = Whitestone Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference

Table 20: Scenarios – Repair (module B3)

Assembly/Building 

Element Replaced Materials

Task 

Frequency 

(Fx)

Material 

Use % 

(Px,y)

Sourcea

Slab on grade

Concrete 4000 psi, 25% fly ash 15 2 1

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 15 2 1

6 mil Polyethylene 15 2 1

Extruded Polystyrene 15 2 1

Gypsum Board

5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 20 2 1

Joint Compound 20 2 1

Paper Tape 20 2 1

Nails 20 2 1

Wood soffit Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding 20 2 1

Aluminum cladding Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet 20 2 1

Curtain Wall

EPDM membrane 1 3.0 1

Glazing Panel 1 3.0 1

Screws Nuts & Bolts 1 3.0 1

Roof covering

GAF Everguard© white TPO membrane 60 mil 1 1.5 3

Fiber Cement 1 1.5 3

Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 1 1.5 3

Modified Bitumen membrane 1 1.5 3

1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 1 1.5 3

Extruded Polystyrene 1 1.5 3

VR 1/2" Drainage Mat 1 1.5 3

VR 20 mil Root Barrier 1 1.5 3

Roofing Asphalt 1 1.5 3

Coarse Aggregate Natural 1 1.5 3

Polyester felt 1 1.5 3

Exterior aluminum Aluminum Extrusion 12 12 1
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

55

46

Assembly/Building 

Element Replaced Materials

Task 

Frequency 

(Fx)

Material 

Use % 

(Px,y)

Sourcea

and glass doors Glazing Panel 12 12 1

Nails 12 12 1

Exterior steel doors

Galvanized Sheet 17 15 1

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 17 15 1

Expanded Polystyrene 17 15 1

Nails 17 15 1

Table 21: Scenarios – Replacement (module B4)

Assembly/Building 

Element Replaced Materials

Task 

Frequency 

(Fx)

a

Material 

Use % 

(Px,y)

Sourceb

Slab on grade

Concrete 4000 psi, 25% fly ash 75 100 1

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 75 100 1

6 mil Polyethylene 75 100 1

Extruded Polystyrene 75 100 1

Gypsum Board

5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 75 100 1

Joint Compound 75 100 1

Paper Tape 75 100 1

Nails 75 100 1

Cedar soffit Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding 25 100 2

Aluminum cladding Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet 50 100 2

Curtain wall

Glazing panel 35 100 3

EPDM membrane 35 100 3

Glazing Panel 35 100 3

Screws Nuts & Bolts 35 100 3

Roof covering

GAF Everguard© white TPO membrane 60 mil 20 100 3

Fiber Cement 20 100 3

Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 20 80 3

Modified Bitumen membrane 20 100 3

1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 20 100 3

Extruded Polystyrene 20 80 3

VR 1/2" Drainage Mat 20 100 3

VR 20 mil Root Barrier 20 100 3

Roofing Asphalt 20 100 3

Coarse Aggregate Natural 20 100 3

Polyester felt 20 100 3

Ext. sliding glass 

door 

Triple Glazed No Coating Air 50 100 1

Aluminum Window Frame 50 100 1

Ext. steel doors

Galvanized Sheet 75 100 1

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 75 100 1

Expanded Polystyrene 75 100 1

Nails 75 100 1

Ext. overhead metal 

door

Galvanized Sheet 35 100 1

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 35 100 1

Expanded Polystyrene 35 100 1
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

56

47

Assembly/Building 

Element Replaced Materials

Task 

Frequency 

(Fx)

a

Material 

Use % 

(Px,y)

Sourceb

Nails 35 100 1

Int. hollow metal 

doors

Galvanized Sheet (Tonnes) 75 100 1

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint (L) 75 100 1

Nails (Tonnes) 75 100 1

Int. hollow wood 

doors

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried (m3) 30 100 1

Nails (Tonnes) 30 100 1

Water Based Latex Paint (L) 30 100 1

Int. solid wood 

doors

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried (m3) 50 100 1

Nails (Tonnes) 50 100 1

Water Based Latex Paint (L) 50 100 1

a Please note that materials with task frequencies in excess of the reference study period are not replaced

b 1 = Whitestone Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 2013-2014, 2 = Athena IE4B Database, 3 = Athena report

Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Effects for Building Envelope Materials (2002)

Table 22: Scenarios – Annual Operational Energy Use (B6)

Energya Type Quantity Unit

Natural Gas 122,514 m3

Electricity 240,171 kWh

a The energy use presented is the net grid-supplied consumption, i.e. natural gas 

 consumed by the district plant and grid electricity consumption.

Table 23: Scenarios – Annual Operational Water Use and Wastewater Discharge (B7)

End-use

From 

Municipal 

Water Supply 

(m3)

To 

Municipal 

Wastewater 

(m3)

Water Closets 903 903

Urinals 39 39

Showers 34 34

Lavatory Taps 100 100

Kitchen Taps 134 134

Total 1,211 1,211
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

57

48

Table 24: Scenarios – Demolition Energy Use (modules B2, B3, B4, C1)

Module Diesel 

(L)

B2 0

B3 158

B4 74

C1 31,163

Table 25: Scenarios – Waste Outcomes (modules A5, B2, B3, B4, C3, C4)

Waste Type To 

Reuse

To 

Recycling

To 

Energy 

Recovery

To 

Landfill

To 

Incineration

Steel - rebar & fasteners 70.0% 30.0%

Steel - all other steel products 98.0% 2.0%

Aluminum 95.0% 5.0%

Concrete 60.0% 40.0%

Wooda 10% 80% 10%

Aggregateb 50.0%

All other materials 100.0%

 a These assumptions are likely very conservative estimates for CLT and glulam members

 b 50% of aggregate assumed to be left on site

Table 26: Scenarios – Waste Transport (modules A5, B2, B3, B4, C2)

Transportation Type Rail, diesel 

(km)

Barge, 

residual 

fuel oil 

(km)

Road 

Short 

Haul, 

diesel (km)

Road Long 

Haul, 

diesel (km)

Secondary steel: site to waste processing 99 534 0 753

All materials: site to sorting plant 0 0 32 0

All materials: sorting plant to landfill/incineration 0 0 8.5 0
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

58

49

Table 27: Scenarios – Module D Assumptions

Material

Secondary 

Material Recovery Rate

Net Output 

Flowa

(kg/kg 

product used)

(kg/kg product 

used)

(kg/kg product 

used)

Steel Products

 Bolts, Fasteners, Clips 1.020 0.70 -0.320

 Cold Rolled Sheet 0.177 0.98 0.803

 Galvanized Sheet 0.439 0.98 0.541

 Galvanized Sheet 0.439 0.98 0.541

 Galvanized Studs 0.439 0.98 0.541

 Hollow Structural Steel 0.838 0.98 0.142

 Nails 1.020 0.70 -0.320

 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1.020 0.70 -0.320

 Screws Nuts & Bolts 1.020 0.70 -0.320

 Steel Plate 1.020 0.98 -0.040

 Wide Flange Sections 1.020 0.98 -0.040

 Wire Rod 1.020 0.70 -0.320

Aluminum Products 0.000 0.60 0.600

 Extrusions 0.426 0.95 0.524

 Cold Rolled Sheet 0.649 0.95 0.301

Concrete 0.000 0.60 0.600

 a negative value indicates that the system is a net consumer of secondary material

Table 28: Scenarios – Wood Product Biogenic Carbon Assumptions

Wood Product

Oven dry 

mass 

(kg/m3)

a

Wood 

species

Carbon 

content of 

wood (%)b

Cross Laminated Timber 378 Spruce 50.39%

Glulam Sections 470 D. Fir 50.50%

Laminated Veneer Lumber 446 ? 50.00%

Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 378 S-P-F 50.00%

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 378 S-P-F 50.00%

Softwood Plywood 404 D. Fir 50.50%

a source: WoodWorks Carbon Calculator

b source: FPInnovation Carbon Tool B2C v2.18
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

59

50

Table 29: Scenarios – Concrete Carbonation Assumptions

Carbonation Parameter Value

s factor 1

b factor 1.05

k factor

 Wet/submerged 0.75

 Buried 1

 Exposed 1.5

 Sheltered 4

 Indoors 6

c4000 PSI (kg/m3) 313.7

c5000 PSI (kg/m3) 395.6

Table 30: Scenarios – Particle Size Distribution of Crushed Concrete

Particle size (mm) Proportion Average radius (mm)

19-26.5 1% 11.375

13.2-19.0 11% 8.05

9.5-13.2 13% 5.675

4.75-9.5 22% 3.5625

2.36-4.75 12% 1.7775

0.425-2.36 22% 0.69625

0.075-0.425 12% 0.125

<0.075 6% 0.0375

Source: Collins 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

60

51

Appendix E: LCI Data Source Tables

Table 31: Data Sources Summary

LCI Data

Time 

Framea

Geographical 

Representativeness

Information 

Modules

Database 

Source

Common fossil fuels 2004-

2008 North America

Electricity generation and delivery All US LCI 2004-

2012

North 

America, 

Massachusetts

Transportation 2004-

2010 North America

Softwood lumber, LVL, plywood 2012

USA

A1, A3, B2, 

B3, B4

Athena 

LCI

Cross laminated timber 2013

Glulam 2012

Spruce siding 2004

Aluminum products 2014 North America

Steel products 2011, 

2013

North 

America, USA

Ready-mix concrete 2014

USA

Mortar 2004

Gypsum board products 2012

Joint compound and paper tape 1997

Fibreglass and mineral wool batt insulation 2012

Polyisocyanurate insulation 2011

Extruded and expanded polystyrene insulation 2007

Glazing 2013

Polyethylene vapor retarder 2010

Modified bitumen membrane 2013

TPO membrane 2013

Roofing asphalt 2001

Drainage Mat, root barrier 2013

Fiber Cement 2009

Water based latex, solvent based alkyd paint 1999

Coarse aggregate 2004

Water supply and waste water plants 2005, 

2009

World 

(excluding 

Europe), 

adjusted to 

Massachusetts

B7 Ecoinvent 

LCI

Steel scrap preprocessing 2013 North America C3 Athena 

LCI

Landfilling and incineration 2012-

2014

Quebec, 

adjusted to 

Massachusetts

C4 Ecoinvent 

LCI
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

61

52

LCI Data

Time 

Framea

Geographical 

Representativeness

Information 

Modules

Database 

Source

Steel scrap value 2011

North America

D Athena 

LCI Aluminum scrap value 2014 D

Concrete crushing 2005 D

 a

"Time Frame" is the period between the known initiation of data and its final update and/or validation

Table 32: LCI Data Substitutions

Material Athena LCI Database Substitution(s)

Foundation waterproof membrane Modified Bitumen membrane

Weldable rebar Rebar, Rod, Light Sections

HSK connectors Hot Rolled Sheet

Laminated strand lumber Laminated Veneer Lumber

Aluminum plate rainscreen Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet

Spray foam insulation Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced)

Wall membrane air/vapor barrier Modified Bitumen membrane

Fire treated plywood Softwood Plywood

Tongue and groove soffit Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding

Breather membrane (soffit) Modified Bitumen membrane

Reinforced hot rubberized asphalt roof 

membrane

Roofing Asphalt

Coarse Aggregate Natural

Polyester felt

Roof vapor retarder Modified Bitumen membrane

Roof board underlayment 1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board

1" shaft liner 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board

Curtain wall, skylights

Aluminum Extrusion

EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)

Glazing Panel

Screws Nuts & Bolts

Exterior glazed aluminum doors

Aluminum Extrusion

Glazing Panel

Nails

Exterior glazed metal doors

Expanded Polystyrene

Galvanized Sheet

Glazing Panel

Nails

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

62

53

Material Athena LCI Database Substitution(s)

Exterior hollow metal doors

Galvanized Sheet

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint

Expanded Polystyrene

Nails

Exterior overhead metal door

Galvanized Sheet

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint

Expanded Polystyrene

Nails

Interior Glazing

Glazing Panel

Aluminum Extrusion

Nails

Interior hollow metal doors

Galvanized Sheet

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint

Nails

Interior hollow wood doors

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried

Water Based Latex Paint

Nails

Interior solid wood doors

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried

Water Based Latex Paint

Nails
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

63

Appendix 2—LEED Whole Building LCA Credit Submittal

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 1

General Assessment Information

The purpose of this report is to provide information required for on-line submittal for LEED v4 

Materials and Resources credit “Building life cycle impact reduction” Option 4. Wholebuilding life-cycle assessment.

The results of this assessment have been generated by the Impact Estimator for Buildings software. 

Please refer to the Athena Guide to Whole-building LCA in Green Building Programs for useful 

guidance on how to complete the credit. 

Provide the following general information on the assessment

Project Name UMass Amherst Design Building

Assessor Matt Bowick, Senior Research Associate, Athena Sustainable 

Materials Institute

Verifier (optional)

Jamie Meil, Research Principal, Athena Sustainable Materials 

Institute

Internal External

Date of assessment December 2016

Assessment timing

Schematic Design Construction

Design Development Operations & Maintenance

Construction Documents End of Life

Whole-building LCA Results

Life Cycle Assessment 

Impact Measures

Baseline 

Building 

Proposed 

Building Units

Percent 

Difference

(%)

Global warming potential 4,612,572 4,009,240 kg CO2 eq -14.7%

Stratospheric ozone depletion 8.53E-02 7.67E-02 kg CFC-11 eq -10.4%

Acidification of land and water 23,883 21,755 kg SO2 eq -10.2%

Eutrophication 1,378 1,378 kg N eq -0.8%

Tropospheric ozone formation 382,026 368,320 kg O3 eq -5.0%

Depletion of non-renewable energy 

resources 56,492,129 48,143,200 MJ -16.7%

Number of measures with at least 10% reduction

(a reduction corresponds to a negative value percent difference) 4
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

64

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 2

Assessment Scope

Describe the functional equivalent of the buildings assessed

Building type (optional) Educational

Technical and functional

requirements (optional)

Massachusetts Base Code (8th edition); LEED Gold certified 

(pending)

Pattern of use (optional)

Typical for the functions provided, 82 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

building occupants (74 full-time, 8 part-time); 1,000 daily average 

transients, 384 peak transients

Required service life (optional) 60 years assumed (no defined required service life)

Other information (optional)

Select which construction elements are included in the object of assessment.

A1010 Standard Foundations B2010 Exterior Walls C1020 Interior Doors

A1020 Special Foundations B2020 Exterior Windows C2010 Stair Construction

A1030 Slab on Grade B2030 Exterior Doors C2020 Stair Finishes

A2020 Basement Walls B3010 Roof Coverings C3010 Wall Finishes

B1010 Floor Construction B3020 Roof Openings C3020 Floor Finishes

B1020 Roof Construction C1010 Partitions C3030 Ceiling Finishes

Select which information modules are included in the assessment system boundary

A1 Raw material supply B2 Maintenance C1 De-construction 

demolition

A2 Transport B3 Repair C2 Transport

A3 Manufacturing B4 Replacement C3 Waste Processing

A4 Transport B5 Refurbishment C4 Disposal

A5 Construction-installation 

process B6 Operational Energy B6 Operational Energy

B1 Use B7 Operational Water B7 Operational Water
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

65

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 3

Building Descriptions

Provide a summary description of the proposed building. Describe the size, function, 

orientation and operating energy performance.

The building of study is the University of Massachusetts Amherst Design Building, a fourstorey, 8,147 m2 (87,573 ft2

), structure located at 551 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, 

Massachusetts. The building footprint is approximately square and oriented along Stockbridge 

Way (A road ±15o counter clockwise of North-South).

The Design Building will be home for the University's Architecture + Design, Building and 

Construction Technology, Landscape Architecture, and Regional Planning departments, and 

includes various educational spaces (classrooms, studios, labs, lounges, seminar and 

conference rooms, wood shop) for students, and office space.

The Design Building is intended exemplify the University's commitment to sustainable and 

innovative design via its LEED Gold certified design (pending) and demonstration of emerging

wood construction technologies.

The building’s structural system consists of cross laminated timber (CLT) roof panels, 

composite CLT floor panels with reinforced concrete topping ( second through fourth floors), 

reinforced concrete slabs (ground floor), and reinforced slab on grades, and a mix of glulam 

and structural steel framing. The building's lateral resistance is provided by the elevator and 

stair core CLT wall panels, and glulam X-bracing. A zipper truss system consisting of glulam 

members and steel rods supports the low roof courtyard.

The building's perimeter is supported by concrete basement walls on strip footings; columns 

along the perimeter are supported by piers integrated into the basement walls (i.e. wall 

thickenings) and pad footings, whereas interior columns are supported by concrete 

columns/piers at the basement level and pad footings. 

Double-glazed, low-E insulating glass curtain wall with 1.65 W/m2 °C U-value (0.29 Btu/hr-ft2-

°F) and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) of 0.27-0.38 make up approximately 58% of the 

building's perimeter walls. The building is otherwise clad in bluestone veneer (between grade 

and the ground floor), and aluminum panel rainscreen (above the ground floor) with steel stud 

wall back up – these walls generally have a 4.30 RSI value (R-value of 24.4). The roof 

envelope generally consists of a TPO membrane assembly with 8.38 RSI value (R-value of 

47.6).

Partitions are for the most part light gauge steel stud walls with fibreglass batt sound 

attenuation insulation and 16 mm gypsum board (not included in this assessment).

The building draws on UMass Amherst Campus Central Utility Plant for hot water, chilled water 

and some of the electricity consumed. Other building integrated technologies have been 

employed to reduce energy demand, including:

 Lighting Power Densities reduced below ASHRAE 90.1-2007 with occupancy sensors 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

66

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 4

in select perimeter office spaces;

 Automatic daylight dimming controls in perimeter spaces; 

 Air-side supply air reset temperature; 

 Dual Enthalpy economizers on air handling units; and

 Energy Recovery Ventilators on the Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS).

The material quantities of the Proposed Building were calculated by the LCA assessor, 

October 2016.

Provide a summary description of the baseline building. Describe how the baseline 

building is of comparable size, function, orientation, and operating energy performance 

to the proposed building

The Baseline Building has the same size, functions, and orientation as the Proposed Building. 

The Baseline Building design reflects more conventional construction, and differs from the 

Proposed Building in the following ways:

 The building's foundation (A1010), and floor (B1010) and roof structure (1020)

(including floor plates, columns & beams, stair and elevator walls, and lateral load 

resisting system), and stair construction (C2010) come from the Design Development 

phase of the project, prior to the decision to switch to a more wood products based 

structural design. This design includes the use of metal deck with concrete topping 

floors supported by steel framing, and concrete elevator and stair walls. The foundation 

employs the same scheme, but was designed for this structure's dead loads. Material 

quantities were taken from the cost report produced by VJ Associates, dated 

September 4, 2014.

 Average concrete "benchmark" mixes were assumed

 The building is assumed to be clad in brick veneer, and a thermally comparable amount 

of polyisocyanurate board insulation (2 1/2" of polyisocyanurate insulation vs. 4" 

mineral wool insulation) was substituted in the exterior walls. 

The operating energy performance of the Baseline Building is assumed to be essentially the 

same as the Proposed Building since [1] the thermal resistance of the exterior walls was 

maintained relative to the Proposed building, [2] all other envelope assemblies are the same 

as the Proposed Building, and [3] the Baseline Building has the same size, functions, 

orientation, and assumed mechanical systems as the Proposed Building.

Special Circumstances

Describe the circumstances limiting the project team's ability to provide the submittals 

required. Be sure to reference what additional documentation has been provided, if 

any. Non-standard documentation will be considered upon its merits. (optional)

No special circumstances to report.
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

67

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 5

LCA Software Summary

General Information

Report template generated by

Software version 5.1.0102

Date this report was created December 7, 2016

The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute certifies that the Impact Estimator for Buildings LCA 

software tool is fully compliant with the requirements of the LEED v4 whole-building life cycle 

assessment credit.

Software Data Sources

Life Cycle Scenarios Scenarios used in this assessment come from databases 

maintained by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute.

Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) LCI data used in this assessment is from the Athena LCI 

database and is compliant with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment 

(LCIA) method TRACI v2.1

See the software's User Manual and Transparency Document for further information on data sources.

LCA Software Inputs

Project Information Baseline 

Building

Proposed 

Building

Project Location USA USA

Units SI SI

Building Type Institutional Institutional

Building Life Expectancy 60 60

Building Height (ft or m) 16.6 16.6

Gross floor area (ft2 or m2) 8,146 8,146
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

68

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 6

Building Bill of Materials Unit Baseline 

Building

Proposed 

Building

1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board m2 4673.928 4673.928

5/8" Regular Gypsum Board m2 3658.339 3658.339

6 mil Polyethylene m2 5509.233 5509.233

Aluminum Cold Rolled Sheet Tonnes 0.000 12.099

Aluminum Extrusion Tonnes 36.923 36.923

Bolts, Fasteners, Clips Tonnes 0.001 0.868

Coarse Aggregate Crushed Stone Tonnes 836.474 836.474

Coarse Aggregate Natural Tonnes 15.112 15.112

Cold Rolled Sheet Tonnes 0.429 0.074

Concrete 4000 psi, 25% fly ash m3 0.000 684.780

Concrete 5000 psi, 25% fly ash m3 0.000 2055.660

Concrete Benchmark 4000 psi m3 744.466 0.000

Concrete Benchmark 5000 psi m3 2360.956 0.000

Cross Laminated Timber m3 0.000 1601.986

EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) kg 968.663 968.663

Expanded Polystyrene m2 (25mm) 85.634 4474.421

Extruded Polystyrene m2 (25mm) 13036.494 13929.339

Fiber Cement m2 9347.856 9347.856

GAF Everguard© white TPO membrane 

60 mil m2 8752.992 8752.992

Galvanized Decking Tonnes 162.365 0.828

Galvanized Sheet Tonnes 1.712 1.712

Galvanized Studs Tonnes 20.545 20.545

Glazing Panel Tonnes 199.526 199.526

GluLam Sections m3 7.121 562.308

Hollow Structural Steel Tonnes 68.655 47.374

Hot Rolled Sheet Tonnes 0.000 9.031

Joint Compound Tonnes 1.813 1.813

Laminated Veneer Lumber m3 0.000 3.561

Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kilndried m3 0.000 14.869

Metric Modular (Modular) Brick m2 2254.836 0.000
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

69

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 7

Building Bill of Materials Unit Baseline 

Building

Proposed 

Building

Modified Bitumen membrane kg 4012.645 4153.383

Mortar m3 59.227 10.176

MW Batt R11-15 m2 (25mm) 0.000 7619.779

Nails Tonnes 0.131 0.531

Natural Stone m2 0.000 387.408

Paper Tape Tonnes 0.021 0.021

Polyester felt Tonnes 0.046 0.046

Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) m2 (25mm) 55003.337 50240.975

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Tonnes 200.577 214.573

Roofing Asphalt kg 5148.587 5148.587

Screws Nuts & Bolts Tonnes 2.894 7.821

Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kilndried m3 24.031 24.031

Softwood Plywood m2 (9mm) 156.386 1369.943

Solvent Based Alkyd Paint L 35.886 35.886

Spruce Wood tongue and groove siding m2 189.356 189.356

Steel Plate Tonnes 59.615 127.396

VR 1/2" Drainage Mat m2 2431.300 2426.147

VR 20 mil Root Barrier m2 1172.167 1172.167

Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire Tonnes 35.108 21.475

Wide Flange Sections Tonnes 492.233 103.780

Wire Rod Tonnes 5.449 6.976
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–255

70

LEED Whole-building LCA Credit Submittal 8

Instructions and Notes

Complete this document and use it for all the upload requirements in LEED on-line. We suggest 

the entire document be used for each upload request.

Whole-building LCA results

This table rounds all values to two decimal places because the LEED on-line form has that limit. 

This will typically impact stratospheric ozone depletion results, as those values are often 

extremely small and will turn to zero when truncated to two decimal places.

The values shown in this table are in units that are consistent with the TRACI LCA methodology. 

The LEED on-line form may use different units. Note that units are not a factor for the percent 

difference calculation and hence they are meaningless for the LEED on-line form. If there is a 

mismatch, we suggest ignoring the units and simply entering the values. However, if necessary, 

convert tropospheric ozone depletion from O3 to C2H4 with this formula: kg O3 eq / 0.28065 = kg 

C2H4.

Object of Assessment

This table defaults with a checkmark for all the elements required for compliance with the credit. 

Unchecked elements are optional. Check those boxes if those elements were included.

System Boundary

This table defaults with a checkmark for all the modules required for compliance with the credit. 

Note that module B1 is currently not applicable, as there is inadequate data to support it at the 

moment in the Impact Estimator. Note that module B3 is also not currently well-supported with 

data. Note that module B5 is only addressed if there is a definitive future plan for refurbishment; 

typically, there is none and therefore this module typically has zero impacts. If there are known 

impacts in these modules, they should be added to the Impact Estimator results.

For further detail on methods and data in the Impact Estimator, see the User Manual and 

Transparency Document.

Have feedback for how we can improve this report? Tell us! mailto:info@athenasmi.org
Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the Design Building at the University of Massachusetts

71

Appendix 3—EBD Summary Print-Ready Poster and Brochure