Criteria for the evaluation of life cycle assessment software packages and life cycle inventory data with application to concrete

  • Karina E. Seto
  • Daman K. Panesar
  • Cameron J. Churchill



Life cycle assessment (LCA) software packages have proliferated and evolved as LCA has developed and grown. There are now a multitude of LCA software packages that must be critically evaluated by users. Prior to conducting a comparative LCA study on different concrete materials, it is necessary to examine a variety of software packages for this specific purpose. The paper evaluates five LCA tools in the context of the LCA of seven concrete mix designs (conventional concrete, concrete with fly ash, slag, silica fume or limestone as cement replacement, recycled aggregate concrete, and photocatalytic concrete).


Three key evaluation criteria required to assess the quality of analysis are adequate flexibility, sophistication and complexity of analysis, and usefulness of outputs. The quality of life cycle inventory (LCI) data included in each software package is also assessed for its reliability, completeness, and correlation to the scope of LCA of concrete products in Canada. A questionnaire is developed for evaluating LCA software packages and is applied to five LCA tools.

Results and discussion

The result is the selection of a software package for the specific context of LCA of concrete materials in Canada, which will be used to complete a full LCA study. The software package with the highest score is software package C (SP-C), with 44 out of a possible 48 points. Its main advantage is that it allows for the user to have a high level of control over the system being modeled and the calculation methods used.


This comparative study highlights the importance of selecting a software package that is appropriate for a specific research project. The ability to accurately model the chosen functional unit and system boundary is an important selection criterion. This study demonstrates a method to enable a critical and rigorous comparison without excessive and redundant duplication of efforts.


Cement Concrete Evaluation criteria Life cycle assessment Life cycle inventory Questionnaire Software 

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1060_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 23.3 kb)


  1. Anderson JE, Silman R (2009) A life cycle inventory of structural engineering design strategies for greenhouse gas reduction. Structural Engineering International, pp 283–288Google Scholar
  2. Butler L, West J, Tighe S (2013) Effect of recycled concrete coarse aggregate from multiple sources on the hardened properties of concrete with equivalent compressive strength. Constr Build Mater 47:1292–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canada Centre for Mineral & Energy Technology and Radian Canada Inc. (1993) Raw material balances, energy profiles, and environmental unit factor estimates: cement and structural concrete products. Ottawa: Athena Sustainable Materials InstituteGoogle Scholar
  4. Churchill C, Panesar D (2013) Life-cycle cost analysis of highway noise barriers designed with photocatalytic cement. Struct Infrastruct Eng: Maint, Manag, Life-Cycle Des Perform 9(10):983–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciroth A (2012) Software for life cycle assessment. In Curran MA (ed) Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable products. Scrivener Publishing LLC, pp 143–158Google Scholar
  6. Damineli BL, Kemeid FM, Aguiar PS, John VM (2010) Measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use. Cement Concrete Comp 32:55–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Barba Junior DJ, de Oliveira Gomes J, Bork CA (2014) Reliability of the sustainability assessment. 21st CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, pp 361–366Google Scholar
  8. ecoinvent (2010) ecoinvent database, version 2.2. Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. ISO 14040 (1997) Life cycle assessment: principals and framework. Environmental Management. ISOGoogle Scholar
  10. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet JR, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marceau M, Nisbet M, VanGeem M (2006) Life cycle inventory of Portland cement manufacture. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, USGoogle Scholar
  12. Nisbet MA, Marceau ML, VanGeem MG (2002) Environmental life cycle inventory of Portland cement concrete. Portland Cement Association, Portland Cement AssociationGoogle Scholar
  13. Paulson JW, Succi G, Eberlein A (2004) An empirical study of open-source and closed-source software products. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(4):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prusinski JR, Marceau ML, VanGeem MG (2004) Life cycle inventory of slag cement concrete. Eighth CANMET/ACI Eighth CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in ConcreteGoogle Scholar
  15. Scientific Applications International Corporation (2006) Life cycle assessment—principles and practice. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar
  16. Weidema B, Wesnaes M (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories- an example of using data quality indicators. J Cleaner Prod 4(3–4):167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karina E. Seto
    • 1
  • Daman K. Panesar
    • 1
  • Cameron J. Churchill
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Engineering and Society ProgramMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations