Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to Assess Energy Neutrality in Occupancy Sensors

  • Tarun KumarEmail author
  • Monto Mani
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)


Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a quantitative model which attempts to assess the aggregated environmental impacts of various life cycle stages of a product and helps in various sustainability support decisions for product design and development. This methodology has been standardized by ISO and been accepted by various organizations and designers. The present study focuses on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool for Energy Neutrality Assessment with the help of a case study of occupancy sensors in net energy conservation assessed through life cycle energy study and simulation methods provided by LCA tools. Occupancy sensors aim to reduce energy consumption by switching off energy appliances when the monitored space has no occupants. Moreover, it is evident that though it saves some energy at the place of installation but these measures needs to be evaluated from Life-cycle energy framework to effectively understand the net energy conservation over the life cycle of such devices. This approach focuses on two dimensions of investigation, the former being the life-cycle energy involved in the adoption of such a device, while the later concentrates on the environmental aspects of various life cycle stages. In this case study, Occupancy Sensors have been studied for their adoption in typical office buildings. The study would compare the effectiveness of occupancy sensor in reducing net energy consumption computed over its life span with the aid of existing LCA Simulation tools and models. The results reported measures the effectiveness of such measures and devices in net energy conservation and its environmental impacts, accounting for the data uncertainty and limitations in data availability.


Occupancy sensors Motion sensor Life-cycle application energy 


  1. 1.
    Bin, S., Evans, M.: Building energy codes in APP countries building energy use in APP countries (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Energy Agency: Excerpt from energy balances of non-OECD countries (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Indraganti, M., Ooka, R., Rijal, H.B.: Field investigation of comfort temperature in Indian office buildings: a case of Chennai and Hyderabad. Build. Environ. 65, 195–214 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Central Electricity Authority Government of India: Power scenario at a glance (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mills, E.: Global lighting energy savings potential. Light Eng. 1–10 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatt, M.S., Rajkumar, N., Jothibasu, S., Sudirkumar, R., Pandian, G., Nair, K.R.C.: Commercial and residential building energy labeling. J. Sci. Ind. Res. (India) 64, 30–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    United Nations Development Programme: Energy efficiency improvements in commercial buildings (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degelman, L.O.: A model for evaluation of life-cycle energy savings of occupancy sensors for control of lighting and ventilation in office buildings. In: Proceedings of Twelfth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates. San Antonio, TX, 15–17 May 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floyd, D.B., Parker, D.S., Sherwin, J.R.: Measured field performance and energy savings of occupancy sensors: three case studies. Florida Sol. Energy Cent. 97–105 (2002) (Online Publication)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haq, M.A.U., Hassan, M.Y., Abdullah, H., Rahman, H.A., Abdullah, M.P., Hussin, F., Said, D.M.: A review on lighting control technologies in commercial buildings, their performance and affecting factors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33, 268–279 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benya, J., Heschong, L., McGowan, T., Miller, N., Rubinstein, F., Erwine, B., Clanton, N., Neils, M., Mahone, D.: Advanced lighting guidelines (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lighting Research Center: Reducing barrier to use of high efficiency lighting systems (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rabaey, J., Arens, E., Federspiel, C., Gadgil, A., Messerschmitt, D., Nazaroff, W., Pister, K., Oren, S., Varaiya, P.: Smart energy distribution and consumption: information technology as an enabling force (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative: Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    WCED: Our Common Future. London (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO 14044: ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T., Rydberg, T.: Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 90–96 (2011). doi: 10.1021/es101316v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Organization IS: ISO 14040: Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klüppel, H.-J.: ISO 14041: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—goal and scope definition—inventory analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 3, 301 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryding, S.-O.: ISO 14042 environmental management life cycle assessment life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 307 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lecouls, H.: ISO 14043: Environmental management life cycle assessment life cycle interpretation. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 245 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J., Alting, L.: From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and perspectives. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 54, 1–21 (2005). doi: 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60017-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Smet, B., Stalmans, M.: LCI data and data quality. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1, 96–104 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bjorklund, A.E.: Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. 7, 64–72. (2002). doi:
  25. 25.
    Kota, S., Chakrabarti, A.: Development of a method for estimating uncertainty in evaluation of environmental impacts during design. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, pp. 1–10 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ciroth, A.: Validation—the missing link in life cycle assessment. towards pragmatic LCAs. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 295–297 (2006). doi: 10.1065/lca2006.09.271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huijbregts, M.A.J., Norris, G., Bretz, R., Ciroth, A., Maurice, B., von Bahr, B., Weidema, B., de Beaufort, A.S.H.: Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6, 127–132 (2001). doi: 10.1007/BF02978728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vose, D.: Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide. John Wiley & Sons (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of ScienceBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations