Impact of air barriers application in LCA and LCC of naturally ventilated dwellings in mild climate regions

•Application of LCA and LCC to study the viability of applying two envelope air barrier solutions in residential buildings.•Average energy consumption savings in urban terrain almost half of those in rural terrain during the heating season.•The median annualized cost of adopting a fluid air barrier was almost four times that of a mechanically fastened air barrier.•The adoption of MECH solutions is recommended, independently of the heating system the dwelling is equipped with. Assessing singular elements that constitute the air barrier of a building envelope is quite unfeasible in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The study of these solutions through this particular scope is often overlooked. Two major aspects contribute to it: the complexity of the relationships between elements and the reduced embodied impact of these materials in the overall construction or retrofitting works. This work uses LCA and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) to study the viability of applying two envelope air barrier solutions in dwellings with excessive air change rates and equipped with different heating systems. The application of air barrier solutions resulted in average energy consumption savings in urban terrain, almost half of those in rural terrain during the heating season. Environmental performance and life cycle costs revealed mechanically (MECH) fastened air barriers to outperform fluid (FLUID) applied ones. The median annualized cost of adopting a FLUID solution was almost four times that of a MECH solution. Dwellings equipped with electric radiators ranked first in the shortest average Energy Payback Period (EPP) and the highest average Reference Service Life (RSL) savings. With the current analysis, the adoption of MECH solutions is recommended, independently of the heating system the dwelling is equipped with.