ORIGINAL PAPER

Environmental analysis of two building material alternativesin structures with the aim of sustainable construction

Adriana Estokova • Milan Porhincak

Received: 20 December 2013 / Accepted: 2 April 2014 / Published online: 13 April 2014

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract Selection of building materials in the design

process is an important factor influencing not only future

functionality of the building but also environmental per-

formance. This paper deals with the environmental analysis

of two material alternatives of one conventional Slovak

masonry family-house with commonly used material

composition in selected structures. Environmental analysis

was aimed at the calculation of embodied energy,

embodied CO2, and embodied SO2 emissions expressed as

primary energy intensity (PEI), global warming potential

(GWP), and acidification potential (AP), respectively.

Total embodied energy of building materials (PEI) has

been calculated to be equal to 780.1 and 698.4 GJ for A1

and A2 alternatives. Average calculated values of envi-

ronmental parameters reached 2.19 MJ/kg of used materi-

als for PEI; 0.105 kg CO2eq/kg for GWP and 0.71 9

10-3 kg SO2eq/kg for AP. Average values of building

materials environmental parameters per floor area were

calculated of 4,195.925 MJ/m2 for embodied energy (PEI),

202.5 kg CO2eq/m2 for embodied CO2 emissions (GWP)

and 1.36 kg SO2eq/m2 for embodied SO2 emissions (AP).

The results of the analysis point to the fact that it is pos-

sible to reduce the environmental impacts by up to 61.0 %

in particular structures and by up to 10.5 % overall just by

a simple change of several building materials in the

structures.

Keywords Embodied energy � Embodied CO2 and SO2

emissions � PEI � GWP � AP � Building materials

Introduction

The construction sector has not only a significant role in the

EU economy, but it is also a major contributor to the EU

energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The

building industry belongs, after food production, to the

largest sectors responsible for resources depletion today

(Berge 2009). The construction sector has become the

principal consumer of raw materials and according to Dixit

et al. (2010) it is currently responsible for depletion of

40 % of stone, gravel, and sand; 25 % of wood; and 16 %

of fresh water. In addition, not only operation of buildings

(heating, cooling, air conditioning, lighting, etc.) but also

other phases of the buildings life cycle requires large

amounts of energy and produce massive quantities of

greenhouse gases (Dodoo et al. 2011). According to ref-

erence documents on construction sector 42 % of the total

EU final energy consumption, 35 % of the greenhouse

emissions, about 50 wt% of extracted materials and

22 wt% of waste generation is related to buildings (ECTP

2007). The investigation of environmental performance in

terms of sustainability has recently become a point of

interest of many researchers as summarized by Khasreen

et al. (2009) and Zhou et al. (2012). European Commission

has also issued strategies aimed at the reduction of negative

influence of building sector by introducing the renewable

energy resources and increasing their total share or by

minimizing the total energy consumed for buildings oper-

ation and related greenhouse gases emissions (EPBD

2010). However keeping the building life cycle in mind,

the minimization of operational needs within the usage

phase causes the increase of quantity of building materials

used in building structures contributing to increasing of

embodied energy and embodied CO2 emissions (Cucek

et al. 2012). Results of recent research have proven that

A. Estokova (&) � M. Porhincak

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Environmental

Engineering, Technical University of Kosice, Vysokoskolska 4,

04200 Kosice, Slovakia

e-mail: adriana.estokova@tuke.sk

123

Clean Techn Environ Policy (2015) 17:75–83

DOI 10.1007/s10098-014-0758-z

generalized optimal design does not exist and precise

analysis of single projects is necessary (De Benedetto and

Klemes 2008) together with the application of the methods

of construction sustainability. The methods of construction

sustainability increase by researching, developing, and

applying the technologies which use renewable materials

and energy (Milutiene et al. 2012). The context in which a

potential breakthrough technology is competitive can also

be identified, including combinations of technology cost,

fuel prices, and CO2 mitigation targets (Loughlin et al.

2013). As mentioned by Bamufleh et al. (2013), multi-

objective tradeoffs between the economic, environmental,

and social aspects need to be studied. Nowadays, the key

factors in material selection in the Slovak republic are still

technical and economical parameters, however, selection

of building materials regarding environmental performance

may lead to reduction of negative environmental impact of

constructions.

To reduce the negative impact of the construction sector,

further investigation in the branch of environmental engi-

neering is necessary. It is very important to analyze the

environmental performance in the early project phase to

make sure that all necessary decisions and changes of the

design can be taken relatively quickly and easily rather

than with more difficulty in the later stages. Selection of

building materials as an important phase in the design

process is an important factor influencing not only future

functionality of the building but also its environmental

performance as well. Embodied energy and embodied

carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions are of

importance in the building materials environmental impact

evaluation (Stajanca et al. 2012). Several studies of dif-

ferent buildings Sartori (2007) have been performed and

have found that the proportion of embodied energy in

materials varied between 9 and 46 % of the overall energy

used over the building’s lifetime when dealing with low-

energy consumption buildings (with good insulation, ade-

quate orientation, passive conditioning, etc.) and between 2

and 38 % in conventional buildings. Other studies claim

that in conventional buildings, the embodied energy is

situated in 10–20 %, while the 80–90 % would correspond

to the energy of the use phase, and less than 1 % to the

embodied energy in the end-of-life phase (Gustavsson and

Joelssona 2010; Thormark 2002). According to Zabalza

(2013), the contribution of the construction and end-of-life

stages usually reaches 10–15 % of the total energy impact

of the building.

The objective of this case study was to analyze the

embodied energy and embodied CO2 and SO2 emissions in

two material alternatives of the typical masonry family-

house built by conventional construction techniques with

the aim of the selecting the better one with potentially

reduced environmental impact.

Materials and methods

Material basis and building materials alternatives

The environmental analysis included comparison of 2

design alternatives A1 and A2 of the same building—

selected family-house. The family-house on which the

environmental analysis has been performed is located in

the western part of Slovakia and it is suitable for an average

Slovak family consisting of 3–5 members. The single sto-

rey building analyzed in this study consisted of 3 bed-

rooms, living room with kitchen, bathroom, toilet, boiler

room, wardrobe room, and larder. Single garage and terrace

were also part of the building. Only conventional—com-

monly available materials were used for evaluation of the

building structures of the house, which was designed with

improved energy performance as a low-energy building.

Alternative A1 represented the original design, while

alternative A2 was the alternative of the same project with

slightly changed material basis, which was easily per-

formed after the actual design of the original building.

Groundwork in both building materials alternatives

consisted of conventionally used concrete foundations on a

layer of macadam (A1) or gravel (A2). Concrete hollow

blocks were also used as wall footings. Slab in both alter-

natives was made of reinforced concrete, however in A2,

the amount of reinforcement steel was reduced. The damp

proof course was constructed of bitumen-aluminum sheet.

The staircase of the entrance was constructed from rein-

forced concrete. In the case of the vertical structures, both

examples were designed as most masonry buildings, as the

majority of Slovak houses are being built. In house (A1),

perforated ceramic bricks were used for load-bearing walls

(external walls—300 mm, internal walls—250 mm) as well

as for partitions (140 mm). Same thickness of load-bearing

walls was used in alternative design (A2), while the material

was changed to aerated concrete. Partition made of aerated

concrete of house A2 was 150-mm-thick. Capping as well

as pillars used in both alternatives was designed of rein-

forced concrete. Reinforced concrete was used for hori-

zontal structures of bond beams and girders. For single

storey houses like evaluated one, wood ceiling is the most

preferred choice, which was used in both design variants.

Technically dried wood was used in alternative A1, while

air-dried wood was designed in alternative A2. Material of

slant roof was wood—technically dried wood in alternative

A1 and air-dried wood in alternative A2. OSB was also used

as shuttering and vapor barrier. In original design (A1),

ceramic roof tiles were designed, however in alternative

design concrete tiles were used. For thermal insulation,

polystyrene and mineral insulation representing the con-

ventional insulating materials were used. Polystyrene XPS

was used for insulation of foundation strips; EPS was used

76 A. Estokova, M. Porhincak

123

in floors on the ground; rock wool was applied on facade

(insulation of walls—ETICS), and another type of rock

wool was used for insulation of ceiling. Due to the use of

aerated concrete in the external walls of alternative design

(A2), which has better insulation ability compared to

ceramic brick used in the original building, the thickness of

the facade insulation could be decreased from 160 m to

140 mm. In addition to resource conservation, also the area

of indoor space increased slightly. Interior and exterior

surfaces were analyzed. Interior plastering consisted of

lime-cement plasters in A1 and gypsum plaster in A2.

Exterior plasters were designed of silicate plaster. Ceramic

tiles, as well as wood parquets, were used as floor surfaces

and were placed on concrete layer. Gypsum plasterboard

was used in the lower ceiling. Triple-glazed windows and

external doors in plastic frames were used in both

alternatives.

In alternative A2, in total 9 changes in material com-

position were performed compared with the original A1

material design. All material changes in the A2 alternative

were performed by ensuring that the thermal properties of

both constructions will be kept at the same level. The

overview of the major differences in evaluated alternatives

is given in Table 1.

The change in material basis resulted in useful and

living areas changes. Size characterization of both alter-

natives of evaluated building is presented in Table 2.

Method of environmental analysis

The environmental analysis was based on calculation of the

selected environmental parameters such as total weight mi

(kg), primary energy PEI (MJ), global warming potential

GWP (kg CO2eq), and acidification potential AP (kg SO2eq)

of used materials.

The weight of materials used in evaluated alternatives

and structures was calculated according to (1) or (2):

mi ¼X

i

qi � Vi ð1Þ

where qi is material bulk density and Vi is volume of

material used.

mi ¼X

i

ui � Ai ð2Þ

where ui is weight of material per unit area and Ai is

a material area.

Primary energy intensity PEI (embodied energy) indi-

cates in general the level of depletion of natural resources

within boundaries of evaluated product life cycle and is

usually expressed in MJ or kWh. The primary energy of

analyzed building materials was calculated by using par-

ticular LCA data for unit of materials according to IBO

database (Waltjen et al. 2008) as follows (3):

PEI ¼X

i

mi � PEIi ð3Þ

where mi represents the weight of particular material

and PEIi is unit value of primary energy (MJ/kg) of that

material.

Global warming potential GWP (embodied carbon

dioxide emissions) represents particular contribution of

Table 1 Major difference in materials between A1 and A2

alternatives

Structure

group

Alt Material differences

Groundwork A1 Ballast: macadam; slab: reinforced concrete

A2 Ballast: gravel; slab: reinforced concrete with

less steel

Bearing

walls

A1 Perforated ceramic brick

A2 Aerated concrete block

Partition

walls

A1 Perforated ceramic brick

A2 Aerated concrete block

Ceiling A1 Technically dried wood

A2 Air-dried wood

Roof A1 Technically dried wood in framework;

weatherproofing of ceramic roof tiles

A2 Air-dried wood in framework; weatherproofing

of concrete roof tiles

Thermal

insulation

A1 Rock wool facade

A2 Rock wool facade—decreased thickness of

insulation

Surfaces A1 Lime-cement indoor plaster

A2 Gypsum indoor plaster

Table 2 Size description of analyzed alternatives

Note A1 A2 Change

(%)

Build-up area

(m2)

House, garage, roofed terrace,

entrance

184 184 –

Floor area

(m2)

Area determined by external

walls

176 176 –

Useful area

(m2)

Area of rooms including

garage

140 141 0.52

Living area

(m2)

Habitable rooms area 76 76 0.58

Total

cubature

(m3)

Total cubature of house 855 855 –

Heated area

(m2)

Area of heated rooms 153 153 –

Heated

cubature

(m3)

Volume of heated rooms 519 519 –

Structures

area (m2)

Total surface of all structures

and constructions

877 877 –

Environmental analysis of two building material 77

123

evaluated material to global warming. The strength of

global warming potential is calculated by the amount of

greenhouse gases emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) which is

expressed as kg of CO2eq; however, there is a wide range

of other substances, such as water vapor, CH4, or N2O,

which contribute to global warming. Greenhouse gases

emissions result from various anthropogenic processes, the

combustion of fossil fuels above all. Global warming

potential of the analyzed building materials was calculated

according to (4) considering the data for 100-year time

horizon (Waltjen et al. 2008).

GWP ¼X

i

mi � GWPi ð4Þ

where mi is weight of particular material and GWPi rep-

resents the unit value of global warming potential of that

material.

Acidification potential AP (embodied sulfur dioxide

emissions) demonstrates contribution to decrease of the pH

value in the environment. The amount of SO2 emissions is

the major factor which contributes to acidification; how-

ever, there is wide range of substances which contribute to

the decreasing pH in the environment. The weight of

SO2eq emissions is used for the expression of the overall

acidification potential. Calculation of acidification poten-

tial of building materials was based on the Eq. (5):

AP ¼X

i

mi � APi ð5Þ

where mi is weight of particular material and APi repre-

sents the unit value of acidification potential of that

material according to IBO database (Waltjen et al. 2008).

In this study, the unit values of selected environmental

parameters of building materials were used according to

specific LCA environmental database IBO as mentioned

above (Waltjen et al. 2008) within cradle to gate bound-

aries (Pieragostini et al. 2012). Cradle to gate boundaries

consider the environmental impacts of building materials

during its production stage: raw material extraction and

processing, processing of secondary material input, trans-

port to the manufacturer, and manufacturing, including

provision of all materials, products and energy, as well as

waste processing or disposal of final residues during the

production stage. Thus, the calculated primary energy

represents the energy from non-renewable sources (e.g.,

oil, coal and natural gas) required in the production of

building material including all processes of extraction of

raw materials and fuels as well as building material man-

ufacturing. Similarly, the global warming and acidification

potentials of these materials and structures are calculated

based on the environmental impacts related to production

stage of materials used.

The environmental parameters were calculated in terms

of the overall environmental profile of both material

alternatives A1 and A2 as well as those of seven structures

groups and twelve material groups. Structures groups

included groundwork, vertical load-bearing structures,

partition structures, ceiling, roof, thermal insulation, and

surfaces (Porhincak and Estokova 2012). Material groups

upon their manner of utilization included loose material,

concrete materials, ceramic materials, wood materials,

metals, mineral insulation, polystyrene, lime and cement

plaster, silicate plaster, gypsum, sheets and the materials of

the windows and doors.

Normalization of the calculated environmental parame-

ters to reference parameters was also performed in order to

provide a more precise environmental profile, comparable

with other houses from similar studies.

Results and discussion

Overall environmental analysis of material alternatives

A1 and A2

Environmental analysis of both material alternatives A1

and A2 of the same family-house is presented in Table 3.

The total embodied energy of building materials (PEI)

has been calculated to be equal to 780.1 GJ for the A1

alternative and 698.4 GJ for the A2 alternative (Table 3)

which is higher than reported in (Asif et al. 2007). Asif

presents the embodied energy of various construction

materials involved in dwelling home analysis to be equal to

227.4 GJ. However, comparison of the absolute values of

environmental indicators even normalized could be diffi-

cult and is strongly dependent upon the used building

material basis. Gerilla et al. (2007) reported steel-rein-

forced concrete construction has a much higher environ-

mental impact compared to the wooden type of housing

construction. Gustavsson et al. (2006) confirmed that

wood-framed construction requires less energy, and emits

Table 3 Environmental impact

of material alternatives A1 and

A2

Volume (m3) Weight (kg) PEI (MJ) GWP (kg CO2eq) AP (kg SO2eq)

Alternative A1 315 3.43 9 105 7.8 9 105 3.6 9 104 252

Alternative A2 311 3.29 9 105 6.9 9 105 3.5 9 105 227

Reduction 1.2 % 4.0 % 10.5 % 4.4 % 10.2 %

78 A. Estokova, M. Porhincak

123

less CO2 to the atmosphere, than concrete-framed

construction.

As presented in Table 3, change in material basis (A2

alternative) resulted in a decrease of all environmental

impacts in terms of the analyzed parameters. The total

calculated reduction of used materials in alternative A2

reached 1.2 % of building material volume and 4.0 % of

material weight. Overall reduction of environmental

impact indicators was achieved by 10.5, 4.4, and 10.2 %

for primary energy PEI, global warming potential GWP,

and acidification potential AP, respectively. Shukla et al.

(2009) reported that by using low-energy intensive mate-

rials, the mitigation of CO2 in the environment can be

reduced by an amount of 101 tonnes/year.

In order to achieve the values comparable to different

houses of different sizes and configuration, the calculated

environmental parameters were normalized to the total

weight of used materials and floor area of evaluated family-

house as selected is representative of the reference

parameters of the buildings. The normalized values of PEI,

GWP, and AP for both alternatives A1 and A2 related to

the floor area and the total weight of materials are pre-

sented in Table 4.

The average values of the building materials environ-

mental parameters per floor area were calculated as 4.2 9

103 MJ/m2 for embodied energy (PEI), 202.5 kg CO2eq/m2

for embodied CO2 emissions (GWP), and 1.36 kg SO2eq/m2

for embodied SO2 emissions (AP). The average values of the

building materials environmental parameters per 1 kg of

used materials were calculated as 2.19 MJ/kg for embodied

energy (PEI), 0.105 kg CO2eq/kg for embodied CO2 emis-

sions (GWP), and 0.71 9 10-3 kg SO2eq/kg for embodied

SO2 emissions (AP).

In addition, the calculated overall environmental

parameters of primary energy, global warming, and acidi-

fication potentials of both material alternatives (Table 3)

were converted into other reference parameters through

dividing by useful area (Fig. 1) and total cubature of

family-house (Fig. 2).

Comparing to the passive houses in Slovakia, the calcu-

lated PEI values per 1 m2 of useful area of both alternatives

were almost 29 higher (4.8 9 103 and 4.3 9 103 MJ/m2)

as referred Culakova et al. (2012)—2.4 9 103 MJ/m2. This

finding corresponds with the fact that in a passive house, the

wooden construction was used and our analysis is aimed at

the masonry house. The differences in embodied gaseous

emissions here are even more significant. The lifecycle

emission difference between the wood- and concrete-framed

buildings ranges according Gustavsson et al. (2006) from 30

to 130 kg/m2 of floor area.

Analyzing the normalized results as presented in

Table 4 and Figs. 1 and 2 compared with the overall results

Table 4 Environmental parameters normalized to the floor area and

the total weight of materials

Environmental

parameter

Alternative Normalization to

Floor area Weight of

materials

Weight (kg/m2)

A1 1.9 9 103 1

A2 1.8 9 103 1

PEI (MJ/m2) (MJ/kg)

A1 4.4 9 103 2.27

A2 3.9 9 103 2.11

GWP (kg CO2eq/m2) (kg CO2eq/kg)

A1 207 0.106

A2 198 0.105

AP (kg SO2/m2) (kg SO2/kg)

A1 1.43 0.73 9 10-3

A2 1.29 0.68 9 10-3

Fig. 1 PEI, GWP, and AP values of alternatives A1 and A2

normalized to the useful area of the building

Fig. 2 PEI, GWP, and AP values of alternatives A1 and A2

normalized to total cubature of building

Environmental analysis of two building material 79

123

in Table 3, an even higher reduction of all investigated

indicators in the A2 alternative was achieved when com-

paring overall results and values normalized to the useful

area. This was caused not only by the change of materials

in alternative A2, but also as a result of the increased

indoor useful area.

Environmental analysis of materials according

to material groups

Building materials environmental performance was also

analyzed according to groups of materials upon their

manner. Percentage contribution of analyzed material

groups to the studied environmental parameters for A2

alternative which is considered to have better environ-

mental performance is presented in Table 5 and compari-

son of percentage of material contribution is illustrated in

Fig. 3.

As presented in Table 5, concrete was the material with

the highest percentage contribution to the overall envi-

ronmental parameters in terms of PEI by 34 %, GWP by

42 % and AP by 33 %. Asif et al. (2007) referred that

concrete alone in Scottish dwelling home consumes 65 %

of the total embodied energy of the home.

Ceramic was material with the second largest substantial

environmental impact while contributing by 21 % to

overall PEI, by 16 % to overall GWP, and by 14 % to

overall AP. These findings correspond to the results by

Zabalza (2013) reporting the concrete and ceramic material

to have the highest energy demand.

The use of large quantity of mineral insulation was also

responsible for a relatively large value of embodied energy

as well as CO2 and SO2 emissions (14, 12, and 20 % of

overall PEI, GWP, and AP, respectively). The contribution

of wood product to global warming reached the negative

level (-21 %), which is a positive fact in terms of green-

house gases issues.

Environmental analysis of material alternatives A1

and A2 according to the building structures

A comparison of the environmental impacts of used

building materials in particular building structures for both

material alternatives A1 and A2 is presented in Figs. 4, 5,

6, and 7.

The materials in the ground works in both A1 and A2

alternatives were those of the highest weight due to use of

Table 5 Percentage contribution of material groups to the overall

environmental parameters

Structure group PEI (%) GWP (%) AP (%)

1—Loose material 0.9 0.5 1.8

2—Concrete materials 34.3 42 33.4

3—Ceramic materials 20.5 16 13.8

4—Wood materials 9.8 -20.5 17.2

5—Metals 0.2 0.1 0.2

6—Mineral insulation 14.3 11.8 19.8

7—Polystyrene 7.8 3.1 5.1

8—Lime and cement plaster 1.2 1.4 1.3

9—Silicate plaster 1.6 1 1.4

10—Gypsum 0.8 0.5 0.4

11—Sheets 7.7 2.5 4.7

12—Materials of windows and doors 0.9 0.5 0.8

Fig. 3 Comparison of materials percentage contributions to overall

PEI, GWP, and AP 1 loose material, 2 concrete materials, 3 ceramic

materials, 4 wood materials, 5 metals, 6 mineral insulation, 7

polystyrene, 8 lime and cement plaster, 9 silicate plaster, 10 gypsum,

11 sheets, and 12 materials of windows and doors

Fig. 4 The weight of materials (kg) used in particular structures

Fig. 5 Primary energy—PEI (MJ) of material used in particular

structures

80 A. Estokova, M. Porhincak

123

bulky materials (concrete, gravel, or macadam) and reached

2.4 9 105 and 2.5 9 105 kg for A1 and A2 alternatives,

respectively. Analyzing the other parameters, groundwork

structures have been identified to be responsible for the most

negative environmental impact with PEI ranging from

2.1 9 105 to 2.36 9 105 MJ, GWP ranging from

1.95 9 104 to 2.11 9 104 kg CO2eq, and AP ranging from

58.8 to 73.2 kg SO2eq. Similar results for the environmental

impacts of the foundation in terms of embodied energy

(214 GJ) were presented by Shukla et al. (2009). Thermal

insulation materials were also used in large extent and

reached second place in terms of volume (83.5–86.9 m3).

The bulk density of thermal insulation (mineral insulation,

polystyrene) is relatively low, thus the weight also reached

relatively low total (4.58 9 103–5.24 9 103 kg). However,

the environmental profile of thermal insulation is signifi-

cantly negative and calculated PEI, GWP, and AP values

reached relatively high values for both A1 and A2 alterna-

tives (1.67 9 105 and 1.46 9 105 MJ; 9.62 9 103 and

8.42 9 103 kg CO2eq; 61.5 and 53.8 kg SO2eq) placing

thermal insulation in second place on the list of materials

with the most negative impact, after the groundwork mate-

rials. On the contrary, partition walls structures seem to be

those with the lowest impacts in terms of analyzed envi-

ronmental parameters. PEI was calculated to be 1.69 9 104

and 1.44 9 104 MJ for the A1 and A2 alternatives, respec-

tively; GWP reached 1.21 9 103 and 1.51 9 103 kg CO2eq;

AP values were measured at 3.84 and 3.42 kg SO2eq. Ceiling

and roof structures reached negative values in global warming

potential (GWP) due to the application of wood, which had the

negative LCA unit data. The negative GWP values in LCA

unit data of wood are based on the ability of storage carbon

dioxide in the organic wood structure while growing. When

considering the life cycle of building materials without the last

stage of its existence, when the material could be combusted

or composted, the CO2 remains stored in the material structure

and no greenhouse gas emissions are taken into consideration

(Berge 2009; Waltjen et al. 2008).

A summary of the percentage increases and decreases,

in evaluated environmental parameters according to par-

ticular structures for both alternatives, is given in Table 6.

Plus (?) indicates the increase in parameters value for the

alternative A2 compared to A1, while minus (-) indicates

the decrease in parameters value comparing A2–A1.

According to Table 6, the use of gravel instead of

macadam and application of slab with lower steel content

in the groundwork in the A2 alternative caused reduction

of PEI, GWP, and AP values by 12.8, 7.3, and 19.6 %,

respectively. Alternation of ceramics with aerated concrete

in load-bearing wall structures contributed to a reduction

of weight by 43.7 %, PEI by 22.2 %, and AP by 18.1 %.

In addition, the use of aerated concrete required less

thermal insulation and kept the insulation ability at the

same level. The use of lesser amount of the same thermal

insulation not only reduced environmental impact, but also

led to an increase in the area of the indoor rooms. The use

of different types of wood in ceiling and roof and the

application of concrete instead of ceramic roof tiles also

led to a reduction of environmental burdens by 44.1 % in

PEI, 2.44 % in GWP, and 26.3 % in AP values. Gypsum

plaster was used in alternative A2 instead of lime-cement

plaster in alternative A1 and contributed to a reduction in

weight (by 51.5 %) and, moreover a reduction in PEI (by

20.4 %), GWP (by 59.4 %), and AP (by 61.0 %) was also

achieved.

Similarly as in the overall evaluation of material alter-

natives, the normalization of the calculated environmental

Fig. 6 Global warming potential—GWP (kg CO2eq) of materials

used in particular structures

Fig. 7 Acidification potential—AP (kg SO2eq) of materials used in

particular structures

Table 6 Comparison of A1 and A2 material alternatives according to

structures groups

Structure group Weight

(%)

PEI

(%)

GWP

(%)

AP

(%)

Groundwork A1/A2 ?5.6 -12.8 -7.3 -19.6

Bearing walls A1/A2 -43.7 -22.2 ?5.9 -18.1

Partition walls A1/A2 -34.8 -15.2 ?12.5 -10.9

Ceiling A1/A2 ?8.0 -25.0 -6.0 -35.0

Roof A1/A2 ?21.6 -44.1 -2.44 -26.3

Thermal insulation A1/A2 -12.5 -12.5 -12.5 -12.5

Surfaces A1/A2 -51.5 -20.4 -59.4 -61.0

Environmental analysis of two building material 81

123

parameters was performed by conversion of the PEI, GWP,

and AP values of particular structures to the weight of

materials in these particular structures and to the total area

of structures of 876.1 m2. Comparisons of the normalized

environmental parameters for the evaluated alternatives A1

and A2 are presented in Tables 7 and 8.

Conclusions

The contemporary construction sector belongs to major

industries with responsibility for the deterioration of the

environment. Throughout different stages of a building’s

life cycle, buildings use materials and require the input of

energy for various processes. The consumption of tre-

mendous amounts of energy is directly linked to the vol-

ume of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere,

causing the effect known as global warming. Thus, the

evaluation of the environmental impact of buildings is of

keen interest. Two material alternatives of typical Slovak

family-houses were analyzed in terms of their environ-

mental impact.

• Total embodied energy of building materials (PEI) has

been calculated to be equal to 780.1 GJ for A1

alternative and 698. 4 GJ for the A2 alternative;

• Total embodied CO2 emissions (GWP) have been

calculated to be of 36,488.2 3.65 9 104 and 3.49 9 104

kg CO2eq for A1 and A2 alternative, respectively;

• Total embodied SO2 emissions (AP) have been calcu-

lated to be of 252.3 and 226.6 kg SO2eq for A1 and A2

alternative, respectively;

• The average values of the building materials environ-

mental parameters per floor area were calculated at

4.2 9 103 MJ/m2 for embodied energy (PEI), 202.5 kg

CO2eq/m2 for embodied CO2 emissions (GWP), and

1.36 kg SO2eq/m2 for embodied SO2 emissions (AP).

• The average values of the building materials environ-

mental parameters per 1 kg of used materials were

calculated of 2.19 MJ/kg for embodied energy (PEI),

0.105 kg CO2eq/kg for embodied CO2 emissions

(GWP), and 0.71 9 10-3 kg SO2eq/kg for embodied

SO2 emissions (AP).

• Groundwork structures have been identified to be

responsible for the most negative environmental impact

followed by thermal insulation.

• Concrete and ceramic materials have been confirmed to

have the most negative environmental impacts.

Table 7 PEI, GWP, and AP

values of alternatives A1 and

A2 according to structures

normalized to the weight of

materials in particular structures

Structure group Alternative Weight

(kg/kg)

PEI

(MJ/kg)

GWP

(kg CO2eq/kg)

AP

(kg SO2eq/kg)

Groundwork A1 1 0.98 0.09 0.0003

A2 0.81 0.08 0.0002

Bearing walls A1 1 2.45 0.17 0.0005

A2 3.38 0.32 0.0008

Partition walls A1 1 2.42 0.17 0.0005

A2 3.14 0.33 0.0007

Ceiling A1 1 2.75 -0.16 0.0013

A2 1.91 -0.14 0.0008

Roof A1 1 2.16 -0.19 0.0008

A2 0.99 -0.14 0.0005

Thermal insulation A1 1 31.92 1.84 0.0117

A2 31.81 1.84 0.0117

Surfaces A1 1 3.98 0.21 0.0011

A2 6.53 0.18 0.0008

Table 8 PEI, GWP, and AP values of alternatives A1 and A2

according to structures normalized to total structure area of 876 m2

Structure

group

Alternative PEI

(MJ/m2)

GWP

(kg CO2

eq/m2)

AP

(kg SO2

eq/m2)

Groundwork A1 269.5 24.1 0.084

A2 235.1 22.3 0.067

Bearing walls A1 127.4 9.1 0.029

A2 99.2 9.6 0.023

Partition walls A1 19.3 1.4 0.004

A2 16.4 1.7 0.003

Ceiling A1 84.8 -4.8 0.040

A2 63.6 -4.5 0.027

Roof A1 45.5 -3.9 0.019

A2 25.4 -3.5 0.014

Thermal insulation A1 190.9 10.9 0.070

A2 166.4 9.6 0.061

Surfaces A1 118.3 6.2 0.032

A2 94.1 2.5 0.013

82 A. Estokova, M. Porhincak

123

Concluding the results of the analysis of 2 alternatives of

the Slovak masonry family-houses, the reduction of the

environmental impacts was reached by up to 61.0 % in

particular structures and by up to 10.5 % overall, simply by

the change of several building materials in structures. Thus,

even relatively easy changes in material composition may

lead to a reduction of environmental impacts.

Acknowledgments This research has been carried out within the

project of Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education,

Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak

Academy of Sciences No. 1/0481/13 titled Study of building materials

environmental impacts.

References

Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R (2007) Life cycle assessment: a case

study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ

42:1391–1394

Bamufleh HS, Ponce-Ortega JM, El-Halwagi MM (2013) Multi-

objective optimization of process cogeneration systems with

economic, environmental, and social tradeoffs. Clean Technol

Environ Policy 15:185–197

Berge B (2009) The ecology of building materials. Elsevier, London

Cucek L, Varbanov PS, Klemes JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) Potential of

total site process integration for balancing and decreasing the

key environmental footprints. Chem Eng Trans 29:61–66

Culakova M, Vilcekova S, Krıdlova Burdova E, Katunska J (2012)

Reduction of carbon footprint of building structures. Chem Eng

Trans 29:199–204

De Benedetto L, Klemes J (2008) LCA as environmental assessment

tool in waste to energy and contribution to occupational health

and safety. Chem Eng Trans 13:343–350

Dixit MK, Fernandez-Solis JL, Lavy S, Culp CH (2010) Identification

of parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature

review. Energy Buildings 42:1238–1247

Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2011) Building energy-efficiency

standards in a life cycle primary energy perspective. Energy

Buildings 43:1589–1597

ECTP (2007) Strategic research agenda for the European Construc-

tion Sector. European Construction Technology Platform

EPBD (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of

buildings (recast), Official Journal of the European Union, L153/

13–L153/35

Gerilla GP, Teknomo K, Hokao K (2007) An environmental

assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete housing

construction. Build Environ 42:2778–2784

Gustavsson L, Joelssona A (2010) Life cycle primary energy analysis

of residential buildings. Energy Buildings 42:210–220

Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R (2006) Carbon dioxide balance of

wood substitution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed

buildings. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11:667–691

Khasreen MM, Banfill PFG, Menzies GF (2009) Life-Cycle assess-

ment and the environmental impact of buildings. Rev Sustain

1:674–701

Loughlin DH, Yelverton WH, Dodder RL, Miller CA (2013)

Methodology for examining potential technology breakthroughs

for mitigating CO2 and application to centralized solar photo-

voltaics. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15:9–20

Milutien _e E, Staniskis JK, Krucius A, Augulien _e V, Ardickas D

(2012) Increase in buildings sustainability by using renewable

materials and energy. Clean Technol Environ Policy

14:1075–1084

Pieragostini C, Mussati MC, Aguirre P (2012) On process optimiza-

tion considering LCA methodology. J Environ Manage 96:43–54

Porhincak M, Estokova A (2012) Process of selection of building

materials towards sustainable development. Chem Eng Trans

29:547–552

Sartori AG (2007) Hestnes energy use in the life-cycle of conven-

tional and low-energy buildings: a review article. Energy

Buildings 39:249–257

Shukla A, Tiwari GN, Sodha MS (2009) Embodied energy analysis of

adobe house. Renew Energy 34:755–761

Stajanca M, Porhincak M, Estokova A, Kapalo P (2012) The

environmental based selection of building materials in office

building. Chem Eng Trans 29:559–564

Thormark CA (2002) Low energy building in a life cycle-its

embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling

potential. Build Environ 37:429–435

Waltjen T, Pokorny W, Zelger T, Torghele K, Motzl H, Bauer B,

Boogmann P, Rohregger G, Unzeitig U (2008) Details for

passive houses: a catalogue of ecologically rated constructions.

Springer-Verlag, Vienna

Zabalza I (2013) Use of LCA as a tool for building ecodesign. A case

study of a low energy building in Spain. Energies 6:3901–3921

Zhou L, Tokos H, Krajnc D, Yang Y (2012) Sustainability

performance evaluation in industry by composite sustainability

index. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14:789–803

Environmental analysis of two building material 83

123