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: [email protected]
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
Top Related