Abstract
Studies of the elements that make up the structure of a building have generally focused on topics related to their physical and structural capacities. Although research has been carried out into environmental impact during the life cycle stages, the environmental profile is far from established. This research aims to reduce the gap in the knowledge of this subject, offering useful information to professionals in the construction industry, which will enable them to consider environmental aspects when choosing the best construction systems. The present study applies the methodology of the life cycle assessment (LCA), to analyze and compare four floor construction systems in two different scenarios (“A” with a functional homogeneous unit of 1 m2 and “B” with 1 m² made up of the percentages of the floor system and the special areas of the building). The analysis is performed using the LCA Manager software, along with the Ecoinvent 3.1 database and with a cradle to handover perspective (A1–A5). Comparison was made using two environmental impact methodologies, Eco-indicator 99 and CML 2001. The results highlight the stages A1–A3 as those that generate the greatest environmental impact. Comparing the environmental profiles of the different floor systems, one-way floor systems I and II had the best environmental scores, 30% less than two-way floor system III and 50% less than slab floor system IV.
Highlights
The European Commission has identified the construction industry as being one of the greatest causes of environmental impact, due to its consumption of resources and energy as well as the generation of emissions and residues [1]
ITnPb;oflthoosrcesnyasrtieoms, IV-A had tthhe gmroesatteimstpeoffrteacntticnaStecgeonraiersioreAg,argdeinnegrqautianngti1ty38o.f8e1mkigssCioOns2 weqeraenGdW13P8a.1n0d kHgT1P.;4f-lDooBr esyqs,treemspIeVc-tively, whileAinhaSdcetnhaerigoreBa,tflesotoerfsfeycstteimn SIcVe-nBagrieonAer,agteedne1r9a6ti.n9g6 k13g8C.8O1 2kegqCaOnd2 e2q09a.n2d6 k1g381.1.40-DkgB e1q.4,DreBspeeqc,tively, followresepdevcteivryelyc,lowsheillye binySflceonoarrisoyBst,efmlooIrIIs-yBstwemithIV1-9B3g.7en7ekragteCdO1296e.q96akngdC2O021e.8q7akngd 120.49-.D26Bkegq1..4-DB eq, respectively, followed very closely by floor system III-B with 193.77 kg CO2 eq and 201.87 kg 1.4
This study has made a comparison of the four most commonly used floor systems in the Spanish ambit, from two perspectives: Scenario A, which considers each system as a homogeneous element, and Scenario B, which considers the system applied in a real building conditioned by the different types of surfaces involved in the project
Summary
The European Commission has identified the construction industry as being one of the greatest causes of environmental impact, due to its consumption of resources and energy as well as the generation of emissions and residues [1]. In the location used in the research, this percentage is not far from the European, representing approximately 25% of the total waste generated [3]. As this sector is constantly growing, it is necessary to try new proposals and initiatives to help identify (by analyzing the stages in each process) the causes of the impact generated. There are regulations and standards for the evaluation of sustainability such as: EN 15643-1, EN 15643-2, EN 15643-3, EN 15643-4, EN 15643-5 y EN 15978 [5,6,7,8,9,10]; which make up the framework for the evaluation and calculation of sustainability in the construction of buildings—including the life cycle assessment (LCA). The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) have been implemented, which are documents that provide information on the environmental profile during the life cycle (LC) of different construction products and are regulated by EN 15804, CEN/TR 15941, EN 15942, etc. [11,12,13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
