See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289101498

Life cycle assessment of construction processes

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
4 170

2 authors:

Jana Šelih Antonio Sousa

University of Ljubljana University of New Brunswick
47 PUBLICATIONS   563 CITATIONS    207 PUBLICATIONS   4,478 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LCA Studies View project

Development of Nanofluids for Heat Transfer Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Sousa on 18 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

USE OF LCA AS A DECISION METHOD IN THE

OPTIMIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES
Jana Selih1, and Antonio C.M. de Sousa2,3

ABSTRACT
The paper reports on the use of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) as a decision method in the
selection of construction materials and optimization of construction processes. The main
features of the method and the LCA tool used are outlined. A case study of a reinforced
concrete wall cast in situ is presented. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by selecting
different concrete constituent materials. The results clearly show their major influence upon
the environmental parameters, and, in particular, energy use and global warming. The study
also addresses the impact upon the environmental parameters of different relative location
scenarios; however, this impact for the transportation of the various materials to the
construction site is minor, when compared to that due to the production of the constituent
materials. Cement is the single most important component in terms of environmental impact.

KEY WORDS
Life cycle analysis, decision method, construction products, construction process, concrete.

INTRODUCTION
Increasing environmental awareness has forced the industries and businesses to start
assessing the impact of their activities upon the environment. When the concept of
sustainable development (Our common future, 1987) was introduced, attention was gradually
being focused on issues related to natural sources depletion and environment degradation.
Environmental performance has become a key issue, and many companies have begun to
investigate ways to minimize the effects on the environment of their activities (EPA, 2006).
As a consequence, life cycle analysis (LCA) has emerged as one of the preferred tools to
assess environmental impact of a selected product. The method encompasses all stages of a
product's life, including raw materials selection, production, use and disposal.
LCA is an objective procedure to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a
product, process, or activity by identifying and quantifying energy and material usage and
environmental releases, to assess the impact of those energy and material uses and releases
on the environment, and to identify and implement opportunities yielding environmental
improvements.
LCA evaluates all stages of a product life from the perspective that they are all
interdependent, i.e. each stage is strongly interlinked with all other stages of the product life.
Therefore, it enables the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from
all stages in the product life cycle. A comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the
1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Eng., Univ. of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Phone
+386 1/476-8575, FAX +386 1/425 0681, [email protected]
2
Professor, Dept. of Mech. Eng., University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada, Phone
+1 506 453-4513, Fax + 1 506 453-5025, [email protected]
3
Professor, Dept. of Mech. Eng., University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal, [email protected]
Page 3416
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in
product/process selection can be provided.
An inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases has to be
compiled during LCA. Further, potential environmental impacts associated with identified
inputs and releases have to be evaluated. Last, the results and their proper interpretation will
help the producer make a more informed decision.
The term »life cycle« refers to the major activities in the course of the product’s life-span
from its manufacture, including the raw material acquisition, use, maintenance to final
disposal.
The method helps the decision makers select the products or processes that result in the
least impact to the environment. This information can be used with other factors, such as cost
and performance data, to select a particular product or process.

STEPS IN LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

The LCA became standardized with the introduction of the international standards ISO
14040 (1997), ISO 14041 (1998), ISO 14042 (2000) and ISO 14043 (2000). The standard
analysis contains the following steps:
• Goal and scope definition
• Inventory analysis
• Impact assessment
• Interpretation
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) involves tracking of all flows in and out of the system of interest
– raw resources or materials, energy by type, water, emissions to air, water and land by
specific substance (Trusty and Horst, 2002).

LCA IN CONSTRUCTION
The LCA methodology had its origin in the metallurgical industry where large amount of
energy and raw materials are used for the production of various metallic products. Over the
years, it has been increasingly used in the production of consumer goods; however, it has not
been widely used to analyse construction products and building production and use. In this
area the research carried out is still embryonic, and the available has been limited and in this
field and the published work is very limited in number (e.g. Schuurmans et al 2002; Josa et
al, 2004; Schmidt et al, 2004; Nixon et al 2004; Treloar et al 2004), as revealed by an
extensive literature search.
Worldwide, it is estimated that approximately 40% of the total energy consumed, 40% of
all the waste produced, and 40% of all virgin raw materials consumed are associated with the
building/construction sector. In today's world, only consumption of water is larger than the
total production of petrous materials to be further used in construction. A rational method,
such as LCA, leading to the minimization of the use of the above mentioned raw material
resources and the inherent environmental impacts should be extremely beneficial to the final
product of the construction industry, while ensuring sustainable development of the sector.
In contrast with the products for wide consumption, buildings are designed and
constructed for a long service life, typically 50 years - the specified service life depends very
much on the importance of the building. A building is a complex product that consists of
Page 3417
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

many building products, which are permanently built in (Construction Product Directive,
1987) with a relatively long production period. Therefore, a life cycle analysis can be applied
to a whole building, taking it as a product.

METHODOLOGY
LCA tool developed by the European Ready-Mix Concrete Association (ERMCO) was
employed to assess the applicability of the LCA for production of reinforced concrete
structures. Several LCA methodologies are embedded in the program: CML2001 (Guinée,
2001), EDIP (Wenzel et al, 1997) and Eco-Indicator (Goedkoop et al, 2001). All these
methodologies meet the ISO 14042 requirements, and although they are still in their
development stage, they are becoming recognized throughout Europe.
The tool was developed specifically for analysis of concrete and reinforced concrete
elements, which are incorporated in the building. It is not intended for the analysis of the
building and its performance during its use. Consequently, data regarding the building type,
design, service life planned and environmental performance are not a part of the tool’s input.
Even so, different end-of-life scenarios and levels of recycling can be projected in the
analysis.
Material and energy flow in the Life Cycle Analysis is schematically presented in Fig. 1.

Emissions to air (kg)

Customers
Raw Suppliers transport
material transport
(kg), Products
Production (kg),
Feedstock process
(kg), coproducts
Energy (kg, MJ)
(MJ)

Waste treatment,
transport
Emmisions to water
and ground (kg)

Waste material (kg)

Figure 1: Materials and energy flow according to the CML2001 methodology (Meijer, 2003)

CASE STUDY

THE PROCEDURE
As an illustration of the procedure, a cast in situ reinforced concrete wall was analyzed by
using the CML2001 methodology (Guinée, 2001). The production of the wall is
schematically presented in Fig. 2.
The concrete plant supplying concrete to the construction site, where the wall is being
constructed, is 100 km away from the site (distance B, Fig. 2). Reinforcement is supplied
from a plant also 100 km away from the site (distance A, Fig. 2). Trucks with varying
Page 3418
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

capacities are employed to transport the constituent materials to the concrete plant, and
reinforcement and fresh concrete to the construction site. The distances from the concrete
plant to aggregate producer (quarry), production of cement and additives (plasticizers) and
other data defining the reference case, such as concrete mix design, end-of-life scenario and
final waste treatment are collected in Table 1.
The complete results obtained by using LCA are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that
the largest environmental impact emerges from the cement; 48% of all used energy and 68%
of CO2 emitted stems from its production. The results also indicate the second largest
environmental impact is generated by the transportation by truck, when taken as a single
group.

Concrete plant Reinforcement

Cement plant
plant
B
A

quarry

plasticizer Construction site

production

Figure 2: Schematic presentation of cast in suit reinforced concrete wall production

Table 1: Input data for the life cycle analysis of reinforced concrete wall cast in situ

Functional unit Quantity Quant. / m2

Area 1 m2
Corresponding mass 0.508 t
Concrete mix
CEM I 52.5 365 kg/m3 73 kg
Cement transport (truck) 100 km
Coarse aggregate 800 kg/m3 160 kg
Fine aggregate 1200 kg/m3 240 kg
Plasticizers (truck 28 t) 80 km
Plasticizers 3.3 kg/m3 1 kg
Transport of plasticizers 250 km

Page 3419
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

Reinforcement 45 kg/m3 9 kg
Reinforcement transport 100 km
Water 125 l/m3 25 kg
Truck 28 t (transport) 202 t km/m3 40 t km
Life cycle - construction
Reinforced concrete wall 1 508 kg
Transport to site
Truck 40 t 100 km
Truck 40 t 50.8 t km 50.8 t km
Demolition
Demolition 508 kg
Final waste treatment
Waste concrete 5% 0.025 t
Recyclable concrete 95 % 0.474 t
Waste steel 5% 0t
Recyclable steel 95 % 0.009 t
Truck 28 t (transport to 25 km 12 t km

Table 2. Contributions of individual processes and materials upon environmental impacts

during the life cycle of a reinforced concrete wall

Energy Human Abiotic source Acidification Climate

(MJ) toxicity (kg depletion (kg Sb) (kg SO2) change (kg
1.4 DB) CO2)
Cement 456.250 2.365 0.424 0.134 65,554
Aggregate 12.200 0.074 0.054 0.004 0.596
Plasticizers 4.244 0.055 0.026 0.006 0.256
Reinforcement 83.430 5.922 0.338 0.028 4.266
Water 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Transport – 83.959 1.025 0.848 0.054 6.337
constituent
materials
Production 65.996 0.376 0.640 0.017 3.807
Transport to site 64.473 0.782 0.650 0.042 4.858

Construction 12.336 0.151 0.125 0.008 0.934

Page 3420
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

Maintenance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Demolition 104.070 1.005 0.985 0.047 6.701
End-of-life 58.379 0.566 0.515 0.022 3.512
scenario
Total 945.337 12.321 4.605 0.361 96.822

The indicator results presented in Table 2 are expressed in conformance to the methodology
of CML2001 ((Guinée, 2001). The units employed are therefore kg of the reference resource
antimony (Pb) for abiotic depletion potential, kg 1.4 DB (dichlorobenzene) equivalent for
toxicity, kg SO2 equivalent for acidification, and kg CO2 equivalent for global warming
potential.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was carried out for the following parameters: the distance between
concrete plant and construction site (Fig. 2, distance B), concrete mix design, degree of
recycling, and end-of-life scenario.
The influence of transport distance from the concrete plant to site was evaluated at 20,
50, 100 and 200 km. The last option, due to the hardening of concrete with time, is not
desirable as it can lead to diminished quality of concrete placing. It was chosen just for the
purpose of assessing the influence of the transport distance. The results obtained are reported
in Fig. 3.
The results presented in Table 2 clearly show the dominant influence of cement on the
overall environmental impact of the reinforced concrete wall. The sensitivity study was
therefore conducted for two different concrete mixes containing different cement types in
different quantities. Concrete mix design employed in the analysis is presented in Table 3.
Cement Type I (CEM I) used in the reference mix is replaced by Type II (CEM II), which
contains up to 20% of supplementary cementing materials. The two mixtures have
approximately equivalent compressive strength of concrete; therefore, the bearing capacity of
the wall does not change due to the concrete mixture design change.
The comparison between the two concrete mix designs, CEM I and CEM II, respectively,
is presented in Fig. 4 for energy usage, CO2 and toxic substance emissions. The results of the
simulation reveal a significant reduction of energy consumption in the production and
disposal of the concrete wall, when built with CEM II cement type; this is due to the
increased content of mineral additives in this cement that do not require high temperature
kiln-burning. In what concerns climate change impact, i.e. CO2 production, CEM I and CEM
II yield practically identical results; however, CEM II has lower terrestrial ecotoxicity (0.087
vs. 0.128 kg 1.4 DB) and slightly higher acidification (0.411 vs. 0.361 kg of SO2) than those
of CEM I.

Page 3421
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

Energy [MJ] CO2 [kg]

1009,8
945,3
913,1
1000 893,8

800

600

400

200 92,9 94,4 96,8 101,7

0
20 50 100 200
Distance from concrete plant to site [km]

a)
toxicity [kg 1,4 DB] SO2 [kg] PO4- [kg]

0,50

0,403
0,40
0,361
0,340
0,328
0,30

0,20

0,125 0,126 0,128 0,133

0,10 0,074 0,085

0,065 0,068

0,00
20 50 100 200
Distance from concrete plant to site [km]

b)

Figure 3: Influence of the transport distance from the concrete plant to the construction site
upon a) used energy and CO2 production, b) toxic substance emmission to the ground, water
and air.

Page 3422
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

Table 3: Concrete mix design used in sensitivity analysis to assess the influence of cement
type.

Reference case mix design Changed mix design

(CEM I 52.5 Europe) (CEM II/A-L 32.5R Europe)
3
Cement 365 kg/m 410 kg/m3
Coarse 800 kg/m3 960 kg/m3
aggregate
Fine aggregate 1200 kg/m3 790 kg/m3
Plasticizers 3.3 kg/m3 (plastifikator) 6.1 kg/m3 (superplastifikator)
Water 125 l 175 l

945,3
1000
812,4

800

Energy [MJ]
600
Climate change [kg CO2]

400

96,8 102,4
200

0
CEM I CEM II

a)
0,50
0,411

0,40 0,361

Terrestrial ecotoxicity [kg 1,4

0,30 DB]
Acidification [kg SO2]

0,20 Eutrophication [kg PO4-]

0,128
0,087 0,082
0,074
0,10

0,00
CEM I CEM II

b)

Figure 4: Influence of concrete mix design upon a) used energy and CO2 production, b) toxic
substance emmission upon ground, water and air.

Page 3423
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The analysis for the base case of a cast in situ reinforced concrete wall using the CMLCA
methodology reveals that cement is the leading single component in what concerns
environmental impact in all categories considered, namely: energy usage, human toxicity,
abiotic resources, acidification, and climate change. It is interesting to note that in terms of
energy usage demolition is second only to cement (104.1 vs. 456.2 MJ). The combined
transport component is, when all the categories are considered and after the cement, the one
with the largest environmental impact. This result is not unexpected taking into account the
relatively large value (100 km) selected for the distances A and B. It is surprising, however,
to note that reduced distances do not lead to significant reductions of toxic substance
emissions. On the other end, the energy usage decreases with decreasing distances, however,
the predictions correctly indicate that there is no direct proportionality between the two
variables, as the energy usage per km traveled decreases with the increased distance. The
sensitivity analysis also serves to demonstrate the ability of selecting the construction
material, in this particular case cement mix, based on the LCA methodology. The two mixes,
CEM I and CEM II, although with different compositions, yield similar results with an
advantage of 14% in terms of energy usage for CEM II, but yielding a 13.8% increase in
acidification. Obviously, with the guidance of the LCA methodology, different mixes with
similar strength can be designed to yield reduced environmental impact.
The proposed procedure and the case study used for its illustration clearly indicate the
potential of LCA as a decision tool in what concerns buildings, and, in particular, building
components. The designer can make an educated choice when selecting the best-suited
construction material, while the planner can use as a component of the decision process the
environmental impact due to the relative distances of the suppliers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Funding received within the framework of bilateral project between Portugal and Slovenia is
acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Construction Product Directive (1987). European Commission, Bruxelles.

EPA (2006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Science Applications International
Corporation. LCAccess – LCA 101 (available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/)
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R. (2001). A damage oriented method for Life cycle Assessment –
Methodology Report, 3rd Ed., Amersford, The Netherlands, 144 pp. (available at
www.pre.nl)
Graedel, T.E., and Allenby, B.R. (2003). Industrial Ecology, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 363 pp.
Guinée, J. (editor) (2001). Life cycle assessment: An operational guide to the ISO standards,
Leiden University, centre for Environmental Sciences, 601 pp. (available at
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/index.html)
ISO 14040 (1997). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and
framework. International Standards Organization, 11 pp.
ISO 14041 (1998). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Goal and scope
definition and inventory analysis. 21 pp.
Page 3424
Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering
June 14-16, 2006 - Montréal, Canada

ISO 14042 (2000). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Life cycle impact
assessment. 15 pp.
ISO 14043 (2000). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Life cycle
interpretation. 18 pp.
Josa, A., Aguado, A., Heino, A., Byars, E., Cardim, A. (2004). Comparative analysis of
available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU, Cem.Conc.Res., 34 1313-1320.
Meijer, J.P.R. (2003). Learning about and work with EcoConcrete. EcoConcrete course
book 1.1. 32 pp.
Nixon, P., Quillin, K., Somerville, G. L. (2004). Life-cycle assessment/analysis of concrete.
Concrete. 38, 1: 31-33.
Our common future (1987). Oxford Press.
Schmidt, A.C., Jensen, A.A., Clausen, A.U., Kamstrump, O., Postlethwaite, D.L. (2004). A
comparative life cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone wool,
paper wool and flax. Int. J. of life cycle assessment. 9(2) 122-129.
Schuurmans, A., Tukker, A., Mulder, E., L. (2002). LCA for the »Closed Building Cycle«
system. An indicative LCA of the autonomous development and the closed building
cycle. 10th SETAC LCA Case Studies Symposium.
Treloar, G.J., Love, P.E.D., Crawford, R.H. (2004). Hybrid life-cycle inventory for road
construction and use. ASCE Journal of construction engineering and management. 130(1)
43-49.
Trusty, W.B., and Horst, S., L. (2002). “Integrating LCA Tools in Green Building Rating
Systems.” (available at http://www.athenasmi.ca/).
Wenzel, H., Hauschild M., Alting L. (1997). Environmental Assessment of Products.
Chapman & Hall, UK.

Page 3425

View publication stats