Changing point of view – from material volume to covered square metre as functional unit for a meaningful comparison of the environmental impact of structures

Session

Civil Engineering, Infrastructure and Environment

Description

Limiting the environmental sustainability of the construction sector is today a strategic objective of all European countries. Currently, the environmental impact associated with structures is increasingly included into building certification protocols, starting from the input of the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) issued by producers of elements on a voluntary basis. EPDs are based on functional units which typically refer to a unitary volume of material produced (e.g. reinforced concrete or steel). However, there is currently an “acritical” data acquisition to fill the protocols, which is not translated into an actual action for a more sustainable design of the structure. Moreover, minimum environmental criteria are being issued by governments on the basis of the use of particular materials. Therefore, most institutions refer to EPDs to rapidly assess the sustainability of a structural solution, preferring the selection of those that employ more sustainable materials, moreover not being able to carry out a meaningful comparison between different technologies (cast-in-situ concrete, precast concrete, steel, timber). However, this point of view is short-sighting, since many industries employ high-performance materials and production techniques in order to get a reduction of the total volume of material employed for the construction, which may turn into a more sustainable solution, as proven by recent researches. Therefore, a more meaningful functional unit for a correct comparison of the environmental impact of different structural solutions is proposed to be the covered square metre, rather than the material volume. This concept is analysed in the paper by means of a calculation of environmental impact of a real multi-storey university building frame structure built in precast concrete, compared with detailed designed alternative solutions in cast-in-situ concrete, steel, and timber.

Keywords:

environmental impact, environmental product declarations, life-cycle assessment, comparison of different materials, multi-storey frame structures

Proceedings Editor

Edmond Hajrizi

ISBN

978-9951-982-15-3

Location

UBT Kampus, Lipjan

Start Date

25-10-2024 9:00 AM

End Date

27-10-2024 6:00 PM

DOI

10.33107/ubt-ic.2024.304

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Oct 25th, 9:00 AM Oct 27th, 6:00 PM

Changing point of view – from material volume to covered square metre as functional unit for a meaningful comparison of the environmental impact of structures

UBT Kampus, Lipjan

Limiting the environmental sustainability of the construction sector is today a strategic objective of all European countries. Currently, the environmental impact associated with structures is increasingly included into building certification protocols, starting from the input of the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) issued by producers of elements on a voluntary basis. EPDs are based on functional units which typically refer to a unitary volume of material produced (e.g. reinforced concrete or steel). However, there is currently an “acritical” data acquisition to fill the protocols, which is not translated into an actual action for a more sustainable design of the structure. Moreover, minimum environmental criteria are being issued by governments on the basis of the use of particular materials. Therefore, most institutions refer to EPDs to rapidly assess the sustainability of a structural solution, preferring the selection of those that employ more sustainable materials, moreover not being able to carry out a meaningful comparison between different technologies (cast-in-situ concrete, precast concrete, steel, timber). However, this point of view is short-sighting, since many industries employ high-performance materials and production techniques in order to get a reduction of the total volume of material employed for the construction, which may turn into a more sustainable solution, as proven by recent researches. Therefore, a more meaningful functional unit for a correct comparison of the environmental impact of different structural solutions is proposed to be the covered square metre, rather than the material volume. This concept is analysed in the paper by means of a calculation of environmental impact of a real multi-storey university building frame structure built in precast concrete, compared with detailed designed alternative solutions in cast-in-situ concrete, steel, and timber.