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

net/publication/322499003

Life-Cycle Assessment of Construction Materials: Analysis of Environmental

Impacts and Recommendations of Eco-Efficient Management Practices

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_76-1

CITATIONS READS

0 1,008

3 authors:

Leonor Patricia Güereca Daniel Jato-Espino

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Universidad de Cantabria
33 PUBLICATIONS   330 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Esther Lizasoain-Arteaga
Universidad de Cantabria
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

DURABROADS View project

CEMIE-Océano View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Jato-Espino on 01 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Post-print version of ‘Güereca, L. P.; Jato-Espino, D., Lizasoain-Arteaga,
E. (2018). “Life cycle assessment of construction materials: analysis of
environmental impacts and recommendations of eco-efficient management
practices”. In: Hussain C. (eds). Handbook of Environmental Materials
Management. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_76-1’.
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Life cycle assessment of construction materials: analysis

of environmental impacts and recommendations of eco-
efficient management practices

Leonor Patricia Güereca1; Daniel Jato-Espino2,*; Esther Lizasoain-Arteaga2

1
Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, Ciudad Universitaria,
04510, Mexico City, Mexico
2
GITECO Research Group, Universidad de Cantabria, Av. de los Castros 44, 39005, Santander, Spain

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. P. Güereca); [email protected] (D. Jato-

Espino); [email protected] (E. Lizasoain-Arteaga)

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 942203943; Fax: +34 942201703.

Abstract This chapter seeks to provide insight into the concept of Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) and its potential usefulness and application in the environmental management of
materials. To this end, both the theoretical framework and the main applications of LCA
on the use and implementation of materials in the construction industry worldwide are
described and overviewed. Furthermore, a series of case studies consisting of the assess-
ment of the life-cycle environmental impacts generated by widely used materials during
their production and inclusion in the construction of buildings and infrastructures, such
as cement, steel, asphalt, concrete, plastics, wood or glass, are presented and discussed in
detail. The conclusions drawn from these practical experiences demonstrated that LCA is
an enlightening tool for assessing cradle-to-grave environmental impacts produced by
construction processes and, by extension, facilitate the selection of eco-friendly materials.
Therefore, its implementation in planning and management policies can help undertake
sustainable practices aimed at environmental impacts and protect human health.

Keywords Climate Change; Construction; Environment; Human health; Life Cycle As-
sessment; Materials

1
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Introduction

Modern societies produce huge impacts on the environment as a consequence of a variety

of human-related activities. The increasingly growing trend observed in world population,
which is forecasted to reach 9 billion in 2050, provides evidence of the unstoppable threat
with which the Earth will have to deal in the future (UNEP 2012). Satisfying human con-
sumption habits is provoking the depletion of natural resources, which are also being en-
dangered due to the release of wastes derived from the manufacturing of products and
goods to the air, land and water. These reasons demand a change in human behavior,
which needs to shift to the implementation of eco-efficient practices to contribute to sus-
tainable production and consumption.
In this context, a current of thought known as Life Cycle Thinking emerged with the
objective of searching the sustainability of decision-making processes, for which quanti-
fying and comparing the resource use and environmental emissions associated with the
supply of goods and services to societies is crucial (Rebitzer et al. 2004), in order to re-
duce them as much as possible. In fact, this is commonly identified as one of the two main
goals of the Life Cycle Thinking approach, along with the improvement of the economic
and social performance of products during their existence (UNEP 2012).
The aforementioned first goal sought by Life Cycle Thinking has found several meth-
odological frameworks to support its application over the years, including Life Cycle As-
sessment (LCA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact As-
sessment (EIA), Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA), Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA),
Material Flow Analysis (MFA), and Ecological Footprint (Finnveden et al. 2009). LCA
has become one of the most widely used tools today for environmental evaluations, since
the basis for sustainable production requires integrated assessments of all impacts from
cradle to grave (Guinée and Heijungs 2005).
Hence, LCA provides a comprehensive approach to evaluate the environmental im-
pacts produced during the whole life of a product, from the extraction of raw materials to
its disposal or recycling, including processing, manufacturing, transport, use and mainte-
nance (Hellweg and Canals 2014). The methodological foundations behind LCA divide
these environmental impacts into several categories, such as global warming, acidifica-
tion, photochemical ozone creation, eutrophication, human toxicity or resource depletion
(Pelletier et al. 2007).
Although the depth and extent of the study can be adapted depending on its aim, the
cradle-to-grave approach in the construction industry is gaining relevance over the years
due to the importance of considering the effect of aspects such as the durability and recy-
clability of materials on human health and welfare (Moncaster and Symons 2013). There-
fore, LCA can help not only to support the decision-making processes related to the se-
lection of materials, but also highlight the importance of considering a life-cycle approach
in construction activities.

2
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

The use of LCA has been recognized in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
established by the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN-
DESA 2012), since they include several issues to be addressed over the next years related
to resource management. LCA is especially aligned with several targets included in SDGs
8 and 12, entitled “Decent Work and Economic Growth” and “Responsible Consumption
and Production”, respectively:
• Target 4 (SDG 8): “Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource effi-
ciency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic
growth from environmental degradation […]”.
• Target 1 (SDG 12): “Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sus-
tainable consumption and production […]”.
• Target 2 (SDG 12): “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient
use of natural resources”.
• Target 5 (SDG 12): “By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through pre-
vention, reduction, recycling and reuse”.
• Target 6 (SDG 12): “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient
use of natural resource”.
As a contribution to prove the usefulness of LCA to improve the environmental man-
agement of decision-making processes related to materials, this chapter provides an over-
view of relevant applications of this tool in the construction industry, including a detailed
description of three real cases studies focused on the life-cycle impacts of raw materials,
infrastructures and buildings. An introductory section outlining the methodological basis
of LCA is also presented to contextualize the framework supporting the use of this tool.

Foundations of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

In line with the environmental management standards ISO 14040:2006 (ISO 2006a) and
14044:2006 (ISO 2006b), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emerged as a tool to assess the
environmental impacts caused during the life-cycle of a product, including material pro-
duction, transport, construction, maintenance and end of life (see Fig. 1). According to
(Hellweg and Canals 2014), an accepted definition of LCA is the “compilation and eval-
uation of the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a product system
throughout its life-cycle”.

3
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Fig. 1. Stages in the life-cycle of a product considered in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Main phases of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA is commonly structured in four steps as illustrated in Fig. 2: Goal and Scope, Life-
cycle Inventory (LCI), Life-cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Interpretation. These
phases are interdependent on each other, so that the outputs derived from one of them
work as inputs to feed subsequent steps.

Fig. 2. Main phases of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

4
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Goal and Scope

The ISO standards (ISO 2006a) that support LCAs highlight the importance of beginning
by clearly stating and defining the aim, boundaries and assumptions on which these as-
sessments are based. For instance, the objective of a LCA could be the comparison of the
environmental performance of concrete and metallic bridges, whilst the boundaries may
consist of resource extraction and processing, use of equipment and machinery, service
life including vehicle transit and dismantling. The assumptions would be those related to
the estimates considered for characterizing the inputs, such as fuel and energy consump-
tion or transport distances, among others.
A crucial concept in this phase is the Functional Unit (FU), which sets out the basis
required for comparing and analyzing different alternatives (Rebitzer et al. 2004). The
FU must not be necessarily regarded as an amount of material, but can be represented as
the requirements for achieving a certain output. For example, the FU in the comparison
between concrete and metallic bridges might be the cross-section of both alternatives.
Another important step in this phase is the establishment of the geographic boundaries
that characterize the location of the study area, since LCAs can be affected by site condi-
tions, such as electricity mix, the existence of different techniques for extracting or pro-
cessing materials, the state of the technology used in different countries or regions or the
standards that are applicable in certain regions.

Inventory Analysis

The Life-cycle Inventory (LCI) collects inputs and outputs related to each process in the
life-cycle of products. Therefore, the LCI includes flows of raw materials, energy and
water-related inputs, as well as emissions to air, land and water. In other words, it models
the environmental exchanges associated with the FU (Rebitzer et al. 2004) established in
the goal and scope definition. The basic concept to achieve such an objective is the unit
process, which represents each elementary operation (e.g. refining of oil, steel production
or recycling of plastic waste) considered in the LCA. The level of detail of these elements
varies between different LCAs, so that the average number of unit processes in a LCA
may range from 50 to 500. The four main groups of flows in LCAs are as follows (Guinée
and Heijungs 2005):
• Economic inflows, e.g. the electricity and cement required for concrete.
• Environmental inflows, e.g. the fuel consumed during the production of concrete.
• Economic outflows: the sample of concrete produced by the process of mixing
water, cement and aggregates.
• Environmental outflows, e.g. the emissions to air and water derived from the pro-
duction of concrete.

5
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

The inventory analysis is an iterative task, since both the existence of new data and
the knowledge obtained during its creation contribute to increasing the accuracy in the
definition of material and energy flows. Although the boundaries of the system are estab-
lished at the first phase of LCA from an overall point of view, they must be re-defined
with more accuracy in the inventory analysis. In addition to the geographic boundaries,
whose importance due to their interrelation to uncertainty in the results has been men-
tioned already, it is important to define temporal boundaries too. This is particularly rel-
evant in the end of life of products, since their disposal at landfills involves gas emissions
which depend on the time scale considered for the decomposition of residuals.
Building a workflow to divide the system into several subsystems, which in turn are
further structured according to a series of unit processes, facilitates subsequent calcula-
tions. Hence, material and energy balances can be easily arranged according to the inputs
and outputs involved in the processes included in the LCA. Data must be quantified spec-
ifying their units of measurement (liters, tons, MJ, etc.), as well as the sources from which
they have been acquired and the uncertainty. Like any other methodological framework,
the results obtained in LCAs completely depends on data quality, so that implementing
continuous evaluations of such data must be a relevant task. Although there are several
methods available for conducting this activity, the absence of a widely accepted approach
by the LCA-related community hinders the establishment of a standardized procedure to
guide it (Guinée and Heijungs 2005).
The phase of quantification is closely related to the scaling of every process to the
amount required for the product under study. A particularity arises when having multi-
functional processes that belong to more than one system. For instance, if the manufac-
turing of a certain material stems from the co-production of two or more components, the
flows associated with the production of such material must be divided according to the
two co-products, resulting in a process known as allocation (Rebitzer et al. 2004). Guinée
and Heijungs (2005) identified three main types of multifunctional processes: multi-out-
put (coproduction), multi-input (waste processing) and reuse (waste flows converted into
usable materials). The standard ISO 14044:2006 (ISO 2006b) provides several options
for allocation to address the management of multifunctional processes:
• Division into sub-processes.
• Extension of the boundaries of the system.
• Application of physical principles of causality, such as mass or energy content of
the outputs.
Apart from quantitative elements, LCIs might also contain qualitative information that
cannot be expressed through numbers due to their intrinsic nature or the scarcity of data,
but still must be included in the assessment because of their relevance (e.g. aspects related
to the perception of users). As a result of all these considerations, the preparation and
analysis of the LCI becomes one of the more complex steps when carrying out LCAs.

6
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

The increasing development of regional and international databases is intended to help

overcoming this situation by providing reliable and updated data.

Life-cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

The LCIA is a phase aimed at providing additional information to help assess the results
from the Inventory Analysis, in order to better understand their environmental signifi-
cance (ISO 2006b). It involves transforming the inputs and outputs identified in the LCI
into the impacts they produce, which can be calculated at midpoint or endpoint levels.
The endpoint level calculates the damage caused to three main areas of protection: human
health, ecosystem and resource availability. These areas are characterized by measuring
years of healthy life lost, number of species lost and extra cost of future raw material
extraction, respectively. As for the midpoint level, its scope is more focused on assessing
environmental flows like Climate Change, human toxicity or ozone depletion in an inter-
mediate point between the LCI and the endpoint level. Both approaches have their own
advantages and disadvantages: while the endpoint impacts are easier to interpret, the mid-
point impacts are more certain (Hauschild and Huijbregts 2015).
According to the ISO 14044:2006 (ISO 2006b), the impact assessment starts by se-
lecting the impact categories, category indicators and characterization model which are
more coherent with the goal and extent of the study. Then the emissions of the LCI are
assigned to the impact they produce in the classification step. Finally every impact is
calculated during the characterization step by multiplying the emissions by their respec-
tive characterization factor and adding them, in order to obtain a unique value for every
impact. For instance, CO 2 and CH 4 , among others, are responsible for the impact category
of Climate Change, whose characterization factor is the Global Warming Potential over
20, 100 or 500 years. This factor expresses the increase in infrared radioactive forcing
caused by 1 kg pulse emission compared with the increase caused by 1 kg of CO 2 . Hence,
the amounts of CO 2 and CH 4 are multiplied by characterization factors of 1 and 34, re-
spectively, which enables adding them as units of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO 2 eq).
In addition to the compulsory steps described above, there are some optional elements
that facilitate the interpretation of results: normalization, grouping and weighting. Nor-
malization consists of expressing all the impact scores with respect to a reference value
that can be related to a given community, person or other system over a period of time
(Guinée and Heijungs 2005). A reference value widely used by impact assessment meth-
ods (e.g. ReCIPE, TRACI and ILCD) is the environmental impact caused by an average
citizen per year. However, it should be taken into account that the step of normalization
can change the conclusions drawn from the LCA, which is the reason why the ISO LCA
standards recommend using different reference values for comparative purposes. Group-
ing involves classifying the normalized impact categories according to either a nominal
basis like inputs and outputs at global, regional and local scales or based on a hierarchy

7
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

aimed at allocating different priorities to the categories. Finally, weighting consists of

multiplying the normalized impact scores by a value expressing the degree of relative
importance of each category in relation to the others. Guinée and Heijungs (2005) identi-
fied three different approaches for weighing:
• A monetary approach, where impacts are transformed into monetary values.
• A distance to target approach, where impacts are weighted based on the distance
to a reference level (e.g. legislation).
• A societal approach, based on the opinion of experts or citizens.
The value judgments on which grouping and weighting are based on might produce
variations in the results depending on the person who carries out the analysis. For this
reason and according to the ISO 14044:2006 (ISO 2006b), weighting shall not be used
for comparative assertion disclosed to the public.

Interpretation

Interpretation is the last phase of the LCA and consists of summarizing and analyzing the
results obtained in previous steps in relation to the goal and extent of the study, in order
to draw conclusions from it. With this aim in mind, most significant data, results and
information of the LCI and LCIA should be identified to evaluate their integrity, sensi-
tivity and coherence, due to the uncertainty inherent to the LCA. This task must be ap-
proached considering the simplifications, assumptions, allocations and cut-offs made dur-
ing the process. Besides, obtaining high quality data for the inventory is not only always
possible, but sometimes there might also be even discrepancies between different data-
bases. Below are listed some of the approaches that can be adopted to reduce the degree
of uncertainty or, at least, be aware of its existence and magnitude:
• Scientific approach: it consists of extend the scope of the research to try to obtain
better data and/or models. Although this would be the ideal method to decrease
uncertainty, its application is not always possible due to data availability.
• Social approach: the methodology and data used during the analysis are discussed
with the stakeholders to find a consensus.
• Legal approach: it lies in following the recommendations made by authoritative
bodies, like the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) devel-
oped by the European Commission according to international standards.
• Statistical approach: instead of removing it, this approach seeks to incorporate the
uncertainty into the analysis through different statistical techniques, among which
the Monte Carlo methods are one of the most widespread options.
The final step in the interpretation phase is related to drawing conclusions in line with
the goal defined in the first step of the LCA, as well as making recommendations for the
future utilization of the results of the study, pointing out the limitations identified during
the process.

8
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of construction materials

As a proof of the usefulness and applicability of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to improve
the environmental management of materials, this section provides an overview of some
of the most relevant articles released in the last 20 years related to this topic. Hence, the
most cited research papers in 2017 concerning the LCA or Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of
raw materials, buildings and infrastructures are summarized in Table 1, Table 2 and Table
3, respectively.
The Functional Unit (FU) of the works reviewed varied depending on the scale of the
analysis, so that it broadly consisted of square, cubic and mass units when assessing raw
materials and augmented to whole buildings and infrastructures when referred to these
facilities. Most of the investigations compiled were conducted in Europe and the United
States, demonstrating that the main sources of innovation related to the design and appli-
cation of LCA-related methodologies are located in these geographical regions.
Despite the standards ISO 14040:2006 (ISO 2006a) and 14044:2006 (ISO 2006b) are
frameworks that guide users during all the steps included in LCAs, several elements like
FU, time period, number of phases and impact categories considered remain opened to
facilitate the adaptation of the analyses to the specifics of each case. These are the aspects
highlighted in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, along with the approach selected to conduct
the LCA (Santero et al. 2011):
• Process-based: quantification of the inputs and outputs of each discrete process
identified within the system boundaries. This approach requires to pay special at-
tention to the definition of the boundaries, in order to reduce the truncation error,
which is linked with the inability to completely define up-stream and down-stream
processes.
• Input-output: based on the economic input-output matrix developed by (Leontief
1936), this approach analyses the economic transaction between different sectors
of the economy and links them with the environmental impacts they produce. This
course of action prevents establishing arbitrary boundaries, but introduces other
uncertainties into the LCA due to the impossibility of distinguishing the environ-
mental impacts caused by each product.
• Hybrid: combination of the two previous approaches that minimizes their uncer-
tainties. The input-output method is commonly used to define the supply chain of
a product, whereas the process-based approach analyzes its more direct impacts.

9
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Table 1. Overview of the main research articles related to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of raw materials
Reference Country Summary Content Approach FU Period Phases Impacts
(Asif et al. Scotland Evaluation of 8 different construction materials of a Timber, glass, Process 3-bed room - Materials Embodied energy, CO 2 ,
2007) dwell in Scotland. The 5 most common materials were concrete, ceramic semidetached SO x and NO x
studied in detail, whereas the remaining 3 were esti- tiles and aluminum house
mated. The results showed that concrete represented (studied);
65% of the embodied energy and 99% of the studied plasterboard, slat
emissions produced by the materials used to build a 3- and damp course
bed room semidetached house. (estimated)
(Flower and Australia Comparison of the emissions generated during the pro- Portland cement Process 1 m3 of - / 100 Materials Global warming potential
Sanjayan duction and placement of 6 concrete mixes made with concrete mix, 25% concrete / years and
2007) Portland cement, fly ashes and Ground Granulated fly ash concrete whole construction
Blast Furnace Slags (GGBFS), including a case study and 40% GGBFS building / Materials,
of a housing project where 30% of Portland Concrete concrete construction
was replaced by fly ash. The production of Portland and use
cement was concluded to be the main responsible of
the total CO 2 emissions. Its substitution by fly ash and
GGBFS can decrease the levels of CO 2 by about 14%
and 22%, respectively.
(Marinkovic Serbia Assessment of the environmental impacts generated Conventional Process 1 m3 - Materials Global warming
et al. 2010) during the production of conventional concrete (natural concrete and potential, eutrophication,
aggregates) and recycled concrete, which is supposed recycled concrete acidification,
to contain 5% more cement to ensure an adequate me- photochemical oxidant
chanical behavior. Although the results revealed that creation, cumulated
the production of cement was the principal cause of the energy, waste production
emissions, transport distances determined the suitabil- and natural resources
ity of both alternatives. depletion
(Zabalza Spain Analysis of the most commonly used building materi- Bricks, tiles, Process 1 kg - Materials, Primary energy demand,
Bribián et als and a series of eco-materials, considering their pro- insulation construction global warming potential
al. 2011) duction, construction and final disposal. The study materials, cement, and end-of- and water demand
highlighted the benefits of using recycled materials, concrete, wood and life
eco-innovations and sustainable techniques, encourag- other common
ing the use of local products and providing guidelines materials
for the selection of materials.

10
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Table 2. Overview of the main research articles related to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of buildings
Reference Country Summary Content Approach FU Period Phases Impacts
(Peuportier France Comparison of three different house-designs by means Standard house, Process Whole 80 years Materials, Energy and water
2001) of a new simulation tool. When considering the build- solar house and building and construction, consumption, depletion
ing as a whole, the solar house produced the greatest wooden frame 1 m2 of use, of resources and the
environmental impacts due to its size. However, the re- house living area maintenance ozone layer, waste
sults per 1 m2 of living area indicated an improvement and end-of- creation, global warming
of the solar house, with the wooden frame house being life potential, acidification,
the most sustainable option. Better results could have eutrophication, aquatic
been achieved for the solar house if characterized with and human ecotoxicity,
equivalent thermal insulation to that of the wooden photochemical oxidant
house, whilst more research was demanded to include formation and
thermal comfort in this kind of analyses. malodorous air
(Scheuer et U.S. Evaluation of a 7,300 m2 building where the 3 bottom University building Process Whole 75 years Materials, Primary energy
al. 2003) floors and basement were used as classrooms and of- containing building construction, consumption, global
fices and the 3 top floors as hotel rooms. The results, classrooms, offices use, warming potential, ozone
which were referred to the primary energy consump- and hotel rooms maintenance depletion potential,
tion due to its correlation with other impact categories, and end-of- acidification potential,
showed that electricity, heating, ventilation and air life nitrification potential and
conditioning during the use phase accounted for more solid waste generation
than 94% of the total impacts.
(Junnila and Finland Calculation of the environmental impacts produced by Three five-story Process Whole 50 years Materials, Climate change,
Horvath three office towers in Finland during their whole life office towers building construction, acidification,
2003) cycle. Electricity use and buildings materials turned use, eutrophication, summer
out to be the two only significant elements for all the maintenance smog and heavy metals
impact categories studied, accounting for more than and end-of-
45% of impacts. The omission of other important im- life
pact categories and the difficulties to extrapolate the
results to other countries were identified as the main
weaknesses of the study.

11
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Table 2 (Continued)
Reference Country Summary Content Approach FU Period Phases Impacts
2
(Guggemos U.S. Assessment of the energetic and environmental emis- Concrete frame Hybrid 1m 50 years Materials, Energy, CO 2 , CO, NO x ,
and Horvath sion of two office buildings whose unique difference office building and construction, PM 10 and SO 2
2005) was the type of structure (concrete and steel). Due to steel frame office use,
the predominance of the use phase and the similarity of building maintenance
results when considering the whole life cycle, a more and end-of-
detailed analysis was carried out removing the use and life
maintenance phases. The impacts generated during the
production of steel exceeded those caused by the larger
weight of concrete and longer time required for its con-
struction and demolition.
(Junnila et Finland Comparative analysis of two office buildings in Fin- Two office Process 1 m2 50 years Materials, Energy, CO 2 , SO 2 , NO x
al. 2006) and U.S. land and the U.S. The use phase was found to be the buildings (Finland) construction, and PM 10
dominating step, representing about 70% of the total and hybrid use,
energy consumption. Differences in the operating and (U.S.) maintenance
maintenance schedules and the sources of energy used and end-of-
enabled the Finnish building to consume a third less life
energy and produce much less emissions than that lo-
cated in the U.S.
(González Spain Appraisal of three terrace house built in Spain follow- Sustainable house Process 1 m2 - Materials CO 2
and García ing sustainable principles, with the aim of calculating and conventional and
Navarro the potential reduction in CO 2 emissions caused by a house construction
2006) careful selection of construction materials. The results
revealed that a decrease of 5% in the weight of the
house and 27% in CO 2 emissions was possible.

12
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Table 2 (Continued)
Reference Country Summary Content Approach FU Period Phases Impacts
(Zabalza Spain Design of a simplified LCA methodology to complete Terraced house Process 1 m2 of 50 years Materials Primary energy and CO 2
Bribián et the results provided by building certification software, living area and use
al. 2009) whose application is limited to the use phase and disre- and year
gard the materials-related stage. The approach was
tested through a Spanish terraced house, proving that
embodied energy can represent more than 30% of the
primary energy requirement during the life span of a
single house. However, the main cause of energy con-
sumption was found to be heating (>50%).
(Blengini Italy Analysis of a block of flats constructed by assembling Block of flats Process 1 m2 of net 40 years Materials, Gross energy
2009) prefabricated elements and demolished through con- floor area construction, requirement, global
trolled blasting. Despite 6 impact categories were con- over a year use, warming potential, ozone
sidered, the results were mainly referred to energy and maintenance depletion, acidification,
global warming potential. Although the use phase was and end-of- eutrophication and
found to be the most important stage, significant bene- life photochemical ozone
fits can be obtained paying attention to other phases. creation potential
For instance, a proper strategy for managing wastes
might lead to a net environmental gain of 29% and
18% in terms of energy and greenhouse emissions, re-
spectively.
(Monahan England Comparison of a Modern Method of Construction MMC timber frame Process 1 m2 of - Materials Primary energy and CO 2
and Powell (MMC) combining an offsite modular timber frame larch cladding, usable floor and
2011) with a larch cladding with two alternative scenarios MMC timber frame construction
consisting of a brick cladding and a masonry cavity brick cladding and
wall. The results suggested that a reduction of 34% in conventional
embodied carbon might be obtained by replacing tradi- masonry cavity
tional construction techniques with modern practices, wall
including up to 24% savings through the substitution
of brick cladding by larch cladding.

13
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Table 3. Overview of the main research articles related to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of infrastructures
Reference Country Summary Content Approach FU Period Phases Impacts
(Horvath U.S. Evaluation of two different bridge girders (steel and Steel bridge girders IO Whole 80 years Materials, Chemical emissions,
and Hen- steel reinforce concrete) using the Economic Input- and steel- bridge construction hazardous waste
drickson Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) approach. reinforced concrete and generation and
1998) After pointing out the uncertainties of the used data, bridge girders maintenance conventional air pollutant
the concrete bridge was concluded to be the best option (painting the emissions
if both materials and construction phase are taking into steel bridge)
account. However, these results might change if the re-
cycling and reuse rates of steel are considered.
(Zapata and U.S. Appraisal of a Continuously Reinforced Concrete Asphalt pavement Process 1 km, 2 lane - Materials Energy
Gambatese Pavement (CRCP) and an asphalt pavement. CCRCP and CRCP highway and
2005) was found to consume approximately 21% more en- construction
ergy than asphalt pavements during the materials and
construction phases, with the production of cement and
the mixing and drying of aggregates being the main
cause of energy consumption. A significant reduction
in these figures can be achieved by either replacing ce-
ment by fly ash or changing the storage of aggregates.
(Keoleian et U.S. Assessment of two new bridge deck technologies con- Bridge containing Process Whole 60 years Materials, Energy and material
al. 2005) sisting of: (1) conventional steel expansion joints and steel expansion overpass (0.1 construction, resource consumption, air
(2) engineered cementitious composites (ECC) link joints and bridge mi length, 4 maintenance and water pollutant
slabs. The ECC system demonstrated to have a better using ECC link lanes width and end-of- emissions and solid waste
environmental behavior due to an extension in the deck slabs and 9 in. life generation
lifetime and subsequent reduced maintenance. height)
(Huang et England Development of a new LCA model for pavements, Conventional Process 30,000 m2 - Materials Energy and CO 2
al. 2009) which enables considering recycled materials. The pro- asphalt pavement and
posed approach was applied to the case study of the and asphalt construction
LHR Terminal-5 access road, proving that the produc- pavement
tion of asphalt mix accounted for 62% of the total en- containing waste
ergy consumed, which suggested that using cold as- glass, incinerator
phalt mixtures might be beneficial to reduce these im- bottom ash and
pacts. RAP

14
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Case studies

This section seeks to demonstrate the clairvoyance that LCA can provide to deal with
decision-making processes associated with the environmental impacts of materials. To
this end, a trio of real case studies conducted by the National Autonomous University of
Mexico (UNAM) concerning the life-cycle environmental analysis of different materials
was presented and discussed. Although the majority of LCA studies overviewed in Table
1, Table 2 and Table 3 were carried out in Europe and the United States, Mexico was
found to be a rich source of information in terms of technical reports. To further enlighten
the usefulness and applicability of this tool, these case studies involved the LCA of raw
materials, as well as their environmental impacts when performing as components in the
two fundamental facilities providing services to the society: infrastructure and buildings.

Production of clinker with fossil and municipal solid waste-derived fuel

Concrete is the second material with highest consumption rate worldwide, only after wa-
ter (Sedgwick 1991). Its main component is cement, whose production involves synthe-
sizing a mixture of clay and limestone in a kiln to produce clinker. This process requires
an important amount of energy to ensure that the temperature in the kiln is about 2,000
ºC. The consumption of cement in the world is forecasted to reach 3.4 billion of tons by
2020, including the corresponding increase in energy usage, raw materials and generation
of pollutants (UNEP 2011). For these reasons, cement usage implies huge environmental
impacts, which highlights the relevance of managing it properly.
On a different note, population growth and changes in consumption habits are causing
an increase in the generation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), which requires integral
management systems to consider treatment and disposal alternatives capable of ensuring
an adequate response in terms of economic feasibility, environmental efficiency and so-
cial acceptance. In this sense, the cement industry might have a key role in MSW man-
agement (MSWM), since it enables co-processing high calorific value fractions, i.e. In-
organic Fraction of MSW (IFMSW), using them as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). In fact,
there are several studies recommending the use of IFMSW as an alternative fuel in cement
kilns (Genon and Brizio 2008, Mokrzycki et al. 2003, Strazza et al. 2011), due to their
better environmental performance as a result of its suitability for dealing with high tem-
peratures. However, this condition must be evaluated through the holistic, objective and
systematic consideration of environmental impacts in the particular context of Mexico
(Güereca et al. 2015).

15
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Methodology

An investigation was conducted to develop a comparative LCA of two alternative fuels

for clinker production: petroleum coke and a fuel mixture consisting of petroleum coke
and IFMSW. Hence, the following scenarios were defined: REFERENCE, which consid-
ers 100% petroleum coke as fuel, and IFMSW, which assumes a combination of 80%
petroleum coke and 20% IFMSW. Both scenarios were characterized using real data ac-
quired from the cement plant of CEMEX in Tepeaca and the MSWM services of Mexico
City, which currently provides IFMSW to Tepeaca.
The Functional Unit (FU) for the LCA was defined as 1 ton of clinker, taking into
account every consumption related to the raw materials, water, energy, atmospheric emis-
sions, discharges to water and waste generation associated with each of the unit processes
in the life cycle of clinker (quarry, grinding, homogenization and kiln), fuels and trans-
portation of materials, as shown in Table 4. The composition of the MSW used was 32%
plastics, 50% paper and board, 10% textiles and 8% timber. The environmental impact
categories considered in the assessment were: (1) Abiotic Depletion (MJ of fossil fuels),
(2) Acidification (kg SO 2 eq), (3) Eutrophication (kg PO 4 eq), (4) Global Warming Po-
tential (kg CO 2 eq), (5) Ozone Layer Depletion (kg CFC-11 eq), (6) Photochemical Oxi-
dation (kg C 2 H 4 ) and (7) Terrestrial Toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq).

Table 4. Unit processes considered in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Process Description
Raw-meal Quarry and crushing for the production of raw meal
Kiln Kiln in the cement plant in Tepeaca
Refinery Production of petroleum coke at a refinery
Tra-coke Transport of petroleum coke by train (national and imported) and ship (imported)
Electricity Production and use of electricity in the cement plant in Tepeaca
Fuel Production, transport and use of fuel oil in relation to the cement plant in Tepeaca
Refractory Production, transport and use of refractory material in kiln
RDF Collection, transfer, selection and compaction of waste to produce RDF
Tra-RDF Transport of RDF from the sorting plant to the cement plant in Tepeaca
Landfill Collection, transfer, selection and transport of waste from the sorting plant to landfill

Results and discussion

Fig. 3 illustrates the environmental impacts derived from both scenarios expressed as
a percentage, which were determined from the results shown in Table 5. The results are
very revealing in general terms, since the IFMSW scenario exhibits a better environmen-
tal performance with respect to all the impact categories analyzed, which is mainly due
to the decreased coke consumption and the subsequent mitigation of the impacts stem-
ming from its manufacturing. Another relevant overall inference is related to the decrease
in the amount of MSW that is sent to landfill thanks to its use as a co-fuel. By virtue of

16
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

the importance of Climate Change and human toxicity, the results obtained for these two
categories are discussed more in detail in next paragraphs.

Table 5. Environmental impacts for the fuel scenarios and categories considered
ID Impact category Unit REFERENCE IFMSW
1 Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) MJ 1.101 0.937
2 Acidification kg SO 2 eq 2.390 1.676
3 Eutrophication kg PO 4 eq 0.399 0.193
4 Global warming (GWP100a) kg CO 2 eq 966.036 931.576
5 Ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq 5.37E-05 4.38E-05
6 Photochemical oxidation kg C 2 H 4 eq 0.097 0.088
7 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0.090 0.055

Fig. 3. Contribution of each unit process to the environmental impacts produced in the scenarios and cate-
gories under analysis

Regarding global warming, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are found to reach
425 kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO 2 eq) per ton of manufactured clinker in the
REFERENCE scenario, with the kiln being responsible for 77% of the emissions gener-
ated, followed by the coke manufacturing process at the refinery (11%). The IFMSW
scenarios amounts to 407 kg of CO 2 eq per ton, which is consistent with the results
achieved in previous similar studies (Genon and Brizio 2008).
As for human toxicity, the REFERENCE scenario generated 132 kg 1.4-Dichloroben-
zene Equivalent (DBe), whilst the IFMSW alternative yielded a value of 72 kg 1.4-DBe.
This difference is caused by the transfer of heavy metals to the clinker matrix in the co-
processing of MSW, avoiding their release to the atmosphere (Genon and Brizio 2008).
Although other studies have reported that mercury (Gendebien et al. 2003) and chlorine

17
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

(Genon and Brizio 2008) can produce a slightly increase in their emissions when using
MSW as fuel, this consideration was not included in this research.
Dioxins were other main concern in the co-processing due to their influence in the
generation of impacts related to toxicity. In this respect, no correlation was found between
the formation of dioxins and the use of MSW as fuel, which was consistent with other
specific studies carried out to assess the generation of dioxins as a result of using MSW
a RDF in cement kilns (SINTEF 2006).

Conclusions

In summary, the results obtained in this research demonstrated that substituting 20% of
petroleum coke by MSW with high calorific value involves a decrease in 18 kg of CO 2
eq and 60 kg 1.4-DBe per ton of manufactured clinker. Consequently, this replacement is
an environmentally favorable alternative, mainly due to the following reasons:
• A large amount of MSW is not only not sent to landfill, but reused as RDF, with
the corresponding mitigation of environmental impacts.
• The emissions produced by some compounds with harmful environmental effects
decrease, due to the temperatures and time reached in cement kilns.
• The amount of petroleum coke used is reduced, resulting in a decrease in the en-
vironmental impacts associated with the refining process.
• The depletion of fossil fuels is attenuated, because of the substation of petroleum
coke by MSW.
Special attention must be paid to the quality of the MSW incorporated into the co-
generation process, in order to control the emission of heavy metals. The quantification
of emissions under a life cycle approach supports the process of decision-making from a
holistic and informed perspective, which in this case enables reusing the fraction of MSW
with high calorific value as an alternative fuel in cement kilns.

Comparative assessment of asphalt and concrete pavements

The construction, operation and maintenance of roads involve large amounts of materials
and energy, which results in important economic and environmental impacts throughout
their life-cycle. There is an increasing interest in Mexico in analyzing such impacts and
adopt measures to minimize them as much as possible, as well as in improving the capac-
ity and performance of pavements.
Pavements are mainly classified into flexible and rigid, with asphalt and concrete be-
ing the most representative materials for each of them, respectively. Mexico has 95,000
km of paved roads, of which only 5% are made of concrete. Both types of pavements are
different in several aspects, e.g. the thickness of their base and subbase layers, as well as
the requirements in terms of rehabilitation and maintenance associated with each of them.

18
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

The service life of asphalt pavement is about 20 years, whilst that of concrete pavement
might reach up to 50 years (McLawhorn 2004).
Deciding which type of pavement to use is a crucial aspect when developing or im-
proving road infrastructures. However, this decision must not only be made according to
a traditional approach strongly based on investment and operation costs, but should also
consider the minimization of the environmental impacts caused by these infrastructures.
LCA was used to compare the aforementioned two main types of pavements in an objec-
tive and systematic manner, in order to support an environmentally respectful decision-
making process.
In this context, the aim of this study was the evaluation of the environmental impacts
of asphalt and concrete pavements under a life-cycle approach, taking into consideration
the conditions of the Mexico-Queretaro highway as a real case study. The assessment was
carried out according to the ISO 14044:2006 standard (ISO 2006b) and considered 18
impact categories, which were modelled using the World ReciPe v1.07 method (Güereca
Hernández et al. 2014).

Methodology

Both types of pavements were designed for a life service of 20 years, in line with the
recommendations established by the AASHTO Guide for design of Pavement Structures
(AASHTO 2006) and the methodology Dispav 5 (version 3.0), developed by the Engi-
neering Institute of the UNAM (Corro et al. 2014). The FU to assess these two alterna-
tives, namely hydraulic cement concrete pavement and asphalt concrete pavement, was 1
km of wearing course in a road linear section. The width of such road section was 21 m,
which represented six lanes divided into two driving directions.
The processes analyzed in the case of the concrete pavement included the following
steps: extraction of raw materials for the production of cement, manufacturing of Com-
pound Portland Cement CPC40 (quarry, crushing, kiln, grinding and homogenization),
transportation of materials, construction of the pavement (manufacturing of the mixture
and installation of the wearing course), maintenance activities in the seventh and fifteenth
years and disassembly and final disposal in the year 20.
Regarding the asphalt pavement alternative, its characterization took into account the
next processes: extraction of raw materials for the production of asphalt from an asphalt
refinery, transportation of materials, construction of the pavement (manufacturing and
installation of the asphalt mixture), maintenance and final disposal. The maintenance plan
for this type of pavement included two sealcoats every 3 years, milling in the year 9,
sealcoating in the year 12, milling and replenishment in the year 15 and sealcoating in the
year 18.
The impact categories selected for comparing both types of pavements were the fol-
lowing: (1) Global Warming Potential (kg CO 2 eq), (2) Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11 eq),

19
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

(3) Terrestrial Acidification (kg SO 2 eq), (4) Freshwater Eutrophication (kg P eq), (5)
Marine Eutrophication (kg N eq), (6) Human Toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq), (7) Photochemical
Oxidant Formation (kg NMVOC), (8) Particulate Matter Formation (kg PM 10 eq), (9)
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq), (10) Freshwater Ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq), (11)
Marine Ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq), (12) Ionising Radiation (kg U235 eq), (13) Agricul-
tural Land Occupation (m2a), (15) Natural Land Transformation (m2), (16) Water Deple-
tion (m3), (17) Metal Depletion (kg Fe eq) and (18) Fossil Depletion (Kg Oil eq).

Results and discussion

Fig. 4 represents the environmental impacts produced by the two scenarios under analysis,
expressed as a percentage. These results indicated that the concrete-based alternative out-
performed the asphalt pavement in 17 of the 18 impact categories under consideration.
This was mainly due to the impacts generated in the refinery to produce asphalt, as well
as because of the more intensive maintenance strategy required for ensuring a proper be-
havior of the asphalt pavement solution. Concrete pavement only resulted in greater im-
pacts than asphalt pavement in the category of metal reduction, as a consequence of using
steel in construction stage of this alternative.

Fig. 4. Environmental impacts per category produced by the two alternatives under study: asphalt and
pavement concrete

In terms of Climate Change, the asphalt alternative resulted in greater impacts mainly
due to GHG emissions generated during the manufacturing of raw materials and the need
for disposing the pavement in hazardous waste management facilities. In particular, the
impact of the asphalt pavement in relation to this category was 12,467 tons of CO 2 eq per
km of road, of which 55% were caused by the production of asphalt. In this sense, it is

20
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

worth highlighting that this value includes the manufacturing of asphalt used both in the
construction and maintenance phases.
The Climate Change impact determined in this study for asphalt pavement was greater
than those reported by Vidal et al. (2013) and Butt et al. (2014), but kept within the range
provided by Noshadravan et al. (2013). One of the main reasons behind these differences
was related to the design characteristics of the pavement, which required 12 cm layer in
the Mexico-Queretano road, due to their high Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of
28,098 vehicles. Instead, the case study presented by Vidal et al. (2013) considered an
AADT of 1,000 vehicles, which corresponded to an 8 cm thick asphalt wearing course.
As for the concrete pavement, its whole Climate Change impact amounted to 5,374
tons of CO 2 eq per km of road, a value which was in the range of 440 to 6,670 tons of
CO 2 eq reported by Loijos et al. (2013) for twelve types of roads paved with hydraulic
cement concrete in the United States. Furthermore, the impact of the manufacturing pro-
cess of Compound Portland Cement CPC40 produced 1,920 tons of CO 2 eq per km,
which was consistent with the results achieved by Loijos et al. (2013) too.
Another process with relevant influence on both alternatives was the transportation of
materials, which was due to long distance considered (1,000 km round trip) for the final
disposal of the pavement at the end of its service life. This value was estimated based on
the scarce number of facilities devoted to this purpose in Mexico.

Conclusions

The life-cycle environmental comparison between the two main types of pavement used
worldwide, made of concrete and asphalt, respectively, revealed a clear supremacy of the
former, which presented lower impacts than the latter in 17 of the 18 impact categories
considered.
The main impacts produced by the concrete pavement solution were associated with
energy consumptions and the generation of emissions to the atmosphere due to the man-
ufacturing process of cement, as well as because of the steel requirement for construction
and the amount of fuel consumed to transport the pavement to landfill once it reached its
end of life.
Similarly, the environmental impacts produced throughout the life-cycle of the asphalt
pavement alternative were mainly determined by the refinery process to produce asphalt,
as well as by fuel consumption required for the final disposal of the pavement after its
disassembling.

21
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Selection of materials for the CASA UNAM system

The CASA UNAM project was conceived to produce a positive impact on the urban area
of Mexico City and its Metropolitan area (ZMVM), populated by 20.1 million inhabitants,
whose particular context requires flexible solutions in the form of smart building systems.
Thus, the core principles behind the philosophy of the CASA UNAM project, aimed at
developing an energy-efficient and sustainable house prototype, are as follows:
• Reducing the cost of land shortening the distance between people and places of
interest.
• Generating a growing capacity to enable overcoming adverse situations and avoid-
ing persistent damage.
• Converting implementation sites into healthy and diverse environments represent-
ing genuine expressions of life.
• Setting out reciprocal and interdependent relationships.
Consequently, the CASA UNAM system was designed to be implemented in residual
zones in the city, such as empty lots, interstitial spaces in infrastructures, in-between party
walls and existing buildings, as an extension in rooftops or terraces (Team Mexico
UNAM 2014).

Methodology

The selection of materials for the CASA UNAM system was carried out with the reduc-
tion of weight in mind as a main goal, since this factor was expected to be determinant
for the reduction of environmental impacts. A decrease in weight can result in an increase
in the efficiency of transportation in terms of fuel consumption, as well as an underlying
reduction of the amount of raw materials and energy required for building the house.
A conventional building envelope might contain up to 20 different materials, which
hinders reaching a remarkable recyclability ratio at the end of life of the house. The trans-
formation of the traditional envelope into a graduated interface, according to the biocli-
matic strategy adopted for the CASA UNAM system, was aimed at leading to a recycla-
bility rate of 85%, which resembles common figures for the car industry. Overall, the
CASA UNAM system is based on a dry construction process that maximizes the effi-
ciency of the assembly and disassembly tasks, thanks to the high percentage of prefabri-
cated elements used.
The selection of materials, which was undertaken with the support of specialized lit-
erature and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) international
standards, included the following elements: gypsum, steel, aluminum, fiberglass, glass,
textiles, plywood, wood board, rock wool, plastic and wood. The environmental sustain-
ability of these materials was evaluated through a LCA, which compared the CASA
UNAM system with a conventional Mexican house based on the use of the ReCiPe 2008

22
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

method and the consideration of the following impact categories: (1) Global Warming
Potential (kg CO 2 eq), (2) Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11 eq), (3) Terrestrial Acidification
(kg SO 2 eq), (4) Freshwater Eutrophication (kg P eq), (5) Marine Eutrophication (kg N
eq), (6) Human Toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq), (7) Photochemical Oxidant Formation (kg
NMVOC), (8) Particulate Matter Formation (kg PM 10 eq), (9) Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (kg
1.4-DB eq), (10) Freshwater Ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq), (11) Marine Ecotoxicity (kg
1.4-DB eq), (12) Ionising Radiation (kg U235 eq), (13) Agricultural Land Occupation
(m2a), (15) Natural Land Transformation (m2), (16) Water Depletion (m3), (17) Metal
Depletion (kg Fe eq) and (18) Fossil Depletion (Kg Oil eq).

Results and discussion

Table 6 lists the materials used for the construction of the CASA UNAM system, arranged
according to the assemblies and subassemblies in which they were included. In compari-
son with conventional Mexican houses, the CASA UNAM system highlights by the re-
placement of materials with high environmental impacts by recycled products and natural
components. For instance, conventional house foundations in Mexico are made of con-
crete, whilst recycled co-polymer polypropylene piles were chosen for the CASA UNAM
system. Another similar example may be found in use of gypsum, which produces lower
environmental impacts and is more recyclable than cement in Mexico. Finally, the floor
of Mexican houses, traditionally built with ceramic materials or cement, has been substi-
tuted by wood, which is less environmentally harmful and also provides bioclimatic prop-
erties.
The life-cycle processing of the materials considered for the CASA UNAM system
produced the environmental impacts depicted in Fig. 5, which represents them arranged
according to the assemblies included in Table 6. The results were obtained for each im-
pact category, considering a 100 year time horizon for Climate Change.

23
Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Table 6. Materials used in the CASA UNAM system

Assembly Subassembly Material
1. Roads, networks and utilities 1.1. Sanitation pipe Polyvinylchloride
1.2. Industrial rack Aluminum
1.3. Total screws for roof and floor Steel
2. Foundations and subsoil 2.1. Foundations Plywood
2.2. Piles Recycled polypropylene
3. Superstructure - Masonry 3.1. Main structure Galvanized steel sheet
4. Roofing - waterproofing - frame 4.1. Metallic pillars Steel
4.2. Heat insulation Glass wool
4.3. Paper tape Paper fibers
4.4. Waterproof layer Fiber glass
4.5. Roof Wood board
Plywood
5. Partitioning - Backing wall - 5.1. Interior wall Plaster
Ceiling - Interior joineries Recycled paper
5.2. Heat insulation Glass wool
5.3. Paper tape Paper fibers
5.4. Interior doors National pine plywood
Brass
5.5. Furniture National pine plywood
Textile cotton
5.6. Floor Plywood
Glass wool
Cumaru wood
6. Exterior joineries and façade 6.1. Floor National pine plywood
Cumaru wood
6.2. Windows glazing Isolated glass
Polyvinylchloride
6.3. Unfoldable doors Isolated glass
Polyvinylchloride
6.4. Plaster wall Gypsum with fiber glass
6.5. Wetland Polyethylene terephthalate
7. Cladding - screeds - painting - 7.1. Walls Gypsum paste
ornamental 7.2. Plant pots Clay
7.3. Painting Natural components
7.4. Textile Polyester threads
8. Heating - ventilation - cooling - 8.1. Solar heating waver Solar collector glass tube
sanitary hot water 8.2. Façade ventilation Pottery clay

24
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Fig. 5. Environmental impacts per category and assembly produced by the CASA UNAM system a) As-
semblies from 1 to 4 b) Assemblies from 5 to 8

The higher environmental impacts in Fig. 7a) corresponds in almost all categories to
the subassemblies related to the superstructure and masonry of the system, mainly due to
the emissions derived from the production of steel. As for the values illustrated in Fig.
7b), their interpretation suggests that the elements belonging to the assembly of partition-
ing, backing wall, ceiling and interior joineries caused the highest impacts, as a result of
the glass wool used for heat insulation.
Most of the emissions generated were a consequence of the manufacture and transport
of materials. The textile materials used in the tasks related to the seventh assembly (see
Table 6) involved the largest emissions to the atmosphere, due to their transport by ship
from Europe. The second and third most polluting materials were found to be in the steel
and clay included in the third and eight assemblies listed in Table 6, respectively. In this
case, the main emissions produced by these materials stemmed from their manufacturing
processes.

25
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Conclusions

As an alternative to the conventional practices adopted to build houses in Mexico, a novel

selection of materials was proposed to form the different assemblies required for the
CASA UNAM system, an efficient and eco-friendly house prototype to provide flexible
solutions in urban areas.
The design of the CASA UNAM system enabled substituting some environmentally
harmful materials causing large impacts during their manufacture, such as cement or steel,
by more sustainable components involving recycled or nature-based solutions capable of
both lowering the emissions released to the atmosphere and ensuring an adequate func-
tional behavior.
The highest environmental impacts identified during the lifespan of the CASA UNAM
system were found in the assemblies related to the superstructure and partitioning of the
building, with the great majority of these emissions corresponding to the manufacture and
transport of textile materials, steel and clay.

Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter overviewed the concept of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and examined its
usefulness to improve the management of materials from an environmental point of view.
After providing a theoretical framework about LCA and the main phases and terms upon
which it is based, a review of the most relevant investigations conducted in the last 20
years concerning the use of this tool in the field of materials management was conducted
to prove how clarifying its implementation might be for making long-term eco-friendly
decisions. A series of case studies were presented and discussed in detail to further shed
light on the practical utility of LCA for managing the selection of raw materials for both
buildings and infrastructures.
The results yielded by these applications demonstrated that recycling wastes and using
nature-based solutions can lead to considerably reduce the cradle-to-grave environmental
damage caused by different materials. Special attention should be paid to the life-cycle
of these materials, since the emissions derived from their production might be compen-
sated with less intensive maintenance practices if having enhanced aging properties. An-
other decisive factor in the results yielded by the LCAs of materials was found to be the
transportation of materials throughout the different phases considered, e.g. from produc-
tion to use or from exploitation to disposal. Therefore, the logistics related to resource
location and supply, especially when materials are intended to form larger elements like
buildings and infrastructures, must be considered carefully to minimize fuel consumption
and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions.
In consequence, LCA provides a comprehensive framework to appraise the cradle-to-
grave environmental impacts of products, supporting the adoption of measures related to

26
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

the management of raw materials themselves, as well as that of two of the main materials-
based drivers for modern daily life: buildings and infrastructures. In this sense, further
research in the field of LCA should delve into both developing easy-to-use and interpret
web-based interfaces for its application and seeking consensus in relation to the aggrega-
tion of impacts belonging to different categories, in order to facilitate global policy deci-
sion-making processes without requiring expertise in the field.

References

AASHTO (2006) AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 4 edn. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington,
D.C.
Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R (2007) Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling
home in Scotland. Building and Environment 42(3):1391-1394. doi:10.1016/j.build-
env.2005.11.023.
Blengini GA (2009) Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case
study in Turin, Italy. Building and Environment 44(2):319-330. doi:10.1016/j.build-
env.2008.03.007.
Butt AA, Mirzadeh I, Toller S et al (2014) Life cycle assessment framework for asphalt
pavements: Methods to calculate and allocate energy of binder and additives. Interna-
tional Journal of Pavement Engineering 15(4):290-302.
doi:10.1080/10298436.2012.718348.
Corro S, Castillo G, Ossa A et al (2014) DISPAV-5-versión 3.0. Actualización del sis-
tema para el diseño estructural de pavimentos asfálticos, incluyendo carreteras de altas
especificaciones, 1 edn. Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Mexico City (Mexico).
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle
Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91(1):1-21. doi:10.1016/j.jen-
vman.2009.06.018.
Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufac-
ture. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(5):282-288.
doi:10.1065/lca2007.05.327.
Gendebien A, Leavens A, Blackmore K et al (2003) Refuse derived fuel, current practice
and perspectives. European Commission, DG Environment CO5087-4:7-8.
Genon G, Brizio E (2008) Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination for
RDF. Waste Management 28(11):2375-2385. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.022.
González MJ, García Navarro J (2006) Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in
the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three
houses of low environmental impact. Building and Environment 41(7):902-909.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.006.

27
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Güereca Hernández LP, Juárez López CR, Ossa López A (2014) Evaluación comparativa
de los impactos ambientales de dos tipos de pavimentos. Gaceta del Instituto de Inge-
niería UNAM 104:18-20.
Güereca LP, Torres N, Juárez-López CR (2015) The co-processing of municipal waste in
a cement kiln in Mexico. A life-cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 107:741-748. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.085.
Guggemos AA, Horvath A (2005) Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and
concrete-framed buildings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(2):93-101.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:2(93).
Guinée JB, Heijungs R (2005) Life Cycle Assessment. In: Kroschwitz JI (ed) Kirk-Oth-
mer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4 edn., vol 14. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York (U.S.), p 1-31.
Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (2015) Introducing Life Cycle Impact Assessment. In:
Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment Springer, Dor-
dretch (The Netherlands), p 1-16.
Hellweg S, Canals LMI (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life
cycle assessment. Science 344(6188):1109-1113. doi:10.1126/science.1248361.
Horvath A, Hendrickson C (1998) Steel versus steel-reinforced concrete bridges: envi-
ronmental assessment. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 4(3):111-117.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1998)4:3(111).
Huang Y, Bird R, Heidrich O (2009) Development of a life cycle assessment tool for
construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production
17(2):283-296. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.005.
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Princi-
ples and Framework, 2 edn. International Organization for Standarization.
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Require-
ments and Guidelines, 1 edn. International Organization for Standarization.
Junnila S, Horvath A (2003) Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. Jour-
nal of Infrastructure Systems 9(4):157-166. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-
0342(2003)9:4(157).
Junnila S, Horvath A, Guggemos AA (2006) Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in
Europe and the United States. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 12(1):10-17.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2006)12:1(10).
Keoleian GA, Kendall A, Dettling JE et al (2005) Life cycle modeling of concrete bridge
design: Comparison of engineered cementitious composite link slabs and conven-
tional steel expansion joints. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(1):51-60.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(51).
Leontief WW (1936) Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems
of the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics 18(3):105-125.

28
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

Loijos A, Santero N, Ochsendorf J (2013) Life cycle climate impacts of the US concrete
pavement network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72:76-83.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.014.
Marinkovic S, Radonjanin V, Malešev M et al (2010) Comparative environmental assess-
ment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Management 30(11):2255-
2264. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012.
McLawhorn N (2004) Pavement Service Life. Transportation Synthesis Report 608-266-
3199(2):2-7.
Mokrzycki E, Uliasz-Bochenczyk A, Sarna M (2003) Use of alternative fuels in the Polish
cement industry. Applied Energy 74(1-2):101-111. doi:10.1016/S0306-
2619(02)00136-8.
Monahan J, Powell JC (2011) An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern meth-
ods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework.
Energy and Buildings 43(1):179-188. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.005.
Moncaster AM, Symons KE (2013) A method and tool for 'cradle to grave' embodied
carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 stand-
ards. Energy and Buildings 66:514-523. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.046.
Noshadravan A, Wildnauer M, Gregory J et al (2013) Comparative pavement life cycle
assessment with parameter uncertainty. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment 25:131-138. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2013.10.002.
Pelletier NL, Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH et al (2007) Impact categories for life cycle assess-
ment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(6):414-421. doi:10.1065/lca2006.09.275.
Peuportier BLP (2001) Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of
single family houses in the French context. Energy and Buildings 33(5):443-450.
doi:10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00101-8.
Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R et al (2004) Life cycle assessment Part 1: Frame-
work, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment
international 30(5):701-720. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005.
Santero NJ, Masanet E, Horvath A (2011) Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I:
Critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(9-10):801-809.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.03.010.
Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental perfor-
mance of a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications.
Energy and Buildings 35(10):1049-1064. doi:10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00066-5.
Sedgwick J (1991) Strong But Sensitive. The Atlantic Monthly 267(4):70-82.
SINTEF (2006) Formation and Release of POPs in the Cement Industry, 2 edn. World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva (Switzerland).
Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M et al (2011) Resource productivity enhancement as
means for promoting cleaner production: Analysis of co-incineration in cement plants

29
 Handbook on Modern Environmental Materials Management

through a life cycle approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 19(14):1615-1621.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.014.
Team Mexico UNAM (2014) CASA. Design Adjustments Documentation & Dissemina-
tion Materials 6:15-16.
UN-DESA (2012) United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20.
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelop-
ment.un.org/rio20. Accessed 08/01 2017.
UNEP (2011) Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound co-processing of haz-
ardous wastes in cement kilns. In: Anonymous Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Cartagena (Co-
lombia), vol Item 3. United Nations (UN), p 9-10.
UNEP (2012) Greening the Economy Through Life Cycle Thinking - Ten Years of the
UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environmental Programme:16-
18.
Vidal R, Moliner E, Martínez G et al (2013) Life cycle assessment of hot mix asphalt and
zeolite-based warm mix asphalt with reclaimed asphalt pavement. Resources, Conser-
vation and Recycling 74:101-114. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.018.
Zabalza Bribián I, Aranda Usón A, Scarpellini S (2009) Life cycle assessment in build-
ings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building
certification. Building and Environment 44(12):2510-2520. doi:10.1016/j.build-
env.2009.05.001.
Zabalza Bribián I, Valero Capilla A, Aranda Usón A (2011) Life cycle assessment of
building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and
evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment
46(5):1133-1140. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002.
Zapata P, Gambatese JA (2005) Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced concrete
pavement materials and construction. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(1):9-20.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(9).

30

View publication stats