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

net/publication/275763288

Comparison of environmental impact of building materials of three

residential buildings

Article  in  Pollack Periodica · December 2011

DOI: 10.1556/Pollack.6.2011.3.5

CITATIONS READS

13 608

3 authors, including:

Adriana Estokova Silvia Vilcekova

Technical University of Kosice - Technicka univerzita v Kosiciach Technical University of Kosice - Technicka univerzita v Kosiciach
154 PUBLICATIONS   613 CITATIONS    100 PUBLICATIONS   384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Lightweight Composites Based on Hemp Hurds View project

Thesis: Investigation of urban air pollution applying GIS and mathematical statistical methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adriana Estokova on 08 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 POLLACK PERIODICA
An International Journal for Engineering and Information Sciences
DOI: 10.1556/Pollack.6.2011.3.5
Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 53–62 (2011)
www.akademiai.com

COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF

BUILDING MATERIALS OF THREE RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS
1
Milan PORHINČÁK, 2Adriana EŠTOKOVÁ, 3Silvia VILČEKOVÁ

Building and Environmental Institute, Civil Engineering Faculty, Technical University of

Košice, Vysokoškolská 4, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia
e-mail: 1 milan.porhincak@tuke.sk, 2 adriana.estokova@tuke.sk, 3 silvia.vilcekova@tuke.sk

Received 20 December 2010; accepted 21 February 2011

Abstract: Building industry is responsible for 1/3 of total CO2 emissions and consumes 40%
of primal energy in the industry. This paper presents the results of environmental impact
assessment of building materials in three houses based on Life Cycle Assessment of the whole life
cycle. Building materials were evaluated by special tool by Createrra. CO2 emissions related to
life cycle of building materials vary from 0,176 kg CO2eq/kg - 0,305 kg CO2eq/kg, SO2 emissions
range form 0,836 g SO2eq/kg - 1,656 g SO2eq/kg and primal energy intensity reached values from
2,347 MJ/kg to 2,534 MJ/kg.

Keywords: Environmental impact, Building materials, Primal energy, Global warming

potential, Acidification

1. Introduction
Build-up, operation and demolition are responsible for depletion of resources,
pollution or waste production. Building materials play important role in buildings’
influence on environment. Negative effect of building production on climate is
represented by CO2 and SO2 emissions. Building materials also have influence on
occupants’ health [1].
Rising negative contribution of building-up caused that term sustainable building
has become very popular these days. Essential share of CO2 emissions, primal energy
consumption and waste creation have their origin in building industry. Sustainable
design and optimization of structures therefore has to include parameters from various

HU ISSN 1788–1994 © 2011 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

54 M. PORHINČÁK, A. EŠTOKOVÁ, S. VILČEKOVÁ

sectors of civil engineering, as well as from other branches including technical and non-
technical sciences [2], [3], [4].
One of the principal topics of sustainable construction is to minimize or eliminate
the negative effect on environment, what became a point of interest of civil engineers,
architects, designer and researchers. This paper shows environmental impact of 3
selected family houses of a smaller size - bungalow style. Several methods for
environmental assessment can be performed at different level with varying degree of
precision, or with special regards to used materials. For evaluation of selected houses
Life Cycle Assessment was used to illustrate environmental impact of particular
structures and overall impact of houses [5], [6].

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Characteristics of the evaluated buildings

Three houses with similar features (Fig. 1) were chosen for environmental
assessment of building materials and for illustration their environmental impact. These
one-storey cellarless masonry houses are with nonresidential attic (bungalow style).
Main characteristics of evaluated buildings are summarized in Table I.

Table I
Areas and cubature of evaluated houses

House 1 House 2 House 3

Value Value Value Value Value Value
Feature (Total) (Partial) (Total) (Partial) (Total) (Partial)
[m2, m3] [m2] [m2, m3] [m2] [m2, m3] [m2]
Family Family Family
house - house - house -
143,0 163,8 170,5
Built up area
150 219,2 Terrace - 178
[m2] Storm
Terrace - 13,4
Lobby -
7,0 Garage -
7,5
42
Useful area
112.5 131 129.9
[m2]
Floorage*
43.2 87.9 84.3
[m2]
Total capacity
533 889 725
[m3]
* Floorage - living area

2.2 Description of the construction materials

Excavations, foundations and thermal insulation of foundation: 30 cm of organic
soil and the rest of excavations were removed on every site 30 cm. Objects are founded

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF BUILDING MATERIALS 55

on the plain concrete strip footings with reinforced base plate. A certain amount of
gravel is used to ensure draining.

a) b) c)
Fig. 1. Drawings of evaluated houses: a) house 1, b) house 2 and c) house 3

Vertical load-bearing and partitioning structures: Internal and external load-bearing

walls of houses 1 and 3 are made of 375 and 300 mm thick aerated concrete blocks as
well as partitioning walls of these houses are made of aerated concrete of thickness of
150 mm. Perforated ceramic brick of thickness of 300 mm is the principal material for
external and internal walls of house 2.
Horizontal load-bearing constructions (ceiling): Load-bearing structures of ceilings
are made of wood (air-dried). Also shuttering of houses 1 and 2 is made of air-dried
wood, while OSB is used in house 3. Capping and bond beams are made of reinforced
concrete.
Roof: Air-dried wood is material of roofs framework. Roof covering in houses 1 and
2 are made of aluminum coating; while roofing material of house 3 is ceramic tile.
Thermal insulation: In houses 1 and 3, where external walls are made of 375 mm
thick aerated concrete blocks, thermal insulation is secured by material itself, therefore
additional thermal insulation is not necessary (house 1). However, any thermal
insulation added only improves insulation value; therefore 50 mm thick layer of mineral
wool is used in house 3.
In house 2 where ceramic perforated brick are used, insulation value does not reach
requirements of standards for external walls; therefore 100 mm thick layer of rock wool
is used. Another thermal insulation is used to eliminate heat bridges.
In the attic of houses 1 and 2 rock wool is installed and mineral wool is used in the
attic of house 3. Polystyrene (XPS) is used in the underwork.
Surfacing: Walkway surface of floor construction is crated by laminate panels,
ceramic and concrete tiles. Plastering of external walls of all 3 houses is made of silicate
plaster. Inner plasters are made of lime-cement plaster and plasterboard is also used for
surfacing of lower ceilings.
Doors and windows: Plastic Euro-profile window and doorframes are used in the
building together with double glazed window panels.

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

56 M. PORHINČÁK, A. EŠTOKOVÁ, S. VILČEKOVÁ

3. Methodology
First of all, quantity (cubature, area) of particular materials needs to be calculated.
Building materials are consequently assorted into several groups, e.g. foundation,
roofing, surfacing, etc. Thus, environmental impact of particular group can be assessed
and compared separately.
A heavily modified MS Excel tool of Createrra, which contains special databases of
building materials, was used for environmental assessment of all 3 houses.
Environmental parameters, such as weight of used materials [kg], global warming
potential (GWP) [kg CO2eq], acidification potential (AP) [kg SO2eq] and primary energy
intensity (PEI) [MJ] are evaluated. Reason for selection of this tool is absence of
general methodology. Another problem is the lack of relevant input data [7].
As stated by Kierulf, values of global warming potential in some databases (e.g. IBO
database used for this evaluation) don’t include final phase of life cycle. Therefore some
natural materials have negative contribution of CO2eq, whereas these materials consume
CO2 during their growth and if these materials are not combusted, no other emissions of
CO2 come into being. Other sources (e.g. ICE) may state zero or positive values of
GWP even for natural materials, e.g. wood, cellulose etc., whereas they don’t take into
consideration absorption of carbon dioxide during their growth [8], [9], [10].

4. Results
Overall environmental impact of all three houses is presented in Table II. As
presented in this table, quantity of used materials, as well as values of other potentials
(PEI, GWP, AP) are the highest in house 2 in consequence on relatively bigger size of
building comparing to others.

Table II
Overall results of environmental assessment of building materials

House 1 House 2 House 3

Weight [kg] 207853.67 375821.29 225700.10
PEI [MJ] 526286.02 888492.04 504713.97
GWP [kg CO2eq] 29395.14 66069.97 25117.69
AP [kg SO2eq] 163.55 375.05 158.05

For more detailed overview the environmental impact was calculated for particular
structures and the results are presented in Fig. 2.
As illustrated in Fig. 2a, the highest weight of used materials is related to
foundations (from 168.7 to 290.1 tons) due to relatively high bulk density of used
material (concrete, gravel), followed by vertical load-bearing structures (from 15.5 to
32.9 tons).
Subsequently as a reason of the highest amount of used materials of foundation, also
PEI in all three houses reached the highest value in these structures (from 153350.38 MJ

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF BUILDING MATERIALS 57

to 249609.53 MJ) (Fig. 2b). Second highest primal energy consumption was estimated
in vertical load-bearing structures (from 102410 MJ to 155543.46 MJ). Other structures
(roof, thermal insulation and surfaces) reached similar values of PEI, reaching from
43972.06 MJ to 145425.02 MJ.

300000,00 250000,00

250000,00
200000,00

PEI (absolute) [MJ]

200000,00
weight [kg]

150000,00
150000,00
100000,00
100000,00

50000,00
50000,00

0,00 0,00
1 2 1 2
3 4 3 4
5 6 5 6
7 8 7 8
House 1 House 2 House 3 9 10 House 1 House 2 House 3 9 10

a) b)

50000,00 250,00
GWP (absolute) [kg CO2eq]

40000,00
AP (absolute) [kg SO2eq]

200,00

30000,00
150,00
20000,00
100,00
10000,00

50,00
0,00

-10000,00 0,00
1 2 1 2
3 4 3 4
5 6 5 6
7 8 7 8
House 1 House 2 House 3 9 10 House 1 House 2 House 3 9 10

c) d)
Fig. 2. a) Weight, b) PEI, c) GWP and d) AP of particular structures
(1. Foundation, 2. Thermal insulation (of foundation), 3. Vertical load-bearing structures,
4. Partitioning structures, 5. Ceiling, 6. Roof, 7. Thermal insulation, 8. Facade, 9. Surfaces,
10. Doors and windows)

Emissions of CO2 should be obtained from a study that has considered life cycle
carbon emissions. However, in many cases substitute values have to be used by to
estimate fuel-related carbon emissions. Therefore, CO2 emissions are closely connected
to primal energy consumption, whereas more energy intensive processes contribute to
more greenhouse gasses creation. Also the phase of transportation usually causes huge
emissions; therefore weight of used materials and transport distances play important
role in contribution to global warming potential [10], [11].
As expected (Fig. 2c), relatively high values of GWP were reached in foundations
(from 16650.30 to 27430.18 kg CO2eq; even the highest value of GWP of all evaluated
structures was reached in foundations of house 2 (27430.18 kg CO2eq)). However
materials of thermal insulation reached the highest values of GWP in house 1 and 3
(36488.94 kg CO2eq in house 1 and 47665.83 kg CO2eq in house 3).

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

58 M. PORHINČÁK, A. EŠTOKOVÁ, S. VILČEKOVÁ

An important fact is, that material in roof and ceiling (wood mostly) has negative
contribution to global warming due to woods ability to absorb carbon dioxide during its
growth. Utilization of building materials on natural basis may therefore lead to
elimination of greenhouse effect. Values of GWP in houses 1-3 vary at intervals from –
1243.39 kg CO2eq to –7348.00 kg CO2eq.
Acidification potential is in continual proportion to demandingness of production of
building material; therefore production of some synthetic products may cause the
decrease of pH by emitting massive amounts of SO2, even thought bulk density and
weight of material may be very low. As illustrated in Fig. 2d, acidification potential of
thermal insulation of house 2 and 3 (where external walls are insulated) reached
133.47 kg SO2eq and 233.02 SO2eq. Second highest acidification potential was calculated
within materials of foundations of the same houses (from 57.15 to 85.89 kg SO2eq).
It is difficult to interpret the result and to compare houses between each other as
matters of detachment of environmental impact to amount have used materials.
Therefore normalization was done by converting units per building to units per kg
(Table III). Normalization provides more relevant method of comparison of structures
and represents assumption of further optimization.

Table III
Weight-normalization of PEI, GWP and AP values
(1. Foundation, 2. Thermal insulation (of foundation), 3. Vertical load-bearing structures,
4. Partitioning structures, 5. Ceiling, 6. Roof, 7. Thermal insulation, 8. Facade, 9. Surfaces,
10. Doors and windows, T. Total)

PEI (relative) GWP (relative) AP (relative)

[MJ/kg] [kg CO2eq/kg] [g SO2eq/kg]
H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3
1 0.930 0.858 0.868 0.099 0.094 0.101 0.317 0.295 0.324
2 102.000 102.000 102.000 3.440 3.440 3.440 21.100 21.100 21.100
3 5.545 4.725 7.018 0.541 0.385 0.683 1.542 1.316 1.885
4 3.440 4.980 2.323 0.331 0.352 0.223 0.800 1.100 0.540
5 1.890 1.890 5.209 -1.409 -1.409 -1.289 1.240 1.240 3.241
6 14.190 13.134 4.221 -0.232 -0.332 -0.347 5.270 4.926 1.071
7 36.485 35.072 54.790 14.655 7.885 25.671 12.820 41.167 125.494
8 11.573 11.573 8.383 0.480 0.480 0.452 3.413 3.413 2.414
9 10.084 5.713 9.733 0.451 0.195 0.411 3.669 1.541 2.732
10 30.287 30.287 87.313 1.658 1.658 3.980 6.832 6.832 24.482
T 2.534 2.365 2.347 0.301 0.176 0.305 0.836 0.999 1.656

Weight normalization provides more explicit comparison of same structures in

various houses. For example, absolute values of PEI reached the highest values for
materials of foundations, however normalized values of PEI ranged from 0.858 MJ/kg
to 0.930 MJ/kg. As presented in Table III, the highest values of normalized PEI (from

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF BUILDING MATERIALS 59

35.072 MJ/kg to 102 MJ/kg), GWP (from 3.440 kg CO2eq/kg to 25.671 kg CO2eq/kg)
and AP (from 12.820 kg SO2eq/kg to 125.494 kg SO2eq/kg) were reached in materials of
thermal insulation and thermal insulation of foundation.
One more normalization was done to enable further comparison. Total values of
potentials were converted to values per m2 or m3. Transformed values in the dependence
on the area and cubature of buildings are presented in Table IV.

Table IV
Area/cubical-normalization of PEI, GWP and AP

PEI House 1 House 2 House 3

Total [MJ] 526286.02 888492.04 529740.91
Per built up area [MJ/m2] 3508.57 4053.34 2976.07
Per built up area (house only) [MJ/m2] 3680.32 5424.25 3106.98
Per useful area [MJ/m2] 4678.10 6782.38 4078.07
Per floorage [MJ/m2] 12182.55 10107.99 6284.00
Per total capacity [MJ/m3] 987.40 999.43 730.68
GWP House 1 House 2 House 3
Total [kg CO2eq] 62467.98 66069.97 68936.96
Per built up area [kg CO2eq/m2] 416.45 301.41 387.29
Per built up area (house only) [kg CO2eq/m2] 436.84 403.36 404.32
Per useful area [kg CO2eq/m2] 555.27 504.35 530.69
Per floorage [kg CO2eq/m2] 1446.02 751.65 817.76
Per total capacity [kg CO2eq/m3] 117.20 74.32 95.09
AP House 1 House 2 House 3
Total [kg SO2eq] 173.60 375.05 373.66
Per built up area [kg SO2eq/m2] 1.16 1.71 2.10
Per built up area (house only) [kg SO2eq/m2] 1.21 2.29 2.19
Per useful area [kg SO2eq/m2] 1.54 2.86 2.88
Per floorage [kg SO2eq/m2] 4.02 4.27 4.43
Per total capacity [kg SO2eq/m3] 0.33 0.42 0.52

As presented in Table IV, the area-normalization of primal energy intensity reached

the lowest values in house 3 (from 2976.07 MJ/m2 of built up area to 6284.00 MJ/m2 of
floorage) and globally, the highest normalized value was reached in house 1
(12182.55 MJ/m2 of floorage).
Similarly, the results of normalization were also calculated for GWP (from
301.41 kg CO2eq/m2 of build up area in house 2 to 1446.02 kg CO2eq/ m2 per floorage in
house 1) and AP (reaching from 1.16 g SO2eq/m2 of build up area in house 1 to
4.46 g SO2eq/ m2 per floorage in house 3).
It is rather difficult to assess recycling possibility of structure, as not only type of
material in construction is important, but also way of installation plays important role.
Thus, it is often a matter of designers’ preference to asses recycling potential (Table V).

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

60 M. PORHINČÁK, A. EŠTOKOVÁ, S. VILČEKOVÁ

Table V
Recycling possibility

Renewable
Material Recycling / reusing
source
H1 H2 H3
gravel no low low low
concrete no low low low
1. Foundation reinforced concrete no low low low
hollow core concrete
no low low low
blocks
polymeric foil no low low low
Thermal
2. insulation (of XPS no low low low
foundation)
Vertical load- aerated concrete no high - high
3. bearing perforated ceramic bricks no - mid -
structures reinforced concrete no mid mid mid
Partitioning aerated concrete no high - high
4.
structures perforated ceramic bricks no - mid -
wood yes high high high
5. Ceiling
OSB yes - - high
wood yes high high high
ceramic tiles no - - high
6. Roof
sheet aluminum no high high -
zinc-coated sheet no mid mid -
polystyrene EPS no low low low
Thermal polystyrene XPS no low low -
7.
insulation mineral wool no - - mid
rock wool no mid mid mid
8. Facade silicate plaster no low low low
laminate panel no mid mid mid
wooden panel yes - - high
ceramic tiles no mid mid mid
9. Surfaces
concrete tiles no mid mid -
lime-cement plaster no low low low
plasterboard no mid mid mid
Doors and plastic-PUR, stainless steel,
10. no mid mid mid
windows glass, argon

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF BUILDING MATERIALS 61

5. Conclusion
Results of case study and comparison of environmental performance of building
materials and specific structures are difficult to interpret, as only particular results are
presented. For example as expected, constructions made of heavier material as
foundations reached corresponding values of potentials (the highest PEI and second
highest GWP and AP). However, weight of some structures (e.g. vertical load-bearing
structures) is relatively low comparing to their primal energy consumption. Another
example of material with relatively low weight but with high negative impact on
environment is thermal insulation. Global warming and acidification potentials reached
the highest values just in constructions with high share of thermal insulation.
A proper choice of building materials may also lead to minimization of negative
effect on environment by intensive use of natural materials (e.g. wood used in roof and
ceiling). This may even cause a negative contribution to GWP by cutting-down the CO2
emissions by its absorption during growth of natural materials. Therefore extensive use
of natural materials may be one possible approach in reduction of negative effects of
building industry on environment.
Results of environmental impact of building materials illustrated in this case study
are limited due to hardly verifiable and accessible input sources. Comprehensive
analysis and results from other case studies are necessary to create methodology for
environmental assessment of building materials as a part of complex assessment of
buildings.

Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to the Science Grant Agency of Slovak Republic for the
financial support of project No. 2/0166/11, on that base the results are presented.

References
[1] Annual Energy Review 2009, DOE/EIA-0384, U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2009, (online) http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/aer.pdf, (last visited 10 December 2010).
[2] Eštoková A. Environmental assessment and eco-labeling of building materials, (in Slovak)
Košice, Slovakia, TU 2009.
[3] Berge B. Ecology of building materials, Second Edition, Elsevier, 2009.
[4] Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) - http://www.ipcc.ch, Climate Change
2007, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymaker, 2007,
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/media/4th_spm2feb07.pdf
(last visited 19 December 2010).
[5] Priesol J., Fabian G. Environmental management systems on the principles of the
requirements of particular standards line 14000 applicable in Slovak Republic (in Slovak),
2006, http://www.jozefpriesol.sk/domain/integrovanysystem/files/clanok-g2-on-line.pdf
(last visited 19 December 2010).
[6] STN EN ISO 14044 (83 9044), Environmental management - Life cycle assessment, -
Requirements and guidelines, 2006.

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

 62 M. PORHINČÁK, A. EŠTOKOVÁ, S. VILČEKOVÁ

[7] Createrra excel tool, (available online) http://www.createrra.sk/?vypocet_pei, (last visited

19 December 2010).
[8] Kierulf B. Ekological build-up, EPD, In Proc. of Pasivní domy 2008, Centrum pasivního
domu, Brno, 2008,
http://www.createrra.sk/swift_data/source/subory/PD2008_sbornik_SK_Bjorn_Kierulf_upr
avena.pdf, (last visited 19 December 2010).
[9] Waltjen T. Ökologischer Bauteilkatalog, Bewertegängige Konstruktionen, Springer–Verlag, Wien,
1999.
[10] Hammond G, Jones C. Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), Version 1.6, University of Bath, 2008,
http://perigordvacance.typepad.com/files/inventoryofcarbonandenergy.pdf, (last visited 19
December 2010).
[11] Kovacs V. B., Torok A. Environmental impact estimation of renewable gaseous fuels consumed by
road vehicles, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2009, pp. 87–97.

Pollack Periodica 6, 2011, 3

View publication stats