ALBERT

Description: Increasing importance is being attached to materials in the life-cycle of a building. In the Netherlands, material life-cycle assessments (LCA) are now mandatory for almost all new buildings, on which basis the building is then awarded a building environmental performance or MPG [Milieuprestatie Gebouwen] score. The objective of this study is to reduce the environmental–economic (shadow) costs of precast reinforced concrete (RC) beams in a conventional Dutch office building, thereby improving its MPG score. Two main optimizations are introduced: first, the amount of concrete is reduced, designing a cavity in the cross-section of the beam; second, part of the reinforcement is replaced with a fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) tube. The structural calculations draw from a combination of several codes and FRP recommendations. Hollow FRP-RC beams (with an elongated oval cavity), and flax, glass, and kenaf fibre tubes yielded the lowest shadow costs. In particular, the flax tube obtained shadow costs that were 39% lower than those of the hollow RC beam (with an elongated oval cavity); which also contributed to decreasing the shadow costs of other building components (e.g., facade), thereby reducing the MPG score of the building. However, this study also shows that it is important to select the right type of FRP as hemp fibre tubes resulted in a 98% increase in shadow costs.

Description: This research optimizes the environmental impact of a conventional building foundation in Northern Europe while considering the economic cost. The foundation is composed of piles and ground beams. Calculations are performed following relevant building Eurocodes and using life cycle assessment methodology. Concrete and steel accounted for the majority of the environmental impact of foundation alternatives; in particular, steel on piles has a significant influence. Selecting small sections of precast piles or low-reinforcement vibro-piles instead of continuous-flight auger piles can reduce the environmental impacts and economic costs of a foundation by 55% and 40%, respectively. However, using precast beams rather than building them on site can increase the global warming potential (GWP) by up to 10%. Increasing the concrete strength in vibro-piles can reduce the eco-costs, ReCiPe indicator, and cumulated energy demand (CED) by up to 30%; the GWP by 25%; and the economic costs by up to 15%. Designing three piles instead of four piles per beam reduces the eco-costs and ReCiPe by 20–30%, the GWP by 15–20%, the CED by 15–25%, and the costs by 12%. A Pareto analysis was used to select the best foundation alternatives in terms of the combination of costs and eco-burdens, which are those with vibro-piles with higher concrete strengths (low reinforcement), cast in situ or prefabricated beams and four piles per beam.