Articles

Petr Hájek* DOI: 10.1002/suco.201000026

Ctislav Fiala
Magdaléna Kynčlová

Life cycle assessments of concrete structures –

a step towards environmental savings
Considering the volume of concrete produced and the number of 1200%
produkce oceli
steel production
concrete structures built, the problem of the associated environ-
mental impact forms a significant part of the entire global prob- produkce betonu
1000% concrete production
lem of sustainable development. Utilization of environmentally populace
optimized concrete structures thus creates a potential for in- population
creasing the quality of construction and consequently a reduc- 800%
tion of the environmental impact. A life cycle assessment (LCA) is
a complex, multi-parametric assessment of the environmental im- 600%
pact of the structure over its whole life cycle. It covers, in one as-
sessment process, all the essential environmental issues, includ-
ing CO2 emissions, energy consumption, water consumption, 400%
waste generation, etc. In the case of concrete, selected criteria
should support the design and construction of high-quality and at 200% 1950 = 100%
the same time environmentally friendly concrete structures. The rok 1950 = 100%
principal problem is to collect relevant environmental input data
for specific concrete types plus transport and production 0%
1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050
processes which can be used in the LCA procedure.
Keywords: concrete, life cycle assessment, environmental savings, data Fig. 1. Tendencies in steel and concrete production compared with popula-
tion growth and its expected development up to the year 2050 [1]

1 Introduction
Concrete is the second most commonly used product on
the planet, after water. During the last century, concrete
evolved into the most important building material in the
world. Annual production of concrete in the industrialized
world amounts to 1.5–3.0 tonnes per capita. World ce-
ment production increased 12-fold in the second half of
the last century [1] (Fig. 1).
Compared with other building materials, the specific
magnitude of harmful impact embodied in a concrete unit
is relatively small. However, due to the high production of
cement (the cement industry accounts for approx. 7.7 % of
global man-made CO2 emissions), the final negative envi-
ronmental impact of concrete structures is very high.
Thus, any improvements to concrete design principles, as-
sessment methodologies, construction and demolition
technologies, and the management of the operation and
use of concrete structures provide an important contribu-
tion to the general goal: the sustainable development of
society and technology. The evaluation of the environ-
mental quality of concrete structures therefore represents
a significant driving force aimed at a reducing environ-
mental impact in general.
* Corresponding author: petr.hajek@fsv.cvut.cz
The evaluation of the environmental impact of any
concrete product over its entire life can be carried out us-
ing an LCA (life cycle assessment) methodology specified
in ISO standards.
2 Life cycle assessment of concrete structures
The complex life cycle assessment (LCA) of a concrete
structure, covering the evaluation of materials, energy,
pollution, waste and other harmful impacts, flows
throughout the whole life cycle of the concrete product or
the whole concrete structure and should become an in-
trinsic part of a high-quality design approach.
2.1 LCA methodology
The general methodology of LCA is defined in Interna-
tional Standard ISO 14040:1997 “Environmental Manage-
ment – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Frame-
work” and in the complementary International Standards
ISO 14041, ISO 14042 and ISO 14043 concerning the var-
ious LCA phases [2]. There is no single method for con-
ducting LCA studies, but all LCA methods should follow
the basic methodological principles defined in the stan-
dards. Results from LCA studies may provide useful input

© 2011 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1 13
P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

ment data sets are compatible and sufficient to address the

Fig. 2. LCA phases and the corresponding ISO Standards
stated goal. The inventory analysis (LCI – life cycle inven-
tory) involves data collection and calculation procedures
to quantify the relevant inputs and outputs of a product
system, e.g. a concrete element, a concrete structure, a
whole building or another civil engineering structure, etc.
throughout the whole life cycle. The target of the impact
assessment phase (LCIA – life cycle impact assessment) is
to examine the product system from an environmental
perspective using impact categories and category indica-
tors connected with the inventory analysis results. The fi-
nal phase of the LCA is interpretation, in which the find-
ings are combined, consistent with the defined goal and
scope, in order to reach conclusions and recommenda-
tions.

for various evaluation, optimization and other decision-
making processes.
The LCA methodology defined in ISO 14040 is an it-
erative assessment method. It includes several steps cover-
ing (a) definition of goal and scope, (b) inventory analysis,
(c) impact assessment and (d) interpretation of results, al-
though these particular steps are in a state of mutual inter-
action (Fig. 2).
The goal and scope of an LCA study must be clearly
defined and consistent with the intended application. The
scope must consider all relevant aspects and criteria and
should be sufficiently well defined to ensure that the defi-
nition of the evaluation model and specification of assess-
2.2 Application of LCA methodology to concrete structures
The LCA methods and models should consider the whole
life (from “cradle to grave”) of a concrete product (ele-
ment, structure, etc.). The typical life cycle of a concrete
product should pass through the following stages: raw ma-
terials acquisition, production of concrete and structural
components, design and construction, operation and
maintenance, repair, refurbishment, demolition, recycling
and waste disposal (Fig. 3). The characteristic life cycle of
a concrete structure with its typical materials and energy
flows and consequent environmental impacts is shown in
Fig. 4 [3].

LIFE PHASES OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE

MATERIAL PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION UTILIZATION LIFE END

ACQUISITION MATERIALS

RAW MATERIAL DESIGN OF CONCRETE

ACQUISITION AGGREGATES AND CONCRETE STRUCTURE
SAND AND GRAVEL
MINING OF AGGREGATES PRODUCTION OF
(SAND AND GRAVEL) BROKEN GRAVEL
MONOLITHIC CONCRETE
RECYCLED AGGREGATES
ORDINARY CONCRETE
MINING OF RAW MATERIALS
FOR CEMENT PRODUCTION HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
CEMENT FIBRE CONCRETE

WATER SUPPLY

ADMIXTURE PRODUCTION OF
PREFABRICATED ELEMENTS

ORDINARY CONCRETE
ENERGY SOURCES AND
ENERGY PRODUCTION FLY-ASH HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE DEMOUNTING
USE
FIBRE CONCRETE DEMOLITION
MINING OF RAW MATERIALS ULTRA HIGH PERFORMANCE
FOR STEEL PRODUCTION MICROSILICA CONCRETE

MINING OF RAW MATERIALS WATER

FOR OTHER MATERIALS

CONSTRUCTION
RECYCLED MATERIAL
ACQUISITION STEEL MAINTENANCE REUSE
FORMWORK
REINFORCED BARS REPAIR
(ARMATURE) REINFORCEMENT

RECYCLED AGGREGATES CONCRETE PUMPING RENOVATION RECYCLING

PRESTRESSING STEEL
CRANE FOR
FIBRES PREFABRICATED ELEMENT
RECYCLED STEEL (SCRAP) DISPOSAL LANDFILL

OTHER MATERIALS

FROM OTHER INDUSTRY

Fig. 3. Typical life phases for a concrete product/structure with possible life stages

14 Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1

 P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings
Fig. 4. Life cycle of a concrete structure – materials and energy flows and
consequent environmental impacts
The life cycle of a concrete structure usually includes
the following stages:
• Raw materials acquisition (stone, sand, iron, water …)
• Production and transport of basic structural materials
(cement, steel reinforcement and other steel compo-
nents, admixtures, aggregates …)
• Design and optimization of concrete mix, concrete ele-
ment and concrete structure
• Production of concrete mix, including transportation to
the construction site
• Production of structural components and technological
equipment, including transportation to the construction
site (precast elements, formwork systems …)
• Construction of a concrete structure on site
• Operation of a concrete structure within the operation
of the entire structure (building, bridge, dam, road, etc.)
• Maintenance and repair
• Refurbishment and rebuilding
• Deconstruction and/or demolition
• Reuse of upgraded concrete elements
• Recycling of concrete elements and concrete waste
All aforementioned processes associated with a concrete
structure are strongly connected with other structural
parts of the entire structure (building envelope, floors,
bridge, road surface, etc.). The quality level of the perfor-
mance of a concrete structure in a specific life cycle stage
is determined by the initial quality of the structure
achieved during the construction process. Higher initial
investment to achieve higher quality could result in lower
operating costs and lower total environmental or econom-
ic costs at the end of the life cycle.
2.3 Regional specifics
In general, the process of design and construction of con-
crete structures varies in different countries and regions.
The processes are more or less determined by regional
specifics due to different materials bases (aggregates avail-
able regionally, types of steel, etc.), different climate con-
ditions, different technologies (based on local labour
costs, traditions in work organization and different climate
conditions) and differences in cultural traditions. Some
country or regional specifics are implemented in structur-
al design codes (e.g. National Application Documents,
NADs, in Eurocodes).
Regional specifics should be considered when col-
lecting the embodied environmental data of different ma-
terials. The types of materials sources, mining technolo-
gies, means of transport, transport distances, production
technologies, etc. have a significant influence on final unit
embodied environmental values. The relevant complex
LCA of the product or entire structure should be based on
local environmental data collected within the inventory
phase of the LCA procedure.
2.4 EPD – environmental product declaration
The LCA requires quantified and verified information
about the environmental performance of products,
processes and services. The environmental product decla-
ration (EPD) is a set of measurable pieces of information
about a product’s impact on the environment over its en-
tire life cycle (e.g. water and energy consumption, produc-
tion of harmful waste, impact on climate change, destruc-
tion of the ozone layer, etc.). This information is gained
using the LCA method in accordance with the ISO 14000
series of standards on environmental management sys-
tems and tools. EPD data represent a highly valuable and
essential data input for the LCA of the whole structure
(building, bridge, road, etc.). Unfortunately, there still is a
shortage of environmental information about products.
2.5 Integrated life cycle assessment for concrete structures
The new conceptual approach to the complex evaluation
of structures is an integrated life cycle assessment (ILCA),
which is a multi-parametric assessment of the structure
over the whole life cycle. This approach integrates the
main, crucial aspects of sustainability such as environ-
mental aspects, economic aspects and social aspects
throughout the whole life of the structure. It covers all the
essential technical, environmental, social and economic
quality issues, including environmental burdens (classical
LCA), functionality, safety, serviceability, durability, main-
tainability, reparability, initial and operational costs and
other factors. The criteria selected should represent the
key issues in the design and construction of high-quality
concrete structures. The integrated approach is necessary
to ensure that a concrete structure will serve throughout
its expected service life with maximum functional quality
and safety levels while environmental burdens and eco-
nomic loads are kept to feasibly low levels.
The ILCA methodology for concrete structures is be-
ing prepared within the work of fib C3 Commission Task
Group TG 3.7 “Integrated life cycle assessment of con-
crete structures”.
3 Inventory analysis – environmental profiles of concrete
components
A set of environmental information data on concrete com-
ponents and related processes has been collected and de-
termined within the research performed at the CIDEAS
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1 15
P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

centre at Czech Technical University in Prague. These da-
ta are based on materials available regionally and on
source data provided by companies producing and/or sell-
ing their products mainly on the Czech market. The data
have been stored and organized in the ICF concrete LCA
ToolCZ developed by C. Fiala at Czech Technical Universi-
ty in Prague.
In the inventory analysis of the LCA, parts of bal-
anced processes are organized into modules. All the mate-
rials and energy flows (inputs and outputs) are balanced
and quantified in these modules, i.e. consumption of raw
materials, products and by-products, auxiliary materials,
energy, water and transport, emissions, by-products and
waste from manufacturing processes. The following tables
show aggregated impact data for various materials and
processes in the life cycle of reinforced concrete struc-
tures. Energy data and emissions factors used in the as-
sessment are taken from GEMIS (Global Emission Model
for Integrated Systems) version 4.6 [8].
Tabs. 1, 2 and 3 present aggregated data for concrete
components. Tab. 4 presents aggregated data for steel re-
inforcement including steel fibres. In Tab. 5 the data are
related to concrete production processes, in Tab. 6 to
transport and in Tab. 7 to concrete surface repairs and the
demolition process.
Data for aggregates are based on source data provid-
ed by Czech companies producing these materials. The
source data includes five quarries and three sandpits. Data
for silica fume are calculated from GEMIS [8]. All aggre-
gated data are presented in Tab. 1.
Data for an admixture (superplasticizer) and water
were calculated according to [5] with the energy and
emission factors according to GEMIS [8]. The aggregated
impact data are presented in Tab. 3.
Data for steel products were calculated according to
[9] with the energy and emission factors according to
GEMIS [8]. The aggregated impact data are presented in
Tab. 4.
Data for production of monolithic concrete and
pumping of fresh concrete are based on source data pro-
vided by Czech companies producing concrete. Data for
formwork were taken from [9]. All data for concrete pro-
duction processes are presented in Tab. 5.
Data for transport were calculated from GEMIS [8]
and the aggregated impact data are presented in Tab. 6.
Data for concrete surface repairs and demolition
were calculated according to [9] with the energy and
emission factors according to GEMIS [8]. The aggregat-
ed impact data for these processes are presented in
Tab. 7.

Tab. 1. Aggregated impact data for an aggregate

Aggregated impact data unit sand | gravel technical micro crushed silica
ground sand milled sand gravel fume
per t per t per t per t per t
consumption of primary raw materials kg 1000.2 1042 1042 1042 0
water consumption m3 0.0919 0.2650 0.5624 0.1232 0.0066
primary energy consumption1) MJ 38.00 349.21 858.90 35.85 18.49
global warming potential | GWP kg 2.53 22.99 56.47 2.41 1.22
acidification potential | AP g 8.14 55.97 131.76 9.73 1.74
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 0.09 0.48 1.09 0.12 0.02
material recyclability – – – – – –

1) non-renewable primary energy

Tab. 2. Aggregated impact data for cement

Aggregated impact data unit CEM I CEM I CEM I CEM II/ CEM II/ CEM II/ CEM
52,5 R 52,5 N 42,5 R B-S B-M A-LL III/A
(Portland) (Portland) (Portland) (slag (blanded (lime (blast
Portland) Portland) Portland) furnace)
per t per t per t per t per t per t per t
consumption of primary kg 2848.9 2848.9 2848.9 2231.6 2082.8 2741.0 1505.0
raw materials
water consumption m3 2.0471 2.0471 2.0471 2.0469 2.0468 2.0471 2.0466
embodied primary energy MJ 5107.1 4830.8 4685.3 3926.1 3749.1 4646.4 3286.3
consumption1)
global warming kg 827.6 826.8 826.4 645.9 575.7 778.9 432.0
potential | GWP
acidification potential | AP g 2600.3 2559.7 2538.3 2010.9 1826.6 2424.8 1422.7
photochemical ozone g 87.8 87.5 87.4 69.1 61.8 82.6 47.6
creation potential | POCP
material recyclability – – – – – – – –

1) non-renewable primary energy

16 Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1

 P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

Tab. 3. Aggregated impact data for admixture and water

Aggregated impact data unit admixture (PCE) superplasticizer water

per t per t
consumption of primary raw materials kg 91.1 1002
water consumption m3 7.4 1.0
embodied primary energy consumption1) MJ 28857 5.0
global warming potential | GWP kg 2731.9 0.331
acidification potential | AP g 19706.5 2.365
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 1040.8 0.122
material recyclability – NO PARTIAL*)

1) non-renewable primary energy

*) partial reuse of operating water in selected operation (e.g. cement plant, concrete mixing plant)

Tab. 4. Aggregated impact data for steel

Aggregated impact data unit reinforcing bars prestressing steel steel fibres
per t per t per t
consumption of primary raw materials kg 1823.2 1881.2 1808.8
water consumption m3 3.09 2.95 2.78
embodied primary energy consumption1) MJ 27311.2 31895.2 26552.0
global warming potential | GWP kg 2505.4 2776.7 2433.3
acidification potential | AP g 15519.1 16325.0 15040.2
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 620.3 648.8 597.3
material recyclability – YES YES PARTIAL

1) non-renewable primary energy

Tab. 5. Aggregated impact data for concrete production processes

Aggregated impact data unit production of formwork pumping of

monolithic concrete fresh concrete
per m3 per m2 per m3
consumption of primary raw materials kg – N/A –
water consumption *) m3 0.1126 N/A –
embodied primary energy consumption1) MJ 79.22 41 14.86
global warming potential | GWP kg 5.04 4.1 1.08
acidification potential | AP g 10.28 0.006 10.05
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 0.36 0.001 0.13
material recyclability – – – –

1) non-renewable primary energy.

*) overheads without gauge water

Tab. 6. Aggregated impact data for transport

Aggregated impact data unit freight traffic – freight traffic – railway traffic
long-distance local
per tkm per tkm per tkm
consumption of primary raw materials kg – – –
water consumption m3 – – –
primary energy consumption1) MJ 1.39 3.19 0.99
global warming potential | GWP kg 0.10 0.24 0.08
acidification potential | AP g 0.71 2.11 0.14
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 0.03 0.21 0.01
material recyclability – – – –

1) non-renewable primary energy

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1 17

P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings
Tab. 7. Aggregated impact data for concrete surface repairs and demolition
Aggregated impact data
consumption of primary raw materials
water consumption
embodied primary energy consumption1)
global warming potential | GWP
acidification potential | AP
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP
material recyclability
1) non-renewable primary energy.
4 Case study – LCAs for alternative floor structures in
residential buildings
4.1 Description of alternative floors
A simple four-storey residential house measuring approx.
14.2 × 22.3 m on plan (design: Atelier KUBUS, J. Ru° žička)
was chosen for the environmental assessment of four
structural floor alternatives. The residential building is de-
signed with a very universal layout enabling many feasible
structural and material alternatives. The layout of the
building is as follows: the 2nd and 4th floors are each di-
vided into three apartments (2 with 4 rooms + bath. &
kit., 95.9 m2, and 1 bedsit + bath., 27.5 m2, and on the 1st
floor there are two apartments (each with 4 rooms + bath.
& kit.) plus plant (Figs. 5 and 6).
The complex LCA was performed for four different
floor structures designed for the aforementioned residen-
tial building. This analysis focuses primarily on floor
structures and does not cover concrete beams and sup-
porting structures. The aim of the analysis is to show the
benefits of high-performance concrete. The analysis cov-
ers transport of the raw materials to the concrete plant,
concrete production, transport to the building site, pump-
ing of fresh concrete, formwork, demolition and disposal
of the concrete at the end of its useful life. The floor struc-
ture variants are as follows:
V1: solid RC slab C30/37, 160 mm deep, R8 bars @
200 mm c/c in bottom, R8 bars @ 150 mm c/c in top.
V2: waffle floor structure C30/37, 160 mm deep, 60 mm
deep flange, 80 mm wide ribs @ 600 mm c/c in both
directions, R10 bars in bottom of ribs and 4 No. R8
bars in top in both directions, R6 shear links @
200 mm c/c.
Fig. 5. Four-storey residential building – plan of 2nd/4th floors and west elevation
18 Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
unit repair of the concrete surface demolition
per m2 per t
kg – –
m3 – –
MJ 21.55 122.27
kg 1.57 8.92
g 14.57 82.69
g 0.20 1.11
– – –
V3: waffle floor structure HPC105, 160 mm deep, 30 mm
flange, 50 mm wide ribs @ 600 mm c/c in both direc-
tions, R8 bars in bottom of ribs and R14 bars in top in
both directions, R5 shear links @ 200 mm c/c and R5
shear links @ 180 mm c/c.
V4: waffle floor structure HPC140, 160 mm deep, 30 mm
flange, 50 mm wide ribs @ 600 mm c/c in both direc-
tions, R8 bars in bottom of ribs and R14 bars in top in
both directions, R5 shear links @ 200 mm c/c and R5
shear links @ 180 mm c/c.
The four alternatives were designed with three different
concrete mixes: ordinary concrete C30/37, high-perfor-
mance fibre concrete HPC105 and HPC140. The HPC105
mix was designed as high-performance concrete with 25
mm long “Fibrex A1” steel fibres. These fibres have a ten-
sile strength of only 350 MPa. The HPC140 mix was de-
signed as a fine-grained mix with 13 mm long steel mi-
crofibres. The tensile strength of these fibres is 2400 MPa.
The quantity of steel fibres in both mixtures was 1 % by
vol. As suggested in their designations, HPC105 has a
compressive strength of 105 MPa and HPC140 a compres-
sive strength of 140 MPa.
4.2 Inventory of input data
In the following analysis, the expected life span of the
concrete floor structure was considered to be 100 years for
each alternative. Within these 100 years, one major con-
crete surface repair was considered for the ordinary con-
crete alternatives (V1 and V2) during the utilization
phase. But owing to their significantly better surface qual-
ity and density of the concrete matrix, the two HPC alter-
 P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

Fig. 6. Basic layout of structural system Fig. 7. Model of waffle floor structure

natives (V3 and V4) were considered without any repairs
being needed within the expected 100-year life span.
The building is designed for the Prague location. The
concrete mix will be transported from a company 10 km
away, the demolition waste will be transported 25 km to
the recycling plant.
Tabs. 8, 9 and 10 present LCA input data for con-
struction, utilization and end-of-life phases respectively.
4.3 Aggregated LCA results
Aggregated impact data for specific life cycle phases are
presented in Tabs. 11, 12 and 13. It can be seen that en-
vironmental impacts in the construction phase are sig-
nificantly higher in comparison with other life cycle
phases.
4.4 Results and discussion
Fig. 8 shows graphs of the levels of particular environ-
mental impacts in different life cycle stages for all four
floor alternatives assessed. It can be seen that the con-
struction phase has a dominant influence on the total en-
vironmental impact, representing 80–95 % of the total.
This is due to the fact that this LCA only looked at load-
bearing concrete structures that do not need major main-
tenance and/or repairs during the utilization phase. And
for the two waffle slabs made from high-performance
concrete (V3 and V4), no maintenance or concrete sur-
face repairs were considered necessary during the utiliza-
tion stage.
The impact of the end-of-life phase is slightly more
significant due to transport and energy demands associat-

Tab. 8. Balance of input data for construction phase

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
concretes concrete C30/37 m3 163.5 86.1
high performance concrete HPC105 m3 51.4
high performance concrete HPC140 m3 51.3
concrete cement CEM I 52.5 R t 36.8
components cement CEM I 42.5 R t 57.2 30.1 24.6
sand | gravel t 128.3 67.6 47.5
crushed gravel t 163.5 86.1 42.6
silica fume t 1.2 11.5
technical ground sand t 50.6
micro milled sand t 9.2
steel fibres t 4.1 4.1
admixture (PCE) superplasticizer t 0.44 0.23 0.45 1.67
water t 29.9 15.8 7.7 9.0
other –
reinforcing bars R10505 t 9.47 9.88 7.10 7.10
formwork m2 1029.4 1029.4 1029.4 1029.4
transport –
freight traffic – long-distance tkm 22965 13934 11357 16258
freight traffic – local tkm 4026 2231 1514 1461

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1 19

P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

Tab. 9. Balance of input data for utilization phase

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
concretes shotcrete m3 3.1 3.1 0 0
–
–
concrete cement CEM I 42.5 R t 1.1 1.1 0 0
components sand | gravel t 2.4 2.4 0 0
crushed gravel t 3.1 3.1 0 0
admixture (PCE) superplasticizer t 0.01 0.01 0 0
water t 0.57 0.57 0 0
other –
–
repair the concrete surface (10%) m2 102.9 102.9 0 0
transport –
freight traffic – long-distance tkm 0 0 0 0
freight traffic – local tkm 179 179 0 0

Tab. 10. Balance of input data for end-of-life phase

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
concretes demolition of RC structures t 388.9 209.8 135.4 130.0
–
–
transport –
freight traffic – long-distance tkm 0 0 0 0
freight traffic – local tkm 9723 5245 3384 3250

Tab. 11. Aggregated impact data for construction phase

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
consumption of primary raw materials kg 509058 277122 190280 196682
water consumption m3 230.0 136.3 110.3 154.6
primary energy consumption1) MJ 652648 500339 502589 639292
global warming potential | GWP kg 81450 57379 55664 71038
acidification potential | AP g 331852 252312 256659 320479
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 13096 10022 10234 12769

1) non-renewable primary energy

ed with demolition of the structure. This is associated
mainly with the amount of concrete waste from the demo-
lition. Therefore, in the case of a solid concrete slab (V1)
the end-of-life phase represents 15.7 % of the total envi-
ronmental impact, in the case of a waffle slab made from
ordinary concrete (V2) it is lower – just 11.6 % of the total.
The HPC alternatives (V3 and V4) use significantly less
concrete and so the proportion of environmental impact
at the end of the life cycle is only 6–8 %. But this is still
very low in comparison with the construction phase.
The winning floor alternative in the most environmen-
tal aspects is V3 – waffle structure made from HPC105. The
main reason is the more subtle structure (savings in the
amount of concrete, transport, etc.) in comparison with a
solid RC slab and a waffle slab in ordinary concrete. Alter-
native V4 was designed using a high-performance concrete
with an even higher strength, HPC140. However, the shape
of the waffle slab and the corresponding amount of con-
crete was the same as in V3 (HPC105). Higher values of
embodied energy, embodied CO2 emissions, embodied SO2,
etc. are thus associated mainly with a higher amount of ce-
ment in the concrete mix, whereas the amount of concrete
is the same. The higher performance quality of HPC140
(higher compressive strength, ...) would be an advantage in
the case of applications with high normal stresses e.g.
bridge girders or long-span floor structures.

20 Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1

 P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

Tab. 12. Aggregated impact data for utilization phase

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
consumption of primary raw materials kg 9289 9289 0 0
water consumption m3 3.4 3.4 0 0
primary energy consumption1) MJ 8300 8300 0 0
global warming potential | GWP kg 1134 1134 0 0
acidification potential | AP g 4837 4837 0 0
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 161 161 0 0

1) non-renewable primary energy

Tab. 13. Aggregated impact data for end-of-life phase

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
consumption of primary raw materials kg 0 0 0 0
water consumption m3 0 0 0 0
primary energy consumption1) MJ 78520 42357 27330 26250
global warming potential | GWP kg 5776 3116 2010 1931
acidification potential | AP g 52666 28410 18331 17607
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 2468 1331 859 825

1) non-renewable primary energy

Tab. 14. Aggregated impact data for entire life cycle

Balance of input data of assessment variants unit V1 V2 V3 V4

full RC slab waffle slab waffle slab waffle slab
C30/37 C30/37 HPC105 HPC140
consumption of primary raw materials kg 518347 286411 190280 196682
water consumption m3 233 140 110 155
primary energy consumption1) MJ 739468 550996 529920 665542
global warming potential | GWP kg 88360 61629 57675 72969
acidification potential | AP g 389355 285560 274991 338085
photochemical ozone creation potential | POCP g 15725 11515 11093 13594

1) non-renewable primary energy

5 Conclusion (ILCA) covering all three pillars of sustainability – envi-

LCA methodology has been well known for many years.
The effective application and quality of results depend on
the availability of relevant input data obtained using a de-
tailed inventory analysis based on specific regional data
sources. The study showed that when using a detailed
LCA analysis for concrete floor structures with an approx-
imately identical performance quality, the resulting envi-
ronmental impacts can be very different. This is caused
not only by the different amounts of concrete used, but al-
so by the different composition of the concrete mix and
differences in transport and production processes. The
evaluation of the real level of environmental impacts of
concrete structures should thus be based on a detailed
LCA analysis using data sets with local relevance.
The next step in the evaluation of the complex quali-
ty of concrete structures is integrated life cycle assessment
ronmental, social and economic.
Acknowledgements
These results were achieved with the financial support of
the Czech Republic’s Ministry of Education, Youth &
Sports, project No. 1M0579, within the activities of
the CIDEAS research centre and using results from re-
search Project No. P104/10/2153 of the Grant Agency of
the Czech Republic. All support is gratefully acknowl-
edged.
References
1. Hájek, P.: Integrated environmental design and optimization
of concrete slabs. In proc. Concrete in 3rd Millennium, Bris-
bane, 2003.

Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1 21

P. Hájek/C. Fiala/M. Kynčlová · Life cycle assessments of concrete structures – a step towards environmental savings

Fig. 8. Environmental impacts in life cycle stages for all floor alternatives

2. ISO 14040, ISO 14041, ISO 14042, ISO 14043 – Environmen-

tal management – Life cycle assessment, 1997–2000. Petr Hájek
Department of Building Structures
3. fib Bulletin 28: Environmental design, fib, 2004.
Czech Technical University in
4. Hájek, P., Fiala, C.: Environmental assessment of floor struc-
Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering
tures from fibre concrete – study, Fibre Concrete 2007, CTU, Thakurova 7, 166 29 Prague 6,
Prague, 2007, ISBN 978-80-01-03740-9. Czech Republic
5. Schießl, P., Stengel, T.: Der kumulierte Energieaufwand aus- Tel: +420 224 354 459,
gewählter Baustoffe für die ökologische Bewetung von Beton- Fax: +420 233 339 987,
bauteilen. Wissenschaftl. Kurzbericht No. 13, 2007. E-mail: petr.hajek@fsv.cvut.cz
6. Schmidt, M., Teichmann, T.: Ultra-high-performance con-
crete: Basis for sustainable structures. In. proc. Central Eu-
rope towards Sustainable Building CESB07, Prague, 2007.
7. Waltjen, T.: Passivhaus-Bauteilkatalog 2008 – Ökologisch be-
wertete Konstruktionen. Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 2008, ISBN
978-3-211-29763-6.
8. GEMIS (Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems), ver-
sion 4.6, database CZ, D 2010, www.oeko.de/service/gemis/,
2010.
9. Jerebic, D.: Vergleichende Ökobilanzierung zur Gärtner-
platzbrücke in Kassel aus ultrahochfestem Beton. Diploma
thesis, University of Kassel, 2005. Ctislav Fiala Magdaléna Kynčlová
Department of Building Structures Department of Building Structures
Czech Technical University in Czech Technical University in
Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Czech Republic Czech Republic

22 Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1