4.7 Article

Adaptation of methodology to select structural alternatives of one-way slab in residential building to the guidelines of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN/TC 350)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 144-155

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.004

关键词

Sustainable construction; One-way slab; Life cycle assessment (LCA); Reinforced concrete; Column-index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) through its Technical Committee CEN/TC-350 is developing a series of standards for assessing the building sustainability, at both product and building levels. The practical application of the selection (decision making) of structural alternatives made by one-way slabs leads to an intermediate level between the product and the building. Thus the present study addresses this problem of decision making, following the CEN guidelines and incorporating relevant aspects of architectural design into residential construction. A life cycle assessment (LCA) is developed in order to obtain valid information for the decision making process (the LCA was developed applying CML methodology although Ecoindicator99 was used in order to facilitate the comparison of the values); this information (the carbon footprint values) is contrasted with other databases and with the information from the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) of one of the lightening materials (expanded polystyrene), in order to validate the results. Solutions of different column disposition and geometries are evaluated in the three pillars of sustainable construction on residential construction: social, economic and environmental. The quantitative analysis of the variables used in this study enables and facilitates an objective comparison in the design stage by a responsible technician; the application of the proposed methodology reduces the possible solutions to be evaluated by the expert to 1222% of the options in the case of low values of the column index and to 26.67% for the highest values. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据