Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage:

Construction waste estimation depending on urban planning options in

the design stage of residential buildings
Manuel Carpio a,, Julio Roldn-Fontana b, Rosala Pacheco-Torres b, Javier Ordez b
Institute of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Austral University of Chile, Valdivia, Chile
Department of Engineering Construction and Project Management, University of Granada, Spain

h i g h l i g h t s

 This study compares the environmental impact of different urban options.

 The objective is to evaluate environmental impact of urban planning.
 This study highlights the importance of an urban environmentally friendly design.
 Waste generated in the previous works on the lot should not be ignored.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the framework of the integral construction of urban residences and buildings is necessary a previous
Received 11 February 2016 study to analyze the evaluation and management of waste generated throughout the building process.
Received in revised form 11 March 2016 This key ingredient of urban planning responds, in part, to growing environmental problems and a more
Accepted 15 March 2016
acute awareness of the consequences that improper management of such wastes would entail. A previous
Available online 24 March 2016
quantification of the waste generated through construction during the project stage is needed so that
the best building proposal may be chosen. Urban planners and policy makers should develop a keen eye
for selecting cost-effective projects while environmentally friendly.
The aim of this paper is to study the production of waste in light of diverse urban solutions, both in the
Waste urban planning and building stages, as well as in global terms. To this end we studied six types of housing
Urban planning projects through simulations using statistical data, for different purposes, but with a common construc-
Efficiency tion surface (50,000 m2): (i) detached single-family unit; (ii) semi-detached single-family unit; (iii) 5-
Building floor apartment block; (iv) 10-floor apartment block; (iv) 20-floor apartment block; and (vi) 40-floor
Material apartment block. The main finding is that linear constructions generate a greater volume of waste than
vertical construction, the difference reaching up to 57%.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Wu et al. [3] highlighted the important benefits to be obtained

from the economic and environmental study of waste manage-
Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) represents over ment and organization when construction is underway. The design
one-third of the total solid waste in the world [1]. Clearly, buildings and selection of adequate material are key factors for reducing the
present a high index of environmental impact throughout their life environmental impact of a building [4]. Adequate knowledge of the
cycles, and the generation of CDW contributes substantially to this types of waste produced and their quantity, at a regional level, is an
environmental impact. Many materials are involved in building essential step for the promotion of more realistic policies as well as
construction, so that choosing adequate materials and systems the implantation of recycling methods.
during the design stage is essential to reduce the future environ- The quantification and classification of waste from building
mental impact of buildings [2]. This calls for knowing, with preci- construction can be approached at a macro or at a micro level. In
sion, the volume and type of the waste generated throughout the their evaluation of the former, authors Cochran and Townsend
useful life of the building. [5] evaluated volumes of construction material and demolition
waste in the US at a national level. Ding et al. [6] used statistical
data at the national level to estimate the building and demolition
Corresponding author. waste generated in the region of Shanghai. At the micro level, pre-
E-mail address: (M. Carpio). vious work [7,8] has focused on analyzing a single building type.
0950-0618/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
562 M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

Although it is known that the specific building typology and multi-familiar blocks. In the case of multi-familiar blocks, four block heights
are considered: 5 floors height, 10 floors height, 20 floor height and 40 floor height.
strongly conditions the type and amount of waste generated [9],
In the case of single-family houses, each house corresponds to one dwelling. In
little literature can be found in this respect. The typology and the case of multi-family units, the built area corresponds to a set of dwellings. The
quantity of waste generated vary across the different phase of floor distribution is the same for all the multi-family cases, varying the number of
the buildings. In the phase of building construction, a greater vol- floors. For all the cases, one parking space per dwelling was to be situated under-
ume of material and a vast proportion of the waste generated are ground (the underground surface not counting as living space).
The six urban designs studied are:
associated with the movement of land. During the phase of resi-
dential building use, the volume of waste generated is more closely  URB-1. Residential development with detached single-family units (2 floors
related with the tasks of maintenance, remodeling and reforms. In + tower).
the demolition stage great amounts of waste are produced overall,  URB-2. Semi-detached single-family units (2 floors + tower).
 URB-3. Multi-family units, 8 blocks of 5-floor apt. buildings with one under-
yet especially if there are no recycling mechanisms involved [2].
ground floor for parking.
Although the phase of use/occupation of buildings has the  URB-4. Multi-family units, 4 blocks of 10-floor apt. buildings with two floors
greatest environmental impact, it is also necessary to carry out underground for parking.
studies that look into the rest of the stages [10]. A more detailed  URB-5. Multi-family units, 2 blocks of 20-floor units, with four underground
understanding should facilitate the implantation of mechanisms floors for parking.
 URB-6. Multi-family units, a block having 40 floors above ground and 8 under-
for a better management of waste, to ensure greater efficacy ground floors for parking.
At the same time, this paper presents a classification and quan- Based on the initial premise that the above-ground built area was 50,000 m2,
tification of the waste generated during the stage of building for each design had a different number of buildings. Also, the distribution of roads,
urban/residential purposes, establishing diverse urban planning streets and free space varies from one urban solution to other. The land distribution
and the differences between the different urban solutions are plotted in Fig. 1.
scenarios, to compare results depending on the building type.
Table 1 summarizes the building characteristics and urban features of the six urban
The three most common residential building typologies are ana- options designed. More information on the design of the six urban solutions and the
lyzed, and a total of 6 scenarios are evaluated [1315]. For each floor plans is given in a previous research [16].
scenario, the level of waste generated during the phase of con- Regarding normative purposes, the hypothetical plot of the study is located in
struction was evaluated and a classification was carried out, con- the city of Granada (Spain), under application of the so-called Land Law [18] and
the Technical Building Code (CTE) [19].
sidering as well the work of preparing the land for urban use.
The results obtained, together with the findings of a previous 2.2. Description of construction systems and quantification of materials
related study on CO2 emissions for the same residential units
under the same conditions [16], can be interpreted as a compre- Both the buildings as well as the civil infrastructures, were characterized with
hensive evaluation of the environmental impact of the construc- the most common construction techniques and materials in Spain. The buildings
foundations were made of reinforced concrete slab. The structural framework was
tion phase of different urban planning options.
composed of columns and waffle slabs, also made of reinforced concrete. Double
The aim of this paper is to study the production of waste in light cavity brick walls, a traffic bearing roof as well as aluminum frame windows, com-
of diverse urban solutions, both in the urban planning and building pose the rest of the elements of the envelope. Indoor finishes are composed of cera-
stages, as well as in global terms. To this end we studied six types mic flooring and cavity brick partitions walls with plaster and painting layers.
Regarding the civil works, sidewalks are made of hydraulic flooring on mass
of housing projects through simulations, for different purposes but
concrete and gravel subbase. Both the kerbs and water lines on the sidewalks are
with a common construction surface. Our study takes in the most composed of pieces of granite on a concrete base. The road network is composed
representative building types of the residential sector in Spain. by two layers of asphaltic concrete on a base of artificial gravel and natural gravel.
However, as non-standardized products, their properties depend Water supply system is composed of cast-iron pipe. In the case of sewage network,
on the design criteria applied in each project [4]. Instating measures it is composed of concrete piping for diameters greater than or equal to 0.6 m and
PVC piping for smaller diameters
for the reduction of environmental impact at the global level in a set
The gas supply network is solved with HDPE pipeline. The electricity grid, light-
of buildings in the design stage is no easy task. Notwithstanding, ing network and telecommunications network is solved by a PVC piping of variable
there is a dire need for the inclusion of urban planning criteria diameters according to the standard. The water supply system, sewage network and
aimed for sustainable design and development. Integrating such gas supply network were placed on a bed of sand, whereas electricity network,
lighting and telecommunications were placed on a bed of concrete.
measures in the design stage of a set of buildingseven if developed
The materials involved in foundation and structure (mainly concrete, cement
in the framework of different projectsmay prove to be more effi- and steel) are responsible of a great part of the environmental impact of housing
cient and cost-effective in the end analysis. construction [2022]. In our study, the foundation and structure were calculated
in accordance with the direct stiffness method. The output of this calculation was
the description and quantity of those materials involved in these task, for each of
2. Material and methods
the six case studied.
In the stiffness method, the relation between the stresses and deformations of
In this section are described the urban solutions used; the description of con-
the bar elements was assumed to be linear with six degree of freedom per node.
struction systems and quantification of materials; and the normative on waste
The relation between the stresses of each element and the displacement was based
on the equation f = KD, where K is the stiffness matrix of the element, and D is the
displacements of the nodes. This calculations were performed with the software
2.1. Urban solutions program CYPECAD [23], under license by the University of Granada.
All the necessaries task for the construction of the buildings and the develop-
In this study, a hypothetical total surface allotment of 100,000 m2 has been con- ment of civil infrastructures were grouped into construction work units, listed in
sidered for designing different urban solutions. The plot to be urbanized was circu- Table 2.
lar, distributed into: The materials involved in each task unit during the construction phase, were
quantified. More information on the quantification and distribution of materials
 Built area. The buildable rate considered is 0.5 m2/m2 (roof/floor). Therefore, a is given in a previous work [16]. The construction material quantification was the
total of 50,000 m2 of land area would be occupied by residential buildings. basis for the estimation of the waste generated in the construction phase.
 Assigned spaces for public. According to the Spanish Rules for Development
[17], a proportion of the urbanized plot must be devoted to public uses: school 2.3. Normative on waste classification
use, commercial use, social use and sport installations use. Summing up, public
spaces represents the 12.87% of the plot area. Previous studies [24] regarding waste assessment on different stages of the
 Leisure space. The rest of the area is considered as free space. building do not agree about the distribution of waste generated, especially with
respect to the waste of lesser volume. Such classifications should, ideally, be under-
According to previous studies [16], the most representative typologies of the taken with reference to the legislative framework of the European Union, specifi-
residential stock in Spain are studied: detached houses, semi-detached houses cally in view of the List of European Waste (LOW) [25].
M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570 563

Fig. 1. Urban planning models.

In Spain, the Royal Decree 105/2008 [26] regulates the production and manage- described in this section prevail. The present study takes both options into account,
ment of construction and demolition waste. This Royal Decree establishes the legal considering land and stone as waste, under RD 105/2008.
regimen for the production and management of waste produced through construc- When establishing the classification of waste generated in the construction of
tion and demolition, in order to foment: (i) its prevention; (ii) re-utilization; (iii) residential buildings to this end, two significant considerations were the stage of
recycling and other forms of acquiring value; (iv) ensuring that the waste intended construction underway, and waste identification in light of the LOW.
for operations of elimination receives proper treatment to that end; and (v) to con- For each material, it was estimated the waste generated in the following stages:
tribute to a sustainable development of construction activity. This applies to the the raw material supply; transport form the site of extraction; manufacture; trans-
waste from construction and demolition defined in Article 2 of the same document port to the building site; construction/emplacement in situ.
[26], and to that defined in Article 3 of Law 22/2011 [27], on waste and contami- According to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC [25], the LOW is meant to be a
nated land, with the following exceptions: reference nomenclature providing a common terminology throughout the European
Community, intended to improve the efficiency of waste management activities.
a) Land/soil and stone surfaces not contaminated by hazardous substances re- The LOW serves as a common encoding of waste characteristics for a broad variety
utilized in the same construction work, in a different work, or in an activity of purposes, such as the classification of hazardous wastes. Assignment of waste
of restoration, conditioning or refill, whenever their re-utilization can be codes has a major impact on the transport of waste, installation permits (usually
properly accredited. granted for the processing of specific waste codes), decisions about the recyclability
b) Waste from extractive industries regulated by European Directive 2006/21/ of waste, or as a basis for waste statistics. The LOW is divided into twenty chapters,
EC [28]. most of them industry-based, but some are based on materials and processes. Each
c) Non-hazardous mud dredged and relocated in the interior of surface waters has a two-digit chapter code, from 01 to 20. Each chapter has one or more sub-
deriving from activities of water and navigable waterway management, for chapters, identified by four digit codes (the first two digits constituting the chapter
the prevention of flooding or mitigation of the effects of floods or droughts, code). Within these sub-chapters there are more specific codes for individual waste
regulated by Legislative Royal Decree 2/2011[29], by which the Refunded streams, for instance, which is assigned a six-digit code. Table 3 lists the wastes
Text of the Law of Ports of the State and Merchant Marine is ratified, as well identified in the present study, for the section on building, identified by their codes
as the international treaties in which Spain takes part. and description, as well as the classification within their respective chapters and
subchapters. With reference to urban development, fewer wastes were identified,
Even though land/soil is considered a waste, under RD 105/2008 [26] the lands
all of them likewise classified under building. Table 3 shows the wastes present in
defined in section a) lie beyond the scope of application, whenever the conditions
both sections.
Table 1
Housing profile characteristics and urban planning characteristics. Planning of the sector.

Land division categories Detached (URB-1) Semi-Detached (URB-2) 5-floor building (URB-3) 10-fl. apt. building (URB-4) 20-fl. apt. Building (URB-5) 40-fl. apt. Building (URB-6)
Surface No. of Surface No. of Surface No. of Surface No. of Surface No. of Surface No. of
(m2) dwellings (m2) dwellings (m2) dwellings (m2) dwellings (m2) dwellings (m2) dwellings
Useful land
Residential land basic unit
Block 1 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20 10,104.5 120 10,104.5 120 21,077.2 240 43,022.61 480
Block 2 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30 10,104.5 120 10,104.5 120 21,077.2 240

M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

Block 3 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25 10,104.5 120 10,104.5 120
Block 4 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20 10,104.5 120 10,104.5 120
Block 5 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30
Block 6 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25
Block 7 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20
Block 8 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30
Block 9 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25
Block 10 3,231.08 14 3,231.08 20
Block 11 5,219.85 23 5,219.85 30
Block 12 3,407.67 15 3,407.67 25
Block 13 4,100.54 17 4,100.54 25
Total residential land use 51,534.94 225 51,534.94 325 40,418.00 480 40,418.00 480 42,154.40 480 43,022.61 480

Public land conceded

Road system
Allotted land
Land allotment for commercial use 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10 1,151.10
Land allotted for social use 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13 1,511.13
Land allotted for school use 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59 6,043.59
Land allotted for sports installations 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86 4,167.86
Total land allotted 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68 12,873.68
Leisure space 10,000.37 10,000.37 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56
Total land use for leisure areas 10,000.37 10,000.37 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56 31,052.56
Total land reserved for allotments 22,874.05 22,874.05 43,926.24 43,926.24 43,926.24 43,926.24
Road system
Parking placesa 164 164 385 385 433 427
Road 25,591.01 25,591.01 15,655.76 15,655.76 13,919.36 13,051.15
Total land use for the road network 25,591.01 25,591.01 15,655.76 15,655.76 13,919.36 13,051.15
Ceded public land 47,313.96 47,313.96 58,430.90 58,430.90 56,694.50 55,826.29
Total land designated for building 100,000.00
Number of parking places according to Spanish normative.
M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570 565

Table 2 homes (URB-1) gave 11 tons, whereas the semi-detached ones

Task units for building construction and civil and infrastructural works. (URB-2) produced only 4 tons. This marked difference can be
Buildings Construction Civil and infrastructural attributed to the surface requiring painting, as more than half of
works the exterior wall coverings of the semi-detached homes are parti-
i Land preparation i Land preparation tioning walls.
ii Foundations ii Earth moving Contaminated containers are responsible for a greater percent-
iii Frame structures iii Water supply network age of hazardous waste than the remains of paint, and they con-
iv Faades iv Sewage network
v Envelopes and partitions walls v Medium voltage network
tribute 0.08% of the total for the optimal building type. There are
vi Installations vi Public Lighting no major differences in this category, the least contaminating
vii Thermic and acoustic insulation vii Telecommunications network building type being URB-6, with 64 tons, as opposed to URB-1
and waterproofing and URB-3, each with 79 tons. When taking both waste categories
viii Roofing viii Gas network
into account, the worst results (more hazardous waste) are found
ix Wallcoverings or Siding ix Paving
x Signs and Equipment x Landscaping and treatment of for URB-1.
green areas As seen in Table 5, with reference to the waste from prospection
xi Urbanization xi Irrigation and water supply / of the first group (code 01 04 08), gravel and rock waste, there is a
watering network noteworthy increase of the order of 1500% in the 40-floor block
xii Waste management xii Urban furniture or street
(397 t) with respect to the detached homes (23 t), and this is inver-
xiii Quality control and testing xiii Road markings or signs sely proportional to the volumes of category 01 04 09; indeed, sand
xiv Health and safety and clay waste increases by 1140% in the single-standing single-
family units with respect to block 40. These results are logical
given that a more extensive (longitudinal) construction requires
less excavation depth; in comparison, the tall building needs a
3. Results
deep foundation in addition to the parking garages, meaning that
the surface materials will be of a clay-related nature.
The results obtained are divided into two groupings. The first
considers land excavation as a waste, whereas the second does
3.1.2. Waste generated in urban development
not. In both, the distinction between building and urban develop-
For urban development, just as for building construction, adopt-
ment is made.
ing the total weight of waste as the criterion, the optimal unit type
proved to be URB-6, the 40-floor block. In contrast, the one gener-
3.1. Considering land excavation ating the most waste was URB-1. In fact, the detached home gen-
erated 210.83% more waste than URB-6. Types URB-5, URB-4,
3.1.1. Waste generated by building URB-3 and URB-2 progressively produced more waste, from
With the results obtained for building waste, Table 4 shows that 106.16%, to 129.27%, 137.01% and 178.62% more, respectively.
the optimal building type is URB-5, corresponding to two buildings Table 6 shows all the waste products broken down into five
with 20 floors. These are global results, taking as a criterion the major groupings. These are: 01. Waste of prospection, extraction
type with the least weight of waste. According to Li et al. [30], from mines and quarries and physical and chemical treatment of
for a comparison of the amount of waste generated between differ- minerals; 15. Waste of containers; absorbent ones, cleaning cloths,
ent construction projects, is more feasible to compare the waste filtration materials, and protective clothing not specified in another
weight instead of the volume, because of the variations of the den- category; 17. Waste from construction and demolition (including
sity of mixed waste. Following URB-5, in order, would be URB-6, land excavated from contaminated zones); and 20. Municipal
with a very similar percentage, and then URB-4, URB-3, URB-1 waste (domestic waste and degradable waste from commerce,
and, finally, URB-2. According to these results, it can be said in gen- industry and institutions), including the fractions collected
eral that the more extensive the building type, the greater the vol- selectively.
ume of building waste is generated. The least favorable case would The percentage that each waste represents against the whole,
be 300% more wasteful than the most favorable type. for each class, is similar for all six cases. Likewise, whether for
In Table 5, all the waste types generated in building are grouped urban development or building construction, for the optimal solu-
into 5 categories, corresponding to chapters 01, 08, 15, 17 and 20, tion land/soil (17 05 04) amounts to over 98% of the waste
although practically all (99%) correspond to chapter 17, relative to generated.
construction and demolition. The waste classified as code 17 05 04 The second most substantial waste generated in these works
(land and stone) are the most abundant, amounting to 93% for unit are the ones deriving from road/street-cleaning (248 t), followed
type URB-5, and 97% for type URB-2, of the total weight of waste. by cement (code 17 01 01; 158 t), sand and clays (01 04 09;
This grouping corresponds to the movement of land necessary 89 t), wooden containers (15 01 03; 62 t), tiles and ceramic mate-
for the construction, meaning that a less extensive building type rials (17 01 03; 57 t). Respectively, they represent 0.64%, 0.41%,
implies less land movement; hence the detached single-family unit 0.23%, 0.16% and 0.15% of the total. The remainder of the waste
and the semi-detached ones will present higher percentages. generated by urban development is below 0.1%. However, deserv-
For all the building types, the hazardous waste deriving from ing mention here is the case of hazardous waste, as only containers
building construction consistently revealed the prevalence of two with the remains of dangerous substances (15 01 10) constitute a
types: paint and varnish containing organic solvents or other dan- problem, with 0.01 t.
gerous substances (code 08 01 11); and containers having the
remains of hazardous substances or contact with them (code 15 3.2. Without excavated land
01 10). Both categories are a minor constituent of the total
(0.09%). Notwithstanding, their hazardous nature calls for the sep- As seen in the previous section, land/soil and stone (17 05 04)
arate careful study and treatment of such substances. represent most of the waste from both building construction and
Regarding paint waste, all the apartment buildings studied civil engineering works. Below we analyze the results excluding
(URB-3 to URB-6) gave virtually the same amount, some 10 tons from the scope of application soil and stones, in accordance with
(0.01%). The single family units gave diverse results: the detached RD 105/2008 [26], as long as the conditions stipulated are fulfilled.
566 M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

Table 3
Wastes from the LOW list affected in this study.

LOW code Waste Build. Urb.

01 04 Wastes from physical and chemical processing of non-metalliferous minerals
01 04 08 Waste gravel and crushed rocks other than those mentioned in 01 04 07 (*wastes containing hazardous substances from physical and X X
chemical processing of non-metalliferous minerals)
01 04 09 Waste sand and clays X X
01 04 13 Wastes from stone cutting and sawing other than those mentioned in 01 04 07 (*wastes containing hazardous substances from physical X
and chemical processing of non-metalliferous minerals)
08 01 Wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish
08 01 11* *
Waste paint and varnish containing organic solvents or other hazardous substances X
15 01 Packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste)
15 01 01 Paper and cardboard packaging X X
15 01 02 Plastic packaging X X
15 01 03 Wooden packaging X X
15 01 04 Metallic packaging X X
15 01 10* Packaging containing waste of or contaminated by hazardous substances X X
17 01 Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics
17 01 01 Concrete X X
17 01 02 Bricks X X
17 01 03 Tiles and ceramics X X
17 01 07 Mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06 (*mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, X X
bricks, tiles and ceramics containing hazardous substances)
17 02 Wood, glass and plastic
17 02 01 Wood X X
17 02 02 Glass X X
17 02 03 Plastic X X
17 03 Bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products
17 03 02 Bituminous mixtures other than those mentioned in 17 03 01 X
17 04 Metals (including their alloys)
17 04 01 Copper, bronze, brass X
17 04 02 Aluminum X
17 04 05 Iron and steel X X
17 04 11 Cables other than those mentioned in 17 04 10 (*cables containing oil, coal tar and other hazardous substances) X X
17 05 Soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites)
17 05 04 Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03 (*soil and stones containing hazardous substances) X X
17 06 Insulation materials and asbestos-containing construction materials
17 06 04 Insulation materials other than those mentioned in 17 06 01(*insulation materials containing asbestos)and 17 06 03 (*other insulation X X
materials consisting of or containing hazardous substances)
17 08 Gypsum-based construction material
17 08 02 Gypsum-based construction materials other than those mentioned in 17 08 01(*gypsum-based construction materials contaminated with X
hazardous substances)
17 09 Other construction and demolition wastes
17 09 04 Mixed construction and demolition wastes other than those mentioned in 17 09 01 (*construction and demolition wastes containing X X
mercury), 17 09 02 (*construction and demolition wastes containing PCB (for example PCB-containing sealants, PCB-containing resin-
based floorings, PCB-containing sealed glazing units, PCB-containing capacitors) and 17 09 03(*other construction and demolition wastes
(including mixed wastes) containing hazardous substances)
20 03 Other municipal wastes
20 03 03 Street-cleaning waste X X
Hazardous Build..: Concerning Building; Urb.:Concerning urbanization.

Table 4
Total wastes for the housing development profiles.


Housing profile Detached Semi-detached Block 5 Block 10 Block 20 Block 40
Number of buildings 225 65 8 4 2 1
Building surface (m2) 307 1,144 7,592 15,185 30,369 60,739
Waste (t/m2) 3.47 4.19 2.01 1.82 1.72 1.71
With 17 05 04
Building construction wastes (t) 159,710.18 198,702.69 92,400.81 83,161.86 78,918.84 79,818.84
% in regards to the optimum 102.37% 151.78% 17.08% 5.38% 0.00% 0.41%
Civil engineering works (t) 13,808.58 10,564.89 8,221.99 7,646.11 6,870.65 5,914.77
% in regards to the optimum 110.83% 109.19% 39.75% 14.40% 6.93% 0.00%
Total construction wastes (t) 173,518.76 209,267.58 100,622.80 90,807.97 85,789.49 85,733.61
% in regards to the optimum 102.39% 144.09% 17.37% 5.92% 0.07% 0.00%
M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570 567

Table 5
Building waste.

LOW code 01 08 15 17 20 Total

Wastes from treatment of minerals Waste from MFSU Waste packaging Construction and demolition wastes Municipal wastes
URB-1 198,202 11,328 78,861 158,587,896 833,893 159,710,180
(0.12%) (0.01%) (0.05%) (99.30%) (0.52%) (100%)
URB-2 122,969 3,943 67,541 198,067,963 440,274 198,702,691
(0.06%) (0.01%) (0.03%) (99.68%) (0.22%) (100%)
URB-3 202,630 9,745 79,248 91,925,702 183,488 92,400,813
(0.22%) (0.01%) (0.09%) (99.49%) (0.20%) (100%)
URB-4 258,080 9,700 69,750 82,732,589 91,744 83,161,863
(0.31%) (0.01%) (0.08%) (99.48%) (0.11%) (100%)
URB-5 402,421 10,074 66,113 78,394,364 45,872 78,918,844
(0.51%) (0.01%) (0.08%) (99.34%) (0.06%) (100%)
URB-6 397,440 9,667 64,373 78,746,045 22,936 79,240,460
(0.50%) (0.01%) (0.08%) (99.38%) (0.03%) (100%)

Measurement in tons; For more information see Table 3.

Table 6
Civil engineering work waste.

LOW code 01 15 17 20 Total

Wastes from treatment of minerals Waste packaging Construction and demolition wastes Municipal wastes
URB-1 278,569 236,324 80,741,801 450,096 81,706,791
(0.34%) (0.29%) (98.82%) (0.55%) (100%)
URB-2 298,273 235,580 80,087,744 450,096 81,071,693
(0.37%) (0.29%) (98.79%) (0.56%) (100%)
URB-3 110,011 140,558 53,615,003 293,190 54,158,763
(0.20%) (0.26%) (99.00%) (0.54%) (100%)
URB-4 103,280 72,572 43,866,434 293,190 44,335,476
(0.23%) (0.16%) (98.94%) (0.66%) (100%)
URB-5 92,726 63,051 40,990,377 293,190 41,439,345
(0.22%) (0.15%) (98.92%) (0.71%) (100%)
URB-6 90,078 62,681 38,353,878 247,625 38,754,262
(0.23%) (0.16%) (98.97%) (0.64%) (100%)

Measurement in tons; For more information see Table 3.

The waste generated, quantitatively, is the same as defined for the due to previous land clearing, followed by concrete (17 01 01)
section considering land as a waste; but the percentages will differ. (23%), sand and clay waste (01 04 09) (14%), wooden containers
As can be seen in Table 7, the optimal type of residential unit (15 01 03) (10%), and tiles and ceramic materials (17 01 03)
with regard to building waste is type URB-3 (5-floor apartment (8%). The rest (1/5) would be divided up as indicated in the
block), followed by URB-4, URB-6 and URB-5 at a slight distance, sub-graph of Fig. 3.
with types URB-2 and URB-1 showing substantial increases of
24.35% and 54.05%, respectively. 4. Discussion
When focusing on the waste from civil engineering works,
Table 7 reveals the optimal structure to be URB-6 (40-floor con- The results of our study make manifest the importance of con-
struction), followed by URB-5, URB-4, URB-3, URB-2 and, finally sidering (or not) the volume of land excavated when calculating
URB-1. This progression suggests that the greater extension of waste and its subsequent environmental impact, since quite differ-
the construction implies a greater amount of waste from urban ent conclusions can be drawn. This is true for residential buildings
development. There is an increase of 103.70% associated with the as well as for the developments, as clearly observed in Tables 4 and
detached single-family units as compared to the 40-floor block. 7.
Overall, the sum of waste generated by building construction In the stage of construction, and when land is excluded from
and civil works shows that the best solution is URB-4 (Table 7), analysis, the most favorable option is URB-3, substantially better
corresponding to the 10-floor block. Yet similar percentages are than the other tall buildings (URB-4, URB-5, and URB-6). Neverthe-
obtained for URB-6, URB-3 and URB-5. In contrast, URB-2 obtains less, when land is included in the equation, the volume of waste
a value of 31.85%, and the least favorable is URB-1, with 57.08%. generated is greater for low, linear buildings. This owes to the fact
On the one hand, the waste produced by building residential that more buildings are needed to cover the total built surface;
units is found to be optimal in global terms, for URB-4, or block consequently, the volume of land extracted is greater.
10; and as seen in Fig. 2, there are various waste components that In the case of developments, the best results are observed for
constitute most of the global value. More than half correspond to URB-6, regardless of whether land is considered or not. This would
bricks (17 01 02) (32%) and concrete (17 01 01) (27%), followed be because this option calls for fewer roadways, hence less sur-
by chalk-based construction materials (17 08 02) (11%), and mix- rounding pavement.
tures of concrete, brick, tiles and ceramic materials (17 01 07) The global balance thus highlights one or another option as the
(9%). These wastes stand as 4/5 of the total. The remaining 1/5 best, in terms of the volume of waste generated, depending on
can be broken down into lesser percentages, as illustrated in Fig. 2. whether land/soil was considered. This is an important point, to
In the context of civil works, however, the waste generated is be stressed here and addressed later on.
far different. This is reflected in Fig. 3. Approximately 4/5 of the The data obtained and exposed in this study clearly indicated
waste comes from road/street-cleaning (20 03 03) (40%), mostly that the single-family unitsdetached or notare the option gen-
568 M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

Table 7
Total wastes for the housing development profiles. Without 17 05 04 Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03 (See Table 3).


Housing profile Detached Semi-detached Block 5 Block 10 Block 20 Block 40
Number of buildings 225 65 8 4 2 1
Building surface (m2) 307 1,144 7,592 15,185 30,369 60,739
Waste (t/m2) 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11
Without 17 05 04
Building construction wastes (t) 7,588.89 6,125.89 4,926.34 4,941.24 5,282.33 5,071.66
% in regards to the optimum 54.05% 24.35% 0.00% 0.30% 7.23% 2.95%
Civil engineering works (t) 1,330.07 1,360.39 811.79 736.75 708.47 652.95
% in regards to the optimum 103.70% 108.35% 24.33% 12.83% 8.50% 0.00%
Total construction wastes (t) 8,918.96 7,486.29 5,738.13 5,677.99 5,990.79 5,724.61
% in regards to the optimum 57.08% 31.85% 1.06% 0.00% 5.51% 0.82%

Fig. 2. % Building construction waste.

erating more waste overall (up to 144% more when land/soil is The developmental work on a lot for residential use, with a
included as a criterion). Considering results reported elsewhere building and the type and volume of waste generated, are an
[22], in which the CO2 emissions deriving from the stage of con- intrinsic part of the need to give the building proper conditions
struction of single-family homes were shown to be higher than for dwelling, so that the building will fulfill the function for which
those from block apartment buildings, it can be said that single- it was meant. The results of our study demonstrate that the volume
family units are associated with a greater environmental impact of waste produced during the developmental stage depends largely
during their Life Cycle. on the urban plan chosen, and has substantial impact on the total
The results obtained in other studies showed that the CO2 emis- waste figures: anywhere between 8% with land, and 18% without
sions of residential buildings can be reduced by 95% respectively land. Therefore, the Life Cycle of a building should take into
when constructive solutions with low U-values and renewable account the work invested in developing the surrounding area.
energy are implemented [31,32]. Moreover the climatic zone is Although a number of previous studies quantify the waste gen-
an important factor in the calculation of CO2 emissions factor [33]. erated in the stage of building of residential buildings in Spain,
The findings put forth here demonstrate that an estimation of they tend to be carried out at the micro scale (a single building),
the waste generated in the construction stage of buildings includes or else a macro scale (a region or entire country) but without mak-
that deriving from the development of the lot, and the optimal ing distinctions among building typologies. Our research analyzes
building option is not the same as when such developmental the different types of residential units, while also including devel-
aspects are not considered. Moreover, our results show that the opmental work in the global calculations.
residential unit generating the least amount of waste (discounting In any of the possible evaluation scenarios, it is confirmed that
urban development) is the unit designated as URB-3 when land is the options entailing single-family units (whether detached or not)
excluded from the equation, and URB-5 when land is included. In mean a greater volume of waste, both for construction and for
turn, when the global evaluation takes in the waste deriving from development. The very definition of such residential units is asso-
development, the most beneficial option would be either URB-4 ciated with a high consumption of material and land allotment per
(excluding land) or URB-6 (including consideration of land). m2 built. Moreover, urban planning surrounding these options calls
M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570 569

Fig. 3. % Civil engineering waste.

for an extensive network of utility supply, and a comparatively vast Considering soil (17 05 04) as a building waste, the most favor-
surface of pavement. able residential solution is URB-5, while in terms of development it
In turn, buildings of a vertical nature allow for living surfaces would be URB-6. In global terms, the most favorable is URB-6, fol-
requiring a reduced quantity of construction materials, and there- lowed closely by URB-5 (increase of 0.07%); in contrast, the least
fore show a more cost-effective approach in the use of materials. favorable are URB-2 and URB-1, their respective waste being
Likewise, by being more centralized, the networks of electric and 144% and 103% greater than the optimal solution.
water supply are shorter in length, and the paved surface of the When land/soil is not considered to constitute waste, the most
residential development is reduced. Determining the option with favorable building solution corresponds to URB-3, and the best
the least environmental impact will depend on the inclusion or developmental option is URB-6. In global terms, the optimal solu-
omission of land as a criterion of consideration. This is a very sig- tion is URB-4, followed in order by URB-6, URB-3 and URB-5, with
nificant finding. increases between 1% and 6%. The least favorable solutions are
Insofar as the classification of waste, our results are distorted the single-family units, URB-1 and URB-2, entailing respective
when land is considered. When excluding land, the most abundant increases of 57 and 32%.
waste overall in the building stage would consist of bricks and The waste generated during the stage of land movement is most
cement. During development, the predominant waste products significant in the stage of building for all the urban options,
are cement and waste from street cleaning. These findings are in amounting to 9397% of the total. Therefore, it would be advanta-
line with the results reported by Llatas [1], Cochram [5] and geous to treat it according to the specifications of RD 105/2008, so
Sols-Guzmn [34]. that it would cease to be considered as waste. Furthermore, these
This article underlines the need to evaluate, globally, the envi- findings make manifest the potential reduction of environmental
ronmental impact of a vast proportion of land, instead of evaluat- impact through re-utilization of the land excavated during the
ing many different building options individually. The volume of the building stage.
work and type of development can be viewed as a consequence of These results may be extrapolated and applied to planning pro-
the construction types planned to occupy a lot; in other words, cesses involving urban developments; or might even be used to
building design should be carried out in conjunction with develop- more precisely define essential building properties. They will
ment, not separately. As is shown here, considering the waste from hopefully prove useful, in the future, in the context of decision-
lot development can be a very important difference when deciding making or policy-creation by the competent authorities or agents.
on an optimal structural unit from the standpoint of waste reduc-
tion. It is therefore logical that the study of waste produced and the
Life Cycle Analysis of a building and a development be undertaken References
in coordinated fashion.
[1] C. Llatas, A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to
the European waste list, Waste Manag. 31 (6) (2011) 12611276.
5. Conclusions [2] K. Condeixa, A. Haddad, D. Boer, Life cycle impact assessment of masonry
system as inner walls: a case study in Brazil, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014)
This study compares building options based on diverse urban [3] Z. Wu, A.T.W. Yu, L. Shen, G. Liu, Quantifying construction and demolition
solutions for the respective lots, but with the same total surface, waste: an analytical review, Waste Manag. 34 (9) (2014) 16831692.
[4] M.M. Khasreen, P.F.G. Banfill, G.F. Menzies, Life-cycle assessment and the
and common criteria for building, design and development. The
environmental impact of buildings: a review, Sustainability 1 (3) (2009) 674
study features a novel approach, proposing that the evaluation of 701.
waste generated in the building stage should include not only [5] K.M. Cochran, T.G. Townsend, Estimating construction and demolition debris
the materials directly related with construction, but also those generation using a materials flow analysis approach, Waste Manag. 30 (11)
(2010) 22472254.
generated in the preparation and the developmental work sur- [6] T. Ding, J. Xiao, Estimation of building-related construction and demolition
rounding the lot where it is situated. waste in Shanghai, Waste Manag. 34 (11) (2014) 23272334.
570 M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

[7] P. Mercader-Moyano, A. Ramrez-de-Arellano-Agudo, Selective classification [22] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Jadraque, J. Roldn-Fontana, J. Ordez, Analysis of CO2
and quantification model of C&D waste from material resources consumed in emissions in the construction phase of single-family detached houses,
residential building construction, Waste Manag. Res. 31 (5) (2013) 458474. Sustainable Cities Soc. 12 (2014) 6368.
[8] S.K. Lachimpadi, J.J. Pereira, M.R. Taha, M. Mokhtar, Construction waste [23] CYPE Ingenieros S.A., CYPE 2014, 2014.
minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed [24] A. Coelho, J. de Brito, Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition
System and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings: a Malaysia case study, waste recycling plant in Portugal-Part I: energy consumption and CO2
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 68 (2012) 96103. emissions, Waste Manag. 33 (5) (2013) 12581267.
[9] A. Coelho, J. de Brito, Distribution of materials in construction and demolition [25] European Parliament and of the Council, Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of
waste in Portugal, Waste Manag. Res. 29 (8) (2011) 843853. waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
[10] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of a residential Council (Text with EEA relevance).
building with different envelopes and climates in Indian context, Appl. Energy [26] Government of Spain, Real Decreto 105/2008, de 1 de febrero, por el que se
89 (1) (2012) 193202. regula la produccin y gestin de los residuos de construccin y demolicin,
[11] O. Ortiz, C. Bonnet, J.C. Bruno, F. Castells, Sustainability based on LCM of 2008.
residential dwellings: a case study in Catalonia, Spain, Build. Environ. 44 (3) [27] Government of Spain, Ley 22/2011, de 28 de julio, de residuos y suelos
(2009) 584594. contaminados, 2011.
[12] O. Ortiz, J.C. Pasqualino, F. Castells, Environmental performance of [28] Council of the European Communities, Directiva 2006/21/CE del Parlamento
construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Europeo y del Consejo, de 15 de marzo de 2006, sobre la gestin de los
Catalonia, Spain, Waste Manag. 30 (4) (2010) 646654. residuos de industrias extractivas y por la que se modifica la Directiva 2004/
[13] Instituto Nacional de Estadstica [Online], Available: <>. 35/CE, 2006.
[14] Consejo Superior de Colegios de Arquitectos de Espaa [Online], Available: [29] G. of S. Ministerio de Fomento, Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2011, de 5 de
<>. septiembre, por el que se aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley de Puertos del
[15] Consejo General de la Arquitectura Tcnica de Espaa [Online], Available: Estado y de la Marina Mercante, 2011.
<>. [30] J. Li, Z. Ding, X. Mi, J. Wang, A model for estimating construction waste
[16] J. Roldn-Fontana, R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Jadraque-Gago, J. Ordez, generation index for building project in China, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74
Optimization of CO2 emissions in the design phases of urban planning, (2013) 2026.
based on geometric characteristics: a case study of a low-density urban area in [31] M. Carpio, A. Garca-Maraver, D.P. Ruiz, M. Martn-Morales, Impact of the
Spain, Sustainability Sci. (2015). envelope design of residential buildings on their acclimation energy demand,
[17] Ministerio de Obras Pblicas y Urbanismo Government of Spain, Real Decreto CO2 emissions and energy rating, WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 186 (2014) 387398.
2159/1978, de 23 de junio, por el que se establece el Reglamento del [32] M. Carpio, M. Zamorano, M. Costa, Impact of using biomass boilers on the
Planeamiento Urbanstico, 1978. energy rating and CO2 emissions of Iberian Peninsula residential buildings,
[18] Ministerio de la Vivienda Government of Spain, Ley del Suelo, 2008. Energy Build. 66 (2013) 732744.
[19] Ministerio de la Vivienda Government of Spain, Cdigo Tcnico de la [33] M. Carpio, J. Jdar, M.L. Rodguez, M. Zamorano, A proposed method based on
Edificacin (CTE), Real Decreto 314/2006 de 17 de marzo, vol. BOE 74, 2006, approximation and interpolation for determining climatic zones and its effect
pp. 1181611831 (Madrid). on energy demand and CO2 emissions from buildings, Energy Build. 87 (2015)
[20] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling 253264.
home in Scotland, Build. Environ. 42 (3) (2007) 13911394. [34] J. Sols-Guzmn, M. Marrero, M.V. Montes-Delgado, A. Ramrez-de-Arellano, A
[21] A. Varun, V. Sharma, Shree, H. Nautiyal, Life cycle environmental assessment Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste,
of an educational building in Northern India: a case study, Sustainable Cities Waste Manag. 29 (9) (2009) 25422548.
Soc. 4 (2012) 2228.