Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02230-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects

through the Environmental Economic Index
José Manuel Romo‑Orozco1 · Julio César Contreras‑Jiménez1 · José Ramón Corona‑Armenta2 ·
Luis Fernando Morales‑Mendoza3

Received: 14 May 2020 / Accepted: 29 October 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The construction industry has a relevant social and economic role and has become critical to improving global sustainability.
This industry contributes significantly to global C­ O2 emissions due to embodied energy and operating energy. There are
methodologies to assess them, but they lack integration with other variables such as safety and costs in buildings. These
methodologies are complex and costly in economic and human resources, accentuated in small-scale building projects. This
research proposes the Environmental Economic Index (EEI) to evaluate structural building projects and support decision-
making, based on a simplified method that exchanges parametric design and project management information without requir-
ing specialized knowledge. Its development was based on modeling different structures for the same building subjected to
several operational and lateral loads, with structural concrete and structural steel; the case study was developed in San Luis
Potosi, Mexico. The concrete structure with seismic actions had a better result when comparing it with the other structural
alternatives; for the same loads, the concrete structures were more economical; when modifying the loads to include seis-
mic actions, the costs had an increase that is not significant when compared with the potential losses. Concrete structures
would generate lower emissions and energy consumption quantified up to the construction stage regarding environmental
impacts. The contribution of this work is to develop a simplified methodology to evaluate structural projects in the design
phase, which integrates economic, environmental, and safety variables and supports decision-making by designers and real
estate developers.

* Julio César Contreras‑Jiménez

[email protected]
José Manuel Romo‑Orozco
[email protected]
1
Unidad Académica Multidisciplinaria Zona Media,
Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Carretera
San Ciro Km 4, El Carmen, CP. 79615 Rioverde,
San Luis Potosí, Mexico
2
Instituto de Ciencias Básicas E Ingeniería,
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo,
Carretera Pachuca ‑ Actopan Km. 4.5, Campo de Tiro,
CP. 42039 Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo, Mexico
3
Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Autónoma
de Yucatán, Periférico Norte Km 33.5, CP. 97203 Mérida,
Yucatán, Mexico

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

Graphical abstract

Goals

Stage 1
Development
Project Regulaons and
locave
condions

Stage 2

Arquitectural
Compliance and Structural
with state Project
limits Stage 3

Same structure,
different
models

Stage 4
Parametric
assessment Costs and
enviromental
impacts

Stage 5

Standardizaon

Comparisson Stage 6
by EEI
EEI for each
model

Keywords Building · Performance · Parametric evaluation · Environmental impacts · Structural optimization

Introduction energy-related Sustainable Development Goals of achieving

universal energy access (SDG 7), reducing the severe health
Buildings play a fundamental role in social development. impacts of air pollution (part of SDG 3), and addressing
However, the life cycle of a building generates negative climate change (SDG 13) (IEA 2019). Decarbonizing build-
externalities such as natural resources and energy, waste ings is also in line with SDG 9 targets to use resources more
generation during the construction process, and the useful efficiently through clean and green technologies and indus-
life of the building or infrastructure. In any building, the trial processes, SDG 12 to ensure sustainable production and
structure is essential to achieve adequate performance. At consumption patterns, as well as SDG 11 to support least
the beginning of the building design, the structural project developed countries in constructing sustainable and resilient
could provide adequate solutions without compromising buildings using local materials (United Nations 2020). The
its stability and reliable and safe use through suitable tech- IEA and ABC Global have developed a series of regional
niques and material properties. Achieving absolute safety roadmaps to identify priority actions and pathways specific
is a difficult task in structural design because eliminating to each region, including Latin America (GlobalABC/IEA/
failure risks involves high economic costs; there will always UNEP 2020a).
be the possibility of failure because its elimination could Globally, population growth and rapid urbanization will
increase the use of resources to avoid catastrophic events require capital investments in infrastructure. By 2060, the
with a low probability during the life cycle of the building. total building area will double, and more than 50% of this
In any case, the relationship between safety and structural area expects to double in the next 20 years (World Green
performance establishes a delicate link with economic, Building Council 2019). Besides, older buildings will
social, and environmental costs. require extensive and energy-efficient renovation, which
The building and construction sectors have become will contribute to increased embodied carbon. Buildings cur-
central to achieving the Paris Agreement and the United rently account for 28% of global energy-related ­CO2 emis-
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Goubran sions and 39% of emissions from the construction industry,
and Cucuzzella 2019). However, there is a need to increase including; 11% of building materials such as steel, cement,
the energy efficiency used in buildings by 3% each year. and glass (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP 2020b; 2 IEA 2019).
Reductions in emissions from buildings represent one-third Also, indirect emissions, i.e., those related to power gen-
of the total reductions needed to align with Sustainable eration for electricity and commercial heating, account for
Development Scenario 2. The above aims to achieve the most energy-related C ­ O2 emissions in the building sector.

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

Both reports point to the need for urgent action to reverse LCA and LCC can determine the viability of any build-
this trend. ing. Life cycle costing has the potential as an evaluation tool
Some parts of buildings and infrastructure are typically for building energy-related strategies. For example, Fotiou
responsible for most of the carbon emissions. Building ele- et al. (2019) designed an economic engineering model for
ments, such as foundations and structure, typically represent the European Union (EU) building sector, which includes
the most considerable contribution to embodied carbon due energy efficiency strategies and policies in the context of
to the large volumes of material they use and often contain long-term deep decarbonization. In other researches, simula-
carbon-intensive structural materials such as concrete, steel, tion models applied to a multifamily building apartment in
and masonry. Cement and steel manufacturing is responsible the USA show savings of 13.5% of the building cost using a
for about 14–16% of global carbon emissions (World Green combination of passive and active energy strategies (Hajare
Building Council 2019). However, recycling and reuse and Elwakil 2020). Dilsiz et al. (2019) analyzed, in a com-
reduce embodied carbon, as steel recycles without losing parative study between residential and commercial buildings
its physical qualities. in 23 countries, the embodied energy during the operation
The above suggests the need for effective policies and stage using simulations in most cases. The results confirmed
regulations covering the entire life cycle of buildings, that the energy use is concentrated in the operation stage
including design, development, operation, and end-of-life with an average of 72%. The reduction of greenhouse gas
stages, and act beyond site boundaries through the neighbor- emissions depends on the improvement of existing buildings,
hood and clean energy planning. and those changes in embodied energy are often obtained in
new buildings or with deep modernization strategies.
For repairs in situations without or with flooding affect-
ing the building, Balasbaneh et al. (2019) studied five types
Evaluating life cycle of buildings of building materials, including standard bricks, concrete
blocks, timber, and precast concrete frames, evaluated with
Estimating an entire material, product, or construction pro- a full LCA and LCC under non-flood, low-flood, and high-
ject's environmental impacts is key to supporting decision- flood conditions. The greenhouse gasses analysis showed
making to embodied carbon, water, and energy needs. Life that wood was the best choice for building construction,
cycle assessment (LCA) has become a globally accepted while in case of flooding, the precast concrete frame shows
method for assessing and communicating these environ- better performance by releasing less ­CO2 after the repair
mental impacts. International standards ISO 14044:2006 stage. In Turkey, Güleroğlu et al. (2020) evaluated the poten-
(International Organization for Standardization 2020a) and tial for energy savings, the seismic behavior of the struc-
EN15804 (European Committee for Standardization 2020) ture, and rehabilitation costs, focusing on historical build-
exist for using LCA and communicating the results in Envi- ings with sociocultural value. Various renovation strategies
ronmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Several national were analyzed through simulations and the application of
and regional online databases were developed, facilitating the LCC, and it concluded that the implementation of new
standard methodologies and application protocols for gen- conditioning systems, as well as the inclusion of walls that
erating environmental declarations (EPDs) of construction fulfill the function of isolating and reinforcing the structure,
products among participating members and products from are the most economic measures for improving the energy
the manufacturing sector. In an extensive study of 250 cases and seismic performance of this building.
applied to LCA in buildings, it was possible to develop LCA
models and general rules in this type of complex system
(Saade et al. 2020). Technology resources in the assessment
As for the economic analysis of a building, there are tools of building life cycle
such as the life cycle cost (LCC). LCC is a method used
to evaluate the expected building economic performance The application of LCA and LCC is fundamental in the con-
throughout its life cycle: the design and construction of the struction industry to make it more sustainable. Still, their
building, the operation and maintenance of the building, and implementation requires different kinds of resources. The
the costs associated with the building's disposal at the end of technological tools used in the project development support
its life cycle. The international standard ISO 15686-5:2017 the management and facilitate collaborative work, contrib-
(International Organization for Standardization 2020b) is for ute to the above. Angeles et al. (2019) linked the building's
using LCC, and it provides an orderly structure for break- potential geohazards to LCA using REVIT software in a case
ing down the components of the building's life cycle cost, study of an office building in Los Angeles. The findings note
including (1) cost of design and construction, (2) cost of that variations in energy use in a building are primarily due
operation, (3) cost of maintenance, and (4) end-of-life cost. to differences in the boundaries of the building's constituent

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

systems, geographic location, production processes, and LCC in the structural design of buildings is rare, mainly
measurement methods. Despite the above, risk analysis because the main objectives of a structural design are safety
integrated into the LCA facilitates decision-making, and it and economic optimization. Although the highest energy use
is essential to follow the path of innovation and information of a building is recorded in the operation phase, increasing
management to reduce the environmental impacts of build- energy efficiency requires attention to embodied energy from
ings significantly. Allacker et al. (2019) combined simula- the design phase of the building. Proposals for architects and
tion with LCA to assess EU building innovation initiatives' engineers to assess sustainability in the initial design phase
environmental impacts and benefits. Also, the software has include using more integrative approaches based on stand-
been designed, such as EcoGen 2.1, which provides differ- ardized indicators, identifying the most relevant parameters,
ent design options to increase energy efficiency considering and simplifying tools (Tabrizi and Brambilla 2019; Rahla
diverse bioclimatic and environmental requirements (Mar- et al. 2019).
sault and Torres 2019). Pučko et al. (2020) studied a school The application of LCA and LCC are fundamental in the
building in Slovenia, combined Archicad, REVIT, and Tekla construction industry, but their implementation remains lim-
Structure to analyze the energy balance through dynamic ited for various reasons. These methodologies face practical
simulation and economic evaluation of construction and problems such as poor perception of benefits by building
operation costs. In this case, the simplified presentation of owners, lack of reliable data, uncertainty associated with
costs facilitated decision-making on the most cost-effective assumptions on estimates, and scarcity of information on
and energy-efficient building components. cost, impacts, and building performances. In addition to the
In Korea, Kim et al. (2018) evaluated the renovation of imperfect understanding of the calculation methodologies
buildings considering environmental impacts and economic and their application, the above are critical barriers to wide-
viability, carrying out energy simulations through the BIM spread application in the building sector. Although LCA is
methodology (Building Information Modeling), obtain- a tool used in the construction sector, there is inconsistency
ing the energy-saving and financial variables to strengthen and unreliability in the results, often because the databases
the decision-making process. The BIM methodology was used for the calculations are based on cases with different
used with the LCC of sustainable building components. contexts. On the other hand, the ISO standard leaves optional
Mercader et al. (2019) analyzed a set of dwellings in Spain aspects and allows a subjective assessment (Cabeza et al.
built in reinforced concrete, including indicators of embod- 2014). A review of case studies on LCA in buildings showed
ied energy, ­CO2 emissions, construction waste, demolition, that many of them concentrate in developed countries, and
urban solid waste, and construction costs. Software REVIT, there are very few case studies outside them; there is even a
Presto, Medit, and the Andalusian Construction Cost Base lack of LCA studies in rural areas (Karaman 2018). Moreo-
(ACCD) integrated with BIM methodology. The most rel- ver, those case studies focus on low-energy buildings and
evant results were that steel generates lower impacts than are shown as model buildings. In Mexico, there is a lack of
concrete when considering the potential for recycling, national databases to estimate environmental impacts in the
and comparing the foundation with the superstructure, the construction industry, and manufacturers of building materi-
impacts are also lower in the former. The need to generalize als do not yet incorporate LCA, as is the case in developed
this type of methodologies, limited by the availability of countries (Centro Mario Molina 2014).
information, was recognized in its conclusions. On the other hand, the technological tools used in the
design and planning phase of buildings make information
management more efficient, facilitate collaborative work,
Gaps and research goals facilitate the detection of design improvements, and antici-
pate environmental risks and impacts, which reflected in
Considering the above, the importance of environmental greater project sustainability, but with high consumption of
aspects, such as embodied energy, resource consumption, human and economic resources, which makes them inac-
and carbon footprint, stands out in the construction sector cessible for small-scale projects. Despite the contribution of
and also observes that LCC and LCA continue to be imple- new technologies, they are weakly integrated when projects
mented in the sustainable construction sector, although to a are evaluated at the structural design stage, as is increasingly
lesser degree in small-scale buildings. The LCA and LCC demanded by current public policies. It is also essential to
methodologies become unfeasible for small building pro- consider that the fundamental building design and planning
jects in the early design stages due to the quality and avail- processes remain without the widespread incorporation of
ability of information and the need for complex tools for objectives other than structural optimization.
quantification. In addition, the circular economy concept Methodologies still need to be developed for the residen-
emphasizes the potential barriers to developing metrics to tial sector, where LCA and LCC implementation is ham-
quantify building sustainability. Also, applying LCA and pered by inconsistent data, lack of integrated technology,

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

and insufficient collaboration between stakeholders. A com- generated by the loads that the structure should theoretically
bination of strategies is currently needed to improve resource resist and multiplied by a factor that considers the probabil-
efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of buildings ity that the actions' negative effect will increase. Regulations
throughout their life cycle, including structural design. This define each factor's value, and in a way, it is a parameter
situation has led to new guidelines in public procurement, about the level of security that society is willing to pay. The
such as Directive 2014/24/EU, which requires architectural structural responses evaluate by a set of physical param-
modeling tools and the promotion of collaborative work (EU eters, such as vibrations and cracks, rupture and collapse,
2020). to describe the behavior of the various actions, or loads,
Therefore, this research presents a synthetic method to subject to during its lifetime. The actions identified as loads
select the optimal structural model by managing building are mainly due to the building's weight, purpose, and local
information, including safety parameters, costs, and envi- conditions such as wind and earthquakes.
ronmental impacts, generated by design and task planning Concerning the cost of a project, depending on the
software. The method especially useful in low information objectives and degree of precision that are necessary, there
contexts is embodied in the Environmental Economic Index are different methodologies to carry out the estimation; if
(EEI), which aggregates the parametric results of different these objectives are focused on establishing the viability,
structural options for the same building. The contributions comparing or analyzing the performance of different pro-
of this method are the integration and synthesis of structural, jects, the parametric method can be used (Cassanelli 2012).
economic, and environmental variables in a single data or This method is executed in the early stages of the project
index, which contributes to the decision-making of designers when information is scarce, and a high percentage of error
and real estate developers. Given the complexity of perform- is accepted; it is based on determining a series of critical
ing an LCA, a simple and economical alternative is pro- characteristics, called parameters, correlated with the cost
posed, not conditioned by the size of the building, to include of the project and based on them, obtaining an estimate of
the environmental variables in the structural design phase the final cost (Sánchez and Pérez 2008). The results generate
without including the operation phase. Finally, since there is quickly and with reduced work, but with limited precision,
little research in this line of work, this method can be used to its use in later project stages is not recommended because it
design public policies oriented to sustainability in the con- incorporates a greater degree of uncertainty and risk.
struction industry. In addition to the structural design, the It estimates the potential environmental impacts of con-
tasks were the calculation of the material execution costs of struction materials focused on ­CO2 emissions, waste gen-
the structure, the amount of waste, embodied energy, and the eration, and embedded energy. Natural resources were con-
carbon footprint generated at the end of the construction pro- sidered energy-efficient, but modern ones are more durable
cess, as well as the normalization and weighting of the above and require less maintenance. It is modeled with reinforced
parameters to obtain the EEI to support decision- making. concrete and structural steel, which are the most used con-
struction materials today; of these, concrete is the most com-
mercialized because it offers more advantages over other
materials (Reynaga et al. 2013).
Methodology A three-story building was designed architecturally and
structurally for the infrastructure of an educational institu-
The working hypothesis for the development of the EEI is tion located in a municipality in north–central Mexico to
that the information on functionality, costs, and environ- define the project's social objective. The architectural design
mental impact generated by the various technological tools was based on the REVIT v2018 software from AUTODESK
used in the design stage can integrate into synthetic data that (2018), and later, it was exchanged, in IFC format, to the
facilitates decision-making when analyzing different struc- structural calculation CYPECAD v2017.e software, devel-
tural proposals for a building. oped by the company CYPE (2017).
In this research, the relationship between security and The structural optimization was carried out with the
the economy is analyzed through the limit state method. CYPECAD v2017.e. Various proposals for the building
Most current structural design regulations are based on that structure modeled with it: the differences presented in the
method and focus directly on the criteria for ultimate load, combinations of actions to which it subjected, and the geom-
which states Eq. (1): etries and structural materials used. In the initial stage, the
design loads were gravity loads with the wind, and later
FR(AR) > FC(AS) (1)
the seismic action was included. These actions were applied
Inequality means that the structural element (AR) capac- to reinforced concrete or structural steel structural systems,
ity is multiplied by a reduction factor, a conservative value. resulting in six designs for the projected building; the para-
On the other side of the inequality, the internal forces (AS) metric evaluation of the various structural models generated

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

from the design program's worklists. The price bank con- This method is based on Sepúlveda (2008), which nor-
siders each work's specific characteristics to generate spe- malizes different source indicators and integrates them into
cific amounts for the project budgeted, resulting in material an index complemented with a radar diagram to represent
execution costs, direct costs (material, labor, tools), adjusted quantitatively and graphically the degree of performance
to the market; its catalog includes manufacturers and generic of a unit of analysis in each period. By integrating differ-
products. The version used was 2017, and the prices cor- ent parameters in the index, the general state of the unit of
respond to April of that year. analysis is represented; from the value assumed by each
The environmental impacts were also obtained with the variable or parameter, it is possible to establish its contri-
“Generador de Precios” software, as it allows accounting for bution to the general state, and at the same time, possible
each structural element, waste generated, embodied energy, imbalances between them presented. In general, the index
and ­CO2 emissions. According to the developers, the pro- provides an approximation of the degree of development
gram helps analyze the different phases of the building life of the different variables involved in the unit of analysis,
cycle, from preliminary studies, preliminary design, basic with the expectation of providing information for policy
and execution design, construction management and execu- design and investment. By definition, the value of the
tion, use and maintenance, demolition, and final recycling. index varies between 0 and 1. When it approaches unity,
The Spanish government agency validates the software the system performs better; conversely, when it approaches
that evaluates and certifies buildings' sustainability (CYPE 0, its performance is not adequate. A comparative analysis
2019). In this phase of the process, it is important to high- of a unit over time or of different units simultaneously can
light two points: In this study, the environmental assessment be made with this numerical value.
was carried out on the global warming category, using the In this case study, the index is called the Environmen-
carbon footprint technique, the generation of waste and the tal Economic Index (EEI) and applied in the analysis of
embodied energy during the construction phase of the struc- buildings at the design stage; its calculation compares dif-
ture; secondly, there are no databases for Mexico. Therefore, ferent structural models for the same building or, in other
the results of the environmental impact are based on data words, different units of analysis at the same time stage. If
from Spain. Consequently, the estimates can only indicate a comparison is established, the unit of analysis could be
the magnitude of ­CO2 emissions, embodied energy, and equivalent to the functional unit in the LCA.
waste generated by the construction activities of the build- In order to evaluate each structural option, the vari-
ing structure analyzed. ables, or analysis parameters, are previously defined. It is
Finally, the information from the design and project established whether they measure a state that, by modify-
management stages was standardized to integrate the IEE ing their value, is considered positive for the system or,
and evaluate the various structural models. This procedure on the contrary, this modification reflects a worse state.
starts with selecting the unit of analysis, in this case, the In general, an increase in the value of the variable results
different structural models, followed by the definition of the in an improvement of the system. The relationship is con-
dimensions and the parameters corresponding to each one. sidered direct or positive (+); if the increase in the value
Subsequently, thresholds are set for each parameter, infor- worsens the general state, the relationship is inverse or
mation from the software used in the design and project negative (−).
management stages, the values are normalized and finally In the EEI of a structural model, its parameters are
weighted to reflect their contribution to the system's overall grouped into dimensions weighted equally, following the
performance. In the weighting stage, as with other proce- triple bottom line (TBL) scheme since it includes social,
dures that incorporate performance analysis, such as LCA or economic, and environmental aspects. This process
multicriteria analysis (MCA), the decision-maker establishes requires standardization and determining the number of
the values based on his or her experience and context. parameters in each dimension, which should not be the
The method is for buildings at the structural design stage; same in each, although it is recommended to maintain a
only the material execution costs are incorporated in the certain balance.
index and the waste, emissions, and embodied energy gener- In their original form, the parameters that make up the
ated up to the construction phase of the structure. The calcu- dimensions of the index have multiple quantitative val-
lations are performed only once during the entire useful life ues and units of measurement, so they are normalized for
of the building and should not be viewed as a complete LCA aggregation and comparison. This procedure, which is fun-
or LCC of that building. The research used the following damental to the analysis, consists of transforming the value
parameters to construct the index: structural safety (social of each parameter to the same scale ranging from “0” to “1”
dimension), construction costs (economic dimension), by applying a sigmoid function of relativization. When the
waste, energy, and emissions (environmental dimension). parameters are positively related to the general state of the
The method in Fig. 1 integrates these different variables. structural model, the function is Eq. (2):

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

Fig. 1  EEI method

x−m maximum level. With this procedure, individual indexes

f (x) = (2)
M−m are obtained for each parameter; since each index fluctuates
If the parameters have an inverse relationship, the func- between “0” and “1,” it is now possible to compare them.
tion is modified according to Eq. (3) to maintain the same This comparison can establish which structural model will
properties. have the best performance in each parameter. As for the ori-
gin of each parameter, the values come from the informa-
x−M tion generated and exchanged in the design and construction
f (x) = (3)
m−M management programs used to model structures.
Subsequently, obtaining the index consists of calculat-
In the above equations, “x” is the value of the specific
ing the weighted average of the parameters, previously
parameter of a structure, “m” is the minimum value of the
relativized, of all the dimensions. Equation (4) is used to
parameter in the set of structures analyzed, and “M” is the
estimate the index per dimension.

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

1∑
n
Case study
ID = I (4)
n i=1 i
In research on the impact of buildings at different stages,
where “n” is the total number of parameters incorporated in a lack of information was detected at the local level, and
the dimension, and “I” is the parameter value. These indices in general, the difficulty of systematically incorporating
are weighted according to their importance and summed to environmental variables in the structural design stage. The
obtain the EEI, as shown in Eq. (5). LCA and LCC, as methods widely used for this purpose,
m (
have difficulties to be applied when dealing with medium
𝛽j
)
or small buildings due to the high demand for special-
∑ ∑
EEI = Fp f (x) =
100 Dj
I (5)
j=1 ized resources; this situation is particularly accentuated
in small cities and suburban areas, as is the case of the
where βj weighting of the importance of dimension “j,” IDj Mexican locality chosen to develop this research. In these
performance index of dimension “j.” areas, it is frequent that the regulation that should govern
It is essential to mention that the term performance the building sector does not exist or show weaknesses in
is conceptualized differently from performance design, their application and follow-up, translating into designs
usually in structural engineering. Design for structural with low functional, economic, and environmental per-
performance includes acceptance criteria for the analysis formance. In addition, the needs of the real estate market
and design of structures, focusing on the most probable in these areas are generally met with buildings of limited
behavior, controlling structural and non-structural dam- dimensions intended for housing and, to a lesser extent, for
age, and the safety levels required when the soil transmits commercial buildings, which may result in less investment
the seismic action. in design technology and project management.
The index results can be differentiated using a color This context justified developing a proxy method, sim-
scale and summarized in a graph, facilitating compara- ple to implement from the information generated by fre-
tive analysis since the imbalances between models and quently used technological tools, to incorporate the triple
parameters are displayed qualitatively and quantitatively. bottom line dimensions from the structural design stage.
The color scale proposed to describe the performance of It was decided to design the same building with different
each building is the following: materials and subject to different load combinations to
generate alternative units of analysis that could be com-
• Red(*): EEI < 0.2, Very low. pared before the construction stage and thus select the
• Orange(**): 0.2 ≤ EEI < 0.4, Low. one with the best overall performance. To carry out this
• Yellow(***): 0.4 ≤ EEI < 0.6, Regular. action, design and project management software was used
• Green(****): 0.6 ≤ EEI < 0.8, Acceptable. to exchange information through free format files or IFC,
• Blue(*****): 0.8 ≤ EEI ≤ 1.0 Very acceptable. thus increasing the efficiency of the process.
Due to their functional performance, housing structures
The complement to the IEE is the radar chart mentioned are usually resolved with a combination of masonry and
above. This element is the same multidimensional indica- rigid frames, generating a very reduced structural typology
tor that outlines the state of the system but graphically. that makes it challenging to observe the behavior of the
The surface generated represents the overall performance parameters of interest. For this reason, it was decided to
of the unit of analysis, the imbalances between dimensions design a building for commercial use; this type of building
and parameters, and its possible conflict levels. With its usually has a larger surface area than a conventional dwell-
inclusion, it is possible to evaluate the performance of ing and requires larger clear spans to increase its function-
a unit to other units of analysis. In this graph, each axis ality. The stresses are usually more significant with these
represents an analysis variable and, by procedure, its val- features, which justifies analyzing various alternatives to
ues range from 0 to 1; 0 is equivalent to low performance solve the structure; in the proposed method, each alterna-
and 1 to the maximum, thus the more extensive and more tive is a unit of analysis with specific parameters. There-
homogeneous the area, the better the project analyzed fore, the basic unit of analysis was a three-story, roofed
(Sepúlveda, 2008). By representing the results obtained building with a total area of 6088 ­m2 that houses 220 park-
graphically, it is possible to observe the imbalances of the ing spaces for automobiles; other uses contemplated are
whole in a single image, which facilitates identifying the commercial spaces on the second floor and a gymnasium
improvable aspects of the structural project and the prior- on the third level. The architectural project proposed that
ity variables to carry out an efficient process with fewer the building be integrated into the existing infrastruc-
negative impacts. ture of a higher education center, and the users would be

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

With the logic of structural optimization and general

comparable parameters, it decided to implement a basic
structural system. The materials and geometric sections
were modified, and the normative loads can act probabil-
istically in this building. Depending on the technology and
arrangement of the construction materials, it was first mod-
Fig. 2  Architectural model for study case eled with reinforced concrete and then with structural steel.
Other options, such as precast concrete elements, which
could function optimally in this type of building, were dis-
students and academics. The site chosen is the Zona Media carded because they were unavailable locally, significantly
Campus of the UASLP, in Rioverde, San Luis Potosí; this modifying the cost and impact analysis results. The pro-
determines the functional and safety characteristics and posed structural system was rigid portal frames. The dif-
the market conditions, costs, and emissions. Pedestrian ferent models were generated by solving the structure with
access to the different building levels is provided by two two-way floor systems (waffle slabs) supported on reinforced
staircases, while vehicles access the building through concrete columns and beams or with one-way systems (steel
ramps in the central part of the building; these ramps deck) when the structure was designed with structural steel.
have the dual function of providing access and accom- In all models, the foundations were designed with surface
modating parking spaces. The commercial spaces, located elements, and other elements, such as walls, were not con-
on the first floor, are independent of the parking lot and sidered structural but permanent loads. With these modifica-
have access through the building's main facade. As design tions and handling the different load combinations indicated
actions, the weights of the different materials, the user in the chosen standards, the analyzed structures were:
load, and the wind were initially considered; in the second
stage, the earthquake was added as an accidental action, • Structure 1 (St_1): reinforced concrete model analyzed
obtaining some structural models with gravity loads plus without seismic action.
wind and others with gravity loads plus earthquake. This • Structure 2 (St_2): steel structural model, with tubular
design stage includes elaborating the architectural project columns, analyzed without seismic action.
carried out with REVIT v2018 software (Fig. 2) and its • Structure 3 (St_3): structural steel model, with composite
subsequent transfer, in IFC format, to CYPECAD v2017.e columns, analyzed without seismic action.
software to obtain the structural model. • Structure 4 (St_1S): reinforced concrete model analyzed
In the regulatory and safety aspect, the official website of with seismic action.
the Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres of the Gov- • Structure 5 (St_2S): structural steel model, with tubular
ernment of Mexico (CENAPRED 2019) recognizes that this columns, analyzed with seismic action.
country is the only one in Latin America that does not have • Structure 6 (St_3S): structural steel model, with col-
a building regulation at the national level. Article 115 of the umns formed by composite pieces, analyzed with seismic
Mexican Constitution (Diario Oficial de la Federación 2021) action.
interprets that each municipality has the attribution to issue
its own, a task pending in various country localities. On the For example, Figs. 3 and 4 show the models designed
website of the Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Estructural, with reinforced concrete and structural steel structures,
A.C. (SMIE 2021), it can be seen that, in the case of the respectively; the design loads for both models were gravi-
state of San Luis Potosí, there are only regulations for the tational and wind.
municipality of the same name, which is the state capital,
and that the remaining 57 municipalities do not have regula-
tions defining the necessary structural criteria.
Given the lack of regulatory definition at the local level,
the codes used to design the proposed building were devel-
oped by American Concrete Institute (2011), American
Institute of Steel Construction (2010), American Society
of Civil Engineers (2010), and Comisión Federal de Elec-
tricidad (2008a, 2008b). Local authorities recognize these
codes and manuals, so their application is valid. The first
two indicate the criteria for compliance with limit states in
the various building components, while the other codes were
used to configure the design loads. Fig. 3  Structural model in reinforced concrete (St_1)

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

tooling) are estimated using the “Generador de Precios”

module of the CYPE software. This module also allows the
environmental assessment of the buildings up to the con-
struction phase. This information is a fundamental input for
the IEE: its calculation is based on the parametric estimation
of the total environmental costs and impacts obtained from
the multiplication of the different volumes of work by the
corresponding impact factor and their subsequent normaliza-
tion. It is essential to highlight that the estimates presented
Fig. 4  Structural model in steel model, with composite columns can only be considered as indicative due to two aspects: in
(St_3)
the research, the environmental assessment was only carried
out using the carbon footprint technique, the estimation of
Although all models comply with the limit states, the waste and embodied energy; secondly, there are no databases
safety of structures St_1S, St_2S, and St_3S is more signifi- for Mexico, so the results of the environmental impact are
cant. Only gravity loads plus wind are included in the first based on data from Spain.
three models (St_1, St_2, and St_3). In contrast, the wind Also, the parametric estimates cover from the material
load replaced by the massive seismic force and small height extraction phase (A1) to the product installation and con-
structures in the following three is usually more significant struction phase (A5), which are defined by ISO 14044:2006
in magnitude. (International Organization for Standardization 2020a). Both
Depending on the actions and characteristics of the soil, costs and emissions have been estimated from the corre-
the foundation is either of the surface types with isolated sponding work unit. In the case of concrete, the costs and
footings and bonding elements or of continuous footings emissions obtained from the ­m3 placed on-site; the final
with strap and tie beams; in all cases, the superstructure result of the emissions and costs of each structural model
was resolved with rigid frames of beams and columns that is the aggregation of the products of each work unit by
comply with the limit states of failure and service. their respective volume. Consequently, since the method is
Elements of different dimensions, with rectangular col- applied in the design phase before decision-making, these
umns and beams, integrate the rigid reinforced concrete results are unique and have been calculated in the same time
frame structures. The floor system is a waffle slab with a phase for each structural model; this gives consistency to the
total cant of 40 cm (33 + 7); the casing is of expanded poly- comparison between them.
styrene (64 × 64 × 33 cm), and the ribs are 16 cm, cast “in
situ.” The concrete is exposed to a humid environment; its
resistance is 250 kg/cm2 and poured with pumping equip- Results and discussion
ment. As for the reinforcement steel, it will be prepared on-
site. The formwork systems, made of wood or metal, are Since the objective of the IEE is to compare different struc-
recoverable and amortizable in several uses, depending on tural options for the design of a building in a context of
whether they are used in foundations or the superstructure. scarce or incomplete information, it decided to estimate
In the steel structure, there are two solutions: In both costs and impacts using a parametric procedure. In this,
cases, the beams are simple “I” sections, but the columns the main elements of the structure related to their respec-
are double “I” sections in a box with a generic joint or sim- tive costs and impacts to obtain a total result with a prede-
ple circular tubular. As a floor system, a collaborating gal- fined margin of error. All the structural model parameters
vanized steel and a concrete sheet were chosen. For reasons were obtained from the work volumes generated by the
of economy, the use of profiles reduces to those facilitating CYPECAD design program and the costs and emissions
the making of connections. The cant beams that make up the volumes from the CYPE “Generador de Precios” module.
rigid frames established according to the critical sections The final costs and emissions for the construction phase of
since all the elements that contribute to a column standard- each structural model were calculated by multiplying the
ized to facilitate the transmission of forces and the material quantities of each work element obtained from CYPECAD
execution of the connection; another selection criterion was by the corresponding unit costs or volumes.
that the cant of the main beams should at least equal that of As an example of the parametric evaluation process
the secondary beams. This standardization of beams and described in more detail in the previous sections, Table 1
columns results in similar sections per floor and block. shows the results of the unit costs (Cost/m2) and environ-
Regarding costs and emissions, the parametric assessment mental impacts (waste, energy, and emissions/m2) for the
starts with the work lists generated by the design software. concrete building (total area = 6088 ­m2) subjected to grav-
The material execution costs or direct costs (material, labor, ity and wind loads (model St_1 in the Case Study) in the

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

Table 1  Costs and impacts in structure 1 (St_1): model with concrete building, without seismic strength
Element Cost $ Waste generated Energy consumption (MJ) Emissions ­CO2-eq (kg)
(Thou-
sands) Weight (kg) Volume (l) Manufacturing Construction Manufacturing Construction
A1–A2–A3 A4 A5 A1–A2–A3 A4 A5

Foundation
Pad foundation 612.4 3068 1943 1,343,104 18,602 14,760 118,009 1376 1100
Strap beams 518.0 2151 1365 1,166,815 13,834 5633 98,052 1024 425
Tie beams 131.8 649 391 307,937 3597 1,402 25,779 266 106
Subtotal 1262.2 5868 3699 2,817,857 36,034 21,794 241,840 2666 1630
Superstructure
Beams 2065.5 11,266 7395 3,599,401 48,345 99,856 312,983 3577 7433
Columns 801.5 4258 2348 1,785,489 20,854 30,474 149,974 1543 2270
Slabs 3339.5 17,376 11,787 5,986,715 135,833 99,096 486,262 10,049 7399
Subtotal 6206.5 32,899 21,530 11,371,605 205,032 229,426 949,219 15,170 17,102
Total 7468.7 38,768 25,229 14,189,462 241,066 251,221 1,191,059 17,836 18,732
Cost/m2 (Superstructure) $1,020
Waste and emissions/m2 5.4 3.5 1,868.0 33.7 37.7 155.9 2.5 2.8
Cost/m2 (Superstructure + Founda- $1,227
tion)
Waste, energy, and emissions/m2 6.4 4.1 2,330.9 39.6 41.3 195.7 2.9 3.1

A1 = Raw material supply

A2 = Transport to the manufacturer
A3 = Manufacturing
A4 = Transport to the building site
A5 = Construction and installation

construction phase. This table summarizes the parametric parking lot at 15 million pesos by 2017. By charging a 28%
estimation of costs and impacts of each structural component cost overrun factor to include indirect costs and profit, the
and their aggregation into two groups: the superstructure and final construction cost in that year was 19.2 million pesos,
the foundation. The former includes the beams and columns or $3,160/m2 (CMIC 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). In terms of
of the rigid frames and the slabs, while the latter includes the impacts, the initial phases corresponding to the manufac-
footings, strap beams, and tie beams. This aggregation also ture of construction materials produce the most significant
occurs according to the life cycle phases and the different impacts, and the material that generates the most emissions
construction activities to elaborate the structure; it requires is reinforcing steel.
reinforcing steel setting up, the preparation and pouring of Cost analysis of all structures shows that concrete struc-
concrete, and the preparation of formwork for each structural tures are the most economical. If the seismic load is con-
element. sidered, the structural safety is improved, and using the
For a parametric cost comparison, the total cost standard building techniques in the study area, represents
($7,468,700) was divided by the total area of the build- cost overruns that may not be significant (22%) compared
ing (6088 ­m2), resulting in a direct cost of $1227.00/m2. to potential losses (Fig. 5).
This procedure was also applied for the impacts. In general, Although significant local differences exist, these esti-
results will depend on the level of disaggregation that the mates are similar to those recently presented in their techni-
design program generates and the level of precision to be cal and economic analysis of various structural models for
achieved; in this case, the quantities of work were obtained buildings designed under the Ecuadorian normative (Guer-
for each structure element and subsequently grouped as men- rero 2019).
tioned above. Similarly, the results of the environmental impacts indi-
The estimated direct cost (7.5 million pesos) includes cate that most of the embodied energy and the C ­ O2 emis-
materials, labor, and tools; no installations, facades, parti- sions come from the production and transport of materials
tioning, or finishing include. For these buildings, the struc- to the site (over 90% in all cases); only a tiny fraction is
ture's cost is approximately 50–60% of the total, so con- used in the construction process. Likewise, the highest
servatively, we could estimate the total direct cost of the proportion corresponds to the dominant materials, which

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

Fig. 5  Direct building costs

­(m2)

in this analysis are concrete and steel, the latter generating Table 2  Comparison of model parameters
the most significant impacts. In terms of waste, concrete Parameters Waste generated Emissions ­CO2-eq (kg)
buildings generate up to 100% more than structural steel
buildings, but volumes generally are not the most relevant Weight (kg) Volume (l) Manufacturing Con-
struction
impacts (Table 2).
The above parameters, which individually are indicators A1–A2–A3 A4 A5
of each building's potential performance, when integrated as Concrete without seismic strength (St_1)
an index, facilitate the selection of the structural model that Structure/m2 5.4 3.5 156 2 3
will offer adequate functionality with less impact during its Total/m2 6.4 4.1 196 3 3
construction. Structure/m2 $1,019.54
The EEI built developing the same analysis for each of Total/m2 $1,226.87
the buildings. The weighting of each parameter made from Metal tubular columns without seismic strength (St_2)
the concept of sustainability and its three dimensions: safety Structure/m2 3.6 2.1 273 2 1
34%, costs 33%, and the remaining percentage distributed Total/m2 4.4 2.6 303 3 1
among the various environmental parameters, giving more Structure/m2 $1,839.80
weight to the component of the manufacture of materials Total/m2 $2,008.11
(A-1, A-2, and A-3) for its importance concerning the total Metal columns inbox without seismic strength (St_3)
dimension. These results also include the product's transpor- Structure/m2 3.8 2.2 286 3 1
tation stages (A-4) to the construction site and construction Total/m2 4.7 2.7 315 3 1
(A-5), but these are perhaps the most questionable since the Structure/m2 $1,858.12
geographic contexts and the construction procedures differ Total/m2 $2,020.01
and, consequently, modify the estimates. This undesirable Concrete under seismic strength (St_1S)
effect mitigates when all structures analyze in the same Structure/m2 6.6 4.2 3 3 3
context. Total/m2 8.7 5.6 276 4 4
The environmental dimension (EnD) integration based on Structure/m2 $1,265.15
its parameters is shown in Table 3. In the table, the param- Total/m2 $1,493.89
eters “Energy 1” and “Emission 1” correspond to the mate- Metal tubular columns under seismic strength (St_2S)
rial manufacturing stage, while “Energy 2” and “Emission Structure/m2 4.1 2.3 312 3 1
2” reflect the transportation and construction stages; due Total/m2 5.8 3.5 357 7 1
to the difference between the location where the impacts Structure/m2 $2,047.14
designed and where they evaluated, it was considered that Total/m2 $2,348.92
the contribution of the impacts in the transportation and Metal columns inbox under seismic strength (St_3S)
construction stages should be lower than in manufacturing. Structure/m2 5.3 3.0 423 4 1
The parameters of the materials manufacturing stage stated Total/m2 7.1 4.2 468 7 1
a weighting of 37.9%, transportation and construction stated 2
Structure/m $2,619.46
a weighting of 9.1% and 6.1% for waste. Total/m2 $2,933.02

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

Table 3  Impacts for each structural model

Weighting (%)
Without seismic forces Under seismic forces
Normalization
St_1 St_2 St_3 St_1S St_2S St_3S
Energy 1 (37.9) 2331 4004 4160 3275 4685 6205
f(x) 1 0.57 0.53 0.76 0.39 0
Energy 2 (9.1) 81 48 51 102 96 108
f(x) 0.46 1 0.94 0.11 0.2 0
Emission 1 (37.9) 196 303 315 276 357 468
f(x) 1 0.61 0.56 0.71 0.41 0
Emission 2 (9.1) 6 4 4 8 8 9
f(x) 0.53 1 0.95 0.22 0.18 0
Waste (6.1) 6 4 5 9 6 7
f(x) 0.55 1 0.95 0 0.68 0.38
Impacts f (x) 0.88 0.69 0.64 0.59 0.38 0.02
***** **** **** *** ** *
Very acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Regular Low Very low

Table 4  Environmental Economic Index (EEI) for each structural model

Weighting (%) Normalization Without seismic forces Under seismic forces

St_1 St_2 St_3 St_1S St_2S St_3S

Safety (SD) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
f(x) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Costs (CD) 1227 2008 2020 1494 2349 2933
f(x) 1.00 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.34 0.00
Impacts (EnD: f(x)) 0.88 0.69 0.64 0.59 0.38 0.02
Environmental Economic Index
0.62 0.41 0.39 0.81 0.58 0.35
(EEI)
**** *** ** ***** *** **
Acceptable Regular Low Very acceptable Regular Low

The analysis of impacts (EnD) indicates that the struc-

tural models designed without seismic force (St_1, St_2, and
St_3) have a better environmental performance because they
generate fewer impacts than those designed to resist seismic
actions since they generally require a more reinforced sec-
tion. In more detail, reinforced concrete models incorpo-
rate less energy and generate less ­CO2 emissions during the
procurement of materials but are more polluting when the
construction processes are carried out. Likewise, structural
steel models generate fewer impacts during the construction
phase because they involve fewer processes to materialize
the structure and, in addition to involving greater technifica- Fig. 6  EEI, including phase A-4
tion, they generate less waste.
By normalizing the environmental parameters in the disadvantages are that the constructive processes are more
dimension of Impacts, the performance of each struc- elaborated. Its emissions and remainders are greater than
tural model, measured with the EEI, can be seen below structural steel. On the opposite side is the steel structure
(Table 4). The EEI values of each structural model showed with composite profiles: higher costs and high generation of
that the structure that presents a very acceptable result is both waste and emissions in all construction stages.
the reinforced concrete one submitted to seismic load. At The overall performance of the different structural sys-
an economical cost, its security is high; obtaining its mate- tems, measured in Table 4 and synthesized in the EEI,
rials implies less energy consumption and emissions; its is shown in the radar graph in Fig. 6. It compares and

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

visualizes the performance of each structural model in terms in a range defined as “Very acceptable” (SD: f(x) = 1.00;
of the dimensions of safety (SD), costs (CD), and environ- CD: f(x) = 0.84), while its environmental performance is
mental impacts (EnD). “Regular” (EnD: f(x) = 0.59). At the opposite extreme is the
The results obtained are dimensionless due to the nor- structural steel model of composite parts subjected to seis-
malization, weighting, and aggregation process subjected to mic loading (St_3S), since its general performance is “Low”
the information from different sources. Figure facilitates the (EEI = 0.35); despite having a “Very acceptable” safety (SD:
detection of imbalances between models and the contribu- f(x) = 1.00), it is the most expensive (CD: f(x) = 0.00). It gen-
tion of each dimension to the overall performance. erates comparatively more impacts, which translates into a
In Fig. 6, the model represented with the yellow line “Very low” environmental performance (EnD: f(x) = 0.02).
has a larger surface area and consequently a better over- Because of its performance in the two dimensions analyzed,
all performance (Table 4). With a value of EEI = 0.81, its surface appears a vertical line in green.
obtained with Eq. (5), the reinforced concrete structural The performance of the different structural models can
system subjected to seismic forces (model St_1S) is the compare in greater detail in Figs. 7, and 8. In Fig. 6, the
optimum for this case study. The parameters weighted by axes represent the three weighted dimensions, and the areas
Eqs. (2), (3) and (4) indicate that safety and costs achieved represent the overall performance of each model through

Fig. 7  EEI, including phase A-4 NORMALIZED ENVIROMENTAL AND

ECONOMIC INDEX (EEI)
St_1 Safety
1.00
0.80 Costs
0.60
St_3S St_2 Waste (kg/m²)
0.40
0.20 Energy in manufacturing (MJ/m²)

0.00 Energy in construction (MJ/m²)

Emissions CO2 in manufacturing

(kg/m²)
St_2S St_3 Emissions CO2 in construction (kg/m²)

Normalized index

St_1S

Fig. 8  EEI without phase A-4 NORMALIZED ENVIROMENTAL AND

ECONOMIC INDEX (EEI) WITHOUT A-4 STAGE
St_1 Safety
1.00
0.80 Costs
0.60
St_3S St_2 Waste (kg/m²)
0.40
0.20
Energy in manufacturing (MJ/m²)

0.00 Energy in construction (MJ/m²)

Emissions CO2 in manufacturing

(kg/m²)
St_2S St_3 Emissions CO2 in construction (kg/m²)

Normalized index

St_1S

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

the EEI. Now, the axes represent structural models; on its effect is decisive, so its effect in the context of local con-
these axes, the values of parameter or dimension analyzed struction processes will have to be analyzed in more detail.
are indicated, and the value of the EEI. Figure 7 is obtained In general, based on the results of the EEI, it could be
by combining the information in Table 3, where each struc- determined that for buildings similar to the one analyzed
tural model's environmental parameters [Eq. (2), (3), and and in the proposed regional context, the optimal structural
(4)] are normalized and weighted, with Table 4, where the option is the use of reinforced concrete frames. However,
three dimensions of the general analysis are integrated into their massiveness implies a greater intensity of design
the EEI. This conjunction of parameters with dimensions actions, the economy in their costs, and the lower overall
was originated by adding to the conventional structural environmental impacts make them suitable.
optimization the environmental performance criteria: in
this case, in addition to safety and associated costs, several
environmental impacts originated by the fabrication and Conclusions
use of different structural materials are included, which are
weighted in a single dimension to simplify the estimation of Sustainability implies a balance between multiple variables
the EEI (Table 3). In this way, the performance concept of and the evaluation of different options. Therefore, the man-
each model is not equated to the delimited area as in Fig. 6. agement of building projects must consider the availability
Originating with the same information as in Fig. 6, the and quality of environmental resources in addition to func-
EEI results for each structural model do not change (St_1S, tional and economic conditions.
EEI = 0.81; St_3S, EEI = 0.35), but in Fig. 7, their over- The World Green Building Council (2019) highlights that
all performance can be compared in more detail. All the building structures often represent the most significant con-
models comply with the limit states and meet the safety tribution to embodied carbon. The urgency of implementing
standard requirements (SD), but the models designed to actions to reverse the negative impacts of the construction
resist seismic forces, indicated by the blue line, present a industry justifies an analysis, from the design and project
performance rated as “Very acceptable” in the face of their management stages, of aspects that go beyond functionality.
probable exposure to such forces. In terms of cost (CD), the However, for localities where most structural projects are
reinforced concrete models (St_1 and St_1S) show the best developed for small-scale residential and commercial build-
performance since, after normalization and weighting, they ings and lack contextualized information, the investment in
achieve a “Very acceptable” rating, and since seismic forces human and technological resources required to implement
included in the design of one of them (St_1S), they are struc- LCA and LCC seems unjustified.
turally optimal for the building under study. When analyz- The development of easy-to-implement and easy-to-inter-
ing the impacts (EnD) synthetically, the models designed pret methods is a valuable management alternative since they
without seismic forces present an “Acceptable” performance do not require the ideal conditions of conventional analysis
with structural steel (St_2 and St_3) and “Very acceptable” and evaluation methods. The primary use of the EEI index
in reinforced concrete (St_1); when analyzing the parame- lies in its simplicity of elaboration since it standardizes a
ters of the environmental dimension, the reinforced concrete set of parameters that are obtained from software frequently
models incorporate less energy and generate less ­CO2 emis- used in project design and management, a task that does
sions during the obtaining of the materials, but in general, not require specialized knowledge in impact assessment;
they are more polluting when the construction processes from this procedure, a reduced number of data and graphs
executed. are generated that facilitate the comparison between differ-
Figure 8 is obtained by performing the procedure already ent structural models. In addition, the proposed methodol-
described but eliminating phase A-4 of the life cycle in the ogy highlights the processes and materials that produce the
IEE calculation due to the lack of local information and highest potential costs and impacts during the construction
the imprecision resulting from extrapolating the current process and helps improve the management of the building
information. In this case, the structures with the best and in its initial phase.
worst results (seismic-resistant concrete, IEE = 0.80; steel In addition to helping investment decisions, the IEE
with composite sections, IEE = 0.39) are the same. How- could also improve public policies focused on construc-
ever, due to its safety and apparent constructive simplicity, tion. The mandatory incorporation of safety criteria more
the steel structure with simple parts (St_2S) that previously relevant to the local context and assessing impacts through
showed a “Regular” performance (EEI = 0.58) now reg- simplified technologies in the management of any building
isters an “Acceptable” result (EEI = 0.62) despite its cost project could be a technical measure that contributes to
(CD: f(x) = 0.34) and emissions (EnD: f(x) = 0.50). As for the increasing efficiency and mitigating the negative impacts
effect of the exclusion of phase A-4 in the EEI estimation, of this productive activity. When alternative methods,
the evidence gathered does not allow us to determine that such as EEI incorporate financial and energy parameters

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

based on simulation and collaborative work with a BIM constructive processes so that their handmade component
approach, the design process and decision-making are is reduced.
strengthened. In sum, this proposal contributes to reducing A limitation to the proposed methodology is inherent to
the impacts of buildings and the strategic actions of some any parametric evaluation since they have the weak point of
SDGs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. considering that the industrialization processes and the life
The results suggest that each improvement should focus cycles of the products are homogeneous in their levels of
on energy savings in construction, manufacturing, and uncertainty and risks and the work teams during the different
transportation of materials, prioritizing those with low stages involved. Therefore, it recommends that the results
embodied energy. The reduction of the total amount of of each product's carbon footprint be analyzed with reserve
embodied energy requires, in addition to economic and or obtained in another way because the databases of emis-
structural optimization, the use of local materials and sions are not local and are only a reference value; the same
mineral, organic, and construction waste. In industrial- happens with the waste generated and the embodied energy.
ized materials, optimization is associated with reducing Due to each project's location and material disposition, it
the weight of the material used per square meter of con- is advisable to analyze each of the variables' weighting. It
structed surface; for example, minimizing the components' is considered pertinent to adjust this weighting through a
sections or thicknesses, complying with the established sensitivity analysis that includes a more significant number
limit states. of cases.
After generating the IEE for each structural model for Finally, the EEI could contribute to the project's cost
this case study, the best performance structure has rigid management and estimate some of the environmental
reinforced concrete frames and bidirectional floor systems. impacts associated with the building processes, and it does
Although higher safety criteria include higher costs, between not solve all the problems that have to do with the critical
17 and 22%, it should not be forgotten that the structural analysis of the life cycle and the costing of this one. It is
design philosophy is optimization. In terms of carbon essential to reflect that it does not solve any problem itself
footprint, the manufacturing stage's best structural option or that its estimation may be inappropriate without technical
continues to be reinforced concrete, 30 to 40% lower than knowledge based on architectural, technical standards, struc-
the structural steel option. However, this ratio changed at tural safety, and building and environmental management.
the construction stage, where the difference between the This parametric evaluation method has special handling of
concrete option was 40% higher than the structural steel information, which is not a complete LCA or LCC study,
option. In a waste generation, the best option has always so it is not advisable to compare it with others exchanging
been the structural steel option. In this sense, it is essential information but not integrating it synthetically.
to develop and incorporate materials with better mechanical The possibility of continuing working in this line of
performance and more technical construction processes. For research appears initially in the discussion of the weighting
typical buildings in small urban areas, the optimal struc- to give to each parameter, as well as the number of param-
tural solutions in this research are similar to those obtained eters to be included in each dimension; the extension of
by Balasbaneh et al. (2019), since in both cases, it is con- parameters in the dimensions could cover the geotechnical
cluded that reinforced concrete rigid frames are a suitable properties of different soils in the same locality, soil–struc-
structural design option. However, as Mercader et al. (2019) ture interaction, recurrence time of instantaneous actions,
concluded, steel can be a viable alternative if it considers market conditions and risk, as well as financing and health
that this material generates lower impacts in the fabrication and safety costs, among others. In weighting, it is necessary
stage than concrete. to emphasize the differences in the logistics and construction
In terms of safety and depending on both the results processes of the locality where it is modeled and the one
obtained and the potential effects that accidental actions used as a reference to estimate the parameters. Considering
have, assuming higher standards through the mandatory that context was invariant and that the optimal structural
review of all buildings' seismic behavior is a measure that option was consistently concrete, it suggests reducing weight
seems necessary. This increase in performance demands, in to stages A-4 and A-5 in the assessment. In some cases,
any case, should also be reflected in new and better structural their definitive exclusion from the analysis until the analysis
systems, as well as in more efficient construction processes; information is generated for the specific location.
in this way, the attributes of the building are perfected with
cost overruns that are not excessive, thus fulfilling the pur-
pose of the structural design. Punctually, for the analyzed
References
buildings, the probable seismic actions can be controlled
using concrete structures since they have the lowest cost and Allacker K, Castellani V, Baldinelli G et al (2019) Energy simula-
embodied energy, but it would be advisable to improve the tion and LCA for macro-scale analysis of eco-innovations in the

13
A methodological approach to evaluate structural building projects through the Environmental…

housing stock. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:989–1008. https://​doi.​ ns-​core-​r ules-​for-​t he-​produ​ct-​categ​ory-​of-​const​r ucti​on-​produ​
org/​10.​1007/​s11367-​018-​1548-3 cts/. Accessed 10 Aug 2021
American Concrete Institute (2011) Building code requirements for Fotiou T, De Vita A, Capros P (2019) Economic-engineering model-
structural concrete (ACI 318–11) and commentary. American ling of the buildings sector to study the transition towards deep
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills decarbonisation in the EU. Energies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
American Institute of Steel Construction (2010) Specification for en121​42745
structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construc- GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP (Global Alliance for Buildings and Con-
tion, Chicago struction, International Energy Agency, and the United Nations
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010) Minimum design loads Environment Programme) (2020a) GlobalABC regional road-
for buildings and other structures ASCE standard ASCE/SEI map for buildings and construction in Latin America: towards a
7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings, and construction
Angeles K, Patsialis D, Kijewski-Correa T et al (2019) Advancing sector. IEA, Paris
resilient and sustainable buildings through a new normative GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP (Global Alliance for Buildings and Con-
workflow for integrated life-cycle assessments. In: International struction, International Energy Agency, and the United Nations
conference on sustainable infrastructure 2019: leading resilient Environment Programme) (2020b) GlobalABC roadmap for
communities through the 21st century. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​ buildings and construction: towards a zero-emission, efficient
97807​84482​650.​070 and resilient buildings, and construction sector. IEA, Paris
AUTODESK (2018) https://​w ww.​a utod​e sk.​m x/​p rodu​c ts/​r evit/. Goubran S, Cucuzzella C (2019) Integrating the sustainable develop-
Accessed 18 Mar 2018 ment goals in building projects. J Sustain Res. https://​doi.​org/​
Balasbaneh AT, Bin M, Gohari A (2019) Sustainable materials selec- 10.​20900/​jsr20​190010
tion based on flood damage assessment for a building using Guerrero CD (2019) Análisis técnico y económico del diseño por
LCA and LCC. J Clean Prod 222:844–855. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ desempeño de edificios con estructura de acero utilizando arri-
1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​03.​005 ostramientos concéntricos. Revista Gaceta Técnica 20(1):41–
Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V, Pérez G, Castell A (2014) Life 59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13140/​RG.2.​2.​20052.​86409
cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) Güleroğlu SK, Karagüler ME, Kahraman I, Umdu ES (2020) Meth-
of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sustain- odological approach for performance assessment of historic
able Energy Rev 29:394–416. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​r ser.​ buildings based on seismic, energy and cost performance: a
2013.​08.​037 Mediterranean case. J Build Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​
Cassanelli A (2012) Proyectos de I+D, aplicación de metodologías de 2020.​101372
gestión de proyectos. Tercer Congreso Iberoamericano de Ing- Hajare A, Elwakil E (2020) Integration of life cycle cost analysis
eniería de Proyectos. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13140/​RG.2.​1.​4000.​6881 and energy simulation for building energy-efficient strategies
CENAPRED (2019) https://w ​ ww.g​ ob.m ​ x/c​ enapr​ ed/e​ s/a​ rticu​ los/q​ ue-e​ s-​ assessment. Sustain Cities Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scs.​
un-r​ eglam​ ento-d​ e-c​ onstr​ uccio​ n?i​ diom=e​ s. Accessed 14 Mar 2021 2020.​102293
Centro Mario Molina (2014) Análisis de Ciclo de Vida: Edificaciones. IEA (2019) World energy outlook 2019. IEA, Paris. https://​doi.​org/​
https://c​ entro​ mario​ molin​ a.o​ rg/w ​ p-c​ onten​ t/u​ pload​ s/2​ 014/0​ 1/A ​ CV-​ 10.​1787/​caf32​f3b-​en
edifi​cios-​comer​ciales.​pdf. Accessed 14 June 2021 International Organization for Standardization (2020a) ISO
Comisión Federal de Electricidad (2008a) Manual de Diseño de Obras 14044:2006 Environmental management-life cycle assessment-
Civiles por Viento. Comisión Federal de Electric, México D.F. requirements and guidelines (en). http://​www.​iso.​org/​iso/​home.​
Comisión Federal de Electricidad (2008b) Manual de Diseño de Obras html. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
Civiles por Sismo. Comisión Federal de Electric, México D. F. International Organization for Standardization (2020b) ISO 15686-
CMIC (2018a) http://​www.​cmic.​org.​mx/​comis​iones/​temat​icas/​costo​ 5:2017 (en) buildings and constructed assets—service-life plan-
syp/​indic​adore​sbm/​inpc.​htm. Accessed 13 Dec 2018 ning-Part 5: life-cycle costing. https://​www.​iso.​org/​obp/​ui/#​iso:​
CMIC (2018b) http://​www.​cmicp​uebla.​org.​mx/​secci​ones/?​se=​2729. std:​iso:​15686:-5:​ed-2:​v1:​en. Accessed 16 Aug 2020
Accessed 10 Dec 2018 Karaman S (2018) The limitations of LCA methodology towards
CMIC (2018c) http://​www.​cmic.​org.​mx/​comis​iones/​Temat​icas/​costo​ sustainable construction materials. In: Proc 3rd International
syp/​Costo​m2/​Bimsa/. Accessed 10 Dec 2018 sustainable buildings symposium. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
CYPE (2017) http://​www.​cype.​es. Accessed 5 Feb 2017 978-3-​319-​63709-9_8
CYPE (2019) http://​www.​cype.​es. Accessed 11 Apr 2019 Kim J-U, Hadadi OA, Kim H, Kim J (2018) Development of A
Diario Oficial de la Federación (2021). Constitución Política de los BIM-based maintenance decision-making framework for the
Estados Unidos Mexicanos. http://​www.​diput​ados.​gob.​mx/​Leyes​ optimization between energy efficiency and investment costs.
Biblio/​pdf/1_​280521.​pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2021 Sustainability. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su100​72480
Dilsiz AD, Felkner J, Habert G, Nagy Z (2019) Embodied versus Marsault X, Torres F (2019) An interactive and generative eco-
operational energy in residential and commercial buildings: where design tool for architects in the sketch phase. J Phys Conf Ser.
should we focus? J Phys Conf Ser 1343:012178. https://​doi.​org/​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1742-​6596/​1343/1/​012136
10.​1088/​1742-​6596/​1343/1/​012178 Mercader MP, Camporeale PE, Cózar-Cózar E (2019) Evaluación de
EU (2020) Directiva 2014/24/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Con- impacto ambiental mediante la introducción de indicadores a un
sejo de 26 de febrero de 2014 sobre contratación pública y por la modelo BIM de vivienda social. Hábitat Sustentable 9(2):78–
que se deroga la Directiva 2004/18/CE. https://​eur-​lex.​europa.​eu/​ 93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22320/​07190​700.​2019.​09.​02.​07
legal-​conte​nt/​ES/​TXT/​PDF/?​uri=​CELEX:​32014​L0024​&​from=​ Pučko Z, Maučec D, Šuman N (2020) Energy and Cost analysis
ES. Accessed 4 Sept 2020 of building envelope components using BIM: a systematic
European Committee for Standardization (2020). UNE EN approach. Energies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en131​02643
15804:2012+A2:2020 Sustainability of construction works— Rahla KM, Bragança L, Mateus R (2019) Obstacles and barriers for
environmental product declarations—core rules for the measuring building's circularity. In: IOP Conf Ser: earth and
product category of construction products. https:// ​ w ww.​ environmental science. IOP Publishing IOPScience. https://​doi.​
en-​s tand​a rd.​e u/​u ne-​e n-​1 5804-​2 012-​a 2-​2 020-​s usta​i nabi​l ity-​ org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​225/1/​012058/​pdf. Accessed 10 June
of- ​ c onst ​ r ucti ​ o n- ​ w orks- ​ e nvir ​ o nmen ​ t al- ​ p rodu ​ c t- ​ d ecla ​ r atio​ 2021

13
 J. M. Romo‑Orozco et al.

Reynaga N, González G, Robles J (2013) Análisis de ciclo de vida y Australia. Eur J Sustain Dev 8:383–396. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 4207/​
ecodiseño para la construcción en México. Universidad Autónoma ejsd.​2019.​v8n5p​383
de San Luis Potosí, México United Nations (2020) The sustainable development goals report 2020.
Saade MR, Guest G, Amor B (2020) Comparative whole building United Nations. https://u​ nstat​ s.u​ n.o​ rg/s​ dgs/r​ eport/2​ 020/T
​ he-S
​ usta​
LCAs: how far are our expectations from the documented evi- inable-​Devel​opment-​Goals-​Report-​2020.​pdf
dence? Build Environ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2019.​ World Green Building Council (2019) Bringing embodied carbon
106449 upfront—coordinated action for the building and construction
Sánchez P, Pérez P (2008) Método de estimación paramétrica de cos- sector to tackle embodied carbon. World Green Building Council
tos en construcción de viviendas de interés social. Ingeniería Website. https://​world​gbc.​org/​news-​media/​bring​ing-​embod​ied-​
12:51–59 carbon-​upfro​nt. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
Sepúlveda S (2008) Biograma: Metodología para estimar el nivel de
desarrollo sostenible de territorios. Instituto Interamericano para Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
la Agricultura, Costa Rica jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
SMIE (2021) https://​www.​smie.​org.​mx/​infor ​macion-​tecni​ca/​estad​os/​
regla​mentos-​const​rucci​on-​san-​luis-​potosi.​php. Accessed 14 Mar
2021
Tabrizi TB, Brambilla A (2019) Toward LCA-lite: a simplified tool
to easily apply LCA logic at the early design stage of building in

13