Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

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
a
Institute of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Austral University of Chile, Valdivia, Chile
b
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
Keywords:
for selecting cost-effective projects while environmentally friendly.
Construction
Demolition
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

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.061
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
strongly conditions the type and amount of waste generated [9],
little literature can be found in this respect. The typology and
quantity of waste generated vary across the different phase of
the buildings. In the phase of building construction, a greater vol-
ume of material and a vast proportion of the waste generated are
associated with the movement of land. During the phase of resi-
dential building use, the volume of waste generated is more closely
related with the tasks of maintenance, remodeling and reforms. In
the demolition stage great amounts of waste are produced overall,
yet especially if there are no recycling mechanisms involved [2].
Although the phase of use/occupation of buildings has the
greatest environmental impact, it is also necessary to carry out
studies that look into the rest of the stages [10]. A more detailed
understanding should facilitate the implantation of mechanisms
for a better management of waste, to ensure greater efficacy
[11,12].
At the same time, this paper presents a classification and quan-
tification of the waste generated during the stage of building for
urban/residential purposes, establishing diverse urban planning
scenarios, to compare results depending on the building type.
The three most common residential building typologies are ana-
lyzed, and a total of 6 scenarios are evaluated [1315]. For each
scenario, the level of waste generated during the phase of con-
struction was evaluated and a classification was carried out, con-
sidering as well the work of preparing the land for urban use.
The results obtained, together with the findings of a previous
related study on CO2 emissions for the same residential units
under the same conditions [16], can be interpreted as a compre-
hensive evaluation of the environmental impact of the construc-
tion phase of different urban planning options.
The aim of this paper is to study the production of waste in light
of diverse urban solutions, both in the urban planning and building
stages, as well as in global terms. To this end we studied six types
of housing projects through simulations, for different purposes but
with a common construction surface. Our study takes in the most
representative building types of the residential sector in Spain.
However, as non-standardized products, their properties depend
on the design criteria applied in each project [4]. Instating measures
for the reduction of environmental impact at the global level in a set
of buildings in the design stage is no easy task. Notwithstanding,
there is a dire need for the inclusion of urban planning criteria
aimed for sustainable design and development. Integrating such
measures in the design stage of a set of buildingseven if developed
in the framework of different projectsmay prove to be more effi-
cient and cost-effective in the end analysis.
2. Material and methods
In this section are described the urban solutions used; the description of con-
struction systems and quantification of materials; and the normative on waste
classification.
2.1. Urban solutions
In this study, a hypothetical total surface allotment of 100,000 m2 has been con-
sidered for designing different urban solutions. The plot to be urbanized was circu-
lar, distributed into:
 Built area. The buildable rate considered is 0.5 m2/m2 (roof/floor). Therefore, a
total of 50,000 m2 of land area would be occupied by residential buildings.
 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
use, commercial use, social use and sport installations use. Summing up, public
spaces represents the 12.87% of the plot area.
 Leisure space. The rest of the area is considered as free space.
According to previous studies [16], the most representative typologies of the
residential stock in Spain are studied: detached houses, semi-detached houses
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.
In the case of single-family houses, each house corresponds to one dwelling. In
the case of multi-family units, the built area corresponds to a set of dwellings. The
floor distribution is the same for all the multi-family cases, varying the number of
floors. For all the cases, one parking space per dwelling was to be situated under-
ground (the underground surface not counting as living space).
The six urban designs studied are:
 URB-1. Residential development with detached single-family units (2 floors
+ tower).
 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-
ground floor for parking.
 URB-4. Multi-family units, 4 blocks of 10-floor apt. buildings with two floors
underground for parking.
 URB-5. Multi-family units, 2 blocks of 20-floor units, with four underground
floors for parking.
 URB-6. Multi-family units, a block having 40 floors above ground and 8 under-
ground floors for parking.
Based on the initial premise that the above-ground built area was 50,000 m2,
each design had a different number of buildings. Also, the distribution of roads,
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.
Table 1 summarizes the building characteristics and urban features of the six urban
options designed. More information on the design of the six urban solutions and the
floor plans is given in a previous research [16].
Regarding normative purposes, the hypothetical plot of the study is located in
the city of Granada (Spain), under application of the so-called Land Law [18] and
the Technical Building Code (CTE) [19].
2.2. Description of construction systems and quantification of materials
Both the buildings as well as the civil infrastructures, were characterized with
the most common construction techniques and materials in Spain. The buildings
foundations were made of reinforced concrete slab. The structural framework was
composed of columns and waffle slabs, also made of reinforced concrete. Double
cavity brick walls, a traffic bearing roof as well as aluminum frame windows, com-
pose the rest of the elements of the envelope. Indoor finishes are composed of cera-
mic flooring and cavity brick partitions walls with plaster and painting layers.
Regarding the civil works, sidewalks are made of hydraulic flooring on mass
concrete and gravel subbase. Both the kerbs and water lines on the sidewalks are
composed of pieces of granite on a concrete base. The road network is composed
by two layers of asphaltic concrete on a base of artificial gravel and natural gravel.
Water supply system is composed of cast-iron pipe. In the case of sewage network,
it is composed of concrete piping for diameters greater than or equal to 0.6 m and
PVC piping for smaller diameters
The gas supply network is solved with HDPE pipeline. The electricity grid, light-
ing network and telecommunications network is solved by a PVC piping of variable
diameters according to the standard. The water supply system, sewage network and
gas supply network were placed on a bed of sand, whereas electricity network,
lighting and telecommunications were placed on a bed of concrete.
The materials involved in foundation and structure (mainly concrete, cement
and steel) are responsible of a great part of the environmental impact of housing
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
the six case studied.
In the stiffness method, the relation between the stresses and deformations of
the bar elements was assumed to be linear with six degree of freedom per node.
The relation between the stresses of each element and the displacement was based
on the equation f = K
D, where K is the stiffness matrix of the element, and D is the
displacements of the nodes. This calculations were performed with the software
program CYPECAD [23], under license by the University of Granada.
All the necessaries task for the construction of the buildings and the develop-
ment of civil infrastructures were grouped into construction work units, listed in
Table 2.
The materials involved in each task unit during the construction phase, were
quantified. More information on the quantification and distribution of materials
is given in a previous work [16]. The construction material quantification was the
basis for the estimation of the waste generated in the construction phase.
2.3. Normative on waste classification
Previous studies [24] regarding waste assessment on different stages of the
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-
taken with reference to the legislative framework of the European Union, specifi-
cally in view of the List of European Waste (LOW) [25].
 M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570
Fig. 1. Urban planning models.
In Spain, the Royal Decree 105/2008 [26] regulates the production and manage-
ment of construction and demolition waste. This Royal Decree establishes the legal
regimen for the production and management of waste produced through construc-
tion and demolition, in order to foment: (i) its prevention; (ii) re-utilization; (iii)
recycling and other forms of acquiring value; (iv) ensuring that the waste intended
for operations of elimination receives proper treatment to that end; and (v) to con-
tribute to a sustainable development of construction activity. This applies to the
waste from construction and demolition defined in Article 2 of the same document
[26], and to that defined in Article 3 of Law 22/2011 [27], on waste and contami-
nated land, with the following exceptions:
a) Land/soil and stone surfaces not contaminated by hazardous substances re-
utilized in the same construction work, in a different work, or in an activity
of restoration, conditioning or refill, whenever their re-utilization can be
properly accredited.
b) Waste from extractive industries regulated by European Directive 2006/21/
EC [28].
c) Non-hazardous mud dredged and relocated in the interior of surface waters
deriving from activities of water and navigable waterway management, for
the prevention of flooding or mitigation of the effects of floods or droughts,
regulated by Legislative Royal Decree 2/2011[29], by which the Refunded
Text of the Law of Ports of the State and Merchant Marine is ratified, as well
as the international treaties in which Spain takes part.
Even though land/soil is considered a waste, under RD 105/2008 [26] the lands
defined in section a) lie beyond the scope of application, whenever the conditions
563
described in this section prevail. The present study takes both options into account,
considering land and stone as waste, under RD 105/2008.
When establishing the classification of waste generated in the construction of
residential buildings to this end, two significant considerations were the stage of
construction underway, and waste identification in light of the LOW.
For each material, it was estimated the waste generated in the following stages:
the raw material supply; transport form the site of extraction; manufacture; trans-
port to the building site; construction/emplacement in situ.
According to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC [25], the LOW is meant to be a
reference nomenclature providing a common terminology throughout the European
Community, intended to improve the efficiency of waste management activities.
The LOW serves as a common encoding of waste characteristics for a broad variety
of purposes, such as the classification of hazardous wastes. Assignment of waste
codes has a major impact on the transport of waste, installation permits (usually
granted for the processing of specific waste codes), decisions about the recyclability
of waste, or as a basis for waste statistics. The LOW is divided into twenty chapters,
most of them industry-based, but some are based on materials and processes. Each
has a two-digit chapter code, from 01 to 20. Each chapter has one or more sub-
chapters, identified by four digit codes (the first two digits constituting the chapter
code). Within these sub-chapters there are more specific codes for individual waste
streams, for instance, which is assigned a six-digit code. Table 3 lists the wastes
identified in the present study, for the section on building, identified by their codes
and description, as well as the classification within their respective chapters and
subchapters. With reference to urban development, fewer wastes were identified,
all of them likewise classified under building. Table 3 shows the wastes present in
both sections.
 564
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
a
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-
furniture
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 WASTES RESULTING FROM EXPLORATION, MINING, QUARRYING, AND PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF MINERALS
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 WASTES FROM THE MANUFACTURE, FORMULATION, SUPPLY AND USE (MFSU) OF COATINGS (PAINTS, VARNISHES AND VITREOUS
ENAMELS), ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND PRINTING INKS
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 WASTE PACKAGING; ABSORBENTS, WIPING CLOTHS, FILTER MATERIALS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
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 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES (INCLUDING EXCAVATED SOIL FROM CONTAMINATED SITES)
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 MUNICIPAL WASTES (HOUSEHOLD WASTE AND SIMILAR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL WASTES) INCLUDING
SEPARATELY COLLECTED FRACTIONS
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.

URB-1 URB-2 URB-3 URB-4 URB-5 URB-6

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

URB-1 URB-2 URB-3 URB-4 URB-5 URB-6

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
included as a criterion). Considering results reported elsewhere
[22], in which the CO2 emissions deriving from the stage of con-
struction of single-family homes were shown to be higher than
those from block apartment buildings, it can be said that single-
family units are associated with a greater environmental impact
during their Life Cycle.
The results obtained in other studies showed that the CO2 emis-
sions of residential buildings can be reduced by 95% respectively
when constructive solutions with low U-values and renewable
energy are implemented [31,32]. Moreover the climatic zone is
an important factor in the calculation of CO2 emissions factor [33].
The findings put forth here demonstrate that an estimation of
the waste generated in the construction stage of buildings includes
that deriving from the development of the lot, and the optimal
building option is not the same as when such developmental
aspects are not considered. Moreover, our results show that the
residential unit generating the least amount of waste (discounting
urban development) is the unit designated as URB-3 when land is
excluded from the equation, and URB-5 when land is included. In
turn, when the global evaluation takes in the waste deriving from
development, the most beneficial option would be either URB-4
(excluding land) or URB-6 (including consideration of land).
The developmental work on a lot for residential use, with a
building and the type and volume of waste generated, are an
intrinsic part of the need to give the building proper conditions
for dwelling, so that the building will fulfill the function for which
it was meant. The results of our study demonstrate that the volume
of waste produced during the developmental stage depends largely
on the urban plan chosen, and has substantial impact on the total
waste figures: anywhere between 8% with land, and 18% without
land. Therefore, the Life Cycle of a building should take into
account the work invested in developing the surrounding area.
Although a number of previous studies quantify the waste gen-
erated in the stage of building of residential buildings in Spain,
they tend to be carried out at the micro scale (a single building),
or else a macro scale (a region or entire country) but without mak-
ing distinctions among building typologies. Our research analyzes
the different types of residential units, while also including devel-
opmental work in the global calculations.
In any of the possible evaluation scenarios, it is confirmed that
the options entailing single-family units (whether detached or not)
mean a greater volume of waste, both for construction and for
development. The very definition of such residential units is asso-
ciated with a high consumption of material and land allotment per
m2 built. Moreover, urban planning surrounding these options calls
 M. Carpio et al. / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 561570
Fig. 3. % Civil engineering waste.
for an extensive network of utility supply, and a comparatively vast
surface of pavement.
In turn, buildings of a vertical nature allow for living surfaces
requiring a reduced quantity of construction materials, and there-
fore show a more cost-effective approach in the use of materials.
Likewise, by being more centralized, the networks of electric and
water supply are shorter in length, and the paved surface of the
residential development is reduced. Determining the option with
the least environmental impact will depend on the inclusion or
omission of land as a criterion of consideration. This is a very sig-
nificant finding.
Insofar as the classification of waste, our results are distorted
when land is considered. When excluding land, the most abundant
waste overall in the building stage would consist of bricks and
cement. During development, the predominant waste products
are cement and waste from street cleaning. These findings are in
line with the results reported by Llatas [1], Cochram [5] and
Sols-Guzmn [34].
This article underlines the need to evaluate, globally, the envi-
ronmental impact of a vast proportion of land, instead of evaluat-
ing many different building options individually. The volume of the
work and type of development can be viewed as a consequence of
the construction types planned to occupy a lot; in other words,
building design should be carried out in conjunction with develop-
ment, not separately. As is shown here, considering the waste from
lot development can be a very important difference when deciding
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
in coordinated fashion.
5. Conclusions
This study compares building options based on diverse urban
solutions for the respective lots, but with the same total surface,
and common criteria for building, design and development. The
study features a novel approach, proposing that the evaluation of
waste generated in the building stage should include not only
the materials directly related with construction, but also those
generated in the preparation and the developmental work sur-
rounding the lot where it is situated.
569
Considering soil (17 05 04) as a building waste, the most favor-
able residential solution is URB-5, while in terms of development it
would be URB-6. In global terms, the most favorable is URB-6, fol-
lowed closely by URB-5 (increase of 0.07%); in contrast, the least
favorable are URB-2 and URB-1, their respective waste being
144% and 103% greater than the optimal solution.
When land/soil is not considered to constitute waste, the most
favorable building solution corresponds to URB-3, and the best
developmental option is URB-6. In global terms, the optimal solu-
tion is URB-4, followed in order by URB-6, URB-3 and URB-5, with
increases between 1% and 6%. The least favorable solutions are
the single-family units, URB-1 and URB-2, entailing respective
increases of 57 and 32%.
The waste generated during the stage of land movement is most
significant in the stage of building for all the urban options,
amounting to 9397% of the total. Therefore, it would be advanta-
geous to treat it according to the specifications of RD 105/2008, so
that it would cease to be considered as waste. Furthermore, these
findings make manifest the potential reduction of environmental
impact through re-utilization of the land excavated during the
building stage.
These results may be extrapolated and applied to planning pro-
cesses involving urban developments; or might even be used to
more precisely define essential building properties. They will
hopefully prove useful, in the future, in the context of decision-
making or policy-creation by the competent authorities or agents.
References
[1] C. Llatas, A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to
the European waste list, Waste Manag. 31 (6) (2011) 12611276.
[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)
141147.
[3] Z. Wu, A.T.W. Yu, L. Shen, G. Liu, Quantifying construction and demolition
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
environmental impact of buildings: a review, Sustainability 1 (3) (2009) 674
701.
[5] K.M. Cochran, T.G. Townsend, Estimating construction and demolition debris
generation using a materials flow analysis approach, Waste Manag. 30 (11)
(2010) 22472254.
[6] T. Ding, J. Xiao, Estimation of building-related construction and demolition
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
and quantification model of C&D waste from material resources consumed in
residential building construction, Waste Manag. Res. 31 (5) (2013) 458474.
[8] S.K. Lachimpadi, J.J. Pereira, M.R. Taha, M. Mokhtar, Construction waste
minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed
System and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings: a Malaysia case study,
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 68 (2012) 96103.
[9] A. Coelho, J. de Brito, Distribution of materials in construction and demolition
waste in Portugal, Waste Manag. Res. 29 (8) (2011) 843853.
[10] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of a residential
building with different envelopes and climates in Indian context, Appl. Energy
89 (1) (2012) 193202.
[11] O. Ortiz, C. Bonnet, J.C. Bruno, F. Castells, Sustainability based on LCM of
residential dwellings: a case study in Catalonia, Spain, Build. Environ. 44 (3)
(2009) 584594.
[12] O. Ortiz, J.C. Pasqualino, F. Castells, Environmental performance of
construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in
Catalonia, Spain, Waste Manag. 30 (4) (2010) 646654.
[13] Instituto Nacional de Estadstica [Online], Available: <http://www.ine.es>.
[14] Consejo Superior de Colegios de Arquitectos de Espaa [Online], Available:
<https://www.cscae.com>.
[15] Consejo General de la Arquitectura Tcnica de Espaa [Online], Available:
<http://www.cgate.es/>.
[16] J. Roldn-Fontana, R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Jadraque-Gago, J. Ordez,
Optimization of CO2 emissions in the design phases of urban planning,
based on geometric characteristics: a case study of a low-density urban area in
Spain, Sustainability Sci. (2015).
[17] Ministerio de Obras Pblicas y Urbanismo Government of Spain, Real Decreto
2159/1978, de 23 de junio, por el que se establece el Reglamento del
Planeamiento Urbanstico, 1978.
[18] Ministerio de la Vivienda Government of Spain, Ley del Suelo, 2008.
[19] Ministerio de la Vivienda Government of Spain, Cdigo Tcnico de la
Edificacin (CTE), Real Decreto 314/2006 de 17 de marzo, vol. BOE 74, 2006,
pp. 1181611831 (Madrid).
[20] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling
home in Scotland, Build. Environ. 42 (3) (2007) 13911394.
[21] A. Varun, V. Sharma, Shree, H. Nautiyal, Life cycle environmental assessment
of an educational building in Northern India: a case study, Sustainable Cities
Soc. 4 (2012) 2228.
[22] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Jadraque, J. Roldn-Fontana, J. Ordez, Analysis of CO2
emissions in the construction phase of single-family detached houses,
Sustainable Cities Soc. 12 (2014) 6368.
[23] CYPE Ingenieros S.A., CYPE 2014, 2014.
[24] A. Coelho, J. de Brito, Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition
waste recycling plant in Portugal-Part I: energy consumption and CO2
emissions, Waste Manag. 33 (5) (2013) 12581267.
[25] European Parliament and of the Council, Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of
waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council (Text with EEA relevance).
[26] Government of Spain, Real Decreto 105/2008, de 1 de febrero, por el que se
regula la produccin y gestin de los residuos de construccin y demolicin,
2008.
[27] Government of Spain, Ley 22/2011, de 28 de julio, de residuos y suelos
contaminados, 2011.
[28] Council of the European Communities, Directiva 2006/21/CE del Parlamento
Europeo y del Consejo, de 15 de marzo de 2006, sobre la gestin de los
residuos de industrias extractivas y por la que se modifica la Directiva 2004/
35/CE, 2006.
[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
Estado y de la Marina Mercante, 2011.
[30] J. Li, Z. Ding, X. Mi, J. Wang, A model for estimating construction waste
generation index for building project in China, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74
(2013) 2026.
[31] M. Carpio, A. Garca-Maraver, D.P. Ruiz, M. Martn-Morales, Impact of the
envelope design of residential buildings on their acclimation energy demand,
CO2 emissions and energy rating, WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 186 (2014) 387398.
[32] M. Carpio, M. Zamorano, M. Costa, Impact of using biomass boilers on the
energy rating and CO2 emissions of Iberian Peninsula residential buildings,
Energy Build. 66 (2013) 732744.
[33] M. Carpio, J. Jdar, M.L. Rodguez, M. Zamorano, A proposed method based on
approximation and interpolation for determining climatic zones and its effect
on energy demand and CO2 emissions from buildings, Energy Build. 87 (2015)
253264.
[34] J. Sols-Guzmn, M. Marrero, M.V. Montes-Delgado, A. Ramrez-de-Arellano, A
Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste,
Waste Manag. 29 (9) (2009) 25422548.