What question did this study set out to answer?

June 14, 2026Open Access

Comparative environmental assessment of conventional and designed for deconstruction steel-concrete composite floor structures

SMSnežana MarinkovićUniversidad de Granada IJIsidora JakovljevićUniversity of Belgrade NGNina GluhovićUniversity of Belgrade

Key Points

This study aims to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of two steel-concrete composite floor structures: conventional and designed for deconstruction.
Utilized life cycle assessment (LCA) to measure environmental impacts across two structural solutions.
Assessed two scenarios with differing steel production routes: average European technology mix and 100% scrap-EAF.
Calculated impact category indicators for material production phases across both building life cycles.
Material production phase contributed 85% to 95% of overall environmental impacts for both solutions.
Environmental benefits of designed for deconstruction were modest, showing a reduction of 37% in scenario S1 but only 16% to 24% in scenario S2.
Emphasized the significance of future technology advancements in understanding LCA results.

Abstract

Design for deconstruction and reuse is a design strategy that can effectively contribute to circular economy goals in the building sector. However, its potential to reduce the environmental impact of steel and concrete building structures has to be assessed using scientific-based methods, like life cycle assessment (LCA). In this study, the environmental impacts of two steel-concrete composite floor structural solutions of a typical office building were assessed and compared: conventional (not demountable) and designed for deconstruction (DfD) solution. Both solutions were designed to provide two subsequent 50-years life spans of the building with the same spatial layout, where second building was built at different location. Composite floor in the relocated building in the conventional case was made of new materials, while in DfD alternative it was made of reused elements from the first use cycle. Chosen impact category indicators were calculated for both cycles together using LCA system expansion. The assessment was performed for two scenarios that differed in the anticipated steel production route for the second building structure. In scenario S1, current average European steel production technology mix (combined BF-BOF and scrap-EAF) was assumed, while in scenario S2 it was 100% scrap-EAF route for all structural steel. The results showed that material production (steel and concrete) phase was by far the largest contributor to overall indicator values, ranging between 85% and 95% for both solutions and both scenarios. Environmental benefits of DfD solution depended significantly on the assumed steel production technology. Low energyand emissionintensive scrap-EAF route assumed for the second building in the scenario S2 led to decrease of DfD indicators reduction (compared to conventional solution): from around 37% in the scenario S1 to 16% - 24% in the scenario S2, which proved the importance of including future technology development in LCA.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper