Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool for selecting building systems in heritage intervention: Case study of Roman Theatre in Itálica, Spain

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ Esta es la versión aceptada del artículo publicado en: This is a accepted manuscript of a paper published in: Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 206, pág. 27-39 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.169 Copyright: El acceso a la versión publicada del artículo puede requerir la suscripción de la revista. Access to the published version may require subscription. “This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Electron-pair entropic and complexity measures in atomic systems, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.169. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited." 1 Wordcount: 6.545 Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool for selecting building systems in heritage intervention: Case study of Roman Theatre in Itálica, Spain Juan Carlos Gómez de Cózar, Antonio García Martínez, Íñigo Ariza López, Marta Ruiz Alfonsea Abstract This paper develops a method based on life cycle assessment (LCA) as a useful decisionmaking tool for analysing the most suitable building system for intervention in heritage sites. It focuses on a case study based on the Roman Theatre heritage site in Itálica (Spain), where several activities have taken place every two years since 2011 that require the addition of a reversible construction to support the lighting and electroacoustic elements, and improve the stage use. Based on the constraints on interventions in protected heritage settings, three suitable building options have been proposed: a standard system (option 1) and two innovative building systems (options 2 and 3). All three options are reversible, lightweight and quick assembly/disassembly systems. Option 1 is a standard aluminium system currently available on the market, while options 2 and 3 were originally created for this specific setting, using laminated wood beams and steel spatial lattices, respectively. All three lightweight construction systems that use the most common materials (aluminium, wood and steel) are compared. The LCA-based methodology aids in establishing the most suitable option for use in the construction of the case study. The LCA analysis includes the production, construction, deconstruction and end-of-life stages and two environmental indicators: global warming potential and cumulative energy demand. The results of the environmental impact of each option are compared, using the values obtained for option 1 (standard solution of frequent use) as references. In the case of option 3, the results demonstrate that the design decisions, supported by LCA, are determining factors in the choices made. The selected geometry, materials and construction system (production), assembly/disassembly process (construction/demolition) and recycling (end-of-life) reduce the environmental impact. Therefore, finally, option 3 was constructed. The results indicate that LCA can be of assistance in selecting the most suitable option for intervention at a heritage site. Keywords Life cycle assessment, Architecture, Environmental impact, Heritage 1. Introduction The increase in the world population and depletion of natural resources are currently high priority issues (Yeheyis et al. 2012; Wackernagel & Rees 2014; Karami et al. 2015), with the construction industry considered as the worst offender in resource consumption and waste production (Gervásio et al. 2014). This industry is responsible for 40.0% of global energy consumption, 12.0% of global drinking water use and 40.0% of solid waste generation in developed countries (Agustí-Juan & Habert 2017; Soust-Verdaguer et al. 2017), as well as 33.0% of CO2 emissions (Gundes 2016; Zhuguo 2006). Owing to the pressing need for adopting measures to improve built environment sustainability, sustainable development is recognised as one of the best potential strategies for environmental impact reduction (Brockhaus et al. 2017; UNE-EN 15978 2012). Various tools can be used in the implementation of sustainable development within the building industry (Soust-Verdaguer et al. 2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been established as a decision-making support tool for evaluating environmental loads based on the building life cycle (Gundes 2016; Anand & Amor 2017) and its methodology is defined in ISO 14040:2006 (UNE-EN ISO 14040 2006), ISO 14044:2006 (UNE-EN ISO 14044 2006), and UNE EN 15978 (UNE-EN 15978 2012). Over the past 20 years, LCA, which is of increasing importance in the scientific community and building industry, has been used to quantify and reduce the potential environmental impact of products and elements (Eleftheriadis et al. 2017; Vilches et al. 2016). Cabeza et al. (2014) reviewed the use of LCA in the building sector in the literature. Many studies on building materials or elements focusing on LCA (Sierra-Pérez et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2016; Ingrao et al. 2016; Fernádez-García et al. 2016; Guardigli et al. 2011) have carried out comparisons of the environmental impact produced. Moreover, despite the complexity of the analysis, numerous Comentado [A1]: Thank you for using our service. Please go through all the comments and allow us to check any further changes made to the edited files to prevent negative journal comments on language. Código de campo cambiado Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos) Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos) Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos) 2 studies have been based on the evaluation of the environmental impact of complete buildings (Motuziene et al. 2016; Kylili et al. 2017; Karami et al. 2015; Atmaca & Atmaca 2015; Asdrubali et al. 2013). However, few studies have focused on LCA and building systems in heritage sites. Selecting the most suitable building system should be the primary concern (Pineda et al. 2017) when heritage intervention is required. Although the preservation of cultural heritage sites is a priority, reduction of the environmental impact of the building system must also be considered during the early design stages. Certain studies have demonstrated that approximately 20.0% of the global environmental impact is related to the manufacture, construction, demolition and end use of building materials in conventional buildings, where the operational stage has higher impacts. In heritage buildings, these phases could represent an even higher percentage compared to the overall impact. Given the direct influence of architects in selecting the materials, construction systems and construction processes used (Galán-Marín et al. 2015), their decision-making may be crucial in reducing the environmental impact. According to different studies (De Cózar 2001; De Cózar 2006; De Cózar et al. 2006; De Cózar et al. 2008; De Cózar & López 2014) various strategies and factors should be taken into account during the design stage: (i) parameterisation-simulation-optimisation, (ii) light weight, (iii) industrialised processes, (iv) quick assembly, (v) quick disassembly, (vi) reversibility and (vii) reuse/recycling. These design strategies, particularly reversibility (International Council on Monuments and Sites 2003), are essential to proper heritage intervention. Building systems designed according to the above strategies are the most suitable for heritage site interventions. Recent interventions in heritage have, at times, added lightweight covering to archaeological sites. The most appropriate designed solutions have taken into account several design strategies mentioned above, such as light weight, industrialised processes and reversibility (Díaz 2005). A study by Ordóñez (Martín 2011) focused on an extensive review of the organisation of building models relating to heritage intervention in Spain. Taking these design strategies into account, the building systems proposed in this paper follow the same principles as ecodesign (Lindahl 2003). Furthermore, an optimised, lightweight, industrialised, reversible and reusable building system that can be assembled and disassembled quickly reduces costs and energy consumption (Wadel & Cuchí 2010). The selected case study is that of the protected heritage setting of the Roman Theatre in Itálica (Santiponce, Seville, Spain). The theatre events hosted biannually require the addition of a reversible construction that can provide adequate support for the lighting and electroacoustic stage equipment. This study aims to develop a LCA method to assess the environmental impact, aiding decisionmaking during the project stage in protected heritage environments. To this end, three options for optimised, lightweight, quick assembly/disassembly, reversible and reusable systems are proposed. Considering that no minimum impact reference values exist (Rasmussen et al. 2013), option 1 (a widely used standard system) is taken as reference to establish the minimum impact to be produced by the different tested options. This paper therefore aims to use LCA to identify the most suitable construction system for the proposed case study. 2. Methodology The proposed method applies LCA in order to assess building solutions for intervention in a heritage site case study, merging environmental and design strategy issues. The different phases are as follows: 3 - Case study and building system proposal options. This phase consists of the proposal of a case study based on a heritage site. Three building system options are presented for the necessary intervention in the case study. This phase includes the definition of requirements and demands relating to the case study in order to identify the design strategies to be considered in proposing the most suitable building systems. Furthermore, this phase includes the success degree of each building system in relation to the design strategies considered, as well as a complete definition of these building systems. - Definition of main goal and scope of the study. The impact categories and life cycle stages taken into account are also detailed in this phase. - Data inventory, organising and quantifying the materials and processes relating to the three building solutions. This phase includes the quantification of materials, transport, and processes, and their links to the environmental impact factors, using the Ecoinvent database. - Life cycle impact assessment by means of an environmental impact calculation. Spreadsheet software is used to calculate the environmental impact of each building system in the impact categories selected. - Results analysis. The results are compared to establish the total environmental impact of building systems and identify the one producing the least impact. The proposed method follows ISO 14040 (UNE-EN ISO 14040 2006) and ISO 14044 (UNE-EN ISO 14044 2006), international references on LCA and EN 15978 (UNE-EN 15978 2012), the European reference on LCA for buildings. Moreover, the proposed method is based on previous studies on LCA application: Baumann & Tillman (2004) described the method, while García- Martínez (2010) developed it for LCA application to buildings. The application of this method has also been studied in several masters’ dissertations (González 2014; Pérez 2014; Osta 2014; Alfonsea 2016; Fernández 2016; Martín 2016; Morente 2017). 2.1 Case study description and building system proposals The case study examines the ancient Roman Theatre located within the ruins of the Roman city of Itálica (Santiponce, Seville, Spain) (Fig. 1). The Provincial Council of Seville commissioned architects Juan Carlos Gómez de Cózar and Santiago Bermejo Oroz (Anon n.d.) to design a building system for the installations at the International Dance Festival, held at the heritage site of the Roman Theatre in Itálica. The main requirement was for the building system design for the heritage site intervention to be dismantled easily and quickly, without altering the normal appearance of the heritage site once the event ends. Therefore, in order to enable easy disassembly and minimise damage to the heritage site, the building system must be lightweight and industrialised: an off-site construction. Furthermore, as this event is hosted biannually, the building system needs to be reversible and reusable. The building proposed system was assembled in 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2017. The requirements of this heritage site, the decision-making based on LCA tools considered in this Fig. 1. Heritage site: Roman Theatre stage in Itálica. 4 paper and the subsequent assembly of the most suitable option therefore justify the selection of this case study. In order to solve the problem, and bearing in mind the detailed requirements, the architects designed a system behind the existing wall and overhanging to support the equipment required above the stage, such as truss lighting and acoustic installations. This equipment had to be supported by an existing stone load-bearing wall and overhang the stage by 13.0 m. The optimised building design should have no front pillars or columns in order to ensure the spectator view is not obstructed. The stage area consisted of three main elements: a) a frame structure to support the stage flooring, b) a suspended structure to support the equipment and c) a building system to support the suspended structure. Elements a) and b) used the same system for all solutions. Based on the project requirements for the case study, three possible solutions were proposed for building systems to support the suspended structure, as follows. - Option 1: standard solution (Fig. 2), based on the Layher® system. This consisted of a building system constructed from aluminium elements with a pre-set geometry, intended to be assembled and disassembled several times. The main advantage of this solution was the wide variety of geometric shape solutions. However, one disadvantage was the need for front pillars in this building system. - Option 2: innovative industrialised timber system (Fig. 3a). This solution consisted of a lightweight, reversible and reusable building system that could be assembled and disassembled quickly. Constructed from laminated timber sections and tubular steel profiles, this solution had no front pillars or columns and was therefore an optimised building system. Two different options were considered for this solution: Option 2a: innovative timber design, painted. Option 2b: innovative timber design, unpainted. - Option 3: innovative industrialised steel system (Fig. 3b). This solution consisted of an optimised, lightweight, quick assembly/disassembly, reversible and reusable building system, with profiles in tubular steel. This solution had no front pillars or columns and was therefore an optimised building system. Option 1 was rejected during the design phase, as front supports were required for this system. However, LCA analysis of the Layher® system was considered necessary to calculate the environmental impact produced by a standard system, and these results were used as reference values for the evaluation and comparison of the results of the remaining options. Options 2 and 3 were based on an original design of two different cantilever trusses (projected 13.0 m), balanced out behind their supports by cantilever and steel straps countering a dead load to prevent the existing wall from collapsing. The materials and geometry of the cantilever truss were different for each studied option studied. Moreover, the design strategies of both building systems were based on the following factors. - Light weight: the reduction in materials used could minimise the environmental impact of the building systems (Monticelli et al. 2013). Therefore, the designs had to be parameterised, simulated and optimised in order to propose two lightweight case studies based on the original systems for intervention in a heritage site. - Quick assembly and disassembly: the assembly and disassembly time had to be kept to a minimum as the case studies are ephemeral building systems. Moreover, this reduction in assembly and disassembly time could minimise the environmental impact of the building systems (Kamali & Hewage 2016). - Reversibility: the building system needed to be disassembled so that the normal appearance of the heritage site could be preserved after the International Dance Festival. 5 The success degrees of these strategies in each construction system are displayed in Table 1 and explained below. Table 1 Design strategies. Building system Light weight Quick assembly Reversibility Option 1 14.90 kg/m2 1 day 1 day Option 2 139.42 kg/m2 ½ day ½ day Option 3 98.23 kg/m2 ½ day ½ day Fig. 3. Innovative systems: a) timber (option 2), b) steel (option 3). a) b) Fig. 2. Standard aluminium system (option 1). 6 Light weight. This strategy relates to the mass of each construction system, and depends on the design and materials used (the stage is the same for all options and is not considered). Option 1 (with front pillars) is lighter than options 2 and 3 (without front pillars). The design strategy values displayed in Table 1 were obtained by the project architects during the option selection process. Quick assembly and reversibility. The values for these features were obtained from previous experience acquired in the construction of similar systems. The size of the pieces for options 2 and 3 accelerates the assembly and disassembly processes. 2.2 LCA application to case studies The LCA application follows ISO 14040 (UNE-EN ISO 14040 2006), ISO 14044 (UNE-EN ISO 14044 2006) and EN 15978 (UNE-EN 15978 2012). The method consists of four main phases: scope and goal definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and interpretation. 2.2.1 Scope and goal definition The main goal of this study was to compare the environmental impact of three building systems designed for intervention at the Roman Theatre heritage site in Itálica (Santiponce, Seville), by merging environmental and design strategy issues. The environmental impact categories and indicators included in the analysis were based on Galán-Marín et al. (2015) and Asdrubali et al. (2017). The authors identified the most relevant impact indicators to be taken into account in LCA building application, namely global warming potential (GWP) and cumulative energy demand (CED). Therefore, the impact indicators calculated in this study are GWP, based on the CML 2001 method, and CED. System boundaries According to the building system context, the most relevant LCA phases were selected based on EN 15978 (UNE-EN 15978 2012). Therefore, the stages considered in this study were production, construction and end-of-life. The life cycle was organised into three main phases, including different modules complying with the standard classification, as follows. - Production phase, including raw materials (A1), transport of materials to the factory (A2) and manufacture (A3) (Fig. 4). - Construction/deconstruction phase, including transport to the construction site (A4), the construction process (A5) (Fig. 5), the deconstruction process (C1) and transport to the waste or recycling plant (C2). - End-of-life phase, including waste processing for reuse, recovery or/and recycling (C3) and final disposal (C4). The lifespan considered for the case studies was 50 years, with the building system to be assembled and disassembled every two years. The use stages B1 to 7 were not included in the system boundaries as the case studies were ephemeral building systems. Several authors have focused their studies on embodied and operational energy over the entire life cycle (Langston & Langston 2008). However, as operational energy throughout the use stage is not relevant, it is not considered in this paper. The study focuses on the design strategies and materials of the case studies analysed. 7 Fig. 4. Production stage of option 3. Fig. 5. Construction stage of option 3. 8 Fig. 6. LCA stages and design strategies. A relationship was established between the life cycle stages considered and the design strategies defined, in order to identify the most appropriate construction system (Fig. 6). Allocation A recycling scenario was established for metal components such as steel and aluminium in structural elements. It was proposed to sell these metal elements as scrap, following information from the Ecoinvent database version 2.0 (Frischknecht et al. 2007). Functional unit The functional unit considered in the study was the building system. Limitations and assumptions Real scenarios for the assembly and disassembly cycles were assumed, and the temporary structure is constructed every two years and used over a two-month period. For energy quantification during the construction and deconstruction phase, the proportions of the volume of building materials used as well as the diesel and electricity consumed were taken into account following the recommendations of Kellenberger (2004). Processes relating to health and safety measures during the construction processes (individual protection gear, perimeter security system, temporary fences) were ignored. The use stage phase was not considered and the energy consumption during the operation of the building systems was excluded from the system boundaries. The disposal scenario for end-of-life assumes that the steel and aluminum are recycled, while concrete and wood are sent to landfill. 2.2.2 LCI The LCI consists of the quantification of materials, processes and elements included in the system (UNE-EN ISO 14040 2006). This phase was organised and applied based on García- Martínez (2010); therefore, the LCI stage was classified into three phases: inventory of materials; inventory of transport, construction and deconstruction processes; and inventory of end-of-life processes. Inventory of materials The inventory of materials quantifies the materials constituting the three building systems. This study examined five main materials in the building systems analysed in the case studies, as follows. (i) Aluminium in the structural tubes and ancillary elements of the Layher® standard system; in the platform supporting the plywood floor; and in one of the options of the suspended structure for supporting the equipment. (ii) Rolled coated steel in the structural tubes and other structural elements such as plates, rods, bars and beams. (iii) Glued laminated timber in the girders used in one building system solution and in the plywood floor. (iv) Concrete used as ballast in the cantilever steel truss and laminated timber solution. (v) Organic salt for wood preservation and acrylic paint dispersion, both for wood protection. The materials inventory is displayed in Table 2. 15 other options. As indicated by the results, this occurs mainly because the wood-related GWP impact is much lower (-1.32 kg CO2 eq/kg) than the aluminium-related impact (11.59 kg CO2 eq/kg) according to the database considered (see Table 4). Regarding the obtained results, it should be clarified that in traditional construction systems, an uncertainty analysis is necessary to prove the LCA validity, given the numerous materials and processes involved (Blengini & Di Carlo 2010; Hong et al. 2016). In the case of industrialised building systems, the degree of uncertainty is low owing to the tight control of elements and processes related to the life cycle stages (García-Martínez 2010); therefore, these results are assumed to be valid for our proposal. The mass of the elements constituting up the building structure is also a decisive factor in the construction stage-related impacts (A4 and A5). According to the results, in the categories considered, the resulting impact is almost proportional to the mass of the building components. This is because, according to the methodology applied, mass is an important parameter in both the transport stage (A4) and construction stage (A5). Moreover, during the end-of-life stage (C1 to C4), the main differences are determined by the mass of the structural components, given that the end-of-life processes provide very similar results for impact (see Table 4). Therefore, in this type of construction, a greater correlation is observed between lightness and low impact. During the construction stage, energy use is reduced slightly in the assembly/installation process (A4) in the case of quick-assembly structures. This is owing to the optimisation of the time and resources employed during the installation. Nevertheless, the procedure used in this research for establishing the process units in this stage, namely electricity and diesel consumption, are linked to the volume of building materials mobilised during the installation (Kellenberger 2004). Reversibility and reusability are the third parameter used in the design of the studied options. This criterion has been considered a “sine qua non” condition in all three options. This feature allows each structure to be assembled and disassembled, providing the durability of the building components. The impact of a single-use structure would be the equivalent of multiplying the results obtained by the number of cycles of potential installation/uninstallation. Relevant information is provided for the decision-making process, allowing architects and engineers to select the option best suited to the requirements. In this case, option 3 (steel structure) was selected (Fig. 3), owing to the need for a stage front with no support. 5. Conclusions In this paper, LCA has been highlighted as a potential decision-making tool for selecting the most suitable architectural solution to be constructed at a heritage site. This was assessed by means of a comparative LCA study of three building options. In heritage interventions, several variables should be taken into account apart from environmental impact, in order to select the most suitable construction option. This paper demonstrates that the applied methodology can be used to identify the most appropriate building system for intervention in a case study on a specific heritage site, from design and environmental perspectives. The analysis of the case study requirements led to the proposal of three appropriate building systems based on the same design strategies. The use of LCA has made it possible to quantify the environmental impact of the building systems during the production (A1 to A3), construction/deconstruction (A4 and A5) and end-of-life (C1 to C4) stages. The results demonstrate that environmental impact is directly proportional to the mass. Thus, the lightest model produces the lowest environmental impact; that is, the standard aluminium structural system of option 1. The environmental impact of option 3, based on a specific steel design, is close to that of option 1 (the CED and GWP impact indicators of option 3 produce only 7.94% and 8.84% higher impact, respectively, than option 1). Moreover, the results 16 demonstrate the reduction in impact owing to the quick assembly and reversibility. Nevertheless, further research is required in this regard. In the case study, given an architectural requirement (the need to minimise the support at the stage front), option 3 was finally selected and used biannually from 2011 (Fig. 10). The applied methodology meant that, in addition to the functional, aesthetic and technical requirements, it was also possible to take environmental requirements into account during the decision-making process for design solutions in the heritage intervention. In order to improve the proposed methodology, the following future research is required. - More accurate procedures for quantifying the unit processes taking part in the construction stage (A5) should be established. - Uncertainty analysis should be considered in future studies; for example, with a sensitivity study based on the Monte Carlo simulation method (Blengini & Di Carlo 2010). - The data compilation process in the life cycle inventory is time and resource consuming. The development of tools for building information modelling and LCA in architectural heritage interventions is also required. These tools may be of assistance in calculating the environmental impact values during the early design process stages. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank architect Santiago Bermejo Oroz for kindly providing the data on the applied case study and building systems, as well as the Provincial Government of Seville Fig. 10. Building system (option 3). 17 Department of Citizenship, Participation and Culture for supporting us for more than five years and promoting architecture based on the integration of heritage. References Agustí-Juan, I. & Habert, G., 2017. Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(November), pp.2780–2791. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616318212. Anand, C.K. & Amor, B., 2017. Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, pp.408–416. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058. Anon, Nd_Arquitectos. Available at: www.ndarquitectos.com [Accessed March 1, 2017]. Asdrubali, F. et al., 2017. A review of structural, thermo-physical, acoustical, and environmental properties of wooden materials for building applications. Building and Environment, 114, pp.307–332. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.033. Asdrubali, F., Baldassarri, C. & Fthenakis, V., 2013. Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy and Buildings, 64, pp.73–89. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018. Atmaca, A. & Atmaca, N., 2015. Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey. Energy and Buildings, 102, pp.417–431. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778815300414. Baumann, H. & Tillman, A.., 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA S. Lund., ed., Blengini, G.A. & Di Carlo, T., 2010. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy and Buildings, 42(6), pp.869–880. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009. Brockhaus, S. et al., 2017. Motivations for environmental and social consciousness: Reevaluating the sustainability-based view. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, pp.933– 947. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652616320820. Cabeza, L.F. et al., 2014. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, pp.394–416. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037. Eleftheriadis, S., Mumovic, D. & Greening, P., 2017. Life cycle energy efficiency in building structures: A review of current developments and future outlooks based on BIM capabilities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, pp.811–825. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.028. Fernádez-García, A., Ibáñez-Forés, V. & Bovea, M.D., 2016. Eco-efficiency analysis of the life cycle of interior partition walls: A comparison of alternative solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(1), pp.649–665. Frischknecht, R. et al., 2007. Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods: data v2.0, Galán-Marín, C., Rivera-Gómez, C. & García-Martínez, A., 2015. Embodied energy of conventional load-bearing walls versus natural stabilized earth blocks. Energy and Buildings, 97, pp.146–154. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.054. García-Martínez, A., 2010. Análisis del Ciclo de Vida (ACV) de edificios. Propuesta metodológica para la elaboración de Declaraciones Ambientales de Viviendas en Andalucía. Universidad de Sevilla. Gervásio, H. et al., 2014. A macro-component approach for the assessment of building sustainability in early stages of design. Building and Environment, 73, pp.256–270. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.12.015. Gómez de Cózar, J.C., 2006. Desarrollo de mallas de barras para la arquitectura. In Segundas Jornadas Sobre Investigación En Arquitectura y Urbanismo,. pp. 50–53. Gómez de Cózar, J.C., 2001. Gómez de Cózar, J.C., Sistema para la construcción de estructuras estéreas de dos capas, desplegables, formadas por mallas de rombos y aspas multianguladas. Patente de invención. Gómez de Cózar, J.C. & Ariza López, I., 2014. Sistema Constructivo de Muro de Contención y de Carga Estanco Mediante Malla Estérea y Paneles Prefabricados. 18 Gómez de Cózar, J.C., Ariza López, I. & Benítez Bodez, R., 2006. El edificio como obra de montaje: fuentes y herramientas. In Segundas Jornadas sobre Investigación en Arquitectura y Urbanismo. pp. 53–55. Gómez de Cózar, J.C., Ariza López, I. & Benítez Bodez, R., 2008. Mallas y entramados para la arquitectura. In II Jornadas de Investigación en Construcción. pp. 80–81. Gómez Pérez, M., 2014. Análisis medioambiental de sistemas constructivos y edificatorios. Desarrollo instrumental a partir de herramientas tipo BIM, Guardigli, L., Monari, F. & Bragadin, M.A., 2011. Assessing environmental impact of green buildings through LCA methods:Acomparison between reinforced concrete and wood structures in the European context. Procedia Engineering, 21, pp.1199–1206. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2131. Gundes, S., 2016. The Use of Life Cycle Techniques in the Assessment of Sustainability. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216(October 2015), pp.916–922. Available at: www.sciencedirect.com. Hong, J. et al., 2016. Uncertainty analysis for measuring greenhouse gas emissions in the building construction phase: a case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, pp.183–195. Ingrao, C. et al., 2016. A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of external wall-compositions for cleaner construction solutions in buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, pp.283– 298. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.112. International Council on Monuments and Sites, 2003. ICOMOS CHARTERPRINCIPLES FOR THE ANALYSIS, CONSERVATION AND STRUCTURAL RESTORATION OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE, Available at: http://www.icomos.org/charters/structures_e.pdf. Kamali, M. & Hewage, K., 2016. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, pp.1171–1183. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.031. Karami, P., Al-Ayish, N. & Gudmundsson, K., 2015. A comparative study of the environmental impact of Swedish residential buildings with vacuum insulation panels. Energy and Buildings, 109, pp.183–194. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.031. Kellenberger, D., 2004. Life cycle Inventories of Buildings Products. Data v1.1. Dübendorf, Swiss: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Ecoinvent Report, 7. Kylili, A., Ilic, M. & Fokaides, P.A., 2017. Whole-building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a passive house of the sub-tropical climatic zone. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116, pp.169–177. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.010. Langston, Y.. & Langston, C.., 2008. Reliability of building embodied energy modeling: an analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies. Construction Management and Economics, 26(2), pp.147–160. Lindahl, M., 2003. Designer’s utilization of DfE methods. In 1st International Workshop on “Sustainable Consumption.” Liu, S. et al., 2016. Evaluation of the environmental performance of the chilled ceiling system using life cycle assessment (LCA): A case study in Singapore. Building and Environment, 102, pp.207–216. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.03.005. Lobato Fernández, L., 2016. Análisis del ciclo de vida de los 3 proyectos ganadores de Solar Decathlon 2014. Obtención de parámetros para el diseño., Martínez Díaz, S., 2005. La conservación de yacimientos arqueológicos in-situ. Boletín Arkeolan, 13, pp.109–130. Mesa González, A., 2014. Análisis del ciclo de vida de soluciones ligeras y de rápido montaje: el Sistema Florín, Miranda Martín, M.D., 2016. Análisis del ciclo de vida de construcciones ligeras y de rápido montaje. La obra de Shigeru Ban, Mohammadi, J. & South, W., 2017. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of benchmark concrete products in Australia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(10), pp.1588– 1608. Molinero Morente, M., 2017. Análisis del Ciclo de Vida de modelos constructivos tradicionales en entornos de clima tropical (Colombia, s. XVI-XIX), Monticelli, C., Zanelli, A. & Campioli, A., 2013. Life cycle assessment of textile façades , beyond the current cladding systems . , 2(November 2015), pp.1–10. 19 Motuziene, V. et al., 2016. Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.532–541. Navarro Osta, A., 2014. Arquitectura ligera y de rápido montaje: búsqueda de modelos. El análisis del ciclo de vida como herramienta de evaluación y corrección de los diseños., Ordóñez Martín, M., 2011. Objetos arquitectónicos al servicio de la rehabilitación e interpretación del patrimonio: aspectos constructivos, movilidad y sostenibilidad. Aplicación a la cobertura temporal de yacimientos arqueológicos. University of Seville. Pineda, P., García-Martínez, A. & Castizo-Morales, D., 2017. Environmental and structural analysis of cement-based vs. natural material-based grouting mortars. Results from the assessment of strengthening works. Construction and Building Materials, 138, pp.528– 547. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.013. Rasmussen, F., Birgisdóttir, H. & Birkved, M., 2013. System and scenario choices in the life cycle assessment of a building – changing impacts of the environmental profile. Proceedings of the Sustainable Buildings Conference 2013 - Construction Products and Technologies, pp.994–1003. Ruiz Alfonsea, M., 2016. Análisis del ciclo de vida de modelos de habitación construidos en entorno de clima tropical (Colombia, s. XX-XXI), Sierra-Pérez, J., Boschmonart-Rives, J. & Gabarrell, X., 2016. Environmental assessment of façade-building systems and thermal insulation materials for different climatic conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113(2016), pp.102–113. Soust-Verdaguer, B., Llatas, C. & García-Martínez, A., 2017. Critical review of bim-based LCA method to buildings. Energy and Buildings, 136, pp.110–120. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.009. Soust-Verdaguer, B., Llatas, C. & García-Martínez, A., 2016. Simplification in life cycle assessment of single-family houses: A review of recent developments. Building and Environment, 103, pp.215–227. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.014. UNE-EN 15978, 2012. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method, Ed. España. UNE-EN ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework (14040:2006)., Ed. España. UNE-EN ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006), Ed.España: AENOR. Vilches, A., Garcia-Martinez, A. & Sanchez-Montañes, B., 2016. Life Cycle Assessment (Lca) of Building Refurbishment: a Literature Review. Energy and Buildings, 135, pp.286–301. Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W., 2014. Ecological Footprints for Beginners, The Ecological Design And Planning Reader. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, pp.501–505. Wadel, G. & Cuchí, A., 2010. La sostenibilidad en la arquitectura industrializada : cerrando el ciclo de los materiales. Informes de la Construcción, 62, p.17. Yeheyis, M. et al., 2012. An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. lean technologies and environmental policy, pp.81–91. Zhuguo, L.I., 2006. A new life cycle impact assessment approach for buildings. Building and Environment, 41(10), pp.1414–1422. 20 Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #2: The Authors have been given much opportunity to improve the quality of this manuscript including the English language. However, although the Authors respond that they have professionally edited the language of the manuscript, the language and writing style of the manuscript is still not of a high quality with some grammatical errors. Hence, I may highly suspect that the Authors are using a low quality professional editing service. The following are some language problems present in the manuscript: - In Discussion section, line 38: "Moreover, the methodology proposed methodology allows..." - In Discussion section, line 59: "As results show, t occurs mainly because....". Do you mean "this occurs ...." or "t occurs.."? Thus, I leave the decision to request for further revision or reject the manuscript to the Editor. Con formato: Justificado, Espacio Después: 0 pto, Interlineado: Mínimo 5 pto, No dividir palabras