Abstract The objective of this paper is to quantify and compare the environmental and economic Life Cycle impacts of two alternative types of composite sandwich panels for the rehabilitation of degraded wooden floors of old buildings: (i) a second-generation composite sandwich panel made of glass-FRP (GFRP) skins (or blades) and a polyurethane (PUR) foam core; and (ii) a hybrid sandwich panel consisting of a glass-carbon-FRP bottom skin, a steel fibre reinforced micro concrete (SFRMC or UHPFRM) layer as top skin, and a PUR core. This works intends to find which design alternative is more eco-efficient. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was the method used for the quantification and comparison of environmental and economic impacts of the studied solutions. The environmental and economic LCA of this type of construction products are presented for the first time in this paper. These LCA were completed following European and international standards. The results obtained demonstrated that, for both alternatives, in terms of environmental LCA of the production, the stage of raw materials extraction (A1) is the most influential for all the studied environmental impact categories. By comparing the two alternatives, it was found that the second panel (hybrid sandwich panel) presents the highest environmental impact. More specifically, the results obtained show that the use of SFRMC for the top skin and of carbon fibres significantly increases the environmental impact of the product. Furthermore, an economic comparison of the production showed that the hybrid panel is a more expensive alternative as well. It was found that panel a1 is better than panel b1 because, in addition to the lower cost (the production cost of the latter is 24% higher than that of panel a1), it is also more environmentally friendly at the production stage (impacts of panel b1 are between 3% and 27% higher than panel a1 in categories PE-NRe, PE-Re, ADP, GWP and EP, while the latter presents impacts between 2% and 10% higher than panel b1 in categories POCP, AP and ODP). As so, the most efficient profile both economically and environmentally is profile a1, which is composed of GFRP and PUR.

中文翻译：

---

用于结构楼板修复的复合夹芯板生产的生命周期评估

摘要 本文的目的是量化和比较两种替代类型的复合夹芯板对旧建筑退化木地板修复的环境和经济生命周期影响：(i) 由玻璃制成的第二代复合夹芯板-FRP (GFRP) 表皮（或刀片）和聚氨酯 (PUR) 泡沫芯材；(ii) 混合夹芯板，由玻璃-碳-FRP 底皮、钢纤维增强微混凝土（SFRMC 或 UHPFRM）层作为顶皮和 PUR 芯组成。这项工作旨在找出哪种设计方案更具生态效率。生命周期评估 (LCA) 是用于量化和比较所研究解决方案的环境和经济影响的方法。本文首次提出了此类建筑产品的环境和经济LCA。这些 LCA 是按照欧洲和国际标准完成的。获得的结果表明，对于两种替代方案，就生产的环境 LCA 而言，原材料提取阶段 (A1) 对所有研究的环境影响类别影响最大。通过比较两种替代方案，发现第二个面板（混合夹层板）对环境的影响最大。更具体地说，获得的结果表明，将 SFRMC 用于顶层表皮和碳纤维显着增加了产品对环境的影响。此外，生产的经济比较表明，混合面板也是一种更昂贵的替代品。发现a1面板比b1面板好，因为除了成本更低（后者的生产成本比a1面板高24%），在生产阶段也更环保（影响在 PE-NRe、PE-Re、ADP、GWP 和 EP 类别中，b1 组比 a1 组高 3% 至 27%，而后者在 POCP、AP 和 EP 类别中的影响比 b1 组高 2% 至 10% ODP）。因此，在经济和环境方面最有效的型材是型材 a1，它由 GFRP 和 PUR 组成。它在生产阶段也更加环保（在 PE-NRe、PE-Re、ADP、GWP 和 EP 类别中，面板 b1 的影响比面板 a1 高 3% 至 27%，而后者的影响在 2% 之间在 POCP、AP 和 ODP 类别中比面板 b1 高 10%）。因此，在经济和环境方面最有效的型材是型材 a1，它由 GFRP 和 PUR 组成。它在生产阶段也更加环保（在 PE-NRe、PE-Re、ADP、GWP 和 EP 类别中，面板 b1 的影响比面板 a1 高 3% 至 27%，而后者的影响在 2% 之间在 POCP、AP 和 ODP 类别中比面板 b1 高 10%）。因此，在经济和环境方面最有效的型材是型材 a1，它由 GFRP 和 PUR 组成。