Whole‐life embodied carbon in multistory buildings
Steel, concrete and timber structures
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19467876 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jim Hart (0000-0003-0946-5181, REBEL (Resource Efficient Built Environment Lab), School of Engineering and the Built Environment Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh UK, corresponding author), Bernardino D’Amico (Edinburgh Napier University), Bernardino D'Amico (0000-0003-1789-3688, REBEL (Resource Efficient Built Environment Lab), School of Engineering and the Built Environment Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh UK), Francesco Pomponi (0000-0003-3132-2523, REBEL (Resource Efficient Built Environment Lab), School of Engineering and the Built Environment Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh UK) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 403-418 |
| Publication date | 2021-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jiec.13139 |
| OpenAlex | W3158415215 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 50 |
Buildings and the construction industry are top contributors to climate change, and structures account for the largest share of the upfront greenhouse gas emissions. While a body of research exists into such emissions, a systematic comparison of multiple building structures in steel, concrete, and timber alternatives is missing. In this article, comparisons are made between mass and whole-life embodied carbon (WLEC) emissions of building superstructures using identical frame configurations in steel, reinforced concrete, and engineered timber frames. These are assessed and compared for 127 different frame configurations, from 2 to 19 stories. Embodied carbon coefficients for each material and life cycle stage are represented by probability density functions to capture the uncertainty inherent in life cycle assessment. Normalized results show clear differences between the masses of the three structural typologies, with the concrete frame approximately five times the mass of the timber frame, and 50% higher than the steel frame. The WLEC emissions are mainly governed by the upfront emissions (cradle to practical completion), but subsequent emissions are still significant—particularly in the case of timber for which 36% of emissions, on average, occur post-construction. Results for WLEC are more closely grouped than for masses, with median values for the timber frame, concrete frame, and steel frame of 119, 185, and 228 kgCO2e/m2, respectively. Despite the advantage for timber in this comparison, there is overlap between the results distributions, meaning that close attention to efficient design and procurement is essential. This article met the requirements for a gold–gold JIE data openness badge described in http://jie.click/badges
Carbon fibers · Economics · Greenhouse gas · Life-cycle assessment · Structural engineering · Computer Science · Engineering · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Environmental Science · Geology · Mechanical Engineering
Residents’ Attitudes towards Wooden Facade Renovation and Additional Floor Construction in Finland
High-resolution assessment of embodied carbon emissions in the urban built environment
Mapping lifecycle building material embodied carbon emissions for Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration
Climate concern, wood’s perceived climate benefits, and attitudes as predictors of intention to live in multi-storey wooden buildings
Embodied carbon of concrete in buildings, Part 2
A tale of five cities
Material efficiency for climate change mitigation
Spatial–temporal dynamics of the built environment toward sustainability
Boosting circular economy solutions in the construction sector using a life cycle assessment
A systematic literature review of life cycle sustainability assessment of mass timber in the construction industry toward circular economy
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I)
Aggregation Versus Disaggregation in Input–output Analysis of the Environment
Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment
Errors in Conventional and Input‐Output—based Life—Cycle Inventories
Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink? A Reality Check on Feasibility Limits
Buildings as a global carbon sink
Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |