Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Life cycle carbon emission reduction potential of a new steel-bamboo

composite frame structure for residential houses
Xiaocun Zhang a, Jie Xu a, Xueqi Zhang b, Yushun Li c, *
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315211, China
b
School of Architecture, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an, 710055, China
c
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, 266109, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To understand the carbon emission reduction potential of residential houses, life cycle assessment needs to be
Carbon emission reduction considered for different building designs. In this context, this study compares the life cycle emissions of a new
Life cycle assessment steel-bamboo composite frame structure with a general reinforced concrete frame structure associated with a
Steel-bamboo composite structure
rural detached house in East China. Based on the inventory analysis of the production, construction, operation,
Residential house
Comparative analysis
and end of life phases, a process-based method is adopted to assess the emissions and a Monte Carlo simulation is
conducted to investigate the influences of parameter uncertainty on the comparison. The results show that life
cycle emissions of the steel-bamboo and concrete frame structures are 440.6 tCO2e and 537.4 tCO2e, respectively.
Although the operation phase is the largest contributor, the production phase accounts for up to 36.4% of the
total emissions. The contribution coefficients of desired processes indicate that cooling, heating, and lighting are
influencing factors for the emissions of both structural schemes, whereas production of galvanized steel sheet and
bamboo scrimber should be underlined to reduce emissions from the steel-bamboo structure. Based on an un­
certainty analysis using 10000 simulation iterations, the 95% confidence interval of emission reduction in the
steel-bamboo structure is estimated as [21.0, 155.0] tCO2e. this result verifies that the steel-bamboo structure is
more “carbon-friendly” than a general concrete frame structure. Moreover, this study proposed suggestions to
improve the life cycle carbon reduction potential and can help to understand the influences of structural designs
on the sustainable development of residential houses.

have been emphasized [6,7] to establish zero-impact buildings. Recent

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
To control the global climate change, energy conservation and car­
bon emission reduction from the building sector has been underlined [1]
in recent decades. Previously, the operation phase was considered as the
largest contributor to the total emissions throughout the building life
cycle [2], of which the energy-related emissions are mainly sourced
from heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, and appliances.
However, with the improvement of power supply systems and building
energy efficiency [3,4], the operational emissions have been signifi­
cantly reduced. Therefore, the emission assessment from the whole life
cycle perspective has been considered [5], and embodied emissions from
the material production, building construction, and end of life phases
research indicated that embodied emissions could contribute more than
30% to life cycle impacts [8,9]. This contribution can be increased to
60–75% for low-carbon buildings [10], owing to the low operational
energy use. In this context, the building main body was considered as a
major emission source, especially for the production of primary
materials.
As a developing country, China is the largest contributor to the
worldwide emissions and has made great efforts to control them
[11–13]. Considering the large population in rural regions [14],
low-carbon and sustainability development of rural buildings have been
emphasized in relevant national policy documents. Moreover, a large
number of buildings are being constructed in rural China to promote the
environment and living standards. For example, in 2018, the total in­
vestment in rural construction reached more than 1000 billion Chinese
Yuan (CNY) and the construction area of rural residential houses

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhangxiaocun@nbu.edu.cn, hitzhangxc@hotmail.com (X. Zhang), xiaoyoutou@126.com (J. Xu), jmszhangxueqi@hotmail.com (X. Zhang),
lys0451@163.com (Y. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102295
Received 3 December 2020; Received in revised form 31 January 2021; Accepted 15 February 2021
Available online 19 February 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Nomenclature Eope emissions from the operation phase

Ewt emissions from waste transportation
Abbreviations EFc IO sectoral emission factor for road transportation
ALD annual lighting duration EFe emission factor of electricity
CNY Chinese Yuan EFeu emission factor of energy
IO input–output EFi emission factor of process i
LCA life cycle assessment EFdem emission factor of building demolish activity
LPD lighting power density EFmac emission factor of operating machinery per unit time
RCF reinforced concrete frame EFmat,p process-based emission factor of primary material
SBF steel-bamboo frame EFmat,s IO sectoral emission factor of secondary material
EFr process-level emission factor for road transportation
Notations n the total number of processes
Ak net floor area of room k qmac,eu energy consumption for operating machinery per workday
cmat,s transport price of secondary material Qcool life cycle cooling load
CFi contribution coefficient of process i Qdem engineering quantity of building demolish activity
COPc coefficient of performance for cooling Qi volume of process i
COPh coefficient of performance for heating Ql1 annual lighting electricity use
dmat,p transport distance of primary material Qmac working time of construction machinery
dwt transport distance of building waste Qmat,p quantity of primary material
E life cycle emissions Qmat,s cost of secondary material
Econ emissions from the construction phase Qheat life cycle heating load
Ecool emissions from cooling Qlight life cycle lighting electricity use
Edem emissions from building demolition Qwt quantity of building waste
Eend emissions from the end of life phase Tb bearing temperature
Eheat emissions from heating Tc comfortable temperature
Ei emission from process i
Ei,p emissions of process i in iteration p Parameter, variables, and functions
Elc life cycle emissions a lower limit of the input
Elc,p life cycle emissions in iteration p b upper limit of the input
Elight emissions from lighting c likely value of a parameter
Emat,p emissions from primary materials s the total number of iterations
Emat,s emissions from other materials x emission factor of a desired process
Epro emissions from the production phase y quantity of a desired process
Etra emissions from transportation ft(x) probability density function of a triangular distribution
Eoeu emissions from on-site energy use fu(y) probability density function of an uniform distribution

covered almost 0.7 billion square meters [14]. However, the construc­
tion technology and energy performance of rural houses currently in
China are relatively low. In this context, it is crucial to investigate po­
tential sustainable building structural schemes to reduce life cycle
emissions of rural residential houses.
1.2. Literature review and knowledge gaps
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a popular tool to evaluate building
carbon emissions [15,16], which can be classified into process-based
LCA and input–output (IO) methods [17]. Process-based LCA methods
were commonly used in the analysis of individual buildings, because
they can track carbon footprints from detailed processes [18,19]. A large
number of previous studies [9,20–22] have been conducted to either
improve the methods or assess emissions of case buildings. Among these
studies, life cycle emissions of buildings constructed using different
structural forms were evaluated and measures were proposed to reduce
emissions.
Concerning the research of rural residential houses, relatively few
studies have focused on their life cycle emissions. Considering that
single-family houses have similar function and volume with rural
houses, this study made a comprehensive review of both building types.
Bribián et al. [23] investigated a single-family masonry house in Spain
and found that the material production phase contributed 30% to the life
cycle primary energy use. Petrovic et al. [24] analyzed the life cycle
emissions of a wooden house in Sweden, which also found similar results
with the above research. Nordby [25] assessed the emissions of a
mountain cabin in Norway. The results of this wooden house indicated
although improving the heating efficiency could reduce operational
emissions, the additional material consumption could offset this benefit
from a life cycle perspective. Sim and Sim [26] investigated the life cycle
impacts of a Korean traditional house and found concrete was a major
factor of embodied emissions. Pacheco-Torres et al. [27] investigated
the embodied emissions of a detached house in Spain. The house was
constructed using the reinforced concrete frame (RCF) structure, and the
emissions were assessed as 385 kgCO2e per building surface area. Pal
et al. [28] assessed the life cycle emissions and costs of a townhouse in
Finland, which was constructed using a concrete wall structure. The
results were analyzed to achieve low-carbon designs by comparing
different building envelope, heating, and PV systems.
Moreover, a few case studies were also conducted to compare the
emissions of different building structural schemes. For example, Soust-
Verdaguer et al. [29] evaluated the life cycle environmental impacts
of a single-family house in Uruguay, and building information modeling
was adopted to compare brick and block masonry structures. Węglarz
and Pierzchalski [30] compared the production and operational emis­
sions of masonry and timber structures and found that material
embodied emissions accounted for 22%–35% of life cycle impacts. Yu
et al. [31] investigated the life cycle energy and emissions of a
single-floor bamboo house and found that the bamboo structure was
more “carbon-friendly” than a traditional masonry structure. The results
of the above studies and other research on multi-story buildings [32–35]
indicated that, while the emissions of RCF buildings were slightly higher
than masonry buildings, timber buildings may have the lowest emissions

2
X. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. System boundary of the emission assessment.
from the life cycle perspectives.
Based on the about studies, it can be found that RCF structure, ma­
sonry structure, and timber structure are the three most commonly use
structural forms for low-rise buildings. Specifically, for rural detached
houses in China, masonry structures were commonly used in the past
owing to the low economic costs. However, limited by the low strength
and seismic performance of masonry structures, RCF structures are
gradually accepted in rural regions recently. Unfortunately, the above
review indicated that RCF structures may have the highest emissions
among the three structural forms. Considering the short supply of timber
resources and the abundant bamboo resources in China, a new steel-
bamboo composite frame structure (SBF) [36–39] was proposed as a
potential approach for rural building sustainability. The main technical
advantages of this structural form can be summarized as: (1) the growth
cycle of bamboo is short as 4–6 years, and the strength of bamboo ma­
terials are relatively high; (2) pure steel structures need high re­
quirements of steel products and can lead to high production energy
consumption, whereas pure bamboo structures may have large struc­
tural deformations owing to the low elastic modulus of bamboo. The
combination of both (i.e. SBF structures) can perform better.
According to the afore-described review, some knowledge gaps
corresponding to the low-carbon rural houses can be underlined as fol­
lows. First, relevant research has compared the emissions from different
rural building structures and suggested that timber and RCF buildings
had the lowest and highest emissions, respectively. However, timber
buildings are not common in China owing to the timber shortage, and
more suitable structural forms need to be explored for the low-carbon
development. Second, although a new SBF structural form was pro­
posed and its structural and thermal performances were tested and
verified [36–39], no research has investigated the life cycle emissions
and its emission reduction potential compared with other conventional
structures.
1.3. Contribution and organization
In light of the above knowledge gaps, this study aims to compare
carbon emissions of the SBF and RCF structural schemes from the whole
life cycle perspective based on a rural detached house in China, and
further discusses the measures to improve the emission reduction po­
tential of the SBF scheme. The main contributions can be summarized as
follows:
(1) Life cycle inventory is analyzed for the RCF and SBF schemes
based on a case study, the corresponding emissions are compared
3
Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295
from the production, construction, operation, and end of life
phases.
(2) A Monte Carlo simulation is conducted to identify the most
influencing factors of life cycle emissions and emission difference
between the two schemes, and further verify the reliability of
comparison.
(3) Based on the results of analysis and comparison, suggestions are
proposed to improve the carbon emission reduction potential of
the SBF scheme for rural house sustainability.
The remainder of this study is organized into four sections. Section 2
introduces the system boundary, main designs of the assessed house, and
methods for life cycle emission assessment and uncertainty analysis.
Section 3 presents the detailed inventory in all life cycle phases
including the emission factors and quantities of involved processes.
Section 4 analyzes the results of comparison, discusses the influencing
factors and parameter uncertainty, and proposes suggestions on low-
carbon houses. Section 5 concludes the main findings and clarifies the
limitations of this study.
2. Methodology
2.1. Functional unit and system boundary
Generally, the building life cycle was divided into four phases
including the production, construction, operation, and end of life phases
[40,41]. “one square meter” and “the total house” were usually defined
as the functional unit for life cycle emission assessment [42,43].
Considering that the two structural schemes were designed according to
the same architectural layout, “the total house” was adopted as the
functional unit in this study, and therefore the emissions in each life
cycle phase of the entire building were assessed and compared using a
process-based LCA method. The system boundary of the assessment is
defined in Fig. 1. Specifically, for the production and construction
phases, building materials and components were manufactured, trans­
ported, and constructed into a complete building. Four categories of
subprojects incorporating earthwork and foundation, main structure,
functional work, and auxiliary activity were considered. The main body
including the foundation and main structure of the house was designed
using different materials and techniques, i.e., the RCF and SBF schemes.
For the operation phase, essential demands of heating, cooling, and
lighting were simulated within a period of 50 years, whereas the emis­
sions from household appliances were not evaluated. For the end of life
phase, the emissions were estimated using an area-based method [40]
owing to information scarcity.
X. Zhang et al.
Fig. 2. Drawings of the detached house: (a) South façade; (b) North façade; (c) West façade; (d) Plan layout of the ground floor. The layouts of other floors are similar
with the ground floor, whereas the dining room and kitchen are changed into living room and bedroom, respectively.
2.2. The assessed building
A three-story single-family house located in Wenxi Village, Ningbo,
China was selected as a case study. The house was planned by the local
government, which aimed to improve the rural living environment. The
designed life span of the building was 50 years and the total building
area was 357.65 m2. Fig. 2 presents the drawings of the house designed
by the Architectural Design and Research Institute of Ningbo.
The plan layouts of the two structural schemes for a typical floor and
relevant design details are illustrated in Fig. 3 and Table 1. While the
cast-in-place construction method was used in the RCF scheme, pre­
fabrication technology was adopted in the SBF scheme. The house was
originally designed and constructed using the RCF structural scheme,
according to Code for design of concrete structures (GB 50010–2010) [44].
In order to compare the life cycle emissions and assess the emission
reduction potential, the main body of this house was therefore
re-designed using the SBF structural scheme according to Standard for
design of timber structures (GB 50005–2017) [45] and Standard for clas­
sification of steel structures (GB 50017–2017) [46]. A similar degree of
reliability based on the partial coefficient method was applied, and the
design was implemented by the same company with the RCF scheme to
minimize the influence of designers’ habits.
2.3. Life cycle carbon emission assessment
The fundamental idea of a process-based LCA for building emission
assessment [40] can be expressed as follows:
4
Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295
∑
n ∑
n
E= Ei = Qi ⋅EFi (1)
i=1 i=1
where E is the total life cycle emissions; n is the total number of pro­
cesses; Ei, Qi, and EFi are the emission, volume, and relevant emission
factor of process i, respectively. For different life cycle phases, Q may
represent material consumption, energy use, or the quantity of a
comprehensive process. Such data were obtained from the bills of
quantities and results of building energy simulation. However, the cor­
responding emission factors were collected from existing studies [35,40,
47]. Table 2 introduces the detailed equations for life cycle emission
assessment.
2.4. Uncertainty analysis
Variation in parameters is one of the main sources of uncertainties in
life cycle assessment [48,49]. To identify the most influencing factors on
the emissions and evaluate the parameter uncertainty in the results of
comparison between the two structural schemes, an uncertainty analysis
was conducted using the following steps.
First, according to Eq. (1), the ranges of input parameters for the
emission assessment were classified into two categories: emission factors
and quantities of involved processes. While triangular distributions were
estimated for emission factors based on the characteristic values of
collected data, uniform distributions were assumed for quantities of
processes as follows:
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Fig. 3. Plan layouts of structural members: (a) RCF scheme; (b) SBF scheme; and (c) cross-section of precast steel-bamboo members. Sectional outline dimensions of
beams and columns are represented by “B-width × height” and “C-width × height”, respectively. All dimensions are in millimeters (mm).

⎧ 2(x − a)
⎪ 1∑ s
⎨ (b − a)(c − a) for a < x < c
⎪
ft (x) = (2)
⎪
⎩ 2(b − x)
⎪
for c < x < b
(b − a)(c − a)
1
fu (y) = for a < y < b (3)
b− a
where x and y represent the emission factor and quantity of a desired
process (i.e. input parameter), respectively, ft(x) and fu(y) represent the
empirical probability density functions of triangular and uniform dis­
tributions; c is the likely value of a parameter according to the collected
data; a and b are the lower and upper limits of the input, respectively.
For triangular distributions, a and b were taken as the range endpoints of
collected data; whereas for uniform distributions, a and b were assumed
as 0.9c and 1.1c, respectively.
Second, based on the distributions of parameters, a Monte Carlo
simulation [50] was performed and 10000 iterations were generated by
random sampling. To compare the emissions between the two schemes,
two data sets were sampled independently for the quantities of pro­
cesses, whereas a unified data set was sampled for emission factors to
consider the same technical levels in each simulation.
Third, to identify the most influencing processes for the life cycle
emissions, a contribution coefficient was defined, which can evaluate
the correlation between the emissions of a certain process and the total
life cycle emissions. This coefficient can be calculated using Eq. (4), and
a higher coefficient of a process implies a higher impact on the life cycle
emissions.
CFi =
( /
Ei,p Elc,p
)
(4)
s p=1
where CFi represents the contribution coefficient of process i; s is the
total number of iterations (10000); Ei,p and Elc,p are the simulated
emissions of process i and the life cycle, respectively, in iteration p.
Finally, life cycle emissions in each iteration were calculated and
statistical characteristics of the corresponding results were analyzed.
Specifically, the mean value and standard deviation of results were used
to evaluate the influence of parameter uncertainty, and the 95% confi­
dence interval was estimated to achieve the potential range of emission
difference between the two schemes.
3. Life cycle inventory
3.1. Carbon emission factors
As presented in Table 3, emission factors are essential data in the
assessment. In the production phase, process-level emission factors of
primary materials were collected and evaluated based on existing
knowledge [35,40]. However, for some secondary materials without
process-level details, their emissions were estimated based on IO sec­
toral emission factors and monetary costs [51]. Moreover, bamboo
scrimber was applied in the SBF structure scheme, whereas its emission
factor was not available in previous studies. Based on the investigation
of the production process [52], an inventory of material and energy
inputs was analyzed for manufacturing pretreated bamboo and bamboo
scrimber. As demonstrated in Table 4, the emission factors are evaluated
as 24.37 kgCO2e/t and 910.51 kgCO2e/m3 for pretreated bamboo and

5
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Table 1 Table 2
Design details of the two structural schemes. Methods for life cycle emission assessment.
Component Design details Note No. Phase and Emission calculation Note
process
RCF scheme SBF scheme
1 Production Epro = Emat,p + Emat,s Epro is the emissions from
Foundation Strip foundation Individual footing The bearing
the production phase, Emat,
capacity of stratum
p and Emat,s are the
was taken as 60 kPa.
emissions from primary
Column and Rectangular I-shaped steel- Material strengths
and other materials,
beam reinforced bamboo section RCF: concrete (C25)
respectively
concrete section and steel bar ∑
1.1 Primary Emat,p = Qmat,p ⋅EFmat,p Qmat,p and EFmat,p are the
(HRB400);
materials quantities and process-
SBF: steel sheet
based emission factors of
(Q235b) and
primary materials
bamboo scrimber ∑
1.2 Other materials Emat,s = Qmat,s ⋅EFmat,s Qmat,s and EFmat,s are the
(124 MPa)a
costs and IO sectoral
Ceiling and Floor tile and Floor tile U-Values (W/m2⋅K)
emission factors of other
floor leveling Cement mortar (20 RCF: 3.105
materials, respectively, of
Solid concrete mm) SBF: 1.004
which process-level
slab (100–110 Steel-bamboo slab
emission factors were
mm) (120 mm)
unavailable;
Plastering (10 Cement mortar (20
2 Construction Econ = Etra + Eoeu Econ is the emissions from
mm) mm)
the construction phase, Etra
Ceiling painting Ceiling painting
and Eoeu are the emissions
Roof and Colored cement Colored cement tile U-Values (W/m2⋅K)
from transportation and
ceiling tile Fine aggregate RCF: 0.719
on-site energy use,
Fine aggregate concrete (40 mm) SBF: 0.491
respectively
concrete (40 mm) Expanded ∑
2.1 Transportation Etra = Qmat,p ⋅dmat,p ⋅EFr dmat,p is the transport
Expanded polystyrene (50 mm) ∑ distance of primary
polystyrene (50 SBS waterproof (2 + Qmat,s ⋅cmat,s ⋅EFc
materials, cmat,s is the
mm) mm)
transport price of other
SBS waterproof Steel-bamboo slab
materials, EFr and EFc are
(2 mm) (120 mm)
the process-level and IO
Solid concrete Plastering (10 mm)
sectoral emission factors
slab (120 mm) Ceiling painting (20
for road transportation
Plastering (10 mm) ∑
2.2 On-site energy Eoeu = Qmac ⋅EFmac Qmac is the working time of
mm)
use construction machinery,
Ceiling painting
EFmac is the emission factor
(20 mm)
of operating machinery per
Interior Wall painting Wall painting U-Values (W/m2⋅K)
unit time
wallb Cement mortar Cement mortar (20 RCF: 1.543
3 Operation Eope = Eheat + Ecool + Elight Eope is the emissions from
(20 mm) mm) SBF: 1.004
the operation phase, Eheat,
Brick masonry Steel-bamboo panel
Ecool, and Elight are the
(240 mm) (120 mm)
energy related emissions
Cement mortar Cement mortar (20
from heating, cooling, and
(20 mm) mm)
lighting, respectively
Wall painting Wall painting
3.1 Heating 1 ∑ COPh represents the
Exterior wall Wall painting Wall painting U-Values (W/m2⋅K) Eheat = Qheat ⋅EFe
COPh coefficient of performance
Cement mortar Expanded RCF: 1.543
for heating, Qheat is the life
(20 mm) polystyrene (30 mm) SBF: 0.660
cycle heating load, EFe is
Brick masonry Cement mortar (20
the emission factor of
(240 mm) mm)
electricity
Cement mortar Steel-bamboo panel
3.2 Cooling 1 ∑ COPc represents the
(20 mm) (120 mm) infilled Ecool = Qcool ⋅EFe
COPc coefficient of performance
Wall painting with rock wool
for cooling, Qcool is the life
Cement mortar (20
cycle cooling load
mm) ∑
3.3 Lighting Elight = Qlight ⋅EFe Qlight is the life cycle
Wall painting
2 lighting electricity use
Window Aluminum Aluminum window U-Values (W/m ⋅K)
4 End of life Eend = Edem + Ewt Eend is the emissions from
window RCF: 2.400
the end of life phase, Edem
SBF: 2.400
and Ewt are the emissions
Stair Cast-in-place Prefabricated steel Material strengths
from building demolition
concrete stairs stairs RCF: concrete (C25)
and waste transportation,
and steel bar
respectively
(HRB400); ∑
4.1 Building Edem = Qdem ⋅EFdem Qdem is the engineering
SBF: steel sheet
demolition quantity for removal of
(Q235B)
elements, ground leveling,
a
The tensile strength of bamboo scrimber was tested as 117.6–129.4 MPa, or crane handling, EFdem is
with an average strength of 124.0 MPa. the relevant emission
b factor
Interior walls of bathrooms and kitchen were covered with ceramic tile. ∑
4.2 Waste Ewt = Qwt ⋅dwt ⋅EFr Qwt and dwt are quantity of
transportation building waste and
bamboo scrimber, respectively. relevant transport
In the construction phase, road transportation was considered for distance, respectively
5 Life cycle Elc = Epro + Econ + Eope + Elc is the total life cycle
primary materials and the relevant emission factor was 0.28 kgCO2e/
Eend emissions
(t⋅km) [47]. For secondary materials, their weights were difficult to
evaluate, hence the transport emissions were estimated according to the
transport costs and IO emission factor of the transportation sector (0.24

6
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Table 3 Table 4
Emission factors of materials, transportation, machinery, and electricity. Inventory for the production of bamboo scrimber.
Source Unit Emission Source Unit Emission Material Input Unit Consumption Emission Emission
(kgCO2e/ (kgCO2e/ (kgCO2e) factor
unit) unit)
Pretreated Raw kg 2860 0.000 24.37
Steel bar t 2140.0 Other plastic CNY 0.25 bamboo bamboo kgCO2e/t
products (1 t) Electricity kWh 31.5 24.350
Galvanized t 2487.0 Other fiber CNY 0.30 Water m3 0.13 0.022
steel sheet products Bamboo Pretreated kg 1111 27.077 910.51
Section steel t 2137.0 Other chemicals CNY 0.31 scrimber bamboo kgCO2e/
High strength set 0.33 Transportation CNY 0.24 (1 m3) Phenolic kg 154 426.335 m3
bolt service resin
Galvanized kg 2.35 Road t⋅km 0.28 Electricity kWh 115 88.895
iron wire transportation Coal kg 185 368.150
Iron product kg 1.92 Electric rammer d 12.83 Water m3 0.312 0.052
Stainless steel kg 6.13 Truck 4 t d 74.81
pipe
Support and kg 2.14 Electric hoist d 11.36
scaffold 0.5 t Table 5
Timber m 3
487.0 Concrete mixer d 42.55 Material consumption of the two structural schemes.
500 L
Material Unit RCF scheme SBF scheme
Cement PC kg 0.60 Mortar mixer d 6.66
32.5 200 L Steel bar t 13.89 2.18
Cement PO kg 0.80 Steel bar d 9.20 Galvanized steel sheet t 0.00 15.69
42.5 straightener Section steel t 0.00 4.04
Sand t 6.60 Steel bar cutter d 24.81 High strength bolt set 0.00 3180.00
Gravel t 4.40 Steel bar bender d 9.89 Galvanized iron wire kg 95.28 20.45
Lime kg 1.19 Drilling machine d 3.61 Iron product kg 490.43 62.88
Gypsum kg 0.13 Shearing d 22.14 Stainless steel pipe kg 216.80 216.80
powder machine Support and scaffold kg 810.52 11.50
Clay m3 0.80 Edge planer d 58.67 Timber m3 7.17 6.94
Shale m3 292.0 Folding machine d 9.89 Bamboo scrimber m3 0.00 26.84
perforated Cement PC 32.5 kg 32.85 8.36
brick Cement PO 42.5 kg 72352.80 29123.80
Solid brick m3 204.0 Torque wrench d 2.94 Sand t 218.79 92.01
Ceramic tile m2 19.20 Ultrasonoscope d 6.18 Gravel t 216.75 60.89
500 × 500 Lime kg 1063.45 1063.45
Ceramic tile m2 19.20 Circular sawing d 18.55 Gypsum powder kg 3850.73 4224.92
300 × 300 machine Clay m3 5.03 5.03
2
Aluminum m 194.0 Woodworking d 22.11 Shale perforated brick m3 103.44 0.00
window thicknesser Solid brick m3 2.32 0.00
Emulsion kg 4.12 Pipe cutter d 9.97 Ceramic tile 500 × 500 m2 153.89 153.89
paint Ceramic tile 300 × 300 m2 303.82 332.85
General paint kg 3.50 AC arc welder d 74.62 Aluminium window m2 59.11 59.11
32 kW Emulsion paint kg 334.56 340.46
SBS m2 0.54 DC arc welder d 72.35 General paint kg 906.61 890.83
waterproof 32 kW SBS waterproof roll m2 166.45 166.45
roll Epoxide resin kg 0.15 1095.85
Epoxide resin kg 5.91 Butt welder 75 d 95.00 Polystyrene board m3 6.81 19.62
kW Rock wool m3 0.00 39.80
Expanded m3 235.8 Argon arc d 54.65 Safety net m2 49.95 0.00
polystyrene welder Welding rod kg 31.95 15.90
board Water m3 188.27 99.75
Rock wool m3 180.0 CO2 shielded d 66.49 Colored cement tile 1000 1.49 1.49
welder Other wood products CNY 1083.59 373.01
2
Safety net m 3.70 Drying oven d 5.18 Other cement products CNY 354.83 2828.39
Welding rod kg 20.50 Concrete d 3.09 Other metal products CNY 113.30 115.97
vibrator Other plastic products CNY 883.98 370.51
Water m3 0.21 Truck crane 5 t d 68.41 Other fiber products CNY 206.05 147.04
Colored 103 3172.0 Electricity kW⋅h 0.77 Other chemicals CNY 4800.22 4352.09
cement tile piece
Other wood CNY 0.18 Removal of m2 7.80
products elements gasoline and regional purchased electricity, the emission factors were
Other cement CNY 0.59 Ground leveling m2 0.62
taken as 2.94 kgCO2e/kg and 0.77 kgCO2e/kWh [35], respectively.
products
Other metal CNY 0.33 Crane handling t 2.85 For the operation and end of life phase, the actual emission from
products energy use and building demolish activities cannot be achieved at pre­
sent. Hence, relevant emission factors were estimated based on the
current technical levels.
kgCO2e/CNY) [47]. In the on-site construction process, energy-related
emission was considered as afore-mentioned, and the emission factors
3.2. Data for the production phase
for operating machinery are assessed as follows:
EFmac = qmac,eu ⋅EFeu (5) Within the defined system boundary, material consumption from
different subprojects was evaluated as follows: (1) calculate the engi­
where qmac,eu is the energy consumption for operating machinery per neering quantities of subprojects according to the drawings and design
workday (8 h), which can be obtained from the construction quota in details; (2) estimate the corresponding material consumption for unit
China; and EFeu is the emission factor of relevant energy types. For subproject based on the official construction quota; (3) combine the data

7
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Table 6 3.3. Data for the construction phase

Machinery requirements of the two structural schemes.
Machinery Unit RCF scheme SBF scheme For the transportation process, local materials were used for the
construction, and the transport distance was assumed as 50 km. For the
Electric rammer d 2.61 1.08
Truck 4 t d 4.36 0.19 construction phase, the operation time for each type of machinery was
Electric hoist 0.5 t d 22.18 22.18 estimated according to a similar approach with material consumption.
Concrete mixer 500 L d 9.17 2.13 Table 6 compares the requirements of machinery for the two structural
Mortar mixer 200 L d 3.37 2.23 schemes.
Steel bar straightener d 2.22 0.14
Steel bar cutter d 1.73 0.25
Steel bar bender d 6.67 0.92
Drilling machine d 0.00 2.14 3.4. Data for the operation phase
Shearing machine d 0.00 0.54
Edge planer d 0.00 0.54
Folding machine d 0.00 1.88
In this study, building heating, cooling, and lighting were included in
Torque wrench d 0.00 20.89 the operation phase, and the emissions were estimated based on the
Ultrasonoscope d 0.00 0.19 energy consumption. For building heating and cooling, energy loads
Circular sawing machine d 3.80 3.20 were simulated using DEST 2.0, which is an open-source program based
Woodworking thicknesser d 0.31 0.31
on the Chinese energy-saving standards. Main parameters in the simu­
Pipe cutter d 1.21 1.21
AC arc welder 32 kW d 0.00 0.51 lation were defined according to Standard for building carbon emission
DC arc welder 32 kW d 2.66 0.74 calculation (GB/T51366-2019) [41]. It should be noted that the
Butt welder 75 kW d 0.64 0.18 maximum and minimum comfortable temperatures (Tc) in simulation
Argon arc welder d 0.68 0.68 were 26 ◦ C and 18 ◦ C. However, in practice, air conditioners may not be
CO2 shielded welder d 0.00 0.51
Drying oven d 0.27 0.07
open by occupants at this temperature. Therefore, bearing temperatures
Concrete vibrator d 12.80 3.54 (Tb) assumed as 28 ◦ C and 14 ◦ C were also used in the simulation. In this
Truck crane 5 t d 0.75 0.40 context, when the indoor temperature reached Tb, the air conditioner
Other appliances kW⋅h 27.02 29.61 was opened and then the indoor temperature would gradually approach
Tc. The simulated results of annual heating and cooling loads are illus­
achieved in the above two steps to evaluate the total consumption of trated in Fig. 4, and the total life cycle loads can be achieved by
each type of materials. The comprehensive results of the RCF and SBF multiplying the designed life span (50 years).
schemes are compared in Table 5. As presented in Table 7, energy use for building lighting is estimated
according to lighting power densities (LPDs) and annual lighting dura­
tions (ALDs). Default values of LPDs and ALDs for different types of
rooms were provided in the relevant standard [41], and the annual
energy use can be estimated as:

Fig. 4. Annual heating and cooling loads of the two structural schemes.

Table 7
Annual lighting energy use for the two structural schemes.
Room Reinforced concrete framed structure Steel-bamboo composite structure

Net area Lighting power density Annual lighting Energy use Net area Lighting power density Annual lighting Energy use
(m2) (W/m2) duration (h) (kWh) (m2) (W/m2) duration (h) (kWh)

Living 99.2 6.0 1980.0 1178.6 104.6 6.0 1980.0 1242.6

room
Bedroom 104.7 6.0 1620.0 1017.9 112.1 6.0 1620.0 1089.6
Kitchen 7.7 6.0 1152.0 53.2 8.5 6.0 1152.0 59.0
Dining 11.3 6.0 900.0 60.8 11.9 6.0 900.0 64.2
room
Bathroom 28.1 6.0 1980.0 333.9 32.6 6.0 1980.0 386.7
Store room 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Staircase 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 298.4 – – 2644.3 323.1 – – 2842.1

8
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Table 8
Estimation on the quantities of demolish work and waste transportation.
Source Unit RCF scheme SBF scheme
2
Removal of elements m (building area) 357.65 357.65
Ground leveling m2 (site area) 119.22 119.22
Crane handling T 741.08 270.17
Waste transportation t⋅km 37053.84 13508.71

Fig. 7. Embodied emissions from five types of load-bearing struc­

tural members.

decoration practices.

3.5. Data for the disposal phase

Table 8 summarizes the amounts of building demolish work and

waste transportation. The engineering quantities of elements removal
and ground leveling were estimated according to the building area and
site area, respectively. For crane handling and transportation, the
Fig. 5. Embodied emissions from the production phase (tCO2e). quantity of waste materials was assumed as the self-weight of the house,
and the transport distance of waste was assumed as 50 km.
∑
Ql1 = Ak ⋅LPDk ⋅ALDk (6)
k 4. Results and discussion

where Ql1 is the annual lighting electricity use, k represents the type of
room, and Ak is the net floor area of room k. The total lighting energy use
was therefore estimated as the product of Ql1 and the designed life span.
Moreover, replacement of materials in the operation phase were not
included considering the following reasons. For main structural mate­
rials, their lifespans were assumed to be the same with the service life of
the building (i.e. 50 years), according to the requirements of load-
bearing capacity and durability in relevant design codes. For decora­
tive materials such as plaster and painting, they may be replaced several
times in the entire building life cycle. However, the exact times of
replacement were difficult to acquire for a newly built building. Besides,
although replacement of decorative materials could contribute to the life
cycle emissions [40], it may have limited impacts on the results of
comparison, considering that the two structural schemes used the same
4.1. Comparison of production and construction emissions
4.1.1. Production emissions
Embodied emissions from materials production are compared in
Fig. 5. For the RCF scheme, cement, metal materials (mainly steel bars),
and masonry bricks contributed 62.5 tCO2e (38.1%), 34.0 tCO2e
(20.7%), and 30.7 tCO2e (18.7%), respectively to the production emis­
sions. However, for the SBF scheme, the top three contributors were
metal materials (mainly steel sheets), cement, and bamboo scrimber,
which accounted for 54.9 tCO2e (34.2%), 29.5 tCO2e (18.4%), and 27.9
tCO2e (17.4%), respectively of the production emissions. Comparing
with the RCF scheme, although the steel consumption due to steel-
bamboo composite members was higher in the SBF scheme, the
cement use was reduced by more than a half, and the total production

Fig. 6. Carbon emissions from the production and construction phase.

9
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Fig. 8. Carbon emissions from the operation phase. Fig. 9. Carbon emissions from the end of life phase.

emissions were slightly lower.

Table 9
Comparison of life cycle emissions between the two structural schemes.
4.1.2. Construction emissions
For the construction phase, the emissions from materials and com­ No. Phase Carbon emissions (tCO2e)

ponents transportation were 10.7 tCO2e and 4.0 tCO2e, respectively of RCF scheme SBF scheme Difference
the RCF and SBF schemes. The considerable reduction in transport 1 Production 164.1 160.5 − 2.2%
emissions can be attributed to the lower self-weight of the SBF scheme. 1.1 Primary materials 161.9 157.3 − 2.8%
With respect to machinery operation, energy-related emissions from the 1.2 Other materials 2.2 3.2 47.7%
2 Construction 12.3 4.8 − 60.7%
two schemes were 1.6 tCO2e and 0.9 tCO2e, respectively. The difference
2.1 Transportation 10.7 4.0 − 62.7%
in emissions was mainly caused by the energy demands for casting 2.2 On-site energy use 1.6 0.9 − 48.2%
concrete members and processing steel products. For such low-rise 3 Operation 342.7 267.7 − 21.9%
houses with relatively small volumes, on-site construction activities 3.1 Heating 140.1 58.8 − 58.0%
contributed no more than 1.0% of the total embodied emissions, and 3.2 Cooling 100.4 99.0 − 1.3%
3.3 Lighting 102.2 109.8 7.5%
hence, they could be ignored.
4 End of life 15.6 7.5 − 51.6%
4.1 Building demolition 5.0 3.6 − 26.9%
4.1.3. Emissions from the subproject perspectives 4.2 Waste transportation 10.6 3.9 − 63.3%
To investigate the influence of structural schemes on the production 5 Life cycle 534.7 440.6 − 17.6%
and construction emissions, the results were further compared from the
subproject perspective. As illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7, the subproject-
board to improve the thermal performance in the SBF scheme. Hence,
based emissions from the two schemes show considerable differences,
the relevant decorative emissions were 5.4 tCO2e (19.8%) higher than
especially for the building main body and decoration work.
the SBF scheme.
For the foundation, considering the difference in self-weights, the
embodied emissions of the RCF scheme were 26.2 tCO2e, which were
4.2. Comparison of operational emissions
almost twice those of the SBF scheme. For load-bearing members, the
relevant emissions of the RCF and SBF schemes were 53.7 tCO2e and
Fig. 8 compares life cycle operational emissions from heating, cool­
64.4 tCO2e, respectively. Comparing with the RCF scheme, embodied
ing, and lighting. Based on the results of energy simulation. The emis­
emissions from beams and columns were about 12.4% higher in the SBF
sions of the RCF and SBF schemes were assessed as 342.7 tCO2e and
scheme, owing to the higher demand for steel products. Besides, as
267.7 tCO2e, respectively. Comparing with the RCF scheme, the emis­
indicated in Table 3, the emission factor of galvanized steel sheets is also
sions from heating were reduced by 58.0% in the SBF scheme, owing to
higher than ordinary steel bars. However, hollow sections were designed
the use of insulation materials. However, the improvement in insulation
for the slabs in the SBF scheme, and the relevant embodied emissions
measures did not show a significant influence on the emissions from
were 9% lower than those of the RCF scheme. With respect to the stairs,
cooling, which was only 1.3% lower in the SBF scheme. Moreover, the
steel construction was used for the SBF scheme, which led to a signifi­
emissions from lighting in the SBF scheme were 7.5% higher, because
cant increase (123%) in the relevant emissions than the concrete stairs in
the thinner walls increased the relevant lighting floor area by 18.7 m2.
the RCF scheme. Moreover, prefabrication technology was adopted in
the SBF scheme, and the members needed to be assembled at the con­
4.3. Comparison of end of life emissions
struction site. Therefore, connections of structural members led to
additional embodied emissions as 5.8 tCO2e.
End of life emissions of the two structural schemes were estimated as
For the SBF and RCF schemes, non-load-bearing walls were con­
15.6 tCO2e and 7.5 tCO2e, respectively for the RCF and SBF schemes. As
structed using steel-bamboo panels and brick masonry, respectively.
indicated in Fig. 9, the end of life emissions mainly source from the
Considering the construction details as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 1,
removal of elements, crane handling, and waste transportation. The
hollow steel-bamboo panels had smaller thicknesses and lower material
lower emissions of the SBF scheme can be attributed to the reduction in
requirements. The relevant emissions were 12.6 tCO2e (31.5%) lower
the demolish waste.
than those of brick masonry walls. However, the net floor area was
increased and the exterior walls were covered by expanded polystyrene

10
X. Zhang et al.
Fig. 10. Average contribution coefficients of all iterations: (a) the RCF scheme; (b) the SBF scheme; (c) emission difference between the two schemes.
4.4. Life cycle emissions
Based on the above analyses, Table 9 summarizes the results of life
cycle emissions. It can be seen that, for both of the two structural
schemes, the operation phase contributed 60.8%–64.1% to the life cycle
emissions, followed by the material production phase with a share of
30.7%–36.4%. However, the construction and end of life phases made
limited contributions (less than 3% for each) to the emissions. The above
characteristics of results can be attributed to the following two reasons.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295
First, local materials are usually used to save costs and the construction
requirements are simple for rural detached houses in China. Accord­
ingly, construction emissions from transportation and on-site energy use
are relatively low. Second, the comfort requirements of rural houses are
lower than urban buildings. The corresponding low heating and cooling
energy lead to a reduction in operational emissions. Therefore, the
contribution of production emissions is significant in rural houses.
Moreover, with respect to the comparison of the two schemes, the
SBF scheme generated lower carbon emissions than the RCF scheme
X. Zhang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295

Table 10 steel showed negative impacts.

Statistical characteristics of simulated life cycle emissions (tCO2e). Moreover, Table 10 and Fig. 11 present the statistical characteristics
Statistic Mean Standard Confidence interval and distributions of simulated results, with consideration of the life cycle
deviation (95%) emissions of the RCF and SBF schemes and their difference. As illus­
RCF Production 173.0 22.0 [131.2, 215.7] trated in Fig. 11, both of the maximum and average emissions of the RCF
scheme Construction 13.4 4.1 [6.3, 21.8] scheme are higher than those of the SBF scheme in the simulation.
Operation 281.1 105.0 [65.6, 458.1] Comparing with the RCF structure, the SBF structure generated lower
End of life 15.6 2.8 [10.2, 21.1] life cycle emissions in more than 99.6% of the 10000 simulation itera­
Life cycle 483.0 107.5 [265.1, 667.5]
SBF Production 164.2 17.2 [131.3, 197.6]
tions. Only 37 iterations indicated emission increases within the range of
scheme Construction 5.2 1.5 [2.5, 8.3] 0–35 tCO2e. Moreover, Table 10 presents the detailed statistics of
Operation 219.6 82.1 [51.4, 357.8] simulated results. The SBF scheme reduced the life cycle emissions by
End of life 7.5 1.3 [5.0, 10.0] 86.6 tCO2e on average, with a standard deviation of 34.6 tCO2e. The 95%
Life cycle 396.4 83.8 [225.4, 539.4]
confidence interval of emission reduction was [21.0, 155.0] tCO2e. With
Difference Production − 8.8 22.3 [-52.9, 35.3]
Construction − 8.2 2.6 [-13.8, − 3.7] respect to the average emissions and relevant confidence intervals, the
Operation − 61.5 26.2 [-113.2, − 13.2] SBF scheme indicated emission reduction potential in most of the life
End of life − 8.0 1.8 [-11.7, − 4.7] cycle phases, except for the confidence interval of the production phase.
Life cycle − 86.6 34.6 [-155.0, − 21.0] It should be noted that the mean values of life cycle emissions in the
simulation were somewhat different from the results in Sections 4.1–4.4.
from all of the four life cycle phases for the assessed residential house. These differences can be attributed to the asymmetric triangular distri­
Specifically, for the RCF and SBF schemes, the embodied emissions from butions assumed for emission factors. Overall, with comprehensive
the production, construction, and end of life phases were 192.0 tCO2e consideration of the comparison and uncertainty analysis, the SBF
and 172.8 tCO2e, respectively; the operational emissions were 342.7 scheme proved to be a low-carbon choice in comparison with the RCF
tCO2e and 267.7 tCO2e, respectively; and the total life cycle emissions scheme.
were 534.7 tCO2e and 440.6 tCO2e, respectively. Comparing with the
RCF scheme, the embodied, operational, and life cycle emissions were 4.6. Discussion on the emission reduction potential
reduced by 10.0%, 21.9%, and 17.6%, respectively.
Based on the above analysis and comparison, suggestions were pro­
4.5. Results of uncertainty analysis posed to investigate and improve the emission reduction potential of the
SBF scheme from the perspectives of each life cycle phase. For the
Based on the proposed method in Section 2.4, a total of 40 processes production phase, steel sheets, cement, and bamboo scrimber were
were considered in the uncertainty analysis, including 33, 2, 3, and 2 identified as the main contributors to embodied emissions. According to
processes, respectively for the production, construction, operation, and Eq. (1), emission mitigation can be realized by reducing either the
end of life phases. It should be noted that, some secondary processes consumption of materials or their emission factors. Specifically, detailed
such as the production of secondary materials, on-site machinery measures are presented as follows. First, consumption of the above three
operation, and building demolish subprojects were integrated in the types of materials can be reduced by optimizing the designs of structural
result analysis. Fig. 10 demonstrates the contribution coefficient of each members and connections [53,54]. Second, in the above analysis, the
process on the average level of all iterations. The most influencing fac­ same decoration practices were considered for the two structural
tors on the life cycle emissions of the RCF scheme were heating, lighting, schemes, which accounted for nearly 20% of the embodied emissions
cooling, cement (PO 42.5), steel bar, and shale perforated brick. They from all subprojects. However, some decoration work was not necessary
accounted for 83.3% of the life cycle emissions at the average level of all for the SBF scheme, such as the wall and ceiling plastering. Considering
simulations. In contrast, lighting, cooling, heating, galvanized steel the construction technology adopted by the SBF scheme, surface deco­
sheet, bamboo scrimber, and cement (PO 42.5) showed considerable ration of building components can also be finished during the prefab­
influences on the emissions of the SBF scheme, with a total contribution rication process. This integration can reduce the waste of materials, and
of 77.7% on average. The above-identified factors were also the key therefore reduce the corresponding emissions. Finally, with respect to
points on the emission reduction potential of the SBF schemes. However, emission factors of materials, using waste materials and substitutes are
while reduced requirements of heating, cement, steel bar, and perfo­ considerable measures to reduce emissions from steel and cement pro­
rated brick brought positive benefit to the emission reduction, addi­ duction [55,56], respectively. For bamboo scrimber, adhesive materials
tional demands of galvanized steel sheet, bamboo scrimber, and section and coal are the main source of emissions as indicated in Table 4.

Fig. 11. Distribution of simulation emissions in 10000 iterations.

12
X. Zhang et al.
Relevant emission reduction can be expected by using low-carbon ad­
hesive materials and improve the production technology (for example,
replacing coal with clean energy).
For the operation phase, lighting, cooling, and heating were all
considerable sources of operational emissions. First, the case study
verified that, although the additional insulation materials used in the
SBF scheme showed a negligible influence on the cooling energy use,
they significantly benefit the emission reduction from the building
heating perspective. Second, electricity is the main energy source
applied in rural detached houses in East China. Based on the charac­
teristics of the rural environment, measures including the application of
bioenergy and solar power [57,58] can reduce the emissions from power
generation. Finally, occupant behaviors are also crucial to control
operational energy and emissions [59,60]. Hence, strengthening the
awareness of energy conservation can be a positive management
measure.
For the end of life phase, future recycling of materials was not
considered in the above assessment. Indeed, steel sheet and section steel
used by the SBF scheme can be easily recycled, and the relevant recy­
cling rate can reach 90%. Moreover, waste bamboo and timber can also
be used as biomass fuels. In this context, emission recovery of almost 60
tCO2e can be expected from the end of life phase, which is nearly 13.6%
of the life cycle emissions.
5. Conclusions
In light of rural building sustainability, this study investigated the
life cycle emissions of a new steel-bamboo composite frame structure.
With consideration of a rural detached house located in Ningbo, China,
the SBF structural scheme was designed and compared with the RCF
scheme. Based on a detailed inventory analysis, carbon emissions from
each life cycle phase were assessed and the influences of parameter
uncertainty on the results were investigated. The main findings are
summarized as follows:
• First, the total life cycle emissions of the SBF scheme were assessed as
440.6 tCO2e, which was 17.6% lower than those of the RCF scheme.
Detailed analysis of each life cycle phase and subproject was also
conducted. The operation and production phases contributed the
most to the total emissions, of which the share of production emis­
sions reached 36.4%. This high proportion demonstrated the
importance of the production phase in the low-carbon design of rural
houses.
• Second, based on the stochastic analysis, the most influencing pro­
cesses were identified based on their contribution coefficients. For
the SBF scheme, while building operation contributed the most to the
emissions, production of galvanized steel sheet and bamboo scrimber
should be emphasized to improve the potential of emission reduction
compared with the RCF scheme.
• Finally, the parameter uncertainty of the results was discussed using
a Monte Carlo simulation. Comparing with the RCF scheme. the
average emission reduction of all iterations was estimated as 86.6
tCO2e for the SBF scheme, of which only 0.37% iterations suggested
negative results. A 95% confidence interval as [21.0, 155.0] tCO2e
was also achieved for the emission reduction potential of the SBF
scheme.
With consideration of the above findings, suggestions were also
proposed to improve the life cycle emission reduction potential of the
SBF structural scheme. Overall, this study provides an insight into a new
steel-bamboo building structure scheme for the low carbon development
of rural China. The results and discussion are helpful to understand the
life cycle impacts and carbon reduction potential of this new structural
scheme. However, certain limitations should be noticed and considered
as the focuses of future research. First, the building main body was found
to be a main contributor to life cycle emissions in both previous research
13
Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295
and this study. Investigation of the optimization design of steel-bamboo
structural components can be an essential approach to reduce the rele­
vant emissions. Second, a rural house in East China was analyzed in this
study. More case studies should be carried out in the future from a
comprehensive view.
Author statement
Xiaocun Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jie Xu: Data cura­
tion. Xueqi Zhang: Software, Data curation. Yushun Li: Conceptualiza­
tion, Validation
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51678310, 51978345) and the Ningbo Science and Technol­
ogy project (202002N3090). Thanks due to the Architectural Design and
Research Institute of Ningbo, China, who designed the case study
building and provide relevant drawings.
References
[1] K. Negishi, A. Lebert, D. Almeida, J. Chevalier, L. Tiruta-Barna, Evaluating climate
change pathways through a building’s lifecycle based on Dynamic Life Cycle
Assessment, Build, Environ. Times 164 (2019), e106377, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2019.106377.
[2] A.F.A. Rashid, S. Yusoff, A review of life cycle assessment method for building,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45 (2015) 244–248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.01.043.
[3] S. Acha, A. Mariaud, N. Shah, C.N. Markides, Optimal design and operation of
distributed low-carbon energy technologies in commercial buildings, Energy 142
(2018) 578–591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.066.
[4] P. Moran, J. Goggins, M. Hajdukiewicz, Super-insulate or use renewable
technology? Life cycle cost, energy and global warming potential analysis of nearly
zero energy buildings (NZEB) in a temperate oceanic climate, Energy Build. 139
(2017) 590–607, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.029.
[5] M.N. Nwodo, C.J. Anumba, A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a
systematic approach, Build. Environ. 162 (2019), e106290, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106290.
[6] M. Röck, M.R.M. Saade, M. Balouktsi, F.N. Rasmussen, H. Birgisdottir,
R. Frischknecht, et al., Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – the hidden
challenge for effective climate change mitigation, Appl. Energy 258 (2020),
e114107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107.
[7] E. Resch, C. Lausselet, H. Brattebø, I. Andresen, An analytical method for
evaluating and visualizing embodied carbon emissions of buildings, Build. Environ.
168 (2020), e106476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106476.
[8] A. Atmaca, N. Atmaca, Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions
(LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey, Energy
Build. 102 (2015) 417–431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.008.
[9] Y. Schwartz, R. Raslan, D. Mumovic, The life cycle carbon footprint of refurbished
and new buildings – a systematic review of case studies, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 81 (2018) 231–241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.061.
[10] T.F. Kristjansdottir, N. Heeren, I. Andresen, H. Brattebø, Comparative emission
analysis of low-energy and zero-emission buildings, Build. Res. Inf. 46 (4) (2018)
367–382, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1305690.
[11] L.X. Zhang, C.B. Wang, A.S. Bahaj, Carbon emissions by rural energy in China,
Renew. Energy 66 (2014) 641–649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2014.01.005.
[12] D. Li, P. Cui, Y. Lu, Development of an automated estimator of life-cycle carbon
emissions for residential buildings: a case study in Nanjing, China, Habitat Int. 57
(2016) 154–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.07.003.
[13] P. Wu, Y. Song, J. Zhu, R. Chang, Analyzing the influence factors of the carbon
emissions from China’s building and construction industry from 2000 to 2015,
J. Clean. Prod. 221 (2019) 552–566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.02.200.
[14] National Bureau of Statistics of China, China Statistical Yearbook, China statistics
Press, Beijing, 2019. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2019/indexeh.htm.
(Accessed 1 December 2020).
[15] ISO-14040, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and
Framework, European Committee for Standardization, 2006.
X. Zhang et al.
[16] X. Zhao, J. Zuo, G. Wu, C. Huang, A bibliometric review of green building research
2000–2016, Architect. Sci. Rev. 62 (1) (2019) 74–88, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00038628.2018.1485548.
[17] C.K. Chau, T.M. Leung, W.Y. Ng, A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle
energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings, Appl.
Energy 143 (2015) 395–413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023.
[18] S. Roh, S. Tae, An integrated assessment system for managing life cycle CO2
emissions of a building, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73 (2017) 265–275, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.139.
[19] N.C. Onat, M. Kucukvar, O. Tatari, Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S.
residential and commercial buildings: a input-output hybrid life cycle assessment
approach, Build. Environ. 72 (2014) 53–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2013.10.009.
[20] J.L. Hao, B. Cheng, W. Lu, J. Xu, J. Wang, W. Bu, Z. Guo, Carbon emission
reduction in prefabrication construction during materialization stage: a BIM-based
life-cycle assessment approach, Sci. Total Environ. 723 (2020), e137870, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137870.
[21] Y. Cang, L. Yang, Z. Luo, N. Zhang, Prediction of embodied carbon emissions from
residential buildings with different structural forms, Sustain. Cities Soc. 54 (2020),
e101946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101946.
[22] A.M. Moncaster, F.N. Rasmussen, T. Malmqvist, A.H. Wiberg, H. Birgisdottir,
Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: results and
recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies,
J. Clean. Prod. 235 (2019) 378–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.06.233.
[23] I.Z. Bribián, A.A. Usón, S. Scarpellini, Life cycle assessment in buildings: state-of-
the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification,
Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 2510–2520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2009.05.001.
[24] B. Petrovic, J.A. Myhren, X. Zhang, M. Wallhagen, O. Eriksson, Life cycle
assessment of a wooden single-family house in Sweden, Appl, Energy 251 (2019)
e113253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.056.
[25] A.S. Nordby, Carbon reductions and building regulations: the case of Norwegian
mountain cabins, Build. Res. Inf. 39 (6) (2011) 553–565, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2011.604280.
[26] J. Sim, J. Sim, The atmospheric environmental impact of a Korean traditional
building’s life cycle, along with carbon footprint analysis, Sustain. Cities Soc. 28
(2017) 172–186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.008.
[27] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Jadraque, J. Roldán-Fontana, J. Ordóñez, Analysis of CO2
emissions in the construction phase of single-family detached houses, Sustain.
Cities Soc. 12 (2014) 63–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.01.003.
[28] S.K. Pal, A. Takano, K. Alanne, K. Siren, A life cycle approach to optimizing carbon
footprint and costs of a residential building, Build. Environ. 123 (2017) 146–162,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.051.
[29] B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, A. García-Martínez, J.C.G. Cózar, BIM-based LCA
method to analyze envelope alternatives of single-family houses: case study in
Uruguay, J. Architect. Eng. 24 (3) (2018), e05018002, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000303.
[30] A. Węglarz, M. Pierzchalski, Comparing construction technologies of single family
housing with regard of minimizing embodied energy and embodied carbon, E3S
Web of Conf. v49 (2018), e00126, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/
20184900126.
[31] D. Yu, H. Tan, Y. Ruan, A future bamboo-structure residential building prototype in
China: life cycle assessment of energy use and carbon emission, Energy Build. 43
(2011) 2638–2646, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.06.013.
[32] L. Gustavsson, A. Joelsson, Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential
buildings, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 210–220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2009.08.017.
[33] X. Gong, Z. Nie, Z. Wang, S. Cui, F. Gao, T. Zuo, Life cycle energy consumption and
carbon dioxide emission of residential building designs in Beijing: a comparative
study, J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (4) (2012) 576–587, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2011.00415.x.
[34] S. Sazedj, A.J. Morais, S. Jalali, Comparison of environmental benchmarks of
masonry and concrete structure based on a building model, Construct. Build.
Mater. 141 (2016) 36–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.150.
[35] X. Zhang, R. Zheng, Reducing building embodied emissions in the design phase: a
comparative study on structural alternatives, J. Clean. Prod. 243 (2020), e118656,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118656.
[36] Y. Li, H. Shen, W. Shan, T. Han, Flexural behavior of lightweight bamboo–steel
composite slabs, Thin-Walled Struct. 53 (2012) 83–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2012.01.001.
[37] Y. Li, W. Shan, H. Shen, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Bending resistance of I-section
bamboo–steel composite beams utilizing adhesive bonding, Thin-Walled Struct. 89
(2015) 17–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.12.007.
14
Journal of Building Engineering 39 (2021) 102295
[38] J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, K. Tong, J. Wang, Y. Li, Bond performance of adhesively
bonding interface of steel-bamboo composite structure, J. Renew. Mater. 8 (6)
(2020) 687–702, https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2020.09513.
[39] Y. Li, J. Yao, R. Li, Z. Zhang, J. Zhang, Thermal and energy performance of a steel-
bamboo composite wall structure, Energy Build. 156 (2017) 225–237, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.083.
[40] X. Zhang, R. Zheng, F. Wang, Uncertainty in the life cycle assessment of building
emissions: a comparative case study of stochastic approaches, Build. Environ. 147
(2019) 121–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.016.
[41] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation (GB/T 51366-2019),
China Architecture& Building Press, Beijing, 2019.
[42] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment (LCA)
and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.08.037.
[43] H. Islam, M. Jollands, S. Setunge, Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost
implication of residential buildings—a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42
(2015) 129–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.006.
[44] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB 50010-2010), China
Architecture& Building Press, Beijing, 2010.
[45] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Standard for Design of Timber Structures (GB 50005-2017), China
Architecture& Building Press, Beijing, 2017.
[46] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Standard for Classification of Steel Structures (GB 50017-2017), China
Architecture& Building Press, Beijing, 2017.
[47] X. Zhang, F. Wang, Assessment of embodied carbon emissions for building
construction in China: comparative case studies using alternative methods, Energy
Build. 130 (2016) 330–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.080.
[48] E.D. Williams, C.L. Weber, T.R. Hawkins, Hybrid framework for managing
uncertainty in life cycle inventories, J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (6) (2009) 928–944, https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00170.x.
[49] H. Imbeault-Tétreault, O. Jolliet, L. Deschénes, R.K. Rosenbaum, Analytical
propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation,
J. Ind. Ecol. 17 (4) (2013) 485–492, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12001.
[50] J. Hong, G.Q. Shen, Y. Peng, Y. Feng, C. Mao, Uncertainty analysis for measuring
greenhouse gas emissions in the building construction phase: a case study in China,
J. Clean. Prod. 129 (2016) 183–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.04.085.
[51] J. Ma, G. Du, Z. Zhang, P. Wang, B. Xie, Life cycle analysis of energy consumption
and CO2 emissions from a typical large office building in Tianjin, China, Build,
Environ. Times 117 (2017) 36–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2017.03.005.
[52] D. Huang, Life Cycle Assessment of Bamboo/wood Structure Village House,
Nanjing Forestry University, 2012 (In Chinese), (Ph.D. thesis).
[53] C.V. Camp, F. Huq, CO2 and cost optimization of reinforced concrete frames using a
big bang-big crunch algorithm, Eng. Struct. 48 (2013) 363–372, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.004.
[54] P. Wu, Y. Li, D. Xu, X. Bian, Multi-objective optimal section design of I-shaped
section steel-bamboo composite beam using genetic algorithm, J. Build. Struct. 41
(1) (2020) 149–155.
[55] D.N. Kaziolas, I. Zygomalas, G.Е. Stavroulakis, C.C. Baniotopoulos, LCA of timber
and steel buildings with fuzzy variables uncertainty quantification, Eur. J. Environ.
Civ. Eng. 21 (9) (2017) 1128–1150, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2016.1150899.
[56] T. Gao, L. Shen, M. Shen, F. Chen, L. Liu, L. Gao, Analysis on differences of carbon
dioxide emission from cement production and their major determinants, J. Clean.
Prod. 103 (2015) 160–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.026.
[57] Y. Kang, Q. Yang, P. Bartocci, H. Wei, S.S. Liu, Z. Wu, et al., Bioenergy in China:
evaluation of domestic biomass resources and the associated greenhouse gas
mitigation potentials, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 127 (2020), e109842, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109842.
[58] T.F. Kristjansdottir, C.S. Good, M.R. Inman, R.D. Schlanbusch, I. Andresen,
Embodied greenhouse gas emissions from PV systems in Norwegian residential
Zero Emission Pilot Buildings, Sol. Energy 133 (2016) 155–171, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.063.
[59] N. Nord, T. Tereshchenko, L.H. Qvistgaard, I.S. Tryggestad, Influence of occupant
behavior and operation on performance of a residential Zero Emission Building in
Norway, Energy Build. 159 (2018) 75–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.10.083.
[60] S. Hu, D. Yan, E. Azar, F. Guo, A systematic review of occupant behavior in
building energy policy, Build. Environ. 175 (2020), e106807, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106807.