Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Embodied greenhouse gas assessment of a bridge: A comparison of

preconstruction Building Information Model and construction records
Mohammad Nahangi , Gursans Guven , Bolaji Olanrewaju , Shoshanna Saxe *
Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an embodied GHG assessment of a completed highway bridge renewal project in
Received 1 May 2020 Canada and offers new insights on the strengths and limitations of BIM-based GHG assessments. Bridges
Received in revised form play a critical role in transportation infrastructure. As reducing environmental impacts has taken on
15 January 2021
increasing urgency across the construction sector, bridges have received relatively little study. A quan-
Accepted 11 February 2021
titative understanding of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in bridges is needed to inform
Available online 14 February 2021
future infrastructure planning, design, and construction. Recent efforts to streamline environmental
Handling editor: Dr Sandra Caeiro assessment in construction have led to the creation and adoption of Building Information Model (BIM)-
based embodied GHG assessments, taking advantage of the quantity take-off functionality of BIM.
Keywords: However, as BIMs are rarely developed with environmental assessment as the primary goal, their
Building information model (BIM) effectiveness for GHG accounting can be limited. GHG assessments of the case study bridge using a BIM
Bridge construction prepared before construction and using material and energy quantities records collected on-site during
Embodied greenhouse gas construction, are compared. Using only the quantities from preconstruction BIM, the embodied GHG for
Environmental design
the case study bridge is 1.3
106 kgCO2e. After the adjustments for on-site data collection and factors
Environmental impact
commonly excluded from BIM, such as on-site fuel use from machinery, it rises to 4.06
106 kgCO2e, an
increase of 212%. Results illustrate the need to change the scope and detail of BIMs if they are to be
effective for embodied GHG assessment, and the potential limitations of using BIM in embodied GHG
assessment.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Report Card, 2016). The significance of environmental impacts of

Driven by growing demands for infrastructure e and aging
infrastructure in many countries e significant bridge refurbish-
ment, reconstruction, and new construction is anticipated before
2050. According to the United States of America (US) infrastructure
report cards, there are 615,000 bridges in the US, 40% of which are
50 years and older; 10% of US bridges, representing 188 million
daily trips, are structurally deficient and need immediate repair and
rehabilitation (Federal Highway Administration, 2017; US
Government, 2017). Similarly, in Canada, 25% of the National
Highway Service bridges are determined to be in poor condition
and require rehabilitation and renovation (Canadian Infrastructure
* Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University
of Toronto.
E-mail addresses: m.nahangi@utoronto.ca (M. Nahangi), gursans.guven@
utoronto.ca (G. Guven), b.olanrewaju@utoronto.ca (B. Olanrewaju), s.saxe@
utoronto.ca (S. Saxe).
civil works, and contribution of the construction industry to global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, necessitate more consideration of
environmental impacts on all infrastructure projects (Akan et al.,
2017). Quantitative understanding of the embodied GHG emis-
sions in bridges is therefore needed to inform future infrastructure
planning, design and construction. Despite its importance, the
embodied GHG of bridge construction and rehabilitation are not
widely studied in the literature, and the focus of most of the
existing embodied GHG studies on transport infrastructure have
examined the construction of transport at grade or in tunnels.
Fundamentally, calculation of the embodied GHG in a bridge or
other construction project requires: (1) accurate assessment of the
quantity and type of materials and energy needed to construct the
facility, and (2) the GHG intensity of the materials and energy used
in construction. Traditionally, the GHG emissions of built environ-
ment products are calculated based on estimates of the materials
and energy used during construction, combined with a life cycle
inventory (LCI) that provides the GHG intensity of the relevant

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126388
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
materials and energy sources (De Wolf, Pomponi and Moncaster,
2017; Kim et al., 2017; Makarchuk and Saxe, 2019). Accurate GHG
assessment is necessary to facilitate targeted actions to reduce
GHG, and it is increasingly required by international construction
standards and infrastructure policy (BSI, 2011; BSI 2018; Ministry of
Infrastructure, 2019). However, assessment of the embodied GHG
emissions of the built environment products has been challenged
by data availability, and the time and effort needed to collect data
on material and energy use from fast moving construction sites. The
challenges in collecting data, and the mismatch between when data
is most available (i.e., during construction) and when the biggest
decisions influencing GHGs are made (i.e., during design) have
hampered embodied GHG assessment of the built environment.
Compared to other built environment products, in particular
buildings and roads, the embodied GHG assessments of bridges
have received less attention. Within the existing literature on
bridge embodied GHG and life cycle assessment (LCA), studies have
evaluated alternative bridge designs (Du and Karoumi, 2013, 2014;
Hammervold et al., 2013; Pang et al., 2015; Penade
s-Pla et al., 2017).
For example, the relative environmental merits of concrete vs. steel
construction of bridges. Concrete has been found to have the lesser
environmental footprint upfront (Arpad and Chris, 1998; Gerva
sio
and da Silva, 2008), while steel is reusable and recyclable with
potential advantages due to long-term recycling (Arpad and Chris,
1998; Pongiglione and Calderini, 2014; Yeung et al., 2015). The
research has shown that from a GHG perspective, the critical ma-
terials used for bridges are concrete, steel, rebar, and asphalt, which
account for 95% of the total material impacts (Gerva
sio and da Silva,
2008; Hammervold et al., 2013). Kim et al. (2017) and Lee et al.
(2019) have developed a model for estimating the environmental
impact of pre-stressed concrete beam bridges using information
available early in the design process (e.g., length, number of lanes,
over water) through comparison to databases of similar projects in
Korea. The existing literature has relied heavily on pre-construction
design documents.
Using Building Information Models (BIMs), 3D representations
of planned construction including material types and volumes, as
the foundation for embodied GHG assessments of buildings and
infrastructure is increasingly seen as state-of-the-art (Najjar et al.,
2017). One of the key strengths of BIM-based GHG assessments is
the opportunity to estimate GHG emissions of a construction
project during the design stage before material use and energy
consumption are committed. BIM-based GHG assessments can also
take advantage of the modelled details about on-site construction
processes and activities, such as schedule management and cost
management (Eastman, 2011; Ding et al., 2014). Estimating GHG
emissions from an early-stage design can be used for design opti-
mization and minimizing the environmental impacts (Soust-
Verdaguer et al., 2018; Cavalliere et al., 2019).
BIM-based assessments are mainly done by combining data-
bases of material GHG intensity with the material quantity take-off
(QTO) functions that has long been included in BIM. These QTO
functions were originally developed for construction planning and
management (Olsen and Taylor, 2017; Soust-Verdaguer et al., 2017;
Cavalliere et al., 2019). There are BIM add-on GHG assessment tools
readily available for purchase (e.g., Tally (KT Innovations, 2019), and
One Click LCA (Bionova, 2019)). BIMs, are increasingly used in the
construction sector to virtually build and plan complex construc-
tion projects, meaning many projects that want to conduct
embodied GHG or similar environmental assessments have access
to a 3D representation of the project (Eastman, 2011; Volk et al.,
2014). However, using BIM for GHG assessment usually means
repurposing of a model made for another purpose (e.g., clash
detection, visualization). In addition to the built-in QTO function-
ality, the 4D modelling capabilities in BIM theoretically allow for
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
incorporating construction machinery staging on-site, providing a
pathway to the assessments of on-site energy use and associated
GHG emissions; however, this functionality is less commonly used.
Some variation from pre-construction BIM-based estimates to final
quantities are expected, as design and construction approaches
evolve during development of the project (Dupuis et al., 2017)
however the degree of variation that is common is underexplored.
There is a key gap for performing effective embodied GHG
assessment; the complexity of modeling and the uncertainty
regarding the material take-offs within BIM life cycle assessment
(LCA) tools (Anand and Amor, 2017). There is further uncertainty
around which specific materials (e.g., concrete mix design) will be
used in construction (Basbagill et al.2013; Nahangi and Haas, 2016).
According to Soust-Verdaguer et al. (2017), the key challenge to
integrate embodied GHG assessment with BIM is the level of detail/
development (LOD). Based on a comprehensive study conducted by
Dupuis et al. (2017), a minimum LOD of 300 was the most appro-
priate level of maturity for GHG estimation from an early-stage
design. A graphical representation of LOD as well as the level of
completeness and complexity corresponding to each level is pro-
vided in Fig. 1. Careful defining of the LOD, and rechecking the
embodied GHG emissions as design advances are important, as the
assessed embodied GHG has been found to change with design
stage (Cavalliere et al., 2019).
An additional challenge with the use of BIM for GHG assessment
is that the BIM represents the materials that are designed to be
placed in the structure, not all the materials that will be used in the
process of construction (Basbagill et al., 2013; Dupuis et al., 2017). It
is standard practice to stockpile materials on-site to avoid con-
struction delays, as well as to slightly over-order some materials.
Furthermore, estimating GHG emissions for construction elements
heavily depends on the processes performed for handling and de-
livery of materials on constructions sites (Basbagill et al., 2013;
Dupuis et al., 2017). Therefore, accurate embodied GHG quantifi-
cation requires detailed information about the construction pro-
cesses and on-site activities. However, these processes and details
are rarely modelled in BIMs, and the potential impact of this
missing project-related information in BIM on the estimation of
GHG emissions has been overlooked in the past studies.
For BIM-based embodied GHG assessments to effectively guide
project-specific and sector-wide GHG reductions, the models need
to be reasonably predictive of the real-world outcomes. Although in
theory, the full details of a construction project, including every use
of material and construction equipment, can be modelled in three
and four dimensions in BIM; many details are commonly excluded
given time, financial constraints, and the effort of modelling details
(e.g., steel rebar) or processes (e.g., handling and delivery of mate-
rials on constructions sites) in full. This paper investigates the po-
tential impacts on GHG assessment of these processes commonly
excluded during modelling, and investigates the applicability of
BIMs developed for other purposes (e.g., conflict detection) to be
used for embodied GHG assessment.
1.1. Knowledge gap and contribution of this study
In this study, two embodied GHG assessments of a highway
bridge renewal project in Ontario, Canada are performed, and the
results are compared: First, based on the quantities obtained from a
preconstruction bridge BIM, and second, based on construction
records collected on-site. This study examines the accuracy and
effectiveness of an increasingly common approach to embodied
GHG assessment, and contributes to the existing literature and
body of knowledge in two main areas: (1) evaluating the potential
limitations of BIM-based embodied GHG assessment, and (2)
providing a new case study of embodied GHG in a bridge in a new
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
Fig. 1. Graphical definition of LOD.
location. To the knowledge of the authors, it is the first study that
compares BIM-based GHG assessments to on-site data collection
for bridges, and quantitatively demonstrates how the project-
related information that is not included in BIM can affect the re-
sults of an embodied GHG emissions assessment.
Among the four major life cycle stages of construction projects
(i.e., production, construction, use and maintenance, and end-of-
life) that are common to built-environment GHG assessment in
the literature (De Wolf et al., 2016; De Wolf, Pomponi and
Moncaster, 2017); this paper focuses on the production stage in
terms of the embodied GHG in materials used for construction and
on-site energy use (cradle to gate). The paper uses one highway
bridge as a case study to highlight the potential omissions of a BIM
only approach for embodied GHG assessment based on current
common modelling practice, and provides guidance for how to
prepare BIMs in future work to more fully capture GHG impacts.
Findings provide new and valuable insights on the strengths and
limitations of BIM-based GHG assessments. If the sector is going to
continue to move towards BIM-based GHG assessment standard
processes, how BIMs are prepared and the scope of what is
modelled in BIMs will need to change to include a more holistic
modelling of the full project than what is currently standard.
2. Case study
A highway bridge that crosses a river located in Ontario, Canada
is analysed as the case study in this paper. The bridge is selected for
study because an unusual amount of data on its modelling, material
use and energy use during construction were available. The case
study bridge project required twinning and refurbishment of two
one-lane bridges and the demolition of two one-lane bridges. The
quantification of material below are for the entire construction
project (i.e., twinning and refurbishment).
The construction took place over water while maintaining traffic
flow. In the interest of limiting the traffic disruption, the new
bridges were built before demolishing the old bridges. A cofferdam
was used to facilitate the construction of the footings, foundations
and columns of the new structure in the dry. The rehabilitation of
the two one-lane bridges required a considerable amount of
earthwork and constructing new retaining walls for stabilizing the
area around the bridges. Construction has been completed and the
bridges are now in use. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 illustrate the layout and
geometry of the bridges.
3. Methods and data
Analyses and quantifications for the case study are carried out in
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
four main stages: (1) obtaining BIM-based quantities to form a
baseline for further analyses, (2) assessing the realized on-site
material use quantities from the quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) documents, (3) identifying and assessing the pro-
cesses and materials that are not included in the BIM, and (4)
determining the sensitivity of the results to the GHG intensity of
materials as compared to the changes in material quantities. The
comparison between (1) and (2) highlight the difference in quan-
tities for materials included in the BIM (e.g., mass concrete), such as
an assessment of the accuracy of the BIM for what is modelled, and
step (3) adds consideration of processes that are not modelled (e.g.,
BIM scope limitations). The GHG assessments are conducted using
different data sources for the same project, and these include the
BIM, QA/QC documents, estimator files, and personal communica-
tions with the General Contractor (GC) of the project. The Global
Warming Potential (GWP) in terms of GHG equivalent is estimated
for the studied materials. This complies with the methodology
described in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2013 report which states that emission metrics, such as GWP, can
be used to quantify and communicate the relative and absolute
contributions to climate change of emissions of different sub-
stances, and of emissions from regions/countries or sources/sectors
(IPCC 2013). The methodology of the study is summarized in the
below flowchart (Fig. 4).
4. Methods
Four combinations of data were used to analyse and demon-
strate the differences in the assessment of embodied GHG for the
case study bridge:
1. Baseline case (BC): Material quantities were based on direct QTO
from the BIM. The GHG intensity of materials was taken as point
values as specified in Table 2. No additions to the BIM model
were made. Since on-site equipment use was not modelled, the
base case did not include an assessment of construction energy.
2. Baseline materials with quantities adjusted (BCA): The quanti-
ties of modelled materials, concrete, steel (excluding steel rebar)
and asphalt were compared to the records of material quantities
from the QA/QC documents and personal communications with
the GC. A temporal analysis of the deliveries of concrete and
steel compared to the on-site delivery logs recorded in the QA/
QC documents is presented.
3. Baseline material with quantities adjusted plus processes/ma-
terials not modelled (BCAþ): Processes and materials that are
not included in the baseline BIM (i.e., steel rebar and on-site
construction energy use) were added to the BCA case.
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
Fig. 2. Screenshots of the case study bridge and its components.
Fig. 3. Dimensions of the completed case study bridge.
4. BCA þ S: In this combination, the sensitivity of the findings to
the selected GHG intensity of steel and concrete is discussed.
Further material use (e.g., formwork, falsework) and construc-
tion impacts (impacts on traffic congestion) are outside the scope of
this analysis given data limitations. Past research in the field has
found that formwork and falsework contribute less than 5% of the
overall embodied GHG (Lee et al., 2019). However, traffic disruption
has been illustrated to be a potentially important GHG impact of
road construction (Hanson and Noland, 2015). These exclusions
make the final assessed GHG impact conservative as the inclusions
of these additional factors would increase the GHG impacts.
Detailed analysis and quantities are presented in the following
sections.
4.1. Data sources
The general contractor (GC) responsible for the delivery of the
bridge shared the data for the case study with the authors. All the
embodied GHG assessments were conducted after the completion
of the project based on data collected for other purposes (e.g.,
constructability, quality control, invoicing). Since the assessment
calculations are based on the full records from the case study
project, the uncertainty of the data that were used in the study is
low. While the data used was gathered by others (i.e., the General
Fig. 4. Main steps of the methodology used in the study and the related outputs.
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
Contractor), it is based on highly developed quality and quantity
control processes. Table 1 provides a list of the data sources and
their usage in this paper.
1. BIM: An Autodesk Navisworks file used as a 4D model formed
the baseline for this research. The file was developed and pro-
vided by the GC for the project. It included major construction
staging and major structural elements. The QTO functions built
into Navisworks are used for determining the quantities in the
initial GHG assessment. The accuracy of this model was spot
checked with hand calculations compared to the drawings, and
compared with the quantity predictions prepared by the esti-
mators who work under the GC.
2. QA/QC documents: Records of concrete and steel delivery and
concrete testing were collected on-site by the GC throughout
the construction of the case study bridge. These include mill
certificates for steel and the compressive test results for the
concrete, which contain the volume of concrete in each delivery.
In this research, it is assumed that these are accurate repre-
sentations of the true material use on-site.
3. On-site construction energy records: The GC provided a temporal
assessment of the energy used on-site (i.e., diesel use) based on
fuel invoices and records of machinery on site. These logs and
records are used to assess the on-site energy use for the case
study bridge construction.
4. Estimators’ files: Estimates of material use completed by the GC
during the bidding phase were used as a comparison to the
overall material use.
5. Personal communications: Personal communication with con-
struction staff from the GC was relied on for an assessment of
on-site asphalt quantities. The quantity was calculated by the GC
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
Table 1
Data sources used in the study and their usage purposes.
Data source
1 4D BIM for major construction staging and major structural elements of the case study bridge Assessing the quantities in the BIM-based embodied GHG assessment
2 QA/QC documents for concrete and steel delivery and concrete testing
3 On-site construction energy (i.e., diesel use) records and records of on-site machinery
4 Estimators’ files from the bidding phase
5 Personal communications with construction staff
Table 2
BIM-based material quantities and the estimated GHG emissions for each material.
Material/work Quantity (m3) Mass (1000 kg)
Concrete 1507 3617
Steel 21 162
Asphalt 2032 4795
Note: *(The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 2016; Wernet et al., 2016; SimaPro, 2018).
based on the on-site records and communicated to the research
team as a single deterministic value.
5. Findings
The section below details the assessment of embodied GHG
emissions for the four cases discussed in the previous section,
namely (1) BC, (2) BCA, (3) BCAþ, and (4) BCA þ S.
5.1. BC: BIM-based quantities
The baseline embodied GHG emissions were calculated using
QTO from the BIM multiplied by the GHG intensity factors listed in
Table 2 (Wernet et al., 2016; SimaPro, 2018). The major materials for
the case study bridge are concrete, steel and asphalt. For the BC,
BCA and BCA þ cases, an average GHG intensity factor appropriate
to Ontario, Canada is adopted, as listed in Table 2. The sensitivity of
the assessment associated with the selected GHG factors for steel
and concrete in particular is further discussed later in the paper.
The total BC embodied GHG is calculated as 1.30
106 kgCO2e.
5.2. BCA: baseline materials in the BIM with quantities adjusted for
QA/QC documents
The BIM QTO provided estimates of material quantity for
asphalt, structural steel, and concrete. In BCA, these quantities were
compared to on-site records collected for QA/QC. The QA/QC doc-
uments better capture the amount of materials that are actually
used on-site. Additional material use was expected for standard
over-supply (e.g., priming the concrete truck), and auxiliary project
work that is not captured in the BIM. Both the BIM and QA/QC re-
cords included dates of use or delivery, and this facilitated a tem-
poral comparison of the use of concrete and structural steel. Small
variations (<5%) in material quantities are to be expected given the
needs for extra supply and purposeful over-ordering (e.g., to adjust
for wasted material). Larger variations (>10%), on the other hand,
have meaningful impacts on the overall GHG embodied in the
construction project.
5.2.1. Comparison of concrete quantities
Fig. 5 illustrates a temporal comparison of the concrete quan-
tities based on BIM and QA/QC quantities. Compression test records
show the dates each quantity of concrete was delivered on-site,
facilitating temporal comparison with the BIM. The dotted grey
line illustrate the estimate done by the preconstruction estimators.
For the first 450 days of construction, the concrete quantities from
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
Usage
Calculating material use on-site
Assessing the on-site energy use
For comparison to the overall material use
For assessment of on-site asphalt quantities
GHG intensity factor* (kgCO2e/kg) Embodied GHG (kgCO2 eq) GHG contribution
0.147 5.32 þ 05 40.8%
1.2 1.95Eþ05 15.0%
0.12 5.75Eþ05 44.2%
Fig. 5. Temporal cumulative use of concrete on the case study bridge.
the BIM and QA/QC files tracked closely and aligned with the ex-
pected end date of construction in the BIM. On day 450, the total
QA/QC record of concrete volume delivered to the site was 1803 m3,
20% higher than the BIM-based estimations and 8% higher than the
expectations of the pre-construction estimators. However, as seen
in Fig. 5, there were additional concrete deliveries after day 450.
This additional concrete was used to build a wall that was not
modelled in the BIM and was not initially expected by the esti-
mators. The final total concrete used on-site was 2452 m3; 63%
higher than the BIM-based quantities and 47% more than the pre-
construction estimate. This had a significant impact on the assessed
embodied GHG.
Quantities are based on the 4D schedule and deliveries recorded
in the compressive test results. Total concrete quantity for the BIM-
based estimation was 1507 m3, the estimators predicted 1664 m3,
and the total concrete volume actually delivered to the case study
bridge was 2452 m3.
5.2.2. Comparison of steel quantities (excluding rebar)
As with concrete, slightly larger quantities of steel are expected
on-site than what was modelled in the BIM. This is due to standard
practices of ordering slightly more than needed (i.e., less than 5%)
to prevent delays due to material shortages, and some waste during
on-site assembly. On-site steel quantities were recorded in the mill
certificates provided by the vendors for QA/QC purposes. Fig. 6
shows a summary of the comparison between the BIM-based
estimation and the actual quantities for the steel used for the
case study bridge. The steel was ordered in advance and stockpiled
5
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
Fig. 6. Temporal cumulative use of steel for the case study bridge.
on-site as illustrated by the large delay between on-site deliveries
and expected use (Fig. 6). As illustrated in Fig. 6, the steel mass
delivered to site was 212,000 kg. This is approximately 31% more
than the BIM-based quantity of 162,000 kg (see Table 2); indicating
that steel not included in the BIM was required on-site, further
increasing the assessed embodied GHG.
5.2.3. Comparison of asphalt quantities
Asphalt used for road surfacing is the third major material used
for construction of the case study bridge. As reported in Table 2, the
BC asphalt quantity is 2032 m3 (4,795,000 kg). The on-site records
indicate asphalt use of 5513 m3 (13,012,000 kg) based on personal
communication with the GC. This discrepancy indicates that
resurfacing was done on a significantly larger area than what was
modelled in the BIM. This is not surprising given the disruption to
the road surface from heavy construction machinery during con-
struction, and the low utility for project management purposes in
modelling asphalt use adjacent to the bridge. Moreover, the
resurfacing of the bridge deck may have presented an opportunity
to resurface adjacent road segments during the construction.
After adjusting for the QA/QC material quantities of concrete,
structural steel and asphalt, the assessed embodied GHG was
2.68
106 kgCO2e for case BCA, which is 106% higher than BC.
5.3. BCAþ: addition of materials and on-site energy use that were
not modelled in BIM
5.3.1. Steel reinforcing bars (i.e., rebars)
In line with common practice, the case study bridge BIM did not
include steel reinforcing bar (i.e., rebar) or the use of construction
equipment and associated diesel fuel use. Modelling rebar is both
time consuming given the level of detail, and not of service to the
common BIM uses, such as clash detection, since the rebar is fully
enclosed in the concrete elements. The calculation of rebar quan-
tities below is based on on-site QA/QC documents and mill certif-
icates. As listed in Table 3, a total rebar mass of 207 Mg was
Table 3
Summary of the rebar quantification based on the mill certificates archived by
the GC.
Parameter Value
Total rebar mass 207,005 kg
Rebar concrete ratio by mass 3.52%
Rebar concrete ratio by volume 1.08%
Rebar embodied GHG 248,406 kgCO2e
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
reported in on-site records. This equates to a concrete-rebar ratio of
3.52% by mass, which is lower than the 5%e10% standard rebar
expectation common in a bridge (Itoh and Kitagawa, 2003; Habert
et al., 2012; Hammervold et al., 2013; Du et al., 2014), and is
therefore likely conservative. Using the baseline steel GHG intensity
from Table 2, this equates to an embodied GHG of 248 MgCO2e for
rebar, representing 19% of the total embodied GHG that was
calculated in the baseline case.
5.3.2. On-site energy use e fuel for construction equipment
Construction of a bridge generally requires performing major
earthwork and using associated heavy construction machinery, as
was the case with the case study bridge. The case study bridge also
required concrete pouring, which is a large user of on-site energy.
As discussed above, construction equipment and associated con-
struction energy were not included in the BC BIM. Similar to rebar
modelling, construction equipment modelling is time consuming
and not of service to common BIM applications. The GC compiled
detailed fuel logs (i.e., diesel use) for the project for on-site
equipment used by both the GC and subcontractors. These logs
were based on invoicing for the project and records of construction
machinery residencies. As illustrated in Table 4, the total fuel
consumed in construction of the case study bridge was 318,600 L.
Considering a GHG factor for diesel of 3.55 kgCO2e/L ((S&T) Squared
Consultants Inc, 2019), the total GHG contribution of the fuel for
this project was 1.13 x 106 kgCO2e. This alone equates to 87% of BC
or 42% of BCA.
5.3.3. BCA þ embodied GHG emissions
Accounting for the QA/QC quantities for concrete, steel, and
asphalt in BCA, and the further addition of rebar and on-site diesel
use; the assessed embodied GHG emissions for case BCAþ is 4.06 x
106 kgCO2e, approximately three times larger than case BC. Fig. 7
illustrates the change in assessed embodied GHG emissions from
case BC through BCA and BCAþ. As discussed above, this analysis
does not fully capture every GHG-emitting process involved in the
construction of the case study bridge (e.g. transportation), and
therefore, is a conservative assessment.
5.4. BCA þ S: sensitivity of findings to material GHG intensity
factors
The assessments above were completed with single value GHG
factors for the construction materials and diesel fuel but it is well
established that there is inherently significant uncertainty in the
GHG factors of materials and fuels (Wernet et al., 2016). In many
cases, a range of GHG values instead of a single number, represents
the potential GHG outcomes more accurately. This paper focuses
mostly on the sensitivity of embodied GHG emissions to the data
sources of material quantities. In this section, the sensitivity of the
analysis to GHG factors is briefly illustrated through a sensitivity
analysis of concrete and steel.
According CRMCA (The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute,
2016), a reasonable range of concrete GHG intensities for
31e35 MPa concrete in Canada are 108.5 kgCO2e/1000 kg to 187.4
Table 4
Summary of the fuel consumption by GC and sub-contractors on the case
study bridge.
Value
General Contractor 137,700 L
Sub-contractors 180,900 L
Total fuel consumed 318,600 L
GHG contribution of fuel 1,131,030 kgCO2e
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
Fig. 7. Total GWP quantified using (1) BIM-based quantities, (2) QA/QC documents, and
(3) rebar and on-site diesel use.
kgCO2e/1000 kg, depending on the percentage of fly ash or slag in
the concrete mix (BC assumed 147.05 kgCO2e/1000 kg). For steel, a
range of GHG intensity factors from 900 kgCO2e/1000 kg to 1500
kgCO2e/1000 kg (BC assumed 1200 kgCO2e/1000 kg) were tested,
allowing for a range of recycled material percentages. These ranges
lead to a BCA þ S assessment of 3.66 x 106 kgCO2e to 4.39 x 106
kgCO2e. The sensitivity of the results to changes in the GHG in-
tensity of these two materials is approximately ±10%. This re-
inforces the need to select the GHG intensity factors and the
associated ranges carefully for an effective embodied GHG assess-
ment. However, the range in quantities and excluded factors be-
tween the BC and BCA þ cases lead to much more variation in the
assessment (i.e., more than 212%).
6. Discussions
This paper investigated the impact of different data sources and
included factors on the quantification of embodied GHG emissions
for a highway bridge reconstruction project in Ontario, Canada. The
findings reveal a 212% increase in assessed GHG between a BIM-
based assessment (i.e., BC) and an on-site records-based assess-
ment (i.e., BCAþ). Four different approaches to embodied GHG
assessment for the same bridge lead to four different findings:
⁃ For case BC, using only the BIM, the embodied GHG is assessed
at 1.3
106 kgCO2e. Concrete, steel (excluding rebar) and
asphalt are the included materials with 41%, 15%, and 44% of the
GHG, respectively.
⁃ For case BCA, adjusting the BC materials based on QA/QC
documentation on-site increased the assessed GHG to
2.68
106 kgCO2e.
⁃ In case BCAþ, adding rebar and on-site diesel use that were not
modelled in the BIM increased the assessed embodied GHG
further to 4.06
106 kgCO2e.
⁃ In case BCA þ S, a sensitivity analysis for the embodied GHG
intensity of steel and concrete was performed, while holding
other factors constant, and it indicated a range in GHG from 3.66
x 106 kgCO2e to 4.39 x 106 kgCO2e.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
This research illustrates the sensitivity of BIM-based embodied
GHG assessment to the level of detail and scope of the model, and
highlights the challenge of accurate and complete quantification of
material and energy use on-site. This study can be used in future
studies to inform the uncertainty of embodied GHG estimates
based on BIM. The findings demonstrate the potential limitations of
an exclusively BIM-based approach for embodied GHG assessment,
especially with a BIM that was developed primarily for purposes
other than GHG assessment. BIM remains a powerful tool for GHG
assessment, but care must be taken to recognize the limitations of
the models. In particular, if a BIM was prepared for another pur-
pose, such as clash detection or visualization, and it is repurposed
for GHG assessment; it is likely to exclude important impacts and
has potential to significantly underestimate the embodied GHG
emissions.
This paper examined both (1) the BIM-based assessment of
materials compared to on-site records, and (2) the impact of factors
commonly excluded from BIM. In the first instance, the excluded
material quantities were found to be large, not because of any er-
rors in the way that the BIM was initially modelled, but due to the
fact that the full scope of work was not modelled (e.g., additional
walls, additional road repaving). The 63% change in concrete, 31%
change in steel, and 171% change in asphalt fundamentally affected
the assessed embodied GHG emissions. In the case study project,
the work outside the BIM was a wall and additional repaving; but in
other projects, it could be utility works, temporary works, sec-
ondary structures, and more.
Similarly, rebar and on-site energy use accounted for more than
34% of the BCA þ embodied GHG assessment (i.e., 6.1% rebar, 28%
diesel). The percentage of total GHG attributed to the construction
energy is higher than is expected in many construction projects
(e.g., ~10% in many buildings) due to the high proportion of
earthwork inherent to bridge projects. For a bridge or other
ground-based project, such as basement or tunnel, the proportion
of embodied GHG due to on-site energy use is likely to be similarly
large, and therefore, requires detailed consideration. In BIM, this
could be done through modelling equipment use and duration on-
site, combined with estimates of fuel use per equipment per day.
The main purpose of the studied BIM was not for embodied GHG
assessment; but to be effective for embodied GHG assessments,
BIMs will need to capture more of the project than that of the
current common practice. This would require the investment of
additional resources into 3D and 4D modelling.
The implications of these findings for the use of BIM-based
embodied GHG calculations depend on the purpose of the
embodied GHG assessment. When assessing for overall GHG
emissions (e.g., for regulatory reporting or to meet a benchmark)
the potential for the increase in GHG from the increase in material
use and energy recorded on-site brings into question the validity of
a BIM-based assessment without major additions or adjustments.
Similarly, it would be problematic for hotspot detection if some of
the alternatives examined would, for instance, transfer GHG
emissions to construction energy through a change in construction
approach. For other types of analysis, such as incremental changes
to a design or comparison between design options, a BIM-based
assessment could provide valuable relative data. That said, when
comparing between options, care must be taken that secondary
structures, on-site energy requirements and further work (e.g.,
utility relocations) are alike, and similarly included or excluded
between the compared alternatives.
7. Conclusions
This study performed GHG assessments of a completed highway
bridge renewal project in Ontario, Canada as a case study, using a
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
BIM prepared before the construction of the bridge and the mate-
rial and energy quantities records collected on-site during its
construction. The assessments based on on-site records and BIM
are compared and the findings highlighted the sensitivity of
embodied GHG assessment to the source of data (e.g., data from
models or collected on-site), the factors included (e.g., on-site en-
ergy), and the inclusion of full project details (e.g., inducing auxil-
iary work) through the lens of one case study bridge. The work
illustrates the need to apply BIM-based embodied GHG emissions
with care, demonstrating the potential to underestimate the overall
GHG significantly. While this study does not aim to represent all
bridges with one case study, it highlights the potential limitations
of current data availability and processes in assessing embodied
impacts in construction. Further research is needed to understand
the scale of underestimation across a larger number of projects and
project types, and to investigate the potential to close the gap by
including more details in BIM models or through the use of
compensating approaches like scaling factors. Future work requires
embodied GHG assessments of more bridges. Although this paper
focused on embodied GHG emissions, the issues of fulsome
capturing of material and energy use on-site discussed here have
similar implications for other environmental factors (e.g., acidifi-
cation, eutrophication, ozone depletion) and economic issues such
as project cost.
Going forward, for BIM-based embodied assessment to become
more accurate, a change in the approach will be needed: 1) Ele-
ments currently left out of models will need to be modelled (e.g.,
rebar, the full extent of expected repaving), 2) construction energy
use needs to be modelled, (e.g., through use of 4D equipment use
modelling), and finally, 3) careful consideration of how predictive a
preconstruction model is of what will be built on site needs to be
incorporated as a scaling factor in BIM assessments. Bridge projects
regularly require extra construction (i.e., material and energy use),
even beyond the construction drawings as things often change on
site. More research is needed to determine the scale of change as it
applies to the predictions of material and energy use.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohammad Nahangi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization,
Writing - original draft. Gursans Guven: Data curation, Formal
analysis, Validation, Supervision, Writing - original draft. Bolaji
Olanrewaju: Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Visualization.
Shoshanna Saxe: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Meth-
odology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing - review &
editing.
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
The authors would like to thank our industry partner, EllisDon
Corporation, for contributing the following: funding, access to data,
and in-kind support of staff time to this work. The authors also
thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC Collaborative Research and Development program
#508960) and the Ontario Centre of Innovation (formerly Ontario
Centre of Excellence; TargetGHG program #27943) for matching
grants and BASF-Canada and WSP Global for in kind support for this
research program.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126388.
Data statement
Some or all data, models, or code used during the study were
provided by a third party. Direct requests for these materials may
be made to the provider as indicated in the Acknowledgements.
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be
provided with restrictions.
References
€
Akan, M.O.A., Dhavale, D.G., Sarkis, J., 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions in the con-
struction industry: an analysis and evaluation of a concrete supply chain.
J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1195e1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.225.
Anand, C.K., Amor, B., 2017. ‘Recent developments, future challenges and new
research directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review’, Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews, 67. Pergamon, pp. 408e416. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RSER.2016.09.058.
Arpad, H., Chris, H., 1998. ‘Steel versus steel-reinforced concrete bridges: environ-
mental assessment’, Journal of infrastructure systems. American Society of Civil
Engineers 4 (3), 111e117. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342 (1998)4:
3(111).
Basbagill, J., et al., 2013. Application of life-cycle assessment to early stage building
design for reduced embodied environmental impacts. Build. Environ. 60,
81e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.11.009.
Bionova, 2019. One-click LCA.
BSI, 2011. ‘BS EN 15978: 2011 Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of
Environmental Performance of Buildings.
BSI, 2018. PAS 280:2018 Through-Life Engineering Services. Adding Business Value
through a Common Framework.
Canadian infrastructure report card, 2016. Informing the Future.
Cavalliere, C., et al., 2019. Continuous BIM-based assessment of embodied envi-
ronmental impacts throughout the design process. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 941e952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.247. Elsevier Ltd.
De Wolf, C., et al., 2016. Material quantities and embodied carbon dioxide in
structures. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering
Sustainability, vol. 169, pp. 150e161. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.15.00033, 4.
De Wolf, C., Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., 2017. Measuring Embodied Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent of Buildings: A Review and Critique of Current Industry Practice’,
Energy and Buildings, vol. 140. Elsevier B.V., pp. 68e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2017.01.075
Ding, L., Zhou, Y., Akinci, B., 2014. ‘Building Information Modeling (BIM) Application
Framework: the Process of Expanding from 3D to Computable nD’, Automation
in Construction, vol. 46. Elsevier, pp. 82e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.AUTCON.2014.04.009.
Du, G., Karoumi, R., 2013. ‘Life cycle assessment of a railway bridge: comparison of
two superstructure designs’, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Taylor &
Francis 9 (11), 1149e1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2012.670250.
Du, G., Karoumi, R., 2014. ‘Life cycle assessment framework for railway bridges:
literature survey and critical issues’, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering.
Taylor & Francis 10 (3), 277e294. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2012.749289.
Du, G., Safi, M., Pettersson, L., 2014. ‘Life Cycle Assessment as a Decision Support
Tool for Bridge Procurement: Environmental Impact Comparison Among Five
Bridge Designs’, pp. 1948e1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0797-z.
Dupuis, M., et al., 2017. Method to enable LCA analysis through each level of
development of a BIM model. In: Procedia Engineering, vol. 196. Elsevier B.V.,
pp. 857e863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.017. June.
Eastman, C.M., 2011. BIM Handbook: a Guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Wiley.
Federal Highway Administration, 2017. National Bridge Inventory - Bridge Inspec-
tion - Safety - Bridges & Structures.
Gerva
sio, H., da Silva, L.S., 2008. ‘Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete
composite bridges’, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Taylor & Francis
4 (4), 251e269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470600627325.
Habert, G., et al., 2012. Reducing environmental impact by increasing the strength
of concrete: quantification of the improvement to concrete bridges. J. Clean.
Prod. 35, 250e262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.028. Elsevier Ltd.
Hammervold, J., Reenaas, M., Brattebø, H., 2013. Environmental life cycle assess-
ment of bridges. J. Bridge Eng. 18 (2), 153e161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000328.
Hanson, C.S., Noland, R.B., 2015. ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Construc-
tion: an Assessment of Alternative Staging Approaches’, Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 40. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 97e103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.08.002.
M. Nahangi, G. Guven, B. Olanrewaju et al.
Itoh, Y., Kitagawa, T., 2003. Using CO2 emission quantities in bridge lifecycle anal-
ysis. Eng. Struct. 25 (5), 565e577. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)
00167-0.
IPCC, 2013. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K.,
Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Climate Change
2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
p. 1535.
Kim, K.J., et al., 2017. ‘Life Cycle Assessment Based Environmental Impact Estimation
Model for Pre-stressed Concrete Beam Bridge in the Early Design Phase’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 64. Elsevier Inc., pp. 47e56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.02.003
Kt Innovations, 2019. Tally.
Lee, H.R., et al., 2019. Estimating environmental load of PSC beam bridge using
standard quantities and resource DB model. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1013-2.
Makarchuk, B., Saxe, S., 2019. Temporal assessment of the embodied greenhouse
gas emissions of a toronto streetcar line. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 (2), 06019001
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000475.
Ministry of Infrastructure, 2019. ‘Building better lives: Ontario’s long-term infra-
structure plan 2017’. Available at: https://files.ontario.ca/ltip_narrative_aoda.
pdf.
Nahangi, M., Haas, C.T., 2016. Skeleton-based discrepancy feedback for automated
realignment of industrial assemblies. Autom. ConStruct. 61 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2015.10.014.
Najjar, M., et al., 2017. Integration of BIM and LCA: evaluating the environmental
impacts of building materials at an early stage of designing a typical office
building. Journal of Building Engineering. Elsevier Ltd 14, 115e126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.005. March.
Olsen, D., Taylor, J.M., 2017. Quantity take-off using building information modeling
(BIM), and its limiting factors. In: Procedia Engineering, vol. 196. Elsevier,
pp. 1098e1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2017.08.067.
Journal of Cleaner Production 295 (2021) 126388
Pang, B., et al., 2015. Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a bridge with
different strengthening schemes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (9), 1300e1311.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0936-1.
Penade
s-Pl
a, V., et al., 2017. Life-cycle assessment: a comparison between two
optimal post-tensioned concrete box-girder road bridges. Sustainability 9 (10).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101864.
Pongiglione, M., Calderini, C., 2014. ‘Material Savings through Structural Steel
Reuse: A Case Study in Genoa’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 86.
Elsevier, pp. 87e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2014.02.011.
SimaPro, 2018.
Soust-Verdaguer, B., et al., 2018. BIM-based LCA method to analyze envelope al-
ternatives of single-family houses: case study in Uruguay. J. Architect. Eng. 24
(3) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000303.
Soust-Verdaguer, B., Llatas, C., García-Martínez, A., 2017. ‘Critical Review of Bim-
Based LCA Method to Buildings’, Energy and Buildings, vol. 136. Elsevier,
pp. 110e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2016.12.009.
(S&T) Squared Consultants Inc, 2019. GHGenius. https://www.ghgenius.ca/index.
php.
The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 2016. A Cradle-To-Gate Life Cycle
Assessment of Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufactured by CRMCA Members.
December.
US Government, 2017. Infrastructure Report Card-Bridges.
Volk, R., Stengel, J., Schultmann, F., 2014. ‘Building Information Modeling (BIM) for
Existing Buildings d Literature Review and Future Needs’, Automation in
Construction, vol. 38. Elsevier, pp. 109e127. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.AUTCON.2013.10.023.
Wernet, G., et al., 2016. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and
methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (9), 1218e1230. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
Yeung, J., Walbridge, S., Haas, C., 2015. ‘The Role of Geometric Characterization in
Supporting Structural Steel Reuse Decisions’, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, vol. 104. Elsevier, pp. 120e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RESCONREC.2015.08.017.