See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354624906

Trimming the structural ‘fat’: the carbon cost of overdesign in bridges

Conference Paper · September 2021

DOI: 10.35789/fib.PROC.0055.2021.CDSymp.P045

CITATIONS READS
0 17

2 authors, including:

Will Hawkins
University of Bath
19 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thin-shell concrete floors for sustainable buildings View project

Reducing the embodied carbon of building structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Will Hawkins on 21 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
International fib Symposium
Switzerland, September 16-18 2021

Trimming the structural ‘fat’: The carbon cost of over-

design in bridges
Oliver Budd (Author 1), COWI, 24 Bevis Marks, London EC3A 7JB, orbu@cowi.com
Will Hawkins (Author 2), University of Bath, wh604@bath.ac.uk
…

Abstract
Two hypothetical bridge designs are presented, one 'lean' and one with significant 'fat'. They are both
highway bridges with the same overall geometry. Both are formed from pre-cast beams and in-situ fill
using the same concrete mixes and beam types. For illustration, the 'fat' solution incorporates piles and
lightweight fill, whereas the ‘lean’ design uses spread footings and a regular granular fill. Embodied
carbon (CO2e) for the two bridges is calculated using How to calculate embodied carbon published by
the IStructE. The 'lean' solution is shown to contain 38.9% less carbon than the 'fat' solution (885 tCO2e
vs 1449 tCO2e). Commentary on the solutions is provided. Reasons for overdesign and options for
discouraging overdesign are discussed.

1 Background
In 2019 the UK Government enshrined in law the requirement to bring all greenhouse emissions to net
zero by 2050. Concrete construction is a key contributor to carbon emissions - cement alone is respon-
sible for 8% of global CO2 emissions [1].
Infrastructure accounts for 13% of cement use [2]. While small compared to buildings (83%) [2],
it is also considered one of the most difficult industrial sectors to fully decarbonise. While use of struc-
tural alternatives such as timber grows in building design, such practice is difficult to replicate in
bridges. Bridges are designed for a 120 year design life and require - and will continue to require -
durable materials like concrete. A high proportion of process emissions from concrete can only be offset
through carbon capture, a technology which remains unproven. This means the civil engineer's role in
reducing emissions through design efficiency is vital.
For the UK to meet the targets it has set itself, it must re-think concrete construction. While whole-
sale cradle-to-cradle changes are required, the 21st Century civil engineer has a key role in kick-starting
the process. Concrete is a versatile and durable material and surely has a role to play in future construc-
tion, but must be used wisely. Efficient design and prudent specification can both contribute signifi-
cantly to reductions in structural embodied carbon (CO2e).

2 Scope
This paper presents two hypothetical concrete bridge designs – one building in significant ‘fat’, repre-
sentative of overly conservative design, and one with the design made ‘lean’ via better design decisions.
Both bridges are simple highway bridges with one lane of traffic in either direction and footpaths. Both
bridges are formed of pre-cast concrete beams connected with in-situ fill. Embodied carbon for the two
designs is estimated using the principles laid out in the document How to calculate embodied carbon
published by the IStructE in 2020 [3].
The paper focusses on some of the decisions made towards the latter part of the concept design
stage, during the development of the Approval in Principle (AIP) document. At this time the designer
has certain decisions – and items to agree with the client – which may have a significant impact on
overall embodied carbon in the structure.

3 Problem statement
An existing single carriageway with 4m lanes and 3.5m footways runs in a cutting. A new bridge is
required to carry a single carriageway road spanning over the cutting. It will have 3.5m lanes and 2.5m
footways. Thus the overall bridge width parapet-parapet will be 12m.
1
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

Fig. 1 Existing road required clearance envelope

No ground investigation has been carried out near the site. A desk study of geotechnical information in
the local area suggests generally good quality granular fill with high SPTs (approx. 40), however some
poor quality made ground is known to have been used 100m along the route during construction of the
road cutting. It is agreed to progress the design in the absence of ground investigation (GI), with 'design
validation' occurring once GI has taken place in a year's time.
A feasibility study is carried out where various solutions are considered. It is decided to progress a
solution with pre-cast pre-stressed beams with in-situ concrete infill supported on in-situ concrete abut-
ments. It is decided to use cantilever concrete wingwalls.

4 Solutions

4.1 Baseline
Both solutions have the same geometry (clear span = 18.9m / structural depth = 1.0m). Both solutions
use TY8 pretensioned pre-cast beams. TY beams are standardised beams in the UK and Ireland, pro-
duced by multiple different manufacturers. They have been used commonly on road projects since the
1990s [4]. TY8 beams are 750mm wide and 800mm deep. Full geometries are available from manufac-
turer literature. Concrete grades are as follows: beams C50/60; in-situ deck C40/50; abutments and
wingwalls C40/50; piles C32/40. All concrete is assumed to use cement type IIB/S (25% GGBS).

4.2 Scenario 1 (Fat)

Scenario 1 prioritises ease of construction, avoidance of risk and design simplicity.
The TY8 beams are arranged as a sold slab one against another. This is considered easier to con-
struct as no formwork is required between the beams, only a backing rod or similar. The whole beam
besides the soffit is cast into the concrete making cover requirements less onerous. It also reduces hard
to inspect areas and reduces the number of potential roosting ledges for pigeons. Pre-cast parapets are
selected so that they can be sourced from the same supplier as the beams, and so that a patterned con-
crete finish can be achieved.

Fig. 2 ‘Fat’ scenario – deck cross section (pre-cast dark grey; in-situ light grey; surfacing hatched)

The beams rest on elastomeric bearings. The bearings are supported on RC 'inverted T' abutments with
back walls to prevent water ingress to the bearing shelf. The wingwalls are RC cantilever walls. Because
of the concerns of the possible presence of poor quality made ground, piles are specified to support the
foundations of the abutments, wingwall 1, and wingwall 2. Fig. 3 shows the structure in plan. Longitu-
dinally, one abutment is free and one abutment is restrained. Both abutments are designed ignoring any
propping action from the deck. The use of bearings simplifies the analysis as the deck becomes essen-
tially simply supported. It also makes the division of responsibilities between the bridge engineer and
geotechnical engineer clear and reduces the amount of interface required between the different parties.
This is considered beneficial because it minimises the iterations between teams that eat into the design
programme.

2
 Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

Fig. 3 ‘Fat’ scenario – plan showing deck outline; abutment outlines; wingwall outlines; piles;
parapets (left). 3d visualisation (right).

The abutments and wingwalls are constructed by excavating out the existing fill – which then is dis-
posed of. Lightweight fill (expanded clay) is specified to manage the eccentric load on the piles. Fig.4
provides a long section and elevation of the fat scenario. The use of both lightweight fill and piles is an
extreme case, but reflects a highly risk-adverse approach taken due to uncertain ground conditions.

Fig. 4 Fat scenario – long section showing main bridge section and extents of backfilling, eleva-
tion showing formed finish above ground level and piles beneath abutment and wingwall 1
and wingwall 2.

4.3 Scenario 2 (Lean)

Scenario 2 adopts a similar construction typology but with a greater emphasis on material efficiency.
The TY8 beams are spaced in a beam and slab configuration, making the deck more efficient than
a solid slab configuration, albeit with greater formwork requirements than Scenario 1. Steel parapets
are selected to minimise weight on the deck. Fig. 5 provides a section through the lean solution. GRC
formwork is provided spanning between the beams.

Fig. 5 Lean scenario – deck cross section (pre-cast dark grey; in-situ light grey; surfacing hatched)

The bridge is detailed as integral with full fixity at the abutments. A diaphragm is cast between the
beams. Large bars are required to control cracking in the hogging zone but sagging effects are reduced
at mid-span, reducing pre-stressing requirements.
The designer assumes good quality granular fill, which will be transported from a source less than
50km away. The poor quality made ground 100m away is acknowledged and its potential presence on
site is identified in the project risk register and geotechnical risk register. Spread foundations are spec-
ified instead of piles, utilising the bearing capacity of the soil. The deck connection means that the
overturning due to soil loading is not critical and granular fill can be specified instead of lightweight
fill. However, the connection also means thermal actions become significant and the abutment founda-
tions are designed accordingly. Fig.6 shows the plan view of the lean scenario. Fig 7 provides sections
through the lean wingwalls.
3
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

Fig. 6 Lean scenario – plan deck outline; abutment and wingwall spread foundations outlines (no
piles); parapets.

Fig. 7 Lean scenario – wingwalls. Spread foundations are used instead of piled foundations. Steel
parapets are specified. Conventional granular fill is used instead of lightweight fill.

5 Carbon analysis
Concept level calculations were produced to justify the 'fat' and 'lean' configurations. A schedule of
principal quantities was then produced. Pavement materials, drainage apparatus, and utilities apparatus
were all excluded from the schedule, being assumed to be similar in both options. How to calculate
embodied carbon published by the IStructE was then used to determine the embodied CO2e for each
structure, using a cradle-to-completion scope (Modules A1-5). Table 1 shows the embodied carbon
factors assumed for each material.

Table 1 – Cradle-to-completion embodied carbon factors for each material (to three significant figures)
Material Density Waste Travel A1-3 A4 A5w Σ A1-5
[kg/m3] rate distance [kg CO2e [kg CO2e [kg CO2e [kg CO2e
[km] /kg] /kg] /kg] /kg]
Concrete C32/40 2400 5% 50 0.138 0.00533 0.00849 0.152
Concrete C40/50 2400 5% 50 0.159 0.00533 0.00960 0.174
Concrete C50/60 2400 5% 50 0.180 0.00533 0.0107 0.196
GRC formwork 2400 5% 50 0.235 0.00533 0.0136 0.254
Reinforcement 7850 10% 300 0.760 0.0320 0.0900 0.882
Prestress wire 7850 10% 300 0.760 0.0320 0.0900 0.882
Galvanised steel 7850 1% 300 2.76 0.0320 0.0284 2.82
Expanded clay 500 5% 50 0.393 0.00533 0.0219 0.420
Granular fill 1800 5% 50 0.00747 0.00533 0.00162 0.0144
Elastomer 1500 5% 300 2.85 0.0320 0.153 3.03

4
 Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

Notes:
 Modules A1–A3: kgCO2e released during extraction, processing, manufacture (including
prefabrication of components or elements) and transportation of materials between these pro-
cesses, until the product leaves the factory gates to be taken to site. [3]
 Modules A4 and A5: kgCO2e released during transport of materials/products to site, energy
usage due to activities on site (site huts, machinery use etc.) and the kgCO2e associated with
the production, transportation and end of life processing of materials wasted on site. [3]
 Concrete mixes based on UK average cement mixes
 GRC formwork assumes C50/60 concrete with 2% glass fibre
 Reinforcement (B500) and pre-stressing wire (Y1860) assume UK average recycled content
 Galvanised steel is assumed hot-dip galvanised
 Expanded clay assumed for use as aggregate
 Granular fill assumes UK average aggregate
 Elastomer assumes natural rubber
Fig. 8 provides a graphical visualisation of CO2e for each structure by component.

1600
1400 Construction
1200 Wingwall 3
tCO2e (A1-5)

1000 Wingwall 2
800 Wingwall 1
600 Bearings
400 Abutment

200 Deck

0 Fill
Fat Lean

Fig. 8 Embodied carbon by component

Cumulative CO2e for the 'fat' solution was determined to be 1449 tCO2e. Cumulative CO2e for the 'lean'
solution was determined to be 885 tCO2e, a saving of 564 tCO2e (38.9%). The overall percentage re-
duction is clearly skewed by the saving from the backfill which is very large (389 tCO 2e). Nonetheless,
substantial savings were also achieved in the deck, abutment and wingwalls, as highlighted in Table 2.

Table 2 CO2e savings by component

Components Fat (t CO2e) Lean (t CO2e) Δ (t CO2e) % saving
Fill 444 55 389 87.7%
Deck 130 97 33 25.5%
Abutment 328 258 70 21.3%
Bearings 1 0 1 100.0%
Wingwall 1 294 247 47 16.1%
Wingwall 2 154 132 22 14.5%
Wingwall 3 27 26 1 2.9%
Construction 70 70 0 0.0%
Total 1449 885 564 38.9%
5
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

Fig. 8 provides a breakdown by material of CO2e for each structure. The reduction in C32/40 was
achieved by avoiding piles in the 'lean' solution abutments and wingwalls (-103 tCO2e). Fig. 9 again
clearly illustrates the profound difference between specifying expanded clay and ordinary granular ma-
terial for a large fill volume.

1600 Construction
1400 Elastomer
tCO2e (A1-5) 1200 Granular fill
Expanded clay
1000
Galvanised steel
800 Prestressing wire Y1860
600 Rebar B500
400 GRC formwork
200 Concrete C50/60
Concrete C40/50
0
Fat Lean Concrete C32/40

Fig. 9 Embodied carbon by material

As designers it's important we recognise the significance of design decisions and their relevance to real
life. Some popular metrics of embodied carbon saving are [5]:
 1 tCO2e = one-way flight London-NYC
 2 tCO2e = going vegan for a year
 3 tCO2e = ditching the family car in favour of walking and cycling
Thus, the savings in the deck CO2e alone is equivalent to going vegan for 26 years!

6 Commentary on solutions
In the 'fat' solution lightweight fill (expanded clay) was specified by the abutments. This was with good
intentions – lightweight fill significantly reduces lateral loads potentially unlocking structural savings
– but it has very high embodied carbon compared to conventional fill due to the high-temperature firing
processes involved in its manufacture (1100-1300°C) [7]. Lightweight fill can be useful, for example
for filling next to an existing structure and avoiding strengthening, but it shouldn't be the default back-
filling material, especially when used to make possible a bad retaining structure concept. The enormous
disparity between the CO2e for the two fill materials is testament to that.
Solid slabs do have benefits, as discussed in Section 4.2, but the beam and slab option in the lean
solution is clearly more efficient structurally. Unsurprisingly that results in direct material savings and
the associated reduction in CO2e. Using lighter steel parapets instead of concrete parapets also helped
to save carbon in the deck. Use of bearings in the 'fat' solution simplified the design. The designer felt
'safer' with a solution which could be easily analysed. The 'stitch' on fully integral bridges was also
considered difficult to fix. However, because the beams in the 'fat' design were simply supported this
meant that the beams worked less efficiently and contributed to the higher figure for the 'fat' deck CO 2e.
Lack of GI triggered a kneejerk risk-averse reaction in the 'fat' solution. The designer defaulted
immediately to piled foundations in the knowledge they would 'work' even if the ground were poor in
some locations. In the lean solution spread foundations were specified assuming the ground to be good
quality. It is assumed the contractor would then have a 'risk pot' if the ground were worse and redesign
were required. The first option may be lower risk, but results in higher CO 2e. It also underlines the need
for good GI. Clearly there are occasions where use of piles will be unavoidable e.g. for poor soil con-
ditions or longer spans, but they shouldn't be the default when other options may be viable such as
spread foundations or bank seats on reinforced earth.
Interestingly, the wingwalls were an area where CO2e reduction was more difficult. Not using piles
made a good contribution, but ultimately making savings on the cantilever walls was difficult. It was a
surprise that the wingwalls contributed such a high proportion of the overall CO2e: 33% for the fat
6
 Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

scenario and 46% for the lean scenario. To realise savings in the wingwalls, wholesale changes in form
would be required, for example via using materials with lower embodied carbon such as gabions or
reinforced earth. This underlines that the area in which we as designers may normally most focus is not
necessarily the area in which we can make the greatest positive impact. For example, spending time
refining the number of pre-stressing strands in the beams is likely to have a much lower CO 2e impact
than making a small adjustment to the foundations or wingwalls. This highlights the importance of
conducting an embodied carbon assessment, however simplified, as early in the design as possible.

7 Overdesign

7.1 Programme and budget constraints

Pressured programmes and design fees feed into a general culture of risk aversion, encouraging tried
and tested techniques, and discouraging innovation. The AIP – which is the culmination of the concept
design - can often be developed under time pressure and a solution hurried out the door, with a view
that efficiencies will be realised at detailed design stage. The reality is that the detailed design will often
be equally time pressured and the efficiencies will not be realised. In fact, peace of mind factors may
be added throughout the process, leaving ghost redundant capacity in the system. When the AIP is
written the constraints for the final design get finalised. As succinctly highlighted in the MEICON
report [6]: 'The role of the structural engineer must be viewed in the context of a design process. The
greatest potential for influencing material efficiency is held at concept design stage. Once designs are
fixed (in)efficient is locked and the role of the engineer becomes making it work, rather than making it
work well.' 'Innovation' may take the form of materials or techniques normally outside the scope of the
client specification, which would require a departure from standard. Departures generally need to be
agreed at the time of the AIP production, thus it's important to make sure they are included at concept
stage and are not an afterthought. Early engagement of contractors and suppliers are other obvious ways
to help develop good concepts but consideration needs to be given that their preferred solution may not
be the lowest CO2e approach.

7.2 Simplification / rationalisation

The relatively low price of steel and concrete when compared to the design and construction time is a
factor which leads to waste. Low prices may be used to justify increases in material to 'simplify' or
'rationalise' the design. This may be to homogenise elements, for example choosing larger pre-cast
members, or larger pile diameters throughout or to make pile spacing or gridlines equal. The design
may be simplified to facilitate simplified analysis and expedite the design process. Sometimes the low
carbon option may not be the easiest option to design. Sometimes the low carbon option may not be the
easiest to construct. It's important overly conservative simplification does not take place simply to min-
imise the risk of site error - competence of the contractor's workforce should be expected and be scru-
tinised by the client.

7.3 Absence of good GI / SI

Naturally, uncertainty stimulates risk averse behaviour in designers. This is often compounded by the
typical procurement routes and contractual frameworks on projects. As in the design example in Section
4, piles were specified instead of spread foundations because of the absence of good GI. Absence of
good SI, for example boreholes through existing masonry abutments or testing of existing concrete may
lead to 'belt and braces' solutions, 'eliminating' risk. This may be via making an existing structure 're-
dundant' which could be partially re-used. As per Section 7.1, the solutions are unlikely to change, even
if better GI / SI becomes available later. Clients must recognise that absence of good GI / SI early in
the design process has downstream implications, and make sure that good procurement and access
strategies are in place to allow this to happen. As early as possible in the design process we should
stress the benefits of good GI / SI - which may include reduced CO2e - to our clients.

7.4 Embodied carbon metrics

Clients are starting to embrace low carbon approaches, however there are still many issues with how
this is managed. The importance of minimising carbon is often moved to a parallel workstream of those
with specialist sustainability expertise. The ambition of minimising carbon should be embedded into
the main design team. Designers should be competent in calculating CO2e and doing this as early in the
7
View publication stats

Conceptual Design of Structures 2021

design process as possible. Many clients stipulate the use of the CG300 [8] AIP template on their pro-
jects. The template doesn’t make direct reference to embodied carbon at all. Section 3.10 'Environment
and sustainability' is a generic expression which could refer to the need to manage great crested newt
habitats or minimise noise pollution. Those are important considerations but shouldn't be lumped to-
gether under one banner.
How clients seek to quantify carbon savings is an area which could undoubtably be improved. Some
schemes have incentives or requirements to make carbon savings stage by stage, sometimes of an un-
realistic magnitude. This can encourage bad practice during the concept and 'cheating' between phases.
A common example is using loose definitions of concrete mixes at feasibility stage to justify the use of
GGBS as a 'saving' later. Such practice actually discourages the development of good concept devel-
opment because it encourages the designer to build in fat knowing that cutting it back later will provide
benefits (financial, reputational etc.). The latter stages of a project are not when CO 2e benefits can be
realised. Instead, clients should have a figure in mind for the embodied carbon they expect for a project.
When tenders are made this information should be available to designers so it can inform on their pro-
posals. At the optioneering stage CO2e should be at the forefront of considerations. Going forward, well
thought out targets also help to orientate the contractor towards supply chains which best manage CO2e.

8 Conclusions
The following conclusions are made:
 The 'fat' design had 1449 tCO2e and the 'lean' design had 885 tCO2e.
 Regular granular fill instead of lightweight fill resulted in a very large saving (389tCO 2e).
 An integral beam-slab deck with steel parapets instead of a simply supported solid slab deck
with concrete parapets resulted in a significant saving (33tCO 2e).
 An integral abutment with spread footing instead of a piled free standing abutment resulted in
a significant saving (70tCO2e)
 Wingwall spread footings instead of piled footings resulted in a significant saving (71tCO2e).
 There are many reasons for overdesign but most stem back to the selection of a poor concept.

9 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made:
 Designers should focus efforts to minimise CO2e at the concept design stage. This is the stage
at which most difference can be made.
 Designers should work with clients to set meaningful targets for CO 2e on projects.
 Designers should stress to clients the importance of GI/SI in developing the concept.
 Bridge designers should not over-focus on the superstructure when trying to minimise CO 2e.
The substructure, approach structures, and fill are as – if not more – important.
 Lightweight fill (particularly expanded clay) should be specified judiciously – not to make
bad concepts work.

References
[1] Lehne, J. and Preston, F. 2018. "Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-carbon Cement
and Concrete." Chatham House Reports.
[2] Shanks, W. et al. 2019. “How much cement can we do without? Lessons from cement material
flows in the UK." Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 441–454.
[3] The Institution of Structural Engineers. 2020. How to calculate embodied carbon
[4] Trout, E.A.R. 2016. Concrete Society Concrete Advice No. 40 The development of standard
prestressed concrete bridge beams
[5] Arup. 2021. "Reducing carbon emissions… every working day." Accessed April 8.
https://www.arup.com/perspectives/reducing-carbon-emissions-every-working-day.
[6] Orr, J. et al. 2018. "Minimising Energy in Construction". Accessed April 8. www.meicon.net.
[7] Rashad, Alaa M. "Lightweight expanded clay aggregate as a building material – An overview",
Construction and Building Materials, Volume 170, 10 May 2018, Pages 757-775
[8] Highways England et al. 2020. CG300 Technical Approval of Highway Structures.