Table of Contents:

1. Introduction 1

2. Emissions in construction projects 2

3. Literature Review 3

3.1. Strategies forward on low carbon initiatives in construction operations 6

4. Modelling project life cycle emissions 7

4.1 Direct Emissions 8

4.2 Indirect Emissions 9

4.3 Operation Emissions 10

4.4 Overall Emissions 12

4.5 Calculating of Primary Energy 12

5. References 13
1. Introduction
Construction has become one of the most significant sources of greenhouse gases, which are
regarded as one of the primary causes of climate change. Climate change is a global issue.
Environmental pollution is an important contributor to climate change. Greenhouse gases
play a key role in climate change, as well as having a large impact on world temperature. The
year 2015 was the hottest since records began in 1880, according to the US National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Furthermore, the 16-year period from 1998 to
2015 is regarded as the warmest on record (Olivier et al., 2016). Heat stroke, viral fever, and
dehydration are caused by the increase in heat waves caused by climate change (Pires et al.,
2016).

Many governments have recognized the necessity of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions,
which has resulted in agreements and protocols requiring parties to keep greenhouse gas
emissions below a certain level. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement that was
established in December 1997 and is connected to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change in order to determine greenhouse gas reduction targets. In the first
commitment, developed countries and the European Union decided to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 8% below 1990 levels over a five-year period from 2008 to 2012. In the second
commitment, developed countries and the European Union decided to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 18% below 1990 levels during an eight-year period beginning in 2013to 2023
(Heidrich et al., 2016). At the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in
2009, the US pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 % below 2005 levels by
2020. Then, in 2015, the United States committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
26 % to 28 % below 2005 levels by 2025, as part of the Paris Agreement (Parker et al., 2018).

By 2050, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets have been established at 40-90 %
compared to 1990. (Change, 2018a, 2018b; Energy, 2018). This goal will be difficult to attain
unless specific attention is paid to significant GHG producers. Buildings are frequently
chastised for their high energy usage and carbon output across their entire life cycle
(Sandanayake et al., 2016; Kourmpanis et al., 2008; Diakaki and Kolokotsa, 2013). Because
of their enormous numbers compared to other polluting compounds, GHG emissions have
been the focus of past building emission studies (Mao et al., 2013; Li et al., 2017; Karan et
al., 2016; Luo et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2015). CO2 emissions account for the majority of
GHG emissions, as construction-related emissions are typically linked to fossil fuel burning
(Luo et al., 2019). In 2018, building construction and operation accounted for 36% of
worldwide energy demand and nearly 40% of energy-related CO2 emissions (IEA, 2019).
However, due to the diversity of construction techniques and practices, capturing emissions
during the development stage of a structure has become a difficult issue (Sandanayake et al.,
2016).

Page 1 of 19
2. Emissions in construction projects
Construction projects are linked to massive amounts of pollutants. These quantities have a
substantial impact on human health and the economy, thus quantifying them is critical.
Greenhouse gases, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, eutrophication particles, ozone depleting
particles, and smog are among the environmental emissions studied. The Global Warming
Potential (GWP) is the total energy absorbed by a gas over a given time period, which is
usually 100 years (EPA, 2016a). When a gas has a higher global warming potential, it has a
greater likelihood of causing warmth (EPA, 2016b). Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons are the main greenhouse gases (EPA, 2016b).
Because greenhouse gases are produced as a result of human activities and are stored in the
atmosphere for hundreds of years, they have a significant impact on climate and weather
patterns (EPA, 2016b). On a global scale, greenhouse gases are regarded as the primary cause
of climate change (EPA, 2016b). Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in kg of CO2-
equivalent.

Acidification is the transition of air pollutants into acids, which causes soil and water bodies
to become acidic. Acidification promotes the loss of nutrients in the soil as well as an
increase in the solubility of metals in the soil. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx), as well as their related acids, are the major components of acidification (H2SO4,
HNO3). Acidification has a high potential to degrade building materials, particularly metals,
causing corrosion and rust (Ragheb and Jacobs, 2010). The acidification process (AP) is
measured in kg of SO2-equivalent.

A mixture of very tiny particles and liquid droplets is known as particular matter. Acids,
organic compounds, dust, and metal particles are also included. Inhalable coarse particles,
defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 mm but less than 10 mm, and fine
particles, defined as particles with a diameter less than 2.5 mm but greater than 10 mm, are
the two basic kinds of matter (EPA, 2016c). Premature death, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular
pulse, and irritation of the respiratory system's airways are all associated to a specific type of
substance (EPA, 2016d). Particular matter can have a significant impact on the ecosystem if it
settles in lakes or oceans, making them acidic. In coastal waters and rivers, specific matter
can alter the nutrient balance. Furthermore, it has the potential to deplete soil nutrients and
harm forests and farmland (EPA, 2016d). The amount of particulate matter is measured in kg
of PM 2.5-Eq.

Overfertilization is a term used to describe the eutrophication process. Eutrophication occurs

when water bodies demand a large amount of nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates, to
support algal development. When algae die and decomposes, the percentage of oxygen in
water bodies falls. The death of living things in water bodies, such as fish, is caused by a lack

Page 2 of 19
of oxygen (Ragheb and Jacobs, 2010). The amount of nitrogen-equivalent (kg N-Eq) in
eutrophication particles is calculated.

The ozone layer in the stratosphere is destroyed by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS). The United
States is the world's greatest producer of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The stratospheric
ozone layer acts as a shield against ultraviolet rays, protecting humans on the planet (EPA,
2016e). The ozone layer's depletion can lead to a rise in skin cancer, cataracts, and the
destruction of the human immune system (EPA, 2016e). The amount of ozone-depleting
particles is measured in kg of CFC-Eq.

Smog is thought to be primarily composed of ground-level ozone (O3). The chemical reaction
between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic molecules produces ground-level ozone,
which is not discharged directly into the atmosphere (VOC). The respiratory system of
children is affected by ground-level ozone (EPA, 2016f). Smog is a combination of the words
smoke and fog. Vehicles and internal combustion engines produce smog, which is a form of
air pollution. Smog can harm the heart and lungs, causing emphysema, bronchitis, and
inflammation of the breathing passages. It can also have an impact on the immune system
(Rani et al., 2011). Smog is measured in kg of oxygen equivalents (kg O3-Eq).

3. Literature Review
In the area of environmental emissions quantification and analysis, several contributions have
been made. In the Chinese city of Xiamen, Huang et al. (2017) presented a system for
calculating the carbon footprint of urban buildings. They came to the conclusion that energy
use and material production account for 45 % and 40 % of the carbon footprint, respectively.
They stated that implementing low-carbon methods might result in a 2.98 % reduction in
energy usage in urban structures by 2020. Li et al. (2017) proposed a hybrid simulation-
optimization strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from on-site construction operations in cold
climates. They found that optimizing labor allocation can result in a 21.7 % reduction in on-
site construction emissions. The CO2 emissions from the material production phase,
transportation phase, and construction phase were studied by Seo et al. (2016). They pointed
out that the production phase accounts for 93.4 % of CO2 emissions, followed by the
construction phase, and finally the transportation phase.

Barati and Shen (2017) provided an approach for reducing on-road construction equipment
emissions. According to them, increasing the payload of the equipment and the road slope
greatly increases the emissions of construction equipment. Abdallah et al. (2015) developed
an optimization model capable of identifying the best building upgrading solutions while
minimizing energy usage and keeping budget constraints in mind. Interior and external
lighting systems, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems, water heaters,

Page 3 of 19
hand dryers, and renewable energy systems are all analyzed as part of the optimization
model. Cho and Chae (2016) looked at the emissions produced by low-carbon buildings and
compared them to those produced by reference buildings. They stated that low-carbon
buildings can reduce carbon emissions by up to 25%. They showed that the operation and
maintenance phase contribute the most to CO2 emissions, followed by the manufacturing
period, while the construction phase contributes the least. Gonzalez and Navarro (2006)
investigated a collection of Valladolid residential dwellings. They calculated that by using
low-impact materials, carbon emissions may be decreased by 30%. The carbon footprint of a
light distribution warehouse was researched by Rai et al. (2011). They concluded that using
timber cladding instead of steel cladding might reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 18%.
Using a simulated annealing approach, Paya et al. (2009) proposed an optimization design
model that optimizes carbon dioxide emissions and structural cost of reinforced concrete
structures.

(1) Life cycle assessment method: Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a frequently used method
for estimating the level of environmental effect of products or services (Hong et al., 2014;
Ortiz et al., 2010). LCA has been used in several studies to quantify the environmental impact
of buildings (Suh and Lippiatt, 2012; Lee et al., 2009). In addition, LCA can demonstrate a
variety of environmental implications, such as a building's CO2 emissions during its whole
life cycle. However, most previous research has concentrated on identifying and quantifying
the impact on CO2 gas emissions during the maintenance and operation phases, because these
phases account for the majority of gas emissions across the life cycle of facilities.

Several studies have been conducted in recent years to predict CO2 emissions during the
construction phase. To test the applicability of the developed model, Hong et al. (2014) built
a model to measure CO2 emissions throughout the building phase, and a case study was
conducted on the three main processes of material manufacturing, transportation, and on-site
construction. Sandanayake et al. (2016) have provided a process-based quantitative method
for assessing emissions from materials, transportation, and equipment usage, as well as a
model to estimate emissions at foundation construction. Furthermore, during the design stage
of residential developments, Trani et al. (2016) forecasted on-site fuel consumption and the
resulting carbon dioxide emissions owing to earthworks-related processes. The prediction
was created using information from construction project documents as well as equipment
load factor definitions. Furthermore, a study group proposed a methodology for adding
operational efficiency analysis into the quantification of construction-related exhaust
emissions (Ahn and Lee, 2013). The same group of researchers has proposed an integrated
methodology for calculating and monitoring construction-related gas emissions (Ahn et al.,
2013). Although prior studies attempted to predict the quantity of gas emissions, the
estimates are based on projected construction equipment activity data, which may not provide
an accurate assessment of actual gas emissions. Kim et al. (2015) provided a direct measuring

Page 4 of 19
approach to quantify the carbon emission of construction equipment onsite at a construction
project in order to measure the real gas emissions of construction equipment. They employed
a flow velocity measurement sensor to detect CO2 emissions from backhoes, dump trucks,
dozers, and rollers in real time, and then compared the actual data to theoretical equations.

According to Silvestre et al. (2014), studying the reuse and recycling stages is critical for a
comprehensive life cycle evaluation (from cradle to cradle). They identified the waste flows
that occur during construction and demonstrated the principles for assessing their
environmental implications. They examined European standards for construction work
sustainability and their role in enhancing the contribution of the Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) approach to the cradle-to-cradle life cycle of building materials. For a case study of
three-floor single family detached houses, Pacheco-Torres et al. (2014) assessed the carbon
dioxide emissions created during the construction stage. Foundations and structures account
for 39% of embodied carbon, according to the researchers. As a result, it's critical to pay
close attention to the materials utilized in foundations and structures. They pointed out that
the house produced 358.55 Kg CO2/m2 of CO2 emissions.

(2) Optimization-based method: Previously published publications have used optimization-

based methods to develop solutions that maximize or minimize study parameters. Avetisyan
et al. (2012) used an optimization-based methodology to develop the best equipment
selection by estimating the potential value in terms of expenses to fulfil environmental
standards or determine the need for new equipment investment to reduce project emissions.
Ariaratnam et al. (2013) also offered decision-making tools that can optimize the most
sustainable alternative of a construction process by offering a set of sustainability metrics.
Meanwhile, Moayedi et al. (2019) used a Genetic Algorithm-based optimization model to
control the environmental performance of construction projects, which can be predicted from
the early design stage.

(3) Simulation-based method: Discrete event simulation (DES) is a technique for simulating
real-world processes as a succession of discrete occurrences. The benefits of DES include a
reliable forecast of equipment working hours and use rate, a low-cost scenario measurement
method, and an approximation of the efficiency and stochastic aspects of nonlinear and tacit
systems for estimating carbon emissions (Li and Akhavian, 2017; Nadoushani et al., 2018;
Liu et al., 2021). Furthermore, Wong et al. (2013) and Tang et al. (2013) used virtual
building prototype to develop early emissions visualization through time with a simulation
tool in order to take preemptive steps against future emissions. Abourizk et al. (2011)
employed two-dimensional (2D) graphical models to simulate and detect productive output.

(4) On-site field studies: Carmichael et al. (2012), Rasdorf et al. (2012), Gottsche et al.
(2016), Carmichael and Mustaffa (2018), Carmichael et al. (2018), Mustaffa and Carmichael

Page 5 of 19
(2018), Olanrewaju and Edwards (2020), and Yanli and Chao (2021) conducted field studies
to collect emissions data and carbon emissions management practices. Furthermore, the
majority of prior researchers chose to employ the Portable Emissions Measurement System
(PEMS) to assess construction machine emissions in real-time under operating settings.
Construction equipment emissions were measured by Frey et al. (2010), Albohasani and Frey
(2013), and Hajji and Lewis (2013) in several categories such as bulldozers, trucks, and
excavators. Frey et al. (2010) discovered that onboard PEMS fuel usage and emissions field
data outperformed laboratory dynamometer testing because the field data reflected actual in-
use conditions. As a result, PEMS data can be used to create pollutant inventories that reflect
current vehicle activity in the field. However, because PEMS may be damaged due to poor
weather or site conditions, it has a high instrumentation cost and requires highly skilled
operators to gather and interpret data.

Recent research attempts have been made to reduce gas emissions from construction
processes. Lewis et al. (2012) investigated the influence of idling on diesel construction
equipment fuel use and CO2 emissions, and conducted field research to collect field data from
heavy-duty diesel equipment in order to quantify the impacts of engine idling on fuel use and
gas emissions. Gallivan (2010) looked on how construction activity operations could be
mitigated. Three recommendations were made in the paper as ways to reduce CO2 emissions:
(1) reducing equipment activity, (2) improving fuel economy, and (3) employing alternative
technologies. Furthermore, Kim et al. (2012) calculated the carbon emissions of construction
equipment using design documents for road construction projects, taking into account the
capacity of various types of equipment, and provided recommendations for improving
equipment productivity and lowering gas emissions.

3.1. Strategies forward on low carbon initiatives in construction

operations
The answer for increasing the performance of construction emissions is as follows, based on
the viewpoints gained from the foregoing discussions:

(1) Consistent and applicable policies: Emissions controls must be expanded immediately,
while construction project emissions are minor in comparison to other industrial sources.
Through regulatory regulations, uniform standards of carbon emissions policies can make
it easier to implement low-carbon design and practices.

(2) Education and training: are important because they increase awareness and motivation by
encouraging the development of green technology skills, such as Eco Driving courses
(Kim et al., 2012; Rasdorf et al., 2012). Training in carbon measurement methods

Page 6 of 19
 (Jackson and Kaesehage, 2020) could help the industry implement carbon reduction
initiatives more effectively.

(3) Green construction methods: Prefabrication technology may make it possible to reduce
carbon emissions in the construction industry. However, because the traditional
construction method is more expensive to implement, most people would prefer to use it.
Specific low-energy-intensive construction strategies can be included into traditional
construction, incentivizing construction companies to use energy-efficient methods.

(4) Equipment and logistic planning: The studies revealed that the most significant barrier to
reducing carbon emissions is cost. Thus, focusing on operational tactics demonstrated that
these techniques are more likely than technological strategies to reduce emissions and
productivity at a lower cost. Furthermore, by selecting the appropriate equipment for each
construction job and limiting idle times through good on-site planning, carbon emissions
might be reduced without incurring any additional costs (Rasdorf et al., 2012; Szamocki
et al., 2019; Nasab et al., 2020).

(5) Operational planning: By integrating project schedules and fuel usage of construction
equipment, it is cost-effective to reduce carbon emissions by properly planning
construction activities and methodologies to predict carbon emissions.

(6) Low carbon design and material: By reducing energy use or introducing innovative
material systems, any traditional low-carbon design will reduce carbon emissions. Using
low-carbon content diligently during the design phase will effectively reduce carbon
emissions across the life cycle.

(7) Recycling material and waste: Recycling contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions.
However, recycling may only reduce carbon emissions to a certain extent because only a
few construction materials, such as steel, wood, and concrete, can be recycled (Hossain
and Poon, 2018; Liu et al., 2017). As a result, material and trash recycling should be
viewed as a carbon reduction strategy.

(8) Clean energy: To reduce electric demand, low-emission renewable energy sources such as
solar and wind should be created for on-site building.

4. Modelling project life cycle emissions

Construction project environmental consequences can be broken down into three categories:
direct, indirect, and operational emissions. The sum of direct, indirect, and operational
emissions equals the overall environmental consequences.

Page 7 of 19
4.1 Direct Emissions
Direct emissions are those created on-site during the construction phase as a result of the
amount of fuel and power used by resources, primarily equipment. These emissions include
those created during the transfer of materials from the gate to the construction site.
Construction emissions plus transportation emissions, deconstruction/demolition, and
repair/maintenance phases equal direct emissions of a specific item such as slabs or
foundations. This study looks at six different environmental contamination criteria, each with
its own unit. As a result, the six environmental characteristics are normalized by dividing
each by the sum of all alternative direct and indirect emissions for that parameter. The total
direct emissions are calculated using Equation (1).

Ed=T 1 ×
( E ghg
)
E ghgsum ( )
+T 2 ×
E ap
Eapsum
+T 3×
( Ehh
Ehhsum )
+T 4 ×
( )
Eep
E epsum
+T 5 ×
( E od
Eodsum)+ T 6 ׿

(1)

where;
The modification indexes for greenhouse gases, sulfur dioxide, specific matter,
eutrophication particles, ozone depleting particles, and smog potential are T1, T2, T3, T4, T5,
and T6, respectively. Each modification index is calculated by multiplying the severity index
by a weighted percentage. Eghg, Eap, Epm, Eep, Eod, and Es are potentials for greenhouse
gases (equivalent carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, particular matter, eutrophication particles,
ozone depleting particles, and smog produced during the construction phase, transportation
phase on-site, deconstruction and demolition phase, recycling and reuse phase, and repair
phase, respectively. Eghgsum, Eapsum, Ehhsum, Eepsum, Eodsum, and Es sum are the
potential sums for the construction project, which include direct and indirect emissions for
the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint, acidification potential (AP), human health (HH)
particulates, eutrophication potential (EP), ozone depletion (od), and smog (s), respectively.
Each sort of environmental effect indicator is given a weight (W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, and
W6) based on six characteristics (W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, and W6). The percentage of
influence on greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint, impact on acidification potential (AP), impact
on human health (HH) particles, impact on eutrophication potential (EP), impact on ozone
depletion (od), and impact on smog (S) is represented by these weighted percentages. The
sum of the weighted percentages should equal to 1. Table 1 lists the severity index of each
environmental parameter on human health.

Table 1: Proposed values for the severity index

Severity of the Environmental Parameter Quantitative Measure
Very high 8–10

Page 8 of 19
 High 6–8
Medium 4–6
Low 2–4
Very low 1–2

Equations (2) and (3) are used to compute the equivalent amount of greenhouse gases
produced by construction (Eghgc) and transportation (Eghgt) activities (3).

n
Eghg =∑ Cons Avg ( j ) ×working hours ( j ) × Act work ( j ) × γ Diesel ×CEF × T ( j )
c
(2)
j=1
n
Eghg =∑ Cons Avg ( i ) ×working hours ( i ) × Act work (i ) × γ Diesel ×CEF ×Tra (i )
t
(3)
i=1

where;
j is the number of pieces of construction equipment used for a certain construction element.
The number of pieces of equipment employed in the transportation procedure on-site is i.
ConsAvg is the average fuel consumption of a piece of construction equipment (litres per
hour), where each piece of equipment has a specific fuel consumption. The number of
working hours of a piece of equipment is referred to as its working hours (8 h per day). The
percentage of time that the equipment actually functions is known as actwork. The density of
diesel is γDiesel. The carbon emission factor (CEF) is a measurement of how much carbon is
released into the atmosphere. T is the moment when the construction operation is completed.
Ttra is the time it takes for a piece of equipment to travel. The density of diesel is considered
0.832 kg/L, whereas the equipment's real work accounts for 70% of its working hours, and
the carbon emission factor for diesel is considered to be 3 (kg CO2-Eq/kg) (Flower and
Sanjayan, 2007). Table 2 illustrate the average consumption of a certain equipment where 1
gallon =3.785 liters

Table 2: Average fuel consumption of construction equipment (Micheals, 2013)

construction equipment Average fuel consumption (gallons/Hour)
Caterpillar 936 Loader 3.5
Caterpillar D5 Dozer 4
Dump Truck, 12 cubic yards 5.34
Crane, 45 tons 4
Caterpillar 815 Roller 10.25
Caterpillar 325 back hoe 5.12

4.2 Indirect Emissions

Page 9 of 19
Indirect emissions are those created by activities such as production and transportation that
occur off-site. The emissions created during material transportation from cradle to gate are
included in the transportation phase. To put it another way, these emissions are inextricably
tied to the construction process itself. Equation (4) can be used to compute total indirect
emissions.

Eid=T 1×
( )
E ghg i
E ghgsum (
+ T 2×
)
E ap i
E apsum
+T 3 ×
( )
Ehh i
E hhsum
+T 4 ×
( )
Eep i
Eepsum
+T 5×
(
Eod i
E odsum )
+T 6 × ¿

(4)

where;
Eghgi, Eapi, Epmi, Eepi, Eodi, and Esi are potentials produced material production and
transportation off-site phases for greenhouse gases (equivalent carbon dioxide), sulfur
dioxide, particular matter, eutrophication particles, ozone depleting particles, smog,
respectively.

4.3 Operation Emissions

Operational emissions are the emissions generated by a facility's everyday operations from
the time it is built until the end of its remaining life cycle (Hong et al., 2014). Electricity and
natural gas are the two main sources of emissions from the operation stage. By multiplying
the quantity of each greenhouse gas by the associated global warming potential, the total
amount of equivalent carbon dioxide may be computed. Table 3 shows the global warming
potential over a 100-year period (EPA, 2002). Table 4 shows the emission factors for various
emissions resulting from power usage (Zhang et al., 2013). Table 5 shows the emission
factors for various natural gas-related emissions (Zhang et al., 2013).

Table 3: Values of global warming potential (EPA, 2002)

Greenhouse Gases Global Warming Potential
Carbon dioxide 1
Methane 21
Nitrous oxide 310

Table 4: Emission factors of pollutants from electricity consumption (Zhang et al., 2013)
Pollutant Emission Factor (g/Kwh)
Carbon dioxide 700
Methane 0.01
Nitrous oxide 0.09
Sulfur dioxide 2
Particular matter 0.1

Page 10 of 19
 Volatile organic compound 0.44
Nitrogen oxide 1

Table 5: Emission factors of pollutants natural gas consumption (Zhang et al., 2013)
Pollutant Emission Factor (g/Kwh)
Carbon dioxide 55.5
Methane 0.001
Nitrous oxide 0.002
Sulfur dioxide 0.001
Particular matter 0.001
Volatile organic compound 0.005
Nitrogen oxide 0.17

The total operational emissions are the sum of the operational emissions from greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, particulate matter emissions, and smog
emissions. The total amount of carbon dioxide can be calculated by multiplying the amount
of each greenhouse gas by the potential global warming. Equation (5) can be used to compute
operational greenhouse gas emissions. Equation (6) can be used to compute operational sulfur
dioxide emissions. Equation (7) can be used to compute operational particulate matter
emissions. Equation (8) can be used to compute operational smog emissions.

Eghg =( ( E F ELEC ( m)ghg × Con s ELES ) + ( E F NGAS (m )ghg ×Con s NGAS ) ) ×GWP(m)
op
(5)
Epm =( ( E F ELEC pm ×Con s ELES ) + ( E F NGAS pm × Cons NGAS ) )
op
(6)
Eap =( ( E F ELECap × Con s ELES ) + ( E F NGAS ap ×Con s NGAS ) )
op
(7)
Esop =( ( E F ELECs ×Con s ELES ) + ( E F NGASs ×Con s NGAS ) ) (8)

where;
Conselec and Consngas are the total quantity of electricity and natural gas consumption produced
over the building's lifespan, which is equal to the average consumption of electricity or
natural gas consumption (from Tables 4 and 5) multiplied by the building's area and lifespan.
(Rani et al. 2011). EFELEC (m)ghg, EFELEC pm, EFELEC ap, EFELEC S represent potential emission
factors produced from electricity consumption of greenhouse gases footprint, particular
matter, sulfur dioxide, and smog, respectively. m represents greenhouse gases and GWP(m)
represents the corresponding global warming potential. EFNGAS (m)ghg, EFNGAS pm, EFNGAS ap,
EFNGAS S represent potential emission factors produced from natural gas consumption of
greenhouse gases footprint, particular matter, sulfur dioxide and smog, respectively.

Page 11 of 19
4.4 Overall Emissions
In order to consider k activities of a construction project, the global environmental impact of
a construction project Eglobal can be calculated using Equation (9).

(∑ )
n
global
E = ( Ed + Eid) + Eop (9)
k=1

4.5 Calculating of Primary Energy

The primary energy consumed during the various stages of the project is the sum of the
primary energy consumed as a result of electricity, natural gas consumption, and oil
consumption, which is measured in megajoule (MJ) units. Equation (10) is used to calculate
the total primary energy.

TPE = PE manu + PE tra-off + PE cons + PE tra-on +PE oper + PE dec + PE rec (10)

where;
The term TPE stands for total primary energy. PE manu, PE tra-off, PE cons, PE tra-on, PE
oper, PE dec, and PE rec are abbreviations for primary energy used in the manufacturing,
transportation off-site, construction, transportation on-site, operation and maintenance,
deconstruction, and recycling and reuse stages, respectively. In the operational stage, there
are two main sources of primary energy: electricity consumption, natural gas consumption,
and oil consumption at various stages of the project. Equation (11) can be used to calculate
overall electricity usage throughout the operational stage. Equation (12) can be used to
calculate total natural gas consumption throughout the operational stage.

TEELEC = ConsELEC x SA x number of years (11)

TENGAS = ConsNGAS x SA x number of years (12)

where;
TEELEC, TENGAS refer to the total electricity and natural gas consumption produced during the
operational stage, respectively. SA refers to the total surface area of the construction project.

Page 12 of 19
5. REFERENCES
 Abdallah, M., El-Rayes, K., & Clevenger, C. (2015). Minimizing energy consumption
and carbon emissions of aging buildings. Procedia engineering, 118, 886-893.

 Abolhasani, S., & Frey, H. C. (2013). Engine and duty cycle variability in diesel
construction equipment emissions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 139(2), 261-
268.

 AbouRizk, S., Halpin, D., Mohamed, Y., & Hermann, U. (2011). Research in modeling
and simulation for improving construction engineering operations. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 137(10), 843-852.

 Ahn, C. R., & Lee, S. (2013). Importance of operational efficiency to achieve energy
efficiency and exhaust emission reduction of construction operations. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 139(4), 404-413.

 Ahn, C. R., Lewis, P., Golparvar-Fard, M., & Lee, S. (2013). Integrated framework for
estimating, benchmarking, and monitoring pollutant emissions of construction operations.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(12), A4013003.

 Ariaratnam, S. T., Piratla, K., Cohen, A., & Olson, M. (2013). Quantification of
sustainability index for underground utility infrastructure projects. Journal of construction
engineering and management, 139(12), A4013002.

 Avetisyan, H. G., Miller-Hooks, E., & Melanta, S. (2012). Decision models to support
greenhouse gas emissions reduction from transportation construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), 631-641.

 Barati, K., & Shen, X. (2017). Optimal driving pattern of on-road construction equipment
for emissions reduction. Procedia engineering, 180, 1221-1228.

 Bettencourt Pires, M. A., Vilemar Magalhaes, J., & Gupta, P. D. (2016). Heat waves in
nonconventional areas, climate change and disease load: A review. Journal of Cell and
Tissue Research, 16(2), 5705-5711.

 Carmichael, D. G., & Mustaffa, N. K. (2018). Emissions and production

penalties/bonuses associated with non-standard earthmoving loading policies.
Construction Innovation.

 Carmichael, D. G., Mustaffa, N. K., & Shen, X. (2018). A utility measure of attitudes to
lower-emissions production in construction. Journal of cleaner production, 202, 23-32.

Page 13 of 19
 Carmichael, D. G., Williams, E. H., & Kaboli, A. S. (2012). Minimum operational
emissions in earthmoving. In Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction
Challenges in a Flat World (pp. 1869-1878).

 Change, E.C.f.C. EU climate action (2018b). [cited 2018 Available from:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/eu_en.

 Change, U.N.C. Kyoto protocol. (2018a). Available from:

https://unfccc.int/process/thekyoto-protocol.

 Cho, S. H., & Chae, C. U. (2016). A study on life cycle CO 2 emissions of low-carbon
building in South Korea. Sustainability, 8(6), 579.

 Energy, C.f.C.C.a. Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets (2018). [cited 2018 Available from:
https://www.c2es.org/document/greenhouse-gas-emissions-targets/.

 EPA. (2002). Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values, 2002. Available
at: http://steadystaterevolution.org/files/pdf/ghg_gwp.pdf (Accessed 25 April 2016).

 EPA. (2016a). Understanding Global Warming Potentials. Available at: https://www.

epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gwps.html (Accessed 25 April 2016).

 EPA. (2016b). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html (Accessed 25 April 2016).

 EPA. (2016c). Particular Matter. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/

particulatematter.html (Accessed 25 April 2016).

 EPA. (2016d). Particular Matter: Health. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/pm/health.html (Accessed 25 April 2016).

 EPA. (2016e). Basic Ozone Layer Science. Available at:

https://www.epa.gov/ozonelayer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science (Accessed 25 April
2016).

 EPA. (2016f). Ozone Pollution. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution

(Accessed 25 April 2016).

 Flower, D. J., & Sanjayan, J. G. (2007). Greenhouse gas emissions due to concrete
manufacture. The international Journal of life cycle assessment, 12(5), 282-288.

Page 14 of 19
 Frey, H. C., Rasdorf, W., & Lewis, P. (2010). Comprehensive field study of fuel use and
emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment. Transportation Research Record,
2158(1), 69-76.

 Gallivan, F. (2010). Greenhouse gas mitigation measures for transportation construction,

maintenance, and operations activities. NCHRP Project Rep. No. 25–25. San Francisco:
AASHTO

 González, M. J., & Navarro, J. G. (2006). Assessment of the decrease of CO 2 emissions in

the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three
houses of low environmental impact. Building and environment, 41(7), 902-909.

 Gottsche, J., Kelly, M., & Taggart, M. (2016). Assessing the impact of energy
management initiatives on the energy usage during the construction phase of an
educational building project in Ireland. Construction management and economics, 34(1),
46-60.

 Hajji, A. M., & Lewis, P. (2013). Development of productivity‐based estimating tool for
energy and air emissions from earthwork construction activities. Smart and Sustainable
Built Environment.

 Heidrich, O., Reckien, D., Olazabal, M., Foley, A., Salvia, M., de Gregorio Hurtado, S.,
& Dawson, R. J. (2016). National climate policies across Europe and their impacts on
cities strategies. Journal of environmental management, 168, 36-45.

 Hong, J., Shen, G. Q., Feng, Y., Lau, W. S. T., & Mao, C. (2015). Greenhouse gas
emissions during the construction phase of a building: a case study in China. Journal of
cleaner production, 103, 249-259.

 Hong, T., Ji, C., Jang, M., & Park, H. (2014). Assessment model for energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions during building construction. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 30(2), 226-235.

 Hossain, M. U., & Poon, C. S. (2018). Global warming potential and energy consumption
of temporary works in building construction: A case study in Hong Kong. Building and
Environment, 142, 171-179.

 Huang, W., Li, F., Cui, S. H., Huang, L., & Lin, J. Y. (2017). Carbon footprint and carbon
emission reduction of urban buildings: a case in Xiamen City, China. Procedia
engineering, 198, 1007-1017.

Page 15 of 19
 IEA (2019), Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2019, IEA, Paris,
available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-status-report-for-buildings-and-
construction-2019.

 Jackson, D. J., & Kaesehage, K. (2020). Addressing the challenges of integrating carbon
calculation tools in the construction industry. Business Strategy and the Environment,
29(8), 2973-2983.

 Karan, E., Asadi, S., & Ntaimo, L. (2016). A stochastic optimization approach to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and transportation. Energy, 106, 367-377.

 Kim, B. S., Jang, W. S., & Lee, D. E. (2015). Analysis of the CO 2 emission
characteristics of earthwork equipment. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(1), 1-9.

 Kim, B., Lee, H., Park, H., & Kim, H. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions from onsite
equipment usage in road construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 138(8), 982-990.

 Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Stylianou, M., Haralambous, K. J., &
Loizidou, M. (2008). Preliminary study for the management of construction and
demolition waste. Waste Management & Research, 26(3), 267-275.

 Lee, K., Tae, S., & Shin, S. (2009). Development of a life cycle assessment program for
building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
13(8), 1994-2002.

 Lewis, P., Leming, M., & Rasdorf, W. (2012). Impact of engine idling on fuel use and
CO2 emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 28(1), 31-38.

 Li, H. X., Zhang, L., Mah, D., & Yu, H. (2017). An integrated simulation and
optimization approach for reducing CO2 emissions from on-site construction process in
cold regions. Energy and buildings, 138, 666-675.

 Li, H. X., Zhang, L., Mah, D., & Yu, H. (2017). An integrated simulation and
optimization approach for reducing CO2 emissions from on-site construction process in
cold regions. Energy and buildings, 138, 666-675.

 Li, Z. T., & Akhavian, R. (2017). Carbon dioxide emission evaluation in construction
operations using DES: A case study of carwash construction. In 2017 Winter Simulation
Conference (WSC) (pp. 2384-2393). IEEE.

Page 16 of 19
 Liu, B., Yang, X., Huo, T., Shen, G. Q., & Wang, X. (2017). A linguistic group decision-
making framework for bid evaluation in mega public projects considering carbon dioxide
emissions reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 811-825.

 Liu, C., Wu, Q., Tang, W., & Liu, Y. (2021). Carbon emission evaluation of heavy
equipment on dam construction site using discrete event simulation. In IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 675, No. 1, p. 012027). IOP Publishing.

 Luo, W., Sandanayake, M., & Zhang, G. (2019). Direct and indirect carbon emissions in
foundation construction–Two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 211, 1517-1526.

 Luo, Z., Yang, L., & Liu, J. (2016). Embodied carbon emissions of office building: A
case study of China's 78 office buildings. Building and Environment, 95, 365-371.

 Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L., & Tang, L. (2013). Comparative study of greenhouse gas
emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two
case studies of residential projects. Energy and Buildings, 66, 165-176.

 Micheals, B. (2013). Intermodal Container Transfer Facility Joint Powers Authority.

Available online: http://www.ictf-jpa.org/past_events.php (accessed on 15 May 2013).

 Moayedi, F., Zawawi, N. A. W. A., & Liew, M. S. (2019). A systematic approach to

embodied carbon reduction in buildings. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 220, No. 1, p. 012055). IOP Publishing.

 Mumovic, D., & Santamouris, M. (2013). A Handbook of Sustainable Building Design

and Engineering:" An Integrated Approach to Energy, Health and Operational
Performance". Routledge.

 Mustaffa, N. K., & Carmichael, D. G. (2019). Concreting operations–the relationship

between unit costs and unit emissions. International Journal of Construction Management,
19(5), 427-435.

 Nadoushani, Z. S. M., Akbarnezhad, A., & Rey, D. (2018). Optimization of concrete

placing operation based on competing carbon footprint, cost and production rate
objectives. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.

 Nasab, T., Monavari, S. M., Jozi, S. A., & Majedi, H. (2020). Assessment of carbon
footprint in the construction phase of high-rise constructions in Tehran. International
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 17(6), 3153-3164.

Page 17 of 19
 Olanrewaju, O. I., Edwards, D. J., & Chileshe, N. (2020). Estimating on-site emissions
during ready mixed concrete (RMC) delivery: a methodology. Case Studies in
Construction Materials, 13, e00439.

 Olivier, J. G. J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2015).

Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2015 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, The Hague; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES).

 Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J. C., Díez, G., & Castells, F. (2010). The environmental impact of
the construction phase: An application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(11), 832-840.

 Pacheco-Torres, R., Jadraque, E., Roldán-Fontana, J., & Ordóñez, J. (2014). Analysis of
CO2 emissions in the construction phase of single-family detached houses. Sustainable
cities and society, 12, 63-68.

 Parker, C. F., & Karlsson, C. (2018). The UN climate change negotiations and the role of
the United States: assessing American leadership from Copenhagen to Paris.
Environmental Politics, 27(3), 519-540.

 Paya-Zaforteza, I., Yepes, V., Hospitaler, A., & Gonzalez-Vidosa, F. (2009). CO 2-

optimization of reinforced concrete frames by simulated annealing. Engineering
Structures, 31(7), 1501-1508.

 Ragheb, A., & Jacobs, D. (2010). Cradle to Grave: Case Studies of Buildings’
Environmental Footprint. Available at:
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab088766.pdf (Accessed 01
January 2015).

 Rai, D., Sodagar, B., Fieldson, R., & Hu, X. (2011). Assessment of CO 2 emissions
reduction in a distribution warehouse. Energy, 36(4), 2271-2277.

 Rani, B., Singh, U., Chuhan, A. K., Sharma, D., & Maheshwari, R. (2011).
Photochemical Smog Pollution and Its Mitigation Measures. Journal of Advanced
Scientific Research, 2(4).

 Rasdorf, W., Lewis, P., Marshall, S. K., Arocho, I., & Frey, H. C. (2012). Evaluation of
on-site fuel use and emissions over the duration of a commercial building project. Journal
of infrastructure systems, 18(2), 119-129.

Page 18 of 19
 Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., & Setunge, S. (2016). Environmental emissions at
foundation construction stage of buildings–Two case studies. Building and Environment,
95, 189-198.

 Seo, M. S., Kim, T., Hong, G., & Kim, H. (2016). On-site measurements of CO 2
emissions during the construction phase of a building complex. Energies, 9(8), 599.

 Silvestre, J. D., De Brito, J., & Pinheiro, M. D. (2014). Environmental impacts and
benefits of the end-of-life of building materials–calculation rules, results and contribution
to a “cradle to cradle” life cycle. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 37-45.

 Suh, S., & Lippiatt, B. C. (2012). Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a
case study on the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)
database. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(5), 604-612.

 Szamocki, N., Kim, M. K., Ahn, C. R., & Brilakis, I. (2019). Reducing greenhouse gas
emission of construction equipment at construction sites: Field study approach. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 145(9), 05019012.

 Tang, P., Cass, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2013). Investigating the effect of construction
management strategies on project greenhouse gas emissions using interactive simulation.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 54, 78-88.

 Trani, M. L., Bossi, B., Gangolells, M., & Casals, M. (2016). Predicting fuel energy
consumption during earthworks. Journal of cleaner production, 112, 3798-3809.

 Wong, J. K., Li, H., Wang, H., Huang, T., Luo, E., & Li, V. (2013). Toward low-carbon
construction processes: the visualisation of predicted emission via virtual prototyping
technology. Automation in Construction, 33, 72-78.

 Yanli, S., & Chao, L. (2021). Measurement and analysis of carbon emissions from
prefabricated buildings under the transition of new and old kinetic energy. In IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 813, No. 1, p. 012007). IOP
Publishing.

 Zhang, X., Shen, L., & Zhang, L. (2013). Life cycle assessment of the air emissions
during building construction process: A case study in Hong Kong. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 17, 160-169.

Page 19 of 19