Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Comparing carbon emissions of precast and cast-in-situ construction

methods – A case study of high-rise private building
Ya Hong Dong a, Lara Jaillon a,⇑, Peggy Chu a, C.S. Poon b
a
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

h i g h l i g h t s

Adoption of precast concrete can reduce the carbon emissions.

3

The carbon emission of 1 m cast-in-situ concrete is 692 kg CO2 eq.
3

For 1 m concrete, precasting can lead to 10% reduction of carbon emission.
2

Adoption of precast façade can reduce 2.1 kg CO2 eq per m floor area.

It is highly recommended to adopt precast concrete in building construction.

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

Article history: Buildings are one of the primary contributors to carbon emissions. Given the small size of construction
Received 8 July 2015 site and increasing housing demand in Hong Kong, precast concrete has been frequently adopted in
Received in revised form 27 August 2015 not only public residential buildings, but also the private sector. This study compares the carbon
Accepted 31 August 2015
emissions of precast and traditional cast-in-situ construction methods based on a case study of a private
Available online 14 September 2015
residential building in Hong Kong. Life cycle assessment (LCA) model is established to consider the sys-
tem processes from cradle to end of construction. The comparison is conducted based on eight scenarios
Keywords:
at four levels, i.e. cubic meter concrete, precast facade, group of façade elements, and an apartment. It is
LCA
Private building
found that the carbon emission of the studied residential apartment is 669 kg carbon dioxide equivalent
High-rise building per one square meter floor area. Precasting can lead to 10% carbon reduction for one cubic meter con-
Precast concrete crete. Steel formwork for precasting performs better than timber formwork used in cast-in-situ concrete.
Prefabrication Adopting more precast concrete can lead to less carbon emission. Based on the research findings, it is
Carbon emission highly recommended to adopt precast concrete in building construction. The building industry should
consider the carbon reduction as a benefit of implementing precast concrete.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Rapid economic development consumes large amount of
resources and degrades the environment. One of the primary con-
cerns of environmental impacts is climate change being most likely
attributed to the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The
temperature growth is correlated with increased atmospheric con-
centration of GHGs, while carbon dioxide is the most important
anthropogenic GHG [1]. In recent years, auditing and controlling
carbon emissions have become a key strategy to achieve sustain-
able development. In Kyoto Protocol, 37 industrialized countries
and the European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ljaillon@cityu.edu.hk (L. Jaillon).
by 18% below the 1990’s level from 2013 to 2020 [2]. The China’s
12th Five-year Plan aimed at a 40–45% reduction in carbon inten-
sity from 2005 to 2020. In the meantime, Hong Kong formulated a
carbon reduction strategy with 50–60% from 2005 to 2020 [3].
Buildings are contributors to carbon emissions, not only due to
the energy consumption in building operation and maintenance,
but also caused by the significant material use and intensive on-
site construction processes. It has been reported that buildings
account for 40% of the global material flow [4]. Concrete is an indis-
pensable construction material with the worldwide annual con-
sumption of 1 ton per capita [5], and this figure is even four-time
higher in Hong Kong [6]. Concrete has been recognized as a carbon
intensive material, and cement being the key ingredient of con-
crete is responsible for 5–7% of the world’s anthropogenic carbon
emission [7]. The on-site construction method is another source

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.145
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
40 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53
of carbon emission, mainly contributed from fuel consumption in
heavy equipment and material transportation, embodied carbon
in temporary materials, and waste treatment management.
Hong Kong is a concrete jungle with over 40,000 buildings [8]
and most of the building stocks are built with reinforced concrete.
Of the limited area of 1108 km2, only 6.9% is used as the residential
land and more than 66% are protected forest or wet lands [9]. The
scarcity of available land imposes challenges on building construc-
tion in Hong Kong. To accommodate 7 million people, construction
of high-rise residential buildings is the only choice for this compact
city. Given the small size of construction site and increasing
housing demand, precast concrete has been adopted to construct
residential buildings. The history of precast concrete in Hong Kong
can be dated back to the mid-1980s, and it was mainly used in
public residential buildings developed by the Hong Kong Housing
Authority (HKHA) [10]. Over the years, precast concrete has
become more prevalent in terms of the precasting percentage
and the types of precast elements, while it has only been intro-
duced to the private sector in the last decade [11]. In Hong Kong,
the public and private residential housing both hold about 50%
population. In the private sector, the precast components are gen-
erally tailor-made for a specific building design and specific site;
on the contrary, standardization across building projects is mostly
adopted in public housing projects [12]. The elements that adopt
precast concrete for the public sector include façade, staircase,
refuse chute, slab, balcony, kitchen, etc., whereas precast concrete
is mostly used for façade in the private sector. The gross floor area
(GFA) concession of precast concrete was introduced in 2002, and
this encouraged the private sector to adopt precast [13,14].
Prefabrication is a sustainable construction method of improved
quality control, improved environmental performance, improved
site safety, reduction of labor demand and construction time
[15]. Jaillon et al. [16] reported the use of precasting method can
lead to 52% of waste reduction and 70% of timber formwork reduc-
tion. Wong and Tang [17] compared the precast and cast-in-situ
concrete with the system boundary from ‘cradle to site’ and con-
cluded that precasting method can reduce carbon emissions. If
‘cradle to end of construction’ processes are considered, environ-
mental benefits of precast concrete can also be detected [18].
Although the two studies have compared the carbon emissions
between precast and cast-in-situ methods, they only focused on
the public sector. The private sector that increasingly adopts
precast concrete should not be excluded. The influence of precast
concrete on the carbon emissions should be studied to provide proof
of the carbon reduction due to precast concrete in the private sector,
and hence encourage the adoption of precast concrete in terms of
environmental benefits. Moreover, a comprehensive research to
investigate the carbon reduction of using precast concrete based
on the unit of a precast element or an apartment is still lacking.
To bridge the research gaps, this study compares the carbon
emissions of precast and cast-in-situ construction methods
through a case study of a private residential building in Hong Kong.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is applied to calculate carbon emissions
with the upstream processes from ‘cradle to end of construction’
being considered. The comparison is conducted based on eight sce-
narios at four levels, i.e. a cubic meter concrete, a precast concrete
element, a group of façade elements, and an apartment. The results
are further discussed to deepen the understanding on the environ-
mental performance of precast and cast-in-situ methods, as well as
to provide suggestions for the building industry.
2. Methods
In this study, LCA is implemented to calculate carbon emissions
of precast and cast-in-situ concrete. LCA is a widely used method
to estimate environmental performance throughout a product’s life
cycle. As described in ISO 14040/14044 [19,20], a LCA study is com-
posed of four interactive phases, i.e. (i) goal and scope definition,
(ii) life cycle inventory, (iii) impact assessment and (iv) interpreta-
tion. In the first phase, the key items in a LCA study are defined,
such as study aim, system boundary, target audience, etc. The
second phase is to collect essential data, establish the LCA model
and calculate the inventory results. In the next, the inventories
are further analyzed using a certain impact assessment method
and indicator results of the studied impact categories are derived.
The last phase is to interpret the results based on the goal and
scope definition, as well as to conduct advanced analyses to detect
the emission hotspots. This study generally follows the four-phase
structure of LCA.
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of the present research is to investigate the carbon
emissions of precast and cast-in-situ construction methods for
high-rise residential buildings. A typical private building project
in Hong Kong is studied. The project provides about 3500 units in
the site area of 96,800 m2. The buildings are 30–35 floors with 8
apartments per floor. The layout plan of a typical floor is shown
in Fig. 1. The project adopts precast façade which accounts for 6%
of total concrete volume. Of the 8 apartments, A and H are
three-bedroom apartments with a symmetrical layout design.
Three different precast façade elements are used in apartments A
and H, namely Element 10, Element 11, and Element 12, while
Element 12 is shared by the two apartments. The analyses in this
research will focus on apartments A and H.
In terms of the inclusion of life cycle stages, there are two types
of LCA: full LCA and partial LCA. Full LCA refers to those LCA studies
that consider all the life cycle stages of a product, i.e. cradle-to-
grave. On the other hand, partial LCA only considers one or a few
stages, such as gate-to-gate, cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-site, etc. This
study is a partial LCA to include ‘cradle-to-end of construction’ life
cycle stages.
As shown in Fig. 2, the processes included in cast-in-situ (IS)
and precast (PC) scenarios (refer to Section 2.2.2 for the description
of scenarios) are different. For the IS scenarios, the study system
covers the initial stage of raw material extraction from mines
and the production of materials in factories. Cement, aggregate
and admixture are then transported to concrete batching plant
for mixing and ready-mix concrete is produced. Ready-mix
concrete, reinforcing bar and timber formwork are transported to
the construction site for in-situ casting. The PC scenarios embrace
the processes related to precast façade manufacturing. The precast
yard is located in Guangdong Province in mainland China. To
produce precast concrete, mixing of concrete is conducted in the
batching plant located within the precast yard. The concrete mix
and reinforcing bar are then poured into steel mold. After curing
and stripping the steel mold, aluminum window frame is installed
and the precast façade is stored in the storage area in precast yard.
The precast façade elements are transported to construction site in
Hong Kong and then installed. Other concrete elements, e.g.
column, beam, slab, etc., are cast-in-situ. The treatment of
construction waste is also considered in this study.
2.2. Life cycle inventory
2.2.1. Collection of data
Data collection is a critical step in LCA modeling. While an ideal
LCA should be based entirely on site-specific data, soliciting such
data from stakeholders requires large amount of time and effort
[21]. The popularity of LCA is largely due to its effectiveness by
using well-established databases. The combination of site-specific
 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53
Fig. 1. Layout plan of a typical floor of the studied residential project.
data and existing databases is usually unavoidable in LCA research.
This study, without exception, adopts both types of data.
Various approaches are used in order to collect site-specific
data. A questionnaire survey (Appendix A) was conducted to col-
lect information about the monthly energy and water consumption
for the precast concrete production from the manufacturer from
October 2012 to April 2013. The energy and water consumption
per ton of concrete is then calculated to represent the average
resource consumption during the project period. Data of concrete
and steel wastes generated within the precast yard were also
obtained. Factory visit was arranged to observe the manufacturing
process of precast concrete and collect detailed information about
the steel mold, transportation and the studied project.
Semi-structured interview with factory manager was conducted
to further validate the questionnaire findings.
For the on-site construction, data were taken from developer,
contractor and subcontractors. Another questionnaire (Appendix
B) was delivered to the contractor and subcontractors of the stud-
ied project to gather the data of energy consumption, equipment
use, construction waste, factory location, and transportation mode.
Semi-structured interview with experts from the developer was
conducted. Additional information, such as the phasing plan, draw-
ings, annual report of the developer, etc., was also acquired. The
floor layout and design of precast elements were used to calculate
concrete and reinforcing bar quantities of the studied building.
Given the factory locations, transportation distances of materi-
als and precast concrete elements are estimated using Google map.
The transportation details are provided in Table 1. The fuel mix of
electricity generation in Hong Kong and Guangdong Province is
obtained from the electric company and national electricity report
(Table 2).
Ecoinvent database [22] is used to provide the secondary data of
upstream processes when the site-specific data cannot be found.
For those processes without any site-specific data, the datasets in
Ecoinvent are directly used and no adjustment is made. These
processes include, for example, structure steel, transportation by
truck, infrastructure of concrete batching plant, production of
diesel, oil and chemicals. The other way of using Ecoinvent is
to change certain variables in datasets using the available
41
site-specific data. For instance, the dataset of concrete produced
at batching plant is revised by changing the electricity consump-
tion, transportation of materials, quantities of materials, and waste
treatment management. The adjusted processes also include
Portland cement, cement mortar, window frame, window glass,
concrete block, etc. To summarize, a list of data source is given in
Table 3.
2.2.2. Model development
The comparison between precast and cast-in-situ construction
methods is conducted at four levels, so that the influence from
the use of precast concrete on carbon emissions for 1 m3 concrete,
a concrete element, a group of concrete elements, and an apart-
ment can be explored. As shown in Table 4, each level includes
two scenarios of precast concrete (PC) and in-situ (IS) concrete.
In total, eight scenarios are carried out and the boundaries are
shown in Fig. 2. The first level is to compare the two methods
based on the functional unit of 1 m3 concrete. The set-ups of S1-
IS differentiate from S2-PC in the electricity mix, formwork type,
and transportation distance of materials (Table 5).
The next level is for a concrete façade element, Element 10,
which includes additional materials of window frame, glass, and
tile. The as-built scenario S4-PC models the façade element that
is actually used to construct the apartment A/H. On the other hand,
scenario S3-IS is hypothetical to replace the precast concrete with
cast-in-situ concrete. Materials in concrete elements remain
unchanged for the hypothetical scenarios, while the transporta-
tion, formwork, waste treatment, and consumption of electricity,
fuel, and water are revised based on the data collected for cast-
in-situ construction. As stated above, apartment A/H includes three
precast façade elements, i.e. Element 10, Element 11, and Element
12, whereas the set-ups of the three elements are almost same
with the only difference in the quantity of materials. As a result,
the comparison on a representative Element 10 can reflect the dif-
ference between precast and cast-in-situ construction methods.
Table 6 gives the set-ups of the three façade elements, as well as
the façade group.
The last level of scenarios is to compare the influence on envi-
ronmental performance due to the use of precast concrete façade.
42 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the study systems for scenarios; (a) IS scenarios: S1-IS, S3-IS, S5-IS, and S7-IS; (b) PC scenarios: S2-PC, S4-PC, S6-PC, and S8-PC.
 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53 43

Table 1
Transportation details of key materials.

Material Country of origin Description Distancey (km) Transport method Scenario*

Concrete mix HKSAR From concrete batching plant to construction site in Hong Kong 25 Concrete mixer IS
Cement China From mill to precast yard in Guangdong 150 Truck 20–28 t PC
China From mill to concrete batching plant in Hong Kong 150 Truck 20–28 t IS
Aggregate China From crushing/sizing plant to concrete batching plant in Hong Kong 150 Truck 20–28 t IS
China From crushing/sizing plant to precast yard in Guangdong Province 80 Truck 20–28 t PC
Precast concrete China From precast yard to construction site in Hong Kong 150 Truck 20–28 t PC
Reinforcing steel China From steel factory to precast yard in Guangdong 100 Truck 20–28 t PC
China From steel factory to construction site in Hong Kong 250 Truck 20–28 t IS
Formwork steel China From distributor to precast yard in Guangdong 200 Truck 3.5–20 t PC
Formwork timber China From factory to construction site in Hong Kong 250 Truck 20–28 t IS
Window glass China From factory to construction site in Hong Kong 150 Truck 20–28 t PC, IS
*
IS: cast-in-situ concrete scenarios, including S1-IS, S3-IS, S5-IS, S7-IS; PC: precast concrete scenarios, including S2-PC, S4-PC, S6-PC, S8-PC.
y
Estimated using Google map.

Table 2 is developed by World Resources Institute (WRI) and World

Fuel mix of electricity generation in Hong Kong and Guangdong. Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBSCD) based on
Fuel Hong Kong Guangdong (%) the global warming potential (GWP) factors published by IPCC
Coal 55% 36
[24]. The indicator is carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq). Four
Oil – 24 impact categories are included in the method, i.e. fossil based
Natural gas 22% 13 carbon, biogenic carbon, carbon from land transformation, carbon
Nuclear 23% 7 uptake. Fossil based carbon considers the emissions originating
Hydropower – 18
from fossil fuels to include 98 GHGs. The following analysis will
Wind – 1
Others – 1 focus on this impact category, as the carbon emissions of a building
apartment are mainly generated due to the combustion of fossil
The as-built scenario S8-PC includes the three precast façade ele- fuel, while other impact categories are negligible.
ments, as well as in-situ concrete elements of façade, slab, balcony,
3. Results
utility platform, beam and column, and block wall. In the hypo-
thetical scenario S7-IS, the façade elements are changed to cast-
3.1. One cubic meter concrete
in-situ concrete. In total, about 80 m3 concrete and 1 ton reinforc-
ing bar are used to construction the building apartment. The quan-
The results to compare 1 m3 of precast and cast-in-situ concrete
tity of materials and elements included in these two scenarios are
are shown in Fig. 3. Contributions from unit processes are also
given in Tables 7 and 8.
provided. The carbon emissions to produce concrete are mainly
The LCA model is established in SimaPro 8. In total, the model is
contributed from cement and rebar, which represent about 60%
composed of 203 project processes that are built for this study. The
of the emission.
model structure is designed according to the components of apart-
Precast concrete is produced in the precast yard located in
ment A/H and the supply chain system. The model structure is fur-
mainland China, which complicates the logistic system and leads
ther validated by overseas LCA experts through several rounds of
to larger emissions from transport. According to Fig. 3, transport
telephone meetings.
accounts for 12% carbon emissions of cast-in-situ, while it
represents 18% of precast. The larger transport emissions of precast
2.3. Life cycle impact assessment concrete are mainly due to the process to transport precast
elements from precast yard to construction site in Hong Kong.
The impact assessment is carried out in SimaPro 8 using a
single-issue method of Greenhouse Gas Protocol [23]. The method
Table 4
Description of scenarios for comparison.
Table 3
Data sources of life cycle inventory. Functional unit Scenario Description of scenario
1 m3 concrete S1-IS 1 m3 of in-situ (IS) façade, including ready-mix
Item Data source
concrete, reinforcing bar, timber formwork
Quantity of materials and Estimated from drawings S2-PC 1 m3 of precast concrete (PC) façade, including
formwork precast concrete produced in precast factory,
Transport distance Estimated using Google map based on the reinforcing bar, steel mold
factory locations Concrete facade S3-IS Hypothetical scenario of precast façade
Transport method Questionnaire Element 10 Element 10
Factory location Questionnaire S4-PC As-built scenario precast façade Element 10
Material loss and waste Questionnaire Façade group S5-IS Hypothetical scenario of PC façade group,
allowance including Element 10, Element 11, Element 12
Recycled content Questionnaire S6-PC As-built scenario of group of PC façade
Energy, water and fuel Questionnaire elements, including Element 10, Element 11,
consumption and Element 12
Adoption of construction Questionnaire Apartment A/H S7-IS Hypothetical scenario of apartment A/H;
equipment Element 10, Element 11, and Element 12 are
Electricity mix in Hong Kong CLP [29] changed to IS
Electricity mix in Guangdong SERC [30] S8-PC As-built scenario of apartment A/H, including
Province PC façade elements (Element 10, Element 11,
Others Ecoinvent Element 12) and other concrete elements
44 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53

Table 5 concrete façade groups is shown in Fig. 5. It is found that the emis-
The model set-ups for scenarios of S1-IS and S2-PC (1 m3 concrete). sion of the precast façade is 2870 kg CO2 eq, which is 6.5% less than
Item Unit S1-IS S2-PC the 3070 kg CO2 eq of cast-in-situ concrete. This difference is sim-
Cement kg 300 300 ilar to the 6.3% difference of façade Element 10.
Aggregate kg 1890 1890 The contributions from unit processes are also shown in Fig. 5. It
Rebar kg 126 123 is found that concrete (including reinforcing bar) accounts for about
Steel formwork kg 0 14.5 70% of the carbon emissions. The next important contributor is alu-
Timber formwork kg 45.7 0
Transport aggregate tkm 284 151
minum frame, which is responsible for over 20% of the emissions.
Transport cement tkm 45 45 Tile and glass are less significant in carbon emissions. The three
Transport concrete tkm 63 0 elements share similar carbon emissions, as the materials used in
Transport rebar tkm 15.1 12.3 the three elements are similar in terms of type and quantity.
Transport precast tkm 0 357
Electricity (Hong Kong) kWh 72 22.5
Electricity (Guangdong) kWh 0 57.6 3.4. A residential apartment
Water kg 6116 6864
Diesel kg 8.33 13.1 The carbon emissions of scenarios S7-IS and S8-PC are presented
in Fig. 6. Apartment A/H emits 64,263 kg CO2 eq. The floor area of this
apartment is about 96 m2 and the carbon emission of one square
Although the transport of precast concrete has larger emissions, meter is 669 kg CO2 eq. The most contributive element is Façade
the total carbon emissions of precast are much lower than that of 400, which accounts for 42% of the emissions. The next important
cast-in-situ. It is found that 1 m3 cast-in-situ concrete emits 770 kg elements are beam & column (16%) and slab 150 (14%). The precast
CO2 eq, while the figure of precast is only 692 kg CO2 eq, which is façade group accounts for about 4–5% of the emissions.
approximately 10% lower than that of cast-in-situ concrete. The The 200 kg CO2 eq difference between the two scenarios is
better performance of precast concrete is mainly due to the type observed, which is caused by the difference between façade groups
of formwork. To produce precast concrete, steel formwork is used of the two construction methods. With more concrete elements
rather than timber formwork. Steel formwork can be reused up to being considered, difference in percentage between the two sce-
100 or 200 times, while timber formwork can only be reused less narios is less significant. As a result, the 200 kg CO2 eq difference
than 10 times [25]. In some projects, timber formwork is reused only accounts for 0.31% of the whole apartment. For one square
only twice. In addition, steel formwork is a recyclable material meter, the reduction of carbon emission due to the adoption of pre-
with high recycling content of over 90%, which can also reduce cast façade elements is 2.1 kg CO2 eq.
the carbon emissions of steel formwork.
4. Discussion
3.2. A façade element
4.1. Carbon reduction due to precast concrete
The comparison for a concrete façade element is presented in
Fig. 4. The façade element includes additional materials, i.e. tile, According to the results based on the four sets of scenarios,
glass and aluminum. As a result, the difference between the two adoption of precast concrete can lead to carbon reduction as
construction methods in terms of a façade element becomes less compared with cast-in-situ concrete. Fig. 7 gives the influence of
than a cubic meter of concrete. The carbon emission of a precast precast concrete percentage on carbon reduction. It is observed
façade is 941 kg CO2 eq, whereas it is 1005 kg CO2 eq of cast-in- that with more precast concrete adopted, the carbon reduction
situ façade. Precast façade emits 6.3% less than cast-in-situ façade. percentage becomes larger. The precast concrete apartment only
The difference is mainly caused by formwork types used in the two accounts for 3% of the total weight in Apartment A/H, and the
different concrete methods. The emission of concrete in S3-IS is reduction percentage is 0.31%. On the contrary, for the scenarios
708 kg CO2 eq, while it is 647 kg CO2 eq of S4-PC. The 61 kg CO2 of 1 m3 concrete, the precast weight percentage is 94%, resulting
eq difference is mainly caused by large carbon emission of timber in much larger reduction percentage of 10%. The correlation
formwork. between precast percentage and carbon reduction percentage
reveals that adoption of more precast concrete in residential build-
3.3. Façade element group ing project can reduce more carbon emissions.

The façade group includes three façade elements, namely 4.2. Carbon emissions of formwork
Element 10, Element 11, and Element 12, while Element 12 is shared
by two apartments and only half of Element 12 is included in the Different formwork types lead to the different carbon emissions
façade group. The comparison between precast and cast-in-situ between precast and cast-in-situ concrete. As shown in

Table 6
Model set-ups for the three façade elements and the façade group.

Item Unit Element 10 Element 11 Element 12 Façade group*

S3-IS S4-PC IS PC IS PC S5-IS S6-PC
IS concrete m3 0.92 0 1.03 0 1.76 0 2.83 0
Precast concrete m3 0 0.92 0 1.03 0 1.76 0 2.83
Aluminum frame m 12.5 12.5 11.2 11.2 22 22 34.7 34.7
Glass kg 14.1 14.1 51.6 51.6 133 133 132.2 132.2
Tile m2 4.47 4.45 1.21 1.2 1.22 1.21 6.29 6.255
Transport glass tkm 2.12 2.12 7.74 7.74 19.9 19.9 19.81 19.81
Transport precast tkm 0 381 0 404 0 688 0 1129
*
The façade group includes Element 10, Element 11, and 50% Element 12.
 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53 45

Table 7
Quantity of key materials in scenarios S7-IS and S8-PC.

Material Unit S7-IS S8-PC

3
Concrete m 81 81
Reinforcing steel ton 10.5 10.5
Glass ton 2.53 2.53
Tile m2 6.28 6.28
Timber formwork ton 1.74 1.61
Steel formwork kg 0 41.0
Aluminum frame m 49.4 49.4

Table 8
Model set-ups for scenarios S7-IS and S8-PC for apartment A/H.

Scenario S7-IS S8-PC

p
PC façade Element 10
p
PC façade Element 11 Fig. 4. Carbon emissions of concrete façade element 10 (IS: cast-in-situ concrete;
p
PC façade Element 12 PC: precast concrete).
p
IS façade Element 10
p
IS façade Element 11
p
IS façade Element 12
p p
Façade 350 IS
p p
Façade 400 IS
p p
Slab 150 IS
p p
Balcony IS
p p
Utility platform IS
p p
Beam & column IS
p p
Block wall IS

Fig. 5. Carbon emissions of concrete façade group (IS: cast-in-situ concrete; PC:
precast concrete).

Fig. 3. Carbon emissions of 1 m3 concrete (IS: cast-in-situ concrete; PC: precast

concrete).

Table 5 and 1 m3 of precast façade needs 14.5 kg steel formwork,

while 1 m3 of cast-in-situ concrete consumes 45.7 kg timber
formwork. The significant discrepancy of the carbon emissions of
the two types of formwork can be observed in Fig. 7. It is found that
to cast 1 m3 concrete, the timber formwork emits about 10-time
GHGs of steel formwork (see Fig. 8).
Steel is a recyclable material. In the model, the steel formwork Fig. 6. Carbon emissions of apartment A/H (IS: cast-in-situ concrete; PC: precast
concrete).
is made from iron scrap. As a result, the emissions to manufacture
steel formwork are mainly due to the electricity used in electric arc
furnace to produce secondary steel. In addition, steel formwork in 4.3. Comparison with previous research
the studied project was reused about 100 times in the precast
factory. On the other hand, the timber formwork is modeled by The comparison between this study and similar previous
plywood and saw timber, and these materials are made from research on carbon emissions of buildings is given in Table 9.
original pine wood and hard wood. Large amount of electricity Significant inconsistency can be identified in the selected studies,
and diesel is required to shape and manufacture the timber attributed to the inclusion of processes, adoption of impact
formwork. The emissions of timber formwork are therefore consid- assessment methods, and the actual difference in material type
erably larger than steel formwork. and quantity.
46 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53

By comparing this study with Dong and Ng [18], the public res-
idential building performs better than private residential building.
The precast concrete volume percentage of the private building is
6%, while it is 35% in the public building. If the precast volume per-
centage in the private building project is 35%, about 13 kg CO2 eq
per m2 can be reduced, leading to better environmental perfor-
mance of the studied building.

5. Limitations and future work

Fig. 7. Comparison on the influence from precast concrete percentage to the carbon
emissions. The precast percentage is calculated based on the precast concrete
weight and the total weight of the functional unit.
Apart from other researches e.g. [18,26] that only considered the
amount of materials adopted in a building project, this study estab-
lishes the model according to the structure of a building apartment
to include details of concrete elements. Although the benefit is
apparent as the hot-spots can be easily detected, encompassing
the detailed information of structural elements consumes large
amount of time to collect data and calculate the material quantity.
Consequently, the LCA model only studies the carbon emissions of
a residential apartment, rather than the entire building. In the
future, the entire floor or the whole building project should be stud-
ied in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
The comparison between precast and cast-in-situ construction
methods are carried out for the private building, which adopts
6% precast concrete in volume. To further explore the benefit of
precast concrete in terms of the carbon emissions, buildings with
various precast proportions should be studied. Such a study can
provide more information to build a benchmark system on the
carbon emissions of buildings using precast concrete.
Currently, the Hong Kong government supports precast concrete
through GFA concession [13] due to the reduction of construction
time, better quality, less construction waste, and better safety per-
formance, while the carbon reduction has not been the reason for
such concession. Future research can be conducted based on the
findings of this study to investigate if the carbon reduction by using
precast concrete can be included as one of the benefits of precast
concrete. In addition, BEAM Plus [28] considers precast concrete as
an efficient use of materials, whereas the carbon reduction is yet a
benefit in this building assessment scheme. With the research find-
ings on reduction of carbon emissions, it is worthwhile to investigate
if precasting should be awarded more credits.

Fig. 8. Comparison between timber and steel formworks used to cast 1 m3
concrete.
For example, both of the two studies [18,26] estimated the car-
bon emissions of the public residential buildings, whereas the car-
bon emissions as concluded by the two studies are varied. As
stated in Dong and Ng [18], this is mainly due to the inclusion of
different processes. On the other hand, the carbon emission of a
commercial building [27] is low, as the impact assessment
involved only eight GHGs, and the included materials and pro-
cesses are fewer than other studies.
6. Conclusions
Precasting is an environmental friendly alternative to tradi-
tional cast-in-situ construction. This study investigates the differ-
ence of carbon emissions between the two construction methods
with the life cycle boundary from cradle to end of construction. A
private residential building in Hong Kong is studied. Eight scenar-
ios are conducted at four comparison levels, i.e. 1 m3, a façade
element, façade element group, and a residential apartment.
Adoption of precast concrete can reduce the carbon emissions
as compared with cast-in-situ concrete. For 1 m3 concrete, the
carbon emission is 692 kg CO2 eq, and precasting can lead to 10%
reduction of carbon emission. For a façade element or façade ele-

Table 9
Comparison with previous research on the carbon emissions of buildings.

Item Zhang, Wu [31] Zhang, Shen [27] Ng and Kwok [26] Dong and Ng [18] This study
Building type Office building in Commercial building Public residential Public residential building Private residential building
university building
Region Beijing Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong
System Material stage Cradle to end of Cradle to grave Cradle to end of Cradle to end of
boundary construction construction construction
kg CO2 eq per 561* 409* 560 637 669
m2
*
Calculated based on the data from the paper.
 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53
ment group, about 6.5% of carbon emission can be cut. If the entire
residential apartment is considered, the reduction of carbon emis-
sion due to precast concrete is 0.31%. The studied private building
apartment yields 669 kg CO2 eq per m2 GFA and adoption of pre-
cast façade can reduce 2.1 kg CO2 eq per m2. The better perfor-
mance of precast concrete in terms of carbon emission is
attributed to the change of formwork. In precasting, steel form-
work is used rather than timber formwork. Steel, as a recyclable
and reusable material, performs better than timber formwork.
The carbon emission of timber formwork used to produce 1 m3
concrete is 10-time higher than that of steel formwork. Adoption
of more precast concrete can lead to better environmental perfor-
mance. It is found that if 35% precast is adopted, the carbon reduc-
tion can grow up to 13 kg CO2 eq per m2 GFA.
Based on the research findings, it is highly recommended to
adopt precast concrete in building construction. The building
industry should consider the carbon reduction as a benefit to
Appendix A
47
implement precast concrete, which can be further incorporated
into the Building Assessment Schemes, such as HKBEAM Plus and
LEED. The government should provide more incentives that can
encourage adoption of precast concrete in private sector. While
this study is based on Hong Kong, the research outcomes can be
potentially applied in overseas building projects that adopt precast
concrete, in particular for high-rise residential buildings.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
City University of Hong Kong Strategic Research Grant #7002720.
Thanks are due to the professionals of the building industry for
their generous contributions and for providing valuable informa-
tion for this study and giving access to construction sites and man-
ufacturing plants. The authors wish to thank Mr. Tim Grant from
Life Cycle Strategies in helping reviewing LCA works.
48 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53
Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53 49
50 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53

Appendix B
Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53 51
52 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53

References [13] BD, Joint Practice Note No. 2 Second Package of Incentives to Promote Green
and Innovative Buildings, B. Department 2002, Hong Kong, 2011.
[14] Mak, J.Y.W., Strategic Implementation of Prefabrication and Modular
[1] IPCC, Climate change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change - Working Group III
Construction & Some Experience Sharing of Hong Kong Housing Authority,
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
in Second Construction Technology Forum – Construction for Sustainability,
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
2013.
[2] UN, Kyoto Protocol, 2013 (cited 2013 31 Dec). Available from: <http://unfccc.
[15] L. Jaillon, C.-S. Poon, Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication
int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php>.
in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study, Constr. Manage. Econ.
[3] EB, Hong Kong’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda - Consultion
26 (9) (2008) 953–966.
Document, H. Environment Bureau, Hong Kong, 2010.
[16] L. Jaillon, C.-S. Poon, Y. Chiang, Quantifying the waste reduction potential of
[4] A. Horvath, Construction materials and the environment, Ann. Rev. Environ.
using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong, Waste Manage.
Resour. 29 (2004) 181–204.
(Oxford) 29 (1) (2009) 309–320.
[5] D.J. Flower, J.G. Sanjayan, Green house gas emissions due to concrete
[17] F. Wong, Y. Tang, Comparative embodied carbon analysis of the prefabrication
manufacture, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5) (2007) 282–288.
elements compared with in-situ elements in residential building development
[6] T.H. Tsang, Use of concrete in HK, Sci. Hong Kong 6 (2009) 15–17.
of Hong Kong, World Acad. Sci. 62 (1) (2012) 161–166.
[7] C. Meyer, The greening of the concrete industry, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (8)
[18] Y.H. Dong, S.T. Ng, A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the
(2009) 601–605.
environmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong, Build.
[8] E.C. Hui, J.T. Wong, J.K. Wan, A review of the effectiveness of urban renewal in
Environ. 89 (2015) 183–191.
Hong Kong, Prop. Manage. 26 (1) (2008) 25–42.
[19] ISO, ISO 14040: International Standard, in: Environmental Management – Life
[9] PD, Land Utilization in Hong Kong, 2013 (cited 2015 April 25). Available from:
Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, International Organisation for
<http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/landu.html>.
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[10] Y. Mak, Prefabrication and industrialization of housing in Hong Kong, The
[20] ISO, ISO 14044: International Standard, in: Environmental Management-Life
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 1998.
Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines, nternational Organization for
[11] L. Jaillon, C.S. Poon, The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
in Hong Kong: a review of the public and the private sector, Autom. Constr. 18
[21] Y.H. Dong et al., Substituting local data for overseas life cycle inventories–a
(3) (2009) 239–248.
case study of concrete products in Hong Kong, J. Clean. Prod. 87 (2015) 414–
[12] L. Jaillon, C. Poon, Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: a review
422.
and case studies in Hong Kong, Autom. Constr. 39 (2014) 195–202.
 Y.H. Dong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 99 (2015) 39–53
[22] R. Frischknecht, et al., Overview and methodology, in Ecoinvent report, 2007.
[23] GHGProtocol, 2014 (cited 2014 May 15). Available from: <http://www.
ghgprotocol.org/>.
[24] IPCC, Climate change 2007-The Physical Science Basis: Working group I
contribution to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[25] C.-S. Poon, A.T. Yu, L. Jaillon, Reducing building waste at construction sites in
Hong Kong, Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (5) (2004) 461–470.
[26] T.K. Ng, S.M. Kwok. Carbon emission estimation - a design verification tool for
new public housing developments in Hong Kong. in HKU-HKHA International
Conference 2013, Hong Kong, 2013.
53
[27] X. Zhang, L. Shen, L. Zhang, Life cycle assessment of the air emissions during
building construction process: a case study in Hong Kong, Renew. Sust. Energy
Rev. 17 (2013) 160–169.
[28] HKGBC, Building Environmental Assessment Method BEAM Plus New Buildings
Version 1.2, Hong Kong Green Building Council, HKSAR, 2012.
[29] CLP, Future Fuel Mix for Electricity Generation – Public Consultation, 2014.
[30] SERC, The Annual Electricity Generation Report in 2010, S.E.R. Commission,
2011.
[31] Z. Zhang et al., BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance
assessment model, Build. Environ. 41 (5) (2006) 669–675.