FUNDEC Kanyilmaz L3

Lesson 3,
19 April 2024
Alper Kanyilmaz, FUNDEC Training "Mastering LCA for Building Structures", Lesson 2 0
From Session 1 & 2:
I) Accept the challenge: GWP (Global Warming Potential) presents both a critical issue and a big
opportunity for the construction community.
II) Feel the power: Construction community possesses the power a substantial leverage to significantly
decrease the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
III) Prioritize: In the lifecycle of a structure, different stages yield varying levels of environmental
impact. The production stage (A1-A5) stands out as the most significant contributor, showing the need
for specific interventions (by means of production and design).
IV) Collect accurate data on material quantities, transportation distances, and energy use at each
stage of the production and construction process.
V) Measure embodied carbon at each phase of production and construction.
VI) Rapidly measure during concept design.
+ Today, more key messages!

Lesson 3: Life Cycle Sensitivity Analysis, and
hands-on exercise with participants (2.5h)
q Sensitivity studies comparing the embodied carbon impact of buildings in terms
of: span length, number of stories, slab types (e.g. composite), lateral resistant
systems, material type (e.g. high strength steel, concrete with GGBS, timber
options), different databases and EPDs.
q Balancing the cost efficiency and embodied carbon reduction in structures.
q Hands-on exercise together with attendees to compare different building

structures and analyze their embodied carbon (an open access LCA tool will be
shared with attendees).
q Q & A and round-table discussion.
Glossary for the Webinar
GHG: Green House Gases
GWP: Global Warming Potential
LCA: Life Cycle Analysis
EC: Embodied Carbon
EPD: Environmental Product Declaration
GIA: Gross Internal Area
CO2e: CO2 equivalent emissions (“carbon footprint”)
kgCO2e/kg: 1 kg CO2e emitted to create 1 kg of material
kgCO2e/ton: 1 kg CO2e emitted to create 1 ton of material
kgCO2e/m2: 1 kg CO2e emitted to create 1 m2 of a building
tCO2e: Total amount (tons) of CO2e emitted to create the building
Balancing the cost efficiency and embodied carbon reduction
• No matter how the solution is carbon efficient, if the project does not stay within
budget, nothing gets built.
• Low carbon often costs more.
• Industry and Government Incentives vary (and legislations are coming).
What to do
• Consider a wide range of options during early-stage design (“optioneering”).

• Take advantage of low cost & high carbon matching options.
• Have a “low-enough” carbon solution for tight-budget projects.
• Early-stage (conceptual) design is the most crucial step.
• Holistic design gathering Structural Designer, Architect, Client.
• Holistic design gathering Structural Designer, Architect, Client, & Artificial Intelligence
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104711
10 storey office building
15 x 7.5 m steel 4.5 x 9 m steel
4.5 x 9 m RC
q The cost ranges between 2.5 and 4.6 million € and the CO2 equivalent
emissions between 1500 and 3300 tons.
q The reinforced concrete solutions are optimal for short and medium spans
in terms of cost, while, for medium to long spans, their embodied CO2
notably increases.
q Steel solutions have started to be the only alternatives for long spans
8-storey office building
7.5 x 7.5 m steel 7.5 x 5 m steel
6 x 4.5 m RC
q The cost and CO2 emissions range are from 3 m€ to 4.5 m€ and 1600
to 2600 tons for both RC and steel options, respectively
q The cost of the steel options is higher than the cost of concrete
solutions.
q However, the steel configurations perform better than RC ones in terms
of CO2 emissions.
6 x 7 m steel 7.5 x 3.5 m steel
5 x 7 m RC
q The construction cost and CO2 emissions are ranged from €425000 to
€600000 and 175 to 400 tons for both reinforced concrete and steel
options, respectively
q Higher cost of low carbon materials may affect what can be really achieved.
q Steel can offer low-enough carbon solutions with a good price
q The timber’s carbon footprint depends a lot on the assumption about
“sequestration”
q Higher cost of low carbon materials may affect what can be really achieved.
q Steel can offer low-enough carbon solutions with a good price
q The timber’s carbon footprint depends a lot on the assumption about
“sequestration”
Influence of the span length on cost and embodied carbon
?
Buildings with 3 different
span lengths are compared
Shorter (the span), better. 7000
Up to 40% reduction in costs 6000
5000
q Cost of mass timber solutions is
Total costs (k€)

affected more (up to 55%) by 4000
increasing span length, with 3000

respect to:
2000
Ø steel (variations up to 24%)
Ø reinforced concrete 1000
(variations up to 19%) 0
4.5mx4.5
4.5mx4.5 4.5mx4.5 5mx7.5m 7.5mx9m
5mx7.5m 7.5mx9m 5mx7.5m 7.5mx9m m
m m (mass (mass
(steel) (steel) (RC) (RC) (mass
(steel) (RC) timber) timber)
timber)
Lateral systems 9 20 41 113 113 156 189 185 219
Beams and Columns 1044 1315 1898 339 393 496 832 892 1052
Floors 1429 1429 1429 1059 1059 1317 1823 3038 3848
Foundations 421 431 466 475 494 599 367 400 429
Terrain 1013 1013 1013 1013 1013 1013 1013 1013 1013
Shorter (the span), better. 350
Up to 35% reduction in
Embodied carcbon, A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

300
embodied carbon 250
q The embodied carbon of RC 200

solutions is more sensitive to
changes in span length, 150
experiencing increases of up to: 100

Ø 52%, compared to steel
50
(variations up to 39%)
Ø reinforced concrete 0
4.5mx4.5
4.5mx4.5 4.5mx4.5 5mx7.5m 7.5mx9m
(variations up to 11%) m
5mx7.5m 7.5mx9m
(steel) (steel)
m
5mx7.5m 7.5mx9m
(RC) (RC)
m
(mass
(mass (mass
(steel) (RC) timber) timber)
timber)
Lateral systems 1 1 3 12 11 16 19 19 22
Floors 41 41 41 90 92 149 37 43 42
Foundations 27 28 30 28 30 33 26 27 30
Influence of the building height on cost and embodied carbon
?
Structures with four, six, and eight-
storeys are compared, all with the
same building footprint (area).
Taller, more expensive. 7000
(as you can imagine) 6000
5000
Total costs (k€)

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
4 storeys 6 storeys 8 storeys
4 storeys 6 storeys 8 storeys 4 storeys 6 storeys 8 storeys
(mass (mass (mass
(steel) (steel) (steel) (RC) (RC) (RC)
timber) timber) timber)
Lateral systems 5,8 12,5 21,4 27,3 41,0 108,0 6,3 78,1 156,3
Beams and Columns 457,7 736,3 1043,1 214,0 339,0 428,0 358,6 605,0 795,0
Floors 571,5 857,2 1142,9 468,0 700,0 934,0 1215,0 1822,5 2430,0
Foundations 355,4 399,5 421,6 400,0 444,0 488,0 355,4 377,5 399,5
Terrain 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5 1012,5
350
Taller, worse for
Environment, but less

300
embodied carbon per GIA. 250
200
q The embodied carbon emissions
calculated based on Gross Internal 150
Area (unit of kgCO2e/m2 GIA)
100
decrease between 9% and 14% with
increasing building height (up to 8 50
storeys).
0
4 storeys 6 storeys 8 storeys
4 storeys 6 storeys 8 storeys 4 storeys 6 storeys 8 storeys
(mass (mass (mass
q The highest impact of lateral system (steel) (steel) (steel) (RC) (RC) (RC)
timber) timber) timber)
Lateral systems 1 1 2 7 11 14 0,3 13 20
on the embodied carbon has been Beams and Columns 59 64 67 30 32 34 16 17 18
observed for the timber structures Floors 41 41 41 117 118 119 43 43 43
Foundations 69 47 36 71 49 38 69 47 36
(both for increasing height, and as a
general proportion).
Influence of the building shape on cost and embodied carbon
?
Different building shapes are analysed
using the same total floor area achieved
with different number of storeys
(we kept the GIA of all structures the same,
while changing the building shape: this
helped us to measure the impact of
building shape and height with a fixed floor
area.)
Land costs. 7000
6000
q The cost of the land had the most 5000
significant influence in all cases,
Total costs (k€)

4000
resulting in a reduction of total
costs by up to 62% as the building 3000
footprint decreased (due to an 2000

increase in the number of floors).
1000
q The costs of the lateral system, 0

structural frame and foundations 1-storey
steel
2-storey
steel
4-storey
steel
1-storey
RC
2-storey
RC
4-storey
RC
1-storey
timber
2-storey
timber
4-storey
timber
were higher for taller buildings. Lateral systems 0,4 1,9 6,9 7,4 14,7 29,5 0,7 2,1 6,7
Beams and Columns 140,1 153,7 175,5 52,0 52,0 49,0 97,8 113,7 136,1
Floors 162,5 162,5 162,5 133,0 133,0 133,0 345,6 345,6 345,6
Foundations 5,9 8,6 12,7 9,0 14,0 21,0 3,7 5,1 8,8
Terrain 1152 576 288 1152 576 288 1152 576 288
Larger footprint, lower 350
“carbon footprint”. 300

250
q Larger building footprint
(building area) structures had 200
lower embodied carbon (ranging

150
from 19% to 26%) thanks to the
size decrease of foundations, 100
beams, columns, and lateral
50
systems.
0
1-storey 2-storey 4-storey 1-storey 2-storey 4-storey 1-storey 2-storey 4-storey
steel steel steel RC RC RC timber timber timber
Lateral systems 0,3 1 4 7 13 26 0,2 0,3 1
Floors 41 41 41 115 117 121 43 43 43
Foundations 7 12 19 12 19 34 4 7 13
Influence of the type and source of materials on embodied carbon
?
Ø For steel structures, reused, recycled, and conventional options are compared
Ø For RC structures, two different values of A1-A3 embodied carbon emissions
from two concrete suppliers are used (a typical reinforced concrete (RC30,
CEM I) and concrete with a lower value of A1-A3 life cycle (EPD, Hanson UK)).
Ø For mass timber structures, the effect of forest management is analysed
(sustainably managed forest and not: consequently, two different carbon
coefficients are used in the life cycle stages C1-C4).
Reused steel is the lowest carbon solution.
350
The structures with reused steel for beams
Embodied carcbon A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

and columns exhibited the lowest embodied 300
carbon emissions. Their total embodied 250

carbon values were:
q 14% lower than structures using recycled 200
steel.
150
q 43% lower than those using typical steel.
q 25% lower than those using mass timber, 100
when considering carbon sequestration.
q 74% lower than those using mass timber 50
without accounting for carbon 0

sequestration. Recycled Hanson UK Traditional
Mass timber Mass timber
(no
Reused steel Typical steel
q 32% lower than those using the most steel RC RC (sequestratio sequestration
n) )
sustainable concrete option. Lateral systems 0,2 0,4 1 8 11 19 19
Beams and Columns 10 23 69 16 26 17 72
Floors 41 41 41 70 92 43 186
Foundations 28 28 28 23 30 27 27
(When focusing solely on the embodied carbon of the structural frame and excluding reinforced concrete slabs and
foundations, the embodied carbon values of reused steel were lower from recycled steel by 56% and from typical steel
by 85%). Alper Kanyilmaz, FUNDEC Training "Mastering LCA for Building Structures", Lesson 2 24
Reused steel is the lowest carbon solution.
Typical steel Recycled steel Reused steel
350
Timber: sequestration assumption
Embodied carcbon A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

is crucial 300
250
q Buildings constructed using wood
200
harvested from a non-sustainably
managed forest (with no 150
sequestration), had nearly three 100

times larger embodied carbon
value compared to those made 50
from sustainably managed timber 0

Mass timber Mass timber
sources. Reused steel
Recycled
Typical steel
Hanson UK Traditional (no
steel RC RC (sequestratio sequestration
n) )
Lateral systems 0,2 0,4 1 8 11 19 19
Beams and Columns 10 23 69 16 26 17 72
Floors 41 41 41 70 92 43 186
Foundations 28 28 28 23 30 27 27
Influence of the different EPDs on embodied carbon
Which carbon factor?
Influence of the different EPDs on embodied carbon
Which carbon factor? 300

250
The differences in the suppliers
manufacturing emissions (obtained 200
from their EPDs) caused variations up
to 40% among embodied carbon 150
calculations for the same building

100
configuration.
50
0
Mass Mass
Steel Steel RC Mass
Steel RC RC timber timber
(BE (Bauforu (Lafarge timber
(ICE data) (Heracles) (ICE data) (Zaza (Abobo
Group) mstahl) Holcim) (ICE data)
Timber) Wood)
Lateral systems 1 1 1 10 11 11 16 16 16
Floors 41 41 41 111 120 126 51 58 43
Foundations 17 17 17 26 30 32 12 12 12
Influence of the supplier location on embodied carbon
Where do you get your 350
material? 300

The location of the supplier affected 250
the embodied carbon results up to 200

82% (whether the material is locally or
globally manufactured and 150
transported).
100
50
0
Steel Steel RC RC Mass timber Mass timber
(local) (global) (local) (global) (local) (global)
Lateral systems 1 1 11 19 15 28
Beams and Columns 86 96 27 57 16 22
Floors 41 89 126 213 41 56
Foundations 17 38 32 67 12 25
Key messages from the session 3
VII) Slab is the largest contributor (in most of the cases)
q In most of the cases, the largest contributor of carbon footprint in a building, therefore:
ü Low-carbon alternatives to R/C slab help steel buildings in lowering their carbon-footprint.
o Cement replacement (slag in concrete, GGBS)
o Other low-carbon cement initiatives
o Timber (CLT) slabs (with sequestration)
q For long spans: Composite action represents the main saving
q Small design improvements (e.g. primary beam in the short direction in today’s case will reduce
carbon-footprint.
Key messages from the session 3
VIII) Reused steel is the best, close-to- 100% scrap based steel is the second.
IX) Balancing cost and carbon footprint is crucial

q There is a risk of not being able to implement expensive and very low carbon solutions within
the current AEC (e.g. timber frames): Having a set of low-enough carbon solutions with good
price is crucial.
Resources
q Kanyilmaz A., Dang V., Kondratenko A., How does conceptual design impact the cost and carbon footprint of structures?, Structures, Volume 58, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102
q Kanyilmaz, A., Birhane, M., Fishwick, R., Castillo C.. Reuse of Steel in the Construction Industry: Challenges and Opportunities. Int J Steel
Struct (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-023-00778-4.
q Kanyilmaz A., Chehade M., Carr J., Harpin R., Strategies for Embodied Carbon Intensity Reduction, 2024 (ongoing study)
q IEA (2018) Global Status Report. Toward a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector, Global Aliance for Building and
Construction and UN environment
q S.C. Kaethner, J.A. Burridge, Embodied CO2 of structural frames, The Structural Engineer Journal, The Institution of Structural Engineers (2012) 33–40.
q Buildings & Infrastructure Priority Actions for Sustainability Embodied Carbon Steel Reference: 07762000-RP-SUS-0001, Arup, 2023
q London Energy Transformation Initiative, Embodied carbon primer, 2020.
q International Energy Agency, United Nations, Global status report 2017
q International Energy Agency, United Nations, 2019 Global status report for buildings and construction, 2019.
q State of Climate Action 2023, World Resources Institute
q Baris Ciftci, Raw materials, Maximising scrap use helps reduce CO2 emissions https://worldsteel.org/steel-topics/raw-materials/
q https://www.wri.org/
q Climate Watch GHG Emissions
q LETI Embodied Carbon Primer
q LETI Climate Emergency Design guide, 2020
q Whole Life carbon assessment for the built environment, 2nd Edition, 2023, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
q The Global Risks Report 2023, World Economic Forum
q https://www.istructe.org/resources/guidance/international-drivers-of-low-carbon-structural-des/
q https://www.oneclicklca.com/construction-carbon-regulations-in-europe/
q https://www.iea.org/reports/iron-and-steel-technology-roadmap
q Gibbons et Al., “How To calculate Embodied Carbon”, 2022
q Life cycle inventory (LCI) study, worldsteel.org, 2020
q Towards embodied carbon benchmarks for buildings in Europe, Facing the data challenge Ramboll
q Jones, Green, Carbon targets for bridges: a proposed SCORS-style rating scheme, Institute of Structural Engineers, 2022
q Construction carbon regulations in Europe, Review and best practices, 2022, Once Click LCA
q Driving Action on Embodied Carbon in Buildings, RMI, USGBC, 2023
q The Institution of Structural Engineers, Climate Group, MPA The Concrete Centre, UK Low Carbon Concrete Group, The efficient use of GGBS in
reducing global emissions, 2023 Alper Kanyilmaz, FUNDEC Training "Mastering LCA for Building Structures", Lesson 2 32
Lesson 3,
19 April 2024

FUNDEC Kanyilmaz L3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FUNDEC Kanyilmaz L3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 3,

V) Measure embodied carbon at each phase of production and construction.

VI) Rapidly measure during concept design.

+ Today, more key messages!

q Balancing the cost efficiency and embodied carbon reduction in structures.

q Hands-on exercise together with attendees to compare different building

q Q & A and round-table discussion.

• Consider a wide range of options during early-stage design (“optioneering”).

7.5 x 7.5 m steel 7.5 x 5 m steel

Shorter (the span), better. 7000

Up to 40% reduction in costs 6000

Total costs (k€)

increasing span length, with 3000

Shorter (the span), better. 350

Embodied carcbon, A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

embodied carbon 250

q The embodied carbon of RC 200

experiencing increases of up to: 100

Taller, more expensive. 7000

(as you can imagine) 6000

Total costs (k€)

Embodied carcbon, A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

embodied carbon per GIA. 250

Land costs. 7000

q The cost of the land had the most 5000

significant influence in all cases,

Total costs (k€)

footprint decreased (due to an 2000

q The costs of the lateral system, 0

Larger footprint, lower 350

“carbon footprint”. 300

Embodied carcbon, A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

lower embodied carbon (ranging

Embodied carcbon A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

carbon emissions. Their total embodied 250

without accounting for carbon 0

Typical steel Recycled steel Reused steel

Embodied carcbon A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

sequestration), had nearly three 100

from sustainably managed timber 0

Which carbon factor?

Which carbon factor? 300

Embodied carcbon, A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

calculations for the same building

Where do you get your 350

Embodied carcbon, A+C (kg CO2e/m2)

the embodied carbon results up to 200

IX) Balancing cost and carbon footprint is crucial

You might also like