Material Quantities in Building Structures and Their Environmental Impact

Home , Al Hamra Tower, Structural material

Material quantities in building structures and their environmental impact

Catherine De Wolf

B.Sc., M.Sc. in Civil Architectural Engineering Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2012

Submitted to the Department of Architecture in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Building Technology

at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

June 2014

Signature of Author: Department of Architecture May 9, 2014

Certified by: John A. Ochsendorf Professor of Architecture and Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by: Takehiko Nagakura Associate Professor of Design and Computation Chair of the Department Committee on Graduate Students

John E. Fernández Professor of Architecture, Building Technology, and Engineering Systems Head, Building Technology Program Co-director, International Design Center, MIT Thesis Reader

Frances Yang Structures and Sustainability Specialist at Arup Thesis Reader

“It is […] important to remember that unlike operational carbon emissions the embodied carbon cannot be reversed”

Craig Jones, Circular Ecology

4 Material quantities in building structures and their environmental impact by Catherine De Wolf Submitted to the Department of Architecture in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Technology on May 9, 2014. Thesis Supervisor: John Ochsendorf Title Supervisor: Professor of Architecture and Civil and Environmental Engineering

Abstract

Improved operational energy efficiency has increased the percentage of embodied energy in the total life cycle of building structures. Despite a growing interest in this field, practitioners lack a comprehensive survey of material quantities and embodied carbon in building structures. This thesis answers the key question: “What is the embodied carbon of different structures?”

Three primary techniques are used: (1) a review of existing tools and literature; (2) a collaboration with a worldwide network of design firms through conversations with experts and (3) the creation of a growing interactive database containing the material efficiency and embodied carbon of thousands of buildings.

The first contribution of this thesis is to define challenges and opportunities in estimating greenhouse gas emissions of structures, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Two 2 2 key variables are analyzed: material quantities (kgmaterial/m or kgm/m ) and Embodied Carbon Coefficients (ECC, expressed in kgCO2e/kgm). The main challenges consist of creating incentives for sharing data, identifying accurate ECCs and resolving transparency while protecting intellectual ownership. The main opportunities include using Building Information Models to generate data, proposing regional ECCs and outlining a unified carbon assessment method.

The second contribution is the development of an interactive online tool, called deQo (database of embodied Quantity outputs), to provide reliable data about the Global Warming Potential of 2 buildings (GWP, measured in kgCO2e/m and obtained by multiplying the two key variables). Given the need for a long-term initiative, a framework is offered to create an interactive, growing online database allowing architects, engineers and researchers to input and compare their projects.

The third contribution is the survey of 200 existing buildings obtained through deQo. Two general conclusions result from this survey of building structures: material quantities typically 2 2 range from 500 to 1500 kg/m and the GWP typically ranges between 200 and 700 kgCO2e/m . Conclusions from this survey include that healthcare buildings use more materials whereas office buildings have a lower impact. Additionally, specific case studies on stadia, bridges and skyscrapers demonstrate that the design approach can have a significant impact on the embodied carbon of building structures.

Ultimately, this thesis enables benchmarking of the environmental impact of building structures.

Key words: Embodied Carbon/Energy; Life Cycle Analysis; Database; Materials; Structures

Acknowledgments

First, I am very grateful to my advisor, Prof. John Ochsendorf for his perception, guidance and enthusiasm during the development of this research and his support and friendship during my Master studies at MIT. I am also thankful to my readers, Prof. John Fernandez and Frances Yang (Arup), for their constructive suggestions during the development of this thesis. Their willingness to give their time so generously has been very much appreciated.

My special gratitude goes to Frances Yang, Andrea Charlson and Kristian Steele (Arup) for supervising my visiting research at Arup and offering me the opportunities to collaborate with practitioners worldwide on the topic of this thesis. Also, I am especially thankful to Wolfgang Werner (Thornton Tomasetti) whose collaboration was essential for the development of the database. The thoughtful contributions of these talented engineers brought new perspectives to my thesis.

For their help in the work towards this thesis, I am thankful in particular to the following researchers and friends: Ornella Iuorio for her study of the literature of embodied carbon coefficients; Mayce El Mostafa and Virginie Arnaud for their help in calculating the embodied carbon of stadia and tall office buildings; Julia Hogroian for her work on the material quantities in stadia; Eleanor Pence for her help coding the interactive database; Caitlin Mueller for her valuable feedback and finally the Fall 2013 students in the “Building structural systems II” class for their projects on skyscrapers.

Furthermore, I am very thankful to Kathleen Ross who always supported me and helped me out with administrative tasks and travels.

My highest appreciation goes to John Ochsendorf and Frances Yang for giving me the chance to discuss my work with world-class experts in structural engineering. The conversations with leading experts were inspirational and brought more depth to this thesis. I am honored to have met Edward Allen, Jörg Schlaich, William Baker, David Shook, Jim D’Aloisio, Kate Simonen, Patrick McCafferty, Craig Jones, Roderick Bates, Alice Moncaster, Julian Allwood, the SEAONC and SEI committees and many more.

I would like to thank the Arup and Thornton Tomasetti for their assistance with the collection of my data.

This research was sponsored by the Belgian American Education Foundation, the KuMIT project, the Harold Horowitz Award and Arup.

Finally, I thank my family and friends for always being there for me.

6 Contents

ABSTRACT 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 6

CONTENTS 7

1. INTRODUCTION 9 1.1. Motivation 9 1.2. Definitions of concepts 10 1.3. Problem statement 12 1.4. Organization of thesis 13

2. STATE OF THE ART 15 2.1. Material quantities 16 2.2. Embodied Carbon Coefficients (ECCs) 17 2.3. Examples of existing implementations 19 2.4. Summary 20

3. METHODOLOGY 23 3.1. Personal conversations with practitioners 23 3.2. Assessment of existing literature and tools 23 3.3. A new interactive database 24 3.4. Summary 25

4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN OBTAINING EMBODIED QUANTITIES 27 4.1. Introduction 27 4.2. Getting material quantities 27 4.3. Accurate ECCs 28 4.3.1. Literature on ECCs 28 4.3.2. Applied ranges for ECCs 30 4.4. Implementation of a unified method 32 4.5. Summary 34

5. FRAMEWORK FOR A DATABASE 35 5.1. Introduction 35 5.2. Database specifications 36 5.2.1. General information 36 5.2.2. Structural information 39 5.2.3. Default versus entered ECCs 42 5.2.4. Contribution of a new database 42 5.3. Relational database 44 5.4. Web-based interface 44 5.5. Collaboration with industry 46 5.5.1. Revit plug-in developers 46 5.5.2. Industry and research database 47 5.6. Summary 48

7 6. SURVEY OF EXISTING BUILDINGS 49 6.1. Introduction 49 6.2. Existing building structures from the industry 49 6.3. Case Study I: Analysis of stadia 54 6.3.1. Description 54 6.3.2. Material quantities in stadia 55 6.3.3. Embodied carbon of stadia 56 6.3.4. Discussion of results 57 6.4. Case study II: Lessons from historic bridges 57 6.4.1. Description 58 6.4.2. Material quantities in historic bridges 59 6.4.3. Embodied carbon of historic bridges 60 6.4.4. Comparison Roman arch and Inca suspension bridge 61 6.4.5. Comparison with recent bridge designs 62 6.5. Case study III: Comparing tall buildings 63 6.5.1. Description 63 6.5.2. Material quantities in tall buildings 63 6.5.3. Embodied carbon of tall buildings 64 6.5.4. Discussion of the results 66 6.6. Summary 66

7. CONCLUSIONS 69 7.1. Discussion of results 69 7.2. Summary of contributions 71 7.3. Future research 72

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 75 Part 1: General bibliography and references 75 Part 2: Stadia references 80 Part 3: Historic bridges references 81 Part 4: Tall building references 82

APPENDICES 85 Appendix A: Nomenclature 85 A.1. List of acronyms 85 A.2. Lexicon 86 Appendix B: Tables 88 B.1. Ten first projects in deQo 88 B.2. Analysis of stadia 89 B.3. Analysis of historic bridges 90 B.4. Analysis of tall buildings 92

8 1. Introduction

1.1. Motivation

Life cycle energy in buildings includes operational energy for heating, cooling, hot water, ventilation, lighting on one hand and embodied energy for material supply, production, transport, construction and disassembly on the other. The terms “embodied carbon” and “Global Warming Potential” (GWP) refer to the equivalent in carbon dioxide of all lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and is expressed in weight of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Many leading structural engineering and design firms are currently developing in-house embodied carbon estimators to answer the following question: what is the embodied carbon for different structures?

Craig Jones, co-founder of the Inventory of Carbon & Energy (Hammond & Jones, 2010), highlights the importance “to remember that unlike operational carbon emissions the embodied carbon cannot be reversed” (Circular Ecology, 2014). The key question of this thesis examines embodied carbon for several reasons.

First, carbon reduction is needed now. As mentioned in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, substantial carbon reductions need to occur in the near future in order to avoid extreme climate disruptions (IPCC, 2014). Embodied carbon savings in building structures are an obvious opportunity to reduce the impacts in the short term. Next, some buildings have a short lifetime, which results in a high percentage of embodied carbon in the total environmental impact of a building. This is true for a diverse range of buildings, even those most prized and lauded as architectural exemplars at the time of their construction. For example, the Folk Art museum (Figure 1.1), built in 2001, will be torn down for an extension of the MOMA after a lifespan of less than 15 years (New York Times, 2014).

Figure 1.1: Folk Art Museum and MOMA, New York City (New York Times, 2014)

Moreover, with the effective reduction of the operational carbon of buildings in future decades, embodied carbon will become a more significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions caused by buildings. Furthermore, research in this field will help structural engineers and architects to understand how to lower embodied carbon and fill this gap in literature (Dixit et al., 2012). Finally, rating schemes such as LEED (USGBC, 2013) have begun including embodied carbon in their credit system, though without defining baselines for benchmarking (Yang, 2014).

9 It should be noted that this thesis is limited to structural material quantities. Cladding and other non-structural materials are not considered for two reasons. First, structure accounts for the greatest weight in buildings and contributes to about half of the total carbon emissions due to materials (Webster et al., 2012). With a breakdown of embodied carbon for the different elements in offices, hospitals and schools, Kaethner and Burridge (2012) demonstrate that the super- and substructure together represent more than 50% of the total embodied carbon emissions of buildings (Figure 1.2). Second, this helps to focus attention on a well-defined quantity while still having a significant impact.

13% External cladding 13% External 4% Internal planning planning 4% Internal 42% Superstructure 42% Superstructure 16% Construction 16% Construction 13% Substructure 13% Substructure 8% Finishes %Ro 4% Roof

71% Structure & Construction 29% Others

Figure 1.2: Average breakdown in building elements of embodied carbon in offices, hospitals and schools, after (Kaethner and Burridge, 2012)

1.2. Definitions of concepts

Several key concepts are used regularly throughout this thesis. Since misunderstandings exist around concepts such as “carbon”, “Embodied Carbon Coefficients” or “carbon equivalent”, this section defines how they are interpreted in this work. Precise definitions can be found in the nomenclature in appendix A.

The value for “embodied energy” is not the same as the value for “embodied carbon”. The same amount of embodied energy can emit different intensities of greenhouse gases (GHG) depending on the fuel used and the carbon emitted or absorbed by the materials processed. For example, emissions occur in the chemical processing of cement, whereas carbon is sequestered in wood. It is useful to account in terms of embodied carbon instead of embodied energy, as

CO2 contributes considerably to climate change. Also, measuring specifically in carbon helps to compare the embodied with operational emissions. Carbon accounting therefore facilitates the assessment of the whole life cycle impacts of buildings (Kaethner and Burridge, 2012).

The total embodied carbon of a building is often referred to as “Global Warming Potential” (GWP). The GWP is expressed in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per functional unit.

The carbon dioxide equivalent is noted “CO2e” and represents the equivalent in carbon dioxide of the GHGs produced during the manufacturing and transportation of materials. The other

GHGs such as CH4, N2O, SF6, PFC and HFC can hence be converted to CO2 using conversion factors in order to obtain a common unit for the environmental impact (IPCC, 2014), i.e. the “carbon dioxide equivalent”.

A “functional unit” is a specified metric used to normalize the carbon footprint of buildings, in order to compare ‘apples to apples’. For example, the useable floor area can be the functional 2 unit. The GWP is then measured in kgCO2e/m . The number of occupants is another example of a functional unit. The GWP is then measured in kgCO2e/occupant.

Two key variables are analyzed in this thesis: Structural Material Quantities (SMQ), expressed in 2 kg of material (kgmaterial or kgm) per functional unit (often m ), and Embodied Carbon Coefficients (ECC), expressed in kg of CO2e (kgCO2e) per kg of material (kgm). Presently, there is no clear standard for accurate ECC values and information on SMQ values for buildings is scarce.

2 As illustrated in equation [1], the GWP (kgCO2e/m ) is obtained by multiplying the two key 2 variables: SMQ (kgm/m ) and ECC (kgCO2e/kgm), together.

2 2 GWP (kgCO2e/m ) = SMQ (kgm/m ) ! ECC (kgCO2e/kgm) [1]

Figure 1.3 illustrates how the GWP of different materials can be added up for building projects to define the embodied carbon.

6 Reinforcement Steel 5 ) 2 Concrete 4 /m

CO2e 3 (kg 2

1 Embodied CarbonGWP or

0 Project F F Project Project B B Project Project C Project Project E Project Project A Project Project D Project

Figure 1.3: GWP divided into the composing materials of different building projects

In this thesis, “structure” refers to the structure of a building and implies the loadbearing part of something built or constructed. When talking about a pattern, relation or organization, other words, such as “framework”, are used.

11 1.3. Problem statement

This thesis aims to build literacy on the embodied carbon for different structures. Data is collected in collaboration with a network of worldwide design firms. The research is conducted in three primary streams: 1) Collect data from recently published literature on Life Cycle Assessments (LCA); 2) Collaborate with design and construction firms to build a useful database of their projects; 3) Create an interactive growing database where participants can input projects to include thousands of buildings worldwide.

2 Two necessary variables are introduced in section 1.2: SMQ (kgm/m ) conveys the amounts of steel, concrete, wood, etc. and ECC (kgCO2e/kgm) expresses the carbon equivalent of these materials. The former is sought from industry participants; the latter is computed with existing LCA software and current literature. Developing confidence in the numbers for embodied 2 carbon of structures (GWP in kgCO2e/m ) requires a large amount of data. No framework or reliable database exists yet assessing material efficiency and embodied carbon in structures. This lack of information results in buildings using materials in a wasteful way with impunity.

However, to be able to rationally compare and assess projects, a wider set of input parameters is needed beyond the two key variables. The first set of input parameters consists of general project information such as the building location, typology and geometry. The second are structural parameters such as material choices and quantities, structural systems, soil types and loads. Outputs include ranges of GWP, illustrated in graphics comparing building projects or categories (Figure 1.3). An intermediate result is better information on material efficiency.

This thesis has three main contributions. The first contribution is to define the challenges and opportunities in obtaining the material quantities and estimating the embodied carbon of structural materials. To obtain the key variables SMQ and ECC, many challenges occur in existing tools and literature. However, by listing the challenges and offering possible solutions and opportunities, this thesis clarifies which paths can be followed to reduce the embodied carbon of building structures.

The second contribution of this thesis is the development of an interactive online tool to give confidence in the GWP measurement of buildings. A framework is presented for a relational database collecting both the embodied carbon of buildings, and their material quantities. The idea is to create a worldwide online tool, which allows architects, engineers and researchers to input their projects and compare it with others.

The third contribution is the survey of two hundred actual buildings taken from the database. Additionally, a new unified embodied carbon assessment method is applied to specific case studies, such as stadia, historic bridges and recent skyscrapers in order to critically analyze and refine the process. Ultimately, this will enable benchmarking and comparisons of the environmental impact of a wide range of projects.

12 1.4. Organization of thesis

The following chapter (Chapter 2) discusses the state of the art on material quantities, ECC values and implementing the calculation of the GWP. Chapter 3 elaborates on the methodology.

The Chapters 4 to 6 expand on the contributions and results of this thesis. First, Chapter 4 reviews the challenges and opportunities in obtaining material quantities and ECCs. Chapter 5 then develops a framework for an interactive database collecting data on existing building projects. Finally, Chapter 6 surveys 200 actual buildings from industry and applies the defined approach for estimating the embodied carbon of structures to three case studies: sport stadia, historic bridges and tall office buildings.

Finally, Chapter 7 discusses the key contributions, takes conclusions and proposes paths for future research.

14 2. State of the art

This chapter summarizes the state of the art on material quantities, ECCs and environmental impact analysis tools. Gaps and challenges are highlighted in this chapter and will be addressed in the following chapters. Chapter 2 is divided into three parts. The first two parts discuss the literature on the two key variables: SMQ and ECC. The last part addresses existing tools to implement the calculation of the GWP of buildings.

Figure 2.1 shows the wide range of results for embodied energy and carbon, illustrating the need for an agreement on an accurate way to estimate the embodied energy and embodied carbon of buildings. Cole and Kernan (1996) estimated the embodied energy is 4 to 9% of a 50 year life-cycle energy, whereas the Athena Institute of Sustainable Materials (2009) mentions 9 to 12% of a 60 year lifespan and Webster et al (2012) talk about 2 to 22% over 50 year. For the embodied carbon, the numbers vary widely as well, from 11 to 80% depending on the source (Simpson et al., 2010).

Cole & Kernan EE = 4-9% 1996 of 50 yr life-cycle energy

Eaton & Amato EC = 37-43% 1998 of 60 yr life-cycle carbon emissions

Build Carbon Neutral EC = 13-18% 2007 of 60 yr life-cycle carbon emissions

Simon Group et al EC = up to 80 % 2008 of life-cycle carbon emissions

Athena EE = 9-12% 2009 of 60 yr life-cycle energy

Arup (Simpson et al) EC = 11-50% 2010 of 60 yr life-cycle carbon emissions

Webster et al EE = 2-22% 2012 of 50 yr life-cycle energy

Figure 2.1: Wide-ranging results for embodied carbon, after (Simpson et al., 2010)

15 2.1. Material quantities

In the 1890s, a tower design competition in London asked for material weight as one of the criteria (Figure 2.2) and in the 1920s, Buckminster Fuller asked: “how much does your house weigh?” (Lynde, 1890; Braham and Hale, 2013). However, material efficiency does not always drive building design today. Indeed, as no framework yet exists to assess the embodied carbon of a structure, many buildings may be consuming materials in a wasteful way with impunity.

Table 3. Unit direct construction costs for tall composite building structures Unit Cost per Material Unit Cost for Structural Members Unit Cost Project Material *Won/m2 % Str. Mem. *Won/m2 % Comparison Concrete 28,497 15.7 Core + Link 56,223 30.9 Reinf. 32,748 18.0 Column 37,023 20.4 Str. Steel 73,533 40.4 Beam/Girder 39,078 21.5 B(66F) Deck 15,102 8.3 Outrigger 7,953 4.4 104.6 Precast 4,093 2.3 Slab 32,985 18.1 Formwork 27,866 15.3 Foundation 8,557 4.7 Total 181,839 100 Total 181,839 100 Concrete 28,189 15.9. Core + Link 41,958 23.7 Reinf. 20,361 11.5 Column 34,997 19.3 Str. Steel 88,953 50.3 Beam/Girder 57,351 32.4 E(55F) Deck 14,667 8.3 Outrigger 5,653 3.2 101.8 Figure 2.2: ParticularsFormwork of the design 24,740 competition 14.0 Slab for the London 34,048 tower 19.2 in 1890 (Lynde, 1890). Foundation 2,905 1.6 Total 176,911 100 Total 176,911 100 Recently, other studiesConcrete have attempt 34,674 ed to 19.9 map Core material + Link efficiency 48,995 28.2 of tall buildings considering Reinf. 41,284 23.7 Column 36,476 21.0 the number of floors andStr. Steel structural 53,785 systems 30.9 (Cho Beam/Girder et al., 2004; 33,871 Elnimeiri 19.5 and Gupta, 2009; Ali and Moon, 2007).G(69F) Data Deckon material 11,759 quantities 6.8 from Belt Wall leading 13,973 structural 8.0 design100.0 firms such as Arup Formwork 32,360 18.6 Slab 31,941 18.4 and Thornton Tomasetti have been collected Foundation in the material8,605 quantity4.9 and the database of embodied Quantity outputsTotal (deQo173,862), developed100 atTotal the Structural173,862 Design100 Lab within the Building Technology program* $1 # 1,200 Wonat MIT (De Wolf and Ochsendorf, 2014; deQo, 2014). In order to compare the construction costs of three 176,911 won/m2, respectively, giving differences of 4.6 buildings, the structural quantities of Table 2 are and 1.8 %. The tallest G costs3 even less2 than the fourteen Cho ettransferred al. (2004) to directexpress construction unit costsmaterial for building quantities story insmaller volume E. The G(m utilized per relatively m ) morefor quantitiesconcrete and in mass (kgstructures per mbased2) foron the rebar price as andof June, steel. 2004. FormworkIn Figure of2.3 concrete, they andcompare reinforcement the withstructural smaller structural steel quantities cost and different costs for different concrete strengths steel amount, which appears to be the reason for the cost for variousare also taken story into account heights. in the process. As Elnimeiri Table 3 shows andsaving. Gupta This fact (2009) shows express the importance it, of “good selected structural that the tallest building, G, has the smallest cost of structural materials for the economical construction of engineering revolves2 around achieving efficiency and minimization of material”. 173,862 won/m , while B and E have 181,839 and tall buildings. ͣ͢͡ ΄ΖΒΣΤ͑΅ΠΨΖΣ ΈΠΣΝΕ͑΅ΣΒΕΖ͑ʹΖΟΥΖΣ ͶΞΡΚΣΖ͑΄ΥΒΥΖ͑ͳΦΚΝΕΚΟΘ ͢͡͡ ͻΠΙΟ͑͹ΒΟΔΠΔΜ͑ͳΦΚΝΕΚΟΘ

ͩ͡ ͸ ͳ ͧ͡ Ͷ ͿΠ͑͟ΠΗ͑΄ΥΠΣΚΖΤ

ͥ͡

ͣ͡

͡ ͡ ͦ͡ ͢͡͡ ͦ͢͡ ͣ͡͡ ͣͦ͡ ͤ͡͡ ͣ ΄ΥΣΦΔΥΦΣΒΝ͑΄ΥΖΖΝ͑΂ΦΒΟΥΚΥΚΖΤ͙͑ΜΘΗ͠Ξ ͚

Fig. 1. UnitF structuraligure 2steel.3 :quantities Structural4) steel quantities by number of stories (Cho et al., 2004)

Formwork costs occupy 14 to 18.6 % among total beams and slab, occupy 29.6, 51.6 and 37.9 % for B, structural expenses; horizontal structural members, E and G, respectively. The high value of E occurs due 16 CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea 665 Fazlur Khan (1980) introduced the notion of “premium for height” (Figure 2.4). With a growing number of stories, the weight of steel in kg/m2 is not only increasing due to columns and bracing walls, but also due to the increasing lateral wind loads. Ali and Moon (2007) and Rizk (2010) give weights of steel in pounds per square feet (psf) versus the number of floors for steel framed tall buildings. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) points out it is often difficult to compare these material quantities, as some studies may include or exclude the foundations, mezzanine floors, etc. (CTBUH Journal, 2010).

) 2 350 320 kg/m2 300 (kg/m 250 Extra cost for lateral resistance 200 Premium Columns and 150 for height bracing walls

Structure cost 100 2 per unit floorper area 120 kg/m Floor framing 50

Average weight of weight Average steel 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of stories Figure 2.4: Weights of steel per numbers of stories, after (Khan, 1980; Ali and Moon, 2007)

The scope of current studies tends to be narrowed down to a specific type of structure (e.g. skyscrapers) or program (e.g. offices) (Amato and Eaton, 1998). Literature is lacking about the ranges of material weights in typical buildings.

2.2. Embodied Carbon Coefficients (ECCs)

Similar uncertainty and gaps in data also characterize the literature that examines Embodied Energy and Embodied Carbon. Moncaster and Symons (2013) describe the general lack of data in the field of embodied carbon. Alcorn (1996) discusses the “Embodied Energy Coefficients”

(EEC, in MJ/kgmaterial) of building materials, while Dias and Pooliyadda (2004) define “Embodied Carbon Coefficients” (ECC, in kgCO2e/kgmaterial). The phrase “Carbon Intensity Factors” (CIF) is sometimes used interchangeably for the “Embodied Carbon Coefficients” (ECC).

Various reports have analyzed the environmental impact of concrete (Vares and Häkkinen,1998; Lagerblad, 2005; Collins, 2010; Struble and Godfrey, 1999; NRMCA, 2014), as well as the impact of cement (Young, Turnbul and Russel, 2002). Other articles describe the embodied energy of metals (Chapman and Roberts, 1983) and in particular steel (ISSF, 2013; IISI, 2013; Eurofer, 2000; Stubbles, 2007; World Steel, 2014). Next to concrete and steel, discussions exist on the embodied energy and carbon of other construction materials such as timber (Pullen, 2000; Corrim, 2014). However, there is a significant variability in the results for both EEC and ECC values.

17 There is a need for material manufacturers, such as the concrete, steel and timber industry, to make the ECC data of their products more transparent and consistent (The Concrete Centre, 2013; Moynihan et al., 2012; Weight, 2011). However, each manufacturer puts forth a set of assumptions, such as which life cycle stages to include. For example, taking into account the carbon sequestration may be beneficial for the ECC value of timber, while taking into account the end of life recycled content may be beneficial for the ECC value of steel (Weight, 2011).

Efforts exist to summarize the ECCs of common construction materials. In the United Kingdom, the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) report from the University of Bath is one of the most complete open source databases for ECCs (Hammond and Jones, 2010). Figure 2.5 illustrates the variability of the available data on the embodied energy of steel. The wide range of available EEC/ECC values undermines useful comparisons of the environmental impact of different buildings. The ICE report selects the best available embodied energy and carbon data. However, there is still a need for values per country or region. The same concrete mix used in a big city in China or a small town in the United States will not have the same coefficients if factors such as transport are included (Ochsendorf, et al., 2011). In addition, the embodied carbon in the ICE report is often underestimated by considering only the initial stage (‘cradle to gate’) instead of the whole life cycle (‘cradle to grave’ or ‘cradle to cradle’). The life cycle stages are defined in the TC350 European standards (Moncaster and Symons, 2013). In the Unites States, the Carbon Working Group discusses the embodied carbon of common construction materials. However, the group highlights the uncertainty and variability of available data quality (Webster et al., 2012).

EE Scatter Graph - Steel 90 80

(MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Embodied Energy (EE) 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year of data Figure 2.5: Variability of available embodied energy data of Steel (Hammond and Jones, 2010)

Several Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and LCA tools exist to calculate impacts of single projects or materials. The commercial software Gabi, EcoInvent and SimaPro are common practice for LCA calculations, but can lack transparency due to protection of intellectual property (GaBi, 2013; EcoInvent, 2013; SimaPro, 2013). Furthermore, the Athena Institute of Sustainable Materials has integrated LCI data at the building scale (Athena, 2009).

18 2.3. Examples of existing implementations

The following paragraphs illustrate several existing databases and tools for estimating embodied carbon. The Athena Institute is a non-profit organization based in Canada that has integrated LCI data into building industry specific tools: the Athena Eco Calculator (free) and the Athena Impact Estimator (Athena, 2009). Also, EcoInvent provides thousands of LCI datasets in various fields from agriculture to electronics (EcoInvent, 2013)

Furthermore, various companies have developed in-house tools focused on estimating the embodied carbon of their projects. In 2013, Kieran Timberlake and PE International released the Tally environmental impact tool (Tally, 2013) extracting data from Revit models (Revit, 2014). The SOM Environmental Analysis tool is a user-friendly embodied carbon calculator for design projects (SOM, 2013).

In the United Kingdom, the non-profit Waste Reduction Action Program (WRAP) recently launched a project-based database of embodied carbon (WRAP, 2014). WRAP asks users of the web-interface to clearly mark building life cycle stages and to reference the LCA software used, without asking specifically for material quantities (Charlson, 2012). The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has started developing a range of benchmarks based on the available data on embodied carbon in buildings (RICS, 2014).

Many leading structural engineering firms have also started the development of in-house databases of structural material quantities or embodied carbon for their own projects. One thoroughly developed example is the Arup Project Embodied Carbon and Energy Database (PECD) mainly consisting of Arup buildings or projects from literature (PECD, 2013; Kaethner and Burridge, 2012; Yang, 2013). Although PECD contains approximately 600 projects, the data scarcity, scattering and wide ranges of data still hinders the definition of a baseline. Other companies, such as Thornton Tomasetti, have also developed a database of the material quantities, extracted via a Revit plug-in, and the embodied carbon in their projects.

Studies demonstrate the need to inform not only designers and clients, but also governments and the public of the need to develop solutions for carbon savings (Clark, 2013).

Table 2.1 gives a brief overview of companies and institutes working on similar problems. As can be discerned from this table, the existing initiatives only look at one or two of the parameters to estimate the embodied carbon of buildings. This thesis aims to bridge the gap between the various influences.

Material Quantities Material ECC Implementation Reports Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) ✓ Structure and Carbon (Carbon working group) ✓ Cole and Kernan, 1996 ✓ Eaton and Amato, 1998 ✓ Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) ✓ Software Athena ✓ ✓ GaBi, SimaPro ✓ SOM Environmental Analysis Tool ✓ ✓ Tally beta tool ✓ ✓ Build Carbon Neutral, 2007 ✓ Databases Arup PECD ✓ ✓ Thornton Tomasetti ✓ ✓ WRAP ✓ ✓ Table 2.1: Leading efforts in material quantity collection, ECC values, database implementation

2.4. Summary

Despite a growing interest in this field, designers and clients still lack a global embodied carbon estimator (De Wolf et al., 2014).

Studies have attempted to map material efficiency of tall buildings considering the number of floors and structural systems (Khan, 1980; Cho et al., 2004; Ali and Moon, 2007; Elnimeiri and Gupta, 2009). Leading structural design firms such as Arup and Thornton Tomasetti collected data on material quantities in their projects in-house.

Other studies are assembling data on ECCs, such as the ICE database of the University of Bath in the United Kingdom (Hammond and Jones, 2010) or the Carbon Working Group in the United States of America (Webster et al., 2013). There is a need for material manufacturers, such as the concrete, steel and timber industry, to make the ECC data of their products more transparent and consistent.

Several LCI/LCA software exist on the material and product scale, such as GaBi (GaBi, 2013), EcoInvent (EcoInvent, 2013) and SimaPro (SimaPro, 2013), or on the building scale, such as the Athena Institute of Sustainable Materials (Athena, 2009). The WRAP embodied carbon

20 database collects total carbon footprints of buildings, without asking for the material quantities in the projects still (De Wolf and Ochsendorf, 2014; WRAP, 2014). The RICS hopes to develop new benchmarks for embodied carbon based on these new data-points (RICS, 2014).

Overall, estimating the embodied carbon of building structures is data-intensive. However, the available data on material quantities or ECCs are scarce and often unreliable. A general lack of transparency hinders the usage ECC values available in the literature. Also, no baseline has been defined for benchmarking material efficiency and embodied carbon in buildings. This thesis will address these issues, by looking at the opportunities within the challenges. A framework for an interactive database a survey of several hundreds of existing buildings will follow.

22 3. Methodology

The study of publicly available carbon data in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.1) illustrates the variability in assumptions from different organizations. The existing literature is synthesized and the published numbers on both key variables – the material quantities and the ECCs – are compared in order to advise a unified method of estimating the GWP of buildings.

The methodology for estimating material quantities and the environmental impact of building structures is threefold. First, one-on-one conversations with leading structural engineering and design firms leads to a description of the current common practice and existing challenges in estimating embodied carbon of their building projects. Further, existing literature and tools for estimating the environmental impact of buildings are reviewed. Finally, the implementation of an interactive interface and a relational database will unify the collection and processing of data.

3.1. Personal conversations with practitioners

To start, conferences and discussions with experts provide feedback from the professional sectors of building design, engineering and construction. These interactions are held in the form of personal conversations, presentations at conferences or open discussions in offices.

The design firms and experienced practitioners give a critical review of what should be queried in a new database in order to legitimately compare the environmental impact of building structures. These conversations with experts pave the way to accurate baselines for embodied carbon while keeping the results easily accessible for the stakeholders.

Next to this critical review of the field, these interactions with practitioners also play a crucial part in the gathering of data. These contacts with professionals deliver a significant amount of data on material quantities in building projects. Leading structural engineering firms such as Arup and Thornton Tomasetti have shared hundreds of projects with this research to analyze, compare and validate the embodied carbon assessment method in their offices.

3.2. Assessment of existing literature and tools

As mentioned above, the available data are variable and often unreliable. It is therefore important to thoroughly and critically review the challenges and opportunities arising from the literature and existing tools. On one hand, (scarce) published numbers on material quantities in buildings are listed. On the other hand, the different numbers for ECCs are compared and evaluated. Finally, the current implementation of the actual estimation of the embodied carbon of whole building structures is assessed.

In particular, this thesis uses and compares various existing embodied carbon estimating tools. Various software or databases have been assessed (Table 3.1): the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, the GaBi LCA software, the Tally tool developed by Kieran Timberlake and PE

23 International, the SOM Environmental Analysis Tool, the WRAP embodied carbon database, etc. Very little has been written on the comparison of the available tools.

Company EC estimating tool Reference Athena Sustainable Materials Institute Impact estimater Athena, 2009 PE International GaBi Software GaBi, 2013 Kieran Timberlake & PE international Tally Tally, 2013 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill SOM Environmental Analysis Tool SOM, 2013 WRAP WRAP Embodied Carbon Database WRAP, 2014 Table 3.1: Existing reviewed embodied carbon estimating tools

3.3. A new interactive database

Recognizing the need for a uniform method of assessing embodied carbon in buildings, this research undertakes a long-term initiative to create an interactive, growing database of building projects. The online interface allows architects, engineers and researchers to input data on the material quantities and embodied impact of their projects.

The interactive web-based interface, where practitioners from industry can input data on their projects from all around the world in a transparent way, is connected to a growing relational database. While controlling the quality of the entered data, contribution of all industries is encouraged. A “Wiki” approach with multiple participants facilitates the communication with companies. The relational database is coded in MySQL, the interactive web-based interfaced in html and php scripts make the connection between both.

The following example illustrates the working of the interactive database. A user inputs the structural material quantities of an office building in London. Then, the participant can opt for the default ECC value offered by the database or enter his/her own customized value. The result will give the GWP of the project compared to other similar structures. Figure 3.1 shows the current interface and database developed for the purpose of this thesis.

A transparent database composed of thousands of projects, will give participants a greater confidence in the numbers for the GWP of buildings. Visualizing and comparing results will increase the understanding of the environmental impact of various building types and structural systems. Ultimately, the analysis of material quantities and embodied carbon will direct architects and engineers towards designs with a lower embodied carbon.

24 WHAT? HOW? HOW? RESEARCH PROBLEMNEXT

deQo Database for Embodied Quantity Outputs Search My Projects New Project Settings Logout

Structural System & Material Choice Natural Hazard & Climate Zone

Building Life Cycle Stages

Included Building Components

Figure 3.1: Part of the interactive interface of the database

The following chapters will expand on the three main contributions of this thesis. Chapter 4 reviews the challenges and opportunities in the field of embodied carbon. Chapter 5 proposes a framework for the interactive database. Chapter 6 illustrates the survey of over 200 existing buildings. The results will be summarized, discussed and will lead to conclusions in Chapter 7.

3.4. Summary

The methodology can be summarized in three techniques: personal conversations with leading experts, a review of the existing tools and literature and the development of a new interactive database. The experts are structural engineers, architects, researchers and consultants. The existing tools are databases such as WRAP, assessment tools such as Athena or LCA software such as GaBi. The interactive database is composed of a web-based interface and a relational database and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. As a whole, these three techniques led to the development of the challenges and opportunities in obtaining material quantities and ECCs (Chapter 4), the framework for a new database (Chapter 5) and the survey of over 200 existing buildings (Chapter 6).

26 4. Challenges and opportunities in obtaining embodied quantities

4.1. Introduction

While individual companies and researchers are developing their own in-house databases, it is important to understand the challenges arising from carbon accounting. For an accurate, complete and reliable database, it is essential to know the obstacles before it is possible to overcome them. The thesis therefore addresses the lack of methodology or regulation divided among three topics: 1. The first task is to collect material quantity data and assess their quality. This can allow for comparisons across building types and structural systems. 2. The second goal is to propose standards for ECCs that are reasonably accurate but at the same time do not require a complicated calculation from a complete LCA for each material and each project. 3. The third topic addresses the implementation of the database. It includes unifying the different methodologies in a transparent way while respecting intellectual property.

For each of the three problems identified, this thesis defines opportunities as well as challenges. The opportunities illustrate the possibilities of the environmental impact database and can solve part of the tasks in each topic, but challenges remain to be undertaken.

4.2. Getting material quantities

The first challenges consist in obtaining accurate material quantities and generating as much data as possible. For accurate data, the scope of what is included should be very well defined (for example, should the sub-structure be included?). Generating large amounts of data requires incentives for architecture, engineering and construction firms to share their project information. Indeed, hundreds of projects are needed to create a representative sample pool.

The opportunity in getting structural material quantities arise from Building Information Models (BIM) such as Revit (Revit, 2014). Connecting Revit models to a database of material quantities will generate data quickly in an automated way. Architecture and structural design firms now almost always use BIM models for their projects. These 3D model based data consequently makes a significant amount of data on material quantities in buildings available. New design projects have a digital version of the amount of steel, concrete, timber or other materials used in the building structure.

With the right incentives, these design firms can share the information on their project in a fast and automated way with BIM, facilitating the collection of data on material choice and material quantities in the building projects. Accordingly, a considerable amount of quantitative data is already available in design firms and a user-friendly interactive web-interface should help populate the database.

4.3. Accurate ECCs

4.3.1. Literature on ECCs

The definition of ECCs is an important and complex matter. Typically these data are obtained from Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases. Many databases are available such as Bath University’s ICE report (Hammond and Jones, 2010), Athena (Athena, 2009) and EcoInvent (EcoInvent, 2013). In particular, the ICE presents ‘cradle-to-gate’ data for carbon and energy impacts of building materials mainly in the United Kingdom. Athena integrates average transportation distances (results customizable for different regions of the United States of America) as well as impacts from construction, maintenance and demolition (Athena, 2009). The tool helps designers evaluate environmental impacts without developing detailed material quantity takeoffs. The EcoInvent datasets are based on industrial data. The tool is compatible with most LCA and eco-design software tools (EcoInvent, 2013).

In order to understand the variability of ECCs among different databases, the values for cement and concrete obtained by ICE and Athena are reported in Table 4.1. For concrete in particular, the ECC can vary in a significant way depending on strength (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2), cement quantity, percentage of fly ash (Figure 4.1) and blast furnace content. Moreover, in the case of reinforced concrete the environmental impact of reinforcing bar (rebar) has to be considered: the ICE suggests adding 0.77 for each 100kg of rebar per m3. With different concrete strengths and rebar contents, the results vary widely per m3 (240 kg versus 788 kg, Figure 4.2). A critical study is needed to interpret this extreme variability to establish reliability in the available concrete ECCs.

ICE Athena Cement 0.74 0.776 Concrete 16/20 0.100 0.091 Concrete 25/30 0.113 0.128 Table 4.1: ECC for cement and concrete, data after (Hammond and Jones, 2010) and (Athena, 2009)

0.20 0.18

) 0.16

m 0.14 0.12 /kg 0.10 0.08 CO2e 0.06

(kg 0.04 0.02

ECC for concrete 0.00 RC 20/25 RC 25/30 RC 28/35 RC 32/40 RC 40/50 (20/25 MPa) (25/30 MPa) (28/35 MPa) (32/40 MPa) (40/50 MPa) 0% fly ash 0.132 0.140 0.148 0.163 0.188 15% fly ash 0.122 0.130 0.138 0.152 0.174 30% fly ash 0.108 0.115 0.124 0.136 0.155 Figure 4.1: ECC for concrete, varying strengths and percentages of fly ash, data after (Hammond and Jones, 2010)

800 700 600

500

CO2e 400 of concrete 3 kg 300 200 for 1 m 100 0 16/20 MPa 20/25 MPa 25/30 MPa 28/35 MPa 32/40 MPa 40/50 MPa 0% rebar 240 257 271 288 317 362 1% rebar 425 442 456 473 502 547 2% rebar 535 552 567 583 612 658 3% rebar 665 682 697 713 742 788

Figure 4.2: Embodied carbon for a 1m3 of concrete at varying strengths and percentages of rebar, data after (Hammond and Jones, 2010)

Next to concrete, the ECC values for steel products also present an important variation, as illustrated in Figure 4.3 for various steel products and different recycled contents.

3.50

3.00

2.50

) m 2.00 /kg 1.50 CO2e

(kg 1.00

ECC for steel 0.50

0.00 UK Typical - EU R.O.W. Typical - World Typical - Primary - 100% 59% Recycled 35.5% Recycled 39% Recycled hypothetical virgin General 1.46 2.03 1.95 2.89 Bar & Rod 1.40 1.95 1.86 2.77 Coil (Sheet) 1.38 1.92 1.85 2.74 Coil (Sheet Galv.) 1.54 2.12 2.03 3.01 Figure 4.3: ECC for steel products at varying recycling contents, data after (Hammond and Jones, 2010)

Table 4.2 proposes average ECC values after the ICE database (Hammond and Jones, 2010) and EcoInvent (EcoInvent, 2013). The opportunity lies in the definitions of average numbers per location. If the database can propose an agreement for ECC standards, it can allow practitioners to use both average and more sophisticated customized values.

Material ECC in kgCO2e/kg Standard 0.11* Concrete1 High Strength 0.13* Sections (beams, columns) 1.1 Sheeting 2.6 Steel2 Studs 1.2 Plates 2.5 Rebar3 65% recycled content 1.7 *The Carbon coefficients for concrete can vary in a significant way depending on strength, cement quantity, percentage of fly ash and blast furnace content, in this table two values are provided that can be applied respectively for normal concrete (C20/25 - C28/35 and 30% fly ash) and high strength concrete (C32/40 - C40/50 and 30% fly ash). This does not include reinforcing steel in the concrete. 1after (Hammond and Jones, 2010); 2after (EcoInvent, 2014). 3after (GaBi, 2013) Table 4.2: Evaluation of ECCs for a set of structural materials, in collaboration with Ornella Iuorio

4.3.2. Applied ranges for ECCs

This section discusses a choice of default ECCs, based on a critical review of databases, software and design scheme guides of leading companies. Figure 4.4 illustrates the results for unreinforced concrete, from different sources such as the ICE database, GaBi, Athena, The Concrete Centre. The deQo database follows the most reliable source or an average of the most reliable numbers.

0.25

ICE Bath University 0.2 ) m GaBi 2006 /kg 0.15 The Concrete Centre CO2e

(kg Athena 2003

0.1 ECC of concrete deQo

0.05 20 30 50 Low Medium High Concrete Strengths (MPa)

Figure 4.4: ECC of low, medium and high strength concrete from various sources

Not only do these amounts depend on location (transport from extraction site to construction site), but also vary as a function of material composition. For example, for an ECC of reinforced concrete, numbers depend significantly on the mixes. Indeed, different cement contents, fly ash replacements, or rebar contents will have a considerable impact on the value of the ECC. However, to simplify the approach to estimating the GWP of buildings, an average ECC range can be determined. Figure 4.5 proposes average values for the ECC of reinforced concrete from low to high strength concrete and from 0 to 5% of rebar.

0.3

0.25 ) m

/kg 0% rebar 0.2

CO2e 2% rebar (kg 0.15 5% rebar ECC of concrete

0.1 20 30 40 50 Concrete Strength (MPa) Figure 4.5: Average ECC of reinforced concrete

The same analysis is conducted for steel values (Figure 4.6), differentiating hotrolled steel and rebar. The ICE database gives the value for steel in the United Kingdom; Athena is applied to North America; SimaPro gives a general value for both hotrolled and rebar steel; and GaBi incorporates different global values. As can be discerned from Figure 4.6, the values are very different from one source to another.

2.00 1.80 1.60

) 1.40 m 1.20 /kg 1.00 Hotrolled Steel

CO2e 0.80 Rebar (kg

ECC of steel 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ICE Bath Athena 2003 GaBi 2006 SimaPro deQo University

Figure 4.6: ECC for hotrolled and rebar steel from various sources

31 A similar comparison was established for timber as a structural material. Figure 4.7 gives a summary of the ECC values for timber (Arup, 2008).

1 )

m 0.8

/kg 0.6 0.4 CO2e 0.2 (kg 0 ECC of glulam UK Germany Australia Canada Global Global v2.0 2006 2007 2003 2014 2014 Bath ICE GaBi RMIT Athena Arup study deQo Figure 4.7: ECC of glued laminated timber from various sources

Having made this overview of material quantities and ECCs, a more critical evaluation is possible for the GWP results for building projects in section 4.4.

4.4. Implementation of a unified method

The last topic in this chapter is the implementation of a database with material quantities and embodied carbon. To define the challenges in this field, the first step is to analyze existing embodied carbon estimator tools (Table 4.3). Current developments are mainly design-oriented. Usually, tools do not give a specific indication of a baseline for benchmarking. A database- oriented tool is needed to shift away from the design process towards disclosure of projects after construction, in order to give an idea how the embodied carbon of a new design will compare to a typical building of the same typology and structural system.

Tools Advantages Disadvantages • Uses BIM output • Control what BIM includes? TALLY beta version • Design oriented • Transparency SOM Environmental • Basic default assumptions • No Normalized metrics (kg/m2) Analysis Tool • Option for customized details • Linear modeling of ECCs Athena Carbon • Established estimator • No BIM connection Estimator • No LCA expertise required • Transparency • Uses BIM output • Control what BIM includes? ARUP PECD • Hundreds of projects available • Transparency Table 4.3: Review of used and tested tools

Two important aspects contradict one another: the need for transparency and the protection of intellectual property. Indeed, if a comparative database divulges all projects, the risk exists that companies will use it to demonstrate “lower” embodied carbon compared to their competitors, which could result in skewed data-points. Also ownership of data should be taken into account. An option would be to allow anonymous data input, which then undermines the transparency.

32 composite structure. composite structure.

Global Warming Potential (GWP) GlobalGlobal Warming Warming Potential Potential (GWP) (GWP) Global Warming Potential (GWP) 2 per building type (kg CO e/m2) per building type (kg CO2e/m2 ) 2 2 per building type (CO2e/m ) per building type (CO2e/m ) 900 composite structure. 185 900 composite structure. 185 900 900 composite 800structure. 800 164 800 164 800 700 143 700700 Global Warming Potential (GWP)143 700 Global Warming Potential (GWP) Global Warming Potential (GWP) 2 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 2 600 per building type (kg CO2e/m123 ) 600 2per building type (kg CO2e/m123 ) 600 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 600 Globalper building Warming type (kgPotential CO2e/m2 (GWP)) per building type (CO2e/m ) 500 900 102 500 900 102GWP GWP 500 2 GWP 185 GWPGWP 500 900 2 185 GWP 185 per building type (CO e/m ) 2 900 per building type (CO e/m ) 2 2 2 2 2 (kg CO(CO2e/me/m 2) ) 400 800 82 (lbs CO2e / ft164) (kg CO(CO2e/me/m 2) ) 400400 800 800 164 82 (lbs2 CO2e400 / ft164 ) 2 800 900 700 143 700 900 700 143 300143 61 300300 700 61 300 600 123 800 600 123 600 800 Global Warming Potential600 (GWP) 200123 41

200200 41 200 500 102

GWPGWP 500500 GWP 500 2 102 GWPcomposite structure.102 GWP GWP

composite structure. per building type (CO e/m ) 2 GWP700 2 Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building composite structure. 1 type Building 2 22 700 2 2 21 Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building (kg CO2e/m ) 400 1 type Building 2 82 (lbs CO2e / ft ) 100100 (kg CO2e/m ) 400 82 (lbs CO2e / ft )

(CO1001002e/m ) 400 (kg CO2e/m ) 400 21 82 (lbs CO2e / ft )

900 61 600 300300 600 3000 0 61 0 0 061 00 800 300 0 0

200200 500 41 GWP 500 200 41

GWPbuilding(type(1(BuildingAlso, 700 the type implementation 1 Buildingbuilding(type(2(200 has type to 2 make sureBuildingbuilding(type(3( the type input 3 method is unified, so that41 applesbuilding(type(1(Building areGlobal type 1 WarmingBuildingbuilding(type(2( typePotential 2 Building(GWP)building(type(3( type 3 Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building 1 type Building Global Warming Potential (GWP)21 2 100 100100 2 GlobalGlobal Warming Warming 100 Potential Potential (GWP) (GWP) (CO e/mGlobal ) Warming100 Potential (GWP) 21

(CO2e/mcomparedGlobal ) 400 600 with Warming apples. 100 Potential (GWP) 2 21 2 400 2

00 per 0 building type (kg CO e/m2 0 ) per building type (kg CO2e/m2 )

per building type (kg CO e/m2 2) 0 0

GWP 500 per building0 type (CO2 e/m2 ) 0 per buildingMaximum type200 (CO e/m )

building(type(1(Building300 per type building 1 Buildingbuilding(type(2(Maximum type200 2 (COBuildingbuilding(type(3(e/m type2 3 ) 300 2 2 100 2 2 Standard deviation

(CO2900e/m ) 400 Standard deviationbuilding(type(1( building(type(2( building(type(3(Figure 5: Example of GWP graphic showingbuilding(type(1( range for differentbuilding(type(2( buildingbuilding(type(3( types

Figure 5: ExampleTherefore, of GWP a uniform graphic method showing is necessary. range forIf the different same two building variables (types185SMQ in kgm/m900 and ECC 185

900 900 Median 185 900 1,200200 composite structure.Median 300 300 1,200200 compositeMaximum structure.200 composite900 structure.300 300 composite structure. Standard deviation

compositeFigure structure.5: Examplein 800 kg CO2e of GWP/kgm )graphic areStandard Standard used showing deviation fordeviation range all projectfor different entries, building with types a clear definition164 of what800 is included 164

800 800200 Median 164 800 100 Minimum

100 Minimum300

800 (sub/superstructure),Standard itdeviation will be possible to compare similar building types (office, residential, Figure 5: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different building types

Figure 5: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different building types1,000 2

700 143 400 1,000 2 ) ) e/m (CO

Minimum 400

) ) e/m

700100 (CO 700 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 143

Global Warming2 Potential (GWP) 400 400 700 healthcare, stadia, etc.), structural2 systems, or locations. A unified143 and transparent700 database,0 Global Warming Potential (GWP) ) ) e/m

700 0 Global Warming Potential(CO (GWP)Global Warming Potential (GWP)

600 0 2 123 2 2

600 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 2 Global GWP Warming Potential (GWP) Global GWP Warming Potential (GWP) 123

with clear standards on ECCs and populated2 with thousands of projects,2 would 600give a greater800per Building structural type 1 Building systems500 type 2 (kgBuildingper CO typebuilding e/m3 ) type (kg CO e/m ) GWP GWP 800per GlobalBuilding structural Warming type 1Global Building Potentialsystems 500 Warming type 2 Potential(GWP) (kgBuilding CO (GWP) type e/m3 ) 2 600 perBuilding structural type 1 Building systems500 type 2 (kgBuilding CO type e/m3 per) building2 type (kg CO e/m123 ) 600 2 600 per building type (kg CO 2e/mGlobal2) Warming Potential2 2 (GWP)2 Global Warming Potential Global(GWP) Warming Potential2 (GWP)

GWP confidence500500 inGlobal the GlobalWarming Warmingper Potential building2 Potential2 (GWP) type2 (kg(kg CO/me/m) of )building 102 structures GWP and result in a per building type (kg CO2e/m )

GWP per buildingper type building (CO 2typee/m (CO) e/m ) CO2e 2 2 500 900 per structural systems (kg CO102e/m 2) 185

22 600 per structural2 systems (kg CO102e/mGWP ) 500 22 2 2 GWP 5001,200( 900 246 2 GWP 185 600 GWP(kg CO e/m 2) 600 600 2 (lbs(lbsGWP CO e /ft / ft)) 600 GWP(kg1,200(CO2e (CO2/m500e/m )baseline 900) 400400 for comparison in the field of material weight185 and246 embodied carbon.82 1,200( 2 CO2e2 per building type (CO2e/m ) 246 2

2 2 900 900per building type (CO2e/m ) (kg CO e/m185 2) 2 900 800 82 (lbs CO185 2e / ft164)

(kg CO e/m 2) 800 900 700 800 164 82(CO (lbs22e/m CO )2 e400400 / ft164 )

(CO22e/m ) 4001,000(400 800300 1,200( 204 61 246 1,200( 246

300 700

400 800 700 700 164 143 400 900 800 700 164 143 700 900 800 143 61

1,000(300 Examples700 of potential800 outcomes of the database are given204 in Figure61 4.8 and1,000( Figure300300 4.9 . These 204

300800( 200200 1,000( 164 41 204 1,000(600 204 123

express600600 the preliminary700 results600 of the GWP of real123 projects. The user can143 filter by123 different 800 700 143

800 800 900 900 GWP 800 Global700 Warming 800 Potential (GWP) 200 200 41 Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building 200 1 type Building 200

200200 500100100 102GWP 4121 GWP 500 102

(kg CO e/mGWP2) GWP600( parameters,500 such600 asGWP building 500 type 2(Figure 4.8) or structural system2GWP (Figure 4.9123).800( The preliminary102 600 123 GWP

composite2800( structure. per building800( type (CO e/m ) 123 (lbs CO164e / ft ) 2 GWP700 800( 164 164 2 Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building

2 164 1 type Building 2

22 2 700 600 2 2 21 ) ) e/m per building type (CO type building per 2 Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building (kg CO e/m ) 1 type Building 2 (lbs CO e / ft ) (kg CO e/m ) (lbs CO2e / ft )

2 400 0 82 2 100100 2 400 82 (CO e/m ) 900

1001002 400 00 (kg CO e/m 900 ) 21 0 82 (lbs CO2e / ftGWP)

GWP 2 resultsGWP0 of availableGWP500 data2 have400 shown that average values range fromGWP 200 to 500102 kg CO2e/mGWPGWP. GWP 0 500 102 GWPGWP

400( 900 500 2 82 61 GWP 600 2 GWP

2 300300 600GWP(kg2 Building CO e/m type) 600( 1 Building type 2 Building type 3 2 2 (kg2 CO e/m ) 600( 3000 0 61 2 Global Warming Potential (GWP) (GWP) Potential Warming Global 123 123

(kg CO e/m ) 600( (kg CO e/m building(type(1() 2 3000 building(type(2( building(type(3((kg CO0e/m ) 600(2 (lbs(lbs0 0CO 61CO (kg 22e eCO // ftft e/m) ) 2 123 2 (lbs(lbs CO CO22ee // ftft )

0 100 123 2 82 Structural system 1 Structural system 2 82

2 0 2 800Structural 2400 system 1 Structural system 241 (lbs CO2e / ft ) 2 400 (lbs CO2e / ft ) 2

2 200200 (CO2e/m ) 400900 185 GWP 500 41 ) ) e/m per building type (CO type building per 200 ) ) e/m 200( (CO type 500 building per

GWPbuilding(type(1(Building 700 type 1 Buildingbuilding(type(2(200 type 2 41 Buildingbuilding(type(3( type 3 41 building(type(1(Building type 1 Buildingbuilding(type(2( type 2 Buildingbuilding(type(3( type 3

Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building 1 type Building 300 Global400( Warming Potential (GWP) 61 300 400( 100 61 2 21 82 2 2 82 100100 100

2 Global WarmingMaximum 200 Potential (GWP) (CO e/m ) 100 21

400( (CO2e/m ) 400 600 300800 100 822 164400( 21 2 400 82

0( 00 200 per 0 buildingStandard deviationtype (kg0 CO e/m0 ) 41 GWP 41 ) 2 200 Global Warming Potential (GWP) Figure(GWP) 5: Potential Example Warming of GWPGlobal graphic showing range for2 different building types

Global Warming Potential (GWP) (GWP) Potential Warming Global 0

2 200( 0

structuralGWP 500 system 200 1 per buildingstructural0Median system type 2 (CO e/m ) 41 0 200(Maximum 200 41 Building type700 1 Building 200 type 2 Building type 3 143

building(type(1(300 building(type(2(Maximum 300 building(type(3(2 300 2 100 100 Standard deviation 21 100 Standard deviationbuilding(type(1( building(type(2( building(type(3(21

200( (CO2900e/m ) 400 Standard deviationbuilding(type(1( building(type(2( building(type(3(Figure185 200( 5: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different building types

Figure 5: Example of GWP/m 100 graphic showing range for different41 building types 41

Figure 6: Example of GWP900 graphic600 showingMedian0( range Minimum for different structural systems 123 1,200200 Median0( 0 300 200 200 0 Maximum 0 (lbs 1,200 2 400 400 0 300 0 300 0 ) ) e/m (CO composite structure.

composite800 structure. Global StandardStandard Warmingdeviation deviation Potential (GWP) 164 Standard deviation

Figure 5: Example of GWP0 graphic showingstructural range2 for system different 1 buildingstructural types system 2 structural system 1 structural system 2

800200 CO2e 500 building(type(1(Median building(type(2( building(type(3( 102 100 building(type(1(Minimum building(type(2( building(type(3(

0( 100 Minimum300 2

Standard deviation 0 0(CO2e

GWP GWP Figure 5: Example of GWP graphic showing0 range for different building types

1,000 2

Figure 5: Example 500 of GWP graphic showing range for different building types

700 perBuilding structural type 1 Building systems type 2 (kgBuilding CO type e/m3 ) 143 400 1,000 2 ) ) e/m (CO

Minimum 400 2

) ) e/m

700100 (CO

Figure(kg 400 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural82 systems GlobalFigure Warming6: Example ofPotential GWP graphic (GWP) showing range for different structural systems

structural systemGlobal 1 Warmingstructural2 Potential system 2 (GWP) 400 400 2 structural0 system 1 structural system 2

) ) e/m

0 Global Warming Potential(CO (GWP)

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 2

600 0 123 /ft 2

600 600

600 2 Global GWP Warming Potential (GWP) Global GWP Warming Potential (GWP)

300 2 61 800per Building structural type 1 Building systems500 type 2 (kgBuilding CO type e/m3 ) GWP GWP 1,200( 800per Building structural type 1Global Building systems 500 Warming type 2 Potential (kgBuilding CO (GWP) type e/m3 ) 246 Figure 5per: ExampleBuilding structural type 1 Buildingof systems500 GWP type 2 (kg graphicBuilding CO type2 e/mGlobal3 showing) Warming2 range Potentialfor different (GWP) building types Figure 5: Example of GWP graphicGlobal showing Warming2 range Potential for different2 (GWP) building types

Figure 6: Example of GWP500 graphic showing range for different structural2Figure systems102 6: Example GWP2 of GWP graphic showingper range building for typedifferent (kg CO structurale/m ) systems

GWPGWP 500 per building type2 (kg CO2e/m ) ) GWP 2 2

Synthesizing challenges & opportunities GWP 200 2 41

per building 700 type (CO e/m ) per structural systems (kg CO e/m ) 22 600 per structural2 systems (kg CO e/m ) 22 2 1,200( 246 2 600 2 600 (lbs /ft ) 600

The contributions(kg(kg1,200( COCO2e(CO are2 /me/m1,000(e/m) ) ) 400600 246204 82 (lbs1,200( COCO2e2e / ft ) 246

2 CONCLUSI400 100900 ONS AND FUTURE WORK 21 185 CONCLUSI900ONS AND FUTURE WORK 185

900 700 Global Warming Potential (GWP)

• … 1,000( 300 1,200( 800 204 61 246 1,200(Global Warming Potential (GWP) 246

300 700

800( 400 0800 700 2 0 164 400 800 2 164 800 800 per structural systems (kg CO e/m164 )

• … 1,000( Synthesizing challenges800 & opportunities 2042 41 1,000( Synthesizing challengesper & structural opportunities systems (kg CO2042e/m )

200200 900

• … GWP 800( 700 1,000( 164 204143 700 1,000( 204143

800 800 900 900 GWP

CONCLUSIONS ANDGWP 2FUTUREThe contributions WORK700 are 800 The200 contributions are Building type 3 3 type Building 2 type Building

200 1,200( Building 1 type typeBuilding 1 Building type 2CONCLUSIGWP Building typeONS21 3 AND2 FUTURE WORK

(kg CO2e/m2 ) 600(100100 123 246 1,200( 246 123

(kg CO2800(e/m ) 600( 600 123 2 (lbs CO2e 123/ ft800( ) 600

2 • … 800( (lbs CO1642e / ft ) 164 800( 164 164 2 ) ) e/m

(CO type 600 building per • … ) ) e/m (CO type building per

900

0 900 0 2 0 GWP

GWP 2 GWP0• 1,000(Figure … GWP500 4.8 : Example of graphic showing GWP ranges for13 varying GWP building types102 GWPGWPGWP 0 500 102 GWPGWP

400(400( 500 2 82 204 GWP • 1,000(… 2 204GWP

Synthesizing challenges2 & opportunitiesGWP(kg2 Building CO e/m type) 600( 1 Building type 2 Building type82 3 2 2 (kg2 CO e/m ) 600( 2

Global Warming Potential (GWP) (GWP) Potential building(type(1(Warming 2 Global building(type(2( building(type(3(Synthesizing(kg CO challengese/m ) 123600(2 & opportunities 2 1232 (lbs CO e / ft )

(kg CO e/m ) 600( (kg CO(GWP) e/m Potential ) Warming Global (lbs(lbs CO CO(kg22e eCO // ftft e/m) ) 123 (lbs CO22e / ft ) 100 100 123 82

2 •2 …Structural 2400 system 1 Structural system 2 (lbs 2CO2e / ft82) 2 …Structural 400 system 1 Structural system 2 (lbs CO2e / ft ) 2 •

2 (CO2e/m ) 400

) ) e/m (CO type building per ) ) e/m

The contributions are 200( (CO type 800( building per 41

200( 300 400( The contributions164 are61 800(300 400( 164 61 2

1,200 41 246 82 2 82

Maximum 200

• … 400( GWP 300 82 GWP400( GWP 82 0( 2 200 Standard deviation 0 • … 41 200 41GWP Global Warming Potential (GWP) Figure(GWP) 5: Potential Example Warming of GWPGlobal graphic showing range for different building types Global Warming Potential (GWP) (GWP) 2 Potential Warming Global

(kg CO2e/m ) 600( 200( 123 2 13 2 structural system200 1 structuralMedian system 2 (lbsGWP 41 CO 2(kge / ft CO) e/m ) 600( 200( 123 41 13 0( ) 2 … 1,000 300 0 204 (lbs CO2e / ft ) • 2 100 Standard deviation • … 21 100 21

200( structural100 system 1 structural system 2 41 200( 41

… Figure 6: Example of GWP400( graphic showing0( rangeMinimum for different structural systems 82 0 0( /m 0 0 • 2

0 400 400( 0 82 0 ) ) e/m (CO …

800Global Warming Potential (GWP)• 164 structural2 system 1 structural system 2

0 building(type(1( building(type(2( building(type(3( (lbs structural system 1 structural system 2

Figure0( 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different0 2 structural systems 0( building(type(1( building(type(2( building(type(3( 200( CO2e GWP 0 500 500 41 Figureper Building6 structural: Example type 1 ofBuilding systems GWP type graphic2 (kgBuilding COshowing type2 e/m3 range) for different structural systems 200( 41 CO2e Figure 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural systems structural system600 1 structural system 2 123 structural system 1 structural system 2

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK(kg 13 1,200( 0( 600 246 0 13 Figure 5: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different building/ft types Figure 50(: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different0 building types

Figure 6: Example of GWP graphicstructural showing system range1 forstructural different system structural 2 Figure systems 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural systems

Synthesizing challenges & opportunities400 82 structural system 1 structural system 2 700 700 2 ) CONCLUSIONS AND1,000( FUTURE GWP WORK

The contributions areFigure 6CONCLUSI: Example ofONS GWP AND graphic FUTURE showing WORK range for different204 structural systems CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

200 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 41 Figure 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural systems 800 800 Global Warming Potential (GWP) • … 800( per structural systems (kg CO e/m1642 ) 2

Synthesizing• … challenges &Synthesizing opportunities challenges & opportunities 2 Synthesizing challengesper & structural opportunities systems (kg CO2e/m ) GWP 0 900 0

CONCLUSIThe contributions•ONS … AND areFUTURE The contributions WORK are GWP The contributions are

(kg CO e/m2) 600( 1,200( CONCLUSI123 246ONS AND2 FUTURE1,200( WORK

2 Structural System 1 Structural System 2 (lbs CO2e / ft ) 246 CONCLUSIONS2 •AND … FUTURE WORK

) ) e/m

• … (CO type building per CONCLUSI ONS• AND … FUTURE WORK

2 • 1,000(… 13

Synthesizing• challenges… & opportunities400(Figure 4.9: Example of graphic showing GWP ranges forSynthesizing varying82 structural204 challenges systems & opportunities• 1,000(… 204 Synthesizing challenges(GWP) • … Potential & opportunitiesWarming Global • … The contributions• … are 800( Synthesizing challenges & opportunities The contributions200( are The contributions41 164 are 800( 164 • … GWP TheGWP contributions GWP are … 2 33 • … GWP • (kg CO2e/m ) 600( 123 2 2 13 0( (lbs CO• 2(kge… / ft CO) 2e/m ) 600( 123 2 13 • … • … • 0 … 13 (lbs CO2e / ft ) structural system 1 structural system 2 • … • … • … 400( • … 82 400( 82 Figure 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural systems• … 200( 41 200( 41 13 0( 0 13 13 13 0( 0 structural system 1 structural system 2 structural system 1 structural system 2 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK Figure 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural systems Figure 6: Example of GWP graphic showing range for different structural systems Synthesizing challenges & opportunities

The contributions are • … CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK • … Synthesizing challenges & opportunities • … Synthesizing challenges & opportunities The contributions are The contributions are • … • … • … 13 • … • … • …

13 13

4.5. Summary

The main challenges discussed in this chapter are the following. • The creation of incentives for companies to share data on their building projects. • The identification of accurate default ECC values considering various locations. • The resolution of data transparency while protecting intellectual ownership. Nevertheless, these challenges also lead to following opportunities. • The compatibility of data collection with Building Information Modeling tools allows for the generation of hundreds to thousands of datapoints. • The proposal for an agreement on accurate ECC values will facilitate the calculation of the embodied carbon of buildings. • A unified methodology for calculating the GWP of buildings will define reference buildings for assessing the embodied carbon of building structures.

Moreover, this chapter offered default ECCs based on the existing literature. Results for concrete range between 0.1 and 0.2 kgCO2e/kg. With 2% of rebar, it can range between 0.13 and 0.23. With 2% of reinforcement, the value ranges between 0.18 and 0.28. For steel, a distinction is made between rebar (around 1.7 kgCO2e/kg) and hotrolled steel (around 0.8 kgCO2e/kg). Note that these values are used mostly in projects in the United States, but can vary with the location or material specification. Glued laminated timber has an ECC ranging between 0.1 and 0.8 kgCO2e/kg.

34 5. Framework for a database

5.1. Introduction

The second contribution of this thesis is to create a framework for a database of building projects. Indeed, efforts exist to create an embodied carbon database of materials, such as the Inventory of Carbon & Energy (Hammond and Jones, 2010). However, until very recently, no database of buildings existed. This research proposes a framework for a worldwide, transparent and interactive database where architects, engineers and other stakeholders can input data about their building projects, more precisely about the material quantities and embodied carbon in their building structures.

In 2014, WRAP launched a database collecting embodied carbon in buildings (WRAP, 2014). However, they do not collect material quantities. This method requires a priori knowledge of the embodied carbon in a building project. Also, the collected carbon results in the WRAP database originate from various studies, making different assumptions. The embodied carbon calculated with different tools can therefore not always be compared equally. Therefore, this chapter will propose a framework for a complete database including material quantities together with the embodied carbon of building structures. The database elaborated in this Chapter is named “deQo” or “database of embodied Quantity outputs”.

The input and output parameters should be compatible with other databases such as WRAP, Project Embodied Carbon Database (PECD), etc. and use existing, international listings, classes and standards. The database should contain a significant amount of data entered with comparable assumptions.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the framework for an interactive database. On one side (Figure 5.1, left), the web-based interface is created to collect data on material quantities in building projects. Architects and engineers can input data on their projects on this interactive interface (deQo, 2014). The user can access this part online and can make different queries.

Platform 1 Platform 2 Platform 3 COLLECT PROCESS STORE

HTML PHP MySQL

web-interface connection database

accessible by user inaccessible by user inaccessible by user

Figure 5.1: Framework for an interactive database

On the other side (Figure 5.1, right), a relational database, inaccessible to the user, stores the project data. This database in MySQL is connected to the HTML web-interface through a PHP script (Figure 5.1, center), processing the data back and forth.

35 The main aims of the relational database are the following: • Build literacy on typical embodied carbon of structures; • Offer a large data population beyond a single company; • Compare project options (material choice, structural system, etc.) transparently; • Shape a baseline for benchmarking in embodied carbon; • Ultimately allow designers, industry and education to optimize design solutions.

This chapter is contains six sections and a summary. In section 5.2, the database specifications are elaborated: what should be included in the in- and output parameters? In addition, section 5.3 details a framework for the relational database itself. In section 5.4, the interactive web- interface and tool to query results are illustrated. Furthermore, section 5.5 suggests the collaboration with industry and possibilities for connections with Building Information Models (BIM) plug-ins. Finally section 5.6 summarizes the contributions of this database.

5.2. Database specifications

This section explains the general framework of the database and expands on the features and options that the database should include in order to be useful for the industry. The in- and output parameters of the database will be discussed. The collected information is divided in two groups (Table 5.1): general and structural information. A future integration of operational energy, maintenance and financial cost is possible.

1. General Information Credits, location, program, geometry 2. Structural Information BIM, BOQ, etc. Material choice, structural systems, material quantities Embodied Carbon Coefficients Default or entered by user Results Comparative charts Material Quantities or GWP ranges Table 5.1: Framework for a database

5.2.1. General information

The database input asking for general information (Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3) contains the following input parameters: project name and source information (which can be held anonymous); the date of design, construction, completion and/or publication; building stage; location specifying region, country and town; program; architect, engineer and contractor; accredited rating scheme and applied building code. These parameters are selected carefully after reviewing existing tools and assessing the need for a universal tool in the industry. The main drivers for this relatively concise interface were transparency, the ability to normalize by different functional units, the accurate estimation of ECCs, the integration of material quantities in carbon assessments, the compatibility with other existing databases, the capability to compare projects legitimately and the aim to take conclusions on low-carbon design strategies.

36 General information (1)

Upload photo

Date

Location

Building type (choose all that apply)

Figure 5.2: Interface, “General information” section, part 1

General information (2)

Geometry

Figure 5.3: Interface, “General information” section, part 2

The project name has to be entered, even if the contributor can choose to stay anonymous. The source has to be clearly noted, in order to be able to post-verify the data. In case the contributors wish to highlight their project, they are able to upload an image of their building and must specify the source of the image for later publication purposes. The program or type of building, i.e. residential, office, recreational, healthcare etc., are an important factor. Indeed, a hospital has different requirements and therefore different material quantities than an office.

Geometry analysis includes aspects such as height and number of floors. The geometry has a mandatory entry: the total useable net floor area (m2 or sf). Indeed, to be able to normalize the data, a functional unit should divide the absolute values of material quantities (kg or lbs) and embodied carbon (kgCO2e) in structures. However, another functional unit should be used if more appropriate, for example the number of seats in stadia or the number of fulltime occupants for schools. The gross floor area is asked when the total useable net floor area is unknown. A percentage of this value can be used as an approximation of the net floor area.

5.2.2. Structural information

The second set of input parameters contains the structural information (Figure 5.4) of the building projects. The structural system is divided into vertical, horizontal and lateral systems. Then, the material choices and material quantities are requested. Furthermore, the user needs to specify which building components are included. Resilience towards earthquake and other natural hazards are taken into account. Alongside this information, factors such as the climate zone are entered. Figure 5.4 illustrates the interface asking about the structural information of a newly entered building project.

Structural information (1)

Structural system

Material choice

Buidling components included

Natural hazard and climate zone

Figure 5.4: Interface, “Structural information” section, part 1

A main material is selected for vertical, horizontal and lateral loads before specifying the structural system. Table 5.2 illustrates the available structural systems the user can pick from.

39 Structural System Material Vertical Horizontal Lateral Concrete In-situ wall In-situ 1-way spanning Shear wall In-situ column In-situ 2-way spanning Rigid frame Precast column In-situ flat slab Infill wall Other Ribbed and waffle slab Other Post-tensioned band beams (long span) Post-tensioned flat slab Precast hollow core (composite) Precast hollow core (non-composite) Precast long span (composite) Other Steel Studs & panel wall Composite metal decking Bracing Steel column Non-composite metal decking Diagrid Diagrid Beam & decking Other Truss & decking Diagrid Other Timber Studs & panel wall Solid timber slab Shear wall Solid column Timber joists & decking Bracing Glue laminated column Solid beams & girders Other Solid stacked wall Glue laminated beams & girders Other Timber truss & girders Other Masonry Brick Wall Vaults Shear wall Concrete Block Wall Other Other Other Other Table 5.2: Main Materials and corresponding structural systems

Table 5.3 illustrates the list of building components. The user selects which components are included in the analysis. Non-structural building components are added in order to make the database expandable to non-structural material quantities in the future.

Building components included Structural Non-structural Foundations ✓ Basement retaining walls ✓ Lowest floor construction ✓ Frame ✓ Upper floors ✓ Roof ✓ Stairs and ramps ✓ External walls ✓ ✓ Windows and external doors ✓ Internal walls and partitions ✓ ✓ Wall finishes ✓ Floor finishes ✓ Ceiling finishes ✓ Fittings, furnishings and equipment ✓ Services ✓ Roads, paths and paving ✓ External drainage ✓ External services ✓ Table 5.3: Structural and non-structural building components included

Before the material quantities are entered, the source of these data is specified (dwgs, BIM, bill of quantities, etc.). For the material quantities, only the materials that have been selected in ‘material choice’ and ‘structural system’ will be displayed (Figure 5.5). They can either be entered in absolute values (in kg) or relative values (kg per appropriate functional unit, usally m2). If only the absolute value is given, this value is normalized. The absolute value is divided by the functional unit. In most cases, the functional unit will be the useable floor area, given in the general information section. The relative material quantities are consequently expressed in kilograms per square meter. Also, the applied life cycle stages entered in order to make ‘apples- to-apples’ comparisons for the GWP results.

Structural information (2) Material quantities

Embodied Carbon Coefficients

Life Cycle Stages

Figure 5.5: Interface, “Structural information” section, part 2

41 Additional, optional information can be added such as the structural grid, typical span, the foundation and ground types (Table 5.4). If information is known on these types, it is useful to compare material quantities of structures with similar grounds/foundations. Also, the loads can be entered: dead and live load in kN/m2 as well as the wind, snow and seismic loads. The database will ask whether the dead load is superimposed or total. Instead of entering a number for the live load, a use type can also be specified.

A Rock or other rock-like geological formation, including at most 5 m of weaker material at the surface. B Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very stiff clay, at least several tens of meters in thickness, characterized by a gradual increase of mechanical properties with depth. C Deep deposits of dense or medium dense sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness from several tens to many hundreds of meters. D Deposits of loose-to-medium cohesion less soil (with or without some soft cohesive layers), or of predominantly soft-to-firm cohesive soil. E A soil profile consisting of a surface alluvium layer with v s values of type C or D and thickness varying between about 5 m and 20 m, underlain by stiffer material with v s > 800 m/s. S1 Deposits consisting, or containing a layer at least 10 m thick, of soft clays/silts with a high plasticity index (PI 40 or more) and high water content S2 Deposits of liquefiable soils, of sensitive clays, or any other soil profile not included in types A – E or S 1

Table 5.4: Ground types

5.2.3. Default versus entered ECCs

The scope of the project location is worldwide. The goal is to include hundreds to thousands of structures globally and to define default ECCs for location zones, such as countries and regions. ECCs are computed considering the location of the building.

However, the user can enter his/her own ECC calculations when citing the source clearly. The GWP can then be calculated by multiplying the SMQs with the ECCs. It is important to clearly state the assumptions users make when entering their own project data. For example, if they enter the ECCs, they should state clearly which life cycle stages are included and reference the source of their calculations (GaBi, SimaPro, etc.). The quality assessment of the data will depend on these assumption specifications.

5.2.4. Contribution of a new database

The proposed framework for a new database results from the review of existing carbon estimating tools and conversations with experts. Table 5.5 summarizes the contribution of the parameters collected deQO and compares the parameters to those in the existing tools reviewed in Chapter 4.

The reasons for incorporating these parameters in the database, summarized in the second column of Table 5.5, are the following: data should be as transparent as possible (“transparency”) while protecting proprietary rights (“intellectual property”); data should be compatible with other tools (“compatibility”); data should allow accurate ECC estimation (“ECC”); data should be comparable (“comparison”) and therefore normalized

42 (“normalization”); and data should say something about design strategies (“design”). The parameters are selected carefully in order to have a limited number of questions in the interface while enabling a complete analysis of material quantities and embodied carbon in buildings.

Why is this parameter deQo important? WRAP analysis SOMenvironmental impact environmental Tally PECD database Tomasetti Thornton Athena GaBi SimaPro EcoInvent ICE General Information Project name Transparency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Metric and imperial units Compatibility ✓ ✓ ✓ Architect Transparency ✓ Engineer Transparency ✓ ✓ ✓ Contractor Transparency ✓ Client Transparency ✓ Publication Transparency ✓ ✓ Anonymity Intellectual property ✓ Date Design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Location ECC & Design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Program Design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Volume Compatibility ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Total useable floor area Normalization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Total gross floor area Normalization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Height Normalization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Number of stories Normalization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Story height Design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Number of occupants Normalization Wall to floor ratio Design ✓ ✓ ✓ Plan shape Design ✓ ✓ ✓ Structural Information Structural system Design & Normalization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Material choice ECC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Building components Comparison ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Natural hazard zone Comparison ✓ ✓ Climate zone Comparison ✓ Material quantities Normalization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ECCs Comparison ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Life cycle stages Comparison ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Additional notes Comparison Other aspects Work with BIM Compatibility ✓ ✓ ✓ Projects globally Comparison ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Projects across firms Comparison ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Building scale Design ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Table 5.5: Motivation and comparison of deQo parameters with existing tools

5.3. Relational database

A relational database has been created to collect all the entered information. This means that all the data are set in tables related to each other. Through a php script, the MySQL database and html interface are connected. Figure 5.6 illustrates how the data are stored and how they can be viewed, edited and exported.

Figure 5.6: Relational database, accessed through phpMyAdmin

All the input parameters discussed above, such as the material quantities, embodied carbon coefficients and total floor area are related to each other and can be exported to spreadsheets or used directly within the MySQL database.

The simple multiplication, illustrated by equation 2, is performed within the relational database and stored for comparison with other projects.

2 2 GWP (kgCO2e/m ) = Relative SMQ (kgm/m ) ! ECC (kgCO2e/kgm) [2]

5.4. Web-based interface

The web-interface is aiming at clarity and transparency. As the database becomes more useful with a higher quantity of data, the access to it should be easy and the input parameters should be well defined. The list of input parameters should therefore be short (yet complete) so that the input process is fast.

44 The access to the database through the web-interface is granted after an (open-source) registration (in order to insure data quality). Although the name of the participants will be published, the individual projects can either be kept anonymous or highlighted following the request of the contributor.WHAT? The first pageHOW? of the interfaceHOW? is shownRESEARCH in Figure 5.7PROBLEMNEXT.

deQo DATABASE FOR EMBODIED QUANTITY OUTPUTS

embodiedco2.scripts.mit.edu

Urban Modeling Interface

Implementing Embodied Carbon & BIM models

urbanmodellinginterface.ning.com

Figure 5.7: Register for deQo (deQo, 2014)

In the interactive web-interface, the user can click on the ‘Search’ button to illustrate the ranges of results already entered in the database (Figure 5.8). On the y-axis of the search tool, either “Material Quantities” or “Global Warming Potential” can be shown.

Figure 5.8: Search tool

45 The relational database should report results separately by building type, building component, material, structural system, life cycle stage, location, loading, average floor height, span, total height and number of floors. Finally, the rating scheme a building received can also be listed as another filtering factor to give an idea how well low embodied carbon projects are rewarded.

A specific approach needs to be followed for protecting the anonymity of building projects. For WHY? PROBLEM LITERATURE PROBLEMRESULTS NEXT example, if a data-point has a height of 800 meters and a location set in Dubai, it is publicly known to be the Burj Khalifa (Figure3. 5.9, Implementation: right). If another calculating project is 1776 the feet GWP tall andof structures located in New York City, confidential data on the Freedom tower (Figure 5.9, left) will be given away. It is therefore important to give the results only in ranges (of material quantities, embodied carbon or even height). Challenge: Resolve data transparency while protecting intellectual ownership

“Location: New York City; Height: 1776 ft”

“Location: Dubai; Height: 2,722 ft”

20 Figure 5.9: Freedom tower (Dunlap, 2014), Burj Khalifa (photograph by the author)

In this thesis, all input parameters are expressed in metric units. However, clicking on ‘imperial’ instead of ‘metric’ allows all data entries and results to show in the appropriate unit for the user.

5.5. Collaboration with industry

5.5.1. Revit plug-in developers

WHY? PROBLEM LITERATURE PROBLEMRESULTS NEXT In order to collectWHY? a considerablePROBLEM amount LITERATURE of data on materialPROBLEMRESULTS quantities,NEXT collaboration with plug-in developers for Building Information 1.Models Getting (BIM) Material is necessary. Quantities An example of such a tool is the recently developed Revit plug-in1. for Getting estimating Material the environmental Quantities impact of WHY? PROBLEM LITERATURE PROBLEMRESULTS NEXT buildings. By using Revit models of theirOpportunity: projects, Arup and Thornton Tomasetti were able to contribute hundredsUsing of projects BIM models to the to currentgenerate1.Opportunity: Getting deQo material Material database quantity Quantities (Figure data 5.10). Using BIM modelsOpportunity: to generate material quantity data Using BIM models to generate material quantity data

Tally tool (Tally, 2014) PECD (PECD, 2013) (Schumaker et al., 2014)

Figure 5.10: Databases and tools using Revit for collecting 17material quantities

5.5.2. Industry and research database

The growing database is an important step towards an agreement for benchmarking. Indeed, the database will define baselines for building structures in order to measure a project’s efficiency in terms of material use or carbon emissions.

To create such a database, this research relies on voluntary data input from the leading firms in the industry, such as engineering offices and contractors. Furthermore, any data to feed into the database will have to be generated according to a universal set of rules (e.g. on boundary conditions and embodied carbon coefficients) to allow for meaningful comparisons and statistical analysis.

Figure 5.11 illustrates the collaboration between MIT and WRAP as well as participation opportunities for other companies. The deQo tool collects not only embodied carbon of building structures, but also their material quantities. With an agreement on corresponding ECCs, a connection can occur with the WRAP database, that is collecting solely the embodied carbon of buildings. Industry can participate by adding to the ‘Bill of Materials Database’ as well as to the ‘Project Embodied Carbon Database’. The more industry participates to both initiatives, the more accurate conclusions will be on material efficiency in structures and benchmarking of embodied carbon.

A way to create an incentive to add more data to the database is to reward the carbon accounting in rating systems such as LEED. Also, a simple ‘release of information’ can be signed by a company to allow its employees to add data about their projects. The companies’ logos can be added to the ‘contributors’ section on the web-interface.

Bill of Materials Material Quantities deQo Materials Efficiency Database x Embodied Carbon Coefficients (ECC) ECC = Project Embodied Embodied Carbon Benchmarking Carbon Database

Figure 5.11: Collaboration deQo & WRAP databases and participation opportunities

5.6. Summary

In this chapter, a framework is developed for a database collecting material quantities and the environmental impact of building projects. The database developed for the purpose of this thesis focuses on embodied carbon of building structures, but is designed with possibilities to expand to operational carbon and non-structural elements.

While working with existing tools and databases such as WRAP, Tally or the SOM environmental analysis tool, the database for embodied quantity outputs (deQo) is a framework for future development. As the field of embodied carbon needs to mature in the coming decade, the various existing tools will merge in one way or another to compare and combine the available data.

The deQo tool proposes in this chapter aims to help the industry to develop new benchmarks for embodied carbon in their structural projects. In comparison with other available tools, deQo attempts to offer a succinct but complete interface to allow meaningful comparisons of the environmental impact of buildings. By also looking at the material quantities, deQo can lead to more material efficiency in design.

48 6. Survey of existing buildings

6.1. Introduction

This chapter summarizes the results of the data collected through deQo. A survey of the 200 existing building projects will be presented. Different normalizations, filters and presentations of the material quantities and embodied carbon will lead to conclusions.

Additionally, the developed approach is applied on case studies. The first case study compares nine stadia to assess the impact of their design strategies on the environment. The second case study compares two historic bridges with opposite sustainability strategies in order to learn lessons from history. The third case study compares skyscrapers worldwide.

6.2. Existing building structures from the industry

This section shows the results of the material quantities and embodied carbon of real existing buildings from the industry, all fully or nearly completed. Some projects are collected through literature review, but most projects are shared by leading design firms such as Arup, Thornton Tomasetti through the deQo interface.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the concrete, hotrolled and rebar steel for ten projects entered in the deQo database. A wide range appears already. An obvious trend is that healthcare buildings tend to have the highest amount of material. Only the government building has a greater number. In fact, this government project is an imposing city hall containing a high amount of concrete. The lowest material weights are in office buildings.

2000 1800 1600 1400 rebar steel ) 2 1200 hotrolled steel 1000 SMQ SMQ

(kg/m concrete 800 600 400 200 0

Figure 6.1: Material quantities in the ten first projects entered in deQo by program

Figure 6.1 shows that in some cases iconic design (such as the government city hall) can have a significant impact on the material efficiency.

The companies also entered ECCs, verified with the appropriate coefficient values of the corresponding location. The results for the GWP of the building projects can be obtained by multiplying these coefficients with the material quantities, as shown in Figure 6.2.

500

450

400

350

) rebar steel 2

/m 300 hotrolled steel CO2e GWP GWP 250 (kg concrete 200

150

100

Figure 6.2: Embodied carbon in the ten first projects of deQo

Steel having a higher ECC than concrete, the contribution of the different materials to the total number shifts compared to the material quantity analysis. Hence, these charts give a better understanding of the environmental impacts of the structures.

Figure 6.3 gives an overview of 44 individual projects, ranked again by program. Healthcare buildings are still using a considerable amount of materials, but a wider variety of office buildings appear. Indeed, the embodied carbon of office buildings can vary by height (skyscraper versus low-rise), material use (steel, timber, concrete, composite) or location (city center, distance to material extraction). A new type is the residential building, where much higher quantities are observed. This study also counts in the partitioning walls, which explains this jump. A warehouse is mainly driven by structural efficiency, as the partitioning doesn’t have to be as thorough as in residential buildings, which explains the lower impacts.

50 600

500 ) 2 400 /m 300 CO2e GWP GWP

(kg 200

100

0 Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Healthcare Healthcare Healthcare Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Warehouse Warehouse Car Parking Car Parking Government Government Central Utility Plant Plant Central Utility Healthcare + Office Office + Healthcare

Figure 6.3: Total embodied carbon per program of 44 individual building projects

In the studies above, the projects were sorted by program. When continuing this analysis on a greater number of building structures, the projects are moreover sorted by structural system, height, number of occupants, location, etc. Figure 6.4 shows the same building projects ranked by structural systems. The results show that concrete structures vary from 100 till 450 2 2 2 kgCO2e/m , masonry from 225 till 575 kgCO2e/m , steel from 80 till 475 kgCO2e/m and timber 2 2 from 70 till 490 kgCO2e/m . The most common values are 275 kgCO2e/m for masonry and 175 2 kgCO2e/m for timber. Much higher variations exist for concrete, steel and composite structures.

600

500 ) 2

/m 400 CO2e GWP GWP 300 (kg

200

100

0 Steel Steel Steel Steel Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Timber Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Masonry Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Composite Composite Composite Composite Steel, diagridSteel,

Figure 6.4: Total embodied carbon per structural system of 44 individual building projects

The same graphical results can be obtained for other parameters, such as location, height, date, number of floors, number of occupants. However, due to intellectual property rights, the following results, including 200 projects from industry, will be shown in ranges, rather than individual projects. Moreover, the box-and-whiskers graphical representation facilitates the visualization of the ranges, outliers, minimum and maximum. For example, Figure 6.5 gives an overview of different programs and the corresponding material quantity ranges. The boxes give the standard ranges with a line indicating the median. The whiskers indicate the minimum and maximum, where the crosses indicate the outliers, excluded from the analysis.

9000 8000 7000 6000 ) 2 5000

SMQ SMQ 4000 (kg/m 3000 2000 1000 0 Mixed use use Mixed Education Education Healthcare Healthcare Residential Residential Sports & Commercial Government Government Hospitability Hospitability Entertainment

Figure 6.5: Ranges of material quantities for 200 real projects per program category

Figure 6.6 illustrates another way of organizing the data, i.e. by structural system. The 200 actual projects are divided in concrete, steel and composite structures.

8000 7000 )

2 6000 5000 SMQ SMQ

(kg/m 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Concrete Steel Composite Figure 6.6: Ranges of material quantities for real projects per structural system

52 The same graphical representation of the GWP demonstrates the ranges of the embodied carbon of buildings by program (Figure 6.7) or structural system (Figure 6.8).

4000 3500 3000 ) 2 2500 /m 2000 CO2e GWP GWP 1500 (kg 1000 500 0 Mixed use use Mixed Education Education Healthcare Healthcare Residential Residential Sports & Commercial Hospitability Hospitability Government Government Entertainment

Figure 6.7: Real projects per program category, ranges of embodied carbon

As expected, the healthcare ranges are slightly higher, as are cultural and hospitability (hotels, which are similar to residential buildings). All buildings range on average between 250 and 700 2 kgCO2e/m . These ranges are a first step towards benchmarking of building projects for their environmental impact.

Figure 6.8 divides the 200 projects in concrete, steel, timber and composite structures. Next to a few outliers, the ranges are visualized with the boxes. A wider variety of results exist for the steel buildings. As expected, the timber structures have a lower GWP than other structural types. It is important to note that these numbers consider the ‘cradle to construction’ stages and not the end of life.

4000 3500 3000 ) 2 2500 /m 2000 CO2e GWP GWP 1500 (kg 1000 500 0 Concrete Steel Timber Composite Figure 6.8: Real projects per structural system, ranges of embodied carbon

53 In the following sections, several case studies will be analyzed in more depth. The first part discusses the analysis of stadia, the second part historic bridges and the third part tall office buildings.

6.3. Case Study I: Analysis of stadia

The first section introduces the studied sport stadia. The second section presents the material quantities used in this case study. The third section calculates the embodied carbon of the projects. Finally, the results are discussed.

6.3.1. Description

Most stadia in this study are partially covered, while some have a retractable roof. All stadia were constructed between 2000 and 2011. Table 6.1 illustrates the stadia in this case study.

Stadium Location Date Structural Engineer Millennium Stadium Cardiff, Wales 2007 WS Atkins Allianz Stadium Munich, Germany 2005 Arup Joao Havelange Olympic St. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2007 Andrade Rezende London Olympic Stadium London, England 2011 Buro Happold Wembley Stadium London, England 2007 Mott Stadium Consortion Aviva Stadium Dublin, Ireland 2010 Buro Happold Australia Sydney Stadium Sydney, Australia 2000 Sinclair Knight Merz Emirates Stadium London, England 2006 Buro Happold Beijing Olympic Stadium Beijing, China 2008 Arup Jaber Al Ahmad Stadium Kuwait, Kuwait 2010 Schlaich Bergermann & Partner Table 6.1: List of sport stadia with location, date of completion and structural engineer

The material quantities and embodied carbon vary with the sizes of the sport stadia. It is therefore necessary to normalize the results. Two methods are used for normalizing: per area or per seat. Also, when comparing the final results, the presence of a (partial or retractable) roof should be taken into account. Table 6.2 gives the number of seats and type of roof. The ‘area per seat ratio’ is given in order to comprehensively interpret the results. Also, the sources for material quantities are given in Table 6.2 and can be found in part 2 of the references.

Stadium Area (m2) # Seats Area/Seat Roof References Millennium Stadium 40,000 74,500 0.54 Retractable [1], [2] Allianz Arena 37,600 68,000 0.55 Partially covered [3] Joao Havelange Olympic St. 34,250 45,000 0.76 Partially covered [4] London Olympic Stadium 61,575 80,000 0.77 Partially covered [5]–[8]+[14] Wembley Stadium 79,578 90,000 0.88 Retractable [9], [10] Aviva Stadium 66,460 51,700 1.29 Partially covered [11]–[13] Australia Sydney Stadium 160,000 110,000 1.45 Partially covered [14] Emirates Stadium 122,000 60,355 2.02 Partially covered [15], [16] Beijing Olympic Stadium 254,600 91,000 2.80 Partially covered [17]–[19]+[14] Jaber Al Ahmad Stadium 400,000 65,000 6.15 Partially covered [20]–[22] Table 6.2: List of sport stadia with area/seat ratio, number of seats, roof type and references

6.3.2. Material quantities in stadia

A comparison of the material quantities in steel and concrete is conducted primarily through a thorough literature review (references can be found in Table 6.2). Figure 6.9.a indicates the material quantities in kg normalized per area in m2. The results demonstrate that most stadia range from 800 kg/m2 to 3000 kg/m2. However, both the Beijing Olympic and the Allianz Stadium have relatively high concrete and steel quantities, compared to the other stadia (up to ten times higher).

Nonetheless, the ‘area/seat’ ratio reveals a significant difference: the Allianz stadium with a ratio of 0.55 m2/seat can receive the same number of spectators on a much smaller area than the Beijing stadium with a ratio of 2.80 m2/seat. This means that the comparison per square meter is inequitable: the total material quantity of the Allianz is divided by an area that is 5.68 times smaller than the Beijing stadium for the same amount of spectators. This results in a much higher normalized material quantity. Therefore, it may be more useful to consider the material quantities normalized by the number of seats, which gives a better evaluation of the fulfillment of the function. Figure 6.9.b illustrates the material quantities divided by the number of seats. The material quantities range from 500 to 4000 kg per seat, except for the Beijing Olympic Stadium or “Bird’s Nest.” The material quantity per seat in the Beijing Olympic stadium is approximately ten times higher than in the London Olympic Stadium.

Material Quantities per Area Material Quantities per Seat 8,000 16,000

7,000 14,000

6,000 12,000 concrete per area concrete per seat )

2 10,000 5,000 rebar per area rebar per seat steel per area steel per seat (kg/m 4,000 (kg/seat) 8,000

6,000 SMQ SMQ

3,000 SMQ

2,000 4,000

1,000 2,000

0 0 Aviva Aviva Emirates Emirates Emirates Emirates Wembley Wembley Millenium Wembley Wembley Millenium Allianz Arena Allianz Arena Joao Havelange Havelange Joao Jaber Al Ahmad Jaber Beijing Olympic Olympic Beijing Joao Havelange Havelange Joao Australia Sydney Sydney Australia Beijing Olympic Olympic Beijing Jaber Al Ahmad Jaber London Olympic Australia Sydney Sydney Australia London Olympic Figure 6.9: Material Quantities in kg: (a) normalized per square meter; (b) normalized per seat

6.3.3. Embodied carbon of stadia

Figure 6.10 illustrates the embodied carbon or GWP of the sport stadia. For projects based in the United Kingdom and Australia, the values of the ICE database are followed. For projects in America, the values of the Carbon Working Group are used. For the Beijing, Munich and Kuwait projects, an LCA of the materials is performed using GaBi (Gabi, 2013). The numbers are illustrated in Table 6.3.

ECC United Kingdom Brazil Kuwait China Germany Australia Concrete 0.10-0.13 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.15 Hotrolled steel 0.88-0.89 0.88 0.71 0.88 0.88 0.89 Rebar steel 1.71 1.71 Table 6.3: ECCs used for this study

Steel has a higher ECC than concrete. For the same material weights, steel will therefore have a higher impact in the total embodied carbon. Consequently, these embodied carbon charts give a better understanding of the environmental impacts of the stadia, compared to the charts of material quantities. Nevertheless, similar trends appear. The high use of steel and concrete results in a high embodied carbon in the stadia. Embodied Carbon per Area Embodied Carbon per Seat 1,400 3,500

1,200 3,000 EC concrete per area EC concrete per seat

EC rebar per area 2,500 1,000 EC rebar per seat ) ) 2 2 EC steel per area EC steel per seat /m /m 800 2,000 CO2e CO2e

(kg (kg 600 1,500 GWP GWP GWP GWP 400 1,000

200 500

0 0 Aviva Aviva Aviva Beijing Beijing London London Emirates Emirates Emirates Emirates Australia Australia Wembley Wembley Millenium Wembley Wembley Millenium Millenium Allianz Arena Allianz Arena Arena Allianz Joao Havelange Havelange Joao Jaber Al Ahmad Jaber Beijing Olympic Olympic Beijing Australia Sydney Sydney Australia Joao Havelange Joao Havelange Jaber Al Ahmad Ahmad Al Jaber London Olympic Figure 6.10: GWP of stadia: (a) normalized per square meter; (b) normalized per seat

6.3.4. Discussion of results

The method of normalization (by area or by seat) has an important influence on the interpretation on the results. A stadium showing both high material usage and a high embodied carbon is the Beijing Olympic Stadium. By comparing both types of normalization, a better understanding of the numbers for GWP emerges. Nevertheless, as the results by seat give a better representation of the function of stadia, this method is preferred. Both key variables result in clear trends in the different stadium design strategies.

Comparing material quantities and embodied carbon in stadia illustrates the difficulty of this 2 field. Indeed, a simple shift in functional unit from kgCO2e per m to kgCO2e per seat changes radically the comparison. Also, the lack of available data on both variables, the material quantities and the embodied carbon coefficients, can question the reliability of the results. While this research is very data-intensive, the case studies of the stadia demonstrate the simplicity and transparency of the proposed approach in equation [1].

The results show that design strategies for stadium structures have a significant impact on their embodied carbon footprint. For example, the “Bird’s Nest” had an esthetic design pattern inspired by Chinese-style 'crazed pottery' (National Stadium, 2014), which resulted in a high material use and embodied carbon.

6.4. Case study II: Lessons from historic bridges

This section presents two complete opposite design solutions for sustainable historic: Inca suspension bridges and Roman arch bridges (Figure 6.11). Both bridges are made from local materials, but the design approach is fundamentally different: where Roman stone arch bridges are created to be permanent and have a life time of several thousands of years, the Peruvian communities rebuild the suspension grass bridges every year. This comparative analysis will illustrate the trade-off between lightweight temporary bridges versus heavy permanent bridges in terms of embodied carbon. The key question is: “What can historic bridges teach us on sustainability?”

Moreover, the comparison between the permanent and temporary structures can raise the question on the lifetime engineers and architects should consider for their designs. Indeed, temporary and reusable structures could compensate a less durable approach.

The chosen case studies are the Roman stone arch “Pont Saint Martin” in Aosta, Italy, and the last remaining Inca suspension grassbridge “Keswha-Chaka” in Huinchiri, Peru. They both have a single span around 30 meters. It is important to note that this analysis is meant to be comparative. The historic analysis require assumptions on the materials and construction methods, so that it is not accurate to talk about absolute numbers. The absolute values are not as relevant as the comparison between the cases, so that a conclusion can follow around the differences between permanent and temporary bridge structures.

57 “What“What is is the the difference difference in embodiedin embodied carbon carbon and and material material weight weight between between historic historic bridges“What and is the recent difference bridge indesigns?” embodied carbon and material weight between historic bridges“What is and the recent difference bridge in embodied designs?” carbon and material weight between historic bridges and recent bridge designs?” bridges and recent bridge designs?” 6.4.1. Description TheThe case case studies studies chosen chosen are are the the Roman Roman stone stone arch arch Pont Pont Saint Saint Martin Martin in Aosta, in Aosta, Italy, Italy, andandThe the casethe last last s studiestudiesremaining remaining chosen chosen Inca Inca are aresuspension the thesuspension Roman Roman grassbridge stone stone grassbridge arch arch Pont Keswha Pont SaintKeswha Saint- Chaka Martin Martin-Chaka in Huinchiri, Aosta, in Aosta,in Huinchiri, Italy, Italy,Peru. Peru. The Roman stone arch “Pont Saint Martin” crosses the Lys river in Aosta, Northern Italy and TheyTheyand both the both last lasthave have remainingremaining a singlea single Inca spanInca span suspension suspensionaround around 30 grassbridge meters.grassbrid30 meters. It ge isKeswha importantItKeswha is important-Chaka-Chaka to notein toHuinchiri,in thatnoteHuinchiri, this that Peru. analysis thisPeru. analysis Theywas built both between have a 27single B.C. span and A.D.around 14 30(Figure meters. 6.11 It, left)is important. With a span to note around that 35.6this analysismeters, it is is isTheythe meant meantlargest both to haveknown to be bea comparative.single span comparative. spanof Roman around The bridges. The 30 historic meters. historicThe bridgesItsingle is important bridges span require arch to require note is amostly that certain a this made certain analysis number of gneiss, number of a of is meant to be comparative. The historic bridges require a certain number of assumptionsassumptionsislocal meant stone to materialon beon the the comparative. materials and materials filled and with Theand construction soil historicconstruction (Blake, bridges 1947methods, )methods,. The require so Inca that so a suspension itthat certain is not it isaccurate number bridgenot accurate “Keshwa ofto talk to- talk assumptions on the materials and construction methods, so that it is not accurate to talk aboutaboutassumptionschaka” absolute absolute(which on translates numbers. the numbers. materials as The grass andThe absolute-bridge) construction absolute betwee values values methods,n arethe villages notare so as not that of relevant as Huinchiriit is relevant not asaccurate and the as Quehue comparison theto talk comparison crosses about absolute numbers. The absolute values are not as relevant as the comparison betweenbetweenabouta 30 meters absolute the the wide cases, cases, numbers. canyon so so that over The that a the absolute conclusion a Apurimac conclusion values canRiver are can foll in notow Peru foll as aroundow ( relevantFigure around the 6.11, as differences the theright) differencescomparison. The betweenlightweight between betweenconstruction the the is cases, cases, composed so so that thatof braided a a conclusion conclusion cables canfor can the foll follow owfloor around aroundand handrails, the the differences differences connected between betweenwith vertical permanentpermanent and and temporary temporary bridge bridge structures. structures. permanentgrass ropes andand temporary fixtemporaryed at both bridge bridge sides structures. withstructures. stone abutments. The villages at both sides of the rivers 6.5.1. Description come together in a yearly three-day festival to rebuild the grass bridge6.5.1.6.5.1. after6.5.1. Description theyDescription throwDescriptioning the old grass bridge into the river (Ochsendorf, 1996).

Pont Saint Martin Keshwa-Chaka SpanSpanSpan 35.6 35.6 m35.6 m Span mSpan 30Span 30 m m 30 m Span 35.6 m Spanth 30 m 27 B.C.27 B.C. – A.D. – A.D. 14 1415th century15th century - today - today 27 B.C.27 B.C. – A.D. – A.D. 14 1415 15centuryth century - today - today LysLysLys LysApurimac Apurimac Apurimac Apurimac Aosta,Aosta,Aosta,Aosta, Italy Italy Italy Italy Huinchiri, Huinchiri, Huinchiri,Huinchiri, Peru Peru Peru Peru SegmentalSegmentalSegmentalSegmental stonestone stone stone arch arch arch arch Suspension Suspension SuspensionSuspension grass grass grass bridge grassbridge bridge

> 1000 years 1 year High> 1000 initial> 1000 years cost years Low1 year initial1 year cost > 2000 years 1 year High initial cost Low initial cost Study Case Low maintenanceHigh initialHigh cost initialHigh maintenanceLowcost initialLow initial cost cost Case Study Case

Study Case High qualityLow stoneLow maintenance (EoLmaintenanceLow> reuse) 20 maintenance00 yearsLowHigh qualitycostHigh 1maintenance year maintenanceHigh plants maintenance (washed away) HighHigh quality quality stone stoneLocal (EoLHigh material(EoL> reuse) 20 Highinitial> reuse)00 20 quality years 00cost LocalLow years stone Low qualityLowmaterial1 year qualityinitialLow1 plantsyear quality cost plants (washed plants (washed away) away) LowLocal maintenanceHigh materialHigh Endinitial initialof cost costLife Local reusecost High Lowmaterial Washedmaintenance Lowinitial initial away cost yearly cost Local materialLocal material Local Local material material LowLow maintenanceHigh maintenance qualitySpanImages stone 35.6 cost after m cost Low[8]HighSpan qualityImagesHigh 30maintenance m after maintenanceplants [12] th HighEndInformationHigh27 qualityofB.C. Life quality – A.D.reuse afterstone stone14[6], Washed[7]Low15 Information Lowcenturyquality away quality - plantstodayyearly after plants[10] Lys Apurimac FigureEnd 6.Local11End of: Pont Life of material SaintLife reuse Martinreuse LocalWashed (left) Washedmaterial and away Keshwa away yearly-Chaka yearly (right ) Aosta, Italy Huinchiri, Peru Local material Local material SegmentalLocal stone material arch Suspension Local materialgrass bridge

The two bridges have a single span with similar length . However, the Roman arch Pont Saint Martin is working in compression and designed for a permanent lifetime,1 2 3 4where the Inca Bridge Figure 39: Pont Saint Martin (left) and Keshwa-Chaka (right) Keswha-Chaka is working in tension and designed for a lifespan of one year. The Roman arch uses high quality Figure Figure stone 39 : that 39 Pont : Pontcould Saint Saint be Martin reused Martin (lef att) (lef andthet) endKeshwaand of Keshwa life-Chaka of -theChaka (right) structure (right)1 2 3 4 as1 2opposed 3 4 to the 1low Aosta quality, Wikipedia, grass May used 2013, inhttp://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aosta the Inca Bridge, which is washed away every time the old bridge is thrown in the river. Nevertheless, both bridge designs have a sustainable approach that current 1 Aosta1 bridge Aosta, Wikipedia,, Wikipedia, engineers May May and2013, 2013, architectshttp://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aosta http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aosta can learn from: they use local material and offer59 efficient solutions to the design problem (Ochsendorf, 2004). 59 59 59

> 1000 years 1 year 58 High initial cost Low initial cost

Low maintenance High maintenance Study Case High quality stone (EoL reuse) Low quality plants (washed away) Local material Local material 6.4.2. Material quantities in historic bridges

First, the material quantities are estimated, based on geometry descriptions in publications, drawing and construction video’s. The sources for the two bridges can be found in part 3 of the references. The ECCs are estimated based on the material descriptions and the ICE database (Hammond and Jones, 2010). The calculations are summarized in (Figure 6.12).

Vault,Vault,Vault,Vault,Vault, spandrel spandrel spandrelspandrel walls, walls, walls,walls, AbutmentsAbutmentsAbutmentsAbutmentsAbutmentsAbutments 9070 9070 9070 kg kg kg kgkg PONTPONTPONT SAINT SAINTSAINT MARTINMARTIN KESHWAKESHWA--CHAKACHAKA pavimentumpavimentumpavimentumpavimentumpavimentumpavimentum & & && parapets parapets parapetsparapetsparapets Stone Stone Stone –– ECCECC – – –– ECC ECC 0.056ECC0.056ECC 0.056 0.056 0.0560.056 333 Vault,Vault,686686686686 spandrel spandrel m m m33 – –– – – 1790 1790 17901790 walwal tt t tls, t ls,t Vertical Vertical VerticalVertical AbutmentsVerticalAbutmentsVertical ropes ropes ropes – Twisted9070 Twisted Twisted kg cords, cords, cords, cords, cords,cords, 55 cmcm 5 5 5 5 cm cm cmcm Case Study Case Case Study Case Case Study Case Case Study Case Case Study Case LocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalpavimentumpavimentum gneissVault, gneiss gneiss gneissgneiss spandrel – – –– ECC ECC ECC && parapets parapets 0.017 0.017 0.0170.017 walls, Floor/handrails Floor/handrailsFloor/handrailsFloor/handrailsAbutmentsStoneFloor/handrailsStoneFloor/handrails – ECC – 0.056 Braided9070 Braided Braided kg cables,cables, cables, cables, cables,cables, 66 xx 4545 6 6m 6 m6 x x x x45 45 45 m m Study Case m 3 pavimentum686686 & mm 3parapetsFilling Filling –Filling–Filling 17901790 tt 3630363036303630StoneVertical3630Vertical3630 kg – kgkg ECC ropes 0.056 Puna , floor Puna Puna grassgrass && grass handrailsgrass handrailsgrass grass –– ECCECC – – – – ECC0.01 ECC0.01 ECCECC –– 3630 3630 0.01 0.01 0.010.01 kg kg 333 LocalLocal 780780gneiss 780780gneiss686 m m m ––3 3 m ECC– –ECC– – –3 1248 1248 1248–1248 1790 0.0170.017 tt t tt t t DeckDeckDeckDeckVerticalTwistedDeckTwistedDeck cords,ropes 225 , diameter floor 225 kg225 & kg kg kgkg handrails 5 5 cmcm forfor r ropes–opes 3630 kg Local Soil Soil Soil Soilgneiss – ––– ECC ECC–ECC ECC 0.023 0.023 0.023Filling0.023Filling 0.017 TwistedBraidedBraided cords,cables, Sticks/matted diameter 6 xSticks/matted Sticks/matted 45 mm 5 forfor cm floorreedsfloorreeds for ropes reeds and reedsreedsand reeds rails rails 33 780780 mm ––Filling 12481248 tt BraidedPuna Puna grass cables, – ECC 6 x0.01 45 m for floor and rails SoilSoil780 –– m ECCECC3 – 1248 0.0230.023 t PunaDeck Deck grass – 2 25kg– ECC 0.01 Soil – ECC 0.023 DeckSticksSticks –& 2 matted25kg reeds FigureFigure 6 6.16.16: :Weight/ECC Weight/ECC Pont Pont SaintSaint MartinMartin && KeshwaKeshwaSticks &- Chakamatted, reedsimagesimages afterafter [4],[4], [5],[5], [9],[9], [10], [10], [11] [11]

TheThe resultsFigure results of6 of.12 the the: Weight/ECC calculation calculation Pont ofof thethe Saint materialmaterial Martin quantitiesquantities& Keshwa -inChaka the ,Pont images SaintSaint after MartinMartin [4], [5], areare [9], illustratedillustrated [10], [11] in in TableTable 6 6.4.4. .An An extended extended calculation calculation cancan bebe foundfound inin appendixappendix B.4.a.4.a.. The results of the calculation of the material quantities in the Pont Saint Martin are illustrated in PartsTableParts 6.4. An extendedVolumeVolume calculation MaterialMaterial can be foundDensityDensity in appendixECC B.4.a . WeightWeight WeightWeight per per meter meter 33 33 mm kg/mkg/m kgCO2e/kg kgkg kg/mkg/m VaultVaultParts Volume270270 MaterialGneissGneiss Density26102610 0.017ECC Weight707047004700 Weight per 22443meter22443 3 3 SpandrelSpandrel walls walls 390390m GneissGneiss kg/m26102610 kgCO2e0.017/kg 10179001017900kg 3241732417kg/m PavimentumPavimentumVault 4227042 LimestoneLimestoneGneiss 250025002610 0.0170.017 105000105000704700 2244333443344 ParapetsParapetsSpandrel walls 2639026 GneissGneissGneiss 261026102610 0.0170.017 10179006786067860 3241721612161 FillingFillingPavimentum 78078042 LimestoneSoilSoil 160016002500 0.0230.017 12480001248000105000 39745397453344 Parapets 26 Gneiss 2610 0.017 67860 2161 TableTable 6 6.4.4: :C Calculationalculation weightsweights andand ECC for Pont Saint MartinMartin Filling 780 Soil 1600 0.023 1248000 39745

TheThe results results of of the the calculation calculationTable 6.4 : of ofCalculation thethe materialmaterial weights quantitiesquantities and ECC in for the Pont Keshwa Saint--ChakaChaka Martin bridgebridge areare illustratedillustrated inin Table Table 6 6.5.5. .An An extended extended calculation calculation cancan bebe foundfound inin appendix B.4.b.4.b.. PartsTheParts results of the VcalculationVolumeolume ofMaterialMaterial the material DensityDensity quantities in theECC Keshwa Weight-WeightChaka bridgeWeightWeight are per illustratedper meter meter m3 3 kg/m33 kg /kg kg kg/m in Table 6.5. An extendedm calculation can be foundkg/m in appendixkgCO2e/kg B .4.b. kg kg/m AbutmentsAbutments // StoneStone 25002500 0.056 90709070 302302 CablesCables 1.981.98 PunaPuna grassgrass 395395 0.01

VerticalVertical Ropes Ropes 0.60.6 PunaPuna grassgrass 395395 0.01 36303630 121121 Deck Deck 0.450.45 SticksSticks 59500500 0.01

TableTable 6 6.5.5: :Calculations Calculations sheetsheet weightsweights andand ECC for Keshwa--ChakaChaka

5555 Parts Volume Material Density ECC Weight Weight per meter 3 3 m kg/m kgCO2e/kg kg kg/m Abutments / Stone 2500 0.056 9070 302 Cables 1.98 Puna grass 395 0.01 Vertical Ropes 0.6 Puna grass 395 0.01 3630 121 Deck 0.45 Sticks 500 0.01

Table 6.5: Calculations sheet weights and ECC for Keshwa-Chaka

6.4.3. Embodied carbon of historic bridges

Now that the weights and ECCs are determined, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is given by multiplication. The total weight of the different parts have been divided by the span, in order to obtain a “linear” GWP, i.e. the GWP per meter of length of the bridge for the sake of comparison. Considering the Roman arch has a lifespan of more than 2000 years, where the Inca suspension bridge is less permanent, the lifetime of the bridges should be taken into account while looking at the Global Warming Potential. The “linear” GWP is divided by the number of years for which it has been standing to obtain an “annual” GWP. The results are shown in Table 6.6 for Pont Saint Martin and in Table 6.7 for the Keshwa-Chaka bridge.

Parts Material Weight / meter GWP / meter GWP / meter /year

(kg/m) (kgCO2/m) (kgCO2/m/y) Vault Gneiss 22442.68 381.53 0.19 Spandrel walls Gneiss 32417.20 551.09 0.28 Pavimentum Limestone 3343.95 56.85 0.03 Parapets Gneiss 2161.15 36.74 0.02 Filling Soil 39745.22 914.14 0.46 Total 1940.34 0.97

Table 6.6: GWP of Pont Saint Martin

For the Keshwa-Chaka, the bridge is divided in a permanent and a temporary part. Indeed, the abutments are not rebuilt every year. This is the permanent part, which is divided by the number of years that the bridge has been in use (600 years). The suspended part, the grass bridge itself, is divided by one, as it requires the whole construction and material supply again every year. The “linear” and “annual” GWP are given in Table 6.7.

Parts Material Weight / meter GWP / meter GWP / meter / year

(kg/m) (kgCO2/m) (kgCO2/m/y) Abutments Stone 302.33 16.93 0.03 Cables Puna grass Vertical Ropes Puna grass 121.00 1.21 1.21 Deck Sticks, matted reeds Total 18.14 1.24

Table 6.7: GWP of Keshwa-Chaka

60 If comparing the “linear” GWP without taking into account the lifespan, the Roman arch has an embodied carbon (1940 kgCO2/m) more than 100 times higher than the Inca suspension bridge (18 kgCO2/m). However, if dividing the permanent parts by the years that the bridge has been in use, the Inca Bridge has a higher embodied carbon (1.24 kgCO2/m/y) than the Roman arch (0.97 kgCO2/m/y).

6.4.4. Comparison Roman arch and Inca suspension bridge

In Table 6.8, the comparison of both bridges is illustrated, with both the “linear” and the “annual” GWP compared.

Pont Saint Martin Keshwa-Chaka

> 2000 years 1 year High initial cost Low initial cost Low maintenance cost High maintenance High quality stone Low quality plants End of Life reuse Washed away yearly Local material – Gneiss & Soil Local material – Stone & Puna grass Embodied Carbon . 1940.34 kgCO2/m 18.14 kgCO2/m 0.97 kgCO2/m/y 1.24 kgCO2/m/y Table 6.8: Comparison Pont Saint Martin and Keshwa-Chaka, images from (Foer, 2013; O’Connor, 1993; The Last Handwoven bridge, 2013)

The first number shows that the Roman arch Pont Saint Martin has an embodied carbon of

1940 kgCO2/m or a factor hundred more than the Inca suspension bridge Keshwa-Chaka with an embodied carbon of 18 kgCO2/m. When taking the lifespans into account, the Roman arch has a slightly lower embodied carbon than the Inca Bridge.

When comparing both bridges, other aspects than embodied carbon, span and lifespans would need to be taken into account. The load capacity of the Roman arch is much higher (car traffic instead of pedestrian loads). Moreover, the Inca suspension bridges are also subject to a lot of lateral movements, especially during consequent wind loads. The Inca suspension bridge is part of a cultural heritage and community energy and vitality. Additionally, the bridge would probably last longer, at least up to two years, than the one-year lifespan it is given due to the annual festivities.

In both cases, the (linear or annual) GWP value is very low in general. The use of local materials, traditional manufacturing and efficient design has a significant impact on the embodied carbon. These low environmental impacts can teach current engineers and architects about efficient design.

61 6.4.5. Comparison with recent bridge designs

A comparison with recent bridges puts previous results in perspective. Figure 6.13 illustrates the material quantities of recent bridges with various spans (Clune, 2013). However, recent bridges are road bridges with multiple lanes carrying much heavier live loads than the historic counterparts discussed in this case study, so that the comparison is only theoretical.

Oakland Bay Bridge

Sydney Harbor Bridge

Figure 6.13: Recent Bridges, material quantities (Clune, 2013)

The bridge with the most similar span (around 45 m) has a mass of 500 kg/m2. This bridge has the lowest embodied carbon (best case!) among the recent bridges. With a width similar to Pont Saint Martin (which allows traffic), i.e. 6 m, the mass becomes 83 kg/m. An ECC for steel of

1.77 gives an embodied carbon of 147.5 kg CO2/m. If we consider a lifetime of 50 years, the “annual” GWP becomes 2.95 kg CO2/m/y, which is three times more than the two historic bridges. The upper bound of the range, a cable-stayed bridge, has a “linear” GWP of 590 kg

CO2/m and an “annual” GWP of 11.8 kg CO2/m/y. These numbers do not include non- structural materials or maintenance. Indeed, recent bridges often require a new layer of asphalt every twenty years or a new layer of protective paint.

Though paving materials and maintenance are not included in results for recent bridges, the GWP is still ten times higher than for the two historic bridges (Table 6.9). The Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco, (Figure 6.14) has a mass of 2100 kg/m2 and a width of 17.5m. The “linear” mass is of 120 kg/m. Multiplying with the ECC gives an embodied carbon of 212.4 kg

CO2/m, and dividing with the lifetime of the bridge of 76 years, gives 2.8 kg CO2/m/y.

Pont Saint Martin Keshwa-Chaka Oakland Baybridge Recent bridge range 0.97 kgCO2/m/y 1.24 kgCO2/m/y 2.8 kgCO2/m/y 2.8-11.8 kgCO2/m/y Table 6.9: Comparison of “annual” Global Warming Potential

Figure 6.14: Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco, United States (photograph by the author)

62 6.5. Case study III: Comparing tall buildings

This section discusses the material quantities and embodied carbon in tall buildings. A comparison of tall landmark buildings worldwide is illustrated by ten case studies.

6.5.1. Description

The ten skyscrapers considered in this study are listed in Table 6.10, with their location, date of completion, structural engineer, structural system, height and sources (see part 4 in references).

Name Location Date Structural Engineer Structure Height (m) Refs. 30 St Mary Axe London 2004 Arup Steel Diagrid 180 [1] – [4] The United Tower Kuwait 2011 WSP Cantor Seinuk Reinf. Concrete 240 [5] – [10] The Shard London 2012 WSP Cantor Seinuk Reinf. Concrete 306 [11] – [16] Al Hamra Firdous Kuwait 2011 SOM Reinf. Concrete 413 [17] – [20] Willis Tower Chicago 1974 SOM Steel 443 [21] World Financial Center Shanghai 2008 Leslie E. Robertson Trusses & 492 [22] – [24] columns Taipei 101 Taipei 2004 Thronton Tomasetti; Composite 508 [25] – [26] Evergreen Engineering One World Trade Center New York 2014 WSP Cantor Seinuk Hybrid 546 [27] Shanghai Tower Shanghai 2014 Thornton Tomasetti Concrete 632 [28] – [33] Burj Khalifa Dubai 2010 SOM Buttressed Core 828 [34] – [41] Table 6.10: Case studies for tall buildings

The height of the skyscrapers varies from 180 m for 30 St Mary Axe or “Gherkin” in London till 828 m for the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. As demonstrated by Khan (see section 2.1), the height of tall buildings influences the material quantities. Therefore, the results are always shown in graphics with increasing building height from left to right (or from top to bottom in case of Table 6.10). All buildings have been completed between 2004 and 2014, except for the Willis Tower in Chicago, in order to see how recent buildings relate to older skyscrapers.

6.5.2. Material quantities in tall buildings

Figure 6.15 gives the material quantities normalized by floor area. As opposed to the previous calculations in this thesis, the gross floor area has been used, as the internal floor area was not always available for the ten towers. The sources (Bibliography and references, part 4) are mostly publications, bill of quantities or design office documents.

Although the sources used to collect the data were fairly reliable, the accuracy could be improved. For example, The United Tower and The Shanghai Tower were both constructed with reinforced concrete, which has a certain percentage of steel. Therefore to obtain more accurate results the exact percentage of reinforcement bars in the concrete should be known. When this percentage was not known for the different cases, a general average of steel percentage in the reinforced concrete was taken.

63 3,000

2,500

) 2,000

2 concrete per area

rebar per area

(kg/m 1,500 steel per area SMQ SMQ 1,000

500

Figure 6.15: Material quantities normalized per gross floor area

6.5.3. Embodied carbon of tall buildings

To have a better understanding of the environmental impact of the tall buildings, the used ECCs were adapted to each region: the United Kingdom, the United States, the Middle East and China. Based on the ICE coefficients, LCA calculations adapted the ECCs to include transportation for the different countries. The modification consisted in the multiplication of the original transportation input by a ratio taking into account the surface area of the country. Then, a review of the concrete mix proportions used in every country was performed. The collection of data represented many challenges during this step.

For example, no reliable source on the exact concrete mix of the World Financial Center, Shanghai, was found. Therefore, published information on high strength concrete was used, since this is the type of concrete used in the tower. The common water/cement ratio used for concrete lies between 0.45 and 0.6. However in the case of the high strength concrete, the water/cement ratio lies between 0.3 and 0.4. Consequently, the average value of 0.35 was used with a gravel-content of 950 kg/m³. Moreover, the typical cement content for this type of concrete varies between 350 to 500 kg/m³ of cement. Hence, a value of 450 kg/m³ of cement was selected and by applying the water cement ratio chosen the amount of water was calculated to be 157 kg. The water content is slightly lower than the usual water portion found in regular concrete due to the addition of plasticizers.

64 In the case of the United Tower in Kuwait, the main inputs used in the Life Cycle Assessment were extracted from the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) obtained from the client, United Real Estates. All information on the construction and the structure of the tower in Kuwait is confidential, and therefore it is difficult to obtain accurate information. From the BOQ, the main reinforced concrete quantities were extracted. However, the additional information regarding the structural system was obtained from construction magazines published in the Gulf. The only information on the exact concrete mix in the BOQ available was the Specification 03300. Therefore, technical papers published in Kuwait were used to adjust the cement content and water/cement ratio in the LCA sheet. Moreover, The BOQ does not specify the proportion of reinforcement in the concrete. Therefore it was assumed that steel reinforcement represents 0.5 percent of the reinforced concrete.

One of the challenges of this research is to be very transparent about the data used and the assumptions made. Therefore, the case studies are analyzed with different ECCs, given in Table 6.11. The values of the various sources are comparable in order of magnitude. The recycling and the reuse phases of the materials were not taken into account. Consequently, to assure the accuracy of the numbers found, a comparison is performed with the values from the ICE database and the Carbon Working Group. The results for the embodied carbon of tall buildings are shown in Figure 6.12.

ECC United Kingdom Middle East China United States Concrete 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.13 Hotrolled steel 0.89 0.71 0.88 0.88 Rebar steel 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Table 6.11: ECCs used for this study

500 450 400 ) 2 350 /m 300

CO2e EC concrete per area 250 (kg 200 EC rebar per area 150

GWP GWP EC steel per area 100 50 0

Figure 6.16: Embodied carbon per area of tall buildings

The results show the highest impact from concrete and reinforcement for the Al Hamra Firdous Tower and the United Tower, both in Kuwait. The Taipei 101 tower also represents a higher impact due to concrete quantities used for the construction. The 30 St Mary Axe or “Gherkin” in London has the lowest embodied carbon impact. It used a steel diagrid to enhance the structural efficiency of the tower. It should be noted that, though it was constructed in 1974, the Willis tower has the second lowest impact.

6.5.4. Discussion of the results

The high emissions for the Kuwait towers can s be36-43 linkedSwiss NY 04-10-06 to the 16.03 structural Sida 39 system of the skyscrapers. The architectural shape of the Al Hamra Tower (Figure 6.17.a.) requires more concrete than the other tall buildings. Also, the reinforced concrete structure with the concrete core in the United Tower (Figure 6.17.b.) was designed to accommodate the architectural wave feature of the building. The architectural design did not take into account material reduction. Structural plan near mid-height of building (showing arrangement of clear-span radial floor beams aligning with perimeter column positions and lightwell edges).

Plan of the 18th storey, with denotation of the grid of the raised floor.

Figure 6.17: (a) Al Hamra (photograph by the author), (b) United Tower (KPF, 2012), (c) Gherkin (Munro, 2006) The real thing! Office division (note: showing possible variations of office introduced, this increases the change in planning layout). The design of the steel diagrid in the 30 St Mary Axecolumn Tower angle and with or it “Gherkin”the spreading (Figure 6.17.c.) effect of vertical column loads. demonstrates that integrating sustainable design and structuralIn the Swiss Re building engineering all these ho- starting from the rizontal forces are carried by perimeter concept stage influences the embodied carbon emissionshoops atof each the node tall level, whichbuildings also and that iconic provide equilibrium for any asymmetric The shape of the tower design is not incompatible with embodied carbon reductions.or horizontal loading conditions. The is influenced by the combination of these geometrical actions physical environment of results in compression in the hoops at the city. The smooth the top of the building, where the co- flow of wind around the lumns are more steeply angled and ligh- building was one of the ter loaded, to very significant tension 6.6.➤ mainSummary considerations.

The 3D- model pro- This chapter surveys over 200 existing buildings as well as historic and recent case studies. The ved to be indispensa- ble in the communi- survey of material quantities in buildings designed by leading engineering firms was conducted cation. The structural engineer made the and the results of the ECCs in Chapter 4 lead to a range of embodied carbon values for various initial coordination building types and different structural systems. Then, three case studies illustrated the process model with centre- lines and sizing, in sport stadia, historic bridges and tall buildings. the contractor and subcontractors used it for detailing and interfaces with cladding and MEP services. 66 NR 3 • 2004 • NYHETER OM STÅLBYGGNAD STÅLBYGGNADSPROJEKT 39

The survey of existing buildings demonstrated that the highest weight of material come from concrete, where the highest impacts are mainly due to concrete and hotrolled steel. The survey reveals that healthcare buildings have the highest amount of material (range between 1000 and 2300 kg/m2), followed by residential buidlings (range between 1500 and 1800 kg/m2), whereas office or government buildings have the lowest amount of material (range between 500 and 1500 kg/m2). The GWP shows similar trends with typical values between 100 and 1000 2 kgCO2e/m . The various structural systems, such as concrete, steel, timber and composite, were compared. Timber had the lowest cradle-to-site impact.

The case studies of the stadia illustrated an important aspect of estimating the GWP of buildings: the choice of functional unit. Dividing the total amount of materials by area or by seat resulted in different conclusions. When normalizing by seat, the Beijing Olympic Stadium was shown to have an impact ten times higher than the London Olympic Stadium.

The case studies of the historic bridges showed that recent bridge design can take lessons from history. The Keshwa Chaka Inca bridge illustrates temporary low-carbon design as opposed to the Roman arch Pont Saint Martin using a permanent low-carbon design.

Finally, the case studies of the tall buildings illustrate the impact of structural design on the material quantities and embodied carbon in structures. The results range from 250 to 2500 2 2 kg/m for the material quantities and 50 to 450 kgCO2e/m for the GWP.

“How much does your building weigh Mr. Foster?” – An Art Commissioners film This chapter is the first attempt in research in answering this question asked by an Art Commissioners film and by many structural engineers and architects.

67 68 7. Conclusions

“ There’s only one creature capable of leaving a footprint that size…” From King Kong movie

7.1. Discussion of results

This thesis has three types of results: (1) a critical review, (2) a new database and (3) a survey analysis. First, this research synthesizes the challenges and opportunities for collecting material quantities and embodied carbon. Second, to collect this information, it develops a framework for a database. Third, a survey of 200 real building projects formulates an understanding of the material efficiency and life cycle impact of actual buildings.

(1) The first part of this thesis discusses the challenges and opportunities in estimating the embodied carbon in structures. In order to obtain the Global Warming Potential (GWP), Structural Material Quantities (SMQ) are multiplied by Embodied Carbon Coefficients (ECC). For each of these three parameters, one main challenge and one main opportunity are defined.

For the material quantities, the industry needs incentives to share enough data on their building projects. Confidence in the results on material efficiency relies on voluntary data input from the leading firms in the industry, such as design offices, engineering firms and contractors. Motivations are necessary for stakeholders to spend additional time entering the material amounts in the database. However, BIM models such as Revit offer the opportunity to collect thousands of projects in an automated way. Linking Revit models to the database will generate thousands of data on material quantities in buildings.

Another challenge is to identify accurate ECC values. The available numbers vary widely, due in part to different life cycle stages included. Most currently available ECCs are cradle-to-gate. Therefore, parts of the life cycle such as transportation, construction or demolition are omitted. However, there is an opportunity to define default ECCs, based on the existing literature. For unreinforced concrete, ECCs range between 0.1 and 0.2 kgCO2e/kg depending on the strength. For reinforced concrete, the values lie between 0.13 and 0.23 kgCO2e/kg for 2% rebar and between 0.18 and 0.28 kgCO2e/kg for 5% rebar. Average values for steel are 1.7 kgCO2e/kg for rebar and 0.8 kgCO2e/kg for hotrolled steel. Values shift according to varying location, manufacturing, transportation, fly ash replacement, recycled content, etc.

After obtaining these two key variables, calculating the GWP itself presents challenges. Indeed, many firms request that their data be kept confidential. However, protecting the intellectual ownership of companies critically compromises comprehensive transparency. Nonetheless, a unified methodology will facilitate benchmarking of embodied carbon in structures. The opportunity lies in defining a universal assessment of the GWP, by obtaining the two key variables, SMQ and ECC, in a transparent way. Using the database developed in part (2) and the survey in part (3), a greater confidence in the numbers on embodied carbon in building structures will identify reference buildings for comparison.

69 (2) The second part of this thesis synthesizes the opportunities developed in part (1) into a new database, called “deQo” or “database for embodied Quantity outputs”. This thesis establishes a framework for this database collecting material quantities and embodied carbon of building projects.

A relational database is developed in MySQL connected to an html web-interface through php scripts. The deQo tool collects not only the embodied carbon, in addition to the work from the WRAP embodied carbon database (WRAP, 2014), but also the amounts of steel, concrete, timber and other materials in building structures. The interface targets structural materials, but the database was designed to expand to all building materials.

Many leading engineers are developing methods for estimating the embodied carbon of their projects, such as the SOM environmental analysis tool (SOM, 2013) or the Tally environmental impact tool (Tally, 2014). The review of these existing tools and conversations with leading experts have defined the parameters in deQo.

The field of life cycle impacts of buildings is maturing and the existing efforts will likely soon merge into a comprehensive approach. This database is a first step towards an agreement on ranges for material weights and embodied carbon in typical buildings. In the long term, deQo will offer the industry a basis for benchmarks on material efficiency as well as low-carbon buildings.

(3) The third part of this thesis analyzes a survey of over 200 buildings collected through deQo developed in part (2). A unified methodology (GWP = SMQ ! ECC) is applied to the data from the survey and to three case studies in more detail.

A survey of 200 existing buildings reveals the material efficiency and the carbon impact of structures. As can be expected, healthcare buildings have the highest material amounts between 2 2 1000 and 2300 kg/m and the highest embodied carbon between 300 and 800 kgCO2e/m . Residential buildings also have high impacts, with material quantities ranging from 1100 to 1900 2 2 kg/m and GWP values ranging from 250 to 750 kgCO2e/m . The lowest impacts can be found in office and government buildings with material quantities between 500 and 1500 kg/m2 and 2 GWP between 200 and 1000 kgCO2e/m . In general, the typical embodied carbon in structures 2 ranges from 100 to 1000 kgCO2e/m . Additionally, the different structural systems are compared, with timber having the lowest impact when taking into account cradle-to-site life cycle stages.

Furthermore, detailed case studies illustrate three important aspects on comparing embodied carbon and material efficiency in buildings. The first case study analyzes stadia. The study illustrates the importance of an appropriate functional unit. Indeed, when the material quantities are normalized by floor area, stadia have a lower impact compared to other building types in the survey. However, for a more comprehensive view on the GWP of stadia, the material quantities can be divided by number of seats as a functional unit. The Beijing Olympic Stadium or “Bird’s Nest” shows the highest amount of materials and impact, up to ten times higher than the London Olympic Stadium. Results therefore debate whether the floor area is the best choice as a functional unit. Another option for comparing the embodied carbon across building types is the number of total occupants, focusing on the service of the building rather than the geometry.

The second case study is the comparison of two historic bridges: the Inca grass bridge “Keshwa Chaka” and the Roman stone arch “Pont Saint Martin”. The trade-offs between temporary and permanent structures raise the question of what the total lifespan of buildings should be. Lessons learned from these historic structures are the following: using local materials and manufacturing and using force paths to shape structures. These strategies are followed in both the temporary and permanent options.

The last case study consists of tall buildings. The material quantities range widely from 250 to 2 2 2500 kg/m as does the embodied carbon from 130 to 450 kgCO2e/m . The structural system revealed itself crucial to lower the impact on the environment.

Taken as a whole, the three contributions (1), (2) and (3) offer a new understanding of material efficiency and the life cycle impact of building structures.

The critical review of the current challenges in part (1) has helped to develop a transparent, interactive, growing database in part (2). This database is crucial in the comparison of existing buildings in part (3). The combination of all results provides confidence in the numbers for material quantities and GWP of building structures.

7.2. Summary of contributions

This thesis answers the following key question: “What is the embodied carbon for different structures?” The answer to this question is important for multiple reasons. First, unlike operational carbon, embodied carbon is permanent. Lowering the latter therefore leads to immediate savings in carbon emissions. Moreover, the percentage of embodied carbon in the whole building life cycle is becoming significant with increasing operational energy efficiency and shortening building lifespans. Finally, structural engineers and architects need a transparent way of comparing the life cycle impact of their projects against reference buildings, especially since rating schemes started incorporating embodied carbon in their credits.

The major contribution of this thesis is to pave the way to a more unified method for collecting material quantities, defining accurate ECC ranges and calculating the GWP of building structures. The results discussed in Section 7.1 are a first attempt to estimate the material efficiency and environmental impact of buildings in a transparent way. An understanding of the emissions of buildings will become as intuitive as the CO2 emissions of cars. For comparison, driving from Philadelphia to Boston (480km) would generate 104 kg of carbon, whereas the construction of the One World Trade Center or “Freedom Tower” generated 100,000,000 kg of carbon.

First, the challenges and opportunities encountered in existing literature and tools are analyzed. Three aspects are studied: the two key variables, SMQ and ECC, and an equation calculating the GWP. Separating the current practice in three topics develops a transparent approach. With a critical review of current literature and tools, this thesis creates a basis for a more unified and transparent methodology.

71 Second, the synthesis of the opportunities rising from the challenges led to a framework for a new database. Indeed, a new interactive, growing database was created to collect thousands of building projects from leading structural design firms. The database of embodied Quantity outputs or “deQo” incorporates the simple method multiplying two key variables to obtain the GWP.

Third, deQo already collected over 200 existing projects from worldwide architecture or structure companies. The survey of these projects contributed to a new understanding of material efficiency and environmental impact of structures. The results for building structures are normalized material weights ranging on average between 500 and 2500 kg/m2 and 2 normalized embodied carbon ranging on average between 250 and 750 kgCO2e/m .

This thesis lays the groundwork that industry and research needs for benchmarking embodied carbon in buildings. All of this work is motivated by the prospect that ultimately, designers will incorporate Global Warming Potential as one of the factors to take into account in their design process.

7.3. Future research

Based on the approach developed in this thesis, the following paths are open for exploration:

• Integrate Building Information Modeling (BIM) in carbon estimating tools

While this thesis used BIM such as Revit through the data collection from practitioners, ultimately, there is a need for integrating BIM models directly into the database in order to compute thousands of projects at the time. Plugging in Revit software will allow benchmarking through comparison of thousands of projects across companies.

• Dynamic alternative to the GWP

The measure of the GWP, i.e. “carbon dioxide equivalent”, is a static way of measuring the environmental impact of buildings. However, Kendall (2014) demonstrates this static measurement could skew the results, because methane tends to disappear with the years as opposed to carbon dioxide emissions. Converting gases such as methane to the equivalent in carbon dioxide is consequently a static simplification of a dynamic phenomenon. Though this thesis used GWP as the most feasible, currently available assessment method, future research can explore how to integrate complex dynamic parameters such as the instantaneous climate impact (ICI) or the cumulative climate impact (CCI). These factors would better reflect the dynamic aspect of greenhouse gases.

• Expanding to non-structural materials and to operational carbon

The thesis is limited to structural materials only and the embodied life cycle stages. The method can be extrapolated to non-structural materials such as cladding and services. Also, combining the embodied and operational carbon will give a complete view of the whole life cycle impact of buildings.

• Extrapolating on the urban scale

This thesis looks at the embodied carbon on the material and building scale. However, current research efforts exist to implement embodied carbon at the urban scale. The “Urban Modeling Interface” or “umi” (umi, 2014), developed in the building technology program at MIT, simulates the life cycle impact of neighborhoods. A buildings’ massing model is associated with selected materials from a database. The result is a visualization ofDESIGNING the LCA THE URBAN impacts ENERGY per LIFECYCL yearE 51 (Figure 7.1).

ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY

EMBODIED ENERGY

Y Y

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 TIME TIME Figure 15: Embodied and operation energy Figure 16: Life cycle energy profiles Figure 7.1: Massing model and yearly impact visualization in “umi” after (umi, life2014;cycle time Cerezo, functions 2013) hypothetical envelope

• Incorporate embodied carbon in design, starting at the initialThe conceptual relation between scheme the two stage can b e characterized by the analysis of the year in which the operation component overcomes the embodied component. The later in Architecture answers a combination of many different boundary conditions.the life of the Embodiedbuilding, the more carbon significant the energy associated with materials cannot be analyzed in isolation from other design factors. Thisproduction thesis a offersnd maintena an nce objective becomes. The addition of both functions generates a analysis of the GWP of buildings, the baselines for benchmarkingtotal lifecycle and theprofile survey which defines of case a building or a project energetically. The relative studies. Further research can develop a multi-scale synthesis (Figureperformance 7.2) to integrateof two total embodiedenergy profiles is defined by the point in time in which carbon in architecture, starting at the initial concept scheme. both present the same value. This ‘crossing point’ has to be considered when making design decisions about the ideal lifespan of a project. In temporary First, a study is necessary on the followed strategies in low impact sbuildingstructures an din short the lifecdatabase.ycles, mate Byrials energy has a bigger impact. In buildings exploring the successful case studies, themes will appear in the d designesigned to process. last a very Second, long time, an operation energy tends to be a determinant analysis should determine how embodied carbon correlates withfactor. financial Therefore, cost.it is not Balancingpossible to evaluate the relative importance of embodied material and construction cost with financial advantages due to accreditation will pave the way energy without defining a specific temporal framework. to a cost efficient strategy for low impact buildings. Third, it is crucial to take into account how strategies for decreasing embodied carbon in buildings interact with other variables in the design process. Indeed, a method that lowers the embodied carbon of a building could in some cases undermine the operational energy, the structural efficiency, the functionality or the spatial experience of the architecture. Further research can explore how life cycleC ARLOS impact CEREsZO relate DAVILA - toMDesS Thesis (Energy and Environment) these other parameters. The relationship of embodied carbon to other criteria will identify its importance in the design process.

73 ! !

1_Research_Objectives

Matl ECC Quants Values

1. GWP

DATABASE

Brigittinen - Project 1 - Project 2 - Project 3 1. Patterns - Project 4 - Project 5 in low - … embodied carbon - Project 10 - … design - Project 100 - … 3. Case Studies

2. Benchmarks - Growing 2. vs. financial cost

Study A) A) Objective Analysis 3. vs. other design parameters B) B) Multi-scale Synthesis

Figure 7.2: Further research

The objective analysis in this thesis combined with a future multi-scale synthesis will lead to a new design approach in architecture. The qualitative and quantitative assessment of embodied life cycle impacts of buildings will develop new design criteria. While leaving all design options open to architects and engineers, the expanded knowledge will inform designers and their clients on the impact of their choices. These new guidelines will create opportunities for reducing the embodied carbon in the built environment.

Design Case • Making the business case

Finally, research on embodied carbon alone is not enough to incorporate change in design. Not only structural engineers and architects should be informed of low-carbon design strategies, but also the government and the public. It is important to make the business case for lowering the embodied carbon of structure, either by informing, rewarding through rating schemes such as LEED and BREEAM or by legislation.

“Informing both government and the media of the need for the right legislation, and the long-term cost benefits of this, is probably as important in the delivery of significant change as developing the actual solutions to deliver energy and carbon savings in buildings.” – David Clark (CLARK, 2013)

74 Bibliography and references

The references and bibliography of this thesis can be found hereunder. Part 1 gives the general bibliography and references in alphabetical order. Part 2, 3 and 4 give the references specific to the case studies. A detailed list of references for the material quantities in the stadia, historic bridges and tall buildings enhances the transparency of the applied method.

Part 1: General bibliography and references

Alcorn, A. (1996). “Embodied Energy Coefficients of Building Materials.” Centre for Building Performance Research, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.

Ali, M. M. and Moon, K. S. (2007) “Structural Developments in Tall Buildings: Current Trends and Future Prospects.” Architectural Science Review, 50 (3): pp. 205–223.

Amato, A. and Eaton, K. (1998) “A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Modern Office Buildings.” The Steel Construction Institute, Berkshire.

Arup (2008) “Structural Scheme Design Guide.” Arup, Internal report, London.

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2009) “Impact Estimator for Buildings.” Accessed November 15, 2013. http://www.athenasmi.org

Baker, William, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, personal conversation with John Ochsendorf and Catherine De Wolf, Cambridge (MA), October 23, 2013.

Blake, M.E. (1947) Ancient Roman Construction in Italy forom the Prehistoric Period to Augustus. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 421p.

Braham, W. W. and Hale, J. A. (2013) “1929 Richard Buckminster Fuller. 4D Time Lock.” in: Rethinking Architectural Technology, London: Routledge, pp. 42-46.

Build Carbon Neutral. (2007) “Estimate the embodied CO2 of a whole construction project.” Accessed December 1, 2013. http://buildcarbonneutral.org

Cerezo, C. (2013) “Designing The Urban Energy Life Cycle. A framework and a tool for embodied energy accounting and conservation.” Masters in Design Studies thesis, advisor: Christoph Reinhart, Harvard University, Cambridge (MA).

Chapman, P. F. and Roberts, F. (1983) Metal Resources and Energy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 256p.

Cho, H.-W., Roh, S.-G., Byun, Y.-M. and Yom, K.-S. (2004) “Structural Quantity Analysis of Tall Buildings.” CTBUH Conference: Tall Buildings in Historical Cities – Culture & Technology for Sustainable Cities, Seoul, October 10–13, pp. 662-668.

Clark, D.H. (2013) What color is your building? Measuring and reducing the energy and carbon footprint of buildings. London: RIBA Publishing, 263p.

75 Clune, R. (2013) “Algorithm Selection in Structural Optimization.” PhD thesis, advisor: John Ochsendorf, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (MA).

Cole, R. J. and Kernan, P. C. (1996) “Life-Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings.” Building and Environment, 31 (4), pp. 307-317.

Collins, F. (2010) “Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their carbon footprint.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15 (6), pp. 549-546.

CTBUH (2010) “Tall Buildings, Structural Systems and Materials.” CTBUH Journal: Tall Buildings in Numbers (2), pp. 40-41.

Darling, D. (2004) The Universal Book of Mathematics, New York City: Wiley, 90p.

De Wolf, C., Iuorio, O. and Ochsendorf, J. (2014) “Structural Material Quantities and Embodied Carbon Coefficients: Challenges and Opportunities.” Sustainable Structures Symposium, Corey Griffin (ed.), Portland: Portland State University, April 17-18, pp. 309-328.

De Wolf, C. and Ochsendorf, J. (2014) “Participating in an Embodied Carbon Database. Connecting structural material quantities with environmental impact.” The Structural Engineer, 2 (February), pp. 30-31. deQo (2014) “database for embodied Quantity outputs.” available at embodiedco2.scripts.mit.edu

Dias, W. P. and Pooliyadda, S. P. (2004) “Quality based energy contents and carbon coefficients for building materials: A System approach.” Energy 29, pp. 561-580.

Dixit M.K., Fernández-Solís J.L., Lavy S. and Culp C.H. (2012) “Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (6), pp. 3730-3743.

Dunlap, D.W. (2014) “1 World Trade Center Is a Growing Presence, and a Changed One.” The New York Times, Accessed June 12, 2014. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/1-world-trade- center-is-a-growing-presence-and-a-changed-one/

Eaton, K. J. and Amato, A. (1998) “A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Steel and Concrete Framed Office Buildings.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 46, 1-3.

EcoInvent (2013) “EcoInvent.” Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Accessed December 13, 2013. http://www.ecoinvent.ch

Elnimeiri, M. and Gupta, P. (2009) “Sustainable Structure of Tall and Special Buildings.” CTBUH 2nd Annual Special Edition, Tall Sustainability, Wiley, 17 (5), pp 881-894.

Eurofer, (2000) “European Steel Industry and Climate Change.” European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industry.

GaBi (2013) “GaBi 4 extension database III: steel module and GaBi 4 extension database XIV: construction materials module.” PE International, Accessed December 1, 2013. www.gabi-software.com

Hammond, G. and Jones, C. (2010). “Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), Version 1.6a.” Sustainable Energy Research Team (SERT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bath: University of Bath.

76 IISI (2013) “The measure of our sustainability, Report of the world steel industry 2004.” International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), Accessed September 12. http://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/bookshop/Sustainability_Report2004/docume nt/2004%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf

IPCC (2014), “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.” International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Accessed April 15, 2014. www.ipcc.ch.

ISSF (2013) “ISSF - Stainless steel LCI spreadsheet.” Institute of Stainless Steel Forum (ISSF), Brussels, Accessed September 12, 2013. http://www.worldstainless.org/Files/issf/non-image- files/PDF/GeneralIntroductiontostainlesssteelLCI1.pdf

Iuorio, O., Landolfo, R. and Ochsendorf, J. (2013) “Embodied Carbon of Lightweight Steel Structures.” Proceeding of XXIV Congresso C.T.A.: The Italian steel days, pp. 333-340.

Kaethner, S. and Burridge, J. (2012) “Embodied CO2 of structural frames.” The Structural Engineer, May, pp. 33-40.

Kendall A. (2014) “Climate change mitigation: Deposing global warming potentials.” Nature Climate Change, 4(5), Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, pp. 331-332.

Khan F. R. and Rankine J. (1981) Tall building systems and concepts. New York City: American Society of Civil Engineering, 1337p.

KPF (2012) “United Tower.” Accessed November 11, 2014. www.kpf.com/project.asp?S=1&ID=246

Lagerblad, B. (2005) “Carbon Dioxide Uptake During Concrete Life Cycle - State of the Art.” Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, CBI, Stockholm.

Lynde, F. C. (1890) Descriptive Illustrated Catalogue of the sixty-eight competitive designs for the Great Tower for London. London: The Tower Company, St. Stephen's Chambers.

Marmon, J., Naugle, M. and Werner, W. (2014) “Buildings instead of Landfills: recycled plastic waste in concrete structures.” Sustainable Structures Symposium, Corey Griffin (ed.), Portland: Portland State University, April 17-18, pp. 247-260.

Moncaster, A.M. and Symons, K.E. (2013) “A method and tool for ‘cradle to grave’ embodied carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350.” Energy and Buildings 66, Cambridge (UK), pp. 514-523.

Moynihan M.C. and Allwood J.M. (2012) “The flow of steel into the construction sector.” in: Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68, Cambridge: University of Cambridge, pp. 88-95.

Munro, D. (2006) “Swiss Re’s Building, London.” Arup, London, Accessed November 11, 2012, 8p. www.epab.bme.hu/oktatas/2009-2010-2/v-CA-B-Ms/FreeForm/Examples/SwissRe.pdf

National Stadium (2014) “National Stadium (Bird’s Nest).” Arup, Accessed on April 30, 2014. www.arup.com/projects/chinese_national_stadium.aspx

77 New York Times (2014), “Moma to raze ex American folk art museum building.” New York Times, Accessed on April 16, 2014. www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/arts/design/moma-to-raze-ex-american- folk-art-museum-building.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ochsendorf, J., Norford, L., Brown, D., Durschlag, H., Hsu, S. L. and Love, A. (2011). “Methods, Impacts and Opportunities in the Concrete Building Life Cycle, Research Report R11-01.” Concrete Sustainability Hub, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Ochsendorf, J.A. (2004) “Sustainable Structural Design: Lessons from History.” Structural Engineering International, 3, pp. 192-194.

Ochsendorf J.A. (1996) “Inca Suspension Bridges.” Department Report 96-8, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University.

PECD (2013) “Project Embodied Carbon Database.” Arup, In-house used tool.

Pullen S. (2000) “Estimating the Embodied Energy of Timber Building Products.” Journal of the Institute of Wood Science, 15 No. 3 (87), pp. 147-151.

Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S. and Bras, B. (2008) “A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment, Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(4), pp. 290-300.

Revit (2014) “Building design and construction software.” Autodesk, Accessed April 1, 2014. www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-revit-family/overview

RICS (2014) “Methodology to calculate embodied carbon in a building’s construction life cycle.” Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, data courtesy of Atkins, London.

Rizk, A. S. (2010) “Structural Design of Reinforced Concrete Tall Buildings.” CTBUH Journal, (1), pp. 34-41.

Sauven, Edward, Buro Happold, personal conversation with John Ochsendorf and Catherine De Wolf, London, November 15, 2012.

Schlaich, Jörg, Schlaich Bergermann & Partner, personal conversation with John Ochsendorf and Catherine De Wolf, Cambridge (MA), October 4, 2012.

Schumaker, J. (2014) “Embodied Carbon Efficiency Tool.” Thornton Tomasetti, Accessed on April 19, 2014. www.thorntontomasetti.com/blog/post/20-Embodied-Carbon-Efficiency-Tool

SEAONC Sustainable Design Committee and SEI Sustainability Committee (2013) “For practicing structural engineers to provide comments to improve MIT Database Inputs Template.” Report by Frances Yang, San Francisco.

SimaPro (2013) “The world’s most widely used LCA software.” SimaPro UK Ltd., Accessed November 12, 2013. www.simapro.co.uk

Simpson, S., Cousins, F., Ayaz, E. and Yang, F. (2010) “Zero Carbon Isn’t Really Zero: Why Embodied Carbon in Materials Cannot be Ignored.” Design Intelligence. Arup, Accessed December 1,

78 2013. www.slideshare.net/enginayaz/zero-carbon-isnt-really-zero-why-embodied-carbon-in-materials- cant-be-ignored

Smith, B.P. and Feldson (2008) “Whole Life Carbon Footprinting”, Simons Developments, The Structural Engineer, 86 (6) pp. 15-16.

SOM (2013) “Environmental Analysis Tool™.” Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Accessed August 30, 2013. www.som.com/publication/environmental-analysis-tool-tm

Struble, L. and Godfrey, J. (1999) “How Sustainable is Concrete? International workshop on sustainable development and concrete technology.” Chicago: University of Illinois.

Stubbles, J. (2007) “Carbon 'Footprints' in U.S. Steelmaking.” Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), Accessed August 30, 2013. http://66.39.14.41/archive/20071120.htm

Tally (2013) “Revit add-in Tally™ (beta version). Real Time Environmental Impact tool. revised Tally Revit Application.” Kieran Timberlake Research Group, Accessed December 30, 2013. www.kierantimberlake.com/pages/view/95/tally/parent:4

The Concrete Centre (2013) “Embodied carbon dioxide (CO2e) of concretes used in buildings.” mpa The Concrete Centre on behalf of the Sustainable Concrete Forum, London.

Umi (2014) “Urban Modeling Interface.” Accessed on May 3, 2014. urbanmodellinginterface.ning.com

USGBC (2013) “LEED v4 for Building Design And Construction.” U.S. Green Building Council or USGBC, Washington D.C., 154p.

Vares, S. and Häkkinen, T. (1998) “Environmental burdens of concrete and concrete products.” Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Building Technology, Espoo, Accessed July 20, 2013. http://www.tekna.no/ikbViewer/Content/739021/doc-21-10.pdf

Webster M. D., Meryman H., Slivers A., Rodriguez-Nikl T., Lemay L. and Simonen K. (2012) “Strucutre and Carbon – How Materials Affect the Climate.” SEI Sustainability Committee, Carbon Working Group, American Society of Civil Engineers or ASCE, Reston.

Weight D.H. (2011) “Embodied through-life carbon dioxide equivalent assessment for timber products.” Institution of Civil Engineers Energy 164, Issue EN4, pp. 167–182.

Wise, C., Pawlyn, M. and Braungart, M. (2013) “Living in a materials world.” Eco-engineering, Nature, 494, pp. 172-175.

Wolfgang, Werner and Dugum, Hussam, Thornton Tomasetti, personal conversation with John Ochsendorf and Catherine De Wolf, Cambridge (MA), July 29, 2013.

WRAP (2014) “Embodied Carbon Database.” UK Green Building Council or UKGBC, Accessed April 14, 2014. http://ecdb.wrap.org.uk

Yang, F. (2014) “Benchmarking Embodied Impact Performance of Structure.” Sustainable Structures Symposium, Corey Griffin (ed.), Portland: Portland State University, April 17-18, pp. 131-146.

Yang, Frances, Arup, personal conversation with Catherine De Wolf, San Francisco, July 11, 2013.

79 Yang, F., Shook, D., Williams, P. and De Wolf, C. (2013) “Embodied carbon: a meeting of the minds and collaboration opportunities.” Arup, SOM, Webcor, MIT, Conference, July 1, San Francisco.

Young, S. B., Shannon T. and Russell A. (2002) What LCA can tell us about the cement industry. Five winds international; World business council for sustainable development, 117p.

Part 2: Stadia references

This section gives the references for the stadia. The material quantities were cross-referenced with the following sources. They are classified per stadium.

Millenium Stadium, Cardiff [1] Design Build Network (2014) “Millennium Stadium, Wales.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.designbuild-network.com/projects/millennium-stadium-wales/ [2] Millennium Stadium (2014) “Facts and Figures.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.millenniumstadium.com/information/facts_and_figures.php.

Allianz Arena, Munich [3] Allianz Arena (2014) “Nuts and Bolts.” Accessed April 15, 2014. www.allianz- arena.de/en/fakten/detaillierte-zahlen/

Joao Havelange Olympic Stadium [4] Design Build Network (2014) “João Havelange Olympic Stadium, Brazil.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.designbuild-network.com/projects/joao-havelange/.

London Olympic Stadium [5] Buro Happold (2013) “London 2012 Olympic Stadium.” Accessed April 20, 2013. www.burohappold.com/projects/project/london-2012-olympic-stadium-132/. [6] Detail Das Architecturportal (2012) “London 2012 – Olympic Stadium.” www.detail- online.com/architecture/news/london-2012-olympic-stadium-019389.html, Detail Magazine 7+8/2012, 2012. [7] National Geographic Channel (2012) “London’s Olympic Stadium.” Accessed August 20, 2012. natgeotv.com/uk/londons-olympic-stadium. [8] Sauven, Edward, engineer at Buro Happold, personal conversation with John Ochsendorf and Catherine De Wolf, London, November 13, 2012.

Wembley Stadium [9] Design Build Network (2014) “Wembley Stadium, London, United Kingdom.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.designbuild-network.com/projects/wembley/. [10] Wembley (2014) “Stats and Facts.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.wembleystadium.com/Press/Presspack/Stats-and-Facts.

Aviva Stadium [11] Design Build Network (2014) “Aviva Stadium, Ireland.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.designbuild-network.com/projects/aviva-stadium/.

80 [12] Kilsaran Build “Case Study: Architectural Concrete at the Aviva Stadium.” Report. [13] McGuirk, Laura, engineer at Kilsaran Build, in personal conversation with Julia Hogroian and Catherine De Wolf, March 18, 2014.

Australia Sydney Stadium [14] Cullen J., Carruth M.A., Moynihan M., Allwood J.M. and Epstein D. (2011) “Learning legacy Lessons learned from the London 2012 Games construction project.” Cambridge University, Olympic Delivery Authority, 031.

Emirates Stadium [15] Association for Project Management (2014) “Emirates Stadium: More Than a World Class Stadium.” Arcadis, AYHplc, Accessed April 2, 2014. www.apm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Arcadis_Presentation_(Resized).pdf. [16] Design Build Network (2014) “Emirates Stadium, United Kingdom.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.designbuild-network.com/projects/ashburton /.

Beijing National Stadium [17] Arup (2012) “Chinese National Stadium.” Accessed August 20, 2012. www.arup.com/Home/Projects/Chinese_National_Stadium.aspx [18] Chinese Architect (2012) “Beijing National Stadium.” Accessed August 20, 2012. www.chinesearchitecture.info/OLYMPICS/OL-001.htm. [19] Design Build Network (2014) “Beijing National Stadium, ‘The Bird’s Nest’, China.” Accessed April 2, 2014. www.designbuild-network.com/projects/national_stadium/.

Jaber Al-Ahmad Stadium [20] Kharafi Group (2012) “Al-Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad International Sports Stadium, Kuwait.” Accessed August 20, 2012. www.makharafi.net/buildings.html. [21] Kuwait City (2012) “Jaber Al-Ahmad International Stadium (60,000).” Accessed August 20, 2012. skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=283227. [22] Stadiony (2012) “Jaber Al-Ahmad International Stadium.” Accessed August 20, 2012. stadiony.net/projekty/kuw/jaber_al_ahmad_stadium.

Part 3: Historic bridges references

This section gives the references for the historic bridges. The material quantities were cross- referenced with the following sources. They are classified per bridge.

[1] Clune, R. (2013) “Algorithm Selection in Structural Optimization.” PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (MA). [2] Ochsendorf, J.A. (2004) “Sustainable Structural Design: Lessons from History.” Structural Engineering International, 3, pp. 192-194.

81 Pont Saint Martin [3] Blake, M.E. (1947) “Ancient Roman Construction in Italy forom the Prehistoric Period to Augustus”, Washington. [4] Frunzio G. and Monaco M. (1998) “An approach to the structural model for masonry arch bridges: Pont Saint Martin as a case study.” Centro Interdipartimentale di Ingegneria per I Beni Culturali, Università Federico II, Napoli, paper in book (Sinopoli [9]) [5] Gneiss rockpack, Geology superstore, Accessed May 10, 2013. www.geologysuperstore.com/product/hornblende-gneiss-rock-pack-1772 [6] O’Connor, C. (1993) Roman Bridges. Cambridge University Press, 235p. [7] O’Connor, C. (1993b) Development in Roman stone arch bridges. University of Queensland, Australia. [8] “Pont Saint Martin”, Locali dautore, Accessed May 2, 2013. http://www.localidautore.com/paesi/pont-saint-martin-1678.aspx [9] Sinopoli, A. (1998) “Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair”, 2nd International Conference, Venice, 6-9 October 1998, pp. 231-238.

Keshwa-Chaka bridge [10] Foer J. (2013) “The Last Incan Grass Bridge. The sixth hidden wonder of South America.” Slate, Accessed May 13, 2013. www.slate.com/articles/life/world_of_wonders/2011/02/the_last_incan_grass_bridge.html [11] Ochsendorf J.A. (1996) “Inca Suspension Bridges.” Department Report 96-8, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University. [12] “The Last Handwoven bridge.” Accessed May 2, 2013. www.atlasobscura.com/places/last- handwoven-bridge

Part 4: Tall building references

Alia, M. M. and Moona, K. S. (2007) “Structural Developments in Tall Buildings: Current Trends and Future Prospects.” Architectural Science Review, 50(3), pp. 205-223, Accessed October 22. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3763/asre.2007.5027

30 St Mary Axe [1] Aldersey-Williams, H. (2011) “Towards biomimetic architecture.” Accessed October 15, 2012. www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v3/n5/full/nmat1119.html [2] Arup (2012) “30 St Mary Axe.” Accessed October 15, 2012. www.arup.com/Home/Projects/30_St_Mary_Axe/ [3] Munro, D. (2006) “Swiss Re’s Building, London.” Arup, London, 8p., Accessed November 11, 2012. www.epab.bme.hu/oktatas/2009-2010-2/v-CA-B-Ms/FreeForm/Examples/SwissRe.pdf [4] Freiberger, M. (2007) “Perfect buildings: the maths of modern architecture.” Plus Magazine, March, Accessed November 1, 2012. www.rigb.org/assets/uploads/docs/PLUS_MAGAZINE_Perfect%20buildings.pdf

The United Tower [5] KPF (2012) “United Tower.” Accessed November 11, 2012. www.kpf.com/project.asp?S=1&ID=246 [6] El Mostafa, Hakam, KIPCO Group, U.R.E., Personal conversation on October 20, 2012. [7] United Tower (2012) “We love the clouds.” 48p., Accessed November 2, 2012. http://www.unitedtowers.net/AxCMSwebLive/upload/utbrochure1_1172.pdf [8] Unitedtowers.net (2012), Accessed October 20, 2012. www.unitedtowers.net/

82 [9] Perime (2012) “United Tower”, Sharq, Kuwait, Accessed November 2, 2012. www.perime.com/projects.cfm [10] UN Data (2012) Accessed November 2, 2012. data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=KUWAIT#Environment

The Shard [11] Ferguson, H. (2012) "Building the Shard." Ingenia, September, 24-30. [12] Kennett, S. (2013) "The Shard: Foot of the Mountain." Building.co.uk, Accessed September 11, 2013. www.building.co.uk/the-shard-foot-of-the-mountain/3162661.article [13] Moazami, K. (2008) and Ahmad Rahimian. "Shard at London Bridge Tower." STRUCTUREmag, June, Accessed September 10, 2013. www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=694 [14] Moazami, K., Parker, J., and Giannini, R. (2010) “Unique Hybrids at London Tallest.” CTBUH 8th World Congress: Steel-Concrete-Steel, Dubai. [15] Thompson, P. (2010) "Shard's Giant Core Shoots up." Steel Construction News 7187: 1-3. [16] WSP (2013) “The Shard.” London: WSP.

Al Hamra Firdous Tower [17] Agarwal, R., Noor, A., Lindsay, H., Neville, M., Mazeika, A., and Sarkisian, M. (2007) “Sculpted High-rise, The Al Hamra Tower.” SOM, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats: Structural Engineers World Congress, Bangalore, India. [18] Gonchar, J. (2012) "Al Hamra Firdous Tower." Architectural Record, May. [19] Haney, G. (2009) "Al Hamra Firdous Tower." Architectural Design, Mar.-Apr. 2009, pp. 38-41. [20] Sarkisian, M., Aybars, A., Neville, M., and Mazeika A. (2012) "Sculpting a Skyscarper." Civil Engineering—ASCE 82.9, pp. 52-61. Business Source Complete.

Willis Tower [21] SkycraperPage (2014) “Willis Tower.” SkyscraperPage.com, Accessed May 1, 2014. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5

World Financial Center [22] Vertigo (1999) “The strange new world of the contemporary city.” Rowan Moore (ed.), Laurence King, Glasgow. [23] Construction Technology (2012) “Tall Buildings-Shanghai World Finance Center, Ahmedabad.” Cept University. [24] Arcelor Mittal (2012) “Shanghai World Financial Center.” Accessed October 10, 2012. www.constructalia.com/english/case_studies/china/shanghai_world_financial_center

Taipei 101 [25] Skyscrapercenter (2014) “Taipei 101.” Skycsrapercenter.com, Accessed May 1, 2014. www.skyscrapercenter.com/taipei/taipei-101/117/ [26] Concretepumping (2014) “World Record Pumping Height Achieved on Tallest Building 2004”, Accessed May 1. http://concretepumping.com/dictionary/index.php/WORLD_RECORD_PUMPING_HEIG HT_ACHIEVED_ON_TALLEST_BUILDING_2004

83 One World Trade Center [27] Tweeten, L. and Maltby, E. (2014) “Inside the tower, The top of America Exclusive: the inside story of building one world trade center.” Time Magazine, March 17.

Shanghai Tower [28] CTBUH YPC (2013) Presentation – Shanghai Tower. Presentation by the Young Professionals Committee of the Council on Tall Buildings on May 22, 2013 at the Chicago Architecture Foundation, Chicago, IL, USA. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=riRVkoUEBP4) [29] Jacobson, C. (2012) “A New Twist on Supertall: An American firm approaches the design of its 121-story, mixed use tower now rising in Shanghai as a vertical collection of neighborhoods.” Architectural Record, May, Accessed October 1, 2012. archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2012/05/Shanghai-Tower.asp [30] Xia, J., Poon, D. and Mass, D.C. (2010) “Case Study: Shanghai Tower.” CTBUH Technical Paper. [31] Gensler Design Update (2010) “Shanghai Tower.” Gensler Publications, Accessed October 1, 2012. gensler.com. [32] Gu, J.P. (2012) “Shanghai Tower: Re-Thinking the Vertical City.” CTBUH Technical Paper. [33] Zhu, Y., Poon, D., Zuo, S. and Fu, G. (2012) “Structural Design Challenges of Shanghai Tower.” CTBUH Technical Paper.

Burj Khalifa [34] Baker, W.F., and Pawlikowski, J.J. (2012) “Higher and Higher: The Evolution of the Buttressed Core.” [35] Baker, W.F. (2012) “The World’s Tallest Building - The Burj Khalifa” [36] Baker, W.F. (2012) “The Burj Khalifa Triumphs - Engineering an Idea: The Realization of the Burj Khalifa” [37] Abdelrazaq, A. “Design and Construction Planning of the Burj Khalifa.” Dubai, UAE [38] Abdelrazaq, A. “Validating the Structural Behavior and Response of Burj Khalifa: Synopsis of the Full Scale Structural Health Monitoring Programs.” [39] Aldred, J. “Burj Khalifa - A new high for high performance concrete.” [40] Baker, W.F., Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, “Tall Buildings and the Burj Khalifa” Interview, Accessed October 20, 2012. http://chicagowindowexpert.com/2010/04/22/bill-baker-of- skidmore-owings-merrill-llp-tall-buildings-and-the-burj-khalifa/ [41] SOM (2012) “Burj Khalifa - ARCHITECT OFFICIAL PROJECT PAGE”, Accessed October 20, 2012. www.som.com/project/burj-khalifa-formerly-burj-dubai

84 Appendices

Appendix A: Nomenclature

A.1. List of acronyms BIM Building Information Models BOM Bill of Materials BOQ Bill of Quantities BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology, available at: http://www.breeam.org CCI Cumulative Climate Impact CIF Carbon Intensity Factor, synonym of ECC

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent deQo database of embodied Quantity outputs, available at: embodiedco2.scripts.mit.edu ECC Embodied Carbon Coefficient EEC Embodied Energy Coefficient GHG Greenhouse Gases GWP Global Warming Potential html HyperText Markup Language ICE Inventory of Carbon & Energy (Hammond and Jones, 2010) ICI Instantaneous Climate Impact IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KPF Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, available at: www.kpf.com LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, available at: http://www.usgbc.org/leed MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology MySQL Open-source relational database management system, named after co-founder Michael Widenius's daughter, My and SQL stands for Structured Query Language PECD Project Embodied Carbon Database, developed by Arup and Climate Earth (Yang, 2014) php Hypertext PreProcessor (backronym), a server-side scripting language RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, available at: www.rics.org SOM Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, available at: www.som.com SQM Structural Material Quantities umi urban modeling interface WRAP Waste Reduction Action Program, developed the wrap embodied carbon database, available at: ecdb.wrap.org.uk

85 A.2. Lexicon

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent The “equivalent” in carbon dioxide of all emitted

(CO2e) greenhouse gases (GHGs). Carbon Dioxide (Only the CO2) ≠ Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), which converts all GHGs to the “equivalent” in CO2. For example, 1 lbs of methane (CH4) is equivalent to 21 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Cradle to Gate The life cycle stages from the material extraction till the finished product.

Cradle to Site The life cycle stages from the material extraction till the product arrives on site.

Cradle to Grave All the life cycle stages: material extraction, processing, product manufacturing, transport to site, construction, use, demolition and either reuse/recycling/landfill.

PROBLEMAllWHY? the life PROBLEM cycle stagesLITERATURE of a buildingRESULTS are illustratedNEXT in Figure A.1. Why embodied?

CRADLE GATE SITE GRAVE

Based on [CLARK, What Colour is your Building?] 4 Figure A.1: Life cycle stages of a building, based on (CLARK, 2013)

Operational energy Energy used for the heating, cooling, hot water, ventilation and lighting of a building.

Embodied energy Energy used for the material extraction, material processing and product manufacturing, the transport of products to the construction site, the construction of a building and the demolition at the end of life. It is all the life cycle energy excluding the operational energy.

86 Whole life cycle energy Whole life cycle energy = operational energy + embodied energy (definition a)

Sometimes, the transport of the building occupants (≠ transport of product), for example commuting of employees for an office building, and their consumption are also considered. The definition of whole life cycle energy then also contains these aspects.

Whole life cycle energy = operational energy + embodied energy + transportation energy + consumption energy (definition b)

In this thesis, when talking about the whole life cycle energy, definition (a) is implied.

Embodied carbon Embodied Energy ≠ Embodied Carbon Embodied carbon corresponds to the emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) to produce the embodied energy. ‘Carbon’ is not the same as ‘energy’, as the GHG emissions depend on the fuel used and the carbon emitted or absorbed by the materials processed

too. For example, processing cement can emit CO2, where timber sequestrates CO2.

Functional unit A specified metric used to normalize the carbon footprint of buildings in order to compare ‘apples to apples’. For example, the useable floor area can be the functional unit, so that the total embodied carbon is divided by the total useable floor area. The GWP is 2 consequently measured in kgCO2e/m . The number of occupants is another example of a functional unit. The

GWP is then measured in kgCO2e/occupant.

Global Warming Potential Measure of embodied carbon of a building project,

expressed in kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e) per functional unit (usually m2).

87 Appendix B: Tables

B.1. Ten first projects in deQo

Program Location Structural System Area (m2) Office, high rise London, UK Steel, diagrid 47,850 Government New Port Beach, USA Composite 8,705 Healthcare San Francisco, USA Concrete 46,755 Healthcare San Francisco, USA Concrete 4,849 Healthcare + Office LA, USA Concrete 6,821 Office CA & Mexico Concrete 7,870 Office, high rise USA Composite 8,367 Office, mid rise Seattle, USA Concrete 89,354 Central Utility Plant LA, USA Composite 6,538 Car Parking USA Concrete 181,951 Table B.1: Ten projects entered through deQo, name made anonymous

Table B.2 gives the material quantities divided into sub- and superstructure and divided by material: concrete (C), hotrolled steel (S) and reinforcement bar (R).

Substructure Superstructure Total Program kg/m2 kg/m2 kg/m2 C S R C S R C S R Office, high rise 195 175 4 195 175 4 Government 262 0 9 317 112 10 579 112 19 Healthcare 507 0 9 488 66 11 995 66 21 Healthcare 827 0 70 404 153 13 1231 153 83 Healthcare + Office 627 0 24 305 75 9 932 75 33 Office 236 0 38 112 71 13 348 71 51 Office, high rise 287 0 10 111 25 4 398 25 13 Office, mid rise 776 0 14 215 45 5 991 45 19 Central Utility Plant 979 0 26 645 179 21 1624 179 47 Car Parking 210 0 7 518 16 24 728 16 31 Table B.2: Material quantities of the 10 projects in Table B.1.1.

Source ECC GWPper material GWPtotal 2 2 Program ECC kgCO2e/kg kgCO2e/m kgCO2e/m C S R C S R Office, high rise LCA 0.16 0.89 0.89 31 156 4 190 Government Arup 0.14 1.41 0.57 83 157 11 251 Healthcare Arup 0.10 0.56 0.57 101 37 12 150 Healthcare Arup 0.15 1.40 0.57 185 215 47 447 Healthcare + Office Arup 0.15 1.42 0.57 139 106 19 263 Office Arup 0.15 1.38 0.56 52 98 29 179 Office, high rise Arup 0.11 1.49 0.57 42 37 8 87 Office, mid rise Arup 0.12 1.48 0.57 124 66 11 201 Central Utility Plant Arup 0.08 1.04 0.43 130 187 20 337 Car Parking Arup 0.15 1.88 0.57 107 30 17 155 Table B.3: ECCs used for the materials and GWP of the 10 projects in Table B.1.1.

88 B.2. Analysis of stadia

unit Millenium Allianz Joao H. London Wembley location Cardiff Munich Rio de J. London London floor area m2 40,000 37,600 34,250 61,575 79,578 number of seats 74,500 68,000 45,000 80,000 90,000 area/seat m2/seat 0.54 0.55 0.76 0.77 0.88 total steel kg 12,000,000 20,000,000 2,700,000 10,700,000 23,000,000 total rebar kg 4,000,000 total concrete kg 40,000,000 256,800,000 96,000,000 102,000,000 216,000,000 steel per area kg/m2 300 532 79 174 289 rebar per area kg/m3 100 0 0 0 0 concrete per area kg/m2 1,000 6,830 2,803 1,657 2,714 steel per seat kg/seat 161 294 60 134 256 rebar per seat kg/seat 54 0 0 0 0 concrete per seat kg/seat 537 3,776 2,133 1,275 2,400 ECC steel kgCO2e/kg 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.88 ECC rebar kgCO2e/kg 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 ECC concrete kgCO2e/kg 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.13 2 EC steel per area kgCO2e/m 264 468 69 155 254 2 EC rebar per area kgCO2e/m 171 0 0 0 0 2 EC concrete per area kgCO2e/m 130 888 364 159 353 EC steel per seat kgCO2e/seat 142 259 53 119 225 EC rebar per seat kgCO2e/seat 92 0 0 0 0 EC concrete per seat kgCO2e/seat 70 491 277 122 312 Table B.4: Data on stadia, five first stadia

unit Aviva Australia Emirates Beijing Jaber Al A. location Dublin Sydney London Beijing Kuwait floor area m2 66,460 160,000 122,000 254,600 400,000 number of seats 51,700 110,000 60,355 91,000 65,000 area/seat m2/seat 1.29 1.45 2.02 2.80 6.15 total steel kg 5,000,000 12,000,000 3,000,000 110,000,000 1,965,000 total rebar kg 10,000,000 10,000,000 total concrete kg 84,000,000 210,000,000 144,000,000 1,300,000,000 288,000,000 steel per area kg/m2 75 75 25 432 5 rebar per area kg/m3 0 63 82 0 0 concrete per area kg/m2 1,264 1,313 1,180 5,106 720 steel per seat kg/seat 97 109 50 1,209 30 rebar per seat kg/seat 0 91 166 0 0 concrete per seat kg/seat 1,625 1,909 2,386 14,286 4,431 ECC steel kgCO2e/kg 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.71 ECC rebar kgCO2e/kg 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 ECC concrete kgCO2e/kg 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.19 2 EC steel per area kgCO2e/m 66 67 22 380 3 2 EC rebar per area kgCO2e/m 0 107 140 0 0 2 EC concrete per area kgCO2e/m 139 197 153 868 137 EC steel per seat kgCO2e/seat 85 97 44 1,064 21 EC rebar per seat kgCO2e/seat 0 155 283 0 0 EC concrete per seat kgCO2e/seat 179 286 310 2,429 842 Table B.5: Data on stadia, five last stadia

89 B.3. Analysis of historic bridges

B.3.a. Calculations Pont Saint Martin

Legend Span drawing 31.4 m other Life time literature 2000 years

Material ECC Density Gneiss 0.017 2610 http://geology.about.com/cs/rock_types/a/aarockspecgrav.htm Limest. 0.017 2500 http://geology.about.com/cs/rock_types/a/aarockspecgrav.htm http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/files/bulk_density_ Soil 0.023 1600 sq_physical_indicator_sheet.pdf

Parts Volume Material Density ECC Weight Weight GWP GWP 3 3 m kg/m kgCO2e/kg kg kg/m kgCO2e/m kgCO2e/m/y Vault 270 Gneiss 2610 0.017 704700 22443 382 0.19 Spandrel 390 Gneiss 2610 0.017 1017900 32417 551 0.28 Limeston Pavi. 42 e 2500 0.017 105000 3344 57 0.03 Parapets 26 Gneiss 2610 0.017 67860 2161 37 0.02 Filling 780 Soil 1600 0.023 1248000 39745 914 0.46 Total 1940 0.97

Table B.6: Calculations Pont Saint Martin

The Pont Saint Martin has a span of approximately 35.6 m with a rise of one-third of the span. The width of the bridge is 5.8m (4.6m between parapets) and the height is 12m (13.6m when counting the parapet). The main material used in the bridge is blocks of local gneiss (O’Connor, 1993). Based on the drawings and descriptions in (Frunzio and Monaco, 1998; Sinopoli, 1998]), the volumes of different parts of the Roman arch could be determined. The detailed calculations are shown in attachment. The volume of the vault, spandrel walls, pavimentum and parapets, which are made of stone, is 686 m3. The densities of the stones (Alden) are set at 2610 and 2500 kg/m3. This part weights 1790 tonnes. The interior part of the bridge, which is filled by 780 m3 of soil, with a density of 1600 kg/m3 (Soil, 2008), weights 1248 tonnes. The ECC factors given by (Hammond and Jones, 2010) for gneiss and limestone are 0.017 kgCO2/kg and 0.023 kgCO2/kg for soil.

90 B.3.b. Calculations Keshwa-Chaka

Legend Span drawing 30 m other Life time literature 600 years

Material ECC Density Stone 0.056 2500 Puna 0.01 395 Sticks 0.01 500

Parts Volume Material Density ECC Weight Weight GWP GWP 3 3 m kg/m kgCO2e/kg kg kg/m kgCO2e/m kgCO2e/m/y Abutments / Stone 2500 0.056 9070 302 16.93 0.03 Cables 1.98 Puna 395 0.01 Ropes 0.6 Puna 395 0.01 3630 121 1.21 1.21 Deck 0.45 Sticks 500 0.01 Total 18.14 1.24

Table B.7: Calculations Keshwa-Chaka

To calculate the embodied carbon of the 30 meter long Keshwa-chaka, a description of the construction components is necessary. The strands of grass used to braid are 45 centimeters (18 inch) long. Over 15240 meters (50000 feet) of grass cord are produced every year. The grass comes from the local mountainside and is manufactured by twisting it by hand. The twenty-four cords are one centimeter (3/8 inch) thick and almost 60 meters (200 feet) long. These cords are twisted into ropes with a diameter of five centimeters (two inches). Next, these ropes are themselves braided in six 45 meters long cables. These are the main structural elements of the grass bridge itself. This first part takes one day and the help of all villagers to accomplish (Ochsendorf, 1996). The second day of the festival, only adult male villagers work on the cutting of the old bridge and the installation of the cables by minimizing the sag in the middle and wrapping and tying them around the stone abutments. The stone abutments are masonry of 9070 kilogram (20000 pounds). The last day, the Chaka-Camayoc or bridge-keeper ties the floor cables together and adds the vertical cords between the floor and the handrails. He adds sticks and matted reeds to create a deck on the floor (Ochsendorf, 1996).

The weight of one cable and decking is 907 kg (4100 pounds – 14*150 pounds = 2000 pounds). The total weight of the bridge is 8000 pounds, which is 3630 kg. The stone abutments are 9070 kg (Ochsendorf, 1996). The grass used for the Keshwa-chaka is cut of the local mountainsides and is typically the Puna grass found in the Andes. The ECC is similar to that of straw, 0.01 kgCO2/kg (Hammond and Jones, 2010).

91 B.4. Analysis of tall buildings

unit Mary Axe United T. The Shard Al Hamra Willis Location London Kuwait London Kuwait Chicago Date 2004 2011 2012 2011 1974 Structural Engineer Arup WSP WSP SOM SOM Steel Reinforced Reinforced Structural System Diagrid Concrete Hybrid Concrete Steel Floor area m2 74,300 98,000 126,712 195,000 416,000 Height m 180 240 306 413 443 Number of floors 41 59 87 80 111 Total steel kg 8,358,000 752,781 12,671,200 50,000 76,000 Total rebar kg 187,035 2,936,146 9,800,000 Total concrete kg 9,351,736 146,807,304 77,040,896 490,000,000 132,115,200 Steel per area kg/m2 112 8 100 0 0 Rebar per area kg/m2 3 30 50 0 Concrete per area kg/m2 126 1,498 608 2,513 318 ECC steel kgCO2e/kg 0.89 0.71 0.89 0.71 0.89 ECC rebar kgCO2e/kg 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 ECC concrete kgCO2e/kg 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 2 EC steel/area kgCO2e/m 100 5 89 0 0 2 EC rebar/area kgCO2e/m 4 51 0 85 0 2 EC concrete/area kgCO2e/m 20 225 97 377 51 Table B.8: Data on stadia, five last stadia

unit WFC Taipei 101 1WTC Shanghai Burj Khalifa New York Location Shangai TaiPei City Shanghai Dubai Date 2008 2004 2014 2014 2010 Leslie E. Thronton T.; Structural Robertson Evergreen Engineer Associates Engineering WSP Thornton T. SOM Trusses & Buttressed Structural System columns Composite Hybrid Concrete Core Floor area m2 381,600 193,400 325,279 521,000 334,000 Height m 492 508 546 632 828 Number of floors 101 106 82 128 162 Total steel kg 13,861,826 48,000,000 28,390,000 Total rebar kg 4,748,813 Total concrete kg 237,440,637 489,600,000 381,600,000 739,820,000 574,480,000 Steel per area kg/m2 36 148 85 Rebar per area kg/m2 12 0 Concrete per area kg/m2 622 2,532 1,173 1,420 1,720 ECC steel kgCO2e/kg 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.71 ECC rebar kgCO2e/kg 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 ECC concrete kgCO2e/kg 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.15 2 EC steel/area kgCO2e/m 32 0 130 0 60 2 EC rebar/area kgCO2e/m 21 0 0 0 0 2 EC concrete/area kgCO2e/m 106 430 153 241 258 Table B.9: Data on stadia, five last stadia