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

net/publication/328749175

Structure and Carbon How Materials Affect the Climate

Technical Report · November 2012

CITATIONS READS
8 2,689

16 authors, including:

Mark Webster Jeralee Anderson

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Sustainable Transport Council
23 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 145 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dirk Kestner Lionel Lemay

Walter P Moore NRMCA
6 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tonatiuh Rodriguez-Nikl on 06 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Structure and Carbon
How Materials Affect the Climate

White Paper Written by:

The Carbon Working Group of the
Structural Engineering Institute’s Sustainability Committee
Mark D. Webster, PE, LEED AP BD+C, Editor
©2012 ASCE
The entire paper is available for download via http://tiny.cc/SEIcarbon.
You are encouraged to freely distribute this document to whoever may benefit from it.
Distribution and use is governed by Creative Commons licensing:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US
 Carbon Working Group

Chair: Mark D. Webster, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

Members: Jeralee Anderson, Greenroads Foundation

Kenneth Bland, American Wood Council
Dirk Kestner, Walter P Moore
Lionel Lemay, National Ready Mix Concrete Association
Emily Lorenz, CTL Group
Lindsey Maclise, Forell/Elsesser Engineers
Ali Mehrabian, University of Central Florida
Helena Meryman, ScrapD
Russ Miller-Johnson, Engineering Ventures
Tona Rodriguez-Nikl, California State University, Los Angeles
Kathrina Simonen, University of Washington
Adam Slivers, KPFF Consulting Engineers
Harinee Trivedi, Burns & McDonnell
Sarah Vaughan, Thornton Tomasetti

Past Member: Won Lee, Forell/Elsesser Engineers

Citation Information:

Webster, Mark D., Helena Meryman, Adam Slivers, Tonatiuh Rodriguez-Nikl, Lionel Lemay,
Kathrina Simonen, Harinee Trivedi, Lindsey Maclise, Dirk Kestner, Kenneth Bland, Won Lee
and Emily Lorenz. “Structure and Carbon – How Materials Affect the Climate.” SEI Sustainability
Committee; Carbon Working Group, November 2012. ASCE.
< http://tiny.cc/SEIcarbon>

(Webster et al. 2012)

ii
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................ 2
Helena Meryman and Mark D. Webster

Chapter 2: Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 4

Helena Meryman

Chapter 3: Uncertainty of Carbon Footprints: Data Quality and Variability................................. 13

Kathrina Simonen

Chapter 4: Contribution of Buildings to Climate Change ............................................................ 16

Lionel Lemay and Mark D. Webster

Chapter 5: Concrete .................................................................................................................. 18

Lindsey Maclise, Won Lee, Lionel Lemay, Emily Lorenz, and Helena Meryman

Chapter 6: Masonry................................................................................................................... 26
Adam Slivers

Chapter 7: Structural Steel ........................................................................................................ 29

Mark D. Webster

Chapter 8: Wood ...................................................................................................................... 34

Harinee Trivedi and Kenneth Bland

Chapter 9: Fiber Reinforced Polymers ...................................................................................... 42

Tonatiuh Rodriguez-Nikl

Chapter 10: Examples............................................................................................................... 49

Dirk Kestner, Lindsey Maclise, and Adam Slivers

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Functionally Equivalent Material Comparison ........................................................ 57

Tonatiuh Rodriguez-Nikl

Appendix B: LCA....................................................................................................................... 58
Kathrina Simonen

Appendix C: LCI ........................................................................................................................ 60

Kathrina Simonen

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this document would like to thank the following individuals who graciously agreed
to review this manuscript either in part or in full.

Jeralee Anderson, Greenroads Foundation

John E. Anderson, Technical Universität München
James D’Aloisio, Klepper, Hahn, & Hyatt
Dave DeLong, CH2M HILL
Ann Edminster, Design AVEnues
Susan Fredholm Murphy, PE International
Karl Haapala, Oregon State University
Holmes Hummel, U.S. Department of Energy
Bruce Lippke, University of Washington
Elaine Oneil, University of Washington
Sarah Vaughan-Cook, Thornton Tomasetti

iv
PREFACE

This paper was written by the Carbon Working Group of the ASCE/SEI Sustainability
Committee. We are a dedicated and concerned group of engineering professionals with design,
industrial, and academic backgrounds. We are united in our passion for addressing the causes
of climate change today through professional practice.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with numerous other regional,
national, and transnational scientific associations, concludes that the carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases (GHG) we are emitting into the atmosphere are putting us at considerable
risk. “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century
is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations,” where very
likely is defined as greater than 90% probability of occurrence (IPCC Synthesis Report, 2007).
The report describes significant impacts under various emissions scenarios. Under a business-
as-usual scenario, temperature rises due to greenhouse gas emissions are expected to cause
very serious changes to food productivity, water security, ecosystem resiliency, coastal
communities, weather patterns, the frequency and severity of storms, and the prevalence of
cardio-respiratory disease. Additional concerns include maintaining peaceful international
relationships amid water and food scarcity and relocating large populations of environmental
refugees (Burke et al. 2009).

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a very long time; the
build-up is accelerating relative to the decay of these gases. The urgency of reducing carbon
emissions in the short term is not widely recognized. A recent report (Committee on America’s
Climate Choices, 2011) by the National Academy of Sciences summarized the necessity of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the near term:

 “The faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks posed by climate change.
Delays in reducing emissions could commit the planet to a wide range of adverse
impacts.”

 “Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before taking action is imprudent because
the effects of greenhouse gas emissions do not fully manifest themselves for decades
and, once manifested, many of these changes will persist for hundreds or even
thousands of years.”

The intent of this white paper is to serve as a primer on greenhouse gas emissions, the most
important of which is carbon dioxide (informally referenced simply as “carbon”), for the structural
engineering community and others with an interest in the carbon impacts of structural materials
and systems. It explains:

 why structural engineers must understand greenhouse gas emissions;

 how the construction of building structural systems contributes to greenhouse gas

emissions; and

 how we as a profession can help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with structural systems.

2
The paper also points to the need for higher quality and more publicly available data relevant to
structural engineers in the U.S. To aid engineers and architects in material selection and design,
the authors hope that individual product manufacturers and trade associations will move toward
engaging third parties to evaluate and certify the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
their products.

Ultimately, the authors hope that this paper will spur actions that will reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with building structures. The materials in the built environment are a
substantial source of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and structural engineers have unique
opportunities to specify materials for construction projects that can significantly affect the
contribution of each project to more climate changes. As structural engineers, our choices make
a difference. We can reduce the risk of destructive climate change impacts by choosing and
using building materials with climate change in mind. This white paper introduces some
strategies structural engineers may use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For further
information, see the SEI Sustainability Committee’s Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural
Engineer (Kestner et al, 2010).

3
CHAPTER 2: CLIMATE CHANGE

Why it matters

What does global warming really mean? Global warming is just that, an increase in the global
average temperature (GAT) over time. Between 1910 and 2005 the GAT has risen by 0.9
degrees Celsius (0.5 °F), with over 60% of the rise occurring since 1970 (IPCC 2007). Why is a
rising GAT significant? This relatively sudden rise is destabilizing to the earth’s weather
systems. This means more frequent and severe storms, new rainfall and drought patterns, and
altered temperature patterns that will make some areas of the planet significantly colder and
some areas much warmer. The warming of the arctic regions will melt ice sheets, cause a rise in
sea level, and put low lying coastal areas and some island nations under water. Coastlines are
typically heavily populated so a rise in sea level would necessitate relocating massive numbers
of people. While the term global warming is technically correct, the phrase global climate
disruption is a much more accurate description. The bottom line is that global warming puts us
all at risk.

Burning fossil fuels is the largest source of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
GHGs in the atmosphere due to human activity are called “anthropogenic.” Carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other GHGs occur both naturally and unnaturally; it is often necessary and important
to distinguish which GHG contributions are anthropogenic.

It is widely established that anthropogenic carbon is largely responsible for global warming. For
most countries fossil fuel usage is a good indicator of its contribution to global warming and its
prosperity. Figure 2.1 shows the fossil fuel use per capita for the 20 nations with the largest
populations. The divergence in fuel use indicates a large disparity between rich, industrialized
nations and poor, developing nations. Predictably, less well-off countries strive for economic
parity; therefore, global emissions may increase as poor nations try to match the industrial
capacity and prosperity of the developed world. Avoiding future increases in emissions while
reducing global poverty is a major challenge to establishing an equitable international climate
policy. The graph in Figure 2.1, makes it clear that the consumption behavior of citizens and
industries in developed nations results in the majority of the carbon emissions. Additionally this
presents a moral conundrum: the populations who have contributed the least GHG emissions
bear the highest risk and will likely suffer the worst effects (famine, drought); they are the most
likely to end up as environmental refugees. Over the last century Sub-Saharan Africans have
experienced an increase in climatic disasters (floods, droughts, cyclones); in fact, Africa is the
continent most vulnerable to climate change and the least able to cope with its effects.

The cumulative CO2 emissions for the top ten emitters are shown in Figure 2.2. The United
States is responsible for 28% global anthropogenic CO2 (The World Bank, 2010). A discussion
of environmental ethics is beyond the scope of this document, but it is an important topic to
reflect on alongside considerations for global security. A large population of environmental
refugees across continents is politically destabilizing and therefore risky for everyone.

4
 Figure 2.1. CO2 emissions per capita from fossil fuel use in 2008, showing data for the world’s
20 most populous nations. (Image by Helena Meryman / Data sources: CDIAC, 2011; CIA,
2012)

There are two options for responding to global warming: 1) adapt to the effects of increasing
climate disruption without any mitigation of the causes, or 2) adapt and mitigate. The level of
atmospheric carbon is already past the point where mitigation alone will avert all the
consequences of global warming (Rockström 2009). Some impacts, like abnormal increases in
species extinction will be permanent. Planning for adaptation is essential, but without an
aggressive mitigation strategy the capacity of many societies to successfully adapt will likely be
critically challenged. NASA climate scientist James Hansen has garnered considerable support
for his assertion that 350 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon is a threshold
concentration; over time concentrations above this will result in a GAT that is significantly
destabilizing (Hansen 2008).

This document provides information to help structural engineers understand the global warming
impact of the materials they use, with the hope that this will contribute to the mitigation effort.
Below is a primer on the key terms that describe the drivers of climate change. This includes
how carbon and other greenhouse gases alter the climate; and how soot and deforestation are
accelerating factors.

5
 Figure 2.2. Since the Industrial Revolution, the United States has put more CO 2 into the
atmosphere than the emissions of the next three largest emitting countries combined
(Germany, China and The Russian Federation). (Image by Helena Meryman / Data
source: The World Bank, 2010)

Greenhouse Effect

The term “greenhouse effect” is used to describe how carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
gases in our atmosphere warm the Earth and its lower atmosphere. These gases allow visible
light to enter but obstruct escaping heat. The sun imparts energy to the Earth in the form of
electromagnetic radiation and simply transfers its energy to matter by heating it. When the Earth
radiates this solar energy back out in the form of infrared radiation (heat), greenhouse gases
(GHGs) reflect this heat in all directions, including back down toward earth. This effect, identified
in 1824, keeps the planet from being extremely cold, and so is necessary for civilization as we
know it. However, the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has increased dramatically
since the dawn of the industrial revolution in 1800.

The increase in GHGs in the atmosphere means more heat is reflected back down toward earth,
and this is increasing the GAT. While CO 2 is not the most potent GHG, human activity has
generated more CO2 than any other GHG, and therefore it has had the largest cumulative effect.

6
The net exchange over time between incoming and outgoing radiation determines the “radiative
forcing” (RF) of the climate system, measured in watts per square meter. The IPCC reported the
additional RF caused by the increase in concentration of each type of greenhouse gas
associated with human activities to determine which GHGs were the real climate drivers
between 1750 and 2005. The contribution of CO2 is more than triple any other driver at about
1.6 watts/m2, while methane is second at 0.5 watts/m2 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Global
Warming FAQ n.d.).

Rising Concentration of Carbon Dioxide

For all of human existence, roughly 200,000 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
ranged from about 190 to 290 parts per million (ppm). Historical carbon and temperature data is
available from the Vostok and Epica ice cores which reach 400,000 and 800,000 years back
into the record. These collections show that Earth has gone through a number of glacial and
interglacial periods [Vostok (Petit 1999), Epica (Monnin 2004)]. The historical data sets along
with more recent ice cores (Law Dome 2011) and direct CO 2 measurements from Mauna Loa
Observatory (Tans 2012) show that the recent temperature changes and carbon concentrations
indicate unprecedented rates of change and values (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Historical Atmospheric CO2. (Image by Cook 2012 / Data sources: Vostok Ice
Core, Law Dome Ice Core, Mauna Loa Observatory)

7
In April 2012 the global average concentration of CO2 was 394 ppm (Conway 2012). The global
annual mean growth rate for the concentration of CO2 fluctuates yearly but overall is increasing.
In 2010 the annual mean growth rate was 2.36 ppm, in 2011 it was 1.81 ppm. The average
growth rate from 2002 to 2011 was the 2.01 ppm/year; for the previous ten years it was 1.58
ppm/yr (Conway 2012).

The Mauna Loa data (Figure 2.4) constitutes the longest record of direct measurements of CO 2
in the atmosphere. The data collection was started by C. David Keeling in 1958 at a facility of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and it continues to this day. The
observatory site was chosen because it is surrounded by a huge lava field, without any
vegetation or soil. This allows scientists to measure “background” air and avoid sharp
fluctuations due to emissions sources and sinks. The Mauna Loa data has consistently recorded
an annual increase in atmospheric CO 2.

Figure 2.4. Monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa

Observatory, Hawaii. The black curve represents the seasonally corrected
data (Tans 2012).

Carbon buildup

Greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. Each gas has a different rate of decay. As Figure
2.5 shows, a third of the CO2 emitted today remains remain in the atmosphere in the year 2112
and one fifth will still remain in the year 3011. The carbon “spent” tomorrow does not replace
today’s carbon, it is added to it, resulting in carbon build-up. The decay rate of each GHG is

8
therefore fundamental to determining its potential to contribute to global warming. The carbon
we “spend” today will continue warming the earth for thousands of years.

Figure 2.5. Decay rate of CO2 (Hansen, 2007)

The enduring impacts of carbon build-up (Figure 2.6), makes the case for pursuing adaptation
planning and mitigation strategies concurrently. It is crucial to understand that Figure 2.6
illustrates a scenario that includes major CO 2 emissions mitigation; the brown line shows that
anthropogenic emissions are dramatically reduced in the near term and approach zero within
the next two centuries. Even so, the concentration on CO 2 remains high (purple line) and the
warming effects are significant.

Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Many gases contribute to the greenhouse effect, but the warming potency of the gases varies
widely. By far the most abundant human-generated greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO 2),
but nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) are present in significant amounts and are more
potent warmers. The GWP of any gas is a measure of how much it contributes to global
warming compared to how much the same mass of carbon dioxide contributes. Thus, by
definition, the GWP of carbon dioxide is 1. GWP depends on:
 how well a gas absorbs infrared radiation (the radiative forcing, RF, described earlier)
 how quickly it decays from the atmosphere. Because the GWP of a gas is affected by its
decay rate, GWP must be considered for a specific span of time, for example the next
10, 100 or 500 years.
The 100-year frame is most common. At 100 years, the GWP of methane is 25 and that of
nitrous oxide is 298 (IPCC 2007, volume1, chapter 2). That means that one ton of methane

9
causes 25 times more warming than one ton of carbon dioxide. In this report, all GWP values
use the 100-year time frame, unless noted otherwise1.

Figure 2.6. Long term and residual effects of elevated atmospheric CO 2.(IPCC, 2007)

Carbon Dioxide Equivalency (CO2e)

Carbon dioxide equivalency is a common term used to discuss GWP. It is commonly

abbreviated as CO2e or sometimes CDE. CO2e (the notation used throughout this paper)
represents the global warming potential of a mixture of gases in known amounts as an
equivalent amount of CO2 2. To convert non-CO2 emissions into CO2e, the mass of each gas is
multiplied by its GWP characterization factor (e.g. 1kg CH4 = 25kg CO2e). It is important that the
GWP values used are all from the same time scale or the result is meaningless.

1
In some cases the sources cited in this report use a different time frame for GWP or do not state their
assumptions at all. In such cases the authors simply state the assumptions made and take this into
consideration in any subsequent analysis.

2
There is a second meaning of CO2e used more in climate science and policy than industrial GHG
accounting: CO2e can refer to the increase in CO2 concentration (in parts per million/volume) required to
cause the same increase in radiant forcing as a given set of greenhouse gases. This is measure of an
instantaneous effect. This meaning will not be used in this report.

10
Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprint

Often a material or process is described as having a certain “embodied energy.” This is

different, yet related to embodied carbon and climate impact. In this context, the embodied
energy content is a quantification of the energy flow. Take a stick of dimensional lumber as an
example: A simple accounting of the embodied energy would include the energy required to cut
the tree from the forest, transport the trees to the mill, mill the timber, dry the lumber, and
transport the lumber to the fabrication shop and/or construction site; the energy for each part is
ascribed to the mass undergoing the process. The embodied energy of the final product is the
summation of those process energies attributable to its mass. Embodied energy 3 is typically
reported in thermal or electrical units, but accounting does not generally track the source of the
energy. Embodied energy gives a sense of the energy intensity of a product, it does not always
describe the environmental impact or carbon intensity. For example, if manufacturing is
powered by site-generated renewable energy the carbon emissions of that power use could be
negligible. The company Alcoa, for instance, a manufacturer of electricity-intensive aluminum,
located its smelting plants in Iceland where low carbon hydro and geothermal power is
available. However, the vast majority of building materials rely heavily on fossil-fuel-based
energy.

“Carbon footprint” or sometimes ”embodied carbon,” refers to the amount of net carbon emitted
to produce a certain product or process. It cannot be determined from embodied energy unless
the energy sources and fuel types are quantified for each part of the process. For example,
energy produced using coal or diesel fuel will have a different carbon emission impact than
energy produced with natural gas. The carbon footprint includes considerations like any
sequestered carbon and carbon emissions from non-energy sources like the CO2 liberated from
limestone in the cement manufacturing process. For the purposes of this white paper,
“embodied carbon” and “carbon footprint” are expressed in terms of CO2e unless otherwise
noted.

Accelerating Factors

Black Carbon - Particulate emissions from biomass burning, solid fuel combustion and diesel
exhaust are known as “black carbon,” or more commonly as “soot.” Black carbon emissions
enter the atmosphere and mingle with other naturally occurring and anthropogenic aerosols. All
aerosols cause some scattering of radiation, which can result in a cooling effect, but black
carbon is accelerating global warming. The particles absorb radiation in the lower atmosphere
(RF = 0.9 watts/m2), reflecting heat back toward Earth. This is most pronounced over ice fields
and other high albedo surfaces. Albedo is the portion of solar radiation reflected from a surface.

Black carbon destabilizes glaciers and snow pack in two ways: A brown cloud over a high
albedo surface will absorb a lot of light and radiate that energy back as heat. Second, when
black carbon particles settle on the ice surface, the albedo is reduced and the surface absorbs

3
Embodied energy can also refer to the fuel value of the material.

11
more heat which promotes melting (University of California San Diego 2008). This mechanism is
a concern for ice-covered regions like the arctic and the Himalayas. In these regions black
carbon may be the primary driver of warming and melting. Reducing black carbon would have
immediate benefits because it does not accumulate and generally only lingers in the
atmosphere for less than two weeks. The following chapters in this paper do not include the
black carbon attributed to materials because comprehensive data specific to materials does not
yet exist. As a very general guide, materials produced using coal, transported by ships (using
bunker fuels) or in poorly regulated facilities will have higher black carbon impacts.

Deforestation - Reducing forests has a corollary effect of leaving more carbon in the
atmosphere. Healthy forests act as a buffer against global warming, taking up CO 2 and storing
carbon in the trees and soils. When deforested areas are clear cut or converted into rangeland
or intensive palm or sugar plantations, the capacity of the vegetation and soil to store carbon is
significantly reduced. Deforestation and carbon impacts of wood and wood products are
discussed in detail in the wood section of this report.

12
CHAPTER 3: UNCERTAINTY OF CARBON FOOTPRINTS: DATA QUALITY AND
VARIABILITY
This paper relies upon multiple sources of data to represent average embodied carbon of
primary structural materials. Typically this data is obtained from Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
databases which collect and report results using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods to
quantify the total life cycle impacts of a product or process. For additional information on
available LCI resources and LCA methodology see Appendices B and C.

To be used most effectively in comparing materials or products, carbon footprints should be

presented with evaluations of data quality (e.g. how representative, consistent and/or
comprehensive the data is) and variability (e.g. standard deviation and statistical distribution).
Unfortunately, most LCI datasets do not include statistical variability. What follows is a
description of the key factors that should be considered when evaluating data quality and
variability.

Data Quality

While both qualitative and quantitative methods exist for reporting data quality there is neither
consensus on the preferred method nor consistency in reporting the data. Many databases
available for use do not reference uncertainty. Others use inconsistent and/or incomplete
methods of characterizing data quality. When evaluating LCA data quality typical factors that are
addressed (Per ISO14044, 2006) include: the timeliness, geographic and technical relevance,
precision, completeness, representativeness, consistency, reproducibility, sources and
uncertainty of the information (e.g. data, models and assumptions). An explanation of some of
the relevance of these items to structural materials follows:

1. Timeliness: LCI data can be assessed by how recently it was compiled. While not
necessarily inaccurate based upon age, data should be assessed to determine if
manufacturing process or energy source changes have occurred since it was collected.

2. Geographic Relevance: Data is often developed from regional data, resulting in

questionable applicability to other regions or countries. Given that energy consumption
is often a significant contribution to the environmental impact of manufacturing, the
choice of energy ‘mix’ (e.g. regional vs. national totals) to use is a critical variable in
LCI. Additionally, agricultural impacts have significant regional differences and thus
using geographically specific forest product data is particularly important.

3. Technical Relevance: There is often more than one way to produce a product, which
can have a significant impact on the resulting environmental impact. For example, as
discussed in the steel section, producing steel using a basic oxygen furnace (BOF)
consumes significantly more energy than producing it in an electric arc furnace (EAF).
The World Steel LCI database (World Steel, 2010) does not yet have data (collection is
in process) from three U.S. manufacturers as would be required to publicly share this
information. Without U.S. specific data published the available data for steel must be
extrapolated from global numbers and thus does not represent U.S. practice well.

4. Completeness: In order to compile an LCI, the quantities of materials, energy inputs

and processes must be determined and the environmental impacts of each process
evaluated. In some instances, primary data is collected: manufacturers can be

13
 surveyed to determine actual materials used; fuel bills can be quantified; or emissions
can be directly measured. In other instances the data is estimated based on
extrapolation from other similar processes or generated from engineering principles. In
other instances, the impacts are assumed to be small even though they are unknown.
An example of incomplete data is demonstrated in the concrete section of this paper.
Admixtures are assumed to be negligible CO2e contributors but some chemical
admixtures may have significant impacts. Current LCI data for admixtures is
incomplete in this area.

5. Consistency: Ideally all data used in an LCA is tracked and reported in a consistent
manner addressing issues such as: the scope (e.g. worker transportation, facility
operations etc.), the life cycle phases (e.g. cradle to gate, to site, to grave etc.) and
environmental impacts (e.g. CO 2 vs. CO2e). Comparing or compiling data created
based on different fundamental assumptions can deliver meaningless results.

Currently the quality of the data must be assessed on a case by case basis using the best
judgment of the practitioner. Standards for accounting and reporting carbon footprints of
products are still in development. (CEN, WRI/WBCSD, ASTM, ISO)

Data Variability

When looking to use LCI data to inform design decisions, industry average data can be
inadequate. A good example is concrete carbon footprints discussed in Chapter 5 in more
detail. Given the wide range of concrete mixes used in the U.S. (different strengths, set times,
cement proportions), a probable maximum value could be as much as twice the industry
average. Because manufacturing process and mix designs vary widely, an industry average
value for concrete may be less reliable than regional or site-specific data. Known process
differences exist such as EAF/BOF in steel production or wet/dry processes for cement and
whenever possible should be taken into account. When there are significant variations of fuel
types used and plant efficiencies using industry average data may not effectively capture the
statistical relevance of differences between options. Plant-specific data and/or reporting results
as a range will be of greater value.

When comparing between alternates, engineers should be able to put variation and precision of
the LCI data in context. Given the lack of variability published in current LCI data, this is not
possible. Design practitioners should continue to push for information on the variability of LCI
data presented for their use. The data used in this paper references ‘best available’ sources of
industry average data and while each section includes some evaluation of data quality,
variability is not addressed because LCI data does not typically include this.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Most carbon accounting methods are based on established LCA standards (ISO 14020, 14025,
14040, 14044). While the results from a conventional LCA can be useful in identifying the
materials and processes generating large environmental impacts, the standards explicitly
prohibit the use of the results for ‘comparative assertions’ (declaring one product as ‘better’ than
another) unless prescriptive processes are followed to ensure that the analysis is comparing
‘apples-to-apples’. See Appendix B for more details about LCA. As noted elsewhere in this

14
paper, it is important to recognize that the information and analysis presented within this
document should thus be used to identify ‘hot-spots’ (processes with significant environmental
impact) and motivate system improvements rather than to compare one material against
another.

Some suggestions for engineers interested in improving the quality and value of LCI data in
design decision-making include:

1. Use LCA methodology. ISO standards have been developed to help ensure rigorous
use of LCA methods and data and provide a good framework for evaluating data and
results.

2. Request uncertainty/variability information from suppliers and trade organizations to

help motivate the release of this data.

3. Ask for the meta-data (data about the data) to be able to critically evaluate LCIs before
attempting to use to inform decisions.

4. Keep relative uncertainty and statistical significance in mind when comparing

alternatives.

15
CHAPTER 4: CONTRIBUTION OF BUILDINGS TO CLIMATE CHANGE

While this white paper primarily addresses the significant impact of building materials on the
climate, building energy use during operations today contributes more to climate change than
the combined impacts of building construction, renovation, and demolition (Figure 3.1). In the
pie chart, most building construction activities are included in the industry sector (except for
comparatively small construction-related transportation impacts), while building-related
emissions due to energy use are included in all non-transportation sectors. In addition to making
smart choices about materials, building designers therefore need to reduce energy use (and
shift to clean energy sources) to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Residential
Industry: 29% Buildings: 21%

Commercial
Buildings: 19%
Transportation: 31%

Figure 3.1. 2008 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by sector (DOE 2009).

Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, both measures of environmental impact,
are important parameters in the discussion of life-cycle assessment (LCA). LCA attempts to
quantify such environmental impacts over the life of a product, process, or service. LCA is
sometimes used to measure the environmental impact of buildings and other structures
throughout their entire life cycle. Generally, a building or building product life-cycle can be
divided into five phases: material acquisition, manufacturing, construction, operational phase,
and end-of-life (demolition, reuse, or recycling). See Appendix B for more information about
LCA.

LCA studies indicate that the embodied impacts associated with building materials (including
structural materials and other finishes and equipment) comprise a relatively small part of the
total environmental impact over the life cycle of a structure, with impacts from heating and
cooling typically far outweighing the materials impacts (Guggemos and Horvath 2005, Marceau
and VanGeem 2007, Ochsendorf et al. 2011). For example, the study by Ochsendorf et al.
found that, for the hypothetical buildings studied, 88 to 98 percent of the greenhouse gas
emissions over a life of 60 years were due to energy use. The non-profit group Architecture

16
2030 estimates that the embodied carbon in construction and materials for a typical building is
approximately 5 to 8% of total carbon emissions over the entire life cycle of a building.

Structural materials contribute about 50% of the total materials-related carbon emissions for a
typical building (Morris 2010). Based on this 50% contribution, structural materials contribute
about 3 to 4% of total carbon emissions for a typical building over a 50-year life cycle, based on
the Architecture 2030 estimates. Webster (2004) found that in North America, the relative life-
cycle carbon emissions due to building structural materials alone can range from 1 to 16 percent
for a 50-year building life, depending upon the building type, energy efficiency, and location.

Another factor affecting the relative contribution of materials is building life. Most LCA studies
assume that building lifespans are 50 years or greater. Many buildings do not survive this long.
A Minnesota study of demolition records found that over 60% of the demolished concrete
buildings were less than 50 years old, and roughly 10% were less than 25 years old (O’Connor
2004). The numbers were even more striking for the steel-framed buildings: more than 80% of
these buildings were less than 50 years old when demolished, and 40% less than 25 years old.
For these short-lived buildings, the embodied impacts of the structural system could easily
exceed 1/3 of the total life-cycle building impacts for buildings that are highly energy efficient.
The implications are two-fold: strategically reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with
structural materials is more important than implied by LCA studies that assume long building
lifes, and design for adaptability and resilience to extend building life is a critical carbon-
reduction strategy.

Because of the high impact of life-time energy use, the green building movement has primarily
focused on improving operating efficiencies to reduce carbon emissions, with some success.
Building energy efficiency is likely to continue to improve as net-zero energy buildings become
more common and the electrical grid moves towards more renewable resources driven by
regulatory incentives. As a result, the relative embodied impacts of building materials will likely
grow. Material-related carbon emission reductions also have a near-term impact on climate
change, when it is most needed, whereas reductions due to operating energy improvements are
spread out over decades. To decrease our risk of exposure to disastrous climate-related events,
we must not only reduce emissions from building operations but also reduce embodied
emissions in building materials including structural materials. The success of this task depends
in large part upon structural engineers who understand the emissions associated with the
materials they use and who can use data, design, and material research to reduce the carbon
emissions associated with their projects. In addition, it is important for the structural engineer to
understand how structure interacts with mechanical systems and other building design
parameters so as to optimize energy efficiency and reduce emissions over the full life-cycle of a
building, for example by elimination of thermal bridging, attention to coordination of the structure
with the insulation and air barrier details, and the use of thermal mass.

17
CHAPTER 5: CONCRETE

Overview

Concrete is one of the most widely used building materials in the United States, and is often
cited as the most widely used man-made material in the world. In the last decade, global use of
concrete has doubled. The four basic components common to all concrete are Portland
cement, water, coarse aggregate (gravel or crushed stone), and fine aggregate (sand) (Figure
5.1). In addition, there are many other ingredients that are often added to concrete to improve
both fresh and hardened properties. These additional ingredients include supplemental
cementitious materials (e.g., fly ash, slag cement and silica fume), chemical admixtures (e.g.,
water-reducers, set-retarders, set accelerators and plasticizers), and fiber reinforcement.
Reinforcing steel, which is included in the majority of concrete used in structural applications, is
covered in the Steel section of this document.

Table 5.1. Percentage of material per yard of concrete (Kosmatka et al. 2002)
Material Volume of Concrete
Cement 7% - 15%
Water 15% - 20%
Coarse Aggregate 30% - 50%
Fine Aggregate 25% - 30%

Air: 6%
Cement: 7%-15%

Water: 15%-20%

Fine Aggregate: 25%-

30%

Gravel: 30%-50%

Figure 5.1. Typical composition of concrete by volume (courtesy National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association).

18
Concrete is a composite and heterogeneous material whose component ingredients can vary
widely in proportion based on the performance requirements of the concrete. Because the
proportions of the constituent materials of concrete can vary so significantly, it follows that the
carbon emissions associated with any given concrete mix can also vary significantly. For this
reason, quantifying the carbon emissions associated with all concrete mixes with a single value
can obscure areas where improvements can be realized. In the following sections, the carbon
emissions associated with the various components of concrete are discussed in greater detail.
With this information, the carbon emissions associated with individual concrete mixes can be
better understood.

Carbon Emissions from Cement Manufacturing

Portland cement is a grayish powder that serves as the “binder” in concrete. (Because the vast
majority of cement used in modern concrete is Portland cement, the terms cement and Portland
cement are often used interchangeably, as is done in this document.) Cement reacts
chemically with water through a hydration process to form reaction products that become the
hardened cement paste matrix that binds together the aggregate in concrete. The manufacture
of cement is a highly energy-intensive process and results in significant CO 2 emissions.
Cement is used in the smallest proportion of the four primary components of concrete, but it
typically contributes well over 90 percent of the total emissions associated with the concrete.
For this reason, cement is discussed in the greatest detail in this section.

Cement manufacturing requires energy and the subsequent generation of CO 2. For the most
part, CO2 is generated from two different sources during the cement manufacturing process:
1) use of fossil fuels in the burning process (approximately 40% of the CO2 generated), and
2) calcination, when calcium carbonate is heated and broken down to calcium oxide with the
release of CO2 (approximately 60% of the CO2 generated).
Calcination of Cement

Portland cement is produced by the fine grinding and blending of Portland cement clinker and a
small amount of gypsum and limestone powder (roughly 5-8% percent by weight of the resulting
cement). Portland cement clinker is composed primarily of oxides of calcium, silicon, aluminum,
and iron and is produced in large kilns by heating raw materials that provide these chemical
constituents. The raw materials include limestone, sand, clay, and iron ore. These raw
materials undergo a high-temperature, chemical conversion within the kilns to form an
intermediate material known as clinker. The largest component of clinker is calcium oxide
(CaO), comprising roughly 65 percent by weight of the clinker. The calcium oxide required to
produce clinker is typically sourced from limestone (calcium carbonate, CaCO 3). During its
passage through the kiln, the high temperatures cause calcium carbonate to decompose into
calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO 2) in a process known as calcination.

CaCO3 + Heat → CaO + CO2

The direct release of CO2 from chemical decomposition of limestone during calcination is the
primary source of the carbon emissions associated with cement production. During the

19
production of 1 ton of clinker (containing 65 percent by weight of CaO), the calcination of
limestone generates 0.51 tons of CO 2 (van Oss 2005). For cement composed of 95 percent
clinker by weight, calcination of limestone generates 0.48 tons of CO 2 per ton of cement.
Concrete that is crushed and exposed to air will absorb the CO2 released from calcination.
Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels during Cement Manufacturing

To bring about conditions sufficient to produce the chemical conversion of the raw materials into
clinker, the kilns must be heated to very high temperatures, which reach approximately 1450 ºC
in their hottest zones. In order to generate such high temperatures, energy is supplied through
the burning of fuel. Coal is the primary fuel source burned for heating cement kilns in the United
States. Other minor fuel sources include petroleum coke, natural gas, and waste fuels (such as
used tires or spent solvents). The burning of fuel produces CO2 emissions as a direct result of
the oxidation of carbon during combustion. Fuel burning is the second major source of CO2
emissions associated with the manufacture of cement, with roughly 40% of the CO2 impact of
cement coming from the fuel combustion process. These additional CO2 emissions are the
direct result of the oxidation of carbon during coal combustion.

The amount of energy required to operate a cement kiln (and thus the amount of fuel that must
be burned) varies depending on the specific type of kiln that is used. Several advances have
occurred in cement kiln technology over the years that have improved energy efficiency
significantly. There are a number of kiln types currently in use within the U.S. and around the
world that vary in process and which have varying energy requirements. Currently the four main
types of cement production used in the United States are wet, long dry, dry with preheater and
dry with preheater and precalciner. The thermal energy required between these four types of
production can vary widely, with the preheater and precalciner kilns using 85% less thermal
energy than wet kilns on average (use of wet kilns is decreasing). Because the amount of CO2
released during fuel burning will vary not only with fuel type but also with kiln type, it is difficult to
assess carbon emissions associated with fuel burning with a single number. However, using
average data, Van Oss and Padovani (2003) computed a value of 0.43 tons of CO2 emissions
from fuel combustion per ton of clinker produced in the U.S. For cement composed of 95
percent clinker by weight, fuel combustion would generate 0.41 tons of CO2 per ton of cement.

To summarize, the two primary sources of carbon emissions in cement manufacturing are the
calcination of limestone and the burning of fuel. These result in roughly 0.48 and 0.41 tons,
respectively, of CO2 emissions per ton of cement produced. In total, approximately 0.89 tons of
CO2 are released for each ton of cement that is produced. Based upon data from the Cement
Sustainability Initiative, the total carbon footprint for concrete ranges from approximately +50%
to -20% from average depending on manufacturing efficiency and fuel source. In addition to
these two primary sources of CO 2 emissions, there are a number of ancillary processes that are
tied to the cement production process that also require energy use that emits CO2. These minor
ancillary processes, similar for many types of building materials, include mining and transport of
raw feed materials for the kilns, operating electricity for the cement plant, and grinding of the
clinker with gypsum to produce cement.

20
Embodied CO2 in Concrete

The process of mining sand and gravel, crushing stone, combining the materials in a concrete
plant and transporting concrete to the construction site requires comparatively little energy and
therefore only emits a relatively small amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The amounts of CO 2
embodied in concrete are primarily a function of the cement content in concrete mixtures.

Concrete uses between 7% and 15% cement by mass depending on the performance
requirements for the concrete. The average quantity of Portland cement is around 250 kg/m3
(420 lb/yd3). This average quantity has consistently decreased with better optimization of
concrete mixtures and increased use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) that can
improve the strength and durability characteristics of concrete. As a result, approximately 100 to
300 kg of CO2 is embodied in every cubic meter of concrete (170 to 500 lb per yd 3) produced or
approximately 5% to 13% of the weight of concrete produced, depending on the mixture
proportions.

Compared to cement, the other primary components of concrete (sand, coarse aggregate and
water) have a much lower manufacturing intensity. However they do require processes that
result in carbon emissions. Producing sand and aggregate for concrete can include
mining/quarrying, crushing, washing, sieving, and transportation. Water used for concrete is
typically potable and comes from the municipal water supply. Water from the municipal water
supply has undergone standard purification processes that include filtration and disinfection.
The processes associated with producing concrete aggregates and water are considerably less
energy-intensive than the manufacture of cement, and have significantly lower associated
carbon emissions. However, particularly in high cement replacement mixes, it is important to
include these values in determining the carbon impact of the concrete mix.

In addition to the aggregates and water, admixtures such as water-reducers and plasticizers are
common ingredients in concrete and most are manufactured products with associated carbon
emissions. However, the total mass of admixtures used in concrete is typically considerably less
than 1% and is therefore not required to be included in the LCA of concrete based on the
guidelines provided by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry LCA guidelines.
(Marceau, et at, 2007) While this is a generally accepted practice, little information is known
about the possible life cycle impacts of admixtures and therefore additional research is required
to more accurately determine the carbon impacts of the use of these types of materials.

Carbon Emissions of Concrete

Given that cement has the highest embodied carbon of all of the components of concrete, the
carbon emissions of concrete can be estimated using the quantity of cement used per unit
volume of concrete. This information can be obtained from the mix proportions of the concrete.
As an example, the carbon emissions associated with a concrete mix containing 500 lb of
cement per cubic yard of concrete is estimated at 445 lb CO2 per cubic yard of concrete (500
lb*0.89 lb CO2/lb of cement = 445 lb CO2 per cubic yard of concrete).

Since the carbon emissions associated with concrete are largely governed by the quantity of
cement contained in the concrete, the carbon intensity of the concrete can be reduced by

21
lowering the cement content. A concrete mix used for a low-strength and/or low-performance
application (e.g., a slab-on-grade) may require only half of the cement needed to produce a
high-early-strength and/or high-performance application (e.g., a post-tensioned girder). It is
evident then that when quantifying carbon emissions of concrete for a given project, the
assessment should be done on an application-by-application basis (e.g., slabs, columns, walls)
using the mix design information for each different concrete used per application.

Total Carbon Emissions from Concrete Use

Because the embodied carbon of concrete is largely dominated by the embodied carbon of
cement, cement production and usage can serve as a useful proxy for assessing the overall
carbon emissions associated with concrete use. In 2010, roughly 77 million tons of cement
were consumed in the United States (Van Oss 2011). The majority of cement consumed in the
U.S. was produced domestically. Approximately 69 million tons of cement was produced in the
U.S. in 2010 and the remainder was imported from other countries. The countries from which
the U.S. imported the largest quantities of cement in recent years are China, Canada, and
South Korea. The amount of CO2 from cement manufacturing in the U.S. is approximately 1.5%
of the total CO2 emissions in the U.S. Globally cement manufacturing contributes to 6% of CO2
emission, generally due to less-efficient manufacturing plants in other countries. While cement
is produced in nearly every country in the world, China leads the way with 54% of global
production compared to 2% in the U.S.

Carbonation and Accounting for CO2 Absorption

What is it?

Carbonation is a naturally occurring process by which CO 2 penetrates the surface of hardened

concrete and chemically reacts with cement hydration products to form carbonates. For in-
service concrete, carbonation is a slow process with many dependent variables. The rate
decreases in proportion to the square root of time. This is because carbonation decreases
permeability and concrete carbonates from the surface inward, creating a tighter matrix at the
surface; as the layer of carbonation thickens it becomes harder and slower for CO 2 to diffuse
further into the concrete. While slow, the carbonation process does result in an uptake of some
of the CO2 emitted from the limestone during cement manufacturing (calcination). Theoretically,
given enough time and ideal conditions, all of the CO2 emitted from calcination could be
sequestered via carbonation. However, real world conditions are usually far from ideal and the
slow pace of the carbonation process does little to address the urgency of reducing CO2
emissions in the near-term.

Researchers are working to establish actual carbonation rates for a range of structure types.
The rate of CO2 uptake depends on numerous factors and conditions: context (indoors,
outdoors, sheltered, buried, submerged, etc), surface orientation (vertical, horizontal), exposed
surface-to-volume ratio, binder constituents (the compounds in cement, fly ash, and slag),
water-binder ratio, curing conditions, surface treatment (paints, carpet, wall coverings), porosity,
strength, humidity, temperature, and ambient CO 2 concentration (urban vs. rural) (Lagerblad
2005; Neville 1995; Gajda 2006). The abundance of variables makes it difficult to predict how
much CO2 is absorbed by concrete. What is known is that rates of CO 2 uptake are greatest

22
when the surface-to-volume ratio is high (such as when concrete has been crushed); strength is
low; curing is poor; and in sheltered outdoor atmospheres that are relatively warm and at 50 to
70% relative humidity (Neville 1995). Rates are also accelerated by high CO2 concentrations as
in vehicular tunnels and boiler rooms.

Carbonation of structural concrete elements in service

Because carbonation is a surface-oriented reaction, during service typical concrete structures

sequester very little of the CO2 emitted during cement manufacturing. Gajda (2006) used a
database of concrete samples and past concrete usage to generate an aggregate estimate of
the CO2 absorbed in U.S. concrete from a single production year. The report looks at
carbonation (i.e. CO2 uptake, absorption, or capture) in one- and 100-year time-frames. Cement
use in a typical year is given as 75,953,000 metric tons. Concrete of typical construction with
that amount of cement will absorb approximately 274,000 metric tons of atmospheric CO2 during
the first year after construction and 2,906,000 metric tons after 100 years. The emissions factor
of cement is 0.83 tons of CO2 per ton of cement produced (Collins 2010); therefore producing
75,953,000 metric tons of cement emits 63,041,000 metric tons of CO2. Using the absorption
values estimated in Gajda, it follows that after one year, 0.43% of the cement-related emissions
will have been absorbed by the concrete produced during that one year. After 100 years in
service, 4.6% of the cement-related emissions will have been absorbed by that concrete. The
slow and marginal CO2 uptake of concrete structures in service means that CO 2 absorption
during use does not significantly reduce the CO 2 impact of new structures.

Emerging practice and technologies

Two areas of research, with developing applications, potentially offer considerable CO 2 uptake
benefits. One technology, currently in use at pilot scale, uses captured CO 2 to cure precast
products. The research shows CO2 impact reduction of around 17% for concrete masonry units
(carboncure.com/make/technology/) and precast concrete (Shao 2011, Rostami 2012). This
technology enables concrete to partially carbonate during the manufacturing stage and
therefore has potential climate benefits in the near-term. Carbonating precast concrete products
has a long history (Neville 1995); it is the technology of using captured carbon that is new.
Researchers are also investigating methods to cure cast-in-place concrete in order to capture
carbon during the manufacturing and construction process.

A second area of interest is carbonation at end-of-life and second-life conditions of concrete.

Research is focusing on determining the carbonation behavior of crushed concrete in the open
air as well as underground in sub-base applications. If conditions are right, and particle size is
small, crushed concrete can potentially absorb significant amounts of CO 2 over time. The
difficulty of determining a rate of carbonation discussed above also applies to carbonation of
crushed concrete. However, research is optimistic that a standard practice of recycling concrete
in certain conditions will provide measurable and possibly significant uptake of the CO 2 emitted
during cement manufacture, with reabsorption of up to 100% of the CO2 emitted due to
calcination (just over half of the total carbon dioxide emissions). Because this end-of-life uptake
is so delayed relative to the original emissions, including these estimated future benefits when

23
calculating new project CO2 emissions does not appear justified due to the imminent threats
associated with climate change.

On the other hand, structural engineers can help increase CO 2 sequestration by encouraging
the use of crushed concrete in project specifications, especially if provisions are included for
intentional exposure of the crushed recycled concrete to the atmosphere over a period of time.
Concrete is recycled in most urban area. It is crushed and most frequently reused as road base
or construction fill. It can also be used as aggregate in new concrete when appropriate
procedures are followed.

Reducing Carbon Impacts in Design

Again, because cement plays the primary role in determining the embodied carbon of concrete,
reducing carbon emissions associated with cement is the most powerful means of reducing
concrete’s carbon footprint. Reductions in carbon emissions from cement can also be realized
in the manufacturing process itself (for example, through the use of more energy-efficient kiln
technologies or the burning of cleaner fuels), but specifying the cement manufacturer is not
typically within the control of the structural engineer.

A second means of reducing overall cement usage in a project is to reduce the amount of
cement used per unit volume of concrete, i.e., by lowering the quantity of cement that is called
for in the concrete mix design. This can be achieved through more efficient mix design, or
through the replacement of cement with SCMs such as recycled waste products (or with other
materials having low embodied carbon). Common examples of such materials are fly ash (a
waste product of coal-fired power plants) and ground, granulated blast-furnace slag or slag
cement (a waste product of iron and steel production) and silica fume (a waste product of
processing quartz into silicon or ferro-silicon metals in an electric arc furnace). In 2008 the U.S.
electric power industry generated a total of about 123.5 Mt (136.1 million tons) of coal
combustion byproducts of which approximately 45% was used in construction and industrial
processes. The cement and concrete industry used 16.6 Mt (18.3 million tons) of fly ash in
2008. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that between 15 Mt (16.5 million tons) of iron blast
furnace slag was produced in the U.S. in 2008 of which 2.7 Mt (3.0 million tons) was used in
concrete as a SCM.

The use of SCMs to replace cement can significantly reduce the carbon emissions associated
with concrete; removing 25 percent of the cement that would ordinarily be used in a concrete
mix and replacing with the same quantity of a SCM such as fly ash would result in a roughly 25
percent reduction in the overall embodied carbon of the concrete. SCMs also generally have
the added benefit of improving both the fresh and hardened properties of the concrete.

While fly ash rates of 50% to 80% of the total cementitious materials have been reported, the
typical range is 15% to 25%. Higher rates of addition depend on the type of fly ash and
compatibility with other materials in the concrete, and therefore may not be widely applicable.
Slag cement is used in concrete at rates of 20% to 80% of the total cementitious material
depending on the application. Silica fume is used in concrete at rates of 5% to 10% of the total
cementitious material, and is used in applications where a high degree of impermeability is
needed and in high-strength concrete. Since SCM properties vary, the project contractor and

24
the concrete producer should exercise sufficient judgment, testing, and control procedures to
ensure good concrete performance. Refer to the Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural
Engineer (Kestner 2010) for more information on SCM use.

25
CHAPTER 6: MASONRY

Masonry materials used in modern construction mainly include concrete masonry units (CMU)
and clay brick masonry. In the United States, brick is most commonly used as a façade material
and not as a load-bearing, structural material, therefore we will limit our discussion to CMU
(sometimes called “block” in the vernacular).

Concrete masonry units are simply concrete formed into blocks. The units are joined together
with mortar and often filled with grout and rebar. The constituents of CMU are very similar to
cast-in-place concrete. They commonly consist of sand, gravel, portland cement and water.
Other aggregates such as granulated coal ash, expanded blast furnace slag, pumice, shale,
slate, and clay are used to alter density, color, and other characteristics. Admixtures and
pigments are also common. The proportion of cement is similar to general purpose concrete,
about 8.5% to 12% by weight (PCA 2011a). The percentage of sand is higher for CMU, with
less gravel and much less water. Water content is seldom more than 5% by weight, which
includes the moisture from aggregates (Venta 1998). The result is CMU that has no slump when
released from its mold.

Size of Market

Concrete masonry manufacturers make a variety of products such as segmental retaining wall
units, pavers, architectural units, and other specialty shapes, but production is measured in the
most common shape, an 8x8x16-inch CMU. In 2007, North America produced the equivalent of
8 billion CMU of the 8x8x16-inch size (McKee 2008). Standard CMU is about half of total
production (Venta 1998). That equates to 80 million tons of normal-weight CMU per year. By
comparison, the U.S. uses about 4 times (340 million cubic yards) as much ready-mix concrete
per year (PCA 2011b). Like ready-mix concrete, it is uncommon for CMU to be transported far
from where it is produced due to its weight and local sources, so there are more than 1,000
plants in the U.S. today producing up 5 million CMU each (Lenchuk 2002).

Manufacturing Process

The life-cycle of CMU is very similar to concrete. Raw ingredients are extracted, processed,
mixed, formed, placed, cured, maintained, and ultimately demolished. Differences from
concrete occur during forming, curing, and placing of CMU.

CMU is usually steam-cured in a kiln for 24 hours to expedite stacking, transport and storage.
Most kilns operate at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature around 150 degrees F,
although curing temperatures can range between ambient temperatures to 190 degrees F. In
warmer climates, CMU is air dried to save the energy of steam curing. Curing in high-pressure
kilns, called autoclaves, is also available in some parts of the continent. Autoclaves operate at
80 to 185 psi and at 300 to 375 degrees F. Energy use is significantly higher for the autoclaved
CMU, but produces more dimensionally stable units in 5 to 10 hours for a cost premium (Koski
1992).

26
When placing, CMU is already cured. In comparison to ready-mix concrete, placement requires
no in-place formwork. However mortar is needed to bind the units together, and grout is needed
if steel reinforcing is required.

Mortar is commonly portland cement, sand, and usually hydrated lime mixed on site. Hydrated
lime, Ca(OH)2, is usually derived from limestone, CaCO 3. Limestone is also the usual main
ingredient of portland cement, but production of hydrated lime requires more energy than
production of portland cement. Masonry cement may be used in place of portland cement and
hydrated lime. Masonry cement is a specially formulated premixed version of portland cement
or blended hydraulic cement with workability fillers such as ground limestone or hydrated lime,
and other performance-enhancing admixtures (PCA 2002).

Grout ingredients are similar to mortar ingredients, although grout can also include coarse
aggregate. Most importantly, grout contains much more water than mortar, enough for it to flow
into the CMU cells. In a fully-grouted 8x8x16-inch CMU wall, approximately 50% of total volume
is grout. Example mix proportions for CMU, grout, mortar, as well as for 3000 psi concrete are
shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Ingredients of concrete products (lb/yd3 batch)

Ingredient Concrete1 Concrete2 CMU 1 CMU 2 Mortar2 Grout3
Water 237 lb 270 lb 240 lb 89 lb 312 lb 410 lb
Cement 376 lb 344 lb 350 lb 319 lb 517 lb 640 lb
Fine 1400 lb 1560 lb 2384 lb 2007 lb 1323 lb 2200 lb
Aggregate
Coarse 1900 lb 1700 lb 1043 lb 860 lb - -
Aggregate
Fly Ash - 61 lb - - - 110 lb
Total 3913 lb/yd 3934 lb/yd 4017 lb/yd 3275 lb/yd3
3 3 3
2152 lb/yd 3360 lb/yd3
3

1. Marceau 2007
2. Athena 2005
3. Marceau 2008

Carbon Emissions

A U.S. study sponsored by PCA (Marceau 2007) reports that the embodied CO2 emissions from
of CMU is 347 pounds of CO2 per cubic yard of product, which is 0.086 pounds of CO2 per
pound of CMU (see Table 6.1). The report adds that cement content of the CMU accounts for
91% of the CO2 emissions embodied in the CMU. The Athena Institute conducted a similar
study (Athena 2005) in Canada and reported about 20% more CO2 emissions by weight of CMU
than the U.S. study. The University of Bath reports about 8% fewer CO2 emissions than the
U.S. study, based on U.K. data (Hammond 2008). All three studies encompass impacts from
“cradle to gate,” impacts from material extraction through to factory production, but excluding
transport to site, construction, and use impacts beyond.

None of the above sources provide information on grout mixes or their embodied CO2 impact.
Table 6.1 lists a fine grout mix from another report (Marceau 2008) that suits the volumetric

27
proportion requirements of ASTM C 476, the standard referenced by U.S. building codes.
Compared to the mix used for CMU, ASTM C 476 grout requires two to three times as much
cement by weight. Using the relationship between cement content and embodied CO2 from the
PCA report, which echoes those mentioned in the concrete chapter, one can establish that grout
embodies two to three times more CO2 emissions than the block by weight. By adding grout to
every cell of CMU, for the same volume of wall assembly, embodied CO2 can be triple that of
ungrouted CMU wall.

Strategies for Reducing Emissions

To reduce carbon impacts, the two primary options are to reduce the total amount of material
used and/or to reduce the proportion of cement. To achieve the former option, consider
alternatives to fully grouted walls or overly reinforced CMU walls. Industrial byproducts such as
granulated coal ash, expanded blast furnace slag, and crushed glass, can be used as a
substitute for virgin aggregates, but these a relatively insignificant effect in reducing carbon
impacts. Note that the risk of alkali-silica reaction with glass can be successfully mitigated by
fine grinding the glass (Meyer 2001).

Recently a few suppliers have achieved cement reductions by including supplementary

cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement in the CMU mix. In addition to strength
requirements, other performance characteristics and compatibility of materials should be
carefully reviewed to maintain expected levels of performance (Volz 2010).

The Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada recently completed research which
indicated that replacing up to 50% of the volume of cement in CMU grout with Class F fly ash
still achieves 2000 psi compressive strength at 28 days required by ASTM C 476 (Baltimore
2009). Replacing up to 80% of the volume of cement in CMU grout with 25% fly ash and up to
55% granulated ground blast furnace slag also achieved the same strength result. However,
further research at Brigham Young University revealed significant discrepancies in strength gain
of for various proportions of high volume cement replacement mixes, possibly due to testing
equipment, testing personnel, and material variability (Fonseca 2012). When using high volume
fly ash and slag cement replacement of Portland cement in CMU grout, compression tests of the
grout (ASTM C1019) should be performed using the specific source of materials proposed for
the project.

28
CHAPTER 7: STRUCTURAL STEEL

In 2007, the United States consumed about 8 million tons of structural rolled shapes and 3
million tons of Hollow Structural Sections (HSS). Consumption dropped markedly by 2009 due
to the economic downturn, with hot-rolled steel consumption totalling about 4.3 million tons and
HSS production about 1.2 million tons (AISC 2010). According to the USGS (2010), 2007
shipments of reinforcing bar plus imports less exports (a rough estimate of domestic
consumption) totalled 9.6 million tons.

Primary Categories of Structural Steel Products

In this report we will restrict our work to the following categories of structural steel products:

 Hot-rolled shapes such as wide flanges, channels, and angles.

 Tubes, including HSS and pipe. HSS and pipe sections are formed from sheet steel, as
opposed to hot-rolled shapes, which are rolled directly from steel billets or beam
blanks.

 Sheet, such as for steel decking and cold-formed steel framing.

 Reinforcement for concrete and masonry construction.

Structural steel is produced primarily in electric arc furnaces (EAFs) or basic oxygen furnaces
(BOFs). According to the Steel Recycling Institute (SRI 2009), steel produced in EAFs has a
total recycled content of about 90%, compared to 33% for steel produced in BOFs. In part due
to its recycled content, EAFs produce fewer carbon emissions per ton of production than do
BOFs.

All hot-rolled shapes produced in the United States are from EAFs (AISC 2008). HSS is
manufactured using steel from both EAFs and BOFs. In 2008, more than half of the coil steel
used to produce HSS came from BOFs (AISC 2008-1).

Most of the structural steel consumed in the United States is produced domestically. AISC
estimates that 9% of domestic consumption is imported (AISC 2010). Imports are concentrated
on the coasts, particularly the west coast. Note that imported steel can be produced from less
efficient processes that have many times the CO 2 emissions than steel produced in the U.S.

Steel deck and cold-formed framing are typically produced from the same stock material—cold-
rolled sheet—and is often galvanized. Most of this steel is produced domestically in BOFs.
Reinforcing steel used in masonry and concrete construction is typically produced in EAFs.

Carbon Emissions for Structural Steel Products

The primary life-cycle stages of structural steel production are:

1. Extraction of raw materials: Raw materials include iron ore, coal, and limestone.
Collection of steel scrap, another primary raw material, is included in this life-cycle
stage. About 80% of post-consumer steel, including 98% of used structural steel, is
recycled into new steel (World Steel 2008, SRI 2011).

29
2. Steel production: Most steel is produced in either a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) or an
electric arc furnace (EAF).

 Using the BOF process, producing one ton of crude steel consumes an average
of 3,450 lb of iron ore, 1,290 lb of coal (used to make coke, a fuel and source of
carbon in the steel-making process), 300 lb of limestone, and 276 lb of recycled
steel (World Steel 2008).
 Using the EAF process, producing one ton of crude steel consumes an average
of 2,100 lb of recycled steel, 130 lb of coal, and 86 lb of limestone (World Steel
2008).

3. Shop fabrication: Many structural steel products go through a fabrication process.

Structural steel shapes are cut to length, punched for bolt holes, stiffened with plates,
and so on. The shop fabrication process for structural steel usually requires welding.
Reinforcement for concrete and masonry is cut to length and bent. Cold-formed
structural products such as steel deck and framing are fabricated from sheet steel.

4. Transportation between life-cycle stages: Transportation of materials occurs between

the life-cycle stages.

5. Construction: At the building site, cranes and other equipment powered by fossil fuels
erect the steel and move materials. Welding and bolting require liquid or gas fuel and
electricity.

6. End-of-Life: Most steel removed from buildings is recycled into new steel. As
mentioned above, the Steel Recycling Institute reports that 98% of structural steel is
recycled, while the World Steel Association estimates an 85% recovery rate for steel
used in construction (World Steel 2008, SRI 2011).

Of the six life-cycle stages, the steel production stage produces the most CO2e. EAF production
produces less than half as much CO2e per unit of production as BOF production. The Steel
Manufacturer’s Association (SMA) estimates that EAF production emits 0.74 tons of CO2/ton of
product, while BOF production emits 1.91 tons CO2e/ton of product (SMA 2007). The reasons
for the lower carbon impact of EAF production include the following:

 It’s a more efficient process using less energy per ton of steel.

 It uses much more recycled steel so the emission impacts associated with extraction,
smelting of iron ore and producing ingots are avoided.

 In some cases, the electricity may be generated using a cleaner fuel (natural gas) than
fuel needed to produce heat in the BOF.

AISC publishes a “carbon footprint” for domestically produced rolled shapes, all of which are
produced in EAFs, of 0.73 to 0.89 tons of CO 2 per ton of steel (AISC 2010), based on the SMA
study as well as a study AISC commissioned from a life-cycle assessment consulting firm.
These figures assume a recycling rate of 98% and exclude fabrication. AISC’s life-cycle
assessment consultant recently completed a study of the fabrication of structural steel. The
study found that fabrication adds about 0.19 to 0.26 tons of CO 2e per ton of steel (Weisenberger

30
2010). Summing the production and fabrication figures gives a range of 0.92 to 1.15 tons of
CO2e per ton of fabricated steel.

HSS sections are produced in both EAFs and BOFs, so on average their production emits more
CO2e than hot-rolled shapes. AISC does not publish carbon impact estimates for HSS sections.
The Athena Institute, an independent life-cycle assessment consulting firm, published
production and transport emissions values of CO2 and methane for HSS sections produced in
combined U.S. steel mills (Athena 2002). Applying a GWP factor of 25 for methane, the total
CO2e for HSS amounts to 1.76 tons/ton of production.

Steel reinforcement is produced primarily in EAFs. Again using the Athena inventory data and
the same approach used for the HSS calculations, the CO 2e figure for U.S. reinforcement is
0.59 tons/ton.

Athena also addressed galvanized steel deck and welded wire mesh. For these products the
CO2e figures are 1.79 and 1.35 tons/ton, respectively. While we have not found in our research
emission data specifically for wire strand such as that used for pre- and post-tensioning, the
Bath ICE database reports a world-average carbon emissions value of 2.83 tons/ton for wire.

These figures are summarized in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1. CO2e Emissions per ton of selected steel products

Tons CO2e Emissions per
Steel Product Ton of Product Reference
hot-rolled shapes 0.73 to 0.89 AISC 2010
HSS shapes 1.76 Athena 2002
steel reinforcement for
0.59 Athena 2002
concrete and masonry
galvanized steel deck 1.79 Athena 2002
welded wire mesh 1.35 Athena 2002
structural steel fabrication 0.19 to 0.26 Weisenberger 2010
wire 2.83 Hammond & Jones 2008

Manufacturing Trends

The AISC reports that the steel industry reduced its “energy intensity” per ton of steel by 29%
since 1990. Since energy use is generally well correlated with carbon emissions (most energy is
produced using fossil fuels), the industry’s carbon reductions per unit of output over this period
are probably comparable to the energy use reductions (AISC 2010). AISC also reports that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that the U.S. iron and steel industries reduced
their carbon emissions by 47% between 1990 and 2005, while the USGS reports that U.S. raw
steel production rose from 89.7 million metric tons in 1990 to 94.9 million metric tons in 2005
(USGS 2010-1). A study by the Berkeley National Laboratory found that EAF technologies are
under development that should continue a trend towards greater energy efficiency in the years
ahead (Martin et al 2000).

31
Reducing Carbon Impacts in Design

Efficient Use of Materials

One way to reduce carbon impacts is to do more with less. Examples include:

 Using composite slab construction instead of non-composite construction.

 Using castellated beams instead of conventional wide flange beams.

 Using catenary and arched structures instead of structures that rely on moment-
resistance.

 Using high-strength steel such as Grade 75 reinforcement instead of conventional

steel, so long as the increased strength of the material is achieved with low incremental
carbon impact increases.

 Using trussed members instead of rolled shapes. For example, a steel joist spanning
30 feet that can support 400 plf of load weighs under 10 pounds per foot, while a wide-
flange beam designed for the same load weighs 22 pounds per foot.

 Using braced frames instead of moment-resisting frames for the building’s lateral-load-
resisting system. An unpublished study by engineering firm Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger found that for a hypothetical 9-story building in Los Angeles, using a braced
frame in place of a moment frame reduced the structural steel in the building by 37
percent.

Many strategies that save material and reduce carbon impacts require additional labor. In some
cases, the increased labor costs outweigh the cost savings resulting from less material,
resulting in higher net cost for the material-efficient option. Most carbon measurement
techniques neglect the carbon costs associated with labor, although some studies have
examined the impact of workers commuting to project sites (e.g. Cole 1999).

Efficient Producers

The same steel sections provided by different producers can have significantly different carbon
impacts. Some steel manufacturers have invested in more modern and efficient processes that
reduce emissions. Transportation can also contribute to differences, both “upstream” from the
raw materials that feed the mill and “downstream” when finished products are shipped to service
centers and the project site.

Challenges in sourcing steel from less carbon-intensive suppliers include:

 Little available data about the efficiency of the steel producers that offer the shapes
and products required for a project. Producers may be reluctant to provide information
about their manufacturing processes and efficiencies for competitive reasons, or they
may simply not have the data. Nevertheless, inquiries from project teams are an
important part of spurring the producers to determine the carbon intensity of their
products, publicize their findings, and possibly seek 3rd party verification of
environmental performance.

32
 The competitive bid process may prevent more efficient producers and fabricators from
getting the project. In the future, competitive bid criteria may well include carbon
efficiency in addition to cost.

Designers may be able to account for transportation mode and distance when selecting
suppliers, at least from the mill to the project site. Selecting steel produced closer to the project
site, particularly if the steel is transported by more efficient modes such as rail or water, may
reduce carbon impacts, but only if the nearby producers are also efficient. In other words,
shipping a longer distance from a more efficient producer may have a lower overall impact.

Design for Adaptability and Deconstruction

Although the benefits will accrue only after a building is put into service, design for adaptability
and deconstruction can reduce carbon impacts over the life of a building. Adaptable buildings
should have longer lives because they are more economical to renovate for new uses.
Extending the building life means fewer new buildings are required, avoiding the carbon impacts
associated with demolition and new construction.

Designing for deconstruction should increase the probability that the building materials and
components will be extracted intact and reused in new projects. Salvaged materials normally
have much lower carbon impacts than new or even recycled content materials. LCA research
shows that most of the carbon impacts of materials occur during the extraction and
manufacturing phases of the life cycle. Transportation, fabrication, and erection impacts are
much smaller, generally accounting for less than 25% of the life-cycle impact of the material.
Since salvaged materials avoid the extraction and manufacturing life-cycle stages, and typically
require only transport, refabrication, and erection, their environmental impacts may be assumed
to be less than a quarter of the impact of new materials, even if those new materials have high
recycled content.

These strategies are explored in greater depth in the SEI Sustainability Committee’s
Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer (Kestner et al., 2010).

33
CHAPTER 8: WOOD

Trees, during growth, draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, release oxygen back, and use
carbon to produce wood and leaves through photosynthesis. For every pound of wood grown,
1.47 pounds of carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (Kestner et al. 2010). Through
this process, trees remove or “sequester” large quantities of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. Forest management plays an important role in climate policy and programs. While
removal of trees reduces the carbon sequestration of the growing forest, in well managed
forests, where trees are harvested near the end of their life cycle, the carbon stored in trees
continues to be stored after harvest in wood building products providing mid- to long-term
storage until the wood is either land-filled or incinerated. Wood is a renewable as well as bio-
degradable building product.

Each year, people contribute 8 billion metric tons of carbon to the air by using energy in their
daily lives (Hoffman 2000). The terrestrial biosphere takes up about 3 billion metric tons per
year and the oceans absorb about 2 billion metric tons each year, leaving on average about 3
billion metric tons per year in the atmosphere to warm the planet.

As noted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report,
Mitigation: “In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or
increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fiber or
energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit” (IPCC 2007).

When a tree is cut down, the carbon it stored during its life cycle is retained within its cellular
structure. Wood fiber is between 48 and 53% carbon by weight (Falk undated). The harvesting
of trees and manufacturing of forest products transfers the carbon from the forests to the
products. Those products, when used as building materials, remain in use and store carbon for
long periods of time.

Increasing the carbon stored in forest biomass and soil helps counteract the effects of human
greenhouse gas emissions. Over long periods of time, unmanaged forests (i.e. forests that grow
without human intervention) reach equilibrium and emit the same quantity of greenhouse gases
that they take in. Carefully planned thinning and wood harvesting will result in carbon stored in
useful wood products and allow for continued net forest intake of carbon dioxide. However,
these benefits have to be carefully balanced against the benefits deriving from the natural
processes of forest fires and decay, including soil renewal, improved germination, forest
succession, etc. Law and Harmon (2011) assert that the carbon benefits of substituting wood
products for non-renewable materials is often over-estimated in LCA analyses.

About 20% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are due to deforestation and forest
degradation (Law and Harmon 2011). Increasing forest carbon sequestration by afforestation
(conversion of other land uses to forest), reforestation, and increased carbon density are
therefore critical strategies for controlling climate change. Forest dynamics, however, are
complex. For example, forest disruption, such as through clear-cutting, actually increases
carbon emissions over a period of decades, due to soil disruption and decomposition of wood
debris left on the site. Even removing biomass in an effort to reduce forest fires can have a net
negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

34
The Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), a consortium of 15
research institutions, has for the past 12 years developed ISO-consistent research protocols for
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), measuring all inputs and outputs for every stage of forest product
processing from forest regeneration, harvesting, transportation, wood processing, building
construction, maintenance and use; and ultimate demolition and disposal or deconstruction with
salvage. This database makes it possible to track carbon from the forest to post-harvest uses,
following the carbon from one pool to the next.

Sustainable forestry programs are partially responsible for increases in overall fiber compared to
fiber that is removed. The Society of American Foresters reports that from 1953 to 2006, the
inventory of hardwood and softwood fiber in the forests increased by 49% (Alvarez 2007). This
growth in overall fiber volume is attributed to the success of major forestry certification schemes.
Likewise, this balance between fiber growth and withdrawal is a primary consideration in the
recognition of biogenic CO2 emissions during production. As long as fiber growth exceeds
withdrawal, the current practice is to assume that emissions from biogenic combustion (i.e. the
combustion of wood-based fuels to produce energy during production processes) are absorbed
by the growing forest and result in no net emission of CO2 to the environment (EPA 2003).
However, actual forest dynamics are complex and the carbon neutrality of biogenic combustion
is case-specific (Law and Harmon 2011).

CORRIM has issued voluminous information for most commercial wood products, as noted in
Table 8.1. Most of the input data are also available in the US LCI database, accessible from the
website of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). For each of these products, a
comprehensive accounting of all emissions to air, water, and soil, and as solids is provided. For
each product a carbon balance also is provided; some are provided in this section as examples.

Types and Characteristics of Lumber Today

Dimension Lumber

Dimension lumber is used for wall, floor, and roof framing. Visually-graded dimension lumber is
separated into four categories:

 Structural Light Framing (2" to 4" thick, 2" to 4" wide)

 Light Framing (2" to 4" thick, 2" to 4" wide)
 Studs (2" to 4" thick, 2" or wider)
 Structural Joists & Planks (2" to 4" thick, 5" or wider).

According to CORRIM, manufacturing energy requirements for the production of dimension and
mechanically graded lumber include, but are not limited to, the following processes:

 Sawing

 Drying

 Planing

35
Mechanically-Graded Dimension Lumber

This is dimension lumber that has been evaluated and sorted by mechanical stress-rating
equipment and involves nondestructive testing of individual pieces. It is primarily intended for
engineered applications.

Table 8.1. Availability of LCI data for wood products from CORRIM
In USLCI Year data
Product Region1 database collected
1 Lumber-softwood SE Yes 2001
2 Lumber-softwood PNW Yes 1999-2000
3 Lumber-softwood NE-NC Yes 2006-2007
4 Lumber-softwood INW Yes 2005-2006
5 Lumber-Hardwood NE-NC Yes 2005
6 Lumber-Hardwood SE No 2005-2006
7 Plywood SE Yes 2000
8 Plywood PNW Yes 2000
9 OSB SE Yes 1999
10 LVL SE Yes 2000
11 LVL PNW Yes 2000
12 I-joist SE Yes 2000
13 I-Joist PNW Yes 2000
14 Glulam SE Yes 2000
15 Glulam PNW Yes 2000
16 MDF US No 2004
17 Particleboard US No 2004
18 Flooring-hardwood Eastern Yes 2006
19 Engineered Wood Eastern No 2007
Flooring
1
SE = south eastern US, PNW = Pacific Northwest, INW = Inland Northwest, US = entire USA

Manufacture of Glued Laminated Lumber (Glulam)

A glulam is fabricated using individual pieces of nominally 1- to 2-inch thick, kiln-dried lumber,
laminated together under controlled conditions of temperature and pressure, to form large
timber sections. Glulams are typically manufactured using Douglas fir, hem-fir, Southern pine,
spruce-pine-fir, Alaskan yellow cedar, and Ponderosa pine lumber.

Oriented Strand Board (OSB)

The trees needed to make OSB are usually small and fast-growing. OSB is typically produced
using aspen, pines, firs and spruce trees. OSB is not made from recycled wood or wood waste
from other manufacturing operations. The wood strands are blended with adhesives, and then
glued under heat and pressure to the desired panel thickness.

I-joists

I-joists are manufactured using OSB web material and either solid lumber or laminated veneer
lumber chords. Assembled I-joists are cut to length and typically cured in special curing ovens

36
to develop full adhesive strength. Carbon emissions are generated during curing as a byproduct
of fossil fuel combustion. The energy use for I-joist assembly represents only 1% to 2% of total
I-joist energy use; the remainder occurs in production of the OSB, laminated veneer lumber, and
resin (Wilson and Dancer 2005). Carbon emissions may be assumed to represent a similar
fraction. I-joists are available in long lengths and due to their light weight can be easily handled
at the jobsite without requiring costly handling equipment. Due to their shape, they provide high
bending strength and stiffness characteristics.

Plywood

Plywood is a wood structural panel made with plies (sheets) of wood veneer that are glued
together under heat and pressure. Plywood is stronger and stiffer when the grain of the face
veneers is oriented perpendicular to supports, which is the typical orientation for most floor
applications. Fuel use for the manufacture of plywood in the U.S is shown in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2. Fuel use for the manufacture of plywood in the U.S. (on-site energy)
Pacific Northwest Sources Southeast Sources
MJ/cu.m % of Total Fuel MJ/cu.m % of Total Fuel
Wood fuel
1400 87.3 1990 85.6
(biomass)
Natural gas 150 9.4 277 11.9
Liquid petroleum
20 1.3 35 1.5
gas
Diesel 34 2.1 23 1

According to WISA, one cubic meter of softwood plywood, from forest to finished product,
generates 80−150 kg of carbon; or 6 to 11.3 kg for every 1” thick 4’x8’ softwood plywood sheet.
One cubic meter of birch plywood emits 130−400 kg of carbon, or one sheet of 1” thick 4’x8’
birch plywood generates 9.8 to 30.3 kg of carbon dioxide emissions (WISA is a trademark name
of UPM Plywood company based in Finland). The specific value varies by mill. Also, the carbon
emission does not include the transportation emissions.

Sourcing of Wood Products

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) data for wood products that are readily available are
based on US domestic products. The graphs in Figure 8.1 show the total U.S. consumption of
softwood lumber with a breakdown of imported lumber consumption. The chart labeled “U.S.
Consumption of Softwood Lumber” suggests that year to year about 30% of U.S. lumber is
imported. The first graph shows that Canada is the largest supplier of imported lumber to the
U.S.

37
 Figure 8.1. U.S. Consumption of Softwood Lumber

Carbon Impacts at each life-cycle stage

Production

Raw wood is produced using solar energy making it renewable in an economically viable time
frame when sourced from trees where sound sustainable forestry is observed. Wood products
resulting from old growth forests that have completely been cut down haphazardly may not be
considered renewable as the time frame in replanting and maturing is far less than the time it
took for complete deforestation. Therefore, it is imperative that sound sustainable forest
management practices be followed. The energy used to manufacture wood products varies
depending on the number and intensity of the processing steps required. For example,
manufacture of glulam lumber emits more carbon than production of sawn lumber. Products that
are dried and/or use resins, such as plywood and OSB, require more energy than other wood
products; however, biofuels (bark and mill residues) often provide some or all drying energy
(Lippke, et al. 2010). Half of the energy used in the manufacture of wood products is bio-energy.
The U.S. wood products industry is the country’s leading producer and consumer of bio-energy
(Murray, et al. 2006).

Table 8.3 contains the Global Warming Potential results, in kg CO 2e, for the production stage
(cradle-to-gate) only. Figure 8.2 shows carbon emissions generated from cradle through
production.

Table 8.4 indicates net carbon emissions generated in production of a ton of lumber and a ton of
fiberboard. Note that adding a 'negative' for stored carbon is not universally accepted, as while
it's true that wood products store carbon, the net carbon calculations are complex due to forest
dynamics and assumptions regarding product life, as discussed above.

Transportation

Saw mills are typically located very close to the forest; thus transportation and corresponding
carbon emissions to the mill tend to be relatively low. Wood products are often shipped long
distances, however, to reach a building site. Transportation impacts, especially for sawn lumber,

38
can represent a more significant fraction of total impacts than other building materials due to the
relatively low impacts of wood itself.

Table 8.3. Global Warming Potential for selected wood products (Athena 2011)
Unit Global Warming
Potential -
Manufacturing Stage
(kg CO2e)
Green Small Dimension Softwood 1 ft3 1.76
Lumber
2x3, 2x4, 2x6 and 2x8
Green Large Dimension Softwood 1 ft3 1.19
Lumber
2x10 and 2x12
Kiln Dried Small Dimension Softwood 1 ft3 2.66
Lumber
2x3, 2x4, 2x6 and 2x8
Kiln Dried Large Dimension Softwood 1 ft3 2.52
Lumber
2x10 and 2x12
Glulam 1 ft3 5.59

Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) 1 ft3 4.02

Softwood Plywood 1 ft3 3.96

OSB 1 ft3 7.88

Softwood Plywood 1 ft2 (3/8” 0.124

basis)
OSB 1 ft2 (3/8” 0.246
basis)

End-of-life

While carbon is not stored in wood products permanently, storage can be prolonged by
salvaging and recycling. Engineered woods are not usually salvaged and are difficult to recycle.
The exception is glulams, which can be salvaged for structural reuse. Salvaged timbers are
often reused in structure, finishes, and furniture. Sawn lumber ultimately will end up as either
bio-fuel or in a landfill. In either case, the stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
Burning as bio-fuel is preferable to landfill; although it emits CO2, it also provides useful energy.
Moreover, these bio-fuels are a recycled form of wood which has already served a function and
replace conventional fossil fuels. Landfilled wood eventually decays and emits methane, which
has a global warming potential 25 times higher than carbon dioxide over a 100 year time
horizon according to the UN IPCC. Delaying the release of carbon by several decades or longer
may be a viable part of an overall carbon reduction strategy.

39
 Kg-CO2 eq/m3 wood or eq area

Figure 8.2. Carbon emissions for plywood and OSB

(Puettmann and Wilson 2005 and Lippke and Edmonds 2006)

Table 8.4. Net carbon emissions for lumber and fiberboard (Jim Bowyer, et al. 2008)
Net Carbon Emissions from Producing a Ton of Material
Net Carbon Emissions
Including Carbon Storage
Net Carbon Emissions within Material
Material (kg C/ metric ton) (kg C/ metric ton)
Framing lumber 33 -457
Medium density fiberboard
60 -382
(virgin fiber)

Reducing Carbon Impacts in Design

Wood trusses and pre-manufactured wall panels can use 26 percent less wood than traditional
framing techniques (NRDC 1998). Moreover, these can reduce weight, allow for longer floor and
roof spans, and provide other benefits.

Optimum Value Engineering—i.e., designing and engineering for materials efficiency—should

be adopted. These practices include framing at 24 inches on center, aligning framing and using
a single top plate, aligning openings with stud spacing, and eliminating unnecessary framing at
intersections.

Engineered wood products such as Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) and Parallel Strand
Lumber (PSL) have a higher embodied carbon than dimensional lumber. Even accounting for
their greater strength, floor structures constructed with engineered components can have a
higher carbon footprint than similar structures built with dimensional lumber. Thus tradeoffs
between the two material types should be carefully weighed.

40
Environmentally certified and reclaimed wood can be used in many applications calling for
dimensional lumber. Salvaging (reclamation) utilizes wood that would otherwise go to waste.
Most commonly, large timbers are reclaimed from older buildings during dismantling. Depending
on their condition, they can be reused as is or after appropriate resizing/remilling. Reuse as
large structural members is preferable to sawing into boards for finish material or furniture since
doing so should maintain the wood in useful service longer. Users of reclaimed timbers tout
them for their inherent character, historical value, color, and sturdiness that newly harvested
timber typically does not provide. Salvaging wood reduces demand for new lumber and also
lengthens the lifespan of the salvaged timbers, delaying disposal and thereby increasing the
time of carbon storage.

Wood waste at job sites should be reduced and all waste products should be sorted and if
possible reused, recycled, or donated rather than sent to landfill.

Further, wood buildings should be designed to be durable as this will have a substantial effect
on the cost, safety, and longevity of structures.

41
CHAPTER 9: FIBER REINFORCED POLYMERS

Introduction

Fiber reinforced polymers (FRPs), while not as common as timber, steel, or concrete, are used
as a structural material primarily in specialized and retrofit applications. It is estimated that
composites shipments in 2004 equaled 1.8 billion kilograms (4.0 billion pounds), 20% of which
were for the construction sector (American Composites Manufacturers Association cited by ACI,
2007). Information on equivalent carbon emissions is limited for FRPs used in infrastructure
and more research is needed to obtain accurate consensus values. The literature suggests that
FRPs emit between three and five kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of
fabricated and applied composite. This is significantly higher than other materials due in large
part to the high strength to weight ratio of FRPs. Despite this, FRPs may still be competitive
with other materials when considering their high strength-to-weight ratio and their role in retrofits
to extend the life cycle of a structure.

General information on FRPs (in this introduction and in later sections) has been taken from
Hollaway and Head (2001), Advani and Sozer (2003), and Eckold (1994). These references are
suggested for further reading. In addition, the article by Bakis (2009) provides a short,
accessible overview of FRPs used in infrastructure.

About FRPs

A fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is a composite material made from long fibers embedded in a
polymer matrix. The fibers provide strength and stiffness while the matrix holds the fibers in
place and protects them from the elements. FRPs are light and resistant to many forms of
environmental attack. While they are more expensive to manufacture and install than other
construction materials, they can be competitive when considering life cycle cost. Depending on
the fiber type used, FRPs can be stiffer and many times stronger than mild steel. FRPs are
linear elastic and rupture without any inelastic deformation. FRPs can be designed to have
different properties in different directions by proper selection of fiber orientation. Because FRPs
can be tailored in many ways it is always recommended to contact the manufacturer to
determine specific properties of the composite in question.

The three most common fiber types are carbon, glass, and aramid (also known by the trade
name Kevlar). In general, glass fibers are cheaper and have the lowest strength and stiffness of
the three fibers discussed. Glass fibers are resistant to ultraviolet light. Carbon and aramid are
stronger and stiffer. Carbon is resistant to moisture and other environmental attack, solvents,
acids, and bases. Aramid is resistant to fatigue and has good damage tolerance.

Polymer matrices can be classified as thermosets or thermoplastics. Thermoset matrices such

as epoxies, vinylesters, unsaturated polyesters, and phenolics cure at room temperature in a
non-reversible chemical reaction. Thermoplastics cure at higher temperatures in a process that
can be reversed. Thermosets are much more common in civil structures and are the only ones
discussed here. Unsaturated polyesters are low in cost and have varied properties. Vinylesters
are resistant to bases and acids. Epoxies are resistant to higher temperatures, have good

42
adhesion properties, and are resistant to solvents and bases. Phenolics are not stable in
ultraviolet light but they are resistant to moisture. In the interest of increasing use of
environmentally friendly materials, there are current research and development efforts to
characterize properties of FRPs with natural materials for matrices and fibers (Cutter 2008,
Joshi et al. 2004, Corbière-Nicollier 2001).

Common uses of FRPs in civil infrastructure are as field-applied wraps, field-applied

prefabricated plates, prefabricated shapes such as wide flange beams, and reinforcing bars for
concrete. FRPs are commonly used to strengthen and rehabilitate existing steel, concrete,
masonry, and wood members. Field-applied applications include post-tensioning rods, column
wraps, surface bonded longitudinal reinforcement of beams and columns, and surface-bonded
stirrups for shear reinforcement of beams. Prefabricated shapes have been used for new
construction as bridge girders, bridge decks, stay cables, and stay-in-place forms for concrete
columns (replacing internal steel reinforcement). FRP reinforcement has been used in bridge
decks where corrosion is a concern and in applications where the magnetic properties of steel
are a concern (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging machines). Machine-made composites have
better quality control, but hand layup is used because of the ability to apply the composite in
spaces that are difficult to reach. When using hand layup, reduced and more variable
mechanical properties should be expected. Fiber orientation is an engineered property in
composites; not all manufacturing techniques can attain all fiber orientations. It is most common
when using pultrusion to align the fibers along the longitudinal axis of the member. When using
filament winding, it is not possible to get perfectly longitudinal alignment. It is always advisable
to contact the manufacturer to discuss the exact application.

Equivalent Carbon Dioxide

There are few published references providing CO 2e for FRPs in civil applications. Most
research is for FRPs used in automobiles and airplanes. In these applications, the use phase of
the vehicle dominates greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts during the manufacturing
phase are seldom reported. A committee of the American Composites Manufacturing
Association (ACMA) is starting to develop life cycle inventory data for composites. Although this
information is not yet available, it will fill an important void once it is released. Table 9.1
summarizes the values found in the literature, listing available data for both constituent
materials as well as the fabricated composite. The sources of data are summarized briefly as
follows:

 Corbière-Nicollier et al. (2001) performed life cycle assessments of 15 kg FRP pallets

with and without biofibers. While pallets are used for transportation, they are roughly
comparable to preformed FRP shapes.

 Joshi et al. (2004) performed a meta-analysis of life cycle assessment studies on FRPs
using biofibers. They reported on CO2 emissions for glass fibers, plant-based fibers,
and epoxy resin. CO2e was not reported.

 The Plastics Europe database (Boustead, 2005) was consulted to obtain CO2e (at 100
years) for liquid epoxy resin.

43
 Russell-Smith and Lepech (2009) conducted a life cycle assessment on seismic
retrofits. They report on the CO 2e of epoxy resin and glass fiber provided by SimaPro
(database and time frame not specified). Unsaturated polyester resin is reported as
per their calculations (using 298 and 25 as global warming potential for nitrous oxide
and methane, respectively). This reference is discussed further below.

 Shimomura et al. (2009) reported on a case study of an FRP footbridge performed by

the Japan Society of Civil Engineering. The authors reported CO2 emissions for hand
layup and pultruded FRP, but do not specify whether they are referring to plain carbon
dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalents.

Table 9.1. Carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2e per kg of FRP, fiber, or matrix)
Ref Material Emissions Type Region Notes
2 Epoxy resin 5.90 CO2 Europe Cites Plastics Europe
2 Glass fiber 2.04 CO2 Europe Cites Ref 1 and personal
correspondence
3 Epoxy resin 8.1 CO2e Europe 100 year CO2e
4 Epoxy resin 1.11 CO2e USA From SimaPro, region assumed
4 Glass fiber 0.508 CO2e USA From SimaPro, region assumed
4 Unsat. polyester 2.82 CO2e USA
resin
1 FRP (glass pallet) 5.02 CO2e Europe
5 FRP (hand layup) 4.97 * Japan CO2 or CO2e not specified
5 FRP (pultruded) 3.09 * Japan CO2 or CO2e not specified
Numbered references are 1: Corbière- Nicollier et al., 2: Joshi et al., 3: Boustead, 4: Russell-
Smith and Lepech, and 5: Shimomura et al.
* = unclear from the article

Global warming potential of FRPs can also be studied using EIO-LCA (Economic Input/Output
Life Cycle Assessment), a life cycle methodology that uses macro-level economic inputs and
outputs to estimate life cycle impacts. The EIO-LCA database has values for “Laminated
Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing” (Carnegie Mellon 2011);
the top ten contributors to global warming potential are listed in Table 9.2. EIO-LCA is based on
economic indicators and therefore environmental impacts are reported per dollar of economic
activity (e.g., tons CO2e per dollar spent by the purchaser). Because prices of manufactured
FRPs are not openly advertised, it is not possible to convert the values reliably to the same units
used in Table 9.1. However, the data show that almost a third of the global warming potential is
due to power generation and supply.

It is apparent from the reported data that additional research is needed before the information
can be considered reliable. Values reported for the constituent properties (resins and fibers)
differed drastically. However, the data indicate that an application of FRP in infrastructure will
emit approximately three to five kg CO2e per kg of FRP.

44
Table 9.2. Top ten contributors to global warming potential of manufactured shapes. This
accounts for 76% of all manufactured shapes, based on data from Carnegie Mellon, 2011.
Sector Contribution
Power generation and supply 31%
Laminated plastics plate, sheet, and 10%
shapes
Other basic organic chemical 7%
manufacturing
Oil and gas extraction 6%
Plastics material and resin 5%
manufacturing
Paper mills 5%
Petrochemical manufacturing 4%
Petroleum refineries 4%
Truck transportation 3%
Industrial gas manufacturing 2%

Life Cycle Stages

Manufacture of Fibers (Holloway and Head, 2001)

Glass fibers are made from a number of oxides, primarily silica (silicon oxide or SiO 2). Fibers
are drawn from a melt that is held at approximately 1400 °C. Environmental impacts (including
CO2e and energy) due to production of glass fibers are primarily due to the energy required to
maintain the melt and the mining and transportation of raw materials.

Carbon fibers are produced from an organic precursor resin. Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) and tar- or
petroleum-based pitch are common precursors. The precursors are converted into carbon
(carbonized) in a multi-stage industrial process at temperatures between about 1200 °C and
2600 °C. The temperature is chosen in part based upon the desired strength and modulus of
elasticity of the fiber. Impacts due to production of carbon fibers are primarily due to
maintaining the high temperatures required for carbonation and to production of the precursors.

Aramid fibers are formed from a class of polymers called aromatic polyamides (aramid is the
short form of that name). The polymer is placed in a solvent at a temperature between -50 °C
and -80 °C. The fiber is extruded from this mixture and heated to about 200 °C so the solvent
will evaporate. Impacts due to production of aramid fibers are primarily due to temperature
control during the fabrication process and transportation of the aromatic polyamide and the
solvent.

Manufacture of Tows and Fabrics (Holloway and Head, 2001)

Individual filaments are combined into untwisted groups of filaments called tows (also called
strands). These can be combined (untwisted) into rovings. Filaments, strands, rovings, and
tows can be combined and twisted together to form yarns. These can all be woven into fabrics.

45
Composites are made directly from tows or from fabrics. Impacts during this phase are primarily
due to transportation and operation of machinery.

Manufacture of Matrices

A matrix is the material in which fibers are embedded. Plastics Europe (Boustead, 2005)
provides a brief overview of the stages of production for liquid epoxy resin. The main raw
precursors are brine and rock salt, natural gas, and crude oil, which are used to form NaOH,
Bisphenol-A, and epichlorohydrin after numerous stages. These materials are then combined to
form the liquid epoxy resin through a process of reaction, brine removal (using water),
distillation, filtration, and incineration of waste. Epoxy resin required a hardener. As stated by
Boustead:

Epoxy hardener products are numerous and vary widely in their precise
composition; in most cases, the composition is proprietary. This makes gathering
the necessary up-stream information extremely difficult and explains why there
are currently no meaningful LCI data available for these products.

Carbon dioxide emissions in this stage are due primarily to fuel use (51%) and fuel production
(44%).

Manufacture of Pre-Fabricated Structural Composite Components (Eckold, 1994)

Pultrusion is a process whereby fibers are pulled through a die to create forms such as wide
flange, channels, and tubes. While the fibers are in the die, liquid resin is injected under
pressure. The shape is formed in a heated part of the die. Curing is usually complete once the
part emerges from the die. The part can then be cut to size. Impacts during this phase are
primarily due to heating, transportation of raw materials, and operation of machinery.

Filament winding is a process whereby wetted fibers are wound around a mandrel. The fibers
can be wetted in a resin bath or pre-impregnated. The filament winding process can produce
shapes at most angles between longitudinal and transverse. Impacts during this phase are
primarily due to transportation of raw materials and operation of machinery.

Other prefabricated processes are possible but these are not as common in civil applications
and are not discussed.

Manufacture of Field-Applied Structural Composite Components

It is common in retrofit applications to apply the polymer in the field. The simplest process is
hand layup, which involves wetting the fabric in the matrix at the job site and applying it by hand
to the structure in the same manner as wallpaper. Preformed plates can also be bonded to the
surface with an adhesive; these can be used alone or in conjunction with hand-placed FRPs.
To improve the bond strength to the substrate, near surface mounted (NSM) applications are
also used. In NSM applications, pultruded FRP strips and an adhesive are placed in grooves
that have been cut into the surface of the concrete structure to be repaired. It is also possible to

46
use a filament winding machine in the field. The life cycle impacts during this phase involve
transportation of raw materials and machinery to the job site, general construction activities, and
operation of any necessary machinery.

Service

There are negligible direct impacts during service. FRPs are commonly used in retrofit
applications, for example in structures compromised by corrosion or in need of upgrade (e.g.,
seismic retrofit). In these and similar cases, the extension in service life should be taken into
account when conducting LCA studies.

Deconstruction

After use, the great majority of FRP is disposed of in the landfill. There are some nascent
efforts to recycle or reuse FRPs (Bartholomew 2004, Halliwell 2006). Some of the strategies
that they identify are:

 Mechanical grinding – the material can be down-cycled for other industrial uses

 Incineration for energy recovery and some reuse of ash, potentially in concrete

 Thermal or chemical treatments to recover some of the constituent materials for reuse
with their full virgin material properties

Functional Equivalence

At the material level, FRPs can be compared with other tensile materials such as steel by
requiring that they resist the same force at ultimate stress, or deflect the same amount for a
given force (in the elastic range). A sample comparison between CO 2e for FRP and for steel is
summarized in Table 9.3. Details about the calculations are provided in the Appendix A. These
values were obtained for a carbon/epoxy composite because it is representative of the most
common applications in civil structures. Typical values of strength, Young’s modulus, and
specific gravity are given in Table 9.4 for carbon/epoxy composites and steel. For both
stiffness- and strength-based comparisons, low and high values were calculated using 3.09
kg/kg and 5.02 kg/kg for CO 2e of FRP (see Table 9.1); CO2e of steel was taken as 1.0 (the
average of the values reported in Chapter 7 for hot rolled steel shapes). Although FRPs have
higher emissions of CO2e per mass of material, they are also lighter by roughly the same ratio.
Because of this, the material level comparisons show trends similar to comparing raw strength
and stiffness values: FRPs are far superior to steel in terms of strength and on par in terms of
stiffness.

This comparison does not take into account issues such as

 Structural applications in which strength and stiffness are not of immediate importance

 Environmental resistance of FRP

 Ability for FRP to extend the service life

47
 Smaller substructures needed to support lighter FRP

 Brittle behavior of FRP that requires larger safety factors on its use

Table 9.3. CO2e emissions for steel and carbon/epoxy FRP considering material functional
equivalence
Equivalence CO2e FRP / CO2e steel
Strength 0.18 Low FRP estimate
0.29 High FRP estimate
Stiffness 0.71 Low FRP estimate
1.15 High FRP estimate

Table 9.4. Properties of typical carbon/epoxy FRP (Kaw 1997) and steel
Property FRP Steel
Strength (ksi) 217 60
Young’s Modulus (Msi) 23.6 29
Specific Gravity 1.6 7.8

To make a proper comparison, more determinations of functional equivalence are necessary;

these would depend on how the materials are applied structurally. A literature review
discovered only one study of this type. The study was conducted by Russell-Smith and Lepech,
who compared seismic retrofits of bridge columns using steel and FRP jackets. Russell-Smith
and Lepech designed all jackets to provide a target level of confinement and reported the
resulting equivalent carbon dioxide emissions on an annualized basis (per year of service life).
In this study, the FRP emerged as the favorable material (both in terms of CO 2e and energy
use). For example, the authors found that for the bridge to perform at the “moderate damage”
state during a “weak event” required 0.012 CO2e/yr for epoxy-based FRP jackets and 0.36
CO2e/yr for steel jackets. This difference is due to the material quantities required to achieve
the desired performance.

Because of the small number of functional equivalence studies in the literature, it is premature
to claim conclusively that any one material is better than any other. However, preliminary
indications are that FRPs are competitive in terms of carbon emissions and that using FRPs for
structural rehabilitation can result in further comparative advantages.

48
CHAPTER 10: EXAMPLES

Until standardized methods of carbon impact are fully developed and implemented, we cannot
be certain that carbon figures obtained from different sources, and perhaps even from the same
sources, are directly comparable. For these reasons, the following exercise is intended for
demonstration purposes only and is not intended to provide a definitive conclusion regarding the
relative carbon impacts of various systems.

Many factors determine the appropriate structural system for a building, and engineers should
not use this example to justify selection of a certain structural system. However, engineers can
use the data from earlier sections of this report to start performing such calculations and using
them to inform design decisions. Such calculations will help engineers understand what
elements of the structural system are making the most significant contributions to the overall
embodied impacts of the structural system. The goal of this study is to perform a ‘carbon
accounting’ of typical floor framing options, demonstrate a methodology appropriate for use by
practicing engineers and identify opportunities to minimize the embodied carbon impacts of floor
structures.

To demonstrate how a structural engineer may use this report to perform such calculations
three hypothetical floor plates were investigated. The floor plan developed for this example aims
to convey what might be found in a typical speculative office building. The floor plate is
approximately 29,000 SF and contains provisions for stair and elevator openings as well a
modest architectural expression at the corners to maximize the number of offices with corner
views. It also maintains a roughly 40-foot lease depth from the core, a requirement of most
contemporary office buildings. These traits are noted because they account for a modest
increase in structural quantities as compared to a more simplistic bay study with more idealized
framing conditions.

This example considers three common gravity framing systems that are used in various parts of
the United States. Plans and sections of the floor systems can be found on drawings S-001
through S-003 at the end of this chapter. The systems are:

 Mild reinforced pan-formed concrete beams with post-tensioned concrete girders

 Two-way post-tensioned floor slab with “wide shallow” concrete beams
 Composite steel beams and composite concrete floor deck

49
Design criteria for each example:

 50 psf live load

 15 psf partition load
 10 psf superimposed dead load
 Curtain wall load of 120 plf (10 psf w/ 12’-0” floor height)
 Minimum 1-hour floor rating
 No special consideration for floor vibrations
 Deflection Criteria
o span/240 total loads
o span /360 live loads
o Camber steel beams for 80% DL, ¾” min. camber

This example also assumes that lateral loads are carried entirely by either steel braced frames
or concrete shear walls. The magnitude of lateral loads will vary significantly based on a
structure’s location and were not evaluated in this example. However, the concepts illustrated
by these examples, such as the relative carbon contributions of the constituents of concrete,
can also be applied to vertical framing members and foundation elements.

The scope of this analysis is the primary structural materials to support the floor evaluating the
global warming potential/carbon footprint as a single environmental impact. See Appendix B on
LCA for more information about international standards body’s recommendations for appropriate
use of this type of data. The carbon footprint data for each of the primary materials is given as a
‘cradle to gate’ and comes from the earlier sections of this paper. Not included in this analysis
are: transportation of the materials to the site, construction site energy and material use,
concrete formwork, steel fabrication, end of life impacts.

In determining the structural material quantities, practicing structural engineers with familiarity
with this type of construction completed the structural design for the floor framing systems. The
quantities used in these examples come from those analyses. These quantities are
representative of the resolution one might have at the end of Design Development. Member
sizes and reinforcement ratios were calculated for specific spans. Rules of thumb based on the
engineers experience were applied to the base quantities to account for bar bends, splices, and
steel connections. However, other materials, such as edge angles, that may not be accounted
for in bay studies, were included. Temporary items and other construction products such as
curing compounds, concrete admixtures, and steel coatings (paints and fireproofing) were not
included in this study. While these items are not included given the scale of this study, they
may be significant. Further study is needed to identify if such additional detail is significant and
required to ensure effective comparisons between systems.

Because cement is a CO2-intensive material and concrete mix proportions can be crafted as
part of the structural specifications, we have performed the carbon calculations assuming two
sets of concrete mixes. The first set of mixes (Table 10.1) represent what the authors
commonly see in construction: concrete with a compressive strength specified at 28 days and
roughly 20% of the cementitious content in the form of supplementary cementitious materials
(SCMs). Based on the fact that cement content is the dominant contributor to the embodied CO2

50
of a concrete mix (see concrete chapter), the embodied CO 2 of all concrete mixes was assumed
to be 0.89 times the cement content of the mix. Other carbon intensity ratios come directly from
the applicable chapters of this paper.

Table 10.1. Assumed concrete mix proportions for “base” mixes (lb/yd3)

Embodied
Mix Cement Fly Ash Rock Sand Water Carbon
3500 psi 400 100 1,850 1,375 260 355
(Slab on
Metal Deck)
5000 psi 480 120 1,950 1,250 265 425

A second set of mixes, called “enhanced” mixes in this paper, were also approximated (Table
10.2). These mixes represent what one might see in a contemporary building striving to
minimize carbon emissions. In these mixes, 40% of the cementitious content is in the form of
SCMs. To reflect what is commonly seen in mixes, the overall cementitious content was
increased by 10% to help mitigate concerns regarding early strength gain. Consequently the
resulting mixes have a lower embodied CO 2 per cubic yard, but not the full 25% reduction the
percentage of cement replacement implies. This is an approximation that is more valid for some
SCMs than others and should be coordinated with materials available in local markets.

Table 10.2. Assumed concrete mix proportions for “enhanced” mixes (lb/yd3)

Embodied
Mix Cement Fly Ash Rock Sand Water Carbon
3500 Slab 330 220 1,830 1,375 260 295
on Metal
Deck
5000 psi 400 270 1,875 1,200 265 355

Table 10.3 summarizes the embodied carbon for each material and the quantity of material in
each option. Tables 10.4 and 10.5 summarize the total embodied carbon for each option for the
base and enhanced concrete mixes, respectively.

The results of this example show that the total embodied carbon of each of the three “base”
systems are well within the uncertainty of the available carbon data. This example does not
account for impacts due to material transportation, installation, or end-of-life-phases.
Furthermore, design criteria and construction-phase impacts such as fire-proofing and floor
vibration acceptance criteria were not addressed in this design.

More importantly this example shows where the carbon comes from in each system. It is not
surprising that in the concrete examples the vast majority of the carbon comes from the
concrete, but even in the composite steel example roughly one third of the carbon comes from
the concrete, and more specifically the cement in the concrete. This reinforces the importance
of developing low carbon concrete for all structures. This is a property unique to concrete.

51
Concrete producers have the capability of adjusting mix designs to meet certain performance
criteria, including carbon footprint, without retooling a plant or constructing a new plant to
accommodate a new manufacturing process.

Table 10.3. Material quantities and embodied carbon (EC) for all options (lbs unless noted
otherwise)
EC
(lbs CO2 / lb
except where Pan Formed Post Tensioned
Item noted) Beam Slab Composite Steel
3500 psi 355 (lb /CY) 455
0 0
concrete (CY) (base mix)
5000 psi 425 (lb/CY) 0
800 824
concrete (CY) (base mix)
Rebar 0.59 125,000 64,000 2,420
Post 2.83 14,000 17,670 0
Tensioning
Strand
Metal Deck 1.79 0 0 68,000
Shear Studs 0.81 0 0 1,700
Welded Wire 8,500
1.35 0 0
Reinforcement
Steel Shapes 0.81 0 0 166,000
Deck Closure 1.79 0 0 4,500

Table 10.4. Carbon account for all options assuming “base” mixes
Item Pan-Formed Beam Post-Tensioned Slab Composite Steel

CO2 % of CO2 % of CO2 % of

(lbs) System (lbs) System (lbs) System
3500 psi
concrete (CY)
0 0% 0 0% 161,500 37%
5000 psi
concrete (CY)
340,000 75% 350,200 80% 0 0%
Rebar 73,800 16% 37,800 9% 1,400 <1%
Post
Tensioning 39,600 9% 50,000 11% - 0%
Strand
Metal Deck 0 0% 0 0% 121,700 28%
Shear Studs 0 0% 0 0% 1,400 <1%
Welded Wire
0 0% 0 0% 11,500 3%
Reinforcement
Steel Shapes 0 0% 0 0% 134,500 31%
Deck Closure 0 0% 0 0% 8,100 2%
TOTALS 453,400 100% 438,000 100% 440,100 100%

52
Table 10.5. Carbon account for all options assuming “enhanced” mixes

Item Pan-Formed Beam Post-Tensioned Slab Composite Steel

CO2 % of CO2 % of CO2 % of

(lbs) System (lbs) System (lbs) System
3500 psi
concrete (CY)
0 0% - 0% 134,200 33%
5000 psi
concrete (CY)
282,700 71% 291,100 77% 0 0%
Rebar 73,800 19% 37,800 10% 1,400 <1%
Post
Tensioning 39,600 10% 50,000 13% 0 0%
Strand
Metal Deck 0 0% 0 0% 121,700 29%
Shear Studs 0 0% 0 0% 1,400 <1%
Welded Wire
0 0% 0 0% 11,500 3%
Reinforcement
Steel Shapes 0 0% 0 0% 134,500 33%
Deck Closure 0 0% 0 0% 8,100 2%
TOTALS 396,100 100% 378,900 100% 412,800 100%

Other observations that designers may want to consider from these examples:

 Due to the higher embodied carbon in the steel deck, the floor deck makes nearly
as large a contribution to the overall embodied energy as the rolled shapes.
During design it may be worth exploring deck producers who use EAF steel
rather than BOF steel for their decks.
 Even though the embodied carbon on a unit basis for the post-tensioning strand
was considerably higher than that of the other steel, it makes a relatively small
impact compared to the mild reinforcing steel.
 Focus on optimizing concrete mixes.
 More/better data is needed to develop more sophisticated analyses.

The carbon values used in this paper, including in this example, are based on publicly available
carbon data developed by different organizations at different times using different assumptions.
Our hope is that practitioners will soon have at their disposal more reliable and comparable
figures for carbon intensity that will give more credence to calculations such as these. The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory is compiling a U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database
(https://www.lcacommons.gov/) that may eventually fulfill this need. Additionally, the World
Resource Institute is developing product-specific carbon footprint standards and ASTM and
others are developing “product category rule” standards which enable the development of
environmental product declarations (EPDs). EPDs provide third-party certification allowing
more accurate and reliable comparisons between products and assemblies. With supply-chain-
specific product carbon footprints, designers could specify carbon emissions as a performance
metric to motivate and reward lower impact/higher efficiency manufacturing methods.

53
54
55
56
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Functionally Equivalent Material Comparison

To compare two tensile materials, assume that for each material a coupon of length L and cross
sectional area A is tested. The length is the same for both, but the area can vary. For each
specimen the mass density  is

m ,
 (1)
A L
where m is the mass of the tensile coupon. The relative global warming potential of each
material is defined as

mc
 , (2)
m
where mc is the mass of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted.

To compare two materials on the basis of equivalent strength, the materials are required to
resist the same force at ultimate stress, i.e.,

 u1  A1   u 2  A2 .
Substituting equations 1 and 2 and rearranging yields

mc1  u 2 1 1
   .
mc 2  u1  2  2
To compare two materials on the basis of equivalent stiffness, the materials are required to
deform the same amount for a given force P, i.e.,

PL PL
 .
E1  A1 E2  A2
As before, substituting equations 1 and 2 and rearranging yields

mc1 E2 1 1
   .
mc 2 E1  2  2

57
Appendix B: LCA

This information was adapted with permission from a publication of the Carbon Leadership
Forum: www.carbonleadershipforum.org.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a standardized method (ISO 2006b,c) for tracking the
environmental impacts of a product or process throughout the full life cycle including material
extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal. Another name for a carbon footprint
would be a single impact LCA result. LCA methods were developed to evaluate and improve
the environmental impacts of manufacturing processes and have evolved to providing standards
to report the environmental footprint of products and materials.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is a widely used greenhouse gas emission
accounting standard that has been developed in cooperation between the World Resource
Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD). While
initial standards focused on reporting corporate carbon footprints, in October of 2011 they
released a Product Standard (WRI/WBCSD, 2011). This standard articulates methods
appropriate for evaluating and tracking the carbon footprint of a material or product. This
standard is based on LCA methodology and efforts to harmonize these standards with ISO are
underway.

In order for environmental footprint data to be used in procurement decision-making and/or

product certification and labeling programs, the GHG Protocol Product standard requires that
the reporting conform to industry-specific ‘product rules’ or guidelines called Product Category
Rules (PCRs) that include quantification of ‘all’ environmental impacts. Thus carbon footprint
data alone is not considered adequate to establish if a product or material is 'environmentally
preferable.' A low carbon product might be a very poor performer in another environmental
category (e.g. smog potential, ozone depletion, water use etc.). ISO standards (ISO 2006a)
provide guidance for developing and reporting the environmental footprint, or an Environmental
Product Declaration (EPD), of products. EPDs are typically business-to-business
communication documents are defined by the Product Category Rules (PCRs) in accordance
with the ISO standards (ISO 14025). They summarize the results of LCA work in a format which
is standardized and consistent for each product category. Developing standards (CEN, ASTM)
are providing additional clarification to help ensure uniformity for building products.

Using LCA methodology when evaluating carbon footprints can be helpful in developing
rigorous analysis and clarity of results. ISO 14044 (ISO 2006c) details the technical
requirements for an 'ISO compliant LCA.' A summary of critical issues related to LCA include:

1. Goal: A fundamental first step of an ISO-compliant LCA is to identify the ‘goal’ (why
the study is being done). For example, an LCA compiled with the goal of identifying
and reducing environmental impacts in a manufacturing process will likely produce
different results than an LCA compiled to capture the total environmental impacts
attributed to producing a product type.

2. Functional Unit: LCI/LCA data should be tied to the functional unit of the material or
product, which should include quantity, quality and duration (e.g. 100sf of floor to
support a live load of 100psf with max ¼” deflection for 50 years). If looking to

58
 compare results of different analyses, care should be taken to ensure that equivalency
of function is maintained.

3. Scope/System Boundaries: LCA requires a clear definition of the scope (what is

included and what is excluded). While the results of an LCI are theoretically
comprehensive, in practice the preparation of an LCI requires the practitioner to make
assumptions about what to include, what impacts to measure and what data sources to
use. Based upon the goal of the study, the analysis may exclude some of the life-cycle
phases resulting in data that is not comparable. Often studies will exclude
contributions from phases such as fabrication and construction, based both on a belief
that the contributions are minimal and also on the difficulty in attaining data. When
developing an analysis to compare materials, products or systems, defining the system
boundary to effectively capture comparable components is critical to obtain meaningful
results.

4. Allocation: There are multiple valid methods to allocate environmental impacts

between products produced during the same process that require some judgment in
interpretation. Predicting recycling and re-use rates as well as determining what
processes should ‘bear’ which portion of the environmental burden can significantly
alter LCA results and thus understanding the methodology behind these decisions is
critical to understanding and interpreting the impacts.

5. Environmental Impacts: There are different methods for characterizing environmental

impact. As noted earlier in the paper, there are generally accepted methods for
characterizing global warming potential in terms of carbon equivalents. For example,
care should be taken to ensure that carbon footprints are reporting CO 2e rather than
only carbon. European and US standards have different methods of tracking and
reporting environmental impacts which are not always comparable.

59
Appendix C: LCI

This information was adapted with permission from a publication of the Carbon Leadership
Forum: www.carbonleadershipforum.org.

Life Cycle Inventories compile and report the environmental impacts associated with a particular
'unit process' (e.g. manufacturing of a glue-laminated beam). Carbon is one of many
environmental impacts tracked by most LCIs. A summary of data sources (See references)
used in this paper is given below. Unless otherwise noted the data provided is ‘cradle-to-gate’
and thus does not include the carbon impacts associated with transportation to the jobsite,
fabrication, erection, maintenance and demolition.

1. The U.S. LCI Database: the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) maintains this
database. The data is now hosted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s LCA
Commons. Data from this source is open-access for anyone who registers with the
site. The government depends on industry to collect and report the data and does
limited verification. The database is incomplete; it does not include information on
many typical materials or products. US industries should be encouraged to develop
and submit up to date data to this database. The database provides a placeholder for
data uncertainty but it is not consistently populated.

2. Published Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Reports: Industry organizations and

researchers have developed and published LCAs for different materials and products.
Carbon is one impact typically reported in an LCA and thus can be extracted from more
comprehensive results. Care should be taken when using data from a unique LCA to
make sure that the scope of impacts included and methods to compute them are
clearly understood and compatible with other data used.

3. Bath Inventory of Carbon and Energy: Published by the University of Bath, this report,
now in its second edition, presents data for carbon and energy impacts of primary
building materials. While focused on the UK market, the material profiles identify the
energy mix used. In many cases the production of energy to manufacture a process is
the dominant carbon impact and therefore this data can be extrapolated to different
markets with different energy sources. Recent databases include ‘cradle-to-site’ data.
The database presents some of the background for the data sources enabling the user
to infer data quality

4. BEES: The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has created a
database of life cycle inventories for building materials and products. As is the case
with the US LCI database, the materials and products included are not comprehensive.
Manufacturers are required to pay for an LCA to get their data posted on the BEES
site. The LCAs are created by government consultants using proprietary LCI
databases. No reference to data quality is included.

5. Athena: The Athena Institute is a non-profit based in Canada that has integrated LCI
data into building industry specific tools: the Athena Eco Calculator (free) and the
Athena Impact Estimator. The Athena tools include average transportation distances
(results customizable for different US regions) as well as the impacts from construction,
maintenance and demolition. The tools are developed with the goal to help designers
evaluate the environmental impact of construction without developing detailed material
quantity take-offs. The Impact Estimator also provides environmental impacts per unit

60
 quantity values for primary structural materials. No reference to data quality or
uncertainty is included.

6. Proprietary Data Sets: Commercial LCA tools (such as SimaPro and GaBi) access
public and proprietary LCI datasets. While none of this data was available to the
research team preparing this report, these datasets are widely used by LCA
practitioners when developing unique LCAs.

7. Environmental Economic Input/Output Tables (EIO). The US Government collects

data on economic activity (Department of Commerce) and environmental impacts
(Environmental Protection Agency). EIO tables correlate these two data sets to link
dollars spent in a specific industry to environmental impacts. Two available US
databases include the Carnegie Mellon (public access) and CEDA (private). The
benefit of EIO data is that it is often relatively easy to quantify dollars spent vs. actual
material quantities. While comprehensive (including majority of US economy) the data
is very general. No EIO data was used in this paper except in Chapter 9.

61
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Chapter 1: Introduction

Kestner, Dirk, Jennifer Goupil, and Emily Lorenze (ed.), Sustainability Guidelines for the
Structural Engineer, ASCE, 2010.

Burke, Marshall B., Edward Miguel, Shanker Satyanath, John A. Dykemae and David B. Lobell,
“Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol. 106 no. 49, December 8, 2009.
.
Committee on America’s Climate Choices, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,
Division of Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies,
America’s Climate Choices, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12781.html, 2011.

IPCC Synthesis Report, 2007. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team,
Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthes
is_report.htm.

Chapter 2: Climate Change

CDIAC 2011. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center: Tom Boden, Gregg Marland, and
Bob Andres, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. – June 25, 2012.-
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2008.cap

CIA 2012, Central Intelligence Agency, “The World Fact Book”, – June 25, 2012.-
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Conway 2012. Conway, Thomas and Tans, Pieter. NOAA/ESRL. – June 25 2012.-
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends.

Cook (undated). Cook, John. Skeptical Science Graphics for SkepticalScience.com. A Creative
Commons Attribution. Retrieved on June 26, 2012
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=10

Hansen 2008. Hansen, James. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?,” Open
Atmos. Sci. J. vol. 2, pp. 217-231, October 15, 2008 http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126.

Hansen 2007. Hansen, James, et al. “Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a
GISS modelE study” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2287-2312, 2007.
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/

IPCC 2007. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and
H.L. Miller (eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working

62
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
FAQ 3.1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faqIndex.html

IPCC 2007-1. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J.
Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van
Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf (direct link)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html (TOC for whole report)

Law Dome 2011. Law Dome Ice Core Data, Updated August 4, 2011.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_data.html

Monnin 2004, Monnin E., et al. "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in
Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO 2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C
and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54.

Petit 1999. Petit, J.R. et al. "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from
the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436.

Rockström 2009. Johan Rockström et al., “A safe operating space for humanity,” Nature, Vol.
461, September 2009.

Tans 2012. Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean data [Online] / auth. Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL. -
June 25, 2012. - ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt.

Tans 2012-1.Tans, Pieter, “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Mauna Loa, Hawaii”,
NOAA/ESRL. - June 25, 2012. - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.

Union of Concerned Scientists, Global Warming FAQ. - September 15, 2010. -

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-
faq.html#Why_does_CO2_get_most_of_the_attention.

University of California - San Diego 2008. (2008, March 24). Black Carbon Pollution Emerges
As Major Player In Global Warming. ScienceDaily. - June 25 2012 -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210225.htm

The World Bank 2010. "World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change;
Part II: Selected Development Indicators." International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development , The World Bank; Washington DC, USA. 362.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-
1226014527953/Statistical-Annex.pdf

63
Chapter 3: Uncertainty

ASTM International. (in progress). WK23356: Standard Practice for Product Category Rules for
Use in Development of Environmental Declarations for Building Products and Systems.
(unpublished standard under development)

European Committee for Standardization, (CEN). (2011). FprEN 15804:2011 Sustainability of

construction works - Environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of
construction product. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

European Committee for Standardization, (CEN). (2011). CEN 15942:2011, Sustainability of

construction works - Environmental product declarations - Communication format business-to-
business. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006) 14025:2006 Environmental labels

and declarations-Type III environmental declarations-Principles and procedures. Geneva: ISO.

ISO (2006) 14044:2006 Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and

guidelines. Geneva: ISO.

ISO (2006) 14040:2006 Life Cycle Assessment--Principles and Framework. Geneva: ISO.

Norris, G. (Unknown). The Many Dimensions of Uncertainty Analysis in LCA. Retrieved

October 15, 2011 from
http://www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/UncertaintyAnalysis_in_LCA.pdf .

Reap, J. Roman, F, Duncan, S, & 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: 374-388.

World Resource Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2011).

Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. Retrieved
May 25, 20112 from: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-standard.

World Steel. (2010). Worldwide Steel LCI Results. Requested data available via
http://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/life-cycle-assessment/about-the-lci.html.

Chapter 4: Contribution of Buildings to Climate Change

DOE 2009. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008, U.S. Department of
Energy, December 2009, http://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057308.pdf.

Guggemos, A. A. and Horvath, A. (2005). “Comparison of Environmental Effects of Steel and

Concrete Framed Buildings,” ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, June 2005, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2005.

Marceau, M.L, and VanGeem, M.G. (2007). “Modeling Energy Performance of Concrete
Buildings for LEED-NC Version 2.2: Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1, SN2880a,” Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2007a, 55 pp.

64
Morris, Peter. “Reducing Embodied Carbon in the Built Environment,” GreenBuild presentation,
2010.

Ochsendorf, J., Norford, L.K., Brown, D., Durschlag, H., Hsu, S. L., Love, A., Santero, N., Swei,
O., Webb, A., Wildnauer, M. (2011). Methods, Impacts, and Opportunities in the Concrete
Building Life Cycle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Concrete Sustainability Hub,
Cambridge, MA, 2011.

O’Connor, Jennifer. “Survey on Actual Service Lives for North American Buildings,” Woodframe
Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, 2004.

Webster, M. D. (2004). “Relevance of Structural Engineers to Sustainable Design of Buildings,”

Structural Engineering International, August 2004.

Chapter 5: Concrete

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): 549–
546.

Gajda, John. 2006. Absorption of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by Portland Cement Concrete,
PCA R&D Serial No. 2255a, published 2001, revised Jun 2006.

Kestner (2010). Kestner, D. M., Goupil, J., and Lorenz, E. (eds.), Sustainability Guidelines for
the Structural Engineer, sponsored by the Sustainability Committee of the Structural
Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Kosmatka, S., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese, W. 2002. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures:
14th ed., Skokie, IL, Portland Cement Association.

Lagerblad, B. 2005. Carbon Dioxide Uptake During Concrete Life Cycle – State of the Art.
Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, CBI.

Marceau, Medgar L., Nisbet, Michael A., and VanGeem, Martha G. Life Cycle Inventory of
Portland Cement Concrete, SN3011, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, PCA, 2007,
121 pages.

Neville, Adam M. 1995. Properties of Concrete, 4th ed.

Pade, C. et al. The CO2 Uptake of Concrete in the Perspective of Life Cycle Inventory,
International Symposium on Sustainability in the Cement and Concrete Industry, Lillehammer,
Norway, September 2007.

Rostami, Vahid, Shao, Yixin and Boyd, Andrew J., “Carbonation Curing versus Steam Curing for
Precast Concrete Production,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, September 2012

Santero, N. et al, Methods, Impacts, and Opportunities in the Concrete Pavement Life Cycle,
MIT Concrete Sustainability HUB, August 2011.

65
Shao, Yixin and Lin, Xiaolu, “Early-Age Carbonation Curing of Concrete Using Recovered CO 2,”
Concrete International, September 2011.

Van Oss, H. 2005. Background Facts and Issues Concerning Cement and Cement Data. Open-
File Report 2005-1152, U.S. Geological Survey.

Van Oss, H., and Padovani, A. 2003. Cement and the environment; Part II—Environmental
challenges and opportunities, J. of Industrial Ecology, 7(1), 93-126.

Van Oss, H. 2011. Mineral Commodity Summary 2011: Cement. U.S. Geological Survey.

Van Oss, H. 2001. Mineral Commodity Summary 2011: Cement. U.S. Geological Survey.

Chapter 6: Masonry

Athena™ (1993). Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental Unit Factor
Estimates: Cement and Structural Concrete Products. Prepared by Canada Center for Mineral &
Energy Technology and Radian Canada, Inc. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Ottawa,
Canada.

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2005) Cement and Structural Concrete Products: Life
Cycle Inventory Update #2, Ottawa, Canada.

Baltimore, C. and Mwangi, J., (2009) Going Green with Concrete Masonry Grout, Summer/Fall
2009 Masonry Chronicles, Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada.

Fonseca, F. and Siggard, K., (2012) High Volume Fly Ash Masonry Grout. Structure Magazine,
May 2012.

Hammond, G.P., and Jones C.I., (2008) Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Version 1.6a,
http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/

Koski, J. A. (1992). How Concrete Block Are Made, Masonry Construction, October 1992,
pp.374-377.

Lenchuk, P. (2002). From the Carriage Age... To the Space Age...: The Birth and Growth of the
Concrete Masonry Industry, Part II The Coming of Age, National Concrete Masonry Association.

Marceau, M. L., Nisbet, M. A., and VanGeem, M. G. (2007) Life Cycle Inventory of Portland
Cement Concrete, SN3011, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, PCA.

Marceau, M.L., and Van Geem, M.G. (2008) Comparison of the Life Cycle Assessments of a
Concrete Masonry House and a Wood Frame House, SN3042, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Illinois, PCA.

Mckee, B. (2008). Concrete Masonry Units, Architect Magazine. Hanley Wood, LLC., 13 Mar.
2008. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://www.architectmagazine.com/masonry-construction/concrete-
masonry-units.aspx>.

66
Meyer, C., Egosi, N. and Andela, C. (2001) Concrete with Waste Glass as Aggregate in
Recycling and Re-use of Glass Cullet, Dhir, Dyer and Limbachiya, editors, Proceedings of the
International Symposium Concrete Technology Unit of ASCE and University of Dundee, March
19-20, 2001.

Portland Cement Association (2002). Masonry Cement: Product Data Sheet, IS282, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, PCA, September 2002.

Portland Cement Association (2011a). PCA - Concrete Masonry Units - Block,

http://www.cement.org/masonry/block.asp, last accessed May 2011.

Portland Cement Association (2011b). Concrete Technology and Construction, http

http://www.cement.org/tech/index.asp, last accessed May 2011.

Venta, G. (1998). Life Cycle Analysis of Brick and Mortar Products, Venta, Glaser and
Associates, Athena Sustainable Materials Institute.

Volz, V., and Stovner, E. (2010) Reducing Embodied Energy in Masonry Construction. Part 2:
Evaluating New Masonry Materials. Structure Magazine, September 2010.

Chapter 7: Structural Steel

AISC 2008. American Institute of Steel Construction, “Structural Steel: An Industry Overview,”
December 2008.

AISC 2008-1. American Institute of Steel Construction, “Steel Quiz,” Modern Steel Construction,
June 2008.

AISC 2010. American Institute of Steel Construction, “Structural Steel: An Industry Overview,”
September 2010.

Athena 2002. The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Inventory:
Canadian and US Steel Production by Mill Type, March 2002.

Cole 1999. Cole, Raymond J., “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the
Construction of Alternative Structural Systems,” Building and Environment, v. 34, pp. 335-348.

Hammond, G.P., and Jones C.I., (2008) Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Version 1.6a,
http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/

Kestner, Dirk, Jennifer Goupil, and Emily Lorenze (ed.), Sustainability Guidelines for the
Structural Engineer, ASCE, 2010.

Martin, N.; Worrell, E.; Ruth, M.; Price, L.; Elliott, R.N.; Shipley, A.M.; and Thorne, J. Emerging
Energy-Efficient Industrial Technologies, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Environmental Energy, Technologies Division, October 2000.

SMA 2007. Steel Manufacturers Association, “Carbon ‘Footprints’ in U.S. Steelmaking,” by John
Stubbles, 2007.

67
SRI 2009. Steel Recycling Institute, “2008 The Inherent Recycled Content of Today’s Steel,”
updated December 2009.

SRI 2011. Steel Recycling Institute, “2009 Steel Recycling Rates.”

USGS 2010. United States Geological Survey, “2008 Minerals Yearbook: Iron and Steel
[Advance Release],” March 2010.

USGS 2010-1. United States Geological Survey, “Iron and Steel Statistics,” December 7, 2010
(http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ironsteel.pdf).

Weisenberger 2010. Weisenberger, Geoff, “The Fabrication Factor,” Modern Steel Construction,
July 2010.

World Steel 2008. World Steel Association, “Fact Sheet: Raw Materials,” October 2008.

Chapter 8: Wood

Athena 2011. Athena Impact Estimator (v4.1.14), Athena Sustainable Materials Institute.

B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (Editors) (2007). Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Alvarez, M. (2007). The State of America’s Forests. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda,
MD: Society of American Foresters.

Wilson, J. and E. Dancer. (2005). Gate-to-gate Life-Cycle Inventory of I-joist

Production. CORRIM’s special issue of Wood and Fiber Science

Bowyer J., Bratkovich S., Lindburg A. and Fernholz K. (2008). Wood Products and Carbon
Protocols – carbon storage and low energy intensity should be considered. Dovetail Partners,
Inc.

British Standards Institute (2011) PAS 2050:2011 (Publicly Available Specification) Specification
for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services, BSI
Group, London, UK.

EPA (2003) Wood waste combustion in boilers. US Environmental Protection Agency. Chapter
1, External Combustion Sources AP-42 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/index.html).

Falk, R. H. (undated). Wood Handbook, Chapter 01: Wood as a Sustainable Building Material,
General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory: 1-1 - 1-6. Chapter 1.

Hofmann (2000). Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Current Understanding and Plans for Future
Research, NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

IPCC (2007). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R.

68
Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.

Kestner, D.M., Goupil J., Lorenz E. (Editors) (2010). Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural
Engineer, Sustainability committee of the Structural Engineers Institute, ASCE.

Law, Beverly Elizabeth and Harmon, Mark E., “Forest Sector Carbon Management,
Measurement and Verification, and Discussion of Policy Related to Climate Change,” Carbon
Management 2(1), 73-84, 2011.

Lippke B., Wilson J., Meil J. and Taylor A. (2010). Characterizing the importance of carbon
stored in wood products. CORRIM’s special issue of Wood and Fiber Science

Lippke B. and Edmonds L. (2006). Environmental Performance Improvement in Residential

Construction: the impact of products, biofuels and processes (a Phase 2 research module).
Forest Products Journal.

Murray, B., Nicholson, R., Ross, M., Holloway, T. and Patil, S. (2006). Biomass energy
consumption in the forest products industry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy; Re-
search Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1998) Efficient Wood Use in Residential Construction - A
Practical Guide to Saving Wood, Money, and Forests, NRDC New York, NY

Puettmann, M. and Wilson J. (2005). Life-Cycle Analysis of Wood Products: Cradle-to-gate LCI
of Residential Building Materials. CORRIM’s special issue of Wood and Fiber Science.

Chapter 9: Fiber-Reinforced Plastic

ACI (2007). Report on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
ACI 440R-07, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

Advani, S.G. and Sozer, E. M. (2003). Process modeling in composites manufacturing, Marcel
Dekker, New York.

Bakis, Charles E. (2009). Life Cycle Analysis Issues in the Use of FRP Composites in Civil
Infrastructure, US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Infrastructure
Materials.

Bartholomew, K. (2004). Fiberglass Reinforced Polymers Recycling, Minnesota Technical

Assistance Program, < http://mntap.umn.edu/fiber/resources/report12-04.pdf> [Accessed 23
June, 2011].

Boustead, I. (2005). Liquid Epoxy Resins, Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry,
Plastics Europe, Brussels.

69
Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2011). Economic Input-Output Life Cycle
Assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model [Internet], Available from: <http://www.eiolca.net/>
[Accessed 25 May, 2011].

Corbière-Nicollier, T., Gfeller Laban, B., Lundquist, L., Leterrier, Y., Månson, J.-A.E., and Jolliet,
O. (2001). Life cycle assessment of biofibres replacing glass fibres as reinforcement in plastics,
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 33:267-287.

Cutter, Andrea G. (2008). Development and Characterization of Renewable Resource-based

Structural Composite Materials, M.S. Thesis, University of California San Diego.

Eckold, G. (1994). Design and Manufacture of Composite Structures, McGraw Hill.

Halliwell, S. (2006). End of Life Options for Composite Waste, National Composites Network,
<http://www.compositesuk.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=f3y8cNT6pIg%3D&tabid=111&mid=5
50> [Accessed 23 June, 2011].

Hollaway, L.C., and Head, P.R. (2001). Advanced Polymer Composites and Polymers in the
Civil Infrastructure, Elsevier.

Joshi, S.V., Drzal, L.T., Mohanty, A.K., and Arora, S. (2004). Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites?, Composites Part A, 35.

Kaw, Autar (1997). Mechanics of composite materials, CRC.

Russell-Smith, Sarah V. and Lepech, Michael D. (2009). Life Cycle Assessment of FRP
Seismic Retrofitting, US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable
Infrastructure Materials.

Shimomura, Takumi, (2009). Report on JSCE Committee Activities on LCA and LCC of FRP
Infrastructure, US-Japan Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Infrastructure
Materials.

Appendix B: LCA

ASTM International. (in progress). WK23356: Standard Practice for Product Category Rules for
Use in Development of Environmental Declarations for Building Products and Systems.
(unpublished standard under development)

European Committee for Standardization, (CEN). (2011). FprEN 15804:2011 Sustainability of

construction works - Environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of
construction product. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

European Committee for Standardization, (CEN). (2011). CEN 15942:2011, Sustainability of

construction works - Environmental product declarations - Communication format business-to-
business. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006a) 14025:2006 Environmental labels

and declarations-Type III environmental declarations-Principles and procedures. Geneva: ISO.

70
 ISO (2006b) 14040:2006 Life Cycle Assessment--Principles and Framework. Geneva: ISO.

ISO (2006c) 14044:2006 Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and

guidelines. Geneva: ISO.

Konig, H. Kholer, N. Kreissig, J. Lutzkendorf, T. (2010). A life cycle approach to buildings:

principles, calculations, design tools. Radaktion DETAIL, Munich.

WRI/WBCSD. (2011). Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting
Standard. WRI, Washington D.C. Retrieved October 20, 2011 at
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-standard.

Appendix C: LCI

U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database data available from

https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel/search. Last accessed 05/21/2012.

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Athena Eco Calculator is free via download: For more
information see http://www.athenasmi.org/ (accessed 10/20/2011)

Bath Inventory of Carbon and Energy. Available for download from the University of Bath:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/ (accessed 10/20/2011)

BEES: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability software developed by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) an agency of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm (accessed 10/20/2011)

Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA database: http://www.eiolca.net/ (accessed 10/20/2011)

CEDA: Comprehensive Environmental Data Archive. Available via Climate Earth at

http://www.climateearth.com/subscriptions_to_data.shtml. (accessed 10/20/2011)

GaBi Available via PE International uses Swiss based ecoinvent LCI database.

LCA Digital Commons: Under developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

http://riley.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=8&tax_level=1&tax_subject=757
(accessed October 15, 2011)

SimaPro Available via Pre Consultants compiles databases from many international data
sources.

71

View publication stats