ARTICLE

pubs.acs.org/est

Material Nature versus Structural Nurture: The Embodied Carbon of

Fundamental Structural Elements
P. Purnell*
Institute for Resilient Infrastructure, School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9TJ, U.K.
bS Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: The construction industry is under considerable legislative
pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions. The current focus is on operational
CO2 emissions, but as these are compulsorily reduced, the embodied CO2 of
structural components, overwhelmingly attributable to the material from
which they are manufactured, will become of greater interest. Choice of
structural materials for minimal embodied CO2 is currently based either on
subjective narrative arguments, or values of embodied CO2 per unit volume
or mass. Here we show that such arguments are invalid. We found that
structural design parameters (dimensions, section choice, and load capacity)
for fundamental structural components (simple beams and columns) are at
least as important as material choice with regard to their effect on embodied
CO2 per unit load capacity per unit dimension, which can vary over several
decades within and between material choices. This result demonstrates that
relying on apparently objective analyses based on embodied CO2 per unit volume or mass will not lead to minimum carbon
solutions; a formal definition of the correct functional unit for embodied CO2 must be used. In short, there is no such thing as a green
structural material.

1. INTRODUCTION Second, there is the CO2 emitted as a consequence of the

The construction of buildings and infrastructure is mankind’s
most ubiquitous activity, the foundation for our modern urban
way of life. It accounts for ∼10% of our economic output (£300
billion in the U.K., $7 trillion globally), provides employment for
hundreds of millions of people, and consumes more than half of
all the resources we extract from the earth annually.1,2
The impact of construction on the environment is consider-
able; for example, construction “potentially influences” half of all
U.K. CO2 emissions.2 Pressure is mounting on the construction
industry to adopt low-carbon or zero-carbon modes of operation.
Direct pressure comes from legislative and regulatory processes,
e.g., refs 3 and 4. Indirect pressure comes from shareholders,
clients, and users demanding greener products.
Achievement of true zero-carbon construction might be un-
achievable in the medium-term but is a worthwhile aspirational
goal, forcing us to analyze the construction process and devise
ways in which its impact with respect to CO2 emissions, or car-
bon footprint, can be minimized.
There are two aspects to the carbon footprint of a built
environment component, be it a brick, a bungalow, or a bridge.
First, there is the CO2 produced as a consequence of its
ongoing operation, associated with the energy used by heating,
lighting, air conditioning, maintenance, and its eventual dis-
posal. This operational CO2 emission (OC) increases with the
lifetime of the component, analogous to a recurring running
cost. OC is the current exclusive focus of U.K. zero-carbon
construction legislation.
manufacture of the component, generated during mining, pro-
cessing, and transport of raw materials, site operations, etc. This
embodied CO2 emission (EC) is a set amount that does not vary
over the lifetime of the component, analogous to a fixed capital
cost. For most building and infrastructure projects, it is domi-
nated by emissions associated with the extraction and processing
of materials (steel, timber, concrete, aluminum, plastics, etc.),
e.g., refs 5 and 6. The total CO2 emitted during the lifetime of the
component [the lifetime CO2 emission (LC)] will be the sum of
EC and OC.
1.1. EC, OC, and LC. Knowledge of the relative contributions
of EC and OC to the LC of a component is crucial to making
informed decisions regarding overall reduction of carbon emis-
sions. For example, consider a traditional lightweight, thin-walled
industrial building housing a workforce and equipment requiring
heating, cooling, and lighting. We might reasonably assume that,
for such a building, OC will overtake EC within a very short space
of time and the OC component will dominate LC. We should
then focus a greater proportion of the resource we have available
for reducing carbon emissions on optimizing operational pro-
cesses. We may even encourage increases in EC (e.g., the
addition of heat insulation) if they can be shown to cut overall
Received: June 27, 2011
Accepted: November 15, 2011
Revised: November 11, 2011
Published: November 15, 2011

r 2011 American Chemical Society 454 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology ARTICLE

Table 1. Embodied CO2 of Selected Structural Materialsa e.g., refs 7
12. Sustainability can be defined in terms of many
impacts (environmental toxicity, resource depletion, loss of
EC per unit of
biodiversity, etc.), but the political focus on reduction of CO2
compressive emissions3 makes carbon footprint the dominant metric.
EE, EC, strength, These arguments are frequently confused, distorted by vested
material MJ/kg kg-CO2/kg (kg-CO2/kg)/MPa interests or deficient in transparent quantitative analysis. Some
among the timber lobby suggest that wood has a lower carbon
Steel footprint because it is a natural, renewable material that “locks-
virgin (v) 35 2.8 0.0079 up” carbon, e.g., refs 9 and 11, yet deforestation (both direct, and
recycled (r) 9.5 0.43 0.0012 indirect, in which land conversion for, e.g., agricultural use is
typical (60% r, 40% v)* 20 1.4 0.0039 funded by timber sales from the forest thus cleared) remains a
high-profile global environmental concern, contributing ∼17%
Timber
of global CO2 emissions.13 The energy requirements and green-
sawn softwood 7.4 0.45 ∼0.02 house gas emissions of forestry operations, intercontinental
glulam structural composite* 12 0.7 0.026 timber transport, kiln drying, glulam production, and waste
Concrete wood disposal are rarely mentioned. Many parties with interests
low strength (C12) 0.35 0.05 0.0042 in steel maintain that since it is (in theory) 100% recyclable, it is
medium strength (C50) 0.87 0.15 0.0030
inherently low-carbon.7,10 This takes no account of the energy
requirement and primary CO2 emissions associated with
“low-CO2” (C50, 40% PFA)* 0.56 0.09 0.0018
smelting and refining primary steel; recycling involves signifi-
high strength (C90)* 1.8 0.32 0.0036
cant energy use to remelt the steel (∼10
20 MJ/kg).14 Those
Aluminum advancing the low-carbon case for concrete tend to focus on
virgin 218 11.5 ∼0.1 either reducing air conditioning and/or heating requirements
recycled 29 1.7 ∼0.01 by exploiting its thermal inertia, or the use of waste materials
as supplementary binders, e.g., refs 14 and 12, yet we are
Injection-Molded reminded that cement production accounts for ∼5
10% of global
PVC 95 2.2 ∼0.03 CO2 emissions.15
polypropylene 115 3.9 ∼0.1 So, which of these materials is “greenest”? In fact, none of
Other
these arguments actually have much practical relevance; they
are rather elements of propaganda used by lobbyists to their
glass-fiber reinforced polymer 100 8.1 ∼0.1
own advantage. Fortunately, those without axes (or welders or
glass 15 0.58 ∼0.1
0.01
a
trowels) to grind have been quantifying the EC of structural
Data taken or derived from ref 14. * Denotes values corresponding to materials for some years; their numbers can lead us toward
the analysis in section 2 of this paper below. clarity.
The main sources of data on EC of materials are the
LC by reducing OC. On the other hand, a massive infrastructure proprietary databases within commercial LCA software and not
component such as a bridge or a dam will have comparatively small generally in the public domain. Recognizing the need for a more
operational energy requirements but much larger material usage, and open source, Hammond and Jones14 compiled an “Inventory of
thus, we would expect the contribution of EC to LC to be much higher. Carbon and Energy” (ICE) from public domain data on the
For most real structures, it will be necessary to perform a embodied energy and carbon in a wide range of materials used in
life-cycle assessment (LCA, as defined by the ISO 14040 series construction, taking due account of the wide range of variation
of international standards) to determine the relative magni- and uncertainty in the figures. The ICE has limitations, openly
tudes of EC, OC, and LC and thus formulate detailed carbon discussed by its authors and not repeated here; nonetheless, it is
reduction policy. Nonetheless, given the millions of tonnes of the most authoritative single freely available source and has
materials used in construction projects and the dominance of become a de facto standard for many studies.
EC by emissions associated with materials, the contribution of Typical data for a range of structural materials (Table 1)
EC to LC is always likely to be significant. The LCC-IGT appears to suggest that we should use medium-strength low-CO2
report2 suggests that, for the built environment as a whole, EC concrete for all structural work; its EC is an order or magnitude
is currently ∼15
20% of LC. As we move toward the zero- lower than that of steel or timber, and 2 orders below that of
carbon construction targets,3 which aim to reduce OC to zero aluminum and the composite material. Yet these figures are
by 2019, EC will increase toward 100% of LC. For physical expressed per kilogram; 1 kg of concrete cannot do the same job
infrastructure assets (bridges, large structures, roads) OC is as 1 kg of steel, or 1 kg of timber, and we are not comparing like
normally attributable to the users (e.g., vehicle operators) and with like.
not associated with the system itself; thus, EC will already be To compensate, we might adopt the approach popularised by
of greater interest to infrastructure stakeholders. In this paper, Ashby16 and normalize with respect to a mechanical property of
we therefore concentrate on quantifying EC to prepare us for interest. In considering a column, we would normalize with
this second stage of carbon reduction. respect to compressive strength σc to give “EC per unit com-
1.2. EC of Materials. The debate over the “best” material to pressive strength” (Table 1). On this basis, the steel compares
use for a given structural solution has been raging for many more favorably to the concrete. Yet this takes no account of
years. Claims advanced by proponents of a given material, pre- geometry, which we know to be crucial with regard to the
viously based on cost, buildability, or durability, are now being behavior of columns. To resist a given compressive load, a
augmented by simplistic arguments regarding its sustainability, different cross-sectional area of each material would be required,
455 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology
leading to a different maximum height to prevent buckling
failure; the ratio between the maximum heights LA, LB for two
different materials A, B is a function of σc and Young’s moduli E,
which (given the same cross-sectional shape) can be expressed as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LA EA σ2B
¼ ð1Þ
LB EB 3 σ 2A
On this measure, the timber would out-perform the steel.
Furthermore, this takes no account of variations in cross-
sectional geometry (solid square, tubular, H-column, etc). Thus,
even the “normalized” comparison is not valid. Similar arguments
can be constructed against simply normalizing with respect to
other properties such as flexural strength, where self-weight
becomes an important consideration and we would also have
to reinforce our concrete with steel.
Making comparisons of EC at the materials level is thus
meaningless in terms of structural performance. We must think
carefully about how we compare structural solutions involving
different materials. In formal LCA terms, we must construct a
valid “functional unit”.
1.3. Functional Unit. The appropriate functional unit for any
comparison of the carbon footprint of various products must be
determined by normalizing with respect to their function, rather
than comparing the physical products themselves. Consider
comparing disposable cups with traditional drinking vessels,
e.g., ref 17. A single 0.2 L polypropylene cup weighs 0.003 kg with
total EC of 0.01 kg. A comparable glass weighs 0.1 kg, with EC of
0.06 kg. This superficial analysis would suggest that we should
choose the disposable option. Yet we can reuse the glass after
washing; comparing the items directly is not sensible. We need to
compare their function, i.e., the delivery of drink. We might
define the basis for comparison as “EC per 1000 drinks supplied”
or “EC of drinking vessels per employee per year”. We would
compile information on the breakage rates of glasses, the energy
required (and CO2 emitted) to wash a glass, and so on. We would
also need to define an appropriate system boundary for the
model: do we include CO2 associated with transport and
disposal, or can we assume that they are sufficiently similar
and/or insignificant such that they can be ignored? Only then can
we determine which product delivers the function required with
least CO2 emission.
Care should be taken over deriving functional units for struc-
tural systems. Simple products can be compared directly if
their components are interchangeable and replacement rates
are well-known. Crawford18 calculated “lifetime EC per km of
track” for railway sleepers, comparing 100-year use scenarios
for timber cf. reinforced concrete sleepers. In all cases, the RC
sleepers (0.8
1.5 kt-CO2e km
1) outperformed the timber
sleepers (2.7
4.8 kt-CO2e km
1). In more complex systems
(especially housing), some studies attempt to generalize by
expressing the EC of structural forms per unit area of, e.g., wall
or floor. Cole19 took this approach to analyze the portion of EC
attributable to on-site operations for various building compo-
nents and concluded that steel solutions have less embodied
CO2 than timber and much less than concrete. However, this
conclusion results from direct comparisons between, e.g., light-
weight timber/plywood walls, and 300 mm thick reinforced
concrete walls. It is highly unlikely that 1 m2 of each of these
systems performs the same structural function; the former
would be used as nonstructural partitions, while the latter
would be used for major load-bearing walls in multistory
456
ARTICLE
structures. Other top-down studies almost exclusively deal with
housing and thus pick an apartment building20 or house5 as the
functional unit. These report that timber houses often, but not
always, have lower EC than concrete. Some report that items
common to both systems (e.g., carpets, air-conditioning sys-
tems, and roofing) tend to dominate the EC of the house,5
obscuring the contribution of structural materials. Such studies
are limited to relatively small, light components <3 m long;
analysis of large buildings or infrastructure requires that much
larger components are also studied.
Thus, the functional units permitting intelligent comparison
between structural materials should emerge from consideration
of the purpose of fundamental structural elements: to support a
load distributed over a span (requiring beams to resist bending)
with sufficient ground clearance (requiring columns to resist
vertical force). A beam is characterized by its bending moment
capacity and its effective span, and a column by its axial force
capacity and its effective length. Suitable functional units for
beams and columns, respectively, would thus be “EC per unit
moment capacity per unit span, [ECbeam/kgCO2 kN
1 m
2]”
and “EC per unit axial force capacity per unit height [ECcolumn/
kgCO2 kN
1 m
1]”. Both will be functions of the relevant
load capacity and dimension, since the relationships between
EC(beam, column) and the mass of material required to resist the
loading are nonlinear. By formally comparing the EC of
different structural elements, rather than relying on qualitative
narrative arguments or comparisons based on per unit mass/
volume measures, we can gain a more sophisticated under-
standing of the relationship between design choices and carbon
footprint. We can also gain an insight into how varying the most
basic structural design parameters (span, height, and load)
affects the EC of structural elements and consequently struc-
tures. This “bottom-up” analysis contrasts with the vast major-
ity of the current literature, which focuses on a “top-down”
approach looking at systems; products, buildings, cities, etc.
2. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The aim of this work is an assessment of the variation in the
EC of the most fundamental structural elements (simply sup-
ported beams and columns) contrasting the contribution from
structural parameters (load capacity, length) and materials choice.
The approach chosen is to calculate the EC per unit of structural
function (ECbeam and ECcolumn as defined above) for standard
sections (steel beams/columns; glulam timber beams) or de-
signed sections (reinforced concrete beams/columns; glulam
timber columns) of varying length, with reference to the relevant
structural design and analysis codes for reinforced concrete,21
steel,22 and timber,23 respectively. This requires the detailed
design of several thousand elements; custom spreadsheets were
thus built and validated against worked examples in standard
textbooks.24
26 Due account is taken of materials safety factors,
deflection limits, and load capacity reductions owing to second-
order effects (lateral torsional buckling, column buckling,
eccentricities). The self-weight of beams has been accounted
for in calculating their moment capacity; i.e., ECbeam is derived in
terms of the residual moment capacity of the beam, not the
section capacity.
The EC analysis is performed on a “cradle to site” basis. No
account is taken of decommissioning regimes, since these cannot
be reliably specified in general for each material or component.
Recycling of structural timber is assumed to be negligible: less
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology
than 10% of timber waste in the U.K. is recycled (actually down-
cycled into particleboard, animal bedding, or biofuel), and 90% is
either landfilled or incinerated.27 Since we are not accounting for
the CO2 sequestered in the wood (see section 2.2 below), this
will have a negligible effect on the EC of the timber in this study.
Only ∼5% of demolished concrete is recycled as concrete
aggregate; ∼40% is downcycled as roadbase, fill, etc., and 60%
is landfilled.28 Since the CO2 emissions associated with aggre-
gate, recycled or virgin, are negligible (EC of concrete is over-
whelmingly dominated by that of cement), this can also be
ignored.
Recycling of steel is well established and has been explicitly
included, as described below, for structural and reinforcing steel
(sections 2.1, 2.3). However, generic arguments regarding re-
cyclability have not been included; while we recognize that end-
of-life considerations can have an important bearing on the
choice of a material, they generally impact metrics other than
EC and are thus not of primary interest here.
We have implied that all components have the same life. The
lifetime of components is not a materials property but a design
property. In the context of typical structural lifetimes (50
100
years), none of the four materials under study is inherently more
durable than any other except in specialized circumstances such
as marine environments. The intended lifetime of the structure is
specified at the design stage; the engineer must then design
components of whatever material, using the durability provisions
of the relevant design codes, such that they are capable of
enduring. For steel and timber structures, a requirement of
special durability is more likely to have an impact on the main-
tenance regime (painting, renewal of preservatives, etc.) and thus
concerns OC, not EC. For RC, durability is largely a function of
quality control; durability issues in RC can normally be traced to
poor design, workmanship, and execution.29 An RC component
designed with proper reference to its intended service environ-
ment ought to last almost indefinitely.
Assumptions or simplifications are made on a “most favorable”
basis; e.g., the highest permissible material strengths are used for
steel and timber to minimize both the amount of material
required and thus EC, unless otherwise explained.
It should be stressed that the purpose of this paper is
categorically not to propose which of the major structural
materials is the greenest, but to demonstrate that such questions
are nonsensical by presenting a more appropriate approach to
analysis. The results presented here are a snapshot; for any given
product or project, values of EC may vary owing to source,
supplier, particular recycling or reuse regimes, offsetting proce-
dures, etc. The intention is to present a generic framework for
analysis, with the most general data available, to stimulate further
investigation and move the debate away from the simplistic
comparisons prevalent in the popular, commercial, and academic
literature (e.g., “1 m3 of wood replacing steel or concrete saves
1.1 tonne of CO2” 22).
2.1. Steel Sections. Standard universal I-section beam and
column structural specifications were obtained;30 a total of 96
beam sections (with designations from “127  76  13” to “1016
 305  487+”) and 36 column sections (with designations from
“152  152  23” to “356  406  634”) were analyzed. The
correct EC value to use for steel depends on the fraction derived
from recycled stock. According to WRAP,31 the recycled fraction
of U.K. steel sections is ∼60% and so ECsteel was calculated as
1.38 kgCO2/kg (see Table 1). A characteristic steel strength of
355 MPa was used throughout.
457
ARTICLE
2.2. Timber Sections. Glulam timber composite beams were
assumed to be available in 45 standard rectangular section
sizes32 ranging from 65  180 mm2 to 215  1035 mm2).
Since standard timber column sections are not specified, it
was assumed that square section glulam timber could be
obtained in any size up to the maximum standard beam depth
(i.e., e1035  1035 mm2). Grade 32c was chosen as the basis
for analysis (bending strength = 32 MPa, compressive strength
= 26.5 MPa). Selection of the correct EC value for timber is
controversial because of the argument that the growth of
structural timber sequesters carbon. Although this argument
may be valid at the product scale (i.e., for particular timber
products from suppliers with audited kiln energy data and
verifiable sustainable forestry practices) on a generic scale,
where endemic deforestation is still associated with timber
production,7 recycling is sporadic (see above), and forestry
emissions operations are poorly audited, we have acquiesced
in the approach taken by the compilers of the ICE database8
and adopted their figure of 0.65 kgCO2/kg. We appreciate that
this may be unpalatable for some readers.
2.3. Reinforced Concrete (RC) Sections. The design of RC
sections is several orders of magnitude more complex than that
for timber or steel. Concrete composition (the proportions of
cement, water, and aggregate and thus the EC value for the
concrete) varies widely in order to attain compressive strengths
from 8 to 100 MPa. The volume of steel within the concrete
varies from almost zero to ∼4% for columns and ∼6% for beams.
The cross-sectional shape can be almost anything a designer can
envisage from simple rectangles to complex hollow ribbed slabs.
For this preliminary analysis, it was necessary to constrain this
solution space somewhat in a manner consistent with the design
of reasonably optimal sections.
The detailed design procedures adopted, the rationale for
choice and optimization of concrete grades, and their ECs are
presented in the Supporting Information. This report focuses on
two grades: (1) a high-strength concrete (C90/105) made with
CEM1 cement, EC = 0.320 kgCO2/kg, designated HS, and (2) a
C50/60 concrete optimized for minimum EC components, with
40% of the CEM1 binder replaced with PFA, EC = 0.108 kgCO2/
kg, designated PFA. The EC contribution of the reinforcing steel
was added to that of the concrete on a case-by-case basis, rather
than using a generic value for RC, since the contribution of the
steel to the total EC of RC varies from 10% to 44% for the
components in this analysis.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The range and complexity of the variation of EC per unit of
structural performance with structural parameters is striking and
generally at least as significant as the variation between materials;
ECbeam and ECcolumn vary across several decades with load capacity
and component size alone. This in itself should dispel any notion
that there is any single overall “embodied carbon” figure for a given
material in terms of its structural performance.
3.1. Embodied Carbon as Function of Loading Capacity.
Figure 1a
d shows how EC varies with load capacity and
material for different sized components. Error bars of (30%
for steel and concrete and (40% for timber have been included
in Figure 1a to give a sense of the uncertainty in the underlying
EC data in the ICE database, 14 but for clarity, these have been
omitted on subsequent figures.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 1. EC as a function of load capacity for: 3 and 8 m columns (a, b); 3 m and 12 m beams (c, d). Continuous data are indicated by lines, discrete data not so.
Legends: SC, SB = steel column, beam; GC, GB = glulam timber column, beam; CC 90..., CB 90... = HS RC column, beam; CC 50..., CB 50... = PFA RC column, beam.
EC rises superexponentially for beams and columns with very
low load capacity, and consequently, the data have been trun-
cated. In general terms, as load capacity (and thus size) increases,
EC per unit of structural performance decreases; “heavy” com-
ponents are more efficient than “light” components. This is to be
expected for beams, for which simple bending theory dictates
that the mass of material used per unit length, μ, per unit of
bending resistance, M, is inversely proportional to the depth of
the beam, d. This is derived algebraically below for a simple
rectangular beam with breadth b, of material with tensile strength
σ and density F
!
My bd3 d families could reduce EC by a factor of 2. For short (3 m) beams,
σ ¼ where I ¼ and y ¼ for a rectangular section
I 12 2
bd2 σ μ 6F
\M ¼ and since μ ¼ Fbd, then ¼
6 M σd
The result holds for any family of beams where the cross-
sectional shape and aspect ratio remain constant as the beam
capacity and size increase, as is more-or-less true for most
commercial beams. For simple short columns where buckling
is not an issue, both the load capacity P and μ are proportional to
the cross-sectional area, and thus, the mass of material used per
unit of structural performance should remain constant. The
theoretical behavior becomes more complex as buckling be-
comes an issue for high loads and/or slender columns (eq 1).
For 3 m columns, the curves for all four materials level out at
the short column EC. For medium and high loads, the steel, HS
concrete, and timber columns all have approximately the same
458
ARTICLE
ECcolumn, while that of the PFA concrete is 2
3 times lower . For
progressively smaller load capacities, the gap between the timber
and PFA concrete narrows, while for the smallest loads, only
timber is available in the required sizes.
For longer 8 m columns (b), the differences between the
materials become more pronounced. The PFA concrete outper-
forms HS concrete by a factor of 2, which in turn outperforms
steel by the same factor across the load range, while timber
columns again perform better at lower loadings. The bunching of
families of steel sections can also be seen quite clearly; careful
selection of sections for a given loading at the overlaps between
ECbeam for the timber and PFA concrete is the same across a wide
range of load capacities (though the load capacity of the largest
timber sections available is relatively low); ECbeam values for HS
concrete and steel are also similar to each other, but about double
that of the timber and PFA concrete.
The gradients of both sets of curves are similar. Increasing the
moment capacity by a factor of 10 halves ECbeam; put another
way, a beam that is 10 times as strong has only 5 times the total
embodied carbon.
For long (12 m) beams the timber and PFA concrete beams,
although apparently on the same curve, do not now overlap; the
largest timber beam available has only a third of the load capacity
of the smallest optimized concrete beam permitted by Eurocode
2.21 Thus, it is nonsensical to compare the greenness of these two
materials in this context, since they cannot perform the same
function. The HS concrete and the steel sections are now clearly
separated by a factor of 1.5
2.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 2. EC as a function of component length for: columns with 300 kN and 3000 kN load capacities (a, b); beams with 300 kN m and 3000 kN m load capacities
(c, d). Note that no glulam timber beam sections were available with 3000 kN m load capacity. Continuous data are indicated by lines, discrete data not so. Legends:
SC, SB = steel column, beam; GC, GB = glulam timber column, beam; CC 90..., CB 90... = HS RC column, beam; CC 50..., CB 50... = PFA RC column, beam.
3.2. Embodied Carbon as a Function of Component Length.
For these series, the entire data range is presented (Figure 2a
d),
and again, error bars are included on the first graph but omitted for
clarity on the subsequent graphs. The general synopsis is more
complex than for the variation of EC with load. For columns, carbon
efficiency decreases with increasing length, as expected; short
columns are more efficient than long columns. For beams, the
carbon efficiency may be either effectively constant, or decrease with
beam length depending on the material and the moment capacity.
For the lower load capacity columns, there is a striking difference
between the EC of steel sections and the other materials, steel being
30 times less efficient than HS concrete and almost 100 times less
efficient than the timber and PFA concrete. At higher load capacities,
however, the differential between steel, HS concrete, and timber
drops considerably, and the PFA concrete clearly becomes most
efficient.
For the beams, the behavior is more complex. Up to 6 m length
for lightly loaded beams, the materials rank identically to those in
Figure 1c. Above 6 m, the behavior changes, with timber
becoming 2
3 times more efficient than the other materials.
In fact, ECbeam for timber is only a very weak function of the
beam length. For heavily loaded beams (bending moments of
3000 kN m), timber sections of adequate size are not available
and the PFA concrete beams are twice as efficient as other
materials across the length range. For all heavily loaded beams,
ECbeam is almost independent of the beam length.
3.3. Further Discussion. The above analysis demonstrates
that attempting to establish the environmental credentials of
structural materials on the basis of their embodied carbon per
459
ARTICLE
unit mass or volume is clearly futile. Materials must be compared
on the basis of their embodied carbon per unit of structural
performance, per unit component length, for meaningful com-
parisons to be made. Such comparisons illustrate that the
variations induced by changes in section capacity or component
length are at least as significant as variations between materials
themselves. For each of the main structural materials (concrete,
steel, and timber), there are points within the structural form/
capacity envelope at which each is the most practical carbon
efficient solution.
In many respects these conclusions are contrary to accepted
wisdom. In a recent review, Dutil et al.33 compared concrete,
metals, and wood for buildings and suggested that concrete is
generally regarded as an “energy intensive” material while “wood
has a much better reputation”. The assertion of Asif et al.34 that
“concrete and mortar are responsible for 99% of the total CO2
resulting from the home construction” is quoted. Yet this is an
invalid premise for comparing materials at three levels. First, the
global warming potential of concrete is given as “65 g/kg”
(i.e., EC ∼ 0.065, ironically much lower than the figure used in our
analysis). The use of 130 800 kg of concrete is then assigned an
EC of 605 454 kg as opposed to the ∼8500 kg that the obvious
calculation would suggest; i.e., there is clearly a two order-of-
magnitude mistake that has not been questioned, since its mani-
festation reinforces established prejudices. Second, the analysis is
of a single house, not a comparison using functional units. The
quantity of concrete will be dominated by that used in the
foundations. Since the foundations could not be made with any of
the other materials invoked (timber, glass, aluminum, slate, etc.),
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology
Table 2. Ratio of Dead Weight to Residual Load Capacity for Simply Supported Beams
span 3m
C50 PFA concrete (optimized section) 2%
C90 concrete (optimized section) 3%
glulam (largest section
smallest section) 0.2
0.9%
steel (largest section
smallest section) <0.1
0.6%
using even the corrected figure to compare concrete with other
materials is not relevant. Third, no large structural members will
have been used, and thus, the comparison would only be relevant
in a housing context.
In fact, the preponderance of studies on housing (of the 17
citations by Dutil et al.33 discussing embodied energy, 14 are
concerned solely or mainly with small housing units) distorts the
generic view toward automatic favor of timber since, as shown in
this work, timber can be optimal for small structural components,
there is limited use of steel in housing, and concrete foundations
account for a large proportion of the total mass of small buildings.
When studies focus on larger structures, e.g., ref 35, the propor-
tion of EC associated with metals tends to dominate, in accor-
dance with our analysis; other studies have also shown that steel,
e.g., ref 19, and/or concrete, e.g., ref 18, can have lower EC than
timber if the analysis is performed using a well-formulated
functional unit. Calculations regarding the EC of timber are also
rather sensitive to inclusion (or otherwise) of upstream pro-
cesses36 and whether the sequestration argument is accepted
(which it tends to be by timber advocates but not by others).
This elemental analysis is only intended to provide a basis for
more complex studies in which the interaction between structural
elements (systems of beams, columns, frames, foundations, etc.)
is explicitly taken into account. For example, consider the self-
weight of beams that must be carried by their supporting columns
and foundations. Calculating the ratio of self-weight to residual
load capacity over the range of spans and section sizes gives the
values in Table 2.
Thus, in certain situations (e.g., smaller spans), although the
PFA-RC beams have the lowest EC, they may be much heavier
for a given structural performance, requiring significantly more
substantial columns and foundations. The extra EC incurred by
these sturdier supports must be balanced against the savings
made in the beams when choosing a material; perhaps this
indicates the possible benefits of using more sophisticated com-
binations of materials.
In summary, consequences for designers follow: (1) The opti-
mum concrete grade for most applications with respect to mini-
mizing EC is 50 MPa (i.e., RC50/60). This is more a consequence
of structural rules within Eurocode 221 than of materials science
per se. (2) Use of steel for light duty columns incurs a particularly
high EC and should be avoided. In most other cases, the EC values
of steel and high-strength concrete are similar, but higher than other
materials considered. (3) Glulam timber is the most carbon-efficient
solution for very light-duty columns and long, light-duty beams. (4)
RC50/60 made with 40% PFA is the most carbon efficient solution
for heavy-duty beams and columns. (5) In all other cases, a full EC
assessment should be carried out before making material choice
decisions based on reducing EC.
As well as puncturing the “green material” myth, this is the first
“bottom up” analysis of structural EC, focusing on elemental
components and signposting fundamental design rules that
inherently minimize EC. This is in contrast to the “top down”
460
ARTICLE
6m 9m 12 m
3% 5% 7%
6% 9% 10%
0.7
4% 2
10% 4
40%
0.4
7% 1
30% 3
>50%
studies of systems (buildings, cities, economies) prevalent in the
literature in which the relevant contributions to EC of the
elements of the system, as a function of the properties of the
elements, are not reported. EC of construction materials ac-
counts for >10% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions; this
work is a first step toward its coherent reduction.
’ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
bS Supporting Information. Detailed design procedures
adopted for the RC columns and beams; the rationale for optimiza-
tion and choice of concrete grades; and their EC vs strength curves.
This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://
pubs.acs.org.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Phone: +44 113 343 0370; e-mail: p.purnell@leeds.ac.uk.
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Prof. Nigel Wright; Drs. Julia Steinberger, Mark Tyrer, and
Leon Black; and Ms. Katy Roelich are thanked for their com-
ments on the manuscript.
’ REFERENCES
(1) Krausmann, F.; Gingrich, S; Eisenmenger, N.; et al. Growth in
global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Eco-
logical Economics 2009, 68 (10), 2696
2705. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2009.05.007.
(2) Low Carbon Construction—Innovation and Growth Team 2010,
Final Report; HM Government Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills, Crown Copyright BIS/11/10/NP, URN 10/1266, 2010;
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/l/10-1266-
low-carbon-construction-igt-final-report.pdf.
(3) Zero Carbon for New Non-Domestic Buildings—Consultation on
Policy Options; Department for Communities and Local Government.
Communities and Local Government Publications, Crown Copyright
09BD06162, 2009; http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/
planningandbuilding/pdf/1391110.pdf.
(4) Climate Change Act 2008; HMSO: U.K., 2008; http://www.
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents.
(5) Hacker, J. N.; De Saulles, T. P.; Minson, A. J.; Holmes, M. J.
Embodied and operational carbon dioxide emissions from housing: A
case study on the effects of thermal mass and climate change. Energy
Build. 2008, 40 (3), 375
384. DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.005.
(6) Harrison, G. P.; Maclean, E. J.; Karamanlis, S.; Ochoa, L. F. Life
cycle assessment of the transmission network in Great Britain. Energy
Policy 2010, 38 (7), 3622
3631. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.039.
(7) Sustainable Construction—The Bigger Picture; Corus/CMP
Information, U.K., undated (retrieved March 2010); www.coruscon-
struction.com/en/reference/publications/sustainability_and_environment/.
(8) Increased Temperature; The Concrete Centre, U.K., undated
(retrieved September 2010); www.sustainableconcrete.org.uk/main.
asp?page=68.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461
Environmental Science & Technology ARTICLE

(9) Labb
e, S. Wood in Green Building; Timber Committee and (33) Dutil, Y.; Rousse, R.; Quesada, G. Sustainable buildings: An
International Softwood Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; United ever evolving target. Sustainability 2011, 3, 443–464.
Nations Economic Commission for Europe; www.unece.org/timber/ (34) Asif, M.; Muneer, T.; Kelley, R. Life cycle assessment: A case
docs/tc-sessions/tc-65/md/presentations/12Labbe.pdf. study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build. Environ. 2007, 42,
(10) The Sustainable Aspects of Structural Steel; American Institute of 1391–1394.
Steel Construction: Chicago, U.S., undated (retrieved October 2010); (35) Chen., T. Y.; Burnett, J.; Chau, C. K. Analysis of embodied
www.aisc.org/uploadedFiles/Steel_Solutions_Center/Conceptual/My_ energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong. Energy 2001, 26
Project/Files/Talking%20Points%20-%2010.2009.pdf. (4), 323–340.
(11) Fact Sheet No. 9 How To Reduce Climate Change; Timber Re- (36) Lenzen, M.; Treloar, G. Embodied energy in buildings: wood
search and Development Association/wood.for.good, U.K., undated versus concrete—reply to B€orjesson and Gustavsson. Energy Policy
(retrieved October 2011); www.trada.co.uk/techinfo/library/send/ 2002, 30 (3), 249–255.
157B6158-E5F4-4C4D-BF25-D8BA1608BD04/How%20to%20reduce%20-
climate%20change:%20Fact%20sheet%20no.%209/index.pdf.
(12) The Concrete Industry Sustainability Performance Report, 1st
report; The Concrete Centre, U.K., 2009; www.sustainableconcrete.
org.uk/PDF/SCS%20Performance%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
(13) Eliasch, J. Climate Change: Financing Global Forests; HMSO,
U.K., 2008.
(14) Hammond, G. P.; Jones, C. I. Embodied energy and carbon in
construction materials. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.: Energy 2008, 161 (2), 87–98.
(15) Worrell, E.; Price, L.; Martin, N.; et al. Carbon dioxide
emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ.
2001, 26 (8), 303–329.
(16) Ashby, M.; Johnson, K. Materials and Design, the Art and Science
of Materials Selection in Product Design; Butterworth Heinemann:
Oxford, U.K., 2002.
(17) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Life Cycle
Assessment: What It Is and How to Do It; United Nations Publication:
9C-III-D.2, Paris, France, 1996.
(18) Crawford, R. H. Greenhouse gas emissions embodied in
reinforced concrete and timber railway sleepers. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2009, 43, 3885–3890.
(19) Cole, R. J. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with
the construction of alternative structural systems. Build. Environ. 1999,
34, 335–348.
(20) Gustavsson, L.; Sathre, R. Variability in energy and carbon
dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build. Environ.
2006, 41, 940–951.
(21) BS EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures; British
Standards Institute (BSI), 2007.
(22) BS EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures; British
Standards Institute (BSI), 2008.
(23) BS EN 1995-1-1 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures; British
Standards Institute (BSI), 2006.
(24) Martin, L. H.; Purkiss, J. A. Concrete Design to EN 1992, 2nd ed.;
Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, U.K., 2006.
(25) Martin, L. H.; Purkiss, J. A. Structural Design of Steelwork to
EN1993 and EN 1994, 3rd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, U.K., 2008.
(26) Porteous, J.; Kermani, A. Structural Timber Design to Eurocode 5;
Blackwell: Oxford, U.K., 2007.
(27) Dinwoodie, J. Part 8: Timber. In Construction Materials: Their
Nature and Behaviour, 4th ed.; Domone, P., Illston, J., Eds.; Spon Press:
U.K., 2010.
(28) Purnell, P.; Dunster, A. 20: Recycling of Concrete. In Manage-
ment, Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites; Goodship, V., Ed.;
Woodhead: U.K. pp 569
592.
(29) Durability of Concrete and Cement Composites; Page, C. L., Page,
M. M., Eds.; Woodhead: U.K.
(30) Tata Steel Sections—Interactive ‘Blue Book’; Tata Construction
Services and Development: Scunthorpe, U.K., 2011; www.coruscon-
struction.com/en/design_guidance/the_blue_book/.
(31) Waste Resources and Action Partnership (WRAP). Choosing
Construction Products: Guide to the Recycled Content of Mainstream
Construction Products GB Version 4.1; WRAP: Banbury, U.K., 2008.
(32) Timber Research and Development Agency (TRADA). Glued
Laminated Timber (Wood Information Section 1 Sheet 6); TRADA Ltd.:
High Wycombe, U.K., 2003; http://research.ttlchiltern.co.uk/pif294/
tdk/geninfo/pdf/1-6.pdf

461 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202190r |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 454–461