energies

Article
On-Site Measurements of CO2 Emissions during the
Construction Phase of a Building Complex
Min-Seop Seo 1 , Taeyeon Kim 2, *, Goopyo Hong 2 and Hyungkeun Kim 2
1 POSCO E & C, 241 Main Street of Incheon Tower, Incheon 22009, Korea; sms8281@poscoenc.com
2 Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea;
goopyoh@gmail.com (G.H.); vickim@yonsei.ac.kr (H.K.)
* Correspondence: tkim@yonsei.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-2123-5783

Academic Editor: Enrico Sciubba

Received: 7 April 2016; Accepted: 18 July 2016; Published: 28 July 2016

Abstract: This study describes the environmental impact of the material production, transportation,
and construction phases from the construction site perspective. CO2 emissions for each process
were determined using the Korea Life Cycle Inventory Database (LCI DB) in the material production
phase, and the actual amounts of oil consumption for transportation equipment were identified
in the material transportation phase. Generally, the oil and electric energy consumed during the
construction was evaluated by direct monitoring. Through the construction period and cost according
to work type, a correlation with CO2 emissions was also investigated. In addition, CO2 emissions
were examined through the system capacity and gross floor area for each work type. The calculations
have shown that CO2 emissions from the material production phase constitute 93.4% of the total
CO2 emissions. In addition, CO2 emissions from the material transportation and on-site construction
account for 2.4% and 4.2% of the total CO2 emissions, respectively. This paper concludes that it is
important to select appropriate input materials and resources for the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, the amount of CO2 emissions arising from the construction site was reduced by finding
and practicing measures to reduce CO2 emissions for each process.

Keywords: CO2 emission; building construction; energy consumption

1. Introduction
Globally, while the construction industry has made a major contribution to social and economic
development, a great deal of energy and many resources are used in construction [1]. The construction
process consumes 40% of the world economy’s resources and is responsible for 40% to 50% of the
greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated [2]. A lot of CO2 is emitted during the material manufacturing,
transportation and construction stages [3,4]. The construction process is therefore a very significant
factor environmentally [5]. In addition, the CO2 emission factor is very important in the construction
industry [6], and the amount of energy and number of materials consumed during the construction
process is considerable [7]. During the life cycle of a building, a large amount of CO2 is also generated
in the operation process. Most previous research has focused on CO2 emissions from construction
materials [8–12] and a few studies have been conducted on CO2 emissions resulting from the building
material manufacturing process and on the energy consumption of construction equipment [6],
transportation for materials, and treatment of waste [13,14]. However, there is still a lack of studies
related to GHG or CO2 emissions in the construction process that target the actual construction site [15].
This study deals with the environmental impact of CO2 emissions in the material production
phase, transportation phase, construction phase, and waste treatment phase of the construction site.
In the study of the material production phase, the Korea Life Cycle Inventory Database (LCI DB)
was used to determine CO2 emissions for each task, and the actual amount of oil consumption for

Energies 2016, 9, 599; doi:10.3390/en9080599 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

 Energies 2016, 9, 599  2 of 12 

In  the  study of  the  material  production  phase,  the  Korea Life  Cycle  Inventory Database (LCI  DB) 
was used to determine CO
Energies 2016, 9, 599 2 emissions for each task, and the actual amount of oil consumption for  2 of 13
transportation  equipment  was  identified  in  the  material  transportation  phase.  In  the  construction 
phase, the amount of oil used in the construction equipment [16–18] and the amount of electricity 
transportation equipment was identified in the material transportation phase. In the construction
consumed in the temporary office were calculated separately. In the waste treatment process, CO2 
phase, the amount of oil used in the construction equipment [16–18] and the amount of electricity
emissions  from  the  transportation  phase,  intermediate  treatment  phase,  and  landfill  phase  were 
consumed in the temporary office were calculated separately. In the waste treatment process, CO
estimated.  In  this  regard,  the  aim  of  this  study  is  to  calculate  accurate  and  quantitative  CO22 
emissions from the transportation phase, intermediate treatment phase, and landfill phase were
emissions through the measurement and estimated results of CO2 generated from the construction 
estimated. In this regard, the aim of this study is to calculate accurate and quantitative CO2
site, and to propose alternatives for the reduction in CO2 emissions that arise from the construction 
emissions through the measurement and estimated results of CO2 generated from the construction site,
process. 
and to propose alternatives for the reduction in CO2 emissions that arise from the construction process.
2. Measurement and Calculation Methods 
2. Measurement and Calculation Methods

2.1. Methods 
2.1. Methods
While 
While thethe 
lifelife  cycle 
cycle of  buildings 
of buildings is  usually 
is usually divided 
divided into into  the  of
the production production  of  materials, 
materials, transportation
transportation  of  materials, 
of materials, construction phase,construction 
operational and phase,  operational 
maintenance and 
phase, andmaintenance 
dismantling and phase,  and 
disposal
dismantling and disposal phase 
phase [19–21], in this study it was[19–21], 
divided in 
intothis 
thestudy  it  was 
material divided into 
production phase,the material  production 
material transportation
phase, 
phase, andmaterial 
on-sitetransportation  phase, While
construction phase. and  on‐site  construction phase. While there are six types of 
there are six types of main factors contributing to global
main factors contributing to global warming (CO
warming (CO2 , CH4 , N2 O, HFCS, PFCS, and SF6 ),2, CH 4, N2O, HFCS, PFCS, and SF
as defined in the UN Framework6), as defined in 
Convention on
the 
Climate Change, the subject of this study is the calculation of CO2 emissions. The subjectscalculation 
UN  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change,  the  subject  of  this  study  is  the  of 
of evaluation
CO  emissions. The subjects of evaluation for each type of work are shown in Figure 1, and detailed 
for each type of work are shown in Figure 1, and detailed construction processes are listed below:
2

construction processes are listed below: 
(1) Civil engineering works: soil cement wall (SCW) work, pre-stressed high-strength concrete (PHC)
1) Civil  engineering 
pile work, works: 
earthwork, soil  cement 
appurtenant wall  (SCW)  work,  pre‐stressed  high‐strength  concrete 
work;
(2) (PHC) pile work, earthwork, appurtenant work; 
Reinforced concrete works: rebar, formwork, concrete construction, lifting, and temporary work;
2) Reinforced concrete works: rebar, formwork, concrete construction, lifting, and temporary work; 
(3) Steel-frame works: steel structure erection, deck plate;
3)
(4) Steel‐frame works: steel structure erection, deck plate; 
Metal and window work;
4) Metal and window work; 
(5) Glass work;
5) Glass work; 
(6) Interior finishing works: masonry/plaster work, waterproof work, painting/insulation work;
6) Interior finishing works: masonry/plaster work, waterproof work, painting/insulation work; 
(7) Exterior finishing work;
7) Exterior finishing work; 
(8) Ground heat construction: closed/open loop.
8) Ground heat construction: closed/open loop. 

 
Figure 1. Construction processes and sorting of CO2 emissions. 
Figure 1. Construction processes and sorting of CO2 emissions.

In  addition,  CO2  emissions  were  included  with  respect  to  the  treatment  of  wastes  generated 
In addition, CO2 emissions were included with respect to the treatment of wastes generated from
from  the  construction  process.  However,  landscaping  and  electrical  construction,  and  HVAC 
the construction process. However, landscaping and electrical construction, and HVAC equipment
equipment construction completed after the evaluation period were excluded from the scope of this 
construction completed after the evaluation period were excluded from the scope of this study.
study. 
2.1.1. Calculation Method for Material Production Phase
2.1.1. Calculation Method for Material Production Phase 
For the selection of materials according to work type, the quantity of input materials that
account for more than 90% of the material cost was calculated based on the quantity calculation
Energies 2016, 9, 599  3 of 12 

For  the  selection  of  materials  according  to  work  type,  the  quantity  of  input  materials  that 
Energies 2016, 9, 599 3 of 13
account for more than 90% of the material cost was calculated based on the quantity calculation and 
itemized  statements,  prioritizing  the  key  materials.  Carbon  emissions  according  to  the  material 
inputs 
and were  statements,
itemized estimated  using  Korea the
prioritizing LCI  DB 
key information 
materials. network 
Carbon [22]. according
emissions The  Korea toEnvironment 
the material
Industry 
inputs &  Technology 
were Institute 
estimated using Koreahas  compiled 
LCI a  Life  Cycle 
DB information Inventory 
network [22]. Database 
The Korea of Environment
the  materials 
according to the ISO 14044 process. 
Industry & Technology Institute has compiled a Life Cycle Inventory Database of the materials
according to the ISO 14044 process.
2.1.2. Calculation Method for Material Transportation Phase 
2.1.2. Calculation Method for Material Transportation Phase
In order to calculate the amount of oil consumption in the material transportation phase, the 
In order to calculate the amount of oil consumption in the material transportation phase, the
type of transport equipment, specifications, transport distance, oil used, and oil consumption rate 
type
were ofinvestigated 
transport equipment, specifications,
according  to  the  materials transport distance,
introduced  oil process 
for  each  used, and oilmethod. 
and  consumption
Since rate
fuel 
were investigated
economy  according to
varies  depending  on the materials
the  introduced
load  capacity,  for each
driving  process
speed,  road  and method.
condition,  Since
and  fuel
latency, 
economy
additional varies dependingon 
investigations  on the 
the load capacity,
actual  driving
oil  usage  speed,
logs,  road
vehicle  condition, panel 
instrument  and latency, additional
(oil  gauge),  and 
investigations on the actual oil usage logs, vehicle instrument panel (oil gauge), and interviews with
interviews with drivers were conducted for exact calculation. If it was difficult to identify the actual 
drivers
amount were
of  oil conducted for exact
consumption,  calculation.
the  average  If it was difficult
fuel  economy  to identify
of  the  vehicle  the actual
to  transport  the amount
materials ofwas 
oil
consumption,
used.  the average fuel economy of the vehicle to transport the materials was used.

2.1.3. Calculation Method for on-site Construction Phase

2.1.3. Calculation Method for on‐site Construction Phase 
The amount of energy consumption in the on-site construction phase was subdivided into oil and
The amount of energy consumption in the on‐site construction phase was subdivided into oil 
electricity consumption for calculation. Oil energy sources were limited to diesel oil; gasoline and
and electricity consumption for calculation. Oil energy sources were limited to diesel oil; gasoline 
kerosene
and  kerosene  excluded
were from the
were  excluded  evaluation
from  due to their
the  evaluation  due  minimal
to  their  usage.
minimal The amount
usage.  ofamount 
The  electricity
of 
consumption was analyzed based on the measurement data after setting a remote meter
electricity consumption was analyzed based on the measurement data after setting a remote meter  reading plan
prior to starting
reading  construction
plan  prior  work.
to  starting  For monitoring
construction  work. ofFor 
electricity consumption,
monitoring  the usage
of  electricity  was divided
consumption,  the 
into common temporary work, temporary office, direct construction, and lifting equipment as shown
usage was divided into common temporary work, temporary office, direct construction, and lifting 
in Figure 2, and the exact amount of electricity consumption was measured by the remoter meter
equipment as shown in Figure 2, and the exact amount of electricity consumption was measured by 
reading, and then investigated and analyzed.
the remoter meter reading, and then investigated and analyzed. 

(a)  (b) 

Figure 2.
Figure 2.  Temporary
Temporary power
power control
control and
and monitoring
monitoring system.
system.  (a)  Smart  controller
(a) Smart controller  and
and monitoring
monitoring 
system; (b) Power distribution boards. 
system; (b) Power distribution boards.

2.1.4. Calculation Method for Waste Treatment Phase 
2.1.4. Calculation Method for Waste Treatment Phase
The  waste  treatment  process  CO2  emissions  arising  from  the  construction  process  were 
The waste treatment process CO2 emissions arising from the construction process were calculated
calculated by adding the CO2 emissions of the transportation phase, intermediate treatment phase, 
by adding the CO2 emissions of the transportation phase, intermediate treatment phase, and landfill
and landfill phase. The CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption and oil used for transportation 
phase. The CO2 emissions due to electricity consumption and oil used for transportation of construction
of construction equipment were calculated. 
equipment were calculated.
2.2. Case Study Building 
2.2. Case Study Building
The  subject
The subject  of
of  evaluation
evaluation  is
is aa building
building complex,
complex,  including
including  offices
offices  and
and apartment
apartment  housing
housing 
(Figure 33 and
(Figure and Table
Table 1).1). The total construction period of the building is 12 months. The evaluation 
The total construction period of the building is 12 months. The evaluation
period of this study is from September to June, and all processes conducted during this period were 
period of this study is from September to June, and all processes conducted during this period were
investigated and monitored. 
investigated and monitored.
Energies 2016, 9, 599 4 of 13
Energies 2016, 9, 599  4 of 12 

 
(a)

 
(b)
Figure 3. Case study building. (a) Case building; and (b) North façade elevation. 
Figure 3. Case study building. (a) Case building; and (b) North façade elevation.

Table 1. Building overview. 
Table 1. Building overview.
Description
Description
Building Site Location  Korea 
Building Site Location Korea
Scope of work  Offices + Apartments 
Scope of work Offices + Apartments
Size  One story underground, four stories aboveground (up to 24.9 m) 
One story underground, four stories aboveground
Land area  Size 3967 m2  (up to 24.9 m)
Construction area 
Land area 1934.18 m2  3967 m2
Gross floor area 
Construction area 5555.55 m2  1934.18 m2
Gross floor area
Structure  5555.55 m2
Steel structure and reinforced concrete [6] structure 
Structure Steel structure and reinforced concrete [6] structure
Offices: Steel curtain wall, triple glass, photovoltaic 
Offices: Steel curtain wall, triple glass, photovoltaic
Main element technologies  Apartments: Exterior insulation panel, radiant panel, household fuel cell 
Main element technologies energy, solar water heating system 
Apartments: Exterior insulation panel, radiant panel,
household fuel cell energy, solar water heating system
3. Results 
3. Results
3.1. CO2 Emission Analysis Results 
3.1. CO2 Emission Analysis Results
3.1.1. CO2 Emissions in the Material Production Phase 
3.1.1. CO2 Emissions in the Material Production Phase
Examination of the CO2 emissions in the material production phase according to the detailed 
Examination of the CO2 emissions in the material production phase according to the detailed
process  reveal  that  CO2  emissions  from  ready‐mixed  concrete  production  in  the  concrete 
process reveal that CO2 emissions from ready-mixed concrete production in the concrete construction
construction of the reinforced concrete works were calculated to be 1011.3 (t‐CO2), which accounts 
of the reinforced concrete works were calculated to be 1011.3 (t-CO2 ), which accounts for the largest
for  the  largest  portion  of  24.5%  in  the  total  CO2  emissions  from  the  material  production  phase, 
portion of 24.5% in the total CO2 emissions from the material production phase, followed by 684.4
followed  by  684.4  (t‐CO2)  16.6%  of  foundation  work  (PHC  PILE),  591.2  (t‐CO2)  14.3%  from  steel 
(t-CO2 ) 16.6% of foundation work (PHC PILE), 591.2 (t-CO2 ) 14.3% from steel materials of steel
materials  of  steel  construction,  410.0  (t‐CO2)  9.9%  from  steel  curtain  walls  of  exterior  work,  and 
construction, 410.0 (t-CO2 ) 9.9% from steel curtain walls of exterior work, and 284.2 (t-CO2 ) 6.9% of
284.2  (t‐CO2)  6.9%  of  SCW  bulk  cement.  CO2  from  building  materials  of  the  top  five  detailed 
processes accounted for 72.2% of the total CO2 emissions (Figure 4). 
Energies 2016, 9, 599 5 of 13

SCW bulk cement. CO2 from building materials of the top five detailed processes accounted for 72.2%
of the total CO2 emissions (Figure 4).
Energies 2016, 9, 599  5 of 12 
Energies 2016, 9, 599  5 of 12 

 
 
Figure 4. CO2 emissions according to detailed process in the material production phase. 
Figure 4. CO22 emissions according to detailed process in the material production phase. 
Figure 4. CO emissions according to detailed process in the material production phase.

3.1.2. CO2 Emissions in the Material Transportation Phase 
3.1.2. CO22 Emissions in the Material Transportation Phase 
3.1.2. CO Emissions in the Material Transportation Phase
In the material transportation phase, the amount of CO2 emissions was calculated to be 107.7 
In the material transportation phase, the amount of CO22 emissions was calculated to be 107.7 
emissions was calculated to be 107.7
(t‐COIn the material transportation phase, the amount of CO
2),  which  comprises  2.4%  of  the  total  CO2  emissions.  CO2  emissions  from  the  ready‐mixed 
(t-CO
(t‐CO ), which 
2),  which comprises
comprises  2.4% ofof  the total
total CO22 emissions. emissions from 
from the
the  ready-mixed
concrete  transportation  of 2.4%  the concrete 
reinforced  COworks 
emissions. 
showed  CO 22  emissions 
the  highest  figure  with  ready‐mixed 
68.7 (t‐CO2), 
concrete
concrete  transportation
transportation  of
of  reinforced
reinforced  concrete
concrete  works
works  showed
showed  the
the  highest
highest  figure
figure  with
with  68.7 (t-CO2), 
68.7 (t‐CO ),
corresponding to 63.4% of the total CO2 emissions from the material transportation phase as shown 
corresponding to 63.4% of the total CO2 2emissions
corresponding to 63.4% of the total CO from the material transportation phase as shown in
 emissions from the material transportation phase as shown 
in Figure 5.   
Figure 5.
in Figure 5.   

 
 
Figure 5. CO2 emissions according to detailed process in the material transportation phase. 
Figure 5. CO22 emissions according to detailed process in the material transportation phase. 
Figure 5. CO emissions according to detailed process in the material transportation phase.
In the case of the ready‐mixed concrete vehicle for transportation of concrete materials, the fuel 
In the case of the ready‐mixed concrete vehicle for transportation of concrete materials, the fuel 
economy 
In thewas 
casecalculated  by  analyzing 
of the ready-mixed the  round‐trip 
concrete vehicle for distance  from  the 
transportation place  of materials,
of concrete shipment the
by fuel
the 
economy  was  calculated  by  analyzing  the  round‐trip  distance  from  the  place  of  shipment  by  the 
supplier and statement of oil use by vehicle, and the oil consumption of the vehicle was 26,093 L, 
economy was calculated by analyzing the round-trip distance from the place of shipment by the
supplier and statement of oil use by vehicle, and the oil consumption of the vehicle was 26,093 L, 
which  accounts  for  most 
supplier and statement of of 
oil the 
use entire  transportation 
by vehicle, and the oilphase.  In  addition, 
consumption of thethe  fuel  economy 
vehicle was 26,093was 
L,
which  accounts  for  most  of  the  entire  transportation  phase.  In  addition,  the  fuel  economy  was 
calculated to be 0.56 (km/L), which was significantly below the average fuel economy of 4.0 (km/L) 
which accounts for most of the entire transportation phase. In addition, the fuel economy was
calculated to be 0.56 (km/L), which was significantly below the average fuel economy of 4.0 (km/L) 
of the vehicle specifications, showing the largest energy consumption in the transportation phase. 
calculated to be 0.56 (km/L), which was significantly below the average fuel economy of 4.0 (km/L)
of the vehicle specifications, showing the largest energy consumption in the transportation phase. 
This  indicates  that  the  transportation  distance  between 
of the vehicle specifications, showing the largest energy the  ready‐mixed 
consumption concrete 
in the factory  and 
transportation the 
phase.
This  indicates  that  the  transportation 
site has the greatest effect on the CO distance  between  the  ready‐mixed  concrete  factory  and  the 
2 emissions in the construction process. 
This indicates that the transportation distance between the ready-mixed concrete factory and the site
site has the greatest effect on the CO 2 emissions in the construction process. 
In the case of earthworks, energy consumption can be reduced by utilizing the dumping site to 
has the greatest effect on the CO2 emissions in the construction process.
In the case of earthworks, energy consumption can be reduced by utilizing the dumping site to 
minimize  sediment  transportation  and  the  distance  for  backfilling.  Therefore,  CO2  emission  was 
minimize 
calculated sediment 
to  be  22.6 transportation 
(t‐CO2)  21.2%, and  the  distance 
followed  by  6.8  for 
(t‐CObackfilling.  Therefore,  CO2  emission  was 
2)  5.5%  from  the  transportation  of  steel 
calculated  to  be  22.6  (t‐CO2)  21.2%,  followed 
materials of steel construction, and 3.4 (t‐CO by  6.8  (t‐CO2)  5.5%  from  the  transportation  of  steel 
2) 3.1% of foundation work (PHC PILE). 
materials of steel construction, and 3.4 (t‐CO2) 3.1% of foundation work (PHC PILE). 
3.1.3. CO2 Emissions in the on‐site Construction Phase 
3.1.3. CO2 Emissions in the on‐site Construction Phase 
Energies 2016, 9, 599 6 of 13

In the case of earthworks, energy consumption can be reduced by utilizing the dumping site
to minimize sediment transportation and the distance for backfilling. Therefore, CO2 emission was
calculated to be 22.6 (t-CO2 ) 21.2%, followed by 6.8 (t-CO2 ) 5.5% from the transportation of steel
materials of steel construction, and 3.4 (t-CO2 ) 3.1% of foundation work (PHC PILE).

Energies 2016, 9, 599 
3.1.3. CO2 Emissions in the on-site Construction Phase 6 of 12 

In the on-site construction phase, the oil and electricity energy consumption according to the
In the on‐site construction phase, the oil and electricity energy consumption according to the 
detailed
detailed  work
work  processes
processes is is shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 6.6. CO
CO22  emissions
emissions  from
from  the
the on-site
on‐site construction
construction phase
phase 
was highest in reinforced concrete work that uses the largest quantities of equipment in the process
was highest in reinforced concrete work that uses the largest quantities of equipment in the process 
with 44.1 (t-CO22) 23.9%, followed by earthworks with 39.1 (t‐CO
with 44.1 (t‐CO ) 23.9%, followed by earthworks with 39.1 (t-CO22) 21.2%, ground heat construction 
) 21.2%, ground heat construction
(close loop) with 31.9 (t-CO
(close  loop)  with  31.9  (t‐CO2 2)  16.7%,  foundation  work  (PHC  PILE) 26.7
) 16.7%, foundation work (PHC PILE) with (t-CO
with  26.7 2 )(t‐CO
14.4%,
2) and ground
14.4%,  and 
heat construction
ground  (open loop)
heat  construction  (open with 16.6
loop)  (t-CO
with  2 ) (t‐CO
16.6  8.5%.2) CO 2 emission
8.5%.  from these
CO2  emission  from five work
these  five types
work 
corresponds to 84.6%to of84.6% 
types  corresponds  the total
of  CO emissions
the 2 total  in the on-site
CO2  emissions  in construction phase, which phase, 
the  on‐site  construction  indicates that
which 
the energy consumption due to the use of various construction equipment according
indicates that the energy consumption due to the use of various construction equipment according  to work methods
in the construction process results in high CO2 emissions.
to work methods in the construction process results in high CO 2 emissions. 

 
Figure 6. CO
Figure 6. CO22 emissions according to detailed process in the on‐site construction phase. 
emissions according to detailed process in the on-site construction phase.

3.1.4. CO2 Emissions in the Waste Treatment Phase 
3.1.4. CO2 Emissions in the Waste Treatment Phase
The waste treatment process is largely divided according to the physical property of waste as 
The waste treatment process is largely divided according to the physical property of
follows:  (1)  discharge,  transport,  demolition/incineration  or  treatment,  recycling  step;  and  (2) 
waste as follows: (1) discharge, transport, demolition/incineration or treatment, recycling step;
discharge and landfill step. The energy consumption and CO2 emissions of the waste transportation 
and (2) discharge and landfill step. The energy consumption and CO2 emissions of the waste
phase were then calculated. 
transportation phase were then calculated.
The total amount of waste generated during the evaluation period was 530 ton, and the total 
The total amount of waste generated during the evaluation period was 530 ton, and the total oil
oil consumption (diesel oil) in the transportation phase was 527 L. The total CO2 emissions from the 
consumption (diesel oil) in the transportation phase was 527 L. The total CO2 emissions from the waste
waste transportation phase was calculated to be 1.4 (t‐CO2). 
transportation phase was calculated to be 1.4 (t-CO2 ).
Of the wastes discharged from the construction process, the materials with physical properties 
Of the wastes discharged from the construction process, the materials with physical properties
that  require  crushing,  grinding,  and  incineration  at  the  intermediate  treatment  company  include 
that require crushing, grinding, and incineration at the intermediate treatment company include
construction  sludge,  waste  concrete,  and  waste  wood.  With  the  use  of  oil  (316  L)  and  electricity 
construction sludge, waste concrete, and waste wood. With the use of oil (316 L) and electricity
(787.1 kWh) consumption, the total CO2 emission was calculated to be 1.2 (t‐CO2). 
(787.1 kWh) consumption, the total CO2 emission was calculated to be 1.2 (t-CO2 ).
Mixed waste is immediately transported to the landfill for treatment. The oil consumption was 
Mixed waste is immediately transported to the landfill for treatment. The oil consumption
10.05 L, and thus the CO2 emission was calculated to be 26.06 (kg‐CO2). 
was 10.05 L, and thus the CO2 emission was calculated to be 26.06 (kg-CO2 ).
3.1.5. Total CO
3.1.5. Total CO22 Emission According to Work Type 
Emission According to Work Type
For the total CO
For the total CO22 emissions in the construction phase, the results of CO
emissions in the construction phase, the results of CO22 emissions calculated 
emissions calculated
from  the  preceding  material 
from the preceding material production 
production phase, phase, 
materialmaterial  transportation 
transportation phase, andphase,  and  on‐site 
on-site construction
construction  phase  were  added.  The  concrete  construction  of  reinforced  concrete  works  was 
calculated to be 1123.1 (t‐CO2), which corresponds to 25.4% of the total CO2 emissions, followed by 
foundation work (PHC PILE) 714.4 (t‐CO2) 16.2%, steel structure erection 602,294.59 (kg‐CO2) 13.6%, 
exterior work 419.7 (t‐CO2) 9.5%, and SCW work 290.7 (t‐CO2) 6.6%, as shown in Figure 7. 

3.1.6. Analysis of Electrical and Oil Consumption in the Construction Phase 
 Energies 2016, 9, 599 7 of 13

phase were added. The concrete construction of reinforced concrete works was calculated 7 of 12 
Energies 2016, 9, 599 
to be
Energies 2016, 9, 599  7 of 12 
1123.1 (t-CO2 ), which corresponds to 25.4% of the total CO2 emissions, followed by foundation work
(PHC PILE) 714.4 (t-CO2 ) 16.2%, steel structure erection 602,294.59 (kg-CO2 ) 13.6%, exterior work 419.7
consumption for the temporary office was higher than that of the direct construction because of the 
consumption for the temporary office was higher than that of the direct construction because of the 
(t-CO 2 ) 9.5%, and SCW work 290.7 (t-CO2 ) 6.6%, as shown in Figure 7.
concentrated use of computerized office equipment and heaters during the winter. 
concentrated use of computerized office equipment and heaters during the winter. 

   
Figure 7. 7. CO
CO2 emissions
emissions  and 
and accumulation 
accumulation rates  according 
rates to  detailed  process  in  the  construction 
Figure
Figure  7.  CO 2  emissions 
2 and  accumulation  rates according
according toto 
detailed process
detailed  in the
process  construction
in  the  phase.
construction 
phase. 
phase. 
3.1.6. Analysis of Electrical and Oil Consumption in the Construction Phase
An analysis of electricity consumption according to the process shows that the electricity used 
An analysis of electricity consumption according to the process shows that the electricity used 
The total electricity consumption in the on-site construction phase was 93,793 kWh, and it was
in in  reinforced 
reinforced  concrete 
concrete  works 
works  was 
was  13,270 
13,270  kWh, 
kWh,  which 
which  accounts 
accounts  for for  14.1% 
14.1%  of of 
the the  total 
total  electricity 
electricity 
measured
consumption, at 49,255 kWh by 
followed  52.5% for thetemporary 
common  temporary work office,11,520 
showing the 12.3%, 
kWh  largest steel 
consumption,
structure  followed
erection 
consumption,  followed  by  common  temporary  work  11,520  kWh  12.3%,  steel  structure  erection 
by direct construction, lifting equipment, and common temporary work. The electricity consumption
8910 kWh 9.5%, metal and window work 3454 kWh 3.7%, and exterior work 2191 kWh 2.3%. The 
8910 kWh 9.5%, metal and window work 3454 kWh 3.7%, and exterior work 2191 kWh 2.3%. The 
for the temporary
electricity  office was
consumption  higher
from  than
these  thatprocesses 
five  of the direct construction
accounted  for  because
41.9%  of the concentrated use
electricity  consumption  from  these  five  processes  accounted  for  41.9%  of of 
the the  total 
total  electricity 
electricity 
of computerized
consumption,  office equipment
indicating  that  field and heaters during
management  is  the winter.
important  for  emission  sources  from  electricity 
consumption,  indicating  that  field  management  is  important  for  emission  sources  from  electricity 
An analysis of electricity consumption according to the process shows that the electricity used
used in these processes. 
used in these processes. 
in reinforced
Oil  concrete works
consumption  varies  was 13,270 kWh,
depending  which accounts for 14.1% of thein  total electricity
Oil  consumption  varies  depending  on on  the 
the  use 
use  of of  transport 
transport  vehicles 
vehicles  the 
in  the  material 
material 
consumption,
transportation  followed
phase  by construction 
and  common temporary equipment  work 11,520
and  kWh 12.3%,
instruments  in  steel
the  structure
on‐site  erection
construction 
transportation  phase  and  construction  equipment  and  instruments  in  the  on‐site  construction 
8910 kWh 9.5%, metal and window work 3454 kWh 3.7%, and exterior work 2191 kWh 2.3%.
phase. The total oil consumption was estimated to be 106,607 L, and the amount of oil used in the 
phase. The total oil consumption was estimated to be 106,607 L, and the amount of oil used in the 
The electricity consumption from these five processes accounted for 41.9% of the total electricity
construction process was 65,476 L. Most of the oil is consumed in the process, which uses a lot of 
construction process was 65,476 L. Most of the oil is consumed in the process, which uses a lot of 
consumption,
construction  indicating
equipment,  that fieldthe 
and  management is important forhighest 
emission sources from electricity used
construction  equipment,  and  the  oil oil  consumption 
consumption  was 
was  highest  in in  earthworks, 
earthworks,  followed 
followed  by by 
in these processes.
reinforced concrete work, and ground heat construction as shown in Figure 8. 
reinforced concrete work, and ground heat construction as shown in Figure 8. 

   
Figure 8. Electricity and oil consumption according to work type. 
Figure 8. Electricity and oil consumption according to work type. 
Figure 8. Electricity and oil consumption according to work type.
3.2. CO
3.2. CO 2 Emission Intensity Results 
2 Emission Intensity Results 

Through 
Through  the 
the  construction 
construction  period 
period  and 
and  construction 
construction  cost 
cost  according 
according  to to  work 
work  type, 
type,  a  correlation 
a  correlation 
with 
with  COCO 2  emissions  was  investigated.  In  addition,  CO2  emissions  were  examined  through  the 
2  emissions  was  investigated.  In  addition,  CO2  emissions  were  examined  through  the 
system capacity and gross floor area for each work type as shown in Table 2. 
system capacity and gross floor area for each work type as shown in Table 2. 
Energies 2016, 9, 599 8 of 13

Table 2. CO2 emissions and construction costs according to work type.

Construction Costs (USD) Construction Period (Day) Area and Capacity

Work Type Total CO2 Emissions (t-CO2 ) Construction Construction Gross Floor t-CO2 /Area,
kg-CO2 /USD t-CO2 /Day Unit
Cost (USD) Period (Day) Area/Capacity Capacity
Civil engineering work 1145 669,760 1.71 77 15 754 m2 1.52
Reinforced concrete work 1458 1,434,160 1.02 103 14 5556 m2 0.26
Steel-frame work 602 1,181,180 0.51 51 12 386 t 1.56
Metal and window work 227 743,470 0.31 54 4 5556 m2 0.04
Glazing work 104 600,600 0.17 18 6 5556 m2 0.02
Interior-finishing work 398 313,040 1.27 82 5 5556 m2 0.07
Exterior-finishing work 420 1,935,570 0.22 52 8 5556 m2 0.08
Ground heat work 65 354,900 0.18 45 1 110 RT 0.59
Waste treatment 3 11,038 0.23 268 0.01 530 t 0.01
Energies 2016, 9, 599 9 of 13

Oil consumption varies depending on the use of transport vehicles in the material transportation
phase and construction equipment and instruments in the on-site construction phase. The total oil
consumption was estimated to be 106,607 L, and the amount of oil used in the construction process
was 65,476 L. Most of the oil is consumed in the process, which uses a lot of construction equipment,
and the oil consumption was highest in earthworks, followed by reinforced concrete work, and ground
heat construction as shown in Figure 8.

3.2. CO2 Emission Intensity Results

Through the construction period and construction cost according to work type, a correlation
with CO2 emissions was investigated. In addition, CO2 emissions were examined through the system
capacity and gross floor area for each work type as shown in Table 2.

3.2.1. CO2 Emissions According to Construction Cost

As shown in Table 2, the construction cost was highest in the exterior work, followed by reinforced
concrete work and steel structure construction. Related to this, civil engineering works showed high
CO2 emissions compared to the construction cost, followed by interior finishing works and reinforced
concrete works. Among civil engineering works, SCW work and foundation work (PHC PILE) was
high, as well as masonry and plasterwork among the interior finishing works. Exterior work was
found to produce low CO2 emissions compared to the construction cost.

3.2.2. CO2 Emissions According to Construction Period

In the entire construction, the process that shows the highest level of CO2 emissions compared to
the number of actual working days was civil engineering work, followed by reinforced concrete work
and steel structure construction. Of these, the civil engineering work showed high CO2 emissions in
SCW work and foundation work (PHC PILE). The percentages of formwork (a subset of reinforced
concrete work) and painting/insulation work (a subset of interior finishing work) make up 14.4% and
5.5%, respectively, of the total number of actual working days, but CO2 emissions was relatively low
with 2.4% and 0.1% of the total emissions, respectively.
The percentages of waterproofing and masonry/plaster work in the total number of working
days was 6.0% and 3.8%, respectively, but the energy consumption was 0.1% and 0.04%, respectively,
of the total energy consumption, showing the lowest energy consumption compared to the number of
working days.

3.2.3. CO2 Emissions According to Installation Capacity and Area by Process

CO2 emission intensity results according to gross floor area and unit capacity are listed in Table 2.
In steel structure construction, CO2 emission intensity per unit weight of steel materials was highest
with 1.6 (t-CO2 /t). When calculated with total floor area, reinforced concrete work was calculated to
be as high as 262.34 (kg-CO2 /m2 ).

3.3. CO2 Reduction Measures Found in the Construction Process

In terms of material selection, in the foundation work, the CO2 emission of 35.7 (t-CO2 ) was
reduced through the reduction in materials and changes in construction equipment specifications
by changing high-strength PHC pile to ultra-high-strength PHC pile and reducing the number of
piles and embedded depth based on the structural reanalysis and precision analysis-based design.
The reduced figure corresponds to 5.0% of the total CO2 emissions in the foundation work. In addition,
the CO2 emission of 553.7 (t-CO2 ) was reduced by using environmentally-friendly concrete made by
recycling blast-furnace slag, a steel byproduct, and the reduced figure is equivalent to 37.9% of the
total CO2 emissions in the reinforced concrete work.
Energies 2016, 9, 599 10 of 13

In terms of material transportation, as a result of reducing the energy consumption resulting

from the transportation by selecting a nearby glass processing plant, the CO2 emission reduction was
calculated to be 186.37 (kg-CO2 ), which accounts for 0.2% of the total CO2 emissions. This suggests
that the energy consumption can be reduced by using materials and resources produced in nearby
regions for all the materials required for the entire process in addition to glass materials.
In terms of construction, the construction period was reduced by applying a hollow-slab method
to one floor and thus reducing input materials such as rebar, plywood formwork, shoring, and concrete,
thereby helping to reduce CO2 emissions to 8.5 (t-CO2 ).
Figure 9 shows a comparative analysis between closed type and open type of ground heat
construction in relation to the total CO2 emissions in the construction phase. According to the analysis
results, the open type was found to be advantageous not only in terms of energy efficiency, but also
in terms of reduction of construction period and costs. In addition, the total CO2 emission from
the construction phase was doubled in the closed type compared to that of the open type. In this
Energies 2016, 9, 599    11 of 13 
study, the capacity of the closed type was 58 RT and that of the open type was 52 RT. Therefore,
the open-type
friendly  methodtechnology 
component  of ground if 
heatit  construction is expected
secures  the  same  to performance 
energy  become a more as environmentally
the  closed‐type 
friendly
method.  component technology if it secures the same energy performance as the closed-type method.

 
Figure 9. Comparison of the total CO  emissions from ground heat work (close type, open type) in 
Figure 9. Comparison of the total CO2 2emissions from ground heat work (close type, open type) in the
the construction phase. 
construction phase.

From  the  waste  treatment  process,  the  transportation  energy  consumption  was  reduced  by 
From the waste treatment process, the transportation energy consumption was reduced by
managing the sediment transport of earthwork at the dumping site within the construction site and 
managing the sediment transport of earthwork at the dumping site within the construction site and
using it again in backfilling. The CO2 emission of 37.5 (t‐CO2), corresponding to 45.4% of the total 
using it again in backfilling. The CO2 emission of 37.5 (t-CO2 ), corresponding to 45.4% of the total CO2
CO2  emissions  in  earthworks,  was  reduced  accordingly.  The  3.3  CO2  reduction  measures  were 
emissions in earthworks, was reduced accordingly. The 3.3 CO2 reduction measures were applied to
applied  to  the  original  construction  design  and  emissions  were  reduced  by  656.4 (t‐CO2)  and  the 
the original construction design and emissions were reduced by 656.4 (t-CO2 ) and the total amount of
total amount of CO2 emissions was reduced by 13%. 
CO2 emissions was reduced by 13%.
4. Discussion 
4. Discussion
In the material production phase in this case study, the amount of CO2 emissions was highest 
In the material production phase in this case study, the amount of CO2 emissions was highest for
for  ready‐mixed  concrete,  followed  by  PHC  pile,  cement,  ready‐mixed  mortar,  steel  structure 
ready-mixed concrete, followed by PHC pile, cement, ready-mixed mortar, steel structure materials,
materials, rebar, and glass materials. The percentage of CO2 emissions of these materials constituted 
rebar, and glass materials. The percentage of CO2 emissions of these materials constituted 80% of the
80% of the total CO2 emissions. These materials constituted over 70% of the total CO2 emissions in 
total CO2 emissions. These materials constituted over 70% of the total CO2 emissions in other research
other research as well [23,24]. 
as well [23,24].
For the reduction in CO2 emissions from the material transportation phase, material suppliers 
For the reduction in CO2 emissions from the material transportation phase, material suppliers
need to be selected by considering the moving distance from the materials manufacturing plant, the 
need to be selected by considering the moving distance from the materials manufacturing plant,
supplier,  and  the  processing  factory  to  the  construction  site.  A  purchase  process  linked  to  CO2 
the supplier, and the processing factory to the construction site. A purchase process linked to CO2
emission management plans also needs to be devised and measures need to be taken to reduce the 
energy consumption of material transport vehicles. 
In  the  case  of  CO2  emissions  from  the  on‐site  construction  phase,  CO2  emissions  were 
estimated  to  be  high  in  processes  that  require  high  energy  consumption  due  to  the  use  of 
construction  and  lifting  equipment.  For  the  detailed  process,  CO2  emission  was  calculated  to  be 
highest  in  concrete  construction,  earthworks,  foundation  (PHC  PILE)  work,  and  ground  heat 
Energies 2016, 9, 599 11 of 13

emission management plans also needs to be devised and measures need to be taken to reduce the
energy consumption of material transport vehicles.
In the case of CO2 emissions from the on-site construction phase, CO2 emissions were estimated
to be high in processes that require high energy consumption due to the use of construction and
lifting equipment. For the detailed process, CO2 emission was calculated to be highest in concrete
construction, earthworks, foundation (PHC PILE) work, and ground heat system construction.
These processes are classified as those in which CO2 reduction controls are available in terms of
on-site management; thus, substantial construction management is required for the reduction of CO2
emissions. This needs to be achieved through the establishment of optimal plans for the selection of
materials and methods, the creation of the best construction proposals, energy consumption monitoring
of the construction process, and performance management from the design phase. The amount of
CO2 emissions from the on-site construction phase of metal/window work was only 1% compared
to that from the material production phase. Thus, measures to recycle and reuse the existing metal
materials need to be considered in terms of the efficiency of resources. The use of unnecessary
metal materials needs to be reduced and alternative materials need to be selected. The energy
consumption in the interior finishing works, including masonry/plaster work, waterproofing work,
and painting/insulation work showed a relatively smaller consumption pattern compared to that of
other work types. This is because the above processes require a great deal of man power compared to
using construction equipment.
CO2 emission intensity was evaluated according to the construction cost, construction period,
gross floor area, and capacity, and was investigated according to the amount of CO2 emitted: reinforced
concrete work, civil engineering work, steel structure construction, exterior work, and interior finishing
work. CO2 emissions from the five work types were found to account for 90% of the total CO2 emissions,
which indicates that plans and measures are urgently needed to reduce the CO2 emissions for these
types of works. Data from the determination of CO2 emission intensity related to the construction
period for each process can be utilized as an important resource to predict life-cycle CO2 emissions and
environmental loads of buildings in the project planning stage. Since there is a significant difference
between the construction period given in the construction schedule and the number of actual working
days, the CO2 emission intensity determined from the annual working capacity utilization rate and the
number of actual working days is expected to contribute to predicting environmental loads that are
more accurate, created from the construction period. This research focused only on the construction
process due to the limits in use and maintenance and disposal. However, the application and disposal
phase constituted 70% of the total CO2 emissions in other research [25,26].

5. Conclusions
In this study, CO2 emissions were calculated with respect to the material production, material
transportation, construction process, and waste treatment phases on an actual construction site.
Since the oil and electric energy consumed during the construction process was evaluated by direct
monitoring, more specific and quantified CO2 emissions were calculated for each process, and measures
for reduction in CO2 emissions were selected and analyzed based on the results.
CO2 emissions from the material production phase were calculated to be 4128 (t-CO2 ), which
constitutes 93.4% of the total CO2 emissions. On the other hand, CO2 emissions from the material
transportation phase and on-site construction phase were 107 (t-CO2 ) and 185 (t-CO2 ), respectively,
which account for 2.4% and 4.2% of the total CO2 emissions. Thus, it can be seen that the selection of
input materials and resources is important for the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Through this study, CO2 emissions and energy consumption according to work type were
evaluated with respect to the material selection, transportation, and construction phase. The amount
of CO2 emissions arising from the construction site was reduced by finding and practicing measures to
reduce CO2 emissions for each process. Therefore, CO2 emissions in the construction phase need to
be specifically identified, an alternative proposal needs to be devised, and a systematic construction
Energies 2016, 9, 599 12 of 13

management plan is needed to find measures for reducing the environmental impacts and CO2
emissions in the life cycle of buildings.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a grant (11 High-tech Urban G03) from High-Tech Urban
Development Program Funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean Government.
Author Contributions: As the primary author, Min-Seop Seo initiated the study and performed the majority of
the analysis. Taeyeon Kim supervised the study and led the data analysis and methodology. Goopyo Hong and
Hyungkeun Kim analyzed the data and contributed in editing the paper and proofreading the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Asif, M.; Muneer, T.; Kelley, R. Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland.
Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 1391–1394. [CrossRef]
2. Desingning with Vision: A Technical Manual for Material Choices in Sustainable Construction; California Integrated
Waste Management Board: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2000.
3. Jeong, Y.-S.; Lee, S.-E.; Huh, J.-H. Estimation of CO2 emission of apartment buildings due to major
construction materials in the Republic of Korea. Energy Build. 2012, 49, 437–442. [CrossRef]
4. Lu, Y.; Cui, P.; Li, D. Carbon emissions and policies in China’s building and construction industry: Evidence
from 1994 to 2012. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 94–103. [CrossRef]
5. Pacheco-Torres, R.; Jadraque, E.; Roldán-Fontana, J.; Ordóñez, J. Analysis of CO2 emissions in the
construction phase of single-family detached houses. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014, 12, 63–68. [CrossRef]
6. González, M.J.; Navarro, J.G. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through
the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Build. Environ.
2006, 41, 902–909. [CrossRef]
7. Gerilla, G.P.; Teknomo, K.; Hokao, K. An evaluation of carbon emission changes in the Japanese housing
sector from 1980–1995. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2005, 4, 509–515. [CrossRef]
8. Dimoudi, A.; Tompa, C. Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of office buildings.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 53, 86–95. [CrossRef]
9. Börjesson, P.; Gustavsson, L. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: Wood versus concrete from
life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Enegy Policy 2000, 28, 575–588. [CrossRef]
10. Gerilla, G.P.; Teknomo, K.; Hokao, K. An environmental assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete
housing construction. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2778–2784. [CrossRef]
11. Suzuki, M.; Oka, T.; Okada, K. The estimation of energy consumption and CO2 emission due to housing
construction in Japan. Energy Build. 1995, 22, 165–169. [CrossRef]
12. Emmanuel, R. Estimating the environmental suitability of wall materials: Preliminary results from Sri Lanka.
Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 1253–1261. [CrossRef]
13. Cole, R.J. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of alternative structural
systems. Build. Environ. 1998, 34, 335–348. [CrossRef]
14. Guggemos, A.A.; Horvath, A. Decision-support tool for assessing the environmental effects of constructing
commercial buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 2006, 12, 187–195. [CrossRef]
15. Yan, H.; Shen, Q.; Fan, L.C.H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L. Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction:
A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 949–955. [CrossRef]
16. Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes.
Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 766–775. [CrossRef]
17. Abolhasani, S.; Frey, H.C.; Kim, K.; Rasdorf, W.; Lewis, P.; Pang, S.-H. Real-world in-use activity, fuel use,
and emissions for nonroad construction vehicles: A case study for excavators. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.
2008, 58, 1033–1046. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Ahn, C.; Pan, W.; Lee, S.; Peña-Mora, F. Enhanced estimation of air emissions from construction operations
based on discrete-event simulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil
and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK, 30 June–2 July 2010.
19. Adalberth, K. Energy use during the life cycle of singleunit dwellings: Examples. Build. Environ. 1997, 32,
321–329. [CrossRef]
20. Cole, R.J.; Kernan, P.C. Life-cylce energy use in office buildings. Build. Environ. 1996, 31, 307–317. [CrossRef]
Energies 2016, 9, 599 13 of 13

21. Junnila, S.; Horvath, A. Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2003, 9,
157–166. [CrossRef]
22. Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institutue (KEITI). Available online: http://www.edp.or.kr/
lci/lci_intro.asp (accessed on 7 April 2016).
23. Wu, H.J.; Yuan, Z.W.; Zhang, L.; Bi, J. Life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office building
in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 17, 105–118. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, Z.; Wang, B. Research on the life-cycle CO2 emission of China’s construction sector. Energy Build.
2016, 112, 244–255. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Y.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, H.; Chen, G.; Wang, X. Carbon emission analysis of a residential building in
China through life cycle assessment. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2014, 10, 150–158. [CrossRef]
26. Peng, C. Calculation of a building’s life cycle carbon emissions based on ecotect and building information
modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 453–465. [CrossRef]

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).