IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i20p15167-d1265448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Embodied Carbon Comparison in Lightweight Building Structure Frames: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Huang

    (Sustainable Infrastructure and Resource Management (SIRM), UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
    School of Energy and Power Engineering, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha 410114, China)

  • Ke Xing

    (Sustainable Infrastructure and Resource Management (SIRM), UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Rameez Rameezdeen

    (Sustainable Infrastructure and Resource Management (SIRM), UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

Abstract

Structural components represent major contributors to embodied carbon emissions of buildings. While there have been numerous research efforts dedicated to modelling and assessing the embodied carbon impact of buildings, there is a conspicuous gap in research that concurrently examines various material options in building structural designs, accounting for technical, economic, and carbon implications. In this study, an integrated approach is applied to assess the embodied carbon and life cycle cost impacts of three different building structures, i.e., timber-framed (TF), steel-framed (SF), and the timber–steel composite (TSCF) framed, scaffolded with Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulations for a strength and stability analysis of different design options. A lightweight frame-structured residential building type is examined as the data source for the modelling and simulations. The results of a comparative scenario analysis highlight that both TF structures and TSCF structures have notable advantages over their SF counterparts for embodied carbon saving and building load reduction. Assessment results indicate that the TF design offers 35.56% embodied carbon reduction, followed by the TSCF design with 8.12% decarbonization, compared to the SF design. The lifecycle cost assessments also reveal the promising cost saving potential of TF and TSCF structures for the application, with cost savings of up to 7.93% and 4%, respectively. Meanwhile, the simulations further demonstrate that TSCF materials in particular can have significant benefits for lightweight building structures in overcoming the deflection problem of long TF components and the buckling of thin-walled SF members. The results help to identify the potential of TSCF structures to minimize the material use for a “Build with Less” through design optimization, which can lead to further embodied carbon and lifecycle cost reductions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Huang & Ke Xing & Rameez Rameezdeen, 2023. "Exploring Embodied Carbon Comparison in Lightweight Building Structure Frames: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:20:p:15167-:d:1265448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/15167/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/15167/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhongjia Chen & Hongmei Gu & Richard D. Bergman & Shaobo Liang, 2020. "Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with an Equivalent Reinforced Concrete Alternative Using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mahboobeh Hemmati & Tahar Messadi & Hongmei Gu, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Cross-Laminated Timber Transportation from Three Origin Points," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Kevin Allan & Adam R. Phillips, 2021. "Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Low and Mid-Rise Mass Timber Buildings with Equivalent Structural Steel Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Henriette Fischer & Martin Aichholzer & Azra Korjenic, 2023. "Ecological Potential of Building Components in Multi-Storey Residential Construction: A Comparative Case Study between an Existing Concrete and a Timber Building in Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Shaobo Liang & Hongmei Gu & Richard Bergman, 2021. "Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building: A Case Study in Pacific Northwestern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Franz Dolezal & Isabella Dornigg & Markus Wurm & Hildegund Figl, 2021. "Overview and Main Findings for the Austrian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    7. Markku Karjalainen & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Lauri Metsäranta & Markku Norvasuo, 2021. "Residents’ Attitudes towards Wooden Facade Renovation and Additional Floor Construction in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Roni Rinne & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Markku Karjalainen, 2022. "Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Insub Choi & JunHee Kim & DongWon Kim, 2020. "LCA-Based Investigation of Environmental Impacts for Novel Double-Beam Floor System Subjected to High Gravity Loads," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:20:p:15167-:d:1265448. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.