Comparison of Environmental Effects of Steel- and Concrete-Framed Buildings

Guggemos, Angela Acree; Horvath, Arpad

doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2005)11:2(93)

Cited by 274 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ruuska et al (2013) compared the environmental impacts of building materials. Guggemos and Horvath (2005) have studied the lifecycle aspects of alternative concrete and steel structures. The carbon Int J Disaster Risk Sci 227 footprint of several wood-framed buildings have been calculated and analyzed according to ISO and EN standards (Kuittinen et al 2013).…”

Section: Focus On the Construction Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Transitional Shelters

Kuittinen

Winter

2015

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extreme weather events, sea level rise, and political disputes linked to climate change are driving masses to leave their homes. Their transitional settlements should be produced in a manner that causes minimum greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to prevent any further acceleration of climate change and the humanitarian crises it causes. This article presents a study of the carbon footprint and primary energy demand of the construction materials of eight different transitional shelters. The lowest carbon footprints were found from shelter models made from bamboo or timber. The highest emissions were caused by shelters that have either a short service life or that are made from metal-intensive structures. The choice of cladding materials was surprisingly important. The findings were further compared to the overall impacts of each construction project, to national per capita GHG emissions, and to construction costs. Some shelter projects had notable total energy consumption even compared to the annual energy use of industrialized countries. The study concludes that construction materials have an important impact on the carbon footprint of shelters. Comparisons should however be made only between similar functional units. Furthermore, benchmark values and more background data are urgently needed in order to give humanitarian nongovernmental organizations tools for lowering the carbon footprint of their construction operations.

show abstract

Section: Focus On the Construction Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Transitional Shelters

Kuittinen

Winter

2015

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the contributors to embodied carbon that can be regulated to reduce the embodied carbon of a building is the construction emissions associated with the operation of construction equipment and the use of temporary construction materials [101][102][103][104].…”

Section: Construction Optimization Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the different construction operations, earthmoving, concerting, and lifting operations have been identified as the primary contributors to carbon emissions in the construction phase [5,103,104]. Guggemos and Horvath reported that these three operations account for 83% of the overall construction phase emissions of the structure studied in their work [104,113].…”

Section: Construction Optimization Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation and Minimization of Embodied Carbon of Buildings: A Review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building and construction is responsible for up to 30% of annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, commonly reported in carbon equivalent unit. Carbon emissions are incurred in all stages of a building's life cycle and are generally categorised into operating carbon and embodied carbon, each making varying contributions to the life cycle carbon depending on the building's characteristics. With recent advances in reducing the operating carbon of buildings, the available literature indicates a clear shift in attention towards investigating strategies to minimize embodied carbon. However, minimizing the embodied carbon of buildings is challenging and requires evaluating the effects of embodied carbon reduction strategies on the emissions incurred in different life cycle phases, as well as the operating carbon of the building. In this paper, the available literature on strategies for reducing the embodied carbon of buildings, as well as methods for estimating the embodied carbon of buildings, is reviewed and the strengths and weaknesses of each method are highlighted.

show abstract

“…Many scholars have published their calculations of carbon emissions from different residential structures; these include Alcorn and Baird [2], Buchanan and Honey [3], Björklund et al [4], Canadian Wood Council (CWC) [5], Guggemos et al [6], Arima [7], Shang et al [8], Li [9], Rossi et al [10], Griffin et al [11], Kim et al [12], and Li et al [13]. Their results provide the basic carbon emissions The studies found no close relationship between carbon emissions and structure during the operations phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their results provide the basic carbon emissions The studies found no close relationship between carbon emissions and structure during the operations phase. Guggemos et al were of the opinion that, in a fifty-year lifetime of a residential building, the differences in carbon emissions of steel and concrete structures are small [6]. Gustavsson et al found that in the operations phase, energy consumption will not differ because of the structure [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation and Assessment of Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Emission Flows from Different Residential Structures

Wen

Jrade

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To explore the differences in carbon emissions over the whole life-cycle of different building structures, the published calculated carbon emissions from residential buildings in China and abroad were normalized. Embodied carbon emission flows, operations stage carbon emission flows, demolition and reclamation stage carbon emission flows and total life-cycle carbon emission flows from concrete, steel, and wood structures were obtained. This study is based on the theory of the social cost of carbon, with an adequately demonstrated social cost of carbon and social discount rate. Taking into consideration both static and dynamic situations and using a social discount rate of 3.5%, the total life-cycle carbon emission flows, absolute carbon emission and building carbon costs were calculated and assessed. The results indicated that concrete structures had the highest embodied carbon emission flows and negative carbon emission flows in the waste and reclamation stage. Wood structures that started the life-cycle with stored carbon had the lowest carbon emission flows in the operations stage and relatively high negative carbon emission flows in the reclamation stage. Wood structures present the smallest carbon footprints for residential buildings.

show abstract

Comparison of Environmental Effects of Steel- and Concrete-Framed Buildings

Cited by 274 publications

References 6 publications

Carbon Footprint of Transitional Shelters

Carbon Footprint of Transitional Shelters

Estimation and Minimization of Embodied Carbon of Buildings: A Review

Simulation and Assessment of Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Emission Flows from Different Residential Structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About