Evaluation of Embodied Carbon Emissions in UK Supermarket Constructions: A Study on Steel, Brick, and Timber Frameworks with Consideration of End-of-Life Processes
-
Published:2023-10-17
Issue:20
Volume:15
Page:14978
-
ISSN:2071-1050
-
Container-title:Sustainability
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Sustainability
Author:
Blay-Armah Augustine1, Mohebbi Golnaz1, Bahadori-Jahromi Ali1ORCID, Fu Charlie1ORCID, Amoako-Attah Joseph2ORCID, Barthorpe Mark3
Affiliation:
1. Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, School of Computing and Engineering, University of West London, London W5 5RF, UK 2. Faculty of Engineering and Technology, School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK 3. LIDL Great Britain Ltd., Lidl House, 14 Kingston Road, London KT5 9NU, UK
Abstract
Buildings and the construction sector as a whole are among the chief emitters of carbon, and the structural system of a building contributes substantially to its embodied carbon emissions. Whereas extensive studies exist into carbon missions, a detailed evaluation of real multipart building systems in brick, steel, and timber (glulam) substitutes is lacking. This paper employs whole-life-embedded carbon as a sustainability metric to compare a current UK supermarket building system of steel, brick, and timber. Four construction systems by the supermarket, referred to as CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS4, are used in the investigation. Comparisons are also made between two end-of-life treatment methods (recycle and landfill) along with the benefits that can be realised in future construction projects. The outcome from the comparative assessment reveals that there are minor variations in the embodied carbon of building systems used by the supermarket. CS4, while currently presenting marginal gains (approximately 148,960.68 kgCO2eq.) compared to CS1, loses its advantages when recycled contents for future construction projects are considered. The result indicates that CS4 generates about 18% less carbon emission reduction potential than CS1, whilst CS3 generates approximately 16% less than CS1. The findings of this article can enhance the knowledge of embodied carbon estimation and reduction capabilities of timber, steel, and brick buildings. Also, the detailed method for quantifying embodied carbon used in this article can be adopted in similar projects around the world.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Geography, Planning and Development,Building and Construction
Reference51 articles.
1. Zimmann, R., O’Brien, H., Hargrave, J., and Morrell, M. (2022, October 31). Circular Economy in the Built Environment. ARUP. Available online: https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/circular-economy-in-the-built-environment. 2. Comparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in Hong Kong;Hossain;Waste Manag.,2017 3. Models and method for estimation and comparison of direct emissions in building construction in Australia and a case study;Sandanayake;Energy Build.,2016 4. GlobalABC (2022, January 19). 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Available online: http://www.unep.org/resources/publication/2019-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction-sector. 5. UN-Habitat (2022, January 20). Buildings Day Proves a Hit at COP21 UN-Habitat. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/buildings-day-proves-a-hit-at-cop21.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|