IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i20p14978-d1261676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Embodied Carbon Emissions in UK Supermarket Constructions: A Study on Steel, Brick, and Timber Frameworks with Consideration of End-of-Life Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Augustine Blay-Armah

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, School of Computing and Engineering, University of West London, London W5 5RF, UK)

  • Golnaz Mohebbi

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, School of Computing and Engineering, University of West London, London W5 5RF, UK)

  • Ali Bahadori-Jahromi

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, School of Computing and Engineering, University of West London, London W5 5RF, UK)

  • Charlie Fu

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, School of Computing and Engineering, University of West London, London W5 5RF, UK)

  • Joseph Amoako-Attah

    (Faculty of Engineering and Technology, School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK)

  • Mark Barthorpe

    (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 kgCO 2 eq.) 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Augustine Blay-Armah & Golnaz Mohebbi & Ali Bahadori-Jahromi & Charlie Fu & Joseph Amoako-Attah & Mark Barthorpe, 2023. "Evaluation of Embodied Carbon Emissions in UK Supermarket Constructions: A Study on Steel, Brick, and Timber Frameworks with Consideration of End-of-Life Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:20:p:14978-:d:1261676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/14978/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/14978/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mona Abouhamad & Metwally Abu-Hamd, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment Framework for Embodied Environmental Impacts of Building Construction Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agnieszka Starzyk & Kinga Rybak-Niedziółka & Aleksandra Nowysz & Janusz Marchwiński & Alicja Kozarzewska & Joanna Koszewska & Anna Piętocha & Polina Vietrova & Przemysław Łacek & Mikołaj Donderewicz &, 2024. "New Zero-Carbon Wooden Building Concepts: A Review of Selected Criteria," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-28, September.

    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. Ahmad Jrade & Farnaz Jalaei & Jieying Jane Zhang & Saeed Jalilzadeh Eirdmousa & Farzad Jalaei, 2023. "Potential Integration of Bridge Information Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment/Life Cycle Costing Tools for Infrastructure Projects within Construction 4.0: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-25, October.
    2. Lachlan Curmi & Kumudu Kaushalya Weththasinghe & Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq, 2022. "Global Policy Review on Embodied Flows: Recommendations for Australian Construction Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Jungsik Choi & Sejin Lee, 2023. "A Suggestion of the Alternatives Evaluation Method through IFC-Based Building Energy Performance Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Gang Yao & Yuan Chen & Wenchi Xie & Nan Chen & Yue Rui & Pingjia Luo, 2022. "Research on Collaborative Design of Performance-Refined Zero Energy Building: A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-30, September.
    5. Simonsen, Galina & Ravotti, Rebecca & O'Neill, Poppy & Stamatiou, Anastasia, 2023. "Biobased phase change materials in energy storage and thermal management technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. Augustine Blay-Armah & Ali Bahadori-Jahromi & Anastasia Mylona & Mark Barthorpe & Marco Ferri, 2022. "An Evaluation of the Impact of Databases on End-of-Life Embodied Carbon Estimation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, February.

    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:14978-:d:1261676. 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.