MB Lca Dec21

Life cycle carbon analysis of a
six-storey residential building
An evaluation of the whole-life performance of concrete construction

compared with an equivalent CLT design
2 LIFE CYCLE CARBON ANALYSIS
Contents
Executive summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Embodied carbon (A1-C4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Embodied carbon of MEP services. . . . . . . . . . . 16
Building design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Total whole-life carbon - 60 year life (A1-C4). 17
Input data for materials and products . . . . . . . . 6 Summary of results and observations. . . . . . . . 18
Overheating analysis: passive and Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

active cooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Operational energy analysis (B6). . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Peak load analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
About this publication

This guide provides details of a whole-life carbon assessment of an apartment building, carried out using life cycle
analysis (LCA) in accordance with the RICS whole-life carbon assessment methodology and BS EN 15978:2011[1].
The guide is authored by The Concrete Centre. It draws on technical analysis completed by Max Fordham, on behalf
of The Concrete Centre. The initial designs that formed the basis of the analysis were developed by Adam Khan
Architects, Price and Myers (structural engineer) and Max Fordham (environmental and services engineer).
Executive summary
A life cycle assessment (LCA) of a typical 2500m², six-storey apartment block of the concrete building to around 430 kgCO2e/m². Broader opportunities
building containing 22 flats was carried out using the OneClick LCA tool. for carbon savings identified by the study will inform follow-on work by The
Two sets of designs were developed for functionally equivalent concrete Concrete Centre.
and CLT versions of the building. Both have essentially the same size, shape,
room layouts and glazing dimensions. The designs also have equivalent As part of the study, overheating performance and peak loads were
heat loss characteristics, solar shading, heating and ventilation systems. assessed. It was found that passive performance of the concrete building
The concrete building maximises thermal mass with the use of exposed was significantly better, with a lower occurrence of overheating, enabling
concrete soffits and high-density blockwork walls. the need for active cooling to be avoided for the period 2020-40. The CLT
building required an active cooling system from the outset.
The modelling covered a 60-year building life cycle, assumed to be 2020
to 2080, and included operational energy, passive cooling, peak heating Operational energy consumption was similar for both buildings at around
and cooling loads and embodied carbon emissions. The buildings were 43 kWh/m²/y. When energy generated by the PV array included in the
assumed to be demolished at end-of-life. building design is subtracted from this figure, energy consumption is
reduced to 34 kWh/m2/y.
It was found that the whole life carbon (A1- C4, excluding B7 water) of the
concrete apartment building was around 6% more than the CLT building The concrete building’s predicted peak space heating load was 25% lower
over a 60-year lifespan. The embodied carbon (A1 - C4, excluding B6 on average. This is beneficial from a plant sizing, cost and embodied carbon
energy and B7 water) of both buildings was around 500 kgCO2e/m², which point of view. More valuable, however, was the resulting difference in peak
meets the RIBA 2025 and 2030 Climate Challenge targets. The study went electrical demand: Limiting peak electrical demand, particularly in winter, is
on to identify several potential enhancements within the constraints of a a vital part of a net zero carbon future as it helps facilitate decarbonisation
relatively fixed design, which were shown to reduce the embodied carbon of the national grid.
LIFE CYCLE CARBON ANALYSIS 3
Introduction
To acquire an overall understanding of a built project’s total carbon are already more widely understood. For context and LCA comparison
impact, it is necessary to assess both the anticipated operational and purposes, the apartment building was also designed using cross-laminated
embodied emissions over the life of the asset. Considering the combined timber (CLT).
operational and embodied carbon emissions over a project’s expected life
Whilst undertaking the study, a number of useful observations were made
cycle constitutes a whole life approach. Its use can help identify the best
and lessons learned. These relate not only to the use of concrete and other
combined opportunities for reducing lifetime emissions. It can also bring
materials/systems, but also to the general challenges of completing an
longer-term benefits to the forefront of the design process, ensuring a
LCA. One such observation was the wide range of GWP values included in
development is evaluated in the round.
Environmental Product Declarations for CLT. This led to the use of high, low
and medium embodied carbon scenarios to account for the range of data
Whole life carbon assessment is attracting broad support from construction
available for the CLT and other materials used (see Figure 9, page 15).
sector organisations including the UKGBC with its Net Zero Whole Life
Carbon Roadmap[2], and the RIBA with its Climate Challenge programme[3]. Knowledge gained from the study has highlighted areas of design that
Whole life carbon assessment has also become a planning requirement could potentially be developed further to reduce carbon. A next step
for large-scale construction in Greater London and is now a government for The Concrete Centre will be to look more closely at these to see
requirement for all new public works projects. how they can be progressed. A number of more straightforward design
enhancements applicable to the relatively fixed design used in this study
Producing a practical whole life carbon assessment will typically involve the were also identified and formed an additional scenario called ‘Concrete
use of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool that follows the LCA methodology low2’ (see Figure 9, page 15).
set out by the RICS[4] and/or BS EN 15978[1]. To learn more about this and
It should be noted that this LCA focused specifically on the apartment
the process of completing a LCA of a concrete building, The Concrete
building specified for the study and the results do not necessarily translate
Centre commissioned a study of a new, hypothetical apartment block in
to other designs or building types, although the general lessons learnt
London, designed to meet the Future Homes Standard. An apartment
about completing an LCA are transferable.
block was chosen rather than an office or other commercial building as
many of the whole life benefits of using concrete in these applications
Headline LCA results Headline LCA lessons

The whole-life carbon of the concrete and CLT buildings were The availability of data for an LCA is lacking in some areas,
broadly similar. especially MEP services.
Operational energy consumption over the full life cycle was similar There is a wider range of embodied carbon rates for CLT compared
for both buildings. to concrete (a range factor of 6 compared to 1.1), which could skew
results.
The concrete building has an average peak space heating load that
is 25% lower. The predicted whole life carbon performance is strongly influenced
by the assumed future grid carbon intensity of electricity. Whilst
The passive cooling performance of the concrete building was
there is some uncertainty about the best value to adopt, using a
significantly better.
standardised grid carbon factor across all LCAs would help make
The CLT building required active cooling from the outset, whilst the results more comparable.
concrete building can be passively cooled until 2040.
LCA is currently limited to a building-level assessment but, going
The embodied carbon of both buildings was around 500 kgCO2e/m2 forward, the use of smart energy systems and load shifting means
The RIBA 2025 and 2030 Climate Challenge carbon targets for it will also need to be assessed at national/grid-level to get a true
residential buildings[3] were met by both building designs. indication of carbon performance.
Glossary
Active buildings – Buildings that intelligently control the way power is FND – Foundation concrete
used to support the energy network GGBS – Ground granulated blast-furnace slag
CIBSE TM59 – Design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk GWP – Global warming potential (used to refer to embodied carbon rates)
in homes (2017) LCA - Life cycle analysis
CLT – Cross-laminated timber MEP – Mechanical, electrical and plumbing
COP – Coefficient of performance SCM - Secondary cementitious materials
DHW – Domestic hot water SCOP – Seasonal coefficient of performance (describing the average COP
DSY – Design summer year during a heating season)
EER – Energy efficiency ratio TRY – Test reference year (used for estimating energy consumption)
Embodied carbon – Embodied carbon is the resultant emissions from all UFH – Underfloor heating
the activities involved in the creation and demolition of a building. It is the Whole life carbon – The sum of the embodied and operational carbon
total life cycle carbon less the operational carbon impact. emissions over a building’s life cycle.
EPD - Environmental product declaration
Building design
The LCA study was based on a building design for a 2,500m², six-storey apartment block in London, containing 22
flats. A reinforced-concrete frame was used with flat slabs, constructed using a C32/40 concrete with 50% GGBS
SCM for the superstructure. The foundations comprise reinforced-concrete ground beams, pile caps and piles using
FND3 and FND4 concrete with 70% GGBS SCM. Standard steel reinforcement was assumed.
The CLT version of the building was functionally equivalent, with virtually were designed to be 5dB better than the standards set out in Approved
the same size, shape, room layouts and glazing dimensions (see Figure 1). Document E of the Building Regulations (for more on acoustics, see box out
It used C24 grade CLT panels for the walls, floor and roof, supported on a on page 19).
foundation of reinforced-concrete ground beams, pile caps and piles. The
CLT version also contained a significant quantity of structural steel, mainly Both designs had equivalent heat loss characteristics, such as U-values
in the balconies. The external wall build-ups had the same overall thickness and airtightness. They were developed to exceed the current Part L of the
in both buildings (see Figure 2) so the gross internal area was the same, at Building Regulations (2013) and also to meet or exceed revisions to these
2,340m². However, the CLT design had slightly thicker internal partitions, Regulations required to deliver the anticipated Future Homes Standard[5].
resulting in the net internal area being 1% smaller. Structural drawings for Both designs made use of the same type of heat pump heating and hot
the concrete and CLT designs are provided in the Appendices. water system. The ventilation and heat recovery systems were also the
same, as were the lighting and equipment energy demands – for example,
While the structural designs were reasonably efficient, neither the concrete for appliances and cooking.
or CLT buildings were optimised for structural efficiency as they were
constrained by the choice to use the same floor plans for both buildings A high standard of solar shading and summertime ventilation was applied
(see page 19). The concrete design made use of the structure’s thermal to ensure the risk of overheating was reduced as far as practicable.
mass by exposing the concrete soffits and using blockwork internally. The However, the variation in thermal mass between the two designs
inner leaf of the external walls and the internal walls were constructed from influenced their passive performance, leading to different approaches
dense blocks with wet-applied plaster. The floor used a high-density screed to summertime cooling between 2020 and 2041, with the CLT building
with a covering such as carpet, vinyl or laminate but without an insulating needing mechanical cooling from the outset (see page 10).
underlay.
In addition to the base building design described above, some

The concrete frame and rendered blockwork walls were designed further enhancements to the concrete design were modelled. These
to provide inherent fire resistance and acoustic insulation between minor amendments explored simple ways to further optimise carbon
apartments. The CLT design required the addition of plasterboard linings performance, within the restraints of this fixed design - rather than a
and mineral wool acoustic insulation to provide adequate fire resistance fundamental review of the design proposals. The changes are detailed in
and noise transfer performance. Both the CLT and concrete buildings the ‘concrete (low2)’ scenario described on page 8.
Figure 1: Architectural designs and layouts used for both the CLT and the concrete design options
Left: South elevation. Right: Typical upper floor comprising a single one-bed flat, a single three-bed flat and two two-bed flats
In-situ concrete scheme – key details Cross laminated timber scheme – key
¢ In-situ reinforced concrete scheme designed to Eurocode 2: Design of details
concrete structures[6], as a series of thin flat slabs supported on slender
¢ CLT scheme designed to Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Buildings[7], as
columns at regular centres.
a panelised system with floor panels spanning unidirectionally onto
¢ 225mm RC slab flat slabs at first to fifth floors with columns positioned
loadbearing wall panels.
to avoid unnecessarily long spans and designed for punching shear
¢ Fire protection of the structure provided by the finishes.
resistance.
¢ 160mm thick 5-layer panels for the floors and 100mm thick 3-layer
¢ 200mm RC slabs to ground and roof levels, with 500x200mm RC
panels for the walls (both C24 grade).
upstand around roof perimeter.
¢ Lateral stability of the structure is provided by the loadbearing walls
¢ 250 x 250mm RC square columns with inherent fire resistance.
acting together as vertical cantilevers from the ground floor slab.
¢ 200mm RC walls around the stair and lift core act as shear walls,
¢ Piled ground floor slab with strip-thickenings over the piles. 300mm
providing lateral stability for the structure.
diameter piles extend into an assumed London-clay soil.
¢ Piled foundations with 450mm diameter piles extending into an
¢ External brickwork façade supported on an RC ‘toe’ extending from
assumed London-clay soil, supporting suspended ground floor slab,
edge thickening of the ground floor slab and on a masonry support
walls and columns.
system at second and fourth floors fixed back to the CLT frame.
¢ External brickwork façade supported on an RC ‘toe’ extending from
¢ Robustness provided by fixing together of adjacent panels.
edge thickening of the ground floor slab and on a masonry support
system at second and fourth floors fixed back to the RC frame. ¢ Balconies made from hot-rolled steel beams, supported with corner
hot-rolled columns, with cold-rolled metal studs supporting the floor
¢ Corner balconies made from in-situ or precast concrete with thermal
finishes. Thermal breaks between the hot-rolled steel beams and the
break connections back to RC frame.
CLT frame.
¢ Roof plant structures made from cold-rolled steel frames.
¢ Roof plant structures made from cold-rolled steel frames.
¢ All internal walls are masonry of dense blockwork with a wet plaster
finish.
Figure 2:
Primary construction details
Top: Concrete construction
Bottom: CLT construction
Input data for materials and products

Where available, environmental product declarations (EPDs) for ¢ Other services such as water storage and booster set, pressurisation
manufacturer-specific products were used to establish the embodied and expansion vessels, control panels and control wiring, electrical
carbon rates. Where not available, generic data sources were used, substation, telecoms systems, fire alarm, access control, security or CCTV
such as the OneClick LCA tool and the ICE Database. Due to the lack of systems
availability of data, the analysis took data from similar, rather than exact ¢ Carbon emissions associated with operational water use and sewage
match, products. Where there was no suitable data available for a particular treatment
product, a proxy product was adopted with a scaling factor such as a mass
¢ Furniture and fit-out equipment.
or area, as appropriate.
Material quantities were measured from drawings, derived from 3D models,

The A1-A3 embodied carbon rates were taken from EPDs or other product
or estimated by spreadsheet calculation methods. Additional materials
data sources. With the exception of refrigerant leakage, embodied
due to replacements (LCA stage B) were included in the embodied carbon
emissions for LCA stage B were determined by the product service life
models as determined by the component lifetimes given in Table 1.
shown in Table 1. Structural elements were all assumed to have lifetimes
equal to the building lifetime (60 years) and so would not be replaced.
Other components with shorter lifetimes would incur one or more Table 1: Service life for materials and systems
replacements during the analysis period. The building services were a major
contributor during the A1-B5 stages, with the elements having typical Building component Service lifetime
(before replacement)
lifetimes of between 10 and 30 years. Emissions that occur in LCA stage C
were calculated using the following generic end-of-life scenario models. Concrete foundations Permanent
¢ Concrete (and other masonry): crushed and recycled into aggregate
CLT Same as the 60 year building
¢ Steel (and other metals): recovered and 85% recycled into new metal lifetime
¢ CLT (and other timber): incinerated at end-of-life without carbon capture Insulation (all types) Same as building lifetime
Facade bricks Same as building lifetime

The potential benefits or burdens of using recycled products on future
projects or potential opportunity to displace fossil fuels by incinerating Windows 30 years
combustible materials in industrial processes at end-of-life were not
Plasterboard 30 years
included as these aspects fall outside the system boundary for LCA – that is,
in Module D. Floating floor with UFH in CLT design Same as building lifetime
Screed floor with UFH in concrete Same as building lifetime

Approximately 40 different products were used to represent the concrete design
and CLT buildings in each embodied carbon model. The data sources used
for the embodied carbon rates were dated between 2013 and 2021, with Floor finish (vinyl, carpet, laminate) 15 years
2018 being the most common release date when the study was carried out. Concrete superstructure Same as building lifetime
Concrete blocks Same as building lifetime

The materials and systems included were those that it was believed would
significantly influence the results. For transparency, the areas not included are Concrete screed Same as building lifetime
listed below.
Drainage and water pipes 60 years
Aspects not included in the study Heat pumps 20 years
MVHR units 20 years

As the primary focus of the LCA related to the carbon performance of the
structure and building services, a number of more peripheral items mostly Fan coils 20 years
common to both buildings were not included. However, as with any LCA, it
GSS ductwork 30 years
is important that all omissions are stated. This study did not include:
¢ Demolition and site preparation PV system and supports 30 years
¢ Concrete formwork Lighting 20 years
¢ Sanitaryware
¢ Ironmongery, balustrades and handrails
¢ Paints, varnishes or other similar finishes
¢ Small fixings such as screws, nails, etc.
¢ Landscaping and external works
Range of embodied carbon (GWP) rates of structural materials

A preliminary study was carried out into the range of embodied carbon This exercise found the following::
rates found in the EPDs and other data sources for the key structural 1. The available rates for CLT (C24 grade) do not provide a consistent
materials. These were: figure for comparison. From a sample of 10 EPDs, this spanned from
¢ CLT (C24 grade) 30-200kgCO2e/m³ (A1-A3). That is a range factor of 6. The wide range is
¢ Structural steel section thought to occur partly as a result of the different proportions of low-
¢ Foundation concrete (FND3 and FND4, 70% GGBS) carbon energy used in different production facilities.
¢ Superstructure concrete (C32/40, 50% GGBS)
2. There were limited EPDs for specific concrete mixes as many concrete
¢ Steel reinforcement bar
producers had verified carbon calculation tools rather than product
The products considered for use in the structure, as for the whole building specific EPDs. However, EPDs for cement are relatively plentiful.
analysis, were limited to ones that could, in principle, be specified and Consequently, a review of the embodied carbon rates for UK and
procured for a project in London in 2020. European cement EPDs were used to estimate the carbon performance
of concrete made using these cements (see Table 4).
The study sourced and analysed a range of UK and European EPDs for the
products in question. The EPDs were found to be of two general types: 3. For UK-produced superstructure concrete (C32/40 50% GGBS),
the estimated potential range of embodied carbon rates was
a) EPDs for a specific product or narrow product range from a single
220-250kgCO2e/m³ (A1-A3), a range factor of 1.1.
manufacturer;
4. For UK-produced foundation concrete (FND3 or 4, 70% GGBS),
b) EPDs for a wider range of products (of a similar type) from multiple
the estimated potential range of embodied carbon rates was
companies and production facilities representing a sector or regional
150-170kgCO2e/m³ (A1-A3), a range factor of 1.1.
average (sometimes known as a generic EPD).
Having found a wide range of embodied carbon rates for the key structural
materials, it was decided to use a set of low, medium and high whole-
building embodied carbon modelling scenarios. These are described in
Table 2.
Table 2: Low, medium and high embodied carbon modelling scenarios
Whole-building embodied carbon Scenario description

analysis modelling scenario
CLT (low) Makes use of material specifications with GWP (A1-A3) close to the low end of the range found in the preliminary
Concrete (low) studies
Concrete (low2) Includes design modifications that could be applied to the base building design and the Concrete (low) scenario to
further enhance carbon performance
CLT (medium)
Makes use of material specifications with GWP (A1-A3) in the middle of the range found in the preliminary studies
Concrete (medium)
CLT (high) Makes use of material specifications with GWP (A1-A3) close to the top end of the range found in the preliminary
Concrete (high) studies
Concrete specification
The specification for the concrete included a CEM III/B cement for the foundations, assuming the need for a fairly high sulfate resisting concrete (FND3
or FND4), and a CEM III/A cement for the RC32/40 superstructure concrete. The cementitious content of both concretes was quite high in relation to the
minimum required by the British Standard (BS 8500-2). The cementitious content of concretes is sometimes higher than the minimum for various reasons
such as requiring a faster setting time. However, it is worth noting the minimum cement contents for the two types of concrete used in the study as seen in
Table 3, below.
Table 3: Minimum cement content of the concrete in the study
Concrete Cement content used Minimum cement content (kg/m3

(kg/m3) Notes
in the study (kg/m3
(kg/m3)
FND4 440 360
RC32/40 380 300 A minimum of 350kg/m³

is recommended for visual
concrete
These boxes represent commentary from The Concrete Centre.

Table 4: Material specifications and embodied data of the low, medium and high whole building scenarios
Used in the In-situ Concrete Designs
Used in the CLT Designs
Foundation Concrete
Super Structure Concrete
FND3 and FND4 CEM III/B
CLT Panels C24 Grade Steel Section Re-Bar Steel C32/40 CEM III/A 50% GGBS
70% GGBS 440kg/m3 total
380kg/m3 total cementitious
cementitious
GWP (A1-A3)
Product / excl. biogenic Product / GWP (A1-A3) Product / GWP (A1-A3) Product / GWP (A1-A3) Product / GWP (A1-A3)
Item (kgCO2e/m3) Item (kgCO2e/t) Item (kgCO2e/ m3) Item (kgCO2e/t) Item (kgCO2e/m3)
ArcelorMittal FND 3 and Celsa _ UK_ C32/40

Binderh
Multi site_ 4 CEM III/B >98% scrap CEM III/A
CLT (low) or olz, AUS
EU (average) 70% GGBS content _ 50% GGBS
Concrete EPD- BBS- 80 800 150 650 220
EPD-ARM- (low GWP (specific) EPD (low GWP
(low) 2019002
20190015- estimate) _ BREG EN estimate)
1-IBB1- DE
CBD1-EN [Using proxy] EPD 000187 [Using proxy]
FND 3 and UK CARES _ Ready-mix

Studieng 4 CEM III/B EU _ Multi-Co concrete,
ICE Database
meinsch aft 70% GGBS _ 96% scrap C32/40,
CLT _ UK & EU
Holzleim bau (medium content CEM III/A,
(medium) 60% recycled
(KLH),GE R 160 1600 GWP 160 _ (sector 800 50% GGBS 240
or Concrete sector
EPD- SHL- estimate) average) (Hanson
(medium) average _
2018003 [Using ICE EPD BREG EN HCG) EPD _
(generic)
5-IBG1- DE Database EPD00012 5, BREG EN EPD
estimate] Issue 02 000193
Diler Demir
Mayr- TATA Multi FND 3 & 4 C32/40
_ Turkey _
Melnhof site _ UK CEM III/B CEM III/A
CLT (high) 99% scrap
Holz, AUS + France 70% GGBS 50% GGBS
or Concrete 200 2500 170 content _ 1000 250
EPD _ (average) (high GWP (high GWP
(high) (specific) EPD
Baubook EPD-TS- estimate) estimate)
_ BREG EN
8760 ab 2020-003 [Using proxy] [Using proxy]
EPD00012 9
Concrete (low2) scenario

A concrete (low2) scenario is a development of the concrete (low) scenario The design modifications included in the concrete (low2) scenario are set
that increases carbon performance by adding a set of building design out in Table 5.
and material enhancements to improve the base building design. These
relatively straightforward enhancements work within the fixed design
constraints adopted for the study.
Table 5: Concrete (low2) scenario for enhancing carbon performance of the base building design
Design modification from the concrete (low) scenario Predicted reduction in

embodied carbon for the whole
building (A1-C4) from the
concrete (low) scenario
Increase from 50% to 70% GGBS in superstructure concrete. Modelled using EPD data from Hanson UK C32/40 70%
3%
GGBS (BREG EN EPD 000194)
Change from aluminium to aluminium-timber composite framed windows 2%
Change ground floor and roof 200mm PIR insulation to 300mm of EPS 1%
Reduce storey height by 100mm (provides the same floor-to-ceiling height as the CLT option in most areas) due to the
fact the concrete building makes use of exposed concrete soffits. The low, medium and high concrete and CLT options 1%
have the same overall height. The concrete (low2) option has an overall height 600mm lower (100mm per storey)
Use blockwork with 30% GGBS content <1%
Change flow screed (aluminate cement) to anhydrite (calcium sulfate) type screed 1%
Put measures in place so that annual refrigerant leakages reduce from 2.5% to 1% (or use a refrigerant with much lower
7%
GWP such as propane)
All of the above TOTAL 15%

Other embodied carbon modelling assumptions

Carbonation of cementitious materials is released by an equivalent amount of carbon during LCA stage C when it
is assumed to be incinerated without carbon capture. In other words, the
CO2 absorption during the life cycle due to carbonation of the concrete was timber used is considered carbon neutral over its life cycle from a biogenic
included in the modelling. The extent of carbonation was estimated using perspective, providing no benefit or burden to the carbon rating. However,
the methods and data provided by IVL Research Foundation[8], the overall carbon rating for timber is not neutral, as this includes carbon
Andrade[9], BRE[10] and IISD[11]. A rough area weighted average carbonation impacts from activities such as processing and transportation.
effect was calculated and used to estimate a reduction in the life cycle
embodied carbon of concrete products equivalent to 6% of their A1-A3 Transportation of materials
GWP values. This was applied to the foundation and superstructure
concretes and also the internal blockwork walls. The methods used for transportation and the assumed travel distance to
site are shown in Table 6. Concrete is locally sourced, travelling the shortest
Biogenic carbon distance of all the materials and building components, at around 60km.
CLT travels the furthest of all the construction materials used, with an
For the overall LCA i.e. stages A1-C4, the -1/+1 approach was applied, assumed distance of 1,200km.
whereby the biogenic carbon stored by the CLT and other timber products
Table 6: Transportation of materials
Building component Transport distance to site (km) Transport method
Concrete 60 Road, truck
All other building components Approximately 100 Road, truck
Structural steel (used in the CLT design) 110 Road, truck
Rebar 110 Road, truck
Lighting, ductwork 200 Road, truck
Building services components including heat pumps, ventilation units, fan

500 Road, truck
coil units, ceiling fans. switchgear, wiring
CLT 1,200 Road, truck
PV system 5,000 Sea, container ship
Refrigerant leakage
Refrigerant leakage has significant GWP (see Figure 9 on page 15) and decommissioning leakage of 20% were assumed. These values are halfway
can have a significant impact on the whole-life carbon performance of between the high and low values presented in CIBSE TM56[12]. The key
a building. An annual refrigerant leakage rate of 2.5% and an end-of-life details are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Heat pump refrigerant details
Heat pump type Refrigerant type Refrigerant quantity Refrigerant GWP
Roof mounted ASHP (2 x 50kW) R 410A 2 x 6 kg = 12 kg 2,125kgCO2e/kg
WSHP within integrated unit with

hot water cylinder (one per flat, 22 R 410A 22 x 1 kg = 22 kg 2,125kgCO2e/kg
flats)
Overheating analysis: 8
CLT Overheating analysis results: Daytime.
passive and active cooling

Concrete % of occupied daytime hours > 28°C
4
The concrete building was found to have significantly better passive performance, avoiding
the need for active cooling until 2041.
2
Overheating analysis in accordance with CIBSE TM59[13] was carried out to assess passive cooling performance and to develop an active cooling design,
ensuring comfortable summertime temperatures (see Figure 3). It was found that, for
0 the period 2020-40, the concrete building could remain cool
predominantly using its thermal mass and night cooling with the addition of some very low-energy ceiling fans. For the same time period, the CLT building
E
om
om
m
m
oo
oo
oo
oo
requires active cooling to remain comfortable in summer.
Ro
Ro
dr
dr
dr
dr
g
Be
Be
Be
Be
in
in
Liv
Liv
te
te
CL
T
re
CL
re
T
te
nc
CL
nc
re
Co
Co
nc
Co
Overheating analysis results: Night time.
8 8 % of occupied sleeping hours > 26°C
CLT Overheating analysis results: Daytime. CLT
Concrete % of occupied daytime hours > 28°C
Concrete
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
S
E
om
om
m
m
m
m
m
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo
Ro
Ro
oo
oo
dr
dr
dr
dr
dr
dr
dr
dr
g
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
in
in
Be
Be
Liv
Liv
e
e
CL
e
et
T
e
et
CL
et
CL
et
cr
CL
T
cr
cr
CL
cr
et
n
n
n
Co
n
cr
Co
Co
Co
n
Co
Overheating analysis results: Night time.

8 % of occupied sleeping hours > 26°C
Figure 3: Overheating
CLT analysis results (2020-40 DSY climate scenario)
Concrete Passive design saves carbon
As a consequence, the CLT building includes an active air-source heat
6
pump, serving chilled water fan-coil units. For the time period 2041-80, The LCA revealed the significance of carbon emissions from building
summertime external temperatures are anticipated to be around 1°C services and refrigerant leakage, which accounted for over a quarter of
warmer, and under these conditions, the concrete building also requires the apartment’s whole-life carbon impact. However, the LCA also showed
4
some active cooling using the same system, although the better passive that using the concrete building’s thermal mass in combination with
cooling performance means less cooling plant is required over the life nighttime ventilation delivers a more passive approach, with a less service
cycle,
2 particularly in the early years. intensive means of addressing overheating. Nighttime ventilation removes
heat absorbed by the thermal mass during the day, helping maintain a
Services
0
design comfortable internal temperature. The overall whole-life carbon savings
achieved from actively using the thermal mass were achieved in several ways:
W
Figure 4 shows the concept design for the heating, hot water and cooling 1. By avoiding the need for mechanical cooling plant between 2020-2040.
m
m
m
oo
oo
oo
oo
dr
dr
systems in the concrete building for the period 2020-40, when active This 20-year period also represents the average service life of heat
dr
dr
Be
Be
Be
Be
cooling is not necessary. The design comprises a communal roof-mounted

te
CL
pumps and fan coil units (see Table 1).

et
T
CL
re
cr
nc
air-source heat pump serving an ambient loop, plus a water-source heat

Co
Co
2. By limiting the cooling energy demand at the point when some

pump with integrated hot water cylinder within each apartment. Space mechanical cooling is required from 2041 onwards.
heating is provided by an underfloor heating (UFH) system. Efficiency 3. By reducing the peak heating/cooling load, allowing the heat pump to
of the UFH is optimised by using a high-conductivity screed with a be 25% smaller than in the CLT design during the 2020-2040 period, and
thermal conductivity greater than 1.8W/m/K. Heat loss into the structure 15% smaller between 2041-2080. A reduction in peak loads can also help
is minimised by including 50mm of insulation between the screed and reduce grid carbon intensity (see Peak load analysis).
the structural slab. Summertime comfort is provided by a combination of
There is potential to further enhance the base design used in this study, for
thermal mass with night cooling and low-energy ceiling fans.
example by exposing more of the concrete soffit (this was 50% exposed) and/
or employing other techniques to increase the cooling output of the thermal
mass. For more information see: Concrete Floor Solutions for Passive and Active
Cooling and Thermal Mass Explained, published by The Concrete Centre.
Figure 4: Building services concept design for concrete building in the 2020-40 period
Figure 5: Building services concept design for concrete building (2041-80)

and the CLT building period (2020-80) Figure 6: MVHR and
fan-coil ducting layout
for the concrete and
The design of the concrete building’s services was revised for the 2041-80 CLT buildings
period, with ducted fan-coil units included in each apartment to provide
active cooling. This configuration was required from the outset in the
CLT building. This arrangement is shown in Figure 5. In both buildings,
ventilation is provided by a mechanical ventilation and heat recovery
system (MVHR). The ducting arrangement for the MVHR system and the
fan-coil units is shown in Figure 6.
Table 8 lists a range of design parameters and modelling assumptions relating to operational energy, peak loads and passive performance. These also affect
embodied carbon by influencing the extent and size of building services systems.
Table 8: Design parameters and assumptions relating to fabric and MEP services
Design parameter / energy model assumption Unit CLT "2020" (with heat Concrete "2020" (with
pump cooling) ceiling fan cooling)
U-values: External wall, ground floor, roof W/m2/K 0.1
U-value: Window, including frame W/m2/K 0.9
Thermal bridging Y value W/m2/K 0.06
Thermal mass admittance Y value: external wall W/m2/K 1.3 4.6
Thermal mass admittance Y value: ground floor W/m2/K 4.6
Thermal mass admittance Y value: internal partition W/m2/K 1.1, 2.4 5
Thermal mass admittance Y value: internal floor W/m2/K 2.3 4
Thermal mass admittance Y value: ceiling W/m2/K 1.7 6
g value: window glazing 0.4
Light transmission: window glazing 60%
Daylight factor as calculated (typical living room, typical
2.5%, 2%
bedroom)
External blind type Perforated roller shutter, g = 0.05
External blind opening schedule Assumed 50% deployed all the time in the energy
models (60% in the overheating models)
Internal blind none
Air permeability m3/h/m2 at 50Pa 2
Lighting gain schedule description Morning and evening peak with base load
Lighting gain peak load W/m2 2
Equipment gains schedule description (within apartments) Morning and evening peak with base load
Equipment peak gain (bedroom) W 50
Equipment peak gain (living room, kitchen) W 450
Communal plant rooms equipment load W/m2 10W/m2
Communal plant rooms equipment load schedule Continuous, on all the time
Room heating setpoints °C 21 with set-back of 16
Room cooling setpoints °C 24
Humidity control none
DHW demand per person litres/p/day 50
Infiltration rate (air permeability based, continuous fixed rate) ac/hr 0.15
Additional infiltration due to opening windows and doors ac/hr 0.2 to 1 ac/h
Additional infiltration modulation Temperature dependent
MVHR flow rate: bedrooms l/s 8
MVHR flow rate: living/kitchen room (1BF, 2BF, 3BF) l/s 17, 17, 23
MVHR SFP W/l/s 1.3
MVHR heat recovery efficiency % 80
Additional natural vent for cooling none yes
Seasonal efficiency of the heat pumps for space heat % 310%
Overall system heating efficiency (SCOP) % 280%
Seasonal EER of the heat pump cooling 2.8 n/a
Fan-coil unit SFP W/l/s 0.5 n/a
Overall system seasonal cooling efficiency SSEER (including
2.3 n/a
fan-coil units)
Ceiling fan running power W n/a 20
Overall system DHW heating efficiency (SCOP) % 210%
Storage losses (all cylinders) kWh/litre/day 0.008
PV array area m2 131
PV overall system efficiency % 17%
Operational energy analysis (B6)

The annual energy demand was found to be approximately the same in both building types.
The operational energy dynamic thermal analyses were carried out using It should be noted that the study assumed an active cooling set point
a method similar to CIBSE TM54 [14] (rather than a building regulations of 24°C for the modelling. A lower setpoint may well be used by the
SAP analysis). The specific software tool used was IES VE (Apache Sim). occupants, resulting in increased cooling energy. This increase is likely to
The modeling took account of the different provisions for cooling in the be larger in the CLT building than the concrete building with its better
concrete and CLT buildings. Two different occupancy scenarios were passive cooling performance, resulting in a greater difference in energy
assumed: consumption between the two buildings.
1. Intermittent occupancy and heating times
The modelling also showed that cooling energy consumption increases
2. Continuous occupancy and heating times over the 2020-80 period as the climate warms, with a corresponding fall in
the heating energy demand over the same period, which can be seen in
The concrete building was predicted to use less energy for cooling than
Figure 7.
the CLT option and slightly more for heating, but overall the two balanced
each other out and there was no significant difference in the total energy Whilst the annual energy consumption was similar for both buildings, peak
consumption for any of the time periods or occupancy scenarios (see electrical loads were lower in the concrete building, which can provide
Figure 7). Overall energy consumption was close to 43kWh/m2/yr (34 kWh/ useful carbon savings at a grid level (see the next section: Peak load
m²/y when PV is included) throughout the 2020-80 period, of which the analysis).
energy required for space heating (including fans and pumps) was 12kWh/
m2 in 2020, declining to 10kWh/m2 by 2080.
Figure 7: Operational energy results
Operational energy modelling results
Annual energy consumption (kWh/m²/yr)
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Heating (elec)
CLT (with heat pump cooling)
Intermittent occupancy 2020 43 Hot water (elec)
Cooling (elec)
In Situ Concrete (with ceiling fan cooling)
43 Lighting (elec)
Intermittent occupancy 2020
Aux (fans and pumps) (elec)
Equipment (e.g. appliances and cooking) (elec)
PV generated (elec)
Continuous occupancy 2020 43 Total (not including PV)
In Situ Concrete (with ceiling fan cooling)

Continuous occupancy 2020 42

Intermittent occupancy 2050 43
In Situ Concrete (with heat pump cooling) 44

Intermittent occupancy 2050

Continuous occupancy 2050 43
In Situ Concrete (with heat pump cooling) 43

Continuous occupancy 2050
Peak load analysis (B6)

The average peak space heating load was found to be 25% lower in
the concrete building, reducing the embodied carbon of plant and
saving energy at a grid/national level.
As part of the energy modelling, peak heating and cooling loads were investigated, and were found to be lower
for the concrete building as a consequence of its higher thermal mass. For the period 2020-40, the peak electrical
load for space heating was 25% less (see Figure 8), enabling a slightly smaller heat pump to be used to meet peak
demand. When hot water heating was included, the total peak heat electrical demand was estimated to be around
15% lower than for the CLT building.
Reduced peak loads are beneficial from a plant sizing, cost and embodied carbon perspective, but of greater
value is the benefit to the national grid from a reduced peak electrical demand, helping to balance out supply
and demand. This is set to become an important aspect of high thermal mass buildings, which can be actively
controlled to store and release heat so their demand profile responds sympathetically to the peaks and troughs of
the renewable energy feeding the grid. In this way, the building’s energy demand can be shifted away from periods
of high grid carbon intensity – that is, when fossil fuels are needed to meet a shortfall in renewable power; a key
objective of Active Buildings. The net result is carbon savings at a grid/national level.
Figure 8: Predicted hourly space

heating demand (2020-40,
intermittent occupancy)
Reducing carbon with Active Buildings

An Active Building is one that intelligently controls the way power is used So, using thermal mass to both reduce a building’s peak electricity demand
to support the energy network, helping save carbon at a national level and and shift some of the load to align with periods of low grid carbon intensity,
reduce energy costs at the building level with a Time-Of-Use-Tariff. Active is an effective way to reduce emissions. Controlling heavyweight buildings
Buildings use smart controls and some form of energy storage system in this way does not adversely affect occupant comfort because the thermal
i.e. electrical, thermal or both to regulate their peak energy demand. The mass absorbs and releases heat slowly, ensuring the internal temperature
thermal mass of concrete buildings offers an effective means of providing remains relatively stable despite the heating/cooling often being switched
this thermal storage. It is used to help shift a building’s space heating (or on earlier or later than usual, which is the key to this approach.
cooling) load by acting as a thermal buffer, enabling the load to align The Government’s ‘Heat and Buildings Strategy’ is very supportive of load
more closely with periods of low grid carbon intensity i.e. when renewable shifting technologies and smart energy systems. Further policy information
power is more abundant and less fossil fuel is required. 2020 data from the can also be found on the role of flexible heating systems and fabric energy
National Grid shows that across a winter’s day, grid carbon intensity can storage in the Government plan for Transitioning to a net zero energy system.
vary by over 50%.
Embodied carbon (A1-C4)

excluding operational energy (B6) and water (B7)
The embodied carbon was around 500kgCO2e/m2 for both the concrete and CLT buildings.
Figure 9 shows the embodied carbon modelling results for the low, LCA results are design estimates and not ‘as-built’ carbon figures, which is the
medium and high data scenarios, with a breakdown of the contributing basis of the RIBA Climate Challenge targets.
elements. A further breakdown covering the carbon in the MEP services is
provided in Figure 10. The concrete (low2) scenario was able to reduce the concrete building’s
embodied carbon to around 430kgCO2e/m², using the design enhancements
Based on the medium scenario, the LCA modelling predicted whole-life detailed in Table 5, page 8.
embodied carbon emissions for the base design of around 500kgCO2e/m²
for both the concrete and CLT buildings. This meets the RIBA 2025 and 2030
Climate Challenge carbon targets. It is important to note however, that the
Embodied carbon modelling results (60 year lifetime)
1100
1000
Refrigerant leakage
900
800
Services
800 Internal finishes
700
False ceilings
Embodied GWP (kgCO2e/m²)
625
600 540
510 530 510 Internal walls and partitions
490
500 450 Windows
430
400 External walls
300 Stairs
200 Roof
100 Upper floors
0 Timber frame
-100 Concrete frame

CLT (low)
Concrete (low)
CLT (medium)
Concrete (medium)
CLT (high)
Concrete (high)
Concrete (low2)
RIBA Climate Challenge 2025
RIBA Climate Challenge 2030
Steel work
Ground floor
Foundations and substructure
Construction site scenarios
Carbonation of cementitious materials
Figure 9: Embodied carbon

modelling results: low, medium
and high scenarios
Embodied carbon of MEP services

The services accounted for a third of the total embodied carbon of the building.
In general, the quantities for MEP items, particularly distributed elements has published TM65 - Embodied carbon in building services: A calculation
(such as pipes, wiring and supports), were difficult to estimate, especially methodology. This should help to standardise and improve the assessment
at the concept design stage. Furthermore, EPD data for MEP items was of services, particularity as more EPDs for products and systems become
sparse and often of lower quality than for architectural and structural items. available.
Consequently, uncertainties in the results are high.
Overall, the services accounted for a third of the total embodied carbon,
In this study, data was sourced in two key ways: first, by using OneClick with structure making up another third and the remaining elements e.g.
LCA’s generic models based on floor area, and secondly by using data for finishes, cladding etc, comprising the remaining third.
similar products and then scaling it according to mass. Figure 10 shows a
breakdown of the various elements that made up the whole-life embodied The thermal mass in concrete buildings provides an opportunity to reduce
carbon of the services. Since completing this aspect of the study, CIBSE the need for services through passive design - see page 10 for information.
Figure 10: Embodied carbon results

for the MEP services (concrete
140 Lift (8 person, 630kg) building, medium scenario,
2041-2080)
PV system supports
120 PV system
Light fittings
Electrical wiring system

Embodied GWP (kgCO2e/m2)
100
Electrical switch gear
MVHR steel duct

80
MVHR units
Ceiling fans
60 FCU steel ductwork
Fan coil cooling units
40 Heating distribution system
In-flat heat pump and cylinder integrated units
ASHP roof mounted air-water 100kW

20
Water supply system
Plastic d rainage system

0
Concrete (medium)
Total whole-life carbon - 60 year life

(A1-C4)
excluding B7 for water
The whole-life carbon of the buildings was found to be very similar. The modelled scenario,
for this residential building, with a 60 year design life showed concrete being 6% higher.
The whole-life carbon comprising both the embodied and operational In this study, the 2020-80 average grid carbon intensity was assumed to be
emissions for the medium scenario is shown in Figure 11. In both the 80gCO2e/kWh. This was derived from UK government (BEIS) predictions[15],
concrete and CLT buildings, embodied carbon was predicted to account for with an adjustment to account for recent data showing that model
approximately 75% of the total. predictions of future grid carbon intensity are being exceeded by a factor
of around 1.6.
The overall results for the concrete and CLT buildings were very similar, with
estimated whole-life carbon emissions of 710kgCO2e/m² and 670kgCO2e/m² The electricity grid carbon factors used in the embodied carbon modelling
respectively. This represents only a 6% difference. There is however a degree vary by country, but were broadly representative of the situation in 2018
of uncertainty in this aspect of the LCA, as the results were determined to and were fixed for all life cycle stages in the study. This simplification
an extent by the assumed lifetime electricity grid carbon factor. Operational resulted in an overestimate in the (A1-C4) embodied carbon prediction.
emissions are strongly influenced by this and embodied emissions less so. However, the error is thought to be relatively small, at around 10%.
Whole-life carbon: Whole-life carbon: Whole-life carbon: Concrete building

Concrete building CLT building showing breakdown of embodied carbon
180 180 180 178
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

710 kgCO2e/m2 670 kgCO2e/m2 710 kgCO2e/m2
530 490
166 186
Embodied emissions (A1-C4) Embodied emissions (A1-C4) MEP services (A1-C4)
Operational emissions (B6) Operational emissions (B6) Structure and sub-structure (A1-C4)
Remaining elements (A1-C4)
(Figures shown are based on the medium scenario) Operational emissions (B6)
Figure 11: Total whole-life carbon (A1-C4)
100 year plus life span

This study was taken over a 60 year period, a common time frame for an The assessment period of the LCA could, and arguably should be longer to
LCA. Given that the designed durability of an internally located concrete reflect the length of time we would expect or want sustainable homes to
frame is typically over 100 years as standard[16] it would be reasonable last. An extended assessment time would be likely to reflect a greater need
to assume that the concrete frame could be fully retained and reused at to reduce in-use emissions. Recognising long life and reuse is particularly
the end of this initial 60 year period. Information about the longer term important in the context of good circular economy practice as well as
performance of CLT is less available, as it is a relatively new system in UK reducing whole life carbon.
construction.
Summary of results and observations

Whole-life carbon performance Operational energy
The design development and LCA have provided insight and several key The concrete building was predicted to use less energy for cooling than
findings relating to the energy and carbon emissions performance of a the CLT design and slightly more for heating, but overall the two balanced
concrete-framed apartment building in London. each other out, with no significant difference in total energy consumption
for any of the time periods or occupancy scenarios. Overall energy
The overall LCA carbon outcome across the low, medium and high
consumption was close to 43kWh/m2/yr throughout the 2020-80 period, of
scenarios was that the concrete building had on average only around 6%
which the energy required for space heating (including fans and pumps)
more whole-life carbon emissions than the CLT building over a 60-year
was 12kWh/m2 in 2020, declining to 10kWh/m2 by 2080. When energy from
lifespan based on the level of accuracy of the data inputs, we believe it is
the PV array is included, total consumption is reduced to 34 kWhm²/y.
a fair summary that the whole life carbon performance of the concrete
and CLT systems is broadly similar. Producing a single, whole-life carbon The study assumed an active cooling set point of 24°C for the modelling.
performance figure is very useful design aid, albeit that it of course comes A lower setpoint may well be used by the building occupants, resulting
with a degree of uncertainty. in increased cooling energy. This increase is likely to be larger in the
CLT building than the concrete building with its better passive cooling
The LCA results have provided some insight into the relative contributions
performance, leading to a greater divergence in operational energy
of operational and embodied carbon emissions. In both the concrete
consumption between the two.
and CLT buildings, embodied carbon was predicted to account for
approximately 75% of the total. Looking more closely at the 75%, it was The modelling also showed how the cooling energy consumption
made up of approximately one-third structure, one-third services and increases over the 2020-80 period as the climate warms, with a
the final third comprising the remaining elements such as finishes and corresponding fall in the heating energy demand over the same period.
cladding etc.
The LCA showed an embodied carbon impact for the base concrete and Peak heating and cooling loads
CLT buildings of around 500kgCO2e/m². This represents a good outcome
based on current industry targets/benchmarks for embodied carbon, The concrete building was predicted to have lower peak heating and cooling
meeting the RIBA 2025 and 2030 Climate Challenge targets[3]. Building on loads than the CLT building. This is beneficial from a plant sizing, cost and
this result, the concrete (low2) scenario went further, with a number of embodied carbon point of view. Potentially more valuable, however, is
design enhancements (see Table 5) that reduced the concrete building’s the difference in peak electrical demand; limiting peak electrical demand,
embodied carbon to around 430kgCO2e/m². particularly in winter, is a vital part of a net zero carbon future as it facilitates
decarbonisation of the national grid. The modelling predicted the peak
Passive and active cooling

space heating electrical demand to be 25% lower on average in the concrete
building. When hot water heating was included, the total peak heat electrical
The concrete building had significantly better passive cooling performance demand in the concrete design was estimated to be around 15% lower.
than the CLT building due to its thermal mass. As a consequence, it was
found that compliance with CIBSE TM59[13] for the time period 2020-40
only required the use of very low-energy ceiling fans to remain cool in
EPDs and carbon data
summer. The CLT building required an active cooling system from the A wide range of EPD embodied carbon rates were found for CLT (C24
outset, which took the form of a heat pump supplying chilled water to fan- grade), varying from 30-200kgCO2e/m³ (A1-A3), which is a range factor of 6.
coil units. For the time period 2041-80, both the concrete and CLT buildings For the UK-produced superstructure and foundation concrete used in the
required active cooling, but the system in the concrete building could be study, the range factor was 1.1. The level of detail provided by EPDs was
smaller and would run less intensively. found to be varied and care should be taken to interpret and use EPD data
consistently when making comparisons between design options.
Even though the concrete building performed much better in terms of
passive cooling, it was not enough to meet the standards of CIBSE TM59[13]
and remain cool under the predicted climate beyond 2041. At that time, Data, Data, Data
it would become necessary to use active cooling to meet the CIBSE
TM59 criteria for bedrooms, which requires a temperature of 26°C not be This study shows the importance, and sometimes the challenge, of
exceeded for more than 1% of sleeping hours. Given that the climate is sourcing credible environmental product data. An understanding of
warming and to some extent we will need to adapt to this, it could be EPDs is necessary to ensure a fair comparison between products and to
questioned how appropriate this criteria will be in the coming years. If it understand the true environmental impact of projects. Concrete can be
were relaxed slightly it would be easier to design out mechanical cooling a very bespoke product with an extensive range of mix designs to meet
entirety in some, high thermal mass, residential buildings. In addition to specific project needs. For this reason, concrete producers may use verified
cutting energy use, this would lower the embodied carbon impacts from tools to provide environmental data for their concrete.
the services, which this study has shown to be significant over a building’s
Generic EPDs for a wider range of ready-mixed and precast concretes are
life cycle.
currently being worked on as a priority to enable designers to use these in
environmental assessments, particularly during the early stages of design.
Concrete producer members of the MPA also have access to a new verified
product EPD tool hosted on One Click LCA.
Structural design Circular economy considerations

Although the structural designs were efficient, neither the concrete or CLT outside the scope of LCA
building were optimised for structural efficiency as they were constrained
As part of the study, qualitative analysis was carried out for a set of circular
by the choice to use the same floor plans. In both cases, further measures
economy related factors that impact on embodied carbon. The key findings
could be developed to improve design efficiency. For example, a more
were as follows:
materially efficient concrete structural design could be considered, along
with hybrid solutions that use a mixture of structural materials, with each ¢ Longevity – It seems probable that the concrete-framed building
material used where it is most efficient (see box out below). Although would be more durable (including resistance to fire and/or water
not considered in this study, other structural systems to reduce concrete damage) than the CLT building.
quantities could be considered. As with all modifications of this type, the ¢ Adaptability – It seems that the concrete building, with large spans
effect on thermal mass and cooling loads would need to be considered and minimal internal loadbearing walls, would be easier to reconfigure
concurrently. Not withstanding this, the study identified a number of (by moving internal partitions) than the CLT building.
relatively straightforward enhancements that worked within the project’s
¢ Re-use at end of life – Given the two points above, it seems that
fixed design constraints. This was referred to as the concrete (low2) scenario
the concrete-framed building would be more likely to be re-used /
(see Table 5) and reduced the concrete building’s embodied carbon to
repurposed at the end of a 60-year life than the CLT building.
around 430 kgCO2e/m².
¢ Recovery of high-grade material – The CLT building lends itself to
easier recovery of high-grade structural materials than the concrete
Structural system and acoustics building. Whilst in-situ concrete is recycled, the use of precast concrete
elements offer opportunities for recovery and reuse in a high-grade
It was interesting to see that the 160mm structural slab depth for the CLT form.
was about 30% lower than the 225mm depth required for the concrete
slab. There are other structural systems for concrete frames that are more
efficient in their material use than the flat slab solution. The Concrete Concrete solutions for reuse and
Centre has recently completed a study looking at the structural efficiencies
of different systems. This showed that a beam and slab solution, for disassembly/reassembly
example, used 25% less concrete than a flat slab for the spans in this
The design of the concrete frame in this study did not include specific
building. See Comparison of embodied carbon in concrete structural systems,
objectives to meet good circular economy practice, but never the
published by The Concrete Centre.
less provided some benefits, principally through its long life potential.
One of the items that came out of the study was that the concrete flat slab (Internal concrete frames designed to achieve 50 years durability, require
was increased by 25mm in order to reduce the risk of non-compliance with no additional resource or design requirements to achieve a predicted
the acoustic separation performance requirement of 5dB above Building durability of 100 years or over[16]. Future adaptability and potential for an
Regulations. There are no robust details available for concrete floors extended long life and reuse is further facilitated by the flat soffits and
without ceilings, so the additional 25mm thickness was thought to be a minimal internal load bearing walls of the concrete structure – effectively
reasonable solution. The additional 12.5% material use in the concrete slab a ‘long life loose fit’ approach. This circular economy strategy of designing
will have a corresponding increase in the embodied carbon. We therefore in layers could be enhanced with other building elements designed to
commissioned a study by Arup Acoustics to check whether the 25mm facilitate their disassembly and reuse, e.g. non-structural precast concrete
additional depth was necessary. cladding, whist retaining the concrete frame in place.
The acoustic study only considered airborne sound as the impact sound An alternative approach could be to make greater use of prefabricated
is taken care of by the resilient layer on top of the slab. The study revealed concrete as structural elements, using a precast concrete frame or hybrid
examples of site measurements from completed projects where a floor system designed to facilitate disassembly and reuse elsewhere.
build-up similar to the one in the LCA study, but with a slab thickness
of 200mm, achieved the sound insulation target of 50dB, i.e. 5dB above
Building Regulations. It also showed that a difference of ±25mm in the
depth of the concrete slab typically affects the airborne sound insulation
by ± 1dB to 2dB. This is significantly less than the variation typically found
in on site measurements within a project, which has been shown to be as
much as 8dB.
It therefore seems reasonable that the concrete option could have

been designed with a 200mm flat slab and still pass Building Regulation
requirements. This would have reduced the embodied carbon of the
concrete frame by 6kgCO2/m² for the Concrete (medium) option.
Appendices
Figure A1: Concrete apartment block: Ground floor plan
NOTES:-
1 1. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant
110 Architect's, Engineer's and specialists' drawings and
specifications.
1 2 3 4 5 2. Do not scale from this drawing in either paper or digital

form. Use written dimensions only. All dimensions are in
millimetres and levels in metres.
3150 6943 7926 3151 To check that this drawing has been printed to the
intended scale this bar should be 50mm long @A1 or
25mm long @ A3
P2 P4 P3 P2 3. Health & Safety :

P1 P1
All specific drawing notes are to be read in conjunction
A A with the project "Information Pack" and "Site Rules".
4. For general notes refer to Drawing No. 00000/
500hx450w edge
thickening around
perimeter, with 200 RC
cantilevering toe to
4200
support brickwork
P5 P5 P4
P2 P2
B B
200 RC slab on 200 RC walls around stair,

insulation on 50 lift shaft and smoke riser
concrete blinding on
P3 150 well compacted
hardcore. P7 P3
SSL 0.000m
Precast or insitu concrete
P6 stairs and landings
9787
200 RC walls to lift pit,

cast on top of 500 thk RC
pilecap
2
1
111
P3 P3
C C
SSL 450x450 RC
250x250 RC columns,
-1.100m groundbeams between
typical
P4 P3 P3 P3 pile caps 1 5.5.2020 IH JE Issued for Final Report
Rev Date Drawn Eng Amendment
P2 P2
CONCRETE CENTRE STUDY
8203
GROUND FLOORPLAN
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
CONCRETE OPTION
Status
P2 P3 P3 P2 P2 FOR INFORMATION
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
P1 P1
Drawn Author Eng Checker
Scales 1 : 50 at A1
D D Drawing No Rev
28741/100
00000/100 1
Unnamed
Consulting Engineers
37 Alfred Place
London
1 2 3 4 5 WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128
mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com
Figure A2: Concrete apartment block: Typical upper floor plan
NOTES:-
specifications.

25mm long @ A3
3. Health & Safety :

225 RC balconies, fixed

back to slab with Schöck
Isokorb XT thermal break
connectors
4200
B B
200 RC walls around stair,

Brickwork at 2nd and 4th 225 RC slab lift shaft and smoke riser
floor levels supported off SSL varies by
slab edge using masonry floor level
support system
9787
250x250 RC columns,
typical
2
1
111
C C
1 5.5.2020 IH JE Issued for Final Report


8203
TYPICAL UPPER
FIRST, THIRD AND FLOOR
FIFTH
PLAN
FLOOR PLAN
CONCRETE OPTION
Status
FOR INFORMATION
Scales 1 : 50 at A1
D D Drawing No Rev
28741/101
00000/101 1
Unnamed
37 Alfred Place
London
1 2 3 4 5 WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128
mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com
Appendices
Figure A3: Concrete apartment block: Section 1-1
NOTES:-
specifications.

25mm long @ A3

225 RC balconies, fixed

back to slab with Schöck
Isokorb XT thermal break
connectors
4200
B B
200 RC walls around stair,

Brickwork at 2nd and 4th 225 RC slab lift shaft and smoke riser
floor levels supported off SSL varies by
slab edge using masonry floor level
support system
9787
250x250 RC columns,
typical
2
1
111
C C


8203
TYPICAL UPPER
FIRST, THIRD AND FLOOR
FIFTH
PLAN
FLOOR PLAN
CONCRETE OPTION
Status
FOR INFORMATION
Scales 1 : 50 at A1
D D Drawing No Rev
28741/101
00000/101 1
Unnamed
37 Alfred Place
London
1 2 3 4 5 WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128
mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com
Figure A4: Concrete apartment block: Section 2-2
NOTES:-
1. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant
Architect's, Engineer's and specialists' drawings and
specifications.
2. Do not scale from this drawing in either paper or digital

1 2 3 4 5 form. Use written dimensions only. All dimensions are in
1 To check that this drawing has been printed to the
110 intended scale this bar should be 50mm long @A1 or
500x200w RC upstand 25mm long @ A3
around perimeter of roof 3. Health & Safety :

Smoke Vents All specific drawing notes are to be read in conjunction
20.955m
m 005.0-
200 RC slab 200 RC slab with the project "Information Pack" and "Site Rules".
Level 6
200 RC slab 19.355 m
Level 5
225 RC slab 16.300 m
Level 4
225 RC slab 13.150 m
200 RC 200 RC
wall wall
Level 3
225 RC slab 10.000 m
Level 2
225 RC slab 6.850 m

Level 1
225 RC slab 3.700 m
SECTION 2-2
CONCRETE OPTION
Status
FOR INFORMATION
Level
Datum0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
200 RC slab 0.000 m
Pilecap
-0.500 m Drawn Author Eng Checker
Liftpit
450 -1.100m
m 005.0- Scales 1 : 50 at A1
450
Drawing No Rev
28741/111
00000/111 1
Unnamed
37 Alfred Place
London
WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128
mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com
Appendices
Figure A5: CLT apartment block: Ground floor plan
NOTES:-
2
specifications.
COLUMN SCHEDULE
1 2 321170 4 5 Ref Type
203x203x60 UC column
UKC203x203x60 millimetres and levels in metres.
(60kg/m) supporting
3150 6943 7926 3150 25mm long @ A3
corner of balcony over
C1 4. For general notes refer to Drawing No. 00000/
500hx600w edge C1
thickening around
perimeter, with 400x200
RC cantilevering toe to
4200
4200
support brickwork Balcony 500x450w edge thickening to

Balcony Living Room Kitchen Kitchen Living Room RC slab with 400x200 RC toe
supporting brickwork
B B
B1
Over
All walls to be 100 C3s
CLT panels
200 RC slab on
Single
Bedroom
insulation on 50 Double Bedroom
Unit 3B5P
concrete blinding on Unit 3B5P
90 sqm
150 well compacted 95 sqm
hardcore.
SSL 0.000m
100 C3s CLT Wall
Double Bedroom WC
9787
9799
Timber stairs made from

100 C3s CLT Wall
200 RC walls to lift pit, Single Bedroom

160 C5s CLT panels, with
with 500 thick RC base cut timber blocks forming
100 C3s CLT Wall
100 C3s CLT Wall
100 C3s CLT Wall

slab the treads
22190
Lift 200 RC Slab

SSL +0.000
Double Bedroom 100 C3s CLT Wall
Double Bedroom
WC
2
1
2
111 Smoke Riser
100 C3s CLT Wall
100 C3s CLT Wall
C C
600x300h thickenings
under slab over piles 500 thick RC base to 300 dia RC piles, 15m
lift pit. Approx. 5m3
Bin Store deep. Typical
SSL -1.100m B1
Over Plant Room 1 5.5.2020 IH JE Issued for Final Report
B2 Plant Room B2 CONCRETE CENTRE STUDY

Over C2 Over
8204
8190
3-pile pile cap under GROUND FLOORPLAN

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
column in plant room.
Bike Store Approx. 1.3m3 concrete CLT OPTION
B1 B1
Over Over Status
FOR INFORMATION
B1 B1
C1 Over C1 Over C1
Scales 1 : 50 at A1
D D Drawing No Rev
28741/200
00000/100 1
Unnamed
37 Alfred Place
London
1 2 3 4 5 WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128
mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com
Figure A6: CLT apartment block: Typical upper floor plan
NOTES:-
2
specifications.
COLUMN SCHEDULE
203x203x60 UC column
Ref Type form. Use written dimensions only. All dimensions are in
UKC203x203x60 millimetres and levels in metres.
(60kg/m) supporting
25mm long @ A3
corner of balcony
A B1 B1 A with the project "Information Pack" and "Site Rules".
C1 4. For general notes refer to Drawing No. 00000/
203x203x46 UC beams C1
(46kg/m) trimming each
edge of balcony to support
joists
4200
B1 B1 B1 B1
172C16 metal joists

(3.99kg/m) at 400 centres,
supporting floor decking B B1 B1 B
B1
All walls to be 100 C3s

CLT panels
Beams fixed to CLT
structure with Schöck
RKS thermal break
connectors, 3No. per
200x250w downstand
balcony.
100 C3s CLT Wall

9799
100 C3s CLT Wall
160 C5s CLT panels as

floor planks
100 C3s CLT Wall
100 C3s CLT Wall
100 C3s CLT Wall
100 C3s CLT Wall
2
1
2
111
100 C3s CLT Wall

100 C3s CLT Wall
C C

B1 B1
8190
TYPICAL UPPER
SECOND AND FLOOR
FOURTH FLOOR
PLAN
PLAN
CLT OPTION
B1 B1 B1 B1
Status
FOR INFORMATION
C1 B1 B1 C1
Scales 1 : 50 at A1
D D Drawing No Rev
28741/200
28741/201
00000/102 1
Unnamed
37 Alfred Place
London
1 2 3 4 5 WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128
mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com
Appendices
Figure A7: CLT apartment block: Section 1-1 Figure A8: CLT apartment block: Section 2-2
NOTES:- NOTES:-
1. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant 1. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant
Architect's, Engineer's and specialists' drawings and Architect's, Engineer's and specialists' drawings and
specifications. specifications.

1 2 3 4 5 form. Use written dimensions only. All dimensions are in
millimetres and levels in metres. millimetres and levels in metres.
1 To check that this drawing has been printed to the 1 To check that this drawing has been printed to the
intended scale this bar should be 50mm long @A1 or 2
110 intended scale this bar should be 50mm long @A1 or
2
500x100 C3s upstand
111
500x100 C3s upstand 25mm long @ A3 25mm long @ A3
A B C D around3. Health
perimeter of roof
around perimeter of roof 160 C5s CLT & Safety : 160 C5s CLT 160 C5s CLT 3. Health & Safety :
Smoke Vents All specific drawing notes are to be read in conjunction Smoke Vents All specific drawing notes are to be read in conjunction
20.955m
m 005.0-
panel with the project "Information Pack" and "Site Rules". 20.955m
m 005.0-
panel panel with the project "Information Pack" and "Site Rules".

Lift Over-run
4. For general notes refer to Drawing No. 00000/ Lift Over-run
20.255m
m 005.0- 20.255m
m 005.0-
Level 6 Level 6
160 5Cs CLT panel 19.355 m 160 5Cs CLT panel 19.355 m
B1
Level 5 Level 5
160 5Cs CLT panel 16.300 m

B1
Level 4 Level 4
B1
100 C3s 100 C3s

CLT wall CLT wall
Level 3 Level 3
B1
Level 2
160 5Cs CLT panel
Level 2
160 5Cs CLT panel 6.850 m 6.850 m
B1
600x300h thickenings 600x300h thickenings

1 IH JE Issued for Final Report
under1 slab over piles
5.5.2020
IH JE Issued for Final Report
under slab over piles
5.5.2020
Rev Date Drawn Eng Amendment Rev Date Drawn Eng Amendment
Level 1 Level 1

CONCRETE CENTRE STUDY 160 5Cs CLT panel 3.700 m
B1
500hx600w edge 500hx600w
SECTION edge1-1 SECTION 2-2
thickening around thickening around
perimeter, with 400x200 perimeter, with 400x200
CLT OPTION CLT OPTION
RC cantilevering toe to RC cantilevering toe to
support brickwork support
Statusbrickwork Status
FOR INFORMATION FOR INFORMATION

Level
Level
200 RC slab 0.000 m 200 RC slab 0.000 m
Pilecap Pilecap
-0.500 m -0.500 m Drawn Author Eng Checker
300
Liftpit
Scales 1 : 50 at A1 -1.100m
m 005.0- Scales 1 : 50 at A1
600
Drawing No Rev Drawing No Rev
500 thick RC base to lift 28741/200

28741/211 1
400
28741/200
28741/210
00000/110 1
Unnamed 00000/111 Unnamed
pit. Approx 5m3. 200 RC
walls around pit Consulting Engineers Consulting Engineers
37 Alfred Place
37 Alfred Place
London London
WC1E 7DP WC1E 7DP
020 7631 5128 020 7631 5128

mail@pricemyers.com mail@pricemyers.com
www.pricemyers.com www.pricemyers.com
References
1. BSI, BS EN 15978:2011. Sustainability of construction works. Assessment 9. Andrade, Evaluation of the degree of carbonation of concretes,
of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method. Construction and Building Materials, 2019.
2. www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/net-zero-whole-life-carbon-roadmap/ 10. Building Research Establishment, BRE Global Product Category Rules for
3. RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, Royal Institute of British Architects. Type III environmental product declaration of construction products to
www.architecture.com EN 15804:2012+A1:2013.
4. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Whole life carbon 11. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). www.iisd.org
assessment for the built environment. RICS professional statement, UK, 2017. 12. CIBSE, TM56: Resource Efficiency of Building Services, 2014.
5. The Future Homes Standard: 2019 Consultation on changes to Part L 13. CIBSE, TM59: Design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk
(conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building in homes (2017), 2017.
Regulations for new dwellings, Summary of responses received and 14. CIBSE, TM54: Evaluating Operational Energy Performance of Buildings at
Government response, MHCLG, Jan 2021. the Design Stage, CIBSE, 2013.
6. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1 : General rules and 15. BEIS, Green Book supplementary guidance: valuation of energy use and
rules for buildings. greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal. Data tables 1 to 19: supporting
7. Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures - Part 1-1: General - Common the toolkit and the guidance, 2019.
rules and rules for buildings. 16. Tables A4 and A5, BS 8500-1:2015 +A2:2019, Concrete - Complementary
8. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, CO2 uptake in cement- British Standard to BS EN 206, Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance
containing products : Background and calculation models for IPCC for the specifier, BSI, 2016.
implementation, 2018.
The Concrete Centre provides design For more information and downloads, visit:
guidance, seminars, courses, online www.concretecentre.com/publications
resources and industry research to the www.concretecentre.com/events
design community. Our aim is to enable
all those involved in the design, use and Follow us on Twitter:
performance of concrete to realise @concretecentre
the potential of the material.
The Concrete Centre is part of the

Mineral Products Association, the
trade association for the aggregates,
asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone,
lime, mortar and silica sand industries.
www.mineralproducts.org
www.concretecentre.com
The Concrete Centre, Gillingham House, 38-44 Gillingham Street, London SW1V 1HU
Ref. TCC/05/32
ISBN 978-1-908257-28-4
First published 2021
© MPA The Concrete Centre 2021
All advice or information from MPA The Concrete Centre is intended only for use in the UK by those who will evaluate
the significance and limitations of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including
that for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted by Mineral Products Association
or its subcontractors, suppliers or advisors. Readers should note that the publications from MPA The Concrete Centre
are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.
Printed onto 9Lives silk comprising 55% recycled fibre with 45% ECF virgin fibre.
Certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.

MB Lca Dec21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MB Lca Dec21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MB Lca Dec21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life cycle carbon analysis of a

six-storey residential building

An evaluation of the whole-life performance of concrete construction

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Embodied carbon of MEP services. . . . . . . . . . . 16

Building design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Total whole-life carbon - 60 year life (A1-C4). 17

Overheating analysis: passive and Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Peak load analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

About this publication

Headline LCA results Headline LCA lessons

In addition to the base building design described above, some

Input data for materials and products

Material quantities were measured from drawings, derived from 3D models,

Facade bricks Same as building lifetime

Screed floor with UFH in concrete Same as building lifetime

Concrete blocks Same as building lifetime

Aspects not included in the study Heat pumps 20 years

MVHR units 20 years

Range of embodied carbon (GWP) rates of structural materials

Table 2: Low, medium and high embodied carbon modelling scenarios

Whole-building embodied carbon Scenario description

Table 3: Minimum cement content of the concrete in the study

Concrete Cement content used Minimum cement content (kg/m3

FND4 440 360

RC32/40 380 300 A minimum of 350kg/m³

These boxes represent commentary from The Concrete Centre.

ArcelorMittal FND 3 and Celsa _ UK_ C32/40

FND 3 and UK CARES _ Ready-mix

Concrete (low2) scenario

Design modification from the concrete (low) scenario Predicted reduction in

Change from aluminium to aluminium-timber composite framed windows 2%

Use blockwork with 30% GGBS content <1%

All of the above TOTAL 15%

Other embodied carbon modelling assumptions

Table 6: Transportation of materials

Building component Transport distance to site (km) Transport method

Concrete 60 Road, truck

All other building components Approximately 100 Road, truck

Structural steel (used in the CLT design) 110 Road, truck

Rebar 110 Road, truck

Lighting, ductwork 200 Road, truck

Building services components including heat pumps, ventilation units, fan

CLT 1,200 Road, truck

PV system 5,000 Sea, container ship

Table 7: Heat pump refrigerant details

Heat pump type Refrigerant type Refrigerant quantity Refrigerant GWP

Roof mounted ASHP (2 x 50kW) R 410A 2 x 6 kg = 12 kg 2,125kgCO2e/kg

WSHP within integrated unit with

passive and active cooling

Overheating analysis results: Night time.

cooling is not necessary. The design comprises a communal roof-mounted

pumps and fan coil units (see Table 1).

air-source heat pump serving an ambient loop, plus a water-source heat

2. By limiting the cooling energy demand at the point when some

Figure 5: Building services concept design for concrete building (2041-80)

Operational energy analysis (B6)

Figure 7: Operational energy results

Operational energy modelling results

Annual energy consumption (kWh/m²/yr)

In Situ Concrete (with ceiling fan cooling)