Call For Paper - Upcoming Conferences
Research Article | Open Access | Download PDF
Volume 13 | Issue 4 | Year 2026 | Article Id. IJCE-V13I4P103 | DOI : https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V13I4P103

Performance-Based Selection of Concrete Strength Grades in Terms of Embodied Carbon and Economic Efficiency for Structural Elements

Riza Suwondo, Made Suangga, Militia Keintjem, Mohammed Altaee

Received Revised Accepted Published
05 Jan 2026 05 Feb 2026 04 Mar 2026 28 Apr 2026

Citation :

Riza Suwondo, Made Suangga, Militia Keintjem, Mohammed Altaee, "Performance-Based Selection of Concrete Strength Grades in Terms of Embodied Carbon and Economic Efficiency for Structural Elements," International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 33-44, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V13I4P103

Abstract

The construction industry, particularly reinforced concrete structures, is one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions. These high emissions are due to the high embodied carbon content of the primary materials, namely, cement and reinforcing steel. Therefore, in line with efforts to transition to low-carbon construction, improving the material efficiency of structural elements is a top priority that must be implemented immediately. This study focused on assessing the impact of concrete compressive strength on the embodied carbon and cost of RC beams and columns of various dimensions that achieved the same structural performance. Multiple beam and column configurations with four common concrete grades (25, 28, 32, and 35 MPa) were studied. In each case, the steel reinforcement concrete was designed to meet the specified flexural or axial moment capacities so that they could be compared on equal terms. Embodied carbon was calculated for each case using a cradle-to-gate methodology according to BS EN 15978:2011, while the cost analysis was based on direct material quantities. The findings indicated that, for RC beams, stronger grades of concrete increased the cost and embodied carbon without significantly increasing the structural capacity, particularly in larger sections. The most sustainable and cost-effective solution involves the use of low-strength concrete and more compact beam sections. However, the size and strength of RC columns have the advantage of reducing the amount of reinforcement, and consequently, the embodied carbon and cost. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these trends, particularly the predominant impact of steel on columns and concrete for beams. The study concluded that choosing the optimal concrete strength should consider the element and geometry: lower grades should be assigned to beams, while higher grades should be reserved for compression-dominated columns. The results assist in the practical determination of sustainable materials for structural design while also defending performance-based, economically effective, and cost-efficient RC construction.

Keywords

Embodied carbon, Reinforced concrete, Cost optimisation, Sustainable design, Built environment.

References

  1. 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, UNEP, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/2022-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction
  2. 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, UNEP, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/2021-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction
  3. Z. Cao et al., “Deep Decarbonization Pathways for the Cement and Concrete Cycle in the United States, India, and China,” Industrial Sustainability Analysis Laboratory, Northwestern University, 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Paulo J.M. Monteiro, Sabbie A. Miller, and Arpad Horvath, “Towards Sustainable Concrete,” Nature Materials, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 698-699, 2017.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  5. G.P. Hammond, and C.I. Jones, “Embodied Energy and Carbon in Construction Materials,” Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Energy, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 87-98, 2008.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  6. Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment, 2nd ed., Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), London, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/construction-standards/whole-life-carbon-assessment
  7. Orlando Gibbon, Arup John Orr, and W. Arnold, “How to Calculate Embodied Carbon,” The Institution of Structural Engineers, 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BS 15978: 2011, Sustainability of Construction Works - Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method, 2011.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  9. Dezhi Li et al., “A Methodology for Estimating the Life-Cycle Carbon Efficiency of a Residential Building,” Building and Environment, vol. 59, pp. 448-455, 2013.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  10. Andrea Meneghelli, “Whole-Building Embodied Carbon of a North American LEED-Certified Library: Sensitivity Analysis of the Environmental Impact of Buildings Materials,” Building and Environment, vol. 134, pp. 230-241, 2018.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  11. Alice M. Moncaster et al., “Why Method Matters: Temporal, Spatial and Physical Variations in LCA and their Impact on Choice of Structural System,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 173, pp. 389-398, 2018.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  12. Zahra S. Moussavi Nadoushani, and Ali Akbarnezhad, “Effects of Structural System on the Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of Buildings,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 102, pp. 337-346, 2015.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  13. J. Monahan, and J.C. Powell, “An Embodied Carbon and Energy Analysis of Modern Methods of Construction in Housing: A Case Study using a Lifecycle Assessment Framework,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 179-188, 2011.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  14. Geoff Hammond, and Craig Jones, “Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Data Base V3.0,” Retrieved November 10, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ali Kaveh, R.A. Izadifard, and L. Mottaghi, “Optimal Design of Planar RC Frames Considering CO2 Emissions using ECBO, EVPS and PSO Metaheuristic Algorithms,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 28, 2020.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  16. S. Eleftheriadis et al., “Investigating Relationships Between Cost and CO2 Emissions in Reinforced Concrete Structures using a BIM-based Design Optimisation Approach,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 166, pp. 330-346, 2018.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  17. Roland Bechmann, and Stefanie Weidner, “Reducing the Carbon Emissions of High-Rise Structures from the Very Beginning,” CTBUH Journal, no. 4, pp. 30-35, 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. C.H. Goodchild, R.M. Webster, and K.S. Elliott, “Economic Concrete Frame Elements to Eurocode 2,” The Concrete Centre, Camberley, Surrey, UK, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoang Tran Mai Kim Trinh, Sanaul Chowdhury, and Tingting Liu, “Assessing Embodied Carbon of Flat Slab Buildings-an ANN-Integrated Optimization Methodology,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 457, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  20. SNI 2847-2019 Structural Concrete Requirements for Buildings SNI 1726-2019 Structural Concrete Requirements for Buildings, Gadjah Mada University, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://tekonsipil.sv.ugm.ac.id/file/sni-2847-2019-persyaratan-beton-struktural-untuk-bangunan-gedung-sni-1726-2019-persyaratan-beton-struktural-untuk-bangunan-gedung/
  21. ACI CODE-318-19(22): Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.concrete.org/store/productdetail.aspx?ItemID=318U19&Language=English&Units=US_Units
  22. John Orr, Orlando Gibbons, and Will Arnold, A Brief Guide to Calculating Embodied Carbon, Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, pp. 22-27, 2020. 
    [CrossRef]  [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  23. LETI 2024 Embodied Carbon Primer, LETI, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.leti.uk/ecp
  24. Michael Samson, and Roger Pope, “A Comparative Embodied Carbon Assessment of Commercial Buildings,” Structural Engineers, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 38-49, 2012.
    [CrossRef]  [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  25. Thong Jia Wen, Ho Chin Siong, and Z.Z. Noor, “Assessment of Embodied Energy and Global Warming Potential of Building Construction using Life Cycle Analysis Approach: Case Studies of Residential Buildings in Iskandar Malaysia,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 93, pp. 295-302, 2015.
    [CrossRef]  [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
  26. Vincent J.L. Gan et al., “A Comparative Analysis of Embodied Carbon in High-Rise Buildings Regarding Different Design Parameters,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 161, pp. 663-675, 2017.
    [CrossRef]  [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]