Citation :

Riza Suwondo, Andryan Suhendra, Traad Alzhrani, Yustian Suprapto, "Comparative Assessment of Embodied Carbon in Cantilever Concrete Retaining Walls and Sheet Pile Walls," International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 93-103, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V13I10P107

Abstract

Retaining walls store significant amounts of embodied carbon, yet this aspect is often overlooked due to high material requirements. Although awareness regarding carbon assessment in the built environment sector is growing, comparative studies across different retaining wall systems remain scarce. This study presents a comparative analysis of embodied carbon—within the cradle-to-site scope (Modules A1-A5, BS EN 15978:2011)-for Cantilever Concrete Retaining Walls (CCRW) and Concrete Sheet Piles (CSP), ranging from 1 to 4 m in height. Unlike previous studies that focused on a single system or specific life-cycle stage, this research quantifies emissions arising from material production, transportation, and on-site construction activities. The results indicate that total embodied carbon increases with wall height for both systems. However, CSP consistently generates higher emissions-ranging from 20%-30% higher at lower heights to nearly 90% higher at a height of 4 meters—primarily due to production emissions and a heavier transportation burden. A proportional analysis reveals that material production (A1–A3) accounts for over 85% of total emissions in both systems, whereas transportation (A4) represents a significant additional burden for CSP. This study also identifies emission hotspots and opportunities for carbon reduction for each system. The findings highlight the importance of incorporating embodied carbon considerations into the early design stages and emphasise the need for material optimisation for CCRW and supply chain optimisation for CSP to achieve retaining wall solutions with lower carbon footprints.

Keywords

Embodied carbon, Retaining wall, Cantilever concrete wall, Concrete sheet pile, Sustainable design, Climate action.

References

1. Ian Hamilton et al., “2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero‐Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector,” United Nations Environment Programme, Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, pp. 1-101, 2022.
   [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
2. “Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction,” United Nations Environment Programme, Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, pp. 1-100, 2023.
   [Publisher Link]
3. Xiaocun Zhang, and Xueqi Zhang, “Design of Low-Carbon and Cost-Efficient Concrete Frame Buildings: A Hybrid Optimization Approach Based on Harmony Search,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2161-2174, 2023.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
4. Breakthrough Strategies for Climate-Neutral Industry in Europe: Policy and Technology Pathways for Raising EU Climate Ambition, Agora Energiewende and Wuppertal Institute, pp. 1-216, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7751/file/7751_Climate-Neutral_Industry.pdf
5. Borja Izaola, Ortzi Akizu-Gardoki, and Xabat Oregi, “Setting Baselines of the Embodied, Operational and Whole Life Carbon Emissions of the Average Spanish Residential Building,” Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 40, pp. 252-264, 2023.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
6. M. Nabiyev and A. Abobakirov, “Energy-Efficient Materials in Buildings and Structures: Technologies and Trends,” Innovative Development in Educational Activities, vol. 2, no. 23, pp. 43-48, 2023.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
7. Xiaonan Wang et al., “A Critical Review on Phase Change Materials (PCM) for Sustainable and Energy Efficient Building: Design, Characteristic, Performance and Application,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 260, 2022.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
8. O.P. Gibbon et al., How to Calculate Embodied Carbon, 2^nd ed., The Institution of Structural Engineers, 2022.
   [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
9. Demi Fang et al., “Reducing Embodied Carbon in Structural Systems: A Review of Early-Stage Design Strategies,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 76, 2023.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
10. James Hunt, and Carlos A. Osorio-Sandoval, “Assessing Embodied Carbon in Structural Models: A Building Information Modelling-Based Approach,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1-15, 2023.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
11. Johanna Lehne, and Felix Preston, “Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete,” Chatham House, 2018.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
12. Robbie M. Andrew, “Global CO₂ Emissions from Cement Production,” Earth System Science Data, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 195-217, 2018.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
13. Chen Li et al., “CO₂ Emissions Due to Cement Manufacture,” Materials Science Forum, vol. 685, pp. 181-187, 2011.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
14. Anurag Sahare, GyuChan Choi, and Kyohei Ueda, “Role of Initial Static Shear on the Cyclic Response of Saturated Backfill Retained by a Sheet-Pile Wall: Insights from the Strain Space Multiple Mechanism Model,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 179, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
15. Yuan Cao et al., “Liquefaction and Fluidization Responses of Level Ground Retained by Sheet-Pile Wall through Centrifuge Model Tests,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 178, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
16. Ning Bao et al, “Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Seismic Behavior of Slopes Reinforced with Sheet Pile Walls: Role of Retaining Sheet,” Engineering Geology, vol. 354, 2025.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
17. Mohammad Khajehzadeh et al., “A Fuzzy Multi-Objective Enhanced Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm for Stochastic Design of Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall Using Unscented Transformation,” Results in Engineering, vol. 28, 2025.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
18. Kewei Fan et al., “Impact of Incorporating Waste Tire Rubber Particles into Granular Inclusion on Reducing Lateral Swelling Pressures of Expansive Soil Against Concrete Retaining Walls,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 457, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
19. M.C. Caruso et al., “Methodology for Life-Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Building Structures,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 323-336, 2017.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
20. Alla Toktarova et al., “Pathways for Low-Carbon Transition of the Steel Industry—A Swedish Case Study,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 1-18, 2020.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
21. Zhiyuan Fan, and S. Julio Friedmann, “Low-Carbon Production of Iron and Steel: Technology Options, Economic Assessment, and Policy,” Joule, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 829-862, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
22. T. Demus et al., “Increasing the Sustainability of Steel Production in the Electric Arc Furnace by Substituting Fossil Coal with Biochar Agglomerates,” Ironmaking & Steelmaking: Processes, Products and Applications, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 564-570, 2016.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
23. Qianqian Chen et al., “Assessment of Low-Carbon Iron and Steel Production with CO₂ Recycling and Utilization Technologies: A Case Study in China,” Applied Energy, vol. 220, pp. 192-207, 2018.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
24. Ali Abdulhussein Shubbar et al., “Future of Clay-Based Construction Materials – A Review,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 210, pp. 172-187, 2019.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
25. Will Hawkins et al., “A Design Methodology to Reduce the Embodied Carbon of Concrete Buildings Using Thin-Shell Floors,” Engineering Structures, vol. 207, 2020.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
26. H.L. Gauch et al., “Carbon vs. Cost Option Mapping: A Tool for Improving Early-Stage Design Decisions,” Automation in Construction, vol. 136, pp. 1-18, 2022.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
27. Alper Kanyilmaz, Patricia Raquel Navarro Tichell, and Daniele Loiacono, “A Genetic Algorithm Tool for Conceptual Structural Design with Cost and Embodied Carbon Optimization,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 112, 2022.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
28. Kareem Abushama et al., “Embodied Carbon Optimisation of Concrete Pile Foundations and Comparison of the Performance of Different Pile Geometries,” Engineering Structures, vol. 310, 2024.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
29. Eleni Georgiou et al., “The Significance of Measuring Embodied Carbon Dioxide Equivalent in Water Sector Infrastructure,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 216, pp. 268-276, 2019.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
30. Harry G. Poulos, and Grahame Bunce, “Foundation Design for the Burj Dubai – the World’s Tallest Building,” International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 1-17, 2008.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
31. M.L. Berndt, “Influence of Concrete Mix Design on CO₂ Emissions for Large Wind Turbine Foundations,” Renewable Energy, vol. 83, pp. 608-614, 2015.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
32. BS 15978: 2011, Sustainability of Construction Works - Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method, British Standard Institution 2011.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
33. W.J. Macquorn Rankine, “On the Stability of Loose Earth,” Philosophical Transactions Royal Society, vol. 141, pp. 9-27, 1857.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
34. “The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (The ICE Database),” Gloabal Alliance for Building and Construction, 2020.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]