Impact of Seismic Design on Embodied Carbon and Construction Cost in Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings

International Journal of Civil Engineering

© 2025 by SSRG - IJCE Journal

Volume 12 Issue 11

Year of Publication : 2025

Authors : Riza Suwondo, Made Suangga, Militia Keintjem

10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V12I11P103

How to Cite?

Riza Suwondo, Made Suangga, Militia Keintjem, "Impact of Seismic Design on Embodied Carbon and Construction Cost in Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings," SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 12,  no. 11, pp. 24-35, 2025. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V12I11P103

Abstract:

The building industry is a large contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. The construction and building materials processes alone account for a large portion. While seismic design is imperative to keeping structures safe in regions that experience earthquakes, it often increases the volume of materials needed for construction, worsening the environmental and economic consequences. As a result, this research seeks to assess the degree to which seismic design impacts the Embodied Carbon (EC) and construction budgets of reinforced concrete structures of differing heights, enabling a more informed carbon-cost analysis for those carbon-conscious structural designs. Buildings of 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-story height, and both seismic and non-seismic design scenarios, were analysed. All designs appropriately used SNI 2847-2019 and SNI 1726 for seismic provisions. The structural design for slabs, beams, and columns, and detailed structural modelling material constituted the core building blocks for material volume quantification. Construction cost was derived from the built-up method, and EC was derived from the legal provisions for concrete and steel. The total EC, cost, and their distribution by elements were used to derive prioritization to assist the cost optimization. The outcome illustrates the volumetric consequences of seismic design and how it diverges as height increases. In the case of the 8-storey building, the seismic design has 54% more Embodied Carbon (EC) and 79% more increased cost in comparison to the non-seismic design. For non-seismic buildings of all heights, slabs more than 50% of the time controlled the EC and cost. However, for the seismic buildings, the dominance of the slabs reduced as they got taller, and the columns started to take more due to the increased seismic detailing provisions. The carbon-cost trade-off analysis indicated a strong linkage between cost and EC, and the non-seismic mid-rise buildings provided the most balanced performance. This shows that the EC assessment in regions with a high seismic risk should be considered as a design criterion to mitigate the impact of economically and environmentally seismic detailing provisions in the code. Improvements in cost and sustainability can be achieved by controlling slabs in non-seismic designs and improving columns in seismic designs.

Keywords:

Reinforced concrete buildings, Seismic design, Embodied carbon, Construction cost, Carbon–cost trade-off.

References:

[1] “2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction,” United Nations Environment Programme, pp. 1-105, 2021.
[Publisher Link]
[2] 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]
[3] Jacob N. Hacker et al., “Embodied and Operational Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Housing: A Case Study on the Effects of Thermal Mass and Climate Change,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 375-384, 2008.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[4] H.L. Gauch et al., “What Really Matters in Multi-Storey Building Design? A Simultaneous Sensitivity Study of Embodied Carbon, Construction Cost, and Operational Energy,” Applied Energy, vol. 333, pp. 1-14, 2023.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[5] World Green Building Council, Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront: Coordinated Action for the Building and Construction Sector to Tackle Embodied Carbon, pp. 1-68, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/22123951/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf
[6] Andrew H. Buchanan, and Brian G. Honey, “Energy and Carbon Dioxide Implications of Building Construction,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 205-217, 1994.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[7] A. Amato, and K.J. Eaton, “A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Steel and Concrete Framed Office Buildings,” Environmental Management, Environmental Strategies, vol. 2, pp. 133-140, 1997.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[8] A. Dimoudi, and C. Tompa, “Energy and Environmental Indicators Related to Construction of Office Buildings,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 53, no. 1-2, pp. 86-95, 2008.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[9] David Clark, What Colour is Your Building? Measuring and Reducing the Energy and Carbon Footprint of Buildings, RIBA Publishing, pp. 1-264, 2012.
[Google Scholar]
[10] Daud Khan et al., “Embodied Carbon Footprint Assessment of a Conventional Commercial Building Using BIM,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Collaboration and Integration in Construction, Engineering, Management and Technology, London, pp. 247-250, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[11] Marilia Hellmeister, “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Embodied Carbon and Operational Energy of Different Building Systems,” Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Maine University, pp. 1-97, 2022.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[12] C.H. Goodchild, R.M. Webster, and K.S. Elliott, Economic Concrete Frame Elements to Eurocode 2, Concrete Center, 1-182, 2009.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[13] Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, EUROPEAN STANDARD, pp. 1-100, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.dica.unict.it/users/aghersi/Testi/Normativa_Europea/EN%201992-1-1a.pdf
[14] Javier Ferreiro-Cabello et al., “Minimizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs for Structures with Flat Slabs,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 137, pp. 922-930, 2016.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[15] Hoang Tran Mai Kim Trinh et al., “Environmental Considerations for Structural Design of Flat Plate Buildings – Significance of and Interrelation between Different Design Variables,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 315, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[16] Panagiotis E. Mergos, “Sustainable and Resilient Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Rocking Isolation on Spread Footings,” Engineering Structures, vol. 292, pp. 1-31, 2023.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[17] Panagiotis E. Mergos et al., “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames for Minimum Embodied CO2 Emissions,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 162, pp. 177-186, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[18] “SNI 1727:2020: Minimum Design Loads and Related Criteria for Buildings and other Structures,” Badan Standardisasi Nasional, pp. 1-331, 2020.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[19] “SNI 1726-2019: Procedures for Earthquake Resistance Planning for Building and Non-Building Structures,” Badan Standardisasi Nasional, pp. 1-248, 2019.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[20] “SNI 2052:2017: Concrete Reinforcement Steel,” Badan Standardisasi Nasional Indonesia, pp. 1-19, 2017.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[21] “SNI 2847-2019 Structural Concrete Requirements for Buildings,” Badan Standardisasi Nasional, 2019.
[Publisher Link]
[22] Building Analysis and Design, Computers & Structures, INC. [Online]. Available: https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs
[23] BS EN 15978: 2011 Sustainability of Construction Works Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings Calculation Method, BSI, 2011.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[24] Embodied Carbon Primer, LETI. [Online]. Available: https://www.leti.uk/ecp
[25] Michael Samson, and Roger Pope, “A Comparative Embodied Carbon Assessment of Commercial Buildings,” Structural Engineer, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 38-49, 2012.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[26] 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]
[27] 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]
[28] O.P Gibbon et al., How to Calculate Embodied Carbon, The Institution of Structural Engineers, pp. 1-58, 2022.
[Google Scholar]
[29] Geoffrey Hammond, and Craig Jones, Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), 2019.
[Google Scholar]