Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Reducing embodied carbon in structural systems: A review of

early-stage design strategies
Demi Fang a, *, Nathan Brown b, Catherine De Wolf c, Caitlin Mueller a
a
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
b
The Pennsylvania State University, United States
c
ETH Zurïch, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The embodied carbon emissions of buildings are increasingly important to mitigate. Most of these
Embodied carbon reduction emissions come from structural systems. While many strategies have been identified and proposed
Sustainable buildings for reducing embodied carbon in early-stage structural design, they are rarely synthesized to
Sustainable structural design discuss their relative effectiveness and compatibility. Discussing the strategies together rather
Life cycle assessment than individually is important because not all strategies are equally effective or can be imple­
Low-carbon structures
mented simultaneously. This paper presents a synthesized discussion by clarifying a network of
design strategies for reducing embodied carbon in structural systems, supported by a literature
review. Existing guides for embodied carbon reduction are typically written by practitioners; this
paper enhances them by examining patterns in academic literature to both support the plurality of
known strategies and identify those that are overlooked or underutilized. Using quantitative
meta-analyses and qualitative assessments of the literature, the strategies are evaluated for
literature prevalence and origins, advantages and limitations, novelty, and compatibility. The
results help designers understand which strategies can be immediately prioritized for reducing
the adverse environmental effects of building structures, while documenting state-of-the-art
research of each strategy.

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
The building sector contributes to 39% of global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions [1]. With projected rates of urbanization, this
contribution represents a continuing challenge. The building sector produces two types of emissions: operational carbon, which are the
emissions associated with building operations; and embodied carbon, which are the carbon emissions associated with the rest of the
building’s life cycle. The sources of embodied carbon with respect to a building’s life cycle is depicted in Fig. 1. Most of a building’s
embodied carbon comes from the product stage (Modules A1-A3, often called “cradle-to-gate”) [2].
Embodied carbon currently represents about a quarter of building emissions [4]. Most efforts in the past few decades have made
considerable strides in operational carbon; in projects featuring advanced reductions in (or net-zero) operational carbon, embodied
carbon already constitutes 50%–90% of all building emissions [4].
The greatest potential to reduce carbon lies in early stages of design [5]. Additionally, structural systems reliably constitute a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dfang@mit.edu (D. Fang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107054
Received 20 February 2023; Received in revised form 31 May 2023; Accepted 8 June 2023
Available online 20 June 2023
2352-7102/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

majority of a building’s embodied carbon [6,7]. To impactfully mitigate embodied carbon in buildings, researchers and designers have
the responsibility to develop and implement early-stage design methods for reducing embodied carbon in structural systems,
respectively [5]. Many of these strategies were developed outside of the field of building design and were aimed at reducing some other
specific objective than embodied carbon, such as cost or material. With such a plurality of strategies available, it is difficult to un­
derstand the relative impact and state-of-the-art of each strategy, or how to use strategies in combination. This review is the first to
synthesize and map a literature-supported network of existing and potential strategies for designing low-carbon structural systems.

1.2. Scope
While many parties are involved in building design, this paper focuses on the strategies that can be deployed by architectural
designers and structural engineers. Architects are traditionally responsible for the initial massing and layout of the building, while
structural engineers perform structural system selection and sizing. While the design processes can be different between architects and
engineers [8], they also have joint responsibilities that require collaborative inputs of both to influence design, so these professionals
are referred to as “designers” throughout the paper.
This paper also focuses on strategies that can specifically be considered in early-stage design. These strategies may be implemented
before a full life cycle assessment (LCA) can be completed. Guidance and standards for performing building LCA exist [3,9]. However,
because of its whole-life-cycle scope and the need for detailed information on design choices, a true LCA can often only be carried out at
the end of the design process. While the late-stage accounting of LCA is useful for establishing benchmarks, in late-stage design there is
the least freedom to make the most impactful design decisions for driving any kind of building performance, including reducing
embodied carbon (Fig. 2). To quote Pomponi and Moncaster: “Once the building has been completed and the ‘as built’ embodied
carbon is assessed there is no room for reducing it” [10].
Quantifying embodied carbon in early-stage design is a baseline for enabling low embodied carbon to be a design driver and results
in more effective reductions [14,15]. We deliberately do not refer to such early-stage quantification methods as “LCA” in this paper
because as an early-stage estimate, it may necessarily omit details from some stages of the building’s life cycle. Its advantage is in being
a comparative design tool rather than in its absolute accuracy.
Given uncertainties in early-stage design, it is important that early-stage embodied carbon estimations are not referred to as a
whole life cycle assessment [16]. When weighing design alternatives in early-stage structural design, the relative precision of estimates
is still valuable to inform decision-making.

1.3. Objective
Given the lack of comprehensive summaries of embodied carbon strategies in the identified scope, the objective of this paper is to
identify, review, and compare early-stage design strategies for reducing embodied carbon in structural systems. In contrast to existing
strategy lists and prescriptive guidance, this paper takes an approach of casting a wide net in the literature to clarify the breadth of
solutions that can be taken and is the first to present a qualitative comparative framework for assessing them. The resulting literature-
supported network of strategies serves as a valuable resource for designers and researchers; the former to implement low-carbon design
strategies to directly mitigate the carbon impact of structural systems, and the latter to understand the existing landscape of literature
and inform targeted efforts towards under-developed strategies. All strategies have been curated from those proposed and executed in
literature from both academia and practice, and are evaluated using quantitative meta-analyses and qualitative assessments of the
literature.

2. State of the art: previous literature on embodied carbon reduction strategies

Previous literature reviews on embodied carbon in buildings have synthesized data [10,17] or conducted bibliometric analysis of
keywords [18] to present insights on embodied impacts in buildings. Although incorporating some similar methodologies, this paper
focuses on identifying an informed network of strategies of embodied carbon reduction in early-stage structural design by doc­
umenting, synthesizing, and meta-analyzing the literature.
Several precedent strategy lists exist, some of which are supported by literature reviews. Danatzko and Sezen [19] provide an

Fig. 1. Embodied carbon comes from all highlighted modules of a building’s life cycle. Adapted from BS EN15978-2011 [3].

2
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Fig. 2. Comparing embodied carbon quantification at early and late stages of design. Graphic adapted from Refs. [11–13].

overview of five major methods for sustainable structural design. The basic strategies from their 2011 paper are still relevant today but
could fit into the broader network of strategies presented here, which have more breadth and depth, accounting for how some stra­
tegies have matured and increased in viability and technological feasibility since 2011. Pomponi and Moncaster 2016 [16] generated a
list of strategies for mitigating embodied carbon in buildings based on a thorough literature review. They concluded that no single
mitigation strategy was most effective and recommended pluralistic approaches for reducing the embodied carbon of the built
environment. While several strategies also appear in our paper, we narrow the scope of strategies to those that designers can take in
structural design. Malmqvist et al., 2018 [20] conduct a review of existing case studies to identify and quantify the efficacy of different
strategies for embodied carbon reduction. While several identified strategies overlap with ours, we do not limit our literature review to
case studies, which allows us to identify strategies not yet widely implemented enough to appear in case studies. Akbarnezhad and Xiao
2017 [21] come closest to our approach by presenting a literature review supporting a list of strategies for embodied carbon quan­
tification and reduction in structural design; our research is more current and incorporates literature from outside the keyword search
to augment the list with strategies from other fields.
Several non-academic and practice-oriented design guides for mitigating embodied carbon also exist [22–25]. However, while
efficient for informing practitioners on immediate recommendations, they are not typically supported by systematic or extensive
literature review.

Fig. 3. Graphical overview of the methodology.

3
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

In summary, this paper is distinguished from previous work in that it documents a network of strategies for minimizing embodied
carbon specifically in early-stage structural design, gathering literature from inside and outside the field to evaluate the relative
prevalence, advantages, limitations, and compatibility of strategies.

3. Methodology
An overview of the methodology, paper-reviewing process, and literature meta-analyses is presented in Fig. 3.
To start, an initial list of strategies was drafted by the authors’ experience on low-carbon structural design in industry and in
academia. A keyword search of peer-reviewed publications related to embodied carbon in structural systems was then conducted. This
initial pool of peer-reviewed publications was analyzed and further narrowed for those related to embodied impacts and structure. In
parallel, relevant publications independently identified by authors were collected to supplement the keyword search. The combination
of keyword search with supplementary references helps to consider strategies from other fields that are effective but not specifically
billed for mitigating embodied carbon in structural design. Publication abstracts were manually scanned for relevance to minimizing
embodied carbon in structural design, the initial list of strategies was revised and updated during this process as needed.
The full and final list of strategies for embodied carbon reduction is first presented (4.1 Strategies identified and reviewed). Then,
analyses for several groupings of the literature are provided (4.2 Literature meta-analyses). Finally, a detailed literature review by
strategy is presented (4.3 Literature review by strategy). Afterwards, a discussion of key findings and strategy compatibility is presented
(5. Discussion).

4. Results
4.1. Strategies identified and reviewed
In the final list of strategies, a total of 2 baseline strategies and 11 design strategies were identified, shown in Table 1. While there is
no strict rule to their sequence, the groups of strategies are loosely ordered by highest to lowest potential impact and ease of
implementation (throughout the paper referred to as “implementability”).

Table 1
Design strategies for reducing embodied carbon in structural systems.

Baseline strategies 0a. Estimating embodied carbon from bottom-up quantities

Bottom-up accounting of structural material quantities and associated embodied carbon in early-stage design

0b. Statistically predicting embodied carbon

Using data-driven methods to inform the effect of design decisions on embodied carbon

Holistic design strategies 1. Exploring or optimizing the parametric design space

Navigating low-carbon design options through parametric frameworks and optimization techniques

2. Comparing design concepts, case studies, and benchmarks

Comparing some combination of individual design alternatives and external benchmarks to make design
decisions

Material-specific strategies 3. Using less material

Achieve material efficiency by designing for less structural material quantities, e.g. through optimization

4. Using low-carbon and carbon-sequestering materials

Selecting materials with low embodied carbon coefficients

Cradle-to-grave strategies 5. Designing for reuse and reusing structural elements

Applying principles of circular economy, e.g. by designing for disassembly and separability, or reusing
structural elements
6. Adaptively reusing whole structures and designing for longevity
Making use of existing structures, or enhancing potential of new construction for future adaptive reuse.
Prioritizing a long service life through quality and maintenance
7. Reducing construction and demolition waste
Reducing formwork, e.g. via additive manufacturing. Pre-fabricating structural modules and using dry
connections

Additional technological strategies 8. Reducing load demands

Changing the design problem
9. Exploiting standardization and/or customization
Focusing on either system standardization or customized design types or sections, depending on which presents
the better opportunity to lower embodied carbon

Additional philosophical strategies 10. Implementing active structures

Designing adaptive-stiffness structural systems to use less structural material quantities
11. Integrating systems
Reducing overall building material usage by designing multi-functional structural systems (e.g. with finishes,
facades, acoustics, thermal performance)

4
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

4.2. Literature meta-analyses

Of all publications queried about life cycle impacts of buildings, the proportion focusing on embodied impacts of structural systems
over time was investigated. Using keyword search queries and filters, publication count by publication year up to 2021 is plotted in
Fig. 4.
Of those publications containing “embodied” and “structur*”, three subsets of literature were analyzed, each called a “Reference
Set” and answering a specific question:
• Which strategies have historically been compiled by experts in the field, and which have emerged more recently?
Reference Set 1 consists of existing strategy lists on reducing embodied carbon in structural systems.
• Which strategies are prevalent among most highly cited publications? Reference Set 2 consists of top cited papers among
those in the keyword search related to embodied impacts and structural systems.
• What set of literature best represents each strategy? Reference Set 3 consists of literature identified by the authors as repre­
sentative of each strategy, drawing from both the keyword search and supplementary resources to capture the pluralistic inter­
disciplinary strategies for embodied carbon reduction in structural systems.

An overview of the relative number of publications in each Reference Set is provided in Fig. 5.

4.2.1. Reference Set 1: Existing strategy lists

Eight existing strategy lists were identified. Three were found from the keyword search [16,20,21], while five supplementary ones
were identified [2,19,23,24,26]. Most of the supplementary lists are handbooks written by practitioners for practitioners and thus did
not appear in the keyword search in the academic database. An inventory of the strategies included in each list is provided in Fig. 6.
The following can be observed from the inventory in Fig. 6:
• Material-specific strategies (Strategies 3 and 4) and reuse-related strategies (Strategies 5 and 6) have long been identified as
strategies that reduce embodied carbon in structural systems.
• Most strategy lists also acknowledge the baseline strategy of Strategy 0a. Estimating embodied carbon from bottom-up quantities as a
prerequisite for reducing embodied carbon.
• “Holistic strategies” 1 and 2 have been moderately identified from a mix of academic and practice-oriented literature.
• “Additional strategies” 8–11 have only been identified in recent strategy lists from practice. Strategy 0b has not yet been identified
by any of the strategy lists.

4.2.2. Reference Set 2: Top cited publications on embodied impacts and structures
288 peer-reviewed publications satisfied all keyword search criteria, including “embodied” and “structur*”. Reference Set 2
consists of the 53 “top cited” papers, or those averaging 10 or more citations per year since publication (as of writing in 2022, ac­
cording to citation counts on Semantic Scholar). The full matrix of strategy classifications is included in Appendix A.
The distribution of strategies used or advocated in this subset of papers is shown in Fig. 7. The bars add up to over 100% because
some papers include multiple strategies.
The cumulative published instances over time for this subset of top cited papers is shown in Fig. 8. Again, the cumulative count of
published instances exceeds the number of papers in the pool because some papers include multiple strategies.

Fig. 4. Frequency chart of publications on buildings and carbon, energy, and life-cycle over time. The darker gray lines are keyword-filtered subsets of the lightest gray
line. “Structur” is used to accommodate related words such as “structure” and “structural”.

5
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Fig. 5. Graphical representation of the pools of publications examined in the hybrid literature review and analysis.

According to Fig. 7, Strategy 4 is by far the most common strategy in this set. In other words, across the published history of
embodied impacts of structures, selecting low-carbon materials has always been the most apparent design decision. Strategy 2 is next
most common; Fig. 8 shows that Strategy 2 has been much more prevalent since the early years, compared to the more recent boom of
the other holistic strategy, Strategy 1.
Strategies appearing the least are 0b and 8–11. Only Strategy 10 did not appear in any of this subset of literature.
In general, Figs. 7 and 8 demonstrate the incidence of published instances per strategies specifically billed to address embodied
impacts in structures. Further discussion in 5.1 Key findings will reflect on why some newer strategies seem underrepresented in this
meta-analysis.

4.2.3. Reference Set 3: Representative publications

This collection of publications makes up the backbone of 4.3 Literature review by strategy. To capture the pluralistic strategies and
approaches from other fields, these publications are not limited to the keyword search results. When selecting publications, the
following criteria were considered: historic impact on fields from which the strategy originated; exemplary application of the strategy;
and, for strategies in which multiple sub-strategies exist, including at least one publication to represent each sub-strategy.
Many of these publications share typical keywords such as: sustainable building, sustainable construction, structure, global
warming potential, embodied carbon, and embodied energy. However, some strategies contain other unique keywords, especially
those strategies originating from other fields. These publications and strategy-specific unique keywords are documented in Table 2.
More detailed contextual discussion of each publication is provided in 4.3 Literature review by strategy.

4.3. Literature review by strategy

In the following sections, a targeted summary of the reviewed literature is provided for each design strategy.
The strategies are grouped as follows. Baseline strategies (0a and 0b) are strategies for quantifying embodied carbon in structural
systems, a prerequisite for understanding and achieving effective reductions. Holistic design strategies (1 and 2) involve holistic
structural design, while material-specific strategies (3 and 4) deal with reducing either of the factors (material quantity or embodied
carbon coefficient) in computing embodied carbon in design.
Cradle-to-grave strategies (5–7) are strategies that consider emissions beyond the gate. Though their impacts are difficult to
quantify at early stages of design, an understanding of the principles behind these strategies’ advantages can still result in effectively
reducing the embodied carbon of structural systems on a whole life cycle basis. These are structures-specific examples of the “circular
economy”, a system that relies entirely on reuse strategies to eliminate the need for manufacturing new elements. The term “circular
economy” sometimes also encompasses recycled materials, which is more common than the reuse of larger systems [27], but in this
paper, recycled materials are instead considered a sub-strategy within material-specific Strategy 4.
Finally, additional strategies (8–11) have more recently emerged as strategies to reduce embodied carbon in structures.
Where applicable and available, the following properties are described for each strategy:

6
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Fig. 6. Inventory of identified strategies that are included in eight published strategy lists. * indicates a supplementary reference not found using the keyword search.

• Prevalence in literature: how prevalent does this strategy appear in literature? This property is supported by results from 4.2
Literature meta-analyses.
• Literature origins and development: how, or from what fields, did literature on this strategy develop?
• State of the art: how is this strategy being deployed in most recent literature?
• Advantages: what are specific advantages of this strategy?
• Limitations: what are current barriers or limitations of deploying this strategy?
• Best practices: what are some considerations discussed in the literature for successful deployment of this strategy?
• Sub-strategies: what are the different ways this strategy can be deployed?
• Use with other strategies: how can or can’t this strategy be used with others?
• Outlook: what outlooks appear in the literature on the potential impact of this strategy?

4.3.1. Strategy 0a. Estimating embodied carbon from bottom-up quantities

Description, advantages, use with other strategies, and prevalence in literature. One baseline strategy for reducing embodied
carbon in structural design is to calculate quantities and embodied carbon of the design as a rough estimate in early-stage design. This
estimate lays the groundwork for understanding the opportunities to reduce it using other strategies throughout the design process.
Compared to late-stage life cycle assessment, guidelines and recommendations for early-stage embodied carbon estimates have only
emerged more recently, primarily from practitioners advising other practitioners [28]. The approach is nevertheless common in
literature; this baseline strategy is the third most prevalent strategy in top cited literature (Fig. 7).

7
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Fig. 7. Strategies used or advocated for in 53 top cited papers related to embodied impacts and structures.

Fig. 8. Number of instances of strategies advocated in 53 top cited papers related to embodied emissions and structures.

State of the art. This analysis requires determining the structural material quantity and embodied carbon coefficient of each
structural element. Structural material quantities come from the calculations of structural design, which are based on loads, support/
boundary conditions, material properties, and code-based sizing methods. Embodied carbon coefficients can be determined from
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which are disclosed directly by manufacturers with a third-party life cycle assessment of
their product; or material databases. Typical databases noted in the literature include Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) [29,30],
US Life Cycle Inventory (USLCI) Database [31], ecoinvent [32], Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) [33], and deQo
[34]. Moncaster and Song 2012 [35] provide an overview of general-purpose and construction-specific databases, including details on
features such as data coverage and boundaries.
In the literature, early-stage embodied carbon estimates are calculated one of two ways: through LCA software, or through custom
tools. Existing LCA software vary in their ease of use for early-stage design; Moncaster and Song 2012 [35] provide an overview of
general-purpose and construction-specific LCA software that are available. Custom tools, which can be as simple as a spreadsheet
linked to design quantities, are a straightforward way to reduce black-box uncertainties and constraints of the software.
Limitations and best practices. A challenge to this strategy is navigating the inevitable uncertainty that comes with early stages of
design. The large range of embodied carbon coefficients in some structural materials presents a particular challenge since the large
differences may affect the choice of structural design scheme. For example, according to ranges of values given in the ICE database,
structural steel currently tends to exhibit the widest range of embodied carbon coefficients [24]. [28] emphasizes that uncertainty
around embodied carbon coefficients should not be a barrier for practitioners to start estimating embodied carbon in earlier stages of

8
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Table 2
Strategy-specific papers and keywords. References found outside the keyword search are indicated with *.

Selected references Strategy-specific unique keywords

0a Estimating embodied carbon from Moncaster and Song Life cycle assessment
bottom-up quantities 2012

0b Statistically predicting embodied Victoria and Perera Artificial neural networks, deep learning, generative modeling, performance
carbon 2018 prediction, regression analysis, surrogate modeling
Weber and Mueller
2021*
Zargar and Brown
2021*

1 Exploring or optimizing the Yeo and Gabbai 2011 Design space exploration, efficiency, optimization, parametric design, parametric
parametric design space Purnell 2012* modeling
Foraboschi et al., 2014
Stern et al., 2018*
D’Amico and Pomponi
2020*
Hens et al., 2021
Ching and Carstensen
2021*
Gauch et al., 2022*

2 Comparing design concepts, case Cole and Kernan 1996* Benchmarks, case study
studies, and benchmarks Davies et al., 2018*
Budig et al., 2019*

3 Using less material Michell 1904* Efficiency, material efficiency, optimization, shape optimization, structural form,
Samyn 2004* structural optimization, topology optimization
Huberman et al., 2015
Liew et al., 2017*
Ibell et al., 2020*
Mayencourt and
Mueller 2020*
Ismail and Mueller 2021
He et al., 2022*
Jayasinghe et al., 2022

4 Using low-carbon and carbon- Arrigoni et al., 2018 Biogenic carbon, carbon capture, carbon storage, carbonation, local materials,
sequestering materials Clifford et al., 2018* recycled materials, sequestration, upcycled materials
Habert et al., 2020*
Hawkins 2021*
Ventura et al., 2022*

5 Designing for reuse and reusing Addis 2006* Circular economy, design for deconstruction, design for disassembly, end of life,
structural elements Densley Tingley and industrial ecology, reclaimed materials, reuse, urban mining
Davison 2012*
Iacovidou and Purnell
2016*
Brütting et al., 2019*
De Wolf et al., 2020*
Munaro et al., 2020*

6 Adaptively reusing whole structures Brand 1995* Adaptive reuse, building refurbishment, building service life, life cycle assessment,
and designing for longevity Rauf and Crawford 2015 life cycle embodied energy, longevity, recurrent embodied energy, structural retrofit
Vilches et al., 2017
MacNamara 2020*

7 Reducing construction and demolition Aye et al., 2012 Formwork-free, industrialized housing construction, prefabrication, resource
waste Teng et al., 2018 efficiency, waste minimization
Kedir and Hall 2021

8 Reducing load demands Worrell et al., 2016* Demand reduction, load reduction, overdesign, structural utilization
Orr et al., 2019
Hawkins et al., 2021*

9 Exploiting standardization and/or Mitchell 2005* Archetypes, availability, clustering, complexity, material efficiency, fabrication-
customization Moynihan and Allwood aware design rationalization, regular grid, standardization
2014
Tan 2015*
Stephan and
Athanassiadis 2017
Stephen et al., 2018*
Koronaki et al., 2020*
Gauch et al., 2022*

(continued on next page)

9
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Table 2 (continued )

Selected references Strategy-specific unique keywords

10 Implementing active structures Spencer and Active control systems, adaptive structures, structural control, performance-based
Nagarajaiah 2003* design
Weidner et al., 2018*
Senatore et al., 2019*

11 Integrating systems Huberman et al., 2015 Exposed structure, integrated design, life-cycle energy efficiency, multi-objective
Brown and Mueller optimization
2016
Lydon et al., 2019
Kiss and Szalay 2020
Gascón Alvarez and
Mueller 2021*
Hartwell and Mueller
2021*
Broyles et al., 2022
Weber and Mueller
2022

design. Rather, both structural material quantities and embodied carbon coefficients should be updated throughout the design process.

4.3.2. Strategy 0b. Statistically predicting embodied carbon

Description, literature development, sub-strategies, and prevalence in literature. This strategy has emerged with the growth of
data analysis, statistics, and machine learning. Statistical methods are used to predict embodied carbon of structural systems given
structural parameters, bypassing the need to dimension all structural elements to calculate material quantities. The prediction model
can be created using existing datasets [36,37] or by generating large datasets through simulation. The former approach is related to
Strategy 2, while the latter approach is related to Strategy 1 and has been demonstrated both at the building scale [38–40] and at the
urban scale [41,42]. The literature meta-analyses show that this strategy has only emerged more recently, with the universal growth in
popularity of data analysis, and is much less common than the other baseline strategy, Strategy 0a (Figs. 6 and 7).
Advantages, state of the art, best practices, and limitations. For reliable predictions, this strategy can offer an efficient alternative
to bottom-up estimates (Strategy 0a) or benchmarking (Strategy 2). However, it currently may not be ready to be implemented
practically at scale. For approaches using existing datasets, the primary limitation is the need for large and standardized data sets for
improved accuracy. To be more specific, the sometimes plentiful data that does exist about buildings does not always match the
resolution required for the desired design objectives. The scarcity and sparsity of data also affects the simulation-based approach, since
the data informs the parameters on which to statistically train the embodied carbon predictive model [43].

4.3.3. Strategy 1. Exploring or optimizing the parametric design space

Description and prevalence in literature. In this strategy, the range of structural design solutions is modeled as a parametric design
space, where design decisions are represented by design variables. Design performance of each design can be quantified as one or more
design objectives, including embodied carbon. The design space can not only be explored but also optimized for single or multiple
objectives [44] (see also Strategy 11 for examples and literature on multi-objective optimization). The parametric framework also
enables the designer to explore other high-performing designs beyond the optimum, which has benefits in providing design alter­
natives in early-stage design [11]. This strategy is moderately prevalent in the literature (Figs. 6 and 7).
Literature origins and development. Optimizing for minimum embodied carbon may have some roots in and similarities to classical
structural optimization. The key difference is that classical structural optimization, discussed more in Strategy 3, typically minimizes
weight or volume rather than embodied carbon [45]. However, minimizing weight or volume may not always give the lowest carbon
design solution in multi-material structures due to tradeoffs in strengths and embodied carbon intensity between structural materials
[46–49]. Considering a structural element as a functional unit can help understand these tradeoffs. For example [46] compares the
embodied carbon of beams and columns of different materials and equivalent structural demand. With multi-material structural
systems, it becomes all the more important to use embodied carbon rather than weight as an objective for low-carbon design [48,49].
Some of the earliest literature on minimizing embodied emissions associated with structural elements dates back to the 2000s,
usually in combination with operational energy and on a whole building level [50–52]. Literature formulating embodied energy as the
sole minimization objective also emerged during this time [53]. This comes about a century after classical structural optimization first
emerged.
State of the art. Since then, several others have formulated parametric spaces to more broadly understand the effects of design
decisions on producing design solutions with low embodied carbon, rather than strictly minimizing embodied carbon [47,54–58].
Foraboschi et al., 2014 [47] was one of the first to investigate the relationship between embodied energy and building height in tall
buildings made of reinforced concrete and steel. Their major findings include that the choice of floor system had the most significant
effect on embodied energy, and that an embodied energy premium for height exists. Gauch et al., 2022 [58] presents one of the most
spatially comprehensive parametric structural models in the literature, with variables for concrete, steel, and timber frames; grid
spans; floor systems; and foundations. Several of these parametric models have added cost as an objective in the parametric framework
to enhance the decision-making process [55,58,59]. Some incorporate uncertainty associated with embodied carbon coefficients using

10
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Montecarlo simulation [60–62].

Some have leveraged the parametric model to use data analysis and machine learning techniques, such as dimensionality reduction,
to identify the importance of design variables on a given objective [63]. Aside from Hens et al., 2021 [57], few have utilized this
method for embodied carbon performance yet. The approach can be readily combined with Strategy 0b.
Parametric frameworks are commonly combined with baseline Strategy 0a, sometimes made from scratch using spreadsheets or
algorithmic plug-ins such as Grasshopper for Rhino or Dynamo for Revit. Some proprietary software using parametric frameworks to
explore design decisions based on embodied carbon have very recently become available, such as PANDA [64] from Structural PANDA
Ltd. and the authors of [58], B + G Structural Web Tool from Bollinger + Grohmann [65], and Carbon Designer 3D from One Click LCA
[66].
Advantages, limitations, and use with other strategies. The published parametric studies can still provide some insight on general
rules of thumb. For example, several studies have identified floor systems as one of the most decisive design variables for embodied
carbon [15,47,52,54,56,67–69]. However, for the comparison between timber structural systems in Ref. [57], floor system type was
not considered a design variable and thus building height and envelope area were identified as the most decisive geometric variables
for determining embodied carbon. As this trivial example demonstrates, results from such parametric studies should be considered
with generalizability and specificity in mind. A multitude of design variables and design decisions are available for any structural
design problem, and each design brief will face different constraints. Each project’s parametric model thus helps reveal the most
impactful design decisions specific to the given brief. In fact, the effectiveness of many of the other strategies listed in this paper can be
quantified for a given project by using a parametric framework.
Another limitation to implementing this strategy is that constructing a parametric model can be unintuitive, difficult, and time-
consuming. In such situations, it is common for designers to lean on rules of thumb and case studies instead of parametric models,
such as the following strategy.

4.3.4. Strategy 2. Comparing design concepts, case studies, and benchmarks

Description, prevalence in literature, use with other strategies, and advantages. One of the most common strategies appearing in
literature is to compare one design of a structural system against another. Like the other holistic design strategy (Strategy 1), this
strategy can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the other strategies. Compared to Strategy 1, this strategy can afford higher-
resolution analysis for each of a few design alternatives, at the expense of a lower-resolution understanding of other alternatives
available in the wider design space.
Limitations. This lower-resolution understanding of other alternatives is its major drawback: overlooking other viable or even
better designs in the design space. The concern of generalizability and specificity mentioned in Strategy 1 is also amplified: the
resulting recommendations from published case studies should be scrutinized for applicability in specific projects. This concern is
recognized in several publications [4,70–73] and strengthens the argument for pursuing a parametric framework for project-specific
insights.
Sub-strategies. The publications that utilize this strategy could be further categorized into a few sub-strategies based on the designs
being compared. For example, conceptual designs could be compared against each other [47,68,69,74–79]. This relative comparison
of embodied carbon performance can be effective for early-stage design estimations. Other sub-strategies include comparisons to
absolute LCA values: conceptual alternatives could be compared to a baseline built design [80,81], conceptual designs could also be
compared to benchmark performance data from an aggregate of built designs, or absolute performance data could be analyzed to
extract decision-making features that are most important [36,37,82]. Using absolute performance data to inform benchmark targets
can reduce embodied carbon in early-stage design [14], but it is also important to keep in mind the performance gap between
early-stage embodied carbon estimation and as-built embodied carbon quantification [10,83]. In other words, absolute and relative
targets for embodied carbon performance are both important. (This idea was identified as early as 2003 [84].)
State of the art and best practices. Regardless of whether the comparison is on relative or absolute embodied carbon performance,
determining a shared functional unit for the metric is crucial for ensuring fair comparisons. It is common to report amounts of carbon
dioxide equivalent per floor area.
A variety of databases and benchmarks exist [22,85–87]. A general critique of published embodied carbon data of built projects is
that inconsistencies in temporal and spatial embodied carbon calculation and LCA data need to be mitigated [83,88,89]. More
standardization must be introduced to the quantification process to validate the absolute embodied carbon performance in these
building data. In the meantime, this further motivates the effectiveness of using relative performance between conceptual designs as a
practical step designers can take to reduce embodied carbon in early-stage design, rather than relying on benchmarks of inconsistent
quality.

4.3.5. Strategy 3. Using less material

Description and prevalence in literature. While materials reduction in any part of a building can contribute to lower embodied
carbon, the biggest opportunity lies specifically in reducing structural material quantities. They typically dominate the dead load that
the building must withstand, and studies have shown that current structural engineering practices are still materially inefficient [90,
91]. This strategy is moderately prevalent in the top cited literature (Fig. 7) but appears in nearly every existing strategy list (Fig. 6).
Literature development and state of the art. The strategy of reducing and minimizing structural material quantities has historically
been utilized and successful for single material components and systems. Most examples minimize structural material quantities by
varying size, shape, and/or topology.
Some historic examples that achieve material efficiency through structural geometry include vaults (e.g. stone [92], mud-brick

11
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

[93], or ceramic tile [94]), ribbed concrete [95], varied-thickness corrugated concrete [96,97], and other thin shell systems [98,99]
(Fig. 9). In particular, funicular geometries that rely primarily on compressive action enable more flexibility in material choice [100].
Varying degrees of material efficiency are also prevalent in present-day engineering practice where bending is inevitable. Waffle
slabs and ribbed slabs act as floor systems that are more materially efficient than a flat slab. Most steel beam sections have geometries
that are not only efficient to fabricate but also efficient for carrying bending load. In everyday engineering, beams, columns, floors, and
other structural elements are typically designed to the minimum size required to meet structural demand as determined by code.
There have also been cultural motivations for material efficiency. For example, for Frei Otto, a pioneer in lightweight structures,
experiencing World War II and its aftermath in his early life influenced his work: he embraced material efficiency, cost reduction, and
ephemerality in structures [101]. Such engineering inspirations have evolved into an international movement for lightweight struc­
tures that has emerged in present-day structural engineering, not exclusively motivated by sustainability but also out of a desire to
oppose the “evil” of dead loads and to celebrate lightness [102].
There is also a rich history to analytical approaches to structural material optimization, such as Michell trusses [103], and Samyn’s
volume and displacement indicators, which can facilitate selecting across element sections and typologies for minimizing structural
material quantities [104]. Early work in topology optimization focused on computationally determining minimum weight structures of
a single material [105]. The problem formulation in the field of topology optimization seldom allows free exploration of the design
space, instead producing a single optimal result if the problem converges.
Most early research in structural material minimization was motivated by cost. As awareness around sustainability grew, it was not
uncommon to equate “sustainable structural engineering” with “minimizing material consumption” [106]. More recently, though, the
field is more aware that minimizing material usage is only one aspect of sustainability in structures [107]. Sustainability as a renewed
motivator has now paved the way for innovative ways to minimize material in structural elements, particularly through shaping beam
and floor elements of a given material [108–114.] Progress in the field of topology optimization has also continued to bridge the gap

Fig. 9. Examples of materially efficient structures from history. Clockwise from top left: Kings College Chapel (1515), Zarzuela Hippodrome (1941), Los Manantiales
Restaurant (1958), Munich Olympic Stadium (1972).

12
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

between theoretical optimality and constructability within the optimization framework [115], making it a rich field to draw from to
implement this strategy.
Finally, a more philosophical and less technical approach to implementing the strategy of using less material in structural systems is
to not build anything at all. Where possible, structural engineers can use their knowledge of embodied carbon impacts of structural
systems and buildings to “steer clients away from the presumption of a new building” and avoid embodied emissions entirely [116].
Advantages, use with other strategies, and limitations. This strategy is effective when assuming one structural material in the
design space, which is typical in the literature implementing this strategy. However, with multiple materials and multiple embodied
carbon coefficients, it may be more effective to multiply through structural quantities and embodied carbon coefficients to minimize
embodied carbon; literature using this strategy is discussed more in Strategy 1.
The challenge of constructing complex shapes has long been a barrier to implementing optimized structural elements at a wider
scale. However, advancements in digital fabrication offer a way to overcome this barrier. For example, digital fabrication has
continued to enable the rise of mass timber at a large scale [117]. CNC technology enables precise fabrication of materially efficient
shaped beams and floor systems [110,112]. Some early concrete structures with materially efficient shapes often required materially
intensive formwork for construction. Now, a variety of alternatives exist, including 3D printing technologies [118] and flexible (e.g.
fabric) formwork [119]. While these alternatives have their own unique limitations to widespread adoption at scale, overall their
potential demonstrates how digital fabrication can offer joint carbon reduction strategies in material efficiency through design and
through Strategy 7 [120].

4.3.6. Strategy 4. Using low-carbon and carbon-sequestering materials

Description, prevalence in literature, use with other strategies, and limitations. This strategy involves selecting low-carbon or
carbon-sequestering materials for structural design. It is by far the most common strategy in top cited literature (Fig. 7). While this
strategy can be effective, if implemented alone, it may not be sufficient to ensure low-carbon designs due to tradeoffs in between
structural material quantity and embodied carbon coefficients in different materials. In other words, the promise of a “green material”
is misleading; more often than not, more holistic design strategies (such as Strategy 1, Strategy 2) are required to make a structure
lower-carbon [46,121].
Timber is largely the most common and structurally competitive bio-based structural material. Other low-carbon materials include
recycled or reclaimed materials.
Any carbon sequestered in structural materials is eventually released back into the atmosphere after the materials’ end of life.
Sequestration values could be reported separately to create a compelling design narrative, but it is more resourceful to be materially
efficient with carbon-sequestering material (rather than using as much as possible.)
More material-specific details are provided in the following subsections.
4.3.6.1. Bio-based materials. Advantages. There are multiple sustainability benefits of using bio-based materials. One direct benefit is
the relatively low emissions associated with the production of most bio-based materials at the cradle-to-gate scope. Some also highlight
carbon sequestration as an emissions-related benefit to bio-based materials; see also 4.3.6.3 Carbon sequestration or storage. Other
benefits indirectly related to emissions are the potential for biodegradation at end-of-life as well as their renewability.
Sub-strategies. Timber is the most prevalent bio-based structural material, both in global history [122,123] and increasingly in
modern mass timber construction. The latter enables scales competitive to those of concrete and steel thanks to developments in
engineered wood products (EWP). Mid-rise to high-rise timber structural systems are now possible, though their effectiveness requires
timber-specific design approaches (as opposed to transferring strategies from concrete or steel) [121]. The lower carbon coefficient
associated with timber products is contingent on sustainable forestry practices [124]. The adhesives in EWP can sometimes affect
end-of-life disposal (and emit toxic compounds during manufacturing), but adhesive-free EWP are also available as an alternative.
Most other bio-based building materials have not yet been recognized as structural materials that are competitive with timber as a
structural material. These alternative bio-based materials lower carbon in insulation materials and include hempcrete [125,126],
mycelium [100,127], and straw bale [128,129]. Where structural use is possible, it is valuable to evaluate mechanical and thermal
properties together to balance embodied and operational performance; see also Strategy 11.
One exceptional bio-based material used structurally in global history is bamboo, a rapid-growing grass. Local availability made the
structural material popular in vernacular architecture from South America and Asia. While local availability is limited in other regions
of the world, its rapid growth and high sequestration rates relative to timber make it appealing for sustainability as a structural
material. Key considerations in structural use of bamboo include low stiffness, splitting, buckling, and connection design [130]. Other
modern developments that transform bamboo from its original form as a culm include laminated bamboo lumber [131] or use as
concrete reinforcing [132].
4.3.6.2. Concrete with lower embodied carbon. Sub-strategies and state of the art. Emissions in concrete material production are
dominated by cement production. A variety of technologies are being developed to reduce the embodied carbon of concrete. These
include using Portland cement replacement, enhancing material resilience (such as through self-healing concrete), and carbon capture
and storage/sequestration (CCS) or carbon capture and use/utilization (CCU) technologies (more under 4.3.6.3 Carbon sequestration or
storage) [133–136]. These technologies range in cost-effectiveness and industry readiness. Most importantly, large-scale cement
replacement may not be possible in the next decade [135], and at the moment, CCS and CCU technologies are largely uneconomical
[133].
The use of bio-based materials (such as hemp, flax, coconut shells, and bamboo) in concrete is also a growing research area, with
appeal from sustainability, cost, availability, and thermal perspectives [132,137]. However, the reduced durability of concrete with
bio-based aggregate remains a challenge [137].

13
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Use with other strategies. Most of the literature also acknowledges the importance of combining these material strategies with
design- and construction-related strategies, especially through use of precast concrete and 3D-printed concrete. For example, mini­
mizing global warming potential is becoming a more popular optimization objective for concrete mix design [138], an opportunity
when designing mixes with desirable rheological properties for 3D-printed concrete [139].
Advantages and best practices. In addition to having a high emissions intensity, concrete is highly prevalent as a structural ma­
terial: concrete and cement production has far exceeded that of steel and timber (in kg per capita [133]). This magnitude suggests that
a plurality of strategies at the material and design level are required to mitigate its overall impact [135].
4.3.6.3. Carbon sequestration or storage. Best practices. One popular feature of bio-based materials such as timber is their ability to
sequester carbon, or to store “biogenic carbon” within the material. Carbon sequestration is also increasingly available for non-bio-
based materials; carbon capture and utilization in concrete (CCU concrete) has already become a structural material available in
the industry. There are varying opinions on whether carbon sequestration should be accounted for using negative embodied carbon
coefficients. One incomplete strategy is to use as much carbon-sequestering materials as possible to utilize more of the negative values
offered by sequestration, but this approach takes advantage of analyses that use a cradle-to-gate scope excluding the end-of-life phase.
In reality, the carbon sequestered in these materials is eventually released back into the atmosphere after the end-of-life of the material.
It is thus recommended that sequestration is only reported with end-of-life quantities [140].
Limitations and state of the art. Cement carbonation refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide into the cement material. A recent
report from the IPCC drew attention citing a study that this carbonation “offsets about one half of the carbonate emissions from current
cement production” [141–143]. However, the cited carbonation modeling relies on assumed parameters such as exposed surfaces and
carbonation depth inwards of the exposed surface, which require more work and standardization to improve confidence in the actual
magnitude of carbon captured by carbonation [135]. More significant carbon dioxide storage can be possible through CCS techniques
which are still uneconomical at scale [135].
4.3.6.4. Steel with lower or zero embodied carbon. Best practices. The highest potential for reducing emissions in metals at large,
including structural steel, lies in reducing use of fossil fuels in production [144]. For designers, this means that specifying steel from
low-carbon sources, such as electric arc furnaces, can be impactful. “Improved product-to-product recycling” is also listed as a strategy
of high importance [144]; designers can enable this by specifying steel elements with high recycled content.
4.3.6.5. Material recycling and upcycling. Best practices. Structural elements that use recycled content can have lower embodied
carbon than those made of newly manufactured material. However, it is important that emissions associated with the recycling process
are accounted for. The use of recycled content in structural steel is prevalent and financially incentivized, especially in Europe [27].
The carbon accounting can be complex; Appendix 2 of the World Steel Association’s Life Cycle Inventory Methodology Report [146]
provide details on different methods for accounting for recycled content in steel.
Debris and waste can constitute a reimagined structural material bank. For example, rubble debris or discarded tree parts can be
upcycled and structurally utilized for new construction, especially with the help of digital tools [147–149].
Recycling at the scale of structural elements is referred to as “reuse” in this paper and is covered in Strategy 5.
4.3.6.6. Earthen materials. Advantages. A variety of earthen materials have been used as structural materials for millennia. The
opportunity from a sustainability perspective lies with local availability and low-carbon production methods.
The embodied carbon of earthen structural materials is highly dependent on their manufacturing processes. For example, consider
sun-dried bricks and wood-fired bricks: the former represents a traditional approach with virtually zero emissions, while the latter
represents the modern-day norm with high emissions due to the heat required [150]. The magnitude of the difference in emissions
between the two materials can influence the larger conversation of material choice which includes socioeconomic factors [150].
End-of-life benefits are also possible with earthen structural materials, which may not be captured with a cradle-to-gate scope. A
review of the environmental benefits of earthen structural materials is provided by Ventura et al., 2022 [151].
4.3.6.7. Local material sourcing. Advantages and best practices. There are two primary considerations regarding the importance of
material sourcing in reducing embodied carbon in structural design.
The first consideration is how the material source directly affects the embodied carbon coefficient. For example, the ECC of steel
and concrete vary widely depending on the plant or fuel mix of the region in which it was produced. In practice, world average ECCs
might be a useful starting point in early-stage design, but additional refinement of these values throughout the design process based on
material sourcing knowledge will improve early-stage decision-making by reflecting actual benefits in using different structural
materials.
The second consideration is the emissions associated with transporting the materials to site. Logically, materials sourced closer to
the construction site will have lower transportation emissions. However, the literature highlights that the relative magnitude of these
transportation emissions varies by project. Wide variations of percentage embodied carbon or embodied energy are reported for
different types of structures, ranging from negligible (fractions of 1%) [152,153] to more significant [154,155].The tradeoffs between
material selection and material sourcing can only be examined for a given project through more holistic design strategies. The relative
amount of transportation emissions is usually higher with the use of lower-carbon materials [73,151,156]. Therefore, it may be more
important to precisely consider transportation emissions when designing with lower-carbon materials, such as adobe and earthen
materials [151,154] or recycled steel [155].
In addition to reducing transportation emissions, using local materials may also offer important socioeconomic benefits, which are
not discussed here.
4.3.6.8. Material longevity. Advantages. The durability and relative longevity of a structural material can contribute to its emissions
benefits at a cradle-to-grave scope. Related discussion at the structural system level is provided in Strategy 6.

14
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

4.3.7. Strategy 5. Designing for reuse and reusing structural elements

Description and prevalence in literature. The strategy of incorporating reused structural elements into structural design is not yet
prevalent in the literature (Fig. 7) but highly recommended in existing strategy lists (Fig. 6). Other related fields and terms that
encompass the reuse of structural elements include “industrial ecology”, “circular economy”, “design for disassembly”, and “urban
mining.”
Advantages and state of the art. Compared to using recycled materials, the benefit of reusing structural elements is that minimal
processing is needed to make use of an old structural element. This benefit can be difficult to quantify within the current framework of
LCA that is based on a linear economy model [157], but progress is being made [158]. Another tradeoff to this benefit is needing to
match the old element to a use case in a new structure. Optimization frameworks have been developed to address both of these
challenges, quantifying and optimizing reuse for architectural design [159–161].
Limitations and best practices. A number of challenges to increased reuse of structural elements exist, many of which are orga­
nizational and/or systemic and are thus less within the scope of designers [162–166]. While those barriers are lowered by other
stakeholders, there are still design-level strategies that designers can take to promote the reuse of structural elements. Aside from
specifying reused elements, designers can learn more about how new structures can be deliberately designed for deconstruction or
disassembly. Metrics are being developed for quantifying the recycling potential for buildings [163,167,168], but designers need not
wait for such standardized metrics to start designing for disassembly. Important design principles include connection details and
separability of materials, both of which enhance the ability for disassembly [169,170]. For a review of the typical reuse potential of
different structural elements by material, the reader is referred to Ref. [163].
A specific sub-strategy. Another specific opportunity for reuse of structural elements is the reuse of existing structural foundations
on site [27,170,171]. The potential for savings is large given the high contribution of foundations to embodied carbon of structural
systems; however, non-destructive testing is crucial for engineers to gather accurate information about the existing structure. [172]
This could also be considered a type of partial structural adaptive reuse; see also Strategy 6.
Outlook. Despite facing some challenges outside the scope of the designer, this strategy has been speculated to become an effective
strategy for reducing embodied carbon in structural systems if implemented at a larger scale. A global construction forecast by Oxford
Economics asserts that “Urban Mining is set to become the new normal” [173].

4.3.8. Strategy 6. Adaptively reusing whole structures and designing for longevity
Description and prevalence in literature. In the words of Stewart Brand, a writer who popularized the idea of “shearing layers” to
describe change in buildings, “longevity has no chance without serious Structure” [174]. While the previous strategy focuses on
prolonging the service life of individual structural elements through element-level reuse, this strategy considers prolonging the service
life of the whole structural system. This strategy is not yet prevalent in top cited literature (Fig. 7) despite being recommended by
nearly every existing strategy list (Fig. 6).
Literature development. The question of whether demolition or renewal is more environmentally beneficial has been a long and
ongoing conversation [175] that has increasingly gained quantitative evidence supporting renewal as a general recommendation for a
less carbon-intensive route. For specific buildings, quantitative frameworks can help inform this design decision [176,177]. Despite
recent progress on performing LCA of building refurbishment, LCA of structural refurbishment is largely overlooked [178].
Advantages and best practices. The success of structural longevity helps future designers to achieve the ultimate carbon-saving
design decision of avoiding new construction entirely [116,179]. There are several approaches for enhancing a structure’s
longevity. Ease of maintenance, repair, and renewal help ensure an alternative to demolition [174]. The emissions associated with this
maintenance and repair, called “recurrent” embodied carbon (as opposed to “initial” embodied carbon) cause the embodied carbon of
a building to increase slightly over its lifetime. While common for nonstructural elements, a less frequent but significant source of
recurrent embodied carbon in structures is the maintenance of major structural damage caused by disasters [180]. Proactively
designing for ease of structural maintenance can alleviate these potential additional emissions. Stewart Brand’s notion of “shearing
layers” also reminds designers that decoupling building components by maintenance periods can enhance longevity [174]. Dixit et al.,
2019 provide a detailed review of parameters that most impact recurrent embodied energy in buildings [181].
Limitations. A longer service life can reduce annual embodied carbon as well as the ratio of embodied to operational carbon over
the whole lifetime of the building [52,182]. However, given the relatively small ratio of recurrent to initial embodied carbon and the
small amount of control designers have over the actual lifespan of a building, it may not be effective for designers to rely on a year in
the life of the building as a functional unit. Rather, minimizing the upfront or initial embodied carbon of the building at construction
may be a more effective priority, while implementing principles that enable low-carbon maintenance to enhance the longevity of the
building.
Sub-strategies and use with other strategies. Programmatic flexibility is another aspect of structural longevity: structures designed
for flexible programs reduce barriers to future adaptive reuse [174,183]. As a result, it may be difficult to balance this approach with
optimization-based strategies such as Strategy 3 (Using less material) which may optimize for specific programs or load cases. On a
given project, designers can balance their knowledge and control over the ultimate building lifespan and programmatic fate to decide
which strategy to prioritize.
In some cases where designers do have knowledge on the lifetime of a building, a more effective strategy might be to “design for the
known lifetime of the building.” For a temporary pavilion, the functional unit of a year may be extremely effective, motivating the use
of low-carbon materials that are durable enough for the intended lifespan of the building. For example, Shigeru Ban’s paper structures
for temporary housing demonstrate this principle [184].
Outlook. Strategies related to the circular economy that can be challenging to evaluate at the whole-life scope. Nevertheless,

15
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

awareness and implementation of design principles can help achieve the benefits offered by these strategies. A concise summary of
such design principles for designers is provided by Ref. [183].

4.3.9. Strategy 7. Reducing construction and demolition waste

Description, advantages, and limitation. While direct on-site construction emissions only make up about 2% of embodied carbon
[185,186], other material inefficiencies of construction and demolition offer opportunities for emissions reductions. These include the
material waste associated with construction, such as formwork or discarded structural material, in addition to understanding the fate
of structural elements at end-of-life.
Construction and demolition generate a significant amount of waste [187,188]. Some of the sources of construction waste can be
attributed to construction management issues, but some can be alleviated in early-stage design [189].
A limitation of relying on this strategy is its relative impact may be small compared to addressing material efficiency of the
structural system itself, depending on the particular project or system.
Sub-strategies and use with other strategies. For many of the material wastes identified by Ref. [189] (which synthesizes material
waste causes in construction sites in Brazil in the 1990s), offsite construction or assembly, e.g. prefabrication, is offered as a potential
solution. Research suggests that the potential benefits of prefabrication are good but not guaranteed. Because of lighter structural
elements in addition to reduced construction and demolition material wastage, one of the greatest advantages of prefabrication is in
jointly implementing Strategy 3 [190–193]. Enhanced recyclability and ability for disassembly for reuse were identified as two ad­
vantages of prefabricated systems over onsite construction, though these were also identified as areas where prefabricated systems
could use even greater improvement [190,191]. These results show the importance of linking this strategy of prefabrication with
others such as 4.3.6.5 Material recycling and upcycling and Strategy 5. Another study found that prefabrication can reduce both
embodied and operational emissions, but in some cases the reduction was contingent on reuse of materials [194]. Transport emissions
are another important parameter; several studies warn that transport emissions can offset the benefits offered by prefabrication [192,
195]. Because prefabricated modules often include an integration of structural and thermal systems, the tradeoffs between embodied
and operational emissions are also cited as an important consideration [194] (this tradeoff is also discussed more at length in Strategy
11).
Prefabrication can be considered one strategy in a research field called “industrialized housing construction;” while housing-
specific, many of the industrialized construction methods can apply to most structural systems. A thorough review of waste reduc­
tion and overall resource efficiency achieved by industrialized housing construction techniques is provided by Ref. [196].
More generally, the choice of structural material can influence the amount of waste anticipated during construction due to greater
precision in off-site manufacturing. For example, the construction material inefficiencies associated with cast-in-place concrete ele­
ments are less likely to occur in mass timber construction [117]. These waste-related emissions savings are difficult to quantify in
early-stage design, but awareness of their potential benefits can provide some motivation for using structural materials and compo­
nents that can be manufactured with off-site precision.
Wastage from formwork can be reduced through maximizing formwork reuse, for example through repeated geometry. Another
approach is to eliminate formwork entirely through new construction technologies, with one of the most recent developments being
digital fabrication. Digital fabrication cuts across multiple other strategies, primarily Strategy 3. Given the low proportion of emissions
originating from construction, most of the carbon reduction potential of digital fabrication lies in the reduction of emissions from
reduced material quantities [120].
Unavoidable demolition waste can also be upcycled for new structural elements; this strategy is discussed more in 4.3.6.5 Material
recycling and upcycling.
Prevalence in literature and outlook. This strategy is not yet prevalent in the literature. Like other cradle-to-grave strategies, it is
not straightforward to calculate the emissions saved by implementing waste-reduction strategies, so it can be difficult to evaluate the
relative impact of these strategies in early-stage design. However, by being aware of these benefits, designers can be motivated to
implement these strategies, resulting in potential reductions in embodied carbon over the whole life cycle of the structure.

4.3.10. Strategy 8. Reducing load demands

Description, literature development, advantages, limitations, and prevalence in literature. Demand reductions have been iden­
tified as a viable approach for material efficiency [197]. In structural design, demand reductions mean reducing the design load of a
structure. This movement questions the overdesign that results from conservative loads prescribed in building code, in order to achieve
material efficiency and carbon reductions [91]. Much of this literature comes from the UK, which is a region with relatively low seismic
risk compared to other regions of the world which may prefer a more conservative engineering approach to material utilization. It has
been calculated that the carbon savings achieved by reducing loads are modest compared to other strategies such as shortening spans
[198]. Despite the modest benefit, the strategy is appealing because it comes with few adjustments to an existing structural design
configuration. The literature meta-analyses show that advocacy for this strategy has only emerged recently for structures.
Use with other strategies. This strategy could be compatible or conflicting with Strategy 6, depending on whether the project is a
new structure or can be a retrofit of an existing structure. On one hand, maintaining the potential overdesign currently required by
code enables future programmatic flexibility in new structures. On the other hand, the authors of Ref. [198] point out that adopting
reduced load demands allow for more reuse and retrofit of historically overdesigned structures.

4.3.11. Strategy 9. Exploiting standardization and/or customization

Description and prevalence in literature. Standardization and customization can occur at different levels of design, from the
component level to the holistic design level, each affecting embodied carbon in different ways. The literature meta-analyses show that

16
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

discussion around this strategy relative to structural embodied carbon is very recent.
Sub-strategies, advantages, and use with other strategies. For example, structural elements typically come in standard section
sizes. Optimization and digital fabrication methods may make a case for precise sections and/or shapes that minimize embodied
carbon, but projects that cannot implement that level of customization may face the construction constraint of using standard section
sizes (designing for this constraint is sometimes called “rationalization”). Such constraints will affect the exploration of low-carbon
design solutions [90,199]. The Qatar National Convention Center is given as one prominent example, where the intended material
efficiency was undermined by construction limitations [199]. While particular effects on embodied carbon are not yet studied, the
difficulty posed by geometric complexity on manufacturability is also recognized in space truss joints [200,201] and freeform surfaces
[202]. In general, reducing design complexity and utilizing design clustering are fabrication-aware design strategies for utilizing the
benefit of repeatability offered by mass production [203].
Another scale of standardization and customization to consider is at the design layout level. For example, several studies have
shown that the higher design complexity often comes at the cost of increased embodied carbon (and often increased cost), and that
regular structural grids are beneficial [15,58]. Standard structural grids can also enable a structure to be programmatically flexible for
future use, making this approach compatible with Strategy 6.
At an even broader scope of design, standardization and customization can be considered with respect to groups of structural
designs. This includes the use of archetypes or design clustering to group similar types of designs together. This can achieve some
design efficiency because carbon-reducing lessons from one project can be applied to several without repeating the analysis for small
levels of customization [2]. Archetypes can also be used to handle the modeling and prediction of embodied carbon at the building
stock scale [41], an approach long used in the field of urban operational energy modeling [204].
State of the art. Like in Strategy 2, when using archetypes and design clusters, there are potential missed opportunities in carbon
reduction due to tensions between generality and specificity. One example of carbon-aware design standardization is a tradeoff
analysis between material intensity over-design and number of standardized design clusters of post-disaster housing; the analysis
identifies how few clusters could effectively address the different needs of all climates [205].
Best practices. In summary, a balance between standardization and customization plays an important role at all scales of designing
low-carbon structures. Rather than prescribe a specific balance for all projects, designers are encouraged to be mindful of finding the
right balance to achieve low carbon for a given project.

4.3.12. Strategy 10. Implementing active structures

Description and advantages. The strategy of implementing active structures also addresses material overdesign. Instead of
designing material quantities by extreme design scenarios, which tends to oversize structural elements, this strategy achieves material
efficiency achieved by designing the structure to actively adapt to extreme design scenarios when needed.
Literature development and prevalence. The use of active systems in structures is not new, particularly in “performance-based
design”, where motion constraints are prioritized over strength criteria. The term “structural control” is sometimes used to refer to the
active, semi-active, and energy-dissipating mechanisms that improve and reduce structural responses to major environmental hazards
and vibrations [206–208]. These active systems achieve serviceability objectives better than passive equivalents, but can also require
less material intensity. However, because of the focus on serviceability constraints, it has not usually been a priority to quantify these
material savings. Similarly, advocacy for this strategy in literature on structural embodied carbon has only emerged very recently.
State of the art and advantages. More recent research embraces the use of active systems not only for serviceability constraints but
also to reduce structural material and emissions. These explorations have been combined with Strategy 1 to demonstrate how active or
“adaptive” structures can be designed to minimize embodied and operational carbon, being less materially intensive (in some studies,
by 50–65% compared to passive equivalents) and thus demonstrating compatibility with Strategy 3 [209–212].
Limitations and outlook. Most of the research has been done at a prototype level and needs more work to be scaled up for
widespread implementation. One identified opportunity on the horizon is to incorporate these actuated systems within bending el­
ements, such as beams and floor slabs, for even greater carbon savings [213,214].

4.3.13. Strategy 11. Integrating systems

Description, advantages, and limitation. The previous strategies demonstrate that much can be done to reduce the embodied
carbon contribution of the structural system as an isolated subsystem of the building. However, from a whole building perspective,
focusing on structural systems in isolation may overlook inevitable tradeoffs between embodied and operational impacts. Further­
more, early-stage design presents great opportunities for holistic and interdisciplinary design. By designing structural systems that
have an additional function for some other aspect of building performance (such as finishes, facades, acoustics, or thermal perfor­
mance), it is possible to reduce material quantities and emissions in the building at large. To achieve this, early-stage interdisciplinary
collaboration is required, which can sometimes be a limitation.
Literature development. Tradeoffs between embodied and operational carbon are widely acknowledged in the literature [4,71,
215–219]. The extent of these tradeoffs can be project-dependent. Multi-objective optimization is a common and effective strategy for
understanding the extent of these tradeoffs. One particular study found that “focusing only on the embodied or operational impact” led
to “a suboptimal solution” [215]. On the other hand, another study exploring many climates and structural typologies found that “the
precise nature of tradeoffs between structure and energy are extremely sensitive to context”, with some climates and typologies
exhibiting no tradeoff at all [220].
State of the art and prevalence in literature. For those contexts where tradeoffs are prominent, integrating the design of structural
systems with other building systems - such as finishes, insulation, acoustics, and even MEP - can result in reduced emissions. For

17
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

example, concrete slabs can be optimized for both embodied and operational performance by designing thermal mass performance
alongside shape for structural material efficiency [108,221], or alongside a combination of shape and filler slab material [222]. A
streamlined digital process also facilitated the interdisciplinary design of a heating and cooling system integrated with a materially
efficient concrete roof geometry [223]. Integrating structure with facade offers opportunities to explore and optimize structure with
lighting performance [224,225]. In the literature, this strategy has only recently emerged to address embodied carbon.
Sub-strategies and use with other strategies. Designing prefabricated units such as sandwich panels for structural and thermal
performance can also be an approach that jointly achieves Strategy 7. Though overall embodied carbon savings are not quantified, this
sandwich panel [226] also exhibits potential savings by Strategy 9 because it was developed for manufacturing at a standard precast
facility.
Sometimes success of integrated design is not in directly reducing operational carbon but in the inherent material savings from
multifunctional building elements that reduce overall emissions. For example, tradeoffs between structural and acoustic performance
were explored to identify shaped concrete slabs as a potentially lower-carbon solution to traditional layered floor slabs with acoustic
insulation [227]. Sometimes the simple strategy of leaving structure exposed for architectural expression can achieve these material
savings [228]. Fluid-filled structural elements have also been proposed as a potential dual-purpose solution for structural and thermal
performance [229].
The literature demonstrates that exploring these tradeoffs for integrated systems is highly compatible with Strategy 1.

5. Discussion
The results provide valuable insights into aspects of literature frequency, state-of-the-art, and implementation of the identified
strategies. These insights can guide and inform designers interested in reducing embodied carbon during early-stage design; they can
especially take note of the strategies that are fully and immediately implementable. For those strategies which are still nascent,
scholars can act on these findings to develop further research and make those strategies more accessible in the future, enhancing the
plurality of strategies available to designers. Future researchers can also enhance these findings by overcoming limitations encoun­
tered in this study.

5.1. Key findings

Fig. 4 provides insight regarding the history of literature discourse on embodied and operational impacts of buildings. One key
finding from this analysis is that embodied impacts of structure make up a minority of all publications which mention embodied
impacts of buildings, despite the structural system tending to dominate the embodied impacts of a building. This trend suggests that
more effort is needed to prioritize reducing embodied carbon from structural systems in buildings.
Analysis from Figs. 6, 7 and 8 lead to the following insights about the existing literature on reducing embodied carbon in structural
systems:
• Strategy 2 (Comparing design concepts, case studies, and benchmarks) has historically been the most common strategy for carbon
reduction. Parametric techniques now make for smoother explorations of the design space than isolated case studies, but Strategy 1
(Exploring or optimizing the parametric design space) still lags behind in literature and, likely, implementation. This trend reflects
that between the two holistic strategies, case studies are easier to implement, while knowledge and use of parametric design has
only recently started to grow.
• Of material-specific strategies, Strategy 4 (Using low-carbon and carbon-sequestering materials) has been more widely advocated
than Strategy 3 (Using less material) for specifically reducing embodied carbon in structures. This may partly be explained by
material minimization being historically motivated more by resource limitations and economics than by sustainability (see Strategy
1).
• Several cradle-to-grave strategies have also long been advocated for embodied carbon reduction, such as Strategy 5 (Reusing
structural elements) and Strategy 6 (Adaptively reusing whole structures and designing for longevity), especially in strategy lists.
• Plenty of literature identifies Strategy 0a (Estimating embodied carbon from bottom-up quantities) as a baseline strategy for re­
ductions during design. However, the alternative baseline strategy of Strategy 0b (Statistically predicting embodied carbon) re­
mains at an early research stage, partly due to data scarcity and sparsity.
• Most “additional strategies” do not appear much in literature - if at all, only very recently. The reasons likely vary by strategy. For
example, Strategy 8 (Reducing load demands) has only seen recent region-specific advocacy and also does not require much
research - its benefits are self-evident.
Analyses from Reference Set 2, derived from the keyword search, show some strategies to be underrepresented in the literature. The
representative publications (Table 2) offer another perspective by inspecting other fields which provide strategy-relevant solutions
without the expected keywords. In fact, many of these fields developed long before awareness of embodied carbon. Most notably, for
Strategy 3 (Using less material), structural optimization has a rich history that was incentivized by cost before sustainability. Similarly,
Strategy 10 (Implementing active structures) has roots in the older field of “structural control” originally developed for performance-
based design and serviceability engineering for hazard response.
A matrix summary of the detailed literature review by strategy (4.3 Literature review by strategy) is given in Table 3.

5.2. Relative compatibility between strategies

Some of the identified strategies are additively effective, while others do not produce full benefits when combined or can even have

18
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Table 3
Summary of literature review by strategy.

Literature origins/development Advantages (+) and limitations (− ) Use with other strategies

0a Estimating embodied n/a + Greater opportunities to reduce EC Serves as a baseline for

carbon from bottom-up in early stages understanding reductions using
quantities − Uncertainty in early-stage design other strategies.

0b Statistically predicting Statistics, data analysis, and machine + If predictions are reliable, could be When reliable, could serve as an
embodied carbon learning. more efficient than bottom-up alternative to Strategy 0a.
estimates Existing datasets can be informed
− Scarcity and sparsity of data by benchmarks (Strategy 2).
Synthetic datasets can be generated
with parametric models ready for
optimization and exploration
(Strategy 1).

1 Exploring or optimizing Classical structural optimization, which + Provides insights on influential Effectiveness of many of the other
the parametric design optimized weight or material as an design decisions strategies can be quantified for a
space objective. This has developed more − A parametric framework for a given project via a parametric
recently into optimization of embodied specific building might not be framework.
impacts as an objective. generalizable
− Constructing a parametric model can
be unintuitive, difficult, and time-
consuming

2 Comparing design n/a + Analyze just a few design Effectiveness of many of the other
concepts, case studies, alternatives in higher resolution strategies can be quantified for a
and benchmarks − May overlook other viable or even given project through case study
better designs in the design space comparison.
− Recommendations from case studies
for specific projects may not be
generalizable

3 Using less material Funicular geometries, waffle and ribbed + Effective for single materials When working with multiple
slabs, typical beam sections, lightweight − Constructability can be a challenge materials, it might be preferable to
structures, structural optimization, for specially optimized structures minimize embodied carbon (see
building nothing. − May not work for minimum Strategy 1).
embodied carbon when multiple Digital fabrication solutions also
materials are concerned relate to Strategy 7.

4 Using low-carbon and n/a + (Varies by sub-strategy) Holistic strategies (Strategy 1,

carbon-sequestering − May not work for minimum Strategy 2) can help navigate
materials embodied carbon when multiple tradeoffs between this strategy and
materials are concerned material efficiency (Strategy 3).

5 Designing for reuse and n/a + Minimal processing is needed to A component-level version of
reusing structural make use of an old structural element Strategy 6. Unlike Strategy 6, may
elements − Organizational, logistical, systemic require more logistics around
barriers disassembly and transport.

6 Adaptively reusing Ongoing conversation of whether + Avoids new construction entirely Designing for programmatic
whole structures and demolition or renewal is more − “Recurrent” embodied carbon is flexibility may clash with e.g.
designing for longevity environmentally beneficial. harder for designers to minimize in Strategy 3.
early-stage design compared to
“upfront/initial” embodied carbon

7 Reducing construction Varies. “Industrialized housing + Addresses material inefficiency just Prefabrication alone isn’t enough
and demolition waste construction" for prefabrication. before and after the building’s lifetime to guarantee waste reduction:
− Depending on the system, it could be should be combined with e.g.
more impactful to improve material Strategy 3, Strategy 5, Strategy 11.
efficiency in the structural system itself

8 Reducing load demands Reducing demands as a general approach + Few adjustments are needed to apply Has a complex relationship with
for material efficiency. to an existing structural design Strategy 6.
configuration
− Regions with hazards may have a
more conservative approach to
material utilization

9 Exploiting n/a + Complexity can come at the cost of Standardization can enhance
standardization and/or increased embodied carbon flexibility for future use (Strategy
customization + Archetypes can facilitate 6).
generalizable recommendations
− The balance between

(continued on next page)

19
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Table 3 (continued )

Literature origins/development Advantages (+) and limitations (− ) Use with other strategies

standardization and customization to

effectively reduce embodied carbon
varies by project

10 Implementing active "Performance-based design": active + Avoids material overdesign Some state of the art has shown
structures systems that respond to major hazards and − Prototype scale; may not yet be particular compatibility with
vibrations scalable Strategy 1 and 3.

11 Integrating systems Acknowledgment of tradeoffs between + Can reduce material and emissions Prefabricated units may reduce
embodied and operational carbon. in the building through multiple construction waste (Strategy 7) and
Multi-objective optimization to address systems utilize standardization (Strategy 9).
these tradeoffs. − Requires multiple disciplines to Multi-objective optimization or
collaborate early in design exploration is compatible with
Strategy 1.

contradictory relationships with trade-offs involved. In this paper we call strategies that are at least additively effective as
“compatible”.
Compatibility between strategies is seldom discussed in existing strategy lists. An evaluation of strategy compatibility is presented
in Fig. 10 based on findings from literature and authors’ best judgment.
More detailed comments on pairs of strategies are included in Appendix B.

5.3. Summary of accessibility, implementability, and impact

A qualitative summary of findings from this study is provided in Fig. 11. These high-level evaluations are necessarily generalized;
implementability and impact will certainly depend on many factors, including the design team and project involved. Nevertheless,

Fig. 10. Matrix evaluating compatibility between strategies.

20
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Fig. 11. Qualitative summary of findings for each strategy.

designers could use this table in combination with Fig. 10 in early-stage structural design as a guide for which strategies to prioritize.
Most notably, the baseline, holistic design, and material-specific strategies (0a through 4) represent the highest-impact strategies,
with most also having high amounts of literature and implementability. Between the two holistic design strategies, while it may be
easier to implement Strategy 2 in practice, Strategy 1 can offer higher impact. We welcome a more quantitative evaluation of such
strategies in the future, which has not yet been carried out in the literature and could be useful to designers.

5.4. Limitations and future work

This paper proposes an initial evaluation of the prevalence and relative effectiveness of strategies, but it is a fundamental challenge
to develop evidence-based comparisons in a generalized way. Further research in policy, practice, or research could agree upon
standardized benchmarks to work towards this goal.
Aside from this methodological limitation, several important practical dimensions which are not always considered in the strategies

21
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

mentioned are also discussed here: cost, cultural context, and extension of strategies to the urban scale.
Cost is a key driver in decision-making. Finding low-carbon structures does not guarantee a low-cost design solution, which may be
prioritized by clients. Webb [230] envisions a global context where the economics of labor and material are weighted such that the
high cost of material drives the incentives for low-weight and low-carbon structures. Several case studies and parametric studies have
incorporated cost as an additional objective, showing that cost and carbon tend to be complementary rather than competing objectives
[55,58,59,69]. However, “rationalization” related to tradeoffs in standardization and customization can result in material in­
efficiencies when designing for cost [90]. Like the tradeoffs between embodied and operational carbon, the existence of tradeoffs
between carbon and cost may be project-dependent. Aside from cost, other architectural constraints can also introduce tradeoffs
against embodied carbon, such as existing building codes, program, availability of skills and resources, and aesthetics.
Some of the regional variations in cost have to do with material availability (see also 4.3.6.7 Local material sourcing). Structural
material selection may also have cultural costs, depending on regional preferences for different structural materials, both local and
imported. For example, criticism of concrete as a carbon-intensive structural material in the Global South should be tempered by
acknowledgment of the key role concrete played in the development of the Global South as an advanced structural material [231].
Early-stage embodied carbon estimations applied to existing or projected building stocks also present an opportunity to reduce
emissions at the urban scale [41]. Accounting for embodied impacts alongside transport and operational impacts becomes more
important at the urban scale [42,232,233].

6. Conclusion
The findings demonstrate a plurality of strategies to reduce embodied carbon in early-stage structural design, varying in breadth of
literature, ease of implementation, and impact. The analyses presented in this paper are the result of a novel effort to provide a
literature-supported synthesis of available strategies and their relation to each other.
The network of strategies are sorted into several classes: holistic design strategies, material-specific strategies, cradle-to-grave
strategies, and additional strategies. The most common strategy by far is the material-specific Strategy 4 (Using low-carbon and
carbon-sequestering materials), followed by the holistic Strategy 2 (Comparing design concepts, case studies, and benchmarks)
(Figs. 6, 7, 8). Historic and social forces likely shaped this phenomenon. The literature suggests that other strategies may hold more
potential for effectiveness with immediate implementability, and that strategies might be considered together for even greater
effectiveness (Fig. 10). The strategies evaluated to be most implementable and effective are primarily the holistic design and material-
specific strategies (Fig. 11). The work is novel in its methodology and in establishing a comparative framework for discussing these
strategies in order to reach these conclusions; this comparative framework could be improved in future work.
Implementing these strategies may require designers to take more agency in the design process and to overcome traditional barriers
between disciplines through compromise, collaboration, and communication. Stewart Brand wrote that “the temptation to customize a
building around a new technology is always enormous, and it is nearly always unnecessary” [174]. While researchers continue to make
promising advances in individual strategies, designers need not wait for a miracle technology to achieve impactful reductions in
embodied carbon of building structures: a suite of accessible and high-impact strategies are within reach.

Funding sources
This work was generously supported by the following fellowships: the Presidential Graduate Fellowship from MIT Office of
Graduate Education, the J. A. Curtis (1953) Fund from MIT School of Architecture + Planning, and the “Urban Planning and Design
Ready for 2030 (UP2030)” project funded by the research and Innovation actions to support the implementation of the Climate-
Neutral and Smart Cities Mission HORIZON-MISS-2021-CIT-02.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Granular literature review data is provided in the appendices.

Acknowledgements
Jonathan Broyles provided useful feedback during the writing process.

Appendix A. Matrix of Reference Set 2

This matrix shows the strategy classifications of each of all 53 publications in Reference Set 2.

22
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

Publication Strategy advocated for

Publication Authors Title 0a 0b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Year

2008 Dimoudi, A.; Tompa, C. Energy and environmental

indicators related to
construction of office buildings
2008 Huberman, N.; Pearlmutter, D. A life-cycle energy analysis of ✓
building materials in the Negev
desert
2008 Power, Anne Does demolition or ✓
refurbishment of old and
inefficient homes help to
increase our environmental,
social and economic viability?
2009 Shukla, Ashish; Tiwari, G.N.; Embodied energy analysis of ✓
Sodha, M.S. adobe house
2010 Goggins, Jamie; Keane, Treasa; The assessment of embodied ✓
Kelly, Alan energy in typical reinforced
concrete building structures in
Ireland
2011 Mahdavi, M.; Clouston, P. L.; Development of Laminated ✓
Arwade, S. R. Bamboo Lumber: Review of
Processing, Performance, and
Economical Considerations.
2011 Monahan, J.; Powell, J.C. An embodied carbon and ✓
energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in
housing: A case study using a
lifecycle assessment
framework
2011 Reza, Bahareh; Sadiq, Rehan; Sustainability assessment of ✓
Hewage, Kasun flooring systems in the city of
Tehran: An AHP-based life
cycle analysis
2011 Yu, Dongwei; Tan, Hongwei; A future bamboo-structure ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ruan, Yingjun residential building prototype
in China: Life cycle assessment
of energy use and carbon
emission
2012 Aye, Lu; Ngo, T.; Crawford, R. Life cycle greenhouse gas ✓
H.; Gammampila, R.; Mendis, P. emissions and energy analysis
of prefabricated reusable
building modules
2012 Chang, Yuan; Ries, Robert J.; The embodied energy and
Lei, Shuhua emissions of a high-rise
education building: A
quantification using process-
based hybrid life cycle
inventory model
2012 Robertson, Adam B.; Lam, Frank A Comparative Cradle-to-Gate ✓
C. F.; Cole, Raymond J. Life Cycle Assessment of Mid-
Rise Office Building
Construction Alternatives:
Laminated Timber or
Reinforced Concrete.
2012 Rossi, Barbara; Marique, Anne- Life-cycle assessment of
Françoise; Glaumann, Mauritz; residential buildings in three
Reiter, Sigrid different European locations,
basic tool
2012 Stephan, André; Crawford, Towards a comprehensive life ✓
Robert H.; de Myttenaere, cycle energy analysis
Kristel framework for residential
buildings
2014 Foraboschi, Paolo; Mercanzin, Sustainable structural design of ✓ ✓
Mattia; Trabucco, Dario tall buildings based on
embodied energy.
2015 Atmaca, Adem; Atmaca, Nihat Life cycle energy (LCEA) and ✓
carbon dioxide emissions
(LCCO2A) assessment of two
(continued on next page)

23
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

(continued )

Publication Strategy advocated for

Publication Authors Title 0a 0b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Year

residential buildings in
Gaziantep, Turkey.
2015 Ingrao, Carlo; Lo Giudice, Energy and environmental ✓
Agata; Bacenetti, Jacopo; assessment of industrial hemp
Tricase, Caterina; Dotelli, for building applications: A
Giovanni; Fiala, Marco; review.
Siracusa, Valentina; Mbohwa,
Charles
2016 Fonseca, Jimeno A.; Nguyen, City Energy Analyst (CEA):
Thuy-An; Schlueter, Arno; Integrated framework for
Marechal, Francois analysis and optimization of
building energy systems in
neighborhoods and city
districts.
2016 Zhang, Xiaocun; Wang, Fenglai Assessment of embodied
carbon emissions for building
construction in China:
Comparative case studies using
alternative methods.
2017 Azzouz, Afaf; Borchers, Meike; Life cycle assessment of energy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Moreira, Juliana; Mavrogianni, conservation measures during
Anna early stage office building
design: A case study in London,
UK.
2017 Densley Tingley, Danielle; Understanding and ✓
Jonathan Cullen; Simone overcoming the barriers to
Cooper structural steel reuse, a UK
perspective
2017 Gan, Vincent J.L.; C.M. Chan; Developing a CO2-e accounting ✓
Irene M.C. Lo; Jack C.P. Cheng method for quantification and
analysis of embodied carbon in
high-rise buildings
2017 Vilches, Alberto; Garcia- Life cycle assessment (LCA) of ✓
Martinez, Antonio; Sanchez- building refurbishment: A
Montañes, Benito literature review.
2017 Zeng, Ruochen; Chini, Abdol A review of research on
embodied energy of buildings
using bibliometric analysis.
2017 Zhang, Bo; Qu, Xue; Meng, Jing; Identifying primary energy
Sun, Xudong requirements in structural path
analysis: A case study of China
2012.
2018 Arrigoni, Alessandro; Beckett, Rammed Earth incorporating ✓
Christopher T.S.; Ciancio, Recycled Concrete Aggregate:
Daniela; Pelosato, Renato; a sustainable, resistant and
Dotelli, Giovanni; Grillet, Anne- breathable construction
Cécile solution
2018 Eleftheriadis, S.; Duffour, P.; Investigating relationships ✓ ✓ ✓
Greening, P.; James, J.; between cost and CO2
Stephenson, B.; Mumovic, D. emissions in reinforced
concrete structures using a
BIM-based design optimization
approach.
2018 Eleftheriadis, S.; Mumovic, D.; BIM-embedded life cycle ✓ ✓ ✓
Duffour, P. carbon assessment of RC
buildings using optimised
structural design alternatives.
2018 Huang, Lizhen; Krigsvoll, Guri; Carbon emission of global ✓
Johansen, Fred; Liu, Yongping; construction sector.
Zhang, Xiaoling
2018 Kupwade-Patil, Kunal; Adil Al- Impact of Embodied Energy on ✓
Mumin; Ali E. Hajiah; Catherine materials/buildings with
De Wolf; John Ochsendorf; Oral partial replacement of ordinary
Büyüköztürk; Stephanie Chin Portland Cement (OPC) by
natural Pozzolanic Volcanic
Ash
(continued on next page)

24
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

(continued )

Publication Strategy advocated for

Publication Authors Title 0a 0b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Year

2018 Malmqvist, Tove; Nehasilova, Design and construction ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Marie; Moncaster, Alice; strategies for reducing
Birgisdottir, Harpa; Nygaard embodied impacts from
Rasmussen, Freja; Houlihan buildings – Case study analysis.
Wiberg, Aoife; Potting, José
2018 Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard; Analysing methodological ✓
Malmqvist, Tove; Moncaster, choices in calculations of
Alice; Wiberg, Aoife Houlihan; embodied energy and GHG
Birgisdóttir, Harpa emissions from buildings.
2018 Xiao, Jianzhuang; Ali A recycled aggregate concrete ✓
Akbarnezhad; Chunhui Wang; high-rise building: Structural
Tao Ding performance and embodied
carbon footprint
2019 Abbasabadi, Narjes; Mehdi Urban energy use modeling ✓ ✓
Ashayeri, J.K. methods and tools: A review
and an outlook.
2019 Gan, Vincent J.L.; Wong, C.L.; Parametric modeling and ✓ ✓ ✓
Tse, K.T.; Cheng, Jack C.P.; Lo, evolutionary optimization for
Irene M.C.; Chan, C.M. cost-optimal and low-carbon
design of high-rise reinforced
concrete buildings.
2019 Guo, Shan; Zheng, Shupeng; Hu, Embodied energy use in the
Yunhao; Hong, Jingke; Wu, global construction industry.
Xiaofang; Tang, Miaohan
2019 Li, Jiehong; Rismanchi, Behzad; Feasibility study to estimate ✓ ✓ ✓
Ngo, Tuan the environmental benefits of
utilising timber to construct
high-rise buildings in Australia.
2019 Li, Y.L.; Han, M.Y.; Liu, S.Y.; Energy consumption and
Chen, G.Q. greenhouse gas emissions by
buildings: A multi-scale
perspective.
2019 Lydon, G.P.; Caranovic, S.; Coupled simulation of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Hischier, I.; Schlueter, A. thermally active building
systems to support a digital
twin.
2019 Orr, John; Drewniok, Michał P.; Minimising energy in ✓
Walker, Ian; Ibell, Tim; construction: Practitioners’
Copping, Alexander; Emmitt, views on material efficiency.
Stephen
2019 Tavares, Vanessa; Fausto Freire; Embodied energy and ✓ ✓ ✓
Nuno Lacerda greenhouse gas emissions
analysis of a prefabricated
modular house: The “Moby”
case study
2020 Bahramian, Majid; Yetilmezsoy, Life cycle assessment of the
Kaan building industry: An overview
of two decades of research
(1995–2018).
2020 Jayalath, Amitha; Navaratnam, Life cycle performance of Cross ✓ ✓ ✓
Satheeskumar; Ngo, Tuan; Laminated Timber mid-rise
Mendis, Priyan; Hewson, Nick; residential buildings in
Aye, Lu Australia.
2020 Rojat, Fabrice; Hamard, Erwan; Towards an easy decision tool ✓ ✓
Fabbri, Antonin; Carnus, to assess soil suitability for
Bernard; McGregor, Fionn earth building.
2021 Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard; Comparative sustainability ✓
Sher, Willy evaluation of two engineered
wood-based construction
materials: Life cycle analysis of
CLT versus GLT.
2021 Cabeza, Luisa F.; Boquera, Embodied energy and ✓
Laura; Chàfer, Marta; Vérez, embodied carbon of structural
David building materials: Worldwide
progress and barriers through
literature map analysis.
(continued on next page)

25
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

(continued )

Publication Strategy advocated for

Publication Authors Title 0a 0b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Year

2021 Hart, Jim; D’Amico, Whole-life embodied carbon in ✓ ✓ ✓

Bernardino; Pomponi, multistory buildings: Steel,
Francesco concrete and timber structures.
2021 Hou, Huimin; Feng, Xiangyu; Energy-related carbon
Zhang, Yang; Bai, Hongtao; Ji, emissions mitigation potential
Yijun; Xu, He for the construction sector in
China.
2021 Minunno, Roberto; O’Grady, Investigating the embodied ✓
Timothy; Morrison, Gregory M.; energy and carbon of buildings:
Gruner, Richard L. A systematic literature review
and meta-analysis of life cycle
assessments.
2021 O’Hegarty, Richard; Kinnane, Development of thin precast ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Oliver; Grimes, Michael; concrete sandwich panels:
Newell, John; Clifford, Michael; Challenges and outcomes.
West, Roger
2021 Opher, Tamar; Duhamel, Mel; Life cycle GHG assessment of a ✓ ✓
Posen, I. Daniel; Panesar, building restoration: Case
Daman K.; Brugmann, Rashad; study of a heritage industrial
Roy, Adrien; Zizzo, Ryan; building in Toronto, Canada
Sequeira, Larissa; Anvari,
Alireza; MacLean, Heather L.
2021 Robati, Mehdi; Oldfield, Philip; Carbon value engineering: A ✓ ✓ ✓
Nezhad, Ali Akbar; Carmichael, framework for integrating
David G.; Kuru, Aysu embodied carbon and cost
reduction strategies in building
design.
2021 Zaker Esteghamati, Mohsen; Developing data-driven ✓
Flint, Madeleine M. surrogate models for holistic
performance-based assessment
of mid-rise RC frame buildings
at early design.

Appendix B. Explaining relative compatibility between strategies

In this appendix, explanations for each pair of strategies reported in Fig. 11 are provided.
Compatible (+):
• Baseline strategies 0a and 0b involve estimating cradle-to-gate quantities and are thus each compatible with most cradle-to-gate
strategies (Strategies 1–4).
• Strategies 0a and 11: while it may require clearly and consistently defining spatial scopes that exceed the structural system, a
bottom-up approach to quantifying embodied carbon may help effectively navigate interdisciplinary solutions of integrating
systems.
• Strategies 1 and 2 each help navigate potential tradeoffs between strategies 3 and 4.
• Strategies 1 and 10: optimization frameworks have been developed to minimize both embodied and operational carbon associated
with active structures under varied loading. See Strategy 10. Implementing active structures
• Strategies 1 and 11: multi-objective optimization is a common and effective strategy for navigating potential tradeoffs between
embodied and operational carbon (or more generally, tradeoffs between structural performance and another aspect of building
performance). See Strategy 11. Integrating systems
• Strategies 2 and 11: in the absence of a detailed parametric model, simply comparing the embodied carbon of different design
schemes of integrated systems can be effective.
• Strategies 3 and 7: prefabricated and digitally fabricated structural elements can not only reduce material wastage but also produce
structural elements with less materials. See both Strategy 3. Using less material and Strategy 7. Reducing construction and demolition
waste
• Strategies 3 and 10: active systems have been identified to result in less materially intensive structures. See Strategy 10. Imple­
menting active structures
• Strategy 5 is inherently compatible with Strategies 3 and 4: reusing elements involves using less material and materials with lower
carbon coefficients due to avoided manufacturing emissions.
• Strategies 5 and 6: designing a structure for reuse can improve ease of maintenance throughout a building’s lifetime and enhance
structural longevity.

26
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

• Strategies 6 and 9: standard grids can allow for future programmatic flexibility. See Strategy 9. Exploiting standardization and/or
customization.
• Strategies 6 and 10: for active systems like seismic systems which help keep structural elements in the elastic range during natural
disasters, damage can be avoided and overall longevity improved.
• Strategy 7: reuse-related strategies 5 and 6 inherently achieve savings in demolition waste by giving new life to old structural
material.
• Strategy 8: it is very straightforward to combine this strategy with most cradle-to-gate strategies (0a, 0b, 1–4).
• Strategy 9: it is straightforward to articulate constraints in standardization or customization with Strategies 0a, 1, and 2.
Potentially incompatible (− ):
• Strategies 3 and 6: designing for longevity and flexibility may require building with more material. See Strategy 6. Designing with
structural adaptive reuse and for longevity.
• Strategies 3 and 9: when possible, customization can help achieve materially optimized designs. However, in some cases, cus­
tomization can backfire when complexity results in increased emissions. Standardization and reduced complexity can be an in­
termediate to achieve low carbon designs, even though the approach does not entail minimizing as much material everywhere
possible. See Strategy 9. Exploiting standardization and/or customization.
• Strategies 5 and 11: multi-functional building elements can create challenges in reuse due to different service lives or inseparability.
Neutral or inconclusive ( ):
• Strategies 0b and 9: it could be difficult to account for desired levels of standardization and customization in statistically predicted
amounts of embodied carbon.
• Strategies 0b and 11: integrating systems may involve interdisciplinary solutions that are unique enough that may be difficult to
generalize into large datasets for predictive purposes. It may be more conclusive to use a bottom-approach such as Strategy 0a with
Strategy 11.
• Strategies 3 and 4: tradeoffs can occur when lower-carbon materials are also lower-strength, requiring more material. This tradeoff
is less of a concern when designing within one structural material (assuming separate accounting of carbon sequestration; see
4.3.6.3 Carbon sequestration or storage). It is also certainly beneficial to combine these strategies: use minimal amounts of a lower-
carbon material.
• Strategies 5–7 include end-of-life benefits that are complex to quantify with relation to Strategies 0a, 0b,1, and 2, which are more
straightforward to apply to cradle-to-gate scopes.
• Strategies 3 and 11: determining the structural spatial boundary for carbon accounting becomes difficult when structural systems
are integrated with non-structural elements. Depending on whether tradeoffs between embodied and operational emissions are
present, designing for integrated systems may sometimes require the use of more structural material quantities. See Strategy 11.
Integrating systems.
• Strategies 4 and 7: choice of structural material can affect levels of material inefficiencies in construction. For example, the con­
struction processes of mass timber have been associated with more construction precision than traditional on-site procedures (see
Strategy 7. Reducing construction and demolition waste). The effect of structural material on end-of-life levels of demolition waste is
more inconclusive; different structural materials have different levels of reusability and recyclability.
• Strategies 4 and 10: currently, most active structures require the use of steel, which may be a structural material constraint. Bio-
based active structures are possible but not as market-ready given the history and availability of steel-based structural mechanisms
on the market.
• Strategies 4 and 11: there is some potential, though not guaranteed, for lower-carbon materials to serve as multipurpose building
materials. See also 4.3.6.1 Bio-based materials,
• Strategies 5 and 9: some levels of standardization may be important when designing for reuse or deconstruction.
• Strategies 6 and 8: designing for reduced load demands may limit the future reuse possibilities of a new structure. However,
reduced load demands may also enable more reuse of historic structures with less certain structural capacity. See Strategy 8.
Reducing load demands.
• Strategies 6 and 11: integrating systems could be a challenge for structural longevity and future refurbishment if the systems being
integrated have different lifetimes. Designing for ease of maintenance can alleviate this potential challenge.
• Strategies 7 and 9: the degree of standardization may affect the amounts of construction and demolition waste. Tradeoffs would
need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For example, using prefabricated units does not guarantee reduced environmental
impact (see Strategy 7. Reducing construction and demolition waste). Alternatively, carbon-aware and waste-minimizing standardi­
zation can be implemented as a design driver early on.
• Strategies 7 and 11: if components of integrated systems are not designed to be separable, they are more likely to end up as waste at
end-of-life: see Strategy 7. Reducing construction and demolition waste. On the other hand, material and carbon savings may be
possible from designing multi-functional building elements: see Strategy 11. Integrating systems
• Strategies 8 and 10: neither compatible nor incompatible; both strategies propose an alternative to overdesign with different
approaches. Rather than a blanket reduction of load demands, Strategy 10 acknowledges both persistent and emergency load
demands and provides a separate structural design solution for each.

27
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

References
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA) and Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC), 2018 Global Status Report: towards a Zero-Emission,
Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector, United Nations Environment Programme, 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.worldgbc.org/
sites/default/files/2018%20GlobalABC%20Global%20Status%20Report.pdf.
[2] London Energy Transformation Initiative, LETI Embodied Carbon Primer, 2020 [Online]. Available: https://www.leti.london/ecp.
[3] European Standards, BS EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method,
Accessed: August. 20, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-en-15978-2011-sustainability-of-construction-works-assessment-of-
environmental-performance-of-buildings-calculation-method/.
[4] M. Röck, et al., Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation, Appl. Energy (Nov. 2019), 114107,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107.
[5] World Green Building Council and Ramboll, Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront: Coordinated Action for the Building and Construction Sector to Tackle
Embodied Carbon, World Green Building Council, Sep. 2019.
[6] S.C. Kaethner, J.A. Burridge, Embodied CO2 of structural frames, Struct. Eng. (May 2012) 33–40.
[7] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert, Energy Build. 40 (5) (Jan. 2008) 837–848, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.06.002.
[8] N. Cross, N. Roozenburg, Modelling the design process in engineering and in architecture, J. Eng. Des. 3 (4) (Jan. 1992) 325–337, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09544829208914765.
[9] R.H. Crawford, Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment, Spon Press, New York, 2011.
[10] F. Pomponi, A. Moncaster, Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: the next performance gap made manifest, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81 (81) (Jan.
2018) 2431–2442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.049.
[11] C.T. Mueller, Computational Exploration of the Structural Design Space, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014. Accessed: May 7, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/91293.
[12] W.J. Fabrycky, B.S. Blanchard, Life-cycle Cost and Economic Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1991.
[13] B.C. Paulson Jr., Designing to reduce construction costs, J. Construct. Div. 102 (C04) (Dec. 1976). Accessed: August 15, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://trid.
trb.org/view/66827.
[14] T. Häkkinen, M. Kuittinen, A. Ruuska, N. Jung, Reducing embodied carbon during the design process of buildings, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 1–13, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.06.005.
[15] C.F. Dunant, M.P. Drewniok, J.J. Orr, J.M. Allwood, Good early stage design decisions can halve embodied CO2 and lower structural frames’ cost, Structures
33 (2021) 343–354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.04.033.
[16] F. Pomponi, A. Moncaster, Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – what does the evidence say? J. Environ. Manag. 181 (Oct.
2016) 687–700, 10/f83q7f.
[17] R. Minunno, T. O’Grady, G.M. Morrison, R.L. Gruner, Investigating the embodied energy and carbon of buildings: a systematic literature review and meta-
analysis of life cycle assessments, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 143 (Jun. 2021). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[18] R. Zeng, A. Chini, A review of research on embodied energy of buildings using bibliometric analysis, Energy Build. 155 (Nov. 2017) 172–184.
[19] J.M. Danatzko, H. Sezen, Sustainable structural design methodologies, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Construct. 16 (4) (2011) 186–190, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000095.
[20] T. Malmqvist, et al., Design and construction strategies for reducing embodied impacts from buildings - case study analysis, Energy Build. 166 (166) (May
2018) 35–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.01.033.
[21] A. Akbarnezhad, Jianzhuang Xiao, Estimation and minimization of embodied carbon of buildings: a review, Buildings 7 (1) (Mar. 2017) 5, https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings7010005.
[22] London Energy Transformation Initiative, LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide: How New Buildings Can Meet UK Climate Change Targets, 2020 [Online].
Available: https://www.leti.london/cedg.
[23] Achieving Net Zero Embodied Carbon in Structural Materials by 2050: A White Paper by the Structural Engineering Institute’s Sustainability Committee
Carbon Working Group, Structural Engineering Institute, Mar. 2020.
[24] The Institution of Structural Engineers, Design for Zero, first ed., The Institution of Structural Engineers, London, United Kingdom, 2021.
[25] Circular Buildings Toolkit, Arup, accessed October 13, 2022, https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/.
[26] D.M. Kestner, J. Goupil, E. Lorenz (Eds.), Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
[27] B. Chan, The reuse of structural components and materials, Struct. Eng. 89 (1) (2011) 15–16.
[28] London, The Institution of Structural Engineers, How to Calculate Embodied Carbon, first ed., 2020 [Online]. Available: https://www.istructe.org/resources/
guidance/how-to-calculate-embodied-carbon/.
[29] C. Jones, G. Hammond, Inventory of Carbon & Energy v3.0, Nov. 10, 2019. Accessed: March 26, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.circularecology.com/
embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html.
[30] G.P. Hammond, C.I. Jones, Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Energy 161 (2) (May 2008) 87–98, 10/dj6vsn.
[31] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database, 2012. Accessed: August 5, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/lci/
index.html.
[32] ecoinvent Association, Ecoinvent Database Version 3, ecoinvent, 2013 accessed May 16, 2022, https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/.
[33] Building Transparency, Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3), Oct. 08, 2019 accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.buildingtransparency.org/en/.
[34] C. De Wolf, E. Hoxha, A. Hollberg, C. Fivet, J. Ochsendorf, Database of embodied quantity outputs: lowering material impacts through engineering,
J. Architect. Eng. 26 (3) (Sep. 2020), 04020016, 10/gg55mc.
[35] A.M. Moncaster, J.Y. Song, A comparative review of existing data and methodologies for calculating embodied energy and carbon of buildings, Int. J. Sustain.
Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 3 (1) (2012) 26–36, https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2012.673915.
[36] M.F. Victoria, S. Perera, Parametric embodied carbon prediction model for early stage estimating, Energy Build. 168 (Jun. 2018) 106–119.
[37] M. Xikai, W. Lixiong, L. Jiwei, Q. Xiaoli, W. Tongyao, Comparison of regression models for estimation of carbon emissions during building’s lifecycle using
designing factors: a case study of residential buildings in Tianjin, China, Energy Build. 204 (Dec. 2019). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[38] R.E. Weber, C. Mueller, C. Reinhart, Generative structural design for embodied carbon estimation, in: Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2020/21 and
the 7th International Conference on Spatial Structures, Guilford, UK, Aug. 2021.
[39] S.H. Zargar, N.C. Brown, Deep learning in early-stage structural performance prediction: assessing morphological parameters for buildings, in: Proceedings of
the IASS Annual Symposium 2020/21 and the 7th International Conference on Spatial Structures, Guilford, UK, Aug. 2021.
[40] M. Zaker Esteghamati, M.M. Flint, Developing data-driven surrogate models for holistic performance-based assessment of mid-rise RC frame buildings at early
design, Eng. Struct. 245 (Oct. 2021). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[41] A. Stephan, A. Athanassiadis, Quantifying and mapping embodied environmental requirements of urban building stocks, Build. Environ. 114 (Mar. 2017)
187–202.
[42] N. Abbasabadi, M. Ashayeri, Urban energy use modeling methods and tools: a review and an outlook, Build. Environ. 161 (2019) 106270.
[43] M.K. Dixit, J. Fernández-Soliś, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review, Energy Build. 42 (8)
(Aug. 2010) 1238–1247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016.
[44] D. Fang, C. Mueller, Parametric Structural Design for High-Performance Buildings, STRUCTURE Magazine, Aug. 2021, pp. 40–41.
[45] W.R. Spillers, K.M. MacBain, Structural Optimization, Springer US, 2009. Accessed: January 23, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/
10.1007%2F978-0-387-95865-1.

28
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

[46] P. Purnell, Material nature versus structural nurture: the embodied carbon of fundamental structural elements, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (1) (Jan. 2012)
454–461, 10/bqtqvp.
[47] P. Foraboschi, M. Mercanzin, D. Trabucco, Sustainable structural design of tall buildings based on embodied energy, Energy Build. 68 (Jan. 2014) 254–269,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.09.003.
[48] B. Stern, C. De Wolf, C. Mueller, Minimizing embodied carbon in multi-material structural optimization of planar trusses, in: Proceedings of IASS Annual
Symposia, 2018. Boston, MA.
[49] E. Ching, J.V. Carstensen, Truss topology optimization of timber–steel structures for reduced embodied carbon design, Eng. Struct. (2021), 113540.
[50] Y.G. Yohanis, B. Norton, Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a generic single-storey office building in the UK, Energy 27 (1) (Jan. 2002) 77–92.
[51] D. Rai, B. Sodagar, R. Fieldson, Xiao Hu, Assessment of CO2 emissions reduction in a distribution warehouse, Energy 36 (4) (Apr. 2011) 2271–2277, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.006.
[52] M. Wallhagen, M. Glaumann, T. Malmqvist, Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change – case study on an office building
in Sweden, Build. Environ. 46 (10) (Oct. 2011) 1863–1871.
[53] D. Yeo, R.D. Gabbai, Sustainable design of reinforced concrete structures through embodied energy optimization, Energy Build. 43 (8) (Aug. 2011) 2028–2033,
10/cdp9w2.
[54] S. Eleftheriadis, P. Duffour, D. Mumovic, BIM-embedded life cycle carbon assessment of RC buildings using optimised structural design alternatives, Energy
Build. 173 (173) (Aug. 2018) 587–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.05.042.
[55] V.J.L. Gan, C.L. Wong, K.T. Tse, J.C.P. Cheng, I.M.C. Lo, C.M. Chan, Parametric modelling and evolutionary optimization for cost-optimal and low-carbon
design of high-rise reinforced concrete buildings, Adv. Eng. Inf. 42 (Oct. 2019). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[56] B. D’Amico, F. Pomponi, On mass quantities of gravity frames in building structures, J. Build. Eng. 31 (Sep. 2020), 101426, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2020.101426.
[57] I. Hens, R. Solnosky, N.C. Brown, Design space exploration for comparing embodied carbon in tall timber structural systems, Energy Build. 244 (Aug. 2021),
110983, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110983.
[58] H.L. Gauch, W. Hawkins, T. Ibell, J.M. Allwood, C.F. Dunant, Carbon vs. cost option mapping: a tool for improving early-stage design decisions, Autom.
ConStruct. 136 (Apr. 2022), 104178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104178.
[59] S. Eleftheriadis, P. Duffour, P. Greening, J. James, B. Stephenson, D. Mumovic, Investigating relationships between cost and CO2 emissions in reinforced
concrete structures using a BIM-based design optimisation approach, Energy Build. 166 (May 2018) 330–346.
[60] B. D’Amico, F. Pomponi, Accuracy and reliability: a computational tool to minimise steel mass and carbon emissions at early-stage structural design, Energy
Build. 168 (168) (Jun. 2018) 236–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.031.
[61] J. Hart, B. D’Amico, F. Pomponi, Whole-life embodied carbon in multistory buildings: steel, concrete and timber structures, J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (2) (2021)
403–418, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13139.
[62] E. Marsh, J. Orr, T. Ibell, Quantification of uncertainty in product stage embodied carbon calculations for buildings, Energy Build. 251 (Nov. 2021), 111340,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111340.
[63] N.C. Brown, C.T. Mueller, Design variable analysis and generation for performance-based parametric modeling in architecture, Int. J. Architect. Comput.
(2019), 1478077118799491, 10/gg55gb.
[64] Price & Myers, Price & Myers Launch Embodied Carbon Software PANDA, Price & Myers, Mar. 11, 2021 accessed August. 23, 2022, https://www.pricemyers.
com/news/price–myers-launch-embodied-carbon-software-panda-52.
[65] Bollinger+Grohmann, B+G Structural Web Tool (Beta), 2022 accessed August. 23, 2022, https://structural-webapp.vercel.app/.
[66] One Click LCA, Carbon Designer 3D, One Click LCA, May 03, 2022 accessed August. 23, 2022, https://www.oneclicklca.com/carbon-designer-3d/.
[67] C. De Wolf, M. Ramage, J. Ochsendorf, Low carbon vaulted masonry structures, J. Int. Assoc. Shell Spat. Struct. 57 (4) (Dec. 2016) 275–284, 10/ghk58r.
[68] J. Roynon, Embodied Carbon: Structural Sensitivity Study, BuroHappold Engineering, Apr. 2020.
[69] M. Robati, P. Oldfield, A.A. Nezhad, D.G. Carmichael, A. Kuru, Carbon value engineering: a framework for integrating embodied carbon and cost reduction
strategies in building design, Build. Environ. 192 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107620.
[70] Z.S. Moussavi Nadoushani, A. Akbarnezhad, Effects of structural system on the life cycle carbon footprint of buildings, Energy Build. 102 (2015) 337–346,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.05.044.
[71] A. Azzouz, M. Borchers, J. Moreira, A. Mavrogianni, Life cycle assessment of energy conservation measures during early stage office building design: a case
study in London, UK, Energy Build. 139 (139) (Mar. 2017) 547–568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.089.
[72] G.J. Treloar, R. Fay, B. Ilozor, P.E.D. Love, An analysis of the embodied energy of office buildings by height, Facilities 19 (2001) 204–214, https://doi.org/
10.1108/02632770110387797.
[73] L. Vukotic, R.A. Fenner, K. Symons, Assessing embodied energy of building structural elements, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 163 (3) (2010) 147–158,
https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2010.163.3.147.
[74] D. Davies, L. Johnson, B. Doepker, M. Hedlund, Quantifying environmental impacts of structural material choices using life cycle assessment: a case study, in:
F. Pomponi, C. De Wolf, A. Moncaster (Eds.), Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Measurement, Management, and Mitigation, Springer International Publishing,
Cham, 2018, pp. 123–142, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72796-7_6.
[75] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems, Energy Build. 82 (Oct.
2014) 194–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.034.
[76] M. Budig, O. Heckmann, M. Hudert, A.Q.B. Ng, Next generation residential high-rise: evaluating and comparing the global warming potential of different
structural systems and materials, in: Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2019 – Structural Membranes 2019, 2019. Barcelona, Spain.
[77] A. Jayalath, S. Navaratnam, T. Ngo, P. Mendis, N. Hewson, L. Aye, Life cycle performance of Cross Laminated Timber mid-rise residential buildings in
Australia, Energy Build. 223 (Sep. 2020), 110091, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110091.
[78] C.R. Iddon, S.K. Firth, Embodied and operational energy for new-build housing: a case study of construction methods in the UK, Energy Build. 67 (67) (Dec.
2013) 479–488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.041.
[79] R.J. Cole, P.C. Kernan, Life-cycle energy use in office buildings, Build. Environ. 31 (4) (Jul. 1996) 307–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1323(96)00017-0.
[80] J. Monahan, 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 Build. 43 (1) (Jan. 2011) 179–188, 10/dfk3hf.
[81] U.Y.A. Tettey, A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle
perspective, Energy Build. 185 (Feb. 2019) 259–271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.12.017.
[82] K. Simonen, M. Huang, C. Aicher, P. Morris, Embodied carbon as a proxy for the environmental impact of earthquake damage repair, Energy Build. 164 (164)
(Apr. 2018) 131–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.12.065.
[83] A.M. Moncaster, F. Pomponi, K.E. Symons, P.M. Guthrie, Why method matters: temporal, spatial and physical variations in LCA and their impact on choice of
structural system, Energy Build. 173 (Aug. 2018) 389–398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.05.039.
[84] N. Kohler, S. Moffatt, Life-cycle analysis of the built environment, Ind. Environ. 26 (2) (Apr. 2003) 17–21.
[85] C. De Wolf, F. Yang, D. Cox, A. Charlson, A.S. Hattan, J. Ochsendorf, Material quantities and embodied carbon dioxide in structures, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Eng.
Sustain. (Sep. 2015), 10/gg55mf.
[86] K. Simonen, B.X. Rodriguez, C. De Wolf, Benchmarking the embodied carbon of buildings, Technol. Des. 1 (2) (Nov. 2017) 208–218, 10/ghk58s.
[87] One Click LCA, Embodied Carbon Benchmarks for European Buildings, 2021. Accessed: August. 17, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.oneclicklca.com/
eu-embodied-carbon-benchmarks/.
[88] C.K. Anand, B. Amor, Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
67 (Jan. 2017) 408–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058.

29
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

[89] M. Bahramian, K. Yetilmezsoy, Life cycle assessment of the building industry: an overview of two decades of research (1995–2018), Energy Build. 219 (Jul.
2020). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[90] M.C. Moynihan, J.M. Allwood, Utilization of structural steel in buildings, Proc. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 470 (2168) (Aug. 2014), 20140170, https://doi.
org/10.1098/rspa.2014.0170.
[91] J. Orr, M.P. Drewniok, I. Walker, T. Ibell, A. Copping, S. Emmitt, Minimising energy in construction: practitioners’ views on material efficiency, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 140 (Jan. 2019) 125–136, 10/ggtkqt.
[92] J. Heyman, The stone skeleton, Int. J. Solid Struct. 2 (2) (Apr. 1966) 249–279, https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(66)90018-7.
[93] V. Bertini, Hassan Fathy (1900-1989), Architectural Review, no. 1468, Feb. 2020. Accessed: September. 30, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.
architectural-review.com/essays/reputations/hassan-fathy-1900-1989.
[94] J. Ochsendorf, M. Freeman, Guastavino Vaulting: the Art of Structural Tile, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010.
[95] P.L. Nervi, Aesthetics and Technology in Building: the Twenty-First-Century Edition, University of Illinois Press, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5406/j.ctv80c9j9.
[96] S. Anderson, E. Dieste, Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Princeton Architectural Press, 2004.
[97] V. Mehta, A. Huber, R.R. Mehndiratta (Eds.), The Structure: Works of Mahendra Raj, Park Books, 2016. Accessed: August. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/S/bo25046763.html.
[98] J. Chilton, H. Isler, Isler Heinz, Thomas Telford, 2000.
[99] M.E.M. Garlock, D.P. Billington, Félix Candela: Engineer, Builder, Structural Artist, Yale University Press, Princeton, NJ: New Haven, 2008.
[100] F. Heisel et al., “Design of a load-bearing mycelium structure through informed structural engineering: the MycoTree at the 2017 Seoul Biennale of
Architecture and Urbanism,” presented at the World Congress on Sustainable Technologies, pp. 45–49.
[101] W. Nerdinger, Working for a better ‘earth for mankind, in: W. Nerdinger (Ed.), Frei Otto: Complete Works: Lightweight Construction, Natural Design,
Birkhäuser, Basel, 2005, pp. 8–15.
[102] J. Schlaich, M. Schlaich, S. Bergermann, Lightweight structures, in: Widespan Roof Structures, 2000 [Online]. Available: https://architecture.mit.edu/sites/
architecture.mit.edu/files/attachments/lecture/LightweightStructures.pdf.
[103] A.G.M. Michell, The limits of economy of material in frame-structures, London, Edinburgh Dublin Phil. Mag. J. Sci. 8 (47) (Nov. 1904) 589–597, 10/frd638.
[104] P. Samyn, Etude de la morphologie des structures: à l’aide des indicateurs de volume et de déplacement. Classe des sciences, Académie royale de Belgique, 2004.
[105] M.P. Bendsøe, O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05086-6.
[106] K.S. Moon, Sustainable structural engineering strategies for tall buildings, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 17 (5) (2008) 895–914, https://doi.org/10.1002/
tal.475.
[107] W.P. De Wilde, T. Vandenbergh, W. Debacker, Structural optimisation and sustainable design, Int. J. Comput. Methods Exp. Meas. 3 (3) (Sep. 2015) 187–204,
https://doi.org/10.2495/CMEM-V3-N3-187-204.
[108] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, E. Gal, I.A. Meir, Optimizing structural roof form for life-cycle energy efficiency, Energy Build. 104 (Oct. 2015) 336–349,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.008.
[109] A. Liew, D.L. López, T. Van Mele, P. Block, Design, fabrication and testing of a prototype, thin-vaulted, unreinforced concrete floor, Eng. Struct. 137 (Apr.
2017) 323–335, 10/gg55c3.
[110] P. Mayencourt, C. Mueller, Hybrid analytical and computational optimization methodology for structural shaping: material-efficient mass timber beams, Eng.
Struct. 215 (Jul. 2020), 110532, 10/ghk58q.
[111] M.A. Ismail, C.T. Mueller, Minimizing embodied energy of reinforced concrete floor systems in developing countries through shape optimization, Eng. Struct.
246 (Nov. 2021), 112955, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112955.
[112] P. Mayencourt, C. Mueller, Structural optimization of cross-laminated timber panels in one-way bending, Structures 18 (Apr. 2019) 48–59, 10/gg55cr.
[113] A. Jayasinghe, J. Orr, W. Hawkins, T. Ibell, W.P. Boshoff, Comparing different strategies of minimising embodied carbon in concrete floors, J. Clean. Prod. 345
(Apr. 2022), 131177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131177.
[114] W.J. Hawkins, Thin-shell Concrete Floors for Sustainable Buildings, PhD, University of Cambridge, 2019.
[115] L. He, et al., Optimization-driven conceptual design of truss structures in a parametric modelling environment, Structures 37 (Mar. 2022) 469–482, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.048.
[116] T. Ibell, J. Norman, O. Broadbent, Nothing is better than something, Struct. Eng. 98 (6) (Jun. 2020) 10–11.
[117] U. Dangel, Turning Point in Timber Construction: A New Economy, Birkhauser, Basel, 2016.
[118] I. Agustí-Juan, F. Müller, N. Hack, T. Wangler, G. Habert, Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: environmental assessment of a
robotically fabricated concrete wall, J. Clean. Prod. 154 (Jun. 2017) 330–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.002.
[119] W.J. Hawkins, et al., Flexible formwork technologies - a state of the art review, Struct. Concr. 17 (6) (Dec. 2016) 911–935, 10/f927bm.
[120] G. De Schutter, K. Lesage, V. Mechtcherine, V.N. Nerella, G. Habert, I. Agusti-Juan, Vision of 3D printing with concrete — technical, economic and
environmental potentials, Cement Concr. Res. 112 (Oct. 2018) 25–36, 10/gfbpbh.
[121] M.H. Ramage, et al., The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68 (1) (Feb. 2017) 333–359, 10/f9mhqg.
[122] G.C. Foliente, History of Timber Construction, ASTM Int., Jan. 2000, 10/drwj2b.
[123] K. Zwerger, Wood and Wood Joints, third ed. edition, Birkhäuser, Basel; Boston, 2015.
[124] B. Falk, Wood as a sustainable building material, For. Prod. J. 59 (9) (Sep. 2009) 6–12.
[125] C. Ingrao, et al., Energy and environmental assessment of industrial hemp for building applications: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (Nov. 2015)
29–42.
[126] T.T. Nguyen, V. Picandet, P. Carre, T. Lecompte, S. Amziane, C. Baley, Effect of compaction on mechanical and thermal properties of hemp concrete, Eur. J.
Environ. Civ. Eng. 14 (5) (May 2010) 545–560, https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2010.9693246.
[127] M. Jones, A. Mautner, S. Luenco, A. Bismarck, S. John, Engineered mycelium composite construction materials from fungal biorefineries: a critical review,
Mater. Des. 187 (Feb. 2020), 108397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108397.
[128] P. Walker, A. Thomson, D. Maskell, 9 - straw bale construction, in: K.A. Harries, B. Sharma (Eds.), Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials,
second ed., Woodhead Publishing, 2020, pp. 189–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102704-2.00009-3.
[129] S. Goodhew, J. Carfrae, P. De Wilde, Briefing: challenges related to straw bale construction, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Eng. Sustain. 163 (4) (Dec. 2010) 185–189,
https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2010.163.4.185.
[130] K. Disén, P.L. Clouston, Building with bamboo: a review of culm connection technology, J. Green Build. 8 (4) (Sep. 2013) 83–93, https://doi.org/10.3992/
jgb.8.4.83.
[131] M. Mahdavi, P.L. Clouston, S.R. Arwade, Development of laminated bamboo lumber: review of processing, performance, and economical considerations,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (7) (Jul. 2011) 1036–1042.
[132] L. Rosse Caldas, A. Bernstad Saraiva, V.M. Andreola, R. Dias Toledo Filho, Bamboo bio-concrete as an alternative for buildings’ climate change mitigation and
adaptation, Construct. Build. Mater. 263 (Dec. 2020). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[133] P.J.M. Monteiro, S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, Towards sustainable concrete, Nat. Mater. 16 (7) (Jul. 2017) 7, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4930.
[134] K. Kupwade-Patil, et al., Impact of embodied energy on materials/buildings with partial replacement of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) by natural pozzolanic
volcanic ash, J. Clean. Prod. 177 (Mar. 2018) 547–554, 10/gc5b2s.
[135] G. Habert, et al., Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 (11) (Nov. 2020) 11,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3.
[136] J. Gregory, H. AzariJafari, E. Vahidi, F. Guo, F.-J. Ulm, R. Kirchain, The role of concrete in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of US buildings and pavements,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118 (37) (Sep. 2021), e2021936118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021936118.
[137] S. Amziane, M. Sonebi, Overview on biobased building material made with plant aggregate, RILEM Tech. Lett. 1 (Jun. 2016) 31–38, https://doi.org/10.21809/
rilemtechlett.2016.9.

30
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

[138] M.A. DeRousseau, J.R. Kasprzyk, W.V. Srubar, Computational design optimization of concrete mixtures: a review, Cement Concr. Res. 109 (Jul. 2018) 42–53,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.007.
[139] F. Boscaro, E. Quadranti, T. Wangler, S. Mantellato, L. Reiter, R.J. Flatt, Eco-friendly, set-on-demand digital concrete, 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 9 (1) (Feb. 2022)
3–11, https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2020.0350.
[140] W. Hawkins, Timber and carbon sequestration, Struct. Eng. 99 (1) (2021) 18–20.
[141] Concrete Construction ‘offsets Around One Half’ of Emissions Caused by Cement Industry, Dezeen, Aug. 24, 2021 accessed April. 17, 2022, https://www.
dezeen.com/2021/08/24/concrete-construction-offsets-emissions-cement-industry-ipcc/.
[142] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis (IPCC AR6 WGI),” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2021 [Online]. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf.
[143] P. Friedlingstein, et al., Global carbon budget 2020, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12 (4) (Dec. 2020) 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020.
[144] D. Raabe, C.C. Tasan, E.A. Olivetti, Strategies for improving the sustainability of structural metals, Nature 575 (7781) (Nov. 2019) 7781, https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41586-019-1702-5.
[146] World Steel Association, Life Cycle Inventory Methodology Report for Steel Products, World Steel Association, Brussels, 2017.
[147] A. Arrigoni, C.T.S. Beckett, D. Ciancio, R. Pelosato, G. Dotelli, A.-C. Grillet, Rammed Earth incorporating Recycled Concrete Aggregate: a sustainable, resistant
and breathable construction solution, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137 (Jan. 2018) 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.025.
[148] B. Clifford, W. McGee, M. Muhonen, Recovering cannibalism in architecture with a return to cyclopean masonry, Nexus Netw. J. 20 (3) (Dec. 2018) 583–604,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-018-0392-x.
[149] F. Amtsberg, Y. Huang, D.J.M. Marshall, K.M. Gata, C. Mueller, Structural upcycling: matching digital and natural geometry, in: Proceedings of Advances in
Architectural Geometry, 2020.
[150] M. Dabaieh, J. Heinonen, D. El-Mahdy, D.M. Hassan, A comparative study of life cycle carbon emissions and embodied energy between sun-dried bricks and
fired clay bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 275 (275) (Dec. 2020), 122998, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122998.
[151] A. Ventura, et al., Environmental potential of earth-based building materials: key facts and issues from a life cycle assessment perspective, in: A. Fabbri, J.-
C. Morel, J.-E. Aubert, Q.-B. Bui, D. Gallipoli, B.V.V. Reddy (Eds.), Testing and Characterisation of Earth-Based Building Materials and Elements: State-Of-The-
Art Report of the RILEM TC 274-TCE, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 261–296, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83297-1_8.
[152] C. Scheuer, G.A. Keoleian, P. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications, Energy Build. 35 (10) (Nov. 2003) 1049–1064, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00066-5.
[153] L. Shao, et al., Systems accounting for energy consumption and carbon emission by building, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 19 (6) (2014) 1859–1873,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2013.10.003.
[154] E. Christoforou, A. Kylili, P.A. Fokaides, I. Ioannou, Cradle to site life cycle assessment (LCA) of adobe bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 443–452, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.016.
[155] T.Y. Chen, J. Burnett, C.K. Chau, Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong, Energy 26 (4) (Apr. 2001) 323–340.
[156] V.J.L. Gan, C.M. Chan, M.C. Lo Irene, Jack C.P. Cheng, Developing a CO2-e accounting method for quantification and analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise
buildings, J. Clean. Prod. 141 (Jan. 2017) 825–836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.126.
[157] C. De Wolf, E. Hoxha, C. Fivet, Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: a case study, Sustain. Cities Soc. 61
(2020), 102322.
[158] D. Densley Tingley, B. Davison, Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction, Build. Environ. 57
(2012) 387–395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005.
[159] J. Brütting, J. Desruelle, G. Senatore, C. Fivet, Design of truss structures through reuse, Structures 18 (Apr. 2019) 128–137, 10/gg55k6.
[160] Y. Huang, L. Alkhayat, C.D. Wolf, C. Mueller, Algorithmic circular design with reused structural elements: method and Tool, in: Conceptual Design of
Structures 2021, Sep. 2021. Switzerland.
[161] A. Bukauskas, P. Shepherd, P. Walker, B. Sharma, J. Bregulla, Form-fitting strategies for diversity-tolerant design, in: Proceedings of the International
Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium, 2017. Hamburg, Germany.
[162] M. Gorgolewski, Designing with reused building components: some challenges, Build. Res. Inf. 36 (2) (Mar. 2008) 175–188, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210701559499.
[163] E. Iacovidou, P. Purnell, Mining the physical infrastructure: opportunities, barriers and interventions in promoting structural components reuse, Sci. Total
Environ. 557 (558) (Jul. 2016) 791–807, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.098.
[164] D.D. Tingley, S. Cooper, J. Cullen, Understanding and overcoming the barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective, J. Clean. Prod. 148 (148) (Apr. 2017)
642–652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.006.
[165] C.F. Dunant, M.P. Drewniok, M. Sansom, S. Corbey, J.M. Cullen, J.M. Allwood, Options to make steel reuse profitable: an analysis of cost and risk distribution
across the UK construction value chain, J. Clean. Prod. 183 (May 2018) 102–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.141.
[166] M.R. Munaro, S.F. Tavares, L. Bragança, Towards circular and more sustainable buildings: a systematic literature review on the circular economy in the built
environment, J. Clean. Prod. 260 (Jul. 2020), 121134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121134.
[167] M.D. Saghafi, Z.S.H. Teshnizi, Recycling value of building materials in building assessment systems, Energy Build. 43 (11) (Nov. 2011) 3181–3188, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.08.016.
[168] P. Hradil, A. Talja, V. Ungureanu, H. Koukkari, L. Fülöp, Reusability indicator for steel-framed buildings and application for an industrial hall, ce/papers 1
(2–3) (2017) 4512–4521, https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.511.
[169] C. Thormark, The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building, Build. Environ. 41 (8) (Aug. 2006) 1019–1026.
[170] B. Addis, Building with Reclaimed Components and Materials: A Design Handbook for Reuse and Recycling, Routledge, London, 2006, https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781849770637.
[171] A.P. Butcher, J.J.M. Powell, H.D. Skinner (Eds.), Reuse of Foundations for Urban Sites: a Best Practice Handbook, IHS BRE Press, 2006. Accessed: April. 22,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.brebookshop.com/details.jsp?id=286884.
[172] B.H. Hertlein, W.H. Walton, Assessment and reuse of old foundations, Transport. Res. Rec. 1736 (1) (Jan. 2000) 48–52, https://doi.org/10.3141/1736-07.
[173] Marsh, Guy Carpenter, and Oxford Economics, Future of Construction: A Global Forecast for Construction to 2030, Oxford Economics Ltd, Sep. 2021.
[174] S. Brand, How Buildings Learn: what Happens after They’re Built, Reprint edition, Penguin Books, New York, NY Toronto London, 1995.
[175] A. Power, Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability? Energy Pol. 36
(12) (Dec. 2008) 4487–4501.
[176] P.L. Gaspar, A.L. Santos, Embodied energy on refurbishment vs. demolition: a southern Europe case study, Energy Build. 87 (Jan. 2015) 386–394.
[177] A.M. Forster, K. Carter, P.F.G. Banfill, B. Kayan, Green maintenance for historic masonry buildings: an emerging concept, Build. Res. Inf. 39 (6) (2011)
654–664, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.621345.
[178] A. Vilches, A. Garcia-Martinez, B. Sanchez-Montañes, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: a literature review, Energy Build. 135 (Jan. 2017)
286–301.
[179] T. De Monchaux, No new buildings: the energy already embodied in the built environment is a precious unnatural resource. It’s time to start treating it like one,
Metropolis (Nov. 2019) 144–149. Dec.
[180] A. Belleri, A. Marini, Does seismic risk affect the environmental impact of existing buildings? Energy Build. 110 (Jan. 2016) 149–158.
[181] M.K. Dixit, Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings: a review, J. Clean. Prod. 209 (Jan. 2019) 731–754, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.230.
[182] A. Rauf, R.H. Crawford, Building service life and its effect on the life cycle embodied energy of buildings, Energy 79 (79) (Jan. 2015) 140–148, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.093.
[183] E. MacNamara, Applying circular principles to the design process, Struct. Eng. (Aug. 2020) 9–11.

31
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

[184] The Humanitarian Works of Shigeru Ban, ArchDaily (May 12, 2020) accessed October. 3, 2022, https://www.archdaily.com/489255/the-humanitarian-works-
of-shigeru-ban.
[185] J. Hong, G.Q. Shen, Y. Feng, W.S. Lau, C. Mao, Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: a case study in China, J. Clean. Prod. 103
(Sep. 2015) 249–259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.023.
[186] S. Junnila, A. Horvath, A.A. Guggemos, Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 12 (1) (Mar. 2006) 10–17,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2006)12:1(10).
[187] European Environment Agency, Material Resources and Waste - 2012 Update, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2012. Accessed: March.
15, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/46022.
[188] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet, Dec. 2020.
[189] C.T. Formoso, L. Soibelman, C. De Cesare, E.L. Isatto, Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 128 (4) (Aug.
2002) 316–325, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:4(316).
[190] L. Aye, T. Ngo, R.H. Crawford, R. Gammampila, P. Mendis, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules,
Energy Build. 47 (Apr. 2012) 159–168.
[191] O. Pons, G. Wadel, Environmental impacts of prefabricated school buildings in Catalonia, Habitat Int. 35 (4) (Oct. 2011) 553–563, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2011.03.005.
[192] C. Mao, Q. Shen, L. Shen, L. Tang, Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: two
case studies of residential projects, Energy Build. 66 (Nov. 2013) 165–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.
[193] J. Wang, D.D. Tingley, M. Mayfield, Y. Wang, Life cycle impact comparison of different concrete floor slabs considering uncertainty and sensitivity analysis,
J. Clean. Prod. 189 (Jul. 2018) 374–385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.094.
[194] Y. Teng, K. Li, W. Pan, T. Ng, Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: evidence from and gaps in empirical studies, Build.
Environ. 132 (Mar. 2018) 125–136.
[195] V. Tavares, N. Lacerda, F. Freire, Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: the ‘Moby’ case study, J. Clean.
Prod. 212 (Mar. 2019) 1044–1053.
[196] F. Kedir, D.M. Hall, Resource efficiency in industrialized housing construction – a systematic review of current performance and future opportunities, J. Clean.
Prod. 286 (Mar. 2021), 125443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125443.
[197] E. Worrell, J. Allwood, T. Gutowski, The role of material efficiency in environmental stewardship, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 (1) (Nov. 2016) 575–598,
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085737.
[198] W. Hawkins, A. Peters, T. Mander, A weight off your mind: floor loadings and the climate emergency, Struct. Eng. 99 (5) (May 2021) 18–20.
[199] M. Tan, Quantifying and Integrating Constructability into Multi-Objective Steel Floor Framing Design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2015.
[200] A. Koronaki, P. Shepherd, M. Evernden, Rationalization of freeform space-frame structures: reducing variability in the joints, Int. J. Architect. Comput. 18 (1)
(Mar. 2020) 84–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077119894881.
[201] K.J. Lee, R. Danhaive, C.T. Mueller, Spherical harmonic shape descriptors of nodal force demands for quantifying spatial truss connection complexity, Archit.
Struct. Constr. 2 (1) (May 2022) 145–164, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-022-00021-4.
[202] H. Pottmann, M. Eigensatz, A. Vaxman, J. Wallner, Architectural geometry, Comput. Graph. 47 (Apr. 2015) 145–164, 10/f3s2k4.
[203] W.J. Mitchell, Constructing complexity, in: Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, 2005, pp. 41–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3698-1_3, 2005,
Dordrecht.
[204] C.F. Reinhart, C. Cerezo Davila, Urban building energy modeling – a review of a nascent field, Build. Environ. 97 (Feb. 2016) 196–202, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.12.001.
[205] C.P. Stephen, N.C. Brown, P.L. Mayencourt, C.T. Mueller, Clustering analysis of structural loading for post-disaster housing design, in: Proceedings of IASS
Annual Symposia, vol. 2018, Jul. 2018.
[206] B.F. Spencer, S. Nagarajaiah, State of the art of structural control, J. Struct. Eng. 129 (7) (Jul. 2003) 845–856, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(2003)129:7(845).
[207] T. T. Soong and M. C. Costantinou, Eds., Passive and Active Structural Vibration Control in Civil Engineering. Accessed: May. 15, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-7091-3012-4.
[208] J.J. Connor, Introduction to Structural Motion Control, first ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J, 2002.
[209] G. Senatore, A.P. Reksowardojo, Force and shape control strategies for minimum energy adaptive structures, Front. Built Environ. 6 (Jul. 2020), 10/gg55b5.
[210] G. Senatore, P. Duffour, P. Winslow, Synthesis of minimum energy adaptive structures, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 60 (3) (Sep. 2019) 849–877, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00158-019-02224-8.
[211] F. Geiger, J. Gade, M. von Scheven, M. Bischoff, A case study on design and optimization of adaptive civil structures, Front. Built Environ. 0 (2020), https://
doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00094.
[212] W. Sobek, Ultra-lightweight construction, Int. J. Space Struct. 31 (1) (Mar. 2016) 74–80, https://doi.org/10.1177/0266351116643246.
[213] C. Kelleter, T. Burghardt, H. Binz, L. Blandini, W. Sobek, Adaptive concrete beams equipped with integrated fluidic actuators, Front. Built Environ. 0 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00091.
[214] S. Weidner, et al., The implementation of adaptive elements into an experimental high-rise building, Steel Constr 11 (2) (2018) 109–117, https://doi.org/
10.1002/stco.201810019.
[215] B. Kiss, Z. Szalay, Modular approach to multi-objective environmental optimization of buildings, Autom. ConStruct. 111 (Mar. 2020). N.PAG-N.PAG.
[216] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: a review article, Energy Build. 39 (3) (Mar. 2007) 249–257, 10/
bs6ztc.
[217] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview, Energy Build. 42 (10) (2010) 1592–1600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2010.05.007.
[218] T. Ibn-Mohammed, R. Greenough, S. Taylor, L. Ozawa-Meida, A. Acquaye, Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends,
Energy Build. 66 (Nov. 2013) 232–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.026.
[219] G. Lobaccaro, A.H. Wiberg, G. Ceci, M. Manni, N. Lolli, U. Berardi, Parametric design to minimize the embodied GHG emissions in a ZEB, Energy Build. 167
(May 2018) 106–123.
[220] N.C. Brown, C.T. Mueller, Design for structural and energy performance of long span buildings using geometric multi-objective optimization, Energy Build. 127
(Sep. 2016) 748–761, 10/f83b75.
[221] E. Gascón Alvarez, C.T. Mueller, L.K. Norford, Dynamic thermal performance of structurally optimized concrete floor slabs, in: Proceedings of the 17th
International IBPSA Conference, Bruges (Belgium), Sep. 2021, p. 8.
[222] A.J. Hartwell, C.T. Mueller, Design optimization of two-way filler slabs: lightweight concrete floor systems for affordable urban construction, in: Proceedings of
the IASS Annual Symposium 2020-21 and the 7th International Conference on Spatial Structures, Guilford, UK, Aug. 2021.
[223] G.P. Lydon, S. Caranovic, I. Hischier, A. Schlueter, Coupled simulation of thermally active building systems to support a digital twin, Energy Build. 202 (202)
(Nov. 2019), 109298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.07.015.
[224] R.E. Weber, C. Mueller, C. Reinhart, Solar exoskeletons – an integrated building system combining solar gain control with structural efficiency, Sol. Energy 240
(Jul. 2022) 301–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.05.048.
[225] M. Turrin, P. von Buelow, A. Kilian, R. Stouffs, Performative skins for passive climatic comfort: a parametric design process, Autom. ConStruct. 22 (Mar. 2012)
36–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.08.001.
[226] R. O’Hegarty, O. Kinnane, M. Grimes, J. Newell, M. Clifford, R. West, Development of thin precast concrete sandwich panels: challenges and outcomes,
Construct. Build. Mater. 267 (Jan. 2021). N.PAG-N.PAG.

32
D. Fang et al. Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023) 107054

[227] J.M. Broyles, M.R. Shepherd, N.C. Brown, Design optimization of structural–acoustic spanning concrete elements in buildings, J. Architect. Eng. 28 (1) (Mar.
2022), 04021044, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000520.
[228] G. Nordenson, E. Oswald, L. Walgenwitz, B. Schneider, J. Richardson, Design of unique structural systems for the corning museum of glass expansion, in: IABSE
Conference, Nara 2015: Elegance in Structures, 2015, pp. 194–197. Nara, Japan.
[229] M. Sarkisian, Designing Tall Buildings: Structure as Architecture, Routledge, 2012.
[230] S. Webb, Structural issues: the cost of material and the value of labour, Architect. Rev. (Jun. 15, 2021). Accessed: July. 14, 2021.[Online]. Available: https://
www.architectural-review.com/essays/structural-issues-the-cost-of-material-and-the-value-of-labour.
[231] M. Ismail, C. Mueller, Outrage: colonial legacies of concrete, Architect. Rev. (Apr. 14, 2022). Accessed: April. 25, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.
architectural-review.com/essays/outrage/outrage-colonial-legacies-of-concrete.
[232] A. Stephan, R.H. Crawford, A multi-scale life-cycle energy and greenhouse-gas emissions analysis model for residential buildings, Architect. Sci. Rev. 57 (1)
(Jan. 2014) 39–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2013.837814.
[233] B.G. Nichols, K.M. Kockelman, Life-cycle energy implications of different residential settings: recognizing buildings, travel, and public infrastructure, Energy
Pol. 68 (2014) 232–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.062.

33