CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Sustainable Building Design and AssessmentEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityMaterial Selection and Properties

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

How does conceptual design impact the cost and carbon footprint of structures?

Open access
Kanyilmaz, Alper, Hoi Dang, Van, Kondratenko, Aleksei·2023·Structures
DOI 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Making sustainable conceptual design decisions is the key to reduce the environmental impact of the construction industry. Such early decisions, which must be given in a short timeframe, have the largest impact on a project’s quality, cost and embodied carbon. This study showed how much the conceptual design decisions affect the cost and carbon footprint of a building’s structure using our Non-dominated Sorted Genetic Algorithm II tool. First, we tested the tool’s reliability by comparing its solutions with three case studies from literature. Then, we showed that by quickly examining various conceptual design solutions on a Pareto graph (which spotlights cost and CO2-optimized options), more sustainable design alternatives can be identified. Then, using the tool, we analyzed 36 building configurations, providing a spectrum of embodied carbon emissions (including the life cycle assessment steps A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, C2, C3, C4) ranging between 60 and 360 kgCO2e/m2. By comparing 25 material types from 15 databases (EPDs and ICE), we concluded that the geometry decisions (span length, height and shape) have the largest influence, material type (steel, timber, reinforced concrete), recycling and reuse of steel are crucial, and the embodied carbon calculations are highly sensitive to the supplier data and location. Overall, this study showed that architects and engineers possess the ability to significantly reduce the embodied carbon of structural systems by selecting the appropriate materials and structural system at the conceptual design stage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 28

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Global, 2021, Global Status report for Buildings and Construction, United Nations Environment Programme
  2. United Nations, 1989, Montreal protocol on 1987, J Environ Law, 1, 128
  3. United Nations, 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Fram. Conv Clim Chang, 1
  4. Rafiq, 2008, A decision support tool for multi-disciplinary conceptual design, Struct Eng, 86, 37, 10.1016/0141-0296(88)90014-4 · DOI
  5. O. P. Gibbons and J. J. Orr, How to calculate embodied carbon (second edition), 2nd ed. 2022.
  6. Groff, 2020, “EU Green Deal”, Introduction to, Knowledge Manag, 106
  7. Paulson, 1976, Designing to reduce construction costs, J Constr Div, 107
  8. Hart, 2021, Whole-life embodied carbon in multistory buildings: Steel, concrete and timber structures, J Ind Ecol, 25, 403, 10.1111/jiec.13139 · DOI
  9. Gauch, 2022, Carbon vs. cost option mapping: A tool for improving early-stage design decisions, Autom Constr, 136, 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104178 · DOI
  10. D’Amico, 2018, Accuracy and reliability: A computational tool to minimise steel mass and carbon emissions at early-stage structural design, Energ Buildings, 168, 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.031 · DOI
  11. Fang, 2023, Reducing embodied carbon in structural systems: A review of early-stage design strategies, J Build Eng, 76
  12. Park, 1999, Pareto-optimal conceptual design of the structural layout of buildings using a multicriteria genetic algorithm, Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng, 14, 163, 10.1111/0885-9507.00138 · DOI
  13. Miles, 2001, The conceptual design of commercial buildings using a genetic algorithm, Comput Struct, 79, 1583, 10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00040-2 · DOI
  14. P. Raquel Navarro Tichell, A. Kanyilmaz, and D. Loiacono, “Masters thesis: Conceptual design of buildings with artificial intelligence,” 2020. https://alperkanyilmaz.com/.
  15. Khodadadi, 2019, Eco-friendly mid-rise apartments using CLT panels, IASS Symp, October, 614
  16. Jalali Yazdi, 2021, Mass-customisation of cross-laminated timber wall systems at early design stages, Autom Constr, 132, 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103938 · DOI
  17. Thai, 2021, Multi-objective optimization of CLT-concrete composite floor using NSGA-II algorithm, Acad J Civ Eng, 39, 71
  18. Harding, 2018, Biomorpher: Interactive evolution for parametric design, Int J Archit Comput, 16, 144
  19. Brown, 2020, Implementing data-driven parametric building design with a flexible toolbox, Autom Constr, 118, 103252, 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103252 · DOI
  20. Balaghi, 2021, Optimal design of structures under earthquake loads using basic modal displacements method enhanced by fuzzy c-means clustering, Structures, 32, 778, 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.03.001 · DOI
  21. Huang, 2021, Optimizing displacement-based seismic design of mass timber rocking walls using genetic algorithm, Eng Struct, 229, 111603, 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111603 · DOI
  22. Peng, 2021, Reliability-based design optimization of adaptive sliding base isolation system for improving seismic performance of structures, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 205, 107167, 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107167 · DOI
  23. De Wolf, 2017, Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice, Energ Buildings, 140, 68, 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.075 · DOI
  24. Cabeza, 2014, Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 29, 394, 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037 · DOI
  25. Dani, 2022, A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of New Zealand Residential Buildings, Buildings, 12, 10.3390/buildings12010050 · DOI
  26. Chen, 2022, Comparative life cycle assessment of mass timber and concrete residential buildings: A case study in China, Sustainability, 14
  27. Helal, 2020, The influence of structural design methods on the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of structural systems for tall buildings, Structures, 24, 650, 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.01.026 · DOI
  28. Hawkins, 2021, Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: Case-study comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure, Structures, 33, 90, 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.013 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gauch, 2023, What really matters in multi-storey building design? A simultaneous sensitivity study of embodied carbon, construction cost, and operational energy, Appl Energy, 333
  30. Ingenieros SA, 2020, Generador de precios de la construcción, España
  31. Graber, 2020, Feasibility of Cross Laminated Timber Panels in Construction, A Case Study of Carbon12
  32. Scouse, 2020, Regional and net economic impacts of high-rise mass timber construction in Oregon, Sustain Cities Soc, 61
  33. Simões, 1996, Optimization of frames with semi-rigid connections, Comput Struct, 60, 531, 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00427-0 · DOI
  34. “EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method,” International Standard, no. November. pp. 1–64, 2011.
  35. Hanson UK, “Environmental product declaration,” vol. 44, no. 000456, 2017.
  36. EMR, “Reusable steel environmental product declaration programme,” pp. 1–13, 2022.
  37. Beltrame Group, “Environmental product declaration,” pp. 1–14, 2020.
  38. Bauforumstahl, 2018, Structural steel: sections and plates, Environ Prod Decl
  39. Hoxha, 2020, Biogenic carbon in buildings: a critical overview of LCA methods, Build Cities, 1, 504, 10.5334/bc.46 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Peng, 2023, The carbon costs of global wood harvests, Nature, 620, 110, 10.1038/s41586-023-06187-1 · DOI
  41. Muszynski, 2020, Global CLT industry in 2020: Growth beyond the Alpine, Region
  42. Structurlam, 2020, Mass Timber Technical Guide
  43. Buro Happold, “Embodied carbon-Structural Sensitivity Study,” 2020. 10.4324/9781003123873-8. · DOI
  44. Hawkins, 2021, Timber and carbon sequestration, Struct Eng, 99, 18, 10.56330/ALFK4016 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Kanyilmaz, A., Hoi Dang, V., & Kondratenko, A.
Affiliations
Politecnico di Milano (IT)
Corresponding author
Kanyilmaz, Alper
ORCID
Venue
Structures
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-12
Volume
58
Pages
105102
ISSN
2352-0124 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102
OpenAlex
W4387936357
Cited by
28
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Structures (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › General Materials Science › Material Selection and Properties
Keywords
conceptual design, embodied carbon, structural cost, building structures, multi-objective optimization, NSGA-II, Pareto front, life cycle assessment, material selection, timber, reinforced concrete, span length, structural geometry, construction industry sustainability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How does conceptual design impact the cost and carbon footprint of structures? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102
The paper
Kanyilmaz, A., Hoi Dang, V., & Kondratenko, A. (2023). How does conceptual design impact the cost and carbon footprint of structures? Structures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105102