page-header

SPECIFICATION GUIDANCE

Updating structural specifications to reduce embodied carbon can help a firm commit to lowering their carbon footprint on all projects.  The way specifications are written can also drive market change, affecting the way manufacturers develop new materials. 

While re-writing specifications can seem daunting, there are a variety of ways specifications can be revised to potentially reduce embodied carbon ranging from simple changes to complete overhauls.  Different strategies may work better for different firms and different types of projects. Compiled below is a list of tips and strategies that have been successfully used by structural engineering firms and material experts to reduce embodied carbon with specifications.

Disclaimer: The goal of these procurement guidelines is to help committed firms reduce the structural embodied carbon of their projects. The authors of these guidelines strive to balance information from multiple sources to provide impartial recommendations based on the current state of the industry.  SE 2050 does not endorse any specific strategy or recommendation; best practices are for individual firms to decide.

Tips from the experts… 

  1. Embodied carbon reduction requirements can be incorporated within standard material specifications, or as an addendum to be included on a select project basis.
  2. Early communication with both the client and the entire project delivery team is critical to meeting embodied carbon reduction goals.  Consider including a preconstruction meeting on project embodied carbon goals as a specification requirement.
  3. Host an embodied carbon charrette and/or provide a cover letter to the General Contractor and/or preconstruction manager that includes an introduction to embodied carbon and the embodied carbon goals for the project.  This is especially important in regions where manufacturers and suppliers are unfamiliar with embodied carbon. (Note: the cover letter would be for information only and not considered a contract document.)  
  4. Re-evaluate concrete specifications to eliminate unnecessary prescriptive requirements on materials such as minimum or maximum cement content, minimum or maximum fly ash or slag content, maximum w/cm ratio, etc. Consider specifying only performance requirements, such as compressive strength and exposure class.   
  5. Specifications ultimately need to allow for competitive bidding. This is important to keep in mind as specification updates are made.

WHOLE BUILDING STRATEGIES

Promote Transparency and Disclosure

This strategy involves adding language requiring contractors to collect product-specific EPDs (Environmental Product Declarations), or similar product information disclosures, for the designer to compare environmental impacts between suppliers.  This EPD product data must be included in a subcontractor’s bid.  The data can then be used to pick the subcontractor with the lowest Global Warming Potential (GWP) product. 

Requiring EPDs will also help drive market change, and normalize the adoption of EPDs as a resource to make more informed design decisions.  The EC3 tool can help project teams gain easy access to a wide-variety of producer EPDs in one convenient location.

As an alternative approach to requiring product-specific EPDs from contractors, specifications can ask the contractor to provide industry-wide EPDs.

Resources:

Transportation

Firms may consider specifying a maximum transportation distance to reduce the carbon footprint of shipping materials to the project site.  Materials are not always readily available regionally and may need to be shipped long distances, ultimately adding more embodied carbon to the project.  Mode of transport also impacts emissions, with trucking generally more carbon-intensive than rail and water transport. Heavy materials transported long distances will have a greater carbon footprint than lighter materials due to increased fuel consumption.

  • Example: “Source [insert product here] from manufacturers within a 500 mile radius by trucking, or 2000 mile radius by water.”

Note – realistic expectations and a general knowledge of material source locations should be considered when using this strategy. 

Performance Specifications

An increasingly popular strategy involves rewriting specifications from the typical prescriptive format to a performance-based approach.  Prescriptive specifications give specific direction to material suppliers and installers to ensure a material is manufactured and constructed as they prescribe.  Performance specifications simply specify the desired end result, but do not explain how a product manufacturer should achieve that end result.  

Switching to performance specifications changes project workflow by giving more freedom to the material suppliers, rather than having the designers set exact requirements.  In terms of embodied carbon reductions, this freedom for optimization improves the ability of suppliers to reach a lower embodied carbon target than when hindered by unnecessary prescriptive requirements. For example, in concrete specifications the water / cement ratio and prescriptive air content values are examples of these unnecessary prescriptive requirements (in most cases).  Identifying instead the concrete exposure class and referring to the relevant concrete codes is often sufficient.

The desired ‘end result’ outlined in a performance specification is typically a set Global Warming Potential (GWP) value for a given combination of strength and exposure class.

Hybrid specifications may also be an effective strategy, which involves a combination of prescriptive and performance-based specification language.

Note – successfully implementing this strategy does require consideration of the range of expertise among potential suppliers.

Resources: 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) Limits

This strategy requires specifying limits for global warming potential (GWP).  GWP limits can be placed on specific materials or project elements. To date, this has most commonly been applied to concrete mix designs, but in a future with more robust data and EPDs, this could similarly be applied to other products and systems.

Determining which GWP baseline values to use is an important step in this process. The specifier should consider input from the client, contractor, and project delivery team, if possible.  Looking at a baseline average of EPDs in a region is possible with tools such as EC3, which can also provide industry average information to substantiate GWP limits. When making comparisons between EPDs, be sure to confirm that they utilize the same assumptions, life-cycle stages, etc.  

GWP limits are most commonly set in performance-based specifications, where they allow the material supplier room to optimize material ingredients to meet a set target.  It is also possible to set GWP limits using prescriptive specifications, but it may be more difficult or costly for the supplier to meet targeted values.  See ‘WBS Strategy 3 – Performance Specifications’ for further information.

An example comes from Marin County’s Low-Carbon Concrete Code, enacted in 2019, which includes options for limiting either cement content or embodied carbon. The authors of the legislation engaged local engineers and suppliers to study how to set limitations for the region, see Figure 1. Similar collaborations can be initiated at the onset of a project to determine achievable targets specific to the region and project needs.

Figure 1. Excerpt from Marin County, CA, Low-Carbon Concrete Code (2019)

Resources: 

Carbon Bank

A broader strategy for limiting GWP is the ‘Carbon Bank’, or ‘Carbon Budget’ approach.  In this method, an embodied carbon reduction target is set for a portion of the project.  The contractor then chooses a cost-efficient approach to meet the stated target.  For example, a carbon bank could be established for a single sub-contractor such as the concrete supplier. The concrete supplier may then decide to only reduce GWP in the concrete for the building’s foundations, and keep the rest of the concrete as a standard mix, as long as the overall target is met.  This allows more freedom for the contractor to control costs and think creatively to meet the target.  This also creates a creative ‘buy in’ mindset of the contractor and shared ownership in decision making. These interactions facilitate the potential for a positive adoption of sustainability goals.

It is recommended that the specifications ‘bank’ or ‘budget’ is divided between trades to avoid confusion. Setting a carbon ‘bank’ or ‘budget’ for the entire project is likely too confusing for general contractors and leaves significant room for error.

Note – at the time of publishing this guide, setting a Carbon Budget for a new project is largely conceptual due to limitations of project data and benchmarks. A significant goal of the SE 2050 Program and Database is to collect data for setting statistically informed benchmarks and to guide implementation of such strategies.

Sustainability Goals

Specify the project’s sustainability goals in Part 1 – General – Summary. This can be applied to any material specification section, and encourages contractors and manufacturers to work closely with the A/E towards embodied carbon reduction goals.  Thorough communication is encouraged among the project delivery team to make sure goals are met.

Example: This project has a goal of reducing the embodied carbon footprint over a typical project by 20%. To accomplish this goal, we are targeting a carbon footprint reduction for concrete of 35% over the benchmarks established in the concrete industry’s Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment Version 3.1.

Structural engineers should be knowledgeable on the topic of carbon offsets, as they may be discussed during conversations with owners and while evaluating product claims in the marketplace. 

A carbon offset is a claim of a net reduction in GHG emissions – or an increase in carbon storage (e.g. through the planting of trees) – that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere, as defined per the Carbon Offset Guide. The rationale behind this strategy is that greenhouse gases mix globally in the atmosphere, thus it does not matter if they are reduced at the source of the emissions or elsewhere. 

Rather than a primary carbon reducing strategy, carbon offsets should be considered a supplementary tool for residual project emissions. In other words, carbon offsets should only pay for actions that would not take place without the support of the offsets, which is referred to as “additionality.” Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) and Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs) are two carbon offset certification labels which require consideration of additionality

Although offsets must be third-party verified, many are controversial; in one example, CERs had been used to support coal-fired electrical generation plants.  Additionality is also difficult to prove in many instances.

Because of these limitations and uncertainties, best practice is to utilize all means of reducing embodied carbon directly, or to make direct reductions through design and material choices, before turning to offsets.

Carbon Offset References:

STRUCTURAL STEEL

90% of the embodied carbon of fabricated structural steel occurs between the cradle-to-mill-gate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) stages. Therefore, an engineer should take steps to consider the mill processes that affect the embodied carbon outcomes. Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) produced steel has significantly lower embodied carbon because that process uses a high (~93%) amount of recycled content as a steelmaking input, rather than the virgin iron products used in basic oxygen furnace (BOF) produced steel. Steps taken to choose EAF structural products can have a large impact on embodied carbon reduction goals.

Structural Steel Sources

Domestic hot-rolled sections are entirely produced in EAFs. Structural plate and hot-rolled coils used to form HSS may originate from either a BOF or EAF furnace. Imported structural products are more likely to be produced in BOFs. The 2020 worldwide average ratio of BOF:EAF steel production was 72:28, and notably, China’s ratio was 90:10. The United States’ ratio was 30:70.

Additionally, not all EAF steel is created equal. In some instances, United States BOF-produced steel may have lower embodied carbon than foreign EAF steel (this variation depends on a mill’s input mix of scrap, direct reduced iron (DRI), or pig iron, and the energy grid source mix). Check producer-specific EPDs when available.

Maximize Recycled Content 

In general, the greater the recycled content of steel, the lesser its embodied carbon. Specify minimum recycled content percentages to be required for all structural steel used on a firm’s projects. Consider whether these minimum percentages will apply to each piece of steel, or on average for the entire project. 

Note – average percentages are more commonly used and often easier to achieve. Above 75% recycled content is typical for hot rolled sections. For HSS and plate, it may be more useful to specify EAF production rather than recycled content.

Recycled content requirements may also be applied to metals in other specification sections, including steel decking, steel joist framing, and cold-formed steel. Cold-formed steel and decking are often formed from steel produced in BOFs.

Lower Embodied Carbon Steel Products

Many structural steel, steel deck, and cold-formed steel producers have published product-specific EPDs, so it is becoming increasingly viable to directly specify a maximum GWP for these components. The EC3 tool provides access to a wide variety of producer EPDs, and can help project teams set appropriate thresholds depending on their region.

Note – engineers should exercise caution when interpreting EC3’s Boxplot Diagram results for steel. The diagram aggregates many EPDs together that have differing and non-comparable features that affect embodied carbon, and therefore it is not an adequate representation of the steel market at this time. For example, EPDs are lumped together regardless of whether or not they include the effects of fabrication or galvanizing, whether or not the LCA accounting was developed according to a consistent Product Category Rule (PCR), whether or not the LCA modules included are consistent, and whether or not the product fits the category as defined in EC3. Engineers should confirm the EPD assumptions and be specific about parameters when specifying maximum GWP. 

Fabrication is an often overlooked portion of the fabricated structural steel package, but it accounts for nearly 10% of the total cradle-to-fabricator-gate GWP. At the end of 2023, AISC launched a Sustainability Partner Program (aisc.org/partnerprogram) for their fabricator membership that gets fabricators educated on their own footprint, commits them to reporting environmental data, and has them create sustainability goals that make an embodied carbon difference. You care that subcontractors are doing their part, so ask your contractor if the fabricator on your project has joined AISC’s free program. And ideally, consider requiring Sustainable Steel Fabricators in your specification.

Steel Resources:

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE (CIP)

Blended Cements and Supplementary Cementitious Materials

Most of the carbon footprint in concrete comes from cement. Reducing cement can be accomplished by using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) as a portion of the cementitious materials. SCMs can be separately batched when producing concrete or included when using a blended cement. Permit all types of SCMs in concrete and do not place prescriptive limits on their use, unless required by code (note that prescriptive limits are only required in certain circumstances, for example concrete subject to deicing salt application). Permit the use of ASTM C595 blended cements in the specification. The different types include Type IP (with pozzolans), Type IS (with slag) and Type IL (Portland-limestone cement). Type IL is generally available in all regions. The same quantity of SCMs can be used in concrete made with Type IL cement as with mixtures with Portland cement.

Considering that it may not be feasible to reduce the Portland-cement content in all concrete mixtures used on a project (due to lesser strengths, greater setting times, or other factors), an alternative strategy involves specifying a cap on embodied carbon considering the totality of concrete used for the project. This allows the contractor flexibility tailoring the SCM quantities in concrete mixtures to address sustainability requirements without sacrificing performance.

Concrete Strength

Over-specifying concrete strength results in increasing embodied carbon. Specify only the strength that is actually required in the design of members. If durability provisions in the code require a higher strength, consider taking advantage of that in design.

Requiring concrete to achieve its design strength at an early age also increases the embodied carbon. Specify 56-day (or longer) strength, unless high early strength is needed, such as possibly for post-tensioning. If specifying high early strength, also take full advantage of the resulting 28-day or 56-day strength for design. Concrete continues to gain strength well beyond 28 days, especially when including fly ash. Specifying longer cure times can allow less over-design of the concrete mix by giving it more time to come up to strength.  Specifying the use of concrete maturity sensors is also recommended.

Reducing the cement content as much as possible will have a significant effect on lowering embodied carbon.  Mixes with less water will meet higher strengths with less cement.  Choose an appropriate prescription for the total amount of water in the mix, with provisions for use of plasticizers or water reducers for meeting slump/workability requirements. Additionally, designers may specify a higher allowable water / cement ratio to reduce unnecessary cement in the mix.

Air content also impacts the ability to achieve design strength – in general, higher cementitious materials content will be required for air-entrained concrete.

Specialty Services & Technologies 

There are a growing number of technologies and services that can reduce the embodied carbon of concrete.  Many of these technologies require changes to material specifications before they can be included in a project.  It is recommended that structural firms work with these technology producers to draft specifications and insert language so that these can be more readily specified on a project.

In carbon mineralization, carbon dioxide is injected into concrete during production, usually by specifying proprietary methods.  When introduced, the CO2 becomes chemically converted into a solid mineral – meaning that the CO2 is permanently trapped within the concrete. This technology requires a concrete specification without any prescriptive water / cement ratios.

Examples of specialty services and technologies include Green SenseCarbonCureSolidia, and Blue Planet.

Note – many of these technologies and services are specific to certain regions and are not available nationwide. 

Lower Embodied Carbon Steel Reinforcement (Rebar)

The embodied carbon of metals depends upon the electricity source used in production.  Rebar is typically produced in electric arc furnaces (EAFs). EAF steel generally has a higher recycled content and lower carbon footprint than blast oxygen furnace (BOF) steel.

Many rebar producers have published EPDs, so it is becoming increasingly viable to directly specify a maximum GWP for rebar. The EC3 tool can help project teams set appropriate thresholds depending on their region.

Recycled Content 

Recycled water can be permitted by including a reference to ASTM C1602 (instead of specifying potable water). Also for some members like footings and foundations, recycled aggregates could be permitted. However, avoid specifying a minimum recycled aggregate content for concrete as it can have an adverse impact on performance.

Note – the embodied carbon benefits of these strategies are hard to quantify.

Performance Specifications

The NRMCA has launched the P2P Initiative, an acronym for ‘Prescriptive to Performance’ specifications.  The initiative’s goal is to shift the concrete industry to performance-based specifications, to more easily allow for concrete mix design optimization to meet sustainability goals.  See the ‘WBS Strategy 3 – Performance Specifications’ section for further information.

Concrete Baselines:

Concrete Resources:

WOOD AND MASS TIMBER

Wood differs from other structural materials due to its biogenic carbon as a bio-based material. EN 15804+A2, a European standard governing Product Category Rules for Environmental Product Declarations, defines the two different types of carbon as follows: 

Fossil carbon: CO2 released from permanent stores, such as fossil fuels.

Biogenic carbon: CO2 stored in bio-based materials such as plants. This carbon is considered part of the Earth’s natural carbon cycle, which is sequestered through photosynthesis and released through either combustion or decomposition.

Thorough understanding of these definitions is critical for structural engineers looking to reduce the embodied carbon of their wood and mass timber structures through strategic specifications. Key considerations for procuring more climate-friendly wood products are described below, including transportation, adhesives, disclosure, forest management practices, and salvaged wood.

Seek Opportunities for Reclaimed and Salvaged Wood

The reuse of any structural material is often the lowest carbon solution available for structural engineers. The use of reclaimed or salvaged wood has low-carbon benefits not only from lower manufacturing emissions compared to equivalent virgin wood products, but also from the prolonged carbon storage in the wood element itself.  

The logging of virgin timber releases carbon stored by the soil (below ground biomass), which can contain twice as much carbon as trees; Carbon is also released due to the decomposition of roots, branches, leaves, and needles. This can be mitigated to some degree with sustainable forest management practices, but it remains an emissions source that is often overlooked when thinking about wood products.*  Additionally, there are emissions from the logging and manufacturing equipment associated with virgin timber products. The sum of the upfront manufacturing (A1-A3) emissions is typically greater (can be up to 3 times greater as shown in a study for framing lumber) than the emissions associated with deconstruction, regrading, and reprocessing salvaged lumber. The reuse of existing wood will also extend the life of a material that would otherwise be burned or allowed to decompose, which would release its stored biogenic carbon back into the atmosphere. Dimension lumber also does not make full use of the tree, leading to excess wasted material.  

For the structural designer looking to specify salvaged wood for their project, the design properties (primarily strength and stiffness) of each piece of lumber must be known. This requires identification of the species, and structural grading. Species identification in some cases can be completed by a wood expert analyzing the specimen under a microscope; another method gaining traction is acoustic grading using wave propagation measurements. Neither of these methods are perfect, and may sometimes result in a range of identified potential species. Grading pieces of salvaged lumber can also be challenging. Regrading a salvaged piece of lumber is not currently allowed by grading agencies. In some lucky cases, a salvaged piece may have an existing grade stamp, which can remain valid unless any replaning occurs to the member or excessive defects (such as nails) exist.  In other instances, lumber can be visually graded per ASTM D 245, which requires an examination of all 4 sides of the lumber piece for defects such as knots or nails.  Ultimately, the engineer of record does bear the responsibility for the species and grading determinations used in structural design.  More information on the structural wood reuse process can be found here.

Quality control measures are critical for successful implementation of this strategy, and the material may require additional testing or treatment before structural reuse is possible.  There may also be jurisdictional requirements prohibiting the use of salvaged or reclaimed wood, and engineers should review the applicable building codes to determine what is allowed for their project.

Recommendations:

* See ‘Additional Considerations – Wood in LCAs’ section

Specify Sustainable Forest Management Practices

The net carbon benefit of wood products varies greatly with different forest management practices. Poor forest management practices (e.g., logging on illegal or protected land and clearing of forest for non-forest use) can lead to significant carbon emissions in addition to other negative environmental impacts on ecosystem and forest health. Sustainable forest management practices can vary regionally as different jurisdictions attempt to balance ecosystem health, forest resilience, biodiversity, and community needs. A well managed forest  can lead to win-win scenarios of maximizing ecosystem health and minimizing emissions into the atmosphere. It is crucial that sustainable forest management is a core criteria for the procurement of sustainable wood products. 

According to Think Wood, assurance for timber harvested sustainably can be provided by forest certification, responsible fiber sourcing standards, and/or Best Management Practices (BMPs, developed by every U.S. state). Currently, it is common practice among green building designers to specify certified wood (common programs include FSC, SFI, ATFS, and PEFC) as a means of assuring a baseline of sustainable forest management practices. State-developed Best Management Practices may not be as stringent as the requirements of forest certification, but a few strong examples of state codified BMPs include Oregon’s Forest Production Laws: An illustrated manual, Forest Practices Illustrated: A simplified guide to forest practices rules in Washington State and California’s Forest Practices Act.

While forest certification is often seen as having a high level of quality assurance for sustainable forest management, direct climate benefits are not necessarily assured by wood certification since these programs are only recently beginning to specifically address climate mitigation. Additionally, certified products may come with a cost premium. Smaller forest owners and public forests can also demonstrate exceptional, sustainable forest management practices, but may not have the financial means for acquiring certification. The Climate Smart Wood Group provides guidance on additional criteria for climate-smart forestry operations outside of certification which includes non-industrial timber producers such as “US federal, indigenous or tribal, non-profit organizations and land trusts, and family forest owners.” Other recommendations are sourcing from ecological forestry operations where “restoration is occurring to enhance ecological resilience and integrity (which) by definition offer many climate-smart benefits,” and from forests with above-business-as-usual regulations and practices. Examples of the latter include forests governed by Habitat Conservation Plans and those that are third-party-certified carbon projects.

Given the complexity of wood sourcing impacts and challenges with transparency and traceability, practitioners are encouraged to engage with local foresters who are trained, deeply knowledgeable about local forest needs, and can help identify wood sources from forest management operations. Along with source forest disclosure as described in the previous section, it is recommended to request the disclosure of forest management practices.

While there is an ISO Standard (ISO 38200:2018) setting requirements for the supply chain of wood products, there is currently no consensus or widely-accepted standard for sustainable forest management practices. However, there are some clear wins for sustainable wood procurement that practitioners can consider. This includes salvaged and reclaimed wood products (more detail in next section), and feedstocks that are byproducts of targeted harvest, such as small diameter trees not suitable for typical dimension lumber, as part of forestry operations to improve forest health (some examples include Vaagen Brothers Lumber in Washington and Timber Age Systems in Colorado). 

Recommendations:

  • Request information about forest management practices from manufacturers for wood products. 
  • Avoid illegally sourced wood and wood sourced from deforested lands, old growth forests, and protected lands.
  • Proactively engage with forest managers and sawmills, with support from the project team (client, designers, and contractors), to uncover opportunities for available feedstock as byproducts of local forest and ecosystem needs.
  • Evaluate sustainable forest management practices against criteria provided by forestry experts, like the Climate Smart Wood Group procurement guide.
  • Seek indicators of sustainable forest management practices such as forest certification, responsible fiber sourcing standards, Best Management Practices, ecologically-motivated forestry operations, and climate-smart forestry operations from non-industrial timber producers such as the US Forest Service, indigenous or tribal communities, non-profit organizations, and family forest owners.

Request Forest Sourcing Disclosure

The supply chain for wood products tends to be more opaque and harder to trace than for other structural products. Compared to commodity mineral supply chains, the wood supply chain is often more dispersed and with a larger variation in the involvement, attitudes, and intentions of stakeholders (such as local communities, land owners, loggers, mills, manufacturers, developers, the commoditized lumber market, etc.) while also varying from region to region.  Engineers can leverage their position as material specifiers by requesting a high degree of traceability and transparency within the forest industry. The World Resources Institute defines these terms as follows: 

  • Traceability refers to the ability to link a product with information about its history of locations, owners, and transformations between points in the supply chain.
  • Transparency refers to the making available of information by any stakeholder. This can include broader information that is relevant in the context of halting and reversing forest loss such as sustainability policies and practices, commitments, land use information, monitoring, or outstanding grievances.

EPDs of structural wood products currently do not include upstream primary data such as source forest disclosure and additional emissions sources.  As summarized in the wood chapter of a recent report by RMI, “Greater life-cycle impacts data and transparency of wood products such as EPDs are needed to make better informed choices. Wood products must be sourced and manufactured in ways that go beyond regulatory minimums and foster regenerative and climate-resilient solutions.” As such, it is necessary to request for traceability and transparency within the wood supply chain until EPDs are updated to reflect this information.

Source: Driving Action on Embodied Carbon in Buildings (RMI)

Some structural engineers are including questionnaires in their bid documents to collect sourcing information. For example, Davies-Crooks Associates provides one example:  

Disclosure Request Template Reference: MASS TIMBER FOREST SOURCING DISCLOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE (8/1/2023)

Introducing a detailed questionnaire during procurement is a relatively new practice for the industry, and therefore the extent of success and difficulty of this approach are not yet known. It is anticipated that the process will be continually refined for streamlined and practical implementation by users over time.The questionnaire may be included in bid documents to give project teams added transparency about the sourcing of mass timber products. The use of this questionnaire can also provide more accurate transportation data to evaluate the climate impacts of shipping timber products over large distances. 

The Climate Smart Wood Procurement Guide, linked in the Wood Resources section, provides more detailed recommendations and guidance on criteria for wood sourcing from a climate-focused perspective.

Recommendations:

  • Aim to use the forest sourcing disclosure questionnaire (partially or fully) in your projects.
  • At minimum, request information about the source forest from manufacturers for all wood products above a certain threshold (e.g., > 1% of total construction volume or cost). 
  • Examine wood product EPDs and acknowledge any missing life-cycle impacts data.

Transportation Emissions

For wood products, transportation impacts can be a notable portion of the total embodied carbon impacts compared to other structural materials, in part due to the inherently lower carbon emissions associated with wood material production. Wood product specifiers should therefore pay particular attention to transportation. 

Engineers should research the availability and sustainable attributes of wood products in their local region, and specify product requirements that are consistent with the project’s carbon reduction goals. Transportation emissions can vary greatly between different wood products and are a function of the total distance traveled and the mode of transportation utilized.  A transportation consideration specific to CLT and some other mass timber products is if it will be sourced from North America or European sources.

Certain studies using WBLCA and EPDs have also indicated that transportation-related emissions can be the majority of the embodied carbon for a given mass timber product. For example, a UK-based study performed by Arup for CLT and Glulam indicated that the transportation of the original raw materials to the manufacturing facility (life cycle stage A2) accounted for 8-10% of the A1-A5 emissions.  Stage A4, transport of manufactured materials to the construction site, accounted for 50-55% of A1-A5 emissions.  It should however be noted that the emissions percentages in this study are representative of the UK market, which typically sources from Europe, and the results should not be directly applied to a North American project (where transport distances and modes will vary widely).  The results of any WBLCA study are dependent upon multiple factors such as the project location, proximity of mass timber suppliers, and modes of transportation, and the calculation should be performed for each project.

Typical carbon contributions to the supply chain for CLT and Glulam products. 

(Note: this study was performed in the UK.)

Source: Embodied Carbon, Timber (Arup)

Recommendations: 

  • Weigh the transport emissions (life cycle stage A4) against the manufacturing emissions (A1-A3) to understand the full life cycle emissions associated with use of the wood product. Forell Elsesser Structural Engineers has created this tool to calculate A4 emissions.
  • Prioritize locally sourced products whenever possible.
  • Investigate whether lower carbon transport modes are available. Consider prioritizing suppliers that use lower carbon transport modes like rail and cargo ship whenever possible.  As the availability of electric vehicles continues to increase, investigate opportunities for electric semi truck transport.

Acknowledge the Impact of Adhesives

It is important to note that specification of adhesive types is beyond the reasonable scope of the structural engineer, as these are either prescribed by standards, performance requirements, or chosen by the supplier.  This section is instead provided to educate and provide insight into this lesser-known topic.

Many types of wood and mass timber products require the use of adhesive technologies.  While explicit information on the GWP of wood adhesives is limited, some research has shown that adhesives contribute significantly to the GWP of wood-based products.  

Adhesives are typically made from oil, which is energy-intensive to extract and refine. CLT and Glulam products typically contain at least 1 to 2.5% by volume of adhesive, yet the specific percentage of a product’s GWP that is due to adhesives is not consistently reported in EPDs.  Researchers at Arup have put together the graphic below from a variety of resources to provide a comparison of GWP/kg between common adhesives and common wood products that require adhesives.

Source: Embodied Carbon, Timber (Arup)

MUF = Melamine-Urea-Formaldehyde*

MF = Melamine Formaldehyde 

PF = Phenol Formaldehyde 

EPI = Emulsion Polymer Isocyanate

PEP = Polyurethane Emulsion Polymer  

PUR = Polyurethane* 

PVAc = Polyvinyl Acetate

* CLT most often uses Polyurethane (PUR), and Glulam most often uses Melamine-Urea-Formaldehyde (MUF).

Acknowledge the Impact of Kiln Drying

It is important to note that specification of kiln drying methods is often beyond the reasonable scope of the structural engineer, as these are either prescribed by standards or chosen by the supplier.  This section is instead provided to educate and provide insight into this lesser-known topic.

Wood is a hygroscopic material that absorbs and releases moisture into the surrounding atmosphere. Wood has improved strength and stiffness when dry compared to wet, and wood shrinks as it undergoes the drying process – causing checks. To ensure dimensional stability, avoid visual cracks, and benefit from the improved mechanical properties, wood is typically dried to approximately 12% moisture content – the typical equilibrium moisture content of a building. Wood for laminations (lamstock) in CLT and glulam is typically dried to a moisture content of less than 16% to ensure proper adhesion of the laminations.

Wood can be dried by air flow (wood stickered and stacked outside), in a solar kiln (wood stickered and stacked within a greenhouse), or dried in a fueled convective kiln. (Stickers are wood spacers placed between the boards to allow the air to circulate.) Air drying uses no additional energy but may take months to reach the desired moisture content. Solar kilns use a small amount of electricity to power fans to circulate air, but may take 4-6 weeks to reach the desired moisture content. Convective kilns require energy input to heat the air, but can dry wood in days. Convective kiln drying is the typical method for commercial wood and laminated wood products.

The kiln drying process consumes around 90% of the manufacturing energy of sawn wood products. The fuel used for the kiln depends on the facility location and operator, but typically will be a mix of incinerated biomass from the facilities process and natural gas. Some studies have indicated that between 35% and 40% of the Global Warming Potential of glulam can be attributed to lamstock production, which is associated with this drying process.

While it is often impractical to specify the drying method, this should be visible in the product EPD. Facilities that use a larger proportion of non-fossil fuels for their kiln or have a local renewable energy grid will have a lower carbon footprint. For unlaminated wood products in some environmental conditions, the emissions associated with drying can also be avoided by specifying green (undried) lumber with a moisture content of 20% or above and allowing the material to dry naturally.

Additional Considerations for Structural Engineers

SHEATHING | The 2020 AWC/CWC industry-average Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) indicates that OSB has over 10% more embodied carbon than softwood plywood. The latest OSB and plywood EPDs can be found through a search of the American Wood Council resources.

OTHER WOOD USES | The construction industry often requires the use of wood-based products for ultimately non-structural applications, most notably including concrete formwork and temporary structures such as shoring.  Structural engineers should consider these other uses of wood when revising procurement documents for sustainability, and apply the strategies listed in this resource where applicable (formwork is often specified in the Division 03 concrete specifications, for example).

WOOD IN LCAs | Always report biogenic carbon separately when performing LCAs (e.g., provide a total emissions value that does not include biogenic carbon storage).  

This is recommended because there is currently no consensus on the valuation of carbon storage for wood products.  There are two approaches: backwards accounting (taking credit for carbon absorbed in the last 40 years, which doesn’t affect our atmosphere today), and forward accounting (considering the carbon storage of newly planted trees as a direct result from harvest).  

It should also be noted that ISO 21930:2017 uses the +1/-1 approach for biogenic carbon in LCA accounting. When a bio-based material leaves nature, its stored biogenic carbon is reported as a negative emission.  When the bio-based material is converted back to emissions, via combustion or biodegradation at end of life, it is then counted as a positive biogenic emission.

Best practice is to report biogenic carbon separately in LCAs to enable effective comparisons between design options, and discourage inefficient use of timber.

OTHER BIOGENIC MATERIALS | There are many complexities associated with wood products from both a climate, environmental, and market perspective. However, there are many biobased materials with a more defensible low-carbon and carbon storage story since they can have shorter growth cycles and less nuanced land use impacts. Consider incorporating other biobased materials into your practice, such as bamboo, grass panels, or load-bearing straw and hemp assemblies.

Additional Wood Resources:

CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS (CMU)

CMU is a composite system of four materials, each of which can be addressed in specifications: concrete block, steel reinforcement, mortar, and grout. Clay masonry (hollow brick) can also be used in lieu of concrete masonry, but is not as common as a structural material.

Specified Compressive Strength Method for Grout

Use the specified compressive stress method instead of the volume method to proportion grout mix. ASTM C 476, Standard Specification for Grout in Masonry, permits the grout to be proportioned by volume (prescriptive) or using specified compressive strength in accordance with ASTM C 1019 (performance). Using the compressive strength method generally results in less cement, thereby reducing embodied carbon.

Supplementary Cementitious Materials

Use supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) to limit the quantity of Portland cement in the mortar, grout mix, and/or concrete block to reduce CMU’s carbon footprint.  See ‘CIP Strategy 1’ section for more information.

Carbon Mineralization in Concrete Masonry Units

Carbon mineralization by CO2 injection during manufacture applies to CMU as well as cast-in-place concrete. See ‘CIP Strategy 3’ section for more information.

Lower Embodied Carbon Steel Reinforcement (Rebar)

The embodied carbon of metals depends upon the electricity source used in production.  Rebar is typically produced in electric arc furnaces (EAFs). EAF steel generally has a higher recycled content and lower carbon footprint than blast oxygen furnace (BOF) steel.

Many rebar producers have published EPDs, so it is becoming increasingly viable to directly specify a maximum GWP for rebar. See ‘WBS Strategy 1’ for more information on EPDs.

Resources:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the following for your contributions to this document.

  • Charlotte Ochoa
  • Mark Webster, SGH
  • Chelsea Drenick, WoodWorks
  • Michael Cropper, Thornton Tomasetti
  • David Shook, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
  • Carl Elefante, Architecture 2030
  • Lindsay Rasmussen, RMI
  • Brian Trimble, International Masonry Institute 
  • Max Puchtel, American Institute of Steel Construction
  • Scott Campbell, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
  • Truc (Tracy) Huynh, RMI
  • Dan Bergsagel, sbp
Back to top of page