Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Feasibility study to estimate the environmental benefits of utilising timber to T

construct high-rise buildings in Australia
Jiehong Li, Behzad Rismanchi∗, Tuan Ngo
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reinforced concrete has played a significant role in the construction industry and is one of the most popular
Timber construction materials. However, different studies suggest that reinforced concrete is not environmentally
CLT friendly with a significant adverse environmental impact during its production, usage and end of life. Therefore,
High rise building a more sustainable material that could perform as well as reinforced concrete can overcome this limitation.
Embodied energy
During the past decade, a number of studies on timber construction have shown the potential to replace concrete
Embodied carbon
with timber in parts of a building without compromising the resilience of the structure. Most of them focused on
greenhouse gas emissions rather than embodied energy and structural requirements. Therefore, this research has
focused on the feasibility of timber and its potential benefits as a construction material in parts of a high-rise
building located in Australia. The potential benefits and limitations of utilising timber to construct a high-rise
building in Australia were investigated. For this purpose, a hypothetical 43-storey building is considered, to
make it comparable with the existing studies in the literature; the baseline model is designed according to the
study by Kuilen et al. (2011). Three scenarios were considered with different proportion of timber. Parametric
studies were subsequently conducted on the effects of materials, size and shape of the structural elements on the
performance of the building. It was found that in the selected site, using timber to construct internal parts of
high-rise buildings would provide the best solution in terms of structural and environmental benefits.

1. Introduction strength requirements [6].

The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential benefits and
A growing population and a high demand for accessible accom- limitations of using timber to construct parts of a high-rise building in
modation have caused cities to grow vertically, whereby low-rise and Australia and analyse its advantages and disadvantages in terms of total
medium-rise construction is no longer sufficient. Furthermore, it was deflection, embodied energy (EE) and embodied carbon (EC). In this
reported that the global temperature in 2012 was 0.85 °C higher than study, three scenarios were considered for designing a high-rise
that in 1880, and a rapid change in global temperature will continue to building with different proportions of timber. Each scenario meets the
occur with time [2,3]. Studies suggest that buildings contribute directly requirements of strength and total deflection (based on wind and
(running energy) and indirectly (material and transport) to greenhouse seismic loads in Melbourne). The total required material for each sce-
gas (GHG) emissions and the depletion of natural resources. Petek nario was then calculated based on the size and shape of the building
Gursel, Masanet, Horvath and Stadel [4] stated that buildings are re- elements. Finally, EE and EC were calculated based on the quantity of
sponsible for 40% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. In Australia, utilised materials.
the building sector is responsible for 23% of annual GHG emissions and
20% of annual energy consumption, and the annual growth of GHG 2. Background
emissions is 1.3% [5].
In the last few decades, most GHG emissions from the residential Studies suggest that EE and EC of a building account for a con-
sector were attributed to building operations. However, increasing the siderable portion of their total life cycle. Dimoudi and Tompa [7] found
efficiency of building operations has effectively raised GHG emissions that EE is responsible for 12.6%–18.5% of the total energy consumption
from building materials [6]. Compared with low-rise buildings, high- of general buildings in Greece. A study in the UK by Fieldson, Rai and
rise buildings use much more materials per floor area because of Sodagar [8] shows that for a typical office building, EC accounts for

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Rismanchi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.052
Received 6 June 2018; Received in revised form 9 August 2018; Accepted 29 September 2018
Available online 02 October 2018
0360-1323/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

30% of total GHG emissions. namely building material production and the final disposal of demoli-
Azzouz, Borchers, Moreira and Mavrogianni [9] attempted to de- tion waste. The results suggest that most of the environmental benefits
crease the life cycle carbon and energy intensity of a medium-rise office of wooden buildings are observed in the production phase. The en-
building at its conceptual design stage with a cradle-to-grave boundary. vironmental impact of A1 and A2 is 2.7 times higher than that of B1 and
In their work, the energy consumption, carbon emissions and opera- 1.6 times higher than that of B2, respectively. Balasbaneh and Bin
tional energy savings of buildings with different types of structures, Marsono [17] also found that GHG emissions between different con-
sustainable materials and building systems were evaluated. The results struction materials are significant. They tried to reduce GHG emissions
showed that the optimal choices (e.g. using timber-based internal fin- from buildings by analysing six different building wall scheme struc-
ishes and reclaimed bricks) would reduce lifecycle carbon, life cycle tures, namely block-work systems (R1), precast concrete (R2), steel
energy, EC and EE of the building by 16.3%, 13.4%, 32.3% and 8.7%, framework systems (R3), timber prefabricated walls (R4), glued lami-
respectively. A similar finding was presented by Weiler, Harter and nated timber with steel studs (R5) and laminated veneer lumber with
Eicker [10]. They analysed the energy consumption and GHG emissions steel studs (R6). From the results, R4 had the lowest GHG emissions,
of a newly constructed six-storey building and the same building with which was about 7% lower than R1.
medium and advanced refurbishment.
Some researchers focused their attention on taller buildings and
found that the effect of EE and EC from construction materials is more 2.1.2. High-rise timber buildings
evident in high-rise buildings. Foraboschi, Mercanzin and Trabucco Although there is an abundance of literature on the structural and
[11] analysed the EE of tall building structures based on different floor environmental analysis of timber buildings, most researchers are in-
systems and heights with a cradle-to-gate boundary. Their study shows vestigating low-rise or medium-rise buildings. Kuilen, Ceccotti, Xia and
the relationship between EE, height, floor system and other structures. He [1] designed a high-rise building constructed from cross-laminated
They found that EE is lower if reinforced concrete (RC) frames and RC timber (CLT) walls and a concrete core. The sample high-rise building
slabs are used to construct the building, and this difference was much was rectangular with 43 stores and a total height of 142 m. The three
more significant with an increase in the height of a building. Gan, main components of the building were CLT walls, a concrete core and
Cheng, Lo and Chan [12] also found a considerable reduction of EC concrete outrigger systems. The building was designed to meet the
where more environmentally friendly materials were used to construct maximum deflection requirement (1/500 of the total height of the
high-rise buildings. The boundary of analysis included cradle-to-gate building) under wind loading according to the Chinese design code for
and gate-to-site. The analysed materials included pre-stressed tendons, Shanghai. The analysis showed that the building can reduce CO2
high strength concrete, structural steel and composite construction emissions by approximately 50,000 tonnes.
materials. The model was a 60-storey building with a core-outrigger The significant reduction of EC of timber high-rise buildings was
system. The results showed that EC would decrease by about 20% if also observed by Skullestad, Bohne and Lohne [6]. They studied four
EAF steel and DRI (recycled steel) were used. benchmark structures with 3, 7, 12 and 21 storeys, respectively. The
timber structures had the same dimensions and were subjected to the
2.1. Timber buildings same loading conditions as the benchmark structures. The boundary of
the analysis included raw material production, manufacturing, use, end
Historically, wood was a popular choice to construct low-rise of life (EOL) disposal and recycling. This study is based on three cal-
buildings. With the development of society, timber is replacing wood as culation approaches. The first approach follows common EPD practice.
the first choice to construct buildings. This is mainly because the The second approach includes GWPbio factors and concrete carbonation
number of wood from old-growth forests experiences a significant de- during the lifetime of the building. The final approach considers reuse,
crease, and the strength of wood from trees at an earlier age is much recycling and carbonation of concrete after EOL. The results showed
lower. In addition, the strength requirement of construction materials is that the average reductions in GHG emissions were 70% and 56% for
much higher in taller buildings and timber can provide a higher load- the first and second approach, respectively. For the third approach, the
carrying capacity than wood from young trees [13]. There are three GHG emissions for all timber buildings were negative because of the
main categories of timber products: carbon balance.
These studies on high-rise timber buildings do not consider much of
• Sheet products, which are often made by plywood or oriented strand the structural behaviour, or only assume that the entire building is rigid
board (OSB). (satisfies the requirement of total deflection). The assumption of ri-
• Beam products, which are often made by glued laminated timber gidity is not reasonable because high-rise buildings have a high strength
(glulam) or laminated veneer lumber (LVL). requirement for their structural elements compared to low-rise build-
• Large timber products and cross-laminated timber (CLT) are some of ings. Therefore, determining the total materials used in the analysis is
the standard choices [13]. contingent on meeting the design requirements, which will influence
the results significantly. Thus, before analysing the environmental as-
As an innovative wood product, CLT was introduced in the early pect of timber high-rise buildings, it is necessary to ensure that the
1990s in Germany and Austria. Over the last decade in Europe, CLT has structural elements meet the relevant design requirements.
become increasingly popular, as it can offer many advantages to the Furthermore, most of the studies on timber buildings analysed GHG
construction sector [14]. Nowadays, CLT has the potential market for emissions and few of them accounted for EE. In this research, a high-
tall structures in North America [15]. rise building design was checked based on strength and rigidity re-
quirements, as well as EE and EC.
2.1.1. Low-rise timber buildings
Based on a number of studies, timber has the least GHG emissions
compared to most construction materials. Pajchrowski, Noskowiak, 3. Case study design
Lewandowska and Strykowski [16] analysed the potential environ-
mental benefits of timber buildings by using a life cycle assessment In this research, a hybrid approach is used to analyse EC, EE and
(LCA). Four residential buildings were analysed, namely A1 (a con- total deflection of a high-rise building constructed with different types
ventional masonry building), A2 (a passive masonry building), B1 (a of materials. This approach is based on an integrated framework pre-
conventional wooden building) and B2 (a passive wooden building). sented by Schmidt and Crawford [18]. The framework used in this re-
The analysis accounted for the environmental impact of two phases, search is illustrated in Fig. 1.

109
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 1. Framework of the methodology for the analysis.

3.1. Case study data and assumptions Table 1

Basic information of the high-rise building in the analysis.
The high-rise building investigated in this research is assumed to be Items Properties
located in Melbourne. In order to make the study comparable with the
existing literature, the size and shape of this building are based on the Total height (m) 142
building designed by Kuilen, Ceccotti, Xia and He [1], for which the Number of storeys 43
The height of storey 1 (m) 3.4
plan view is illustrated in Fig. 2b. For simplicity, the foundation and
The height of storey 2–43 (m) 3.3
roof are excluded from the calculations. The basic geometric para- Size of the floor (m × m) 35 × 25
meters of this building are listed in Table 1, and a plan view of the floor Size of the core (m × m) 21 × 8
system is shown in Fig. 3. The structure of the building includes a beam- Slab Area (m2) 707
Outrigger floor 10, 20, 30
column system and a core-outrigger system, which are commonly used
The thickness of core (m) 0.25
in high-rise buildings. The building is then designed based on three Load condition G (self-weight, dead load), Q (live load), and
scenarios with different timber to concrete proportions. Scenario 1 re- lateral load
fers to pure concrete construction. In scenario 2, the structure is com- Load combination 1.2G+1.5Q
posed of all timber non-structural elements. Scenario 3 refers to the case
where all the building elements except the core are composed of timber.
The design should meet the requirements of bending strength, shear

Fig. 2. (a) The structure of CLT floors and walls, and a concrete core; and.(b)Plan view of the high-rise building investigated [1].

110
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 3. Plan view of the floor system of the high-rise building in Fig. 2.

strength and short-term deflection of structural elements and total de- 3.1.2. Beam and column
flection of the building (under wind loading). Other requirements are In scenarios 1 and 2, the beam and column are constructed from
ignored. reinforced concrete, and from glulam in scenario 3. Glulam is manu-
factured by a process in which a great number of smaller sawn pieces
can be used to make large structural members. It can be used to con-
3.1.1. Slab struct very long elements by butt joints and can be manufactured to
In scenarios 1 and 2, the slab is constructed from reinforced con- almost any length, depth or shape. Therefore, glulam is suitable for
crete, and from CLT in scenario 3. CLT consists of layers of timber high-rise buildings, which require large structural elements [13].
boards glued together crosswise as illustrated in Fig. 4 i.e. it has the
same properties in both orthogonal directions. In reality, bi-axial
bending is considered for most slabs. Therefore, CLT is the best choice 3.1.3. Outrigger
for timber slabs in high-rise buildings. Outriggers are used in building structures to couple the internal
structure to the perimeter and make them work together to resist lateral

Fig. 4. The structural configuration of CLT panels [1].

111
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 5. The models of the investigated high-rise building: a) floor system; and b) the entire structure.

Fig. 6. The wind load distributed to the building via a dummy column and master-slave constraints.

Table 2 Table 3
The Embodied energy of construction materials. Embodied carbon in construction materials.
Material Embodied energy Reference Material Embodied carbon kgC/m3 Reference
(MJ/kg)
Concrete (standard) 333.6 [26]
Concrete for slab 1.11 [25] Steel 12207 [26]
Concrete for beam, column and core (high 1.39 [25] Glulam −718.4 [26]
strength) CLT −678.3 [24]
Concrete for facade and partitions (non- 0.77 [25]
structural mass concrete)
Steel bar, ‘typical’ 24.6 [25]
forces if the internal beams between the core and the perimeter are
Glulam 12 [25]
CLT 8 [24]
deep and stiff enough [19]. For simplicity, deep beams are considered
as outriggers in this research. Based on the building designed by Kuilen,
Ceccotti, Xia and He [1], the outriggers are allocated to floors 10, 20
loads, which are amplified with an increase in the height of a building and 30. In scenarios 1 and 2, the outriggers will be constructed from
[19]. Thus, an outrigger is a good choice for decreasing the base concrete and glulam in scenario 3.
overturning moment and the total deflection of a high-rise building. In
theory, the perimeter frame and core can work together to resist lateral

112
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Table 4 Table 5
Parameters used in scenario 1. Reinforcement layout for the slab in scenario 1.
Items Properties Slab X-Direction Y-Direction

The thickness of typical floor slab (m) 0.13 Top and Bottom Stirrup Top and Bottom Stirrup
Primary and secondary beam width (m) 0.5
Primary and secondary beam depth (m) 0.42 EKQR N12@250 mm – N12@250 mm –
Perimeter beam width (m) 0.3 LKST N12@250 mm – N12@250 mm –
Perimeter beam depth (m) 0.3 HLKE N12@200 mm – N12@167 mm –
Outrigger (deep beam) width (m) 0.5 Other Same design with these three slabs based on size
Outrigger (deep beam) depth (m) 3.3
Size of column (m) Floor 1–21: 0.6 × 0.6
Floor 22–43: 0.5 × 0.5
Table 6
Concrete strength for facade and partitions fc, 20
Reinforcement layout for the beam in scenario 1.
Concrete strength for slab fc, 32
Concrete strength for beam, column and core fc, 65 Beam Top Bottom Stirrup
Steel yield strength fsy 500
Primary 5N32 10N16 N10@300 mm
Secondary 5N12 6N16 N10@300 mm
Perimeter 4N12 2N16 N10@225 mm
3.2. Structural model

Space Gass 12.6, a multi-purpose 3D structural analysis and design considered

program, was used to analyse the structures in this study [20]. It in- • The core is constructed from concrete and the same size is used in all
cludes several libraries of Australian standards for building design and three scenarios for simplicity.
construction materials. Fig. 5 illustrates the models for analysing the • The reinforcement in the core and outriggers (deep beams) is not
floor system and total deflection of the high-rise structure investigated considered.
in this paper. • The facade and partitions are assumed to be non-structural ele-
ments.
3.3. Assumptions • The analysis of the floor system (slab and beam) and columns is
based on the vertical load, and the analysis of the total deflection is
The following assumptions are considered: based on the lateral load.
• For slabs, beams and column elements of the same size, the re-
• Load combination: 1.2G+1.5Q (AS1170.0, cl 4.2.2) inforcement arrangement in all elements is based on the critical
• Neglect torsional effects element.
• The eccentricity of force is neglected to simplify the analysis • In reinforced concrete design, the deflection of structural elements
• The high-rise building only includes slabs, beams, columns, core, without reinforcement will be calculated first, and if the service-
ability requirement is met, the elements with reinforcement can also
outrigger, facade and partitions. Other elements such as windows,
doors, foundation and roof are ignored. regarded as satisfactory.
• The detailed design of connections between elements is not • The cover of the slab, beam and column is 30 mm, 35 mm 40 mm,

Fig. 7. Plan view of the floor system (scenario 1).

113
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 8. Reinforcement layout for the columns at: a) floors 22–43; b) floors 2–21; and c) floor 1 in scenario 1.

Table 7 column is used in the model, which is located at 1.75 m (5% of the
Parameters used in scenario 2. building length) away from the centre of the building along the X di-
Items Properties
rection, to distribute the wind load. The size of the dummy column is
extremely small (the rigidity can be ignored) and it is linked to the core
The thickness of typical floor slab (m) 0.13 using master-slave constraints. The wind load for each floor is applied
Primary and secondary beam width (m) 0.5 to this dummy column as shown in Fig. 6.
Primary and secondary beam depth (m) 0.39
Perimeter beam width (m) 0.25
Perimeter beam depth (m) 0.25 3.5. Embodied energy
Outrigger (deep beam) width (m) 0.5
Outrigger (deep beam) depth (m) 3.3 Embodied energy (EE) is the energy consumed in all phases of
Size of column (m) Floor 1–21: 0.55 × 0.55
Floor 22–43: 0.4 × 0.4
building construction. For simplicity, the energy consumption of
Concrete strength for facade and partitions fc, 20 building materials from the operation and disposal phases is not in-
Concrete strength for slab fc, 32 cluded when calculating EE [23]. The boundary of EE in this research is
Concrete strength for beam, column, and core fc, 65 cradle-to-gate, which includes resource extraction, transportation, and
Steel yield strength fsy 500 manufacturing and fabrication of the materials. The following equation
has been considered to calculate EE:

respectively.
EE = ∑ QuantityMateriali × EE factorMateriali
(1)
•
Materiali
The density of concrete is 2450 kg/m3.
• The density of steel is 7850kg/m3. EE factors for all kinds of materials used in this research are listed in
• The density of CLT is 577 kg/m3. Table 2. The data for CLT is obtained from the Environmental Product
• The density of GL17 (Glue Laminated Timber 17) is 650kg/m3. Declaration of Structurlam [24], which is valid until August 2018.

3.4. Lateral load considerations 3.6. Embodied carbon

Wind loads and seismic loads are both considered in this study. In this research, the boundary of embodied carbon (EC) is cradle-to-
Wind loads are calculated using the dynamic method stipulated in gate. Thus, EC is defined here as the total GHG emitted from mining,
AS1170.2–2011 [21]. Firstly, the site wind speed, aerodynamic shape natural resources processing, transportation, manufacturing and pro-
factor and dynamic response factor are calculated, which can be used to duct fabrication. EC of concrete, steel and glulam are calculated based
obtain the design wind pressure. The wind pressure at each floor is on the Australian National Life Cycle Inventory Database (AusLCI), and
converted to a point load to calculate the base overturning moment of the result is obtained from the research of Chen, Syme, Seo, Chan, Zhou
the high-rise building, which is 846.8 MN. and Meddings [26]. There is only EC of standard concrete available in
The seismic load is calculated for the high-rise building in scenario 1 this research. Therefore, it is assumed that all concrete used in this
because the weight of the building is larger than that in the other section is standard concrete. The design of CLT is based on the stan-
scenarios, which will thereby result in the highest seismic response. The dards of America. Therefore, CLT in this research is assumed to be
equivalent static analysis is employed according to AS1170.4–2007 produced in North America. EC of CLT is obtained from the environ-
[22] to calculate the seismic load. Firstly, the base shear of the high-rise mental product declaration of Structurlam [24]. The total EC is calcu-
building is calculated, which is then distributed at each floor (based on lated as follows:
the height and weight of the floor) to calculate the total base moment
(312.1 MN).
EC = ∑ QuantityMateriali × EC factorMateriali
Materiali (2)
Therefore, in order to obtain the critical condition, wind loading is
considered to be the governing lateral load in this research. A dummy EC factors for all the different types of materials used in this

114
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 9. Plan view of the floor system (scenario 2).

Table 8 Ln 1
= < 105 × 3 (for two−way slab)
Reinforcement layout for the slab in scenario 2. Ds wK (4)
Slab X-Direction Y-Direction Where L y is the longer effective span of the slab, L x is the shorter
Top and Bottom Stirrup Top and Bottom Stirrup
effective span of the slab, w is the service load, and K is 1 for inner
spans and 2 for outer spans. The 130 mm slab meets this requirement.
EKQR N12@250 mm – N12@250 mm – The design requirements for reinforced concrete are determined
LKST N12@250 mm – N12@250 mm – according to AS3600-2009 [27]. The bending moment, shear force and
HLKE N12@200 mm – N12@167 mm –
Other Same design with these three slabs based on size
deflection are analysed by SpaceGass. Table 5, Table 6 and Fig. 8 de-
scribe the reinforcement details for the slab, beam and column, re-
spectively.
Table 9
Reinforcement layout for the beam in scenario 2. 4.2. Scenario 2
Beam Top Bottom Stirrup
In this scenario, all non-structural elements (including the facade
Primary 8N24 9N16 N10@290 mm and partition wall) of the reinforced concrete building are replaced with
Secondary 6N10 10N12 N10@290 mm CLT. The volumes of the facade and partition wall are calculated based
Perimeter 3N12 2N12 N10@300 mm
on their mass. All concrete beams, slabs and columns will be redesigned
due to the weight reduction from the replacement of concrete with CLT.
research are listed in Table 3. The carbon in the atmosphere absorbed The properties of this high-rise building are listed in Table 7 and the
by a tree during growth is included in the calculation of EC. Therefore, plan view of the floor system is shown in Fig. 9.
the EC of glulam and CLT are negative.
4.2.1. Reinforcement design
4. Results The procedure for determining the thickness of the slab is the same
as that employed in scenario 1. Based on the computed results, the
4.1. Scenario 1 130 mm slab meets this requirement. The calculation methods and re-
quirements for designing the slab reinforcement are based on the design
In scenario 1, the entire high-rise building is constructed from re- procedures of AS3600-2009 [27]. The bending moment, shear force and
inforced concrete. The design requirements are determined according deflection are determined by SpaceGass. Table 8, Table 9, and Fig. 10
to AS3600-2009 [27]. The parameters of this high-rise building are describe the reinforcement details for the slab, beam and column, re-
listed in Table 4 and the plan view of the floor system is shown in Fig. 7. spectively.

4.1.1. Reinforcement design 4.3. Scenario 3

The thickness of the slab is obtained according to Rangan's formula
as follows: In scenario 3, all slabs, beams and columns are replaced with
timber. The strength and rigidity requirements from scenario 1 (re-
Ln 1 inforced concrete) are applied. The designs of the beam and column are
< 70 × 3 (for one−way slab)
Ds wK (3) based on AS1720.1-2010 [28] and AS1720.3-2016 [29]. However,

115
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 10. Reinforcement layout for the columns on: a) floors 22–43; b) floors 2–21; and c) floor 1 in scenario 2.

Table 10 is lower than that in scenario 1. This is attributed to the replacement of

Parameters used in scenario 3. concrete with timber for the facade and partitions, which is lighter.
Items Properties
Therefore, the total weight of the high-rise building decreased, which
results in lower usage of materials for the structural elements. Based on
The thickness of the typical floor slab (m) 0.24448 Table 13, the total materials consumption (by weight) of the high-rise
Primary and secondary beam width (m) 0.4 building in scenario 3 is 43% of that in scenario 1, which is attributed to
Primary and secondary beam depth (m) 0.6
Perimeter beam width (m) 0.2
the lower density of timber compared to that of concrete.
Perimeter beam depth (m) 0.3 Moreover, the lower self-weight of the building can decrease the
Outrigger (deep beam) width (m) 0.4 materials used for the structural elements. Timmers and Tsay Jacobs
Outrigger (deep beam) depth (m) 3.3 [32] also reported similar results. They found that the mass of a timber
Size of column (m) Floor 1–21: 0.7*0.7
building is about 49% of that of a concrete building. Our finding shows
Floor 22–43: 0.6*0.6
Concrete strength for core fc, 65 that the building in scenario 2 is about 18.3% lighter than that in
Timber of slab CLT (V1) scenario 1.
Timber of beam GL17
Timber of column GL17
5. Discussion

Based on the results in Tables 12 and 13, it is clear that the building
there is no standard in Australia or Europe for designing CLT slabs.
in scenario 3 is the lightest but has the highest self-volume. For in-
Therefore, the design of the slab is based on American standards:
stance, the thickness of the slab in scenarios 1 and 2 is 130 mm, but in
NDS2015 [30] and PRG320-2017 [31]. NDS2015 [30] is for designing
scenario 3, it is more than 240 mm, which means that the available
structural wood and PRG320-2017 [31] gives the properties of CLT in
floor height is reduced. In addition, based on Table 11, the total de-
America. The bending moment, shear force and deflection are analysed
flection of the high-rise building in scenario 3 is higher than that in
by SpaceGass. The properties of this high-rise building are listed in
scenario 1 (167.52%) compared to scenario 2 (116.8%). Therefore,
Table 10 and a plan view of the floor system is illustrated in Fig. 11.
from the structural point of view (especially total deflection), the
building with fully reinforced concrete (the base design) has the lowest
4.4. Total deflection deflection.

The total deflection of the high-rise building in all three scenarios is

5.1. Embodied energy
summarised in Table 11 and visualised in Fig. 12. The total deflection of
the high-rise building in all three scenarios is less than \284mm
Δ 1 Table 14 shows the calculated EE of the high-rise building for each
( L < 500 ) , thereby satisfying serviceability requirements. scenario. Based on the findings presented in Table 14, EE of the
building in scenario 3 is around 140% higher than that in scenario 1.
4.5. Total materials consumption This is because the CLT unit has a much higher EE than concrete. Al-
though EE of a steel bar is high, the total weight of the bar in the
The quantity of each construction material in the buildings from building is much lower than that of concrete and timber. The building
each scenario is determined based on the size (width, length, depth and in scenario 2 has the lowest EE, which is 87.8% of that in scenario 1.
area) of the elements. The results are shown in Table 12 and Table 13. This is attributed to the reduction in self-weight of the building due to
Based on Table 12, the total materials consumption (by volume) of the timber facades and partitions, which decrease the materials used in
high-rise building in scenario 3 is 31% higher than that in scenario 1. other elements. Therefore, the building in scenario 2 is better than that
This is because the strength of timber is lower than reinforced concrete, in the other two scenarios in terms of EE, which means that using a
thereby resulting in a higher volume of timber to meet the design re- large amount of timber to replace reinforced concrete will not decrease
quirements. The total materials consumption (by volume) in scenario 2 EE of the building. In contrast, using both timber and reinforced

116
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 11. Plan view of the floor system (scenario 3).

Table 11 deflection from each scenario meets the requirement, and the highest
Total deflection of the high-rise building from all three scenarios. deflection will not affect the safety of the high-rise building. The in-
Items Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
fluence factor of EE is less than that of EC because the energy shortage
problem can be solved by other methods (e.g. using renewable energy),
Deflection (mm) 138.12 161.43 231.38 while the greenhouse effect is a serious problem and it is imminent to
% Baseline Baseline + 16.88% Baseline + 67.52% decrease GHG emissions around the world. The score of each part is
based on the percentage compared with scenario 1 and is calculated as
follows:
concrete efficiently will contribute a lower EE.
Total score = ∑ scorei IFi/ ∑ IFi (5)
5.2. Embodied carbon
Based on the results in Table 16, scenario 3 gives the highest score,
Table 15 and Fig. 13 show the calculated EC of the high-rise which means that using timber to construct all elements of a high-rise
building for each scenario. Based on these results, only the EC of the building (except the core) can bring the most significant environmental
building in scenario 3 is negative, which is −159.48% of that in sce- benefits.
nario 1. Compared with scenario1, the building in scenario 3 can save
15,397 tonnes of carbon emissions. However, in the research of Kuilen,
Ceccotti, Xia and He [1], the timber building can save about 50,000 6. Parametric studies
tonnes of carbon emissions than the concrete building, which is a sig-
nificant discrepancy compared with the results in this research. This is It should be noted that total deflections of the high-rise building for
mainly because the EC of concrete employed in their research is the three scenarios are different. This section analysed the effects of
1100 kg per cubic meter and 333.6 kg per cubic meter based on the data keeping the total deflections constant among the three scenarios. As
in Australia, which means that the concrete is produced by cleaner such, the design of the building in scenario 1 was kept the same and the
energy in Australia than in China. In addition, about 26,300 m3 of total deflections in the other two scenarios were decreased. This is
timber is required to construct the timber building in the research by because the designs of the building in the three scenarios are critical
Kuilen , Ceccotti, Xia and He [1] and only 14,669 m3 is required ac- and increasing the total deflection (or decreasing the rigidity) would
cording to our study, which is shown to be more efficient. The EC of the result in failure to meet the other design requirements. There are two
building in scenario 2 is also much lower than that in scenario 1 methods used to decrease the total deflection (or increase the rigidity)
(59.22% lower). Therefore, in terms of EC, the building in scenario 3 is of the high-rise building. The first involves keeping core the same and
better than that in the other two scenarios. This means that replacing as increasing the materials used in other structural elements. The second
much concrete as possible with timber to construct a building will bring involves increasing the materials used in the core whilst maintaining
the most significant benefit to EC. the materials in the other structural elements. In order to simplify the
analysis, the elements of the building were not re-designed and the
5.3. Obtaining the best scenario rigidity was increased only by increasing the size of these elements.
Other design requirements were not checked again due to the as-
In order to find the best scenario based on all aspects, each scenario sumption that the usage of more materials would not decrease the
is scored in this research, and the results are listed in Table 16. The strength of the elements of the building.
influence factor of the structural aspect is the lowest because the total

117
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 12. Total deflection of the high-rise building in a) Scenario 1; b) Scenario 2; and c) Scenario 3 (the scale of the deflection is not 1:1).

Table 12 Table 14
Total materials consumption by volume. The embodied energy of the high-rise building for the three scenarios.
Unit: m3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Items Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Steel Bar 142 70 0 Embodied Energy (MJ) 63,810,051 56,019,325 89,586,001

Concrete (20Mpa) 2529 0 0 % 100% 87.79% 140.39%
Concrete (32Mpa) 3863 3897 0
Concrete (65Mpa) 6198 5936 2023
CLT 0 2529 9962
Table 15
GL17 0 0 4706
Total 12,732 12,432 16,691
Embodied carbon of the high-rise building for all three scenarios.
% 100% 97.10% 131.09% Items Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Embodied Carbon (tC) 5933.97 2419.67 −9463.36

Table 13 % 100% 40.78% −159.48%
Total materials consumption by weight.
Unit: kg Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
6.1. Method 1
Steel Bar 1,114,700 549,500
Concrete (20Mpa) 6,196,050 In this method, the core of the building was not changed, and the
Concrete (32Mpa) 9,464,350 9,547,650 size of beams and columns of the building in scenarios 2 and 3 were
Concrete (65Mpa) 15,185,100 14,543,200 4,956,350 increased to increase the rigidity of the building until the total deflec-
CLT 1,459,233 5,748,074
GL17 3,058,900
tion was identical to that in scenario 1. The total material consumption
Total 31,960,200 25,550,083 13,763,324 for each scenario is listed in Table 17 and Table 18.
% 100% 81.66% 43.06%

6.2. Method 2

In this method, the size of the beams and columns of the building
were not changed, and the thickness of core of the building in scenarios
2 and 3 was increased to increase the rigidity of the building until the

118
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Fig. 13. Embodied carbon of the high-rise building for all three scenarios.

Table 16 Table 20
Scores for the three scenarios. Comparison of the total material consumption by weight using method 2.
Items Influence factor Score Unit: kg Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Original 26,099,897 13,763,324

Re-design 28,066,287 22,706,664
Structure 1 1 0.83 0.36 % 107.53% 164.98%
EE 2 1 1.12 0.6
EC 3 1 1.59 2.59
Total – 1 1.31 1.56
thickness of the core to decrease the total deflection of the building is
not efficient in this research, thereby indicating that method 1 is much
better than method 2. Based on Tables 17 and 18, in scenario 3, the
Table 17
total materials usage is 116.22% in volume and 112.78% in weight of
Comparison of the total material consumption by volume using method 1.
the original design. Although not many more materials are needed to
Unit: m3 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 control the total deflection of the building through method 1, it is not
Original 12,432 16,691
necessary to perform this kind of control. It is mainly because under the
Re-design 12,600 19,398 wind and earthquake conditions in Melbourne, the total deflections of
% 101.35% 116.22% the building in scenarios 2 and 3 are below the required limit, such that
the building does not pose a safety concern. However, controlling the
total deflection of the building under worse conditions e.g. seismic
Table 18 zones) is necessary.
Comparison of the total material consumption by weight using method 1.
Unit: kg Scenario 2 Scenario 3
7. Conclusion
Original 26,099,897 13,763,324
Re-design 26,661,860 15,522,640 In this research, the potential benefits and limitations of utilising
% 102.15% 112.78% timber to construct a high-rise building in Australia were investigated.
For this purpose, a hypothetical 43-storey building is considered, in
order to make it comparable with the existing studies in the literature;
Table 19
the baseline model is designed according to the study by Kuilen,
Comparison of the total material consumption by volume using method 2.
Ceccotti, Xia and He [1]. The building is then designed based on three
Unit: m3 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 scenarios, each with a different proportion of timber and concrete. The
first scenario is a fully concrete building; in the second scenario, all the
Original 12,432 16,691
Re-design 13,235 20,212 non-structural elements were built by timber; and all elements except
% 103.95% 158.75% the core were constructed with timber in the third scenario. For each
scenario, the total deflection, EE and EC were calculated. Scenario 1
showed the lowest total deflection, scenario 2 has the lowest EE and
total deflection of the building was identical to that in scenario 1. The scenario 3 has the lowest EC. Although using timber to construct the
total material consumption for each scenario is listed in Table 19 and structural elements of a building will increase the embodied energy,
Table 20. due to the low thermal conductivity of timber, the building can have a
Based on Tables 19 and 20, the total materials usage significantly better thermal performance with a lower running cost for energy based
increases if method 2 is employed to decrease the total deflection of the on the Australian climate. On the other hand, the resilience and lifetime
building in scenario 3, which is 158.75% in volume and 164.98% in of such building, and controlling its total deflection under worse con-
weight of the original design. This means that only increasing the ditions, need to be considered in future studies.

119
J. Li et al. Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120

Acknowledgement 2013.
[15] L. Wang, H. Ge, Hygrothermal performance of cross-laminated timber wall as-
semblies: a stochastic approach, Build. Environ. 97 (2016) 11–25.
Authors would like to acknowledge Abdallah Ghazlan for his in- [16] G. Pajchrowski, A. Noskowiak, A. Lewandowska, W. Strykowski, Wood as a
valuable editorial assistance with this article. building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of four
buildings, Construct. Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 428–436.
[17] A.T. Balasbaneh, A.K. Bin Marsono, Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emis-
References sions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid
climatic conditions, Build. Environ. 124 (2017) 357–368.
[1] J.W.G.V.D. Kuilen, A. Ceccotti, Z. Xia, M. He, Very tall wooden buildings with cross [18] M. Schmidt, R.H. Crawford, Developing an integrated framework for assessing the
laminated timber, Procedia Eng. 14 (2011) 1621–1628. life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and life cycle cost of buildings, Procedia Eng.
[2] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment (LCA) 196 (2017) 988–995.
and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review, [19] W. Goman, M. Ho, The evolution of outrigger system in tall buildings, Interntional
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416. J. High-Rise Build. 5 (1) (2016) 21–30.
[3] X. Zhang, F. Wang, Life-cycle assessment and control measures for carbon emissions [20] SPACE GASS, Structural Engineering Software, (2017) http://www.spacegass.
of typical buildings in China, Build. Environ. 86 (2015) 89–97. com/.
[4] A. Petek Gursel, E. Masanet, A. Horvath, A. Stadel, Life-cycle inventory analysis of [21] Standards Australia, Structural design actions - Wind actions (AS 1170.2-2011), SAI
concrete production: a critical review, Cement Concr. Compos. 51 (2014) 38–48. Global Limited, Sydney, Australia, 2011.
[5] K.K. Lawania, W.K. Biswas, Achieving environmentally friendly building envelope [22] Standards Australia, Structural design actions - Earthquake actions in Australia (AS
for Western Australia's housing sector: a life cycle assessment approach, Int. J. 1170.4–2017), SAI Global Limited, Sydney, Australia, 2007.
Sustain. Built. Environ. 5 (2) (2016) 210–224. [23] G. Milne, Embodied energy, (2013) http://www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/
[6] J.L. Skullestad, R.A. Bohne, J. Lohne, High-rise timber buildings as a climate change embodied-energy.
mitigation measure – a comparative LCA of structural system alternatives, Energy [24] FPInnovations, Environmental Product Declaration, (2013) Vancouver, BC V6T
Procedia 96 (2016) 112–123. 1W5.
[7] A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa, Energy and environmental indicators related to construction [25] G. Hammond, C. Jones, Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), Version 1.6a,
of office buildings, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53 (1–2) (2008) 86–95. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, 2008.
[8] R. Fieldson, D. Rai, B. Sodagar, Towards a framework for early estimation of life- [26] D. Chen, M. Syme, S. Seo, W.Y. Chan, M. Zhou, S. Meddings, Development of an
cycle carbon footprinting of buildings in the UK, Construct. Inf. Q. 11 (2009) 66–75 Embodied CO2 Emissions Module for AccuRate, (2010) National Research
Standards Australia. FLAGSHIPS Climate Adaption.
[9] A. Azzouz, M. Borchers, J. Moreira, A. Mavrogianni, Life cycle assessment of energy [27] Standards Australia, Concrete structures (AS 3600-2009), SAI Global Limited,
conservation measures during early stage office building design: a case study in Sydney, Australia, 2009.
London, UK, Energy Build. 139 (2017) 547–568. [28] Standards Australia, Timber structure - Design methods (AS 1720.1-2010), SAI
[10] V. Weiler, H. Harter, U. Eicker, Life cycle assessment of buildings and city quarters Global Limited, Sydney, Australia, 2010.
comparing demolition and reconstruction with refurbishment, Energy Build. 134 [29] Australia Standards, Timber structure-Design criteria for timber-framed residential
(2017) 319–328. buildings (AS 1720.3-2016), SAI Global Limited, Sydney, Australia, 2016.
[11] P. Foraboschi, M. Mercanzin, D. Trabucco, Sustainable structural design of tall [30] Standards America, NDS - National Design Specification for Wood Construction
buildings based on embodied energy, Energy Build. 68 (2014) 254–269. (ANSI/AWC NDS-2015), American Wood Council, America, 2015.
[12] V.J.L. Gan, J.C.P. Cheng, I.M.C. Lo, C.M. Chan, Developing a CO2 -e accounting [31] Standards America, American National Standard - Standard for Performance-Rated
method for quantification and analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise buildings, J. Cross-Laminated Timber (ANSI/APA PRG 320-2017), APA - The Engineered Wood
Clean. Prod. 141 (2017) 825–836. Association, Tacoma, America, 2017.
[13] K.I. Crews, Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials, Mess Business [32] M. Timmers, A. Tsay Jacobs, Concrete apartment tower in Los Angeles reimagined
Centre, UK, 2016. in mass timber, Eng. Struct. 167 (2018) 716–724.
[14] FPInnovations, CLT Handbook. US ed. Pointe-Claire (Quebec), FPInnovations,

120