Materials and Service Lives Alterations Impacts on Reducing the Whole Life Embodied Carbon of Buildings: A Case study of a Student Accommodation Development in Ireland

Full text

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
Available online 11 March 2025
2214-5095/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Case study
Materials and service lives alterations impacts on reducing the
whole life embodied carbon of buildings: A case study of a student
accommodation development in Ireland
Paul Moran
a,b,c
, Jack Flynn
a
, Conor Larkin
a
, Jamie Goggins
a,b,c
,
Youssef Elkhayat
a,d,*
a
School of Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, University of Galway, University Road, Galway H91W2TY, Ireland
b
MaREI, The Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Energy, Climate and Marine, Ryan Institute, University of Galway, University Road,
Galway H91W2TY, Ireland
c
Construct Innovate, Ireland’s National Construction Technology Centre, University of Galway, University Road, Galway H91W2TY, Ireland
d
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta 31733, Egypt
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Building life cycle assessment
Embodied carbon emissions
Student accommodation developments
Low-carbon materials
Durable materials
ABSTRACT
To meet the growing demand for student accommodations and full climate change targets, it is
essential to establish a methodology for evaluating and reducing their whole-life embodied car-
bon (WLEC) emissions. The study aims to develop a robust methodology for assessing and
reducing the WLEC emissions of a new student accommodation development in Ireland as a
replicable case study for other countries. The developed method is based on EN 15978 building
whole life cycle standard and EU Level(s) framework. The reduction methodology based on
hotspot analysis identies the most impactful life cycle modules and materials. WLEC assessments
were performed on an actual project with two base case scenarios: blockwork (BW) walls for the
tender stage and precast walls (PC) for the as-built stage. The WLEC emissions were 749 kgCO
2
e/
m
2
for the BW and 838 kgCO
2
e/m
2
for the PC. The production stage modules (A1-A3) and the
replacement module (B4) were the primary contributors, with 56 % and 34 %, respectively. The
proposed WLEC reduction methodology altered the concrete and the rebar with lower EC alter-
natives available in the Irish market. It modied the service life of seven building elements to
align with the manufacturer’s standards. Consequently, the WBEC emissions were reduced by
27 % and 33 % for the BW and PC scenarios. This methodology promotes low-EC and durable
alternatives to replace conventional materials for the upcoming student accommodation projects
in Ireland to achieve the Climate Action Plan EC reduction target by 2030.
1. Introduction
By 2030, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be cut by 55 % from 1990 levels according to the European Climate Law’s in-
termediate goal [1]. This goal aligns with the European Union’s objective of achieving zero emissions by 2050 [2,3]. Worldwide
buildings account for roughly 37 % of total GHG emissions [4]. Therefore, the world must prioritise the reduction of GHG emissions
from the built environment. Approximately one-third of the buildings’ GHG emissions are embodied carbon (EC) attributed to the
* Correspondence to: University of Galway, University Road, Galway H91W2TY, Ireland.
E-mail address: youssef.elkhayat@universityofgalway.ie (Y. Elkhayat).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Case Studies in Construction Materials
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2025.e04514
Received 22 January 2025; Received in revised form 1 March 2025; Accepted 7 March 2025

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
2
extraction, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and disposal of materials [4]. Based on the Paris Agreement targets, by 2030,
the Climate Action Plan aims to reduce the amount of EC emissions in buildings by 30 % [5,6]. Material substitution and fuel switching
are some of the proposed strategies to accomplish this goal [6].
Currently, many countries have no specic legislation regulating the EC emissions of buildings [7]. In Ireland, the Royal Institute of
the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) established an ambitious 2030 EC emissions target that aims for maximum EC emissions of 450
kgCO
2
e/m
2
for residential buildings with a oor area above 133 m
2
. Moreover, R¨
ock et al. [8] developed an EC emissions benchmark
for residential buildings in Europe, 400 kgCO
2
e/m
2
. A standardised EC emissions evaluation and reduction methodology must be
designed to encourage the countries to have legislation that regulates the EC emissions of their different building typologies.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a robust tool for evaluating the EC emissions of buildings [9]. Different building LCA approaches
were developed; however, there was inconsistency in the system boundary [10]. Birgisdottir et al. [10] collected over 80 building LCA
case studies and found that the majority included the production stage modules (A1-A3) and the replacement module (B4). Around
50 % included waste processing and disposal modules (C3-C4), and 44 % included the reuse, recycling and disposal module (D).
Around 25 % included the modules of the construction stage (A4-A5), 20 % included deconstruction, demolition and transport
modules (C1-C2), however a small percentage included use and maintenance modules (B1-B2).
The same inconsistency is in Ireland, Fig. 1 shows evaluations obtained from previous studies regarding the EC emissions of res-
idential buildings in Ireland [11]. The results were compared to the RIAI domestic EC benchmark and targets. The gure shows the lack
of consistency in the system boundaries, which poses a signicant challenge to the comparability of these results. Moreover, the studies
had varying levels of completeness in terms of the assessed building elements.
The lack of uniformity in LCA boundary or scope emphasises the necessity of implementing a standardised LCA methodology to
evaluate the whole-life embodied carbon (WLEC) emissions of the different residential building typologies in Ireland and achieve the
reduction targets.
For reducing the WLEC emissions of buildings, several case studies demonstrated that substituting conventional materials with low-
carbon materials can reduce emissions signicantly. Kanavaris et al. [12] investigated potential reductions in the EC of
concrete-framed residential buildings through improvements in materials use and specication. In a scenario involving replacing
conventional concrete mixes and typical reinforcing steel “rebar” quantity with concrete mixes containing supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs) and reduced rebar, 40 % reductions of EC emissions were achieved compared to the baseline. Favier et al. (2018)
[13] examined scenarios that can signicantly reduce the EC of European concrete buildings. One of the scenarios involved the higher
use of precast concrete to optimise the EC of the structure, which resulted in a reduction of up to 35 %. The study indicated (<500
kgCO
2
e/m
2
) as a WLEC emissions limit for concrete buildings in Europe by 2030.
Service life extension and using more durable materials can also decrease the WLEC emissions of buildings. Rauf et al. [14]
achieved a 29 % WLEC emissions reduction for a residential building by extending its life from 50 to 150 years [14]. Yokoyama et al.
(2015) [15] investigated how extending the building life through a durable structure impacts the building’s WLEC emissions. The
results show that increasing the covering thickness of concrete for reinforcing steel increased the structure’s durability and reduced the
building WLEC emissions by up to 30 % [15].
Considering the growing global demand for constructing additional student accommodation developments by 2030 without a
specic LCA standard or WLEC emissions reduction measures [16], a robust methodology to evaluate and reduce the WLEC emissions
of this typology of buildings is crucial to achieving global climate commitments. Therefore, this study aims to develop a standard LCA
methodology for assessing and reducing the EC of new student accommodation developments in Ireland as a replicable case study for
Fig. 1. Embodied carbon values of the residential buildings in Ireland compared to the RIAI domestic EC benchmark and targets [11].
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
3
other countries.
The required methodology should be clear and easy to apply based on the available materials, EC data, and assumptions on the
national levels. For instance, the construction module (A5) data is challenging to measure accurately as it requires assuming wastage
rates for all building materials and the emissions of the onsite construction processes [17]. Moreover, (B1-B3) modules had negligible
impact on the WLEC of buildings according to previous studies [18–20], therefore they should be ignored. In addition, (B5 and D)
modules consider the emissions for refurbishment and recycling stages, which are often unknown at the design stage of the building.
Since student accommodation developments often are built with reinforced concrete structures and blockwork or precast walls, the
proposed methodology should consider the EC emissions reduction measures involving concrete and rebar substitutions.
To achieve this aim, the study consisted of four sections; the rst section describes the developed methodology for evaluating the
WLEC emissions of student accommodation developments throughout a real case study in Ireland. The second section presents the
developed method for reducing the WLEC emissions through what-if analyses. The third section discusses and compares the reduction
scenarios with a previous case study in the UK and the national WLEC targets. Finally, the conclusion section outlines the key ndings
of the study.
2. LCA methodology
2.1. LCA standard and framework
The use of LCA is to monitor, report, and regulate the carbon emissions of buildings. Most importantly, LCA studies use an EN or ISO
standard to manage their procedures. Several investigations (for instance, [21,22]) comply with the LCA methodology outlined in ISO
14040 [23] and 14044 [24]. Based on this approach, the LCA methodology has 4 phases: Goal and scope denition, Inventory analysis,
Impact assessment, and Interpretation. The EN 15978:2011 standard provides a comprehensive overview of the whole life cycle of a
building, from the extraction of raw materials to its eventual demolition, following a cradle-to-grave approach (Fig. 2). Emissions
produced by a building occur at several points throughout its lifetime, including during production (A1–3), construction (A4 and A5),
usage (B1–7), and nally, at the end of its life (C1–4). When calculating building LCAs, the EU Level(s) framework bases itself on
EN15978. All European environmental performance rules fall under EN 15978 [25].
Level(s) is a European system that evaluates and communicates the sustainability of buildings [26]. Level(s) species indicators
such as Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a life cycle, measured in CO
2
e/m
2
/year, and considerations for designing a structure that
can be easily deconstructed, reused, and recycled. Level(s) enable researchers conducting LCA studies on buildings to establish a
connection between the environmental impact of their facilities and the policy objectives set at the European Union (EU) level [1]. The
EN 15978 standard serves as the primary benchmark for Level(s), and all EU countries that have LCA legislation have used this
standard as the basis for their LCA calculation regulations [27]. Level(s) is a model that governments can utilise to enact LCA regu-
lations in the construction of buildings.
2.2. LCA of the case study building
The Goldcrest Village student accommodation on the University of Galway campus in Ireland was analysed as a sample using the
standardised LCA approach. Goldcrest Village comprises of 429 bed spaces organised into apartments with ve or six bedrooms. These
Fig. 2. EN 15978 Building LCA stages and system boundaries [10].
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
4
apartments feature shared cooking, dining, and living areas. The project, nalised in 2018, has four separate buildings, designated as
blocks A to D. Block A is a block that has ve oors, while blocks B, C, and D have four oors (Fig. 3). The combined gross oor space of
the four blocks, shared facilities, and reception area is 12,801 m
2
. According to the Level(s) User Manual 1.1, Goldcrest Village is in
climate zone 4. The consultant electrical and mechanical engineers [28] provided data regarding building services. All bedrooms and
living areas benet from ample natural lighting and ventilation.
A preliminary LCA calculation was conducted utilising the bill of quantities (BOQ) generated during the tender phase. Initially, the
structural elements of the building were designed to be concrete in substructure and superstructure, as well as load-bearing concrete
blockwork. The initial design proposed for the project involved constructing load-bearing walls, mainly using blockwork and some
partition walls. Additionally, metal studs and plasterboard partitions were planned for several internal partitions. The building’s
different blocks have comparable structural elements. However, the original plan specied that Block A would incorporate a metal
standing seam façade system, while Blocks B-D would feature a brick cladding system. In the as-built design, the architectural
composition of the building was modied from mostly using blockwork construction within situ beams and columns, as well as precast
hollow core ooring, to a complete design of precast concrete. This will reduce the project time and cost since the precast requires
lower labour costs and less on-site labour, and the installation will be quicker. These reasons led to a transition from blockwork to
precast walls, including extra stud partitions in walls that do not bear any weight.
The literature study reveals a notable absence of uniformity in using LCA approaches to buildings in Ireland. This section outlines
implementing a systematic LCA technique to analyse case study building. The LCA methodology adheres to the guidelines provided by
ISO standards 14040 [23] and 14044 [24]. To begin with, the phase of dening the purpose and scope is explained. This encompasses
the explicit delineation of the oor area utilised, the functional unit, the extent of the investigation, and a detailed portrayal of the
building under examination. Additionally, the life cycle inventory (LCI) phase includes all the necessary input data for conducting the
LCA, such as material quantities and environmental impact data for the (A1-A3) stage. Ultimately, the methods and information
required for the remaining phases are delineated.
2.2.1. Goal and scope denition
Regarding the LCA of buildings, this phase determines the building’s oor area and service lifespan. Additionally, it delineates the
extent of building components and phases of the life cycle that should be incorporated into the analysis.
2.2.1.1. Floor area, service life, and functional unit. This study employs a standardised LCA technique based on the Level(s) framework
[29]. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the whole-life embodied carbon (WLEC) of student accommodation de-
velopments. Adopting a functional unit precisely required dening the specic oor area to be utilised and the expected lifespan of the
building. The study assumes a building service life of 50 years based on Level(s) standards. Level(s) refers to the standard functional
unit, which measures the EC per square meter of the usable oor area (UFA). The UFA can be dened as an equivalent to the gross
internal oor area (GIFA). Appendix A illustrates the method of calculating the UFA for a project [29]. Thus, the WLEC is measured in
(kgCO
2
e/m
2
/50 years) for this methodology.
2.2.1.2. Scope of building elements. Appendix B displays the building elements from the Level(s) framework incorporated into the
methodology. The current study utilises the building element list associated with the Level(s) framework. The LCA calculation did not
consider elements present in the case study building, such as a piling foundation. The study eliminated the sanitary and ttings parts as
they were considered beyond its scope. Due to the absence of suitable Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) carbon data, the EC
of the building services was determined based on the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) TM65 estimates.
These carbon impact estimates are based on the total weight in kg of the MEP elements [30].
2.2.1.3. System boundary. The complete system boundary encompasses all modules specied in EN15978, spanning from the
Fig. 3. Goldcrest Village student accommodation; (a) 3D render, (b) Typical six-bedroom apartment [11].
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
5
extraction of raw materials to the disposal of End-of-Life (EOL) waste and any additional benets and burdens that extend beyond the
system boundary. However, the methodology does not consider the construction process, module (A5), as it usually has a minimal
effect on EC outcomes and is challenging to measure accurately [17]. Moreover, the Use (B1), Maintenance (B2), and Repair (B3)
modules were ignored as their inuence is negligible [18–20] in contrast to the Replacement module (B4), which is included in the
calculations. The refurbishment module (B5) is not considered, as the (B4) module serves as a basic estimate of the material usage of a
building during its lifespan [19]. The methodology focuses on evaluating the EC; therefore, it excluded the operational energy use (B6)
and operational water use (B7) as they fall beyond the scope. Therefore, the boundary of this methodology includes (A1-A4, B4, and
C1-C4) modules only.
2.2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI)
As to the Level(s) user manual 1.2, determining a building’s life cycle GWP emissions requires a BOQ for the building design,
software, databases, and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for the building materials. Gathering information about building
supplies, fuel usage in applicable transportation modes, and EOL-related waste processing and disposal is the focus of the LCI phase.
The BOQ, drawings, and BIM models are used to get the quantity data of building materials. The environmental data of materials were
gathered from a variety of sources. To determine the EC of materials across their (A1-A3) life cycle stage, carbon factors (CF) were
derived from EPDs and generic databases. Providing a clear and concise explanation of assumptions is essential in LCA to guarantee
transparency and facilitate comparability. The methodology adopted several assumptions during the building life cycle stages. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among other sources, offered information on the EC for different material types when dis-
carded at their EOL stage [31], which are used to derive some EC assumptions. The following sections detail the assumptions
considered at each life cycle stage.
2.2.2.1. Input data and assumptions. The BOQ, architectural and structural drawings, specications, and BIM models were provided
for the case study. The quantities of materials were extracted from the BOQ and entered an Excel spreadsheet. A conversion factor was
then used to convert all numbers to kilograms. A closer look at the project specs, drawings, or the BOQ yielded the material speci-
cation. All materials (A1-A3) CFs were compiled after the quantities were converted from the BOQ to kilogrammes and entered the
Excel sheet. Approximately 1400 rows of data on materials were generated in the Excel sheet to evaluate the EC of the elements in the
scope.
2.2.2.2. Production stage (A1-A3) data. The EC of materials in the product stage were determined using (A1-A3) CFs. The criteria were
obtained from product-specic EPDs and generic databases. To guarantee the use of accurate and pertinent data, EPDs were employed
wherever they were accessible for particular products. If EPDs were not accessible, alternative databases such as the Irish Green
Building Council (IGBC) National Inventory of Generic Construction Materials Data (NIGCMD) and the Inventory of Carbon and
Energy (ICE version 4) databases were utilised [32,33]. Regarding products made from concrete in Ireland, there is a serious lack of
EPDs. When a concrete product EPD was unavailable, the methodology of concrete mix design was used [34]. This applied to both
in-situ, precast concrete and concrete blocks.
2.2.2.3. Concrete mix design methodology. Finding a method to determine the (A1-A3) CF for concrete elements was necessary when
there were no EPDs for these items. Therefore, the ICE Cement, Mortar, and Concrete Model (version 1.2) [34] was used with the
specic blend compositions specied in the project documentation and sourced from local providers to calculate the CF. The user can
input a concrete mix design using the Excel spreadsheet model, select the constituent parts, and specify their quantities. Cement,
aggregate, and various admixture EC intensities were used in the model, drawing the CF of the concrete element at the end.
Carbon emission variables for in-situ and precast concrete batching and processing, as well as generic transport distances, are
included in the model. Modications were made to the ICE model to incorporate aggregate and cement carbon emission coefcients
from Irish EPDs and the IGBCs NIGCMD, making it more relevant to the Irish building industry. The (A1-A3) CFs were sourced from the
CEM I (Ordinary Portland Cement) and CEM II/A-L (Ordinary Portland Cement and limestone) EPDs supplied by Irish Cement
Manufacturers, and the Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) cement EPD from Ecocem, respectively, and were included into
the calculator. An (A1-A3) CF was brought in from the NIGCMD for use with CEMII/A-V (Ordinary Portland Cement and y ash). The
average carbon component for the Irish aggregate was obtained from the IGBC website. The transportation distances were calculated
by considering the precise locations of the production sites and the sources of the raw materials, which were acquired through dis-
cussions with nearby suppliers. Without knowing which provider to use, the ICE calculation used the mix designs’ intrinsic transport
assumptions derived from the BOQ or specication. Appendix C provides a concrete illustration of a carbon factor calculation for a
specic type of concrete block. Appendix D illustrates the results of implementing the concrete mix design approach to various
concrete products.
2.2.2.4. Construction transportation module (A4) data and assumptions. All products and materials are transported from the factory gate
to the construction site as part of the (A4) life cycle module. This module used various numbers collected from the Product Category
Rules (PCR) document maintained by EPD Ireland [35] and the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) [36]. Appendix E displays
the road and marine transportation distances obtained from EPD Ireland [35], from a manufacturing to a site in Ireland. Appendix F
categorises construction materials into three groups: bulk material (Irish), other materials (Irish), and materials (non-Irish). This fa-
cilitates the assumption of material transportation to any place in Ireland, ensuring a consistent (A4) EC outcome for all case studies.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
6
The IStructE EC guide [36] presents CFs for road and sea transportation modalities, which are displayed in Appendix G. The CF are
expressed in the unit kgs of CO
2
equivalent per kg of material per km driven. The values in Appendix F are multiplied by the mass of the
material to compute the A4 emissions of a material. The A4 module EC was computed using Eq. 1.
EC (A4) =Weight ×Distance ×Transport (CF) (1)
Where the parameters are:
•EC of (A4) – EC of transport (kgCO
2
e)
•Weight – material mass (kg)
•Distance – distance travelled (km) between the site of material manufacture and the construction site (Appendix E).
•Transport (CF) – relevant mode of transportation CF (kgCO
2
e/kg.km) (Appendix F).
2.2.2.5. Replacement module (B4) assumptions. To calculate the EC for the (B4) module, assumptions about the replacement of various
building elements during the building’s 50-year service life must be made. Each time a replacement occurs, the EC for a specic
building element will arise in the production, construction, and EOL stages. The material replacement module (B4) was estimated
using default service lives from the Level(s) indication 1.2 user manual [37].
Eq. 2 illustrates the B4 EC calculation.
EC(B4)=(EC(A1−A3) +EC(A4) +EC (C2−C4)) ×Replacement Factor (2)
Where the parameters are:
•EC (B4) – EC of replacement (kgCO
2
e)
•EC (A1-A3) – cradle-to-gate EC of the listed building material (kgCO
2
e/FU).
•EC (A4) – transport EC of the listed building material from the manufacturer to the site of use
•(kgCO
2
e/FU).
•EC (C2-C4) – EOL EC of the listed building material, including the transportation from
•the site (kgCO
2
e/FU).
•Replacement Factor – number of expected replacement cycles of a building material over the building service life. Calculated using
Eq. 3.
The replacement factor was determined by utilising the projected lifespan of the building (50 years) and the anticipated lifespan of
the building components.
Replacment Factor =(Building Service Life/Material Service Life) −1 (3)
Appendix G presents the recommended service life of building elements at different levels when service lives for individual
products are unknown. The service lives were included in the LCA calculation as a factor for replacement. As in the appendix, it was
anticipated that all painting and coating would completely change after 10 years. Therefore, a replacement factor of four was applied
to account for a building’s service life of 50 years.
2.2.2.6. End of life stage (C1-C4) assumptions. Some assumptions went into determining the amount of EC in the building’s end-of-life
stage. For module (C1), the methodology adopted the Royal Institution of Civil Engineers (RICS) carbon emissions factor developed for
demolition after reviewing case studies in London [38]. The CF of the demolition is 3.4 kgCO
2
e/m
2
of GIFA. For modules (C2, C3, and
C4), a waste treatment scenario is presumed for each type of material, relying on EPA building and demolition waste statistics specic
to Ireland [31]. The EPA statistics are utilised to ascertain the proportionate distribution of EOL treatment scenarios, as depicted in
Appendix H. These statistics are combined with the data presented in Appendix I and Appendix J to compute the emissions related to
the transportation, processing, and disposal of buildings via their EOL stage.
Eq. 4 represents the calculation of the EC for the C2 module.
EC C2 =Weight ×Distance ×Transport CF (4)
Where the parameters are:
•EC C2 – EC of EOL transport (kgCO
2
e)
•Weight – material mass (kg)
•Distance – distance travelled (km) from site of material use to EOL treatment (Appendix I)
•Transport EF - relevant mode of transportation CF (kgCO
2
e/kg.km) (Appendix J)
Appendix J provides CFs for waste disposal methods. The values represent the CO
2
e emitted per kg of each material type. The
criteria were extracted from the GHG Reporting Conversion criteria 2022 dataset [39], which is sourced from the Department for
Energy Security and Net Zero of the United Kingdom (UK). Eq. 5 provides a method for computing the EC of the C3 and C4 modules.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
7
EC(C3−C4) =Σ Weight ×(EOL Scenario×Waste Management (CF)) (5)
Where the parameters are:
•EC (C3-C4) – EC of waste processing and disposal scenarios (kgCO
2
e)
•Weight – material mass (kg)
•EOL Scenario – percentage of the material functional unit allocated to the stated EOL
•treatment scenario in Appendix H.
•Waste Management CF – EC CF (kgCO
2
e) per functional unit for the stated EOL
treatment scenario (Appendix J).
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the developed methodology, which can be modied to evaluate similar case studies in
other countries. The modications will replace the Irish data sources in the modules with equivalent national data according to the
country where the case study is located.
2.2.3. WLEC assessment and interpretation
When more EC data is provided during the LCI phase, the LCA results can be better understood in terms of their GWP impact. For
the interpretation phase, a hotspot analysis was performed on the LCI data to identify the most impactful life cycle stages and materials
and their contribution to the building’s WLEC. In addition, it helps to develop scenarios throughout “what-if analyses” that can greatly
enhance the reduction of the WLEC.
2.2.3.1. The WLEC result of tender design (BW). In Fig. 4, the WLEC of the tender design (BW) is 749 kgCO
2
e/m
2
, and the EC during the
(A1-A3) stage accounts for 56 % of the WLEC. The replacement module (B4) accounts for a substantial portion of the BW design WLEC,
around 34 %, due to the Level(s) default element service lives. When combined, approximately 90 % of the building’s WLEC comprises
the (A1-A3) and (B4) modules. The (A4) module of product transportation accounts for 6 % of the building WLEC, which is relatively
small. The EC of the (A4) module can be signicantly inuenced by the procurement decisions made during the construction process.
Since the EOL stage (C1-C4) contribution is 4 % and the (C2) module has the highest quantity of EC within the EOL stage, accurate
project-specic transport distances are needed to evaluate and reduce them in the future.
2.2.3.2. The WLEC result of as-built design (PC). In Fig. 4, the precast as-built design yielded a WLEC outcome of 839 kgCO
2
e/m
2
,
surpassing that of the blockwork tender design. The EC induced by the life cycle modules (A1-A3) constitutes 55 % of the WLEC, while
module (B4) makes a substantial contribution of 35 %. Similar to the BW design, the (A1-A3) and B4 life cycle modules collectively
account for 90 % of the WLEC of the building. This indicates that these modules should be prioritised in the potential reduction
scenarios. Module (A4) is responsible for 6 %, whereas the (C1-C4) modules are responsible for 4 % of the WLEC. The transportation of
waste (C2) has the most signicant contribution (66 %) to the EOL stage EC.
2.2.3.3. Materials hotspot analysis. After calculating the WLEC of the base case designs (BW and PC) using the developed LCA
methodology and obtaining the results, a hotspot analysis is required to identify the materials with the most signicant shares in the
WLEC. Appendices K-P provide a detailed breakdown of the EC of the building materials in BW and PC designs during (A1-A3), A4, B4,
and (C2-C4) modules. Fig. 5 shows both designs’ (A1-A3) EC divided by material category. The “Other” category includes oor and
wall tiles, tile adhesives, vinyl oor covering, entry matting, and similar products. The (A1-A3) stage is mostly dominated by concrete
and steel, as these materials were used in substantial quantities in the foundations and superstructure, signicantly impacting the
building WLEC. Windows, external doors, and curtain walls are mostly made from aluminium and glass, making them considerable
contributors to the WLEC. In module (B4), the concrete continues to be the primary contributor, as in Level(s), the interior walls, stairs,
ground oor slab, and roof slab must be replaced every 30 years.
Table 1
The characteristics of the developed methodology.
Standard and
Framework
ISO 14040/14044 & EN 15978:2011 & EU Level(s) framework
Goal Whole-life Embodied Carbon assessment
Scope Building elements in Level(s) framework
Functional Unit
(lifespan)
kgCO
2
e/m
2
(50 years)
Boundary A1-
A3
BOQ/drawings/BIM models to get materials quantities and specs – Generic databases/EPDs/Concrete Mix Design Methodology to get CF
A4 PCR EPD Ireland & IStructE
B4 Default service lives from the Level(s) indication 1.2 user manual
C1 RICS carbon emissions factor for demolition
C2-C4 EPA building and demolition waste statistics specic to Ireland (CFs) for waste disposal methods
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
8
3. WLEC reduction methodology “what-if analyses”
3.1. What-if analysis of the tender design
Hotspot analysis was used to evaluate the assumptions for each life cycle module. At rst, it was found that several building el-
ements did not have suitable default Level(s) service lifetimes in the B4 replacement module. Certain construction elements had their
service lifetimes adjusted after a thorough evaluation of those lifetimes. The project also included material substitution on some
structural components to evaluate the possibility of EC reductions. Throughout the material replacement method, the authors focused
on the carbon emissions for the production stage (A1-A3).
3.1.1. Modications to the service lives of building elements
The second most crucial life cycle step that contributed to the building’s EC was the replacement module (B4). The study aims to
assess the impact of using the actual higher values for the service lives of the building’s elements on the whole life EC of the building.
Fig. 4. WLEC and life cycle modules contributions for the tender (BW) and the as-built (PC).
Fig. 5. (A1-A3) Embodied carbon contributions by the building materials for the BW and PC designs.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
9
The service lives of materials in Level(s) were modied to align with the manufacturer’s standards, resulting in fewer replacements
during the use stage. The projected service lives of the building elements were determined by examining EPDs, technical data sheets,
and manufacturers’ warranties. If the actual service life of the building element exceeded 50 years, it would be aligned with the service
life of the building, hence eliminating the need for replacements. Table 2 displays the building elements that underwent modications
to their service life.
During the building’s use stage, it was determined that the façade elements would not be replaced unless a signicant refur-
bishment was performed. These façade elements include the insulation, supplementary materials, and zinc façade for Block A and the
brick cladding and shading systems for Blocks B, C, and D. They were given a 30-year service life within Level(s) assumptions. After
reviewing their EPDs, with more certainty their service life will last for 50 years. Thus, there will be no mandatory replacement during
the use stage.
Timber, steel, and in-situ concrete slabs were used to construct the building’s roof. It was anticipated that these components would
remain in good condition for the duration of the building’s 50-year lifespan. However, the projected service life for the roof weath-
erproong was less than 50 years due to the expected damage to the roong and sealants. Thus, the roof weatherproong service life
had not been changed. Thistle bonding and skim coatings, mortar, plasterboard, mineral wool insulation, and metal stud framing were
used in ceiling and wall nish. It was deemed improbable that these components would be substituted during the building’s lifespan
because of their durability, as indicated by their EPDs, which exceeded the building’s lifespan.
3.1.2. Material substitution
According to the LCA results, the most harmful stages of the life cycle to the environment were (A1-A3). In the tender design, the
key impactful elements are foundations, superstructure, exterior walls, and facades. Subsequently, research was conducted to identify
Irish market materials that may be used as a low-carbon alternative without altering the building’s structural design. The impact of
more sustainable mix designs on the environment was evaluated by calculating the CFs for various blocks and concrete element mix
designs. The authors communicated with a concrete provider in Ireland to collect the mix designs for ready-mix concrete and concrete
blocks incorporating GGBS [40]. As stated in the BOQ, the mix design for C30/37 and C32/40 concrete was used in the tender stage
design, with 50 % Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and 50 % GGBS made up the cement part of this mixture. Moreover, an EPD for the
high-density concrete block was used. The authors communicated with the supplier to get mix designs for the ready-mix concrete
products incorporating 65 % GGBS. The supplier provided the mix design of the 13 N low-carbon block, which is composed of a
mixture of 50 % GGBS, 50 % CEMII/A-L cement, and Accelor8 [41]. Accelor8 is a hardening accelerating additive specically for use
with GGBS cement in precast concrete products. With the mix designs provided in the BOQ and the 65 % GGBS mixes, a CF was
calculated for the in-situ C30/37 and C32/40 concrete. The chemical compositions of the 13 N low-carbon building blocks were
determined. The typical rebar factor in Ireland was used for the concrete elements. The EPD of XCarb rebar exhibited a signicant
carbon reduction over the (A1-A3) phases. Table 3 illustrates the (A1-A3) CFs of the original and the alternative low-carbon materials.
3.2. What-if analysis of the as-built design
The as-built design included solid and precast concrete for the load-bearing walls, while the non-load-bearing walls were plas-
terboard with metal studs. The oor and roof constructions comprised precast hollow core slabs and a few in-situ slabs. The carbon
data for the precast wall systems were sourced from the manufacturer. This included the different precast components and their in-
dividual formula and durability categories. Furthermore, schedules and reinforcement drawings were taken from a similar project.
Based on correspondence with the design engineer, it was presumed that the quantity of rebar in the solid precast walls was the same as
that in the twin walls.
An in-depth analysis differentiating between exterior and interior walls was applied using the BOQ and the Revit models for the as-
built design to evaluate the EC of the exterior and interior walls. To further guarantee consistency with the as-constructed Revit
models, the quantities obtained from Revit were cross-checked with the original BOQ to conrm that the ratio of outside to interior
walls remained unchanged. The quantities of the exterior doors, windows, and curtain walls called from the CAD drawings. The carbon
data of the supplied doors, windows, and curtain walls were provided by the specic product EPDs.
The same updated service lives and low-carbon alternative materials were used for the materials in the tender design. In addition,
two more materials were substituted, including Precast concrete twin and solid walls C40/50 and Precast concrete twin wall in-situ
inll C32/40. A mixture of 65 % GGBS and 35 % CEM II was used instead of the twin and solid wall mixtures. Table 4 displays the
material replacement, including the original and the low-carbon alternative materials.
Table 2
Projected alterations to the lifespan of the elements in the tender design.
Building parts Related building elements Level(s) Service Life (yrs) Altered Service Life (yrs)
Non-load bearing elements Ground oor slab 30 50
Internal walls, partitions, doors
Stairs and ramps
Facades External wall systems, cladding and shading devices
Roof Structure (Timber, steel, and in-situ concrete slabs)
Fittings and furnishings Ceiling and wall nish
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
10
Table 5 presents the baselines and the generated modied scenarios. Blockwork (BW1) is the base case of the tender stage of the
project. The (BW2) scenario involves the modied service lives of building elements. Scenario (BW3) involves the changes in the
service lives of building elements and the substitution of materials. The PC scenarios refer to the building for its as-built precast
concrete conguration where the primary alteration involved the substitution of blockwork with precast concrete walls. Precast (PC1)
is the base case scenario for the as-built design. The (PC2) scenario utilises the modied service life of building elements. Scenario
(PC3) incorporated modied service lifespans and material replacements.
4. Results of reduction and discussion
This section discusses and compares the scenarios’ results to evaluate the proposed reduction methodology. The results were also
compared with similar results for building typologies in previous studies. Moreover, the results were examined against RIAI’s
benchmark and objectives.
4.1. Evaluation of each scenario and the potential EC reduction
In Fig. 6, the WLEC outcomes for the 50-year lifespan of a building are expressed in kgCO
2
e/m
2
for each scenario. BW3 scenario
incorporated the lowest EC materials to get the most minimal WLEC with 544 kgCO
2
e/m
2
compared to the other scenarios, which were
more harmful to the environment. A reduction of 295 kgCO
2
e/m
2
(35 %) exists between the most impactful scenario (PC1) and the
BW3 scenario. Signicant WLEC reductions occurred in BW2 and PC2 scenarios because the building element service lives were
extended in the tender and as-built designs. There is a 22 % drop in the WLEC from BW1 to BW2 and a 23 % drop from PC1 to PC2.
While there is a 27 % reduction between the BW1 and BW3 scenarios, the PC3 scenario is 33 % smaller than the PC1 scenario.
Accordingly, the reduction methodology appears more effective in precast construction due to the signicant reductions in concrete
elements. In the tender design scenarios, there is a 7.5 % reduction between the BW2 and BW3 scenarios while just considering
material substitution. In the as-built scenarios, the WLEC in PC3 was decreased by 13 % compared to the PC2 scenario. The more
signicant reduction in the precast design can be attributed to the exclusive utilisation of 100 % CEM II in the concrete mixture for
precast elements. Integrating GGBS notably impacted reducing the EC in the precast concrete walls. However, the tender design
scenario (BW3) only used 50 % GGBS in the blockwork, which limited the possible decrease in the WLEC due to the inability to add
more GGBS to these mix designs.
The EC contribution of each life cycle stage for the analysed scenarios shows that the EC is consistently the highest at the production
stage (A1-A3) regardless of the scenarios. In the (A1-A3) stage of the blockwork scenario, a decrease of 10 % was achieved in BW3 by
using low-carbon carbon concrete, blocks, and rebar. In the precast scenario, a reduction of 18 % was achieved in the (A1-A3) stage of
PC3. The literature review indicated that the earliest stage (A1-A5) of a building accounts for about 66 % of the EC during the life cycle.
Approximately 62 % of the WLEC in the BW1 and PC2 scenarios came from the (A1-A4) modules, while 76–79 % of the EC in BW2,
BW3, PC2, and PC3 came from the same modules. In the base case scenarios (BW1 and PC1) where the default element service lives
mentioned in Levels were used, over one-third of the WLEC is attributable to the replacement module (B4). Consequently, when
considering the phases with varying service life, the inuence of B4 was lessened. B4 accounts for around 35 % of the WLEC in the BW1
and PC1 scenarios; however, it only accounts for about 16 % in the BW2 and PC2 scenarios.
The EC of the transportation to site (A4) and the end-of-life (EOL) (C1-C4) stage are consistent in the tender and the as-built
Table 3
(A1-A3) carbon factors for the original and the alternative low-carbon materials for the tender design.
Original Material (A1-A3) CF[kgCO
2
e/kg] Alternative low-carbon Material (A1-A3) CF[kgCO
2
e/kg]
In-situ concrete (C30/37) 0.0639 In-situ concrete (C30/37) with (65 % GGBS) 0.0462
In-situ concrete (C32/40) 0.0660 In-situ concrete (C32/40) with (65 % GGBS) 0.0488
High density blockwork (13 N) 0.0725 13 N low-carbon block
(50 % GGBS, 50 % CEMII/A-L cement, and Accelor8)
0.0505
Rebar 0.7370 XCarb rebar 0.3000
Table 4
Replacement of materials performed for as-built design analysis.
Original Material (A1-A3) CF [kgCO
2
e/
kg]
Alternative low-carbon Material (A1-A3) CF [kgCO
2
e/
kg]
In-situ concrete – C30/37 0.0639 In-situ concrete (C30/37) with (65 % GGBS) 0.0462
In-situ concrete – C32/40 0.0660 In-situ concrete (C32/40) with (65 % GGBS) 0.0488
High density blockwork (13 N) 0.0725 13 N low-carbon block
(50 % GGBS, 50 % CEMII/A-L cement, and Accelor8)
0.0505
Rebar 0.7370 XCarb rebar 0.3000
Precast concrete twin and solid walls
C40/50
0.140 Precast concrete twin and solid walls C40/50 with (65 % GGBS and
35 % CEM II)
0.073
Precast concrete twin wall in-situ inll
C32/40
0.115 Precast concrete twin wall in-situ inll C32/40 with (65 % GGBS
and 35 % CEM II)
0.054
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
11
scenarios. In all scenarios, the WLEC contribution from the EOL stage stays below 6 %. These phases have a far more negligible
environmental effect than the product and use phases. The quantities of materials could explain the small differences in the tender and
the as-built scenarios, which differ slightly.
4.2. Comparison to a similar case study in the UK
The WLEC results were compared to a similar case study from the literature review in the UK. A 2250 m
2
student residential
building consisted of 4 storeys above ground. The EC results of the two design options were 486 and 420 kgCO
2
e/m
2
for the reinforced
concrete (RC) and the blockwork (BW), respectively [42]. Fig. 7 compares the results of the Goldcrest Village scenarios to the UK case
study design options. The primary methodological distinction between the UK study and the current study is that the UK study
considered the A and C life cycle phases only. Including the (B4) module in the Goldcrest Village scenarios signicantly increased the
WLEC results. This is a probable explanation for the lower WLEC results observed in the UK study. Regarding the choice between RC
and BW, the UK study shows a lower WLEC outcome for the RC option. This is because the RC used in the UK study is C25/30, which is
not as harmful as the precast wall panels used in the Goldcrest Village. The RC option in the UK study was also made with blockwork
wall partitions, which also had a lower EC compared to the solid precast walls utilised in the Goldcrest Village.
Table 5
Summary of case study base cases and generated modied scenarios.
Stage Goldcrest Village Scenario Structural Materials A1-A3 Carbon Factor Sources B4 Stage Assumptions
Tender BW1
(Tender base case)
-Blockwork walls
-In-situ concrete
-Rebar
- Concrete blocks
- In-situ concrete
- Rebar
Level(s) default service lives
(30 years)
BW2 Altered service lives (50 years)
BW3 - 50 % GGBS concrete blocks
- 65 % GGBS in-situ concrete
- Low-carbon rebar
Altered service lives (50 years)
As built PC1
(As-built base case)
Precast walls, in situ concrete substructure - Precast concrete
- In-situ concrete
- Rebar
Level(s) default service lives
(30 years)
PC2 Altered service lives (50 years)
PC3 - 65 % GGBS precast concrete
- 65 % GGBS in-situ concrete
- Low-carbon rebar
Altered service lives (50 years)
Fig. 6. WLEC and life cycle modules contributions for each scenario.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
12
4.3. Examining RIAI’s benchmark and objectives
While the literature review notes that Ireland does not yet have any EC regulations, the RIAI climate challenge paper lays out some
general goals [43]. Fig. 8 presents a comparison between the RIAI benchmark and targets and the EC results obtained from this
investigation. The ndings of this study align with the results reported in the literature. Notably, all the values are well below the
existing 1200 kgCO2e/m2 benchmark established by the RIAI document. The BW1, PC1, and PC2 scenarios exceed the RIAI 2030
domestic objective of 625 kgCO
2
e/m
2
, while PC1 also exceeds the 2025 domestic target of 800 kgCO
2
e/m
2
. All scenarios shown
surpass the 2030 target of 450 kgCO
2
e/m
2
for bigger houses with a oor area above 133 m
2
, as specied for this evaluation. The
precast concrete design, when constructed, exhibits the poorest performance across all specied targets. It is difcult for the con-
struction sector to reduce EC while dealing with workforce constraints in the business.
5. Conclusions
This study aimed to enhance the current global efforts in reducing the EC emissions of buildings by developing a robust WLEC
evaluation and reduction methodology for a high-demanded building typology and applying it to an Irish case study. The developed
LCA methodology is replicable with limited modications to assess similar projects in other countries.
To avoid the inconsistency in the previous methods, the developed methodology adopted nine LC modules (A1-A4, B4, and C1-C4)
and the building elements scope from Level(s) framework to be calculated for a 50-year service life in the WLEC evaluation, which
made the assessments easier, comparable, accurate, and comprehensive. Based on the quantities of building materials from the BOQ,
their carbon factors from the EPDs or the ICE generic data, and specic assumptions for (A4, B4, and C1-C4) modules, the WLEC
emissions were evaluated.
To apply the methodology on a real case study, a student accommodation development was selected for the evaluation. The results
show that the WLEC of the precast concrete walls as-built design (PC1) exceeded the blockwork walls tender design (BW1) by 12 % due
to the increase in the use of reinforced concrete. Moreover, the product stage (A1-A3) and the replacement module (B4) were the
primary WLEC contributors, with around 56 % and 35 % in both scenarios.
To mitigate the WLEC emissions of this typology of buildings, altering concrete and rebar with lower carbon materials is
mandatory. The alternative low-carbon materials (i.e. 50 % GGBS concrete blocks, 65 % GGBS in-situ concrete, low-carbon rebar, and
65 % GGBS precast concrete) were employed in an applicable methodology to reduce the WLEC emissions by replacing the conven-
tional materials. The replacement resulted in a reduction of 10.4 % and 17.9 %, respectively, in the production stage (A1-A3), which
aligns with the results of the previous studies [12] [13].
The modications to the (B4) module substantially inuenced the reduction of the WLEC of the case study. When the service lives of
the non-load bearing elements, facades, roof structure, and ceiling and wall nish were extended from 30 to 50 years (as observed in
the BW2 and PC2 scenarios), the WLEC contribution of the replacement (B4) module decreased from 258 kgCO
2
e/m
2
(34 %) in BW1
base case to 95 kgCO
2
e/m
2
(16 %) in BW2 scenario. Hence, prioritising the use of durable materials can reduce the WLEC emissions of
the building, as also previously mentioned in Rauf et al. [14] and Yokoyama et al. [15] studies.
The WLEC emissions of the BW1 and PC1 base cases surpassed the domestic objective of 625 kgCO
2
e/m
2
set by RIAI 2030.
However, the developed methodology successfully reduced both design options to below the targeted limit in scenarios BW2, BW3, and
PC3. This shows that modications to materials and service lives are recommended to keep the WLEC within the targeted limits.
Fig. 7. Goldcrest Village scenarios WLEC results vs. those of the UK case study.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
13
The current default service life for building elements in the Level(s) may be a source of uncertainty for specialised components such
as internal walls, partitions, and staircases. These elements are frequently constructed from concrete, with a signicantly extended
lifespan. A reassessment of the Level(s) service lives to be more accurate is necessary.
The development methodology has limitations in the reduction measures regarding the limited alternative low-carbon products in
the Irish market. Moreover, reduction measures such as substitution with bio-based materials like timber cannot be included due to
structural design considerations; however, they will relatively have high potential to reduce the WLEC emissions.
Presently, cement substitutes like GGBS are not widely employed in the manufacture of precast concrete. The primary reason is the
prolonged setting time resulting from using GGBS. Moreover, the IStructE report in 2023 [44] mentioned that GGBS resources are
limited and almost fully utilised globally. Therefore, increasing the use of GGBS is unlikely to be possible nowadays, and alternative
options need to be developed. Excluding the GGBS leaves a signicant opportunity for the researcher to study how the EC of precast
concrete can be reduced. Conducting more research in this eld would be an advantageous approach to decrease the EC of buildings.
Funding
This work was supported by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland [grant agreement 21/RDD/703], and the Laudes Foun-
dation through the INDICATE project [grant reference GR-077637].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Moran Paul: Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Flynn Jack: Methodology, Data curation. Larkin Conor:
Methodology, Data curation. Goggins Jamie: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Elkhayat Youssef: Writing –
original draft, Visualization, Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following nancial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing in-
terests: Jamie Goggins reports nancial support was provided by The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI). Jamie Goggins
reports nancial support was provided by Laudes Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known
competing nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence the work reported in this paper
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Stephen Barrett from the Irish Green Building Council for providing a tool to
calculate the case study’s embodied carbon emissions. Those working in the eld who generously supplied the authors with the in-
formation and data needed to complete the study have the writers forever in their gratitude. Their generosity in sharing their insights
and experiences has been crucial to our success.
Fig. 8. RIAI’s domestic EC aims and the outcomes of the EC.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
14
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2025.e04514.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] Nugent, Montano-Owen, Pallares, Richardson, and Rowland, EU Policy Whole Life Carbon Roadmap for Buildings, 2022.
[2] European Commission, Energy Performance Of Buildings Directive, (Online). 2023. 〈https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efciency/energyefcient〉-
buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en. (Accessed 7 August 2023).
[3] European Commission, EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), (Online). 2023. 〈https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-tradingsystem〉- eu-ets_
en#a-cap-and-trade-system. (Accessed 7 August 2023).
[4] R. O’Hegarty, O. Kinnane, Whole Life Carbon Quantication of the Built Environment: Case Study Ireland, Elsevier, 2022 (Accessed 7 August 2023). https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232200960X?casa_token=VyXth3WNZJEAAAAA:Zi9HVJ2vQ_YyXbzQLAhqTf9wTe4xFUp_
6z5BPmcvMYHKHpIrFfVI5X0quJJXg78HhzvF-2SL.
[5] United Nations, The Paris Agreement, (Online) 2023. 〈https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-parisagreement?〉
gclid=Cj0KCQiAoeBhDXARIsAHTTldppPnN8eNnOHOukY0- w8owPmxHRC5ydeKqsbw_biJLonqTMLJseXZEaAmvsEALw_wcB. (Accessed 7 August 2023).
[6] Department of the Environment, Climate Action Plan 2023,, (Online) 2023. 〈https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/7bd8c-climate-action-plan〉- 2023/. (Accessed
7 August 2023).
[7] R. O’Hegarty, S. Wall, and O. Kinnane, Whole Life Carbon in Construction and the Built Environment in Ireland, 2022.
[8] A. Duffy, Land use planning in Ireland-a life cycle energy analysis of recent residential development in the Greater Dublin area, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (3)
(May 2009) 268–277, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-009-0059-7.
[9] C.K. Anand, B. Amor, Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67
(2017) 408–416.
[10] T. Lützkendorf and M. Balouktsi, Basics, IEA-EBC Annex 57 Subtask 1 report-Actors and Concepts, Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building
Construction (Annex 57), International Energy Agency, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation, Japan, 2016.
[11] C. Larkin, J. Flynn, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings in Ireland, University of Galway, 2023.
[12] F. Kanavaris, G. Di Benedetto, A. Campbell, G. Gedge, S. Kaethner, Reducing the embodied carbon of concrete-framed buildings through improved design and
specication: inuence of building typologies, construction types and concrete mix, Structures 67 (Sep. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107005.
[13] A. Favier, C. De Wolf, K. Scrivener, G. Habert, ETH Library A sustainable future for the European Cement and Concrete Industry Technology assessment for full
decarbonisation of the industry by 2050 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000301843.
[14] A. Rauf, R.H. Crawford, Building service life and its effect on the life cycle embodied energy of buildings, Energy 79 (2015) 140–148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2014.10.093.
[15] K. Yokoyama, M. Yamamoto, N. Yokoo, T. Oka, T. Sawachi, Study on impact of embodied energy and CO2 emissions for prolongation of building life time: case
study in Japan, J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 9 (2015) 274–282.
[16] L. G. a. H. Department of Housing, A New Housing Plan for Ireland, (Online) 2021. (Accessed 7 August 2023). 〈https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/
ef5echousing- for-all-a-new-housing-plan-for-ireland/#view-the-plan〉.
[17] H. Yan, Q. Shen, L.C.H. Fan, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: a case study of One Peking in Hong Kong, Build. Environ. 45
(4) (2010) 949–955.
[18] Y. Schwartz, R. Raslan, D. Mumovic, The life cycle carbon footprint of refurbished and new buildings – a systematic review of case studies, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 81 (2018) 231–241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.061.
[19] A. Takano, Comparison of life cycle assessment databases: a case study on building assessment, Build. Environ. 79 (2014) 20–30.
[20] A. Akbarnezhad, Z.S. Moussavi Nadoushani, A computational method for selection of optimal concrete recycling strategy, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (11) (2015)
543–558.
[21] M. Norouzi, S. Colclough, L. Jim´
enez, J. Gavald`
a, Low-energy buildings in combination with grid decarbonization, life cycle assessment of passive house
buildings in Northern Ireland, Energy Build. (2022). Accessed: Aug. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0378778822001074〉.
[22] J. Goggins, P. Moran, A. Armstrong, and M. Hajdukiewicz, Lifecycle environmental and economic performance of nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB) in
Ireland, Energy Build, (Online) 2016. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778816300160?casa_token=BQCEiMGFquMAAAAA:
WZ5hZyEbxGSOA8loqykE5nrbswQNzyUaS_9k4iGo4UKBUIfURr33g3QJwQZUV6meEFmV5t1R〉.
[23] National Standards Authority of Ireland, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework I.S. EN ISO 14040:2006&A1:2020,
2020.
[24] National Standards Authority of Ireland, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines I.S. EN ISO 14044:2006&A1:
2018&A2:2020, 2020.
[25] National Standards Authority of Ireland, Sustainability of cOnstruction Works - Environmental Product Declarations - Core Rules for the Product Category of
Construction Products I.S. EN 15804:2012+A2:2019&AC:2021., 2021.
[26] Irish Green Building Council, EPD Ireland, (Online) 2023. 〈https://www.igbc.ie/epd-home/〉.
[27] European Commission, How Does Level(s) Work? (Online) 2023. 〈https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/levels/lets-meetlevels/〉how-
does-levels-work_en. (Accessed 7 August 2023).
[28] J.T.C.C. Engineers, Goldcrest Village - NUIG Student Accommodation Substantial Completion, (Online) 2023. 〈https://www.jvtierney.ie/goldcrestvillage〉-
nuig-student-accommodation-substantial-completion. (Accessed 8 August 2023).
[29] N. Dodd, S. Donatello, and M. Cordella, Level(s) – A cOmmon Eu Framework of Core Sustainability Indicators for Ofce and Residential Buildings, User Manual
2: Setting up a Project to Use the Level(s) Common Framework (Publication version 1.1), 2021.
[30] TM65 Embodied Carbon in Building Services: a Calculation Methodology, (Online), 2023. 〈https://www.cibse.org/knowledge-research/knowledge-portal/
embodied-carbon-in-building-services-a-calculation-methodology-tm65#:~:text=Other%20Details-,Embodied%20carbon%20in%20building%20services%3A
%20A%20calculation%20methodology%20〉(TM65),related%20to%20whole%20life%20carbon. (Accessed 6 August 2023).
[31] EPA, Construction & Demolition Waste Statistics for Ireland, (Online) 2022. (Accessed 8 August 2023). 〈https://www.epa.ie/our-services/monitoring–
assessment/waste/national-waste-statistics/construction–demolition/〉.
[32] Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR) and Irish Green Building Council (IGBC), National Inventory of Generic Construction Materials Data (NIGCMD), 2022.
P. Moran et al.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 22 (2025) e04514
15
[33] C. Jones and G. Hammond, ICE (Inventory of Carbon and Energy) Version 4, , (Online) 2024. (Accessed 26 February 2025) 〈https://circularecology.com/
embodied-carbon-footprint-database.html〉.
[34] C. Jones, ICE Database - Embodied Carbon Model of Cement, Mortar and Concrete V1.2, (Online) 2024. 2025. [Online]. (Accessed 26 February 2025) 〈https://
circularecology.com/embodied-carbon-footprint-database.html〉.
[35] E.P.D. Ireland, Product Category Rules: Part A Implementation and Use of EN 15804:2012+A1:2013, EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 and CEN TR 16970:2016 in
Ireland for the development of Environmental Product Declarations, 2022.
[36] O. John, O. Gibbons, W. Arnold, A Brief Guide to Calculating Embodied Carbon (2020).
[37] N. Dodd, S. Donatello, and M. C, Level(s) Indicator 1.2: Life Cycle Global Warming Potential (GWP) User Manual: Introductory Brieng, Instructions and
Guidance (Publication version 1.1), 2021.
[38] S. Sturgis and A. Papakosta, RICS Professional Standards and Guidance, UK Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment 1st4 Edition, November,
2017, 2017.
[39] E. I. S. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Department for Business, Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Conversion Factors 2022.
[40] M. Collins and C. Larkin, “Editor.,” 2023.
[41] Ecocem, Ecocem AccelR8, (Online) 2023. (Accessed8 August 2023). 〈https://www.ecocemglobal.com/en-gb/products-projects/ecocem-accelr8/〉.
[42] A.M. Moncaster, F. Pomponi, K.E. Symons, P.M. Guthrie, and A.A. Nezhad, Why Method Matters: Temporal, Spatial and Physical Variations in LCA and their
Impact on Choice of Structural System, (Online) 2025. (Accessed 24 February 2025) 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0378778818308946〉.
[43] RIAI, RIAI 2030 Climate Challenge 2021, (Online) 2023. (Accessed 8 August 2023). 〈https://www.riai.ie/discover-architecture/riai-publications/riai-2030-
climatechallenge〉.
[44] W. Arnold, P. Astel, T. Forman, M. Drewniok, The Efcient Use of GGBS in Reducing Global Emissions, Institution of Structural Engineers, United Kingdom,
2023.
P. Moran et al.