Ialcce Som Papers

Life-Cycle of Structures and
Infrastructure Systems
Editors
Fabio Biondini and Dan M. Frangopol
Life-Cycle of Structures and Infrastructure Systems – Biondini & Frangopol (Eds)
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
Resilient structures: Materials | Components | Systems
Mark P. Sarkisian
Partner, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, San Francisco, CA, USA
ABSTRACT: Materials, components, and systems are all essential to creating resilient struc-
tural systems. Historical, materials have been used based on technologies of the time including
an understanding of mathematics, physics, and engineering. Modest-strength materials, when
assembled creatively can provide significant resistance to gravity and lateral loads. When intel-
ligently placed, these materials can form structures that are even self-stabilizing during con-
struction without the need for forming systems. Structural components designed for
maximum life and performance can transform brittle structures into those with ductility where
damage can be reduced when subjected to extreme loadings such as those created from seismi-
city. Structural systems can be comprised of multiple types of materials and can be assembled
into efficient structures at all scales. New advancements in design include super-elastic mater-
ials that can be used to dissipate energy during seismic events and even provide self-centering
of structures after strong ground motions.
Several building examples with be described and presented. These examples will be based
on fundamental concepts of life-cycle engineering including ideas that help reduce embodied
carbon through initial construction and long-term behavior. Ideas include structures that
incorporate seismic isolation, friction fuse devices, and even new concepts using Shape
Memory Aloys (SMA).
1 INTRODUCTION
Resilience is arguably the most important aspect of life-cycle civil engineering. Even though
code-based design inherent provides a reasonable approach to resilient structures primarily
due to a life-safety considerations, it falls short of achieving optimal performance in areas of
risk especially those with high potential seismicity. For example, many buildings in Christ-
church, New Zealand were designed to recent building codes and proved to be life-safe during
the 2011 earthquake. However, many buildings were significantly damaged and proved to be
unfit for continued operation even with a magnitude earthquake of 6.3 on the Richter Scale.
These buildings were demolished as a result causing significant financial loss and major dis-
ruptions to businesses in the city of Christchurch (Figure 1).
Environmental impacts due to the emission of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equiva-
lents has proven to be an important consideration in life-cycle civil engineering. The carbon
associated with building construction is perhaps the most significant contributor accounting
for approximately 50% of emitted carbon when considering initial construction and building
operations (Figure 2). Approximately one half of these emissions are associated with initial
construction and embodied. Urban developments around the world can sometimes occur over
a limited period of time.
Without careful planning, these developments (Figure 3) can have enormous impact on the
emission of carbon not just during the initial construction but throughout the development’s life
where resilient materials, components, and systems are important to minimize impact. In areas
of environment risks (ie. seismicity), the amount of embodied carbon can significantly increase
over time due to the need for repairs or in extreme cases demolition and new construction.
DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-9
98
Figure 1. Damage and demolition of buildings - Christchurch, New Zealand due to the 2011 earthquake.
Figure 2. Global carbon dioxide emission by sector. Figure 3. Aerial photograph – Lima, Peru.
2 MATERIALS
For thousands of years, mankind has invented ways of using materials based on a specific
understanding of applications known at the time. First developed for shelter and later of a wide
range of uses, structures incorporated ingenuity that was largely informed by construction trial
and error and near-term/long-term environmental conditions. Structures originally were con-
structed by found materials (i.e. stone) and later by fabricated materials. In early applications
using fabricated materials, raw materials used were largely those resourced directly from the
earth such as clay. These materials could be fired for increased strength and when used in pure
compression with modest loads, could be used for large structures (Figure 4).
Within the last few hundred years, masonry has been widely used in major structures in
Europe and in many of those structures, timbrel vaults were used to span significant distances.
Timbrel vaults are unique since these structures are typically constructed without formwork
(geometric guides only) and are self-stabilizing (Figure 5).
The disadvantage to these structures is they typically perform poorly in significant seismic
events where masonry materials are subjected to tension and cyclic loadings. A major earth-
quake in April 2015 in Nepal led schools, constructed of brick or stone, to collapse (Carroll,
2015). Techniques to retrofit these buildings so that they can withstand seismic loading are
strongly needed. While reinforcement attempts have increased over the last decades (Fora-
boschi, 2004) (Shrive, 2006) (Ramaglia, 2016), the reinforcement of buildings made from solid
masonry, such as brick, stone, adobe blocks and hollow clay tile, remains an ill-mastered tech-
nique for which no standard procedure has been developed. SOM research done in
99
Figure 4. Stacked masonry – Lima, Peru. Figure 5. Masonry timbrel vault construction.
collaboration with the University of Alcala, Madrid and Taller de Bóvedas has resulted in
more highly resilient timbrel vaults when subjected to lateral loading while using modest
materials such a fiberglass to reinforce the masonry.
Analysis of arches, a segment of idealized vaults, focused on the onset of mechanisms when
four hinges are formed. Analysis and physical testing considered unreinforced and reinforced
masonry vaults (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Masonry arches on shake table – reinforced on left, unreinforced on right.
Given that the supports of the arch were pinned in the numerical model, predicted collapse
would occur when two hinges form within the arch. Lateral analyses of unreinforced arches
when subjected to lateral acceleration using frame elements is shown in Figure 7.
The distance e between the centroid of the section and the location of the force resultant in
M
the section is given by the following formula: e P (1), where M is the strong axis bending
moment and P is the axial force. Therefore, the condition for a hinge to form is represented
h
by the following formula: e 2 (2), where h is the section height.
The unreinforced arch was originally considered for a unidirectional lateral acceleration starting
at 0.1g. Using equation (2), the first hinge was predicted to appear at an acceleration of 0.2g
between elements 7 and 8. Collapse was predicted at 0.23g, when a second hinge formed between
elements 2 and 3 and the original hinge moved to the joint between bricks 8 and 9 (Figure 7).
To validate the predicted hinge locations, the bricks were modelled as shell elements and the
stress distribution in the shell elements was evaluated. Similar to the frame element model, the
interface between bricks was modelled as a continuum. In this model, compressive stresses were
100
Figure 7. Masonry arch deformation at 0.1g, 0.2g, and 0.23g (numbers indicate frame element labels
and red circles indicate hinges).
concentrated on one the side of the section at the hinge locations. On the other side of the sec-
tion, tensile stresses were observed, indicating that the adjacent brick sections had separated.
The stress distribution and the predicted hinge locations at 0.23 g is presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Stress distribution in arch 1 at 0.23g. Figure 9. Extrados – reinforced arch.
Reinforcement was introduced into the model with another layer of elastic frame elements
offset from the elements representing the bricks (Figure 9). The reinforcement elements were
assigned low values of inertial stiffness so that they mainly resisted axial loads. The two layers
of frame elements were connected through rigid frame elements. The deformation at a similar
level of acceleration was found to be more pronounced for the unreinforced arch than it was
for the extrados-reinforced arch (Figure 10). When collapse occurred in Arch 1 with the for-
mation of two hinges within the span, the reinforcement in Arch 2 prevented hinges from
forming on the intrados, allowing it to resist higher levels of acceleration.
Figure 10. Deformation comparison between the unreinforced arch (green) and the extrados –
reinforced arch (blue) under 0.23g.
In addition to the improved lateral load resilience of modestly reinforced masonry arches,
principles of structural optimization were applied to the masonry vaults. For the installation
of works at the College of Architecture Madrid (COAM), density optimization was applied to
a structure that was built as part of the exhibition. The goal was to create a timbrel vault that
could minimize the use of materials and therefore embodied carbon. Construction would be
faster since less materials would be placed. The concept of the vault was one that could be
101
scales to larger structures when carbon emissions associated with materials and construction
would be much more significant. Topology optimization analyses led to mapping of states of
stress with areas in red having highest compressive stress and areas in light blue where stress
was minimal, and material could be removed (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Topology optimization of masonry timbrel vault.
Figure 12. Constructed masonry timbrel vault indicating material removal and overall geometry.
Skilled, increasingly rarely available labor to build such vaults led to imagining that geomet-
rically specific, self-stabilizing structures could be built with an automated process where
three-dimensional space could be defined, and the material could be placed by robots. Alter-
nate materials, still exhibiting good compressive characteristics, could be used to replace con-
ventional masonry elements. SOM collaborated with Princeton University to create a glass
vault assembled jointly by robots and humans. The structure was built using two robots
placed on a platform to avoid arm interference and allowing for the placement of glass block
material in predetermined three-dimensional space (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Geometric de nition and constructed self – stabilized glass vault.
102
3 COMPONENTS
The original request for proposal (RFP) for the design-build Long Beach California Civic
Center Project (Figure 14) stated four design objectives for a design level seismic event – 1.
Experience few or no injuries; 2. Reoccupy the new facility within a week; 3. Have full function-
ality within 30 days; and 4. Experience less than 5% financial loss (as compared to the replace-
ment value. For a public facility this criterion was a welcomed framework for resilient design.
Initial ideas led to concepts of replacement traditional plastic yielding mechanisms of shear wall
cores with an innovative concept of using a central base bearing at the base of core walls to
allow for controlled mechanisms to occur during a seismic event while limiting damage.
Figure 14. Rendering of Long Beach civic center project with core wall bearing concept.
For cost and schedule reasons, the final design included a creative alternative idea that used
a more conventional approach where staggered openings in core walls were used so no link
beams were required, therefore eliminating damage for these otherwise sacrificial elements during
a seismic event. In addition, non-structural components were carefully considered for seismic dis-
placement. For instance, partition walls typically did not span between each floor level but were
otherwise interconnected only at the base of walls allowing for tops to move freely.
Advancements to friction joints within seismic resistance structures have led to an innovative
approach to increase seismic resilience of the Sanyi Irotech Towers in Guangzhou (Figure 15).
Seismic fuses were introduced into offset exterior braced frames. The fuses use bolted friction
connections designed to slip during a major earthquake while protecting the base building mater-
ial from plastic deformations/permanent damage. This resilient system does not move during typ-
ical service conditions when the towers are subjected to wind and moderate seismic events.
Figure 15. Rendering, idealized frame elevation, and enlarged view of offset frame joint.
High strength slip-critical bolts and steel friction shims are used to create the fused joints within
the frame. Slip is considered through vertical slip in the joints. Conventional steel building compo-
nents are used in each joint and the structural frame is exposed without cladding (Figure 16).
The combination of structural steel and heavy timber is a solution to reducing seismic mass
while providing a ductile lateral load-resisting system. As part of the Long Beach Civic Center
Project, a public library name the Billie Jean King Library was designed and built. This ultra-low
103
carbon structure was built over an existing parking structure where load was balanced through
the removal of heavy landscaping and the addition of a lightweight steel and timber structure.
Figure 16. Modeled movement and components of frame friction joints.
This approach resulted in only modest seismic upgrades to the existing parking structure while
creating long-span, flexible library spaces above. Steel braced frames and steel columns are inter-
connected with repetitive timber construction used for all of the floor systems (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Combination of steel and timber – Billie Jean King library.
Components were further developed in the recently designed County Office Building 3
(COB3) Project for San Mateo County (Figure 18). Structural steel was also incorporated into
Figure 18. COB3 project under construction and typical beam-to-column connection detail.
104
the timber structure with wood typically used for columns instead of steel. Connections were
prefabricated and proved to be essential to the rapid on-site assembly. Instead of conventional
steel braced frames, unbonded steel braces were used in the core areas for seismic resistance.
These braces can be replaced after a significant seismic event.
4 SYSTEMS
The Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland (Figure 19), California is an excellent example
of a resilient, low embodied carbon structure. Seismic isolation is central to the design
approach with the timber and steel structure supported on stainless steel friction pendulum
bearings.
Figure 19. The cathedral of Christ the light under construction and the seismic isolation design.
A similar systematic approach was used for the design of Los Angeles County Museum of
Art (LACMA) expansion project in collaboration with architect Peter Zumthor. This struc-
ture, currently under construction, consists of long cantilevers (up to 25 meters) as well as
a clear span condition at the existing Wilshire Blvd. Seismic isolation is used to protect the
artwork and create a resilient structure that is designed to minimize and damage due to poten-
tially high seismicity.
Figure 20. Rendering and cross-section of structure for the LACMA museum.
The superstructure consists for reinforced concrete ribs and post-tensioning that sandwiches
and top and bottom slab systems. Slabs are also post-tensioned. Art House walls interconnect
the floor framing sandwich systems at the exhibition floor and the roof. Art Tower reinforced
concrete shear wall cores house services and support the framing systems and are ultimately
supported on 3 meter-diameter friction pendulum bearings. Post-tensioning is also used in the
art house walls to transfer gravity loads from the framing to the Art Tower walls (Figure 21).
Significant advancements have been made for framed systems for all building structures.
Based on the concept of the Michell Truss, the theoretically most correct and efficient use of
materials in a cantilevered structure when subjected to lateral loads, several design
105
advancements have been made. Instead of concentrically braced frames, those that consist of
a high-waisted asymmetrical system results in a more efficient structure achieving target
strength and displacements with far less material. 800 West Fulton Market in Chicago
(Figure 22) incorporates this system. A steel brace frame provides the lateral system for an
otherwise reinforced concrete structure.
Figure 21. LACMA framing system concepts and cross section of wall system.
Figure 22. Lateral frame concept and nal construction of 800 West Fulton Market, Chicago.
The important attribute to the Michell Truss concept is its application to horizontal framed
structures such as the pedestrian bridge for Emery Cancer Center in Atlanta, Georgia
(Figure 23). This concept can be used for pedestrian or vehicle bridges as well as long-span
floor framing systems that can be used in repetition structures of all heights.
Figure 23. Emery cancer hospital pedestrian bridge drawing, analysis, and on-site photograph.
Bracing systems with seismic fuses provide and excellent solution to creating ductility in
a potentially otherwise non-ductile seismic system. For the University of California, Berkeley,
Bechtel Engineering Center fuses are introduced into the perimeter steel tension-only bracing
system. What is unique about the system for the Bechtel Center is that the fuses are comprised
106
of super elastic Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) devices (Figure 24). The overall concept is to
create an ultra-lightweight structure that is supported on an existing reinforced concrete build-
ing while minimizing any seismic retrofit to the existing building. The SMA devises deform
during an extreme seismic event, dissipate energy, and then act to restore the building to its
original position after the event (Figure 25).
Figure 24. UC Berkeley Bechtel center rendering and location SMA seismic fuses.
Figure 25. SMA Fuses – Elevation drawing and stress – strain relationship of material.
Figure 26. Structural system concept sketches for the Grand Rama tower – Bangkok.
107
5 CONCLUSION
Resilient design can be accomplished at all scales. Careful considerations of materials, compo-
nents, and systems are all essential to efficient, low-carbon emitting structures that optimally
perform over a projected building life. Combined concepts are important and when designing
structures at great scale all attributes can be combined with great benefits. Mapping natural
force flows is important resulting in structures that are elegant and potentially expressive
(Figure 26).
REFERENCES
Carroll, C. (2015, April 30). How Impoverished Nepal Can Rebuild for the Next Earthquake. Retrieved
from National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150430-nepal-earthquake-
rebuilding-construction-science/.
Foraboschi, P. (2004). Strengthening of Masonry Arches with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strips. Journal
of Composites for Construction 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:3(191).
Ramaglia, G. (2016). Seismic Strengthening of Masonry Vaults with Abutments Using
Textile-Reinforced Mortar. Journal of Composites for Construction 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000733.
Shrive, N. (2006). The Use of Fibre Reinforced Polymers to Improve Seismic Resistance of Masonry.
Construction and Building Materials 20(4): 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.030.
Construction and Building Materials, 269-277.
108
SS25: The process of decarbonization: from ideation to specification
Organizers: D. Shook & M. Sarkisian
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0
Resilience through superelasticity
D. Shook & M.P. Sarkisian

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, San Francisco, USA
C. Horiuchi
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, San Francisco, USA (formerly)
ABSTRACT: To reduce the impact of climate change we must incorporate carbon-reducing

materials while increasing the resiliency of buildings and infrastructure. Shape memory alloys
(SMAs) offer a unique opportunity to achieve these goals. SMAs are unique materials which
experience phase changes due to stress allowing large, fully recoverable deformations, energy
dissipation, and significant restoring forces. This is particularly helpful in regions of high seis-
micity. The SMA properties allow for a fully elastic seismic force resisting system. This stands
in contrast to traditional steel moment frames which have significantly higher embodied
carbon and buckling restrained braces (BRBs) which have a known tendency to have residual
drift – rending the building unusable. Moment frames and BRBs systems cannot achieve the
combined goals of carbon reductions and resiliency. Component, prototype, and large-scale
shake table testing has been conducted to validate this approach.
1 A NEW ERA OF RESILIENCE
1.1 Growing environmental risks

Rapid decarbonization is critical considering the time-value of carbon (CLF, 2017). The world
is seeing promising near-term advancements of common high-volume building materials such as
concrete, timber, and steel. New concrete alternatives such as algae-based cements (Prometheus,
2023) and ground glass pozzolans (Sioneer, 2023) are creating local, circular economies. Timber
is being more widely used with increased code acceptance, and embodied carbon of steel is
being mitigated with wider use of electric arc furnaces on cleaner electrical grids. As whole
building life-cycle assessments of buildings and urban environments have shown, these common
high-volume materials must decarbonize to meet the carbon reduction needs.
Many new building materials are being used as carbon storage vaults to lock up harmful
carbon from emitting back into the atmosphere. For example, CO is being injected into con-
crete for enhanced properties and long-term storage (CarbonCure, 2023), expanded use of
mass timber, and other new carbon sequestering technologies are emerging rapidly. The
importance of protecting these structures has expanded from one of life-safety to one of vital
environmental consequence. This is of particular importance in areas of moderate to high seis-
mic risk where a single event can emit mass quantities of carbon into the atmosphere due to
the initial damage and during the subsequent carbon-intensive repair and rebuild.
Figure 1. Resiliency.
DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-319
2623
Thus, the need for resilience in buildings is growing as buildings become carbon syncs
addressing climate change. This is especially true for buildings located in regions of seismically
activity. Thus, a new era of resilience is here which expands beyond its traditional definition
to include the carbon stored in the built environment.
1.2 Urgency for fully recoverable seismic systems

Nearly all seismic force resisting systems in today’s building code are fundamentally based on
controlled damage resulting in hysteretic damping and energy dissipation. The damping and
energy dissipation are vital to reduce the seismic demands to manageable levels. Concrete
shear walls, eccentric braced frames, and steel/concrete moment frames are used in nearly
every building construction throughout the world and all of them work on this principle.
While this approach, when detailed and constructed correctly, has been shown to be reliable
for life-safety in a single large earthquake (Maffei, 2014), they have also been shown to require
significant repairs or entire replacement after a large seismic event.
The development of cost-effective seismic force resisting systems which can be easily
repaired or require no repair at all are vital to the protection of life during an earthquake,
minimization of repair/replacement after an earthquake, and long-term protection of carbon
storage in buildings. The use of non-traditional materials which meet these needs is required.
These materials must be rigorously developed, tested, and smartly deployed to be effective.
1.3 Shape memory alloys

Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) materials such as Nitinol (nickel-titanium) have been used in
niche applications since the 1970s, but in recent years it has become widely used in medical
devices such as heart stents, aerospace components, and deep space applications due to their
reliable performance, high corrosion resistance, while reducing material costs.
SMAs are metallic alloys typically composed of multiple metallic elements including nickel-
titanium (“Nitinol”), copper-zinc-aluminum, and iron-manganese-silicon-chromium-nickel
(Ozbulut, 2011). While not the lowest cost, nitinol is the most widely used SMA type due to
its favorable performance at a wide range of temperatures and high-corrosion resistance.
Copper-based SMAs are typically the lowest cost and have similar performance in many
regards to nitinol, but Coper-based SMAs have lower-stiffness than nitinol and do not share
nitinols corrosion resistance. Iron-based SMAs are stiffer, but do not share the wide perform-
ance range of nitinol. While copper-based and iron-based SMAs have potential for further
development in seismic-force resisting systems, nitinol is ready for immediate application and
considered for this investigation.
SMAs are complex materials whose physical response to deformation depends on the mag-
nitude of strain and material temperature. Also, as described above there are a wide variety of
SMA material types. To describe their behavior for this investigation the following focus on
superelastic nitinol at a material temperature range of 0C to 40C (32F to 104F).
1.4 Traditional steel and SMA behavior under deformation

Steel used in building applications is ductile. This ductility stems from the crystalline structure
of common structural steels which have numerous slip planes. The high number of slip planes
allow for numerous successive slips to occur under increasing deformation. Each new slip
plane allows for further and further elongation which structural engineers call ductility. As
described above, ductility allows for energy dissipation which is fundamental to traditional
seismic force resisting systems.
SMAs have few slip planes. Typically, this is not favorable for building applications because
materials with few slip planes tend to crack or rupture because the crystalline structure cannot
slip along multiple planes. Instead of moving along slip planes the SMA material undergoes
a stress-induced or temperature-induced phase change between a stiffer austenite phase and
a softer martensite phase which can experience significant deformations without forming slip
2624
planes. A phase change due to temperature change is typically termed the ‘shape memory
effect’ and a phase change due to stress is typically termed ‘superelasticity’. Since slip planes
are not created, only phase changes are occurring, the deformation is fully recoverable.
To control and fine tune the behavior of SMAs at common temperature ranges an SMA is
produced to be either a shape memory SMA or a superelastic SMA. Both types can be nitinol-
based but their exact metallurgy and resulting behaviors are fine tuned for specification
applications.
The ’movement’ of SMAs is due to the current phase ‘wanting’ to shift to a lower energy
state. For shape memory SMAs this is commonly seen when applied heat changes the lowest
energy state causing the material to change phase and therefore ‘move’ to a prior ‘trained’
geometry. For superelastic SMAs this is commonly seen when applied stress changes the
phase, but the new phase is not the lowest energy state causing the material to ‘pull’ back to
its prior geometry as the applied stress is reduced.
2 RECOVERABLE MATERIALS
2.1 Behavior of single SMA wire

Superelastic SMA is used for this application. The material can be composed into a wide
range of geometries including wire, bar, spring, washer, etc. SMA wires can be commercially
procured ranging from 0.02mm to nearly 2mm. For this application 1mm wires are used.
The stress-strain relationship of superelastic nitinol material is well represented by a single
wire. Below is the stress strain relationship for a superelastic nitinol wire. Several common
terms are defined below and described in Figure 2:
• UPS: Upper Plateau Stress
• LPS: Lower Plateau Stress
Figure 2. Stress vs strain of single nitinol wire.
For the nitinol used in this investigation the UPS is 483 MPa (70 ksi) and the LPS is 138
MPa (20 ksi). The UPS and LPS plateaus are generally flat in their martensite phase within
their recoverable range. Beyond 6% strain permanent deformation occurs. At the strain
a peak stress of 1,241 MPa (180 ksi) is observed. It is noted that these properties appear
change when composed into a wire rope, but that is a result of geometry, as discussed later.
As can be observed, the hysteresis is fully recoverable up to 6% strain which is quite remarkable
considering traditional structural steel is only fully recoverable (elastic) up to about 0.2% strain.
2625
As a comparison of single superelastic SMA Nitinol wire and traditional structural steel
(A592 Grade 50 ksi (350 MPa)), a stress versus strain relationship is shown below. As evident in
the Figure 3, steel has a much higher initial elastic stiffness. Also, the yield stress of steel is
between the upper and lower plateau of nitinol. Beyond 6% strain the nitinol stress ramps up
quickly while steel remains relatively constant. This relationship will change for different steel
and SMA materials, but the general trends are important for building designers to understand.
Figure 3. Stress vs strain for SMA nitinol wire and structural steel.
2.2 Behavior of SMA wires composed as a rope

The behavior of wires composed into a rope is different than a single wire. This is due to sev-
eral factors, but perhaps most predominate is the differential elongation of each individual
wire in the rope. If the rope has a uniform strain, each wire will have different strain magni-
tudes due to the different lengths of each individual wire.
For this application a 7x7 wire arrangement is used with 1 mm diameter wires. The total 49
wires act as a single unit, but the stress train behavior differs from that of a single wire as
shown below. The upper and lower plateaus are sloped compared to a single wire and the
energy dissipation is slightly less. In Figure 4 below the solid blue line shows testing within the
fully recoverable range of 6%, beyond 6% some of the individual wires will strain beyond their
fully recoverable limit while the remainder are fully recoverable. Even up to 7% strain enough
of the 49 wires remain fully recoverable such that the residual strain is negligible.
Several key studies considering strain rate effect (Ozbulut & Hurlebaus, 2010), corrosion
(McCarty, 2006), and other key factors (Ozbulut et al., 2011) have been reported on by prior
researchers.
2.3 Analytical representation of SMA wire or rope

This numerical representation of SMA wire or rope is a unique challenge for structural
engineers since most seismic components with established numerical models are based on
traditional structural steel with plastic/permanent deformations. The fully recoverable
‘flag’ shaped hysteresis of SMA is unique. Domenico & Gandelli (2021) proposed a novel
modeling method which can be used in traditional structural analysis software such as
ETABS and SAP2000. This method has been successfully adopted for the current investi-
gation as demonstrated below comparing laboratory testing results and numerical model-
ing in ETABS.
2626
Figure 4. Stress vs strain of nitinol wire rope used in this investigation.
Figure 5. Numerical modeling of SMA wire rope.
3 CONNECTING TO BUILDING FRAMES
3.1 Swaged connection

Studies conducted by Ozbulut et al. (2011) reviewed prior works and explored the
potential of a wire rope swaged connection with favorable results. Prior efforts with
rods and threaded connections were unable to develop the full material strength and
elongation due to localized concentrations of strain. The swaged connection was able
to develop the material’s full potential of 13.5% strain at wire rope failure. This is
very similar to a single wire showing the connection develops the potential of the wire
rope without stress concentrations. Also, the failure was within the gage length and
not in the connection.
2627
Figure 6. SMA wire rope swaged connection.
Investigators tested SMA wire rope swage connections produced from several traditional
swaging companies in blind testing, and all showed similar results to that found by Shi et al
(2021).
3.2 Swage to tension rod

The swaged connection must be composed into a building frame to resist seismic forces of the
building. Investigators elected to use a novel connection that concentrically develops the force
of multiple wire ropes. When composed into a tension-only bracing system a simple, yet effect-
ive bracing system is conceived which is termed SMA Tension Rod System. This system could
be used in a variety of configurations including “X”, “V”, and inverted “V”. A key advantage
of this system is the revival of tension-only braces as a seismic force resisting system which is
generally not permitted for large structures in moderate to high seismic zones. The use of ten-
sion only bracing can allow new opportunities for structural and architectural designers to
incorporate slender and minimal exposed systems into building architecture instead of relegat-
ing it to non-visible locations.
Figure 7. SMA connection to tension rod render (top) and photo (bottom).
4 SHAKE TABLE TESTING
4.1 Shake table testing description

To better understand the dynamic behavior of the SMA Tension Rod System and its sub-
assemblies in a building frame, shake table testing was conducted by the investigators in
a large-scale testing frame with three floors at the Pacific Earthquake Engineer Research
(PEER) Center. Detailed instrumentation included floor displacement, floor acceleration,
overall tension rod axial displacement, device axial displacement, tension rod force, and other
key recordings. The beam-column connections were fixed, thus the lateral force resisting
system was the SMA tension rod system and an elastic moment frame. Numerous ground
motions were scaled from 20% to 100% of the original recording. Strains in the devices went
up to 8% for select ground motions. Even thought some ground motions exceed the antici-
pated recoverable limit of the devices, they continued to perform well in subsequent testing.
This demonstrates the robust nature of the SMA tension rod system.
2628
Figure 8. Shake table frame on table (left) and enlarged elevation of level 1 (right).
4.2 Shake table testing results

After the shake table testing the obtained data was reviewed and post-processed to better
understand the numerical model prediction of the SMA Tension Rod System force response.
In general, the experimental results align well with the numerical prediction in comparison to
shake table testing of traditional seismic force resisting systems. It is noted that the acceptable
accuracy of numerical prediction in a shake table test compared to pseudo-static testing is dif-
ferent. For shake table testing results, it is determined that the results of numerical prediction
are acceptable when compared to other similar testing of steel and concrete energy dissipation
components.
Figure 9. Numerical prediction vs shake table results.
2629
5 CONCLUSION
With the increasing acceptance of carbon storage in as a means to mitigate climate change,
a new era of resilience is here. The implementation of fully recoverable seismic force resisting
systems is vital to the increased protection of our environment. As shown through this investi-
gation, the use of shape memory alloys composed in a SMA tension rod system can be an
important part of the resiliency of our urban fabric. The numerical and experimental testing
results of this system demonstrate that SMA wire ropes composed into a SMA tension rod
system are ready for full-scale deployment in buildings in regions of moderate and high seis-
mic risk.
REFERENCES
CarbonCure, 2023, https://www.carboncure.com/

Domenico, D. & Gandelli, E. 2021. Advanced Modeling of SMA Flag-Shaped Hysteresis for Nonlinear
Time-History Analysis in SAP2000, American Society of Civil Engineering Journal of Structural Engin-
eering 147(11).
McCarty, D. 2006. Durability of Nitinol for Structural Applications. University of Auburn.
Maffei et al., 2014, Recommendations for Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Wall Buildings Based
on Studies of the 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake, NIST GCR 14-917-25.
Ozbulut, O. & Hurlebaus, S. 2010. Neuro-fuzzy Modeling of Temperature and Strain Rate dependent
Behavior of NiTi Shape Memory Alloys for Seismic Applications, Journal of Intelligent Materials and
Systems and Structures 21: 837–849.
Ozbulut, O. et al. 2011. Seismic Response Control Using Shape Memory Alloys: A Review, Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 22: 1531–1549.
Prometheus Materials, 2023, https://prometheusmaterials.com/
Shi, F., et al, 2021. Development and Experimental Validation of Anchorage Systems for Shape Memory
Alloy Cables, Engineering Structure 228.
Sioneer, 2023, https://www.sioneer.com/
Strain, L. 2017. Time Value of Carbon, Carbon Leadership Forum pgs 1–10.
2630
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0
Design of the urban sequoia tower
M.P. Sarkisian, E. Long, A. Beghini, K. Micallef & S. Jaberansari

Skidmore Owings & Merrill, San Francisco, CA, USA
ABSTRACT: What if builds were more like trees and cities were more like forests? The con-
cept of Urban Sequoia combines optimized structural design with low embodied carbon
materials, efficient construction, and carbon-capturing technologies to transform carbon pro-
ducers into carbon consumers. These carbon-capturing approaches allow buildings to start
their service life with an ultra-low embodied carbon and sequester additional carbon over
time, becoming net carbon negative. The structural approach to Urban Sequoia incorporates
nature-based, living materials that embody far less carbon than conventional structural solu-
tions while absorbing additional carbon over time. When combined with non-structural sys-
tems such as exterior wall systems that incorporate biomass and algae and technologies
including Direct Air Capture (DAC), tall buildings could absorb three to five times the
amount of carbon emitted at the time of construction. Urban Sequoia includes ideas that can
be applied to buildings at all scales and uses. The floor framing system, for example, could be
used in a building with only a few floors or one that has a hundred floors. The strength of the
concept is enhanced when buildings that make up a city combine to become a source of bio-
fuel that can be used to power heating systems, automobiles, and aircrafts and create biopro-
tein. An even broader impact could include using carbon byproducts for infrastructure.
1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of Urban Sequoia (Figure 1) combines optimized structural design with low
embodied carbon materials, efficient construction, and carbon-capturing technologies. These
carbon-capturing approaches allow buildings to start their service life with an ultra-low embodied
carbon and sequester additional carbon over time, becoming net carbon negative. The structural
approach to Urban Sequoia incorporates nature-based, living materials that embody far less
carbon than conventional structural solutions while absorbing additional carbon over time. When
combined with non-structural systems such as exterior wall systems that incorporate biomass and
algae and technologies including Direct Air Capture (DAC), tall buildings could absorb three to
five times the amount of carbon emitted at the time of construction. Urban Sequoia includes ideas
that can be applied to buildings at all scales and uses. The floor framing system, for example,
could be used in a building with only a few floors or one that has a hundred floors. The strength
of the concept is enhanced when buildings that make up a city combine to become a source of
biofuel that can be used to power heating systems, automobiles, and aircraft and create biopro-
tein. An even broader impact could include using carbon byproducts for infrastructure.
2 LOW EMBODIED CARBON
The initial embodied carbon in a structure must be driven to absolute minimums to go beyond
carbon neutrality. Materials and construction are vital components in a building’s initial embodied
carbon assessment. Materials must have low embodied carbon, high strength-to-weight ratios,
DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-320
2631
components with injected carbon, and components that have already sequestered carbon. The con-
struction process must require minimal time to build and include alternative processes such as robot-
ics. Before conceptualizing the structural design of Urban Sequoia, available low-carbon materials
and emerging technologies needed to be understood and a construction process curated for them.
Figure 1. Urban Sequoia concept applied at

a city scale. Figure 2. Urban Sequoia concept plan and diagram.
3 ADVANCED MATERIAL INCLUDING THOSE THAT ABSORB CARBON
High strength materials combined with optimization analyses that carefully assess the place-
ment of materials for given loadings are an essential initial basis for design to reduce
embodied carbon. However, this approach alone is not nearly enough. Advancing existing
materials to lower their embodied carbon and developing new building materials which
absorb carbon is also essential to success.
Portland cement is currently responsible for more than 5% of global CO2 emissions. There-
fore, low embodied carbon products used to replace part or all of the portland cement content
in concrete like fly ash or slag can directly impact and significantly reduce global carbon emis-
sions. An alternative Supplementary Cementitious Material (SCM) is recycled ground glass.
Low-carbon concrete made with carbon-neutral portland cement and other cementitious
materials could become an environmentally friendly material that yields similar or superior
performance characteristics to traditional portland cement and has a low carbon impact. An
emerging technology, for example, allows for the extraction of lime (CaO), which is used to
produce ordinary portland cement, from calcium silicate (Ca2SiO4) rather than limestone
(CaCO3); thus eliminating the CO2 emission due to traditional lime extraction. Furthermore,
as a waste byproduct of this process, magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) can absorb CO2 from
the air resulting in magnesium carbonate (CMgO3) that permanently sequesters CO2. The
overall process reduces the CO2 emissions associated with portland cement production by up
to 60%, which, combined with the sequestration from magnesium hydroxide, renders the final
produced cement net-zero or even net negative carbon.
High-strength recycled steel typically contains up to 70% recycled content. Strengths of
available structural steel and reinforcing steel for concrete continue to increase along with
increasing fire and corrosion resistance. Ultra-high-strength reinforcing materials such as
carbon fiber offer an excellent alternative to conventional reinforcing in concrete and can also
replace high-strength reinforcing steel commonly used for prestressing.
2632
Structural materials which sequester and store carbon over their life include algae-based
concrete, hempcrete, timber, Mycelium, and carbon sequestering fillers and aggregate. algae-
based concrete, developed at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is a Living Building Mater-
ial (LBM) created by combining a sand-hydrogel scaffold with Synechococcus sp. PCC 7002,
a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. The algae-based concrete are essentially made of food-
based products and use biology to provide a structural binder to any aggregate type. When
using fine sand without coarse aggregate, the structural material strength of the algae-based
concrete is comparable to common concrete masonry units, with the advantage that the tensile
strength of the material is considerably higher, offering a potentially wide range of applica-
tions where some tension demands exist.
Hempcrete is a biocomposite material that is a mixture of hemp shives (the woody inner por-
tion of the hemp stalk broken into pieces), water, lime, and sand or cement binder. The strength
of the material is limited, so the use is typically appropriate for non-structural components.
Carbon sequestration of timber-based products occurs when atmospheric CO2 is sequestered
in the production of biomass through photosynthesis. The trees emit oxygen in return and per-
manently store the carbon until the material is combusted for fuel or decays in a landfill.
Bamboo and other fast-growing grasses, including straw, are considered one of the best carbon-
sequestering materials because of the rate at which it grows. For example, Guadua Angustifolia
bamboo sequesters as much carbon in 6 years as douglas fir does in 34 years.
Mycelium consists of a mass of thread-like branching fungus and is typically combined with
natural fibers to increase its strength characteristics. Although overall material strengths are
low, Mycelium has an excellent strength-to-weight characteristic and are used in non-
structural components (e.g., insulation).
Finally, emerging technologies have resulted in carbon sequestering aggregates that can
sequester carbon from the atmosphere. For example, through the process of mineralization,
carbon is captured from natural gas-fired or similar fossil fuel-generated energy facilities and
permanently stored in synthetic limestone.
4 DESIGN FOCUSED ON CONSTRUCTION
A significant amount of carbon is emitted during the construction process, in some cases
accounting for up to 25% of a building’s embodied carbon. The carbon associated with site
construction includes emissions from machinery required to build, materials shipped from dis-
parate locations, transportation of personnel required, and the like. Given the known proper-
ties of low carbon materials, how do we design for construction differently? What properties
does low Portland Cement or even low-carbon concrete have, and how do we address them
via the construction process, such as setting time? What type and size of steel are available
from electric arc furnaces fueled with renewable energy? The answers to these questions
should inform structural design.
As a widely used material for building structures, concrete has known embodied carbon
associated with the construction process primarily centered around formwork and the number
of days per floor in the construction cycle. Optimizing cores and columns for ease of vertical
forming systems and floor plate geometry (for ease of horizontal forming systems) can help
reduce floor-to-floor cycles from 7 days to 5 days to even 3 days. A common characteristic of
low portland cement and low-carbon concrete is low early strength and extended time to gain
higher design strengths. While this seems at odds with the desire to achieve fast floor-to-floor
cycles, the construction process could involve precast to allow the material to reach necessary
strength off-site and be quickly erected on-site, still achieving fast floor-to-floor cycles.
Another approach is to provide formwork systems that are part of the permanent structural
design such as algae-based concrete masonry unit or similar carbon-neutral materials from
emerging technologies. These formwork systems are not removed, allowing the low-carbon
concrete to have extended time to reach design strength. These approaches to the construction
process lead to the pre-assembly of major building components to minimize construction
time, waste, and associated carbon.
2633
5 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
The Urban Sequoia Tower is conceptually organized around a tubular geometry integrating
systems of vertical circulation, movement of air to the Direct Air Capture system, and move-
ment of biomass and algae around the perimeter of the program space. The programmatic
space is organized into eight petals around the tubular core (Figure 2). The structural system
is directly integrated into this tubular geometry. It is articulated in a central structural core,
perimeter gravity columns, and a floor framing system spanning between the core and the per-
imeter columns.
The low-carbon concrete core is considered a circular tube divided into four quadrants. Each
quadrant contains two circular shafts forming the basis of the precast concrete module. Elevators
can occupy a circular shaft, or two shafts could be combined to create a stair shaft. The shafts are
lined with a recycled steel liner that extends above the top of the precast, serving as a shear key
between precast units. The precast units are vertically tied together with vertical post-tensioned
recycled steel strands and linked horizontally with a link beam element (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Urban Sequoia structural system overview.
Perimeter precast columns with low-carbon concrete are located in the inner concave por-
tions of the petals geometry. The horizontal framing system is similarly organized around the
eight programmatic floor spaces directly connecting the perimeter columns to the center core.
The low-carbon precast beam framing is curved in plan around each petal, leaving an open
circular floor space in the center of each petal (Figure 3). The precast beams incorporate pre-
fabricated ducts for post-tensioned strands and large diameter air ducts to directly capture
outside air from the perimeter and channel it to the central tubes inside the core using the
naturally occurring positive and negative air pressures from wind. The precast columns are
also laced together with post-tensioned strands made with recycled steel.
The circular floor space between post-tensioned precast beams is infilled with leave-in-place
algae-based concrete masonry unit formwork panels cast into eight pie-shaped elements and an
octagonal (or circular) centerpiece. The pie-shaped segments are vaulted to keep the material in
pure compression and minimize the thickness required. The flooring system is completed with
a low-carbon concrete topping slab that works compositely with the formwork (Figure 3).
6 COMPARISON OF URBAN SEQUOIA TO A BENCHMARK BUILDING
The continuously growing industry of residential high-rise construction provides a meaningful

basis to evaluate the carbon emission reduction potential of the Urban Sequoia Tower. The
Benchmark Tower project is a high-performing 42-story, 420-foot-tall, 450,000-square-foot
2634
reinforced concrete residential tower recently designed and constructed in San Francisco
(Figure 4a). The structural system for the tower includes a core-only lateral load-resisting
system and perimeter gravity columns with post-tensioned flat slabs for the gravity system.
The typical tower floor plan and size of structural elements are illustrated in Figure 5a. This
project is located in a high seismic hazard zone and was designed with particular attention to
seismic resilience and environmental sustainability.
The tower considered was designed using a performance-based design process and was
highly optimized in terms of structural material utilization compared to other structures of
similar height, geometry, and site characteristics. This approach led to a reduction in struc-
tural embodied carbon by more than 20% compared to a similar building.
The total embodied carbon equivalent intensities associated with A1-A3 (Cradle-to-Gate)
Life-cycle stages, according to the EN 15804 standard for the primary structural components
for the Benchmark Tower, are reported in Table 1 for reference.
Table 1. Benchmark Tower A1-A3 embodied carbon intensities.

Structural Concrete Post-Tensioning Tendon Steel Reinforcement
Element (lb.CO e/sf) (lb.CO e/sf) (lb.CO e/sf)
Shear wall core 10.0~11.0 0 5.5~6.5

R/C columns 1.5~2.0 0 1.0~1.5
PT slabs 20.0~21.0 2.2~2.7 2.5~3.0
Notes:
1- Embodied carbon metrics of the miscellaneous structural elements are not listed in the table.
2- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 708~928 lb.CO e/cy depending on type of concrete based on the
NRMCA, Member Industry-Average EPD For Ready Mixed Concrete.
3- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 2.27 lb.CO e/lb based on the ICE, Industry average: Steel, Wire rod.
4- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 0.98 lb.CO e/lb based on the CLF, 2021 Material Baselines.
Figure 4. Axonometric view of the Benchmark Tower (a) and Urban Sequoia Tower (b).
2635
The Urban Sequoia Tower represents the next generation of residential buildings with excel-
lent opportunities to reduce embodied carbon and become net negative carbon over its oper-
ational life. For example, considering an Urban Sequoia Tower of equivalent floor and the
total area to the Benchmark Tower results in an overall tower diameter of 126 feet (Figure 5b)
with the same typical 10-foot floor-to-floor height, number of stories, and total tower height.
The precast cellular core has wall thicknesses varying from 24 inches at the base to 14
inches at the top and utilizes low-carbon concrete with a strength of 8,000 psi at the bottom
two-thirds of the tower and 6,000 psi in the top one-third of the tower. The crescent-shaped
precast columns vary from 170 by 30 inches at the base to 170 by 20 inches at the top. The
columns utilize low-carbon concrete with a strength of 8,000 psi in the bottom two-thirds of
the tower and 6,000 psi in the top one-third of the tower.
Figure 5. Structural plan of Benchmark Tower (a) and Urban Sequoia Tower (b).
The total embodied carbon equivalent intensities associated with the primary structural
components for the Urban Sequoia Tower are summarized in Table 2.
2636
Table 2. Urban Sequoia Tower A1-A3 embodied carbon intensities.
Steel
Concrete Post-Tensioning Reinforcement Steel Plate
Structural Element (lb.CO e/sf) Tendon (lb.CO e/sf) (lb.CO e/sf) (lb.CO e/sf)
Precast shear wall core 1.2~1.4 1.7~1.9 1.4~1.7 0

Precast columns 0.3~0.4 0.7~0.9 0.7~1.0 0
Precast beams & girders 1.2~1.4 0.9~1.1 0.2~0.4 0
Algae-based concrete ~0.0 0 0 0
masonry unit formwork
Topping slab 1.4~1.6 0.9~1.1 0.4~0.6 0
Steel liner 0 0 0 0.5~0.7
Notes:
1- Embodied carbon metrics of the miscellaneous structural elements are not listed in the table.
2- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 106~139 lb.CO e/cy based on the NRMCA, Member Industry-
Average EPD For Ready Mixed Concrete and modi ed for Low-Carbon Concrete emerging technologies.
3- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 2.27 lb.CO e/lb based on the ICE, Industry average: Steel, Wire rod.
4- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 0.49 lb.CO e/lb based on the Nucor Recycled Steel Rebar EPD.
5- Embodied carbon metrics are taken as 1.26 lb.CO e/lb based on the CLF, 2021 Material Baselines.
6- Material alone yields net carbon absorption (net-zero with the current assembly process).
The total A1-A3 structural embodied carbon of the Benchmark Tower adds 9,500~11,700
tons of CO2e, while the Urban Sequoia Tower contains only 2,800~3,400 tons of CO2e, repre-
senting more than 70% reduction in CO2e. This extremely low starting point for structural
embodied carbon is achieved by employing technologies available today or otherwise close to
commercialization. Further embodied carbon reduction will be achieved by replacing low
carbon concrete with biogenic materials opening up avenues to structural embodied carbon
neutrality. For example, with the current developments of the algae-based concrete material,
it is anticipated that the material and related assembly process will yield net carbon absorp-
tion. Nevertheless, the low embodied carbon based on today’s technologies combined with the
additional carbon absorption enabled by the algae façade and Direct Air Capture technologies
renders Urban Sequoia Tower in Figure 4b can absorb 39,000 tons of CO e over a 60-year life
span, where 25% of operational carbon sequestration comes from the algae façade and Direct
Air Capture technologies sequester the remaining 75%.
7 CONCLUSIONS
The urban sequoia concept combines a broad range of sustainable design thinking, including
emerging technologies, and applies them at scale in a tower. By combining optimized struc-
tural design resulting in minimal materials and integrating biomaterials, biomass concepts,
and carbon-capturing technologies into an integrated system, the urban sequoia can achieve
substantially more carbon reductions than using these techniques separately. Combining these
systems in a typical residential tower based on today’s technologies can result in the sequestra-
tion of as much as 650 tons of carbon per year, equivalent to 31,500 full-grown trees
each year.
REFERENCES
Altair Engineering Inc. (2021) SimSolid. (Version 2021.1.1). [Computer Software]. www.altair.com.
https://www.altair.com/simsolid/
Altair Engineering Inc. (2021) SimSolid. (Version 2021.1.1). [Computer Software]. www.altair.com.
https://www.altair.com/simsolid/
Arrigoni, A., Pelosato, R., Melià, P., Ruggieri, G., Sabbadini, S., & Dotelli, G. (2017). Life cycle assess-
ment of natural building materials: The role of carbonation, mixture components and transport in the
2637
environmental impacts of Hempcrete blocks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1051–1061. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.161
Boden, T.; Marland, G., Andres, R. J. (1999). Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emis-
sions (1751-2014) (V. 2017). Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), ESS-DIVE repository. Dataset.
doi:10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017 accessed via https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.3334/
CDIAC/00001_V2017 on 2022-04-10
Carbon Leadership Forum. (2021). 2021 Material Baselines. (Baseline Report v2). https://carbonleader
shipforum.org/2021-material-baselines/
Clippinger, J., &; Davis, R. (2019). Techno-economic analysis for the production of algal biomass via
closed photobioreactors: Future cost potential evaluated across a range of cultivation system designs.
https://doi.org/10.2172/1566806
Computer & Software Inc. (2021) ETABS. (Version 19.1.0). [Computer Software]. csiamerica.com.
https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs/enhancements/19
Elfordy, S., Lucas, F., Tancret, F., Scudeller, Y., &; Goudet, L. (2008). Mechanical and thermal proper-
ties of lime and hemp concrete (“hempcrete”) manufactured by a projection process. Construction and
Building Materials, 22(10),2116–2123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.016
Finke, C.E., Leandri, H. (2020). Process to make calcium oxide or ordinary portland cement from cal-
cium-bearing rocks and minerals. (U.S. Patent No.US20210070656A1). U.S. Patent and Trademark
Of ce.
Inventory of Carbon & Energy. (2019). Industry average: Steel, Wire rod [Version 3.0 Beta]
Jayasinghe, A., Orr, J., Ibell, T., & Boshoff, W. P. (2022). Minimizing embodied carbon in reinforced
concrete at slabs through parametric design. Journal of Building Engineering, 50, 104136. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104136
Jones, R. J., Delesky, E. A., Cook, S. M., Cameron, J. C., Hubler, M. H., & Srubar, W. V. (2022). Engin-
eered living materials for construction. Engineered Living Materials, 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-92949-7_7
Jones, M., Mautner, A., Luenco, S., Bismarck, A., &; John, S. (2020). Engineered mycelium composite
construction materials from fungal biore neries: A critical review. Materials &; Design, 187, 108397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108397
Nath, A. J., Lal, R., &; Das, A. K. (2015). Managing Woody Bamboos for carbon farming and carbon
trading. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.03.002
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. (2020). Member Industry-Average EPD For Ready Mixed
Concrete. https://www.nrmca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/EPD10080.pdf
Nucor Steel Seattle, Inc. (2017). Environmental product declaration, steel concrete reinforcing bar, and
merchant bar products. https://www.nucor.com/certi cations/
Prentice, D., Mehdipour, I., Falzone, G., Raab, S., Simonetti, D., & Sant, G. (2022). Field demonstration
of the REVERSA™ mineral carbonation process using coal and natural gas ue gas streams. The
Minerals, Metals & Materials Series, 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92563-5_62
Rippmann, M., & Block, P. (2018). Computational tessellation of Freeform, cut-stone vaults. Nexus Net-
work Journal, 20(3),545–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-018-0383-y
Terlouw, T., Treyer, K., Bauer, C., &; Mazzotti, M. (2021). Life cycle assessment of direct air carbon
capture and storage with low-carbon energy sources. Environmental Science & Technology, 55
(16),11397–11411. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03263
Yiping, L.; Yanxia, L.; Buckingham, K.; Henley, G.; Guomo, Z. Bamboo and Climate Change Mitiga-
tion; International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR): Beijing, China, 2010; p. 126645
2638
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0
Achieving net zero embodied carbon: The SE2050 program and its
impact on structural design
C. Horiuchi
M. Stringer
Holmes US , San Francisco, USA
N. Wang
ABSTRACT: The SE2050 program is sponsored by the Structural Engineering Institute

(SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) with the aim to reach net-zero
embodied carbon of structural materials by the year 2050. This goal is based on global carbon
targets for building materials required to limit to a 1.5-degree temperature increase per the
Paris Climate Agreement. Approximately 100 independent design firms across the U.S. have
joined this program. Firms committing to join the program follow four steps: sustainable
practice education, embodied carbon tracking on projects, embodied carbon reduction in
designs over time and advocacy for change with architects, contractors and owners. SE2050 is
building a structural embodied carbon database for U.S. projects to establish carbon bench-
marks and track industry-wide carbon emissions towards a net-zero future.
Engineers looking at the bigger picture should think holistically about limiting environmental
impacts. This paper explores this program in comparison to other global industry efforts for
embodied carbon reduction. The structural design process impacts are explored, presenting
resources provided to designers and how firms incorporate carbon calculations into practice.
1 INTRODUCTION
The SE 2050 Commitment Program is a collection of US-based structural engineering firms

who have committed to reducing the embodied carbon of the structural materials in their
designed buildings by 2050. This paper will present an overview of the program, including its
development and current status at the national scale. To understand how this commitment
program affects the work of individual firms, a summary of specific items from Skidmore,
Owings & Merrill (SOM), an early member of the program, will be provided.
2 TIMELINE OF SE 2050
The SE 2050 Commitment Program originated in grassroots style from structural engineers
who recognized the necessity of the structural engineering profession to engage more actively
in conversations surrounding sustainability. Upon the announcement of the American Insti-
tute of Architects (AIA) 2030 commitment program in 2009, several structural engineers
began to formulate a program that would specifically address the embodied carbon of struc-
tures. These early conversations occurred predominantly within the Carbon Leadership
DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-321
2639
Forum (CLF) community, a US-based organization of engineers, architects and other design-
ers interested in addressing embodied carbon in buildings. In collaborating with key national
organizations, including the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Insti-
tute (ASCE-SEI), the AIA and the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), the CLF
created a commitment program focused on embodied carbon reduction, This SE 2050 Chal-
lenge was presented and endorsed by the SEI Board of Governors.
Figure 1. SE 2050 Timeline.
After endorsing the SE 2050 Challenge, SEI officially launched the SE 2050 Commitment as
a subcommittee of the SEI Sustainability Committee in 2020. The SE 2050 subcommittee has
gained over 30 dedicated members and the support of nearly 100 engineering firms across North
America. In mid-2021, SE 2050 launched its beta database in which firms submit life cycle
assessment (LCA) data on their projects. Still in the early stages of its existence, SE 2050 con-
tinues its focus on advocacy for sustainable structural design, growth of firm commitments, and
refinement of the database. Figure 1 (TOP) highlights key moments of SE 2050 to this point.
It is important to recognize how SE 2050 fits into the broader landscape of sustainability-
focused movements. To demonstrate, Figure 1 (BOTTOM) additionally displays notable con-
ferences and governmental commitments related to international cooperation on addressing
the climate crisis.
Such a timeline shows how international declarations spur on conversations within indus-
try. Between the Launch of AIA 2030 in 2009 and the SE 2050 Challenge of 2019, ten years of
international work on developing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) took place. These SDGs are widely considered the most comprehensive assessment on
the meaning of sustainability, and they act as goal posts for both governments and the private
sector. Indeed, the UN SDGs are referenced within several of the ECAPs submitted to SE
2050 (read more in Section: ECAPS). The Figure 1 timeline shows that within half a decade of
governments signing the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the recognized importance of
establishing sustainability within the built environment grew significantly. This is exemplified
by COP21 at which an entire day was labeled Buildings Day. This day studied the operation
and embodied carbon of buildings and put specific items on the international agenda as they
2640
relate to the embodied carbon of buildings. COP21 was the first time an inter-governmental
event on climate action has dedicated such a significant amount of time to buildings.
As sustainability movements related to structural systems continue to grow, SE 2050 aims
to use the momentum of international movements as well as its own recent history of influence
and transform them into education and action across the structural engineering industry.
3 SE 2050 ENGAGEMENT: ADVOCACY & EDUCATION
Since officially launching at the Greenbuild International Conference & Expo in Novem-
ber 2020, SE 2050 has sought to increase industry engagement in the embodied carbon conver-
sation through education and advocacy.
Over the past two years, subcommittee members of SE 2050 have presented at building con-
ferences and conventions across North America. Members have presented at notable building
conferences such as Greenbuild International Conference & Expo (2020), Structures Congress
(2020), the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE, 2021),
the Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC, 2021), and the Net Zero Con-
ference (NZT, 2022).
In addition to speaking at large-scale conventions, SE 2050 has targeted smaller audiences
through presentations at local CLF meetings, seminars for students at high schools and col-
leges, and by providing presentations to firms who are interested in joining the SE 2050 pro-
gram and/or are new to the embodied carbon conversation and have questions.
More recently, SE 2050 has been called upon to develop seminar series to provide guidance
in performing life cycle assessments (LCAs) on structural systems. SE 2050 members have
developed several documents on best practice methodologies for specific structural systems,
which can be found at the SE 2050 website. Developing educational tools is particularly note-
worthy for, while the definitions and methodologies for such practices continue to take new
form, establishing common principles amongst practitioners is crucial to validation. There-
fore, SE 2050 acting as a common thread amongst firm sustainability education is an import-
ant new phase of the program.
Taken together, these advocacy and education actions highlight the reach that SE 2050 has
attained since its launch. Dedicated SE 2050 members have spoken and advocated data-driven
sustainability goals to hundreds, if not thousands, of structural engineers. It is now common
for subcommittee members to be attendees at seminars in which SE 2050 is referenced as a key
industry movement. Presenting to industry professionals has been crucial to SE 2050’s growth
and such presentations continue as a key aspect of the program’s net zero strategy.
4 SE 2050 COMMITTED FIRMS
The SE 2050 program is premised on volunteered firm engagement. As such, both the level of
engagement the number of committed firms are primary attributes of the program’s achievements.
Figure 2. SE 2050 Committed Firms.
2641
SE 2050 is proud of the steady growth in firm commitments over the past 2 years. Through advo-
cacy of the program and education on the cause, SE 2050 has successfully garnered the commit-
ment of about 100 firms within two years.
Additional to the remarkable speed at which structural engineering firms have committed
to the SE 2050 program, is the demographic range of these firms. As shown in Figure 2, firms
are committed across all Northern America. It is worth noting, that pegged locations repre-
sent the original “signed on” firm such that firms with multiple offices are represented with
only one peg. Therefore, Figure 2 conservatively visualizes the office locations that are work-
ing to achieve the SE 2050 stated program goals. As a note, multiple offices are captured in
the SE 2050 program requirements—for example, a multi-office firm is currently required to
submit two LCAs per office (though not required to submit more than five LCAs across
offices).
In addition to office location, the number of employees of committed firms ranges consider-
ably. Firm size is an important aspect of how the SE 2050 Subcommittee continues to discuss
and formulate future program requirements. As a program, inclusivity and representation
across the full range of structural engineering firms is considered critically important to
achieving carbon reduction goals (read more in Section on Future Goals).
Figure 3. SE 2050 Firm Types.
5 EMBODIED CARBON ACTION PLANS
Embodied Carbon Action Plans (ECAPs) are central to firms’ engagement with SE 2050 and
the path to net zero embodied carbon structures. The ECAP articulates how a firm will Edu-
cate, Report, Reduce, and Advocate for the sustainability of building structures. When firms
engage with SE 2050, they are referred to the SE 2050 Program Requirements Guidance
Document. In addition to other program requirements, this document provides details on
ECAP deliverables which can be summarized in the following actions:
• Provide an outline of your rm’s strategy to educate employees about embodied carbon
and advocate for net zero embodied carbon structures
• Provide an outline of your rm’s embodied carbon reduction work to report externally
• Specify measurable goals to assess your rm’s process in reducing embodied carbon in pro-
ject work
2642
ECAPs are to be submitted yearly and published on the SE 2050 website. Currently, 65
firms have published their ECAP. Several firms have already submitted an updated ECAP for
their second committed year.
The collection of ECAPs that SE 2050 has aggregated is a unique and encompassing data
set in and of itself. For this paper, all submitted ECAPs were assessed. The outcome of the
study revealed common goals, actions, and statements of firms as they relate to sustainability.
Additionally, this study shows the general status of data collection capabilities as well as
embodied carbon reduction strategies.
5.1 Educate and advocate

Embodied Carbon Action Plans (ECAPs) are central to each firm’s engagement with SE 2050
and the path to net zero embodied carbon structures. The ECAP articulates how a firm will
Educate, Report, Reduce, and Advocate in its commitment to SE2050.
From the 65 unique firm ECAPs, it is apparent that the structural engineering industry
acknowledges their role in the management of embodied carbon and supports the SE 2050
mission to achieve net zero embodied carbon for structures by 2050. In the ECAPs, all firms
state a repeating educational event for sustainability. More specifically, 60% of ECAPs
showed the creation of internal working groups for embodied carbon reduction as separate
from a general sustainability team.
Most ECAPs refer to the AIA 2030 Commitment and several go on to explain the relation-
ship between operational carbon versus embodied carbon. Noted here is the chart demonstrat-
ing the in-step relationships carbon reductions on both fronts should attain (SEI
Sustainability Committee, 2018).
Figure 4. SE 2050 Firm Types.
In addition to AIA 2030, ECAPs demonstrate that most firms engage with several sustain-
ability-related organizations and movements. In fact, 65% of ECAPs list their partnerships
with other “green” organizations (e.g., CLF, USGBC, LEED, NCSEA, Green Globes,
IStructE, etc.). Less common, but of interest, is that 23% of firm ECAPs state the firm’s inter-
est in driving policy and/or code requirements as related to sustainability structural systems.
SE 2050 is itself explicitly partnered with CLF, IStructE, and NCSEA and believes that the
combined influence of like-minded organizations is important to achieving net zero.
A common set of statements amongst firm ECAPs surrounds advocacy of processes that
would better facilitate sustainable design. As a percentage of ECAPs: 65% stated the need to
onboard the client as an initial or highly important step, 60% referenced the benefit of greater
access to product specific EPDs and their desire to use them in specifications, and 46% stated
a high benefit in engaging across disciplines and stakeholders early in the design process for
sustainability goals.
2643
5.2 Report
As stated, firm reporting is integral to the success of SE 2050. Therefore, ECAPs are required
to explain how a firm will collect and report its LCA data. As such, 72% of firms explicitly
listed the LCA tool they are using. Most firms are using external tools like Tally, OneClick, or
Athena, but 22% of firms reported that they are developing internal tools to conduct LCAs.
Currently, these tools are shown to have significant differences in GWP evaluation. As explain
in the SE 2050 Database Section, one input parameter for the SE 2050 database is the LCA
tool used. Understanding how outcomes differ across tools will be important in refining the
LCA process.
With the need for tool refinement in mind, it is unsurprising that 72% voiced the need for
more data prior to establishing reduction targets. This signals a clear need for the database
that SE 2050 is developing. While SE 2050 is working to establish program requirements
related to year-by-year reductions, 11% of firms studied have already established their own
internal reduction targets ranging 5% - 30% over the next few years. Oppositely, 14% of firms
state limited resources availability to establish baselines making reduction targets difficult to
establish.
5.3 Reduce
While reporting and setting clear reduction goals is important to achieving net zero, there are
many actions firms can take now to reduce the embodied carbon of their designs. Many firms
recognize this and list actions for reduction in their ECAP. The most common action being
taken is editing General Notes/Specifications. Sixty percent of firms state they will be imple-
menting requirements related to material GWP values and product-specific EPDs. These con-
tractual requirements will (1) serve to both reduce a project’s total GWP via materials
selection and (2) spur on manufacturers to produce products more sustainably and document
the outcome via creating product-specific EPDs.
Other means of reducing embodied carbon relate to firms’ goals to design with materials
known as being more sustainable and/or to incorporate sustainable methodologies into design
outcomes. For example, 38% of firms stated they aim to increase designs featuring biogenic
construction materials. Additionally, another 12% of firms stated their goal to design for
adaptive reuse and/or regenerative design.
6 SE 2050 DATABASE - OVERVIEW
An acknowledged limitation to setting embodied carbon reduction targets for structural sys-
tems is the current lack of knowledge/confidence in baseline data that structural systems will
embody. As such, the SE 2050 database will be a powerful tool for embodied carbon reduc-
tion. While still in the beta stage, SE 2050 is focused on ensuring smooth processes of data
collection as well as increasing the quantity of data collected.
The SE 2050 Database anonymizes and aggregates firm submitted LCA data for structural
systems. To date, firms have collectively submitted 100+ LCAs. There exists no other cross-
firm database on embodied carbon that has such widespread support in North America. The
requested data inputs include, but are not limited to, the following (*note: published data dif-
fers from this list and is currently limited to Total GWP, Project Sq Ft, and Height):
• project zip code
• primary building use type (public assembly, education, retail, etc.)
• construction type (new construction, major renovation, etc.)
• gross square footage
• build height, number of stories above and below grade
• typical column grid by spacing
• risk category and other seismic/wind classi cations
• material of primary gravity system
2644
• material of primary lateral system
• geotechnical attributes such as allowable soil bearing pressure and foundation system type
(piles, shallow footings, etc.)
• LCA tool used (Tally, OneClick, Athena, hand calculated, etc.)
• Total GWP in kg-CO2eq
As outlined in the SE 2050 Program Requirements Guide, firms are currently required to
submit two LCAs per year, which inform the database. For firms with multiple office loca-
tions, the requirement states that two LCAs are to be submitted per office, but that a firm is
not required to submit more than five LCAs in total. This data is not public and only signa-
tory firms can access the database viewer.
New project LCAs are being added to the SE 2050 database each week. This data will pro-
vide new insights into GWP baselines for a variety of structural design. As such, one of SE
2050’s primary upcoming goals is the analysis and reporting of the anonymized data.
7 SOM’S COMMITMENT TO SE 2050
SOM’s commitment to SE 2050 is part of the firm’s climate action plan to reduce resource
usage and taking the lead toward a zero-carbon economy. As an interdisciplinary design prac-
tice, SOM is also a signatory of the AIA 2030 Commitment, the Architecture 2030 China
Accord and World Green Building Council Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront. Structural
designers are active in groups such as the SOM Climate Action Group, working to reduce
carbon across urban planning principles, material usage and research, and building
construction.
The SOM SE 2050 champions organize activities to implement the Embodied Carbon
Action Plan. The Structural Life Cycle team develops the workflow used for LCA and internal
reporting efforts for all structural projects at all design phases. All structural designers are
encouraged to participate in the firmwide discussion about the principles of embodied carbon
and its reduction, and project case studies are presented to share innovations for and setbacks
to successful embodied carbon reduction that can be applied to on-going and future projects.
Structural designers also collaborate with industry partners to bring research to market for
implementation into built projects and advocate for best practices in sustainable design both
internally and in professional practice groups outside the firm. Furthermore, advocacy with
both clients and builders aligns design and development interests to implement appropriate
sustainable goals for all projects.
REFERENCES
ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering Provisions, Vol. 2, 1997 edition, pp. 2-161
to 2-163, International Conference of Building Of cials, Whittier, California.
“SE 2050 Challenge.” Carbon Leadership Forum, 17 Oct. 2021, carbonleadershipforum. org/se-2050-
challenge/.
“Sustainable Development History.” United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sus-
tainable Development, 2022, sdgs.un.org/goals.
Graham, Genevieve, et al., “Reaching Net-Zero Structures - SE 2050 Commitment Program Status and
Vision for the Future”, Proceedings of the SEAOC Convention, 2022.
2645
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0
Quantifying and specifying decarbonization in buildings
N. Wang & D. Shook

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP, San Francisco, CA, USA
K. Chang
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP, Los Angeles, CA, USA
E. Leung
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP, New York, NY, USA
ABSTRACT: As designers, efficient material use to achieve a certain design is a well-

established principle that is evolving to be centered around the whole building decarboniza-
tion. From early design to construction to operation and end of life, calculating the embodied
carbon of building structures based on a bill of materials helps to quantify the impact of
design decisions and build a database of design-specific carbon values that can be used to
improve a design and to benchmark across different building types and structural systems.
Ultimately, decarbonization will require the specification of low-carbon material technologies
and the establishment of material- or product-specific global warming potential (GWP) limits,
used to better qualify the embodied carbon of a specific design.
Quantifying embodied carbon takes different forms at the various stages of design, with all
tools sharing a central repository of industry-wide carbon factors. As the industry works
toward carbon reduction, designs can specify project-specific low-carbon materials, which will
refine the calculation to include product-specific carbon factors. Alternatively, for some build-
ing materials, accounting for and reducing the use of carbon-intensive ingredients, in addition
to collaboration with industry partners early in design to create and select materials based on
performance and project goals, will drive decarbonization over the next few decades.
Attendees will learn about the calculation of embodied carbon of building designs, the use
of material specifications to realize project-specific design goals and the feedback loop from
carbon quantification and specification efforts to future building design.
1 RESILIENCE AND CARBON
1.1 Whole building decarbonization

To address the climate emergency, the spotlight on carbon emissions has shifted from a focus
not only on operational carbon emissions but also on embodied carbon emissions, among
other environmental impact factors relating to whole-building life cycle assessment (LCA).
Agencies like LETI and IStructE have established guidelines on recommended embodied
carbon targets relative to building area based on building program or height. In addition,
other pathways to limiting global warming potential (GWP) per unit weight or volume in spe-
cific building materials come from policymakers by way of new provisions such as Buy Clean
California and the Marin County Low Carbon Concrete code. Other groups like SE2050 aim
to collect an industry-wide database of structural embodied carbon for its membership’s
designed projects that will report on the current state of the industry and provide the basis for
specific embodied carbon targets.
DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-322
2646
Decarbonization is not possible without continued advancements in the building material
industry. In recent years, cement production with lower emissions and energy usage coupled
with low-carbon alternatives to cements have been directed at the heavy-hitting Portland
cement, known to be an intensive-carbon building material. The use of carbon-sequestering
materials such as timber allow for the storage of carbon in building materials until the build-
ing is demolished and technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
(BECCS) can permanently remove the EC.
1.2 Embodied carbon

Embodied carbon (EC) refers the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions emitted during the raw mater-
ial extraction, transportation and manufacturing of building materials; during the construction
and use of buildings; and at the building end of life. Through detailed design EC calculations, it is
common to consider mainly the product and construction stages, as most environmental product
declarations (EPDs), for a building material product, report environmental impact factors for
LCA modules A1, A2 and A3 (EN 15978). When designing for long-term resilience, it is import-
ant to also consider the building use and end of life stages, for example, where buildings are not
designed for immediate occupancy and limited repair after design-level seismic events. The consid-
eration of carbon-sequestering building materials also allows for carbon storage over the building
service life that factors into strategies for reducing upfront embodied carbon.
1.3 Carbon accounting to achieve decarbonization

To align the discussion on embodied carbon, industry-wide carbon accounting through calcu-
lation and specification is needed. By understanding and limiting the carbon emitted in con-
struction today, this accounting can provide important justification for low-carbon materials
and pave the way for net zero embodied carbon buildings.
EC calculations provide the cornerstone for benchmarking the industry and setting up
future policies to achieve net-zero embodied carbon goals in the next three decades. Through
standardization and automation of these calculations, the database has increased consistency
and facilitates comparison across many building types regarding material efficiency. Establish-
ing these benchmarks will allow for a clear pathway to EC reduction in building structures.
The building design forms the basis of the embodied carbon calculation. During the build-
ing design phases, the designer determines the best reduction strategies given the design space.
The specifications then implement those reduction strategies, working with industry partners
such as the contractor and material suppliers to achieve those EC reductions. Post-
construction LCA is also a reliable tool for ensuring the design meets the intended EC goals.
2 CALCULATIONS AND CARBON DATABASE
2.1 Building carbon calculations

Each building structure is a function of design constraints based on parameters including pro-
ject site and architectural program. The database of carbon values for each building design
includes these parameters which give the database dimensionality for the establishment and
selection of appropriate benchmarks to be used for future designs. Recording data at each
design phase tracks the change associated with design decisions and development and its rela-
tive impact on EC. As a designer, many of the construction, use and end of life stage LCA
modules may be estimated, but the contributions of these stages may vary in the final project
delivery. Thus, current calculations consider LCA modules A1-A3, also known as measuring
“cradle-to-gate”, to align data across different projects.
An example structural carbon calculation is developed in the following sections for a six-story
cultural center project in Northern California, from the bill of materials to the carbon factors
associated with local material procurement to the final summary of structural embodied carbon.
2647
2.2 Establishing the bill of materials
Effective material use for decarbonization depends on how the material is used in the building
structure. To quantify the impact of the building structure, it is important to categorize the
building materials based on location in the building superstructure/substructure/foundation,
structural element type, general material category, specific material type, etc.
All structural materials are categorized as defined in the material specifications. The struc-
tural steel, reinforcement and connection tonnages and the concrete and timber material vol-
umes can be calculated and sorted into a clear bill of materials based on the categorization.
Alignment on the definition of structural material quantities is important to the development
of the EC database. Automation and standardization of the quantity takedown from all design
and documentation tools and software ensure consistent calculations, ensuring that all project EC
is calculated. During early design phases, estimated quantities are based on prior experience and
architectural design models. During later design phases, structural analysis models and BIM
documentation models form the basis for the bill of materials. A post-construction bill of mater-
ials validates the design phase assumptions.
Depending on the design phase, different structural models may be used to establish the bill
of materials by assigning products or material properties to specific modeled elements. These
properties include, but are not limited to, structural element type, material strength, material
density, material composition and region of production. In earlier phases, analysis models are
used to validate and approximate the material quantities associated with in-progress designs. In
later phases, building information modeling (BIM) allows for a detailed accounting of model
elements and their assigned materials aligned with the level of development during design –
accounting that can be verified in collaboration with the general contractor during construction.
Figure 1. The bill of materials can be established from both early-phase and later-phase models, includ-
ing structural analysis models (left) and BIM models (right).
2.3 Selecting carbon factors

EC factors are dependent on the construction market, as different factors including, but not
limited to, the energy used during the project stage, the raw and recycled materials available and
the transportation from the production facility to the construction site are region-specific.
Regions such as North America and Europe/UK have more robust environmental product dec-
laration (EPD) databases (Standard for building carbon emission calculation, GB/T 51366-2019,
provides Chinese code-based EC factors), but other regional markets may rely on databases such
as the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) for building materials with a shortage of EC infor-
mation. Where the information is available or limits are defined separately, each LCA module
(e.g. A1, A2 and A3) has its own EC factor.
For materials such as timber, biogenic carbon may be considered a negative value (carbon
removal) in LCA module A1 and added as a positive value in modules C3/C4 at the end of life
2648
stage when the timber waste after demolition releases the carbon emissions where the LCA study
measures beyond cradle-to-gate (A1-A3). Based on product-specific EPDs collected, NRMCA
has published a member national and regional LCA benchmark report, used to develop a range
of concrete EC factors for the project workbook study and the specification GWP limits. Con-
crete mixes are made of carbon-intensive materials such as cement with EPDs. Since the use of
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) lowers the GWP impact of concrete, some LCA
tools and industry-wide EPDs allow for more granularity in the concrete carbon factors based on
the aggregate type, concrete strength or material grade and the percentage of cement replacement.
The A1-A3 EC factors for the example project are selected based on an average factor for
steel and reinforcement produced and fabricated in the United States; and on average factors
for concrete of a specific strength and supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replace-
ment typical for concrete mixes supplied in the Pacific Southwest region.
2.4 Calculating embodied carbon

To benchmark and show improvements to the building’s embodied carbon, the designer calcu-
lates the impact of building materials from earlier concept phases through later design phases.
Early estimation tools such as the assumptions included in the Environmental Analysis Tool™
developed by SOM allow for EC calculations when the building has not yet developed a bill of
materials, with minimal inputs including building area, program and site conditions. In the pro-
posed embodied carbon workflow, an engineer inputs project information and structural material
quantities based on the bill of materials in the project workbook. This workbook is linked to (1)
an EC factor database with information generally from industry-wide EPDs and (2) a project
database backend that compiles all the information stored for each project based on the final
summary at the end of a design phase (e.g. Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents, etc.). As the structural material quantities are associated with specific material types
and market regions, the embodied carbon is calculated and summarized automatically. Where
coordination with other designers is required, LCA tools such as One Click LCA® are used for
a more comprehensive study.
The A1-A3 embodied carbon in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is calculated based
on applying the EC factor in kg CO2e per weight of metal material or per volume of concrete or
wood material. With proper segmentation, the calculated embodied carbon can be associated
with a specific structural system, structural object or element or structural material, allowing for
further analysis and comparison between different building structures in the database.
Figure 2. Summary of the baseline embodied carbon calculation for the project-speci c and design-speci c
bill of materials.
2649
Figure 3. Summary of the baseline embodied carbon calculation by element type.
The following figure summarizes the structural embodied carbon study for 90 current and
recent projects. Active studies include categorization of building structure parameters such as
architectural height and EC targets based on current data trendlines that evolve between the
years 2025 and 2040.
Figure 4. Graphical investigation of embodied carbon data for 90 current and recent projects from the
Project Workbook database.
3 SPECIFYING MATERIALS
3.1 Understanding the market

To meet carbon emissions reduction targets by way of the Paris Agreement, low-carbon codes
are being adopted, imposing GWP limits on some building materials. Buy Clean California
set GWP limits for eligible materials such as unfabricated structural steel sections and concrete
reinforcing steel. Marin County’s Low Carbon Concrete policy limits cement usage and
embodied carbon by concrete mix or by project. These code-based limits will increase industry
awareness, shifting the focus from client- and designer-driven GWP limits through specifica-
tions to industry-wide reduction of building material carbon emissions. These policy changes
are needed as the industry move toward net-zero carbon building construction.
2650
Carbon emission reductions are best achieved by understanding the regional construction
practices and material availability. Some market regions may be able to reduce the carbon
emissions associated with cement and have high availability of concrete mix components,
whereas some market regions produce steel with high recycled content. These market factors
should impact the structural system selection and the material specifications.
3.2 Tuning material specifications to achieve project-specific targets

Structural materials are a large component of the whole-building embodied carbon emissions,
particularly the upfront carbon released by the end of construction. The material specifica-
tions implement the EC factors assumed during an LCA study, or design-phase carbon
accounting, forming an important basis for the construction and material procurement.
Electric arc furnaces (EAF) melt recycled or scrap steel whereas blast furnaces can also melt
raw iron ore for steel production. The energy intensity and the carbon emissions produced with
EAF steel production allow for significantly lower GHG emissions. For concrete reinforcing
and structural steel, an average recycled content should be specified to reduce the GWP impact.
If the project is in a region where EAF is prevalent, limiting the structural steel sections specified
based on availability so structural steel can be locally milled also lowers the EC.
For concrete materials, the material specification allows for two conformance paths that
demonstrate the GWP limits for the project can be met. Compliance Method A - Total
Carbon Budget relies on the contractor to account for the concrete supplied on the project
with a final report showing the EC across all concrete supplied for the project. Compliance
Method B - Individual Mix Carbon Limits relies on the concrete supplier to deliver mixes that
meet individual limits and the designer to set limits that meet the overall project EC target. In
addition, cement usage can be reduced where concrete mixes can achieve the compressive
strength requirements beyond 28 days as defined by ACI 318 where slower strength gain is an
acceptable structural performance criterion. Concrete cementitious replacement can be speci-
fied or limited, and limits can be developed from EN 15978-compliant LCA tools.
Table 1. Example Individual Mix Carbon Limits for projects using Compliance Method B.
Maximum GWP
Typical Application of Concrete Class/Mix Design Design Strength (psi) per EPD (kg/m )
Footings, Pile Caps and Grade Beams 5,000 295

Slabs-on-grade 5,000 295
Basement Walls (Shotcrete) 5,000 337
Shear Wall (CIP) See Elev. 312
LWC Fill on Metal Deck 4,000 466
NWC Fill on Meta Deck 4,000 288
Curbs, Pads, Column Encasements and Miscellaneous 4,000 288
3.3 Allowing for material technology adoption

Net-zero carbon construction relies not only on the carbon optimization of current building
materials, but also on the development of new materials that can be specified as structural
materials. An example is carbon dioxide mineralization, where mineralized CO2 is introduced
as an admixture, sequestering carbon in the concrete mix. Performance-based specifications
also allow for these available and upcoming materials such as recycled concrete aggregates,
carbon-sequestered aggregates and pozzolan cements.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Environmental impacts of building structures must be minimized. First, policy makers, devel-
opers, contractors and designers continue to work carbon accounting and reduction strategies
2651
as a common part of the design and construction process. Second, establishing an EC bench-
mark or target pushes the industry to reduce material usage and explore new material tech-
nologies. Third, designers specifying more efficient material usage and new material
technologies will expedite their adoption into the coming generation of building structures.
Fourth, this cyclical process continues with each generation of buildings until structures are
net-zero embodied carbon from cradle-to-grave.
REFERENCES
LETI. 2021. Embodied Carbon Target Alignment.

The Institution of Structural Engineers. 2020. Setting carbon targets: an introduction to the proposed
SCORS rating scheme.
CarbonCure. 2023. https://www.carboncure.com/.
EN 15978: 2011, Sustainability of construction works.
ISO 21930: 2017, Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental
product declarations of construction products and services.
M. Sarkisian, D. Shook, C. Horiuchi & N. Wang. 2020. Embodied Carbon-Based Design: Incorporating
Estimations of Carbon Reduction into Building Design Decisions.
NRMCA. 2022. NRMCA Member Industry-average EPD For Ready Mixed Concrete.
2652
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0
Carbon optimization of hybrid material structures
M.P. Sarkisian, D. Shook & A. Zha

C. Horiuchi
ABSTRACT: It is commonly known that the structural materials included in building con-
struction contribute significantly to global emissions due to the associated carbon required
with their extraction, production, and transportation. The most common structural materials,
concrete and steel, can also have the greatest impact in part due to their high volume of usage.
However, with requirements of fire protection, vibration, seismic detailing and constraints of
constructability, it is not feasible to simply eliminate all concrete and steel from our buildings.
Instead, structural engineers can look to make intelligent replacements of carbon-intensive
materials with low carbon, fiber-based materials such as timber. In this way, engineers can
make noticeable reductions in buildings immediately and not wait until codes catch up with
new structural systems. This topic has been explored by the authors with a variety of materials
and geometries. Recently the authors designed a built hybrid mass timber and steel structure
in a height seismic zone. In each case the use of timber is expanded and therefore overall
embodied carbon incrementally reduced.
1 HYBRID SOLUTIONS
1.1 Rethinking design and construction with hybrid solutions

Traditional construction methods are on the cusp of rapid change. The architectural, engineering,
and construction (AEC) communities are seeing a significant realignment fueled by the urgency of
climate change. In a market controlled by costs, governments are raising the standards to reduce
embodied carbon. The industry will likely continue to be a cost-driven sector, but reconsideration
of past assumptions is needed to efficiently meet the needs of the pending climate crisis.
To reduce carbon quickly and efficiently the use of mass timber must be expanded. A key
short coming of mass timber are the larger structural dimensions required. Also, spans are
typically reduced resulting in less flexible spaces. To ensure that building remain flexible in the
future, selective use of steel and concrete can create a balance between significant carbon
reductions while maintaining flexible spaces.
1.2 Evolving requirements from designers, owners, and governments

The past 5 to 10 years have seen numerous US design organization such as the American Insti-
tute of Architect (AIA), Structural Engineers Association, nearly every major consumer
market company (e.g. Google, Ford, Lendlease), and several regional governments (e.g. States
of California, Oregon & Washington) all adopt a wide range of commitments and require-
ments pertaining to reducing embodied carbon. As a signatory of SE 2050, Skidmore, Owings
& Merrill (SOM) has committed to bringing meaningful carbon reductions to a wide spectrum
of buildings.
DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-323
2653
1.3 How these changes will affect structural system construction and design
As the two above changes unfold (increased use of low-carbon materials and AEC commit-
ments) it is likely that general contractors will rethink how they can have more sub-
contractors internally self-perform key tasks such as mass timber fabrication/installation.
There is already precedent in the industry of this with concrete, drywall, cabinetry, etc. Alter-
natively, traditional concrete and steel sub-contractors may seek to have more trades under
their control such as mass timber. The second is a potentially beneficial realignment with sub-
contractors finding best ways to adopt low-carbon materials complimented by their trad-
itional work. This hybrid option could greatly expand the use of low-carbon materials to
a wider range of buildings.
2 EXPLORATIONS OF MASS TIMBER HYBRID STRUCTURES
While the number of commonly used structural materials is limited: concrete, steel & timber,
their combinations can be composed in a wide variety of ways. The following outlines several
explorations, incrementally increasing the use of mass timber, seeking material and cost effi-
ciency balanced with performance and aesthetics.
2.1 Floor system explorations

Floor systems compose 35% to 45% of the total embodied carbon of most mid-rise and high-
rise structural systems, based on data collected internally by SOM, making them the largest
single culprit of embodied carbon. Thus, their decarbonization is vital. The structural frame
of floor systems typically also provides acoustic and fire separation between floors. While
traditional steel and concrete have found effective methods for these separations, mass timber
will require its own solutions. Acoustic separation is typically provided by an acoustic mat
and a minimum of 50mm (2”) of concrete (Johnson, 2021). The concrete may or may not be
part of the structural system but must be included. An early exploration by SOM utilized
a concrete slab supported by glulam beams, see Figure 1, at the United Nations Office at
Geneva. This was complimented by the façade system aesthetic to create a unique and efficient
building composition.
Figure 1. Example of built hybrid oor systems.
In parallel, SOM also considered the potential of composite behavior of cross-laminated

timber (CLT) panels with the concrete topping already required for acoustics. This was found
through full scale testing to be highly effective in controlling deflection over a 7.3m (24’-0”)
span (Johnson, 2017a).
2654
Figure 2. Hybrid composite oor system full scale testing (Johnson, 2017a).
Further explorations of hybrid floor systems considered steel beams with composite CLT
panels spanning between composite steel beams, see Figure 3. This efficient system also had
the benefit of a flat soffit which has numerous benefits from MEP coordination to aesthetics.
Figure 3. Hybrid oor system concept (Johnson, 2017b).
2.2 Building system explorations

As part of a total building exploration of mass timber it was found that select regions
enhanced with reinforced concrete would be important is achieving the long gravity framing
spans and lateral strength common in high-rise construction (Johnson, 2014).
Figure 4. Timber tower systems (Johnson, 2014).
3 PROTOTYPE OFFICE BUILDING
3.1 Mass timber in a cost-focused building

In what follows, a recently constructed office building shows how designers can work effectively
with all trades, contractors, and owners to achieve a cost-effective, low-carbon solution meeting
the dynamic needs of our urban fabric.
2655
Figure 5. COB3 building rendering.
The COB3 building will redefine the San Mateo County Government Center with an iconic, for-
ward-looking design that reflects the values of the community. With a mass timber/CLT structural
system, ultra-low carbon footprint, and net zero energy goal - the design sets a new standard for
sustainable, generational, civic buildings beyond the Bay Area. The 5-story mass timber building
totaling 19, 325sqm (208,000sqf) is in downtown Redwood City and surrounded by existing county
buildings, including the San Mateo Superior Court. The building configuration features a north and
south public plaza linked by a transparent building lobby creating a connection between the down-
town Redwood City Theater District and the San Mateo County buildings. The building houses the
main public functions at the ground level, including the Board of Supervisors Chamber.
The project is being developed by the Project Development Unit, with SOM as the architect
and structural engineer and Truebeck Construction as the general contractor. Scheduled for
completion in late 2023, with the goal of both net-zero energy and a significantly reduced
embodied carbon footprint, SOM’s structural engineering design team responded to the chal-
lenges of the nation’s first net-zero energy mass timber civic building.
3.2 Building structural systems

Designed in conformance with the 2018 International Building Code (IBC, 2018) with State of
California Amendments (CBC 2019), the civic building is assigned to Category II per occupancy
load limits of 2019 CBC Table 1604.5. The structure is classified as a Type IV HT (Heavy
Timber) construction per fire-resistance rating requirements of 2019 CBC Table 601. The build-
ing is located not only in a high seismic region, with a seismic design category D, but also in
a region highly susceptible to liquefaction with a seismic site class F.
COB3 is characterized by its H-shaped layout with the gravity system consisting of glue-
laminated (glulam) timber beams and columns with a cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor
system. The plan dimensions of the building are typically 85m by 60m (280ft by 195ft).
Distinctly, glulam beams are utilized only in a single direction: a pair of glulam beams, each
measuring 22cm by 65cm (8¾-inch by 25½-inch), span 10.7m and 9.1m (35ft and 30ft) bays. The
long spans were achievable with relatively shallow beam depths by having beams continuous over
the center supporting column.
Figure 6. COB3 hybrid structural frame with steel (Grey) and timber (Brown).
2656
Figure 7. COB3 hybrid structural frame with concrete (Grey) and timber (Brown).
All glulam columns are of consistent width perpendicular to the beam spans to allow for
a continuous beam configuration with the beams running past the side faces of the rectangular
columns. A unique connection system is utilized to secure the glulam beams at column supports
while also acting as the splice connection for the columns. Having a repeatable dual-purpose con-
nection system, combined with off-site fabricated, allowed for an efficient erection schedule by
reducing the number of picks that needed to be made on-site as well as reducing the overall steel
material quantities. Only simple screw-type connections are needed on-site, in pre-drilled holes, to
secure the structural elements. As part of the HT classification, all timber connections are hidden
from view with a nominal layer of timber for fire protection.
Because timber beams only occur in one direction, the 17cm (6 7/8in)-thick 5-ply CLT slab
system acts predominantly as a one-way spanning system spanning the 6.1m (20ft) bays.
Therefore, no additional spandrel beam is required around the perimeter of the building. CLT
panels are nominally 2.6m (8’-6”) wide, and 12.2m (40ft) long. The length of the panels pro-
vides a double span condition over the center supports, reducing the deflection of the panels,
which is critical to achieving the large span-to-depth ratio of the panel.
The composition of the CLT was optimized for cost and performance. The CLT outer plies
comprise a strong Structural Select grade of Douglas fir, while the inner three layers are of
a weaker but stiff Coast Sitka spruce. This composition allowed the exposed CLT layers to
match the similarly exposed glulam beams and columns while providing the strength required
of the panel. The weaker but stiff inner CLT plies significantly reduced the panels’ costs while
providing the required stiffness to limit deflection and floor vibrations, often an issue in long-
span timber buildings.
The structure consists of four separate cores located at the reentrant corners of the building.
The cores are supported between W14 (36cm) columns with floors comprised of composite
steel beams. The composite steel slab system generally consists of 11cm (4½in) normal-weight
concrete fill over 8cm (3in) metal deck. The cores also provide the lateral force-resisting
system for the building. Buckling-restrained-braced frames (BRBF) are provided on all four
sides of each core. Forces are developed into the BRBF system through the CLT diaphragm.
CLT panels are spliced together using plywood splines and screw connectors, allowing in-
plane shear transfer. Panels are also connected to each other and to the steel cores through
steel straps and screws forming chords and collectors, creating a load path into the braced
frames.
The deep foundation system consists of 46 cm (18in)-diameter auger cast-in-place displace-
ment piles supported on pile caps that resist superstructure gravity and lateral load reactions
at the base of the building. A total of 300 piles extends 22.8m (75ft) into the soil below. Grade
beams interconnect pile caps with a 30cm (12in) pile-supported suspended slab on grade at the
first-floor level.
2657
Figure 8. COB3 Construction showing steel frames in mass timber construction.
Figure 9. COB3 Steel column and steel diaphragm connections.
3.3 Net zero energy and embodied carbon

The COB3 design team focused on passive design strategies. With narrow floor plates,
a balance between daylighting and solar heat gain to lower the lighting power density could be
achieved. This also enabled the configuration of the floorplates to allow natural ventilation for
night cooling to reduce loads. The design optimized the active systems, tailoring the mechanical
equipment to its use, leveraging efficient hydronic fan coil units at the perimeter and VAV air
distribution at the interior core spaces. The interior design strategically places the engineering
systems within centrally located cores to minimize distribution distances for the most effective
2658
services. The exterior windows have automated window shades that reduce solar heat gain and
reduce glare. Once the design loads were reduced, the energy required to operate the building
was offset by on-site renewable energy generated by photovoltaics on the project’s roof and the
roof of the nearby parking garage, making it a net-zero operational energy building.
In addition to being net-zero operational energy, the project has reduced its embodied
carbon by 70% primarily by using advanced structural technologies, including Cross Lamin-
ated Timber slabs, with Glued Laminated Timber beams and columns. The below embodied
carbon life-cycle assessment was conducted using OneClick LCA regional average values.
To reduce the embodied carbon footprint of a building, the starting point should be the struc-
ture, as it is the largest contributor. While using mass timber instead of a steel or concrete struc-
ture yields significant savings in the embodied carbon of any project, additional savings through
engineering design and close collaboration with architecture and other trades can be had.
Optimal bays and column spacings considering modules based on office spaces, the layout of
mechanical systems, fire sprinklers, and lighting, among other items, all in conjunction with the
quantity, size, and thicknesses of glulam beams and CLT required for each configuration, were
considered. In addition, the pieces and connections could be priced in real-time with the contrac-
tor’s help. The solution was ultimately to reduce the number of beams and have them run in only
one direction, leading to a reduced number of pieces and connections, creating an efficient bay
size that works well with the office layouts.
By running beams continuously over supports, long spans could be achieved with relatively
shallow beams, saving overall timber quantities compared to traditional post-and-beam
timber framing systems. In addition, by running the beams in only one direction, a more effi-
cient ceiling/floor structure is achieved by integrating the MEP distribution parallel with the
beam direction, which reduces the typical floor-to-floor height and the overall building height.
Subsequently, with a reduced floor-to-floor height, the overall enclosure volume could be sig-
nificantly reduced, saving further on the embodied carbon.
Figure 10. COB3 embodied carbon summary of options.
Setting an example of sustainability for the district, the new County Office Building will be
an iconic and symbolic addition to Redwood City’s built environment. The material selection,
structural optimization, and collaborative approach achieve enhanced performance, reduced
embodied carbon impacts, net-zero energy, and a LEED Platinum rating.
2659
4 CONCLUSION
The COB3 structural material selection facilitated significant cost and carbon reduction in
non-structural systems such as ceilings, walls, and façade. While this project’s general contrac-
tor utilized separate steel and timber fabricators and installers, the commonly perceived cost
and coordination issues of having multiple large structural sub-contractors was successful. In
the future, it is likely that the mass timber work could be under a single steel or concrete sub-
contractor that could unlock improved design and construction efficiencies.
REFERENCES
California Building Code (CBC), 2019.

International Building Code (IBC), 2018.
Johnson, B. 2014. Timber Tower Research Project-System Report #1. SOM.
Johnson, B. 2017a. Timber Tower Research Project-Physical Testing Report #1. SOM.
Johnson, B. 2017b. AISC Steel & Timber Research for High-Rise Residential Buildings. SOM.
Johnson, B. 2021. Acoustic Testing of CLT Composite Floor Assemblies for TMBR Minneapolis. SOM.
2660

Ialcce Som Papers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ialcce Som Papers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life-Cycle of Structures and

Resilient structures: Materials | Components | Systems

Figure 6. Masonry arches on shake table – reinforced on left, unreinforced on right.

Figure 8. Stress distribution in arch 1 at 0.23g. Figure 9. Extrados – reinforced arch.

Figure 11. Topology optimization of masonry timbrel vault.

Figure 16. Modeled movement and components of frame friction joints.

Resilience through superelasticity

D. Shook & M.P. Sarkisian

ABSTRACT: To reduce the impact of climate change we must incorporate carbon-reducing

1 A NEW ERA OF RESILIENCE

1.1 Growing environmental risks

1.2 Urgency for fully recoverable seismic systems

1.3 Shape memory alloys

1.4 Traditional steel and SMA behavior under deformation

2.1 Behavior of single SMA wire

Figure 2. Stress vs strain of single nitinol wire.

2.2 Behavior of SMA wires composed as a rope

2.3 Analytical representation of SMA wire or rope

Figure 5. Numerical modeling of SMA wire rope.

3 CONNECTING TO BUILDING FRAMES

3.1 Swaged connection

3.2 Swage to tension rod

4 SHAKE TABLE TESTING

4.1 Shake table testing description

4.2 Shake table testing results

Figure 9. Numerical prediction vs shake table results.

CarbonCure, 2023, https://www.carboncure.com/

Design of the urban sequoia tower

M.P. Sarkisian, E. Long, A. Beghini, K. Micallef & S. Jaberansari

2 LOW EMBODIED CARBON

Figure 1. Urban Sequoia concept applied at

3 ADVANCED MATERIAL INCLUDING THOSE THAT ABSORB CARBON

4 DESIGN FOCUSED ON CONSTRUCTION

Figure 3. Urban Sequoia structural system overview.

6 COMPARISON OF URBAN SEQUOIA TO A BENCHMARK BUILDING

The continuously growing industry of residential high-rise construction provides a meaningful

Table 1. Benchmark Tower A1-A3 embodied carbon intensities.

Shear wall core 10.0~11.0 0 5.5~6.5

Precast shear wall core 1.2~1.4 1.7~1.9 1.4~1.7 0

ABSTRACT: The SE2050 program is sponsored by the Structural Engineering Institute

The SE 2050 Commitment Program is a collection of US-based structural engineering firms

Figure 1. SE 2050 Timeline.

3 SE 2050 ENGAGEMENT: ADVOCACY & EDUCATION

4 SE 2050 COMMITTED FIRMS

Figure 2. SE 2050 Committed Firms.

Figure 3. SE 2050 Firm Types.

5 EMBODIED CARBON ACTION PLANS

5.1 Educate and advocate

Figure 4. SE 2050 Firm Types.

6 SE 2050 DATABASE - OVERVIEW

7 SOM’S COMMITMENT TO SE 2050

Quantifying and specifying decarbonization in buildings

N. Wang & D. Shook

ABSTRACT: As designers, efficient material use to achieve a certain design is a well-

1 RESILIENCE AND CARBON

1.1 Whole building decarbonization

1.2 Embodied carbon

1.3 Carbon accounting to achieve decarbonization

2 CALCULATIONS AND CARBON DATABASE

2.1 Building carbon calculations

2.3 Selecting carbon factors

2.4 Calculating embodied carbon

3.1 Understanding the market

3.2 Tuning material specifications to achieve project-specific targets