Post-Design Embodied Carbon Analysis

Sustainability and Carbon Reduction Framework for Alley_Eblana Brewery Retrofit

This post-design analysis evaluates the embodied carbon implications of structural interventions proposed for the Alley-Eblana Brewery retrofit in Mission Hill, Boston. Working within a 50–100 year building lifespan, the analysis quantifies material volumes, compares structural system options against RIBA 2030 Challenge targets, and identifies material-based strategies to minimize lifecycle carbon — from slab and core selection to local net-zero cement supply chains.

Where Carbon Lives

The first step in any post-design carbon assessment is understanding which building elements drive material demand. For the Alley-Eblana retrofit, new interventions include a basement slab, steel columns and beams, floor slabs, stair and elevator cores, and a hybrid roof structure. When broken down by volume, floor slabs and cores together account for 84% of all new material — making them the primary lever for embodied carbon reduction. Steel, roof framing, and stairs together comprise the remaining 16%, each individually modest but collectively significant when multiplied across a multi-storey structure.

Material Options: CLT vs. Low-Carbon Concrete

With floor slabs and cores identified as the critical material decision, the analysis compared two structural system options: cross-laminated timber (CLT) and optimized reinforced concrete. Using the Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios Interactive Carbon Calculator, lifecycle embodied carbon was assessed for both across a 100-year building life.

Option 1 — CLT Slabs and Cores: Total lifecycle embodied carbon of 176 kgCO₂e/m², falling to 104 kgCO₂e/m² when sequestered biogenic carbon is included. This comfortably meets the RIBA 2025 target (~650 kgCO₂e/m²) and sits well below the 2030 target of 500 kgCO₂e/m².

Option 2 — Concrete Slabs and Cores (RC 32/40, 70% GGBS): Total lifecycle embodied carbon of 209 kgCO₂e/m², or 185 kgCO₂e/m² including sequestration. This also meets both RIBA targets and closely tracks the CLT option on a like-for-like basis.

While CLT performs well on paper — especially when sequestered carbon is counted — its headline figures obscure significant hidden costs: unsustainable forestry practices that release stored carbon prematurely, energy-intensive manufacturing, up to 80% of offcuts going to short-lived non-sequestering products, and dependency on synthetic adhesives that complicate end-of-life recycling. For a building designed to last 100 years, these uncertainties shift the preferred option toward optimized low-carbon concrete.

Embodied Carbon: CLT vs Concrete

Lifecycle Embodied Carbon — CLT vs. Low-Carbon Concrete

Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios Carbon Calculator · RIBA 2030 Challenge Benchmarks · Alley-Eblana Brewery Retrofit

Without Sequestration With Sequestration
Pre-2020 target: 1,100 kgCO₂e/m²
2020 target: 800 kgCO₂e/m²
2025 target: 650 kgCO₂e/m²
2030 target: 500 kgCO₂e/m²
Why not CLT? — Hidden Carbon Risks

While CLT's lifecycle carbon figures are comparable to low-carbon concrete, conventional carbon accounting does not capture the full picture. Four embedded risk categories significantly complicate CLT's carbon credentials over a 100-year building lifespan.

🌲
Forestry
↑ CO₂
Premature harvesting releases stored carbon before trees reach full sequestration potential, negating biogenic carbon claims.
🏭
Manufacturing
High
Energy-intensive pressing, drying, and lamination processes generate significant process emissions before the product leaves the factory.
♻️
Waste
80%
Up to 80% of CLT offcuts are directed to short-lived, non-sequestering products — releasing stored carbon far earlier than the building lifespan assumes.
🔗
Adhesives
↑ EC
Synthetic resin adhesives add embodied carbon and make disassembly and material recovery at end-of-life difficult or impossible.

Sources: AKT II Lecture — Biogenic Materials & Timber (2025); Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios Carbon Calculator (2023)


GGBS and Net-Zero Cement

The preferred concrete specification — RC 32/40 with 70% GGBS — replaces 70% of Portland cement with ground granulated blast-furnace slag, a byproduct of the steel industry. This dramatically reduces process emissions by displacing the most carbon-intensive component of conventional concrete without compromising structural performance.

To push further, the analysis identifies Sublime Systems as a locally available net-zero cement manufacturer located just 6.5 miles from the site. Unlike ordinary Portland cement — which emits CO₂ through both fuel combustion and the chemical decomposition of limestone — Sublime Systems uses an electrochemical process that replaces limestone with non-carbonate rocks, avoiding both emission sources entirely. The process also enables the upcycling of construction waste and industrial by-products into new cementitious material, closing a second material loop alongside the GGBS substitution. At 6.5 miles from the site, transportation-related emissions are negligible.​


Geometry & Structural Optimization

Beyond material selection, embodied carbon can be reduced by using less material altogether. Geometric and structural optimization — rationalizing spans, thinning slabs where loads allow, and eliminating redundant structure — cuts volume at the source before any carbon factor is applied. For the Alley-Eblana retrofit, this means designing floor plates to match structural spans efficiently, selecting prefabricated and modular slab systems that minimize waste in production, and specifying demountable partition systems that allow future reconfiguration without demolition. Each of these moves extends the useful life of material already in place, compounding the carbon benefit over the building's 100-year lifespan.​

Structural Span Optimization

Structural and Geometric Optimization — Floor Slab

Alley-Eblana Brewery Retrofit  ·  RC 32/40 70% GGBS  ·  Floor area: 2,951 m²  ·  Optimized Precast Concrete Slab System

UNOPTIMIZED — Irregular Bay Layout 3.7 m 3.0 m 4.3 m 3.3 m 3.0 m SLAB t = 275–305mm Non-uniform spans → over-design Primary beam Secondary beam Column
Structural Parameters
Slab Thickness
275–305 mm (10–12 in)
Over-designed due to irregular spans requiring worst-case thickness across the entire plate.
Bay Sizes
3.0–4.3 m variable
Irregular column grid forces secondary beam proliferation and non-uniform load paths.
Secondary Beams
Dense, irregular
Required to transfer loads across variable spans — adds weight and formwork complexity.

Concrete Volume
560 m³
Total slab volume — floor plates Basement to 4F
Carbon (slabs only)
95,200 kgCO₂e
RC 32/40 70% GGBS · 0.17 tCO₂e/m³
Slab Thickness
275–305 mm
Concrete Volume
560
Carbon (slabs)
95,200 kgCO₂e
Volume Saved
baseline

Source: Material take-off from Rhino model · Slab System OP2 — Optimized Precast Concrete · SCI-6502 Group 4 Alley-Eblana Brewery

RATIONALIZED — Uniform Bay Grid 4.3 m 4.3 m 4.3 m 4.3 m SLAB t = 200mm Uniform spans → optimized thickness -30% material Primary beam Secondary beam Column
Structural Parameters
Slab Thickness
200 mm (8 in)
Uniform spans allow structural optimization — slab designed precisely to load requirements without over-specification.
Bay Sizes
4.3 m uniform
Rationalized grid eliminates non-productive structural material and simplifies prefabrication.
Secondary Beams
Mid-span only
Reduced to minimum necessary — uniform spans require fewer transfer elements.

Concrete Volume
390 m³ ↓ 170 m³
Total slab volume after rationalization
Carbon (slabs only)
66,300 kgCO₂e ↓ 28,900
RC 32/40 70% GGBS · 0.17 tCO₂e/m³
Slab Thickness
200 mm
Concrete Volume
390
Carbon (slabs)
66,300 kgCO₂e
Volume Saved
30.4% ↓ 170 m³

Source: Material take-off from Rhino model · Slab System OP2 — Optimized Precast Concrete · SCI-6502 Group 4 Alley-Eblana Brewery

UNOPTIMIZED RATIONALIZED SECTION CUT 275–305 mm · Unoptimized slab 275–305 mm · Unoptimized slab 275–305 mm · Unoptimized slab t=305mm 200 mm · Rationalized slab 200 mm · Rationalized slab 200 mm · Rationalized slab t=200 saved Material removed per slab ↓ 105mm thickness · ↓ ~57 m³ / floor Unoptimized slab Rationalized slab Material saved
Quantified Impact
Hatched Zone
Represents 105 mm of slab thickness removed per floor through span rationalization — material that carried no structural value in the original layout.
Principle
Reducing slab thickness is the highest-leverage move available — it applies across all floor plates simultaneously, compounding savings at every level.
Parameter Unoptimized Rationalized Saving
Slab thickness 275–305 mm (10–12 in) 200 mm (8 in) ↓ ~105 mm
Bay size 3.0–4.3 m (variable) 4.3 m (uniform) Rationalized
Concrete volume (slabs) 560 m³ 390 m³ ↓ 170 m³ (30.4%)
Carbon — slabs only (A1–A3) 95,200 kgCO₂e 66,300 kgCO₂e ↓ 28,900 kgCO₂e (30.4%)
Secondary beams Dense, irregular Mid-span only Significantly reduced

Source: Material take-off from Rhino model · RC 32/40 70% GGBS · Carbon factor 0.17 tCO₂e/m³ · SCI-6502 Group 4 Alley-Eblana Brewery · Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios Carbon Calculator (2023)


Sustainability Framework Alignment

The material strategies developed in this analysis align with several of the One Planet Living principles, providing a broader sustainability framing for the carbon work. The use of local, low-carbon cement (Sublime Systems) directly addresses Materials and Products and Zero Carbon Energy principles. The GGBS substitution, which repurposes an industrial byproduct, aligns with Zero Waste. The demountable partition system supports Materials and Products by enabling long-term adaptability. Taken together, these strategies are not isolated technical fixes but part of a coherent, principles-led approach to minimizing the carbon cost of making the building useful again.​

One Planet Living Alignment

One Planet Living — Framework Alignment

Bioregional One Planet Living (OPL) · Alley-Eblana Brewery Retrofit · SCI-6502 Harvard GSD

8/10
Principles
Addressed
01 / 10
Zero Carbon Energy
Fully Addressed
Directly addressed
Partially addressed

Source: Bioregional One Planet Living Framework · Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios Carbon Calculator (2023) · SCI-6502 Group 4, Harvard GSD


Results

Both structural options — CLT and low-carbon concrete — meet the RIBA 2030 Challenge targets, landing well below the 2025 benchmark of 650 kgCO₂e/m² and below the more demanding 2030 target of 500 kgCO₂e/m². The concrete pathway, at 209 kgCO₂e/m² (185 kgCO₂e/m² with sequestration), is the more robust choice for a 100-year lifespan given the uncertainties embedded in CLT's biogenic carbon accounting. The key takeaway is that retaining the existing building fabric — which carries zero new embodied carbon — is itself the most powerful carbon reduction strategy; the analysis focuses on minimizing the impact of what must be added, not what is already there.

Previous
Previous

The Green Infrastructure Paradox

Next
Next

Earth Vault Performance