| Abstract: | In the study of sustainable building materials, the comparison of the life cycle environmental performance of steel and reinforced concrete has been a popular and important topic. Based in Singapore, this is one of the first studies in the literature that applies both attributional and consequential life cycle approaches to compare the global warming potential and embodied energies of these two materials, which are widely used for the structural parts of buildings. It was found that 1 kilogram (kg) of steel can be replaced by 1 or 4.25 kg of reinforced concrete. Two consequential scenarios for each of three combinations of primary and secondary steel were assessed. It was found that reinforced concrete produces less carbon dioxide emissions and incurs less embodied energy in most of these cases, but when different sustainable primary steel‐making technologies were incorporated, these results may be reversed. We applied consequential life cycle assessment and scenario analysis to describe how changes in the demand for structural steel and reinforced concrete in Singapore's building industry give rise to different environmental impacts. Specifically, the consequential life cycle approach revealed that, over the short term, the impact of substituting steel with reinforced concrete depends on the difference in impacts resulting from the transportation of these two materials within Singapore. Based on these lessons, integrated technology policies to improve the overall sustainability of using steel for construction were proposed. |
