Whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) of 
mass timber systems: European vs North American 
mass timber vs steel 
Simone O’Halloran1, Yasmin Kazeminejad1 
1University of Oregon, Portland, Oregon 
ABSTRACT: Whole Building Life Cycle Assessments (WBLCA) are helpful tools in the evaluation of the 
environmental impacts of all of the components in a building. Inputs (like material extraction and manufacturing) and 
outputs (such as carbon emissions) are measured over the entire life cycle of the building. The goal is to minimize the 
negative impacts on the environment over the whole life cycle of the building. In this case we performed the WBLCA 
for a mixed use building in San Francisco California utilizing the software Tally. We compared three different building 
systems, North American mass timber, Austrian mass timber, and steel. The results from our comparative analysis 
show that concrete is the majority of the global warming potential and embodied energy regardless of the 
system.  This paper supports and has shown the potential of Mass Timber material being used in building industries 
to minimize environmental impact. 
KEYWORDS: WBLCA, mass timber, embodied energy, global warming potential 
INTRODUCTION 
The relationship between the design and construction industry and environmental pollution is discussed closely. The 
UN just recently came out with the tenth addition of the Emissions Gap report, which is the latest assessment on 
current and estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and compares them to where they need to be. The report 
was bleak, “GHG emissions have risen at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year in the last decade” and “The largest 
contribution stems from bulk material production, such as iron and steel, cement, lime and plaster.”(Environment 
2019,1,24). The report states that in the last twenty years the production of materials has increased 6.5 GtCO2e 
(Environment 2019). Recent studies identified that buildings globally are responsible for 40-50% of greenhouse gas 
globally and 30-40% of the world’s energy use (Environment 2019; Abd Rashid and Yusoff 2015). Massive 
construction is taking place all over the world to accommodate for migration of populations to urban areas, this 
movement is supposed to reach 60% by the end of the year 2030 (Sharma et al. 2011). Such a boom in construction 
will require innovation in the construction methods and design in order to save our natural resources. Understanding, 
analyzing and comparing the environmental impacts of building design has on global climate change is the primary 
motivation behind this research.  
One of the main incentives of mass timber construction is the potential to help combat global warming (Tollefson 
2017). On a sustainability level, mass timber has the potential to carry a far lighter carbon footprint than other building 
methods like steel structure. The carbon emissions of a building not only affects the health of the planet and speeds 
up climate change but there are also profound implications on our health. A study from Yale’s School of Public 
Health found that air pollution had a damaging effect on cognition, particularly the aging brain (Zhang, Chen, and 
Zhang 2018). The Veteran’s Association published a study linking the deaths of 4.5 million veterans to an air pollution 
that was below the standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency(Bowe et al. 2019).  The effects of 
carbon emissions are not only harmful to the planet but to the individual health of everyone on the planet. 
When the carbon emissions globally need to be reduced by 7 percent each year to limit  a 2 degree Celsius increase 
of temperature which would have devastating effects of climate change globally (Law et al. 2018) the amount of 
carbon that a building’s structure and systems can sequester can be used as a selling point to the client and can 
impact the effects of the building’s global warming potential throughout its life.
The building that is the focus of this paper is Pier 70, Parcel A, a 356,000 square foot building slated to be 
constructed in San Francisco, California. At the time of the paper the building is through the design development 
stage, this paper may influence the final decision of a mass timber system. The building’s architect is Hacker and the 
structural engineer is KPFF. Pier 70, Parcel A is a six-story building with five floors of office space, bottom floor of 
retail and one level of below-grade parking. There are several double height spaces that provide access to 
daylighting as well as visual connections within and extending out beyond the building.  
This study contains multiple WBLCA results using Tally The scope of the WBLCA is the building’s structural model, 
this includes floors, columns, beams, roofs, foundations, the core, and required fireproofing. It does not include the 
enclosure or interior non-structural partitions. The scope also excluded metal connections such as nails, bolts, and 
screws) as well as finishes. The system boundary of the WBLCA study was cradle to gate, considering a 75-year 
building lifetime. The system boundary included extraction and production of raw materials, transportation of raw 
materials, manufacturing, transport to building site, transport to waste processing and end of life.  
 
In this paper, our goal is to test three different structural systems life cycle analysis got their global warming potential 
and the carbon sequestration of each system. The three systems are North American mass timber (sourced from 
D.R. Johnson located in Riddle Oregon, primarily source from Douglas fir), European mass timber (sourced from 
Binderholz located in Austria, primarily sourced from northern spruce wood), and conventional steel system (including 
concrete slabs, gypsum and fireproofing, assuming that the steel would be sourced from China). Our goal was to 
identify the differences in the embodied carbon and global warming potential impacts within these three systems and 
identify places where each system could be improved. Within this research paper, our main goal was to look at both 
the operational and the embodied impacts of each structural system throughout the lifecycle of the building. Our first 
hypothesis for this research projects was that North American mass timber will have the lowest global warming 
potential and embodied carbon. Our second hypothesis is that steel will have the highest global warming potential 
and embodied carbon.  
 
METHODOLOGY 
In this research project the software program Tally is used to generate whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) 
reports. Tally is an Autodesk Revit Plug-in, we were gifted free educational trials of the software for use in this study. 
The quantities of Revit materials are translated into volumes and areas which are computed into their own LCI 
database(Zuo et al. 2017). The bill of materials that was user specified within Tally is listed in a table in Addendum 1. 
The scope of Tally does not cover the impacts from construction or operation of the building. Tally allows designers to 
quantify the environmental impact of building materials for whole-building analysis, in the case of this research project 
Tally will provide data to analyze the different options in the structural system. Tally produces a range of data that 
compares the environmental impacts in different categories such as global warming potential, acidification, 
eutrophication, smog formation, and embodied energy. For this project, we are going to just focus on the global 
warming potential and the embodied energy of these different systems.  
 
For this research project, we were presented with the structural model of Pier 70 with the North American Mass 
Timber system modeled in Revit by KPFF. The North American mass timber system was already modeled in Revit.   
 
 
Figure 1 : North American Mass Timber Model  
 
In order to perform comparison of the three alternative design scenarios for Pier 30, it was necessary to remodel the 
case study for Austrian mass timber and redesign the case study with steel structure. With the Austrian mass timber 
structure, we were able to perform direct material substitution for metric member sizes. The structural calculations 
were already completed by the structural engineers at KPFF for use to use in the substitutions. None of the structural 
layout was changed, just the substitution of members.   
 
Figure 2: Austrian Mass Timber Model 
In the case of the steel structural system, we redesigned the mass timber building, the structural grid that was in 
place for the mass timber buildings would not suffice. The goal for the steel structure was not to perform a material 
replacement but to redesign a functionally equivalent structural system. In this redesign, the floor to floor heights as 
well as the building dimensions did not change. Since the spans can be much greater with the steel system, the 
building cores had to be shifted as well as the grid. For the steel structural system, the CLT deck was switched out for 
metal deck topped with lightweight concrete.  Using the model of the original building, a redesigned functionally 
equivalent steel structure was designed. As well, since the mass timber systems have inherent fire resisting structure 
(Barber 2018) there was no need to model any additional fireproofing or finishes on either of the mass timber 
systems. However, in the steel system, we modeled the required fireproofing such as cementitious spray and gypsum 
board to meet the California Fire Code standards, the same as the mass timber systems. The standards that each 
building must achieve is a fire resistance rating required by ASTM E119 (American Society for Testing and Materials 
2016) or UL 263 (UL 263 2018). 
Figure 3: Steel Model 
After the structural designs were completed and equivalent structural capacity was verified, the WBLCA in Tally will 
be done multiple times to check the data for reasonableness. When calculating the WBLCA only the direct inputs and 
associated outputs are considered. For example, the impacts associated with a ton of steel will not include the 
emissions of the machinery from manufacturing (Robertson, Lam, and Cole 2012). In order to include those impacts 
an economic input-output (EIO) analysis of the entire economy would be necessary. It would be expected that 
absolute values of a WBLCA would be lower than an EIO methodology, however the comparative results remain the 
same regardless of methodological approach (Lenzen and Treloar 2002).  To develop appropriate simulation 
information, we will be factoring in the transportation of the materials to the site. Manufacturers of the mass timber 
were contacted to gain information on typical transportation methods and how they approach transportation.  
Reducing the carbon footprint of the building industries is an important step to contribute to reaching global warming. 
Therefore, it is critical impact that biogenic carbon flows are assessed in the WBLCA and product carbon footprint 
(PCF) tools. Biogenic carbon is the carbon that is sequestered and stored in all wood products which is released in 
the manufacturing of these wood products but also released throughout its life. Biogenic carbon gives a boost to the 
carbon emissions produced by mass timber, as it takes away some of the carbon that is sequestered from the trees 
and minuses it from the total carbon from the whole life of the product. With the increase of using harvested wood in 
our buildings, the addition of calculating the WBLCA with biogenic carbon could help in the global effort to cut carbon 
emissions (Straka and Layton 2010). 
RESULTS  
After a few revisions to our models, we got the total global warming potential as well as the breakdown by material 
type for each of the three building systems. In summary of the performance of each of the systems, the North 
American sourced mass timber resulted in 11,045,124 kgCO2eg of global warming potential. The Austrian sourced 
mass timber resulted in 12,820, 725 kgCO2eg of global warming potential and finally the steel resulted in 12,013,958 
kgCO2eg of global warming potential. 
System Total GWP Mass Timber GWP Concrete GWP Steel GWP Fireproofing GWP 
(kgCO2eg) (kgCO2eg) (kgCO2eg) (kgCO2eg) (kgCO2eg)
North American Mass 11,045,124 1,731,652 6,194,827 3,117,824 - 
Timber 
Austrian Mass Timber 12,820,725 3,507,776 6,194,827 3,117,300 - 
Steel 12,013,958 - 6,030,968 5,476,880 506,110 
Table 1: Breakdown of Global Warming Potential by System and Material
The North American mass timber system resulted in 11,045,124 kgCO2eg. Breakdown by materials are as follows, 
mass timber global warming potential 1,731,652 kgCO2eg, concrete global warming potential 6,194,827 kgCO2eg and 
steel’s global warming potential is 3,117,824 kgCO2eg. The GWP of the concrete makes up for half of the emissions 
of the building. Even though the concrete is not a primary structural member, there is still a substantial amount of 
concrete in the building with 4” topping slabs and concrete foundations. The effects of transportation on the emission 
in the mass timber are lessened because of the short travel distance; 437 miles from Riddle, Oregon. 
The Austrian mass timber system resulted in 12,820,725 kgCO2eg. These emissions are over 1.7 million more than 
the North American mass timber systems.  Breakdown by materials are as follows, mass timber global warming 
potential 3,507,776 kgCO2eg, concrete global warming potential 6,194,827 kgCO2eg and steel’s global warming 
potential is 3,117,300 kgCO2eg. The concrete and steel emissions are very similar to the North American system, the 
extra 1.7 million comes from the mass timber. One potential for the explanation could be from the long transportation 
from Austria to Italy by truck, and then Italy to San Francisco by boat. It does not seem that the larger members 
affected the decreasing the emissions, however, it could be negligent with the transportation emissions. 
The Steel system resulted in 12,013,958 kgCO2eg. The emissions of the steel system is just under 800,000 than the 
Austrian mass timber systems. Breakdown by materials are as follows, concrete global warming potential is 
6,030,968 kgCO2eg, steel’s global warming potential is 5,476,880 kgCO2eg, and the fireproofing finishes global 
warming potential is 506,110 kgCO2eg. Even though the steel is sourced from China, the transportation distance 
effects of the Austrian mass timber are larger than the steel transportation emissions. The effects of the fireproofing 
finishes is much less than originally thought, only four percent of the total global warming emissions of the building 
systems. 
DISCUSSION 
The results of the Tally analysis were initially surprising. Our hypothesis was partially correct. The North American 
mass timber system did have the lowest global warming potential. The steel building system however had the second 
highest global warming potential, which was an 8 percent increase from the North American mass timber system. The 
Austrian Mass Timber system had the highest global warming potential, increasing 16 percent from the North 
American mass timber system. 
Figure 4: Comparison of the Three total GWP’s 
In Figure 5 the breakdown of global warming potential by material group is outlined for each building system. One of 
the key outcomes of this graph is that regardless of the building system, concrete is the majority of the emissions in 
the building. In each building system, the concrete emissions make up almost or more than half of the total global 
warming potential. Design lessons that could be learned from these initial findings is to lessen the amount of concrete 
in any building. By lessening the amount of concrete with topping slabs, and even the foundations could dramatically 
decrease the global warming potential. In the two mass timber systems, the global warming potential of the mass 
timber nearly doubles in the Austrian system. It doesn’t seem feasible that transportation is the only differing impact 
between the two systems. It could be possible that the larger members of the Austrian system increased the 
emissions as well as the extra travel distance by boat. 
Figure 5: Material results for building systems 
Initially we had thought that the fireproofing finishes would have more of an impact on the global warming potential of 
the building, however in the findings, the fireproofing only accounted for four percent of the total emissions. However, 
the global warming potential is large for the relative weight and volume of the fireproofing material in relation to the 
other building materials. 
CONCLUSION 
This research looked at three different building systems for their environmental impacts, our hypothesis that the North 
American mass timber system would have the lowest global warming impacts was proven to be accurate. While there 
is only a difference of just over 1,700,000 kgCO2eg, our second hypothesis was proved to be inaccurate, the largest 
global warming impacts were from the Austrian mass timber building rather than the steel building system. 
One of the major conclusions of this research is that concrete plays a significant role in the global warming potential 
of a building system. In each of the building systems the concrete made up at least half of the total emissions of the 
building. We need to find either an alternative to concrete that does not affect the structural capacity, or just learn how 
to lessen the amount of concrete that is in our buildings. Research can be done to look at new mass timber floor 
assemblies to eliminate the concrete. Historically, the topping slab of concrete is necessary in order to achieve the 
acoustic standards of the local jurisdiction. In order to see the dramatic lowering to global warming potential of the 
mass timber building systems, there will need to be a dramatic decrease or elimination of all concrete in the system. 
Alternatives that could help lessen the impacts of concrete emissions are changing the add ins away from fly ash 
which is a large source of emissions and researching innovative add ins such as natural byproducts of other materials 
like sawdust, steel dust or even high aggregate gravel. Another alternative that would require more research to verify 
the effects is to recycle the concrete, reducing the emission-intensive process of creating the primary materials, this is 
one strategy that is stated in the UN Emissions Gap Report(Environment 2019). 
The current state of WBLCA software’s and transparency with industry is not adequate to fully research these mass 
timber systems. At the time of this research paper there were no published life cycle inventory information or 
environmental product declarations (EPD) for any North American mass timber manufacturers. The software Tally 
had published EPDs for the Austrian mass timber, but for the North American was left with generic. This results in 
incomplete analysis when there is no published information to conduct these comparative analyses with.  There will 
need to be transparency within the engineered wood industry to gather this information. Our assumption is that there 
still would be no significant changes to the global warming potential of the three building systems.  A shortcoming of 
the WBLCA software Tally is that there is no accountability for dynamic models of forest management in any of the 
software’s bioproducts. Dynamic modeling adds the impacts of forest management, forest rotation cycles of the set 
manufacturers, which would result in a much more complete analysis. The emissions that come from forest 
management are major and should be factored into the WBLCA of these engineered wood products. Once again this 
would require much more transparency from the timber industry. The forest rotation cycles are crucial to the amount 
of carbon the trees are sequestering and holding throughout their life, if harvest cycles were lengthened on private 
lands in Oregon to 80 years from the typical 40-year rotation cycles, Oregon’s statewide carbon stock would increase 
17 percent (Law et al. 2018). These shortened rotation cycles are having a negative impact on the carbon 
sequestered by trees, which could be leading to an inflation in the benefits of wood building products in these life 
cycle analyses.  
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
This paper would not have been possible without the kind employees of Hacker Architects in Portland Oregon, 
especially Caitie Vanhauer and Scott Barton-Smith. We would like to thank Kaite Ritenour and Alexandra Stroud at 
KPFF for collaborating on the design of the steel structure. Thank you to Roger Bates at Tally Inc. for providing us 
with educational licenses to perform the Whole Building Life Cycle Analysis. Thank you to Mark Fretz, and the School 
of Architecture and the Environment within the University of Oregon.  
(Zuo et al. 2017; Sathre and O’Connor 2010; Canadell and Raupach 2008; Robertson, Lam, and Cole 2012; Sharma 
et al. 2011; Hong et al. 2014; Al-Ghamdi and Bilec 2017; Seidl et al. 2007; Barber 2018; Abd Rashid and Yusoff 
2015; American Society for Testing and Materials 2015; Hongmei and Bergman 2018; Harvey 2012; Werner et al. 
2006) 
REFERENCES 
Abd Rashid, Ahmad Faiz, and Sumiani Yusoff. 2015. “A Review of Life Cycle Assessment Method for Building 
Industry.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 45: 244–48. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.043. 
Al-Ghamdi, Sami G., and Melissa M. Bilec. 2017. “Green Building Rating Systems and Whole-Building Life Cycle 
Assessment: Comparative Study of the Existing Assessment Tools.” Journal of Architectural Engineering 23 
(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000222. 
American Society for Testing and Materials. 2015. “ASTM E84: Standard Test Method for Surface Burning 
Characteristics of Building Materials.” 
———. 2016. “ASTM E119: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.” 
https://doi.org/10.1520/E0119-10B.1.2. 
Barber, David. 2018. “Fire Safety of Mass Timber Buildings with CLT in USA.” Wood and Fiber Science, 83–95. 
Bowe, Benjamin, Yan Xie, Yan Yan, and Ziyad Al-Aly. 2019. “Burden of Cause-Specific Mortality Associated With 
PM2.5 Air Pollution in the United States.” JAMA Network Open 2 (11): e1915834–e1915834. 
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15834. 
Canadell, Josep G, and Michael R Raupach. 2008. “Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation.” Science 320 
(5882): 1456 LP – 1457. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155458. 
Environment, UN. 2019. Emissions Gap Report 2018. The Emissions Gap Report. UN. 
https://doi.org/10.18356/08bd6547-en. 
Harvey, Danny. 2012. “A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District-Energy Systems: Fundamentals, 
Techniques and Examples,” January. 
Hong, Taehoon, ChangYoon Ji, MinHo Jang, and HyoSeon Park. 2014. “Assessment Model for Energy Consumption 
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions during Building Construction.” Journal of Management in Engineering 30 (2): 
226–35. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000199. 
Hongmei, Gu, and Richard Bergman. 2018. “Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Building Declaration for the 
Design Building at the University of Massachusetts. Gen. Tech. Rep.” Madison, WI. 
Law, Beverly E, Tara W Hudiburg, Logan T Berner, Jeffrey J Kent, Polly C Buotte, and Mark E Harmon. 2018. “Land 
Use Strategies to Mitigate Climate Change in Carbon Dense Temperate Forests.” Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences 115 (14): 3663 LP – 3668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720064115. 
Lenzen, M, and G Treloar. 2002. “Embodied Energy in Buildings: Wood versus Concrete—Reply to Börjesson and 
Gustavsson.” Energy Policy 30 (3): 249–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00142-2. 
Robertson, Adam, Frank Lam, and Raymond Cole. 2012. “A Comparative Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of 
Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives: Laminated Timber or Reinforced Concrete.” Buildings 2 
(December): 245–70. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2030245. 
Sathre, Roger, and Jennifer O’Connor. 2010. “Meta-Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Displacement Factors of Wood 
Product Substitution.” Environmental Science & Policy 13 (2): 104–14. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005. 
Seidl, Rupert, Werner Rammer, Dietmar Jäger, William S Currie, and Manfred J Lexer. 2007. “Assessing Trade-Offs 
between Carbon Sequestration and Timber Production within a Framework of Multi-Purpose Forestry in 
Austria.” Forest Ecology and Management 248 (1): 64–79. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.035. 
Sharma, Aashish, Abhishek Saxena, Muneesh Sethi, Venu Shree, and Varun. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of 
Buildings: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (1): 871–75. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.008. 
Straka, Thomas, and Patricia Layton. 2010. “Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest 
Certification and Sustainability Issues.” Sustainability 2 (2): 604–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2020604. 
Tollefson, Jeff. 2017. “Wood Grows Up: Timber Buildings Are Getting Safer, Stronger and Taller - and They Could 
Help to Cool the Planet.” Nature 545: 280–84. 
UL 263. 2018. Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. 14th ed. 
Werner, Frank, Reudi Taverna, Peter Hofer, and Klaus Richter. 2006. “Greenhouse Gas Dynamics of an Increased 
Use of Wood in Buildings in Switzerland.” Climatic Change 74 (1–3): 319–47. 
Zhang, Xin, Xi Chen, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2018. “The Impact of Exposure to Air Pollution on Cognitive Performance.” 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (37): 9193 LP – 9197. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809474115. 
Zuo, Jian, Stephen Pullen, Raufdeen Rameezdeen, Helen Bennetts, Yuan Wang, Guozhu Mao, Zhihua Zhou, Huibin 
Du, and Huabo Duan. 2017. “Green Building Evaluation from a Life-Cycle Perspective in Australia: A Critical 
Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70: 358–68. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.251. 
ADDENDUM 
Addendum#1: Pier 70, Full Building Summary 
This will include all of the raw data collected from Tally, including the bill of materials for each building system.  
PIER 70
Full building summary
Project                  PIER 70
Location              PIER 70 PARCEL A
Gross Area          350,000 ft²
Building Life       75 years
Boundaries         Cradle to grave, inclusive of
biogenic carbon; see appendix for a
full list of materials and processes
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Report Summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Revit material Tally Assumption amount
CLT, KLH Massivholz, KLH Solid Timber Panels, 320 mm - EPD 4,485,162.5 kg
 Glue laminated timber (Glulam), AWC - EPD 1,716,077.03
Wood/Plastics/Comp Wood stain, water based 10,198.08
osites Total 6,211,437.65
Paint, interior acrylic latex 324.49
Finishes Total 324.49
Cold formed structural steel 226,696.23
Fiberglass blanket insulation, paper faced 1,832.49
Fireproofing, cementitious 3,787.39
Fireproofing, cementitious, by area 90,808.10
Fireproofing, intumescent paint, by area 610.12
Galvanized steel 8,466.08
Galvanized steel decking 2,019.94
Hot rolled structural steel, AISC - EPD 592,961.33
Powder coating, metal stock 1,065.92
Steel, concrete reinforcing steel, CMC - EPD 1,060,320.00
 Metals Total 1,988,567.61
Concrete Lightweight concrete, 2501-3000 psi, 20-29% fly ash 69,727.90
Lightweight concrete, 2501-3000 psi, 30-39% slag 5,268,164.85
Steel, concrete reinforcing steel, CMC - EPD 777,541.99
Steel, reinforcing rod 69,501.27
Structural concrete, 2501-3000 psi, 30-39% fly ash 986,815.67
Structural concrete, 3001-4000 psi, 30-39% fly ash 15,070,294.47
Total 22,242,046.15
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
North American mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Report Summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Revit material Tally Assumption amount
CLT, KLH Massivholz, KLH Solid Timber Panels, 320 mm - EPD 4,485,162.5 kg
 Glue laminated timber (Glulam), AWC - EPD 1,716,077.03
Wood/Plastics/Comp Wood stain, water based 10,198.08
osites Total 6,211,437.65
Paint, interior acrylic latex 324.49
Finishes Total 324.49
Cold formed structural steel 226,696.23
Fiberglass blanket insulation, paper faced 1,832.49
Fireproofing, cementitious 3,787.39
Fireproofing, cementitious, by area 90,808.10
Fireproofing, intumescent paint, by area 610.12
Galvanized steel 8,466.08
Galvanized steel decking 2,019.94
Hot rolled structural steel, AISC - EPD 592,961.33
Powder coating, metal stock 1,065.92
Steel, concrete reinforcing steel, CMC - EPD 1,060,320.00
 Metals Total 1,988,567.61
Concrete Lightweight concrete, 2501-3000 psi, 20-29% fly ash 69,727.90
Lightweight concrete, 2501-3000 psi, 30-39% slag 5,268,164.85
Steel, concrete reinforcing steel, CMC - EPD 777,541.99
Steel, reinforcing rod 69,501.27
Structural concrete, 2501-3000 psi, 30-39% fly ash 986,815.67
Structural concrete, 3001-4000 psi, 30-39% fly ash 15,070,294.47
Total 22,242,046.15
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Austrian mass timber
PIER 70
Full building summary
Steel Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
SStteeeell Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Steel Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Steel Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Report Summary
Revit material Tally Assumption amount
Paint, exterior acrylic latex 47,861.23
Wall board, gypsum, fire-resistant (Type X) 1,434,280.32
Finishes Total 1,482,141.54
Cold formed structural steel 226,696.23
Fiberglass blanket insulation, paper faced 1,832.49
Fireproofing, cementitious 3,787.39
Fireproofing, cementitious, by area 90,808.10
Fireproofing, intumescent paint, by area 610.12
Galvanized steel 8,466.08
Galvanized steel decking 2,019.94
Hot rolled structural steel, AISC - EPD 592,961.33
Powder coating, metal stock 1,065.92
Steel, concrete reinforcing steel, CMC - EPD 1,060,320.00
 Metals Total 3,033,632.88
Lightweight concrete, 3001-4000 psi, 30-39% fly ash 7,952,609.38
Steel, concrete reinforcing steel, CMC - EPD 492,034.53
Structural concrete, 3001-4000 psi, 30-39% fly ash 14,141,862.25
Concrete Total 22,586,506.16
Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
Below is the calculation methodology that Tally assumed for each system for 
their WBLCA. We could not change any of this information.
Steel
PIER 70
Full building summary
PIER 70
Full building summary
PIER 70
Full building summary
PIER 70
Full building summary
Addendum #2: Combined results for WBLCA. 
FIGURE 1: This graph is a combined results of GWP broken down by each material group per building 
system. It is apparent through this graph that concrete is a major factor in the GWP regardless of the building 
system. 
Addendum #2 Cont. Combined results for WBLCA. 
FIGURE : This graph is a combined results of GWP o t  n  n t  ot .