News & Insights

Healthcare leaders rarely have the freedom to optimize a project around a single priority. Major design decisions must balance patient safety, clinical operations, resilience, capital cost, schedule, maintainability, and future adaptability. Embodied carbon has become another important consideration within those responsibilities.

Many of the decisions with the greatest influence on embodied carbon are made long before teams begin comparing concrete mixes, recycled content, or environmental product declarations. Structural systems and grids, loading criteria, equipment selection, and resilience requirements determine the amount of material a hospital will require. By the time product specifications are finalized, much of the building’s embodied carbon has already been shaped.

This shifts where the carbon conversation should begin—and where engineering can have the greatest influence. Early life cycle assessment (LCA) helps project teams compare complete design approaches and identify the decisions with the greatest impact while changes remain practical. Teams can optimize building systems, material quantities, and performance together before refining individual material selections.

Reducing embodied carbon through efficient system design

Structural decisions influence material demand through column spacing, span lengths, framing depths, floor-to-floor heights, and loading assumptions. Refining these parameters can reduce concrete and steel throughout the building without compromising clinical performance.

Material demand is also shaped by decisions beyond the structural system. Equipment size, weight, location, and redundancy affect the framing and foundations needed to support them.

Distribution routes and service clearances influence floor-to-floor heights, structural openings, and other building elements. These relationships are easy to miss when each discipline evaluates its own system independently.

For that reason, teams should compare complete design scenarios rather than individual materials. Two options may satisfy the same clinical and operational requirements while requiring very different quantities of concrete, steel, and supporting infrastructure. Once the most efficient solution has been identified, material selection can provide additional reductions through lower-carbon concrete mixes, recycled steel, hybrid structural systems, and similar strategies.

Reducing material quantity is often as important as reducing material carbon intensity. A higher-strength concrete mix may reduce the size of structural elements, while timber or steel may be appropriate in targeted applications.

Consider two design scenarios. One would replace 20% of the concrete structure with timber in areas where it can satisfy the same structural, fire, clinical, and operational requirements. The other would retain concrete as the primary material but reduce its overall volume by optimizing spans, member sizes, and loading assumptions. Early analysis helps determine which approach—or combination of approaches—delivers the greater whole-building carbon reduction.

Existing healthcare campuses offer another way to reduce new material demand. Before assuming full replacement, teams can evaluate whether structurally sound portions of an existing facility can support renovation, expansion, or phased development. Structural condition, available capacity, clinical constraints, adaptability, and phasing determine whether reuse is practical.

The greatest opportunity to reduce embodied carbon is often to reduce the amount of material a building requires in the first place. Material selection can then improve an already efficient design rather than compensate for an inefficient one.

An efficient engineering solution, however, is only part of the equation. Every material-saving decision must also satisfy the performance, resilience, and operational demands unique to healthcare facilities.

Using integrated design to balance carbon, resilience, and performance

Embodied carbon cannot be addressed effectively one discipline at a time. Healthcare facilities place unique demands on structural and building systems, and decisions that reduce carbon in one area can increase material, cost, or operational requirements elsewhere. Integrated design allows project teams to evaluate those tradeoffs before major engineering decisions are finalized.

Equipment weight provides a clear example. A heavier rooftop unit can require stronger supporting steel, thicker slabs, larger columns, and greater foundation capacity. A lighter unit that provides the same clinical and operational performance can reduce material across several parts of the building.

A system does not need to contain the most carbon to be responsible for adding it.

Equipment location creates another set of tradeoffs. Rooftop equipment can increase structural and vibration-control requirements. Moving it elsewhere can lengthen distribution, consume program space, or complicate maintenance and replacement. Integrated analysis allows the team to understand these effects before selecting a direction.

The same principle applies to resilience. Hospitals often require additional structural capacity, equipment redundancy, system separation, or supporting infrastructure to maintain critical functions during and after disruptive events. These measures are essential when they directly support patient safety, continuity of care, or anticipated clinical needs, but they also increase material demand. The goal is not to minimize resilience. It is to align additional capacity with realistic operational requirements.

Loading assumptions illustrate how unnecessary material can accumulate. Structural, mechanical, electrical, architectural, and clinical teams may each include allowances for future equipment or program changes. Individually, those assumptions are reasonable. Combined, they can produce a structure designed for conditions that are unlikely to occur simultaneously. Early coordination allows teams to document probable future needs and size systems accordingly, connecting additional capacity to the organization’s capital plan and anticipated clinical needs.

The same relationships apply to shafts, service routing, clearances, and structural openings. Changes made late in design often require added framing, reinforcement, deeper assemblies, or inefficient workarounds. Earlier coordination gives the team more freedom to resolve these relationships within the design.

These comparisons begin with healthcare performance. Equipment capacity, redundancy, maintenance access, infection-control requirements, resilience and service continuity remain essential. Integrated design helps teams meet those needs while limiting material that adds little value to patients or operations.

Once these cross-system relationships are understood, early carbon modeling provides owners with a practical way to compare viable alternatives.

Using early LCA to reveal which decisions matter most

Early carbon modeling is less about predicting a final carbon number than about revealing which design decisions matter most and can still be changed.

Concept-stage analysis will not have final quantities or selected products, but it can still compare design scenarios using consistent assumptions. At this stage, the analysis provides direction by identifying the decisions driving the largest differences among options and determining where further study will be most valuable.

Early LCA can compare structural systems and grids, equipment strategies, loading assumptions, opportunities to retain existing assets, and envelope and distribution approaches.

A change in equipment strategy could reduce the need for supporting steel. Reusing part of an existing structure could lower new material demand while introducing different clinical, construction, or phasing constraints.

Early uncertainty does not invalidate the analysis. It defines the level of precision the analysis should claim.

As design advances, estimated quantities can replace initial assumptions. Environmental product declarations, contractor input, regional supply information, selected products, and transportation distances make the model more specific while maintaining a consistent basis for comparison.

The result should be a small number of practical scenarios rather than a prescribed carbon solution. Presenting those scenarios allows owners to understand why the results differ and what each option means for the project.

The next step is to evaluate those carbon findings alongside the other factors that shape a healthcare capital investment.

Comparing options through carbon, cost, and life cycle value

Whole-building life cycle assessment compares carbon outcomes, while life cycle cost analysis evaluates long-term financial performance. Together, they help owners understand how different design scenarios affect carbon, cost, resilience, operational performance, and long-term adaptability.

Procurement considerations also influence the result. Regional availability, transportation, schedule, and supporting-system requirements can change the project-level value of a product before a preferred approach is selected.

As scenarios are evaluated, healthcare leaders can ask:

• Which assumptions have the greatest effect on material quantity?
• How do equipment selection and location change structural requirements?
• Which added capacity supports resilience or anticipated clinical needs?
• Can existing structural assets be retained?
• Are lower-carbon materials available within the project region?
• What cost, operational, or life cycle consequences accompany each option?

The best solution balances carbon, patient care, resilience, cost, and life cycle performance. Owners need choices with clear consequences, supported by analysis that explains why the outcomes differ.

How Salas O’Brien can help

Embodied-carbon analysis provides the most value when it informs the decisions that already shape healthcare performance, resilience, cost, and adaptability. That requires teams to compare structural and building-system options before their material, operational, and financial consequences become difficult to change.

Salas O’Brien brings multidisciplinary engineering, sustainability, energy modeling, and life cycle analysis expertise into one coordinated process. We can help your organization establish an early carbon baseline, compare viable engineering scenarios, identify carbon effects across building systems, and evaluate the findings alongside cost, performance, resilience, schedule, and project risk.

With clear information at each decision point, your team can reduce embodied carbon where it has the greatest impact—while keeping patient care, operational continuity, resilience, and long-term facility performance at the center of every decision.

Contact our experts below to discuss embodied carbon strategies for your healthcare facility or reach out at [email protected].

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].