case study sustainability construction

• Our Mission
• What is a Sustainable Built Environment?
• Unlocking the Sustainable Development Goals
• News and Thought Leadership
• Our Annual Reports
• Why become a Green Building Council
• Partner with us
• Work with us
• Case Study Library
• Sustainable Building Certifications
• Advancing Net Zero
• Better Places for People
• Circularity Accelerator
• #BuildingLife
• Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment
• Regional Advocacy
• Sustainable Finance
• Corporate Advisory Board
• GBC CEO Network
• Global Directory of Green Building Councils
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East & North Africa
• Regional Leadership

Your lawyers since 1722

About the case study library.

Home Case Study Library About the Case Study Library

Our Case Study Library is the ‘go-to’ resource for certified best practice case studies in the built environment, showcasing some of the world’s most cutting-edge sustainable buildings.

Each case study demonstrates outstanding performance of an operational building that complies with at least one of WorldGBC’s three strategic impact areas: Climate Action ; Health , Equity & Resilience ; and Resources & Circularity .  

Travel the world’s sustainable buildings through our interactive map . 

Whether it be health benefits, regeneration of nature, or achieving net zero carbon, WorldGBC recognises these case studies as global leaders for sustainable built environments. Each case study has been validated by established certification schemes, rating tools or other third-party verification.

Our Case Study Library is continually evolving to highlight the ‘best in class’ buildings that excel in key areas of sustainability, and to recognise the growing market demand for low-carbon, healthy, equitable and circular buildings. 

Submissions are reviewed against the qualification criteria , developed by WorldGBC with input from an advisory committee of development partners. This process ensures that each featured project represents an outstanding example of sustainability in the built environment across our three impact areas.

Sustainability focus areas

The three focus areas include:

1) Net zero carbon case studies of new developments, major renovations, existing buildings or spaces, that demonstrate either the following achievement:

— Net Zero Operational Carbon

For existing buildings or spaces, the case study should demonstrate how net zero operational carbon emissions have been achieved. The building should demonstrate the highest levels of energy efficiency with the use of either renewables generated onsite or renewable energy procured offsite.

The building must be verified and certified as “net zero operational energy and/or carbon” through Green Building Council or third-party certification schemes related to zero carbon and based on a minimum of 12-months data.

Verification of the compensation for residual emissions, if applicable, should also be provided.

— Net Zero Whole Life Carbon  

For new developments and major renovations, the case study should have achieved both net zero upfront embodied carbon and net zero operational carbon. The case study should demonstrate maximised reduction of embodied carbon emissions during the design and construction phase, and optimised for maxmised reductions across the building lifecycle, according to local/regional/international benchmarks or targets. Any remaining residual upfront carbon emissions (A1 – A5) must then be compensated (offset) at the point of practical completion of the project.

The building should have its life cycle assessments (LCA) and whole life carbon data verified and certified under Green Building Council or other third-party certification schemes related to LCA/net zero embodied carbon/net zero whole life carbon. Verification of the compensation for residual emissions at the point of practical completion should also be provided. 

Note: Case studies that have achieved reductions in embodied carbon, but have not compensated (offset) for any remaining residual upfront embodied carbon emissions (A1 – A5) at point of practical completion, should submit under the ‘Resources and Circularity’ category, as well as case studies that have only achieved net zero upfront embodied carbon but not net zero operational carbon.

Find out more about net zero carbon buildings through our Advancing Net Zero programme.

2) Health, equity and resilience case studies of existing buildings or spaces that provide features which enhance one or all of these elements. 

The case study must demonstrate that outstanding performance in these elements can be done through a holistic green building certification scheme, or through achieving specific health or social-based certification or validation. Outstanding performance can also be demonstrated using verified performance data, such as Post-Occupancy Evaluations. 

Find out more about healthy, equitable and resilient buildings through our Better Places for People programme. 

3) Resources and Circularity case studies of buildings or spaces that illustrate the principles of the circular economy in an exceptional way. 

This includes efficient use of natural resources, such as water, and the regeneration of nature. Reducing embodied carbon through efficient and low carbon design, materials and construction processes is important to start reducing whole life carbon across the built environment. Circularity principles must be demonstrated across the entire asset (individual product-level assessments cannot be used to verify an entire asset), and commitment to circular economy practices across the entire lifecycle must be demonstrated. 

Find out more about circular and resource efficient buildings through our Circularity Accelerator programme.

What is the Case Study Library?

WorldGBC’s Case Study Library is an online tool showcasing buildings globally that are elevating their response to the climate emergency through leading certification schemes. This will enable us to fulfil our mission of communicating and educating on industry best practice, specifically in relation to healthy, circular, and net zero carbon buildings.

By keeping track of these projects, WorldGBC is able to share insights and provide solutions to these critical issues. Our aim is to inform policymakers, designers, and developers about the feasibility and best practices to advance sustainable building performance.

What buildings are eligible for the Case Study Library?

Relevant certification is required for buildings to be featured in the Case Study Library, and buildings must undergo a third party verification process and adhere to performance requirements of the appropriate schemes. 

The schemes used should represent the highest market performance level in the focus areas of healthy, circular, and net zero carbon buildings, and can be any building typology or location.

Please refer to the criteria for each category.

What information is required?

To see the list of questions in the submission form required for the Case Study Library,  click here .

How long does my project stay on the library?

Your project can stay in the library for as long as the performance level is maintained. This should be reviewed every five years, but may be reviewed as per the certification scheme pursued, for example, if the scheme requires recertification every two years. If the performance level is no longer achieved, please contact the relevant programme lead for each category. 

What if my project meets the criteria of more than one category? e.g. “Net Zero operational carbon and Resources and Circularity” or “Whole Life Carbon and Health, Equity and Resilience”

These projects will demonstrate exceptional sustainability performance, and will be pioneers in the industry, showing what the sector can and should achieve, whilst inspiring others to elevate their ambition for the benefit of people and planet.

When submitting your project via the form , there is a section called “Performance Area” where you will see the categories presented. Here, you can select the categories that your project falls under and you can fill in the required fields for each category. 

Case studies may be accepted, but not necessarily for all categories chosen. The teams responsible for each category will review your project and provide feedback. 

How will I know if my project has been accepted?

Following a review by WorldGBC, the submitter will receive an email confirming if the submission has been accepted or not. In some cases, we will contact you to clarify information if unclear and to avoid the submission being rejected. 

If your building is to be featured on our social media, you will be contacted by a team member to discuss the next steps. 

What if my building is high performance but not certified?

We will review and consider buildings that have not been certified under traditional schemes, but are able to demonstrate the equivalent level of performance via third party verified data, such as a “special pleading case” (see below).

What is a "special pleading" case?

We recognise that not all high performance buildings are certified, for many reasons. The “special pleading” option allows the inclusion of world class case studies that have not pursued a traditional rating tool path, but have externally verified performance as a sustainable building and meet the same performance criteria (and in operation at time of submission).

We will accept projects that are able to demonstrate the equivalent level of performance and maintain the exemplary standards demonstrated by the qualification criteria. The minimum requirement is third party verification of performance data, which is confirmed via the disclaimer in the submission form. Entries will be evaluated for alignment against the criteria.

Over time, we seek to develop metrics and benchmarks against key performance criteria and expand the inclusivity of this initiative.

Can I submit if my project is under construction?

We appreciate that there are many buildings currently under design or construction that are seeking to achieve these performance standards. Our current focus is on buildings that demonstrate how these standards were achieved post construction. This helps us maintain alignment with our project missions. We look forward to including your building in our Case Study Library once its been completed and its performance has been verified. 

My project is "net zero ready", can this be submitted?

In cases where a building operates at an equivalent high performance standard, but for reasons beyond the control of the project team cannot achieve verified net zero carbon status due to legal, energy procurement or other restrictions, these are encouraged to be submitted as “special pleading” projects for consideration.

In these cases, the local GBC will also be consulted.

What are the submission criteria?

Find out more about the criteria required for acceptance into the Case Study Library.

Who can I contact if I have further questions?

For any queries, please contact the respective programme leads:  

Net Zero Operational Carbon/Whole Life Carbon case studies  — Rebecca Dilnot, [email protected]

Health, Equity and Resilience case studies — Natali Ghawi, [email protected]   

Resources and Circularity case studies — Carolina Montano-Owen, [email protected]

World Green Building Council Suite 01, Suite 02, Fox Court, 14 Gray’s Inn Road, London, WC1X 8HN

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• 3rd Party Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

How To Guides

What is Sustainable Construction?

By Andrew Biro July 17, 2023

Shildan Group worked with Massey, Fabbrica, Breakthrough Properties, Tishman Speyer, Bellco Capital JV, Payette, Consigli Construction Co., and Front on 105 W. First St. in Boston.

Story at a glance:

• Sustainable construction projects have a low environmental impact and prioritize the use of renewable building materials.
• On average, completed sustainable construction projects have lower operating costs and are more energy-efficient than traditional buildings.
• Common sustainable construction techniques include passive design strategies, life cycle assessments, water conservation, xeriscaping, and more.

Sustainable construction aims to drastically reduce a building’s energy consumption and environmental impact throughout all phases of the construction process. In practice this is achieved by carefully considering site factors, implementing passive design strategies, installing energy-efficient appliances, utilizing sustainable materials, and managing waste effectively.

This in-depth look at sustainable construction explores the importance behind the sustainable design philosophy, its environmental, economic, and social benefits, guiding principles, methods of implementation, and a few practical case studies of sustainable construction in the field.

History of Sustainable Construction

The 5 MLK Boulevard project has been certified for LEED Gold, Salmon Safe, and is the first mixed-use building in the US with a Fitwel certification, according to GREC Architects. Photo by Quanta Collectiv

The basics defining sustainable construction have been around for thousands of years, but sustainable construction is a relatively modern innovation when it comes to being a staunch architectural concept and design philosophy.

The energy crises of the 1970s—which stemmed from oil shortages following the Iraq War—are cited as the impetus behind modern sustainable construction. At the time world leaders were being forced to rethink their countries’ dependency on oil, leading to an increased interest in renewable energy.

Towards the end of the 1980s the idea of sustainable construction was brought back into the spotlight when architect Bob Berkebile petitioned the AIA to adopt more stringent environmentally-conscious measures.

In the early 2000s concerns regarding global warming and greenhouse gas emissions resulted in renewed attempts at transitioning buildings over to clean energy and reducing the amount of carbon produced during the construction and operation of built structures—sentiments that have carried over into our contemporary world.

The Importance of Sustainable Construction

HGA designed the Westwood Hills Nature Center in St. Louis Park, Minnesota to be zero energy. Photo by Pete Sieger

The built environment produces approximately 40% of the world’s carbon emissions, while the construction industry as a whole is responsible for nearly 50% of global resource extraction and produces 30% of the world’s waste, according to a 2019 report issued by the International Energy Agency. 

Increased carbon emissions and the destruction of natural resources are two of the most prominent factors contributing to anthropogenic climate change. Because sustainable construction projects seek to achieve low- or no-carbon status and prioritize ethical resource harvesting, they are considered crucial in mitigating the most harmful effects of changing climatic patterns.

Benefits of Sustainable Construction

CraneBoard Solid Core Insulated Siding has added insulation to reduce energy consumption and its overall carbon footprint. Photo courtesy of Royal Building Products

Predictably, the most important benefits of sustainable construction have to do with the reduced environmental impact of green building projects compared to their conventional counterparts. These aren’t, however, the only advantages, as sustainable construction also boasts a number of economic and social benefits as well.

Environmental Benefits

To start, let’s take a look at a few of the more obvious benefits of sustainable construction—that is to say, the environmental benefits.

Reduced Carbon Footprint

Compared to traditional construction projects, sustainable buildings have a much lower carbon footprint. This is achieved in large part through the implementation of passive design strategies that help naturally regulate temperature, the installation of energy-efficient appliances, and the use of building materials with low embodied carbon.

Conservation of Resources

Whenever possible, sustainable construction projects seek to avoid utilizing our world’s dwindling non-renewable resources by replacing them with ethically sourced renewable alternatives. In the larger sense, however, sustainable construction attempts to conserve resources—be they renewable or non-renewable—by using fewer resources in the first place.

Reduced Waste

Sustainable construction projects often practice source reduction and incorporate recycled or salvaged materials from other buildings, thereby reducing the amount of demolition waste sent off to landfills. Energy-saving features help reduce energy waste and water conservation measures—such as greywater recycling systems—aid in decreasing wastewater production.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health

Lastly, sustainable construction promotes and encourages the stewardship of biodiverse ecosystems through the inclusion of native plant species. Green roofs and living walls seeded with indigenous plants can help provide sanctuaries for crucial insects like bees and other pollinators, whereas xeriscaping—that is, the practice of planting native plants on site—can help recreate and reinvigorate damaged ecosystems.

Economic Benefits

Sustainable construction projects also have their fair share of economic benefits, three of which are outlined below.

Lower Operating Costs

Becase sustainable building projects are typically designed with energy efficiency in mind, they tend to have significantly lower operating costs than traditionally designed buildings. This is especially true if the finished project incorporates some form of on-site renewable energy generation.

Higher Property Values

As a general rule, real estate ventures that boast sustainable features or certifications have higher property values than those without. Sustainable buildings sell for an average of 2.7% higher than their non-sustainable counterparts—and they typically sell faster, too, according to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. 

Social and Health Benefits

Sustainable construction projects offer a few social and health benefits, too including:

Improved Occupant Health and Comfort

Generally speaking sustainably designed buildings produce fewer volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than traditional construction projects, thereby reducing the likelihood of occupants developing certain respiratory illnesses and cancers over time.

Sustainable buildings are typically more comfortable than their non-sustainable counterparts due to the fact that they regulate interior temperatures better and emphasize proper ventilation.

Community Benefits

When implemented correctly sustainable construction projects have a beneficial impact on the communities they’re built in. Ideally these projects help improve air quality by producing fewer carbon emissions, reduce soil and water pollution by limiting the amount of toxic materials and waste produced throughout the building’s life cycle, and foster a greater connection between humans and nature through the inclusion of green spaces.

Education and Awareness

As sustainable construction projects become more commonplace, it becomes easier to spread awareness and educate people on why sustainable design is crucial in mitigating the negative effects of  climate change . As awareness grows it becomes easier to secure funding for future construction projects and can even make it easier to approve sustainable construction projects in the first place.

Core Principles of Sustainable Construction

The Candela villa rises up in a pyramidal formation to minimize the jungle footprint and follow strict building and construction practices. The project also follows set limits for the distance of freighted materials. Water treatment facilities and strict waste management protocols are also in place. Photo by César Bejar

Sustainable design manifests in many ways; there is no one standardized approach to building green structures. That being said, these are a few core principles that underlay the basic philosophy of sustainable construction, as outlined below.

Energy Efficiency

First and foremost, sustainable construction strives for energy efficiency wherever possible, as this helps to reduce a building’s overall carbon footprint, lowers operating costs, and helps decrease air pollution. Energy efficiency is often realized in the form of low-energy appliances and systems but also through the application of passive design strategies that reduce the need for mechanical heating, cooling, ventilation, etc. in the first place.

Water Efficiency

Similarly, sustainable architectural projects are often designed to minimize water usage and wastewater production. This is achieved in part by installing water-efficient taps and fixtures but often includes additional measures like rainwater collection, greywater recycling, blackwater treatment, and so on.

Use of Sustainable Resources and Materials

Tantimber is great for cladding, decking, flooring, beams, and more. Photo courtesy of G Wood Products

Predictably, sustainable construction projects also emphasize the use of sustainable resources and materials wherever possible. Ethically sourced renewable resources (timber, bamboo, stone, etc.) with low embodied carbon are favored over materials like concrete and steel. In situations where the use of concrete is necessary, sustainable construction projects typically use a green or low-carbon variety that incorporates construction waste byproducts like fly-ash.

Recycled and reclaimed materials—particularly lumber and steel from demolished structures—are also used in sustainable building design whenever possible to mitigate waste production and curtail further resource extraction.

Ensuring Healthy Living Conditions

As previously mentioned, a healthy indoor environment is another integral component of sustainable construction projects, especially when it comes to the occupant’s exposure to toxic chemicals. A healthy indoor space goes hand-in-hand with the use of eco-friendly materials, which typically produce lower levels of VOCs than traditional building materials.

Waste Reduction and Management

Finally, sustainable construction projects seek to reduce waste wherever possible and develop efficient management plans for the waste that is produced. This helps keep construction waste out of landfills, encourages recycling, and reduces the likelihood of soil and water pollution.

Techniques and Methods for Sustainable Construction

Now that we’ve explored the key principles of sustainable construction, let’s take a look at the techniques and methods used to implement them.

Green Building Certifications

Gensler designed the Department of Homeland Security offices in Omaha—a design/build with Harwood Development that achieved LEED Gold. Photo courtesy of Kessler

When it comes to designing for sustainability, green building certification programs—such as LEED in the United States and BREEAM in Europe—can help provide a guiding framework.

LEED, for example, has specific guidelines for various types of construction projects (healthcare, data centers, school, warehouses, etc.) and offers a variety of credits that projects can earn based on certain sustainability features.

In order for a project to become LEED certified, it must earn at least 40 credits.

Passive Design

One of the most important techniques used in sustainable construction is that of passive design . Passive design strategies are heavily informed by a project site’s immediate climatic and geographic conditions and help keep a building’s interior comfortable without excessive use of mechanical systems.

The Thunderbird Global Headquarters , designed by Jones Studio and Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners, for example, makes use of a high-efficiency building envelope, solar shading, trees, and windows that allow sunlight while blocking solar heat to passively regulate temperatures in the Arizona desert.

In an effort to make the structure’s outdoor spaces more comfortable, Thunderbird features rain gardens and strategically placed shades to passively cool select spaces. “Those rain gardens are creating cooler spaces underneath deeply shaded, outdoor patio spaces,” Shawn Swisher, an architect at Jones Studio, previously told gb&d .

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

A life cycle assessment (LCA) is a scientific tool used by architects to determine a building’s environmental impact and energy use throughout all stages of its life cycle, including the procurement of building materials, construction, operation, and eventual demolition.

This is an invaluable tool when designing sustainable construction projects that aim to achieve carbon-neutral or net-zero carbon status and conducting a LCA is crucial to obtaining LEED or BREEAM certification.

Energy Techniques

Solar arrays and other alternative energy systems helped the Cope Environmental Center achieve net positive energy usage, producing more energy than it consumes. Photo courtesy of HEAPY

Generally speaking sustainable architectural projects seek to be as energy-efficient as possible, both during the initial construction phase and throughout the completed project’s operational lifespan.

Renewable Energy Sources

While not necessarily a requirement for sustainable construction, renewable energy sources are typically integrated into a project’s design from the very beginning. Of these renewable energies, solar is the most popular, but geothermal, wind, and hydropower are also viable alternatives.

Sustainable construction projects also look to source building materials from companies who utilize renewable energy to manufacture their products, as this helps reduce a building’s overall carbon footprint.

Energy-Efficient Appliances and Systems

E nergy-efficient appliances and systems play an important role in sustainable construction projects. In our contemporary world energy-efficient alternatives exist for just about any major appliance imaginable, from refrigerators and dishwashers to washing machines and light fixtures.

In the US any appliance with an ENERGY STAR label is considered energy-efficient according to standards set by the US Department of Energy and the EPA.

Water and Waste Management Techniques

Sustainable construction projects also seek to manage water use and waste as efficiently as possible.

Water Conservation

The most sustainable building projects reduce their water consumption through a variety of techniques. Water-efficient fixtures and plumbing systems are the simplest methods, but many projects take water conservation to the next level by installing rainwater catchment systems—which can be used to supply water to irrigation lines or appliances—and on-site greywater recycling systems.

Waste Management

In order to effectively manage the waste that is produced throughout a building’s life-cycle, sustainable construction projects typically practice source reduction, or the practice of eliminating waste before it’s even created. This is achieved through effective planning, modeling, and ethical resource procurement.

Of course, even the most sustainable construction projects will still produce waste, which is why green building design focuses heavily on using natural, renewable materials that can either be recycled or composted after reaching the end of their operational lifespan.

Land and Ecosystem Conservation Techniques

South Coast Botanic Garden in Palos Verde Peninsula, California. Photo courtesy of Greenscreen

Finally, sustainable construction projects employ a number of strategies to promote land and ecosystem conservation. This helps reduce the structure’s impact on the local flora and fauna to ensure a healthy, functioning ecological community.

Site Selection and Development

In order to make the most efficient use of available land and lessen a project’s overall environmental impact, architects must conduct a thorough site assessment. This gives better insight into how to design in collaboration with existing ecological features rather than against them, reducing the severity of any habitat disruption the completed structure may cause.

Sustainable construction projects also practice ecosystem conservation by limiting the size of development sites. This is often achieved by building upwards or by adapting existing buildings rather than clearing a new site.

Landscaping with Native and Drought-Resistant Plants

Landscape design creates a comfortable public space in the arid downtown of Phoenix at the Thunderbird Global Headquarters , designed by Jones Studio and Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners. Photo by Inessa Binenbaum

In order to preserve a site’s natural biodiversity, sustainable construction projects utilize indigenous plant species wherever possible in landscaping. In most cases native species form deeper, stronger root networks than the traditional grasses used in landscaping—two characteristics that help mitigate topsoil erosion and promote a healthy soil microbiome.

Similarly, drought-resistant plants are often employed in regions that receive little rainfall. This helps reduce water usage and encourages sustainable water conservation practices.

Common Sustainable Construction Materials

As green architecture becomes more and more popular—and necessary—the amount of sustainable construction materials continues to grow. Some of the most common materials include:

The Green School in Bali, sometimes referred to as the bamboo school, is a private, international school that teaches pre-K through high school. The campus highlights the natural environment and teaches sustainable practices. Photo by Tommaso Riva

Unlike timber, bamboo has an extremely quick regeneration rate. Bamboo culms may be harvested once every five to seven years, as opposed to the 20 years required for hardwoods and softwoods.

Bamboo also absorbs twice as much carbon, requires less water, and requires no fertilizer to grow. Traditionally, whole, halved, or split bamboo poles have been used in construction, but bamboo can also be shredded into fibrous strands and woven back together to form strong planks for flooring or panels.

Straw Bales

In the United States—and particularly in the Midwest—straw bales have been used in construction since the late 1800s in one of two ways. In most cases straw bales are stacked atop one another between a wooden framework and utilized as insulation, as compacted straw has a very high R-value.

Similarly, straw bales can be used to form the walls of a house themselves, in which case they act as both insulation and structural framework. In these instances the bales are covered with a layer of plaster after they are stacked to protect them from the elements.

Straw—which is typically either dried oats, wheat, rice, or rye—is a natural material. It sequesters carbon and grows rapidly, having a low environmental impact.

Lustrous flooring made largely of cork creates a cozy feeling. The cork is not only a more sustainable option; it is a natural sound insulator. Photo by Ivo Tavares Studio

Unlike wood or bamboo, cork does not require that the entire plant be harvested—rather, only the bark of cork oak trees is used to create building materials. When collected sustainably cork oak bark can be harvested without harming the tree and using very little energy. Once harvested cork bark sufficiently regrows within a nine-year timespan, meaning a single cork tree can be harvested multiple times throughout its natural life cycle.

After it is collected cork bark is shredded, compressed into sheets, and baked in a kiln to form planks or sheets—of which are then used to create flooring or insulation panels.

As a naturally renewable resource—one that sequesters carbon throughout its growth cycle—wood is one of the most common environmentally friendly building materials used in sustainable construction.

Not all wood, however, is considered to be sustainable, as certain forestry practices—particularly those used to harvest exotic hardwoods—can actually have an extremely detrimental impact on the local ecosystem. To ensure the wood you’re using is sustainable and ethically harvested, verify that it has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Recycled Steel

Despite the fact that steel production is responsible for a not-insignificant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, existing steel is still considered to be sustainable because it can be recycle almost infinitely. Depending on the project recycled steel may be used as is or melted down and reformed into some other building component—the latter of which still produces fewer emissions than manufacturing new steel altogether.

Reclaimed Wood or Brick

Raw and unfinished authentic reclaimed barn wood planks. Photo courtesy of Woodstock Architectural Products

Similar to recycled steel, reclaimed wood and bricks are sustainable in that they prevent construction waste and do not require further emissions be produced before they can be used.

On average reclaimed wood is usually stronger than fresh lumber and is less resistant to warping due to having a lower moisture content. Reclaimed bricks, on the other hand, can be used as is, chipped for landscape use, or even crushed to form aggregate for new bricks.

Recycled Plastic

It’s estimated that, on average, the US produces roughly 40 million tons of plastic waste each year. Approximately 85% of that waste ends up in landfills, where it then sits for years without breaking down. Fortunately a large portion of that plastic can be recycled and used for construction purposes: It can be formed into shingles, mixed into concrete, incorporated into roads in place of asphalt, molded into bricks or tiles, and even used to make recycled-fiber carpets.

Rammed Earth

Created by gradually pouring and tamping down layers of a damp aggregate mixture (usually sand, silt, gravel, clay, and dirt) in between wooden panels or in a flooring mold, rammed earth is an incredibly durable material with a high thermal mass, high compression strength, and an extremely long lifespan.

Due to its widespread availability, ease of procurement, and inherent renewability/recyclability, rammed earth is one of the most sustainable building materials there is.

As a more sustainable alternative to traditional concrete, hempcrete is created by mixing hemp with lime, pozzolans, or sand. Like any plant, hemp absorbs carbon throughout its natural growth cycle and then continues to store said carbon once it has been processed into hempcrete, making it an extremely environmentally-friendly product. Unlike concrete, hempcrete is fairly lightweight and has high thermal insulation capabilities, making it an excellent material for constructing non-load-bearing walls.

Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)

A type of engineered wood , CLT is formed by gluing together at least three layers of solid-sawn lumber and is often used as an alternative to concrete.

Due to the perpendicular orientation of the layers, CLT has improved structural rigidity compared to traditional timber and is similar in strength to reinforced concrete despite weighing far less. As long as the wood used to create CLT panels is sourced from ethically-managed forests—such as those certified by the FSC—it is considered to be a sustainable material.

Insulating Concrete Forms (ICFs)

In 2016 the ICFMA commissioned an independent scientific study comparing a wood-framed cavity wall to a standard six-inch core ICF wall. Photo courtesy of IFCMA

Quick to manufacture, durable and easy to install, insulated concrete forms are manufactured by pouring concrete into insulated polystyrene foam blocks. After the concrete cures the polystyrene blocks are left in place instead of removed—ultimately, this gives the wall improved insulating properties compared to traditional timber-frame walls.

ICFs are incredibly strong are expected to last over 100 years, provided they are properly maintained—they also have no trouble withstanding strong winds, which makes them extremely useful in areas where tornadoes or hurricanes are common.

Low-E Windows

According to the Department of Energy , the average building loses 25 to 30% of the energy it utilizes through poorly installed, leaky, or just plain inefficient windows. To combat this low-energy windows may be installed.

These windows typically feature special glazes or coatings to help block solar heat from entering while still allowing natural light to filter through.

Innovative Technologies in Sustainable Construction

Emerging technologies like integrated cloud monitoring, 3D printing, and preconstruction software make achieving sustainable construction goals easier. Photo courtesy of Sage

As the sustainable construction sector continues to grow, emerging technologies like 3D printing, preconstruction software, and integrated cloud solutions can aid architects and designers throughout every phase of the building process.

3D printing, for example, can help reduce material waste by creating extremely precise building components, either off- or on-site. Preconstruction software, on the other hand, gives architects the ability to develop 3D building models that provide accurate estimates of waste production, energy use, and water consumption.

Integrated cloud technologies—such as those offered by Sage —provide an easy way to manage project data in one place, reducing the possibility of errors or miscommunication. Other integrated cloud solutions can even use automated systems to track a project’s energy consumption (amongst other metrics) in real time, making it easier to adjust conditions to meet sustainability goals.

“Advances in preconstruction, cloud, and emerging technologies have opened up a new world of possibilities when it comes to increasing efficiencies and reducing project waste and rework,” Dustin Stephens , vice president of Sage’s construction and real estate practice, previously wrote for gb&dPRO . “As technology continues to advance we will see even more opportunities to optimize the project lifecycle and further minimize construction’s environmental impact.”

Case Studies and Examples of Successful Sustainable Construction

Now that we’ve familiarized ourselves with the basics of sustainable construction, let’s take a look at a few of the most inspiring examples.

Rain Harvest Home

Outside the Rain Harvest Home. Photo by Jaime Navarro

The Rain Harvest Home is an inspiring example of sustainable construction in action. Located in Temascaltepec, Mexico, this beautiful house was designed by Robert Hutchison Architecture (RHA) and Javier Sanchez Arquitectos (JSA).

Rather than build with masonry or concrete, RHA and JSA elected to build the entire Rain Harvest Home out of sustainably sourced wood. “This choice was made with the intention of building as light on the ground as possible and to reduce the carbon footprint of the project,” Robert Hutchison, founder and lead architect of RHA, previously told gb&d .

As the name implies, the three-structure Rain Harvest Home features a gravity fed rainwater-catchment and treatment system that supplies the main residence, studio, and bathhouse with water. A green roof further serves to absorb rainwater and helps regulate interior temperatures.

Westwood Hills Nature Center

Designed by HGA, the Westwood Hills Nature Center in St. Louis Park, Minnesota factors sustainability into every element of its design.

“The building is oriented in plan to take advantage of solar angles and prevailing winds; its roof form opens the building up to views and maximizes daylight to reduce energy use,” Glenn Waguespack, senior project designer at HGA, previously told gb&d . “From a systems standpoint, the biggest contributor to energy reduction is the geothermal wellfield, which uses the earth as a heat source for our radiant and forced air systems; heating loads are dominant in a cold climate like ours.”

In order to reduce the building’s environmental impact even further, HGA planned from the very beginning to make the Westwood Hills Nature Center a zero-energy facility—that is, a building that generates as much power as it uses annually.

Key Challenges and Barriers in Sustainable Construction

Of course, sustainable construction isn’t without its challenges. Some of the most common barriers include:

• Higher upfront costs . Due to limited availability of industry professionals and high competition for sustainable materials, most sustainable construction projects have higher upfront costs than their non-sustainable counterparts.
• Zoning limitations . Use-based zoning regulations can hinder the development of mixed- or multi-use sustainable construction projects.
• Lack of expertise . Despite the growing popularity of sustainable construction, few architects, builders, and contractors have experience with its design principles.
• Lack of awareness and understanding . Within the construction sector as a whole, there is very little awareness as to the benefits of sustainable construction—and to make matters worse, there is very little incentive to learn about them.
• Building codes and regulations . As it stands, there exist very few building codes and regulations for sustainable construction projects, which can make the planning and permit processes difficult.

Role of Government and Policy in Sustainable Construction

There are a few ways in which the government and policymakers can encourage the widespread adoption of sustainable construction practices, such as providing financial incentives, revising national design standards, and requiring that all new construction projects meet LEED (or an equivalent organization’s) standards.

The European Union, for example, is requiring that all public buildings be renovated for improved energy efficiency in order to meet Europe’s long-term net-zero carbon goals. India and the United States, amongst other countries, currently offer tax incentives for buildings that meet LEED certification requirements. The US also provides financial assistance in the form of loans and grants for certain projects that seek to implement renewable energy sources.

Sustainable Construction and the Future of Urban Planning

Historically urban planning has been at odds with sustainability, largely due to cities being designed around automobiles and single-use zoning standards. Sustainable urban planning requires that cities and towns do the following:

• Prioritize pedestrian infrastructure . In order to reduce carbon emissions and urban air pollution, new development projects must be designed with walkability in mind.
• Offer multiple public transit options . Similarly, interconnected public transit networks reduce dependency on private vehicles and drastically reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Preserve green spaces . Green spaces like parks, hiking trails, and the like help regulate temperature, absorb carbon, and improve people’s mental health.
• Encourage mixed-use projects . Making it easier to approve and construct mixed-use buildings helps limit urban sprawl and makes adaptive reuse projects more feasible.
• Transition to renewable energy . By requiring that new development projects implement renewable energy, urban centers can reduce their carbon emissions and conserve resources.
• Incentivize energy efficiency . Cities and towns can further encourage sustainable construction practices by incentivizing energy efficiency and providing financial assistance for energy-efficient upgrades to existing buildings.

The Road Ahead for Sustainable Construction

Due to an increased understanding of how the built environment contributes to anthropogenic climate change, the adoption of sustainable construction practices has become increasingly necessary. Governed by five key principles—energy efficiency, water efficiency, use of sustainable materials, healthy living conditions, and waste management—sustainable construction offers a variety of environmental, economic, and social benefits.

Moving forward world governments, policymakers, and urban planners have an important role to play in removing the barriers around sustainable construction so that green building projects are easier to realize on a large scale. Emerging technological innovations such as preconstruction software and cloud data management can also help to simplify the sustainable construction process.

All in all, sustainable construction is an important component in mitigating the worst effects of climate change and helps create a healthier world both for ourselves and future generations.

is a freelance journalist based in the Raleigh area. They specialize in writing articles on sustainable design, architecture, and the long-term effects of our built environment.

The leading information source for sustainability professionals.

• gb&dPRO
• Manage Subscriptions
• gb&dPRO Membership
• Newsletters
• Browse the Archives
• About gb&d
• Advertise with Us
• Submissions
• Terms & Use

Download Your Free PDF

Looking for a professional for your next built environment project.

We use cookies. Read more about them in our Privacy Policy .

• Accept site cookies
• Reject site cookies

Case Studies

In this section, featured case studies, the entopia building.

Automated Construction Project – The Forge, Bankside

The Enterprise Centre

• Climate Change Adaptation (7)
• Climate Change Mitigation (60)
• Health, Wellbeing and Social Value (23)
• National and Regional Collaboration (0)
• Nature (18)
• Resource Use (46)
• Retrofit (3)
• Advancing Net Zero (60)
• Biodiversity and Environmental Net Gain (14)
• Circular Economy (27)
• Embodied Ecological Impacts (0)
• Local Area Networks (0)
• Nature Based Solutions (0)
• Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap (1)
• Regenerative Places (0)
• Resilient Buildings (1)
• UKGBC Scotland (0)

Minerva House

1 & 2 Stephen Street

134-138 Edmund Street

5 New Street Square

Martlesham Training and Office Building

20 Water Street

IMP Thrapston Business Park  

Visual Impact Provision (VIP) – Peak District East

Why Case Studies?

This library of case studies serve as inspiration from the UKGBC Membership, demonstrating best case examples of the sustainable built environment. These examples represent a range of asset types, locations and building stages. Some are trail blazing in carbon emission reduction, others are leading in social value, some are forging new ground across all of our impact areas.

Please note, only UKGBC Members are profiled in our case study library.

Solutions and Innovation

Case Study Blogs

Circular development and net zero construction: a commercial office in the heart of edinburgh.

Net Zero Carbon, a huge retrofit and Salix funding: An Introduction to the Wolfson College Decarbonisation Process 

Addressing fuel poverty with data-driven retrofits

BREEAM case studies from our clients - BREEAM

Simple header, breeam case studies from our clients, page description, using the breeam framework.

Using the BREEAM framework, our clients embed sustainability into their projects from the very beginning. BREEAM-certified buildings are some of the most sustainable in the world. Read on to see how organisations are using BREEAM to make a difference, like Vesteda, who used BREEAM In-use to certify their entire portfolio of 27,000 properties.

Featured case study

Breeam award 2024 winners.

Discover the best in sustainable design from around the world at the BREEAM Awards 2024. From a hybrid timber structure to industrial spaces pushing for a biodiverse environment, read more about the BREEAM Awards 2024 winning projects.

Latest BREEAM case studies

Browse our case studies to see examples of how BREEAM has helped to enhance the quality of assets at every stage, from designs to problem solving.

Custom Filter

Category facet, search results.

HAUT Amsterdam first residential building in Netherlands to achieve BREEAM Outstanding

BREEAM guides sustainable design and construction of Unilever HIVE’s food innovation hub

Heritage meets sustainability The Northcliffes journey to BREEAM Outstanding

ASR elevates residential sustainability with Mark e.o. Huizen BREEAM In-Use project

CTP Clubhaus: leading the way with BREEAM Outstanding in sustainable industrial development

KKR scales sustainability with BREEAM across a diverse US property portfolio

DuurzaamheidsCertificering BV, winners of the BREEAM Best Assessor Award 2024

Innovative refurbishment at 2 Auriol Drive sets new standards with BREEAM Outstanding achievement

Fugro's new BREEAM Outstanding headquarters a benchmark in sustainable office design

Principal Real Estate Case Study

CitizenM Sets Standard for Sustainable Hospitality

Stockholm Metro Nacka Project Awarded Excellent

Stockholm Extended Metro Access Tunnel Sundstabacken Achieves Ceequal Excellent Rating

10 Fenchurch Avenue in London achieves BREEAM rating of Excellent

School of Mathematical Sciences refurb achieves BREEAM Excellent

LXP’s collaborative approach to Green Building Standards

JLL’s sustainable vision realised through BREEAM’s RFO scheme

Using BREEAM across an asset’s lifecycle Hermes Business Campus

The Oaks mall uses BREEAM USA to set “shining example” of ESG success

OAG improve customer relations through commitment to BIM best practice

BREEAM In-Use helps Vesteda assess 27,500 assets for certification

• 4  Entries per Page
• 8  Entries per Page
• 20  Entries per Page
• 40  Entries per Page
• 60  Entries per Page

Showing 1 to 21 of 107 entries.

• Page  1
• Page  2
• Page  3
• Page  4
• Page  5
• Page  6

Net-zero steel in building and construction: The way forward

As the world transitions to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, construction companies have a major role to play. In making the green buildings of the future , they have a chance to tap into demand that spans geographies and architectures. Indeed, greener business models are potential magnets for trillions of dollars earmarked for sustainable investment. In addition, companies that adapt effectively will ensure they are aligned with an increasingly stringent regulatory agenda.

About the authors

This report is a collaborative effort by Pedro Assunçāo, Brodie Boland , Trevor Burns, Emanuele D’Avolio, Alasdair Graham, Focko Imhorst , Ingrid Koester, Carl Kühl, Rory Sullivan, and Alex Ulanov, representing views from McKinsey’s Metals & Mining and Sustainability Practices and the Energy Transitions Commission.

The decisions made by construction executives now will determine how they are positioned for the transition over the coming decade. Those that prepare astutely are likely to seek out emerging pockets of innovation and dial up investment in sustainable technologies and capabilities. To be sure, new materials such as green steel  are more expensive, and will therefore demand a new pricing model. However, they can significantly reduce embodied carbon—in commercial buildings by as much as 70 percent by 2030.

Amid tight industry margins, a priority for decision makers will be to ensure that there is a solid business case for change. The key in that regard will be to establish market position, while adjusting to a new cost base. They must also ensure that greener business models are aligned with demand that will rise at an uncertain pace over time. A tricky calculation is required, but the prize is a chance to get ahead in a market that is set for a potentially rewarding future.

Construction industry emissions

From houses to bridges, hospitals, and skyscrapers, the construction industry is responsible for approximately 25 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. A third of these are associated with materials and the construction process, or so-called “embodied carbon.” 1 “Metals & Mining Insights,” McKinsey, accessed in September 2021; “Real Estate Insights,” McKinsey, accessed in September 2021. Based on 2017 emissions. One reason for the industry’s high emissions is that it is a voracious consumer of steel, accounting for more than 50 percent of global demand. 2 “Steel facts,” World Steel Association, accessed January 26, 2022. Due to the energy required for its production, steel is a carbon mega-producer, accounting alone for around a quarter of emissions in the construction process. 3 A significant portion of steel consumption in building and construction is from “long” products, which—in the United States—are most commonly produced through electric arc furnaces (EAF) that have a lower CO 2 emissions intensity per metric ton of steel. Given these metrics, decision makers in both steel and construction need to take stock, consider their options, and plot a realistic path toward a lower climate impact.

Under the Paris Agreement on climate change, governments pledged to keep global warming below 2°C higher than preindustrial levels, and ideally 1.5°C. To achieve that goal, human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) must fall to net zero by 2050. In the construction sector, massive changes are required to align with that pathway. However, by shifting from high-emissions steel to near-zero emissions steel, the industry could take a significant step forward.

Decarbonizing steel

Partial steel decarbonization is possible through wider use of modern furnace technologies, the most efficient of which are powered by natural gas and use energy-efficient direct reduced iron or hot briquetted iron (NG DRI/HBI+EAF) to make steel. These emit much less GHG than traditional coke-fueled blast furnaces or basic oxygen furnaces (BF/BOFs). However, the latter still account for approximately 73 percent of global production and are dominant in Europe and China. 4 International Energy Agency, October 2020.

Another route to lower-CO 2 steel would be to retrofit BF/BOFs for carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture and utilization (CCU). These would theoretically enable sequestration of about 85 percent of CO 2 emissions from coke feedstock. 5 Zhiyuan Fan and Julio Friedmann, “Low-carbon production of iron and steel: Technology options, economic assessment, and policy,” Joule , April 2021, Volume 5, Number 4. However, the approaches are not yet proven at scale. The North Star for decarbonization would be to scale hydrogen-reduced DRI/HBI EAF furnaces powered with renewable energy. With this combination, producers could make steel with a carbon intensity of less than 0.2 tCO 2 per metric ton of steel, compared with a global average of 1.8 tCO 2 with today’s cleanest technologies. Still, the cost would be high. The steel would need to command a “green premium” of 20–25 percent over 20 years to fund construction of the DRI plant and EAF (not including capital expenditure for hydrogen production, transport, and storage) (Exhibit 1).

In switching to hydrogen-powered furnaces, a significant factor would be the availability of low-carbon hydrogen. Despite being among the most abundant elements on Earth, the gas barely exists in its pure form and must be extracted from compounds in an energy-intensive process. Most hydrogen production consists of “grey hydrogen,” made through steam methane reforming (SMR). This creates a gas composed of about one-tenth hydrogen and nine-tenths CO 2 . By contrast, cleaner “blue hydrogen” involves combining fossil fuels with steam to produce hydrogen and CO 2 , and then storing the CO 2 underground. A still cleaner approach is to use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water, producing “green hydrogen.” However, this costs around $5 per kilogram to produce, a prohibitive amount in the context of current industry economics. 6 Dyna Mariel Bade, “US Department of Energy announces green hydrogen cost-cutting goal,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, June 8, 2021. In addition, there are challenges associated with availability and quality of scrap, especially outside the United States, and limited access to renewable power. 7 “Scrap use in the steel industry,” World Steel Association, May 2021. Still, as green-hydrogen technologies mature over the coming years, costs are expected to fall. Indeed, more than 25 projects are under development, suggesting there is a reasonable possibility of scaled production in the years ahead. 8 “Metals & Mining Insights”; Path to hydrogen competitiveness: A cost perspective , Hydrogen Council, January 20, 2020.  

Navigating hurdles

Against this background, what are the key hurdles to the construction sector moving to green—or greener—steel? The reality is that, beyond technical challenges, companies face significant commercial and structural barriers. Certainly, the sector’s generally low margins are a limiting factor, dampening producer appetite for green technologies. 9 LEED-certified buildings typically command a higher rent than non-LEED-certified buildings, but this is generally insufficient to offset the additional costs of using green steel. “LEED” stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Established approaches produce steel for approximately $400 to $500 per metric ton at the slab level. Near-zero emissions steel is more expensive, albeit with significant variations based on technology, location, and project.

Another barrier to adoption is that individual developers do not routinely count emissions from the steel they consume. This is due to a combination of factors, including a lack of industry standards, patchy regulation, and the absence of tools to measure embodied carbon (contained in construction materials from extraction to use). 10 Denmark, France, and the Netherlands have rules regarding embodied carbon, and Finland and Sweden plan to follow suit in 2025 and 2027. US cities such as Santa Monica, California, have similar legislation in place. “Buy Clean Colorado” and “Buy Clean California” are state legislative acts focused on steel. A shift may be supported by legislation such as the US Bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act, CLEAN Future Act, and SUPER Act of 2021. Indeed, no certification or grading system has been widely adopted to date. 11 For example, the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) has not yet included embodied carbon emissions in required reporting of financed construction emissions due to feasibility constraints. Furthermore, the steel industry services a highly fragmented construction landscape. In North America and Europe, the value chain is characterized by multiple intermediaries—with thousands of companies competing for business—and supply chains consisting mainly of small manufacturers and merchants (Exhibit 2). Against this backdrop, effective change at scale is more difficult to achieve.

Commercial sector opportunities

Despite many challenges, economically feasible progress is possible. To demonstrate the potential for the construction industry to adopt greener steel, McKinsey analyzed an illustrative marginal abatement cost curve for materials and construction associated with an eight-story commercial office building. 12 For illustrative purposes only. Regional differences and differences in the construction type of the building (for example, cast-in-place versus hybrid versus structural steel) have a significant impact on both overall emissions and on abatement potential of different levers. In a business-as-usual scenario, total embodied carbon in the construction phase would be about 1,900 tCO 2 , of which approximately 85 percent would be from materials. 13 Carbon emissions associated with buildings’ whole-life materials and construction processes. Nonmaterial emissions include heavy equipment, transport, and small generators. Of that total, some 25 percentage points would be associated with steel (and 37 percentage points with concrete). 14 Mostly rebars used in reinforced concrete. The analysis shows it would be possible to reduce the building’s embodied carbon by about 1,250 metric tons (or 70 percent). This would be through alternative technologies, materials, and steel-production methods that we expect to be widely commercially available by 2030.

In modeling the office building’s decarbonization pathway , we assessed more than 25 individual levers. 15 The CO 2 abatement curve is an illustrative example. Regional differences (for instance, in steel production, technology, or materials availability) can significantly change the levers. The mentioned costs are aggregated for the eventual lever. These can be grouped in five categories. The first is to prioritize efficiency in construction materials and design. This would be a no-regret move that, by definition, would lower material and construction costs. The second would be to migrate to lower-CO 2 steel. Moving from BF/BOF to EAF steel, for example, would have an immediate abatement impact on embodied carbon (more than 100 metric tons of embodied CO 2 in our example, or more than 8 percent of total abatement potential). There are further gains available through low-CO 2 concrete, flooring, and tiling. And replacing structural steel with glulam beams and cross-laminated timber (CLT)—in addition to replacing concrete slabs with CLT or using timber instead of concrete for load-bearing walls—would further reduce embodied carbon. 16 This assumes no regulatory constraints on the use of cross-laminated timber (CLT) or timber (for example, limited to five-story buildings) and no recent price increase—for example, CLT or timber could be applied in situ for concrete slabs, load bearing walls, or facades. Finally, companies could embrace electrification of on-site equipment, such as generators and machines.

In conclusion, the construction sector presents a significant abatement challenge, but also a real opportunity to tackle one of the major industrial sources of emissions. To get there, the sector should start moving toward greener technologies, and planning for realistic economic scenarios that will enable a more profound transition. With that goal in mind, an early priority should be standardization of measurement and labeling systems. These would enable companies to more easily price and streamline their green procurement decisions. In a similar vein, construction companies would benefit from methodologies to track levels of embodied carbon, with thresholds embedded in rating systems such as such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). This would enable decision makers to more confidently set targets and plot decarbonization pathways.

On the demand side of the equation, near-zero emissions steel cannot yet compete with established technologies on the basis of price alone. To unlock demand, developers, operators, owners, and large occupiers could consider forming buyer’s clubs to aggregate purchase commitments. In addition, they could commit to offtake agreements with near-zero emissions mills and seek out dedicated green funding for specific projects, as some construction companies are already doing. Financers could facilitate that process by setting up systems to track and report on funding of embodied carbon, and by leveraging environmental product declarations and life cycle assessments to support quantification. They could, in parallel, orient toward more green bonds, green loans, or green revolving-credit facilities. Finally, as in most green transition scenarios, there is power in knowledge. Almost everybody who works in hard-to-abate industries is on a journey of learning about sustainability issues, and industry participants should not be reluctant to call for more education, research, and collegiality. Through joint efforts, stakeholders can promote sharing of perspectives, case studies, and data.

Through this range of efforts, greener technologies could enable a significant reduction in steel industry emissions, and therefore a more sustainable construction industry. In the context of a fast-warming planet, these would represent important achievements. The imperative for decision makers, therefore, should be to seize the moment, adopt a radical mindset, and take concrete steps to transition to a greener future.

Pedro Assunção is a consultant in McKinsey’s New York office, where Trevor Burns and Ingrid Koester are consultants and Alex Ulanov is a partner; Brodie Boland is a partner in the Washington, DC, office; Emanuele D’Avolio is a consultant in the Chicago office; Focko Imhorst is a partner in the London office; and Rory Sullivan is a consultant in the Dubai office. Alasdair Graham is the head of industry decarbonization for the Energy Transitions Commission in London. Carl Kühl is an analyst for the Energy Transitions Commission in Munich.

The authors wish to thank David Wigan for his editorial support.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Road freight global pathways report

Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take

Decarbonization challenge for steel

• OARE/Research4Life
• ESCAP Repository
• ECLAC Repository
• ECA Repository

•   UN Environment Document Repository Home
• Knowledge Repository
• Reports, Books and Booklets

if(!window.DSpace){window.DSpace={}}; if(!window.DSpace.metadata){window.DSpace.metadata={}}; window.DSpace.metadata.dc_title='Singapore’s Green Buildings - Case Study'; Singapore’s Green Buildings - Case Study

Citation Tool

Bibliographic managers, item statistics, description, collections, document viewer.

To read more, scroll down below.

A collection of case studies from the UK Alliance for Sustainable Building Products, featuring examples building materials and practices with high sustainability credentials.  These include:

• Accsys' Accoya wood, a carbon sequestering material with increased durability and dimensional stability, as a result of the acetylation process. 
• Housing and care provider GreenSquareAccord's CHARM development of virtually plastic-free homes,  transforming the site of a former factory carpark into one bedroom apartments for local people.
• The RMF Eco range - a reused raised floor panel that has been saved from landfill, cleaned, tested and re-installed into offices
• The Squash creative food enterprise in Liverpool, with timber frame and cladiding, cellulose insulation, recycled glass aggregate, and re-used materials in its fit-out
• Re-use of a steel frame warehouse by Cleveland Steel and Tubes Ltd

Optimizing Sustainable Construction Costs: A Green Building Approach for Residential Development

• Patil, Vanishri A.
• Wadalkar, Shruti
• Kale, Vinayak
• Sawant, Rohan
• Joshi, Deepa A.

Green buildings are generally referred to as environmental friendly buildings. Globally, building is responsible for a huge share of energy, water, electricity, and material consumption. The green building concept is very popular worldwide. The adverse impact of construction on the environment significantly promotes the development of the green building concept worldwide.The growing awareness of the adverse environmental impacts of construction has led to the widespread adoption of the green building concept globally. This approach promotes sustainability and mitigates the negative effects of construction on the environment. This research project aims to perform the energy and cost saving comparison of green building over the conventional building. Green Building are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and natural environment. This study aims to investigate the cost premiums and cost performance of green building projects. After an extensive literature review and case study of G+4 residential building located at Bhusawal district, Maharashtra has been presented in detail. The land area spread over 6400 sqft and construction area is about 12000 Sqft. and it is designed as per green building design to save the cost and energy for the building. This case study shows that the average increase in the initial cost of green building is 7-10% for those with four-star rating building however 34-40% of energy can be saved by implementing the green building design and technique. This study can reduce the maintenance cost of green building over the conventional building which is very huge amount over the lifecycle of the project.

• Green Building Initial cost;
• Energy saving;
• Green Material;
• maintenance cost

Sustainable Construction: Analysis of Its Costs and Benefits

David William Dobson, Amr Sourani, Begum Sertyesilisik, Ashley Tunstall

Science and Education Publishing

From Scientific Research to Knowledge

• Browse by Subjects
• Journal Home
• For Authors
• Online Submission
• Current Issue

1 Willmott Dixon, UK

2 School of Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

3 Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

4 Bechtel Corporation, Prishtina Kosovo

• Related Content
• About the Authors
• Follow the Authors

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 3. research methods, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions and recommendations, appendix: questionnaire and raw data.

Sustainability has become the most important issue concerning the construction industry in the 21st century. The objectives of this paper were: to establish if there is an opinion within the industry that sustainability means increased cost; and to investigate whether using sustainable construction methods save money by reducing a buildings carbon output and running costs. Following the literature survey, a questionnaire survey has been carried out to canvas opinions within the industry. Furthermore, comparison of a traditionally built structure (the original college) against a sustainably built one (the structure being built to replace the original building) has been carried out as a case study with respect to the running costs and carbon outputs. The findings revealed that there is an opinion within the industry that sustainability means increased cost and complicated build ability and that using sustainable construction methods save money by reducing a buildings carbon output and running costs. This paper will benefit clients and developers as they can see how incorporating sustainability into new buildings will enable big savings on utility and maintenance costs once the building is operational.

At a glance: Figures

View all figures

Keywords: sustainable construction, benefits of sustainable construction, cost of sustainable construction

American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture , 2013 1 (2), pp 32-38. DOI: 10.12691/ajcea-1-2-2

Received December 29, 2012; Revised February 06, 2013; Accepted April 03, 2013

Cite this article:

• Chicago Style
• Dobson, David William, et al. "Sustainable Construction: Analysis of Its Costs and Benefits." American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 1.2 (2013): 32-38.
• Dobson, D. W. , Sourani, A. , Sertyesilisik, B. , & Tunstall, A. (2013). Sustainable Construction: Analysis of Its Costs and Benefits. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture , 1 (2), 32-38.
• Dobson, David William, Amr Sourani, Begum Sertyesilisik, and Ashley Tunstall. "Sustainable Construction: Analysis of Its Costs and Benefits." American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 1, no. 2 (2013): 32-38.

The construction industry is a significant contributor to the UK economy. Its output is over £100 billion a year and it accounts for 8% of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product providing employment for around 3 million workers in the UK [ 1 ] . However, buildings are responsible for nearly half of the countries carbon emissions, half of the nation’s water consumption and account for around one third of all waste sent to landfill [ 1 ] . Over the past 20 years the construction industry has come under a great deal of criticism as there has been a growing understanding that the current model of development is not sustainable. As a result of this, there has been a massive drive towards promoting sustainable construction.

The government has set out a vision to drive towards a sustainable construction industry. The report “Strategy for Sustainable Construction” [ 1 ] illustrates how serious the government is taking the promotion of a sustainable construction industry. The report signifies the UK government’s aim to lead the world in sustainable construction. The “Strategy for Sustainable Construction” report represents a joint commitment from the government and the construction industry to work towards a more sustainable construction industry. Its core aims are: to reduce the construction industry’s carbon footprint and consumption of natural resources; and to create a safer and stronger industry by training and retaining a skilled and committed workforce. It highlights specific actions taken by industry and government to achieve the targets covered by the UK government’s sustainability agenda. Its vision is to structure and regulate businesses, to ensure that buildings and infrastructure are delivered in a more resource efficient and sustainable manner. With increasing energy and waste costs, tougher environmental legislation increased stakeholder expectations, major organisations within the industry are increasingly focussing their efforts on improving construction practices to enhance performance and demonstrate responsible behaviour. It is important that contractors harness the benefits of acting in a sustainable manner in order to become more efficient organisations and take advantage of the financial benefits, as well as having a more positive impact on the environment and society in general. Whilst there is a massive amount of literature available on sustainable construction, there is a limited amount of the research on the effect sustainable construction has on capital costs e.g.: [ 2 ] and [ 3 ] . For these reasons, the objectives of this paper are: to establish if there is an opinion within the industry that sustainability means increased cost; and to investigate whether using sustainable construction methods save money by reducing a buildings carbon output and running costs.

In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [ 4 , 5 ] acknowledged that the change in the earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of mankind. As a result of this global convention, a treaty was formed to tackle the issue of climate change. At the outset, the treaty did not enforce any mandatory limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for individual nations, therefore making the treaty legally non-binding. However, the treaty allowed provisions for updates called ‘protocols’. The most significant update to the treaty to date is the Kyoto Protocol which sets binding targets for reducing GHG emissions to an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” [ 4 , 5 ] . In 2007, a draft Climate Change Bill was published. The Bill aims to put in place a framework to achieve a mandatory 60% cut in the UK's CO 2 emissions by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels). In 2008, the Climate Change Act became law setting up a target of 80% reduction over 1990 [ 6 ] . The UK is the first country to set up such a long-range and significant carbon reduction target into law [ 7 ]

With the construction industry being one of the UK’s leading industries [ 1 ] , it was vital that the Government targeted the construction sector to ensure the maximum effect in terms of reducing carbon emissions and becoming more sustainable. The government has produced “The Strategy for Sustainable Construction” having two fundamental objectives, namely: to provide industry with a single, easily understood document that covering all main government policies and initiatives in the field of Sustainable Construction; and to stimulate organisations within the industry to uphold the ideology of sustainable construction and become proactive by setting their own targets, rather than merely complying with government legislation. In order for the vision for a sustainable construction industry to be fulfilled, the organisations operating within it need to be prepared to adhere to the vision. To achieve this, the UK Government created the “Sustainable Construction Task Group” tasked with identifying specific and cost-effective improvements in the quality and environmental performance of buildings, together with further actions that Government could take to facilitate faster progress. To ensure that the UK reaches its targets for emission reductions, the Government has introduced its own energy policy which outlines strategies in relation to carbon savings and usage of renewable energy sources. This legislation has since helped devise changes to existing building regulations such as those in “Part L–Conservation of Fuel and Power” and has advocated the need for assessment of building performances under Building Research Establishment (BRE)’s Environmental assessment methods. The UK government understands that it must take a lead role if sustainable development is to be successful and the targets set regarding sustainability are met. To further promote sustainable construction the government produced the report “Sustainable Procurement and Operations on the Government estate” designed to enforce sustainable procurement. Due to the fact that around 40% of the construction industry output stems from the public sector [ 8 , 9 ] , it is important that the government promotes and enforces sustainable construction.

The UK construction industry is governed by a massive amount of legislation. The Building Act 1984 [ 10 ] is the enabling act under which the Building Regulations have been made. As a result of the government’s aim of cutting down GHG emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol and in general, with “Part L Regulations: Conservation of fuel and power” were introduced in 2001. As a result of these regulations, Architects and Engineers were tasked with designing and engineering more sustainable structures. Furthermore, Quantity Surveyors have found themselves looking for cost effective solutions to meeting the CO 2 targets set out in Part L. Part L regulations make contractors take reasonable measures to reduce heat loss through the building fabric and to improve the efficiency of services to the structure, such as mechanical ventilation, heating and lighting. Under Part L regulations, maximum CO 2 emissions have been set for buildings. The regulations apply to construction of all new buildings, and the refurbishment of existing buildings with a useable floor area of over 1000m 2 . For new buildings, it is forecasted that Part L will cut carbon emissions by 25% from 2002 standards, which had already cut emissions by 15%. The net reduction of 40% from pre 2002 is often used as a benchmark of progress [ 11 ] . Part L regulations are split into Part L1 and Part L2. Part L1 is concerned with domestic buildings, whereas Part L2 is concerned with non domestic buildings. Whilst the regulations obviously differ depending on the section in question, the principles are the same. Part L regulations are designed to make buildings more efficient and reduce carbon emissions. Examples of measures include: new performance standards for avoiding solar overheating; improving boiler efficiency, certain types of light fittings, display lighting systems; improving buildings that are air-conditioned or mechanically ventilated and the installation of energy consumption meters and sub-meters. Under Part L, energy performance of a building must be checked at the inception stage to ensure that it complies with the regulations and then be carefully monitored throughout its design and construction phases to make sure that it complies upon completion.

BREEAM (Building Research Environmental Assessment Method) was launched in 1990 [ 12 ] . Since its inception, BREEAM has become widely accepted as the benchmark for measuring environmental performance of buildings, becoming formally adopted by the UK Government. BREEAM provides guidance on how to minimize adverse effects of buildings on the environment, locally and globally by reducing energy usage in the construction and management of a building whilst encouraging a healthy and comfortable environment for end users. BREEAM's success stems from its unique ability to cover a wide range of environmental issues within one assessment, and to present the results in a way that is widely understood by those involved in property procurement and management [ 12 , 13 ] .

Challenges to Sustainable Construction : Since the inaugural international conference on sustainable construction, in Tampa, USA in 1994, sustainable or “green” building has become a significant global issue [ 14 ] . A large number of pioneering projects have proved that green buildings can provide a far more comfortable, healthy, living and working environment for their end users, as well as having greatly reduced utility and maintenance costs due to increased efficiency. The primary barriers to implementation, are the misconceptions that by adopting a more sustainable design and construction, higher capital costs will be incurred, without a worthwhile benefit to market value [ 3 ] . It is critical, therefore, to evaluate the capital costs of sustainable building, against those of traditional buildings and prove their worth, in order to motivate stakeholders to consider and use methods of sustainable construction. Furthermore, it is important to compare the carbon output of traditional buildings against those built with sustainable features, to highlight the increased efficiency and reduced carbon output and running costs. The UK construction industry is responsible for around half of the total CO 2 emissions, 90% of all surface mineral extraction and over a quarter of all waste sent to landfill [ 15 ] . Despite of these challenges, sustainable construction can be a strategic advantage for the contractors. [ 16 ] ’s study revealed a positive relationship between sustainability performance and business competitiveness and highlighted that implementation of sustainable construction practice contributes to the improvement of contractors’ competitiveness [ 16 ] .

The Cost of Sustainable Construction: Sustainable Construction requires a long term view, considering initial capital cost, against running costs of the structure. The major economic benefits of sustainable construction are reduced operation and utility costs, reduced maintenance costs, and an overall improvement in the buildings performance and efficiency [ 14 ] . It is also perceived that the short term costs of sustainable practices are too high to justify their application in a highly competitive market. Despite of the substantial advances in best practice, there is a lag in the application of sustainable practices that improve building performance. This lag is mainly due to: the lack of client demand; and the belief that sustainable methods are more expensive than traditional construction methods. Cost consultants can add a significant margin of 10% to capital costs to allow for more sustainable solutions [ 3 ] . As stated by [ 2 ] , the construction industry has long behaved in a secretive manner. Clients, contractors and stakeholders are generally reluctant about revealing information on costs. As a result, information on the costs of sustainable building has emerged slowly. It is increasingly being realized, that some requirements that were once assumed to increase costs, are actually proving to be cost neutral or better. One such example is sustainable urban drainage schemes, where clear savings are evident from the reduced costs of pipes and hard drainage [ 2 ] . [ 17 ] highlighted that there are a large number of economic benefits to constructing greener buildings and that the benefits include: energy cost savings; water cost savings; mechanical equipment downsizing. [ 18 ] stated that the business benefits of sustainable construction include: capital cost savings; reduced running costs; increased investment returns; increased productivity, staff recruitment and retention; more efficient resource use; major corporate image / marketing spin offs. [ 19 ] , using two case studies, demonstrated that energy efficient designs could be achieved at a lower cost than conventional design. Achieving higher EcoHomes or BREEAM ratings can be achieved at little extra cost, and that a number of items are available at no additional cost or even a saving [ 3 ] . [ 20 ] have emphasised the need for a change in the feasibility studies. Their research revealed that the current practice of project feasibility study gives priority to the economic performance neglecting the social and environmental performances and [ 20 ] suggested the need for shifting the traditional approach of project feasibility study to a new approach that embraces the principles of sustainable development. Similarly, people should consider environmental and social sustainability of housing when they assess the housing affordability. [ 21 ] ’s study emphasized this point and their study revealed that considering a range of social and environmental criteria can greatly affect the calculation of an areas affordability, in comparison to focusing solely on financial attributes.

The objectives of this research were: to establish if there is an opinion within the industry that sustainability means increased cost; and to investigate whether using sustainable construction methods significantly reduces a buildings carbon output. With these objectives, the research methods consisted of: literature review; a questionnaire survey; and a case study.

• A closed multiple choice questionnaire has been applied to construction professionals. 40 questionnaires have been sent out to professionals within the industry. The questionnaires were kept anonymous in order to further increase the probability of a high response rate. Of the 40 questionnaires sent out, 24 were returned giving a response rate of 60%. In order to gain further qualitative insight into perceptions and opinions within the industry, the respondents were encouraged to make further open comments at the end of the questionnaire. The questionnaire and raw data are presented in the Appendix. As only 24 construction professionals answered the questionnaire, the findings can not be generalized for the whole construction industry. The findings, however, provide an insight on the tendency within construction industry.

• The case study consisted of comparison of a traditionally built structure against a sustainably built one. The original college has been compared against the structure being built to replace it. This comparison has been carried out with respect to the running costs and carbon outputs.

(Q1) The majority of respondents are of the opinion that the majority of construction personnel are unaware of the fact that around 52% of the UK’s CO 2 emissions are created by the construction and usage of buildings. Only a minority were of the opinion that many people are aware of the environmental impact of the industry in terms of its carbon footprint.

(Q2) Majority of respondents were of the opinion that sustainable construction methods result in increased capital costs. Only 1 respondent was of the opinion that sustainable construction could be achieved without increased capital costs.

(Q3) Most of the respondents were of the opinion that sustainable construction is important enough to warrant paying increased capital costs. However, 4 respondents stated that thought that if un-sustainable methods could be used to do the same job for a cheaper price they should be used. Furthermore, two respondents were unsure of what should be done in this scenario.

(Q4) Most of the respondents were of the belief that sustainable construction methods are as buildable as traditional methods. However, as with Q3, there was sizeable minority (5 respondents) who thought sustainable methods compromise ease of construction and two respondents were not sure.

(Q5) Majority of the respondents feel that regulations relating to sustainability, such as part L, have had a big effect on the industry. Of the 24 responses, 15 were of the opinion that government regulations have had a big effect. However, there were a number of respondents who thought government regulations have not had a big effect. 5 were of the belief that figures on energy usage, CO 2 emissions etc. can be manipulated simply to pass regulations and this may account for these responses. One of the respondents was unsure of their effect.

(Q6) Three respondents believe there is much awareness of government incentive schemes on sustainability. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that there is little awareness of such incentives.

(Q7) Most of the respondents were of the opinion that designers are paying more attention to products used in the construction process. Only three respondents were of the opinion that this was not the case, and with two unsure respondents.

(Q8) Most of the respondents were of the opinion that the drive towards sustainable construction is having a positive effect on the industry and suggests that the workforce in general is supportive of sustainability. However, there were a minority of respondents who did not think it was having a positive effect and smaller minority was not sure.

(Q9) The majority of the respondents feel that enough is being done in terms of law and legislation to enforce a sustainable construction industry

(Q10) Additional comments of respondents are as follows:

“Obviously sustainability inflates overall building costs due to the new technology and products that are required to meet the criteria required. However, design teams and contractors should play a lead role in educating clients (public and private) in the reduction of CO 2 generated by sustainability and how in the long run, sustainability issues reduce the Life Cycle costs of building in terms of maintenance, heating and running costs.”

“I believe a number of companies are trying to lead the way. However enhanced education and communication are needed to ensure compliance by all parties. Government needs to be strong in its legislation to enable all parties to adhere to the same rules. More work needs to be done by manufacturers to ensure 'green' products are commercially viable.”

“ The knowledge of funding for sustainability has more awareness within the industry where public funding is used.”

“The cost of sustainability needs to come down. As the governments target to make schools zero carbon by 2016 approaches, it is hoped that the current underdeveloped market of renewable will become more developed and in turn bring down the cost of sustainability through greater competition between suppliers and subcontractors.”

“I believe that the public sector construction industry is striving to achieving sustainable developments, however from what I have seen of the private sector there seems to be very little put forward to enhance sustainable construction. It always seems to be a token gesture which ticks the boxes for regulations but does not really go any further than this. The building regulation change in 2006 has helped with starting designers to think about energy conservation and efficient building design, however it is very easy to make a building design work and pass building regulations but still be an in-efficient building if you know how the calculations are put together.”

“Sustainable construction tends to cost more, but it does not have to. If the building is designed well at the start of the job (taking account of orientation etc), then a sustainable solution can be delivered at a more reasonable cost.”

The original college was built in the 1940’s, of cavity brick construction, and was added to in the 1990’s with further cavity brickwork structures. It is a secondary school for 1200 children aged 11-16 years old. It has a gross useable floor area of 12,828m 2 . The school’s main heating fuel is natural gas through a one way flow radiator system. The building is naturally ventilated. The buildings electricity usage comes off the national grid and there are no energy management systems in place for electricity and lighting. Everything is turned off or on manually. The internal ceiling heights are on average around high from finished floor level. The roof is a pitched roof with 100mm of insulation. The windows are metal framed with double glazing. The building has no on site renewable energy sources.

A report was carried out on 25/11/08 to examine the buildings energy efficiency under “The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates of Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007”. The report showed that the building was highly inefficient, achieving a “G” rating, the worst possible. A number of options to improve the efficiency were detailed in the report. These options included introducing energy management techniques and improvement of the loft insulation. However, these options have been ignored as under the Government’s BSF (Building Schools for the Future) scheme the school was due to be replaced by a new secondary school. From the information made available by St Helens Council, the buildings CO 2 emissions per m 2 is presented in the Table 1 .

Table 1. The original college’s CO 2 emissions per m 2

Whereas the original college was built in an era long before the Kyoto Protocol, the new college is being constructed in an era where sustainability is a primary concern in the public sector. The building is being constructed to conserve energy over its life span and limit its CO 2 emissions. The following are a number of the sustainable features in place on the building:

• Thick Insulated Walls - The walls are made up of Structural Insulated Panels which are factory engineered and brought to site for erection with almost zero waste. The panels are sealed together so that the joints do not leak preventing air and heat loss.

• Mechanically Operated Windows – When the classrooms get too hot or there is a build-up of CO 2 the windows will automatically open allowing fresh air in. Air vents on the back walls of each classroom allow air to circulate from the rooms into the corridor and out through windows at the top of the corridor atria. Having this natural ventilation means everybody gets the right amount of fresh air without the need for air conditioning.

• Spacious Classrooms – High ceilings of the classrooms enable the large windows to let in natural light reducing the need for lighting.

• Low energy computer systems – Low energy computer systems reduce electrical consumption and heat output.

• Solar Panels – Solar panels are situated on the roof and will provide 70% of all hot water demand for washing hands, etc.

• Highly Efficient Lighting – The building has dimmable daylight controls and occupancy control sensors.

• Recycled Rainwater – Rainwater from the roof is used to flush the toilets. Special tarmac in the car park allows water to soak through it into the ground avoiding unnecessary water entering the sewers.

• Biomass Boiler – Biomass boiler uses wood chips to provide hot water for the under floor heating and it is carbon neutral.

Using a calculation called SBEM (Simplified Building Engineering Model); a building’s energy use and CO 2 emissions can be accurately predicted. SBEM computer program provides an analysis of a building's energy consumption [ 22 ] . SBEM calculates monthly energy use and CO 2 emissions of a building given a description of the building geometry, construction, use and HVAC (Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning) and lighting equipment [ 22 ] . An SBEM analysis was done by Gill Massey Consulting Engineers on the new college, taking into account all aspects of the building such as the U-Values of the external envelope and the heating and lighting systems. The results showed that the predicted carbon output per m 2 of useable floor area will be 14.55kg/m 2 , as presented in Table 2 .

Table 2. The new college’s CO 2 emissions per m 2

Table 2 shows that the new college will omit 34.45kg/m 2 of carbon per annum less than the original college. If this is calculated over the next 25 years, it is seen that new sustainable building methods used to build the new school will save 861.25kg/m 2 of CO 2 as seen in Figure 1 . This highlights how modern building methods have vastly increased the efficiency of buildings and in turn reduced CO 2 emissions.

There are incentive schemes available to contractors operating in the public sector to gain extra funding by hitting certain targets on sustainability. One such scheme offers extra funding of £50.00 per m 2 of useable floor area if a 60% reduction on 2001 baseline emissions is achieved on a typical secondary school. A typical secondary school built in 2001 would on average emit 36.80kg/m 2 of CO 2 per annum. A school built to comply with 2006 Part L regulations would have to emit no more than 30.50kg/m 2 of CO 2 per annum. If a secondary school built now can achieve a 60% reduction on the baseline figure set in 2001 (14.756kg/m 2 per annum), then the government offers extra funding of £50.00 per m 2 of useable floor area as an incentive. As the new Cowley will emit 14.55kg/m 2 CO 2 per annum; which is less than the 60% reduction figure of 14.756kg/m 2 CO 2 per annum, as a result it qualifies for this incentive and receives the extra funding.

It is estimated that incorporation of all sustainability features in the new college has come at a cost of £35.21 per m 2 (SBEM analysis and department for schools children and families carbon calculator tool). The extra funding is £50.00 per m 2 , so there is benefit of £14.71 per m 2 gained by achieving the target set by the government. This equates to a clear benefit of £132,681.10 when multiplied out by the 8,972m 2 of useable floor area on the school. This highlights how by hitting government targets, clients and contractors can build more sustainable buildings without having to pay the increased capital costs and that they can actually make a greater profit by qualifying for benefits offered by the government.

The questionnaire survey highlighted the tendency within the industry to perceive that sustainable construction methods cost more than traditional methods. However, there is a common belief that sustainability is important and that the problem of increased cost must be addressed. As majority of respondents are unaware of the fact that around most of the UK’s CO 2 emissions are created by the construction and usage of buildings, more needs to be done to educate employees of the construction industry on the environmental impacts of the industry. Majority of respondents were of the opinion that: sustainable construction methods result in increased capital costs supporting [ 3 ] and [ 18 ] ; and that sustainable construction methods are as buildable as traditional methods. Most of the respondents were of the opinion that regulations relating to sustainability have had a big effect on the industry. Majority of the respondents highlighted that: there is little awareness of government incentive schemes on sustainability; designers are paying more attention to products used in the construction process; private sector clients are not concerned by sustainability to the same extent as public sector clients; the drive towards sustainable construction is having a positive effect on the industry; enough is being done in terms of law and legislation to enforce a sustainable construction industry. The questionnaire survey findings revealed that:

• the perception of high capital costs emerging due to sustainable construction can obstacle widespread

• the government needs to do more to market incentive schemes across the construction industry in order to increase the awareness of the parties.

• the government is doing its part in driving sustainable construction in terms of law and legislation to enforce a sustainable construction industry and that it is up to the contractors operating in the sector to operate in a sustainable manner.

• as designers are perceived to paying more attention to products used in the construction process, the drive towards sustainability is having an effect on the construction and the environmental impacts and life cycles of materials used are considered more due to the sustainable construction ethos.

• following points should be paid attention to enhance sustainable construction: stricter government legislation, enhanced education and communication to ensure compliance by all parties; greater care at design stage to deliver sustainable solution at a more reasonable cost; more competition between manufacturers to reduce cost associated with sustainability; and need for more work to make sustainable practice become common practice.

The case study compared the original college with the new college. The findings revealed that the new building is expected to omit 34.45kg/m 2 of carbon per annum less than the original college. The new school is expected to save 861.25kg/m 2 of CO 2 over the next 25 years. This highlights how modern building methods can increase the efficiency of buildings and reduce CO 2 emissions. Furthermore, the new college is expected to qualify for the incentive and receives the extra funding of £50.00 per m 2 of useable floor area as an incentive. This reveals that the capital costs of sustainable buildings can decrease by hitting government targets. In this way, clients and contractors can build more sustainable buildings without having to pay high capital costs and they can benefit the extra funding by qualifying for the incentive. The case study revealed economic benefits of sustainable construction and supported: [ 2 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] .

The objectives of this paper were: to establish if there is an opinion within the industry that sustainability means increased cost; and to investigate whether using sustainable construction methods save money by reducing a buildings carbon output and running costs. With these objectives the research methods consisted of: the literature review; questionnaire survey; and a case study which compared the original college against the structure being built to replace it with respect to the running costs and carbon outputs.

The questionnaire survey results suggest that the majority of the respondents is of the opinion that sustainability does generally mean increased capital costs. However, the results also showed that most respondents were of the opinion that sustainable construction techniques should be used even if the capital costs are greater. The onus is on the suppliers and contractors within the market to drive the costs of sustainable construction through competition and more economic production. On the other hand, there are many measures that can be taken to make a building more sustainable without inflating capital costs, for example, taking into account building orientation to maximise the natural light and energy captured. Case study revealed that sustainable methods are effective and produce far more efficient buildings. The new building is expected to be more carbon output efficient than the older one. Moreover, the case study highlighted that by hitting a government target on CO 2 output, £50 per m 2 of useable floor space can be gained in extra funding. This showed how increased capital costs incurred for producing a more sustainable building can be recouped. However, questionnaire survey results showed that most of the respondents are of the opinion that there is little awareness of such schemes. This can hinder widely adoption of sustainable construction across the industry.

In conclusion, this study highlighted the tendency that: there is an opinion within the industry that sustainability means increased cost; using sustainable construction methods save money by reducing a buildings carbon output and running costs; construction personnel recognise the importance of sustainable construction and support its implementation even if capital costs are greater; sustainable construction can make a huge impact in terms of reducing buildings carbon output and running costs. Therefore more should be done, particularly at industry level to ensure all new buildings are built with sustainable construction methods.

Following recommendations have been identified to enhance sustainable construction:

• stricter government legislation, enhanced education and communication are needed to ensure compliance by all parties;

• greater care at design stage should be paid to deliver sustainable solution at a more reasonable cost;

• Competition between manufacturers should be increased to reduce cost associated with sustainability; and

• more work is needed to make sustainable practice become common practice.

• people’s awareness on government incentives should be increased so that they can be motivated for more sustainable construction.

Limitation to this study is the low response rate to the questionnaire. For this reason, the findings can not be generalized for all construction professionals in the UK. The findings, however, provide an understanding of views and perceptions within the UK construction industry.

Further researches can be carried out on: the reasons why private sector clients are perceived not to be concerned with sustainability; and how much the leading organisations within the industry are doing to adhere to the government vision.

1. Around 52% of the UK's CO 2 emissions are created by the construction and usage of buildings. Do you think that many personnel within the construction industry are aware of this fact?

[ 3 ] Yes; [ 20 ] No; [ 1 ] Not Sure

2. Sustainable construction methods can significantly reduce C0 2 emissions and wastage. Do you think the use of these methods generally results in increased capital costs?

[ 19 ] Yes; [ 1 ] No; [ 2 ] Not Sure; [ 2 ] Missing

3. In your opinion, should sustainable building methods be used even if the capital costs are greater?

[ 15 ] Yes; [ 4 ] No; [ 2 ] Not Sure; [ 3 ] Missing

4. In your opinion, with the focus on sustainability, is the ease of construction compromised?

[ 5 ] Yes; [ 14 ] No; [ 2 ] Not Sure; [ 3 ] Missing

5. The UK Government has set out a number of detailed regulations to enforce sustainable construction, for example Part L: Conservation of Fuel & Power. Do you think government regulations such as this have had a big effect on the industry?

[ 15 ] Yes; [ 5 ] No; [ 1 ] Not Sure; [ 3 ] Missing

6. The UK Government have a number of incentive schemes in place offering additional funding if certain sustainability targets are met. Do you think there is much awareness of this within the industry?

[ 3 ] Yes; [ 16 ] No; [ 2 ] Not Sure; [ 3 ] Missing

7. With the industry’s drive towards sustainability, do you think designers generally are paying more attention to materials used in the construction process, to ensure the most efficient products are used?

[ 16 ] Yes; [ 3 ] No; [ 2 ] Not Sure; [ 3 ] Missing

8. Do you think the drive towards a more sustainable construction industry is having a positive effect on the industry as a whole?

9. Do you feel that enough is being done to enforce a more sustainable construction industry?

10. Do you have any additional comments?

• Full-Text PDF
• Full-Text ePUB
• Citation-(RIS Format)
• Citation-(BibTeX Format)
• Citation-(EndNote Format)
• Email this article
• Alert me when cited
• Alert me if commented

• Conferences
• Special Issues
• Google Scholar
• VIRAL HEPATITIS CONGRESS
• JournalTOCs

Green construction for Moscow’s sustainable future

The good news is there has already been pioneering investment in this area. Already more than 250 energy-efficient buildings and structures – covering an area of over 1.5 million square metres – are in operation in Moscow. Over 120,000 people are now living and working in these energy-efficient buildings.

Business centres make up the largest share of our new energy-efficient buildings, followed by retail, warehouse and industrial real estate. They are powered by a combination of heating pump units, solar panels and collectors, as well as recuperators for ventilation emissions and effluents.

To encourage innovation in this area, in 2020 Moscow’s city government introduced an award scheme in the field of environmental protections. Winning second place in the Best Implemented Project Using Environmentally Friendly And Energy Saving Technologies category was a group who had developed solar panel equipment to power a hotel. Thanks to their invention, almost 70% of the hotel’s energy was generated by solar power.

The development of energy-efficient buildings in Moscow increases the level of resource conservation from between 20-45%, compared to buildings which have not adopted these innovative technologies. That translates to up to 90% savings in heat energy and power.

In Moscow, the prospects for the development of green building are obvious. It is impossible to imagine the development of a modern metropolis without investing in green technology. It offers great prospects both for the development of innovations and environmental technologies in the city – and for ensuring a resilient and sustainable future for its residents.

More Articles

March 10, 2021

Moscow continues to implement the city improvement and greening programme

March 9, 2021

Mayors call on the G20 to deliver green, just and local recovery from COVID-19

We use cookies. Learn more about how in our Privacy Policy .

The role of sustainability in selecting the optimal site for the hot mixtures asphalt plant: Case study: Al-Hur District-Karbala Province

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Ammar Diame Salih , Hussein Ali Mohammed; The role of sustainability in selecting the optimal site for the hot mixtures asphalt plant: Case study: Al-Hur District-Karbala Province. AIP Conf. Proc. 19 August 2024; 3105 (1): 050012. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0212213

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Hot Mixtures Asphaltic plants are one of the most prominent engines of the construction wheel in the country, as they are the only source for supplying Road construction and maintenance projects with asphaltic concrete. Since the country is now going through a reconstruction stage, so, Asphalt waste is generated in Iraq in gigantic proportions due to a large part of its roads undergoing reconstruction. Therefore, selecting the optimal site for these plants, depending on the criterion for recycling this waste in addition to other criteria, has significant impacts on the long-running economical, environmental, social, and institutional aspects.

This paper aims to select the most suitable site out of the four sites for the construction of the HMA plant for paving projects and maintenance of roads in the Al-Hur district / Karbala Province in particular and an explanation of the role of sustainability in this selection. These sites are: Industrial Zone of Razzaza, Industrial Zone of Al-Sharia, Industrial Zone of Khan Al-Rubue, and Industrial Zone of Husseiniya.

To achieve this aim, a set of quantitative and qualitative sustainability criteria were employed with their relative importance and used to build a mathematical model according to the basics of linear programming. The mathematical model was solved using the POM-QM program. Where, when applying this model to the four industrial areas, it was found that the best site in terms of cost would be in the Industrial Zone of Razzaza This work guides decision-makers in the asphalt industry to assess the optimal and sustainable selection for the sites of Hot Mix Asphaltic plants in Iraq in light of current necessity for road projects and maintenance.

Citing articles via

Publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Study on the impact of deep foundation pit construction on nearby elevated structures—case study.

1. Introduction

2. project overview, 2.1. project profile, 2.2. engineering geology and hydrogeological conditions, 3. three-dimensional finite element model and calculating conditions, 3.1. model design and calculation parameters, 3.2. excavation support and boundary simulation, 4. results and discussion, 4.1. displacement analysis of the total structure, 4.2. displacement analysis of foundation pit support structures, 4.3. influence of the foundation construction on the elevated bridge, 4.3.1. displacements of the elevated bridge, 4.3.2. internal force analysis of bridge foundation structure, 5. construction and monitoring onsite, 5.1. construction onsite, 5.2. monitoring onsite, 5.3. analysis and discussion of the settlement values, 6. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Guo, C.; Jin, X.; Yang, X.; Xu, W.; Sun, R.; Zhou, Y. Comprehensive evaluation of newly cultivated land sustainable utilization at project scale: A case study in Guangdong, China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2024 , 34 , 745–762. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sommer, D.; Plieninger, S. Three pedestrian bridges for China. Bautechnik 2023 , 100 , 135–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Sun, C.; Zhu, B. Exploring the failure mechanism of light poles on elevated bridges under high winds. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024 , 159 , 108076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xia, H.; Guo, W.W.; Xia, C.Y.; Pi, Y.L.; Bradford, M.A. Dynamic interaction analysis of a LIM train and elevated bridge system. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2009 , 23 , 3257–3270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ming, C.; Wei, W.; Haibo, W. Field Tests and Simulation of Ground and Building Vibrations Caused by Metros on an Elevated Bridge. IEEE Access 2018 , 6 , 627–636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, C.; Long, J.; Lu, M. Study on the influence of deep foundation pit excavation on adjacent metro structure. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021 , 768 , 012101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, J.; Liu, J.; Guo, K.; Wu, C.; Yang, S.; Luo, M.; Lu, Y. Numerical Simulation Study on the Impact of Deep Foundation Pit Excavation on Adjacent Rail Transit Structures—A Case Study. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 1853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pei, Q.; Wang, X.; He, L.; Liu, L.; Tian, Y.; Wu, C. Estimation Method for an In Situ Stress Field along a Super-Long and Deep-Buried Tunnel and Its Application. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 1924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Poulos, H.G. From theory to practice in pile design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1998 , 26 , 85–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reese, L.; Van Impe, W.F. Single piles and pile groups under lateral loading. Appl. Mech. Rev. 2002 , 55 , B9–B10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Basack, S.; Nimbalkar, S.; Zaman, M. Recent developments in pile foundations: Design, construction, innovations and case studies. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2023 , 17 , 581–582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Zhao, G.-F.; Deng, X.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Q. Further development of distinct lattice spring model for stability and collapse analysis of deep foundation pit excavation. Comput. Geotech. 2022 , 14 , 104619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chin, Y.-T.; Shen, S.-L.; Zhou, A.-N.; Chen, J. Foundation Pit Collapse on 8 June 2019 in Nanning, China: A Brief Report. Safety 2019 , 5 , 68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Si, W.J.; Wang, Y.J.; Gao, Y.F.; Zhou, H. Safety Assessment on Retaining and Protecting of Deep Foundation Excavation Adjacent to the Existing Railway. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013 , 363 , 1511–1514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, J.S.; Xian, Y.Q.; Liu, T.J. Numerical Modeling of Affection of Foundation Pit Excavation on Metro Tunnel. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012 , 368–373 , 2562–2566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, C.; Peng, L. Ground surface settlement caused by foundation pit excavation and dewatering. China Civ. Eng. J. 2006 , 39 , 117–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Xie, R.; Zhang, H. Mechanical response analysis of the buried pipeline due to adjacent foundation pit excavation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018 , 78 , 135–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, C.J.; Yin, M.; Lin, G. Characters Analysis of the Retaining Structure of the Foundation Pit under Local Load. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014 , 477–478 , 448–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jun, C.L.; Zhuo, Y.Z.; Guo, Y.L. Study on effects of time-space of retaining structures of the deep-foundation pit excavation. Rock Soil Mech. 2003 , 24 , 812–816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, R.S.; Guo, C.C.; Lin, P.Y.; Wang, F.M. Excavation response analysis of prefabricated recyclable support structure for water-rich silt foundation pit. Rock Soil Mech. 2023 , 44 , 843–853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xia, H.; Deng, Y.; Zou, Y.; De Roeck, G.; Degrande, G. Dynamic analysis of rail transit elevated bridge with ladder track. Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2009 , 3 , 2–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamotsu, M.; Kazuhiro, O. Foundation damage of structures. Soils Found. 2012 , 36 , 189–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.C.; Guo, X.P.; Wang, C. Field monitoring analysis of construction process of deep foundation pit at subway station. Ge-Otech. Geol. Eng. 2019 , 37 , 549–559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bing, H.L.; Xing, W.L.; Zu, Y.S. Comparison of the Application Effects of Two Supporting Forms in a Deep Foundation Pit Engineering. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Architectural Interchanges in Asia, Hangzhou, China, 14–17 October 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearlman, S.L.; Walker, M.P.; Boscardin, M.D. Deep Underground Basements for Major Urban Building Construction. In Proceedings of the GeoSupport 2004: Innovation and Cooperation in the Geo-Industry, Orlando, FL, USA, 29–31 January 2004; pp. 545–560. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klotz, U.; Vermeer, P.A.; Klotz, C.; Möller, S. A 3D finite element simulation of a shield tunnel in weathered Singapore Bukit Timah Granite. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2006 , 21 , 272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suh, J.M.W. Multi-agent based traffic simulation and integrated control of freeway corridors: Part 1 simulation and control model. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2009 , 23 , 1365–1373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, B.G.; Jia, Z.P. Optimal strut position of deep foundation pit with convex corner under surcharge of adjacent building. Rock Soil Mech. 2023 , 44 , 2400–2408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, J.; Xue, B.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y. Numerical study on the behavior of an existing tunnel during excavating adjacent deep foundation pit. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 9740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matsumoto, T.; Kitiyodom, P.; Matsui, H.; Katsuzaki, Y. Monitoring of load distribution of the piles of a bridge during and after construction. J. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. 2004 , 44 , 109–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ayasrah, M.; Qiu, S.H.; Zhang, X. Influence of Cairo Metro Tunnel Excavation on Pile Deep Foundation of the Adjacent Under-ground Structures: Numerical Study. Symetry 2021 , 13 , 426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ning, W.; Ming, H. Deformation Monitoring Artificial Neural Network Model of Deep Foundation Pit Considering the Excavation Effect. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. 2009 , 43 , 990–993. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, Z.; Jin, J.; Han, T.-C. Analysis of the zoning excavation monitoring data of a narrow and deep foundation pit in a soft soil area. J. Geophys. Eng. 2018 , 15 , 1231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lowry, K.; Rayhani, M.T. Factors Affecting Axial and Lateral Load Transfer of Hollow Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Piles in Soft Clay. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2024 , 17 , 644–653. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• GB50010-2010 ; Code for Design of Concrete Structures. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2015.
• Ahmad, M.; Ray, R. Modelling of the Torsional Simple Shear Test with Randomized Tresca Model Properties in Midas GTS NX. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2023 , 41 , 1937–1946. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DB 42/T159-2012 ; Technical Specifications for Foundation Pit Engineering. Hubei Provincial Department of Housing and Urban Rural Development: Wuhan, China, 2012.
• JGJ79-2012 ; Technical Code for Ground Treatment of Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2015.

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Huang, J.; Yan, J.; Guo, K.; Yang, X.; Peng, S.; Wu, C. Study on the Impact of Deep Foundation Pit Construction on Nearby Elevated Structures—Case Study. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2541. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082541

Huang J, Yan J, Guo K, Yang X, Peng S, Wu C. Study on the Impact of Deep Foundation Pit Construction on Nearby Elevated Structures—Case Study. Buildings . 2024; 14(8):2541. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082541

Huang, Junzhou, Jun Yan, Kai Guo, Xingyue Yang, Sheng Peng, and Cai Wu. 2024. "Study on the Impact of Deep Foundation Pit Construction on Nearby Elevated Structures—Case Study" Buildings 14, no. 8: 2541. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082541

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Programmes Consumer Information for SCP Sustainable Buildings and Construction Sustainable Food Systems Sustainable Lifestyles & Education Sustainable Public Procurement Sustainable Tourism
• Network Members Directory Organisations

Sustainable Buildings and Construction Case Studies - Asia

• Published on November 2, 2021

The building and construction sector is increasingly under pressure from authorities and the public to address environmental and social issues. Nevertheless, sustainable development in the sector remains hampered by limited coordination between different stakeholders throughout a building's life span. This is why it is necessary to create conditions and incentives that address and encourage all stakeholders to promote jointly sustainable building practices.

The sustainable buildings and construction programme developed 26 case studies on projects being implemented in Asia, including the impacts, replicability and scalability, and main challenges of each project. 

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

Goal 9: industry, innovation and infraestructure, goal 11: sustainable cities and communities, goal 12: responsible consumption and production, actors involved:, value chain stage(s):, programme(s):, share your work on sustainable consumption and production, you might also be interested in.

Sustainable Buildings and Construction Case Studies - Africa

Sustainable buildings and construction.

Sustainable Buildings and Construction Case Studies - LAC

Select a language.

Study on Effective Length Factors of the Members in a Sustainable Assembled Steel Grid Shear Wall

• Published: 19 August 2024

Cite this article

• Xiangyu Yan 1 , 2 ,
• Jiayi Guo 2 ,
• Zhihua Chen 2 ,
• Zhenyu Li 2 &
• Mofan Zhang 3  

In recent years, prefabricated construction has emerged as a building form that addresses the issues including large amounts of construction waste, low resource utilization efficiency, and severe environmental pollution, which were caused by the traditional rough construction methods in the construction industry. It features efficient construction, high resource and energy utilization efficiency, and environmental friendliness, thus effectively promoting sustainable development of the construction industry. Steel grid shear walls (SGSW) are an efficient lateral force-resisting system that solves the problems of suboptimal housing quality and low level of component standardization and assembly when used in prefabricated residential construction. They offer advantages such as lightweight and standardized components, convenient fabrication and installation, high level of assembly, and easy post-earthquake repair, contributing to sustainable assembled structure forms. However, the stability of its grid components has not been deeply investigated and needs to be addressed. This study aimed to determine the effective length factor for steel grid members in SGSW. Firstly, an eigenvalue buckling analysis of the SGSW was conducted. The effective length factor of the steel grid member was calculated using Euler’s formula. The key variables were determined with the use of parametric analysis, based on which two computational formulas for the effective length factor of the steel grid member were established through fitting methods. To validate the calculation formulas, the stabilized bearing capacity of the steel grid member was estimated using nonlinear buckling analysis and compared with the exact solution. The results demonstrate that the fitted effective length factors performed better in terms of goodness of fit while the proposed effective length factor formulas can meet the safety requirements. These findings provide a theoretical basis for the design of the SGSW structure in the future, and establish a theoretical foundation for the development and application of SGSW in prefabricated constructions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

All data that support the findings of this study are included in this manuscript information files.

Duan, Y. (2019). Research on mechanical properties and simplified calculation method of grid shaped steel plate shear wall. Degree Thesis, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, https://doi.org/10.27356/d.cnki.gtjdu.2019.004166 .

GB50017-2017, (2017). Standard for design of steel structures. China Architecture & Building Press

Gao, M., & Tian, J. (2021). Application of direct analysis method in designing irregular shaped steel structures and its comparison to effective length factor method. Building Structure, 51 (19), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.19701/j.jzjg.2021.19.022

Article   Google Scholar  

Jiang, Y., Zhao, D., Wang, D., & Xing, Y. (2019). Sustainable performance of buildings through modular prefabrication in the construction phase: a comparative study. Sustainability, 11 , 5658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205658

Li, Z., Wen, Y., Yan, X., Duan, Y., Zhang, T., & Yang, Y. (2023). Cyclic tests and parametric analyses of steel grid shear walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 200 , 107647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107647

Liu, Z., Jin, L., Zhou, X., & Ma, Y. (2021). State-of-the-art on research of direct analysis method of steel members with global instability. Journal of Building Structures, 42 (08), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2020.C335

Sun, J., & Zhao, Q. (2015). Engineering applications of steel plate shear walls. Building Structure, 45 (16), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.19701/j.jzjg.2015.16.012

Wen, Y. (2020). Study on optimal layout and calculation method of grid-shaped steel plate shear wall. Degree Thesis, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, https://doi.org/10.27356/d.cnki.gtjdu.2020.003995 .

Xiong, X., & Li, X. (2017). Discussion on the stability coefficient φ b for flexural-torsional buckling of hot-rolled cut-T section struts. Building Structure, 47 (21), 73–77+35. https://doi.org/10.19701/j.jzjg.2017.21.014

Yan, X., Duan, Y., Chen, Z., Wen, Y., & Wang, D. (2021). Experimental study and finite element analysis of grid-shaped steel plate shear wall. Journal of Building Structures, 42 (S1), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2021.S1.0028

Yang, L., Wang, H., Zhang, J., & Gong, M. (2019). Application of direct analysis method of steel structure in design software. Building Structure, 49 (01), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.19701/j.jzjg.2019.01.005

Download references

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFD1101005).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Ocean Energy and Intelligent Construction, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin, 300384, China

Xiangyu Yan

School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China

Xiangyu Yan, Jiayi Guo, Zhihua Chen & Zhenyu Li

State Grid Xiongan New Area Electric Power Supply Company, Xiongan New Area, Hebei, 071700, China

Mofan Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangyu Yan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yan, X., Guo, J., Chen, Z. et al. Study on Effective Length Factors of the Members in a Sustainable Assembled Steel Grid Shear Wall. Int J Steel Struct (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-024-00886-9

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2024

Accepted : 04 August 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-024-00886-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Steel grid shear wall
• Effective length factor
• Eigenvalue buckling analysis
• Nonlinear buckling analysis
• Prefabricated construction
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research