material science and technology in engineering...

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Material Science and Technology in Engineering Conference Frontiers of Sustainable Materials

Embodied Carbon of Concrete / Steel - Building

Structures using Nonlinear Optimization

Ir Julian LEE Manager - Research, Construction Industry Council

Siu-Lai CHAN, Han YU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

25 June 2015

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering



2

1 Background

2 Research Aim and Scope

3 Methodology

4 Results Discussion

5 Conclusions and Prospects

Outline


#1. Building and Construction (>40%)

#2. Transportation (~20%)

#3. Industry (~20%)

Source: International Energy Agency (2012) CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion

Buildings in Hong Kong accounted for 60% of total local GHG emissions.

3

Buildings and Construction

Contribution to Global GHG Emissions


• Actions Taken towards Energy Efficiency Worldwide

4

Building Energy Use & Actions Taken

Sources:

Asia Business Council (ed.) (2007) Building Energy Efficiency – Why Green Buildings are Key to Asia’s Future.

European Insulation Manufacturers Association (Eurima). (ed.). (2011). Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Tackling Climate Change.

U.S. Department of Energy (ed.) (2012) Buildings Sector. Buildings Energy Data Book. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.

• Energy Consumption by Building Sector Worldwide

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 5

Construction sector accounts for second largest carbon footprint

85% of carbon emission is embodied in upstream materials and services

Construction Material Consumption

& Carbon Footprint by Construction Sector in HK

Source: WWF-Hong Kong (2011), Hong Kong Ecological Footprint Report 2010, Paths to Sustainable Future, Hong Kong

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) (2000). Designing with Vision: A Technical Manual for Materials Choices in Sustainable Construction.

Among various economic sectors, the construction industry consumes 40% of materials entering the global economy.


6

UK USA KOREA CANADA

JAPAN FRANCE N. AMERICA TAIWAN

Carbon Footprint & Actions Taken


CIC Carbon Labelling Scheme for Construction Products

Cement Rebar Structural Steel

Aim: Provide verifiable and accurate information on the carbon footprint of construction materials for users to make informed decision thereby to combat the climate change.

Material Coverage

Ready-mixed Concrete


Development of the Scheme

CIC has commissioned HKU to conduct a research on:

Establishment a Hong Kong Based Carbon Labelling Framework

for Construction Materials (the “Research”)

Prof. Thomas NG, Department of Civil Engineering, HKU

Research period: 15 months; completed in late 2012

Two of the key functions of the Construction Industry

Council (CIC):

To promote green building practices and sustainable

construction

To encourage research activities and the use of innovative

techniques and, to establish or promote the establishment of

standards for the construction industry


Development of the Scheme

9

Inspiration of Carbon Labelling for construction products 2009

HKU developed the carbon labelling framework for 6 types of construction products 2012

CIC Carbon Labelling Scheme Launched and open for applications Jan 2014

Research Phase II commences (covering 10 additional product types incl. concrete, stainless steel, asphalt, etc.) Mar 2014

Implementation& Development

Promote the application and the use of low carbon materials

Low-carbon design/construction

Carbon tendering

Export service on carbon certification


Involved Stakeholders / Organisations

10

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=OMcZ3NH-zhM_9M&tbnid=YNXHYqr1KJYk1M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.hk-rfid.com/

http://www.devb.gov.hk/

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=2Wj0XvPhv91gCM&tbnid=uY9n0VjEXtPZSM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.hkite.com/clients.html&ei=nA-xU7yqKoPj8AXQqoCIBA&psig=AFQjCNHgxCir1s8xa9UZEgkxTaczu4xq7A&ust=1404199192974393

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=WK6IWbtmcuwYfM&tbnid=lc3tC8n0KXaZRM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://happydietitian.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/new-york-vs-hong-kong-fight/&ei=tA-xU8LVHMb68QXtyYCgAw&psig=AFQjCNFyPbZ3jqERlt8CZlG1H1hZzv1Mew&ust=1404199217421198

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=wG1Ttal8z_v0XM&tbnid=LfbCezGYFYHKlM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.ustbsu.org/mp2013/program.html&ei=4A-xU-acLMzk8AWS4YCwAw&psig=AFQjCNEupdPYRRbc8Q21mDdzEAXHLSmGwQ&ust=1404199259734610

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=DoPHwppFBUxXSM&tbnid=zUjRMHVeB29vSM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.waterconservation.hk/en/mobile_org.html&ei=ThCxU5XoA8n38QW-tIHYAw&psig=AFQjCNHQSUFrIuPqH0s3rkEdzu1U-l8OVA&ust=1404199367287938

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=fsj24-6lKFFP3M&tbnid=iAGUIQbEkaaKQM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.searchtmr.com/search/%E9%B8%BF%E8%A3%95%E9%92%A2%E9%93%81;HONG+YU+STEEL.html&ei=cBCxU7mhB8Sj8AW4goHgAg&psig=AFQjCNH1a-RjGM6TWp9MURJJG5qeHTPaGQ&ust=1404199404962148

http://www.wolee.com/index.php

http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=S5lQwlLBzvGGaM&tbnid=E3tuWYJThlh4KM:&ved=0CAgQjRw&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gammon_Construction&ei=LBGxU_apO9jl8AW3vYGoBA&psig=AFQjCNGBxHbFjMqsWmHBD8RJQ7Ktg2_VDg&ust=1404199597055699

http://www.chunwo.com/Index.aspx


Concrete is everywhere. It is the second

most consumed material after water, the

most widely used man-made material and

it shapes our built environment.

Reinforcing bar and structural steel are

extensively used in the construction

industry as they are the “bones” of

buildings.

Concrete vs. Steel (Lower Carbon?)

(Direct Industrial CO2 Emission, 2006)

Concrete

Source: Industrial Development Report, 2011

Embodied Carbon Footprint

Ready-mixed Concrete vs. Steel

Material Type Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 e/kg) * a general range collected from worldwide data sources

Concrete 0.1 ~ 0.2 depending on strength, SCM rate, cement carbon footprint, etc.

Virgin Steel 1.5 ~ 3.5 depending on the manufacturing furnace type, fuel type and use, etc.

Recycled Steel 0.5 ~ 1.5 depending on recycled scrap usage, furnace type, fuel type and use, etc.


What is missing?

What is missing:-

Least Material Consumption ≠ Least Carbon Emissions

Optimised Structure Design ≠ Lowest Carbon Footprint of Structure

Selection and Use of Low Carbon Material ≠ Lowest Carbon Footprint of Building Structure

Smart Integration of Structural Design and Low Carbon Materials

Lowest Carbon Footprint of the Whole Building Structure?

What we know:-

Building & Construction – Consumes Much Energy and Generates GHG Emissions

Building Design – Structural Safety, Economic Efficiency & Environmental Sustainability

Material Use – Associated with Embodied Carbon (EC) & Energy

What we are doing:-

Energy Supply Increase Energy Efficiency Improvement (Green Building (GB) techniques, GB rating tools, etc.)

Optimised Structural Design is Saving Material Consumption

Carbon Labelling Scheme is Promoting Use and Manufacture of Low Carbon Materials


• This study aims to examine the potential of embodied carbon reduction through optimising different steel and reinforced concrete structural designs (typical Hong Kong Layout with local geological condition, loading & design requirements such as wind load).

The Nonlinear Optimization Method will be used to optimise the structural design of building structures which enables the safety, economic efficiency as well as environmental sustainability.

The embodied carbon footprint data of ready-mixed concrete and steel (virgin / recycled) will be used to calculate the overall carbon footprint of optimised building structure

Comparison will be conducted to investigate the influence of structure design and material usage on the building's overall carbon footprint.

13

Research Aim and Scope


Methodology

Building Model Configurations

Steel • Steel Beam + Steel Columns

• Coupled with Concrete Corewall

Reinforced Concrete


Methodology

Building Model Configurations (Cont.)

Steel Building • Steel Beams+Steel Columns • Concrete Core Wall (Beams)

RC Building • RC Beams+RC Columns • Concrete Core Wall (Beams)

Both types are in 25 floors Maximum Height = 97.6m Plan Area = 27.69m x 23.26m


Methodology

Computer Analysis Method

Steel Building • Second-order plastic (P-Δ-δ) analysis RC Building • Linear elastic analysis

3-D analysis and modeling are used in determining the capacities and forces in members and connections.

Computer Programme Used • NAF serious – Nonlinear Integrated

Design and Analysis (NAF-NIDA) version 9

All design shall be in accordance with the BD of the Hong

Kong SAR Government. All aspects of the structural design

shall comply with:

1. Hong Kong Building (Construction) Regulations 1990

2. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2004

3. Code of Practice for the Structural Uses of Steel, 2011

4. Code of Practice on Wind effects in Hong Kong, 2004

5. Code of Practice for Fire Resisting Construction 1996

6. BS8007 Design of Concrete Structures for Retaining

Aqueous Liquid

7. BS4466:1989 Schedule, dimensioning, bending and

cutting of steel reinforcement for concrete

8. Practice Notes for AP/RSE/RGE No. APP-68 (PNAP 173)

Design and Construction of Cantilevered Concrete

Structures

9. Eurocode-3, EN 1993-1-8, Design of joints, 2005


Methodology

Computer Analysis Method (cont.)

Load combinations for ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) checking are considered

Second-order analysis of constant load Newton-Raphson method is employed to account for both P-Δ and P-δ effects, as well as initial imperfections

Only section capacity check by is adequate No need of traditional member design

Fc(Δx+δx) & Fc(Δy+δy) - Additional moments due to frame & member deflections including effects of initial imperfections; Member lateral-torsional buckling check is carried out by replacing Mcx in Equation (1) by the buckling resistance moment Mb.

(1)

(2)

No plastic moment re-distribution is

allowed in the “Advanced Analysis”

in accordance with HKSC2011


Methodology

Control of Variation

Comparison 1: Superstructure Only (Sup) • Steel Building (Core wall in C60, C80, C100; Steel Section / Bar in Virgin, 39% recycled

scrap, 59% recycled scrap)

• RC Building in C60 (Steel Bar in Virgin, 39% recycled scrap, 59% recycled scrap)

• RC Building in C80 (As above)

• RC Building in C100 (As above)

Comparison 2: Superstructure + Foundation (Sup + F) Variation the same as above in Comparison 1 • Steel Building • RC Building in C60 • RC Building in C80 • RC Building in C100


• Due to the limited data collected from Hong Kong local industry and market, this study firstly applies the carbon footprint data obtained from Inventory of Embodied Carbon & Energy (ICE), a comprehensive carbon footprint database for construction materials developed by UK.

• Concrete (C20 – C50;

100% OPC; PFA 15% / 30% replacement; GGBS

25% / 50% replacement).

• Steel (Section, Bar, pipe, plate;

100% virgin;39%, 59% recycled scrap)

19

Methodology

Embodied Carbon Database

Avg value

C 60, C80, C100


Concrete Grade 100% OPC (Upper Limit) 50% GGBS (Lower Limit) Average Value

C60 491 306 413

C80 598 381 507

C100 * 598 381 507

20

*The carbon footprint value of super high strength concrete will not be increased with the increasing strength but tending to be steady. It is assumed that the carbon footprint of C100 the same as the C80.

The Carbon footprint data of concrete applied in this study (unit: kg CO2e/m3) :

The Carbon footprint data of steel applied in this study (unit: kg CO2e/kg) :

Steel Type 100% virgin steel 39% recycled scrap 59% recycled scrap

Section 3.03 2.03 1.53

Bar 2.77 1.86 1.40

Methodology

Embodied Carbon Data


Results Discussion

1.1 Superstructure(Sup) Total Weight

Weight (kN) Steel Building RC Building in C60 RC Building in C80 RC Building in C100

Section 8654 0 0 0

Concrete 47636 98239 86560 76668

Bar 5163 10893 10001 9640

Total 61452 109132 96561 86308

8654

0

0

0

47636

98239

86560

76668

5163

10893

10001

9640

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

Steel

C60

C80

C100

WEIGHT (KN)

TOTAL WEIGHTS COMPARISON

Section Concrete Bar


Results Discussion

1.2 Sup In Different Concrete Grades

Steel Building, 5.13


Steel Buiilding, 4.75

RC Building, 5.13

RC Building, 4.80

RC Building, 4.35

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

C60 UL

C60 Avg

C60 LL

CO

NC

RET

E V

AR

IETY

ICE Virgin Steel with Different Concrete




RC Building, 5.02

RC Building, 4.69

RC Building, 4.23

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

C80 UL

C80 Avg

C80 LL

CO

NC

RET

E V

AR

IETY




RC Building, 4.67

RC Building, 4.37

RC Building, 3.96

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

C100 UL

C100 Avg

C100 LL

ECe value (10^6 kgCO2e/m3)

CO

NC

RET

E V

AR

IETY

Concrete Steel

Concrete Grade Increases---

• Total Embodied Carbon

decreases

• The Difference of Total EC values between RC and Steel Buildings increases

• Same trends apply to models using recycled steel

RC Building Steel Building


Results Discussion

1.3 Sup In Different Kinds of Steel




RC Building, 5.13

RC Building, 4.12

RC Building, 3.60

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

VIR

GIN

39

%R

59

%R

ECe Value (10^6 kgCO2e/m3)

Stee

l Var

iety

C60 UL with Different Steel




RC Building, 4.80

RC Building, 3.79

RC Building, 3.28

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

VIR

GIN

39

%R

59

%R


Stee

l Var

iety

C60 Avg with Different Steel




RC Building, 4.35

RC Building, 3.34

RC Building, 2.83

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

VIR

GIN

39

%R

59

%R


Stee

l Var

iety

C60 LL with Different Steel

Recycled Content of Scrap in Steel Products Increases--

• Total Embodied Carbon

decreases

• The advantage of steel building in terms of total EC increases

• Same trends apply to models in C80 & C100


Applicant Region Product Category Carbon Footprint Value Rebar and Structural Steel Unit: tonne CO2e/tonne

Thailand Section 0.55 Mainland China Pipe 2.95

Taiwan Section 1.37 Middle East Rebar 2.08

Middle East Section 2.36

Hong Kong

Ready-mixed Concrete Unit: kg CO2e/m3 concrete C30s 240 C40s 308 C40s 209 C40s 229

C40s 233

C40s 255

C40s 287 C40s 282 C60s 310 C60s 240

24

Results Discussion

CIC Carbon Labelling Applicant Data


Steel Bldg, 4.97

Steel Bldg, 3.61

Steel Bldg, 2.92

Steel Bldg, 2.42

RC Bldg, 4.80

RC Bldg, 3.79

RC Bldg, 3.28

RC Bldg, 4.03

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

VIR

GIN

3

9%

R

59

%R

H

K

AP

PLI

CA

NT


Stee

l Var

iety

C60 Avg with Different Steel

25

Results Discussion

1.3 Sup In Different Kinds of Steel

• Keep the Embodied Carbon Data for C60 from ICE unchanged

• Data for steel section and steel rebar obtained from CIC Carbon Labelling Applicants (certain content of steel is using recycled scrap as raw material)

Steel Section ECe = 0.55 kgCO2e/kg Steel Rebar ECe = 2.08 kgCO2e/kg

Steel Bldg, 5.13

Steel Bldg, 3.76

Steel Bldg, 3.08

Steel Bldg, 2.57

RC Bldg, 5.13

RC Bldg, 4.12

RC Bldg, 3.60

RC Bldg, 4.36

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

VIR

GIN

3

9%

R

59

%R

H

K

AP

PLI

CA

NT


Stee

l Var

iety

C60 UL with Different Steel

Steel Bldg, 4.75

Steel Bldg, 3.39

Steel Bldg, 2.71

Steel Bldg, 2.20

RC Bldg, 4.35

RC Bldg, 3.34

RC Bldg, 2.83

RC Bldg, 3.59

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

VIR

GIN

3

9%

R

59

%R

H

K

AP

PLI

CA

NT


Stee

l Var

iety

C60 LL with Different Steel


-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Stee

l Bu

ildin

g A

dva

nta

ge E

ffec

t

Concrete ECe (kgCO2e/m3)

Steel Building Advantage Effect to RC Building with Concrete in Different Grades

Virgin 0%R C60 39%R C60 59%R C60

Virgin 0%R C80 39%R C80 59%R C80

Virgin 0%R C100 39%R C100 59%R C100

39%

0%

26

Results Discussion 1.4 Sup Steel Building Advantage Effect

• As the Concrete with higher ECe in use

The advantage effect of Steel

Building presents especially when

recycled steel is in use

• Recycled Content of Scrap in Steel

Products Increases—

The advantage of steel building

in terms of total EC increases

RC Building still wins with high

strength concrete in use.

LL

Avg

UL

C60 C80

C100

59%

• Under what condition, Steel Building’s carbon footprint would be lower than RC Building?


41.30% 40.51% 39.19%

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Stee

l Bu

ildin

g A

dva

nta

ge E

ffec

t

Concrete ECe (kgCO2e/m3

Steel Building Advantage Effect to RC Building with Concrete in Different Grades

Virgin 0%R C60 39%R C60 59%R C60

Virgin 0%R C80 39%R C80 59%R C80

HK Applicant C60

27

Results Discussion 1.4 Sup Steel Building Advantage Effect

• Keep the Embodied Carbon Data for C60 from ICE unchanged

• Data for steel section and steel rebar obtained from Applicants in HK

• Steel Section’s Embodied Carbon Value is as low as 0.55 kgCO2e/kg

• By using the steel with low ECe value, the steel building design option has absolute advantage in terms of carbon footprint over RC building.

LL Avg UL

59%

39%

0%


Comparison

1.5 Sup Total EC Values Comparisons

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (

10^6

kgC

O2/

kg)

Percentage of Recycled Steel Included in Whole Building

Total Carbon Emission Equivalent Values Comparison for Steel and RC Buildings in C60 Avg (Superstructure Only)

• The more recycled steel used, the more environmental friendly the design will be.

• However, it is not practical to use recycled steel in the whole building structure due to size limitation of recycled steel products.

• Q: How much percentage of the recycled steel accounts for in the overall steel consumption could make the Steel Building be lower carbon than RC Building?

• < 28% of Recycled Steel RC Bldg

• > 28% of Recycled Steel Steel Bldg

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (

10^6

kgC

O2/k

g)

Percentage of Recycled Steel Included Whole Building

Total Carbon Emission Equivalent Values Comparison

Steel C60 Avg

RC C60 Avg

Steel C80 Avg

RC C80 Avg

Steel C100 Avg

RC C100 Avg


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (

10^6

kgC

O2/

kg)



St100

RC100

29

Comparison 1.5 Sup Total EC Values Comparisons (cont.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (1

0^6k

gCO

2/kg

)



St80

RC80

• ?% of Recycled Steel RC Bldg

• < 54% of Recycled Steel RC Bldg

• > 54% of Recycled Steel Steel Bldg


Results Discussion 1.6 Sup+F Total EC Values Comparisons

• From 28% (Sup) to 5% (Sup + F) • < 5% of Recycled Steel RC Bldg • > 5% of Recycled Steel Steel Bldg

• From 54% (Sup) to 32% (Sup + F) • < 32% of Recycled Steel RC Bldg • > 32% of Recycled Steel Steel Bldg

By adding foundation, the concrete usage dramatically increases:

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (1

0^6

kgC

O2/

kg)


Total Carbon Emission Equivalent Values Comparison for Steel and RC Buildings in C60 Avg (Superstructure+Foundation)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (

10^6

kgC

O2/k

g)



St80 RC80

St80+F RC80+F


Results Discussion 1.6 Sup+F Total EC Values Comparisons (cont.)

If Foundation is included, an interception might be found at around 62% • <~62% of Recycled Steel RC Bldg • >~62% of Recycled Steel Steel Bldg

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Tota

l EC

e (1

0^6

kgC

O2/

kg)



St100 RC100

St100+F RC100+F


• RC Building vs. Steel Building (Which one is lower carbon?)

Material type and constitutes (recycled/virgin steel, recycled percentage, concrete with SCM such as PFA or GGBS, etc.); Combination of material (concrete, rebar, structural steel)

Design (performance requirement, local factor, approach of optimisation)

Material, structural and geotechnical (foundation) condition.

• Composite Structure Building? To be investigated

• More Carbon Footprint Data of Locally Used Material Needed

CIC Carbon Labelling Scheme

• Carbon Footprint Benchmark of Different Building Types

Caron Footprint Index CO2e / GFA

32

Conclusions


Future Study

Comparison 3: Superstructure Only – Vary the Building Heights • Steel Building in 15 Floors • RC Building in C60 in 15 Floors • Steel Building in 35 Floors • RC Building in C60 in 35 Floors

Comparison 4: Superstructure + F – Vary the Building Heights • Steel Building in 15 Floors • RC Building in C60 in 15 Floors • Steel Building in 35 Floors • RC Building in C60 in 35 Floors

Comparison 5: Change to Composite Floor System • Steel Building in 12 Floors (Sup+F) • RC Building in C60 in 12 Floors (Sup+F)

Apply more Hong Kong local values instead of ICE Database to examine the practicability of the study; Provide a guidance for environmental structure system optimization; Link the integrated environmental structural design optimisation with BEAM Plus to easily assess the overall carbon footprint of green building.


Future Development: Think Low Carbon

Low Carbon / Green Materials

Low Carbon / Environmental

Structural Design

Green Building Design and Promotion

G r e e n C u l t u r e

34


Future Development: Think Low Carbon

Low Carbon /

Green Materials

Low Carbon / Environmental

Structural Design

Low carbon design

G r e e n C u l t u r e

Green Building Design and Promotion

35

Identify the low carbon material

options

Propose Structural

Design Options

Compute and compare alternative

structural and material options

Optimize the design to achieve low carbon , low cost and safety

Integrate the design with BEAM Plus to assess the green

performance of the building

Implement the design for construction and further promotion of

green building


Green moving towards a low-carbon city

Green Construction

Green Building

sources of photos:

http://widedscreen.com/3d-architecture-wallpaper-2/

http://www.maximizingprogress.org/2008/11/singapore-green-buildings-in-garden.html

http://www.globalmayorsforum.org/en/citiesdetails.aspx?tid=115&id=129


Thank You

Ir Julian LEE Manager - Research, Construction Industry Council

25 June 2015

material science and technology in engineering...

Documents