217

Examining the role of structural engineers in green

building ratings and sustainable development*

MTA Chaudhary†
Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

A Piracha
University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper examines role of structural engineers in design of green buildings
by analysing credits available for the structural aspects of buildings in the four rating systems
(LEED, BREEAM, Estidama and Green Star). It was concluded that the points related to the
structural credits are roughly proportional to the cost of structural elements in buildings. However,
participation of structural engineers in the sustainability efforts is disproportionally low based
on the percentage of structural engineers holding LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED AP)
designation. Embodied and total energy requirements of typical buildings were examined and it
was concluded that embodied energy in the structural components has a share ranging from 2%
for traditional buildings to 25% for net-zero buildings. Finally, the sustainability aspects related
to structural design that are currently ignored in the rating systems were identified and discussed.
Such aspects include: baseline material usage, structural robustness and resilience to disasters,
structural adaptability and reuse, structural durability and longevity. It was emphasised that a
structure can be sustainable, in true spirit of the terminology, without achieving significant points in
the rating systems as long it satisfies the guiding principle of reducing burden on natural resources
and the environment.

KEYWORDS: Structural engineers; green buildings; sustainable development; rating

systems; embodied energy; structural robustness; structural durability.

REFERENCE: Chaudhary, M. T. A. & Piracha, A. 2013, “Examining the role of structural

engineers in green building ratings and sustainable development”, Australian Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 217-228, http://dx.doi.org/10.7158/S12-019.2013.14.3.

1 INTRODUCTION the other (UNEP, 2009). It has been realised that a

Buildings and civil infrastructure are vital assets of a
nation. However, large quantities of natural resources
and energy are required for their construction,
operation, maintenance and demolition. Buildings
have been identified as a major consumer of natural
resources, potable water and energy (40% of the
total) on the one hand and contributor of about 30%
of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on
* Paper S12-019 submitted 22/04/12; accepted for publication
after review and revision 14/10/12.
† Corresponding author Dr Muhammad Chaudhary can be
contacted at mtariqch@hotmail.com.
major reduction in global GHG is not achievable
without a significant decrease in contributions from
the building sector. Therefore, Sustainable Building
and Climate Initiative (SBCI) of United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) pushed for inclusion
of emissions from buildings into a global strategy on
climate change at the United Nations Climate Change
Conference – COP15 – held in Copenhagen in 2009
(UNEP-SBCI, 2009). The UN approach for achieving
sustainability in the construction and operation of
buildings tried to strike a balance between providing
more infrastructure for social uplift in developing
countries and limiting the level of new development
in developed countries.

© Institution of Engineers Australia, 2013 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 14 No 3

218 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
Within the construction industry, structural engineers
are one of the key players in building and civil
infrastructure projects. They are part of a multi-
disciplinary team of architects, civil and services
engineers, construction managers and owners which
is required to function in an integrative manner
to successfully deliver the project. Yet, it is a well-
established fact that the technical expertise provided
by structural engineers has far reaching consequences
for economy, constructability, operation and
maintenance, and durability of the project.
In recent years, popularity of green building rating
systems has grown considerably. Weisenberger (2011)
pointed out that while overall building construction
in recent years has declined, the demand for
green buildings has dramatically increased. The
demand for green buildings in new construction
has increased from 2.5% in 2005 to 32% in 2010 in
the USA. This demand is expected to further grow
in the future. Weisenberger (2011) also pointed out
that the contribution of structural engineers in this
fast growing phenomenon is limited to specifying
the construction materials only. He echoed Kestner
et al (2010) when he encouraged structural engineers
to seek a bigger role for themselves in the green
building rating system. Both Weinberger (2011)
and Kestner et al (2010) also sought reforms in
Leadership in Energy and Environment Design
(LEED) that would allow a greater role for structural
engineers in the rating system. Watermeyer &
Pham (2011) presented a general sustainability
framework for structural engineers according to
which structural engineers not only have to design
new structures according to the current building
codes and standards but also have to assess the
fitness of use of existing building stock coupled with
improving quality of life in the developing world.
Danatzko & Sezen (2011) presented a more positive
way forward for the structural engineers. They have
elaborated sustainable structural design strategies
and methodologies without unnecessarily worrying
about the rating systems. They also discussed
relative strengths and weaknesses of these strategies
and their possible combinations. Indirect clues of
what is missing in the rating systems can be found
in their work.
This paper focuses on examining the responsibilities
entrusted to structural engineers in the context of
sustainable design. Section 2 of the paper provides
a brief description of global sustainability efforts
for buildings and compares credit categories in
four rating systems, namely LEED (USGBC, 2009),
Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method (BREEAM) (BRE Global, 2008),
Pearl Rating System for Estidama (Abu Dhabi Urban
Planning Council, 2010) and Green Star rating
system adopted in Australia (GBCA, 2008). Credits
related to the structural trades in the LEED rating
system are examined in section 3 and their impact
on sustainability is discussed. Section 4 of the paper
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
deals with energy and carbon considerations for
structural engineers in the context of green building
design. The structural engineering practices that
make positive contributions in reducing burden
on the natural resources but are currently not
included in the rating systems are examined in
section 5. Conclusions of the study are presented
in section 6.
2 GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY
EFFORTS AND RATING SYSTEMS
The construction industry in developed countries
embraced the idea of “green buildings” in the
late 1980s and started developing concepts and
guidelines for resource and energy efficient
buildings. The first set of such guidelines was
produced by the Building Research Establishment
in the UK as BREEAM in 1990. It was followed by
the French HQE system in 1996. US Green Building
Council’s (USGBC) LEED rating system made its
debut in 2000 and Green Star was created by the
Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) in
2003. Recently, the Pearl Rating System for Estidama
by the Abu Dhabi government was launched in
2010. A proliferation of such rating systems occurred
after 2005; mostly inspired by LEED or BREEAM
(Reed et al, 2009). Estidama, the Middle Eastern
rating system, is distinguished from other rating
tools as its application for building design and
construction is a mandatory requirement.
The current sustainability tools assigns points in
the following six broad categories: (i) site selection
and urban connectivity, (ii) water conservation,
(iii) energy efficiency, (iv) building material efficiency,
(v) indoor air quality and occupant comfort, and
(vi) innovation and exemplary performance. Figure 1
provides a pictorial comparison of relative weightage
of these categories for LEED, BREEAM, Estidama and
Green Star rating systems. It can be observed that in
LEED and BREEAM almost one third of the points
are allocated to the energy efficiency while it is 25%
and 23% in Estidama and Green Star respectively.
Share of points related to construction materials is
almost the same (around 15%) in three rating systems
(LEED, BREEAM and Estidama), while it is 19% in
Green Star. Water efficiency has higher weightage
(25%) in Estidama and 9% in Green Star as compared
to BREEAM and LEED (≤ 5%) for emphasising the
need to conserve precious water in the hot and
arid environments of UAE and Australia. On the
other hand, site selection and urban connectivity is
emphasised more in BREEAM, LEED and Green Star
(≥ 20%) than Estidama (16%) for obvious reasons of
reducing urban sprawl in the UK, USA and Australia.
Indoor air quality and occupant comfort has about
15% share in LEED and BREEAM while it is close to
20% in Estidama and Green Star. The next sections
of the paper discuss the rating points related to the
structural engineering trades.
Vol 14 No 3
 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
Figure 1: Comparison of credits in each category of LEED, BREEAM, Estidama and
Green Star rating systems.
3 SUSTAINABILITY RATING SYSTEMS
AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
In building systems, structural framing usually does
not have the biggest impact on its sustainability.
Lighting and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning) over the life span of a building
have much greater impact. As lighting, HVAC and
other building systems are continually becoming
more efficient, relative contribution of the building
structures and structural engineers is likely to
increase. The participation of structural engineers in
the sustainability efforts are examined in this section
based on the role of structural engineers in the life
cycle of a building, relative cost of structural items
and credits related to the structural trades in the
sustainability rating systems. Provisions of the LEED
rating systems which are of interest to the structural
engineers are discussed in details.
3.1 Structural engineers and
the life cycle of a building
Structural engineers play a vital role in the efficient
design, construction and performance of a building.
Structural engineers, in collaboration with the
architects, owners and/or construction managers
decide on the viability of architectural concepts,
constructability and cost effectiveness at the inception
of construction projects. As the project progresses to
the design stage, structural engineers are the first to
produce a set of working design documents. Most
often, these documents have to cater for the yet
undetermined architectural or mechanical features
based on the sketchy project information and past
experience. This approach usually results in over-
design which is put forward as an acceptable trade off
to a client/owner in favour of the available flexibility
for the architect and other trades. During the
construction stage, it is not uncommon for a structural
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
219
engineer to run calculations to check adequacy of
design due to errors made by the contractor, altered
architectural and/or mechanical details or client’s
decision to use higher design loading. Structural
engineers are also called out during the operation
of the building to advise on serviceability/strength
issues resulting from construction defects, revised
loading, plan modification (eg. cutting opening
through a floor or revising the layout of windows
such that these pass through a diagonal brace, etc.) or
upgrading the building to current building codes. In
the current practice, structural engineers are usually
not involved in the demolition process of a building.
However, involvement of a structural engineer at that
stage can help in improving the financial bottom line
and achieving the sustainability goals.
3.2 Structural cost of a building
Table 1 presents a rough estimate of structural cost
for various building types (Taghavi & Miranda, 2003;
Design Cost Data, 2012). It can be observed that the
structural cost as a percentage of the total building cost
varies between 8% for healthcare projects to almost
50% for pre-engineered warehouse buildings. Figure
2 presents share of construction cost for various trades
of a typical low rise office building. In this figure, it
can be observed that bulk of the cost is related to the
architectural and mechanical, electrical and plumbing
(MEP) aspects. Structure’s share is only 18% (Design
Cost Data, 2012). This comparison provides a good
understanding of the relative importance of structural
components from the cost point of view.
3.3 How enthusiastic are structural
engineers about sustainability?
The recent surge in the number of building projects
registering for a sustainable rating certification
has also generated the demand for design and
Vol 14 No 3
220 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
Table 1: Structural cost for various building types.
Building type Office Residential Health care Educational High rise
Structural cost (%) 18 13 8 12
Structural
40
30
20
Civil Architectural
10
0
Interiors MEP
Figure 2: Share of construction cost
of an office building.
construction professionals who are qualified to
implement the requirements of these rating systems.
Qualification of such professionals (eg. USGBC LEED
Accredited Professional (LEED AP)) is ensured by
requirement of passing a certification exam. Figure
3 provides a pictorial depiction of composition of
professionals with LEED AP designation by their
primary occupation.
Understandably, 31% of the total LEED APs are
architects, followed by 18% construction managers
and 7% MEP engineers. Structural engineers’
representation is only 2%. Such a low percentage of
structural engineers acquiring LEED AP designation
is an indication that structural engineers are not
enthusiastic about sustainability. This fact can be
attributed to the following reasons:
• The overall role of structural engineers in
conception, planning, management and execution
of building projects is limited as compared to
the architects, construction managers and MEP
engineers. Structural engineers do provide vital
technical input but do not control the “fate” of
the project.
Figure 3: Composition of LEED APs (as of November 2011).
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
Industrial Warehouse
25 30 50
• There is a misconception among structural
engineers that sustainability and green building
rating systems are not for them. Furthermore,
most structural engineers consider their primary
job as being already sustainable due to the inherent
emphasis on cost and material optimisation.
• Structural engineers seem to be reluctant to add
further responsibility to an already full portfolio
of technical and professional responsibilities
and liabilities without significant financial or
professional reward.
• Relative cost of the structural components is
8-18% of the overall construction cost for typical
buildings. Therefore, the overall impact on
cost savings due to adoption of sustainability
measures in structural trades (for example
replacing part of cement with fly ash) is very small
(less than 0.03% for an all concrete building with
30% cement replacement with fly ash).
• University degree courses for structural engineers
contain very little content on sustainability and
environmentally responsible design practices.
3.4 Credits related to structural trades
in sustainability rating systems
The materials section in the rating systems is the one
which contains credits of interest and involvement for
structural engineers. From figure 1 it can be observed
that almost equal emphasis is given to this section
in LEED, BREEAM and Estidama (ie. around 15%),
while it is slightly higher (about 19%) in Green Star. It
is to be emphasised that not all credits in this section
are related to structural engineers. For example,
LEED credits related to recycling of construction
waste, re-use of non-structural components, use
of certified wood for non-structural applications
and materials for building envelope and flooring
are outside the domain of structural engineers.
Vol 14 No 3
 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
Therefore, the credits in the materials section are
divided into three categories based on involvement
of structural engineers: (i) direct involvement, (ii)
indirect involvement and (iii) supporting role.
Discussion on these credits in the LEED rating system
is presented in the subsequent sub-sections while a
pictorial summary is presented in figure 4.
3.4.1 Direct involvement
Direct involvement means that structural engineers
are directly responsible for specifications and design
of the structural elements related to these credits.
The credits with the most significant involvement
of structural engineers and having the most impact
on sustainability are building reuse (MR c1.1) and
material reuse credits (MR c3). Suitability of the
structural components for reuse solely depends
on the calculations and judgment of structural
engineers. Unfortunately, both of these credits are
costly to achieve and historical data indicates that
these credits have been attempted in only 5% and 6%
of the projects respectively (Matthiessen et al, 2004).
Apart from their treatment in LEED, these credits
are the most beneficial ones when considering the
embodied energy in a building. The low popularity
of these credits implies that their true impact is
not realised in practice (Hays & Cocke, 2009).
The popularity and impact of these credits can be
increased by assigning them more weightage in the
LEED rating system.
The next credit with direct involvement of structural
engineers is MR c4: recycled content. This credit is
a popular one and has been attempted by 95% of
the LEED registered projects. The popular route
of achieving this credit is to specify supplemental
Figure 4: Structural points in LEED BD & C v. 3.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
221
cementitious materials (SCMs) like fly ash and blast
furnace slag to replace a part of the cement content in
concrete. Use of SCM is a well-established technique
and should be encouraged, even in buildings that
do not attempt to comply with green building
rating systems and even when there are limited
concrete elements. The other widely used structural
material is steel. There are two commercial ways
of manufacturing steel: electric arc furnace and
basic oxygen furnace. Steel made by the electric arc
process contains more than 90% recycled content
and is widely used for making wide flange shapes,
steel plates and rebars for concrete. The basic oxygen
furnace process uses about 25% recycled scrap and
is often employed for making tube shapes and cold-
rolled products like steel studs and thin steel sheets
used as floor or roof deck. The method of manufacture
and final products vary around the world dependent
on infrastructure and resources. There is no structural
issue involved in the use of recycled content in the
manufacturing of steel. However, architects and
structural engineers should try to minimise the use
of tube sections and cold-rolled products in projects
aiming for LEED credit with higher percentages of
recycled content.
Structural engineers need to be aware of the
availability of the specified materials within the
LEED specified 500 mile radius for achieving the
regional material credit and to limit the impact
of transporting materials from faraway places.
Structural engineers should attempt to specify an
alternate product/material that is locally available in
lieu of out of region product specified in a particular
manufacturer’s catalogue.
Structural engineers can be very effective in
specifying products that are made of rapidly
Vol 14 No 3
222 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
renewable materials which have equivalent structural
performance when compared to the conventional
products. For example, specifying the use of floor
joists, curtain wall and scaffolding made of laminated
veneer bamboo instead of traditional species of wood
(Aschheim et al, 2010; Lamboo, 2012).
3.4.2 Indirect involvement
Indirect involvement is applicable to those credits
where choice of structural systems and/or materials
has an impact on the performance of buildings and
on achievement of sustainability credits in other
categories. The most important LEED credit that falls
in this category is EA c1: optimise energy performance.
The base building for energy calculations in ASHRAE
90.1 (ASHRAE, 2007) is a light weight assembly which
consists of a steel stud and batt insulation envelope.
This base model has inherently less energy efficiency
due to thermal bridging provided by the steel studs
than the envelope comprising of insulated precast
concrete panels or insulated masonry walls. Building
envelope consisting of concrete panels or masonry
walls can be used for the dual purpose of structural
load-bearing as well as increasing the energy efficiency.
Use of these options can contribute up to 19 points to
the LEED scorecard for a project and at the same time
result in an energy saving of up to 40% (Zechmeister,
2008). However, the decision to use these options is
subject to the approval from owners and architects for
cost and aesthetic reasons.
3.4.3 Supporting role
Structural engineers can play a supporting role in
achieving the LEED credits related to sustainable
sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere
and indoor environmental quality. As depicted in
figure 4, there are seven credits with potentially 22
points where involvement of structural engineers
may be required. In supporting roles, structural
engineers provide technical expertise for achieving
the sustainability goal by designing the pertinent
structural elements.
In the sustainable sites (SS) credit c6.1 related to
storm water quantity control design, involvement of
structural engineers can be in the form of specifying
pervious concrete for parking surfaces and designing
storm detention structures, etc. Structural engineers
are also required to design the structural system and
related water proofing details for supporting green
roofs and specifying high albedo pavements and
roofs to reduce the heat island effect for contribution
to SS credits c7.1 and c7.2.
Water efficiency credits (SS c1, c2 and c3) require
the involvement of structural engineers in the form
of structural design of rainwater storage tanks and
waste water treatment tanks.
Onsite renewable energy credit (EA c2) in the energy
and atmosphere (EA) category is another example of
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
a credit where structural engineers are required to
provide technical support for the design of structures
for solar panels and wind turbines.
Structural engineers are required to provide innovative
details to support the light shelves above windows or
to provide structural framing for clearstory windows
to achieve the 75% daylight target in credit EQ c8.1 in
the indoor environmental quality category.
3.4.4 Discussion
It can be concluded from the above discussion and the
one in section 3.2 that the allocation of points related
to the structural trades in the LEED rating system
are in line with the percentage cost of structural
components in buildings. However, participation
of structural engineers in the green building design
process seems to be lacking as only 2% of the LEED
AP are structural engineers. This low number is
not at par with the relative importance of structural
engineers in the overall process of building design
and construction when measured in terms of project
cost or points in the LEED rating system.
Lack of guidance from professional structural
engineering bodies can be a possible reason for lack
of awareness among structural engineers on this
issue. The sustainability guidelines for structural
engineers produced by the Structural Engineering
Institute (SEI) of ASCE (Kestner et al, 2010) tried
to fill this gap. However, the document lacks the
authoritative punch required to deliver the message
and to provide guidelines which are more coherent
and are not overly concerned with the LEED
requirements. Pleading by SEI to USGBC to retain
certain structural credits in the draft version of 2012
LEED guidelines further strengthen the feeling that
the structural community is not willing to take an
independent stance on the issue of sustainability and
is satisfied by merely catering to the requirements set
forth by sustainability rating systems.
4 ENERGY AND CARBON
CONSIDERATIONS FOR
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Danatzko & Sezen (2011) discussed five possible
sustainable structural design methodologies:
(i) minimising material use, (ii) minimising material
production energy, (iii) minimising embodied
energy, (iv) life cycle assessment, and (v) maximising
structural system reuse. This paper focuses on
methodology (iii) – minimising embodied energy – as
overall performance of buildings is measured in terms
of their energy usage over their useful life. Design
methodology (v) – maximising structural system reuse
– is also a powerful one and is discussed in section 5.
Embodied energy, operating energy and carbon load
are some of the terminologies which are frequently
Vol 14 No 3
 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha 223


used by the sustainability and climate change
professionals but are new to a structural engineer’s Sitework

lexicon. However, in order to effectively understand 6%
and tackle the underlying principles of sustainable 
development, it is necessary that the impact of a
structural engineer’s design be defined in terms 
of these parameters (Symons & Symons, 2009). Structure
Embodied energy is defined as the energy required 
Services 24%
for extracting, transporting and manufacturing a
 24%
product to the point of its use, while operating energy
is the one that a building consumes in its operation 
over its lifetime. Carbon load is the amount of CO2
emitted into the atmosphere for manufacturing  Envelope
building components, constructing buildings and Construction 26%
operating them over their useful life. 
7%
Building construction and operation is an energy 
intensive task. It was pointed out in section 1 that
the building sector is responsible for 40% of the Finishes

total global energy consumption and 30% of the 13%
CO2 emissions. Embodied energy of a building is 
the energy required to build it. It includes the energy
Figure 5: Average embodied energy in a
embedded in the construction materials (structural
typical office building.
and non-structural), demolition, construction

process, project management and on-site operations

as depicted in figure 5 (Cole & Kernan, 1996).

Structural components comprise about 25% of the 
total embodied energy in a building while occupying 
80% of its mass. Share of embodied energy in the

structural components is more than the cost of these

items (refer to table 1) due to the energy intensive

processes required for manufacturing of main

constituents of the structural components (ie. steel

and concrete). One may find some variation in these

numbers due to the methodology used for these
calculations or definitions of the system boundaries
(Jones & Hammond, 2011). Figure 6: Comparison of embodied and total
Operating energy of a building is dependent on the energy for various building types.
type of building (ie. traditional, energy efficient/
high performance, passive or net-zero), its design to technological advancements in energy efficient
life and the climate. Figure 6 provides a comparison building envelope and mechanical equipment,
of operating energy required for various types environmental awareness and government
of buildings located in cold climate where major regulations, energy efficient and net-zero buildings
expense of energy is related to space heating (Satori & and communities are being planned in various parts
Hestnes, 2007). Total energy is the sum of embodied of the world. For example, UK legislation is requiring
energy and operating energy. It is to be noted in figure all new homes built after 2016 and all new build after
6 that the share of embodied energy is 7%, 15%, 32% 2019 to be net-zero (Borchers, 2010). Another example
and 100% of the total energy in traditional, energy of net-zero energy use is Masdar city in Abu Dhabi,
efficient, passive and net-zero buildings respectively. which is a 6 km2 community project scheduled for
Respective share of embodied energy in the structural completion in 2019.
components is 2%, 4%, 8% and 25% of the total
As explained above, increase in the operational
lifetime energy use.
energy efficiency in the future buildings is inevitable.
There is little incentive in reducing the embodied This change is likely to enhance the importance of
energy in structural components for ordinary embodied energy in the buildings and will provide
buildings due to its miniscule 2% share in the lifetime structural engineers a chance to be responsible for
energy requirements. This fact was the basis of efficient design of 20-25% of the total energy of a
UNEP policy of only emphasising improvements building. This increased responsibility is likely to
in operating energy efficiency to achieve the targets provide an incentive for innovation in structural
of sustainability and emission reductions from engineering to further reduce the energy and carbon
the building sector (UNEP, 2009). However, due footprint of buildings.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 14 No 3

224 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
5 STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES THAT
CAN ENHANCE SUSTAINABILITY
Based on the conclusion of section 4 above, it is
suggested that the structural engineers break the
shell and take active part in sustainability initiatives
without worrying too much about the points in the
rating systems. The following strategies are currently
not allocated any weightage in the rating systems but
can have a far reaching impact on the sustainable
performance of buildings.
5.1 Baseline material usage
There is no baseline material use/structural form
model for structural efficiency as compared to the
baseline for water and energy use against which
the efficiency of these items is measured. Studies
by Collings (2006) and Buckley et al (2002) are
examples in this regard for bridges and buildings
respectively. It is hoped that with the passage of time,
similar studies will broaden the database of energy
considerations in structural design and structural
engineers will find a comfort zone while dealing
with the exotic idea of energy usage in tandem with
structural design requirements.
Adoption of this measure will give incentive for using
less materials and conserving natural resources.
Strategies include: thin shell structures, bubble
deck for reducing concrete volume, castellated
steel beams, high strength materials, etc. However,
incorporation of these measures in a project is not at
the sole discretion of structural engineers.
5.2 Structural robustness and resilience
Natural disasters like floods, hurricanes and
earthquakes are another reason for multi-billion
dollar damage to buildings every year which require
substantial repair or demolition and rebuilding.
Current building codes are formulated for life
safety only in the case of extreme natural disasters.
This philosophy results in lack of resilience and
robustness in the structures, which is the main reason
for the widespread damage. Additionally, with the
adoption of probability-based load factor design in
most building design codes since the early 1980s,
the extra margin of safety that was present in the
working stress method has been taken away. This
explains the reason for disproportional loss and
damage to buildings and houses built after 1980s in
the aftermath of recent natural disasters in the USA
(Frank, 2012; Pielke at al, 2008). For this reason, a
number of building insurance companies in the
USA require a structural design that is based on
environmental loads that are 10% to 20% more than
the code prescribed values.
The biggest single contribution from structural
engineers to sustainable development will be in
the field of improving the current building design
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
codes to deliver more robust and disaster resilient
structures. Understandably, this move will require
bucking the current trend of construction practices
and urban development that are solely driven by the
motivation of improving the financial bottom line. A
move away from the current status quo will result in
structures with higher initial cost and incorporation
of new construction technology and will need the
backing of the owners and the society. Structural
engineers alone cannot overcome the hurdles
associated with adopting/implementing stringent
codes and construction practices. Achieving any
positive development in this direction will require
a clear shift in the government policy as well as
consensus of all stakeholders.
Performance based design for sustaining the brunt
of seismic, blast and hurricane loads is one such
methodology that is currently available and has been
put into limited practice in some regions (Fardis,
2010). Adoption of this methodology for a building
should be rewarded with sustainability credits as the
superior design of the structure has the capability
of withstanding the extreme environmental and
accidental (blast) loads with minimum damage to the
structure and loss of functionality. Therefore, such a
structure has the capability of reducing the wastage
of embodied energy that will go into the rebuilding
of damaged/collapsed buildings and infrastructure.
5.3 Structural adaptability and reuse
Current sustainability rating tools for buildings
focus on the use of recycled and locally produced/
procured materials. Credits related to reuse of
existing structural components, or adaptation of
existing structure are available. However, their
weightage in the overall scheme is low and most of
the design teams and owners have historically not
attempted these credits as discussed in section 3.4.
A survey of demolished buildings in the USA found
that more than 80% of the buildings, other than the
ones hit by natural calamities, were demolished due
to area redevelopment, lack of maintenance or lack
of adaptability for the new intended use (O’Connor,
2004). Almost 40% of the new construction that will
take place in the US between 2000 and 2030 will
consist of new structures built after demolition of
existing structures (Nelson, 2004). In such cases,
the embodied energy in the existing structure will
be lost which represent 5-25% of the total energy
over the lifespan of a building. Similarly, the trend
of shorter life spans of structures also results in a
higher embodied material energy per year. There is
a need to reverse this trend and adopt measures in
the design codes and sustainability rating tools that
encourage longer design lives and reuse of structures
or structural components.
Designing for easy deconstruction and reuse should
be rewarded with more credits in the rating systems
Vol 14 No 3
 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
or should be made mandatory for certain types
of construction (steel, precast concrete, wood).
Technology currently exist which can be adopted
for building structures with modular components
in standard lengths for easy assembly and reuse.
More emphasis shall be on reusing the structural
components instead of recycling (Webster & Costello,
2002) along with highlighting the successful material
reuse applications (Charlson, 2008).
Related to the topic of adaptation and reuse is the
issue of conservation, refurbishment and restoration
of existing structures to extend their service life and
to save them from being demolished. This is an
area which contributes highly to the sustainability
objectives as the use of an existing building is
extended with minimum input of new embodied
energy while preserving its existing embodied
energy. Elefante (2007) rightly pointed out that the
most sustainable buildings are the ones that are
already built. Expertise of structural engineers is the
most valuable in realising the aims of this objective.
Education and training of structural engineers are the
critical requirements for successful implementation
of this task. The Institution of Structural Engineers
(2010) and Beckmann & Bowels (2004) provided
valuable guidance in this regard.
5.4 Structural durability
Design life span of buildings is usually considered
as 50 years. A survey of building demolitions found
that only 5% of the buildings were demolished due
to deficiencies in the structural systems and even that
happened after these have gone significantly beyond
their design service life (O’Connor, 2004). Usually,
the building envelope protects the main building
structural system from direct exposure to the
environmental effects and it is the envelope that may
need replacing/repair if it is not properly designed
and installed to cater for proper disposal of moisture
and thermal variations. Structural durability is more
of an issue for bridges and other civil structures
(storage tanks, harbour facilities, transmission
towers, etc.) where the structural system is exposed
to the environmental effects without any protection.
However, even for the bridges, the average age at
replacement is 68 years; which is more than the
design service life of 50 years (Bettigole, 1990).
Clearly, extending the service life of a building is
very helpful in achieving the sustainability goals as
the share of the embodied energy per year of service
life of the building is reduced accordingly. However,
it is a debatable issue whether more durability
needs to be incorporated into the building structural
system as most of the demolition and replacement
of building stock is not carried out due to a lack of
this attribute. Nevertheless, if the other stakeholders
in the finance, design and operation of the buildings
agree to extending the service life beyond the current
50 years, then materials and construction technology
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
225
needs to be developed to cater for this demand.
The shift towards extended service life will also be
accompanied by a change in the building design
codes for environmental loads, which will have a
larger intensity due to longer anticipated service life.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Structural engineers traditionally have not identified
themselves with environmental sustainability.
Growing concern for the natural environment and
increasing importance of environmental rating
mechanisms for building construction has warmed
structural engineers to LEED and other similar rating
systems. Structural engineers’ first instinct seems
to be catch-up on participation in rating systems as
well as criticism of the same systems for not fully
capturing structural engineers’ role.
A word of caution needs to be expressed here
regarding the expectations from the green building
mechanisms. The whole discussion is about
technological changes. It could be that sustainability
is unachievable without cultural/life style changes.
In the area of building it may mean smaller per capita
spaces and even surviving with existing buildings.
The effect of adopting green building practices,
as prescribed by the rating tools, on reducing the
negative impact of construction activity on global
environment is not yet fully studied. We ought to
estimate what needs to be done for the environment;
how much GHG emissions should reduce from the
buildings, for example. We should then calculate
backwards the measures that would achieve that
for buildings. It is a worry that the current green
building rating systems, which are being revered by
the owners and building professionals as panacea
for the environment and sustainability, may just
be feel-good exercises. For example, attaining the
highest LEED Platinum level for a building results
in a GHG emission reduction of only 10-15% as
compared to a non-rated building. Furthermore,
more than 90% of these reductions are attributed to
improved operational energy efficiency (Brown &
Southworth, 2006).
Stakeholders in the building industry have realised
that the current sustainability movement is going to
stay. Structural engineers need not despair or rush to
participate in this area. They have to make thoughtful
and carefully crafted contribution to sustainability
without overly worrying about their role in the green
building rating systems. The SEI guidelines (Kestner
at al, 2010) are a case in point which seems to be a
quick compilation of sustainability facts, figures,
strategies and mechanisms as advocated by the LEED
rating system.
The following conclusions are drawn from this study:
• Sustainability measures in buildings have to play
a role in the reduction of global GHG emissions.
Vol 14 No 3
226 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
• Structural engineers are continuously involved
with buildings during their life span and they
need to be a part of the sustainability team as well.
• Share of responsibility given to structural
engineers in the current sustainability rating
systems is proportional to their role in non-
green buildings and the share of the structural
components in the total cost of buildings.
• Life cycle operating energy demand over long life
spans diminishes the relative share of embodied
energy in the total energy requirements of
traditional buildings.
• For energy efficient, passive and net-zero buildings,
share of embodied energy increases to 50%, 70%
and 100% of total energy respectively. This implies
that the importance of structural embodied energy
will grow in the future as building codes mandates
energy efficient and net-zero buildings. Hence,
the opportunity for structural engineers to make
significant contribution.
• Structural robustness and resilience, structural
adaptability and reuse and structural durability
considerations can have high impact on reduction
of embodied energy and thus ought to be included
in the sustainability rating systems.
• Further research is needed to quantify the
suggested measures for inclusion in sustainability
rating systems.
REFERENCES
Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council, 2010, Pearl
Building Rating System for Estidama: Design &
Construction, Version 1.0, UAE, p. 223.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 2007, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2007. Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Atlanta, GA.
Aschheim, M., Gil-Martin, L. M. & Hernandez-
Montes, E. 2010, “Engineered Bamboo I-Joists”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 12, pp.
1619-1624.
Beckmann, P. & Bowels, R., 2004, Structural Aspects
of Building Conservation, Elsevier.
Bettigole, N. H. 1990, “Designing Bridge Decks to
Match Bridge Life Expectancy”, Extending the Life of
Bridges, ASTM STP 1100, Maupin, Jr., G. W., Brown,
B. C. & Lichtenstein, A. G. (editors), American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 70-80.
Borchers, M. 2010, “Importance of Structural
Engineering in Sustainable and Low Carbon Design”,
The Structural Engineer, Vol. 88, No. 9, pp. 14-16.
BRE Global, 2008, BREEAM Offices 2008 Assessors
Manual, London.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
Brown, M. & Southworth, F. 2006, “Mitigating
Climate Change Through Green Buildings and Smart
Growth”, Working Paper #23, School of Public Policy,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Buckley, M., Halsall, R., Vollering, B. & Webber, D.
2002, “Considering sustainability in the selection of
structural systems”, IABSE Report Vol. 86, Proceedings
of symposium ‘Towards a better built environment –
Innovations, Sustainability, Information Technology’,
Melbourne.
Charlson, A. 2008, “Recycling and Reuse of Waste in
the Construction Industry”, The Structural Engineer,
Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 32-37.
Cole, R. J. & Kernan, P. C. 1996, “Life-Cycle Energy
Use in Office Buildings”, Building and Environment,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 307-317.
Collings, D. 2006, “An environmental comparison
of bridge forms”, Proceedings of Institution of Civil
Engineers, Bridge Engineering, Vol. 159, No. 4, pp.
163-168.
Danatzko, J. M. & Sezen, H. 2011, “Sustainable
Structural Design Methodologies”, Practice Periodicals
on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, Vol. 16,
No. 4, pp. 186-190.
Design Cost Data, 2012, www.dcd.com.
Elefante, C. 2007, “The Greenest Building is ...One
that is Already Built”, Forum Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4,
pp. 26-38.
Fardis, M. N. 2010, “Displacement- and performance-
based seismic design for sustainable earthquake
resistant concrete construction”, 2nd International
Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials
& Technologies, Ancona, Italy.
Frank, D. 2012, “Functional Resilience – A Critical
Component of Sustainability”, PCI web seminar,
Prestressed Concrete Institution, Chicago, IL, www.
pci.org, 23 February.
Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), 2008,
Technical Manual Green Star Office Design & Office As
Built, Version 3, Sydney, Australia.
Hays, B. & Cocke, D. 2009, “Missed Opportunities
in Structural Sustainability”, Structures Magazine,
Vol. 4, pp. 27-28.
Jones, C. & Hammond, G. 2011, “The Inventory of
Carbon and Energy (ICE)”, University of Bath, www.
bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied.
Kestner, D. M., Goupil, J. & Lorenz, E. (editors), 2010,
Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer,
Vol 14 No 3
 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha
Structural Engineering Institute of American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p. 317.
Lamboo, 2012, “Architectural and Structural Bamboo
for Sustainable Construction”, www.lamboo.us.
Matthiessen, L., Morris, P. & Langdon, D. 2004,
“Costing Green: A Comprehensive Database and
Budgeting Methodology” www.davislangdon.us/
USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2004-Costing-
Green-A-Comprehensive-Cost-Database-and-
Budgeting-Methodology.
Nelson, A. C. 2004, Toward a New Metropolis: The
Opportunity to Rebuild America, The Brookings
Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
O’Connor, J. 2004, “Survey on actual service lives for
North American buildings”, Woodframe Housing
Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Las Vegas.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., Gratz, J., Landsea, C. W., Collins, D.,
Saunders, M. A. & Musulin, R. 2008, “Normalized
Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005”,
Natural Hazards Review, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. & Schulte, K. 2009,
“International Comparison of Sustainable Rating
Tools”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 1-22.
Sartori, I. & Hestnes, A. G. 2007, “Energy Use in
the Life Cycle of Conventional and Low-Energy
Buildings: A Review Article”, Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 39, pp. 249-257.
Symons, K. & Symons, D. 2009, “Embodied Energy and
Carbon – what Structural Engineers Need to Know”,
The Structural Engineer, Vol. 87, No. 9, pp. 19-23.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
227
Taghavi, S. & Miranda, E. 2003, “Response Assessment
of Nonstructural Building Elements”, Report
2003/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Centre, Berkeley, p. 89.
The Institution of Structural Engineers, 2010,
Appraisal of Existing Structures, 3rd edition, London,
UK.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 2009,
Buildings and Climate Change – Summary for Decision-
Makers, Paris, p. 59.
UNEP-SBCI, 2009, “Buildings & Climate Change –
Industry Call to Action”, Paris, www.unep.org/sbci/
pdfs/UNEP_SBCI_Call_to_action_final.pdf.
US Green Building Council (USGBC), 2009, LEED
Reference Guide for Green Building Design and
Construction, Version 3.0, Washington, DC, p. 674.
Watermeyer, R. & Pham, L. 2011, “A Framework for
the Assessment of the Structural Performance of 21st
Century Buildings”, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 89,
No. 1, pp. 19-25.
Webster, M. D. & Costello, D. T. 2002, “Designing
Structural Systems for Deconstruction: How to
Extend a New Building’s Useful Life and Prevent it
from Going to Waste when the End Finally Comes”,
Greenbuild Conference, USGBC, Atlanta.
Weisenberger, G. 2011, “Sustainability and the
Structural Engineer”, Practice Periodicals on Structural
Design and Construction, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.
146-150.
Zechmeister, D. 2008, “Loadbearing Masonry’s
Bottom Line”, The Story Pole, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 38-51.
Vol 14 No 3
228 “Examining the role of structural engineers in green building ratings ...” – Chaudhary & Piracha

MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY

Dr Muhammad Tariq Chaudhary is a structural engineer and academic currently

working in the Department of Civil Engineering at Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn
Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He earned his Master’s and
Doctoral degrees in Structural Engineering from University at Buffalo, New
York (1992), and University of Tokyo (1999), respectively. His areas of research
and interest are seismic design, structural health monitoring, sustainable design
and construction, soil-structure interaction and structural condition evaluation
and rehabilitation. Tariq is a Registered Professional Engineer in USA and
Canada, and has worked as a consulting structural engineer in USA, Japan,
Middle East and Pakistan on a variety of projects including highway bridges,
LNG storage tanks, high-rise buildings, industrial complexes, and structural
condition assessment and rehabilitation. He is a LEED Accredited Professional
and has working knowledge of green building design and construction practices.
Tariq has acted as a peer reviewer for a number of international journals and
USGBC’s GreenBuild Conferences, besides acting as external advisor to graduate
students in USA and Pakistan.

AWAIS PIRACHA

Dr Awais Piracha is a Sydney-based researcher of sustainable urban and

regional development and the use of spatial analysis/techniques in land use
and transport planning. He currently serves at the University of Western
Sydney as Senior Lecturer and course coordinator for urban planning. His
international reputation follows his work with the United Nations University
(UNU) in Tokyo, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Bangkok and University
of Dortmund Germany. Awais was trained as a civil/environmental engineer
as well as a town planner. He has participated and led numerous research,
consultancy and community engagement projects related to various aspects of
environmental sustainability. He has experience in the use of GIS and modelling
tools for environmental planning.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 14 No 3

Copyright of Australian Journal of Structural Engineering is the property of Institution of
Engineers Australia, trading as Engineers Australia and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.