Sustainable Structural Design Methodologies

Joseph M. Danatzko1 and Halil Sezen, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Modern society is demanding that the use of energy associated with construction and operation of structures be investigated during
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUNE INST OF ENGINEERING &TECH on 01/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the planning and design phases. The engineering community has been striving to design more sustainable buildings in an attempt to reduce
both raw material requirements and energy use during all phases of design. Structural engineers currently have very limited guidance
on how to incorporate sustainability concepts in their designs. Innovative methods are needed to address the environmental impact, energy
use, and other sustainability issues faced during planning and design of buildings. This paper investigates and discusses five sustain-
able structural design methodologies: Minimizing Material Use, Minimizing Material Production Energy, Minimizing Embodied
Energy, Life-Cycle Analysis/Inventory/Assessment, and Maximizing Structural System Reuse. The goal of this paper is to describe and
address issues associated with the proposed design methodologies to determine which, if any, can produce the most sustainable structural
designs. It was determined that no single methodology can address all the issues surrounding sustainable structural design. Also, it was
determined that combinations of two or more methodologies may increase the ability of design professionals to produce more sustainable
designs. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000095. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Structural systems; Sustainable development; Structural design; Building design.
Author keywords: Structural systems; Sustainable development; Structural design; Building design.

Introduction
A project’s structural form, system, and magnitude have a signifi-
cant effect on the issues that its engineers and architects face when
determining the most sustainable structural design alternative. This
paper presents different aspects and methodologies for sustainable
design and illustrates their effect on structural systems.
Structural engineers have various methods to design a structural
element or system. From material choice to lateral force-resisting
system, a structural system and its layout become a combination of
the architectural form and engineering properties (two aspects that
can often be at odds with each other). It is assumed in this paper
that the goal of sustainable structural design is the production of a
structural system that meets the needs of the owner and user while
minimizing the environmental impact and conserving resources
where possible. From low/high-rise buildings to short/long-span
bridges and any structure in between, minimizing project impact
on natural resources and the environment is a goal of engineers,
architects, and builders alike. Design methodologies for achieving
this goal are discussed and presented as five types:
1. Minimizing Material Use;
2. Minimizing Material Production Energy;
3. Minimizing Embodied Energy;
4. Life-Cycle Analysis/Inventory/Assessment; and
5. Maximizing Structural System Reuse.
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering and Geodetic Science, Ohio State Univ. E-mail: danatzko.1
@osu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
and Geodetic Science, Ohio State Univ. (corresponding author). E-mail:
sezen.1@osu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 11, 2010; approved on
February 4, 2011; published online on February 8, 2011. Discussion period
open until April 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, Vol. 16, No. 4, November 1, 2011. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1084-0680/2011/4-186–190/$25.00.
Each design methodology has both positive and negative sus-
tainable qualities. Although each methodology has the same end
goal, their means can be achieved via different routes that can
compete with one another and can have adverse effects either indi-
vidually or combined on a successful sustainable structural design.
These design methodologies, and the related discussion, aim to
address issues concerning structural—not nonstructural—members
or construction materials. It is not the intention of this study to
address the effect that nonstructural members or materials can have
on overall project sustainability. Therefore, for example, glass as a
nonstructural building material is not discussed in this paper.
Methodology 1: Minimizing Material Use
The ultimate objective of this methodology is to reduce the amount
of required raw materials, and in turn, reduce the project’s impact on
the environment. Total structural material minimization can be one
goal of sustainable structural design (Moon 2008a). Engineers can
achieve this goal in two ways. As suggested by Shi and Han (2010),
combinations of various material types to form more efficient struc-
tural members and systems is one method by which the structural
engineer can use the minimal amount of natural resources. Similarly,
optimization of a structural model employing a single material type
can be another method that reduces the amount of material employed
in a design.
Likewise, a project architect’s methods for minimizing material
use are twofold. An architect can generate a building layout that
produces the greatest amount of usable space from the project site
while allowing for all the functionality required by the structure’s
use. Contrary to this, an architect can minimize building material
by making the layout itself as efficient as possible for intended
structural use, but without producing the maximum amount of
usable space (Trabbuco 2008). While, in many cases, the proposed
building layout achieves the maximum usable space, the second
method looks to employ layouts that maximize use productivity,
whereas the first attempts to maximize usable space.

186 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2011, 16(4): 186-190

 Minimizing material use is one sustainable design methodology
that can be achieved separately by architects and engineers. This
design methodology achieves the goal of sustainable design
producing structures that can perform as required while being as
structurally efficient as possible.
Positive Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 1
Research into this topic has included evaluation of similar building
systems with varying heights to determine and quantify the increase
in the amount of material associated with each layout. Also, re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUNE INST OF ENGINEERING &TECH on 01/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
search on lateral force-resisting systems has been conducted to
determine the impact of the total material use (Moon 2008a; Shi
and Han 2010).
A structure employing the minimal material can achieve the goal
of a sustainable design, as it has the least impact on the natural
environment through lower raw material use. Also, this methodol-
ogy can force the structural engineering community to develop
more efficient and innovative design processes using the least
amount of materials. As a result, engineers may need to evaluate
and improve the current conventional design concepts and practices
to use the minimum amount of materials.
Negative Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 1
Although the end goal of least impact on natural resources is
achieved, the analysis and design time associated with these meth-
ods can be computationally high. The additional computation time
required is attributable to iterations and complexity involved in
solving structural optimization problems or systems with multiple
material types interacting. The increased complexity may require
that more construction drawings with greater detail must be pro-
vided to contractors following the design phase. In short, more
calculations and greater complexity take the engineer more time
to complete the design and require more drawings. In addition,
a structural design optimization to use the minimum amount of
materials may not necessarily be the most sustainable design, as
construction requirements for the selected design may necessitate
additional resources.
A project’s approval process becomes longer as the number
of drawings and details increase. This process may also lead to
disputes among architect, engineer, and owner, as minimal changes
by one may require complete redesign by another. Although new
tools such as building information modeling (BIM) can reduce the
amount of time and effort needed to coordinate and modify a
design, simple revisions to a complicated design still require
time. Following the design process, construction duration of the
structure also increases as the amount of input and time required
for scheduling and labor also increase. Along with this, there may
be increased need for design construction clarifications, such as
requests for information (RFIs), as complexity of the design
increases. All of these possible negative aspects are likely to
adversely affect the total project cost.
Methodology 2: Minimizing Material Production
Energy
Apart from the design of the structural system itself, a methodology
for structural sustainability involves reducing the amount of energy
and natural resources required for the construction material produc-
tion. For all construction materials, including steel, cast-in-place
reinforced concrete, prestressed/precast concrete, wood, and ma-
sonry, there exists a production-energy cost. This cost can vary
from year to year and by location and can be a result of the world
market and environmental regulation requirements.
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011 / 187
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2011, 16(4): 186-190
Sustainability enters the material production process mainly
during the evaluation of the energy costs required in the gathering,
refining, and mixing of raw materials. Along with this, sustainabil-
ity in this methodology relies on the reduction of overall energy
costs that can be used to produce materials with the same, or sim-
ilarly structurally useful, material properties as current production
methods.
This methodology calls for engineers to designate the use of or
specify structural elements that employ production-energy-efficient
materials in their designs. It also calls on the respective industries to
best quantify their energy uses and work to improve current energy
costs and production methods. Industries should seek the develop-
ment of new technologies and processes for material generation.
Another critical aspect of this methodology calls for the reduction
and monitoring of material generation by-products and emissions
(Naik 2008).
Positive Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 2
Researchers and industry experts have been working in recent years
to quantify both the positive and negative effects of construction
materials from a sustainable viewpoint. By providing and compil-
ing data on the energy expenditures associated with construc-
tion material production, energy values can be tied to sustainable
material properties. In achieving a sustainable structural design,
this methodology can be advantageous in its attempt to conserve
natural recourses and reduce by-products and emissions. Also,
studying and providing material production energies to design pro-
fessionals can lead to innovations in design as the relation between
material strength and the energy required for its production and
construction can be determined. In short, as the industry and
engineers more fully define construction material properties,
including its production energy, the sustainability of structural
systems will increase.
Negative Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 2
Although the correlation between increased sustainability and
minimization of material production energy may seem evident, this
is not the case. As the materials themselves may increase structural
system sustainable properties, this does not mean that the system
itself will achieve its most sustainable configuration. Inherently,
when the selection of one construction material for use in a struc-
ture is made (whether it includes the most sustainable properties or
not), the structural system’s ability to be sustainable becomes lim-
ited. For example, with the selection of special moment-resisting
reinforced concrete frames as a lateral force-resisting system in
a structure, the possibility of a more sustainable configuration com-
ing from a design that could include masonry shear walls or steel
moment frames is negated. Although this can be combated with
designs that include combination of different construction materi-
als, use of other materials than the “most sustainable” construction
material would thus decrease the structural system sustainability
from a raw materials conservation viewpoint (Shi and Han 2010).
Additionally, although the manufacturing industry works to
achieve sustainable products, this methodology does not address
the input of building industry to sustainable structural design
(Deane 2008). Thus, it falls solely to the manufacturing industry
and the engineer to achieve better structural sustainability.
Methodology 3: Minimizing Embodied Energy
Trabucco (2008) states that “the design of an efficient service
core is probably the most challenging aspect of a tall building
project.” Although the focus is on tall buildings in this statement,
 the methodology can be extended to all structures. The embodied
energy associated with a structure is a result of its intended use,
initial design, and life span. These aspects relate the energy asso-
ciated with construction to the energy associated with the operation
and maintenance over the structure’s life.
The concept behind minimizing embodied energy is an effort
made on both architect’s and engineer’s parts to assess the energy
cost of construction versus the operational energy expenditure.
Structural layouts that follow this methodology require both engi-
neer and architect to generate designs that focus on reducing the
energy use within and around the building. Also associated with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUNE INST OF ENGINEERING &TECH on 01/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
this approach is the design of a structure from a “service core”
standpoint, with the goal of balancing building use with facade
design (Trabucco 2008).
This methodology offers opportunities for sustainable designs to
be generated as the focus becomes more on the effective use of the
natural environment (e.g., regional thermal qualities, geothermal
wells, waste recycling systems, wind turbines, solar panels) to re-
duce the energy associated with a structure’s operation. This meth-
odology also addresses the idea of maximizing a structure’s thermal
mass qualities, harnessing energy use in structural motion, and
adaptable structural systems (Moon 2008b). The methodology also
aims to achieve the goal of a sustainable structural system by
possible inclusion of adjacent structures in the design or dividing
the design of a single structure to multiple smaller structures to
allow for more efficient structural use (Shi and Han 2010).
Positive Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 3
This methodology focuses on achieving sustainable structural
design through attention to both the “service core” and the struc-
ture’s facade. The minimization of embodied energy requirement is
achieved through analysis of both the “service core” and facade to
determine the competing qualities each can have on overall struc-
tural sustainability. Ideally, implementing this methodology results
in a structure that attunes the form both structurally and architec-
turally, finding a balance between them to reduce the structures en-
ergy envelope. In doing so, the structural system increases project
sustainability by allowing for a consideration of various sustainable
properties, including but not limited to thermal properties, natural
light, and utilization of solar panels/wind turbines.
Negative Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 3
The minimizing embodied energy methodology typically neglects
maximizing the efficiency of the structural system. Analyzing the
structure from a total operating energy envelope viewpoint, the
methodology limits its users to define the design by the manner
in which it can most effectively utilize the ambient energy available
to it. In doing this, a design may not efficiently use its structural
materials, which in turn can decrease its overall sustainability.
Also, in areas with a lesser-built environment than dense cities,
facades that utilize available ambient qualities may reduce the
architectural appeal or functionality of a structure relative to the
existing infrastructure (Wood 2007). This methodology is also
directly tied to location and regional limitations because of the
effectiveness of certain technologies such as geothermal wells,
waste-recycling systems, wind turbines, and solar panels.
Methodology 4 Life-Cycle Analysis/Inventory/
Assessment
A common tool employed by design professionals to assess and
quantify the sustainability of a project is the life-cycle analysis
(LCA). Similarly employed are the life-cycle inventory (LCI)
188 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2011, 16(4): 186-190
and life-cycle assessment (LCAs) analysis methods. These tools
are often employed to justify or qualify the net-cost-to-benefit ratio
or economic impact of a design decision. Designers and engineers
have worked to employ these models [outlined by ASTM standards
E 917-05 (ASTM 2005a), E 1057-06 (ASTM 2006a), E 1074-06
(ASTM 2006b), E 1121-07 (ASTM 2007a), E 1185-07 (ASTM
2007b), and E 2204-05 (ASTM 2005b)] to determine the sustain-
able properties of various aspects of the structural system. These
standards define the methods to identify and evaluate multifaceted
aspects of a decision involving various measures.
Both designers and owners see the LCA/LCI/LCAs as tools to
generate the most sustainable design by evaluating its monetary
value and constructability requirements. By assessing a structural
design through a multifaceted view, the increased number of mea-
sures employed along each step increase the accuracy of the evalu-
ation and allow for the most sustainable design to be achieved
(Horvath 1998). This is achieved by including and balancing a
greater number of aspects of the design (e.g., not solely minimizing
material amounts) and will produce a more sustainable design. This
methodology has been employed in various projects (Laefer and
Manke 2008), both related and unrelated to sustainable design
and reviewed for case studies to assess its accuracy. Thus, it has
merit as a design tool and methodology for sustainable structural
design.
Positive Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 4
The most notable advantage of LCA/LCI/LCAs, when employed
for structural sustainability purposes, is that they provide designers
and owners with a clear outlook and picture of what their structure
can achieve during its lifetime. Therefore, projects with low initial
construction costs can assess their estimated energy use over build-
ing life considering both environmental and economic impacts.
Also, buildings with high initial construction costs can determine
viability of sustainable technologies relative to their payback
periods.
Life-cycle analysis/inventory/assessment models call for greater
inclusion by all representative parties on a project, allowing for
varied input and cross-discipline interaction. This interaction
and input can only help to further the design and lead to greater
overall sustainability through more effective designs, decreased de-
sign time, increased construction speed, and less energy use and
maintenance requirements during the lifetime of the structure. Also,
through widespread use within industries, these methodologies and
models can help to increase efficiencies throughout the built envi-
ronment and provide a greater knowledge bank for future design as
development continues (Horvath 1998).
Negative Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 4
Notwithstanding the positives aspects previously discussed, the
most lauded negatives to LCA/LCI/LCAs are the accuracy with
which they can be implemented and completed. Inherent in all
of the ASTM standards applicable to LCA/LCI/LCAs is the inclu-
sion of both risk and uncertainty in the analyses. This uncertainty is
driven by poorly or obscurely defined factors. This has led to many
analysis methods that have produced controversial results (Horvath
1998). Although the goal of this methodology is to inform design-
ers so as to generate more sustainable designs, much of this infor-
mation may not be accurate enough or unknown at the time of
initial design to achieve the goal of sustainability.
Varying costs, shifting deadlines, durability of materials, long-
term maintenance requirements, and factors not related to the
structural system can lead to LCA/LCI/LCAs results that misin-
form the designers and thus lead to designs that are not the most
structurally sustainable. Although increasing the accuracy of the
 LCA/LCI/LCAs model might be a solution to inaccurate or
misleading reports, this increased accuracy does not guarantee a
more effective description of overall sustainable structural system
properties. Even an accurate model may not fully describe design
alternatives’ sustainable properties and thus may be useless to
project designers.
The LCA/LCI/LCAs methodology is a prominent method for
assessing many aspects of a project. However, the uncertainty
can be very high in its application to the structural system and
its sustainability. Also, as with methodology 1, minimal design
changes can have adverse effects on the structural sustainability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUNE INST OF ENGINEERING &TECH on 01/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and the methodology’s accuracy and may require entirely new
models.
Methodology 5: Maximizing Structural System
Reuse
The concept behind maximizing structural reuse is to generate
layouts and designs that produce the least amount of solid waste
at end-of-life or allow for the greatest amount of whole or partial
system and/or structural component reuse. This two-pronged
methodology is similar in idea to the concept of minimizing
material use but differs in the type of design it produces. As op-
posed to the most material efficient design, the objective of this
methodology is to achieve layouts that allow for various structural
uses and longer structural life spans, as well as to address the pos-
sibility of structural element reuse during the planning and initial
design stage.
Coupled with the initial concept of this methodology is the idea
that solid waste management is a key to, and opportunity for, en-
hanced sustainable design (Laefer and Manke 2008). The concept
of solid waste management can extend to waste during all phases of
design, construction, and demolition, and involves an assessment of
all materials included in each part and phase. However, the main
goal of the structural reuse methodology is for architects and en-
gineers to achieve greater sustainability through the design of struc-
tures by investigating potential multiple uses of the same structural
system.
This methodology has grown out of observations on the cost
associated with demolition and the waste it produces compared
with the financial incentive or prolonging building life. Also, this
methodology focuses more on the end-of-life of a structure and
calls on the engineer to assess material types and structural ele-
ments considering their possible reuse in the initial structural
system design. This methodology aims to combat the “rapid tech-
nological developments and higher standard of living in the 21st
century” and the negative that this increased expansion can have
on the infrastructure (Laefer and Manke 2008). This methodology
also suggests that standardization of connections and structural
elements that allow for more versatile structural systems will pro-
duce higher levels of sustainability within those systems.
Positive Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 5
As pointed out by Laefer and Manke (2008), “total or partial build-
ing reuse is a solution that contributes to both direct financial gain
and environmental sustainability.” The methodology of maximiz-
ing building reuse is clearly captured by this statement. In relation
to sustainability, building reuse and initial design for multiple in-
tended uses are key factors, as the outcome is reduced waste and
need for fewer raw materials. The possible reuse of a structure may
have financial incentives, as the owner has the ability to reoccupy
the building for a new use, which in turn extends the service life of
the structure.
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011 / 189
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2011, 16(4): 186-190
Also, this design methodology calls for initial architectural de-
sign that attempts to involve a structure’s adaptation to its surround-
ing environment and reduces the amount of renovations required
for future structural reuse. This methodology could also lead to in-
novation in both the architectural and engineering communities
by employing similar design layouts that allow for relocation of par-
tial structural systems between project sites or possible structural
element reuse. Each of these aspects can increase the sustainability
of a structure and are possible advantages of this methodology.
Negative Sustainable Attributes of Methodology 5
Multiuse structures often inherently produce sustainable structural
designs, as they are versatile and efficient in their use of available
space. However, incorporating various functions for a design can
result in less functionality for the primary structural use. Although
this may seem a small price for increased sustainability, generating
a multiuse structure may not necessarily produce the most sustain-
able structural design for the original intended use. In short, the
design may not be as efficient as it could have been if a single
use structure had been maintained.
Also, although structural element reuse from one structure
to another can lead to fewer raw material requirements for future
construction, close inspection of and accurate qualification of struc-
tural members must be completed before reuse. The advantage
of reusing a structural element over the cost of qualifying a sub-
sequently potential unsafe member may result in higher initial
project costs and reduce the sustainability of the second structure
(Laefer and Manke 2008).
Conclusions
Each methodology presented in this paper looks to achieve the
same goal—the most sustainable structural design—through differ-
ent means and measures. However, as displayed in each discussion,
each sustainable structural design methodology has its own draw-
backs, and issues outside of the system’s/project’s design can have
an impact on sustainable qualities. The following conclusions are
reached as a result of this investigation:
• No single design methodology presented in this paper can alone
address the complex issues surrounding sustainable structural
design. A combination of aspects and design methodologies
suggested in this paper can address more sustainable structural
design issues than a single method.
• Application of any proposed method to a project’s design is
subjective and depends on any and all project limitations.
• The relationship between structural system section choice and
material energy consumption properties is vague and currently
only addressed in quantitative measures.
• The use of life-cycle analysis/inventory/assessment models in-
cludes numerous levels of risk and uncertainty that can directly
affect project and structural system sustainability.
• More advanced modeling and computing methods are required
to integrate cross-discipline sustainability goals and needs with
that of the structural layout and system choice.
• Reuse or alternative use of existing structural systems or mem-
bers requires creative approaches to architectural and structural
design and lack of definition of intended future-use limits struc-
tures’ initial system layouts, reducing total structural system
sustainability.
Table 1 provides a summary of the positive and negative sus-
tainable attributes that each methodology present. A detailed dis-
cussion of these methodologies can be found in Danatzko (2010).
 Table 1. Positive and Negative Sustainable Attributes of Sustainable Structural Design Methodologies
Methodologies
Methodology 1: minimizing material
use
Methodology 2: minimizing material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUNE INST OF ENGINEERING &TECH on 01/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Positive sustainable qualities
Least impact on natural environment
Lower raw material requirements
Can lead to innovative designs and practices
Research currently being conducted
Negative sustainable qualities
Longer design and analysis time
Possible greater structural system complexity
More drawing and details may be required
Possible longer approvals process
Construction complexity
Potential higher total project cost
May not be “most” sustainable design

production energy Conservation of natural resources
By-product reduction
Can lead to innovative designs that assess strength
and sustainability properties simultaneously
Methodology 3: minimizing embodied Consideration of both sustainable form and function
energy Focus on operating energy use
Attention to “service core” during design
Methodology 4: life-cycle analysis/ Considers sustainability over project life
inventory/assessment Greater inclusion of representative project parties
Encourages cross-discipline interaction
Widespread use can lead to quicker innovation
Methodology 5: maximizing structural Financial incentives
system reuse Extended service life
Design relative to surrounding built environment
May lead to innovation in standardized designs
Limitations to sustainability from material choice
Currently lacking input from building industry
Can result in less efficient structural system
Design limited to most effective use of ambient
energy
Surrounding built environment can limit
methodology
Highly sensitive to location or region
Model accuracy
Risk and uncertainty included in analyses
Other sustainable issues can detract from most
sustainable structural design
Adverse effects from minimal design changes
Possibility for decreased primary-use functionality
Structural element reuse inspection required

It is recommended that each design methodology be applied
individually to the structural system design and assessed for its
sustainable qualities. Also, combinations of the design metho-
dologies presented should also be considered and assessed for
their sustainable qualities. These methodologies, or combinations
thereof, should be applied to a design in the manner most fitting
either the sustainable goals of the project as defined in initial con-
ceptual meetings or finite quantitative sustainable measures defined
by sustainable rating organizations and/or analytically.
Analysis of a structure designed by either individual or com-
bined design methodologies presented in this paper was outside
the scope of this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Prestressed/Precast
Concrete Institute (Daniel P. Jenny Research Fellowship) and the
Ohio State University (French Fellowship) for providing partial
funding for completing this paper.
References
ASTM International. (2005a). “Standard practice for measuring life
cycle of building and building systems.” ASTM E 917-05, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM International. (2005b). “Standard guide for summarizing the
economic impacts of building-related project.” ASTM E 2204-05,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM International. (2006a). “Internal rate of return and adjusted internal
rate of return for investments.” ASTM E 1057-06, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM International. (2006b). “Net benefits and net savings for invest-
ments.” ASTM E 1074-06, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM International. (2007a). “Measuring payback.” ASTM E 1121-07,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM International. (2007b). “Economic methods for evaluating invest-
ments.” ASTM E 1185-07, West Conshohocken, PA.
Danatzko, J. (2010). “Sustainable structural design.” M.S. thesis, Ohio
State Univ., Columbus, OH.
Deane, M. (2008). “The builder’s role in delivering sustainable tall build-
ings.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 17(5), 869–880.
Horvath, A., and Hendrickson, C. (1998). “Steel versus steel-reinforced
concrete bridges: Environmental assessment.” J. Infrastruct. Syst.,
4(3), 111–117.
Laefer, D., and Manke, J. (2008). “Building reuse assessment for sus-
tainable urban reconstruction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(3),
217–227.
Moon, K. (2008a). “Material-saving design strategies for tall building
structures.” Proc. Tall & Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban
Future: CTBUH 8th World Congress, Council on Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat.
Moon, K. S. (2008b). “Sustainable structural engineering strategies for tall
buildings.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 17(5), 895–914.
Naik, T. (2008). “Sustainability of concrete construction.” Pract. Period.
Struct. Des. Constr., 13(2), 98–103.
Shi, J., and Han, T. (2010). “Conceiving methods and innovative
approaches for tall building structure systems.” Struct. Des. Tall Special
Build., 19(5), 537–550.
Trabucco, D. (2008). “An analysis of the relationship between service cores
and the embodied/running energy of tall buildings.” Struct. Des. Tall
Special Build., 17(5), 941–952.
Wood, A. (2007). “Sustainability: A new high-rise vernacular?.” Struct.
Des. Tall Special Build., 16(4), 401–410.

190 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2011, 16(4): 186-190