A

Seminar Presentation
Submitted
in partial fulfilment
for the award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Technology
In Department of Civil Engineering
“Greeen building”

Submitted by:
SANJEET PIET18CE031
SEHRA
Department of Civil Engineering
Poornima institute of engineering &
technology
Rajasthan Technical University 1
(December-2021)
 Content

 Introduction

 Review of Literature

 Conclusion

 References

2
 INTRODUCTION
 In response to irreversible and serve climate change, building sector is witnessing green
revolution. Aiming to change the built environment by creating healthy, energy-
conscious and productive buildings which can minimize the significant impacts of
buildings on global environments.
 Much of the emphasis to date in green building development has been on optimizing
energy and resource efficiency.
 Green Building uses less energy, water and natural resources creates less waste and is
healthier for the people living inside compared to a standard building.

3
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result
1. Are green buildings • To know user perception  Building Use Studies  Scores for the satisfaction and comfort
more satisfactory and and satisfaction in green (BUS) Occupant Survey questions compared to BUS benchmarks,
comfortable? buildings. and Reporting Method respondents in this study had higher
were used in this study. satisfaction at the design, needs,
productivity but lower satisfaction at the
health; they showed higher comfort at
the temperature and air in summer,
lighting, noise and overall comfort but
lower comfort at the temperature and air
in winter.
 The results confirm that the green
building users were more significantly
satisfied with the design, needs and
health, but they were significantly
uncomfortable with the temperature and
air in winter, and the noise environment.
Differences on other factors were not
significant. In sum, the green building
group was more satisfactory but not
necessarily more comfortable.
 For forgiveness, 6 out of 9 green
buildings ranked higher than nongreen
buildings.
 LITERATURE
Sn. Name of Literature REVIEW
Primary Concern Methodology Result

2. Green Building Rating • To identify the major research  To provide a full picture of the  It can be found that
Systems: Global Reviews efforts conducted by the GBRS evaluation criteria, this “energy” is the most
of Practices and existing GBRS-related studies, study extracted and summarized important evaluation
Research Efforts and to propose the directions all the evaluation criteria from criterion due to the
for the future GBRS research. the 15 prevailing GBRSs. highest average
Particularly, among the 29 weighting of 25%,
criteria, “water”, “material”, following by “site”
“energy”, “indoor environment”, (20%), “indoor
“site”, “land and outdoor environment”
environment”, and “innovation” (14.78%), “land and
could be considered as the 7 outdoor environment”
most essential evaluation criteria (13.25%), “material”
as they were mentioned by most (10.98%), “water”
of the GBRSs. (10.71%), and
“innovation” (7%).
 LITERATURE
Sn. Name of Literature REVIEW
Primary Concern Methodology Result

3. Building Information • Although a large number of  Connecting  BIM could facilitate data
Modeling (BIM) for green studies on Building BIM and green exchange and integration,
buildings Information Modeling (BIM) buildings is the provide visualized
have been conducted in the concept of building performance
past decade, a lack of “green BIM”, analyses, and enhance
consensus remains among which has the communication and
researchers and been explored collaboration of various
practitioners regarding the by previous stakeholders during the
applications of BIM for the studies based lifecycle of green
development of green on several buildings.
buildings, the activity of relevant  7 major BIM functions for
making buildings in a way concepts such green analyses were
that protects the natural as green identified and critically
environment. As the buildings. reviewed, including
usefulness of BIM has been energy performance
widely recognized in the analyses and evaluations,
building and construction carbon emission analyses,
industry, there is an urgent natural ventilation system
need to establish an up-to- analyses, solar radiation
date synthesis on the nexus and lighting analyses,
between BIM and green water usage analyses,
buildings. acoustics analyses and
thermal comfort analyses.
 LITERATURE
Sn. Name of Literature REVIEW
Primary Concern Methodology Result

4. Green building research - • Sustainability of green  Study of 140+ research paper,  The studies on social
current status and future building, especially the social case study and review paper. and economic aspects
agenda sustainability is largely of sustainability are
overlooked. comparatively lean,
despite a large number
of literatures
emphasizing their
importance.
 There have been claims
that the occupants are
largely overlooked in
green building studies.
The provision of
education and trainings
to occupants will help to
regulate their behavior
of using buildings which
may affect the building
performance
significantly.
 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result

5. A review of the green • There are numerous green  The rating systems were  Different green building
building rating systems. building rating system, 10 identified by running a search rating systems provide
popular GBRs are analysed on through the ‘Google Scholar’ different categories of
the basis of there similarity, engine on literature related to certification, hence different
differences and potential green building rating systems rating tools.
future studies. over the past 10 years.  Highest average weight
 The keywords used in the (26%), followed in
search consisted primarily of descending sequence by
green building rating systems, indoor environmental quality,
green building rating, green health and well-being
building certification and (16.7%), sustainable siting
LEED, and secondarily of (14.7%), material efficiency
green building and green (10.1%), water efficiency
certification which yielded a (10.1%) and innovation (7%).
wider array of search results.  Most prevalent criteria used
are energy efficiency, indoor
environmental quality, health
and wellbeing, sustainable
siting, material efficiency,
water efficiency and
innovation in descending
average weights.
 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result

6. Moving to a green • In the developing  Study on 120 employees of a  No Significant improvement in the
building: Indoor world, often do not single organisation as they employee perceived comfort and
environment quality, systematically transition from four perceived health.
thermal comfort and recognise IEQ or health conventional office buildings
health. as crucial issues, which to the first green building  No significant improvement in the
therefore remain (GB), designed to the local occupant satisfaction of IEQ
understudied. Jordanian Green Building metrics was detected.
Guide.
 Ask if the move has a positive  Modest improvement in the occupant
effect on occupant perception thermal comfort was observed after
of IEQ, thermal comfort and moving to the GB.
prevalence of Sick Building
Syndrome (SBS).  Another major finding was that no
significant improvement in the
prevalence of SBS symptoms was
reported after moving to the GB.

 Reducing energy consumption and

consequent emissions are
undoubtedly important, designers of
green buildings should think beyond
these features, towards improving
employee health, visual and acoustic
comfort.
 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result

7. Green premium in • To investigate the  Housing transactions  This study tried to understand how
buildings: Evidence from awareness of the data and dwellings the sustainable attributes of housing
the real estate market of benefits deriving from characteristics were can inflfluence sales prices.
Singapore Green Mark-labeled obtained from the real  Focused on estimating the impact of
buildings in Singapore estate information the Green Mark sustainability protocol
database published by on the market price of multi-family
REALIS. buildings in Singapore. 
 The selected properties
were priced over
$20,000, and their
apartment surface was
between 30 and 550
square meters.
 Total number of
observations that made
up the sample was about
300,000 real estate units.
 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result

8. Improving present-day • To monitor the  This study adopts a mixed-  Green residential buildings have the
energy savings among progress of energy method approach, potential to reduce annual cooling
green building sector in savings among green combining qualitative and loads at a minimum from 1200kWh to
Malaysia using benefit building sectors in quantitative analyses in 1411kWh. The improvements would
transfer approach: Cooling Malaysia by several stages using save household electricity bills by
and lighting loads. reviewing the several sources of data approximately USD13 to USD171
current energy and analysis techniques. annually.
saving performance  Residential buildings in Malaysia mostly
and quantifying the adopt LED lighting LEDs are able to
economic prospect reduce annual lighting load at a
of future energy minimum from 1824kWh to 1920kWh.
saving  The integration of double glass wall is
improvements. effective for annual cooling load
reduction at 159,600kWh, and the
• This study provides integration of roof skylight is able to
analytical
suggestions to reduce annual lighting load at
improve cooling and 588,000kWh.
lighting loads of  
existing green
buildings using a
benefit transfer
approach.
 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result

9. Soft cost elements: • There is much  Qualitative approach is  This study confirms that the components
Exploring interest in the adopted in this research using of SCEs remain the same for green and
management mitigation of cost face-to-face unstructured conventional projects. This is because
components of for green projects, interviews with 12 each SCE forms an integral part of
project costs in green but the focus is respondents consisting of project planning and process.
building projects. generally leaning green building project experts  Although the percentage of green
towards hard cost who have been involved in certification is less than 2%
aspects. many projects certified by the  Development Provision represents
Information about Malaysia Green Building Index elements that are necessary for project
SCEs remains (GBI). establishment but do not directly affect
obscure. the project design.
 Total of 4 project cost
• So, this paper datasheets were also analysed  The cost of design and construction was
focus on Soft cost to confirm the SCEs in the not higher for green buildings compared
element. project budget and to enable to conventional buildings when cost
a clear definition of the SCEs strategies, management and
term. environmental design were integrated to
the project development process from
the very beginning.
 Soft cost element constitute smaller
percentage in the project cost.
 
 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Sn. Name of Literature Primary Concern Methodology Result

10. The role and • This study proposed a realistic  The research method of this  The study presented in this
contribution of green mapping tool using GBRTs as paper is divided into three paper builds a logical
buildings on sustainable the medium for evaluating the parts. theoretical model for
development goals contribution of GBs to the  First, the research gap assessing GB’s contribution
SDGs. between GB and the SDGs to the SDG.
was established by the
literature review.  SDGs 12, 7, 3, and 11
 The second and most critical obtained significant support
part of this study was to from the GBRT with SDG 12
develop a model for being the main beneficiary.
quantifying and identifying
GB’s contribution to the SDGs.
 On the other hand, GBRT’s
 Finally, the established model contribution to SDGs 9, 15,
was validated using a GBRT- and 13 was relatively small
certified building as a practical
case study. among the nine SDGs.
 CONCLUSION

The review paper was focused on to understand how green building is in comparison of non-green
buildings.
 We get to know green building in comparison to non green building is more satisfactory but not
comfortable in winters due to temperature and sound. Overall Green Building is better than non-
green building.
 Globally, on average it was found that “energy” is the most important evaluation criterion due to
the highest average weighting of 25%, following by “site” (20%), “indoor environment” (14.78%),
“land and outdoor environment” (13.25%), “material” (10.98%), “water” (10.71%), and
“innovation” (7%).
 BIM could facilitate data exchange and integration, provide visualized building performance
analyses, and enhance the communication and collaboration of various stakeholders during the
lifecycle of green buildings.
 There have been claims that the occupants are largely overlooked in green building studies. The
provision of education and trainings to occupants will help to regulate their behavior of using
buildings which may affect the building performance significantly.

14
 CONCLUSION

 Highest average weight (26%), followed in descending sequence by indoor environmental quality,
health and well-being (16.7%), sustainable siting (14.7%), material efficiency (10.1%), water
efficiency (10.1%) and innovation (7%).
 The integration of double glass wall is effective for annual cooling load reduction at 159,600kWh,
and the integration of roof skylight is able to reduce annual lighting load at 588,000kWh.
 Green residential buildings have the potential to reduce annual cooling loads at a minimum from
1200kWh to 1411kWh. The improvements would save household electricity bills by approximately
USD13 to USD171 annually.
 Soft cost element constitute smaller percentage in the project cost.

15
 REFERENCES

 Gou, Z., Prasad, D. and Siu-Yu Lau, S., 2013. Are green buildings more satisfactory and
comfortable?. Habitat International, 39, pp.156-161.
 Shan, M. and Hwang, B., 2018. Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research
efforts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, pp.172-180.
 Lu, Y., Wu, Z., Chang, R. and Li, Y., 2017. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A
critical review and future directions. Automation in Construction, 83, pp.134-148.
 Zuo, J. and Zhao, Z., 2014. Green building research–current status and future agenda: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, pp.271-281.
 Tang, K., Foo, C. and Tan, I., 2020. A review of the green building rating systems. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering, 943(1), p.012060.
 Elnaklah, R., Walker, I. and Natarajan, S., 2021. Moving to a green building: Indoor environment quality,
thermal comfort and health. Building and Environment, 191, p.107592.
 Dell’Anna, F. and Bottero, M., 2021. Green premium in buildings: Evidence from the real estate market
of Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, p.125327.

16
 REFERENCES

 Azis, S., 2021. Improving present-day energy savings among green building sector in Malaysia using
benefit transfer approach: Cooling and lighting loads. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 137,
p.110570.
 Abidin, N. and Azizi, N., 2021. Soft cost elements: Exploring management components of project costs
in green building projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 87, p.106545.
 Wen, B., Musa, S., Onn, C., Ramesh, S., Liang, L., Wang, W. and Ma, K., 2020. The role and contribution
of green buildings on sustainable development goals. Building and Environment, 185, p.107091.

17
Thank You

18