This is kind of a pet peeve of mine. As structural engineers, we are typically working toward lean solutions. When we consider the weights of materials (typically as a measure of constructed cost), we are attending to the minimization of materials and the associate embodied energy. When we consider constructability, we are trying to minimize the time a crane has to run, the number of commutes required to move construction workers, and other energy-consuming activities. We generally have two jobs on a project: 1) provide a design that meets a set of minimum functional and safety requirements, and 2) save money, time, and materials. Most of us strive to get better - but better does not mean leaner. Lean buildings may be "greener" at the time of construction, but the time and treasure required to operate, maintain, repair, and replace buildings constructed to our designs far outweighs some incremental additional energy/cost required up-front to assure longevity of the building.
The sustainability of a durable building that remains useful for 100 years probably speaks for itself.
------------------------------
John Turner P.E., M.ASCE
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Irving TX
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-24-2017 00:22
From: Peter Singh
Subject: Sustainability
I am a practicing civil engineer since 1965 and am interested in sustainability very much. But I still need to understand in what way the term 'sustainability' affects my profession, as I work as a consultant, catering to different clients in different ways, from design/ drawings to construction management, from small scale to large projects!
i am totally dependent on the fees that I receive in return. So what should sustainability mean to me?
------------------------------
Peter Singh M.ASCE
Managing Director
Kingdom Designers
Birganj
------------------------------