Environmental impact assessment of demolition of a building in India-A case study

Buildings are demolished, when they outlived their service life, become structurally/functionally unfit, or have been built illegally. In India, an RCC framed, 40-storied high-rise building, with a built-up area of about 75,000 sqm, built without relevant approvals along with lots of violations of building bye-laws, has been demolished. There is nothing new in this demolition process, but its effect on the environment is unavailable. A study has been conducted to understand the environmental impact of this demolition. Based on the main primary construction materials, the embodied energy of this demolished building has been computed as 7.07 GJ/sqm. The civil construction cost of the building was found to be about INR 200 Crores (USD 27 million, assuming a conversion rate of 1 USD 75 INR in the year 2022). Expected GHGs emissions corresponding to this embodied energy were estimated as 42.42 × 10³ MT. Energy in the demolition of the building has been computed to be about 8.7 GJ/sqm. The situation, in which this building can be retrofitted and made compliant with local building bye-laws, has been analyzed for its environmental impact.

Buildings consume about 30% - 40% of primary energy & 16% of potable water and generate about 40% of GHGs (Green House Gases) annually [1,2]. High-rise buildings have higher footprints of primary energy and construction costs [3-6]. Buildings are designed/constructed to last for 30 - 100 years as per construction practices, specifications, climate, and uses in various countries [6-10]. Buildings may be required to be demolished before the end of their service life. The reasons for demolition include structural, functional, availability of more FAR ( Floor Area Ratio), better land use, or are ordered to be demolished by local statutory authorities due to issues like acquisition, illegal construction, court orders, or other reasons [8]. Energy in the demolition of buildings is generally insignificant if performed manually [7,11-16], but can be significantly higher if machines or explosives are used [2,7,17-19]. There is a tremendous wastage of natural resources and energy in such pre-mature demolition cases. Demolition causes lots of environmental degradation, like impact on the ground (shock waves) in case of demolition by the blast, noise pollution, and spread of fine particles in the air. Due to impact-induced shaking of the ground, the risk to occupants & buildings in the vicinity may also be high. Hence, LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) of premature demolition of buildings needs to be done and then an appropriate decision can be taken as per LCA methodology as discussed by Kashif, et al. [20].

A study has been performed on a 40-storied, 100 meters high RCC-based building, which is to be demolished by putting explosives in it, for its environmental impact and effect of this demolition on nearby construction & population. Based on the available literature, a qualitative analysis has been done to map GHGs due to demolition and the situation in which this building is retrofitted in conformity with local building bye-laws, so that this retrofitted building can be retained with changed use with a reduction in its working population, less working time, etc., to study the advantage of this retrofitting over demolition.

Buildings consume various types of natural resources extracted from the earth. The consumption of natural resources in building construction & maintenance is very high [7,9,19,21,22]. Major natural resources used in the construction of conventional Indian buildings are cement, steel, bricks/blocks, sand, coarse aggregates, etc., [3,4,6,7,14,17,22-29]. Embodied energy (EE) & construction costs of Indian conventional buildings are dependent on the specifications, architectural/engineering design, types of buildings, climate, geography, building uses, and quantities of various construction materials used in these buildings [3,6,7,25,27-38]. The embodied energy of various primary construction materials (EEm) has been quantified by many researchers based on Indian data & international data and presented in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1.

From Table 1, it is seen that there are significant variations in embodied energy values (- 67% to + 453%) of a few construction materials (between Indian data and international data), which may be attributed to differences in their specifications, performances, technology involved and time zone considered. The present study considers the embodied energy values of construction materials from Indian sources.

Generally, construction materials, equipment and labor are transported using various types of motorized & non-motorized vehicles with known & unknown distances. Transportation energy varies very much depending on these factors and can be low to high [41,42]. Transportation energy (EEt) in the Indian construction system has been calculated by many researchers and has been presented in Table 2.

Burdhan, et al. [17] have calculated that EEt is 1.85% of EE of smaller buildings in India and EEt decreases in bigger buildings. William, et al. [44] have computed EEt as 0.7% of LCE (Life Cycle Energy). Barbara Rossi, et al. [12] have found EEt to be 2% of LCE. Adalberth, et al. [45] have found that energy in transport & construction of buildings is 1% of its total energy use. Dutil, et al. [5] have found that transportation of construction materials has no effect on the LCE of buildings. Pinky Devi, et al. quoted Kua & Wong, that energy required in onsite construction & transportation is 12% of embodied energy and 0.96% of LCE [31]. Hence, EEt is not very significant in the LCE of buildings.

In building construction, lots of energy is also used in construction equipment and various site activities (EEc), which have been quantified by many researchers like Pinky Devi, et al. [7] as 4% of LCE. Ramesh, et al. [13] have found that the construction & demolition energy of Indian houses is less than 1% of LCE. Praseeda, et al. [14] have calculated that energy in miscellaneous works is 1% of LCE. Since in India lots of manual labor is used in the construction & maintenance of conventional buildings, thus in LCE of Indian buildings, energy due to construction has been found to be insignificant [25,45-50]. Even, European Union has given less importance to embodied & construction energy in energy efficiency in European buildings [51]. Calculation of labor and machine output in high-rise construction in India has been done by Pinky Devi, et al. as 41% of its LCE [7]. Computation of manual energy by various researchers has been presented in Table 3.

However, since manual energy does not have any carbon footprints directly associated with it, this is generally not accounted for in the LCE/LCA of buildings.

Embodied Energy (EE) of the buildings has been calculated by adding embodied energy of construction materials used in construction (including spillages & wastages) along with the energy required in actual construction & transportation of these to construction sites along with all upstream & downstream processes as EE = EEm + EEt + EEc and presented in Table 4.

Further, there is energy consumption in various phases of service life of the buildings, which are also very important and are known as operational energy (OE), Demolition & Recycling energy (DE), and Recurring Embodied Energy (REE), which are also part of LCA/LCE of buildings [6,7,25,29-31,34]. The definition & calculations of this energy have been done by many researchers and have been described as:

Operational Energy (OE)

Operational energy (OE) of the buildings has been calculated by many researchers and found that OE is about 80% - 90% of the LCE of conventional buildings [1,3,9,13,25,26,49,55] due to the consumption of a high amount of energy in various services of buildings due to sufficiently long service life span of buildings [25,55]. There will be considerable variations in the OE values of various types of buildings as per their use, type, desired indoor comfort conditions, climates, fenestrations, envelopes, etc., [32-37]. Since, in this present paper, the studied building is demolished before commissioning, this energy is not considered in the present analysis.

Demolition and Recycling energy (DE)

Energy is required in the demolition of buildings & recycling of buildings wastes (DE). This depends on their specifications, configurations, construction materials, numbers of stories, structural systems, sizes, etc. Pinky Devi, et al. [7,31], have calculated that DE is 3% of IEE (Initial embodied energy). Praseeda, et al. [14,37] and Ramesh, et al. [13,49,55] have calculated that DE is 1% of LCE. Ezema, et al. [16] have found DE to be negligible in LCE. When demolition is done through the machines, DE can be as high as 5% - 10% of LCE [2,7,17-19].

Demolition and recycling energy of Indian buildings have been calculated as 1% - 2% to 10% of their LCE [2,7,11-19].

Recurring Embodied Energy (REE)

Buildings also use a significant amount of energy for maintenance/repairs during their service life of the buildings, and this energy is known as recurring embodied energy (REE) of buildings. Since the service life span of the buildings is sufficiently long and can vary from 30-100 years [6-10], the amount of recurring embodied energy is also high, and it can be equal to 86% of its initial embodied energy of some of the buildings, as found by Bansal, et al. [6].

The LCE of the buildings is the sum total of embodied energy of the buildings, operational energy, demolition & recycling energy, and recurring embodied energy of the buildings. This approach is also known as the cradle-to-cradle approach [56,57].

LCE = EE + OE + DE + REE

The embodied energy of Indian high-rise buildings has been calculated as 7.43 GJ/sqm for 40 storied and 6.25 GJ/sqm for 30 storied buildings [3]. Similarly, the construction cost of Indian High-rise buildings (30 storied) has been calculated as per the procedure given in CPWD (Central Public Works Department) DSR (Delhi Schedule of Rates) for the year 2020 as INR 25,200/sqm and as per the year 2021 as INR 26,985/ [3,8] as given in Table 5.

However, in this present case study, a 40-storied high-rise building is going to be demolished with the usage of a fair amount of explosive, hence its environmental impact is going to be very high, as this demolition will not only increase its embodied energy but may create environmental issues (noise pollution, the spread of dust & malba/debris, shaking of the ground, thus, may also endanger the safety of life & nearby property, etc.). Further, there will be a lot of energy required for transportation and recycling of these buildings’ demolition waste also. This demolition can be saved by retrofitting this building and making it conform to the requirements of local building bye-laws (if possible). However, there are no such studies/data available in studied literature to suggest the amount of energy required in such retrofitting and its environmental effect. Recent studies are available for retrofitting existing buildings to decrease operational energy requirements and make them more sustainable & safer [58,59].

The present research is undertaken to study the potential of retrofitting a high-rise RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete) framed structure-based building to make it compatible with existing building bye-laws with the change of building use, so that the building may be used without the need for demolition. Few illegally constructed buildings have already been acquired by public agencies previously in the state of Bihar, India, and are being used for public utilities with a change of building use [60-65]. Energy may be required in retrofitting work in buildings, which can be calculated and compared along with the environmental impact of the demolition.

Since detailed Goof for Construction drawings (GFC), specifications, and quantities of construction materials used in the construction of this building are unknown, this preliminary information is prepared based on the following base data:

Buildings

40 storied towers, RCC framed structure, 75,000 sqm built-up area (BUA), the tower height is about 100 meters.

Design forces

Dead loads of the buildings consisting of weights of RCC/PCC/Flooring/Joinery/Fixtures & Fittings, masonry, finishing materials, Live Loads: 200 - 400 Kg/sqm of floor area, Earthquake Forces: Seismic Zone IV as per NBC (National Building Code) of India, Wind Loads: 47 m/s basic wind speed at 15-meter height.

Construction cost

As per CPWD PAR of the year 2020/2021 of RCC framed structure residential buildings of 40 storied constructions in India [3,4,8].

Based on the above data, basic construction materials like Cement, steel, bricks/blocks, sand, and coarse aggregates have been computed as per standard practices given in CPWD-PAR [3,4,8,66]. It is found that these 5 (five) basic main construction materials weigh about 90% in construction cost and 100% in embodied energy based on construction materials in Indian affordable housing. The present study is not in the affordable housing category. It may have expensive finishes like vitrified floor tiles, wooden/uPVC doors/windows, plastic paints, expensive plumbing, and electrical fittings & fixtures. However, this building was not yet finished and was still under construction (it must not have reached the finishing stage at the time of the demolition but finishings were not in place). Hence, these fancy construction materials/finishes have not been included in the computation of construction cost & embodied energy. Computed primary construction materials based on the assumption of Indian affordable housing will also hold good for the studied building also. The required quantities of the basic construction materials for the construction of this building have been computed as per available literature [3,4,6-8,23,25,28-31] as.

Cement - 7 bags (1 bag contains 50 kg of cement), Steel - 80 kg and bricks - 400 Nos/sqm of built-up area. The embodied energies of these construction materials are cement - 342.5 MJ/Bag, Steel - 35.1 MJ/Kg, and bricks - 4.68 MJ/Nos (Table 1). Total Embodied energy per sqm of the floor area of this building is [7*342.5 + 80*35.1 + 400*4.68 = 7,077.5 MJ] or 7.07 GJ/sqm. The total embodied energy of this building is 7.07 GJ*75,000 = 530,812 GJ of 5.30 × 10⁵ GJ. GHGs potential of this energy is 42.46 × 10³ MT (5.30 × 10⁵ × .08 MT) as computed by Luisa, et al. [67]. Contribution by sand and coarse aggregates in embodied energy is insignificant [3,4,6,25,29,32]. The average civil cost of construction of the building is INR 202 Crores (75,000 sqm @ INR 26,985/sqm)) as the year 2021 prices [7,8].

Hence, embodied energy, GHGs, and civil construction costs of this building are very high. Further, no accurate data is available on demolition, transportation, and recycling of high-rise buildings, hence computation of demolition energy has been done based on data given in studied literature. From literature studies, it is evident that the demolition energy of a high-rise can be as high as 10% of LCE. The initial Embodied energy of this building is about 10% - 20% of LCE (average of 15%) [2,7,17-19]. It is found that generally REE is not considered in the LCE of buildings and LCE has been calculated as the sum of EE and OE only. However, REE is a very important part of LCE. The recurring embodied energy of the buildings is about to 86% of the initial embodied energy of the buildings [6] and the service life of buildings in India is generally considered 50 years [3,4,6,8,25,29,32]. Thus computation of demolition energy will be ((7.07 × 1.86/0.15) × 0.1) = 8.7 GJ/sqm. So, the demolition energy of the high-rise building (8.7 GJ/sqm) is much higher than the initial embodied energy of the buildings (7.07 GJ/sqm). However, demolition energy by explosives may be much different than the one as computed, as generally buildings are not demolished by explosives. However, as per computations done in this study, at the time of demolition of this building, the energy footprints of this building will be 15.77 GJ/sqm (7.07 + 8.7), which is very high and needs a detailed EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) study to understand the impact of the destruction of such huge investment. There will be noise, dust, and shock/shaking in nearby areas, which will have a significant impact on buildings, flora, and fauna of the area, but this cannot be quantified due to lack of data.

It is further found from literature studies that old and inefficient buildings can be made sustainable by investing energy to the tune of 10% - 20% of their embodied energy and can last longer [68,69]. A study of retrofitting a public school building in Agra by Yashika Bansal [75], UP, India, shows that cost of retrofitting is about 30% of the cost of new construction and the energy required in retrofitting is 16% of embodied energy of new construction. The life of this school building was extended by another 50 years. Hence, along similar lines, if this studied building can be retrofitted, this will save a huge amount of cost, and energy and save the environment from dust, sound, demolition wastes, and impact-related hazard.

This high rise RCC framed structure-based building is very high in embodied energy, demolition energy & construction cost and must have been designed & constructed for a service life of about 50 - 75 years, but is being demolished even while still in construction sage, without using it due to serious violations in building bye-laws. The embodied energy of this 40-storied building is about 7.07 GJ/sqm and the construction cost (civil works only) is about INR 200 crores with great potential for GHGs emission. Demolition may also use a significant amount of energy (8.7 GJ/sqm), which will be added to the LCE of this building. Hence, embodied energy footprint of this building is very high as 15.77 GJ/sqm, which is going to waste. GHGs potential of this building having BUA of 75,000 sqm is 94.62 × 10³ MT, which is very huge.

Besides the destruction of precious natural resources, there will be lots of noise, dust, and vibration-related pollution due to the demolition of this building by explosives. The effect of demolition on flora and fauna may also be studied as this may create lots of inconveniences and damage to biodiversity. Further, energy will also be required in collecting, transporting, and recycling buildings’ debris/malba (building rubbish) and that is also part of the embodied energy of this building. The quantification of this energy can be done based on available information from the site. It is further found that the cost and energy for retrofitting are generally less (10-20% of EE) and feasible. A detailed EIA study is required to be done with the possibility that can this building be retrofitted and made compliant with local building bye-laws with all safety parameters, and if this is feasible, what are energy, cost, and environmental issues in this process? From literature studies, it is found that possibly these buildings can be retrofitted to conform to the requirements of local building bye-laws by providing additional features that will save lots of primary energy, cost, and environmental degradation.

From the current analysis, it is found that since the construction of buildings consumes a significant amount of natural resources, primary energy & money, this is significantly very high in the case of high-rise RCC-based framed construction due to requirements for more construction materials due to more gravity, earthquake and wind loads. Hence, in case of any nonconformity in these buildings with local building bye-laws, builders/developers must be heavily punished, but the buildings may be retrofitted (if it is possible). Various interventions such as structural (construction of more structural elements, staircases, ramps, etc.), PHE ( more windows, doors, water sumps & hydrants, earthlings, breakers, etc.), Firefighting (pressurized water pipes, chemicals for firefighting, increasing fire ratings of construction materials, long hose pipes, sprinklers, fire detectors, long ladders, uses of Drones, etc.), etc. and building usages may also be altered (with less population density, less working hours, etc.) to make it fit for the revised building uses, as demolition may cause lots of wastages of natural resources and may create inconveniences to the person living nearby including buildings. EIA studies of the demolition may also be done like it is being done for the construction of new buildings to calculate energy and environmental impact to decide the benefits of demolition of such buildings or to retrofit these buildings. In this particular case, it is found that generally this building is having a tremendous amount of embodied energy and may have more energy embedded in it, due to usages of the heavy amount of energy in demolishing, besides there will be noise, dust, and ground shaking in the demolition of this building, which will be decided only through EIA only.

Future work

Since, sufficient data on embodied energy and demolition energy of high-rise buildings is not available in India, especially for demolition by using explosives and their demolition-related EIA studies, these need to be collected and studied for a more detailed cost-benefit analysis of such demolition.

The authors are thankful for the support & help provided by Mrs. Manju Safaya, Ex Executive Director, HUDCO, New Delhi, India, to analyze data to carry out this research. The authors are also thankful to Prof. Vijay K Minocha, Head & Professor of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, and Dr. Shailesh Kr. Agarwal, Executive Director, Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC), New Delhi, India for highlighting the importance and environmental-related technicalities of this subject.

*All authors confirm that no financial aid has been received from any agency, and we do not have any conflict of interest in carrying out this research.

1. Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R. Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland, Building and Environment, 2007; 42:1391–1394.
2. Keoleian GA, Blanchard S, Reppe P. Life cycle energy, costs, and strategies for improving a single-family house. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2001; 4(2):135–156. doi:10.1162/108819800569726.
3. Bansal D, Minocha VK, Kaur A. Embodied Energy, CO2e, and Construction Cost of Indian Housing: Model of Low-Rise versus High-Rise Development. Journal of Architectural engineering. 2021; ASCE. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000480.
4. Bansal D, Minocha VK. Analysis of low-rise vs High Rise development of affordable housing in India, for cost and energy optimization. International Conference on Clean Technologies and Sustainable Development by NITTTR Chandigarh and DOST. GOI. Chandigarh. 2018; 23-24:2018:105-111.
5. Yvan D, Rousse D, Quesada G. Sustainable Buildings: An Ever-Evolving Target, Sustainability. 2011; 3:443-464.
6. Deepak B, Vijay KM, Arvinder K. Initial or recurring embodied energy: Importance in Indian affordable Housing, 2021; 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104072.
7. Devi LP, Shivkumar P. A case study on life cycle energy of residential buildings in southern India. Energy and Buildings. 2014; 80:247–259. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.05034.
8. Central Public Works Department (CPWD 2019). Plinth Rates. https://cpwd.gov.in/Publication/PLINTH_AREA_RATES_2019.pdf -Accessed on 5-November-2020
9. Bribián IZ, Capilla AV, Usón AA. Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential: Building and Environment. 2011; 46:1133-1140.
10. Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís Sarel Lavy JS, Charles HC. Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012; 16:3730– 3743.
11. Sartori I, Hestnes AG. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy and buildings. 2007; 39:249-257.
12. Barbara R, Marique AF, Glaumann M, Reiter S. Life-cycle assessment of residential buildings in three different European. Building and Environment. 2012; 51:395-401.
13. Ramesh T, Ravi P, Kumar SK. Life Cycle Energy Analysis of a Multifamily Residential House: A Case Study in Indian Context. Open Journal of Energy Efficiency. 2013; 2:34-41 doi:10.4236/ojee.2013.21006 Published Online March 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojee
14. Praseeda KL, Venkatarama Reddy BV, Mani M. Embodied and operational energy of urban residential buildings in India. Energy and Buildings. 2016; 110:211–219.
15. Adalberth K. Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings. Building and Environment. 1997; 32(4):321–329. doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(96)00069-8.
16. Ezema IC, Olotuah AO, Fagbenle OI. Estimating Embodied Energy in Residential Buildings in a Nigerian Context, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. 0973-4562: 2015;10:24:44140-44149.
17. Bardhan S. Embodied energy analysis of multi storied residential buildings in urban India, Ecology and the Environment. 2011; 143. doi:10.2495/ESUS110351.
18. Pacheco-Torres R, Jadraque E, Roldán-Fontana J, Ordóñez J. Analysis of CO2 emissions in the construction phase of single-family detached houses. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2014; 12:63–68. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2014.01.003.
19. Paulsen JS, Sposto RM. A life cycle energy analysis of social housing in Brazil: Case study for the program “MY HOUSE MY LIFE”. Energy and Buildings. 2013; 57:95–102. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.014.
20. Kashif A, Rehman R, Fuwad A, Shahid MK, Dayarathne HNP, Jamal A, Aftab MN, Mainali B, Choi Y. Current advances in the classification, production, properties and applications of microbial biosurfactants - A critical review. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2022 Aug;306:102718. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2022.102718. Epub 2022 Jun 12. PMID: 35714572.
21. Dong YH, Lara J, Peggy C, Poon CS. Comparing carbon emissions of precast and cast-in-situ construction methods – A case study of high-rise private building, Construction and Building Materials. 2015; 99:39–53.
22. Shukla A, Tiwari GN, Sodha MS. Embodied energy analysis of adobe house. Renewable Energy. 2009; 34:755–61.
23. Sengupta N. Growth of Housing Sector in India — Application of Cost-effective Construction Technologies to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission, IE(I) Journal–AR. 2010; 91:5-16.
24. Sengupta N, Roy S, Guha H. Assessing embodied GHG emission reduction potential of cost-effective technologies for construction of residential buildings of Economically Weaker Section in India. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2018; 19(2):39–156, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-018-0013-8
25. Bansal D, Ramkishore S, Sawhney RL. Effect of construction materials on embodied energy and cost of buildings—A case study of residential houses in India up to 60 m² of plinth area, Energy and Buildings. 2014; 69:260-266.
26. Debnath A, Singh SV, Singh YP. Comparative assessment of energy requirements for different types of residential buildings in India. Energy and Buildings. 1995; 23:141–146.
27. Reddy BVV, Jagadish KS. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energy and Buildings. 2003; 35:129–137.
28. Chani PS, Najamuddin, Kaushik SK. Comparative Analysis of Embodied Energy Rates for Walling Elements in India. IE (I) Journal-AR. 2003; 84:47-50.
29. Deepak B, Minocha VK, Kaur A. Component-wise embodied energy analysis of affordable houses in India. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2020; 21 (1):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00184-4.
30. Sengupta N. Use of cost-effective construction technologies in India to mitigate climate change. General Articles. Current Science. 2008; 94(1):38–43.
31. Devi LP, Palaniappan S. Life cycle energy analysis of a low-cost house in India, International journal of construction education and research. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2018.1476935.
32. Deepak B, Vijay KM, Arvinder K, Dakwale VA, Ralegaonkar RV. Reduction of embodied energy & construction cost of affordable houses through efficient architectural design: A case study in Indian Scenario, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021; 2021: Article ID 5693101:11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5693101.
33. National Building Code 2016; 2016. Bureau of Indian Standards, http://www.bis.org.in/sf/nbc.html -Accessed on 2-March-2015
34. Thapa S, Panda GK. Energy Conservation in Buildings – a Review. International Journal of Energy Engineering Aug. 2015; 5:4: 95-112.
35. He Y, Yu H, Ozaki A, Dong N, Zheng S. A detailed investigation of thermal behavior of green envelope under urban canopy scale in summer: A case study in Shanghai area. Energy and Buildings. 2017; 148:42–154.
36. Omrani S, Garcia-Hansen V, Capra BR, Drogemuller R. Effect of natural ventilation mode on thermal comfort and ventilation performance: Full-scale measurement. Energy and Buildings. 2017; 156:1–16.
37. Praseeda KL, Monto Mani, Venkatarama Reddy BV. Assessing impact of material transition and thermal comfort models on embodied and operational energy in vernacular dwellings (India). Energy Procedia 2014; 54:342 – 351.
38. Arvind C, Tiwari GN. Thermal performance and embodied energy analysis of a passive house – Case study of vault roof mud-house in India. Applied Energy 2009; 86:1956–1969.
39. Energy in Building Materials: Final Report. Development Alternatives, Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC). www.bmtpc.org. 1995.
40. Inventory of Carbon & energy. University of Bath. Ver 20. Jan 2011. www.bath.ac.uk/mech- engg/sert/embodied.
41. Stephan A, Crawford RH, de Myttenaere K. Towards a more holistic approach to reducing the energy demand of dwellings. Procedia Engineering. 2011; 21:1033-1041.
42. Bjørneboe MG, Svendsen S, Heller A. Evaluation of the renovation of a Danish single-family house based on measurements. Energy and Buildings 2017; 150:189–199.
43. Bhattacharjee B. Sustainability of concrete construction in Indian context, The Indian Concrete Journal. 2010; 45-51.
44. Williams D, Elghali L, Wheeler R, France C. Climate change influence on building lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions: Case study of a UK mixed-use development. Energy and Buildings. 2012; 48:112–126.
45. Adalberth K. Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: A method. Building and Environment. 1997; 32(4):317–320. doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(96)00068-6.
46. Abey ST, Anand KB. Embodied Energy Comparison of Prefabricated and Conventional Building Construction. Journal of Institution of Engineers (India). Series A. 2019; 10:1007/s40030-019-00394-8.
47. Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL. Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 2006; 12(4):207–215. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076- 0342(2006)12:4(207).
48. Chen TY, Burnett J, Chau CK. Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong: Energy and Buildings 2010; 42:735–744.
49. Ramesh T, Ravi P, Shukla KK. Life cycle approach in evaluating energy performance of residential buildings in Indian context, Energy and Buildings. 2012; 54: 259–265.
50. Yaun C, Rpbert RJ, Shuhua L. The embodied energy and emissions of a high-rise education building: A quantification using process-based hybrid life cycle inventory model, Energy and Buildings. 2012; 55: 790-798.
51. The European Parliament and the Council of the EU. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast); 2010.
52. Oyarzo J, Peuportier B. Life cycle assessment model applied to housing in Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 69: 109-116. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.090.
53. Utama A, Gheewala Shabbir H. Indonesian residential high-rise buildings: A life cycle energy assessment. Energy and Buildings. 2009; 41: 1263-1268.
54. Han MY, Chen GQ, Ling Shao JS, Li A, Alsaedi B, Guo AS, Jiang MM, Ji X. Embodied energy consumption of building construction engineering: Case study in E-town, Beijing, Energy and Buildings. 2013; 64: 62–72.
55. Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy and buildings. 2010; 42: 1592-1600.
56. Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, Culp CH. Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review, Energy and Buildings. 2010; 42: 1238–1247.
57. Dixit MK. Embodied energy analysis of building materials: An improved IO-based hybrid method using sectoral disaggregation, Energy. 2017; 124: 46-58.
58. Lu Y, Zhanga N, Chen J. A behavior-based decision-making model for energy performance contracting in building retrofit, Energy and Buildings. 2017; 156: 315–326.
59. Li P, Froese TM. A green home decision-making tool: Sustainability assessment for home owners. Energy and Buildings. 2017; 150: 421–431.
60. Ex-Bihar DGP’s building sealed,to house school. https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/exbihar-dgps-building-sealed-to-house-school/ ------acceded on 24/4/2022
61. Properties used for liquor storage in Bihar will be seized and auctioned. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/properties-used-for-liquor-storage-in-bihar-will-be-seized-and-auctioned/articleshow/80710241.cms --- acceded on 24/4/2022
62. Bihar Govt Seizes Tainted Officer's House, To Convert It Into School. https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/bihar-govt-seizes-tainted-officer-039-s-house-to-convert-it-into-school-10481.html --- acceded on 24/4/2022
63. Nitish Kumar shows way, seizes house of corrupt officer. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/nitish-kumar-shows-way-seizes-house-of-corrupt-officer/articleshow/9865386.cms?from=mdr-- acceded on 24/4/2022
64. Suspended IAS officer's mansion becomes a school. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states//article59974545.ece --- acceded on 24/4/2022
65. Patna Transport Dept Officer's Assets Worth Rs 4.5 Crore to be Confiscated. https://www.news18.com/news/india/patna-transport-department-officers-assests-worth-rs-4-crore-52-lakh-to-be-confiscated-3918305.html
66. HUDCO (Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi, India). www.hudco.org -Accessed on 5 –November-2020.
67. Cabeza LF, Barreneche C, Miró L, Morera JM, Bartolí E, Inés Fernández A. Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013; 23: 536-542.
68. Jermyn D. Richman R. A process for developing deep energy retrofit strategies for single-family housing typologies: Three Toronto case studies, Energy and Buildings. 2016; 116: 522-534.
69. Eliopoulou E, Mantziou E. Architectural Energy Retrofit (AER): An alternative building’s deep energy retrofit strategy, Energy and Buildings. 2017; 150: 239–252.
70. Bansal Y. Rejuvenation of a 60 years old Primary School building at Agra, U.P., India- A case Study, Nirman Sarika. 2020; 9.