Quelles sont les heures d'ouverture ?

Lundi 09:00 - 05:00 Mardi 09:00 - 05:00 Mercredi 09:00 - 17:00 Jeudi 09:00 - 05:00

Shady Attia, Quartier Polytech 1, All. de la Découverte 9, Liège (2026)

Q: Quelle est l'adresse ?

Quartier Polytech 1, All. De La Découverte 9

16/10/2026

[Special Issue] AI for Climate-Resilient Buildings and Cities

Can AI help us design cooler neighborhoods, reduce building emissions, and make cities more resilient to climate change?

These are the questions behind our Special Issue, “Urban Climate Futures: AI and Smart City Solutions,” in Sustainability in Smart Cities. I am pleased to serve as Guest Editor alongside Sheng Liu, with Pengyuan Shen as Lead Guest Editor. We invite research that connects advances in AI and smart city technologies with measurable environmental performance and practical climate action, from individual buildings to neighborhoods and entire cities.

Topics include:

🌡️ Urban overheating, heat-risk prediction, and thermal comfort

🏙️ Digital twins and climate-responsive urban design

⚡ Building energy performance and urban decarbonization

💧 Flood prediction, water management, and climate resilience

🌱 Nature-based solutions and urban greening

📊 Explainable AI, data governance, and equitable decision-making

For me, the key question is: how does the research help designers, planners, and policymakers make better decisions?

I particularly welcome contributions that demonstrate validated methods, transparent assumptions, and clear evidence of benefits, while acknowledging uncertainty and limitations. Real-world applications, living labs, and well-documented case studies are especially relevant.

We welcome original research, systematic reviews, perspectives, and case studies.

📅 Submission deadline: June 1, 2027

🔗 Full scope and submission information: https://ojs.bonviewpress.com/index.php/SSC/UCF-AI

Sustainability in Smart Cities (SSC) is an emerging, interdisciplinary, open-access journal published by Bon View Publishing, focusing on urban sustainability, digital technologies, and climate resilience. It is not currently listed in Scopus or Web of Science.

📚 Please share this call with colleagues working at the intersection of AI, building performance, and urban climate resilience.

📚 Sustainable Building Design Lab https://www.sbd.uliege.be

💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://lnkd.in/diTVT5eq

🌐 Previous posts and publications https://www.shadyattia.org

🔗 All professional links https://tapni.com/t/0dezaqni6t9v

SustainabilityInSmartCities

15/10/2026

[prEN 18177] Europe Is Standardizing Circular Construction

A significant step forward in European standardization: prEN 18177 is progressing toward a common framework for circular construction.

In April 2026, I published “A Message from 2050 to the Circular Construction Sector,” arguing that our greatest mistake was attempting to assess circularity without developing the measurement infrastructure needed to verify it. Today, I want to share encouraging progress from the European standardization process.

As a Belgian expert contributing to CEN/TC 350/SC 1, Circular Economy in the Construction Sector, I have been following and contributing to discussions that could fundamentally change how we define, assess, and communicate circularity in buildings and construction products.

🇪🇺 1. prEN 18177: A significant milestone
In May 2026, the committee approved proposals to divide prEN 18177 into two complementary parts:

📘 prEN 18177-1: Terminology: Establishing a common vocabulary for circular construction.

📗 prEN 18177-2: Framework and Principles: Developing a shared conceptual foundation for circularity across the construction sector.

Dr. Valentina Bisinella (Denmark) is the new convenor of CEN/TC 350/SC 1/WG 1 (Framework, Principles and Definitions), succeeding Prof. Lisbeth M. Ottosen. Next, the conveners of WG1, WG5, and WG7 were convened by Evert Shut, Flora Anvarifar and others. This matters because circular construction cannot advance when manufacturers, architects, researchers, and policymakers use the same words to describe different realities.

🔬 2. The real breakthrough: What exactly should we measure?
Recent technical discussions have moved beyond definitions toward a more consequential question:

Should circularity be measured through intentions, technical characteristics, or actual material flows?

The emerging framework connects circularity objectives to three resource-flow strategies:

♻️ SLOW resource flows: Extend service life through durability, maintenance, adaptability, and reuse.

♻️ NARROW resource flows: Reduce the consumption of primary resources and improve resource efficiency.

♻️ CLOSE resource flows: Keep materials circulating through recovery, reuse, and recycling.

These strategies provide a foundation for translating broad circularity objectives into assessment criteria. However, the distinction between a circularity strategy and its measurable outcome remains essential. A building designed for disassembly is not necessarily a building whose components will actually be recovered and reused.

🏗️ 3. A building's end-of-life is not necessarily a material's end-of-life
One particularly meaningful discussion concerns the distinction between:

• End-of-use • End-of-performance • End-of-life • Subsequent use cycles

A building may reach the end of its intended use while its structural components retain decades of functional value. Conversely, a technically reusable component may never be reused because of missing documentation, unsuitable connections, uncertain performance, or economic barriers. This distinction is fundamental to circularity assessment. We must evaluate buildings, products, and materials at their appropriate levels rather than assuming they share identical lifespans.

📊 4. Circularity assessment is becoming a dedicated standardization priority
Another important development concerns CEN/TC 350/SC 1/WG 5, Circularity Assessment. The working group is developing the scope of a proposed standard addressing circularity assessment for construction products, components, and construction works. The group is identifying material-flow analysis as its primary methodological focus, complemented by consideration of:

• Environmental, social, and economic impacts of circular actions • Technical characteristics supporting circularity • Take-back systems and extended producer responsibility • Assessment criteria adapted to different stakeholders and decision-making contexts

This is an important direction, although the assessment methodology remains under development.

🔍 5. Why our research at the University of Liège matters
At the Sustainable Building Design Lab, we have spent years examining what happens to building materials beyond the design stage. Our research includes twenty six circular building case studies and more than 450 structural connections. Through forensic building audits, material inventories, dismantling observations, and lifecycle modeling, we investigate the difference between designed circularity and realized circularity. This evidence reinforces three lessons:

First: Design for disassembly must be supported by evidence of actual disassembly performance.

Second: Material passports must remain useful throughout successive ownership, maintenance, and reuse cycles.

Third: Circularity assessment must distinguish technical reuse potential from the probability of actual reuse.

Our research suggests that future assessment methods could benefit from longitudinal evidence, uncertainty analysis, and reference-class forecasting.

These are research directions we advocate, not requirements already established by prEN 18177.

🎯 6. The next challenge: From common principles to credible evidence
The development of European circular construction standards represents meaningful progress. But standards alone cannot guarantee circular buildings. We still need reliable material inventories, consistent assessment boundaries, documented performance, transparent assumptions, and evidence of what happens when buildings are adapted or dismantled.

My central argument remains unchanged:

Circularity should not be judged by how convincingly a building is marketed, but by how effectively its materials retain value across successive use cycles. The next generation of circular construction assessment must connect standards with real-world evidence. And this raises a question for everyone working in architecture, engineering, manufacturing, demolition, and policymaking: Should a building receive circularity credit for being designed for reuse, or only when its components are demonstrably recovered and reused?

I would be interested in hearing your perspective.

📚 Explore our circular construction research: Sustainable Building Design Lab

🌐 More research and publications: Shady Attia

12/10/2026

[New Book]: Net Zero Energy Buildings – 2nd Edition

You want to design a net-zero energy building. But how do you know you are making the right decisions?

From the first design meeting to the first year of operation, every project brings difficult choices: reducing demand, selecting materials, integrating energy systems, protecting comfort, and verifying results.

I wrote Net Zero Energy Buildings, Second Edition to help professionals and researchers work through those choices with a clearer framework.

For architects, engineers, and consultants, it provides methods to evaluate options, connect design decisions, and build a stronger case for your project strategy.

For researchers and doctoral students, it brings together concepts, performance indicators, lifecycle assessment, and case studies to help frame research questions and interpret building performance.

For educators, it offers a structured foundation for connecting building science with practical implementation.

The value is in what you can do with it: ask better questions, understand the tradeoffs, and approach complex projects with greater confidence.

This carousel introduces five questions explored in the book. The full volume takes you further, through twelve chapters covering passive design, electrification, materials, occupants’ well-being, smart grids, construction quality, and performance assurance.

📚 Table of Contents Highlights:

1️⃣ Introduction to NZEBs and market accelerators 2️⃣ Evolution of definitions and approaches 3️⃣ Performance indicators and thresholds 4️⃣ Integrative project delivery and team roles 5️⃣ Occupants’ well-being and IEQ 6️⃣ Materials and environmental impact assessment 7️⃣ Energy systems and loads operation 8️⃣ Smart decarbonized energy grids and upscaling 9️⃣ Construction quality and cost 🔟 Occupant behavior and performance assurance 1️⃣1️⃣ Case studies and lessons learned 1️⃣2️⃣ Roadmap for implementation

Keep it in your library as a reference to return to when a project, research question, or teaching discussion needs more depth.

👉 Buy your copy and explore the framework:
https://lnkd.in/efd_DMDK

If these questions matter to your work, recommend the book to a colleague, your research group, or your university library.

As we face a decisive decade for climate action, this book aims to support researchers, professionals, and policymakers in turning vision into practice.

💬 I would love to hear from you: What do you see as the biggest bottleneck to scaling net-zero energy buildings worldwide?

📚 Learn more about our research: https://www.sbd.uliege.be/💻 Subscribe to my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/diTVT5eq🅱️ Bilibili b23.tv/bzjL3bn🌐 Explore previous posts and resources: https://www.shadyattia.org b23.tv/bzjL3bn🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat🟩💬 微信: https://lnkd.in/eN3xZhhZ

09/10/2026

[Special Issue] Land Planning Toward Climate Adaptation: Design and Strategy for Urban Heat Island Mitigation

🔥 How can land planning become a real instrument for reducing urban heat, rather than simply documenting it?

As heatwaves intensify, the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is increasingly a question of how we plan land, streets, neighborhoods, vegetation, and urban form. Yet many cities still lack integrated planning frameworks that translate urban climate knowledge into concrete spatial and design decisions. Pasted text

Together with Mohamed Elhadi Matallah, Waqas Ahmed Mahar, and Atef Ahriz, I am pleased to serve as Guest Editor of the Special Issue in Land:

📗 “Land Planning Toward Climate Adaptation: Design and Strategy for Urban Heat Island Mitigation”

Our aim is to connect urban climate science with planning and design action. We particularly welcome rigorous studies addressing:

• Climate-sensitive land-use planning and zoning • Urban morphology, geometry, density, and ventilation corridors • Nature-based solutions and green-blue infrastructure • Urban forestry, shading, and water-sensitive design • Cool and reflective materials and urban surface properties • Outdoor thermal comfort and heat-related health risks • Remote sensing and GIS-based UHI and land-surface-temperature mapping • CFD and numerical urban microclimate modeling • AI and machine learning for urban heat forecasting • Digital twins for climate adaptation and heat-resilient planning Pasted text

The important question is no longer simply where cities are hot. We need evidence showing which planning and design interventions work, by how much, at what spatial scale, and under present and future climate conditions.

I am particularly interested in contributions that move beyond descriptive UHI mapping toward quantitative, transferable, and decision-relevant evidence that planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and policymakers can actually use.

If you are working on urban heat mitigation, outdoor thermal comfort, climate-responsive urban design, or heat-resilient land planning, we would be pleased to consider your work.

📆 Submission deadline: February 3, 2027

📚 Research articles, reviews, and short communications are invited. Authors may also submit a proposed title and short abstract to the Editorial Office for preliminary assessment. Pasted text

🔗 Special Issue https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/special_issues/CT8J462BL8

📚 Sustainable Building Design Lab https://www.sbd.uliege.be

💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://lnkd.in/diTVT5eq

🌐 Previous posts and publications https://www.shadyattia.org

🔗 All professional links https://tapni.com/t/0dezaqni6t9v

08/10/2026

[Teaching 2026] New academic year and a new place for AI in architectural education

Are we preparing students for the buildings we construct today or for the world in which they will practice tomorrow?
The 2026-2027 materials are ready at the University of Liège: updated books, course booklets, technical details, exercises, readings, and case studies for our architecture and building engineering students. They cover sustainable construction, building components and envelope design, building services and HVAC, circular design in the studio, and building performance simulation and monitoring.

The harder question this year was how generative AI should enter the room. We are already using Tooli in our courses. Many students are using it and benefiting from it. Developed by Buildwise with Embuild, Bouwunie, and Constructiv for the Belgian construction sector, Tooli connects AI assistance with construction practice. Its Nexo assistant helps users find technical information grounded in Buildwise publications and expertise. In our courses, that support comes with an obligation: consult the source, check its applicability, and explain the reasoning.

A special acknowledgment to and the team behind Tooli, including Van Geite and de Back, and to my teaching assistants Ruellan, Piette, and Dagnelie for their contributions to our teaching.

In sustainable construction, students first learn how a detail works: structure, water protection, thermal continuity, airtightness, moisture control, materials, and carbon. Only then may they use image generation to communicate a detail they have already validated. When the output defaults to a glass tower in a temperate climate, that bias becomes part of the lesson. A student working on earth construction in the Sahel must question both the image and whose buildings appear in the training data.

In simulation and monitoring, students combine AI with Python, DesignBuilder, and EnergyPlus to draft scripts, modify input files, analyze results, and identify inconsistencies. They remain responsible for verifying their models. Occupant data also requires careful handling: privacy is part of the exercise.

Two questions now sit inside the assignments.
1.What did it cost? Students estimate the electricity and water associated with their AI use, acknowledge the uncertainty, and compare the energy estimate with the operational energy of their building model. Data centers are buildings, too.
2.Who is accountable? The person whose name appears on the report.

Under the ULiège Charter for generative AI, our courses require students to disclose tools and prompts, verify outputs, read the assigned papers, and explain their drawings, models, code, assumptions, and results without the machine in the room. AI can support learning. It cannot replace understanding. Students graduating in 2030 may still be designing buildings in 2060. Our job is to build the technical judgment they will need to question and redesign solutions throughout their careers.

The materials are ready. Now the real work begins.

How are you handling AI in your architecture and engineering teaching?

🔗 Course approach: https://www.uliege.be/cms/c_9054334/en/directory?uid=u220815
🔗 ULiège charter: https://www.student.uliege.be/cms/c_19230399/en/uliege-charter-for-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-academic-work
📚 Learn more about our teaching https://www.sbd.uliege.be/cms/c_7654646/en/sbdlab-teaching
🔗 Tooli: https://www.tooli.be
💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://lnkd.in/diTVT5eq
🅱️ Bilibili b23.tv/bzjL3bn or 🎬 YouTube https://lnkd.in/erHrfkNf
🌐 Explore previous posts and resources https://www.shadyattia.org
🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat 🟩💬 微信https://lnkd.in/eN3xZhhZ

ArtificialIntelligence

05/10/2026

📽️ [Video] Why Editors Retract Papers ?

A paper passes peer review. It gets published. Researchers begin citing it. Then someone discovers a serious problem. The data do not support the conclusions. An image appears manipulated. Results duplicate another publication. Or the authors discover an honest mistake that undermines their findings.

What should an editor do when a published paper can no longer be trusted?

In this video, I discuss one of the most difficult responsibilities in academic publishing: deciding when and why to retract a paper, and how to explain that decision transparently. Publication gives research visibility and credibility. But an editor’s responsibility continues after publication. When serious problems emerge, the scientific record needs attention, even when correcting it becomes uncomfortable.

The first difficulty is distinguishing an error that can be corrected from a problem that requires retraction.

A mislabeled figure or a limited reporting error may be addressed through a correction if the main findings remain reliable. A fundamental analytical error, fabricated data, or a compromised publication process may require retraction. The decision depends on the nature and extent of the problem. This raises a distinction that researchers sometimes overlook:

An honest mistake can make a paper unreliable. A retraction alone does not establish that its authors committed fraud.

COPE’s guidance recognizes that unreliable findings can result from honest error as well as misconduct. That is why the reason for retraction matters so much. Readers need to understand what went wrong, rather than infer wrongdoing from a label.

Imagine discovering, months after publication, that your analysis used the wrong input data. Reporting the problem could affect your reputation. Remaining silent could allow other researchers to build on an invalid result.

Would our academic culture recognize your honesty, or simply count another retraction against your name?

We should make it easier for researchers to disclose serious mistakes. A system that treats every retraction as proof of dishonesty risks discouraging the transparency it needs. Editors face their own dilemma. They must examine the evidence, give authors an opportunity to respond, and coordinate with publishers and, where appropriate, institutions. The presentation also examines the pressures that can complicate this work: legal concerns, limited support, heavy workloads, and fear of retaliation. Meanwhile, the paper remains available.

How long should an unreliable finding continue influencing research while everyone debates what to do?

Acting responsibly requires both care and timely decisions. An accusation needs evidence. A serious concern needs a response. The retraction notice itself is another test of editorial responsibility. A vague statement that “concerns were raised” gives readers little help. A useful notice explains the reason for the decision, identifies who is retracting the article, and connects clearly to the original publication. It should distinguish established facts from unresolved allegations.

Transparency means readers can understand what happened and why it affects their use of the paper.

The video also considers the tools and people involved in detecting problems: plagiarism screening, checks on data and images, research integrity teams, and scrutiny after publication. These resources can help editors investigate. They still require interpretation. A similarity score needs context. An unusual numerical pattern needs examination. A public allegation needs verification. AI adds further questions. Convincing prose can conceal weak methods. References can look credible while being nonexistent. Screening therefore needs to examine the evidence behind a manuscript’s claims, alongside the quality of its writing.

For authors and early-career researchers, the practical lesson is straightforward: preserve your original data, document your analysis, verify references, and report consequential errors when you discover them. For editors and publishers, the challenge is to support decisions that protect the literature, including decisions that expose weaknesses in their own publication processes.

A journal’s credibility depends partly on how openly and responsibly it handles problems after publication.

Peer review cannot guarantee that every published finding is correct. Scientific trust also depends on our willingness to revisit findings when new evidence reveals a problem. That leaves an uncomfortable question:

Are we creating an academic culture where correcting the record earns respect, or one where protecting appearances takes priority?

Editors: When the evidence warrants retraction but authors or publishers resist, what support do you need to act promptly and transparently?

Researchers: If you discovered a serious error in your published paper, would you feel safe requesting a retraction? What would make that decision easier?

📚 Part of the playlist: Reviewers & Editors: Roles and Responsibilities

🎥 Watch the video: 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=739Nk2fUpJs&t=110s

📚 Learn more about our research: https://www.sbd.uliege.be/

💻 Subscribe to my newsletter: https://www.shadyattia.org/ #/portal/signup

🎬 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/

🌐 Previous posts and resources: https://www.shadyattia.org

02/10/2026

[Associate Editor] New Journal of Built Environment and Power Systems (BEPS)

I am pleased to join Built Environment and Power Systems (BEPS) as an Associate Editor and to share the journal’s first Call for Papers. Launched in 2026, BEPS is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focused on the increasingly important interface between high-performance buildings and modern power systems. Call For Papers - BEPS

For me, joining at this stage is particularly meaningful. I am not simply joining another established journal. I am becoming involved at the formation stage of a scientific venue, with an opportunity to help shape a field that increasingly overlaps with my own research in building performance, electrification, resilience, energy systems, urban energy modeling, and AI.

This is about field shaping and community building. BEPS can help define the emerging building-power-system interface, bringing together topics such as grid-interactive buildings, distributed energy resources, heat pumps, storage, resilient cooling, urban energy systems, smart grids, digital twins, building performance simulation, and physics-informed AI. At the same time, developing the journal creates a network of authors, reviewers, editors, and research groups working across these increasingly interconnected areas.

There is also a longer-term strategic dimension. Rather than waiting for this research intersection to mature and then joining an established publication ecosystem, we have an opportunity to help create the publication platform that this emerging field needs. If BEPS develops successfully, it can become a natural scientific home for this community. For editors who also publish in the field, maintaining rigorous conflict-of-interest procedures and independent handling of their own submissions will be essential to that credibility.

But a new journal has to earn its scientific standing. I see this as a 10-year journey rather than a promise:

2026-2027 | Build the foundation. The priority is rigorous and independent peer review, research integrity, publication regularity, strong metadata, international authorship, and consistently substantive papers. These are directly aligned with the quality dimensions considered by Web of Science and Scopus. Clarivate

2027-2029 | Establish indexing and visibility. With sufficient publication history and consistently strong content, the journal can seek evaluation by Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Scopus no longer imposes its former two-year condition for newly launched journals, although sufficient publication history is still required for meaningful evaluation. Elsevier Researcher Academy

2029-2032 | Build citation influence. Web of Science uses 24 quality criteria for new journal evaluation. Journals passing them can enter ESCI, and ESCI journals are eligible for a Journal Impact Factor and inclusion in unified JCR category rankings. From there, sustained citation influence, content significance, and strong author and editorial networks become increasingly important. Clarivate

2032-2036 | Aim for sustained Q1-level performance. Q1 cannot be promised or simply applied for. It depends on the journal's eventual JCR category and its relative citation performance. The objective therefore should not merely be obtaining an Impact Factor, but developing a journal whose work is sufficiently rigorous, useful, visible, and influential to compete internationally over the long term. Clarivate
This makes my involvement an investment in field building, scientific networks, editorial experience, and the future publication ecosystem around the convergence of buildings and power systems. The opportunity is to have an early seat at the table and help establish the scientific standards and identity of that platform from the beginning. I am particularly pleased to undertake this journey alongside a diverse international

Editorial Board:
Executive Editor: George Xydis.
Associate Editors: Matthaios Santamouris, Shady Attia, Yi Zong, Mehdi Mehpoya, Ching Deb, Muhyiddine Jad, Tiziana Susca, Muhammad Asif, Francesco Nocera, Hongwei Wu, and Tamer Khatib.
Editorial Board Members: Xu Han, Mahtem Ucal, Jaime Roset Calzada, Hibatuma Bayera Malessa, Anıl Can Duman, Dimitrios Apostolou, Nabil Elminshawy, Ewa Lazarczyk Carlson, Ali Soltani, Xiao Lin, Jungmin Han, Ramo Simson, Zhihong Pang, and Francesco Sommese.

📢 The Call for Papers is now open: Built Environment and Power Systems (BEPS)
📚 Learn more about our research https://www.sbd.uliege.be/
💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://www.shadyattia.org/ #/portal/signup
🅱️ Bilibili b23.tv/bzjL3bn or 🎬 YouTube https://lnkd.in/erHrfkNf
🌐 Explore previous posts and resources https://www.shadyattia.org
🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat 🟩💬 微信 https://lnkd.in/eN3xZhhZ

01/10/2026

[Article] Establishing industry-based benchmarks for embodied carbon in 85 buildings in China

Measuring embodied carbon is not enough. We need to know when a building is using too much of it.

For years, the building sector has become increasingly sophisticated at calculating embodied carbon. But a calculation alone does not tell an architect, engineer, developer, or policymaker whether 250, 300, or 400 kg CO₂e/m² is acceptable. That requires benchmarks.

In our new study, we analyzed 85 real building projects in China across seven building types, using actual material quantities from construction companies. The results show just how much typology matters: average cradle-to-gate embodied carbon intensities for structural materials ranged from approximately 200 to 340 kg CO₂e/m², with office buildings recording the highest mean values. But one result deserves much more attention. Together with Zengfeng Zhao, Chao Pan, Gang Yang, Chenyuan Ji, and Carlos José Massucato, we analyzed 85 real building projects in China across seven building types.

Some of the biggest embodied-carbon decisions are buried underground.

Basements had embodied carbon intensities 1.5 to 4 times higher than above-ground structures. Depending on building type, they represented 43% to 70% of total embodied carbon in our analysis. Yet basements and foundations are frequently overlooked or treated inconsistently in carbon assessments. That is an enormous carbon iceberg beneath our buildings. We also found that concrete and steel reinforcement together account for up to 90% of structural-material embodied carbon. This puts structural efficiency, material quantities, reinforcement ratios, and below-ground design directly at the center of the decarbonization discussion. So we took the analysis one step further: from measurement to benchmarking.

For residential buildings in this dataset, for example, 250 kg CO₂e/m² was identified as a statistical boundary between higher- and lower-carbon performance. Establishing industry-based ben…

This is not a universal carbon limit. Our study focuses primarily on structural materials within A1-A3, cradle-to-gate, and the dataset is geographically concentrated in China. These benchmarks therefore need regional expansion and validation. But the direction is important:

LCA should not end with a carbon number. That number should inform a design decision.

The next step is moving toward building-type-specific, regionally grounded carbon budgets that designers can use before the building is built, not simply to document its impact afterward. The paper contributes to a broader move toward data-based embodied-carbon benchmarks and limits in China.

Should every building project start with an embodied-carbon budget, just as it starts with a financial budget?

Zhao, Z., Pan, C., Yang, G., Ji, C., Massucato, C. J., & Attia, S. (2025). Establishing industry-based benchmarks for embodied carbon in buildings: A statistical analysis of 85 case studies in China. Journal of Building Engineering, 114, 114372.

📘 Full article: https://hdl.handle.net/2268/336694

📚 Learn more about our research https://www.sbd.uliege.be/

💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://www.shadyattia.org/ #/portal/signup

🅱️ Bilibili b23.tv/bzjL3bn or 🎬 YouTube https://lnkd.in/erHrfkNf

🌐 Explore previous posts and resources https://www.shadyattia.org

🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat 🟩💬 微信 https://lnkd.in/eN3xZhhZ

#

Shady Attia

16/10/2026

15/10/2026

12/10/2026

09/10/2026

08/10/2026

05/10/2026

02/10/2026

01/10/2026

Adresse

Heures d'ouverture

Site Web

Notifications

Contacter L'école

Raccourcis

Partager

Catégorie

Demande de retrait de la fiche

Lundi	09:00 - 05:00
Mardi	09:00 - 05:00
Mercredi	09:00 - 17:00
Jeudi	09:00 - 05:00