Type to search buildings, cities, countries, firms, glossary terms, news and future projects.
Element-by-element design and a revised foundation scheme reduce material demand before construction.
Published and source reviewed . Reported by Arup: structural engineering for tall buildings ↗. Source date: Undated engineer page; checked 2026-10-03.
| Value | Measure | Scope and limits |
|---|---|---|
| 25% | Reported steel-weight reduction | Arup comparison from individually optimising structural elements rather than grouped sizing. Not a whole-building carbon reduction. |
| 5,000 tonnes CO₂ | Reported saving from steel optimisation | Engineer’s estimate associated with the steel-weight reduction. No whole-life scope or independently measured operating result is implied. |
| 89 → 28 | Piles in the revised foundation scheme | Engineer-reported change to a pile-assisted raft. Site-specific ground conditions and load transfer govern whether this is feasible elsewhere. |
Arup describes sizing members for their individual loads rather than assigning a common size to a group. It also reports a pile-assisted raft that reduced pile count and concrete demand. These are design-stage comparisons, not an invitation to reduce member sizes without checking the full design.
A fair review would examine the alternative design, steel production route, procurement records, stability, fire resistance and serviceability. Fewer piles do not automatically mean a better foundation: settlement, load sharing, groundwater and the construction sequence remain project-specific checks.
The interpretation above identifies questions for engineering review. It does not fill gaps in the source with assumed performance data. Read the primary account ↗