Questions? Give Us a Call
(678) 940-6433

Whitepaper: Cost comparison of IMPs vs. Concrete

Whitepaper: Cost comparison of IMPs vs. Concrete

Keep up with the latest from

Fill out the form Below

Home Vendor News Whitepaper: Cost comparison of IMPs vs. Concrete

Decarbonization initiatives are gaining momentum in the construction industry as this sector seeks to reduce its massive carbon footprint. According to World Green Building Council estimates, the construction industry is responsible for generating an estimated 39% of the world’s carbon emissions with 11% of that coming from embodied carbon emissions, or ‘upfront’ carbon that is associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole building lifecycle. 
While it is clear that the energy-intensive construction industry has a lot of ground to cover when it comes to sustainability, common misconceptions about the high cost of materials for reducing embodied carbon are slowing progress. These misconceptions are refuted in new research which shows that reducing embodied carbon in construction does not have to cost more. 
The study, conducted by global construction and asset management consultancy Currie & Brown, systematically compared the installed costs of exterior wall assemblies commonly used in industrial buildings to determine whether low-carbon material choices cost more. 
Researchers examined the installed costs of a specific insulated metal panel (IMP) wall system, insulated precast concrete and tilt-up concrete wall systems, in typical warehouse or light manufacturing buildings of around 150,000 sf gross floor area in a total of 18 cities across the United States and Canada.  
Results from the research clearly show that the specific IMP wall system costs less to install in industrial buildings than both insulated precast concrete and tilt-up concrete wall systems. Cost savings were demonstrated across all 18 cities evaluated in the US and Canada, with average potential savings between 18% to 32%, depending on location.  
According to this analysis, cost savings of sustainable material selection can really add up. The applied total cost savings of using the IMP system in the example 150,000 square foot industrial building, instead of concrete wall systems, range from $279,941 in St. Louis compared to tilt-up concrete walls, up to $540,324 in Seattle, compared to insulated precast concrete.  
Earlier research by architectural research and planning firm KieranTimberlake also refutes the perception that low-carbon material choices cost more. This study examined IMPs with a specific type of insulation core, insulated concrete, tilt-up concrete and mineral fiber IMPs in the design of a virtual industrial building in Philadelphia to compare their impact on embodied carbon. The analysis found that specific type of IMPs were clearly a lower carbon choice, containing 28% less embodied carbon when compared with traditional concrete wall assemblies. 
To make significant progress in the drive toward sustainability, the construction industry will need to more widely embrace green building materials and practices. Moving away from the selection of building materials like concrete that produce high levels of carbon emissions will play a major role in reducing the construction industry’s carbon footprint. That’s because concrete production is one of the world’s largest sources of carbon emissions – the production of cement, a key ingredient in concrete, accounts for about 8% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. 
Insulated metal panels (IMPs) are a good alternative. They aid net zero energy and carbon-neutral efforts by producing an airtight, moisture-resistant, rigid, continuous-insulation envelope. IMPs offer high R-values and provide superior thermal performance and reduced operational energy costs. Ultimately, this results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduced energy costs.
Research confirms that making greener building envelope material choices doesn’t have to cost more. IMPs should be the cladding material of choice for saving costs, reducing embodied carbon and improving building performance. 


Read more BELOW


The 2024 virtual Men’s Round Table will be held Q4, 2024, date TBD.

2024 Virtual Men’s Round Tables

2023 Virtual Men’s Round Table was held on November 7th, 2023 via Zoom.


2024 Virtual Women’s Round Table

2023 Women’s Round Table #1 was held on October 20th, 2023 via Zoom


Circle K breaks ground with 1st Kentucky NEVI-funded EV charger

Circle K celebrated the groundbreaking of its first NEVI EV charging site in the southeastern US in Richmond, Kentucky. The new fast charging site in Richmond adds to Circle K’s EV charging footprint, which the company expects to reach 200 sites in North America, the

See Website for Details

This content (including text, artwork, graphics, photography, and video) was provided by the third party(ies) as referenced above. Any rights or other content questions or inquiries should be directed such third-party provider(s).

Receive the CCR 2024 Idustry Report

Get ahead of your Competitors with CCR's FREE Industry Insider's Report 2024!

Always stay two steps ahead of your Competitors. Stay informed with the latest in the Industry. 

This site uses cookies to ensure that you get the best user experience. By choosing “Accept” you acknowledge this and that operates under the Fair Use Act. Find out more on the Privacy Policy & Terms of Use Page