Evaluation of net-zero strategies in shipping container architecture

Abstract

At least 38% of global greenhouse gases come from buildings. The principal causes include reliance on non-renewable energy sources to power shipping container architecture, which has recently been developed as building modules. The purpose of the study is to evaluate various strategies that can transform shipping container architecture into net-zero energy buildings with a view to determining the most effective and sustainable approach for improved environmental performance. The study was curated as a systematic literature review of 40 selected academic publications from peer-reviewed journals, extracted from Google Scholar, Elsevier Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Springer. Case studies of existing shipping container buildings incorporating these net-zero strategies were also examined. The study reveals that residential buildings have remained the focal point of net-zero energy buildings, while commercial buildings receive insufficient attention despite their high energy consumption. The most effective strategies for attaining net-zero energy performance in shipping container architecture were found to be optimal building orientation and shape, insulation, and passive cooling. User-friendly management systems were also found to increase efficiency. In conclusion, the absence of standardized regulations is the major hindrance to the widespread adoption of net-zero shipping container architecture. However, this can be effectively resolved through supportive policies and collaboration between the built industry professionals and container manufacturers.

1 Introduction

At least three-quarters of global carbon emissions are generated by built-up urban areas, which consume between 50% and 76% of global energy (Ohene et al., 2023; Mohammed B. U. et al., 2023; Lin and Chen, 2022; Hachem-Vermette et al., 2018). This implies that more than half of the energy expended can be directly or indirectly linked to buildings (Ekhaese et al., 2024). Additionally, buildings are responsible for 38% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Jegede et al., 2021; Moran et al., 2020). Construction costs and operational expenses are also affected by building facades, which significantly contribute between 15% and 40% to these expenditures (Ibrahim et al., 2024).

Excessive energy utilization has altered the climate and degraded the environment, driven by increasing air pollution and the presence of chlorofluorocarbons (Mohammed B. U. et al., 2023; Akinola et al., 2020). Globally, awareness of the consequences of climate change has increased due to the rapid depletion of natural resources and biodiversity (Adewale and Stephanie, 2022; Attia, 2016). Implementing energy conservation measures and reducing the carbon footprint of urban construction are emerging as important strategies to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of building emissions (Hachem-Vermette et al., 2019). In this regard, more than 60 countries have committed to attaining carbon neutrality by 2050 (Mohammed B. U. et al., 2023).

There has been a growing demand for sustainable architectural practices, leading to innovative reuse strategies, including the adaptation of shipping containers as building modules (Risnandar and Primasetra, 2021; Battaglia and Lee, 2020).

Since the shipping container was invented in 1956, it has remained a catalyst for globalization. These ISO-standardized shipping containers represent one of the biggest innovations in global maritime logistics, characterized by their uniform cuboid shape and modular sizes (Faragallah and Barakat, 2022). These standardized dimensions, typically 20-foot and 40-foot units (twenty-foot equivalent unit, or TEU), have been created explicitly as units for global interoperability and have been the main force driving the development of global trade. Containers are the backbone of the international maritime logistics systems (Faragallah and Barakat, 2022; Bitar et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2023). The reuse of old shipping containers as architectural structures has gained significant traction as a sustainable building material. In 2021, the number of twenty-foot containers increased by more than 851 million worldwide (Faragallah and Barakat, 2022; Bitar et al., 2022). Considering the high costs involved in storing, transporting, or destroying these containers, in addition to their non-degradable nature, it is urgent to develop strategies for the sustainable use of these decommissioned containers (Costa et al., 2023).

The intersection of container architecture and net-zero energy building (NZEB) objectives is particularly promising. The regeneration of existing buildings and abandoned areas is a key governmental and European objective, and the NZEB concept can be easily adapted to repurposed container structures to give new life to buildings whilst generating energy (Faragallah and Barakat, 2022). The concept has been applied to various programmatic needs, such as residential units, temporary disaster relief shelters, and educational facilities.

The reuse of steel shipping containers as structural elements and building envelopes to enable them to perform a specific function or host human activities is known as shipping container architecture (Costa et al., 2023; Fariña et al., 2024). Net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs) are buildings that generate as much energy as they consume. They have become a critical objective in the field of sustainable design, as shipping containers have proven to be a viable option for their implementation (Fariña et al., 2024).

The study is in line with three of the sustainable development goals, which include the seventh goal, by investigating the most efficient incorporation of renewable energy sources into shipping container architecture; the twelfth goal, which entails the adaptive reuse of shipping containers resulting in responsible consumption and production practices; and the ninth goal through the reforming of infrastructure to resource-efficient entities.

The study further contributes new knowledge by identifying the most prevalent net-zero energy strategies applicable in four Köppen Climate Classifications. The duration of the study was 15 months from November 2024 to March 2026.

2 Methods

2.1 General framework and research design

This study was conducted as a systematic literature review to rigorously identify, evaluate, and synthesize building energy performance strategies for retrofitting shipping containers into NZEBs. The general framework was carefully curated before screening scholarly articles to enhance reproducibility and transparency. In this regard, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework was adopted. The four research questions of the study served as the basis for the review, aiming to evaluate strategies to transform residential shipping container architecture into NZEBs and to determine effective approaches for improved environmental performance across four Köppen categories.

2.2 Data collection sequence

A total of four academic databases, including Google Scholar, Elsevier Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink, were utilized for a comprehensive exploration of the study’s theme. Although shipping container architecture began to gain visibility in the early 2000s, the selected publications were limited to journal articles published within the last decade, precisely between 2016 and 2026. This was implemented to critically examine the latest technological advancements in shipping container architecture and NZEBs. The following keywords were adopted while searching these databases: (“container architecture” OR “shipping container” OR “ISO container housing”) AND (“net zero” OR “low energy building” OR “NZEB”) AND (“energy performance” OR “thermal performance” OR “embodied carbon”). The search was conducted within the scope of international scholarly publications in English, peer-reviewed journal articles, and in the subject areas of architecture, building science, and sustainable development.

2.3 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

A total of 985 publications, comprising conference proceedings, university theses, and technical reports, were found in the initial search. Manual cross-verification was then employed to eliminate duplicate entries in the selected databases. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the titles and abstracts were further screened to ensure their alignment with the study’s architectural scope. The methodological rigor and appropriateness of the full-text journal articles narrowed the final selection to 40 publications. The detailed adopted PRISMA framework is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Four thematic clusters were adopted in this study to categorize the selected publications and facilitate a structured synthesis in line with this study’s aim and objectives, as seen in Table 1.

2.4 Corpus justification

The scope of this systematic literature review was limited by the principle of thematic saturation. By approximately the 40th article, the studies accessed failed to provide new information within the adopted framework, as all implemented net-zero strategies and performance data were already documented. Variations in geographic context were observed in the additional entries. However, this did not warrant inclusion of additional strategies within the selected thematic clusters.

The justification for a corpus would be insufficient solely based on thematic saturation in the absence of verifiable methodologies across all studies. Therefore, for performance-based claims to be substantial, empirical data had to be quantified and serve as the primary criterion in all scholarly articles. To reduce the risk of exclusion, a new search was conducted, and seven high-impact articles published between 2020 and 2026 were included.

2.5 Specific database search information

To properly represent emerging trends in net-zero shipping container architecture, the lower boundary date was set to January 2016, and the search encompassed publications through March 2026. The execution of the searches and the final export of the results occurred between 19 December 2024 and 20 December 2024. This two-day window was adopted to maintain temporal consistency within all four selected databases. An additional eight articles were sourced on 10 March 2026, and no subsequently published literature was included in this study’s scope, thus serving as the final systematic search. Table 2 shows the database-specific information for the four adopted databases.

2.6 Screening procedures

The principal investigator was responsible for designing the screening criteria and resolving all persistent conflicts during the full-text review. The other authors simultaneously carried out independent screening of all full-text titles and abstracts. Thereafter, all database search strings were validated by the third author, and reference lists were thoroughly reviewed by all authors. Rayyan’s automated detection was used to deduplicate all records obtained from the four databases, followed by double manual verification.

3 Results

3.1 Net-zero energy buildings

The terms “NZEBs” and “nearly zero energy buildings” (nZEBs) have often been used interchangeably in literature. However, it is pertinent to note that fundamentally varying concepts are represented by both terms in terms of approaches to implementation and performance goals (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2020).

NZEBs are buildings in which the annual energy use is estimated to match the amount of renewable energy generated on site (Khassan et al., 2021). This principle derives its basis from the annual energy balance offset by the total energy generated through on-site renewable sources and can be further subdivided into net-zero site energy buildings, net-zero emissions buildings, net-zero cost energy buildings, and net-zero source energy buildings (Perane et al., 2022).

Conversely, nearly zero energy buildings (nZEBs) describes buildings that are characterized by exceptional energy performance but do not attain complete energy balance annually, as the energy balance can be compensated through predominantly renewable energy (Kalaycıoğlu and Yılmaz, 2019). Fundamentally, the concept of nZEBs is derived from European regulatory frameworks, resulting in heterogeneous implementation approaches across member states (D'Agostino et al., 2022).

Table 3 presents a comparative summary of the classification criteria for NZEBs and nZEBs.

In 2009, Belgium set the first definition for NZEBs. Subsequently, the definition has been revised to include emerging issues and improve on its shortcomings. Four definitions of the NZEBs have been acknowledged. They include net-zero energy, net-zero site energy, net-zero energy costs, and net-zero energy emissions (Shi et al., 2020).

NZEBs are achieved through low-carbon construction materials, energy efficiency techniques, and the adoption of renewable energy resources (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2020). A compound annual growth rate of almost 45% is predicted for NZEB construction and renovation (Ali et al., 2020). NZEBs can also refer to buildings that incorporate renewable technologies on a commercial scale and that use construction methods that consume no fossil fuels (Ali et al., 2020; AlAjmi et al., 2016; Kristiansen et al., 2019; Ohene et al., 2022).

Over the years, NZEBs have gained increasing popularity. This is evident in targets set by organizations such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), which seeks to fulfill NZEBs by 2030 (Shi et al., 2020). In NZEBs, there are two design strategies: reducing energy requirements in buildings through the implementation of energy-efficient measures and incorporating renewable energy and related technologies to meet energy demands (Ali et al., 2020).

The application of design strategies for NZEBs includes using efficient technologies that reduce building energy demand while utilizing renewable energy systems (Ali et al., 2020). The building’s energy requirements should be met primarily by on-site or nearby renewable sources. The net-zero strategies include reducing energy consumption through the adoption of energy-efficient devices, using efficient demand-side management to reduce energy demand, designing an energy-efficient building envelope to minimize cooling and heating loads, and selecting appropriate site-based renewable energy technologies for electricity generation.

“Standards for NZEB design should be established that incorporate both energy efficiency requirements and occupant comfort criteria, thereby providing a consensus foundation for design recommendations.”

There should be set standards for NZEB design that include energy efficiency and occupant comfort criteria, providing a common ground on which to base design recommendations. For existing buildings, two design strategies are required for zero energy: reducing energy use within buildings (particularly heating and cooling systems) through energy-efficient measures and adopting renewable energy and related technologies to meet additional energy needs (AlAjmi et al., 2016). When on-site energy sources generate more energy than the building requires, the excess can be fed into the local grid (Ali et al., 2020). However, the realization of NZEBs is significantly impeded by the financial burden of unforeseen energy costs and the required initial investment.[23.2 Types of Net Zero Energy Buildings.

Kristiansen et al. (2019) identified four types of NZEBs: a site NZEB, a source NZEB, an emissions NZEB, and a cost NZEB. When a building on its site generates at least the energy consumed by its operation, it is known as a site NZEB. The distinguishing factor for a source NZEB is that primary energy is its metric. A building that generates sufficient renewable energy to cover all emissions through its net energy needs is called an emissions NZEB, while a building in which the owner has net-zero energy costs is known as a cost NZEB (Ohene et al., 2022).

Additionally, four categories of NZEBs exist with respect to renewable energy options (AlAjmi et al., 2016). The first category, known as the NZEB-A, refers to a building whose energy use is offset by renewable energy resources within its footprint. On the other end of the spectrum, the last classification, known as the NZEB-D, refers to buildings that combine on-site renewable resources with the purchase of off-site renewable energy credits to meet their energy needs (AlAjmi et al., 2016).

Based on its definition, attaining site NZEB status does not ensure that the building has been designed in an energy-efficient manner. The environmental impact of the building would be calculated using a carbon dioxide balance and primary energy requirements and compared with other design approaches (Ohene et al., 2022).

3.2 Parameters for Qualification as a Net-Zero Energy Building

There are four parameters a building must attain for it to be considered an NZEB:

3.2.1 Exceptional energy performance

The annual primary energy demand for residential buildings should be below 50 kWh/m², while the maximum for commercial buildings is 60 kWh/m². This is achievable using technologies, efficient design, and insulation (Jaysawal et al., 2022; Lin and Chen, 2022).

3.2.2 Renewable energy generation on site

The amount of renewable energy generated by the building should be equal to or exceed its annual basic energy demand. Popular renewable energy systems include solar PV and solar thermal (Koke et al., 2021).

3.2.3 Proven net-zero energy balance

By measurements and calculations, the building must demonstrate achieving a net-zero energy balance each year. This is achievable through the close observation of energy consumption and generation (Mandel et al., 2023).

3.2.4 Restriction on grid energy purchase

There is a limit on how much energy an NZEB can purchase from the grid, set at 15–30 kWh/m² per year, as on-site renewable energy generation is encouraged (Mohammed B. U. et al., 2023).

The study by Mohammed B. U. et al. (2023) further indicates that newly designed buildings face challenges in achieving net-zero energy, and that it is increasingly difficult for existing buildings in high-temperature areas (Mohammed G. A. et al., 2023). Due to the significant discrepancy between the numbers of new and existing buildings, it is advisable to pay closer attention to converting existing buildings into NZEBs across varying climates.

Consideration should be given to energy exchange despite NZEBs being based on annual energy balance, utilizing grid infrastructure to overcome seasonal energy storage limitations, thereby reducing the grid interactions required to meet the target (Shi et al., 2020). Additionally, pertinent principles related to NZEBs include water and waste efficiency through greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting. Other principles include the integration of smart technology, which regulates energy consumption by installing sensors and automated algorithms.

3.3 Shipping container architecture

Evolving regulations and economic trends in the maritime industry have increased the demand for new shipping containers. However, failure to recycle these shipping containers led to environmental waste (Pomponi and D’Amico, 2020). Architects’ imaginations have been captured by the emergence of shipping containers as an alternative building material (Natanian et al., 2019). Although the pioneer of this innovation remains unknown, around the early 2000s, using shipping containers for homes became a focus in Europe and America (D’Agostino et al., 2022).

Container architecture, or “cargotecture,” is defined as buildings derived from steel intermodal containers (Costa et al., 2023; Laksitoadi and Syarif, 2020; Hassan et al., 2022; Alegbe, 2024). These containers, which are highly resistant to corrosion and oxidation, are usually created from COR-TEN steel (Hassan et al., 2022; Shahzad et al., 2024).

The functional adaptation of recycled shipping containers cuts across various spheres, from small family units to high-rise buildings (Berbesz and Szefer, 2018; El Messeidy, 2018). Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by approximately 43% when shipping containers are adopted, leading to higher energy efficiency and lower running costs (Hachem-Vermette et al., 2018). Shipping containers, due to their structural integrity, availability, and modularity, have emerged as a popular choice for sustainable construction (Attia, 2016). In coastal areas, shipping containers are an ideal standard convenience unit due to their weatherproof nature and characteristic quality (Thanekar et al., 2022). Their adoption also reduces reliance on traditional structural materials, thereby lowering embodied energy and construction costs. Carbon dioxide emissions are substantially offset by shipping containers while reducing natural resource use. Only 500 kWh are consumed during the recycling and upcycling of shipping containers, whereas disposing of a single container costs approximately 8,000 kWh (Hassan et al., 2022). An energy-efficient building envelope for shipping containers can be achieved by adopting high-performance fenestrations, airtight construction, thermal insulation, and appropriate shading devices to manage solar heat gain (Hachem-Vermette et al., 2019).

There are concerns about the suitability of shipping containers for structural stability and habitability (Berbesz and Szefer, 2018). According to D'Agostino et al. (2022), not all countries currently accept the potential use of containers. This is evident in Spain, which has raised concerns regarding their inherent uncertainties and refuses to acknowledge their viability. Also, Malaysia prioritizes using shipping containers as storage facilities rather than housing units (D'Agostino et al., 2022). Glass facades are a common feature of shipping container architecture, enhancing aesthetics and providing external views. This method is fraught with problems, including overheating and excessive sun exposure (Ibrahim et al., 2024).

Another significant drawback of a shipping container building is its steel-box-like features, which create an uncompromising aesthetic and make the construction’s end product appear to prioritize form over its function as a building (Zafra et al., 2021). There is, however, a potential solution to this: combining, arranging, and creatively composing the units to create a unique architectural feature. Currently, research is centered on improving the thermal performance of shipping container buildings (Hachem-Vermette et al., 2019).

According to Ibrahim et al. (2024), Costa et al. (2023), and Hassan et al. (2022), shipping containers can be used as single-family units, multi-family units, dormitories, youth centers, hotels, mobile healthcare centers, libraries, classrooms, emergency shelters, and several other building or structure types.

3.4 Net-zero strategies in shipping container architecture

Although many shipping container buildings exist globally, their energy efficiency within changing climes has been underexplored. When designed as NZEBs, shipping container architecture plays an important role in attaining the target of a “climate-neutral building stock” (D’Agostino et al., 2022). According to Elrayies (2017), passive and active net-zero strategies can be implemented into shipping container architecture. The passive strategies include optimal building geometry, building façade design, natural lighting, and natural ventilation. In contrast, the active strategies are the incorporation of renewable energy sources (PV, solar thermal, geothermal, and wind turbine) and backup systems for renewable energy (Radwan, 2015; Shi et al., 2020; Elrayies, 2017).

When meeting passive design standards, a significant drawback of container architecture is the lack of insulation, which leads to high thermal discomfort. To ensure habitability, insulation is mandatory, as it reduces mechanical cooling system loads and increases thermal resistance. Some viable insulation materials include extruded polystyrene (XPS), rock wool, polyurethane, and high-performance vacuum insulation panels (HVIP) (Lin and Chen, 2022; D'Agostino et al., 2022; Berbesz and Szefer, 2018). Structural insulated panels (SIPs) can be an alternative to traditional insulation materials as they consist of oriented strand board (OSB) plates fitted with a polymer foam insulation core (Hassan et al., 2022).

Improved façade design can be utilized to reduce energy consumption, and its role is more pronounced in shipping container architecture with highly glazed envelopes, which have a significant effect on the thermal load (Ibrahim et al., 2024). During the initial design stage, incorporating shading devices is an efficient way to reduce mechanical cooling energy requirements. Solar gains in warm-climate zones can be effectively mitigated by fixed external shading devices. The energy performance of a shipping container building can be improved by incorporating vertical or horizontal shading devices based on the façade’s orientation and environmental conditions (Lin and Chen, 2022; Ibrahim et al., 2024). A recently introduced shading system, hybrid louvers, features vertical and horizontal louver characteristics that optimize energy efficiency in multiple directions.

3.4.1 Building orientation and shape

Twice, the solar radiation along the north and south sides of a building hits its west and east surfaces; therefore, situating fenestrations with large sizes along the west and east axes should be avoided (Haque et al., 2021). To reduce heat loss and material use, compact building volumes are ideal. Shipping container wall surfaces have a much larger area than the floors. The negative effects of this large surface area are reduced when the building is properly insulated. Although overheating may be a problem when the environmental temperature is high, this can be overcome by finishing the container’s exterior with a white or light color to increase reflection and reduce heat absorption. Passive cooling is also enhanced by locating internal spaces with higher heat gains on the north side of the building (Ohene et al., 2022).

3.4.2 Insulation

In colder climates, insulation is considered a cost-effective measure, whereas in buildings with sizeable internal heat loads, it is less cost-effective. Buildings with a dominant cooling load can use insulation to prevent heat loss during cooling. Currently, two insulation materials with highly positive results are vacuum insulation panels (VIP) and aerogels, but their soaring prices limit their applicability (Ohene et al., 2022). Furthermore, the stack effect occurs due to air circulation within raised-ridge roofs. Therefore, air is one of the most effective insulators for pitched roofs (Haque et al., 2021).

3.4.3 Electrochromic windows and photovoltaic glazing

The only available technology that permits dynamic control of transmittance through windows is electrochromic windows. They can harness sunlight to its maximum even in their transparent state, thus achieving optimal visible transmittance. The marketing of this glazing technology, however, is limited by factors such as cost, color rendering issues, and switching time. Aside from electricity generation, photovoltaic glazing is an innovative technology that can also reduce energy consumption for cooling, heating, and artificial lighting. Light transmission can also be reduced using semitransparent or translucent photovoltaic technology (AlAjmi et al., 2016; Ohene et al., 2022; Jaysawal et al., 2022).

3.4.4 Passive heating and cooling techniques

Cooling internal spaces through natural ventilation can be greatly improved by installing automated fenestrations. The control system for NZEBs should increase cooling and heating loads when excess electricity is generated/harnessed. It should also lower its threshold for using stored heat in the thermal mass during an electricity shortage (Jaysawal et al., 2022).

3.4.5 Active heating and cooling

The most common active heating system in NZEBs is heat pumps, as the high electricity demands of buildings make them more cost-effective. Although characterized by relatively high investment costs, heat pumps have lower operating costs because they meet almost 95% of heating energy needs (Jaysawal et al., 2022).

3.4.6 Energy-efficient ventilation

Indoor temperatures closely track the diurnal and seasonal variations in external temperatures in naturally ventilated buildings. Indoor thermal environments can be improved in an energy-efficient manner by adopting natural ventilation. A direct linear correlation exists between window use frequency and environmental temperature (Jaysawal et al., 2022).

3.4.7 Renewable energy supply

This lowers the temperature of the solar cell and maximizes the hot water produced by the excess heat generation. Overall efficiencies of greater than 70% can be attained with photovoltaic/thermal systems, with electrical efficiencies of 15%–20% and thermal efficiencies exceeding 50%. The lifespan for these systems is a minimum of 20 years (Ohene et al., 2022).

3.4.8 Storage of renewable energy

The electrical system for off-grid systems can be balanced in three main ways: energy storage, demand response, or connection to buildings within a microgrid. In nZEBs, where the power generated is less than the load, some form of energy storage is necessary to maintain building operation. During peak hours, self-consumption can be increased and energy costs reduced by storing energy.

3.5 Case studies of shipping container architecture and their net-zero strategies

There are many significant net-zero architectural designs globally, such as the Freitag Flagship Store, the Bullitt Center, which is commonly referred to as the world’s greenest commercial building, and the Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED), which has energy-efficient homes that constitute an eco-village. However, for the purpose of this study, six shipping container buildings that have successfully integrated net-zero strategies into their design are examined. They include Keetwonen, The Flying Box, Casa Oruga, London Trinity Buoy Wharf’s Container City projects 1 and 2, The Boulder, and Heartland Housing.

To address the identified gap in the literature, this study selected six case studies globally using a clearly defined, reproducible approach to ensure proper representation of real-world shipping container architecture contexts. These criteria are listed and explained in Table 4.

3.5.1 Keetwonen, Amsterdam

The use of shipping containers as an efficient net-zero housing solution is exemplified in this unique project. Aside from its practical contribution to reducing the carbon footprint, the project also revitalizes urban space through its functionality and aesthetics. Renewable energy integration and energy efficiency are the key strategies implemented in Keetwonen.

These strategies were achieved by incorporating high-level insulation and energy-efficient appliances, thereby greatly reducing the overall energy consumption of a single housing unit (Bernardo et al., 2022). Additionally, the materials and construction techniques were carefully selected, making the project both environmentally friendly and functional. The roofs of the container units are equipped with solar panels that generate electricity. This approach greatly limits the use of fossil fuels. Smart grid technologies are also integrated into this facility to enable effective energy management through real-time monitoring and optimization of residents’ energy use (Bernardo et al., 2022).

3.5.2 The flying box, France

The use of shipping containers for this project was primarily due to size and budget constraints. After prefabrication off-site, the entire structure was assembled in only 3 months. The main volume consists of two glass facades, which allow for natural lighting and reduction of reliance on mechanical ventilation (Battaglia and Lee, 2020).

A large roof terrace, planted with trees and other greenery, is located on the top level of this building, helping to control internal temperature while serving as an effective stormwater management technique. Heat transfer through the roof is also significantly reduced by the natural insulation provided by vegetation (Battaglia and Lee, 2020).

3.5.3 Casa Oruga (Caterpillar House), Santiago, Chile

Utilizing only 12 shipping containers, this project by Sebastián Irarrázaval exemplifies the adoption of passive cooling in shipping container architecture (Oh et al., 2017). To deliberately blend the building with its environment, an unconventional internal layout was adopted. This arrangement facilitates the influx of cool, natural air from the surrounding mountains into the building’s envelope through fenestrations and a ventilated façade. When choosing the material palette, low cost was not the sole priority; consideration was also given to low maintenance and long-term performance (Oluwatayo and Pirisola, 2021).

Table 5 shows the net-zero strategies, energy performance, and lifecycle assessment of the six selected case studies.

3.6 Summary of findings from literature

Table 6 summarizes the most pertinent information from the 40 articles utilized for the study’s systematic literature review for easy understanding. The information provided includes the title, authors, year of publication, objectives, methods, results, and gaps identified in each study.

The data in Table 1 reveal that the common gap in the selected literature is the lack of comprehensive data on the energy performance characteristics of shipping containers and the absence of an extended evaluation that assesses the long-term viability of shipping container architecture. The enhancement of energy efficiency through the implementation of advanced technologies is an area that is yet to be comprehensively explored. There is also a lack of an in-depth exploration of the efficacy of NZEB technologies across varying climates and how to enhance their operation in hot, humid climates.

3.7 Thermal bridging in steel intermodal modular connections

Steel has a thermal conductivity (L) of approximately 50 W/m·K, which is dramatically higher than that of timber (approximately 0.12 W/m·K) and mineral wool insulation (approximately 0.035 W/m·K) (Li et al., 2023). The difference between steel and everyday insulating materials, which is approximately three orders of magnitude, implies that any unbroken elements of steel within the building envelope constitute a preferential conduit of heat flow, or thermal short-circuit, that can make the nominal U-value of an insulated wall panel very dependent at junctions. The thermal bridging phenomenon in steel-framed buildings is not a novel concept. The literature confirms that the high thermal conductivity of steel framing elements is one of the most significant obstacles to meeting the thermal performance targets necessary to achieve energy-efficient, virtually NZEB buildings (Li et al., 2023; Qi et al., 2024; Tkalčić et al., 2023; Santos et al., 2023).

3.7.1 Areas prone to thermal bridging in shipping container architecture

A combination of two containers stacked or placed at right angles and welded produces the most frequent modular connection detail, a continuous steel pathway of very high conductance along the entire height and width of the junction. The reason is that the connection, which is usually made between the corner castings, corner posts, and/or rails of the neighboring containers, is the welding between them forming a continuous steel thermal bridge that cuts through the insulation system installed on the individual containers (Curto et al., 2022).

Studies of modular building connections have recorded a number of inter-module connections that are applied in practice. The evolved corner fittings of shipping containers are known as corner fitting connections, in which brackets formed at the corner of modules are made of strengthened steel (Curto et al., 2022; Rajanayagam et al., 2021). Side plates or connector plates are single bolted in adjacent modular units with corner columns or angles. The inter-module connection commonly used is the corner bracket type that highlights the common way of connecting one module to another, and these interconnections have been shown to have significant structural implications (Tkalčić et al., 2023; Curto et al., 2022).

The bonding that was developed based on the corner fitting connections of shipping containers has an enhanced corner bracket in the intersection of the intra-beam to intra-column. The stacked modules can have vertical links that deliver a shear key or plug that aids in positioning modules, as well as giving a structural bond where a physical connection is not feasible or practical. These joints are meant to be very efficient in responding to varying loads, and high-strength friction grip bolts are usually utilized (Rajanayagam et al., 2021). However, all types of connections establish a direct steel-to-steel interface, which is a thermal bridge of the highest order.

3.7.2 Thermal bridging mitigation strategies and limitations

Table 7 presents four approaches that can be effectively adopted to minimize or prevent thermal bridging in shipping container architecture.

4 Discussion

This study’s findings reveal that shipping container architecture offers quick construction solutions and proffers excellent designs for temporary housing while lowering embodied energy due to upcycling. However, it costs approximately 30% more than traditional building construction when integrated with net-zero strategies (Ali et al., 2020). These high costs, although present at the initial stages, are negligible when compared to the cost incurred during the operational phase, which includes the maintenance of renewable energy systems. Technical difficulties and a lack of the required expertise for retrofitting existing shipping container buildings into NZEBs have also been significant drawbacks. This has led to NZEB standards not being adopted on a large scale due to their financial viability. Uncertainty of numerous stakeholders regarding the economic prospects of NZEBs and the lack of established standards have also led to a decline in their demand.

In terms of their effectiveness, the net-zero strategies that have improved the environmental performance of shipping container architecture are building orientation, insulation, passive cooling, and renewable energy technologies (AlAjmi et al., 2016; Kristiansen et al., 2019; Ohene et al., 2022; Haque et al., 2021). However, their effectiveness depends on an appropriate design according to the specific climate. The implementation of additional solar design strategies also lowers the overall thermal load of shipping container architecture by 72% (Cerezo-Narváez et al., 2021). For increased efficiency, existing research highly recommends that user-friendly management systems be included in shipping container architecture. The lowest lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are also exhibited by net-zero shipping container architecture.

Net-zero shipping container architecture is innovative for residential and commercial buildings within tropical regions. Their characteristic strength allows them to withstand extreme conditions and provides a longer lifespan. This improves their thermal performance, as tropical regions are fraught with challenges like rising temperatures and high humidity. Solar heat gain can be effectively mitigated by optimizing building orientation, using green roofs, and installing high-performance insulation materials like vacuum insulation panels (VIP) and aerogels (Ohene et al., 2022). This contributes to sustainable urban development and serves as a sustainable modular construction system.

Table 8 provides an operational framework for the conversion of shipping containers to NZEBs.

5 Conclusion

This study was conducted to evaluate various strategies that can transform shipping container architecture into net-zero energy buildings with a view to determining the most effective and sustainable approach for improved environmental performance. Four main objectives were formulated to achieve this. Before qualification as net-zero energy buildings, four parameters must be present: exceptional energy performance, renewable energy generation on site, proven net-zero energy balance, and restricted purchase of grid energy. The findings show that the shipping containers’ thermal load can be lowered by the implementation of solar design strategies. In addition, the southern direction should be prioritized when integrating photovoltaics along the roof to attain a net-positive energy status. Although avoiding placing fenestrations along the east and west axes aids in controlling heat influx, hybrid shading systems can be used to protect the façade. Theoretically, net-zero energy buildings are a viable solution for lower energy consumption, but there is a discrepancy between simulated and actual energy usage.

The modular coordination of shipping containers has greatly simplified project development by creating innovative residential and public buildings, although the absence of standardized regulations has impeded widespread adoption. Based on the findings, the contribution to knowledge of this study is the redefinition of the general misconception regarding the extent of application of shipping containers as building solutions with optimal environmental performance through the integration of diverse insights by providing a guideline for future designs. Therefore, based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that supportive policies and professional collaboration should be created within the built industry to form the basis for exploring the full potential of net-zero shipping container architecture.

It is acknowledged that relying solely on existing literature obtained from database searches constitutes a limitation for the study. This is because the outcome of the study and judgment were strictly based on and influenced by the available secondary data reviewed. However, this does not diminish the contribution of this study, which provides insight into the direction and extent of the application of shipping containers as building solutions with the potential for optimal environmental performance. The benefits of shipping containers as a major walling material for various building types are unlimited, thereby redefining the prevailing misconception and providing a guideline for future designs. Suggestions for future research include user satisfaction with net-zero shipping container architecture, investigating the inclusion of low-carbon footprint and innovative retrofitting materials in shipping container architecture, and developing frameworks to increase global acceptance of net-zero shipping container architecture.

References

• 1

  AdewaleB. A.StephanieM. (2022). Investigation of the impact of noise control strategies in sustainable building design. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.10541, 012033. 10.1088/1755-1315/1054/1/012033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AkinolaA. O.OpokoA. P.IbemE. O.OkagbueH. I.AfolabiA. O. (2020). Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in Lagos, Nigeria: built environment professionals’ perspective. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol.93, 1273–1282. 10.35940/ijeat.B2630.029320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AlAjmiA.Abou-ZiyanH.GhoneimA. (2016). Achieving annual and monthly net-zero energy of existing building in hot climate. Appl. Energy165, 511–521. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.073

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AlegbeM. (2024). On the emergence of shipping container homes: adaptation to future climate projections international. J. Built Environ. Sustain.113, 1–12. 10.11113/ijbes.v11.n3.1215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AliH. H.Al-RubF. A. A.ShboulB.Al MoumaniH. (2020). Evaluation of near-net-zero-energy building strategies: a case study on residential buildings in Jordan. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy106, 325–336. 10.32479/ijeep.10107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AllenM. R.FriedlingsteinP.GirardinC. A.JenkinsS.MalhiY.Mitchell-LarsonE.et al (2022). Net zero: science, origins, and implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.471, 849–887. 10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-105050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AttiaS. (2016). Towards regenerative and positive impact architecture: a comparison of two net zero energy buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc.26, 393–406. 10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BaghiY.MaZ.RobinsonD.BoehmeT. (2021). Innovation in sustainable solar-powered net-zero energy solar decathlon houses: a review and showcase. Buildings114, 171. 10.3390/buildings11040171

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BattagliaL.LeeJ. (2020). Performance evaluation of shipping container potentials for net-zero residential buildings. J. Green Build.151, 137–152. 10.3992/1943-4618.15.1.137

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BerbeszA. M.SzeferI. M. (2018). Innovations in shaping the residential and retail buildings functional and pro-environmental potential of shipping containers in architecture. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.4151, 012052. 10.1088/1757-899X/415/1/012052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BernardoL.Pereira-de-OliveiraL.MarquesA. (2022). Architectural building design with refurbished shipping containers: a typological and modular approach. J. Eng. Res.101A, 1–20. 10.36909/jer.10853

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BertoliniM.GuardigliL. (2020). Upcycling shipping containers as building components: an environmental impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.25, 947–963. 10.1007/s11367-020-01747-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BitarA. L. B.BergmansI.RitzenM. (2022). Circular, biomimicry-based, and energy-efficient façade development for renovating terraced dwellings in the Netherlands. J. Facade Des. Eng.10, 75–105. 10.47982/jfde.2022.1.04

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BrzyskiP.GrudzińskaM.BöhmM.ŁagódG. (2022). Energy simulations of a building insulated with a hemp-lime composite with different wall and node variants. Energies15, 7678. 10.3390/en15207678

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  CarramiñanaC. P.Morena-MarquésA. d. l.AvilésÁ. B. G.CabanesN. C.Galiano-GarrigósA. (2024). Influence of balcony thermal bridges on energy efficiency of dwellings in a warm semi-arid dry mediterranean climate. Buildings14, 703. 10.3390/buildings14030703

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Cerezo-NarváezA.Piñero-VilelaJ. M.Rodríguez-JaraE. Á.Otero-MateoM.Pastor-FernándezA.Ballesteros-PérezP. (2021). Energy, emissions and economic impact of the new nZEB regulatory framework on residential buildings renovation: case study in southern Spain. J. Build. Eng.42, 103054. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  CostaB. B. F. D.SilvaC. F. P.MacielA. C. F.CusiH. D. P.MaqueraG.HaddadA. (2023). Simulation and analysis of thermal insulators applied to post-disaster temporary shelters in tropical countries. Designs7, 64. 10.3390/designs7030064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  CurtoD.FranzittaV.GuercioA.MartoranaP. (2022). FEM analysis: a review of the Most common thermal bridges and their mitigation. Energies15, 2318. 10.3390/en15072318

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  D'AgostinoD.MinelliF.D'UrsoM.MinichielloF. (2022). Fixed and tracking PV systems for net zero energy buildings: comparison between yearly and monthly energy balance. Renew. Energy195, 809–824. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.06.046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DobbelsteenA. v. dBroersmaS.FremouwM.BlomT.SturkenboomJ.MartinC. (2019). The amsterdam energy transition roadmap – introducing the city-zen methodology. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.93, 307–320. 10.1108/SASBE-05-2019-0065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  EkhaeseE. N.MohammedI. A.AkindoyinP. O. (2024). Bioclimatic design strategies and energy efficiency in an orthopaedic hospital in Nigerian cities: a cross-sectional study. J. Infrastructure, Policy Dev.87, 2736. 10.24294/jipd.v8i7.2736

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  El MesseidyR. (2018). Adapting shipping containers as temporary shelters in terms of recycling, sustainability and green architecture reuse as accommodation in Egypt. J. Eng. Res.160, 173–191. 10.21608/erj.2018.139572

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ElrayiesG. M. (2017). Thermal performance assessment of shipping container architecture in hot and humid climates international. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol.74, 1114–1126. 10.18517/ijaseit.7.4.2235

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  EnehA. E.EnehE. E. (2022). Concrete and steel as form-givers in art, architecture and engineering. Int. J. General Stud.22, 7–17.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  FaragallahR. N.BarakatP. N. (2022). Reshaping future architecture approaches using shipping containers: student housing as a case study. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan.178, 2537–2549. 10.18280/ijsdp.170822

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  FariñaE. A.PanaitM.Lago-CaboJ. M.Fernández-GonzálezR. (2024). Energy analysis of standardized shipping containers for housing. Inventions95, 106. 10.3390/inventions9050106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  FigajR. D.LaudieroD. M.MauroA. (2024). Climate characterization and energy efficiency in container housing: analysis and implications for container house design in European locations. Energies17, 2926. 10.3390/en17122926

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  GrębowskiK. KałdunekD. (2026). “Using container structures in architecture and urban design” in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 245, 042087. 10.1088/1757-899X/245/4/042087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Hachem-VermetteC.DaraC.KaneR. (2018). Towards net zero energy modular housing: a case study modular and offsite construction. MOC summit proceedings. 10.29173/mocs43

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Hachem-VermetteC.GuarinoF.La RoccaV.CelluraM. (2019). Towards achieving net-zero energy communities: investigation of design strategies and seasonal solar collection and storage net-zero. Sol. Energy192, 169–185. 10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HaqueM. O.MohammadF.RahmanR. (2021). “Shipping container housing for architectural resilience in coastal regions: addressing construction and material sustainability sustainable materials and construction view project climate aware housing in disaster prone areas of Bangladesh view project,” in 8th zero energy mass custom home international conference proceedings, 163–177.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HassanA.BotrosC.KamalM.MorsiN.ElfekyY. (2022). Thermal performance assessment for stacking shipping containers as habitable spaces: cairo case study. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.10561, 012024. 10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  IbrahimA.AlsukkarM.DongY.SaleemF.HamzaA.HuP.et al (2024). Enhancing energy efficiency in shipping container house: a novel approach using hybrid louver systems. Energy Built Environ. 7 (2), 278–294. 10.1016/j.enbenv.2024.11.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  JaysawalR. K.ChakrabortyS.ElangovanD.PadmanabanS. (2022). Concept of net zero energy buildings NZEB-A literature review. Clean. Eng. Technol.11, 100582. 10.1016/j.clet.2022.100582

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  JegedeF. O.AdewaleB. A.AjonyeG. O.AdebajoT. (2021). Evaluation of the use of green façade in residential buildings in kubwa, Abuja, Nigeria. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.11071, 012185. 10.1088/1757-899X/1107/1/012185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KalaycıoğluE.YılmazA. Z. (2019). Settlement scale analysis approach to reach nearly zero energy communities. E3s Web Conf.111, 06026. 10.1051/e3sconf/201911106026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KhassanA.DonenkoV.IshchenkoO. (2021). The use of BIM to achieve zero energy building. J. Power Energy Eng.2015, 470. 10.4236/jpee.2015.34065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KokeJ.SchippmannA.ShenJ.ZhangX.KaufmannP.KrauseS. (2021). Strategies of design concepts and energy systems for nearly zero-energy container buildings NZECBs in different climates. Buildings118, 364. 10.3390/buildings11080364

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KristiansenA. B.MaT.WangR. Z. (2019). Perspectives on industrialized transportable solar powered zero. Energy Buildings Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.108, 112–124. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  LaksitoadiB.SyarifM. H. A. (2020). Refurbished shipping containers as architectural module in bandung in 3rd international conference on dwelling form IDWELL 2020, 1-9. Atlantis Press. 10.2991/assehr.k.201009.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LiH.ZhangW.ZhangY.ZhaiF.ChenF. (2023). Thermal bridging and its mitigation in bamboo panel construction with steel frameworks and mineral wool insulation. Bioresources191, 416–433. 10.15376/biores.19.1.416-433

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LiangW.YeX.ZhouY.NieC.XingJ.LiuL.et al (2024). The thermal performance of a typical prefab container house. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.64, 105445. 10.1016/j.csite.2024.105445

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LinB.ChenZ. (2022). Net zero energy building evaluation, validation and reflection–A successful project application. Energy Build.261, 111946. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111946

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LingP. C. H.TanC. S.SaggaffA. (2019). Feasibility of ISO shipping container as transitional shelter-a review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.6201, 012056. 10.1088/1757-899X/620/1/012056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MakaveckasT.BliūdžiusR.BurlingisA. (2020). The influence of different facings of polyisocyanurate boards on heat transfer through the wall corners of insulated buildings. Energies13, 1991. 10.3390/en13081991

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MandelT.KranzlL.PopovskiE.SensfußF.MüllerA.EichhammerW. (2023). Investigating pathways to a net-zero emissions building sector in the european union: what role for the energy efficiency first principle?Energy Effic.164, 22. 10.1007/s12053-023-10100-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MilovanovićB.BagarićM.GašiM.Vezilić StrmoN. (2022). Case study in modular lightweight steel frame construction: thermal bridges and energy performance assessment. Appl. Sci.12 (20), 10551. 10.3390/app122010551

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  MinchenkovK.ГусевС. А.SergeichevI.SafonovA. (2025). Improving the thermal performance of PVC windows with pultruded thermoplastic reinforcement. Sci. Rep.15, 1996. 10.1038/s41598-025-86019-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MohammedB. U.WiysahnyuyY. S.AshrafN.MempouoB.MengataG. M. (2023). Pathways for efficient transition into net zero energy buildings nZEB in sub-sahara Africa case study: cameroon, Senegal, and Côte d’ivoire. Energy Build.296, 113422. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MohammedG. A.MabroukM.HeG.AbdraboK. I. (2023). Towards sustainable cities: a review of zero energy buildings techniques and global activities in residential buildings. Energies16, 3775. 10.3390/en16093775

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  MoranP.O’ConnellJ.GogginsJ. (2020). Sustainable energy efficiency retrofits as residential buildings move towards nearly zero energy building NZEB standards. Energy Build.211, 109816. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109816

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MouraC. D. A.FreitasB. B. D.Alves FilhoA. P.AlbuquerqueC. (2024). Green roofs on shipping containers: how substrate thickness affects thermal performance. Buildings14, 1246. 10.3390/buildings14051246

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  NatanianJ.AleksandrowiczO.AuerT. (2019). A parametric approach to optimizing urban form, energy balance and environmental quality: the case of mediterranean districts. Appl. Energy254, 113637. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113637

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  OhJ.HongT.KimH.AnJ.JeongK.KooC. (2017). Advanced strategies for net-zero energy building: focused on the early phase and usage phase of a building’s life cycle. Sustainability912, 2272. 10.3390/su9122272

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  OheneE.ChanA. P.DarkoA. (2022). Review of global research advances towards net-zero emissions buildings. Energy Buildings266, 112142. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112142

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  OheneE.ChanA. P.DarkoA.NaniG. (2023). Navigating toward net zero by 2050: drivers, barriers, and strategies for net zero carbon buildings in an emerging market. Build. Environment242, 110472. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110472

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  OluwatayoA. A.PirisolaO. H. (2021). Impact of passive energy strategies on workers productivity in tropical climate. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.11071, 012210. 10.1088/1757-899X/1107/1/012210

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  PeraneP. B.LoniS. S.ChavanS. U.AiwaleH. D. (2022). Zero energy building. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol.10, 172–176. 10.22214/ijraset.2022.42129

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Pinilla-MeloJ.Aira-ZunzuneguiJ. R.La FerlaG.de la PridaD.NavacerradaM. Á. (2025). Design of a shipping container-based home: structural, thermal, and Acoustic conditioning. Buildings15, 3127. 10.3390/buildings15173127

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  PomponiF.D’AmicoB. (2020). Low energy architecture and low carbon cities: exploring links, scales, and environmental impacts. Sustainability1221, 9189. 10.3390/su12219189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  QiX.TanY. S.TanJ.LiX. (2024). Methods for improving the thermal performance of thermal bridges of lightweight steel-framed buildings. Plos One19, 0314634. 10.1371/journal.pone.0314634

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  RadwanA. H. (2015). Containers architecture: reusing shipping containers in making creative architectural spaces. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.611, 1562–1577. 10.14299/ijser.2015.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  RajanayagamH.PoologanathanK.GatheeshgarP.VarelisG. E.SherlockP.NagaratnamB.et al (2021). A-State-Of-The-Art review on modular building connections. Structures34, 1903–1922. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  RisnandarF. F. A.PrimasetraA. (2021). Thermal performance of reused shipping containers as building components. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.738, 012038. 10.1088/1755-1315/738/1/012038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  SantosP.LopesP.AbrantesD. (2023). Thermal performance of lightweight steel framed facade walls using thermal break strips and ETICS: a parametric study. Energies16, 1699. 10.3390/en16041699

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  SatolaD.KristiansenA. B.Houlihan-WibergA.GustavsenA.MaT.WangR. Z. (2020). Comparative life cycle assessment of various energy efficiency designs of a container-based housing unit in China. A Case Study Build. Environ.186, 107358. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107358

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  SatolaD.WibergA. H.SinghM.BabuS.JamesB.DixitM.et al (2022). Comparative review of international approaches to net-zero buildings: knowledge-Sharing initiative to develop design strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Energy Sustain. Dev.71, 291–306. 10.1016/j.esd.2022.10.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ShahzadS.FaheemM.MuqeetH. A.WaseemM. (2024). Charting the UK's path to net zero emissions by 2050: challenges, strategies, and future directions IET smart grid. 10.1049/stg2.12185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  ShenJ.CopertaroB.ZhangX.KokeJ.KaufmannP.KrauseS. (2019). Exploring the potential of climate-adaptive container building design under future climates scenarios in three different climate zones. Sustainability121, 108. 10.3390/su12010108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  ShiF.WangS.HuangJ.HongX. (2020). Des. Strategies Energy Performance a Net-Zero Energy House Based Natural Philosophy. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.191, 1–15. 10.1080/13467581.2019.1696206

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  SunZ.MeiH.NiR. (2017). Overview of modular design strategy of the shipping container architecture in cold regions. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.631, 012035. 10.1088/1755-1315/63/1/012035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  SuoH.GuanX.WuS.FanZ. (2023). Energy performance assessment of the container housing in subtropical region of China upon future climate scenarios. Energies16, 503. 10.3390/en16010503

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ThanekarK.SharmaR.BhaleraoB.DharmikA.SahuA.PatelB. (2022). Analytical study of reuse shipping containers as residential house. Int. J. Innovative Res. Sci. Eng. Technol.114, 3740–3745. 10.15680/IJIRSET.2022.1104104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  TkalčićD.MilovanovićB.GašiM.RukavinaM. J.PečurI. B. (2023). Optimisation of thermal bridges: effect of composite lightweight panels with integrated steel load-bearing structure. Energies16, 6474. 10.3390/en16186474

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ÜreyZ. Ç. U. (2023). Creation of a new vernacular architecture and the attainment of sustainability: the case of akyaka town. Development Sustain.153, 2643. 10.3390/su15032643

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Ürge-VorsatzD.KhoslaR.BernhardtR.ChanY. C.VérezD.HuS.et al (2020). Advances toward a net-zero global building sector. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.451, 227–269. 10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-045843

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  WuW.SkyeH. M. (2021). Residential net-zero energy buildings: review and perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.142, 110859. 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110859

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  ZafraR. G.MayoJ.VillarealP. J. M.De PaduaV. M. N.CastilloM. H. T.SundoM. B.et al (2021). Structural and thermal performance assessment of shipping container as post-disaster housing in tropical climates. Civ. Eng. J.78, 1437–1458. 10.28991/cej-2021-03091735

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar