Problems and Challenges in the Promotion of Steel-Structure Housing in China

We believe that the main issues and challenges hindering the widespread adoption of steel‑frame housing in China can be summarized as follows:

(1) The degree of industrialization of supporting components remains low. Steel‑frame housing represents a complex integration of technologies, components, and materials, and it is both the direction and an inevitable outcome of the residential industry’s gradual modernization; therefore, achieving industrialization must be the first priority for steel‑frame housing. However, at present, technologically mature components and fittings relevant to steel‑frame housing are either scarce, poorly industrialized, or lack established technical standards—or their standards are inconsistent with those specific to steel‑frame housing. In particular, elements such as walls, floor slabs, balconies, and staircases still rely heavily on wet‑process construction, leaving today’s steel‑frame housing in the awkward position of being “dressed in a T‑shirt but wearing a tie.”

(2) The lack of modularization severely constrains the industrialization of steel‑frame housing. At present, modular standards exist only for components such as staircases, doors and windows, kitchens, and bathrooms; most other elements and parts—such as roofs, partition walls, and elevators—still lack unified modular specifications.

(3) Optimization of steel structure design, including optimization of building floor plans and column grids, substitution of welded box columns with cold‑formed rectangular hollow sections, application of variable‑section columns, and use of buckling‑restrained braces, among others, to reduce construction costs and enhance the economic viability of steel‑frame residential buildings.

3.1 For the various structural systems currently in use, there is still no clear definition of their applicable scope, and design reference guidelines are lacking. Consequently, current structural selection can only be based on the structure’s load‑bearing performance, with the goal of minimizing steel consumption and satisfying architectural design constraints, leading to qualitative conclusions. In structural design, optimized detailing can effectively reduce construction costs; however, this process is both laborious and complex, requiring close collaboration between structural and architectural teams. At present, significant progress remains to be made in this area.

3.2 Research on novel beam–column joints can further reduce fabrication and transportation costs. In the national architectural standard design atlas “Steel‑Structure Residential Buildings (II)” (05J910‑2), only seven common beam–column joint configurations are presented; innovative joint types such as the diaphragm‑through joint, the sleeve‑reinforced joint, and the external‑rib ring‑plate joint are not included. Moreover, from the perspective of load-transfer behavior, the selection of joint type—rigid, semi‑rigid, or pinned—should be based on comparative structural analysis to identify the optimal configuration, thereby further reducing steel consumption. However, current codes, such as GB 50017‑2003, lag significantly behind, lacking clear criteria for distinguishing between rigid, semi‑rigid, and pinned joints, as well as adequate computational provisions for semi‑rigid connections.

(4) The absence of design codes has resulted in certain advanced, high‑quality steels failing to gain widespread adoption or being misused despite their superior properties. For instance, neither the current Code for Design of Steel Structures (GB 50017‑2003) nor the Technical Specification for Steel Structures of Tall Residential Buildings (JGJ 99‑98) designates high‑strength structural steel or weathering steel as recommended materials, nor does it provide corresponding guidance. Consequently, these steels cannot be appropriately specified in design, or the strength of premium Q345GJ steel is erroneously assumed to be equivalent to that of ordinary Q345 steel.

(5) Corrosion protection. The current “Code for Design of Steel Structures” (GB 50017‑2003), the “Code for Anti‑corrosion Design of Industrial Buildings” (GB 50046‑2008), and the “Code for Acceptance of Construction Quality of Steel Structures” (GB 50205‑2001), among others, do not specify clear requirements for the performance and design service life of anti‑corrosion coatings for steel structures. Even the most recently published “Code for Design of Steel‑Structure Residential Buildings” (CECS 261‑2009) provides only general guidelines on the number of coating layers and coating thickness, lacking explicit standards for corrosion‑protection effectiveness and maintenance/reconditioning intervals. Furthermore, since the steel components of steel‑structure residential buildings are typically concealed within walls, repairing and maintaining their anti‑corrosion coatings is extremely challenging, costly, and difficult to carry out. Consequently, the periodic inspection and maintenance requirements commonly mentioned in design specifications are both vague and practically unattainable.

(6) Issues related to the application of high-strength steels. Clause 3.9.2, Paragraph 3 of the Seismic Design Code (GB 50011-2010) sets forth specific requirements for the material properties of steels used in steel structures: “The yield strength ratio of the steel shall not exceed 0.85; the steel shall exhibit a distinct yield plateau, and its elongation shall be no less than 20%; furthermore, the steel must possess good weldability and adequate impact toughness.” Due to these stipulations, the strength of steels currently employed in China’s steel structures is limited to approximately Q460; thus, the development of higher‑strength, high‑performance steels that also meet code requirements has become urgently necessary. In addition, steels produced via TMCP rolling impose stringent demands on welding procedures.

(7) The detailing and construction techniques still require improvement. Due to the inherently high ductility of steel structures, commonly used envelope systems in the industry—such as strip panels, full‑panel systems, and masonry units—often fail to adequately accommodate the structure’s deformation at certain connection details, leading to issues like cracking and water leakage at panel joints. Furthermore, sound‑insulation measures for steel‑frame residential buildings also warrant additional research and refinement.

(8) The quality of construction teams urgently needs to be improved. The development of steel‑structure housing follows a path of standardized design, factory‑based manufacturing, and on‑site prefabricated assembly—entirely an industrialized production model—which in turn requires highly qualified, specialized construction personnel. However, most current steel‑structure projects still rely on traditional, loosely managed practices, with widely varying levels of professional expertise, making it difficult to meet the demands of industrialized production. This is especially evident in modular installation tasks such as “three‑panel” assembly, structural erection, equipment and pipeline installation, and integrated kitchen and bathroom modules, where problems are particularly acute. As a result, the advantages of accelerated construction cannot be fully realized; more seriously, this undermines construction quality and hinders the wider adoption of steel‑structure housing. Therefore, it is imperative to address both awareness and technical competence by cultivating a pool of skilled industrial workers and establishing a professional construction workforce.

(9) There is a lack of national policy‑driven support measures. Since 1996, the state has successively issued a series of technical standards, codes, and policies for steel‑structure construction, including the “Building Technology Policy (1996–2010),” the “Notice on Further Promoting and Applying Ten New Technologies in the Construction Industry,” and the “Guidelines for Green Building Technologies.” These initiatives have to some extent guided and facilitated the development of steel‑structure housing. However, specific support policies that could directly incentivize developers—such as science‑and‑technology demonstration projects or green‑building demonstration programs—remain absent, and no corresponding technological subsidies are provided. Given that steel‑structure housing is still in its early stages of development, with relatively low levels of industrialization and standardization and high costs associated with research, development, and widespread application, it is recommended that the relevant national authorities introduce concrete, economically viable policy incentives to enhance developers’ motivation to adopt and promote steel‑structure housing and to strengthen its market competitiveness.