The practice of reducing building material sizes is gaining acceptance in Ghana’s construction industry as a means to cut costs. Undeniably, this is mainly due to increasing building material costs resulting from high exchange rates, inflation, and disruptions to the supply chain. One could also point to greed on the part of some contractors who seek to make outrageous profits at the expense of unsuspecting clients. Admittedly, this rather disturbing but widespread practice is not exclusive to contractors; other developers and even homeowners are among the chief culprits. This silent crisis threatens the very foundation of our built environment. It creates a dangerous paradox where short-term economic gains lead to long-term structural and financial disasters. Recent comprehensive research reveals that this is not merely anecdotal evidence but a systematic problem with measurable consequences.
The situation demands immediate attention from industry professionals, the public, and policymakers alike. The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated as Ghana has experienced multiple public building collapses over the last decade. The two most populous cities, namely Accra and Kumasi, experienced the highest prevalence of such incidents. Examples include the collapse of the Achimota Melcom Shopping Mall in Accra in 2012, the two-storey building in Ashaiman in 2013, and that of the unfinished three-storey Church of Prosperity building in Akyem-Batabi in 2020, which resulted in the loss of 22 lives. Other notable incidents include the uncompleted building collapse at Airport, Accra in February 2016 that left 4 injured. The three-story building collapse in Cantonment, Accra, in July 2015 killed 3 and injured 18. The seven-story building collapse in Nii Boi Town, Accra, in March 2014 resulted in 1 death and 1 seriously injured. Emerging evidence suggests that the widespread use of undersized construction materials may be a significant contributing factor to these tragic incidents. When structural engineers design buildings based on standard material specifications, but the actual materials delivered to construction sites fail to meet these standards, we create a fundamental mismatch between design assumptions and construction reality, a recipe for disaster.
Iron rods (steel reinforcement bars), roofing sheets, cement, sandcrete blocks, and wood are often utilized building materials in Ghana. To ensure structural integrity and safety, these materials typically must adhere to regulated sizes as specified by the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) to ensure adherence to the National Building Code. However, to cut costs, current inclinations suggest a shift toward smaller material sizes.
Anecdotal evidence suggests this practice is widespread and gaining popularity amongst even building professionals. A considerable amount has been written about the prevalence of substandard steel reinforcement bar sizes in the Ghanaian market and their impact on the safety of buildings. However, this problem goes beyond just the reinforcement bars. For instance, the cross-sectional size (thickness) and length of timber parts, as well as the sizes of sandcrete blocks, have all been shrinking. Although this approach appears economical in the short term, it poses serious risks that need to be highlighted. We are only reducing the sizes of the building materials to increase the economic and structural risks associated with the buildings we are constructing. This assertion is now backed by concrete evidence from recent peer-reviewed research conducted by Assiamah et al. (2023) and Ametepey et al. (2023). These studies provide shocking documentation of systematic material downsizing in Ghana’s steel industry. Their comprehensive study of 675 reinforcing bar samples from multiple manufacturers reveals a disturbing pattern: seven out of eight steel companies failed to produce standard-sized mild steel reinforcement bars.
The deviations range from 7.99% to 10.85% below the required specifications. The deviation data reveals concerning patterns across different bar sizes, twelve-millimeter mild steel bars show an average deviation of 10.85%, while 16mm and 20mm bars deviate by 9.75% and 7.99% respectively. These seemingly small percentages translate to significant reductions in cross-sectional area and, consequently, load-bearing capacity. A 10% reduction in diameter results in approximately 19% reduction in cross-sectional area, a substantial compromise in structural strength. When purchasing what should be a standard 12mm steel bar, buyers commonly receive bars measuring only 10.5mm, 11mm, or 11.5mm, representing size reductions of up to 12.5%. Similarly, standard 16mm bars are frequently sold as 14mm or 15.5mm variants. This creates significant gaps between design expectations and construction reality. The Ghana Standards Authority has established clear specifications through the GS 788-2:2018 standard, which aligns with international benchmarks including ASTM A615 (United States), BS 4449 (United Kingdom), and IS 1786 (India). These standards exist for critical safety reasons. Mild steel must achieve a minimum yield strength of 250 N/mm², while high tensile steel requires 420 N/mm² to ensure structural integrity. The structural and safety implications of undersized materials reveal the depth of this crisis and demand immediate solutions.
Although the primary motive for this phenomenon is largely economic savings, a more thorough economic analysis will reveal an increase in economic risk (burden). From an economic standpoint, using substandard sizes of building materials can result in hidden costs, including higher maintenance expenses, lower property values, and increased financial obligations for contractors and developers. Properties developed from these substandard materials will, in the long run, require more frequent repairs due to structural flaws such as leaks, cracks, and deformation, etc. Additionally, the market value of homes constructed using subpar materials tends to be reduced due to defects and deterioration. This economic paradox affects all stakeholders in Ghana’s construction industry. It represents a classic case of “penny wise, pound foolish” economics that transfers costs from the construction phase to the operational and maintenance phases of a building’s lifecycle.
Buildings may develop cracks, experience water infiltration, or suffer from structural deformation that necessitates costly remedial work. The insurance implications are equally significant buildings constructed with non-standard materials may face higher insurance premiums or, in extreme cases, coverage exclusions. For industry professionals, the use of undersized materials creates substantial liability risks. Structural engineers design buildings based on standard material specifications, calculating load-bearing capacities and safety factors according to established material properties. When actual materials fail to meet these specifications, the designed safety margins are compromised. This potentially exposes professionals to legal liability in case of structural failure. There is a critical design-reality disconnect: from the design point of view, if the bar is under-sized, the use of nominal bar diameter without actually measuring the bar size will lead to an over-estimation of the ultimate moment of resistance. For the general public, the implications extend beyond individual property ownership to broader community safety and economic development. When buildings in a community are constructed with compromised materials, the entire area faces increased risks of structural failure, reduced property values, and diminished attractiveness for investment and development. Homeowners who unknowingly purchase properties constructed with undersized materials may face unexpected maintenance costs, insurance challenges, and difficulty in resale. These individual impacts aggregate to community-wide effects that can impede local economic development and urban growth.
Building collapse is a documented concern in Ghana’s construction industry, and the systematic use of undersized materials may be a contributing factor. Ghana’s regulatory framework appears adequate on paper but fails in implementation. The Ghana Standards Authority maintains comprehensive standards aligned with international best practices, yet enforcement remains inadequate. This is due to limited stringent measures to ensure manufactured and imported materials meets required standards. Current market practices compound enforcement challenges through poor traceability systems. Steel bars for instance often lack proper labeling with size specifications and manufacturer identification, making it difficult to track non-compliant materials to their sources.
However, a comprehensive solution framework exists that requires coordinated action across stakeholders. The most urgent need is strengthened enforcement of existing standards through mandatory labeling requirements, regular market surveillance, random testing of materials from various suppliers, and meaningful penalties for non-compliance. Professional bodies must develop industry-wide quality assurance protocols including mandatory material verification procedures, professional development programs on quality control, and ethical guidelines that discourage the use of substandard materials. Economic measures should include tax incentives for suppliers who demonstrate consistent compliance with standards, preferential treatment in government procurement for quality-certified materials, and increased penalties for construction failures attributed to material inadequacies. Insurance industry engagement could provide market-based quality incentives through premium discounts for buildings constructed with certified materials while charging higher premiums for buildings using non-compliant materials. A comprehensive public awareness campaign is essential to educate all stakeholders about the risks associated with undersized materials. This should target homeowners who need to understand quality indicators, contractors who must balance cost and quality pressures, and policymakers who need to understand the long-term implications of regulatory decisions. Ultimately, the case for standard-sized materials rests on sound economic principles. While substandard materials may offer short-term cost savings, the long-term economic benefits of quality construction far outweigh these temporary advantages. Buildings constructed with proper materials last longer, require less maintenance, retain higher values, and contribute to overall economic development. The time has come to reverse this dangerous trend through strengthened enforcement, industry leadership, and public awareness. The cost of action may seem high, but the cost of inaction in terms of structural failures, economic losses, and human safety is far higher.
References
Ametepey, S.O., Akorli, K.S., Ansah, S.K., Aigbavboa, C. and Frempong-Jnr, E.Y., 2023. Investigating the standard sizes of steel reinforcement used in the Ghanaian industry. Materials Today: Proceedings, 93, pp.447-452.
Assiamah, S., Kankam, C.K., Banini, E.K. and Appiah, A.K., 2023. Physical and geometrical characteristics of reinforcing steel bars in the construction industry of Ghana. Journal of Materials Science Research and Reviews, 11(1), pp.40-53.
The author, Emmanuel Adinyira is a Professor of Construction Project Management at KNUST, Kumasi Ghana. He is a Fellow of the Ghana Institute of Construction, a Professional Member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors, and a Professional Engineering Technologist with the Institution of Engineering and Technology, Ghana.
The efforts of Mr. Samuel Aklashie, a postgraduate student in the Department of Construction Technology and Management, KNUST, in providing some of the research the article is based on is acknowledged.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
