Shohet, I M and Laufer, A (1996) Exterior cladding methods: A technoeconomic analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), pp. 242-247. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The continual development in building components and the significant increase in the proportion of high-rise building lead to an extended use of new methods of exterior cladding. The selection of a cladding system incorporates various aspects, among which the more significant are: physical and visual performance, life span of the cladding, and economic considerations. This paper focuses on the systematic examination and comparison of four different categories of cladding methods based on technological and economic criteria. The categories of claddings are: cementitious stucco, synthetic finish stucco, ceramic, and natural stone. The economic analysis, based on life-cycle cost (LCC) and on life-span estimates was arrived at by an analysis following onsite observations. It is shown that in "noncorrosive" environments, cementitious stucco is preferable to alternatives, particularly in low-rise buildings. In "corrosive" environments, synthetic and ceramic mosaic claddings are preferable to the alternatives examined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | building component, cladding, economic analysis, high-rise building, estimate, onsite |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, design analysis, construction type, building construction, architectural elements, building materials |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Design Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here