Alqahtani, F K; Alkhaldi, M; Alsaqer, T; Abotaleb, I S; Mohamed, A G and Dirar, S (2022) A comparative assessment of advanced construction systems incorporating green concrete. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(9): 04022083, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Recent increases in sustainability requirements demand expeditious delivery of construction projects coupled with cost-effective and sustainable systems. In recent years, green lightweight plastic aggregate concrete (LWPAC) has been developed as a sustainable material for construction, highlighting financial, time, and quality attributes rather than material properties. However, most studies in this area are directed toward material properties or lifecycle costs in traditional use. Using lifecycle cost analysis, this research comprehensively examines incorporating LWPAC in different building systems to identify the optimal construction system in terms of cost, time, and quality (LCCA). The analyzed building systems extend to include traditional construction method (TM), insulated concrete forms (ICF), tunnel forms (TF), and insulated precast systems (IPS) using green LWPAC. To this end, we conducted a building case study with multiple scenarios related to the selected construction systems. For each scenario, assessments were conducted on the following aspects: (1) structural design of building elements; (2) construction cost and time assessment; (3) LCCA and sensitivity; and (4) quality. Results revealed that LWPAC using TM saves around 10% and 19% in concrete volume and steel quantities, respectively, compared with conventional concrete. The cost estimation results showed that TM using LWPAC is 2.6% higher than conventional concrete, although the LCC was almost the same value, amounting to 75.8 USD/m2. Simultaneously, IPSs maintain the highest savings, at 22%, compared with TM using conventional concrete, with an LCC equal to 64.48 USD/m2. Regarding completion time, there were decreases by 34%, 44%, and 52% for the ICF, TF, and the IPSs, respectively, compared with TM using conventional concrete. IPSs' quality management systems showed the highest mean value of 51.8, followed by ICF, TF, and TM, of 49.9, 49.7, and 48.4, respectively. The findings of this research shed light on the benefits of using LWPAC as an alternative to conventional concrete in different structural systems, which plays a significant role in the overall sustainability of concrete structures.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | plastic, aggregate, construction cost, savings, case study, traditional construction, concrete structure, quality management system, building system, lifecycle, green concrete, cost analysis, material property, cost estimating, tunnel, sustainable material, structural design, construction system, construction project, completion time |
| Subjects: | building materials, economic analysis, financial and cost management, project delivery, architectural engineering, data collection methods, sustainable materials, materials science, engineering systems, building construction, project controls, infrastructure and transport systems, heritage and conservation, structural engineering, material properties and characteristics, production management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Quality Management, Time Control, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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