Patel, K R (2024) Comparative assessment of interior wall construction: A life cycle thinking based evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Windsor, Canada.
Abstract
The wall system represents a significant portion of materials used in building construction, with interior walls covering more surface area compared to exterior walls. Despite this, existing literature has predominantly focused on the performance of exterior walls. To address this knowledge gap, this research compared the life cycle performance of interior wall systems, considering life cycle sustainability performance, resilience performance, and human health impact. Three interior wall construction methods were evaluated: concrete block masonry, wood stud gypsum, and steel stud gypsum walls.This research incorporated both numerical and experimental analyses. A Canada-wide questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data on interior wall maintenance practices. An experimental setup was developed to observe the long-term performance of interior walls using accelerated deterioration. Using this data, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), fire dynamic simulation (FDS), and human health impact assessments were performed.The findings of the LCSA indicated that concrete block masonry is a more sustainable alternative when a cradle-to-grave system boundary is considered. Steel stud gypsum walls exhibit superior performance when a cradle-to-gate system boundary is considered. The FDS revealed that concrete block masonry walls perform better in key thermal parameters, suggesting their effectiveness in fire situations. The experimental setup for accelerated aging of interior walls revealed that concrete block masonry walls deteriorate at a slower rate than steel stud gypsum walls. The deterioration of indoor air quality (IAQ) due to wall deterioration creates human health impacts, emphasizing the need for healthier building material selection.Finally, the study proposes updated sustainable procurement (SP) guidelines for institutional buildings. The proposed SP framework and recommendations aims to position Canada as a leader in sustainable building construction, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Ruparathna, R |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability; indoor air quality; masonry; air quality; deterioration; life cycle; sustainable building; sustainable development; Canada; questionnaire survey; simulation; construction method |
| Index terms: | impact assessment, questionnaire, sustainable building, indoor air quality, institutional building, concrete block, human health, deterioration, sustainability assessment, construction method, survey, gypsum, sustainable development, building construction, effectiveness, building material, sustainable development goal, air quality, United Nations, sustainability performance, Canada, life cycle, wood |
| Subjects: | Geography, sustainable design, health safety and environment, sustainable construction, sustainability assessment, building construction, climate science, construction type, traditional and composite building materials, public and environmental health, performance management, environmental health, value management, data collection methods, institutional frameworks, material degradation and durability, building materials |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Design Practice, Site Management, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Construction Technology, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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