Ding, G and Forsythe, P (2016) A comparative study of floor construction on sloping sites: An analysis of cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. Construction Economics and Building, 16(1), pp. 33-49. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
In order to make environmentally aware decisions, there is growing interest in the comparative energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) performance of competing construction methods. Little research has been done concerning competing ground floor construction methods, especially given different site variables, such as slope and soil type. A life cycle assessment approach was adopted to analyse environmental impacts, including cumulative energy demand and GHG emissions for detached housing construction in Australia. Data was drawn from 24 case study housing projects, including 12 reinforced concrete and 12 suspended timber floor projects. The data presented in the paper compares cumulative energy demand, GHG and the constituent parts of competing construction methods. The findings indicate that the timber floors use/create significantly less cumulative energy demand and GHG emissions than concrete floors—approximately 2.1 to 2.7 times less energy and 2.3 to 2.9 times less GHG. These findings are limited to the site slope and foundation soil types identified in the paper. The main application of the work is in guidance concerning the lowest environmental impact options for detached housing construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cumulative energy demand; greenhouse gas emissions; ground floor construction; life cycle assessment |
| Index terms: | comparative study, housing project, life cycle assessment, reinforced concrete, energy demand, residential construction, option, greenhouse gas emission, environmental impact, greenhouse gas, construction method, slope, case study, Australia |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, geotechnical engineering, energy systems, research design and methodology, environmental health, Geography, environmental impact, building materials, construction integration, housing and residential development, decision analysis, building construction, climate science |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Site Management, Urban Studies, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Construction Materials, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| 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