Cripps, A (2004) Cardboard as a construction material: A case study. Building Research & Information, 32(3), pp. 207-219. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A small cardboard building with a 25-year intended lifetime was developed as a live innovation project to explore and resolve the practical problems surrounding the design, fabrication and construction, costs, and use of an alternative building material. The primary aim to reduce environmental impacts was based on developing the potential of a recycled material as the main structural and cladding component that could be further recycled at the end of its working life. This case study of a small school building presents both the research and development undertaken by the project team and the practical implications of realizing this as a building for a client.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative technologies; cardboard; design; innovation; materials; paper industry; partnering; schools; short-life buildings |
| Index terms: | research and development, partnering, alternative technology, environmental impact, construction material, building material, cladding, fabrication, school building, project team, case study |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, partnership management, building materials, data collection methods, factor and component analysis, construction type, environmental impact, research management, project delivery |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Design Practice, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Project Management |
| 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