Hes, D; Morrison, A W and Bates, M (2005) Assessment and selection of materials for Melbourne city Council House 2. Construction Economics and Building, 5(2), pp. 8-19. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This paper highlights the role of material selection in the development and contribution toward environmental excellence in the building project Council House 2 (CH2). The paper focuses on the assessment of material and the strategies used by the design team in CH2 to ensure the best environmental result. The paper then goes on to explore in a case study the application of these strategies in the selection and specification of concrete on CH2. The purpose of the paper is to explore the difficulties and rewards of careful research of manufacturers' claims and the relative benefits of different materials. The paper concludes that the process of material selection adopted on this project has increased the education of architects and manufacturers alike as well as being environmentally beneficial.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concrete; embodied energy; material selection; specification |
| Index terms: | architect, case study, specification, manufacturer, embodied energy, strategy, design team |
| Subjects: | profession, management, data collection methods, contractual condition, practitioner, energy systems, professional practice |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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