Advertisement

The benefits of modern method of construction based on wood in the context of sustainability

  • J. Švajlenka
  • M. Kozlovská
  • M. Spišáková
Original Paper

Abstract

The construction industry is a major consumer of material and energy resources. Global developments in construction give sustainability a crucial role in overall healthy functioning of society as well as the whole environment. Modern methods of construction represent a response to the sustainability trend, since they bring faster construction and better environmental, energy and economic parameters. The aim of this article is to analyse and evaluate the benefits of modern methods of construction in the form of prefabricated panel wood construction (PWC). With the aid of a case study, certain environmental and economic parameters of PWC on the one hand and traditional masonry construction from ceramic bricks on the other hand will be studied and compared. The environmental evaluation of building material composition was conducted by means of the ‘Cradle to Gate’ model within the LCA method. The parameters in question will be studied in terms of embodied energy, global warming potential and acidification potential. The economic parameters to be analysed include construction time, construction costs and particularly the environmental burden caused by transport of materials to the building site. The submitted experimental study and its results should help break barriers sustained by traditional technologies and point towards healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives in construction processes.

Keywords

Cradle to Gate Environmental parameters Economical parameters Transport Traditional technologies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The article presents a partial research result of the VEGA project—1/0677/14 ‘Research on Construction Efficiency Improvement through MMC Technologies’.

References

  1. Arif M, Egbu C (2010) Making a case for offsite construction in China. ECAM 17:536–548. doi: 10.1108/09699981011090170 Google Scholar
  2. Azman MNA, Ahamad MSS, Hilmi ND (2012) The perspective view of Malaysian industrialized building system (IBS) under IBS precast manufacturing. In: The 4th international engineering conference—towards engineering of 21st centuryGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird G (2007) Sustainable buildings in practice. Routledge, Canada, p 327Google Scholar
  4. Bilek V (2005) Wooden buildings: design of timber multi-storey buildings. ČVUT, Prague, p 251Google Scholar
  5. Blismas N, Wakefield R (2009) Concrete prefabricated housing via advances in systems technologies, development of a technology roadmap. ECAM 17:99–110. doi: 10.1108/09699981011011357 Google Scholar
  6. Burwood S, Jess P (2005) Modern methods of construction evolution or revolution. A BURA steering and development forum reportGoogle Scholar
  7. Charmondusit K, Phatarachaisakul S, Prasertpong P (2014) The quantitative eco-efficiency measurement for small and medium enterprise: a case study of wooden toy industry. Clean Technol Environ 16:935–945. doi: 10.1007/s10098-013-0693-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Y, Okudan GE, Riley DR (2009) Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Autom Constr 19:235–244. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deríková M (2011). https://lnk.sk/vLR4. Accessed Nov 2015
  10. Edge M et al (2002) Overcoming client and market resistance to prefabrication and standardisation in Housing Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen—Research Report of DTI/EPSRCGoogle Scholar
  11. Envimat (2012) Workshop 2012Google Scholar
  12. Gibb AGF (2001) Standardization and pre-assembly—distinguishing myth from reality using case study research. CME 19:307–315. doi: 10.1080/01446190010020435 Google Scholar
  13. González-García S et al (2011) Assessing the global warming potential of wooden products from the furniture sector to improve their ecodesign. ScTEn 410–411:16–25. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.059 Google Scholar
  14. Hollberg A, Ruth J (2016) LCA in architectural design—a parametric approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:943–960. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1065-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huttmanová E (2014) Selected aspects and problems of the evaluation of sustainable developmentGoogle Scholar
  16. Kawajiri K, Inoue T (2016) Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas impact of nanoscale thin-film solid oxide fuel cells considering scale effect. JCP 112:4065–4070. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.138 Google Scholar
  17. Knut M (2014) NES BAU. http://www.nesbau.sk/. Accessed Nov 2015
  18. Kolb J (2008) Wooden buildings. Grada Publishing, Prague, p 257Google Scholar
  19. Korytárová J, Hromádka V, Dufek Z (2012) Large city circle road Brno. Organ Technol Manag Constr Int J 3:584–592. doi: 10.5592/otmcj.2012.3.2 Google Scholar
  20. Krajcsovics L, Pifko H, Pifková T (2014) Demonstration of energic effectiveness and exploitation revivable power source on example public building (CEC5, 3sCE412P3), pp 94Google Scholar
  21. Lane A (2006) Barriers and solutions to the use of modern methods of constructionGoogle Scholar
  22. Lesniak A, Zima K (2015) Comparison of traditional and ecological wall system using the ahp method. In: International multidisciplinary scientific geoconference surveying geology and mining ecology management, SGEM 2015, 3(5):157–164Google Scholar
  23. Lovell H, Smith SJ (2010) Agencement in housing markets, the case of the UK construction industry. Geoforum 41:457–468. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lupíšek A et al (2015) Design strategies for low embodied carbon and low embodied energy buildings: principles and examples. Energy Procedia 83:147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Majumdar D, Majhi BJ, Dutta A, Mandal R, Jash T (2015) Study on possible economic and environmental impacts of electric vehicle infrastructure in public road transport in Kolkata. Clean Technol Environ 17:1093–1101. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0868-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mederly P (2009) Environmental indicators for sustainable development, Dissertation ThesisGoogle Scholar
  27. Mesároš P, Mandičák T, Selín J (2015) Modern methods for cost management in construction enterprises. J Civil Eng Sel Sci Pap 10(2015):111–120Google Scholar
  28. Nacer MS et al (2012) Sustainability in energy and buildings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on sustainability in energy and buildings (SEB 11), vol 12. Springer, pp 649Google Scholar
  29. Napolano L et al (2015a) LCA-based study on structural retrofit options for masonry buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:23–35. doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0807-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Napolano L et al (2015b) Life cycle environmental impact of different replacement options for a typical old flat roof. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:694–708. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0852-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pan W, Gibb A, Dainty A (2005) Offsite modern methods of construction in housebuilding. Loughborough University, Loughborough, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  32. Pan W, Gibb AF, Dainty ARJ (2007) Perspective of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction. CME 25:183–194. doi: 10.1080/01446190600827058 Google Scholar
  33. Panepinto D, Brizio E, Genon G (2014) Atmospheric pollutants and air quality effects: limitation costs and environmental advantages (a cost-benefit approach). Clean Technol Environ 16:1805–1813. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0727-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Passer A, Kreiner H, Maydl P (2012) Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: a critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1116–1130. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0435-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pifko H, Špaček R et al (2008) Efficient housing. Bratislava, Eurostav, p 181Google Scholar
  36. Pohrinčák M, Eštoková A (2013) Evaluation of environmental performance of building materials—study of 3 residential houses in Slovak republic. CESB 2013:1–9Google Scholar
  37. Rajničová L (2007) Investigating the use of LCA in decision-making in waste management. Novus Scientia, pp 489–493Google Scholar
  38. RNAO Report by the National Audit Office (2005) Using modern methods of construction to build homes more quickly and efficientlyGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell-Smith SV, Lepech MD (2015) Cradle-to-gate sustainable target value design: integrating life cycle assessment and construction management for buildings. JCP 100:107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.044 Google Scholar
  40. Sedláková A, Vilčeková S, Krídlová Burdová E (2015) Analysis of material solutions for design of construction details of foundation, wall and floor for energy and environmental impacts. Clean Technol Environ 17:1323–1332. doi: 10.1007/s10098-015-0956-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silvestre JD, Brito J, Pinheiro MD (2013a) From the new European standards to an environmental, energy and economic assessment of building assemblies from cradle-to-cradle(3E-C2C). Energy Build 64:199–208. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silvestre JD, Brito J, Pinheiro MD (2013b) From the new European standards to an environmental, energy and economic assessment of building assemblies from cradle-to-cradle (3E-C2C). Energy Build 64(2013):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slovak federation for processors of wood (2015). http://www.zsdsr.sk/en/home. Accessed Dec 2015
  44. Smith RE, Timberlake J (2011) Prefab architecture: a guide to modular design and construction, Canada, pp 400Google Scholar
  45. Smola J (2011) The construction and use of low-energy and passive houses, Grada, pp 352Google Scholar
  46. Štefko J et al (2010) Modern wooden buildings. Bratislava, Antar, p 135Google Scholar
  47. STN EN 15643-3 (2012) Sustainability of construction. Assessment of buildings. Part 3: framework for assessing social performance, pp 28Google Scholar
  48. STN EN 15643-4 (2012) Sustainability of construction. Assessment of buildings. Part 4: a framework for assessing economic characteristics, pp 41Google Scholar
  49. STN EN 15978 (2012) Sustainability of construction. Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings. Calculation methods, pp 56Google Scholar
  50. Strauss A, Frangopol DM, Bergmeister K (2013) Life-cycle and sustainability of civil infrastructure systems. CRC, London, p 479Google Scholar
  51. Szekeres K (2013) Development trends of global construction industry and requirements on sustainable construction, real estate and housing, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  52. Tambouratzis T (2016) Analysing the construction of the environmental sustainability index 2005. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:2817–2836. doi: 10.1007/s13762-016-1108-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thanoon WAM et al (2003) The essential characteristics of industrialised building system. In: International conference on industrialised building systems, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  54. The National Sustainable Development Strategy for Slovak republic (2014)Google Scholar
  55. Tsai C-Y, Chang A-S (2012) Framework for developing construction sustainability items: the example of highway design. JCP 20:127–136Google Scholar
  56. Vaverka J, Havířová Z, Jindrák M et al (2008) Wood construction for living. Grada Publishing, Prague, p 135Google Scholar
  57. Vilčeková S (2014) Environmental evaluation construction materials, II. In: International workshop, pp 43Google Scholar
  58. Vinodh S, Jayakrishna K, Kumar V, Dutta R (2014) Development of decision support system for sustainability evaluation: a case study. Clean Technol Environ 16:163–174. doi: 10.1007/s10098-013-0613-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vlachynský K, Markovič P (2001) Financial engineering. Economy, Bratislava, p 294Google Scholar
  60. Ximenes AF, Grant T (2013) Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:891–908. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0533-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang K-H, Song J-K, Song K-I (2013) Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. JCP 39:265–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.001 Google Scholar
  62. Ylmaz M, Bakis A (2015) Sustainability in construction. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:2253–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil EngineeringTechnical University of KosiceKosiceSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations