4.6 Review

Calculation Methods for Construction Material Stocks: A Systematic Review

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11146612

Keywords

construction material 1; material stock; bottom-up methodology; top-down methodology; demand driven methodology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study critically reviewed the literature on construction material stock calculation methods, finding that bottom-up and top-down methods are commonly used. It recommends using the bottom-up approach for small-scale areas and the top-down method for larger research areas.
This paper aims to critically review the current body of literature relating to the calculation methods of construction material stock. To this end, this study adopts a systematic literature review technique in order to identify the relevant studies. The findings revealed that the bottom-up and top-down methodologies were commonly employed by the reviewed studies. Based on the findings, it is recommended that the bottom-up approach should be utilized when dealing with small-scale areas or where more accurate results are required. The top-down method should be used wherein the research area is large, and the results could be estimated based upon assumptions and statistical data. Similarly, the demand-driven methodology should be used to find the material stock accumulation due to socio-economic factors. The study also found that the material stock results can be used as data for other research, such as waste management and embodied energy. Further, this paper proposes a conceptual framework to ease the process of calculating construction material stocks in different projects. The outcomes of this research shall be beneficial for future studies that explore the literature connected to the construction material stock and recommend methods and techniques that should be used to quantify the material stock.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available