4.6 Article

Comparison of the Embodied Carbon Emissions and Direct Construction Costs for Modular and Conventional Residential Buildings in South Korea

Journal

BUILDINGS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings12010051

Keywords

modular construction; modular residential building; embodied carbon emission; major construction material; direct construction cost

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIT) [2019R1F1A1063046]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019R1F1A1063046] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Modular construction reduces environmental impact by approximately 36%, but is approximately 8% more expensive than conventional construction methods.
Modular construction is an innovative new construction method that minimizes waste and improves efficiency within the construction industry. However, practitioners are hampered by the lack of environmental and economic sustainability analysis methods in this area. This study analyzes the embodied carbon emissions and direct construction costs incurred during the production phase of a modular residential building and provides comparison to an equivalent conventional residential building. Major drawings and design details for a modular residential building in South Korea were obtained, and the quantity take-off data for the major construction materials were analyzed for a modular construction method and a conventional construction method using a reinforced concrete structure under the same conditions. Focusing on major construction materials during the production phase, the embodied carbon emissions assessment revealed that adopting a modular construction approach reduced the environmental impact by approximately 36%, as compared to the conventional reinforced concrete method. However, in terms of the direct construction cost, the modular construction was approximately 8% more expensive than the conventional reinforced concrete construction method.

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