4.7 Article

An integrated evaluation of productivity, cost and CO2 emission between prefabricated and conventional columns

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 142, Issue -, Pages 2393-2406

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.035

Keywords

Construction simulation; Prefabrication; Productivity; Cost; Carbon dioxide emission; Web-CYCLONE

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea grant - the Korea government (MSIP
  2. Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning) [NRF-2015R1A2A1A05001657]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [22A20130000192] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The off-site prefabrication construction method offers several advantages that have positioned it as a good alternative to the conventional method. Recently in South Korea, a form-latticed prefabricated steel reinforced concrete (Form-LPSRC) column was invented as substitute for a conventional steel reinforced concrete (SRC) column. This study evaluates the productivity, cost, and CO2 emission of Form-LPSRC column with those of SRC column through a case study. Two factory projects utilizing same-size Form-LPSRC and SRC columns are studied. In addition, Web-CYCLONE simulation and equation-based methods are utilized to calculate the productivity, cost, and CO2 emission of the two column methods. In particular, Web-CYCLONE simulation is used for considering the idle time during the construction process. The Form-LPSRC column improved productivity by 42.5% and provided costs savings of 1.32% compared with the SRC column. Thus, the Form-LPSRC column is excellent for projects where construction duration and cost are of utmost importance. However, the CO2 emission of the Form-LPSRC column is 72.18% higher than that of the SRC column. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available