4.7 Article

Comparative study of embodied energy of affordable houses made using GFRG and conventional building technologies in India

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 223, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110138

关键词

Embodied energy; Affordable housing; Rapid building construction; Pre-fabricated housing technology; Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [DST/TSG/STS/2011/22-G]
  2. Rapid Building System (Australia) India
  3. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers (RCF) Mumbai
  4. FACT-RCF Building Products Limited, Kochi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present situation vis-a-vis increased energy use and environmental emissions has urged the building sector to contribute more towards sustainable construction. This is possible only through appropriate choice of building materials and technologies that minimize the environmental impacts. Nevertheless, the adoption of the same need to necessarily satisfy the user in terms of aesthetics, utility and cost. This paper presents the comparison of embodied energy of a two-storey residential building, made using, i) GFRG (glass fibre reinforced gypsum), and, ii) load-bearing brick masonry, building technologies. GFRG technology uses load-bearing walls and slabs that are manufactured using gypsum waste, and consumes reduced quantity of reinforced concrete in comparison with conventional construction. It has been found in this study that the embodied energy related to building materials of the GFRG building is 16% less, and that associated with transport of resources is twice, compared to the conventional brick masonry building. The major advantages of the GFRG building construction are found to be about 1/4 reduction in structural weight and construction cost, 3/4 savings in construction time and 1/2 savings in total man power requirement for construction. Further, the use of cement, steel rebar and sand is reduced by 25%, 36% and 44% respectively. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据