scholarly journals The Study on the Suggestion of Development Guideline for Automated Building Construction System

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-73
Author(s):  
Ung-Kyun Lee ◽  
Kyung-In Kang
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier González Madariaga ◽  
Luis A. Rosa Sierra ◽  
Jaime F. Gómez Gómez

This paper reports some aspects about a new wallboard panel for building construction, a few facts from the materials research involved in the wallboard production and the design process carried on are reported too. The research done on the new panel eventually became in a whole new building construction system but more specific technical information about the system and the panel´s technical profile can be found in other publications, here has been privileged the discussion about the environmental impact produced by the new system´s in a whole.  The flat panel is produced mainly with a nucleus of gypsum and water plaster, during its process that mixture has been enriched with agave dry fibers and polystyrene expanded plastic particles those materials cooperate to produce a light and resistant flat building construction product, both materials, dry fibers and plastic are materials recovered from the urban waste flow, this is a environmental benefit by itself. Wallboards samples were produced according several formulas and under different conditions, after they all were tested in labs. The project named “Design a building construction system based on an innovative flat panel produced with gypsum plaster, expanded plastic particles and agave dry fibers as reinforcement” is a six stages research project: a) Background, b) Preliminary lab works, c) Experimental stage 1, d). Experimental stage 2, e) Design and product development, and,  f). Eco design assessment. Today all of project stages show a great advance, and the research team works on a detailed design for a new building construction system. As can be noticed in the project’s framework, one of the main objectives for the system is to reach a less ecological impact than other similar products. In order to verify that those goals have been reached, an Ecodesign assessment was carried on by the research team. In this paper the assessment procedure and some data output are brought to discussion.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/IFDP.2016.3368


Author(s):  
Nario Yoshida ◽  
Takeo Kanagawa ◽  
Yuichi Tani ◽  
Yasuhiro Oda

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Mona Abouhamad ◽  
Metwally Abu-Hamd

This paper develops a life cycle assessment framework for embodied environmental impacts of building construction systems. The framework is intended to be used early in the design stage to assist decision making in identifying sources of higher embodied impacts and in selecting sustainable design alternatives. The framework covers commonly used building construction systems such as reinforced concrete construction (RCC), hot-rolled steel construction (HRS), and light steel construction (LSC). The system boundary is defined for the framework from cradle-to-grave plus recycling and reuse possibilities. Building Information Modeling (BIM) and life cycle assessment are integrated in the developed framework to evaluate life cycle embodied energy and embodied greenhouse emissions of design options. The life cycle inventory data used to develop the framework were extracted from BIM models for the building material quantities, verified Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) for the material production stage, and the design of construction operations for the construction and end-of-life stages. Application of the developed framework to a case study of a university building revealed the following results. The material production stage had the highest contribution to embodied impacts, reaching about 90%. Compared with the conventional RCC construction system, the HRS construction system had 41% more life cycle embodied energy, while the LSC construction system had 34% less life cycle embodied energy. When each system was credited with the net benefits resulting from possible recycling/reuse beyond building life, the HRS construction system had 10% less life cycle embodied energy, while the LSC construction system had 68% less life cycle embodied energy. Similarly, the HRS construction system had 29% less life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while the LSC construction system had 62% less life cycle GHG emissions. Sustainability assessment results showed that the RCC construction system received zero Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credit points, the HRS construction system received three LEED credit points, while the LSC construction system received five LEED credit points.


Author(s):  
Anwar Abdullah Jdaie Alghanim

This study aimed to evaluate the differences between steel and timber formwork regarding cost, quality, and time of completion of building construction projects in Kuwait. Forty projects were selected to represent the construction business in the country. The study method was based on survey data collection (questionnaires, interview, and observation). The findings of the study showed that the contractors prefer to buy steel formwork than timber formwork system, although timber formwork is cheaper than steel formwork. Also the study found that the field of steel formwork reached a mean of (4.425), which puts steel formwork in first rank.


2011 ◽  
Vol 368-373 ◽  
pp. 3638-3642
Author(s):  
Hui Liu ◽  
Hui Gao ◽  
Da Wan

SD (Solar Decathlon) attaches great importance to the full utilization of solar energy in buildings, while emphasizing new materials, new technologies and rational utilization with the ICS (Industrialized Construction System). This research is trying to study the construction systems used by SDE2010 teams and thus analyze the characteristics and applicability of various types of construction system so that provide the basis for the future choice of system to the team afterwards, consummate the combination of solar energy applications and building construction system meeting the premise of competition rules.


1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideo Tanijiri ◽  
Bunya Ishiguro ◽  
Takashi Arai ◽  
Ryoji Yoshitake ◽  
Masao Kato ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document