Carbon footprint assessment of a typical low rise office building in Malaysia using building information modelling (BIM)
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, ISSN: 2093-7628, Vol: 6, Issue: 3, Page: 157-172
2015
- 51Citations
- 192Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Concrete and steel are considered the main structural building materials in today's construction. A fair amount of carbon footprint known as embodied carbon footprint is released during their extraction to ultimate utilisation in construction activities. However, quantification and evaluation of the embodied carbon footprint from structural materials of various grades was lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the variation in embodied carbon footprint potential when various classes/grades of concrete and steel in six different combinations were adopted during the design and planning phase using life-cycle analysis (LCA). Building information modelling (BIM) was utilised to virtually construct a two-storey conventional office building, and embodied carbon footprints for each of the six models were quantified. The study highlighted that up to 31% of embodied carbon footprint was avoided from the building. Model M1 (G25XS280) yielded the highest whereas model M4 (G35XS460) was the lowest in contribution. The study also concluded that a considerable amount of reduction in carbon footprint is possible simply by adopting different classes of structural construction materials. The results are expected to help the designers to select best combination of structural materials in future.
Bibliographic Details
Informa UK Limited
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know