Influence of Choice of Structural System & In-Fill Masonry on the Embodied Energy & Cost of a Low-Rise Residential Urban-Building Indian Case Study
- 1 Department of Civil Engineering, BMS College of Engineering, Bengaluru, India
- 2 Department of Civil Engineering, BMS College of Engineering, Bengaluru, India
- 3 Department of Civil Engineering, BMS College of Engineering, Bengaluru, India
Abstract
In the urban residential building stock, a major proportion is constituted by low-rise individual buildings. In addition to cost, quality and duration, energy consumed for the project needs to be accounted in the decision making process. Minimizing the cost of construction without compromising on the architectural and structural requirements is the primary objective of the residential buildings of stake-holders, especially the owners. The choice of structural system and the materials used for construction play a crucial role in this effort. This means that the use of expensive and/or voluminous materials such as cement, steel, masonry etc. is optimized. This could lead to significant reduction in embodied energy as well, if the choice of the structural system is prudently made. In this paper, an attempt has been made to quantify the cost and embodied energy benefits for a low-rise residential building by choosing two different structural systems, namely moment resisting framed (MRF) construction system and the partly load-bearing (PLB) system. The influence of choice of materials, contributing to reduction of cost and/or energy is discussed. It is clearly noticed that, when the structural system is re-configured as a PLB system from the existing MRF system there is significant reduction in cost and embodied energy without changing the architectural form.
- Ramesh, T., Ravi, P. and Shukla, K.K. (2010) Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Buildings: An Overview. Energy and Buildings, 42, 1592-1600.
- Pinky, D.L. and Sivakumar, P. (2014) A Case Study on Life Cycle Energy Use of Residential Building in Southern India. Energy and Buildings, 80, 247-259.
- Luisa, F., Cabeza, C.B., LaiaMiró, J.M. Morera, E.B. and Fernández, A.I. (2013) Low Carbon and Low Embodied Energy Materials in Buildings: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 536-542.
- Basbagill, J., Flager, F., Lepech, M. and Fischer, M. (2013) Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Early Stage Building Design for Reduced Embodied Environmental Impacts. Building and Environment, 60, 81-92.
- Surekha, B., Hegde, M.N. and Jagadish, K.S. (2016) Energy and Building Materials. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 5, 13-24.
- Geoff, H. and Craig, J. (2008) Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE). University of Bath, Colombia.
- Satprem, M. and Varun, T. (2013) Embodied Energy of Various Materials and Technologies. Auroville Earth Institute, The City of Dawn.
- Praseeda, K.I., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Monto, M. (2015) Embodied Energy Assessment of Building Materials in India Using Process and Input–Output Analysis. Energy and Buildings, 86, 677-686.
- Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (2003) Embodied Energy of Common and Alternative Building Materials and Technologies. Energy and Buildings, 35, 129-137.
- Schedule of Rates PW, P & IWTD (2014-2015) Bengaluru, Government of Karnataka.
- Raghunath, S. and Abdelshani M. (2014) Building Classification Scheme for the City of Bangalore, Karnataka. Earthquake Risk Reduction on the Indian Subcontinent Project.
- IS1905 (1987) Code of Practice for Structural Use of Un-Reinforced Masonry, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
- Deepak, B., Ramkishore, S. and Sawhney, R.L. (2014) Effect of Construction Materials on Embodied Energy and Cost of Buildings—A Case Study of Residential Houses in India up to 60 m2 of Plinth Area. Energy and Buildings, 69, 260-266.
- Marco, A.S., González, M.P., Kulakowski, L.G. and Breitenbach, F.K. (2014) Embodied Energy in Concrete and Structural Masonry on Typical Brazilian Buildings. International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 8, 51-55.