Comparing the embodied carbon and cost of concrete floor solutions

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Jayasinghe, Amila
dc.contributor.author Orr, John
dc.contributor.author Ibell, Tim
dc.contributor.author Boshoff, W.P. (Billy)
dc.date.accessioned 2022-07-01T07:23:49Z
dc.date.issued 2021-11
dc.description.abstract Multi-objective optimisation of concrete floors for economic and environmental performance is critical in the present context since the building construction sector is responsible for a rising share of the global economy and greenhouse gas emissions. This study explores how the designs with optimum cost and embodied carbon are governed by the selection of a concrete floor system and column spacing. Discrete concrete floor designs were generated parametrically varying the column spacing for eight different construction forms available in practice. Pareto optimal solutions for cost and cradle-to-gate embodied carbon were identified for a range of column spacings. The trends of the sensitivity of the optimum solutions were also investigated due to inherent uncertainty and potential variations in the cost and embodied carbon of different constituents. Column spacings can be increased up to 2 m than the optimum, compromising cost or embodied carbon only up to 10% due to their nonlinear relationship, depending on the slab type. Post-tensioning can reduce embodied carbon of flat slabs for spans longer than 7 m but do not reach Pareto optimality due to available cheaper floor solutions with similar levels of embodied carbon. Flat slabs can be suggested as Pareto optimal for spans within 6 m–8 m when construction time and storey height is considered, due to reduced cost. However, parallelly Pareto optimal two-way slabs on beams have up to only 8% higher cost but up to 37% lower embodied carbon than flat slabs. While the floor designs are optimum for spans within 5–7 m for most of the slab types, two-way slabs on beams and/or hollow-core slabs are the optimum choice for a wide range of spans depending on relevant cost and carbon coefficients. en_US
dc.description.department Civil Engineering en_US
dc.description.embargo 2023-10-06
dc.description.librarian hj2022 en_US
dc.description.sponsorship The Churchill Jafar Studentship for PhD study at the University of Cambridge. en_US
dc.description.uri https://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro en_US
dc.identifier.citation Jayasinghe, A., Orr, J., Ibell, T. & Boshoff, W.P. 2021, 'Comparing the embodied carbon and cost of concrete floor solutions', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 324, art. 129268, pp. 1-10, doi : 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129268. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0959-6526 (print)
dc.identifier.issn 1879-1786 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129268
dc.identifier.uri https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/86015
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Elsevier en_US
dc.rights © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Notice : this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Cleaner Production. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 324, art. 129268, pp. 1-10, 2021. doi : 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129268. en_US
dc.subject Concrete floor systems en_US
dc.subject Column layout en_US
dc.subject Embodied carbon en_US
dc.subject Cost en_US
dc.subject Optimisation en_US
dc.title Comparing the embodied carbon and cost of concrete floor solutions en_US
dc.type Postprint Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record