Comparing the embodied carbon and cost of concrete floor solutions

dc.contributor.authorJayasinghe, Amila
dc.contributor.authorOrr, John
dc.contributor.authorIbell, Tim
dc.contributor.authorBoshoff, W.P. (Billy)
dc.contributor.emailbilly.boshoff@up.ac.zaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-01T07:23:49Z
dc.date.issued2021-11
dc.description.abstractMulti-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.departmentCivil Engineeringen_US
dc.description.embargo2023-10-06
dc.description.librarianhj2022en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe Churchill Jafar Studentship for PhD study at the University of Cambridge.en_US
dc.description.urihttps://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcleproen_US
dc.identifier.citationJayasinghe, 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.issn0959-6526 (print)
dc.identifier.issn1879-1786 (online)
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129268
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/86015
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_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.subjectConcrete floor systemsen_US
dc.subjectColumn layouten_US
dc.subjectEmbodied carbonen_US
dc.subjectCosten_US
dc.subjectOptimisationen_US
dc.titleComparing the embodied carbon and cost of concrete floor solutionsen_US
dc.typePostprint Articleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Jayasinghe_Comparing_2021.pdf
Size:
1018.56 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Postprint Article

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: