IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5238-d270336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs with the Alternative Structural System for Slab: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Seunguk Na

    (Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Architecture, Dankook University, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 31116, Korea)

  • Inkwan Paik

    (Super-Tall Building Global R & BD Centre, The 2nd Engineering Hall, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 31116, Korea)

Abstract

The construction industry is one of the main contributors to the production of large volumes of greenhouse gases, since it consumes a large quantity of energy and construction materials. The purpose of this research is to assess the environmental impacts and economic efficiency of the voided slab system compared to the ordinary reinforced concrete slab. A life cycle assessment (LCA) and the total cost of construction were calculated to evaluate the performance of both slab systems. Additionally, the total costs of construction for both cases were determined based on the unit price of the building materials. The results of this study indicate that manufacturing building materials contributes most to the total GHG emissions where concrete is responsible for nearly 1/2 of all emissions. Additionally, forms are the second largest contributor of the total GHG emissions and account for nearly 40% and 15% of emissions for the ordinary reinforced concrete slab and the voided slab system, respectively. This study verified that the voided slab system indicated better environmental performance than the ordinary reinforced concrete slab. The total GHG emissions of the ordinary reinforced concrete slab were 256,599 and 13,989 kg·CO 2 ·eq, for concrete and forms, respectively. Additionally, the total GHG emissions of the voided slab system were 224,945 and 12,211 kg·CO 2 ·eq. The reduction of GHG emissions from Case 1 for aboveground floors and Case 2 for underground parking was 12.3% and 12.7% over the ordinary reinforced concrete slab, respectively. The economic efficiency of the ordinary reinforced concrete slab and the voided slab system were assessed by comparison of the total costs of construction. This showed a total cost reduction of 12.3% and 11.2% for the case of applying the voided slab system to the aboveground floors and underground parking, respectively. Thus, replacing the ordinary reinforced concrete slab by the voided slab system in the aboveground floors and the underground would make it possible to decrease not only the emissions of GHG, but also the cost of construction.

Suggested Citation

  • Seunguk Na & Inkwan Paik, 2019. "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs with the Alternative Structural System for Slab: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5238-:d:270336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5238/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5238/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cabeza, Luisa F. & Rincón, Lídia & Vilariño, Virginia & Pérez, Gabriel & Castell, Albert, 2014. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 394-416.
    2. Jonggeon Lee & Sungho Tae & Rakhyun Kim, 2018. "A Study on the Analysis of CO 2 Emissions of Apartment Housing in the Construction Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Tae, Sungho & Shin, Sungwoo & Woo, Jeehwan & Roh, Seungjun, 2011. "The development of apartment house life cycle CO2 simple assessment system using standard apartment houses of South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 1454-1467, April.
    4. Chau, C.K. & Leung, T.M. & Ng, W.Y., 2015. "A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 395-413.
    5. Daria Zimina & Glenn Ballard & Christine Pasquire, 2012. "Target value design: using collaboration and a lean approach to reduce construction cost," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 383-398, March.
    6. Seungho Cho & Seunguk Na, 2017. "The Reduction of CO 2 Emissions by Application of High-Strength Reinforcing Bars to Three Different Structural Systems in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-24, September.
    7. Park, Junghoon & Tae, Sungho & Kim, Taehyung, 2012. "Life cycle CO2 assessment of concrete by compressive strength on construction site in Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2940-2946.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosaria E.C. Amaral & Joel Brito & Matt Buckman & Elicia Drake & Esther Ilatova & Paige Rice & Carlos Sabbagh & Sergei Voronkin & Yewande S. Abraham, 2020. "Waste Management and Operational Energy for Sustainable Buildings: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Golden Odey & Bashir Adelodun & Sang-Hyun Kim & Kyung-Sook Choi, 2021. "Status of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Case Study of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-30, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inkwan Paik & Seunguk Na, 2019. "Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions of the Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Slab and the Voided Slab System During the Construction Phase: A Case Study of a Residential Building in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Roh, Seungjun & Tae, Sungho, 2017. "An integrated assessment system for managing life cycle CO2 emissions of a building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 265-275.
    3. Kong, Minjin & Ji, Changyoon & Hong, Taehoon & Kang, Hyuna, 2022. "Impact of the use of recycled materials on the energy conservation and energy transition of buildings using life cycle assessment: A case study in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Kun Lu & Xiaoyan Jiang & Vivian W. Y. Tam & Mengyun Li & Hongyu Wang & Bo Xia & Qing Chen, 2019. "Development of a Carbon Emissions Analysis Framework Using Building Information Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment for the Construction of Hospital Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Inkwan Paik & Seunguk Na & Seongho Yoon, 2018. "Assessment of CO 2 Emissions by Replacing an Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Slab with the Void Slab System in a High-Rise Commercial Residential Complex Building in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Golden Odey & Bashir Adelodun & Sang-Hyun Kim & Kyung-Sook Choi, 2021. "Status of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Case Study of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Burek, Jasmina & Nutter, Darin W., 2019. "A life cycle assessment-based multi-objective optimization of the purchased, solar, and wind energy for the grocery, perishables, and general merchandise multi-facility distribution center network," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 1427-1446.
    8. Sierra-Pérez, Jorge & Rodríguez-Soria, Beatriz & Boschmonart-Rives, Jesús & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2018. "Integrated life cycle assessment and thermodynamic simulation of a public building’s envelope renovation: Conventional vs. Passivhaus proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1510-1521.
    9. Sungwoo Lee & Sungho Tae & Seungjun Roh & Taehyung Kim, 2015. "Green Template for Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings Based on Building Information Modeling: Focus on Embodied Environmental Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Patricia González-Vallejo & Radu Muntean & Jaime Solís-Guzmán & Madelyn Marrero, 2020. "Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Ana Ferreira & Manuel Duarte Pinheiro & Jorge de Brito & Ricardo Mateus, 2022. "Embodied vs. Operational Energy and Carbon in Retail Building Shells: A Case Study in Portugal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Mastrucci, Alessio & Marvuglia, Antonino & Leopold, Ulrich & Benetto, Enrico, 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks from urban to transnational scales: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 316-332.
    13. Mastrucci, Alessio & Marvuglia, Antonino & Benetto, Enrico & Leopold, Ulrich, 2020. "A spatio-temporal life cycle assessment framework for building renovation scenarios at the urban scale," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    14. Wang, Tao & Seo, Seongwon & Liao, Pin-Chao & Fang, Dongping, 2016. "GHG emission reduction performance of state-of-the-art green buildings: Review of two case studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 484-493.
    15. Rayane de Lima Moura Paiva & Lucas Rosse Caldas & Adriana Paiva de Souza Martins & Patricia Brandão de Sousa & Giulia Fea de Oliveira & Romildo Dias Toledo Filho, 2021. "Thermal-Energy Analysis and Life Cycle GHG Emissions Assessments of Innovative Earth-Based Bamboo Plastering Mortars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-24, September.
    16. Rosaria E.C. Amaral & Joel Brito & Matt Buckman & Elicia Drake & Esther Ilatova & Paige Rice & Carlos Sabbagh & Sergei Voronkin & Yewande S. Abraham, 2020. "Waste Management and Operational Energy for Sustainable Buildings: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-21, July.
    17. Jaime Solís-Guzmán & Cristina Rivero-Camacho & Desirée Alba-Rodríguez & Alejandro Martínez-Rocamora, 2018. "Carbon Footprint Estimation Tool for Residential Buildings for Non-Specialized Users: OERCO2 Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, April.
    18. ZhiWu Zhou & Julián Alcalá & Víctor Yepes, 2020. "Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment: Study of Bridges in China’s Five Major Economic Regions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-33, December.
    19. Xabat Oregi & Rufino Javier Hernández & Patxi Hernandez, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Prioritization of Building Energy Refurbishment Strategies with Life-Cycle Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, May.
    20. Helena Monteiro & Fausto Freire & John E. Fernández, 2020. "Life-Cycle Assessment of Alternative Envelope Construction for a New House in South-Western Europe: Embodied and Operational Magnitude," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5238-:d:270336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.