English
Język Polski
Analysis of technology, time and costs of three methods of building a single-family house: traditional brick, reinforced concrete prefabrication, timber frame
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24425/ace.2023.145250Abstract
The article presents a comprehensive analysis of technology, time and costs of three methods of building a single-family house; traditional brick, reinforced concrete prefabrication and timber frame. The goal of this study was to determine if prefabricated and timber frame building methods and materials have the potential to replace traditional method of construction in the context of cost and time. For this purpose, a qualitative analysis was performed, including a list of benefits of each of the analysed construction technologies and a quantitative analysis in which the cost of finished houses per 1 m2 of usable area was compared. The analyses were conducted for two single-family houses with similar characteristics using scheduling and cost estimation software. The conducted analyses have shown that the shortest time to build a house is in the prefabricated reinforced concrete technology. The used construction technology from ready-made prefabricated elements affects the time of building house and thus, the costs of its construction. The construction time for the house in case of a timber frame structure and made of ready-made reinforced concrete prefabricated elements is similar but the cost of a timber frame structure is much higher. It takes longest time to build a house in traditional brick technology and requires the involvement of the largest financial resources from all three analysed construction technologies. Despite this, traditional brick technology is the most used in construction in Poland and other Central and Easter Europe countries. This is due to the widespread belief of investors about the durability of a building made in this technology and the habits of investors resulting from a long-standing tradition of construction. However, the study’s results in the world showed that a change in build technology is a step in addressing the concerns of poor quality and reduce construction costs and time, increasing the construction sector’s productivity and sustainability.References
[1] J. C. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, and P. Walker, “Building houses with local materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction”, Building and Environment, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1119-1126, 2001, DOI: 10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00054-8.
[2] V. Tavares, N. Soares, N. Raposo, P. Marques, and F. Freire, “Prefabricated versus conventional construction: Comparing life-cycle impacts of alternative structural materials”, Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, vol. 41, art. no. 102705, 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102705.
[3] V. Tavares, J. Gregory, R. Kirchain, and F. Freire, “What is the potential for prefabricated buildings to decrease costs and contribute to meeting EU environmental targets?”, Building and Environment, vol. 206, art. no. 108382, 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108382.
[4] G. Adamczewski and P. Woyciechowski, “Prefabrykacja w XXI wieku”, Inżynier Budownictwa, vol. 4, pp. 54-58, 2015.
[5] K. Chęcińska, “Domy jednorodzinne z prefabrykatów betonowych”, Budownictwo, Technologie, Architektura, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 66-68, 2008.
[6] A. Cholewicki and W. Derkowski, “Elementy prefabrykowane w budownictwie mieszkaniowym”, Inżynier Budownictwa, vol. 4, pp. 65-70, 2014.
[7] M. Kośkosz, Ł. Majchrzak, M. Putowski, L. Szulc, and E. Wiącek, Nowoczesna prefabrykacja w budownictwie mieszkaniowym. Warsaw, Poland, 2019.
[8] Ł. Stodolny and M. Luber, “Prefabrykowane budynki mieszkalne. Analiza rozwiązań na podstawie realizacji na rynku Skandynawskim”, Budownictwo prefabrykowane w Polsce - stan i perspektywy. Bydgoszcz, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Uniwersytetu Technologiczno-Przyrodniczego w Bydgoszczy, 2016, pp. 325-334.
[9] European Commission, “Construction sector. Challenges faced by the construction industry”, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/construction_en. [Accessed: 03. Nov. 2022].
[10] M. Dave, B. Watson, and D. Prasad, “Performance and perception in prefab housing: an exploratory industry survey on sustainability and affordability”, Procedia Engineering, vol. 180, pp. 676-686, 2017, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.227.
[11] J. Quale, M. J. Eckelman, K. W. Williams, G. Sloditskie, and J. B. Zimmerman, “Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional homes in the United States”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 243-253, 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x.
[12] Z. Ding, S. Liu, L. Luo, and L. Liao, “A building information modeling-based carbon emission measurement system for prefabricated residential buildings during the materialization phase”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 264, art. no. 121728, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121728.
[13] X. Cao, X. Li, Y. Zhu, and Z. Zhang, “A comparative study of environmental performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 109, pp. 131-143, 2015, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.120.
[14] Y. Teng, K. Li, W. Pan, and T. Ng, “Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: evidence from and gaps in empirical studies”, Building and Environment, vol. 132, pp. 125-136, 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.026.
[15] J. Švajlenka and M. Kozlovská, “Effect of accumulation elements on the energy consumption of wood constructions”, Energy and Buildings, vol. 198, pp.160-169, 2019, DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.06.006.
[16] J. Švajlenka and M. Kozlovská, “Houses based on wood as an ecological and sustainable housing alternative Case study”, Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 5, art. no. 1502, 2018, DOI: 10.3390/su10051502.
[17] J. Švajlenka, M. Kozlovská, and T. Pošiváková, “Analysis of selected building constructions used in industrial construction in terms of sustainability benefits”, Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 12, art. no. 4394, 2018, DOI: 10.3390/su10124394.
[18] IBO Passivhaus-Bauteilkatalog, “Austrian Institute for Baubiologie and Ecology”. [Online]. Available: https://www.ibo.at/en/. [Accessed: 03. Nov. 2022].
[19] Rozporzadzenie Ministra Rozwoju i Technologii z dnia 20 grudnia 2021 r. w sprawie określenia metod i podstaw sporządzania kosztorysu inwestorskiego, obliczania planowanych kosztów prac projektowych oraz planowanych kosztów robót budowlanych określonych w programie funkcjonalno-użytkowym. Dz.U.2021 poz. 2458.
[20] Sekocenbud, “Informacje kwartalne RMS (IMB, IMI, IME, IRS, Sekocenbud.NET)”, 4 kw. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sekocenbud.pl/. [Accessed: 03. Nov. 2022].
[21] R. Trach and M. Lendo-Siwicka, “Centrality of a Communication Network of Construction Project Participants and Implications for Improved Project Communication”, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 145-160, 2021, DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1925654.
[22] M. Połoński, “Application of the work breakdown structure in determining cost buffers in construction schedules”, Archives of Civil Engineering, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 147-161, 2015, DOI: 10.1515/ace-2015-0010.
[23] J. Kuprenas, “Influence of construcion costs on schedule performance”, Challenges and Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction, vol. 1, pp. 903-905, 2010.
[24] J. C. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, and P. Walker, “Building houses with local materials: Means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction”, Building and Environment, vol. 36, pp. 1119-1126, 2001.
[25] G. Pajchrowski, A. Noskowiak, A. Lewandowska, and W. Strykowski, “Wood as a building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of four buildings”, Construction and Building Materials, vol. 52, pp. 428-436, 2014, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.066.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
