Sustainable Performance of Buildings through Modular Prefabrication in the Construction Phase: A Comparative Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Data
3.2. Measurement
3.3. Data Analytics
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Difference of Sustainable Performance
4.2. Impact of Sustainable Performance
4.3. Cognitive Differences among Participants
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, Y.; Okudan, G.E.; Riley, D.R. Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: A Hong Kong case study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 953–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, Y.; Wu, P. Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and constructability indicators related to concrete- and steel-projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agency, I.E. Transition to Sustainable Buildings: Strategies and Opportunities to 2050; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Q.; Long, R.; Chen, H. Differences and influencing factors for Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housings: Evidence from five first-tier cities in China. Appl. Energy 2018, 229, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L. Technology System of Industrialized Housing and Energy-Saving and Pollutants-Reduction Benefits Analysis Based on Construction; Chongqing University: Chongqing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, D.; McCoy, A.P.; Du, J.; Agee, P.; Lu, Y. Interaction effects of building technology and resident behavior on energy consumption in residential buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 134, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S.; Chiang, Y.H. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Lee, M.W.; Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.-S. The hindrance to using prefabrication in Hong Kong’s building industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Skitmore, M.; Peng, Y. Exploring the challenges to industrialized residential building in China. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Shen, L.; Tang, L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Begum, R.A.; Satari, S.K.; Pereira, J.J. Waste Generation and Recycling: Comparison of Conventional and Industrialized Building Systems. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 6, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bari, N.A.A.; Yusuff, R.M.; Ismail, N.; Jaapar, A. Industrialised Building Systems (IBS): It’s attribute towards enhancing sustainability in construction. Asian J. Environ.-Behav. Stud. 2018, 3, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1171–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yunus, R.; Yang, J. Legislative challenge to sustainable application of industrialized building system (IBS). J. Teknol. 2015, 63, 1171–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuadrado, J.; Zubizarreta, M.; Rojí, E.; Larrauri, M.; Álvarez, I. Sustainability assessment methodology for industrial buildings: Three case studies. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2016, 33, 106–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, G.; Li, K.; Zhao, D.; Mao, C. Business model innovation and its drivers in the Chinese construction industry during the shift to modular prefabrication. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 33, 04016051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, P.W.; Hough, G.H. The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of Project Management; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Teng, Y.; Mao, C.; Liu, G.; Wang, X. Analysis of stakeholder relationships in the industry chain of industrialized building in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 152, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustavsson, L.; Joelsson, A. Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guggemos, A.A.; Horvath, A. Decision-support tool for assessing the environmental effects of constructing commercial buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 2006, 12, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, C.M.; Zeng, S.X.; Ng, W.C.Y. Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 3642–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boyd, N.; Khalfan, M.M.A.; Maqsood, T. Off-Site Construction of Apartment Buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 2013, 19, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blismas, N.; Pasquire, C.; Gibb, A. Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boafo, F.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, J.-T. Performance of Modular Prefabricated Architecture: Case Study-Based Review and Future Pathways. Sustainability 2016, 8, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Li, Z.; Li, L.; Gao, Y. Constraints on the Promotion of Prefabricated Construction in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pons, O. Assessing the sustainability of prefabricated buildings. In Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials; Pacheco-Torgal, F., Cabeza, L.F., Labrincha, J., De Magalhaes, A.G., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2014; pp. 434–456. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, X.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. A comparative study of environmental performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, C.M.; Chan, J.K.W.; Ng, W.C.Y. Cutting Construction Wastes by Prefabrication. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2006, 6, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tam, V.W.Y.; Hao, J.J.L. Prefabrication as a mean of minimizing construction waste on site. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014, 14, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, C.; Xie, F.; Hou, L.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. Cost analysis for sustainable off-site construction based on a multiple-case study in China. Habitat Int. 2016, 57, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, Y.; Chang, S.; Ji, Y.; Qi, K. BIM-Based Incremental Cost Analysis Method of Prefabricated Buildings in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Li, Z.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, W. Barriers to promoting prefabricated construction in China: A cost–benefit analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 649–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tumminia, G.; Guarino, F.; Longo, S.; Ferraro, M.; Cellura, M.; Antonucci, V. Life cycle energy performances and environmental impacts of a prefabricated building module. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 272–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Pan, W.; Ye, K. Major Barriers to Off-Site Construction: The Developers’ Perspective in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 31, 04014043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NCRE. Higher Cost Hindering the Promotion of Building Industrilization in China. Newpaper of China Real Estate 2015. Available online: http://www.precast.com.cn/index.php/subject_detail-id-2311.html (accessed on 3 September 2019).
- Lu, N. Investigation of the Designers’ and General Contractors’ Perceptions of Offsite Construction Techniques in the United States Construction Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Tam, V.W.Y.; Fung, I.W.H.; Sing, M.C.P.; Ogunlana, S.O. Best practice of prefabrication implementation in the Hong Kong public and private sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 216–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3592–3606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Dainty, A.R.J. Perspectives of UK Housebuilders on the Use of Offsite Modern Methods of Construction. Constr. Manage. Econ. 2007, 25, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idrus, A.B.; Newman, J.B. Construction related factors influencing the choice of concrete floor systems. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2002, 20, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibb, A.; Isack, F. Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations and drivers. Build. Res. Inf. 2010, 31, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro-Rubio, J.; Pineda, P.; García-Martínez, A. Sustainability, prefabrication and building optimization under different durability and re-using scenarios: Potential of dry precast structural connections. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 614–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.-Y.; Tam, V.W.-Y.; Li, C.-Y. Benefit analysis on replacing in situ concreting with precast slabs for temporary construction works in pursuing sustainable construction practice. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moradibistouni, M.; Vale, B.; Isaacs, N. Evaluating Sustainability of Prefabrication Methods in Comparison with Traditional Methods; Howlett, R., Littlewood, J., Ekanyake, C., Vlacic, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 228–237. [Google Scholar]
- Sharafi, P.; Rashidi, M.; Samali, B.; Ronagh, H.; Mortazavi, M. Identification of factors and decision analysis of the level of modularization in building construction. J. Archit. Eng. 2018, 24, 04018010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, J.H.; Tukey, J.W. A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data analysis. IEEE Trans. Comput. 1974, 100, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Zhan, L. Assessing the sustainability of the shale gas industry by combining DPSIRM model and RAGA-PP techniques: An empirical analysis of Sichuan and Chongqing, China. Energy 2019, 176, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, H.; Niu, D.; Wu, M.; Yao, D. Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of the Wind-PV-ES and Transmission Hybrid Power System Consideration of System Functionality and Proportionality. Sustainability 2017, 9, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Liu, C.; Fu, Q.; Li, T.; Khan, M.I.; Cui, S.; Faiz, M.A. Projection pursuit evaluation model of regional surface water environment based on improved chicken swarm optimization algorithm. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 1325–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, G.; Jiayang, W.; Hongling, Y.; Gang, Z. A comprehensive evaluation model of regional atmospheric environment carrying capacity: Model development and a case study in China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 259–267. [Google Scholar]
- Hou, S.; Wentzell, P.D. Fast and simple methods for the optimization of kurtosis used as a projection pursuit index. Anal. Chim. Acta 2011, 704, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pei, W.; Fu, Q.; Liu, D.; Li, T.-X.; Cheng, K. Assessing agricultural drought vulnerability in the Sanjiang Plain based on an improved projection pursuit model. Nat. Hazards 2016, 82, 683–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirci, O.; Clark, V.P.; Calhoun, V.D. A projection pursuit algorithm to classify individuals using fMRI data: Application to schizophrenia. NeuroImage 2008, 39, 1774–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goldberg, D.E.; Holland, J.H. Genetic Algorithms and Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. 1988, 3, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, Q. Data Processing Method and Application in Agriculture; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pandey, H.M.; Chaudhary, A.; Mehrotra, D. A comparative review of approaches to prevent premature convergence in GA. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 24, 1047–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abanda, F.H.; Tah, J.H.M.; Cheung, F.K.T. BIM in off-site manufacturing for buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 14, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, J.; Zhao, J.; Hu, Z. Review and thinking on development of building industrialization in China. China Civ. Eng. J. 2016, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, Y.; Li, X.; Masanet, E.; Zhang, L.; Huang, Z.; Ries, R. Unlocking the green opportunity for prefabricated buildings and construction in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aye, L.; Ngo, T.; Crawford, R.H.; Gammampila, R.; Mendis, P. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy Build. 2012, 47, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Respondents | Number of Responses | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Sent-Out | Valid Responses | ||
Developers | 8 | 8 | 15.69% |
Designers | 9 | 9 | 17.65% |
Superintendents | 7 | 7 | 13.73% |
Manufacturers | 11 | 11 | 21.57% |
Contractors | 16 | 16 | 31.37% |
Dimension | Indicator | Brief Descriptions | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Economic | Cost savings | The reduction of costs including labor, materials, and machinery equipment fees. | [1,2,3,15,23,26,27,39,40] |
Construction time | Total duration of construction from planning to project delivery. | [1,2,15,16,22,23,27,39,40,41] | |
Labor reduction | The amount of labors used on site | [1,2,3,15,39,41,42,43] | |
Executing costs | The costs of construction activities’ execution and operation on site. | [16,43] | |
Weather disruption | Total duration of schedule delays due to adverse weather. | [1,15,39,42] | |
Environmental | Site disruption | Construction activities influenced by labor, materials, machineries equipment, and environment on site | [1,2,15,39,40,42] |
Construction waste | The amount of construction waste produced on site | [1,2,15,22,27,34,39,44,45] | |
Pollution generation | Pollution level on site (e.g., noise, dust, etc.) | [1,2,15,26,39,44,45] | |
Energy consumption | The amount of diesel and electricity used during the construction phase | [1,3,15,26,27,39,43,44,45] | |
Water consumption | The amount of water used on site. | [1,3,15,27,39,44,45] | |
Formwork consumption | The amount of formwork used on site. | [1,2,3,15,26,39,45] | |
Social | Constructability | The difficulty degree of construction | [1,2,15,16,41] |
Health and safety risk | Risks of health and safety issues in the workplace (e.g., injury, fatality, etc.). | [1,2,15,16,23,26,27,39,41,42] | |
Construction quality | The quality and durability of building (e.g., fewer de-bonding tiles and water leakage). | [15,23,40,42,46] | |
Aesthetic options | Visual appearance of internal and external of the building. | [1,2,15,16,22,41,45] | |
Labor availability | The amount of available labor to need. | [1,15,39] |
Dimension | Indicators | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min. | Max. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic | Cost savings | 2.1176 | 0.8160 | 1 | 3 |
Construction time | 3.1176 | 1.2907 | 1 | 5 | |
Labor reduction | 3.7255 | 1.0969 | 1 | 5 | |
Executing costs | 3.6863 | 0.8830 | 2 | 5 | |
Weather disruption | 3.8824 | 0.8160 | 2 | 5 | |
Environmental | Site disruption | 3.8431 | 0.9874 | 2 | 5 |
Construction waste | 4.0784 | 0.8682 | 2 | 5 | |
Pollution generation | 4.0196 | 0.8122 | 2 | 5 | |
Energy consumption | 2.7843 | 1.1716 | 1 | 5 | |
Water consumption | 3.5882 | 0.8984 | 2 | 5 | |
Formwork consumption | 4.1176 | 0.8865 | 2 | 5 | |
Social | Constructability | 3.1765 | 1.2760 | 1 | 5 |
Health and safety risk | 3.6275 | 0.9372 | 2 | 5 | |
Construction quality | 3.3137 | 1.1044 | 1 | 5 | |
Aesthetic options | 3.5294 | 1.0070 | 2 | 5 | |
Labor availability | 2.5686 | 1.0248 | 1 | 5 |
Indicator | Evaluation Value (EV) | α * | (α *)2 | Influence (%) | EV * Influence | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aesthetic options | 4.6744 | 0.3519 | 0.1238 | 12.38% | 0.5787 | 1 |
Construction waste | 5.6611 | 0.3155 | 0.0995 | 9.95% | 0.5633 | 2 |
Site disruption | 5.3012 | 0.2823 | 0.0797 | 7.97% | 0.4225 | 3 |
Water consumption | 4.642 | 0.2802 | 0.0785 | 7.85% | 0.3644 | 4 |
Pollution generation | 5.6181 | 0.2545 | 0.0648 | 6.48% | 0.3641 | 5 |
Construction quality | 3.7638 | 0.2938 | 0.0863 | 8.63% | 0.3248 | 6 |
Executing costs | 4.6748 | 0.2501 | 0.0626 | 6.26% | 0.2926 | 7 |
Labor reduction | 4.6736 | 0.2225 | 0.0495 | 4.95% | 0.2313 | 8 |
Constructability | 3.7105 | 0.2485 | 0.0618 | 6.18% | 0.2293 | 9 |
Health and safety risk | 4.6737 | 0.2196 | 0.0482 | 4.82% | 0.2253 | 10 |
Weather disruption | 5.3201 | 0.1976 | 0.039 | 3.90% | 0.2075 | 11 |
Formwork consumption | 5.7626 | 0.1807 | 0.0327 | 3.27% | 0.1884 | 12 |
Energy consumption | 2.7400 | 0.2382 | 0.0567 | 5.67% | 0.1554 | 13 |
Construction time | 3.1795 | 0.1962 | 0.0385 | 3.85% | 0.1224 | 14 |
Labor availability | 2.0344 | 0.1809 | 0.0327 | 3.27% | 0.0665 | 15 |
Cost savings | 0.8872 | 0.214 | 0.0458 | 4.58% | 0.0406 | 16 |
Respondents | Developers | Designers | Superintendents | Manufacturers | Contractors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation values | 1.6575 | 0.9856 | 1.8649 | 1.3825 | 2.9504 |
1.3892 | 1.1378 | 2.9407 | 2.0386 | 3.688 | |
1.3855 | 1.1367 | 1.8312 | 2.7740 | 2.4271 | |
2.3025 | 1.1149 | 2.5777 | 2.9161 | 3.2071 | |
2.7555 | 1.8249 | 1.7131 | 3.1627 | 3.0507 | |
1.1497 | 2.9504 | 2.7176 | 1.6579 | 2.9488 | |
2.1362 | 0.8019 | 3.0630 | 2.4643 | 2.7782 | |
3.5352 | 3.6670 | 2.9536 | 2.9394 | ||
1.1031 | 2.9656 | 1.7070 | |||
2.4167 | 1.7011 | ||||
3.3729 | 1.5756 | ||||
3.0628 | |||||
1.7872 | |||||
1.8092 | |||||
2.3708 | |||||
2.2179 | |||||
Mean | 2.0389 | 1.6358 | 2.3869 | 2.5550 | 2.5138 |
Std. Dev. | 0.8121 | 1.0037 | 0.5693 | 0.6338 | 0.6538 |
C.V. | 0.3983 | 0.6136 | 0.2385 | 0.2481 | 0.2601 |
Sum of Squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. | |
Between groups | 5.986 | 4 | 1.496 | 2.748 | 0.039 ** |
Within groups | 25.051 | 46 | 0.545 | ||
Total | 31.036 | 50 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jiang, Y.; Zhao, D.; Wang, D.; Xing, Y. Sustainable Performance of Buildings through Modular Prefabrication in the Construction Phase: A Comparative Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205658
Jiang Y, Zhao D, Wang D, Xing Y. Sustainable Performance of Buildings through Modular Prefabrication in the Construction Phase: A Comparative Study. Sustainability. 2019; 11(20):5658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205658
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Yongsheng, Dong Zhao, Dedong Wang, and Yudong Xing. 2019. "Sustainable Performance of Buildings through Modular Prefabrication in the Construction Phase: A Comparative Study" Sustainability 11, no. 20: 5658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205658
APA StyleJiang, Y., Zhao, D., Wang, D., & Xing, Y. (2019). Sustainable Performance of Buildings through Modular Prefabrication in the Construction Phase: A Comparative Study. Sustainability, 11(20), 5658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205658