A cost analysis of environmentally friendly masonry alternatives commercially available in the Philippines
Clicks: 1
ID: 285087
2022
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #2,557 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The researcher aimed to identify alternative masonry materials to concrete hollow blocks that are more environmentally friendly to help lessen the environmental damage caused by the building and construction industry. One aspect of buildings that would contribute to green building and construction is masonry. In the Philippines, masonry is predominantly done using concrete hollow blocks which has a significant environmental impact from the use of ordinary Portland cement. Thus, the need to identify alternatives that are eco-friendlier and are already commercially available in the Philippines. However, material cost is a critical consideration when considering the material to use which could inhibit the selection of an eco-friendlier option that is normally perceived to be more expensive. However, they also provide operational savings which could lead to overall savings over the possible life of the building. Thus, a life cycle cost analysis that considers both the initial and operational costs is necessary when evaluating the economic viability of alternative eco-friendlier masonries. The study was able to identify three alternatives that are eco-friendlier which are plastic blocks, lightweight blocks, and AAC blocks. In terms of initial costs that consider both acquisition and labor costs, only the plastic block is cheaper than the concrete hollow block per square meter. In terms of a life cycle perspective, only the lightweight blocks and AAC blocks have operational savings due to decrease electricity costs. Even considering the operational savings discounted at 10% over 50 years, both blocks are still more expensive than the concrete hollow block. However, both blocks are eco-friendlier as they are also energy efficient. This is vital when applying for building certifications as it gives points toward energy efficiency. However, it is important to note that the discount rate is inversely proportional to the net present value of the savings. Thus, a discount rate of 5.61% and 2.91% is required for the lightweight blocks and AAC blocks respectively to have equal net present value to concrete hollow blocks. These discount rates can be used as an investment guide on whether to utilize certain masonry blocks for construction projects depending on the expected rate of return of the building owner.
| Reference Key |
persistent_1760654583_68f174f7cdd12
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Dy, Royce Y. |
| Journal | Malay Journal |
| Year | 2022 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.