Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks

H. K. Sugandhini, Shashwath M. Nanjannavar

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

In India, there is an ever rising demand for the production of construction materials like cement, which in turn depletes Earth’s natural resources and liberates harmful greenhouse gases. This brings the need for implementing sustainable practices in the construction industry in India by using supplementary materials for producing concrete. In the present study, fly ash, rice husk ash (RHA), ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and manufactured sand (M-sand) are used to produce alternative concretes, and laterite, concrete, and stabilized mud blocks are used for masonry purpose. This study mainly focuses on cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes using life cycle costing (LCC) considering initial costs, maintenance costs, energy usage costs, and residual costs of both controls and alternative concretes. An eight-storeyed residential building model is developed using STAAD Pro to determine the best combination of alternative concrete and masonry block. The design mixes show adequate compression, flexural, and split tensile strengths for both control as well as alternative concretes tested after 28 days curing period. While SCC being the highest in compression (55.06 MPa) and split tension (8.66 MPa), concrete with 30% GGBFS replacement to cement gives the highest flexural strength (5.41 MPa). Further, the LCC model results show that the concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement is the most cost-effective out of all other concrete types. The results from STAAD Pro model recommends to use concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement and concrete block as the best combination for cost-effectiveness.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLecture Notes in Civil Engineering
PublisherSpringer Paris
Pages409-421
Number of pages13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2019
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Civil Engineering
Volume25
ISSN (Print)2366-2557
ISSN (Electronic)2366-2565

Fingerprint

Cost effectiveness
Life cycle
Concretes
Cements
Fly ash
Costs
Ashes
Slags
Concrete blocks
Natural resources
Construction industry
Greenhouse gases
Bending strength
Curing
Tensile strength
Sand
Earth (planet)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Civil and Structural Engineering

Cite this

Sugandhini, H. K., & Nanjannavar, S. M. (2019). Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (pp. 409-421). (Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Vol. 25). Springer Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37
Sugandhini, H. K. ; Nanjannavar, Shashwath M. / Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Springer Paris, 2019. pp. 409-421 (Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering).
@inbook{568f5fee536c4b1d92257c9771982679,
title = "Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks",
abstract = "In India, there is an ever rising demand for the production of construction materials like cement, which in turn depletes Earth’s natural resources and liberates harmful greenhouse gases. This brings the need for implementing sustainable practices in the construction industry in India by using supplementary materials for producing concrete. In the present study, fly ash, rice husk ash (RHA), ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and manufactured sand (M-sand) are used to produce alternative concretes, and laterite, concrete, and stabilized mud blocks are used for masonry purpose. This study mainly focuses on cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes using life cycle costing (LCC) considering initial costs, maintenance costs, energy usage costs, and residual costs of both controls and alternative concretes. An eight-storeyed residential building model is developed using STAAD Pro to determine the best combination of alternative concrete and masonry block. The design mixes show adequate compression, flexural, and split tensile strengths for both control as well as alternative concretes tested after 28 days curing period. While SCC being the highest in compression (55.06 MPa) and split tension (8.66 MPa), concrete with 30{\%} GGBFS replacement to cement gives the highest flexural strength (5.41 MPa). Further, the LCC model results show that the concrete with 50{\%} fly ash replacement to cement is the most cost-effective out of all other concrete types. The results from STAAD Pro model recommends to use concrete with 50{\%} fly ash replacement to cement and concrete block as the best combination for cost-effectiveness.",
author = "Sugandhini, {H. K.} and Nanjannavar, {Shashwath M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37",
language = "English",
series = "Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering",
publisher = "Springer Paris",
pages = "409--421",
booktitle = "Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering",
address = "France",

}

Sugandhini, HK & Nanjannavar, SM 2019, Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks. in Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol. 25, Springer Paris, pp. 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37

Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks. / Sugandhini, H. K.; Nanjannavar, Shashwath M.

Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Springer Paris, 2019. p. 409-421 (Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Vol. 25).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks

AU - Sugandhini, H. K.

AU - Nanjannavar, Shashwath M.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - In India, there is an ever rising demand for the production of construction materials like cement, which in turn depletes Earth’s natural resources and liberates harmful greenhouse gases. This brings the need for implementing sustainable practices in the construction industry in India by using supplementary materials for producing concrete. In the present study, fly ash, rice husk ash (RHA), ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and manufactured sand (M-sand) are used to produce alternative concretes, and laterite, concrete, and stabilized mud blocks are used for masonry purpose. This study mainly focuses on cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes using life cycle costing (LCC) considering initial costs, maintenance costs, energy usage costs, and residual costs of both controls and alternative concretes. An eight-storeyed residential building model is developed using STAAD Pro to determine the best combination of alternative concrete and masonry block. The design mixes show adequate compression, flexural, and split tensile strengths for both control as well as alternative concretes tested after 28 days curing period. While SCC being the highest in compression (55.06 MPa) and split tension (8.66 MPa), concrete with 30% GGBFS replacement to cement gives the highest flexural strength (5.41 MPa). Further, the LCC model results show that the concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement is the most cost-effective out of all other concrete types. The results from STAAD Pro model recommends to use concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement and concrete block as the best combination for cost-effectiveness.

AB - In India, there is an ever rising demand for the production of construction materials like cement, which in turn depletes Earth’s natural resources and liberates harmful greenhouse gases. This brings the need for implementing sustainable practices in the construction industry in India by using supplementary materials for producing concrete. In the present study, fly ash, rice husk ash (RHA), ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and manufactured sand (M-sand) are used to produce alternative concretes, and laterite, concrete, and stabilized mud blocks are used for masonry purpose. This study mainly focuses on cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes using life cycle costing (LCC) considering initial costs, maintenance costs, energy usage costs, and residual costs of both controls and alternative concretes. An eight-storeyed residential building model is developed using STAAD Pro to determine the best combination of alternative concrete and masonry block. The design mixes show adequate compression, flexural, and split tensile strengths for both control as well as alternative concretes tested after 28 days curing period. While SCC being the highest in compression (55.06 MPa) and split tension (8.66 MPa), concrete with 30% GGBFS replacement to cement gives the highest flexural strength (5.41 MPa). Further, the LCC model results show that the concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement is the most cost-effective out of all other concrete types. The results from STAAD Pro model recommends to use concrete with 50% fly ash replacement to cement and concrete block as the best combination for cost-effectiveness.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060196704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060196704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37

DO - 10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37

M3 - Chapter

T3 - Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering

SP - 409

EP - 421

BT - Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering

PB - Springer Paris

ER -

Sugandhini HK, Nanjannavar SM. Life cycle costing for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of alternative concretes and masonry blocks. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Springer Paris. 2019. p. 409-421. (Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_37