Quality of Building Materials on Development of Safe Sustainable Storey Buildings

Quality of Building Materials on Development of Safe Sustainable Storey Buildings

The construction industry is one of the most dynamic, risky and challenging business sec-

tors. There is much waste and it encounters problems caused by narrow-minded control (Mills,

2001). Previous research carried out in the field recommends that the construction sector must

shift from being reactive to being more proactive and promote sustainable practices.

In this new global economy, stakeholder engagement is increasingly becoming a part of

construction project practice in order to deliver excellent project outcomes. For example stake-

holder identification is a critical component of the initial scoping phase and should occur before

an engagement plan is formulated and consultations begin. As each stakeholder usually has their

especially in the long-term, if it takes into consideration the expectations of the stakeholders and

endeavours to meet their needs.

Maddock (2002) identifies poor relationships with stakeholders as a key problem that

hinders modernization and development in the society. This view emphasizes the importance of

broad internal and external willingness to change the organization’s practises. Characteristics of

successful relationships with internal and external stakeholders are according to Maddock: posit-

ive attitudes of managers, dialogue and trust between stakeholders and staff motivation to innov-

ate. Maddock identifies the following dimensions as the parameters to analyze the quality of re-

lationships among stakeholders: motivation, trust and communication between stakeholders.

2.5 Building Regulations on Development of Safe Sustainable Storey Buildings

A main goal of building regulations, or more specifically building codes, is to protect the

public. It is in the public’s best interest to have safe buildings; however, at what cost? Most

people would agree it is not economically feasible to mandate costly safety precautions on every

ical conditions. Building codes help facilitate safer buildings by requiring minimum standards

for buildings, including foundation, roofing, plumbing, electrical, and other specifications for

safety and sanitation, Friedman, Harris, & Linderman, (2004). Safety and sanitation are import-

ant elements of building codes; however, there are other goals of building codes. According to

the Sacramento County Code (SCC 1376 2007), building codes safeguard life or limb, health,

property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation,

quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and of all buildings and structures within this

jurisdiction, and certain equipment specifically regulated herein, Linderman, (2004).

Many universities spend considerable resources testing building materials in labs for the

next generation of building codes, particularly building materials to withstand earthquakes. In

California, there is special consideration for the structural integrity of a building because of the

risk of earthquakes. Unfortunately, it is not until an earthquake happens that we know whether

seismic code requirements are entirely effective. For example, one the most surprising results of

the Northridge earthquake on January 17, 2004 was the damage to numerous steel buildings. A

case study of several damaged, steel buildings found that there were widespread brittle fractures

jurisdictions. Although many provinces have policies relating to greening new government fun-

ded buildings, they have not established policy related to green residential building. In fact, its

municipalities that have led the way in setting policies and guidelines around green construction

across the country, (Wheeler, 2009).

While jurisdictions are not yet mandating green housing, some municipalities are institut-

ing incentives for green housing and adopting guidelines and voluntary standards. For the most

part, local governments have established guidelines and plans to promote sustainability in com-

munities and housing. Vancouver’s recently launched Eco Density program is one such example.

It is designed to create greater density throughout the city in a way that lowers environmental im-

pact, ensures the existence of necessary physical and social amenities, and supports new and dif-

ferent housing types as a way to promote greater affordability. Many other municipalities have

incorporated policy statements in their official community plan (OCP) to support smart growth

planning principle or green design. Municipal bylaws and capital expenditures must align with

the OCP, (Craig, 2008).

Policy makers often wait until something undesirable or catastrophic happens before we

principles for this a significant task. Firstly, it is unclear whether land use or building type influ-

ences design and planning principles for green exteriors. Furthermore, environmental and cli-

matic factors need to be taken into consideration as identified by (Johnson, 2004).

The scale of implementation is also important and must be understood in the context of cu-

mulative impact, incentives/barriers, green building codes, triple bottom line assessments, visual

and micro climatic amenity. Australia is behind best practice as there are no examples in Aus-

tralia of local or state governments mandating the development of green exteriors. Additionally

there are no examples of policy providing incentives in NSW. The key barrier in policy is the

readiness of community to change as recognised by (Gleeson et al. 2005).

The exclusion from green building codes by way of lack of direct reference means that

only biodiversity benefits can be recognised. This has significant implications as the codes are

focused on the clean production and reduction in the use of energy of which however there is no

attempt to recognise mitigation of heat which is produced by energy usage. This can be ad-

dressed by ensuring that policy contains facades, roofs and ground planes dealt with as a single

landscape concept and the overall landscape benefit is assessed, (Gleeson et al., 2005).

References

CEPMC (2013) Statement from CEPMC on the Product Environmental Footprint Guide, 26

April 2013.

Mora E. 2007. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials.

Building and Environment. 2007;42:1329–1334

Dakwale V, Ralegaonkar R, Mandavgane S. Improving environmental performance of building

Montes E. Toward the production of future heritage structures: Considering durability in build-

nal of Sustainable Built Environment. 2012; 1:269–273

Hooton R, Bickley J. Design for durability: The key to improving concrete sustainability. Con-

Lange D, Devaney S, Usmani A. An application of the PEER performance based earthquake en-

gineering framework to structures in fire Engineering Structures. 2014; 66:100–115

Müller H, Haist M, Vogel M. Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete and concrete

structures considering their environmental impact, performance and lifetime. Construction and

Building Materials. 2014; 67:321–337

Cabeza L, Rincóna L, Vilariño V, Péreza G, Castella A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life

cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 29:394–416

Porter K. An Overview of PEER’s Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology

Department of Civil Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

Azari R. Integrated energy and environmental life cycle assessment of office building envelopes

Energy and Buildings. 2014; 82:156–162

Ramesha T, Prakasha R, Shuklab K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. En-

ergy and Buildings. 2010; 42:1592–1600

Stephan A, Crawford R, Myttenaere K. Towards a comprehensive life cycle energy analysis

framework for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings. 2012; 55:592–600

Negro P, Mola E. Performance-Based Engineering Concepts: Past, Present and Future. 2006.

First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.

Olmatia P, Petrini F, Gkoumas K. Fragility analysis for the Performance-Based Design of

cladding wall panels subjected to blast load. Engineering Structures. 2014; 78:112–120