Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The construction industry has always been a major generator of construction waste and is often faced
Received 7 April 2011 with the issue of its effective management in minimising environmental pollution. This research paper
Received in revised form 5 June 2012 focuses on the construction waste generated from the construction of high rise buildings using 3 construc-
Accepted 28 August 2012
tion methods; Conventional Construction (Category I), the Mixed System (Category II) and Industrialised
Building System (IBS, Category III). The construction waste for each construction category were charac-
Keywords:
terised into its mineral and non-mineral components. The construction waste usage efficiency (CWUE),
Waste minimisation
waste generation, reuse and recycling rates were also calculated. The IBS (Category III) was found to be
Construction waste
Reuse
the most efficient construction method with a waste generation rate (WGR) of 0.016 tons of construction
Recycling waste/m2 floor space compared to the Mixed System (Category II) at 0.030 tons/m2 and the Conventional
IBS Construction (Category I) at 0.048 tons/m2 . The construction waste usage efficiency (CWUE) was the
Conventional Construction highest in Category III (IBS) at 94.1% with only 5.9% of the total construction waste in this category being
Mixed System disposed at landfills. The Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) of Malaysia has recognised
its benefits and has actively promoted the use of IBS in Malaysia. The waste characterisation data and
its uses (reuse and recycling) obtained from this study could be used as baseline data to promote and
encourage the Malaysian construction industry to adopt the use of precast technology, the Industrialised
Building System (Category III) and move away from the more traditional resource hungry Conventional
Construction (Category I). The inclusion of the Mixed System (Category II) in this study as an intermediate
construction method was aimed at providing the link between the Conventional Construction (Category
I) and the IBS (Category III). The Mixed System (Category II) incorporates both the IBS and Conventional
Construction methods. The Conventional Construction (Category I) with the incorporation of new con-
struction technologies could easily be reclassified as the Mixed System (Category II), allowing Malaysian
contractors to easily adopt it. This paves the way for better understanding for the use of precast technol-
ogy which eventually would result in a positive shift towards the use of the IBS (Category III) by Malaysian
contractors in the future. Thus, improving the construction industry’s environmental performance and
commitment to sustainable development as outlined by the CIDB’s Construction Industry Master Plan
2006–2015 for Malaysia.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction and Aprea, 2010). A study conducted by World Watch Institute has
shown that the raw material used for building construction con-
The construction sector plays a major development role in both sumes up to 40% of stones, sand and gravel; 25% of timber and
the developing and developed countries of the world and stud- 16% of all water used annually around the world (Dimoudi and
ies have shown this industry to be resource hungry; consuming Tompa, 2008). Based on the quantities of raw materials used by the
up to 60% of all raw materials extracted from the Earth (Lombera construction industry, it is therefore, responsible for generating a
significant portion of construction waste in the world (Kourmpanis
et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2004).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 450 6363 89; fax: +61 8683 2520. The term construction and demolition (C&D) waste is gener-
E-mail addresses: suresh8223@gmail.com, suresh8223@yahoo.com (S.K. ally referred to as solid waste generated by the construction sector
Lachimpadi). arising from civil and building construction, building renovation
0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.011
S.K. Lachimpadi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 96–103 97
and demolition including activities such as land excavation or for- 2. Case study sites
mation, site clearance and roadwork (Shen et al., 2004). Globally,
significant amounts of C&D waste are generated annually, e.g. in Eight construction sites featuring medium cost high rise resi-
2003, approximately 323 million tons of C&D waste was generated dential buildings in the Klang Valley, Malaysia were selected based
in the US (US EPA, 2004). In the UK, the figure stood around 70 mil- on the following criteria:
lion tons which included soil (DETR, 2000) with a material wastage
rate of 10–15% (McGrath and Anderson, 2000). In Australia, the C&D (a) the availability of the Bill of Quantity (BQ) to determine the
waste accounted for 16–40% of the total solid waste in the land- construction phases and for the estimation of construction
fills (Bell, 1998). The Environment Protection Department (EDP) of materials used at the construction sites;
Hong Kong has estimated that landfills in Hong Kong received about (b) implementation of an environmental management system at
3158 tons of construction waste per day in 2007 (Hong Kong EDP, each construction site;
2007) whereas in China, the producer of 29% of the world’s munic- (c) implementation of waste management practices at site;
ipal solid waste (MSW), C&D waste accounted for approximately (d) the availability of a dedicated Environmental Officer for data
40% of the total MSW composition (Dong et al., 2001; Wang et al., collection and EMS implementation;
2008). (e) compliance to the Malaysian Department of Environment’s
In recent years, there has been a concerted move to promote the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements and the
reuse and recycling of construction waste in order to reduce inflow Environmental Quality Act 1974 of Malaysia.
of construction waste into the landfills and to protect the environ-
ment (Chun et al., 1997). In Malaysia, the construction industry’s The 3 construction methods used in this study were defined as:
impact on the environment is significant due to the high demands
in major infrastructure projects, housing and commercial devel-
(i) Conventional Construction (Category I)
opments generating high volumes of construction waste (Begum
This method consists of extensive cast in situ activities. Rein-
et al., 2010). This has aroused the public’s growing concerns on
forced concrete frames, beams, columns, walls, and roof are
negative environmental impacts in many local communities in
cast in situ using timber formwork while steel reinforcement
Malaysia (Begum et al., 2006). In recognising these concerns, the
is fabricated at site. It is labour intensive involving three sep-
Malaysian government formed the Construction Industry Develop-
arate trades, namely steel bending, formwork fabrication and
ment Board (CIDB) of Malaysia; one of its aims was to transform the
concreting: employing skilled carpenters, plasterers and brick
Malaysian construction industry by improving its environmental
workers (Badir and Razali, 1998).
performance by reinforcing the Malaysian construction industry’s
(ii) Mixed System (Category II)
commitment to sustainable development through the Construc-
An intermediate construction method, the Mixed System
tion Industry Master Plan 2006–2015 (CIDB, 2012; Effie et al.,
(Category II) is defined by the use of certain elements that
2011) and promoting the use of the Industrialised Building Sys-
are standardised and fabricated in the factory while others are
tem (IBS) as part of the “IBS Roadmap 2003–2010” programme
cast in situ at the construction sites. This involves the assem-
(CIDB, 2011).
bly of precast elements such as in-filled walls, bathrooms and
The IBS has not been effectively implemented in Malaysia
staircases which are incorporated into the main units at the
despite having been introduced in the late 1960s (Hamzah et al.,
construction sites. Floors, slabs, columns and beams are cast
2010). In 2003, 15% of construction projects in Malaysia utilised
in situ as these are relatively easier and less time consuming
IBS and by 2006, it had dropped to 10% (Hamid et al., 2008).
parts of the operation (Badir and Razali, 1998). The Mixed Sys-
The IBS which is widely used in Europe, Japan and Singapore
tem, in this study is considered as an amalgamation of the IBS
is seen as an alternative option to the Conventional Construc-
(Category III) and the Conventional Construction (Category I)
tion in maintaining sustainability in construction through the
methods.
efficient use of resources, improvements in the quality of con-
(iii) Industrialised Building System, IBS (Category III)
structed buildings and waste minimisation (Tam et al., 2007; Kibert,
The IBS (Category III) is defined as a construction process that
2007; Begum et al., 2010). A study by Begum et al. (2006) at
utilises techniques, products, components or building systems
an IBS construction project site in Malaysia showed that 73% of
involving the use of on-site and off-site (factory producing) pre-
its construction waste were reused and recycled; indicating the
fabrications for installation. The on-site pre-casting consists
economic feasibility of waste minimisation and the net benefit
of floor and roof slabs in situ whereas the off-site fabrica-
calculated in this study was valued at 2.5% of the total project
tions of some or all components of buildings are cast off-site
budget.
at fabrication yards or factories. With the transfer of construc-
The waste management hierarchy identifies 6 waste man-
tion operations to factories or fabrication yards, good quality
agement options (to reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, incinerate
components have been mass produced and delivered to the
and landfill) (Peng et al., 1997) of which this study explores 3
construction sites in economically large loads (Badir and Razali,
of those options; “reuse”, “recycle” and “landfill”. For the pur-
2002).
pose of this study, the “reuse” and “recycle” were defined as
follows:
3. Research methodology
(a) Reuse – using the same materials at the same construction site The data obtained in this study was only from construction
more than once for the same function, e.g. formwork at the waste collected over a 3-year period. The objectives of this study
construction site (Ling and Leo, 2000) or for a new life reuse were to:
for a new function, e.g. stony fractions for road base material
(Duran et al., 2006). (a) characterise and quantify the mineral and non-mineral com-
(b) Recycle – using the construction waste (e.g. used wooden form- ponents of the construction waste generated from the
work, tiles, bricks, hardened concrete, soil and sand, timber, construction of high rise buildings for the 3 categories (I–III);
etc.) at another construction site for the same purpose use or (b) quantify the “reuse” and “recycling” rates for the 3 categories
for a new function. (I–III);
98 S.K. Lachimpadi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 96–103
Table 2
Construction waste generation rates (WGR) for the 3 construction methods used at the 8 study sites in the Klang Valley, Malaysia.
Category Project sites Floor space (m2 ) Total construction Waste generation rate Waste generation rate
waste (tons) (tons/m2 floor space) (tons/100 m2 floor space)
Average Average
Fig. 1. Mineral and non-mineral components for Category I (Conventional Construction) shown as average percentage (%) of the total construction waste.
which contributed to its poor management at the Conventional non-mineral components accounted for 12% of the total construc-
Construction sites. The generation of soil as waste (soil and sand) tion waste. The largest fraction in the mineral component was soil
greatly depended on the design of the buildings and its land- and sand at 50%. The high soil and sand waste in the Mixed System
scaping requirements. The project requirements dictated that the was largely due to the extensive cut activities carried out in Phases
conventional constructed buildings were to “blend” into the natu- I (earthwork) and IV (external work), generating surplus soil which
ral contours of the surrounding environment. This required higher was designated as soil and sand waste. The second largest frac-
cut rates compared to the fills, resulting in surplus soil which were tion was concrete and aggregate waste at 30%. The 30% concrete
classified as soil and sand waste. The soil and sand waste in this and aggregate waste was reduced by half when compared to the
category averaged 15%. The other fractions of the mineral compo- Conventional Construction in Category I (60%). This reduction was
nent were bricks and blocks (3%), tiles (1%) and scrap metal (2%), achieved by the use of IBS (e.g. use of tunnel forms and pre-cast
the most sought after construction waste for recycling. panels) to replace the more traditional brick laying for wall con-
Timber and plywood waste was the largest fraction in the non- struction and other building structures. The employment of semi-
mineral component averaging 17% (Fig. 1). Timber and plywood and skilled workers in the Category II (Mixed System) minimised
waste was expected in large quantities as this method of construc- wastage of concrete and aggregates through better handling and
tion relied heavily in the use of timber and plywood for specific application during construction. Bricks and blocks averaged at 4%
construction purposes, e.g. in providing support structures during and tiles and scrap metal were at 2% each, respectively.
concreting work (false forms and formwork), temporary support in The largest fraction in the non-mineral component was timber
barricades and other supporting structures. The lifespan of timber and plywood at 9%. The high percentage was due to the use of tim-
and plywood for reuse is dependent on the quality of the product ber and plywood in the construction of specialised architectural
used at the construction sites. The Convention construction (Cate- features in situ using Conventional Construction at the Mixed Sys-
gory I) sites were found to use lower quality plywood which had a tem sites (Category II). The use of precast components was found to
shorter lifespan (reused 2–3 times) compared to the construction be uneconomical for these construction activities as the quantities
sites in Categories II and III (reused 5–6 times). Plastic Materials and used were too small to be economically produced at the precast
Packaging Products each contributed 1% of the total construction plants. Packaging products averaged 2% whereas plastic materials
waste (Fig. 1). Poon et al. (2001) had shown that construction waste were 1% (Fig. 2).
containing formwork, plaster and screeding for Conventional Con-
struction was much higher than that of prefabricated construction
in Hong Kong. 4.2.3. The Industrialised Building System (Category III) waste: the
composition of mineral and non-mineral components
4.2.2. Mixed System (Category II) waste: the composition of Category III (IBS) sites generated the least amount of construc-
mineral and non-mineral components tion waste, with a WGR of 0.016 tons of construction waste for every
Fig. 2 shows the construction waste profile in the Mixed System m2 of normalised floor space (Table 2) when compared to Cate-
(Category II). The mineral components averaged 88% whereas the gories I (Conventional Construction) and II (Mixed System). 93% of
100 S.K. Lachimpadi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 96–103
Fig. 2. Mineral and non-mineral components for Category II (Mixed System) shown as average percentage (%) of the total construction waste generated.
the total construction waste consisted of the mineral component the least in Category I (Conventional Construction) at 5%. The high
whereas only 7% was non-mineral waste (Fig. 3). percentages of soil and sand waste in Categories II (Mixed System)
The largest fraction of the mineral component was sand and soil and III (IBS) were largely due to the extensive cut activities during
(75%). Concrete and aggregate averaged at 14%. Bricks and blocks earthwork (Phase I) and landscaping (Phase IV), generating large
were at 2% while Tiles and scrap metal averaged 1% each. Of the quantities of surplus soil which were later classified as soil and
3 non-mineral fractions (Fig. 3), packaging products recorded the sand waste.
highest average at 4%, timber and plywood at 2% and plastic mate- Concrete and aggregate was the second largest fraction in the
rials at 1%. mineral component in all 3 categories. 60% of the total construc-
tion waste in Category I (Conventional Construction) consisted of
4.3. A comparison of mineral and non-mineral components in concrete and aggregate waste whereas Categories II (Mixed Sys-
Categories I–III tem) and III (IBS) recorded 30% and 14% each, respectively. This
study has shown that a high percentage of concrete and aggregate
The construction waste profiles were unique for each of the 3 waste in Category I (Conventional Construction) was generated
categories. At present, the construction waste data for the Mixed from the poor management of concrete and aggregates at the con-
System (Category II) and the IBS (Category III) for high rise build- struction sites by unskilled construction workers. This is a common
ings in Malaysia is limited and the data from this study would occurrence in many of the Conventional Construction projects in
complement the existing database. Malaysia. The majority of these construction workers consist of for-
eign nationals commanding low wages. The low wages is seen as
4.3.1. The mineral component a cost saving measure to increase profits for many construction
Fig. 4 shows the mineral component waste distribution in all companies in Malaysia. The trade offs with savings from the lower
3 categories. Soil and sand waste was the largest fraction in all 3 wages and unskilled work force are lower productivity and poor
categories (I–III). The highest percentage recorded was in Category workmanship (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007). This often leads to
III (IBS) at 75%, followed by Category II (Mixed System) at 50% and greater wastage of construction materials which eventually ends
Fig. 3. Mineral and non-mineral components for the IBS method (Category III) shown as average percentage (%) of the total construction waste generated.
S.K. Lachimpadi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 96–103 101
Fig. 4. Distribution of the mineral components in the construction waste relative to the total construction waste for each category (in weight percentage).
up as construction waste. Site observations from this study has also Construction), followed by Category II (Mixed System) at 9% and
shown that the reuse and recycling activities were a low priority in the least in Category III (IBS) at 2%.
the Category I (Conventional Construction) sites. The high percentage of timber and plywood waste in Cate-
Scrap metal consisting of reinforced steel, wire meshes, mild gory I (Conventional Construction) was expected as this method
steel sheets and metal based products were found in smaller quan- of construction relies heavily on the use of timber and plywood
tities at all construction sites (Categories I–III). Fig. 4 shows the in its in situ construction, e.g. as temporary support structures
quantities of scrap metal generated: 2% each in Categories I (Con- or formwork during the installation or construction of permanent
ventional Construction) and II (Mixed System), and 1% in Category structures such as walls, panels, beams and floor slabs. It was also
III (IBS). The high demand for scrap metal in the metal recycling observed that lower quality timber and plywood were extensively
industry and its high market value made all metal products and used at the use of lower quality plywood with short reuse lifespan
scrap metal a tightly controlled commodity at all the construction greatly increased the demand for new plywood at the Category
sites. Our study has also shown that at the precast manufactur- I (Conventional Construction) sites. These were eventually dis-
ing plants for the Category III (IBS) sites, the scrap metal wastage posed of at landfills as timber and plywood waste. The reuse and
was measured at 0.03% of the total weight of the reinforced steel recycling rates for timber and plywood at the construction sites
bars obtained for the manufacture of precast panels (unpublished greatly depends on the quality of the construction material pur-
data). The high efficiency in material usage with minimal wastage chased for use; better quality reduces the need to procure more
was achieved by using pre-cut reinforced steel bars for use at the as its reused more before disposal whereas poorer quality would
precast yards. require an increase in procurement due to its limited reuse capacity
Category II (Mixed System) generated the highest bricks and and its eventual quick disposal at the landfills.
blocks waste at 4% whereas Conventional Construction (Category Packaging products waste was the highest in Category III (IBS)
I) and IBS (Category III) generated 3% and 2%, respectively (Fig. 4). at 4% whereas Categories II (Mixed System) and I (Conventional
Waste tile averaged 2% in Category II (Mixed System) and 1% each Construction) averaged 2% and 1%, respectively (Fig. 5). Category
in Categories I (Conventional Construction) and III (IBS). The low III (IBS) generated the highest percentage in Packaging Products
percentage of tile waste in all 3 categories were due to the use of waste because many of the precast components manufactured in
highly skilled and well paid workforce whom displayed good work factories or precast plants are sent to the construction sites packed
attitudes and workmanship. The bulk of the tile waste was from in or wrapped in packaging materials to prevent damage during
breakages during transport and storage, and a small percentage transport and storage at site. Plastic materials accounted for 2% or
was from off-cuts during application. less of the total construction wastes at all the construction sites in
the 3 categories (I–III) (Fig. 5).
4.3.2. The non-mineral component 4.4. Reuse, recycle and disposal of construction waste
In this section, a comparison of the non-mineral component
is made between the 3 categories as shown in Fig. 5. The high- The preference for reuse, recycle or disposal of construction
est percentage recorded was 17% in Category I (Conventional waste was unique in all 3 categories. Table 3 shows the total
Fig. 5. Distribution of the non-mineral components of the construction waste relative to the total construction waste for each category (in weight percentage).
102 S.K. Lachimpadi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 96–103
Table 3
The total construction waste generated and its segregation based on usage and disposal for Categories I–III.
I: Conventional Site 1 5357.5 100 1521.5 28.4 283.9 5.3 3552.0 66.3
Construction Site 2 1171.7 100 263.6 22.5 35.1 3.0 872.9 74.5
Table 4
The segregation of construction waste and construction waste usage efficiency (CWUE) for Categories I–III.
construction waste generated and its segregation based on usage higher when both were compared against Category I (Conventional
and disposal as: Construction).
It was also noted that in all 3 categories (I–III), concrete and
aggregate and soil and sand waste were the two most generated
• Reused at site: Category 1 (22.5–28.4%); Category II (28.0–38.0%);
construction waste (Figs. 1–3). However, the reuse and recycling
and Category III (82.5–92.0%).
rates for these two types of waste were much higher in Cate-
• Recycled: Category I (3.0–5.3%); Category II (22.0–41.0%); and
gories II and III than in Category I (Conventional Construction)
Category III (3.5–10.0%).
as these waste were often reused for the resurfacing and main-
• Disposal at landfills: Category I (66.3–74.5%); Category II
tenance of internal logistic roads (concrete and aggregates) and
(29.0–40.0%); and Category III (4.5–7.5%).
as fill material for landscaping work (sand and soil) whereas
disposal at landfills was the preferred method for the Conven-
The preference for “reuse” was highest in Category III (IBS) tional Construction sites (Category I). The disposal of construction
whereas Category II (Mixed System) preferred “recycling” and Cat- waste at landfills show a decreasing trend, from Categories I–III.
egory III (Conventional Construction) was “disposal at landfills.” In Category I (Conventional Construction), 70.4% of the total
Table 4 shows the segregation of construction waste based on construction waste was disposed at landfills, followed by the
its uses and the construction waste usage efficiency (CWUE) for Mixed System (Category II) at 34.7% and the least in Category III
the 3 categories. The highest reuse was in Category III (IBS) averag- (IBS) at 5.9% (Table 4). The decreasing trend in construction waste
ing at 87.9%, followed by the Mixed System (Category II) at 32.0% disposal at landfills indicates an increase in the reuse and recycling
and the least in Category I (Conventional Construction) at 25.4%. of construction waste at these construction sites.
The highest recycling activity occurred in Category II (Mixed Sys-
tem) at 33.3% whereas Categories I and III averaged at 4.2% and 5. Conclusion
6.2%, respectively. Meanwhile, disposal at landfills was the high-
est in Category I (Conventional Construction) at 70.4%, followed The management of construction waste is still in its infancy in
by Category II (Mixed System) at 34.7% and 5.9% in Category III Malaysia and the data presented in this paper hopes to complement
(IBS). the available data on construction waste between Conventional
An increasing CWUE value indicates a greater affinity towards Construction (Category I) and the data poor IBS (Category III). By
reuse and recycling whereas decreasing values show a preference the introduction of the Mixed System (Category II), the intermedi-
for disposal at landfills. Category III (IBS) at 94.1% achieved the high- ate construction method, the gap between Category I (Conventional
est CWUE, followed by Category II (Mixed System) at 65.3% and the Construction) and (Category III) could be reduced further. The Con-
least in Category I (Conventional Construction) at 29.6%. The CWUE struction Industry Development Board (CIDB) of Malaysia has been
rates were found to be 3.2 (Category III) and 2.2 (Category II) times promoting the use of IBS through the Construction Industry Master
S.K. Lachimpadi et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 96–103 103