Sustainable Development Issues

and Built Environment

HBP, USM – 18 July 2007
Mohd. Faris Khamidi Ph.D.

Department of Construction & Real Estate

Management,
Faculty of Technology Management,
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (U T H M)
 UNIVERSITI
TUN HUSSEIN ONN
MALAYSIA
(UTHM)
Where we are?

UTHM Main Campus

 …cont.

Where we are?

UTHM City Campus

UTHM Main Campus

 …cont.

Where we are?

UTHM City Campus

Here,
We are!
UTHM Main Campus
 PREAMBLE

“When there is
LOVE,
there is LIFE…”
Mahatma Gandhi
 PREAMBLE

Relationship between National GDP and Construction Ind

CONCEPT (1)
CONCEPT (2)
 DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS (1)

“Sustainable design recognizes

the interdependence of the
built and natural
environments; it seeks to
harness natural energy flows
and biological processes,
eliminate reliance on fossil
fuels and toxic materials,
and improve resources and
efficiency. In the short run,
the impact of these changes
will reduce the
environmental impact of our
designs. In the long run, the
goal is to create buildings
that are not only not harmful
but actually part of natural
systems and restorative of
those systems. Sustainable
 DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS (2)
 MODEL

Is this the ONLY possibility?

 Challenges ahead in
The Built Environment
URBANIZATION
 More people means;
More houses, shops, work-places,
roads etc.
More demand of products and services
Greater demand for land
More People = More Cities
=> More Impact
 New Ideas, New Paradigms,
New Approaches to Building
and Construction are
URGENTLY needed.
 Energy Consumption of
Building & Construction

Other industries
Production of
(62.7%)
materials
for construction
(10.9%)

Transportation
Operation of related to
Building construction
(10.2%) (5.0%)

Construction work
Operation of (1.3%)
Business facilities
(9.9%)
Building Life Cycle
The REAL Challenge

GLOBAL WARMING
Ecological Outlook

Figure 4.1 Emission of CO2 – From fossil fuels

Ecological Outlook

Figure 4.2 Emission of CO2 – From cement production

Ecological Outlook

Figure 4.3 Total final energy consumption

innovation
s
 ¤Part I

DBHS AS AN
‘ADAPTABLE BUILDING’
MODEL
Background
Definition 1:
“Adaptable Building”
 In principle is a building that can last
while its part gradually change
thus place lighter load on natural and
human resources and provide value to
future generations.
Kendall and Ando (2004)
Background

Definition 2:
“Adaptable Building”
 Also means that a particular building
system is capable of adapting to a
particular situation or use; such as
regional and climatic variances that
include social, cultural and technical
differences.

Kibert, C.J., et. al (2002)

Background
Definition:
“Adaptable Building” model
 A building system that is worthy of
emulation.
 DBHS as an example of “adaptable
building” model is a building system
that is worth to be emulated for
sustainable housing scheme among
developing countries.
Building related waste
generation in Japan
C&DW amounts to 20% of all the industrial
waste and this amounts to 70% of illegal
dumping.

Increment of C&DW in JAPAN

1995 12 million tonnes
2010 42 million tonnes
2025 56 million tonnes

In 2000, Japan achieved 26% of recycling rate

for C&DW
Solid waste generation
Unlike Japan, there is no compilation of C&DW amounts in Malaysia,
Indonesia, China and India; however statistics show increase projection
Of MSW data:

Table 2: 1995 and 2025 Urban Per Capita MSW generation in Selected countries in Asian region

MSW Generation
1995 2025
Generation Total Generation Total
Rate Waste Rate Waste
(kg/cap/day) (tonnes/day) (kg/cap/day) (tonnes/day)

Malaysia 0.81 8,743 1.4 36,162

Indonesia 0.76 52,005 1.0 167,289

China 0.79 287,292 0.9 748,552

India 0.46 114,576 0.7 440,460

Sustainable Strategy
for C&DW minimization
BUILDING PROCESS

CONSTRUCTIO

DEMOLITION
DESIGN
SITING

REFURBISHMENT
S

USE
T
A

N
G
E

GOAL

A BM
C
T
DFD REUSE
I
O WASTE
N + PRE- +
VENTION
BM
DFR RECYCLE
control
source

R
E
S CW DW C&DW
U REDUCE REDUCE REDUCE
L
T

Fig. 6: A sustainable strategy that emphasises C&DW minimization

 Sustainable Strategy
for C&DW minimization
Waste Most
Avoidance Desirable
REDUCE

Waste
REUSE
Minimization
RECYCLING
Waste
Treatment RECOVER WASTE
TRANSFORMATION
(physical, biological or chemical
processes,
e.g. composting incineration)
Waste Least
LANDFILLING
Disposal Desirable

Fig. 7: Hierarchy of Integrated Solid Waste Management plan

 Dry-Masonry Brick House
System (DBHS)
To enable reduce,
reuse and recycle of building
materials becomes easier, Effective Use
Demolition
as a condition of Resources

to provide more flexibility

in structural engineering,
a system in which materials
of different kinds (heterogeneous)
Constructi Reduce
on scrap shall not be bonded Scrap
is proposed.

SRB-DUP Structure
 Dry-Masonry Brick House
System (DBHS)
 Dry-Masonry means a dry method of constructing
brick house where mortar is not required but instead
“Steel Reinforced Brick construction based on
Distribution of Unbonded Prestress (SRB-DUP)
theory is used.

Fig. 8: Double-storey DBHS Experimental House and

3D-view of clay brick used in the project.

2nd Experimental House

乾式煉瓦造第３期実験棟
（建設地：福岡市東区香椎浜３丁目地内）

建築面積： 83.66 ｍ 2
延床面積： 156.40 ｍ 2
3rd Experimental House 最高高さ： 9.49 ｍ
Unbonded Structural
System
Structural composition of SRB-DUP Method consists of 6 main
components, where vertical & horizontal reinforcements elements
provide high strength quality in the seismic resistant DBHS wall
Brick Steel plate Nut

Spring washer

Round washer

Bolt

Fig. 9: Structural Composition of DBHS Wall with SRB-DUP Method

 Prestressed Unit
for SRB-DUP Brick
・ Larger Hole = Nut Hole
・ Smaller Hole = Bolt Hole
・ Including Joint Part in Vertical and
Header Side
・ Uniform Unit Size b ｙ Grinding
ding Technology for Sustainability

Outline of SRB-DUP
Construction Method
 Outline of SRB-DUP
Construction Method
Using vertical reinforcing element （ Bolts and Nuts) and
horizontal reinforcing plates, each unit is bolted and fixed (prestressed
DUP structure is constructed with breaking joint.
Sustainable Housing
System
 DBHS is a dismantle-able building system
(structure) that incorporates DFD and DFR in its
design-stage.
 Achieve high Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
low Life Cycle Cost (LCC) performance.
 During construction of DBHS experimental house
in Kumamoto Pref., 98.34% of bricks used in
the construction can be REUSED and the
balance 1.66% can be RECYCLED.
 Other parts like steel bolts, nuts and plates can
100% be RECYCLED caused they can be easily
recovered and separated.
Takasu and Khamidi (2001)
Summary of
Conclusions ¤Part I

 Growth in construction activities increases the

rate of C&DW generation, thus its reduction
becomes important.
 A dismantle-able building system (structure)
that incorporates DFD and DFR can be used as a
sustainable housing scheme that emphasizes
C&DW minimization.
 Promotes 3R – reduce-reuse-recycle; enhances
its application as an ‘adaptable building’ model.
 Developing countries throughout Asian region
highly regards brick as the main building
material, therefore adapting DHBS is relevant
and significant.
 ¤Part II

MALAYSIA GREEN
BUILDING INITIATIVE:
The Innovative Way
Forward
Building Assessment
Tools ¤Comparative Analysis

Italy
Tools Name: Potocollo ITACA (Federal Assesment for South Korea
Italian Region) Tools Name: Green Building Certification
Main Attributes:indoor environmental quality, resource System(GBCS) of Korea
consumption, loadings, outdoor environment Main Attributes: Use of land, commuting transport,
Canada quality,management quality, quality of service, transport energy, materials & resource, water resource,
Tools Name: GBTool Developer:ITACA (Federal Assesment for Italian atmosphere pollution, management, ecological
Main Attributes: site selection, energy resource & Region) powerment, indoor environmental quality
consumption, environmental loadings, indoor Developed since: 2003 Developer: Korean Institute of Energy Research(KIER)-
environmental quality, functionality, long-term Rating givem: negative(-2), minimum(0), good for office building
performance, social economic aspect practice(+3), best practice(+5) Developed since: 2000
Developer: Natural Resources Canada, handed to Accrediation: 25 projects
International Initiative for a Sustainable Built
Environment (iiSBE) in 2002,
Developed since: 1998
Rating given: negative(-2), minimum(0), good Japan
practice(+3), best practice(+5) Tools Name:
Comprehensive
Assessment System for
Building Environmental
United States of America & Efficiency (CASBEE)
Tools name: Leadership in Energy & Main Attributes: indoor
Environmental Design (LEED) environment, quality of
Main Attributes: Location, sustainable, water service, environmental
efficiency, indoor environment quality, France loadings, outdoor
materials and resource, energy and Tools name: High Environment environment on site,
atmosphere, homeowner awareness, Quality (HQE) energy, resource &
innovation & design process. Main Attributes: Construction, materials, off-site
Developer: United States Green Building products & facilities, build with enviroment
Council (USGBC) environment, water Developer: Japan
Rating given: Platinum, gold, silver, bronze United Kingdom management, air quality Sustain Building
Tools name: Building Research Developed since: 1996 Council(JSBC)
Establishment’s Environmental Developed since: 2001
Assessment Method(BREEAM) Rating
Spain Main Attributes: Energy, given:BEE>3=“s”(sustai
Tools Name: Verde transport, pollution, water, nable),
Main Attributes: Resource & environmental materials, land use & ecology, 2.5<BEE<2.9=A,,
Australia & New Zealand
impact, environmental quality, social & health & well-being 2.0<BEE<2.4=B+,
Tools Name: Greenstars
economic impact Developer: Building Research 1.5<BEE<1.9=B-,
Main Attributes: Management, indoor environment
Developer: Arquitectos, Urbanistas e Establishment (BRE) 0.9<BEE<1.4=C
quaity, energy, water, materials, land use & ecology,
Ingenieros Asociados, S.L..U Developed since: 1990 emission
Rating given: 0 to +5 Rating given: pass(25-39), Developer: Green Building Council Australia (GBCA)
good(40-54),very good (55-69), Developed since: 2004
excellent(70-100) Rating given: 4 stars(best practice), 5 stars(Australian
excellence)
Building Assessment
Tools ¤Comparative Analysis

Table 4.1 Key Attributes in Ecological Dimension

Building Assessment
Tools ¤Comparative Analysis

Table 4.2 Percentage covered by ‘Possible Scores accumulated from Key

Attributes in Ecological Dimension’ of ‘All Possible Scores accumulated
from All Attributes of All Dimensions’

Total 96 attributes
Total 85 attributes
Total 122 attributes
Total 51 attributes

Derived from all

possible scores
accumulated
Building Assessment
Tools
¤Comparative Analysis

Table 4.3 Ecology attributes based on ‘Ecology of The Sky’

Eco-mimetic

Figure 4.4 Images of completed Office Buildings based on ‘Ecology of The Sky’
Malaysian Construction
Industry Stakeholders
¤Result of Semi-structured Interview

BUILDING PROCESS

DESIGN USE DEMOLITION

SITING CONSTRUCTION
refurbishment

VITAL STAKEHOLDERS
Developer, Architect,
Planner, QS, Manager etc.

Figure 5.1 Stakeholders during Design Phase of building process

Malaysian
Construction Industry
Stakeholders ¤Result of Semi-structured Interview

i) Awareness of sustainable building and

construction.
- 80% said that law & legislation is the
key
ii) Awareness of Building Assessment
Tools.
- 100% believed it’s critical to improve
building performance
Malaysian
Construction Industry
Stakeholders ¤Result of Semi-structured Interview

iii) Importance of ecological attributes in Building

Assessment Tools.
□ design with local characteristics 100%
□ indoor environment quality 60%
□ site selection & building materials 40%
□ impact on site & heat island 20%
- % ecological attributes should be covered in BAT =
1/3
iv) Role that can be played to promote green building.
- 100% agreed that involvement during the pre-
construction phase is vital
Summary of
Conclusions ¤Part II

i) Ecological attributes should at least

covered 1/3 of the total attributes in
Building Assessment Tool.
ii) Building Assessment Tools is a critical
check list/quality rating to improve
building performance among Purposed
Built Offices in Malaysia.
on – going
research
 Introducing

BEESTARI
Building
Environmental
Efficiency as
Sustainable Tool for
Assessment and
Rating
Initiative
References

Richards, I. (2001). “T.R.Hamzah & Yeang: Ecology of the Sky.” Australia: The Images Publishing Group
Japanese Sustain Building Council. (2006). “Structure of CASBEE-NC Tool: Assessment of CASBEE.”
Retrieved online from http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/method2E.htm.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2001). “LEED Rating System Version 2.0.” Retrieved online from
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEEDdocs/LEED_RS_v2-1.pdf.
Cole, R. J. & Howard, N. (2005). “Building Environmental Assessment Tools: Current and Future Roles.”
Retrieved online from http://www.sb05.com/academic/4&5_IssuePaper.pdf.
Fowler, K. M. & Raunch, E. M. (2006). “Sustainable Building Rating System Summary.” Retrieved online from
http://www.usgbc.org/showfile.aspx?DocumentID=1915.
Australia Green Building Council. (2007). “Green Star – Office Existing Building EXTENDED PILOT Rating
Tool.” Retrieved online from http://nolog.gbcaus.org/gbc.asp?sectionid=89&docid=953.
International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment. (2002). “GBTOOL V1.81.” Retrieved online from
http://greenbuilding.ca/iisbe/sbc2k8/sbc2k8-start.htm.
Sinou, M. & Kyvelou, S. (2006). “Present and Future of Building Performance Assessment Tools.”
Management of Environment Quality: An International Journal. 17 (5). pp 570 – 586.
Kawazu, Y., Shimada, N., Yokoo, N. & Oka, T. (2005). “Comparison of the Assessment Results of BREEM,
LEED, GBTOOL and CASBEE.” Proceedings of The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference – SB05.
Tokyo: SB05 Tokyo National Conference Board.
 Green Built
Environment
is one way to make a
difference.
 THANK YOU
Xie Xie
TERIMA KASIH
and
Q&A