Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative analysis reveals engineered cementitious composite reduces carbon footprint in construction, suggesting significant environmental benefits.
The construction sector's substantial greenhouse gas emissions necessitate urgent adoption of low-carbon materials and design strategies. This research presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of carbon footprints between Normal Concrete (NC) and Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC) across both material and structural system levels in low-rise and high-rise buildings. Using Life Cycle Assessment methodology aligned with ISO 14040/44 standards, the study evaluates two case buildings: a 3-storey residential structure and a 30-storey mixed-use tower. Results demonstrate that ECC achieves approximately 47% carbon reduction per cubic meter through high-volume fly ash incorporation. More significantly, system-level optimization enabled by ECC's superior mechanical properties yields up to 51% total structural carbon reduction in high-rise applications. The research integrates construction management implications, examining cost viability, scheduling impacts, and implementation barriers. Findings indicate that despite 15-20% higher initial material costs, lifecycle cost analysis reveals economic neutrality or slight advantage for ECC due to extended service life and reduced maintenance requirements. This work provides a practical framework for sustainable construction decision-making, particularly relevant for eco-sensitive and seismically active regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: