持続可能な建設に向けたオートクレーブ養生軽量気泡コンクリート（AAC）ブロックと従来型コンクリートブロックの比較研究
Comparative Study of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) Blocks and Conventional Concrete Blocks for Sustainable Construction (原題)
Abhishek Kumar, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Ishant Kumar, Prabhakar Kumar
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
AACブロックと従来型コンクリートブロックを物理・機械・熱・音響・構造・経済・環境の各指標で比較した研究。AACは圧縮強度で劣るものの、壁自重を約70%、目地モルタルを75%、熱貫通率を76%削減する。10階建て建物モデルでは鉄骨8.5%・コンクリート量6.8%削減を通じ構造コストを10.2%低減し、年間冷房エネルギー18.3%削減、壁面積当たりの embodied carbon は54%低い。
English
A multi-criteria comparison of AAC blocks against solid and hollow concrete blocks across mechanical, thermal, structural, economic and environmental indicators. AAC cuts wall self-weight by ~70%, mortar use by 75% and thermal transmittance by 76%, yielding 18.3% annual cooling energy savings and 54% lower embodied carbon per wall area. In a ten-storey model, AAC infill reduced structural steel by 8.5% and total structural cost by 10.2%.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では省エネ法・建築物省エネ法やZEB、住宅・建築物のLCA／embodied carbon開示（SSBJ・Scope 3カテゴリ1）への関心が高まる。建材選択の定量根拠として、建設業のScope 3算定や設計段階の脱炭素意思決定に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As CSRD, ISSB and SEC climate rules push building-sector embodied-carbon disclosure, this paper offers a replicable multi-criteria template linking material choice to operational energy, structural cost and embodied carbon. It supports Scope 3 Category 1 accounting and green-building certification decisions in emerging and developed markets alike.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:建材の熱・構造・炭素指標を統合評価するマルチクライテリア手法の実証例として参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:設計・調達段階でAAC採用の省エネ・コスト・炭素削減効果を定量的に説明する材料になる。
🏛政策担当者:建築基準や省エネ規制、建材のembodied carbon開示制度の設計に資する比較データを提供する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Rapid urbanisation demands walling materials that are simultaneously energy-efficient, low-carbon and affordable. This paper presents a multi-criteria comparison of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) blocks with conventional solid and hollow concrete blocks across physical, mechanical, thermal, acoustic, structural, economic and environmental indicators, benchmarked against IS 2185 (Parts 1 and 3), IS 6041 and IS 6441. Compressive strength, thermal conductivity and capillary sorptivity were determined on fifteen AAC and fifteen concrete block specimens at the DCE Darbhanga laboratory, while the remaining parameters were compiled from Indian Standard limits, manufacturer data and published literature. Although concrete blocks develop higher compressive strength (5.0–15.0 N/mm² against 3.0–4.5 N/mm² for AAC), AAC masonry reduces wall self-weight by about 70 per cent, jointing mortar consumption by 75 per cent and thermal transmittance by 76 per cent (0.78 against 3.25 W/m²K). For a ten-storey commercial building modelled in Seismic Zone III, AAC infill lowered structural steel by 8.5 per cent and concrete volume by 6.8 per cent, giving a 10.2 per cent reduction in total structural cost, while EnergyPlus simulation indicated an 18.3 per cent annual cooling energy saving. Embodied carbon is 54 per cent lower per square metre of wall. An engineering decision matrix is proposed to guide material selection.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://ijteonline.in//assets/uploads/publication_file_upload/1793431155_5016d4.pdffirst seen 2026-11-13 06:01:40
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。