オンサイト・オフサイトのコンクリート施設建設プロジェクトにおける気候・コスト性能の比較：ドイツのケーススタディ
Comparing Climate and Cost Performance of On- and Off-Site Concrete Facility Construction Projects: A German Case Study (原題)
Timm Draeger, C. Peper, Panagiotis Spyridis
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
ドイツ北部の実産業建築を対象に、現場打ち・完全プレキャスト・セミプレキャストのコンクリート躯体システムを、同一機能単位で直接コストと建設段階の embodied carbon（EN 15978 A1–A5）で比較した。直接コストは最大62.7%差が生じる一方、炭素は最大5.1%差にとどまり、感度分析ではその差の符号すら変わり頑健でない。材料生産が炭素の87–94%を占め、建設工法の選択は主に経済的判断であり、炭素削減は材料対策で対応すべきと結論づける。
English
Using a real industrial building in northern Germany, this study compares cast-in-situ, fully precast, and semi-precast concrete systems on identical functional units for direct cost and construction-phase embodied carbon (EN 15978 A1–A5). Direct costs vary by up to 62.7%, while embodied carbon differs by at most 5.1% and is not robust under sensitivity analysis. Material production accounts for 87–94% of carbon, so system choice is mainly economic and carbon must be tackled through materials.
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
日本では建設業のScope 3（カテゴリ1・2）や embodied carbon 開示、SSBJ対応が進む中、工法選択と炭素削減の切り分けは実務的に有用。ただし欧州規格EN 15978ベースであり、国内のLCA・炭素会計制度との接続には追加検討が必要。
In the global GX context
As global disclosure frameworks (ISSB, CSRD, TCFD) push embodied carbon into scope, this paper offers a rare same-project comparison showing that construction-method choice is cost-driven while carbon hinges on materials. It supports the case for material-focused decarbonization levers and transparent uncertainty reporting in building LCAs.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:同一機能単位でのコスト・炭素比較手法と感度分析の枠組みは、建設LCA研究の頑健性評価に応用できる。
🏢実務担当者:工法選定はコスト主導であり、炭素削減はセメント量など材料調達で狙うべきという実務的示唆。
🏛政策担当者:建設段階炭素の規制設計では、工法より材料（セメント）への介入が効果的である可能性を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Selecting a reinforced concrete construction system is usually justified either economically or environmentally, and the two perspectives are rarely derived from the same project data. It therefore remains unclear whether the cost-optimal and the carbon-optimal choice coincide, and whether the differences between the systems are large enough to be distinguished from the uncertainty of the underlying assumptions. This study addresses that question for a real industrial building in northern Germany. Cast in situ, fully precast, and semi-precast systems were compared for the walls, slabs, and beams of a technical building, using contractor cost calculations and supplier quotations for the direct construction costs, and project-specific material quantities with generic emission factors for the construction-phase embodied carbon (modules A1–A5 of the European Norm EN 15978), both based on identical functional units. The direct costs differ substantially: the semi-precast double wall was 27.2% and the filigree slab 50.3% cheaper than their cast in situ equivalents, the fully precast wall and slab were 46.0% and 62.7% more expensive, and precast beams were 15.4% cheaper. The embodied carbon results differ by at most 5.1% between any two alternatives, and a one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis over ten parameters shows that this difference is not robust, since its sign changes within plausible parameter ranges; the cement content of the plant concrete is the dominant uncertainty. Material production accounts for 87% to 94% of the total in every case. The choice of construction system is therefore primarily an economic decision, whereas embodied carbon has to be addressed through material-related measures rather than through the construction method.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/su182010359first seen 2026-10-16 05:46:14 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:38:50
🔔 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。