Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
The construction industry plays a relevant role in the economy but also has some major negative environmental impacts. Such impacts need to be reduced, hence the importance of guiding the industry towards the principles of sustainable construction, which allow for greater productivity, as well as for significant reductions in terms of costs and labour. In spite of the lingering popularity of on-site execution techniques, the construction site is progressively becoming a place for the assembly of prefabricated components, which are lighter and more flexible, have dry metallic connections, can be easily assembled and disassembled and are, therefore, reusable. This paper means to present an alternative method for the prefabrication of panels for exterior walls, also for use in the construction of small-scale buildings, using renewable, often local, non-polluting building materials, such as wood, cork, or straw. These have thermal insulation functions that are essential for the outer envelope of the building to achieve high energy efficiency and may be applied with the use of simple but effective mechanised technologies.
CITAD – Territory Architecture and Design Research Centre, Lusíada University, Lisbon, Portugal
Marlene Canudo Urbano
CITAD – Territory Architecture and Design Research Centre, Lusíada University, Lisbon, Portugal
*Address all correspondence to: reaespinto@lis.ulusiada.pt
1. Introduction
In step with the principles of sustainable construction, this paper explores an alternative method for the prefabrication of components, made from low-carbon materials, for use in the external walls of buildings. We believe this alternative method may prove useful in circumventing some of the downsides to the heavy, conventional prefabrication used in industrial construction.
Our proposal focuses on renewable building materials with low environmental impact: wood, straw, cork, and other materials, such as hemp or coconut fibres. The exploitation, manufacture, and shipping of such materials involve little fossil energy, while on the other hand, they still demonstrate high energy efficiency, good hygrothermal performance and acoustic comfort. Furthermore, they are easily reusable and recyclable, thus allowing for a circular system of production and consumption.
Prefabrication, a technological solution used in industrialised construction, implies production and manufacture prior to construction. The concept of industrialised construction was born during the Industrial Revolution. The general tendency towards industrialisation that began to take place in the early 18th century was accompanied by the introduction of an organised and mechanical workforce, thus allowing for a new, industrialised type of construction to be born and developed. “Industrialisation is the use of technologies, which substitute the craftsman’s skill with the machine [1].”
There are a number of varying definitions of “prefabrication”:
Prefabrication is an industrial construction method in which the elements manufactured in large similar groups using mass production methods are erected using site-lifting equipment [2];
Prefabrication is understood to be the manufacture of construction elements away from the site where they will be erected or mounted. In traditional construction, these elements would be erected on site [3];
According to Freyssinet, prefabrication is a construction method for the speedy assembling of identical elements previously manufactured mechanically in line;
According to Halasz, referred in [4], prefabrication is a form of industrialisation.
For our purposes, prefabrication should be considered as an industrialised form of construction in which some or all of the building components are produced in a factory, where many of the processes usually carried out on-site are undertaken. These components are later assembled on-site with the aid of mechanical lifting equipment [5].
3. On the economic viability and development of industrialised construction, particularly of prefabrication
The great transformations and technological advances that have been made in the area of building, in an industrialised sense, have, generally speaking, been obtained through scientific, theoretical, and experimental methods.
In certain cases, however, in spite of apparent technical viability, processes have proved economically impracticable. And sometimes, it is only later, due to changing market conditions, that these same processes assume practical viability. Prefabrication is one such example.
Prefabrication (one of the processes involved in industrialised construction) was born more from the consideration of economic factors than from scientific speculation or specific technological advances. As Blâchère reminds us, “at every moment, the option of technological solutions is undertaken through strict cost competition [4].”
After World War II, the lack of buildings resulting from the massive destruction of cities by bombing, combined with a demographic explosion and the rising concentration of industrial units in urban areas, made industrialised construction and prefabrication economically viable and were the main driving forces behind their development [1].
Facing the urgent need to solve housing shortages, European countries came to the conclusion that only industrialised construction processes were quick enough and cost-effective enough. Countries like France allocated 5% of their GDP. They used Marshall Plan funding, for building residential units and other infrastructures, adopting industrialised technologies based on reinforced concrete, and setting up large construction sites, each with a large number of buildings.
In 1947, 2 years after World War II, things had reached distressing proportions. In France, for instance, 420,000 houses had been completely destroyed, and 1,500,000 were seriously damaged, which meant that one-fifth of 1939s built heritage needed rebuilding. In England, in London alone, 5.4 million square metres of commercial and industrial floor area were destroyed or damaged. In England and Wales, about 475,000 houses were destroyed by “Luftwaffe” bombing [6].
After the war, all throughout Europe, there was a great population explosion (particularly between 1960 and 1975). French population increased by more than 7 million people, growing almost twice as much as it would grow between 1975 and 1990 (4 million people). Fast industrial development also drew migrants towards the urban centres, thus deepening the housing crisis.
The construction industry at the time was fragmented and disorganised, and its techniques were traditional. France had a production capacity of about 80,000 housing units per year (similar to what they had in 1928, more than a decade before the war), which did not come close to fulfilling housing needs, originally estimated at about 470,000 houses per year [1].
Throughout Europe, there was a shortage of workers (especially qualified ones), and raw materials and energy were also in short supply. Countries such as France, England, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, among others, agreed to solve the housing problem, which meant building enough houses in a fast and cost-effective way. Industrialisation was the only way to solve the crisis.
The use of total heavy prefabrication in Portugal began in the mid-1960s to increase the country’s construction capacity, which was deficient in about 500,000 dwellings per year, considering the country’s housing needs. The first experience with this method of prefabrication took place in 1964 and was made by ICESA, a construction company that applied the French FIORIO process of heavy prefabrication. The system was first applied in building the Santo António dos Cavaleiros (SAC) residential complex in Lisbon’s metropolitan area.
4.1 Santo António dos Cavaleiros residential complex
This residential complex is located in Lisbon’s metropolitan area, on a calm and wind-protected rural site with an area of 42 hectares, near Frielas Bridge, in the municipality of Loures. The SAC residential complex comprises approximately 3000 housing units and was built by a real estate developer [7].
4.2 ICESA and the FIORIO process
The FIORIO process is a French system of total heavy prefabrication using large panels of concrete and brick. This system is one of the oldest prefabrication systems, along with the French processes CAMUS (1948) and COIGNET (1951), the British processes REEMA (1946) and BMB (1952), and the Dutch process RBM (1946), all of them post-World War II. The two engineer brothers, George and Henri Fiorio, patented their invention in 1951.
The FIORIO prefabricated construction system is based on the use of large-dimension construction elements, one-storey-high wall panels and room-sized floor panels, which are prefabricated at the factory. These are then assembled on-site, interlinked with ring beams at floor level and with reinforced concrete uprights moulded in situ, forming a three-dimensional, reticular solid structure. The foundations and support structures of this type of prefabricated construction are generally built using traditional methods. There should also be a top ring beam to lock the vertical framework of the panels in place. This can also be achieved by installing prefabricated lintels on slab-on-grade foundations or deep foundations.
The following are examples of resistant prefabricated walls built with the FIORIO/ICESA system and used in the SAC housing complex in Greater Lisbon (Figures 1–16).
Figure 1.
Lubricating the bottom of the mould in order to facilitate demoulding. Source: Reaes Pinto/ICESA.
Figure 2.
Pouring gypsum plaster into the mould. Source: Reaes Pinto/ICESA.
5. Prefabricated, low-carbon panels for exterior walls
The use of fossil and other highly polluting energies, which have supported growth policies for many years, is generally associated with the emission of greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change. Many fundamental changes taking place in our society today are reactions to these concerns, and the move towards sustainable development and sustainable construction has become the focus of global combined efforts, exemplified, for instance, in the goals established at the Paris COP 21 International Conference regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [8].
The construction industry is harmful to the environment, and it is important that we are aware of its negative environmental impact (along with that of related, upstream and downstream industries) in order to reduce it substantially. According to Charles Kibert, a diagnosis of the environmental impacts of the construction industry reveals that there is an urgent need for change, in order to achieve the goals of sustainability. Our first priority should be to analyse the characteristics of traditional construction and compare them with the new sustainable criteria for construction materials, products and processes [9].
The construction industry plays an important role in terms of national and international economy due to the investments it usually involves, its share in countries’ GDPs and its contribution to gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). We should also mention the amount of jobs it creates and the importance it has in its interrelationships with a number of other industries. However, it is also harmful to the environment, and its negative impact must be reduced; hence, the importance of promoting the principles of sustainable construction naturally requires a change of mindset and an integrated view of all the actors involved in the construction process [10].
Over time, industrialised construction has been the focus of considerable research, which has led, namely through the use of prefabrication, to an evolution in the direction of sustainability, meaning the reduction of the industry’s negative environmental impacts. Prefabrication comprises different construction systems and uses new building materials as well as traditional ones. Compared to traditional construction, it also reduces execution times on site, the need for specialised labour, the production of waste on work fronts, and costs improving overall performance. We should also mention that prefabricated components assembled through dry connection can be reused or recycled at the end of the life cycle of buildings [11].
This paper is the result of a research project and is meant as a contribution to the realm of sustainable construction. It focuses on an alternative method for the construction of small buildings, using renewable, often local, non-polluting building materials and simple but effective mechanised technologies geared towards productivity and the reduction of execution times and construction costs.
Our method, which consists of prefabricated panels/modules, uses renewable and low-carbon building materials, both in the structure or framework, which consists of reinforced, solid wooden hoops (aros de madeira), and in the filling of this structure, made with straw bales or granulated cork. Such building materials have thermal insulation functions that are essential for the outer envelope of the building to achieve high energy efficiency. They were carefully chosen, just like the technologies for their application, because they involve little fossil energy and can be reused and recycled, which means a reduction in the production of waste and one more step in the direction of a circular economy.
5.1 The construction system
This paper and the research it is based on were born out of the necessity of developing a construction system that made sense in the Portuguese context, focused on the use of easily available, cheap, sustainable, low-carbon building materials. The construction system can generally be said to adhere to the following principles:
Light panels/modules in order to cause less strain on means of transport and mechanical lifting;
Panel dimensions are subject to their adaptability to the bales of hay easily available in the market;
Bales of hay are set on a wooden structure, forming a self-supporting module, where the panels fit tongue and groove in the same way they will be fitted to the floor;
These modules may be incorporated into the structure of buildings as filling or may be used to increase resistance, which means they may become part of the mesh inside a resistant wall in low-rise buildings;
The panel is made up of four solid wood elements, with a tongue and groove fitting system for extra structural stiffness; the wooden hoops are mechanically attached to this structure, which holds the insulating material;
Before the wall modules, which are filled with bales of hay, are completed, a wooden panel is added on the inside, which also contributes to overall stiffness; the bales of hay that fill the exterior wall are plastered with quicklime and clay, so as to keep the hay’s moisture under 23%;
Panels are joined together by a simple structure of solid wood wall studs and beams (when the panels are used as a filling, they are simply attached to the building’s structure), which ensures the stiffness of the complete set of panels that make up the exterior wall, thus rendering it able to support the vertical pressures that correspond to the building’s weight;
The space between panels may be used as a mechanical room or may simply be filled with thermal insulation.
5.2 Steps in panel construction
We built four-panel prototypes. The bales of hay were inserted into the wooden structures and attached laterally (Figures 17–19).
Figure 17.
Panel structure.
Figure 18.
Bale of hay.
Figure 19.
Panel structure filled with hay.
The type of plaster for the bales’ surfaces, which are a part of the panel’s outer face, was experimented with and decided upon at a still early stage of the research process. It was chosen according to two major criteria: it had to adhere to the bales’ surfaces, and it should not retain moistness, as that would probably cause the bales to start deteriorating.
The plaster revealed good adherence to the bales from the outset. It was applied in four layers: a first, pre-plaster or foundation layer, made of clay and quicklime; a second layer of water-repellent quicklime, which includes olive husk in its composition, so as to have a layer that is water-repellent but permeable to water vapour; a third layer, which is applied on-site with the panels in an upright position, and which includes a synthetic fibre mesh for structure; and a fourth layer of clay-and-lime-rich plaster (Figures 20–22).
Figure 20.
Four plastering stages: First layer of clay; water-repellent quicklime.
Figure 21.
Reinforced quicklime plaster.
Figure 22.
Clay-and-lime-rich plaster.
Observations made during panel construction:
The process of building the wooden structures and installing the bales is quick and simple.
Moving and transporting the panels caused no damage, which proves the viability of off-site prefabrication.
All plaster layers need time to dry, particularly during colder, wetter months.
5.3 Trials at the SerQ laboratory
SerQ (the Forestry Innovation and Skills Centre) is a civil engineering laboratory that specialises in testing wooden structures. It is a product of the cooperation between the University of Coimbra, LNEC (National Laboratory for Civil Engineering), and the Sertã City Council. Also, it functions as a business incubator and fab lab. We proceeded to try the modules for their mechanical resistance to vertical and horizontal pressure.
5.3.1 Trial preparation
We began by assembling and levelling a metal trial platform, which was attached to the concrete floor with 50 mm threaded rods (Figure 23). This serves to hold the basic wooden elements that support the panels in place, as well as to mount the measuring equipment that will accurately register any movement.
Figure 23.
Installing the support framework.
In Figure 24, we see the installation of the actuator, a computer-controlled, hydraulic component used for applying a given pressure during a given period of time. Besides applying pressure, it also measures the movement or the deformation produced in the element that is being tried.
Figure 24.
Actuator.
After assembling the platform, the support framework, and the actuator, we proceeded to instal the first solid wood element, which will be used for supporting and connecting panels (Figures 25–27).
Figure 25.
Support module.
Figure 26.
Attaching the module to the platform.
Figure 27.
Attaching the support elements for a corner wall to the platform.
In Figures 28–30, we see the first panel being raised, fitted, and attached to the support framework.
Figure 28.
Raising the panel.
Figure 29.
Raising the panel. Outer side.
Figure 30.
Fitting the panel to the support framework. Inner side.
The plaster used for covering the surface of the bales of hay did not crack during transport, nor when the panels were set upright, which we thought would be likely to happen.
At this stage, besides fitting and fastening the panel to the framework, we mounted other fixed metallic elements, meant to hold the measuring devices that will measure, in mms, the movement that the applied pressure will produce in the module’s base and top.
We attached a strong, solid wood element to the top of the panel in order to receive the pressure applied by the actuator (Figures 31–33).
Figure 31.
Assembling the horizontal displacement measuring devices.
Figure 32.
Assembling the horizontal displacement measuring devices.
Figure 33.
Assembling the horizontal displacement measuring devices.
5.3.2 Testing
The purpose of these trials was to determine the panels’ structural resistance to horizontal pressure and whether such resistance increases according to the placement and total number of interlinked panels. The trials were meant to simulate, to a degree, the conditions that the panels will be facing when integrated into a finished building.
Tests were conducted on a single panel, on three panels in line, and on a set of three panels plus a corner panel.
The first three panels had been previously plastered with quicklime and clay. Each panel had a wall area of 2.75 m2 (2.50 m height, 1.10 m width, and 0.410 m thickness) and weighed an average of 190 kgs.
5.3.3 Phase 1
In the context of testing, δ represents the measuring devices (in millimetres), and F represents the actuator, which applies the preset force after the preset time. In this context, we shall also be referring to the panels as samples.
The trial followed the EN594:2011 standard, and the applied force (F) and displacement δ1, δ2, and δ3 (Figure 34) were measured for 300 seconds until reaching 40% of the expected breaking load in order to determine the panel’s stiffness (SerQ report).
Figure 34.
EN594 standard trial diagram.
The results of the first phase of testing determined the structure’s stiffness. As shown in Figure 35, the set of three modules plus the corner one has ten times more stiffness than the independent module (Figure 36). This leads us to conclude that the framework created by the floor, ceiling, and the four walls would make for a much greater stiffness. Still, the stiffness that the independent module revealed under trial was already considered satisfactory, considering the type of housing unit in which it is meant to be used.
Figure 35.
Phase 1 results.
Figure 36.
Testing independent module, modules in line, and modules in line + corner module.
5.3.4 Considerations following phase 1
Following the first phase of testing, we paused to look at the results and consider the positive and negative aspects.
5.3.5 Positive aspects
Assembling and fastening the panels to each other and to the support framework proved a fast and efficient process;
Stiffness values for structural resistance to horizontal forces proved satisfactory, considering the type of building we had in mind.
5.3.6 Negative aspects
Plastering the outer surface of bales of hay is a time-consuming process, and drying times are long, particularly during winter;
The walls are too thick at 41 cm, and the whole method would benefit from thinner walls;
The module’s size is limited by the size of the bales of hay.
5.3.7 Improving the panels
Having analysed the results of the first set of trials, we came to the conclusion that our method could be improved:
We applied another structural wood sheet to the outer side of the panel to act as a wind brace and increase overall resistance;
This new outer sheet allowed us to use other types of insulation, such as cork, rice husks, sheep’s wool, textile waste, hemp and coconut fibres, among others.
These improvements allow for:
The reduction in thickness and easy resizing of the panel (by using different thermal and acoustic insulation, freeing us from the standard sizes of bales of hay);
Substituting cork for the bales of hay, for instance, improved the heat transfer coefficient by 15% (for the same wall thickness). We could choose to keep the same heat transfer values and reduce wall thickness by 6 cm;
The use of local, easily available building materials (with thermal insulation functions), such as cork leftovers in Alentejo or rice husks in Ribatejo;
Faster construction times, since there is no longer a need for the time-consuming plastering process.
5.3.8 Finding the heat transfer coefficient for alternative types of insulation
The thermal resistance for the 41-cm-thick panel (with 36 cm of hay for thermal insulation) was 0.14 W/m2k, which is three times more efficient than the current regulation’s minimum requirements for external walls: 0.50 W/m2k.
As an alternative, we found that the heat transfer coefficient of a panel filled with granulated cork was about 0.12 W/m2k, which is four times more efficient than the minimum standards. We thus reduced the panel’s weight to 180 kg while keeping the same length and width.
This solution creates a hollow space within the panel, which can then be filled with different types of thermal insulation, allowing for the reduction or enlargement of wall thickness.
Table 1 shows the panel’s heat transfer coefficient using different types of insulation.
Thermal insulation materials (36.5 cm thickness) U (W/m2k)
Recycled textile fibres Cellulose fibres Hemp fibres Sheep’s wool Coconut fibres Granulated cork Bales of hay Rice husks Expanded clay
0.076 0.096 0.096 0.098 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.23
Table 1.
Different types of thermal insulation.
5.3.9 Phase 2
In the second phase of trials, we focused on testing out new solutions for increasing the resistance of independent panels to horizontal forces.
We made changes to one of the panels in terms of insulation, substituting granulated cork for the bales of hay, and also applied a structural sheet of wood on the outside to reinforce the whole structure.
HP panel – filled with hay for insulation with no outer plaster, reinforced with wooden framework (Figure 37).
Figure 37.
Hay-filled (HP) panel.
CP panel – filled with cork for insulation, to be reinforced with a structural sheet of wood on the outside at a later stage (Figure 38).
Figure 38.
Cork-filled (CP) panel.
The performance of the cork-filled panel was inferior to that of the plastered hay panel, showing worse deformation. This can, however, be solved with stronger wind bracing (Figure 39).
Figure 39.
HP (hay) panel and CP (cork) panel test results.
The panels showed an already satisfactory level of stiffness, but there are still other structural reinforcement methods that can be tested.
5.3.10 Rupture testing for horizontal forces
In order to determine the panel’s most vulnerable areas, the last phase of trials consisted of rupture testing the plastered hay panel for horizontal forces. This kind of testing implies applying progressively greater pressure with no time or, force, limit.
The test ended when the module showed visible deformation. The rupture took place in the mechanical fastener and in the module’s connection to the floor at 6kN, about 600 kg (Figure 40).
Figure 40.
Rupture testing for horizontal forces.
5.3.11 Rupture testing for vertical forces
In the vertical force rupture test, we applied an evenly distributed pressure with no preset limit. The test ended when the actuator reached its maximum pressure of 96 kN (about 10 tonnes), with no visible deformation of the panel (Figures 41–43).
Figure 41.
Rupture testing for vertical forces.
Figure 42.
Rupture testing for vertical forces.
Figure 43.
Rupture testing for vertical forces.
5.3.12 Post-test considerations
Even though the trials did not fully simulate the reality for which these panels are being built, as they were not tested as part of a whole building, they nevertheless proved this system’s potential for the construction of single-storey and multi-storey buildings, as the panels were able to support the weight of floors and ceilings with no additional structures.
5.3.12.1 Interior and exterior finishes
Our prefabricated panel system allows for several different interior and exterior finishes. We focused particularly on finishing materials that can be installed on-site and attached mechanically. These may be reused and recycled, which would prove impossible in the case of plastered walls, whether interior or exterior.
In the first trial assembly for exterior, mechanically attached finishing materials, we used panels of flat, ceramic roof tiles (plasma model, from the Coelho da Silva company), which are easy to disassemble and reusable (Figure 44).
Figure 44.
Trial assembly of exterior finish using flat, ceramic roof tiles.
We also considered different types of cladding that can be attached mechanically, such as a solid wood bardage (weatherboards), slatted wood panels, cane or bamboo panels (Figure 45), cork panels, stacked stone panels, and photovoltaic panels (Figure 46).
Figure 45.
Different types of cladding: Solid wood bardage; slatted wood panel, cane, or bamboo panel.
Figure 46.
Different types of cladding: Cork panel, stacked stone panel, and photovoltaic panel.
Earlier in our paper, we described the heavy prefabrication system based on the use of bricks and concrete, which proved viable in a certain social and economic context. In the second part of our paper, we explored an alternative and sustainable system for low-carbon prefabricated exterior walls and described the trials that proved its technical viability. The building materials used for the walls’ structure and filling (with thermal insulation functions), as well as for cladding and interior finishes, are renewable, clean, may be reused and recycled, and produce little waste on-site.
In terms of energy efficiency, the energy expenditure of our construction system and building materials proves negligible when compared to that of the finished building’s everyday use and maintenance. This is partly because we chose not to use fossil-based materials for thermal insulation.
When compared to traditional/conventional, on-site construction, our system of light and partial prefabrication, which, furthermore, involves little use of machinery, shows considerable advantages. It cuts down on construction time, the need for skilled labour, construction site waste, and costs, making for a more ecological solution. It is also important to remember that prefabricated components assembled through dry connection can be reused or recycled at the end of the life cycle of buildings, thus becoming part of a circular process that excludes raw material extraction.
The author gratefully acknowledges the funding received from FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P. by project reference <UIDB/04026/2020> and DOI identifier <10.54499/UIDB/04026/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04026/2020)>.
References
1.Blachère G. Tecnologies De La Constrution Industrialisée. Paris: Editions Eyrolles; 1975. pp. 3-8
2.Koncz T. Manuale Della Prefabbricazione. Milano: Edizioni Tecniche Bauverlag; 1962
3.Lewicki B. Batiments d’Habitation Prefabriqués en Elements de Grands Dimensions. Paris: Editions Eyrolles; 1965
4.Alonso M et al. Prefabricacion Teoría e Práctica - Tomo 2. Barcelona: Editores Técnicos Associados SA; 1974
5.Reaes PA. A pré-fabricação na indústria de construção. In: Proceedings of the 1° Congresso da Indústria de Pré-fabricação em Betão. Porto: Associação Nacional dos Industriais de Produtos de Cimento; 2000
6.Powell C. The British Building Industry since 1880. London: Publications E & in Spon; 1980
7.Reaes Pinto A. Total heavy prefabrication: Santo António dos Cavaleiros (SAC) and Quinta do Morgado (QM). Overview of the building process, exterior panel pathologies and a study for their rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Sessions Selected Works. Cidades, Comunidades e Territórios; April 2022. Lisboa: ISCTE. Lisboa: ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa; 2022. pp. 102-136
8.Reaes Pinto A. Changing society and architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2ª International Conference on Environmental Design; 2017; Milano. Torino: Lettera Publisher; 2017. pp. 163-168. ISBN: 978-88-90516-05-4
9.Kibert C. In: Kibert C, editor. Sustainable Construction. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference (CIB TG 16). USA: University of Florida; 1994
10.Reaes Pinto A. Materials for sustainable construction. In: Uslu F, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Social, Sciences and Humanities. Istanbul: Ocerint Publishing; 2015. pp. 641-647
11.Amado MP, Reaes Pinto A, Alcafache AM, Ramalhete I. Construção Sustentável: Conceito e Prática. Lisboa: Caleidoscópio; 2015. ISBN: 978-989-658-324-8
Written By
Alberto Reaes Pinto and Marlene Canudo Urbano
Reviewed: 21 December 2023Published: 01 February 2024
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
