A Review of Alternative Building Materials in comparison to CMU: Hempcrete, Woodcrete , Papercrete
dc.contributor.author | Hornby, Rachelle | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-08-16T21:00:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-16T21:00:54Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017-05 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/628568 | |
dc.description | This paper will analyze three alternative building materials to CMU construction in a comparative analysis. They each contain aggregates that are renewable, unlike CMU. Hempcrete incorporates hemp shives and lime, papercrete incorporates waste paper such as junk mail with Portland cement, and woodcrete incorporates wood chips and saw dust with Portland cement. The question posed is which of these materials is most sustainable, which is most cost effective, which one performs the best, and how do they compare to traditional CMU currently used. This paper will compare hempcrete, papercrete, and woodcrete to one another and to the standard use of CMU. | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Buildings consume an extraordinary amout of our finite natural resources during their construction and operation. It is imperative we begin to examine more sustainably-produced materials to construct them, as well as lifecycle costs. Concrete is the most widely-used building material in the world, and aggregate forms the majority of its composition. The goal of this research is to compare building materials incorporating renewable aggregate—hempcrete, woodcrete, and papercrete—as alternatives to traditional concrete utilizing nonrenewable aggregates. Comparing and contrasting commercially-available, similar products helps identify feasible applications for these alternatives to concrete that may prove more responsible, sustainable, and cost-effective throughout a building’s lifecycle. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | The University of Arizona. | en_US |
dc.rights | Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, and the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. | en_US |
dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | |
dc.subject | CMU, Hempcrete, Woodcrete, Papercrete, Alternative building material, industrial hemp | en_US |
dc.title | A Review of Alternative Building Materials in comparison to CMU: Hempcrete, Woodcrete , Papercrete | en_US |
dc.type | text | en_US |
dc.contributor.department | College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture | en_US |
thesis.degree.grantor | University of Arizona | en_US |
thesis.degree.level | bachelors | en_US |
thesis.degree.discipline | Sustainable Built Environments | en_US |
thesis.degree.name | B.S. | en_US |
dc.description.collectioninformation | This item is part of the Sustainable Built Environments collection. For more information, contact http://sbe.arizona.edu. | en_US |
dc.contributor.mentor | Youssef, Omar | |
dc.contributor.mentor | Elzomor, Mohamad Alaa | |
dc.contributor.mentor | Esser, Michael | |
dc.contributor.instructor | Iuliano, Joey | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2018-08-16T21:00:55Z |