Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/33010
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorGandia, Rômulo Marçal-
dc.creatorCampos, Alessandro Torres-
dc.creatorCorrêa, Andréa Aparecida Ribeiro-
dc.creatorGomes, Francisco Carlos-
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-25T12:39:48Z-
dc.date.available2019-02-25T12:39:48Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationGANDIA, R. M. et al. Energy costs comparison of masonry made from different materials. Theoretical and Applied Engineering, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 1, 2018.pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.taaeufla.deg.ufla.br/index.php/TAAE/article/view/2pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/33010-
dc.description.abstractThis works aimed to compare the energy spent in four masonry models of fence used in a housing model. The energetic coefficients of conventional building materials such as cement, lime, sand, ceramic brick, ceramic block and concrete block were obtained by consulting the literature. The adobe was produced with clay soil with sand correction in the proportion of two parts of soil to a sand, 2:1 in mass. The energy coefficients for the adobe production, labor, mortar of soil and lime were calculated by the energy spent from obtaining the materials to the execution of the masonry. It was identified that the calculated values for total masonry labor were, respectively, 135.95 MJ, 78.99 MJ, 55.05 MJ and 44.37 MJ for adobe, ceramic brick, ceramic block, and concrete block. The energy coefficient and the energetic index per square meter of adobe construction were 229.22 kJ kg-1 and 52,445.54 kJ m-2, respectively. The total energy consumption for the masonry of the construction model with 44.80 m² made of adobe was 12,450.81 MJ. The total energy consumption for the concrete block was 16,016.91 MJ. The total energy consumption for the ceramic and ceramic brick were 34,794.04 and 77,589.87 MJ, respectively. It was concluded that the masonry executed with adobe presented the lowest energy consumption, presenting a higher sustainability level. The correction with sand represented an increase of 68.16% of the energy coefficient of the adobe. The model using adobe compared to ceramic brick promoted an energy saving of 83.95%.pt_BR
dc.languageen_USpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Lavraspt_BR
dc.rightsrestrictAccesspt_BR
dc.sourceTheoretical and Applied Engineeringpt_BR
dc.subjectAdobept_BR
dc.subjectNon-conventional materialspt_BR
dc.subjectSustainabilitypt_BR
dc.subjectConstructionpt_BR
dc.subjectEmbodied energypt_BR
dc.titleEnergy costs comparison of masonry made from different materialspt_BR
dc.typeArtigopt_BR
Appears in Collections:DEA - Artigos publicados em periódicos
DEG - Artigos publicados em periódicos

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.