Machines. Technologies. Materials.
Vol. 20 (2026), Issue 6, pg(s) 232-238

TECHNOLOGIES

Integrated comparative assessment of material, energy and construction-time efficiency of prefabricated and conventional reinforced concrete systems

  • 1 State University of Novi Pazar, Department of Technical and Technological Sciences, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Novi Pazar, Serbia
  • 2 University of Pristina, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Architecture, Kosovska Mitrovica

Abstract

The selection of an appropriate structural and construction system significantly influences material consumption, energy demand, construction duration and overall project efficiency. This study presents an integrated parametric methodology for comparing prefabricated and conventional cast-in-situ reinforced concrete systems under equivalent functional and structural requirements. A representative five-storey building with a gross floor area of approximately 5,000 m² is analysed using two construction scenarios: CIS (conventional cast-in-situ reinforced concrete) and PRE (prefabricated reinforced concrete). The assessment incorporates concrete and reinforcement consumption, material losses, structural construction duration, embodied energy of principal materials, additional production energy, transportation and site energy. The analysed performance dimensions are integrated into a dimensionless Construction Efficiency Index (CEI), while sensitivity analysis evaluates the influence of decision priorities. At a reference factory-to-site distance of 50 km, the parametric scenario indicates a reduction of approximately 7.8% in total structural-material input, 25% in structural construction duration and 6.2% in total energy demand for PRE relative to CIS. The baseline CEI increases from 1.000 for CIS to 1.153 for PRE. The study additionally introduces a project-specific break-even transportation-distance model. Under the adopted assumptions, the energy advantage of prefabrication disappears at approximately 185 km, whereas the integrated CEI advantage persists to a substantially larger theoretical distance because material and time benefits remain. The proposed framework demonstrates that prefabrication should not be evaluated through a single indicator. Its relative advantage depends on the combined effects of materials, energy, time and logistics. The methodology is intended as an early-stage engineering decision-support approach and requires project-specific inventory data for application to real construction projects.

Keywords

References

  1. Cheng, M., Huang, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2025). A review on life-cycle carbon emissions of reinforced concrete buildings: Calculation and reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 526, 146501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146501.
  2. Zhou, F., Ning, Y., Guo, X., & Guo, S. (2023). Analyze Differences in Carbon Emissions from Traditional and Prefabricated Buildings Combining the Life Cycle. Buildings, 13(4), 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040874.
  3. Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Gao, W., & Kuroki, S. (2020). Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings. Sustainability, 12(7), 2609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072609.
  4. Abey, S. T., & Anand, K. B. (2019). Embodied Energy Comparison of Prefabricated and Conventional Building Construction. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 100, 777–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00394-8.
  5. Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L., & Tang, L. (2013). Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy and Buildings, 66, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.
  6. Li, C. Z., Tam, V. W. Y., Lai, X., Zhou, Y., & Guo, S. (2024). Carbon footprint accounting of prefabricated buildings: A circular economy perspective. Building and Environment, 258, 111602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111602.

Article full text

Download PDF