This article was downloaded by: [Lakehead University]

On: 13 March 2015, At: 16:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and Economics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Sustainable construction: life cycle energy analysis of

construction on sloping sites for residential buildings
a a
Grace Ding & Perry John Forsythe
a
School of the Built Environment , University of Technology , Sydney , PO Box 123 ,
Broadway, 2007, Australia
Published online: 08 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Grace Ding & Perry John Forsythe (2013) Sustainable construction: life cycle energy analysis of
construction on sloping sites for residential buildings, Construction Management and Economics, 31:3, 254-265, DOI:
10.1080/01446193.2012.761716

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.761716

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Construction Management and Economics, 2013
Vol. 31, No. 3, 254–265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.761716

Sustainable construction: life cycle energy analysis of

construction on sloping sites for residential buildings
GRACE DING* and PERRY JOHN FORSYTHE
School of the Built Environment, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, 2007 Australia

Received 27 July 2012; accepted 14 December 2012

In 2010, the Australian residential construction sector contributed about 28% of the value of all construc-
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015

tion and was responsible for 8% of the total energy consumption. Residential construction will continue to
increase to cope with the demand due to population growth. Owing to land scarcity, construction on sloping
sites has become a common construction method for residential development in Australia. This method has
economic benefits but poses environmental issues as it damages topsoil, disturbs natural drainage and
groundwater pathways and imposes additional stress on soil under fill. The life cycle energy consumption of
the construction process is examined in relation to residential projects on sloping sites on a range of slopes
and soil types in New South Wales, Australia. Forty-one detached dwellings were selected and a service life
of 60 years assumed for the study. The research findings reveal that the slope for each type of soil has a
positive correlation with life cycle energy consumption. As part of the onsite construction process, the results
also show that the energy consumption of construction on sloping sites plays a significant factor in the life
cycle energy analysis of a building.

Keywords: Construction process, detached dwelling, energy consumption.

Introduction 2005). Construction involves complex processes to

Building construction and operation have been beset
with well-documented problems ranging from exces-
sive consumption of global resources to the pollution
of the surrounding environment (Asif et al., 2007;
Ahn et al., 2010). They are responsible for high
energy consumption, solid waste generation, green-
house gas (GHG) emissions, pollution, environmental
damage and resource depletion (Ortiz et al., 2009). In
relation to the energy consumption and GHG emis-
sions of construction processes in the US and Canada
Ahn et al. (2010) suggest that the impacts of con-
struction processes on the environment have not been
well understood because of the unique nature of each
project and the high degree of fragmentation in the
construction industry.
Research and development into sustainable design
and construction are ongoing; however, the full life
cycle impact on the environment of a building is yet
to be fully investigated and identified (Kimmet,
transform land into a habitable environment, and the
environmental impacts of these processes remain a
relatively underdeveloped area of knowledge. This is
particularly the case when the construction is under-
taken on sloping sites. Majdalani et al. (2006), in a
questionnaire survey of construction professionals in
Lebanon, concluded that, owing to insufficient and
inaccurate data sources, the construction industry
has not been successful in assessing the entire life
cycle environmental impacts of projects. However,
leaving out the impacts incurred at any stage within
a project life cycle will result in a biased outcome
and sustainability plays an important role in achiev-
ing the goal of sustainable construction. Prasad and
Hall (2004), in a report of reviewing global chal-
lenges of sustainable construction, show that sustain-
ability can be significantly influenced by its initial
design and that it is important to look closely at
long-term considerations over the life cycle of a
building at an early stage.

*Author for correspondence. E-mail: grace.ding@uts.edu.au

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Sustainable construction
A holistic approach to the environmental/social
aspects of energy efficiency is the key to sustainable
construction. Previous studies on life cycle energy
analysis (LCEA) of buildings have focused on prod-
ucts, design and operation. However, they have lar-
gely neglected the LCEA of the construction process,
in particular excavation-related construction methods
(Bilec et al., 2010; Li et al., 2010). Bilec et al. (2010)
developed a process-based hybrid life cycle analysis
(LCA) model to examine environmental impacts at
the construction stage and show that LCEA for onsite
construction processes is limited, as the methodology
has not yet been fully developed. The construction
phase is usually shorter than the operational lifespan
but the impact may be more intensive during this per-
iod. The cumulative environmental impact from con-
struction activities can become a serious problem
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
causing significant damage to the health and well-
being of field workers and people in the vicinity.
Part of the construction process involves excavation
and noise pollution as well as the uncovering, distur-
bance and removal of soil and vegetation and deposit-
ing it elsewhere. Ballesteros et al. (2010), in a case
study of housing construction noise in Spain, show
that construction activities are a main concern in the
study of environmental impacts of buildings as the
noise and emissions during the construction processes
are serious environmental problems in society. Apart
from any other considerations, the exposed surfaces
resulting from excavation can have such adverse
effects as generating air and dust emissions, causing
soil erosion, and impacting on flora, fauna and natu-
ral waterways.
Further, not much research has looked specifically
at the LCEA of the construction process, in particular
on sloping sites. Ahn et al. (2010), in a study of envi-
ronmental impact of construction activities, found
that the focus has centred on reducing energy use and
GHG emissions for the operation of the building.
Less attention has been paid to the construction pro-
cesses since their environmental impacts have been
assumed to be fairly small. Both Bilec et al. (2010)
and Li et al. (2010) have developed an LCA-based
model in assessing environmental impacts of con-
struction processes and they outline that the construc-
tion processes are significant as they consume
considerable energy and resources compared to other
industrial processes.
This research is aimed at assessing energy
consumption in the processes involved in residential
construction on sloping sites, on a range of slopes and
soil types in the Greater Sydney region. LCEA offers
a systematic approach to obtaining a full and quanti-
tative understanding of the issues involved. The paper
begins with a literature review of the current state of
255
the art in respect of life cycle energy analysis of
residential buildings and environmental impact of
construction activities on sloping sites in order to
establish a framework for the study. Based on the lit-
erature study a multiple case study methodology was
developed to provide an in-depth analysis of environ-
mental impacts of construction activities for residen-
tial projects in NSW, Australia. Finally, LCEA is
applied to 41 detached dwellings over a service life-
span of 60 years. The results reveal that for different
types of soil, slopes have positive correlations with life
cycle energy consumption and the paper concludes
with recommendations to improve energy efficiency
for construction on sloping sites.
Life cycle energy analysis of residential
buildings
Buildings have a direct impact on the environment,
ranging from the use of raw materials during con-
struction and renovation to the emission of harmful
substances throughout their lifespan (Balaras et al.,
2005). To minimize the industry’s environmental
impacts, sustainable construction has become the
main focus of research and development. This is one
way in which the construction industry can make a
responsible contribution towards protecting the envi-
ronment (Spence and Mulligan, 1995; Hill and
Bowen, 1997; Du Plessis, 2007). Achieving the goal
of sustainable construction is not about restricting the
total amount of construction: as construction activity
is also about economic growth, it is more important
to raise awareness and to improve practices (Spence
and Mulligan, 1995).
The principles of sustainable construction are pro-
cess-oriented and involve undertaking an assessment
of proposed activities using a life cycle framework
(Hill and Bowen, 1997; Mokhlesian and Holmen,
2012). Hill and Bowen (1997) developed a frame-
work for sustainable construction and suggested that
sustainable construction starts at the planning stage of
a building, continuing throughout its life to its even-
tual deconstruction and recycling of resources.
Mokhlesian and Holmen (2012) reviewed 35 articles
and three books in respect of conceptualizing a busi-
ness model for green projects and recommended that
building life cycle analysis should be shifted from a
‘cradle-to-grave’ strategy to a ‘cradle-to-cradle’
approach which would mean that material recycling
at the end of the life of a building would be consid-
ered as part of the analysis.
The construction industry is a major energy user
and the environmental problems associated with
energy consumption in the built environment extend
 256
from the local scale of indoor air pollution to a global
scale of contribution to climate change and ozone
depletion. Buildings consume different amounts of
energy and other resources at different stages of their
life cycle and generate pollutants accordingly; this is
particularly serious when fossil fuels are involved.
Ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels for thermal
comfort, lighting, hot water and other services, plus
ways to improve energy efficiency to reduce environ-
mental degradation, have consequently been the
major focus of much research and development in
sustainable building. However, improving energy effi-
ciency during the operational phase of a building’s life
alone is unlikely to achieve the maximum potential
reduction in energy consumption. This is because a
substantial proportion of energy is trapped in the
upstream and downstream products and processes
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
used in the beginning and end phases.
It is important therefore to assess energy use
throughout a building’s entire lifespan, from construc-
tion through maintenance, refurbishment and exten-
sion to final demolition. This will largely be
influenced by how the building was designed and
constructed, and how the energy is used (Morel et al.,
2001). Assessment of energy performance is impor-
tant at all stages and LCEA has become the recog-
nized approach for analysing energy consumption of
buildings (Baird et al., 1984). Ramesh et al. (2010),
in a study of 73 projects for the life cycle energy uses
and Gustavsson and Joelsson (2010), in another case
study of life cycle primary energy use and CO2 emis-
sions of buildings, stated that LCEA of buildings has
a greater significance for formulating strategies to
minimize the life cycle primary energy use and emis-
sions. LCEA is a process that can account for all
energy inputs of a building’s life cycle, including
energy use in manufacturing, transportation, con-
struction, use and demolition, according to Ramesh
et al. (2010), who express life cycle energy as follows:
LCE ¼ EEi þ EEr þ OE þ DE ð1Þ
where:
LCE = life cycle energy
EEi = initial embodied energy
EEr = recurrent embodied energy during
occupancy
OE = operating energy and
DE = demolition energy
Initial embodied energy (EEi) accounts for the energy
used to produce building materials and components,
including extracting and transporting raw materials to
factories, the finished products to the site and the
Ding and Forsythe
onsite operational energy. In residential buildings, the
embodied energy per square metre of gross floor area
(GFA) ranges from 3600 to 6800 MJ/m2 (Dixit et al.,
2010). Recurrent embodied energy (EEr) measures
energy use associated with building upkeep and
improvement during its operational life and plays an
important part when conducting LCEA. In the resi-
dential sector, EEr ranges from 200 to 420 MJ/m2/
annum (Fay et al., 2000; Pullen, 2000).
Operational energy (OE) refers to the energy used
for heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting, and for
powering appliances and equipment. Operational
energy usage runs from when a building is completed
until it is finally demolished. It is an important area
of lifetime energy consumption and, in residential
buildings, ranges from 400 to 800 MJ/m2/annum
(Treloar et al., 1999; Pullen, 2000). Demolition
energy (DE), the energy used for demolishing and
transporting building components to a landfill site at
the end of a building’s useful life, is relatively small
compared to the rest of the life cycle energy (Fay
et al., 2000; Gustavsson and Joelsson, 2010). In sum-
mary, LCEA evaluates one aspect of environmental
impact. It provides a platform for strategies to mini-
mize energy consumption over a building’s life cycle
and to facilitate energy efficient solutions as it helps
to indicate overall life cycle energy usage.
Environmental impacts of construction on
sloping sites
The construction industry and the environment are
inextricably linked and it is inevitable that the indus-
try has found itself at the centre of concerns about
the environmental impact. Construction is not an
environmentally friendly process and is the third larg-
est industry sector in terms of contributions to GHG
emissions in the US (Li et al., 2010). Globally, it
depletes 40% of natural materials, consumes 40% of
total energy, generates 25% of waste and emits 40–
50% of GHG (Ramest et al., 2010; Mokhelsian and
Holmen, 2012).
The impact of the construction processes on the
environment is particularly serious when excavation is
involved. Although previous research provides LCEA
studies of existing buildings, insufficient research has
been undertaken to assess the LCEA of construction
processes themselves; this has led to a gap in under-
standing the full spectrum of environmental impacts
of the entire life cycle of the built environment (Bilec
et al., 2010; Li et al., 2010). Thormark (2002), in
analysing recycling potential in a Swedish low-energy
dwelling, demonstrated that approximately 40–60%
of the life cycle energy is used in the production and
 Sustainable construction
construction phase of a building’s life cycle. Bilec
et al. (2010) in a case study of the environmental
impact of a steel-framed building showed that the
period of onsite construction activities may be shorter
than any other stages but the impacts are intensive for
such a short timeframe. Li et al. (2010) after review-
ing the current environmental assessment models
explained that the current models for assessing the
environmental impact of buildings were largely quali-
tative scoring systems and suitable only for the design
stage. However, the LCEA approach helps in obtain-
ing quantitative data in respect of environmental
impacts of buildings at different stages.
Previous LCEA research on buildings has concen-
trated on construction activities related to the struc-
tural and architectural components and largely
ignored building site establishment. This is particu-
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
larly serious on sloping sites where land requires to be
levelled before any construction activities for the
building can begin. Excavation and site formation are
the major activities at this stage and, from an environ-
mental viewpoint, one of the most negative aspects of
construction. As the noisiest stage of construction
(since it is directly linked to the machinery used), it is
an acoustic pollutant, impacting on both workers and
neighbours (Ballestero et al., 2010). Excavation also
involves uncovering, disturbing, removing and depos-
iting elsewhere soil and vegetation, all of which has
significant adverse effects on the environment in the
form of soil erosion, destruction of natural habitats of
flora and fauna and degradation of waterways, associ-
ated air and dust emissions.
It is notable that some forms of construction ‘touch
the ground’ more heavily than others, as is the case
with construction on sloping sites that require cut and
fill methods for site formation. Owing to land scarcity,
the cut and fill method is commonly used for the con-
struction of residential projects on sloping sites in
Australia and it is an economical means of providing
a level building platform. Approximately half the
slope is cut away from the building footprint and the
spoil is then used to fill the other half to form a level
platform. It is typically used to prepare for the laying
of a concrete raft slab, for the floor and footing sys-
tems and it may require the construction of retaining
walls to stabilize the perimeter of the disturbed area
and drainage to divert water from the levelled surface.
While cut and fill excavation thus meets certain
practical and economic demands, the environmental
consequences need to be considered. The process is
not only highly disruptive to the site but the potential
changes to topography, flora and fauna, as mentioned
above, pose risks to the integrity of the natural ecosys-
tem. Site flooding during heavy rain can cause sedi-
mentary run-off into larger-scale public waterways.
257
Like many aspects of construction, the process uses
energy and excavated materials may, under certain
circumstances, generate solid waste that needs to be
taken away to landfill. Against the background of
increasing concern over construction on sloping sites
and its associated drainage systems, LCEA provides
an account of materials and energy involved in the
construction process, measures the associated envi-
ronmental impacts and hence indicates where and
how improvements can be made.
Method
LCEA focuses on the flow of materials, energy and
pollutants to and from the environment (Wei et al.,
2008). Its principal objectives are to quantify and
evaluate the environmental performance of a process
in order to help decision-makers choose from a range
of alternatives. It provides a basis for assessing poten-
tial improvements in the environmental performance
of a system and indicates to users how a system can
be designed or modified in order to decrease its over-
all environmental impact. This can be done in an
overall sense or targeted to improve specific stages
during the life cycle. LCEA uses energy as a measure
of environmental impact.
The research adopts a case study approach. On the
basis of the literature review, an overview was under-
taken of the LCEA approach and the environmental
impact of the construction on sloping sites. Case
studies were carried out in 41 detached dwellings in
NSW, leading to a detailed study of the construction
process and energy consumption for construction on
sloping sites for residential development. The life
cycle energy analysis for the research has been under-
taken in primary energy terms.
Data collection
The study was undertaken to assess and model life
cycle energy on a range of soil and slope types.
Design documentation was obtained for 122 detached
dwellings from various recently completed sites in the
Sydney basin. Soil type was included in the study
because the work rate of excavation equipment was
likely to change according to different soil types. For
instance, depending on whether a site was clay or
rock, different excavator work rates would apply and
different retaining wall requirements would be
involved, thus affecting the energy consumed. The
soil classification used in this study followed Austra-
lian Standard AS2870 (Residential Slab and Footings
Code), which, though intended for the design of
 258
Table 1 Summary of projects by soil and slope types
Soil type
Slope type Sand sites Clay sites Rock sites Total sites
1 in 10 5 5 1 11
1 in 6 3 7 2 12
1 in 4 6 3 3 12
1 in 2 – – 6 6
Total 14 15 12 41
footings and foundations, provided a means of captur-
ing sites with appropriate soil types easily during the
sampling phase of the project.
A screening process of examining the location,
slope, soil type, size and construction details was
developed. All the 122 projects received were
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
screened in detail to ensure that a reasonable spread
of projects was achieved in the required slope and soil
categories. This screening process eliminated all but
41 sites. Table 1 summarizes the chosen projects by
soil and slope type, that is the three main soil types in
New South Wales of sand, clay and rock, and four
slope types in degrees. The GFA of these projects
ranged from 154m2 to 1020m2 for single to three-
storey dwellings.
In Table 1 it is evident that only a few sites were
obtained for the slope ratio of 1 in 2. This was
because such steep slopes are largely untenable or
uneconomical to build on, except where solid rock
excavation is involved. In these instances, excavation
is likely to involve cutting only rather than equal cut-
ting and filling (solid rock is often self-supporting,
thus allowing a large cut). No sites were selected for
very steep sandy and clay scenarios, mainly because
such sites are not common in the Greater Sydney
Basin.
As mentioned above, the project was undertaken as
a comparative study of soil and slope types in order
to identify and quantify life cycle energy consumption
in the construction process on sloping sites and hence
to optimize the selection of design and construction
methods from an energy consumption perspective.
Therefore, the study focused on the formation of
sloping sites, including all upstream and downstream
energy consumption during the cut and fill processes
and the associated retaining and subsoil drainage
structures. This included the plant and equipment
required for the onsite cut and fill excavation as well
as the initial production and subsequent use of mate-
rials needed to construct retaining walls and subsoil
drainage.
The primary function of cut and fill excavation is
to provide a level platform for the construction of a
Ding and Forsythe
dwelling on sloping land. The primary function of the
retaining structure and subsoil drainage is to stabilize
the disturbed ground around the platform and to pro-
vide a water-free environment during the phases of
construction and operation of the building throughout
its useful life. Since the study scope was limited to
bulk cut and fill excavation for the dwellings, the
excavation of footings for retaining walls was included
in the calculations but footings associated with the
construction of the house itself (i.e. concrete, timber
and other floor systems) were excluded because they
were considered part of a separate building system.
Similarly, any further retaining wall and site drainage
construction for additional landscaping works were
also excluded from the study.
For construction on sloping sites, it is common for
the excavation to be designed so that the ‘cut’ and
‘fill’ occur in roughly equal volumes, i.e. the ‘cut’
spoil can be fully utilized as ‘fill’ to eliminate any
waste soil from the excavation process. Nevertheless,
on occasions, sites were found to be more oriented to
‘cut only’ or ‘fill only’ with a range of ratios in
between and a variety of such scenarios were included
in the study. Excess cut materials were transported
offsite and deposited at the nearest publicly available
landfill site while, with regard to fill, additional mate-
rials were purchased from the nearest wholesale sup-
plier of clean fill according to the fill type specified in
the design documents and the fill requirements in
AS2870. Figure 1 summarizes the system boundary
for the project.
Data analysis
Material quantities for the retaining wall and subsoil
drainage were measured from the design documenta-
tion. Life cycle energy consumption of retaining walls
and subsoil drainage was estimated in terms of pri-
mary energy demand, i.e. as a methodology to assess
the overall energy consumption of a product, process
or activity throughout its life cycle for both direct and
indirect energy use. Primary energy is different from
the energy used at the end of the consumption line.
An energy efficiency coefficient is used to convert end
energy into primary energy consumption.
For cut and fill the energy input to the process
included diesel fuel consumption of plant and equip-
ment for excavation, transport and disposal of waste
to landfill. The total diesel consumption was
converted into primary energy (in MJ). Total energy
consumption was estimated by multiplying the pre-
dicted running time of the equipment by the average
consumption of diesel fuel per unit of time. It was
then estimated in terms of life cycle energy in primary
terms, which is the total of direct and indirect energy
 Sustainable construction 259

Building material production

Transport of materials from

factory gate & distribution
centre to site

Machinery for
cut and fill
Cut and fill Excessive
excavation excavated
Additional fill materials
materials
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015

Emissions
Resources

Building
materials
Construction of retaining Cutting
walls and subsoil drainage Wastes
Building
processes

Maintenance
& Cutting
replacement Wastes
materials Operating phase of
maintaining and replacing
retaining walls and subsoil Disposal of
Building drainage wastes after
processes maintenance
and
replacement

Disposal of retaining walls

and subsoil drainage at the Disposal
end of life of dwelling to landfill

Legend
Denotes system boundary Operation of landfill site
Denotes cut and fill activities
Flow of activities
+ Denotes concurrent flows

Figure 1 The system boundaries of a cut and fill project

use for the three stages of a building, namely initial
construction, operational and end-of-life.
At the initial construction stage, the work break-
down in respect of resources and energy required for
cut and fill excavation was developed in accordance
with the design documentation. A summary of the
inputs and outputs for the cut and fill construction is
included in Table 2. The construction process was
thus divided into the following processes:
• Cut the upper portion of the site to level the
land.
 260 Ding and Forsythe

Table 2 Inputs and outputs for the cut-and-fill construction

Flow Unit Amount

Inputs
Excavator for cut and fill activities on site Litre/hr 15 litres/hr (output rate vary to soil
and slope type)
Transport excess excavated materials to landfill (11m3 Litre/km 40 litres/100 km
truck), travel distance vary from 4 to 29 km
Filling material t Various
Transport filling material to site (11m3 truck), travel Litre/km 40 litres/100 km
distance vary from 6 to 36 km
Block retaining wall (10m2)
Concrete block kg 2808
Cement kg 1104
Sand kg 2747
Aggregate kg 3969
Lime kg 92
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015

Steel kg 115
Water kg 672
Treated timber retaining wall (10m2)
Treated timber kg 705
Cement kg 269
Sand kg 673
Aggregate kg 1279
Blue metal kg 118
Water kg 193
Structural steel and treated timber retaining wall (10m2)
Steel kg 151
Treated timber kg 276
Cement kg 307
Sand kg 769
Aggregate kg 1461
Water kg 221
Subsoil drainage (based on 10m2 retaining wall)
PVC pipe kg 20
Blue metal kg 4054
Geo-fabric kg 2
Outputs
Levelled cut and fill platform m2 1
Retaining wall m2 10
Subsoil drainage m2 10
Cumulative energy MJ/m2 Various depending on soil and slope
type (refer to Table 3)

• Fill the lower portion of the site to make up the
level to the design platform level.
• Construct retaining walls and subsequent sub-
soil drainage systems, including backfilling of
trenches, with specified materials.
• Deposit excess excavated materials at the near-
est identifiable, publicly available landfill site.
• Purchase additional fill materials as specified
from the nearest listed wholesale supplier.
Three types of retaining structure were used for the
projects, namely, treated timber log retaining walls for
relatively low slope sites, concrete block retaining
walls with concrete core fill and reinforced footings
for poorer soil types and steeper slopes, and structural
steel post retaining walls with treated timber log infill
pieces, also for poorer soil strength such as sand and
steeper slopes.
 Sustainable construction
While maintenance and replacement are likely to be
required to maintain the function of a building
throughout its operational stage, cut and fill excavated
land was considered to require no maintenance, for
the purposes of this study. The three types of retaining
walls identified in the study were also found to require
virtually no regular or scheduled maintenance during
the assumed 60-year life of a dwelling. Therefore, nei-
ther retaining wall nor subsoil drainage maintenance
were considered in the study. It was assumed that all
wall types, if appropriately specified, should last the
lifespan of the building. Treated timber log retaining
walls of H51 timber treatment and appropriate section
sizes were found to be capable of lasting the full service
life of a building in accordance with the Timber Service
Life Design guidelines (Forest Wood Product Australia,
2010). Subsoil drainage, which included PVC slotted
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
pipe wrapped in geo-fabric textile and backfilled with
blue metal or gravel, was required for all types of
retaining walls and was assessed in accordance with
design requirements. It was assumed that subsoil
drainage would only be replaced if the retaining wall
structure was demolished; no interim maintenance was
taken into account, as such work is typically concealed
behind the retaining wall.
At the end-of-life stage all retaining wall and sub-
soil drainage would be sent to landfill following
demolition of the building. Thus, no recycling was
allowed for in the study, even though this may occur.
Similarly, while transport to landfill was included, all
emissions relating to the operation of the landfill, such
as the use of bulldozers, were excluded.
Results and discussion
General observations
Life cycle energy for cut and fill excavation, retaining
walls and subsoil drainage was calculated and
expressed in terms of square metres of GFA and
building footprint (BF) for the sample projects. GFA
Table 3 Average life cycle energy per m2 of gross floor area and building footprint by soil and slope types
Soil type
2
Sand (MJ/m )
Slope type BF GFA
1:10 119 85
1:6 311 142
1:4 495 194
1:2 – –
Notes: BF = building footprint. GFA = gross floor area.
261
represents the total floor area of the building while
BF represents the part of the building that touches
the ground (i.e. the ground floor area). Life cycle
energy for multi-storey dwellings will typically be
higher for BF compared to GFA because energy is
only divided by the building footprint and not the
total building area (as spread over multiple storeys).
This study showed that cut and fill activities (includ-
ing the fuel consumption of excavators on site, trucks
taking excavated materials away to landfill and the deliv-
ery of extra filling materials to the site where necessary)
account for approximately 74% of life cycle energy in
relation to construction on sloping sites. The construc-
tion of retaining walls and subsoil drainage accounts for
approximately 25% of life cycle energy while end-of-life
disposal is about 1%. Table 3 summarizes the average
life cycle energy per m2 of GFA and BF.
As indicated in Table 3, average life cycle energy per
square metre of GFA was lower than the BF in most
cases. This was because life cycle energy for the BF
was divided by the ground floor area only. Using BF as
a unit helps highlight the fact that designing buildings
to occupy a smaller footprint will reduce energy used in
cut and fill excavation, compared to larger footprints.
Table 3 also shows that life cycle energy increases as
slope increases for some soil groups, even though it is
not necessarily an evenly spaced progression.
The study also revealed that cutting consumes
considerably more energy than filling during the cut
and fill process. Variations in the proportion of cut
and fill for a given site can therefore cause signifi-
cant differences in life cycle energy demand com-
pared to other sites. Approximately 63% of the
projects in the study required 65% or more cut,
27% fell in an equal range where cut and/or fill did
not exceed a ratio of 65:35 and the remaining 10%
required 65% fill or more.
Retaining and subsoil drainage structures represent
approximately 25% of life cycle energy consumption.
Even so, not all the sites studied required retaining
walls (25% of sites were in this category), thus creat-
Clay (MJ/m2) Rock (MJ/m2)
BF GFA BF GFA
72 56 233 138
238 168 272 242
440 272 320 177
– – 2470 933
 262
ing a different life cycle energy consumption profile
for these sites. Within this group, 54% of the
non-retaining wall sites (seven sites) occurred on shal-
low sloping sites (1:10), a further 23% (three sites)
occurred on sites with a slope of 1:6 and the remain-
ing 23% (three sites) occurred on sites with a slope of
1:2. These last seem to occur where it is possible to
batter the soil or where self-supporting rock is
involved.
Where a retaining structure was involved, the life
cycle energy consumption varied according to the
type of wall used. Timber retaining walls consumed
the least amount of energy (approximately 756 MJ/
m2); timber walls with steel posts consumed 1028
MJ/m2, while concrete block walls consumed the most
energy (approximately 1403 MJ/m2). The data were
checked to see if certain types of retaining walls were
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
used more consistently on certain slope categories.
No clear trends emerged other than that concrete
block walls were the only types used on the small
sample of steeply sloping rock sites in the study. For
other soil and slope types, multiple types of retaining
wall were used.
Some steeply sloping sites involved cut only and
also used suspended floor construction to mitigate the
slope. These sites deserve special mention as they
involved most of the soft soil sites in the study. Such
sites typically involved a significant cut to accommo-
date a garage or storage space built under the main
house. Since this level did not span the full depth or
width of the dwelling, a suspended floor (built on top
of the garage walls) was then used to create a bridge
across the remaining span (and slope) of the dwelling.
The small footprint of the garage compared to the
rest of the dwelling had the effect of lowering the
energy calculated for such sites. The shape, size and
orientation of each dwelling had the additional impact
of varying the amount of excavation required from
one site to the next, which in turn impacted on life
cycle energy calculations.
In most cases, rock sites used more energy than
other sites for comparable slope categories. Reading
from Table 3, the extremely high life cycle energy
consumption for rock sites with a 1:2 slope was due
primarily to the massive amount of cut for these sites,
and the extensive time and energy required by the
excavator during the cutting and associated rock
breaking processes. Additional energy was used in
taking the excavated rock to landfill. As mentioned
previously, cutting is overall more energy intensive
than filling; this is compounded by the high work
rates required for rock excavation, namely approxi-
mately eight to 10 times higher than for other soil
types.
Ding and Forsythe
On more gently sloping rock sites, it was notable
that despite a preponderance of cutting, some minor
filling also took place. Some fill was retained from the
cut where fines were retrieved and crushed during
the excavation process (i.e. by rolling them over with
the excavator). This was to some extent achievable
with the likes of sandstone (as occurs in the Sydney
basin) but difficult to achieve with harder rocks such
as basalt and granite (unless using dedicated rock
crushing equipment not normally used on the sites
studied as such methods were considered uneconomi-
cal on detached housing sites). It appears from the
number of sites canvassed for the study (41 in total)
that cut/fill sites on a 1:2 slope tended to occur only
where rock was involved. The total lack of other soil
types at this gradient indicates that it is both unrealis-
tic and uneconomical to use cut and fill construction
in such situations. This was confirmed by the contrac-
tors, developers and geotechnical engineers contacted
during the study.
Sand and clay soils showed more consistent trends
in terms of the relationship between energy and slope.
For instance, in clay soils only very low energy was
required for 1:10 sites and this increased both pro-
gressively and significantly for sites on 1:6 and 1:4
slopes. The reason for the very low life cycle energy
consumption relating to 1:10 sites appears to be the
smaller volume of excavation and retaining wall struc-
ture per m2 of GFA compared to the other two slope
types. Sand seemed to follow similar trends.
Significance of life cycle energy of cut and
fill in the construction process
For each soil type, a regression analysis was used to
help analyse life cycle energy consumption in
megajoules (MJ) against site slope, with a view to
explaining better the variance in the data. The results
for the three soil types are presented in Figures 2–4
350
y = 7.458e0.2581x
300 R2 = 0.7191
LECA (MJ/m2 000)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Slope (in degrees)
Figure 2 Life cycle energy demand of sand by slope
 Sustainable construction 263

In interpreting the analysis, the main issues of
interest in each Figure concern the ‘r’ value (correla-
tion coefficient) and the ‘R2’ value (coefficient of
determination). The R2 value is used to model the
prediction of future outcomes statistically based on
the correlation trends in the data already recorded,
i.e. as presented in the Figures below. It shows the
proportion of variability in a dataset that is explained
by the statistical model. The ‘r’ value is calculated as
the square root of R2, which explains the degree of
relationship between the two variables.
1800 y = 32.231e0.1028x
1600 R2 = 0.7892
LCEA ( 000 MJ/m2)
Leading on from this discussion, Figures 2 and 3
present the relationship between life cycle energy con-
sumption (in MJ) and slope (in degrees) for sand and
rock soils. The correlation coefficients of 0.85 and
0.89 respectively for sand and rock soils indicate a
strong positive correlation between cumulative energy
demand and slope. The R2 value of 72% and 79%
show that the variance in the life cycle energy con-
sumption can be explained by the slope, as shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 4 presents the relationship between life cycle
energy consumption (in MJ) and slope (in degrees)
for clay soil. The correlation coefficient of 0.73 indi-
cates a positive but weaker correlation between the
variables. As Figure 4 shows, the R2 values imply that

1400
1200 only 54% of the variance in the life cycle energy
1000 demand can be attributed to the slope. Other vari-
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015

800 ables, such as site size, may have contributed to the

600 life cycle energy consumption and there appear to be
400
outliers that may also have contributed to the results.
200
For the purposes of LCEA, the results obtained in
0
this study were compared with the results obtained
0 5 10 15 20 15 30 35 40 from related studies. This revealed that most of the
Slope (in degrees) onsite construction energy analysis had considered the
excavation associated only with the construction of
Figure 3 Life cycle energy demand of rock by slope
the dwelling, not the energy associated with the site
formation. The onsite construction energy figures
300
y = 3.6431e0.3319x
derived for residential buildings range between 6%
R2 = 0.5391
and 10% of the EEi (Stewart et al., 1995; See, 1998;
250
Ballantyne et al., 2000).
LCEA (MJ/m2 000)

200
This study shows that cut and fill excavation plays
an important role in LCEA when constructing resi-
150 dential projects on sloping sites. From the literature,
EEi ranges from 3600 to 6800 MJ/m2 of GFA; the
100
onsite construction energy, therefore, ranges from
50 approximately 216 to 408 MJ/m2 for 6% and from
approximately 360 to 680 MJ/m2 for 10%. As dis-
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 cussed previously, the cut and fill excavation required
Slope (in degrees) to form a level platform on sloping sites for a new
Figure 4 Life cycle energy consumption of clay by slope

Table 4 Percentage of life cycle energy for cut and fill activities to embodied and onsite energy (Stewart et al., 1995;
Treloar, 1998; Ballantyne et al., 2000; Pullen, 2000; Dixit et al., 2010)

Soil type
% of life cycle energy for cut and fill activities % of life cycle energy of cut and fill activities
to the EEi from the literature to the onsite energy from the literature
Slope type Sand Clay Rock Sand Clay Rock
1:10 1.3–2.4 0.8–1.6 2.0–3.8 13–39 8–26 20–64
1:6 2.1–3.9 2.5–4.7 3.6–6.7 21–66 25–78 36–112
1:4 2.9–5.4 4.0–7.6 2.6–4.9 29–70 40–126 26–82
1:2 – – 13.7–25.9 – – 137–432
 264
building adds significantly to onsite construction
energy consumption.
As shown in Table 3, the life cycle energy per GFA
for cut and fill activities in this study ranged from 85
to 194 MJ/m2 for sand, 56 to 272 MJ/m2 for clay and
138 to 933 MJ/m2 for rock for the various slope types.
The life cycle energy of cut and fill activities consti-
tutes a significant portion of the EEi, in particular the
onsite construction energy. Table 4 presents the per-
centage of life cycle energy of cut and fill activities to
the EEi and onsite construction energy. The propor-
tion of life cycle energy of cut and fill activities is
approximately 1–5% for sand, 1–8% for clay and 2–
26% for rock. The proportion of life cycle energy of
cut and fill activities to onsite construction energy is
approximately 13–70% for sand, 8–126% for clay and
as high as 20–432% for rock. From Table 4 it is
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
evident that the life cycle energy of construction on
sloping sites plays an important role in this study.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study assessed and modelled the life cycle energy
consumption of the construction phases on various
sloping sites intended for residential development.
The life cycle energy analysis was undertaken to
assess the life cycle energy consumption patterns of
cut and fill excavation and associated structures.
Forty-one detached dwellings in the Greater Sydney
region of Australia were examined and the results are
presented and discussed in this paper.
The study quantified the significant inputs and
outputs of cut and fill excavation, retaining wall and
associated subsoil drainage works and the results
indicated that slope for each type of soil has a posi-
tive correlation with life cycle energy demand. On
sites conforming to this trend, rock has higher life
cycle energy consumption than other soil types
because more cutting——and greater use of machin-
ery——is required. The study also revealed that build-
ing on very steep sites is often seen by those
involved as unrealistic and impractical and this was
confirmed by the scarcity of such sites found during
the study and by the comments of those questioned
during the data-gathering process, including volume
builders, residential land developers and geotechnical
engineers.
It was evident that a steep slope increases life cycle
energy consumption substantially and alternative solu-
tions, such as suspended flooring systems and ‘pole
home’ type construction, may minimize disturbance
to land and natural habitats. Further research could
develop and compare appropriate options with the
results of this study, taking into account the need to
Ding and Forsythe
balance resource consumption with disturbance to the
environment. Economic analyses, such as life cycle
cost analysis, could also be included to assess the
impact of different construction approaches on slop-
ing sites while balancing environmental protection
against return on investment.
This study examined the life cycle energy demand
by the square metre for both building footprint and
gross floor area. The results reveal that building
footprint is perhaps the more appropriate measure of
the two because it exposes more directly the need to
reduce the area of the building footprint in order to
reduce life cycle energy demand from cut and fill
excavation. While multi-level dwellings perform bet-
ter in this respect than single-storey dwellings, fur-
ther research may be required to assess the impact
of multi-level buildings in terms of resource con-
sumption and environmental impact compared to
single-level construction on sloping sites. Another
way of reducing life cycle energy demand for cut
and fill excavation may be to adopt construction
methods that reduce the need for retaining wall con-
struction or at least use low-energy consumption
construction methods.
While this study does not provide a proportional
perspective concerning how much energy consump-
tion of cut and fill excavation contributes to the over-
all life cycle energy consumption of an entire
dwelling, this could provide a relative and contextual
understanding of the findings presented in the study
and would also be useful in providing a more holistic
view of the life cycle energy demand associated with a
residential dwelling construction. The research has
limitations and uncertainty with regard to the small
sample size for rock sites for the 1 in 10 slope and no
sample obtained for either sand or clay sites for the 1
in 2 slope. The research was limited to NSW and the
results may not be equally applicable to other states
in Australia because of different climatic conditions,
labour productivity and topography. In addition, the
project does not include comparisons with competing
methods of construction on sloping land such as sus-
pended concrete or timber floor construction which
may be included in a larger scope as part of further
research.
This study is one of the first of its kind in
Australia and so it should be viewed as the begin-
ning of a continuum whereby the generalizability of
findings will benefit from ongoing and larger scale
sampling and this may also include a wider range
of projects. Though it is beyond the scope of this
study to make a recommendation to policymakers
that may arise from the project findings, there is
potential for others to utilize the findings for this
purpose.
 Sustainable construction
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank their school at the
University of Technology Sydney, the industry
partners in assisting data collection and the Forest
and Wood Product Australia for their financial and
other support for this work.
Note
1. H5 is a commonly used timber treatment in Australia
to protect timber against severe decay, termites and
borers.
References
Ahn, C., Lee, S.H., Pena-Mora, F. and Abourizk, S.
Downloaded by [Lakehead University] at 16:52 13 March 2015
(2010) Toward environmentally sustainable construction
processes: the US and Canada’s perspective on energy
consumption and GHG/GAP emission. Sustainability, 2,
354–70.
Asif, M., Muneer, T. and Kelley, R. (2007) Life cycle
assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland.
Building and Environment, 42, 1391–4.
Baird, G., Donn, M.R., Pool, F., Brander, W.D.S. and Aun,
C.S. (1984) Energy Performance of Buildings, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Balaras, C.A., Droutsa, K., Dascalaki, E. and Kontoyianni-
dis, S. (2005) Heating energy consumption and resulting
environment impact of European apartment buildings.
Energy and Buildings, 37(5), 429–42.
Ballantyne, E., Gurr, T. and Hill, R. (2000) Energy Consid-
erations Housing 2000 V2 Report, Australian Industrial
Research Group and CSIRO, Melbourne.
Ballesteros, M.J., Fernandez, M.D., Quintana, S., Ballester-
os, J.A. and Gonzalez, I. (2010) Noise emission evolution
on construction sites: measurement for controlling and
assessing its impact on the people and on the environ-
ment. Building and Environment, 45, 711–7.
Bilec, M.M., Ries, R.J. and Matthews, H.S. (2010) Life-
cycle assessment modeling of construction processes for
buildings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(3),
199–205.
Dixit, M.K., Fernandez-Solis, J.L., Lavy, S. and Culp, C.
H. (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied
energy measurement: a literature review. Energy and
Buildings, 42, 1238–47.
Du Plessis, C. (2007) A strategic framework for sustainable
construction in developing countries. Construction Man-
agement and Economics, 25, 67–76.
Fay, R., Treloar, G. and Iyer-Raniga, U. (2000) Life-cycle
energy analysis of buildings: a case study. Building
Research & Information, 28(1), 31–41.
Forest Wood Product Australia (2010) Timber Service Life
Design, Forest Wood Product Australia, Victoria.
Gustavsson, L. and Joelsson, A. (2010) Life cycle primary
energy analysis of residential buildings. Energy and Build-
ings, 42, 210–20.
265
Hill, R.C. and Bowen, P.A. (1997) Sustainable construc-
tion: principles and a framework for attainment. Construc-
tion Management and Economics, 15, 223–39.
Kimmet, P. (2005) Theoretical foundations for integrating
sustainability in property investment appraisal. Paper pre-
sented at the 11th Conference of Pacific Rim Real Estate
Society, Melbourne University, Australia, 23–27 January.
Li, X., Zhu, Y. and Zhang, S. (2010) An LCA-based envi-
ronmental impact assessment model for construction pro-
cesses. Building and Environment, 45, 766–75.
Majdalani, Z., Ajam, M. and Mezher, T. (2006) Sustain-
ability in the construction industry: a Lebanese case
study. Construction Innovation, 6, 33–46.
Mokhlesian, S. and Holmen, M. (2012) Business model
changes and green construction processes. Construction
Management and Economics, 30, 761–75.
Morel, J.C., Mesbah, A., Oggero, M. and Walker, P.
(2001) Building houses with local materials: means to
drastically reduce the environmental impact of construc-
tion. Building and Environment, 36(10), 1119–26.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F. and Sonnemann, G. (2009) Sustain-
ability in the construction industry: a review of recent
developments based on LCA. Construction and Building
Materials, 23, 28–39.
Prasad, D. and Hall, M. (2004) The Construction Challenge:
Sustainability in Developing Countries, RICS Leading Edge
Series, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,
London.
Pullen, S. (2000) Energy used in the construction and oper-
ation of houses. Architectural Science Review, 43(2),
87–94.
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R. and Shukla, K.K. (2010) Life
cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy
and Buildings, 42(10), 1592–600.
See, P.T. (1998) Construction energy in residential build-
ing, Undergraduate Honours research thesis, School of
Geoinformatics, Planning and Building, University of
South Australia.
Spence, R. and Mulligan, H. (1995) Sustainable develop-
ment and the construction industry. Habitat International,
19(3), 279–92.
Stewart, P., Edwards, P. and Graham, P. (1995) Measuring
the energy used in the construction of residential housing.
Paper presented at the 11th ARCOM Annual Confer-
ence, 18-20 September, York.
Thormark, C. (2002) A low energy building in a life
cycle——its embodied energy, energy need for operation
and recycling potential. Building and Environment, 37,
429–35.
Treloar, G. (1998) A comprehensive embodied energy
framework, PhD thesis, Deakin University, Geelong.
Treloar, G.J., McCoubrie, A., Love, P.E.D. and Iyer-Rani-
ga, U. (1999) Embodied energy analysis of fixtures, fit-
tings and furniture in office buildings. Facilities, 17(11),
403–9.
Wei, H.L., Ni, J.R. and Xu, N. (2008) Energy, material
and pollutant intensity analysis in the life cycle of walling
materials. Energy Sources, 30, 1367–81.