Published at : 07 Dec 2018
Volume : IJtech Vol 9, No 6 (2018)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v9i6.2445
|Intan Chairunnisa||Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Depok 16424, Indonesia|
|Dalhar Susanto||Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Depok 16424, Indonesia|
The increasing construction of tall buildings in Indonesia has led to the reduction of green areas and the increase use of building materials such as concrete panels. This research sees the potential of building façades created by using concrete panels as media for growing plants to replace those green areas that have decreased. The plants that are used in this research are selected based on the climatic conditions of tropical countries in Indonesia. The plants that are chosen are fast growing, require less maintenance, and are considered to be suitable for cementitious materials. A previous study has found that bryophyte moss meets those criteria. This research compares the performance of pre-vegetated and non-pre-vegetated concrete panels by investigating compressive strength through laboratory experiments. Three mixes of concrete, three moss species, and three concrete surfaces were examined with 9 panels, 27 cube samples, and 9 cube controls. The study contributes to a growing body of research on the sustainability of building façades in which further investigation is needed.
Living material; Precast concrete panel; Pre-vegetated concrete panel
Building development has been increasing to fulfill human needs and activities. A broad range of housing, apartment, retail, and skyscraper developments in the world are mostly constructed with concrete. Large-scale urban development has affected vegetation areas and their properties (trees, shrubs, grasses, etc.) as these green areas give way to concrete blocks. Urban development reduces the availability of green areas (Kiran et al., 2005). Hardened areas in buildings such as roofs, walls, balconies, and other areas can be transformed into plant vegetation areas and replace the grounded vegetation into a more sustainable building (Johnston & Newton, 1993). Plants that are grown on, up, or against internal or external walls of buildings or as freestanding structures are called vertical greenery (Mansor et al., 2017). One building in Newbury changed its façade from basic concrete (which is considered dull and unattractive) to vertical greenery, positively improving the aesthetic performance of the building and improving air quality (Ord, 2017). To create successful vertical greenery, the plant must be chosen carefully. Several plants hold their own soil or artificial growing mediums, which most of these systems need for more complex façade design (Rakhshandehroo et al., 2015). Other plants grow on the surfaces of building façades as hybrid materials of living things and an object called living material. A plant which does not require special care is moss. Moss can grow on wood panels without any light, water, or specific care (Garty, 2003).
is the second largest plant group after tall plants. The number of mosses is
approximately 18,000 species worldwide and 1,500 species in Indonesia.
Indonesia is a tropical country, characterized by high rainfall and year-round
sunshine, allowing various types of moss to grow. The vital roles of moss in
environmental ecology include contributions to the nutrient-and-water cycle,
the carbon-exchange cycle, and protecting the environment (Waldi, 2017). On the
other hand, moss that grows on building materials tends to cause deterioration
and damage to the material (Lisci et al., 2003). Other studies show that moss
can provide benefits for historic buildings, for example protecting images of
carved petroglyphs, moisture regulators for fragile stone materials, etc. (Chiari
& Cossio, 2002) In these studies, it was found that moss has the potential
to be used as a plant that is useful for buildings, so it is possible to be
developed as research.
This study aimed to engineer moss growth on the surface of precast concrete panels and analyze the mechanical performance of these panels. The moss growth was calculated to examine the successful growth.
The present work characterizes the performance of pre-vegetated and non-pre-vegetated concrete panels. The study utilized the concrete standard for characterization, which allows for a comparison to pre-vegetated concrete. The results of the study indicate that pre-vegetated concrete panels have properties that compare with or surpass that of non-pre-vegetated concrete panels as nonstructural concrete. Among three trial mixes chosen, it was found that TM I (a mixture of fly ash) had the highest compressive strength on pre-vegetated and non-pre-vegetated concrete panels. In conclusion, as a nonstructural concrete panel, all the trial mixes matched the standard of K-175, surpassing 14.5 Mpa in compressive strength. Further investigation is needed to provide a wide range of structural concrete that can be used in pre-vegetated concrete panels.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Research and Development Division of Wika Beton Inc. for their support on the concrete panels, samples, and funding of the research project.
ASTM C109 / C109M-16a, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, Available Online at https://www.astm.org/Standards/C109
Attmann, O. 2010. Green Architecture: Advanced Technologies and Materials. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Baikerikar, A., 2014. A Review on Green Concrete. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), Volume 1(6), pp. 472–474
Berge, B., 2009. The Ecology of Building Materials. 2nd Edition, Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Berry, M., Cross, D., Stephens, J., 2009. Changing the Environment: An Alternative “Green” Concrete Produced without Portland Cement. In: 2009 World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference
Chiari G., Cossio R., 2002. Ethyl Silicate Treatment's Control by Image Treatment Procedure, in I Silicati Nella Conservazione: Indagini, Esperienze e Valutazioni per il Consolidamento dei Manufatti Storici, ed Appolonia L., editor. (Torino: Associazione Villa dell'arte), pp. 147–156
Chiari G., Cossio R., 2004. Lichens on Wyoming Sandstone: Do They Cause Damage? In Biodeterioration of Stone Surfaces: Lichens and Biofilms as Weathering Agents of Rocks and Cultural Heritage, ed. L.L. St. Clair and M.R.D. Seaward, pp. 99–114, Dordrecht, Netherlands, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Dawood, E.T., Ramli, M., 2008. Rational Mix Design of Lightweight Concrete for Optimum Strength. In: 2nd International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries (ICBEDC 2008)
Deplazes A., 2005. Constructing Architecture Materials Processes Structures. Birkhäuser – Publishers for Architecture, Berlin
Dia, M.G., Not, R., 1991. Gli Agenti Biodeteriogeni Degli Edifici Monumentali Del Centro Storico Della Città di Palermo. Quaderni di Botanica Ambientale Applicata, Volume 2, pp. 3–10
Farelly L, 2009. Construction+materiality. AVA Publishing SA, Lausanne
Garty, J., 1992. The Postfire Recovery of Rock-inhabiting Algae, Microfungi and Lichens. Canadian Journal of Botany, Volume 70, pp. 301–312
Glime, J.M., 2013. Bryophyte Ecology Volume 1: Physiological Ecology. Michigan Technological University, Michigan
Gradstein, S.R., 2011. Guide to the Liveworts and Hornwors of Java. Seameo Biotrop, Bogor, Indonesia
Hale, M. E., 1974. The Biology of Lichens. 2nd Edition. London: Arnold
Johnston, J., Newton, J., 1993. Building Green: A Guide for Using Plants on Roofs, Walls, and Pavements. The London Ecology Unit, London
Kiran, C., Mamata, P., Raghunathan, M., 2005. Understanding Environment. Sage Publications, London.
Lisci, M., Monte, M., Pacini, E., 2003. Lichens and Higher Plants on Stone: A Review. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, Volume 51(1), pp. 1–17
Mansor, M., Zakariya, K., Harun, N.Z., Bakar, N.I.A., 2017. Appreciation of Vertical Greenery in a City as a Public Art. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, Volume 15(1), pp. 117–128
Ord, C., 2017. Town Councillor Suggests ‘Living Wall’ for Newbury ‘Eyesore’. Available online at http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/22491/town-councillor-suggests-living-wall-for-newbury-eyesore.html, Accessed on October 16th, 2017
Putrika, A., 2015. Epifit Moss Community at Universita Indonesia. Master’s Thesis, Graduate Program, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Rakhshandehroo, M., Yusof, M.J.M., Arabi, B.R., 2015. Living Wall (Vertical Greening): Benefits and Threats. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Volume. 747, pp. 16–19
Richards, P. W., 1984. The Ecology of Tropical Forest Bryophytes. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Trafton, A., 2014. Engineers design ‘living materials’. Available Online at http://news.mit.edu/2014/engineers-design-living-materials, Accessed on September 14th, 2017
Udawatha, C., Galkanda, H., Ariyarathne, I.S., Jayasinghe, G.Y., Halwatura, R., 2018. Mold Growth and Moss Growth on Tropical Walls. Building and Environment, Volume 137, pp. 268–279
Yeang, K. 2011. EcoArchitecture: The Book of Ken Yeang. John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.
Waldi, R., 2017. Mosses Inventorisation in Lampung Rubber Forest. Bachelor’s Thesis, Graduate Program, University Islam Negeri Raden Intan, Lampung, Indonesia.
Windadri, F.I., 2009. Keragaman Lumut pada Marga Pandanus di Taman Nasional Ujung Kulon, Banten (Diversity of Moss Pandanus Venus at National Garden Ujung Kulon, Banten). Jurnal Natur Indonesia, Volume 11(2), pp. 89–93