The methods of waste quantification in the

construction sites (A review)

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020056 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062682
Published Online: 05 October 2018

S. H. Hassan, H. A. Aziz, N. M. Daud, et al.

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

The comparison of construction waste produced by conventional method against IBS: A case
study in Pulau Pinang
AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020055 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062681

Major challenges to improve the performance of construction waste management process: A

case study in Klang Valley
AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020054 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062680

Preliminary study on enhancing waste management best practice model in Malaysia

construction industry
AIP Conference Proceedings 1875, 030008 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998379

AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020056 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062682 2020, 020056

© 2018 Author(s).
 The Methods of Waste Quantification in the Construction
Sites (A Review)
S. H. Hassan1, a), H. A. Aziz2, b), N. M. Daud1, c), R. Keria1, S.M. Noor1, I. Johari2
and S.M.R Shah1
1
Universiti Teknologi MARA (Pulau Pinang),
13500 Permatang Pauh, Penang, Malaysia.
2
School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM),
14300, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia.
a)
sitihafizanhassan@yahoo.com
b)
cehamidi@usm.my
c)
nurhidayatimd@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

Abstract. Shortage of construction waste data cause difficulty in planning the future of construction waste management.
Quantification of construction waste data is one of the valuable solution to be implemented. Waste generated amount have
been investigated in different countries. A series of research on various construction materials were reported by the previous
researcher. However, no similar research has been conducted in Malaysia where there is a pressing need to understand the
generation of construction waste especially for the developing projects like housing. This paper aims to review the previous
study on the waste quantification in the construction sites. The soft measure method found in the study are Interviewed and
Questionnaire and Estimation Based on Statistical Data. While the hard measure method such as Material Flow Analysis
Approach (MFA) and Sorted and Weighed the Waste Materials.

INTRODUCTION

Waste rates may not be directly similar between countries due to difference used in the construction techniques,
work procedures and the common practices. The amount of construction waste on site cannot be overlooked [15].
Waste quantification at the job sites is crucial as a waste evaluation in waste minimization. To benchmark the
construction waste management practices, whether standard, good or best practices, the construction waste quantity
may act as an indicator [11]. J. Li et al [9] stated that the quantification of construction waste can be divided into two
categories; determine an overall waste generation amount in a region or measure the waste generation index at a
project site.
Construction companies until now are not obliged to record and report the qualitative and quantitative
characteristics of the waste [5]. Even the latest system developed by researcher such as web based estimation system
and SMART Waste system, the basic waste quantification method still needs to be explored [9]. The issues of the
increasing waste generation are the continuous issues where if there is no enforcement, then it will be even worse. But
it is almost impossible to obtain accurate weights for the calculation of waste at the construction site. But if no initiative
regarding the waste quantification means that the waste generation issues is neglected.

METHOD TO QUANTIFY
Quantification provides the necessary tools in an evaluating the true size of construction waste produces at the
sites. There is a various method to quantify the waste generation amount or rates at the site [14] points out that there
are two methods used to investigate Waste Generation Rates. There are hard measures or soft measures methods. The

Advances in Civil Engineering and Science Technology

AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 020056-1–020056-6; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062682
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1738-0/$30.00

020056-1
soft measure method is Interviewed and Questionnaire and Estimation Based on Statistical Data. While the hard
measure method such as Material Flow Analysis Approach (MFA) and Sorted and Weighed the Waste Materials.

Material Flow Analysis Approach (MFA)

The material flows analyses monitor the quantity of materials that come into the site in a given time range and
predict when those materials will come out as waste. The estimation is done by material composition, focusing on the
material consumption in the certain country. The data used for this method gained from the industry association from
each of the materials. Data relating to the production and consumption for each material is very important for this
method. The disadvantages of this technique are on the availability of the data needed and ease of access in gaining
the data from the material organization itself. Cochran and Townsend [5] are using this method to quantify the amount
of waste. The result found that 610 – 780 x 106 Mg of waste was generated in 2002. The types of material in the study
are Portland cement, Concrete, Wood, Brick and Clay tiles, Asphalt Shingles, Gypsum and Steel and Iron. The method
of data collection of performing the waste facility sorts, visual characterization and site monitoring.

TABLE 1. Material Flow Analysis Method

Author Parameter Waste Method Result
Measurement
Cochran and -Material Composition by -Material Flow -610 – 780 x 106 Mg
Townsend, Production volume and mass Analysis generated in 2002
(2010) -Material -Perform waste facility - Portland Cement,
Consumption sorts, visual Concrete, Wood, Brick
characterization and and Clay tiles, Asphalt
monitoring Shingles, Gypsum and
Steel and Iron

Sorted and Weighed the Waste Materials

This method requires the examination of a large number of waste samples to gather a representative estimate.
Sampling work with a mixed waste stream which is very challenging task considering of time and grant but this
approach is good for regional waste investigations. This method is considered as the most accurate and reliable for
waste quantification [4]. Franklin Associates [6] present an approach similar to the waste-weight-per-construction
area. Previous studies have been carried out such as Lu et al [10] which focus on four ongoing high rise construction
projects in Hong Kong. Measurement was made for three months’ time and on site sorting at floor level before going
to the chutes. The measurement was divided into four typical trades which was concreting, formwork, masonry and
plastering. The calculation can be measured using four methods; percentage of material purchase, % of material
required by design, kg/m2 of gross floor area and m3/m2 of gross floor. The method of survey is done by the
composition of volume and mass and the Waste Generation Rates is found between 3.275 – 8.791 kg/m2. From the
study by Katz and Baum [7] they found that the amount of waste increased towards the end of the project. The total
amount of waste generated in residential construction is 0.2 m3/m2. The method of study is site observation in the new
residential building (10 high-rise building). They also use the dumpster to get the total volume, degree of filling and
the relative volume. The sampling of the total waste from accounting book is done by project activity and the
construction stages.Poon et al. [13] found that the total waste generation rate, 0.176 m3/m2. The unit of quantification
is the volume (m3) of waste generated per m2 of gross floor area. Timber board from formwork is the most significant
waste requires disposal (50%) and the steel had the highest recovery level (100%). The methods use in the study is a
visual inspection, tape measurement and truck load record (truck volume and total no of trucks for waste disposal) at
five housing projects during superstructure and finishing stages. Bossink and Brouwers [3] found that 1 to 10 % of
every single purchased material leaves the site as waste and 20 to 30% of purchase materials is not used well and end
up as a waste. The method use in the study is sorted and weights the waste materials in the five housing projects. The
method of quantifying is by weight of purchasing materials.

020056-2
 TABLE 2. Weighing Method
Author Parameter Waste Measurement Method Result
Lu et al. - 4 typical trades --Percentage of -Waste sorting and WGR = 3.275 –
(2011) - Concreting, material purchase, % weighing at 4 sites in 8.791 kg/m2
formwork, of material required by Shenzhen (building)
masonry and design, kg/m2 of -3 month monitors
plastering gross floor area and
m3/m2 of GF.

Katz and -Waste Using Dumpster Site observation -The amount of

Baum (2010) accumulation -Total volume -Using Dumpster waste increased
-Waste removal of -Degree of filling -Sampling total waste towards the end
sub-contractor -Relative volume from accounting book of the project.
-By project activity - The total
New residential amount of waste
building (10 high-rise generated in
building) residential
By construction stages construction is
0.2m3/m2
Poon et al. Truck Volume The volume m3 of -Visual inspection, -The total waste
(2004) Total no of trucks waste generated per m2 tape measurement and generation rate,
for waste disposal of gross floor area truck load record 0.176 m3/m2
At five housing -Timber board
projects during from formwork
superstructure and is the most
finishing stages significant waste
require disposal
(50%)
-Steel had the
highest recovery
level (100%)
Franklin - - -Combine national -Wood is the
Associates data on construction largest
(1998) industry project component
activity with waste (67%) of waste
sampling and in construction
weighing sites
-Single family -Weighted
residential average value is
construction 4.38 pounds per
square feet.
-Total
generation is
6.56 million tons
per year.
Bossink and - Weight (of purchasing -Sorted and weight -1 to 10 % of
Brouwers materials) the waste materials every single
(1996) -Five housing projects purchased
material leaves
the site as waste.
-20-30% of
purchase
materials is not
used well and
end up as a waste

020056-3
 Estimation Based on Statistical Data

The method of estimation is used by the previous researcher such as Fatta [5] and Kofoworola and Gheewala [8].
Normally the estimation method is based on the statistical data that available from the database in the related country.
The data normally related to the building activity and numbers of construction licenses for selected years. The
calculation and extrapolation made is based on the available data. The disadvantages of this method are regarding the
data that are available in the system. They are different amount of waste generated depending on their factor of
contribution. The amount of generation may vary because of construction waste depend on the types of technology
used in certain areas. From the study by Coelho and Brito [2 ], they found that the global generation generated is 185.6
kg person-1 year-1 and the extrapolation is up to 2020. The study calculates for the housing and commercial building.
The method used is statistical data by taking the average useful area of commercial building and the overall area of
intervention multiplied by the amount of waste each activity.
The previous research by Oyeshola and Shabbir [8 ], estimates for the year 2002 for the new residential generated
was found 21.38 kg/m2. The study found that 1.1 million tons of construction wastes were generated per year. The
statistical data gained from HQ Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 2006.
The previous study by Bergdals [2] is projecting the future amount and composition for total national activity levels
for ten types of materials such as concrete, wood, plasterboard, metal, papers, plastic, and insulation, asbestos,
hazardous and other. The data for the study is gained from Building Types Data from Norwegian Mapping Authority
(2003) and Building Floor Space from Statistics Norway (2003, 2005). The study is focusing on the stock and flows
of building and materials from 2004-2018 using MATLAB and the units are specific gravity tonnes/m3 and
volume/floor area.
TABLE 3. The Estimation Method
Author Waste Measurement Method Result
Coelho and Brito Calculate for housing -Statistical data -Global generation
(2011) and commercial -Taking the average 185.6 kg person-1 year-1
building useful area of -Extrapolate up to 2020
commercial building
-Overall area of
intervention
multiplied by the
amount of waste each
activity
Oyeshola and Shabbir Estimates for the year Assumption value -1.1 million tons of
(2009) 2002-2005. -New residential construction waste were
generated 21.38 kg/m2 generated per year.
(HQ Air Force Center
For Environmental
Excellence, 2006)
Bergdal, (2007) -Building Types Data -Stock and flows of -Project future amount
from Norwegian building and materials and composition
Mapping Authority from 2004-2018 using -10 types of materials
(2003) MATLAB Concrete, wood,
-Building Floor Space -Using specific gravity plasterboard, metal,
from Statistics Norway tonnes/m3 and papers, plastic,
(2003,2005) volume/floor area insulation, asbestos,
hazardous and other
-Total national activity
levels;

020056-4
 Interview and Questionnaire

Another technique applies in waste quantification is a questionnaire and expert interview. It is considered as a soft
measurement technique. Using this method, Begum et al.[1] conducted an interview using questionnaire with 2-3
years of monitoring throughout the project duration in combination with the developer, contractor, subcontractor,
project manager, quantity surveyor and site supervisor. The study is focusing on the comparison between the non-
residential building and the residential building. The amount of waste in tones for 100m2 floor spaces is 56.642.
Poon et al [13] emphasized that the quantitative data obtained from this questionnaire survey were not the real
figures of specific contracts, but were estimates based on the “experience” of the respondents. Using the questionnaire
for waste quantify are not accurate and can be argued which produce only estimation value without the exact value of
the waste.
TABLE 4. The Interview and Questionnaires Method
Author Waste Measurement Method Result
Begum et al. (2010) -Comparison between -Gross waste Amount of waste
conventional and IBS generation in tonnage (tones 100m2 floor
element -Questionnaire with 2- spaces) = 56.642
3 years monitoring
-Nonresidential

TABLE 5. Comparison of method used in waste quantification

STATISTICAL MATERIAL FIELD SAMPLING QUESTIONNAIRE

Method DATA FLOW RECORD
-Use of data relevant -Examine the -Hard measurement -Consider as a soft
to building activity amount of materials technique measurement
-Existing Data from that come into -The most accurate technique
Brief Federal Agencies services in a given measurement -Normally
Description time range and -On-site sort, questionnaire with
predict when those weighing or truckload rank and expert
materials come out record interview
of service as waste.
Andre Coelho and Cochran and Lu (2011), Franklin Begum et al (2010),
Jorge de Brito (2011), Townsend (2010) Associates (1998),
Author Oyeshola and Shabbir Bossink and
(2009), Havard Brouwers (1996),
Bergsdel (2007), D Poon et al (2004)
Fatta et al (2003)

CONCLUSION

Waste quantification is very important in order to improve the waste management practices in the countries. The
development of policies by the government and cost saving for the contractor’s side may be produced by gaining the
amount of waste generated at the each site. Waste quantification methods presented in this paper are an overview of
the method applied by the previous researcher. The different types of material produced with the different construction
technique in the different countries showed that maybe a different method of quantification may be applied to the
different sites.
Field sampling is considered as a more accurate method for the site that have the same characteristics. The
identification of the waste amount of the each material is very important for the data improvement.

020056-5
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for financial support in this research
work.

REFERENCES
1. R. A. Begum, S. H. Satari, J. J. Pereira, Waste generation and recycling : comparison of conventional and IBS,
2010.
2. H. Bergsdal, R. A. Bohne, H. Brattebo, Projection Of Construction And Demolition Waste In Norway, 2007.
3. B. B. A. G. Bossink and H. J. H. Brouwers, Construction waste: quantification, and source evaluation, (March,
1996), pp. 55–60.
4. K. M. Cochran and T. G. Townsend, Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials
flow analysis approach. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 30(11), pp. 2247–54.
Doi:10.1016/J.Wasman.2010.04.008
5. D. Fatta, A. Papadopoulos, E. Avramikos, E. Sgourou, K. Moustakas, F. Kourmoussis, … M. Loizidou, (2003).
generation and management of construction and demolition waste in greece—an existing challenge resources,
Conservation And Recycling, 40 (1), pp. 81–91. Do: 10.1016/S0921-3449 (03)00035-1
6. F. Associates And K. P. Village, Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the
united state, (68), 1998.
7. A. Katz and H. Baum, A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of construction waste in construction sites
Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 31(2), 353–8. Doi:10.1016/J.Wasman.2010.01.008
8. O. F. Kofoworola and S. H. Gheewala, Estimation of construction waste generation and management in thailand
Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 29(2), 731–8. Doi:10.1016/J.Wasman.2008.07.004
9. J. Li, Z. Ding, X. Mi, and J. Wang, A Model For Estimating Construction Waste Generation Index For Building
Project In China. Resources, Conservation And Recycling, 74, 20–26. Doi:10.1016/J.Resconrec.2013.02.015
10. W. Lu, H. Yuan, J. Li, J. J. L. Hao, X. Mi, and Z. Ding, An Empirical Investigation Of Construction And
Demolition Waste Generation Rates In Shenzhen City, South China. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.),
31(4), 680–7. Doi:10.1016/J.Wasman.2010.12.004
11. S. A. Mahayuddin, and W. A. Z. W. Zaharuddin, S. A. Mahayuddin And W. A. Z. W. Zaharuddin. International
journal of environmental science and development, 4(3), pp. 296–299. Doi:10.7763/IJESD.2013.V4.357
12. M. Osmani, Construction Waste, M. L. Trevor And A. V. Daniel, Eds, Elsevier, 2011.
13. C. S. Poon, A. T. W. Yu, S. W. Wong, and E. Cheung, Management of construction waste in public housing
projects in hong kong Construction Management And Economics, 22(7), 675–689.
Doi:10.1080/0144619042000213292, 2004.
14. Whyte, L. H. "Composition And Characteristics Of Construction Waste Generated By Residential Housing
Project" 2(3), pp. 261–268, 2008.
15. Yahya, K., and Boussabaine, A. H. "Eco-Costing Of Construction Waste". Management Of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal, 17 (1), 6–19. Doi:10.1108/14777830610639404, 2006.

020056-6