Perbandingan Embodied Carbon antara Metode Konvensional dan Off-Site Construction di Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51988/jtsc.v7i4.712Keywords:
Embodied Carbon, Life Cycle Assessment, Off-site ConstructionAbstract
Off-site construction berkembang sebagai alternatif konstruksi rendah karbon termasuk di Indonesia. Dengan demikian, perlu dilakukan evaluasi mengenai kontribusi sistem off-site construction di Indonesia terhadap embodied carbon. Penelitian ini bertujuan membandingkan embodied carbon metode konvensional, MOBOX, WASKITA + BEP, dan RISHA pada rumah tinggal dua lantai di Bandung, serta mengidentifikasi sumber emisi dominan dan sensitivitas variabel penyusunnya. Analisis dilakukan menggunakan pendekatan Life Cycle Assessment pada batas sistem cradle-to-site (Modul A1–A5). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa MOBOX menghasilkan embodied carbon terendah sebesar 9.957,52 kgCO?e, sedangkan RISHA tertinggi sebesar 10.392,37 kgCO?e. Emisi material menjadi kontributor utama dengan proporsi 82–94% dari total embodied carbon. Analisis sensitivitas menunjukkan bahwa jarak transportasi dan produktivitas alat instalasi lebih berpengaruh dibandingkan waste material. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan off-site construction tidak secara otomatis menghasilkan embodied carbon yang lebih rendah, melainkan dipengaruhi oleh kebutuhan material, sistem struktur, dan rantai pasok proyek.
References
[1] Y. A. Tanne, “Evaluating Digital Twin and Construction 4.0 Technologies for Sustainable Construction,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science PAPER, 2026, pp. 0–14. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1649/1/012010.
[2] L. Chen et al., Green construction for low ? carbon cities?: a review, vol. 21, no. 3. Springer International Publishing, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01544-4.
[3] World Green Building Council, “Bringing embodied carbon upfront,” World Green Build. Counc., 2019.
[4] F. Pomponi and A. Moncaster, “Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings?: The next performance gap made manifest,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81, no. February 2017, pp. 2431–2442, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.049.
[5] M. Kamali and K. Hewage, “Life cycle performance of modular buildings?: A critical review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 62, pp. 1171–1183, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.031.
[6] Y. A. Tanne and N. L. A. Indrayani, “Review of Construction Automation and Robotics Practices in Indonesian Construction State ? Owned Enterprises?: Position in Project Life Cycle , Gap to Best Practice and Potential Uses,” Archit. Struct. Constr., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 373–389, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s44150-023-00098-5.
[7] B. Ginigaddara, S. Perera, Y. Feng, and P. Rahnamayiezekavat, “Development of an Offsite Construction Typology?: A Delphi Study,” Buildings, 2022.
[8] Y. Guo, E. Shi, R. Yan, and W. Wei, “System based greenhouse emission analysis of off ? site prefabrication?: a comparative study of residential projects,” Sci. Rep., pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37782-x.
[9] V. Viriezky, D. Susanto, and M. F. Alkadri, “Flexible and Sustainable Incremental Houses?: Advancing Semi-Volumetric Systems of Prefabricated Construction for Rapid Urbanization in Indonesia,” infrastructures, 2025.
[10] K. P. Direktorat Bina Teknik Permukiman dan Perumahan, “Rumah Instan Sederhana Sehat (RISHA).” [Online]. Available: https://pu.go.id/pustaka/biblio/risha-rumah-instan-sederhana-sehat/LG26GJ
[11] PT Waskita Beton Precast Tbk, “PT Waskita Beton Precast Tbk (WSBP).” [Online]. Available: https://waskitaprecast.co.id
[12] PT Adhi Karya (Persero) Tbk., “Teknologi MOBOX (Modular Volumetrik Mobile Box).” [Online]. Available: https://adhi.co.id
[13] PT Beton Elemenindo Perkasa, “About Us — PT. Beton Elemenindo Perkasa.” [Online]. Available: https://beton.co.id/en/about
[14] A. Yan, W. Agung, and Syafrudin, “Carbon Emission Analysis of Modular Construction ( Case Study?: Mobox 3x6 ),” in ICENIS 2025, 2025.
[15] H. Pervez, Y. Ali, and A. Petrillo, “A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions from conventional and modular construction?: A case of developing country,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 294, p. 126210, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126210.
[16] B. P. Y. Loo, X. Li, and R. W. M. Wong, “Environmental comparative case studies on modular integrated construction and cast-in-situ construction methods,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 428, no. September, p. 139303, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139303.
[17] H. Jang, Y. Ahn, and S. Roh, “Comparison of the Embodied Carbon Emissions and Direct Construction Costs for Modular and Conventional Residential Buildings in South Korea,” Buildings, 2022.
[18] M. Keintjem, R. Suwondo, and L. Cunningham, “Embodied Carbon in Concrete?: Insights from Indonesia and Comparative Analysis with UK and USA,” Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 17737–17742, 2024.
[19] J. Jayawardana, M. Sandanayake, J. A. S. C. Jayasinghe, A. K. Kulatunga, and G. Zhang, “A comparative life cycle assessment of prefabricated and traditional construction – A case of a developing country,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 72, no. April, 2023.
[20] A. Utama and S. H. Gheewala, “Indonesian residential high rise buildings?: A life cycle energy assessment,” Energy Build., vol. 41, pp. 1263–1268, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.07.025.
[21] C. Malaysia, “EMBODIED CARBON INVENTORY DATA FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS,” 2022.
[22] UK Government, “UK Government GHG Conversion Factors 2026,” 2026.
[23] K. Marisa, P. Wardhana, D. K. Sudarsana, A. Agung, and D. Parami, “Comparative Analysis of Carbon Emissions Between Precast Concrete and Cast-In-Place Methods,” Am. J. Open Res., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 336–348, 2025.
[24] Y. Huang and A. Wang, “Research on Carbon Emission of Prefabricated Structure in China,” MDPI, 2023.
[25] M. M. H. Abdullah, R. S. Nugroho, and A. Magfirona, “ANALISIS PRODUKTIVITAS PENGECORAN DITINJAU DARI ASPEK BIAYA DAN WAKTU MENGGUNAKAN TOWER CRANE DAN CONCRETE PUMP,” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Sipil 2024, 2024, pp. 271–278.
[26] MACPEX, “Trailer type concrete pump by diesel.”
[27] A. H. A. Munawar, T. I. K. Amar, R. Rizana, and S. Maghfuri, “ANALISIS WASTE MATERIAL PADA PROYEK PEMBANGUNAN GEDUNG DISHUB KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR,” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Sipil 2025, 2025, pp. 67–75.
[28] A. F. Septianugraha and S. Winarno, “Estimasi Indeks Waste Material Konstruksi untuk Proyek Bangunan di Indonesia,” Agreg. J. Tek. Sipil, vol. 6, no. 2, 2021.
[29] L. Loizou, K. Barati, X. Shen, and B. Li, “Quantifying Advantages of Modular Construction?: Waste Generation,” MDPI, pp. 1–21, 2021.
[30] A. Nikeghbali, “Estimation of Mobile Crane Cycle Time to Improve the Accuracy of Modular-Based Heavy Construction Project Schedules,” 2021.
[31] I. I. Susanti and D. S. Hadi, “Comparative Analysis Methods Fullslab Precast Erection of Cost and Time,” JWC J. World Conf., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 81–91, 2020.
[32] Terex, “Fuel Consumption Site at 15 – Hino Engine,” 2008.
[33] N. A. Suhaini, N. H. Abas, and S. Nagapan, “Identification of Construction Waste Generated at Precast Concrete Plants?: Case study Identification of Construction Waste Generated at Precast Concrete Plants?: Case study,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. Pap., 2019, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/601/1/012036.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Teknik Sipil Cendekia (JTSC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
