Search results

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sustainability performance of modular construction from a life cycle perspective. So far, the sustainability performance of modular buildings has been explored from a life cycle viewpoint. There is no comprehensive study showing which material is the best choice for modular construction considering all three sustainable pillars. Therefore, a life cycle sustainability performance framework, including the three-pillar evaluation framework, was developed for different modular buildings. The materials are concrete, steel and timber constructed as a modular construction method.

Transitioning the built environment to a circular economy is vital to achieving sustainability goals. Modular construction is perceived as the future of the construction industry, and in combination with objective sustainability, it is still in the evaluation phase. A life cycle sustainability assessment, which includes life cycle assessment, life cycle cost and social life cycle assessment, has been selected to evaluate alternative materials for constructing a case study building using modular strategies. Subsequently, the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method was used to compute the outranking scores for each modular component.

The calculated embodied impacts and global warming potential (GWP) showed that material production is the most critical phase (65%–88% of embodied energy and 64%–86% of GWP). The result of embodied energy and GWP shows timber as an ideal choice. Timber modular has a 21% and 11% lower GWP than concrete and steel, respectively. The timber structure also has 19% and 13% lower embodied energy than concrete and steel. However, the result of the economic analysis revealed that concrete is the most economical choice. The cost calculations indicate that concrete exhibits a lower total cost by 4% compared to timber and 11% higher than steel structures. However, the social assessment suggests that steel emerges as the optimal material when contrasted with timber and concrete. Consequently, determining the best single material for constructing modular buildings becomes challenging. To address this, the MCDM technique is used to identify the optimal choice. Through MCDM analysis, steel demonstrates the best overall performance.

This research is valuable for construction professionals as it gives a deliberate framework for modular buildings’ life cycle sustainability performance and assists with sustainable construction materials.

The purpose of this study is to describe life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) evaluation for single story building house in Malaysia. Two objective functions, namely, LCA and LCC, were evaluated for each design and a total of 20 alternatives were analyzed. Two wall schemes that have been adopted from two different recent studies toward mitigation of climate change require clarification in both life cycle objectives.

For this strategic life cycle assessment, Simapro 8.3 tool has been chosen over a 50-year life span. LCC analysis was also used to determine not only the most energy-efficient strategy, but also the most economically feasible one. A present value (PV)-based economic analysis takes LCC into account.

The results will appear in present value and LC carbon footprint saving, both individually and in combination with each other. Result of life cycle management shows that timber wall−wooden post and beam covered by steel stud (W5) and wood truss with concrete roof tiles (R1) released less carbon emission to atmosphere and have lower life cycle cost over their life span. W5R1 releases 35 per cent less CO₂ emission than the second best choice and costs 25 per cent less.

The indicator assessed was global warming, and as the focus was on GHG emissions, the focus of this study was mainly in the context of Malaysian construction, although the principles apply universally. The result would support the adoption of sustainable building for building sector.