Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Study of Conventional and Prefabricated Construction Methods: MADM Analysis

Lately, many governments have been significantly promoting modular building instead of conventional as a practical solution toward enhancing sustainability in the construction sector. Therefore, this research aims to compare traditional and modular building construction to find each environmental and cost difference as a criterion for comparison. This study's life cycle sustainability assessment comprises embodied energy, greenhouse gas (GHG), and cost. The result showed that the steel modular has the lowest embodied energy and carbon emission following conventional steel construction. For traditional construction, 28% of GHG emissions are related to on-site activity, while PPVC is less than 1%. However, the development of the factory is about 11% of the total construction emission for PPVC. On the other hand, the concrete, conventional method has a lower construction cost following by concrete modular. The transportation cost of modular building is responsible for up to 13% of the total construction cost. While the conventional building has a higher worker wage by 11%, compare to modular construction. Multi-attributes decision-making (MADM) using WASPAS has been applied to reveal the best construction material and method. The result showed that steel modular is the best option for construction.

[1]  B. Hwang,et al.  Key constraints and mitigation strategies for prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction , 2018 .

[2]  Andrea Prota,et al.  LCA-Based Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Different Structural Systems , 2018, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.

[3]  Martin Skitmore,et al.  Education for sustainability in construction management curricula , 2015 .

[4]  Guoqian Chen,et al.  Embodied energy consumption of building construction engineering: Case study in E-town, Beijing , 2013 .

[5]  Othman Subhi Alshamrani.  Life cycle assessment of low-rise office building with different structure–envelope configurations , 2016 .

[6]  Lukumon O. Oyedele,et al.  Waste-efficient materials procurement for construction projects: A structural equation modelling of critical success factors. , 2018, Waste management.

[7]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[8]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Comparison of Environmental Effects of Steel- and Concrete-Framed Buildings , 2005 .

[9]  Wei Pan,et al.  Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: Evidence from and gaps in empirical studies , 2018 .

[10]  Mariarosaria Lombardi,et al.  Assessing the urban carbon footprint: An overview , 2017 .

[11]  F. Freire,et al.  Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: The “Moby” case study , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[12]  L. Gustavsson,et al.  Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings , 2010 .

[13]  Zhang Xu,et al.  Inventory analysis of LCA on steel- and concrete-construction office buildings , 2008 .

[14]  E. Zavadskas,et al.  Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment , 2012 .

[15]  Catarina Thormark,et al.  The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building , 2006 .

[16]  Abhijit Mukherjee,et al.  Biomineralization for sustainable construction - A review of processes and applications , 2015 .

[17]  Gholamreza Heravi,et al.  Evaluation of energy consumption during production and construction of concrete and steel frames of residential buildings , 2016 .

[18]  A. T. Balasbaneh,et al.  Balancing of life cycle carbon and cost appraisal on alternative wall and roof design verification for residential building , 2018 .

[19]  A. T. Balasbaneh,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment of window renovations in schools against noise pollution in tropical climates , 2020, Journal of Building Engineering.

[20]  Benoit P. Gilbert,et al.  A comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: Environmental and economic perspective , 2017 .

[21]  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and scientific consensus: How scientists come to say what they say about climate change , 1998 .

[22]  Kasun Hewage,et al.  Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review , 2016 .

[23]  Fausto Freire,et al.  Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): Assessing the implications of allocation , 2006 .

[24]  Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh,et al.  Proposing of new building scheme and composite towards global warming mitigation for Malaysia , 2017 .

[25]  R. Frischknecht.  ecoinvent Data v1.1 (2004): From heterogenous databases to unified and transparent LCI data , 2005 .

[26]  M. Z. Ramli,et al.  A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete and steel-prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction structures in Malaysia , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[27]  G. Ofori,et al.  Strategies for Foreign Construction-Related Consultancy Firms to Improve Performance in China , 2016 .

[28]  Abdul Karim Mirasa,et al.  Construction industry experience of industralised building system in Malaysia , 2012 .

[29]  Xiao-Juan Li,et al.  Using LCA to research carbon footprint for precast concrete piles during the building construction stage: A China study , 2020 .

[30]  Abdulkadir Bin Marsono,et al.  Applying multi-criteria decision-making on alternatives for earth-retaining walls: LCA, LCC, and S-LCA , 2020, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[31]  Rehan Sadiq,et al.  Conventional versus modular construction methods: A comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings , 2019 .

[32]  Poorang Piroozfar,et al.  Life cycle environmental impact assessment of contemporary and traditional housing in Palestine , 2019, Energy and Buildings.

[33]  A. B. Birtles.  Getting Energy Efficiency Applied in Buildings , 1993 .

[34]  John Meiling,et al.  Defects in offsite construction: timber module prefabrication , 2009 .

[35]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database , 2005 .

[36]  John S. Monahan,et al.  An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: A case study us , 2011 .

[37]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Integrated life-cycle analysis , 2002 .

[38]  Qiping Shen,et al.  Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects , 2013 .

[39]  S. Thomas Ng,et al.  A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the environmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong , 2015 .

[40]  John D. Quale,et al.  Construction Matters: Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conventional Homes in the United States , 2012 .

[41]  J.S. Goulding,et al.  New offsite production and business models in construction: priorities for the future research agenda , 2015 .

[42]  R. Reed,et al.  Factors impeding the offsite production of housing construction in China: an investigation of current practice , 2014 .

[43]  Tarek Zayed,et al.  Comparative analysis of modular construction practices in mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore , 2020 .

[44]  Mohd Hanizun Hanafi,et al.  The Common Approach in Off-Site Construction Industry , 2010 .

[45]  Zainal Abidin Akasah,et al.  Implementing Life Cycle Costing in Malaysian Construction Industry: A Review , 2012 .

[46]  Wei Pan,et al.  Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK , 2011 .

[47]  C. Rohde,et al.  Overcoming the Upfront Investment Barrier — Comparing the German Co2 Building Rehabilitation Programme and the British Green Deal , 2013 .