Abstract
Purpose
Aspects of the lifecycle sustainability of modular and prefabricated construction remain unexplored. In particular, the characteristics of various concrete techniques require further investigation. This study assessed three different construction techniques, namely, On-site concrete (OSC), Individual Panel System (IPS), and Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC).
Methods
The following environmental impact criteria were studied: greenhouse gas (GHG), ozone layer depletion (OLD), human toxicity (HT), fossil depletion (FD), and terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE). These were calculated using life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis. The total cost of each case studies was calculated using LCC and a social survey was also conducted using a questionnaire survey. The significance weights were incorporated into an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for use in multi-criteria decision making (MCDM: TOPSIS).
Results
PPVC was assessed as the best construction technique for most of the environmental criteria. It was 6%, 2%, and 6% lower than OSC in GHG, FD, and OLD, respectively. On the other hand, OSC was shown to be an economic method by 2.4% and 4% having lower cost than PPVC and IPS. Additionally, PPVC achieved the best value in Social-LCA.
Conclusions
Finally, since different concrete construction techniques were nominated as the best for each criterion, an assessment of multi-criteria was conducted. The results of MCDM showed that PPVC is the most sustainable method among the alternatives. Furthermore, two sensitivity analyses were performed to dispense with the human subjectivity involved in AHP.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Achal V, Mukherjee A, Kumari D, Zhang Q (2015) Earth-Science Reviews Biomineralization for sustainable construction—a review of processes and applications. Earth Sci Rev 148:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.05.008
Ahmad M, Haseneshkorfu OO, Nigar K (2017) Th barriers to the implementation of industrialised building system (IBS) in high rise structure in Selangor. Int J Adv Mech Civ Eng 4:94–99
Ajayi SO, Oyedele LO (2018) Waste-efficient materials procurement for construction projects: a structural equation modelling of critical success factors. Waste Manag 75:60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.025
Al-Hussein M, Manrique JD, Mah D (2009) North Ridge CO2 analysis report: com parison between modular and on site construction 1–20
Aye L, Ngo T, Crawford RH, Gammampila R, Mendis P (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy Build 47:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049
Balasbaneh AT (2020) Applying multi-criteria decision-making on alternatives for earth-retaining walls: LCA LCC and S-LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(11):2140–2153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01825-6
Balasbaneh A, David B, Mohd Y, Juki I, Gohari A, Razin A, Abidin Z (2021) Applying three pillar indicator assessments on alternative floor systems: life cycle study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01881-6
Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8
CEN (2013) EN 15978. Sustainability of Construction Works-Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings- Calculation Method; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
Dong YH, Ng ST (2015) A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(8):1166–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5
Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M (2018) Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(3):556–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1058-0
Endzelis J, Daukšys M (2018) Comparison between modular building technology and traditional construction. J Sustain Archit Civ Eng 23(2):86–95. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sace.23.2.21579
Faghirinejadfard A, Mahdiyar A, Marsono AK, Mohandes SR, Omrany H, Tabatabaee S, Tap MM (2016) Economic comparison of industrialized building system and conventional construction system using building information modeling. J Tecnol 78(1):195–207. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v78.4056
Faludi J, Lepech MD, Loisos G (2012) Using life cycle assessment methods to guide architectural decision-making for sustainable prefabricated modular buildings. J Green Build 7(3):151–170. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.7.3.151
Fathi MS, Abedi M, Mirasa AK (2012) Construction industry experience of industralised building system in construction industry experience of industralised building system in Malaysia. September 2016.
Hammad AW, Akbarnezhad A, Wu P, Wang X, Haddad A (2019) Building information modelling-based framework to contrast conventional and modular construction methods through selected sustainability factors. J Clean Prod 228:1264–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.150
Haron NA, Hassim IS, Kadir MRA, Jaafar MS (2005) Building cost comparison between conventional and formwork system. Am J Appl Sci 43(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v43.762
Henkel HJK (2005) Editorial The Revision of ISO Standards 14040–3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):1
Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):620–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0658-1
Invidiata A, Lavagna M, Ghisi E (2018) Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Build Environ 139:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041
Jaillon L, Poon CS (2007) Advantages and limitations of precast concrete construction in high-rise buildings: Hong Kong case studies. CIB World Congr 2007:2504–2514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.036
Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0131-3
Kadir MRA, Lee WP, Jaafar MS, Sapuan SM, Ali AAA (2006) Construction performance comparison between conventional and industrialised building systems in Malaysia. Struct Surv 24(5):412–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800610712004
Kamali M, Hewage K (2017) Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J Clean Prod 142:3592–3606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108
Kamali M, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2019a) Conventional versus modular construction methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings. Energy Build 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479
Kamali M, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2019b) Energy & Buildings Conventional versus modular construction methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings. Energy Build 204:109479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479
Kawecki LR (2010) Environmental performance of modular fabrication: calculating the carbon footprint of energy used in the construction of a modular home. (PhD thesis). USA: Arizona State University
Kim D (2008) Preliminary life cycle analysis of modular and conventional housing in Benton Harbor Michigan. By : Doyoon Kim A practicum submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements For the degree of Master of Science
Lawson M, Ogden R, Goodier C (2014) Design in Modular Construction. In Design in Modular Construction. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16607
Lim YS, Xia B, Skitmore M, Gray J, Bridge A, Sin Y, Xia B, Skitmore M, Gray J, Bridge A, Lim YS, Xia B, Skitmore M, Gray J, Bridge A (2016) Education for sustainability in construction management curricula. Int J Constr Manag 15(4):321–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1066569
Liu S, Qian S (2019) Evaluation of social life-cycle performance of buildings: theoretical framework and impact assessment approach. J Clean Prod 213:792–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.200
Lopez D, Froese TM (2016) Analysis of costs and benefits of panelized and modular prefabricated homes. Procedia Eng 145:1291–1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.166
Lu HR, El Hanandeh A, Gilbert BP (2017) A comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: environmental and economic perspective. J Clean Prod 166:458–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.065
Mammen A, Rupawala M (2015) Cost comparison of modular construction with ordinary site construction. Int J Sci Eng Res 6(12):326–328
Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(7):1386–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0581-5
Mao C, Shen Q, Shen L, Tang L (2013) Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build 66:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033
Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor KMD, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications - A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res - Ekonomska Istrazivanja 28(1):516–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
Mills T, Wakefield R, Brien MO (n.d.) Refereed Paper Industrialising residential construction for small to medium size us home builders 1–10
Monahan J, Powell JC (2011) An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment framework. Energy Build 43(1):179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.005
Motuziene V, Rogoža A, Lapinskiene V, Vilutiene T (2016) Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study. J Clean Prod 112(1):532–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.103
O’Hegarty R, Kinnane O (2020) Review of precast concrete sandwich panels and their innovations. Constr Build Mater 233:117145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117145
Pan W, Sidwell R (2011) Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK. Constr Manag Econ 29(11):1081–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.637938
Paya-Marin MA, Lim J, Sengupta B (2013) Life-cycle energy analysis of a modular/off-site building school. Am J Civ Eng Archit 1(3):59–63. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-1-3-2
Quale J, Eckelman MJ, Williams KW, Sloditskie G, Zimmerman JB (2012) Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional homes in the United States. J Ind Ecol 16(2):243–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x
Rahman MM (2014) Barriers of implementing modern methods of construction. J Manag Eng 30(1):69–77. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000173
Röck M, Ruschi Mendes Saade M, Balouktsi M, Nygaard F, Birgisdottir H, Frischknecht R, Habert G, Lützkendorf T (2019) Embodied GHG emissions of buildings—the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107
Saaty TL (2008) Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Shan L (2016) Barriers to implement integrated prefabricated facade development in a traditional procurement context in China: a case study. Procedia Eng 161:1683–1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.646
Shinde RP, Darade MM (2018) Comparison of prefabricated modular homes and traditional R. C C Homes 4133–4136
Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S (2020) Review of performance requirements for inter-module connections in multi-story modular buildings. J Build Eng 28:101087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101087
Sivasakthivel T, Reddy KKSK (2011) Ozone layer depletion and its effects: a review. Int J Environ Sci Dev 2(1):30–37. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijesd.2011.v2.93
Szalay Z (2007) What is missing from the concept of the new European Building Directive? Build Environ 42:1761–1769
Tavares V, Lacerda N, Freire F (2019) Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: the “Moby” case study. J Clean Prod 212:1044–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.028
Teng J, Mu X, Wang W, Xu C, Liu W (2019) Strategies for sustainable development of green buildings. Sustain Cities Soc 44:215–226
Wuni IY, Shen GQ (2020) Barriers to the adoption of modular integrated construction: systematic review and meta-analysis integrated conceptual framework and strategies. J Clean Prod 249:119347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119347
Xu Z, Zayed T, Niu Y (2019) Comparative analysis of modular construction practices in mainland China Hong Kong and Singapore. J Clean Prod 245:118861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118861
Zarandi MHF, Mansour S, Hosseinijou SA, Avazbeigi M (2011) A material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable product design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 57(9–12):885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3362-y
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Holger Wallbaum.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1 LCIA of environmental result
GHG) kgCO2eq | |||
|---|---|---|---|
OSC | IPS | PPVC | |
Production & construction | 4.98E+04 | 4.45E+04 | 4.09E+04 |
Crane | - | 2570 | 2680 |
Transport | 1129 | 4570 | 5780 |
Wast | 3100 | 1730 | 1.38E+03 |
Maintenance | 250 | 124 | 124 |
End of life | 1200 | 1110 | 1110 |
Human Toxicity | |||
|---|---|---|---|
OSC | IPS | PPVC | |
Production & construction | 6.39E+02 | 6.95E+02 | 7.78E+02 |
Crane | - | 1.10E+02 | 1.95E+02 |
Transport | 3.40E+01 | 9.10E+01 | 1.10E+02 |
Waste | 2.01E+02 | 2.70E+01 | 4.84E+01 |
Maintenance | 1.94E+00 | 1.94E+00 | 3.91E+00 |
End of life | 1.73E+01 | 1.73E+01 | 1.88E+01 |
Fossil Depletion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
OSC | IPS | PPVC | |
Production & construction | 1.28E+03 | 1.25E+03 | 1.03E+03 |
Crane | - | 210 | 350 |
Transport | 110 | 329 | 421 |
Waste | 560 | 120 | 120 |
Maintenance | 3.45 | 2.99 | 2.99 |
End of life | 35 | 35 | 35 |
Ozone Depletion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
OSC | IPS | PPVC | |
Production & construction | 0.165 | 0.155 | 0.134 |
Crane | - | 0.012 | 0.019 |
Transport | 0.011 | 0.032 | |
Waste | 0.055 | 0.0111 | 0.012 |
Maintenance | 0.0223 | 0.02111 | 0.02011 |
End of life | 0.0123 | 0.0123 | 0.0125 |
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity | |||
|---|---|---|---|
OSC | IPS | PPVC | |
Production & construction | 1.60E+03 | 1.92E+03 | 2.16E+03 |
Crane | - | 150 | 160 |
Transport | 34 | 120 | 145 |
Waste | 120 | 79 | 71 |
Maintenance | 364 | 79 | 71 |
End of life | 43 | 42.4 | 43 |
Appendix 2 Normalized value
Criteria | Unit | Weights | OSC | IPS | PPVC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Carbon dioxide emission | kgCO2 eq | 0.213 | 5.93E − 01 | 5.83E − 01 | 5.55E − 01 |
Ozone depletion | CFC-11 eq | 0.158 | 6.21E − 01 | 5.70E − 01 | 5.37E − 01 |
Human toxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 0.106 | 5.15E − 01 | 5.44E − 01 | 6.63E − 01 |
Terrestrial ecotoxicity | kg 1,4DB eq | 0.046 | 5.18E − 01 | 5.73E − 01 | 6.35E − 01 |
Fossil depletion | $ | 0.088 | 5.84E − 01 | 5.72E − 01 | 5.76E − 01 |
Cost-LCC | MYR | 0.256 | 0.5645902 | 0.5885751 | 0.578634 |
Social LCA | Score | 0.130 | 0.403893 | 0.605840 | 0.685439 |
Appendix 3 Calculation of the ideal best and ideal worst value
Carbon dioxide emission | Ozone depletion | Human toxicity | Terrestrial ecotoxicity | Fossil depletion | Cost-LCC | Social LCA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ideal best | 1.18E − 01 | 8.49E − 02 | 5.46E − 02 | 2.38E − 02 | 5.03E − 02 | 1.45E − 01 | 0.09116 |
Ideal worst value | 1.26E − 01 | 9.82E − 02 | 7.03E − 02 | 2.92E − 02 | 5.14E − 02 | 0.1506 | 0.05371 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balasbaneh, A.T., Sher, W. Life cycle sustainability assessment analysis of different concrete construction techniques for residential building in Malaysia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 1301–1318 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01938-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01938-6