Skip to main content

Life Cycle Assessment for Modular-Constructed Buildings: A Proposed Methodological Framework

Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE,volume 266)

Abstract

Modular construction (MC) is one of the vital members of the off-site construction (OSC) family and identifies as an innovative modern method of construction (MMC). Over the last two decades, several research studies have highlighted the distinctive benefits of MC in contrast to conventional in-situ construction. Particularly in developed economies, a greater inclination towards adopting MC practices is visible. However, there is limited research investigating the environmental sustainability of MC, especially in developing countries such as Sri Lanka. Even the available literature, the majority only addresses limited phases of the life cycle of the buildings. Furthermore, selecting the system boundary and collecting reliable and comprehensive process data are some of the inherent difficulties in the environmental assessment processes, explaining the lack of research in this domain. Moreover, the lack of country-specific life cycle data is a significant barrier the developing regions face when conducting environmental performance research of MC. Notably, a systematic methodological framework for assessing the environmental sustainability of modular construction through a life cycle perspective still lacks in the relevant literature. Hence, this paper proposed a methodological framework through a life cycle perspective for assessing the environmental sustainability of MC projects by employing the so-called life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The application of the proposed framework will attempt to validate through a pilot case study. The proposed framework offers a systematic method for future studies on investigating the environmental performance of modular constructed facilities using an LCA approach.

Keywords

  • Environmental sustainability
  • Life cycle assessment (LCA)
  • Methodological framework
  • Modular construction (MC)
  • Off-site construction (OSC)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abd Rashid AF, Yusoff S (2015) A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:244–248

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kamali M, Hewage K (2016) Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 62:1171–1183

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Minunno R, O’Grady T, Morrison GM, Gruner RL (2020) Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: a circular economy case study of a modular building. Resour Conserv Recycl 160:104855

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Sonnemann G, Vigon B (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment (LCA) databases: a basis for greener processes and products

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Sandanayake M, Zhang G, Setunge S (2014) Life-cycle assessment for construction processes in building construction: a proposed conceptual framework. In: Proceedings of the 3rd world construction symposium 2014: sustainability and development in built environment, 20–22 June 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2014. Ceylon Institute of Builders (CIOB), pp 344–355

    Google Scholar 

  7. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Du Q, Bao T, Li Y, Huang Y, Shao L (2019) Impact of prefabrication technology on the cradle-to-site CO2 emissions of residential buildings. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21:1499–1514

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford RH (2008) Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J Environ Manage 88:496–506

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Hu X, Chong H-Y, Wang X (2019) Sustainability perceptions of off-site manufacturing stakeholders in Australia. J Clean Prod 227:346–354

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Jin R, Hong J, Zuo J (2020) Environmental performance of off-site constructed facilities: a critical review. Energy Build 207:109567

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Boafo FE, Kim J-H, Kim J-T (2016) Performance of modular prefabricated architecture: case study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability 8:558

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Thai H-T, Ngo T, Uy B (2020) A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings. Structures. Elsevier, pp 1265–1290

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nam S, Yoon J, Kim K, Choi B (2020) Optimization of prefabricated components in housing modular construction. Sustainability 12:10269

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Jeong J, Hong T, Ji C, Kim J, Lee M, Jeong K, Lee S (2017) An integrated evaluation of productivity, cost and CO2 emission between prefabricated and conventional columns. J Clean Prod 142:2393–2406

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Alhumayani H, Gomaa M, Soebarto V, Jabi W (2020) Environmental assessment of large-scale 3D printing in construction: a comparative study between cob and concrete. J Clean Prod 270:122463

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 43:179–188

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Tumminia G, Guarino F, Longo S, Ferraro M, Cellura M, Antonucci V (2018) Life cycle energy performances and environmental impacts of a prefabricated building module. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 92:272–283

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Kamali M, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2019) Conventional versus modular construction methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings. Energy Build 204:109479

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Teng Y, Pan W (2019) Systematic embodied carbon assessment and reduction of prefabricated high-rise public residential buildings in Hong Kong. J Clean Prod 238:117791

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Satola D, Kristiansen AB, Houlihan-Wiberg A, Gustavsen A, Ma T, Wang R (2020) Comparative life cycle assessment of various energy efficiency designs of a container-based housing unit in China: a case study. Build Environ 186:107358

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Balasbaneh AT, Ramli MZ (2020) A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete and steel-prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction structures in Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:43186–43201

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Saltelli A (2002) Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. Risk Anal 22:579–590

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Renschler P (2013) What is the difference between sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis? [online]. Quora. Available https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-sensitivity-analysis-and-uncertainty-analysis. Accessed Oct 20 2021

  26. CFI Education. Scenario analysis vs sensitivity analysis

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Kumanayake R, Luo H (2018) Life cycle carbon emission assessment of a multi-purpose university building: a case study of Sri Lanka. Front Eng Manage 5:381–393

    Google Scholar 

  29. Devi P, Palaniappan S (2014) A case study on life cycle energy use of residential building in Southern India. Energy Build 80:247–259

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Sim J, Sim J, Park C (2016) The air emission assessment of a South Korean apartment building’s life cycle, along with environmental impact. Build Environ 95:104–115

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  31. Latawiec R, Woyciechowski P, Kowalski KJ (2018) Sustainable concrete performance—CO2-emission. Environments 5:27

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority. Carbon footprint

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. C. S. Bandara for the support given in acquiring valuable information needed for this research study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jayawardana .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jayawardana, J., Kulatunga, A.K., Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Jayasinghe, J.A.S.C. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment for Modular-Constructed Buildings: A Proposed Methodological Framework. In: Dissanayake, R., Mendis, P., Weerasekera, K., De Silva, S., Fernando, S., Konthesingha, C. (eds) 12th International Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 266. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2886-4_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2886-4_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-2885-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-2886-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)