Advertisement

Developing a Framework of a Multi-objective and Multi-criteria Based Approach for Integration of LCA-LCC and Dynamic Analysis in Industrialized Multi-storey Timber Construction

  • Hamid Movaffaghi
  • Ibrahim Yitmen
Conference paper

Abstract

To improve organizational decision-making process in construction industry, a framework of a multi-objective and multi-criteria based approach has been developed to integrate results from Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA), Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) and dynamic analysis for multi-storey industrialized timber structure. Two Building Information Modelling (BIM)-based 3D structural models based on different horizontal stabilization and floor systems will be analyzed to reduce both climate impact, material and production costs and enhance structural dynamic response of the floor system. Moreover, sensitivity of the optimal design will also be analyzed to validate the design. The multi-objective and multi-criteria based LCA-LCC framework analyzing the environmental, economic, and dynamic performances will support decision making for different design in the early phases of a project, where various alternatives can be created and evaluated. The proposed integrated model may become a promising tool for the building designers and decision makers in industrialized timber construction.

Keywords

LCA LCC Dynamic response Multi-criteria Multi-objective BIM Decision making Industrialized timber construction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the research project “Delutlysning Livscykelperspektivet samhällsbyggande: digitaliserat beslutsstöd för klimatförbättringar” carried out by Jönköping University Construction Engineering Research Group. The authors would like to thank Smart Built Environment for their financial support of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Anastaselos, D., Giama, E., Papadopoulos, A.M.: An assessment tool for the energy, economic and environmental evaluation of thermal insulation solutions. Energy Build. 41(11), 1165–1171 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bierer, A., Götze, U., Meynerts, L., Sygulla, R.: Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1289–1301 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Standards Institute: Standardized Method of Life Cycle Costing for Construction Procurement BS EN ISO 15686-5, United Kingdom (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchanan, A.H., Levine, S.B.: Wood-based building materials and atmospheric carbon emissions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2(6), 427–437 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coelho, A.C., Lopes, A., Branco, J.M., Gervásio, H.: Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of a Single-Family House: Light Steel Frame and Timber Frame, https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/20801/2/Ecowood_paper.pdf
  6. 6.
    De Felice, F., Petrillo, A.: Multicriteria approach for process modelling in strategic environmental management planning. Int. J. Simul. Process Model. 8(1), 6–16 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Souza, R.G., Clìmaco, J.C.N., Sant’Anna, A.P. Rocha, T.B., do Valle, R.A., Quelhas O.L.G.:Sustainability assessment and prioritization of e-waste management options in Brazil. Waste Manage. 57, 46–56 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deniz, G.O.: An analytic network process (ANP) model to examine LEED-certified buildings’ operational performance. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manage. 7(4), 366–376 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ding, G.K.C.: Developing a multi-criteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. Building Res. Inf. 33(1), 3–16 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flanagan, R., Jewell, C.: Whole Life Appraisal for Construction. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gu, L., Lin, B., Zhu, Y., Gu, D., Huang, M., Gai, J.: Integrated assessment method for building life cycle environmental and economic performance. Build. Simul. 1(2), 169–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., Siren, K.: A multi-stage optimization method for cost-optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-recast 2010. Energy Build. 56, 189–203 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heijungs, R., Settanni, E., Guinée, J.: Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18(9), 1722–1733 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hildebrandt, J., Hagemann N., Thränac, D.: The contribution of wood-based construction materials for leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustain. Cities Soc. 34, 405–418 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoogmartens, R., Van Passel, S., Van Acker, K., Dubois, M.: Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 48, 27–33 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Organization for Standardization, Standard 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment: Principles and Framework (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kehily, D., Underwood, J.: Embedding life cycle costing in 5D BIM. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 22, 145–167 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kovacic, I., Reisinger, J., Honic, M.: Life cycle assessment of embodied and operational energy for a passive housing block in Austria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 1774–1786 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuzman, K.M., Sandberg, D.: Comparison of timber-house technologies and initiatives supporting use of timber in Slovenia and in Sweden—the state of the art. iForest 10, 930–938 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lam, J.S.L., Laib, K.H.: Developing environmental sustainability by ANP-QFD approach: the case of shipping operations. J. Clean. Prod. 105, 275–284 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H.: Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Comput. Oper. Res. 27(4), 367–382 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lenzen, M.: Errors in conventional and input-output-based life-cycle inventories. Ind. Ecol. 4(4), 127–148 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leontief, W.: Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output approach. Rev. Econ. Stat. 52, 262–271 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levander, E., Stehn, L.: Addressing uncertainties about timber housing by whole life costing. In: Proceedings of 4th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation: Development Processes in Construction Management, pp. 249–258 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lotteau, M., Loubet, P., Pousse, M., Dufrasnes, E., Sonnemann, G.: Critical review of life cycle assessment (LCA) for the built environment at the neighbourhood scale. Build. Environ. 93, 165–178 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manzardo, A., Ren, J., Piantella, A., Mazzi, A., Fedele, A., Scipioni, A.: Integration of water footprint accounting and costs for optimal chemical pulp supply mix in paper industry. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 167–173 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menzies, G.F., Turan, S., Banfill, P.F.: Life-cycle assessment and embodied energy: a review. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. 160(4), 135–144 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., Jannelli, E., Autorino, C., Minutillo, M., Lavadera, A.L.: Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system. Renew. Energy 95, 337–355 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Promentilla, M.A.B., Tapia, J.F.D., Arcilla, C.A., Dugosa, N.P., Gaspillo, P.D., Roces, S., Tan, R.R.: Interdependent ranking of sources and sinks in CCS systems using the analytic network process. Environ. Model Softw. 50, 21–24 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sadiq, R., Khan, F.I.: An integrated approach for risk-based life cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision-making: selection, design and evaluation of cleaner and greener processes. Bus. Process Manage. J. 12(6), 770–792 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sathre, R., O’Connor, J.: Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ. Sci. Policy 13(2), 104–114 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Savino, M.M., Manzini, R., Della, S.V., Accorsi, R.: A new model for environmental and economic evaluation of renewable energy systems: the case of wind turbines. Appl. Energy 189, 739–752 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmidt, M., Crawford, R.H.: Developing an integrated framework for assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and life cycle cost of buildings. Procedia Eng. 196(988–995), 1877–7058 (2017)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Senante, M., Gómez, T., Caballero, R., Hernández-Sancho, F., Ramón Sala-Garrido, R.: Assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives for small communities: an analytic network process approach. Sci. Total Environ. 532, 676–687 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Skullestad, J.L., Bohne, R.A., Lohne, J.: High-rise timber buildings as a climate change mitigation measure - a comparative lca of structural system alternatives. Energy Procedia 96, 112–123 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Theißen, S., Spinler, S.: Strategic analysis of manufacturer-supplier partnerships: an ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233, 383–397 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Treloar, G.J., Love, P.E., Holt, G.D.: Using national input/output data for embodied energy analysis of individual residential buildings. Constr. Manage. Econ. 19(1), 49–61 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tukker, A.: Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20, 435–456 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weckendorf, J., Zhang, B., Kermani, A., Reid, D.: Dynamic Response of Timber Floors. In: 2nd PRoBE 2005 Conference, Postgraduate Researchers of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow, UK, 1617 November 2005Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wudhikarn, R., Chakpitak, N., Neubert, G.: A framework for new product selection decision using analytic network process and knowledge management. Adv. Mater. Res. 538–541, 3098–3105 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations