Tighnavard Balasbaneh, A and Ramadan, B S (2026) Integrating three pillars of sustainability for evaluating the modular construction building. Construction Innovation, 26(2), pp. 328-352. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Originality/value – 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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | life cycle assessment; life cycle cost; life cycle sustainability analysis; modular construction; multi-criteria decision-making; social life cycle assessment |
| Index terms: | construction professional, built environment, construction industry, embodied energy, steel structure, modular building, case study, life cycle, circular economy, alternative material, sustainability performance, modular construction, timber structure, methodology, economic analysis, sustainability assessment, multi-criteria decision-making, evaluation, sustainable construction, strategy, life cycle assessment, life cycle cost, global warming |
| Subjects: | design analysis, climate science, materials science, environmental impact, building construction, sustainable construction, sustainable design, research methods, sustainability assessment, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, sustainability and energy, value management, data collection methods, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, decision analysis, professional development, specialized materials and systems, management |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Construction Technology, Construction Materials, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here