The embodied carbon of building materials and the energy consumed during construction have a significant impact on the environmental credentials of buildings. The structural systems of a building present opportunities to reduce environmental emissions and energy. In this regard, mass timber materials have considerable potential as sustainable materials over other alternatives such as steel and concrete. The aim of this investigation was to compare the environment impact, energy consumption, and life cycle cost (LCC) of different wood-based materials in identical single-story residential buildings. The materials compared are laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and glued laminated timber (GLT). GLT has less global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion (OLD), and land use (LU), respectively, by 29%, 37%, and 35% than LVL. Conversely, LVL generally has lower terrestrial acidification potential (TAP), human toxicity potential (HTP), and fossil depletion potential (FDP), respectively, by 30%, 17%, and 27%. The comparative outcomes revealed that using LVL reduces embodied energy by 41%. To identify which of these materials is the best alternative, various environmental categories, embodied energy, and cost criteria require further analysis. Therefore, the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method has been applied to enable robust decision-making. The outcome showed that LVL manufacturing using softwood presents the most sustainable choice. These research findings contribute to the body of knowledge about the use of mass timber in construction.
With the growth of the number of old buildings in urban cities, there is an imperative demand for retrofitting those buildings to minimize their energy consumption and maximize their sustainability. This article seeks to provide a multi-criteria assessment of different retrofitting scenarios in the Malaysian context, focusing replacement of windows. Four different criteria assessed operation energy usage, global warming potential (GWP) emission, embodied energy, and the cost of each alternative. Life cycle analysis is used for each scenario using the Energy Plus software program to estimate the energy demand. The preliminary result showed that a louvered window is unsuitable for operational energy usage compared to other options. In embodied energy and GWP, double-glazing shows an optimal choice by 532 MJ kg/m2 and 101 kg/M2 CO2 between the other two alternatives for retrofitting. However, in the operational energy category, triple glazing has the best performance by 1.06 kW/a day. Finally, comparing the cost of each other options, plenum windows have the lowest rate by 825 kg/M2 MYR. Thus, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is used to select the most sustainable window for buildings. The result shows that the best option is a double-glazing window, followed by a plenum window. This study revealed the requirement for utilization of MCDM handles to guarantee the correct choice of design strategies for the best decision.
This research aims to assess the sustainability of the most common earth-retaining walls (Gravity Walls and Cantilever Walls) in terms of environmental impacts, economic issues, and their combination. Gravity walls observed in this study consist of Gabion Wall, Crib Wall, and Rubble Masonry Wall, while Cantilever Walls include Reinforced Concrete Wall. Six different criteria were taken into account, including global warming potential, fossil depletion potential, eutrophication potential, acidification potential, human toxicity potential, and cost. To achieve the aim of this study, life cycle assessments, life cycle costs, and multi-criteria decision-making methods were implemented. The results showed that the most environmental-friendly option among all alternatives was the Gabion Wall, followed by the Rubble Masonry Wall. However, in terms of economic aspects, the Cantilever Concrete Wall was the best option, costing about 17% less than the Gabion Wall. On the other hand, the results of multi-criteria decision-making showed that the Gabion Wall was the most sustainable choice. This study addressed the research gap by carrying out a sustainability assessment of different retaining walls while considering cost and environmental impacts at the same time.