Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework Research Articles

Demonstrating circular life cycle sustainability assessment – a case study of recycled carbon concrete

To counter the high consumption of resources and environmental emissions in the construction sector, innovative materials such as carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) are needed. CRC has the potential to lower the resource use and emissions of the construction sector and lead to a circular economy (CE). To understand the overall circularity and sustainability performance of such materials, holistic assessments are needed. This study demonstrated the application of the newly developed circular life cycle sustainability assessment (C-LCSA) framework that is based on CE indicators and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). The framework was applied to an industrial floor that was made from recycled CRC scrap (R–CRC industrial floor) in its development phase – using both the concrete faction and the carbon fiber fraction. The material circularity indicator (MCI) was used for the circularity assessment. It was applied in parallel to a life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and a social hotspot assessment, using the same functional unit and system boundaries. The cut-off approach used was in line with the technical system boundaries. The results showed that the contribution to the circularity of the R–CRC industrial floor was high (0.8184) due to the use of recycled material and the potential of being recycled again. The global warming potential (GWP, 167 kg CO2 eq.) was lower while the human toxicity potential (HTP) was higher compared to similar products. The production costs far exceeded the current price of a comparable product which might be related to the inefficiencies in the production at the laboratory scale in the development phase of the R–CRC industrial floor. Social risks were found for health and safety, as well as for the social acceptance of the floor due to technical uncertainties. Increasing the circularity further by only using recycled aggregates mostly showed positive effects on the environmental impacts. However, HTP and costs increased. General statements on the interlinkages between a higher circularity and positive impacts on sustainability performance cannot necessarily be made. Instead, a robust and holistic assessment of new products is needed. C-LCSA has demonstrated its effectiveness as a reliable framework for identifying interlinkages and trade-offs between the different sustainability dimensions and circularity. Further studies should be conducted to validate and demonstrate the C-LCSA framework on different products.

Circular life cycle sustainability assessment: An integrated framework

AbstractRobust monitoring and assessment methods are required to assess circular economy (CE) concepts in terms of their degree of circularity and their contribution to sustainability. This research aimed to develop an integrated framework for the CE context—considering both the technical circularity and the complexity of the three dimensions of sustainability (environment, economy, and social). Two existing methods were identified as an appropriate foundation: CE indicators and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), combining life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S‐LCA). The developed circular life cycle sustainability assessment (C‐LCSA) framework added circularity assessment (CA) as an additional dimension to LCSA (C‐LCSA = LCA + LCC + S‐LCA + CA). The abundance of CE indicators required a systematic selection process to identify the most appropriate indicators for the framework which was built on criteria levels, performance, loops, unit, dimension, and transversality. The material circularity indicator, product circularity indicator, and longevity indicator were identified as most suited for C‐LCSA. Being developed for a single life cycle, the traditional life cycle approaches needed refinements for application to CE concepts, derived from discussions and proposed adaptions presented in the academic literature. The cut‐off approach was identified as the most suitable end‐of‐life allocation method for C‐LCSA, being in line with the technical system boundaries. C‐LCSA can be used by LCA practitioners to identify trade‐offs between an improved circularity and resulting impacts on the environmental, economic, and social pillars to provide a basis for decision making in industrial ecology.

Sustainable scale-up of Irish seaweed production: Quantifying potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of wild harvesting and cultivation pathways

Seaweed is a versatile bioresource which can be used as a source of food, feed, fertilizer, and higher-value products. Countries with extensive sea areas such as Ireland have the potential to produce significant volumes domestically, but limitations and consequences to this potential should be considered. This study aims to capture the environmental, economic, and social consequences of different pathways for scaling up Irish seaweed production using a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. Six pathways are considered: manual wild harvesting by foot, manual wild harvesting by boat, mechanical wild harvesting by trawler, and three longline cultivation systems. Environmental, economic, and social impacts are considered through quantifying exergy extraction (MJex), global warming potential (kg CO2-eq), minimum selling price (MSP), and improvements in human wellbeing (HP). Finally, limitations to scale-up are assessed. The results demonstrate that manual wild harvesting has a relatively low climate impact (0.03–0.04 kg CO2-eq/kg fresh seaweed), resource intensity (1.75–2.00 MJex/kg fresh seaweed), and MSP (0.10–0.12 €/kg fresh seaweed), but a low increase in wellbeing (5.01–5.45 HP/kg fresh seaweed), while mechanical wild harvesting has a worse performance than manual harvesting in every dimension (0.14 kg CO2-eq/kg fresh seaweed, 3.50 MJex/kg fresh seaweed, 0.16 €/kg fresh seaweed, 0.60 HP/kg fresh seaweed). The impacts of cultivation pathways vary significantly, but generally perform better than wild harvesting for social impacts (18.53–20.59 HP/kg fresh seaweed) and worse for environmental and economic (MSP) impacts (0.12–0.35 kg CO2-eq/kg fresh seaweed; 2.30–5.95 MJex/kg fresh seaweed; 1.05–1.80 €/kg fresh seaweed). Nonetheless, limitations to upscaling manual wild harvesting (max 8.4 % of a future production target of 900,000 t fresh seaweed) determine that both mechanical wild harvesting and cultivation pathways will be needed to achieve future targets. It is therefore important that steps be taken to optimize each of these pathways based on the overall priorities of society.

Addressing sustainable development goals in life cycle sustainability assessment: Synergies, challenges and needs

The assessment and monitoring of society's progress towards sustainability requires a multidisciplinary approach in which tools, indicators and data are integrated across existing frameworks. In this sense, the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework introduced by UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative are two of the most important references used by practitioners to assess sustainability at territorial level, in the first case, and at process, product, or organizational level, in the second case.However, due to the different scopes of SDGs and LCSA, the integration between the two tools has been limited so far and the synergies mostly remained untapped. Building on LCSA literature, and with the aid of text-mining analysis, this manuscript analyzes how linkages between product LCSA and SDGs have been and could be addressed, also highlighting key challenges and needs for connecting LCSA with SDGs in a coherent and operational way.The paper highlights that, although SDGs and LCSA are complementary and could inform and feed each other, as of today there is no harmonized way to set up and analyze the connections between the two and progress still seems far from reaching general consensus. Further research is needed to consistently link LCSA metrics to SDGs goals and thus ensure that improved products sustainability effectively contributes to progress towards more sustainable territories.

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Building Construction: A Case Study in China

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) has been increasingly implemented in a wide spectrum of products. Considering the vital importance of buildings to human lives, it is surprising that there have been few LCSA case studies of buildings from mainland China, which boasts the largest developing economy in the world. This study aims to implement LCSA in a typical residential building project in China. The three areas of protections (AoPs) are integrated into an overarching LCSA framework by applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. It is found that the building project has less impacts of climate change, acidification and human toxicity, but greater impacts of ozone depletion and freshwater eutrophication, as compared to benchmarks of buildings. The sustainability single score is estimated to be 71.5/100, with 40.86% caused by the environmental impact, 29.68% by the economic impact and 29.46% by the social impact. The sustainability results of the studied case are further compared with an existing study in Hong Kong. The results would contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the sustainability performance of buildings in China. The methodology presented in this study can contribute to further improvements in LCSA evaluation, both regionally and globally.

A multistakeholder participatory Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework for the options appraisal of social housing regeneration schemes.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementVolume 19, Issue 3 p. 844-847 Debates, Dilemmas, and Discoveries A multistakeholder participatory Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework for the options appraisal of social housing regeneration schemes Sahar Nava, Corresponding Author Sahar Nava [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-8744-826X Bartlett, Central House, University College London, London, UK Address correspondence to [email protected] Contribution: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, ​Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorZaid Chalabi, Zaid Chalabi Bartlett, Central House, University College London, London, UK Contribution: Supervision, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorSarah Bell, Sarah Bell University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Contribution: Supervision, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorEsfandiar Burman, Esfandiar Burman Bartlett, Central House, University College London, London, UK Contribution: Supervision, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this author Sahar Nava, Corresponding Author Sahar Nava [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-8744-826X Bartlett, Central House, University College London, London, UK Address correspondence to [email protected] Contribution: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, ​Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorZaid Chalabi, Zaid Chalabi Bartlett, Central House, University College London, London, UK Contribution: Supervision, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorSarah Bell, Sarah Bell University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Contribution: Supervision, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorEsfandiar Burman, Esfandiar Burman Bartlett, Central House, University College London, London, UK Contribution: Supervision, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 April 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4759Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume19, Issue3May 2023Pages 844-847 RelatedInformation

Leveraging Infrastructure BIM for Life-Cycle-Based Sustainable Road Pavement Management.

The latest developments in the field of road asphalt materials and pavement construction/maintenance technologies, as well as the spread of life-cycle-based sustainability assessment techniques, have posed issues in the continuous and efficient management of data and relative decision-making process for the selection of appropriate road pavement design and maintenance solutions; Infrastructure Building Information Modeling (IBIM) tools may help in facing such challenges due to their data management and analysis capabilities. The present work aims to develop a road pavement life cycle sustainability assessment framework and integrate such a framework into the IBIM of a road pavement project through visual scripting to automatically provide the informatization of an appropriate pavement information model and evaluate sustainability criteria already in the design stage through life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis methods. The application of the proposed BIM-based tool to a real case study allowed us (a) to draw considerations about the long-term environmental and economic sustainability of alternative road construction materials and (b) to draft a maintenance plan for a specific road section that represents the best compromise solution among the analyzed ones. The IBIM tool represents a practical and dynamic way to integrate environmental considerations into road pavement design, encouraging the use of digital tools in the road industry and ultimately supporting a pavement maintenance decision-making process oriented toward a circular economy.

Sustainability assessment of traditional, intensive and highly-intensive olive growing systems in Tunisia by integrating Life Cycle and Multicriteria Decision analyses

Olive cultivation is the most important agro-ecosystem in the Mediterranean basin. Despite the remarkable intensification of this system (i.e., the use of high tree densities and large amounts of inputs), the environmental and socio-economic impacts of this transformation have been poorly studied to date. For this purpose, an integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework is developed to assess the life cycle sustainability of innovative olive farming systems (intensive and highly-intensive) compared to traditional ones (conventional and organic) in Tunisia, one of the world's leading olive oil producers. The methodological framework consists of two parts: Life Cycle evaluation of olive systems (calculation of impact categories) and Muticriteria Decision Analysis integration (calculation of a sustainability score for each olive system). The results of the Multicriteria Decision Analysis indicate that stakeholders assign the highest priority to environmental aspects, followed by economic and social ones, especially, in the water resource depletion, internal rate of return, and human toxicity impact categories. According to the Life Cycle evaluation, fertilizers, soil management and harvesting are the agricultural practices with the highest impacts. In terms of sustainability, organic systems achieve better scores per ha and innovative systems per ton. Due to the critical water situation in Tunisia, the results suggest the need of: 1) improving the economic performance of rainfed olive farming systems, being the most prominent, by integrating farmers into cooperatives and encouraging conventional producers to get involved in the organic sector, and 2) mitigating the resource depletion impacts of intensive and highly-intensive systems through innovation based on integrated production (a certified system aimed to reduce environmental impacts derived from the use of chemicals in agriculture through the controlled use of production techniques), and limiting these systems to areas of low ecological vulnerability.

SPOTTER: Assessing supply disruption impacts along the supply chain within Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

The present article introduces the SPOTTER approach, a novel way to assess supply disruption impacts along the supply chain in the short-term (i.e. the next 5 years) and the medium-term (i.e. in 5 to 15 years) within the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework. This approach allows finding the more important supply risks within global supply chains and over different time horizons, which leads to fine-tuned insights that can help creating resilient supply networks. To this end, the SPOTTER approach assesses overall supply disruption impacts for complete supply chains and supply disruption hotspots separately in the short- and medium-term. The overall impacts and hotspots are evaluated from global and country-specific supply disruption events and aggregated into the two categories of 'cost variability' and 'limited availability'. Scores of these impacts and hotspots are calculated by multiplying resource, material and product flows with respective characterization factors, which are case-specific and are defined by diverse indicators of supply disruption probability and vulnerability. The article provides an overview of the SPOTTER approach and its rationale by explaining the selection and use of indicators to define characterization factors and by describing the procedure to calculate the overall impact and hotspot scores. Furthermore, it presents an implementation procedure for the practical application of the approach. Finally, it highlights the data availability and methodological issues that currently affect the implementation practicability and the representativeness of the SPOTTER approach to describe global supply risks in detail and refers to the need for future research and development on this topic.

Organizational Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (OLCSA) for a Higher Education Institution as an Organization: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is an approach utilized for products to analyze their sustainability indicators. However, no definite study has determined the sustainability of an organization using the LCA approach. This review focuses on a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of the OLCSA in University. The literature was searched in the Scopus online database considering PRISMA guidelines, and VOSviewer software was used for three types of bibliometric analysis, i.e., co-authorship, co-occurrence, and co-citation were analyzed with their units of analysis. The results show that there is no specific study that has found or assessed the LCSA of an organization. However, 17 articles on O-LCA and 2 on SO-LCA were found, and there were numerous articles available about ELCC in the literature. Researchers mostly used UNEP guidelines for O-LCA, in line with ISO standards. However, they used NPV for E-LCC. Based on VOSviewer software, Matthias Finkbeiner, Forin, Martínez-Blanco Julia, Berger Markus, Lehman, Loss, Manzardo, Scipion, Hall, and Weldu are co-authors. The keyword of “life cycle” was broadly used, and the most cited source was the “International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment”. Adoption of the LCSA framework is recommended for O-LCSA studies to estimate organizations’ sustainability, and to ensure quality education contributing the fourth SDGs.

Life cycle sustainability assessment of road infrastructure: a building information modeling-(BIM) based approach

A significant share of federal and regional infrastructure budgets is spent on constructing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing road infrastructure. Due to its magnitude, sustainable road construction practices can support national sustainable development goals (e.g. The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy of Canada). However, the quest for sustainable road construction practices has been hindered by the lack of expertise, information, and resources. The advent of building information modeling (BIM) provides more extensive access to functional and physical data of construction material. Published literature has overlooked BIM-based methods that facilitate the life cycle sustainability evaluation of road construction techniques. This paper presents a methodological framework for life cycle thinking-based road infrastructure evaluation. This framework compares the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative road pavement construction methods. A BIM-based visual program has been created to automate the proposed framework. The program was demonstrated by comparing three road construction methods for a collector road. Results indicated that geomembrane road is the best solution based on the triple bottom line of sustainability. The proposed Life cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) framework, a BIM-based tool, and the implementation road map will assist infrastructure managers in selecting the most sustainable road construction method that will consequently support United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment—A Survey Based Potential Future Development for Implementation and Interpretation

The aim of this study is to define, via an online expert survey, current challenges and possible future approaches in and for the implementation, application, and interpretation of the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Using an online survey, sustainability experts from around the world were surveyed over a period of five weeks, resulting in 71 experts answering 25 questions. The experts were invited by e-mail and through networks; the online questionnaire was the preferred survey choice particularly for reasons of time, cost, and the pandemic. The survey evaluation shows that no change in LCSA is needed. Nevertheless, (1) a detailed optional baseline LCSA framework, with pre-selected fixed indicator sets, (2) a supporting optional but unified visualization tool, (3) a clear and transparent communication on assumptions, targets and system boundaries and (4) early defined stakeholders were identified as relevant for further LCSA implementation and interpretation. Due to natural subjectivity, the results of this written survey are to be understood as recommendations for action and orientation, not explicitly as a prediction. Finally, an action outlook for future LCSA-development is given.

Measuring raw-material criticality of product systems through an economic product importance indicator: a case study of battery-electric vehicles

PurposeThe concept of criticality concerns the probability and the possible impacts of shortages in raw-material supply and is usually applied to regional economies or specific industries. With more and more products being highly dependent on potentially critical raw materials, efforts are being made to also incorporate criticality into the framework of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). However, there is still some need for methodological development of indicators to measure raw-material criticality in LCSA.MethodsWe therefore introduce ‘economic product importance’ (EPI) as a novel parameter for the product-specific evaluation of the relevance and significance of a certain raw material for a particular product system. We thereby consider both the actual raw-material flows (life cycle inventories) and the life cycle cost. The EPI thus represents a measure for the material-specific product-system vulnerability (another component being the substitutability). Combining the product-system vulnerability of a specific product system towards a certain raw material with the supply disruption probability of that same raw material then yields the product-system specific overall criticality with regard to that raw material. In order to demonstrate our novel approach, we apply it to a case study on a battery-electric vehicle.ResultsSince our approach accounts for the actual amounts of raw materials used in a product and relates their total share of costs to the overall costs of the product, no under- or over-estimation of the mere presence of the raw materials with respect to their relevance for the product system occurs. Consequently, raw materials, e.g. rare earth elements, which are regularly rated highly critical, do not necessarily reach higher criticality ranks within our approach, if they are either needed in very small amounts only or if their share in total costs of the respective product system is very low. Accordingly, in our case study on a battery-electric vehicle product system, most rare earth elements are ranked less critical than bulk materials such as copper or aluminium.ConclusionOur EPI approach constitutes a step forward towards a methodology for the raw-material criticality assessment within the LCSA framework, mainly because it allows a product-specific evaluation of product-system vulnerability. Furthermore, it is compatible with common methods for the supply disruption probability calculation — such as GeoPolRisk, ESP or ESSENZ — as well as with available substitutability evaluations. The practicability and usefulness of our approach has been shown by applying it to a battery-electric vehicle.

Capital‐based life cycle sustainability assessment: Evaluation of potential industrial symbiosis synergies

AbstractIndustrial symbiosis (IS) promotes collaboration among traditionally unrelated industries, finding ways to use waste from one as a raw material for another. To enhance IS sustainability, it is essential that involved firms are aware of potential costs and benefits of new exchanges to make informed decisions. Previous assessments have primarily focused on environmental and financial implications of potenial IS synergies, but social implications are rarely addressed. Even when considered, only a limited set of social indicators, such as job creation, development of social ties, and trust among partners, are used. Such an unbalanced focus on sustainability aspects may contribute to problem shifting and suboptimal selection of new synergies. A comprehensive life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) of IS, covering all three dimensions is clearly lacking. Conventionally, a triple bottom line (TBL) approach is used to evaluate sustainability; however, we explore the concept of capitals and develop a capital‐based LCSA framework as a means to evaluate sustainability of IS by examining the stocks and flows of eight different types of capital, or resources creating value, in a system. Measuring stocks and flows is conceptually much closer to the actual definition of sustainability (meeting the needs of the present by maintaining the available stocks without compromising the future needs), when compared to the TBL approach of simply aggregating environmental, social, and economic impact assessment results. This novel LCSA approach is tested at a facility with active IS, The Plant in Chicago, considering three alternative fuel usage scenarios for baking bread at an on‐site bakery.

Evaluation of Road Infrastructure Projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability-Based Decision-Making Approach

Economic growth, social wellbeing, and infrastructure are strongly interrelated and jointly contribute to national development. Therefore, evaluation and selection of a road infrastructure project direly need a comprehensive sustainability assessment integrating holistic decision criteria. This study presents an elaborate life cycle sustainability-based project evaluation tool, comprising an assessment framework, an integration model, and a decision framework. In the first phase, a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework for road infrastructure is established using mixed methods. In the second phase, interviews are conducted to obtain pairwise comparisons among impact categories and subjective reasoning of their priorities. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is adopted to develop the LCSA integration model. The minimum threshold limits of impact categories are evaluated and integrated into the proposed decision framework. Further, thematic and cross-sectional analyses are performed on the interview findings to rationalize the proposed decision framework. The findings include a detailed and customized project assessment framework, an integration model, and a decision framework for the assessment of different project alternatives. This study helps policy- and decision-makers in selecting the project alternative by maximizing sustainability in road infrastructure projects. Insights into environmental and social externalities and their quantitative interpretation throughout the life of the road are also achieved.

Sustainable material choice for construction projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework based on BIM and Fuzzy-AHP

Construction professionals and researchers are increasingly looking for sustainable solutions for buildings in a bid to reduce some of the negative impacts associated with the sector. A common misconception is to consider sustainability as only concerning environmental issues, without regard for the interaction between a triple bottom line framework that is comprised of social, economic, and environmental factors. Material choice is known to impact building sustainability directly since the use of certain materials can dramatically alter the footprint generated over the life cycle of the building. However, the construction industry is not yet equipped with approaches that simultaneously account for all three aspects of sustainability when it comes to deciding on materials to adopt. This paper proposes a decision-making framework for construction professionals and researchers involving the integration of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), and Building Information Modeling (BIM) to choose suitable materials for buildings. The framework is built based on a literature review of relevant papers to identify critical factors and challenges to implementing this integration. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process was chosen as the MCDA method within the proposed framework, given that the problem of material choice often contains subjectivity, uncertainty, and ambiguity, which is best solved with fuzzy logic. A residential building was adopted as a case study to validate the proposed framework, and the LCSA method is applied, covering the construction, operation, and end-of-life phases of the building.

Sustainability implications of service life on residential buildings – An application of life cycle sustainability assessment framework

Abstract Sustainable building design should consider durability, affordability, resource conservation, intra and inter-generational social equity aspects, and stakeholder’s perspective throughout its service life. This research has applied life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework to estimate the sustainability performance in terms of a single score, and to identify avenues for sustainability improvement strategies of buildings. These case study buildings were modeled by taking into account the variation in building materials while maintaining architectural designs, covered area and location constant. The paper demonstrate the flexibility of this LCSA framework as the all indicators are interlinked and any change or improvement in one or some indicators affects others positively and negatively. The sustainability objectives were assessed on an annual basis to capture the implications of the variation in the service life of buildings. Buildings made of recycled steel-framed roof, brick walls, and green concrete used in slab footing, showed higher sustainability performance among case study buildings. The use stage energy consumption and maintenance activities have been identified as the main hotspot. The cleaner production strategies (CPS) including product modification (double glazed window) and technology modification (rooftop solar photovoltaic panels, solar water heaters) were thus deemed appropriate to further reduce the use stage triple bottom line (TBL) impacts. These CPS have improved the sustainability performance of the case study buildings by 30- 49%. The LCSA analysis confirms that the service life of buildings and their components have a significant bearing on the overall sustainability performance of residential buildings. However, the material selection at design phase is crucial to building sustainability performance due to its durability and thermal properties. The longer service life of the building could result in a more sustainable building only if service life of the non-structural components is aligned with service life of building to mitigate the maintenance activities.

Aiming for life cycle sustainability assessment of cement‐based composites: A trend study for wall systems of carbon concrete: Dresden Nexus Conference 2020—Session 4—Circular economy for building with secondary construction materials to minimise resource use and land use

AbstractThe narrative sustainable building is core message of European politics. Strategies discussed in this regard concern above all material minimization by using new more efficient manufacturing technologies, new form finding approaches for load‐bearing structures or new high‐performance materials. The goal of the research project V2.10, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, refers to the latter by assessing the sustainability potential of building components made of innovative textile reinforced concrete. We conceptualized a life cycle sustainability assessment framework and applied it to variants of sandwich wall systems made of carbon concrete composites and steel‐reinforced concrete. Results indicate hotspots in technology and material choices that could be addressed by circular strategies, for example, refuse, reduce or recycling. Overall, one design variant made of carbon concrete composites is the best performing with respect to all dimensions of sustainability.

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources for the Western Australian Transport Sector

Environmental obligation, fuel security, and human health issues have fuelled the search for locally produced sustainable transport fuels as an alternative to liquid petroleum. This study evaluates the sustainability performance of various alternative energy sources, namely, ethanol, electricity, electricity-gasoline hybrid, and hydrogen, for Western Australian road transport using a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. The framework employs 11 triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability indicators and uses threshold values for benchmarking sustainability practices. A number of improvement strategies were devised based on the hotspots once the alternative energy sources failed to meet the sustainability threshold for the determined indicators. The proposed framework effectively addresses the issue of interdependencies between the three pillars of sustainability, which was an inherent weakness of previous frameworks. The results show that the environment-friendly and socially sustainable energy options, namely, ethanol-gasoline blend E55, electricity, electricity-E10 hybrid, and hydrogen, would need around 0.02, 0.14, 0.10, and 0.71 AUD/VKT of financial support, respectively, to be comparable to gasoline. Among the four assessed options, hydrogen shows the best performance for the environmental and social bottom line when renewable electricity is employed for hydrogen production. The economic sustainability of hydrogen fuel is, however, uncertain at this stage due to the high cost of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs). The robustness of the proposed framework warrants its application in a wide range of alternative fuel assessment scenarios locally as well as globally.

Incorporating uncertainty into life-cycle sustainability assessment of pavement alternatives

Current life-cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology for pavement alternatives is deterministic, which generally reduces the reliability of the results. This study proposed an uncertainty-based LCSA framework for pavement alternatives to capture the uncertainties associated with economic, environmental, and social pillars during the life cycle. After identifying and characterizing the uncertainties, the probabilistic LCSA results associated with eight impact categories were obtained using Monte Carlo simulation. Subsequently, an improved multi-criteria decision-making approach was presented to unify the random outcomes of the eight impact categories, where the probabilistic integrated sustainability degrees (ISDs) were obtained to represent the sustainability level for the alternatives. Meanwhile, the probability of being best option for each alternative was obtained. A case study was applied to perform the uncertainty analysis of LCSA including hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement, warm mix asphalt (WMA) pavement, and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). The results showed the economic performance of RAP alternative was significantly less than that of HMA and WMA alternatives at confidence levels of 97% and 99%, respectively. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences among three alternatives with respect to relevant environmental impact categories. Three pavement alternatives denoted positive social impacts with 95% confidence interval. In addition, the satisfactory ISD was obtained for RAP alternative with 95% confidence interval, while RAP alternative was selected as the best option with a high probability of 91.71%. In addition, it was found that the ISDs were sensitive to the economic and social weights in the case study. This study extends the existing pavement LCSA framework by capturing the multivariate potential uncertainties, and thus represents a valuable, reliable tool for decision makers.