Some suggestions for construction materials/components for Assignment 1 in CSM80011-.S2-2023
Some suggestions for construction materials/components for Assignment 1 in CSM80011-.S2-2023
Construction Material/Component Examples Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Concrete Concrete made with natural fine and coarse aggregates Concrete made with recycled coarse aggregate (with partial or full replacement) Concrete made with a recycled coarse aggregate of different type
Concrete Concrete made with natural fine and coarse aggregates Concrete made with recycled fine aggregate (with partial or full replacement) Concrete made with recycled fine aggregate of different type
Concrete OPC concrete (normal/conventional concrete) Concrete made with a type of supplementary cementing materials (CSM) such as FLY ash/Slag/ A type of Geopolymer concrete or a different type of SCM
Concrete Normal concrete Concrete with natural fibres Concrete with steel or other types of fibres
Concrete Normal concrete A type of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Aerated or Foamed Concrete
Concrete Normal concrete A type of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete A different type of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete
In railway construction Wooden/Timber railway sleepers Concrete Railway Sleepers Recycled Plastic Railway Sleepers
Roofing materials Clay tiles Concrete tiles Solar roof tiles
Roofing materials Metal roofing Concrete roofing Plastic roofing
Flooring Carpet Vinyl Timber
Flooring Timber Rigid/Hybrid Laminate
Flooring Conventional tile Phase changing floor tile 1 Phase changing floor tile 2
Faade for single story residential Weatherboard Brick-Veneer Concrete panels
Faade for a high-rise building Glass panel/concrete panel Aluminium Panel A panel with Biomimetic Material
Benchtops in the Kitchen Hardwood Benchtop A natural Stone Benchtop Laminate Benchtop, etc.
Different types of bricks Different types of glazing/building glasses And the choices are endless Check out for some more idea:
13 Types of Building Facades You Should Know About (todayshomeowner.com)Which type of glass is best for energy efficiency? - A&L (alwindows.com.au)
6054090-20199400Cover sheet for submission of
work for assessment
UNIT DETAILS
Unit name Systems, Processes and Technologies for Construction Class day/time Tue Office use only
Unit code CSM800011 Assignment no. 1 Due date 4 Sep Name of lecturer/teacher Dr Mohammad Fardipour Tutor/markers name Dr Mohammad Fardipour / Dr Lianne Ridha Faculty or school date stamp
STUDENT(S)
Family Name(s) Given Name(s) Student ID Number(s)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) DECLARATION AND STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I/we have not impersonated, or allowed myself/ourselves to be impersonated by any person for the purposes of this assessment.
This assessment is my/our original work and no part of it has been copied from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made.
No part of this assessment has been written for me/us by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the lecturer/teacher concerned.
I/we have not previously submitted this work for this or any other course/unit.
I/we give permission for my/our assessment response to be reproduced, communicated, compared and archived for plagiarism detection, benchmarking or educational purposes.
I/we understand that:
Plagiarism is the presentation of the work, idea or creation of another person as though it is your own. It is a form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence that may lead to exclusion from the University. Plagiarised material can be drawn from, and presented in, written, graphic and visual form, including electronic data and oral presentations. Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not appropriately cited.7372357317740005880735754634000508063574320400050806357432040005194935754634000496633574320400053092357432040005194935743204000553783575463400051949357432040005880735754634000588073575463400050806357546340005423535754634000553783574320400053092357546340005880735754634000519493574320400064522357432040005309235743204000553783575463400051949357432040005423535754634000508635731774000508635743204000394335731774000508635731774000851535754634000965835754634000965835754634000
Student signature/s
I/we declare that I/we have read and understood the declaration and statement of authorship.
(1) (4) (2) (5) (3) (6)
Further information relating to the penalties for plagiarism, which range from a formal caution to expulsion from the University is contained on the Current Students website at www.swin.edu.au/student/
Copies of this form can be downloaded from the Student Forms web page at www.swinburne.edu.au/studentforms/ PAGE 1 OF 1
Decision making framework for the selection and review of materials for construction of buildings and civil infrastructure with sustainability considerations: A Review
Table of Contents
TOC o "1-3" h z u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc113146638 h 3Keywords and Abbreviations PAGEREF _Toc113146639 h 3Introduction PAGEREF _Toc113146640 h 4Aims & Methodology PAGEREF _Toc113146641 h 4Review Results PAGEREF _Toc113146642 h 8Discussion PAGEREF _Toc113146643 h 12Conclusion and Recommendation PAGEREF _Toc113146644 h 13Reference PAGEREF _Toc113146645 h 14
Abstract
Sustainable materials known as Green Materials for construction industry is introduced to mitigate the environmental impacts, which has constantly market grown since 2011, and have a positive grow forecasting based on the outstanding performance of several areas compared with traditional construction materials. (Di et al., 2020) Although sustainable materials can benefit the environment, there are also limitations regarding to other aspects such affordability, function, and availability. Construction organisations which would like to apply sustainable materials, especially in developed countries such North America, Europe, Australia, need to have effective and accurate processes to select the right sustainable construction materials to reduce the carbon emission, and keep the mechanical properties requirements within the standards of construction of buildings and civil infrastructure industry simultaneously. Budgets, schedules, and technical gaps also need to be considered; therefore, a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) or hybrid MCDM methods are commonly adopted to achieve the aims. (Stoji et al., 2019) This study provides a summary and evaluation regarding to sustainable materials decision-making framework of different literature reviews. According to the comparisons of cases studies, MCDM with a combination of AHP/ANP and TOPSIS are more preference with infrastructures organisations; however, to be more accurately select the right material, the existing computer simulation need to be undated with higher calculating ability by AI and big data.
Keywords and Abbreviations(MCDM) Multiple criteria decision making
(AHP) Analytical hierarchal process
(ANP) Analytical network process
(TOPSIS) Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(MOO) Multi-objective optimization methodology
(FANP) Fuzzy analytic network process
(DEMATEL) Decision Making Trail and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEA) Data envelopment analysis
(SWOT) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(ELECTRE) Elimination EtChoix Traduisant la REalite
(PROMETHEE) Preference Ranking for Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation
(SCMs) Supplementary cementing materials
(GHG) Green House Gas
(CE) Circular Economy
(SAC) Sustainable Assessment Criteria
IntroductionThere are numerous numbers and studies showing that construction industry is contributing more than 35% of total carbon emission internationally. According to the global statistics, in infrastructures, steel (7-9% CO2 emission) and concrete (8-9% CO2 emission) are the two materials which produce many carbon emissions. Other issues of construction industry contained consumptions of energy (45% out of total energy production), over 30% of greenhouse gases, around 20% of water usage, and approximately 42% of land filling for deconstruction. (Agnes & Koestoer, 2021) With more nations aware of the environmental impacts such as green-house-effects, energy issues, and sustainability problems, most countries have launched regulations, standards, and guideline to encourage the of buildings and civil infrastructure industry to mitigate the environmental impacts. (Mehra et al., 2022)
Apart from conducting the green energy like solar panels, and sustainable design such as rainwater tank, grey water system, enhancing efficiency of insulation, the green building materials are becoming more popular in the industry. For example, green concrete, geopolymer concrete which contains Supplementary cementing materials (SCMs) like fly as, pozzolans, etc. that believed can reduce 20% of carbon emission of concrete products. (Zhang et al., 2021) (Mehra et al., 2022) Sustainability considerations become vital in choosing construction materials for organisations, because there are still many restrictions regarding to the green materials for examples, technical barriers, affordability, design issues, availability, knowledge gaps, lack of authority implementation, insufficient data, quality problems, etc. Mistakes on construction materials selection could cause not only not fulfilling the sustainable aims but also might lead to massive losses of revenue and also casualties. Though there are many selection frameworks and methods to evaluate deferent aspects of a sustainable construction material, a Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is commonly believed and applied in the infrastructures industry because a comprehensive assessment is required rather than a single and narrow one. (Cengiz et al., 2017)
Aims & MethodologyThis study is to find out the most popular methodology in MCDM used to create a selection framework for infrastructure materials with sustainable considerations and to evaluate the challenges, effectiveness, impacts of conducting sustainable construction materials in different cases studies and literature reviews.
MCDM is a combined method that allow people to have a comprehensive review of many areas with the options, which is used by Banking, business, and other industry as well. Based on the variations of the industry, the considerations, and criteria within MCDM can be different. (Cengiz et al., 2017), (Igbinovia & Krupka, 2017)
Diagram one is showing a typical MCDM methods for selection frameworks and the analyses under MCDM can be varied based on the industry and requirement criteria of the choices. After these second level analysis, the outcomes would be compared, and the final selection may be defined based on the organisations priority and real circumstances. (Cengiz et al., 2017)
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytical Network Process (ANP) are similar processes which depends on priority theory and use networks and hierarchical structure (alternatives VS criteria matrix) to analyse prioritization, variables and complex criteria with the options involved. Diagram two demonstrated a possible application of AHP/ANP for considering sustainable materials which included four main criteria which are economy, ecology, technical, and society index. ANP and AHP are popular in MCDM by decision makers because it can present and handle complex hitches with different consideration and substitutes (options) at the same time and it is easy to read. (Cengiz et al., 2017)ANP and AHP can be followed by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ANP which are further improvement of ANP/AHP methods by linking the internal and external dependences with fuzzy-set theory, digitizing materials assessment values. There will be more details on each criterion such as initial cost, maintaining cost, methods of payment, supply chain, logistic, etc. The one has most line-up at the end would be the best option, theocratically. The disadvantages are limitation of comparisons, time consuming, and ranking could be confusing due to uncertainty so that is difficult to convince other decision-makers.
ELECTRE is a method for MCDM to consider the conflicts and advantages of using each green material to replace the traditional construction material such as using recycling steel, green concrete. Depends on diverse sort of the decision difficulty, there can be ELECTRE 1-5 to represent different encounters against the judgements such as safety-cost, sustainability-technical conflicts, respectively showing in diagram one, which is also very time consuming. (Cengiz et al., 2017)
TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS are classic decision-making method which is a compensatory accumulation for weighting each criterion by setting regularising scores such as Very Low -0, Low 0.1-0.3, Medium 0.3 0.7, etc.) For example, if the ideal score of durability is 10, then a sustainable material, say, Bamboo has been provided to have 0.4 and it can be scored as Medium level of durability material. Followed by Fuzzy TOPSIS, each material would have its Fuzzy number to put in a fuzzy decision matrix formula for calculating the symmetrical distance between each material and its applicational ideal scores, to find out which is the best score in each application such as internal wall materials, or by criterion weights matrix for local availability. Those calculation can be done by mathematical software and show in different programs such as linear, integer, etc. TOPSIS is a significant analysis to clarify all the sustainable material option (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2018) by lists of applications with ratings/ scores. (Cengiz et al., 2017)
In diagram three, the different kinds of sustainable materials are giving criteria numbers and names like E1, E2, etc., which can be used in calculations based on the figure. (Mokhtarian & Hadi-Vencheh, 2012)
MOO stands for multi-objective optimization, which is quite new method used in MCDM by last decade, due to fewer complex equations needed but Genetic algorithm or utopia formula, when optimizing the optimum solution and minimize parameters from many options. (Zhou et al., 2009) However, to reach the best option, the criterion must be defined very fine with clear details. For instance, life cycle of slag-based concrete, need to concluded production, ignition, disposal, recyclable fraction, etc. The Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) in other hand, required simple relevant knowledge for decision-maker to quickly view and receive basic ideas of the new sustainable material, to lessen the incomparability between materials. For a decision Criterion Preferences the formula can be ai,ajA:dk(ai,aj)=fk(ai)fk(aj) with six preference functions and assuming the larger the alteration, the better the option.
Like risk management assessments, SWOT (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), 5 by 5 risk matrix, known-unknowns matrix, root-cause diagrams can also be used in MCDM to quickly address the disadvantages of the sustainable construction materials. (DEA) Data envelopment analysis can be used to search for efficiency of multi materials, which have benefits on handling different combinational inputs and outputs, but easy to occur error as the statistical tests not applicable. (Cengiz et al., 2017) (Mokhtarian & Hadi-Vencheh, 2012)
(DEMATEL) Decision Making Trail and Evaluation Laboratory is another common MCDM methods that usually used with ANP methods in cross topics analysis such as science x politics, economic x sustainability.
(Si et al., 2018) Although the combination weighting of application of MCDM can be many, the TOPSIS (30%) and FAHP (20%) are the most adopted methods in decision making framework. (Cengiz et al., 2017)
Review ResultsBased on the studies, the basic materials selection factors as following: (Sandanayake et al., 2020), (Stoji et al., 2019), (Govindan et al., 2016)
Cost: affordability might be the first consideration of any construction organisation, most of MCDM methods would count savings on green materials as a positive value but with different property of construction materials the management cost, storing cost, initial and maintenance cost could be negative factor in evaluation. Over budgets decisions would threat organisation that might not survive in the market.
Safety, Consistency of performance: Mainly about strength and deflection, before the sustainable conditions, it is necessary to ensure that the material meets structural performance/ quality standards.
Technical, Fabrication process: Some advanced or sustainable materials may lack of sufficient data or have technical barriers.
Efficiency & Function: Some materials may have advantages on strength property but have restrictions regarding to efficient designs such as Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete (UHPC). Efficiency of local availability and import difficulty in some case studies will also been considered.
Durability & Aesthetics: Except from responsible sourcing, the appreciation and material life cycle are measured in some MCDM.
Sustainability Considerations:
Time & End of life/ deconstruction: Time of construction, infrastructures waste management are most factors to be ignored in MSDM.
Socio-economical: Some MCDM might include the worker salary, job-creation, public wealth, and community health and safety which can be measured in qualitative format (Low/Medium/High) but not in quantitative data (as numbers).
Carbon Emission: Emission of carbon dioxide volumes is the most common indicator used for analysing the materials sustainability by all case studies rather than other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
Environmental impact: Normally will be taken as comprehensive ratings which including embodied CO2, reduction of water consumption, air/water pollution impacts, raw resources consumption, ecological impacts, energy efficiency, and accommodate future modification, etc. Rankings can refer to international materials environmental certification for example BES 6001, ISO 14001, and EMAS, etc.
Diagram four shows a case study about MCDM measurements for fly-ash green concrete selection from (Sandanayake et al., 2020). Different fly ash sustainable concrete types were estimating by MCDM which included GHG emissions (kgCO2), ingredients (kg), compressive strength (MPa), availability for Australia (km), and cost variations (%).
After the MCDM process, from the data provided by (Sandanayake et al., 2020), the best material for fly ash concrete is OPT1 with 410.5 kgCO2, AUD$1681.5, ~43MPa for 28 days compressive strength.
After the main MCDM analysis, the economic and environment considerations can be compared with different types of fly ash concrete as diagram five (Sandanayake et al., 2020). The end of Right column shown the total compared samples of criteria, and the most X reference fly ash concrete would be the best option for the case study.
(Sandanayake et al., 2020)
According to Sandanayake et al., (2020), the MCDM selection procedures for design samples and evaluate the feasibility of using fly-ash based concrete can be shown in diagram six. The major process with respect to MCDM method are set up indicators (environmental, physical property, economic indicators) which must be convincible and reasonable.
Other study from Stoji et al., (2019) pointed out that the favourite in the infatuation and civil construction industry, the materials selection methods (MCDM) have below combinations in real practices (2008-2018):
Construction projects: 01 AHP + TOPSIS; 02 AHP+ MIVES (Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment) methodology.
Supply-Chain Management: Fuzzy TOPSIS+ AHP, 02 ELECTRE +AHP; 03 Delphi +Fuzzy AHP + Fuzzy TOPSIS
Logistics: 01 AHP + FAHP, 02 DEMATEL +AHP + PROMETHE
Energy: 01 Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP, 02 AHP + PROMETHE or TOPSIS
Discussion
Summary reviews and evaluation with respect to SAC (sustainable assessment criteria) and CES (Circular Economy Strategy).
As the major features of CE are reduce waste and environment impacts, restore natural systems, and ensure the materials and energys sustainability. The MCDM methods of selecting construction material with sustainable consideration are totally meet these requirements, because it had criteria regarding to carbon emissions, cost increase, source availability, etc, shown in the case study. However, some levels of measurement may have errors and hard to prove.
(Score 1 to 10; ten is very worst materials---one is almost no impacts, and excellent materials)
The CES and SAC summary table for traditional concrete and fly ash concrete:
Comments on conventional concrete Comments on Fly Ash Concrete (Geopolymer) Based on Sandanayake et al., 2020
CES 1 (reduce waste and pollution) Huge waste, and CO2 emission. (Score 8) Fly ash is a by-product for coal/fossil fuel-based power plant. Can reduce cement % of concrete which cement can cause up to 55% of CO2 in concrete production, so Score 5.
CES 2 (restore natural systems) Raw material development and transport will damage environment. (Score 7) Waste product from power plant, reuse can reduce deposition. (Score 3)
CES 3 (sustainability) Sand and Cement (main materials of concrete) cannot be restored. (Score 9) Would face shortage if the coal-based power plant terminated. (Score 7)
CES (Economy) Expensive Row materials and high cost in manufacture. (Score 8) Less energy and money needed. (Score 4)
The disadvantages are limitation of comparisons, time consuming, and ranking could be confusing due to uncertainty so that is difficult to convince other decision-makers.
Conclusion and RecommendationThe SAC summary table for the most popular 4 MCDM:
AHP/ANP ELECTRE TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS DEMATEL
SAC 01 Socio-economic factors
Most of these criteria are in qualitative evaluation, so it is suitable. Effective method which can compare the conflicts between options. Quantitative data needed for calculation. May not be accurate on socio-economic but in cost. Need to be used with AHP, or maybe confusing with numbers.
SAC 02 Technical boundaries
Suitable methods for addressing the technical limitations. Appropriate for dividing and clarify the technical issues. May not targeting to the technical SAC but finding the availability of material. Applied in business decision making, not suitable for technical barriers.
SAC 03 Environmental impacts
Suitable for analysing different environment impacts. Suitable for analysing different environment impacts Can work if the impacts can be digitised into quantitative data. Can work if the impacts can be digitised into quantitative data.
Most of sustainable construction materials selecting framework are using AHP/ANP + TOPSIS of MCDM methods, which is the combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment. Further study of using more computer modelling to demonstrate more MCDM methods is recommended because the more method involved the more precise. However, each MCDM is quite time consuming; hence, an AI (Artificial intelligence) or supercomputer is required.
Reference
Agnes, M., & Koestoer, R. H., 2021. A Review on Sustainable Construction Regulations in Asian Countries: Savvy Insights for Indonesia.Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan,19(2), 459-464.
Cengiz, A. E., Aytekin, O., Ozdemir, I., Kusan, H., & abuk, A. (2017). A multi-criteria decision model for construction material supplier selection.Procedia Engineering,196, 294-301.
Di Maria, A., Snellings, R., Alaerts, L., Quaghebeur, M., & Van Acker, K., 2020. Environmental assessment of CO2 mineralisation for sustainable construction materials.International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,93, 102882.
Govindan, K., Shankar, K. M., & Kannan, D. (2016). Sustainable material selection for construction industryA hybrid multi criteria decision making approach.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,55, 1274-1288.
Igbinovia, F. O., & Krupka, J., 2017. Product value chain in a tertiary institution: The need for MCDM. In2017 IEEE European Technology and Engineering Management Summit (E-TEMS)(pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Gnanavelbabu, A., & Prabhuraj, B. L., 2018. A sustainable assessment model for material selection in construction industries perspective using hybrid MCDM approaches. Journal of Advances in Management Research.
Mehra, S., Singh, M., Sharma, G., Kumar, S., & Chadha, P., 2022. Impact of construction material on environment. In Ecological and Health Effects of Building Materials (pp. 427-442). Springer, Cham.
Mokhtarian, M. N., & Hadi-Vencheh, A. (2012). A new fuzzy TOPSIS method based on left and right scores: An application for determining an industrial zone for dairy products factory. Applied Soft Computing, 12(8), 2496-2505.
Sandanayake, M., Gunasekara, C., Law, D., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., & Wanijuru, D. (2020). Sustainable criterion selection framework for green building materialsAn optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete. Sustainable materials and technologies, 25, e00178.
Si, S. L., You, X. Y., Liu, H. C., & Zhang, P., 2018. DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018.
Stoji, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamuar, D., Stevi, ., & Mardani, A., 2019. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 20082018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350.
Zhang, J., Ouyang, Y., Ballesteros-Prez, P., Li, H., Philbin, S. P., Li, Z., & Skitmore, M., 2021. Understanding the impact of environmental regulations on green technology innovation efficiency in the construction industry.Sustainable Cities and Society,65, 102647.
Zhou, C.C., Yin, G.F. and Hu, X.B., 2009. Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products: artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach.Materials & Design,30(4), pp.1209-1215.
