<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/image-449.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nEnvironmental impacts are quantified using Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data derived from the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE v3.0) database [5] and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) sourced from the International EPD\u00ae System [6]. The assessed environmental indicators include embodied energy, carbon dioxide (CO\u2082) emissions, nitrogen oxides (NO\u2093) emissions, sulphur dioxide (SO\u2082) emissions, as well as life-cycle cost. Maintenance activities, including repainting and partial board replacement, are explicitly modelled based on predefined intervention intervals, consistent with good practice recommendations for building LCA studies [4]. Figure 2:<\/strong> Comparison of total life-cycle CO\u2082,NOx<\/sub>,SO2<\/sub> emissions for the three partition wall systems. <\/em> Figure 3:<\/strong> Number of maintenance interventions required over the system lifespan for each partition wall system. Figure 4:<\/strong> Final ranking of partition wall systems based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).\u00a0<\/em> This project evaluates the environmental and economic performance of interior partition wall systems using an integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach. Interior partitions are often excluded from sustainability assessments despiteContinue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":294,"featured_media":0,"parent":26554,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-26652","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/294"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=26652"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26652\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28316,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26652\/revisions\/28316"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=26652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Figure 1:<\/strong> Interior partition wall systems assessed in the study: Standard Drywall, Acoustic Double-Layer, and Timber\u2013Wood Fiber. <\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The LCA results indicate that the Acoustic Double-Layer partition system exhibits the highest embodied energy demand and pollutant emissions, primarily due to its increased material intensity, particularly gypsum boards and steel framing [5]. The Standard Drywall system demonstrates moderate environmental performance; however, it requires more frequent maintenance interventions over the service life, increasing cumulative impacts. In contrast, the Timber\u2013Wood Fiber system consistently shows the lowest embodied energy and emissions, benefiting from lightweight, bio-based materials with lower carbon intensity [5], [6].
<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
From an economic perspective, the Standard Drywall system represents the lowest life-cycle cost option, while the Acoustic Double-Layer system results in the highest total cost due to increased material use and installation complexity. The Timber\u2013Wood Fiber system lies between the two alternatives, offering substantial environmental benefits at a moderate additional cost.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/em>
To support integrated decision-making, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied using weighted environmental criteria (energy, CO\u2082, NO\u2093, and SO\u2082). The AHP results identify the Acoustic Double-Layer partition as the highest-ranked option when all criteria are aggregated, despite its higher absolute environmental impacts [7].
<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Overall, the study highlights important trade-offs between material intensity, environmental performance, durability, and cost. It demonstrates that combining LCA with MCDA provides a transparent and robust framework for sustainable material selection in building design.\u00a0
References<\/strong>
<\/em>[1] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction<\/em>, Nairobi, Kenya, 2020.
[2] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14040: Environmental Management \u2014 Life Cycle Assessment \u2014 Principles and Framework<\/em>, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[3] European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), ILCD Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment \u2014 Detailed Guidance<\/em>, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.
[4] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Life Cycle Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice<\/em>, Nairobi, Kenya, 2011.
[5] G. Hammond and C. Jones, Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), Version 3.0<\/em>, University of Bath, Bath, UK, 2019.
[6] The International EPD\u00ae System, Environmental Product Declarations \u2013 Construction Products Database<\/em>.
[7] T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process<\/em>, New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1980.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Home <\/a>| introdaction <\/a>| Integration Context<\/a> | Maintenance Strategies<\/a> | Life-cycle Analysis<\/a> | Multi-Objective Optimizatin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"