Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

A matrix in life cycle perspective for selecting sustainable materials for

buildings in Sri Lanka
U.G. Yasantha Abeysundara a, Sandhya Babel b, *, Shabbir Gheewala c
a
Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka
b
Environmental Technology Program, School of Biochemical Engineering and Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, P.O. Box 22,
Pathumthani 12121, Thailand
c
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a matrix to select sustainable materials for buildings in Sri Lanka, taking into
Received 12 February 2008 consideration environmental, economic and social assessments of materials in a life cycle perspective.
Received in revised form 16 July 2008 Five building elements, viz., foundations, roofs, ceilings, doors and windows, and floors are analyzed
Accepted 16 July 2008
based on materials used for these elements. Environmental burdens associated with these elements are
analyzed in terms of embodied energy and environmental impacts such as global warming, acidification
Keywords:
and nutrient enrichment. Economic analysis is based on market prices and affordability of materials.
Life cycle assessment
Social factors that are taken into account are thermal comfort, interior (aesthetics), ability to construct
Embodied energy
Environmental impacts quickly, strength and durability. By compiling the results of analyses, two building types with minimum
Economic Score and maximum impacts are identified. These two cases along with existing buildings are compared in
Social factor a matrix of environmental, economic and social scores. Analysis of the results also indicates need for
Material selection matrix higher consideration of environmental parameters in decision-making over social and economic factors,
as social and economic scores do not vary much between cases. Hence, this matrix helps decision-makers
to select sustainable materials for buildings, meaningfully, and thus helps to move towards a more
sustainable buildings and construction sector.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sustainable development should be the theme for all develop-
ment projects as per Rio Declaration (1992) of which Sri Lanka is
a signatory country. Further, Sri Lanka has committed itself to the
control of substances that deplete the ozone layer according to the
Montreal Protocol (1985) and the emissions of green house gases
according to the Kyoto Protocol (1997). In this context, assessment
of environmental burdens associated with different construction
materials used for buildings is necessary in order for decision-
makers to select environmentally benign materials.
Environmental burdens associated with construction materials
used for buildings in Sri Lanka have yet to be accounted [1].
Construction materials use resources of a country and a proper
selection of materials is thus important for sustainable develop-
ment. Thus, there is a clear need to design and construct buildings
to support the concept of sustainable development. Sustainable
development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ66 2 986 9009x2307; fax: þ66 2 986 9009x2301.
E-mail addresses: yabeysundara@yahoo.com (U.G.Y. Abeysundara), sandhya@
siit.tu.ac.th (S. Babel), shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th (S. Gheewala).
needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be
met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future [2]. The
other factors, which influence selection of materials to a great
extent, are the cost and social concerns such as thermal comfort,
good interior (aesthetic), ability to construct quickly, strength and
durability [3]. Integration of all these factors (i.e., environmental,
economic and social) provides an overall picture of a material and
thus, helps in selecting suitable materials for buildings through
a multi-criteria decision-making approach.
Environmental burdens mainly include embodied energy of
a material and emissions added to the environment from each
process of the life cycle of that material. Embodied energy is energy
bound into a product and is an important parameter for comparing
materials or products in environmental terms. It is a measure of the
amount of energy consumed, from the extraction of raw material to
the manufacturing processes required to produce a finished
product. It also includes the energy associated with transportation
of raw materials to the factory and of finished products to the
consumer [4]. The inherent energy of the material itself is not
included as embodied energy [3]. Embodied energy is one measure
of the environmental impact of construction and the effectiveness
of any recycling, particularly CO2 emissions [5].

0360-1323/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.005
998 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004
Sources and types of energy used for various activities are
important for understanding the impacts on the environment.
Energy in Sri Lanka is mainly from fossil fuels. The domestic sector
and industries mostly use electrical energy supplied by the national
power supply which has a mix of electricity; 56.5% thermal
(generated by burning oil) and 43.5% hydro [6]. For transport also,
the major energy source is fossil fuel (i.e., gasoline or diesel). It is
well known that with burning of fossil fuels, emissions are released
to the environment and this may have a great potential for
increasing global warming (GWP), acidification (ACP), nutrient
enrichment (NEP), photochemical smog formation (PSF), etc.
Significant environmental impacts in the Sri Lankan context are
nutrient enrichment [7] and acidification [8]. Global warming may
also affect Sri Lanka, as it is an island in the Indian Ocean.
This study aims to develop a matrix for the decision-making
process in selecting construction materials for buildings following
environmental, economic and, social assessments in a life cycle
perspective. Environmental impacts such as global warming,
acidification and nutrient enrichment are analyzed using Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) as a tool.
2. Methodology
When comparing construction materials of a building by
taking into account all aspects of the lifecycle, selection of typical
buildings is advantageous. Typical buildings follow one plan and
thus the variables are limited. Hence, a representative sample can
be studied rather than a single building. School buildings, a kind
of typical building in Sri Lanka, were used as a representative in
this study. The materials used for school buildings are mostly
similar to those for other buildings in Sri Lanka. Hence, the results
of the analysis are applicable to other buildings in the country.
Materials used for five elements of these buildings, namely, doors
and windows, roofs, ceilings, foundations and floors are studied.
Walls were not studied since walls of almost all school buildings
have been built with burnt clay bricks. However, embodied
energies of existing buildings, including embodied energy of
burnt clay brick walls, are calculated and presented in Section 3.
This helps to understand the overall picture of environmental
impacts between two categories of existing buildings. Embodied
energy values of brick walls were obtained from a study carried
out by Dias [9]. Also, burnt clay bricks are studied under the
element, foundation.
The two most commonly used materials for each type of
element, such as timber and aluminum for doors and windows, clay
tile and corrugated asbestos sheet for roofs, timber and asbestos
sheet for ceilings, rubble and burnt clay brick for foundations, and
porcelain and vinyl tiles for floors, are considered in this study. The
embodied energy, air emissions, and the quantity of waste gener-
ated at different stages of the life cycle of these materials and
elements are used to analyze the environmental impacts. Price of
materials and affordability are used to analyze the economic
viability. Thermal comfort, good interior (aesthetic), ability to
construct quickly, strength and durability are used to analyze the
social acceptability, as lay people use these factors for decision-
making while selecting materials.
The data collection was carried out for 50 single-storey
government school buildings in Hambantota district and Embili-
pitiya education zone in Sri Lanka. The elements analyzed were
used in buildings that were 80 feet (24,384 mm) long, and 20 feet
(6096 mm) wide, and 9 feet (2743 mm) high (up to the ceiling).
These buildings have rooms of equal length and width of 20 feet
(6096 mm). One room has a door, three windows, a ceiling, and
floor (porcelain or vinyl floor tiles) and is used for one of several
purposes such as office, library, audiovisual room and computer
room. Except for computer rooms, which are air-conditioned,
others are naturally ventilated. Other rooms are used as classrooms
having cement rendered floor and do not have doors, windows,
ceilings and floorings. The school buildings can be divided into two
categories based on the types of elements used. Category 1 includes
tile roofs, rubble foundations, timber doors and windows, asbestos
ceilings, and porcelain tile floors, and category 2 includes asbestos
roofs, brick foundations, aluminum doors and windows, timber
ceilings and vinyl tile floors. Both types of buildings follow the
relevant type plans of the Ministry of Education, Sri Lanka. The plan
and the elevation of a building of category 1 are shown in Fig. 1 with
measurements in inches and feet as they appear in the original
drawings (1 inch ¼ 25.4 mm). Slight differences in the measure-
ments of a few elements were observed and they were neglected
for the calculations.
BUWAL 250 database in the LCA software (Sima Pro 6) was used
to obtain some missing data for calculating embodied energy and
air emissions, as data for air emissions were not available from Sri
Lankan vendors. Electrical energy used for each process of the life
cycle of materials was measured at relevant work sites and indus-
tries in Sri Lanka during the data survey. Then, the portion of
thermal power generation for the relevant process was calculated
using the country’s electricity mix. Amounts of air emissions rele-
vant to thermal power were then calculated using data available in
BUWAL 250.
A common parameter presented in Table 1, which is called the
functional unit, was used to compare the elements. The reference
flows were then calculated according to the relevant functional
units for comparison of elements (e.g., porcelain tile floor vs vinyl
tile floor, etc.). For example, the reference flow for floors is 34.5 m2
of floor area for both types of elements (i.e., porcelain tile and vinyl
floor tile). During the survey, it was observed that several school
buildings have existed for more than 50 years. Thus 50 years was
chosen as a reasonable lifetime.
The LCA methodology followed is as given in Ref. [10]. Though
many materials used for these elements are manufactured in Sri
Lanka, some materials are imported. For instance, vinyl tiles are
imported from Thailand and cement powder from India. Porcelain
tiles are manufactured in Sri Lanka and are analyzed based on the
data collected from a leading manufacturer in Sri Lanka. But vinyl
tile and cement are analyzed based on data collected for the
processes carried out in Sri Lanka and long distance sea transport.
Data from literature [11,12] are also used for analysis. Air emissions
for offshore processes of vinyl tiles are computed from data avail-
able in Ref. [12] and incorporated in the study. This helps to
understand the overall picture of vinyl-tiled floor. Also, embodied
energies of floors are calculated using data available in Ref. [11] for
vinyl tiles and cement. This helps to understand overall embodied
energies of floors as data taken from Ref. [11] includes all energy
bound into these materials from raw material extraction to
production. These data sources may not be directly applicable to
the Sri Lankan situation as the data in Ref. [11] are based on a study
in New Zealand and in Ref. [12] based on a study in Sweden.
However, those estimates give an idea about the overall picture of
both these floors and thus help to indicate the relative importance
of the upstream processes. Similarly, while analyzing other
imported materials such as steel, glass, asbestos fibre, etc., data
obtained from Refs [11] and [13] for embodied energy and air
emissions are included in the analysis in order to have an overall
picture of relevant elements (doors and windows, asbestos roof and
foundations).
The embodied energy of a recyclable material is calculated using
Eq. (1).
Say for a certain product (e.g., aluminum profiles), M kilogram of
a recyclable material ‘‘X’’ (e.g., aluminum) is used and, c is the
percentage of this material that can be recycled at the end of life of
this product. Then,
 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004 999

Front Elevation
80'-0"

A
W W

20'-0"

W D
A
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
Plan

Fig. 1. Front elevation and plan of a building of category 1.

  
1 c Embodied energy of a building element
the embodied energy of material X ¼ M M X
r 100 ¼ embodied energies of materials used for the element

c
 ðERME þ ERMT Þ þ ðMÞðEP þ EPT Þ þ MðER þ ERT Þ MJ (1) þ energy consumed by the element during construction;
100
repairs; maintenance and disposal ð2Þ
where r ¼ weight of material X/weight of raw materials needed to
produce material X; ERME ¼ energy/kg in MJ used for extraction of For the economic analysis, the prices of construction materials were
raw materials for material X; ERMT ¼ energy/kg in MJ used for collected from 19 sales outlets in the study area and an average
transporting raw materials for material X; EP ¼ energy/kg in MJ price for each material was calculated. Life cycle cost of an element
used for production of material X; EPT ¼ energy/kg in MJ used for is calculated as sum of costs of materials for production and repairs
transporting material X; ER ¼ energy/kg in MJ used for recycling (at current prices) minus market prices of materials at the end of
material X; and ERT ¼ Energy/kg in MJ used for transporting recy- life of the element. An Economic Score (ES), which is equal to the
clable quantity of material X. life cycle cost, is introduced for comparing two types of elements.
The embodied energy of a building element is calculated using More details are available in Ref. [1].
Eq. (2). For the analysis of social factors, data were collected
according to the prepared questionnaires from 13 skilled

Table 1
Functional units and relevant reference flows for the various building elements

No Elements compared Functional unit Reference Flow

1. Aluminum doors and Area of doors that is required to provide access and the area of windows that is required to provide 1.95 m2 of door, and 6.69 m2
windows vs timber sufficient light and ventilation for a 20 feet (6096 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide room of windows
doors and windows which is located in a single-storey school building, for 50 years
2. Asbestos sheet roof vs Area of the roof that is required to provide the shade for a typical single-storey school building of 251.21 m2 for tile roof and
clay tile roof 80 feet (24,384 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide, for 50 years. 247.68 m2 for asbestos roof
3. Asbestos ceiling vs Area of ceiling that is required to provide the thermal comfort, good interior and security for 20 feet 35.19 m2 of ceiling
timber ceiling (6096 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide room, built in a typical single-storey school building of
80 feet (24,384 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide, for 50 years.
4. Rubble foundation vs Quantity of foundation that is required to support a typical single-storey school building of 80 feet 20.98 m3 (13.09 m3 of rubble
burnt clay brick (24,384 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide, for 50 years. masonry and 7.89 m3 of concrete)
foundation for rubble foundation and 19.42 m3
(11.53 m3 of brick work and 7.89 m3
of concrete) for brick foundation
5. Tiled floor vs vinyl-tiled Area to be paved in a room of 20 feet (6096 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide built in a typical 34.5 m2
floor single-storey school building of 80 feet (24,384 mm) long and 20 feet (6096 mm) wide, for 50 years.
1000 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004

Table 2
Criteria for giving marks for element ‘‘door and windows’’

Criteria (social factor) Indicators Marks Criteria for giving marks

Interior (aesthetics) Excellent 100 Excellent quality of work, very attractive
Very good 75 Very good quality of work, attractive
Good 60 Good quality of work, good appearance
Satisfactory 50 Finish satisfactory, general appearance
Not satisfactory 40 Finish not satisfactory, need improvements

Ability to construct fast Construction duration 10 per day

Strength Excellent 100 Resistance for forces and impacts are excellent
Very good 75 Resistance for forces and impacts are very good
Good 60 Resistance for forces and impacts are good
Satisfactory 50 Resistance for forces and impacts are satisfactory
Not satisfactory 40 Resistance for forces and impacts are not satisfactory

Durability Excellent 100 0–1 repair/maintenance during the life (50 years)
Very good 75 2–3 repairs/maintenances during the life
Good 60 4–6 repairs/maintenances during the life
Satisfactory 50 7–10 repairs/maintenances during the life
Not satisfactory 40 More than 10 repairs/maintenances during the life

persons who are involved in designing and supervising the
building construction (nine engineers, one architect and
three building inspectors), 100 users (teachers, students and
principals of the schools) and 27 construction contractors.
The social factors are analyzed based on individuals’
perception and a Social Score (SS) for each element is
calculated using a developed marking scheme. The marking
scheme developed for element; door and windows is pre-
sented in Table 2. Explanation of ‘‘thermal comfort’’ was not
included in this table as thermal comfort was not taken into
consideration in giving marks for these elements based on
reasons given in Section 3.
The SS calculated in Refs [1] and [3] were based on
responses from the majority of respondents. But while calcu-
lating SS in this paper, the calculation procedure is expanded
to take into account all responses for each social factor. Eq. (3)
is used to calculate SS.
If an element has number of criterion (social factors) ‘‘n’’ and,
number of indicators for any criterion (i.e., excellent, very good,
good, etc.) ‘‘m’’, then the SS of that element;
n;m
X percentage of individuals who gave these responses during the
Social Score¼ ðpercent of responses received for criterion
i;j¼1
ðsocial factorÞi on indicator jmarks for indicator jÞ ð3Þ
3. Result and discussion
Cases with minimum and maximum impacts are selected based
on the results of five building elements studied. Existing buildings
are compared with these cases to evaluate their impacts. The
results of elements studied (environmental, economic and social
scores) are summarized and presented in Table 3.
Embodied energies of elements were calculated using Eq. (2).
Embodied energy of aluminum (80% for recycling) was calculated
using Eq. (1). This aluminum is used for making aluminum doors
and windows. Also, energy was credited for timber (60% as fire-
wood) at the end of life of elements such as timber doors and
windows, roofs (timber frame) and ceilings. Thus, for some
elements it was found that the Embodied Energy (EE) has a nega-
tive figure after crediting energy (e.g., timber door and windows,
asbestos ceiling and timber ceiling).
Social Scores were calculated using Eq. (3). For example, calcu-
lation of social factors for the element, door and windows, is pre-
sented below.
Responses received for each social factor considered for these
elements are summarized and presented in Table 4. Also, the
survey and weighted average calculated based on Eq. (3) are also
presented in the table.
As presented in Ref. [1] social factors such as interior, ability to
construct quickly, strength and durability are only considered for

Table 3
Summary of environmental, economic and social scores of all elements

Element Environmental score Economic Social

Score Score

GWP (kg of CO2 eq) ACP (kg of SO2 NEP (kg of PO4 eq) EE (MJ) ES (US$) SS
eq)
Timber door and windows 96.73 0.52 0.10 2289.00 375.54 144.85
Aluminum door and windows 537.74 0.81 0.15 7479.00 413.89 163.85

Asbestos sheet roof 2566.49 9.13 1.70 32,160.00 3717.92 66.50

Clay tile roof 1639.41 37.99 7.05 221,568.00 3725.80 24.00

Asbestos ceiling 308.41 1.24 0.23 2795.00 191.69 137.80

Timber ceiling 220.63 1.81 0.33 15,413.00 297.33 134.35

Rubble foundation 606.90 4.43 0.82 6727.00 1173.00 97.80

Brick foundation 993.53 40.97 5.54 444,675.00 1140.58 101.50

Tile floor 287.41 2.55 0.47 1759.00 539.96 104.50

Vinyl tile floor 1119.00 3.42 0.41 14,567.00 401.33 48.45
 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004 1001

Table 4
Summary of responses received (in percent) for aluminum and timber door and windows (elements)

Factor Aluminum element Timber element

Thermal comfort (when naturally ventilated) Just right (78%), Not comfortable (22%) Better (62%), Good (14%),
((47.8)) Just right (24%)–((66.9))

Interior (aesthetic) Very good (64%), Good (30%), Very good (9%), Good (52%),
Satisfactory (6%)–((69)) Satisfactory (39%)–((57.45))

Ability to construct fast Very good (100%) Much longer than aluminum (100%)

Strength Very good (3%), Good (62%), Very good (72%), Good (22%),
Satisfactory (35%)–((54.15)) Satisfactory (6%)–((70.2))

Durability Very good (8%), Good (60%), Very good (56%), Good (32%),
Satisfactory (31%), Not satisfactory (1%) Satisfactory (12%)
((57.9)) ((67.2))

(( )) weighted average.

developing the SS for these elements. Thermal comfort depends on
the temperature and the humidity of the environment and, also
clothing. Most of the rooms found in the schools are naturally
ventilated. The users’ feelings may be mainly based on the atmo-
spheric temperature and the humidity. Monthly temperature and
the humidity of the study area were obtained from the Meteoro-
logical Department, Sri Lanka. The variation in average temperature
and humidity is not significant throughout the year. The average
temperature varies between 26  C and 29  C and the average
humidity varies between 76.5% and 80.5%. These maximum
temperature (29  C) and minimum and maximum humidity figures
are out of the comfort zone (either winter or summer) of the ASHRAE
psychrometric chart presented in Ref. [14]. Clothes of the users are
similar to those worn in summer in other countries. The users claim
that they feel better in the rooms where the elements are con-
structed from timber (see Table 4). This can be interpreted as below.
The heat absorption and radiation of elements such as roof,
walls, ceilings, etc., can positively contribute for the uncomfortable
situation as it helps to keep the room warm. The contribution from
doors and windows for this may be very low compared to other
elements, as the area of doors and windows is small compared to
the total area of other elements. However, both timber and
aluminum elements have some amount of metals that can conduct
and radiate heat into rooms. The weight of metals (aluminum and
steel [grills]) in the aluminum element is 56% of the total weight of
the element and that of the timber element (steel [grills]) is 18%.
Hence, heat radiation by the aluminum element is comparatively
high. Also the color of metals is dark (aluminum: dark brown and
steel: black) in the aluminum element. But in timber windows,
steel rods are painted white color. The dark color of metals absorbs
more heat. Therefore, the aluminum element contributes to keep
the room warm compared to the timber element. Due to these
reasons, the claim of users that the timber element is better than
aluminum in terms of thermal comfort is valid. However, these are
not taken into consideration for giving marks for both types of
elements, as the thermal comfort they refer to is not coming under
the comfort zone indicated by the ASHRAE chart.
Based on responses in Table 4 and the marking scheme pre-
sented in Table 2, the social score for each element is calculated
using Eq. (3). It was found that the social scores for timber and
aluminum elements are 144.85 and 163.85, respectively. Similarly
SS for other elements are also calculated and presented in Table 3.
It can be seen from Table 3 that the asbestos roof which has the
SS of 66.5 is favourable in social terms than the tile roof which has
the SS of 24.0. As found from the social survey, the asbestos roof is
better in terms of ability to construct quickly (construction duration
12 days for the asbestos roof and 18 days for the tile roof) and the
durability (weighted average 70 for the asbestos roof and 59.9 for
the tile roof). The tile roof is better in terms of interior (aesthetic)
(weighted average 57.25 for the asbestos roof and 70.75 for the tile
roof) and the strength (weighted average of 59.25 for the asbestos
roof and 73.35 for the tile roof). These weighted averages which are
used to calculate the final SS were calculated according to the Eq.
(3). More details on the SS of these roofs are available in Ref. [3].
Further, embodied energy of asbestos roof (32,160 MJ) is much
lower compared to that of tile roof (221,568 MJ, i.e., the calculated
net energy after crediting energy obtained at the disposal of timber
parts as firewood) and this indicates that the asbestos roof is
favourable in environmental terms also. The high embodied energy
of tiles (265,187 MJ) has contributed for the high embodied energy
of the tile roof (tiles þ steel trusses þ perlins, rafters and reapers
(timber) þ paints, etc.). Raw tiles are fired in kilns to make them
hard. This process consumes high amount of energy which adds to
the embodied energy of tiles.
Asbestos products are either banned or restricted in many
developed countries as asbestos fibre is carcinogenic. However,
asbestos products are still popular in many developing countries
including Sri Lanka. This may be due to the low cost and industrially
desirable characteristics of asbestos fibre such as high tensile
strength, fire and heat resistance. According to RADA [15] health
impact caused by inhaling or swallowing asbestos fibre namely
chrysotile, which is used for the production of roofing or ceiling
sheets is not significant in Sri Lanka. Also, no case of asbestos
exposure has been recorded from the study area. Hence, the health
impact from asbestos was not included in the analysis. Sri Lanka
Standard Institution (a responsible Government Agency) has given
SLS certification (product quality standards) for asbestos roofing
and ceiling sheets. This shows the acceptability of asbestos roofing
and ceiling sheets as usable products in the country [15]. However,
recommended safety guidelines should be followed when handling
loose asbestos fibres at the production of roofing or ceiling sheets,
cutting and drilling sheets during the construction of roof or ceiling
and at the disposal of asbestos wastes in order to prevent inhaling/
or swallowing fibres.
Table 3 helps to identify cases that have minimum and
maximum impacts. The case that has minimum impacts includes
timber door and windows (all scores are lower than aluminum
elements, except social score which is slightly higher), asbestos
sheet roof (all scores are lower than tile element except GWP which
is comparatively high), asbestos ceiling (ACP, NEP, ES, and SS are
lower than tile element), rubble foundation (all environmental
scores are lower and ES and SS are slightly higher than brick
element) and, tile floor (all environmental scores except NEP, ES
and SS are lower than vinyl tile floor). This is named as case P. Thus,
the case with elements that has maximum impacts includes
aluminum door and windows, clay tile roof, timber ceiling, brick
foundation and vinyl tile floor. This is named as case Q.
Environmental, economic and social factors (GWP, ACP, NEP, EE,
ES and SS) relevant to case P and Q along with existing buildings
(i.e., category 1 and 2) are presented in Table 5.
1002 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004

Table 5
Environmental, economic and social factors of cases P and Q and buildings of two categories

Element GWP (kg of CO2 eq) ACP (kg of SO2 eq) NEP (kg of PO4 eq) EE (MJ) ES (US$) SS
Case P (minimum impacts)
Timber door and windows 96.73 0.52 0.10 2289.00 375.54 144.85
Asbestos sheet roof 2566.49 9.13 1.70 32,160.00 3717.92 66.50
Asbestos ceiling 308.41 1.24 0.23 2795.00 191.69 137.80
Rubble foundation 606.90 4.43 0.82 6727.00 1173.00 97.80
Tile floor 287.41 2.55 0.47 1759.00 539.96 104.50
Total 3865.94 17.87 3.32 35,562.00 5998.11 551.45

Case Q (maximum impacts)

Aluminum door and windows 537.74 0.81 0.15 7479.00 413.89 163.85
Tile roof 1639.41 37.99 7.05 221,568.00 3725.80 24.00
Timber ceiling 220.63 1.81 0.33 15,413.00 297.33 134.35
Brick foundation 993.53 40.97 5.54 444,675.00 1140.58 101.50
Vinyl tile floor 1119.00 3.42 0.41 14,567.00 401.33 48.45
Total 4510.31 85.00 13.48 672,876.00 5978.93 472.15

Buildings of category 1
Timber door and windows 96.73 0.52 0.10 2289.00 375.54 144.85
Tile roof 1639.41 37.99 7.05 221,568.00 3725.80 24.00
Asbestos ceiling 308.41 1.24 0.23 2795.00 191.69 137.80
Rubble foundation 606.90 4.43 0.82 6727.00 1173.00 97.80
Tile floor 287.41 2.55 0.47 1759.00 539.96 104.50
Total 2938.86 46.73 8.67 224,970.00 6005.99 508.95

Buildings of category 2
Aluminum door and windows 537.74 0.81 0.15 7479.00 413.89 163.85
Asbestos sheet roof 2566.49 9.13 1.70 32,160.00 3717.92 66.50
Timber ceiling 220.63 1.81 0.33 15,413.00 297.33 134.35
Brick foundation 993.53 40.97 5.54 444,675.00 1140.58 101.50
Vinyl tile floor 1119.00 3.42 0.41 14,567.00 401.33 48.45
Total 5437.39 56.14 8.13 483,468.00 5971.05 514.65

It can be seen from Table 5 that except for GWP, total of each category 1 is better than GWP of the case P (case with minimum
factor for building category 1 and 2 lies between Case P and Q, and impacts) and the GWP of the buildings of category 2 is worse than
does not exceed the case Q which has maximum impacts. These are the GWP of the case Q (case with maximum impacts). The ACP of
illustrated and presented in a matrix as in Fig. 2. the buildings of category 2 (55.5%) is higher than the buildings of
category 1 (63.6%). The ACP of case P is 19.2%. The NEP of the
3.1. Material selection matrix buildings of category 1 (64%) is slightly higher than the buildings of
category 2 (58%). The NEP of case P is 22%. The NEE of the buildings
The environmental concerns of the study such as percentages of of category 2 (71 MJ) is much higher than that of the buildings of
GWP, ACP, NEP, and Normalized Embodied Energy (NEE) relative to category 1 (34 MJ). The NEE of the case P is 5 MJ. Brick foundation
100% of case Q are presented in Fig. 2. Also, economic concerns as used in the buildings of category 2 has much higher EE and the
Normalized Economic Score (NES) to US$100 of case Q, and the
social concerns as Normalized Social Score (NSS), which is equal to
10,000/SS, are presented in Fig. 2. Thus the Fig. 2 can be considered GWP ( )
150
as a graphical presentation of the matrix for buildings with
normalized environmental, economic and social parameters and
100
can be used to select environmentally benign, economical and
NEE (MJ) ACP ( )
socially favourable building according to the types of materials
used. 50
The scheme presented in [1] for normalization of scores is fol-
lowed in this paper also. The basis for the NES of any case is taking 0
the cost of that case to a relative cost of case Q, which is equal to US
$ 100 (NES of case Q). The reciprocal of SS represents the NSS in this
study. This is because a high SS is better than low SS, but the
NSS NEP ( )
normalized scores for economic and environmental factors have
been plotted such that a high score is worse. So, in order to make
them in similar gradation, the reciprocal of SS is taken to depict the
results of the study. Also, the factor of 10,000 has been used to NES (US$)
make a reasonable scale on a maximum of 100 since other scores
have been normalized to 100. Case P (minimum impacts)
Fig. 2 indicates that the higher the GWP, ACP and NEP Case Q (maximum impacts)
percentages, the lower the environmental favourability of that Buildings of category 1
building. Also, economic and social favourability is lower when NES Buildings of category 2
and NSS are higher. Hence, Fig. 2 gives a snapshot of the comparison
among types of buildings in environmental, economic and social Fig. 2. Environmental, economic and social scores of existing buildings with the cases
terms. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the GWP of the buildings of that have minimum (P) and maximum (Q) impacts.
 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004 1003

Table 6 are much higher due to the use of energy carriers other than
Types and amounts of energy carriers used and recovered (timber and aluminium electricity.
door and windows)
Similarly it was found that there are no significant changes of
Element Energy (MJ)
environmental impacts of other elements due to change of elec-
Elec.: Oil Elec.: Hydro Oil: Transp, Other: Imp. Energy reco. tricity mix. Thus, the GWP, ACP and NEP presented in Table 3 can be
furnace, generators Materials (bio mass)
applied for a long duration.
Timber 579.9 180.8 375.5 412.0 3491.9
Aluminum 394.8 123.1 5382.5 1813.4 0.0
For calculating quantities of air emissions, data available in the
BUWAL 250 database is used. The data in BUWAL 250 is mostly
from projects carried out in Europe and thus there may be some
asbestos sheet roof and the vinyl tile floor in the same buildings discrepancy when using these data to calculate emissions for
have much higher GWP. These three elements have contributed to processes in Sri Lanka. There can be differences of fuels (even in the
the higher NEE and GWP of those buildings. same fuel category, such as percentage of lead in petrol, type and
On economic and social terms, there is not much difference mix of heavy fuel used for generating electricity, etc.), land trans-
between all cases. Thus, it indicates that for all the cases above, ports (i.e., road and traffic conditions, engine capacity and age of
environmental scores should play an important role in decision- vehicle, etc.), types of timber used, etc., in Europe compared to Sri
making. Lanka. Thus, calculated figures may have some differences with
actual figures (i.e., figures calculated using completely Sri Lankan
data). However, this may not be significant in this study as these
3.2. Sensitivity of results
differences are applicable to both the elements that have been
compared. To check the consistency of results of this study with
An analysis is done to see how changes in electricity mix of
others’ findings, embodied energy per square meter of floor area of
national power supply in Sri Lanka would affect the results of
each building category was calculated and found as 2.9 and 4.6 GJ
environmental analysis in the future. The present electricity mix [6]
for category 1 and 2, respectively. Zusuki [16] and CSIRO [5] found
will change on commissioning the proposed coal power plant at
embodied energy of single family house per square meter of floor
Norochcholai (i.e., thermal component of mix will be increased up
area as 3–4.5 GJ and 4.5–5.5 GJ. The first study was carried out in
to 64%) in year 2011. As found from the Ceylon Electricity Board,
Japan and for wooden (3 GJ) and steel (4.5 GJ) structured houses.
then the electricity mix will be:
The latter one was carried out in Australia and is for buildings
having different types of elements. Though buildings relevant to
1. thermal: oil (33%), coal (31%)
those studies are not exactly the same as for this study, the calcu-
2. hydro: (36%)
lated embodied energies for buildings (2.9–4.6 GJ) are generally
comparable. Furthermore, these embodied energies give an indi-
For these elements, in addition to electricity, other energies are
cation of the overall picture of environmental impacts between the
also used. This includes energy from oil for transportation, furnace,
two categories of buildings.
and generators, and also energy from biomass for firing bricks, tiles,
As found from the survey, decision-makers do not consider
etc. Hence, the energy component from electricity is calculated for
environmental parameters much while constructing these build-
each element to see how the changes in electricity mix may affect
ings. This study depicts the importance of environmental param-
these elements in terms of GWP, ACP and NEP.
eters over social and economic factors. However, all three factors
For example, different types and amounts of energies used for
are important in decision-making and should be considered. When
elements and amount of energy recovered at end of life of element;
considering overall impacts, the buildings of category 1 lie closer to
door and windows are calculated and presented in Table 6. Elec-
case P (the case with minimum impacts) than buildings of category
tricity is a secondary energy source. Electricity generation using oil
2 and thus, it can be concluded that the buildings of category 1 are
has an average efficiency of 40.5% according to the Ceylon Elec-
better. Also, it is recommended to construct buildings similar to
tricity Board, Sri Lanka. Thus, electricity (by oil) used for elements is
case P. This can be done as the elements are compatible with each
calculated as energy relevant to its primary source (oil) using this
other (i.e., any type of element can be built in combination with
efficiency and presented in Table 6.
another). So, the matrix shown in Fig. 2 helps to select buildings
It can be seen from Table 6 that the amount of electricity (from
built with materials that have minimum impacts and thus helps to
national power supply) used for elements is comparatively lower
move towards a sustainable building and construction sector.
than the total amount of other energy carriers. However, the
amount of electricity used for the timber element (416 MJelect) is
4. Conclusions
higher compared to the aluminum element (283 MJelect).
The GWP, ACP and NEP are calculated based on future electricity
Existing buildings in the study area are compared with cases that
mix for these elements and presented in Table 7.
have minimum and maximum environmental, economic and social
From Table 7 it can be seen that the change of electricity mix
impacts. These cases were determined by compiling results of five
slightly changes GWP and ACP of both elements and does not
types of building elements studied. It was found that the buildings
significantly affect relative impacts of elements. It should be noted
with tile roof, rubble foundation, etc. (buildings of category 1)
that the GWP, ACP and NEP of aluminum and ACP and NEP of timber
perform better than the buildings with asbestos roof, brick foun-
dation, etc. (buildings of category 2). Also, buildings similar to those
Table 7 of case P can be constructed as all building elements are compatible
Change of environmental impacts of elements with future change of electricity mix
with each other. Furthermore, this study indicates the need for
Electricity mix Environmental impacts higher consideration of environmental parameters in decision-
GWP (kg of CO2 eq.) ACP (kg of SO2 eq.) NEP (kg of SO2 eq.) making over social and economic factors, as social and economic
Timber door and windows factors do not vary much between all cases considered. However, all
Present 96.73 0.52 0.10
three factors are important in sustainable development and should
Future 110.4 0.55 0.10
Aluminium door and windows be considered. From the sensitivity analysis it was found that the
Present 536.91 0.81 0.15 results of the environmental analysis can be used for a long dura-
Future 546.22 0.83 0.15
tion. The matrix facilitates decision-makers for multi-criteria
1004 U.G.Y. Abeysundara et al. / Building and Environment 44 (2009) 997–1004
decision-making and thus helps in selecting materials for sustain-
able buildings in Sri Lanka.
The impact on ‘‘land use’’ is not addressed in this study due to
non-availability of primary data. This may be useful for overall
assessment as timber doors and windows, roofs and, ceilings have
been analyzed. Thus, conducting a research to find the impact on
‘‘land use’’ from these elements is recommended.
References
[1] Abeysundara UGY, Babel S, Gheewala S, Sharp A. Environmental economic and
social analysis of materials for doors and windows in Sri Lanka. Building and
Environment 2007;42:2141–9.
[2] Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. Sustainable development. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development [accessed June 2008].
[3] Abeysundara UGY, Babel S, Gheewala S. A decision making matrix with life
cycle perspective of materials for roofs in Sri Lanka. Materials & Design
2007;28:2478–87.
[4] Menzies G, Muneer T. Life cycle assessment of multi-glazed window. Nor Dam:
Den Hague 2000.
[5] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. MIT Brochures.
Available from: http://www.cmit.csiro.au/brochures/tech/embodied/ [accessed
June 2008].
[6] Ceylon Electricity Board. Statistical Digest. Colombo: Ceylon Electricity Board;
2003.
[7] United Nations Environment Program, Regional Resource Centre for Asia and
Pacific (UNEP, RRC.AP). Sri Lanka: State of the Environment 2001: Pollution of
Inland Waters. Available from: www.rrcap.unep.org/reports/soe/srilanka_
water.pdf [accessed June 2008].
[8] Illeperuma OA, Premakeerthi RM. Acid rain monitoring in Sri Lanka. In:
Proceedings of the CSC/CREN Workshop on Acid Rain Monitoring and Atmo-
spheric Modelling, 20–23 April, Kandy; 1998.
[9] Dias WPS, Pooliyadda SP. Quality based energy contents and carbon coeffi-
cients for building materials: a systems approach. Energy 2004;29:561–80.
[10] Wenzel HM, Hauschild AL. Tools and case studies in product development –
environmental assessment of products, vol. 1, methodology. London:
Chapman & Hall; 1997.
[11] Centre for Building Performance Research (CBPR). Embodied Energy Coefficients.
Available from: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.
pdf [accessed June 2008].
[12] Jonsson A, Tilmann AM, Svensson T. Life cycle assessment of flooring mate-
rials: case study. Building and Environment 1996;32(3):245–55.
[13] Frazao R, Fernandes R. Comparative analysis of the life cycle of AT fibre-
cement and NT fibre-cement, final report, Chrysotile Institute. Available from:
http://www.chrysotile.com/data/26826_EN_INETI.pdf [accessed June 2008].
[14] Sekhar SC. Higher space temperatures and better thermal comfort – a tropical
analysis. Energy and Buildings 1995;23:63–70.
[15] Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA). Sri Lanka: usage of chrys-
otile fiber-bonded cement roofing sheets for the housing reconstruction
program launched to settle the people displaced by the tsunami. Available
from: http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/srilanka/catalogue/Files/Reference/
Guidelines/Government%20of%20Sri%20Lanka/G_rada%20guidelines.pdf
[accessed July 2008].
[16] Zuzuki M, Oke T, Okada K. The estimation of energy consumption and CO2
emissions due to housing construction in Japan. Energy and Buildings
1995;22:165–9.