ArticleHeliyon2024
Life cycle assessment of seismic resistant prefabricated modular buildings.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prefabricated Volumetric Modular Buildings (PVMB) have the potential to transform the construction industry and make a significant contribution to reaching sustainable development goals. Nevertheless, it is crucial to carefully evaluate the tangible benefits of implementing these systems, especially in buildings that require seismic calculations. This article compares three innovative PVMB structural systems, two reinforced concrete and one steel, with a conventional system, focusing on the economic and environmental aspects of a high seismic hazard zone. An end-to-end life cycle analysis was performed, and the results were used as quantitative criteria for a two-dimensional sustainability assessment. Five multi-criteria decision-making methods were used to identify the optimal alternative, resulting in a ranked list of solutions. The modular steel alternative is the most favorable option due to its balanced performance across all evaluation criteria despite being the most expensive. The conventional reinforced concrete alternative comes in second place, followed closely by the reinforced concrete modular alternative with dry connections. The modular reinforced concrete alternative with wet connections is the least favorable regarding environmental impact due to the extensive use of concrete and reinforcing steel. This study contributes significantly to sustainable construction research by establishing the tangible benefits of innovative systems compared to traditional methods. It offers specific insights into overcoming barriers to their more widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.