International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

ISSN: 1939-7038 (Print) 1939-7046 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsue20

Preference based multi-criteria framework for

developing a Sustainable Material Performance
Index (SMPI)

A. Suchith Reddy, P. Rathish Kumar & P. Anand Raj

To cite this article: A. Suchith Reddy, P. Rathish Kumar & P. Anand Raj (2019): Preference
based multi-criteria framework for developing a Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI),
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2019.1581853

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1581853

Published online: 07 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 86

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsue20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1581853

Preference based multi-criteria framework for developing a Sustainable Material

Performance Index (SMPI)
A. Suchith Reddy , P. Rathish Kumar and P. Anand Raj
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Selection of materials for construction plays a vital role in achieving sustainable construction. As such Received 28 May 2018
there are trade-offs between multiple indicators in evaluating performance and selecting suitable Accepted 8 February 2019
sustainable material. In this study, based on principles and concepts of sustainability relevant to the KEYWORDS
construction industry, the indicators which significantly affects the material sustainability are examined Sustainable indicators;
through content analysis considering quadruple-bottom line approach (Social, Environmental, sustainable criteria; life-cycle
Economic and Technological criteria). These criteria and indicators are then utilized to assess the phase; material performance
performance of materials in three phases of the material lifecycle: Pre-Construction, Construction, and index; quadruple-bottom
Post-Construction, to provide a Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI). The objective of the line approach
study is to develop a conceptual decision-making framework for selecting a sustainable material
without the need for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data. It is a simple and systematic framework system
useful for building professionals to make critical decisions while choosing a sustainable material. The
study extensively considered and illustrated the selection of alternative binder material for achieving
sustainable concrete. The outcome of the study facilitates to make rational decisions and integrate
them into the design process, standards, and product certification.

1. Introduction construction. Use of correct materials could reduce the car-

bon emissions to 30% (González and Navarro 2006). Unless
Among all the industrial sectors, the construction industry is
and until the action for sustainable material consumption and
considered as the most resource intensive sector. It is widely
implementation are enforced, energy consumption, waste,
accepted that construction sector is the main contributor to sus-
and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions continue to grow
tainable development because it focusses on social advancement,
further. Potential sustainable building materials are based on
encourage environmental protection and economic growth
three sustainability criteria: environmental, social and eco-
(Heravi, Fathi, and Faeghi 2017; Qaemi and Heravi 2012).
nomic. To design the product for our specific needs using
Sustainable development is referred to as a triple bottom line
Reduce, Reusable and Replaceable materials (3R), it is also
approach committed to economic, environmental and social
important to find their technological properties as well as
objectives (Castro-Lacouture et al. 2009; Hill and Bowen 1997;
sustainable indicators (Bakhoum and Brown 2012; Bank,
Keeble 1988). Due to rapid urbanization, the enduring demand
Thompson, and McCarthy 2011; Kisku et al. 2017). The
for energy, resources and water consumption significantly impacts
strategies to enhance sustainability is country specific and
the global environment. In addition to this, the asymptotic growth
depends on its size, culture, and economic position
in urbanization affects the socio-economic indicators, which in
(Šaparauskas and Turskis 2006). For example, Al-Hajj and
turn, imbalances the sustainable ecosystem. With the growth in
Hamani (2011), Govindan (2015) & Radhi (2010) in UAE,
building and infrastructure facilities, the demand for materials
Wang et al. (2018) in Taipei, Ejiga (2017) in Lagos,
and resources enhances leading to disturbance in the environment
Abeysundara (2009) in Srilanka, Akadiri, Chinyio, and
and destabilization in sustainability (Park et al. 2014). The chal-
Olomolaiye (2012) and Bakhoum and Brown (2015) in UK
lenge before the construction sector lies in providing building
have studied the country-specific parameters for assessing
materials with the reduced environmental burden, improved
and selecting sustainable construction materials. Sustainable
social benefit shall be economically feasible and technologically
material performance is assessed based on specific parameters
sustainable. Sustainable construction is a growing concern in the
in various life cycle stages i.e. extraction, transportation,
present world, particularly in developing countries like India.
manufacturing, maintenance, and demolition. All these stages
require inputs (energy, water, and land) producing outputs
1.1. Role of building materials in achieving (emissions and waste). The detailed track of inputs and out-
sustainability puts in the multi-step process (Goal and Scope, Inventory
analysis, Impact assessment, and Interpretation) to assess the
Following the sustainable practices and selection of suitable
environmental impacts is known as Life Cycle Assessment
building materials, play a vital role in achieving sustainable
(LCA). The portion of data collection for inputs and outputs

CONTACT A. Suchith Reddy asr.nitwarangal@gmail.com Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. S. REDDY ET AL.
for a particular functional parameter is a repository database
called a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data. Developing inven-
tory data is the most difficult and time-consuming process.
The inventory data developed for one nation cannot be uti-
lized for others (Curran 2012; Reap et al. 2008).
In developed countries, the availability of material inven-
tory data on environmental impacts throughout their lifecycle
makes the material evaluation approach versatile (Cole 2005).
There are several LCA based tools specific to a location like
ATHENA in North America, ENVEST in the UK and every
tool will be using the embodied Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data
to find the impacts of the materials (Trusty and Horst 2002).
1.2. Research significance
In developing countries like India, due to the absence of LCI
data, it is difficult to analyze the material performance
towards the environment. Also, LCA is a time-consuming
process and does not consider socio-economic and technolo-
gical impacts throughout the material lifecycle. Hojjati et al.
(2017), opines that it may not be an appropriate approach for
assessing the material in terms of environmental impacts
alone in developing countries like India. The present study
focusses on qualitative and quantitative approach for measur-
ing the material sustainability performance considering the
three phases of the lifecycle (Figure 1), without the need for
material inventory data (i.e. LCI). In the present study, the
concept of quadruple -bottom line approach is considered by
introducing technological aspect into the existing triple-
bottom-line approach.
The design and construction of sustainable buildings is an
integration of Social, Economic, Environmental and
Technological aspects (SEET) and the selection of materials
is subjective and depends on individual perceptions and prio-
rities (Reddy, Raj, and Kumar 2018; Bakhoum and Brown
2012). The decisions taken by the stakeholders in the con-
struction process will hence reveal the path for sustainability
of the material. There is hence a need to develop a simple,
robust and conceptual framework to assess the sustainable
performance of construction materials.
Extraction of
Preconstruction
Raw material
Construction Installation
Post
Demolition
Construction
Figure 1. Phases of material life cycle.
Identification of Key
Sustainable indicators to
SEET criteria
Figure 2. Stages of approach for developing performance indices.
This is achieved by integrating three ideas: Sustainable indica-
tors and SEET criteria, Material life cycle thinking and developing
Sustainable Material Performance Indices (SMPI) (Figure 2). The
methodology presented in the paper can also be utilized where
material inventory data is not available for achieving sustainable
performance. The method is validated through a case study using
concrete ingredients and their alternatives.
1.3. Multi-criteria decision method (MCDM)
MCDM provides inclusive decision considering multiple indi-
cators and alternatives. There are various methods and
approaches adopted by different authors (Khoshnava et al.
(2018); Ahmad and Thaheem (2017); Diaz-Sarachaga, Jato-
Espino, and Castro-Fresno (2017); Govindan, Shankar, and
Kannan (2015); Medineckiene et al. (2015); Yang and
Ogunkah (2013); Wang et al. (2009); Akadiri and Olomolaiye
(2012) for selecting materials using MCDM. However, each of
them has their own limitations and purpose of the application.
Among them, the quantitative and qualitative approach is
adopted in the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), where
the problem is decomposed into a number of hierarchy levels
to analyze them independently (Saaty 2008). AHP is a simple
and lucid way to obtain the interrelationship between various
indicators and alternatives using pairwise comparison which is
apt for the present study. Selection of on optimal building
material is considered as a multi-attribute decision problem,
considering various sustainable criteria, indicators, and alter-
natives as decision problem (Chen, Okudan, and Riley 2010;
Khoshnava et al. 2018).
2. Methodology
To obtain the necessary background information two surveys
were designed using structured and semi-structured approach
through questionnaire and the responses obtained was ana-
lyzed. The objective of the first survey is to evaluate the
influencing indicators across three phases of material life
cycle, while the second survey is to evaluate the performance
of material alternatives with respect to sustainable indicators.
Manufacturing of Transportation to
Transportation
material the site
Maintenance &
Usage
Renovation
Removal of waste
Disposal/Recycling
from site
Sustainable Material
Material Life Cycle
Performance Indices
perspective
(SMPI)

The methodological approach is formulated in three stages: 1)
Identifying sustainable indicators and criteria. 2) Material life
cycle phases and 3) Development of Sustainable Material
Performance Index (SMPI). Figure 3 shows the framework
for developing the SMPI.
2.1. Sustainable indicators and criteria
Selection of key sustainable indicators was carried out by
a comprehensive review within the available literature, guide-
lines, and policies, and existing assessment tools and 10 key
sustainable indicators which are most relevant to material
assessment were considered as shown in (Table 1). These
sustainable indicators were summarised with respect to quad-
ruple-bottom line approach (i.e. SEET criteria) and a relation
is established between them as shown in Table 2.
2.2. Importance of lifecycle phases
It is vital to understand the material performance in various
phases of its life cycle and it is also complex to analyze the
importance of each phase for a particular material and sus-
tainable indicator. Relative Importance Index (RII) is
a statistical approach adopted to determine the relative weight
of variables using Equation 1.
Literature review
Identifying Sustainable Criteria and Indicators specific to material performance
Formulating Questionnaire
Evaluating Weights for alternatives
with respect to factors using AHP
AHP Scores w.r.t criteria
Preference-based Material Performance Index
Environmenta Social
Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI)
Figure 3. Framework for evaluating Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 3
2.3. Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI)
Based on the identified sustainable indicators and material life
cycle stages material index is developed. Figure 3 shows the
detailed methodological approach in developing the SMPI.
The integration of sustainable indicators, life cycle stages
and MCDM method facilitates the development of SMPI.
The relative AHP scores of material alternatives are evaluated
using the AHP method with respect to indicators and three
life cycle stages. Similarly, the RII of life cycle stages with
respect to the indicator is determined. The SMPI is the
composition of AHP score and RII value of an alternative
with regard to a particular life cycle stage and indicator.
3. Results and discussion
In the present study, to understand, analyze and validate the
developed framework a case study has been undertaken using
five different material alternatives. Selection of sustainable
material among five different alternatives of binder material
will facilitate to achieve a sustainable concrete. The promi-
nently used binder material alternatives – Ordinary Poland
Cement (OPC), Pozzolanic Portland Cement Flyash based
(PPC-F), Pozzolanic Portland Cement Slag based (PPC-S),
Geopolymer (GP) and Composite Cement (CC) have been
selected based on the expert’s advice from various technical,
Govt. Guidelines and Policies Assessment tools
Content Analysis
Expert Survey Statistical Results of responses
Evaluating Relative Importance for three lifecycle
phases with respect to alternatives for each factor using
Relative Importance Index (RII)
Pre- Post -
Construction
Construction Construction
(P2)
(P1) (P3)
Economic Technological
4 A. S. REDDY ET AL.

Table 1. Sustainable indicators considered by various researchers.

Global Warming Vij et al., 2010; Bhattacharjee, 2010; Al-Ghamdi & Bilec, 2017; Crawford, 2011; Govindan
Potential et al., 2015; Vinodh et al., 2014;
Pollution and Akadiri et al., 2012; Bakhoum & Brown, 2012; Grace K.C. Ding, 2008; Huang etal., 2015;
Emissions Kylili et al., 2016.
Construction and
Abdul-Rahman et al., 2016; Akadiri et al., 2012; Chatterjee, 2009; Collins, 2010; Crawford,
Demolition
2011; Khatib, 2009; Zhong & Wu, 2015
Waste

Consumption of Akadiri & Olomolaiye., 2012; Cole, 2005; CPWD, 2014; G. K C Ding, 2013; Grace K.C.
resource Ding, 2008; Khoshnava et al., 2018; Kylili et al., 2016; Sabaghi et al., 2016;

Akadiri et al., 2013; BMTPC, 2015; Bakhoum & Brown, 2015; Bansal, Biswas, & Singh,
Life Cycle Cost 2015; G. K C Ding, 2013; Gilbert et al., 2002; Khoshnava et al., 2018; Sabaghi et al., 2016;
Zhong & Wu, 2015
Recyclability Bansal et al., 2015; CPWD, 2014;G. K C Ding, 2013; Gao et al., 2010; Mayyas et al., 2016;
and Reusability Sabaghi et al., 2016; Valenzuela-Venegas et al., 2016
Local Akadiri & Olomolaiye, 2012; Akadiri et al., 2013; Bakhoum & Brown, 2013; Gilbert et al.,
Development 2002; Sabaghi et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2013; Vinodh et al., 2014
ALwaer & Clements-Croome, 2010; Anadon et al., 2016; Bakhoum & Brown, 2012, 2013;
Health & Safety
Hara et al., 2016; Heravi et al., 2017; Kylili et al., 2016; Valenzuela-Venegas et al., 2016
Practicability & Bakhoum & Brown, 2012, 2013, 2015; Sarachaga et al., 2017; Florez et al., 2013; Jakhar &
Flexibility Barua, 2014;

Human Akadiri & Olomolaiye, 2012; Akadiri et al., 2013; Bakhoum & Brown, 2012, 2013; Zhou &
Satisfaction Castro Lacouture, 2011

Table 2. The relation between sustainable indicators and criteria.

Indicators/criteria Environmental Economical Social Technological
F1 Climate change ✓
F2 Pollution and emissions ✓
F3 Construction and demolition waste ✓
F4 Consumption of resource ✓ ✓
F5 Cost ✓
F6 Recyclability and Reusability ✓ ✓ ✓
F7 Local development ✓ ✓
F8 Human health and safety ✓
F9 Practicability ✓ ✓
F10 Human satisfaction ✓ ✓
Source: Khatib (2009), Vij et al. (2010), Akadiri and Olomolaiye (2012), Bakhoum and Brown (2012), Vinodh et al. (2014), Bansal, Biswas, and Singh (2015), IGBC Rating
System (2015), BMTPC (2015), Weisbrod et al. (2015)

industrial and academic institutions. The Supplementary
Cementitious Material (SCM’s) are available as by-products
from iron, steel, and alloy manufacturing units and these are
used in PPC flyash based and PCC Slag based cement at the
blending stage. In the case of Geopolymer concrete, the pre-
paration is done on sampling in the laboratory using the SCM
and suitable quantities of hydroxides and silicates.
Based on two questionnaire surveys the importance of life
cycle phases and development of material performance index
has been carried out. The first questionnaire survey consists
of three phases of the life cycle and five material alternatives
for a binder with respect to each of the 10 sustainable indi-
cators (Table 3). The experts are chosen considering their
expertise and experience in the field of sustainable construc-
tion. Based on the questionnaire response obtained from
eight expert groups (56 responses) from the field of
Academician, Designer, Consultant, Architect, Contractor,
Engineer, Supplier and other stakeholders from the construc-
tion industry, the Relative Importance Index of three phases
of the lifecycle is determined. Higher the value of RII, greater
will be the importance of the lifecycle phase with respect to
a sustainable indicator (Figure 4).
P
N
wrijk
r¼1
RIIijk ¼ ði ¼ 1; . . . to . . . n; number of alternatives;
wmax  N
j ¼ number of indicators; k represents lifecycle phaseÞ (1)
wij is the weight given by the respondent ‘r’ to each alternative
with respect to each indicator (between scale 1 and 7), wmax is
the highest weight (in this case 7), N is the number of
respondents. A term Relative Importance Percentage (RIP)
is introduced to understand the significance of each phase
and to observe the performance of a material passing through
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 5

Table 3. Form of questionnaire survey adopted in the study.

Pre-Construction (P1) Construction (P2) Post-Construction (P3)
For indicator (xj)
Binder Material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 3 4 5 6 7
Alternatives (Ai) VL L BM M AM H VH VL L BM M AM H VH VLL BM M AM H VH
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
VL- Very Low; L- Low; BM- Below Moderate; M- Moderate; Am- Above Moderate; H- High; VH- Very High

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
PRE CONSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUCTION POST CONSTRUCTION
Climate change Air Pollution Construction and Demolition waste
Resource Consumption Life Cycle Cost Health and Safety
Recyclability Local Economic Development Human Satisfaction
Practicability

Figure 4. Average RII of each lifecycle phase with respect to sustainable indicators.

it. RIP for three phases of the life cycle (Pre-Construction, From the findings, it is observed that post-construction phases
Construction, Post-Construction) was evaluated using have significance importance compared to other phases. The
Equations 2 and 3 (Figure 5). indicator of human health and safety (F8) is highly rated among
all the indicators and phases, which ultimately suggest the
P
n
RIIijk requirement of sustainable development.
RIIjk ¼ i¼1
ð0 n0 represents number of alternativesÞ (2) The second questionnaire survey has been designed con-
n sidering ‘7ʹ point Likert scale, to evaluate the material perfor-
mance with respect to sustainable indicators. Keeping in view,
RIIjk the material lifecycle thinking, the aggregated score for the
RIPjk ¼  100ði ¼ number of alternatives 1 to 5; three stages of the material life cycle is obtained from the
P
k
RIIjk respondents. Here ‘1ʹ represents less important whereas ‘7ʹ
k¼1 represents high importance. In other words, the higher the
k ¼ no of lifecycle phases 1 to z rate of importance better sustainability. Since the questionnaire
(3) survey involves in-depth understanding of the proposed

F10 34.07% 33.79% 32.14%

F9 32.22% 34.68% 33.10%
Sustainable Indicators

F8 30.11% 31.34% 38.55%

F7 34.22% 34.07% 31.71%
F6 31.48% 33.03% 35.49%
F5 31.07% 31.17% 37.76%
F4 30.58% 32.33% 37.09%
F3 32.95% 30.13% 36.92%
F2 30.25% 34.15% 35.60%
F1 33.44% 33.63% 32.94%
RIP of various lifecycle phases
PRE CONSTRUCTION RII Imp % DURING CONSTRUCTION RII Imp %
POST CONSTRUCTION RII Imp %

Figure 5. Relative Importance Percentage (RIP) of three lifecycle phases.

6 A. S. REDDY ET AL.
alternatives, the data has been collected from technically strong
selected expert’s viz., Academicians, Designers, Architects,
Contractors, Engineers, Consultants among others (Figure 6)
in the Indian construction sector. In the present study,
a modified scale converting the ‘7ʹ point Likert scale to 9 points
Saaty’s scale is adopted to match the required response to the
AHP Saaty’s scale (Table 4).
Among the 63 responses, 54 valid responses have been
considered, with a response rate of 85 percent and above.
The collected responses are homogenous, comprehensive,
reliable and consistent. In order to identify the relative impor-
tance and interdependency of alternative materials with
respect to each of the sustainable indicators, a pairwise com-
parison technique AHP has been performed.
The relative weight of the material is calculated based on
the following steps
Step 1- Calculate the importance of the alternative over
each indicator on the Likert scale 1–7.
Step 2- Convert the Likert scale value to Saaty’s scale
(Table 4). If responses are given for three phases of life
cycle take the average of them). For a given response, con-
sidering the Likert scale, with respect to an indicator when
two alternative ratings are compared then for a difference of
relative rating the corresponding Saaty’s relative importance
is adopted.
Step 3- Calculate the relative weights of alternatives using
pairwise comparison (individual decision matrix).
Step 4- Normalize the matrix.
Step 5- Check for internal consistency using consistency
index and consistency ratio of the pairwise matrix.
Step 6- Repeat the steps 1–5 for each decision maker
response.
Step 7- Average all the individual decision matrices to get
the average aggregated decision matrix with respect to alter-
natives and indicators using Equation 4 (Table 5).
P
n phase. It is observed that each material alternative is variedly
xijr
r¼1
Cij ¼ (4)
n
xij represents the relative AHP weight given by individual
respondents ‘r’. Cij represents the average of relative AHP
scores of ith alternative corresponding to jth indicator.
Contractor Architect Consultant Designer
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 6. Respondents and their related expertise.
Table 4. Scale conversion from Likert scale to Saaty’s scale.
Response range Importance level Value adopted
7–7 (difference 0) Equal importance 1
6–7 (difference 1) Moderate importance 3
5–7 & 4–7 (difference 2,3) Strong importance 5
3–7 (difference 4) Very strong 7
2–7 & 1–7 (difference 5,6) Extreme importance 9
Step 8- With respect to Table 2, the consolidated average
aggregated decision matrices are evaluated and are as shown
in Tables 6–9 for the four sustainable criteria (SEET).
From Tables 5 and 6, it is observed that geopolymer concrete
has secured higher AHP score with respect to pollution control
and resource consumption indicators. Since flyash is available in
plenty and free of cost, Flyash based PPC has scored high among
other alternatives under Economical and Social criteria (Tables 7
and 8). Considering Technological criteria, geopolymer concrete
has attained high score (Table 9).
Step 9- The resultant interrelated matrices with respect to
AHP score of the material and relative weight of the three
phases of the lifecycle is utilized to develop the Sustainable
Material Performance Indices (SMPI) using Equation 5. They
are then ranked based on SMPI values (Figure 7) and are
represented in Table 10.
SMPIijk ¼ Cij  RIIijk (5)
RIIij represents the relative importance index weight of ith
material and jth indicator with respect to a kth lifecycle phase.
From the findings of the study (Figure 7), it is observed
that considering three material life cycle phases among all
alternative geopolymer concrete has ranked first whereas
OPC has secured least rank. This implies the importance of
material usage pertaining to emissions and waste.
Table 10 shows the category rank with respect to each indi-
cator and life cycle phase. The overall rank is evaluated con-
sidering all the indicators for each of the material life cycle
ranked with respect to the indicator and life cycle phase in the
category and overall ranking. Among all, geopolymer concrete
has secured less variation in the category and overall ranking.
Step 10 – The SMPI values of material alternatives con-
cerning the three phases of the material lifecycle are evaluated
corresponding to SEET criteria using Equations 6–9.
Consultants Engineer Academicians
12 14 16 18 20
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 7

Table 5. Average aggregated decision matrix of binder material with respect to alternatives and indicators.
INDICATORS OPC CEMENT PPC (FLY ASH BASED) PPC (SLAG BASED) GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITE CEMENT
Climate change 0.09 0.17 0.18 0.31 0.25
Pollution 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.34 0.24
Solid waste 0.13 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.19
Resource consumption 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.30 0.21
Cost 0.13 0.27 0.26 0.15 0.19
Human health safety 0.15 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20
Local economic Development 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.23
Recyclability 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.20
Human satisfaction 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.15
Practicability 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.18

Table 6. Average environmental aggregated decision matrix.

INDICATORS OPC CEMENT PPC (FLY ASH BASED) PPC (SLAG BASED) GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITE CEMENT
Climate change 0.09 0.17 0.18 0.31 0.25
Pollution 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.34 0.24
Solid waste 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.19
Resource consumption 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.30 0.21
Recyclability 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.20
Human satisfaction 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.15
FINAL SCORE 0.85 1.19 1.17 1.59 1.24

Table 7. Average economical aggregated decision matrix.

INDICATORS OPC CEMENT PPC (FLY ASH BASED) PPC (SLAG BASED) GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITE CEMENT
Resource consumption 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.30 0.21
Cost 0.13 0.27 0.26 0.15 0.19
Local economic development 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.23
Recyclability 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.20
Practicability 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.23 0.18
FINAL SCORE 0.81 1.13 1.06 1.12 1.01

Table 8. Average social aggregated decision matrix.

INDICATORS OPC CEMENT PPC (FLY ASH BASED) PPC (SLAG BASED) GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITE CEMENT
Human health safety 0.15 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20
Local economic development 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.23
Human satisfaction 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.15
FINAL SCORE 0.57 0.69 0.61 0.56 0.58

Table 9. Average technological aggregated decision matrix.

INDICATORS OPC CEMENT PPC (FLY ASH BASED) PPC (SLAG BASED) GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITE CEMENT
Recyclability 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.20
Practicability 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.18
FINAL SCORE 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.47 0.38

X
a X
a
X
d X
d
SMPISik ¼ Cij  RIIijk (6) k
SMPITi ¼ Cij  RIIijk (9)
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1 j¼1

SMPIS, SMPIE, SMPIEc, SMPIT are Sustainable Material

Performance Indices for Social, Environmental, Economic,
X
b X
b
k
SMPIEi ¼ Cij  RIIijk (7) Technological criteria (SEET) respectively for each ith alter-
j¼1 j¼1 native and the same are represented in Table 11. The letters a,
b, c, d represent the total number of indicators corresponding
to Social, Environmental, Economic and Technological cri-
X
c X
c teria respectively refer to Table 2.
k
SMPIECi ¼ Cij  RIIijk (8) The SMPI values of the material are pooled across the
j¼1 j¼1 three phases of lifecycle considering SEET criteria using
8 A. S. REDDY ET AL.

Figure 7. Ranking of binder material alternatives in the three phases of the lifecycle.

Equation 10, and the overall SMPI values are determined In each of the two cases, uncertainty in expert’s perception
using Equation 11. due to change in time, location, knowledge levels, awareness
X on sustainable materials and availability of material can cer-
SMPIik ¼ ðSMPISik þ SMPIEi
k
þ SMPIECi
k
þ SMPITi
k
Þ (10) tainly affect the sustainable performance of the material. For
k example, due to a varied climate, culture, and geographical
location in developing countries like India, the material sus-
Y
z tainability can affect one or more sustainable indicators in the
Overall:SMPIi ¼ SMPIik (12) three phases of material life cycle.
k¼1

P1, P2, and P3 represent Pre-Construction, Construction and
Post-Construction phases respectively. The evaluation proce-
dure to derive the SMPI values is similar to that of the
evaluation of alternate binding material (Steps 1 to 9 of
Section 4), which is a standard case for comparison.
From Table 11, it is noticed that considering three material
life cycle phases and 10 sustainable indicators with four
sustainable criteria, geopolymer concrete has attained the
highest SMPI value of 10.63. Similarly, flyash based PPC
secured second and OPC has least SMPI of 6.05.
4. Validation (case study)
The developed methodological framework explained in the
previous section is validated for the obtained results by vary-
ing the weights of alternatives, RII values of the three phases
and the weight of SEET criteria. Consequently, it aids in
comparing the numerical application and describe the perfor-
mance of material towards sustainability in each case.
● Firstly, with the change in the AHP score of material
alternatives in Tables 6–9, the effect on SMPI value is
examined. The results are shown in Table 12.
● Secondly, with the change in the weight of the RII value
of life cycle phases, the effect on SMPI value is examined
and the results are shown in Table 13.
4.1. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis is taken up to determine how sensitive
is the method and also to observe how the independent
variable will impact the dependent variable for a different
set of values. This can be achieved by changing the value of
one input variable and keeping the others constant. Assuming
that all the sustainable indicators are equally important, two
parameters are taken up for discussion to facilitate the inves-
tigation of the relative importance of alternative, indicators
and material lifecycle over SMPI (2).
The first Parameter (C1) investigates the change in the
relative scores of an alternative material with reference to
a criterion (SEET) on SMPI, while the second parameter
(C2) deals with the change in SMPI value with change in
RII value in each phase. The investigation of these parameters
is based on the sensitivity analysis.
C-1(a) (Environmental criteria): With the change in the
relative score of an alternative PPC-F with reference to envir-
onmental criteria from 1.19 (Table 6) to say a value 2.19
(arbitrary value), the SMPIE values changes to 6.90, 7.01 and
7.59 which were initially 3.75, 3.81 and 4.13 respectively
corresponding to the three phases.
C-1(b) (Economic criteria): With the change in the relative
score of say Geopolymer material as an alternative with
respect to economic criteria from 1.12 (Table 7) to 1.47
(arbitrary value), the SMPIEc value changes to 4.04, 4.34 and
4.37 from 3.08, 3.31 and 3.33 in three phases respectively.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 9

Table 10. Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI) of the material and Relative Importance Index (RII) of various for the three lifecycle phases.
Alternate Pre-Construction (P1) Construction (P2) Post-Construction (P3)
Indicator Alternative Relative Category Overall Category Overall Category Overall
Weight RII SMPI RII SMPI RII SMPI
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
OPC 0.09 0.36 0.032 5 50 0.42 0.038 5 50 0.38 0.034 5 50
PPC -F 0.17 0.56 0.096 4 34 0.54 0.091 4 34 0.53 0.090 4 42
Climatic
Change

PPC-S 0.18 0.57 0.103 3 30 0.55 0.100 3 31 0.56 0.101 3 34

GP 0.31 0.80 0.249 1 01 0.73 0.227 1 2 0.73 0.227 1 02
CC 0.25 0.63 0.156 2 05 0.65 0.163 2 5 0.66 0.165 2 5
OPC 0.1 0.37 0.037 5 48 0.48 0.048 5 48 0.51 0.051 5 49
PPC -F 0.16 0.50 0.080 3 39 0.55 0.089 3 36 0.61 0.097 3 36
Pollution

PPC-S 0.16 0.49 0.079 4 40 0.54 0.086 4 38 0.57 0.091 4 40

GP 0.34 0.69 0.234 1 02 0.74 0.252 1 1 0.70 0.237 1 01
CC 0.24 0.58 0.139 2 15 0.63 0.150 2 9 0.66 0.159 2 6
OPC 0.13 0.54 0.070 5 45 0.55 0.072 5 44 0.64 0.084 5 43
Construction &
Demolition

PPC -F 0.21 0.55 0.116 4 02 0.54 0.113 3 25 0.68 0.143 3 15

Waste

PPC-S 0.22 0.64 0.141 2 13 0.55 0.122 2 20 0.68 0.149 2 11

GP 0.25 0.66 0.165 1 03 0.57 0.143 1 12 0.70 0.174 1 03
CC 0.19 0.64 0.122 3 19 0.55 0.105 4 29 0.70 0.132 4 20
OPC 0.1 0.35 0.035 5 49 0.39 0.039 5 49 0.56 0.056 5 48
Consumption

PPC -F 0.2 0.43 0.087 3 36 0.43 0.087 3 37 0.53 0.106 2 31

Resource

PPC-S 0.19 0.45 0.085 4 38 0.42 0.080 4 40 0.49 0.094 4 39

GP 0.3 0.50 0.150 1 08 0.66 0.198 1 03 0.55 0.166 1 04
CC 0.21 0.46 0.098 2 31 0.43 0.090 2 35 0.50 0.105 3 33
OPC 0.13 0.46 0.060 4 46 0.52 0.067 4 46 0.57 0.074 5 45
Life cycle Cost

PPC -F 0.27 0.55 0.149 2 10 0.52 0.140 2 13 0.57 0.154 1 07

PPC-S 0.26 0.59 0.153 1 07 0.55 0.144 1 10 0.59 0.153 2 08
GP 0.15 0.39 0.059 5 47 0.38 0.056 5 47 0.55 0.083 4 44
CC 0.19 0.38 0.071 3 44 0.41 0.078 3 42 0.55 0.105 3 32
OPC 0.15 0.48 0.072 5 42 0.53 0.079 5 41 0.61 0.091 5 41
Health & Safety

PPC -F 0.23 0.50 0.115 1 23 0.52 0.119 1 22 0.64 0.148 1 12

PPC-S 0.22 0.52 0.114 2 24 0.52 0.114 2 24 0.64 0.141 2 17
GP 0.2 0.45 0.089 4 35 0.48 0.096 4 33 0.60 0.120 4 28
CC 0.2 0.48 0.096 3 33 0.48 0.096 3 32 0.62 0.123 3 24
OPC 0.17 0.51 0.087 5 37 0.50 0.085 5 39 0.57 0.097 5 37
Development

PPC -F 0.21 0.53 0.111 2 26 0.57 0.120 2 21 0.59 0.124 2 23

Economic
Local

PPC-S 0.19 0.56 0.107 4 28 0.58 0.110 4 27 0.62 0.117 4 29

GP 0.2 0.54 0.107 3 27 0.57 0.114 3 23 0.61 0.121 3 25
CC 0.23 0.53 0.121 1 20 0.57 0.131 1 17 0.62 0.142 1 16
OPC 0.17 0.57 0.097 5 32 0.60 0.120 5 30 0.56 0.096 5 38
Recyclability &
Reusability

PPC -F 0.20 0.62 0.123 4 18 0.64 0.129 3 18 0.60 0.120 4 27

PPC-S 0.22 0.65 0.143 3 11 0.63 0.139 1 15 0.60 0.132 2 21
GP 0.24 0.67 0.161 1 04 0.69 0.165 4 04 0.63 0.150 1 09
CC 0.22 0.71 0.155 2 06 0.63 0.139 1 14 0.59 0.130 3 22
OPC 0.24 0.57 0.139 2 16 0.59 0.143 1 11 0.57 0.139 1 18
PPC -F 0.25 0.57 0.143 1 12 0.57 0.143 2 12 0.54 0.134 2 19
Satisfaction
Human

PPC-S 0.21 0.55 0.116 3 21 0.54 0.113 3 25 0.54 0.113 3 30

GP 0.15 0.48 0.073 4 41 0.48 0.073 4 43 0.45 0.067 4 46
47
CC 0.15 0.48 0.072 5 42 0.46 0.070 5 45 0.43 0.064 5

OPC 0.24 0.56 0.135 3 17 0.64 0.154 1 6 0.62 0.148 2 12

Practicability &
Feasibility

PPC -F 0.24 0.59 0.141 2 13 0.63 0.152 2 7 0.63 0.150 1 09

PPC-S 0.20 0.56 0.113 4 25 0.63 0.127 3 19 0.61 0.121 4 25
GP 0.23 0.65 0.150 1 09 0.66 0.152 5 08 0.63 0.146 3 14
CC 0.18 0.59 0.106 5 29 0.61 0.109 4 28 0.55 0.100 5 35
10 A. S. REDDY ET AL.

Table 11. SMPI values of various material alternatives for the three lifecycle phases.
Criteria/
Environmental Economic Social Technological Phase-wise SMPI
Phases
Overall
SMPI
Alternatives P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3

OPC 2.26 2.47 2.71 1.99 2.15 2.33 0.93 0.98 0.99 0.44 0.47 0.49 5.61 6.06 6.53 6.05

PPC- F 3.75 3.81 4.13 3.05 3.14 3.26 1.16 1.20 1.23 0.49 0.53 0.53 8.45 8.67 9.15 8.75

PPC- S 3.82 3.72 4.05 2.98 2.99 3.08 1.05 1.03 1.08 0.47 0.51 0.51 8.33 8.26 8.72 8.43

GP 5.83 5.98 5.93 3.08 3.31 3.33 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.56 0.58 0.58 10.35 10.77 10.77 10.63

CC 4.12 4.09 4.42 2.69 2.68 2.84 0.97 0.92 0.95 0.42 0.44 0.44 8.20 8.13 8.65 8.32

Table 12. Changes in SMPI value with the change in AHP score of material alternative.
Material Pre- Construction Construction Post- Construction
lifecycle phases Phase Phase Phase
PPC- PPC- PPC- PPC- PPC- PPC-
Alternatives OPC GP CC OPC GP CC OPC GP CC
F S F S F S

ENV 2.28 3.75 3.82 5.83 4.12 2.50 3.81 3.72 5.98 4.09 2.47 4.13 4.05 5.93 4.42
SMPI value for various

ECO 1.99 3.05 2.98 3.08 2.69 2.15 3.14 2.99 3.31 2.68 2.33 3.26 3.08 3.33 2.84

SOC 0.93 1.16 1.05 0.88 0.97 0.98 1.20 1.03 0.91 0.92 0.99 1.23 1.08 0.92 0.95
Alternatives

TECH 0.44 0.49 0.47 0.56 0.42 0.47 0.53 0.51 0.58 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.51 0.58 0.44

Case 1a 2.28 6.90 3.82 5.83 4.12 2.50 7.01 3.72 5.98 4.09 2.74 7.59 4.05 5.93 4.42

Case 1b 1.99 3.05 2.98 4.04 2.69 2.15 3.14 2.99 4.34 2.68 2.33 3.26 3.08 4.37 2.84
Case 1

Case 1c 0.93 0.66 1.05 0.88 0.97 0.98 0.68 1.03 0.91 0.92 0.99 0.69 1.08 0.92 0.95

Case 1d 0.26 0.49 0.47 0.56 0.42 0.27 0.53 0.51 0.58 0.45 0.29 0.53 0.51 0.58 0.44

Table 13. Changes in SMPI value with the change in RII weights of lifecycle phases.

Material lifecycle phases Pre-Construction During Construction Post-Construction

Criteria
ENV C-2(a) ECO C-2(b) SOC C-2(c)
Alternatives
OPC 2.28 3.40 2.15 3.24 0.99 1.71
PPC- F 3.75 4.76 3.14 4.48 1.23 2.07
PPC- S 3.82 4.68 2.99 4.24 1.08 1.83
GP 5.83 6.36 3.31 4.88 0.92 1.65
CC 4.12 4.96 2.68 4.04 0.95 1.74

C-1(c) (Social criteria): With the change in the relative Social which are important to the corresponding phases men-
score of PPC-F from 0.69 (Table 8) of social criteria to 0.39 tioned in Table 13 and are considered as per the Triple
(arbitrary value), the SMPIS value changes to 0.66, 0.68 and Bottom line approach.
0.69 from 1.16, 1.20 and 1.23 in the three phases respectively. C-2(a) (Pre-construction Phase): From Table 13 it can be
C-1(d) (Technological criteria): In case of OPC with the observed that, with the change in the RII values in the Pre-
change in the relative score from 0.41 (Table 9) to 0.24 Construction Phase of all the alternatives with respect to
(arbitrary value) in technological criteria, the SMPIT value environment criteria to 4.0 (arbitrary value), the SMPIE
changes to 0.26, 0.27 and 0.29 instead of 0.44, 0.47 and 0.49 value of the material changes to 3.40, 4.76, 4.68, 6.36 and
in the three phases i.e. Pre-construction, During Construction 4.96 respectively.
and Post-Construction respectively. C-2(b) (During Construction): With the change in the RII
The second parameter studies the change in SMPI values value in the Construction Phase of all alternatives under
with the changes in RII value in different phases of construc- economic criteria to say 4.0, the SMPIEc value of the material
tion. In this part the criteria Environmental, Economic and changes to 3.24, 4.48, 4.24, 4.88 and 4.04 respectively.

Table 14. Changes in SMPI value in technological criteria with the change in RII weights of lifecycle phases.
Material lifecycle phases Pre-Construction
Criteria
TECH C-2(d)
Alternatives
OPC 0.44 1.23
PPC- F 0.49 1.32
PPC- S 0.47 1.26
GP 0.56 1.41
CC 0.42 1.14
C-2(c) (Post-Construction): With the change in the RII
value under the Post-Construction phase of all alternatives in
social criteria to 3.0, the SMPIE value of the material changes
to 1.71, 2.07, 1.83, 1.65 and 1.74 respectively.
The above is an example to demonstrate the sensitivity of
the SMPI values with respect to the changes in RII values.
The Technological aspect as mentioned earlier is added to
analyze the SMPI values in the three phases of the material
lifecycle to uphold the concept of 3R’s on various alternatives
considering the three phases as per the triple-bottom-line
approach (Table 14). With the change in RII weight for
each of the alternatives in the three phases of the lifecycle to
3, 4 and 5 respectively, there is a change in the SMPIT values
in the respective phases (Table 14).
It can be observed that the alternative material ‘GP’ is
having highest SMPI (Table 11). It shows that the concept
of 3R’s holds good for Geopolymer based concrete.
From the above discussion, it can be noted that higher the
values of a relative score of a certain alternative, greater is the
SMPI value of that material. Higher the RII weight of
a certain lifecycle phase, greater is the material sustainability
in the respective phase. Conversely, the lower the value lesser
is the SMPI value of the material. With this concept, different
materials can be compared to evaluate the viability of sustain-
ability considering Social, Environmental, Economic and
Technological (SEET) criteria. In addition to this, it was
noted that the relative weight of each material and RII of
each phase has a different impact on the sustainable criteria
depending upon their interrelationship.
5. Conclusion
● The present study evaluates the material sustainability
performance considering the three phases of Lifecycle
based on qualitative and quantitative approach without
the need for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data.
● A Sustainable Material Performance Index (SMPI) for
a certain Building Material is developed using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) an MCDM approach.
Relative Importance Index (RII) a statistical technique was
used for evaluating the composite priorities in material
selection in the three phases of the lifecycle.
● One major outcome from the study is encouraging
values of RII for Supplementary Cementitious Material
(SCM) alternatives like PPC-F, PPC-S, and CC. Also, the
indicator ‘Construction and Demolition waste’ has
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 11
During Construction Post-Construction
TECH C-2(d) TECH C-2(d)
0.47 1.64 0.49 2.05
0.53 1.76 0.53 2.20
0.51 1.68 0.53 2.10
0.58 1.88 0.59 2.35
0.45 1.52 0.44 1.90
higher values of RII in the Pre-Construction and Post-
Construction phases which eventually reveals the con-
cept of 3R’s (Reduce, Re-use and Replace).
● From the global SMPI values along with the various
sustainable indicators and criteria (SEET) considering
the three Lifecycle phases, the material alternative
‘Geopolymer’ has emerged as the material with higher
SMPI value, while ‘OPC’ has the least SMPI.
● The overall sustainable prioritization of material alternatives
is identified as GP, PPC-F, PPC-S, CC and OPC with SMPI
values 10.63, 8.75, 8.43, 8.32 and 6.08 respectively.
● Considering various sustainable indicators with equal
importance in all the three phases the ranking of the
RII is in the order of Post-construction, Pre-
construction and During construction phases.
● Also, among the various criteria considered it was found
rational to consider the ranking in the order of
Environmental, Economic, Social and Technological
aspects.
The developed conceptual framework is a simple and sys-
tematic framework which can provide valuable inputs for
building professionals and assist them in making critical
decisions while choosing the sustainable alternative material.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty of the Department of Civil
Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal for providing the
responses to the questionnaire survey in the role of academicians.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
A. Suchith Reddy (A.M. ASCE, MISTE, MCIOB) has operated the
domain projects in Civil Engineering in large scale industry for 6 years
in various companies like HCC Ltd, LnT and Madhucon Projects Ltd.
Also, as an Academician for 2 years. He is expertise in the area of
Construction Management, Concrete Technology, Fuzzy Logic, MCDM
and Sustainable Construction. Currently pursuing Ph.D in NIT
Warangal and published papers in International and National journals.
Prof. P. Rathish Kumar (PDF, Dr.Engg, Ph.D, MISTE, MIEI, MCI,
MISTMTT, MIGS, MAIJ) is a well-qualified academician with various
professional affiliations. He has awarded various honors and awards and
12 A. S. REDDY ET AL.
took responsibilities in various administrative, organizational, societal,
community services. He has awarded 6 Ph.D's and 3 are under pursuing.
He has published about 90 papers in SCI journals and various confer-
ences. Independently handled research funding projects in India and
aboard. His research interest are in the area of High-Performance
Mortars/Concrete, Low Cost/Alternate, Building Materials, Self-
Compacting Concrete, Ferrocement, Fibrous Concretes, Recycled
Aggregate Concrete, Earthquake Engineering, Cement Composites,
Health Monitoring of Structures, Repair and Rehabilitation of buildings
and bridges, Microstructure Analysis of Concrete and Sustainable
Construction.
Prof. P. Anand Raj (Ph.D. (DSS-IIT), Int. PG. Dip (H & WRE), MISTE,
MIE(I), C. Engr. (I), MIAHS (UK), MISMCDM(USA) is a well-qualified
academician with various professional affiliations and has been awarded
various honors and awards, took responsibilities in various administra-
tive, organizational, societal, community services. Awarded 5 Ph.D's and
3 are under pursuing. He has published various papers in SCI journals
and various conferences. He is an expert in Systems Analysis, Fuzzy
Systems, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Hydrology and Fluid
Mechanics.
ORCID
A. Suchith Reddy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7162-2929
References
Abdul-Rahman H, Wang C, Wood LC, Ebrahimi M (2016) Integrating
and ranking sustainability criteria for housing. Proc Inst Civil Eng
Eng Sustain 169(1):3–30
Abeysundara, U. G. Y., S. Babel, and S. Gheewala. 2009. “A Matrix in
Life Cycle Perspective for Selecting Sustainable Materials for
Buildings in Sri Lanka.” Building and Environment 44 (5):
997–1004. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.005.
Ahmad, T., and M. J. Thaheem. 2017. “Developing a Residential
Building-Related Social Sustainability Assessment Framework and
Its Implications for BIM.” Sustainable Cities and Society 28: 1–15.
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.002.
Akadiri, P. O., E. A. Chinyio, and P. O. Olomolaiye. 2012. “Design of
A Sustainable Building: A Conceptual Framework for Implementing
Sustainability in the Building Sector.” Buildings 2 (4): 126–152.
doi:10.3390/buildings2020126.
Akadiri, P. O., and P. O. Olomolaiye. 2012. “Development of Sustainable
Assessment Criteria for Building Materials Selection.” Engineering,
Construction, and Architectural Management 19 (6): 666–687.
doi:10.1108/09699981211277568.
Akadiri, P. O., P. O. Olomolaiye, and E. A. Chinyio. 2013. “Multi-
Criteria Evaluation Model for the Selection of Sustainable Materials
for Building Projects.” Automation in Construction 30: 113–125.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004.
Al-Ghamdi, S. G., and M. M. Bilec. 2017. “Green Building Rating Systems
and Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment: Comparative Study of the
Existing Assessment Tools.” Journal of Architectural Engineering 23 (1):
04016015. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000222.
Al-Hajj, A., and K. Hamani. 2011. “Material Waste in the UAE
Construction Industry: Main Causes and Minimization Practices.”
Architectural Engineering and Design Management 7 (4): 221–235.
doi:10.1080/17452007.2011.594576.
ALwaer, H., and D. J. Clements-Croome. 2010. “Key Performance
Indicators (Kpis) and Priority Setting in Using the Multi-Attribute
Approach for Assessing Sustainable Intelligent Buildings.” Building
and Environment 45 (4): 799–807. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.019.
Alyami, S. H., and Y. Rezgui. 2012. “Sustainable Building Assessment
Tool Development Approach.” Sustainable Cities and Society 5 (1):
52–62. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.004.
Anadon, L. D., G. Chan, A. G. Harley, K. Matus, S. Moon, S. L. Murthy,
and W. C. Clark. 2016. “Making Technological Innovation Work for
Sustainable Development: Table S1.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 113 (35): 9682–9690. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1525004113.
Ashby, M.F., 2012. Materials and the environment: eco-informed mate-
rial choice. Elsevier. .
Bakhoum, E. S., and D. C. Brown. 2012. “Developed Sustainable Scoring
System for Structural Materials Evaluation.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 138 (1): 110–119. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0000412.
Bakhoum, E. S., and D. C. Brown. 2013. “A Hybrid Approach Using
AHP-TOPSIS-Entropy Methods for Sustainable Ranking of Structural
Materials.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 6 (3):
212–224. doi:10.1080/19397038.2012.719553.
Bakhoum, E. S., and D. C. Brown. 2015. “An Automated Decision
Support System for Sustainable Selection of Structural Materials.”
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 8 (2): 80–92.
doi:10.1080/19397038.2014.906513.
Bank, L. C., B. P. Thompson, and M. McCarthy. 2011. “Decision-Making
Tools for Evaluating the Impact of Materials Selection on the Carbon
Footprint of Buildings.” Carbon Management 2 (4): 431–441.
doi:10.4155/cmt.11.33.
Bansal, S., S. Biswas, and S. K. Singh. 2015. “Fuzzy-Decision-Approach-
for-Selection-of-Sustainable-and-Green-Materials-for-Green-
Buildings..”, International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 6
(7): 1782–1785.
Bhattacharjee, B. 2010. “Sustainability of Concrete in Indian Context.”
Indian Concrete Journal 84 (7): 45–51.
BMPTC. 2015. Multi-Attribute Evaluation Methodology for Selection of
Emerging Housing Technologies. Ministry of Housing & Urban
Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. Retrieved from http://
www.bmtpc.org/
Castro-Lacouture, D., J. A. Sefair, L. Flórez, and A. L. Medaglia. 2009.
“Optimization Model for the Selection of Materials Using a
LEED-Based Green Building Rating System in Colombia.” Building
and Environment 44 (6): 1162–1170. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.08.009.
Chatterjee, A. K. 2009. “Sustainable Construction and Green Buildings
on the Foundation of Building Ecology.” Indian Concrete Journal 83
(5): 27–30.
Chen, Y., G. E. Okudan, and D. R. Riley. 2010. “Sustainable Performance
Criteria for Construction Method Selection in Concrete Buildings.”
Automation in Construction 19 (2): 235–244. doi:10.1016/j.
autcon.2009.10.004.
Cole, R. J. 2005. “Building Environmental Assessment Methods:
Redefining Intentions and Roles.” Building Research and
Information 33 (5): 455–467. doi:10.1080/09613210500219063.
Collins, F. 2010. “Inclusion of Carbonation during the Life Cycle of Built
and Recycled Concrete: Influence on Their Carbon Footprint.”
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15 (6): 549–556.
doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0191-4.
CPWD. 2014. “CPWD Guidelines for Sustainable Habitat.” www.cpwd.
gov.in
Crawford, R., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment.
Routledge.
Curran, M. A. 2012. Sourcing Life Cycle Inventory Data. Life Cycle
Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable
Products. doi:10.1002/9781118528372.ch5.
Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., D. Jato-Espino, and D. Castro-Fresno. 2017.
“Methodology for the Development of a New Sustainable
Infrastructure Rating System for Developing Countries (SIRSDEC).”
Environmental Science and Policy 69: 65–72. doi:10.1016/j.
envsci.2016.12.010.
Ding, G. K. C. 2008. “Sustainable Construction-The Role of
Environmental Assessment Tools.” Journal of Environmental
Management 86 (3): 451–464. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
Ding, G. K. C. 2013. “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Sustainable
Building Materials: An Overview.” Eco-Efficient Construction and
Building Materials: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Eco-Labelling and
Case Studies 38–62. doi:10.1533/9780857097729.1.38.
Ejiga, O. 2017. “An Assessment of the Use of Sustainable Building
Materials - A Case Study of Caleb University.” UIA Seoul World
Architects Congress, 1–7.

Florez, L., and D. Castro-Lacouture. 2013. “Optimization Model for
Sustainable Materials Selection Using Objective and Subjective
Factors.” Materials and Design 46: 310–321. doi:10.1016/j.
matdes.2012.10.013.
Gao, Y., Z. Liu, D. Hu, L. Zhang, and G. Gu. 2010. “Selection of Green
Product Design Scheme Based on Multi-Attribute Decision-Making
Method.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 3 (4):
277–291. doi:10.1080/19397038.2010.516371.
Gilbert, R., Irwin, N., Hollingworth, B. and Blais, P., 2002. Sustainable
transportation performance indicators. In TRB 2003 Annual Meeting
CD-ROM, Washington DC.
González, M. J., and J. G. Navarro. 2006. “Assessment of the Decrease of
CO2 Emissions in the Construction Field through the Selection of
Materials: Practical Case Study of Three Houses of Low
Environmental Impact.” Building and Environment 41 (7): 902–909.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.006.
Govindan, K. 2015. “Green Sourcing: Taking Steps to Achieve
Sustainability Management and Conservation of Resources.”
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104: 329–333. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2015.10.027.
Govindan, K. K., M. Shankar, and D. Kannan. 2015. “Sustainable
Material Selection for Construction Industry - A Hybrid
Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 55: 1274–1288. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2015.07.100.
Hara, M., T. Nagao, S. Hannoe, and J. Nakamura. 2016. “New Key
Performance Indicators for a Smart Sustainable City.” Sustainability
8 (3): 206. doi:10.3390/su8030206.
Heravi, G., M. Fathi, and S. Faeghi. 2017. “Multi-Criteria Group
Decision-Making Method for Optimal Selection of Sustainable
Industrial Building Options Focused on Petrochemical Projects.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 2999–3013. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.10.168.
Hill, R. C., and P. A. Bowen. 1997. “Sustainable Construction: Principles
and a Framework for Attainment.” Construction Management and
Economics 15 (3): 223–239. doi:10.1080/014461997372971.
Hojjati, A., I. Jefferson, N. Metje, and C. Rogers. 2017. “Sustainability
Assessment for Urban Underground Utility Infrastructure Projects.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering
Sustainability 1–13. doi:10.1680/jensu.16.00050.
Huang, X. Q., X. Qiu, L. W. Chen, J. H. Wu, and X. H. Luo. 2015. “Fuzzy
Comprehensive Evaluation for Road Base Material Selection Based on
Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Key Engineering Materials 667: 353–358.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.667.353.
IGBC. 2015. “IGBC Reference Manual,”IGBC Green New Rating Sytem”,
Version 1.0, 146. www.igbc.in
Jakhar, S. K., and M. K. Barua. 2014. “An Integrated Model of Supply
Chain Performance Evaluation and Decision-Making Using
Structural Equation Modelling and Fuzzy AHP.” Production
Planning & Control 25 (11): 938–957. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2013.782616.
Keeble, B. R. 1988. “The Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future.’.”
Medicine and War 4 (1): 17–25. doi:10.1080/07488008808408783.
Khatib, J. M. 2009. Sustainability of Construction Materials.
Sustainability of Construction Materials. doi:10.1533/
9781845695842. Elsevier: Woodhead Publishing.
Khoshnava, S. M., R. Rostami, A. Valipour, M. Ismail, and A. R. Rahmat.
2018. “Rank of Green Building Material Criteria Based on the Three
Pillars of Sustainability Using the Hybrid Multi Criteria Decision
Making Method.” Journal of Cleaner Production 173: 82–99.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.066.
Kisku, N., H. Joshi, M. Ansari, S. K. Panda, S. Nayak, and S. C. Dutta.
2017. “A Critical Review and Assessment for Usage of Recycled
Aggregate as Sustainable Construction Material.” Construction and
Building Materials 131: 721–740. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.11.029.
Kylili, A., P. A. Fokaides, and P. A. L. Jimenez. 2016. “Key Performance
Indicators (Kpis) Approach in Buildings Renovation for the
Sustainability of the Built Environment: A Review.” Renewable and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING 13
Sustainable Energy Reviews 56: 906–915. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2015.11.096.
Mayyas, A., M. A. Omar, and M. T. Hayajneh. 2016. “Eco-Material
Selection Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Method.” International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering 9 (5): 292–304. doi:10.1080/
19397038.2016.1153168.
Medineckiene, M., E. K. Zavadskas, F. Björk, and Z. Turskis. 2015.
“Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Sustainable Building
Assessment/Certification.” Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 15 (1): 11–18. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2014.09.001.
Park, T., T. Kang, Y. Lee, and K. Seo. 2014. “Project Cost Estimation of
National Road in Preliminary Feasibility Stage Using BIM/GIS
Platform.” Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014) Ipcc
2007: 423–430. doi:10.1061/9780784413616.053.
Qaemi, M. and Heravi, G., 2012. Sustainable Energy Performance
Indicators of Green Building in Developing Countries.
In Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges
in a Flat World, Edited by Hubo Cai; Amr Kandil; Makarand
Hastak; and Phillip S. Dunston (pp. 1961-1970).
Radhi, H. 2010. “Energy Analysis of Façade-Integrated Photovoltaic
Systems Applied to UAE Commercial Buildings.” Solar Energy 84
(12): 2009–2021. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2010.10.002.
Reap, J., F. Roman, S. Duncan, and B. Bras. 2008. “A Survey of
Unresolved Problems in Life Cycle Assessment. Part 2: Impact
Assessment and Interpretation.” International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 13 (5): 374–388. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0009-9.
Reddy, A. S., P. A. Raj, and P. R. Kumar. 2018. “Developing
a Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) for Developing
Countries—Case of India.” In Urbanization Challenges in Emerging
Economies, Edited by Udai P. Singh and G. L. Sivakumar Babu,
137–148. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
doi:10.1061/9780784482032.015.
Saaty, T. L. 2008. “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy
Process.” International Journal of Services Sciences 1 (1): 83.
doi:10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
Sabaghi, M., C. Mascle, P. Baptiste, and R. Rostamzadeh. 2016.
“Sustainability Assessment Using Fuzzy-Inference Technique
(SAFT): A Methodology toward Green Products.” Expert Systems
with Applications 56: 69–79. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.02.038.
Šaparauskas, J., and Z. Turskis. 2006. “Evaluation of Construction
Sustainability by Multiple Criteria Methods.” Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 12 (4): 321–326. doi:10.1080/
13928619.2006.9637761.
Shi, Q., J. Zuo, R. Huang, J. Huang, and S. Pullen. 2013. “Identifying the
Critical Factors for Green Construction - an Empirical Study in
China.” Habitat International 40: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.
habitatint.2013.01.003.
Trusty, W., and S. Horst (2002). Integrating LCA Tools in Green
Building Rating Systems. The Austin Papers: Best of the 2002
International Green Building Conference, Environmental Building
News pp. 53-57
U.S. Green Building Council. n.d. LEED BD+C: New Construction | V4 -
LEED V4. http://greenguard.org/uploads/images/LEEDv4for
BuildingDesignandConstructionBallotVersion.pdf
Valenzuela-Venegas, G., J. C. Salgado, and F. A. Díaz-Alvarado. 2016.
“Sustainability Indicators for the Assessment of Eco-Industrial Parks:
Classification and Criteria for Selection.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 133: 99–116. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.113.
Vij, A., G. Shorey, H. Zia, M. Majumdar, P. Shukla, P. Kumar,
P. Kochhar, et al. 2010. “GRIHA Manual” 1: 129. http://www.grihain
dia.org/files/Manual_VolI.pdf
Vinodh, S., K. Jayakrishna, V. Kumar, and R. Dutta. 2014. “Development
of Decision Support System for Sustainability Evaluation: A Case
Study.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 16 (1):
163–174. doi:10.1007/s10098-013-0613-7.
Wang, J. J., Y. Y. Jing, C. F. Zhang, and J. H. Zhao. 2009. “Review on
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Aid in Sustainable Energy
Decision-Making.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13
(9): 2263–2278. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
14 A. S. REDDY ET AL.
Wang, Y., P. C. Chen, H. W. Ma, K. L. Cheng, and C. Y. Chang. 2018. “Socio-
Economic Metabolism of Urban Construction Materials: A Case Study of
the Taipei Metropolitan Area.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128:
563–571. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.019.
Weisbrod, A., A. Bjork, D. McLaughlin, T. Federle, K. McDonough,
J. Malcolm, and R. Cina. 2015. “Framework for Evaluating Sustainably
Sourced Renewable Materials.” Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal 17 (4): 259–272. doi:10.1080/16258312.2016.1258895.
Yang, J., and I. C. B. Ogunkah. 2013. “A Multicriteria Decision Support
System for the Selection of Low-Cost Green Building Materials and
Components.” Journal of Building Construction and Planning
Research 01 (04): 89–130. doi:10.4236/jbcpr.2013.14013.
Zhong, Y., and P. Wu. 2015. “Economic Sustainability, Environmental
Sustainability and Constructability Indicators Related to
Concrete-And Steel-Projects.” Journal of Cleaner Production 108:
748–756. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.095.
Zhou, H., and D. C. Lacouture. 2011. “Key Performance Indicators for
Infrastructure Sustainability - A Comparative Study between China
and the United States.” Advanced Materials Research 250–253:
2984–2992. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.250-253.2984.