Randomized trial showcases an AI-driven approach for optimizing construction materials, indicating improved sustainability outcomes.
The construction sector is a major contributor to global environmental impacts, largely driven by the embodied emissions of structural materials. Early-stage material selection therefore represents a critical opportunity for impact reduction; however, conventional life-cycle assessment (LCA) approaches remain limited in systematically evaluating large numbers of feasible material configurations under multiple and often conflicting sustainability criteria, constraining effective decision-making during design. To address this limitation, this study develops an artificial intelligence–driven decision-support framework for the systematic exploration and optimisation of construction material configurations within a fixed building design. The framework integrates LCA modelling, scenario-based material substitution, predictive modelling using mixture-of-experts backpropagation neural networks, and sustainability-oriented optimisation within a unified workflow. A reinforced-concrete office building in the United Kingdom is used as a case study to generate 1500 technically feasible material scenarios by varying concrete compositions (including GGBS and fly ash substitution), reinforcement steel production routes, cement formulations, and end-of-life pathways. Scenario outputs from OneClick LCA are used to train the predictive models, enabling rapid estimation of multiple sustainability indicators, which are subsequently coupled with a shuffled frog leaping optimisation algorithm using a composite sustainability index. The results demonstrate that the framework efficiently identifies material configurations that balance environmental, circularity, and cost-related performance while expanding the range of feasible design solutions beyond conventional scenario-based evaluation. The proposed framework provides a scalable and flexible decision-support tool for early-stage design, enabling systematic assessment of trade-offs and supporting informed material selection under practical design and feasibility constraints.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pournaghshband et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: