Machine Learning-Assisted Assessment of Low-Carbon Building Materials for Sustainable Construction Engineering

Authors

  • Blanaid O'Beirn Department of Computer Science, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA. Author
  • Bernarda Pintor Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. Author
  • Safina Iswahyudi Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. Author
  • Harshil Chakrabarti Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. Author

Keywords:

low-carbon building materials; machine learning; life-cycle assessment; uncertainty quantification; multi-objective optimization; sustainable construction

Abstract

Low-carbon building materials are central to reducing embodied emissions in construction, yet their assessment is complicated by coupled environmental, mechanical, durability, and cost criteria that are measured at different scales and with unequal reliability. Existing life-cycle assessment and material-selection procedures often treat carbon intensity as a scalar attribute and separate it from the statistical uncertainty of property prediction, while machine-learning studies frequently optimize predictive accuracy for a single mechanical response without embedding engineering feasibility or life-cycle boundaries. This manuscript develops an integrated, uncertainty-aware assessment framework that links material and process descriptors to low-carbon performance indicators through surrogate models, calibrates predictive uncertainty, and converts probabilistic outputs into robust design decisions. The framework combines Gaussian-process and ensemble learning for small and heterogeneous construction-material data, multi-objective optimization for carbon, strength, durability, and cost, and constraint-based decision rules that require acceptable probability of compliance rather than point predictions. It also specifies the physical meaning of key variables, including clinker substitution, recycled aggregate porosity, activator demand, thermal conductivity, and fabrication waste, and explains how these variables alter both environmental burdens and engineering reliability. The main contribution is not a claim of empirical superiority but a coherent methodological structure for assessing low-carbon building materials when data are sparse, heterogeneous, and consequential. The framework provides a defensible basis for comparing material alternatives, identifying trade-offs, and exposing the conditions under which machine-learning predictions should not be used.

References

1. Habert, G., Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Provis, J. L., Favier, A., Horvath, A., & Scrivener, K. L. (2020). Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(11), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3

2. Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M., & Gartner, E. M. (2018). Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015

3. Monteiro, P. J. M., Miller, S. A., & Horvath, A. (2017). Towards sustainable concrete. Nature Materials, 16(7), 698–699. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4930

4. Hammond, G. P., & Jones, C. I. (2008). Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy, 161(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1680/ener.2008.161.2.87

5. Dixit, M. K. (2017). Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 390–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.051

6. Kylili, A., & Fokaides, P. A. (2017). Policy trends for the sustainability assessment of construction materials: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 35, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.028

7. Pacheco-Torgal, F., & Jalali, S. (2010). Reusing ceramic wastes in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 24(5), 832–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.023

8. Provis, J. L., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (Eds.). (2014). Alkali activated materials: State-of-the-art report, RILEM TC 224-AAM. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7672-2

9. Butler, K. T., Davies, D. W., Cartwright, H., Isayev, O., & Walsh, A. (2018). Machine learning for molecular and materials science. Nature, 559(7715), 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0337-2

10. Ramprasad, R., Batra, R., Pilania, G., Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A., & Kim, C. (2017). Machine learning in materials informatics: Recent applications and prospects. npj Computational Materials, 3, 54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-017-0056-5

11. Schmidt, J., Marques, M. R. G., Botti, S., & Marques, M. A. L. (2019). Recent advances and applications of machine learning in solid-state materials science. npj Computational Materials, 5, 83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0221-0

12. Chaabene, W. B., Flah, M., & Nehdi, M. L. (2020). Machine learning prediction of mechanical properties of concrete: Critical review. Construction and Building Materials, 260, 119889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119889

13. Yu, L., Luo, D., & Xu, W. (2018). Dynamic robotic slip-form casting and eco-friendly building façade design. In Robotic fabrication in architecture, Art and Design (pp. 421-433). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

14. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

15. Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2006). Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT Press.

16. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (pp. 4765–4774). Curran Associates.

17. Gal, Y., & Ghahramani, Z. (2016). Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 48, pp. 1050–1059). PMLR.

18. Miller, S. A., Horvath, A., & Monteiro, P. J. M. (2016). Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%. Environmental Research Letters, 11(7), 074029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074029

19. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). ISO.

20. Gartner, E. (2004). Industrially interesting approaches to low-CO2 cements. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(9), 1489–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.021

21. Meyer, C. (2009). The greening of the concrete industry. Cement and Concrete Composites, 31(8), 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.12.010

22. Ashby, M. F. (2013). Materials and the environment: Eco-informed material choice (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-03