ANKARA - TURKIYE

ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF

FIVE DIFFERENT LIFE CYCLE SCENARIOS FOR
BRICK MASONRY WALL
Research Assistant – Deniz Üçer a *and Professor – Soofia Tahira Elias-Ozkan b
a
*Middle East Technical University, Building Sciences, Architecture, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected]
b
Middle East Technical University, Building Sciences, Architecture, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected]

Abstract Researchers argue that LCA is important in analyzing the

environmental impacts of all stages of the life cycle of a
Environmental impact assessment is one of the major concerns
product in order to understand how to improve the product,
due to the threats of global warming. To this end the impacts of
built environment are analyzed at several levels, one of which as well as comparing the products meeting the same function.
[3] Tukker (1999) divides the LCA process into two phases: 925
is assessing the negative impact of building components. This
paper presents the impact of solid brick masonry walls (fired system boundaries and impact assessment. The system
clay brick and cement mortar) on the environment according to boundaries phase determines all the materials and energy
five different end-of-life scenarios that depend on a combination used for production, maintenance and disposal; while the
of reuse, recycling and landfill options in varying ratios. The impact assessment phase determines the total results of
life cycle impacts of a brick wall have been analyzed with the these usages as illustrated in the flow-chart below:
help of Sima-Pro (PRé-NL, 2014) LCA software [1]. The results
are obtained in terms of eco-points in three sub categories i.e.
human health, ecosystem quality and resources. In order to
conduct the analyses, (whenever the software database proved
to be inadequate) data were obtained from literature and
observations; such as thickness requirements of walls according
to Turkish Standards, possible lifetime estimations of walls and
units, reclaiming, reusing, land filling requirements, ratios and
applications as well as transportation distances and facilities.
The findings indicate that total landfill has the highest level of
negative impact and the manual reclamation with reuse-landfill
combination has the lowest level of negative impact on the
environment, for these three categories.

Keywords: Life cycle assessment, clay brick, reuse, recycle,

landfill, Sima-Pro

1. Introduction, Life Cycle Assessment Figure 1: LCA Process [3]

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is defined as The types of emissions and their environmental impacts such as
“… a technique for assessing the environmental aspects global warming and ozone depletion are explained in Figure 1.
associated with a product over its life cycle” [2] On the other hand, Goedkoop et al. (2008) combine the impacts
 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium

under three main groups; i.e. human health, eco-system and are not the main reason here so this aspect is neglected. The
re-sources as illustrated in Figure 2 [2]. main parameter defining the wall thickness for this study is the
thickness needed to provide the required thermal insulation.
Therefore, the scope determining the thermal requirements is
defined according to the related Turkish standards. According
to the report on Thermal Insulation Requirements for Buildings
in Turkey, the 3rd zone encompasses the largest region of the
country [9]. Thus the requirements for Zone 3 were taken for the
formulation of the 5 scenarios. According to these regulations,
maximum heat transmission value U is 0.50 W/m2K. Thus, the
wall for this study is taken to be a masonry wall built with solid
clay brick to satisfy the required heat transmission value. On
the other hand, the masonry wall that satisfies this thermal
value can be produced by the units in several dimensions.
Therefore the selection of the largest available unit for the
production of 1 m2 wall is stated as the delimitation of the
study; and is also illustrated in Figure 3 and the accompanying
Figure 2: Environmental impact categorization [2] tables give information on the wall and jointing material; such
as density, dimensions, wastage, thermal conductivity and
Besides grouping the impacts, Goedkoop et al. (2008) also
the estimated equivalent thickness of the wall according to
propose methods to calculate the levels of these impacts in
heat transmission value, as well as the actual thickness of a
terms of eco-points, and compare the ranges as follows:
conventional wall that is built with the units available in the
“… on a time scale of 100 years the contribution of 1 kg CH4 to construction material market.
global warming is 42 times as high as the emission of 1 kg CO2
This means that if the characterization factor of CO2 is 1, the
characterization factor of CH4 is 42” [2].
926
The LCA methodology described above has been applied for
the assessment of a solid clay brick masonry wall with five
different end-of-life scenarios; details of which are presented
in the following sections:

The main groups of masonry materials are clay products,

cementitious masonry units and natural stone [4 and 5]. Right
after the development of mortar, masonry with mortar is by
far more common compared to mortarless masonry [4]; this is
why solid clay brick masonry with mortar was selected for this
study.

2. Material

Several types of both clay brick and cement mortar are widely
used [6 and 7]. Among them fired clay brick and Portland cement
mortar combination is one of the most preferred combination
[8]. These bricks may be solid or hollow, and may be used
with a layer of thermal insulation material such as extruded
polystyrene (XPS) or expanded polystyrene (EPS). In order to
formulate the LCA, some other parameters of the wall have
to be defined besides the physical properties of materials. One
of the main parameters is the design of the walls, either for Figure 3: Properties of the wall
load-bearing purpose or for infill. The walls for this study are
3. Method
taken as infill walls; in other words disregarding the structural
requirements. Although the walls here, are quite thick most The information presented in the material section is grouped
probably ensuring the structural needs, structural concerns according to certain criteria to formulate possible life cycle
scenarios for the wall. The division is made according to the
 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE

specific possible end-of-life scenarios of the wall, namely: in the lists were eliminated according to structural criteria e.g.
varying percentages of landfill, reuse and recycling. Referring bridges and fountains. Even though bath houses (hamams)
to the literature and background information five scenarios are buildings they have special finishes: i.e. unique plaster or
were designed accordingly. All the organization of described ceramics, to tackle the water problem since the construction is
information is applied in SimaPro software (PRé-NL, 2014) [1] in direct contact with water were excluded along with castles
to obtain equivalent environmental scores in order to detect and fortresses, that are built extremely safe for defense and
the level of environmental impacts. The way of evaluation is had over strong walls.
prepared according to the LCA concept i.e. the wall obtained
One other exclusion criterion is renovation since the useful
a score that refers to its level of impact on nature during its
life cycle. lifetime is significantly affected by restoration and repairs.
Referring to this short data collection study, about 200 years
Since the available database that can be used in the software
lifetime -is again- could be reasonable assumption for this
do not contain the exact data for Turkey, input for the
study.
variances in the software, data for the most similar materials
and processes are selected. The basic properties of the wall Unit recovery statistics
were easily obtained from related academic studies and the The disassembly process of the masonry walls as well as unit
documents available from the manufacturers as presented in recovery statistics are also needed for the LCA study, for the
the material section. Other information needed to construct
formulation of end-of-life scenarios. Therefore similar studies
the life cycle scenarios of the wall can be grouped as
proposing recovery methods and calculations were examined.
useful lifetime of the wall, unit and mortar; re-usability and
Among those studies, a calculation method proposed by
recyclability rates, dismantling rates; transportation methods
Thormark (2001) as illustrated in Table 1 [17], is modified in
and distances to construction and dumping sites, as explained
order to derive a unique tool for this study as presented in
in the following section:
Table 2 below. According to presented methodology, the wall
Useful lifetime determination gets points between 1 and 3 for each question. When the points
There are several studies that determine the lifetime of are summed up, the equivalent percentage of recovery rate is
buildings, components and materials, and almost all of them calculated. Yet, the crucial aspect of this system is that the
recovery rates are relatively estimated that means that are 927
argue that estimating the exact useful lifetime of any product
is highly complicated owing to several factors affecting the correct only for the defined scope. For instance, two of the
period e.g. conditions of the environment and the behavior of questions are risks in the environment and tool complexity. In
the users. Therefore available studies mostly use assumptions this aspect, the wall gains the lowest points since it does not
as the lifetime values of the walls. The study by Lippiat (2007) emit toxic chemicals during disassembly as well as requiring
proposes to take the lifetime of brick masonry walls to be advanced tools for demounting. On the other hand, the wall
about 200 years [14]. Therefore the age of the wall presented cannot have the lowest point in terms of mortared surface area
here is taken to be 200 years also. query, since ratio of the joint face area to the all faces area
In addition to the information provided by Lippiat (2007), differs from the minimum condition definition. Hence, a low
useful lifetime information on the selected types of walls rate results in lower score that means it is more convenient
was also collected within the scope of Turkey. Thermal Zone to recover. The other decisive question is damage to material,
3, containing the largest region in the country, is the limit for in this sense if the area of mortared faces is more; the damage
the estimations of useful life periods. Five cities i.e. Kırklareli, to material during separation is also increased. Since the
Karaman, Artvin, Tunceli and Iğdır were randomly selected disassembly of units is done manually, the accessibility of
from this zone since it is scattered into five separate parts mortar for removal is crucial. Therefore the accessibility is a
within the country. A list of registered historical buildings in question for recovery rate. Finally the last question is the time
each city can be found from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism requirement of disassembly, if there is larger area to clean
(İl Kültür Turizm Müdürlüğü) websites [16]. Although specific up from the mortar; the time requirement is a lot which is a
names of the buildings built in brick are not noted, according negative aspect in terms of recovery. Taking all these aspects
to the explanation and dating, brick masonry structures that into consideration, the wall gained a relative recovery score
are still standing today mostly date back to the 19th and 20th that is illustrated in Table 2 below.
centuries.

At this point it is important to note that the building, either in

livable condition or in damaged condition, was regarded as a
valid member of the population. Conversely, some structures
 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium

Table 1: Chart to detect the rate of reusable material [17] in order to estimate the transportation distances for material
supply. The supply centers were chosen according to their
proximity to the selected five cities. Since the most preferred
way of freight transportation is via highway in Turkey, the road
distances provided by related websites were collected, mean
values were estimated and used for the scenarios. During the
estimations, the imaginary location of the construction site
is selected as the city center of each sample cities. TUKDER
Website (2012) indicates the cities that contain at least five
brick production plants [8]. Besides this information, one more
location i.e. Tunceli, Akpazar is labeled since there is only one
brick factory [18] close to Tunceli. After detecting the closest
clay brick factories, the highway distances are obtained from
the related websites [19] and the average distance is estimated
and indicated in Table 3.

Table 3: Highway distances between the sample cities

and the closest clay brick production plants

Table 2: Modified framework

928
Determination of distance from demolition site to disposal
point

The transportation of materials to the construction site is not

the only transportation during the lifetime of walls. When the
In addition to the determination of most prevalent masonry type useful life period ends and the building is demolished, debris
and expected lifetime period, the last point to determine is the is transported to a dumping site for landfill, to a plant for
transportation distances that emerge during the life phases of recycling or to a location for reuse. By default the dumping
the wall i.e. transportation of auxiliary material to production sites are located within the city limits. In addition, the distance
plant, transportation of masonry units and connectors to for reuse can be assumed as within the city limits also since
construction site, transportation for the materials that are it is logical to reuse any product nearby. Therefore, In order
used for maintenance and lastly transportation for the disposal to determine the average transportation distances for dumping
of the debris. Information needed for the determination of and reuse, the borders of the selected five cities were collected
the transportation distances, the data for the selected five and calculated as indicated in Table 4.
sample cities (Kırklareli, Karaman, Artvin, Tunceli and Iğdır)
Table 4: Highway distances between the sample cities
was obtained from the General Directorate of Highways and
and the closest clay brick production plants
other websites and are presented in a detailed manner in the
following section.

Determination of distance from production plant to

construction site

The builder needs to transport the masonry units for the wall
from the brick factory to the construction site. The discussion
on transportation starts from this point on because the
materials in the software already include the transportation
of auxiliary materials from the source to the factory. The
locations of the production plants in Turkey were determined
 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE

After the collection of the information above, the scenarios for Additionally, referring to the close loop concept presented
the wall are explained in the following section. by Addis (2006) the recycled content ratio was returned to
the new production cycle in the end-of-life phase in order to
End-life scenario formulation
sustain the continuity of the cycle [24]. By default, recycling
Five scenarios were developed for solid clay brick masonry has several possible meanings but here it means crushing of
wall. For the formulation of the scenarios, similar studies were waste bricks and transportation up to the production plant.
used as input. For instance, a report by Ozkan & Düzgüneş Hence, in clay brick wall scenarios the waste material only
(2002) reveals that most of the construction debris is landfilled needs to be crushed and transported in order to be converting
in Turkey [20]. Thus, the first end-of-life scenario was defined into recycled content. The formulation of the scenarios is
as demolition and landfill. In addition, although Lippiatt (2007) presented in Table 5.
asserts that the service life of the clay brick wall can be Table 5: Formulation of the scenarios
assumed as 200 years, Bown (2009) argues that clay brick can
serve up to 650 years under the right conditions [21]. Hence,
these values were used as input for the end-of-life phase of
second scenario. Since reuse of clay bricks is possible, the
framework suggested by Thormark (2001) was articulated
(Tab. 2) and used to determine possible reliable percentage for
a realistic recovery for the formulation of the second scenario.
The third scenario was based on the experiment of Dijk et al.
(2002) that focuses on heat treatment recovery [22]. This study
states that, the brick wall debris could be heated to a degree
that makes the mortar crumble and the brick recoverable. The
schema is illustrated as follows:

929

Figure 4: Recovery of bricks with heat treatment [22]

Dijk et al. (2002) summarize the results of experiment as about

45% recovery of units in reusable form and quality provided
that care is taken during the dismantling process which is a
key to high recovery rate [22]. In the cases where recovery is
not possible, other option can be recycling as described in the
following part.

Finally, the inputs for the fourth and fifth scenarios were taken
from the experiment of Demir & Orhan (2003) on the recycling
of new bricks in the end-of-life phase as well as the recycled
* Referring to the estimations presented in Table 3, average distance is
content of secondary brick production [23]. This study states 184 km
the details as follows: ** Referring to the estimations presented in Table 4, average distance is
3 km
“A mixture of up to 30% waste brick additives can be used *** Although recovery rate is 47% in Table 2, the result is 43% when the
wastage is subtracted
in brick production. Usage of waste material in the raw **** Referring to literature review, recovery and recycling of mortar is not
mixture minimizes the physical damage that may occur during the case for Turkey
***** Dijk et al. (2002) state that about 540 °C heating during disassembly
brick production. The reuse of waste-brick material in brick results in about 45% recovery of units in reusable form and quality. The
production provides an economical contribution and also helps result is 41%, when the wastage is subtracted. The energy is natural gas in
industrial furnace > 100kW, Referring to the estimations presented in Table
protect the environment” [23] 4, average distance is 3 km
 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium

4. Results, Impact scores The results indicate that Scenario 1 is the most harmful one
among all the alternatives, while Scenario 2 is the least
The score results of the formulated scenarios are indicated in
harmful option. The reasons behind, and further discussion is
Table 6 below:
detailed in the following section:
Table 6: Score results of the scenarios
5. Discussion, Conclusion

In order to clarify the raking of the scenarios noted in the

previous section, all the inputs, outputs and variants should be
analyzed. Landfill in the scenarios, entails manual demolishing,
transportation up to dumping site and landfill of the debris while
reuse entails manual recovery of units and transportation up to
new location. Obviously, the impact level of landfill is greater
than the impact level of reuse. Therefore it is clear that manual
recovery for reuse decreases the environmental impact compared
to the 100% landfill alternative i.e. scenario 1. The variant between
scenario 2 and scenario 3 as well as scenario 4 and 5 is the manual
disassembly versus disassembly with the aid of heat treatment. It
is clear that manual disassembly is a more environmental friendly
method compared to disassembly with heat treatment, since the
amount of heating energy is quite high during the disassembly.
Additionally, although the heating energy is quite high, the
recovery rate is relatively low since the process results in serious
cracks on the face of the bricks which obstruct the reuse option.

On the other hand, in comparison to the high recovery rate

of manual disassembly, heat treatment offers a very speedy
disassembly. Since time limitation for architectural projects
is one of the most restrictive aspects, the heat recovery can
930 The model illustrating the variants among the scenario make sense for many cases in real life, although it is not
alternatives –for an easier perception- is indicated in Figure environmentally preferable.
6. Besides, In order to grasp the environmental impact level of
Lastly, the variant between scenario 2 and 4 as well as
five life cycle scenarios Table 6 is prepared. The Table contains
scenario 3 and 5 is the new material versus secondary material.
the rank of scores as follows:
Secondary material has higher environmental impact compared
to new material. Actually, the expected result is exactly the
opposite since the reason for the evolution of secondary
material is decreasing the environmental degradation. Although
the recycled content, that replaces the equivalent percentage
of new material, reduces the demand of extraction of auxiliary
material in addition to the energy used in the building machine
and transportation vehicle, it results in higher environmental
damage since it requires special treatment i.e. recycling in
the end-of-life phase. In other words, the equivalent ratio of
the recycled content is recycled in the end-of-life that means
crushing of the debris and transportation up to production plant.
Since the transportation distance of debris up to production
Figure 6: Structure of the scenarios
plant for recycling is relatively long and the energy needed for
Table 6: Rank of the scores crushing increases the energy use, the negative impact level of
secondary fired clay brick has exceeded the level of new brick.

Therefore recycling of fired clay brick is not environmentally

reasonable within the scope of this study owing to the selected
transportation distances and possible recycled content ratio.
However if the scope would be different e.g. higher recycled
content rate and shorter transportation distances, the results
would be quite different.
 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE

References:
[1]. PRé Consultants. 2012. About SimaPro, Web site: http://www.pre.nl/
content/simapro-lca-software. Last access: 08.02.2012
[2]. Goedkoop, M. & A. D. Schryver & M. Oele. (2008). Introduction to LCA
with Simapro 7.Unplaced: PRé Consultants.
[3]. Tukker, A., Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Environmental Impact
Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol.20,
Unplaced, 1999.
[4]. Beall, C. (1987). Masonry Design and Detailing. USA: McGraw-Hill.
[5]. Beall, C. (2001). Masonry and Concrete for Residential Construction.
USA: McGraw-Hill.
[6]. TS EN 771-1. 2005. Specifications for Masonry Units – Part 1: Clay
Masonry Units, Ankara.
[7]. TS EN 998-2. 2006. Specification for mortar for Masonry – Part 2:
Masonry Mortar, Ankara.
[8]. Tuğla ve Kiremit Sanayicileri Derneği (TUKDER). 2012. The map
showing brick factories, Web site: http://www.tukder.org/.Last access:
08.02.2012
[9]. TS 825. 2008. Thermal Insulation Requirements for Buildings, Ankara.
[10]. Samsun Ticaret ve Sanayi Odası, Fire Oranları Kitabı, Samsun, 2002.
[11]. Işıklar Klinker Bricks. 2012. Pres Cladding Product Catalog, Web site:
http://www.isiklartugla.com.tr/ekatalog/preskaplama/. Last access:
08.02.2012
[12]. Bostik, Safety Data Sheet General Purpose Mortar, Unplaced,
2008. Didim Ticaret Odası, Ticarette ve Üretimde Fire ve Randıman
Nispetleri, Didim, 2010.
[13]. TS EN 1745. 2004. Masonry and Masonry Products – Method for
determining Design Thermal Values, Ankara.
[14]. Lippiatt, B. C. (2007). BEES 4.0. Building For Environmental and
Economic Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide. Unplaced:
Nrel Publications.
[15]. Bossink, B. A. G. & H. J. H. Brouwers, Construction Waste:
Quantification and Source Evaluation., Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 55, Unplaced, 1996.
[16]. Artvin İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. 2012. Tarihi Yapılar, Web site:
http://www.artvinkulturturizm.gov.tr/belge/1-58645/eski2yeni.
html. Last access: 08.02.2012 Iğdır İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. 931
2012. Gezilecek Yerler, Web site: http://www.igdirkulturturizm.gov.
tr/belge/1-33615/gezilecek-yerler.html. Last access: 08.02.2012
Karaman İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. 2012. Karaman Mimarisi,
Web site: http://www.karamankultur.gov.tr/. Last access: 08.02.2012
Kırklareli İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. 2012. Tarihi Yapılar, Web
site: http://www.kirklarelikulturturizm.gov.tr/belge/1-59678/
diger-tarihi-yapilar.html. Last access: 08.02.2012 Tunceli İl Kültür
ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. 2012. Kültür Turizmi, Web site: http://www.
tuncelikulturturizm.gov.tr/belge/1-57977/kultur-turizmi.html. Last
access: 08.02.2012
[17]. Thormark, C. (2001). Recycling Potential and Design for Disassembly in
Buildings. Sweden: KFS AB.
[18]. Arguç, M. A. & A. H. Gürsönmez & M. Günal. (2005). Tunceli İli Çevre
Durum Raporu. Tunceli: Tunceli Valiliği İl Çevre Orman Müdürlüğü.
[19]. Google Maps. 2012. Maps of cities and villages, Web site: http://maps.
google.com. Last access: 08.02.2012 İller Arası Mesafe. 2012. İller
Arası Mesafe Hesaplama, Web site: http://www.illerarasimesafe.com/.
Last access: 08.02.2012 Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü. 2012. İller Arası
Mesafe, Web site: http://www.kgm.gov.tr. Last access: 08.02.2012
[20]. Elias-Ozkan, S.T. & A. Düzgüneş. 2002. Recycling of Construction
Material and Reuse of Building Components: An overview; in: 1st
CIB-W107 Int. Conference Proceedings, Cape Town.
[21]. Bown A. 2009. Whole Life Performance of Clay Masonry Brickwork,
Web site: http://www.claybrick.org.za/news.php?extend.48. Last
access: 08.02.2012
[22]. Dijk, K. V. & A. Fraaij & Ch. F. Hendriks & E. Mulder, Clay Brick
Recovery From Masonry Debris By Means Of a Thermal Process.,
Advances in Building Technology, Vol. 2, Unplaced, 2002.
[23]. Demir, I. & M. Orhan, Reuse of Waste Bricks in the Production Line.,
Building and Environment, Vol. 38, Unplaced, 2003.
[24]. Addis, B. (2006). Building with Reclaimed Components and Materials.
UK, USA: Eathscan.