Development of Eco-Efficient Bricks - A Life Cycle Assessment Approach
Development of Eco-Efficient Bricks - A Life Cycle Assessment Approach
Development of Eco-Efficient Bricks - A Life Cycle Assessment Approach
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This paper presents the results of techno-economic and environmental performance of interlocking and con
Interlocking bricks ventional bricks used for building wall production. Techno eco-efficiency framework consisting of compressive
Construction efficiency strength test and tensile strength derivation for structural performance assessment and life cycle assessment for
LCA
determining eco-efficiency performance was applied to determine the Eco-efficient bricks. The replacement of
Eco-efficiency
conventional plain bricks with interlocking blocks improved the structural mechanical performance. This con
struction strategy could substantially reduce construction time, minimize labour cost, and increase mechanical
performance. The techno-eco-efficiency framework determined that four out of five interlocking bricks using PT
tendon, rebar and mortar could deliver the required level of compressive and tensile strengths with reduced level
of environmental impacts in a cost competitive manner. These interlocking bricks are thus known as ‘Eco-effi
cient’ bricks. However, the conventional bricks are not completely eco-efficient mainly due to higher environ
mental impacts than the interlocking bricks and they were only found to be eco-efficient in terms of tensile
strengths.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (W.K. Biswas).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102429
Received 30 January 2021; Received in revised form 12 March 2021; Accepted 17 March 2021
Available online 28 March 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
sufficient flexural resistance without scarifying structural performance. potential for ozone depletion and acidification due to higher fuel con
For dry-stacking (mortar-less) construction method, the elimination sumption in transportation of ETP bio-solids than that of brick soil and
of mortar could substantially reduce material cost. It also enables ma WTP biosolids. These LCA studies showed how the environmental im
sonry construction in cold weather without elaborated requirements for pacts of bricks vary with materials, regions and manufacturing pro
weather protection. The elimination of mortar also fundamentally solve cesses. Interestingly a recent LCA study confirms that interlocking
the problem of shrinkage damage, which greatly increases construction compressed earth brick has a less carbon dioxide emission compared to
speed. These above advantages could translate into great economic the conventional fire clay bricks in building construction. No study to
benefit out of this the system while inheriting the characteristics of date used the LCA approach to determine both economic and environ
conventional brick construction [15,22,23]. mentally bricks. The economic assessment of the manufacturing of these
For an interlocking brick structure built with dry-stacking method, brick is also equally important to discern as to whether these environ
the interlocking mechanism could be greatly improved from the inclined mentally friendly bricks are cost competitive with the conventional
keys, which enables the interlocking blocks with a better self-centring brick [32]. The bricks can be environmentally friendly but not
capacity. The elimination of bonding mortar also removes lateral ten cost-competitive due to extra investment on efficiency measures or vice
sile stresses between the interlocking blocks [24]. The interlocking versa. One of the ways to address this is to conduct an eco-efficiency
blocks could slide when it is subjected to in-plane loading. This relative analysis of interlocking bricks [33]. Thus, the innovative aspect of this
movement between bricks despite tiny could contribute to much energy research is to conduct an eco-efficiency analysis to determine the cost
dissipation. competitive and environmentally friendly bricks, known as ‘eco-effi
Whilst interlocking bricks perform better than the conventional cient bricks’.
bricks in terms of structural aspects, further assessment is required to
determine whether this replacement could potentially yield environ 2. Materials and method
mental and economic benefits. Conventional bricks have already been
criticised for its environmental footprints. Interlocking bricks undoubt This section discusses the framework for developing an ‘eco-effi
edly avoided the use of energy intensive cement by avoiding the use of cient’ brick. Jayawardane et al. [33] was followed to develop a frame
mortar, but it at the same time uses energy intensive steel for rein work for eco-efficiency assessment. This method enables the assessment
forcement purposes for attaining the improved level of structural per of technical, economic and environmental performance for ascertaining
formance. While the cost of cement is avoided when building walls using the eco-efficient bricks.
interlocking bricks, cost of steel is added to the construction process.
Thus, both environmental and economic assessments are required to 2.1. Techno-eco-efficiency assessment framework
compare the interlocking bricks with the conventional bricks to discern
which brick could offer the required level of structural strength with The first step is to evaluate the compressive and tensile strengths of
reduced cost and environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) interlocking and conventional bricks so as to ensure they could give the
has widely been used to assess the economic and environmental per required level of structural performance. There are five types of inter
formance of two versions of the same product for facilitating the deci locking bricks considered in this research and the structural perfor
sion making strategy [25]. mance of these bricks is expected to vary from each other due to
Life cycle assessment tool has predominantly been used mainly to variation in the use of PT tendon, rebar and infill grout. Once the
assess the environmental performance of varieties of bricks not only to structural performance of bricks has been determined, a detailed life
deter their environmental performance but also find ways to improve cycle inventory (LCI) of 1 m3 of interlocking bricks and conventional
their environmental performance. Using an LCA analysis, de Souza et al. bricks have been developed. LCI consists of the quantitative values of
[26] found that ceramic brick walls produced less climate change, materials and energy used during mining to material production,
resource depletion and water withdrawal impacts than the concrete transportation of materials to construction site and construction stages
brick and the cast-in-place reinforced concrete exterior walls. Huarachi of 1 m3 of brickwork. These inputs were used in the LCA analysis to
et al. [27] found that Climate change (CC), Human Toxicity (HT) and estimate environmental impacts and costs associated with the
Freshwater Ecotoxicity (FE) are the highest impact resulting from the manufacturing of 1 m3 of brickwork. After this, the environmental im
production of bricks due to drying and burning processes. WeiKua and pacts and cost values for 1 m3 of brickwork have been converted to the
Kamath [28] found that the substitution of concrete with bricks resulted values for 1 Mega Pascal (MPa) for both compressive and tensile
in small reduction in global warming impacts. This study incorporated a strengths. This conversion allows us to determine environmentally and
mathematical model into the LCA analysis to determine the amount of economically feasible bricks or eco-efficient bricks to obtain 1 MPa
concrete constituents that needs to be decreased in order to nullify the equivalent of compressive and tensile strengths. These values were used
increased global warming potential resulting from the increase in import to calculate the ‘eco-efficiency portfolio (PP)’ of both interlocking and
of bricks. The LCA study of Kumer et al. [29] confirms that the damages conventional bricks in order to determine eco-efficient brick(s).
caused to energy resources, ecosystem quality and human health are
very high due to use of coal in brick kiln and also due to use of electricity 2.2. Technical performance assessment
produced from coal power plants. This finding helped identify mitiga
tion strategies which can either be the efficient use of coal or the 2.2.1. Manufacturing of interlocking block and conventional clay brick
development of an improved combustion techniques to reduce harmful system
emissions. Dabaieh et al. [30] estimated the environmental benefits in Interlocking brick: Fig. 1 shows the dimension of the interlocking
terms of resource depletion, energy consumption, and harmful emissions blocks, which is 200 mm × 180 mm × 100 mm (length × height ×
due to replacement of fired industrial bricks, which is used as a common thickness). As illustrated, the blocks are featured with protruded large
building construction material, with sundried bricks. Using the life cycle tenon and mortise (35 mm × 30 mm × 35 mm (length × height ×
impact assessment (LCIA), Mohajerani [31] showed that the incorpo thickness)), which are different from other interlocking blocks with only
ration of biosolids from Melbourne Water’s Victorian Eastern Treatment small shear keys. The tenons of the interlocking bricks in this study are
Plant (ETP) into bricks is environmentally friendly and is a promising inclined which allow the assembly to slide under lateral loading. The
alternative approach to address most of the environmental impacts interlocking bricks are made through high pressure moulding method
except water depletion, which was mainly due to the higher demand of using gravel, cement, and sand as raw materials, which develops a
water of biosolids-amended bricks during the shaping process. In addi concrete-like property. Typical machine of 5.5 kW and manufacturing
tion, bricks incorporating ETP biosolids showed a relatively higher capacity of 100 pieces of blocks per hour. To illustrate construction and
2
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
cost, a typical 1 m width by 1 m tall brick wall is used as shown in Fig. 2. employed for the compression test. A 20 mm thick steel plate (150 mm
Table 1 shows the methods for manufacturing 5 types of interlocking wide × 300 mm long) is used above the brick prisms to distribute the
bricks. These methods have been used to manufacture interlocking brick applied compressive force from the 150 mm diameter loading platen.
wall. The compressive forced is applied using displacement control method at
Conventional clay brick: This is a typical brick manufactured by a constant loading rate of 0.03 mm/s. Two laser linear variable differ
Midland Brick, Western Australia. Fig. 3 illustrate the dimension of the ential transducers are used along the brick prisms to track the
bricks. The bricks are made by kiln fire of extruded raw mixture material compressive displacements of the prisms, which are then averaged as the
comprising of primarily clay. Fig. 4 shows the construction method. compressive displacement. The compressive load is measured by an in-
Bricks are bonded by 10 mm thick mortar. And for strengthening pur built load cell. Fig. 5 depicts a test set-up with a 2-block prism.
pose, reinforcement (rebar) can be added. Table 2 shows the materials Since the interlocking bricks are not bonded by mortar, there is no
used for the production of two types of conventional bricks. tensile strength provided for the constructed interlocking brick wall. To
provide tensile strength for masonry wall made of interlocking bricks,
different construction methods are provided including:
2.3. Experimental procedure for structural performance test
• Method 1 – total mortar-less construction, in which the masonry wall
Since brick wall is primarily to take the compressive load from dead is by dry-stacking interlocking bricks. The theoretical tensile strength
and live load, the compressive performance of interlocking bricks is is therefore 0 MPa. This will be suitable to load-bearing or non-load
firstly examined. Three brick prisms of one-block, two-block and four- bearing walls that are not subjected to bending or uplifting induced
block are prepared for the uniaxial compression tests. Three specimens tensile forces.
are tested for each type of prisms. Dry-stacking method is employed by • Method 2 – Post-tensioning the interlocking brick wall using post-
stacking the blocks on top of each other, and no mortar is used for the tensioning strands. To achieve the minimum design requirement of
compression test. The compression tests on the interlocking brick prisms 0.2 MPa tensile strength as per Australian Standard AS3700, ϕ12mm
are conducted following EN1052-1 [25,25,34]. 7-wire tendon is designed to be placed at 1000 mm spacing through
Universal Testing System (SHIMADZU-300) at Curtin University is the preserved holes in the bricks. The tendon will be tensioned using
hydraulic jacks after the wall is stacked in position.
• Method 3 – Reinforcing the wall with rebar and mortar infill. Φ6mm
reinforcement bars are casted into dry-stacked interlocking brick
wall at 300 mm spacing through the preserved
• holes in the bricks. Grout infill is then used in the holes to bond the
rebar with the bricks. A tensile strength of 0.646 MPa is achieved
which is calculated following AS3700.
• Method 4 – Similar to method 3 but rebars are at 600 mm spacing,
which achieves a tensile strength of 0.323 MPa in the interlocking
brick wall.
• Method 5–10 mm mortar bed joining interlocking bricks. Similar to
conventional clay bricks, a 10 mm thick mortar joint can be applied
to connect the interlocking bricks so as to achieve the required 0.2
MPa minimum tensile strength.
3
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
Table 1
Specifications of the interlocking brick wall system.
Method 1: Mortar-less (brick stacking for low-rise structures)
pcs m3 Kg
250/9 7/90 m3 560/9
Method 2: Mortar-less with post-tensioning tendon (ϕ12mm 7-wire tendon for minimum tensile strength 0.2 MPa)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of PT tendon Weight of PT tendon
pcs m3 Kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 1.0744e-5 0.0838
Method 3: Mortar-less with rebar and infill grout (ϕ6mm rebar @300 mm spacing)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of rebar Weight of rebar Volume of grout Weight of grout
pcs m3 Kg m3 kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 9.425e-5 0.7651 0.0023 4.6
Method 4: Mortar-less with rebar and infill grout (ϕ6mm rebar @600 mm spacing)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of rebar Weight of rebar Volume of grout Weight of grout
pcs m3 Kg m3 kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 4.712e-5 0.3675 0.0012 2.4
Method 5: blocks with 10 mm mortar joint
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of grout Weight of grout
Pcs m3 Kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 0.005 10
4
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
Table 2
Specifications of conventional brick wall systems.
Method 1: block with 10 mm mortar joints
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of grout Weight of grout
Pcs m3 kg m3 kg
50/3 1/20 40 0.0023 4.6
Method 2: block with 10 mm mortar and rebar (ϕ6mm rebar @600 mm spacing)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of rebar Weight of rebar Volume of grout Weight of grout
Pcs m3 Kg m3 Kg m3 kg
50/3 1/20 40 4.712e-5 0.3675 0.0023 4.6
Table 3
Life cycle inventory of interlocking (IL) bricks and conventional bricks (CB).
Mining to material Unit IL 1 IL 2 IL 3 IL 4 IL5 CB 1 CB 2
Min tensile strength MPa/m3 0 0.2 0.646 0.323 0.2 0.2 0.723
Weight of brick kg/m3 415 415 415 415 415 444 444
PT tendon kg/m3 0 0.0838 0 0 0 0 0
Rebar kg/m3 0 0 0.7651 0.3675 0 0 0.3675
Infill grout kg/m3 0 0 4.6 2.4 10 4.6 4.6
Total weight kg/m3 415 415 420 418 425 449 449
Transportation to site tkm 4356 4356 4404 4381 4450 12043 12046
the databases of brick, PT tendon, rebar, infill grout are not directly • Emission factors of 25 kg of Bentonite, 250 kg of cement and 910 m3
available in the software, the emission databases of these inputs were of water and 483 kWh of electricity required to make 1185 kg of in
created to represent the local conditions of Western Australia. grout was considered for developing the database of infill grout.
• The unit of transportation was considered as tonne-kilometres (or The inputs of brickworks were linked to the corresponding emission
tkm) travelled in order to determine the emissions associated with factors in the LCA software to calculate 14 environmental impacts of
transportation. these bricks. All these environmental impacts cannot be estimated using
• The emission factor of cement that accounts for 10% of the total an Australian impact method. The six impacts, including photochemical
weight of interlocking brick and the emissions associated with the smog, ozone depletion, ionising radiation, respiratory inorganics, and
generation of electricity in Western Australia for producing the 1 kg Abiotic resource depletion which cannot be calculated using an
brick in interlocking brick making machine were used to develop an Australian impact method were calculated using Recipe, Traci and CML
emission factor database for interlocking bricks. methods available in the software. Consideration of these methods was
• The emission factor for wire drawn steel was considered for devel also deemed appropriate for Australia by Bengtsson and Howard [36]
oping the emission factor database for PT tendon. Emission factor of and Renouf et al. [38]. The input values in the LCI of each brickwork
steel rebar, blast furnace and electric arc furnace route at plant was (Table 3) were multiplied by the corresponding emission factors to es
considered for rebar. timate the impacts listed in Table 4.
After ELCA analysis, an economic analysis was carried out to
5
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
Table 4
Impact assessment methods to estimate the environmental impacts.
Impact Assessment Methods Environmental Impacts Units
Australian indicator set v2.01 [39] Land use and ecological diversity Ha a
Eutrophication kg PO3−
4 e
Water depletion m3 H2O
Global warming t CO2 e
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB e
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB e
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB e
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB e
CML 2 baseline 2001 [40] Abiotic depletion kg Sb e
ReCiPe Midpoint (E) V1.12/Europe Recipe E [41] Acidification kg SO2 e
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 e
Photochemical smog kg NMVOC
Ionising radiation kg U235 e
TRACI v2.1 [42] Respiratory inorganics kg PM2.5 e
determine the unit cost for the brickworks. The same functional unit that obtained from ABS [49] and ABS [50], were used to determine the GDP
was used for ELCA was considered in the economic assessment (i.e. per inhabitant.
AUD/MPa) to maintain the consistency of economic and environmental This normalised cost (NC) is expressed as the number of Australian
assessments. Economic analysis used the same inputs used in ELCA (i.e. inhabitants who are generating the same amount of annual GDP (Eq.
Table 1) but labour data was added to these inputs to estimate life cycle (3)) [33].
cost. The cost of this transport (i.e. 0.09/tkm for truck) was sourced from
LCCtotal
the Department of Infrastructural and Regional Development [43]. This NC = [inhabitants] (3)
GDP
price was inflated using relevant year inflation rates. The cost of inter
locking and conventional bricks were obtained from Curtin University The initial eco-efficiency portfolio positions (PPe and PPc) of the
(according to the material cost, and technician labour cost). and brickworks “b” were calculated by determining the ratio of the nor
Midland Bricks, Western Australia. The unit cost of rebar and PT Tendon malised cost/environmental impact values and the average normalised
are AUD 1.6/kg [44] and AUD 0.8/kg [45], respectively. The labour cost cost/impact values of brickworks “j” (Eqs. (4) and (5)) [33].
in terms of laying bricks for one m2 of brick wall was obtained from EIb
Ref. [46], which was inflated to 2020 price (i.e. AUD60/m2) using the PPe,b = (4)
(EI)/j
inflation rates from Ref. [47]. The labour cost of interlocking bricks is
70% less than that for conventional bricks [48]. NCb
Once environmental impacts and cost are determined for each PPc,b = (5)
(NC)/j
brickwork, these values are normalised and weighted (using environ
mental impact weighting factors) to ascertain a single score for overall These portfolio positions calculated were adjusted using the envi
environmental performance of each of brickwork, while the cost of ronment to cost relevance factor (Re,c ) (Eq. (6)) in order to determine as
brickwork is normalised to the recent Australian Gross Domestic Product to whether cost is more effective (Re,c < 1) for determining eco-efficient
(GDP). The normalised cost and environmental impact values of brick bricks or vice-versa. This shows how the changes in the environmental
works are then used to determine the ‘eco-efficiency portfolios’. and economic performance of one type of brick could potentially affect
Following steps are required to conduct an eco-efficiency portfolio the same performance of another type of brick.
analysis. ∑
( EI)/j
Normalisation and weighting of environmental impacts: For the Re,c = ∑ (6)
( NC)/j
brickworks, the normalised values (NVi) of each environmental impact
“ei” is determined by dividing life cycle environmental impact (LCEIi) by This relevance factor was used to calculate the final portfolio
the gross domestic environmental impact (GDEIi) in Table 3 (Eq. (1))
[26]. Table 5
Normalisation factors of the environmental impacts [36].
LCEIei
NVi = [inhabitants] (1) Environmental Impact Gross Domestic Environmental Impact (per Weights
GDEIei
inhabitant per year)
The normalisation factor of each impact is represented in terms of the Land use and ecological 26 Ha a 20.90%
same impact caused by an Australian inhabitant per year. (Table 5). diversity
These normalised values were aggregated into a single environ Eutrophication 19 kg PO3−
4 e 2.90%
mental score using the relative weight (W) of each impact. These Ws are Water depletion 930 m3 H2O 6.20%
Global warming potential 28,690 t CO2 e 19.50%
specifically developed for Australia [36] (Table 5). The normalised
Photochemical smog 75 kg NMVOC 2.80%
environmental impacts (EI) were calculated using Eq. (2) [33]. Human toxicity 3216 kg 1,4-DB e 2.70%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 88 kg 1,4-DB e 10.30%
∑
14
Freshwater ecotoxicity 172 kg 1,4-DB e 6.90%
EI = NEei × Wei [inhabitants] (2)
Marine ecotoxicity 12,117,106 kg 1,4-DB e 7.70%
i=1
Ionising radiation 1306 kg U235 e 1.90%
Normalisation of costs: The LCCtotal of brickworks were normalised Abiotic depletion 300 kg Sb e 8.20%
using the recent Australian gross domestic product (GDP). The values of Ozone depletion 0.002 kg CFC-11 e 3.90%
Acidification 123 kg SO2 e 3.10%
GDP (AUD1,815,372 million) and the total population (25.2 million), Respiratory inorganics 45 kg PM2.5 e 3.00%
6
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
7
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
8
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
Fig. 9. Hotspot analysis (thick red lines) - Breakdown of global warming impacts and water use in terms of inputs for Interlocking brick 5 and conventional brick 2.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Table 8
Costs of interlocking and conventional bricks in terms of Australian Dollar (AUD).
IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 CB1 CB2
9
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
References
10
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
[23] E.B. Murray, Dry Stacked Surface Bonded Masonry-Structural Testing and [41] M. Goedkoop, M. Oele, J. Leijting, T. Ponsioen, E. Meijer, Introduction to LCA with
Evaluation, 2007. SimaPro. PRé Sustainability, Stationsplein, vol. 121, LE Amersfoort, Netherlands,
[24] K.B. Anand, K. Ramamurthy, Development and performance evaluation of 2013, p. 3818.
interlocking-block masonry, J. Architect. Eng. 6 (2) (2000) 45–51. [42] J. Bare, D. Young, M. Hopton, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
[25] W.K. Biswas, Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of a civil works and Other Environmental Impacts, US Environmental Protection Agency, USA,
program in a residential estate of Western Australia, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 3 2012.
(2014) 179–186. [43] DIRD (Department of Infrastructural and Regional Development), Fright rates in
[26] D.M. de Souza, M. Lafontaine, F. Charron-Doucet, B. Chappert, K. Kicak, F. Duarte, Australia, bureau of infrastructure, transport and regional economics (BITRE) GPO
L. Lima, Comparative life cycle assessment of ceramic brick, concrete brick and box 501, Canberra ACT 2601, Australi, https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2017/fi
cast-in-place reinforced concrete exterior walls, J. Clean. Prod. 137 (2016) 70–82. les/is_090.pdf, 2017.
[27] D.A. Ramos Huarachi, D.A. Gonçalves, A. Franciscoa, M Canteria Helene, [44] Capstone Steel. https://capstonesteel.en.made-in-china.com/product/DBuEWnHd
GCassiano MoroPiekarskia, Life cycle assessment of traditional and alternative blpy/China-12-7mm-Prestressed-Concrete-Steel-Strand-Prestressing-Steel-Strand-P
bricks: a review, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 80 (2020), 106335. rice.html.
[28] W.K. Harn, K. Susmita, An attributional and consequential life cycle assessment of [45] Alibaba. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/6mm-8mm-10mm-12mm-1
substituting concrete with bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 81 (15 October) (2014) 190–200. 6mm-20mm_60771058624.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.1.41e33287Ky
[29] S. Kumar, S. Parvathi, R. Rudramoorthy, Impact categories through life cycle eAIo&s=p.
assessment of coal-fired brick, Procedia Technol. 24 (2016) 531–537. [46] Homeone https://forum.homeone.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=57842#:~:
[30] M. Dabaieh, J. Heinonen, D. El-Mahdy, D.M. Hassan, A comparative study of life text=Using the standard size brick,m2 in laying a wall.
cycle carbon emissions and embodiedenergy between sun-dried bricks andfired [47] Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271845/inflation-rate-in-australia/.
clay bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 275 (2020), 122998. [48] E.N. Jackson, Z. Mustapha, A.J. Aburam, J.H. Quayson, Comparative cost analysis
[31] A. Mohajerani, A. Ukwatta, S. Setunge, Fired-clay bricks incorporating biosolids: between interlocking bricks and sandcrete blocks for residential buildings in
comparative life-cycle assessment, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (7) (2018), 04018125. Ghana, MOJ Civil Eng 4 (4) (2018) 206–211.
[32] F. Shaikh, H. Anwar, W. Biswas, Sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete [49] ABS Australian National, Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product
beam mixes containing recycled aggregates and industrial by-products, J. Green 2020, 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mf/1345.0.
Build. 15 (3) (2020) 95–119. [50] ABS Australian Demographic Statistics, 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%
[33] H. Jayawardane, I. Davies, G. Leadbeater, M. John, W.K. Biswas, Techno-eco- [email protected]/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/CA1999BAEAA1A86ACA25765100098A
efficiency” performance of 3D printed impellers: an application of life cycle 47.
assessment, Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1504/ [51] A. Arceo, W.K. Biswas, M. John, Eco-efficiency improvement of Western Australian
IJSM.2020.10036029. remote area power supply, J. Clean. Prod. 230 (2019) 820–834.
[34] C. EN, 1052-1: Methods of Test for Masonry, Part 1: Determination of Compressive [52] M. Martínez, et al., Assessing the compressive behavior of dry-stacked concrete
Strength, British Standards Institution, London, 1999. masonry with experimentally informed numerical models, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (7)
[35] ISO, ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental Management – Life-Cycle Assessment – (2018), 04018080.
Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization, [53] X. Zhang, et al., Dynamic compressive material properties of clay bricks at different
Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. strain rates, Construct. Build. Mater. 192 (2018) 754–767.
[36] J. Bengtsson, N. Howard, A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in [54] K. Ramamurthy, E. Kunhanandan Nambiar, Accelerated masonry construction
Australia. Part 1, classification and characterisation, Australia, 2010. review and future prospects, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 6 (1) (2004) 1–9.
[37] PRé Consultants, Simapro Version 8.4, PRé Consultants, The Netherlands, 2018. [55] T. Shi, et al., Experimental and numerical investigation on the compressive
[38] M.A. Renouf, T. Grant, M. Sevenster, J. Logie, B. Ridoutt, F. Ximenes, J. Bentgtsson, properties of interlocking blocks, Eng. Struct. 228 (2021), 111561.
A. Cowie, J. Lane, Best Practice Guide for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in [56] AS4455.1, Masonry Units, Pavers, Flags and Segmental Retaining Wall Units
Australia, Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society, Australia, 2015. Masonry Units 2020: Standards Australia.
[39] Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd, Australasian Unit Process LCI Library and Methods, [57] Australian Standard AS3700, Masonry Structures, 2018.
2015. Version 2015_02_06, http://www.lifecycles.com.au/#!australasian-databa [58] N.S.A. Asman, et al., Life cycle assessment of interlocking compressed earth brick
se/cbm5. Accessed 15 Sept. 2020. and conventional fired clay brick for residential house, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. (2020)
[40] J. Guinee, Handbook on life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO 1529, 042012.
standards, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7 (2001) 311–313.
11