Abstract: In today's construction industry, the imperative to merge quality with environmental responsibility has prompted a profound paradigm shift towards eco-friendly construction materials. This study conducts a comprehensive examination of the environmental impacts associated with traditional bricks and Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) blocks, with a specific focus on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). While traditional bricks, steeped in historical significance, offer durability and high thermal mass, their kilning process raises significant environmental concerns due to high energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, AAC, derived from waste materials such as fly ash, presents a viable alternative with a substantially reduced environmental footprint. Utilizing SimaPro software and the CML 2 method, this study meticulously evaluates the environmental burdens of AAC blocks and bricks. Findings reveal that AAC blocks exhibit higher environmental impacts per unit mass compared to traditional bricks. However, due to their lower density, fewer AAC blocks are required in construction, resulting in an overall reduced environmental impact throughout the lifecycle. Major contributors to environmental burdens include energy consumption, emissions, and resource extraction. Key considerations for environmentally friendly decision-making encompass ozone layer depletion, global warming, and acidification. Although AAC blocks demonstrate higher global warming potential per kilogram, their lower density mitigates overall environmental harm compared to traditional bricks. Additionally, factors such as usability, economy, and accessibility play pivotal roles in material selection, influencing the overall sustainability of construction projects. In conclusion, AAC blocks present promising prospects for sustainable construction practices. Their utilization offers a pathway to reconcile the construction industry's quest for quality with a steadfast commitment to environmental sustainability. By leveraging LCA methodologies, this study provides valuable insights into the comparative environmental impacts of AAC blocks and traditional bricks, contributing to informed decision-making in the construction sector. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of considering not only the environmental impact but also factors like usability and economy in material selection processes. This holistic approach is crucial for fostering a greener and more sustainable construction industry, aligned with global initiatives to address climate change and reduce ecological footprints.

Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Sustainability, Construction materials, Simapro

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1.  V. Saif, A. Rastogi and V. Paul, “Debt Restructuring of Distressed Indian Construction Projects,” International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2802-2810, 2020.
2. W. M. C. Michael. W. Tait, “A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of three concrete mix designs,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, no. 21, pp. 847-860, 2016.
3. Rahupathy, “IGBC Advancing Green Buildings Movement in India Through Green Congress,” 2004.
4. S. Das, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, “Applicability of Risk Assessment Tools and Techniques for a Construction Project,” Journal of Research in Infrastructure Designing, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1-18, 2021.
5.  K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “A Critical Review of Risk Factors and Reliability Assessment Issues of Fire and Life Safety in Buildings,” NICMAR JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, vol. XXXVII, no. III, pp. 23-33, 2022.
6.  K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “Risk and Reliability Assessment of Smoke Control Systems in the Buildings,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), vol. 10, no. X, pp. 576-581, 2022.
7.  V. Paul and K. Kumar, Risk and reliability assessment of fire and life safety in buildings- a case of healthcare building, New Delhi, India: FIREINDIA, 2021.
8.  V. K. Paul, C. Basu, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, “Status of Fire Safety in Healthcare Facilities in India,” International Journal of Architecture and Infrastructure Planning; https://architecture.journalspub.info/index.php?journal=JAIP&page=index, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2022.
9.  K. Kumar, D. C. Basu, A. Rastogi and V. K. Paul, “Retrofitting the existing requirements for an institutional building Framework for Enhancing the Functionality,” IJSDR, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 362- 368, 2020.
10.  K. Kumar, C. Basu and V. K. Paul, “Utilization of Floats in Project Schedule Recovery- A Pilot Schedule Demonstration,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CREATIVE RESEARCH THOUGHTS, pp. 3496 - 3502, 2020.
11. Sharma and K. Kumar, “A Review of Barrier-Free Design in Built Environment,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Innovative Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33-37, 2022.
12.  R. Roy, K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “Role of Facility Management in Fire and Life Safety in Hospitals,” International Journal of Architectural Design and Planning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8-11, 2023.
13. V. K. Paul, C. Basu, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, Essentials of Building Life and Fire Safety, First ed., India: COPAL Publishing, 2021.
14. V. K. Paul, C. Basu, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, “Status of Fire Safety in Healthcare Facilities in India,” International Journal of Architecture and Infrastructure Planning; https://architecture.journalspub.info/index.php?journal=JAIP&page=index, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2022.
15. K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “Significance of Fire Protection System Reliability for Structure Fire Safety,” STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST, no. October-December, pp. 42-25, 2023.

Abstract: In today's construction industry, the imperative to merge quality with environmental responsibility has prompted a profound paradigm shift towards eco-friendly construction materials. This study conducts a comprehensive examination of the environmental impacts associated with traditional bricks and Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) blocks, with a specific focus on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). While traditional bricks, steeped in historical significance, offer durability and high thermal mass, their kilning process raises significant environmental concerns due to high energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, AAC, derived from waste materials such as fly ash, presents a viable alternative with a substantially reduced environmental footprint. Utilizing SimaPro software and the CML 2 method, this study meticulously evaluates the environmental burdens of AAC blocks and bricks. Findings reveal that AAC blocks exhibit higher environmental impacts per unit mass compared to traditional bricks. However, due to their lower density, fewer AAC blocks are required in construction, resulting in an overall reduced environmental impact throughout the lifecycle. Major contributors to environmental burdens include energy consumption, emissions, and resource extraction. Key considerations for environmentally friendly decision-making encompass ozone layer depletion, global warming, and acidification. Although AAC blocks demonstrate higher global warming potential per kilogram, their lower density mitigates overall environmental harm compared to traditional bricks. Additionally, factors such as usability, economy, and accessibility play pivotal roles in material selection, influencing the overall sustainability of construction projects. In conclusion, AAC blocks present promising prospects for sustainable construction practices. Their utilization offers a pathway to reconcile the construction industry's quest for quality with a steadfast commitment to environmental sustainability. By leveraging LCA methodologies, this study provides valuable insights into the comparative environmental impacts of AAC blocks and traditional bricks, contributing to informed decision-making in the construction sector. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of considering not only the environmental impact but also factors like usability and economy in material selection processes. This holistic approach is crucial for fostering a greener and more sustainable construction industry, aligned with global initiatives to address climate change and reduce ecological footprints.

Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Sustainability, Construction materials, Simapro

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1.  V. Saif, A. Rastogi and V. Paul, “Debt Restructuring of Distressed Indian Construction Projects,” International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2802-2810, 2020.
2. W. M. C. Michael. W. Tait, “A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of three concrete mix designs,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, no. 21, pp. 847-860, 2016.
3. Rahupathy, “IGBC Advancing Green Buildings Movement in India Through Green Congress,” 2004.
4. S. Das, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, “Applicability of Risk Assessment Tools and Techniques for a Construction Project,” Journal of Research in Infrastructure Designing, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1-18, 2021.
5.  K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “A Critical Review of Risk Factors and Reliability Assessment Issues of Fire and Life Safety in Buildings,” NICMAR JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, vol. XXXVII, no. III, pp. 23-33, 2022.
6.  K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “Risk and Reliability Assessment of Smoke Control Systems in the Buildings,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), vol. 10, no. X, pp. 576-581, 2022.
7.  V. Paul and K. Kumar, Risk and reliability assessment of fire and life safety in buildings- a case of healthcare building, New Delhi, India: FIREINDIA, 2021.
8.  V. K. Paul, C. Basu, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, “Status of Fire Safety in Healthcare Facilities in India,” International Journal of Architecture and Infrastructure Planning; https://architecture.journalspub.info/index.php?journal=JAIP&page=index, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2022.
9.  K. Kumar, D. C. Basu, A. Rastogi and V. K. Paul, “Retrofitting the existing requirements for an institutional building Framework for Enhancing the Functionality,” IJSDR, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 362- 368, 2020.
10.  K. Kumar, C. Basu and V. K. Paul, “Utilization of Floats in Project Schedule Recovery- A Pilot Schedule Demonstration,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CREATIVE RESEARCH THOUGHTS, pp. 3496 - 3502, 2020.
11. Sharma and K. Kumar, “A Review of Barrier-Free Design in Built Environment,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Innovative Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33-37, 2022.
12.  R. Roy, K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “Role of Facility Management in Fire and Life Safety in Hospitals,” International Journal of Architectural Design and Planning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8-11, 2023.
13. V. K. Paul, C. Basu, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, Essentials of Building Life and Fire Safety, First ed., India: COPAL Publishing, 2021.
14. V. K. Paul, C. Basu, A. Rastogi and K. Kumar, “Status of Fire Safety in Healthcare Facilities in India,” International Journal of Architecture and Infrastructure Planning; https://architecture.journalspub.info/index.php?journal=JAIP&page=index, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2022.
15. K. Kumar and V. K. Paul, “Significance of Fire Protection System Reliability for Structure Fire Safety,” STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST, no. October-December, pp. 42-25, 2023.