A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis based assessment of walling materials in India

Abstract Building construction in India is estimated to grow at a rate of 6.6% per year between 2005 and 2030 resulting in a continuous increase in demand for building materials. Fired clay bricks are the most widely-used walling materials in the country. However, over the past few decades, the development of other materials such as concrete blocks, fly ash bricks, stabilized mud blocks, etc., has created viable alternatives to bricks. There is limited understanding of the broader environmental consequences of these building materials addressing natural resource depletion, energy, environment and socio-economic impacts. The main objective of this paper is to present a comprehensive assessment of materials used for wall construction by comparing one square meter of constructed wall for each of the materials. A composite Environmental Index was developed by weighting and aggregating normalized numerical scores of several parameters making use of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework. The Environmental Index was then ranked to determine walling systems that are best suited in the context of India. Our analysis shows that wall assemblies that use non-fired products as masonry units are ranked higher compared to fired masonry unit wall assemblies. Clay fired masonry wall assemblies exhibit poorer environmental performance compared to non-fired masonry wall assemblies. When a more efficient form of construction such as the Rat-trap bond wall construction is considered, the environmental performance of clay fired brick walls is significantly improved.

[1]  B. V. Venkatarama Reddy,et al.  Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies , 2003 .

[2]  Michiya Suzuki,et al.  Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of office buildings in Japan , 1998 .

[3]  Gregory A. Keoleian,et al.  Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications , 2003 .

[4]  Sharda Dhadse,et al.  Fly ash characterization, utilization and Government initiatives in India Œ A review , 2008 .

[5]  M. M. Vijayalakshmi,et al.  Thermal Behaviour of Building Wall Elements , 2006 .

[6]  Arnold Janssens,et al.  Exergetic life-cycle assessment (ELCA) for resource consumption evaluation in the built environment , 2009 .

[7]  G. Keoleian,et al.  Life‐Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for Improving a Single‐Family House , 2000 .

[8]  A. Singh,et al.  Impact of brick kilns on land use/landcover changes around Aligarh city, India , 2005 .

[9]  A. P Arena,et al.  Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in Mendoza—Argentina , 2003 .

[10]  Samuel Niza,et al.  The material basis of the global economy Worldwide patterns of natural resource extraction and their implications for sustainable resource use policies , 2007 .

[11]  Bjørn Berge,et al.  The Ecology of Building Materials , 2000 .

[12]  S. Gheewala,et al.  Life cycle energy of single landed houses in Indonesia , 2008 .

[13]  Rohinton Emmanuel,et al.  Estimating the environmental suitability of wall materials: preliminary results from Sri Lanka , 2004 .

[14]  Andrew H. Buchanan,et al.  Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building construction , 1994 .

[15]  B. V. Venkatarama Reddy,et al.  Sustainable building technologies , 2004 .

[16]  Tülay Esin,et al.  A study regarding the environmental impact analysis of the building materials production process (in Turkey) , 2007 .

[17]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Life cycle energy assessment of a typical office building in Thailand , 2009 .

[18]  Giovanni Andrea Blengini,et al.  The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings , 2010 .

[19]  Dominique Derome,et al.  Using life cycle assessment to derive an environmental index for light-frame wood wall assemblies , 2010 .