Mid-Term Presentation I

Semester II (2015-2016)

Comparative Assessment of Sustainability of

Various Walling Materials
Presented By
Chenna Vivek Kumar
2014CET2057

Guided By
Dr. Shashank Bishnoi
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Delhi

Indian Brick Industry:

2. 2nd largest brick producer after China
= 25000

3. Annual brick production growth: 5-10%

4. 1,40,000 brick-making enterprises

5. 250 billion bricks/year (clay bricks)
6. a) Highly resource intensive
b) Energy intensive
Obsolete traditional
c) Pollutingproduction
industry:
technologies
7. Coal/biomass consumption=35-40 MT
8. CO2 Emissions=66 MT
9. Clay consumption=500 million m3
10.Total employment(million) =9-10

200 Bricks/
Person/Year

250 Billion
Bricks
= 3

Brick technology
scale of production
Availability of raw material
Availability of fuel
Demand
Market conditions
2
Enforcement of law

Correspondi
ng
Surface area

1. Representing 10% of global production

Equivalent
size

New Yorks
Empire state building

Constitute 1 % of
Global CO2 Emissions

Objectives:

1. To study the implications of production of various types of bricks on resources and

emissions in India.
2. Identify key issues and changes, which the Indian brick industry may encounter over
the long-term.

Methodology:
1. To understand the overview of the Indian brick industry including:

Overvie
w
Traditional Brick
Production
Process

Geographical
Distribution

Capacity

Nature of
Resource Use

2. Assessing different newer walling materials based on following factors:

Resource
Consumption

Embodied
Energy

Productivity/
Efficiency

CO2
Emissions

Costs

3. Estimation of resource savings associated with different walling materials against traditional bricks.
4. Comparing the emissions from different alternate walling materials.

Case Studies
AAC PLANT
Greater
Noida,
UP

Jhajjar,
Haryana

FAL-G PLANT
Greater
Noida,
UP

Bhopal,
MP

FCBTK
Ghaziab
ad, UP

2x
Budaun
Dist., UP

Bareilly,
UP

CONCRETE
HOLLOW &
SOLID
BLOCKS
PLANT

CONCRETE
WALL
(UNIMAX
FORWORK)

Ghaziab
ad, UP

Greater
Noida,
UP

Fixed Chimney Bull Trench

Kiln(FCBTK):
Geographical
Distribution

PER ANNUM CONTRIBUTION TO

TOTAL BRICK PRODUCTION
INDIA

74 %
6

185 billion
bricks/year

Methodology:

Fuels & Energy:

COMMONLY USED FUELS

Coal
Most commonly used

SPECIFIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Energy consumed for firing 1 kg of fired brick

FCBTK, being a continuous

kiln and having good heat
recovery features, is
significantly more efficient
compared to intermittent kilns
but is less efficient compared
to some of the other
continuous kilns like VSBK
and Zigzag.

Average: 1.30 MJ/kg of fired bricks

(Range: 1.1 1.46 MJ/kg of fired brick)
MJ/kg of fired brick

Biomass
Eg. sawdust, firewood,
biomass briquettes

MAIN CAUSES FOR HEAT LOSS

Incomplete combustion of coal

Agricultural residue
Eg. mustard stalk, rice
husk

Industrial waste/by-products
Eg. pet-coke, used rubber tyres

Heat losses from the kiln surface

Note: Measured at firing

temperature of
900-11000C

Financial Performance:
Capital cost of kiln technology:
For annual production capacity of 3 8 million
bricks, excluding land and working capital cost

Capital Cost Breakdown

Construction Material

84%

Labour

15%

Equipment

1%

FCBTK

35 Lakhs 55
Lakhs
Production
capacity

20,000-50,000

Brick Size

230 mm x 115 mm x 75
mm

No. of
Operators
Required
Simple
Payback
period

30-40
0.4-1.1 Years
9

Product Quality:

As per the local market perception

Usually only solid bricks and to some extent

hollow bricks are fired in FCBTKs, however, other
products can also be fired in combination with the
solid bricks.
GOOD BRICK
INFERIOR BRICK
under-fired and over- burnt

Non-uniform temperature across the

cross-section
of FCBTK results in under-fired bricks at
the side walls and top corners and hence
differences in the product quality.

10

Production
Billion Bricks/Year

No. of Enterprises

DDK 300

0.24
DDK

CLAMPS

100000

CLAMPS

50

TUNNEL KILN TECHNOLOGY

700

HOFFMAN KILN TECHNOLOGY

10.5
TUNNEL KILN TECHNOLOGY

500

HOFFMAN KILN TECHNOLOGY 2

VSBK 110
HIGH/INDUCED DRAUGHT ZIGZAG FIRING KILN

0.3
VSBK

2000

10
HIGH/INDUCED DRAUGHT ZIGZAG FIRING KILN

NATURAL DRAUGHT ZIGZAG FIRING KILN 50

FCBTK

35000
0

FCBTK

15000
45000
75000
30000
60000
90000

Comparison of no. of enterprises of various kilns in India

SPECIFIC ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
MJ/kg of fired brick

0.25
NATURAL DRAUGHT ZIGZAG FIRING KILN

4
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0

Comparison of Range of SEC of various kilns

185
0

25 50 75 100125150175200

Comparison of Annual production of various kilns

Dat a
not available

RANGE OF CO2 EMMISIONS

g/kg of fired brick

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Dat a
not
available

Comparison of Range
of CO2 Emissions of various kilns
11

Results:
1. The emissions mentioned below are throughout the assumed service life of building i.e., 50 years.

Type of
Plant

Location

Embodied Production
Energy
cost

Emissions

Operational
Raw
Productivity material Heating &
Index Cooling loads

LCC/m2 of
wall area

AAC1

Greater Noida

1217.50

1770.29

316.52

Personhours/m3
3.70

AAC2

Jhajjar

1256.22

2312.40

348.14

3.09

26.36

464.77

25,624

FAL-G2

Greater Noida

3151.73

1864.84

430.60

8.78

97.71

575.03

31,544

FAL-G2

Bhopal

2111.46

2611.85

430.58

7.02

121.05

575.03

31,645

FCBTK1

BUDAUN

4405.12

2387.52

447.28

4.61

400.00

596.92

32,775

FCBTK2

BUDAUN

4404.87

2333.06

447.28

4.70

400.00

596.92

32,781

FCBTK3

BAREILLY

4405.63

2026.24

3.63

400.00

596.92

32,770

1322.27

2966.86

447.285
505.16

0.17

278.28

674.73

36,990

UNITS

Concrete Wall Greater Noida

(MJ/m3)

Rs/m3

(tonne CO2/m3)

Kwh/m2 of
floor area

Rs/-

24.39

422.55

23,283

12

Embodied Energy(MJ/m3)
5000.00
4500.00
4000.00
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00

Emissions (Tonne CO2/m3)

550.00
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00

AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

FAL-G2

FCBTK1

FCBTK2

FCBTK3

Concrete

300.00

AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

Production & Selling cost Rs/m3

10.00

3000.00

8.00

2500.00

6.00

2000.00

4.00

1500.00

2.00
AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

FAL-G2

Production cost/m3

FCBTK1

FCBTK2

FCBTK3

Concrete

0.00

AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

FAL-G2

Selling Cost/m3

Raw material Index

450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00

13
AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

FAL-G2

FCBTK1

FCBTK2

FCBTK1

FCBTK2

FCBTK3

Concrete

FCBTK2

FCBTK3

Concrete

Person-hours/m3

3500.00

1000.00

FAL-G2

FCBTK3

Concrete

FCBTK1

Life Cycle Cost Analysis:

LCC /m2 of wall area

38,000

Financial Criteria:
1.

Discount Rate (i)= 7% (Source: World bank data for India)

36,000
34,000
32,000
30,000
28,000

2.
3.

Indian Electricity price escalation (r) = 4%

26,000

(Source: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis)

24,000

Service life of building N = 50 years

20,000

22,000
AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

FAL-G2

FCBTK1

FCBTK2

FCBTK3

Concrete

Annual Average Loads:

Annual Loads(Kwh/m2/year)
900.00
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
AAC1

AAC2

FaL-G 1,2

Fired Brick 1,2,3

Concrete1

Average Operational loads(Kwh/m2/year)

700.00
650.00
600.00
550.00
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
AAC1

AAC2

FAL-G2

FAL-G2

FCBTK1

FCBTK2

FCBTK3

Concrete

It should be noted that these are heating and

cooling loads, not energy loads.
These values represent the amount of heating
or cooling required, not the energy a HVAC
system would actually consume to generate
the required
load.
15

Ranking of Walling Materials based on

AHP:
BASE MATRIX (Weightage)

Factors
Raw Material Index

RMI
1.0

Operational loads
1.0

Emissions
2.0

Embodied Energy
3.0

As per investors
Based on above factors + B/C ratios

Based on above factors:

Person-hours/m3
4.0

Production cost/m3
5.0

As per occupant of building

LCC Analysis

Walling Material Type

Ranking

Walling Material Type

Ranking

Walling Material Type

Ranking

AAC 1
AAC 2
FALG 1
FALG 2
FCBTK 1
FCBTK 2
FCBTK 3
CONCRETE Wall

1
2
5
4
6
7
8
3

AAC 1
AAC 2
FALG 1
FALG 2
FCBTK 1
FCBTK 2
FCBTK 3
CONCRETE Wall

1
2
3
5
6
7
8
4

AAC 1
AAC 2
FALG 1
FALG 2
FCBTK 1
FCBTK 2
FCBTK 3
CONCRETE Wall

1
2
8
6
4
5
3
7

16

Summary As Of Now:
1. A detailed analysis of 8 walling material production facilities has been done.
2. Comparative assessment based on Analytical Hierarchical Process has been
done.
3. Life cycle cost analysis based on operational loads obtained from EcoTect
software of sample room (5m x 3m x 3m) has been done.

17

In my opinion, the solution to this problem begins with awareness of the importance of operational energy
consumption to environmental damage, resource depletion, habitat destruction, and hence, to green buildings
which account for sustainability.
Solutions will take many forms, but all will involve prediction of energy consumption, and confirmation that
the designed low-energy buildings are actually built and operated as one.
Of all the factors I considered for assessing the sustainability of walling materials which include Raw Material
Index, Embodied energy, CO2 Emissions, Productivity/Efficiency, Cost factors and Operational Heating & Cooling
loads, the later one has most detrimental effect on energy consumption which can in turn be measured in terms of
environmental damage, such as carbon emissions, resource depletion, or habitat destruction.
It has even been suggested (Lstiburek, 2008) that 80% of a green architect's concern should be directed towards
reducing energy consumption during operation.

18

Future Work:

19

Questions:

Thank you:
20