2 ENERGY ANALYSIS FOR RESOURCE EFFICIENT BRICKS (REB)

2.1 Quantifying Energy savings

2.1.1 Objectives
 To quantify the operational energy performance of Resource efficient bricks using
building simulations.
 To draw a comparative energy performance of buildings between resource efficient
bricks and other conventional building materials such as normal bricks, perforated
bricks, fly ash bricks and hollow concrete blocks.

2.1.2 Assumptions
 A single floor, hypothetical building model is considered for simulations, as a generic
test case irrespective of the type and function of the building.
 All the thermal properties of walling materials, considered in the simulations are
derived from the Design builder software. The simulation considers only assembly U
– values irrespective of perforations in the hollow blocks. Hence, the U – value (1.1
W/m2K) of REB is referred directly from Wienerberger. Other materials U – values
are as per defined (default values) in Design builder software.
 The outputs from the simulations for varying walling materials are also based on the
net assembly U – value and hence percentage of perforations cannot be modelled.
 The simulations are done only to analyse the energy performance in varying wall
materials hence the floor and roof properties remains same for all the simulation
cases.
 REB and normal bricks considered for simulations do not include plaster; this is
mainly intended to understand its level of efficiency with exposed masonry when
compared to other walling materials like concrete blocks that necessarily needs to be
plastered.
 All the simulations and results are analyzed annually. However, monthly and hourly
energy consumption also follows the same pattern as annual simulations.

2.1.3 Methodology
A simulation model with floor area of 100 m² with 1:1 Square aspect ratio is analysed for
different climatic zones that is Bangalore for moderate, Delhi for composite, Ahmedabad for
Hot-dry and Chennai for warm and humid climates are analysed for walling materials such
as:

a) Normal bricks
b) Perforated bricks
c) Fly ash bricks
d) Hollow concrete blocks
e) Resource efficient bricks.

This model is analysed for 30% window wall ratios as per (figure1). U – values of the walling
assembly are as per table 2.

5
A base model is configured with constant construction roof and floor material. The wall
materials are varied and results for those are analyzed. Other systems like HVAC, lighting
and occupancy schedules remain same for all the models.

Table 1: Roof and floor properties

Constant Roof and Floor properties

Layers Thickness
Ceramic / porcelain 0.01 m
Roof screed 0.025 m
Concrete roofing slab 0.15 m
Plaster 0.012 m

Thermal properties
Conductivity (W/m-K) 1.300
Specific heat (J/kg-K) 840
Density (kg/m3) 2300

U – valuie (W/m2-K) 0.860

Figure 1: Flow chart showing Simulation methodology.

Note: As mentioned earlier, the percentage of perforations for simulations in the blocks are
not considered. However, the material property has been mentioned for reference purpose
only. The percentage of perforations in perforated brick is 19% 1 (source – Jay Jalaram
bricks, Godhra), in hollow concrete block is 48% 2 (source – Kesarjan Building centre,
Ahmedabad) and in REB is 52.5% 3 (source – Weinerberger).

1
Sharda, keyur. Personal interview. 22 April 2011.
2
Hemrajani Tarun. Personal interview.1 Dec. 2010.
3
Weinerberger, www.weinerberger.in

6
2.1.4 Base Model Description
Firstly a base model of 100 m², with 30% window wall ratio for Ahmedabad is analyzed with
varying wall materials and their U values are as per (graph1). Brief model description is
mentioned in (table1).

Table 2: Brief of Base Model description for Simulations

Characteristics Description(For Base Model)

Location Ahmedabad

Area 100 m²

Floor Dimensions 10m x 10 m

Occupancy Type Generic Building

Plan Shape 1:1 (Square)

No. of floor Intermediate floor (roof and floor are adiabatic)

Zones 1 core zone

Window wall ratio 30%

Type of Glass Single Clear 6mm

Shading No

Roof 150 mm Concrete slab with plaster

Ceramic floor ,with 100 mm Cast concrete and

Floor 70 mm Screed
lighting
T8 - (25mm-dia Flourescent-triphospher)
lighting schedule As per occupancy Schedule
HVAC type Constant Volume DX -using unitary multi zone
Cooling system Cop 1.19
HVAC Schedule As per occupancy Schedule

Figure 2: Showing hypothetical for simulation.

7
 Comparative U - value considered for simulations

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 1.079

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 2.251
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 1.929

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 1.716
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 2.187

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

U-value

Graph 1: U values of alternative wall assemblies from design builder software.

Figure 3: Showing walling assemblies and U-values of different materials.

8
The considered U values are for respective wall materials with 18mm plaster outside and 12
mm plaster inside. The software considers the default values for thermal properties such as:
Conductivity, Specific heat and Density. Other U – values considered here area as per
referred / calculated U values. 4

Occupancy schedule and activity patterns are defined for a typical energy intensive building
that operates from 0930-1830 and for 6 days a week. The occupancy is assumed to be full
throughout the scheduled time. The HVAC and lighting also operates in the same duration.

2.1.5 Simulation analysis and results

As mentioned earlier the base model of 100 m2 with 30% window wall ratio is simulated for 5
wall materials and 4 climate zones. These combinations of 20 cases are simulated using
Design builder – that is a graphic user interface for Energy Plus. The total annual energy
consumption and chiller energy consumption are analyzed from the simulation outputs.

All the results analyzed are normalized for one meter square area that is the consumption
values presented here are annual energy used per square meter area. As per (graph 2) it is
seen that annual chiller energy consumption for REB and perforated bricks are
comparatively lower than other materials in Ahmedabad. Graph 3 shows percentage
increase, where as graph 2 shows the actual values. Similar order is followed in all the
analysis and graphs mentioned below. Hence, in comparing the results with REB (A) normal
bricks consume 0.49% higher than REB, (C) fly-ash bricks are 0.14% higher than REB and
(D) hollow concrete blocks consume highest of 0.93% in chiller energy consumption. It is
seen that REB consumes the least amount of chiller energy compared to alternative walling
materials.

Annual chiller energy consumption-Ahmedabad (hot & dry)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 384.92

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 388.49
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 385.47

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 384.92
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 386.81

383 384 385 386 387 388 389

kWh/m2

Graph 2: Chiller Energy Consumption for alternative Walling Materials (Ahmedabad).

4
U-values of Fly-ash and perforated brick are referred from unpublished thesis - Sonagara, Nirav.
“Embodied and operational energy assessment of alternative walling materials for multi-storey
buildings in Ahmedabad.” Diss. Cept University, Ahmedabad, 2011.

9
 % increase in Chiller energy - compared to REB (Ahmedabad)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 0.93
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 0.14

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 0.00
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 0.49

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Percentage

Graph 3: % Increase in Chiller Energy Consumption for alternative Walling Materials

(Ahmedabad).

Total energy consumption includes energy usage in cooling, heating, lighting, equipments,
miscellaneous activities, etc. All these energy loads contribute to the total energy
consumption of a building. The total energy consumption of a building is the operational
energy required to operate the building. Graph 4 shows the total energy consumption of a
building using alternative walling materials. From the results it is observed that Hollow
concrete block consumes the highest amount of total energy per square meter of the
building, REB and perforated brick consumes the lowest amount of total energy per square
meter of the building.

Annual total energy consumption-Ahmedabad (Hot & dry)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 509.92

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 513.48
Materiaks

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 510.47

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 509.92
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 511.81

508 509 510 511 512 513 514

kWh/m2

Graph 4: Total Annual Energy Consumption for alternative walling Materials (Ahmedabad).

Analysing total energy consumption graph 5 shows that REB wall has the lowest energy
consumption compared to alternative walling materials. The next lowest consuming material
is perforated brick wall. The annual energy consumption for (A) normal brick wall is 0.37%
higher to that of REB; (C) Fly-ash brick wall is 0.11% higher than REB; and (D) hollow
concrete block wall is 0.70% higher than REB wall and is found to be the highest consuming
wall material comparatively.

10
 % increase in total energy - compared to REB (Ahmedabad)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 0.70
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 0.11

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 0.00
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 0.37

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Percentage

Graph 5: % increase in Total Annual Energy Consumption for alternative walling Materials
(Ahmedabad).

From the results of graph 4 and graph 5 it is observed that REB consumes less, when
analyzed for annual total energy consumption. Hence, operational energy required for the
REB wall is comparatively efficient when compared to hollow concrete block, fly-ash brick
and normal brick. As a result from the simulated base model for Ahmedabad, it is observed
that REB‟s are comparatively efficient than other walling materials.

Comparative chiller consumption for REB

Chennai 436.79

Ahmedabad 384.92
Cities

Delhi 374.67

Bangalore 279.69

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

kWh/m2

Graph 6: Comparative Chiller Energy Consumption for REB- Analyzed for different climate
zones.

Table 3: Comparative Chiller Energy Consumption analyzed for different climate zones

% increase or decrease in chiller energy consumption - compared

Material
to REB

Delhi Ahmedabad Chennai

Bangalore (decrease)
(increase) (increase) (increase)
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 4.81 0.52 0.49 0.44
Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72
3.96 0.21 0 0.31
mm
Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 4.76 0.005 0.14 0.37
Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200
3.52 0.93 0.93 0.16
X200 mm
REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0 0 0 0

11
 Table 4: Total Energy for REB - analyzed for different climate zones

Material % increase or decrease in total energy consumption - compared to REB

Ahmedabad Chennai
Bangalore (decrease) Delhi (increase)
(increase) (increase)
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 3.17 0.31 0.37 0.34
Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72
2.61 0.15 0 0.24
mm
Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 3.16 0.00 0.11 0.28
Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200
2.32 0.67 0.70 0.12
X200 mm
REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0 0 0 0

Note: Figures in red colour indicate the decrease in chiller energy consumption and in total
energy consumption. (Refer table 3.1, 3.2 graph 9 and graph 10)

Performance of REB when compared to other materials for different climate zones is
different. In Bangalore – moderate climate, by using REB there is an increase in both the
chiller load and total energy consumption compared to alternative walling materials. The
percentage increase in total energy consumption using REB ranges from 2.3 – 3.17 %.

In Delhi – composite climate and Chennai – warm & humid climate, by using REB there is a
decrease in the both the chiller load and total energy consumption compared to alternative
walling materials. From the table it is observed that, using REB more percentage savings are
obtained in Ahmedabad hot and dry climate compared to other alternative cities such as
Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore having different climates.

% decrease in Chiller energy - compared to REB (Bangalore)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 3.52

Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 4.76

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 3.96

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 4.81

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Percentage

Graph 7: % decrease in Chiller Energy Consumption for alternative Walling Materials

(Bangalore).

12
 % decrease in total energy - compared to REB (Bangalore)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 2.32

Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 3.16

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 2.61

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 3.17

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Percentage

Graph 8: % decrease in Total Annual Energy Consumption for alternative walling Materials
(Bangalore).

From the simulation results in graphs 7 and 8 it is observed that REB and perforated brick
consumes more chiller energy as well as more total energy compared to other walling
materials. The model considered for simulation is a conditioned building in which naturally
ventilated conditions are not included. In moderate climate model internal load becomes a
cause for higher chiller consumption as compared to hot and dry climate, which is a more
severe climate than temperate climate. As a result REB is not as beneficial as it is in other
climates. Normal bricks and fly-ash bricks shows a decrease of 4.81 – 4.76 % in chiller
energy consumption and also a decrease of 3.17 – 3.16 % in total energy consumption
compared to that of REB.

% increase in Chiller energy - compared to REB (Delhi)

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 0.93

Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 0.005

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 0.21

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 0.52

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00
Percentage

Graph 9: % Increase in Chiller Energy Consumption for alternative Walling Materials (Delhi).

13
 % increase in total energy - compared to REB (Delhi)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 0.67
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 0.00

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 0.15
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 0.31

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Percentage

Graph 10: % increase in Total Annual Energy Consumption for alternative walling Materials
(Delhi).

% increase in Chiller energy - compared to REB (Chennai)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 0

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 0.16
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 0.37

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 0.31
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 0.44

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Percentage

Graph 11: % Increase in Chiller Energy Consumption for alternative Walling Materials
(Chennai).

% increase in total energy compared to REB (Chennai)

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Percentage

Graph 12: % increase in Total Annual Energy Consumption for alternative walling Materials
(Chennai).

14
2.1.6 Conclusion
Analyzing the chiller consumption for REB in different climate zones indicates that REB‟s are
more efficient in hot dry climatic zone when compared with other climatic zones. (Refer
graph 7.8.9.10.11 and 12).Comparing the percentage increase in energy consumption using
other walling materials and their assemblies shows that different materials act differently in
different climatic zones based on their thermal and surface properties.

% increase in annual chiller energy consumption compared to REB -

1 Ahmedabad
0.9

0.8

0.7
Percentage

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
REB Perforated brick Flyash brick Normal brick Hollow concrete
block
Materials

Graph 13: Showing lowest chiller consumption of REB.

% Increase in annual consumption compared to REB - Ahmedabad

0.8

0.7

0.6
Percentage

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
REB Perforated brick Flyash brick Normal brick Hollow concrete
block
Materials

Graph 14: Showing REB‟s lowest annual energy consumption compared to other materials.

15
2.2 Quantifying resource savings

Brick /Wall Types Dimensions Volume / Weight/brick Density Source

(mm) brick(m³) (Kg) of
material
3
(kg/m )
A. Normal bricks 229 X 100 X 70 0.0016 2.75 1700 - Jay Jalaram
+ inside 1750 bricks, Godhra
plaster
B. Perforated 235 X 110 X 72 0.0018 2.7 1400 - Jay Jalaram
bricks + both 1500 bricks, Godhra
side plaster
C. Fly ash wall + 230 X 110 X 72 0.0018 3.5 1850 - Kesarjan,
both side 1900 Ahmedabad
plaster
D. Hollow 400 X 200 X 0.016 20 1350 - Kesarjan,
concrete 200 1400 Ahmedabad
Blocks + both
side plaster
E. Resource 400 X 200 X 0.016 11 694 - Wienerberger,
efficient bricks 200 783 India
+ inside
plaster
Table 4: Comparative Wall types and Dimensions

2.2.1 Comparative carpet areas

Carpet areas vary with respect to the thickness of the material used for walls. Comparing
different wall materials for built up area of 100 m², it is found that maximum of 91.52 m² is
available as usable carpet area by using resource efficient bricks whereas other materials
like normal bricks, fly-ash bricks, perforated bricks and hollow concrete blocks provide lesser
available carpet area comparatively as in (Graph 15).

Fly-ash brick 230 X 110 Perforated brick 235 X 110 Normal brick 229 X 100
X 72 mm X 75 mm X70 mm

REB 400 X 200 X 200 Hollow concrete block

mm 400 X 200 X 200 mm

16
 Table 5: Comparative carpet area available using different wall types.

Comparative carpet
Sr. no. Material Plaster area available using
different wall types
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70
1 mm inside plaster 90.36
Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 outside and inside
2 mm plaster 85.08
Fly-ash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 outside and inside
3 mm plaster 89.6
Hollow concrete block - 400 X outside and inside
4 200 X200 mm plaster 90.8

5 REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm inside plaster 91.52

Comparative carpet area available using different types of wall

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 91.52

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200

90.8
mm
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 89.6

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 85.08

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 90.36

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
Area m2

Graph 15: Comparative carpet area available using different wall types.

2.2.2 Comparative area of walls

Wall area is the amount of space occupied by walls among built up area. As mentioned
earlier, the carpet area available is higher in REB hence the wall area occupied is also lesser
when compared to other wall materials. For instance, for 100 m² of built up area, the wall
area occupied by REB is 8.48m² which is lesser than other materials, as in (graph 16),
perforated brick wall occupies maximum that is 14.92m²,next Fly ash brick wall and hollow
concrete block wall occupies 10.4m² and 9.2m2 of wall area.

17
 Table 6: Comparative area of space occupied by walls.

Comparative area of
Sr. no. Material Plaster space occupied by
walls

1 Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm inside plaster 9.64

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72
2 mm outside and inside plaster 14.92
3 Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm outside and inside plaster 10.4
Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200
4 X200 mm outside and inside plaster 9.2
5 REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm inside plaster 8.48

Comparative area of space occupied by walls

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 8.48

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200… 9.2

Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 10.4

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 14.92

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 9.64

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Area m2

Graph 16: Comparative wall area occupied by different wall types.

2.2.3 Comparative Volume of walls

Table 7: Comparative volume of walls occupied by different wall types.

Comparative volume
of walls occupied by
Sr. no. Material different walls types

1 Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 28.8

2 Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 31.8

3 Fly-ash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 31.2
Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200
4 X200 mm 27.6
5 REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 25.44

18
Note: Calculations done to calculate the total volume of the walls for the base case are done
considering English bond masonry for all alternative walling materials. Thickness of the
plaster is also considered in calculating the volume of the walls.

Volume of the wall using REB for the base case building of size 10M X 10M X 3 M is about
25.44 m³ that is comparatively lesser than normal brick and hollow concrete block wall that
results to 28.8 m³ and 27.6 m3. Volume of perforated brick wall is highest that is about
31.8m³ of volume per unit wall. (graph 17)

Comparative volume of walls occupied by different walls

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 25.44

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 27.6
Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 31.2

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 31.8
Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 28.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Volume m3

Graph 17: Comparative volume of walls occupied by different wall types.

2.2.4 Usage of material per unit area

Comparing the number of bricks consumed per unit area of a wall, around ± 12 bricks of
REB and hollow concrete blocks are used, whereas for perforated bricks and fly-ash bricks
around ±58 bricks are used, and ± 62 normal bricks are used for every unit m² of wall.

Comparative no. of bricks / blocks used per m2 area of wall

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 12

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 12

Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 58

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 59

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
no. per m2

Graph 18: Comparative Number of bricks used per m² area of wall.

19
2.2.5 Comparative density for different walling materials
Comparing the density of Fly-ash brick with REB block, REB‟s density is approximately 3
times lesser than fly-ash brick. Density of REB is approximately 2 times lesser compared to
other walling materials.

Comparative densities of alternative walling materials

REB - 400 X 200 X 200 mm 783

Hollow concrete block - 400 X 200 X200 mm 1400

Materials

Flyash brick - 230 X 110 X 75 mm 1900

Perforated brick - 235 X 110 X 72 mm 1500

Normal brick - 229 X 100 X 70 mm 1750

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

kg/m3

Graph 19: Comparative densities of alternative walling materials.

2.2.6 Comparing carpet area between Square and Rectangle plan forms for different
wall materials
It is seen that the area availability is comparatively lesser in rectangular plan forms than
square plan for REB‟s, hollow concrete block wall, Fly ash wall, and normal brick wall.

Comparing carpet area between square and rectangle plan

forms for different wall materials

REB- 400 X 200 X 200

Hollow concrete brick

Materials

Fly Ash brick CASE 2 - 100 m2 Area (1:2

Rectangular space)
Perforated bricks
CASE 1 - 100 m2 Area (1:1
sqaure space)
Normal Bricks

87.00 88.00 89.00 90.00 91.00 92.00

Area m2

Graph 20: Comparative carpet area between 1:1 & 1:2 Plan form.

20
2.2.7 Comparing wall areas between Square and Rectangle plan forms for different
wall materials
As seen in the (graph21) it is observed that the rectangle plan (1:2) aspect ratio has
occupies higher wall areas compared to others. Wall area occupied by REB in both the
cases is less compared to wall area of other walling materials.

Comparing area occupied by walls - Between square and

rectangular plan forms

REB- 400 X 200 X 200

Hollow concrete brick

Materials

Fly Ash brick CASE 2 - 100 m2 Area (1:2

Rectangular space)
Perforated bricks
CASE 1 - 100 m2 Area (1:1
Normal Bricks sqaure space)

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.0010.0012.00

Area m2

Graph 21: Comparative wall area between 1:1 & 1:2 Plan form.

2.2.8 Comparing volume of walls between Square and Rectangle plan forms for
different wall materials
From (graph 22) it is observed that volume of all the materials for square plan is less
compared to rectangular plan. REB has the least volume of walls compared to other
materials.

Comparative volume of walls -Between square and

rectangular plan forms

REB- 400 X 200 X 200

Hollow concrete brick
Materials

Fly Ash brick CASE 2 - 100 m2 Area (1:2

Rectangular space)
Perforated bricks
CASE 1 - 100 m2 Area (1:1
Normal Bricks sqaure space)

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Volume m3

Graph 22: Comparative volume of walls between 1:1 & 1:2 Plan form.

21
Six different cases with different floor area and aspect ratio are analysed to compare the
resource savings using different materials. The calculation details are shown in table 7. The
cases are as follows:

Case 1 – 100m2 area (1:1 square space), Case 2 – 100m2 area (1:2 rectangular space),
Case 3 – 500m2 area (1:1 square space), Case 4 – 500m2 area (1:2 rectangular space),
Case 5 – 1000m2 area (1:1 square space), Case 6 – 1000m2 area (1:2 rectangular space).

2.3 Conclusion
Ranking of alternative walling materials:

Note:

 Ranking 1-8 shows the efficiency of the materials.

 1 - shows material with highest efficiency and 8 - shows material with least efficiency.
 One REB is equal to approx. 8-8.5 normal bricks.

Table 8: Ranking of walling materials.

Materials Normal Perforated Fly-ash Hollow REB

brick brick brick concrete
block
U-values 4 2 3 5 1
Annual Chiller 4 2 3 5 1
energy
consumption
Total annual 4 2 3 5 1
energy
consumption
Volume per 1 2 3 5 4
brick / block
Density 4 3 5 2 1
Available 3 4 5 2 1
carpet area
Area occupied 3 4 5 2 1
by walls
Volume 4 5 3 2 1
occupied by
walls

22
Blocks used 5 4 3 2 1
2
/m of wall
Wall area in 3 5 4 2 1
square and
rectangular
plan
Carpet area in 3 5 4 2 1
square and
rectangular
plan
Cost per brick 2 3 1 4 5
/ block
Note: REB is considered without outside plaster, hence the carpet area of REB has
increased compared to Hollow concrete block.

Following are the benefits of using REB’s

1. Less weight and volume (less dead load) when compared to equivalent size of
normal brick.
2. Uniform size, shape and better finish.
3. Less mortar and less plaster.
4. Easy construction.
5. Less u-value (heat transfer co-efficient).
6. Less annual chiller energy and total energy consumption.
7. More carpet area and less wall area in both square and rectangular form plans.
8. Less number of blocks per m2.
9. Less cost per unit when compared to equivalent size of normal brick.

23
 Table 9: Showing comparative resource savings using different wall materials.

Thermal Total
Weigh Total Area (m2) Area of walls (m2) Carpet Area (m2) Volume of walls (m3) (taking 3 m floor to ceiling ht.)
Size of unit block Volume performance no.of
t of
S.No Material (mm) (lxbxh) (b of unit blocks
unit
. Type considered as envelop block per
block
width with plaster) (mm3) U Value m2
K (Kg) Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
(W/m2K area Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 5 Case 6
Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4
)

0.811
Normal
A 240 X 100 X 70 0.0016 W/m- 2.187 3          21.47 22.77 30.36 32.20 90.36 89.82 478.53 477.23 969.64 967.80 28.80 30.53 64.40 68.30 91.07 96.61
Bricks
K

Perforate
B 265 X 110 X 75 0.0021 1.716 2.7          23.70 25.14 33.52 35.56 89.40 88.76 476.30 474.86 966.48 964.44 31.80 33.71 71.10 75.41 100.55 106.67
d bricks

0.54
to
Fly-Ash
C 260 X 110 X 72 0.002 0.70 1.929 3.5          23.25 24.66 32.88 34.89 89.60 88.98 476.75 475.34 967.12 965.11 31.20 33.07 69.76 73.99 98.65 104.66
brick
W/m-
K

Hollow
1840000
D concrete 400 X230X200 0.018 2.251 20          20.57 21.82 29.09 30.86 90.80 90.25 479.43 478.18 970.91 969.14 27.60 29.26 61.71 65.45 87.27 92.58
0
brick

REB- 400
1696000
X 212 X 400 X 212 X 200 0.016 1.1 11.1          18.78 19.92 26.56 28.18 91.52 91.10 481.22 480.08 973.44 971.82 25.44 26.97 56.88 60.33 80.44 85.34
0
200

E
190x190x9 0.003
3249000          16.99 18.02 24.03 25.49 92.40 91.94 483.01 481.98 975.97 974.51 22.80 24.17 50.98 54.07 72.09 76.48
0 withou 2
t
plaster 0.002
290x90x90 2349000          8.05 8.54 11.38 12.08 96.40 96.18 491.95 491.46 988.62 987.92 10.80 11.45 24.15 25.61 34.15 36.23
3

The analysed results are shown in headings 9.2.6, 9.2.7 and 9.2.8 respectively.

24