A STUDY INTO MORE SUSTAINABLE, ALTERNATIVE

BUILDING MATERIALS AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONCRETE

IN TROPICAL CLIMATES
Josephine Cornelia van Empelen
Faculty of Architecture & the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology
Julianalaan 134, 2628BL Delft
J.C.vanEmpelen@student.tudelft.nl

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the potential use of the alternative materials loam, mycelium, CoRncrete, hempcrete
and BioBricks as substitute for concrete used as construction material in tropical climates. Concrete,
nowadays being a widely used construction material around the globe, accounts for a big share of the
global environmental pollution, both through the emissions during the production and building process, as
well as because of the construction and demolition waste it causes. The alternative materials selected in
this paper which are compared to concrete are promoted to be sustainable. In this paper, they are compared
to each other regarding the strength, density, fire-, UV- and water resistance, durability, renewability and
eco costs, the latest calculated in a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Although for a widespread application
of the alternative materials like concrete nowadays additional research is required, the alternative
materials do show good potential to be applied as building materials.

KEYWORDS: renewable alternatives for concrete, sustainable materialisation, circular building

economy, Life Cycle Assessment, eco-costs.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Problem statement
1.1.1. Materiality and sustainability
Materials have always affected the architectural practice. Traditional architecture was determined
by the availability of materials like stone, wood and clay. For centuries most buildings were made
using locally available materials (Kottas, Krauel, & Noden, 2011, p. 6). In this time of the skilled
craftsman, buildings were traditionally designed, constructed and maintained on the assumption
that their service lives could be extended practically without limit by suitable maintenance
measures. However, if a building had to be taken down, then its components and materials were
re-used (König, Kohler, Kreißig, & Lützkendorf, 2010, p. 6).
This situation changed radically in the 19th century with the introduction of industrially produced
materials like iron, steel and concrete. Architects no longer needed to adapt their ideas to a limited
availability of materials. The new construction materials and techniques were used widespread
during the building boom between 1955 and 1975, with very little knowledge of their long-term
behaviour. The energy crisis starting in 1973 initiated a rethink, people gained increased
awareness of the environment and there was a change of direction towards sustainable
development. The need to consider buildings and materials from the point of view of their life
cycles started to develop. (König, Kohler, Kreißig, & Lützkendorf, 2010, p. 6)
Designers need to be informed about all the different material possibilities to be able to make the
right choices concerning materiality. Apart from the technical and expressive potential of the
material many other factors should be considered as well, including the impact of the material on
the environment, the ease with which it is handled, it maintenance and the possibility to recycle
it after use (Kottas, Krauel, & Noden, 2011, p. 6). Investors and designers, as well as the
construction material and construction industries, have to be more committed to their
responsibilities to society and for the environment (König, Kohler, Kreißig, & Lützkendorf, 2010,
p. 7).

The concern over the depletion of the Earth’s resources was introduced by The Limits to Growth
(Meadows et al., 1972 quoted from: (Simonen, 2014, p. 55). The fact that our resources are
declining have broad environmental, social and economic impacts. Non-renewable resources are
those that do not renew themselves within a human time scale. Fossil fuels were generated by
biologic mechanisms of the conversion of decomposing plants and animals to fossil fuels over
millions of years. Yet the rate at which they are being created is nowhere near the rate at which
we are extracting them. They are, like many other raw materials used in building construction,
not considered to be renewable.

1.1.2. The current building industry

Estimated about half of the material flows are associated with the building industry. (Haas, 1997
quoted out: (van den Dobbelsteen & Alberts, 2005, p. 1). Besides that, about one third of all the
negative environmental effects are caused by the building industry (König, Kohler, Kreißig, &
Lützkendorf, 2010, p. 6), (van den Dobbelsteen & Alberts, 2005, p. 1) and the building industry
accounts for almost half of all the waste that ends up in landfills, making the building industry
one of the most polluting industries (BimHow, 2016, quoted from table meeting MAKE, 2017).
In Asia, the building industry is a very fast growing market as there is a rapid urbanisation and
increase in the wealth of the population. The percentage of people living in urban areas reached
over 50% in 2014 and is expected to increase up to 66% in 2050 (United Nations, 2014, p. 2).
Considering raw material deprivation, the CO2 emissions produced by the building industry and
climate change this urban growth is not just a quantitative and spatial challenge, but also a
challenge in terms of building materials and the environment.

In general, Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste is bulky, heavy and is mostly unsuitable
for disposal by incineration or composting (Nitivattananon & Borongan, 2007). This poses to
waste management problems in urban areas in Asia. Particularly, Asian countries have a problem
of land for C&D waste disposal of which C&D waste accounts in an alarming rate as illustrated
in the above discussion. In Hong Kong, about 42% of the total waste produced is C&D waste,
and in Malaysia about one third of the waste belongs to the building industry. In Taiwan about
2,4 million tons of concrete are considered as waste every year, and only a part of this is down-
cycled as aggregate. The estimated C&D waste in Indonesia reaches an enormous amount of 67.4
million tonnes per year (Suharman, Higashi, & Kubota, 2015). This C&D waste is, in combination
with a low recycling rate, projected to create enormous problems for the already limited capacity
of landfills around the cities.

1.1.3. The life cycle of materials

Building materials have already caused quite some pollution before they are used in the
construction of buildings (see figure 1). In all phases of the material life cycle there are inputs and
emissions having environmental impact. The phases of raw material extraction and production
mostly have the most harmful effect on the environment, although they are often the ones taken
the least into consideration. Therefore, it is important to consider the whole life cycle of a building
material when deciding the materiality of a project.
Buildings usually have a long lifespan and are constantly changed during its life. Multiple people
are involved in their design, construction, use and demolition phase. Therefore, the materials used
in a building should be considered in terms of durability, refurbishment options, re-use options
and recycling options. The lifecycle of building materials have in principle three life cycle phases:
the production and construction, the usage and the end of life (see figure 2).
Currently the majority of building materials are hard to be re-used and recycled, and they will end
up as waste on landfills. To make our economy more sustainable we have to change our linear
economy into a circular economy (see figure 3). This means that instead of making building
products out of newly mined raw materials, we should look for renewable resources as well as
the city’s waste flows. Apart from reusing and recycling building products, we can also look for
valuable organic waste flows to produce new building materials in an innovative way.

1.2. Thematic research question

To get more insight into how to overcome the problems considering the environment and , this
report will investigate what sustainable alternative materials exist to replace to a certain extent
the concrete used in the building industry in tropical climate zones. Sustainable alternative
materials are selected and evaluated to research their suitability as a building material and to see
how suitable they are for application in a tropical climate. Innovative materials from household
waste, industrial waste or agricultural by-products show a great potential to partly or fully replace
currently used building materials (Larasati, 2006) and they would potentially limit the amount of
damage done to the environment. As the selected materials might partly be made from materials
unavailable in the tropical climate, local waste streams are included too to see if a part of the
material set up can be substituted with a local product or waste stream.

1.3. Objective and relevance

1.3.1. General objective
The objective of this research paper is to identify alternative materials which can be used as a
more sustainable alternative for concrete. This materials have to be more environmentally
friendly, both in the production phase as also in the end of life phase, for example by using local
materials, by being biodegradable and by being made from renewable raw materials.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
In the first part of this paper five possible alternative materials are defined and together with
concrete, the properties including compressive- and tensile strength, density, durability (expected
lifespan in years), fire-,UV- and weather resistance and renewability are assessed. The production
process of the material is described as well, as this is used in a later assessment of the pollution
caused in the life cycle of the material, calculated by the eco-costs. This eco-costs are a good
method to compare the grade of sustainability of a material. Finally, the materials are compared
regarding the feasibility of applying them in a tropical climate. For this the properties,
sustainability, possible low-key and decentral manufacturing and possible applications are
evaluated in regard to a tropical climate.
1.3.3. Relevance
This report gives an overview of multiple innovative, sometimes new and sometimes re-
discovered, building materials in a comparison to concrete. Besides the properties there is a
comparison in sustainability performed by calculating the eco-costs and the possible applications
in a tropical climate are discussed.

2. METHOD
2.1. Material selection
By means of literature study various alternative materials to substitute concrete are identified and
in a multiple case study the properties of the materials are assessed. The properties include the
compressive- and tensile strength in MPa, density in kg/m3, expected lifespan in years, fire-,UV-
and water resistance and renewability of the materials. The resistances and renewability is graded
in one of three scales: poor, meaning it has no resistance, reasonable, meaning it resists to a certain
extend and good meaning it is resistant.
2.2. Life Cycle Assessment
The method of life cycle assessment has long been available as a means of evaluating energy and
material flows and the effects on the environment. Its further development and in particular the
availability of the necessary data are now leading to the introduction of life cycle assessment into
design, construction and management processes (König, Kohler, Kreißig, & Lützkendorf, 2010,
p. 7). It is quite likely that in the future the use of life cycle assessment will become a part of the
design and management of every building and will be oriented towards the entire life cycle of a
building – from cradle to grave, from new building through maintenance to dismantling,
recycling and reusing.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) describes a systematic analysis of the resources drawn from nature
and the environmental effects of a product over its entire life cycle (see figure 4). As this research
focusses on the life cycle of building materials, the Use phase, focussed more on the maintenance
of a building, will be neglected. Of course the life span of the material is taken into account at the
final comparison.
Today, life cycle assessment has been widely standardised in international standards such as ISO
14 040 "Environmental management – Life cycle assessment". LCA can evaluate resource use
(reporting consumption, a current activity) or assess depletion (a prediction of future
consequences) (Yellishetty et al., 2011). There is no international standard to define what should
be included in a LCA. As with many LCA methods, sound judgement is required by the LCA
practitioner completing the study (Simonen, 2014, p. 56). Results prepared by different LCA
practitioners will thus not necessarily be comparable unless both studies report using the same
methods and using the same source data.

In this research the concept of eco-costs is applied (see figure 5), which is a measure to express
the amount of environmental burden a product on the basis of prevention of that burden. It are the
costs which should be made to reduce the environmental pollution and material depletion in our
world to a level which is in line with the carrying capacity of the earth. Eco-costs are virtual costs,
since they are not (yet) integrated in the real life costs of a material. The total eco-costs can be
regarded as a robust indicator for cradle-to-cradle calculations in LCA for products in the theory
of the circular economy (Vogtländer, 2012).

3. RESULTS
3.1. Inventory of materials
As the aim is to find a substitute for concrete, this material is assessed as well. The alternative
materials that were evaluated afterwards are loam (rammed earth), mycelium bricks, CoRncrete,
hempcrete and BioBricks. Figure 5 sums up the data collected in this part of the research.
3.1.1. Concrete
Concrete is a wonderful versatile material. The elegance of concrete lies in its ability to provide
enclosure, structure, interior and exterior surface finishes, fire protection, thermal mass, and
acoustic separation in one single construction material without additional layers or treatments
being required (Stacey, 2011). The merits of concrete were already known to the Egyptians, the
Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Greeks and the Romans (Zijlstra, de Ruiter, & Payman, 2005).
The later of them already used cement, Pozzolana cement made from crushed volcanic pozzolanic
rocks, named after the tuffs at Pozzuoli near Naples. The word concrete is based on the Latin
concretus, which means ‘bring together’ and represents its composite – the bringing together of
materials with diverse properties where the whole is greater than the sum of the component
elements (Stacey, 2011, p. 13).
Concrete is formed by mixing carefully controlled quantities of cement, sand, aggregate and
water. Cement undergoes a chemical reaction when mixed with water, becoming hydrated by
water and gradually hardening. On curing, the water that remains unbound to the calcium in the
in the cement evaporates, leaving air gaps. Correctly balancing the water content of concrete is
the key to its strength, which varies between 20 and 40 MPa. Besides the water content also the
properties of the used aggregates are influencing the strength of the material. The percentage by
weight of fully cured concrete, with a density of between 2,250 and 2,400 kg/m3, is 6% water,
15% cement and 80% aggregate (Stacey, 2011, p. 13).
Concrete is a very durable material. It does not burn, is UV resistant and is waterproof. Its long
lifespan up to 150 years means that is more likely that a concrete building will come to the end
of its life because no further use can be found for it, rather than the concrete structure having
failed due to its age. In these cases, often a technically perfectly fine building is demolished and
the demolition debris often ends up on a landfill. However, the debris can also be re-used as filling
material in road construction or as new aggregate material in concrete production. Larger pieces
of concrete elements can be re-used as embankment material instead of being crushed. Reusing
concrete leads to a reduced use of virgin natural resources such as stone and gravel (Sysav, 2005,
quoted from: (Sjunnesson, 2005, p. 11).
3.1.2. Loam (rammed earth)
Earth, when used as a building material, is known under different names. Referred to in scientific
terms as loam, it is a mixture of clay, silt (very fine sand), sand, and occasionally larger aggregates
such as gravel or stones. When speaking of handmade unbaked bricks, the terms ”mud bricks” or
“adobes” are usually used; when speaking of compressed unbaked bricks, the term ”soil blocks”
is used. When compacted within a formwork, it is called ”rammed earth”.
The compressive strength of dry building elements made of earth, such as earth blocks and
rammed earth walls, differ in general from 0,5 to 4.9 MPa (Minke, 2006, p. 33). This depends not
only on the quantity and type of clay involved, but also on the grain size distribution of silt, sand
and larger aggregates and on the method of preparation and compaction. The tensile strength of
loam is determined by the binding force of the clay content, type of clay minerals and the water
content. The dry tensile strength is about 10% of the compressive strength with blocks, and 11 to
13% with earth mortars. However, for earth construction, the tensile strength is of no relevance,
because massive walls must not be under tension.

The density of soil is defined by the ratio of dry mass to volume (including pores). Freshly dug
soil has a density of 1000 to 1500 kg/m3. If this earth is compressed, as in rammed earthworks or
in soil blocks, its density varies from 1700 to 2200 kg/m3 (Minke, 2006, p. 21). Even a higher
density is possible, if the earth contains considerable amounts of gravel or larger aggregates. The
shrinkage ratio of rammed earth is much lower than wet loam techniques, and the strength is much
higher. In comparison with standard masonry, rammed earth – since it is monolithic – provides
the advantage of longer life.

A rammed earth house can easily sustain its integrity for over 1000 years (Clifton Schooley &
Associates, 2008). Besides that, rammed earth walls are fire-resistant up to 2000 °C, although
from 1000 °C it changes its consistency into ceramics (Groenebouwmaterialen, Leemstenen DF,
24 x 11.5 x 5.2cm, 10 stuks , 2008-2017). The material is UV resistant and it is unnecessary to
worry about the water resistance of building elements made from earth in case the right
measurements are made. Loam must be sheltered against rain and can be protected by roof
overhangs, damp proof courses, appropriate surface coatings and horizontal additions to the wall
to stop the water from running down. As a rammed earth wall is basically soil, it is a renewable
material that after the lifespan as a construction material can be disposed into nature without any
harmful consequences, as long as no chemicals were added in the mixture.
3.1.3. Mycelium bricks
A mycelium brick is an organic brick that is formed from organic waste and the mycelium of
fungus. Mycelium are the thin root-like fibres from fungi which run underneath the ground. When
dried and naturally connected in a man-made mixture with fibres it can be used as a super strong,
water, mold and fire resistant building material that can be grown into specific forms (Boyer,
2017). This 100 percent organic material has been gradually developed across multiple
disciplines, with the architectural and construction industry recently taking interest in its possible
implications.
In 2013, a company called Ecovative Design announced that they were developing an alternative
to polystyrene and plastic packaging by growing mycelium in agricultural waste. The two
ingredients, organic waste and mycelium, were mixed together and placed into a mold for 3–5
days to grow into a durable material. Depending on the strain of mycelium used, they could make
different varieties of the material including water absorbent, flame retardant, and dielectric.
Besides Ecovative Design, there are a handful of companies worldwide pioneering in mycelium
as a building material, including MycoWorks of Philip Ross in San Francisco, Mogu in Italy and
PT Miko Bahtera Nusantara (Mycotech) in Bandung, Indonesia.
Although the mycelium brick is developing, it still has a long way before it might become a viable
and widely used building material. Its compressive strength is with 0.1-0.4 MPa much lower
compared to concrete (20-40MPa) and also the tensile strength is with 0.1-0.2MPa very low.
However, relative to its weight a mycelium brick is stronger than concrete with a cubic meter of
mycelium brick weighing as little as 43 kg and a cubic meter of concrete weighing 2400 kg.
The idea of a durable but biodegradable brick is something of an oxymoron. The material has a
high fire- and UV resistance, but is performing poorly when it is exposed to water. Weather-
proofing mycelium bricks without destroying their essential composability is possible by
penetrating natural oil into the bricks. Testing the oil-coated bricks in a domestic shower, they
only gained a few percentage of mass. However, the mycelium bricks are not considered very
durable yet, as in their current form they won’t be applicable to last for over 50 years (Abrams,
2014). Non-treated mycelium bricks do not degrade without exposure to living organisms, such
as that found in soil biota, and moisture. Being exposed to this, the material will degrade, like a
soft unfinished wood.
3.1.4. CoRncrete
CoRncrete, as the name suggest, is a bio-based material which uses corn starch as a binder. Corn
starch, also known as maizena or corn flour, is a common food ingredient used for thickening
soup and sauces. It is a natural polymer derived from a maize crops. In recent years corn starch
has been widely used as a ‘green’ material in the production of bio-plastic and bio-ethanol.
Suspension of corn starch in water forms a shear thickening fluid, affectionately referred as
magical fluid on which one can run without sinking (Kulshreshtha Y. , 2015). A lesser known
heat-induced transformation of corn starch was explored by Yask Kulshreshtha in his master
thesis in civil engineering at the TU Delft named ‘CoRncrete – A bio-based construction
material’.
CoRncrete is formed by mixing water with corn starch and sand, and heating the mix in a
microwave or oven. This heating process results in the formation of a hardened material. The
optimum proportion of the materials are 1:1:5 (Kulshreshtha, Schlangen, Jonkers, Vardon, & van
Paassen, 2017, p. 415). The density of CoRncrete ranges between 1200 and 1600 kg/m3 depending
on the proportions of the ingredients in the material. Both the proportions of ingredients and the
heating process have a lot of influence on the final product, mainly seen in the tests of the
compressive strength. The maximum compressive strength measured is 26.7 MPa (Kulshreshtha,
et al., 2017, p. 417).
The use of corn starch makes CoRncrete a biodegradable material. This is ecologically attractive
as the material can be disposed at the end of the building’s lifecycle, but on the other hand
degrades CoRncrete in a wet environment. The best CoRncrete brick has 33% reduction in surface
hardness after 1 day and in 65% after 7 (Kulshreshtha, et al., 2017, p. 419). However, a CoRncrete
wall has a life expectancy of 50 years in a dry indoor environment. The fire-resistance and UV-
resistance are until now still unknown and have to be tested.
3.1.5. Hempcrete
Hempcrete block is a bio-composite building material made from the inner woody core of the
hemp plant with a lime-based binder. This binder can be hydrated lime, natural hydraulic lime or
a mixture of the two. Hydrated lime is made from pure limestone and carbonates by absorbing
CO2. Hydraulic lime is made from limestone with clay impurities and has a binding reaction with
water. Hemp is a very fast growing plant and can grow up to 4 meters height in about 100 to 120
days (Groenebouwmaterialen, Kalkhennep / hempcrete, 2008-2017). Thereby, weed is not getting
a chance and no pesticides are needed. Like any other plant, hemp absorbs CO2 from the
atmosphere as it grows, retaining the carbon and releasing the oxygen. Theoretically 165 kg
carbon can be absorbed and locked up in 1m3 of hempcrete wall (Tradical, 2008).
Hempcrete is a lightweight material of only 360 kg/m3, often used as insulating material and is
suitable in most climates as it combines insulation and thermal mass. With a compressive strength
of 1MPa, hempcrete cannot be used as a structural element, only as insulating infill between
loadbearing columns. Wooden framework is the most common structure used in combination
with hempcrete. It is a low density material and resistant to crack under movement thus making
it highly suitable for use in earthquake-prone areas.
Hempcrete has a good resistance against UV radiation and the company Limecrete Ltd. Reports
a fire resistance of 1 hour by the European standards (Abbott, 2014). The material buffers the
temperature as well as humidity and this prevents moulds from growing and produces a
comfortable and healthy indoor environment. Recent studies in Europe estimated 600 to 800 years
of life span utilizing a hempcrete wall system. However, hempcrete is a biodegradable product
and should be protected against too much water (Campos, 2016).
3.1.6. BioBrick
BioBricks are bricks invented by the company bioMASON and are grown by employing
microorganisms to bind the main ingredient – sand. In the process of growing bricks loose
aggregates like sand or crushed rocks are placed into a mould and then inoculated with a specific
strain of bacteria. Next, nutrients (nitrogen and calcium) and water are added to the mould to feed
the bacteria multiple times a day during the process. The bacteria form calcium carbonate, which
creates structural bonds between the particles. In only 3 days a high strength brick is produced.
The process works at ambient conditions and eliminates the need for firing as can be seen in the
hardening process of red clay bricks.
In research done by the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of
California, researches reached a compressive strength of bio-bricks up to 2 MPa (Bernardi, de
Jong, Montoya, & Martinez, 2014). However, other research into Biogrout shows a compressive
strength ranging from 0.2 to 20 MPa (Harkes et al, 2008 quoted from (van Paassen, 2009).
BioMASON also states the strength of their bricks equals the strength of fired clay bricks, who
have a strength over 20MPa. With a density of 1900 kg/m3, BioBricks are, just like normal bricks,
good to handle in the building process.
Scientists at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Science and Technology say the material
is heat resistant up to slightly over 1000°C, which makes the BioBrick reasonable fire resistant
(Slowey, 2016). BioMASON claims their bricks are water proof and weather resistant like the
traditional fired clay bricks, but there are no publications supporting the claims. However,
BioBricks have a high durability, as the bacteria will survive for years without food or oxygen
and once a crack forms they will be activated with water and close the crack again. This provides
the brick with a lifespan up to at least 200 years.
3.2. Life Cycle Assessment

Figures 6-11 are showing the schematic life cycles of the selected materials. Based on this
processes and material flows, a Life cycle assessment is performed for each material, excluding
the use-phase as described in the method section of this report. The phases of the life cycle that
are left and assessed are the production, construction and end of life (see figure 2,4).

Table 1 below shows the results of this life cycle assessment in and compares the sustainability
of each material in eco-costs. The different life cycle phases and pollution per phase are visible
with respectively blue for the production phase, yellow for the construction phase and red for the
end of life phase. The calculations are based on the method and information of Idemat (available
on Brightspace (https://software.tudelft.nl/) and online on idemat.nl (Idemat, 2018)). For the
Excel calculation sheets, see the appendix.

Table 1: The comparison of sustainability of the material, expressed in ecocosts

4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Life Cycle Assessment
As expected, concrete has with 792 euros per m3 the highest eco-costs. About half of this costs
are devoted to CO2 emissions, caused by the machines used to produce concrete (see figure 13).
The two other big polluters in the life cycle of concrete are the heating to produce the Portland
cement (lime has to be fired on a high temperature of about 1,4500 °C in order to produce Portland
cement) and waste at the end of the life. The fact that concrete is not bio-degradable makes it very
polluting in this calculation, as it counts on all the waste ending up on a landfill. However, parts
of the rubble can be re-used as aggregate for new concrete.

After concrete, the BioBricks have the second highest eco-costs of 245 euros per m3. As there is
no data available about the degradability of BioBricks and it is said that they have the same
characteristics as the red clay fired bricks, they are qualified as not degradable. With 222 euros
per m3 , this is clearly the most polluting part in the life cycle of BioBricks (see table 1 / figure
18).
Both CoRncrete and Hempcrete have the possibility to improve their eco-costs by improving
respectively the construction and production phases. CoRncrete has clearly its eco-costs of 168
euros per m3 due to the silicon mall that is used in the production (see figure 16). Improving the
mould would mean CoRncrete is an eco-friendly material, although the note has to be made that
corn starch is competing with food and is no (agricultural) waste material. This fact might make
it unsuitable for large application.

Hempcrete has the majority of its eco-costs of 78 euros per m3 due to the production phase. The
hemp production accounts for almost 80% of the total eco-costs and the lime production adds
another 17% (see figure 17). Although the process of limestone can most likely not be improved,
the hemp on the other hand, might be replaced by agricultural by-products that are normally
considered waste. In tropical countries, agricultural waste streams such as cassava waste, rice
husks, corncob, coconut fibres, sugar cane (bagasse) and palm oil fibres have a high potential to
be used in products, instead of being wasted.

Loam (rammed earth) has an eco-cost of only 36 euros per m3 and is thereby the second most
sustainable material of this research. The biggest contributor to the eco costs of loam are the
emissions (see figure 14), caused by the tools used during the labour intensive production of a
rammed earth wall. Also the mining or subtracting of raw materials from the ground is responsible
for about a quarter of the eco-costs of a rammed earth wall.

Mycelium has an eco-cost of only 16 euros per m3 and is thereby about 80 times more sustainable
compared to concrete. The big advantage of mycelium is that it uses organic waste products to
produce a new material, and so the raw materials have no eco costs by their production. Of course
this is only relative; the agricultural fields do have eco costs in the form of watering and fertilizer,
but as the food from the field is the main product, and the material used in mycelium bricks is
only a better use of the by-product, this eco-costs are not counted into this calculation. The biggest
part of the eco-costs of mycelium consist of the plastic casting needed to produce a brick (see
figure 15). However, this plastic can be re-usable or recyclable, as you are able to print any form
of mould with a 3D printer. Besides that, using very local waste products further reduces the eco-
costs, as transport is the second biggest contributor of eco-costs.

Of course the eco-costs calculated in this part of the research has to be seen in relation to the
lifespan of a material. As the eco-costs relate to the damage done to the environment in one
lifespan of a material, it is highly relevant how long the material lasts. Only with this in mind
materials can really be compared. In table 2 below, the results combining the lifespan (see figure
6) and the eco costs are shown.

Life span Eco-costs Eco-costs in 500 years

Concrete 80 – 150 792 2640

Loam (rammed earth) >500 36 36

Mycelium <50 16 160

CoRncrete 50 168 1680

Hempcrete >500 78 78

BioBricks 200 245 612,5

Table 2: The eco-costs in relation to the lifespan

As can be seen in table 2, loam and hempcrete have the best performance in the life cycle – eco
costs analysis. The long lasting materials both have eco-costs under a 100 euros per 500 years.
However, for a quick changing environment, mycelium might be a very interesting material as
well. With a lifespan of about 50 years and 160 euros eco cost in 500 years, it is a suitable and
sustainable material for a shorter lifespan of the building. With an improvement of the production
process, coRncrete might add in this list of sustainable materials. With the non-degradability of
concrete and BioBricks, it is unlikely that this materials will become as sustainable as the other
alternatives.

4.2. Comparative analysis

As described in the report before and can be seen in figure 6, Concrete has a high compressive
strength and density. It is durable and resistant, making concrete suitable for a big range of
purposes. On the other hand, concrete is very polluting (see table 1 and 2) and uses non-renewable
and depletable resources. Therefore, this report investigated the possible use of sustainable
alternatives.

The rammed earth wall and loam bricks are an interesting alternative material to use in tropical
climates as they regulate the temperature very well. This can create a very comfortable indoor
climate in the humid and warm tropics. Outside walls have to be protected against washing out
by the rain with horizontal rain stops and overhangs. Depending on the composition of the local
ground, it can be used for loam construction, or there has to be added clay or sand, which can be
imported. Import and longer transportation routes would have a negative effect on the
sustainability of the material, increasing the eco-costs.

Mycelium is currently still a very weak material and unable to bear any loads. However,
mycelium is very good fire- and UV resistant and lightweight, making it a suitable material for
insulation or light interior walls. Because of its poor water resistance, it is not possible to use the
bricks in a façade, as mushrooms will start to sprout again when the brick gets wet and exposed
to nutrients. This shows the high degradability of the material, which as a decomposed brick
works as fertilizer for the ground. The use of local organic waste as a raw material to produce the
bricks make mycelium bricks have low eco-costs. This shows the potential of using the
(agricultural) waste stream as a resource for the production of building materials.

CoRncrete is a material that needs further development and more testing, as the fire resistance
and UV resistance are unknown and the water resistance is very poor. It is a very quickly hardened
and strong material and it can be moulded into any form, so it would be very interesting to test
CoRncrete further as an interlocking, interior block wall. Also worth testing are local biological
starches, for example from rice husk. This is not tested yet, but as the two starches have different
hardening properties my hypothesis is that starch from rice is not suitable. The use of starch that
can also be used as food is unwanted, as both the need for food and building materials are expected
to rise in the future.

Hempcrete walls are not load bearing and therefore can be infills of a wooden framework. The
hemp protects the wooden framework from fire, UV and water and thereby the lifespan of the
wooden structure increases. Hempcrete is also an interesting alternative material to use in tropical
climates as hempcrete regulates moisture (damp-open) and temperature. Regulation of this factors
create a comfortable indoor climate. As an improvement of the product, it can be researched if
agricultural waste products such as cassava waste, rice husks, corncob, coconut fibres, sugar cane
(bagasse) and palm oil fibres can be used instead of hemp fibres. If this is possible, it will decrease
the already little eco-costs of hempcrete even more.

BioBricks are non-degradable and therefore have a similar problem as concrete; at the end of its
lifecycle the bricks can only be down-graded as aggregates or they end up as waste in landfills.
They are the least sustainable option from all the researched alternative materials, but still they
are only producing one third of the eco-costs in comparison to concrete. It would be interesting
to find out if the process could be simplified or if it would already be possible to implement this
technique in a self-building environment, as the BioBricks are waterproof and therefore suitable
as façade material in a tropical climate.

There can be concluded that there is not one perfect alternative for concrete. All the materials
have their strength and weaknesses, although all of them could have a purpose in the built
environment in tropical areas. When not with a structural purpose, the material might be a good
insulation or protection for the column and beam structure. Further research could be done in a
way to set up a market for this materials in Indonesia, as inhabitants often stick to the techniques
and materials they know.
REFERENCES
Abbott, T. (2014). Hempcrete Factsheet. Grey Gables: The Limecrete Company Ltd.
Abrams, M. (2014). Construction Materials Made from 'Shrooms'. Retrieved from ASME.org:
https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/construction-and-building/construction-
materials-made-from-shrooms

aE/Intecture team. (2017). The News of Progress: Architectural Engineering. Delft: Faculty of
Architecture & the built Environment.

Aleinikova, A. (2016). How can your company fill a gap in Indonesia's construction material imports
market? Retrieved from ITE Build&Interiors: http://www.buildingshows.com/market-
insights/Indonesia/How-can-your-company-fill-a-gap-in-Indonesia-s-construction-material-
imports-market/801816828

Bernardi, D., de Jong, J., Montoya, B., & Martinez, B. (2014). Bio-bricks: Biologically cemented
sandstone bricks. Construction and Building Materials , 462-469.
Boyer, M. (2017). Philip Ross Molds Fast-Growing Fungi Into Mushroom Building Bricks That Are
Stronger than Concrete. Inhabitat.

Campos, H. (2016). The Evolution of Hempcrete and Hemp Construction. Retrieved from thcint:
http://www.thcint.com/thcint-blog/the-evolution-of-hempcrete-and-hemp-construction

Clifton Schooley & Associates. (2008). FAQ about Rammed Earth. Retrieved from Rammed Earth
Designers & Builders: http://www.rammedearth.info/rammed-earth-FAQ.htm

dmg. (2017). Indonesia's construction market to grow 8% in 2017. Retrieved from dmg events:
https://www.dmgeventsme.com/media/events-in-the-press/2017/may/indonesias-construction-
market-to-grow-8-in-2017

Groenebouwmaterialen. (2008-2017). Kalkhennep / hempcrete. Retrieved from groenebouwmaterialen.nl:

https://www.groenebouwmaterialen.nl/c-1616814/kalkhennep-hempcrete/

Groenebouwmaterialen. (2008-2017). Leemstenen DF, 24 x 11.5 x 5.2cm, 10 stuks . Retrieved from

Groenebouwmaterialen.nl: https://www.groenebouwmaterialen.nl/a-
28659108/leemstenen/leemstenen-df-24-x-11-5-x-5-2cm-10-stuks

Idemat. (2018). Levens Cyclus analyse. Retrieved from Ide-mat: http://www.idemat.nl/levens-cyclus-

analyse/

King, J. (2013). Phil Ross uses fungus to make bricks and furniture. South China Morning Post.
König, H., Kohler, N., Kreißig, J., & Lützkendorf, T. (2010). A life cycle approach to buildings. Munich:
Architektur-Dokumentation GmbH & Co. KG.

Kottas, D., Krauel, J., & Noden, J. (2011). Materials, Innovation & Design. Barcelona: LinksBooks.

Kulshreshtha, Y. (2015). CoRncrete A biobased construction material. Delft: TU Delft.

Kulshreshtha, Y., Schlangen, E., Jonkers, H., Vardon, P., & van Paassen, L. (2017). CoRncrete: A corn
starch based building material. Construction and Building Materials, 411-423.

Larasati, D. (2006). Towards an integral approach of sustainable housing in Indonesia: With an analysis
of current practices in Java. Delft : TU Delft.

Minke, G. (2006). Building with Earth Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture. Basel,
Berlin, Boston: Birkhäuser.

Nitivattananon, V., & Borongan, G. (2007). Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Current
Practices in Asia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste
Management (pp. 97-104). Chennai: India.
Rijkswaterstaat Leefomgeving. (2013). Nederlands afval in cijfers: gegevens 2006-2010. Utrecht:
Rijkswaterstaat Leefomgeving.

Simonen, K. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment. New York: Routledge.

Sjunnesson, J. (2005). Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete. Lund: Lund University, department of
Technology and Society.

Slowey, K. (2016). Startup BioMason creates coral-like bricks from sand and bacteria. Retrieved from
ConstructionDrive: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/startup-biomason-creates-coral-
like-bricks-from-sand-and-bacteria/412369/

Smit, M., Wörner, J., Ku, D., & Asselbergs, T. (2017). The potential of a decentralized circular building
industry for self-built housing in Indonesia. Bandung: HABiTechno International Seminar.

Stacey, M. (2011). Concrete a studio design guide. London: RIBA Publishing.

Suharman, U., Higashi, O., & Kubota, T. (2015). Evaluation of current material stock and future
demolition waste for urban residential buildings in Jakarta and Bandung, Indonsia: embodied
energy and CO2 emission analysis. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, pp. 657-
675.

Tradical. (2008). Building lime innovation. Lhoist group .

United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospect. New York: UN.

van den Dobbelsteen, A., & Alberts, K. (2005). Bouwmaterialen, milieu & gezondheid. Amsterdam:
WEKA Uitgeverij B.V.

van Paassen, L. (2009). Biogrout Ground Improvement by Microbially Induced Carbonate Precipitation.
Delft: TU Delft.

Vogtländer, J. (2012). A practical guide for students, designers and business managers LCA. Delft:
VSSD.

Zijlstra, E., de Ruiter, A., & Payman, A. (2005). Material skills: evolution of materials. Rotterdam:
Materia.
APPENDIX

Figure 1. The lifecycle of a material

Figure 2. LCA scope of materials

Figure 3: The circular life cycle of a building material, the waste stream must be eliminated

Figure 4: Life Cycle Analysis scope for materials

Figure 5: The structure system of the Eco-costs, (Vogtländer, 2012)
Figure 6. Properties of the analysed materials
Figure 7: Life cycle of concrete

Figure 8: Life cycle of loam (Rammed earth)

Figure 9: Life cycle of mycelium

Figure 10: Life cycle of CoRncrete

Figure 11: Life cycle of Hempcrete

Figure 12: Life cycle of BioBricks

Figures 13 – 18 (from left top to right bottom)
Concrete
Loam (Rammed Earth)
Mycelium
CoRncrete
Hempcrete
BioBricks