J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.

A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127

DOI 10.1007/s40030-014-0075-x

CASE STUDY

Embodied Energy Assessment and Comparisons for a Residential

Building Using Conventional and Alternative Materials in Indian
Context
K. Naveen Kishore • J. S. Chouhan

Received: 29 March 2013 / Accepted: 5 May 2014 / Published online: 3 June 2014
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2014

Abstract Building sector is responsible for 40 % of the better alternative to RC framed construction for up to two
primary energy use and 24 % of carbon dioxide emissions storied structures in terms of embodied energy and envi-
in India. The main source of green house gas emissions ronmental impacts.
from buildings is due to energy consumption. This paper
aims to assess the embodied energy index and environ- Keywords Embodied energy
Conventional materials

mental impact of a two storied residential building. The Alternative materials
CO2 emissions

study proposes various alternative materials which can be Load bearing construction
RC framed construction

used in day to day construction in order to mitigate the Low energy buildings
environmental impact and climate change due to con-
struction activity in India. Two types of construction
Abbreviations
techniques have been considered for the study, namely load
RCC Reinforced concrete (framed) construction
bearing and reinforced concrete framed construction.
LBS Load bearing structure (construction)
Embodied energy and carbon dioxide emissions of walling
FCB Fired clay bricks
and roofing components using conventional and alternative
FAB Fly ash bricks
materials has also been analyzed and compared. The
HCB Hollow concrete blocks
comparison is done based on two parameters namely,
SCB Soil cement blocks
embodied energy/m2 and CO2 emissions per unit of floor
ACB Aerated concrete blocks
area. The study shows that bricks, cement and steel are the
FSR Filler slab roof
three major contributors to the energy cost of constructing
RSR RC ribbed slab roof
a building by conventional methods. A conventional two
PBR Prefabricated brick panel roof
storied load bearing structure is 22 % more energy efficient
PJR RC plank & joist roof
when compared to a reinforced concrete structure. It has
BMTPC Building Materials Technology Promotion
also been observed from the study that use of alternative
Council
material in the building envelope gives embodied energy
IS Indian Standards
savings between 50 and 60 % for a two storey load bearing
structure and 30–42 % for a two storey reinforced concrete
structure. Hence a load bearing construction is certainly a

Introduction
K. Naveen Kishore (&)
Corporate Institute of Science and Technology, Hathaikheda,
Anand Nagar, Bhopal 462021, Madhya Pradesh, India The building sector represents around 40 % of the primary
e-mail: knaveen75@rediffmail.com energy use [1] throughout the world, which makes them the
single most energy intensive sector [2]. The construction
J. S. Chouhan
Samrat Ashok Technological Institute, Vidisha, sector in India is responsible for the largest share of CO2
Madhya Pradesh, India emissions (24 %) into the atmosphere [3] and a primary

123
118
energy use of nearly 41 % [4]. About 80 % of the above
emissions are resulting mainly from industrial/production
processes of four energy intensive building materials,
namely—cement, burnt clay bricks, lime and steel.
According to a survey by development alternatives the
demand for cement is expected to increase from 92.5
million tones in 2000 to 202 million tones in 2020. The
demand for steel is expected to increase from 9.6 to 23
million tones and for bricks from 61 to 89 billion during the
same period. The CO2 emissions due to cement production
is expected to increase from 85 million tones in 2000 to
186 million tones in 2020. The CO2 emissions due to
production of steel is expected to increase from 23 to 55.2
million tones and for bricks from 18 to 26 billion during the
same period [5].
A study conducted by development alternatives also
shows that the increasing demand for building materials in
the construction sector is a direct outcome of the galloping
demand for housing on a continuing growth trend of 2.4 %
per annum aggregate cumulative growth rate [5]. Nearly 2
million residential buildings are built every year in India
[6]. Most of the buildings are built using the conventional
materials like clay bricks, cement and steel. The increased
consumption of these building materials is also due to a
switch over from the conventional load bearing construc-
tion to RC framed construction even for two storied resi-
dential structures, where load bearing construction would
prove more economical.
Previous studies have shown that for buildings con-
structed in temperate or cold regions, the major part of the
energy use in buildings is in embodied energy (10–20 %)
and operating energy (80–90 %) [7–9]. The energy used
for on-site construction, demolition at the end of its life
accounts for only 1 % in the overall life cycle energy.
Thus, embodied and operating energy of the building are
two important phases of energy use in a building’s life
cycle. Embodied energy is the energy needed for produc-
tion and transportation of materials. The embodied energy
of a building depends on the quantity of materials used in
its construction and their embodied energy values/unit
weight of the material. It is seen that building envelopes
have a significant potential in bringing down the embodied
energy in a building because they contribute a major pro-
portion (walls 46 % and roofs 16 %) of the materials used
in residential buildings [10]. For a sustainable future, the
buildings need to be constructed in a manner that they use
minimum natural resources and also cause low environ-
mental impact on the surroundings. Therefore alternatives
to the conventional building materials like cement, bricks
have to be used. This can result in considerable energy
savings as well as reduction of CO2 emissions.
This paper aims to assess and compare the embodied
energy index and environmental impact of a two storied
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127
residential building using conventional and alternative (low
energy) building material. Several potential alternative
walling units and roofing systems have been analyzed and
compared with conventional materials used in construction.
The building is evaluated for its embodied energy with the
existing conventional materials namely fired clay bricks,
cement and steel. For the modified cases, alternative (low
energy and cost effective) materials like fly ash bricks,
hollow concrete blocks, soil cement blocks and cellular
concrete blocks are used for masonry walls. Filler slabs,
RC ribbed slabs, prefabricated brick panels and RC plank
and joist are used as alternatives for roofs.
Literature Review
Previous researches from open literature show many case
studies of embodied energy and environmental impact in
the context of the developed or cold countries. But only a
few case studies exist in the Indian context. Three case
studies in the context of the cold countries and two in the
Indian context have been reported [11]. In the context of
the cold countries, a three bedroom semi detached house in
Scotland was examined for five main construction materi-
als namely, wood, aluminium, glass, concrete and ceramic
tiles for their respective embodied energy and their
respective environmental impacts [12]. The embodied
energy content of the various materials used for construc-
tion was estimated to be 227.4 GJ. Concrete, timber and
ceramic tiles were the three major energy intensive mate-
rials. The conclusions from the study shows that concrete is
the most energy intensive material not only in terms of the
quantity consumed but also in terms of the associated
environmental impacts. Concrete and mortar, together are
responsible for 99 % of the total CO2 emissions resulting
from the construction. The embodied energy and CO2
implications of building construction have been evaluated
in New Zealand [13]. They have made a detailed analysis
of the net carbon emissions resulting from construction of
buildings using different construction materials. The con-
clusions from the study show that significant decrease in
embodied energy CO2 emissions can be achieved if there is
a shift from using steel, concrete and aluminium to greater
use of wood as an alternative in construction. A detailed
analysis was performed on the energy consumption and
CO2 emission due to housing construction in Japan [14].
Total energy required and CO2 emissions/m2 of area for
different types of constructions have been compared. The
conclusions from the study show that energy consumption for
the construction of wooden single family houses (3 GJ/m2)
scores over steel and reinforced concrete (RC) construction
of multi-storeyed family houses (8–10 GJ/m2) in terms of
energy requirements and CO2 emissions. The life cycle
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127 119

assessment of office buildings constructed in China using
steel and concrete has been reported [15]. The observations
show that embodied energy and environmental impacts of
steel framed structures were superior to the concrete
framed structures.
In the Indian context, the embodied energy requirements
of three types of buildings namely, single storey and double
storey load bearing structures and four storey (RC framed)
structures has been evaluated [16]. The embodied energy/
m2 of floor area has been quantified to be between 3 and 5
GJ/m2 of floor area. It has been concluded that bricks,
cement and steel are the three major contributors to the
energy cost of constructing the three types of buildings.
Hence in order to reduce the indirect energy use in these
buildings, due to the construction materials, either alter-
natives for brick, cement and steel have to be found or
vigorous energy conservation measures in these segments
of industry have to be initiated. The embodied energy in
conventional and alternative building materials have been
analyzed [17]. A detailed analysis of the energy involved in
the manufacture, transportation of these materials has been
presented. Also an analysis on the embodied energy in
different types of building systems such as masonry,
roofing systems and the building types have been quanti-
fied. It is concluded from the study that among the masonry
(walling) units, soil cement blocks are the most energy
efficient in comparison to burnt clay brick and concrete
block masonry units, giving energy savings between 68 and
76 %. Among the roofing systems Mangalore tile roof and
Ferro cement roofs have the lowest embodied energy giv-
ing a savings between 70 and 80 %. Use of soil cement
block masonry and stabilized mud block (SMB) filler slab
roof has led to a 62 % savings in embodied energy when
compared to a multi storied RCC framed structure. The
results from these studies are confined only to the use of
soil cement blocks and filler slab roofs in buildings as
alternative materials. The effect of other alternative walling
and roofing systems on the embodied energy of different
building types has not been quantified. The embodied
energy of an adobe house have been evaluated in the Indian
context [18]. The house is constructed using low energy
materials like soil, sand, cow dung, etc. An embodied
energy reduction of nearly 50 % was achieved compared to
a conventional building built with cement, bricks and steel.
A summary of the embodied energy study and analysis in
Indian context is presented in Table 1 below:
Based on the studies conducted in the Indian context the
following observations have been made from the above table:
• For a floor area ranging from 50 to 130 sq m, a double
storey LB structure is more economical than a single
storey LB structure and a four storey RCC structure, in
terms of embodied energy [16].
• For a floor area ranging from 130 to 200 sq m a four
storey RCC structure is more economical as the
embodied energy is between 530 and 600 GJ. For the
same floor area, a two storey LB structure has an
embodied energy between 530 and 740 GJ [16].
• It has been indicated that to reduce the embodied
energy use in a building, alternatives for brick, steel
and cement have to be used in buildings [16].
• A two storey conventional LB structure has an embodied
energy of 2.92 GJ/m2. In contrast to this a two storey LB
structure, having similar floor area, using alternative
materials like soil cement blocks (for walls), filler slab (for
roof) has an embodied energy of 1.61 GJ/m2. This is 45 %
less than its conventional counterpart [17].
Many of the above studies only focus on quantifying the
embodied energy content of existing buildings. Some
studies suggest use of wood as an alternative for reducing
the embodied energy content in buildings. But wood is not
a feasible alternative in the Indian context, due to its high
costs. Thus from the above studies it is concluded that in
order to identify potential building alternatives for con-
ventional buildings, there is a need to quantify and com-
pare the embodied energy of all available alternative

Table 1 Overview of literature study (Indian context)

Type of building Materials used No. of Area, m2 Embodied energy CO2 emissions, Reference
floors/ per unit area, t/m2
storey, s GJ/m2

Load bearing (conventional) Brick, cement, steel 1 50–200 4.1–5 NA [16]

Load bearing (conventional) Brick, cement, steel 2 50–200 3.7–4.2 NA [16]
R.C. framed (conventional) Brick, cement, steel 4 50–200 3.1–4.3 NA [16]
R.C. framed (conventional) Brickwork for walls, Roof—RC 8 5120 4.21 0.21 [17]
solid slab, mosaic floor finish
Load bearing (conventional) Brickwork for walls, Roof- RC 2 150 2.92 0.15 [17]
solid slab, Mosaic floor finish
Load bearing (alternative) Soil cement block wall, filler slab 2 161 1.61 0.08 [17]
roof, terracotta tile floor finish

123
120
walling units and roofing systems on a residential building.
In this paper a residential building is evaluated for its
embodied energy with the existing conventional materials
namely fired clay bricks, cement and steel and its modified
cases using alternative (low energy and cost effective)
materials like fly ash bricks, hollow concrete blocks, soil
cement blocks and cellular concrete blocks for masonry
walls and filler slabs, RC ribbed slabs, prefabricated brick
panels and RC plank and joist for roofing systems.
Methodology
The case study building is a generic two-storey RC framed
residential structure (Figs. 1, 2) built in 2009 and having a
usable floor area of 126 m2. The building is built using
RCC for columns, beams and slabs and clay fired bricks as
in fills for walls.
The quantity of materials used in construction has been
estimated from the technical drawings of the existing
building. The embodied energy values of the different
building materials are taken from literature [19–21]. They
have been compiled from standard research publications
and presented in Table 2. The embodied energy of the
building has been calculated by summing up the product of
the quantity of materials and their embodied energy values.
The properties and specifications of materials and roofing
systems used for the case study building are presented in
Table 3. The embodied energy for the roofing systems has
been worked from the literature [22]. The properties of
materials have been compiled from literature [23–27].
Costs of materials have been worked out as per the latest
rates of building materials in the Indian market [28]. Based
on the studies of different alternative building materials
and systems, alternative options for construction were
worked out and have been listed in Table 4.
BMTPC has developed several cost effective and energy
efficient building materials and systems conforming to IS
codes. They include both walling units and roofing sys-
tems. To study the embodied energy savings of the building
with different alternative materials, the same house is
modified for the different options available for alternative
walling units and roofing systems. The embodied energy
demand of the conventional building which is constructed
using fired clay bricks for walls and RCC for roof is esti-
mated first and it is taken as the base case. The building is
then modified by replacing fired clay bricks for walls with
the alternative materials or blocks, namely fly ash, hollow
concrete, soil cement and cellular concrete separately with
a block thickness of 20 cm. The conventional RCC roof is
replaced with alternative roofing systems namely, filler
slab, RC ribbed slab, prefab brick panel and RC plank and
joist. A roof thickness of 11 cm is considered for all roof
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127
types. Cement pozzolona mortar is used in all alternative
building options. The comparisons are done for two types
of construction techniques, namely load bearing construc-
tion and RCC framed construction. Embodied energy
demand of the modified building is then compared with the
base case. The comparisons have been done based on two
parameters namely, embodied energy/m2 and CO2 emis-
sions (in kg)/m2 of floor area. Results have been tabulated
in the form of tables and graphs.
Results and Discussions
Embodied Energy
Based on the technical drawings used in this study, steel,
concrete, mortar and bricks together contribute to about
80 % of the materials used in the building and hence are
regarded as energy intensive materials (Fig. 3). The total
embodied energy of the structure (Base case) amounts to
about 392 GJ (3.1 GJ/m2). This is comparable well with
and is close to the results obtained by the study [17],
(Table 1) where a similar two storey conventional load
bearing structure has an embodied energy of 438 GJ (2.92
GJ/m2). It is also close to the results obtained by the study.
[16] where a RCC framed structure with floor area between
50 and 200 m2 has an embodied energy between 3.1 and 4
GJ/m2. The embodied energy breakup of the materials used
in construction is presented in Table 5. If the same building
is built using load bearing construction technique the sav-
ings in embodied energy (Table 6) amount to nearly 22 %
using conventional materials (Fig. 4). This is because the
use of steel as a structural material is reduced by nearly
50 % in a load bearing structure. This compares well with
the results obtained by Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish
[17], where a conventional load bearing structure is com-
pared with a RCC framed structure and a energy saving of
20 % is obtained. The embodied energy savings become
more significant, between 50 and 60 %, when alternative
materials are used (Fig. 5) in place of conventional mate-
rials in a load bearing construction. This also compares
well and is close to the results obtained by the study [17]
where a 55 % savings is obtained by comparison (Table 1)
of a two storey load bearing structure with alternative
materials (soil cement blocks) with a conventional two
storey load bearing structure. In Table 7 the comparisons
of embodied energy for conventional and alternative load
bearing construction options is shown. For a RC framed
construction the savings (Fig. 6) with alternative materials
vary between 30 and 42 %. Table 8 shows the comparisons
for embodied energy for conventional and alternative RC
framed construction options. The combination of soil
cement blocks ? filler slab roof is the most energy
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127
Fig. 1 Ground floor plan
(conventional-base case)
efficient with an embodied energy consumption of 160 GJ
which amounts to a 60 % savings in embodied energy for a
load bearing construction. This is followed by the combi-
nation of cellular concrete blocks ? filler slab roof which
consumes about 170 GJ of embodied energy corresponding
to 57 % savings. Soil cement blocks score over cellular
concrete block in terms of energy efficiency because they
do not require any external plastering, although both have
nearly the same embodied energy values per m3 of
masonry. Among the alternatives, the combination of
alternative walling units with RC plank and joist roofing
121
option is the most energy expensive, but they also give a
minimum savings of about 30 % for RC framed
construction.
Environmental Impacts (CO2 Emissions)
The environmental impacts for the different construction
options are presented in Table 9. The conventional RC
framed construction is expensive in terms of environmental
impact. A conventional load bearing construction is more
eco friendly in comparison to a conventional RC framed
123
122 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127

Fig. 2 First floor plan

(conventional-base case)

Table 2 Embodied energy coefficients and quantity of key building materials used in the construction of the building (base case)
Sl. no. Name of material Quantity Embodied energy, MJ

1 Cement 27.97 t 4,200

2 Bricks 12,425.00 nos 4,250
3 Sand 107.15 m3 175
3
4 Aggregates 57.72 m 200
5 Steel (reinforcement) 3.63 t 42,000
6 Steel (M.S grills) 0.30 t 42,000
7 Lime (slaked) 0.16 t 5,630
8 Hard wood (Sal) 0.22 t 1,800
9 Particle board 0.45 t 8,000
10 Glass 0.15 t 25,800
11 Aluminium 0.03 t 237,000
12 Marble 6.27 t 2,000
13 Ceramic tiles 0.65 t 2,500
14 White cement 0.25 t 7,800
15 Paint (enamel and primer) 0.02 t 80,000
16 Kota stone (for parking and utility area) 2.03 t 500

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127 123

Table 3 Properties of masonry materials/roofing systems/mortar-plasters

Type of Name of building component Description/specifications Embodied No. of Weight of Cost, Rs/m3 CO2 Reference
component energy blocks masonry/m3 emissions,
per unit per unit (Density), kg/m3
volume, volume kg/m3
MJ/m3)

Wall Brick masonry Type: Conventional 2,550 600 1,700 3,900 250 [17, 19, 21, 29]
Size—230 9 110 9 75
Composition—Clay
As per IS 2,691
Clay fly ash brick masonry Type: Alternative 1,392 600 1,270 2,400 136 [19, 21, 25]
(clay, flyash and lime) Size—230 9 110 9 75
Composition—Clay, fly ash,
lime
As per IS 13757
Hollow concrete block Type: Alternative 971 63 1,200 2,646 95 [17, 19, 26]
masonry (with 10 % Size—400 9 200 9 200
cement, sand, coarse
aggregates) Composition—10 % cement,
sand, coarse aggregates
As per IS 2185 (part 1)
Soil cement block masonry Type: Alternative 810 230 1,900 3,680 79 [17, 23]
(8 % cement and soil) Size- 230 9 190 9 100
Composition—8 % cement
and soil
Aerated concrete block Type: Alternative 819 63 750 3,150 80 [19, 27]
masonry (cement, fine Size—400 9 200 9 200
aggregates and aluminium)
Composition—cement, fine
aggregates and aluminium
As per IS 2185 (part 3)

Type of Name of building component Description/specifications Embodied Cost, Rs/m2 CO2 Reference
component energy per unit emissions,
area, MJ/m2 kg/m2

Roof RCC slab (110 mm thick, in Type: Conventional 640 1,150 63 [19, 21]
M15 CC) Size—10 m2 area
Composition—M15 CC-cement,
sand, aggregates in ratio (1:2:4)
As per IS-456
Filler slab roof (110 mm Type: Alternative 350 582 34 [22]
thick, M15 CC with Size—10 m2 area
Mangalore tiles as infill)
Composition—M15 CC-cement,
sand, aggregates in ratio (1:2:4),
Mangalore tiles as filler material
As per IS-456
RC ribbed slab roof (50 mm Type: Alternative 491 979 48 [20, 22]
thick in M20 CC) Size—10 m2 area
Composition—M20 CC cement, sand,
aggregates in ratio (1:1.5:3) for
slab, RC ribs
As per IS-456
Prefabricated brick panel roof Type: Alternative 426 927 42 [20, 22]
(110 mm thick in M20 CC) Size—10 m2 area
Composition—Brick panels for slab,
30 mm of M20 CC slab over brick
panels
As per IS-456
R.C. plank & Joist roof Type: Alternative 506 1,043 49.6 [20, 22]
(110 mm thick in M20 CC) Size—10 m2 area Composition-R.C.
planks, RC joits, 30 mm of M20 CC
slab over R.C. planks As per IS-456

123
124 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127

Table 3 continued
Type of Name of building Description/specifications Embodied per No. of blocks Weight of Cost, CO2 Reference
component component unit volume, per unit masonry/m3 Rs/ emissions,
MJ/m3 volume (Density), kg/m3 m3 kg/m3

Mortar/ Cement plaster (1:6 CM) Type: conventional 1,268 2,777 124 [19, 21]
Plaster Size—1 m2 area
Composition—CM-1:6 cement, sand
As per IS-269, 383
Cement pozzolona mortar Type: Alternative Size—1 m2 area 918 2,355 90 [17, 19]
(20 % fly ash based- 1:6 Composition- CPM-(0.8:0.2):6 Cement
CM) (80 %), pozzolona (20 %), sand As per
IS-1489, 383

Table 4 Alternative options for construction

Sl. no. Parameter Conventional Alternative (modified case)
(base case)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

1 Type of construction RC framed Load bearing (conventional) Load bearing (alternative) RC framed (alternative)
2 Building material
(a) Wall (masonry) Clay bricks Clay bricks FAB FAB
HCB HCB
SCB SCB
ACB ACB
(b) Roof RCC solid slab RCC solid slab FSR FSR
RSR RSR
PBR PBR
PJR PJR
(c) Mortar (for joints/ Cement mortar (1:6) Cement mortar (1:6) Cement pozzolona Cement pozzolona
plasters) mortar (1:6) mortar (1:6)

Table 5 Embodied energy breakup of materials (conventional RCC

structure-base case)
Sl. no. Name of material Total embodied energy, MJ

1 Cement 117,464
2 Bricks 52,806
3 Sand 18,751
4 Aggregates 11,544
5 Steel (reinforcement) 152,453
6 Steel (M.S grills) 12,600
7 Particle board 3,627
8 Glass 3,870
9 Aluminium 5,925
10 Marble 12,542

construction, giving a 20 % reduction in the CO2 emis-

Fig. 3 Embodied energy break up (conventional RCC-base case)
sions. Among the alternatives, Soil cement blocks and
cellular concrete blocks have the least environmental
impact corresponding to a 53–55 % reduction in the CO2
emissions when compared to conventional construction
methods.

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127 125

Table 6 Embodied energy breakup of materials (conventional LBS) Table 7 Embodied energy comparisons for conventional and alter-
native options (LBS)
Sl. no. Name of material Total embodied energy, MJ
Sl. no. Type of construction Embodied energy per
1 Cement 86,789 unit area, GJ/m2
2 Bricks 77,988
1 Conventional (RCC) RCC roof
3 Sand 17,717
(Burnt clay ? RCC roof) 3.17
4 Aggregates 7,904
RCC roof
5 Steel (reinforcement) 76,227
2 Conventional (LBS) 2.44
6 Steel (M.S grills) 12,600
(Burnt clay ? RCC roof)
7 Particle board 3,627
Alternative (load bearing Filler R.C thin Brick R.C. plank
8 Glass 3,870
structure with cement slab ribbed slab panel & joist
9 Aluminium 5,925 pozzolona mortar)
10 Marble 12,542
3 FAB 1.44 1.59 1.52 1.61
4 HCB 1.38 1.53 1.46 1.55
5 SCB 1.27 1.43 1.36 1.44
6 ACB 1.35 1.50 1.43 1.52

3.5

3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17

3
Embodied energy, GJ/m2

2.5 Fly Ash

2.17 2.1 2.19
2
2.02
1.961.92
2.112.08 2.04 2.13 2.1
2.01 HCB
2.01 1.94 2.02
1.85
SCB
1.5

ACB
1
Conventional (RC Framed)
0.5 (Burnt clay+RCC roof)

0
Filler slab R.C thin Brick panel RC.Plank &
ribbed slab joist

Fig. 4 Embodied energy break up (conventional LBS) Fig. 6 Embodied energy comparisons for RCC

3.5

3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17

Table 8 Embodied energy comparisons for conventional and alter-
3 Fly Ash native options (RCC structure)
Embodied energy (in GJ/m2)

Sl. no. Type of construction Embodied energy per

2.5 HCB
2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 unit area, GJ/m2

2 SCB 1 Conventional (RC Framed) RCC roof

1.59 1.52 (Burnt clay ? RCC roof) 3.17
1.44 1.53 1.55
1.61
1.5 1.5 1.46 1.52 ACB
1.38 1.35 1.43 1.44
1.43 1.36 Alternative Filler R.C thin Brick R.C. plank
1.27 (RC framed structure slab ribbed slab panel & joist
1
Conventional(Load with cement
Bearing)
(Burnt clay+RCC roof) pozzolona mortar)
0.5
Conventional (RC
Framed) 2 FAB 2.02 2.17 2.1 2.19
0 (Burnt clay+RCC roof)
Filler slab R.C thin Brick RC.Plank 3 HCB 1.96 2.11 2.04 2.13
ribbed panel & joist 4 SCB 1.85 2.01 1.94 2.02
slab
5 ACB 1.92 2.08 2.01 2.10
Fig. 5 Embodied energy comparisons for LBS

123
126 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127

Table 9 Comparative summary of CO2 emissions for different construction types

Sl. no. Type of construction Total CO2 emissions, t/m2

1 Conventional (RCC framed) 0.300

(burnt clay ? RCC roof)
2 Conventional (LBS) (burnt clay ? RCC roof) 0.240

3 Alternative 1 (LBS with Total CO2 emissions, t/m2

cement pozzolona mortar)

FAB masonry ? FSR 0.150

HCB masonry ? FSR 0.146
SCB masonry ? FSR 0.135
ACB masonry ? FSR 0.142
FAB masonry ? RSR 0.167
HCB masonry ? RSR 0.161
SCB masonry ? RSR 0.151
ACB masonry ? RSR 0.158
FAB masonry ? PBR 0.160
HCB masonry ? PBR 0.154
SCB masonry ? PBR 0.144
ACB masonry ? PBR 0.151
FAB masonry ? PJR 0.168
HCB masonry ? PJR 0.163
SCB masonry ? PJR 0.152
ACB masonry ? PJR 0.159

4 Alternative 2 (RC framed structure Total CO2 emissions, t/m2

with cement pozzolona mortar)

FAB masonry ? FSR 0.208

HCB masonry ? FSR 0.202
SCB masonry ? FSR 0.192
ACB masonry ? FSR 0.199
FAB masonry ? RSR 0.223
HCB masonry ? RSR 0.217
SCB masonry ? RSR 0.207
ACB masonry ? RSR 0.215
FAB masonry ? PBR 0.216
HCB masonry ? PBR 0.210
SCB masonry ? PBR 0.200
ACB masonry ? PBR 0.207
FAB masonry ? PJR 0.225
HCB masonry ? PJR 0.219
SCB masonry ? PJR 0.209
ACB masonry ? PJR 0.216

Conclusions The study is aimed at quantifying how the present con-

In this paper, the embodied energy demand for a residential
building of usable floor area of 126 m2 is analyzed with
existing conventional (FCB, steel, concrete) and alternative
materials (Walling units—FAB, HCB, SCB, ACB and
roofing systems—FSR, RSR, PBR, PJR) and techniques.
struction methods are energy intensive and cause serious
environmental impact. The study is done for load bearing
construction and RC framed construction techniques. The
conventional RC framed construction is most expensive in
terms of energy and environmental impacts. The embodied
energy amounts to 3.11 GJ/m2 and the CO2 emissions

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (April–June 2014) 95(2):117–127
amount to 0.250 tonnes CO2/m2 of floor area. The study
shows that a conventional load bearing construction alone
can reduce the Embodied energy demand of the building by
about 22 % and its corresponding environmental impact by
20 %. When alternative materials are used the energy sav-
ings amount to between 50 and 60 % corresponding to a
44–55 % reduction in CO2 emissions for a load bearing
construction technique. Soil cement blocks ? filler slabs
(60 %) and aerated concrete blocks ? filler slabs (57 %)
have better energy performance and least environmental
impact (45–47 %) among the alternative materials using the
load bearing construction technique. The same alternative
materials give energy savings between 30 and 42 % and
reduction in CO2 emissions between 25 and 36 % for a RC
framed construction technique. Hence it is clear from the
study that a load bearing construction is certainly a better
option in lieu of an RC framed construction for single and
two storied residential structures, leading to reduced con-
struction costs as well as low environmental impacts.
Following are a summary of conclusions drawn from the
above study:
• A conventional two-storey load bearing structure is
22 % more energy efficient than a RC framed structure.
• Embodied energy savings are between 50 and 60 %
with use of alternative materials for LB structure.
• Embodied energy savings are between 30 and 42 %
with use of alternative materials for RC structure.
• Soil cement blocks and aerated concrete blocks with filler
slabs have least environmental impact. They give a CO2
reduction between 53 and 55 % over conventional
materials for a load bearing construction technique.
• Soil cement blocks and aerated concrete blocks with
filler slabs give reduction in CO2 emissions between 33
and 36 % for a RC framed construction technique.
Recommendations The study proposes various alternative
materials which can be used in day to day construction in
order to mitigate the environmental impact and climate
change due to construction activity in India. The results of
this study can be used to quantify and analyse the energy
requirements and environmental impacts for multistoreyed
residential buildings like apartments.
References
1. International Energy Agency, Buildings (2011)
2. International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2009
(IEA, Paris, 2009)
3. J. Parikh, M. Panda, G. Kumar, V. Singh, CO2 emissions struc-
ture of Indian economy. Energy 34(8), 1024–1031 (2009)
4. UNEP-SBCI, Background Paper for Sustainable Buildings and
Construction for India: Policies, Practices and Performance;
127
Influence of Indian buildings on Climate Change (UNEP Publi-
cation, Paris, France, 2007)
5. Development Alternatives News Letter, The Construction Sector
in India and Climate Change (2011)
6. NBO, The Handbook of Housing Statistics (Part 1). (National
Buildings Organization (NBO), New Delhi, India, 1990)
7. K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit
dwellings: examples. Build. Environ. 32(4), 321–329 (1997)
8. K. Adalberth, Energy use in four multi-family houses during their
life cycle. Int. J. Low Energy Sustain. Build. 1, 1–20 (1999)
9. R. Fay, G. Treloar, U. Iyer-Raniga, Life-cycle energy analysis of
buildings: a case study. Build. Res. Inf. 28(1), 31–41 (2000)
10. P. Tiwari, J. Parikh, Cost of CO2 reduction in building con-
struction. Energy 20, 531–547 (1994)
11. T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis
of building: an overview. Energy Build. 42(10), 1592–1600
(2010)
12. M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: a case
study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build. Environ. 42,
1391–1394 (2007)
13. A.H. Buchanan, B.G. Honey, Energy and carbon dioxide impli-
cations of building construction. Energy Build. 20, 205–217
(1994)
14. T. Oka, M. Suzuki, T. Konnya, The estimation of energy con-
sumption and amount of pollutants due to the construction of
buildings. Energy Build. 19, 303–311 (1993)
15. S. Xing, X. Zhang, G. Jun, Inventory analysis of LCA on steel-
and concrete construction office buildings. Energy Build. 40,
1188–1193 (2008)
16. A. Debnath, S.V. Singh, Y.P. Singh, Comparative assessment of
energy requirements for different types of residential buildings in
India. Energy Build. 23, 141–146 (1995)
17. B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, K.S. Jagadish, Embodied energy of
common and alternative building materials and technologies.
Energy Build. 35, 129–137 (2003)
18. A. Shukla, G.N. Tiwari, M.S. Sodha, Embodied energy analysis
of adobe house. Renew. Energy 34, 755–761 (2009)
19. Energy Directory of Building Materials, Development Alterna-
tives and Building Materials Technology Promotion Council,
New Delhi (1995)
20. T.N. Gupta, Mohan Rai, S.P. Ghosh, V.S. Parmeswaran, P.B.
Vijay, Building Materials in India: 50 years (Building Materials
and Technology Promotion Council, Wordsmithy, New Delhi,
1998)
21. The Energy and Resources Institute, Sustainable Building Design
Manual, vol. 2 (Sustainable Building Design Practices, New
Delhi, 2004), pp. 91–112
22. Standards and Specifications for Cost Effective Innovative
Building Materials and Techniques (Including Rate Analysis) 2nd
edn. (Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council,
New Delhi, 2009)
23. A.R. Grover, Alternative construction systems: towards cost
optimization (Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1997)
24. B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, K.S. Jagadish, Influence of soil com-
position on the strength and durability of soil–cement blocks.
Indian Concr. J. 69, 517–524 (1995)
25. IS 13757, Specification for Burnt Clay Fly Ash Building Bricks
(BIS, New Delhi, 1993)
26. IS 2185 (Part-1), Specification for Concrete Masonry Units
(Hollow Concrete Blocks) (BIS, New Delhi, 2003)
27. IS 2185 (Part-3), Specification for Concrete Masonry Units
(Autoclaved Cellular Concrete Blocks) (BIS, New Delhi, 1989)
28. M.P. Schedule of rates for building works (M.P. Public Works
Department, Bhopal, 2012)
29. IS 2691, Specification for Burnt Clay Bricks (BIS, New Delhi,
1988)
123