See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326784176

Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction: Select

Proceedings of SEC 2016

Chapter · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-0362-3_69

CITATIONS READS

0 1,455

4 authors:

Gouri Krishna S R Philip Cherian

Indian Institute of Technology Madras Indian Institute of Technology Madras
2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Devdas Menon A. Meher Prasad

Indian Institute of Technology Madras Indian Institute of Technology Madras
77 PUBLICATIONS   301 CITATIONS    95 PUBLICATIONS   724 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation of shear behaviour of vertical joints between precast wall panels View project

Behaviour of beam-slab systems under gravity loading View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Cherian on 26 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels
for Sustainable Construction

S. R. Gouri Krishna, Philip Cherian, Devdas Menon

and A. Meher Prasad

Abstract The tremendous housing need of India is causing the depletion of virgin
building materials. In an era of scarce resources, sustainable solutions are always
preferable. Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) technology is one such
solution where all the structural members are constructed using hollow panels
infilled with reinforced concrete (RC), as per structural design. This paper discusses
the sustainability of construction using GFRG panels in terms of embodied energy
and indoor thermal comfort. The case study building at IIT Madras campus was
found to have lesser embodied energy compared to conventional buildings. The
result is significant considering the fact that the building sector consumes 40% of
the total energy in world. Also, the inside temperature was found to be lesser by
2 °C which will help in reducing the air conditioning requirement of the building
and thereby the operational energy.

Keywords GFRG
Embodied energy
Sustainable construction

1 Introduction

There is a great need to find innovative solutions to tackle the booming problem of
housing shortage in India, distinctly for the poverty-stricken people of our society.
In particular, there is a necessity to address the shelter needs of the lower income

S. R. Gouri Krishna
P. Cherian
D. Menon (&)
A. M. Prasad

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: dmenon@iitm.ac.in
S. R. Gouri Krishna
e-mail: gouriksr@gmail.com
P. Cherian
e-mail: philiph.cherian@gmail.com
A. M. Prasad
e-mail: prasadam@iitm.ac.in

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 855

A. Rama Mohan Rao and K. Ramanjaneyulu (eds.), Recent Advances in Structural
Engineering, Volume 1, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 11,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0362-3_69
856 S. R. Gouri Krishna et al.

groups and their aspirations. The challenge is to make these aspirations a reality, by
providing an affordable solution that is also fast. Ideally, the solution should be
scalable—to reach the masses—and should be quickly buildable. There would be
significant demand for construction materials such as cement, steel, burnt clay
bricks and water in order to fulfill this huge demand. While chasing this big target,
the requirement for future generation should also be kept in mind. These require-
ments, rapidity, affordability and sustainability, oblige to the promotion of inno-
vative new materials and methods of construction. Although there are a number of
solutions for resolving the housing shortage problem, the scope of this paper
focusses on one such solution using Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum (GFRG)
panels. This holds the promise of providing sustainable, rapid and affordable mass
housing.
GFRG is a new building panel product, known commercially as Rapidwall® in
the industry. GFRG panels are lightweight load-bearing panels that are most suit-
able for rapid mass-scale building construction. They are manufactured out of
gypsum reinforced by special glass rovings and were first introduced in Australia in
1990. Panels are manufactured to a standard size of 12 m  3 m  0.124 m and
every 1 m of panel houses four cavities of inner dimension 230  94 mm as shown
in Fig. 1.
The technology found its roots in India in 2003 and since then, several buildings
were constructed using GFRG load-bearing panels, without any beams and col-
umns. Studies conducted in India and elsewhere have contributed to ensure satis-
factory structural performance of the individual components as well as the system
as a whole. But in the present scenario of construction, sustainability also plays a
key role which cannot be fulfilled by the fast depleting conventional construction
materials. GFRG panels, which are manufactured in India out of the industrial
fertilizer waste, are fairly competent in this aspect.
The term sustainability is applicable to materials as well as building as a whole.
A material will be termed as sustainable, when it satisfies certain criteria in man-
ufacturing, usage and disposal stages [1]. Numerically, sustainability is expressed in
terms of CO2 emission rate and embodied energy (total energy associated with the
manufacturing of material, starting from the extraction of components). The green
rating of a building depends on several factors such as selection of site, energy
efficiency, water conservation, materials and resources used, indoor environment
quality, provision for rainwater harvesting, waste management, etc. Two rating
systems, namely Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green

Fig. 1 Cross section of 250

GFRG panel 15

gypsum
94 glass plaster +
fibres flange
ingredients
web
15
20 230
Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction 857

Fig. 2 a Weightage for various factors according to LEED [2]. b Weightage for various factors
according to GRIHA [3]

Building Rating System (managed by Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)) and
Green Rating for Integrated Habit Assessment (GRIHA) (under The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI)), are responsible for the green rating of buildings in
India. Figure 2a, b shows various factors and respective weightages as per the two
rating schemes.
According to the above distribution, around 50% of the rating depends on the
materials used for construction. In this regard, it is necessary to ascertain the
suitability of GFRG as a sustainable alternative to conventional construction
materials. The embodied energy of GFRG panel as well as GFRG buildings is
858 S. R. Gouri Krishna et al.

Fig. 3 GFRG demonstration building at IIT Madras campus

considered for assessing sustainability. In addition, the thermal comfort is also

accounted because thermally uncomfortable environment lowers the energy effi-
ciency of the building GFRG demonstration building inside the IIT Madras campus
(Fig. 3), constructed for showcasing the features of this technology such as rapidity,
affordability, sustainability, etc., which was considered for the calculation of
embodied energy and assessment of thermal comfort through field measurements.

2 Construction of GFRG Buildings

GFRG panels can be used as walls (both external and internal), slabs, staircases,
lift-well walls, parapet walls, sunshades, etc., with Reinforced Concrete (RC) filling
inside the cavities. The number, diameter and spacing of rebars are decided based
on the structural design. Foundation for GFRG building is same as that of con-
ventional buildings up to the basement/plinth level (above ground level). The type
of foundation depends on the number of storeys and soil condition at the site. The
connectivity between foundation and superstructure is achieved with the help of
starter bars with L anchorage, provided to the network of RC plinth beams at
basement footing level. Panels are cut into required sizes in the factory based on
Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction 859

requirement and are packed in stillages, loaded on to trucks, and then transported to
the construction site. At the site, panels in stillages are unloaded using vehicle
mounted cranes and are stacked at a convenient location. Panels are handled at site
using special lifting jaws fitted onto cranes. For construction, the erection of walls is
to be done as per the building plan (marked with notations of panels) by installing
the respective panels in perfect plumb and level by specially trained installation
team. Wall panels are fixed in position using specially manufactured adjustable
lateral props in order to hold them in rigid position. Concrete is poured on to the
cavities wherever required. The leftover cavities of the wall panel are filled with
quarry dust. After infilling concrete in the wall panel, construction of staircase waist
slabs is carried out. The slab panels shall be laid on suitable support system and
concrete infilling can be done after cutting the flanges of specified cavities. The
upper storeys can be constructed in a similar manner. After the construction of
superstructure, proper waterproofing and finishing works need to be carried out (For
details of construction, ‘GFRG construction Manual, 2016’ [4] shall be referred).

3 Embodied Energy of Building

The energy consumed by the building over its entire life cycle can be considered as
a measure of sustainability. The components of Life Cycle Energy (LCE) are
illustrated in Fig. 4. In this paper, only the initial embodied energy is considered for
assessing sustainability.
Initial embodied energy is given by
X
Eim ¼ m i Mi ð1Þ

where
mi total quantity of the ith material;
Mi energy density of the ith material;
For calculating the embodied energy, the quantity of different materials needs to
be evaluated.

Energy for
material
Operational manufacturing,
energy, OE Eim
Initial embodied Energy for
energy, EEi transporting
Life cycle Embodied Energy for materials, Et
energy, LCE energy, EE building
Recurring
embodied construction, Ec Energy for
energy, EEr construction
Demolition equipment, Eeq
energy, DE

Fig. 4 Components of life cycle energy

860 S. R. Gouri Krishna et al.

4 Details of Case Study Building

The GFRG demonstration building, built inside IIT Madras campus, is considered
for assessing sustainability. Figure 5 shows the building plan of a typical floor.
The two-storey building houses four flats with a built-up area of 184 m2 (two for
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) having carpet area of 25 m2 each and two for
Low Income Group (LIG) having carpet area of 46 m2). The construction was
completed in 40 days (11 days for foundation and 29 days for superstructure). The
foundation was strip footing, constructed using fly ash blocks. Every structural
member except sunshade was constructed using GFRG panels with concrete infill.
The steps of staircase were constructed using concrete. The front doors are made of
wood and the interior doors, and all windows are made of aluminium. Ceramic tiles
were used for the floor finishing.

5 Estimation of Quantities of Various Materials Used

The total quantity of various materials used for the construction of foundation,
walls, slabs, lintel cum sunshade, parapet, staircase headroom, etc. and finishing
works (such as waterproofing, tiling, rendering, priming and painting) were cal-
culated. Table 1 shows the values obtained.
As GFRG buildings are constructed using prefabricated wall and slab panels, the
joints need to be waterproofed in order to prevent the ingress of water, unlike con-
ventional buildings. The quantity of waterproofing products used is given in Table 2.

Fig. 5 Typical floor plan

Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction 861

Table 1 Quantity of building materials

Component of building Constituents of Materials Quantity
component used (kg)
Foundation Concrete for PCC Cement 3878.6
layer, floor and plinth Coarse 26,721.0
beam aggregate
River sand 13,360.7
Water 1861.4
Block work Fly ash 85,067.5
blocks
Mortar and plastering Cement 4100.2
River sand 24,318.7
Water 1845.1
Infill River sand 35,660.3
Quarry 22,848.0
dust
Reinforcement for Steel 361.2
plinth beam
Walls (including parapet) Wall panels GFRG 21,714.9
panels
Concrete infill (M20 Cement 4937.9
grade) Coarse 19,751.5
aggregate
River sand 9875.8
Water 2222.0
Reinforcement Steel 509.9
Inert infill Quarry 36,901.8
dust
Slabs Slab panels GFRG 7721.7
panels
Concrete (M25 grade) Cement 7974.7
Coarse 23,924.1
aggregate
River sand 11,962.0
Water 3588.6
Reinforcement Steel 1339.3
(including weld mesh)
Staircase headroom Panels for walls, slabs GFRG 2261.5
and parapet panel
Concrete infill in walls Cement 409.9
(M20 grade) Coarse 1639.8
aggregate
River sand 819.9
Water 184.5
(continued)
862 S. R. Gouri Krishna et al.

Table 1 (continued)
Component of building Constituents of Materials Quantity
component used (kg)
Inert infill Quarry 2335.0
dust
Concrete for slabs Cement 328.5
(M25 grade) Coarse 985.6
aggregate
River sand 492.8
Water 147.8
Reinforcement Steel 181.4
(including weld mesh)
Finishing works Priming WD P30 19.3
WD 16.3
thinner
Rendering (interior and Wall putty 783.6
exterior) Water 132.2
Elastobar 41.7
Painting Paint 247.2
Tiling Tiles 4721.4
Plastering Cement 2033.2
Sand 7999.2
Water 915.0
Doors/windows/ventilators Door/window frame Aluminium 259.5
Window/ventilator Glass 218.7
panes
Doors Wood 47.9
MEP works Pipes PVC 300.5
Fittings Ceramic 58
Iron 93.0
Stainless 270.6
steel
Miscellaneous (Lintel cum sunshade, Concrete (M20 grade) Cement 2373.6
landing beam, beam in balcony, etc.) Coarse 7502.8
aggregate
River sand 3751.4
Water 1068.1
Reinforcement Steel 550.1

The total embodied energy of materials calculated using Eq. (1) is given in
Table 3. The energy for transportation of materials and construction equipment are
not considered in this study. It was observed that materials for envelope hold the
major part of embodied energy.
Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction 863

Table 2 Quantity of waterproofing chemicals used

Waterproofing product Quantity (kg)
Zycosil 7.8
Zycoprime 18.9
ZMB60 116.5
ZMB thinner 1.0
Elastobar 48.6
Stretch fab 13.6
Total 240.6

Table 3 Calculated embodied energy

Material Total quantity, mi Embodied energy, Mi (MJ/kg) Total embodied energy
(kg) [5–9] (MJ)
Quarry dust 62,084.8 0.15 9312.72
Fly ash blocks 85,067.5 0.64 54,443.2
Cement 26,050.5 6.85 178,445.9
GFRG panels 31,698.1 5.44a 172,437.7
Steel 2941.9 35.1 103,260.7
Tiles 4721.4 3.33 15,722.3
Aluminium 259.5 155b 40,222.5
Paint 247.2 144 35,596.8
Coarse 80,524.8 0.4 32,209.9
aggregate
PVC 300.5 106 31,853
Waterproofing 240.6 90.67 21,815.2
River sand 108,261.1 0.15 16,239.2
Stainless steel 270.6 56.7b 15,343.0
Primer 35.6 144 5126.4
Wall putty 783.6 5.3b 4153.1
Iron 93 25b 2325
Ceramic 58 29b 1682
Glass 218.7 25.8 5642.5
Wood 47.9 7.2 344.9
Total 746,176
a
Embodied energy value from Ref. [5]
b
Embodied energy value from Ref. [9]

Figures 6 and 7 show the distribution of weight and embodied energy of various
materials used. The large quantity of usage can be misleading in terms of embodied
energy. For example, river sand and coarse aggregate together constitute 46.8% of the
total quantity. But in the context of embodied energy, their contribution is only 4%.
864 S. R. Gouri Krishna et al.

Fig. 6 Percentage distribution of weight of different structural and non-structural components of

building

Fig. 7 Percentage distribution of embodied energy of different materials used for construction
Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction 865

6 Evaluation of Indoor Thermal Comfort

The thermal performance of GFRG building was analysed through real-time field
measurements. The purpose of this test was to compare the thermal performance of
GFRG buildings with that of the conventional reinforced concrete framed buildings.
For this, the case study buildings selected were the GFRG demo building inside the
IIT Madras campus and a conventional RC framed building in the same campus.
The latter was located just adjacent to the demo building and was subjected to
similar shading conditions as that of the former. The test was done on harsh summer
days (10–13 June 2015) and was conducted by installing digital thermometers
inside one of the rooms in both the buildings. Each thermometer had two ther-
mocouples, of which one was fixed on the selected wall surface and the other on an
exterior wall of the building. The thermometer was set to record temperatures at
every hour, and the readings were taken continuously for 3 days. After analysis, it
could be seen that the variation in the measured temperatures followed a similar
pattern. The measured values for a typical day are shown in Table 4, and a plot of
the same is shown in Fig. 8. The difference in the temperatures measured in the
exterior thermocouples of the two case study buildings was very minimal, but those
in the interior showed considerable difference.
It was observed that the temperatures inside the GFRG building were lesser than
the conventional building by a maximum of 2 °C. It could also be observed that the
trend was reversed during the afternoon hours, where the conventional building was
up to 0.6 °C cooler. But the number of discomfort hours was considerably less.

7 Conclusion

A similar study conducted on the evaluation of embodied energy on a conventional

reinforced concrete framed building shows that the embodied energy per unit area is
10.8 GJ/m2 [10]. For the GFRG demo building, the embodied energy works out to
be only 5.24 GJ/m2, which shows that GFRG has almost 50% lesser embodied
energy when compared to conventional building system. This makes GFRG a
competent alternative to conventional building materials and systems. Moreover,
GFRG buildings offer better interior thermal comfort even during the hottest days.
This minimizes the energy requirement for air conditioning of the building and
thereby results in saving of electricity. This reveals that the use of GFRG panels in
building construction improves the sustainability of the building sector.
866 S. R. Gouri Krishna et al.

Table 4 Temperature measurements

Time Outside Temperature inside conventional Temperature inside GFRG
temperature (°C) building (°C) building (°C)
12:00 30.9 33.5 32.2
AM
01:00 30.8 33.6 32.1
AM
02:00 30.9 33.4 32
AM
03:00 30.4 33.3 32
AM
04:00 29.9 33.5 32
AM
05:00 29.4 33.2 31.7
AM
06:00 28.8 33.2 31.3
AM
07:00 29.4 32.9 31.2
AM
08:00 30.7 33.1 31.1
AM
09:00 32.4 32.9 31.1
AM
10:00 34.8 32.2 31.4
AM
11:00 36.2 32.7 31.6
AM
12:00 36.6 32.9 31.8
PM
01:00 39.4 33 32.3
PM
02:00 40 32.5 32.7
PM
03:00 36.7 32.6 33
PM
04:00 34.9 32.9 33.5
PM
05:00 34.8 32.9 33.4
PM
06:00 33.3 33 33.2
PM
07:00 32.9 33.8 33.1
PM
08:00 32.6 33.7 33
PM
09:00 32.2 33.5 33
PM
10:00 31.5 33.7 32.8
PM
11:00 31.3 34.2 32.6
PM
 Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Panels for Sustainable Construction 867

Fig. 8 Variation of temperature with time

Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the Engineering Unit of IIT Madras for their
support. The funding for the construction of the demo building by IIT Madras and Department of
Science and Technology is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Monteiro, A. (2015) Assessing initial embodied energy in building structures using LCA
methodology (MS thesis). New University of Lisbon, Portugal.
2. https://igbc.in/igbc/.
3. www.grihaindia.org.
4. Structural Engineering Division, IITM. (2016). GFRG Construction manual, BMTPC,
MHUPA.
5. Omahen, R. (2002). Ecologically sustainable development: Approaches in the construction
industry (Thesis). University of Regensburg, Germany.
6. Reddy, B. V. V., & Jagadish, K. S. (2003). Embodied energy of common and alternative
building materials and technologies. Energy and Buildings, 35, 129–137.
7. Shukla, A., Tiwari, G. N., & Sodha, M. S. (2009). Embodied energy analysis of adobe house.
Renewable Energy, 34, 755–761.
8. Chani, P. S., & Najamuddin, K. S. K. (2003). Comparative analysis of embodied energy rates
for walling elements in India. Institution of Engineers (India) Journal-Architecture, 84, 47–
50.
9. Hammond, G., & Jones C. (2008). Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE), Version 1.6a. UK:
University of BATH.
10. Pinky, D. L., & Palaniappan, S. (2014). A case study on life cycle energy use of residential
building in southern India. Energy and Buildings, 80, 247–259.

View publication stats