Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Life Cycle Assessment of a building using Open-LCA software

Yashwanth Pamu a,⇑, V.S.S. Kumar b, Mohammad Abdul Shakir c, Hemanjali Ubbana c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Ranga Reddy, Telangana 500008, India
b
SNIST and Chairman, NITTTR, Govt. of India, and Former VC, JNTUK, India
c
Bachelor of Technology, Civil Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Ranga Reddy, Telangana 500008, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Building Construction industry has high energy consumption and is the major contributor for the
Available online 22 December 2021 environmental impacts like ozone depletion, Green House Gas emissions, Carbon foot print etc. Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) of buildings is a method to evaluate the environmental impacts generated by
Keywords: building throughout its life cycle. This paper presents a case study of a G + 5 residential building in a
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) metropolitan city of India and determines the impacts on the environment resulting from the construc-
Green House Gas tion phase using Open-LCA software. The Life Cycle Assessment software gives the impacts caused on the
Carbon footprint
environment due to all components and the materials used in construction. The common building mate-
Alternate building materials
Sustainable building
rials used in construction are clay brick, aggregates, cement, and steel. Therefore, this paper evaluates the
Environmental impacts environmental impact by using common building materials and alternate building materials. The
comparative results of reduction in environmental impact are presented and attempted to develop sus-
tainable building construction.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy Engineering

1. Introduction Mohajerani et al. (2018) compared the environmental impacts

by performing LCA studies using traditional bricks and bricks
Construction activity is one of the key indicators of the growth of infused with biosolids. The percentage of biosolids in brick by
any nation. The building footprint increases with the increase in dry weight was varied to reduce the brick soil, which is scarce.
population and the need for shelter ‘‘for the growing population” The comparative study concluded that the bricks infused with bio-
repeated. The increase in building footprint is leading to increase solids has less impacts on the environment. Bricks infused with
in impacts on the environment. This is because construction activity biosolids also reduced the embodied energy compared to the tradi-
consumes scarce natural resources and emit gases, which has dam- tional bricks with zero percentage of biosolids [3].
aging effects on the environment. The increase in awareness about The construction activities across the globe have increased
the ill-effects of construction, there is a pressure from the stakehold- rapidly in the last decade for the want of good infrastructure and a
ers of the construction industry to perform LCA studies before the better lifestyle. The construction industry is facing numerous chal-
commencement of construction. LCA techniques are being used over lenges right from the design phase to the demolition phase. One of
time to assess the impacts of construction on the environment. Envi- the major challenges is harmful impacts on the environment. Parrish
ronmental impacts of different materials can be calculated and com- and Chester (2014) cited that LCA provides significant details on
pared using LCA methods (Srubar 2015) [1]. Hamidi and Bulbul environmental effects and ways to subside them [4].
(2014) stated that it is important to quantify the impacts with LCA Muhammad et al. (2018) compared the environmental impacts
techniques to reduce the environmental impacts. LCA provides the for four different building facades, namely aluminium, glass, brick,
option of using different alternatives for the same activity which will and granite by performing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA analy-
be useful in comparing the impacts [2]. sis was performed using SimaPro software (Version 8.0). The com-
parison revealed that the granite façade is the best sustainable
⇑ Corresponding author at: Civil Engineering Department, CVR College of façade [5]. Bilec et al. (2010) researched the impacts on the
Engineering, Vastunagar, Mangalpally (V), Ibrahimpatnam(M), Rangareddy(D), environment due to the construction phase of buildings by con-
Telangana 501510, India. ducting a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The results indicated that
E-mail address: yashwanthpamu@gmail.com (Y. Pamu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.621
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Materials,
Manufacturing and Energy Engineering
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

the environmental impacts due to construction phase is as impor- ingredients used in manufacturing of cement are lime, silica, alu-
tant as other life-cycle stages [6]. mina. Excessive usage of all these ingredients will have deteriorat-
Means and Guggemos (2015) compared the existing LCA tools ing effects on the environment and human health. The index
and techniques with a prepared framework by taking feedback from properties of cement is shown in Table 1.
focus groups. After LCA based environmental decision making for
commercial buildings and a brief comparison was made, gaps were 2.2. Bricks
identified in developing an LCA based environmental decision mak-
ing tool [7]. Al-Ghamdi and Bilec (2017) compared different LCA Brick is another important material used in the construction of
tools, i.e., Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Kieran Timber- internal and external walls of the building. The main ingredients
lake’s Tally, Pre SimaPro and concluded that the LCA results given used in brick manufacturing are silica, alumina, and lime. The man-
by three different software tools has 10% variation in Global Warm- ufacture of clay bricks involves burning bricks, which causes envi-
ing. This reveals a scope to bring all the Software to a common plat- ronmental pollution apart from human health hazards.
form that does not have so many differences in their results [8].
The databases used for LCA calculations also play a pivotal role
in the result analysis. Singh et al. (2011) reviewed various papers 2.3. Sand
on LCA and concluded that the various methods in LCA are still
under developing phase and more research is needed in developing Sand is used in making concrete, plastering and mortar. Due to
common databases [9]. Azari and Arias (2015) concluded from increased construction activity, the demand for sand has increased
their research that the LCA tool, Athena impact estimator has very resulting in illegal sand mining. Mining beyond the permissible
limited data base for building materials [10]. Martinez-Rocamora limit changes the course of river resulting in uncontrolled floods.
et al. (2016) collected data from ten different databases and found
that very few databases contain data on construction materials. 2.4. Steel
The study further revealed that GaBi and ecoinvent databases are
more reliable [11] Emami et al. (2019) concluded from his research Steel is used as reinforcement in buildings and has a pivotal role
that reliable information is necessary from the construction indus- in constructing steel bridges, industrial sheds, parking garages etc.
try for good decision making using LCA tools [12]. Manufacture of steel involves mining for iron ore resulting in soil,
This work focuses on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a build- water, and air contamination. Mining also causes physical distur-
ing using Open-LCA software whose application is widely accepted bances to landscapes and has issues with public safety.
in the major parts of the globe. The database used in this study is
eco-invent, which has sufficient information to perform LCA in
the construction field. The combination of Open-LCA software 3. Case study
and eco-invent database is expected to give the best results when
compared to other software-database combinations. The reason for India is one of the developing countries whose population is the
selecting Open-LCA software is because it is a free software and its second-largest in the world. Though villages are the backbone of
application can be used in the construction field for better results the Indian economy, many people migrate to metropolitan cities
on environmental impacts. If LCA analysis is done before the start like Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai, Visakhapatnam, Mum-
of any construction, there will be a chance for contractor to check bai, etc for employment and better standards of living.
the environmental impacts caused by building materials. The Most of the agricultural lands in the cities are being converted
impacts can be lowered by using alternate construction materials into residential complexes. Many buildings and apartments are
which has less impacts on the environment. Aruna Ukwatta and being constructed, as a result, many of the forests have disap-
Abbas Mohajerani (2017) have investigated the effects of biosolid peared, leading to a lot of environmental impacts. Besides the
organic content infused in the burnt clay bricks and found that development of the city, many of the forests are disappearing, lead-
32.6% energy was saved in firing because of the calorific power ing to many environmental impacts.
released by combustion of organic matter at 4.2% [13]. Muhammad The present case study is a five-storied multi-residential build-
J. Munir et al. (2018) developed eco-friendly bricks by using waste ing located in Kukatpally, the most crowded place in Hyderabad.
marble powder (additive) collected from a nearby marble industry. The building has a plot area of 433.33 sq. yards. The building is
This additive resulted in making of light weight bricks [14]. Sanjay entirely made up of Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) and build-
Raut et al. (2014) constructed model house of small-scale using ing envelope is made up of brick masonry. The plan of the building
bricks manufactured from recycled paper mill waste and cement. is shown in Fig. 1.
Thermal performance of the model house was assessed and found
that the thermal transmittance of recycled paper mill waste – 4. Methodology
cement was found to be better than fly ash brick model house
and ferrocement brick model house [15]. This paper attempts to assess/evaluate the environmental
impacts of constructing a residential building using a software
called Open-LCA. This study also suggests an alternative material
2. Materials used in construction
to the material which has the highest impacts on environment. A
comparative study of the impacts due to alternative construction
The major materials used in construction are cement, bricks,
sand (fine aggregate), gravel (coarse aggregate), steel and water.
All these materials are scarce, and overuse of these materials will Table 1
lead to increased environmental impacts. Index Properties of Cement.

S.No. Property Value

2.1. Cement 1 Specific Gravity 3.15
2 Normal Consistency 31%
Cement is a very important material used in construction. India 3 Initial Setting Time 30 min
4 Final Setting Time 10 h
is the second-largest producer of cement in the world. The main
1969
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

Fig. 1. Plan of the building considered for case study.

materials is also made. This study also helps in choosing a material (a) Eco-indicator 99(E, E): In this LCIA method, the categories
with lesser impacts on environment. evaluated are Ecosystem quality- Acidification & Eutrophica-
The LCA methodology has four phases: tion, Ecotoxicity; Human health- Carcinogens, Climate
change, Ozone depletion, Respiratory effects; Resources- Fos-
A. Scope and Goal definition. sil fuels, Mineral extraction.
B. Lifecycle inventory. (b) Recipe Midpoint(I) V1.13: In this LCIA method, impact cate-
C. Lifecycle impact assessment. gories evaluated are Fossil depletion, Human toxicity, Partic-
D. Interpretation. ulate matter formation and Water depletion.
(c) Ecological Footprint: This LCIA method has impact, CO2
A. Scope and Goal definition footprint.
In this phase the boundary, assumptions and the purpose are
mentioned. The objective/scope of study is restricted to the con- D. Interpretation
struction and transportation phase of the building materials. Trans- This phase includes the results from the attempted LCIA
portation of labours and wastes are not included. It is assumed that methods.
only manual labour is used for the construction of the building.
B. Life-Cycle Inventory 4.1. LCA model using Open-LCA
Using plans, drawings, and design of the case study, a model has
been developed using ’Open-LCA’ software and the database tool Assumptions
equipped is Eco-invent v3.6. Initially, a work breakdown structure
for the different structural components has been identified and (1) Only Manual Labour is considered.
the required material quantities are calculated and executed in (2) Fuel consumption is not considered in the freight during
the Open-LCA software tool. transportation of the materials.
C. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (3) No machinery and equipment used in the construction.
Among all the LCIA methods from the Eco-invent v3.6 database, (4) Impacts/Emissions generated from the formwork is consid-
we considered Eco-indicator 99(E,E) method, Recipe midpoint (I) ered to be negligible, since it is not directly dumped and
V1.13 method and Ecological Footprint methods in the study. From used repetitively for the whole building.
these LCIA methods, a total of 12 environmental impacts are calcu- (5) Concrete: A concrete mix of M20 is used for the construc-
lated using the software. tion. The density is taken as 2500 kg/m3.

1970
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

(6) PCC: A mix of 1:3:6, lean concrete is considered. The thick- The quantities required to build the entire building are calcu-
ness of the PCC bed is 400 . The density is taken as 2400 kg/m3. lated using the plans, designs, and the structural drawings of the
(7) Cement mortar: the mix is taken as 1:6, and the thickness is apartment. Fig. 2 shows the quantities of building materials used
0.400 . in construction.
(8) Brick: the size of the brick taken is 19 * 9 * 9 cm3. The density
of the brick is taken as 2000 kg/m3. 5. Results and comparison
(9) Sand-lime brick: size of the brick is taken as 22.86 * 12.7 * 1
0.16 cm3 and the density of the brick is taken as 2000 kg/m3. This paper attempts to find the major contributor to environ-
(10) Light clay bricks: The density is taken as 650 kg/m3 and the mental impacts like Ecosystem Acidification and Eutrophication,
size of the brick is taken as 22.86 * 7.62 * 5.08 cm3. human toxicity, Human Health-Carcinogens, Human Health-
(11) Shale bricks: Density of the brick is taken as 2500 kg/m3 and Respiratory effects, Ecosystem quality, Ozone depletion, ecotoxic-
the size of the brick is assumed as 23 * 11.4 * 10 cm3. ity, marine toxicity, climate change, fossil fuels, mineral extraction,
CO2 emissions. Overall, a total of 12 environmental impacts are cal-
The functional unit of the scope is a building. The building is culated using the Open-LCA software tool.
divided into 10 components. Every component of the building For this study, the building is divided into ten components. Such
has been given as a process with the included materials for con- as, Foundation, Plinth Beam, Column, lintels, Slabs, Beams, Stair-
structing the components as input and parameters. As assumed, case, Masonry, Finishing, Joinery. From these components, we have
the machinery is not considered, only manual labour is considered attempted to find the component, which is a major contributor of
in the construction. the environmental impacts like Ecosystem quality- Acidification &
All the data and parameters related to the materials and trans- Eutrophication, ecosystem quality- Ecotoxicity, Human Health-
port process are taken according to a European database, Eco- Carcinogens, Human Health- Climate Change, Human Health-
invent v3.6. The same method is reproduced in every component Ozone layer depletion, Human Health- Respiratory Effects,
and analysed using the following LCIA methods i.e., Eco-indicator Resources- Mineral extraction, Fossil fuels from Eco-indicator 99
99(E,E), Recipe Midpoint method, and Ecological Footprint. (E,E) LCIA method. Fossil Depletion- FDP (Kg oil-Eq), Human Toxi-

Fig. 2. Quantities of the construction materials used in each component.

1971
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

ecosystem quality (acidificaon & eutrophicaon)

plinth beam

staircase

foundaon

masonry

beans

slabs

joinery

column

finishing

lintel

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Fig. 3. A graph of comparison of the components for Acidification & Eutrophication impact (units as points).

city (HTP100) (Kg 1,4-DCB-Eq), Particulate Matter Formation (Kg found that the masonry work is the major contributor to the
PM10-Eq), Water Depletion (WDP) (m3 water-Eq) from Recipe Mid- environmental impacts listed. All the 12 impacts are evaluated,
point(I) V1.13 LCIA method and CO2 Footprint (m2a) from Ecological and the results obtained are shown in the further sections.
footprint LCIA method. Though other components also have their own contributions to
The environmental impacts caused by the materials used in the the environment, it is found that the masonry work is more
construction are also calculated and compared. The materials are: responsible for the negative environmental effects.
Concrete, Steel, Sand, Cement mortar, Wood, Clay bricks, PCC. The
transportation distance of the materials from the shop to the site  Figs. 3-9 shows the impacts of all components of building used
has also been noted down. in the research based on LCIA method Eco-indicator99 (E,E)
From the above results, we endeavored the material which is  Figs. 10-13 shows the impacts of all components of building
the major contributor of the impacts and tried to find the impacts used in the research based on LCIA method Recipe Midpoint (I)
by replacing that material with the alternative materials available v1.13
in the market.
5.2. Impacts by the materials
5.1. Impacts by the components
The materials’ quantities from the estimate have been given to
The building components have been compared with the other the software and compared one with the other. From the compar-
components, and the impacts generated are shown below. It is ison, it is found that the clay bricks are giving more effects in

ecosystem quality (ecotoxicity)

plinth beam
staircase
foundaon
masonry
beans
slabs
joinery
column
finishing
lintel

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Fig. 4. A graph of comparison of the components for ecotoxicity impact (units as points).

1972
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

human health (carcinogenics)

plinth beam
staircase
foundaon
masonry
beans
slabs
joinery
column
finishing
lintel

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Fig. 5. A graph of comparison of the components for Carcinogenic impact (units as points).

human health (climate change)

plinth beam
staircase
foundaon
masonry
beans
slabs
joinery
column
finishing
lintel

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Fig. 6. A graph of comparison of the components for climate change impact (units as points).

human health (ozone layer depleon)

plinth beam
staircase
foundaon
masonry
beans
slabs
joinery
column
finishing
lintel

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Fig. 7. A graph of comparison of the components for ozone layer depletion impact (units as points).

1973
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

human health (respiratory effects)

plinth beam
staircase
foundaon
masonry
beans
slabs
joinery
column
finishing
lintel

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Fig. 8. A graph of comparison of the components for Respiratory Effects impact (units as points).

resources (mineral extracon)

plinth beam
staircase
foundaon
masonry
beans
slabs
joinery
column
finishing
lintel

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fig. 9. A graph of comparison of the components for mineral extraction impact (units as points).

fossil depleon (FDP)

Plinthbeam
Staircase
Foundaon
Masonry
Beams
Slabs
Joinery
Column
Finishing
Lintels

0.00 15000.00 30000.00 45000.00 60000.00

Fig. 10. A graph of comparison of the components for Fossil Depletion impact (Kg oil-Eq).

impacts like human health categories, CO2, mineral extraction, fos- by the Sand-lime bricks, shale brick and light clay brick available
sil depletion, at the same time Concrete and Steel are other major on today’s market. From the comparison, the environmental effects
contributors of some of the impacts like ecosystem quality cate- generated are given in the following figures below. It is found that,
gories. But comparatively, Clay bricks are having the large role in although shale brick is having the highest contributions to the neg-
emitting the negative impacts to the environment. Figs. 15-17 ative environmental impacts, since it is generally used for the pur-
shows the contribution of impacts due to materials used in pose aesthetic view. We will use it for the entire building envelope.
construction. Basically, we use clay brick, light clay brick, and sand-lime brick for
the envelope.
5.3. Impacts generated by the alternate material Among these bricks, clay bricks are the highest contributor and
the light clay bricks are the lowest contributor, whereas sand-lime
The above results show that the clay bricks are the major con- bricks have the contributions almost equal to the light clay bricks.
tributor to the impacts. Therefore, the clay bricks are compared Hence, it will be better to use the light clay brick or sand-lime brick

1974
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

human toxicity (HTP100)

Plinthbeam
Staircase
Foundaon
Masonry
Beams
Slabs
Joinery
Column
Finishing
Lintels

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00 8000.00

Fig. 11. A graph of comparison of the components for human toxicity impact (Kg 1,4-DCB-Eq).

parculate maer formaon

Plinthbeam
Staircase
Foundaon
Masonry
Beams
Slabs
Joinery
Column
Finishing
Lintels

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

Fig. 12. A graph of comparison of the components for particulate matter formation (Kg PM 10-Eq).

water depleon (WDP)

Plinthbeam
Staircase
Foundaon
Masonry
Beams
Slabs
Joinery
Column
Finishing
Lintels

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00

Fig. 13. A graph of comparison of the components for water depletion impact (m3 water-Eq).

1975
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

CO2 Footprint

Plinthbeam
Staircase
Foundaon
Masonry
Beams
Slabs
Joinery
Column
Finishing
Lintels

0.00 100000.00 200000.00 300000.00 400000.00 500000.00 600000.00

Fig. 14. A graph of comparison of the components for CO2 footprint impact (m2a).

Eco-indicator 99, (E,E)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
ste cla san cem con wo PC
el ybr d en cre od C
ick tm te
ort
or

ecosystem quality (acidificaon & eutrophicaon) ecosystem quality (ecotoxicity)

human health (carcinogenics) human health (climate change)
human health (ozone layer depleon) human health (respiratory effects)
resources (mineral extracon)

Fig. 15. A graph showing the comparative impacts of construction materials under the eco-indicator LCIA method.

ReCiPe Midpoint (I) V1.13

60000.000
50000.000
40000.000
30000.000
20000.000
10000.000
0.000
ste cla san cem con wo PC
el ybr d en cre od C
ick tm te
ort
or

fossil depleon (FDP) human toxicity (HTP100) parculate maer formaon (PMFP) water depleon (WDP)

Fig. 16. A graph showing the comparative impacts of construction materials under ReCiPe Midpoint LCIA method.

1976
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

Ecological footprint
450000
375000
300000
225000
150000
75000
0
ste cla san cem con wo PC
el ybr d en cre od C
ick tm te
ort
or
CarbonDiOxide(CO2)

Fig. 17. A graph showing the comparative impacts of construction materials under the ecological footprint LCIA method.

Eco-indicator 99, (E,E) resources (mineral extracon)

9000
human health (respiratory effects)
8000
7000
human health (ozone layer depleon)
6000
5000 human health (climate change)
4000
3000 human health (carcinogenics)
2000
ecosystem quality (ecotoxicity)
1000
0
ecosystem quality (acidificaon &
Clay brick Sand lime brick Shale brick Light clay brick
eutrophicaon)
Fig. 18. A graph showing the comparative impacts of bricks under the eco-indicator LCIA method.

ReCiPe Midpoint (I) V1.13

70000
water depleon (WDP)
60000

50000
parculate maer formaon (PMFP)
40000

30000
human toxicity (HTP100)
20000

10000
fossil depleon (FDP)
0
Clay brick Sand lime brick Shale brick Light clay brick

Fig. 19. A graph showing the comparative impacts of bricks under the ReCiPe Midpoint LCIA method.

instead of clay bricks. Figs. 18-20 shows the contribution of alter- earth. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a building gives various
native materials. impacts on the environment. The LCA can be performed to a build-
ing even before the start of construction activity to know the
6. Conclusion impacts on the environment, thereby giving the contractor a scope
to reduce the environmental impacts by using alternate construc-
The materials used in construction contribute to the majority of tion materials. Impacts are calculated under various impact cate-
ill-effects on the environment. The manufacturing process of con- gories like CO2 emissions, water depletion, ozone layer depletion
struction materials use scarce resources which are limited on etc.

1977
Y. Pamu, V.S.S. Kumar, Mohammad Abdul Shakir et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1968–1978

Ecological footprint
450000
375000
300000
225000
CarbonDiOxide (CO2)
150000
75000
0
Clay brick Sand lime brick Shale brick Light clay brick

Fig. 20. A graph showing the comparative impacts of bricks under the ecological footprint LCIA method.

LCA analysis by Open- LCA tool can be used to find a building Acknowledgement
component that causes maximum impacts on the environment.
This paper also shows the various environmental impacts like acid- The software permission was provided by Open-LCA and Eco-
ification & eutrophication, ecotoxicity, carcinogens, climate invent.
change, human health, ozone layer depletion, respiratory effects,
fossil fuels, mineral extraction, fossil depletion, human toxicity, References
particulate matter formation, water depletion, CO2 footprint in
Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [1] W.V. Srubar III, 2015, The Future of LCAs and EPDs: Incorporating Service-Life
in the Environmental Impacts Assessments of Green Building Materials, AIE
Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, And Fig. 15 respectively due to various com- 2015, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 10.1061/9780784479070.053.
ponents of the buildings like plinth beam, staircase, foundation, [2] B. Hamidi, T. Bulbul, An Evaluation of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) tools for
masonry, beams, slabs, joinery, columns, finishing and lintels. environmental impact analysis of building end-of-life cycle operations, 2014
International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Orlando,
The case study revealed that the construction activity is very Florida, United States, 2014. 10.1061/9780784413616.241.
hazardous to the environment. Various impacts on the environ- [3] A. Mohajerani, A. Ukwatta, S. Setunge, Fired clay bricks incorporating
ment due to different construction materials can be calculated biosolids: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (ASCE) 30
(7) (2018) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002308.
and compared. As the study found that masonry (bricks) has the
[4] K. Parrish, M. Chester, Life-Cycle Assessment for Construction of Sustainable
highest impact on the environment, research can be done in eco- Infrastructure, Pract. Periodical Struct. Des. Construct. (ASCE) 19 (1) (2014) 89–
friendly brick manufacturing using locally available materials. 94, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000187.
Such materials need not be transported to a very far place to man- [5] S. Muhammad, Gyan, S. Chippi, T.B.A. Macro, R. Dyck, R. Ruparathna, K.
Hewage, R. Sadiq, Life Cycle thinking- based selection of building facades, J.
ufacture bricks there by reducing the environmental impacts due Archit. Eng. 24 (4) (2018) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-
to transportation. 5568.0000333.
[6] M.M. Belic, R.J. Ries, H.S. Matthews, Life Cycle Assessment Modeling of the
Construction Process for Buildings, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 16 (3) (2010) 99–205,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000022.
[7] P. Means, A. Guggemos, Framework for Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) based
7. Scope for future study environmental decision making during the conceptual design phase for
commercial buildings, Proc. Eng. 118 (2015) (2015) 802–812, https://doi.org/
The Life Cycle Analysis of the building revealed the components 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.517.
[8] S.G. Al-Ghamdi, M.M. Belic, Green Building Rating Systems and Whole-
and materials which has the highest impacts on the environment. Building Life Cycle Assessment: Comparative Study of the Existing Assessment
This study can be used as a foundation to develop alternate build- Tools, J. Archit. Eng. (ASCE) 23 (1) (2017) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ing materials using industrial waste or materials with low embod- AE.1943-5568.0000222.
[9] A. Singh, G. Berghorn, S. Joshi, M. Syal, Review of Life-Cycle Assessment
ied energy.
Applications in Building Construction, J. Archit. Eng. (ASCE) 17 (1) (2011) 15–
23, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000026.
[10] R. Azari, R.P. Arias, Building Envelopes: A comparison of Impacts on
Environment, AIE 2015, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2015. 10.1061/
CRediT authorship contribution statement 9780784479070.021.
[11] A. Martinez-Rocamora, J. Solis-Guzman, M. Marrero, LCA Databases Focused
on Construction Materials, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (2016) 565–573,
Yashwanth Pamu: Conceptualization, Validation, Methodol- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.243.
ogy, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Supervi- [12] N. Emami, J. Heinonen, B. Marteinsson, A. Saynajoki, J.M. Junnonen, J. Laine, S.
sion. V.S.S. Kumar: Writing – review & editing, Writing – Junnila, A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential building Using Two
Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and
original draft, Supervision. Mohammad Abdul Shakir: Data cura- Inconsistencies, Buildings 2019 (ASCE) 9 (1) (2019) 1–20, https://doi.org/
tion. Hemanjali Ubbana: Data curation. 10.3390/buildings9010020.
[13] ] Aruna Ukwatta, Abbas Mohajerani, Effect of organic content in biosolids on
the properties of fired-clay bricks incorporated with biosolids. 10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0001865.
Declaration of Competing Interest [14] Muhammad J. Munir, Safeer Abbas, Moncef L. Nehdi, Syed M.S. Kazmi, Anwar
Khitab, Development of eco-friendly fired clay bricks incorporating recycled
marble powder. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002259.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [15] Sanjay Raut, Sachin Mandavgane, Rahul Ralegaonkar, Thermal performance
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared assessment of recycled paper mill waste–cement bricks using the small-scale
model technique, 10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000171.
to influence the work reported in this paper.

1978