Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (2023) 532–537

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Comparative life cycle assessment of recycled soil-stabilized bricks and

traditional bricks
Inamdar Ahmed Raza, Navdeep, Rihan Maaze, Gyanendra Kumar Attri, Sandeep Shrivastava ⇑
MNIT Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

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

Article history: The different stakeholders are concerned about management and utilization of construction and demo-
Available online 24 November 2022 lition waste (CDW) resulted while construction, renovation, & devasting of structures. Excavated soil is a
part of CDW and there is significant proportion of excavated soil, which is lying un-utilized or used for
Keywords: construction of sub-base in pavement. The excavated soil and brick waste are utilized in production of
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) soil-stabilized bricks (SSB). In this study the SSB are developed by using 5% cement, 50% brick waste,
Construction and demolition waste (CDW) and 50% excavated soil. This study evaluated the environment impacts of a SSB and conventional brick
Soil stabilized brick (SSB)
by using life cycle assessment (LCA) approach as per ISO 14040. LCA was performed with SimaPro
Brick waste
9.3.0 software. Environmental Impact classification i.e., climate change, ozone depletion, acidification &
eutrophication, human-toxicity & particulate matter formation was estimated and interpreted. The incor-
poration of CDW in SSB resulted 54% reduction in CO2 emissions. The production of SSB would lead to
sustainable use and significant saving in natural resources.
Copyright Ó 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Second Global Confer-
ence on Recent Advances in Sustainable Materials 2022.

1. Introduction constitutes 32 % in CDW generated in India[4], which is compara-

India is world’s second-major brick manufacturer, with an
assessed yearly output of 250 billion bricks produced by 1.44 lakh
brick kilns and a workforce of around 15 million people. As the con-
struction industry is producing unpleasing environmental effects
and it is one of the least sustainable industry sectors, also due to
numerous reasons which can be heavy consumption of energy,
indiscriminate use of non-renewable raw material, and its activities
lead to emission and pollutes environment[1]. The greatest contri-
bution to achieve sustainable construction is to decrease the overall
environmental impacts, changes which earth is experiencing heavy
due to industrial and human activities[2]. Brick preparation entails
the removal of agricultural top productive soil, i.e., soil rich in clay
and humus. Brick kilns have consumed productive soil for years, dat-
ing back to the Indus Valley Civilization, and severely harmed soil
ecosystem services. The Gangetic plains, which include the states
of Assam, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal,
account up to 65 % of total brick production [3].
As per the records, construction and demolition waste gener-
ated in India is 117 to 120 million tons/year [4]. The brick waste
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sshrivastava.ce@mnit.ac.in (S. Shrivastava).
tively higher. It becomes a prime duty to recycle brick waste
because of significant load on landfill and problems such as indis-
criminate dumping. Brick waste can be used as alternative raw
material in SSB this article shows use of crushed brick waste to
develop SSB [5]. Excavated soil waste accounts for 37 percent of
CDW produced in India [4], which is dumped while working for
footing excavation in construction works. Waste excavated soil
can be utilized as a substitute material in road construction & pro-
duction of products[6]. There are several ways to use waste exca-
vated soil this article [7] demonstrates how various countries use
waste excavated soil. SSB can be made with brick waste fines
and excavated waste soil [859]. Variation in stabilizers shows
changes in properties[10]. Soil-stabilized bricks was assessed by
life cycle assessment (LCA) as given in [11].
2. Materials and experimental methods
2.1. Materials
Materials required to develop soil-stabilized brick is brick waste
fines (BWF), waste excavated soil & cement was used as stabilizing
agent. The cement used was ordinary Portland cement (OPC) of 43

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.11.042
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Second Global Conference on Recent Advances in Sustainable Materials 2022.
I. Ahmed Raza, Navdeep, R. Maaze et al.
Fig. 1. Process for Manufacturing brick fines.
grade that conforming to IS 8112[12]. Waste bricks after segrega-
tion from CDW generated on campus, conveyed to crushing unit
and pulverised to brick waste fines (BWF), Fig. 1 shows the process
of manufacturing of brick fines. Waste excavated soil generated on
campus while substructure construction was being done. Both
BWF and waste excavated soil was mixed to a proportion with sta-
bilizer by weight to develop SSB, which was further assessed by
LCA.(See Fig. 2).
2.2. Method
LCA was used for evaluating environmental impacts of SSB and
conventional brick throughout its life by calculating the quantity of
resources and emissions during its production [11]. The environ-
mental assessment helps in taking decision, which may provide
the chance to improve environmental performance of a product/
service [13]. ISO 14,040 was followed to assess the environmental
performance of the bricks. simaPro software was used to calculate
the environmental impacts.
3. Life cycle assessment
3.1. Goal and scope
The environmental impacts of producing a SSB and conven-
tional brick were calculated. Generally, transportation, crushing,
extraction, demolition, and production processes were involved
in getting constituents for production of bricks. The environmental
impacts of producing required cement, brick waste, and excavated
soil to produce a brick were considered in LCA. Fig. 3 illustrates the
system boundary for LCA of SSB.
Fig. 2. System boundary for a SSB with brick waste.
533
Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (2023) 532–537
3.2. Life cycle inventory
Inventory analysis was executed as per ISO 14,044 [14]. These
comprised input and output data. Input inventories consist of
raw material, electricity, and fuel, and output consists of SSB and
gaseous emissions with dust. A 0.45 kWh electricity was consumed
in crushing 120 kg of Brick waste. A personal sampler was used to
calculate the particulate matters emitted during crushing, which
was 0.004 mg/m3. Emissions due to transportation was taken from
https://www.dieselnet.in [15]. The input and output data were
used in SimaPro 9.3.0 (demo) with Eco-invent database. Table 1
& Table 2 illustrates input and output data for manufacturing of
SSB. This inventory data was provided as input and output in
LCA software simaPro. Emissions which are going to be analysed
based on their impacts caused on environment is further classified
as per Table 3.
3.3. Impact assessment
Inventory data can be translated to impact categories by impact
assessment method as specified in Lopez-Aguilar [17]. Recipe mid-
point assessment method was used for assessing environmental
impacts. ReCiPe midpoint constitutes 18 impact categories[18],
whereas this study assessed seven impact categories. On the basis
of world emission, impacts are characterised and normalised. For
SSB with brick waste, SSB without brick waste, and traditional
bricks, emissions generated during manufacturing raw materials,
transportation & casting of bricks causes impacts based on amount
of its generation & further characterization and normalisation yield
distinct impact values. Environmental impact categories are char-
acterised with units as per emissions.
Characterised values are impact which are generated based
on emissions occurred during its entire process of manufactur-
I. Ahmed Raza, Navdeep, R. Maaze et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (2023) 532–537

Fig. 3. Characterized values of impact categories.

Fig. 3 (continued)

ing SSB with brick waste, SSB without brick waste, and tradi- bricks (Table 8 & Table 9). Impact category values are higher
tional bricks[19]. Characterized and normalised values of SSB in traditional bricks, because of kiln burning. Use of cement
with brick waste (Table 4 & Table 5) are be compared with has also impacted in this study which can be seen in character-
SSB without brick waste (Table 6 & Table 7) and traditional ized values.

534
I. Ahmed Raza, Navdeep, R. Maaze et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (2023) 532–537

Table 1 Traditional bricks are burnt bricks which are made by process of
Input for inventory. moulding and kiln burning. The environmental impacts were
S.no Input Quantity assessed by using ReCiPe midpoint impact assessment method
and eco-invent database. Table 8 & Table 9 contains characterized
1 Waste Brick (Kg) 120
2 Electricity (Kwh) 0.45 and normalised values of traditional bricks with no stabilizer.
3 Transportation (Lt) 0.5
4 Soil (Kg) 90
5 Cement (Kg) 22.5 3.4. Interpretation

The environmental impacts of SSB with brick waste are lesser

compared to traditional bricks. Categories shows the characterized
Table 2 values of environmental impact categories. Fig. 4 the normalised
Output for inventory. values of environmental impact categories. The CO2 generated dur-
S.no Output Quantity
ing manufacturing causes impact which is climate change caused
by SSB with brick waste, was 54 % lesser than the traditional brick.
1 PM10 (mg/m3) 0.004
2 Carbon Monoxide (gm) 4
Emissions of SSB with brick waste is slightly higher than SSB with-
3 Hydrocarbons (gm) 1.1 out brick waste as crushing process and transportation used signif-
4 Nitrogen oxide (gm) 7 icant electricity and fuel, respectively.
When nitrous oxide is produced at ground level, it is stable, but
when it reaches the stratosphere, it breaks down into other gases
called nitrogen oxides, which induce ozone-depleting reactions
[20]. Ozone depletion potential was also reduced in stabilized brick
Table 3
Emissions classification[16]. compared to traditional brick because of less NOx produced. Fresh-
water eutrophication impact values, which may be due to polluted
S.no Emissions Effects
runoff caused by high potassium mineral content [21]. The acidifi-
1 CO2 Global warming cation is caused by acid rain, which join the water bodies and may
2 NOx Ozone formation
decrease pH and result acidification. Cement used in SSB has signif-
3 SO2 Terrestrial acidification
4 Hydrocarbons Human toxicity potential icant impacts as compared to crushed brick waste fines and exca-
5 NOx & SO2 Eutrophication vated waste soil as 1 kg cement emits around 0.9 Kg CO2 [22].
6 PM10 PM formation Energy usage for production of soil- stabilized brick with brick
waste was 1.907 MJ/brick, whereas it was 1.789 MJ/brick in case

Table 4
Characterized values (E*-5) of SSB with brick waste.

Impact category Units Total Brick Crushed brick waste Cement Soil Transport
Climate change Kg CO2 eq 0.153 0 0.00445 0.14 0.00655 0.00148
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq 5.19E-9 0 1.9E-10 3.97E-9 7.79E-10 2.49E-10
Terrestrial acidification Kg SO2 eq 0.000465 6.86E-5 1.4E-5 0.000339 3.76E-5 5.29E-6
Freshwater Eutrophication Kg P eq 2.77E-5 0 1.5E-6 2.43E-5 1.77E-6 1.82E-7
Marine Eutrophication Kg N eq 2.87E-5 5.46E-6 7.78E-7 2.01E-5 2.1E-6 2.8E-7
Human toxicity Kg 1,4-DB 0.00463 0 0.000177 0.00394 0.000481 2.76E-5
PM formation Kg PM10 eq 0.000241 3.08E-5 9.16E-6 0.000178 2.11E-5 2.41E-6

Table 5
Normalised values (E*-5) of stabilized bricks with waste.

Impact category Units Total Brick Crushed brick waste Cement Soil Transport
Climate change Kg CO2 eq 1.78 0 0.0152 1.47 0.206 0.015
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq 0.0179 0 0.00011 0.0106 0.00621 0.000662
Terrestrial acidification Kg SO2 eq 1.48 0.192 0.0138 0.95 0.316 0.0148
Freshwater Eutrophication Kg P eq 8.75 0 0.211 8.3 0.184 0.0628
Marine Eutrophication Kg N eq 0.45 0.0743 0.0037 0.273 0.0855 0.00381
Human toxicity Kg 1,4-DB 2.59 0 0.0271 1.87 0.683 0.0131
PM formation Kg PM10 eq 2.81 0.219 0.0231 1.26 0.449 0.0172

Table 6
Characterized values of SSB without brick waste.

Impact category Units Total Brick Cement Soil Transport

Climate change Kg CO2 eq 0.148 0 0.14 0.00655 0.00148
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq 5E-9 0 3.97E-9 7.79E-10 2.49E-10
Terrestrial acidification Kg SO2 eq 0.000451 6.86E-5 0.000339 3.76E-5 5.29E-6
Freshwater Eutrophication Kg P eq 2.62E-5 0 2.43E-5 1.77E-6 1.82E-7
Marine Eutrophication Kg N eq 2.79E-5 5.46E-6 2.01E-5 2.1E-6 2.8E-7
Human toxicity Kg 1,4-DB 0.00445 0 0.00394 0.000481 2.76E-5
PM formation Kg PM10 eq 0.000232 3.08E-5 0.000178 2.11E-5 2.41E-6

535
I. Ahmed Raza, Navdeep, R. Maaze et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (2023) 532–537

Table 7
Normalised values (E*-5) of stabilized bricks without waste.

Impact category Units Total Brick Cement Soil Transport

Climate change Kg CO2 eq 1.71 0 1.47 0.206 0.0155
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq 0.0174 0 0.0106 0.0062 0.000662
Terrestrial acidification Kg SO2 eq 1.47 0.192 0.95 0.0316 0.0148
Freshwater Eutrophication Kg P eq 10.3 0 8.38 1.84 0.0628
Marine Eutrophication Kg N eq 0.0437 0.0743 0.273 0.0855 0.00381
Human toxicity Kg 1,4-DB 2.56 0 1.87 0.068 0.0131
PM formation Kg PM10 eq 1.95 2.19 1.26 0.449 0.0172

of SSB. The primary energy consumption in burnt bricks was

Table 8
Characterized values (E*-5) of traditional bricks. 4.25 MJ/brick[23]. It can be interpreted that burnt bricks have
intensive energy usage, whereas significant reduction in primary
S.No Impact Category Units Total
energy consumption was noticed in case of stabilized bricks [9].
1 Climate change Kg CO2 eq 0.329
2 Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq 2.54E-8
3 Terrestrial Acidification Kg SO2 eq 0.000813 3.4.1. Sustainability index
4 Freshwater Eutrophication Kg P eq 3.55E-5 Since the conventional brick and SSB might have different
5 Marine Eutrophication Kg N eq 4.33E-5 strengths therefore it is more appropriate to compare them based
6 Human toxicity Kg 1,4-DB 0.0133
on an index that takes care of environmental impacts and strength
7 PM formation Kg PM10 eq 0.000414
as parameters. Sustainability index is presented here that can be
used to compare the environmental impacts (ex
Climate change impact). Considering an impact such as Climate
change, from Table 10 it can be seen that SI of SSB with brick waste
Table 9
Normalised values(E*-5) of traditional brick.
is less compared to SI of Traditional brick.
Sustainability index (SI) = Impact /strength of brick.
S.No Impact Category Units Total
1 Climate change Kg CO2 eq 2.64
2 Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 eq 0.0492
4. Conclusions
3 Terrestrial Acidification Kg SO2 eq 1.44
4 Freshwater Eutrophication Kg P eq 10.7 The incorporation of CDW in SSB can save significant number of
5 Marine Eutrophication Kg N eq 0.381 natural resources and resulted considerable reduction in environ-
6 Human toxicity Kg 1,4-DB 3.34
mental impacts. The CO2 generated during manufacturing causes
7 PM formation Kg PM10 eq 1.61
impact which is climate change caused by SSB with brick waste,
was 54 % lesser than the traditional brick & comparatively other
impacts are also reduced. The production of sustainable SSB with

Fig. 4. Normalised values of impacts.

536
I. Ahmed Raza, Navdeep, R. Maaze et al.
Table 10
Sustainability index.
s.no Brick Climate change (Kg CO2 eq)
1 Traditional brick 0.329
2 SSB with brick waste 0.153
BWF and excavated soil can save topsoil, which can be used for
agriculture purposes. The brick waste and excavated soil constitute
a significant proportion in CDW, which can be used to produce sus-
tainable building material. Cement was responsible for most of the
environmental impacts in case of SSB, which was also significantly
less. The process of SSB manufacturing was found to be less energy
intensive in comparison to traditional bricks. The production of SSB
can save significant number of natural resources and moreover
found sustainable use of CDW by diverting it from landfill.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Inamdar Ahmed Raza: Investigation, Methodology, Writing –
original draft. Rihan Maaze: Writing – review & editing, Supervi-
sion. Gyanendra Kumar Attri: Supervision. Sandeep Shrivastava:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review &
editing.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M. Sandanayake, G. Zhang, S. Setunge, A comparative method of air emission
impact assessment for building construction activities, Environ. Impact Assess
Rev. 68 (2018) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.09.003.
[2] G.A. Rice, P.T. Vosloo, A life cycle assessment of the cradle-to-gate phases of
clay brick production in South Africa, in: WIT Transactions on the Built
Environment, WITPress, 2014; pp. 471–481. https://doi.org/10.2495/
ARC140401.
[3] A.J. Nath, R. Lal, A.K. Das, Fired bricks: CO 2 emission and food insecurity,
Global Challenges 2 (2018) 1700115, https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700115.
[4] M. Ramanathan, V.G. Ram, Status of c&d waste recycling in india, in: Lecture
Notes in Civil Engineering, Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland
GmbH, 2020, pp. 95–105, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51350-4_11.
[5] P. Kasinikota, D.D. Tripura, Evaluation of compressed stabilized earth block
properties using crushed brick waste, Constr. Build. Mater. 280 (2021), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122520.
[6] G. Scialpi, D. Perrotti, The use of urban biowaste and excavated soil in the
construction sector: a literature review, Waste Manage. Res. 40 (2022) 262–
273, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X211000430.
537
Materials Today: Proceedings 80 (2023) 532–537
Strength (MPa) SI
7.5 0.0438
4 0.0382
[7] S.E. Hale, A.J. Roque, G. Okkenhaug, E. Sørmo, T. Lenoir, C. Carlsson, D.
Kupryianchyk, P. Flyhammar, B. Žlender, The reuse of excavated soils from
construction and demolition projects: limitations and possibilities,
Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116083.
[8] M. Shaaban, Sustainability of excavation soil and red brick waste in rammed
earth, Civil Eng. Architect. 9 (2021) 789–798, https://doi.org/10.13189/
cea.2021.090320.
[9] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, Stabilised unfired clay bricks for environmental and
sustainable use, Appl. Clay Sci. 58 (2012) 52–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clay.2012.01.011.
[10] H.B. Nagaraj, M.v. Sravan, T.G. Arun, K.S. Jagadish, Role of lime with cement in
long-term strength of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Int. J. Sustain. Built
Environ. 3 (2014) 54–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.03.001.
[11] S. Marcelino-Sadaba, J. Kinuthia, J. Oti, A. Seco Meneses, Challenges in Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) of stabilised clay-based construction materials, Appl.
Clay Sci. 144 (2017) 121–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.05.012.
[12] B. of Indian Standards, IS 8112 (1989); Specification for 43 grade ordinary
Portland cement, n.d.
[13] M.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon, I.M.C. Lo, J.C.P. Cheng, Evaluation of environmental
friendliness of concrete paving eco-blocks using LCA approach, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 21 (2016) 70–84, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0988-2.
[14] S. Yi, K.H. Kurisu, K. Hanaki, Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of
municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and
endpoint approaches, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (2011) 652–668, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-011-0297-3.
[15] Emission Standards: India; On-Road Vehicles and Engines, (n.d.). https://
dieselnet.com/standards/in/ld.php#lcv (accessed June 10, 2022).
[16] G. Huppes, L. van Oers, Evaluation of Weighting Methods for Measuring the
EU-27 Overall Environmental Impact, (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.2788/88465.
[17] H.A. López-Aguilar, E.A. Huerta-Reynoso, J.A. Gómez, J.A. Duarte-Moller, A.
Pérez-Hernández, Life cycle assessment of a traditional brick manufacture
improvement, Rev. Int. Contamin. Ambient. 35 (2019) 195–206, https://doi.
org/10.20937/RICA.2019.35.01.14.
[18] G.K. Attri, R.C. Gupta, S. Shrivastava, Comparative environmental impacts of
recycled concrete aggregate and manufactured sand production, Process
Integr. Optimiz. Sustain. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00244-4.
[19] A.M. de Schryver, K.W. Brakkee, M.J. Goedkoop, M.A.J. Huijbregts,
Characterization factors for global warming in life cycle assessment based
on damages to humans and ecosystems, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009)
1689–1695, https://doi.org/10.1021/es800456m.
[20] R.W. Portmann, J.S. Daniel, A.R. Ravishankara, Stratospheric ozone depletion
due to nitrous oxide: influences of other gases, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B: Biol.
Sci. 367 (2012) 1256–1264, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0377.
[21] H.L. Moorhouse, L.R. Roberts, S. McGowan, V.N. Panizzo, P. Barker, M. Salehin,
T.N. Do, P. Nguyen Thanh, M.F. Rahman, T. Ghosh, S. Das, C. Hackney, J. Salgado,
M. Roy, A. Opel, A.C.G. Henderson, A.R.G. Large, Tropical Asian mega-delta
ponds: important and threatened socio-ecological systems, Geo. 8 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.103.
[22] G.U. Fayomi, S.E. Mini, O.S.I. Fayomi, A.A. Ayoola, Perspectives on
environmental CO2 emission and energy factor in Cement Industry, in: IOP
Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, Institute of Physics Publishing, 2019, https://doi.
org/10.1088/1755-1315/331/1/012035.
[23] B.V.V. Reddy, K.S. Jagadish, Embodied energy of common and alternative
building materials and technologies, n.d.