Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Development of eco-efficient bricks – A life cycle assessment approach

Xihong Zhang , Wahidul K. Biswas *
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the results of techno-economic and environmental performance of interlocking and con­
Interlocking bricks ventional bricks used for building wall production. Techno eco-efficiency framework consisting of compressive
Construction efficiency strength test and tensile strength derivation for structural performance assessment and life cycle assessment for
LCA
determining eco-efficiency performance was applied to determine the Eco-efficient bricks. The replacement of
Eco-efficiency
conventional plain bricks with interlocking blocks improved the structural mechanical performance. This con­
struction strategy could substantially reduce construction time, minimize labour cost, and increase mechanical
performance. The techno-eco-efficiency framework determined that four out of five interlocking bricks using PT
tendon, rebar and mortar could deliver the required level of compressive and tensile strengths with reduced level
of environmental impacts in a cost competitive manner. These interlocking bricks are thus known as ‘Eco-effi­
cient’ bricks. However, the conventional bricks are not completely eco-efficient mainly due to higher environ­
mental impacts than the interlocking bricks and they were only found to be eco-efficient in terms of tensile
strengths.

1. Introduction could also be reduced as interlocking bricks would self-align. Because of

Masonry structure is one of the most popular structural forms. This is
because of low project cost, good sound and thermal insulation perfor­
mance. Conventional masonry consists of clay bricks connected together
by a layer of mortar material. Due to the low tensile and shear strengths
of mortar, failure always initiates in the mortar or the interface between
brick and mortar. In addition, the structural quality and construction
efficiency much depend on the experience and competency of brick
layers. Therefore, thin-bed or dry-stacking construction methods have
been introduced in the past decades to increase construction efficiency.
In the meanwhile, utilizing interlocking bricks to replace conventional
clay bricks to improve structure mechanical performance has also been
introduced. Dry-stacking interlocking masonry blocks could signifi­
cantly reduce construction time, minimize labour cost, improve struc­
tural performance [1,2] and construction quality [3–6]. It therefore has
attracted many interests and has been popularly used in practice.
Different interlocking bricks have been introduced in the past de­
cades, which could help to increase construction quality and efficiency
[6–14]. The production speed of interlocking brick may be increased to
over five times comparing to conventional brick, which in the mean­
while associate with 20%–40% of labour cost when employing inter­
locking bricks in construction [15]. The skill requirement of brick layers
the introduced interlocking mechanism, the robustness and strength of
the masonry structure constructed with interlocking bricks is also ex­
pected to be improved. These features could be very suitable to rural
areas where there is always shortage of experienced labours for con­
struction of conventional brick structures [16].
Various interlocking mechanisms have been studied, in which some
different types have been applied for structure connection. The me­
chanical performances of different interlocking bricks have been
investigated. For instance, Shi et al. carried out both laboratory and
numerical study to investigate the compressive performance of inter­
locking brick [17]. Sturm et al. [4] carried out laboratory tests to
investigate the performance of shear key. Faidra et al. [18] studied
interlocking assemblies made of glass, and found the osteomorphic
blocks exhibited good multifunctionality. There is very limited study on
the flexural bending capacity of interlocking brick because negligible
bending resistance could be provided by mortar-less interlocking bricks
without axial pre-compression, therefore grout in the void with rein­
forcing bars or post-tensioning strands are needed when tensile resis­
tance are needed for dry-stacking interlocking bricks. When prestress is
applied, laboratory tests found that similar flexural bending response on
interlocking brick prism as that of conventional brick [19–21], which
proved that dry stacking interlocking bricks are capable of providing

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: w.biswas@curtin.edu.au (W.K. Biswas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102429
Received 30 January 2021; Received in revised form 12 March 2021; Accepted 17 March 2021
Available online 28 March 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas
sufficient flexural resistance without scarifying structural performance.
For dry-stacking (mortar-less) construction method, the elimination
of mortar could substantially reduce material cost. It also enables ma­
sonry construction in cold weather without elaborated requirements for
weather protection. The elimination of mortar also fundamentally solve
the problem of shrinkage damage, which greatly increases construction
speed. These above advantages could translate into great economic
benefit out of this the system while inheriting the characteristics of
conventional brick construction [15,22,23].
For an interlocking brick structure built with dry-stacking method,
the interlocking mechanism could be greatly improved from the inclined
keys, which enables the interlocking blocks with a better self-centring
capacity. The elimination of bonding mortar also removes lateral ten­
sile stresses between the interlocking blocks [24]. The interlocking
blocks could slide when it is subjected to in-plane loading. This relative
movement between bricks despite tiny could contribute to much energy
dissipation.
Whilst interlocking bricks perform better than the conventional
bricks in terms of structural aspects, further assessment is required to
determine whether this replacement could potentially yield environ­
mental and economic benefits. Conventional bricks have already been
criticised for its environmental footprints. Interlocking bricks undoubt­
edly avoided the use of energy intensive cement by avoiding the use of
mortar, but it at the same time uses energy intensive steel for rein­
forcement purposes for attaining the improved level of structural per­
formance. While the cost of cement is avoided when building walls using
interlocking bricks, cost of steel is added to the construction process.
Thus, both environmental and economic assessments are required to
compare the interlocking bricks with the conventional bricks to discern
which brick could offer the required level of structural strength with
reduced cost and environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
has widely been used to assess the economic and environmental per­
formance of two versions of the same product for facilitating the deci­
sion making strategy [25].
Life cycle assessment tool has predominantly been used mainly to
assess the environmental performance of varieties of bricks not only to
deter their environmental performance but also find ways to improve
their environmental performance. Using an LCA analysis, de Souza et al.
[26] found that ceramic brick walls produced less climate change,
resource depletion and water withdrawal impacts than the concrete
brick and the cast-in-place reinforced concrete exterior walls. Huarachi
et al. [27] found that Climate change (CC), Human Toxicity (HT) and
Freshwater Ecotoxicity (FE) are the highest impact resulting from the
production of bricks due to drying and burning processes. WeiKua and
Kamath [28] found that the substitution of concrete with bricks resulted
in small reduction in global warming impacts. This study incorporated a
mathematical model into the LCA analysis to determine the amount of
concrete constituents that needs to be decreased in order to nullify the
increased global warming potential resulting from the increase in import
of bricks. The LCA study of Kumer et al. [29] confirms that the damages
caused to energy resources, ecosystem quality and human health are
very high due to use of coal in brick kiln and also due to use of electricity
produced from coal power plants. This finding helped identify mitiga­
tion strategies which can either be the efficient use of coal or the
development of an improved combustion techniques to reduce harmful
emissions. Dabaieh et al. [30] estimated the environmental benefits in
terms of resource depletion, energy consumption, and harmful emissions
due to replacement of fired industrial bricks, which is used as a common
building construction material, with sundried bricks. Using the life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA), Mohajerani [31] showed that the incorpo­
ration of biosolids from Melbourne Water’s Victorian Eastern Treatment
Plant (ETP) into bricks is environmentally friendly and is a promising
alternative approach to address most of the environmental impacts
except water depletion, which was mainly due to the higher demand of
water of biosolids-amended bricks during the shaping process. In addi­
tion, bricks incorporating ETP biosolids showed a relatively higher
2
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
potential for ozone depletion and acidification due to higher fuel con­
sumption in transportation of ETP bio-solids than that of brick soil and
WTP biosolids. These LCA studies showed how the environmental im­
pacts of bricks vary with materials, regions and manufacturing pro­
cesses. Interestingly a recent LCA study confirms that interlocking
compressed earth brick has a less carbon dioxide emission compared to
the conventional fire clay bricks in building construction. No study to
date used the LCA approach to determine both economic and environ­
mentally bricks. The economic assessment of the manufacturing of these
brick is also equally important to discern as to whether these environ­
mentally friendly bricks are cost competitive with the conventional
brick [32]. The bricks can be environmentally friendly but not
cost-competitive due to extra investment on efficiency measures or vice
versa. One of the ways to address this is to conduct an eco-efficiency
analysis of interlocking bricks [33]. Thus, the innovative aspect of this
research is to conduct an eco-efficiency analysis to determine the cost
competitive and environmentally friendly bricks, known as ‘eco-effi­
cient bricks’.
2. Materials and method
This section discusses the framework for developing an ‘eco-effi­
cient’ brick. Jayawardane et al. [33] was followed to develop a frame­
work for eco-efficiency assessment. This method enables the assessment
of technical, economic and environmental performance for ascertaining
the eco-efficient bricks.
2.1. Techno-eco-efficiency assessment framework
The first step is to evaluate the compressive and tensile strengths of
interlocking and conventional bricks so as to ensure they could give the
required level of structural performance. There are five types of inter­
locking bricks considered in this research and the structural perfor­
mance of these bricks is expected to vary from each other due to
variation in the use of PT tendon, rebar and infill grout. Once the
structural performance of bricks has been determined, a detailed life
cycle inventory (LCI) of 1 m3 of interlocking bricks and conventional
bricks have been developed. LCI consists of the quantitative values of
materials and energy used during mining to material production,
transportation of materials to construction site and construction stages
of 1 m3 of brickwork. These inputs were used in the LCA analysis to
estimate environmental impacts and costs associated with the
manufacturing of 1 m3 of brickwork. After this, the environmental im­
pacts and cost values for 1 m3 of brickwork have been converted to the
values for 1 Mega Pascal (MPa) for both compressive and tensile
strengths. This conversion allows us to determine environmentally and
economically feasible bricks or eco-efficient bricks to obtain 1 MPa
equivalent of compressive and tensile strengths. These values were used
to calculate the ‘eco-efficiency portfolio (PP)’ of both interlocking and
conventional bricks in order to determine eco-efficient brick(s).
2.2. Technical performance assessment
2.2.1. Manufacturing of interlocking block and conventional clay brick
system
Interlocking brick: Fig. 1 shows the dimension of the interlocking
blocks, which is 200 mm × 180 mm × 100 mm (length × height ×
thickness). As illustrated, the blocks are featured with protruded large
tenon and mortise (35 mm × 30 mm × 35 mm (length × height ×
thickness)), which are different from other interlocking blocks with only
small shear keys. The tenons of the interlocking bricks in this study are
inclined which allow the assembly to slide under lateral loading. The
interlocking bricks are made through high pressure moulding method
using gravel, cement, and sand as raw materials, which develops a
concrete-like property. Typical machine of 5.5 kW and manufacturing
capacity of 100 pieces of blocks per hour. To illustrate construction and
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas
Fig. 1. Dimensions of interlocking blocks.
cost, a typical 1 m width by 1 m tall brick wall is used as shown in Fig. 2.
Table 1 shows the methods for manufacturing 5 types of interlocking
bricks. These methods have been used to manufacture interlocking brick
wall.
Conventional clay brick: This is a typical brick manufactured by
Midland Brick, Western Australia. Fig. 3 illustrate the dimension of the
bricks. The bricks are made by kiln fire of extruded raw mixture material
comprising of primarily clay. Fig. 4 shows the construction method.
Bricks are bonded by 10 mm thick mortar. And for strengthening pur­
pose, reinforcement (rebar) can be added. Table 2 shows the materials
used for the production of two types of conventional bricks.
2.3. Experimental procedure for structural performance test
Since brick wall is primarily to take the compressive load from dead
and live load, the compressive performance of interlocking bricks is
firstly examined. Three brick prisms of one-block, two-block and four-
block are prepared for the uniaxial compression tests. Three specimens
are tested for each type of prisms. Dry-stacking method is employed by
stacking the blocks on top of each other, and no mortar is used for the
compression test. The compression tests on the interlocking brick prisms
are conducted following EN1052-1 [25,25,34].
Universal Testing System (SHIMADZU-300) at Curtin University is
Fig. 2. The 1 m × 1 m wall composed of interlocking blocks.
3
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
employed for the compression test. A 20 mm thick steel plate (150 mm
wide × 300 mm long) is used above the brick prisms to distribute the
applied compressive force from the 150 mm diameter loading platen.
The compressive forced is applied using displacement control method at
a constant loading rate of 0.03 mm/s. Two laser linear variable differ­
ential transducers are used along the brick prisms to track the
compressive displacements of the prisms, which are then averaged as the
compressive displacement. The compressive load is measured by an in-
built load cell. Fig. 5 depicts a test set-up with a 2-block prism.
Since the interlocking bricks are not bonded by mortar, there is no
tensile strength provided for the constructed interlocking brick wall. To
provide tensile strength for masonry wall made of interlocking bricks,
different construction methods are provided including:
• Method 1 – total mortar-less construction, in which the masonry wall
is by dry-stacking interlocking bricks. The theoretical tensile strength
is therefore 0 MPa. This will be suitable to load-bearing or non-load
bearing walls that are not subjected to bending or uplifting induced
tensile forces.
• Method 2 – Post-tensioning the interlocking brick wall using post-
tensioning strands. To achieve the minimum design requirement of
0.2 MPa tensile strength as per Australian Standard AS3700, ϕ12mm
7-wire tendon is designed to be placed at 1000 mm spacing through
the preserved holes in the bricks. The tendon will be tensioned using
hydraulic jacks after the wall is stacked in position.
• Method 3 – Reinforcing the wall with rebar and mortar infill. Φ6mm
reinforcement bars are casted into dry-stacked interlocking brick
wall at 300 mm spacing through the preserved
• holes in the bricks. Grout infill is then used in the holes to bond the
rebar with the bricks. A tensile strength of 0.646 MPa is achieved
which is calculated following AS3700.
• Method 4 – Similar to method 3 but rebars are at 600 mm spacing,
which achieves a tensile strength of 0.323 MPa in the interlocking
brick wall.
• Method 5–10 mm mortar bed joining interlocking bricks. Similar to
conventional clay bricks, a 10 mm thick mortar joint can be applied
to connect the interlocking bricks so as to achieve the required 0.2
MPa minimum tensile strength.
2.4. Eco-efficiency framework
The eco-efficiency framework of Jayawardane et al. [33] was used to
develop steps for determining the eco-efficiency performance of inter­
locking and conventional bricks. This framework allows the integration
of environmental and economic objectives of sustainability. The aim is
to obtain structural performance with reduced level of both environ­
mental impacts and costs. Sometimes the environmental improvement
strategies could increase the costs or vice versa. Therefore,
eco-efficiency framework was used to balance environmental impacts
and costs through a comparative assessment process to determine as to
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Table 1
Specifications of the interlocking brick wall system.
Method 1: Mortar-less (brick stacking for low-rise structures)

Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials

pcs m3 Kg
250/9 7/90 m3 560/9
Method 2: Mortar-less with post-tensioning tendon (ϕ12mm 7-wire tendon for minimum tensile strength 0.2 MPa)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of PT tendon Weight of PT tendon
pcs m3 Kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 1.0744e-5 0.0838
Method 3: Mortar-less with rebar and infill grout (ϕ6mm rebar @300 mm spacing)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of rebar Weight of rebar Volume of grout Weight of grout
pcs m3 Kg m3 kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 9.425e-5 0.7651 0.0023 4.6
Method 4: Mortar-less with rebar and infill grout (ϕ6mm rebar @600 mm spacing)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of rebar Weight of rebar Volume of grout Weight of grout
pcs m3 Kg m3 kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 4.712e-5 0.3675 0.0012 2.4
Method 5: blocks with 10 mm mortar joint

Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of grout Weight of grout
Pcs m3 Kg m3 kg
250/9 7/90 560/9 0.005 10

Life cycle assessment approach has been used in the Eco-efficiency

Fig. 3. Configuration of midland brick
Assessment (EEA) framework to determine environmental impacts and
costs of bricks. Firstly, an environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA)
approach following ISO14040-44 guidelines [35] was used to calculate
environmental impacts of both interlocking and conventional bricks.
This guideline consists of four steps, including goal and scope, life cycle
inventory (LCI), life cycle environmental impact assessment (LCIA) and
interpretation. The goal of this ELCA is to determine the environmental
impacts of different types of interlocking and conventional bricks. This
ELCA follows a ‘cradle to gate’ approach, including the mining of ma­
terial production, transportation of these materials to the construction
site, and construction stages. Because bricks are laid manually, the en­
ergy consumption during the construction stage was considered zero.
The brickwork of 1 m3 was chosen as the functional unit in this LCA
study in order to carry out a mass balance to estimate the amount of
energy and materials used to produce 1 m3 of brickworks for 5 types of
interlocking bricks (Table 1) and 2 types of conventional bricks
(Table 2). Fourteen environmental impacts that are considered relevant
specifically for Australia’s construction sector by the Building Product
Innovation Council [36] are listed below:

Global warming (kg CO2 e/inhabitant/year)

Abiotic resource depletion (kg Sb e/inhabitant per year)
Land use and ecological diversity (ha/inhabitant/year)
Water depletion (m3 H2O/inhabitant/year)
Eutrophication (kg PO4 e/inhabitant/year)
Acidification (kg SO2 e/inhabitant/year)
Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB e/inhabitant/year)
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB e/inhabitant/year)
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB e/inhabitant/year)
Photochemical smog (kg NMVOC/inhabitant/year)
Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 e/inhabitant/year)
Ionising radiation (kBq U235 e/inhabitant/year)
Human toxicity (kg 1,4-DB e/inhabitant/year)
Respiratory inorganics (kg PM2.5 e/inhabitant/year)

Developing an LCI is a pre-requisite to estimate these aforemen­

Fig. 4. Construction method.
whether the interlocking brick could offer better eco-efficiency perfor­
mance than the normal or conventional bricks. Other than comparison,
this framework also helped discern as to whether interlocking bricks are
eco-efficient or not.
tioned environmental impacts. Table 3 shows the LCIs consisting of in­
puts, including, brick, PT tendon, rebar, infill grout and transportation,
for both interlocking and conventional bricks, based on the aforemen­
tioned experiment for testing structural performance.
The inputs of life-cycle inventory have been linked to corresponding
emission factor databases in the SimaPro 8.4 LCA software [37]. Since

4
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Table 2
Specifications of conventional brick wall systems.
Method 1: block with 10 mm mortar joints

Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of grout Weight of grout

Pcs m3 kg m3 kg
50/3 1/20 40 0.0023 4.6
Method 2: block with 10 mm mortar and rebar (ϕ6mm rebar @600 mm spacing)
Number of blocks Volume of brick material Weight of brick materials Volume of rebar Weight of rebar Volume of grout Weight of grout
Pcs m3 Kg m3 Kg m3 kg
50/3 1/20 40 4.712e-5 0.3675 0.0023 4.6

Fig. 5. Test setup for uniaxial prism compression test.

Table 3
Life cycle inventory of interlocking (IL) bricks and conventional bricks (CB).
Mining to material Unit IL 1 IL 2 IL 3 IL 4 IL5 CB 1 CB 2

Min tensile strength MPa/m3 0 0.2 0.646 0.323 0.2 0.2 0.723
Weight of brick kg/m3 415 415 415 415 415 444 444
PT tendon kg/m3 0 0.0838 0 0 0 0 0
Rebar kg/m3 0 0 0.7651 0.3675 0 0 0.3675
Infill grout kg/m3 0 0 4.6 2.4 10 4.6 4.6
Total weight kg/m3 415 415 420 418 425 449 449
Transportation to site tkm 4356 4356 4404 4381 4450 12043 12046

the databases of brick, PT tendon, rebar, infill grout are not directly • Emission factors of 25 kg of Bentonite, 250 kg of cement and 910 m3
available in the software, the emission databases of these inputs were of water and 483 kWh of electricity required to make 1185 kg of in
created to represent the local conditions of Western Australia. grout was considered for developing the database of infill grout.

• The unit of transportation was considered as tonne-kilometres (or
tkm) travelled in order to determine the emissions associated with
transportation.
• The emission factor of cement that accounts for 10% of the total
weight of interlocking brick and the emissions associated with the
generation of electricity in Western Australia for producing the 1 kg
brick in interlocking brick making machine were used to develop an
emission factor database for interlocking bricks.
• The emission factor for wire drawn steel was considered for devel­
oping the emission factor database for PT tendon. Emission factor of
steel rebar, blast furnace and electric arc furnace route at plant was
considered for rebar.
The inputs of brickworks were linked to the corresponding emission
factors in the LCA software to calculate 14 environmental impacts of
these bricks. All these environmental impacts cannot be estimated using
an Australian impact method. The six impacts, including photochemical
smog, ozone depletion, ionising radiation, respiratory inorganics, and
Abiotic resource depletion which cannot be calculated using an
Australian impact method were calculated using Recipe, Traci and CML
methods available in the software. Consideration of these methods was
also deemed appropriate for Australia by Bengtsson and Howard [36]
and Renouf et al. [38]. The input values in the LCI of each brickwork
(Table 3) were multiplied by the corresponding emission factors to es­
timate the impacts listed in Table 4.
After ELCA analysis, an economic analysis was carried out to

5
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Table 4
Impact assessment methods to estimate the environmental impacts.
Impact Assessment Methods Environmental Impacts Units

Australian indicator set v2.01 [39] Land use and ecological diversity Ha a
Eutrophication kg PO3−
4 e
Water depletion m3 H2O
Global warming t CO2 e
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB e
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB e
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB e
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB e
CML 2 baseline 2001 [40] Abiotic depletion kg Sb e
ReCiPe Midpoint (E) V1.12/Europe Recipe E [41] Acidification kg SO2 e
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 e
Photochemical smog kg NMVOC
Ionising radiation kg U235 e
TRACI v2.1 [42] Respiratory inorganics kg PM2.5 e

e − equivalent, Ha. a – hectare years, PO3−

4 – phosphate, CO2 – carbon dioxide, DB – disability, NMVOC – non-methane volatile organic compounds, U235 – uranium
235, Sb – antimony, CFC – cholorofluorocarbon, SO2 – sulphur dioxide, PM – particulate matter.

determine the unit cost for the brickworks. The same functional unit that obtained from ABS [49] and ABS [50], were used to determine the GDP
was used for ELCA was considered in the economic assessment (i.e. per inhabitant.
AUD/MPa) to maintain the consistency of economic and environmental This normalised cost (NC) is expressed as the number of Australian
assessments. Economic analysis used the same inputs used in ELCA (i.e. inhabitants who are generating the same amount of annual GDP (Eq.
Table 1) but labour data was added to these inputs to estimate life cycle (3)) [33].
cost. The cost of this transport (i.e. 0.09/tkm for truck) was sourced from
LCCtotal
the Department of Infrastructural and Regional Development [43]. This NC = [inhabitants] (3)
GDP
price was inflated using relevant year inflation rates. The cost of inter­
locking and conventional bricks were obtained from Curtin University The initial eco-efficiency portfolio positions (PPe and PPc) of the
(according to the material cost, and technician labour cost). and brickworks “b” were calculated by determining the ratio of the nor­
Midland Bricks, Western Australia. The unit cost of rebar and PT Tendon malised cost/environmental impact values and the average normalised
are AUD 1.6/kg [44] and AUD 0.8/kg [45], respectively. The labour cost cost/impact values of brickworks “j” (Eqs. (4) and (5)) [33].
in terms of laying bricks for one m2 of brick wall was obtained from EIb
Ref. [46], which was inflated to 2020 price (i.e. AUD60/m2) using the PPe,b = (4)
(EI)/j
inflation rates from Ref. [47]. The labour cost of interlocking bricks is
70% less than that for conventional bricks [48]. NCb
Once environmental impacts and cost are determined for each PPc,b = (5)
(NC)/j
brickwork, these values are normalised and weighted (using environ­
mental impact weighting factors) to ascertain a single score for overall These portfolio positions calculated were adjusted using the envi­
environmental performance of each of brickwork, while the cost of ronment to cost relevance factor (Re,c ) (Eq. (6)) in order to determine as
brickwork is normalised to the recent Australian Gross Domestic Product to whether cost is more effective (Re,c < 1) for determining eco-efficient
(GDP). The normalised cost and environmental impact values of brick­ bricks or vice-versa. This shows how the changes in the environmental
works are then used to determine the ‘eco-efficiency portfolios’. and economic performance of one type of brick could potentially affect
Following steps are required to conduct an eco-efficiency portfolio the same performance of another type of brick.
analysis. ∑
( EI)/j
Normalisation and weighting of environmental impacts: For the Re,c = ∑ (6)
( NC)/j
brickworks, the normalised values (NVi) of each environmental impact
“ei” is determined by dividing life cycle environmental impact (LCEIi) by This relevance factor was used to calculate the final portfolio
the gross domestic environmental impact (GDEIi) in Table 3 (Eq. (1))
[26]. Table 5
Normalisation factors of the environmental impacts [36].
LCEIei
NVi = [inhabitants] (1) Environmental Impact Gross Domestic Environmental Impact (per Weights
GDEIei
inhabitant per year)
The normalisation factor of each impact is represented in terms of the Land use and ecological 26 Ha a 20.90%
same impact caused by an Australian inhabitant per year. (Table 5). diversity
These normalised values were aggregated into a single environ­ Eutrophication 19 kg PO3−
4 e 2.90%
mental score using the relative weight (W) of each impact. These Ws are Water depletion 930 m3 H2O 6.20%
Global warming potential 28,690 t CO2 e 19.50%
specifically developed for Australia [36] (Table 5). The normalised
Photochemical smog 75 kg NMVOC 2.80%
environmental impacts (EI) were calculated using Eq. (2) [33]. Human toxicity 3216 kg 1,4-DB e 2.70%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 88 kg 1,4-DB e 10.30%
∑
14
Freshwater ecotoxicity 172 kg 1,4-DB e 6.90%
EI = NEei × Wei [inhabitants] (2)
Marine ecotoxicity 12,117,106 kg 1,4-DB e 7.70%
i=1
Ionising radiation 1306 kg U235 e 1.90%
Normalisation of costs: The LCCtotal of brickworks were normalised Abiotic depletion 300 kg Sb e 8.20%
using the recent Australian gross domestic product (GDP). The values of Ozone depletion 0.002 kg CFC-11 e 3.90%
Acidification 123 kg SO2 e 3.10%
GDP (AUD1,815,372 million) and the total population (25.2 million), Respiratory inorganics 45 kg PM2.5 e 3.00%

6
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Fig. 6. Sample eco-efficiency portfolio [51].

positions of bricks (PP’e,b and PP’c,b) in which the environmental impact

and cost values were equally balanced (Eqs. (7)–(8)) [33].
[(∑ )/ [ ((∑ ) / )] √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
PP′ e,b = PPe,b j + PPe,b − PPe,b j ⋅ Re,c
/ [(∑ )/ ]
PPe,b j (7)

[(∑ )/ [ ((∑ ) / )] / √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]

PP′ c,b = PPc,b j + PPc,b − PPc,b j Re,c
/ [(∑ )/ ]
PPc,b j (8)

If the ratio of PP’e,b and PP’c,b is ≥ 1, then the option is eco-

efficient. It means that the portfolio position will be either on the di­
agonal line or above the line of a rectangular portfolio plot. Any point on
the diagonal line is 1 (Fig. 6).

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Technical feasibility study

3.1.1. Prism compressive strength

Masonry walls are designed primary to take compressive force
induced by dead and live loads of superstructures and house inhibits. It
is therefore important to evaluate and ensure sufficient compressive
strength is achieved for the new brick system. Therefore, the compres­
sive strength of interlocking bricks made components is firstly
examined.
Fig. 7 presents the axial load-displacement curves of interlocking
brick prisms made of the 1-block, 2-block and 4-block. For the 1-block
prism, the applied compressive load rises gradually to around 20 kN
at 1.3 mm axial displacement, when due to seating effect [52] the gaps
close between the bricks. As a result, the slope of the curve increases and
Fig. 7. Force-displacement curves with prism cracking development.
the load increases quickly with displacement until an ultimate load of
128 kN is reached, which corresponds to about 6.4 MPa compressive
strength. The bricks begin to damage which can be observed as the of blocks. Because of asperity interactions at prism interfaces more as­
force-displacement curve drops. Due to inherent interface variability, perities could be worn when more blocks are under compression. About
slightly difference was found on the force-displacement curves among 100 kN ultimate compressive force is measured for the 4-block prisms,
the three specimens tested. Similar behaviour can be found for the which corresponds to 5 MPa equivalent prism compressive strength. A
2-block and 4-block prisms. It is worth noting that because of seating larger displacement is found on the 4-block prisms comparing to the
effect, the initial displacement increases with the increase in the number 1-block and 2-block prisms. The load quickly reduces after reaching the

7
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Table 6 economic and environmental performance required to be ascertained for

Summary of strengths of interlocking and conventional bricks with different determining the ‘eco-efficient bricks’.
construction methods.
Type/method IL 1 IL 2 IL 3 IL 4 IL 5 CB1 CB 2 3.2.1. Environmental impacts
Compressive strength 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.2 0.723
Firstly, an environmental life cycle assessment has been conducted to
Mpa estimate 14 environmental impacts in order to conduct an eco-efficiency
Min. tensile strength 0 0.2 0.656 0.323 0.2 0.2 0.723 analysis. Fig. 8 shows the total environmental impacts of 1 m3 of five
(MPa) interlocking bricks (IL) and two conventional bricks (CB). The envi­
ronmental impacts were presented in term of habitants per year, which
means that all impacts were converted to habitants per year and then
ultimate compressive force. The above tested equivalent compressive
they were added to obtain a single environmental score (habitants per
strength of interlocking brick prism is found to be similar to conven­
year) for each brick. Global warming impact has been found to be the
tional clay brick made prism. It is worth noting that normally clay brick
dominant impact for all type of bricks including interlocking and con­
material has a strength between 10 MPa and 15 MPa [53], while that for
ventional ones. This is not only because of the use of carbon intensive
brick assembly is between 4 and 8 MPa due to influence of mortar and
materials like cement and clay bricks, but it is also due to the fact that
brick interface [54]. Through the above compressive test, it could be
global warming impact has been given the highest weight among all
found that the compressive strength of interlocking brick wall is strongly
environmental impacts in Australia (Table 5). In few cases water use was
influenced by the number of bricks. A parametric study showed that an
found to be the dominant impact mainly due to the use of water in infill
averaged compressive strength of 5.5 MPa could be achieved for inter­
grouts. Interlocking brick 5 has the highest impact among all inter­
locking brick wall, which is therefore used for the different design
locking bricks, while conventional type 2 bricks have the highest impact
methods as tabulated in Table 6. It is worth noting that the 5.5 MPa
among conventional bricks due to having higher amount of infill grouts
compressive strength is for interlocking brick assembly rather than brick
compared to other bricks (as confirmed by Fig. 9). The environmental
material (which is about 15 MPa [55]). Design standard requires a
impact of conventional brick 1 (i.e. CB1) is 67%, 67%, 48%. 58% and
minimum brick material compressive strength of 3 MPa [56]. Like clay
28% higher than IL1, IL2, IL3, IL4 and IL5 respectively. In the case of
brick, the interlocking brick could also meet the design limit.
conventional brick 2 or CB2, the environmental impact is 73%, 73%,
54%, 64% and 34% higher than IL1, IL2, IL3, IL4 and IL5 respectively.
3.1.2. Wall tensile strength
Fig. 9 shows that infill grout alone accounts for 85% and 90% of the
For conventional clay brick, the construction can be categorized as
total water consumption for conventional brick 2 and interlocking brick
steel reinforced with rebar and not-reinforced. When no reinforcement is
5, respectively. Cement and fired clay brick accounted for 71% and 95%
used, a 10 mm thick mortar bed is used to bond the clay bricks, which
of the total global warming impact of the production of interlocking
provides a minimum tensile strength of 0.2 MPa based on bond-wrench
brick 7 and conventional brick 2, respectively. Infill grout consists of a
test. It is worth noting that many factors such as workmanship quality,
large amount of energy intensive cement (21%) and a large amount of
mortar grade, setting time etc. all could influence the tensile strength.
water (77%) and therefore, brickworks with a higher amount of infill
But 0.2 MPa is found to be conservative which is the minimum tensile
grout have higher environmental impacts. The results of the current
strength requirement as defined by design standard AS 3700 [57]. When
study have been compared with other studies in terms of environmental
Φ6mm reinforcement bars are used at 600 mm spacing, a tensile
impacts. A recent study by Asman et al. [58] found that the interlocking
strength of 0.723 MPa for the conventional brick is calculated following
compressed earth brick (CEB) produced 56.79 kgCO2/m3 of wall, which
AS3700. Table 6 summarizes the tensile strength of both interlocking
is close to the results in this current studies as the carbon footprint of
bricks and conventional clay bricks using different construction
interlocking bricks in the current study varies from 46.5 kg CO2 e to
methods.
55.72 kg CO2e (Table 7). While interlocking bricks have been found
environmentally friendlier than conventional bricks, it is yet to be
3.2. Eco-efficiency analysis ascertained as to whether the former is more eco-efficient than the
latter.
Whilst interlocking bricks were found to demonstrate the same level
and even better structural properties than conventional bricks, their

Fig. 8. Environmental impacts of interlocking and conventional bricks in terms of Eco-points.

8
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429

Fig. 9. Hotspot analysis (thick red lines) - Breakdown of global warming impacts and water use in terms of inputs for Interlocking brick 5 and conventional brick 2.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

based on compressive strength, but no conventional brick was found

Table 7
to be eco-efficient as their portfolio positions are below the diagonal line
Global warming impacts of interlocking bricks.
(or ratio of PP’e,b and PP’c,b is ≤ 1) (Fig. 10). Although the costs of both
Impact category Unit IL 1 IL 2 IL 3 IL 4 IL 5 conventional and interlocking bricks are almost the same, the environ­
Global Warming kg CO2e- 46.5 46.6 52.0 48.24 47.7 mental performance of the latter is significantly higher than the former
and so they cannot deliver the same level of structural performance in an
eco-efficient manner. Another reason is that the compressive strength
3.2.2. Economic costs
provided by the interlocking bricks is higher than the conversional brick.
Table 8 shows that the interlocking bricks are cost-ecompetitive with
IL 1 and IL2 bricks are the most eco-efficient bricks compared to other
conventional bricks when delivering 1 MPa equivalnet amount of
interlocking bricks due to the fact that these two types of interlocking
compressive strength due to having higher strenght than the latter.
brick do not use energy intensive rebar and infill grout using cement.
When considering the unit cost in terms of tensile stregth, the conve­
When eco-efficiency portfolio positions are based on tensile strength,
sional bricks are cost-competitive then the interlocking bricks due to
then all bricks except for IL1 were found eco-efficient. Whilst the envi­
having significanly higher tensile strengh than the latter. However, both
ronmental impacts of conventional bricks are higher than interlocking
interlocking and conventional bricks have more or less the same unit
bricks, they are found to achieve eco-efficiency mainly due to having
costs, when the costs of these bricks were compared only in terms of per
higher tensile strength (C2) than the interlocking bricks and also due to
m3 of brick. Whilst the environmental performance of interlocaking
the use of less energy intensive materials (C1). IL3 offers the best eco-
bricks is better than the conventional ones, it is important to discern as
efficiency performance due to having high tensile strength. Despite
to whether interlocking bricks can be more cost-competitive and envi­
the cost as well as environmental impacts of IL1 are lower than other
ronmentally friendlier than conventional ones to deliver the required
interlocking and conventional bricks, its tensile strength is so negligible
level of structural performance.
that it has not been found to be an eco-efficient brick based on the tensile
strength.
3.2.3. Eco-efficiency portfolio
Interlocking brick types, including IL2, IL3, IL4, L4, and IL5 are thus
All 5 interlocking brick works have been found to be eco-efficient

Table 8
Costs of interlocking and conventional bricks in terms of Australian Dollar (AUD).
IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 CB1 CB2

Brick 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.6 59.52 59.52

PT tendon 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
Rebar 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.0 0.00 0.30
Infill grout 0.00 0.00 11.96 6.24 26.0 11.96 11.96
Transportation cost 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.4 1.08 1.08
Labour 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1
Total AUD/m3 150.09 130.12 142.62 136.57 156.0 144.07 156.03
AUD/m3/MPa of CS 27.29 23.66 25.93 24.83 28.4 52.01 52.01
AUD/m3/MPa of TS 15,008.6 750.91 251.83 484.92 779.04 820.65 880.47

Note: AUD = 0.78USD in March 2021.

9
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas
Fig. 10. Eco-efficiency portfolio of 5 interlocking and 2 conventional bricks: (a)
based on compressive strength and (b) tensile strength. [IL = interlocking; C =
Conventional)].
completely eco-efficient as they were found to achieve eco-efficiency
based on both compressive and tensile strength and hence they can be
classified as “eco-efficient bricks”.
4. Conclusions
The interlocking bricks showed the same technical performance as
conventional bricks with higher construction efficiency (i.e. less time as
well as labour requirement). The compressive strength for interlocking
brick prism has been found to be better than the conventional clay brick
made prism. Although the tensile strength of conventional bricks is
higher than the interlocking bricks, the tensile strength of the latter is
still acceptable for the structural purposes. These paper explores that the
replacement of conventional bricks with interlocking bricks not only
increases construction efficiency, but also enhances the eco-efficiency
performance without compromising structural integrity.
When comparing interlocking bricks with the conventional bricks
only from the environmental perspective, the latter was found to pro­
duce more environmental impacts than the former mainly due to use of
energy intensive brick manufacturing process and the use of mortar
consisting of energy intensive cement material. The environmental im­
pacts of conventional bricks were found to be 28%–73% higher than
then interlocking bricks.
The inclusion of both environmental impacts and costs data of both
10
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
interlocking bricks and conventional bricks in the eco-efficiency
framework had enabled to find out the bricks delivering the same
structural strengths with reduced environmental impacts not entailing
the excessive cost. This paper concluded that most of the interlocking
brick works except for the one using bricks only (i.e. without mortar,
rebar, tendon, grout etc.) demonstrated better eco-efficiency perfor­
mance than conventional bricks to deliver same compressive and tensile
strengths. Conventional bricks were not found to be completely eco-
efficient but they are eco-efficient based on tensile strengths only.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xihong Zhang: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Wahidul K. Biswas: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] C. Casapulla, E. Mousavian, M. Zarghani, A digital tool to design structurally
feasible semi-circular masonry arches composed of interlocking blocks, Comput.
Struct. 221 (2019) 111–126.
[2] A.V. Dyskin, E. Pasternak, Y. Estrin, Mortarless structures based on topological
interlocking, Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 6 (2) (2012) 188–197.
[3] H. Liu, et al., Cyclic behavior of mortarless brick joints with different interlocking
shapes, Materials 9 (3) (2016) 166–178.
[4] T. Sturm, L.F. Ramos, P.B. Lourenço, Characterization of dry-stack interlocking
compressed earth blocks, Mater. Struct. 48 (9) (2015) 3059–3074.
[5] M. Ali, Use of coconut fibre reinforced concrete and coconut-fibre ropes for
seismic-resistant construction, Mater. Construcción 66 (321) (2016) 73.
[6] W.A. Thanoon, et al., Development of an innovative interlocking load bearing
hollow block system in Malaysia, Construct. Build. Mater. 18 (6) (2004) 445–454.
[7] L. Bragança, M. Pinheiro, Portugal SB10: sustainable building affordable to all: low
cost sustainable solutions, in: Portugal SB10: Sustainable Building Affordable to
All: Low Cost Sustainable Solutions, Universidade do Minho, 2010.
[8] J. Edwards, et al., Design and construction of interlocking mortarless block
masonry, in: 2 Nd Masonry Mini Symposium Demonton, Alberta, 2010.
[9] H. Gallegos, Mortarless masonry: the Mecano system, Int. J. Hous. Sci. Appl. 12 (2)
(1988) 145–157.
[10] R.G. Drysdale, E.A. Gazzola, Strength and deformation properties of a grouted, dry-
stacked, interlocking, concrete block system, Brick and Block Masonry 1 (1991)
164–171.
[11] M.S. Jaafar, et al., Strength correlation between individual block, prism and basic
wall panel for load bearing interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry,
Construct. Build. Mater. 20 (7) (2006) 492–498.
[12] R.G. Drysdale, P. Eng, Properties of AZAR Dry-Stack Block-Iv™ Construction,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 2005.
[13] K.B. Anand, K. Ramamurthy, Development and evaluation of hollow concrete
interlocking block masonry system, Masonry Soc. J. 23 (1) (2005) 11–19.
[14] A. Al-Fakih, B.S. Mohammed, M.S. Liew, Behavior of the dry bed joint in the
mortarless interlocking masonry system: an overview, Civil Eng. Res. J. 4 (3)
(2018) 1–5.
[15] K. Ramamurthy, E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, Accelerated masonry construction
review and future prospects, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 6 (1) (2004) 1–9.
[16] G. Wang, et al., Testing and modelling the in-plane seismic response of clay brick
masonry walls with boundary columns made of precast concrete interlocking
blocks, Eng. Struct. 131 (2017) 513–529.
[17] T. Shi et al., Experimental and numerical investigation on the compressive
properties of interlocking blocks. Eng. Struct.. 228: p. 111561.
[18] F. Oikonomopoulou, et al., Interlocking cast glass components, Exploring a
demountable dry-assembly structural glass system, Heron 63 (1/2) (2018) 103.
[19] H. Sokairge, A. Rashad, H. Elshafie, Behavior of post-tensioned dry-stack
interlocking masonry walls under out of plane loading, Construct. Build. Mater.
133 (2017) 348–357.
[20] C. Li, H. Hao, K. Bi, Numerical study on the seismic performance of precast
segmental concrete columns under cyclic loading, Eng. Struct. 148 (2017)
373–386.
[21] C. Li, et al., Experimental study of precast segmental columns with unbonded
tendons under cyclic loading, Adv. Struct. Eng. (2017) 319–334.
[22] C. Beall, New masonry products and materials, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2 (3)
(2000) 296–303.
X. Zhang and W.K. Biswas
[23] E.B. Murray, Dry Stacked Surface Bonded Masonry-Structural Testing and
Evaluation, 2007.
[24] K.B. Anand, K. Ramamurthy, Development and performance evaluation of
interlocking-block masonry, J. Architect. Eng. 6 (2) (2000) 45–51.
[25] W.K. Biswas, Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of a civil works
program in a residential estate of Western Australia, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 3
(2014) 179–186.
[26] D.M. de Souza, M. Lafontaine, F. Charron-Doucet, B. Chappert, K. Kicak, F. Duarte,
L. Lima, Comparative life cycle assessment of ceramic brick, concrete brick and
cast-in-place reinforced concrete exterior walls, J. Clean. Prod. 137 (2016) 70–82.
[27] D.A. Ramos Huarachi, D.A. Gonçalves, A. Franciscoa, M Canteria Helene,
GCassiano MoroPiekarskia, Life cycle assessment of traditional and alternative
bricks: a review, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 80 (2020), 106335.
[28] W.K. Harn, K. Susmita, An attributional and consequential life cycle assessment of
substituting concrete with bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 81 (15 October) (2014) 190–200.
[29] S. Kumar, S. Parvathi, R. Rudramoorthy, Impact categories through life cycle
assessment of coal-fired brick, Procedia Technol. 24 (2016) 531–537.
[30] M. Dabaieh, J. Heinonen, D. El-Mahdy, D.M. Hassan, A comparative study of life
cycle carbon emissions and embodiedenergy between sun-dried bricks andfired
clay bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 275 (2020), 122998.
[31] A. Mohajerani, A. Ukwatta, S. Setunge, Fired-clay bricks incorporating biosolids:
comparative life-cycle assessment, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (7) (2018), 04018125.
[32] F. Shaikh, H. Anwar, W. Biswas, Sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete
beam mixes containing recycled aggregates and industrial by-products, J. Green
Build. 15 (3) (2020) 95–119.
[33] H. Jayawardane, I. Davies, G. Leadbeater, M. John, W.K. Biswas, Techno-eco-
efficiency” performance of 3D printed impellers: an application of life cycle
assessment, Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJSM.2020.10036029.
[34] C. EN, 1052-1: Methods of Test for Masonry, Part 1: Determination of Compressive
Strength, British Standards Institution, London, 1999.
[35] ISO, ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental Management – Life-Cycle Assessment –
Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[36] J. Bengtsson, N. Howard, A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in
Australia. Part 1, classification and characterisation, Australia, 2010.
[37] PRé Consultants, Simapro Version 8.4, PRé Consultants, The Netherlands, 2018.
[38] M.A. Renouf, T. Grant, M. Sevenster, J. Logie, B. Ridoutt, F. Ximenes, J. Bentgtsson,
A. Cowie, J. Lane, Best Practice Guide for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in
Australia, Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society, Australia, 2015.
[39] Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd, Australasian Unit Process LCI Library and Methods,
2015. Version 2015_02_06, http://www.lifecycles.com.au/#!australasian-databa
se/cbm5. Accessed 15 Sept. 2020.
[40] J. Guinee, Handbook on life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO
standards, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7 (2001) 311–313.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102429
[41] M. Goedkoop, M. Oele, J. Leijting, T. Ponsioen, E. Meijer, Introduction to LCA with
SimaPro. PRé Sustainability, Stationsplein, vol. 121, LE Amersfoort, Netherlands,
2013, p. 3818.
[42] J. Bare, D. Young, M. Hopton, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
and Other Environmental Impacts, US Environmental Protection Agency, USA,
2012.
[43] DIRD (Department of Infrastructural and Regional Development), Fright rates in
Australia, bureau of infrastructure, transport and regional economics (BITRE) GPO
box 501, Canberra ACT 2601, Australi, https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2017/fi
les/is_090.pdf, 2017.
[44] Capstone Steel. https://capstonesteel.en.made-in-china.com/product/DBuEWnHd
blpy/China-12-7mm-Prestressed-Concrete-Steel-Strand-Prestressing-Steel-Strand-P
rice.html.
[45] Alibaba. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/6mm-8mm-10mm-12mm-1
6mm-20mm_60771058624.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.1.41e33287Ky
eAIo&s=p.
[46] Homeone https://forum.homeone.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=57842#:~:
text=Using the standard size brick,m2 in laying a wall.
[47] Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271845/inflation-rate-in-australia/.
[48] E.N. Jackson, Z. Mustapha, A.J. Aburam, J.H. Quayson, Comparative cost analysis
between interlocking bricks and sandcrete blocks for residential buildings in
Ghana, MOJ Civil Eng 4 (4) (2018) 206–211.
[49] ABS Australian National, Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product
2020, 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/1345.0.
[50] ABS Australian Demographic Statistics, 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%
5Cabs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/CA1999BAEAA1A86ACA25765100098A
47.
[51] A. Arceo, W.K. Biswas, M. John, Eco-efficiency improvement of Western Australian
remote area power supply, J. Clean. Prod. 230 (2019) 820–834.
[52] M. Martínez, et al., Assessing the compressive behavior of dry-stacked concrete
masonry with experimentally informed numerical models, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (7)
(2018), 04018080.
[53] X. Zhang, et al., Dynamic compressive material properties of clay bricks at different
strain rates, Construct. Build. Mater. 192 (2018) 754–767.
[54] K. Ramamurthy, E. Kunhanandan Nambiar, Accelerated masonry construction
review and future prospects, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 6 (1) (2004) 1–9.
[55] T. Shi, et al., Experimental and numerical investigation on the compressive
properties of interlocking blocks, Eng. Struct. 228 (2021), 111561.
[56] AS4455.1, Masonry Units, Pavers, Flags and Segmental Retaining Wall Units
Masonry Units 2020: Standards Australia.
[57] Australian Standard AS3700, Masonry Structures, 2018.
[58] N.S.A. Asman, et al., Life cycle assessment of interlocking compressed earth brick
and conventional fired clay brick for residential house, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. (2020)
1529, 042012.