1. LCA of Traditional Bricks in
Western MH
Shridhar Kumbhar
Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas
IIT Bombay
ICAER
10-12th December 2013

2. Content
•Clay Bricks
•Types clay brick making
•Study area
•Need of LCA in Clay Bricks
•Production process
•Energy use and Impacts
•Role of LCA
•Objective and Scope of work
•Material and Methods
•LCA by SIMAPRO 7.3.3
•Result and discussion
•Conclusion
2

3. Clay Bricks
• Oldest man-made technology
• Discovery -Indus valley
Civilization
• One of the major Building Construction Material
• India- 2nd Largest producer of Bricks in world.
• Production growth rate- 4% /year
• 2001- 140 million
• 2011- 250 million (UNDP, 2013 & Maithel et al, 2012)
• 2nd Largest consumer of coal after Steel Industry in
India- 35 million tones coal consumption/year
(Lalchandani & Maithel, 2013)
3

4. Types of brick kilns
Type of kiln
Specific Energy
Consumption
( MJ/kg of fi red brick )
Specific coal
consumption
( tons/100,000 bricks )
Production Contribution
VSBK (India, Nepal, Vietnam) 0.7-1.0
11-16
5-10%
Fixed chimney BTK (India)
17.5-24
20-25%
Movable chimney BTK (India) 1.2-1.75
19-28
5%
Tunnel Kiln (Vietnam)
1.4-1.6
22-25
5-10%
Modern Tunnel kiln
(Germany)
1.1-2.5
17.5-40
2.0-4.5
32-71
Continuous Kiln
1.1-1.5
Intermittent kilns
Clamp and other batch kiln
(Asia)
Ref.- Teri, Brick by Brick, 2008
4
50-55%

5. Study Area selection
Data collection from Brick kiln site
5

6. Production process
6

7. 7

8. Production process with emission
8

9. Life Cycle Energy use and
Impacts
-20%
-60%
-20%
9

10. Role of LCA
• Provides A Scientific Approach
• Detailed analysis –
• Raw material,
• Process
• Fuel consumption
• Relative impact on environment
• LCA provides Holistic view of resource use and
impacts of products/process by considering cradle to
gate concept.
10

11. Objectives and Scope
• Objectives
• To study the energy consumption pattern in
traditional bricks
• To study and analyze the natural resource
consumption
• To study Socio-economic impacts of traditional bricks
in Western MH.
• Scope
• Traditional Bricks production in Western Maharashtra
11

12. Steps
12

13. On-site data collection
• Interviews of Brick kiln owner, workers and
stakeholders
• Sources of raw material
• Distance travelled
• Fuel required for brick kiln and transport
• Emissions
• Socio-Economic Impact
13

14. Field data
Consumpti
on per
1000
bricks (in
terms of
3x4x9)
BK 1
BK 2
BH 6
BK 3
BK 4
BK 5
BK 6
BK 7 BK 8
BK 9 BK 10 BK 11
Soil ( in
brass)
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Foundry
Sand ( in
brass)
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.08 0.03
0.13
0.13 0.03
Bagasse (in
tons)
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.17
0.13
0.11
0.13 0.14
0.11
0.23 0.14
Coal
powder (in
tons)
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.08 0.08
0.08
0.10 0.08
Coal
(tons)
0.04
0.035
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.035 0.04
0.03
0.02 0.04
Coal
Powder
(tons)
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.08 0.03
0.06
0.03 0.03
14

15. Primary data
• Mining of soil is done manually and transported with
tractors or truck
• Bagasse is taken from sugar factories nearby 50 km
area.
• Coal and coal powder is imported from Chandrapur,
Wani area- avg. transport distance 470 km
• Foundry sand is taken from nearby foundries about 15
km radius area
• Drying of green bricks by heat of natural solar energy
15

16. Sr. No. Material
LCA work
Database from Sima Pro 7.3.3
1
Soil
Clay unspecified in ground
2
Water
In water
3
Air
In Air
4
Coal
Hard coal mix, at regional storage/ UCTE
5
Land use
Transformation, from arable , non irrigated
6
Transport
Transport, combination of truck, diesel
powered / US
7
Bagasse
Bagasse from sugarcane, at sugar refinery Mh.
8
Foundry Sand
Foundry sand, at mine / US – Waste
generated from foundry
9
Air emissions
Airborne emission
10
Heat waste
Emission to soil
11
Particulate matter
Waste flow
16

17. User Interface to choose impact
assessment method
17

18. Result and Discussion
Damage assessment- Eco-indicator 99 (I)
Impact
category
Unit
Total
Hard coal
/UCTE U
Bricks
Transport, /
US
Bagasse
Foundry
sand, at
mine/US
Disposal,
/CHS
Carcinogens DALY
2.16E-10
0
1.76E-10
5.21E-16
4.01E-11
0
4.03E-13
Resp. organics DALY
Resp.
inorganics
DALY
Climate
change
DALY
Radiation
DALY
1.92E-11
0
1.47E-11
4.18E-17
4.35E-12
0
1.53E-13
4.27E-07
4.22E-07
4.05E-09
4.67E-15
7.73E-10
0
1.59E-10
2.07E-08
3.31E-12
1.69E-08
0
3.35E-09
1.92E-12
9.32E-15
0
4.14E-10
1.38E-12
0
0
1.33E-11
4.28E-15
Ozone layer DALY
1.32E-12
0
4.47E-13
1.31E-21
8.61E-13
0
1.28E-14
Ecotoxicity
PDF*m2yr
4.34E-05
0
2.44E-05
1.23E-11
1.87E-05
0
1.96E-07
Acidification/
Eutrophicatio
n
PDF*m2yr
Land use
PDF*m2yr
0.014984
-0.10222
0.014402
-0.10443
0.000496
0.001165
1.8E-09
0
8.23E-05
0.001043
0
0
3.66E-06
-1.9E-06
Minerals
0.000263
0
0.000114
0
0.000148
0
8.64E-07
MJ surplus
18

19. Damage assessment by Material
19

20. Single Score results - Eco-indicator 99 (I)
Hard coal
Foundry
mix,
Transport,
sand, at
Disposal, /
Total
Bricks
/UCTE U /US
Bagasse
mine/US CH S
0.049239 0.047898 0.001038
1.8E-09 0.000282
0
2.1E-05
Impact
category
Total
Unit
Pt
Carcinogens
Pt
2.56E-05
0
2.08E-05
6.16E-11
4.74E-06
0
4.76E-08
Resp. organics Pt
Resp.
inorganics
Pt
Climate
change
Pt
Radiation
Pt
2.27E-06
0
1.74E-06
4.94E-12
5.15E-07
0
1.81E-08
0.050503
0.049914
0.000479
5.52E-10
9.14E-05
0
1.88E-05
0.002445
3.91E-07
0.001999
0
0.000396
2.27E-07
1.1E-09
0
4.89E-05
1.63E-07
0
0
1.57E-06
5.06E-10
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Pt
Pt
1.56E-07
1.93E-06
0
0
5.28E-08
1.09E-06
1.55E-16
5.47E-13
1.02E-07
8.35E-07
0
0
1.51E-09
8.75E-09
Acidification
Pt
0.000668
0.000642
2.21E-05
8.04E-11
3.67E-06
0
1.63E-07
Land use
Minerals
Pt
Pt
-0.00456
0.000151
-0.00466
0
5.2E-05
6.54E-05
0
0
4.65E-05
8.54E-05
0
0
-8.6E-08
4.97E-07
20

21. Comparison with Single Score
21

22. Network - Eco-indicator 99 (I)
22

23. Impact Assessment Results
Impact
Eco-indicator
99
(I)
Eco-indicator
99
(E)
Eco-indicator
99
(H)
Human
Health
45%
30%
30%
Eco-system
quality
35%
40%
50%
Resources
20%
30%
20%
23

24. Conclusion
• Environmental Impact depends upon quantity and
quality of coal used in kiln.
• High socio-economic impact
• Easy Traditional technology
• Movable technology
• Low capital investment
• Need to modify traditional technology to reduce the
pollution
24

25. THANK YOU
25