Next Article in Journal
Study on Strong Earthquake Failure of Single-Layer Spherical Reticulated Shell Structures with Central Suspended Equipment
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Construction with Cattail Fibers in Imbabura, Ecuador: Physical and Mechanical Properties, Research, and Applications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/buildings14061704
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Life-Cycle Assessment of Lightweight Partitions in Residential Buildings

by
Svetlana Pushkar
Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel
Buildings 2024, 14(6), 1704; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061704
Submission received: 20 April 2024 / Revised: 30 May 2024 / Accepted: 5 June 2024 / Published: 7 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Building Materials, and Repair & Renovation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of service conditions on lightweight partitions in residential buildingsusing life-cycle assessments (LCAs). Three alternative service conditions were included as follows: light/moderate, standard, and intensive. LCAs were conducted for pairwise comparisons among three types of lightweight partitions: gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. The functional unit considered was 1 m2 of a partition, and the building’s lifespan was 50 years. In light/moderate conditions, the replacement rate for all three partitions was zero times during the building’s lifespan. In standard conditions, the replacement rate for gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks was one time during the building’s lifespan, and for hollow concrete blocks, it was zero times. In intensive conditions, the replacement rate for gypsum board was four times during the building’s lifespan, that for autoclaved aerated blocks was two times, and that for hollow concrete blocks was zero times. The six ReCiPe2016 methodological options were used to estimate environmental damage using a two-stage nested analysis of variance. The results showed that, in light/moderate and standard conditions, gypsum board was the best alternative, while in intensive conditions, hollow concrete blocks were the best alternative. In conclusion, the choice of lightweight partitions should be made while taking the service conditions in residential buildings into account.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Life-Cycle of Buildings and the Concept of Stewart Brand

The building sector is among the main sectors contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions, resource use, and waste generation [1]. The combination of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) and a life-cycle cost assessment (LCCA) allows for the optimal choice between the best environmental alternative and the best economic alternative in buildings and building-related industries and sectors (including construction products, construction systems, and civil engineering constructions) [2]. Goulouti et al. [3] noted that, despite the widespread use of the concepts of an LCA and LCCA, uncertainty in the service life of building elements significantly affects the outcomes of LCAs and LCCAs.
According to Stewart Brand [4], buildings can be divided into six layers (i.e., the Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan, and Stuff), and each layer has a different lifespan. Pushkar [5], based on Brand’s concepts, showed that an LCA is highly dependent on the service life of each layer of a building. In addition, in a comprehensive review, Silva et al. [6] noted that ignoring human behavior in a building can lead to erroneous predictions of the service life of buildings and their components.
In this context, we hypothesize that the lifespan of non-load-bearing interior structures in a building could significantly differ from the whole building’s lifespan.

1.2. Interior Partitions

Referring to Addis and Schouton [7], Mateus et al. [8] noted that the development of frame construction contributes to the active use of non-load-bearing interior structures in buildings. As a result, they adapted the study by Addis and Schouton [7] and showed that the environmental impact from the use of materials in the non-structural building elements of a typical house over a period of 60 years is distributed as follows: interior partitions, 41%; floor finishes, 18%; suspended ceilings, 14%; and windows/doors, 12%. Reducing the environmental damage from interior partitions is an urgent task; therefore, this study focused on a critical analysis of the literature on the LCA and LCCA of non-load-bearing internal partitions in buildings over the last 17 years.

1.3. LCA without Replacing Interior Partitions during the Entire Life of the Building

Pushkar [9] conducted an LCA and LCCA to compare five building materials used in the construction of the interior walls of an office building in Israel: cellular blocks, silicate blocks, gypsum blocks, concrete blocks, and plasterboard. Samani et al. [10] used an LCA and LCCA to compare five advanced sandwich-structured composites for prefabricated housing in Portugal. Ferrández-García et al. [11] studied the LCA and LCCA of ten alternatives or variants for five common lightweight partitions in Spain: gypsum plasterboard, hollow clay bricks, hollow concrete blocks, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and gypsum blocks. Atienza and Ongpeng [12] used an LCA and LCCA to compare four partitions, namely, hollow concrete blocks, gypsum drywall, foamed concrete, and foamed geopolymer walls, in the Philippines. Ortiz et al. [13] conducted an LCA and LCCA for two rooms with two partitions for wet areas and three partitions for common areas of a building to optimize the environmental and economic performance of a student residence in Spain.
Ip and Miller [14] used an LCA to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of interior hemp–lime wall construction in the UK. Rivas-Aybar et al. [15] conducted an LCA to evaluate a new hemp-based building material in Australia. They showed that hemp-based boards exhibited lower greenhouse gas emissions than those of gypsum board, which is commonly used to make lightweight partitions in residential and office buildings. Bošković and Radivojević [16] showed that hemp–lime concrete has environmental benefits because it uses renewable raw materials and can capture CO2 from the atmosphere in Serbia. Condeixa et al. [17] used an LCA to assess the environmental impact of interior walls made of ceramic bricks and sand–cement mortar in a traditional house in Brazil.

1.4. Assumption about the Possible Replacement of Interior Partitions during the Building Lifespan

Broun and Menzies [18] used an LCA to compare three partitions—bricks from clay, hollow concrete blocks, and traditional timber frames—in the UK. The environmental impacts of these types of partition wall systems were assessed based on a projected 50-year lifespan under normal conditions of service.
Mateus et al. [8] conducted an LCA and LCCA to compare ten innovative lightweight sandwich membrane partitions with two common partitions, namely, a heavyweight conventional masonry partition wall and a lightweight reference plasterboard partition wall, in Portugal. The authors suggested that the innovative partitions are suitable for housing, high-rise office buildings, and retail stores that require frequent changes in space.
Condeixa et al. [19] explored the life-cycle of interior wall systems through a comparison of masonry and drywall in residential buildings in Brazil. In this context, Condeixa noted that the lifespan of a drywall system is 20 years; therefore, a building is likely to undergo an average of four major renovations over its lifespan.
Valencia-Barba et al. [20] used an LCA to analyze 44 interior partition walls in residential buildings in Spain. The authors suggested that the changing needs of buildings and building occupants may affect the service life of interior partitions.

1.5. Replacement of Interior Partitions during the Building Lifespan

Buyle et al. [21] studied two assemblies of interior partitions—conventional and demountable—using an LCA and LCCA. The conventional interior partitions included four wall types: clay brick masonry, sand–lime brick masonry, a drywall–metal frame structure, and a drywall–wood frame structure. The demountable interior partitions included three wall types: wood box walls, cross-shaped metal frames, and combined L-shaped metal frames. These seven interior partition types had a 60-year lifespan with a refurbishment every 15 years and partial replacement every 30 years.
Schneider-Marin et al. [22] conducted an LCA of interior walls (i.e., gypsum boards) in office buildings. The authors determined that the service life of gypsum boards in an office is 20 years due to changes in users or other reasons, whereas the service life of a building is 50 years.
Recently, Urlainis et al. [23] analyzed the influence of occupancy conditions (i.e., light, moderate, standard, and intensive) on the service life predictions of three typical lightweight partition types used in residential buildings in Israel (gypsum board partitions, autoclaved concrete block partitions, and hollow concrete block partitions). They showed that the service life predictions for gypsum board, autoclaved concrete block, and hollow concrete block partitions in light/moderate conditions were 47, 72, and 118 years; those in standard conditions were 27, 32, and 86 years; those in intensive conditions were 11, 18, and 38 years, respectively. The authors also conducted LCCAs of gypsum, autoclaved, and hollow lightweight partitions for a building lifespan of 50 years and showed that in light/moderate conditions, the best alternative was gypsum board partitions, and the worst alternative was hollow concrete block partitions, while in intensive conditions, the best alternative was hollow concrete block partitions, and the worst alternative was gypsum board partitions. However, a limitation of this study was the lack of an LCA.

1.6. Importance of Conducting This Study

A critical review of the literature showed an important trend, namely, the lifespan of interior partitions in buildings can be significantly less than the lifespan of a building. Ignoring the replacement phase in LCAs and LCCAs of building partitions can lead to erroneous environmental and economic conclusions. It should also be noted that running an LCA and LCCA in parallel allows builders to arrive at a balanced solution.

1.7. Research Gap

When studying the influence of occupancy conditions on the lifespan of lightweight partitions, Urlainis et al. [23] performed only an LCCA. Therefore, an LCA is necessary to make a balanced decision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of occupancy conditions on the lifespan of lightweight partitions in residential buildings in Israel using an LCA.

2. Materials and Methods

Figure 1 presents a methodological scheme for the environmental assessment of the studied options for lightweight partitions.

2.1. LCA Method

2.1.1. Functional Unit, System Boundaries, and Data Sources

An LCA includes a definition of the functional unit (FU), building lifespan, and system boundaries, a complete life-cycle inventory (LCI), and a life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) [24]. The FU is the unit of collection for all input and output data.
The FU was an area of 1 m2 for each partition alternative. The building’s lifespan was 50 years. The system boundaries included all materials/processes examined in the analysis. A complete LCA of lightweight partitions includes the following stages: (i) design, (ii) production and installation, (iii) usage, and (iv) end of life [25]. The following is a description of these stages:
(i)
Design stage: Figure 2 shows the studied alternatives for lightweight partitions: gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. The alternatives were designed to meet local standards [26,27,28,29].
(ii)
Production and installation stage: This stage involves acquiring the appropriate raw materials and transporting them to a manufacturing plant, followed by manufacturing the alternatives, transporting them to a construction site, and installing them in a building. The Ecoinvent v3.2 database installed on the SimaPro v9.1 software platform was used to model this stage [30]. Table 1 shows the Ecoinvent v3.2 products and processes used.
According to the Ecoinvent v3.2 data, gypsum board involves the production of the board (including drying) from natural gypsum. Glass wool involves the transportation of raw materials, melting, fiber formation and collection, hardening, and curing. Steel sheets involve the extraction of limestone, lime production, the exploration, mining, and processing of iron ore and coal, transportation, primary processes, casting, hot strip milling, a cold-milling complex, and a galvanizing line. Autoclaved aerated blocks involve raw materials, their transport to the finishing plant, the energy for the autoclaving process, and the packaging. Cement mortar involves raw material provision and mixing, cement production, and packing. Hollow concrete blocks involve the raw materials, their transport to the finishing plant, air-drying, and packing [30].
The transportation of the alternatives to a building site was modeled considering the appropriate distances for the local Israeli context: a distance of 50 km for glass wool, autoclaved aerated blocks, hollow concrete blocks, and cement mortar, and a distance of 100 km for gypsum board and steel sheets.
The installation was modeled according to the approach used in a study by Ferrández-García et al. [11], in which they conducted LCAs of 10 partition alternatives that are commonly used in Spain. Among the 10 alternatives analyzed, the authors analyzed gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. Therefore, we adapted the installation data of these partition alternatives from the study presented by Ferrández-García et al. [11]. The energy consumption of a 24.1 kW crane moving the materials/components of the partition alternatives from the ground to the appropriate floor was calculated, assuming that the actual installation/placement would be performed manually. Table 2 shows the energy consumption data for Israel for the three lightweight partition types, assuming that the electricity was generated from the following combination of energy sources: 69% natural gas, 29% coal, and 8% solar energy [31].
(iii)
Usage stage: This includes the replacement of an alternative based on its expected service life. Based on [32], Urlainis et al. [23] predicted the service life of the gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under four service conditions: light, moderate, standard, and intensive. The authors defined these conditions across a range of negative occupancy-related factors that can lead to damage to the partitions and, therefore, require their replacement.
Six occupancy-related negative factors (µ) were non-ownership, poor maintenance, high residential density, the presence of young children, the presence of domestic animals, and the density of furniture. The service conditions were “light” (µ = 0), “moderate” (2 > µ ≥ 1), “standard” (4 > µ ≥ 2), and “intensive” (µ ≥ 4). Following this gradation, Urlainis et al. [23] calculated the service life for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
In this study, we used the service life of each of the three partition options and estimated their replacement rate over the 50-year life of a building. Table 3 provides the expected service life and resulting replacement rates for partitions over a 50-year building lifespan under light or moderate, standard, and intensive service conditions.
To account for the replacement of a failed partition, the production and installation step for a new partition was repeated using the data in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively; the step was repeated one or several times according to the corresponding replacement rate from Table 3.
(iv)
End-of-life stage: This stage involves the demolition and transportation of materials/components to a disposal site. The contribution of this stage to the overall LCA of the considered alternatives was reported as being negligible by Ferrández-García et al. [11]. Therefore, the end-of-life stage was excluded from the system boundaries considered here.

2.1.2. Life-Cycle Inventory: Inputs of Materials and Processes

Table 4 shows the inputs of materials, components, and processes for a complete LCI for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.

2.1.3. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment

The LCIA ReCiPe2016 method was used to evaluate the use of materials and processes when comparing the alternatives [33]. ReCiPe2016 includes a midpoint and six methodological options. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint includes quantitative assessments of environmental impacts, but the results of their interpretation are uncertain; the six methodological options of ReCiPe2016 involve expert assessments of the midpoint results, which greatly facilitate their interpretation [34].
The ReCiPe2016 midpoint method includes 19 environmental impacts, such as global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, ozone formation (human health), ozone formation (terrestrial ecosystem), fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity. In this study, we focused on four of them: global warming potential, ozone formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate matter formation. These were chosen because gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete, and hollow blocks had the greatest association with these impacts [30]. This was confirmed in the study presented by Silva et al. [35] who assessed the environmental impacts of a range of building materials, such as concrete, mortar, gravel, steel, and ceramics. The authors concluded that global warming, fine particulate matter formation, ozone formation, and terrestrial ecotoxicity are the major impacts associated with direct emissions and the combustion of fossil fuels during the production of these products.
The six ReCiPe2016 methodological options include three time horizons of pollution prospects: individualist (I: short, 20 years), hierarchist (H: long, 100 years), and egalitarian (E: infinite, 1000 years) [36]. These three time perspectives, I, H, and E, nest into two weighting sets: average (I/A, H/A, and E/A) and particular (I/I, H/H, and E/E). The two weighting sets then nest into the ReCiPe results for the alternatives. Recently, Tang et al. [37] used the same ReCiPe methodology to estimate meat patty analogs.

2.2. Statistics

Figure 3 shows the design framework of the six methodological options of ReCiPe2016. This design framework permits the use of a two-stage nested analysis of variance to compare the two primary sampling units, where each primary sampling unit contains two subunits and each subunit contains three individual subunits [38]. Recently, this statistical approach was applied to compare two building LCAs [39].

2.3. p-Value Analysis

The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: “it seems to be positive” (i.e., there seems to be a difference between two alternatives), “it seems to be negative” (i.e., there does not seem to be a difference between two alternatives), and “judgment is suspended” regarding the difference between two alternatives [40,41].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Environmental Impacts

3.1.1. Light or Moderate Service Conditions

Figure 4 shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under light or moderate service conditions.
Hollow concrete blocks are the worst alternative and have the greatest environmental impacts. Gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks resulted in much lower environmental impacts.
Hollow concrete blocks are the most environmentally harmful due to their high cement content. Cement production is known to include a high-temperature firing process (1500 °C) with very high emissions of CO2, NOx, DCB, and PM2.5, which lead to high global warming potential, ozone formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate matter formation, respectively [42]. This is especially true in the case of Israel, where electricity generation involves a large share of fossil fuels (69% natural gas and 23% coal) and a small share of PV (8%) [31]. In other countries, such as Italy, where electricity production comes from a smaller share of fossil fuels (50% natural gas and 5% coal) and a larger share of renewable energy (9% photovoltaic, 16% hydro, 7% wind, and 8% bioenergy and waste), the impact of cement production is smaller [43]. Moreover, the cement calcination process is a source of additional CO2 emissions [42].
Gypsum board is produced using much less energy due to its low-temperature firing process. In Israel, the gypsum production process occurs at a temperature of approximately 200 °C [44]. Autoclaved aerated blocks contain 90–95% sand and 5–10% limestone powder [44]. Sand mining is a process with a low environmental impact, contributing 1–2% of the total concrete-related CO2 emissions [45]. Thus, these two partition alternatives have a much smaller environmental impact than that of hollow concrete blocks.
In light or moderate service conditions, all three alternatives last 50 years without needing to be replaced (Table 3). Therefore, this is the expected result. Non-obvious results were expected for standard and intensive service conditions. This is because drywall and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks require repeated replacement over the life of the building, whereas hollow concrete blocks do not require replacement (Table 3).
However, even in the case of light to moderate service conditions, based on the ReCiPe midpoint results, it appears to be impossible to determine the best of two alternatives: gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks. This is because gypsum board is a better alternative in terms of global warming potential and the impact on ozone generation, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are a better alternative in terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity and fine particulate matter production. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the environmental damage from lightweight partitions using the six methodological options of the ReCiPe method. This assessment is presented in Section 3.2.
It should be noted that in light and moderate service conditions, according to the economic assessment by Urlainis et al. [23], the most expensive option for partitions turned out to be hollow concrete blocks (38.4 dollars/m2), while gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks had a lower price of 23.4 and 32.6 dollars/m2, respectively.

3.1.2. Standard Service Conditions

Figure 5 shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under standard service conditions.
Under standard service conditions, the predicted service life of gypsum board is 27 years, that of autoclaved aerated blocks is 32 years, and that of hollow concrete blocks is 86 years [23]. As a result, over the 50-year planned life of the building, the gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks would need to be replaced once, but the hollow blocks would not (Table 3). Since there is no need for their replacement under standard service conditions, all four impacts associated with hollow concrete blocks remained the same (Figure 5) as those under light and moderate service conditions (Figure 4).
However, under standard service conditions, all four environmental impacts associated with gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks (Figure 5) were approximately doubled compared with their estimates under light or moderate service conditions (Figure 4).

3.1.3. Intensive Service Conditions

Figure 6 shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under intensive service conditions.
Under intensive service conditions, the predicted service life of gypsum board is 11 years, that of autoclaved aerated blocks is 18 years, and that of hollow concrete blocks is 38 years [23]. Thus, according to Urlainis et al. [23], over the 50-year planned life of the building, the gypsum board would be replaced four times, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks would be replaced two times, and hollow concrete blocks would not be replaced at all. Thus, under intensive service conditions, all four environmental impacts associated with hollow concrete blocks were the same (Figure 6) as those under light and moderate service conditions (Figure 4) and standard service conditions (Figure 5).
However, the impacts associated with gypsum board increased significantly, especially with regard to global warming potential and ozone formation. For these impacts, gypsum board is the worst alternative. This is mainly due to an increase in the share of sheet steel, as steel production is an energy-intensive process [46]. Early publications in the literature reported its influence on global warming potential, ozone formation, abiotic depletion, and human toxicity [47].
Thus, the three lightweight partitions varied in their rankings from the lowest impact (first) to a moderate impact (second) to the highest impact (third) for the different impact types (Table 5).
This confirms the previously stated assumption that it is necessary to assess the environmental damage from lightweight partitions using the six methodological options of ReCiPe.

3.2. Environmental Damage: Six Methodological Options

3.2.1. Light or Moderate Service Conditions

Figure 7 shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under light or moderate service conditions.
For all six methodological options of ReCiPe, gypsum board is the most preferable alternative, causing the least environmental damage. Hollow concrete blocks are the most harmful alternative and cause the greatest damage to the environment. Autoclaved aerated blocks are an intermediate alternative between the above extremes.
Table 6 shows that there was a significant difference between each pair of partition alternatives compared.
When applying the impact assessment level, it was not possible to identify the better of the two options (gypsum board or autoclaved aerated blocks) (Figure 4). In contrast, using the six methodological options of ReCiPe to assess the level of environmental damage caused by the use of the partition alternatives indicated that gypsum board was the most environmentally friendly option in Israel (Figure 7 and Table 6). This alternative has also proven to be cost-effective for Israel [23].
The environmental and economic assessment of the gypsum board alternative was previously reported by Ferrandez-García et al. [11] for Spain. Ferrandez-García et al. [11] analyzed interior partitions only under light or moderate service conditions.
In contrast, in addition to light or moderate service conditions, the present study extended the environmental assessment of the partitions to two additional service conditions: standard (Section 3.2.2) and intensive (Section 3.2.3).

3.2.2. Standard Service Conditions

Figure 8 shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under standard service conditions.
Gypsum board continued to be the best alternative with the least environmental impact across all six methodological options. However, autoclaved aerated blocks and hollow concrete blocks changed their positions according to the methodological options. Hollow concrete blocks are better than autoclaved aerated concrete blocks for I/A, H/A, I/I, and H/H, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are better than hollow concrete blocks for E/A and E/E.
Thus, the consideration of different time horizons (short: I/I and I/A, long: H/H and H/A, or infinite: E/E and E/A) of living emissions may change the preferability between the considered options. Similar results were revealed for two alternatives to flat roof technologies: ribbed slabs with concrete blocks were environmentally better than ribbed slabs with autoclaved aerated blocks for I/A, H/A, I/I, and H/H, while ribbed slabs with autoclaved aerated blocks were environmentally better than ribbed slabs with concrete blocks for E/A and E/E [48].
Moreover, similar variability in the selection of the most environmentally friendly alternative with different methodological options of Eco-indicator 99 (the predecessor of ReCiPe2016) has been identified in other industries [49,50]. For example, Cordella et al. [49] compared two beer packaging options: bottles and kegs. The authors found that kegs are more environmentally friendly than bottling for E/E and H/H, while bottling is more environmentally friendly than kegs for I/I. Cordella et al. [49] concluded that every methodological option has a different time horizon, normalization factors, and weighting and, as a result, can lead to different results.
Table 7 shows that gypsum boards differed significantly from autoclaved aerated concrete blocks and hollow concrete blocks.
However, a judgment on whether there is a significant difference between autoclaved aerated concrete blocks and hollow concrete blocks is suspended until more information becomes available.
Urlainis et al. [23] revealed that gypsum board is the most economical choice in standard service conditions in Israel. However, the authors noted that the mechanical performance of gypsum board is significantly lower than that of concrete blocks and aerated concrete blocks. Thus, it was concluded that gypsum board is not a good solution under standard service conditions.

3.2.3. Intensive Service Conditions

Figure 9 shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under intensive service conditions.
For all six methodological options of ReCiPe, hollow concrete blocks are the most preferable alternative with the least environmental damage. Gypsum board is the most harmful alternative and causes the greatest damage to the environment. Autoclaved aerated blocks are an intermediate alternative between the above extremes.
Table 8 shows that there was a significant difference between each pair of partition alternatives compared.
When the ReCiPe midpoint method was applied, it was not possible to identify the better alternative because the three partition alternatives’ rankings from best (lowest impact) to worst (highest impact) changed with the different impact types (Figure 5). In contrast, using the six methodological options of the ReCiPe method showed that hollow concrete blocks are the most environmentally friendly alternative when compared with gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks (Figure 9 and Table 8).
Previously, from an LCCA of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks in Israel, Urlainis et al. [23] found that hollow concrete blocks are the most economical choice in intensive service conditions. The authors concluded that this is due to the better resilience of hollow concrete blocks than that of other types of lightweight partitions.

4. Conclusions

In this study, an LCA was used to examine three lightweight partition types—gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks—in a residential building under three service conditions (light/moderate, standard, and intensive). The environmental impact assessment was performed using the ReCiPe midpoint method and the six methodological options of ReCiPe.
It was concluded that (1) the service conditions influence the selection of the best lightweight partition in terms of environmental damage, and (2) the environmental impact assessment of lightweight partitions depends on the choice between the ReCiPe midpoint and the six methodological options of ReCiPe. In particular, the following results were obtained:
  • Light/moderate and standard service conditions: The ReCiPe midpoint results showed gypsum board to be the best alternative with the least global warming potential and ozone generation impact, while autoclaved aerated blocks were the best alternative with the least terrestrial ecotoxicity and fine particulate matter production. The results for the six methodological options of ReCiPe showed that gypsum board was the most environmentally friendly alternative.
  • Intensive service conditions: The ReCiPe midpoint results showed that hollow concrete blocks produced the least global warming potential, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks caused the least ozone generation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate matter production. The results for the six methodological options of ReCiPe showed that hollow concrete blocks were the most environmentally friendly alternative.
This study highlights that “use conditions” have a strong influence on the selection of the most environmentally friendly lightweight partitions in residential buildings.

5. Limitations of This Study

A main limitation of this study was the analysis of conventional lightweight partitions made from natural raw materials without the inclusion of recycled/waste materials. In particular, in the present study, traditional Portland cement was used in the production of partitions from autoclaved aerated blocks. Portland cement could be replaced with blended “green” cements. In these cements, part of the clinker is replaced by waste from other industries, such as fly ash and slag from coal-fired power plants and iron production in furnaces [42]. The use of blended cements can significantly reduce the environmental impact of conventional lightweight partitions.
An additional limitation of the present study is the lack of a sensitivity analysis, which leads to uncertainty in LCA studies. The main sensitivity factor is the LCIA method. In this study, we used the ReCiPe method. However, different LCIA methods (IMPACT 2002+, TRACI 2.1, Ecological Scarcity 2013) produce different LCA results. This is because different LCIA methods use different numbers of impacts and assign different normalization and weighting factors to them [51]. Thus, using methods other than ReCiPe may result in different preferences for lightweight partitions. An additional sensitivity factor is the service life of the whole building. Different LCA studies consider different building lifespans (from 50 to 90 years) [52]. In this study, the life expectancy is 50 years. However, a 90-year lifespan analysis may lead to other more significant replacement rates for lightweight partitions that may change the selection of the best options.

6. Future Research Directions

Future research directions could build on the following recently proposed innovations: replacing traditional Portland cement with blended “green” cements and adding up to 25% wood ash to partitions [53], incorporating phase change materials into lightweight partitions in hot Mediterranean climates [54], and replacing lightweight partitions in large public housing complexes [55]. In addition, environmental analyses of partitions can benefit from applied sensitivity analyses in relation to different LCIA methods and the extended life-cycle of a building.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available data sets were analyzed in this study. The data can be found here: https://www.usgbc.org/projects (USGBC Projects Site) (accessed on 10 April 2024) and http://www.gbig.org (GBIG Green Building Data) (accessed on 10 April 2024).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F. A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the circular economy: The construction sector perspective. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 8, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Goulouti, K.; Padey, P.; Galimshina, A.; Habert, G.; Lasvaux, S. Uncertainty of Building Elements’ Service Lives in Building LCA & LCC: What Matters? Build. Environ. 2020, 183, 106904. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brand, S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They’re Built; Viking Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; 243p, ISBN 978-0-670-83515-7. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pushkar, S. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to various building lifetime shearing layers: Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space, and Stuff. J. Green Build. 2015, 10, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Silva, A.; de Brito, J.; Thomsen, A.; Straub, A.; Prieto, A.J.; Lacasse, M.A. Causal Effects between Criteria That Establish the End of Service Life of Buildings and Components. Buildings 2022, 12, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Addis, W.; Schouton, J. Principles of Design for Deconstruction to Facilitate Reuse and Recycling; CIRIA: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 9780860176077. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mateus, R.; Neiva, S.; Bragança, L.; Mendonça, P.; Macieira, M. Sustainability assessment of an innovative lightweight building technology for partition walls—Comparison with conventional technologies. Build. Environ. 2013, 67, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pushkar, S. Design of Sustainable Buildings—Implementation of Multi-Objective Optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, Technion—IIT, Haifa, Israel, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  10. Samani, P.; Mendes, A.; Leal, V.; Guedes, J.M.; Correia, N. A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ferrández-García, A.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Bovea, M.D. Eco-efficiency analysis of the life cycle of interior partition walls: A comparison of alternative solutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112 Pt 1, 649–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Atienza, E.M.; Ongpeng, J.M.C. Environmental Impact and Cost Comparison of Different Partition Walls. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2022, 94, 691–696. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ortiz, O.; Pasqualino, J.C.; Díez, G.; Castells, F. The environmental impact of the construction phase: An application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 832–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ip, K.; Miller, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp–lime wall constructions in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 69, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rivas-Aybar, D.; John, M.; Biswas, W. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Hemp-Based Building Material. Materials 2023, 16, 7208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bošković, I.; Radivojević, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp-lime concrete wall constructions in Serbia: The impact of carbon sequestration, transport, waste production and end of life biogenic carbon emission. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 66, 105908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Condeixa, K.; Haddad, A.; Boer, D. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of masonry system as inner walls: A case study in Brazil. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 70, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Broun, R.; Menzies, G.F. Life cycle energy and environmental analysis of partition wall systems in the UK. Proc. Eng. 2011, 21, 864–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Condeixa, K.; Qualharini, E.; Boer, D.; Haddad, A. An Inquiry into the Life Cycle of Systems of Inner Walls: Comparison of Masonry and Drywall. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7904–7925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Valencia-Barba, Y.E.; Gómez-Soberón, J.M.; Gómez-Soberón, M.C.; Rojas-Valencia, M.N. Life cycle assessment of interior partition walls: Comparison between functionality requirements and best environmental performance. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Buyle, M.; Galle, W.; Debacker, W.; Audenaert, A. Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: Consequential LCA and LCC for internal wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schneider-Marin, P.; Harter, H.; Tkachuk, K.; Lang, W. Uncertainty Analysis of Embedded Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using BIM in Early Design Stages. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Urlainis, A.; Paciuk, M.; Shohet, I.M. Service Life Prediction and Life Cycle Costs of Light Weight Partitions. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. ISO 14040; Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  25. ISO 13315-1; Environmental Management for Concrete and Concrete Structures, Part. 1: General Principles. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
  26. SI 5 Part 1; Concrete Blocks: Blocks for Walls. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2003. (In Hebrew)
  27. SI 268; Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry Units. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2017. (In Hebrew)
  28. SI 1490 Part 1; Gypsum Partitions and Linings: Boards. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 1997. (In Hebrew)
  29. SI 1920 Part 2; Plaster: The Plastering System at the Site. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2002. (In Hebrew)
  30. PRé Consultants. SimaPro, version 9.1. 0.35; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2019.
  31. Israeli Electricity Sector—Annual Report 2021. Available online: www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/dochmeshek/he/Files_Netunei_hashmal_THE%20ELECTRICITY%20AUTHORITY%20_ANNUAL%20REPORT_2021.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2024).
  32. ISO 15686-2:2012; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning Part 2: Service Life Prediction Procedures. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
  33. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-Indicator 99—A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  35. Silva, F.B.; Reis, D.C.; Mack-Vergara, Y.L.; Pessoto, L.; Feng, H.; Pacca, S.A.; Lasvaux, S.; Habert, G.; John, V.M. Primary Data Priorities for the Life Cycle Inventory of Construction Products: Focus on Foreground Processes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 980–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thompson, M.; Ellis, R.; Wildavsky, A. Political cultures. In Cultural Theory; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tang, M.; Miri, T.; Soltani, F.; Onyeaka, H.; Al-Sharify, Z.T. Life Cycle Assessment of Plant-Based vs. Beef Burgers: A Case Study in the UK. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Picquelle, S.J.; Mier, K.L. A practical guide to statistical methods for comparing means from two-stage sampling. Fish. Res. 2011, 107, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pushkar, S.; Yezioro, A. Life Cycle Assessment Meeting Energy Standard Performance: An Office Building Case Study. Buildings 2022, 12, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2009, 46, 311–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Lopsided reasoning on lopsided tests and multiple comparisons. Aust. N. Z. J. Stat. 2012, 54, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Van den Heede, P.; De Belie, N. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Italy 2023 Energy Policy Review. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/71b328b3-3e5b-4c04-8a22-3ead575b3a9a/Italy_2023_EnergyPolicyReview.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024).
  44. Soroka, I. Building Materials—Properties and Uses Part I; Copyright © 1988 by I. Soroka; The Cement Foundation, Ministry of Industry and Commerce and the Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd.: Haifa, Israel, 1989. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
  45. Celik, K.; Meral, C.; Gursel, A.P.; Mehta, P.K.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 56, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Conejo, A.N.; Birat, J.-P.; Dutta, A. A review of the current environmental challenges of the steel industry and its value chain. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 259, 109782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Liang, T.; Wang, S.; Lu, C.; Jiang, N.; Long, W.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, R. Environmental impact evaluation of an iron and steel plant in China: Normalized data and direct/indirect contribution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pushkar, S. Life Cycle Assessment of Flat Roof Technologies for Office Buildings in Israel. Sustainability 2016, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cordella, M.; Tugnoli, A.; Spadoni, G.; Santarelli, F.; Zangrando, T. LCA of an Italian lager beer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Laleman, R.; Albrecht, J.; Dewulf, J. Life cycle analysis to estimate the environmental impact of residential photovoltaic systems in regions with a low solar irradiation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life Cycle Assessment in the Construction Sector: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dani, A.A.; Roy, K.; Masood, R.; Fang, Z.; Lim, J.B.P. A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of New Zealand Residential Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pedreño-Rojas, M.A.; Porras-Amores, C.; Villoria-Sáez, P.; Morales-Conde, M.J.; Flores-Colen, I. Characterization and performance of building composites made from gypsum and woody-biomass ash waste: A product development and application study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 419, 135435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Figueiredo, A.; Silva, T.; Gonçalves, M.; Samagaio, A. Application of Novel Phase Change Material Constructive Solution for Thermal Regulation of Passive Solar Buildings. Buildings 2024, 14, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Diana, L.; Passarelli, C.; Polverino, F.; Pugliese, F. A Decision Framework for the Regeneration Awareness of Large-Sized Public Housing Using a Building Transformability Assessment: A Test Case in Italy (Latina). Buildings 2024, 14, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 01704 g001
Figure 1. Scheme of the methodology. The abbreviations I/A, H/A, E/A, I/A, H/A, and E/A refer to the methodological options of ReCiPe and are described in Section 2.1.3.
Figure 1. Scheme of the methodology. The abbreviations I/A, H/A, E/A, I/A, H/A, and E/A refer to the methodological options of ReCiPe and are described in Section 2.1.3.
Buildings 14 01704 g001
Buildings 14 01704 g002
Figure 2. Sections of the studied partition alternatives.
Figure 2. Sections of the studied partition alternatives.
Buildings 14 01704 g002
Buildings 14 01704 g003
Figure 3. Design of the statistical analysis.
Figure 3. Design of the statistical analysis.
Buildings 14 01704 g003
Buildings 14 01704 g004
Figure 4. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Figure 4. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Buildings 14 01704 g004
Buildings 14 01704 g005
Figure 5. Standard service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Figure 5. Standard service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Buildings 14 01704 g005
Buildings 14 01704 g006
Figure 6. Intensive service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Figure 6. Intensive service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Buildings 14 01704 g006
Buildings 14 01704 g007
Figure 7. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Figure 7. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Buildings 14 01704 g007
Buildings 14 01704 g008
Figure 8. Standard service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Figure 8. Standard service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Buildings 14 01704 g008
Buildings 14 01704 g009
Figure 9. Intensive service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Figure 9. Intensive service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Buildings 14 01704 g009
Table 1. Data sources used to model the production stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Table 1. Data sources used to model the production stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Material/ProcessEcoinvent v3.2 Data
Gypsum boardGypsum board, at plant/CH
Glass woolGlass wool mat/CH
Steel sheetGalvanized steel sheet, at plant/RNA
Autoclaved aerated blockAutoclaved aerated block, at plant/CH
Cement mortarCement mortar, at plant/CH
Hollow concrete blockLightweight concrete block, at plant/CH
TransportationLorry transport; Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 mix; 22 t total weight
Installation energy (coal)Hard coal/ES
Installation energy (natural gas)Natural gas/ES
Installation energy (PV)PV/CH
Table 2. Data used to model the installation stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Table 2. Data used to model the installation stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Material/ComponentEnergy Consumption (kWh/m2) 1
Gypsum BoardAutoclaved Aerated BlockHollow Concrete Block
Gypsum board0.0234--
Glass wool0.0338--
Steel sheet0.0037--
Autoclaved aerated block-0.0160-
Cement mortar-0.01030.0103
Hollow concrete block--0.1490
1 Energy consumption on building site per 1 m2 of alternative partition (kWh/m2) (based on Ferrández-García et al. [11]).
Table 3. Expected service life and corresponding replacement rates for three different service conditions.
Table 3. Expected service life and corresponding replacement rates for three different service conditions.
AlternativeService Conditions
Light or ModerateStandardIntensive
Service Life (Years) 1Replacement RateService Life (Years) 1Replacement RateService Life (Years) 1Replacement Rate
Gypsum board470271114
Autoclaved aerated block>500321182
Hollow concrete block>500>500380
1 Expected service life of partitions (based on Urlainis et al. [23]).
Table 4. Inputs of materials and processes for the LCIs for (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Table 4. Inputs of materials and processes for the LCIs for (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Material/ProcessService Conditions
Light or ModerateStandardIntensive
123123123
Gypsum board (kg)24--48--120--
Glass wool (kg)1.5--3--7.5--
Steel sheet (kg)2.4--4.8--12--
Autoclaved aerated block (kg)-50--100--150-
Cement mortar (kg)-3232-6432-9632
Hollow concrete block (kg)--165--165--165
Transportation (t/km)2.74.19.95.48.29.913.612.39.9
Installation energy (coal) (kWh)0.020.020.050.030.040.050.070.080.05
Installation energy (natural gas) (kWh)0.040.070.160.080.130.160.210.240.16
Installation energy (PV) (kWh)0.010.010.020.010.020.020.020.030.02
Note: 1, gypsum board; 2, autoclaved aerated blocks; and 3, hollow concrete blocks.
Table 5. Ranking of the three lightweight partitions for global warming potential (GWP), ozone formation (OF), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), and fine particulate matter production (FPMP).
Table 5. Ranking of the three lightweight partitions for global warming potential (GWP), ozone formation (OF), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), and fine particulate matter production (FPMP).
AlternativeGWPOFTEFPMF
Gypsum board3rd3rd2nd2nd
Autoclaved aerated blocks2nd1st1st1st
Hollow concrete blocks1st2nd3rd3rd
Table 6. Light or moderate service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition alternatives.
Table 6. Light or moderate service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition alternatives.
AlternativeGypsum BoardAutoclaved Aerated BlocksHollow Concrete Blocks
Gypsum boardX0.00250.0005
Autoclaved aerated blocks X0.0011
Hollow concrete blocks X
Table 7. Standard service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition alternatives.
Table 7. Standard service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition alternatives.
AlternativeGypsum BoardAutoclaved Aerated BlocksHollow Concrete Blocks
Gypsum boardX0.00270.0065
Autoclaved aerated blocks X0.0622
Hollow concrete blocks X
Table 8. Intensive service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition alternatives.
Table 8. Intensive service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition alternatives.
AlternativeGypsum BoardAutoclaved Aerated BlocksHollow Concrete Blocks
Gypsum boardX0.01050.0011
Autoclaved aerated blocks X0.0017
Hollow concrete blocks X
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pushkar, S. Life-Cycle Assessment of Lightweight Partitions in Residential Buildings. Buildings 2024, 14, 1704. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061704

AMA Style

Pushkar S. Life-Cycle Assessment of Lightweight Partitions in Residential Buildings. Buildings. 2024; 14(6):1704. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061704

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pushkar, Svetlana. 2024. "Life-Cycle Assessment of Lightweight Partitions in Residential Buildings" Buildings 14, no. 6: 1704. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061704

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop