sustainability
and blocks can be separated from the mortar bonding them. In the past, walling components were generally bonded with lime mortars so are often salvageable as lime-based materials are relatively easily cleaned off when a wall is deconstructed. More commonly today, bricks are bonded with cement-based mortar. “If cement mortar is used it can only be downcycled into crushed aggregate,” says Pelsmakers. With a view to improving efficiency and reducing
waste, the clay and concrete industries partnered with WRAP to develop Resource Efficiency Action Plans (REAPs), which include practical recommendations, actions and targets that will directly benefit industry by increasing the opportunity for recycling and reusing recovered materials. “The REAPs have been developed to assist the
supply chain, which ranges from raw material extraction through to the demolition or deconstruction of buildings, in identifying and creating an actionable strategy for reducing waste and improving resource
efficiency,” explains Simon Hay, CEO of the Brick Development Association. “It’s only because of the existing expertise of the
people in the brick industry that the REAP is both comprehensive and inspirational. While the brick industry is already environmentally sound and efficient there’s a strong commitment to improve performances, lessen environmental impact and increase efficiency.” At Wienerberger, Sandford points to the investment
in new kiln technology, which simultaneously drives down both energy consumption and carbon emissions. “As an example of a clay-based construction system that is at the forefront of both sustainability and modern efficiency, a Porotherm clay block can be made using 30% recycled material, and be constructed on site using 95% less water than traditional masonry,” claims Sandford. Similarly, John Lambert explains that Forticrete is continuously looking to increase the recycled
content of its building products where possible, minimising the depletion of natural resources. “We incorporate materials such as ground granulated blast furnace slag in place of cement, converting it to prime concrete products to deliver significant reductions in waste for landfill. The concrete blocks within Forticrete’s environmentally friendly Dense Concrete Masonry range, which form part of the company’s Ecoblock masonry solutions, are manufactured using up to 45% recycled content, to provide a ‘greener’ alternative to standard decorative masonry blocks.” Masonry products manufacturer Lignacite has
meanwhile developed what it claims is the world’s first carbon-negative building block in partnership with Carbon8 Aggregates. The Carbon Buster incorporates more than 50% recycled aggregates and combines this with Carbon8’s carbonated aggregates derived from by-products from waste-to- energy plants. The result is a product that has
captured 14kg CO² per tonne –more than is emitted during its manufacture. Carbon8’s technical director, Dr Paula Carey,
explains: “On the back of research carried out at the University of Greenwich’s School of Science, Carbon8 identified an end use for thermal residues from waste-to-energy plants. By mixing the residue with water and carbon dioxide, we were able to transform the material into what the Environment Agency has agreed is a product suitable as a virgin aggregate replacement.” H+H is another manufacturer that highlights its
environmental credentials. Its aircrete products have a recycled content of between 75% and 80%. For 60 years the company has been using pulverised fuel ash (PFA), a by-product from electricity generation that would otherwise go to landfill. The PFA is mixed with water to create a slurry that is pumped into a mixer where cement and lime binders are added, along with a minute quantity of aluminium powder. The company claims that less than 1% of the raw materials used in the production of its products are imported from overseas. From a building performance perspective,
one reason for using clay- and concrete-based products is that they provide thermal mass.
showhouse January 2014 | 37
Brick Development Association
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116