Comparison of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) Blocks and CHB Using Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Concrete hollow blocks (CHB) have been used worldwide, especially in the Philippines, due to their cost-saving and lightweight features. Moreover, the energy-efficient CHB promotes faster construction process thereby expediting construction project schedule. However, continuous development in masonry construction introduces more potential masonry products like Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) blocks. The simplicity of installation and its ability to be part of the structural system make it a more excellent choice over the conventional CHB. In this study, performing life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) can compare the costs involved between AAC blocks and CHB throughout its service life. Initial fees and future fees of CHB and AAC blocks construction complete the parameters to be evaluated in LCCA. Using a residential building located in Malabon City, Philippines with CHB as the base case, it was found that AAC blocks can be a cheaper choice than the CHB blocks by a slight margin. Nearly negligible difference in the total life-cycle cost (LCC) between CHB and AAC blocks in a 50-yearconsideration, was discovered in this research. Initial cost of masonry construction dominated the total LCC which make it the most significant percentage of LCC. Due to minor difference in LCC, a non-cost related analysis between CHB and AAC blocks might show a more comprehensive comparative analysis.