Comparison
Comparison between AAC Block Wall and eWalls.
Sr No | Parameter | AAC Wall | eWalls |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Water Requirement | Water required for pre & post curing and for mortar. | No Water required. |
2 | Construction duration | Time taking process . | Substantially faster process. |
3 | Product Quality | Quality varies vastly, Variation in density leading to cracks, breakages , etc. | Union Quality as each unit made separately, Insuring proper quality. |
4 | Safety of Walls | Chemically bonded, less safe. | Chemically and mechanically fixed, safe. |
5 | Cost of Entire Wall | AAC Wall cost varies with stages. | Cost-effective with a predetermined cost. |
6 | Water Absorption | Absorbs less than 10% by mass. | Less than 10% water absorption. |
7 | Compressive Strength | AAC Wall has an average of 2.5 to 3.00 N/mm². | eWalls have an average of 3.5 to 5.00 N/mm². |
8 | Lead/Lifting Time | AAC Wall requires more time due to more units. | eWalls have quick installation due to a larger size. |
9 | Storage Space | AAC Wall needs more space. | eWalls can be stored in compact spaces. |
10 | Efflorescence | AAC Wall has slight chances. | eWalls have nil efflorescence. |
11 | No. of Joints | AAC Wall has more joints leading to more cracks. | eWalls have fewer joints and fewer chances of cracks. |
12 | Conduit | Difficulty in proper conduit installation, leading to cracks. | eWalls allow proper conduit installation. |
13 | RCC Coping | Requires intermediate bands. | Do not need RCC bands, saving cost. |
14 | DPC | AAC Wall requires DPC. | eWalls do not need it, saving cost. |
15 | Finishing Thickness | Requires more gypsum. | Need less gypsum. |
16 | Cracks | AC Wall is more likely to have cracks. | Fewer chances of cracks. |
17 | Water Resistance | Low water resistance. | Higher water resistance. |
18 | Expansion-Contract | Provides no solution. | Manage expansion-contraction. |
19 | Reinforcement | No reinforcement. | Use steel and fiber reinforcement. |
20 | Maintenance | Needs more maintenance. | Require less maintenance. |
21 | Agencies and Supervision | AAC Wall involves multiple agencies and complex supervision. | eWalls have a single agency with streamlined supervision. |
22 | Reusability | Cannot be reused. | Can be easily reused. |
23 | Wallpaper Application | AAC Wall has limited direct application. | eWalls allow direct application on wall panels. |
24 | Putty Application | AAC Wall has limited direct application. | eWalls permit direct application in certain areas. |
25 | Breakages | Breakages are on the builder's account. | Breakages are on the company's account and can be used. |
26 | Construction Wastage | High construction waste. | Minimum construction waste. |
27 | Nail Holding Capacity | AAC Wall has less capacity, prone to breakage. | eWalls have higher capacity and less breakage. |
28 | Brittle | AAC Wall is more brittle. | eWalls are not brittle. |
29 | Undulations | AAC Wall is likely to have undulations due to multiple layers. | eWalls have no undulations post-finishing. |
Comparison
Where We Defer in Panels
Where We Differ | Light weight sandwich concrete panels | EPS Panel | AAC Plain panel | Double reinforced eWalls |
---|---|---|---|---|
Reinforcement | - | - | - | Steel Reinforcement |
Fiber | Pulp | - | - | Pulp And Synthetic Fiber Reinforcement |
Facing sheet | Blue asbestos sheet | Calcium silicate board | - | Eco friendly Asbestos free Fiber Cement Board |
Core | Core Light weight ALC core | EPS based Thermocol concrete core | Plain AAC Core | Light Weight Reinforced Core |
Cast in Situ Interlocking Tongue & Groove | Yes | - | No | Yes |
In-house Installation Team | No | No | No | Yes |
Market Distribution Via | Dealer | Dealer | Project | B2C, B2B, Projects |
Available Thickness (mm) | 50/75 | 60/90/120 | 75/100/125 | 50/75/100 |