A Comprehensive Review on the Comparison Between Plasterboard (Drywall) Systems and Conventional Brick Masonry in Building Construction

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66104/s9j9z795

Keywords:

construction systems; plasterboard; drywall; brick masonry; building materials; cost–benefit analysis.

Abstract

The construction industry has undergone significant technological transformations aimed at improving productivity, reducing costs, and increasing sustainability. Among these innovations, plasterboard (drywall) systems have emerged as an alternative to conventional brick masonry for vertical partitions. This review article presents a comprehensive comparative analysis between plasterboard systems and traditional brick masonry, focusing on structural performance, economic viability, construction speed, environmental impact, thermal and acoustic behavior, durability, and practical application in the Brazilian context. The study synthesizes technical literature, normative standards, and cost analyses to evaluate the advantages and limitations of both systems. Results indicate that while conventional masonry remains widely used due to its mechanical resistance and cultural acceptance, plasterboard systems offer significant benefits in terms of construction speed, reduced structural load, material efficiency, and design flexibility. The review concludes that the selection between systems should consider project-specific requirements, environmental conditions, and cost–benefit analysis, rather than relying solely on traditional practices.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Pedro Emílio Amador Salomão, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, UFVJM, MG, Brazil

    Corresponding author: peas8810@gmail.com

Downloads

Published

2026-02-12

How to Cite

Salomão, P. E. A. . (2026). A Comprehensive Review on the Comparison Between Plasterboard (Drywall) Systems and Conventional Brick Masonry in Building Construction. Journal International Review of Research Studies, 1(01), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.66104/s9j9z795