Supplementary cementitious materials to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from concrete: can there be too much of a good thing?

Abstract Among the many possible strategies for reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is reduction of emissions associated with the production of concrete, which is responsible for 8–9% of global anthropognic GHG emissions. Using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in concrete to offset demand for clinker in cement is a commonly proposed method to cut GHG emissions from concrete production. The most commonly used SCMs are industrial byproducts, such as fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag, but the extent to which these SCMs should be used in individual concrete mixtures is not well examined. This research examines the contribution of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag to compressive strength, the role of allocation in the assessment of environmental impacts, and the impacts of transportation. Quantitative analyses are developed using environmental impact assessments and comparisons are drawn based on changes in GHG emissions for concrete production. The findings of this research show that these three factors can outweigh benefits associated with use of SCMs: depending on SCM type and use of allocation or changes in transportation, high levels of SCM replacement do not consistently result in lower GHG emissions for the production of concrete per unit strength. Limited supplies of these popular byproduct SCMs amplifies the necessity to efficiently use these materials. Within the limitations of this study, this work shows strategic use of SCMs to cut GHG emissions based on regional availability and based on application should be a priority.

[1]  Sabbie A. Miller,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from concrete can be reduced by using mix proportions, geometric aspects, and age as design factors , 2015 .

[2]  Karina E. Seto,et al.  Impact of the selection of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[3]  Bruno Luís Damineli,et al.  Measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use , 2010 .

[4]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20% , 2016 .

[5]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Concrete mixture proportioning for desired strength and reduced global warming potential , 2016 .

[6]  Michael F. Ashby,et al.  Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice , 2009 .

[7]  Markku Hurme,et al.  Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions – management options and abatement cost , 2016 .

[8]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Comparison indices for design and proportioning of concrete mixtures taking environmental impacts into account , 2016 .

[9]  S. Akyuz,et al.  An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete , 2007 .

[10]  Liza O'moore,et al.  Impact of fly ash content and fly ash transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption in concrete , 2009 .

[11]  Michael D. Lepech,et al.  The Role of Concrete Industry Standards as Institutional Barriers to More Sustainable Concrete Bridge Infrastructure , 2014 .

[12]  Guillaume Habert,et al.  Recent update on the environmental impact of geopolymers , 2016 .

[13]  Enda Crossin,et al.  The greenhouse gas implications of using ground granulated blast furnace slag as a cement substitute , 2015 .

[14]  G. Corder,et al.  Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement , 2011 .

[15]  J. Sanjayan,et al.  Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture , 2007 .

[16]  Medgar L. Marceau,et al.  Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Manufacture , 2006 .

[17]  Daman K. Panesar,et al.  Influence of fly ash allocation approaches on the life cycle assessment of cement-based materials , 2017 .

[18]  Carlos Rodríguez,et al.  Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production: a literature review , 2016 .

[19]  Vanderley Moacyr John,et al.  Carbon dioxide reduction potential in the global cement industry by 2050 , 2017, Cement and Concrete Research.

[20]  T. Hansen,et al.  Modified water/cement ratio law for compressive strength of fly ash concretes , 1992 .

[21]  Claudia P. Ostertag,et al.  Impact of Singapore's importers on life-cycle assessment of concrete , 2016 .

[22]  A. P. Gursel,et al.  A life-cycle approach to environmental, mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash , 2016 .

[23]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review , 2014 .

[24]  J. Sarkis,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions in the construction industry: An analysis and evaluation of a concrete supply chain , 2017 .

[25]  Seong-Tae Yi,et al.  Effect of specimen sizes, specimen shapes, and placement directions on compressive strength of concrete , 2006 .

[26]  P. K. Mehta,et al.  Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder , 2015 .

[27]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Towards sustainable concrete. , 2017, Nature materials.

[28]  Agnès Jullien,et al.  LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete , 2010 .