A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of three concrete mix designs

PurposeThe concrete industry faces challenges to create concrete mix designs that reduce negative environmental impacts but also maintain high performance. This has led to ‘greener’ cementitious materials being developed which can decrease the use of traditional Portland cement (PC). This study intended to carry out a ‘cradle-to-gate’ life cycle assessment (LCA) on concrete mix designs containing different cementitious blends.MethodsThe aim of this study was to obtain the overall environmental impact, with a particular focus on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of three concrete mix designs: CEM I (100 % PC content), CEM II/B-V (65 % PC content, 35 % Fly Ash (FA) content) and CEM III/B (30 % PC content, 70 % ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) content). Evaluations of the three concrete mixes were performed using ‘SimaPro 8’ LCA software. A comparative cradle-to-gate LCA of these mixes has not currently been explored and could present a new insight into improving the environmental impact of concrete with the use of secondary materials. Recommendations from this work would help the industry make key decisions about concrete mix designs.Results and discussionResults show that Mix 2 (CEM II/B-V) and Mix 3 (CEM III/B) could potentially be taken forwards to improve their environmental impacts of concrete production. With respect to optimum mix design, it is strongly recommended that GGBS is selected as the addition of choice for reducing CO2 emissions. FA does still considerably improve sustainability when compared to PC, but this work proved that inclusion of GGBS environmentally optimises the mix design even further. Advantages of using GGBS include lower CO2 emissions, a substantial reduction of environmental impacts and an increased scope for sustainability due to the higher PC replacement levels that are permitted for GGBS. Due to mix designs enabling a higher contribution of GGBS additions, it would also indicate an increased positive effect regarding waste scenarios.Conclusions and recommendationsThe main contribution of this work demonstrated that concrete can be produced without loss of performance whilst significantly reducing the negative environmental impacts incurred in its production. The results obtained from this work would help to define the available options for optimising concrete mix design. The only material variations in each mix were the different cementitious blends. So, by determining the best option, a platform to make recommendations can be established based upon cementitious materials.

[1]  T. Wilbanks,et al.  Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[2]  Anders S. G. Andrae,et al.  Comparative Screening Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Renewable and Fossil Power Supply for a Radio Base Station Site , 2015 .

[3]  Saeed Mansour,et al.  Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[4]  Omer Tatari,et al.  A stochastic optimization approach for the selection of reflective cracking mitigation techniques , 2014 .

[5]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  A macro-level decision analysis of wind power as a solution for sustainable energy in the USA , 2015 .

[6]  Michael Haist,et al.  Design and Properties of Sustainable Concrete , 2014 .

[7]  Wai Ming Cheung,et al.  Facilitating waste paper recycling and repurposing via cost modelling of machine failure, labour availability and waste quantity , 2015 .

[8]  Ahmed S. Eisa.  Properties of Concrete Incorporating Recycled Post-Consumer Environmental Wastes , 2014 .

[9]  Mohammed S. Imbabi,et al.  Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology , 2012 .

[10]  Jack Chin Pang Cheng,et al.  Life cycle carbon footprint measurement of Portland cement and ready mix concrete for a city with local scarcity of resources like Hong Kong , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  Koichi Kobayashi,et al.  A Proposal of Concrete Structure Design Methods Considering Environmental Performance , 2005 .

[12]  Christopher C. Ferraro,et al.  Evaluation of leaching of trace metals from concrete amended with cement kiln baghouse filter dust , 2015 .

[13]  Anders S. G. Andrae,et al.  Method based on market changes for improvement of comparative attributional life cycle assessments , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  A. Borghi.  LCA and communication: Environmental Product Declaration , 2013 .

[15]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  The application of life cycle assessment to process optimisation , 1999 .

[16]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  D. Huntzinger,et al.  A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies , 2009 .

[18]  Nicolas Roussel,et al.  Study of two concrete mix-design strategies to reach carbon mitigation objectives , 2009 .

[19]  Suping Cui,et al.  The LCA of portland cement production in China , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[20]  Sven Lundie,et al.  A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia , 2009 .

[21]  Yue Jiang,et al.  Adding limestone fines as cement paste replacement to reduce water permeability and sorptivity of concrete , 2014 .

[22]  Claus Pade,et al.  The CO2 Uptake of Concrete in a 100 Year Perspective , 2007 .

[23]  Grzegorz Pajchrowski,et al.  Between full LCA and energy certification methodology—a comparison of six methodological variants of buildings environmental assessment , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[24]  P. Van den Heede,et al.  Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations , 2012 .

[25]  Ch.F. Hendriks,et al.  Sustainable use of recycled materials in building construction , 2002 .

[26]  Antonio Aguado,et al.  Comparative analysis of the life cycle impact assessment of available cement inventories in the EU , 2007 .

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

[28]  Alan Richardson.  Re-Use of by Products and Materials , 2013 .

[29]  Andrew C. Heath,et al.  Reducing CO2: Optimum blend of binders in the UK , 2014 .

[30]  Alan Richardson.  Reuse of Materials and Byproducts in Construction , 2013 .

[31]  Ignacio Zabalza Bribián,et al.  Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential , 2011 .

[32]  Paul W. Griffin,et al.  Towards Cleaner Production: a Roadmap for Predicting Product End-Of-Life Costs at Early Design Concept , 2015 .

[33]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Economic Input–Output Based Sustainability Analysis of Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Systems , 2015 .

[34]  Michael Henry,et al.  Understanding the regional context of sustainable concrete in Asia: Case studies in Mongolia and Singapore , 2014 .

[35]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[36]  Julian Alcala,et al.  Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.