Printer Friendly

Carbon Footprint of Recycled Aggregate Concrete.

1. Introduction

The construction industry constitutes a substantial development factor for the so-called emerging economies, but at the same time, it is one of the main sources of waste generation, since in its processes many materials associated with other industrial sectors are used, such as cement, steel, stone, cardboard, glass, wood, aluminum, plastics, and ceramics, among others. Natural resource consumption to sustain that industry's growth increases steadily, contributing to environmental deterioration, for example, the rise in the atmosphere's temperature as well as that of the oceans, which has led to the well-known climate crisis of global warming [1].

Building materials, such as concrete, are increasingly being questioned for their environmental impact; because construction and demolition waste is a major component of all the waste generated by the construction industry, and to reduce the pressure on the exploitation natural resources, industry has focused on finding greener ways to produce concrete, encouraging the use of recycled materials to replace virgin materials [2].

In the last decades, a reduction of natural resource consumption in the production of aggregates through concrete debris recycling has been sought, so that new aggregates can be obtained which replace the usual aggregates coming from the crushing of virgin limestone [3], which even offers economic advantages, because when comparing costs of recycled aggregates with normal aggregates, savings of almost 4 USD (26%) per [m.sup.3] of aggregate and almost 6 USD (9%) per [m.sup.3] of concrete can be obtained [4].

However, in view of the diversity and variability of the recycled aggregates' properties, there is a lack of consensus regarding the concrete's behavior when this kind of aggregates is used, so it is necessary to evaluate the feasibility of using them from an environmental perspective, which can be achieved through the application of a life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological approach.

LCA in concrete fabrication has been used by some researchers to assess the environmental impact generated in the cement production process and in the extraction of stone material to obtain aggregates [5]. This has resulted in the search for alternate materials such as fly ash, slag, and aggregates recovered from construction and demolition waste (CDW), which has given rise to the Green Concrete notion [6].

An important tool to evaluate the environmental impacts generated by the concrete production and its components within the LCA methodology is the carbon footprint. The carbon footprint has its roots in the ecological footprint concept; originally, it was expressed through the area required for assimilating the C[O.sub.2] emissions generated during the life cycle of manufactured products. However, as the global warming problem became a priority on the international agenda, the concept and method of carbon footprint have changed; it no longer represents an area, but the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with a product or service throughout its life cycle. Then, a product's carbon footprint consists of the LCA limited to the emissions that have an effect on climate change. The property often referred to as carbon footprint is the weight, in kilograms or tons, of GHG emissions per person, product, or activity, for which an emissions inventory is required [7].

Several authors around the world have reported the advantages of using recycled materials in the reduction of GHG. In Taiwan, LCA in the rehabilitation of pavements using recycled materials was evaluated. The conventional materials replaced by recycled materials were crushed stone (67%), sand (50%), and asphalt cement (70%). The results revealed GHG reductions of 16 to 23% [8]. In a study developed in Hong Kong, GHG reductions ranged from 6 to 17% in the construction of concrete buildings, using various recycled materials such as recovered stone aggregates, bricks and concrete blocks, plastics, asphalts, and galvanized steels, among others [9]. In Australia, a GHG reduction about 10% was determined when geopolymers replaced ordinary portland concrete (OPC) in the manufacture of concrete [10]. Recently, in the USA, Asutosh and Nawari [11] reported that the use of recycled materials in pavement construction reduces GHG emissions about 12%.

In spite of this evidence, great care must be taken in the development of this kind of studies, since small variations in the goals and objectives definition, data gathering from inventories, and the election of the impact analysis methodology may cause important differences in the environmental qualification obtained during the interpretation of results phase. According to all of the above, the main objective of the present work was to evaluate the environmental sustainability of a concrete produced with both virgin and recycled aggregates through the comparison of its carbon footprint, expecting that C[O.sub.2] emissions decrease when the amount of recycled coarse aggregate in the mix increases during the concrete manufacturing process.

2. Materials and Methods

In the present study, the concrete's carbon footprint involved the quantification of the GHG released throughout the manufacturing process, including material supply. The GHGs were mainly carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]), methane ([CH.sub.4]), and nitrous oxide ([N.sub.2]O), which have impact on global warming. In this work, the environmental impact was calculated from field data and from the data obtained in different inventories, following the internationally recognized standard ISO 14064-1 [12]. In this way, it was possible to know the carbon dioxide equivalent mass (C[O.sub.2]-e) originated during the concrete manufacturing process. The study was performed according to the framework shown in Figure 1.

Objectives and scope included both the exact definition of the system under study and the depth of the study. Inventory analysis consisted in the data collection to quantify material and energy inputs and outputs of the studied system. Impact and damage assessment was related to the identification, characterization, and quantification of the effects of the studied system on the environment. In the interpretation of results phase, significant points were identified based on the outcomes from the previous phases, corroborating their integrity, sensitivity, and coherence, sustaining the conclusions and recommendations of the study on the base of the inherent limitations of the work.

2.1. Scope and System Limits. The analysis was focused on the aggregate production for the concrete manufacture: fine and coarse aggregate, coming from crushed virgin limestone, and recycled coarse aggregate, obtained from the trituration and classification of concrete debris. Limestone is the most common in the study region (Yucatan Mexico). Five concrete mixes were produced with a water/cement ratio (w/c) of 0.5 and other five mixes with a w/c of 0.7. Five replacement rates of virgin coarse aggregate by recycled coarse aggregate (%R) were used: 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%. OPC was used in all mixtures, and its production process was considered independently from the rest of the materials.

The material was collected selectively in CDW landfills, leaving it free of undesirable residues such as steel and plastics, among others. CDW composition is very diverse from one place to another and depends on the construction processes, available materials, and population customs. The most common components of CDW are concrete and mortar, masonry, ceramic floors, wood, plastics, and metals. Different authors, in several parts of the world, agree that the first three predominate, which are the main raw material for recycling processes, reaching between 30% and 40% of total waste [13, 14].

In this research, only debris from structural elements such as slabs, beams, and columns was selected. Subsequently, reinforcement steel, wires, ducts, and other electric material were dismantled, and the material was brushed to clean impurities such as earth and vegetable remains. The extracted raw material was taken to an impact mill plant for grinding so that coarse recycled aggregate could be obtained. In the same plant, the virgin material coming from a bank was crushed to obtain the fine and coarse aggregates, and then, the tests were carried out. In Tables 1 and 2, aggregate properties and mixture design are indicated.

Figure 2 shows the C[O.sub.2]-e emission system for the production of 1 [m.sup.3] of concrete (both regular and recycled). Raw material refers to limestone and water. The difference between both concrete types is that, in order to produce the recycled aggregate mix, concrete debris extracted from CDW is also used.

2.2. Inventory Analysis. This phase involved data collection and calculation procedures to quantify the system's inputs and outputs. Data collection was classified into two levels.

2.2.1. Level 1. In this level, energy consumption and other resources are obtained from the operating facilities' processing logs, which include yields and resource consumption rates at the time of the facility's operation activities. They are typically derived from the use of a fossil fuel (diesel) for the raw material transport. In this case, it refers to vehicle fuel consumption for the transportation of the materials, as well as the limestone's exploitation rates and volumes, use of explosives, and water that generate C[O.sub.2]-e emissions.

2.2.2. Level 2. In this level, C[O.sub.2]-e emission factors for material production were determined. They are induced indirectly by the activity under analysis, not emitted in the place where the activity was carried out, since they were derived from sources not directly controlled. In this case, these were associated with cement production, energy consumption, and utilization rates of materials for the manufacture of concrete. They were collected from different databases, as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3 shows an average emission factor of 745 kg C[O.sub.2]-e/ton for OPC average [15]. The value of 612 kg C[O.sub.2]-e/ton, reported in 2013 by the main cement producer in Mexico [19], was rejected because, in that report, the company does not indicate the methodology used for the emission factor calculation, and on the contrary, it differs markedly from what is reported in other countries with a higher degree of industrialization and technological progress, where the estimated emission factor ranges from 800 to 850 kg C[O.sub.2]-e/ton of cement, as in Germany, France, Denmark, and other European Union countries [20-23]. Total amount of C[O.sub.2]-e/[m.sup.3] emissions of concrete corresponded to the sum of the emissions from cement production, aggregates, water, casting, and concrete placement. These components required the use of limestone, water, electricity, diesel fuel, and explosives. The latter refers to a mixture of low-density explosive agents and other additional elements such as fulminant and wicks used during blasting work.

3. Results and Discussion

Carbon footprint assessment for each concrete mix, expressed in kg C[O.sub.2]-e/[m.sup.3], is summarized in Table 4, which includes total cement, aggregates, and other non-significant emissions such as the use of water, and explosive agents.

Calculations were made from the following equation:

C[O.sub.2]-e = [summation] ([Q.sub.1][F.sub.1] + [Q.sub.2][F.sub.2] + ... + [Q.sub.n] [F.sub.n]), (1)

where Q corresponds to the material quantity or input used and F represents the emission factor for the production of 1 [m.sup.3] of concrete. Also in Table 4, the results of compressive strength (Fc) for each concrete mixture, expressed in MPa, have been included to show their relationship with C[O.sub.2]-e emissions.

In the Partial column of Table 2, the sum of emissions is registered, excluding the cement contribution, since this material generates most of the total emissions when compared to the rest of the elements, with more than 80% (Figure 3), similar to what was reported by Marincovic et al. [24].

On the contrary, the influence of fine and coarse aggregates has been compared in Figure 4, where it can be appreciated that recycled coarse aggregate has a slight lower contribution than virgin gravel with a difference of 3%.

As expected, because of the difference in the cement content, the carbon footprint of the mix with 0.5 w/c was 25% higher than that of the mix with 0.7 w/c. The carbon footprint of all the analyzed mixes decreased to a small extent as the coarse aggregate %R increased. For the case of the concrete with 0.5 w/c, the values fluctuated between 347 and 351 kg of C[O.sub.2]-e/[m.sup.3], slightly lower than that reported by Turner and Collins [10] under similar conditions (354 kg of C[O.sub.2]-e/[m.sup.3] for a 0.6 w/c) and than that reported by Kim et al. (356 kg of C[O.sub.2]-e/[m.sup.3] for a concrete with compressive strength of 30 MPa) [25].

Since the carbon footprint itself is an intermediate assessment point, the impacts were converted to damage to human health. This was determined considering that 1 kg C[O.sub.2]-e represents 2.1 x [10.sup.-7] DALY (disability-adjusted life year), which expresses the number of years lost as a result of lack of health, disability, or premature death [26]. Applying this conversion factor, the obtained DALY values ranged from 7.29 to 7.36 x [10.sup.-5] (about 38.5 minutes) for 0.5 w/c and from 5.49 to 5.56 x [10.sup.-5] (about 29 minutes) for 0.7 w/c.

These results may seem insignificant at the global level, as they would need to be standardized and weighted considering other impact categories such as eutrophication, acidification, and land use change, which is beyond the scope of this research.

Finally, the construction industry generates a large amount of waste, either by the construction process itself or by demolition; in fact, it is the largest source of industrial waste in developed countries, which have been estimated in a range of 520 and 760 kg/person/year, without taking into account wars or natural disasters [4]; of this large volume, concrete is the most abundant, since it represents 67% by weight. If we consider an average of 640 kg/person/year and the Yucatan Peninsula population of 4.17 million inhabitants by the year 2010 [27], the Mexican region in which most of the limestone aggregates in the country are produced, a total concrete waste is 1.79 million tons per year, that is, around 744,751 cubic meters per year. If such quantity were recycled, this would imply that approximately 22,343 tons of C[O.sub.2]-e would cease to be emitted per year in this region.

4. Conclusions

Specific conclusions of the present work are drawn based upon the experimental results:

(i) It was determined that C[O.sub.2]-e emissions decrease slightly by increasing the percentage of recycled coarse aggregates in the concrete mixtures, indicating that the use of this material has little influence on the reduction of the carbon footprint in the concrete manufacturing process.

(ii) It was also confirmed that cement is the material with the greatest influence on greenhouse gas emissions in the production of concrete.

(iii) If we consider the per capita generation average of concrete waste from the construction industry and the population of the region where most of the limestone aggregates in Mexico are produced, the recycling of concrete waste would imply that approximately 22,343 tons of C[O.sub.2]-e would cease to be emitted annually in this region.

(iv) Regarding the use of recycled aggregates in concrete production, although the progress has been made in the study of the physical, mechanical, and durability properties of the material, there is still a large area of opportunity in the research of the environmental impacts involved. Future research avenues should consider the contributions of other cementitious materials within a broader LCA framework, including both the use stage and the final disposal of buildings, besides the construction stage.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7949741

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Triturados y Carpetas del Sureste, S. A. de C. V., for their support in the crushing of stone material and measurement of energy consumption at its industrial plant in Yucatan, Mexico.

References

[1] R. Reham and M. Nehdi, "Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change: policy implications for cement industry," Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 105-114, 2005.

[2] S. Talukdar, S. T. Islam, and N. Banthia, "Development of a lightweight low-carbon footprint concrete containing recycled waste materials," Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2011, Article ID 594270, 8 pages, 2011.

[3] L. F. Jimenez and E. I. Moreno, "Durability indicators in high absorption recycled aggregate concrete," Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 505423, 8 pages, 2015.

[4] J. A. Dominguez Lepe, E. Martinez Lobeck, and V. Villanueva Cuevas, "Hormigones reciclados: una alternativa sustentable y rentable," Hormigon, vol. 867, pp. 10-21, 2004.

[5] P. Van den Heede and N. De Belie, "Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and 'green' concretes: literature review and theoretical calculations," Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 431-442, 2012.

[6] C. Meyer, "The greening of the concrete industry," Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 601-605, 2009.

[7] T. Wiedmann and J. Minx, "A definition of carbon footprint," in Ecological Economics Research Trends: Chapter 1, C. C. Pertsova, Ed., pp. 1-11, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008.

[8] C.-T. Chiu, T.-H. Hsu, and W.-F. Yang, "Life cycle assessment on using recycled materials for rehabilitating asphalt pavements," Resources, Conservations and Recycling, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 545-556, 2008.

[9] C. K. Chau, W. K. Hui, W. Y. Ng, and G. Powell, "Assessment of C[O.sub.2] emissions reduction in high-rise concrete office buildings using different material use options," Resources, Conservations and Recycling, vol. 61, pp. 22-34, 2012.

[10] L. K. Turner and F. G. Collins, "Carbon dioxide equivalent (C[O.sub.2]-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete," Construction and Building Materials, vol. 43, pp. 125-130, 2013.

[11] A. T. Asutosh and N. O. Nawari, "Integration of recycled industrial wastes into pavement design and construction for a sustainable future," Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9-23, 2017.

[12] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14064-1, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

[13] S. C. Angulo, L. F. R. Miranda, and V. M. John, "Construction and demolition waste, its variability and recycling in Brazil," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Building, Oslo, Norway, April 2002.

[14] N. D. Oikonomou, "Recycled concrete aggregates," Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 315-318, 2005.

[15] Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero 1990-2002, Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Mexico, 2004.

[16] L. F. Jimenez Torrez, Durabilidad del concreto con agregado reciclado de alta absorcion, Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico, 2015.

[17] Secretana del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Registro Nacional de Emisiones, Secretana del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Mexico, 2015.

[18] Comision Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energia, Estudio Integral de Sistemas de Bombeo de Agua Potable Municipal, Comision Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energia, Mexico, 2011.

[19] CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., Informe de Desarrollo Sustentable, CEMEX, San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico, 2013.

[20] Oko-Institut, "Approximated EU GHG inventory: proxy GHG emission estimates for 2013," EEA Technical Report 16, (Oko-Institut, Germany, 2013.

[21] Association Technique des Liants Hydrauliques, Environmental Inventory of French Cement Production, Association Technique des Liants Hydrauliques, Paris, France, 2012.

[22] J. S. Damtoft, J. Lukasik, D. Hertfort, D. Sorrentino, and E. M. Gartner, "Sustainable development and climate change initiatives," Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 115-127, 2008.

[23] A. Josa, A. Aguado, A. Heino, E. Byars, and A. Cardim, "Comparative analysis of available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU," Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1313-1320, 2004.

[24] S. Marincovic, V. Radonjanin, M. Malesev, and I. Ignjatovic, "Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete," Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2255-2264, 2010.

[25] T. H. Kim, C. U. Chae, G. H. Kim, and H. J. Jang, "Analysis of C[O.sub.2] emission characteristics of concrete used at construction sites," Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 348, 2016.

[26] M. Goedkoop and R. Spriensma, The Eco-Indicator 99. A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report, PRe Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands, 3rd edition, 2011.

[27] Mexico's National Council of Population, CONAPO, Demographic Dynamics 1990-2010 and Population Projections 2010-2030, Mexico's National Council of Population, Mexico, 2014.

Luis F. Jimenez [ID], Jose A. Dominguez [ID], and Ricardo Enrique Vega-Azamar [ID]

Chetumal Institute of Technology, Avenida Insurgentes No. 330, 77050 Chetumal, QROO, Mexico

Correspondence should be addressed to Luis F. Jimenez; fjtorrez@itchetumal.edu.mx

Received 30 August 2017; Accepted 23 April 2018; Published 30 May 2018

Academic Editor: Ghassan Chehab

Caption: Figure 1: Framework for carbon footprint assessment.

Caption: Figure 2: C[O.sub.2]-e emission system for the concrete production.
Table 1: Aggregate properties.

Property                            Normal   Recycled   Fine
                                    coarse    coarse

Loose unit weight (kg/[m.sup.3])     1187      1102     1146
Compact unit weight (kg/[m.sup.3])   1401      1235      --
Specific gravity                     2.33      2.31     2.38
Absorption (%)                       6.7       7.2       --
Fineness modulus                      --        --      2.4

Table 2: Mixture design (kg/[m.sup.3]).

Mixture         Water   Cement   Normal   Recycled   Fine
w/c       %R                     coarse    coarse

0.5        0     205     410      987        0       527
0.5       25     205     410      719       240      556
0.5       50     205     410      465       465      580
0.5       75     205     410      226       677      609
0.5       100    205     410       0        874      635
0.7        0     205     293      987        0       615
0.7       25     205     293      719       240      644
0.7       50     205     293      465       465      669
0.7       75     205     293      226       677      698
0.7       100    205     293       0        874      723

Table 3: Inventory of C[O.sub.2]-e, energy, and materials.

Input

Cement                 Factor            Unit

Explosives             0.745      kg C[O.sub.2]-e/kg
  Yield
  Emission             0.465     kg product/[m.sup.3]

Diesel                 0.440      kg C[O.sub.2]-e/kg
  Yield
  Emission             3.000             km/L

Coarse                 2.680      kg C[O.sub.2]-e/L
  Yield for normal
  Yield for recycled   1.320    [m.sup.3] stone/1000kg
  Emission             0.002     [m.sup.3] debris/kg

Fine                   0.041      kg C[O.sub.2]-e/kg
  Yield
  Emission             1.120    [m.sup.3] stone/1000kg

Electricity            0.014      kg C[O.sub.2]-e/kg

Water                  0.458     kg C[O.sub.2]-e/KWH

Concrete               0.540        KWH/[m.sup.3]
  Casting and laying
                       0.012      kg C[O.sub.2]-e/kg

Input

Cement                     Context       Reference

Explosives              Mexico, 2004       [15]
  Yield
  Emission              Mexico, 2014       [16]

Diesel                 Australia, 2013     [10]
  Yield
  Emission              Mexico, 2014       [16]

Coarse                 Australia, 2013     [10]
  Yield for normal
  Yield for recycled    Mexico, 2014       [16]
  Emission              Mexico, 2014       [16]

Fine                   Australia, 2013     [10]
  Yield
  Emission              Mexico, 2014       [16]

Electricity            Australia, 2013     [10]

Water                   Mexico, 2015       [17]

Concrete                Mexico, 2011       [18]
  Casting and laying
                       Australia, 2013     [10]

Table 4: C[O.sub.2]-e emissions.

Mixture          Fc    Cement   Aggregates   Others   Partial   Total
w/c       %R

0.5        0    32.5   305.5       44.6       0.61     45.2     350.7
0.5       25    31.6   305.5       43.9       0.55     44.4     349.9
0.5       50    30.8   305.5       43.1       0.49     43.6     349.0
0.5       75    29.8   305.5       42.3       0.44     42.7     348.2
0.5       100   29.8   305.5       41.6       0.38     42.0     347.4
0.7        0    23.7   218.3       45.8       0.63     46.4     264.7
0.7       25    23.1   218.3       45.0       0.57     45.6     263.9
0.7       50    22.5   218.3       44.2       0.51     44.7     263.0
0.7       75    21.0   218.3       43.5       0.46     44.0     262.2
0.7       100   19.0   218.3       42.7       0.41     43.1     261.4

Others: water, casting, and placement of concrete, and use of explosive
agents in blasting works.

Figure 3: C[O.sub.2]-e by material type.

Others       <0.2%
Aggregates   14.3%
Cement       85.6%

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Figure 4: C[O.sub.2]-e by aggregate type.

Fine             19%
Recycled coarse  39%
Normal coarse    42%

Note: Table made from pie chart.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Jimenez, Luis F.; Dominguez, Jose A.; Vega-Azamar, Ricardo Enrique
Publication:Advances in Civil Engineering
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Words:4095
Previous Article:Study of SCA-Induced Rock Crack Propagation under Different Stress Conditions Using a Modified Cohesive Element Method.
Next Article:Use of Silica Fume and GGBS to Improve Frost Resistance of ECC with High-Volume Fly Ash.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |