Environmental life cycle assessment of concrete with different mixed designs

Asadollahfardi, Gholamreza; Katebi, Ali; Taherian, P.; Panahandeh, Azadeh

doi:10.1080/15623599.2019.1579015

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the analyses, the differences between the codes of the two countries in the design process are identified and used to provide a reference basis for the formulation of reasonable design plans. [3] Conversion factor Compare conversion factor Li et al, [4] Seismic code Compare seismic code Ye and Wang [5] Shear force Analyze the shear force Ye and Song [6] Bearing capacity Compare seismic performance Jiang [7] Earthquake loading Frame design methods comparison Hu et al, [8] Seismic design and performance Compare seismic design performance Low and Wu [9] Concrete materials Compare the concrete materials Kazaz et al, [10] Reduce concrete waste Compare and reduce the concrete waste Asadollahfardi et al, [11] Concrete mix design Compare raw concrete being equal to 7.65 m, and the heights of the remaining floors being equal to 5.50 m). e column span was 9.60 m × 9.60 m, the structure contained 16 spans in the X direction and nine spans in the Y-direction, the frame column section was 1500 mm × 1400 mm, the primary beam width was 600 mm, the beam height was 1000 mm, the secondary beam width was 300 mm, the secondary beam height was 700 mm, and the thickness of the concrete slab was 150 mm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Code Compliance in Reinforce Concrete Design: A Comparative Study of USA Code (ACI) and Chinese Code (GB)

Zhang

Fang³

et al. 2021

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structural engineering codes dictate the design criteria of the facility. Given that different countries use different parameters to design a facility, different codes are followed. Current code comparison focus on the clauses analysis in the code gives theoretical guideline. When the US facility design team needs to make a decision to follow which code to in China, the current study cannot provide a business decision input. This study evaluates the design process to illustrate when and where the codes will be applied and calculated through a design process where the loading and coefficient factors of different codes are analyzed. Software programs built-in codes are then used to design the structure to obtain the structure result in terms of volume of the concrete and weight of the rebar being calculated. The study also presents a case study and calculates that the United States code uses 8–10% more rebar compared to the Chinese code. The study result can be a reference for the project management team who has to make a business decision over which code to be followed at what cost. The paper also identifies the choice of the seismic coefficient factor has a significant impact on the usage of the rebar and might be justified for the future study.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reference [10] discussed the methodology to reduce concrete waste. Furthermore, how to reduce the environment impacts by using different raw material formed concrete was also analyzed by [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Code Compliance in Reinforce Concrete Design: A Comparative Study of USA Code (ACI) and Chinese Code (GB)

Zhang

Fang³

et al. 2021

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All the impact categories are mostly affected by the use of OPC cement. The lesser contribution of RA to LCIA categories is due to the elimination of mining activity and a lesser transportation distance [21,23,32]. The fine aggregate has the lowest contribution due to its source from the riverbed.…”

Section: Contribution Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, Geopolymer Concrete, and Recycled Aggregate-Based Geopolymer Concrete

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a life cycle impact assessment of OPC concrete, recycled aggregate concrete, geopolymer concrete, and recycled aggregate-based geopolymer concrete by using the mid-point approach of the CML 2001 impact-assessment method. The life cycle impact assessment was carried out using OpenLCA software with nine different impact categories, such as global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, photochemical oxidant formation, human toxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, and freshwater and terrestrial aquatic ecotoxicity potential. Subsequently, a contribution analysis was conducted for all nine impact categories. The analysis showed that using geopolymer concrete in place of OPC concrete can reduce global warming potential by up to 53.7%. Further, the use of geopolymer concrete represents the reduction of acidification potential and photochemical oxidant formation in the impact categories, along with climate change. However, the potential impacts of marine aquatic ecotoxicity, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, human toxicity, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, and terrestrial aquatic ecotoxicity potential were increased using geopolymer concrete. The increase in these impacts was due to the presence of alkaline activators such as sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate. The use of recycled aggregates in both OPC concrete and geopolymer concrete reduces all the environmental impacts.

show abstract

“…At this stage, informed decisions can be taken and backed by the impact assessment regarding sustainable use of materials and processes. Even though the operation phase of a building is deemed to account for a larger proportion of annual GHG emissions, the emissions associated with the extraction, processing and manufacturing of the building materials has been shown to represent a significant proportion of building's total life cycle GHG emissions (Huberman and Pearlmutter, 2008;Mao et al, 2013;Schmidt et al, 2020) Previous research studies have emphasised that construction materials share a significant portion of the life cycle emissions of a building (Huberman and Pearlmutter, 2008;Mao et al, 2013;Chau et al, 2007;Illankoon et al, 2017;Senaratne et al, 2017;Asadollahfardi et al, 2019). Amongst materials, the majority of the environmental emissions are split among concrete and steel due to intense energy related upstream production processes (Sandanayake et al, 2016a(Sandanayake et al, , 2016bTam et al, 2002).…”

Section: Environmental Impact Assessments 1731mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impact assessments during construction stage at different geographic levels – a cradle-to-gate analysis of using sustainable concrete materials

Sandanayake

Kumanayake

Peiris

2021

ECAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe main objective of the study is to present a systematic process that can assess, compare and benchmark different geographical levels environmental impacts of using sustainable materials at construction stage.Design/methodology/approachCurrent study presents a methodological framework to evaluate environmental impacts at the construction stage of using sustainable materials through a cradle-to-gate process based quantitative LCA study. Scenario analyses and an optimisation analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation are conducted to investigate the influence of external factors on environmental impacts at different geographical regions.FindingsMaterials account for 98% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) record significant non-GHG emissions. Particulate matter (PM10) emissions are significant from transportation and equipment. High significance of global warming potential (GWP) (38.98%) and photochemical oxidation formation potential (POFP) (34.49%) at global level and eutrophication potential (EP) (52.83%) and human toxicity potential (HTP) (25.30%) impacts at local level were observed. Shortest transportation distance reduces 14.91% PM10 and 4.69% nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions. Inventory variations have major influence on POFP impact at global level. Local level impacts are not significantly affected by inventory variations. Optimisation analysis indicated, high fly ash in concrete increase local level carbon emissions, if OPC concrete transportation distance is less than 23.7 km.Research limitations/implicationsUse of case-specific information for validation may lack generalisation. However, methodology can be used for future sustainable decision making over using sustainable materials in construction.Originality/valueThe study estimate environmental impacts at different geographical levels when sustainable materials are used for construction.

show abstract

Environmental life cycle assessment of concrete with different mixed designs

Cited by 25 publications

References 25 publications

Code Compliance in Reinforce Concrete Design: A Comparative Study of USA Code (ACI) and Chinese Code (GB)

Code Compliance in Reinforce Concrete Design: A Comparative Study of USA Code (ACI) and Chinese Code (GB)

Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, Geopolymer Concrete, and Recycled Aggregate-Based Geopolymer Concrete

Environmental impact assessments during construction stage at different geographic levels – a cradle-to-gate analysis of using sustainable concrete materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About