Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete and mortar

Mohan Jiang, Xiaoju Chen, Farshad Rajabipour, Chris T. Hendrickson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study compares the cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), energy use, water use, and potential environmental toxicity of conventional (Conv), glass powder (GP), and alkali-activated slag (AAS) concrete and mortar. The comparison is based on 1 m3 of concrete/mortar with similar 28-day compressive strength, so the same concrete/mortar member with same dimensions may be manufactured from Conv, GP, or AAS materials and used for same applications. The result shows that compared to a 35-MPa Conv concrete, a 35-MPa GP concrete has, on average, 19% lower GHGs, 17% less energy, 14% less water, and 14-21% lower environmental toxicity. A 35-MPa AAS concrete has 73% lower GHGs, 43% less energy, 25% less water, and 22-94% lower effects for all environmental toxicity categories except an 72% higher ecotoxicity effect. Environmental impact reductions are also found for using GP as a cement replacement in concrete with lower strengths and replacing cement with GP or AAS in mortars with different strengths. The paper concludes that using alternative cementitious materials GP and AAS as cement replacements could significantly reduce the environmental impacts of cement-based products.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number04014020
JournalJournal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014

Fingerprint

Mortar
Slags
Life cycle
Concretes
Powders
Glass
Cements
Toxicity
Environmental impact
Water
Gas emissions
Greenhouse gases
Compressive strength

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Civil and Structural Engineering

Cite this

@article{87bbc9edd86246899504363383031d9d,
title = "Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete and mortar",
abstract = "This study compares the cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), energy use, water use, and potential environmental toxicity of conventional (Conv), glass powder (GP), and alkali-activated slag (AAS) concrete and mortar. The comparison is based on 1 m3 of concrete/mortar with similar 28-day compressive strength, so the same concrete/mortar member with same dimensions may be manufactured from Conv, GP, or AAS materials and used for same applications. The result shows that compared to a 35-MPa Conv concrete, a 35-MPa GP concrete has, on average, 19{\%} lower GHGs, 17{\%} less energy, 14{\%} less water, and 14-21{\%} lower environmental toxicity. A 35-MPa AAS concrete has 73{\%} lower GHGs, 43{\%} less energy, 25{\%} less water, and 22-94{\%} lower effects for all environmental toxicity categories except an 72{\%} higher ecotoxicity effect. Environmental impact reductions are also found for using GP as a cement replacement in concrete with lower strengths and replacing cement with GP or AAS in mortars with different strengths. The paper concludes that using alternative cementitious materials GP and AAS as cement replacements could significantly reduce the environmental impacts of cement-based products.",
author = "Mohan Jiang and Xiaoju Chen and Farshad Rajabipour and Hendrickson, {Chris T.}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000211",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
journal = "Journal of Infrastructure Systems",
issn = "1076-0342",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "4",

}

Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete and mortar. / Jiang, Mohan; Chen, Xiaoju; Rajabipour, Farshad; Hendrickson, Chris T.

In: Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 20, No. 4, 04014020, 01.12.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete and mortar

AU - Jiang, Mohan

AU - Chen, Xiaoju

AU - Rajabipour, Farshad

AU - Hendrickson, Chris T.

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - This study compares the cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), energy use, water use, and potential environmental toxicity of conventional (Conv), glass powder (GP), and alkali-activated slag (AAS) concrete and mortar. The comparison is based on 1 m3 of concrete/mortar with similar 28-day compressive strength, so the same concrete/mortar member with same dimensions may be manufactured from Conv, GP, or AAS materials and used for same applications. The result shows that compared to a 35-MPa Conv concrete, a 35-MPa GP concrete has, on average, 19% lower GHGs, 17% less energy, 14% less water, and 14-21% lower environmental toxicity. A 35-MPa AAS concrete has 73% lower GHGs, 43% less energy, 25% less water, and 22-94% lower effects for all environmental toxicity categories except an 72% higher ecotoxicity effect. Environmental impact reductions are also found for using GP as a cement replacement in concrete with lower strengths and replacing cement with GP or AAS in mortars with different strengths. The paper concludes that using alternative cementitious materials GP and AAS as cement replacements could significantly reduce the environmental impacts of cement-based products.

AB - This study compares the cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), energy use, water use, and potential environmental toxicity of conventional (Conv), glass powder (GP), and alkali-activated slag (AAS) concrete and mortar. The comparison is based on 1 m3 of concrete/mortar with similar 28-day compressive strength, so the same concrete/mortar member with same dimensions may be manufactured from Conv, GP, or AAS materials and used for same applications. The result shows that compared to a 35-MPa Conv concrete, a 35-MPa GP concrete has, on average, 19% lower GHGs, 17% less energy, 14% less water, and 14-21% lower environmental toxicity. A 35-MPa AAS concrete has 73% lower GHGs, 43% less energy, 25% less water, and 22-94% lower effects for all environmental toxicity categories except an 72% higher ecotoxicity effect. Environmental impact reductions are also found for using GP as a cement replacement in concrete with lower strengths and replacing cement with GP or AAS in mortars with different strengths. The paper concludes that using alternative cementitious materials GP and AAS as cement replacements could significantly reduce the environmental impacts of cement-based products.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907397947&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907397947&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000211

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000211

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84907397947

VL - 20

JO - Journal of Infrastructure Systems

JF - Journal of Infrastructure Systems

SN - 1076-0342

IS - 4

M1 - 04014020

ER -