Next Article in Journal
Future of Electric and Hydrogen Cars and Trucks: An Overview
Next Article in Special Issue
Carbon Footprint Analysis throughout the Life Cycle of the Continuous Deep Mixing Method (CDMM) Technology
Previous Article in Journal
The Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Process from a Circular Economy Perspective—A Review and Future Directions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 7
10.3390/en16073229
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Concrete Mix Composition on Greenhouse Gas Emissions over the Full Life Cycle of a Structure

by
Daniel Wałach
* and
Aleksandra Mach
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Resource Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Cracow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(7), 3229; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073229
Submission received: 6 March 2023 / Revised: 25 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 3 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Built Environment and Its Circular Economy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As the need to determine and monitor carbon footprints (CFs) in the construction industry grows and given that concrete is a key construction material in this sector, the authors of the article conducted a carbon footprint analysis of 15 different concrete mixtures. The method for determining the carbon footprint of the entire life cycle of concrete was presented in detail. The authors conducted a comparative analysis of the CF for an example structure made of three significantly different concrete strength classes, in addition to determining the CF for 1 m3 of concrete mix. This analysis showed the need to consider the entire structure and the emissivity associated with the consumption of reinforcing steel when selecting the most favorable solution in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study revealed that the composition of the concrete mix, primarily the type and amount of cement, has the greatest influence on the carbon footprint. Furthermore, the location and geometry of the structure, as well as the number of floors, should also be taken into account when selecting concrete. In the analyzed construction, the life-cycle phases related to the incorporation of the concrete mixture at the construction site (phases A4–A5) and those related to the demolition of the concrete at the end of its life cycle (phases C1–C4) constituted approximately 10% on average of the total value of CF emissions over the entire concrete life cycle.

1. Introduction

The production and exploitation of building structures are energy-intensive and material-intensive and are thus expense-intensive. Additionally, it generates a lot of waste and harmful emissions. Modern construction is increasingly being demanded to incorporate specific characteristics in the building materials used (e.g., thermal insulation, durability, strength) [1,2,3] and to reduce energy consumption during the construction and operation of building structures [4,5]. The most important aspect is minimalization of the environmental impact to the greatest extent possible [6,7]. According to data from 2020, the construction industry and buildings are responsible for 36% of the total global energy demand [8] and 38% of all global CO2 emissions. Among the CO2 emissions produced by the construction industry and buildings, 10% are released during the production and transportation of building materials, the construction process, and demolition.
The European Union is the third emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the world, just behind China and the United States [9]. Due to this fact, monitoring the level and variations of GHG emissions by individual EU countries is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of the solutions used to reduce these emissions—decarbonization [10]. It is important to pay particular attention to building materials and technologies with a low carbon footprint when designing new buildings [11]. Calculating the carbon footprint can also serve as an incentive for all parties interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By providing an opportunity to track the outcomes of their efforts, it encourages them to take action towards their goals [12].
According to ISO 14067 [13], the carbon footprint is the sum of all GHGs emissions and absorptions during the full life cycle of a product (from cradle to the grave). When justified, the carbon footprint is determined from the extraction of raw materials to the delivery of the finished product to the customer (from cradle to gate). The principles of formulation on which Type III Environmental Product Declarations of building materials (EPDs) are based are recommended as a guideline for calculating CF and are often used to obtain information on the emission factors of specific products [14]. The study [15] specifies two methods for estimating the carbon footprint of buildings: the simplified method, which includes modules A1–A3 and B6, and the full method, which considers each of stages A1–A5, B1–B4, B6, and C1–C4. The simplified method is currently the most widely used method due to the low availability of databases containing individual emission factors.
From the perspective of a building structure, the carbon footprint can be divided into embedded and operational as showed in Figure 1.
In addition to carbon dioxide emissions, the carbon footprint also includes other greenhouse gases, including methane CH4 and nitrous oxide N2O (a full list of greenhouse gases is available in the IPCC report [16]). The magnitude of CF is expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents per functional unit of product (CO2e/functional unit). By bringing all global warming impacts to a common scale, this makes it possible to easily compare the results and assess the overall impact [10,13]. To calculate the CO2e value, the masses of gases are multiplied by their global warming potential (GWP), which is typically determined over a period of 100 years and listed in Table 1. Afterward, the values are added together to obtain the total CO2e value [10,13].
In recent years, the topic of carbon footprint has gained significant attention due to a variety of factors. Not only is there growing concern about the environmental impact of carbon emissions, but legislative changes and increased public awareness have also contributed to the rising interest in this issue [17]. It is commonly used in the marketing activities of companies in industries, to demonstrate competitive advantage [18]. Among the most important legal documents on CF are the European Green Deal [19] and the FIT for 55 package [20].
The aforementioned legal and environmental aspects, as well as social trends, are driving the growing interest as well as the need to calculate the carbon footprint, resulting in new and improved methods for this purpose. Despite the many ongoing studies, the level of research is still at an early stage and lacks not only a uniform standard database but also assessment models [21,22,23].
The literature provides guidance on how to reduce carbon emissions in the construction industry, including detailed plans for achieving decarbonization [24,25,26]. The authors of the standard [15] also indicate that efforts to decarbonize have been focused mainly on the operational footprint, with insufficient attention paid to the built-in footprint and the final stages of the life cycle. Reducing only the operational phase of the building is insufficient; a holistic approach to CF assessment is required. Studies show that improving the energy efficiency of the building resulted in an 82% reduction in CF emissions for this life cycle phase, while increasing the CF of the construction phase by 14% [27]. Engaging in activities aimed at waste reduction and the recycling of construction and demolition materials can be instrumental in lowering carbon emissions [28]. It is therefore necessary to develop a future decarbonization assessment framework for both construction and demolition processes, which will make it possible to track the impact of efforts [29,30]. In line with this idea, decision-making models are already being developed to select the optimal solution from the perspective of reducing the carbon footprint of a given project throughout its life cycle [31], which is another argument for the need to standardize calculation methods so that this practice can become standard.
The environmental impact of concrete and other cement-based materials is becoming increasingly significant given their mass use [32]. This has led to widespread focus and a search for solutions to reduce GHGs throughout the life cycle of concrete by researchers and manufacturers. Concrete is the most widely used building material in the world [33]. As technology advances, it is expected to meet increasingly stringent requirements. One of the key expectations is to maintain sufficient quality, which must be closely monitored throughout various stages of the material’s life cycle, such as during ingredient selection and design, production, delivery, and pre- and post-placement [34,35,36,37]. The European Cement Association Cembureau has established a plan for achieving carbon neutrality in the cement and concrete value chain by 2050 [38]. The operations carried out by the cement and concrete industry are highly significant for sustainable development and consumption policies, as they involve the use of natural resources and notably affect the energy balance of each country [39]. In addition, concrete recycling is critical to achieving a material efficient society, which also has an impact on greenhouse gas emissions [40]. The authors of the paper conducted a carbon footprint analysis on 15 different concretes due to the arguments presented that emphasized the importance of defining and monitoring carbon footprint in the construction industry and the fact that concrete is a vital building material for the industry. Since the majority of available publications focus on only certain aspects, such as components of the concrete mix (e.g., [41]) or the initial phase of the life cycle (e.g., [42]), the analysis developed dealt with the entire concrete life cycle (from cradle to grave) and, as previously, demonstrates the need for a holistic approach. The evaluation was designed to examine the impact of the various stages of the concrete life cycle on its carbon footprint and to compare concretes with different compositions and compressive strengths in this regard. Moreover, the method of calculating the carbon footprint is presented in detail, which can be used in decision models for the selection of the optimal solution in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, given the widespread interest in this topic as well as the continuing deficiencies and development of the methodology. Besides determining the CF for 1 m3 of concrete mix, the authors conducted a comparative analysis of the CF for a structure made of three significantly different classes of concrete. This allowed to indicate the effect of the concrete class on the amount of mix and reinforcing steel used and thus the total amount of GHGs emissions of the analyzed structure.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Specifications of Concretes and Structures under Analysis

The analysis was conducted for the full life cycle of a reinforced concrete structure (from cradle to grave), as shown in Figure 2, with particular attention to the characteristics of the concrete used. The functional unit was defined as 1 m3 of concrete. The carbon footprint was evaluated for 15 types of concrete mixtures, the composition of which was assumed on the basis of the literature data:
  • Ordinary concrete of normal strength class—NSC according to [43];
  • Self-compacting concrete based on slug cement (CEM III)—SCC 1, fly-ash cement (CEM II)—SCC 2, and Portland cement (CEM I)—SCC 3 according to [43];
  • High-performance concrete—HPC according to [43];
  • High-performance self-compacting concrete—HPSCC according to [43];
  • Concrete with 50% of recycled aggregate—RAC 1 and 100% of recycled aggregate—RAC 2 according to [44];
  • Geopolymer concrete—GPC according to [45];
  • Lightweight concrete—LC according to [46];
  • Fiber-reinforced concrete with steel fibers—FBS 1-3 [47];
  • Fiber-reinforced concrete with glass fibers—FSG according to [48];
  • Reactive powder concrete—RPC [49].
Figure 3 shows the adopted variant for the end of life of concrete.
Table 2 shows the compositions of the various concrete mixtures, their compressive strengths, and the CF values of the components. The data are derived from either the GWP impact category contained in the EPDs, or it was adopted from published research. Due to the lack of information for basalt, the value was estimated based on the data of granite extraction which has a similar technology. On the other hand, the value of Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBS) was assessed in the results of economic allocation [50]. The GWP value for structural steel was adopted from [51].
Concretes were divided into three groups based on its mean compressive strength fcm:
  • I—fcm ≤ 30 MPa;
  • II—30 MPa < fcm ≤ 80 MPa;
  • III—80 MPa < fcm.
Given this categorization, an examination was conducted to determine how the particular concrete mixture used impacted the overall carbon footprint of a representative reinforced concrete structure. The assessment concerned a two-story building with a commercial use, in which structural elements were designed for 3 significantly different classes of concrete. The building, which measures—in plan—12 × 15 m and has an overall height of 7.0 m, was designed in post-and-beam construction with 2-way reinforced slabs and an external walkway (Figure 4).
The calculation model assumed the interaction of forces on the structure from the dead weight of individual structural elements, service loads, and climatic loads (Figure 5). Load combinations were made based on the standard codes [52,53]. The tools of Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2013 software [54] that generate automatic combinations based on the partial factor method were used.
Static calculations were performed for the adopted model, which made it possible to determine the values of cross-sectional forces in individual structural elements (Figure 6). Designing in terms of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state was conducted in variants according to [55], assuming that the load-bearing structure of the building (footings, columns, beams, and slabs) was made from concrete class of C20/25, C50/60, and C90/105. Designing of individual structural elements was carried out assuming constant dimensions of their lengths and by optimization due to the consumption of concrete and steel of the remaining geometric dimensions.
Table
Table 2. Concrete mix compositions used in the analysis.
Table 2. Concrete mix compositions used in the analysis.
IngredientsCFConcrete [kg/m3]
kgCO2e/kgSourceNSCSCC 1SCC 2SCC 3HPCHPSCCRAC 1RAC 2GPCLCFBS 1FBS 2FBS 3FSGRPC
CementCEM I0.8890[50]380--310--335335-400255330475616905
CEM II0.7040--350-455500---------
CEM III0.4820-370-------------
GGBSGGBS0.0020[50]--------40------
AggregateSand 0–2 mm0.0031[43]580700713700668840--655700---1355-
Sand max. 4.75 mm0.0031------865865--859790643--
Gravel 2–8 mm0.0031400468477375-----------
Gravel 8–16 mm0.0031860468477375-----------
Quartz Sand0.0200[56]--------------987
Crushed limestone0.0630[50]------538---106910691069--
Basalt 2–8 mm0.0064[57]----1240990---------
Basalt 8–16 mm0.0064[57]--------1216608-----
Granite 4–8 mm0.0064[57]---------267-----
Lightweight expanded clay0.1270[58]---------67.8-----
Concrete waste0.0047[59]------490980-------
WaterWater0.0006[43]1901701612001601601821828110.4180180180254260
AdditivesSilica fume0.0039[43]----45----40---53.6230
Fly ash0.0020[50]-180200190----360------
Steel fibres1.2800[60]----------393939-233
Glass fibres1.4400[61]-------------13.5-
Superplasticizer1.5300[62]3.82.592.456.54.055.55--68.80.891.161.663.8429.6
Na2SiO3 (solution)0.823[63]--------84------
NaOH0.070[64]--------56------
Mechanical compactionYESNONONOYESNOYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
Average compressive strength fcm [MPa]41.242473791.190.531282788.325.5375583106
The use of high-performance concretes in the analyzed facility enabled the reduction of the amount of concrete and reinforcing steel compared to normal strength concrete in the individual structural elements. The reduction in concrete was mainly related to the columns, which, due to the nature of their work, transmit eccentrically acting compressive forces. In slabs made of higher-class concretes, there was no significant reduction in their thickness. The reason for this is the bi-directional operation of the slabs over their entire surface and the significant effect of flexural moment on their load-bearing capacity.
The obtained values of steel and concrete mix demand for each material solution are shown in Table 3 (the values do not consider the waste surcharge).
It should that the analysis conducted did not consider the suitability of using a specific concrete mix in the analyzed structure, given factors such as concrete durability and other performance parameters.

2.2. Carbon Footprint of Concrete—Calculation Method

The carbon footprint CF (Equation (1)) for the entire life cycle of concrete was determined following [13] as the quotient of the sum of its CFi values for individual ranges A1–C4 (Equations (2)–(5)), and the volume of concrete (V) in the entire structure (V was increased by a 5% waste allowance for process waste, e.g., from using a concrete pump, based on the [15]):
C F = ∑ i = A 1 C 4 ( C F i ) V [ k g C O 2 e m 3 ]
The value of CFA1 was determined using an Equation (2) as the sum of the products of the CFj values and the mass mj for the individual concrete components:
C F A 1 = ∑ j = 1 n ( C F j · m j ) [ k g C O 2 e ]
Emissions for transport were determined for the Euro V engine class of transport vehicles, assuming transport for a maximum distance of 100 km and a loading factor of 0.85 [43]. Due to the small share of steel fibers (RPC exception), superplasticizer, and activators Na2SiO3 and NaOH in the mix, emissions related to the transport of these materials were omitted. For calculation purposes, the ratios developed for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods in publication [65] were used and are presented in Table 4. The magnitude of CF for the A2, A4, C2.2 range was defined according to Equation (3):
C F A 2 , A 4 , C 2.2 = ∑ j = 1 n [ l j · ( E l C O 2 + 273 · E t N 2 O + F C · E f C O 2 + F C · S C ) ] [ k g C O 2 e ]
where lj is the transport distance (taking into account the number of necessary trips) for the individual concrete components; ElCO2, EtN2O, and EfCO2 are the emission factors of CO2 and N2O; FC is the fuel consumption; and SC is the supply chain indicators of diesel (Table 3).
The factors in Table 5 were used to determine the emissions associated with on-site production, pumping, and compaction of the concrete mix. Due to the lack of information on N2O emissions, the factors for NOx were used.
Emissions associated with ranges A3 and A5 were calculated based on Equation (4) as the sum of the products of the electricity end-use emission factor (EeCO2, EeNOx according to the National Balancing and Emissions Management Center Report [67] 0.698 kg/kWh and 0.000522 kg/kWh, respectively), the process-specific energy use factor Eck, and the volume of concrete mix V.
C F A 3 , A 5 = ∑ k = 1 n ( E e C O 2 + 273 · E e N O x ) · E c k · V [ k g C O 2 e ]
To determine CFC1, C3.1, C3.2, C2.1 for demolition processes, the methodology developed by J. Sagan in her paper [68] and the non-road model [69] were used. Demolition (C1) was conducted using an excavator equipped with hydraulic hammers, followed by loading of the rubble by the excavator (C3.1) into a crusher (C3.2) and after crushing onto cars (C2.1). The parameters of the equipment used are listed in Table 6.
The carbon footprint was calculated by determining the operating time of the listed equipment and, on this basis, specific emissions from combustion and fuel consumption—Equation (5):
C F C 1 , C 2 = E F C O 2 + 273 · E N O 2 + F u e l k · h · E t C O 2 + F u e l k · h · S C [ k g C O 2 e ]
where EFCO2, EFNOx are unit emissions for CO2 by and for N2O, respectively (Equation (12)); h is equipment operating time (Equation (6)); and Fuelk is fuel consumption (Equation (18)),
h = V · 1 W e h , e c [ h ] h = V · ρ n · 1 W e e [ h ]
where Weh,ec (Equation (7)) is the operating capacity for the hydraulic hammer and crusher; and for the excavator Wee (Equation (11)), ρ n bulk density for rubble 1.7 [Mg/m3] [68], and for recycled aggregate 2.47 [Mg/m3] [70]
W e h , e c = W t · S w [ m 3 h ] ,
where Wt is the technical capacity for hydraulic hammers Wt = Wth (Equations (8)–(10)); for the crusher Wt = Wtc according to Table 7; and Sw is the working time utilization factor equal to 0.8.
The technical capacity expressed in m3/h for hydraulic hammers was determined by the thickness of the element to be demolished (15 cm), and the compressive strength of the concrete from which the element was formed—Equations (8)–(10):
80   MPa   <   f cm                     W t h ( x ) = 8 · 10 − 5 · x 3 − 0.0135 · x 2 + 0.589 · x + 1.3862
30   MPa   <   f cm   ≤   80   MPa         W t h ( x ) = 2 · 10 − 5 · x 3 − 0.0069 · x 2 + 0.5829 · x + 6.258
f cm   ≤   30   MPa                     W t h ( x ) = − 1 · 10 − 5 · x 3 − 0.0032 · x 2 + 0.5977 · x + 7.3226
Operating capacity for the excavator determined according to Equation (11):
W e e = ( V e b · ρ n ) · 3600 T · S n [ M g h ] ,
where Veb is the volume of the excavator bucket (Table 6); Sn is the filling factors of the working vessel 0.85 [71], while T is the duration of the excavator’s working cycle including the time of auxiliary processes [68].
Individual emissions (Equation (12)) are dependent on engine power P, process time h, emissions of a specific type of pollutant (EF(HC, NOx, CO2)—Equations (13) and (14)), and engine load factor i:
E ( H C , N O x , C O 2 ) = P · h · E F H C , N O x , C O 2 · i [ k g k W h ]
Pollutant emissions by type are defined as Equation (13) (for HC and NOx) and Equation (14) (for CO2):
E F ( H C , N O x ) = E s s ( H C , N O x ) · T A F · D F [ k g k W h ]
where EFss(HC, NOx) is the emission factor in the initial state (Table 7) DF is the deterioration factor calculated using Equation (15); and TAF is the correction factor (Table 7),
E F C O 2 = ( B S F C · 0.4536 − E F H C ) · 0.87 · 44 12 [ k g k W h ]
where BSFC is the volume of fuel needed to generate a unit of power—Equation (17); 0.4536—converter of lb units to kg, 0.87 mass fraction of carbon in diesel; 44/12—molecular weight ratio of carbon dioxide and carbon.
The factors DF (Equation (15)) and AF (Equation (16)) are defined as:
D F = 1 + A · A F , d l a   A F ≤ 1 1 + A , d l a   A F > 1
A F = h c u l m · i M f l h d l a   A F ≤ 1
where A is the relative deterioration factor; h c u l m is the total operating time of the machine to date (Table 7), while MLflh is the average lifetime at full load operation (Table 7).
B S F C = B S F C s s · T A F [ l b k W h ]
where BSFCss is the volume of fuel required to generate a unit of power in the initial state of Table 7.
F u e l k = ( B S F C · 0.4536 ) · P · i 0.84 [ l ]
where 0.84 is the density of diesel [kg/l].

3. Results and Discussion

The amount of carbon footprint for one cubic meter of concrete mix determined by the simplified method (range A1–A3) is presented in Figure 7.
The extreme values of GHGs emissions obtained for RPC (the highest value) and for GPC (the lowest value) are notably different from the other results. It is related to the significant difference in the cement content for these mixtures compared to the other compositions presented. This highlights the strong correlation between CF values and the amount of cement utilized in the compositions presented.
Analyzing the mixtures of the SCC group, which had comparable compositions but differed only in type of cement utilized, it was concluded that the CF was also affected by the type of cement. This is supported by the results of a publication [41] in which mixtures with CEM I, CEM II and CEM I, CEM III were used and were compared among themselves, resulting in a difference in emissions of 73–150 kgCO2/m3. The reason for this can be attributed to the fluctuating proportion of clinker, which is being substituted by alternative binder materials with considerably lower emission rates (such as fly ash [72], GGBS [73], and even plastic waste [74]), for which almost zero GHGs emissions are assumed due to their waste origin [42]. This was confirmed by the example of the GPC concrete analyzed. A similar relationship was also observed in HPC and HPSCC concretes, for which, despite the higher amount of CEM II cement, comparable or lower CF values were obtained compared to FBS 1–3, NSC, and LC concretes that used CEM I.
Globally, no significant correlation was observed between the compressive strength and the CF value, as shown by a comparison of, for example, FBS mix to SCC 1. The reason for this is the influence of many factors on the strength of concrete, such as grain size, quantity, and quality of aggregate and water-to-cement ratio, which was also confirmed by the results of the work [6]. However, considering the strength for one type of mix (FBS), it could be noted that as the strength increased, so did the amount of GHGs emitted. This correlation was also confirmed by the authors of the paper [75], who developed an empirical relationship that allowed estimating individual CO2 emissions as a function of compressive strength for cylindrical specimens. The increase in GHGs emissions with increasing compressive strength of concrete was caused primarily by the higher amount of cement in higher classes of concrete.
Comparison of normal strength concrete—NSC with concrete containing recycled aggregate—RAC 1 and RAC 2 indicated a decrease in CF values for mixtures in the RAC group. However, it is important to acknowledge that as the proportion of recycled aggregate increased, the compressive strength of the tested concretes decreased. The results of [76] demonstrated that for concrete with a compressive strength of less than 45 MPa, it is possible to produce concrete with recycled aggregate with the same strength and durability as concrete with traditional aggregate. Additional emissions might be avoided by optimizing the mix design. To achieve comparable characteristics to concrete on crushed aggregate in high-strength concrete using recycled aggregate, a larger amount of cement would be required, which can result in up to three times higher CO2 emissions than regular concrete mixtures. Practice has shown that recycled aggregate can be cost competitive with natural aggregates. High profits can be obtained when ordinary aggregates are unavailable locally and must be delivered from considerable distances, which also reduces emissions resulting from transportation [39]. Considering this aspect, it is worth to mention the analysis carried out in the work [77], which showed that, considering the strength and economic parameters of concrete, it is reasonable to use recycled aggregate (RCA) when the transport distance of fine natural aggregate is at least twice as large as for this recycled aggregate. The reduction in the carbon footprint of concrete as a result of using locally available aggregates is presented in [78]. The paper [79] emphasized the need to promote Green Supply-Chain Management (GSCM) as a tool to support energy transformation and energy conservation and emission reduction in the manufacturing industry. Research in terms of natural aggregate substitutes did not focus only on recycled concrete aggregate but also on the use of waste materials from other industries, e.g., PET (waste fraction from PET bottle recycling) [80], which is in line with the idea of a closed-loop economy [81].
Table 8 shows a comparison of the results obtained in relation to other publications. The obtained results relate only to phase A1, and the differences obtained are primarily due to the adopted assumptions and computational methods, which means that they cannot always be compared with each other.
Figure 8 provides a comparison of the percentage contribution of the carbon footprint of the different component groups and A2–A3 phases to its total size for analyzed concrete mixtures. The results confirmed the previously described conclusions related to the influence of the amount and type of cement on the CO2e value.
For NSC, SCC1-3, HPC, HPSCC, RAC 2, and LC mixtures, the effect of components other than cement on CF could be considered negligible. For mixtures with a significant content of aggregate or fibers, the impact on the issue was evident, and possible attempts to reduce emissions for these components could perceptibly affect the value of GHGs emissions. It is worth mentioning that while searching for EPDs, part of the values was taken from studies conducted in various countries, which indicated the current limited availability and scope of databases. Additionally, it is important to recognize that values may vary across regions due to different “energy mixes” in these countries.
Figure 9 illustrates the obtained carbon footprint values for the entire life cycle of the analyzed object made of the investigated concretes per 1 m3 of concrete mix.
It is worth noting that there was a relatively small difference in GHGs emission values for HPC concrete compared to other concretes with compressive strengths of less than 80 MPa. This relationship appeared to be crucial from the perspective of a particular construction. Higher compressive strength of concrete could lead to thinner structural elements or a reduced use of reinforcing steel, which globally may result in a smaller carbon footprint for the entire structure. Therefore, when selecting a concrete mix for a specific building project, it is crucial to consider not only the emissions per functional unit but also how it relates to the overall structure. In paper [82], a carbon footprint analysis was carried out for normal- and high-strength concrete in reference to three reinforced concrete building structures with 14, 30, and 60 stories, respectively. The size of the carbon footprint was defined as a function of both concrete strength and building height. The analysis showed that for structures with the smallest number of floors, there was a gradual increase in CO2 emissions together with the increase in concrete class, while for a 60-story building the relationship was reversed.
The order of concretes ranked by emissivity did not change when using either the simplified method (range A1–A3) or the full method (whole life cycle), except for HPC concrete (from 7th place to 8th) and FBS 1 (from 8th to 7th). Hence, this would seem to confirm that as long as no extensive measures are taken in terms of reducing emissivity in the initial phase of the concrete life cycle, the simplified method is an acceptable method for the comparison of the various material solutions for concrete structures with the main binding component in the form of cement. In the case of GPC concretes, it may be worthwhile to perform the analysis over the entire life cycle since the contribution of the other phases becomes more significant.
Figure 10 shows the percentage contribution of the carbon footprint of the various phases of the concrete life cycle to the total. By far the largest share of the total concrete life cycle was associated with phases A1–A3. The remaining phases for most structures accounted for an average of 10%. However, the paper did not consider the location of the analyzed construction, which could have substantial impact on the availability of materials and transportation distance. Analyzing the graph in Figure 10, it becomes apparent that the influence of transportation and on-site processes during the technological and demolition phases become noteworthy only after implementing measures to reduce carbon footprint during phase A1. This observation is exemplified in the case of GPC mix.
Figure 11 illustrates the carbon footprint values obtained for varying amounts of concrete mix and required steel in the analyzed. The contribution of these components to the total CF value of the analyzed structure contributed an average of 15%. It should be noted that the proportion of steel and concrete required can vary significantly depending on the strength class of concrete used and the number of floors of the structure, which can result in different proportions of steel and concrete required.
The obtained value of GHGs emission per 1 m3 for NSC concrete (group II—C50/60) was increased in comparison with FBS 1 (group I—C20/25); however, in relation to the entire reinforced concrete structure (also taking into account the emissions associated with the consumption of reinforcing steel), the opposite result was received: the use of concrete from group II in this case reduced the emissivity by about 6.5%. A similar relationship could be observed for RAC 2 concrete with respect to HPC: the reduction was 1.5%, and for FBS 1 compared to HPC and HPSCC, the reduction was 8.7% and 4.1%, respectively. This indicates the need to take a holistic approach to the selection of concrete type and to consider not only the GHGs emissions per 1 m3 of concrete but also the values for the entire structure and the emissions associated with the use of reinforcing steel. It should be noted that most often, besides achieving lower emissions, implementing carbon reduction measures also results in a reduction in construction costs and labor intensity. This leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial to combine carbon footprint analysis with cost and labor intensity analysis of construction processes, as highlighted in references [9,83].

4. Conclusions

Despite the ongoing development of methodologies for calculating the carbon footprint, the deficiencies of a unified methodological approach are still apparent. Another perceived problem is the low availability and narrow scope of GHGs emissions databases. An analysis of 15 different concrete mixtures used for a sample reinforced concrete structure showed the following conclusions.
  • The greatest impact on the carbon footprint had the composition of the concrete mix (phase A1), including primarily the type and amount of cement, which indicated the need to take low-carbon measures especially in this area.
  • The use of industrial waste and recycled aggregate helps reduce the carbon footprint of concrete.
  • At the initial stage of construction assessment, the simplified method (phases A1–A3) seems to be a sufficient method for the selection of concrete in terms of its lowest emissivity.
  • On average, approximately 10% of the total carbon footprint emissions over the entire life cycle of the concrete were related to the incorporation of the concrete mixture at the construction site (phases A4–A5) and the demolition of the concrete at the end of its life cycle (phases C1–C4) in the analyzed construction.
  • The share of reinforcing steel in the total CF of the analyzed structure amounted to an average of 15%.
  • Depending on the location of the facility and its geometry and number of floors, when selecting concrete, it is necessary to consider not only the emissions per functional unit but also the value in relation to the entire structure and the emissivity associated with the consumption of reinforcing steel. This is because differences in the amount of material used due to the concrete’s strength class can significantly reduce the total carbon footprint emissions.
  • After the implementation of CF reduction measures for phase A1, the impact of transportation, construction site processes, and demolition processes can be considered significant and important to reduce GHGs emissions for these life cycle phases.
  • A correct evaluation of emissions offers a chance to recognize the primary sources and crucial regions that demand the implementation of low-emission procedures. From this standpoint, the analysis presented in this study could assist future researchers, especially when carrying out computations for concretes where binding materials other than Portland cement dominate.
  • There is a need to develop unambiguous guidelines for estimating GHGs emissions that also consider the sources of energy production required primarily for the manufacture of cement, as a result of the specific nature of individual countries’ energy mixes.
  • The analysis of the emissivity of a particular construction-material solution is done on a case-by-case basis, as it depends on the location of the structure and factors such as transportation distance and energy sources that vary between countries and are required to produce specific construction materials.
  • The authors point out that the results are subject to uncertainties due to the assumptions made, e.g., regarding materials for which national EPDs were not available (values may vary between regions due to different energy sources), the transport distance assumed, and the calculation of the structure for a specific location (specific climatic loads, ground conditions).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.W. and A.M.; methodology, D.W. and A.M.; validation, D.W. and A.M. formal analysis, D.W. and A.M.; investigation, D.W. and A.M.; resources, D.W. and A.M.; data curation, D.W. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.W. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, D.W. and A.M.; visualization, D.W. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lesniak, A.; Zima, K. Comparison of Traditional and Ecological Wall Systems Using the AHP Method. In International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, Proceedings of the SGEM 2015: 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference, Albena, Bulgaria, 18–24 June 2015; SGEM: Albena, Bulgaria, 2015; pp. 157–164. [Google Scholar]
  2. Spišáková, M.; Mésároš, P.; Mandičák, T. Construction Waste Audit in the Framework of Sustainable Waste Management in Construction Projects—Case Study. Buildings 2021, 11, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jaskowska-Lemanska, J. Impurities of Recycled Concrete Aggregate-Types, Origin and Influence on the Concrete Strength Parameters. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Sztubecka, M.; Skiba, M.; Mrówczynska, M.; Bazan-Krzywoszanska, A. An Innovative Decision Support System to Improve the Energy Efficiency of Buildings in Urban Areas. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Skiba, M.; Mrówczyńska, M.; Sztubecka, M.; Bazan-Krzywoszańska, A.; Kazak, J.K.; Leśniak, A.; Janowiec, F. Probability Estimation of the City’s Energy Efficiency Improvement as a Result of Using the Phase Change Materials in Heating Networks. Energy 2021, 228, 120549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wałach, D. Analysis of Factors Affecting the Environmental Impact of Concrete Structures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yan, H.; Ding, G.; Feng, K.; Zhang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, T. Systematic Evaluation Framework and Empirical Study of the Impacts of Building Construction Dust on the Surrounding Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. United Nations Environment Programme 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi. 2021. Available online: https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/GABC_Buildings-GSR-2021_BOOK.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2023).
  9. Zima, K. Integrated Analysis of Costs and Amount of Greenhouse Gases Emissions during the Building Lifecycle. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2021, 67, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kijewska, A.; Bluszcz, A. Carbon Footprint Levels Analysis for the World and for the EU Countries. Syst. Wspomagania Inż. Prod. 2017, 6, 167–177. [Google Scholar]
  11. Iuorio, O.; Gigante, A.; de Masi, R.F. Life Cycle Analysis of Innovative Technologies: Cold Formed Steel System and Cross Laminated Timber. Energies 2023, 16, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wiśniewski, P.; Kistowski, M. Carbon Footprint as a Tool for Local Planning of Low Carbon Economy in Poland. Rocz. Ochr. Srodowiska 2017, 19, 335–354. [Google Scholar]
  13. ISO 14067:2018; Greenhouse Gases—Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification. International Organization for Standardization: London, UK, 2018.
  14. Głażewska, M.; Bundyra-Oracz, G.; Siemaszko-Lotkowska, D. The Emission Classification Standard for Ready-Mix Concrete. IMBiTB. 2022. (In Polish). Available online: https://emisyjnoscbetonu.pl/ (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  15. Bartosz, D.; Kowalski, W. Estimating the Carbon Footprint of Buildings. Whole Life Carbon Roadmap for Poland 2050. Polish Green Building Council—PLGBC, 2022. (In Polish). Available online: https://plgbc.org.pl/zrownowazone-budownictwo/dekarbonizacja-budownictwa/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  16. Forster, P.; Alterskjaer, K.; Smith, C.; Colman, R.; Damon Matthews, H.; Ramaswamy, V.; Storelvmo, T.; Armour, K.; Collins, W.; Dufresne, J.; et al. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks and Climate Sensitivity. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 923–1054. [Google Scholar]
  17. Labaran, Y.H.; Mathur, V.S.; Muhammad, S.U.; Musa, A.A. Carbon Footprint Management: A Review of Construction Industry. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 9, 100531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Garbacz, A.; Urbańska, P. Carbon Footprint of Concrete. BTA 2021, 4, 56–61. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  19. COM/2019/640 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The European Green Deal. Brussels. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  20. COM/2021/550 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Fit for 55”: Delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the Way to Climate Neutrality. Brussels. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550 (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  21. Li, X.; Wang, C.; Kassem, M.A.; Wu, S.Y.; Wei, T.B. Case Study on Carbon Footprint Life-Cycle Assessment for Construction Delivery Stage in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Resalati, S.; Kendrick, C.C.; Hill, C. Embodied Energy Data Implications for Optimal Specification of Building Envelopes. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 48, 429–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Łasut, P.; Kulczycka, J. Methods and Programs for Calculating Carbon Footprint. Zesz. Nauk. IGSMiE PAN 2014, 87, 137–147. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhang, S.; Ma, M.; Li, K.; Ma, Z.; Feng, W.; Cai, W. Historical Carbon Abatement in the Commercial Building Operation: China versus the US. Energy Econ. 2022, 105, 105712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, M.; Chen, M.; Feng, W.; Huo, J. What Decarbonized the Residential Building Operation Worldwide since the 2000s. Pet. Sci. 2022, 19, 3194–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kuczera, A.; Płoszaj-Mazurek, M. How to Decarbonise the Built Environment by 2050. Whole Life Carbon Roadmap for Poland. Polish Green Building Council—PLGBC. 2021. (In Polish). Available online: https://plgbc.org.pl/zrownowazone-budownictwo/dekarbonizacja-budownictwa/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  27. Kairies-Alvarado, D.; Muñoz-Sanguinetti, C.; Martínez-Rocamora, A. Contribution of Energy Efficiency Standards to Life-Cycle Carbon Footprint Reduction in Public Buildings in Chile. Energy Build. 2021, 236, 110797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, G.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, Z.; Zhou, C. How Does the “Zero-Waste City” Strategy Contribute to Carbon Footprint Reduction in China? Waste Manag. 2023, 156, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ma, M.; Feng, W.; Huo, J.; Xiang, X. Operational Carbon Transition in the Megalopolises’ Commercial Buildings. Build. Environ. 2022, 226, 109705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiang, X.; Ma, M.; Ma, X.; Chen, L.; Cai, W.; Feng, W.; Ma, Z. Historical Decarbonization of Global Commercial Building Operations in the 21st Century. Appl. Energy 2022, 322, 119401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tsay, Y.S.; Yeh, Y.C.; Jheng, H.Y. Study of the Tools Used for Early-Stage Carbon Footprint in Building Design. Adv. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2023, 4, 100128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Haik, R.; Meir, I.A.; Peled, A. Lime Hemp Concrete with Unfired Binders vs. Conventional Building Materials: A Comparative Assessment of Energy Requirements and CO2 Emissions. Energies 2023, 16, 708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Global Cement and Concrete Association; Concrete Future—GCCA 2050 Cement and Concrete Industry Roadmap for Net Zero Concrete. 2021. Available online: https://gccassociation.org/concretefuture/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  34. Skrzypczak, I.; Kokoszka, W.; Zięba, J.; Leśniak, A.; Bajno, D.; Bednarz, L. A Proposal of a Method for Ready-Mixed Concrete Quality Assessment Based on Statistical-Fuzzy Approach. Materials 2020, 13, 5674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Skrzypczak, I.; Leśniak, A.; Ochab, P.; Górka, M.; Kokoszka, W.; Sikora, A. Interlaboratory Comparative Tests in Ready-Mixed Concrete Quality Assessment. Materials 2021, 14, 3475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wang, D.; Liu, G.; Li, K.; Wang, T.; Shrestha, A.; Martek, I.; Tao, X. Layout Optimization Model for the Production Planning of Precast Concrete Building Components. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Kaczmarczyk, G.P.; Wałach, D.; Natividade-Jesus, E.; Ferreira, R. Change of the Structural Properties of High-Performance Concretes Subjected to Thermal Effects. Materials 2022, 15, 5753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. CEMBUREAU The European Cement Association Cementing the European Green Deal. Reaching Climate Neutrality along the Cement and Concrete Value Chain by 2050. Available online: https://lowcarboneconomy.cembureau.eu/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  39. Polish Cement Association Concrete in Sustainable Construction Residential. 2018. (In Polish). Available online: https://www.polskicement.pl/broszura-beton-w-zrownowazonym-budownictwie-mieszkaniowym/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  40. Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; van der Meide, M.; Di Maio, F.; Yang, X.; Gao, X.; Li, K.; Zhao, H.; Li, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Material Footprint in Recycling: A Case of Concrete Recycling. Waste Manag. 2023, 155, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Górak, P.; Gaudy, J.; Wójcik, A.; Grądzik, A. The Carbon Footprint Reduction in Bridge Structures by Using Material Solutions for Concretes Based on Low-Clinker Cements. In Proceedings of the XI Conference Concrete Days 2021, Wisła, Poland, 11–13 October 2021; Polish Cement Association: Wisła, Poland, 2021; pp. 211–222. (In Polish). Available online: https://www.dnibetonu.com/referaty/dni-betonu-2021-2/ (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  42. Latawiec, R.; Woyciechowski, P.; Kowalski, K. Sustainable Concrete Performance—CO2–Emission. In Proceedings of the IX Conference Concrete Days 2016, Wisła, Poland, 11–12 October 2016; Polish Cement Association: Wisła, Poland, 2016; pp. 1–11. (In Polish). Available online: https://www.dnibetonu.com/referaty/dni-betonu-2016-2/ (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  43. Walach, D. Economic and Environmental Assessment of New Generation Concretes. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 960. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ali, B.; Qureshi, L.A.; Khan, S.U. Flexural Behavior of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete and Its Impact on the Cost and Carbon Footprint of Concrete Pavement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 262, 120820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Deb, P.S.; Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K. The Effects of Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag Blending with Fly Ash and Activator Content on the Workability and Strength Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Cured at Ambient Temperature. Mater. Des. 2014, 62, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Jóźwiak-Niedźwiedzka, D. The Counteracting of the Concrete Scaling Problem by Means of Pre-Wetted Lightweight Aggregate. Part II—Laboratory Tests. Roads Bridges-Drogi Mosty 2006, 5, 17–42. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ali, B.; Yilmaz, E.; Sohail Jameel, M.; Haroon, W.; Alyousef, R. Consolidated Effect of Fiber-Reinforcement and Concrete Strength Class on Mechanical Performance, Economy and Footprint of Concrete for Pavement Use. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, M.; Mata-Falcón, J.; Kaufmann, W. Influence of Short Glass Fibres and Spatial Features on the Mechanical Behaviour of Weft-Knitted Textile Reinforced Concrete Elements in Bending. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 344, 128179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Denisiewicz, A. Reactive Powder Concrete and Their Use in Composite Construction. Prz. Bud. 2014, 11, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  50. Instytut Techniki Budowlanej ITB Environmental Product Declaration Type III ITB No. 116/2020 Cements CEM I, CEM II, CEM III, CEM IV, CEM V Produced in Poland. 2020. Available online: https://www.itb.pl/epd.html (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  51. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU) EPD-ARM-20160051-IBD3-EN Environmental Product Declaration. Reinforcing Steel in Bars. 2016. Available online: https://constructalia.arcelormittal.com/en/tools/epd (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  52. EN 1990:2002/A1:2005; Eurocode—Basis of Structural Design. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
  53. EN 1991-1-1:2002; Eurocode 1. Actions on Structures—Part 1-1 General Actions Densities, Self-Weight, Imposed Loads for Buildings. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
  54. Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2014. Available online: http://docs.autodesk.com/RSAPRO/2014/PLK/index.html?url=filesROBOT/GUID-4A734308-B2F3-4147-A310-BD47C48E9ED1.htm,topicNumber=ROBOTd30e6724 (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  55. EN 1992-1-1:2004; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
  56. Chen, J.; Ng, P.-L.; Jaskulski, R.; Kubissa, W. Use of Quartz Sand to Produce Low Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprint Plaster. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. 2018, 21, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. BRE Global BREG EN EPD No.: 000206 Environmental Product Declaration Granite Aggregate—Bardon Hill. 2017. Available online: https://www.greenbooklive.com/index.jsp (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  58. EPDITALY—VIA GAETANO DE CASTILLIA 10 EPD 2018-11-22-02 Environmental Product Declaration. Lightweight Expanded Clay Structural Aggregate. 2018. Available online: https://www.epditaly.it/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  59. Kurda, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brit, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete Made Withhigh Volume of Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Fly Ash. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Instytut Techniki Budowlanej ITB Environmental Product Declaration Type III ITB No. 064/2017 Steel Fibres for Concrete Reinforcement. 2017. Available online: https://www.itb.pl/epd.html (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  61. Hill, C.; Norton, A.; CH Industrial Ecology Ltd. LCA Database of Environmental Impacts to Inform Material Selection Process; DACOMAT: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  62. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU) EPD-EFC-20210198-IBG1-EN Environmental Product Declaration Concrete Admixtures—Plasticizer and Superplasticizer. 2021. Available online: https://ibu-epd.com/veroeffentlichte-epds/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  63. Witzleben, S. Minimizing the Global Warming Potential with Geopolymer-Based Insulation Material with Miscanthus Fiber. Polymers 2022, 14, 3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. NEPD-3016-1686-EN Environmental Product Declaration in Accordance with ISO 14025 Sodium Hydroxide. 2019. Available online: https://www.epd-norge.no/kjemikalier/sodium-hydroxide-article3470-333.html (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  65. Kouridis, C.; Samaras, C.; Hassel, D.; Mellios, G.; McCrae, I.; Hickman, J.; Zieroc, K.-H. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2019–Update Oct. 2021. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-pollution-sources-1/emep-eea-air-pollutant-emission-inventory-guidebook (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  66. Heravi, G.; Nafisi, T.; Mousavi, R. Evaluation of Energy Consumption during Production and Construction of Concrete and Steel Frames of Residential Buildings. Energy Build. 2016, 130, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. IOŚ-PIB Emission Factors for CO2, SO2, NOx, CO and Total Dust for Electricity Based on Information in the National Greenhouse Gas and Other Substance Emissions Database for 2020. 2021. (In Polish). Available online: https://kobize.pl/pl/fileCategory/id/28/wskazniki-emisyjnosci (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  68. Sagan, J. Supporting Decision-Making Process in Reverse Logistics of Concrete Waste. Ph.D. Thesis, AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland, 2018. (In Polish). [Google Scholar]
  69. Shao, Z. Non-Road Emission Inventory Model Methodology; International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  70. Łój, G. The Possibility of Using Recycled Aggregates from Construction to Produce Vibro-Pressed Concrete. BTA 2018, 3, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  71. Rowiński, L. Mechanised Construction Work Technology; PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 1976. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  72. Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K.; Biswas, W.K. Effect of Fly Ash on the Service Life, Carbon Footprint and Embodied Energy of High Strength Concrete in the Marine Environment. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 1694–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Manjunatha, M.; Seth, D.; Balaji, K.V.G.D.; Bharath, A. Engineering Properties and Environmental Impact Assessment of Green Concrete Prepared with PVC Waste Powder: A Step towards Sustainable Approach. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Schaefer, C.E.; Kupwade-Patil, K.; Ortega, M.; Soriano, C.; Büyüköztürk, O.; White, A.E.; Short, M.P. Irradiated Recycled Plastic as a Concrete Additive for Improved Chemo-Mechanical Properties and Lower Carbon Footprint. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Habert, G.; Roussel, N. Study of Two Concrete Mix-Design Strategies to Reach Carbon Mitigation Objectives. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Visintin, P.; Xie, T.; Bennett, B. A Large-Scale Life-Cycle Assessment of Recycled Aggregate Concrete: The Influence of Functional Unit, Emissions Allocation and Carbon Dioxide Uptake. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hafez, H.; Kurda, R.; Kurda, R.; Al-Hadad, B.; Mustafa, R.; Ali, B. A Critical Review on the Influence of Fine Recycled Aggregates on Technical Performance, Environmental Impact and Cost of Concrete. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Rudnicki, T. The Impact of the Aggregate Used on the Possibility of Reducing the Carbon Footprint in Pavement Concrete. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Xu, Y.; Liu, A.; Li, Z.; Li, J.; Xiong, J.; Fan, P. Review of Green Supply-Chain Management Diffusion in the Context of Energy Transformation. Energies 2023, 16, 686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Jaskowska-Lemańska, J.; Kucharska, M.; Matuszak, J.; Nowak, P.; Łukaszczyk, W. Selected Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete with Recycled PET Aggregate. Materials 2022, 15, 2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sagan, J.; Sobotka, A. Analysis of Factors Affecting the Circularity of Building Materials. Materials 2021, 14, 7296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fantilli, A.P.; Mancinelli, O.; Chiaia, B. The Carbon Footprint of Normal and High-Strength Concrete Used in Low-Rise and High-Rise Buildings. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zima, K.; Przesmycka, A. Concept of Integrated Cost Analysis and the Generated Carbon Footprint over the Life Cycle of a Building. Prz. Bud. 2021, 92, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
Energies 16 03229 g001 550
Figure 1. Types of carbon footprint from the perspective of a building structure. Own elaboration based on.
Figure 1. Types of carbon footprint from the perspective of a building structure. Own elaboration based on.
Energies 16 03229 g001
Energies 16 03229 g002 550
Figure 2. Life cycle of concrete. Own elaboration based on [14,15].
Figure 2. Life cycle of concrete. Own elaboration based on [14,15].
Energies 16 03229 g002
Energies 16 03229 g003 550
Figure 3. End-of-life process included in the analysis.
Figure 3. End-of-life process included in the analysis.
Energies 16 03229 g003
Energies 16 03229 g004 550
Figure 4. Reinforced concrete structure model under analysis: (a) general view; (b) view of the reinforced concrete structure (geometric dimensions in m).
Figure 4. Reinforced concrete structure model under analysis: (a) general view; (b) view of the reinforced concrete structure (geometric dimensions in m).
Energies 16 03229 g004
Energies 16 03229 g005 550
Figure 5. An exemplary load acting on the analyzed reinforced concrete structure: (a) example service load; (b) example wind load (push on gable wall).
Figure 5. An exemplary load acting on the analyzed reinforced concrete structure: (a) example service load; (b) example wind load (push on gable wall).
Energies 16 03229 g005
Energies 16 03229 g006 550
Figure 6. Examples of load combination effects: (a) map of flexural moments in the XX direction for floor slabs in ULS; (b) map of deflections of floor slabs in ULS.
Figure 6. Examples of load combination effects: (a) map of flexural moments in the XX direction for floor slabs in ULS; (b) map of deflections of floor slabs in ULS.
Energies 16 03229 g006
Energies 16 03229 g007 550
Figure 7. Carbon footprint for phase A1–A3 per 1 m3 of concrete mix.
Figure 7. Carbon footprint for phase A1–A3 per 1 m3 of concrete mix.
Energies 16 03229 g007
Energies 16 03229 g008 550
Figure 8. Percentage contribution of concrete mix components as well as A2 and A3 phases in the carbon footprint value.
Figure 8. Percentage contribution of concrete mix components as well as A2 and A3 phases in the carbon footprint value.
Energies 16 03229 g008
Energies 16 03229 g009 550
Figure 9. Carbon footprint over the life cycle of concrete per 1 m3 of concrete mix.
Figure 9. Carbon footprint over the life cycle of concrete per 1 m3 of concrete mix.
Energies 16 03229 g009
Energies 16 03229 g010 550
Figure 10. Percentage contribution of the different life cycle phases of the analyzed concretes to the carbon footprint value.
Figure 10. Percentage contribution of the different life cycle phases of the analyzed concretes to the carbon footprint value.
Energies 16 03229 g010
Energies 16 03229 g011 550
Figure 11. Carbon footprint value over the entire life cycle for concrete and reinforcing steel in the analyzed structure.
Figure 11. Carbon footprint value over the entire life cycle for concrete and reinforcing steel in the analyzed structure.
Energies 16 03229 g011
Table
Table 1. GWPs of the most commonly considered greenhouse gases in the footprint analysis. Own elaboration based on [16].
Table 1. GWPs of the most commonly considered greenhouse gases in the footprint analysis. Own elaboration based on [16].
Chemical FormulaGWP100
CO21
CH4—fossil origin29.8
CH4—non fossil origin27.2
N2O273
Table
Table 3. Consumption of concrete and reinforcing steel in the analyzed reinforced concrete structure depending on the adopted concrete class.
Table 3. Consumption of concrete and reinforcing steel in the analyzed reinforced concrete structure depending on the adopted concrete class.
Concrete ClassesReinforcing Steel [Mg]Concrete [m3]
Construction 1C20/257.47104.19
Construction 2C50/607.0695.97
Construction 3C90/1057.0094.04
Table
Table 4. Data used to calculate transportation emissions. Own elaboration based on [65].
Table 4. Data used to calculate transportation emissions. Own elaboration based on [65].
Loading Capacity [t]TransportExhaust Emission FactorsFuel
EtCO2
[kgCO2e/km]		EtN2O
[kgN2Oe/km]		Typical Fuel Consumption [kg/km]EfCO2
[kg/kg fuel]		Diesel Supply Chain Indicator SC
[kgCO2e/kg][kgCO2e/l]
7.5–16the ingredients of the concrete mixtures0.486∙10−30.034∙10−30.1553.1690.3950.332
16–32concrete mixtures, debris0.210
Table
Table 5. Electricity demand for A3, A5 processes.
Table 5. Electricity demand for A3, A5 processes.
ProcessProduction *PumpingCompacting
ScopeA3A5A5
Process energy consumption [kWh/m3]29.66 [66]0.49 [43]0.25 [43]
* Included in the concrete production process are placement and transportation of aggregate and cement at the plant, mixing of aggregate, cement, and water by the concrete plant, and loading of concrete into the concrete mixer.
Table
Table 6. Equipment parameters. Own elaboration based on [68].
Table 6. Equipment parameters. Own elaboration based on [68].
Vehicle CategoryPower [kW]Average Technical Performance [Mg/h]Maximum Volume of the Excavator Bucket [m3]
Hydraulic hammer110According to Equations (8)–(10)-
Excavator110According to Equation (11)1.5
Crusher29.617.5-
Table
Table 7. Indicators used in the calculations for the phase of C1, C3.1, C3.2 i C2.1. Own elaboration based on [68].
Table 7. Indicators used in the calculations for the phase of C1, C3.1, C3.2 i C2.1. Own elaboration based on [68].
i
[-]		EFss [g/kWh]TAF
[-]		hculm
[h]		 M f l h
[h] 		AHC
[-]		ANOx
[-]		BSFCss
[lb/kWh]
HCNOx
Excavator (Tier 4N)0.590.1760.3701109246670.0270.0080.492
Crusher
(Tier 4)		0.434.02395525000.547
Table
Table 8. Comparison of results with other studies.
Table 8. Comparison of results with other studies.
Type of ConcreteRangeOwn ResultsOther ResultsSource
CF [kgCO2e/m3]Compressive Strength [MPa]CF [kgCO2e/m3]Compressive Strength [MPa]
Concrete based on CEM IA13052821525[82]
291–34930–80310–37830–50[41]
291–34930–8035060[82]
3868839480[82]
RAC 13373134731[44]
RAC 23052833428[44]
FSB 13482637025.5[47]
FSB 24153743937[47]
FSB 35445557255[47]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wałach, D.; Mach, A. Effect of Concrete Mix Composition on Greenhouse Gas Emissions over the Full Life Cycle of a Structure. Energies 2023, 16, 3229. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073229

AMA Style

Wałach D, Mach A. Effect of Concrete Mix Composition on Greenhouse Gas Emissions over the Full Life Cycle of a Structure. Energies. 2023; 16(7):3229. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wałach, Daniel, and Aleksandra Mach. 2023. "Effect of Concrete Mix Composition on Greenhouse Gas Emissions over the Full Life Cycle of a Structure" Energies 16, no. 7: 3229. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073229

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop