Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Recycled Coarse Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Summary of Properties of Recycled Aggregates and Recycled Aggregate Concrete
3. Life-Cycle Assessment of Recycled Aggregates and Recycled Aggregate Concrete
4. Case Study in the Portuguese Context
4.1. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment
- A quarry for the extraction of NAs;
- A demolition site for the CDW collection;
- A CDW plant for the reception of these wastes and production of RAs;
- A ready-mix concrete plant, where concrete is produced and raw materials (including coarse aggregates) received.
- Scenario 1—NAs are produced at the quarry, where they are crushed, washed, and sieved prior to their delivery to the ready-mix concrete plant;
- Scenario 2a—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the CDW plant, where the CDW is sorted, crushed into RAs, and sieved, and then the RAs are delivered to the ready-mix concrete plant;
- Scenario 2b—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the CDW plant, where the CDW is sorted, crushed into RAs, and sieved, and then the RAs are transported to the quarry, where they are washed and sieved, and finally RAs are delivered to the ready-mix concrete plant;
- Scenario 2c—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the CDW plant, where the CDW is sorted (therefore, contaminants are minimized), then the CDW is transported to the quarry, where it is crushed, washed, and sieved, and finally RAs are delivered to the ready-mix concrete plant;
- Scenario 3—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the quarry, where it is received in conformity with a suitable code of the European List of Wastes; then, the CDW is sorted and the content of contaminants is reduced. Afterwards, CDW is crushed into RAs, which are washed and sieved. Finally, RAs are delivered to the ready-mix concrete plant.
- QC is the quarry of Coimbra, while QL is the quarry of Lisbon;
- CPC and CPL are the ready-mix concrete plants of Coimbra and Lisbon;
- DSC and DSL are the demolition sites of Coimbra and Lisbon;
- CDWpC is the CDW plant of Coimbra and CDWpL is the CDW plant of Lisbon;
- Places marked with * represent the locations where crushing takes place, differentiating crushing at CDW plant (scenario 2b) from crushing at the quarry (scenario 3).
- The impacts are the lowest for the region of Coimbra in Scenario 3 and for the region of Lisbon in Scenario 2a, and the highest for the first scenario in both regions;
- Regarding production impacts, the best results are related to the production of RA directly at the quarry (Scenarios 2c and 3);
- Regarding the impacts of transport, the best results are those of Scenario 1, because of the reduced transport distances between facilities. However, differences between Scenario 1 and 2a are small in both regions;
- Concerning RAs, the best solution for immediate implementation is Scenario 2a (procurement of RAs produced and delivered by the CDW plant) for both regions. Moreover, this solution results in much smaller impacts than the procurement of NAs.
4.2. Economic Life Cycle Assessment
- Scenario 2a is the least costly and the one with the most feasible and immediate implementation because there is no need to further investment on equipment or in licenses to receive CDW at the quarry;
- Scenarios 2b and 2c present the highest costs;
- In terms of production cost, the results are better for the scenarios with RAs;
- On the other hand, transport costs are lower for the first scenario, concerning NAs, due to the shorter transport distance.
- The same cost was considered for RAs produced either at the CDW plant or at the quarry;
- The investment needed for the quarry to be able to produce RAs with CE marking was not accounted for (Scenarios 2c and 3);
- The licensing cost for the quarries to be able to receive CDW was also not considered (Scenarios 2c and 3).
4.3. Discussion of Results and Sensitivity Analyses
- Scenario 2a is only less costly than Scenario 1 when the transport distance of RAs is 53 km shorter than the transport distance of NA.
- In terms of GWP and PE-NRe, Scenario 2a is better than Scenario 1 when RAs are less than 500 km more distant from the ready-mixed plant than NAs, which will occur virtually always in the Portuguese context.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- EU Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2008/98/chapter/I (accessed on 7 July 2021).
- Xiao, J.; Li, W.; Fan, Y.; Huang, X. An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011). Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 364–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacheco, J.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; Soares, D. Destructive horizontal load tests of full-scale recycled aggregate concrete structures. ACI Struct. J. 2015, 112, 815–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tošić, N.; Torrenti, J.M.; Sedran, T.; Ignjatović, I. Toward a codified design of recycled aggregate concrete structures: Background for the new Fib Model Code 2020 and Eurocode 2. Struct. Concr. 2021, n/a, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- prEN1992(2020). prEN 1992-1-1 D6 Working file (2020-10-05 Rev. 7), CEN/TC-250/SC-2.
- Braga, A.M.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. J. Clean. Prod 2017, 162, 529–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tošić, N.; Marinković, S.; Dašić, T.; Stanić, M. Multicriteria optimization of natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Lo, I.M.C.; Cheng, J.C.P. Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simion, I.M.; Fortuna, M.E.; Bonoli, A.; Gavrilescu, M. Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2013, 21, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosado, L.P.; Vitale, P.; Penteado, C.S.G.; Arena, U. Life cycle assessment of natural and mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurda, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinković, S.; Radonjanin, V.; Malešev, M.; Ignjatović. Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2255–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraj, A.B.; Idir, R. Concrete based on recycled aggregates—Recycling and environmental analysis: A case study of Paris’ region. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 157, 952–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, W.J.; Kim, T.; Roh, S.; Kim, R. Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of recycled aggregate. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Estanqueiro, B.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.D. Environmental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycles aggregates for concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2018, 12, 429–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jullien, A.; Proust, C.; Martaud, T.; Rayssac, E.; Ropert, C. Variability in the environmental impacts of aggregate production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 62, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Göswein, V.; Gonçalves, A.B.; Silvestre, J.D.; Freire, F.; Habert, G.; Kurda, R. Transportation matters—Does it? GIS-based comparative environmental assessment of concrete mixes with cement, fly ashes, natural and recycled aggregates. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Colangelo, F.; Petrillo, A.; Cioffi, R.; Borrelli, C.; Forcina, A. Life cycle assessment of recycled concretes: A case study in southern Italy. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 615, 1506–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, S.; Tiwari, B.R.; Kumar, S.; Barai, S. Comparative LCA of recycled and natural aggregate concrete using Particle Packing Method and conventional method of design mix. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 679–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, R.V.; de Brito, J.; Dhir, R.K. Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pepe, M.; Grabois, T.M.; Silva, M.A.; Tavares, L.M.; Romildo, D.T.F. Mechanical behaviour of coarse lightweight, recycled and natural aggregates for concrete. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater. 2018, 173, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bravo, M.; de Brito, J.; Pontes, J.; Evangelista, L. Shrinkage and creep performance of concrete with recycled aggregates from CDW plants. Mag. Concr. Res. 2017, 69, 974–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Thomas, C.; Setién, J.; Polanco, J.A.; Alaejos, V.; de Juan, M.S. Durability of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 1054–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacheco, J.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; Soares, D. Flexural load tests of full-scale recycled aggregates concrete structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tošić, N.; Kurama, Y. Parametric numerical study on service-load deflections of reinforced recycled aggregate concrete slabs and beams based on fib Model Code 2010. Struct. Concr. 2020, 21, 2854–2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurda, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Toxicity and environmental and economic performance of fly ash and recycled concrete aggregates use in concrete: A review. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faleschini, F.; Zanini, M.A.; Pellegrino, C.; Pasinato, S. Sustainable management and supply of natural and recycled aggregates in a medium-size integrated plant. Waste Manag. 2016, 46, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Josa, I.; Tošić, N.; Marinković, S.; de la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. Sustainability-oriented multi-criteria analysis of different continuous flight auger piles. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braga, A.M. Compared environmental impact of the life cycle of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates (in Portuguese). Master’s Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kurda, R. Sustainable development of cement-based materials: Application to recycled aggregates concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Della. Transport prices Europe. Available online: https://della.eu/price/local/ (accessed on 10 July 2021).
Region | Location | CDW Plant | Quarry | Ready-Mix Concrete Plant |
---|---|---|---|---|
Coimbra | Demolition site | 40.7 | 25.3 | - |
CDW plant | - | 41.6 | 14.1 | |
Quarry | - | - | 45.5 | |
Lisbon | Demolition site | 25.4 | 55.1 | - |
CDW plant | - | 76.9 | 35.5 | |
Quarry | - | - | 50 |
Current scenario (1) | Quarry (NA crushing) | Concrete plant | |||||
Intermediate scenario (2a) | Demolition site | CDW plant (RA crushing) | Concrete plant | ||||
Intermediate scenario (2b) | Demolition site | CDW plant (RA crushing) | Quarry | Concrete plant | |||
Intermediate scenario (2c) | Demolition site | CDW plant | Quarry (RA crushing) | Concrete plant | |||
Future scenario (3) | Demolition site | Quarry (RA crushing) | Concrete plant |
Production of 1 Tonne of RAs at the Quarry [30] | Production of 1 Tonne of NAs [31] | Production of 1 Tonne of RAs [31] | Transport by Truck (1 Tonne·km) [31] | |
---|---|---|---|---|
GWP (kgCO2eq) | 8.72 × 10−1 | 2.86 × 101 | 2.45 × 100 | 4.98 × 10−2 |
PE-NRe (MJ) | 9.98 × 100 | 4.01 × 102 | 3.86 × 101 | 6.73 × 10−1 |
Scenarios | GWP Production (kg CO2 eq) | GWP Transport (kg CO2 eq) | GWP Total (kg CO2 eq) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | QC|CPC | 28.6 | 2.3 | 30.9 |
1 | QL|CPL | 28.6 | 2.6 | 31.1 |
2a | DSC|CDWpC|CPC | 2.5 | 2.7 | 5.2 |
2a | DSL|CDWpL|CPL | 2.5 | 3.0 | 5.5 |
2b | DSC|CDWpC *|QC|CPC | 2.5 | 6.4 | 8.8 |
2b | DSL|CDWpL *|QL|CPL | 2.5 | 7.6 | 10.0 |
2c | DSC|CDWpC|QC *|CPC | 0.9 | 6.4 | 7.2 |
2c | DSL|CDWpL|QL *|CPL | 0.9 | 7.6 | 8.5 |
3 | DSC|QC *|CPC | 0.9 | 3.5 | 4.4 |
3 | DSL|QL *|CPL | 0.9 | 5.2 | 6.1 |
Scenarios | PE-NRe Production (MJ) | PE-NRe Transport (MJ) | PE-NRe Total (MJ) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | QC|CPC | 401.0 | 30.6 | 431.6 |
1 | QL|CPL | 401.0 | 33.7 | 434.7 |
2a | DSC|CDWpC|CPC | 36.8 | 36.9 | 73.7 |
2a | DSL|CDWpL|CPL | 36.8 | 41.0 | 77.8 |
2b | DSC|CDWpC *|QC|CPC | 36.8 | 86.0 | 122.8 |
2b | DSL|CDWpL *|QL|CPL | 36.8 | 102.5 | 139.3 |
2c | DSC|CDWpC|QC *|CPC | 10.0 | 86.0 | 96.0 |
2c | DSL|CDWpL|QL *|CPL | 10.0 | 102.5 | 112.5 |
3 | DSC|QC *|CPC | 10.0 | 47.7 | 57.6 |
3 | DSL|QL *|CPL | 10.0 | 70.7 | 80.7 |
Scenarios | Production Cost (€) | Transport Cost (€) | Total Cost (€) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | QC|CPC | 4.6 | 2.2 | 6.8 |
1 | QL|CPL | 4.6 | 2.4 | 7.0 |
2a | DSC|CDWpC|CPC | 2.0 | 2.7 | 4.7 |
2a | DSL|CDWpL|CPL | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 |
2b | DSC|CDWpC *|QC|CPC | 2.0 | 6.2 | 8.2 |
2b | DSL|CDWpL *|QL|CPL | 2.0 | 7.4 | 9.4 |
2c | DSC|CDWpC|QC *|CPC | 2.0 | 6.2 | 8.2 |
2c | DSL|CDWpL|QL *|CPL | 2.0 | 7.4 | 9.4 |
3 | DSC|QC *|CPC | 2.0 | 3.5 | 5.5 |
3 | DSL|QL *|CPL | 2.0 | 5.1 | 7.1 |
First CDW Plant | Alternative CDW Plant | |
---|---|---|
Demolition site—CDW plant | 25.4 | 13.7 |
CDW plant—quarry | 35.5 | 10.1 |
CDW plant—concrete plant | 76.9 | 42.3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dias, A.B.; Pacheco, J.N.; Silvestre, J.D.; Martins, I.M.; de Brito, J. Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Recycled Coarse Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study. Materials 2021, 14, 5452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185452
Dias AB, Pacheco JN, Silvestre JD, Martins IM, de Brito J. Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Recycled Coarse Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study. Materials. 2021; 14(18):5452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185452
Chicago/Turabian StyleDias, Adriana B., João N. Pacheco, José D. Silvestre, Isabel M. Martins, and Jorge de Brito. 2021. "Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Recycled Coarse Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study" Materials 14, no. 18: 5452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185452