Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Composites

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Effect of transportation of fly ash: Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost T
analysis of concrete
Daman K. Panesar∗, Deepak Kanraj, Yasar Abualrous
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A4, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The incorporation of fly ash into concrete may be limited by its quality, local availability, and additional cost
Concrete incurred due to transportation. The specific objectives of this study are to: conduct an experimental program to
Fly ash evaluate the material properties for the four concrete mix designs considered for analysis (100GU, 25FA, 35FA,
Life cycle assessment (LCA) 50FA); identify environmental impact categories that are most greatly affected by material transportation; de-
Life cycle cost (LCC)
velop a life cycle assessment (LCA) model and a life cycle cost (LCC) model to respectively quantify the en-
Transportation
vironmental and economic benefits and/or burdens that reflect the interplay between concrete mix designs and
transportation of fly ash (up to 1000 km by truck). This analysis considers a study period of 100 years and is
based on the proposed repair schedule. This study defines the ‘break-even distance’ as the maximum distance at
which the LCA or LCC analysis results (i.e. environmental impact or cost) for concrete containing fly ash is lower
than corresponding results for the 100GU concrete. Key outcomes of this study are: (i) ‘ecotoxicity’, ‘human
toxicity (non-cancer)’, and ‘resources and fossil fuels’ are the most highly affected environmental impact cate-
gories by transportation of fly ash. In contrast, global warming potential was minimally affected. (ii) The break-
even distance depends on the time to first repair (TFR), total volume of concrete required over 100 years of being
in service and the percentage of cement replacement by fly ash. For both the LCA and LCC analysis, the concrete
mix, 35FA, has the lowest break-even distance compared to the 25FA and 50FA. The fly ash mix designs ranked
in order of least to most environmentally friendly and economically viable are: 35FA, 25FA, and 50FA. (iii) The
break-even distances are longer for the LCC analysis compared to the LCA model results which indicates that the
environmental impacts associated with the transportation of fly ash are more severe than the cost associated
with the process, based on the analysis and assumptions in this study.

1. Introduction
At the production stage in the life cycle of concrete, the process of
manufacturing cement is extremely energy intensive and contributes to
approximately 7% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,
which is the foremost challenge for concrete to truly become a sus-
tainable building material. Even though concrete is composed of
Portland cement, aggregate, sand, water, and chemical admixtures, the
environmental impact of concrete production is most strongly related to
the cement component, which typically only represents up to 20% of
the concrete mass per unit volume. Portland cement is more than 90%
clinker, which results from limestone combustion at high temperatures.
The calcination process, which decomposes calcium carbonate into
calcium oxide and carbon dioxide, releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, contributing to negative environmental impacts which is a
major sustainability issue facing the concrete industry. It is estimated
that one tonne of carbon dioxide is emitted for every tonne of clinker
produced. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the cement used in
concrete also contributes to environmental pollution related to: heavy
metal contamination due to mining [1], photochemical oxidants and
carcinogens from fuels and raw materials used, acidification, eu-
trophication and poor air quality levels [2]. Some approaches that are
used to reduce negative environmental impacts of concrete are: im-
proving thermal and electrical efficiency of the manufacturing process;
use of alternative fuels; clinker substitution, and carbon capture and
storage [3]. Reducing the environmental impacts associated with the
production of cement and the manufacture of concrete can reduce the
environmental burden of concrete used as a construction material.
One common approach to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as-
sociated with the production of concrete is to reduce the cement con-
tent in concrete by using supplementary cementing materials (SCMs).
Some SCMs are industrial by-products, for example, fly ash is a by-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: d.panesar@utoronto.ca (D.K. Panesar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.03.019
Received 24 August 2018; Received in revised form 14 March 2019; Accepted 19 March 2019
Available online 24 March 2019
0958-9465/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.K. Panesar, et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224

product from coal combustion, slag cement is a by-product of the steel The decision making process to select optimum or ideal concrete mix
industry, and silica fume is a by-product from elemental silicon pro- design constituents and mix proportions requires a holistic considera-
duction. It is generally accepted that the incorporation of industrial by- tion and quantification of concrete properties, durability, cost and en-
products in concrete, as a partial replacement of cement, has environ- vironmental impacts. This forms the motivation of this study, which is
mental benefits related to global warming potential, conservation of comprised of three aspects: (i) an experimental program, (ii) life cycle
natural resources, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and waste assessment model, and (iii) life cycle cost analysis. Four concrete mix
disposal avoidance [4–8]. The extent to which the utilization of SCMs designs are examined experimentally and analytically, namely, control
actually ‘green’ the concrete industry can be quantified by conducting concrete (0% fly ash), and three concrete mix designs containing fly ash
life cycle assessment (LCA). Life cycle assessment is an approach that as cement replacement (25%, 35% and 50%). Outcomes from this study
can quantitatively compare alternatives (materials, processes, systems are anticipated to advance the understanding of the interplay between
etc.) and is a useful way to model the environmental impacts of com- concrete properties, long-term performance, environmental impact and
plex processes that are included in the life cycle of concrete. Life cycle economic viability over the life of the structure.
assessment is defined as “the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, The specific objectives of this study are to:
outputs and potential environmental impacts of a product system
throughout its life cycle” [9]. Analysis based on LCA shows that in- (i) Evaluate the fresh, mechanical and transport properties of concrete
creasing the percentage of fly ash or slag cement used as cement re- containing three levels of fly ash as partial cement replacement
placement reduces the global warming potential of concrete [4,10]. (25%, 35%, and 50%), in comparison to concrete without fly ash.
However, it should be noted that in most life cycle assessment models, (ii) Identify environmental impact categories that are most greatly
SCMs such as fly ash, and slag cement are considered to be avoided affected by material transportation based on life cycle assessment
waste and have no allocation of energy and emissions towards their analysis.
production and therefore are considered as ‘zero emission materials’ (iii) Develop a life cycle assessment model (based on the most critical
which reduce the overall environmental impact of concrete [11]. identified environmental impact categories) and quantify the en-
However, in order to truly quantify how ‘green’ concrete containing vironmental benefits and burdens that reflect the interplay be-
SCMs are, LCA models need to consider important aspects such as al- tween concrete mix designs and transportation of fly ash (up to
location related to multi-functional processes, and transportation pro- 1000 km by truck), over a 100-year study period and based on a
cesses of SCMs since the corresponding energy and emissions are not proposed repair schedule.
negligible. Coal combustion is an example of a multi-functional process (iv) Quantify the life cycle costs for concrete containing fly ash where
because for every kilogram of coal that is combusted, both electricity the fly ash has been transported by truck up to 1000 km.
and fly ash are produced, and these products cannot be produced in- (v) Identify the longest distance that fly ash can be transported for
dependently from one another when burning coal. Seto et al. [6] ex- concrete containing fly ash to have environmental and economic
amined the effect of four allocation scenarios (mass allocation, eco- benefits compared to concrete without the inclusion of fly ash, and
nomic allocation, disposal avoidance allocation and no allocation) identify if environmental impacts or cost is the limiting factor.
related to the use of fly ash as a cement replacement material in con-
crete and the outcomes revealed that the life cycle assessment results of The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides details of the
concrete containing fly ash are strongly dependant on the type of al- concrete materials, mix designs, and test methods. Section 3 presents
location that is modeled. The life cycle assessment results show that the LCA model, and methodology with specific focus on the effect of fly
although concrete containing increasing percentages of fly ash have ash on concrete. Section 4 presents the LCC analysis model and meth-
lower environmental impacts compared to concrete without fly ash, but odology used in this study. Section 5 presents the discussion of the
the results are strongly influenced by the specific allocation scenario results of the experimental program, LCA and LCC analysis. Finally, the
applied. The base line scenario (no allocation) is not a conservative concluding remarks and key outcomes are highlighted in Section 6.
assumption since the economic allocation and mass allocation scenarios
yield relatively higher environmental impacts.
Transportation of SCMs is another aspect that needs to be con- 2. Concrete mix designs
sidered by economic and environmental analysis because although the
use of SCMs in concrete is common practice however, in some geo- 2.1. Materials
graphic regions, the supply of SCMs may be becoming limited, elimi-
nated or uncertain. For example, the phasing out of coal-fired units will General use (GU) Portland cement was provided by Holcim,
limit the supply of locally available fly ash and consequently its use in Ontario, Canada. The fly ash was obtained from Sundance coal-power
concrete can be further restricted due to the economic and environ- station located in Alberta, Canada. Table 1 presents the chemical
mental burden associated with its transportation. Global warming po-
tential has been the most commonly addressed impact category used to Table 1
Chemical composition of general use cement and fly ash.
study the effect of transportation on a product's environmental per-
formance [12–14]. However, it is not the only phenomenon affected by Chemical Analysis % General Use Cement Fly Ash
transportation processes. For example, the release of oxides of sulphur
Al2O3 4.81 23.04
and nitrogen and other particulate emissions due to transportation
SiO2 17.44 55.67
processes can affect air quality and other aspects of the surrounding Fe2O3 2.39 3.17
environment but these impacts have gained markedly less attention. CaO 64.81 9.60
Fly ash has been successfully used as partial cement replacement in Na2O 0.25 2.68
MgO 2.75 1.18
concrete for decades. Intuitively, it makes sense that the longer the
P2O5 0.13 0.12
distance to transport materials, the higher the cost and greater the SO3 6.96 0.43
environmental load. In addition, it is generally accepted that when Cl 0.002
SCMs are used in concrete, they can improve concrete durability, ex- K2O 1.21 0.64
tend the service life, and result in lower energy, emissions and cost TiO2 0.30 0.61
MnO 0.04 0.04
associated with the structure's maintenance and repair over its design
L.O.I ASTM C114 0.60
service life. This study evaluates the effect of the use of fly ash in Moisture Content ASTM311-02 0.05
concrete and the transportation of fly ash, from a life cycle perspective.

215
D.K. Panesar, et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224

Table 2 has a lower density. A target minimum slump of 80 mm was set and
Concrete mix design and fresh properties. high range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA) was used, when re-
100GU 25FA 35FA 50FA quired.

3
GU, kg/m 400 300 260 200
FA, kg/m3 0 100 140 200 2.3. Test methods
Aggregate, kg/m3 1100 1100 1100 1100
Sand, kg/m3 765 720 710 680 Concrete mixing was carried out in a laboratory pan mixer as per
Water, kg/m3 160 160 160 160
Admixture, mL/m3 2900 0 0 0
[15]. The slump and fresh density were measured for each mixture as
w/(GU + FA) ratio 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 per [16,17]; respectively, and are reported in Table 2. The compressive
Fresh properties Slump, mm 100 140 155 150 strength of concrete was determined at 1, 7, 28, 56, and 90 days ac-
Fresh density, kg/m3 2439 2380 2387 2359 cording to [18]. Cylinders, 100 mm × 200 mm, were cast and tested.
The modulus of elasticity was tested in accordance with [19] on
100 mm × 200 mm, cylinders at the ages of 1, 7, 28, 56, and 90 days.
composition of general use cement and fly ash as provided by the
For the compressive strength and elastic modulus tests, three cylinders
manufacturer.The coarse aggregate, dolomitic limestone, was obtained
were tested at each age in order to report the mean and corresponding
from the Dufferin aggregate quarry located northwest in the Town of
standard deviation. It should be noted that the 7-day mechanical
Milton, Ontario, Canada. The fine aggregate was provided by CBM's
properties of mix 35FA were not tested due to unexpected lab issues on
Sunderland Pit located in Ontario, Canada.
that day.
Drying shrinkage was measured in accordance with [20] on prisms
2.2. Mix designs (76 x 76 × 286 mm) at 7, 14, 28, 56, and 90 days. Three prisms were
tested at each age in order to report the mean and standard deviation.
Four concrete mix designs were investigated in this study namely, The shrinkage measurements were taken using a dial gauge length
100GU, 25FA, 35FA, and 50FA which correspond to concrete con- comparator. The first readings were taken upon demoulding at
taining 0%, 25%, 35% and 50% fly ash used as cement replacement, 24 ± 2 h after casting. After 7 days of curing in lime water, the con-
respectively. Table 2 presents the mix proportions and the corre- crete prisms were exposed to 23 ± 2 °C ambient conditions and
sponding fresh properties. All mix designs have a constant total ce- 50 ± 4% relative humidity for 90 days.
mentitious material (cement plus fly ash (if used)) content of 400 kg/m³ The rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT) was conducted in ac-
and water to cementitious materials ratio of 0.40. The water content cordance with [21]. Permeability measurements were taken on 50 mm
and the coarse aggregate content were fixed to be 160 kg/m3 and thick x 100 mm diameter cores cut from 100 mm × 200 mm cylinders
1100 kg/m3, respectively. For concrete containing fly ash, the content and tested at ages of 28, 56, and 90 days. Three cores were tested at
of fine aggregate was reduced to allow for the volume of fly ash, which each age to report the mean and standard deviation.

Fig. 1. LCA Model- System boundary for concrete.

216
D.K. Panesar, et al.
3. Life cycle assessment
3.1. Life cycle model
The system boundary of the life cycle assessment model developed
in this study is shown in Fig. 1. The LCA was modeled in Gabi 8.1
software. The LCA was conducted in accordance with [9,22]. The
system boundary includes the electricity grid mix, extraction of raw
materials, cement production, transportation, and the disposal of con-
crete by rubblization. The LCA model evaluates a concrete structure in
Toronto, Canada. For comparative purposes, the same structure is de-
signed based on the four concrete mix designs (defined in Table 2),
consisting of 0%, 25%, 35%, and 50% fly ash used as cement replace-
ment. The model accounts for the truck transport of fly ash up to a
distance of 1000 km. It is assumed that the truck is at capacity on its
delivery trip and the return trip of the truck is not modeled. Other
studies [12] have examined the comparison of different modes of
transportation (i.e truck vs. rail), but in this study only truck transport
is analyzed.
3.1.1. Rubblization
Potential disposal options for concrete products include recycling,
landfill, and reuse. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) infra-
structure is typically crushed in place for reuse as fill which is referred
to as rubblization. To model the production, a crushing process is re-
quired. This process was created using the same data as that used for
the end-of-life rubblization stage and is assumed to be powered by
diesel as is all on-site activities. The energy required to crush one tonne
of concrete is estimated as 34 MJ [23]. The emissions resulting from the
use of diesel were estimated using the emission factors are: CO2 (70.7),
SO2 (0.102), NOx (0.807), VOC (0.0869), CH4 (0.0217), CO (0.443)
from Ref. [24].
3.1.2. Functional unit
The volume of concrete needed to maintain a structure in service for
a period of 100 years in an environment that can cause chloride in-
duced reinforcement corrosion is the functional unit used in this study,
which is referred to as ‘Vol (100 years)’. In this study, the ‘Vol (100
years)’ is preferred as the functional unit, compared to the initial vo-
lume of concrete (required for the original construction) because the
Vol (100 years) functional unit represents the life cycle performance of
concrete over 100 years and accounts for the concrete's durability
performance which is captured by the time to first repair (TFR) para-
meter and the repair scheme defined in this study (presented in Fig. 2).
In order to calculate the functional unit, namely, the volume of
concrete required to keep an element in service for 100 years (Vol (100
years)), the following needs to be defined: the type and the dimension
of the structure/element, the TFR of the concrete, and the corre-
sponding repair schedule over the 100-year study period.
(i) Type and dimension of structure/element: The infrastructure type
that was selected in Life-365 is a concrete column pertaining to an
urban highway bridge. A square reinforced concrete column of
500 mm × 500 mm and a 4 m height, reinforced with black steel
with a cover depth of 50 mm is the structural element that is
modeled.
(ii) Time to first repair: The concrete's TFR indicates its durability. In
general, a greater TFR indicates better durability than a lower TFR
value. The TFR is calculated using Life-365 software which in-
cludes the initiation period plus the six-year propagation period.
(iii) Repair schedule: The repair schedule used in this study is shown in
Fig. 2. The first repair activity occurs at the end of the service life
estimate (which is considered as the TFR in this study) from Life-
365 for a given concrete mix design. In general, based on the repair
scheme in Fig. 2, the greater the concrete's age at its TFR, the fewer
repairs it will undergo and a lower volume of repair materials will
217
Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224
be required to maintain the concrete element to be in service for
100 years. It is assumed that the repair concrete mix design will be
the same as the original concrete mix design used at the time the
structure was constructed and the material has the same environ-
mental impacts. This study does not consider environmental im-
pacts associated with equipment related to concrete repair. As per
Fig. 2, for a TFR greater than 20 years, the first repair activity
(‘Repair 1’), assumes that 10% of the concrete is affected (da-
maged) and 50% of the affected (damaged) concrete needs to be
replaced. The increase in useable life of the concrete structure after
performing the repair activity is referred to as the ‘repair life’. The
repair life obtained by the first repair activity is assumed to be 25%
of the TFR. In the second repair activity (Repair 2), it is assumed
that 15% of the concrete is damaged and 50% of the damaged
concrete needs to be replaced. The repair life is assumed to be 25%
of the TFR for the second repair activity. For the third repair ac-
tivity (Repair 3), it is assumed that 20% of the concrete is affected
and 50% of the affected concrete needs to be replaced. The repair
life obtained is assumed to be 15% of the TFR for the third repair
activity. After Repair 1, Repair 2, and Repair 3, the next phase
labeled in Fig. 2 is ‘Reconstruction’. This is indeed reconstructing
the entire element or structure, if needed to fulfill the 100-year
study period considered herein. The environmental impact of each
repair activity is represented in terms of the environmental impacts
associated with the repair materials. As shown in Fig. 2, for the
case where the TFR is less than or equal to 20 years, the ‘repair life’
is taken to be double that of the ‘repair life’ corresponding to Re-
pair 1, Repair 2 and Repair 3 of the scenario with initial TFR
greater than 20 years. For example, for a TFR greater than 20
years, for Repair 1, the ‘repair life’ is 25% of the TFR, whereas, if
the initial TFR is less than or equal to 20 years, for Repair 1, the
‘repair life’ is 50% of the TFR (as shown in Fig. 2).
3.1.3. Life cycle inventory
Thinkstep GaBi extension database XVII: Full United States which
includes life cycle inventory representing Canadian processes was used
to build the life cycle inventory used in this analysis. Reference [24]
was used to develop the life cycle inventory for cement production in
Ontario.
Specific details of the life cycle inventory used in this study are
presented for the cement production process, electricity grid mix, water
treatment process, aggregate process, transportation process, concrete
production process, and concrete crushing process.
• Cement production process: The cement production LCI was devel-
oped based on a report published by Athena Sustainable Materials
Institute (2005) on the life cycle inventory for cement and structural
concrete. The LCI data that corresponds to Ontario was chosen from
Ref. [24] to develop an Ontario specific LCI for cement production
process. The scope of this LCI includes energy, material and emis-
sions due to extraction and transportation of raw material for ce-
ment manufacture, the manufacture of cement, and the transpor-
tation of the manufactured cement to markets in Toronto.
• Electricity grid mix: The electricity grid mix processes were chosen
from GaBi extension database XVII: Full United States of America,
which includes LCI information for Canadian electricity generation
processes from biogas, biomass, heavy fuel oil, hard coal, hydro-
power, natural gas, nuclear, photovoltaic, and wind power. In order
to represent the electricity grid mix of Ontario, the contribution of
electric power from each source of power generation was modeled
to reflect the supply mix of Ontario in 2014 [25]. The contribution
of electric power from each source is: solar (0.01%), hydro (24.1%),
biofuel (0.2%), nuclear (61.6%), wind (4.42%), gas or oil (9.61%),
and coal (0.06%).
• Water treatment process: The water treatment process is developed
based on the results of [26]; where the economic input-output LCA
D.K. Panesar, et al.
Fig. 2. Repair schedule (TFR = time to first repair; ‘repair life’ = extended life due to repair).
model and GHGenius model (National Resources Canada, 2004)
were used to quantify the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
for the City of Toronto municipal water treatment system.
• Aggregate process (extraction and processing): The processing of
aggregates has been represented using the Limestone (CaCO3; wa-
shed) process in GaBi Extension Database XVII (Thinkstep, 2017).
This process represents the extraction and processing of limestone
from mines, for use as aggregates and is used to represent both the
coarse and fine aggregates. The difference in energy and emissions
due to processing of fine and coarse aggregates has been assumed to
be insignificant, and are hence represented by the same processes.
• Transportation process: The transportation processes have been
modeled based on energy and emission factors for use of diesel
published in Ref. [24]. The energy and emission factors [kg/GJ] for
diesel are: CO2 (70.7); SO2 (0.102), NOx (0.807), VOC (0.0869), CH4
(0.0217), and CO (0.443). An energy requirement factor of 1.18 MJ/
t-km was used for transport by road using diesel-powered truck, as
used in Ref. [24]. All materials were transported by road using
diesel powered trucks.
• Fly ash process: Fly ash is a by-product of coal burning that is a fine
substance that does not require further processing before it is in-
corporated into concrete. Upstream energy, raw materials, and
emissions are not included in this process, which is a common
conservative assumption [27].
• Concrete production process: This process represents both batching
and mixing of concrete constituents to make concrete. The energy
required for the batching and the mixing process was calculated by
Ref. [28] as 247 MJ per cubic metre of concrete.
• Concrete crushing process: Once the concrete reaches the end of its
useable life, it is assumed to be demolished by crushing. This ac-
tivity is assumed to be powered by diesel, and the energy required to
crush 1 tonne of concrete is estimated as 34 MJ [23]. The
218
Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224
corresponding emissions from the use of diesel (as detailed in the
Transportation process).
3.1.4. Life cycle impact assessment
The LCA was performed using GaBi 8.1, which is developed by
Thinkstep. The TRACI model, developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was used to assess the LCA for the mix designs.
The impact categories considered in this research include: acidification,
ecotoxicity, eutrophication, global warming, human health particulate
air, human toxicity, ozone depletion air, resources, fossil fuels and smog
air.
3.1.5. Interpretation
For this comparative LCA, the impact category results for the mix
designs were normalized with the LCA results of 100GU. The 100GU
concrete does not carry the environmental benefit from reduced cement
content, nor does it carry the environmental and economic burden as-
sociated with transportation of fly ash. Therefore, the LCA results for
the concrete containing fly ash mixes are normalized with the LCA
results for 100GU for ease of comparison.
3.2. Effect of fly ash on the LCA of concrete
Fig. 3 shows the LCA results for ten impact categories for the fly ash
mixes considered in this study normalized with the 100GU concrete
mix. The 100GU concrete does not carry the environmental benefit
from reduced cement content, nor does it carry the environmental and
economic burden associated with transportation of fly ash and so the
LCA results of the fly ash mixes are normalized with the LCA results for
100GU for comparison. The functional unit as discussed in Section 3.1.2
is the volume of concrete to maintain a structure in service for a period
of 100 years (which is also referred to as ‘Vol (100 years)’ in this study).
D.K. Panesar, et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224

Table 3
Percentage increase in LCA result between transportation distance of
0 km–100 km for impact category.
Impact Categories Percentage increase in impact category results
(%)

25FA 35FA 50FA

Acidification 0.52 1.17 2.92

Ecotoxicity 5.83 10.00 15.50
Eutrophication 0.85 0.96 2.15
Global Warming Air, excl. biogenic 0.33 0.49 0.89
carbon
Global Warming Air, incl. biogenic 0.22 0.49 0.75
carbon
Human Health Particulate Air 0.00 0.00 0.00
Human toxicity, cancer 0.92 1.60 2.61
Human toxicity, non-canc. 3.74 5.53 10.07
Ozone Depletion Air 0.00 0.61 0.67
Resources, Fossil fuels 1.35 2.01 3.33
Smog Air 0.69 1.18 2.22

Fig. 3. LCA results of fly ash concrete normalized to LCA results of 100GU with
functional unit: ‘Vol (100 years)’.
To compare the effect of fly ash, the LCA analysis for each concrete
mix design is weighted to arrive at a single indicator which indicates
relatively higher or lower environmental impact or emission. In this
study, the weighting is performed by allocating equal priorities to the
impact categories and calculating the average. The weighted LCA result
of all of the impact categories is 1.00, 0.67, 0.65, and 0.42, for mix
designs 100GU, 25FA, 35FA, and 50FA, respectively. This clearly in-
dicates that the order of ranking of lowest environmental impacts to
greatest is 50FA, 35FA, 25FA and then 100GU.
When considering each impact category, Fig. 3 shows that parti-
culate air, global warming potential, eutrophication and acidification
impact categories show the most reduction and the emissions decreases
with the increase in percentage of cement replacement. For these im-
pact categories, an increase in the level of fly ash replacement leads to a
reduction in the environmental burden. This is partially attributed to
the reduction in the amount of cement used. It is estimated that one
tonne of carbon dioxide is emitted for every tonne of clinker produced.
Increasing the use of SCMs to replace cement is one approach to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. The general trend that, increasing the per-
centage of fly ash as cement replacement, reduces the global warming
potential of concrete has been reported based on LCA analysis
[4,5,7,8,10]. In this study, in addition to the lower volume of cement,
the reduction in environmental impacts are also associated with the
increase in TFR with increasing replacement levels, leading to a lower
volume of repair material and therefore less material to be transported.
The results in Fig. 3 also show that the environmental burden does
not necessarily reduce with increasing percentages of fly ash for the
impact categories of ecotoxicity, and human toxicity (non-cancer) but
in fact the 35FA concrete has greater ecotoxicity and human toxicity
(non-canc.) than both the 25FA and 50FA concrete. This result shows
that a higher level of cement replacement may not always result in
lower LCA results in a cradle to grave analysis. It is hypothesized that
the LCA results for ecotoxicity and human toxicity (non-cancer) could
be due to the interplay between time to first repair, quantity of fly ash
that needs to be transported over a 100 year service life, as well as the
quantity of repair material required. Therefore, Section 3.3 examines
the sensitivity of transportation distance on impact categories.
3.3. Identifying impact categories which represents the effect of
transportation distances
The purpose of this analysis is to identify which impact categories
(acidification, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, global warming, human
health particulate air, human toxicity, ozone depletion air, resources,
fossil fuels and smog air) are most affected by the transportation dis-
tance of fly ash up to a distance of 100 km. Two scenarios are modeled
in accordance with the LCA approach detailed in Section 3.1. In the first
scenario, the transportation distance is set to 0 km. In the second sce-
nario, a transportation distance of 100 km for fly ash material was
modeled for the 25FA, 35FA and 50FA concrete. It should be noted that
transportation of all other raw materials including cement, aggregates,
and superplasticizers have not been modeled in this comparative ana-
lysis in order to isolate the effect of transportation of fly ash.
Table 3 shows the percentage increase in environmental impact for
three concrete mix designs (25FA, 35FA and 50FA) between scenario 1
(transportation distance = 0 km) and scenario 2 (transportation dis-
tance = 100 km) for eleven impact categories. For all three of the mix
designs containing fly ash, ‘ecotoxicity’ is the most affected impact
category by the transportation of fly ash. A transportation distance of
100 km, results in an increase in the ecotoxicity environmental impact
by 15.5% for the 50FA mix and a 5.83% increase for the 25FA concrete.
‘Human toxicity, non-cancer’ is the second most affected impact cate-
gory by transportation of fly ash followed by the ‘resources, fossil fuels’
impact category. It should also be noted, that both of the ‘global
warming air’ (excluding biogenic carbon and including biogenic
carbon) categories result in relatively low (less than 1%) increases in
environmental impact for all three of the concrete mix designs con-
taining fly ash. Fig. 4 shows the three most affected environmental
impact categories (ecotoxicity, human toxicity (non-cancer), and re-
sources and fossil fuels) due to truck transportation of fly ash for con-
crete containing fly ash (25FA, 35F, and 50FA). The results indicate that
the environmental impacts of transportation are greatest for the con-
crete containing 50% fly ash and decrease with decreasing percentage
of fly ash used as cement replacement. Therefore, these three most af-
fected impact categories will be considered in the life cycle assessment
model which examines the interplay between the transportation dis-
tance of fly ash and the percentage of fly ash used in concrete. Com-
pared to CO2 emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and global warming
potential, the environmental impact categories of human toxicity,
ecotoxicity, resources and fossil fuels are less commonly discussed in
literature pertaining to concrete and so a brief description is given
herein.
• Ecotoxicity and Human toxicity: Ecotoxicity represents the emission
of organic substances and chemicals into air, water, and land, which
affects the local environment. Human toxicity represents the impact
on human health caused due to organic and inorganic substances.
Human health (cancer, non-cancer), and ecotoxicity impact cate-
gories use a global consensus model known as USEtox, which was
developed by combining various previously existing models using

219
D.K. Panesar, et al.
Fig. 4. LCA result increase (between transportation distance = 0 km and
100 km) for the three impact categories most affected by fly ash transportation.
collaborations under the Life Cycle Initiative of United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry (SETAC) [29–31]. The USEtox adopted features of
existing models and was used to develop human health cancer and
non-cancer toxicity potentials and freshwater ecotoxicity potentials
for over 3000 substances including organic and inorganic sub-
stances.
• Resources and Fossil Fuels: Resource depletion represents the
amount of resources depleted from the earth's available resources.
The current version of the TRACI model includes use of fossil fuels,
land use and water use in the definition of resource depletion [32].
4. Effect of transportation distance on the life cycle cost analysis
4.1. Life cycle model and method
4.1.1. Time value of money
The LCC analysis was performed using a net-present value analysis.
All future cash flows are discounted to the present value, which is de-
fined as the time when the concrete is mixed and cast. The discount
rates used in the analysis were chosen to represent the discount rates
used by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), as advised by
the Economic and Revenue Forecasting and Analysis Branch from the
Ministry of Finance [33,34]. A step approach for the nominal social
discount rate was used as follows: 4.5% for 0–30 years, and 4.0% for
31–100 years. The time value of money is dependent on both the dis-
count rate as well as the inflation rate. The inflation rate was selected as
1.8% based on the 20-year average for Canada [35]. The inflation rate
captures the escalation in the price of commodities used in the project.
Use of a growth adjusted interest rate can represent the effect of both
the discount and the inflation rate using a single value. The growth
adjusted interest rate, io, is calculated as:
1+i
io = −1
1+g (1)
Where io is the growth adjusted interest rate, i is the discount rate, and g
is the inflation rate.
The present value of money is calculated using:
F
PV =
(1 + i o) N (2)
Where PV is the present value of money, F is the cash flow that is oc-
curring N years into the future, and io is the growth adjusted discount
220
Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224
rate.
The LCC is calculated using:
LCC = Initial Material Cost + PV (Repair Material Cost )
− PV (Repair Material Credit ) (3)
4.1.2. Types of cost
This study considers two types of material costs pertaining to the life
cycle of the concrete element, initial material costs and repair material
costs.
Initial material costs: These are the costs that are incurred at the
beginning of the life cycle of the product being analyzed. This cost
represents the approximate market cost of materials. The cost of all
upstream activities involved with the production of the material are
assumed to be included in the material cost.
Repair material costs: These are costs that occur over the life cycle
of a concrete structure due to repair activities or reconstruction that
will require additional materials. The repair cost does not include any
equipment cost because this research only focuses on the impact of the
choice of mix design constituents, mix proportions, and transportation
of fly ash on the LCC analysis. In this analysis, the study period is 100
years. If the repair life exceeds 100 years, then the portion of repair life
that exceeds 100 years is converted into monetary credit and subtracted
from the repair material cost.
4.1.3. Cost data
The analysis considers cost data in the form of material cost for the
concrete constituents, and repair material cost. The cost of disposal is
assumed to be incorporated into the cost of ‘Reconstruction’, which is
indicated on the repair schedule (Fig. 2). Table 4 presents the cost data
provided by the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario which are esti-
mates of market prices for cement, fly ash, aggregate, and water
[33,34]. These values are intended to act as a guide for the prices of the
materials not necessarily indication of the market prices of the con-
struction materials in Ontario. Table 4 also presents the cost of trans-
portation, using truck mode of transport, which was obtained from Ref.
[36] and assumes a five axle bulk dry tanker operated at a usage of
80,000 km/year and a 5% profit margin.
5. Discussion of results
5.1. Experimental study
Table 5 presents the mean and standard deviation of the compres-
sive strength, static elastic modulus, drying shrinkage, and rapid
chloride permeability test results for the four concrete mix designs. The
results for the compressive strength show that at day 1, concrete con-
taining fly ash has a markedly lower compressive strength compared to
the 100GU concrete. However, by day 28, all of the concrete mix de-
signs have mean compressive strengths greater than 42 MPa, and due to
continued hydration and pozzolanic reactions, by day 56, all of the
concrete mix designs have a mean compressive strength greater than
50 MPa. These trends are aligned with what is reported in the literature
Table 4
Cost data for construction materials and transportation used in the LCC
analysis note: cost data estimates of market value from Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario [33,34]].
Material and Process Cost
Cement (GU) $150/tonne
Fly Ash $111/tonne
Aggregates $10/tonne
Water $2.5/tonne
Transportation using truck $0.077/(tonne-km)
D.K. Panesar, et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224

Table 5
Hardened properties of concrete.
dav 1 dav 7 dav 28 dav 56 dav 90

Avg. S.D Avg. S.D Avg. SD Avg. S.D Avg. S.D

Compressive Strength (MPa)

100GU 38.9 0.8 52.6 1.1 59.6 1.4 62.8 2.6 67 0.5
25FA 23.3 0.1 35.5 0.6 43 2 57 1 60.6 1.6
35FA 17.5 0.2 – – 45.1 0.4 49.1 2.2 55.3 1
50FA 13.1 0.2 27 2.5 42.2 3.4 49.8 0.7 52.2 1.7

dav 1 dav 7 dav 28 dav 56 dav 90

Avg. S.D Avg. S.D Avg. SD Avg. S.D Avg. S.D

Static Elastic Modulus (GPa)

100GU 31.4 1.6 36.1 0.2 38.9 0.7 40.5 1.3 43.7 2.4
25FA 24.9 0 33.7 0.2 36.9 0.5 41.3 1.5 43.3 0.5
35FA 20 0 – – 38 1.1 39.3 0.2 43.4 0.3
50FA 22.5 0.4 28.9 0.7 31.3 03 383 1.4 39.9 0.7

dav 1 dav 7 dav 28 dav 56 dav 90

Avg. S.D Avg. S.D Avg. SD Avg. S.D Avg. S.D

Drying Shrinkage (%)

100GU 0.013 0.002 −0.015 0 −0.029 0.003 −0.039 0.002 −0.0 + 2 0.002
25FA 0.003 0.003 −0.01 0.001 −0.019 0.004 −0.03 0.002 −0.037 0.001
35FA 0.01 0.006 −0.007 0.003 −0.018 0.003 −0.027 0.004 −0.033 0.001
50FA 0.005 0.001 −0.012 0.003 −0.023 0.001 −0.031 0.005 −0.037 0.004

dav 28 dav 56 dav 90

Avg. SD Avg. S.D Avg. S.D

Rapid Chloride Permeability (Coulombs)

100GU 3374 286 2749 440 2567 313
25FA 1083 30 732 80 602 144
35FA 1253 364 713 169 589 23
50FA 690 234 520 64 419 62

that essentially, at an equivalent 28-day compressive strength, concrete
containing fly ash typically achieves a lower 7-day strength compared
to concrete without fly ash [37]. Depending on the fly ash content,
concrete containing fly ash can achieve parity with concrete without fly
ash between 28 and 90 days [38,39]. This is partially attributed to the
occurrence of pozzolanic reactions between fly ash and calcium hy-
droxide which forms additional calcium silicate hydrate, thereby con-
tributing to an increase in strength with time.
As shown in Table 5, the modulus of elasticity of concrete con-
taining fly ash is lower at early ages and higher at later ages, compared
to concrete without fly ash. By 56 days, the mean static elastic modulus
for the control concrete and concrete containing up to 50% fly ash falls
narrowly between 38 and 42 GPa. This is consistent with the reported
literature where, fly ash does affect the modulus of elasticity, but to a
lesser extent than it affects the compressive strength [37–40]. The
standard deviations for the compressive strength and the static elastic
modulus are similar, and low for all of the concrete mixes. The drying
shrinkage results and corresponding standard deviations are low, and
similar between the mix designs from day 7 to day 90 (Table 5). Al-
though drying shrinkage depends on paste and water content, it can
increase slightly in concrete containing fly ash, due to the higher paste
volume [41]. However, published studies report inconsistent trends.
For example, [42] reports insignificant differences in dry shrinkage for
concrete up to 20% fly ash as cement replacement whereas [43], report
lower drying shrinkage with increasing percentages of fly ash.
Although there are several transport mechanisms, permeability is a
key parameter that is commonly associated with the durability per-
formance of concrete which is influenced by the concrete's pore size
distribution, and continuity of the pores. Concrete's transport properties
are influenced by several factors including the type and amount of
SCMs. It is well recognized that concrete containing fly ash typically
exhibits lower permeability, diffusivity, and capillary suction which
improves the resistance to ions and moisture penetration compared to
concrete without any fly ash [44–48]. In particular, the results in
Table 5 show that the rapid chloride permeability measurements de-
crease with age, and also decrease with increasing percentages of fly
ash used as cement replacement which is supported by published lit-
erature [49–51].
Overall, the experimental results demonstrate that by 56 days,
sound quality mechanical properties (minimum compressive strength of
50 MPa, and minimum elastic modulus of 40 GPa) can be achieved for
concrete containing up to 50% fly ash (based on the materials and mix
design considered in this study). In addition, markedly lower rapid
chloride permeability is observed for concrete containing 25%, 35%,
and 50% fly ash compared to concrete without fly ash, which indicates
potential for improved long term durability, particularly pertaining to
mechanisms controlled by ion (chloride) ingress.
5.2. Life cycle assessment
5.2.1. Effect of transportation distances on life cycle assessment
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the functional unit is the volume of
concrete needed to maintain a structure in service for a period of 100
years in an environment that can cause chloride induced reinforcement
corrosion. In this study, the functional unit is directly influenced by the
TRF, which is calculated using Life-365, and the repair scheme pre-
sented in Fig. 2. The LCA results are influenced by the TFR of the
concrete and the total volume of concrete needed to maintain the
structure in service for 100 years. Both the TFR and the total volume of
concrete needed over a 100-year life are shown in Table 6. The TFR
increases, and the total volume of concrete decreases with increasing
percentage of fly ash used as cement replacement.
Fig. 5a, b and c, show the effect of transportation distance (from
0 km to 1000 km) on the LCA results for the impact categories,

221
D.K. Panesar, et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224

Table 6
Total volume of concrete needed to maintain the structure in service for 100
years and the time to first repair (TFR) of concrete mixes.
Property Concrete Mix Designs

100GU 25FA 35FA 50FA

Volume (m3) 4.82 3.51 3.46 2.23

TFR (years) 11.6 17.6 23.6 45.6

‘ecotoxicity’, ‘human toxicity, non-canc.‘, and ‘resources, fossil fuels’,

respectively. Because the 100GU mix design does not carry the en-
vironmental benefit from reduced cement content, nor does it carry the
environmental burden or cost associated with transportation of fly ash,
the concrete containing fly ash mixes are normalized with the LCA
results for 100GU. The LCA results for 100GU concrete for the impact
categories, ecotoxicity [CTUe], human toxicity (non-cancer) [CTUh],
and resources, fossil fuels [MJ surplus energy] are 7.30E+02, 8.22E-
05, and 2.82E+03, respectively.
In Fig. 5a, b and c, the LCA results increase linearly with increasing
transportation distance for all three fly ash mix designs. The LCA results
are normalized to the 100GU concrete, which is horizontal because no
fly ash is transported in that case. Concrete containing 50% fly ash has
the lowest LCA results. In fact, even when fly ash is transported
1000 km, the 50FA concrete has lower negative environmental impacts
compared to the 100GU concrete, as shown in Fig. 5a, b and c. For all
three impact categories, namely, ‘ecotoxicity’, ‘human toxicity, non-
canc.’ and ‘resources, fossil fuels’, the LCA results for the 25FA and the
35FA concretes are similar. However, close examination of Fig. 5a re-
veals that when fly ash is transported up to approximately 400 km, the
25FA concrete has a slightly greater LCA result than the 35FA concrete.
However, with increasing transportation distance, up to 1000 km, the
35FA mix has the greatest LCA result, even exceeding that of 100GU
concrete, as shown in Fig. 5a. In contrast, when fly ash is transported
1000 km, the 25FA and the 50FA concrete have lower LCA results than
the 100GU concrete. This study defines the ‘break-even distance’ as the
maximum distance in which the LCA results for concrete containing fly
ash equals the LCA result of the 100GU concrete. To evaluate the
‘break-even distance’ beyond 1000 km, the results are simply linearly
extrapolated from the data in the graphs. For the three impact cate-
gories (‘ecotoxicity’, ‘human toxicity, non-canc.’ and ‘resources, fossil
fuels’), the 35FA concrete has the lowest break-even distance followed
by 25FA concrete and then the 50FA concrete. Based on Fig. 5a, for the
‘ecotoxicity’ impact category, the 35FA concrete has the lowest break-
even distance (833 km) compared to 25FA (1006 km) and 50FA
(1394 km). Based on Fig. 5b, for the ‘human-toxicity, non-canc.’ impact
category, the break-even distance is lowest for 35FA (1406 km) com-
pared to 25FA (1680 km) and 50FA (2308 km). For the impact category
‘resources, fossil-fuels’ as shown in Fig. 5c, the break-even distance for
the 35FA, 25FA, and 50FA concrete is 4654 km, 5780 km, and 7500 km,
respectively.

5.2.2. Influence of time to first repair on the break-even distance

The amount of fly ash used in a concrete mix design is not the only Fig. 5. Effect of transportation distance on the LCA results for impact cate-
factor influencing the break-even distance. The TFR of the concrete gories: a) ecotoxicity, b) human toxicity non-cancer, and c) resources and fossil
plays an important role in understanding the correlation for this LCA fuels.
analysis performed using Vol (100 years) as the functional unit. The
greater the TFR, the lower the frequency of repair, a lower total volume
over 100 years, the total volume of fly ash required (and to be trans-
of concrete will be required, and consequently less fly ash will need to
ported) over 100 years is calculated to be: 351 kg, 484 kg, and 446 kg
be transported in order to maintain the structure in service for 100
for 25FA, 35FA, and 50FA, respectively. Since 35FA has the highest
years. The TFR of the concrete mixes is presented in Table 6 and is 17.6,
amount of fly ash to be transported over 100 years, the total trans-
23.6, and 45.6 years for concrete mix designs 25FA, 35FA, and 50FA,
portation flows associated with 35FA are greatest among the mixes.
respectively. Table 6 also presents the corresponding total volume of
Hence, the break-even distance is the lowest for 35FA among the con-
concrete required over 100 years, which is calculated to be: 3.51, 3.46,
sidered alternatives. In other words, the 35FA concrete has greater
and 2.23 m3 for 25FA, 35FA, and 50FA, respectively based on the repair
environmental impacts compared to the 25FA and the 50FA concrete.
schemes presented in Fig. 2. From the total volume of concrete needed

222
D.K. Panesar, et al.
Concrete containing 50% fly ash has the longest break-even distance,
which corresponds to the lowest environmental impacts compared to
the other concrete considered in this study when fly ash transportation
processes are considered. Thus, although there is a linear correlation
between the LCA results and transportation distance, the correlation
between the break-even distance and the percentage of fly ash in the
concrete is non-linear.
5.3. Life cycle cost analysis
For the fly ash mixes, the reduction in initial cost results in increase
in TFR compared to the control concrete (100GU). The initial material
cost reduces from $78.71/m3 to $77.05/m3 for 25FA and 35FA con-
crete, respectively, the TFR increases from 17.6 years to 23.6 years.
This reduction in the initial material cost is only being considered as a
reduction in the cost of a mix design, and not as a reduction in its
performance characteristic, for this comparison. The reduction in initial
material cost can be interpreted in terms of increase in fly ash re-
placement in the concrete mix design and lower cost of fly ash when
compared to cement. With increasing levels of fly ash replacement, the
estimated TFR (from Life-365) increases further due to increase in
chloride penetration resistance.
Fig. 6 shows the effect of transportation distance on the LCC for the
concrete mixes. All three fly ash mixes have lower LCC than 100GU for
fly ash transportation distances up to 1000 km. The LCC results for the
25FA and the 35FA concrete are both well below 100GU concrete, and
are very similar, but at longer distances (beyond 500 km), the 35FA
concrete becomes slightly more costly. The 50FA concrete has the
lowest LCC compared to all concrete mix designs considered in this
study. The break-even distance, which is the maximum distance that fly
ash can be transported until it has a higher LCC compared to 100GU
concrete, for all fly ash mixes exceeds 1000 km. The break-even dis-
tances are extrapolated from Fig. 6 and are: 3281 km for 25FA, 2441 km
for 35FA, and 4875 km for 50FA. It can again be observed that 35FA has
the lowest break-even distance among the alternatives due to the in-
terplay between the mix design proportions, TFR, and the specified
repair schedule in this study which results in greatest amount of fly ash
being transported (484 kg) for the 35FA concrete over the 100-year
study period, compared to 25FA (351 kg) and 50FA (446 kg) concrete.
6. Conclusions
Evaluation of the effect of the use and transportation of fly ash in
concrete requires an understanding of the interplay between concrete
properties, long-term performance, environmental impact and cost over
the life of the structure. The scope of this study is comprised of: (i) an
experimental study aimed to evaluate the fresh, mechanical and
transport properties of concrete containing three levels of fly ash as
Fig. 6. Effect of transportation distance on the LCC of the concrete mixes.
223
Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224
partial cement replacement (25%, 35%, and 50%), in comparison to
concrete without fly ash, (ii) life cycle assessment analysis aimed to
identify environmental impact categories that are most greatly affected
by material transportation by truck, (iii) quantification of the en-
vironmental and economic benefits and burdens that reflect the inter-
play between concrete mix designs and transportation of fly ash by
truck up to 1000 km over a study period of 100 years and based on the
proposed repair schedule, and (iv) identify the longest distance that fly
ash can be transported for concrete containing fly ash to have en-
vironmental and economic benefits compared to concrete without the
inclusion of fly ash and identify if environmental impacts or cost is the
limiting factor. The key outcomes of this research should be considered
in context with the scope of the models as well as the modeling as-
sumptions. The assumptions have been articulated throughout the
manuscript. The outcomes of this study are based on a cradle to gate
analysis in context with processes identified in the system boundary
(Fig. 1). Exploration of the interplay between the concrete mix design,
maintenance and repair of the reinforced concrete, and service life, on
the environmental and economic impacts requires a repair scheme
which is presented in Fig. 2. Based on the methodology, and corre-
sponding assumptions, the significant outcomes of this study pertain to
mix design material selection, environmental impacts and its service
life.
Key outcomes of this research are:
The experimental results demonstrate that by 56 days, sound quality
mechanical properties (compressive strength of 50 MPa, and elastic
modulus of 40 GPa) and can be achieved for concrete containing up to
50% fly ash (based on the materials and mix design considered in this
study). In addition, markedly lower rapid chloride permeability is ob-
served for concrete containing 25%, 35%, or 50% fly ash compared to
concrete without fly ash, which indicates greater potential for improved
long term durability, particularly pertaining to mechanisms controlled
by ion (chloride) ingress. These results are significant to indicate that
the material properties of all of the mixes considered in this study are
within a reasonable range of each other (at later ages).
The three environmental impact categories that most greatly affect
the LCA of concrete due to the transportation of fly ash by truck are (in
order of greatest affected to less affected): (i) ‘ecotoxicity’, (ii) ‘human
toxicity (non-cancer)’, and (iii) ‘resources and fossil fuels’. In contrast,
global warming potential, which is most often reported in the literature
corresponding to transportation processes, was observed to be mini-
mally affected by the transportation of fly ash. This outcome is sig-
nificant because in many studies, global warming potential is often the
only environmental impact considered. In this study, close examination
of, even slight, differences between mix designs containing varying
amounts of fly ash, reveals the impact of transportation of fly ash on
other, less commonly reported environmental impacts.
Both the LCA and LCC analysis for concrete containing fly ash is
normalized corresponding to the 100GU concrete results. This study
defines the ‘break-even distance’ as the maximum distance in which the
LCA or LCC analysis results for concrete containing fly ash equals the
corresponding result of the 100GU concrete. Although this study con-
siders a transportation distance up to 1000 km, the break-even dis-
tances beyond 1000 km are extrapolated from the linear relationship
between transportation distance and the life cycle assessment or the life
cycle cost. Key findings from the LCA and LCC models are:
• The break-even distances for all concrete mix designs containing fly
ash are influenced by the specific impact categories. For example,
the break-even distances are shortest for the ‘ecotoxicity’ impact
category, followed by ‘human toxicity non-cancer’ and then ‘re-
sources and fossil fuels’ impact category.
• The break-even distance depends on the total volume of concrete
needed over 100 years of being in service (which is influenced by
the concrete's TFR) and the percentage of cement replacement by fly
ash. For both the LCA and LCC analysis, the concrete mix, 35FA, has
D.K. Panesar, et al.
the lowest break-even distance compared to the 25FA and 50FA.
This indicates that the 35FA concrete has higher environmental and
economic load compared to 25FA and 50FA concrete. This study
reveals that the percentage of cement replacement is not the only
controlling factor that should be considered to determine material
sustainability from an environmental and economic perspective.
• The break-even distances are determined to be longer for the LCC
analysis compared to the LCA model results. This indicates that the
environmental impacts associated with the transportation of fly ash
are more severe than the cost associated with the process, based on
the analysis and assumptions in this study. For example, the break-
even distance for 35FA concrete for the LCA result (‘ecotoxicity’
category) is 833 km, whereas, the corresponding break-even dis-
tance for the 35FA mix based on the LCC analysis is 2441 km. In
comparison, the 50FA concrete has longer break-even distances for
the LCA (‘ecotoxicity’ category) and LCC analysis, which are
1394 km and 4875 km, respectively.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
Highway Infrastructure Innovative Funding Program for supporting this
research. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and
may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario. The authors acknowledge support from IC-
IMPACTS. The authors thank Mr. C. Churchill for the insightful dis-
cussions.
References
[1] M. Al-Dadi, et al., Environmental impact of some cement manufacturing plants in
Saudi Arabia, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 302 (3) (2014) 1103–1117.
[2] A. Josa, et al., Comparative analysis of the life cycle impact assessment of available
cement inventories in the EU, Cement Concr. Res. 37 (5) (2007) 781–788.
[3] WBCSD-IEA, Cement Technology Roadmap: Carbon Emissions Reductions up to
2050, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and International
Energy Agency, 2009.
[4] R. Kurad, et al., Effect of incorporation of high volume of recycled concrete ag-
gregates and fly ash on the strength and global warming potential of concrete, J.
Clean. Prod. 166 (2017) 485–502.
[5] S.A. Miller, et al., Concrete mixture proportioning for desired strength and reduced
global warming potential, Constr. Build. Mater. 128 (2016) 410–421.
[6] K.E. Seto, C.J. Churchill, D.K. Panesar, Influence of fly ash allocation approaches on
the life cycle assessment of cement-based materials, J. Clean. Prod. 157 (2017)
65–75.
[7] M.W. Tait, W.M. Cheung, A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of
three concrete mix designs, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (6) (2016) 847–860.
[8] P. Van den Heede, et al., Service life and global warming potential of chloride
exposed concrete with high volumes of fly ash, Cement Concr. Compos. 80 (2017)
210–223.
[9] ISO 14040, International standard, Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Principles and Framework, International Organisation for
Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[10] E.R. Teixeira, et al., Comparative environmental life-cycle analysis of concretes
using biomass and coal fly ashes as partial cement replacement material, J. Clean.
Prod. 112 (2016) 2221–2230.
[11] P. Van den Heede, N. De Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and ‘green’concretes: literature review and theoretical calcu-
lations, Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (4) (2012) 431–442.
[12] D. Kanraj, D.K. Panesar, Effect of transportation of fly ash: an LCA and LCCA
analysis of concrete, International Conference on Advances in Construction
Materials and Systems, RILEM, Chennai, India, 2017.
[13] K.R. O'Brien, J. Ménaché, L.M. O'Moore, Impact of fly ash content and fly ash
transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water con-
sumption in concrete, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (7) (2009) 621–629.
[14] M. Ondova, A. Estokova, LCA and multi-criteria analysis of fly ash concrete pave-
ments, Int. J. Environ., Ecol., Geol. Min. Eng. 8 (5) (2014) 308–313.
[15] ASTM-C192-16, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens
in the Laboratory, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[16] ASTM-C143-15a, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[17] ASTM-C138-17a, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air
Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2017.
[18] ASTM-C39-18, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[19] ASTM-C469M-14, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and
224
Cement and Concrete Composites 99 (2019) 214–224
Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Compression, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[20] ASTM-C157-17, Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-
Cement Mortar and Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[21] ASTM-C1202-17a, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's
Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2017.
[22] ISO 14044, International standard, Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines, International Organisation for
Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[23] D. Wilburn, T. Goonan, Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources. US
Geological Survey, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Denver,
1998.
[24] Athena, Cement and Structural Concrete Products: Life Cycle Inventory Update #2,
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Ottawa, Canada, 2005.
[25] Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), Supply Overview, (2015)
Retrieved February 10, 2015, from IESO: http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Power-Data/
Supply.aspx.
[26] A. Racoviceanu, B. Karney, C. Kennedy, A. Colombo, Life-cycle energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions inventory for water treatment systems, J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 13 (4) (2007, December) 261–270.
[27] Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, A Cradle-To-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of
Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufactured by CRMCA Members (Version 1.0), (2016),
p. 42.
[28] J.R. Prusinski, M.L. Marceau, M.G. VanGeem, Life cycle inventory of slag cement
concrete, Eighth CANMET/ACI Eighth CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, 2004.
[29] M.Z. Hauschild, et al., Building a Model Based on Scientific Consensus for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment of Chemicals: the Search for Harmony and Parsimony, ACS
Publications, 2008.
[30] R.K. Rosenbaum, et al., USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended
characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle
impact assessment, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (7) (2008) 532.
[31] USEtox-Team, Background of the USEtox Model, (2010) Available from: http://
www.usetox.org/background.aspx.
[32] J. Bare, et al., Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI), US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, 2012.
[33] D. Kanraj, ‘Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment- Life Cycle Cost Model for Concrete Using
Analytical Hierarchy Process, MASc Thesis University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, 2018, p. 160.
[34] D.K. Panesar, C.J. Churchill, D. Kanraj, Using a Hybrid LCA-LCC Tool to Assess the
Sustainability of Concrete for Infrastructure, Ministry of Transportation Highway
Standards Branch Report, 2018, p. 272 Final Technical Report MTO-FR-03-2018.
[35] Triami-Media, Inflation Canada 2003 – CPI Inflation Canada 2003, (2018) Available
from: http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/canada/historic-inflation/cpi-
inflation-canada-2003.aspx.
[36] Transport-Canada, Operating Costs of Trucks in Canada, Government of Canada,
2005.
[37] T. Kim, J.M. Davis, M.T. Ley, S. Kang, P. Amrollahi, Fly ash particle characterization
for predicting concrete compressive strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 165 (2018)
560–571.
[38] H. Fanghui, W. Qiang, F. Jingjing, The differences among the roles of ground fly ash
in the paste, mortar and concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 172–179 (2015).
[39] C.S. Poon, L. Lam, Y. Wong, A study on high strength concrete prepared with large
volumes of low calcium fly ash, Cement Concr. Res. 30–3 (2000) 447–455.
[40] ACI-Committee-232, Report on the Use of Raw or Processed Natural Pozzolans in
Concrete (ACI 232.1R-12), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2012.
[41] ACI-Committee-232, Report on the Use of Fly Ash in Concrete (ACI 232.2R-18),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2018.
[42] E. Dunstan, Fly Ash and Fly Ash Concrete. Report No. REC-ERC-82-1, US Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colarado, 1984, p. 42pp.
[43] M.G. Symons, K.H. Fleming, Effect of post augusta fly ash on concrete shrinkage,
Civ. Eng. Trans. (Barton) 22 (3) (1980) 181–185.
[44] K. Celik, C. Meral, A.P. Gursel, P.K. Mehta, A. Horvath, P.J. Monteiro, Mechanical
properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating concrete
mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone
powder, Cement Concr. Compos. 56 (2015) 59–72.
[45] M.C. Juenger, R. Siddique, Recent advances in understanding the role of supple-
mentary cementitious materials in concrete, Cement Concr. Res. 78 (2015) 71–80.
[46] M.I. Khan, R. Siddique, Utilization of silica fume in concrete: review of durability
properties, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 57 (2011) 30–35.
[47] A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, G.I. Sezer, K. Ramyar, Comparison of fly ash, silica fume
and metakaolin from mechanical properties and durability performance of mortar
mixtures view point, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 17–25.
[48] A. Ramezanianpour, H.B. Jovein, Influence of metakaolin as supplementary ce-
menting material on strength and durability of concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 30
(2012) 470–479.
[49] A. Bagheri, H. Zanganeh, H. Alizadeh, M. Shakerinia, M.A.S. Marian, Comparing the
performance of fine fly ash and silica fume in enhancing the properties of concretes
containing fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1402–1408.
[50] K.S. Huang, C.C. Yang, Using RCPT determine the migration coefficient to assess the
durability of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 167 (2018) 822–830.
[51] Y. Khodair, B. Bommareddy, Self-consolidating concrete using recycled concrete
aggregate and high volume of fly ash, and slag, Constr. Build. Mater. 153 (2017)
307–316.