Análisis de ciclo de vida.

Artículos

Oscar Adrian Vicente Magaña 192D22005

Fases:

1. Definición del objetivo y alcance

2. Análisis de inventario
3. Evaluación del impacto ambiental
4. Interpretación
 Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement & Concrete Composites

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

Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review

A. Petek Gursel a,⇑, Eric Masanet b, Arpad Horvath a, Alex Stadel a,b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1712, USA
b
Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Room L494 Evanston, IL 60208, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Concrete is one of the most widely used building materials with a global consumption rate approaching
Received 25 October 2012 25 gigatonnes per year. Consequentially, its environmental burden is significant in terms of resource use
Received in revised form 28 February 2014 and environmental emissions. There is a diverse audience of decision makers and manufacturers who are
Accepted 22 March 2014
interested in understanding and lowering the environmental impact of concrete and other buildings
Available online 30 March 2014
materials, which requires a life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach. A critical first step in any LCA is the
compilation of a credible life-cycle inventory (LCI), upon which subsequent life-cycle impact assessment
Keywords:
(LCIA) can be based. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of concrete LCIs to date, and offers
Concrete (E)
Cement manufacture (E)
a research roadmap to improve the quality of future cement and concrete LCIs and meet the needs of
Admixture (D) major LCA users.
Supplementary cementitious materials Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(SCMs)
Life-cycle inventory analysis (LCI)

1. Introduction
Construction and operation of the built environment is recog-
nized as a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
[1–4]. In the United States, residential and commercial buildings
are responsible for about 74% of annual electricity use and 39% of
annual primary energy use as of 2006, and this rate is expected
to grow [5]. Globally, 40% of anthropogenic GHG emissions and
40% of raw materials are attributed to buildings [4,6]. Concrete is
one of the most widely used building materials [7] with global con-
sumption rate approaching 25 gigatonnes (Gt) per year [8], which
corresponds to over 3.8 t of use per person annually. Its wide-
spread use is due to various positive attributes that include rela-
tively low cost of production and transportation, durability, good
fire resistance [9]. On the other hand, the environmental impacts
of concrete production are significant. Currently, global concrete
production accounts for more than five percent of anthropogenic
carbon dioxide emissions annually, mostly attributable to the pro-
duction of cement clinker [8]. In 2011, about 3 Gt of Portland
cement were produced globally [10], leading to about 2.6 Gt of
CO2 emissions annually for average production conditions [11].
Approximately half of these emissions are due to the combustion
of fossil fuels as Portland cement is an energy-intensive material,
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, 407 McLaughlin Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1712,
USA. Tel.: +1 (925) 577 4988.
E-mail address: pgursel@berkeley.edu (A. Petek Gursel).
requiring 4–5 GJ/t [9]. The remaining half is due to the calcination
of limestone. Overall, for one mt of Portland cement clinker 0.87 t
of CO2 is released into the atmosphere [12]. However, this value
can vary with the location, technology, production efficiency, mix
of energy sources used in electricity generation, and the selection
of kiln fuels. Nevertheless, the environmental burden of concrete
is not limited to only CO2 emissions occurring at one specific
life-cycle stage. The analysis and quantification of the overall envi-
ronmental impacts of concrete production require a holistic analyt-
ical approach. The most suitable is life-cycle assessment (LCA).
The LCA approach is particularly important given the high vol-
ume of concrete use and the growing importance of environmen-
tally sustainable infrastructure decisions. As a consequence, there
is a diverse audience of decision makers and manufacturers who
are interested in understanding and lowering the environmental
impact of concrete and other buildings materials. These decision
makers include governmental policy makers, urban planners,
designers of buildings and infrastructure, developers of green
building standards (e.g., the LEED rating system), and construc-
tion/engineering companies. Manufacturers are interested in low-
ering their carbon footprint, which covers the GHG emissions
associated with the manufacturing of concrete and related materi-
als that they procure. Manufacturers want to stay competitive in
the marketplace as demand for ‘‘greener’’ concrete products con-
tinues to increase. An LCA approach is particularly important for
this audience in understanding the full range of impacts of con-
crete and its ingredients in a cradle-to-gate life-cycle setting. How-
ever, the utility of an LCA is highly dependent upon the accuracy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.005
0958-9465/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
and comprehensiveness of its life-cycle inventory (LCI), in which
data on inputs and outputs of mass and energy across the various
life-cycle processes are compiled. Without a credible and broad
LCI, the utility of an LCA can suffer due to uncertainties introduced
into subsequent life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and/or incom-
pleteness in the range of environmental impact categories that can
be considered. In other words, credible LCAs of concrete produc-
tion rely heavily on credible and comprehensive LCIs.
The purposes of this research review are to critically assess the
strengths and weaknesses of the current literature on LCI of con-
crete production, and to provide a roadmap for improving the util-
ity of concrete production LCIs for decision makers, manufacturers,
researchers, and other interested parties as they seek to lower the
environmental burdens associated with concrete.
2. Scope of the review
The compilation and synthesis of major cement and concrete
production LCAs conducted since early 2000s are tabulated in Sup-
plementary Materials, Table S1. A recent study by Van den Heede
and Belie [13] also reviewed the literature about the LCA of con-
crete, compiled ranges of energy and emissions data for both tradi-
tional and ‘‘green’’ concrete production, provided background
information on various aspects of concrete, such as durability, pre-
diction of service life based on various durability tests representing
the concrete’s environment, as well as an LCA procedure within the
context of concrete production. In contrast, our review is focused
mainly on methodological inconsistencies and their implications,
while providing recommendations for improving the approach
and methodology in future LCAs.
The surveyed studies were selected from peer-reviewed jour-
nals and reports that follow systematic LCA guidelines, such as
the ISO 14040 framework [14,15] for the purpose of enabling cred-
ible comparisons between the studies. The review consists of two
groups of studies. The first covers cement production LCAs. The
second is a compilation of concrete production LCAs. The evalua-
tion of selected studies is based on the following two LCA stages
(two of the four major stages of LCA):
 The scope and goal definition [14].
 The life-cycle inventory (LCI) analysis [14].
The assessment of the scope and goal definition stage examines
functional unit and system boundary similarities as well as incon-
sistencies among studies. The assessment of the LCI stage com-
pares the selected studies in terms of environmental inputs (raw
materials, water consumption, and energy use) and outputs (atmo-
spheric emissions, waterborne emissions, and solid waste genera-
tion), quantified within the system boundary of each cement and
concrete production LCA study.
Within the context of these two LCA stages, the body of litera-
ture is assessed to understand how well it meets the needs of
the above-stated users along three important dimensions:
(1) Holistic decision-making across all environmental
exchanges in life-cycle inventory.
(2) Ability to apply to regional/local decision making.
(3) Ability to include direct and supply-chain effects of produc-
tion processes over the life-cycle of concrete and cement
production [16,17].
The scope of the review is limited to cement and concrete pro-
duction, therefore, it is a cradle-to-gate analysis. For a full environ-
mental assessment of concrete production, it is essential to define
major processes taking place in the production of concrete and its
39
constituents. Fig. 1 demonstrates the cradle-to-gate system bound-
ary considered herein, including the main components of the life-
cycle stages, the processes within these stages, and the emissions
associated with each of the processes within the cradle-to-gate
system. Although Fig. 1 draws a well-defined system boundary
with one end product, the supply-chain impacts from different
constituents with regional specificity and varying production tech-
nologies complicate the analysis.
The following sections synthesize the goal and scope definition
and LCI characteristics of the cement and concrete LCAs that are
summarized in Supplementary Material section, Table S1.
Throughout the review, major research findings and discrepancies
are described.
3. Synthesis and limitations of cement production LCIs
For analysis and comparison purposes, studies are first evalu-
ated on the basis of their scope and goal definition, and then cov-
erage of their life-cycle inventories (Table 1). The objective is to
determine the areas that deserve further discussion and research
to fill out the major limitations of cement production LCIs in the
current literature.
3.1. Goal definition and scope of cement LCIs
Cement production LCAs in literature are cradle-to-gate LCAs
with varying system boundaries as well as technological and geo-
graphical variations within their scopes. Table 1 is a synopsis of the
scope of current studies in terms of major cement production pro-
cesses and cement products. Conventional Portland cement pro-
duction processes include: (1) extraction of raw materials
(quarrying and raw materials crushing); (2) preparation of raw
meal and blending; (3) pyroprocessing; (4) finish grinding (milling)
with gypsum; (5) packaging, handling, and shipping of the finished
product [18,19]. Preparation of fuels and SCMs take place in paral-
lel to major cement production processes. Additionally, the inclu-
sion of transportation impacts is an essential step in the LCI
calculations as it occurs over major life-cycle phases and the asso-
ciated environmental burden can be considerable (Fig. 1 and
Table 1).
Table 1 demonstrates that major cement production processes
(e.g., raw materials preparation, clinker production processes) are
analyzed separately in all LCAs except in Josa et al. [20,21]. Notice-
ably, all of the studies in Table 1 focus on the most energy intensive
stage of cement production, that is, pyroprocessing. This stage con-
sumes about 90% of the total energy [22,23] in the production of
cement. The extraction of raw materials is left out in four
[21,24–26] of the nine cement LCA studies as it is either deemed
insignificant in terms of energy consumption (about 2% of total
energy use) or because of lack of data. Despite the lower rates of
energy use during this stage, particulate matter (PM) emissions
can be significant (further details are provided in Section 3.2).
Inventories of raw materials preparation, finish grinding and mill-
ing, and transportation stages are often, but not always, included in
the cement production LCAs. Energy use during these stages is
comparably low, 2–5% of total production. However, as in the case
of impacts from raw materials extraction, impacts from these three
stages can add up to substantial amounts when considered glob-
ally. When the impacts are scaled up to global levels, even two per-
cent of energy use during cement production can add up to
unexpectedly large numbers. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
[27] estimates that an average of 5.2 GJ of energy per tonne of
cement is required, and 2% of it (roughly 0.1 GJ) adds up to
230 million GJ of energy use per year globally [11], or 5.09 mil-
lion tonnes (Mt) of petroleum equivalent.
40 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
Fig. 1. Scope of the concrete LCA research review.
Except for one recent cement manufacturing LCA study [28],
none of the others specifically consider the variations in produc-
tion technologies for major stages of cement manufacturing. This
particular study compares older and updated versions of cement
manufacturing lines in a cement plant with respect to the ‘‘Best
Available Technologies’’ (BAT) in Europe [29].
Although it cannot be considered as deficiency, differences in
types of cement products between Europe and the United States
are noticeable. The European cement LCAs often include blended
cements (cement with fly ash, slag, or natural pozzolan) in their
analysis since about 70% of cements consumed are currently
blended cements. In the United States, the market share of blended
cements is below 3%. However, these numbers can be misleading
as it is common practice in the United States to blend in supple-
mentary cementitious materials (SCMs) during concrete mixing,
not during cement production. Additionally, regulatory restric-
tions, slow adaptations of standards, and reluctance to use such
new materials with less-understood properties can be counted as
some of the reasons for not including blended cements in the
U.S. LCAs [30]. Therefore, while performing an LCA, the researcher
should also recognize the trends and regulations in a given location
for an accurate assessment.
Overall, Table 1 demonstrates that the reviewed cement LCAs
complement one other; they study major production stages with
varying details of technology, regional specificity and product
types.
3.2. LCI representation in cement LCAs
Following the goal definition and scope representation in
cement LCAs, this section reviews major LCI data covered in the
cement production LCA literature and identifies areas of needed
future research.
During the cement production process, energy is consumed in
the form of fuels and electricity. Fossil fuels used for pyroprocess-
ing constitute the majority of fuels consumption. Most cement kiln
operations in the United States are primarily powered by coal, coal
and petroleum coke combination, and alternative fuels [31]. How-
ever, the specific mix of fuel sources heavily depend on the manu-
facturing facility and can include a unique combination of fuels
including natural gas, fuel oil, waste tires, liquid and solid wastes,
as well as the more commonly used fuels [27,31,32]. Electricity is
consumed for crushing, grinding, rotating the kiln, conveying
 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48 41

Table 1
Scope of cradle-to-gate cement production LCAs.

(Author, Region Cement production processes Cement products

year)
Extraction Raw meal Fuels and Pyroprocessing Finish Transportation Clinker Traditional Blended Other
and crushing preparation SCMs grinding (raw materials) PC cement
of raw preparation and
materials blending
Valderrama Spain * * * * * *
et al. [28]
Chen et al. France * * * * * * * *
[34]
Boesch and Switzerland; * * * * * * *
Hellweg U.S.
[25]
Boesch et al. Switzerland * * * *
[24]
Huntzinger U.S. * * * * * * *a
and
Eatmon
[26]b
Josa et al. Europe * * *
[20,21]
Marceau U.S. * * * * * * *
et al. [22]
Navia et al. Chile * * * * *
[35]
Gabel and Sweden * * * * * * * *
Tillman
[37]
a
PC with CKD and CO2 sequestered in CKD in cement.
b
LCI for only traditional Portland cement manufacturing but LCIA results are calculated for traditional PC, blended cement, cement with CKD, and cement with CO2
sequestration.

materials, and driving other electrical devices to clean exhaust
gases and to cool clinker [18,33].
Energy consumption data are mostly national averages in
cement LCAs [21,22,24–26,28,34,35] (Table 2). Regional and tech-
nological variations of fuel use during production processes
(mostly pyroprocessing) are not typically captured, which limits
the applicability of the LCI data for regions that differ substantially
from the ‘‘national average’’ conditions. For example, some Port-
land cement plants in the United States use imported clinker,
which is later ground and blended with gypsum to produce domes-
tic Portland cement. Several U.S. distributors also import Portland
cement. Portland cement and clinker imports constitute about
eight percent of the total U.S. cement consumption in 2009 [36].
However, the upstream inventories of the imported clinker and
the corresponding energy use factors specific to the country of ori-
gin, as well as the transportation energy associated with imported
clinker, are not taken into consideration in LCAs. Instead, domestic
and imported clinker are assumed to be produced by similar tech-
nologies [22]. For an accurate environmental assessment, the
energy-related nuances in production technologies are recom-
mended to be considered in future LCIs.
Contrary to the U.S. practice, European cement studies consider
the electricity use and related impacts associated with the process
of preparation of fuels and SCMs in their analysis
[24,25,28,34,35,37]. The exclusion of this step from cement LCIs
can lead to the underestimation of impacts from electricity con-
sumption during cement production processes. The following esti-
mation reveals the magnitude of the problem. For example, coal
provides 65% of the U.S. cement industry’s heat requirement. As
common practice, coal is ground before feeding into the kiln.
Grinding of coal may require 30–40 kW h/t, depending on the type
of coal used in the kiln. According to USGS [38], about 5.5 Mt of
coal were used for clinker production in 2009. This corresponds
to an average of 190 million kW h of annual electricity consump-
tion from coal preparation process in the cement plant. In the same
year, electricity consumption of the U.S. cement plants was
reported to be 9,020 million kW h. Assuming this number includes
the electricity use for fuels preparation, about 2% of electricity con-
sumption can be attributed to coal preparation. Waste fuels are
also prepared before combustion in the cement kiln. The most
common type is tires (supplies 4% of total U.S. cement kiln heat
requirement) and shredding tires may require as much as
45 kW h/t [30]. (Some cement kilns use whole tires, while shred-
ding may be required in others). When considered at global or
national volumes, again impacts from waste fuel preparation can
be significant. These arguments are valid for preparation of alter-
native materials used for supplementing cementitious materials.
Before blending with clinker, such SCMs must be dried, ground,
and prepared. In comparison to other mineral components, the
preparation of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) is
associated with a higher environmental impact due to its lower
grindability and possible additional drying requirement. It requires
about 95 kW h/t to prepare slag prior to mixing it with cement
clinker [39]. For fly ash, preparation (which requires no grinding
as opposed to GGBFS processing) takes about 7 kW h/t of fly ash
[40].
Generally, studies leave out parts of the system that are deemed
insignificant, but even 1% of the energy use of the concrete cradle-
to-gate system can add up to a large number when global volumes
of production are considered. The same argument is true for other
environmental effects (e.g., emissions to air, water, and land) at
global production levels.
The cement industry is a major contributor to global GHG emis-
sions. Other key emissions associated with cement production are
particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) [29]. Additionally, carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and toxic emissions (e.g., heavy metals, dioxins
and furans) may be of concern. The type and amount of air pollu-
42 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
tants vary with the composition of raw materials and fuels used in
the cement making process, as well as the choice of manufacturing
technology and other parameters.
GHG emissions, mostly in the form of CO2, are included in the
inventories of all cement production LCAs. There are two major
sources of direct CO2 emissions from production: fuel combustion
and calcination. Table 2 summarizes the studies analyzing CO2
from fuel combustion and calcination separately. In most cement
LCAs, CO2 emissions are generally calculated on the basis of
national averages without the consideration of varying kiln tech-
nologies and material and kiln fuel composition.
Electricity consumption data are included in cement LCI studies
[22,24,26,28,30,34,37], but the U.S. cement production LCI dat-
abases and studies [22,41] do not provide the supply-chain inven-
tories for electricity and associated fuel production. Inevitably,
comparison of different cradle-to-gate inventory data is not realis-
tic and results from such comparisons are inconsistent. Among the
cement LCAs, only Gabel and Tillman [37] included the LCI of elec-
tricity generation and associated fuel mix production data in their
study. However, their model was not publicly available and the
results did not distinguish between sources of emissions. It is
important to note that the amount of CO2 and other air emissions
would depend on the fuel mix used to generate the electricity and
would vary nationally and regionally [27]. Inclusion of supply-
chain impacts of fuels and materials would be essential for a holis-
tic LCA approach.
Like any other fuel-burning production process, cement produc-
tion generates major common air pollutants: SO2, NOx, CO, PM,
VOC, and CH4 in addition to CO2 emissions. The study by Marceau
et al. [22] is the only U.S. LCI that includes all of these air pollutants
in its inventory, and does so for four different types of cement kilns
during pyroprocessing. Additionally, six of the EU studies
[20,21,24,25,28,34,37] provide the SO2, NOx, and PM emissions
for different Portland cement types.
PM is generated during all major stages of the Portland cement
production process [23,42,43]. Two of the U.S. Portland cement
LCAs [22,26] tabulate PM emissions for major processes, including
raw meal preparation, pyroprocessing, and finish grinding. Addi-
tionally, Marceau et al. [22] present PM emissions from quarrying
activities and transportation of raw materials to the Portland
cement plant. Generally, 90% of cement raw materials (limestone,
clay, marl, shale, etc.) are quarried. PM emissions, water consump-
tion, water effluents, and use of explosives are major concerns dur-
ing quarrying. PM emissions from quarrying can cause about 90%
of total particulates emissions from cement production process.
Water consumption during quarrying is about 60% of the total
use [22]. When we consider the global volumes of cement produc-
tion (USGS 2009), the magnitude of emissions and water use from
quarrying can become significant.
Table 2
Life-cycle inventory (LCI) categories included in cement LCA studies.
LCI categories in cement LCAs [28] [34]
Raw materials use * *
Energy use * *
Water consumption * *
CO2/GHG emissions, calcination
CO2/GHG emissions, fuel use
CO2/GHG emissions, total * *
SO2 emissions * *
NOx emissions * *
PM emissions * *
CO emissions * *
VOC emissions * *
Toxic emissions * *
Solid waste * *
Waste water * *
Carbon content in natural raw materials can cause elevated
hydrocarbon (HC) and CO emissions. HC emissions during pyropro-
cessing are mostly composed of VOC and CH4 [22]. Emissions of
VOCs and other HCs from traditional cement production processes
are generally found at insignificant levels. Cembureau [44]
explains why these pollutants are at such low levels: ‘‘...other sub-
stances entering the kiln system which could give rise to undesir-
able emissions are either effectively destroyed in the high
temperature combustion process or almost completely incorpo-
rated into the product.’’
In the surveyed literature, a number of Portland cement LCA
and non-LCA studies provide data for emissions of VOC, benzene,
dioxin/furans, heavy metals (Ar, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Tl, Zn), HF, and
HCl as part of their environmental analysis [22,24,34,35,37,44–
50]. Looking at the data sources, one can conclude that Portland
cement LCAs which focus on alternative/waste raw materials and
fuels also provide toxic air emissions in their LCIs as it is one of
the concerns for using such materials. Waste used as alternative
fuel or as a substitute for raw material may contain varying con-
centrations of trace elements. Certain conditions, such as burning
waste fuels in an inefficient wet kiln, can result in higher toxic
emissions. For example, in Ref. [25] study, elemental analysis of
scrap tires, solvents, and waste oils show considerably higher
amounts of Zn, Pb, Cr, Cd, and other trace elements compared to
other traditional fuels. Although some studies were conducted on
the criteria pollutant and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions
associated with tire-derived fuel, these studies [45,46] examine
fuels that are a combination of scrap tires and conventional fuels.
Therefore, these studies do not isolate the criteria air pollutants
or HAPs associated with scrap tires alone [51], and for that reason
the LCI results cannot be used for other fuel mixes. For an accurate
assessment, fuel burning and emission control technologies need
to be taken into consideration while calculating emissions from
the pyroprocessing stage in an LCI.
3.3. Summary of cement production LCIs
Overall, cement is the most broadly studied component of con-
crete as its production is known to be highly energy-intensive and
emissions-intensive. But cement production LCAs still lack data
reflecting variations in technological and regional nuances; mostly
limited to the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts
from toxic emissions, water effluents, solid waste (e.g. cement kiln
dust), and water consumption are generally overlooked either
because of the expertise, time, and data constraints or these effects
are assumed insignificant (without a thorough analysis). These
limitations preclude robust environmental analysis of cement pro-
duction across the full range of energy and emissions issues that
should be considered.
[25] [24] [26] [20,21] [22] [35] [37]
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * * *
*
* * *
* * *
*
 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
4. Synthesis and limitations of concrete production LCIs
Similar to the synthesis of the cement production LCI literature,
concrete LCA studies were evaluated on the basis of their scope in
terms of concrete raw materials covered and functional units
involved and LCI analysis. Of the twelve concrete LCAs, only two
of them are U.S.-based. Among the non-U.S. concrete LCAs, four
of them [13,40,52,53] compare various types of ‘‘green concrete’’
products with geopolymer, fly ash and GBFS. Except for Habert
et al. [53], the remaining three are limited only to LCAs of concrete
mortar pastes with ordinary Portland cement substitutions of
cement with slag, fly ash or geopolymer. Therefore, these three
studies do not include aggregates, admixtures, and concrete batch-
ing processes and associated LCI in their scopes. On the other hand,
only Habert et al. [53] evaluated the full environmental impacts of
concrete ingredients (cement, gravel, sand, admixtures, fly ash,
slag, sodium silicate, NaOH, silica fume, etc.) for both fly ash-based
and slag-based concrete mixtures, and compared their results to
ordinary Portland cement concrete mixture designs with similar
mechanical properties. Different from the earlier research, alloca-
tion procedure was applied in a number of concrete LCA studies
[13,40,53]. Additionally, Zabalza Bribián et al. [54] analyzed not
only cement and concrete but also several building materials.
Finally, Blengini et al. described guidelines on the application of
LCA methodology in aggregates production. Table 3 summarizes
the reviewed concrete LCA studies which are described in further
details in following sections.
4.1. Comparison of goal definition and scope of concrete production
LCIs
Concrete LCAs in literature are scattered in terms of scope, geog-
raphy, and type of concrete products studied (Table 3). In terms of
geographical coverage, the published concrete production LCAs are
quite diverse. The reviewed concrete LCA studies generally incorpo-
rate LCIs of materials extraction and production stages together with
concrete batching. As opposed to the cement production LCAs, there
are not many stand-alone LCAs of other concrete raw materials
including aggregates, admixtures, SCMs, and water consumption
in literature. Concrete constituents other than cement are generally
observed in concrete manufacturing LCAs. A few studies in the
review provided LCI results for not only cement and concrete but
also for other building materials such as bricks, aluminum, ceramic,
insulation materials, wood, and steel products [54] and for struc-
tural elements made of either concrete, steel or wood [7].
4.1.1. Allocation
The literature review shows that current concrete LCA studies
have focused on environmental impacts of recently developed
‘‘green’’ concrete products such geopolymer, fly ash, or GBFS con-
crete mixture designs [13,40,52,53,55]. Three of these LCAs also
incorporated byproduct allocation in geopolymer and ‘‘green’’ con-
crete manufacturing [13,40,53]. For instance, both Van den Heede
et al. [13] and Chen et al. [40] solely focused on the allocation pro-
cedures that were considered for the addition of fly ash and GBFS
to concrete. They examined the LCI data for iron production and
electricity generation from coal power plants and processing of
their byproducts, which is GBFS from iron production and fly ash
from coal, respectively. In their studies, the authors suggested
future research in LCAs of industrial by-products by applying
either mass or economical allocation procedures in cases where
industrial by-products are not considered waste and used in con-
crete as SCMs. Habert et al. [53] focused on geopolymer concrete
mixture designs and also performed the allocation analysis on
three types of geopolymer concrete made with fly ash, blast fur-
43
nace slag, and metakaolin. On the other hand, two other ‘‘green’’
concrete studies did not consider allocation issues. Of these, McLe-
llan et al. [52] focused on GHG emissions from geopolymer pastes
while Prusinski et al. [55] specifically studied LCI data for concrete
with slag substitution without any allocation procedure. In the LCA
literature, allocation is one of the frequently discussed, but still not
completely resolved methodological problems. Impact allocation
over the life-cycle of concrete is inevitable. Concrete manufactur-
ing (as well as all other industrial production) processes have mul-
tiple input streams, and most of the processes generate multiple
output streams in the form of products, coproducts or byproducts
(that are mostly treated as waste despite their economical and
material values, as in the case of fly ash from coal combustion),
or these processes recycle intermediate or discarded products
(cement kiln dust, crushed concrete) as raw materials into other
production systems.
When dealing with systems involving multiple products and
recycling systems, one especially needs to elaborate on the alloca-
tion procedures. When this is the case, the inputs and outputs of
the system should be partitioned between its different products
or functions in a way that reflects the underlying causal relation-
ships between them, e.g., allocation by energy content, mass, or
economic value. However, in most of the LCA studies, allocation
of inputs (energy, water, raw materials) and associated emissions
from these processes to multiple output streams is either done
arbitrarily (e.g., on an equal basis, such as 50–50) or on an ‘‘all or
nothing’’ basis, i.e., 100% to one product) or without being justified
by any ‘‘causal’’ relationship [56].
4.1.2. Admixtures
Except for three concrete LCAs [7,53,57], admixtures are rarely
covered in the literature since there are little or no environmental
data regarding the production of admixtures, their handling and
mixing with other concrete ingredients, and fate after concrete has
hardened. In general, because of smaller quantities of admixtures
in concrete (less than 1% by mass of concrete), ostensibly, their
impacts were assumed to be negligible in various studies [22] based
on the suggestions given by common LCA guidelines [58]. However,
without a quantitative assessment, their impacts cannot be deemed
negligible. Different from other concrete ingredients, chemical sub-
stances used in concrete admixtures could be a concern for their tox-
icological properties. Among different concrete admixtures,
plasticizers and superplasticizers are the most commonly used, rep-
resenting approximately 80% of European and 70% of U.S. admixture
consumption [59,60]. A back-of-the envelope calculation shows that
about 3.24 kg of superplasticizer is required for one cubic meter of
35 MPa (unit weight of 2370 kg/m3) ready-mixed concrete, which
adds up to roughly 0.33 Mt of plasticizer usage annually in Europe,
with potentially considerable environmental impacts. Manufactur-
ers could be a good source of information, but their data are gener-
ally confidential, and industry has been reluctant to publish such
data. As part of future research, comprehensive LCA of chemical
admixtures production is essential for a complete environmental
assessment of concrete.
4.1.3. Functional unit
For accurate and transparent comparison of LCA results, consis-
tency in determining the functional unit is necessary. The common
functional unit used for concrete mixtures and precast concrete is
one cubic meter (or one cubic yard or feet) in each building ele-
ment, such as beams or columns [6]. Compared to some other
major construction materials, concrete is a composite that can be
made in a large variety of proportions of ingredients. Depending
on the designer’s requirements and type of concrete application,
concrete mixture designs and properties vary considerably. For
accurate LCA results and meaningful comparison purposes, certain
44 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48

Table 3
Scope of cradle-to-gate concrete production LCAs.

(Author, Region Concrete and raw materials production Concrete products

year)
Cement Fine Coarse Admixtures Concrete Transportation Concrete Concrete Concrete Other
production aggregates aggregates production plant mixtures mixtures mixtures with
production production operations with 100% with varying% of
PC varying% fly ash
slag
Van den Belgium * * * * *
Heede
and De
Belie
[13]
Blengini Europe * * *a
et al.
[81]
McLellan Australia * * *b
et al.
[52]
Habert France * * * * * * * * * *b
et al.
[53]
Zabalza Spain *c
Bribián
et al.
[54]
Chen et al. France * * *
[40]
O’Brien Australia * * * * * *
et al.
[66]
Flower and Australia * * * * * * * * *
Sanjayan
[7]
Marceau U.S. * * * * * * * * *d
et al.
[67]
Sjunnesson Sweden * * * * * * *b *e,f
[57]
Prusinski U.S. * * * * * * * * *g
et al.
[55]
Jacques New * * * * * * *h
[69] Zealand
a
Recycled aggregate.
b
Geopolymer.
c
In addition to cement and concrete, other common building products, e.g., bricks, tiles, insulation materials, mortar, wood products, steel, aluminum, PVC, glass, copper.
d
Concrete masonry block and precast concrete mixes (reinforcing steel impacts excluded).
e
Ordinary PC concrete with the addition of superplasticizers.
f
Frost-resistant concrete with the addition of superplasticizers and air-entraining admixtures.
g
Precast concrete = mixtures with silica fume in addition to slag and PC (reinforcing steel impacts excluded).
h
Concrete masonary, cement mortar, and precast concrete units (reinforcing steel included).

concrete properties should be defined transparently prior to LCAs.
These properties include compressive strength, unit weight, per-
meability, workability, and thermal conductivity [9,61]. Workabil-
ity and compressive strength of concrete are significantly
influenced by various mixing properties, including the water–bin-
der (cementitious material) ratio [62,63]. The variability in mixture
designs presents numerous concrete products, each of which will
result in specific environmental impacts and different properties.
These LCI results, together with the associated properties of con-
crete mixes, could be calculated, based on the mass of concrete
ingredients, mixing, and transportation, with the development of
a systematic concrete LCA tool. However, none of the studies have
provided a systematic, comprehensive approach to analyzing life-
cycle inventories of various concrete mixtures while considering
structural, durability, and other properties of these mixtures. Gen-
erally, concrete manufacturing LCI results are either in the form of
single values for a generic type of concrete mixture [57,64,65] or in
the form of a range of values by changing mass percentage of each
concrete ingredient (e.g., cement) while keeping the strength,
durability or workability properties of concrete fixed
[13,40,53,55,66]. A second group of studies generally have
included different mixture designs to formulate the effect of fly
ash, GBFS, metakaolin, and other cement substitutions in reducing
concrete’s environmental impacts. But the results are still limited
to the given concrete mixture designs with no systematic recipe
that can provide LCIs for any type of concrete mixture design. LCAs
of different concrete mixes can be calculated using a tool, which
could provide both direct and supply-chain impacts of production
stages of concrete and its materials. The integration of regional
variations and technological alternatives in the scope of material
production processes within such an LCA tool would offer a wide
range of applicability and flexibility for cement and concrete man-
ufacturers worldwide.
4.2. LCI representation in concrete production LCAs
Emissions associated with concrete batching are mostly attrib-
uted to electricity and diesel fuel use during the batching pro-
 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
cesses. Energy consumption from ready-mixed concrete plant
operations have been reported to constitute about 4% of the
embodied energy of concrete [67]. At the concrete plant, electricity
and fuel are required for mixing, conveying, pumping of concrete
ingredients and mixtures, as well as heating and cooling of the
facility. The primary energy use in the concrete plant is dependent
on the fuel mix used in electricity generation within the region.
All concrete production LCAs in this review used national aver-
age values for the included mass and energy flows. Table 4 shows
that energy consumption as well as both GHG and criteria air emis-
sions have been covered in the reviewed literature. Recent ‘‘green’’
concrete and geopolymer concrete LCAs specifically focused on the
GHG emissions aspects of manufacturing new types of concrete
mixtures [13,40,52,53]. O’Brien et al. [66] derived an equation for
quantifying the GHG emissions and embodied water in concrete
as a function of fly ash content. They also calculated the critical
fly ash transportation distance beyond which the use of fly ash
increased the embodied GHG emissions of concrete. Flower and
Sanjayan [7] focused on CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) emissions associ-
ated with concrete manufacturing, construction, as well as produc-
tion of related materials, including Portland cement, fine and
coarse aggregates, GBFS, fly ash, and admixtures in Australia.
Along with GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, VOC that
are emitted during or shortly after the concrete manufacturing
processes may need further attention, especially for concrete prod-
ucts with chemical admixtures [68]. A few concrete LCAs inte-
grated VOCs in their analysis [55,67,69]. Emissions of heavy
metals and other toxic emissions are rarely included in concrete
LCAs. Three of twelve studies [40,55,67] examined heavy metals,
dioxins and furans, and other carcinogens associated with concrete
manufacturing. Among these three studies, Prusinski et al. [55]
provided emissions data particularly for the manufacturing and
transportation of slag cement concrete. Similarly, Chen et al. [40]
offered toxic emissions associated with the production of GBFS
and fly ash as well as pig iron production and electricity generation
sectors that produce the related byproducts, e.g. SCMs, used in con-
crete. Kuhlman and Paschmann [68] analyzed explicitly toxic emis-
sions through the life-cycle stages of concrete manufacturing, use,
and end-of-life stages. Marceau et al. [67] quantified toxic emis-
sions for traditional concrete mixtures manufactured in the United
States.
Solid waste generated from concrete manufacturing was
reported in only three concrete LCA studies [40,67,69]. Solid
wastes are generated during cement production, mostly in the
form of cement kiln dust (CKD), as well as during processing of
aggregates and SCMs, and concrete batching processes. Solid waste
from concrete processing include mixer washout, sludges from set-
tling basins and ponds, and returned excess ready-mixed products,
unless reprocessed. Specifically, there is lack of data about disposal
rates of solid wastes and their constituents, which vary consider-
ably with the concrete mixture and ingredients.
In most of the concrete LCA studies, environmental impacts of
form oils are generally not considered. According to one study
[70], hydrocarbons have been detected in concrete slurry from
the rinsing of mixers, in concrete waste, and in waste from demol-
ished concretes. Such occasions can increase the risk of leaching of
hydrocarbons into the groundwater. The major source of hydrocar-
bons is estimated to be the concrete form oils. Typically, about
180 ml form oil/m3 of concrete is used. Global concrete production
is estimated to be about 25 Gt annually based on [8]. For a typical
concrete unit weight of 2370 kg/m3, this translates into roughly
1.9 Gl of form oil consumption annually, which can have signifi-
cant impacts on the environment. Further research on the quantity
and chemical composition of form oils and the associated environ-
mental impacts would be beneficial for a complete assessment of
the life-cycle impacts of concrete.
45
Chemical substances used in concrete admixtures could be a
concern when their toxicological properties are considered. When
used for ready-mixed concrete, the major concern is the waste dis-
posal from the washing of mixer trucks. These problems are gener-
ally not considered in concrete production LCIs. Concrete
admixtures have only been used large-scale in the last 40 years.
So far, we can assume that the majority of demolished concrete
has been free of admixtures. In order to be able to estimate emis-
sions from the leaching of admixtures in concrete, tests can be car-
ried out with defined admixture content. Knowledge/research
discrepancies still exist in this ingredient of concrete compared
to other constituents [71]. Only one study, by Kuhlman [68], specif-
ically focuses on leaching from concrete throughout all the life-
cycle stages, from raw materials extraction to disposal or recycling.
During processing of ready-mixed concrete, the leaching of envi-
ronmentally significant substances is of major concern. The source
of this concern is predominantly the alkalis which contain traces of
heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Cr, Hg, thallium, and Zn) as well as organic
constituents in the additive agents and additional organic com-
pounds found in concrete. However, the Kuhlman [68] study shows
that, except for Cr, leaching of other heavy metals is not to be
expected to occur due to their low solubility in the alkaline med-
ium of ready-mixed concrete. Throughout the concrete use phase,
leaching of heavy metals and organic constituents from conven-
tional concrete was also shown to be extremely low. The same
study also reported that leaching of environmentally significant
contaminants is not expected from crushed concrete at the end-
of-life stage.
In concrete LCAs, water consumption and withdrawal impacts
during cement and concrete production are generally not consid-
ered, mostly because of lack of LCI data. Electricity is used when
pumping the water prior to its use in concrete. Environmental
impacts associated with water withdrawal require a methodical
analysis (see Ref. [72] for water related considerations). Electricity
requirements for water consumption include supply, treatment
(including chemicals), and distribution processes. Among the
major LCI data sources are articles which analyze life-cycle emis-
sions from supplying water (e.g., [73]), calculate GWP for chemi-
cals used in water treatment, and assess the life-cycle water
impacts of fuels (e.g., [74]).
Overall, solid and liquid wastes data from concrete batching
plants and water consumption data during concrete and cement
production are major areas that lack LCI data. In the literature
[75–78], data availability and quality are identified as a severe
problem encountered during collection of inventory analysis data.
In most of the LCAs, data with gaps are ignored, assumed or esti-
mated [78], which then result in incomplete assessments. Filling
these gaps would require close collaboration between the industry
and academia. There is a need for more peer-reviewed, standard-
ized inventory databases for concrete and its constituents’ produc-
tion processes [13,78].
5. Discussion of results and conclusions
LCA of concrete and its raw materials is still a limited research
area despite the expanding number of studies in recent years. Envi-
ronmental impacts from the life cycle of materials other than Port-
land cement, such as admixtures and water consumption, are
rarely included in published LCIs of concrete production. Further
investigation of toxic emissions to air is needed, in addition to
comprehensive, supply-chain inclusive GHG and criteria air pollu-
tant emissions. Similarly to cement production LCIs, concrete pro-
duction LCIs also lack data reflecting variations in technological
and geographical differences. Moreover, concrete properties in
terms of strength, durability, unit weight, type of application, etc.
46 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
Table 4
Life cycle inventory (LCI) categories included in concrete LCAs.
LCI categories in concrete LCAs [13] [81] [52]
Raw materials use
Energy use * *
Water consumption
CO2/GHG emissions * *
SO2 emissions * *
NOx emissions * *
PM emissions
CO emissions
VOC emissions
Toxic emissions
Solid waste
Waste water
should be defined transparently for an equivalent, functional unit-
based comparison of concrete mixtures analyzed in different
studies.
This critical review provides insight into the life-cycle inventory
of this complex composite material. As mentioned before, three
important limitations/discrepancies are observed within the body
of literature. These three dimensions of the current LCA work along
with some brief recommendations are summarized as follows:
(1) Lack of holistic assessment of environmental impacts in current
LCAs: The body of concrete LCA literature focuses on energy
use and GHG emissions, but there are other important issues
such as VOCs, heavy metals, and other toxic emissions from
manufacturing of concrete materials, especially from admix-
tures. This argument is valid for commonly used SCMs, e.g.,
slag or fly ash with heavy metal contents. Without a holistic
assessment, it is not possible to understand the overall envi-
ronmental and human health implications of concrete and
its raw materials, or compare concrete to other building
materials.
(2) Lack of application of regional and technological variations in
current LCAs: Building material choices are made locally,
and the environmental footprint of concrete has to be deter-
mined locally, in the context of a specific application. While
many existing studies report a ‘‘national average’’ environ-
mental footprint, it may be very different for a locally spec-
ified and mixed concrete. Local supply chains with their
unique fuel and electricity mixes, use of imported materials,
unique production technology characteristics, material
properties (such as particle sizes and their effects on con-
crete performance [79]), water sources and withdrawal
technologies, should be considered in the manufacturing of
concrete in a given location [82]. Generally, concrete and
cement production LCA studies lack these regional/techno-
logical nuances in their assessment. Decision makers and
manufacturers need LCA results that can be applied or
adapted to local considerations that can vary with technol-
ogy and geography (e.g., cement kiln technology, mix of
regional energy sources used in electricity generation, fuel
mix used in the kiln, use of imported materials, use of waste
fuels, industrial by-products in cement or concrete, etc.).
(3) Neglecting of LCA parts that are deemed insignificant based on
assumptions or past studies: When considered at global vol-
umes of production, even 2% of the energy use in the con-
crete production system can add up to a significant
amount as shown with some of the estimates calculated
throughout this paper. The same argument is valid for other
environmental effects (e.g., water consumption, toxic emis-
sions) within the context of global production. Therefore,
[53] [54] [40] [66] [7] [67] [57] [55] [69]
* * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * *
* * * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
understanding what is left out is important (even though
insignificant on a per unit weight/volume of production
basis) as it may add up to significant impacts at macroscales.
In addition to these three dimensions of the current LCA
research, allocation is of particular importance when fly ash, gran-
ulated blast furnace slag and other industrial byproducts are
involved in concrete production. Their allocated environmental
impacts require quantitative analysis. Influence of different alloca-
tion procedures on environmental impacts such as no allocation,
allocation by mass, and allocation by economic value should be
evaluated by using a sensitivity analysis.
As in the case of most concrete LCAs reviewed, almost all LCI
results are generalized to a single product or a small range of prod-
ucts for an entire country. Condensing the entire universe of con-
crete mixtures down to just a couple of product mixtures (e.g.,
high, moderate and low strength, plain or reinforced, standard
Portland cement concrete or concrete with SCMs), as well as esti-
mating life-cycle components based on limited or missing data
inevitably involves errors that are difficult to ascertain in a precise
way. This brings in the need for future work to incorporate uncer-
tainty and sensitivity analysis as part of concrete production LCAs.
The standard approach to characterizing data-related uncertainty
in process LCI is sensitivity analysis [80], ‘‘. . .whereby model
results are calculated for a range of parameter values to determine
the magnitude of the effect on the overall result. Sensitivity analy-
sis is generally performed to identify parameters that have larger
effect on LCA results. In this way, major variables which deserve
the most attention are identified. It is done by allowing each of
the variables to change within a range of values, while holding
all the other variables constant.’’ Ultimately, the outcome of sensi-
tivity analysis will lead to an understanding of how different
assumptions and parameters can change the results of an LCA for
varying technologies, location, etc. The comparison of various con-
crete manufacturing scenarios is probably the most useful and
meaningful part of the concrete LCA research. Here the goal is to
emphasize the significance of the chosen parameters, which are
known to have strong influence on the final results based on the
literature, on the LCA results of different concrete mixtures.
All in all, development of a systematic and flexible LCA frame-
work that can be applicable to different variations of concrete mix-
tures is essential. The new framework should quantify the
relationship between mechanical (strength) and material properties
(such as permeability, workability, and chlorine penetration) of con-
crete and how environmental inventories (not only GHG emissions
but also other air pollutants, solid waste and wastewater from con-
crete production) are affected by the variations in these properties.
Concrete and buildings LCA research will continue as long as
there is demand for greener products and systems. Starting with
 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
cement manufacturing, although energy consumption, GHG emis-
sions and criteria air pollutants are well-covered, there is still need
for research on impacts from toxic emissions, water effluents, solid
waste (e.g., cement kiln dust), and water consumption. These envi-
ronmental factors are generally overlooked either because of con-
straints in expertise, time, and data, or assumption about lack of
significance (without a thorough analysis). These limitations pre-
clude robust environmental analysis of cement production across
the full range of energy and emissions issues that should be consid-
ered. This problem can be overcome by working together with
cement manufacturers who can provide the necessary testing data
on these properties, such as chemical analysis of cement raw mate-
rials that can give an insight on heavy metal content of certain
materials. Moreover, there is still need for incorporating a wider
range of technology options applied in cement manufacturing pro-
cesses, as well as cement plant operation details in current LCAs.
Extensive research and market analysis will be needed for the
development/improvement of chemical admixtures production
processes and their associated life-cycle inventory. There is a need
for reliable data sources for understanding admixture production
processes and related environmental impacts.
Another research area that requires attention is the use of sec-
ondary materials in cement and concrete, such as SCMs, recycled
concrete, and manufacturing using alternative fuels. There is lim-
ited amount of research in LCAs of alternative materials, which
requires extensive material test results regarding their chemical
and mineral compositions, processing techniques, as well as their
regulatory and market requirements.
Water consumption uncertainty is evident in all life-cycle
phases of materials since regional withdrawals and consumption
data are missing.
The functional unit choice in concrete LCAs is seen as one of the
most influential factors in interpretation of LCA results. It prefera-
bly (but very rarely in the literature) includes all relevant concrete
aspects, such as strength, durability, and unit weight. Besides con-
crete material aspects, LCA system boundary (cradle to gate, gate
to gate, and cradle to grave) selection is also important. For dura-
bility properties and carbon uptake by concrete surface, building
use, maintenance, and end-of-life phases should be considered
within the system boundary and integrated in future building
LCA analyses. To accomplish all these missing or incomplete fac-
tors, involvement of a diverse group of parties, such as government
agencies, manufacturers and industry organizations, academic
institutions, and designers, is necessary for the development of a
comprehensive and robust framework that allows for LCA of con-
crete production.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.
2014.03.005.
References
[1] Junnila S, Horvath A. Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J
Infrastructure Syst 2003;9:157–66.
[2] Damtoft JS, Lukasik J, Herfort D, Sorrentino D, Gartner EM. Sustainable
development and climate change initiatives. Cem Concr Res 2008:115–27.
[3] Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL. Example of a hybrid life-cycle
assessment of construction processes. J Infrastructure Syst 2006;12:207–15.
[4] Vieira PS, Horvath A. Assessing the end-of-life impacts of buildings. Environ Sci
Technol 2008;42:4663–9.
[5] DOE, Buildings Energy Data Book. Chapter:1 Buildings Sector. 1.1 Buildings
Sector Energy Consumption. 1.1.1 U.S. Residential and Commercial Buildings
Total Primary Energy Consumption. In: U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] –
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 2011.
[6] Lippiatt BC. BEES 4.0 – Building for environmental and economic sustainability
technical manual and user guide. Gaithersburg MD: National Institute of
47
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department Of Commerce. Building and Fire
Research Laboratory; 2007.
[7] Flower D, Sanjayan JG. Green house gas emissions due to concrete
manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2007;12:282–8.
[8] IEA, WBCSD. Cement Technology Roadmap 2009 – Carbon emissions
reductions up to 2050. Paris, France: International Energy Agency [IEA],
World Business Council for Sustainable Development [WBCSD]; 2009.
[9] Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM. Concrete: microstructure, properties, and materials.
3rd. ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2006.
[10] USGS. Cement – mineral commodity summaries. Cement statistics and
information – annual publications, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey; 2011.
[11] Mehta PK, Walters M. The roadmap to a sustainable concrete construction
industry. Construct Specifier 2008;61:48–57.
[12] Cement Industry Energy and CO2 Performance. Getting the Numbers Right.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Washington DC: The
Cement Sustainability Initiative; 2009.
[13] Van den Heede P, De Belie N. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34:431–42.
[14] ISO. Environmental management – life cycle assessment: principles and
framework. ISO 14040:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization: 2006a.
[15] ISO, Environmental management – life cycle assessment: requirements and
guidelines. ISO 14044:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization; 2006b.
[16] Lenzen M. Errors in conventional and input–output—based life-cycle
inventories. J Ind Ecol 2000;4:127–48.
[17] Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, et al. System
boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ
Sci Technol 2004;38:657–64.
[18] Bhatty JI, Miller FM, Kosmatka SH. Innovations in portland cement
manufacturing. Portland Cement Association [PCA]; 2004.
[19] CSI. CO2 accounting and reporting standard for the cement industry. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Cement
Sustainability Initiative; 2005.
[20] Josa A, Aguado A, Cardim A, Byars E. Comparative analysis of the life cycle
impact assessment of available cement inventories in the EU. Cem Concr Res
2007;37:781–8.
[21] Josa A, Aguado A, Heino A, Byars E, Cardim A. Comparative analysis of available
life cycle inventories of cement in the EU. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:1313–20.
[22] Marceau ML, Nisbet MA, VanGeem MG. Life cycle inventory of portland
cement manufacture. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association [PCA]; 2006.
[23] Athena, cement and structural concrete products: life cycle inventory update
#2. Ottawa, Canada: Athena-Sustainable Materials Institute; 2005. p. 185.
[24] Boesch ME, Koehler A, Hellweg S. Model for cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of clinker production. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:7578–83.
[25] Boesch ME, Hellweg S. Identifying improvement potentials in cement
production with life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 2010.
[26] Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative
technologies. J Clean Prod 2009;17:668–75.
[27] van Oss HG. Background facts and issues concerning cement and cement data,
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]; 2005.
[28] Valderrama C, Granados R, Cortina JL, Gasol CM, Guillem M, Josa A.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a
life-cycle assessment study. J Clean Prod 2012;25:60–7.
[29] IPPC. Draft reference document on best available techniques in the cement,
lime and magnesium oxide manufacturing industries. Seville, Spain: European
Commission Directorate-General JRC Joint Research Centre Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies. Competitiveness and Sustainability Unit.
European Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Bureau; 2009.
[30] Boesch ME, Hellweg S. Identifying improvement potentials in cement
production with life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:9143–9.
[31] E.R.D. PCA, U.S. and canadian portland cement industry: plant information
summary. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association [PCA] – Economic Research
Department; 2008.
[32] Worrell E, Galitsky C. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving
opportunities for cement making – an ENERGY STARÒ guide for energy and
plant managers. Berkeley, CA: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory [LBNL]; 2008.
[33] LBNL/ERI. Guidebook for using the tool BEST cement: benchmarking and
energy savings tool for the cement industry. Berkeley, CA and Beijing, China:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) – Environmental and Energy
Technologies Division and China Energy Research Institute (ERI); 2008.
[34] Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A. Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability
evaluation. J Clean Prod 2010;18:478–85.
[35] Navia R, Rivela B, Lorber KE, Méndez R. Recycling contaminated soil as
alternative raw material in cement facilities: life cycle assessment. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2006;48:339–56.
[36] van Oss H. Cement – mineral commodity summaries. Cement Statistics and
Information – Annual Publications, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey; 2010.
[37] Gäbel K, Tillman AM. Simulating operational alternatives for future cement
production. J Clean Prod 2005;13:1246–57.
48 A. Petek Gursel et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 51 (2014) 38–48
[38] USGS. Mineral Commodity Summaries – Cement. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior; 2011.
[39] Dunlap R. Life cycle inventory of slag cement manufacturing process: s;
2003. Skokie, Illinois: Construction Technology Laboratories; 2003. 13 pp.
[40] Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A, Ventura A. LCA allocation procedure
used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral
additions in concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54:1231–40.
[41] NREL. U.S. Life-cycle inventory database: Portland cement, at plant (data
module category: nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing). National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2011.
[42] Athena. Athena Institute Website. ATHENAÒ – Athena Sustainable Materials
Institute; 2010.
[43] Athena. Cement and structural concrete products: life cycle inventory update.
Ottawa, Canada: Venta, Glaser and Associates; 1999.
[44] CEMBUREAU. Best available techniques for the cement industry. Brussels,
Belgium: The European Cement Association [CEMBUREAU]; 1999a.
[45] Richards J, Goshaw D, Holder T. Air emissions data summary for Portland
cement Pyroprocessing operations. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association
[PCA]; 2008.
[46] Richards J, Goshaw D, Holder T. Air emissions data summary for Portland
cement pyroprocessing operations firing tire-derived fuels. Skokie, IL: Portland
Cement Association [PCA]; 2008.
[47] Boughton B. Evaluation of shredder residue as cement manufacturing
feedstock. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007;51:621–42.
[48] Greer WL, Hawkins GJ. A qualitative examination of the control of major
gaseous pollutants generated in Portland cement kilns. Portland Cement
Association [PCA]; 2004.
[49] CEMBUREAU. Alternative fuels in cement manufacture: technical and
environmental review. Brussels, Belgium: The European Cement Association
[CEMBUREAU]; 1997.
[50] CEMBUREAU. Environmental benefits of using alternative fuels in cement
production: a life-cycle approach. Brussels, Belgium: The European Cement
Association [CEMBUREAU]; 1999b.
[51] EPA, Materials characterization paper: scrap tires. Support of the final
rulemaking: identification of nonhazardous secondary materials that are
solid waste scrap tires. US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]; 2011.
[52] McLellan BC, Williams RP, Lay J, van Riessen A, Corder GD. Costs and carbon
emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. J
Clean Prod 2011;19:1080–90.
[53] Habert G, d’Espinose de Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N. An environmental evaluation
of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J
Clean Prod 2011;19:1229–38.
[54] Zabalza Bribián I, Valero Capilla A, Aranda Usón A. Life cycle assessment of
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts
and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ
2011;46:1133–40.
[55] Prusinski JR, Marceau ML, VanGeem MG. Life cycle inventory of slag cement
concrete. in: CANMET/ACI, editor. Eighth CANMET/ACI International
Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete –
Supplemental Papers. Farmington Hills, MI; 2004.
[56] Gursel AP. Life-Cycle Assessment of Concrete: Decision-Support Tool and Case
Study Application (in draft). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley; 2013.
p. 497.
[57] Sjunnesson J. Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete. Lund University, Lund,
Sweden: Department of Technology and Society, Environmental and Energy
Systems Studies; 2005.
[58] SETAC. Guidelines for life cycle assessment – a code of practice. Pensacola, FL:
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry [SETAC]; 1993.
[59] EFCA. EFCA Environmental Product Declarations, (EPD). European Federation
of Concrete Admixtures Associations; 2006.
[60] FHWA. Infrastructure Materials Group – Admixtures. United States
Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration; 2012.
[61] Purnell P, Black L. Embodied carbon dioxide in concrete: variation with
common mix design parameters. Cem Concr Res 2012;42:874–7.
[62] Yang K-H, Hwang H-Z, Lee S. Effects of water-binder ratio and fine aggregate–
total aggregate ratio on the properties of Hwangtoh-based alkali-activated
concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2010;22:887–96.
[63] ACI. Cementitious Materials for Concrete. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute; 2001.
[64] Hacker JN, De Saulles TP, Minson AJ, Holmes MJ. Embodied and operational
carbon dioxide emissions from housing: a case study on the effects of thermal
mass and climate change. Energy Build 2008;40:375–84.
[65] Harrison GP, Maclean EJ, Karamanlis S, Ochoa LF. Life cycle assessment of the
transmission network in Great Britain. Energy Policy 2010;38:3622–31.
[66] O’Brien K, Ménaché J, O’Moore L. Impact of fly ash content and fly ash
transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption in concrete. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14:621–9.
[67] Marceau ML, Nisbet MA, VanGeem MG. Life Cycle Inventory of Portland
Cement Concrete. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association [PCA]; 2007.
[68] Kuhlman K, Paschmann H. Environmental compatibility of concrete from the
starting of materials through to its re-utilization. Concr Precast Plant Technol
1996;1:112–21.
[69] Jaques R. Environmental impacts associated with New Zealand concrete
manufacture – preliminary study; 2001.
[70] Glavind M. Sustainability of cement, concrete and cement replacement
materials in construction. In: Khatib JM, editor. Sustainability of construction
materials. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2009. p. 120–47.
[71] Maeder U, Gaelli R, Ochs M. The impact of concrete admixtures on the
environment. Schlieren, Swithzerland: Construction Chemicals, SIKA
Technolgies AG, BMG Engineering AG; 2004.
[72] Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS, Linsey KS, Lovelace JK, Maupin MA. Estimated
use of water in the United States in 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological
Survey; 2009.
[73] Stokes JR, Horvath A. Energy and air emission effects of water supply. Environ
Sci Technol 2009;43:2680–7.
[74] Scown CD, Horvath A, McKone TE. Water footprint of U.S. transportation fuels.
Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:2451–553.
[75] Ayres RU. Life cycle analysis: a critique. Resour Conserv Recycl
1995;14:199–223.
[76] Owens JW. Life-cycle assessment: constraints on moving from inventory to
impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 1997;1:37–49.
[77] Owens JW. Life-cycle assessment in relation to risk assessment: an evolving
perspective. Risk Anal 1997;17:359–65.
[78] Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B. A survey of unresolved problems in life
cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13:374–88.
[79] Jayapalan AR, Lee BY, Kurtis KE. Can nanotechnology be’’green’’? Comparing
efficacy of nano and microparticles in cementitious materials. Cem Concr
Compos 2013;36:16–24.
[80] ISO. Environmental management – life cycle assessment: goal and scope
definition and inventory analysis. ISO 14041:1998. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization; 1998.
[81] Blengini GA, Garbarino E, Šolar S, Shields DJ, Hámor T, Vinai R, et al. Life cycle
assessment guidelines for the sustainable production and recycling of
aggregates: the sustainable aggregates resource management project
(SARMa). J Clean Prod 2012;27:177–81.
[82] Cicas G, Hendrickson CT, Horvath A, Matthews HS. A regional version of a U.S.
economic input–output life-cycle assessment model. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2007;12:365–72.