A Comparative Study of Energy Consumption, Global Warming Potential and Impact Categories of Four Different Blends of Concrete Using Cradle to Gate Life Cycle Assessment

Q4 Mathematics
Trupti Parmar, Siddharth Shah
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Energy Consumption, Global Warming Potential and Impact Categories of Four Different Blends of Concrete Using Cradle to Gate Life Cycle Assessment","authors":"Trupti Parmar, Siddharth Shah","doi":"10.17762/msea.v71i4.1954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study is a comparison of four different concrete mixes using ‘cradle to gate’ life cycle assessment. The aim is to obtain environmental impact, focusing mainly on criteria pollutants (CO, lead (Pb), PM10, NOx, SO2, and volatile organic compounds), global warming potential, energy consumption, and impact categories like human health, ecosystem quality, and resources. Each concrete mix design has different binder combination. CONOPC contains ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as a binder. CONPPC has 27% Fly ash + 73% OPC while CON PSC has 47% ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) + 53% OPC as a binder. CONGP has 100% fly ash as a binder without the use of cement. The comparative results show that all three concrete mixes, i.e., CONPPC, CONPSC, and CONGP, performed better than CONOPC in terms of harmful gas emissions, energy use, and GWP. Further, with respect to three impact categories, CONOPC has the highest score with 11.06 pt and CONGP has the lowest score with 1.68 pt. CONPPC shows a reduction by almost 30% with a value of 7.77 pt whilst CONPSC shows an even further reduction by 46% with a value of 5.95 pt compared to CONOPC. It is recommended that OPC cement should be replaced by either Portland slag cement (PSC) or Portland pozzolana cement (PPC) in concrete production. Geopolymer concrete is also a good substitute for traditional concrete. Recommendations from this work would assist concrete producers to choose the best available options without compromising the performance of concrete while reducing the negative environmental impact during production.","PeriodicalId":37943,"journal":{"name":"Philippine Statistician","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philippine Statistician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17762/msea.v71i4.1954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study is a comparison of four different concrete mixes using ‘cradle to gate’ life cycle assessment. The aim is to obtain environmental impact, focusing mainly on criteria pollutants (CO, lead (Pb), PM10, NOx, SO2, and volatile organic compounds), global warming potential, energy consumption, and impact categories like human health, ecosystem quality, and resources. Each concrete mix design has different binder combination. CONOPC contains ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as a binder. CONPPC has 27% Fly ash + 73% OPC while CON PSC has 47% ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) + 53% OPC as a binder. CONGP has 100% fly ash as a binder without the use of cement. The comparative results show that all three concrete mixes, i.e., CONPPC, CONPSC, and CONGP, performed better than CONOPC in terms of harmful gas emissions, energy use, and GWP. Further, with respect to three impact categories, CONOPC has the highest score with 11.06 pt and CONGP has the lowest score with 1.68 pt. CONPPC shows a reduction by almost 30% with a value of 7.77 pt whilst CONPSC shows an even further reduction by 46% with a value of 5.95 pt compared to CONOPC. It is recommended that OPC cement should be replaced by either Portland slag cement (PSC) or Portland pozzolana cement (PPC) in concrete production. Geopolymer concrete is also a good substitute for traditional concrete. Recommendations from this work would assist concrete producers to choose the best available options without compromising the performance of concrete while reducing the negative environmental impact during production.
四种不同掺合料混凝土的能耗、全球变暖潜力和影响类别的比较研究——从摇篮到闸门的生命周期评估
本研究使用“从摇篮到大门”的生命周期评估对四种不同的混凝土混合料进行了比较。其目的是获得环境影响,主要关注标准污染物(CO、铅(Pb)、PM10、NOx、SO2和挥发性有机化合物)、全球变暖潜力、能源消耗以及人类健康、生态系统质量和资源等影响类别。每种混凝土配合比设计都有不同的粘结剂组合。CONOPC含有普通硅酸盐水泥(OPC)作为粘合剂。CONPPC具有27%的飞灰+73%的OPC,而CONPSC具有47%的磨细高炉矿渣(GGBS)+53%的OPC作为粘结剂。CONGP采用100%粉煤灰作为粘合剂,不使用水泥。比较结果表明,在有害气体排放、能源使用和全球升温潜能值方面,所有三种混凝土混合物,即CONPPC、CONPSC和CONGP,都比CONOPC表现更好。此外,就三个影响类别而言,CONOPC的得分最高,为11.06分,CONGP的得分最低,为1.68分。与CONOPC相比,CONPPC的得分下降了近30%,为7.77分,而CONPSC的得分进一步下降了46%,为5.95分。建议在混凝土生产中用矿渣硅酸盐水泥(PSC)或火山灰硅酸盐水泥(PPC)代替OPC水泥。地质聚合物混凝土也是传统混凝土的良好替代品。这项工作的建议将有助于混凝土生产商在不影响混凝土性能的情况下选择最佳可用方案,同时减少生产过程中对环境的负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Philippine Statistician
Philippine Statistician Mathematics-Statistics and Probability
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
92
期刊介绍: The Journal aims to provide a media for the dissemination of research by statisticians and researchers using statistical method in resolving their research problems. While a broad spectrum of topics will be entertained, those with original contribution to the statistical science or those that illustrates novel applications of statistics in solving real-life problems will be prioritized. The scope includes, but is not limited to the following topics:  Official Statistics  Computational Statistics  Simulation Studies  Mathematical Statistics  Survey Sampling  Statistics Education  Time Series Analysis  Biostatistics  Nonparametric Methods  Experimental Designs and Analysis  Econometric Theory and Applications  Other Applications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信