Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 51:165 | Cite as

Sustainability-based decision support framework for choosing concrete mixture proportions

  • Ravindra Gettu
  • Radhakrishna G. Pillai
  • Manu Santhanam
  • Anusha S. Basavaraj
  • Sundar Rathnarajan
  • B. S. Dhanya
50 years of Materials and Structures
  • 86 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 50 years of Materials and Structures

Abstract

A framework is proposed, along with two objective indices, for the selection of concrete mixture proportions based on sustainability criteria. The indices combine energy demand and long-term strength as energy intensity, and carbon emissions and durability parameters as A-indices, which represent the apathy toward these essential features of sustainability. The decision support framework is demonstrated by considering a set of 30 concretes with different binders, including ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash, slag and limestone calcined clay cement (LC3). In addition to the experimental data on compressive strength, chloride diffusion and carbonation, life cycle assessment has been performed for the concretes considering typical situations in South India. The most sustainable of the concretes studied here, for service life limited by chloride ingress, are those with LC3, OPC replaced by 50% slag, and ternary blends with 20% each of slag and fly ash. In the case of applications where carbonation is critical, the appropriate concretes are those with OPC replaced by 15–30% slag or 15% fly ash, or with ternary blends having 20% slag and 20% Class F fly ash.

Keywords

Concrete Sustainability CO2 emissions Energy demand Chloride diffusion Carbonation Life cycle assessment Supplementary cementitious materials Service life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for partial funding from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation through the project on Low Carbon Cement (Ref. 7F-0857.01.02) with the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. The authors are grateful to Sripriya Rengaraju (IIT Madras) for providing the calculations of service life and Yuvaraj Dhandapani (IIT Madras) for fruitful discussions. The tests were performed in the Construction Materials Laboratories of IIT Madras, including the IIT Madras-Lafarge Laboratory for Durability and Long-term Performance of Concrete.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Mehta PK (1999) Advancements in concrete technology. Concr Int 21(6):69–76MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrew RM (2018) Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst Sci Data 10:195–217.  https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-195-2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mehta PK (2001) Reducing the environmental impact of concrete. Concr Int 23(10):61–66Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Habert G, Roussel N (2009) Study of two concrete mix design strategies to reach carbon mitigation objectives. Cem Concr Compos 31:397–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller SA, Horvath A, Monteiro PJM (2106) Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO2 emissions from production of concrete by over 20%. Environ Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van den Heede P, De Belie N (2012) Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations. Cem Concr Compos 34(4):431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Müller HS, Haist M, Vogel M (2014) Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete and concrete structures considering their environmental impact, performance and life time. Constr Build Mater 67:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muigai R, Alexander M, Moyo P (2016) A novel framework towards the design of more sustainable concrete infrastructure. Mater Struct 49:1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panesar DK, Seto KE, Churchill CJ (2017) Impact of the selection unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete. Int J Life-cycle Assess 22:1969–1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller SA, Horvath A, Monteiro PJM, Ostertag CP (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions from concrete can be reduced by using mix proportions, geometric aspects, and age as design factors. Environ Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-5119326/10/11/114017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO, Environmental management. Life cycle assessment: Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006, International Organisation for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO, Environmental management. Life cycle assessment: Requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006, International Organisation for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damineli BL, Kemeid FM, Aguiar PS, John VM (2010) Measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use. Cement Concr Compos 32:555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gettu R, Pillai RG, Meena J, Basavaraj AS, Santhanam M, Dhanya BS (2018) Considerations of sustainability in the mixture proportioning of concrete for strength and durability, durability and sustainability of concrete structures (DSCS-2018). In: Falikman V, Realfonzo R, Coppola L, Hàjek P, Riva P (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop (Moscow, Russia), SP-326, ISBN: 9781641950220, American Concrete Institute, pp 5.1–5.10Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Long G, Gao Y, Xie Y (2015) Designing more sustainable and greener self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 84:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van den Heede P (2014) Durability and sustainability of concrete with high volumes of fly ash, Doctoral thesis, Ghent University, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller SA, Monteiro PJM, Ostertag CP, Horvath A (2016) Concrete mixture proportioning for desired strength and reduced global warming potential. Constr Build Mater 128:410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bishnoi S, Maity S, Mallik A, Joseph S, Krishnan S (2014) Pilot scale manufacture of limestone calcined clay cement: the Indian experience. Indian Concr J 88(7):22–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krishnan S, Emmanuel AC, Shah V, Parashar A, Mishra G, Maity S, Bishnoi S (2018) Industrial production of limestone calcined clay cement: experience and insights. Green Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrma.18.00003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dhandapani Y, Sakthivel T, Santhanam M, Gettu R, Pillai RG (2018) Mechanical properties and durability performance of concretes with limestone calcined clay cement (LC3). Cem Concr Res 107:136–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tang L, Nilsson LO (1992) Rapid determination of chloride diffusivity in concrete by applying an electrical field. ACI Mater J 89(1):49–53Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    NT BUILD 492 (1992) Concrete, mortar and cement- based repair materials: chloride migration coefficient from non-steady-state migration experiments. Nordtest, Finland, p 8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASTM C1156-11a (2016) Standard test method for determining the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient of cementitious mixtures by bulk diffusion. Annual book of ASTM standards, West Conshohocken, p 7Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dhanya BS (2015) Study of the influence of supplementary cementitious materials on selected durability parameters of Concrete. Doctoral Thesis, IIT Madras, Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    fib (2006) Model code for service life design (2006), Bulletin 34, ISBN 978-2-88394-074-1, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ho DWS, Lewis RK (1987) Carbonation of concrete and its prediction. Cem Concr Res 17:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanjuan MA, Andrade C, Cheyrezy M (2003) Concrete carbonation tests in natural and accelerated conditions. Adv Cem Res 15(4):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khunthongkeaw J, Tangtermsirikul S, Leelawat T (2006) A study on carbonation depth prediction for flyash concrete. Constr Build Mater 20:744–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roy SK, Northwood DO, Poh KB (1996) Effect of plastering on the carbonation of a 19 year old reinforced concrete building. Constr Build Mater 10(4):267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Duran-Herrera A, Mendoza-Rangel JM, De Los Santos EU, Vazquez F, Valdez P, Bentz DP (2015) Accelerated and natural carbonation of concretes with internal curing and shrinkage/viscosity modifiers. Mater Struct 48(4):1207–1214.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0226-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tutti K (1982) Corrosion of steel in concrete, Doctoral thesis, Lund University, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm. portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/4709458/3173290.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2018Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rathnarajan S, Vaddey P, Pillai RG, Gettu R, Santhanam M (2017) Modelling carbonation rates in concretes with similar strength and with and without slag, advances in construction materials and systems. In: Santhanam M, Gettu R, Pillai RG, Nayar SK (eds) Proceedings international conference (Chennai, India), PRO 118, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Paris. ISBN: 978-2-35158-196-4, vol 4, pp 253–260Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gettu R, Patel A, Rathi V, Prakasan S, Basavaraj AS, Palaniappan S, Maity S (2019) Influence of supplementary cementitious materials on the sustainability parameters of cements and concretes in the Indian context. Mater StructGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gettu R, Patel A, Rathi V, Prakasan S, Basavaraj AS, Maity S (2016) Sustainability assessment of cements and concretes in the indian context: influence of supplementary cementitious materials. In: Ghafoori N, Claisse P, Ganjian E, Naik TR (eds) Proceedings fourth international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies (Las Vegas, USA), paper S299, pp 1142–1150Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    PRé Consultants, SimaPro LCA software, version 8.0.5.13, www.presustainability.com/simapro
  36. 36.
    Boesch ME, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Model for cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of clinker production. Environ Sci Technol 43:7578–7583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boesch ME, Hellweg S (2010) Identifying improvement potentials in cement production with life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 44:9143–9149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ravindra Gettu
    • 1
  • Radhakrishna G. Pillai
    • 1
  • Manu Santhanam
    • 1
  • Anusha S. Basavaraj
    • 1
  • Sundar Rathnarajan
    • 1
  • B. S. Dhanya
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations