Eco-efficient design indices for reinforced concrete members


The production of cement, the primary binder in concrete, is resulting in notable environmental impacts worldwide. It has been argued that efficient use of cement in concrete and the efficient design of concrete components can be a means for reducing the impacts from these materials by lowering overall demand. In systems where concrete is the only material used, efficient design can often be related to requisite material properties; however, the concept of efficient use becomes more complex in multi-material systems, such as steel reinforced concrete. In this work, steps towards developing engineered methods for efficient design of reinforced concrete members are taken by developing equations to relate environmental impacts to the volume of concrete and volume of steel required. This work focuses on mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but the equations developed can be extended to other environmental impacts as well. The results indicate that different member designs require different concrete mixtures and reinforcement cross-sectional areas to reduce GHG emissions; driving down cement content may not be the sole parameter for reducing GHG emissions from concrete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    Monteiro PJM, Miller SA, Horvath A (2017) Towards sustainable concrete. Nat Mater 16(7):698–699

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Miller SA, Horvath A, Monteiro PJM (2018) Impacts of booming concrete production on water resources worldwide. Nat Sustain 1(1):69–76

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Miller SA, Horvath A, Monteiro PJM (2016) Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%. Environ Res Lett 11:074029

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kapur A, Keoleian G, Kendall A, Kesler SE (2008) Dynamic modeling of in-use cement stocks in the United States. J Ind Ecol 12(4):539–556

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Davis SJ, Lewis NS, Shaner M, Aggarwal S, Arent D, Azevedo IL, Benson SM, Bradley T, Brouwer J, Chiang Y-M, Clack CTM, Cohen A, Doig S, Edmonds J, Fennell P, Field CB, Hannegan B, Hodge B-M, Hoffert MI, Ingersoll E, Jaramillo P, Lackner KS, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea M, Ogden J, Peterson PF, Sanchez DL, Sperling D, Stagner J, Trancik JE, Yang C-J, Caldeira K (2018) Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360(6396):eaas9793

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    IEA (2018) Technology roadmap: low-carbon transition in the cement industry. International Energy Agency (IEA) and World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). Paris, France

  7. 7.

    Lothenbach B, Scrivener K, Hooton RD (2011) Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 41(12):1244–1256

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Habert G, Roussel N (2009) Study of two concrete mix-design strategies to reach carbon mitigation objectives. Cem Concr Compos 31(6):397–402

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    DeRousseau MA, Kasprzyk JR, Srubar WV (2018) Computational design optimization of concrete mixtures: a review. Cem Concr Res 109:42–53

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fan C, Miller SA (2018) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions for prescribed concrete compressive strength. Constr Build Mater 167:918–928

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Fantilli AP, Chiaia B (2013) Eco-mechanical performances of cement-based materials: an application to self-consolidating concrete. Constr Build Mater 40:189–196

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Habert G, Arribe D, Dehove T, Espinasse L, Le Roy R (2012) Reducing environmental impact by increasing the strength of concrete: quantification of the improvement to concrete bridges. J Clean Prod 35:250–262

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chiaia B, Fantilli AP, Guerini A, Volpatti G, Zampini D (2014) Eco-mechanical index for structural concrete. Constr Build Mater 67:386–392

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Damineli BL, Kemeid FM, Aguiar PS, John VM (2010) Measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use. Cem Concr Compos 32(8):555–562

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Miller SA, Monteiro PJM, Ostertag CP, Horvath A (2016) Comparison indices for design and proportioning of concrete mixtures taking environmental impacts into account. Cem Concr Compos 68:131–143

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Purnell P, Black L (2012) Embodied carbon dioxide in concrete: variation with common mix design parameters. Cem Concr Res 42(6):874–877

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Aguado A, Caño AD, de la Cruz MP, Gómez D, Josa A (2012) Sustainability assessment of concrete structures within the spanish structural concrete code. J Constr Eng Manag 138(2):268–276

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Oner A, Akyuz S (2007) An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete. Cem Concr Compos 29(6):505–514

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bilim C, Atiş CD, Tanyildizi H, Karahan O (2009) Predicting the compressive strength of ground granulated blast furnace slag concrete using artificial neural network. Adv Eng Softw 40(5):334–340

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Oner A, Akyuz S, Yildiz R (2005) An experimental study on strength development of concrete containing fly ash and optimum usage of fly ash in concrete. Cem Concr Res 35(6):1165–1171

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Siddique R (2004) Performance characteristics of high-volume Class F fly ash concrete. Cem Concr Res 34(3):487–493

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Poon CS, Lam L, Wong YL (2000) A study on high strength concrete prepared with large volumes of low calcium fly ash. Cem Concr Res 30(3):447–455

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lam L, Wong YL, Poon CS (1998) Effect of fly ash and silica fume on compressive and fracture behaviors of concrete. Cem Concr Res 28(2):271–283

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ramezanianpour AA, Malhotra VM (1995) Effect of curing on the compressive strength, resistance to chloride-ion penetration and porosity of concretes incorporating slag, fly ash or silica fume. Cem Concr Compos 17(2):125–133

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Huang C-H, Lin S-K, Chang C-S, Chen H-J (2013) Mix proportions and mechanical properties of concrete containing very high-volume of Class F fly ash. Constr Build Mater 46:71–78

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Chindaprasirt P, Homwuttiwong S, Jaturapitakkul C (2007) Strength and water permeability of concrete containing palm oil fuel ash and rice husk–bark ash. Constr Build Mater 21(7):1492–1499

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Behnood A, Ziari H (2008) Effects of silica fume addition and water to cement ratio on the properties of high-strength concrete after exposure to high temperatures. Cem Concr Compos 30(2):106–112

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Youm K-S, Moon J, Cho J-Y, Kim JJ (2016) Experimental study on strength and durability of lightweight aggregate concrete containing silica fume. Constr Build Mater 114:517–527

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Liu R, Durham S, Rens K, Ramaswami A (2012) Optimization of cementitious material content for sustainable concrete mixtures. J Mater Civ Eng 24(6):745–753

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Celik K, Meral C, Gursel AP, Mehta PK, Horvath A, Monteiro PJM (2015) Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder. Cem Concr Compos 56:59–72

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Meddah MS (2015) Durability performance and engineering properties of shale and volcanic ashes concretes. Constr Build Mater 79:73–82

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Meddah MS, Lmbachiya MC, Dhir RK (2014) Potential use of binary and composite limestone cements in concrete production. Constr Build Mater 58:193–205

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hedegaard SE, Hansen TC (1992) Modified water/cement ratio law for compressive strength of fly ash concretes. Mater Struct 25(5):273–283

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Felekoğlu B, Türkel S, Baradan B (2007) Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Build Environ 42(4):1795–1802

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Vejmelková E, Pavlíková M, Keršner Z, Rovnaníková P, Ondráček M, Sedlmajer M, Černý R (2009) High performance concrete containing lower slag amount: a complex view of mechanical and durability properties. Constr Build Mater 23(6):2237–2245

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Haque MN, Kayali O (1998) Properties of high-strength concrete using a fine fly ash. Cem Concr Res 28(10):1445–1452

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Wu K-R, Chen B, Yao W, Zhang D (2001) Effect of coarse aggregate type on mechanical properties of high-performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 31(10):1421–1425

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Yi S-T, Yang E-I, Choi J-C (2006) Effect of specimen sizes, specimen shapes, and placement directions on compressive strength of concrete. Nucl Eng Des 236(2):115–127

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Gursel AP, Horvath A (2012) GreenConcrete LCA Webtool. [cited 2014 November 13].

  40. 40.

    Marceau ML, Nisbet MA, VanGeem MG (2006) Life cycle inventory of Portland cement manufacture. Portland Cement Association, Skokie

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Miller SA (2018) Supplementary cementitious materials to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from concrete: can there be too much of a good thing? J Clean Prod 178:587–598

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Commission E (2017) Joint research centre. [cited 2018 April 1].

  43. 43.

    ACI (2011) 318-11: Building code requirements for structural concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ashby MF (2000) Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection. Acta Mater 48(1):359–369

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    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 10(11):114017

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Mueller CT (2016) 3D printed structures: challenges and opportunities. Struct Mag January:54–55

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Fantilli AP, Tondolo F, Chiaia B, Habert G (2019) Designing reinforced concrete beams containing supplementary cementitious materials. Materials 12(8):1248

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Hasanbeigi A, Arens M, Cardenas JCR, Price L, Triolo R (2016) Comparison of carbon dioxide emissions intensity of steel production in China, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. Resour Conserv Recycl 113:127–139

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    USGCRP (2018) Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States. In: Reidmiller, Avery CW, Easterling, Kunkel KE, Lewis KLM, Maycock TK, Stewart BC (eds) Fourth national climate assessment, Volume II. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p 1515

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank Khalid M. Mosalam and Arpad Horvath with the University of California Berkeley for early discussions.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabbie A. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1301 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kourehpaz, P., Miller, S.A. Eco-efficient design indices for reinforced concrete members. Mater Struct 52, 96 (2019).

Download citation


  • Reinforced concrete
  • Eco-efficiency
  • Comparison indices
  • Greenhouse gas emissions
  • Supplementary cementitious materials
  • Mixture proportioning