IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2024i1p152-d1555116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic Embodied Carbon Assessments for Alkali-Activated Concrete Materials

Author

Listed:
  • Nouf Almonayea

    (School of Sustainability, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Natividad Garcia-Troncoso

    (School of Sustainability, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
    Facultad de Ingeniería en Ciencias de la Tierra, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil 090506, Ecuador)

  • Bowen Xu

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China)

  • Dan V. Bompa

    (School of Sustainability, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

This study evaluates the environmental impact of alkali-activated concrete materials (AACMs) as alternatives to conventional concrete. The influence of binder and activator content and type, along with other mix parameters, is analysed using a probabilistic embodied carbon assessment on a large dataset that includes 580 mixes. Using a cradle-to-gate approach with region-specific life-cycle inventory data, emissions are analysed against binder intensity, activator-to-binder and water-to-binder ratios, and fresh/mechanical properties. A multicriteria assessment quantifies the best-performing mix in terms of embodied carbon, compressive strength, and slump. AACM environmental impact is compared to conventional concrete through existing classification schemes and literature. AACM emissions vary between 41 and 261 kgCO 2 eq/m 3 , with activators contributing the most (3–198 kgCO 2 eq/m 3 ). Uncertainty in transport-related emissions could shift these values by ±38%. AACMs can achieve up to four-fold less emissions for high-strength materials compared to conventional concrete, although this benefit decreases with lower mechanical properties. AACM environmental sustainability depends on activator characteristics, curing, mix design, and transportation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nouf Almonayea & Natividad Garcia-Troncoso & Bowen Xu & Dan V. Bompa, 2024. "Probabilistic Embodied Carbon Assessments for Alkali-Activated Concrete Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:152-:d:1555116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/152/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/152/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miettinen, Pauli & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1997. "How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 279-294, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harald Dyckhoff & Katrin Allen, 1999. "Theoretische Begründung einer Effizienzanalyse mittels Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 411-436, May.
    2. Giacomo Falcone & Anna Irene De Luca & Teodora Stillitano & Alfio Strano & Giuseppa Romeo & Giovanni Gulisano, 2016. "Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Vine-Growing Combining Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing and Multicriterial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-34, August.
    3. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    4. Dyckhoff, Harald & Souren, Rainer, 2022. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis and production theory for performance evaluation: Framework and review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 795-816.
    5. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    6. Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 2004. "Reversing the Perspective on the Applications of Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 26-31, March.
    7. Xu Wang & Liyan Han & Libo Yin, 2016. "Environmental Efficiency and Its Determinants for Manufacturing in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Contreras, Francisco & Hanaki, Keisuke & Aramaki, Toshiya & Connors, Stephen, 2008. "Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management plans, Boston, USA," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 979-991.
    9. Janmontree, Jettarat & Zadek, Hartmut, 2020. "Development of sustainability performance measurement framework for measuring complex sustainability impacts in the manufacturing industry," Chapters from the Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), in: Jahn, Carlos & Kersten, Wolfgang & Ringle, Christian M. (ed.), Data Science in Maritime and City Logistics: Data-driven Solutions for Logistics and Sustainability. Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conferen, volume 30, pages 3-31, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute of Business Logistics and General Management.
    10. Yang, Ma Ga (Mark) & Hong, Paul & Modi, Sachin B., 2011. "Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 251-261, February.
    11. Felipe Romero-Perdomo & Miguel Ángel González-Curbelo, 2023. "Integrating Multi-Criteria Techniques in Life-Cycle Tools for the Circular Bioeconomy Transition of Agri-Food Waste Biomass: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-27, March.
    12. Eva Heiskanen, 2000. "Managers' interpretations of LCA: enlightenment and responsibility or confusion and denial?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 239-254, July.
    13. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    14. Jullien, A. & Proust, C. & Martaud, T. & Rayssac, E. & Ropert, C., 2012. "Variability in the environmental impacts of aggregate production," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    16. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    17. Mark Smurthwaite & Liben Jiang & Karl S. Williams, 2024. "A review of the LCA literature investigating the methods by which distinct impact categories are compared," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 19113-19129, August.
    18. Daniel, Stavros E. & Pappis, Costas P., 2008. "Application of LCIA and comparison of different EOL scenarios: The case of used lead-acid batteries," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 883-895.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:152-:d:1555116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.