IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i6p502-d70866.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Environmental Impact and Cost Analysis of Concrete Mixing Blast Furnace Slag Containing Titanium Gypsum and Sludge in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Tae Hyoung Kim

    (Building and Urban Research Institute, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Daehwa-dong 283, Goyandae-Ro, ILsanseo-Gu 10223, Korea)

  • Sung Ho Tae

    (School of Architecture & Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 1271 Sa 3-dong, Sangrok-Gu 15588, Ansan-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea)

  • Chang U. Chae

    (Building and Urban Research Institute, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Daehwa-dong 283, Goyandae-Ro, ILsanseo-Gu 10223, Korea)

  • Won Young Choi

    (Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 1271 Sa 3-dong, Sangrok-Gu 15588, Korea)

Abstract

This study assessed the environmental effects and cost of the Industrial Waste addictive Blast Furnace Slag (W-BFS) using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and compared it to general BFS. The environmental impacts of W-BFS were as follows: 1.12 × 10 −1 kg-CO 2 eq/kg, 3.18 × 10 −5 kg-Ethylene eq/kg, 4.79 × 10 −4 kg-SO 2 eq/kg, 7.15 × 10 −4 kg-PO 4 3− eq/kg, 7.15 × 10 −4 kg-CFC 11 eq/kg and 3.94 × 10 −3 kg-Antimony eq/kg. Among the environmental impact category, GWP and AP were 9.28 × 10 −2 kg-CO 2 eq/kg and 3.33 × 10 −4 kg-SO 2 eq/kg at a raw material stage, accounting for 80% and 70% of total environmental impact respectively. In EP, POCP and ADP, in addition, raw material stage accounted for a great portion in total environmental impact because of “W” among input materials. In ODP, however, compared to the environmental impact of raw materials, oil, which was used in transporting BFS to the W-BFS manufacturing factory, was more influential. In terms of GWP, POCP and ODP, W-BFS was higher than general BFS. In terms of AP, EP and ADP, in contrast, the former was lower than the latter. In terms of cost, W-BFS (41.7 US$/ton) was lower than general BFS by about 17% because of the use of waste additives comprised of industrial wastes instead of natural gypsum ,which has been commonly used in general BFS. In terms of GWP and POCP, the W-BFS mixed (30%) concrete was lower than plain concrete by 25%. In terms of AP and EP, the former was lower than the latter by 30%. In terms of ADP, furthermore, W-BFS mixed (30%) concrete was lower than plain concrete by 11%. In aggregate-related ODP, however, almost no change was found. In terms of cost, when W-BFS was added by 10% and 30%, it was able to reduce cost by 3% and 7% respectively, compared to plain concrete. Compared to BFS-mixed concrete as well, cost could be saved by 1% additionally because W-BFS (US$41.7/ton) is lower than common cement (US$100.3/ton) by about 60% in terms of production costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Tae Hyoung Kim & Sung Ho Tae & Chang U. Chae & Won Young Choi, 2016. "The Environmental Impact and Cost Analysis of Concrete Mixing Blast Furnace Slag Containing Titanium Gypsum and Sludge in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:6:p:502-:d:70866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/502/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/502/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim, Taehyoung & Tae, Sungho & Roh, Seungjun, 2013. "Assessment of the CO2 emission and cost reduction performance of a low-carbon-emission concrete mix design using an optimal mix design system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 729-741.
    2. Pauline Deutz & Giuseppe Ioppolo, 2015. "From Theory to Practice: Enhancing the Potential Policy Impact of Industrial Ecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Park, Junghoon & Tae, Sungho & Kim, Taehyung, 2012. "Life cycle CO2 assessment of concrete by compressive strength on construction site in Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2940-2946.
    4. Shin, Sungwoo & Tae, Sungho & Woo, Jeehwan & Roh, Seungjun, 2011. "The development of environmental load evaluation system of a standard Korean apartment house," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 1239-1249, February.
    5. Lamas, Wendell de Queiroz & Palau, Jose Carlos Fortes & Camargo, Jose Rubens de, 2013. "Waste materials co-processing in cement industry: Ecological efficiency of waste reuse," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 200-207.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Golden Odey & Bashir Adelodun & Sang-Hyun Kim & Kyung-Sook Choi, 2021. "Status of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Case Study of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-30, June.
    2. Xia Qin & Sakdirat Kaewunruen, 2023. "Eco-Friendly Design and Sustainability Assessments of Fibre-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Structures Automated by Data-Driven Machine Learning Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-31, April.

    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. Tae Hyoung Kim & Sung Ho Tae & Sung Joon Suk & George Ford & Keun Hyek Yang, 2016. "An Optimization System for Concrete Life Cycle Cost and Related CO 2 Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Tae Hyoung Kim & Chang U Chae & Gil Hwan Kim & Hyoung Jae Jang, 2016. "Analysis of CO 2 Emission Characteristics of Concrete Used at Construction Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Seungjun Roh & Sungho Tae, 2016. "Building Simplified Life Cycle CO 2 Emissions Assessment Tool (B‐SCAT) to Support Low‐Carbon Building Design in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Tae Hyoung Kim & Chang U Chae, 2016. "Environmental Impact Analysis of Acidification and Eutrophication Due to Emissions from the Production of Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Roh, Seungjun & Tae, Sungho, 2017. "An integrated assessment system for managing life cycle CO2 emissions of a building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 265-275.
    6. Xiao-Yong Wang, 2019. "Effect of Carbon Pricing on Optimal Mix Design of Sustainable High-Strength Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Wang, JingJing & Wang, YuanFeng & Sun, YiWen & Tingley, Danielle Densley & Zhang, YuRong, 2017. "Life cycle sustainability assessment of fly ash concrete structures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1162-1174.
    8. Anne Ventura & Van‐Loc Ta & Tristan Senga Kiessé & Stéphanie Bonnet, 2021. "Design of concrete : Setting a new basis for improving both durability and environmental performance," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(1), pages 233-247, February.
    9. Rachel Greer & Timo Wirth & Derk Loorbach, 2023. "The Circular Decision-Making Tree: an Operational Framework," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 693-718, June.
    10. Rizwan Raheem Ahmed & Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos & Dalia Streimikiene & Justas Streimikis, 2021. "Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategies: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry of Asian Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-28, August.
    11. Kim, Rakhyun & Tae, Sungho & Roh, Seungjun, 2017. "Development of low carbon durability design for green apartment buildings in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 263-272.
    12. Andrea Cecchin & Roberta Salomone & Pauline Deutz & Andrea Raggi & Laura Cutaia, 2021. "What Is in a Name? The Rising Star of the Circular Economy as a Resource-Related Concept for Sustainable Development," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 83-97, June.
    13. Seunghyun Son & Dongjoo Lee & Jinhyuk Oh & Sunkuk Kim, 2021. "Embodied CO 2 Reduction Effects of Free-Form Concrete Panel Production Using Rod-Type Molds with 3D Plastering Technique," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Maria Elena Latino & Marta Menegoli & Martina De Giovanni, 2021. "Evaluating the Sustainability Dimensions in the Food Supply Chain: Literature Review and Research Routes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, October.
    15. Seunguk Na & Inkwan Paik, 2019. "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs with the Alternative Structural System for Slab: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Domingo Nevado-Peña & Víctor-Raúl López-Ruiz & José-Luis Alfaro-Navarro, 2015. "The Effects of Environmental and Social Dimensions of Sustainability in Response to the Economic Crisis of European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Natacha Klein & Tomás B. Ramos & Pauline Deutz, 2022. "Advancing the Circular Economy in Public Sector Organisations: Employees’ Perspectives on Practices," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 759-781, June.
    18. Mollahosseini, Arash & Hosseini, Seyed Amid & Jabbari, Mostafa & Figoli, Alberto & Rahimpour, Ahmad, 2017. "Renewable energy management and market in Iran: A holistic review on current state and future demands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 774-788.
    19. Lauri Koskela & John Rooke & Mohan Siriwardena, 2016. "Evaluation of the Promotion of Through-Life Management in Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-23, June.
    20. Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Andreas Schmiegelow & Maj Munch Andersen, 2018. "Measuring the Readiness of SMEs for Eco-Innovation and Industrial Symbiosis: Development of a Screening Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-25, August.

    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:8:y:2016:i:6:p:502-:d:70866. 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.