Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: a circular economy mindset in Europe

[EN] Purpose Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) is the largest waste stream in the European Union (EU) and all over the world. Proper management of C&DW and recycled materials¿including the correct handling of hazardous waste¿can have major benefits in terms of sustainability and the quality of life. The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC aims to have 70% of C&DW recycled by 2020. However, except for a few EU countries, only about 50% of C&DW is currently being recycled. In the present research, the environmental impact of concrete with recycled aggregates and with geopolymer mixtures is analysed. The aim of the present research is to propose a comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates in the context of European politics. Methods Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is applied using Simapro© software. A cradle to grave analysis is carried out. The results are analysed based on the database Ecoinvent 3.3 and Impact 2002+. Results Results show that the concrete with 25% recycled aggregates is the best solution from an environmental point of view. Furthermore, geopolymer mixtures could be a valid alternative to reduce the phenomenon of ¿global warming¿; however, the production of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide has a great environmental impact. Conclusions A possible future implementation of the present study is certainly to carry out an overall assessment and to determine the most cost-effective option among the different competing alternatives through the life cycle cost analysis.Colangelo, F.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; Farina, I.; Petrillo, A. (2020). Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: a circular economy mindset in Europe. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 25(9):1790-1804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01798-6S17901804259Akhtar A, Sarmah (2018) Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: a global perspective. J Cleaner Prod 186:262–281Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Penningtonne DW, Helias A, de Haes U (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(6):319–326Blengini GA, Garbarino E (2010) Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J Clean Prod 18(10–11):1021–1030Blengini GA, Garbarino E, Šolar S, Shields DJ, Hámor T, Vinai R, Agioutantis Z (2012) Life cycle assessment guidelines for the sustainable production and recycling of aggregates: the sustainable aggregates resource management project (SARMa). J Clean Prod 27:177–181Blengini GA, Garbarino E, Bevilacqua P (2017) Sustainability and integration between mineral resources and C&DW management: overview of key issues towards a resource-efficient Europe. Env Eng Man J 16(2):493–502Borghi G, Pantini S, Rigamonti L (2018) Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (CDW) management in Lombardy region (Italy). J Clean Prod 184:815–825Braga AM, Silvestre JD, de Brito J (2017) Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. J Clean Prod 162:529–543Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A, Ventura A (2010) LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral additions in concrete. Res Con Rec 54(12):1231–1240Chen Z, Gu H, Bergman RD, Liang S (2020) Comparative life-cycle assessment of a high-rise mass timber building with an equivalent reinforced concrete alternative using the Athena impact estimator for buildings. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(11):4708Colangelo F, Cioffi R (2017) Mechanical properties and durability of mortar containing fine fraction of demolition wastes produced by selective demolition in South Italy. Comp Part B: Eng 115:43–50Colangelo F, Petrillo A, Cioffi R, Borrelli C, Forcina A (2018a) Life cycle assessment of recycled concretes: a case study in southern Italy. Sci Total Env 615:1506–1517Colangelo F, Forcina A, Farina I, Petrillo A (2018b) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable construction. Buildings 8(5):70Colangelo F, Navarro TG, Petrillo A, Farina I, Cioffi R (2020) Life-cycle impact of concrete with recycled materials. Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials, Volume 5(2020):414–421COM (2012) 433, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/201859, Brussels, 31.7.2012, COM(2012) 433 finalCOM (2014) 445, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/SustainableBuildingsCommunication.pdf, Brussels, 1.7.2014 COM(2014) 445 finalDavidovits J (2018) Geopolymers based on natural and synthetic metakaolin a critical review. Ceramic Eng Science Proc 38(3):201–214Di Maria A, Eyckmans J, Van Acker K (2018) Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Man 75:3–21Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098EN 1992-1-1:(2004) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildingsEstanqueiro B, Dinis Silvestre J, de Brito J, Duarte Pinheiro M (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycled aggregates for concrete. Eur J Env Civ Eng 22(4):429–449Etxeberria M, Vázquez E, Marí A, Barra M (2007) Influence of amount of recycled coarse aggregates and production process on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Cem Conc Res 37(5):735–742EU construction & demolition waste management protocol (2016) BrusselsGálvez-Martos J-L, Styles D, Schoenberger H, Zeschmar-Lahl B (2018) Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Res Con Rec 136:166–178Gluth, G.J.G., Arbi, K., Bernal, S.A., Bondar, D., Castel, A., Chithiraputhiran, S., Dehghan, A., Dombrowski-Daube, K., Dubey, A., Ducman, V., Peterson, K., Pipilikaki, P., Valcke, S.L.A., Ye, G., Hajimohammadi, A., van Deventer, J.S.J., 2017. Characterisation of one-part geopolymer binders made from fly ash. Waste Biom Val, 8(1), pp. 225–233Gomes R, Silvestre JD, de Brito J (2020) Environmental, economic and energy life cycle assessment “from cradle to cradle” (3E-C2C) of flat roofs. Journal of Building Engineering 32:101436ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management life cycle assessment. Principles and Framework. ISO, GenevaISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and Guidelines. ISO, GenevaJafary Nasab T, Monavari SM, Jozi SA, Majedi H (2020) Assessment of carbon footprint in the construction phase of high-rise constructions in Tehran. Int J Environ Sci Technol 17(6):3153–3164Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) Impact 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–333Khan MW, Ali Y, De Felice F, Salman A, Petrillo A (2019) Impact of brick kilns industry on environment and human health in Pakistan. Sci Total Environ 678:383–389Knoeri C, Sanyé-Mengual E, Althaus H-J (2013) Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):909–918Lu W, Yan H (2011) A framework for understanding waste management studies in construction. Waste Man 31:1252–1260Marinković S, Radonjanin V, Malešev M, Ignjatović I (2010) Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Man 30(11):2255–2264Mercante IT, Bovea MD, Ibáñez-Forés V, Arena AP (2012) Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(2):232–241Pantini S, Giurato M, Rigamonti L (2019) A LCA study to investigate resource-efficient strategies for managing post-consumer gypsum waste in Lombardy region (Italy). Res Con Rec 147:157–168Petrillo A, Cioffi R, De Felice F, Colangelo F, Borrelli C (2016) An environmental evaluation: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC concrete paving blocks manufacturing process in Italy. Env Prog Sus Energy 35(6):1699–1708Provis JL (2017) Alkali-activated cementitious materials and concretes - steps towards standardization, American Concrete Inst, ACI Special Publication 2017-January (SP 320), pp. 444-448Sayagh S, Ventura A, Hoang T, François D (2010) Sensitivity of the LCA allocation procedure for BFS recycled into pavement structures. Res cons rec 54(6):348–358Tangtinthai N, Heidrich O, Manning DAC (2019) Role of policy in managing mined resources for construction in Europe and emerging economies. J Env Man 236:613–621Tošić N, Marinković S, Dašić T, Stanić M (2015) Multicriteria optimization of natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use. J Clean Prod 87(1):766–776Van 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 Conc Comp 34(4):431–442Vossberg C, Mason-Jones K, Cohen B (2014) An energetic life cycle assessment of C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Res Con Rec 88:39–49Walling SA, Notman S, Watts P, Govan N, Provis JL (2019) Portland cement based immobilization/destruction of chemical weapon agent degradation products. Industrial Eng Chemistry Res 58(24):10383–10393Wu H, Zuo J, Yuan H, Zillante G, Wang J (2019) A review of performance assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Res Cons Recycling 150:104407Zhang C, Hu M, Dong L, Gebremariam A, Mirand-Xicotencatl B, Di Maio F, Tukker A (2019) Eco-efficiency assessment of technological innovations in high-grade concrete recycling. Res Cons Recycling 149:649–66

Assessment of the methodology for establishing the EU list of critical raw materials : background report

This report presents the results of work carried out by the Directorate General (DG) Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC), in close cooperation with Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), in the context of the revision of the EC methodology that was used to identify the list of critical raw materials (CRMs) for the EU in 2011 and 2014 (EC 2011, 2014). As a background report, it complements the corresponding Guidelines Document, which contains the "ready-to-apply" methodology for updating the list of CRMs in 2017. This background report highlights the needs for updating the EC criticality methodology, the analysis and the proposals for improvement with related examples, discussion and justifications. However, a few initial remarks are necessary to clarify the context, the objectives of the revision and the approach. As the in-house scientific service of the EC, DG JRC was asked to provide scientific advice to DG GROW in order to assess the current methodology, identify aspects that have to be adapted to better address the needs and expectations of the list of CRMs and ultimately propose an improved and integrated methodology. This work was conducted closely in consultation with the adhoc working group on CRMs, who participated in regular discussions and provided informed expert feedback. The analysis and subsequent revision started from the assumption that the methodology used for the 2011 and 2014 CRMs lists proved to be reliable and robust and, therefore, the JRC mandate was focused on fine-tuning and/or targeted incremental methodological improvements. An in depth re-discussion of fundamentals of criticality assessment and/or major changes to the EC methodology were not within the scope of this work. High priority was given to ensure good comparability with the criticality exercises of 2011 and 2014. The existing methodology was therefore retained, except for specific aspects for which there were policy and/or stakeholder needs on the one hand, or strong scientific reasons for refinement of the methodology on the other. This was partially facilitated through intensive dialogue with DG GROW, the CRM adhoc working group, other key EU and extra-EU stakeholders

Production of Lightweight Fillers from Waste Glass and Paper Sludge Ash

The production of high-performance lightweight fillers (LWFs) using mixed colour recycled glass and paper sludge ash (PSA) has been investigated. PSA has low sintering activity at temperatures below 1200 °C and therefore glass was added to promote liquid-phase sintering. This allows sintering to occur with simultaneous gas evolution from the decomposition of calcium carbonate present in PSA and this results in extensive pore formation and the production of foamed materials. The lightweight porous materials formed are suitable for use as LWFs. Key process parameters including PSA content, particle size of the raw materials and sintering conditions have been optimised. Optimum processing of glass containing 20 wt% PSA at 800 °C produces particles with physical and mechanical properties comparable to leading commercially available LWF products