Reducing embodied carbon in concrete materials: A state-of-the-art review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106653Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Four types of low carbon concrete materials (LCCMs) are identified.

  • Using low-carbon cementitious binders can reduce EC by as much as 52.6%.

  • An increased use of LCCMs does not necessarily result in a reduced EC.

  • Comparing the EC reduction of different LCCMs at a unified level is significant.

  • A large-scale application of LCCMs in the building industry is still in its infancy.

Abstract

The construction sector is responsible for about 40% of energy-related emissions worldwide. Utilizing low-carbon concrete materials (LCCMs) has been recognized as an efficient way to reduce embodied carbon (EC). However, there is a lack of systematic understanding and a unified comparison of the LCCMs’ EC reduction potentials. This paper identifies publications related to LCCMs and conducts a content analysis in three dialectical dimensions. Identified LCCMs were categorized into four divisions. The results show that the most prospective LCCMs are low-carbon cementitious binders, achieving 52.6% EC reductions. The results also demonstrate the significance of comparing the EC reduction potentials of different LCCMs at a unified level, as up to 11% inconsistency was identified when switching between cement & concrete level and components & building level. It provides a theoretical foundation for researchers and practitioners to examine possible LCCMs. The findings reveal new directions for achieving a more reliable cross-case comparison among the EC reduction potentials of different LCCMs.

Introduction

The Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed the need to reduce GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 and achieve a 100% reduction by 2050. International cooperation should be further enhanced to reach such goals (Chen et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021). Compared with other sectors, the construction industry plays a critical role in response to the climate emergency as it accounts for 39% of energy-related emissions globally, especially for China, the largest developing country (Chen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019). As the staple of the construction industry, 30 billion tonnes of concrete are utilized annually worldwide and the concrete consumption is rising even more rapidly than that of steel or wood (Monteiro et al., 2017). In addition, the concrete possesses a colossal carbon footprint amongst all construction materials as at least 8% of global carbon emissions solely come from the cement for concrete production (Ellis et al., 2020).

The two types of carbon emissions generated during construction are embodied carbon (EC), which is generated from upstream material production, transportation, and construction, as well as downstream maintenance and demolition, and operational carbon (OC), i.e., the carbon induced by energy consumption during the operation stage (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013). Despite the fact that OC is currently the primary sector in buildings’ life cycle carbon emissions (LCCa) due to their long serving periods, the EC accounts for a steeply increasing proportion of the overall building's LCCa (Akbarnezhad and Xiao, 2017; Hammond et al., 2011; Pan and Teng, 2021). It is expected that EC would account for 50% of new construction projects’ overall LCCa by 2050 (Pan et al., 2017; UNFCCC, 2015). On the other hand, EC is emitted within a shorter period, leading to more intensive annual impacts than OC (Sandanayake et al., 2017). Given the increasing demand of concrete and its colossal carbon footprint, the calculations and reduction of EC induced by concretes’ production and utilization are creating significant concerns in the pursuit of a greener construction industry.

The selection of concrete materials has a considerable impact on the overall EC (Cabeza et al., 2021; Venkatarama Reddy, 2009). Previous studies have investigated the classifications, production, mechanical performances, composition, and also the sustainability of low carbon concrete materials - LCCMs (Akbarnezhad and Xiao, 2017; Cabeza et al., 2013; Orsini and Marrone, 2019). For example, Orsini and Marrone (2019) concluded eight approaches for reducing greenhouse gasses emissions (GHG). However, they did not specify the calculation level of the GHG reduction potentials of each approach. Neither inter-approach comparisons were made. Akbarnezhad and Xiao (2017) divided identified embodied carbon reduction strategies into six categories and reported some of the carbon reduction potentials from literatures. However, these reduction potentials could not be compared effectively as they were measured in different units. Cabeza et al. (2013) summarized recent progress in reducing carbon emission of common construction materials. Nevertheless, they did not categorize the identified materials, nor compare the carbon reduction potential between materials. Therefore, there is still a lack of systematic investigation into the EC reduction potential of different types of LCCMs. In addition, the carbon reduction potentials of the different LCCMs were usually calculated at different scales (e.g., specific amounts or proportions) in different studies.

This paper aims to achieve a better understanding of LCCMs’ EC reduction potentials through a systematic literature review and in-depth analyses. The system boundary theory is adopted to guide the theoretical examination of the review process (Pan et al., 2018; Pan and Teng, 2021; Teng et al., 2018). The EC reduction potentials of different LCCMs are collected and adjusted into percentage proportions to achieve a more reliable and valid comparison. The EC reduction potentials are further divided and compared in two different levels according to their geographic scopes, namely, the cement & concrete (C&C) level and the components & building (C&B) level. To fulfill these objectives, this paper first explores the latest scientific papers on LCCMs. Section 2 presents the methodology for the review. Section 3 reports the in-depth content analysis, as well as the results of the review. Section 4 discusses the findings and identified research gaps. Lastly, Section 5 draws the conclusions.

Section snippets

Literature searching and filtering procedures

This paper adopts a rigorous literature searching and filtering method (see Fig. 1) to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of collecting information from relevant research.

The “Web of Science” and “Scopus” are utilized as the searching databases in this review. The searching domain is determined as “construction,” “concrete,” “carbon,” and “reduction” within the “title,” “abstract,” and “keywords” in “Scopes” and within the “All fields” in “Web of Science.” The categories are set as

Results and analyses

Following the three-dimensional theoretical framework, an in-depth content analysis is conducted by reviewing the 65 papers. The 9 variables of system boundaries of the LCCMs are thoroughly collected and analyzed. After then, the EC reduction of the cases in these 65 papers are adjusted so that they can be compared effectively at the same level. The appended Table 5 provides details of the 65 papers.

Discussion

This paper has conducted a systematic investigation into the EC reduction potentials of different LCCMs. The obtained primary results and identified major research gaps are discussed below.

Firstly, research pertaining to EC reductions on concrete materials is gaining popularity in academia. This can be revealed from the fact that over 80% of the papers are identified following the year 2015. Apart from the discussed LCCMs in this review, novel types of SCMs, e.g., vegetable ashes and quarry

Conclusions

This paper has identified and reviewed the potentials of using LCCMs for EC reduction by collecting information of 128 cases from 65 carefully-selected papers published between 2001 and 2022. A three-dimensional theoretical framework of buildings’ LCCMs is developed to guide the critical review in the concept, methodology and value dimensions. The main findings and conclusions of this paper are provided below.

Firstly, the LCCMs research discipline has been receiving profuse attention from

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Siwei Chen: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation, Investigation. Yue Teng: Methodology, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation, Investigation. Yang Zhang: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation. Christopher K.Y. Leung: Writing – review & editing. Wei Pan: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this paper was supported by the Collaborative Research Fund (Project No. C7047–20GF) and the General Research Fund (Project No. 17201120) of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

References (118)

  • Y. Dong

    Performance assessment and design of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) structures incorporating life-cycle cost and environmental impacts

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2018)
  • J.N. Farahani et al.

    Engineering properties of lightweight aggregate concrete containing binary and ternary blended cement

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • R. Feiz et al.

    Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: utilizing life-cycle assessment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • A.B. Fraj et al.

    Concrete based on recycled aggregates – Recycling and environmental analysis: a case study of paris’ region

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2017)
  • V.J.L. Gan et al.

    A comparative analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise buildings regarding different design parameters

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • V.J.L. Gan et al.

    A comprehensive approach to mitigation of embodied carbon in reinforced concrete buildings

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • V.J.L. Gan et al.

    Developing a CO2-e accounting method for quantification and analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise buildings

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • V.J.L. Gan et al.

    Holistic BIM framework for sustainable low carbon design of high-rise buildings

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • W. Gao et al.

    Energy impacts of recycling disassembly material in residential buildings

    Energy Build.

    (2001)
  • E. Gartner

    Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements

    Cem. Concr. Res.

    (2004)
  • Z. Guo et al.

    Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of concrete building blocks incorporating recycled concrete aggregates

    J Clean Prod

    (2018)
  • G. Habert et al.

    Study of two concrete mix-design strategies to reach carbon mitigation objectives

    Cem. Concr. Compos.

    (2009)
  • T. Hanein et al.

    Carbon footprint of calcium sulfoaluminate clinker production

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • M.U. Hossain et al.

    Comparative LCA on using waste materials in the cement industry: a Hong Kong case study

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2017)
  • T. Ibn-Mohammed et al.

    Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends

    Energy Build.

    (2013)
  • A. Islam et al.

    Engineering properties and carbon footprint of ground granulated blast-furnace slag-palm oil fuel ash-based structural geopolymer concrete

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2015)
  • C. Ji et al.

    Comparative analysis of decision-making methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission–focus on building structural design–

    Energy Build.

    (2014)
  • A.L. Kleijer et al.

    Product-specific life cycle assessment of ready mix concrete: comparison between a recycled and an ordinary concrete

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2017)
  • C.-H. Lee et al.

    Evaluation of pre-coated recycled concrete aggregate for hot mix asphalt

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2012)
  • R. Maddalena et al.

    Can Portland cement be replaced by low-carbon alternative materials? A study on the thermal properties and carbon emissions of innovative cements

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • S. Marinkovic et al.

    Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete

    Waste Manag.

    (2010)
  • B.C. McLellan et al.

    Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2011)
  • C. Medina et al.

    Durability of recycled concrete made with recycled ceramic sanitary ware aggregate. Inter-indicator relationships

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2016)
  • P. Nath et al.

    Effect of fly ash on the durability properties of high strength concrete

    Procedia Eng

    (2011)
  • B. O'Rourke et al.

    Development of calcium sulfate–ggbs–Portland cement binders

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2009)
  • W. Pan et al.

    Rethinking system boundaries of the life cycle carbon emissions of buildings

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2018)
  • W. Pan et al.

    A dialectical system framework of zero carbon emission building policy for high-rise high-density cities: perspectives from Hong Kong

    J Clean Prod

    (2018)
  • W. Pan et al.

    Challenges for energy and carbon modeling of high-rise buildings: the case of public housing in Hong Kong

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2017)
  • W. Pan et al.

    A systematic investigation into the methodological variables of embodied carbon assessment of buildings

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2021)
  • J. Park et al.

    Life cycle CO2 assessment of concrete by compressive strength on construction site in Korea

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2012)
  • J.L. Provis

    Alkali-activated materials

    Cem. Concr. Res.

    (2018)
  • R.A. Robayo-Salazar et al.

    Eco-efficient alkali-activated cement based on red clay brick wastes suitable for the manufacturing of building materials

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • D.A. Salas et al.

    Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete

    Constr. Build. Mater.

    (2018)
  • M. Sandanayake et al.

    Estimation and comparison of environmental emissions and impacts at foundation and structure construction stages of a building–A case study

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • N. Serres et al.

    Environmental evaluation of concrete made from recycled concrete aggregate implementing life cycle assessment

    J. Building Eng.

    (2016)
  • R. Siddique

    Utilization of silica fume in concrete: review of hardened properties

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2011)
  • S. Tae et al.

    Life cycle CO2 evaluation on reinforced concrete structures with high-strength concrete

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2011)
  • S.H. Teh et al.

    Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia

    J Clean Prod

    (2017)
  • Y. Teng et al.

    Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: evidence from and gaps in empirical studies

    Build. Environ.

    (2018)
  • Y. Teng et al.

    Systematic embodied carbon assessment and reduction of prefabricated high-rise public residential buildings in Hong Kong

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • Cited by (15)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text