2025
Special Issue: Remote Sensing based Intelligent Visual Analytics for Real-time Environmental and Earth Monitoring Systems

Special Issue: Remote Sensing based Intelligent Visual Analytics for Real-time Environmental and Earth Monitoring Systems

Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Self Compacting Concrete- A Cradle to Grave Approach

Published 2025-12-31

  • Trupti Parmar
    • ,
  • Tarak Voraa

Trupti Parmar
Department of Environmental Engineering, Marwadi University, India

Tarak Voraa
Department of Civil Engineering, Marwadi University, India

Abstract

Concrete is widely used construction material all over the world. The  environmental issues related to concrete production have been a concern for long time. Concrete production is known to be energy intensive and heavily dependent on natural resources like limestone and natural aggregates. Additionally, the production of cement, which is a crucial raw material for concrete, generates a significant amount of CO2.  To cut down these impacts it is important to understand the whole life cycle of concrete. The present research performs a  cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of concrete to provide insight into each and every stage associated with it. For analysis study develops an Excel-based tool using data from Indian regions. The evaluation compares conventional concrete with Self Compacting Concrete (SCC). The evaluation examines the impact of cement type, mix design proportions, and End-of-Life (EOL) scenarios on overall outcomes. The findings  demonstrate that replacing Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) with blended cements such as Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) and Portland Slag Cement (PSC) can significantly diminish the environmental impact of conventional concrete. It cuts the amount of clinkers by 58% and Global Warming Potential (GWP) by 40%, However the results are not similar for SCC. The PPC based SCC required almost double the binder content to achieve necessary strength and workability. This mix has 27% higher GWP and 23% higher production cost than the OPC + fly ash based mix.  This outcome shows that choosing an alternative cement type and replacing OPC alone does not ensure better performance unless the quantities are carefully optomized.

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Conventional Concrete, Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Supplementary Cementitious materials (SCMs)

PDF

Author Biography

Tarak Voraa

Civil Engineering Department

References

  1. M. Schneider, “The cement industry on the way to a low-carbon future,” Cem Concr Res, vol. 124, p. 105792, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105792.
  2. CII – Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre, Energy Benchmarking for Indian Cement Industry: Cement Benchmarking 14 May 25, Version 7.0, Confederation of Indian Industry, Hyderabad, India, May 2025, https://energy.greenbusinesscentre.com/mv/greencementech/pub24/CementBenchmarking14_May_25.pdf.
  3. A. Chauhan and M. Santhanam, “Impact of low-grade limestone on mechanical and durability performance of binary blended cementitious systems,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 506, p. 144971, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.144971.
  4. K. J. Joy, Bhadbhade Neha, Bhagat Sarita, Lohakare Kiran, Rao Nagmani, Samuel Abraham et al., “INDIA RIVER WEEK 2020 Is Sand Mining Killing Our Rivers? Mining Riparian Health: West Zone Regional Report Is Sand Mining Killing Our Rivers? Mining Riparian Health: West Zone Regional Report Contents,” 2020. [Online]. Available: www.soppecom.org;
  5. M. W. Tait and W. M. Cheung, “A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of three concrete mix designs,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 847–860, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1045-5.
  6. J. Turk, Z. Cotic, A. Mladenovic, and A. Sajna, “Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA,” Waste Management, vol. 45, pp. 194–205, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.035.
  7. R. Gettu, “Sustainability Assessment of Cements and in the Indian Context: Influence of Supplementary Cementitious Materials,” ,” Mater. Struct., Springer, 2019.
  8. G. F. Huseien and K. W. Shah, “Durability and life cycle evaluation of self-compacting concrete containing fly ash as GBFS replacement with alkali activation,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 235, p. 117458, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117458.
  9. B. Estanqueiro, J. Dinis Silvestre, J. de Brito, and M. Duarte Pinheiro, “Environmental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycled aggregates for concrete,” European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 429–449, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1080/19648189.2016.1197161.
  10. C. M. Mah, T. Fujiwara, and C. S. Ho, “Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia,” J Clean Prod, vol. 172, pp. 3415–3427, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.200.
  11. Z.. Guo, A. Tu, C. Chen, and D. E. Lehman, “Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of concrete building blocks incorporating recycled concrete aggregates,” J Clean Prod, vol. 199, pp. 136–149, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.069.
  12. S. Marinkovic, J. Dragas, I. Ignjatovic, and N. Tosic, “Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use,” J Clean Prod, vol. 154, pp. 633–649, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015.
  13. L. P. Rosado, P. Vitale, C. S. G. Penteado, and U. Arena, “Life cycle assessment of natural and mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil,” J Clean Prod, vol. 151, pp. 634–642, May 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.068.
  14. A. Yazdanbakhsh and M. Lagouin, “The effect of geographic boundaries on the results of a regional life cycle assessment of using recycled aggregate in concrete,” Resour Conserv Recycl, vol. 143, pp. 201–209, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.002.
  15. M. Khasreen, P. F. Banfill, and G. Menzies, “Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review,” Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 674–701, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.3390/su1030674.
  16. K. E. Seto, D. K. Panesar, and C. J. Churchill, “Criteria for the evaluation of life cycle assessment software packages and life cycle inventory data with application to concrete,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 694–706, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1060-6.
  17. C. Chrysostomou, A. Kylili, D. Nicolaides, and P. A. Fokaides, “Life Cycle Assessment of concrete manufacturing in small isolated states: the case of Cyprus,” International Journal of Sustainable Energy, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 825–839, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1080/14786451.2015.1100197.
  18. D. K. Panesar, K. E. Seto, and C. J. Churchill, “Impact of the selection of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1284-0.
  19. R. Gettu et al., “Influence of supplementary cementitious materials on the sustainability parameters of cements and concretes in the Indian context,” Mater Struct, vol. 52, no. 1, p. 10, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1617/s11527-019-1321-5.
  20. J. A. Olsson, S. A. Miller, and J. D. Kneifel, “A review of current practice for life cycle assessment of cement and concrete,” Resour Conserv Recycl, vol. 206, p. 107619, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107619.
  21. A. Dacic, E. Mester-Szabo, O. Fenyvesi, and Z. Szalay, “Life cycle assessment of concrete incorporating all concrete recycling products,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 21, p. e03910, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03910.
  22. R. Bajpai, K. Choudhary, A. Srivastava, K. S. Sangwan, and M. Singh, “Environmental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer concrete,” J Clean Prod, vol. 254, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120147.
  23. A. L. Kleijer, S. Lasvaux, S. Citherlet, and M. Viviani, “Product-specific Life Cycle Assessment of ready mix concrete: Comparison between a recycled and an ordinary concrete,” Resour Conserv Recycl, vol. 122, pp. 210–218, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.004.
  24. R. G. Pillai et al., “Service life and life cycle assessment of reinforced concrete systems with limestone calcined clay cement (LC3),” Cem Concr Res, vol. 118, pp. 111–119, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.11.019.
  25. H. Hafez, W. M. Cheung, B. Nagaratnam, and R. Kurda, “A proposed performance based approach for life cycle assessment of reinforced blended cement concrete,” 2019, pp. 50–61. doi: 10.18552/2019/IDSCMT5135.
  26. G. of I. Bureau of Energy Efficiency, “ministry of power government of india ministry of power government of india normalization document and monitoring and verification guidelines Cement Sector,” Mar. 2015, https://www.beeindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/Cement-1-44.pdf.
  27. GCCA India-TERI, “Decarbonization Roadmap for the Indian Cement Sector Net-Zero CO 2 by 2070,” 2025, https://teriin.org/files/Decarbonisation-Roadmap-for-the-Indian-Cement-Sector.pdf.
  28. Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, and national statics office, “Energy Statistics India 2025_27032025,” 2025, https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Energy_Statistics_2025/Energy%20Statistics%20India%202025_27032025.pdf
  29. Government of India, Ministry of Power,Central Electricity Authority, “CO2 baseline database for the Indian power sector” 2023,Version 19, https://cea.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/baseline/2023/01/Approved_report_emission__2021_22.pdf
  30. India Cement Sector Air Emissions Inventory Tool, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, l: Guidance Document, Version 1.0,Mar.2023,https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/India_Cement_tool_guidance.pdf.
  31. R. Neves, R. Torrent, and K. Imamoto, “Residual service life of carbonated structures based on site non-destructive tests,” Cem Concr Res, vol. 109, pp. 10–18, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.002.
  32. S. Rathnarajan and R. G. Pillai, “Carbonation models using mix-design parameters for concretes with supplementary cementitious materials,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 104, p. 112392, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112392.
  33. Fib, fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Wiley, 2013. doi: 10.1002/9783433604090.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

11-20 of 65

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)