Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A comprehensive approach to mitigation of embodied carbon in

reinforced concrete buildings
Vincent J.L. Gan a, Jack C.P. Cheng a, *, Irene M.C. Lo a, b, **
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
b
Institute for Advanced Study, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The building sector represents nearly one third of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in which
Received 14 July 2018 the embodied carbon of reinforced concrete is recognized as a significant source of the GHG emissions.
Received in revised form Developing low carbon reinforced concrete buildings is an important strategy to achieve the long term
26 April 2019
sustainability in urban cities. However, the large variability and the combined effect of different rein-
Accepted 3 May 2019
Available online 6 May 2019
forced concrete design parameters during the production stage presents considerable effects on the total
embodied carbon of buildings, which were not fully explored in literature. Thus, this study aims to
develop a systematic approach to quantify the detailed relationship between different concrete design
Keywords:
Building design
parameters and their combined effects, thereby helping mitigate the building GHG emissions. The
Combined effect proposed approach takes into account the parameters that have significant effects on the embodied
Carbon footprint carbon of reinforced concrete, and studies different variations of reinforced concrete designs to minimize
Greenhouse gas the carbon emissions. The results of this study serve as a decision support basis for improving the
Material production building design in regard to carbon reduction. In an illustrative example, the proposed approach is
Reinforced concrete examined to compare the embodied carbon for different material design scenarios and to suggest the
material choice for a lower embodied carbon in concrete buildings.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction contribute as much as 42% of life cycle carbon emissions in build-

The building sector contributes a significant amount of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, representing one
third of the carbon emissions and nearly 40% of the energy con-
sumption in the world (UNEP, 2009). The operational carbon
emissions associated with the lifetime energy used in building
operation (such as lighting, air-conditioning, etc.) were often
concentrated in previous energy- and carbon-efficiency frame-
works (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013). But there has been relatively
less consideration from the decision frameworks for the carbon
emissions from building construction (Hernandez and Kenny,
2010). Analyses have shown that construction carbon emissions
are mainly dominated by the embodied carbon arising from the
manufacturing stage of construction materials (Purnell and Black,
2012). The embodied carbon of construction materials can
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China.
E-mail addresses: cejcheng@ust.hk (J.C.P. Cheng), cemclo@ust.hk (I.M.C. Lo).
ings (Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2008). Therefore, it is vitally
important to evaluate and reduce the embodied carbon. Reinforced
concrete is one of the most important building materials, with
annual consumption rate in the world approaching over 10 billion
tonnes (Meyer, 2009). Due to the global extensive use, reinforced
concrete has contributed 90% of the total embodied carbon in
concrete buildings (Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2008; Yan et al.,
2010). As such, the demand for green concrete products con-
tinues to increase (Imbabi et al., 2012; Meyer, 2009) and manu-
facturers/designers are putting more efforts to mitigate the
embodied carbon of reinforced concrete.
Embodied carbon of reinforced concrete comprises contribu-
tions from the major concrete compositions such as cement and
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) as well as steel
reinforcement, which can be combined in a large variety of pro-
portions in accordance with the requirement of the structural
component (Purnell, 2013). Generally, the embodied carbon for
reinforced concrete is either in form of a single value (Sjunnesson,
2005; Zhang et al., 2014) or a range of values by varying the pro-
portion of each composition (Flower and Sanjayan, 2007;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.035
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
Hammond and Jones, 2008; O'Brien et al., 2009; Van den Heede
and De Belie, 2012). Zhang et al. (2014) evaluated a general value
of embodied carbon (425 kg CO2-e/m3) for the production of plain
concrete (without steel reinforcement). Harrison et al. (2010) used
0.13 kg CO2-e/kg to interpret plain concrete and presented 0.24 kg
CO2-e/kg for additional carbon emissions of 2% steel reinforcement.
Flower and Sanjayan (2007) evaluated the relationship between
embodied carbon (225e322 kg CO2-e/m3) and characteristic
compressive strength (25e32 MPa) of plain concretes. Miller et al.
(2015) evaluated the embodied carbon (150e520 kg CO2-e/m3) of
reinforced concrete as a function of mix proportions, geometry of
building element, and design age. Similarly, Purnell (2013) gave a
range of embodied carbon values to reinforced concrete, depending
on concrete strength grade, geometry of building element, and
loading capacity.
Although the embodied carbon of reinforced concrete has large
variations (due to mix proportions, etc.), the major sources of car-
bon emissions were identified as ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
(Flower and Sanjayan, 2007; Zhang et al., 2014) and steel rein-
forcement (Gan et al., 2017b; Yan et al., 2010). Therefore, the pri-
mary option for reducing the embodied carbon of reinforced
concrete is to replace as much OPC and steel reinforcement as
possible by recycled materials (Meyer, 2009) or to minimize the
volume of materials needed (Liu et al., 2011). García-Segura et al.
(2014) and Purnell and Black (2012) compared the embodied car-
bon of OPC concrete with equivalent mix designs containing SCMs,
i.e., fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS).
Around 20e30% of the emissions in plain concrete can be reduced
with replacement of the FA and GGBS. Habert et al. (2011) and
Turner and Collins (2013) compared plain concrete containing 100%
OPC with other comparable mix design containing geo-polymers.
The results indicated that changing to geo-polymers (320 kg CO2-
e/m3) produces 8% less emissions than conventional OPC concrete
(354 kg CO2-e/m3) (Turner and Collins, 2013). Gan et al. (2015)
evaluated the effect of large-sized aggregates and eco-cement
(produced from municipal solid wastes) on minimizing the OPC
volume, both have over 17% savings on the embodied carbon of
concrete. Yan et al. (2010) quantified the carbon emission reduction
in a reinforced concrete building due to the use of recycled steel.
The results indicated that using recycled steel in a concrete building
reduces over 30% of the embodied carbon as compared to con-
ventional primary steel.
Even though previous studies have evaluated different aspects
(like building design and construction planning) to reduce the
embodied carbon, there is still a lack of systematic details to
demonstrate how changing various (reinforced) concrete designs at
the production stage would affect the total amount of embodied
carbon in buildings. For example, manufacturers may choose to
produce concrete with less carbon footprint, but low carbon con-
crete may have weaker material properties (like strength) and
require more to provide the same building performance (Habert
and Roussel, 2009), and eventually the total embodied carbon in
the whole building may not be less. As such, it is essential to
develop a holistic framework that can quantify the relationship
between the variability of material production/design and the total
embodied carbon in buildings (Gursel et al., 2014). The proposed
approach will provide material manufacturers and building de-
signers a more systematic view on how the embodied carbon in
buildings is affected by different variations of reinforced concrete at
the production stage. In addition, there has been an increasing
focus on the effects of independent mix design variables (such as
cement strength and SCMs) on carbon emissions of concrete. But
the combined effects due to different material design parameters
on the embodied carbon reduction in buildings have not been
studied thoroughly in literature.
583
Therefore, the objective of this study is to develop a systematic
approach to quantify the detailed relationship between different
variations of reinforced concrete designs and building embodied
carbon as well as the combined effect of concrete design parame-
ters, thereby providing a basis to mitigate the carbon emissions in
the built environment. The proposed method takes into account a
theoretical mix design process to determine the concrete mix
proportions and to quantify the carbon emissions of different
constituent materials for analyzing the per-unit carbon footprint of
various concrete products. The approach considers the indepen-
dent parameters that have significant effects on the embodied
carbon of reinforced concrete - namely characteristic strength, use
of SCMs, cement type, aggregate size, and recycled steel scrap -
therefore can analyze the effects due to the variability in reinforced
concrete designs. It will also investigate the combined effects of
various reinforced concrete designs on the embodied carbon
mitigation in buildings, by varying the influential parameters. The
embodied carbon is quantified within the cradle-to-site system
boundary, considering the detailed carbon emissions from all the
stages of production and transportation of reinforced concrete. As
manufacturers and designers seek to mitigate the carbon emissions
of concrete, the proposed approach provides a basis to better
identify the major environmental burdens of concrete production
and to improve the design of reinforced concrete for a lower
embodied carbon in buildings.
2. Methodology
The proposed approach has been devised with reference to
carbon accounting guidelines. The approach can compare the
embodied carbon of a particular structure due to the use of various
reinforced concrete products. The concrete mix proportions are
derived from theoretical mix design methods or concrete standards
(BSI, 2006; Teychenne  et al., 1997) used by the industry. Section 2.1
describes the detailed manufacturing process for each composition
in reinforced concrete as well as the cradle-to-site system boundary
for evaluation. A series of procedures for quantifying and mitigating
the carbon emissions over the defined system boundary are pre-
sented in Section 2.2.
2.1. Manufacturing processes and system boundary
Fig. 1 shows the manufacturing processes for the key compo-
nents in reinforced concrete and the system boundary. The raw
materials used in plain concrete production include OPC, aggregate,
water, SCMs, and chemical admixtures. The raw materials are
produced outside a concrete batching plant and delivered to the
plant in appropriate modes. OPC and SCMs are transferred pneu-
matically to storage silos while aggregate is delivered by belt con-
veyers to storage bins. The raw materials of plain concrete are
proportioned prior to blending in order to ensure that all the
designed mechanical properties are achieved. Based on the mix
proportions specified by the concrete engineers, the raw materials
are fed to a weight hopper for mixing and blending. The blended
concrete mixtures are loaded onto mixer trucks and transported to
construction sites. Steel reinforcement is another important con-
stituent in reinforced concrete. The production of steel reinforce-
ment starts from the processing of pig iron, which is delivered to
the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) or electric arc furnace (EAF) for
melting. Steel scrap can be added to BOF and EAF by different
amounts to reduce the use of pig iron. Generally, the BOF process
contains around 30% of steel scrap whereas the EAF can contain up
to 100% (WSA, 2014). The pig iron and steel scrap are melted and
refined for producing the desirable grade of steel reinforcement.
The system boundary for the quantification of embodied carbon is
584 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
Figure 1. Cradle-to-site system boundary for reinforced concrete buildings.
cradle-to-site, which includes the carbon emissions from plain
concrete and steel reinforcement productions, via all detailed
manufacturing processes above-mentioned, until the materials are
transported to construction sites.
2.2. Proposed approach for embodied carbon mitigation
Based on the predefined system boundary, a holistic approach is
proposed to evaluate and mitigate the embodied carbon of rein-
forced concrete buildings. Reinforced concrete comprises contri-
butions from various concrete compositions and steel
reinforcement which are often combined in a wide variety of pro-
portions in accordance with the design requirements. Incorpo-
rating variations of all mix proportion parameters may complicate
the approach, but provide only a small improvement in the effi-
ciency of embodied carbon mitigation. Therefore, the proposed
approach focuses on the variations of the most influential param-
eters that have substantial impacts on the embodied carbon of
reinforced concrete. Based on the literature review and our previ-
ous sensitivity analyses (Gan et al., 2015, 2017a), the influential
parameters on the embodied carbon of reinforced concrete were
identified as (1) concrete characteristic strength, (2) SCMs, (3) type
of cement, (4) maximum size of aggregate, and (5) recycled steel
scrap. These five parameters can substantially affect the amounts of
OPC and steel reinforcement, thereby imposing large uncertainties
on the carbon emissions of reinforced concrete. Other mix
proportioning parameters have also been evaluated in literature,
but were found to make relatively less contributions to the
embodied carbon of reinforced concrete e for example, cement
strengths (2012), aggregate types (e.g., natural and recycled ag-
gregates e see Appendix 1), and chemical admixtures (Flower and
Sanjayan, 2007; Van den Heede and De Belie, 2012). As such, the
proposed approach will investigate different variations of rein-
forced concrete by changing the five influential parameters in order
to minimize the embodied carbon value. Details about the five
influential parameters are discussed in the following paragraphs.
2.2.1. Concrete characteristic strength
The first step in designing concrete mix proportions is to deter-
mine the characteristic strength, followed by the determination of
the water to binder (w/b) ratio, cementing binder amount and other
constituents. Therefore, any change of strength can result in signif-
icant changes to the subsequent mix proportioning processes and
the carbon emissions of the concrete. The choices of the w/b ratio
and binder content should guarantee a desirable strength and
workability. In order to assure desirable strength and durability,
concrete specifications worldwide require a minimum cement con-
tent for a selected characteristic strength, e.g., the British Standard
(BSI, 2006) proposes 280 kg cement for one m3 of C35 concrete.
Minimum cement content is a theoretically reasonable value that
guarantees the minimum strength and durability of concrete, while
minimizing the cement usage and the carbon emissions of concrete.
Due to these reasons, the proposed approach adopts the minimum
cement content for each characteristic strength in the concrete mix
proportioning and embodied carbon mitigation.
2.2.2. Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)
SCMs are alternative cementing materials for the substitution of
OPC in concrete production. The OPC substitution rates for SCMs
are different, depending on their strength gain mechanisms and
chemical compositions. Low calcium fly ash (FA) (<15% CaO by
weight) contains high proportions of SiO2 and Al2O3. In the pres-
ence of water, SiO2 and Al2O3 can react with the calcium hydrate
released by cement hydration, which gradually improves the
strength of concrete. However, concrete containing a large amount
of low calcium FA may require a longer period to exceed the 28-day
target strength. High calcium FA and GGBS are more reactive SCMs,
containing large amounts of CaO (>20% by weight) and displaying
good cementitious behavior by reacting with water to improve the
mechanical strength of concrete. Therefore, the proposed approach
focuses mainly on the high calcium FA and GGBS, and considers
their usual substitution rates in the analysis, which are 25e35% for
FA and 25e75% for GGBS (HKBD, 2013).
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
2.2.3. Type of cement
Cement is a highly carbon intensive material and accounts for
70%e90% of carbon emissions for concrete (Flower and Sanjayan,
2007). Different kinds of cement require different production
technologies and may contribute various amounts of carbon
emissions in concrete. OPC has a high carbon emission factor
(1.005 kg CO2-e/kg) because of the high energy consumption in
cement kilns and in the calcination of limestone. Eco-cement pro-
vides similar mechanical properties, but it can contain up to 50% of
municipal solid waste incineration ash and reduce the consump-
tion of limestone and energy. Due to these reasons, the carbon
emission factors for eco-cement manufacture are dramatically
decreased, to around 0.699 kg CO2-e/kg (Taiheiyo, 2012). It can be
seen that different types of cement contribute different amounts of
carbon and have a large impact on the final results. Thus, the type
and carbon emission factor of cement should be clearly specified in
an assessment.
2.2.4. Maximum aggregate size
The maximum size of aggregate refers to the largest sieve size
used in the mix proportioning, through which all the aggregate can
pass. The maximum aggregate size significantly impacts the cement
content and carbon emissions of concrete. First, the size of aggregate
affects the cement content and concrete workability by changing the
particle surface area. For a given weight, a large-sized aggregate has a
lower surface area contacting the cement paste. As a result, the need
for cement and water to bind the aggregate particles is reduced. In
contrast, a small-sized aggregate requires greater amounts of cement
and water to bind the aggregate particles and maintain good cohe-
siveness of the concrete mixture. According to BS 8500 (BSI, 2006),
the cement content for 10 mm-sized aggregate can be 18% higher
than the cement content for 40 mm aggregate. This change can
significantly affect the concrete mixture and carbon emissions. Due
to these reasons, the proposed approach considers the different
maximum aggregate sizes that are used in concrete production.
2.2.5. Recycled steel scrap
Steel reinforcement production consists of crude steel
manufacturing and steel finishing (WSA, 2014). As discussed pre-
viously, crude steel manufacturing mainly adopts two production
routes, i.e., BOF and EAF. The BOF process contains around 30% of
steel scrap while the EAF consists of up to 100% (WSA, 2014). Since
the two crude steel manufacturing processes contain different
amounts of steel scrap, their resulting carbon emissions can vary
considerably. To evaluate different amounts of recycled steel scrap
for carbon emission reduction, the proposed approach takes into
account the carbon emissions of steel reinforcement from both BOF
and EAF, with various proportions of steel scrap.
Fig. 2 shows the proposed approach for the mitigation of
embodied carbon in reinforced concrete buildings, considering the
five influential parameters above-mentioned. The approach is
developed with reference to theoretical mix design methods (BSI,
2006; Teychenne  et al., 1997). The first step is to determine the
28-day characteristic compressive strength (based on cube testing)
and the maximum aggregate size in concrete production. In the
second step, the maximum w/b ratio and the minimum cement
content are estimated, according to the selected strength class and
maximum aggregate size. Meanwhile, the type of cement used in
concrete production needs to be specified by the designers. Given
the minimum cement content and w/b ratio, the mixing water
demand is calculated. The wet density of concrete can also be
approximated, given the mixing water content and relative aggre-
gate density in the saturated surface-dry condition. Furthermore,
the total demand for aggregate can be acquired by deducting the
amount of mixing water and cement from the wet density of
585
concrete. Then, the content of the fine aggregate can be estimated,
depending on the maximum aggregate size, w/b ratio, slump value
and grading of the fine aggregate. The coarse aggregate content can
be obtained by deducting the proportion of fine aggregate from the
total aggregate demand. The fourth step is to decide on the type
and content of SCMs in the concrete production as well as the type
of steel reinforcement and recycled scrap content (based on the
steel manufacturing process selected).
The properties of concrete and steel reinforcement, as deter-
mined from Steps 1e4, are used to design the structural compo-
nents in buildings and to evaluate the material structural
performance. In Step 5, structural analysis is conducted to deter-
mine the building element sizes (e.g., width and height) and check
the material structural behavior. If the materials selected can meet
the criteria in building design codes, the amounts of concrete and
steel reinforcement required for construction can then be quanti-
fied for the quantification of embodied carbon in Step 6. On the
other hand, the relative proportion and specification of each con-
crete constituent material can help measure the per-unit carbon
emissions of concrete. Provided the material amount and per-unit
carbon emissions, the total embodied carbon of reinforced con-
crete in a building can be quantified accordingly. Embodied carbon
quantification consists of two parts: (a) the cradle-to-gate emis-
sions from the production of plain concrete and steel reinforce-
ment, and (b) the gate-to-site emissions from the transportation of
materials to sites.

Cradle-to-gate emissions
The present study includes a theoretical mix design process to
determine the concrete mix proportions and to quantify the per-
unit carbon emissions from the production of concrete. Eq. (1)
calculates the carbon emissions of concrete as the product of its
constituent materials and the corresponding carbon emission
factors:
" #
X
M X
N
CEcon ¼ Qm EFmn GWPn K 1 (1)
m¼1 n¼1
in which CEcon refers to per-unit carbon emissions of concrete (in kg
CO2-e/m3). m is one of the constituent materials and fossil fuels
utilized to produce concrete, and n stands for one of the GHGs (such
as CO2, CH4 and N2O). Qm is the quantity of the concrete constituent
material and fossil fuel m (in kg), EFmn refers to the emission factor
of GHG n for the constituent material and fossil fuel m (in kg GHG
per kg), and GWPn represents the global warming potential for GHG
n. K is the total production of concrete (in m3), which divides the
total carbon emissions of concrete to obtain the per-unit carbon
footprint. Table 1 summarizes the emission factors (EFmn) for
various constituent materials used in this analysis.
CEcon are indicators to represent the carbon emissions from
producing various types of concrete, which are utilized to evaluate
the embodied carbon in an reinforced concrete building, as follows
(the formula is modified from (Gan et al., 2017b)):
" #
X
I
ECG ¼ Qi CEi ,ð1 þ ai Þ A1 (2)
i¼1
in which EC-G stands for the cradle-to-gate emissions associated
with the production of plain concrete and steel reinforcement (in
kg CO2-e/m2). Qi refers to the quantity for a specific type of plain
concrete and steel reinforcement i used in the building. The func-
tional unit of Qi is m3 for plain concrete and kilogram for steel
reinforcement, respectively. CEi is the carbon emissions of plain
586 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597

Figure 2. Methodology framework for mitigation of embodied carbon in reinforced concrete buildings.

concrete and steel reinforcement. Specifically, the unit carbon CEsteel (in kg CO2-e/kg) are obtained from Table 2 ai stands for the
emissions of concrete CEcon (in kg CO2-e/m3) can be obtained from material waste ratios during construction, which are 6.8% for plain
Eq. (1), whereas the unit carbon emissions for steel reinforcement concrete and 5.1% for steel reinforcement, respectively (Shen et al.,
2002). A refers to the total floor area of the building (in m2).

Table 1
Gate-to-site emissions

Carbon emission factors of concrete constituent materials.

Raw materials EFmn  GWPn (kg CO2-e/kg) In this study, transportation carbon emissions are evaluated
Ordinary Portland cement 1.005 a using either the fuel-based method (that depends on the specific
Eco-cement 0.699b type and amount of fossil fuel consumed) or the freight-distance
Coarse natural aggregate 0.003c method (that depends on the transportation distance and the
Fine natural aggregate 0.003c cargo weight), as follows:
Recycled aggregate 0.002c
Water 0.001d " #
FA 0.008d X
I X
R
GGBS 0.083d EGS ¼ ECi;r FEFr A1 (3a)
a i¼1 r¼1
Zhang et al. (2014).
b
Taiheiyo (2012).
c
Gan et al. (2016).
d
Hammond and Jones (2008).
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597 587

Table 2 of fossil fuels consumed, and k is a transport mean which includes

Emission factors of steel reinforcement. heavy-weight vehicle, shipment, and railway. Eq. (3a) represents
Type of reinforcement Crude steel type Emission factor (kg CO2-e/kg)a the fuel-based method, in which ECi,r is the consumption of fossil
Steel reinforcement BOF (no steel scrap) 2.27
fuel r for transporting the material i (in litre), and FEFr is the carbon
BOF (30% scrap) 1.85 emission factor for the combustion of fossil fuel r (kg CO2-e/litre).
EAF (100% scrap) 0.55 Eq. (3b) refers to the freight-distance method, wherein Qi stands for
the total weight of the material i including the wasted material
Steel wire BOF (no steel scrap) 2.38 during construction (kg), Di,k represents the distance of trans-
BOF (30% scrap) 1.96
EAF (100% scrap) 0.66
portation for material i delivered by transport means k (in km), and
a
TEFk is the carbon emission factor for transport mean k (kg CO2-e/
The emission factors are obtained from Gan et al. (2017b).
kg∙km). A represents the total floor area of the building (in m2).
Table 3 summarizes the emission factors for FEFr (HKEPD and
Table 3 HKEMSD, 2010) and TEFk (WRI, 2012), respectively.
Emission factors for different types of fossil fuels and transport means. In general, Steps 1e4 in the proposed approach mainly deter-
mine the variability of the key compositions (i.e., influential pa-
Fossil fuels Emission factor, FEFr (kg CO2-e/litre)a
rameters) in reinforced concrete. While Step 5 checks the structural
Diesel oil 2.614
performance for the materials being selected, the total embodied
Liquefied petroleum gas 1.679
Gas oil (for ships) 2.645
carbon in a reinforced concrete building is calculated in Step 6. As
such, the proposed approach can evaluate the relationship between
Transport means Emission factor, TEFk (tonne CO2-e/kg∙km)b different variations of reinforced concrete and the total embodied
Heavy good vehicle 0.204
carbon in buildings.
Railway 0.017
Shipment 0.033
a
HKEPD & HKEPD, 2010.
b
WRI, 2012. 3. Scenario study

A typical 40-story reinforced concrete building in rectangular

" # shape (i.e., 45 m  45 m) is used as a reference for illustration. As
X
I X
K
EGS ¼ Qi Di;k TEFk A1 (3b) shown in Fig. 3, the building has central core walls (25 m wide and
i¼1 k¼1 16 m deep) with 24 columns on the building perimeter. The pro-
posed approach is examined to design various concrete mixtures
where EG-S stands for the emissions due to the transportation of used in the reinforced concrete building and to quantify the
plain concrete and steel reinforcement (in kg CO2-e/m2). i is a kind embodied carbon. Table 4 summarizes the material details for all
of plain concrete or steel reinforcement, r represents a specific kind Scenarios.

Figure 3. Overview of the reference reinforced concrete building.

588 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597

Table 4
Material designs for each scenario in this study.

Scenarios Concrete strength Content of SCMs/Eco-cement Aggregate size Content of steel scrap

1 C40 100% OPC 10 mm No steel scrap

2 C60 100% OPC 10 mm No steel scrap
3 C80 100% OPC 10 mm No steel scrap
4 C40 35% FA þ 65% OPC 10 mm No steel scrap
5 C40 75% GGBS þ25% OPC 10 mm No steel scrap
6 C40 100% OPC 10 mm BOF 30% steel scrap
7 C40 100% OPC 10 mm EAF 100% steel scrap
8 C40 100% Eco-cement 10 mm No steel scrap
9 C40 100% OPC 40 mm No steel scrap
10 C80 75% GGBS þ25% Eco-cement 40 mm EAF 100% steel scrap

Scenario 1 is the baseline, wherein the core walls and perimeter
columns are constructed of C40 concrete (fcu ¼ 40 MPa) whereas
the beams and floor slabs use C30 concrete (fcu ¼ 30 MPa). The
concrete uses 100% OPC and 10 mm aggregate, and the steel
reinforcement does not contain any recycled steel scrap.

In Scenarios 2 and 3, the compressive strength of concrete in-
creases from C40 to C60 (fcu ¼ 60 MPa) and C80 (fcu ¼ 80 MPa),
respectively. High strength concrete will be used for only col-
umns and core walls, as they need to withstand heavier loads (it
is uncommon to use high strength concrete for the floor framing
elements like floor slabs and beams). All the designs are checked
in structural analysis software to ensure that design codes are
met (HKBD, 2013).

Scenarios 4 and 5 assume that 35% FA and 75% GGBS are used in
concrete production in order to compare the effects of different
SCMs on embodied carbon mitigation.

Scenario 6 compares the difference of embodied carbon be-
tween 100% OPC and 100% eco-cement in concrete production,
whereas Scenario 7 compares the difference between using
more small-sized aggregate (10 mm) and large-sized aggregate
(40 mm).

To investigate the maximum carbon reduction by recycled steel,
Scenarios 8 and 9 consider using steel reinforcement from the
BOF process with 30% steel scrap and the EAF process with 100%
steel scrap, respectively (WSA, 2014).

Scenario 10 evaluates the combined effects due to different
design parameters. The concrete to be used is C80 with 40 mm
aggregate, containing 75% GGBS and 25% eco-cement as well as
100% steel scrap.
The concrete is assumed to be produced locally and delivered by
mixer trucks with a transportation distance of 15 km. Steel rein-
forcement is imported from manufacturers by ship, covering a
distance of 800 km. With the assumptions aforementioned, the
embodied carbon are quantified and presented in Section 4.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Embodied carbon mitigations using different material designs
Fig. 4 shows the embodied carbon of the reinforced concrete
building for different material designs, and the percentage reduc-
tion of each scenario (using Scenario 1 as the baseline). The
embodied carbon for the Scenario 1 is 483 kg CO2-e/m2, wherein
plain concrete accounts for 47% and steel reinforcement contributes
53%. The majority of embodied carbon in the reinforced concrete

Figure 4. Embodied carbon of the reinforced concrete building for different material designs.
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
Figure 5. Percentage contribution of each structural elements to the total embodied carbon of the reinforced concrete building.
building is attributable to the main structural load-bearing ele-
ments (such as core walls). Fig. 5 represents the percentage
contribution of each structural element to the building embodied
carbon. It can be seen that core walls and columns (including some
structural beams) consume the majority of the construction ma-
terials and produce more than 66% of the embodied carbon, as they
are required to carry substantial gravity and lateral loads (like
wind) of the entire building. In contrast, the floor framing elements
(like floor slabs and beams) only need to carry the gravity load of
each individual floor, and therefore account for less embodied
carbon (34%) in the building.
Different material designs substantially vary the embodied
carbon of the reinforced concrete building. In Scenario 1, the
structural elements are mainly constructed of C40 concrete con-
taining 100% OPC, 10 mm aggregate, and 100% primary steel rein-
forcement. Scenarios 2e9 investigate the carbon mitigation by
improving one of material design parameters. For example, with
the use of C60 and C80 high strength concrete (Scenarios 2 and 3),
the embodied carbon of the reinforced concrete building is reduced
by 5% and 11% to 457 and 429 kg CO2-e/m2. Besides, employing
SCMs (Scenarios 4e5), eco-cement (Scenario 6), large-sized
aggregate (Scenario 7) and steel scrap (Scenario 8e9) alone can
also reduce the building embodied carbon by up to 30% (335 kg
CO2-e/m2), 13% (417 kg CO2-e/m2), 8% (444 kg CO2-e/m2) and 39%
(293 kg CO2-e/m2), respectively. If the carbon mitigation measures
above-mentioned are considered together (such as in Scenario 10),
the embodied carbon is reduced by 76%e107 kg CO2-e/m2, which is
much less than the sum of the individual effect. It means that
Table 5
Comparison of embodied carbon for columns and core walls between using C40 concrete versus higher strength concrete (C60 and C80).
Scenario Strength Plain concrete
Quantity (m3) Emission factor (kg CO2-e/m3)
1 C40 43,852 365
2 C60 36,168 (Y18%) 429 ([18%)
3 C80 30,654 (Y30%) 498 ([36%)
589
considering carbon mitigation measures together does not neces-
sarily reduce more CO2 emissions. To investigate the combined
effects of different design parameters, more sensitivity analyses are
conducted in the following Sections.
4.1.1. Combined effects of high strength concrete and steel
reinforcement
Table 5 shows the effects of high strength concrete on material
demand and embodied carbon in the building. The compressive
strength of concrete for the main structural load-bearing elements
(i.e., core walls and columns) is increased from C40 to C60 and C80.
As the compressive strength increases, the amount of concrete
required for the structural elements decreases dramatically from
43,852 m3 to 36,168 m3 and 30,654 m3. The percentage reduction of
concrete approaches as much as 18% and 30% for C60 and C80,
respectively. The amount of steel reinforcement also reduces by 15%
and 32% in order to maintain an appropriate rebar ratio in the
design code. In general, increasing concrete strength by every
5 MPa can reduce 4.50% of the plain concrete used and 3.75% of the
steel reinforcement. Theoretically, utilizing high strength concrete
is beneficial for mitigating the material demand and therefore the
embodied carbon. However, it should be noted that as higher
concrete strength requires more OPC, the per-unit carbon emis-
sions of C60 and C80 concrete will increase accordingly. Specifically,
the per-unit carbon emissions for C60 and C80 concrete are 15% and
36% more than that of C40, which may largely offset the carbon
emission reduction due to the decreased demand for plain concrete
and steel reinforcement. Table 5 also provides the final carbon
Steel reinforcement Embodied carbon (kg CO2-e/m2)
Quantity (tonne) Emission factor (kg CO2-e/kg) Main load-bearing elements Whole building
6437 2.27 305 483
5503 (Y15%) 2.27 279 (Y9%) 457 (Y5%)
4400 (Y32%) 2.27 251 (Y18%) 429 (Y11%)
590 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597

Figure 6. Carbon emissions of plain concrete against different strength classes (the values are taken as the average of 10 mm and 40 mm aggregates with various SCMs).

calculation results, taking account of both factors. Considering only
the main structural load-bearing elements (i.e., core walls and
columns), the embodied carbon drops from 305 kg CO2-e/m2 to 279
and 251 kg CO2-e/m2, respectively. Increasing concrete strength by
every 5 MPa reduces around 2.25% of the embodied carbon for the
structural elements. The total embodied carbon for the whole
building constructed from C40 concrete is 483 kg CO2-e/m2. If C60
and C80 concrete are utilized, the embodied carbon drops moder-
ately by 5% (457 kg CO2-e/m2) and by 11% (429 kg CO2-e/m2). Even
though the embodied carbon is reduced by using high-strength
concrete, the more OPC content required for higher concrete
strength has already offset the carbon reduction.
Fig. 6 compares the carbon emissions of OPC concrete and its
compositions against different strength classes (see Appendices 2
and 3 for detailed results). OPC is found to be the largest contrib-
utor and accounts for over 90% of the carbon emissions for plain
concrete, due to its limestone calcination and fossil fuel usage in
cement kilns. Compared to OPC, the contributions of SCMs (i.e., FA
and GGBS), aggregates and other compositions are not significant,
although they account for more than 80% of the concrete bulk.
However, it should be noted that using different types of SCMs and
aggregates substantially affects the OPC content, leading to around
30% uncertainty on the per-unit carbon emissions of concrete. In
general, increasing the compressive strength of concrete by 5 MPa
requires 20 kg more OPC, therefore the per-unit carbon emissions
of concrete grow by around 4% (i.e., 20 kg CO2-e/m3) for every
5 MPa. Since the more OPC content required for higher concrete
strength can offset the embodied carbon reduction, special atten-
tions are required for material selection at the early stage of
building design.
4.1.2. Combined effects of SCMs and eco-cement
Fig. 7 shows the per-unit carbon emissions of concrete, taking
into consideration the combined effect of SCMs and eco-cement.

Figure 7. Carbon emissions of concrete considering the combined effects of SCMs and eco-cement (the values are taken as the average of 10 mm and 40 mm aggregates).
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
Figure 8. Carbon emissions of plain concrete with different strength classes, amounts of SCMs, types of cement, and aggregate sizes.
Three typical concrete strength classes (i.e., C80, C55 and C30) are
selected for the comparison. As Fig. 7 shows, the embodied carbon
emissions for concrete containing SCMs and/or eco-cement is 30%e
60% less than that for 100% OPC concrete. Specifically, utilizing 1% of
eco-cement in concrete can reduce 0.95 kg CO2-e/m3 of the carbon
emissions in concrete. FA is the most efficient recycled cementi-
tious material, as replacing 1% of OPC in concrete with FA can
reduce the carbon emissions of plain concrete by 3.09 kg CO2-e/m3.
A less apparent carbon reduction of 2.86 kg CO2-e/m3 can be ach-
ieved by employing 1% of GGBS in concrete. This is because GGBS
has a larger unit emission factor and produces slightly more carbon
emissions than FA. When substitution rates of FA and GGBS are
equal, the carbon emissions of GGBS concrete are more than that of
FA concrete. The advantage of GGBS is the high substitution rate,
replacing up to 75% of OPC to achieve a dramatic carbon reduction
in plain concrete by over 60%.
As discussed previously, OPC accounts for over 90% of the carbon
emissions in plain concrete. If a large amount of GGBS is utilized,
OPC contributes less to the carbon emissions (67%) of concrete
whereas the percentage contribution of GGBS is gradually
increased to 18% (see Appendix 4). It should be noted that when
large amounts of SCMs are used in concrete, the proportion of OPC
decreases to a relatively low level and using eco-cement for carbon
emission reduction may become less efficient. Specifically, using
eco-cement can reduce the carbon emissions of 100% cement
concrete by around 30%, but the percentage decreases to only 20%
for the concrete specimen with 75% GGBS. The results indicate that
increasing the amount of SCMs in concrete could degrade the effect
of eco-cement (by one third). This is one of the reasons why CO2
emissions reduction considering different carbon mitigation mea-
sures together (such as Scenario 10 in Fig. 4) is less efficient than
the sum of the individual effect.
591
4.1.3. Combined effects of concrete strength, SCMs, cement type,
and aggregate size
This section investigates the minimum carbon emissions of
concrete due to the combined effects of the four plain concrete
design parameters. The relationship between different concrete
design parameters is mathematically formulated in Fig. 8. Concrete
containing 100% OPC corresponds to the upper bound of the carbon
emissions for each strength class. Mixed-use of 75% GGBS and 25%
eco-cement represents the lower bound carbon emissions for all
concrete mix proportions. Since the carbon emissions of concrete
vary between the upper and lower bounds, manufacturers can
simply choose the concrete mix proportions from Fig. 8 that
correspond to the minimum possible carbon emission.
For 100% OPC concrete, increasing the compressive strength by
5 MPa produces 20 kg CO2-e/m3 more carbon emissions. In addi-
tion, increasing the maximum aggregate size to 40 mm can reduce
12% of the OPC content in concrete and 60 kg CO2-e/m3 of the
carbon emissions. For example, at least 340 kg/m3 of OPC is needed
for C40 concrete containing 10 mm aggregate. If the maximum
aggregate size increases to 40 mm, only 280 kg OPC is needed to
coat the aggregate particle surface area. As a result of the reduced
cement content, the carbon emissions of concrete become lower. A
similar comparison has been carried out for FA and GGBS concrete.
It should be noted that if large amounts of SCMs and/or eco-cement
are used in concrete, the variation of carbon emissions between
two consecutive strength classes is reduced to only 5 kg CO2-e/m3.
Moreover, the carbon reduction using large-sized aggregates also
becomes less efficient at only 14 kg CO2-e/m3. It means that
increasing the amount of SCMs/eco-cement in concrete could
alleviate the effects of high strength concrete and large-sized ag-
gregates. This is another reason why the combined effects of
different carbon mitigation measures are not as significant as the
sum of the individual effect.
592 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597

4.2. Recommendations for carbon mitigation in buildings

Fig. 9 shows the improvement of each reinforced concrete

Figure 9. Embodied carbon for each floor of the reinforced concrete building using
different types of plain concrete and steel reinforcement.
design parameter to gradually mitigate the building embodied
carbon. If the building design does not apply any recycled materials,
the embodied carbon for lower floors (e.g., 5e15) is 30% more than
that for upper floors (e.g., 35e40). This is because the structural
load-bearing elements (i.e., columns and core walls) at lower floors
need to carry heavier building loads from the upper structure and
have larger sizes. The primary option for reducing the embodied
carbon is to minimize the volume of materials needed and then
utilize as much recycled materials as possible. Using high strength
concrete (e.g., C80) can significantly reduce the structural element
sizes (e.g., by 11%) and should be applied to lower floors first, as
there are more opportunities to reduce the embodied carbon.
Table 6 summarizes the embodied carbon mitigation by changing
1% of the material design parameters, and the results indicate that
increasing the concrete strength by 1% can reduce the embodied
carbon of the building by 1.05 kg CO2-e/m2. Doubling concrete
strength can reduce more than 11% of the building embodied car-
bon. When the structural element sizes reach the limit designated
in building design codes, using high strength concrete cannot
further mitigate the embodied carbon and alternative carbon
mitigation measures (such as recycled materials) should be
considered.
As shown in Table 6, FA is the most efficient recycled cementi-
tious material because it could reduce the most building embodied
carbon by adding 1% in concrete (2.12 kg CO2-e/m2). But the rela-
tively low OPC substitution rate of FA (i.e., 35%) constrains the
maximum carbon mitigation at only 15%. GGBS is less efficient
(1.96 kg CO2-e/m2) than FA, but it should be encouraged in practice
as GGBS can replace as much as 75% of the OPC in concrete and
decreases around 30% of the building embodied carbon. Then, the
remaining 25% OPC content can be replaced by eco-cement to
further mitigate 8.5% (i.e., 13%  13, decreasing effect due to 75%
GGBS) of the embodied carbon in the reinforced concrete building.
Additional experimental studies are needed to explore the
compatibility of using multiple SCMs and eco-cement as the sub-
stitute materials. Utilizing recycled scrap is another efficient
approach (1.89 kg CO2-e/m2) to further mitigate the building
embodied carbon. Specifically, using 30%e100% recycled steel

Table 6
Relationship between different material design parameters and the embodied carbon in the building.

Design parameter Expected change Reduction of embodied Maximum possible

carbon in the building (kg reduction
CO2-e/m2)

Concrete Steel Total

Concrete strength [1% (reduce concrete & steel demands, but increase per-unit carbon emissions of Y 0.13 Y Y 1.05 11% (Doubling strength)
concrete) 0.92 (0.22%)
FA [1% (decrease per-unit carbon emissions of concrete) Y 2.12 e Y 2.12 15% (35% FA)
(0.44%)
GGBS Y 1.96 e Y 1.96 30% (75% GGBS)
(0.41%)
Eco-cement (MSWI) Y 0.65 e Y 0.65 13% (100% eco-cement)
(0.13%)
Large-sized [1% (reduce OPC content) Y 0.52 e Y 0.52 8% (40 mm)
aggregates (0.11%)
Steel scrap [1% (decrease per-unit carbon emissions of steel) e Y Y 1.89 40% (100% recycled)
1.89 (0.39%)
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
reinforcement can achieve a maximum reduction of 10%e40%. If
the recommendations above-mentioned are implemented, the
embodied carbon in the building can be reduced to a very low level
(over 70%) with 200 and 150 kg CO2-e/m2 for lower and upper
floors.
The choice of different raw materials affects the thermal resis-
tance (i.e., R-value) of reinforced concrete and hence the heating/
cooling requirements of the whole building. As compared to OPC
concrete, the concrete specimens containing recycled SCMs have a
lower thermal conductivity and can potentially reduce the carbon
emissions from building energy use. But it is also important to
consider the local weather condition, thermal insulation, and
building configuration when analyzing the energy use due to
different material options. If the exterior walls comprise a thermal
insulation layer (e.g., polystyrene or mineral wood), the thermal
resistance of a building will depend largely on the insulation layer.
Different choices of reinforced concrete may not significantly
impact the heating/cooling requirements. In addition, in subtropi-
cal weather where solar radiation accounts for a large proportion of
the cooling load, the thermal conductivity of glass facade plays a
more important role in determining the heating/cooling re-
quirements. The change of concrete materials may have less sig-
nificant effects on the carbon emissions from energy use.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a holistic approach is presented to help mitigate
the embodied carbon of reinforce concrete in buildings. The
method is used to design various concrete mix proportions and to
evaluate the carbon emissions from each composition in reinforced
concrete production. The method also provides systematic details
to illustrate the effect of various concrete mix designs on the total
embodied carbon in buildings. The findings reveal more insights
into the combined effect of various concrete design parameters on
the embodied carbon mitigation, which will serve as a basis to help
optimize the carbon performance of buildings. Increasing concrete
compressive strength by 100% reduces the amount of concrete by
36% and reduces the embodied carbon by 11%. The results also
show that using SCMs (35% FA or 75% GGBS) reduces the embodied
carbon of a building by 16% or 31%, respectively. Using 100%
Fig. A1. The effect of recycled aggregate on the carbon emissions of concrete.
593
recycled steel scrap in reinforcement reduces the total building
embodied carbon by 39%, and therefore should be encouraged.
Using eco-cement reduces the embodied carbon of a reinforced
concrete building by 14%, and embodied carbon can be reduced by
9% with the use of 40 mm aggregate. The findings of this study
serve as a decision support basis for more environmentally sus-
tainable decisions in concrete production and building design. It
has to be noted that the theoretical improvements are based on the
particular building used in this study, but the conclusions drawn
here could be extrapolated to other concrete buildings with a
similar configuration (e.g., similar mix proportions or concrete
products with the same compressive strength, SCMs, and recycled
scrap content). The actual results may differ for different buildings,
but the same method can be used to quantify the relevant carbon
emissions and to generate carbon reduction strategies.
Appendix A1. The effect of recycled aggregate on the carbon
emissions of concrete
To investigate the effect of recycled aggregate on the overall
CO2-e of concrete, the C35 concrete with 10 mm aggregate and
100% OPC is selected as the basic mixture. Two extra mixtures, Mix
1 and Mix 2, are designed with one being replaced by 20% recycled
coarse aggregate and another replaced by 20% recycled fine
aggregate. Figure A1 compares the carbon emissions between a
basic mixture using natural aggregate and two alternative mixtures
using recycled aggregates. The results imply that around half of the
carbon emissions from aggregate extraction can be reduced by
replacing one kg of recycled aggregate in concrete production. In
Mix 1, the percentage contribution of natural and recycled fine
aggregate, i.e., 0.64% þ 0.08%, is reduced by 0.08% as compared to
the fine fraction in the basic mixture (0.80%). For Mix 2 which ap-
plies 20% recycled coarse aggregate, the contribution of the coarse
fractions, i.e., 0.73% þ 0.09%, is reduced by 0.09%. It is not suggested
to use recycled aggregate to reduce the CO2-e of concrete as the
reduction is less than 1%. However, using recycled aggregate in
concrete production can reduce the demand for natural resources
and C&D wastes disposed of at landfills. This is very important for
the small cities with local scarcity of resources and landfill spaces.
594 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597

aggregate size, the maximum w/b ratio and minimum cement

content are determined, with values of 0.55 and 300 kg/m3,
respectively. The amount of mixing water and aggregate are also
Appendix A2. Carbon emissions of OPC concrete using the
derived. The resulting CO2-e emissions are quantified and sum-
proposed approach
marized in Table A2.1. By comparing the prediction results, it can be
concluded that the proposed approach has an acceptable accuracy
The proposed approach is verified via a comparison between the
in predicting the carbon emissions of concrete. The proposed
typical mix described in the literature and another concrete
approach is further examined to determine the carbon emission of
mixture generated by the framework. First, a classic mix design for
concrete for different strength classes, aggregate sizes, and SCMs
C40 concrete without SCMs is obtained from literature and the CO2-
(see Tables A2.2 and A2.3).
e emissions are calculated based on the literature data. Secondly, a
trial C40 concrete mixture is designed using our framework,
assuming the use of OPC and 20 mm medium-graded aggregate
(similar to the literature). Given the strength class and maximum

Table A2.1
Mixture proportions and CO2-e emissions for C40 concrete

Sources of emission Calculated from literature data Using the proposed approach

Mixture from literature (kg/m3) Emissions (kg CO2-e/m3) Trial mixture (kg/m3) Emissions (kg CO2-e/m3)

OPC 328a 329.64b 300c 301.50c

Coarse aggregates 1,242a 3.83b 1,257c 3.87c
Fine aggregates 781a 2.41b 738c 2.27c
Water 190a 0.19b 165c 0.17c
Batching e 3.00a e 3.36c
Transportation e 9.00a e 13.62c
Total e 348.06 e 324.80
a
Obtained from literature (Turner and Collins, 2013).
b
Calculated from literature data.
c
Determined using the proposed approach.

Table A2.2
Carbon emissions of OPC concrete using 10 mm sized aggregate

Strength SCM substitutions Carbon emission of raw materials (kg CO2-e/m3) Carbon emissions of concretea

OPC Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Water FA GGBS

C25 100% OPC 281.40 2.93 3.05 0.20 e e 305

25% FA 211.05 2.95 3.07 0.18 0.56 e 235
35% FA 182.91 2.96 3.08 0.18 0.78 e 207
35% GGBS 182.91 2.96 3.08 0.18 e 8.13 214
75% GGBS 70.35 2.97 3.09 0.17 e 17.43 111

C30 100% OPC 301.50 2.85 3.08 0.20 e e 325

25% FA 226.13 2.86 3.10 0.18 0.60 e 250
35% FA 195.98 2.87 3.11 0.18 0.84 e 220
35% GGBS 195.98 2.87 3.11 0.18 e 8.72 228
75% GGBS 75.38 2.88 3.12 0.17 e 18.68 117

C35 100% OPC 321.60 2.77 3.13 0.19 e e 345

25% FA 241.20 2.79 3.14 0.18 0.64 e 265
35% FA 209.04 2.80 3.15 0.18 0.90 e 233
35% GGBS 209.04 2.80 3.15 0.18 e 9.30 241
75% GGBS 80.40 2.81 3.17 0.17 e 19.92 123

C40 100% OPC 341.70 2.70 3.17 0.19 e e 365

25% FA 256.28 2.72 3.19 0.18 0.68 e 280
35% FA 222.11 2.72 3.20 0.17 0.95 e 246
35% GGBS 222.11 2.72 3.20 0.17 e 9.88 255
75% GGBS 85.43 2.74 3.21 0.16 e 21.17 130

C45 100% OPC 361.80 2.64 3.23 0.18 e e 385

25% FA 271.35 2.66 3.25 0.17 0.72 e 295
35% FA 235.17 2.66 3.25 0.16 1.01 e 259
35% GGBS 235.17 2.66 3.25 0.16 e 10.46 269
75% GGBS 90.45 2.67 3.27 0.16 e 22.41 136

C50 100% OPC 361.80 2.65 3.37 0.16 e e 385

25% FA 271.35 2.66 3.39 0.15 0.72 e 295
35% FA 235.17 2.67 3.39 0.15 1.01 e 259
35% GGBS 235.17 2.67 3.39 0.15 e 10.46 269
75% GGBS 90.45 2.67 3.40 0.14 e 22.41 136
a
The result includes 3.36 kg CO2-e/m3 emissions from concrete batching and 13.62 kg CO2-e/m3 from raw material transportation (see Appendix 3).
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597 595

Table A2.3
Carbon emissions of OPC concrete using 40 mm sized aggregate

Strength SCM substitutions Carbon emission of raw materials (kg CO2-e/m3) Carbon emissions of concretea

OPC Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Water FA GGBS

C25 100% OPC 241.20 2.27 4.04 0.17 e e 265

25% FA 180.90 2.28 4.05 0.16 0.48 e 205
35% FA 156.78 2.29 4.06 0.15 0.67 e 181
35% GGBS 156.78 2.29 4.06 0.15 e 6.97 187
75% GGBS 60.30 2.29 4.08 0.15 e 14.94 99

C30 100% OPC 241.20 2.24 4.16 0.16 e e 265

25% FA 180.90 2.25 4.18 0.15 0.48 e 205
35% FA 156.78 2.26 4.19 0.14 0.67 e 181
35% GGBS 156.78 2.26 4.19 0.14 e 6.97 187
75% GGBS 60.30 2.26 4.20 0.14 e 14.94 99

C35 100% OPC 261.30 2.16 4.19 0.16 e e 285

25% FA 195.98 2.17 4.20 0.15 0.52 e 220
35% FA 169.85 2.17 4.21 0.14 0.73 e 194
35% GGBS 169.85 2.17 4.21 0.14 e 7.55 201
75% GGBS 65.33 2.18 4.23 0.14 e 16.19 105

C40 100% OPC 281.40 2.08 4.22 0.15 e e 305

25% FA 211.05 2.09 4.24 0.14 0.56 e 235
35% FA 182.91 2.09 4.25 0.14 0.78 e 207
35% GGBS 182.91 2.09 4.25 0.14 e 8.13 215
75% GGBS 70.35 2.10 4.26 0.13 e 17.43 111

C45 100% OPC 301.50 2.01 4.26 0.15 e e 325

25% FA 226.13 2.01 4.28 0.14 0.60 e 250
35% FA 195.98 2.02 4.29 0.14 0.84 e 220
35% GGBS 195.98 2.02 4.29 0.14 e 8.72 228
75% GGBS 75.38 2.02 4.30 0.13 e 18.68 117

C50 100% OPC 321.60 1.94 4.32 0.14 e e 345

25% FA 241.20 1.95 4.33 0.14 0.64 e 265
35% FA 209.04 1.95 4.34 0.13 0.90 e 233
35% GGBS 209.04 1.95 4.34 0.13 e 9.30 242
75% GGBS 80.40 1.96 4.36 0.13 e 19.92 124
a
The result includes 3.36 kg CO2-e/m3 emissions from concrete batching and 13.62 kg CO2-e/m3 from raw material transportation (see Appendix 3).

Appendix A3. Concrete batching and transportation of weight materials. An effective carbon reduction approach is to
concrete constituent materials locate the concrete batching plant at a strategic position that can
minimize the transportation distance and time, or to reduce the
Concrete batching contributes 3.36 kg CO2-e/m3, being respon- returned concrete due to the slump loss during transportation.
sible for 1%e3% of the overall carbon emissions. As discussed pre-
viously, the manufacturing processes are primarily powered by
electricity (5.8 kWh/m3), with very small amounts of fossil fuels
used by the mechanical equipment and refrigerants for ice making.
Of the overall electricity consumption, the mixing equipment is the
most significant contributor (2.54 kWh/m3), which accounts for
half of the carbon emissions generated by concrete manufacture.
The remaining electricity consumption is shared by the screening
and belt conveying of aggregate, pneumatic transfer of cement and
SCMs, and other electricity usages such as lighting and air condi-
tioning throughout the manufacturing processes and office space.
The carbon emissions due to the transportation of concrete
constituent materials are estimated according to industrial average
data. The average transportation carbon emissions is estimated to
be 13.62 kg CO2-e/m3. As Figure A2 shows, transportation of OPC
from Japan contributes 43.72% of the carbon emissions associated
with transportation. It is followed by the overseas transportation of
aggregate from China (33.60%) and domestic transport of aggregate
(12.69%) and OPC (5.44%). The carbon emissions due to trans-
portations depend on the vehicle types (i.e., road transport,
waterborne shipment, and rail), transportation distance, and
weight of the cargo. The high proportion of OPC transportation
(from Japan) is related mainly to the long shipment distance, i.e., on
Fig. A2. Carbon emissions due to transportation of concrete constituent materials2
average 2500 km/trip from Japan to Hong Kong. Transportation of
aggregate from China and Hong Kong are the second and the third
largest contributors because aggregate is very bulky and heavy
596 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
Appendix A4. Breakdown of carbon emissions for concrete
Figure A3 represents the breakdown of carbon emissions for
concrete with various amounts of SCMs. GGBS has much higher
substitution rates, replacing up to 75% of OPC to achieve a dramatic
carbon reduction in plain concrete. As a result, OPC contributes to
less carbon emissions of around 67% in concrete, while the per-
centage contribution of GGBS is increased to approximately 18%.
Fig. A3. Breakdown of carbon emissions for typical C50 concrete with various amounts of SCMs (the values are taken as the average of 10 mm and 40 mm aggregates)3
References
BSI, 2006. Concrete e Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1, Part 1:
Method of Specifying and Guidance for the Specifier. British Standards Insti-
tution (BSI).
Flower, D.J.M., Sanjayan, J.G., 2007. Green house gas emissions due to concrete
manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5), 282e288.
Gan, V.J.L., Cheng, J.C.P., Lo, I.M.C., 2016. Integrating life cycle assessment and multi-
objective optimization for economical and environmentally sustainable supply
of aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 76e85.
Gan, V.J.L., Chan, C.M., Tse, K.T., Lo, I.M.C., Cheng, J.C.P., 2017a. A comparative
analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise buildings regarding different design
parameters. J. Clean. Prod. 161 (10), 663e675.
Gan, V.J.L., Cheng, J.C.P., Lo, I.M.C., 2015. A systematic approach for low carbon
concrete mix design and production. In: Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Sustainable Infrastructure.
Hong Kong.
Gan, V.J.L., Cheng, J.C.P., Lo, I.M.C., Chan, C.M., 2017b. Developing a CO2-e accounting
method for quantification and analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise
buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 825e836.
García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Alcal a, J., 2014. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 19 (1), 3e12.
Gursel, A.P., Masanet, E., Horvath, A., Stadel, A., 2014. Life-cycle inventory analysis of
concrete production: a critical review. Cement Concr. Compos. 51, 38e48.
Habert, G., De Lacaillerie, J.D.E., Roussel, N., 2011. An environmental evaluation of
geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends.
J. Clean. Prod. 19 (11), 1229e1238.
Habert, G., Roussel, N., 2009. Study of two concrete mix-design strategies to reach
carbon mitigation objectives. Cement Concr. Compos. 31 (6), 397e402.
Hammond, G., Jones, C., 2008. Inventory of Carbon & Energy. University of Bath.
Harrison, G.P., Maclean, E.J., Karamanlis, S., Ochoa, L.F., 2010. Life cycle assessment
of the transmission network in Great Britain. Energy Policy 38 (7), 3622e3631.
Hernandez, P., Kenny, P., 2010. From net energy to zero energy buildings: defining
life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB). Energy Build. 42 (6), 815e821.
HKBD, 2013. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete. Hong Kong Building
Department (HKBD).
HKEPD, HKEMSD, 2010. Guidelines to Account for and Report on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Removals for Building in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Environmental
Protection Department (HKEPD) and Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical
Services Department (HKEMSD).
Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., Acquaye, A., 2013.
Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildingsda review of current trends.
Energy Build. 66, 232e245.
Imbabi, M.S., Carrigan, C., McKenna, S., 2012. Trends and developments in green
cement and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built. Environ. 1 (2), 194e216.
Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2008. Environmental life cycle assessment of a
commercial office building in Thailand. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (6), 498e511.
Liu, R., Durham, S.A., Rens, K.L., Ramaswami, A., 2011. Optimization of cementitious
material content for sustainable concrete mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (6),
745e753.
Meyer, C., 2009. The greening of the concrete industry. Cement Concr. Compos. 31
(8), 601e605.
Miller, S.A., Horvath, A., Monteiro, P.J., Ostertag, C.P., 2015. Greenhouse gas emis-
sions from concrete can be reduced by using mix proportions, geometric as-
pects, and age as design factors. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (11), 114017.
O'Brien, K.R., Me nache , J., O'Moore, L.M., 2009. Impact of fly ash content and fly ash
transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption in concrete. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (7), 621e629.
Purnell, P., 2013. The carbon footprint of reinforced concrete. Adv. Cem. Res. 25 (6),
362e368.
Purnell, P., Black, L., 2012. Embodied carbon dioxide in concrete: variation with
common mix design parameters. Cement Concr. Res. 42 (6), 874e877.
Shen, L., Tam, V., Tam, C., Ho, S., 2002. Material wastage in construction activitiesea
Hong Kong survey. In: Proceedings of the First CIB-W107 International Con-
ferencedCreating a Sustainable Construction Industry in Developing Countries.
Sjunnesson, J., 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete. Department of Technology
and Society, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies Lund University,
Sweden.
Taiheiyo, 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Taiheiyo Cement Corpora-
tion, Japan.
Teychenne , D.C., Franklin, R.E., Erntroy, H.C., Marsh, B.K., 1997. Design of Normal
Concrete Mixes, second ed. Construction Research Communications Ltd.,
Watford.
Turner, L.K., Collins, F.G., 2013. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: a comparison
 V.J.L. Gan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 582e597
between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 43,
125e130.
UNEP, 2009. Buildings and Climate Change e Summary for Decision Makers. United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Van den Heede, P., De Belie, N., 2012. Environmental impact and life cycle assess-
ment of traditional and ‘green’concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations. Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (4), 431e442.
WRI, 2012. CO2 Emission Factors by Weight Distance. World Resource Institute
(WRI). Available from: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/tools/Emission-
597
Factors-from-Cross-Sector-Tools-(August-2012).xlsx. (Accessed 15 June 2015).
WSA, 2014. Fact Sheet: Steel and Raw Materials. World Steel Association (WSA).
Yan, H., Shen, Q., Fan, L.C., Wang, Y., Zhang, L., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in
building construction: a case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ.
45 (4), 949e955.
Zhang, J., Cheng, J.C.P., Lo, I.M.C., 2014. Life cycle carbon footprint measurement of
Portland cement and ready mix concrete for a city with local scarcity of re-
sources like Hong Kong. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (4), 745e757.