Environmental and Health Impact Assessment

of Minerals and Waste Product as Partial

Replacement for Cement in
Self-Compacting Concrete
Clemente, S.J., Ferrer, B.A, and Melchor, J.J.
Introduction
Sustainability
Four Core Principles of Sustainability
• energy consumption
• sustainable source
• health impact
• economic impact
Self-Compacting Concrete
Rheology
• Viscosity
• Flow Ability
• Passing Ability
• Resistance to Segregation
Cement
• SCC need greater amount of cement
• Cement produces greater environmental
impact
(Hossain et.al, 2017)
Two Methods to Lower
Environmental Impact of Cement
• Total Replacement
• Partial Replacement
Fly Ash
• Is the byproduct of burning coal usually
from electric power plants.
Composed of the following:
CaO (%): 1-12
LOI (%): 0-15
SiO2 (%): 20-60
Basalt Powder
• Basalt is an igneous rock that
forms from the relatively rapid
solidification
Lime Stone Powder
• Made from skeletal fragments of marine
organism.
• Composed of different crystal forms of
calcium carbonate
Zeolite Mineral
• Microporous, aluminosilicate
minerals
• Usually used in detergents and
absorbents
Replacing Cement
of Uysal and Sumer, 2011
 The main objective of the study is to
determine the environmental and health
impact of different mixtures of self-
compacting concrete with different mineral
admixtures as replacement for cement.
Specific Objectives:
• Determine the distances of transporting the
minerals and constituents of the SCC mixtures
• Calculate the health impact of different
mixtures
• Calculate the environmental impact of different
mixtures
Significance of the Study
• The study was significant to all concrete
manufacturer since the result of the study will
gives information on choosing the best mixture
of SCC that is not only limited to rheology and
strength but also with its environmental and
health impact.
• The study is also significant to government
officials involved in environmental protection
since it can be a basis for decision making in
cement manufacturing.
Scopes and Limitations
• The study is limited to six different minerals as
partial replacement for cement which are fly
ash, basalt powder, marble powder, limestone
powder and zeolite.
• Life cycle analysis of the SCC mixtures is limited
only from cradle to gate.
• The assumed location of batching plant for the
concrete is Caloocan City (10K Concrete Mix
Specialist).
Review of Related
Literature
CO2 Emission of Cement
the problem why CO2 emission increases is the increase of demand of cement.
Tianming et.al, 2017
Environmental Impact of Cement
Hossain et.al, 2017
Environmental Impact of Cement
Hossain et.al, 2017
A Review of
Waste Products
Utilized as
Supplements to
Portland Cement
in Concrete
Paris, J.M. et. al, 2016
Environmental Impact
Analysis of Blast Furnace Slag
Li, et al, 2016
 The Effect of Limestone on
The Compressive Strength
• Compressive strength decreases as well with
respect to the increase of limestone powder
content, though results are competitive in
comparison of compressive strength of 10%
Portland limestone cement from pure Portland
cement.
Ramezanianpour, et al, 2009
A Comparative Cradle-To-Gate
Life Cycle Assessment of Three
Concrete Mix Designs
In a study by Tait and Cheung, 2016, researchers assessed three
concrete mixes, one with traditional Portland cement, one with
35% Fly Ash and one with 70% ground granulated furnace slag,
using SimaPro 8.0 LCA.
Using three impact assessment methods, Eco-indicator 99, EPD
2008, and Ecopoints 97, it has shown that ground granulated
blast furnace slag is the best method of the three to reduce CO2
emissions, even if the use of fly ash is still viable compared to
the traditional Portland Cement.
Framework
Life Cycle Analysis Framework
Methodology
Design Mix Materials Cement FA BP LP Z Water w/p w/c Sand 3/4 3/8
Proportion (kg/ m3) crushed
gravel

crushed
gravel
Control 550 - - - - 182 0.33 0.33 869 467 311
FA15 467 83 - - - 182 0.33 0.39 865 457 305
FA25 412 138 - - - 182 0.33 0.44 887 451 301
FA35 357 193 - - - 182 0.33 0.51 878 445 297
BP10 495 - 55 - - 182 0.33 0.37 866 465 310
BP20 440 - 110 - - 182 0.33 0.41 863 463 309
BP30 385 - 165 - - 182 0.33 0.47 861 462 307
MP10 495 - - - - 182 0.33 0.37 867 466 311
MP20 440 - - - - 182 0.33 0.41 865 465 309
MP30 385 - - - - 182 0.33 0.47 863 463 312
LP10 495 - - 55 - 182 0.33 0.37 866 464 311
LP20 440 - - 110 - 182 0.33 0.41 863 463 308
LP30 385 - - 165 - 182 0.33 0.47 860 461 307
Z10 495 - - - 55 182 0.33 0.41 863 463 308
Z20 440 - - - 110 182 0.33 0.47 860 461 307
Distance Calculation No. Coal Plant
Fly Ash
Location Distance (km)
Cement 1 Masinloc Coal Power Plant Masinloc, Zambalez 251.2
No. Cement Plant Location Distance (km) 2 Sual Power Station Sual, Pangasinan 244.2
1 Eagle San Ildefonso 61.7 3 Quezon Power Philippines Mauban, Quezon 158.6
2 Mabuhay San Fernando 63.8 4 Calaca Power Complex Calaca, Batangas 117
3 Solid Antipolo 23.8 192.75
4 Republic Bulacan 35.4
Lime Stone
5 Holcim Bulacan 35.4 No. Lime Stone Quarry Location Distance (km)
6 Taiheiyo Pangasinan 205.6 1 Island quarry and aggregates (Cemex) - San Jose, Antipolo 37.9
2 Republic Cement Norzagaray, Bulacan 24.5
70.95
3 Holcim Mining and Development Norzagaray, Bulacan 24.5
Sand and Gravel 4
5
Republic Cement
Holcim
Taysay Batangas
Luna, La Union
137.3
293.4
No. Sand and Gravel Quarry Location Distance (km) 6 Luzon Continental Land San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan 13.6
7 Marble Mining Ilocos Norte 499.9
1 Anamel Builder Corporation Gapan, Nueva Ecija 85.4 8 Northern Cement Corporation Sison Pangasinan 201.3
2 Rockmix Inc. Balanga, Bataan 115 9
10
Quimson Limestone
Ibalong Resources and Development
Tanay, Rizal
Camalig, Albay
67.4
497.6
3 Pampanga San Fernando, Pampanga 63.8 11 Solid North Mineral San Ildefonso, Bulacan 58.1
168.68
88.07
Zeolite
basalt Powder No. Zeolite Plant Location Distance (km)
No. Basalt Quarry Location Distance (km) 1 Panay Mineral Product Resources CorporationRizal 51.3
1 Republic Cement Teresa, Rizal 46.8 2 Saile Inductries Pangasinan 204.4
3 AMATEC Tradeline Inc. Laguna 124
4 Rio Grande Mining and Aggregates Pampanga 95.2
118.725
CO2 Emission Calculation
Using SimaPro
• A life-cycle analysis software known as SimaPro
8.3 will be used to evaluate the environmental
impact of the materials used and create life
cycles and product assemblies of different
mixtures of concrete to analyze. Inventory data
of the materials used will be provided by
SimaPro libraries and databases. Transportation
and extraction method will also be included in
the calculation of carbon dioxide emission.
LCA Assumptions
• Three methods of impact assessment analysis will be
used, based from the study by Tait and Cheung, 2016
since they were the most accepted and generally used
methods for demonstrating environmental profiles.
• Eco-indicator 99
• EPD 2008
• Ecopoints 97
• Concrete processes were assumed to be uniform for each
mixed design and considered irrelevant to the analysis.
Processing data for the materials will be considered.
• Fly ash is a by-product, so any related emissions related to
steel or electricity productions will not be included in the
system boundary for concrete production. Transportation
and processing emissions will be considered instead.
LCA Assumptions
• Basalt, limestone and zeolite that will be used in the concrete
production are wastes from the original extraction of
materials, therefore emissions from their production will not
be considered in the system boundary for concrete.
Transportation and processing emissions will be considered
instead.
• Average round trip transportation distances to the concrete
plant are estimated to be 71 km for the cement, 89 km for the
aggregates, 47 km for the basalt, 193 km for the fly ash and
119 km for the limestone. Distances were assumed using
Philippines Setting
• All transportation use will be by lorry – EURO 3 with capacity
of 16-32 metric tons.
• w/p ratio of 0.33 will be used.
Life-cycle Assessment/ISO
14040
ISO 14040
Results and Discussion
Carbon Dioxide Emission
CO2 Emission
120
CO2 Emission (g)

100
80
60
40
20
0
Mixtures
Impact on Ozone Layer
Ozone Layer
0.08
Ozone Layer (g)

0.078
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.07
0.068
0.066
0.064
0.062
Mixtures
Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption
4
Energy Consumption (kpt)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Mixtures
Environmental and Health
Impacts
30.00
25.00
20.00
Impact (Pt)

15.00
Human Health
10.00
Ecosystem Quality
5.00 Resources
0.00
Mixtures
Environmental and Health
Impacts
Impact Category Unit SCC-C SCC-FA15 SCC-FA25 SCC-FA35 SCC-BP10 SCC-BP20 SCC-BP30
Carcinogens DALY 7.5543E-05 6.9412E-05 6.5573E-05 6.1461E-05 7.0912E-05 6.6282E-05 6.166E-05
Respiratory organics DALY 1.5574E-07 1.524E-07 1.5135E-07 1.4887E-07 1.5009E-07 1.4445E-07 1.3884E-07
Respiratory inorganics DALY 0.0003412 0.00030752 0.00028624 0.00026369 0.00031581 0.00029043 0.00026509
Climate change DALY 0.00011211 9.8443E-05 8.957E-05 8.0475E-05 0.0001025 9.2898E-05 8.3301E-05
Radiation DALY 2.2602E-07 2.2276E-07 2.228E-07 2.2012E-07 2.1901E-07 2.1201E-07 2.051E-07
Ozone layer DALY 2.1504E-08 2.1301E-08 2.1341E-08 2.1166E-08 2.0842E-08 2.018E-08 1.9525E-08
Ecotoxicity PAF*m2yr 88.26 84.96 83.36 81.05 84.28 80.31 76.36
Acidification/ Eutrophication PDF*m2yr 11.94 10.72 9.95 9.14 11.03 10.12 9.20
Land use PDF*m2yr 5.74 5.58 5.52 5.40 5.50 5.27 5.04
Minerals MJ surplus 3.13 2.89 2.75 2.59 2.95 2.77 2.60
Fossil fuels MJ surplus 227.77 213.41 204.97 195.21 214.95 202.12 189.34
Environmental and Health
Impacts
Impact Category Unit SCC-LP10 SCC-LP20 SCC-LP30 SCC-ZP10 SCC-ZP20
Carcinogens DALY 7.1449E-05 6.7345E-05 6.3252E-05 7.1229E-05 6.6905E-05
Respiratory organics DALY 1.5325E-07 1.5071E-07 1.4822E-07 1.5196E-07 1.4812E-07
Respiratory inorganics DALY 0.00031864 0.00029603 0.00027347 0.00031748 0.00029372
Climate change DALY 0.00010301 9.39E-05 8.4801E-05 0.0001028 9.3487E-05
Radiation DALY 2.2344E-07 2.208E-07 2.1823E-07 2.2163E-07 2.1717E-07
Ozone layer DALY 2.1324E-08 2.1136E-08 2.0956E-08 2.1126E-08 2.0742E-08
Ecotoxicity PAF*m2yr 85.93 83.57 81.25 85.25 82.23
Acidification/ Eutrophication PDF*m2yr 11.13 10.31 9.49 11.09 10.23
Land use PDF*m2yr 5.62 5.51 5.39 5.58 5.41
Minerals MJ surplus 2.97 2.82 2.66 2.96 2.80
Fossil fuels MJ surplus 217.97 208.13 198.33 216.73 205.65
Ecopoints-97
Ecopoints-97
Total Environmental and
Health Impact
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
Impact (Pt)

20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Mixtures
Conclusion
Conclusion
The distances of sources of mineral replacement
did not play significant impact in increasing the
environmental and health issues compared to the
mixture with pure cement mixture.
Conclusion
SCC mixture with Fly ash replacement produces the
lowest health impact with a score of 18.38Pt compared
to the control sample which garnered a score of 23.96. A
decrease of 23.3% from the conventional mix was
observed when using 35% fly ash as replacement to
cement powder. Basalt powder with 30% replacement
and limestone powder with 30% replacement are the
second and third best choices among all mixtures.
Conclusion
In terms of environmental impact, all mixtures yield lower
values compared to the control sample but the best mixture
was SCC-BP30 with a difference of 17.3% followed by SCC-
FA35 and SCC-LP30. The main reason why these mixtures
yield lower environmental impact was because they do not
need high temperature or additional fossil fuel to be
extracted compared to cement.
Recommendation
Recommendations
Cradle to gate analysis gave analysis is
recommended to apply on the future study to
determine the most reasonable mixtures that
yield the lowest health and environmental impact
Since the rheological and compressive strength of
these mixtures was already established and its
environmental and health impact was also
studied, it is recommended to study the cost
analysis for these mixtures to helped batching
plant in decision making
References:
• Bouzoubaa, N., & Lachemi, M. (2001). Self-compacting concrete incorporating high
volumes of class F fly ash: preliminary results. Cement and concrete research, 31(3), 413-
420.
• Clemente, S.J.C. & Oreta, A.W.C. Artificial Neural Network Modeling of Self-Compacting
Concrete with Zeolite Mineral as Particial replacement for Cement. International Journal of
Environment, Society and Space.
• Huang, T. Y., Chiueh, P. T., & Lo, S. L. (2016). Life-cycle environmental and cost impacts of
reusing fly ash. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
• Huntzinger, D. N., & Eatmon, T. D. (2009). A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 17(7), 668-675
References:
• Li, Y., Liu, Y., Gong, X., Nie, Z., Cui, S., Wang, Z., & Chen, W. (2016). Environmental impact analysis of
blast furnace slag applied to ordinary Portland cement production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120,
221-230.
• International Standard Organization. (1997). ISO 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle
Assessment-Principles and Framework.
• Laibao, L., Yunsheng, Z., Wenhua, Z., Zhiyong, L., & Lihua, Z. (2013). Investigating the influence of
basalt as mineral admixture on hydration and microstructure formation mechanism of
cement. Construction and Building Materials, 48, 434-440.
• O’Brien, K. R., Ménaché, 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. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(7), 621-629.
• Paris, J. M., Roessler, J. G., Ferraro, C. C., DeFord, H. D., & Townsend, T. G. (2016). A review of waste
products utilized as supplements to Portland cement in concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121,
1-18.
References:
• Ramezanianpour, A. A., Ghiasvand, E., Nickseresht, I., Mahdikhani, M., & Moodi, F. (2009). Influence
of various amounts of limestone powder on performance of Portland limestone cement
concretes. Cement and Concrete Composites, 31(10), 715-720.
• Tait, M. W., & Cheung, W. M. (2016). A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of three
concrete mix designs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(6), 847-860.
• Uysal, M., & Sumer, M. (2011). Performance of self-compacting concrete containing different mineral
admixtures. Construction and Building materials, 25(11), 4112-4120.
• Van den Heede, P., & De Belie, N. (2012). Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of
traditional and ‘green’concretes: literature review and theoretical calculations. Cement and Concrete
Composites, 34(4), 431-442.
• Vidal, R., Moliner, E., Martínez, G., & Rubio, M. C. (2013). Life cycle assessment of hot mix asphalt
and zeolite-based warm mix asphalt with reclaimed asphalt pavement. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 74, 101-114.