Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Environmental life cycle assessment of lightweight concrete to support

recycled materials selection for sustainable design
Loredana Napolano a,b,⇑, Costantino Menna b, Sossio Fabio Graziano c, Domenico Asprone b,
Marco D’Amore c, Roberto de Gennaro d, Michele Dondi e
a
STRESS scarl, Sviluppo di Tecnologie e Ricerca per l’Edilizia sismicamente Sicura ed EcoSostenibile, Vico II San Nicola alla Dogana 9, 80133 Naples, Italy
b
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
c
Department of Earth Science, Environment and Resources, University of Naples Federico II, Via Mezzocannone 8, 80134 Naples, Italy
d
CISAG, University of Naples Federico II, Via Mezzocannone 8, 80134 Naples, Italy
e
ISTEC-CNR, Via Granarolo, 64, 48018 Faenza, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

 A LCA is performed for artificial lightweight aggregates produced from waste sources.
 The environmental impacts of different types of lightweight concrete are investigated.
 Artificial aggregates produced from natural raw materials determine the highest environmental impact in concrete material.
 Lightweight aggregates produced from industrial waste raw materials provide environmental benefits due to the avoided impacts.

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

Article history: The constant increase in consumption of aggregates for concrete production represents a major environ-
Received 18 January 2016 mental issue in the construction industry. Recycled wastes might be used as raw materials in the
Received in revised form 2 May 2016 manufacturing of artificial LightWeight Aggregates (LWAs) in substitution and/or in combination with
Accepted 3 May 2016
aggregates produced using natural sources for several end-uses, thus saving non-renewable resources.
Available online 27 May 2016
In this study, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is performed for different LWAs manufactured with raw
materials supplied by nature or waste. Then, the LCA is conducted on different concretes made of the
Keywords:
different LWAs.
Lightweight concrete
Lightweight aggregates
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Expanded clay
Sustainability

1. Introduction environmental issues related to the depletion of natural resources

Concrete is the most consumed material in the construction
sector and the second most consumed substance on Earth after
water. The estimated worldwide concrete consumption was 32 mil-
lion m3 in 2013 [1]. Consequently, the consumption of aggregates,
which represent the major component in concrete mixes, is con-
stantly and rapidly increasing with the rise in concrete production
and utilization. For example, it was estimated that 150 million tons
of aggregates were produced in 2013 in the countries of European
Union [1]. Inevitably, these considerations give rise to common
⇑ Corresponding author at: STRESS scarl, Sviluppo di Tecnologie e Ricerca per
l’Edilizia sismicamente Sicura ed EcoSostenibile, Vico II San Nicola alla Dogana 9,
80133 Naples, Italy.
E-mail address: loredana.napolano@unina.it (L. Napolano).
and, consequently, to the availability of aggregates.
In the last decades, waste reuse/recycling has been considered
as a valuable option to substitute the conventional aggregates in
concrete production as well as to reduce waste generation. Con-
struction and Demolition waste (C&D) recycling, for example, has
the potential to reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills
and to preserve natural resources by avoiding new raw material
production; this practice has been successfully used in ordinary
concrete production [2–7].
The environmental comparison between normal/conventional
and recycled concrete (produced using waste as raw materials)
has been performed in several studies [8–16] and the results
showed clear environmental benefits for all recycled concrete
options, mainly due to the avoided impacts associated with the
avoided disposal of waste. For instance, some studies have clearly

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.042
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384
showed the environmental benefits related to the uses of glasses
and plastic waste as raw materials for aggregates production in
ordinary concrete [17–21].
It has been also reported that cement is the largest contributor
to the overall life cycle environmental burden of all concrete types
(conventional and recycled ones). This evidence has forced the
research community to develop proper environmental friendly
solutions and new low-CO2 binders capable of reducing the envi-
ronmental impacts associated with the cement industry [22–25].
Besides cement component, aggregates are typically the second
largest contributors in normal concrete production [11,14,15]
while transport phase influences the overall environmental profile
of concretes depending on the transport distances and transport
vehicle type [10].
As far as LightWeight Aggregates (LWAs) are concerned, they
are usually produced starting from minerals, including natural rock
materials such as shale, clay, or slate. These raw materials are ther-
mally expanded to about twice the original volume to get final
aggregate density. The resulting material has properties similar
to natural (bulk) aggregates, but is less dense and consequently
yields a lighter concrete product. Indeed, the main difference
between ordinary and lightweight concrete is the bulk density. In
the former, this value usually ranges between 2200 and 2600 kg/
m3, while in the latter it ranges between 300 and 2000 kg/m3
[26]. This difference results in the reduction of dead weights on
structure, and also provides a better thermal and acoustic insula-
tion. Several research activities have investigated the possibility
of replacing LWAs manufactured with natural raw materials with
recycled ones for the production of lightweight concretes. How-
ever, the authors of most of these studies focus intensely on the
chemical, physical, and mechanical properties/performances of
new Recycled Lightweight Aggregate Concretes (RLACs) whereas
their environmental performance is usually not considered, even
though they investigate the possibility of using waste products
deriving from industrial processes [27–33]. Several experimental
studies [31–33] have also showed opportunities for the reuse of
industrial wastes, such as muds coming from both ornamental
stone (granite sludge from sawing and polishing operations) and
ceramic production (porcelain stoneware tile polishing sludge);
starting from these wastes, the manufacturing of LWAs was
demonstrated to be suitable for constituents of structural and/or
thermo-insulating lightweight concretes.
On the basis of the results reported in [31–33], the present
study aims to investigate the environmental footprint of different
lightweight concretes made of different LWAs by means of a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology [34,35]. In detail, the present
paper is organized as follows:
1) The environmental performance of LightWeight Aggregates
(LWAs) produced from natural and industrial waste raw
materials is first calculated and compared. The LWAs manu-
factured with industrial waste raw materials are obtained
starting from the following waste: Campanian Ignimbrite
(Cab70), Dry Powder Mud (DPM), and granitoid orthogneiss
SERizzo (SER); instead, the LWAs produced by natural raw
materials are made of (expanded) clay.
2) Then, the environmental footprint of the Natural Light-
weight Aggregate Concrete (NLAC) and Recycled Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete (RLAC) made with the above mentioned
lightweight inert options are assessed and the results are
compared. The proposed lightweight concrete mixes have
been selected from previous works of the authors [31–33]
considering the hypothesis that those mixes should have
the same physical and mechanical performances (for LCA
comparative purposes).
371
2. Materials
Four artificial LightWeight Aggregates (LWAs) (Type A, Type B, Type C and Type
NA) are investigated from an environmental point of view. The main difference
among these LWAs is the raw material used for their production; indeed, three
LWA types (Type A, B and C) are produced using industrial waste as raw materials
(LWAs_R indicates recycled sources for raw materials), and one LWA type (Type NA)
using clay as raw material (LWA_N indicates a natural source for raw material).
Additional details of all artificial aggregate types are provided in the following
sub-sections.
2.1. LWA_R
Raw materials (recycled wastes) used to produce LWA_R and afterwards used in
RLAC mixes are the following:
1) Mud deriving from the processing (cutting and sawing) of commercial ‘‘ze-
olitite” (rocks with zeolite content higher than 50 wt.%), coming from a
quarry site located near Comiziano, Naples-Italy (Campanian Ignimbrite,
hereafter referred to as Cab70);
2) Mud deriving from the processing (cutting and sawing) of Serizzo (a gran-
itoid orthogneiss, hereafter referred to as SER), from the Verbania-Cusio-
Ossola district (Verbania, Italy);
3) Mud resulting from polishing porcelain tiles (Dry Powder Mud, hereafter
referred to as DPM), from the Sassuolo industrial district (Modena, Italy).
Further information about chemical, mineralogical and technological character-
ization of each industrial waste can be found in [31–33].
The production process adopted to obtain LWA_R from the above described
waste materials is composed of three main steps [31–33]:
1- Mixing of secondary materials: The raw materials require to be properly mixed
(in terms of % w/w) in order to achieve the final physical and mechanical properties
of the LWA_R. Moreover, the use of DPM and/or Cab70 waste material is needed in
each LWA_R mix to guarantee a proper expansion process during thermal treat-
ment. The resulting mixes of raw materials (% w/w) which are used to produce
LWA_R in the RLAC (reported in the subsequent sections) are reported in Table 1
[31–33] and are named as ‘‘Type” as follows:
- Type A indicates LWA_R composed of 100% of Cab70 secondary material;
- Type B indicates LWA_R composed of 70% and 30% of Cab70 and DPM secondary
materials, respectively;
- Type C indicates LWA_R composed of 50% of SER and 50% of DPM secondary
materials.
2- Compaction and granulation: Compaction and granulation of secondary
materials and their mix (Table 1) are obtained by means of dry granulation
using a compactor apparatus and a briquettes breaker mill according to the fol-
lowing procedure. The powder material is moistened by adding 3% water by
weight and poured into a feed screw hopper, where it is continuously conveyed
to the compactor which generates the briquettes (Fig. 1a). These are further
granulated and divided in order to obtain a grain size fraction ranging between
3 and 8 mm.
3- Thermal treatment: dynamic firing (rotative kiln). The materials coming from
the compaction and granulation phase are thermally treated in dynamic condi-
tions by a rotative kiln at the temperatures and for a duration reported in
Table 1. During this thermal treatment, the compacted DPM raw material
expands thanks to the presence of small amounts (about 3% in weight) of an
abrasive substance, i.e. Silicon Carbide (SiC) contained in the mud coming from
ceramic tile production; SiC is released at high temperatures from compacted
material, producing CO2 gas [31–33]. On the contrary, in the case of Cab70,
the expansion of the compacted material is driven by the gas (H2O steam) which
is incorporated in the material itself. In Fig. 1b, the recycled LWAs are shown
after the production steps.
2.2. LWA_N
Raw material used to produce artificial LWA_N is natural clay (Table 1).
The production process used to obtain LWA_N is composed of three steps [36]:
Mixing process, Thermal treatment and Expansion process. The mined clay is mixed
with water, ground and sometimes granulated (mixing process) and then burned
at reverse flow in a rotary furnace at 1200 °C (Thermal treatment). The material
burns and expands with the help of heavy fuel oil (Expansion process). The pellets
are rounded in shape and fall from the kiln in a grade of approximately 0–32 mm
with an average dry bulk density of approximately 600 kg/m3. The crushing
resistance value is approximately 1.3 MPa (Table 1) [36] according to [37].
Table 1 reports the composition and the principal properties of LWA_N (named
as Type NA).
372 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384

Table 1
Mix composition (% w/w of LWAs) and main properties of LWAs: LWAs_R and LWAs_N [31–33].

Cab70 SER DPM Clay Production conditions Physical and mechanical properties
(% w/w) (% w/w) (% w/w) (% w/w)
Temperature Soaking time at Bulk density H2O absorption after Crushing
(°C) Tmax (min) (g/cm3) 24 h (%) resistance (MPa)
LWA_R Type A 100 1380 5–6 1.01 5.7 0.6
Type B 70 30 1300 5–6 0.81 1.4 2.94
Type C 50 50 1300 5–6 0.68 2.3 1.2
LWA_N Type NA 100 1200 5–6 0.60 2 1.3

Fig. 1. (a) Briquettes and granulate after compaction and granulation; (b) LWAs_R.

Table 2
Lightweight concrete mix designs (NLAC and RLAC) (quantities are referred to 1 m3 of lightweight concrete) [32,39].

Components MIX NA MIX A MIX B MIX C

Mix design LWAs (kg) Expanded clay
(Type NA) 515
Cab70
(Type A) 404
Cab70 + DPM
(Type B) 259
SER + DPM
(Type C) 306
Portland cement Z 42.5 (kg) 330 400 400 350
Water (kg) 181 224 224 175
Silica sand (kg) 675 760 760 500
Superplasticizer (kg) 0.086
Incorporated air (l) 22

2.3. Recycled and natural lightweight concrete (RLAC and NLAC)
All types of LWAs (Table 1), described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, are used as arti-
ficial aggregates for the production of lightweight concretes. The corresponding
concrete mix designs (Table 2) have been derived from previous works of the
authors [32] and from commercial product datasheets [36]. Moreover, all light-
weight concretes chosen for the LCA analysis belong to the same compressive
strength class (i.e. C20/25) [38] and have the same final density (i.e. 1600 kg/m3)
at 28 days. These two hypotheses reflect typical users’ design choices when light-
weight concretes are employed in construction operations, i.e. compressive
strength and material density. The details of the concrete mix design of each option
investigated are summarized in Table 2 and are related to 1 m3 of lightweight con-
crete material. The different lightweight concrete options are hereafter denoted as
‘‘MIX” followed by the letter of the LWA type used to produce them. For instance,
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384
MIX A in Table 2 refers to the lightweight concrete obtained with Type A LWAs_R.
Concrete mix-design includes sometimes incorporated air (approximately 20 l/m3
for MIX C, Table 2) and chemical additive, i.e. superplasticizer (for MIX NA, Table 2)
(polycarboxylate ether), in order to reduce damage during freezing and to improve
the workability, respectively [32,39].
3. Methods
The environmental performances of the different LWAs (LWA_R
and LWA_N) described in the previous section and the correspond-
ing lightweight concrete mixes (RLAC and NLAC) are evaluated by
means of a LCA approach [34,35]. Following, the conceptual steps
of the LCA are schematically reported, including: (1) Goal and
Scope, (2) Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), (3) Life Cycle Impact Assess-
ment (LCIA) and (4) Interpretation:
3.1. Goal and Scope
The primary goal of the present study is to define and compare
the environmental impacts associated with the production of differ-
ent types of lightweight concretes: i) Natural Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete (NLAC) made with LWA_N aggregates (natural clay raw
material) and ii) Recycled Lightweight Aggregate Concrete (RLAC)
made with three different LWAs_R (industrial waste raw materials).
Moreover, in order to highlight the potential environmental benefits
and critical production phases related to the aggregates, the LCA is
also performed on the LWAs only. For this reason, we report the
declared unit which is chosen in these two cases as following:
 Lightweight concrete: the lightweight concrete mixes (Table 2)
have been selected from previous works of the authors [31–
33], considering the hypothesis that those mixes have the same
physical and mechanical performances (for LCA comparative
purposes). In particular, C20/25 compressive strength class
[38] and a final density of 1600 kg/m3 are chosen as reference
mechanical and physical properties, respectively, for the defini-
tion of the related reference flow, i.e. 1 m3 of lightweight
concrete.
 LWAs: for the assessment of the environmental footprint of the
different LWAs, produced starting from both industrial waste
and natural raw materials described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2,
Cement production Cement
Additive production Additives
Transport
Water supply Tap water
i)LWAs_N
(exploded system in fig. 3)
Aggregate production ii) LWAs_R
(exploded system in fig. 4)
Energy
Fig. 2. System boundary, NLAC and RLAC production (1 m3, C20/25 compressive strength class, final density of 1600 kg/m3).
373
respectively, 1 m3 of LWAs is chosen as reference flow (to con-
sider volumetric amounts in concrete mix design). Hence,
according to the bulk density values reported in
Table 1 and 1010 kg of Type A, 810 kg of Type B, 680 kg of Type
C are compared with 600 kg of Type NA.
3.2. System boundary
Fig. 2 shows the NLAC and RLAC production system boundary.
Both systems include raw materials production (cement, aggre-
gates production and water supply) and generate 1 m3 of light-
weight concrete as a final output product. The other lifecycle
phases, such us construction/installation, use and end of life, of
both NLAC and RLAC, are excluded from the analysis because they
represent phases common to all the alternatives and contribute
with the same environmental impacts.
The NLAC system boundary includes the LWA_N production
reported in Fig. 2-(i). The schematic production process related to
this inert type is reported in Fig. 3 and represents the current pro-
duction practice of expanded clay aggregates in Italy.
The RLAC system boundary includes the LWA_R production
(Fig. 2-(ii)). The different types of LWA_R are produced starting
from different industrial waste secondary materials, according to
the weight ratios reported in Table 1. In particular, Fig. 4 shows
the system boundary and the production process of LWA_R. The
main differences between LWA_N and LWA_R, as described in
the Materials section and illustrated in the Fig. 4, are the raw mate-
rials used and the manufacturing process adopted for the produc-
tion of LWAs.
3.3. Allocation
According to the European Union directive [40], a waste may be
regarded as a by-product if several requirements are met, such as
its use in other industrial processes. In this study, the different
waste flows, used as raw materials for the production of LWA_R,
are considered as dependent co-products. In order to effectively
quantify the environmental impacts of the investigated co-
products and corresponding RLAC mixes, the allocation procedure
is taken into account by means of a System Expansion (SE)
(i) 1 m3 NLAC
(ii) 1 m3 RLAC
CONCRETE
PRODUCTION
Production
Landfill
waste
374 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384

Heavy fuel oil

Natural Raw
material
Clay

Expansion
Transport

Heating
LWAs_N

Mixing
Water

Electricity/
Diesel Production process

Fig. 3. System boundary of LWA_N production process (1 m3).

Finishing porcelain
stoneware les
Product A2

Recycling
Raw porcelain

Process A2
stoneware

Polishing

waste materials

DPM

Compacon and
Raw materials for LWAs

granulaon
Transport
Waste materials

Heang
Mixing
LWAs_R
Process A1
Mining of

Cab70, SER
stones

Sawing

waste materials

Producon process
Process I
Polishing
Grinding

Final natural stone

product
Product A1

Fig. 4. System boundary of LWAs_R production process (1 m3).

approach according to [34–35,41–42]. This approach enables to environmental benefits related to their secondary use. Moreover,
expand the product system and include the additional functions/ it should be pointed out that, for the cases investigated, a pure
uses associated with the by-products [41–42]. Several studies have physical allocation method (e.g. mass allocation) was not applied,
dealt with the evaluation of the environmental impact of the waste since the ratio between product and by-product cannot be varied
sources used as raw materials in the production of aggregates for without changing the inputs and outputs volumes [41]; in addi-
normal concrete; these studies usually implement mass and/or tion, although the economic allocation might be applied, this rule
economic allocation approaches [43–48]. According to the mass was not selected as proper allocation method since the economic
and economic allocation approaches, the inputs and the outputs value of secondary materials herein investigated couldn’t be accu-
of a system (i.e. a production process of a product including by- rately attributed.
products) should be allocated between the products/by-products The resulting SE allows the quantification of the environmental
according to physical (e.g. mass) or economic (e.g. cost) relation- impacts of LWA_R when a by-product is used, taking into account
ships between them, respectively. the avoided raw material supply (e.g. clay extraction and trans-
Although the quantification of the environmental impacts of co- port) and production process of LWA_N, as showed in Fig. 5. In par-
products should be made using the SE approach, (i.e. avoiding the ticular, the allocation scenario herein adopted follows the
allocation of input and output between the products in favor of hypothesis that the LWAs are fully utilized (demand higher that
expanding the product system) little research has been conducted supply [41]) on the basis of the information of annual production
using this approach for the environmental impacts assessment of rate of both aggregates and wastes [51–53].
aggregates made of recycled raw materials [16,49–50]. Within this The expanded product system related to the RLAC production
context, the present study investigates the environmental footprint consists of (Fig. 5) the environmental burden of determining pro-
of LWAs_R, using the SE method considering all processes related duct (Products A1, A2, Fig. 4) for the co-producing processes (i.e.
to the production and treatment of the wastes as well as the waste materials). In detail [41]:
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384
Determining Product:
Mining and sawing of stone Natural stone product
Product A1
Process A1
Dependent Co-Product (Waste materials):
Cab70 and SER
Transport
Intermien reatment of secondary materials
Process I1 (compacon, granulaon)
Intermien reatment Process I2 (Heang )
LWAs (Type A, Type B, Type C)
Avoided impact Process D:
Natural clay extracon and manufacturing process of
LWA_N
Fig. 5. Expanded product system related to RLAC production.
 With regard to the use of Cab70 and SER waste materials, Pro-
duct A1 (in the expanded system) is composed by: Process A1 -
+ Process I Process D, where Process A1 includes the mining,
sawing and transportation of natural stones;
 With regard to the use of DPM waste material, Product A2 (in the
expanded system) is composed by: Process A2 + Process I Pro-
cess D, where Process A2 includes raw material extraction for
porcelain stoneware, transportation and polishing processes;
For all the investigated waste materials:
 Process I (intermittent) includes compaction and granulation
(Process I1 Fig. 5), and heating treatment (Process I2 Fig. 5),
including transportation;
 Process D is the avoided raw materials supply (i.e. natural clay
extraction and transport- from clay extraction plant to aggre-
gate manufacturing plant) and the production process of
LWA_N (Section 2.2) [41].
Given these considerations, the LWAs_R imply 100% of the bur-
den of Process A, and Process I, including transportation, and cred-
its from Process D (Fig. 5); while, RLAC receives 100% of the burden
of process B and process D (Fig. 5), where Process B represents the
lightweight concrete production process [41].
Although avoiding allocation (in favor of expanding the product
system) can be regarded as the preferable option (all processes
related to production treatment Process and credit of secondary
materials - Process A, I and D, respectively – are included in the
system boundary), a sensitivity analysis has been also performed
including a different allocation rule, as discussed in the Section 5.
In particular, the LCA results calculated with SE of by-products
are then compared with the results obtained by the application
of cut-off allocation criteria, i.e. by associating the environmental
impact of LWAs only to the intermittent process I1,2 (Fig. 5) includ-
ing transportation [54].
3.4. Transport scenarios
Only the transport of raw materials (industrial waste materials
and natural clay for LWAs production) to the lightweight concrete
375
Determining Product:
Porcelain stoneware les
Raw porcelain stoneware and polishing
Process A2 Product A2
Dependent Co-Product (Waste materials):
DPM
Transport
Intermien reatment of secondary materials
Process I1 (compacon, granulaon)
Process B:
Recycled Lightweight
concrete Producon
production site is taken into account for NLAC and RLAC mixes. It is
pointed out that, as hypothesis of the study (that reflects national
current practice in lightweight concrete industry) either industrial
waste materials and natural clay processing occur in the same
plant where lightweight concrete is produced. It is also assumed
that all other components of concrete mix-design (cement, fine
aggregates, etc.), from extraction to production phases, are manu-
factured in the same plant of the lightweight concrete material.
Three different transport scenarios are considered for the LWAs,
corresponding to the relative location of the collecting site of the
waste materials, Cab70 and DPM. This choice is related to the fol-
lowing consideration: as reported in Table 1, the Cab70 and DPM
are always used in the LWAs_R mixes along with other waste
materials (e.g. SER). In the transport Scenario 1, it is assumed that
the lightweight concrete plant is located in Naples (Italy), corre-
sponding to the area where Cab70 waste material is collected. In
the transport Scenario 2 it is assumed that the plant is located in
Modena (Italy), corresponding to the collecting area of DPM waste
material, whereas in the Scenario 3 the transport phase is com-
pletely omitted from the LCA system boundary (for all analyzed
cases). Within the latter hypothesis, the location of the i) collecting
site of the waste materials, ii) the aggregate manufacturing plant
and iii) lightweight concrete plant correspond to the same place
for all the considered alternatives. Although it represents a not
very realistic situation, Scenario 3 allows a better focusing on
raw materials production and processing, trying to investigate
the environmental impact of LWAs, RLAC and NLAC when the
impact of the transport is not included. Table 3 shows the input
data for the transport phase (one way) for all cases of LWAs.
3.5. Inventory data, cut off rules and data quality requirements
Primary data concerning the amount of raw materials, energy
consumption, machineries, emissions, waste materials have been
directly collected from Italian suppliers and manufacturers. Where
the data have been missing, the study has been completed on the
basis of information obtained from databases available in the
SimaPro 7.3 LCA software package. These secondary data have
been retrieved from the Ecoinvent 2.2 database [55]. In this specific
case, in order to guarantee data quality requirements, including
376 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384

Table 3
Transport scenarios.

Waste materials Distance (one way) (km) Distance** Equipment Data Database
Scenario 1 DPM 626 Sassuolo-Naples Lorry Transport lorry 16 t, fleet average Ecoinvent 2.2
Cab70 40 Comiziano-Naples Lorry
SER 881 Verbania-Naples Lorry
Natural clay 775 Milano-Naples Lorry
Scenario 2 DPM 19 Sassuolo-Modena Lorry
Cab70 610 Comiziano-Modena Lorry
SER 284 Verbania-Modena Lorry
Natural clay 179 Milano-Modena Lorry
**
Distance from extraction/production to finishing plant.

time-related, geographical and technological representativeness,
LCI Ecoinvent data have been suitably modified on the basis of
the information and practices of local (Italian) ceramic tile, tuff
stones and aggregate suppliers and manufacturers. In case of insuf-
ficient data, materials or processes that contribute with less than
1% to the total mass or the energy flows or the energy use of pro-
duct system have been omitted in the calculations; according to
[55] the excluded data include: embodied energy and emissions
associated with construction of R/NLAC plant equipment and
buildings, heating and cooling of such infrastructures, workers
transportation, accelerator admixtures for concrete, residual wash-
ing water fresh R/NLAC production and environmental burdens
caused by the work force. The following sections describe the main
assumption adopted in the inventory analysis:
and the production process of LWAs_N (Process D) as reported in
the expanded system boundary in Fig. 5.
3.10. LCIA methodology
The IMPACT 2002+ [56] methodology is used for the impact
assessment phase. This method is composed of 14 midpoint indica-
tors and four damage (endpoint) indicators: Human health (DALY),
Ecosystem quality (pdf*m2*yr), Climate change (kg CO2 eq), and
Resources (MJ Primary). In this study, only a damage oriented
method is employed to achieve environmental impact results,
because, while the midpoint method provides quantitative results,
the former may offer results which are easily interpreted by the
readers.

3.6. Cutting energy data for LWAs_R 4. Results and discussion

The process A1 (Fig. 5) includes the sawing of stones that
requires a different amount of energy depending on the hardness
of the stone itself. The values of cutting energy are calculated on
the basis of the hardness index of the starting materials used to
produce the waste materials (Cab70 and SER) and are reported in
Table 4.
As mentioned in the introduction section (Section 1), the first
part of the LCA analysis involves the comparison of the environ-
mental performance of LWAs_R and LWAs_N. Then, the NLAC
and RLAC environmental performances are compared (Section 4.2).
4.1. LWAs_R and LWAs_N

3.7. Heating treatment energy 4.1.1. Transport scenario 1

The same energy input data, referring to the Italian electricity
mix, retrieved from Ecoinvent database [55], is also used to model
the heating treatment (i.e. thermal treatment by means of dynamic
firing through a rotative kiln) for each LWA production process.
3.8. Energy for LWA expansion
While LWA_N production includes clay extraction and mechan-
ical mixing, thermal and expansion treatments, the LWAs_ R pro-
duction do not include this expansion phase, as explained in
Section 2.1. Indeed, the expansion of LWAs_R is initiated by chem-
ical compounds contained in waste materials (SiC and H2O steam).
On the contrary, the heavy fuel oil, at industrial furnace [50] is used
to model the expansion process in the case of LWAs_N.
3.9. Avoided impact
Avoided environmental impacts for the modeling of LWAs_R
concern the raw material extraction, (i.e. natural clay), the trans-
port from clay extraction plant to aggregate manufacturing plant
Table 4
Cutting energy values.
Waste materials Cutting energy values (kWh/kg)
Cab70 0.196
SER 0.99
With regard to transport scenario 1 (Fig. 6a), the results of the
LCA reveal that:
Two LWAs_R types (Type A and Type B) show negative environ-
mental impacts in all the damage categories. It clearly appears that
the avoided processes (clay extraction, clay transport – 775 km,
Table 3 - and production process of LWAs_N), provide environmen-
tal benefits. Indeed, these avoided processes are able to maximize
the overall life cycle environmental performance of these types of
lightweight aggregate in all the LCA categories. With regard to
these aggregates (Type A and Type B), the environmental credit
of the avoided processes (Process D) are higher than the impact
related to the production process of the waste materials (Process
A1 and A2) and the treatment of LWAs including transportation
(Process I1,2) (Table 5). In addition, by analyzing the environmental
benefits of Process D (Section 4.2), it clearly appears that the
avoided transport of natural clay (avoided 775 km) along with
the avoided manufacturing phase of Type NA, provide greater envi-
ronmental benefit than those coming from the avoided raw mate-
rial extraction (Table 5).
In detail:
- Type A LWAs, made of 100% of Cab70 waste material (Table 1),
presents the lowest environmental impact in all the categories.
Indeed, it shows the highest negative environmental
impact ranging between 27% and 77% in all the LCA cate-
gories; these results are mainly due to the avoided processes
(Process D) and the shorter transport distance of Cab70, as
showed in Table 3.
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384 377

100%
80%
60%
40%

(a) Scenario 1
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

100%

90%

80%

70%
(b) Scenario 2

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

90%

70%
(c) Scenario 3

50%

30%

10%

-10%
Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

Type A_SE Type B_SE Type C_SE Type NA

Fig. 6. LCA results of LWAs_R and LWAs_N; (a) Transport Scenario 1; (b) Transport Scenario 2; (c) Transport Scenario 3 (reference flow 1 m3).

- Also Type B LWAs, made of 70% of Cab70 and 30% of DPM waste
materials (Table 1), presents a negative environmental impact,
lower than Type A, ranging between 3% and46% in all the
LCA categories; as discussed for the Type A, these results are
mainly due to environmental benefits linked to the avoided
processes (Process D).
- Type C LWAs exhibits an environmental performance of 48%
lower than Type NA in all the environmental categories but this
aggregate type (differently from the other LWAs_R) does not
present negative environmental burden. The environmental
performance of Type C LWAs is influenced by the production
process of SER and DPM waste materials (Process A1,2, Fig. 5).
378 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384
Table 5
Type A (1 m3), Impacts related to production process – Transport Scenario 1.
Type A aggregate – Scenario 1
Category Unit Cab70 Waste material Production process
(Process A1) (Process I(1,2))
Human health DALY 1.70E 04 1.79E 05
Ecosystem quality PDF*m2*yr 2.06E+01 3.35E+00
Climate change kg CO2 eq 1.57E+02 3.15E+01
Resources MJ primary 2.31E+03 4.59E+02
The major contributors to its impact are the cutting energy in
the SER production (Table 4) and the amount of DPM waste
material used in this aggregate type (Table 1).
4.1.2. Transport scenario 2
In transport scenario 2 (Fig. 6b) the environmental impacts of
almost all LWAs_R (Type A and Type B) are influenced by the trans-
port of Cab70 waste material due to the increased distance from
the collecting site. This circumstance causes a global increase of
the impacts with respect to scenario 1. In addition, considering
the avoided processes, the main difference between scenario 1
and scenario 2 is the transport (in terms of distance) of natural
clay; in the former, the transport distance of natural clay is
775 km while in the latter is 179 km (Table 3). Given these consid-
erations, it can be observed that the transport scenario 2 reduces
the environmental benefits linked to the use of waste materials
compared to the results of transport scenario 1. The impact of Type
C LWAs rises by 5–20% in the scenario 2 with respect to scenario 1
while Type A and Type B LWAs no longer present negative environ-
mental impacts.
In detail:
- Type A, in the Ecosystem Quality category, presents an environ-
mental loads higher than all LWAs (LWAs_R and LWAs_N),
mainly due to a larger transport distance of waste material
(Cab70, Table 3).
- The environmental impact of Type C in the Human Health, Cli-
mate Change and Resources categories is highest than all
LWAs_R (but lowest than Type NA), due to the energy con-
sumption related to the production process of waste materials
(SER and DPM); in the Ecosystem Quality damage category,
instead, its impact is lower than all LWAs_R alternatives due
to a shorter transport distance of waste materials (Table 3).
4.1.3. Transport scenario 3
In this scenario, the transport of raw materials (industrial waste
and natural clay) and the avoided transport of natural clay are not
included in the Process I and Process D, respectively. All LWAs_R
show an environmental impact lower than the impact of Type
NA in all damage categories (Fig. 6c). Also in this scenario, Type C
is responsible for the major impact among LWAs_R in almost all
damage categories, due to the production process of the waste
materials (SER and DPM). Instead, the environmental profile of
other LWAs_R is very low (Human Health and Climate Change cat-
egories for Type A and Type B) and also negative in the case of Type
A in Resources category. As already mentioned, it is mainly due to
the environmental benefits related to the Process D which are
higher than the impacts of the Process A1,2 and Process I1,2. As
reported in Fig. 6c, the negative environmental profile of the
LWAs_R are substantially limited in the case of scenario 3, since,
as above mentioned, in the process D the (avoided) transport of
natural clay is excluded, resulting in a lower negative environmen-
tal ‘‘values” for all LWAs_R.
Avoided processes Total
(Process D)
Clay extraction Transport Production process LWA_N
3.25E 06 1.36E 04 1.37E 04 8.92E 05
2.17E 01 4.35E+01 1.14E+01 3.12E+01
1.62E+00 1.22E+02 1.82E+02 1.16E+02
2.44E+01 1.78E+03 2.72E+03 1.76E+03
4.2. Avoided impacts and I1,2 intermittent process of LWAs_R
Clay extraction and transport operations along with the manu-
facturing phase (clay burning and expansion with heavy fuel oil)
are major contributors to the environmental impact of Type NA
LWAs, which represent the avoided impacts (Process D, Fig. 5)
for the LWAs_R. The related benefits are especially exploited in
the scenario 1 (Fig. 6a) along with the ‘‘avoided” transport distance
of natural clay which is larger than the distance in the other sce-
narios investigated (Table 3).
In order to estimate the avoided impact for the LWAs_R system
boundary, as a representative example, the environmental profile
of the Type A LWAs, for Scenario 1, 2 and 3, is reported in Tables
5–7, respectively, in terms of quantitative environmental data
and considering all the lifecycle manufacturing Processes (Process
A1, Process I1,2 and avoided Process D, Fig. 6).
The avoided processes related to Type A include the avoided
impact of clay extraction, its transport and the production process
of LWAs_N (process D, Fig. 5). The quantitative environmental data,
reported in Tables 5–7, demonstrate that the avoided processes
provide several environmental benefits. In particular, the major
benefits come from the avoided production process of LWAs_N, fol-
lowed by the avoided natural clay transport and extraction.
Process I, which includes the transport of Cab70 from waste
materials production plant (i.e. Comiziano) to the aggregate man-
ufacturing plant, has a minor impact when transport is excluded
from the analysis (Scenario 3, Table 7) whereas it has major impact
when the distance of the aggregate manufacturing plant is the lar-
gest considered (Scenario 1, Table 5).
Table 8 reports the quantitative environmental data concerning
the manufacturing processes of all LWAs (process I). The manufac-
turing process of LWAs_N (Type NA), as expected, is approximately
one order of magnitude larger than the corresponding values of
LWAs_R (e.g. 3.67E + 02 MJ Primary in the Type A and 2.74E
+ 03 MJ Primary in the Type NA, for the Resources damage category).
As already mentioned, this aspect is due to heavy fuel oil used for
expansion process of LWAs_N that determines an environmental
impact 90% larger than the impact of LWAS_R production process.
4.3. Recycled and natural lightweight concrete
This section deals with the environmental burdens computed
for 1 m3 of NLAC and RLAC produced starting from the mix designs
reported in Table 2. As it can be observed in Fig. 7, the NLAC (MIX
NA) exhibits the largest environmental impact in all the damage
categories and for each transport scenario herein considered. In
addition, MIX C in the transport scenario 1, MIX A and MIX C in
the transport scenario 2 and 3, present an environmental burden
greater than MIX B. In detail:
- Transport scenario 1. The environmental profile of MIX C is
mainly related to the production process and transport of waste
materials used to produce Type C aggregates (SER and DPM), as
seen also in Section 4.1 in the LWAs comparison.
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384 379

Table 6
Type A (1 m3), Impacts related to production process – Transport Scenario 2.

Type A aggregate – Scenario 2

Category Unit Cab70 Waste material Production process Avoided processes Total
(Process A1) (Process I(1,2)) (Process D)
Clay extraction Transport Production process LWA_N
Human health DALY 1.70E 04 1.18E 04 3.25E 06 3.15E 05 1.37E 04 1.16E 04
Ecosystem quality PDF*m2*yr 2.06E+01 3.53E+01 2.17E 01 1.00E+01 1.14E+01 3.42E+01
Climate change kg CO2 eq 1.57E+02 1.21E+02 1.62E+00 2.82E+01 1.82E+02 6.70E+01
Resources MJ primary 2.31E+03 1.77E+03 2.44E+01 4.12E+02 2.72E+03 9.23E+02

Table 7
Type A (1 m3), Impacts related to production process – Transport Scenario 3.

Type A aggregate – Scenario 3

Category Unit Cab70 Waste material Production process Avoided processes Total
(Process A1) (Process I(1,2)) (Process D)
Clay extraction Transport Production process LWA_N
Human health DALY 1.70E 04 1.09E–05 3.25E 06 0.00E+00 1.37E 04 4.01E 05
Ecosystem quality PDF*m2*yr 2.06E+01 1.10E+00 2.17E 01 0.00E+00 1.14E+01 1.00E+01
Climate change kg CO2 eq 1.57E+02 2.52E+01 1.62E+00 0.00E+00 1.82E+02 8.12E 01
Resources MJ primary 2.31E+03 3.67E+02 2.44E+01 0.00E+00 2.72E+03 6.88E+01

Table 8 is approximately 57% of total environmental burden, even higher

Production process of 1 m3 of LWAs_N and LWAs_R.
Damage category Unit Type A Type B Type C
Human health DALY 1.09E 05 8.30E 06 6.46E 06
Ecosystem quality PDF*m2*yr 1.10E+00 8.40E 01 6.54E 01
Climate change kg CO2 eq 2.52E+01 1.92E+01 1.49E+01
Resources MJ primary 3.67E+02 2.80E+02 2.18E+02
- Transport scenario 2. The impact of MIX A is influenced by the
amount of aggregates used in the mix design (Table 2). This cir-
cumstance mainly affects the Ecosystem Quality category
where the impact of MIX A is higher than MIX NA.
- Transport scenario 2 and scenario 3. The impact of MIX A and
MIXC is influenced by the larger amount of LWAs used in these
two mix designs (Table 2).
The RLAC produced with Type B LWAs (MIX B) is the option
characterized by the lowest environmental impacts in all damage
categories and in almost each transport scenario herein consid-
ered. This result can be attributed to a lower amount of LWAs_R
used in the mix design (Table 2). In order to evaluate the influence
(from the environmental point of view) of Type B aggregates in the
lightweight concrete material, a detailed environmental compar-
ison of NLAC (MIX NA) and RLAC (MIX B) is performed and
reported in Fig. 8, considering transport scenario 3. The environ-
mental contribution of LWAs_N (expanded clay) production in
the NLAC (Fig. 9a) accounts for approximately 38–74% of the total
environmental burden (especially in the Human Health, Ecosystem
Quality and Resources category), whereas the environmental con-
tribution of LWAs_R in MIX B (Fig. 8b) is approximately the 3–21%
of the overall impact among the four damage categories. In detail,
for these LCA categories, the environmental impact is mainly due
to expansion process of clay material (accounting for 2.14 04
DALY, 12.6 PDF*m2*yr, 1970 MJ primary, respectively- Table 9).
These sources of environmental impacts are substantially limited
in the case of LWAs_R (see previous section on avoided impact
and manufacturing process) and the resulting values for MIX B
are 2.26E 05 DALY, 2.05 PDF*m2*yr and 207 MJ (Table 9). The
cement material also affects the environmental results of NLAC
in the Climate Change category; the contribution in this category
than that of LWAs. Due to the reduced impact of LWAs_R, cement
Type NA material primary affects the environmental results of MIX B in all
1.38E 04 LCA categories, accounting for the 70–90% of the total burden.
1.15E+01 The environmental outcomes of aggregates and cement material
1.83E+02 for both investigated concrete types are also reported in Table 9
2.74E+03 in terms of absolute quantitative amounts for each damage cate-
gory. In particular, the environmental contribution of LWAs_R
(Type B) used to produce 1 m3 of RLAC is reduced by approximately
one half compared to the Type NA LWAs_N in all damage cate-
gories. For example, the total energy required to produce 1 m3 of
lightweight concrete equals 3900 and 1970 MJ in case of MIX NA
and MIX B LW concretes, respectively (Table 9), in agreement also
with the considerations on avoided energy reported in the previous
section. It should be also pointed out that, although the cement
material is the major contributor to the overall environmental
impact in the MIX B (in terms of percentage, Fig. 8b), its environ-
mental burden (expressed as numerical value, Table 9) roughly
corresponds to the contribution of the cement in the NLAC mix.
In particular, the environmental outcomes related to the cement
in MIX B result slightly higher than those of the cement in MIX
NA. This is mainly due to a slightly higher amount of cement used
in the MIX B (e.g. 400 kg/m3), as reported in Table 2.
In light of these considerations, it can be finally remarked that
the use of LWAs_R to produce 1 m3 of lightweight concrete of
C20/25 strength class and density of 1600 kg/m3 may significantly
reduce the environmental contribution of artificial LWAs to the
total environmental burden in all damage categories.
5. Sensitivity analysis
In addition to System Expansion (SE [41]) a sensitivity analysis is
performed on the allocation rules, considering also Cut-Off (CO
[54]), procedure as allocation approach. As discussed in the alloca-
tion section, according to SE approach, LWAs_R imply 100% of the
burden of Process A1,2 and Process I1,2, including transportation
and credits from Process D; while, RLAC receives 100% of the burden
of process B and process D (Fig. 5). Instead, within the CO approach,
LWAs_R receive 100% of the burden of only Process I1,2, including
transportation, and RLAC receives 100% of the burden of process B
(Fig. 9). Therefore, LWAs_R bear only the impacts of intermittent
380 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384

100%

90%

80%

70%
(a) Scenario 1 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

100%

90%

80%

70%
(b) Scenario 2

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
(c) Scenario 3

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

MIX A_SE MIX B-SE MIX C-SE MIX NA

Fig. 7. LCA results of NLAC and RLAC (1 m ); (a) Transport Scenario 1; (b) Transport Scenario 2; (c) Transport Scenario 3 (reference flow 1 m3).
3

treatment of LWAs (Process I1,2) and are free of further burdens
related to the production Process A1,2. The cut-off lines are reported
after process A1,2 and at the end of the activities producing the
recycled material. In addition, they do not receive any credit for
recycling or re-use of waste (Process D).
The sensitivity analysis has been conducted considering the
Transport scenario 2; this choice is related to the results of
previous Sections 4.1 and 4.3, highlighting that the transport sce-
nario 2 reduces the environmental benefits (compared with Type
NA) linked to all waste materials (Fig. 6b) and, consequently, to
their use in RLAC (Fig. 7b).
The results are reported in Figs. 10 and 11 for the different allo-
cation methods and for LWAs and Lightweight concretes, respec-
tively. The sensitivity analysis identifies the following points:
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384 381

Fig. 8. LCA results for 1 m3 of lightweight concrete in transport Scenario 3: (a) MIX NA; (b) MIX B_SE.

Fig. 9. Cut off product system related to RLAC production.

Table 9
MIX NA and MIX B: Cement and aggregates impact in 1 m3 of concrete in Transport Scenario 3.

Category Unit Concrete (total values) LWAs Portland cement

MIX NA MIX B Type NA (515 kg) Type B (259.2 kg) MIX NA (330 kg) MIX B (400 kg)
Human health DALY 2.89E 04 1.10E 04 2.14E 04 2.26E 05 6.15E 05 7.45E 05
Ecosystem quality PDF*m2*yr 2.38E+01 1.51E+01 1.26E+01 2.05E+00 8.29E+00 1.00E+01
Climate change kg CO2 eq 4.64E+02 3.56E+02 1.75E+02 9.60E+00 2.66E+02 3.22E+02
Resources MJ primary 3.90E+03 1.97E+03 2.38E+03 2.07E+02 1.15E+03 1.39E+03

- The environmental impacts of LWAs_R and RLAC vary in all LCA
categories when SE and CO methods are applied (Fig. 10).
- In almost LCA categories, the environmental impacts of
LWAs_R, when CO is applied, are larger than the impacts of
LWAs_R calculated with SE approach (Fig. 10). This is related
to the fact that when CO approach is applied, the Process D is
not included in the analysis and then, the environmental results
of RLAC are not affected by the environmental benefits of the
avoided processes.
- All LWAs_R, even if CO approach is applied, present a lower
impact than Type NA, in almost all LCA categories, except for
Type A in the Ecosystem Quality, as in the SE approach.
382 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384

Human Health_DALY Ecosystem quality_PDF*m2*yr

Type C_CO 1,56E-04 Type C_CO 1,84E+01

Type C_SE 1,45E-04 Type C_SE 7,93E+00

Type B_CO 6,93E-05 Type B_CO 2,03E+01

Type B_SE 1,06E-04 Type B_SE 1,78E+01

Type A_CO 1,18E-04 Type A_CO 3,53E+01

Type A_SE 1,16E-04 Type A_SE 3,42E+01

Type NA 2,68E-04 Type NA 2,06E+01

(a) (b)
Climate Change_kg eq. CO2
Resources_MJ P
Type C_CO 1,82E+02
Type C_CO 2,68E+03

Type C_SE 1,29E+02 Type C_SE 2,20E+03

Type B_CO 7,38E+01 Type B_CO 1,08E+03

Type B_SE 6,20E+01 Type B_SE 1,11E+03

Type A_CO 1,77E+03

Type A_CO 1,21E+02

Type A_SE 9,23E+02

Type A_SE 6,70E+01
Type NA 3,02E+03
Type NA 2,21E+02

(c) (d)
Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis for LWAs (1 m3); System Expansion (SE) and Cut Off (CO) in Transport Scenario 2: (a) Human Health; (b) Ecosystem Quality; (c) Climate Change;
(d) Resources.

Human Health_DALY Ecosystem quality_PDF*m2*yr

MIX C_CO 1,46E-04 MIX C_CO 1,93E+01

MIX C_SE 2,14E-04 MIX C_SE 2,29E+01

MIX B_CO 1,63E-04 MIX B_CO 2,59E+01

MIX B_SE 1,74E-04 MIX B_SE 2,51E+01

MIX A_CO 1,35E-04 MIX A_CO 2,73E+01

MIX A_SE 2,03E-04 MIX A_SE 3,55E+01

MIX NA 3,05E-04 MIX NA 2,89E+01

(a) (b)

Climate Change_kg eq. CO2 Resources_MJ P

MIX C_CO 3,83E+02 MIX C_CO 2,73E+03

MIX C_SE 4,50E+02 MIX C_SE 3,88E+03

MIX B_CO 4,36E+02 MIX B_CO 3,09E+03

MIX B_SE 4,32E+02 MIX B_SE 3,11E+03

MIX A_CO 3,96E+02 MIX A_CO 2,48E+03

MIX A_SE 4,59E+02 MIX A_SE 3,40E+03

MIX NA 4,79E+02 MIX NA 4,11E+03

(c) (d)
Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis for RLAC, NLAC (1 m3); System Expansion (SE) and Cut Off (CO) in Transport Scenario 2: (a) Human Health; (b) Ecosystem Quality; (c) Climate
Change; (d) Resources.

- The environmental impact of RLAC, when CO is applied is LWAs (Process I1,2) (see Section 3, Allocation); instead, in
approximately 30% lower than the impact of RLAC calculated the CO approach, the environmental results of LWAs_R
with SE approach (Fig. 11). This is due to the fact that the only depend on the intermittent treatment of LWAs (Process
LWAs_R comprises the production process of secondary I1,2), resulting in a lower environmental profile for all
materials (Process A1,2) and the intermittent treatment of LWAs_R.
 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384
- By using the CO allocation method, the LCA results reveal that
the NLAC still exhibits the largest environmental impact in
almost all the damage categories;
- Also when the CO rule is applied as allocation approach, the
RLAC produced with Type B LWAs is still the option character-
ized by the lowest environmental impacts in all damage
categories (Fig. 11).
5. Conclusion
In the present study, the environmental impacts of the produc-
tion of different types of lightweight concretes, i.e. NLAC and RLAC,
made with different artificial LWAs (LWAs_R and LWAs_N), have
been investigated by means of a LCA approach.
With regard to the LCA of LWAs, the results obtained by apply-
ing a SE allocation rule reveal that the production of all LWAs_R
(use of industrial waste raw materials) present a significantly
lower environmental burden with respect to the production of
LWAs_N (use of natural raw materials), mainly due to potential
benefits of avoided impact (raw material supply and production
process of LWAs_N). In fact, the clay extraction, its transportation
and the production phase (including clay burning and expansion
with heavy fuel oil), strongly contribute to the environmental
impacts of LWAs_N.
Among the LWAs_R, the transport scenario affects the relative
efficiency of different mix options, providing a maximum environ-
mental benefit for all LWA types when the lightweight concrete
plant is located in the area where Cab70 waste material is collected
(Scenario 1). Indeed, in this scenario, since the avoided transport
distance of clay (e.g. 775 km) is higher than other scenarios (e.g.
175 km in Scenario 2 and no transport in scenario 3), almost all
LWAs_R show a negative environmental impact.
With reference to 1 m3 of lightweight concrete of C20/25
strength class and 1600 kg/m3 of density, it can be pointed out that
the NLAC mix, in all the damage and impact categories presents a
larger impact than all of the RLAC mixes. Furthermore, the environ-
mental impact of LWAs_N aggregates in the NLAC production
accounts for around 55% of the total environmental burden,
whereas the environmental impact of LWAs_R in RLAC is almost
15% of total environmental burden. These results are confirmed
also when a CO rule is applied as allocation approach.
Finally, as far as lightweight concrete is concerned, it appears
that the practice of recycling can be successfully implemented in
concrete technology, representing an effective way to convert
industrial waste products (such as ornamental stone and ceramic
wastes) into raw resources for producing new materials, support-
ing construction waste management and construction stakehold-
ers’ decisions.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Cementir S.p.A and Italiana Zeoliti s.r.l. for
technical support on experimental test on concretes and recycled
raw materials used to produce LWA, respectively.
References
[1] Federbeton, www.federbeton.it/, La filiera del cemento e del calcestruzzo
armato nel mondo delle costruzioni, <http://www.federbeton.it/Portals/3/
Documenti/Pubblici/Pubblicazioni/La%20filiera%20del%20cemento%20e%20del
%20calcestruzzo%20armato%20nel%20mondo%20delle%20costruzioni.pdf>,
2014.
[2] N. Lawson, I. Douglas, S. Garvin, C. McGrath, D. Manning, V. Jonathan, Recycling
construction and demolition wastes—a UK perspective, Environ. Manage.
Health 12 (2) (2001) 146–157.
[3] A. Blum, S. Stutzriemer, Recycled construction minerals for urban
infrastructure in germany: non technical issues, Miner. Energy Raw Mater.
Rep. 22 (3–4) (2002) 148–158.
383
[4] M. Weil, U. Jeske, L. Schebek, Closed-loop recycling of construction and
demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter environmental threshold
values, Waste Manage. Res. 24 (3) (2006) 197–206.
[5] A. Rao, K. Jha, S. Misra, Use of aggregates from recycled construction and
demolition waste in concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 50 (1) (2007) 71–81.
[6] M. Hiete, J. Stengel, J. Ludwig, F. Schultmann, Matching construction and
demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain
model, Build Res. Inf. 39 (4) (2011) 333–351.
[7] R. Woodward, N. Duffy, Cement and concrete flow analysis in a rapidly
expanding economy: Ireland as a case study, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (4)
(2011) 448–455.
[8] C. Hoffmann, F. Jacobs, Recyclingbeton aus Beton- und Mischabbruchgranulat
recycling concrete with concrete waste and mixed rubble as aggregates, Mater.
Sci. Tech. (2007).
[9] M. Limbachiya, E. Marrocchino, A. Koulouris, Chemical–mineralogical
characterisation of coarse recycled concrete aggregate, Waste Manage. 27 (2)
(2007) 201–208.
[10] S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Comparative
environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete,
Waste Manage. 30 (11) (2010) 2255–2264.
[11] C. Meyer, The greening of the concrete industry, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31
(2009) 601–605.
[12] A. Cabral, V. Schalch, D. Molin, J. Ribeiro, Mechanical properties modeling of
recycled aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (4) (2010) 421–430.
[13] N. Fonseca, J. de Brito, L. Evangelista, The influence of curing conditions on the
mechanical performance of concrete made with recycled concrete waste, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 33 (6) (2011) 637–643.
[14] P. Van den Heede, N. De Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 431–442.
[15] P. Wu, B. Xia, X. Zhao, The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life
cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete – a review, Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev. 37 (2014) 360–369.
[16] C. Knoeri, E. Sanyé-Mengual, H. Althaus, Comparative LCA of recycled and
conventional concrete for structural applications, Int. J. LCA 18 (909–918) (2013).
[17] V. Corinaldesi, G. Gnappi, G. Moriconi, A. Montenero, Reuse of ground waste
glass as aggregate for mortars, Waste Manage. 25 (2) (2005) 197–201.
[18] L. Pezzi, P. De Lice, D. Vuono, F. Chiappetta, A. Nastro, Concrete products with
waste’s material (bottle, glass, plate), Mater. Sci. Forum (2006) 1753–1757.
[19] N. Saikiaa, J. de Brito, Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and
concrete preparation: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 34 (2012) 385–401.
[20] L. Pereira-de-Oliveira, J.P. Castro-Gomes, P.M.S. Santos, The potential
pozzolanic activity of glass and red-clay ceramic waste as cement mortars
components, Constr. Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 197–203.
[21] F. Iucolano, B. Liguori, D. Caputo, F. Colangelo, R. Cioffi, Recycled plastic
aggregate in mortars composition: effect on physical and mechanical
properties, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) 916–922.
[22] G. Habert, J. d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, N. Roussel, An environmental evaluation
of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends,
J. Cleaner Prod. 19 (11) (2011) 1229–1238.
[23] L. Napolano, C. Menna, D. Asprone, A. Prota, G. Manfredi, Preliminary remarks
on the environmental impact of ordinary and geopolymer concrete, in: First
International Conference on Concrete Sustainability, May 27–29, Tokyo, Japan,
2013.
[24] J.L. Provis, A. Palomo, S. Caijun, Advances in understanding alkali-activated
materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 78 (2015) 110–125.
[25] C. Ferone, B. Liguori, I. Capasso, F. Colangelo, R. Cioffi, E. Cappelletto, R. Di
Maggio, Thermally treated clay sediments as geopolymer source material,
Appl. Clay Sci. 107 (2015) 195–204.
[26] M. Collepardi, Il Nuovo Calcestruzzo, 2002.
[27] I. Chiou, K. Wang, C. Chen, Y. Lin, Lightweight aggregate made from sewage
sludge and incinerated ash, Waste Manage. 26 (12) (2006) 1453–1461.
[28] D. Kralj, Experimental study of recycling lightweight concrete with aggregates
containing expanded glass, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 87 (4) (2009) 267–273.
[29] F. Colangelo, F. Messina, R. Cioffi, Recycling of MSWI fly ash by means of
cementitious double step cold bonding pelletization: technological
assessment for the production of lightweight artificial aggregates, J. Hazard.
Mater. 299 (2015) 181–191.
[30] C. Ferone, F. Colangelo, F. Messina, F. Iucolano, B. Liguori, R. Cioffi, Coal
combustion wastes reuse in low energy artificial aggregates manufacturing,
Materials 6 (2013) 5000–5015.
[31] R. de Gennaro, P. Cappelletti, G. Cerri, M. de’ Gennaro, M. Dondi, S. Graziano, A.
Langella, Campanian ignimbrite as raw material for lightweight aggregates,
Appl. Clay Sci. 37 (2006) 115–126.
[32] R. de Gennaro, S. Graziano, P. Cappelletti, A. Colella, A. Langella, M. de’
Gennaro, Structural concretes with waste-based lightweight aggregates: from
landfill to engineered materials, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 7123–7129.
[33] R. de Gennaro, A. Langella, M. D’Amore, M. Dondi, A. Colella, P. Cappelletti, M.
de’ Gennaro, Use of zeolite-rich rocks and waste materials for the production
of structural lightweight concretes, Appl. Clay Sci. 41 (2008) 61–72.
[34] ISO:14040, Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles
and framework, ISO – International Organization for Standardization, ISO
14000 International Standards Compendium, Switzerland, 2006.
[35] ISO:14044, Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements
and guidelines, ISO – International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14000
International Standards Compendium, Switzerland, 2006.
384 L. Napolano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 119 (2016) 370–384
[36] Laterlite SPA ‘‘www.laterlite.com; www.leca.it”.
[37] EN 13055-1, Lightweight Aggregates – Part 1: Lightweight Aggregates for
Concrete, Mortar and Grout, 2002.
[38] EC2 EuroCode 2, Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, 2004.
[39] UNI EN 206-1, Concrete - Part 1: Specification, Performance, Production and
Conformity, 2006.
[40] EU, European Union, (2008). European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste
Eurostat (2009) Generation of waste, total arising and by selected activities for
2008.
[41] B. Weidema, Avoiding co-product allocation in LCA, J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (3) (2001)
11–33.
[42] ISO:14049, Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Illustrative
examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and
inventory analysis, 2012.
[43] C. Chen, G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, A. Jullien, A. Ventura, LCA allocation procedure
used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral
additions in concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (2010) 1231–1240.
[44] G. Habert, A method for allocation according to the economic behavior in the
EU-ETS for by-products used in cement industry, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18
(2013) 113–126.
[45] C. Jiménez, M. Barra, A. Josa, S. Valls, LCA of recycled and conventional
concretes designed using the equivalent mortar volume and classic methods,
Constr. Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 245–252.
[46] N. Tosic, S. Marinkovic, T. Dasic, M. Stanic, Multicriteria optimization of natural
and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use, J. Cleaner Prod. 87 (2015)
766–776.
[47] U. Hossain, C.S. Poona, I.M.C. Lo, J.C.P. Cheng, Comparative environmental
evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin
sources by LCA, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109 (2016) (2016) 67–77.
[48] S. Yin, R. Tuladhar, M. Sheehan, M. Combe, T. Collister, A life cycle assessment
of recycled polypropylene fibre in concrete footpaths, J. Cleaner Prod. 112
(2016) 2231–2242.
[49] F. Faleschini, P. De Marzi, D. Pellegrino, Recycled concrete containing EAF slag:
environmental assessment through LCA, Euro. J. Environ. Civil Eng. 18 (9)
(2014) 1009–1024.
[50] J. Turk, Z. Cotic, A. Mladenovic, A. Šajna, Environmental evaluation of green
concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA, Waste Manage. 45
(2015) (2015) 194–205.
[51] R. Virta, Minerals Yearbook. Clay and Shale (Advance Release), 2012.
[52] EXCA (2013), European Expanded Clay Association, ‘‘EXCA’s contribution to
the European Commission’s consultation on structural options for the EU
Emission Trading System”. Brussels, 28/02/2013.
[53] ISPRA, Istituto Superiore Per La Protezione E La Ricerca Ambientale- Rapporto
Rifiuti Speciali, 2014.
[54] Ecoinvent 3, database, <http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ecoinvent-
version-3/system-models/allocation-cut-off-by-classification/>, 2014.
[55] J. Hedemann, U. König, Technical Documentation of the Ecoinvent Database.
Final report ecoinvent data v2.0 No. 4, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
Dübendorf, CH, 2007.
[56] O. Jolliet, M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, G. Rebitzer, R. Rosenbaum,
IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology, Int. J. LCA 8
(6) (2003) 324–330.