Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Review

A review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete

Yurong Zhang a,b, Wei Luo b, Jingjing Wang b,d, Yuanfeng Wang b,⇑, Yaqin Xu a,
Jianzhuang Xiao c
a
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, Zhejiang, PR China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, PR China
c
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, PR China
d
College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s

Effect of mixture design and RA size on LCA of concrete should be considered.

Benchmark to functional unit is urgent to be proposed in evaluating the LCA of RAC.

Allocation combining the effect of quality, mass and market price needs be investigated.

Ignoring CO2 uptake in the life cycle of RAC will lead to overestimated CO2 emissions.

Critical distance for RA is existed when comparing environmental impact between NAC and RAC.

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

Article history: Recycled aggregate has emerged expecting to address raw materials shortage in construction sector by
Received 15 October 2018 converting waste concrete into resource. Many researchers adopted life cycle assessment (LCA) to eval-
Received in revised form 3 March 2019 uate and compare environmental impact of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) and natural aggregate con-
Accepted 9 March 2019
crete (NAC). However, there are numbers of problems in applying the LCA in RAC, a unified treatment of
the subject is still lacking. By reviewing existing corresponding literature, this paper identified the exist-
ing problems of applying the LCA method in RAC from 5 aspects, including mixture design method, selec-
Keywords:
tion of functional units, allocation of inventory, CO2 uptake during the life cycle of concrete and transport
Recycled aggregate concrete
Life cycle assessment
distance of recycled aggregate. Review results indicate that when analyzing the environmental impact of
Mixture design RAC by LCA, a clear indication of the mixture design methods of RAC should be given at first. Second, a
Functional units benchmark method to define the functional unit of the LCA of RAC is urgently needed to make different
Allocation approaches LCA studies comparable. A method that combining the effect of quality, mass and market price on the
CO2 uptake allocation procedure of recycled aggregate should be further investigated. Besides, ignoring CO2 uptake
Transport distance in the use stage of RAC will lead to an overestimated CO2 emission of RAC. In addition, a critical distance
for recycled aggregate is existed when comparing the environmental impact between NAC and RAC. At
last, some contents of recycled aggregate concrete for further research have been proposed.
Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2. Research method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3. Effect of mixture design method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4. Effect of functional unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.1. Functional unit selection of RAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.2. Advantages and disadvantages of the selected functional units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5. Effect of inventory allocation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.1. Types of inventory allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cyfwang@bjtu.edu.cn (Y. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
116 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125

5.1.1. Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.1.2. System expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.1.3. Cut-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.1.4. Partition rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.1.5. Mass allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.1.6. Economic allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.2. Importance of allocation procedure on the LCA result of RAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6. CO2 uptake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.1. Model of CO2 uptake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.2. Importance of taking CO2 uptake into consideration of the LCA analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7. Transportation type and distance of recycled aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8. Conclusions and outlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

1. Introduction 2. Research method

Concrete is by far the most widely used construction material
around the world. The annual world concrete production varies
depending on the source between 13 billion [2] and 21 billion tons
[95]. Dixit et al. [21] pointed out that 49% of raw stone, gravel and
sand, 25% of virgin wood and 16% of water are consumed by the
building sector. The huge concrete demand in the building sector
leads to a tremendous need of aggregate. The global market for
construction related aggregate is about 48.3 billion tonnes in
2015 Freedonia. World Construction Aggregates [32]. Oikonomou
[65] predicted that the demand of aggregates will double over
the course of next one to two decades if the present rate of aggre-
gates and concrete consumption remained. Thus, the availability of
natural aggregates (NAs) and the effect of their production on envi-
ronment have been burning issues. On the other hand, a large
amount of construction and demolition (C&D) waste is generated
around the world, becoming an increasing threat to environment.
The annual generation of C&D waste is about 850 million tons in
EU [87]. In China, nearly 50% of municipal solid waste is occupied
by C&D waste [19], approximately 200 million tons of waste con-
crete are produced annually.
To pursue sustainable civil engineering, recycled aggregate
(RA) emerged, expecting to contribute to addressing the issue
of raw materials shortage by converting construction waste into
resource. Therefore, RA has been used as a constituent in con-
crete production. Over the past decades, extensive researches
have confirmed that RAs can be used to replace NAs [51]. The
property and structural or non-structural application of recycled
aggregate concrete (RAC) have been extensively studied and
some findings have been adopted in engineering practice [105].
Afterwards, with the drive towards sustainable development, to
promote the application of RAC, scholars started to evaluate the
environmental impact difference between RAC and natural aggre-
gate concrete (NAC). Life cycle assessment (LCA), a powerful tool
for quantifying, evaluating, comparing and improving the envi-
ronmental impact of products during their life cycle, has been
widely adopted [45,46]. Even though some authors have
employed LCA to evaluate the environmental impact of RAC,
there are still some problems existed. Therefore, by reviewing
existing corresponding literature, this paper identified the exist-
ing problems in the LCA of RAC from the following 5 aspects,
including mixture design method, selection of functional units,
allocation approaches, CO2 uptake during the life cycle of RAC
and transport distance of RA. In addition, some contents of RAC
for further research, including the effect of mechanical property
variability and the application areas on the environmental impact
of RAC, and the temporal, geographic and further technological
correlations when establishing the life cycle inventory of RA,
have been proposed.
The research method proposed by Fink [31] was adopted to con-
duct this review. The reviewed bibliography included articles pub-
lished in international journals and academic dissertations. First,
the Scopus and PQDT database are used for collecting relevant liter-
ature and dissertations. Second, some articles published in Chinese
are also identified through the CNKI database (one of the most com-
prehensive academic databases in China), which not only covers
journal articles, but also includes dissertations and conference pro-
ceedings. At last, data is obtained by querying by diverse fields, such
as topic, author, and keyword, etc. It is worth noting that the
method of LCA has been employed to investigate the environmental
impact of RAC, and some problems have been discerned. Therefore,
selecting right keywords to retrieve papers is a critical issue. Two
keywords, namely LCA and RAC (both abbreviation and full name)
are chosen as search terms. In addition, waste concrete and C&D
waste are also relevant to RAC, and sometimes only carbon emis-
sion and energy use are selected as the indicators of environmental
impact, thus, these four keywords are also used to search the rele-
vant literature. After finding the related publications, we checked
the title and abstract of the literature to identify the most relevant
publications. Then, some irrelevant articles to our research were
excluded. The process resulted in about 70 articles for final in-
depth analysis. Then, according to the expert consultations and
our existing research, the finalized set of articles was further
grouped and classified on the basis of the life cycle stages of RAC.
In the concrete production stage, the environmental impact of vol-
umetric concrete depends on mixture design. Therefore, the effect
of mixture design method of RAC on environmental impact is inves-
tigated at first. Second, functional unit is a key element to conduct
LCA, as different functional units could lead to different results for
the same systems when evaluating the environmental impact of
RAC. Moreover, since recycling involves waste management as well
as material production, it is necessary to allocate environmental
burdens between waste management and material production sys-
tems. Thus, the types of allocation are summarized, and the impor-
tance of allocation procedure on the LCA result of RAC is explored.
At last but not the least, in the use stage of RAC, carbonation (CO2
uptake) happens all the time, which is more considerable than that
of NAC, leading to a negative CO2 emission. Moreover, due to that
there is a distinct difference of quantity of NA and RA between
NAC and RAC, it is necessary to analyze and compare the effect of
transport on the environmental impact of concrete.
3. Effect of mixture design method
Decomposition analysis is always used to determine the magni-
tude and source of environmental impact of concrete [40,41]. The
 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125 117

quantity of constituent materials plays a crucial role on environ-
mental impact of concrete, which is decided by mixture design.
Therefore, it is worth paying more attention to how to analyze
the effect of mixture design method on the LCA results of RAC.
RAs can be regarded as a two-phase composite made of ‘‘origi-
nal” NAs and adhering mortar (made of sand, hydration products
and fractions of un-hydrated cement) [73]. Thus, there are two
types of interfacial transition zone (ITZ) in RA, i.e. old ITZ between
NAs and adhering mortar and new ITZ between RAs and new mor-
tar [30].
Classical RAC mixture design methods often replace a certain
percentage of the previously calculated NAs by RAs, i.e. on a
replacement basis of equivalent volume or mass [101,28]. How-
ever, due to the existence of adhering mortar, RACs always have
inferior compressive strength and elasticity modulus [75,102]
and obvious increasing shrinkage and creep [23], when compared
with NAC.
The equivalent mortar volume (EMV) method is predicated
based on the fact that RCA is a two-phase material comprising
mortar and NA [30]. The total mortar volume is considered as
the sum of residual and fresh mortar volumes in concrete made
with RA. It has been verified experimentally that the mechanical
properties [103,91] and durability of RAC designed by the EMV
method are superior to that designed by classical mixture design
method [1], owing to the better controlled total quantity of mortar
in concrete mixes. Jiménez et al. [48] compared the environmental
impact of concrete designed by EMV method and classical methods
(American Concrete Institute and Bolomey mix proportioning
methods) and pointed out that RAC designed by EMV method
shows better environmental performances in all of the selected
impact categories.
It is worth noting that researches on the effect of mixture
design methods on LCA results of RAC are few [47]. But some
novel mix design methods for RAC have been proposed, such as
the methods based on close packing method of mechanically
interlocked skeleton [72] and water absorption capacity of recy-
cled aggregate [73] or interfacial transition zones in RAC [57].
Therefore, in the future research, a clear indication of the mixture
design methods of RAC should be given at first. And then, the
comparison of environmental impact of RAC can be conducted
based on the same mixture design method. Otherwise, the LCA
results may be misleading. Moreover, it is necessary to use the
comparison results of environmental impact of RAC to guide
the mixture design.
Wu et al. [96,99] proposed several new types of RA, with larger
sizes compared to conventional RA, such as demolished concrete
blocks (DCBs) and demolished concrete segments (DCSs). Obvi-
ously, the mixture design methods of DCBs and DCSs are different
from that of conventional RA. Additionally, the energy consump-
tion and related emissions of DCBs and DCSs can be reduced due
to the straightforward and simplified production manner [97,98].
Moreover, the important effects of demolition technique and treat-
ment equipment of C&D wastes on the performance of RAs should
be emphasized, since they not only yield different qualities of RA,
and eventually lead to different mechanical properties and durabil-
ity of RAC [12], but also influence the energy consumption and
environmental emissions in producing RAs. Hence, the life cycle
inventory of recycled aggregate should be given according to its
production modes, the effects of demolition techniques, treatment
equipment and size of aggregate on the life cycle assessment
results should be taken into consideration as well.
4. Effect of functional unit
‘‘A functional unit is a measure of the performance of the func-
tional outputs of the product system”. The purpose of using func-
tional unit is ‘‘to provide a reference to which the inputs and
outputs are related. . . [and] . . .to ensure comparability of LCA
results [45,46]” Thus, functional unit is an important basis that
enables the LCAs of alternative goods or services to be comparable
and analyzable. Adequately selecting a functional unit is of prime
importance because different functional units could lead to differ-
ent results for the same product system [43,50]. Moreover, the
results of LCA according to the predefined functional unit will be
used for decision making support [17,63].
4.1. Functional unit selection of RAC
Many products have multiple functions, as currently there is no
universal or common functional unit when evaluating the environ-
mental impact of products, most studies are unique and incompa-
rable. For concrete, an appropriate functional unit can be defined
based on different performance characteristics. Panesar et al. [69]
conduct a literature review of functional units pertaining to con-
crete LCAs and classified the relevant functional units as simple
(single variable), moderately complex (two variables) and complex
(three or more variables). To evaluate the environmental impact of
RAC, different functional units have been adopted, such as the vol-
ume of concrete [86,81], Colangelo et al. [13], combining volume
and strength [19,106,88,78,53], considering volume, strength and
durability simultaneously [52,29,18] and strength reliability
[11,77]. Table 1 gives an overview of several used functional units
in the previous LCA studies of RAC.

Table 1
Examples of used functional units in literature.

NO. Functional unit Detailed descriptions

FU1 Volume The environmental impact of 1 m3 RAC with different aggregate replacements is compared with that of 1 m3 natural
aggregate concrete (NAC) [86,81,13]
FU2 Combining volume and strength The functional unit is chosen as 1 m3 of concrete. The mix proportion of NAC and RAC is determined so that both
concrete types have similar compressive strength, through adding slightly additional cement for RAC production
[106,88,78]
The fcm/GWP ratio is used to compare the performance of 1 m3 concrete mixtures with/without recycled aggregates
[53]
RAC and NAC have the same compressive strength and workability, and the analysis is limited to a type of concrete
structure for which non-aggressive environment conditions apply, that the impact of service phase is expected to be
approximately the same for both concrete types [88]
FU3 Considering volume, strength and 1 m3 of concrete of a specific strength class at the construction site, assuming equal lifetimes for recycled and
durability simultaneously conventional concrete in a full life cycle assessment [52]
Compare the total amount of concrete necessary to deliver 1 MPa of strength and one year of service life [18].
FU4 Strength reliability Strength reliability is calculated according to the mean value, coefficient of variation and distribution pattern of
compressive strength of NAC, and then supposed that RAC have the same strength reliability, based on the known
coefficient of variation of strength of RAC, the mean value can be obtained by trial mixtures [11,77].
118 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125
4.2. Advantages and disadvantages of the selected functional units
Different kinds of functional unit are used in evaluating the
environmental impact of RAC, with different performance parame-
ters that have to be considered, as mentioned above. Each func-
tional unit has its own advantages and disadvantages.
It has been gradually realized that choosing volume as a func-
tional unit (FU1) is flawed, since the increase of RA replacement
at the same water-cement ratio will lead to a decrease in compres-
sive strength of concrete, generally up to 10% lower than that of
NAC [7,58]. Moreover, it is well known that increasing compressive
strength of concrete will lead to a decrease of concrete amount
needed to build a given structural element [37]. Therefore, a direct
comparison of environmental impact between 1 m3 RAC and NAC
does not correspond to a balanced/precise analysis [22].
The method that combining volume and strength as a func-
tional unit (FU2) solves the problem that FU1 encounters, i.e. real-
izing that for RAC, to achieve the similar load bearing capacity of
NAC, the different volumes of concrete are needed. To gain similar
compressive strength of NAC and RAC, one may add additional
cement (about 5% additional cement for RAC with 100% RCA
replacement percentage) [20] or decrease water-cement ratio
(RAC requires 0.05–0.1 less water-cement ratio than NAC) [49] to
produce RAC due to its high water absorption [51], then compare
the environmental impact based on the unit volume of concrete.
However, it is hard to realize the identical compressive strength
between NAC and RAC. Another method which takes volume and
strength into account is to analyze the environmental impact per
strength, on the basis of the same volume (usually 1 m3). In other
words, in concrete mixture proportion design, for simplicity, the
cement content and water-cement ratio of RAC remain the same
as that of NAC, the only variable in LCA of RAC is RA replacement
percentage, it is concise and explicit to analyze the effect of
replacement percentage on the environmental impact per strength
of RAC, and determine the optimal replacement percentage with
minimum environmental burden. Certainly, FU2 also has some dis-
advantages. Some researchers argued that the analysis (FU2) is lim-
ited to a type of concrete structure located in a non-aggressive
environment (such as indoor environment of residential and office
buildings, etc.). Otherwise, it is not correct to exclude the use phase
because of the possible different durability performance of two
concrete types [88]. Moreover, although in a non-aggressive envi-
ronment, concrete carbonation will occur and lead to the corrosion
of reinforcement bars, since carbon dioxide and water can be found
in almost every environment and thus all concretes will be sub-
jected to carbonation [54].
Supposing that there are two types of concrete (A and B), A has
lower environmental impact during the production process, but B
is more durable, i.e. rehabilitation actions (repair or replacement)
of B is less than that of A during their design service life. Therefore,
it is difficult to compare the life cycle environment impact of these
two types of concrete by using FU2. A new functional unit (FU3)
modifies the shortcomings existed in FU2, which takes the durabil-
ity of concrete into consideration. One may choose the amount of
concrete needed in a structure with a defined service life as the
functional unit of LCA, or choose per strength per service life per
volume as the functional unit of LCA. However, FU3 still has some
disadvantages. For example, the durability properties of concrete
include carbonation, chloride penetration, freeze and thaw resis-
tance, and alkali-aggregate reaction, etc. It is difficult to take all
the durability properties into account. In addition, sometimes the
concrete structures located in an environment with coupling
actions (such as wetting-drying cyclic sulfate environment), mak-
ing the durability analysis and service life prediction more compli-
cated. Moreover, merely considering the difference of durability of
RAC is not enough, since in the life cycle of a concrete structure,
rehabilitation actions will also consume additional concrete, differ-
ent rehabilitation strategies will cause different environmental
burdens.
Choosing strength reliability as a functional unit (FU4) for com-
paring the environmental impact between RAC and NAC will con-
sider the variability of compressive strength of concrete and
analyze the environmental impact based on a probabilistic
method. This method has an obvious advantage that combining
the environmental impact analysis with the mixture proportion
design, i.e. considering the mean value and standard deviation
simultaneously to compare the environmental impact of RAC and
NAC. If both types of concrete (A and B) meet the requirement of
compressive strength’s mean value, but the standard deviation of
A is smaller than that of B, then in the mixture proportion design,
the design strength of A is lower than that of B, ultimately leading
to different environmental impacts. However, the functional unit
of strength reliability is still poorly adopted. Because completing
a life cycle assessment on different types of concrete with the same
strength reliability indexes needs a great quantity of basic data
support, such as the mean value, standard deviation or coefficient
of variation and distribution pattern of compressive strength of
concrete. However, researches on the statistical characteristic of
concrete are few, especially that of RAC, due to the range of the
quality and composition of C&D concrete. In addition, many factors
can influence the compressive strength of concrete, unified
answers on the statistical characteristic of compressive strength
still have not been yielded Mukherjee et al. [64], Li et al. [55].
Due to that the functional performances (durability, compres-
sive strength and volume, etc.) of concrete with different mixture
proportions depend on the constituents of concrete, the selection
of functional unit has significant influence on the LCA results of
the studied concrete. Therefore, it is urgent to propose benchmark
methods to define functional unit, hoping to avoid the differences
of LCA studies among the selected functional units and make dif-
ferent LCAs comparison more easily.
5. Effect of inventory allocation
5.1. Types of inventory allocation
As we known, recycling is a multifunction process, which
involves waste management as well as material production [26].
Thus, it is necessary to distribute environmental impacts in a suit-
able way for each product [76]. Allocation of environmental bur-
dens is a recognized methodological problem in LCA [4].
International Organization for Standardization [44] presented a
standard requiring the procedures for allocation in a multifunction
process. First of all, allocation should be avoided. Wherever possi-
ble, allocation should be avoided by 1) dividing the unit process to
be allocated into two or more sub-processes and collecting the
input and output data related to these sub-processes, or 2) expand-
ing the product system to include the additional functions related
to the co-products, taking into account the requirements of system
boundary. Then, when allocation cannot be avoided, an allocation
reflecting the physical relationships between environmental bur-
dens and functions should be adopted. At last, when the physical
relationships (e.g. mass and resistance, etc.) are inapplicable, the
allocation reflecting other relationships (such as economic value
or the number of subsequent use of the recycled material) can also
be used [26].
5.1.1. Subdivision
The subdivision method is the most theoretically straightfor-
ward procedure, which involves separating the multifunctional
process into separate processes that each correspond to one of
 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125
the products. This method assumes that the multifunctional pro-
cess is simply an amalgamation of separate single function pro-
cesses. However, many multifunctional processes are impossible
to separate into single function processes due to a lack of indepen-
dence. In the recycling process, multiple products including the
recyclable materials and wastes are produced. There is no unique
recycling process that only produces recyclable materials, while
another only produces wastes. Rather, these two products are
dependent.
5.1.2. System expansion
System expansion is performed to maintain comparability of
product systems in terms of product outputs through balancing a
change in output volume of a co-product that occurs in only one
of the product systems, by adding an equivalent production in
the other systems [92]. To successfully implement the system
expansion method, significant amounts of data are required to
define the alternative sub-process(es) and product(s). Further-
more, a rigorous method should be developed for determining
whether a product is truly a valid alternative to that produced by
the original multifunctional process. In addition, recycling may
have important consequences for the environmental impacts of
activities outside the product’s life cycle, for example, the market’s
reaction for a recycled material due to a change in the supply/
demand chain. However, since most activities are interrelated in
the global system, it is difficult to identify which activities are sig-
nificantly affected by any change.
5.1.3. Cut-off
The cut-off procedure assumes that each production system
should be assigned with the impact directly caused by the system
(Fig. 1) Ekvall and Tillman [24]. Thus, the environmental burdens
of collecting and recycling belong to the system receiving the recy-
cling materials (Fm1), while the environmental burdens from raw
material extraction to non-recyclable wastes disposal ((1  F)
m1) are included in the system that provides the recycling
materials.
For the cut-off procedure, undoubtedly, the environmental bur-
dens of collecting and recycling processes belong to the RAC sys-
tem will exacerbate the life cycle environmental impact of RA.
Besides, the safeguard of virgin raw materials is not taken into con-
sideration. Afterwards, the application and promotion of RA in pro-
ducing RAC will be restrained.
Product 1
Only the inputs and outputs of
m1
processes with grey box are assigned
to product 1χthe environmental
Virgin raw materials
burdens of recycling process belong to
product 2.
m1
Product 2
Production and use
m1
Demolition Recycling process
m1 Fm1
(1-F)m1
Disposal
Fig. 1. Cut-off procedure [24].
119
5.1.4. Partition rule
The partition rule is based on assigning an arbitrary ratio
between two systems (100:0 and 50:50, etc.). The 100:0 rule is
exactly cut-off procedure. The most popular method is the 50:50
rule, which is proposed by Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry (SETAC) [16]. The 50:50 rule equally distributes
the environmental burdens of collecting and recycling to product
1 and product 2. The partition rule should determine the ratio
between these two systems from a subjective perspective. More-
over, the proportions of energy (mass) input and output are not
considered. Thus, the partition rule is rarely used in evaluating
the environmental impact of RAC. However, the partition rule
can avoid the double counting of environmental impact in the pro-
cess of recycling, and has an identical incentive effect on the sup-
pliers and consumers of secondary materials. Therefore, the most
suitable ratio between the system providing waste and the system
receiving waste should be investigated in-depth when analyzing
the environmental impact of RAC.
5.1.5. Mass allocation
The Mass Allocation Method (as shown in Fig. 2) is an example
of partitioning based on underlying physical relationships as
described in ISO 14044 [46]. The mass allocation coefficient Cm
can be calculated as the mass ratio between disposable material
and recycled material [9], as shown in Eq. (1).
mrecyclematerial
Cm ¼ ð1Þ
mdisposablematerial þ mrecyclematerial
According to mass allocation, the environmental impact is
weighted based on the mass ratio between the primary materials
(waste disposal) and secondary materials (recycled aggregate pro-
duction). However, there is a quality reduction between NAs and
RAs, which is not considered in the approach of mass allocation.
5.1.6. Economic allocation
Economic allocation (as shown in Fig. 3) is based on the
assumption that the market prices can depict the qualitative
degradation of a material over a product system [90]. The eco-
nomic allocation coefficient Ce is calculated as follows [9]:
ð$  mÞrecyclematerial
Ce ¼ ð2Þ
ð$  mÞdisposablematerial þ ð$  mÞrecyclematerial
Although the qualitative degradation of materials is depicted by
the economic allocation method, this method still has some prob-
lems. For example, the market prices of NAs and RAs will influence
Product 1 The inputs and outputs of recycling
m1 are shared between product 1 and 2
proportionally to the mass of waste
Virgin raw materials
service and recycled material.
m1
Production and use Fm1 of Product 2
recycled
m1 material
Demolition Recycling process
m1 Fm1 of waste
(1-F)m1
Disposal
Fig. 2. Mass allocation [46].
120 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125
The inputs and outputs of recycling
Product 1
m1 are shared between product 1 and 2
proportionally to the shares of waste
Virgin raw materials service and recycled material in total
proceeds.
m1
Fm1 of
Production and use Product 2
recycled
m1 material
Demolition Recycling process
m1 Fm1 of waste
(1-F)m1
Disposal
Fig. 3. Economic allocation [90].
the allocation coefficient, thus, it will only be valid when the mar-
kets for aggregates are well established [35].
5.2. Importance of allocation procedure on the LCA result of RAC
The choice of allocation procedure can influence the LCA results
of RAC, leading to skewed environmental impacts, either higher or
lower Ekvall [25,42]. For example, the environmental impact of
primary product may appear higher when omitting the environ-
mental impact of co-products or waste products, as the environ-
mental burden of the entire process is only attributed to that
product. However, the relevant research on allocating the environ-
mental impact of RAC is few. Moreover, there is still no consensus
of existing research on the environmental impact allocated to RAC.
Marinković and Ignjatović [60] explored the environmental impact
differences of RAC between the simple cut-off rule and economic
allocation. They suggested that energy use and airborne emissions
are higher in the economic allocation case compared with the cut-
off case. Zhang [108] indicated that when adopting the economic
allocation method, the energy consumption and carbon emissions
of RA can be reduced obviously. In addition, the methods of mass
allocation and partition rule are rarely used in the previous LCA
research of RAC, which are popularly adopted in evaluating the
environmental impact of the by-products such as fly ash and slag
[9,79]. The large influence of allocation on LCA results emphasizes
the importance of a consciously chosen approach, i.e. the choice of
allocation procedure must be in compliance with the goal of the
study, reflecting the characteristics of the studied system and the
decision situation (the context of the allocation). Therefore, it is
necessary to realize the importance of inventory allocation and
draw a consistent conclusion on the influence of allocation meth-
ods on the LCA results. From current research, economic allocation
is the optimal method to allocate the environment impact of recy-
cling process, since it considers the differences of mass and market
price between natural and recycled aggregates. However, it is
questionable that using the market price to depict the qualitative
degradation of materials. Therefore, a method that combining the
effect of quality, mass and market price on the allocation proce-
dure should be further investigated in future research.
6. CO2 uptake
Carbonation of reinforced concrete is one of the causes of corro-
sion, but it is also a way to sequester CO2 [34]. Previous researches
always focused on the problem of embedded reinforcement corro-
sion caused by carbonation [71,6] with a main objective of measur-
ing and predicting the progress of the carbonation front and the
evolution of corrosion. The contribution of carbonation towards
estimation of CO2 emissions over the life cycle of concrete was
rarely considered in LCAs of concrete [70,85]. However, complete
carbonation equates to a CO2 uptake corresponding to a conversion
of all available portlandite into calcium carbonate. Only very few
studies have explored the balance between CO2 emissions and
CO2 uptake in the life cycle of concrete. Gajda and Miller [33] esti-
mated CO2 absorbed by concrete in US based on a survey on the
volume of concrete produced, its uses and typical thicknesses,
etc. The effect of demolition and subsequent crushing is not con-
sidered in their study. Nevertheless, crushed concrete has consid-
erably greater exposed surface area than a built concrete
structure. So a greater surface area of RCA, compared with a built
structure, is exposed to CO2 and carbonates [15]. Pade and Guimar-
aes [68] estimated the CO2 uptake in concrete produced in Nordic
countries during a 100 year period of 70 years of service life fol-
lowed by an additional 30 years after demolition. Results indicated
that the effect of carbonation on the net CO2 emissions related to
concrete can be significant. Moreover, this effect is highly influ-
enced by the way concrete being handled after demolition. In addi-
tion, this conclusion was also verified by Andersson et al. [3].
Butera et al. [8] estimated that for per unit construction and demo-
lition waste with 85% concrete and mortar, an approximate value
of 57 kg CO2 can be reabsorbed.
6.1. Model of CO2 uptake
As we know, CO2 uptake is an inverse process of CO2 emission,
absorbing the emitted CO2 by carbonation during the life cycle of
concrete. The amount of CO2 uptake through carbonation is pre-
dicted by calculating molar concentration of substances (Ca(OH)2,
CSH, C3S, C2S) in concrete that can react with CO2 [38]. The process
for predicting molar concentration of carbonatable substances in
concrete is shown in Fig. 4.
According to Fig. 4, we can see that the CO2 uptake in concrete
during service life can be calculated quantitatively by the following
steps: 1) Calculating the surface area of concrete exposed to the air,
2) Predicting carbonation depth with time, and 3) Calculating the
molar concentration of carbonatable substances in concrete under
the assumption that the molar concentration of CO2 that concrete
absorbs is equal to one of carbonatable substances in concrete.
Considering the rate of carbonation decreases with time, the CO2
uptake must be considered in a time frame Han et al. [38]; Yang
et al. [104]). The amount of CO2 uptake can be calculated as
follows:
U CO2 ðt Þ ¼ A  dðtÞ  ½CO2   44 ð3Þ
where A is the exposed surface area of concrete (A = L  W), d(t) is
the carbonation depth, ½CO2  is the molar concentration of carbonat-
able substances and 44 is the molecular weight of CO2.
After predicting cement compounds using Bogue’s equation
from analysis of cement oxide composition [5], Taylor [84] and
Lagerblad [54] suggested that 75 wt% of CaO in the clinker will
be consumed by carbonation. In addition, considering that ½CO2 
should be calculated by predicting hydration product of carbonata-
bele substances quantitatively by time, Yang et al. [104] suggested
that ½CO2  can be determined by Eq. (4):
½CO2  ¼ ah ðt Þ  M ð4Þ
where M is the molar concentration of the carbonatabele sub-
stances, which significantly depends on cement contents C, as
shown in Eq. (5)


M ¼ 8:06  C 106 mol=cm3 ð5Þ
 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125
Bogur` s Compound composition
Oxide analysis of cement
Equation
SiO2, CaO,Al2O3, Fe2O3 C3S, C2S, C3A, C3AF
Carbonated volume
calculation
Surface area ×
carbonated depth
Fig. 4. CO2 uptake calculation process of concrete [38].
ah ðtÞ is the degree of hydration of cement paste at t, can be
expressed as follows:
t 1:031 WC
ah ðtÞ ¼  ð6Þ
2 þ t 0:194 þ WC
To calculate the depth of carbonation over time, we must rely
on rate factors to estimate the speed of carbonation, as shown in
the following.
dðtÞ ¼ k  t 1=2
where k is carbonation rate factor, which is dependent on several
environmental and material parameters, and t is time.
6.2. Importance of taking CO2 uptake into consideration of the LCA
analysis
The cement industry is the second largest industrial source of
CO2 emission [80]. The Cement Sustainability Initiative [94] esti-
mates that CO2 emission will grow to 2.9 Gt by 2020 and almost
5 Gt by 2050. However, it was estimated that 1 Mt CO2 can be reab-
sorbed in the USA in 2004, compared to the 45.7 Mt CO2 emissions
from the cement manufacture [36]. Although this only represents a
2.2% reduction in cement-related CO2 emissions in USA, the contri-
bution of cement and concrete industry to net CO2 emissions can
be overestimated without taking the CO2 uptake of concrete into
consideration, due to the huge cement and concrete production
worldwide. This overestimation has a significant influence on
CO2 policy, the criteria for environmental labelling, and the selec-
tion of materials based on principles of environmentally correct
design [27].
In addition, when concrete structures are demolished and
refined to RCA, the surface area is largely increased. According to
Eq. (3), the CO2 uptake rate per unit mass of concrete and the total
amount of CO2 uptake therefore increased significantly. An
increase with an exponential tendency of CO2 uptake in relation
to the exposed surface area is often adopted by researchers
[68,74], as shown in Fig. 5.
Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate CO2 uptake by concrete
infrastructure into life cycle CO2 emissions calculations, especially
for RAC. If carbonation is ignored, emissions can be overestimated
by 13–48%, depending on the type of cement binder and the applica-
tion of RCA during the secondary life [15]. In addition, quantifying
the CO2 uptake by RAC is of significance to evaluate total greenhouse
121
Hydration Hydrates products
p
prediction p
prediction
Ca(OH)2, CSH, C3S, C2S
Calculation
CO2 Concentration Total concentration of
calculation carbonatable products
CO2 Molar Ca(OH)2, CSH, C3S, C2S
Concentration
Absorbed CO2 quantity calculation
Absorbed CO2 quantity
ð7Þ
Fig. 5. Evolution of surface area from a wall to RCA [68,74].
gas emissions and the Earth’s carbon cycle. In the future researches,
the following fields should be paid special attentions.
(1) Researches on the carbonization parameters of cementitious
materials, especially for RAC, should be enhanced [100],
since demolition means, exposure time and surface area of
the demolished concrete will all affect the carbonization
parameters of RAC. Eventually, the CO2 uptake accounting
of RAC will be influenced.
(2) It is pressing to accurately account the CO2 uptake of RAC
and analyze the contribution of CO2 uptake to the total
CO2 emissions. Thus, part of the guidelines and methods
highlighted by IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories can be improved, and the equity allocation
of worldwide carbon-permit can be optimized [66].
(3) In the context of rapid urbanization and global warming, it is
necessary to conduct relevant research on the influence of
CO2 uptake on the Earth’s carbon cycle by understanding
the influencing mechanism [82,83].
7. Transportation type and distance of recycled aggregate
Although the environmental burden of transportation only
accounts for 4–14% of the overall impact of concrete [67], it is still
necessary to analyze and compare the effect of transportation on
environmental impact between NAC and RAC. There is a distinct
difference of quantity of NA and RA between NAC and RAC. More-
over, aggregate is a high-bulk and low-value commodity, and the
122 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125

heaviest component of concrete. Therefore, in evaluating environ-

mental impact of using RAs in concrete production, considerable
attentions should be paid to the types of transportation used in
the process and the distance from the waste processing plant [89].
Generally, aggregate transportation relies on road, railway and
waterway. The environmental impact varies a lot among different
transport modes. The transport distance of raw materials is very
case specific. On average, NAs are transported over distances
between 0.3 and 280 km, whereas RAs are transported over dis-
tances between 0 and 40 km [67]. Trucks are by far the most flex-
ible and most common transporting means of aggregate, since they
can be loaded and uploaded at many locations using a variety of
techniques and can accommodate most delivery schedules [39].
Table 2 gives a brief overview of transport distances of aggregate
by road in the previous LCA studies.
Usually, based on the principle of using local materials, the
nearest supplier of NA will be chosen by the RAC processors. There-
fore, the distance from quarry to concrete mix plant is fixed, i.e. the
transport distance of NA can be set constant. However, when con-
crete structures are demolished, they may be transported to the
recycling center for producing RA or disposed in the site. Thus,
the transport distance of RA is uncertain. It is reasonable to set
the transport distance of RA to be a variable value. The total envi-
ronmental impact of RAC production from a life cycle cradle to site
perspective can be calculated as follows, taking CO2 emissions as
an example.
X X
C tot ¼ C rm þ C t ¼ Q i  RMi þ Q i  Dij  TC ij
i i
Ctot
C’RAC
CNAC
CRAC
Dcri DRA
Fig. 6. Relationship between C tot and j
DRA .
impact of RAC is smaller than environmental impact of NAC,
regardless of NA transport distance. When CRAC is bigger than CNAC
initially, it means that replacing natural aggregates with recycled
aggregates will result in increasing CO2 emissions of concrete.
Therefore, to reduce the environmental impact of RAC, it is neces-
sary to make an optimal transport planning, for example, choosing
the shortest transport distance or the transport mode with less
environmental impact. In addition, the site selection of treatment
plants of C&D wastes should be determined according to the criti-
cal transport distance of RA. Moreover, since the transport distance
of aggregate is uncertain, it is advisable to conduct uncertainty
analysis to make the LCA results more scientific and rational.
ð8Þ 8. Conclusions and outlooks

where C rm and C t are the CO2 emissions emitted in the raw materi- Quantifying and specifying the environmental impact of RAC
als production stage and transport stage, respectively. Q i is the can provide supports in decision making when selecting
dosage of raw material i (kg/m3), and RMi is the CO2 emission factor environment-friendly products, and help decision makers take
of different raw material (kg CO2/kg). Dij is the transportation dis- actions to reduce the environmental impact of RAC further by tech-
nological advance. As a consequence, the utilization of RAC can be
tance j with raw material i (kgkm) and TC ij is the CO2 emission fac-
promoted, and eventually reduce the quantity of concrete waste.
tor for the transportation. In general, i refers to cement, water,
The LCA of RAC is still a limited research topic despite the expand-
coarse aggregate and fine aggregate. Assuming only the transport
j
ing number of RAC studies in recent years. By reviewing existing
distance of RA (DRA ) is variable, then the relationship between the corresponding literature, this paper identified existing problems
j
total CO2 emissions C tot and DRA can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 6. of the LCA of RAC from the following 5 aspects, including mixture
In Fig. 6, CNAC refers to the CO2 emissions of NAC, which is irrel- design method, selection of functional units, allocation of inven-
j tory, CO2 uptake and the transport distance of recycled aggregate.
evant to the transport distance of RA (DRA ). Thus CNAC can be
expressed by a horizontal straight line. For RAC, since DRA j
is vari- As mentioned above, some important limitations of the LCA of RAC
able, then CRAC increases with the transport distance. Two possible along with brief recommendations are observed and summarized
scenarios may be existed. When CRAC is less than CNAC initially, then as follows:
a critical distance (Dcri) for recycled aggregate is existed [61]. This
is defined as RA transport distance below which environmental (1) A clear indication of the mixture design methods of RAC
should be given at first. And then, the comparison of envi-
ronmental impact of RAC can be conducted based on the
Table 2 same mixture design method. Moreover, it is necessary to
Overview of transport distances of aggregate. use the comparison results of environmental impact of
Sources Aggregate type Distance (km) RAC to guide and optimize the mixture design. The optimal
mixture design of RAC with minimum environmental impact
[59] Natural 100(1 0 0)a
Recycled 15(1 0 0)a can be helpful to the sustainable development of concrete
[107] Unspecified Variable, ranging from 3 to industry.
48 km (2) The selection of functional unit has significant influence on
[20] Natural 100
the LCA results of RAC. A benchmark method to define the
Recycled 25 (demolished site to
recycling process) + 25 functional unit is urgently needed to make different LCA
(recycling process to concrete studies comparable, which can reach a consensus on the
mix plant) most suitable functional unit of LCA to evaluate the environ-
[62] Natural Fixed, 100  2b mental impact of RAC.
Recycled Fixed, 20  2b
(3) A method that combining the effect of quality, mass and
Colangelo Natural –
et al. Recycled from construction 30, 40, 50, 60 and 150 market price on the allocation procedure should be further
[14] and demolition, marble sludge investigated in future researches to make the assessment
and cement kiln dust result of RAC more scientific and reasonable. Consequently,
Note: a Two transport scenarios are included in the investigation; b The round trip is the application of RAC in concrete industry can be promoted,
considered due to the vehicle with empty-loaded. and the environmental impact of concrete can be reduced.
 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125
(4) Ignoring CO2 uptake in the life cycle of RAC will lead to an
overestimated CO2 emission. In future researches, the car-
bonation parameters of cementitious materials in RAC
should be enhanced, the contribution of CO2 uptake of RAC
to the total CO2 emissions of concrete should be accounted
more accurately, and the influence of CO2 uptake on the
Earth’s carbon cycle by understanding the influencing mech-
anism needs to be explored.
(5) The relationship between the total environmental impact of
concrete and the transport distance of RA has been estab-
lished. Based on this relationship, a critical distance (Dcri)
for recycled aggregate (the environmental impact of RAC is
less than that of NAC) can be obtained. In addition, a Geo-
graphic Information System (GIS) based method can be used
to determine the transport distance and give the optimal
transport plan.
Except to the conclusions drawn above, there remain some con-
tents that need to be resolved by further researches. First, there is
an obvious variability existed in the mechanical property of RAC
[56], thus the effect of mechanical property variability on the envi-
ronmental impact of RAC should be taken into consideration when
determining the environmental impact of RAC on the basis of vol-
ume and strength. Besides, the application areas of RAC is widen-
ing gradually, for example, filling C&D wastes in the steel tubes
to product recycled aggregate concrete-filled steel tube (RACFST)
Chen et al. [10]. How to comprehensively evaluate the environ-
mental impact of RACFST and compare with those of CFST and
reinforced concrete structures is a new topic. Moreover, the tech-
nological routes in producing RA are different among different
regions and countries, hence, it is necessary to establish a dynamic
life cycle inventory of RA by considering the temporal, geographic
and further technological correlations [93].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial
support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51661145023), the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang
Province (LQ18G010007) and the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (2017M620255).
References
[1] A. Abbas, G. Fathifazl, O.B. Isgor, et al., Durability of recycled aggregate
concrete designed with equivalent mortar volume method, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 31 (8) (2009) 555–563.
[2] P.C. Aïtcin, S. Mindess, Sustainability of Concrete (Modern Concrete
Technology), Spon Press, London, 2011.
[3] R. Andersson, K. Fridh, H. Stripple, et al., Calculating CO2 uptake for existing
concrete structures during and after service life, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (20)
(2013) 11625–11633.
[4] A. Azapagica, R. Cliftb, Allocation of environmental burdens in multiple-
function systems, J. Clean Prod. 7 (2) (1999) 101–119.
[5] R.H. Bogue, Calculation of the compounds in portland cement, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Anal. 1 (4) (2008) 192–197.
[6] J.P. Broomfield, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete: Understanding, CRC Press,
Investigation and Repair, 2002.
[7] A.D. Buck, Recycled concrete as a source of aggregate, ACI J 74 (5) (1977) 212–
219.
[8] S. Butera, T.H. Christensen, T.F. Astrup, Life cycle assessment of construction
and demolition waste management, Waste Manage. 2015 (44) (2015) 196–
205.
[9] C. Chen, G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, et al., LCA allocation procedure used as an
incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral additions in
concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12) (2010) 1231–1240.
[10] Z. Chen, J. Xu, Y. Chen, et al., Recycling and reuse of construction and
demolition waste in concrete-filled steel tubes: a review, Constr. Build. Mater.
126 (2016) 641–660.
123
[11] J.W. Christiansen, The Influence of Seismic Attack and Chloride-induced
Corrosion on a Life Cycle Inventory Assessment of Different Concrete
Mixtures, Oregon State University, 2011.
[12] F. Colangelo, R. Cioffi, Mechanical properties and durability of mortar
containing fine fraction of demolition wastes produced by selective
demolition in South Italy, Compos. Part B- Eng. 115 (2017) 43–50.
[13] F. Colangelo, A. Forcina, I. Farina, et al., Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different
kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable construction, Buildings 8
(5) (2018) 70–81.
[14] F. Colangelo, A. Petrillo, R. Cioffi, et al., Life cycle assessment of recycled
concretes: a case study in southern Italy, Sci. Total Environ. 615 (2018) 1506–
1517.
[15] F. Collins, Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled
concrete: influence on their carbon footprint, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (6)
(2010) 549–556.
[16] F. Consoli, 1993. Guidelines for Life-cycle Assessment: a Code of Practice.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
[17] J.S. Cooper, Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable
alternatives, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (6) (2003) 337–349.
[18] M. De Schepper, V.D.H. Philip, I. Van Driessche, et al., Life cycle assessment of
completely recyclable concrete, Mater 7 (8) (2014) 6010–6027.
[19] T. Ding, J. Xiao, Estimation of building-related construction and demolition
waste in Shanghai, Waste Manage. 34 (11) (2014) 2327–2334.
[20] T. Ding, J. Xiao, V.W. Tam, A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled
aggregate concrete utilization in china, Waste Manage. 56 (2016) 367–375.
[21] M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fernandez-Solis, S. Lavy, et al., Identification of parameters for
embodied energy measurement: a literature review, Energy Build. 42 (2010)
1238–1247.
[22] G. Dobbelaere, J.D. Brito, L. Evangelista, Definition of an equivalent functional
unit for structural concrete incorporating recycled aggregates, Eng. Struct.
122 (2016) 196–208.
[23] A. Domingo, C. Lázaro, F.L. Gayarre, et al., Long term deformations by creep
and shrinkage in recycled aggregate concrete, Mater. Struct. 43 (8) (2010)
1147–1160.
[24] T. Ekvall, A.M. Tillman, Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation
procedures, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2 (3) (1992) 155–162.
[25] T. Ekvall, market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 29 (1) (2000.A) 91–109.
[26] T. Ekvall, G. Finnveden, Allocation in ISO 14041-a critical review, J. Clean Prod.
9 (3) (2001) 197–208.
[27] C.J. Engelsen, J. Mehus, C. Pade, et al., Carbon Dioxide Uptake in Demolished
and Crushed Concrete. Nordic Innovation Centre Project 03018, Norwegian
Building Research Institute, 2005.
[28] M. Etxeberria, E. Vázquez, A. Marí, et al., Influence of amount of recycled
coarse aggregates and production process on properties of recycled aggregate
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (5) (2007) 735–742.
[29] F. Faleschini, P.D. Marzi, C. Pellegrino, Recycled concrete containing EAF slag:
environmental assessment through LCA, Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 18 (9)
(2014) 1009–1024.
[30] G. Fathifazl, A. Abbas, G.A. Razaqpur, et al., New mixture proportioning
concrete mixtures with recycled concrete aggregate, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 (10)
(2009) 601–611.
[31] A. Fink, Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper,
Fourth Edition., Sage Publications, Los Angeles, USA, 2013.
[32] Freedonia. World Construction Aggregates. 2012. Industry Study No 2838.
The Fredonia Group, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
[33] J. Gajda, F.M. Miller 2000. Concrete as a Sink for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide:
a Literature Review and Estimation of CO2 Absorption by Portland Cement
Concrete, PCA, Chicago, R&D Serial no. 2255.
[34] I. Galan, C. Andrade, P. Mora, et al., Sequestration of CO2 by concrete
carbonation, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (8) (2010) 3181–3186.
[35] H.M.D.S. Gervásio, Sustainable Design and Integral Life-cycle Analysis of
Bridges, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2010.
[36] S. Ghoshal, F. Zeman, Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage technology in
the cement and concrete industry, in: Developments and Innovation in
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage Technology: Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Capture, Transport and Industrial Applications, Woodhead Publishing
Limited, 2010, pp. 469–491.
[37] G. Habert, D. Arribe, T. Dehove, et al., Reducing environmental impact by
increasing the strength of concrete: quantification of the improvement to
concrete bridges, J. Clean. Prod. 35 (17) (2012) 250–262.
[38] S.L. Han, M.A. Ismail, H.L. Sang, et al., Life Cycle of CO2 (LCCO2) Evaluation and
Service Life Prediction of RC Structure Considering Carbonation Degree of
Concrete, Science Publishing Group, New York, 2015.
[39] V.L. Hayes, Product transportation and distribution system, The Aggregate
Handbook, National Stone Association, Washington, DC, 1991.
[40] P.V.D. Heede, N.D. Belie, 2010. Durability related functional units for life cycle
assessment of high-volume fly ash concrete. International Conference on
Sustainable Construction Materials & Technologies. UWM Center for By-
Products Utilization, Ancona, Italy. pp. 583–594.
[41] P.V.D. Heede, N.D. Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (4) (2012) 431–442.
124 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125
[42] R. Heijungs, J.B. Guinée, Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle
assessment of waste management systems, Waste Manage. 27 (8) (2007)
997–1005.
[43] R. Hischier, I. Reichart, Multifunctional electronic media-traditional media:
the problem of an adequate functional unit, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (4)
(2003) 201–208.
[44] ISO ISO 14041, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Goal
and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998, p. 1998.
[45] ISO ISO 14040, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Principles and Framework, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[46] ISO ISO 14044, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, p. 2006.
[47] C. Jiménez, M. Barra, A. Josa, et al., LCA of recycled and conventional concretes
designed using the equivalent mortar volume and classic methods, Constr.
Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 245–252.
[48] C. Jiménez, M. Barra, S. Valls, et al., Durability of recycled aggregate concrete
designed with the Equivalent Mortar Volume (EMV) method: validation
under the Spanish context and its adaptation to Bolomey methodology,
Mater. Constr. 64 (313) (2014) 420–431.
[49] A. Khan, Recycled concrete-a source for new aggregate, Cem. Concr.
Aggregate 6 (1) (1984) 17–27.
[50] S. Kim, B. Dale, Ethanol fuels: E10 or E85 – Life cycle perspectives, Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 11 (2) (2006) 117–121.
[51] N. Kisku, H. Joshi, M. Ansari, et al., A critical review and assessment for usage
of recycled aggregate as sustainable construction material, Constr. Build.
Mater. 131 (2017) 721–740.
[52] C. Knoeri, E. Sanyé-Mengual, H.J. Althaus, Comparative LCA of recycled and
conventional concrete for structural applications, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18
(5) (2013) 909–918.
[53] R. Kurad, J.D. Silvestre, J. de Brito, et al., Effect of incorporation of high volume
of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash on the strength and global
warming potential of concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 166 (2017) 485–502.
[54] B. Lagerblad, Carbon Dioxide Uptake during Concrete Life Cycle, State of the
Art, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 2006.
[55] J.B. Li, C. Zhang, J.Z. Xiao, On statistical characteristics of the compressive
strength of recycled aggregate concrete, Struct. Concr. 6 (4) (2005)
149–153.
[56] J.B. Li, J.Z. Xiao, J. Huang, Influence of recycled coarse aggregate replacement
percentages on compressive strength of concrete, J. Build. Mater. 9 (3) (2006)
297–301.
[57] W. Li, J. Xiao, Z. Sun, et al., Interfacial transition zones in recycled aggregate
concrete with different mixing approaches, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012)
1045–1055.
[58] V.M. Malhotra, Recycled concrete-a new aggregate, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 5 (1)
(1978) 42–52.
[59] S.B. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, et al., Comparative
environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete,
Waste Manage. 30 (11) (2010) 2255–2264.
[60] S.B. Marinković, I. Ignjatović, Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete with
recycled aggregates (RAs), in: Handbook of Recycled Concrete and Demolition
Waste, Woodhead Publishing Limited. Cambridge, 2013, pp. 569–604.
[61] S.B. Marinković, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
concrete made using recycled concrete or natural aggregates, in: Eco-Efficient
Construction and Building Materials, Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge, 2014, pp. 239–266.
[62] S.B. Marinković, J. Dragaš, I. Ignjatović, et al., Environmental assessment of
green concretes for structural use, J. Clean. Prod. 154 (2017) 633–649.
[63] J. Matheys, W.V. Autenboer, J.M. Timmermans, et al., Influence of functional
unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
12 (3) (2007) 191–196.
[64] D. Mukherjee, S. Chakraborty, P.G. Bhattacharya, A statistical study on
compressive strength of recycled concrete, J. Inst. Eng. 83 (2003) 219–220.
[65] N.D. Oikonomou, Recycled concrete aggregates, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (2)
(2005) 315–318.
[66] J.G.J. Olivier, G. Janssensmaenhout, M. Muntean, et al., Trends in Global CO2
Emissions: 2014 Report, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency,
2014.
[67] L.S. Oliveira, S.A. Pacca, V.M. John, Variability in the life cycle of concrete
block CO2 emissions and cumulative energy demand in the Brazilian market,
Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 588–594.
[68] C. Pade, M. Guimaraes, The CO2 uptake of concrete in a 100 year perspective,
Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (9) (2007) 1348–1356.
[69] D.K. Panesar, K.E. Seto, C.J. Churchill, Impact of the selection of functional unit
on the life cycle assessment of green concrete, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (12)
(2017) 1969–1986.
[70] J. Park, S. Tae, T. Kim, Life cycle CO2 assessment of concrete by compressive
strength on construction site in Korea, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5)
(2012) 2940–2946.
[71] L.J. Parrott, A Review of Carbonation in Reinforced Concrete, Transport
Research Laboratory, 1987.
[72] X.Q. Peng, T. Huang, K.Y. Wang, et al., Optimization of mix proportion design
of recycled concrete: close packing method of mechanically interlocked
skeleton, J. Civ. Archit. Environ. Eng. 03 (2009) 124–129.
[73] M. Pepe, R.D.T. Filho, E.A.B. Koenders, et al., A novel mix design methodology
for recycled aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 122 (2016) 362–372.
[74] E. Possan, W.A. Thomaz, G.A. Aleandri, et al., CO2 uptake potential due to
concrete carbonation: a case study, Case Studies in Constr Mater 6 (2017)
147–161.
[75] K. Rahal, Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled coarse aggregate,
Build. Environ. 42 (1) (2007) 407–415.
[76] P.K.S. Ramírez, S.R. Soares, D.M.D. Souza et al. Allocation methods in life cycle
assessment: acritical review 15th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle
Engineering, 2008, N.S.W Sydney pp. 253–257.
[77] T. Rodriguez-Nikl, J.W. Christiansen, K. Walters, Reliability-based life cycle
assessment of green concrete structures, ACI SP 289 (12) (2012) 159–171.
[78] N. Serres, S. Braymand, F. Feugeas, Environmental evaluation of concrete
made from recycled concrete aggregate implementing life cycle assessment, J.
Build. Eng. 5 (2015) 24–33.
[79] K.E. Seto, C.J. Churchill, D.K. Panesar, Influence of fly ash allocation
approaches on the life cycle assessment of cement-based materials, J.
Clean. Prod. 157 (2017) 65–75.
[80] V.D.Z. Sterling, F. Zeman, Production of carbon negative precipitated calcium
carbonate from waste concrete, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 94 (11) (2016) 2153–2159.
[81] P.P. Sun, The Construction of LCEC Model for the Environmental Impact of
Recycled Concrete, Zhejiang University, 2013.
[82] S. Talukdar, N. Banthia, J.R. Grace, Carbonation in concrete infrastructure in
the context of global climate change – Part 1: Experimental results and model
development, Cem. Concr. Comp. 34 (8) (2012) 924–930.
[83] S. Talukdar, N. Banthia, J.R. Grace, et al., Carbonation in concrete
infrastructure in the context of global climate change: part 2 – Canadian
urban simulations, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (8) (2012) 931–935.
[84] H.F.W. Taylor, Cement Chemistry, 2nd edition., Thomas Telford, 1997.
[85] S.H. Teh, T. Wiedmann, A. Castel, et al., Hybrid life cycle assessment of
greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in
Australia, J. Clean. Prod. 152 (2017) 312–320.
[86] Z.W. Tian, The Research on Assessment of Environmental and Economic
Performance for Recycled Concrete based on LCA-LCC, Zhejiang University,
2010.
[87] N. Tojo, C. Fischer, Europe as a Recycling Society. European Recycling Policies
in relation to the actual, 2011. ETC/SCP Working Paper, (ETC/SCP working
paper 2/2011). http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?
id=12683&postid=2303681 (accessed on Jul. 17, 2017).
[88] N. Tošić, S. Marinković, T. Dašić, et al., Multicriteria optimization of natural
and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use, J. Clean. Prod. 87 (1)
(2015) 766–776.
[89] D.R. Vieira, J.L. Calmon, F.Z. Coelho, Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the
manufacturing of common and ecological concrete: a review, Constr. Build.
Mater. 124 (2016) 656–666.
[90] F. Werner, K. Richter, Economic allocation in LCA: A case study about
aluminium window frames, Int J Life Cycle Ass 5 (2) (2000) 79–83.
[91] Q.H. Wang, Y.Y. Wang, Y. Geng, et al., Influence of mixing methods on
mechanical behaviors of recycled aggregate concrete, J. Build. Struct. 37 (S2)
(2016) 79–87.
[92] B. Weidema, Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment, Journal
of Industrial Ecology 4 (3) (2000) 11–33.
[93] B.P. Weidema, M.S. Wesnaes, Data quality management for life cycle
inventories-an example of using data quality indicators, J. Clean. Prod. 4 (3)
(1996) 167–174.
[94] World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Our agenda
for action, Switzerland, World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Geneva, 2002.
[95] World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), The Cement
Sustainability Initiative, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
[96] B. Wu, Z. Xu, Z.J. Ma, et al., Behavior of reinforced concrete beams filled with
demolished concrete lumps, Struct. Eng. Mech. 40 (3) (2011) 411–429.
[97] B. Wu, X.Y. Zhao, Y. Yang, Regeneration structural members containing large-
size demolished concrete: a review, J. South China Univ. T 40 (10) (2012)
174–183.
[98] B. Wu, X.Y. Zhao, J.S. Zhang, et al., Cyclic testing of thin-walled circular steel
tubular columns filled with demolished concrete blocks and fresh concrete,
Thin. Wall Struct. 66 (3) (2013) 50–61.
[99] B. Wu, C. Liu, Y. Wu, Compressive behaviors of cylindrical concrete specimens
made of demolished concrete blocks and fresh concrete, Construction and
Building Materials 53 (53) (2014) 118–130.
[100] F.M. Xi, T.M. Shi, J.Y. Wang, et al., Review of cement materials carbon sink,
Adv. Clim. Chang Res. 11 (4) (2015) 288–296.
[101] J. Xiao, J. Li, C. Zhang, Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete
under uniaxial loading, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6) (2005) 1187–1194.
[102] J.Z. Xiao, J.B. Li, C. Zhang, On relationships between the mechanical properties
of recycled aggregate concrete: an overview, Mater. Struct. 39 (6) (2006)
655–664.
[103] J. Xiao, W. Li, Y. Fan, et al., An overview of study on recycled aggregate
concrete in China (1996–2011), Constr. Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 364–383.
 Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 209 (2019) 115–125 125

[104] K.H. Yang, E.A. Seo, S.H. Tae, Carbonation and CO2 uptake of concrete, Environ.
Impact. Assess. Rev. 46 (4) (2014) 43–52.
[105] J. Yang, Q. Du, Y. Bao, Concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and crushed
clay bricks, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (4) (2011) 1935–1945.
[106] J. Yin, W. Zou, Y. Chi, The evaluation of high performance recycled concrete
on environmental coordination, J. Railway Sci. Eng. 08 (5) (2011) 19–25.
[107] J. Zhang, J.C.P. Cheng, I.M.C. Lo, Life cycle carbon footprint measurement of
Portland cement and ready mix concrete for a city with local scarcity of
resources like Hong Kong, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (4) (2014) 745–757.
[108] Y.R. Zhang, Integrated Life Cycle Environmental Impact Assessment of Fly Ash
Concrete, Beijing Jiaotong University, 2016.