Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Application of the desirability function for the development of new

composite eco-efficiency indicators for concrete
Ariel Miranda de Souza *, Gustavo Emilio Soares de Lima , Gustavo Henrique Nalon , Márcia
Maria Salgado Lopes , André Luís de Oliveira Júnior , Gustavo José Rodrigues Lopes ,
Marcell José de Andrade Olivier , Leonardo Gonçalves Pedroti , José Carlos Lopes Ribeiro , José
Maria Franco de Carvalho
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Av. Peter Henry Rolfs, Campus UFV, Dep. de Eng. Civil, Viçosa, MG, Zip Code: 36.570-900, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Studies have been developed to evaluate the construction industry environmental impacts based on eco-
Concrete efficiency indicators. This work aims to complement impact assessment methods currently used in the litera­
Eco-efficiency indicators ture with the application of the statistical desirability function, and create novel desirability-based indicators to
Statistical desirability function
evaluate the environmental and mechanical performance of concrete production. Six new eco-efficiency in­
Life-cycle assessment
Sustainability
dicators associated with different impact categories addressed by international, national, and regional agree­
ments in the sustainability area were proposed: Energy Impacts Reduction (EIR); Material Impacts Reduction
(MIR); Greenhouse Gases Reduction (GGR); Ecotoxicity Potential Reduction (EPR); Acidification, Eutrophication,
and Ozone Abatement (AEO); and Eco-efficiency Potential (EEP). A case study was developed to carry out a life
cycle assessment (LCA) of conventional and sustainable concretes, apply the individual desirability methodology
and calculate the novel indicators. The application of the desirability function was able to adjust and combine
LCA midpoint or endpoint characterization factors and provide very flexible and intuitive desirability-based
indicators of concrete eco-efficiency. The desirability-based indicators developed in this work allow assessing
the eco-efficiency of cement-based materials in a statistical methodology that offers synthetic results that are easy
to understand by the end-user and have great potential for practical application in decision-making processes.

1. Introduction depletion and 40–50% of GHG emissions [9–11]. More than 1 m3 of

International, national, and regional regulations relevant to specific
environmental impact categories are necessary to mobilize stronger and
more ambitious sustainable actions [1–3]. Various environmental
agreements have been signed to mitigate climate change associated with
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), improve the use of
renewable energy, reduce the production of ozone-depleting gases,
improve air quality, protect the environment from risks posed by
chemicals, and improve the conservation of nature and natural resources
[2,4–8].
The construction industry is one of the main responsible for most of
the environmental impacts to be contained by all of these environmental
agreements. It accounts for 40–60% of the natural material resources
concrete is produced worldwide per person per year, which makes it the
second most used resource after water [12,13]. Emissions of GHG in
concrete production depends on the way the cementing material is
manufactured. The production of the most traditional concrete compo­
nent, the Portland cement, is responsible for approximately 5–7% of
total global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and 3% of total GHG emis­
sions are released into the atmosphere [14,15].
The scientific community has dedicated time and effort to quantify
these impacts and recommend solutions to reduce such environmental
problems. For example, improvements in the materials production
process through the acquisition of more productive machinery and the
utilization of renewable energy sources, contribute to reducing envi­
ronmental impacts [16–18]. Moreover, the recycling of building

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ariel.souza@ufv.br (A. Miranda de Souza), gustavo.lima@ufv.br (G.E. Soares de Lima), gustavo.nalon@ufv.br (G.H. Nalon), marcia.salgado@
ufv.br (M.M. Salgado Lopes), andre.l.junior@ufv.br (A. Luís de Oliveira Júnior), gustavo.lopes@ufv.br (G.J. Rodrigues Lopes), marcell.olivier@ufv.br (M. José de
Andrade Olivier), leonardo.pedroti@ufv.br (L.G. Pedroti), jcarlos.ribeiro@ufv.br (J.C. Lopes Ribeiro), josemaria.carvalho@ufv.br (J.M. Franco de Carvalho).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102374
Received 17 December 2020; Received in revised form 21 February 2021; Accepted 2 March 2021
Available online 5 March 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
materials can reduce the additional demands for new raw materials,
components fabrication, and waste disposal [19]. The total or partial
replacement of concrete components by by-products from various in­
dustrial processes has become a widespread strategy to increase the
eco-efficiency of the final product. Examples of by-products used in
cement-based composites are slags [20,21], fly ash [22,23], agro-wastes
[24], ornamental rock waste [25], tire rubber waste [20], PET bottle
waste [26,27], among others whose treatment and transport aspects do
not exceed the impacts generated by conventional materials [28–30].
In this context, life cycle assessment (LCA) emerges as an important
tool that provides suitable information to evaluate the environmental
impact of products and services throughout their entire life cycle: from
the extraction of the raw materials to the processing, production, use,
disposal, and recycling phases [9,31,32]. In fact, LCA is an important
scientific approach that provides coherent, robust, and reliable data that
can support modern environmental policies and business decisions in
the sustainability field. One of the LCA steps is the compilation of input
and output flows of the product system and the creation of a LCA in­
ventory. The LCA also involves the assessment of different impact cat­
egories (usually associated with a category indicator) with
multi-category methods that can be problem-oriented (midpoint
approach) and damaged-oriented (endpoint approach). Since both
methods provide useful information to decision-makers, they have been
implemented in different LCA software packages (e.g., ReCiPe, Impact
2002+, LIME). In the midpoint approach, the results of the LCA in­
ventory are grouped into impact categories based on common charac­
teristics observed in the cause-effect chain. One example of a midpoint
characterization factor is the global warming potential, which repre­
sents a quantification of GHG emissions that leads to climate change
issues but does not represent a quantification of the actual environ­
mental damage. On the other hand, the endpoint approach focuses much
more on the actual effects. For instance, it is able to address the envi­
ronmental damages associated with those climate change issues [9,31,
33,34].
Moreover, sustainability indicators have been proposed to oper­
ationalize the conceptual nature of sustainability [35]. Some indicators
have been proposed in the construction industry to describe environ­
mental aspects of concrete materials, while others are focused on their
mechanical properties and durability [35]. Sustainability indicators can
also be combined to evaluate the eco-efficiency of concretes with
different performances and define the most adequate mix design for a
given construction application. For example, indicators proposed in
previous studies relate the total amount of binder, the total cost of
concrete production or the existing environmental impacts to the
compressive strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity or resis­
tance to carbonation of concrete [36–38]. Opon and Henry [35]
observed that current guidelines for assessing the environmental im­
pacts of the construction industry fail to reflect a holistic view on con­
crete sustainability. Conventional methods usually provide diverse,
unstructured, and lack-focus indicators that lead to significant uncer­
tainty and complexity in analyzing the concrete sustainability, thereby
confusing designers and specifiers. Thus, midpoint and endpoint char­
acterization factors reported in previous literature offer a critical picture
of various environmental aspects associated with the concrete industry,
but they lack a detailed characterization of technical parameters that
also affect the eco-efficiency of construction materials [9,31,33,34].
Recently, Opon and Henry [35] created a holistic framework for the
evaluation of concrete sustainability. This framework comprises quan­
titative indicators that consider various global perspectives of sustain­
able development, which suggests the growing complexity of concrete
material sustainability evaluation. Further research is recommended to
develop strategies that simplify the complex nature of concrete sus­
tainability to an easy form to communicate to stakeholders in the con­
struction sector. In the present work, the statistical desirability function
approach is proposed to convert this complex problem with multiple
performance parameters into a one-response problem.
2
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
The statistical desirability tool can be used to compare the environ­
mental performance of different concretes based on the parameters
considered by various proposed indicators. This statistical function al­
lows converting multiple response variables into a single value to be
considered by the end-user in decision-making processes [39]. Another
advantage is that methods based on desirability are easy to understand
and flexible to incorporate individual weights for different parameters
[40], which is also interesting to decide between different concrete
mixes. The desirability function also provides a composite response
value that simplifies comparisons between elements. In addition, the
desirability function is a tool of practical computational implementa­
tion. It can also be easily developed in softwares (e.g., Minitab) [41–44].
Various applications for this tool are reported in the literature. For
instance, Simsek and Uygunoglu [41] applied this statistical tool to
determine an overall desirability value that reflects the effects of the
incorporation of polyurethane, polycarbonate, and polybutylene tere­
phthalate wastes on multiple characteristics of concrete materials (e.g.,
thermal conductivity, compressive strength, tensile strength, slump flow
value, and water absorption). Simsek et al. [42] used the desirability
function to determine a single response index that represents the influ­
ence of contents of cement, dioctyl terephthalate, and superplasticizer
on electrical, mechanical and fluidity properties of concrete grouts.
Afzali-Naniz and Mazloom [43] also proposed the application of the
desirability function to determine a parameter that brought together
different response variables (modulus of elasticity, compressive
strength, and water absorption of self-compacting lightweight con­
cretes) affected by various parameters (water/binder ratio, micro-silica
content, colloidal nano-silica content). Hameed et al. [44] used the
concept of desirability functions to describe the effects of two different
factors (embedment length and drilled-hole diameter) on the technical
performance of concrete anchorage systems, considering the system
pull-out resistance and the volume of adhesive material as response
variables. Finally, Latawiec et al. [39] investigated the use of the
desirability function to estimate the effects of modifications in the
composition of concrete mixtures on their compressive strength, CO2
emission, carbonation resistance, and cost.
It is important to mention that the statistical desirability function
was never used to provide a picture of many different environmental
impacts associated with the complex nature of concrete sustainability
and create composite eco-efficiency indicators that contemplate the
different impact categories addressed by the international, national, and
regional agreements in the area of sustainability previously mentioned
in this section. In order to fill this gap, the present work proposes the
application of the statistical desirability function for the calculation of
six new composite eco-efficiency indicators that allow the comparison of
eleven environmental impacts generated by concrete, within the scope
of the legal framework defined in regional, national, or international
cooperation. The desirability function was able to complement impact
assessment methodologies currently used in the literature with a sta­
tistical treatment that adjusts and combines LCA midpoint or endpoint
characterization factors, providing flexible and intuitive desirability-
based indicators of concrete eco-efficiency. These indicators were
developed based on a systematic LCA related to the concrete production
and a holistic assessment of the environmental pillar of sustainability.
They were applied in a case study that compares conventional concretes
and concretes incorporating different recycled materials.
2. Methodology
2.1. LCA
2.1.1. Objective and scope of the LCA
An LCA was carried out in this study to allow a comparison of
environmental impacts of the production of conventional concretes
(manufactured with natural aggregates and ordinary Portland cement)
and environmental-friendly concretes (manufactured with industrial
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
wastes and/or recycled materials) in Section 2.4. The information
reviewed in the present LCA provides an important data collection to be
used by designers, contractors, academics, administrative bodies and
government officials to assess sustainability in the construction industry.
The functional unit considered in this LCA was the production of 1 kg
of concrete. The system boundary used in this study was the cradle-to-
gate, i.e., the use and disposal phases were not considered in the anal­
ysis. Therefore, this approach considers the extraction and beneficiation
processes of the raw materials used to produce concrete. The motivation
for choosing the cradle-to-gate approach as the boundary of the system
was that this is the most relevant phase in terms of environmental im­
pacts [45]. The aspects of the transport of construction materials to the
concrete production site are relevant, but they were not considered in
the present study because they typically have a more local scope.
The first life (virgin product) and the second life (recycled product)
of the recycled products added to the cementitious matrices were
interpreted as independent systems. Thus, the impacts of the product’s
first life were disregarded, and the “cut-off” approach was chosen, which
is commonly applied in LCAs of concretes containing supplementary
cementitious materials (SCM), as commented by Arrigoni et al. [46].
According to this approach, the waste is considered to be available "free
of charge" to the user, so that, only impacts associated with refining
operations (such as drying or milling) are attributed to the waste.
Therefore, evaluating the effects of different allocation procedures on
the environmental impacts of SCM in concrete were beyond the scope of
the present study.
2.1.2. LCA inventory
The LCA inventory was prepared based on the compilation of the
inputs and outputs reported and quantified in different articles and
books published in the literature, in addition to commercial available
databases, considering each of the following concrete constituents: or­
dinary Portland cement [15,47–50], conventional and recycled concrete
aggregates (RCA) [18,25,46,51–59], chemical additives [52,55,60], fly
ash (FA) [48,61], ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) [22,37],
rice husk ash (RHA) [60], sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) [60], orna­
mental rock waste (ORW) [25], and water [52,62].
An extensive literature review was conducted in order to obtain a
consistent inventory dataset, using different search engines such as
ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, and CAPES Journal Portal
(Brazilian research funding agency), in addition to databases of specific
publisher and commercial websites. Large amounts of data were found
for some items of the inventory (e.g., inputs and outputs for production
of ordinary Portland cement, conventional and recycled aggregates) so
that some boundaries were defined to collect sufficient data: informa­
tion was mostly collected from papers that were published in recent
years by high-quality engineering journals. However, in some cases, the
amount of existing data was very limited (e.g., inputs and outputs for
obtaining and treating waste materials), so that the bibliographies were
not limited by date of publication or location. This information was
analyzed in order to update the inventory with reliable and consistent
data. After careful research and reading of the articles, relevant data
from the life cycle analysis were extracted and compared with those
found by other authors.
However, it was not possible to find a single organized dataset
dealing with different applications and applicable to different locations.
For example, the available databases, research papers, and LCA software
consider technical, geological, climatic, social, and economic factors
associated with specific locations. Therefore, a large part of the in­
ventory was prepared based on averages of generic data representing a
wide geographical border composed of different countries, which is the
strategy proposed by Mah et al. [63] and Erduran et al. [64]. This
approach tends to circumvent the current lack of more particular and
systematic LCA data. Given these limitations, the inputs and outputs
reported in this work are approximate.
At this stage, a careful survey of the flows into and out of the
3
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
production process was carried out. This survey includes consumption of
primary raw materials (PRM), consumption of recycled materials (RM),
total consumption of primary energy (TPE) and water consumption
(WC), in addition to determining different categories of impacts asso­
ciated with cement production, aggregates and chemical admixtures,
and the eventual refinement of SCM or treatment of recycled aggregates.
2.1.3. Impacts assessment
The impact category of global warming potential (GWP) over a 100-
year time horizon was used to quantify the emissions of different GHG
into the atmosphere. Most of the works and databases mentioned in
Section 2.1.2 have already provided the GWP value directly. However,
some of the studies presented in the inventory [25,37,51,52,54,59,61]
only considered the emissions associated with some of the GHGs (CO2,
CH4, and N2O). In these cases, the GWP was estimated based on Equation
(1), whose factors are recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [65].
GWP = 1[CO2 ] + 25[CH4 ] + 298[N2 O] (1)
The freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP), marine eco­
toxicity potential (MAETP), and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP)
refer to impacts on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems,
respectively, and results of emissions of toxic substances to air, water,
and soil [55]. In this work, these data were obtained in the unit kg of 1,
4-dichlorobenzene equivalent.
The ozone-depletion potential (ODP) was used to estimate the
damage to the ozone layer associated with concrete production, which
favors the entry of ultraviolet rays into the Earth’s atmosphere. The ODP
data refer to the potential for depletion of different types of gases related
to the reference substance chlorofluorocarbon-11 (CFC-11) so that the
unit considered was the kg of CFC-11 equivalent [66].
Data on acidification potential (AP) were also collected in the unit kg
of SO2 equivalent. This data is associated with emissions of gases such as
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia into the atmosphere,
which can react with rainwater and cause the acid rain phenomenon
[67].
Another impact category considered was the eutrophication poten­
tial (EP), whose data were obtained with the unit kg of PO3− 4 equivalent.
This category includes the impacts associated with the excessive level of
nutrients existing in the environment [55].
2.1.4. LCA interpretation
The LCA interpretation phase aims to identify, qualify, and verify
that the inventory information was complete, and evaluate the results of
the analysis of the LCA inventory, maintaining transparency and
ensuring representative results. At this stage, LCA results were analyzed,
compared with other environmental management techniques, and
evaluated for decision making. To facilitate comparisons, results were
grouped into different categories of environmental impacts. In this
study, novel indicators were also used to group categories into a stan­
dard and easy to analyze value, based on the statistical desirability
function [31,68,69].
Significant issues related to the information presented in the in­
ventory (Section 2.1.2) and impact assessment (Section 2.1.3) phases
will be identified and discussed in Sections 3 and 4, considering the
consistency and restrictions of the study. Complex or time-consuming
approaches for sensitivity analysis of the LCA (e.g., one-at-a-time
approach, screening, variance-based analysis, among others) were not
applied in this paper because it deals with hypothetical case scenarios
that are only intended to demonstrate the feasibility of applying the
desirability methodology for the development of novel composite in­
dicators. Despite this, Section 4 presents detailed analyses of the influ­
ence of properties and composition of concrete materials on the LCA
response.
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
2.2. Statistical desirability function for environmental assessment
This work introduces the eco-efficiency assessment of concretes,
based on composite indicators obtained with the statistical desirability
function. In addition to providing a statistical analysis of the data for
easy comparison, the desirability function is a simple tool, easy to apply,
free of charge, and that can be efficiently applied with different soft­
wares, since it presents a very practical computational implementation.
This function involves the transformation of a response variable into an
individual desirability value, ranging from 0 to 1. Zero (0) means the
most undesirable performance, and one (1) the most desirable perfor­
mance [70]. Therefore, the present paper suggests the use of the sta­
tistical desirability function to provide a unidirectional behavior to the
data set, such as “more is better”, which is recommended by Opon et al.
[35] for comparison of eco-efficiency indicators and for them to work
together in a single framework.
Response variables associated with each concrete mixture were the
ratio between a given environmental parameter determined in the LCA
developed in Section 2.1 and a given material performance parameter.
In this case, eleven different environmental parameters described in
Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 were selected: PRM, RM, TPE, WC, GWP,
FAETP, MAETP, TETP, ODP, AP, and EP. As a performance parameter,
the compressive strength of concrete (fc) is proposed.
The calculation of individual desirability (di) depends on the type of
assessment (maximization, normalization or minimization) aimed for
each response (y(x)); the desired minimum (Li) and maximum (Ui)
limits; and the importance or weight (s or t) of each response. Thus, it
was decided to maximize the RM environmental parameter, whose
calculation algorithm is given by Equation (2), and minimize the other
ten environmental parameters, using the algorithm of Equation (3). It
enables to reduce the environmental impacts generated by the produc­
tion of the concrete mixtures through the maximization or minimization
of the responses. In addition, a variation range of each environmental
parameter must be selected, considering a minimum (Li) and maximum
(Ui) limit as extreme values that will allow the calculation of the indi­
vidual desirability. The desirability function allows the users to choose
the most appropriate s and t values, based on the relative importance or
priority assigned to each response variable. Based on the application of
Fig. 1. Desirability function: (a) minimization; (b) maximization.
4
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
weights (e.g., 0.1, 1 or 10), as shown in Fig. 1, it is possible to speed up or
slow down the desirability variation rate [71]. The weighting procedure
proposed in this methodology aims to represent the relative importance
of the different dimensions in their contributions to the sustainability
performance of the system [72,73]. In a simple and straightforward
approach, no priority assessment was applied in the case study presented
in Section 2.4 of this work since both s and t parameters were considered
to be equal to 1. The users can easily implement the formulation pre­
sented in Equation (2) and Equation (3). Statistical computational tools
can also be used to determine individual desirabilities.
⎧
⎪ 0, se yi (x) < Li
⎪
⎪[
⎪
⎨ y (x) − L ]s
di (yi (x)) =
i i
(2)
, se Li ≤ yi (x) ≤ Ui
⎪
⎪
⎪
Ui − Li
⎪
⎩
1, se yi (x) > Ui
⎧
⎪ 1, se yi (x) < Li
⎪
⎪
⎪[
⎨ ]t
Ui − yi (x)
di (yi (x)) = , se Li ≤ yi (x) ≤ Ui (3)
⎪ Ui − Li
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
0, se yi (x) > Ui
2.3. Proposition of new environmental indicators
The environmental impacts assessment was evaluated through five
composite indicators that contemplate a set of individual desirabilities
mentioned in the previous section. Composite indicators are indicators
based on grouped sub-indicators that do not have a unit of measurement
but are related to each other, integrating large amounts of information
into easily understood formats [74–76].
In current practice, composite indicators builders usually apply ag­
gregation procedures after developing a normalization of the indicators
[73]. Therefore, an aggregation of the individual desirabilities is pro­
posed in this work in order to provide parameters useful to quantify the
main objectives of the legal framework of various environmental
agreements signed at regional, national, or international levels
mentioned in Section 1. Considering these objectives, similar indicators
were grouped into a same dimension. Consequently, the composite in­
dicators proposed in this section aim to help practitioners to identify
how far they are from their targets and how well aligned they are to the
development path defined by those environmental agreements [72].
Finally, a composite indicator that aggregates the previous five was
proposed. The combinations of indicators for the formulation of com­
posite indicators are shown in Fig. 2.
2.3.1. Energy negative impacts reduction – EIR
The EIR indicator is given by the individual desirability value
determined with the primary nonrenewable energy consumption (TPE)
parameter, as presented in Equation (4). This indicator ranges from 0 to
1. The values closest to 1 are related to processes that cause lower
environmental impacts in terms of consumption of nonrenewable en­
ergy. This indicator aims to facilitate the decision-making processes
related to the need for a low-carbon transformation of the energy sector,
and the design of efficient energy policies, aspects addressed by the 2015
Paris Agreement [4,5].
( )
TPE
EIR = di (4)
fc
2.3.2. Material Impacts Reduction - MIR
The MIR indicator consists of the average of the desirabilities asso­
ciated with the indicators of primary raw material (PRM), total recycled
material (RM), and water consumption (WC), as indicated in Equation
(5). It ranges from 0 to 1. Values close to 1 indicate processes that cause
less environmental impacts. This indicator can be used to assess the
contribution of concrete production to impacts on natural resources. The
A. Miranda de Souza et al. Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374

Fig. 2. Hierarchical framework of composite indicators.

MIR indicator also provides information on the contribution of the 2.3.4. Ecotoxicity Potential Reduction – EPR
material to the recycling of solid wastes. It is an interesting response to The EPR indicator consists of the average of the desirabilities asso­
be considered by regulations such as the Directive (EU) 2018/851 [77], ciated with the freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP),
which deals with recycling targets for construction and demolition terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP), and marine ecotoxicity potential
waste. (MAETP) parameters, as presented in Equation (7). This indicator
[ ( ) ( ) ( )] identifies concretes less aggressive to the environment, in line with the
1 PRM RM WC
MIR = . di + di + di (5) REACH regulation to improve the protection of the environment against
3 fc fc fc
toxicity risks imposed by chemical pollutants [8].
[ ( ) ( ) ( )]
2.3.3. Greenhouse Gases Reduction – GGR 1 FAETP TETP MAETP
EPR = . di + di + di (7)
The GGR indicator consists of individual desirability associated with 3 fc fc fc
the impacts of the most relevant GHG, carbon dioxide, water vapor,
methane, and nitrous oxide (GWP), as indicated in Equation (6). It 2.3.5. Acidification, eutrophication, and Ozone Abatement – AEO
ranges from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 related to processes that cause The AEO indicator is composed of the average of individual de­
the lowest GHG emissions. GGR is an indicator of particular importance sirabilities associated with the indicators of ozone depletion potential
since mitigating the impacts associated with global warming has been (ODP), eutrophication (EP), and acidification (AP), as indicated in
one of the main focus of international cooperation in the sustainability Equation (8). It ranges from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 related to
area. For example, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol can be interpreted as an processes that generate the lowest emissions of substances associated
important initiative to reduce GHG emissions, despite not having ach­ with acidification, eutrophication, and depletion of the ozone layer. The
ieved so much [2,3]. A new framework focused on preventing global reduction of emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen, potassium, volatile
warming was compiled during the 2015 Paris Agreement [2,78]. organic compounds, and ammonia has been the focus of important
( ) environmental agreements, such as the Gothenburg Protocol of 1999 for
GWP
GGR = di (6) the Reduction of Acidification, Eutrophication and Tropospheric Ozone,
fc
and their subsequent modifications.

5
A. Miranda de Souza et al. Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374

[ ( ) ( ) ( )]
1 ODP EP AP Some of the authors [79,84] have used cubic specimens in uniaxial
AEO = . di + di + di (8)
3 fc fc fc compression tests. In these cases, the 28-days compressive strength
values of the cubic specimens were converted to results referring to
2.3.6. Eco-efficiency potential - EEP cylindrical specimens, using the correction factor of 0.80 proposed in
In addition, the proposed desirability-based indicators can be com­ previous literature [86].
bined based on the widespread technique of linear aggregation [73]. Therefore, this case study includes a total of 15 different concretes.
Hence, Equation (9) shows that a broader EEP indicator can be obtained The concretes were named according to the abbreviation of the incor­
based on the average between the EIR, MIR, GGR, EPR, and AEO in­ porated material used by the authors and their contents: blast furnace
dicators. Therefore, a single indicator is proposed to combine all of the slag (0%GGBS and 21%GGBS), fly ash (0%FA and 25%FA), waste from
evaluated environmental impacts. It ranges from 0 to 1, with the values the processing of ornamental stones (0%ORW and 5%ORW), rice husk
closest to 1 being those related to concretes that cause lower environ­ ash (0%RHA and 10%RHA), recycled aggregates (0%RCA and 100%
mental impacts. This indicator aims to provide a simple and intuitive RCA), and sugarcane bagasse (0%SCBA and 33%SCBA). Specific infor­
overview of the eco-efficiency of concrete materials. mation about these concretes is summarized in Table 1.

1
EEP = .[EIR + MIR + GGR + EPR + AEO]
5
2.4. Case study
A case study was developed to evaluate the application of the sta­
tistical desirability function and the composite indicators to access the
efficiency of different types of concretes in terms of environmental
sustainability.
Three conventional reference concretes with average 28-days
compressive strengths of 20 MPa, 25 MPa, and 30 MPa (designated as
REF20, REF25, and REF30, respectively) produced by a concrete
manufacturer in the Vale do Rio Doce region (Minas Gerais State, Brazil)
were evaluated, in order to consider a case scenario of the absence of
substantial actions in the area of sustainable construction.
Moreover, a compilation of various eco-concretes reported in the
literature was also evaluated in this case study in order to consider some
contrasting case scenarios dealing with different sustainable solutions
for the concrete industry. These case scenarios propose the incorpora­
tion of granulated blast furnace slag [79], fly ash [80], waste from the
processing of ornamental stones [81], rice husk ash [82], recycled
concrete aggregates [83] and ultrafine sugarcane bagasse ash [84] into
concrete matrices. These eco-concretes were selected for this case study
for two main purposes: (i) all of them present an average 28-days
compression strength (obtained with cylindrical specimens) in the
range of 20–30 MPa (the same strength level of the conventional
reference concretes); and (ii) all of them used OPC or CP V-ARI cement
(equivalent to the ASTM Type I cement [85]), which contain very low
rates of mineral admixtures and high rates of clinker. The use of cements
with similar characteristics allows a more effective comparison of the
environmental impact analysis. For comparison purposes, this study also
investigated the reference concrete mixes (without the recycled ad­
mixtures) of each type of eco-friendly concrete reported in the previ­
ously mentioned studies [79–84], designated as control concretes.
(9) 3. Results
3.1. LCA results
The environmental impacts related to the raw materials used for
concrete production were obtained from the LCA described in Section
2.1 and summarized in Table 2. This LCA methodology also provided the
environmental impacts associated with the production of 1 m3. Impact
results and the compressive strength of all studied concretes are pre­
sented in Table 3.
3.2. Eco-efficiency indicators results
Eco-efficiency indicators were calculated based on the methodology
proposed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. The individual desirability value
associated with each environmental parameter, and the obtained com­
posite indicators (EIR, MIR, GGR, EPR, AEO, EEP) are presented in
Table 4.
4. Discussion
4.1. EIR, MIR, GGR, EPR, and AEO indicators
Fig. 3 shows a comparison between the reference concretes (REF20,
REF25, REF30). Among these reference concretes, REF20 presented the
lowest cement consumption per m3 of concrete (Table 1). Since cement
is the component that causes the greatest environmental impacts
(Table 2), it was expected that REF20 would present better results for the
composite indicators. However, the lower cement consumption led to
lower compressive strength, which was also considered in the calcula­
tion of the proposed eco-efficiency indicators. As the mechanical
strength increases observed in the reference concretes were more
expressive than the cement consumption increases, the series with lower
compressive strength (REF20) presented the worst results in all of the

Table 1
Constituents proportioning of the concretes evaluated in the case study (in mass).
Identification Portland cement Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Water Admixture fc (MPa) Reference

REF20 1.00 2.56 2.96 0.74 0.00 20.0 Authors

REF25 1.00 2.18 2.61 0.66 0.00 25.0
REF30 1.00 1.80 2.25 0.58 0.00 30.0
0%ORW 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.55 0.00 31.3 [81]
5%ORW 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.55 0.05 30.7
0%RHA 1.00 1.98 2.74 0.60 0.00 24.0 [82]
10%RHA 1.00 2.2 3.04 0.67 0.10 29.0
0%GGBS 1.00 2.56 3.88 0.80 0.00 22.0 [79]
21%GGBS 1.00 2.45 3.72 0.83 0.21 27.0
0%FA 1.00 1.78 3.03 0.47 0.00 30.3 [80]
25%FA 1.00 2.20 3.79 0.59 0.25 27.7
0%SCBA 1.00 1.50 3.00 0.53 0.00 29.2 [84]
33%SCBA 1.00 2.00 4.01 0.71 0.33 27.2
0%RCA 1.00 1.58 3.51 0.50 0.00 31.0 [83]
100%RCA 1.00 1.28 3.00 0.44 0.00 30.0

6
A. Miranda de Souza et al. Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374

Table 2
Results of the life-cycle assessment.
Component TPE WC (m3/ GWP (kg FAETP (kg 1,4- TETP (kg 1,4- MAETP (kg 1,4- ODP (kg CFC- EP (kg PO3−
4 AP (kg SO2
(MJ/kg) kg) CO2 eq./kg) DB eq./kg) DB eq./kg) DB eq./kg) 11 eq./kg) eq./kg) eq./kgf)

Ordinary Portland Cement 4.359 3.84E-03 0.883 4.14E-03 1.17E-03 1.94E+01 2.04E-08 2.01E-04 1.54E-03
(OPC)
Fly ash (FA) 0.417 0.00E+00 0.008 1.47E-03 7.90E-05 1.61E+00 2.79E-09 6.84E-06 6.54E-05
Ground granulated blast 1.580 2.32E-03 0.177 2.13E-03 1.58E-04 1.11E+01 2.47E-09 1.30E-04 1.76E-03
furnace slag (GGBS)
Sugar cane bagasse ash 0.900 0.00E+00 0.115 8.20E-04 2.02E-04 1.73E+01 5.32E-09 6.70E-05 4.01E-04
(SCBA)
Rice husk ash (RHA) 0.540 0.00E+00 0.089 5.70E-04 1.26E-04 1.44E+01 4.65E-09 5.50E-05 3.24E-04
Ornamental rock waste 0.003 1.06E-04 0.001 5.17E-06 3.25E-07 5.38E-06 1.26E-10 9.41E-08 3.39E-06
(ORW)
Conventional fine aggregate 0.085 2.20E-06 0.007 5.87E-04 6.31E-06 1.72E+00 1.60E-09 5.84E-06 6.26E-05
Conventional coarse 0.068 3.44E-05 0.015 2.38E-03 2.09E-05 7.75E+00 1.00E-09 1.41E-05 4.54E-05
aggregate
Recycled concrete aggregate 0.041 0.00E+00 0.008 1.57E-03 2.00E-05 3.53E+00 1.04E-09 9.99E-06 3.00E-05
(RCA)
Superplasticizer (SP) 24.700 6.04E-03 1.445 2.08E-01 5.13E-03 3.35E+02 9.42E-08 1.46E-03 6.40E-03
Water 0.002 1.00E-03 0.000 5.16E-05 2.03E-06 7.62E-02 1.04E-11 7.48E-08 1.18E-06

(TPE - total primary energy; WC - water consumption; GWP - global warming potential; FAETP - freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential; TETP - terrestrial ecotoxicity
potential; MAETP - Marine ecotoxicity potential; ODP- ozone-depletion potential; EP - eutrophication potential; AP - acidification potential).

Table 3
Ratio between the environmental impacts of each concrete mixture and its compressive strength.
Identification TPE/fc PRM/fc RM/fc WC/fc GWP/fc FAETP/fc TETP/fc MAETP/fc ODP/fc EP/fc AP/fc

MJ/ kg/(m3. kg/(m3. kg H2O/ kg CO2 kg 1.4-DB kg 1.4-DB kg 1.4-DB kg 1.4-DB kg (PO4)− 3/ kg (SO2)/
(m3. MPa) MPa) (m3.MPa) eq./(m3. eq./(m3. eq./(m3. eq./(m3.MPa) eq./(m3. (m3.MPa) (m3.MPa)
MPa) MPa) MPa) MPa) MPa)

REF20 79.21 120.50 0.00 77.64 15.72 0.21 0.021 777.19 4.60E-07 4.30E-03 3.04E-02
REF25 70.53 96.40 0.00 68.56 14.04 0.17 0.019 649.20 4.00E-07 3.80E-03 2.68E-02
REF30 66.52 80.27 0.00 64.14 13.28 0.15 0.018 570.81 3.60E-07 3.50E-03 2.50E-02
0%ORW 57.09 79.03 0.00 54.21 11.39 0.15 0.015 557.00 3.20E-07 3.10E-03 2.17E-02
5%ORW 53.65 74.28 0.57 51.01 10.71 0.14 0.014 523.49 3.00E-07 2.90E-03 2.04E-02
0%RHA 75.64 101.44 0.00 72.81 15.09 0.19 0.020 707.74 4.20E-07 4.00E-03 2.87E-02
10%RHA 58.20 82.17 1.31 55.12 11.43 0.16 0.015 588.75 3.30E-07 3.20E-03 2.23E-02
0%GGBS 64.65 110.10 0.00 63.80 12.86 0.20 0.017 721.23 3.80E-07 3.60E-03 2.51E-02
21%GGBS 56.12 87.09 2.29 57.53 10.85 0.16 0.014 597.65 3.10E-07 3.20E-03 2.43E-02
0%FA 62.29 82.96 0.00 58.30 12.46 0.16 0.016 608.15 3.50E-07 3.40E-03 2.36E-02
25%FA 56.38 87.07 2.87 52.37 11.03 0.17 0.015 609.22 3.30E-07 3.10E-03 2.14E-02
0%SCBA 65.46 84.23 0.00 62.42 13.13 0.17 0.017 632.66 3.60E-07 3.50E-03 2.47E-02
33%SCBA 56.94 86.22 3.69 52.33 11.15 0.17 0.015 666.94 3.30E-07 3.30E-03 2.21E-02
0%RCA 57.98 80.78 0.00 54.66 11.63 0.17 0.015 605.36 3.20E-07 3.20E-03 2.20E-02
100%RCA 64.95 38.47 42.43 60.51 12.96 0.14 0.018 456.39 3.60E-07 3.40E-03 2.42E-02

Notes: TPE - Total primary energy; PRM - Primary raw material; RM - Recycled material; WC - Water consumption; GWP – Global warming potential; FAETP -
Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential; TETP - Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential; MAETP - Marine ecotoxicity potential; ODP - Ozone depletion potential; EP -
Eutrophication potential; AP - Acidification potential.

Table 4
Values of individual desirability and values of environmental indicators of each concrete.
Identification Individual desirability Composite indicators

TPE PRM RM WC GWP FAETP TETP MAETP ODP EP AP EIR MIR GGR EPR AEO EEP

REF20
REF25 0.34 0.29 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.33 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.21 0.34 0.41 0.36 0.33
REF30 0.50 0.49 0.00 0.51 0.49 0.80 0.48 0.64 0.63 0.57 0.54 0.50 0.33 0.49 0.64 0.58 0.51
0%ORW 0.87 0.51 0.00 0.88 0.86 0.81 0.86 0.69 0.88 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.46 0.86 0.78 0.87 0.77
5%ORW 1.00 0.56 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.89
0%RHA 0.14 0.23 0.00 0.18 0.13 0.28 0.12 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.16
10%RHA 0.82 0.47 0.03 0.85 0.86 0.68 0.84 0.59 0.81 0.79 0.82 0.82 0.45 0.86 0.70 0.80 0.73
0%GGBS 0.57 0.13 0.00 0.52 0.57 0.16 0.57 0.17 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.22 0.57 0.30 0.51 0.43
21%GGBS 0.90 0.41 0.05 0.76 0.97 0.65 1.00 0.56 0.94 0.79 0.61 0.90 0.41 0,97 0.74 0.78 0.76
0%FA 0.66 0.46 0.00 0.73 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.53 0.69 0.64 0.68 0.66 0.39 0.65 0.60 0.67 0.60
25%FA 0.89 0.41 0.07 0.95 0.94 0.54 0.91 0.52 0.81 0.86 0.90 0.89 0.47 0.94 0.66 0.86 0.76
0%SCBA 0.54 0.44 0.00 0.57 0.52 0.54 0.51 0.45 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.34 0.52 0.50 0.59 0.50
33%SCBA 0.87 0.42 0.09 0.95 0.91 0.56 0.88 0.34 0.81 0.71 0.83 0.87 0.49 0.91 0.59 0.79 0.73
0%RCA 0.83 0.48 0.00 0.86 0.82 0.62 0.81 0.54 0.88 0.79 0.84 0.83 0.45 0.82 0.65 0.83 0.72
100%RCA 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.55 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.63 0.64 0.62 0.56 0.88 0.55 0.83 0.63 0.69

7
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
Fig. 3. Comparison between the indicators of the reference concretes REF20,
REF25, and REF30.
composite indicators. In fact, according to the results presented by
Damineli et al. [36] and Reis et al. [87], considerable compressive
strength increases (ranging from 200% to 300%) can be obtained with
small increases in cement consumption (ranging from 30% to 50%).
REF25 and REF30 concretes presented percentage increases (related to
REF20) from 0.2 to 0.4, and from 0.3 to 0.6, respectively, depending on
the type of eco-efficiency indicator. The largest increase was observed in
the EPR indicator. These results are mainly attributed to the significant
increases in mechanical strength, although the high values of FAETP,
TETP, and MAETP parameters obtained from the LCA of the cement. The
smallest increase was verified in the MIR indicator, as these three
reference concretes did not incorporate any type of recycled material in
their composition, in addition to the slight variations in the consumption
of primary raw material and water.
In Fig. 4, a comparison between the eco-friendly concretes (con­
taining recycled material) and their respective control concretes is
presented. In general, eco-friendly concretes presented higher values of
composite indicators than their respective control concretes. It
happened because the wastes incorporated in the concrete mixtures
caused lower environmental impacts in comparison to conventional
primary raw materials [9,31,35]. The highest increase in the
eco-efficiency indicators was observed in concrete manufactured with
RH (10%RHA concrete), in comparison with their control concrete (0%
RHA). The maximum increase of 300% verified in this case is signifi­
cantly associated with the pozzolanic properties of RHA. These wastes
were able to decrease the cement consumption and provide considerable
increases in the compressive strength of the concrete. In contrast, the
lowest increment in the eco-efficiency indicators was provided by the
incorporation of ORW (5%ORW concretes) in comparison with the 0%
ORW concrete. The increases reached only 25%, which can be attributed
to the small ORW concentration and the strength decreases resulting
from this waste incorporation. In the following paragraphs, individual
and detailed analyzes of each composite indicator are presented.
The EIR indicator satisfactorily described the environmental impacts
of different primary energy sources (such as electricity, diesel, coke, and
coal). In general, the control concretes caused higher environmental
impacts than their respective pairs containing recycled materials. Only
the 0%RCA control concrete presented a superior eco-efficiency
compared to its pair containing recycled concrete aggregates (100%
8
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
RCA). It is mainly attributed to the slightly higher cement consumption
of the concrete containing the recycled admixtures, which increased the
consumption of embedded primary energy without changing the 28-
days compressive strength of the material. The desirability tool pro­
vided an indicator that was able to represent a challenging issue: the
need for additional efforts on the recycling equipment development and
adequate concrete recycling planning in order to minimize the energy
consumption of RCA [54]. Among all of the conventional concretes and
concretes containing wastes, the highest EIR values were observed in the
0%ORW and 5%ORW concretes, respectively. Once again, it is greatly
attributed to the very low cement consumption and considerable
compressive strength of both concrete compositions compared to the
other mixtures evaluated in the present case study. However, the
incorporation of ORW into the concrete matrice decreased, even more,
the EIR indicator, since previous research [25] indicated that the oper­
ations used in the pre-treatment of ORW (press filter + natural drying)
are responsible for an energy consumption much lower than that
required in the OPC production, as previously presented in Table 2.
The MIR indicator highlighted the contribution of different SCM and
recycled concrete aggregates in reducing the impacts on natural re­
sources. The replacement of the natural aggregates in the 100%RCA
provided a 96% increase in the MIR indicator compared to its reference
pair. This increase reflects the potential mitigation of disposal/storage of
construction waste and depletion of natural resources [52,54]. There­
fore, the MIR indicator could represent the benefits of recycled aggre­
gates to decline landscape impact and decrease the exploitation of
nonrenewable resources since the natural aggregates extraction would
be reduced [51]. The concretes containing higher concentrations of
waste, such as 21%GGBS and 33%SCBA, also provided a greater increase
in the MIR indicator in comparison to their control concretes (86% and
44%, respectively). It suggests that the proposed indicator can represent
the advantages of recycling the industrial by-products of the manufac­
ture of pig iron in steel plants [79,88,89] and the ash generated from the
burning process of agro-waste materials [60,84,90], respectively. The
incorporation of 25%FA did not provide such significant increases in
MIR, although a by-product of the coal combustion process was reused
for concrete production [80,91]. It can be mainly attributed to the
reduction in the 28-days compressive strength value provided by the FA.
However, Zahedi et al. [80] observed that the compressive strengths of
0%FA and 25%FA concretes were the same after a curing period of 56
days. It suggests that the values of the eco-efficiency indicators of the
concretes would increase with their age due to enhancements in the
mechanical properties of concretes containing mineral admixtures with
pozzolanic properties. The incorporation of 10%RHA provided the
highest increase in the MIR indicator (221%) in comparison to its con­
trol concrete. It is attributed to the increase in the 28-days compressive
strength (20%) provided by the high pozzolanic activity of the ultrafine
RHA [60,82], the reduction in water consumption, reduction in primary
materials consumption, and the incorporation of a recycled material.
For similar reasons, the concrete containing 10%RHA also presented
the highest GGR indicator compared to its control concrete (0%RHA).
This result suggested that the GGR indicator could represent the
contribution of the RHA to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide
caused by the cement production and decrease the GWP of concretes, as
reported by different authors [60,82,92]. A high GGR indicator was also
observed in the concrete containing GGBS (0.97), which indicates that
the desirability methodology was able to properly reflect the allocation
procedure used in this study: the consideration of GGBS as industrial
wastes (without the application of any environmental load allocation
procedure) conducted to low environmental impacts, including those
related to the GHG emissions [48]. The 100%RCA concrete presented
the worst environmental performance compared to its reference pair
(0%RCA) due to its high cement consumption. In fact, Marinkovic et al.
[61] state that recycled aggregate concretes must be designed with the
same cement consumption if the designer aims for a better environ­
mental performance than natural aggregate concretes.
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
Fig. 4. Comparison between environmental indicators of concretes containing ORW (a), RHA (b), GGBS (c), FA (d), SCBA (e), RCA (f), and their respective con­
trol concretes.
The highest percentage increase in the EPR indicator due to the
incorporation of waste admixtures was provided by the RHA (approxi­
mately 233%). It is associated with the considerable increase in me­
chanical strength provided by the mineral admixtures, in addition to the
benefits provided by the low ecotoxicity potential of the RHA in com­
parison to Portland cement [60]. On the other hand, the smallest per­
centage eco-efficiency increase (10%) was observed in the 25%FA
concrete. This slight increase in the EPR value is in line with the similar
values of ecotoxicity potentials of the FA in comparison to Portland
cement, combined with the previously mentioned decrease in the
28-days compressive strength of the 25%FA concrete. However, one can
notice that the environmental burdens of the 25%FA concrete would
increase if the environmental impacts of the coal combustion process
were allocated between its main product and by-products [48,61]. A
similar observation is applied to the 21%GGBS concrete. Previous
research reports that when no allocation procedure is applied, the
highest environmental impacts of GGBS are related to fresh and marine
ecotoxicity potential [48], which decreased the EPR indicator of the
21%GGBS concrete. Despite this, its EPR was 147% higher than the
control concrete (0%GGBS), which is mainly related to the gains in
9
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
compressive strength provided by the GGBS due to pozzolanic reactions
[79].
The AEO indicator was effective in measuring the eco-efficiency of
concretes in terms of acidification, eutrophication, and ozone depletion
potential. The improvement of the materials’ strength and the low
environmental impacts of RHA compared to Portland cement [60]
provided the highest relative increase in the AEO indicator for the 10%
RHA (281%). A small percentage difference (15%) was observed be­
tween the AEO of 0%ORW and 5%ORW due to the small cement con­
sumption and high compressive strength of both concretes types.
Similarly, the addition of 21% for GGBS did not provide a significant
reduction in the values of the acidification, eutrophication, and ozone
depletion potential. Actually, the AEO increases due to the incorporation
of GGBS are mainly related to the mechanical strength enhancement
provided by the pozzolanic properties of this mineral admixture [79].
The 100%RCA mixture had an AEO value smaller than that of its control
mixture. The recycled aggregates provided small contributions to the
decrease in the acidification, eutrophication, and depletion ozone po­
tential compared to the conventional aggregates. Consequently, the AEO
indicator of the eco-friendly concrete containing RCA was even lower
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
than that of the control concrete due to its higher cement consumption
concrete and lower 28-days compressive strength.
Fig. 5 shows a comparison between the reference concretes (REF20,
REF25, and REF30) and the different eco-friendly concretes. The eco-
efficiency of concretes containing recycled materials was higher than
that observed in the different reference concretes (REF20, REF25, and
REF30). The proposed composite indicators satisfactorily quantified the
eco-efficiency improvements. Except for the reference concretes
(REF20, REF25, and REF30) and the 100%RCA concrete, the other
concretes of Fig. 5 showed EIR, AEO, EPR, and GGR indicators always
higher than 0.6. Among all of the mixtures, the 100%RCA concrete
presented the highest MIR value. The 5%ORW concrete showed EIR,
GGR and AEO equal to 1.0, which properly represents its low cement
consumption, high mechanical performance, and the reduced environ­
mental impacts provided by the incorporation of ORW [25,81]. Also
noteworthy is the great impact of the performance parameter
(compressive strength) in the eco-efficiency indicators, which is evi­
denced in the low values of the indicators of the REF25 and REF30
concretes.
The MIR indicator measures the sustainability contributions associ­
ated with incorporating waste into concrete mixtures, which is consid­
ered an important strategy to mitigate the negative environmental
impacts of concrete production in meeting the requirements for waste
disposal and reuse proposed in various environmental directives and
agreements [52,77,93]. In this sense, the 100%RCA concrete exhibited a
MIR indicator of 0.88, which is 167% higher than the MIR of the REF30
concrete (0.33). This significant gain was achieved by decreasing the
depletion of natural resources and reusing waste materials, which rep­
resents an interesting strategy to improve the concrete sustainability,
despite the reported drawbacks (e.g., reduction in mechanical perfor­
mance and the need for higher cement consumption).
In general, the incorporation of wastes into concrete matrices posi­
tively affected the EPR indicator, indicating significant reductions in the
freshwater aquatic, terrestrial, and marine ecotoxicity potential. Except
for the 33%SCBA concrete, all of the eco-concretes presented EPR values
higher than the three reference concretes. Such low EPR value obtained
Fig. 5. Comparison between the eco-efficiency indicators of the reference
concretes and the evaluated eco-friendly concretes.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
with a 33% replacement of cement with SCBA reflects the ability of the
proposed methodology to detect two important effects reported in pre­
vious literature: the high terrestrian ecotoxicity potential of ultrafine
SCBA (Table 2), which is associated with the milling pre-treatment of
this agro-waste [60]; and the reductions in concrete strength provided
by a high replacement level of cement with SCBA [84].
4.2. EEP indicator
Fig. 6 shows that none of the concretes obtained an EEP equals to 1.0,
i.e., none of them simultaneously presented the best environmental
performance in all the aspects analyzed. Results suggest that Portland
cement is the component that adds the greatest environmental impacts
to concretes, and its partial replacement by waste materials proved to be
the most effective way to increase the eco-efficiency of the materials, as
particularly evidenced by the EEP results of the studied eco-friendly
concretes. Cement consumption mainly affected the EIR, GGR, AEO,
and EPR (especially in the terrestrial ecotoxicity category) indicators.
The 5%ORW concrete presented the highest EEP values among all
analyzed concretes, which can be explained by its high EIR, GGR, EPR,
and AEO levels, compared to the other concretes. As previously
mentioned, this performance is mainly due to its high compressive
strength (33.1 MPa) and low cement consumption. On the other hand,
the REF20 concrete presented the worst eco-efficiency indicators,
obtaining a final zero score for the EEP indicator. Comparing the
reference concretes REF25 and REF30, it is possible to conclude that
conventional concretes with higher compressive strengths tend to pre­
sent greater eco-efficiency indicators. It happened because the increase
in mechanical performance is not linearly proportional to the impacts
generated by the extraction and manufacture of raw materials and the
concrete production. Therefore, the proposed indicators were able to
represent the fact that higher mechanical strength does not necessarily
lead to larger environmental impacts, as reported by Braga et al. [52].
The EEP of all of the concretes containing waste materials was
greater than the EEP of the reference concretes. The EEP of the 5%ORW
concrete is 74% higher than the EEP of the REF30 concrete. It represents
the higher improvement in terms of environmental performance when
comparing a conventional case scenario typically verified in the con­
crete industry to the investigated sustainable solutions for the field. The
smallest difference was verified in the 100%RCA concrete, although its
EEP value is still 35% higher than the EEP of the REF30 concrete. These
results demonstrate the ability of the developed tool to detect different
sustainable aspects behind the natural diversity of concrete production.
The 100%RCA concrete presented low ratings in some composite
indicators (e.g., GGR and EIR). Therefore, the developed composite in­
dicators were able to demonstrate a previous observation that the
cement is usually the highest contributor to most of the environmental
impact categories both for natural or recycled aggregate concretes [54].
However, sustainable value is added to the 100%RCA concrete due to
the high value of the MIR indicator, which is related to reducing the
consumption of raw materials and increasing the consumption of recy­
cled materials. Therefore, the developed indicators not only measure the
Fig. 6. EEP of the studied concretes.
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
ability of concretes to directly decrease environmental impacts but also
detect their ability to avoid the depletion of natural resources, in addi­
tion to consider their mechanical performance.
4.3. General comments
In the proposed methodology, the values of the composite indicators
of each concrete depend on the relative environmental/mechanical
performance of all concretes that compose the dataset investigated.
Therefore, another advantage of the present methodology is that the
values of the indicators are endogenously and specifically related to a
given locality or season being investigated. The calculated individual
desirability will change with the variation of the Li and Ui extreme
values. These limits can be easily adjusted by the decision-makers,
considering the concrete mixtures currently used in a given location
and the sustainable solutions targeted by the concrete industry.
In a simple and straightforward approach, equal weights were
considered in the present case study, assuming that the eleven response
variables proposed in Section 2.2 were equally important. However, the
s and t parameters of the statistical desirability function can be modified
by the users to judge the relative importance of the different response
variables. Determining the most appropriate, transparent, and replicable
weights is beyond the scope of this investigation. Further studies will be
developed to test distinct weight values of the response variables,
elaborate some weighting strategies, select the most efficient ones, and
recommend weighting procedures based on distinct seasonal, regional,
and governmental criteria.
5. Conclusion
This work explored the use of the statistical desirability function as a
tool for developing eco-efficiency indicators of concretes. It also carried
out a case study to evaluate the responses of this tool, comparing envi­
ronmental impacts associated with the production of conventional
concretes and eco-friendly concretes incorporating recycled materials.
The following conclusions derived from this study:
● The eco-efficiency of concretes was adequately assessed by a set of
new composite indicators (EIR, MIR, GGR, EPR, AEO) of practical
use, easy to understand and directly aligned with the goals of
regional, national, and international agreements in the area of sus­
tainability and global sustainable development;
● The application of the desirability tool in the case study presented in
this paper allowed the validation of the proposed methodology,
based on comparing results of different types of concrete reported in
the literature. The response obtained with the methodology is
consistent with information available in the literature, considering
different aspects of the environmental pillar of sustainability and the
mechanical performance of concrete materials.
● The desirability tool allowed translating the complexity of the effects
of the various environmental impacts obtained from a conventional
LCA into a single value between 0 and 1, in the form of the composite
EEP indicator. Therefore, the proposed desirability indicators pro­
vide a pragmatic answer to the current environmental challenges of
the concrete industry, as they allow the user to identify the concrete
mixture that presents greater environmental and mechanical
performances.
Thus, the desirability tool and the six indicators developed in this
work allow assessing the eco-efficiency of cement-based materials in a
statistical methodology that offers synthetic results that are easy to
understand by the end-user and have great potential for practical
application in decision-making processes.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ariel Miranda de Souza: Investigation, Data curation, Writing –
original draft, Formal analysis. Gustavo Emilio Soares de Lima:
Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis.
Gustavo Henrique Nalon: Investigation, Data curation, Writing –
original draft, Formal analysis. Márcia Maria Salgado Lopes: Investi­
gation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. André
Luís de Oliveira Júnior: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original
draft. Gustavo José Rodrigues Lopes: Investigation, Data curation,
Writing – original draft. Marcell José de Andrade Olivier: Investiga­
tion, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Leonardo Gonçalves
Pedroti: Validation, Writing – review & editing. José Carlos Lopes
Ribeiro: Validation, Writing – review & editing. José Maria Franco de
Carvalho: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa­
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance code 001.
The authors also acknowledge the collaboration of the research group
SICon/UFV.
References
[1] N.L. Pelletier, N.W. Ayer, P.H. Tyedmers, S.A. Kruse, A. Flysjo, G. Robillard,
F. Ziegler, A.J. Scholz, U. Sonesson, Impact categories for life cycle assessment
research of seafood production systems: review and prospectus, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 12 (2007) 414–421, https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.09.275.
[2] T. Fujita, N. Takashima, Literature review of repeated game analyses on
international environmental agreements, kenkyu or J. Polit. Econ. (2016) 35–53,
https://doi.org/10.15017/1788896.
[3] A. de Zeeuw, International environmental agreements, Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7
(2015) 151–168, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100814-124943.
[4] M.T. Costa-Campi, P. del Rio, E. Trujillo-Baute, Trade-offs in energy and
environmental policy, Energy Pol. 104 (2017) 415–418, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2017.01.053.
[5] P. Thieffry, Environmental protection and European union energy policy: energy
transition after the Paris agreement, ERA Forum 17 (2016) 449–465, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12027-017-0453-8.
[6] W. Marrouch, R.C. Amrita, International environmental agreements: doomed to fail
or destined to succeed? A review of the literature, Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ.
9 (2016) 245–319, https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000078.
[7] A. Byrne, Trouble in the air: recent developments under the 1979 convention on
long-range transboundary air pollution, Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 26
(2017) 210–219, https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12219.
[8] European Parliament and Council, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - registration,
evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), 2006.
[9] D.R. Vieira, J.L. Calmon, F.Z. Coelho, Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the
manufacturing of common and ecological concrete: a review, Construct. Build.
Mater. 124 (2016) 656–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.125.
[10] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Conventional versus modular construction
methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings, Energy Build.
204 (2019) 109479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479.
[11] B. Xia, T. Ding, J. Xiao, Life cycle assessment of concrete structures with reuse and
recycling strategies: a novel framework and case study, Waste Manag. 105 (2020)
268–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.015.
[12] K. Scrivener, Importance of microstructural understanding for durable and
sustainable concrete, in: Concr. Repair, Rehabil. Retrofit. II, CRC Press, 2008,
pp. 11–17, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439828403.ch2.
[13] P. Mehta, P. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, fourth
ed., McGraw Hill Education, New York, 2013.
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
[14] J. Lehne, F. Preston, Making Concrete Change - Innovation in Low-Carbon Cement
and Concrete, 2018.
[15] S. Çankaya, B. Pekey, A comparative life cycle assessment for sustainable cement
production in Turkey, J. Environ. Manag. 249 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109362.
[16] I. Zabalza Bribián, A. Valero Capilla, A. Aranda Usón, Life cycle assessment of
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and
evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential, Build. Environ. 46 (2011)
1133–1140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002.
[17] C. Koroneos, A. Dompros, Environmental assessment of brick production in Greece,
Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 2114–2123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2006.03.006.
[18] A. de Souza, Life Cycle Assessment of Sand in Small Mining in São José Do Rio
Preto Region - São Paulo, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 2012.
[19] J. Xiao, C. Wang, T. Ding, A. Akbarnezhad, A recycled aggregate concrete high-rise
building: structural performance and embodied carbon footprint, J. Clean. Prod.
199 (2018) 868–881, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.210.
[20] M.K. Ismail, A.A.A. Hassan, Use of metakaolin on enhancing the mechanical
properties of self-consolidating concrete containing high percentages of crumb
rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 125 (2016) 282–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.03.044.
[21] H. Zhao, W. Sun, X. Wu, B. Gao, The properties of the self-compacting concrete
with fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag mineral admixtures, J. Clean.
Prod. 95 (2015) 66–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.050.
[22] H. Wang, J.-J. Wu, X. Zhu, Q. Liao, L. Zhao, Energy–environment–economy
evaluations of commercial scale systems for blast furnace slag treatment: dry slag
granulation vs. water quenching, Appl. Energy 171 (2016) 314–324, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.079.
[23] K. Celik, C. Meral, A. Petek Gursel, P.K. Mehta, A. Horvath, P.J.M. Monteiro,
Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating
concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and
limestone powder, Cement Concr. Compos. 56 (2015) 59–72, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.11.003.
[24] M.V. Madurwar, R.V. Ralegaonkar, S.A. Mandavgane, Application of agro-waste
for sustainable construction materials: a review, Construct. Build. Mater. 38 (2013)
872–878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.011.
[25] T.A. Rebello, R. Zulcão, J.L. Calmon, R.F. Gonçalves, Comparative life cycle
assessment of ornamental stone processing waste recycling, sand, clay and
limestone filler, Waste Manag. Res. 37 (2019) 186–195, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X18819976.
[26] A. Sadrmomtazi, S. Dolati-Milehsara, O. Lotfi-Omran, A. Sadeghi-Nik, The
combined effects of waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) particles and
pozzolanic materials on the properties of self-compacting concrete, J. Clean. Prod.
112 (2016) 2363–2373, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.107.
[27] L.A. Pereira-de-Oliveira, M.C.S. Nepomuceno, J.P. Castro-Gomes, M.F.C. Vila,
Permeability properties of self-compacting concrete with coarse recycled
aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 51 (2014) 113–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.10.061.
[28] F. López Gayarre, J. González Pérez, C. López-Colina Pérez, M. Serrano López,
A. López Martínez, Life cycle assessment for concrete kerbs manufactured with
recycled aggregates, J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 41–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.093.
[29] D.M. de Souza, M. Lafontaine, F. Charron-Doucet, X. Bengoa, B. Chappert,
F. Duarte, L. Lima, Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of ceramic versus concrete
roof tiles in the Brazilian context, J. Clean. Prod. 89 (2015) 165–173, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.029.
[30] Y. Ghernouti, B. Rabehi, T. Bouziani, H. Ghezraoui, A. Makhloufi, Fresh and
hardened properties of self-compacting concrete containing plastic bag waste fibers
(WFSCC), Construct. Build. Mater. 82 (2015) 89–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.02.059.
[31] P. Van den Heede, N. De Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations, Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 431–442, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.004.
[32] M.K. Chauhan, Varun, S. Chaudhary, S. Kumar, Samar, Life cycle assessment of
sugar industry: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 3445–3453,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.033.
[33] JRC European Commission, ILCD Handbook: Analysis of Existing Environmental
Impact Assessment Methodologies for Use in Life Cycle Assessment, Institute for
Environment and Sustainability, 2010.
[34] J.C. Bare, P. Hofstetter, D.W. Pennington, H.A.U. de Haes, Midpoints versus
endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5 (2000) 319,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978665.
[35] J. Opon, M. Henry, An indicator framework for quantifying the sustainability of
concrete materials from the perspectives of global sustainable development,
J. Clean. Prod. 218 (2019) 718–737, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.01.220.
[36] B.L. Damineli, F.M. Kemeid, P.S. Aguiar, V.M. John, Measuring the eco-efficiency
of cement use, Cement Concr. Compos. 32 (2010) 555–562, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.07.009.
[37] W. Wang, D. Jiang, D. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Zhou, B. Zhu, A Material Flow Analysis
(MFA)-based potential analysis of eco-efficiency indicators of China’s cement and
cement-based materials industry, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 787–796, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.103.
12
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
[38] A.P. Fantilli, B. Chiaia, Eco-mechanical performances of cement-based materials:
an application to self-consolidating concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 40 (2013)
189–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.075.
[39] R. Latawiec, P. Woyciechowski, K. Kowalski, Sustainable concrete
performance—CO2-emission, Environments 5 (2018) 27, https://doi.org/
10.3390/environments5020027.
[40] N.R. Costa, J. Lourenço, Z.L. Pereira, Desirability function approach: a review and
performance evaluation in adverse conditions, Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 107
(2011) 234–244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2011.04.004.
[41] B. Şimşek, T. Uygunoğlu, A full factorial-based desirability function approach to
investigate optimal mixture ratio of polymer concrete, Polym. Compos. 39 (2018)
3199–3211, https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.24330.
[42] B. Şimşek, T. Uygunoğlu, H. Korucu, M.M. Kocakerim, Analysis of the effects of
dioctyl terephthalate obtained from polyethylene terephthalate wastes on concrete
mortar: a response surface methodology based desirability function approach
application, J. Clean. Prod. 170 (2018) 437–445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.09.176.
[43] O. Afzali-Naniz, M. Mazloom, Assessment of the influence of micro- and nano-silica
on the behavior of self-compacting lightweight concrete using full factorial design,
Asian J. Civ. Eng. 20 (2019) 57–70, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-018-0088-2.
[44] M.F. Abd-El Hameed, M.F. Ghazy, M.A.A. Abd Elaty, Optimisation of adhesive
anchors in concrete by desirability function, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (2015)
1101–1111, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00397.
[45] F. Colangelo, A. Forcina, I. Farina, A. Petrillo, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
different kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable construction, Buildings
8 (2018) 70, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050070.
[46] A. Arrigoni, D.K. Panesar, M. Duhamel, T. Opher, S. Saxe, I.D. Posen, H.
L. MacLean, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of concrete containing
supplementary cementitious materials: cut-off vs. substitution, J. Clean. Prod. 263
(2020) 121465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121465.
[47] L. Moretti, S. Caro, Critical analysis of the life cycle assessment of the Italian
cement industry, J. Clean. Prod. 152 (2017) 198–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.03.136.
[48] 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, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001.
[49] The International EPD System, Environmental Product Declaration (EPD): CP II E
40, CP III-40 RS and CP V-ARI by Votorantim Cimentos (Registration Number: S-P-
00895), 2016. Stockholm.
[50] The International EPD System, Environmental Product Declaration (EPD): Todas as
Obras and Obras Estruturais by Votorantim Cimentos (Registration Number: S-P-
01123), 2019. Stockholm.
[51] Z. Guo, A. Tu, C. Chen, D.E. Lehman, Mechanical properties, durability, and life-
cycle assessment of concrete building blocks incorporating recycled concrete
aggregates, J. Clean. Prod. 199 (2018) 136–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.07.069.
[52] A.M. Braga, J.D. Silvestre, J. de Brito, Compared environmental and economic
impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates,
J. Clean. Prod. 162 (2017) 529–543, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.06.057.
[53] W.-J. Park, T. Kim, S. Roh, R. Kim, Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of
recycled aggregate, Appl. Sci. 9 (2019) 1021, https://doi.org/10.3390/
app9051021.
[54] T. Ding, J. Xiao, V.W.Y. Tam, A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled
aggregate concrete utilization in China, Waste Manag. 56 (2016) 367–375, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.031.
[55] R.R. de Paula, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Mortars and Concretes Produced
with Construction and Demolition Wastes (CDW), Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro, 2016.
[56] J.F. Santoro, M. Kripka, Determination of the carbon dioxide emissions of raw
materials used in the production of concrete in the northern region of the state of
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, Ambient, Construído. 16 (2016) 35–49, https://doi.org/
10.1590/s1678-86212016000200078.
[57] A. Tosun, G. Konak, Determination of specific charge minimizing total unit cost of
open pit quarry blasting operations, Arab. J. Geosci. 8 (2015) 6409–6423, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1657-7.
[58] 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 (2010)
549–556, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0191-4.
[59] S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Comparative
environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete, Waste
Manag. 30 (2010) 2255–2264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012.
[60] L.C. Silva, Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement
by Sugarcane Bagasse Ash and Rice Husk Ash, Universidade Federal do Ro de
Janeiro, 2015.
[61] S. Marinković, J. Dragaš, I. Ignjatović, N. Tošić, Environmental assessment of green
concretes for structural use, J. Clean. Prod. 154 (2017) 633–649, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015.
[62] M. Guo, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Light-Weight Eco-Composites, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
35037-5.
[63] C.M. Mah, T. Fujiwara, C.S. Ho, Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing toward
eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018)
3415–3427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.200.
A. Miranda de Souza et al.
[64] D. Üçer Erduran, S.T. Elias-Ozkan, A. Ulybin, Assessing potential environmental
impact and construction cost of reclaimed masonry walls, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
25 (2020) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01662-2.
[65] IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), AR4 Climate Change
2007: Synthesis Report, 2007.
[66] A. Azapagic, Environmental systems analysis, in: M. Kutz (Org (Ed.), Handb.
Environ. Eng., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018, pp. 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119304418.
[67] A.P. Acero, C. Rodriguez, A. Ciroth, LCIA Methods: Impact Assessment Methods in
Life Cycle Assessment and Their Impact Categories, 2015.
[68] ISO, 14044: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Guidelines, 2006.
[69] T.J. Skone, What is life cycle interpretation? Environ. Prog. 19 (2000) 92–100,
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670190207.
[70] M.M. Salgado Lopes, R. de C. Silva Sant’Ana Alvarenga, L. Gonçalves Pedroti, J.
C. Lopes Ribeiro, A. Fiorini de Carvalho, F. de Paula Cardoso, B. Cardoso Mendes,
Influence of the incorporation of granite waste on the hiding power and abrasion
resistance of soil pigment-based paints, Construct. Build. Mater. 205 (2019)
463–474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.046.
[71] C.D. Pimenta, M.B. Silva, V.A.P. Salomon, R.B. Penteado, F.M. Gomes, Application
of the Desirability and Simplex methodologies to optimize the mechanical
properties of tempered steel wires, Production 25 (2015) 598–610, https://doi.
org/10.1590/0103-6513.094812 (in portuguese).
[72] X. Gan, I.C. Fernandez, J. Guo, M. Wilson, Y. Zhao, B. Zhou, J. Wu, When to use
what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators, Ecol.
Indicat. 81 (2017) 491–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068.
[73] P. Paruolo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? J. R.
Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Statistics Soc. 176 (2013) 609–634, https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-985X.2012.01059.x.
[74] M. Freudenberg, Composite indicators of country performance: a critical
assessment, OECD Sci. Technol. Ind. (2003), https://doi.org/10.1787/
405566708255. Work. Pap. No. 2003/16, OECD Publ. Paris.
[75] G. Munda, M. Nardo, Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for
ranking countries: a defensible setting, Appl. Econ. 41 (2009) 1513–1523, https://
doi.org/10.1080/00036840601019364.
[76] M.J. Burgass, B.S. Halpern, E. Nicholson, E.J. Milner-Gulland, Navigating
uncertainty in environmental composite indicators, Ecol. Indicat. 75 (2017)
268–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.034.
[77] European Parliament and Council, Directive (EU) No 851/2018 - Waste, 2018.
[78] Rauscher, Stable international environmental agreements: large coalitions that
achieve little, Games 10 (2019) 47, https://doi.org/10.3390/g10040047.
13
Journal of Building Engineering 40 (2021) 102374
[79] A. Oner, S. Akyuz, An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the
compressive strength of concrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 505–514,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.01.001.
[80] M. Zahedi, K. Jafari, F. Rajabipour, Properties and durability of concrete
containing fluidized bed combustion (FBC) fly ash, Construct. Build. Mater. 258
(2020) 119663, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119663.
[81] L.S. Pereira, Influence of the Use of Granite Cutting Waste as Filler on the
Performance of Concrete, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, 2016.
[82] G.C. Cordeiro, R.D.T. Filho, E. de M.R. Fairbairn, Influence of the partial
replacement of cement by ultrafine rice husk ash with high-carbon content on the
properties of concrete, Ambient. Construído. 9 (2009) 99–107.
[83] M. Limbachiya, M.S. Meddah, Y. Ouchagour, Performance of portland/silica fume
cement concrete produced with recycled concrete aggregate, ACI Mater. J. 109
(2012), https://doi.org/10.14359/51683574.
[84] K. Ganesan, K. Rajagopal, K. Thangavel, Evaluation of bagasse ash as
supplementary cementitious material, Cement Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 515–524,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.03.001.
[85] ASTM, ASTM C595/C595M-20 - Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic
Cements, 2020, p. 16.
[86] A.M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, Pearson, 2012.
[87] D.C. Reis, P.C.R.A. Abrão, T. Sui, V.M. John, Influence of cement strength class on
environmental impact of concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 163 (2020) 105075,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105075.
[88] P. Saranya, P. Nagarajan, A.P. Shashikala, Eco-friendly GGBS concrete: a state-of-
the-art review, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 330 (2018), 012057, https://doi.
org/10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012057.
[89] E. Özbay, M. Erdemir, H.İ. Durmuş, Utilization and efficiency of ground granulated
blast furnace slag on concrete properties – a review, Construct. Build. Mater. 105
(2016) 423–434, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.153.
[90] G.C. Cordeiro, R.D. Toledo Filho, E.M.R. Fairbairn, Ultrafine sugar cane bagasse
ash: high potential pozzolanic material for tropical countries, Rev. IBRACON
Estruturas e Mater. 3 (2010) 50–67, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-
41952010000100004.
[91] G. Xu, X. Shi, Characteristics and applications of fly ash as a sustainable
construction material: a state-of-the-art review, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136
(2018) 95–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.010.
[92] G.C. Cordeiro, R.D. Toledo Filho, E. de Moraes Rego Fairbairn, Use of ultrafine rice
husk ash with high-carbon content as pozzolan in high performance concrete,
Mater. Struct. 42 (2009) 983–992, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9437-z.
[93] European Parliament and Council, Directive (EU) 2008/98/EC - Waste and
Repealing Certain Directives, 2008.