3.1.3. System Boundary
The system boundary defines what is included in the study. Defining them is important because by limiting the system boundary, we can exclude various processes that affect the FU throughout its life cycle (cradle-to-grave), some of which may have considerable environmental impact [
15]. Therefore, the system boundary set for an experiment must be well justified, as reducing the scope of the study could lead to erroneous results because of the reasons mentioned above. For this study, we decided to limit the system boundary to cradle-to-gate for 1 m
3 of ready-mixed concrete. This is justified since it is in these early stages of raw material extraction and manufacturing that the greatest environmental impacts are generated, and therefore the greatest differences may exist between one alternative and another [
25]. Subsequent phases of construction (A4–A5), use and maintenance (B1–B7), demolition and recycling (C1–C4) do have an impact on the environment, but these phases are currently assumed to be similar between the concrete alternatives assessed and, for that reason, they were not included in this research [
14,
15,
26]. Existing literature on research into waste utilisation in building elements such as mortar and concrete also defines the system boundary as from cradle-to-gate [
13,
14,
24,
27].
Figure 1 shows the system boundary for the research and the processes that take place after the creation of the functional unit that are excluded from this research. The phases include the process of extracting the raw materials (A1) needed to make the concrete product (A3), in addition to their internal transport (A2).
Figure 1 also shows the two FUs defined for this research. The first of these is 1 m
3 of concrete, which will allow us to assess the various alternatives by varying the percentage of NCAs substituted with RCAs. The second FU is 1 tonne of RCA, which will allow us to compare results with the existing literature and interpret any differences. With regard to obtaining the RCAs, a wealth of literature is available describing the resources required during the process [
8,
10,
13,
14,
28]. RCAs primarily come from recycled CDWs. However, not all RCAs have the same origin, as in this case study, which uses RCAs from concrete block waste (CBWs), the recycling and procurement process of which is described below. For better understanding, the results are presented for two types of RCAs. RCA-CBWs (the type used in this case study) and RCA-CDWs (RCAs derived from CDWs and covered in the existing literature). The following sections explain the existing system boundary encompassing the production of the RCA-CBWs and RCA-CDWs.
CBWs are made from the surplus or waste produced in the concrete plant itself. This waste is produced through the following process: residual fresh concrete that was not poured at the usage site is transported back to the plant in the concrete mixer trucks. This fresh concrete is poured into a pit, as shown in
Figure 2. The fresh concrete is poured into the pit until reaches a certain level and is left to dry out in the open. Subsequently, an excavator with a hydraulic hammer demolishes and breaks up this residual concrete layer into large CBWs, as can be seen in
Figure 2. Finally, these CBWs are fed into an aggregate recycling machine, where they are crushed to the size used in this research. Two sub-processes are used to crush the material to the appropriate aggregate size (see
Figure 2).
Having explained the process of recycling concrete block waste, it should be noted that a very similar process is used to produce RCA-CDWs (as will be seen later), with the exception of a number of nuances. Firstly, CBWs do not need to be transported to the recycling plant, as the waste is collected within the plant itself, with negligible internal transport. Secondly, as CDWs do not contain any metallic elements, the crushed waste does not need to be passed through an electromagnet. In addition, CBWs have a more homogeneous composition, while CDWs come from the demolition of a building and the composition of the waste includes metals, ceramics, plastic, paint and tiles. Therefore,
Figure 3 illustrates the system boundary for recycling CBWs to produce RCAs.
CDWs can be recycled in two types of plants. Mobile plants move to the place where a building is being demolished and, thus, the place where the CDWs are being produced. These plants treat the CDWs and produce the RCA-CDWs on-site. The treated product is then transported to the place where it will be used, such as a concrete production plant. The disadvantage of this type of plant is that its output is lower than that of a fixed plant, but because the recycling process takes place close to the supply of the CDWs, they do not have to be transported to the recycling plant, as is the case with fixed recycling plants. Fixed plants offer optimal recycling as they are usually more complex and can obtain RAs with different granulometries. They can also handle and store larger quantities of material, so their annual production rate is higher. The system boundary for the production of RCA-CDWs in a fixed recycling plant are shown generically in
Figure 4.
The CDW recycling process starts with the demolition of the decommissioned building, which generates various waste materials that are loaded into a tanker truck and transported from the demolition site to the recycling plant. Transport is a key factor, as excessive distances can make recycling CDWs environmentally unfeasible or too costly. Once at the recycling plant, the raw material from the CDWs is stockpiled in large quantities. An excavator loads the feeding chute to ensure there is no lack of material supply in the process. The waste is first sprayed with water to prevent the emission of dust and particles during the process. Next, it is transported by conveyor belt for initial crushing by a toothed crushing machine. Subsequently, this reduced-sized waste is passed through an electromagnet to automatically extract the metal debris from the reinforcements and manually collect plastics and other undesirable waste. It is then subjected to secondary crushing in impact crushers to further reduce the size of the pieces. Lastly, it passes through a series of sieving processes that separate the RAs according to their granulometry and they are then stored in alluviums for later use. This is the simplest process used to obtain the RCA-CDWs, however, other methods obtain better quality aggregates, such as the heat method. This method removes the old mortar stuck to the aggregates. After the crushing processes, the RCAs are heated and filtered into aggregates and dust [
14]. However, compared to the simple process described above, heat treatment uses a considerable amount of energy [
14].
3.1.4. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
The life cycle inventory (LCI) consists of compiling the quantities of materials, energy, waste, resources, etc., used in the processes included in the system boundary. Like the system boundary, the LCI is key to achieving consistent research results and therefore, special attention should be paid to ensuring it is as specific as possible. To create the LCI for this research, we used Hormigones Ebro’s own data to characterise the CBW recycling process. We referred to earlier research to improve the inventory of the process and compare it with similar processes. These were, firstly, the inventory provided by the National Association of Aggregates Manufacturers (ANEFA) (Madrid, Spain), which includes relevant data on the production of RCAs from CDWs in Spain in 2019 [
17]. And, secondly, research on concrete case studies [
13,
24,
29].
For this LCI, we had to divide the overall process into several sub-processes. These were the materials that make up the concrete such as NAs, cement and water. Subsequently, the consumptions involved in treating the CBWs to obtain the RCA-CBWs. And finally, the transport process applied to all the materials in order to model the environmental impacts of transporting them from their place of origin to their point of use. To model the LCA we used the SimaPro 9.2.0.2 software, entering the various quantities of materials, energy and waste identified in the LCI. SimaPro’s internal databases such as Ecoinvent v.3 [
30] as well as the ELCD (European Life Cycle Database) [
31] were used for this purpose.
It begins by explaining the raw materials used in the samples evaluated. These are shown in
Table 2, as well as the processes that were chosen in the SimaPro software and their respective database.
The process used to treat the CBWs generated by Hormigones Ebro has been explained in detail in
Section 3.1.4. As already mentioned, the inventories of several earlier pieces of research on the production process of RCA-CDWs will be taken into account in order to compare them with the production of 1 tonne of RCA-CBWs.
The recycling process of the CBWs (see
Figure 3) does not involve the consumption of large consumables except for the diesel used in the aggregate crushing machine. The crushing machine has an average production rate of 200 t/h, and its diesel consumption at maximum output is 67.8 L/h. This gives a diesel consumption of approximately 0.34 L per tonne of RCA-CBWs produced. This value is in line with the interval values proposed by ANEFA for the production of RCA-CDWs with diesel with a value of 0.89 ± 0.44 L [
17]. Diesel fuel has an energy of 10.96 kWh/L which results in an energy consumption of 3715 kWh for the production process of the RCA-CBWs. The inventory is shown in
Table 3. This RCA-CBWs production process has zero water consumption. It should be noted that the grinding of the CBWs leads to wear of the steel grinding wheels and these have to be replaced from time to time if it is decided to include them in the inventory. For this purpose, and due to a lack of specific information on this consumable, we decided to choose the value proposed by ANEFA for this consumable, shown in
Table 4.
This section describes the inventories made in the existing literature on the production of RCA-CDWs. Generally, research that conducts an environmental assessment of the production of RCA-CDWs has established its own inventories. These inventories vary due to the degree of detail required for the research. For example, some research considers the steel costs of the crushing process or the tire costs of machines such as the excavators that load the waste into the feeding chutes. However, all the works share a number of fundamental common consumptions, such as electricity, diesel fuel and water. Detail is provided in
Table 4, the inventory of consumption established by ANEFA [
17]. We assume that the screen meshes and crushing rollers used are made of low alloy steel, and therefore, they are modelled in the SimaPro software with the same process.
With regard to the existing literature, a wide range of previous studies assess the sustainability of the use of RCAs in specific cases [
9,
24,
28,
29]. These investigations logically contain their own inventory (with a greater or lesser degree of detail) and, therefore, also their respective results derived from applying the various environmental methodologies available. Therefore, in order to contrast previous results with those obtained in this research, we decided to choose two impact categories that are present in the vast majority of environmental assessment methodologies. These are the global warming potential (unit: kg of CO
2) and the use of non-renewable primary energy (unit: MJ), i.e., the consumption of energy from sources such as fossil fuels.
In the transport process, the movement of the RCAs and other raw materials from the place of manufacture to the point of use, mixing or recycling is included. The aim of studying this process is to model particulate emissions, gases such as nitrogen oxides (NO
x) and carbon oxides (CO
x), which are produced as a result of fuel combustion in the internal combustion engine of the means of transport and which logically have an impact on the environment. The transport was modelled on a 32 metric tonne capacity truck using diesel fuel, to which the European EURO 6 emission standard is applied [
32]. It was decided to choose a transport process that meets these pollutant standards in order to make it more realistic, as nowadays European directives increasingly restrict pollution in transport. The process chosen in SimaPro is as follows: Transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, EURO 6 {RER}|Cut-off, U (Ecoinvent v.3) and its defined unit is metric tonne per km (mt-km). From here, it is a matter of defining average distances or distances that are known directly from the literature. These transport distances are for the transport of cement, fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and recycled aggregates.
Cement is the material that travels the longest average distance between its place of origin to its point of use. In Spain, this distance varies between 50~400 km, according to research by Fraga et al. (2014) [
33]. We decided to choose an average distance of 200 km. Consequently, the transport value associated with cement will be 60 mt-km.
This transport distance is reduced for the transport of fine aggregates from the quarry where they are produced and definitively treated to the place of use. In this study, where we know the exact locations of both the quarry and the point of manufacture of the concrete samples, the distance is 15 km. This falls within the range of average distances established by Fraga et al. (2014) for aggregates (15~20 km) [
33]. In Spain, these reduced distances constitute an advantage in favour of the use of NAs instead of RAs. However, in countries with a shortage of NA production or excessive transport distances resulting in high economic costs, the use of recycled aggregates would be more advantageous.
No transport process is applied to the RCA-CBWs because they are produced and used on-site in the same concrete production plant, and the distance they are transported is minimal. This is an advantage compared to RCA-CDWs produced in a fixed recycling plant (
Figure 4), which have to make at least two trips. The first journey is from the CDW collection site to the recycling plant where the RCA-CDWs are produced, and the second is the transport of the RCA-CDWs to the implementation site. These distances can vary greatly and depend on the case study, as can be seen in
Table 5 where the distances proposed by other studies for the transport of CDWs to a fixed recycling plant are shown.
As can be seen, the production of RCA-CDWs involves the addition of a transport process that does not exist for the case study in this research. This lends an advantage to the RCA-CBWs under study in this research, as explained in the results sections.
The samples must be prepared in concrete or mortar production plants. These plants have sufficient room to stockpile fine and coarse aggregates and cement. Generally, these production plants have a very low level of machinery, limited to mixing machinery, dosing machines, conveyor belts, etc. The energy consumed by these plants is electrical. The research by Fraga et al. (2014), calculates the electrical energy required to produce 1 m
3 of ready-mixed concrete at 1.61 kWh/m
3 [
33]. To model this process, we chose an existing concrete production process in SimaPro: Concrete, 25–30 MPa {RoW} concrete production 25–30 MPa|Cut-off, U (Ecoinvent v.3). The electricity consumption in the process was modified to the actual values in this research and for electricity from the national medium voltage grid (Electricity, medium voltage {ES} market for|Cut-off, U—Ecoinvent v.3).