Next Article in Journal
Special Features on Intelligent Imaging and Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Predicting Compressive Strength of Cement-Stabilized Rammed Earth Based on SEM Images Using Computer Vision and Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Decision Making through Combined Classification Techniques and Probabilistic Data Analysis for Ubiquitous Healthcare Anomaly Monitoring
Previous Article in Special Issue
Short-Term Deformability of Three-Dimensional Printable EVA-Modified Cementitious Mortars
Open AccessReview

A Systematic Review of the Discrepancies in Life Cycle Assessments of Green Concrete

1
Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
2
CERIS, Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources Department, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical Engineering College, Erbil Polytechnic University, Erbil 44001, Kurdistan-Region, Iraq
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(22), 4803; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224803
Received: 30 September 2019 / Revised: 4 November 2019 / Accepted: 7 November 2019 / Published: 10 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Low Binder Concrete and Mortars)
It is challenging to measure the environmental impact of concrete with the absence of a consensus on a standardized methodology for life cycle assessment (LCA). Consequently, the values communicated in the literature for “green” concrete alternatives vary widely between 84 and 612 kg eq CO2/m3. This does not provide enough evidence regarding the acclaimed environmental benefits compared to ordinary Portland cement concrete knowing that the average for the latter was concluded in this study to be around 370 kg eq CO2/m3. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey the literature on concrete LCAs in an attempt to identify the potential sources of discrepancies and propose a potential solution. This was done through examining 146 papers systematically and attributing the sources of error to the four stages of an LCA: scope definition, inventory data, impact assessment and results interpretations. The main findings showed that there are 13 main sources of discrepancies in a concrete LCA that contribute to the incompatibility between the results. These sources varied between (i) user-based choices such as depending on a cradle-to-gate scope, selecting a basic volume-based functional unit and ignoring the impact allocation and (ii) intrinsic uncertainty in some of the elements, such as the means of transportation, the expected service life and fluctuations in market prices. The former affects the reliability of a study, and hence, a concrete LCA methodology should not allow for any of the uncertainties. On the other hand, the latter affects the degree of uncertainty of the final outcome, and hence, we recommended conducting scenario analyses and communicating the aggregated uncertainty through the selected indicators. View Full-Text
Keywords: green concrete; life cycle assessment; environmental impact assessment; inventory data; allocation; functional unit; service life green concrete; life cycle assessment; environmental impact assessment; inventory data; allocation; functional unit; service life
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Hafez, H.; Kurda, R.; Cheung, W.M.; Nagaratnam, B. A Systematic Review of the Discrepancies in Life Cycle Assessments of Green Concrete. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4803.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop