Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Life-Cycle Assessment of the Substitution of Sand with Coal Bottom Ash in Concrete: Two Concrete Design Methods

Life-Cycle Assessment of the Substitution of Sand with Coal Bottom Ash in Concrete: Two Concrete... applied sciences Article Life-Cycle Assessment of the Substitution of Sand with Coal Bottom Ash in Concrete: Two Concrete Design Methods Svetlana Pushkar Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel, svetlanap@ariel.ac.il Received: 17 July 2019; Accepted: 30 August 2019; Published: 3 September 2019 Abstract: Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were conducted to evaluate the replacement of sand with coal bottom ash (CBA) in concrete. CBA is a byproduct of coal-fueled electricity production. Sand was replaced with CBA at proportions of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 wt.%, and the resultant concretes were denoted as CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100, respectively. Two concrete mixture design methods (that resulted in di erent component qualities of concrete mixtures) were used: (i) Mixture with a fixed slump (MIX-fixed-SLUMP) and (ii) mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C). The ReCiPe2016 midpoint and single score (six methodological options) methods were followed to compare the environmental damage caused by the CBA-based concretes. The ReCiPe2016 results showed that replacing sand with CBA was environmentally (i) beneficial with the MIX-fixed-SLUMP design and (ii) harmful with the MIX-fixed-W/C design. Therefore, using CBA as a partial sand replacement in concrete production is a controversial issue as it highly depends on the concrete mixture design method. Keywords: coal bottom ash; sand replacement; concrete design method; LCA; ANOVA 1. Introduction Every year, ten billion tons of concrete are produced in the world [1]. Conventional concrete production consumes high amounts of cement and aggregates and causes severe environmental damage due to the high greenhouse gas emissions and natural resource depletion [2]. This problem is further exacerbated in areas where natural resources such as sand are becoming scarce, for example, in Singapore [3] and India [4]. Therefore, to reduce the environmental damage caused by concrete production, a worldwide switch from conventional concrete to “byproduct-based” concrete should be made. Typically, in byproduct-based concrete, cement and/or natural aggregates are replaced with byproducts from other industries, such as fly ash (FA), coal bottom ash (CBA), granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), quarry dust powder (QDP), and copper slag (CS), in addition to others [2,5]. This problem is also faced in Israel due to (i) the prevalence of concrete as a main building material under the current socioeconomic state [6], and (ii) the presence of polluting industries, such as coal-fueled electricity production [7]. The Israeli electric company uses two major sources of fuel, i.e., coal (50%–57%) and natural gas (40%–45%) [7], and coal combustion produces 85%–90% FA and 10%–15% CBA [8]. Recently, Lieberman et al. [9] conducted a study to partially replace sand with QDP and FA in the concrete produced in Israel (18 wt.% of the sand was replaced with FA, and 18 and 9 wt.% of the sand was replaced with FA and ODP, respectively). The authors reported improvements in the mechanical and chemical properties of the concrete, and in the leaching of contaminants [9]. However, the total life-cycle influence, from production to the end-of-life, of partial and/or full replacements of sand with byproducts is unknown. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an appropriate Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620; doi:10.3390/app9173620 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 2 of 14 approach to elucidate the trade-o s of such replacements [10]. According to [11], in LCA studies, a functional unit (FU), to which all inputs and outputs of the raw materials, their embodied energies, and emissions, should be traced, must be shared by all the compared alternatives. The compared concrete alternatives (conventional and byproduct-based) should be comparable, at least in terms of their (i) fresh properties (such as the consistency), (ii) hardened properties (such as the compressive strength), and (iii) durability (such as the penetration of water). To achieve this, two di erent concrete mixture design methods, i.e., (i) a mixture with a fixed slump range or (ii) a mixture with a fixed water/cement (W/C) ratio, have been used in previous LCA studies [12–14]. Turk et al. [12] used a fixed slump range of 185–205 mm in byproduct-based concretes that were designed using foundry sand or steel slag to partially replace the sand and FA as a mineral admixture, and they attempted to achieve comparable compressive strengths and water penetration. However, the range of the 28-day compressive strength was 30.1–45.3 MPa and the water penetration depth was 16–34 mm. Despite this relatively wide strength range, the FU was the production of 1 m of concrete without normalization to the 28-day compressive strength. It should be noted that Turk et al. [12] also conducted consequential LCA modeling for the byproducts, which allowed the prevention of byproduct disposal in landfill to be considered as a benefit of the byproduct-based concretes. As a result, the global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and photochemical ozone creation potential were lower for the byproduct-based concretes than those of conventional concrete [12]. Prem et al. [13] compared CS-based (100 vol.% of sand was replaced with CS) and conventional concretes for fixed W/C of 0.37, 0.47, and 0.57, and followed the absolute volume method when replacing sand with CS. This is because their method restricted the addition of any surplus water that can increase the W/C ratio and, in turn, reduce the strength of the concrete. As a result, CS-based concretes exhibited improved strength (compressive and flexural) and durability (chloride permeability and sorptivity) properties. In this case, a FU of 1 m of concrete without normalization to the concrete compressive strength is appropriate. However, it was also reported that the environmental performance of byproduct-based concretes was lower due to the increase in the embodied energy and GWP associated with their production. Prem et al. [13] conducted attributive LCA modeling and the environmental performance of CS-based concretes deteriorated as the environmental damage from CS production was attributed to these concretes. Gursel and Ostertag [14] studied high-strength concretes with the replacement of sand by CS at an incremental rate of 20 wt.% (CS0:CS20:CS100) for a fixed W/C of 0.3. The FU of 1 m of concrete was normalized to its 28-day compressive strength, and the processing of washed CS (transportation of used CS to the reprocessing plant) as the sand replacement was considered. From CS0, through CS20, CS40, CS60, and CS80, to CS100, the concrete’s compressive strength significantly decreased (98–65 MPa). As a result, the LCAs of the FU normalized to the 28-day compressive strength of concrete exhibited a significant increase in the embodied energy, GWP, acidification potential, and particulate matter for CS60–CS100. Therefore, Gursel and Ostertag [14] recommended replacing up to 40% of sand with CS. Based on these studies [12–14], it should be assumed that the environmental impacts of byproduct-based concrete may depend on the selected concrete design method due to the resulting di erent qualities of the concrete mix components. However, comparative LCAs with a normalized FU of byproduct-based concretes designed following di erent methods have not yet been conducted. The aim of this study was to conduct LCAs of the FUs of concrete normalized to the 28-day compressive strength, where the natural material (sand) was replaced with byproducts (CBA) using two design methods: (i) MIX-fixed-SLUMP (concrete mixture designed with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm) and (ii) MIX-fixed-W/C (concrete mixture designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52). For both design methods, the concrete mix and properties were based on those of Kou and Poon [15], while we conducted the LCAs. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 3 of 14 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Concrete Mixture Designs We conducted LCAs of concrete with varying percentages of sand replacement with CBA. The concretes were denoted as CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 for 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 wt.% of sand replacement with CBA. The material properties, mix designs, and concrete properties were based on those of Kou and Poon [15], who designed concrete mixtures following two methods: (i) With a fixed slump range (MIX-fixed-SLUMP) and (ii) with a fixed W/C ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C), and evaluated the compressive strength, drying shrinkage, and chloride-ion penetration of the resultant concretes. The mixture designs and concrete properties are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C, respectively. The CBA and sand were sieved so that both materials used in the mixtures were <5 mm [15]. For testing the mechanical properties of the concretes, twelve 100  100  100 mm cubes, three 75  75  285 mm prisms, and two 100  200 cylindrical specimens were tested for the compressive strength, drying shrinkage, and resistance to chloride–ion penetration [15]. Table 1. Mixture with a fixed slump range (MIX-fixed-SLUMP): Concrete mixture design with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm and the concrete’s properties (based on [15]). Material CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 Portland cement (kg/m ) 386 386 386 386 386 water content (kg/m ) 205 190 170 150 130 sand (kg/m ) 652 494 318 138 0 0 167 343 529 725 Coal bottom ash (CBA) (kg/m ) coarse aggregate (kg/m ) 1110 1127 1126 1135 1184 water/cement ratio 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.39 0.34 slump (mm) 65 65 70 75 67 28-day compressive strength (MPa) 56 65 70 75 67 Drying shrinkage (microstrain) 690 650 590 510 420 Chloride–ion penetration (total charge passed in coulombs) 5600 5200 5050 4700 4300 Note: Sand-CBA replacements were performed by mass. Mix designs were based on saturated surface dried conditions. Table 2. Mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C): Concrete mixture design with a fixed water-cement ratio of 0.53 and the concrete’s properties (based on [15]). Material CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 Portland cement (kg/m ) 386 386 386 386 386 water content (kg/m ) 205 205 205 205 205 sand (kg/m ) 652 457 262 67 0 Coal bottom ash (CBA) (kg/m ) 0 163 326 489 545 1110 1127 1126 1135 1184 coarse aggregate (kg/m ) water/cement ratio 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 slump (mm) 68 85 120 155 195 28-day compressive strength (MPa) 56 52 45 39 32 Drying shrinkage (microstrain) 690 650 640 690 720 Chloride–ion penetration (total charge passed in coulombs) 5600 5800 5900 6000 6200 Note: Sand-CBA replacements were performed by mass. Mix designs were based on saturated surface dried conditions. 2.2. Life-Cycle Assessment The LCA of concrete considers the following four stages: (i) Design, (ii) production/execution, (iii) usage phase, and (iv) end-of-life [16]. However, the execution of all these stages for concrete was not possible as di erent types of concrete are used for di erent specific building elements, such as columns, beams, walls, floors, and slabs [17]. Therefore, the usage phase could di er. For example, the concrete structure could serve as the foundation and load-bearing elements from 50 to 300 years, and the skin could serve as an exterior surface from 20 to 50 years [18]; thus, this stage is typically excluded from the LCA of concretes [19]. The LCA of the end-of-life stage is highly uncertain and Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 Note: Sand-CBA replacements were performed by mass. Mix designs were based on saturated surface dried conditions. 2.2. Life-Cycle Assessment The LCA of concrete considers the following four stages: (i) Design, (ii) production/execution, (iii) usage phase, and (iv) end-of-life [16]. However, the execution of all these stages for concrete was not possible as different types of concrete are used for different specific building elements, such as columns, beams, walls, floors, and slabs [17]. Therefore, the usage phase could differ. For example, the concrete structure could serve as the foundation and load-bearing elements from 50 to 300 years, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 4 of 14 and the skin could serve as an exterior surface from 20 to 50 years [18]; thus, this stage is typically excluded from the LCA of concretes [19]. The LCA of the end-of-life stage is highly uncertain and influenced by the applied demolition and disposal practices [20]. Moreover, the environmental influenced by the applied demolition and disposal practices [20]. Moreover, the environmental damage damage estimated from this stage was smaller than that of the production/execution stage [21]. estimated from this stage was smaller than that of the production/execution stage [21]. Therefore, this Therefore, this study only conducted a “cradle-to-gate” LCA that evaluated the production of the study only conducted a “cradle-to-gate” LCA that evaluated the production of the concrete mixtures. concrete mixtures. The FU is a reference unit, to which the inputs and outputs must be connected [11]. The production The FU is a reference unit, to which the inputs and outputs must be connected [11]. The and use of 1 m of a concrete mixture with a designed 28-day compressive strength is an appropriate production and use of 1 m of a concrete mixture with a designed 28-day compressive strength is an FU in the LCAs of concrete with the partial replacement of cement by byproduct additives [22]. appropriate FU in the LCAs of concrete with the partial replacement of cement by byproduct additives [22]. However, the environmental performance of the compared structural concretes However, the environmental performance of the compared structural concretes should be based on the should be based on the same mechanical properties. Therefore, Gursel and Ostertag [14] normalized same mechanical properties. Therefore, Gursel and Ostertag [14] normalized the FU by dividing the the FU by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. concrete compressive strength. The concrete system boundaries studied here are presented in Figure 1. The production of concrete The concrete system boundaries studied here are presented in Figure 1. The production of components, i.e., cement, water, and aggregates, was based on the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] database (Table 3) concrete components, i.e., cement, water, and aggregates, was based on the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] owing to the absence of local Israeli data. According to the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] database, cement database (Table 3) owing to the absence of local Israeli data. According to the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] production includes the production of mortar (raw material provision, raw material mixing, packing, database, cement production includes the production of mortar (raw material provision, raw and storage), transport to the plant, and infrastructure; the water processes included the infrastructure material mixing, packing, and storage), transport to the plant, and infrastructure; the water and energy used for water treatment and transportation to the end user; the extraction of gravel and processes included the infrastructure and energy used for water treatment and transportation to the sand end user included ; the extract the whole ion of gr manufacturing avel and sandpr inc ocess luded involved the wholin e m the anufact digging uring of process invo gravel andlved in sand, transport, the digging of gravel and sand, transport, and infrastructure for operation; and transport included and infrastructure for operation; and transport included the extraction of crude oil and preparation for the extraction of crude oil and preparation for transportation to consumers in lorries fueled by transportation to consumers in lorries fueled by diesel. diesel. Transport Figure 1. Cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessments (LCA): Studied concrete system boundaries (plain line—included processes; dashed line—excluded processes). The analysis of secondary data was acceptable for the purposes of this study, which was restricted to comparing di erent methods of designing byproduct-based concretes. A truck was used to transport coarse aggregates and sand from a natural aggregate quarry to a concrete plant at a distance of 50 km, which is the distance between the quarry and concrete plant. A truck was also used to transport cement and CBA from the cement and coal-fired power plants, respectively, to the concrete batching plant at a distance of 100 km. For CBA processing, only the transportation of CBA from coal-fired power plants to concrete batching plants was evaluated. This is due to the uncertainties involved in the attributional and consequential modeling of byproducts [10]. In addition, changes in transport distances may contribute to the sensitivity of the LCAs of both the MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 5 of 14 namely, distances up to 50 km could bring environmental benefits, whereas distances more than 100 km could bring environmental damage. Table 3. Processes included in the cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the concretes and the corresponding references in the EcoInvent v3.5 database [23]. Process Reference in the EcoInvent Database Water treatment tap water, at user/CH U CEM I 42.4N production cement mortar, at plant/CH U coarse aggregate extraction gravel, crushed, at mine, CH/U sand extraction sand, at mine CH/U transport Lorry transport, Euro 0, 1,2, 3, 4 mix, 22 t total weight, 17.3 t 2.3. ReCiPe2016: A Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Method Goedkoop and Spriensma [24] introduced three perspectives from the cultural theory [25] for damage with proven e ects: Individualist (I), (which considers the short-term e ects, such as those within 100 years or less), egalitarian (E) (which considers all of the possible long-term damaging e ects), and hierarchist (H) (where the short- and long-term damage are balanced based on a consensus regarding their e ects). As mentioned earlier, these perspectives were adapted from the cultural theory framework of natural resources and perspectives on human nature: a hierarchy, which refers to the need to regulate nature; egalitarianism, which insists on resource depletion; individualism, which insists on self-expanding resources; fatalism, which supposes an infrequent abundance of resources; and autonomy, which involves living in a joyful involvement with nature [25]. Huijbregts et al. [26] updated the ReCiPe2008 method to the ReCiPe2016 and modified “the time horizon”: I, H, and E include 20, 100, 1000-year infinite time horizons. However, Huijbregts et al. [26] stated that “the time horizon for the third scenario [E] was not always infinite, as not all the environmental models provided sufficient information to model steady-state conditions.” These three scenario analyses (perspectives), I, H, and E, can be presented through the ReCiPe2016 midpoint and single-score methods [27]. In addition, the ReCiPe2016 single-score method includes two types of weighting procedures: Average and particular weighting sets. The average weighting set contains three methodological options, i.e., the individualist/average [I/A] hierarchicst/average [H/A], and egalitarian/average [E/A], and the particular weighting set contains another three methodological options, i.e., the individualist/individualist [I/I], hierarchist/hierarchist [H/H], and egalitarian/egalitarian [E/E] [28]. The use of the ReCiPe2016 midpoint method results in lower uncertainty in environmental evaluation and a more complex decision-making procedure when interpreting its results. In contrast, the use of the six methodological options of ReCiPe2016 single-score method results in higher uncertainty in environmental evaluation and a less complex decision-making procedure when interpreting the ReCiPe2016 single score results [28]. Therefore, both the MIX-fixed-W/C and MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes were environmentally evaluated following two methods: 1. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, evaluating the four most significant categories: GWP, terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), fossil resources scarcity (FRS), and water consumption (WC). 2. Six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method in combination with a two-stage nested (hierarchical) analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two-stage nested ANOVA was used to simultaneously evaluate the results of the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options [27]. 2.4. Design Structure of Statistical Evaluations The statistical evaluations were conducted in a two-step procedure: (i) The two-stage ANOVA model structure that was appropriate for the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 model was determined, and (ii) the ReCiPe2016 LCA results for the alternatives of the MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were statistically analyzed. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14 Therefore, both the MIX-fixed-W/C and MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes were environmentally evaluated following two methods: 1. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, evaluating the four most significant categories: GWP, terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), fossil resources scarcity (FRS), and water consumption (WC). 2. Six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method in combination with a two-stage nested (hierarchical) analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two-stage nested ANOVA was used to simultaneously evaluate the results of the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options [27]. 2.4. Design Structure of Statistical Evaluations The statistical evaluations were conducted in a two-step procedure: (i) The two-stage ANOVA model structure that was appropriate for the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 model was determined, and (ii) the ReCiPe2016 LCA results for the alternatives of the MIX-fixed-SLUMP Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 6 of 14 and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were statistically analyzed. 2.4.1. Design Structure of the Two-Stage ANOVA Model 2.4.1. Design Structure of the Two-Stage ANOVA Model To correctly use a two-stage nested ANOVA model, Picquelle and Mier [29] recommended a To correctly use a two-stage nested ANOVA model, Picquelle and Mier [29] recommended a structure based on the following statistical terminology: Sampling frame, primary sampling unit, structure based on the following statistical terminology: Sampling frame, primary sampling unit, subunits, and individual subunits. The sampling frame was defined as the collection of all elements subunits, and individual subunits. The sampling frame was defined as the collection of all elements (primary sampling units) accessible for sampling in the population of interest. The primary (primary sampling units) accessible for sampling in the population of interest. The primary sampling sampling unit is an element within the sampling frame that is sampled and statistically independent unit is an element within the sampling frame that is sampled and statistically independent of the other of the other sampling units within the frame. A two-stage nested ANOVA model includes the sampling units within the frame. A two-stage nested ANOVA model includes the primary unit, within primary unit, within which subunits are nested, and a subunit, within which individual subunits are which subunits are nested, and a subunit, within which individual subunits are nested. Measurements nested. Measurements were collected from the individual subunits. were collected from the individual subunits. Two primary sampling units, i.e., the ReCiPe2016 result of a CBA0 mix and the ReCiPe2016 Two primary sampling units, i.e., the ReCiPe2016 result of a CBA0 mix and the ReCiPe2016 result result of a CBA25 mix of MIX-fixed-W/C, are shown in Figure 2. The primary sampling unit of a CBA25 mix of MIX-fixed-W/C, are shown in Figure 2. The primary sampling unit included two included two subunits, i.e., the particular and average weighting sets, and each subunit included subunits, i.e., the particular and average weighting sets, and each subunit included three individual three individual subunits (a total of six methodological options). Measurements were collected from subunits (a total of six methodological options). Measurements were collected from the individual the individual subunits. Therefore, five alternatives (CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100) subunits. Therefore, five alternatives (CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100) for each of the for each of the MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were compared in pairs. MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were compared in pairs. Primary sampling units, ReCiPe2016 ReCiPe2016 result of CBA0 ReCiPe2016 result of CBA25 effect of MIX-fixed-W/C of MIX-fixed-W/C of three perspectives Subunits, two types of Average Particular Average Particular weighting weighting set weighting set weighting set weighting set procedures Individual subunits, six I/A H/A E/A I/E H/H E/I E/A H/A I/A I/E H/H E/I methodological options Figure 2. Design structure of a two-stage nested hierarchical system for conducting the environmental evaluation of the mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C) alternatives: CBA0 Figure 2. Design structure of a two-stage nested hierarchical system for conducting the vs. CBA20 (note: individualist/average [I/A], hierarchicst/average [H/A], egalitarian/average [E/A], environmental evaluation of the mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C) individualist/individualist [I/I] hierarchist/hierarchist [H/H], and egalitarian/egalitarian [E/E] are the alternatives: CBA0 vs. CBA20 (note: individualist/average [I/A], hierarchicst/average [H/A], methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score results). egalitarian/average [E/A], individualist/individualist [I/I] hierarchist/hierarchist [H/H], and 2.4.2. Statistical Analysis egalitarian/egalitarian [E/E] are the methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score results). First, the ReCiPe2016 results were multiplied by 10 and log -transformed. The di erences between the two ReCiPe2016 results were then analyzed using a two-stage ANOVA with degrees of freedom (df) df = 1 df = 2. The p-values were evaluated according to the three-valued logic: 1 2 “appears to be positive”, “appears to be negative”, and “judgment is suspended” [30]. Therefore, in this study, the logic values were “there appears to be a MIX-fixed-SLUMP or MIX-fixed-W/C alternative di erence”, “there does not appear to be a MIX-fixed-SLUMP or MIX-fixed-W/C”, and “judgment was suspended with respect to the MIX-fixed-SLUMP or MIX-fixed-W/C”. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 7 of 14 3. Results 3.1. MIX-Fixed-SLUMP 3.1.1. The ReCiPe2016 Midpoint Pairwise comparisons between CBA0, CBA25, and CBA50 exhibited consistent decreases in the impacts of GWP, TE, and WC. However, there were no di erences between CBA75 and CBA100 when the sand in the concrete was sequentially replaced with CBA, as shown in Figure 3. These results indicated the influence of two responsible and multidirectional factors. The first is the reduction in sand and water production, while the second is an increase in the transport load due to the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local concrete batching plant and gravel production. Consequently, the impacts of GWP, TE, and WC for concrete from CBA0 to CBA75 indicate that the e ect of a decrease in the production of sand and water was greater than the increase in the trac load and production of gravel. From CBA75 to CBA100, the magnitudes of the e ects of the decrease in sand and water production and increase in trac load on the GWP, TE, and WC were similar. In contrast, the impact of FRS gradually increased from CBA0 to CBA100 with the sequential replacement of sand with CBA in concrete (Figure 3). In this case, the transportation load of CBA is a responsible factor. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14 Figure 3. Environmental impacts of replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, Figure 3. Environmental impacts of replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated following the B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range of following the ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. 3.1.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options The environmental damage caused by the different concretes decreased in the following order: CBA0 > CBA25 > CBA50 > CBA75 > CBA100 (Figure 4). This ranking was exhibited for almost all ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options. However, for option E/E, the positions of CBA75 and CBA50 were switched. According to the p-values, the differences between CBA0 and CBA75, CBA0 and CBA100, CBA25 and CBA750, and CBA25 and CBA100 appeared to be positive (0.0104 ≤ p ≤ 0.0142). Meanwhile, the differences between CBA0 and CBA25, CBA50 and CBA75, and CBA75 and CBA100 appeared to be negative (0.1203 ≤ p ≤ 0.4137). The judgment was suspended for the differences between all remaining pairs (0.0251 ≤ p ≤ 0.0904) (Table 4). Thus, according to the rankings (Figure 4) and p-value analysis (Table 4) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes, CBA100, CBA75, and CBA50 were the best concretes causing the least environmental damage, while CBA25 and CBA0 were the worst concretes causing the most environmental damage. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 8 of 14 During the transition from CBA0 to CBA100, the 28-day compressive strength of concrete remained approximately the same, at 56–65 MP, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the normalization of the FU relative to the 28-day compressive strength of concrete was not a responsible factor in the reduction of the impacts of GWP, TE, and WC, and the increase of the impact of FRS impact in CBA-based concretes. 3.1.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options The environmental damage caused by the di erent concretes decreased in the following order: CBA0 > CBA25 > CBA50 > CBA75 > CBA100 (Figure 4). This ranking was exhibited for almost all ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options. However, for option E/E, the positions of CBA75 and Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 CBA50 were switched. Figure 4. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, Figure 4. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were evaluated evaluated via the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method: via the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method: Individualist/average (I/A) Individualist/average (I/A) hierarchist/average (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), hierarchist/average (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), individualist/individualist (I/I), hierarchist/hierarchist individualist/individualist (I/I), hierarchist/hierarchist (H/H), and egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The (H/H), and egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete of 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete compressive strength. according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. Table 4. p-values (p) of the paired differences in the life-cycle assessment (LCA) production stage of 1 According to the p-values, the di erences between CBA0 and CBA75, CBA0 and CBA100, CBA25 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five and CBA750, and CBA25 and CBA100 appeared to be positive (0.0104  p  0.0142). Meanwhile, concrete alternatives where sand was replaced with coal bottom ash (CBA). The concrete mixtures the di erences between CBA0 and CBA25, CBA50 and CBA75, and CBA75 and CBA100 appeared were designed with fixed a slump range of 60–80 mm. to be negative (0.1203  p  0.4137). The judgment was suspended for the di erences between all Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 remaining pairs (0.0251  p  0.0904) (Table 4). Thus, according to the rankings (Figure 4) and p-value CBA0 X 0.1632 0.0251 0.0142 0.0107 analysis (Table 4) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes, CBA100, CBA75, and CBA25 X 0.0325 0.0137 0.0104 CBA50 X 0.4137 0.0904 CBA50 were the best concretes causing the least environmental damage, while CBA25 and CBA0 were CBA75 X 0.1203 the worst concretes causing the most environmental damage. CBA100 X Note: A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The LCAs were evaluated via 3.2. MIX-Fixed-W/C the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to be positive, ordinal 3.2.1. ReCiPe2016 Midpoint font size—appears to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended. Pairwise comparisons between CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 exhibited a gradual 3.2. MIX-Fixed-W/C increase in the impacts of GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, as shown in Figure 5. According to the analysis of three impacts, i.e., GWP, TE, and WC, there were two multidirectional and responsible factors: 3.2.1. ReCiPe2016 Midpoint Sand production and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local cement Pairwise comparisons between CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 exhibited a gradual plant, the magnitudes of the influences of which were similar. However, from CBA0 to CBA100, increase in the impacts of GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, as shown in Figure 5. According to the analysis of the 28-day concrete’s compressive strength decreased considerably from 56 to 32 MPa, as shown in three impacts, i.e., GWP, TE, and WC, there were two multidirectional and responsible factors: Sand production and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local cement plant, the magnitudes of the influences of which were similar. However, from CBA0 to CBA100, the 28-day concrete’s compressive strength decreased considerably from 56 to 32 MPa, as shown in Table 2. The decrease in the 28-day compressive strength of concrete led to an increase in GWP, TE, WC, and FRS when the FU was normalized to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. The combination of the Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 9 of 14 Table 2. The decrease in the 28-day compressive strength of concrete led to an increase in GWP, TE, WC, and FRS when the FU was normalized to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. The combination of the unidirectional responsible factors due to the transition from CBA0 to CBA100, the decreased 28-day compressive strength of the concrete, and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local cement plant led to a significant increase in the impact of FRS. Table 4. p-values (p) of the paired di erences in the life-cycle assessment (LCA) production stage of 1 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five concrete alternatives where sand was replaced with coal bottom ash (CBA). The concrete mixtures were designed with fixed a slump range of 60–80 mm. Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 CBA0 X 0.1632 0.0251 0.0142 0.0107 CBA25 X 0.0325 0.0137 0.0104 CBA50 X 0.4137 0.0904 CBA75 X 0.1203 CBA100 X Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14 Note: A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The LCAs were evaluated via the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated unidirectional responsible factors due to the transition from CBA0 to CBA100, the decreased 28-day according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to be positive, ordinal font size—appears to be negative, italic compressive strength of the concrete, and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant font—judgment is suspended. to the local cement plant led to a significant increase in the impact of FRS. Global warming potential Terrestial ecotoxicity 3 4 Sand Gravel 3.5 2.5 Water Cement 3 Transport 2.5 1.5 2 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 Fossil resource scarcity Water consumption 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 A B C D E A B C D E Figure 5. Replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, Figure 5. Replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated following the ReCiPe2016 midpoint H and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated following the ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. The functional unit (FU) was method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. The functional unit (FU) was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete accor 3 ding to the 28-day normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. concrete compressive strength. 3.2.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options The environmental damage caused by the concretes increased in the following order: CBA0 < CBA25 < CBA50 < CBA75 < CBA100 (Figure 6). It should be noted that this ranking was held for all ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options. However, in this case, additional information obtained from the p-values was available: Judgment was suspended for the difference between concretes CBA0 and CBA25 (p = 0.0750), while the difference between all the other pairs appeared to be positive (0.0009 ≤ p ≤ 0.0123) (Table 5). Thus, according to the ranking (Figure 6) and p-value analysis (Table 5) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-W/C concretes, CBA0 and CBA25 were the best concretes, causing the least kg CO -eq kg*100 oil eq kg 1,4 DCB m Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 10 of 14 3.2.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14 The environmental damage caused by the concretes increased in the following order: environmental damage, while CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 (in ascending order of their CBA0 < CBA25 < CBA50 < CBA75 < CBA100 (Figure 6). It should be noted that this ranking environmental damage) were the worst, causing the most damage. was held for all ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options. Figure 6. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, Figure 6. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were evaluated via evaluated via the six ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options, i.e., individualist/average the six ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options, i.e., individualist/average (I/A) hierarchist/average (I/A) hierarchist/average (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), individualist/individualist (I/I), (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), individualist/individualist (I/I), hierarchist/hierarchist (H/H), and hierarchist/hierarchist (H/H), and egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The concrete mixtures designed with egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The concrete mixtures designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52; The FU was a fixed W/C of 0.52; The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. compressive strength. Table 5 However . p-va , in lues ( thispcase, ) of the pa additional ired difference information s in the obtained life-cyclefr assessment (LCA) productio om the p-values was available: n stage of Judgment 1 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five was suspended for the di erence between concretes CBA0 and CBA25 (p = 0.0750), while the di erence concrete alternatives with different percentages of coal bottom ash (CBA) replacing sand. The between all the other pairs appeared to be positive (0.0009  p  0.0123) (Table 5). Thus, according to concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. the ranking (Figure 6) and p-value analysis (Table 5) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-W/C concretes, CBA0 and CBA25 were the best concretes, causing the least environmental damage, while Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 (in ascending order of their environmental damage) were the worst, CBA0 X 0.0750 0.0086 0.0025 0.0009 causing the most damage. CBA25 X 0.0123 0.0023 0.0006 CBA50 X 0.0116 0.0017 Table 5. p-values (p) of the paired di erences in the life-cycle assessment (LCA) production stage of 1 CBA75 X 0.0030 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five concrete CBA100 X alternatives with di erent percentages of coal bottom ash (CBA) replacing sand. The concrete mixtures Note: The LCAs were evaluated with the six ReCiPe2016 single score options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 be positive, ordinary font—appears to be negative, and italic font - judgment is suspended. CBA0 X 0.0750 0.0086 0.0025 0.0009 4. Discussion CBA25 X 0.0123 0.0023 0.0006 CBA50 X 0.0116 0.0017 A cradle-to-gate LCA of replacing sand in concrete with CBA was conducted. Five concrete CBA75 X 0.0030 alternatives, iCBA100 .e., CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100, with 0, 25, 50, 75, and X 100 wt.% of sand replacement, respectively, were considered. Two mixture design methods, i.e., Note: The LCAs were evaluated with the six ReCiPe2016 single score options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to be positive, ordinary MIX-fixed-SLUMP (concrete mixtures with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm) and MIX-fixed-W/C font—appears to be negative, and italic font - judgment is suspended. (concrete mixtures with a fixed W/C of 0.52), which resulted in different component qualities of concrete mixtures, were used to environmentally evaluate the concrete production using two levels of ReCiPe2016 methods: (i) The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, which considers four of the most significant environmental impacts, namely GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, and (ii) the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 11 of 14 4. Discussion A cradle-to-gate LCA of replacing sand in concrete with CBA was conducted. Five concrete alternatives, i.e., CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100, with 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 wt.% of sand replacement, respectively, were considered. Two mixture design methods, i.e., MIX-fixed-SLUMP (concrete mixtures with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm) and MIX-fixed-W/C (concrete mixtures with a fixed W/C of 0.52), which resulted in di erent component qualities of concrete mixtures, were used to environmentally evaluate the concrete production using two levels of ReCiPe2016 methods: (i) The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, which considers four of the most significant environmental impacts, namely GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, and (ii) the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method. The results showed that the trends of the CBA-based concretes designed with the two concrete mix design methods were controversial. First, the environmental impacts/damages were reduced when sand was replaced with CBA for MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes. Second, the environmental impacts/damages were increased by replacing sand with CBA for the MIX-fixed-W/C concretes. These controversial trends were confirmed via the ReCiPe2016 midpoint method (Figures 3 and 5) and the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method (Figures 4 and 6). The results of the MIX-fixed-W/C CBA-based concretes confirmed the results presented by Gursel and Ostertag [14] for CS-based concretes, which were also designed with a fixed W/C. In the CS-based study [14], the maximum recommended sand replacement percentage was 40 wt.%. In this study, we observed the same e ect for CBA-based concretes that were designed with a fixed W/C. A maximum sand replacement percentage of 25 wt.% is recommended. However, for CBA-based concretes that were designed with a fixed slump range, a sand replacement rate of 50–100 wt.% with CBA is recommended. In contrast to this controversial issue of replacing sand with byproducts, replacing cement with byproducts mainly provides environmental benefits. Crossin [31] replaced 30% of cement with GBFS and reported a reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions of 47.5% from that of conventional concrete. Additionally, Saade et al. [32] replaced 66% of cement with GBFS and reported a decrease in the environmental impacts, such as abiotic depletion, acidification, and eutrophication, of 40%–70%. Hossain et al. [2] replaced 25% of cement with FA and confirmed that the impacts of respiratory inorganics, global warming, nonrenewable energy, and acidification were approximately 20% lower than those of conventional concrete. Such discrepancies in the benefits of replacing sand and cement with byproducts can be explained by the di erent damage contributions of sand and cement in the total LCA of concrete, which are 0.3%–2% and 74%–93%, respectively [33,34]. Consequently, owing to the relatively small contribution of sand production to the overall environmental damage caused by concrete production, whether the fixed slump or fixed W/C ratio method of designing concrete is better is a sensitive issue when aiming to elucidate the usefulness or harmfulness of byproduct-based concretes. The di erent byproduct modeling approaches (attributional or consequential) and transportation distances (short or long) are also sensitive issues in the LCA of byproduct-based concretes. Therefore, Turk et al. [12] conducted the consequential modeling of the byproducts and reported the environmental sustainability of replacing sand with foundry sand or steel slag, while Prem et al. [13] conducted attributional modeling for byproducts and reported the environmental harmfulness of replacing sand with CS. Turk et al. [12] also investigated the sensitivity of the contribution of the byproduct transportation distance to the total LCA of byproduct-based concretes, and reported that long distances for the delivery of byproducts (100 km or more) mitigate the beneficial e ects of replacing sand with byproducts. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 12 of 14 5. Conclusions Substituting sand in concrete with CBA via di erent mixture design methods (that can lead to di erent qualities of concrete mix components) is a sensitive issue: 1. ReCiPe2016 midpoint method. The increased substitution of sand with CBA lead to: (i) Decreases in the impacts of global warming potential, terrestrial ecotoxicity, water consumption, and increased fossil resources scarcity (MIX-fixed-SLUMP method) and (ii) increases in the impacts of global warming potential, terrestrial ecotoxicity, water consumption, and fossil resources scarcity (MIX-fixed-W/C method). 2. Six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method. With increasing substitution of sand with CBA: (i) CBA0 and CBA25 caused the most environmental damage, while CBA50-CBA100 caused the least environmental damage (MIX-fixed-SLUMP method), and (ii) CBA0 and CBA25 caused the least environmental damage, while CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 caused the most environmental damage (MIX-fixed-W/C method). Consequently, according to the LCA evaluated in this study, using CBA as a partial sand replacement in the concrete industry is a very controversial issue. Perhaps the use of certain design methods will make it possible to obtain concrete mixtures with the best environmental properties. The result of the LCA is highly dependent on the design method. For further clarification of the environmental e ects of replacing sand in the concrete industry with CBA byproducts from electricity production, additional concrete mixtures should be considered in the future. 6. Contributions By studying the issue of incorporating byproducts from other industries into the concrete industry instead of sand to improve the fresh and hardened concrete properties, the environmental influence of such replacements can no longer be ignored. This paper outlines the necessity of conducting environmental evaluation for each particular concrete design method (fixed slump range or W/C ratio) owing to the possible di erent environmentally beneficial e ects of these mixtures. 7. Limitations To better elucidate the environmental influences of the replacing sand in the concrete industry with byproducts from other industries, additional byproducts, such as granulated blast furnace slag, quarry dust powder, and phosphate waste, should be considered in further research. Moreover, in future research, sensitivity analysis of concretes with sand replacements to di erent transportation distances for delivering additives to the concrete plants should be conducted. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Meyer, C. The greening of the concrete industry. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 601–605. [CrossRef] 2. Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Dong, Y.H.; Xuan, D.X. Evaluation of environmental impact distribution methods for supplementary cementitious materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 597–608. [CrossRef] 3. Kua, H.W. The consequences of substituting sand with used copper slag in construction. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 17, 869–879. [CrossRef] 4. Yaragal, S.C.; Gowda, S.N.B.; Rajasekaran, C. Characterization and performance of processed lateritic fine aggregates in cement mortars and concretes. Construct. Build. Mater. 2019, 200, 10–25. [CrossRef] 5. De Schepper, M.; Van den Heede, P.; Van Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. Life cycle assessment of completely recyclable concrete. Materials 2014, 7, 6010–6027. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Skalny, J.P. Questions to Arnon Bentur, head, National Building Research Institute, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. Adv. Cement Based Mater. 1996, 3, 81–85. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 13 of 14 7. The Israel Electric Corporation Ltd. Financial Reports For The Nine and Three Months Ended September 30, 2016; The Israel Electric Corporation Ltd.: Haifa, Israel, 2016; pp. 1–191. Available online: https: //www.iec.co.il/EN/IR/Documents/IECFinancialReportsSeptember_2016.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2019). 8. NCAB, 2013. National Coal Ash Board, Israel, General Info, 2013. Available online: http://www.coal-ash.co. il/efer.html (accessed on 12 June 2019). (In Hebrew). 9. Lieberman, R.N.; Knop, Y.; Querol, X.; Moreno, N.; Muñoz-Quirós, C.; Mastai, Y.; Anker, Y.; Cohen, H. Environmental impact and potential use of coal fly ash and sub-economical quarry fine aggregates in concrete. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 1043–1056. [CrossRef] 10. Heijungs, R.; Guinée, J.B. Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 997–1005. [CrossRef] 11. ISO 14040 (International Organization for Standardization). Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. 12. Turk, J.; Cotic, ˇ Z.; Mladenovic, ˇ A.; Šajna, A. Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 194–205. [CrossRef] 13. Prem, P.R.; Verma, M.; Ambily, P.S. Sustainable cleaner production of concrete with high volume copper slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 43–58. [CrossRef] 14. Gursel, A.P.; Ostertag, C. Life-Cycle Assessment of High-Strength Concrete Mixtures with Copper Slag as Sand Replacement. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 6815348. [CrossRef] 15. Kou, S.C.; Poon, C.S. Properties of concrete prepared with crushed fine stone, furnace bottom ash and fine recycled aggregate as fine aggregates. Construct. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2877–2886. [CrossRef] 16. ISO 13315-1 (International Organization for Standardization). Environmental Management for Concrete and Concrete Structures 2012, Part 1: General Principles; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. 17. Habert, G.; de Lacaillerie, J.B.D.; Roussel, N. An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: Reviewing current research trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1229–1238. [CrossRef] 18. Brand, S. How Buildings Learn; Viking Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. 19. Gursel, A.P.; Masanet, E.; Horvath, A.; Stadel, A. Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review. Cement Concr. Compos. 2014, 51, 38–48. [CrossRef] 20. Napolano, L.; Menna, C.; Asprone, D.; Prota, A.; Manfredi, G. Life cycle environmental impact of di erent replacement options for a typical old flat roof. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 694–708. [CrossRef] 21. Pushkar, S. Life cycle assessment of flat roof technologies for office buildings in Israel. Sustainability 2016, 8, 54. [CrossRef] 22. Pushkar, S.; Verbitsky, O. E ects of di erent allocation approaches for modeling mineral additives in blended cements on environmental damage from five concrete mixtures in Israel. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 4401–4415. [CrossRef] 23. Ecoinvent v3.5. Ecoinvent Database Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventory. Available online: https: //www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html (accessed on 28 August 2019). 24. Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-indicator 99—A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, 2001; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 3821. 25. Thompson, M.; Ellis, R.; Wildavsky, A. Political Cultures. Cultural Theory; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 26. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [CrossRef] 27. Pushkar, S. Modeling the substitution of natural materials with industrial byproducts in green roofs using life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 652–661. [CrossRef] 28. SimaPro, v9.0.; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2019. 29. Picquelle, S.J.; Mier, K.L. A practical guide to statistical methods for comparing means from two-stage sampling. Fish. Res. 2011, 107, 1–13. [CrossRef] 30. Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Final collapse of the Neymane-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. An. Zool. Fennici 2009, 46, 311–349. [CrossRef] 31. Crossin, E. The greenhouse gas implications of using ground granulated blast furnace slag as a cement substitute. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 101–108. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 14 of 14 32. Saade, M.R.M.; da Silva, M.G.; Gomes, V. Appropriateness of environmental impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 2015, 99, 40–47. [CrossRef] 33. Celik, K.; Meral, C.; Gursel, A.P.; Mehta, P.K.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. 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. 2015, 56, 59–72. [CrossRef] 34. Gursel, A.P.; Ostertag, C.P. Impact of Singapore’s importers on life-cycle assessment of concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 118, 140–150. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Life-Cycle Assessment of the Substitution of Sand with Coal Bottom Ash in Concrete: Two Concrete Design Methods

Pushkar, Svetlana
Applied Sciences , Volume 9 (17) – Sep 3, 2019
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/life-cycle-assessment-of-the-substitution-of-sand-with-coal-bottom-ash-dq9BkE64uD

References (35)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2019 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-3417
DOI
10.3390/app9173620
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applied sciences Article Life-Cycle Assessment of the Substitution of Sand with Coal Bottom Ash in Concrete: Two Concrete Design Methods Svetlana Pushkar Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel, svetlanap@ariel.ac.il Received: 17 July 2019; Accepted: 30 August 2019; Published: 3 September 2019 Abstract: Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were conducted to evaluate the replacement of sand with coal bottom ash (CBA) in concrete. CBA is a byproduct of coal-fueled electricity production. Sand was replaced with CBA at proportions of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 wt.%, and the resultant concretes were denoted as CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100, respectively. Two concrete mixture design methods (that resulted in di erent component qualities of concrete mixtures) were used: (i) Mixture with a fixed slump (MIX-fixed-SLUMP) and (ii) mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C). The ReCiPe2016 midpoint and single score (six methodological options) methods were followed to compare the environmental damage caused by the CBA-based concretes. The ReCiPe2016 results showed that replacing sand with CBA was environmentally (i) beneficial with the MIX-fixed-SLUMP design and (ii) harmful with the MIX-fixed-W/C design. Therefore, using CBA as a partial sand replacement in concrete production is a controversial issue as it highly depends on the concrete mixture design method. Keywords: coal bottom ash; sand replacement; concrete design method; LCA; ANOVA 1. Introduction Every year, ten billion tons of concrete are produced in the world [1]. Conventional concrete production consumes high amounts of cement and aggregates and causes severe environmental damage due to the high greenhouse gas emissions and natural resource depletion [2]. This problem is further exacerbated in areas where natural resources such as sand are becoming scarce, for example, in Singapore [3] and India [4]. Therefore, to reduce the environmental damage caused by concrete production, a worldwide switch from conventional concrete to “byproduct-based” concrete should be made. Typically, in byproduct-based concrete, cement and/or natural aggregates are replaced with byproducts from other industries, such as fly ash (FA), coal bottom ash (CBA), granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), quarry dust powder (QDP), and copper slag (CS), in addition to others [2,5]. This problem is also faced in Israel due to (i) the prevalence of concrete as a main building material under the current socioeconomic state [6], and (ii) the presence of polluting industries, such as coal-fueled electricity production [7]. The Israeli electric company uses two major sources of fuel, i.e., coal (50%–57%) and natural gas (40%–45%) [7], and coal combustion produces 85%–90% FA and 10%–15% CBA [8]. Recently, Lieberman et al. [9] conducted a study to partially replace sand with QDP and FA in the concrete produced in Israel (18 wt.% of the sand was replaced with FA, and 18 and 9 wt.% of the sand was replaced with FA and ODP, respectively). The authors reported improvements in the mechanical and chemical properties of the concrete, and in the leaching of contaminants [9]. However, the total life-cycle influence, from production to the end-of-life, of partial and/or full replacements of sand with byproducts is unknown. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an appropriate Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620; doi:10.3390/app9173620 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 2 of 14 approach to elucidate the trade-o s of such replacements [10]. According to [11], in LCA studies, a functional unit (FU), to which all inputs and outputs of the raw materials, their embodied energies, and emissions, should be traced, must be shared by all the compared alternatives. The compared concrete alternatives (conventional and byproduct-based) should be comparable, at least in terms of their (i) fresh properties (such as the consistency), (ii) hardened properties (such as the compressive strength), and (iii) durability (such as the penetration of water). To achieve this, two di erent concrete mixture design methods, i.e., (i) a mixture with a fixed slump range or (ii) a mixture with a fixed water/cement (W/C) ratio, have been used in previous LCA studies [12–14]. Turk et al. [12] used a fixed slump range of 185–205 mm in byproduct-based concretes that were designed using foundry sand or steel slag to partially replace the sand and FA as a mineral admixture, and they attempted to achieve comparable compressive strengths and water penetration. However, the range of the 28-day compressive strength was 30.1–45.3 MPa and the water penetration depth was 16–34 mm. Despite this relatively wide strength range, the FU was the production of 1 m of concrete without normalization to the 28-day compressive strength. It should be noted that Turk et al. [12] also conducted consequential LCA modeling for the byproducts, which allowed the prevention of byproduct disposal in landfill to be considered as a benefit of the byproduct-based concretes. As a result, the global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and photochemical ozone creation potential were lower for the byproduct-based concretes than those of conventional concrete [12]. Prem et al. [13] compared CS-based (100 vol.% of sand was replaced with CS) and conventional concretes for fixed W/C of 0.37, 0.47, and 0.57, and followed the absolute volume method when replacing sand with CS. This is because their method restricted the addition of any surplus water that can increase the W/C ratio and, in turn, reduce the strength of the concrete. As a result, CS-based concretes exhibited improved strength (compressive and flexural) and durability (chloride permeability and sorptivity) properties. In this case, a FU of 1 m of concrete without normalization to the concrete compressive strength is appropriate. However, it was also reported that the environmental performance of byproduct-based concretes was lower due to the increase in the embodied energy and GWP associated with their production. Prem et al. [13] conducted attributive LCA modeling and the environmental performance of CS-based concretes deteriorated as the environmental damage from CS production was attributed to these concretes. Gursel and Ostertag [14] studied high-strength concretes with the replacement of sand by CS at an incremental rate of 20 wt.% (CS0:CS20:CS100) for a fixed W/C of 0.3. The FU of 1 m of concrete was normalized to its 28-day compressive strength, and the processing of washed CS (transportation of used CS to the reprocessing plant) as the sand replacement was considered. From CS0, through CS20, CS40, CS60, and CS80, to CS100, the concrete’s compressive strength significantly decreased (98–65 MPa). As a result, the LCAs of the FU normalized to the 28-day compressive strength of concrete exhibited a significant increase in the embodied energy, GWP, acidification potential, and particulate matter for CS60–CS100. Therefore, Gursel and Ostertag [14] recommended replacing up to 40% of sand with CS. Based on these studies [12–14], it should be assumed that the environmental impacts of byproduct-based concrete may depend on the selected concrete design method due to the resulting di erent qualities of the concrete mix components. However, comparative LCAs with a normalized FU of byproduct-based concretes designed following di erent methods have not yet been conducted. The aim of this study was to conduct LCAs of the FUs of concrete normalized to the 28-day compressive strength, where the natural material (sand) was replaced with byproducts (CBA) using two design methods: (i) MIX-fixed-SLUMP (concrete mixture designed with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm) and (ii) MIX-fixed-W/C (concrete mixture designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52). For both design methods, the concrete mix and properties were based on those of Kou and Poon [15], while we conducted the LCAs. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 3 of 14 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Concrete Mixture Designs We conducted LCAs of concrete with varying percentages of sand replacement with CBA. The concretes were denoted as CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 for 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 wt.% of sand replacement with CBA. The material properties, mix designs, and concrete properties were based on those of Kou and Poon [15], who designed concrete mixtures following two methods: (i) With a fixed slump range (MIX-fixed-SLUMP) and (ii) with a fixed W/C ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C), and evaluated the compressive strength, drying shrinkage, and chloride-ion penetration of the resultant concretes. The mixture designs and concrete properties are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C, respectively. The CBA and sand were sieved so that both materials used in the mixtures were <5 mm [15]. For testing the mechanical properties of the concretes, twelve 100  100  100 mm cubes, three 75  75  285 mm prisms, and two 100  200 cylindrical specimens were tested for the compressive strength, drying shrinkage, and resistance to chloride–ion penetration [15]. Table 1. Mixture with a fixed slump range (MIX-fixed-SLUMP): Concrete mixture design with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm and the concrete’s properties (based on [15]). Material CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 Portland cement (kg/m ) 386 386 386 386 386 water content (kg/m ) 205 190 170 150 130 sand (kg/m ) 652 494 318 138 0 0 167 343 529 725 Coal bottom ash (CBA) (kg/m ) coarse aggregate (kg/m ) 1110 1127 1126 1135 1184 water/cement ratio 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.39 0.34 slump (mm) 65 65 70 75 67 28-day compressive strength (MPa) 56 65 70 75 67 Drying shrinkage (microstrain) 690 650 590 510 420 Chloride–ion penetration (total charge passed in coulombs) 5600 5200 5050 4700 4300 Note: Sand-CBA replacements were performed by mass. Mix designs were based on saturated surface dried conditions. Table 2. Mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C): Concrete mixture design with a fixed water-cement ratio of 0.53 and the concrete’s properties (based on [15]). Material CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 Portland cement (kg/m ) 386 386 386 386 386 water content (kg/m ) 205 205 205 205 205 sand (kg/m ) 652 457 262 67 0 Coal bottom ash (CBA) (kg/m ) 0 163 326 489 545 1110 1127 1126 1135 1184 coarse aggregate (kg/m ) water/cement ratio 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 slump (mm) 68 85 120 155 195 28-day compressive strength (MPa) 56 52 45 39 32 Drying shrinkage (microstrain) 690 650 640 690 720 Chloride–ion penetration (total charge passed in coulombs) 5600 5800 5900 6000 6200 Note: Sand-CBA replacements were performed by mass. Mix designs were based on saturated surface dried conditions. 2.2. Life-Cycle Assessment The LCA of concrete considers the following four stages: (i) Design, (ii) production/execution, (iii) usage phase, and (iv) end-of-life [16]. However, the execution of all these stages for concrete was not possible as di erent types of concrete are used for di erent specific building elements, such as columns, beams, walls, floors, and slabs [17]. Therefore, the usage phase could di er. For example, the concrete structure could serve as the foundation and load-bearing elements from 50 to 300 years, and the skin could serve as an exterior surface from 20 to 50 years [18]; thus, this stage is typically excluded from the LCA of concretes [19]. The LCA of the end-of-life stage is highly uncertain and Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 Note: Sand-CBA replacements were performed by mass. Mix designs were based on saturated surface dried conditions. 2.2. Life-Cycle Assessment The LCA of concrete considers the following four stages: (i) Design, (ii) production/execution, (iii) usage phase, and (iv) end-of-life [16]. However, the execution of all these stages for concrete was not possible as different types of concrete are used for different specific building elements, such as columns, beams, walls, floors, and slabs [17]. Therefore, the usage phase could differ. For example, the concrete structure could serve as the foundation and load-bearing elements from 50 to 300 years, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 4 of 14 and the skin could serve as an exterior surface from 20 to 50 years [18]; thus, this stage is typically excluded from the LCA of concretes [19]. The LCA of the end-of-life stage is highly uncertain and influenced by the applied demolition and disposal practices [20]. Moreover, the environmental influenced by the applied demolition and disposal practices [20]. Moreover, the environmental damage damage estimated from this stage was smaller than that of the production/execution stage [21]. estimated from this stage was smaller than that of the production/execution stage [21]. Therefore, this Therefore, this study only conducted a “cradle-to-gate” LCA that evaluated the production of the study only conducted a “cradle-to-gate” LCA that evaluated the production of the concrete mixtures. concrete mixtures. The FU is a reference unit, to which the inputs and outputs must be connected [11]. The production The FU is a reference unit, to which the inputs and outputs must be connected [11]. The and use of 1 m of a concrete mixture with a designed 28-day compressive strength is an appropriate production and use of 1 m of a concrete mixture with a designed 28-day compressive strength is an FU in the LCAs of concrete with the partial replacement of cement by byproduct additives [22]. appropriate FU in the LCAs of concrete with the partial replacement of cement by byproduct additives [22]. However, the environmental performance of the compared structural concretes However, the environmental performance of the compared structural concretes should be based on the should be based on the same mechanical properties. Therefore, Gursel and Ostertag [14] normalized same mechanical properties. Therefore, Gursel and Ostertag [14] normalized the FU by dividing the the FU by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. concrete compressive strength. The concrete system boundaries studied here are presented in Figure 1. The production of concrete The concrete system boundaries studied here are presented in Figure 1. The production of components, i.e., cement, water, and aggregates, was based on the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] database (Table 3) concrete components, i.e., cement, water, and aggregates, was based on the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] owing to the absence of local Israeli data. According to the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] database, cement database (Table 3) owing to the absence of local Israeli data. According to the Ecoinvent v3.5 [23] production includes the production of mortar (raw material provision, raw material mixing, packing, database, cement production includes the production of mortar (raw material provision, raw and storage), transport to the plant, and infrastructure; the water processes included the infrastructure material mixing, packing, and storage), transport to the plant, and infrastructure; the water and energy used for water treatment and transportation to the end user; the extraction of gravel and processes included the infrastructure and energy used for water treatment and transportation to the sand end user included ; the extract the whole ion of gr manufacturing avel and sandpr inc ocess luded involved the wholin e m the anufact digging uring of process invo gravel andlved in sand, transport, the digging of gravel and sand, transport, and infrastructure for operation; and transport included and infrastructure for operation; and transport included the extraction of crude oil and preparation for the extraction of crude oil and preparation for transportation to consumers in lorries fueled by transportation to consumers in lorries fueled by diesel. diesel. Transport Figure 1. Cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessments (LCA): Studied concrete system boundaries (plain line—included processes; dashed line—excluded processes). The analysis of secondary data was acceptable for the purposes of this study, which was restricted to comparing di erent methods of designing byproduct-based concretes. A truck was used to transport coarse aggregates and sand from a natural aggregate quarry to a concrete plant at a distance of 50 km, which is the distance between the quarry and concrete plant. A truck was also used to transport cement and CBA from the cement and coal-fired power plants, respectively, to the concrete batching plant at a distance of 100 km. For CBA processing, only the transportation of CBA from coal-fired power plants to concrete batching plants was evaluated. This is due to the uncertainties involved in the attributional and consequential modeling of byproducts [10]. In addition, changes in transport distances may contribute to the sensitivity of the LCAs of both the MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 5 of 14 namely, distances up to 50 km could bring environmental benefits, whereas distances more than 100 km could bring environmental damage. Table 3. Processes included in the cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the concretes and the corresponding references in the EcoInvent v3.5 database [23]. Process Reference in the EcoInvent Database Water treatment tap water, at user/CH U CEM I 42.4N production cement mortar, at plant/CH U coarse aggregate extraction gravel, crushed, at mine, CH/U sand extraction sand, at mine CH/U transport Lorry transport, Euro 0, 1,2, 3, 4 mix, 22 t total weight, 17.3 t 2.3. ReCiPe2016: A Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Method Goedkoop and Spriensma [24] introduced three perspectives from the cultural theory [25] for damage with proven e ects: Individualist (I), (which considers the short-term e ects, such as those within 100 years or less), egalitarian (E) (which considers all of the possible long-term damaging e ects), and hierarchist (H) (where the short- and long-term damage are balanced based on a consensus regarding their e ects). As mentioned earlier, these perspectives were adapted from the cultural theory framework of natural resources and perspectives on human nature: a hierarchy, which refers to the need to regulate nature; egalitarianism, which insists on resource depletion; individualism, which insists on self-expanding resources; fatalism, which supposes an infrequent abundance of resources; and autonomy, which involves living in a joyful involvement with nature [25]. Huijbregts et al. [26] updated the ReCiPe2008 method to the ReCiPe2016 and modified “the time horizon”: I, H, and E include 20, 100, 1000-year infinite time horizons. However, Huijbregts et al. [26] stated that “the time horizon for the third scenario [E] was not always infinite, as not all the environmental models provided sufficient information to model steady-state conditions.” These three scenario analyses (perspectives), I, H, and E, can be presented through the ReCiPe2016 midpoint and single-score methods [27]. In addition, the ReCiPe2016 single-score method includes two types of weighting procedures: Average and particular weighting sets. The average weighting set contains three methodological options, i.e., the individualist/average [I/A] hierarchicst/average [H/A], and egalitarian/average [E/A], and the particular weighting set contains another three methodological options, i.e., the individualist/individualist [I/I], hierarchist/hierarchist [H/H], and egalitarian/egalitarian [E/E] [28]. The use of the ReCiPe2016 midpoint method results in lower uncertainty in environmental evaluation and a more complex decision-making procedure when interpreting its results. In contrast, the use of the six methodological options of ReCiPe2016 single-score method results in higher uncertainty in environmental evaluation and a less complex decision-making procedure when interpreting the ReCiPe2016 single score results [28]. Therefore, both the MIX-fixed-W/C and MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes were environmentally evaluated following two methods: 1. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, evaluating the four most significant categories: GWP, terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), fossil resources scarcity (FRS), and water consumption (WC). 2. Six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method in combination with a two-stage nested (hierarchical) analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two-stage nested ANOVA was used to simultaneously evaluate the results of the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options [27]. 2.4. Design Structure of Statistical Evaluations The statistical evaluations were conducted in a two-step procedure: (i) The two-stage ANOVA model structure that was appropriate for the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 model was determined, and (ii) the ReCiPe2016 LCA results for the alternatives of the MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were statistically analyzed. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14 Therefore, both the MIX-fixed-W/C and MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes were environmentally evaluated following two methods: 1. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, evaluating the four most significant categories: GWP, terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), fossil resources scarcity (FRS), and water consumption (WC). 2. Six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method in combination with a two-stage nested (hierarchical) analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two-stage nested ANOVA was used to simultaneously evaluate the results of the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options [27]. 2.4. Design Structure of Statistical Evaluations The statistical evaluations were conducted in a two-step procedure: (i) The two-stage ANOVA model structure that was appropriate for the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 model was determined, and (ii) the ReCiPe2016 LCA results for the alternatives of the MIX-fixed-SLUMP Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 6 of 14 and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were statistically analyzed. 2.4.1. Design Structure of the Two-Stage ANOVA Model 2.4.1. Design Structure of the Two-Stage ANOVA Model To correctly use a two-stage nested ANOVA model, Picquelle and Mier [29] recommended a To correctly use a two-stage nested ANOVA model, Picquelle and Mier [29] recommended a structure based on the following statistical terminology: Sampling frame, primary sampling unit, structure based on the following statistical terminology: Sampling frame, primary sampling unit, subunits, and individual subunits. The sampling frame was defined as the collection of all elements subunits, and individual subunits. The sampling frame was defined as the collection of all elements (primary sampling units) accessible for sampling in the population of interest. The primary (primary sampling units) accessible for sampling in the population of interest. The primary sampling sampling unit is an element within the sampling frame that is sampled and statistically independent unit is an element within the sampling frame that is sampled and statistically independent of the other of the other sampling units within the frame. A two-stage nested ANOVA model includes the sampling units within the frame. A two-stage nested ANOVA model includes the primary unit, within primary unit, within which subunits are nested, and a subunit, within which individual subunits are which subunits are nested, and a subunit, within which individual subunits are nested. Measurements nested. Measurements were collected from the individual subunits. were collected from the individual subunits. Two primary sampling units, i.e., the ReCiPe2016 result of a CBA0 mix and the ReCiPe2016 Two primary sampling units, i.e., the ReCiPe2016 result of a CBA0 mix and the ReCiPe2016 result result of a CBA25 mix of MIX-fixed-W/C, are shown in Figure 2. The primary sampling unit of a CBA25 mix of MIX-fixed-W/C, are shown in Figure 2. The primary sampling unit included two included two subunits, i.e., the particular and average weighting sets, and each subunit included subunits, i.e., the particular and average weighting sets, and each subunit included three individual three individual subunits (a total of six methodological options). Measurements were collected from subunits (a total of six methodological options). Measurements were collected from the individual the individual subunits. Therefore, five alternatives (CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100) subunits. Therefore, five alternatives (CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100) for each of the for each of the MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were compared in pairs. MIX-fixed-SLUMP and MIX-fixed-W/C concretes were compared in pairs. Primary sampling units, ReCiPe2016 ReCiPe2016 result of CBA0 ReCiPe2016 result of CBA25 effect of MIX-fixed-W/C of MIX-fixed-W/C of three perspectives Subunits, two types of Average Particular Average Particular weighting weighting set weighting set weighting set weighting set procedures Individual subunits, six I/A H/A E/A I/E H/H E/I E/A H/A I/A I/E H/H E/I methodological options Figure 2. Design structure of a two-stage nested hierarchical system for conducting the environmental evaluation of the mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C) alternatives: CBA0 Figure 2. Design structure of a two-stage nested hierarchical system for conducting the vs. CBA20 (note: individualist/average [I/A], hierarchicst/average [H/A], egalitarian/average [E/A], environmental evaluation of the mixture with a fixed water/cement ratio (MIX-fixed-W/C) individualist/individualist [I/I] hierarchist/hierarchist [H/H], and egalitarian/egalitarian [E/E] are the alternatives: CBA0 vs. CBA20 (note: individualist/average [I/A], hierarchicst/average [H/A], methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score results). egalitarian/average [E/A], individualist/individualist [I/I] hierarchist/hierarchist [H/H], and 2.4.2. Statistical Analysis egalitarian/egalitarian [E/E] are the methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score results). First, the ReCiPe2016 results were multiplied by 10 and log -transformed. The di erences between the two ReCiPe2016 results were then analyzed using a two-stage ANOVA with degrees of freedom (df) df = 1 df = 2. The p-values were evaluated according to the three-valued logic: 1 2 “appears to be positive”, “appears to be negative”, and “judgment is suspended” [30]. Therefore, in this study, the logic values were “there appears to be a MIX-fixed-SLUMP or MIX-fixed-W/C alternative di erence”, “there does not appear to be a MIX-fixed-SLUMP or MIX-fixed-W/C”, and “judgment was suspended with respect to the MIX-fixed-SLUMP or MIX-fixed-W/C”. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 7 of 14 3. Results 3.1. MIX-Fixed-SLUMP 3.1.1. The ReCiPe2016 Midpoint Pairwise comparisons between CBA0, CBA25, and CBA50 exhibited consistent decreases in the impacts of GWP, TE, and WC. However, there were no di erences between CBA75 and CBA100 when the sand in the concrete was sequentially replaced with CBA, as shown in Figure 3. These results indicated the influence of two responsible and multidirectional factors. The first is the reduction in sand and water production, while the second is an increase in the transport load due to the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local concrete batching plant and gravel production. Consequently, the impacts of GWP, TE, and WC for concrete from CBA0 to CBA75 indicate that the e ect of a decrease in the production of sand and water was greater than the increase in the trac load and production of gravel. From CBA75 to CBA100, the magnitudes of the e ects of the decrease in sand and water production and increase in trac load on the GWP, TE, and WC were similar. In contrast, the impact of FRS gradually increased from CBA0 to CBA100 with the sequential replacement of sand with CBA in concrete (Figure 3). In this case, the transportation load of CBA is a responsible factor. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14 Figure 3. Environmental impacts of replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, Figure 3. Environmental impacts of replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated following the B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range of following the ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. 3.1.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options The environmental damage caused by the different concretes decreased in the following order: CBA0 > CBA25 > CBA50 > CBA75 > CBA100 (Figure 4). This ranking was exhibited for almost all ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options. However, for option E/E, the positions of CBA75 and CBA50 were switched. According to the p-values, the differences between CBA0 and CBA75, CBA0 and CBA100, CBA25 and CBA750, and CBA25 and CBA100 appeared to be positive (0.0104 ≤ p ≤ 0.0142). Meanwhile, the differences between CBA0 and CBA25, CBA50 and CBA75, and CBA75 and CBA100 appeared to be negative (0.1203 ≤ p ≤ 0.4137). The judgment was suspended for the differences between all remaining pairs (0.0251 ≤ p ≤ 0.0904) (Table 4). Thus, according to the rankings (Figure 4) and p-value analysis (Table 4) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes, CBA100, CBA75, and CBA50 were the best concretes causing the least environmental damage, while CBA25 and CBA0 were the worst concretes causing the most environmental damage. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 8 of 14 During the transition from CBA0 to CBA100, the 28-day compressive strength of concrete remained approximately the same, at 56–65 MP, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the normalization of the FU relative to the 28-day compressive strength of concrete was not a responsible factor in the reduction of the impacts of GWP, TE, and WC, and the increase of the impact of FRS impact in CBA-based concretes. 3.1.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options The environmental damage caused by the di erent concretes decreased in the following order: CBA0 > CBA25 > CBA50 > CBA75 > CBA100 (Figure 4). This ranking was exhibited for almost all ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options. However, for option E/E, the positions of CBA75 and Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 CBA50 were switched. Figure 4. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, Figure 4. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were evaluated evaluated via the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method: via the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method: Individualist/average (I/A) Individualist/average (I/A) hierarchist/average (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), hierarchist/average (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), individualist/individualist (I/I), hierarchist/hierarchist individualist/individualist (I/I), hierarchist/hierarchist (H/H), and egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The (H/H), and egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete of 60–80 mm. The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete compressive strength. according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. Table 4. p-values (p) of the paired differences in the life-cycle assessment (LCA) production stage of 1 According to the p-values, the di erences between CBA0 and CBA75, CBA0 and CBA100, CBA25 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five and CBA750, and CBA25 and CBA100 appeared to be positive (0.0104  p  0.0142). Meanwhile, concrete alternatives where sand was replaced with coal bottom ash (CBA). The concrete mixtures the di erences between CBA0 and CBA25, CBA50 and CBA75, and CBA75 and CBA100 appeared were designed with fixed a slump range of 60–80 mm. to be negative (0.1203  p  0.4137). The judgment was suspended for the di erences between all Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 remaining pairs (0.0251  p  0.0904) (Table 4). Thus, according to the rankings (Figure 4) and p-value CBA0 X 0.1632 0.0251 0.0142 0.0107 analysis (Table 4) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes, CBA100, CBA75, and CBA25 X 0.0325 0.0137 0.0104 CBA50 X 0.4137 0.0904 CBA50 were the best concretes causing the least environmental damage, while CBA25 and CBA0 were CBA75 X 0.1203 the worst concretes causing the most environmental damage. CBA100 X Note: A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The LCAs were evaluated via 3.2. MIX-Fixed-W/C the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to be positive, ordinal 3.2.1. ReCiPe2016 Midpoint font size—appears to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended. Pairwise comparisons between CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 exhibited a gradual 3.2. MIX-Fixed-W/C increase in the impacts of GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, as shown in Figure 5. According to the analysis of three impacts, i.e., GWP, TE, and WC, there were two multidirectional and responsible factors: 3.2.1. ReCiPe2016 Midpoint Sand production and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local cement Pairwise comparisons between CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 exhibited a gradual plant, the magnitudes of the influences of which were similar. However, from CBA0 to CBA100, increase in the impacts of GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, as shown in Figure 5. According to the analysis of the 28-day concrete’s compressive strength decreased considerably from 56 to 32 MPa, as shown in three impacts, i.e., GWP, TE, and WC, there were two multidirectional and responsible factors: Sand production and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local cement plant, the magnitudes of the influences of which were similar. However, from CBA0 to CBA100, the 28-day concrete’s compressive strength decreased considerably from 56 to 32 MPa, as shown in Table 2. The decrease in the 28-day compressive strength of concrete led to an increase in GWP, TE, WC, and FRS when the FU was normalized to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. The combination of the Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 9 of 14 Table 2. The decrease in the 28-day compressive strength of concrete led to an increase in GWP, TE, WC, and FRS when the FU was normalized to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. The combination of the unidirectional responsible factors due to the transition from CBA0 to CBA100, the decreased 28-day compressive strength of the concrete, and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant to the local cement plant led to a significant increase in the impact of FRS. Table 4. p-values (p) of the paired di erences in the life-cycle assessment (LCA) production stage of 1 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five concrete alternatives where sand was replaced with coal bottom ash (CBA). The concrete mixtures were designed with fixed a slump range of 60–80 mm. Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 CBA0 X 0.1632 0.0251 0.0142 0.0107 CBA25 X 0.0325 0.0137 0.0104 CBA50 X 0.4137 0.0904 CBA75 X 0.1203 CBA100 X Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14 Note: A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The LCAs were evaluated via the six ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated unidirectional responsible factors due to the transition from CBA0 to CBA100, the decreased 28-day according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to be positive, ordinal font size—appears to be negative, italic compressive strength of the concrete, and the transportation of CBA from the coal-fired power plant font—judgment is suspended. to the local cement plant led to a significant increase in the impact of FRS. Global warming potential Terrestial ecotoxicity 3 4 Sand Gravel 3.5 2.5 Water Cement 3 Transport 2.5 1.5 2 1.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 Fossil resource scarcity Water consumption 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 A B C D E A B C D E Figure 5. Replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, Figure 5. Replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated following the ReCiPe2016 midpoint H and E—CBA100. The environmental impacts were evaluated following the ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. The functional unit (FU) was method. The concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. The functional unit (FU) was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete accor 3 ding to the 28-day normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. concrete compressive strength. 3.2.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options The environmental damage caused by the concretes increased in the following order: CBA0 < CBA25 < CBA50 < CBA75 < CBA100 (Figure 6). It should be noted that this ranking was held for all ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options. However, in this case, additional information obtained from the p-values was available: Judgment was suspended for the difference between concretes CBA0 and CBA25 (p = 0.0750), while the difference between all the other pairs appeared to be positive (0.0009 ≤ p ≤ 0.0123) (Table 5). Thus, according to the ranking (Figure 6) and p-value analysis (Table 5) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-W/C concretes, CBA0 and CBA25 were the best concretes, causing the least kg CO -eq kg*100 oil eq kg 1,4 DCB m Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 10 of 14 3.2.2. Six ReCiPe2016 Single Score Methodological Options Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14 The environmental damage caused by the concretes increased in the following order: environmental damage, while CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 (in ascending order of their CBA0 < CBA25 < CBA50 < CBA75 < CBA100 (Figure 6). It should be noted that this ranking environmental damage) were the worst, causing the most damage. was held for all ReCiPe2016 single score methodological options. Figure 6. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, Figure 6. Environmental damage caused by replacing sand with coal bottom ash (CBA): A—CBA0, B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were B—CBA25, C—CBA50, D—CBA75, and E—CBA100. The life-cycle assessments (LCAs) were evaluated via evaluated via the six ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options, i.e., individualist/average the six ReCiPe2016 single-score methodological options, i.e., individualist/average (I/A) hierarchist/average (I/A) hierarchist/average (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), individualist/individualist (I/I), (H/A), egalitarian/average (E/A), individualist/individualist (I/I), hierarchist/hierarchist (H/H), and hierarchist/hierarchist (H/H), and egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The concrete mixtures designed with egalitarian/egalitarian (E/E). The concrete mixtures designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52; The FU was a fixed W/C of 0.52; The FU was normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of normalized by dividing the environmental assessment of 1 m of concrete according to the 28-day concrete concrete according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength. compressive strength. Table 5 However . p-va , in lues ( thispcase, ) of the pa additional ired difference information s in the obtained life-cyclefr assessment (LCA) productio om the p-values was available: n stage of Judgment 1 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five was suspended for the di erence between concretes CBA0 and CBA25 (p = 0.0750), while the di erence concrete alternatives with different percentages of coal bottom ash (CBA) replacing sand. The between all the other pairs appeared to be positive (0.0009  p  0.0123) (Table 5). Thus, according to concrete mixtures were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. the ranking (Figure 6) and p-value analysis (Table 5) of the LCA results for the five MIX-fixed-W/C concretes, CBA0 and CBA25 were the best concretes, causing the least environmental damage, while Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 (in ascending order of their environmental damage) were the worst, CBA0 X 0.0750 0.0086 0.0025 0.0009 causing the most damage. CBA25 X 0.0123 0.0023 0.0006 CBA50 X 0.0116 0.0017 Table 5. p-values (p) of the paired di erences in the life-cycle assessment (LCA) production stage of 1 CBA75 X 0.0030 m of concrete normalized according to the 28-day concrete compressive strength for the five concrete CBA100 X alternatives with di erent percentages of coal bottom ash (CBA) replacing sand. The concrete mixtures Note: The LCAs were evaluated with the six ReCiPe2016 single score options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, were designed with a fixed W/C of 0.52. H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to Concrete CBA0 CBA25 CBA50 CBA75 CBA100 be positive, ordinary font—appears to be negative, and italic font - judgment is suspended. CBA0 X 0.0750 0.0086 0.0025 0.0009 4. Discussion CBA25 X 0.0123 0.0023 0.0006 CBA50 X 0.0116 0.0017 A cradle-to-gate LCA of replacing sand in concrete with CBA was conducted. Five concrete CBA75 X 0.0030 alternatives, iCBA100 .e., CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100, with 0, 25, 50, 75, and X 100 wt.% of sand replacement, respectively, were considered. Two mixture design methods, i.e., Note: The LCAs were evaluated with the six ReCiPe2016 single score options (I/A, H/A, E/A, I/I, H/H, and E/E). The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: Bold font—appears to be positive, ordinary MIX-fixed-SLUMP (concrete mixtures with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm) and MIX-fixed-W/C font—appears to be negative, and italic font - judgment is suspended. (concrete mixtures with a fixed W/C of 0.52), which resulted in different component qualities of concrete mixtures, were used to environmentally evaluate the concrete production using two levels of ReCiPe2016 methods: (i) The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, which considers four of the most significant environmental impacts, namely GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, and (ii) the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 11 of 14 4. Discussion A cradle-to-gate LCA of replacing sand in concrete with CBA was conducted. Five concrete alternatives, i.e., CBA0, CBA25, CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100, with 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 wt.% of sand replacement, respectively, were considered. Two mixture design methods, i.e., MIX-fixed-SLUMP (concrete mixtures with a fixed slump range of 60–80 mm) and MIX-fixed-W/C (concrete mixtures with a fixed W/C of 0.52), which resulted in di erent component qualities of concrete mixtures, were used to environmentally evaluate the concrete production using two levels of ReCiPe2016 methods: (i) The ReCiPe2016 midpoint H method, which considers four of the most significant environmental impacts, namely GWP, TE, FRS, and WC, and (ii) the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single-score method. The results showed that the trends of the CBA-based concretes designed with the two concrete mix design methods were controversial. First, the environmental impacts/damages were reduced when sand was replaced with CBA for MIX-fixed-SLUMP concretes. Second, the environmental impacts/damages were increased by replacing sand with CBA for the MIX-fixed-W/C concretes. These controversial trends were confirmed via the ReCiPe2016 midpoint method (Figures 3 and 5) and the six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method (Figures 4 and 6). The results of the MIX-fixed-W/C CBA-based concretes confirmed the results presented by Gursel and Ostertag [14] for CS-based concretes, which were also designed with a fixed W/C. In the CS-based study [14], the maximum recommended sand replacement percentage was 40 wt.%. In this study, we observed the same e ect for CBA-based concretes that were designed with a fixed W/C. A maximum sand replacement percentage of 25 wt.% is recommended. However, for CBA-based concretes that were designed with a fixed slump range, a sand replacement rate of 50–100 wt.% with CBA is recommended. In contrast to this controversial issue of replacing sand with byproducts, replacing cement with byproducts mainly provides environmental benefits. Crossin [31] replaced 30% of cement with GBFS and reported a reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions of 47.5% from that of conventional concrete. Additionally, Saade et al. [32] replaced 66% of cement with GBFS and reported a decrease in the environmental impacts, such as abiotic depletion, acidification, and eutrophication, of 40%–70%. Hossain et al. [2] replaced 25% of cement with FA and confirmed that the impacts of respiratory inorganics, global warming, nonrenewable energy, and acidification were approximately 20% lower than those of conventional concrete. Such discrepancies in the benefits of replacing sand and cement with byproducts can be explained by the di erent damage contributions of sand and cement in the total LCA of concrete, which are 0.3%–2% and 74%–93%, respectively [33,34]. Consequently, owing to the relatively small contribution of sand production to the overall environmental damage caused by concrete production, whether the fixed slump or fixed W/C ratio method of designing concrete is better is a sensitive issue when aiming to elucidate the usefulness or harmfulness of byproduct-based concretes. The di erent byproduct modeling approaches (attributional or consequential) and transportation distances (short or long) are also sensitive issues in the LCA of byproduct-based concretes. Therefore, Turk et al. [12] conducted the consequential modeling of the byproducts and reported the environmental sustainability of replacing sand with foundry sand or steel slag, while Prem et al. [13] conducted attributional modeling for byproducts and reported the environmental harmfulness of replacing sand with CS. Turk et al. [12] also investigated the sensitivity of the contribution of the byproduct transportation distance to the total LCA of byproduct-based concretes, and reported that long distances for the delivery of byproducts (100 km or more) mitigate the beneficial e ects of replacing sand with byproducts. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 12 of 14 5. Conclusions Substituting sand in concrete with CBA via di erent mixture design methods (that can lead to di erent qualities of concrete mix components) is a sensitive issue: 1. ReCiPe2016 midpoint method. The increased substitution of sand with CBA lead to: (i) Decreases in the impacts of global warming potential, terrestrial ecotoxicity, water consumption, and increased fossil resources scarcity (MIX-fixed-SLUMP method) and (ii) increases in the impacts of global warming potential, terrestrial ecotoxicity, water consumption, and fossil resources scarcity (MIX-fixed-W/C method). 2. Six methodological options of the ReCiPe2016 single score method. With increasing substitution of sand with CBA: (i) CBA0 and CBA25 caused the most environmental damage, while CBA50-CBA100 caused the least environmental damage (MIX-fixed-SLUMP method), and (ii) CBA0 and CBA25 caused the least environmental damage, while CBA50, CBA75, and CBA100 caused the most environmental damage (MIX-fixed-W/C method). Consequently, according to the LCA evaluated in this study, using CBA as a partial sand replacement in the concrete industry is a very controversial issue. Perhaps the use of certain design methods will make it possible to obtain concrete mixtures with the best environmental properties. The result of the LCA is highly dependent on the design method. For further clarification of the environmental e ects of replacing sand in the concrete industry with CBA byproducts from electricity production, additional concrete mixtures should be considered in the future. 6. Contributions By studying the issue of incorporating byproducts from other industries into the concrete industry instead of sand to improve the fresh and hardened concrete properties, the environmental influence of such replacements can no longer be ignored. This paper outlines the necessity of conducting environmental evaluation for each particular concrete design method (fixed slump range or W/C ratio) owing to the possible di erent environmentally beneficial e ects of these mixtures. 7. Limitations To better elucidate the environmental influences of the replacing sand in the concrete industry with byproducts from other industries, additional byproducts, such as granulated blast furnace slag, quarry dust powder, and phosphate waste, should be considered in further research. Moreover, in future research, sensitivity analysis of concretes with sand replacements to di erent transportation distances for delivering additives to the concrete plants should be conducted. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Meyer, C. The greening of the concrete industry. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 601–605. [CrossRef] 2. Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Dong, Y.H.; Xuan, D.X. Evaluation of environmental impact distribution methods for supplementary cementitious materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 597–608. [CrossRef] 3. Kua, H.W. The consequences of substituting sand with used copper slag in construction. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 17, 869–879. [CrossRef] 4. Yaragal, S.C.; Gowda, S.N.B.; Rajasekaran, C. Characterization and performance of processed lateritic fine aggregates in cement mortars and concretes. Construct. Build. Mater. 2019, 200, 10–25. [CrossRef] 5. De Schepper, M.; Van den Heede, P.; Van Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. Life cycle assessment of completely recyclable concrete. Materials 2014, 7, 6010–6027. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Skalny, J.P. Questions to Arnon Bentur, head, National Building Research Institute, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. Adv. Cement Based Mater. 1996, 3, 81–85. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 13 of 14 7. The Israel Electric Corporation Ltd. Financial Reports For The Nine and Three Months Ended September 30, 2016; The Israel Electric Corporation Ltd.: Haifa, Israel, 2016; pp. 1–191. Available online: https: //www.iec.co.il/EN/IR/Documents/IECFinancialReportsSeptember_2016.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2019). 8. NCAB, 2013. National Coal Ash Board, Israel, General Info, 2013. Available online: http://www.coal-ash.co. il/efer.html (accessed on 12 June 2019). (In Hebrew). 9. Lieberman, R.N.; Knop, Y.; Querol, X.; Moreno, N.; Muñoz-Quirós, C.; Mastai, Y.; Anker, Y.; Cohen, H. Environmental impact and potential use of coal fly ash and sub-economical quarry fine aggregates in concrete. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 1043–1056. [CrossRef] 10. Heijungs, R.; Guinée, J.B. Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 997–1005. [CrossRef] 11. ISO 14040 (International Organization for Standardization). Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. 12. Turk, J.; Cotic, ˇ Z.; Mladenovic, ˇ A.; Šajna, A. Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 194–205. [CrossRef] 13. Prem, P.R.; Verma, M.; Ambily, P.S. Sustainable cleaner production of concrete with high volume copper slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 43–58. [CrossRef] 14. Gursel, A.P.; Ostertag, C. Life-Cycle Assessment of High-Strength Concrete Mixtures with Copper Slag as Sand Replacement. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 6815348. [CrossRef] 15. Kou, S.C.; Poon, C.S. Properties of concrete prepared with crushed fine stone, furnace bottom ash and fine recycled aggregate as fine aggregates. Construct. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2877–2886. [CrossRef] 16. ISO 13315-1 (International Organization for Standardization). Environmental Management for Concrete and Concrete Structures 2012, Part 1: General Principles; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. 17. Habert, G.; de Lacaillerie, J.B.D.; Roussel, N. An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: Reviewing current research trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1229–1238. [CrossRef] 18. Brand, S. How Buildings Learn; Viking Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. 19. Gursel, A.P.; Masanet, E.; Horvath, A.; Stadel, A. Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review. Cement Concr. Compos. 2014, 51, 38–48. [CrossRef] 20. Napolano, L.; Menna, C.; Asprone, D.; Prota, A.; Manfredi, G. Life cycle environmental impact of di erent replacement options for a typical old flat roof. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 694–708. [CrossRef] 21. Pushkar, S. Life cycle assessment of flat roof technologies for office buildings in Israel. Sustainability 2016, 8, 54. [CrossRef] 22. Pushkar, S.; Verbitsky, O. E ects of di erent allocation approaches for modeling mineral additives in blended cements on environmental damage from five concrete mixtures in Israel. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 4401–4415. [CrossRef] 23. Ecoinvent v3.5. Ecoinvent Database Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventory. Available online: https: //www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html (accessed on 28 August 2019). 24. Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-indicator 99—A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, 2001; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 3821. 25. Thompson, M.; Ellis, R.; Wildavsky, A. Political Cultures. Cultural Theory; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 26. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [CrossRef] 27. Pushkar, S. Modeling the substitution of natural materials with industrial byproducts in green roofs using life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 652–661. [CrossRef] 28. SimaPro, v9.0.; PRé Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2019. 29. Picquelle, S.J.; Mier, K.L. A practical guide to statistical methods for comparing means from two-stage sampling. Fish. Res. 2011, 107, 1–13. [CrossRef] 30. Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Final collapse of the Neymane-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. An. Zool. Fennici 2009, 46, 311–349. [CrossRef] 31. Crossin, E. The greenhouse gas implications of using ground granulated blast furnace slag as a cement substitute. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 101–108. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3620 14 of 14 32. Saade, M.R.M.; da Silva, M.G.; Gomes, V. Appropriateness of environmental impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 2015, 99, 40–47. [CrossRef] 33. Celik, K.; Meral, C.; Gursel, A.P.; Mehta, P.K.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. 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. 2015, 56, 59–72. [CrossRef] 34. Gursel, A.P.; Ostertag, C.P. Impact of Singapore’s importers on life-cycle assessment of concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 118, 140–150. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

Applied Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Sep 3, 2019

There are no references for this article.