Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The contemporary cement cycle of the United States

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A country-level stock and flow model for cement, an important construction material, was developed based on a material flow analysis framework. Using this model, the contemporary cement cycle of the United States was constructed by analyzing production, import, and export data for different stages of the cement cycle. The United States currently supplies approximately 80% of its cement consumption through domestic production and the rest is imported. The average annual net addition of in-use new cement stock over the period 2000–2004 was approximately 83 million metric tons and amounts to 2.3 tons per capita of concrete. Nonfuel carbon dioxide emissions (42 million metric tons per year) from the calcination phase of cement manufacture account for 62% of the total 68 million tons per year of cement production residues. The end-of-life cement discards are estimated to be 33 million metric tons per year, of which between 30% and 80% is recycled. A significant portion of the infrastructure in the United States is reaching the end of its useful life and will need to be replaced or rehabilitated; this could require far more cement than might be expected from economic forecasts of demand for cement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Oss HG, Padovani AC (2002) Cement manufacture and the environment, part I: chemistry and technology. J Ind Ecol 6(1):89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. van Oss HG, Padovani AC (2003) Cement manufacture and the environment, part II: environmental challenges and opportunities. J Ind Ecol 7(1):93–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ASCE (2005) Report card for America’s infrastructure. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm (as accessed on 04/17/05)

  4. Aïtcin PC (2000) Cements of yesterday and today: concrete of tomorrow. Cement Concrete Res 30:1349–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown VL, Cosenza E, Davalos JF, Lesko JJ, Machida A, Rizkalla SH, Triantafillou TC (2002) Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction — state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr 6(2):73–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Li VC (1998) Engineered cementitious composites — tailored composites through micromechanical modeling. In: Banthia A, Bentur A, Mufti N (eds) Fiber reinforced concrete: present and the future. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, pp 64–97

    Google Scholar 

  7. Uomoto T, Mutsuyoshi H, Katsuki F, Misra S (2002) Use of fiber-reinforced polymer composites as reinforcing material for concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 14(3):191–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van den Einde L, Zhao L, Seible F (2003) Use of FRP composites in civil structural applications. Constr Build Mater 17:389–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bringezu S, Schutz H (1997) Material flow accounts, part II: construction materials, packaging indicators. Wuppertal Institute, Wuppertal

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bergsdal H, Bohne RA, Bratteb H (2007) Projection of construction and demolition waste in Norway. J Ind Ecol 11(3):27–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Baccini P, Brunner PH (1991) Metabolism of the anthrosphere. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p 157

    Google Scholar 

  12. Graedel TE, van Beers D, Bertram M, Fuse K, Gordon RB, Gritsinin A, Kapur A, Klee RJ, Lifset RJ, Memon L, Rechberger H, Spatari S, Vexler D (2004) Multilevel cycle of anthropogenic copper. Environ Sci Technol 38(4):1242–1252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Graedel TE, van Beers D, Bertram M, Fuse K, Gordon RB, Gritsinin A, Harper EM, Kapur A, Klee RJ, Lifset RJ, Memon L, Spatari S (2005) The multilevel cycle of anthropogenic zinc. J Ind Ecol 9(3):67–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hashimto S, Tanikawa H, Moriguchi Y (2007) Where will large amounts of materials accumulated within the economy go? A material flow analysis of construction minerals in Japan. Waste Manag 27:1725–1738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Landner L, Lindeström L (1999) Copper in society and in the environment, 2nd edn. Swedish Environmental Research Group, Västerås

    Google Scholar 

  16. Smith RA, Kersey JR, Griffiths PJ (2003) The construction industry mass balance: resource use, wastes, and emissions. Virdis Report VR4 (revised), http://www.massbalance.org/downloads/projectfiles/1406-00112.pdf (accessed July 2008)

  17. Kelly T (1998) Crushed cement concrete substitution for construction aggregates — a material flow analysis. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1177, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  18. Graedel TE, Bertram MB, Fuse K, Gordon RB, Lifset R, Rechberger H, Spatari S (2002) The contemporary European copper cycle: the characterization of technological copper cycles. Ecol Econ 42:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. van Oss HG (2003–2007) Cement chapter(s) in Minerals yearbook, 2001–2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  20. Alsop PA, Chen H, Chin-Fatt AL, Jackura AJ, McCabe MI, Tseng HH (2005) Cement plant operations handbook for dry process plants. Tradeship, Dorking, p 257

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bhatty JI, Miller FM, Kosmatka SH (eds) (2004) Innovations in portland cement manufacturing. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, p 1367

    Google Scholar 

  22. Duda WH (1985) Cement data book, 3rd edn, vol I. French and European, Weisbaden, p 539

    Google Scholar 

  23. Portland Cement Association (2006) 2006 North American cement industry annual. Portland Cement Association, Skokie

    Google Scholar 

  24. BEA (2003) Fixed assets and consumer durables in the United States, 1925–97. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tam VWY, Tam CM, Le KN (2007) Removal of cement mortar from recycled aggregate using pre-soaking approaches. Resour Conserv Recy 50(1):82–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sandler K (2003) Analyzing what’s recyclable in C&D debris. Bio-Cycle 44(11):51–54

    Google Scholar 

  27. HQ AFCEE (2006) Construction and demolition waste management guide. HQ Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Brooks, p 42

    Google Scholar 

  28. USEPA (1998) Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tränkler JOV, Walker I, Dohmann M (1996) Environmental impact of demolition waste — an overview of 10 years of research and experience. Waste Manag 16(1–3):21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Taylor B (1999) Markets are set in concrete. Construction and demolition recycling. http://www.cdrecycler.com/articles/article.asp?ID=3488&AdKeyword=Brian+Taylor (as accessed on 07/12/06)

  31. FHWA (2004) Transportation applications of recycled concrete aggregate, FHWA-IF-05-013. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., p 38

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harrington J (2006) Recycled roadways. Construction and demolition recycling. http://www.cdrecycler.com/articles/article.asp?ID=4878&AdKeyword=Recycled+Roadways (as accessed on 07/12/06)

  33. Matthews E, Amann C, Bringezu S, Fischer-Kowalski M, Hüttler W, Kleijn R, Moriguchi Y, Ottke C, Rodenburg E, Rogich D, Schandl H, Schütz H, van der Voet E, Weisz H (2000) The weight of nations — material outflows from industrial economies. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  34. USCB (2005) Construction statistics. http://www.census.gov/const/www/ (as accessed on 10/04/05) U.S. Census Bureau

  35. FHWA (2006) Highway statistics 2000–2004. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.htm (as accessed on 06/10/06). Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kapur A, Keoleian G, Kendall A, Kesler S (2008) Dynamic modeling of in-use cement stocks in United States. J Ind Ecol 12(4): 539–556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bolen WP (2003) Sand and gravel, construction — 2001. United States Geological Survey minerals yearbook 2001. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tepordei VV (2003) Crushed stone — 2001. United States Geological Survey minerals yearbook 2001. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  39. GBB (2006) GBB estimates 115 million metric tons per year of demolition waste generated in U.S. http://www.gbbinc.com/press_releases/nda-cd.htm (as accessed on 05/20/06)

  40. Jones CL (2006) Making inroads. Construction & Demolition Recycling, March 2006, http://www.cdrecycler.com/articles/article.asp?ID=4877&AdKeyword=CMRA+survey (as accessed on 03/20/06)

  41. Aquino JT (2003) C&D waste: a sometimes bumpy road to more attention. MSW Manag July/August 13(5) http://www.mswmanagement.com/july-august-2003/cd-waste-recycle.aspx (as accessed on 01/06/09)

  42. Bader CD (2004) Where will all that C&D debris go? MSW Manag July/August 14(5) http://www.mswmanagement.com/july-august-2004/cd-debris-go-2.aspx (as accessed on 01/06/09)

  43. Townsend T (2000) Converting C&D from volume to weight: a fact sheet for C&D debris facility operators. http://dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/forms/documents/62-701/reduction/converting.doc (as accessed on 01/06/09)

  44. MDEQ (2003) Report of solid waste landfilled in Michigan, October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Wastes and Hazardous Materials Division, Lansing

    Google Scholar 

  45. MDEQ (2004) Report of solid waste landfilled in Michigan, October 1, 2002–September 30, 2003. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Wastes and Hazardous Materials Division, Lansing

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sullivan E (2006) US cement market outlook 2006–2008. Global Cement and Lime Magazine, April, 53–60

  47. van Oss HG, Kelly T (2005) Cement statistics. U.S. Geological Survey. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/of01-006/cement.xls (as accessed on 03/21/06)

  48. Simmons P, Goldstein N, Kaufman SM, Themelis NJ, Thompson J (2006) The State of garbage in America. BioCycle 47(4):26–43

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Amit Kapur

    Present address: Center for Design, RMIT GPO Box 2476 V Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Amit Kapur, Gregory Keoleian & Alissa Kendall

  2. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA

    Hendrik G. van Oss

  3. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Stephen E. Kesler

Authors
  1. Amit Kapur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hendrik G. van Oss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory Keoleian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen E. Kesler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alissa Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Kapur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapur, A., van Oss, H.G., Keoleian, G. et al. The contemporary cement cycle of the United States. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 11, 155–165 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-008-0229-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-008-0229-x

Key words

Search

Navigation