Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability

  • Tatiana García-Segura
  • Víctor Yepes
  • Julián Alcalá



Blended cements use waste products to replace Portland cement, the main contributor to CO2 emissions in concrete manufacture. Using blended cements reduces the embodied greenhouse gas emissions; however, little attention has been paid to the reduction in CO2 capture (carbonation) and durability. The aim of this study is to determine if the reduction in production emissions of blended cements compensates for the reduced durability and CO2 capture.


This study evaluates CO2 emissions and CO2 capture for a reinforced concrete column during its service life and after demolition and reuse as gravel filling material. Concrete depletion, due to carbonation and the unavoidable steel embedded corrosion, is studied, as this process consequently ends the concrete service life. Carbonation deepens progressively during service life and captures CO2 even after demolition due to the greater exposed surface area. In this study, results are presented as a function of cement replaced by fly ash (FA) and blast furnace slag (BFS).

Results and discussion

Concrete made with Portland cement, FA (35 % FA), and BFS blended cements (80 % BFS) captures 47, 41, and 20 % of CO2 emissions, respectively. The service life of blended cements with high amounts of cement replacement, like CEM III/A (50 % BFS), CEM III/B (80 % BFS), and CEM II/B-V (35 % FA), was about 10 % shorter, given the higher carbonation rate coefficient. Compared to Portland cement and despite the reduced CO2 capture and service life, CEM III/B emitted 20 % less CO2 per year.


To obtain reliable results in a life cycle assessment, it is crucial to consider carbonation during use and after demolition. Replacing Portland cement with FA, instead of BFS, leads to a lower material emission factor, since FA needs less processing after being collected, and transport distances are usually shorter. However, greater reductions were achieved using BFS, since a larger amount of cement can be replaced. Blended cements emit less CO2 per year during the life cycle of a structure, although a high cement replacement reduces the service life notably. If the demolished concrete is crushed and recycled as gravel filling material, carbonation can cut CO2 emissions by half. A case study is presented in this paper demonstrating how the results may be utilized.


Blended cement Carbonation CO2 emission Durability Life cycle Recycled concrete 



This research was financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (research project BIA2011-23602). The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and useful suggestions. The authors are also grateful for the thorough revision of the manuscript by Dr. Debra Westall.


  1. Aïtcin PC (2000) Cements of yesterday and today: concrete of tomorrow. Cem Concr Res 30(9):1349–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angst U, Elsener B, Larsen C (2009) Critical chloride content in reinforced concrete—a review. Cement Concr Res 39(12):1122–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berge B (2000) The ecology of building materials. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertolini L, Elsener B, Pedeferri P, Polder R (2004) Corrosion of Steel in Concrete—Prevention Diagnosis. Repair, Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  5. Börjesson P, Gustavsson L (2000) Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy 28(9):575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camp CV, Huq F (2013) CO2 and cost optimization of reinforced concrete frames using a big bang-crunch algorithm. Eng Struct 48:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (2011) EN 197–1: Cement. Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. CIWMB (2000) Designing with vision: a technical manual for materials choices in sustainable construction. California Integrated Waste Management Board, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins F (2010) Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their carbon footprint. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(6):549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Database BEDEC (2012) Institute of Construction Technology of Catalonia. Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2009) Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. Resour Conserv Recy 53(5):276–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ECO-SERVE Network Cluster 3 (2004) Baseline Report for the Aggregate and Concrete Industries in Europe. European Commission, Hellerup:, accessed 10 September 2012
  13. European Federation of Concrete Admixtures Associations (2006) Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Normal Plasticizing admixtures. Environmental Consultant, Sittard:, accessed 13 October 2012
  14. Galán I (2011) Carbonatación del hormigón: combinación de CO2. Dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  15. Galán I, Andrade C, Mora P, Sanjuan MA (2010) Sequestration of CO2 by concrete carbonation. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3181–3186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(5):282–288Google Scholar
  17. Guzmán S, Gálvez JC, Sancho JM (2011) Cover cracking of reinforced concrete due to rebar corrosion induced by chloride penetration. Cement Concr Res 41(8):893–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Houst YF, Wittmann FH (2002) Depth profiles of carbonates formed during natural carbonation. C Cement Concr Res 32(12):1923–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Institute for Diversification and Energy Saving (2010) Conversion factors of primary energy and CO2 emissions of 2010. M. Industria, Energía y Turismo, Madrid, Spain:, accessed 10 September 2012
  20. ISO (2005) ISO/TC 71—Business plan. Concrete, reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (2006) ISO 14040: Environmental management—life-cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang L, Lin B, Cai Y (2000) A model for predicting carbonation of high-volume fly ash concrete. Cement Concr Res 30(5):699–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jönsson A, Björklund T, Tillman AM (1988) LCA of concrete and steel building frames. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knoeri C, Sanyé-Mengual E, Althaus HJ (2013) Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lagerblad B (2005) Carbon dioxide uptake during concrete life-cycle: State of the art. Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  26. Leber I, Blakey FA (1956) Some effects of carbon dioxide on mortars and concrete. J Am Concr Inst 53:295–308Google Scholar
  27. Fomento M (2008) EHE-08; Code of Structural Concrete. M. Fomento, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  28. Marinkovic S, Radonjanin V, Malešev M, Ignjatovic I (2010) Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Manag 30(11):2255–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez-Martin FJ, Gonzalez-Vidosa F, Hospitaler A, Yepes V (2012) Multi-objective optimization design of bridge piers with hybrid heuristic algorithms. J Zhejiang Univ-SCI A 13(6):420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Brien KR, Ménaché J, O’Moore LM (2009) Impact of fly ash content and fly ash transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption in concrete. Int J Life-cycle Assess 14(7):621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pade C, Guimaraes M (2007) The CO2 uptake of concrete in a 100-year perspective. Cem Concr Res 37(9):1384–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papadakis VG, Vayenas CG, Fardis MN (1991) Fundamental modeling and experimental investigation of concrete carbonation. ACI Mater J 88(4):363–373Google Scholar
  33. Payá I, Yepes V, González-Vidosa F, Hospitaler A (2008) Multiobjective optimization of reinforced concrete building by simulated annealing. Comput-Aided Civ Inf 23(8):596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Payá-Zaforteza I, Yepes V, Hospitaler A, González-Vidosa F (2009) CO2-efficient design of reinforced concrete building frames. Eng Struct 31(7):1501–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saassouh B, Lounis Z (2012) Probabilistic modeling of chloride-induced corrosion in concrete structures using first- and second-order reliability methods. Cement Concrete Comp 34(9):1082–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. The Concrete Centre (2009) The Concrete Industry Sustainability Performance Report. The Concrete Center, Camberley:, accessed 9 September 2012
  37. Tuutti K (1982) Corrosion of steel in Concrete. CBI Forskning Research Report, Swedish Cem Concr Res Inst. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  38. Weil M, Jeske U, Schebek L (2006) Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter environmental threshold values. Waste Manage Res 24(3):197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Steel Association (2010) Fact sheet: the three Rs of sustainable Steel. World Steel Association, Brussels:, accessed 15 September 2012
  40. Worrell E, Price L, Martin N, Hendriks C, Meida LO (2001) Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annu Rev Energy Environ 26:303–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yepes V, González-Vidosa F, Alcalá J, Villalba P (2012) CO2-optimization design of reinforced concrete retaining walls based on a VNS-threshold acceptance strategy. J Comput Civ Eng 26(3):378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yiwei T, Qun Z, Jian G (2011) Study on the Life-cycle Carbon Emission and Energy-efficiency Management of the Large-scale Public Buildings in Hangzho. China. International Conference on Computer and Management, Wuhan, pp 546–552Google Scholar
  43. Zornoza E, Payá J, Monzó J, Borrachero MV, Garcés P (2009) The carbonation of OPC mortars partially substituted with spent fluid catalytic catalyst (FC3R) and its influence on their mechanical properties. Const Build Mater 23(3):1323–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatiana García-Segura
    • 1
  • Víctor Yepes
    • 1
  • Julián Alcalá
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH)Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations