Impact of fly ash content and fly ash transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption in concrete

  • Kate R. O’Brien
  • Julien Ménaché
  • Liza M. O’Moore


Background, aim and scope

Fly ash, a by-product of coal-fired power stations, is substituted for Portland cement to improve the properties of concrete and reduce the embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Much of the world’s fly ash is currently disposed of as a waste product. While replacing some Portland cement with fly ash can reduce production costs and the embodied emissions of concrete, the relationship between fly ash content and embodied GHG emissions in concrete has not been quantified. The impact of fly ash content on embodied water is also unknown. Furthermore, it is not known whether a global trade in fly ash for use in concrete is feasible from a carbon balance perspective, or if transport over long distances would eliminate any CO2 savings. This paper aims to quantify GHG emissions and water embodied in concrete (fc = 32 MPa) as a function of fly ash content and to determine the critical fly ash transportation distance, beyond which use of fly ash in concrete increases embodied GHG emissions.

Materials and methods

This paper used previously published and reported data for GHG emissions and water usage in cement production, quarries, transportation and concrete batching to quantify the embodied GHG emissions (CO2-equivalent) and water in concrete and the critical transportation distance for fly ash.


Fly ash content alone is not a good indicator of embodied emissions in concrete; increasing fly ash content only reduces embodied emissions when there is a corresponding reduction in the mass of Portland cement used. The total embodied GHG emissions in concrete (GHGconcrete, kg CO2-equivalent m−3) can be determined from the mass of Portland cement used (masscement, t m−3): GHGconcrete = 66 + 790.7 masscement. This equation can be used to determine the reduction in Portland cement required to meet specific GHG emissions targets for concrete, if the Portland cement is replaced by fly ash sourced within 100 km of a concrete batching plant. Fly ash content has little effect on embodied water, which was 2.7–4.1 m3 water per cubic metre of concrete.


Fly ash can be transported more than 11,000 km by articulated truck, 47,000 km by rail and 54,000 km by sea and still result in a net reduction in GHG emissions if used to replace Portland cement in concrete. At least 70% of GHG emissions embodied in concrete were due to cement production, even for fly ash content as high as 40%. Aggregate production accounted for 17–25% of embodied GHG emissions. While transport of concrete from batching plant to site represented only 3–5% of GHG emissions, this distance is subject to wide variability and hence can be a source of variation in total embodied GHG emissions. Water used in quarrying aggregate is both the largest and the most variable quantity of water used in concrete production, and accounted for at least 89% of water consumption for all mix designs considered in this study.


While this study used values applicable to Brisbane, Australia, results are presented in a generalised form for ready adaptation to other conditions, for example different distances to raw materials sources, transport emissions factors, etc.

Recommendations and perspectives

A global trade in fly ash has the potential to reduce GHG emissions embodied in concrete, if the fly ash is used to reduce the consumption of Portland cement per cubic metre of concrete. Increasing fly ash usage under these conditions will reduce both the volume of fly ash disposal and the GHG emissions from the concrete industry. Efforts to reduce water consumption in the concrete industry should focus on quarrying processes, and on finding replacement materials with lower embodied water, which may include recycled aggregate. While this study has quantified the GHG emissions and water embodied in concrete as a function of fly ash content, a full life cycle study of concrete is required to determine the full impact of substituting fly ash for Portland cement. Structural characteristics, life span and operational requirements of concrete should also be considered in any decision to alter cement and fly ash content.


Aggregate Cement Concrete Embodied emissions Embodied water Fly ash Greenhouse gas emissions Life cycle assessment Portland cement 


  1. Apelbaum Consulting Group (ACG) (2007) Australian Transport Facts 2007. Apelbaum Consulting Group Pty Ltd, Incorporating the Centre of Transport, Energy and the Environment, Mulgrave, Victoria Australia April 2007Google Scholar
  2. Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) (2007) Analysis of recent trends and greenhouse indicators 1990 to 2005, Commonwealth of AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharjee U, Kandpal TC (2002) Potential of fly ash utilisation in India. Energy 27:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourgeois F, Baudet G, Bizi M, Gaboriau H (2003) Conditioning circuit analysis for slimes management in quarries. Chem Eng Res Des 81(A9):1158–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown P, Searles M, Cottrell A, Scaife P (2007) LCA of the Queensland Electricity Grid (Year ending 2004), Co-operative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development, Technology Assessment Report 61Google Scholar
  6. Cement Industry Federation (CIF) (2007) 2007 review of the technology pathway for the Australian Cement Industry 2005–2030Google Scholar
  7. Dhir R (2006) The potential of fly ash: the future looks bright. Concrete 40(6):68–70Google Scholar
  8. Dhir R, Dyer T, Paine K (2006) Appropriate use of sustainable construction materials. Concrete 40(9):20–24Google Scholar
  9. Ecoinvent data base (2007) Swiss centre for life cycle inventoriesGoogle Scholar
  10. Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J LCA 12(5):282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foner HA, Robl TL, Hower JC, Graham UM (1999) Characterization of fly ash from Israel with reference to its possible utilization. Fuel 78:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidrich C, Hinczak I, Ryan B (2005) Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) potential to lower Greenhouse Gas emissions for Australia. Concrete 05, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Concrete Institute of AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. Humphreys K, Mahasenan M (2002) Climate change substudy 8: towards a sustainable cement industry. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)Google Scholar
  14. Iyer RS, Scott JA (2001) Power station fly ash – a review of value-added utilization outside of the construction industry. Resour Conserv Recy 31:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG, Sagoe-Crentsil K (2007) Comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. Cem Concr Rzes 37(12):1583–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar S, Patil CB (2006) Estimation of resource savings due to fly ash utilization in road construction. Resour Conserv Recycl 48:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malhotra VM (2002a) Sustainable development and concrete technology. Concr Int 24(7):22Google Scholar
  18. Malhotra VM (2002b) High-performance high-volume fly ash concrete. Concr Int 24(7):30–34Google Scholar
  19. Malhotra VM (2006) Reducing CO2 emissions. Concr Int 28(9):42–45Google Scholar
  20. Malhotra VM, Mehta, PK (2002) High-performance, high-volume fly ash concrete: materials, mixture proportioning, properties, construction practice and case histories, supplementary cementing materials for sustainable development. Ottawa, Canada, 101 pp, as cited in Malhotra 2006Google Scholar
  21. Marsh B (2003) High-volume ash concrete. Concrete 37(4):54–56Google Scholar
  22. Mehta PK (2002) Greening of the concrete industry for sustainable development. Concr Int 24(7):23–28Google Scholar
  23. Pfister S, Koehler, A, Hellweg, S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(11):4098–4104, DOI: 10.1021/es802423eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SimaPro (2007) LCA software. RMIT centre for designGoogle Scholar
  25. Sushil S, Batra VS (2006) Analysis of fly ash heavy metal content and disposal in three thermal power plants in India. Fuel 85:2676–2679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vargas A (2007) A designer’s view of fly ash concrete. Concr Int 29(2):43–46Google Scholar
  27. Wang S, Wu H (2006) Environmental-benign utilisation of fly ash as low-cost adsorbents. J Hazard Mater B136:482–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiao J, Li J, Zhang C (2005) Mechanical properties of recycle aggregate concrete under uniaxial loading. Cem Concr Res 35:1187–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate R. O’Brien
    • 1
  • Julien Ménaché
    • 2
  • Liza M. O’Moore
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Environmental EngineeringUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Division of Civil EngineeringUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations