Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study

Backes, Jana Gerta; Rosario, Pamela Del; Luthin, Anna; Traverso, Marzia

doi:10.3390/app12189255

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to two previous publications about the EoL of CRC and SRC [45,75], we provided the following scenarios for the CRC façade panel: The façade is completely unhooked and transported for another average of 100 km to be subsequently crushed in mechanical recycling [45]. The crushed CRC façade panel results in two theoretical scenarios: (1) the panel is not reused in any parts and ends up fully in a construction waste landfill (LF)-which is the important novelty of this study (EU-28: Construction waste dumping (EN15804 C4) Sphera)) [45]-and (2) 50% of concrete is used in road construction (all fiber ends up in landfill; assumed credit for gravel (crushed concrete may function as a substitute for new gravel in an unbonded base layer)).…”

Section: End-of-lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SRC façade is likewise suspended and transported 100 km. At this point, we are again guided by previous publications (where the process steps can be found in detail) [75] and assume a separation of the two components, steel and concrete. The steel (GLO: a market for reinforcing steel Ecoinvent 3.5) and the stainless-steel hangers of the slab are re-melted and thus returned to the steel cycle.…”

Section: End-of-lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regards to the concrete, we assume that we can use 50% of the sorted concrete in downcycling for road construction, while the other half, identical to the CRC façade panel, ends up in the landfill in order to present a realistic scenario for the actual construction sector and the End-of-Life treatment. Details and justifications, as well as assumptions made and the background literature on the different EoL options, can be found in two previous publications [45,75]. It should be noted that we use the landfill process from GaBi, valid from 2021 to 2024.…”

Section: End-of-lifementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to climate change and current efforts to reduce emissions in the construction sector, this study evaluates and discusses the results of a comparative cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), with a main focus on Global Warming Potential for functionally equivalent carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) and steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) façade panels for the first time. The novelty of this study is the focus on construction waste and, in particular, the worst-case application of non-recycled construction waste. The use of CRC requires a lower concrete thickness than SRC because the carbon fiber reinforcement does not corrode, in contrast to steel reinforcement. Façade panels of the same geometrical dimensions and structural performance were defined as functional units (FU). Assuming an End-of-Life (EoL) scenario of 50% landfill and 50% recycling, the Global Warming Potential (GWP, given in CO2 equivalent (CO2e)) of the CRC façade (411–496 kg CO2e) is shown to perform better than or equal to the SRC façade (492 kg CO2e). Changing the assumption of CRC to a worst-case scenario, going fully to landfill and not being recycled (single life cycle), turns the GWP results in favor of the SRC façade. Assuming a 50-year service life for the SRC façade panel and relativizing the emissions to the years, the more durable CRC façade performs much better. Finally, depending on the system boundary, the assumed EoL and lifetime, CRC can represent a lower-emission alternative to a functionally equivalent component made of SRC. The most important and “novel” result in this study, which also leads to future research opportunities, is that delicate adjustments (especially concerning EoL scenarios and expected service life) can lead to completely different recommendations for decision-makers. Only by combining the knowledge of LCA experts, structural engineers, and builders optimal decisions can be made regarding sustainable materials and building components.

show abstract

Section: End-of-lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: End-of-lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: End-of-lifementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dittel [18] describes a possibility for the usage of vertical textile reinforcement within an extrusion-based printing process. Furthermore, investigations on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of carbonreinforced concrete are carried out [6].…”

Section: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides new possibilities in the design language the production of more sustainable concrete structures is a main advantage of the investigated processes. By the usage of force-optimized and freely shaped structures, less material is needed and a better material utilization can be achieved [5], [6]. Additionally, the non-corrosive behaviour of FRP reinforcements enables a reduction in the concrete cover height, which additionally reduces the amount of concrete needed [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Winding Process of Individualized Fibre Reinforcement Structures for Additive Manufacturing in Construction

Rothe,

Gantner,

Hack

et al. 2023

Open Conf Proc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The integration of load path compliant fibre reinforcement structures into additive manufactured concrete elements opens up new potential in the field of construction. The new design language made possible by 3D concrete printing requires reinforcement structures to be provided in a highly individual shaped manner. Digital and robot-based production processes make it possible to produce on-site, on demand, fully automated and just-in-time. In this paper, a concept for an on-site ready fibre reinforcement production is presented. Based on previous works a Dynamic Winding Machine (DWM) for the on-demand production of individualizable reinforcement strands is developed. The concept and technical functionalities of the machine are presented in detail. The functionality is validated based on the production of single reinforcement bars as well as the production of entire, additively manufactured and reinforced concrete structures. With an industrial robot and adjusted end effectors, freely shaped reinforcement structures can be produced automatically. Different concepts for the use of the DWM with mobile robots are discussed. Due to the flexibility of the process, both filigree reinforcement structures, e.g. for use in particle bed printing, and large structures, e.g. for combination with Shotcrete 3D Printing, can be produced.

show abstract

Environmental assessment of a disruptive innovation: comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessments of carbon-reinforced concrete building component

Backes

Traverso

Horvath

2022

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose How to build in more environmentally sustainable manner? This issue is increasingly coming to the fore in construction sector, which is responsible for a relevant share of resource depletion, solid waste, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC), as a disruptive innovation of composite building material, requires less resources and enables new forms — but does it make CRC more environmentally sustainable than steel-reinforced concrete (SRC)? This article aims to assess and compare the environmental impact of 45 material and production scenarios of a CRC with a SRC double wall. Methods The life cycle assessment method (LCA) is used to assess environmental impacts. The functional unit is a double wall and the reference flows are 1 m3 for concrete and 1 kg for fiber. CML methodology is used for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in the software GaBi© ts 10.0. A sensitivity analysis focuses on electricity grid mixes, concrete mixes, and steel production scenarios. Results The midpoint indicator climate change respective global warming potential (in kg CO2e) ranges between 453 kg CO2e and 754 kg CO2e per CRC double wall. A comparable SRC double wall results in emissions of 611–1239 kg CO2e. Even though less raw material is needed for CRC, it does not represent a clear advantage over SRC in terms of climate change. In a comparison, the production of steel (blast furnace vs. electric arc furnace vs. recycled steel) and the choice of cement type are of decisive relevance. For concrete mixes, a mixture of Portland cement and blast furnace slag (CEM III) is beneficial to pure Portland cement (CEM) I. For fiber production, styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) has an advantage over epoxy resin (EP) impregnation and the use of renewable energy could reduce emissions of fiber production up to 60%. Conclusion CRC requires less material (concrete cover) than SRC, however, exhibits comparable CO2e to SRC — depending on the production process of steel. In the future, fiber production and impregnation should be studied in detail. Since in terms of climate change neither wall (CRC vs. SRC) clearly performs better, the two other pillars of sustainability (economic and social, resulting in LCSA) and innovative building components must be focused on. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study

Cited by 4 publications

References 44 publications

Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel

Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel

Dynamic Winding Process of Individualized Fibre Reinforcement Structures for Additive Manufacturing in Construction

Environmental assessment of a disruptive innovation: comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessments of carbon-reinforced concrete building component

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About