PurposeThe research investigates the impact of concrete design methods on performance, emphasizing environmental sustainability. The study compares the modified Bolomey method and Abrams’ law in designing concretes. Significant differences in cement consumption and subsequent CO2 emissions are revealed. The research advocates for a comprehensive life cycle assessment, considering factors like compressive strength, carbonation resistance, CO2 emissions, and cost. The analysis underscores the importance of evaluating concrete not solely based on strength but also environmental impact. The study concludes that a multicriteria approach, considering the entire life cycle, is essential for sustainable concrete design, addressing durability, environmental concerns, and economic factors.Design/methodology/approachThe study employed a comprehensive design and methodology approach, involving the formulation and testing of 20 mixed concretes with strengths ranging from 25 MPa to 45 MPa. Two distinct design methods, the modified Bolomey method (three equations method) and Abrams’ law, were utilized to calculate concrete compositions. Laboratory experiments were conducted to validate the computational models, and subsequent analyses focused on assessing differences in cement consumption, compressive strength, CO2 emissions, and concrete resistance to carbonation. The research adopted a multidisciplinary perspective, integrating theoretical analysis, laboratory testing, and life cycle assessment to evaluate concrete performance and sustainability.FindingsConclusion from the study includes substantial variations (56%–112%) in cement content, depending on the calculation method. Abrams' law proves optimal for compressive strength (30 MPa–45 MPa), while the three equations method yields higher actual strength (30%–51%). Abrams' law demonstrates optimal cement use, but concrete designed with the three equations method exhibits superior resistance to aggressive environments. Cement content exceeding 450 kg/m³ is undesirable. Concrete designed with Abrams' law is economically favorable (12%–30% lower costs). The three equations method results in higher CO2 emissions (38–83%), emphasizing the need for life cycle assessment.Originality/valueThis study’s originality lies in its holistic evaluation of concrete design methods, considering environmental impact, compressive strength, and cost across a comprehensive life cycle. The comparison of the traditional Abrams' law and the three equations method, along with detailed laboratory tests, contributes novel insights into optimal cement use and concrete performance. The findings underscore the importance of a multicriteria approach, emphasizing sustainability and economic viability. The research provides valuable guidance for engineers and policymakers seeking environmentally conscious and economically efficient concrete design strategies, addressing a critical gap in the field of construction materials and contributing to sustainable infrastructure development.
