See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245409112

Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use

Article in Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability · January 2009
DOI: 10.1680/ensu.2009.162.3.135

CITATIONS READS

16 2,567

4 authors, including:

Mark Gaterell D. V. L. Hunt

University of Portsmouth University of Birmingham
73 PUBLICATIONS 1,879 CITATIONS 124 PUBLICATIONS 2,212 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A. M. Thomas
University of Birmingham
64 PUBLICATIONS 663 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by D. V. L. Hunt on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Engineering Sustainability 162
September 2009 Issue ES3
Pages 135–144
doi: 10.1680/ensu.2009.162 .3.135 Andrew Thomas D. Rachel Lombardi Dexter Hunt Mark Gaterell
Research Fellow, Senior Research Fellow, Research Fellow, Senior Lecturer, School
Paper 800013 School of Engineering, School of Engineering, School of Engineering, of Engineering,
Received 13/07/2008 University of University of University of University of
Accepted 21/04/2009 Birmingham, Birmingham, Birmingham, Birmingham,
Edgbaston, UK Edgbaston, UK Edgbaston, UK Edgbaston, UK
Keywords:
environment/recycling & reuse of
materials/urban regeneration

Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use

A. Thomas MICE, MSc, D. R. Lombardi PhD, D. Hunt MICE, PhD and M. Gaterell MCIWEM, CEnv, PhD

Tools such as the carbon dioxide estimator tool from the Resources Action Programme (WRAP)3 and Aggregain4 and
UK Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) from a data source upon which it relied.5 This tool, referred to
and Aggregain have been developed to allow engineers to here as the WRAP tool, has provided a significant step forward
quantify and optimise carbon dioxide emissions asso- in the ability of engineers to quantify carbon dioxide emissions
ciated with aggregate use. An extended WRAP tool associated with aggregate sourcing. For the purposes of this
methodology has been developed and is illustrated study, the calculation was extended to include estimated
through assessing the relative carbon dioxide perfor- emissions as a result of haulage vehicle speeds (which are in
mance of different aggregate sourcing options for the turn a function of highway congestion) and variations in
large redevelopment project known as Masshouse, in the emissions associated with the production of different aggregate
centre of Birmingham, UK. Previously unconsidered grades. This provided a means to determine the extent to which
factors such as aggregate quality and highway congestion these context-specific factors impact on emissions arising from
have been included. It is shown that significant reductions aggregate use.
in carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved where site-
derived demolition waste is reprocessed for use on site as As well as the actual scenario of in situ recycling adopted for the
a recycled aggregate and that relative haulage distances Masshouse project, a number of other scenarios were analysed in
are of particular importance to overall carbon dioxide order that their relative impact on carbon dioxide emissions could
emissions. As these outcomes depend upon the distances be considered on a like-for-like basis. In this manner, not only
to materials sources and sinks in Birmingham, it is was the relative sustainability of aggregate use in the Masshouse
concluded that the carbon dioxide emissions associated project critically examined but the examination was also
with aggregate sourcing are not just a function of material extended to potentially less sustainable decision-making sce-
type but also of local conditions. Therefore, the devel- narios. Furthermore, through detailing specific activities within
oped methodology provides a useful decision-making each scenario – that is, material production and transportation –
framework for assessing aggregate sourcing that accounts the resulting emissions summaries provide an insight into how
for factors such as distribution of materials sources and sustainable aggregate sourcing can currently be. The methodol-
sinks, aggregate grade, and the effects of road speed and ogy presented thus allows developers to assess the carbon dioxide
congestion. emissions associated with their designs, essentially using the
design as a functional unit embodying a certain tonnage of
aggregates, and to compare it with a range of alternative
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND scenarios in order to develop the lowest emissions option.
1.1. Introduction
This paper provides an insight into the sustainability-related 1.2. A brief history of Birmingham ring road and
consequences of decision-making scenarios associated with Masshouse Circus
redevelopment projects involving both demolition and use of The Masshouse area was most likely named during the 17th
high-quality unbound aggregates (a term used to denote an century following the construction of a local Catholic mass-
aggregate not mixed with other materials such as cement or house.6 During Victorian times the area was well populated with
bitumen). This is achieved through development of an appraisal residents and thriving local industries (e.g. tanneries); this was
methodology and illustration of its use in the analysis of a due in no small part to its connectivity with Birmingham’s city
redevelopment in the heart of Birmingham, UK, known as centre and the canal and railway infrastructure, including Moor
Masshouse, which is considered to have optimised aggregate Street and Curzon Street Stations (the latter being Birmingham’s
sustainability in its construction. For Birmingham, the sustain- first railway station). In 1864, Curzon Street Station was
ability of Masshouse is important as it reflects the interest being replaced by a new railway station. New Street Station, as it was
shown in the sustainability of the surrounding Eastside area.1 named, was situated almost 1 km to the western side of the two
The appraisal methodology is based on embodied energy and main roads that served the Masshouse area, Masshouse Lane and
emissions data (using reduced carbon dioxide emissions as a Jennens Road (aptly named after a local landowner). Curzon
proxy for improved sustainability) from the carbon dioxide Street was left empty and the popularity of the area and its
emissions estimator tool2 produced by the UK Waste and industry began to decline in part due to the declining use of

Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al. 135
 canal transport of goods (although some canal transport did materials, waste reduction and recycling schemes.10 For
remain in use until the late 1950s). Masshouse, this required that concrete rubble from demolition
of the flyover be recycled (i.e. crushed and reused) within the
In the first decades of the 20th century, the presence of motor cars new construction works.
on the inner city roads was increasing; subsequently, pressures for
upgrading began to mount on the public works committee. This In March 2002, the £24?2 million demolition of Masshouse
continued in the periods between the world wars as traffic on the Circus began. Large pockets of land were cleared, allowing for a
roads became increasingly heavy and congested. By the 1950s, new ground-level transport system (including bus routes and
Birmingham had become well established as a motor city and the pedestrian crossings). During the demolition 20 000 m3 of
city council realised that a significant upgrading programme was concrete were recycled and used within the refashioned inner
unavoidable. With two clear objectives in mind – enlarge business ring road that now connects the newly regenerated Bullring
and shopping areas of the city centre and provide a solution to shopping centre with Jennens Road. Opened in August 2003,
traffic problems – pockets of land were bought and cleared. In this 18-month project was completed on time and within
1967, construction began on an inner ring road, which included budget. A view of the area during redevelopment is shown in
7?7 km of dual carriageway, two flyovers (Masshouse Circus and Figure 1. Two development sites were created from what once
Holloway Circus), five bridges, four footbridges, four underpasses, formed Masshouse Circus and these were subsequently pur-
one twin tunnel, 52 pedestrian subways, 1067 m of elevated chased by David McLean Developments in 2003. By 2010, some
carriageway, two mains tunnels (one almost 17 m deep), 20 public 35 years after the ring road was hailed a success, Masshouse
conveniences, 45 shops and four car parks.7 It was completed in Circus will have been replaced with new apartments, offices and
1971, and five years later the ring road was hailed as a success areas of retail. The longevity of this new development can only
story having completed its objectives satisfactorily.8 The sup- be assessed when looking back in future years. It could be
porting structure for the Masshouse Circus flyover included argued that a constant cycle of redevelopment is unavoidable
single- and double-span portal frames below the carriageways and for a city like Birmingham. However, by recycling materials,
cantilevered walkways; the 7?6 m height allowed for provision of some of the harmful environmental effects of regeneration can
car parking and pedestrian underpasses below. be reduced. How far this reduction can go is the topic of this
paper.
By reducing congestion and improving public transport net-
works in the city centre, it could be argued that construction of 2. METHODOLOGY
Masshouse Circus provided some sustainability benefits at the
2.1. System boundary
time. Cowles and Piggott8 described Birmingham as a progres-
Figure 2 depicts the sequence of events leading to the
sive city that was getting on with the job of redevelopment:
redevelopment of Masshouse, starting with its original con-
construction of the inner ring road sparked off a decade (1965–
struction in 1967. The system boundary of this analysis is shown
1975) of rebuilding work within many parts of the city centre.
by the dashed box: events prior to and including the demolition
However, the length of time required to implement such huge
are not included. The analysis focuses on the recycling (labelled
projects is often accompanied by changes in society; road
(R) in Figure 2), landfill (L) and primary aggregate (P) materials
systems then become outmoded, which in turn leads to knock-
streams relevant to the construction process; thus neither the
on effects, as with Masshouse Circus. This section of road
embodied carbon dioxide associated with the original con-
quickly became known as the ‘concrete collar’ because it in fact
struction of the Masshouse site nor the emissions associated
restricted expansion of the city centre. This caused the cost of
with demolition are included in the system boundary. Lack of
office space within the inner city centre to rise substantially – to
consideration of these emissions can be justified on the basis
levels that deterred potential occupiers. In addition, the areas
that the construction and later demolition of the obsolete
outside the collar became isolated and impoverished. The
structure is not a variable in the current redevelopment – it will
pedestrian underpasses in the form of tunnels often became
not change from scenario to scenario.
occupied by homeless people or were used for illegal or illicit
activities. Importantly, the appearance of the elevated concrete
roadways began to lose favour with local workers and residents. It should also be noted that only the relevant technical systems

In 1999, Birmingham City Council launched a new regeneration

project, commonly referred to as Eastside. At this time, the
Masshouse Circus roadway ran along the north-west boundary
of the 170 ha development area and the ‘breaking of this
concrete collar’ was seen as the necessary first step in opening
up a new gateway to Eastside. In the early days of strategic
thinking about the future of Eastside, sustainability was neither
a central, nor ancillary, feature.9 However, the costs for
removing the concrete collar and refashioning the inner ring
road were covered through funding gained from the objective 2
programme of the 2000–2006 European Regional
Redevelopment Fund (ERDF).10 This funding required that
certain sustainability objectives be met (e.g. land remediation,
promotion of energy- and water-efficient design, energy
Figure 1. The Masshouse area during demolition (looking west)
consumption strategy, carbon-free development, use of waste

6 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al.
 Figure 3. Haulage inputs for calculating fuel use associated with
the various scenarios

distance of 1?2 km. For primary aggregates, using sources taken

from the British Geological Survey database,11 the average
haulage distance (HP) was found to be 13?2 km, the closest
source being at a distance of 9?3 km.

2.3. Data requirements

Figure 2. System boundary of the study described in this paper Analysis of carbon dioxide emissions based on diesel and
electricity consumption can be divided between aggregate
production/processing and haulage, haulage also being sub-
for aggregate production and haulage were considered; placing divisible between aggregate sources and waste sinks (as
and compaction were considered external constants for all summarised in Figure 3). Data requirements are the emissions
aggregate types and so were not included in the analysis (for relating to landfilling (L) and production of both primary (P) and
further details of these emissions see the WRAP tool2 and recycled (R) aggregates, together with haulage associated with
Stripple5). Also, it should be acknowledged that other factors, each (HL56?1 km, HP513?2 km and HR52?0 km for ex situ
including noise nuisance, the health effects of emissions other recycling, HR50 km for in situ recycling). For the purposes of
than carbon dioxide and impacts on road users, may impact on this analysis, it is assumed that there is no haulage between the
sustainability. These factors were considered to be outside the landfilled waste, primary aggregate and recycled aggregate
scope of this study, as was the use of bound aggregates (e.g. locations.
bitumen and cement bound) even though they can be analysed
using the WRAP tool.
The basic factors for calculating carbon dioxide emissions from
these fuels are provided in Table 1. Data for electricity use are
2.2. Background data on demolition, waste disposal and based on the UK values used in the WRAP tool. It should be
aggregate sourcing noted that UK electricity emissions values may vary signifi-
Based on the total volume of demolition arisings from cantly between electricity providers and can be expected to
Masshouse (20 000 m3), at an average density of 2?4 t/m3, improve in the future as more renewable energy sources are
48 000 t of primarily concrete waste was generated to be either phased in. However, as this study aimed to extend the WRAP
landfilled or recycled. Based on 30 t loads per haulage vehicle, tool methodology, it was considered pertinent to use its
haulage off site would therefore require 1600 vehicle journeys electricity base data to ensure consistency.
(or 2400 journeys for 20 t vehicles). As the flyover was
predominantly reinforced concrete, the recycled aggregate was 2.4. Emissions due to aggregate production
taken as being 100% of the demolition waste.
Three types of aggregate were considered to investigate

A number of materials sources and sinks are available to

Energy Emissions
redevelopment projects in the Masshouse area, the relevant
parameters being as shown in Figure 3. The haulage distance to Fuel type Unit MJ/unit gCO2/MJ
the nearest waste disposal point or landfill (HL) was found to be Electricity kWh 3?6 119?0{
6?1 km. As large procurement projects require competitive Diesel oil l 35?1* 73?0{
procurement and tendering, distances to aggregate supply *Stripple5
sources were based on the average of the nearest three sources. {Aggregain2
Recycled sources identified through use of the Aggregain
supplier directory4 provided an average haulage distance for Table 1. Fuel carbon dioxide emissions factors
recycled aggregate (HR) of 2?0 km, the nearest source being at a

Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al. 137
 differences in carbon dioxide emissions that would result from A further consideration in assessing emissions due to aggregates
decisions involving reduced aggregate grades: low-grade is that, particularly for the case of Masshouse, waste concrete
aggregates for fill purposes; and medium- and high-grade often contains significant amounts of steel in the form of
aggregates (denoted eng 1 and eng 2) suitable for engineering reinforcement. In order to produce crushed concrete it is
uses such as sub-bases. Low-grade aggregates require less necessary to remove this reinforcement, using magnetic
crushing and screening than well-graded high-quality aggre- separation for example. This causes significant difficulties in
gates and so it is important to recognise that decisions relating analysing emissions, as waste concrete can essentially be
to grade also have impacts in terms of emissions. However, as considered to be a raw material for the production of two
has been noted by others,12 information on the embodied energy recycled materials (steel and aggregate) whereas quarry rock
and carbon dioxide emissions associated with different aggre- would only be used to produce aggregates. For the purposes of
gate grades is scarce. Therefore, published data on embodied this study, magnetic separation (which in the USA is associated
energy values for a road aggregate5 were taken as being with around 4% of the recycling cost and yields around
representative of the eng 2 grade as primary and recycled US$100/t of scrap metal15) and haulage of steel for recycling
aggregates both involve the same manufacturing processes, were therefore not considered part of the system boundary (as
emissions being calculated using the data of Table 1. Values shown in Figure 2). However, it should also be noted that the
were then calculated for the fill and eng 1 aggregates based on a difficulty inherent in trying to separate these two recycling
pro rata using data from a study of recycled aggregates that processes and the lack of data on which to assess emissions
considered energy requirements for equipment used in the implications means that there may be hidden emissions benefits
production of comparable grades.13 Aggregate emissions were in recycled aggregate production that cannot be incorporated
calculated in this way because, as mentioned earlier, very into the methodology described here without further research.
limited emissions data relating to different grades are available
and the data available13 are not based on a full life-cycle 2.5. Emissions due to haulage vehicles
analysis (being financial data covering only the most significant Carbon dioxide emissions associated with waste and aggregates
items of plant used). Therefore, while it is acknowledged that haulage were considered solely in terms of those associated with
further research is required in this area, the method used allowed fuel use. Calculation of fuel use per kilometre was based on the
the WRAP tool to be extended, in the absence of exact data, to UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.16
consider how aggregate grade impacts on emissions. The results Although a number of vehicle types can be modelled using this
are summarised in Table 2, excluding haulage to the final-use method, this study considered OGV2, which comprises all goods
destination. vehicles with four axles or more, including articulated vehicles.
Fuel consumption was calculated from16
In considering carbon dioxide emissions associated with
aggregate production, it should be noted that the crushing of 1 L~azbvzcv2 zdv3
concrete to produce recycled aggregate can be expected to
increase its surface area and so increase the potential for carbon where L is fuel consumption (l/km), v is average speed (km/h)
dioxide to be reabsorbed in the process of carbonation. The and a (1?0244315577), b (–0?0302181229), c (0?0004428547)
degree to which this will occur is a complex function of the and d (–0?0000020059) are vehicle-specific parameters, the
remaining carbonation potential after the concrete’s original values in parentheses being those appropriate for OGV2.
service, the size of the aggregate particles produced and the
underground highway environment within which it is buried.14 Due to the significant quantities of waste and aggregates
While carbonation could be considered to offset the carbon involved in the Masshouse project, haulage vehicles were
dioxide associated with recycled aggregate production, com- assumed to carry 30 t for the purposes of this study. This is
plications arise in this regard as these savings could be considered appropriate as haulage fleet operators can be
considered more related to the sustainability of the original expected to favour the greater efficiency of larger vehicles
Masshouse construction. Therefore, its sustainability credentials where possible.17 However, for smaller projects, or where gross
would be increased due to the potential for the concrete used vehicle weight restrictions on available highways prevent the
eventually to approach carbon neutral. Also, because the exact use of larger haulage vehicles, smaller vehicles may be
type of concrete used in Masshouse, the extent to which it was employed and the calculations in this paper will require
carbonated at demolition and the resulting aggregate grading appropriate adjustment.
are unknown, it is difficult to assess the significance of
carbonation. For these reasons, adjustments have not been made From Equation 1 and Table 1, speed–emissions relationships for
to the emissions calculations in this study. haulage vehicles can be plotted. Figure 4 shows the greater

Grade Energy: MJ (diesel/electricity) Baseline, a: gCO2/t Factor, b a6b: gCO2/t

Eng 2 16?99*/21?19* 3762 1?00{ 3762

Eng 1 – 3762 0?64{ 2408
Fill – 3762 0?36{ 1354

*Stripple5
{Based on Gaterell13

Table 2. Derivation of carbon dioxide emissions for recycled and primary aggregate production

8 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al.
 identified. Average traffic flows for goods vehicles, for all three
road types, appear to follow the urban road trend, with only
relatively minor variations associated with reduced numbers of
working days during major holidays.

The day of the week was also cited as a significant variable in

traffic flows. Weekday flows (i.e. Monday to Friday) are shown
on average to be largely constant, with a slight peak on Fridays.
Weekend traffic was found to be considerably less than on
weekdays, particularly for goods vehicles. However, the most
significant variation in traffic flows that impact on aggregate
haulage in urban areas is that due to time of day on weekdays.
There are two distinct peaks in traffic flow associated with rush
hour traffic which, for the purposes of this study, were taken as
being 08:00 to 10:00 and 16:00 to 18:00. Short-distance waste
and aggregate haulage was assumed to occur mostly between
08:00 and 18:00. Taking average peak and off-peak speeds from
Figure 4. The effect of road speed on haulage carbon the bulletin18 can therefore provide average journey speeds for
dioxide emissions haulage vehicles, based on 4 hours’ travel in peak conditions
and 6 hours in off-peak conditions. Applying this approach to
emissions efficiency achievable at an optimum speed of various English urban areas for which data were available18
approximately 50 km/h (31 mph). However, in congested urban resulted in Figure 5, which shows significant geographical
environments, goods vehicles can be limited to lower speeds, or variation in average speed; the majority of urban areas,
including the West Midlands (which includes Birmingham), are
even stop–start conditions, resulting in much reduced fuel
unable to support average speeds close to the optimum 50 km/h.
efficiency. For instance, at 10 km/h (6 mph) the fuel use is
approximately twice that for the optimum driving speed. In this
In order to include variations in average haulage vehicle road
circumstance, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with
speeds, three journey speed classes were considered for this
haulage can also be expected to approximately double, solely
study (Table 3)
due to the effects of congestion. It is clearly evident that road
speed is an important aspect of assessing sustainability where
(a) the ‘optimum’ speed of 50 km/h
haulage is required.
(b) based on 10 h day ‘average’ speeds for the West Midlands
(but excluding data for the 2006 reporting due to
2.6. Road speeds and congestion in urban areas significantly reduced average speeds during that period
Due to the city centre location of the Masshouse redevelopment, associated with major improvement works on the M5 and
consideration of variations in traffic speed was achieved M6 motorways)
through use of the 2006 UK Transport Statistics Bulletin,18 (c) ‘congested’ class, developed using the same rationale as for
which tracks road usage for three road types (rural, urban and average speeds; the data used were those only for 2006 to
motorways) as a function of time of day for every day in the give an indication of speeds that may apply during periods
period 2000–2006 inclusive. This allowed estimation of the of greater-than-average congestion.
impact of road speed and congestion on fuel use and, therefore,
carbon dioxide emissions. While traffic on motorways and rural 2.7. Potential scenarios for redevelopment at Masshouse
roads is shown to exhibit significant seasonal trends centred Recycling of wastes is, of course, not entirely a recent
around a summer peak, urban road traffic on average shows less development. Even before the landfill tax and aggregates levy
variation.18 Only minor reductions in average daily traffic flows (introduced in the UK in 1996 and 2002 respectively), up to two-
around Christmas and mid-summer holiday periods were thirds of UK construction/demolition wastes were known to be

80
Ten-hour speed: km/h

58.1
60
48.1 47.2 48.1
44.7
38.1 39.7 . 36.8
40 35.2 34.7 31.7 34.8 34.2 36 1 32.5 30.9
31.4 29.0

20

0
-L

ide

ole

uth
ide

th
ds

am
ol
r

r
d

ol
ll
ste

ste

ov

pto
sid

Hu
for

iel

e-U

u
ist

po
an

es

Po
ys

mo
mo
gh

/H
eff
he

ce
rad

ne

Br

am

ck
idl

rse

stl

Te

th/
ttin

ton

rts
Ply
Sh

i
nc

Ty

Bla
Le
tM

s/B

uth
ca

ou
Me

Po
No
Ma

igh
ew
s

So
ed

em
We

Br
ter

/N
Le

urn
ke
ea

Bo
Sto
Gr

Figure 5. Ten-hour average speeds in various UK urban areas 2000–2006 (based on DfT data18)

Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al. 139
 Journey class This option was chosen for the Masshouse redevelopment
and could have been expected to reduce carbon dioxide
Optimum Average Congested emissions from aggregate production while allowing
Average speed: km/h 50?0 40?0 34?2 absolute minimisation of haulage vehicle use. For sites other
Fuel use: l/km 0?3699 0?3959 0?4287 than Masshouse, this scenario allows investigation of
Emissions: gCO2/km 947?8 1014?4 1098?5 carbon dioxide emissions improvements associated with the
Emissions for 30 t load: 31?59 33?81 36?62 use of recycled aggregates and minimised haulage require-
gCO2/t per km
ments.
Table 3. Summary of the three haulage journey speed (d) Scenario 4: Ex situ recycling for engineering applications
classes adopted excluding back-haulage. This option represents a means of
producing recycled aggregate where site constraints prevent
in situ recycling. As this option does not include back-
recycled, although only 4% was used for recycled aggregate haulage, it is assumed that the imported aggregate is not
production, the remainder being split equally between low- derived from the exported waste, but that the facility
grade use close to site and for landfill engineering.19 Use of low- receiving the concrete waste for recycling and the source of
grade waste close to its source may indicate that the cost recycled aggregates are the same. Also, it is assumed that
advantages of limiting waste haulage were equally as effective each haulage vehicle travels a two-way route between the
as financial drivers a decade ago as they are at present. The site and recycling facility, carrying waste or aggregates on
limited demand for recycled aggregates at that time can be one leg and nothing on the other leg due to there being no
considered, at least partly, to have originated in the need for space available for stockpiling of imported aggregates until
caution in using materials with potentially unknown prove- demolition rubble is removed.
nance. In 1995, Sherwood19 explained there was a perceived (e) Scenario 5: Ex situ recycling for engineering applications
need to ‘play safe’ and, referring to primary aggregates, stated including back-haulage. This option was chosen for analysis
‘… even if such materials do cost more; criticism of needless because it allows quantification of the potential advantages
expenditure is muted compared with the criticism that occurs if of optimised phasing of the exportation of concrete waste
a costly failure should arise through the use of a material that and importation of resultant high-grade aggregates.
subsequently proves to be unsuitable’. However, as for scenario 4, there is no requirement that the
imported aggregate be derived from the exported waste. It is
For these reasons, potential scenarios for analysis are mostly assumed only that each haulage vehicle travels a two-way
limited to those associated with materials sources and sinks and route carrying waste on one leg and aggregate on the other.
attempts to minimise haulage (such as through recycling in situ
where space and materials quantity permits). Therefore, as well The relevant landfill tonnages, primary and recycled materials
as the actual scenario used in the redevelopment of Masshouse, requirements and haulage distances (calculated based on the
four alternative scenarios were considered for comparison.
These scenarios are intended to reflect real decisions that could Demolition and
have been made during implementation of the project (had the construction
ERDF guidelines not been in place) and, while other scenarios Scenario 1:
Dispose to
could have been considered, those selected were chosen to landfill and
reflect a wide range of potential carbon dioxide emissions. The import primary

rationale behind the decision-making system the scenarios No

reflect is illustrated in Figure 6. Use the Yes Can a use be
'traditional' found on site?
approach?
(a) Scenario 1: Dispose to landfill and import primary No Yes
aggregate. The option of disposing of concrete waste to
Is the quality of Scenario 2:
landfill and importing primary aggregates for engineering recycled Find a use within
construction was chosen for analysis as a non-recycling aggregate of the site and
significant Yes
import primary
option. While the waste, being inert, would not be expected concern?
to produce significant carbon dioxide equivalence in landfill No
gas emissions, it would require haulage and aggregate No
Is there room on
import with associated emissions. site to allow in
situ recycling?
(b) Scenario 2: In situ recycling for fill applications. The need to
Yes
improve sustainability through durable construction is as
important today as it was over a decade ago.19 It was Scenario 3: Ex situ recycle
therefore considered appropriate to quantify the carbon In situ recycle for for a valid Can import and
a valid engineering export be carried
dioxide emissions that could result from the use of primary engineering application on out together?
application on site site
aggregates, together with in situ use of concrete waste as a
No Yes
low-grade fill aggregate, for example in landscaping
features. This scenario therefore investigates the impact of
considering recycled aggregates as materials of unknown, or Scenario 4: Scenario 5:
Don't back-haul Back-haul
variable, provenance that should be avoided for high-grade
engineering use. Figure 6. The decision-making system behind the five
potential scenarios
(c) Scenario 3: In situ recycling for engineering applications.

0 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al.
 Landfill and aggregate requirements: kt

Landfill Primary Recycled Total

Scenario 1 48 48* 0 96
Scenario 2 0 48* 48{ 96
Scenario 3 0 0 48* 48
Scenario 4 0 0 48* 48
Scenario 5 0 0 48* 48
Haulage distances: km
Landfill Primary Recycled Total
Scenario 1 19 520 42 240 0 61 760
Scenario 2 0 42 240 0 42 240
Scenario 3 0 0 0 0
Scenario 4 0 0 6 400 6 400
Scenario 5 0 0 3 200 3 200

*Engineering-grade aggregate
{Fill-grade aggregate

Table 4. Summary of landfill quantities, aggregate requirements and haulage distance data for the five considered scenarios

data of Sections 2.2 and 2.3) for each of the above Masshouse distance, it can be seen that ex situ recycling is still more
scenarios are summarised in Table 4. sustainable, in carbon dioxide terms, than primary aggregate
use, particularly if back-haulage is undertaken.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on Table 4, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with For the materials quantities associated with Masshouse, use of
the production and haulage of aggregates, using eng 1 and eng 2 30 t vehicles would be expected as a minimum. However, from a
for non-fill applications, are shown in Table 5; it is apparent transport management perspective, it cannot be guaranteed that
that greater emissions are related to production, even if lower such vehicles will always be available in sufficient numbers.
grade eng 1 aggregate is used. Table 5 also indicates that use of Therefore, total emissions resulting from each haulage vehicle
primary aggregates at the Masshouse site involves significantly carrying a reduced load of 20 t (as a simple example based on
greater haulage in comparison to the scenarios in which haulage distances and emissions increasing by 50%) are also
recycled aggregates are used. Furthermore, there is an increase shown in Figure 7; there is an increase in overall emissions due
in haulage emissions due to the effects of congestion. to the additional haulage distances, which is proportional to the
reliance of each scenario on road transport. Figure 7 also shows
The total carbon dioxide emissions for each scenario were the results of using the WRAP tool (also included in Table 6) in
calculated (Table 6); the data for average road conditions and an unmodified form to calculate carbon dioxide emissions for
eng 2 aggregate are illustrated in Figure 7. It is evident from each scenario. It can be seen that under average road conditions
these data that the option chosen for Masshouse (i.e. scenario 3) the only significant difference between the WRAP tool data and
provided the minimum level of carbon dioxide emissions, being data from the modified version used in this study occurs for
approximately three-quarters of the total emissions of scenario scenario 2. This is because the unmodified WRAP tool uses a
1. However, the two ex situ recycling options (scenarios 4 and 5) single value for all aggregate production emissions, whereas this
would have involved emissions only slightly greater than the study ascribes fewer emissions to aggregates produced for low-
chosen option of in situ recycling. As can be seen from Figure 6, grade fill applications.
the rationale behind these two scenarios is based on available
site space for establishment of recycling plant and stockpiling of It is also evident from Table 6 that both primary aggregate
raw and recycled materials. Therefore, for other Birmingham scenarios involve significantly greater reliance on haulage,
city centre sites where space is more limited than it was at which is of particular concern in a congested city centre
Masshouse and recycling facilities are available within a short environment (total haulage distances for each scenario are

Carbon dioxide emissions: t

Aggregate production Haulage of wastes and aggregates

Eng 1 Eng 2 Optimum Average Congested

Scenario 1 115?6 180?6 58?5 62?6 67?8

Scenario 2 180?6 245?6 40?0 42?8 46?4
Scenario 3 115?6 180?6 0?0 0?0 0?0
Scenario 4 115?6 180?6 6?1 6?5 7?1
Scenario 5 115?6 180?6 3?0 3?2 3?5

Table 5. Summary of carbon dioxide emissions for production and haulage of aggregates

Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al. 141
 Total carbon dioxide emissions: t

Optimum Average Congested Wrap tool

Scenario 1 239?1 (174?1) 243?2 (178?2) 248?4 (183?4) 237?4

Scenario 2 285?6 (220?6) 288?4 (223?4) 292?0 (227?0) 395?7
Scenario 3 180?6 (115?6) 180?6 (115?6) 180?6 (115?6) 177?3
Scenario 4 186?7 (121?7) 187?1 (122?1) 187?7 (122?7) 183?5
Scenario 5 183?6 (118?6) 183?8 (118?8) 184?1 (119?1) 180?4
Proportion of emissions associated with haulage: %
Optimum Average Congested Wrap tool
Scenario 1 24?5 (33?6) 25?7 (35?1) 27?3 (37?0) 25?3
Scenario 2 14?0 (18?1) 14?8 (19?2) 15?9 (20?4) 10?4
Scenario 3 0?0 (0?0) 0?0 (0?0) 0?0 (0?0) 0?0
Scenario 4 3?3 (5?0) 3?5 (5?3) 3?8 (5?8) 3?4
Scenario 5 1?6 (2?5) 1?7 (2?7) 1?9 (2?9) 1?7

Table 6. Summary of carbon dioxide emissions for each scenario for different road conditions, assuming use of eng 2 aggregates
(figures for eng 1 use in parentheses)

illustrated in Figure 8). However, it should be noted that this is important decision requiring careful consideration on the part of
due to the closer proximity of recycling facilities in comparison decision makers and in itself has the potential to degrade
to quarries. Therefore, this outcome can be considered sustainability if reduced grade adversely affects the lifetime of
geographically variant – redevelopment sites outside the construction. This is largely outside the scope of this paper,
Birmingham city centre may be closer to quarries and further but it can be inferred that specifying a higher grade of aggregate
from recycling facilities. As a simple example, if the total than is truly required for the desired performance, whether
haulage distances associated with scenarios 1 and 4 were primary or recycled, can have a significant impact on carbon
swapped, the total carbon dioxide emissions would be, dioxide emissions, even if the volume of aggregate used has to
respectively, 186?7 and 239?1 t, assuming optimum road be increased slightly in compensation for differences in the
conditions and eng 2 aggregate grade. Therefore, under such material grade.
circumstances, carbon dioxide emissions for the primary
aggregate scenario would be less than for the recycled aggregate Finally, it is apparent that the effects of congestion on haulage
scenario, which illustrates that haulage requirements can have a vehicle speeds impact carbon dioxide emissions. This is
significant impact on the relative sustainability of recycled particularly the case for scenarios where haulage distances are
aggregates. longer, in this case those based on primary aggregates. For
example, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions between
The importance of back-haulage as a mitigation of environ- optimum and congested conditions for scenario 1 is greater than
mental impacts can be illustrated for scenario 1 as, even though the total haulage emissions for scenarios 4 and 5. Therefore, the
it would still be less sustainable than the other scenarios, back- planning of haulage to optimise speeds can be considered an
haulage on 100% of journeys could allow a reduction in important aspect of ensuring the sustainability of aggregate
emissions of approximately 18?5 t if the most efficient haulage sourcing. This is illustrated in Figure 10, which shows, for
strategy were achieved. For compatibility with Figure 7, scenarios 1 and 4, emissions for optimum, average and
Figure 8 also illustrates the increased haulage distances for each congested journey classes. The magnitude of variations in
scenario due to each vehicle carrying a reduced load of 20 t. Of emissions due to road speed can be seen to be of greater
further note is the large decrease in emissions shown in Tables 5 significance for longer total haulage distances.
and 6 associated with use of eng 1 aggregates in place of eng 2;
this is further illustrated in Figure 9. Aggregate quality is an 4. CONCLUSIONS
There is great complexity inherent in assessing carbon dioxide
450
100 000
400
90 000
Total CO2 emissions: t

350
80 000
300
Total haulage: km

70 000
250 60 000
200 50 000
150 40 000
100 30 000
50 20 000

0 10 000
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 0
30 t vehicle 20 t vehicle Wrap tool (32 t vehicle) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5
30 t vehicle 20 t vehicle
Figure 7. Total carbon dioxide emissions under average
road conditions Figure 8. Total haulage distances for each scenario

2 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al.
 300 recycled aggregate produced substantially less carbon
dioxide emissions than primary aggregate use. However,
Production CO2 emissions: t

250
under other circumstances, it may potentially cause greater
200 carbon dioxide emissions.
(g) Significant differences were noted in carbon dioxide
150
emissions between eng 1 and eng 2 aggregates due to
100 different production energy requirements.
(h) The relationship between quality, durability and emissions
50 associated with aggregate production requires further
0
research and relevant system boundaries should be further
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 defined.
Eng 1 Eng 2

Figure 9. Carbon dioxide emissions from aggregate production ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial and other support
from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
emissions associated with aggregate use in redevelopment Council (EPSRC) under grant reference EP/E021603/1.
projects and the WRAP tool provides a very valuable first step in
such estimations. However, it can be concluded that parameters REFERENCES
not hitherto incorporated into the WRAP tool, such as highway 1. HUNT D. V. L. and ROGERS C. D. F. Barriers to sustainable
congestion and aggregate grade, are an important part of an infrastructure in urban regeneration. Proceedings of the
emissions assessment and should not be ignored. The following, Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability,
more detailed, conclusions can be drawn from this study. 2005, 158, No. 2, 67–81.
2. AGGREGAIN. CO2 Emissions Estimator Tool, 2007. See www.
(a) The sustainable use of aggregates (as measured using the aggregain.org.uk/sustainability/try_a_sustainability_tool/
proxy of reduced carbon dioxide emissions) can be co2_emissions.html for further details. Accessed 04/05/
improved through consideration of geographical location, 2008.
aggregate grade, haulage management, vehicle selection, 3. See www.wrap.org.uk
highway congestion and distances. 4. See www.aggregain.org.uk
(b) The ‘traditional’ option of disposing of waste to landfill and 5. STRIPPLE H. Life Cycle Assessment of Roads: A Pilot Study for
importing primary aggregate (scenario 1) was shown to Inventory Analysis. IVL Swedish Environmental Research
involve carbon dioxide emissions approximately one-third Institute, Stockholm, 2001.
greater than the chosen Masshouse option (in situ recy- 6. GVA GRIMLEY. Masshouse Design Statement. GVA Grimley,
cling). Birmingham, 2002.
(c) Avoidance of landfilling (scenario 2) significantly increased 7. COWLES B. R. and PIGGOTT S. G. Birmingham Inner Ring Road.
carbon dioxide production relative to scenario 1 due to the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1974, 56,
need for crushing of waste to be used as fill material and the Part 1, 513–535.
relative proximity of landfill facilities. 8. COWLES B. R. and PIGGOTT S. G. Birmingham Inner Ring Road:
(d) The in situ recycling option chosen for Masshouse (scenario discussion. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
3) was the lowest emissions option, but cannot be held up as 1975, 58, Part 1, 453–456.
a model for all redevelopments as not all sites will have 9. PORTER L. J. and HUNT D. V. L. Birmingham’s Eastside story:
sufficient ground area available to stockpile and process making steps towards sustainability? Local Environment,
demolition waste and store the resulting aggregate. 2005, 10, No. 5, 525–542.
(e) Scenarios 4 and 5 were characterised by only marginally 10. EUROPEAN REGIONAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND
higher emissions than the chosen Masshouse option, 11. CAMERON D. G., BARTLETT E. L., HIGHLEY D. E., LOTT G. K. and
particularly due to the close proximity of a number of HILL A. J. Directory of Mines and Quarries, 7th edn. British
recycling facilities. Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, 2005.
(f) In the Birmingham case considered in this paper, use of 12. FLOWER D. J. M. and SANJAYAN J. G. Green house gas
emissions due to concrete manufacture. International
80 Journal of Life Cycle Analysis, 2007, 12, No. 5, 282–288.
70 13. GATERELL M. Business Data for Recycling: Business Planning
Haulage CO2 emissions: t

Guidance for Aggregates Recycling Companies. CIRIA,

60
London, 2005, Report C647.
50
14. ENGELSEN C. J., SÆTHER D. H., MEHUS J. and PADE C. CO2
40 Uptake During the Concrete Life Cycle: Carbon Dioxide
30 Uptake in Demolished and Crushed Concrete. Nordic
20 Innovation Centre, Oslo, 2005.
10
15. TAM V. W. Y. Economic comparison of concrete recycling: a
case study approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
0
2008, 52, No. 5, 821–828.
Optimum Average Congested
16. HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Air
Scenario 1 Scenario 4
Quality. Highways Agency, London, 2007, HA 207/07,
Figure 10. Effect of journey class on haulage emissions
volume ii, section 3, part 1, B/1–31.

Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al. 143
 17. MCKINNON A. C. The economic and environmental benefits of speeds and congestion. DfT, London, 2007, Transport
increasing maximum truck weight: the British statistics bulletin SB(07)20.
experience. Transportation Research Part D, 2005, 10, No. 1, 19. SHERWOOD P. T. Alternative Materials in Road
77–95. Construction: A Guide to the Use of Waste, Recycled
18. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT. Road statistics 2006: traffic, Materials and By-products. Thomas Telford, London, 1995.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

4 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES3 Estimating carbon dioxide emissions for aggregate use Thomas et al.
View publication stats