The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1471-4175.htm

Sustainable
Sustainable construction construction
Lessons learned from life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)
Muhammad Waseem Khan and Yousaf Ali 191
Department of Management Sciences, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and
Technology, Topi, Pakistan Received 6 May 2019
Revised 23 August 2019
7 November 2019
Accepted 25 November 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The change in climate and depletion of natural resources because of the harmful emissions from
different materials becomes a main issue for the globe. Some of the developed and developing countries have
focused on this issue and performed research to provide a solution. The purpose of this study is to identify the
best types of concrete based on its impact on the environment and economy.
Design/methodology/approach – The life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of six concrete
mixtures that include construction and demolition wastes (CDW), marble sludge, rice husk and bagasse ash
as a partial replacement of cement, are performed. These types of concrete are compared with each other and
with ordinary concrete to select the best possible concrete type for a developing country, like Pakistan.
Findings – The results show that, although for an agricultural country like Pakistan, the agriculture wastes
such as rice husk and bagasse ash are preferable to be used, if the emissions of CO2 and CO from rice husk and
NOx and SO2 from bagasse ash are properly controlled. However, based on the results, it is recommended to
use the CDW in concrete because of the small amount of air emissions and affordable prices.
Originality/value – Through this study, a path has been provided to construction companies and relative
government organizations of Pakistan, which leads to sustainable practices in the construction industry.
Moreover, the base is provided for future researchers who want to work in this area, as for Pakistan, there is
no database available that helps to identify the impact of different concrete on the environment.
Keywords Life cycle assessment, Life cycle cost analysis, Construction and demolition wastes,
Marble sludge, Rice husk, Bagasse ash, Ordinary concrete, Construction management,
Sustainability and green buildings, Whole life cycle, Construction engineering management,
Cost modelling, Life cycle analysis
Paper type Research paper

Abbreviations Words
LCA = Life cycle assessment;
LCCA = Life cycle cost analysis;
LCIA = Life cycle impact analysis;
OC = Ordinary concrete;
CDW = Construction and demolition wastes;
CM = Concrete mixture;
CO2 = Carbon dioxide;
CO = Carbon monoxide;
SO2 = Sulphur dioxide; and
NOx = Nitrogen oxides.
Construction Innovation
1. Introduction Vol. 20 No. 2, 2020
pp. 191-207
Sustainability is an overarching concept that influences and can be affected by every issue © Emerald Publishing Limited
1471-4175
of infrastructure improvement (Sev, 2008). Sustainable construction is considered very DOI 10.1108/CI-05-2019-0040
CI important for eliminating sustainability-related problems around the globe. In most of the
20,2 developed and developing countries, concrete is used as a main part of the construction.
Concrete is a widely used material for construction purposes in the world. The demand for
concrete is rapidly increased with the increase in population. Concrete is considered one of
the main users of raw materials (Rodriquez et al., 2015). To meet the demand for building
construction, a significant amount of construction materials is required such as bricks,
192 cement, aggregate, steel, wood and sand (Madurwar et al., 2012). The excessive use of these
materials especially cement causes a reduction in the resources along with harmful effects
on the environment, health and economy of the world. Moreover, it affects the air, water and
land because of the carbon (COx) and nitrogen (NOx) emissions (Surahman et al., 2015). In
most of the developed countries, the wastes generated from the manufacturing industries
are rubber, plastic, silica fumes, polystyrene form, coal combustion residues, bauxite, red
mud, iron, copper, zinc, etc (Pappu et al., 2007). Similarly, the wastes produced in large
quantities from agriculture sources are jute fiber, fly ash, rice husk ash, bagasse ash,
metakaolin, coconut husk, cotton stalk, maize husk, paddy straw, etc (Sampathrajan et al.,
1992). The reuse of these wastes either the agriculture or industrial wastes in concrete as a
sustainable material helps in providing the solution to environmental health and economic
problems. With the rapid increase in population, the production of agricultural and
industrial wastes also increases (Pappu et al., 2007).
According to the World Bank, the rates of waste generation is increasing day by day. In
2012, about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year were produced in different cities of the
world, lead to a footprint of 1.2 kg/person/day. With the rapid growth of the population, the
rate of municipal waste generation is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tons by 2025. About
70 million tons of waste is annually generated in south Asia with per capita values of 0.12-
5.1 kg/person/day (Anon, 2018).
Every year Pakistan produces about 30 million tons of solid waste. Wastes production is
further increased annually by more than 2 per cent. As a developing country, Pakistan does
not possess a proper waste management infrastructure, which is creating serious
environmental problems. The municipal committees usually burn, dump and buries these
wastes on vacant lots, which are dangerous for humans. The government of Pakistan
estimates that 71,000 tons of solid waste is generated in line with day, typically from
fundamental metropolitan areas. All major cities face tremendous demanding situations on
the way to manage urban waste (Anon, 2017). According to the World Bank, the total
amount of solid wastes produced by Pakistan in 2015 will be about 109,244 tons/day
(Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012).
In some of the developed countries, the agricultural and industrial wastes are reused for
waste-create bricks and concrete. On the other hand, in some of the developing countries like
Pakistan, the waste created concrete is not used in the construction of commercial and
government buildings. Further research is carried out by different researchers especially
civil engineers to improve the chemical and mechanical properties of the concrete, which
helps in achieving the goal of sustainable construction. In Pakistan, it is needed to reuse
either the agricultural or industrial wastes to improve the chemical and mechanical
properties of concrete, as well as to reduce the harmful effects of concrete on the human
health, environment and economy.
The aim of this research paper is to identify and analyze the gases that emit from the
concrete and affect the environment, human health and economy. Similarly, this research
paper also aims to analyze the strength and water absorption capabilities of the different
types of concrete containing cement and the agricultural and industrial wastes as a partial
replacement of cement. For this purpose, the life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) of different types of concrete are performed to prioritize the best mixtures Sustainable
of concrete that will help in reducing the harmful effects of wastes and concrete containing a construction
significant amount of cement on human health, environment and economy of Pakistan. LCA
is used to identify and determine the amount of harmful gases emitted, as well as the
amount of water absorbed by different types of concrete. Moreover, LCCA is used to identify
and determine the variable cost of different types of concrete based on the costs of their
ingredients i.e. cement, sand, water, etc.
The construction companies, as well as the relevant government organizations, are not 193
focusing on sustainable practices in the construction industry of Pakistan. Through this
study, we are trying to show the path to construction companies and relative government
organizations of Pakistan, which leads to sustainable practices in the construction industry.
This will help in reducing the harmful impact of concrete on the environment, society,
human health and economy. Moreover, unlike other countries such as Germany, UK and so
on in Pakistan, there is no database that helps to identify the impact of different emissions
on the environment. This study has provided a small base for other researchers who want to
work in this field in Pakistan. Besides the importance of this research, there are some
limitations. The data collected from the professionals are less in number because it is very
difficult for the outsiders to get access to the construction companies or the relevant
government organizations. Moreover, the cost of emissions can also be calculated and can
also be accommodated in LCCA. Furthermore, the methodologies used in this study can be
replaced by other advanced methodologies that are available for the LCA and cost analysis.
This study can also be extended to other industries such as cement, brick kilns and other
industries that are relevant to the construction.
This introduction is followed by the literature review of sustainable construction and
concrete mixtures, the methodology used for LCA and LCCA of the concrete mixtures,
results, discussion and conclusion.

2. Literature review
In both, the developing and developed countries, the researchers are emphasizing
sustainable development to control the rapid depletion of water and other natural resources.
According to Brundtland (1987), the principle of sustainability is based on the belief that
society should use the available resources in such a way so that future generations can meet
their needs without any compromising. Sustainability involves environmental
responsibility; social awareness; and economic profitability (Pitt et al., 2008). In most of the
developing countries, the researchers are making sure to use the concept of sustainability in
every phase of life to improve the lifestyle of the humans, as well as to conserve the natural
resources. In the USA, Europe and some of the Asian countries, it is emphasized to focus on
sustainable construction. Throughout the globe, the natural resources of the materials that
are used in the construction industry have been depleted rapidly. These natural resources
include water, sand, clay, cement, etc. The level of the use of resources is unstable and if it is
continued with the current flow, it would be difficult to repair such damage to the natural
resources. Ordinary concrete has a very harmful impact on the environment. It disturbs the
landscape and the ecosystem, affect human health because of the emissions from concrete
inside or outside the buildings and contaminate the soil, water and air (Blakendaal et al.,
2014). On the other hand, green concrete overcomes most of the aforementioned problems.
The development of green concrete is very easy in both the developed and developing
countries because of the presence of agricultural and industrial wastes. The use of wastes in
concrete helps in improving sustainability and its mechanical properties and durability
performance (Mullar et al., 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to use some other technologies,
CI materials and techniques such as sustainable construction instead of those that are currently
20,2 in use so that to reduce the damaging effects on the environment (Sev, 2008). According to
Dickie and Howard (2000), sustainable construction is “[. . .] the contribution of construction
to sustainable development.” In the UK, all three areas of sustainability are considered by
the construction industry. It is the necessity to implement the same in developing countries
like Pakistan (Pitt et al., 2008). The most common materials that are used in the construction
194 are concrete, steel, water, bricks, etc. For about a decade, in the USA, Europe and some
countries in Asia are using the wastes materials in bricks and concrete as a partial
replacement of cement, which absorbs a huge amount of water. In this paper, five different
wastes are used in concrete as a partial replacement of cement. These wastes include
construction and demolition wastes (CDW) 10 per cent, marble sludge 10 per cent, rice husk
20 per cent, rice husk 30 per cent and sugarcane bagasse ash 20 per cent. CDW is materials
or debris that is produced as a result of the construction and demolition of buildings. It
usually contains asphalt, gypsum, metals, plastic, rubber, soil or wood. CDW affects the
quality of concrete because of its chemical composition (Silva et al., 2014). Marble sludge
powder is produced as a result of sawing, cutting and polishing of marble stones. These
stones are usually used for ornamental purposes (Mashaly et al., 2016). It can be used in
concrete because it can help in reducing the voids in concrete. Moreover, marble sludge
helps in improving the pozzolanic reaction and concrete durability (Hameed and Sekar,
2009). Marble sludge contains calcium oxides, magnesium oxide, silica dioxide, sodium
oxide, potassium oxide, phosphorus oxides, etc. Rice husk is an agricultural waste that is
produced during the rice milling process (de Sensale, 2006). Rice husk can be converted into
ash by burning at a temperature from 300°C to 450°C. Rice husk usually contain 87.32 per
cent silicon dioxide, 3.14 per cent potassium oxide and traces of sodium, magnesium,
calcium, aluminum oxides, etc (Habeeb and Fayyadh, 2009). Sugarcane bagasse ash is a
fibrous solid waste that is generated during the manufacturing of sugar. It contains about 50
per cent cellulose, 25 per cent hemicellulose and 25 per cent lignin. It is used as a pozzolanic
material in concrete (James and Pandian, 2017).
Different researchers have also worked on using alternative waste materials instead of
concrete and observed their different properties using different techniques. According to
Finnveden et al. (2009), LCA is a tool that is used to analyze the impact on the environment
and resources throughout the life cycle of a product. LCA assesses the cradle to grave
process for any product i.e. from raw materials through production to waste management.
LCA emerged in a time period from the 1960s to 1970s. In the beginning, the results of LCA
were not clearly interpretable. The interpretability of the results of LCA was increased when
the methods for assessment of environmental impacts in LCA were published in the early
1990s (Hauschild and Huijbregts, 2015). In one study, the LCA approach is used to compare
the advantages, as well as dangerous effects of ordinary concrete (OC) and other mixtures of
materials i.e. CDW, incineration ashes, marble sludge and blast furnace waste that is used in
place of OC. For this, the purpose the SimaPro 8 software was used. It is found that the
recycled aggregates especially the blast furnace wastes had the least negative impact on the
environment (Colanego et al., 2018). According to Raut et al. (2011), the production of
industrial and agricultural solid wastes has a very dangerous impact on the environment.
The use of these wastes in creating the bricks would help in maintaining sustainable
construction. Different physicomechanical and thermal properties of the bricks after adding
wastes to the bricks were analyzed in the research. Caldas et al. (2016) have provided the
literature review of LCA applied to green concretes that contain wastes such as steel slag,
rice husk ash, fly ash, among others. Different forms of LCA such as life cycle energy
assessment and life cycle CO2 emission assessment were presented in the study to evaluate
the energy input CO2 emissions for different stages of LCA. The findings of this research Sustainable
showed that most of the concrete that contains wastes or recycled materials has more construction
benefits in the concrete industry (Caldas et al., 2016). In a research performed by Gursel et al.
(2016), the performance of ternary and quaternary rice husk ash blend concrete was
analyzed in terms of mechanical properties, global warming potential, durability and air
pollutants. For the purpose of analyzing the environmental impacts of ordinary concrete and
green concrete (that contain cement, aggregates, admixtures, and rice husk ash, as well as
fuel and water), the LCA was used using Microsoft Excel. In another study performed by 195
Turk et al. (2015), the impact of different concrete mixtures that contain foundry sand, steel
slag and fly ash on the environment was analyzed using a cradle to gate LCA methodology.
The analysis includes only the production stage of concrete and the data was obtained from
different construction experts. The results of the study showed that sustainable concrete is
more suitable to be used as compared to ordinary concrete. According to Singh and Kumar
(2014), CDW can be used as an alternative to conventional concrete and help in preserving
the raw materials and reduce energy consumption and overall cost. According to Chik et al.
(2011), the compressive strength of concrete containing rice husk increases with the increase
in curing time. Similarly, the water absorption property of the concrete containing rice husk
also increases with the increase in the amount of rice husk. In a study by Joy et al. (2017), the
compressive strength, flexural strength and water absorption of concrete containing
bagasse ash were found. It was concluded from the study that the replacement of cement by
20 per cent of bagasse ash helps in increasing the compressive strength and decreasing
water absorption.
On the other hand, LCCA is a method used to identify and calculate the total cost of the
product’s or service’s life cycle. LCCA is preferred to be performed at the beginning of the
project, product or service so that to clearly identify their effects on the economy
(Fuller, 2006). LCCA is used in a large number of studies for analyzing the costs of different
projects, products or services. In one study performed by Val and Stewart (2003), LCCA was
applied to analyze the cost of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments. In
another study performed by Marszal and Heiselberg (2011), LCCA was used to analyze the
costs of a multi-story building in Denmark.
The number of research studies regarding LCA and green concrete performed in
different countries till 2016 is given in Table I. The table shows that maximum research
studies are performed in Australia followed by France, the USA, etc. In a developing country
like Pakistan, it is necessary to perform such kind of research, which is the main objective of
this research paper.

3. Methodology
There are different methodologies that are used in different studies. In this research, LCA
and LCCA are used. Along with the OC, five concrete mixtures are selected for this study to
perform LCA and LCCA methodologies. The concrete mixtures along with the amount of
ingredients are presented in Table I. The data regarding the ingredients of concretes are
collected by interviewing and discussion with 20 construction and materials experts from
different construction companies in Pakistan. Those are the experts who have done
experiments on all types of concrete (with the same amount of ingredients) that we have
selected for this study. These experiments were conducted in the labs of construction
companies. These experts are civil, chemical and material engineers who belong to different
organizations. The names of the companies and experts belong to those companies are kept
confidential based on their requests. The respondents include 61 per cent civil engineers, 28
per cent of material engineers and 11 per cent chemical engineers.
CI No. of research studies Countries
20,2
5 USA
1 UK
2 Sweden
1 Spain
1 South Korea
196 3 Slovenia
1 Portugal
1 Malaysia
1 Japan
1 Italy
Table I. 2 Greece
6 France
Number of research 1 Austria
publications in 10 Australia
different countries of
the world until 2016 Source: Caldas et al. (2016)

3.1 Life cycle assessment

LCA is an approach that is used to evaluate the whole life of the product, service, process
and system. This approach can be applied to the processing of raw
materials, manufacturing, transportation and distribution, use, reuse, maintenance and
recycling. This approach is based on the ISO 14040 standard and is used to assess the
impact of materials and components of buildings on the environment (Khasreen et al., 2009).
In this study, a simple LCA method having four steps is used for analyzing the impact of
materials on the environment. This includes special steps such as carbon and water
footprints. The method used in this study was based on ISO14040/44 (LCA standard) and
publicly available specification (PAS) 2050 (carbon footprint standard). The impact
assessment of the LCA is based on endpoint results. Four different phases of LCA are shown
in Figure 1.
3.1.1 Goal and scope definition. Step 1 in LCA is to define the objective and scope of the
study. In this step, the goals, limitations, constraints and many other things such as the
functional units are formed. The definition of the goal and scope helps in directing the study
to a particular objective. Moreover, in this step, the products, services or system’s
characteristics are discussed.
3.1.2 Inventory analysis. In Step 2, all the inputs and outputs of the life cycle are
considered. Extensive data is collected from different sources. Unavailability of the data
may result in disturbing the direction toward the goal and scope of the study. According to
ISO standard, the levels of inventory phase include data collection, data analysis, data
validation, relating the data to a functional unit, allocate the processes when dealing with
systems that involve multiple products and recycling systems (Khasreen et al., 2009).

Goal and Scope Inventory Impact

Interpretaon
Figure 1. Definion Analysis Assessment
The four steps of
LCA
3.1.3 Impact assessment. In Step 3, according to ISO 14042, life cycle impact analysis Sustainable
(LCIA) is used to examine whether the production system has a positive or negative construction
impact on the environment. The LCIA is the source of information for the last step of
the LCA methodology called the interpretation phase. LCIA is a process that
includes the selection and definition of impact categories. This step of LCA is
usually divided into three sub-steps i.e. classification, characterization and weighing
(Li et al., 2010).
3.1.4 Interpretation. Step 4 of LCA is the interpretation. The aim of this step is to analyze 197
the results, form the conclusions, discuss the limitations and provide the recommendations
based on the results of the first three steps of LCA (Khasreen et al., 2009).

3.2 Life cycle cost analysis

It is the process in which the economic performance of the building and its materials are
analyzed. There are different types of costs that are usually considered in LCCA. These
include construction cost (labor and material), operations cost, maintenance cost (preventive,
reactive and planned), transportation cost, replacement cost and utility cost such as energy,
etc (Davis et al., 2005).

3.3 Materials
In this research paper, other than OC, the green concretes mixtures (concretes that contain
materials other than cement) are studied. These types of concrete mixtures along with
ingredients are given in Table II.
In Table II, that the cement in all concrete mixtures is partially replaced with the
industrial or agricultural wastes such as marble sludge, rice husk, sugarcane bagasse
ash and CDW. A proper amount of materials is selected based on the data obtained
from the construction company’s experts, which is further analyzed through LCA and
LCCA.
Table III shows the compressive strengths of different materials that are used as a partial
replacement for cement. The compressive strength of all six types of concrete cubes having
a size (150
150
150 mm) is measured using a Universal Testing Machine. After 28 days,
the compressive strength of bagasse ash is the highest followed by CDW, rice husk (20 per
cent), OC, marble sludge and rice husk (30 per cent) with the values of 68, 47.12, 42.9, 38.19,
37.14 and 26.6, respectively.

Materials mixtures
Materials Units % of cement replacement CM1* CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 OC

Cement [kg] – 315 315 280 245 280 350

Marble sludge [kg] 10 – 35 – – – –
CDW* [kg] 10 35 – – – – –
Rice husk [kg] 20 – – 70 – – –
Rice husk [kg] 30 – – – 105 – –
Bagasse ash [kg] 20 – – – 70 –
Water [kg] – 160 157.5 159.6 151.9 177.1 175 Table II.
Natural sand [kg] – 937.5 937.5 937.5 937.5 937.5 937.5
Aggregate [kg] – 937.5 937.5 937.5 937.5 937.5 937.5
Concrete mixtures
w/b* 0.5 0.5 0.28 0.28 0.5 0.5 along with
ingredients
Notes: CM *: Concrete mixture; CDW *: Construction and demolition wastes; w/b *: Water to binder ratio composition
CI 4. Results and analysis
20,2 4.1 Life cycle assessment of concrete mixtures
The elemental analysis is performed in the laboratory to identify the number of different
elements. Moreover, the analysis of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides
and sulphur dioxide emissions are performed by using the carbon, sulphur and nitrogen
footprint methodologies that include complex chemical compositions and mathematical
198 equations regarding cement production, preparation of rice husk, bagasse ash, CDW and
marble sludge for different types of concretes, which are considered in this study. The
calculations and analysis are performed using Microsoft Excel. The analysis includes
the raw materials and their preproduction processes, concrete production and
transportation of raw materials to production facility and distribution of products
(concretes) to laboratories and customers. It is to be noted that the values presented in
Table IV may slightly or negligibly inaccurate because of the environmental conditions,
slight errors in equipment and calculations but the results are still quite effective and
efficient.
4.1.1 Goal and scope definition. The goal of performing LCA in this research is to identify
the six concrete mixtures that contain green materials that have partially replaced the
cement in concretes, as shown in Table I. Furthermore, another aim is to compare the green
concretes with the OC based on the water absorption, air emissions and compressive
strengths.
The functional unit of concrete is taken as 1 m3 (Marinkovic et al., 2010). The specific
weight is considered as 2,400 kg/m3. The system boundaries for the OC is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that the system boundaries that include such as raw materials,
transportation of materials, production and then distribution to the market. The treatment
and disposal phases are excluded because these processes are not usually used by many of
the construction companies.
4.1.2 Inventory analysis. This step of LCA involves inputs such as energy, water and raw
materials followed by the production processes, transportation and the outputs i.e.
emissions to air. The inputs i.e. energy, water and raw materials are supplied to the pre-
production and production phases, whereas energy and water are supplied to the post-

Concrete mixtures Compressive strength (MPa) at 28 days

OC 38.19
CDW 47.12
Table III. Marble sludge 37.14
Compressive Rice husk (20%) 42.9
strengths of different Rice husk (30%) 26.6
materials Bagasse ash 51

Substance Unit CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 OC

Table IV. Carbon dioxide, bio Kg 181.693 282.972 386.200 411.120 270.375 285.755
Air emissions from Carbon monoxide g 146.162 214.679 308.96 328.89 219.2 239.090
different concrete Nitrogen oxides g 288.400 447.672 237.41 251 680 479.243
mixtures Sulphur dioxide g 72.756 109.074 119.37 133.42 230 125.078
 Sustainable
construction

199

Figure 2.
System boundaries

production phase. On the other hand, the output i.e. emissions are released from all three
phases. The whole story of inventory analysis is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 summarized the whole process starts with the transportation of raw materials
followed by the mixing of materials and production. The sludge produced as a byproduct is
treated in the treatment plant and then disposed-off when it is not possible to treat. Next, the
concrete is transported to an area where it is required to be used. The air emissions are
produced as an output that affects the environment.
4.1.3 Impact assessment. This step of LCA is used to evaluate the impact of different
substances that emits from the ingredients of six concrete mixtures. These impacts are

Figure 3.
Inventory analysis of
concrete production
CI classified into different impact categories. As there is no database software for Pakistan,
20,2 therefore, the data regarding air emissions has been collected from the laboratories of
different universities and construction organizations that are already working on the
samples of different types of concrete (selected for this study). Because of the unavailability
of the data set for Pakistan, the data has been obtained from the universities and
construction organizations. In this study, the impact assessment of LCA is based on the
200 endpoint results and the impact of the six types of concrete are considered on human health,
environment, ecosystem quality and depletion of resources. The data obtained about air
emissions has been given in Table IV.
4.1.4 Interpretation. The impacts of the six mixtures of materials on the environment are
identified and classified into different categories such as the emissions of CO2, CO, NOx, SO2
and absorption of water. In Figure 4, it can be seen that CM5 absorbs the maximum amount
of water i.e. 177.1 kg, followed by OC, CM1, CM3, CM2 and CM4. CM4 absorbs the minimum
amount of water with a value of 151.9 kg.
Figure 5 depicts that the CM4 has the maximum carbon dioxide footprint i.e. 355.4 kg
followed by CM3, OC, CM2, CM5 and CM1. The results show that cement replaced with 30
per cent of rice husk in concrete has the highest values of carbon footprint, whereas the
concrete that contains CDW emits the minimum amount of carbon dioxide.

Figure 4.
Water absorption by
concrete mixtures

Figure 5.
Carbon dioxide
emissions by concrete
mixtures
The carbon monoxide emissions from six different concrete mixtures are presented in Sustainable
Figure 6. The maximum amount of the carbon monoxide emits by the concrete mixture that construction
contains 30 per cent of rice husk (CM4) with a value of 287.41 g. The OC and the concrete
that contain 20 per cent of rice husk (CM3) emits approximately the same amount of carbon
monoxide. Similarly, the difference between the amount of CO emissions from CM2 and
CM5 is very small. CM1 emits 146.162 g, which is the minimum value.
The emissions of nitrogen oxides from the concrete mixtures are illustrated in Figure 7.
The trend of this graph is quite different as compared to that of CO2 and CO. The maximum 201
amount of NOx emissions i.e. 680 g, occurred from the concrete materials that contain
bagasse ash (CM5). OC is considered as the second most responsible concrete mixture for
NOx emissions. The concrete that contains marble sludge (CM2), CDW (CM1), 30 per cent
rice husk (CM4) and 20 per cent rice husk (CM3) are considered the third, fourth, fifth and
sixth most responsible for NOx emissions, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the emissions of SO2 from different concrete mixtures. The maximum
amount of SO2 i.e. 230 g emits from CM5 followed by CM4, OC, CM3 and CM2. The least
amount of SO2 is emitted from CM1, which is 72.756 g.

Figure 6.
Carbon monoxide
emissions by concrete
mixtures

Figure 7.
Nitrogen oxides
emissions from
concrete mixtures
CI 4.2 Life cycle cost analysis of concrete mixture
20,2 In LCCA, the costs of 1 m3 of six different types of concretes have been calculated. These
costs include the variable costs i.e. costs of raw materials (such as cement, sand, aggregates,
CDW, rice husk ash, bagasse ash and marble sludge), labor cost and energy cost (such as
transport, mixing of concrete and cement production). It is worth noting that the cost of
materials presented in Table V includes the operating cost. The energy cost has been
202 calculated based on electricity and fossil fuel costs. These costs are given in Table V.
The costs presented in Table V are calculated in a proper way. The costs of materials are
taken as an average of the cost for the past three years. These calculations are discussed in
Appendix 1. The cost of 1 m3 of OC is Rs 21,747, which is the maximum cost as compared to
the costs of other concrete mixtures. The minimum cost is obtained for the CM4 i.e. Rs 17,319.

5. Discussion
In this research paper, six different mixtures of concrete materials are considered and are
analyzed by using LCA and LCCA methodologies. These concrete mixtures are containing
different industrial and agricultural wastes, which partially replaced the cement, which is

Figure 8.
Sulphur dioxide
emissions by concrete
mixtures

Cost of concrete mixtures in PKR

Materials CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 OC

Cement 3,433 3,433 3,052 2,670 3,052 3,815

CDW 42 – – – – –
Marble sludge – 81 – – – –
Rice husk ash (20%) – – 22 – – –
Rice husk ash (30%) – – – 33 – –
Bagasse ash – – – – 238 –
Table V. Sand 882 882 882 882 882 882
Aggregates 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100
Costs of 1 m3
Transport 32 32 32 32 32 32
concrete containing Concrete mixing 64 64 64 64 64 64
different materials in Cement production 9,949 9,949 8,843 7,738 8,843 11,054
Pakistani rupees Labor 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
(PKR) Total cost 20,302 20,341 18,795 17,319 19,011 21,747
considered very harmful as it emits dangerous gases such as CO2, CO, NOx and SO2. Cement Sustainable
also absorbs a large quantity of water, which is very important to consider because of the construction
decrease in water level in the world and in this case, Pakistan. In this study, all of the results
are compared and discussed based on the values in Tables III-V and Figures 4-8.
After analyzing the six concrete mixtures, the values of the compressive strengths, water
absorption, air emissions and costs of each concrete mixture are obtained. Figure 4 shows that
OC is the second largest water absorber relative to the other five concrete materials selected for
this study. This means the OC that contain the largest amount of cement, is one of the most 203
responsible reasons for water reduction level in the world. In Pakistan, OC is the most
commonly used concrete in the construction industry that has affected the water level.
Similarly, it can be seen from Figures 5-8 that OC has constantly high values of air emissions
i.e. CO2, CO, NOx and SO2 that have a very harmful impact on the environment, human health
and economy. This is one of the reasons for rapid climate change in the world, more specifically
in Pakistan. On the basis of cost, Table V shows that OC is a very harmful element for the
economy of developed countries, as well as developing countries. This is because of the largest
value of its cost among all the other concrete mixtures that are obtained in the results of this
study. In contrast, as shown in Table III, the OC has a prominent compressive strength as
compare to CM2 and CM4, which is necessary for long-lasting concrete structures.
The concrete that contains the CDW (CM1) shows very positive behavior in terms of CO2, CO,
NOx and SO2 emissions and is considered to be one of the most environmentally friendly concrete
mixtures. According to the chemists, civil engineers and concrete specialists, though the CM1 has
more cement as compared to the CM3, CM4 and CM5 it emits less CO2 because the agricultural
wastes like rice husk and bagasse ash emit more CO2 no matter whether they are used in concrete
before or after the combustion process. On the other hand, CM1 came out with the third-largest
water absorber of the six concrete mixtures that are selected for this study. Similarly, the overall
cost of CM1 is though smaller than OC and CM2 but relatively higher than the other three
concrete mixtures. The overall image of this concrete mixture is positive in terms of
environmental sustainability and health but moderate in terms of economic sustainability.
The CM2, which contains marble sludge as a partial replacement of cement shows moderate
behavior regarding the air emissions i.e. CO2, CO, NOx and SO2, which means that it can be used
in place of the OC only if a large amount of marble sludge is already available. This would help in
reducing environmental problems and will also reduce the struggle toward environmental
sustainability. On the other hand, the use of CM2 may not be very useful in improving economic
sustainability because of the higher cost as compare to CM1, CM3, CM4 and CM5.
The CM3 and CM4 that contain rice husks emit the maximum amount of CO2 and CO when
used in concrete in unroasted form. If the rice husk is even used in the roasted form, it will emit
these gases during the roasting process, which will eventually damage the environment and
human health. As compared to other concrete mixtures, the CM3 and CM4 emit a moderate level
of SO2 and less amount of NOx’s. On the other hand, there are some positive aspects of concrete
containing rice husk. The CM3, especially CM4 shows a minimum water absorption capacity,
which represents its positive impact on the environment, human health and economy. Similarly,
the results show the impressive values of the compressive strengths of CM3. It is also recognized
from the results that if the amount of cement replacement by rice husk is increased from 20 per
cent, the compressive strengths of the concrete starts decreasing. Moreover, the results of LCCA
shows that CM4 and CM3, respectively, have minimum costs as compared to other concrete
mixtures. This shows that concrete containing rice husk is very cost-effective.
The last concrete mixture of this research study is the one that contains bagasse ash as a
partial replacement of cement. This concrete mixture can be considered cost-effective
because of the suitable cost as compared to other concrete mixtures. Similarly, it is valuable
CI in terms of CO2 and CO emissions as it emits a very small amount of these two gases. On the
20,2 other hand, it is considered very harmful for the environment because of the maximum
water absorption capacity, as well as the emissions of a large amount of NOx and SO2 gases
that have very adverse effects on the environment and human health.
The overall image of this research study is quite interesting. It can be concluded from
this study that it can be very suitable to use CDW as a partial replacement of cement in
204 concrete. It is because of the minimum amount of water absorption, as well as the minimum
CO2, CO, NOx and SO2 footprints. Therefore, the use of CM1 is very beneficial for the
environment and economic sustainability of those areas where CDW is easily available in
large quantities. As Pakistan is an agricultural country where a lot of rice husk and bagasse
ash is readily available and can be used to reduce the harmful effects of OC. The use of rice
husk and bagasse ash is very beneficial if the issue of high emissions of CO2, CO from
rice husk and emissions of NOx and SO2 from bagasse ash is solved. On the other hand, the
marble sludge, which is not available in a large quantity and is also expensive to use as
compared to other green concrete mixtures is not recommended to be used in Pakistan.

6. Conclusion
Most of the developed and few developing countries are aware of the depletion of natural
resources, as well as the change in the climate. These countries have done research studies to
reduce the rapid changes in climate because of the depletion of natural resources and emissions of
harmful gases from concrete containing a significant amount of cement. Most of the developing
countries like Pakistan lack interest in these issues. In this research, the two methodologies, LCA
and LCCA are used to analyze the six concrete mixtures that contain 10 per cent CDW, 10 per
cent marble sludge, 20 per cent rice husk, 30 per cent rice husk and 20 per cent bagasse ash as a
partial replacement of cement along with ordinary concrete based on water absorption,
compressive strength, cost and the emissions of the harmful gases such as CO2, CO, NOx and
SO2. It is concluded from the results that concrete containing CDW is considered the best concrete
mixtures to be used for supporting the environment and economic sustainability efforts but it is
not available in large amounts in Pakistan. Similarly, the use of marble sludge is not
recommended to be used as a partial replacement of cement in Pakistan because it is available in
a small amount. On the other hand, Pakistan is an agricultural country and has the capability to
produce a significant amount of rice husk and sugarcane bagasse ash. The wastes that are
produced from rice husk and bagasse ash are also easily available in Pakistan but the amount of
CO2 and CO emissions from rice husk and NOx and SO2 emissions from bagasse ash are very
prominent, which leads to disruption of environment sustainability. Therefore, it is necessary to
control the CO2 and CO (emissions from rice husk), and NOx and SO2 (emissions from bagasse
ash) during combustion. This will help in motivating the government organizations and
construction companies on the utilization of rice husk and bagasse ash in concrete. As rice husk
and bagasse ash are quite affordable and easily available in Pakistan, it will help in achieving
economic sustainability. The government should take steps to introduce or bring new
technologies to the country, which will help to control the production of air pollutants during the
treatment processes of the agricultural wastes.

References
Anon (2017), “Export.gov”, available at: www.export.gov/article?id=Pakistan-Waste-Management
(accessed 18 July 2018).
Anon (2018), “The world bank”, available at: www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/
solid-waste-management (accessed 17 July 2018).
Blakendaal, T., Schuur, P. and Voordijk, H. (2014), “Reducing the environmental impact of concrete and Sustainable
asphalt: a scenario approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 66, pp. 27-36.
construction
Brundtland, H.G. (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future, United Nations, New York, NY.
Caldas, L.R., Nascimento, M.L.M., Pinhiero, D.G.L. and Sposto, R.M. (2016), “Literature review of life
cycle assessment applied to green concretes. Brazil”, Proceedings of the 6th Amazon and Pacific
Green Materials Congress and Sustainable Construction Materials Lat-Rilem Conference.
Colanego, F., Forcina, A., Farina, I. and Petrillo, A. (2018), “Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different kinds of
205
concrete containing waste for sustainable construction”, Buildings, Vol. 70 No. 8, pp. 1-12.
Davis, M., Coony, R., Gould, S. and Daly, A. (2005), Guide Lines for Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Pat Brito, CA.
de Sensale, G.R. (2006), “Strength development of concrete with rice-husk ash”, Cement and Concrete
Composites, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 158-160.
Dickie, I. and Howard, N. (2000), Assessing Environmental Impacts of Construction: Industry
Consensus, BREEAM and UK Ecopoints, Building Research Establishment, Watford.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington,
D. and Suh, S. (2009), “Recent developments in life cycle assessment”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Fuller, S. (2006), Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.
Gursel, A.P., Maryman, H. and Ostertag, C. (2016), “A Life-cycle approach to environmental,
mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 823-836.
Habeeb, G.A. and Fayyadh, M.M. (2009), “Rice husk ash concrete: the effect of RHA average particle
size on mechanical properties and drying shrinkage”, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1616-1622.
Hameed, M.S. and Sekar, A.S.S. (2009), “Properties of green concrete containing quarry rock dust and marble
sludge powder as fine aggregate”, Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 83-89.
Hauschild, M.Z. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2015), “Introducing life cycle impact assessment”, Life Cycle
Impact Assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1-16.
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012), What a Waste, 15th ed., Urban Development Series,
Washington, DC.
James, J. and Pandian, P.K. (2017), “A short review on the valorisation of sugarcane bagasse ash in the
manufacture of stabilized/sintered earth blocks and tiles”, Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering, Vol. 2017, pp. 1-15.
Joy, C.N., Ramakrishnan, K., Snega, M., Ramasundram, S., Venkatasubramanian, C. and Muthu, D. (2017),
Study on Strength and Durability Characteristics of Concrete with Ternary Blend, IOP Publishing.
Khasreen, M.M., Bandfill, P.F. and Menzies, G.F. (2009), “Life-cycle assessment and the environmental
impact of buildings: a review”, Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 674-701.
Liu, J. and Wang, Y. (2013), “Cost analysis of construction and demolition waste management: case
study of the pearl river Delta of China”, The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 251-263.
Li, X., Zhu, Y. and Zhang, Z. (2010), “An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for
construction processes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 766-775.
Madurwar, M.V., Ralegaonkar, R.V. and Mandavgane, S.A. (2012), “Application of agro-waste for sustainable
construction materials: a review”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 38, pp. 872-878.
Marinkovic, S., Radonjanin, V., Malešev, M. and Ignjatovic, I. (2010), “Comparative environmental assessment
of natural and recycled aggregate concrete”, Waste Management, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 2255-2264.
Marszal, A.J. and Heiselberg, P. (2011), “Life cycle cost analysis of a multi-storey residential net zero
energy building in Denmark”, Energy, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 5600-5609.
CI Mashaly, A.O., El-Kaliouby, B.A., Shalaby, B.N., El–Gohary, A.M. and Rashwan, M.A. (2016), “Effects
of marble sludge incorporation on the properties of cement composites and concrete paving
20,2 blocks”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 731-741.
Mullar, H.S., Haist, M. and Vogel, M. (2014), “Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete and
concrete structures considering their environmental impact, performance and lifetime”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 67, pp. 321-337.
206 Pappu, A., Saxena, M. and Asolekar, S.R. (2007), “Solid wastes generation in India and their recycling
potential in building materials”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 2311-2320.
Pitt, M., Tucker, M., Riley, M. and Longden, J. (2008), “Towards sustainable construction: promotion
and best practices”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 201-224.
Raut, S., Ralegaonkar, R. and Mandavgane, S. (2011), “Development of sustainable construction
material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: a review of waste-create bricks”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 4037-4042.
Rodriquez, G., Medina, C., Alegre, F.J., Asensio, E. and de Rojas, M.S. (2015), “Assessment of
construction and demolition waste plant management in Spain: in pursuit of sustainability and
eco-efficiency”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 90, pp. 16-24.
Sampathrajan, A., Vijayaraghavan, N. and Swaminathan, K. (1992), “Mechanical and thermal properties of
particle boards made from farm residues”, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 249-251.
Sev, A. (2008), “How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A
conceptual framework”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 161-173.
Silva, R.V., de Brito, J. and Dhir, R.K. (2014), “Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from
construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production”, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 65, pp. 201-217.
Singh, M.K. and Kumar, D. (2014), “Physical properties of construction and demolished waste concrete”,
International Journal for Scientific Research and Development, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 122-123.
Surahman, U., Kubota, T. and Higashi, O. (2015), “Life cycle assessment of energy and CO2 emissions for
residential buildings in Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia”, Buildings, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1131-1155.
Turk, J., Cotic, Z., Mladenovic, A. and Sajna, A. (2015), “Environmental evaluation of green concretes
versus conventional concrete by means of LCA”, Waste Management, Vol. 45, pp. 194-205.
Val, D.V. and Stewart, M.G. (2003), “Life-cycle cost analysis of reinforced concrete structures in marine
environments”, Structural Safety, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 343-362.
Chik, F.A.W., Bakar, A.B., Johari, M.M.A. and Jaya, R.P. (2011), “Properties of concrete block containing rice
husk ash”, International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-64.

Further reading
Zimmermann, M., Althaus, H. and Haas, A. (2005), “Benchmarks for sustainable construction: a
contribution to develop a standard”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 1147-1157.

Appendix. Calculation of energy costs for 1 m3 concrete

Cement
Price of 50 kg bag of cement = Rs 545.
The amount of cement used in 1 m3 concrete = 350 kg.
Cost of cement for 1 m3 concrete = 545
350/50 = Rs 3,815.

Rice husk
Cost of rice husk = Rs 310/metric ton
 = 310/1,000 kg = Rs 0.310/kg. Sustainable
Cost of 20 per cent rice husk i.e. 70 kg, in 1 m3 concrete = 0.310
70 = Rs 22. construction
Cost of 30 per cent rice husk i.e. 105 kg, in 1 m3 concrete = 0.310
105 = Rs 33.
Bagasse ash
Cost of bagasse ash = Rs 3,400/metric ton
= 3,400/1,000 kg = Rs 3.4/kg.
Cost of 20 per cent bagasse ash i.e. 70 kg, in 1 m3 concrete = 3.4
70 = Rs 238. 207
Construction and demolition wastes
The cost of CDW has been calculated by using an equation (1) taken from Liu and Wang (2013):
CCDW ¼ CC&T þ CSort þ CStore þ Q
RUF
RTRC
DistRU þ Q
RUF
RProcess – BRU
(1)
CRU ¼ 1 þ :36 þ 1 þ 0 þ 1 þ 10%
0:021
1 þ 1
0:01
0:4  1:172
¼ 1:19221 Rs=kg
Cost of 10 per cent CDW i.e. 35 kg in 1 m3 concrete = 1.19221
35 = Rs 42.
Where:
CCDW = Cost of CDW;
CC&T = Cost of collection and on-site transport of waste material;
CSort = Cost of sorting materials;
CStore = Cost of storing waste materials;
Q = Quantity of CDW;
RUF = Reusable fraction of the total waste;
RTRC = Rate of transport cost to reuse processing facility;
DistRU = Distance to the reuse processing facility;
RProcess = Rate of process cost for reusing; and
BRU = Benefit of reuse.
Energy
Transport energy used in 1 m3 of concrete = 11 MJ = 3.055 kWh.
Energy required for mixing of 1 m3 concrete = 20 MJ = 6 kWh.
Energy produced by 1 L of diesel = 10 kWh.
Cost of 1 L of diesel = Rs 106.57.
Cost of energy (diesel) used in transport of 1 m3 concrete = 0.3
106.57 = Rs 32.
Cost of energy (diesel) used in mixing of 1 m3 concrete = 0.6
106.57 = Rs 64.
Cost of energy used in production of 1m3 cement
¼ cost of ð5% electricity þ 25% coal þ 70% natural gasÞ
¼ 1; 705 þ 2; 649 þ 6; 700 ¼ 11; 054 Rs

Corresponding author
Yousaf Ali can be contacted at: yousafkhan@giki.edu.pk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com