4.7 Article

Environmental impact assessment of alkali-activated materials: Examining impacts of variability in constituent production processes and transportation

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 363, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129032

关键词

Alkali-activated materials (AAM); Life cycle assessment (LCA); Sodium silicates; Blast furnace slag; Fly ash; Metakaolin; Portland cement; Transportation; Life cycle inventory variability; Life cycle impact uncertainty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the environmental impacts of alkali-activated concretes containing blast furnace slag, fly ash, and metakaolin with Portland cement concretes. The production processes of the mix constituents and transportation distances are evaluated, and it is found that alkali-activated materials have significantly lower CO2 eq. emissions than PC concretes. Taking into account the variability in production technologies of precursors and activators, alkali-activated materials still have lower CO2 eq. emissions than PC concretes.
This study compares the environmental impacts of blast furnace slag-, fly ash-, and metakaolin-based alkali -activated concretes with Portland cement (PC) concretes using life cycle assessment methodology. The variability in production processes of mix constituents across Europe and uncertainty associated with transportation dis-tances are evaluated for both types of concrete. The recent data on soluble sodium silicates production was obtained from European manufacturers. Results show that alkali-activated materials have up to 57 % lower CO2 eq. emissions than PC concretes, while activators contribute between 13 % and 33 % to the total GWP of AA concrete mixes, depending on mix design. This paper concludes that taking into account variability in production technologies of precursors and activators, as well as of PC, alkali-activated materials still have lower CO2 eq. emissions than PC concretes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据