23 2011 Ernst & Sohn Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co.

. KG, Berlin Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1

1 Introduction
The fib task group 3.8 is about to
launch a newguideline on green con-
crete structures. It is to be a practical-
ly oriented guideline for reducing the
environmental impact of concrete
structures throughout their entire life
cycle. The scope of the guideline aims
to provide the owners, users, design-
ers and producers of concrete with
inspiration and tools for implement-
ing green measures in concrete struc-
tures. There is not just one single cor-
rect solution to the design and con-
struction of a green concrete struc-
ture and so the guideline describes
several tools that can be applied. The
applicability of each tool will very
much depend on the local conditions
at the place of use. Several green
building schemes and labelling sys-
tems have been developed around the
world, e.g. LEED in North America
and BREEAM in the UK, and it
should be noted that the guideline
does not constitute a new green
label scheme. However, the guideline
may be used to design such schemes.
The guideline provides a list of
green concrete technologies, bench-
mark data on materials, construction
and use of concrete structures, ac-
counting rules, examples and back-
ground information. This article pro-
vides an overview of that list of green
concrete technologies, which are the
core of the guideline, and a number of
examples to illustrate some of the
principles.
2 Life cycle phases
Fig. 1 illustrates the life cycle phases
normally associated with construc-
tion.
Pre-construction phase: Design is
carried out as a cooperation be-
tween the building owner and the
project consultants (engineers and
architects). The design should be
in accordance with the specifica-
tions, rules and legislation. Time
scale measured in months.
Phases 13, construction: The
construction phase is mainly gov-
erned by the materials suppliers
and contractors. The design speci-
fications serve as minimum re-
quirements. Sometimes the con-
tractor overrules the design if an
alternative solution is more suit-
able for the contractors way of
working (but still in accordance
with the specification). During
this phase the time schedule is of-
ten tight and limited, which may
influence the environmental foot-
print of the structure. Time scale
measured in months.
Articles
Mette Glavind
Green concrete structures
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201000022
Phase 1
Raw materials.
Processing.
Transportation to
plant.
Phase 4
Service life.
Operation and
maintenance.
Repairs.
Phase 2
Concrete plant.
Mixing.
Transportation to
site.
Phase 3
Building site.
Casting.
Installing.
Curing.
Phase 5
Secondary life.
Demolition.
Recycling.
CO
2
uptake.
Fig. 1. Phases in life cycle analysis based on normal concrete operations.
There are numerous ways of improving concrete structures environmental performance.
An overview of these are presented and exemplified in the present article. They include
choice of raw materials, mix design of the concrete, production processes, construction
processes, design and use during service life and the end-of-life demolition-crushing-
reuse. Thus the whole life cycle is considered. This will be the key content of the future
fib 3.8 guidelines on green concrete structures which will also include some background
information and specific benchmark data.
Keywords: Green concrete, guideline, life cycle
Phase 4, operation and use of the
structure: During the service life
of a structure, the building owner
and end user are responsible for its
operation and maintenance. If the
initial design has been successful,
the construction will function for
decades without any need for ma-
jor repairs or alterations. Time
scale measured in decades.
Phase 4, maintenance: Most build-
ings and structures need mainte-
nance and modifications after, say,
30 years due to changes in their
use or changes in the legislation
and performance demands. Gen-
erally, it is not possible to foresee
such changes during the pre-pro-
duction phase. However, the de-
sign phase is important in order to
obtain sound low-maintenance
and durable solutions. It involves
the proper choice of materials and
design details and also the proper
execution of the design. Time
scale measured in decades.
Phase 5, demolition, reuse and re-
cycling: After the expiry of its ser-
vice life, the structure will most of-
ten be demolished and recycled to
a certain degree. In the event of
any built-in harmful substances
that were allowed at the time of
construction but later banned, the
recycling may be significantly re-
stricted. An example of this is PCB
used to join elements in the 1970s
but later banned due to its toxicity.
However, there are also conditions
that cannot be foreseen at the pre-
production phase.
Tab. 1 lists the main environmental
impacts related to buildings and oth-
er structures during their life cycle.
24
M. Glavind Green concrete structures
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
Other impacts may also be consid-
ered such as land use, health and
safety (working environment).
3 Green concrete technologies
3.1 Choice of raw materials
The cement shall be chosen so that it
is from a modern plant with reduced
environmental impact. This means
that the process should be based on
dry raw materials, with the largest
possible use of waste materials as fuel
and with the use of supplementary
cementitious materials to replace
part of the clinker, i.e. blended ce-
ments.
The production and use of
blended cements (with several main
constituents) has a long and success-
ful tradition. Today, about 70 % of the
cements produced and used in Eu-
rope are cements with several main
constituents. The use of other main
constituents along with Portland ce-
ment clinker will depend on the avail-
ability and quality of these materials
at an economic cost. CEM II ce-
ments, of which most sub-types uti-
lize one additional main constituent
(in addition to clinker), now account
for approx. 60 % of cements pro-
duced in Europe and many of these
have been used successfully for
decades.
A number of different supple-
mentary cementitious materials are
used to blend either the cement or the
concrete. These materials supple-
ment the clinker content. In most cas-
es they allow the clinker or cement
content to be lowered and in some
cases specific concrete properties are
improved. The following is a list of
the most commonly used supplemen-
tary cementitious materials (SCM)
and their effect on the concrete [1].
Fly ash from coal-fired power
plants is the most commonly used
SCM. Fly ash can also be used as a
main constituent of cement.
Siliceous fly ash is a fine powder of
mostly spherical particles having
pozzolanic properties. Normal
substitution rates are 1020 % rel-
ative to the cement weight but up
to 50 % of the cement may be re-
placed.
Silica fume is a highly pozzolanic
material, a by-product from the
production of silicon metal or fer-
rosilicon alloys in smelters using
electrical furnaces. It is used in
typical substitution rates of up to
5 %. Its availability is rather limit-
ed compared to fly ash, so prices
can be high.
Granulated blastfurnace slag
(GBS) is one of the most impor-
tant main constituents of cement
and may constitute up to 80 % in
common cements containing slag.
GBS is made by rapid cooling of a
slag melt of suitable composition,
as obtained by melting iron ore in
a blastfurnace. It contains at least
two-thirds by mass of glassy slag
and possesses hydraulic properties
when suitably activated.
Sewage sludge incineration ash
from water treatment plants has
been found to be feasible for con-
crete, but the pozzolanic reaction
is low and it is dependent on the
burning techniques used and the
source of the sewage sludge.
Rice husk ash can exhibit a good
performance in concrete if the
combustion temperature is cor-
rect. It is not yet commercially
Tab. 1. List of the most important environmental issues
Life cycle phases Production Service life Secondary life
Raw materials Operation and Maintenance Demolition
Embodied energy Recycling
Buildings
Civil engineering
structures
Embodied CO
2
(global warming
and greenhouse effect)
Transportation of building
materials and raw materials
Careful use of raw materials
Waste generation (material
flows)
Harmful substances
Energy performance for heating,
cooling, ventilation
Indoor climate
Good durability and low
maintenance
Robust structures
Sorting and recycling
Land filling
Recycle locally and avoid
transportation
Harmful substances in C&DW
and leaching
CO
2
uptake after crushing
C&DW: Construction and demolition waste.
25
M. Glavind Green concrete structures
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
available, but has the potential to
become a good source of SCM in
the future due to the large
amounts available.
Recycled ground glass can be used
as a cement replacement. It has a
reactivity factor below that of fly
ash but good concrete properties
have been reported. It is not used
in large amounts today and the
price is relatively high.
Limestone meal as a main con-
stituent of cements is made from
selected and prepared high-quality
limestone. The suffixes -LL and -L
signify a source of high purity
limestone with a particularly low
content of organic material. The
limestone qualities according to
EN 197-1 have always shown an
excellent performance in various
cements containing limestone.
Metakaolin is a highly reactive
pozzolan formed by the calcina-
tion of kaolinite (China clay). It
has to be processed in a firing
process like cement, although the
firing temperature required is low-
er. Therefore, the production is as-
sociated with CO
2
emissions,
which have to be considered in a
full CO
2
inventory.
3.2 Optimization of mix design with
respect to clinker content
One way in which a concrete produc-
er can optimize mix design and mini-
mize clinker consumption is to use
cements with several main con-
stituents (blended cements). Another
way is to mix pure Portland cement
with other mineral additions. When
a concrete producer is adding new
materials to the mix design, it is im-
portant to demonstrate that these
materials do not cause problems with
respect to the concretes perfor-
mance. Those materials may be sup-
plementary cementitious materials
that are intended to replace some of
the cement (see above) or perhaps ag-
gregates.
One way of optimizing the
clinker content is to pack the aggre-
gates as densely as possible in order
to minimize the amount of paste (and
cement and clinker) needed to
achieve the required workability. Sev-
eral commercially available computer
programs exist that can perform
these packing calculations and it is
also well known that the total paste
volume can be minimized by select-
ing the types and quantities of aggre-
gate to give the highest possible pack-
ing [2].
3.3 Production methods
The Best Available Technology (BAT)
for surplus production, rejected
batches and non-compliant products,
etc. is to recycle it back into construc-
tion. This typically includes crushing
the concrete down to smaller frac-
tions depending on its end use. A cer-
tain level of sorting must be expected
so that materials such as insulation,
plastics and reinforcement are re-
moved from the concrete. Typically,
the concrete manufacturer simply
hires a mobile crushing unit when the
amounts have reached a certain level.
After crushing, the materials may be
sold as secondary aggregates. It is al-
so possible to transport the concrete
waste to the crusher instead. The best
solution depends on transport dis-
tances, amounts of waste and the
market for secondary aggregates.
The concrete industry is a large
consumer of water. The water de-
mand for concrete mixing depends
on mix design and the use of plasti-
cizing additives. However, concrete
plants also consume relatively large
quantities of water for washing mix-
ers, conveyor belts, formwork, trucks
and laboratory equipment.
The washing water drains to a
sedimentation tank where the natural
aggregates are reclaimed and the slur-
ry settles to the bottom. Afterwards,
the water may be recycled back into
the washing system or it may be
added to the mixer. Processing plants
for this type of water recycling are
widely available and this technology
has been well known since the mid-
1990s. Simply discharging the waste
water into a sewage system is not
considered to be a sustainable solu-
tion and, furthermore, it requires
chemical treatment due to its high al-
kalinity.
3.4 Recycling of demolition waste
into concrete production
It is generally recognized that the
technologies for recycling construc-
tion and demolition waste (C&DW)
back into construction are already
widely known and accepted. Thus, it
is assumed that BAT on this subject is
available and ready to be implement-
ed. However, the major hurdle is to
establish the economical incentives
in order to make recycling an option.
The principal applications of re-
cycled concrete rubble are as follows:
1. Downcycling it for road sub-base
and backfill material in connec-
tion with construction works.
Since the quality and homogeneity
of the recycled concrete material
varies considerably due to the
presence of bitumen, bricks, gyp-
sum, etc., its performance is most-
ly only suitable for low-tech appli-
cations where performance is not
a top priority. Therefore, sub-base
applications are the most interest-
ing when it comes to recycling
C&DW, which is considered as
BAT on the subject.
2. Recycling it into concrete as a
substitute for natural aggregates.
This application is possible and
the performance of the recycled
aggregate concrete can be satis-
factory when compared with con-
ventional concrete. However, the
mortar and paste adhering to the
recycled aggregates lead to an in-
crease in the water absorption and
its mechanical performance is
lower than that of natural aggre-
gates. Therefore, this type of ap-
plication is more demanding for
the quality of the recycled aggre-
gates and it is generally not con-
sidered as BAT.
This picture may change, however, if
local conditions are in favour of using
recycled aggregates for concrete pro-
duction, which is the case in parts of
the Netherlands and Belgium due to
shortages of natural materials.
Transportation is another im-
portant aspect that may change the
situation. There are no sound envi-
ronmental reasons for transporting
C&DWexcessive distances just in or-
der to recycle it. C&DW should be
crushed, processed and reused locally
in order to make it a sustainable tech-
nology.
Crushing and reusing C&DW
has an additional environmental bene-
fit, because it enhances the amount of
absorbed CO
2
. All concrete that is ex-
posed to the atmosphere absorbs
CO
2
as a result of the ongoing car-
bonation process [3]. This process is
relatively slow during the service life,
but when the concrete is crushed, the
surface area is increased and the CO
2
absorption rises.
The fib Bulletin 47 [4] contains
several references to technologies for
processing concrete rubble in order
to improve the mechanical perfor-
mance of the recycled material.
These technologies are mainly of
Japanese origin and they include
mechanical scrubbing of the rubble
in order to remove the adhering
paste. However, it is questionable
whether these technologies are in fact
environmentally friendly because
they consume energy and are costly.
Again, it depends on the local condi-
tions and an overall life cycle analy-
sis.
3.5 Construction phase
One green measure that can be em-
ployed during the construction phase
is to use self-desiccating concrete,
which can minimize the energy need-
ed for drying out the concrete. Dur-
ing the winter, between 20 and
50 kWh/m
2
floor area may be needed
for heating. Self-desiccating concrete
with a water/cement ratio of 0.40 is
capable of drying down to about
85 % relative humidity without any
exchange of moisture with the sur-
roundings. This therefore minimizes
the heating needed for drying.
The following recommendation
can be formulated:
Ensure appropriate drying times
for concrete before applying sur-
face materials.
3.6 Uses of concrete
In buildings, using exposed concrete
properly for interior walls can reduce
the energy consumption for heating
and cooling by approx. 515 %. The
exact savings depend on the climate,
the orientation (north, south, east or
west) of the building, how much of
the concrete surface is exposed, the
ventilation system, etc. The savings
can be even higher when using an ac-
tive heat storage system where heat-
ing or cooling energy is transported
in pipes or ducts in the concrete. So
an energy calculation, which includes
the thermal mass effects of building
materials, will be necessary [5].
26
M. Glavind Green concrete structures
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
The following recommenda-
tions can be formulated:
Clarify and utilize the thermal
mass effect with regard to energy
use and thermal comfort.
Maximize the utilization of solar
and other free energy gains
through thermal mass.
Clarify and utilize the thermal
mass effect to reduce energy for
heating and cooling
Use energy calculation programs
that take thermal mass in account.
Expose concrete surfaces to allow
access to thermal mass.
It is possible to reduce the environ-
mental impact by optimizing the struc-
ture. Examples of this are as follows.
Replace the traditional steel rein-
forcement with stainless steel in or-
der to reduce maintenance activi-
ties. However, this approach should
be used with care because the pro-
duction of stainless steel consumes
scarce resources such as molybde-
num, nickel and chromium.
Construct a bridge without asphalt
and moisture barrier. This saves
materials and energy both during
the construction and during re-
pairs. However, the performance
requirements for the concrete sur-
face are even stricter than for nor-
mal bridge decks because the traf-
fic drives directly on the concrete
surface and it is directly exposed
to the weather conditions.
Design the structure in such a way
that it is easy to substitute single
parts of the construction. These
single parts should be the parts
that are most exposed; for a road
bridge, for example, the most ex-
posed parts are the piers and the
edge beams.
Using permanent formwork is also
an alternative green solution, en-
abling a concrete with a lower
quality to be used. This reduces
the overall environmental impact.
4 Examples
4.1 Danish green concrete
road bridge
The bridge is a traditional three-span
structure with total length of 41 m, a
total width of 9.9 m and a depth of
0.8 m. The bridge was post-tensioned
by nine steel cables after casting. It
was built in 2002.
The bridge was used to demon-
strate various green concrete solu-
tions at full scale. The following vari-
ations were applied to the bridge de-
sign and choice of materials. All were
designed for the same service life as a
reference bridge. Surveys to establish
the condition of the bridge carried
out in 2005 and 2010 indicate that
the service life of the green concrete
bridge is similar to that of a refer-
ence bridge.
1. ARef Reference with traditional
bridge design using low-alkali,
high-sulphate-resistant cement,
which is normal for civil engineer-
ing structures in Denmark. A
ternary mix design is applied, us-
ing Portland cement, fly ash and
micro silica (14 % of total cementi-
tious material). Cement type is
Portland cement CEM I, strength
class 42.5 MPa.
2. A0 As for ARef but cement type
replaced with cement type nor-
mally used for building applica-
tions. This cement type is pro-
duced in a more environmentally
friendly manner as described be-
low. Cement type is Portland ce-
ment CEM I, strength class 52.5
MPa.
3. A3 As for A0 but with fly ash re-
placed with incinerated sewage
sludge ash.
4. A1 As for A0 but fly ash content
increased so that SCMs accounts
for 40 % of total cementitious ma-
terial content.
Tab. 2 gives the concrete composi-
tions and Fig. 2 depicts the corre-
sponding CO
2
footprints from the
production of the concrete up to the
gate of the ready-mixed concrete plant.
The reason why the CO
2
foot-
print is reduced significantly from
around 0.18 to 0.14 kg/kg just by re-
placing the cement types is that the
normal sulphate-resistant cement for
civil engineering structures is rather
demanding in terms of energy and it
is produced on a less efficient pro-
duction line (wet process). The other
cement type is produced in much
larger quantities and using the semi-
dry process, which is much more en-
ergy efficient. Furthermore, alterna-
tive fuels with neutral CO
2
profiles
are used in this process, which helps
to reduce the CO
2
emissions by about
one-quarter.
27
M. Glavind Green concrete structures
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
However, it should be noted
that the concrete bridge is not sub-
jected to aggressive groundwater or
sea water in its present location.
Therefore, there is no need for the
high sulphate resistance of the refer-
ence cement. In the case of aggres-
sive soil and groundwater exposure it
may not be possible to switch be-
tween cement types. Another aspect
that should be considered is the heat
development when casting massive
blocks of concrete. The reference ce-
ment is especially suitable for civil
engineering structures because it has
lower Blaine fineness which means
less heat production per kg cement.
However, with high fly ash contents
such as in A1, the heat development
is not likely to cause any problems.
The next step is fairly easy:
adding up the CO
2
figures in Fig. 2
per unit concrete to a whole bridge
structure and adding the reinforce-
ment amounts and other contribu-
tions. The average steel content in the
bridge is about 125 kg/m
3
(steel bars
and prestressing cables) similar to
the Japanese bridge in the next exam-
ple. This is done in Fig. 3, where three
different scenarios are essentially
shown:
1. Reference situation with tradition-
al waterproofing membrane on
bridge deck and a conventional as-
phalt pavement (about 150 mm
thick). This scenario is calculated
with concrete types ARef and A0.
2. An almost zero-maintenance situ-
ation where the circular piers are
reinforced with non-corrosive
bars. The same applies to the edge
beams of the bridge deck. Further-
more, the asphalt pavement and
waterproofing are omitted and the
upper concrete surface is exposed
to the climate and the traffic. This
scenario is calculated with con-
crete types A0, A3 and A0. This so-
lution means about 20 m
3
less
concrete simply because the cover
thickness is reduced compared
with the normal requirements.
3. The third scenario is a combina-
tion of the two other where the as-
Tab. 2. Danish mix designs [6]. In all cases the equivalent w/c ratio is about 0.38
a
. Maximum nominal aggregate size is 32 mm. Crushed coarse aggregates.
SCM/CM = supplementary cementitious materials/cementitious materials.
Concrete material Portland cement Ash Silica fume Aggregates SCM/CM
kg/m
3
kg/m
3
kg/m
3
kg/m
3

ARef, CEM I 42.5 317 32

b)
18 1796 0.14
A0, CEM I 52.5 317 32
b)
18 1793 0.14
A3, CEM I 52.5 320 32
c)
18 1799 0.14
A1, CEM I 52.5 238 135
b)
18 1739 0.39
a) Equivalent w/c takes account of the SCM. Reactivity factor 0.5 on fly ash and 2.0 on silica fume.
b) Fly ash class C.
c) A3 contains incinerated sewage ash instead of fly ash.
OPC
0.09
OPC
0.12
OPC
0.16
OPC
0.11
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Concrete plant
Transportation, raw
materials
Other
Aggregates
Cement
Total: 0.18 kg/kg 0.14 kg/kg 0.14 kg/kg 0.10 kg/kg
ARef A0 A3 A1
Bridge concretes C40, w/c = 0.38

Fig. 2. CO
2
footprint in kg per kg concrete based on Danish emissions figures. The reference cement in
ARef has an emissions figure of 1.15 kg CO
2
per kg cement and the other cement type only 0.85 kg/kg.
297 m
3
297 m
3
297 m
3
276 m
3
276 m
3
276 m
3
0
50
100
150
200
Repairs during 50 years
service life
Asphalt pavement
Non-corrosive steel
Steel reinforcement
Building site, casting
Concrete material and
plant
Total emissions in tonnes CO
2
for whole bridge including service life
Ref. A0 A0 A3 A1 A1
----asphalt---- ----non-corrosive reinf.--- no asphalt
Fig. 3. CO
2
footprint in tonnes for whole bridge structure [6]. The CO
2
emissions do not include railings
and bearings. The concrete amounts in m
3
are given on the bars.
phalt pavement is omitted but tra-
ditional reinforcement is used.
This situation is calculated with
concrete A1, having the lowest
CO
2
profile.
28
M. Glavind Green concrete structures
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
Beside the CO
2
embodied in the con-
struction materials and the construc-
tion process, Fig. 3 also includes the
repair and maintenance during the
50-year service life. Referring to the
three scenarios above, the repairs in-
volve the following:
1. Replacing the asphalt pavement
and waterproofing membrane
twice. One major concrete refur-
bishment with extensive repairs to
piers and edge beams.
2. One extensive repair to the bridge
deck. Piers and edge beams not re-
paired.
3. One extensive repair to the bridge
deck, columns and edge beams.
On top of that, every scenario in-
cludes annual cleaning with high-
pressure water jets. It is assumed that
the concrete repair materials and re-
inforcing steel are of the same type as
the original.
The CO
2
footprint for the repair
works are seen to range from about
20 to 40 t for the whole construction
(Fig. 3) which is about 1520 % of
the initial CO
2
footprint of the
bridge.
4.2 Japanese concrete bridge
A Japanese case study of a pre-
stressed, simply supported concrete
girder bridge was carried out in 2005
[7]. The span is 30.7 m, total length
32 m, total width 10.25 m and total
depth 1.95 m. The bridge deck con-
sists of five thin-web T-beams. Four
different concretes are used for the
various structural elements, i.e. C40
and C30 for the bridge deck (based
on Portland cement alone) and C20
for the substructure (based on slag
cement). Tab. 3 gives the details for
the two highest strength grades.
Atotal of 237.5 m
3
of concrete is
used in the bridge and the dominat-
ing part is as shown in Tab. 3. The
amount of steel reinforcement is ap-
prox. 125 kg/m
3
, including both steel
bars and prestressing wires.
OPC
0.16
OPC
0.18
OPC
0.14
OPC
0.13
GBGS
0.05
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Concrete plant
Aggregates
Cement
Total: 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.06 kg CO
2
per kg
150,6 m
3
42,5 m
3
44,4 m
3
(concrete amounts)
Ref. HRWR Ref. HRWR C20
C40 w/c = 0.35 C30, w/c = 0.44 w/c = 0.6

Fig. 4. CO
2
footprint in kg per kg concrete based on Japanese emissions figures [7] [8]; OPC: Ordinary
Portland Cement, GBGS: Granulated blastfurnace slag.
Tab. 3. Details of mix designs [7]
Concrete material Portland cement SCM Aggregates Amount in bridge
kg/m
3
kg/m
3
kg/m
3
m
3
C40, w/c = 0.35 510 0 1621 150.6
C30, w/c = 0.44 394 0 1733 42.5
Modified mix designs are given below. The cement content is reduced by means of high-range water-reducing admixtures instead of
a normal-range
C40_hrwr, w/c = 0.35 451 0 1720 150.6
C30_hrwr, w/c = 0.44 364 0 1793 42.5
48.1
16.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
29.4
29.4
29.4
6.4 6.4 6.4
13.4 13.4
14.4
64.9
57.9
17.0
16.1
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
1 2 3
Steel reinforcement, bars
Steel reinforcement, wires
Transportation to building
site and on-site production
C40, w/c = 0.35, OPC
C30, w/c = 0.44, OPC
C20, w/c = 0.6, Slag
cement
Total = 142 133 (94 % of ref.) 124 tonnes CO
2
(87 % of ref.)
Reference Alternative1 Alternative2
HRWR fly ash
Fig. 5. CO
2
footprint in tonnes for whole bridge structure [7] [8]; OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement.
29
M. Glavind Green concrete structures
Structural Concrete 12 (2011), No. 1
Fig. 4 shows the CO
2
footprints
of the different concretes used in the
bridge. Again, it is clear that the ce-
ment contribution dominates. Reduc-
ing the cement content by means of
HRWR admixtures lowers the CO
2
footprint by about 10 %.
Fig. 5 shows the total emissions
figures for the bridge construction, in-
cluding production on the building
site and reinforcement. A second al-
ternative is included where it is as-
sumed that the modified concrete
mix design given in Tab. 3 is further
modified by substituting fly ash for 20
% of the cement. It is thus possible to
obtain CO
2
reductions > 10 % com-
pared with the reference situation.
5 Concluding remarks
There are numerous ways of improv-
ing a concrete structures environ-
mental performance. An overview of
these are presented and exemplified
in this article. Those methods in-
clude choice of raw materials, con-
crete mix design, production proces-
ses, construction processes, design
and use during service life and
the end-of-life demolition/crushing/
reuse. The whole life cycle is there-
fore considered. This will be the key
content of the future fib 3.8 guide-
lines on green concrete structures
which will also include some back-
ground information and specific
benchmark data.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are given to all
the current and past members of fib
task group 3.8 and in particular to the
chair of fib Commission 3, Prof. Koji
Sakai.
References
1. Glavind, M.: Sustainability of cement
and concrete in construction, in Sus-
tainability of construction materials,
Jamal M. Khatib (ed.). Woodhead pub-
lishing in materials, 2009.
2. Thrane, L., Pade, C.: Guidelines for mix
design of SCC, Danish Technological
Institute, www.dti.dk, 2008.
3. Pade, C., Guimaraes, M.: Cement and
Concrete Research, Elsevier B.V., 37
(The CO
2
uptake of concrete in a 100
years perspective 9), 2007.
4. fib, Bulletin 47: Environmental design
of concrete structures general princi-
ples, Technical Report, 2008.
5. Johannesson, G. et al.: Possibilities in
energy efficient houses via holistic
view and modern calculations (in
Swedish), ByggTeknik, No. 3, Stock-
holm, 2006.
6. Tllse, K.: Environmental screening
of Concrete Bridge (in Danish), Dan-
ish Technological Institute, Denmark,
www.dti.dk, 2002.
7. Kawai, K., Sugiyama, T., Kobayashi,
K., Sano, S.: A proposal of concrete
structure design methods considering
environmental performance, Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, Japan
Concrete Institute, 2005.
8. JSCE: Recommendation of Environ-
mental Performance Verification for
Concrete Structures, Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, Report No. 7, 2006.
Mette Glavind
Danish Technological Institute
Gregersensvej
2630 Taastrup
Denmark