Assignment 2 - Essay

Advanced Civil Engineering Materials

Mohammed Patel
MEng Civil Engineering
Contents

1 Background on Environmental Impact 3

1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 Manufacturing Process 3
1.3 Environmental Impacts 3
1.3.1 Raw Materials 3
1.3.2 Water 4
1.3.3 Energy and Air 4
1.3.4 Land 4
1.3.5 Noise 4

2 Critical Review of Current Research 5

2.1. Paper 1 5
2.2. Paper 2 5
2.3. Paper 3 5

3 Possible Performance Issues 6

References 7
1 Background on Environmental Impact

1.1 Introduction

Of all the materials used within the construction industry, concrete is predominant. Cement is a
fundamental binding element in concrete, used in many sectors of engineering. “On average
approximately 1 ton of concrete is produced each year for every human being in the world” (Lippiatt
and Ahmad, 2004). The substantial use of cement around the world, underlines the significance and
need to understand the environmental impacts of cement manufacturing (Huntzinger and Eatmon,
2009).

1.2 Manufacturing Process

Raw materials such as limestone and clay are mined and transported to manufacturing plants for
grinding and milling. The materials are then mixed to the required composition for heating. After
passing through a preheater, the composition is exposed to temperatures up to 1450oC,
transforming it into a clinker (this stage requires most energy). Slag and fly ash are types of additives
and minerals, mixed with the clinker to achieve the required final product. (Salas et al., 2016). The
manufacturing process is presented in the diagram below.
Limestone Homogenization Clinker
quarrying silo Dust store
Classification separation

Pre- homo-
Cement
genization
mills
Crushing

Raw mill
Preheating of
Rotary Kiln
raw meal in
cyclones

Cement in bulk
Bagged
cement

Fig. 1.1 Cement Manufacturing Process (Kaantee et al., 2004)

1.3 Environmental Impacts

The cement manufacturing process consumes considerable amounts of raw materials and energy
(Oss and Padovani, 2002), and the production is responsible for 5% of the overall CO2 emissions in
the world (Hendriks, 2000). Handling and storing fuels increase the risk of soil and groundwater
pollution. Other forms of environmental impacts include noise and odours. Contributions to water
pollution is minimal as the discharged wastewater is mainly from surface runoff and cooling water
(Stajanča and Eštoková, 2012).

1.3.1 Raw Materials

The requirement of raw materials makes the cement industry a major consumer of limited natural
resources (Mefteh et al., 2013). The main sources of heavy metal contamination are activities
associated to the collection of raw materials (Al-Dadi et al., 2014).
1.3.2 Water

Water is consumed throughout the production process. Sometimes it is used during the preparation
of materials, clinker burning and cooling, and pelletizing dry raw material. The average reported
usage of water is 100 – 600 litres water per tonne clinker (Stajanča and Eštoková, 2012).

1.3.3 Energy and Air

As the cement production cycle uses energy (during fossil combustion and clinker cooking) and as
calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, carbon dioxide is produced. According to the US
Geological Survey 2017, a plant that produces 4.2 billion tons of cement annually, is responsible for
3% of global energy use and almost 9% of CO2 emissions (Shi et al., 2011).

In 2013, CO2 emissions from cement production were 2.3% higher than 2012 and 61% higher than
1990 (Le Quéré et al., 2015). CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was between 0.02-0.028% (Feely
et al., 2004). This increased to 0.04% in 2014 (Dlugokencky and Tans, n.d.), and by the end of the
century, is predicted to increase to 0.08% (Feely et al., 2004). Significant carbon monoxide emissions
have also been associated to the cement industry (Lei et al., 2011).

1.3.4 Land

Transferring and storing materials, and waste disposal are the main effects on land quality (Al-Dadi
et al., 2014). SO2 and NOx emissions (amount depending on the cements’ clinker content), cause the
reduction of soil pH (Josa et al., 2007). SO2 is also a contributing factor to winter smog.

1.3.5 Noise

Through all the stages of cement manufacturing, noise is emitted (from preparation to shipping).
The noise and vibrations from heavy machinery include hoppers and chutes, crushing and milling,
exhaust fans and blowers, and duct vibration (Stajanča and Eštoková, 2012). Trees, walls and bushes
are commonly used by pants for the reduction of noise emissions.
2 Critical Review of Current Research

2.1 Clinkering-free cementation by fly ash carbonation (2018)

The use of extensive amounts of energy (in the form of heat) and the release of CO2 (from
combusting fuel for heat and from decarbonating limestone), are associated with clinkering
reactions. This paper explores ways of accomplishing clinkering-free cementation, as well as the
upcycling of CO2 and fly ash. In short, fly ash with ranging calcium levels was mixed with water, cast
into blocks, cured, and carbonated. The compressive strength of these blocks was tested, as well as
an observation of CO2 uptake during carbonation, by using a mass-gain method and
thermogravimetric analysis. The crystalline structures of the fly ash used were also examined. This
research found that fly ash rich in calcium readily reacts with CO2 (in sub-boiling temperatures) to
produce strong cemented solids. Samples achieved compressive strengths of around 35MPa and
taking up 9% of CO2 (by mass of fly ash solids). The same positive results were not found with fly ash
with low calcium levels, which the paper links to reduced alkalinity. This paper positively
demonstrates a new way of producing cemented solids, while consuming two abundant industrial
by-products, fly ash and CO2.

2.2 Valorization of Dried Olive Pomace as an alternative fuel resource in cement clinkerization
2.2 (2017)

Due to the predicted exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels over the decades to come, this
paper studies the use of Dried Olive Pomace as an alternative to coal in the clinkerization. Clickers
produced from differing mixes of Dried Olive Pomace and coal ash, were examined, as well as the
properties (setting time, expansibility and compressive strength) of the produced cements. The
results showed that clinkers produced were not negatively affected; the crystallization during
sintering was high, and the calcium silicates were well formed. The setting times, water demand and
expansion of the cements were somewhat affected, but the compressive strengths remained high
and satisfied the requirements as per standard EN 197-1. With further research needed on setting
times, water demand and expansion of the cements produced, this paper has found a usable
alternative fuel resource for the clinkerization process, which can benefit both the environment and
economy.

2.3 Evaluation of oil sludge as an alternative fuel in the production of Portland cement clinker
2.2 (2017)

When oil storage tanks are cleaned, oil sludge is produced, and it is considered a hazardous waste. In
this paper, the use of oil sludge (as an alternative fuel) during the clinker production process was
evaluated. The research found that sludge could be used as alternative fuel at temperatures over
1450oC. It was also found that the sludge could also be mixed with the raw materials, so cement
mixes with varying parameters were made tested. As well as satisfying the P.O 42.5 standard, the
use (of up to 14%) of oil sludge in the mixes did not affect the quality or combustibility of the
cement. The results indicate that using oil sludge can effectively reduce coal consumption by
90.98%. This paper has found positive use for a hazardous waste, however there is still room for
research, in factors such as the abundancy of sludge oil.

The papers above and others, such as, “2017 - Alternative cement clinkers” and “2017 - Cement
industry of China: Driving force, environment impact and sustainable development” study various
methods, including, but not limited to, reduction of emissions, usage of waste materials, and
alternatives for clinkers and non-renewable materials to reduce the environmental impacts of
cement production.
3 Possible Performance Issues

As vast as the current research to reduce the environmental impacts of cement production is, there
are multiple performance issues and concerns stopping the research from being adopted in the
industry.

The use of supplementary cementitious materials as alternatives to ordinary Portland cement as the
binder in concrete can be difficult due to the availability (Wei et al., 2018). For example, of the total
fly ash produced in a year, only 45% can be used as a replacement, due to impurities (Vargas and
Halog, 2015). The production amounts and chemical compositions of fly ash also vary in countries.
Fly ash can be categorized into Class F or Class C. Table 3.1 describes the requirement of fly ash
properties as per ASTM standards and table 3.2 describes common results of the two classes.

Property Requirement
Fineness Max 34% retained on a 0.045mm sieve. The finer the ash, the higher its pozzolanic
activity (reaction with calcium or magnesium).

Pozzolanic Min 75% of average 28-day compressive strength of mixes made of OPC.
Activity

Loss on Max 6% in ASTM, but ready-mix producers often only accept max 3%.
Ignition

Moisture Max 3% allowable moisture content.

Content
Table 3.1 Fly ash property requirements (interpreted from U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016).

Property Results
Workability At certain water-cement ratios, fly ash allows greater workability than normal mixes.
Pastes with fly ash improve plasticity and cohesiveness.

Setting Time All Class F and most Class C increase setting time (when replacing 25% of cement). Some
Class C can reduce setting time.

Bleeding Generally reduced for both classes.

Pumpability Generally increased for both classes as the particles of fly ash are spherical (increasing
solids-to-liquid ratio and making the concrete more compact).

Development Class F fly ash replacing OPC with 1:1 weight ratio increases compressive strength. Class F
of Strength with 1.5:1 (fly ash to OPC) weight ratio matches usual compressive strengths. Class C
produces varying results.

Heat of Generally, Class F are more effective than Class C. Both classes are more effective than
Hydration OPC (generate less heat per time).

Permeability Varies among classes, but in both classes reactions with lime and alkalis produce
additional compounds that fill pores, increased fineness and reduced water content
reduce permeability of concrete.

Freeze-Thaw Both classes dependant on air void system, but once the adequate strength is reached,
Resistance durability remains same.

Sulphate Class F generally increase sulphate resistance. Class C vary, some increase, others reduce
Resistance sulphate resistance and increase deterioration.

Alkali-Silica Some ashes reduce reactions from the alkali-silica reaction. Variations in different ashes
Reactivity so have to be specifically.
Table 3.2 Common property results from fly ash (interpreted from U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016).
Although Saha (2018) and Sutter and Parry (2015) argue that Class F fly ash is a more suitable
alternative binder (because of its higher silica content), table 3.2 indicates that for different parts of
the world, their fly ash produced would need to be specifically tested before use in industry.

For alternative clinkers such as belite-ye’elimite-ferrite, materials containing higher concentrations

(than the standard materials in OPC) of aluminium and sulphur are required (Gartner and Sui, 2017).
This requirement means that the costs can increase in parts of the world where these materials are
not readily available.

Magnesium oxide clickers require magnesium silicates which are abundantly available and can
potentially keep up with cement demands. However, they are not widely available and will require
the use of global distribution (Zevenhoven and Kohlmann, 2001). Moreover, magnesium oxides from
magnesium silicate clickers would require the use of completely new production methods and
plants, hindering its potential for adaptation in industry (Gartner and Sui, 2017).

Promising cements for the future are alkali-activated cements and they have been used in projects in
Australia and Fenland, including a 40,000m3 slip-formed pavement (Provis, 2017). It is advised to use
alkali-activated binders in precast, but they can also be used in situ. However, the rapid setting time
and susceptibility to cracking are obstructing the chances of global utilisation (Provis, 2013).

Ongoing research is delayed from being adopted in industry as the alternative methods or materials
are required to have the same or lower costs, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy
consumption, renewable or abundant raw materials, and produce reduced waste and pollutants, all
while providing the same results attained in the industry currently (Shen et al., 2017).
References
Al-Dadi, M., Hassan, H., Sharshar, T., Arida, H. and Badran, H. (2014). Environmental impact of some cement
manufacturing plants in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, [online] 302(3),
pp.1103-1117. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274141602_Letter_to_the_editor_Environmental_impact_of_som
e_cement_manufacturing_plants_in_Saudi_Arabia_doi_101007s10967-014-3383-8 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y. and Jullien, A. (2010). Environmental impact of cement production: detail of
the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 18(5),
pp.478-485. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609004089 [Accessed
28 Jan. 2018].

Chen, W., Hong, J. and Xu, C. (2015). Pollutants generated by cement production in China, their impacts, and
the potential for environmental improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 103, pp.61-69. Available
at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261400403X [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Dlugokencky, E. and Tans, P. (n.d.). Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. [online] Esrl.noaa.gov.
Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Feely, R., Sabine, C., Lee, K., Berelson, W., Kleypas, J., Fabry, V. and Millero, F. (2004). Impact of Anthropogenic
CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans. Science, [online] 305(5682), pp.362-366. Available at:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/362 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Gartner, E. and Sui, T. (2017). Alternative cement clinkers. Cement and Concrete Research, [online]. Available
at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000888461630775X [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Habert, G. (2013). Environmental impact of Portland cement production. Eco-Efficient Concrete, [online] pp.3-
25. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780857094247500013 [Accessed 28
Jan. 2018].

Hendriks, C., Worrell, E., Jager, D., Blok, K. and Riemer, P. (2004). Emission Reduction of Greenhouse Gases
from the Cement Industry. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference Paper - Cement. [online]
Available at: https://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/tf1/prghgt42.pdf [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Huang, M., Ying, X., Shen, D., Feng, H., Li, N., Zhou, Y. and Long, Y. (2017). Evaluation of oil sludge as an
alternative fuel in the production of Portland cement clinker. Construction and Building Materials, [online] 152,
pp.226-231. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061817312989 [Accessed
28 Jan. 2018].

Huntzinger, D. and Eatmon, T. (2009). A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing
the traditional process with alternative technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 17(7), pp.668-675.
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652608000826 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Josa, A., Aguado, A., Cardim, A. and Byars, E. (2007). Comparative analysis of the life cycle impact assessment
of available cement inventories in the EU. Cement and Concrete Research, [online] 37(5), pp.781-788. Available
at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884607000464 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Kääntee, U., Zevenhoven, R., Backman, R. and Hupa, M. (2004). Cement manufacturing using alternative fuels
and the advantages of process modelling. Fuel Processing Technology, [online] 85(4), pp.293-301. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382003002030 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R., Peters, G., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, S., Sitch, S., Tans, P., Arneth,
A., Boden, T., Bopp, L., Bozec, Y., Canadell, J., Chini, L., Chevallier, F., Cosca, C., Harris, I., Hoppema, M.,
Houghton, R., House, J., Jain, A., Johannessen, T., Kato, E., Keeling, R., Kitidis, V., Klein Goldewijk, K., Koven, C.,
Landa, C., Landschützer, P., Lenton, A., Lima, I., Marland, G., Mathis, J., Metzl, N., Nojiri, Y., Olsen, A., Ono, T.,
Peng, S., Peters, W., Pfeil, B., Poulter, B., Raupach, M., Regnier, P., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Salisbury, J.,
Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Segschneider, J., Steinhoff, T., Stocker, B., Sutton, A., Takahashi, T.,
Tilbrook, B., van der Werf, G., Viovy, N., Wang, Y., Wanninkhof, R., Wiltshire, A. and Zeng, N. (2015). Global
carbon budget 2014. Earth System Science Data, [online] 7(1), pp.47-85. Available at:
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/LeQuere_2014_GlobalCarbonBudget2014.ESDD-D.pdf

Lei, Y., Zhang, Q., Nielsen, C. and He, K. (2011). An inventory of primary air pollutants and CO2 emissions from
cement production in China, 1990–2020. Atmospheric Environment, [online] 45(1), pp.147-154. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010008095 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Lippiatt, B. and Ahmad, S. (2004). Measuring the life-cycle environmental and economic performance of
concrete: The BEES approach. International Workshop on Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology,
[online] pp.213-230. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.201.461&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 28 Jan.
2018].

Mefteh, H., Kebaïli, O., Oucief, H., Berredjem, L. and Arabi, N. (2013). Influence of moisture conditioning of
recycled aggregates on the properties of fresh and hardened concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online]
54, pp.282-288. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613003168
[Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Oss, H. and Padovani, A. (2002). Cement Manufacture and the Environment: Part I: Chemistry and
Technology. Journal of Industrial Ecology, [online] 6(1), pp.89-105. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1162/108819802320971650/abstract [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Provis, J. (2013). Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: why, how, and what?. Materials and
Structures, [online] 47(1-2), pp.11-25. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1617/s11527-013-
0211-5 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Provis, J. (2017). Alkali-activated materials. Cement and Concrete Research, [online]. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884616307700 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Rahman, A., Rasul, M., Khan, M. and Sharma, S. (2013). Impact of Alternative Fuels on the Cement
Manufacturing Plant Performance: An Overview. Procedia Engineering, [online] 56, pp.393-400. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581300492X [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Saha, A. (2018). Effect of class F fly ash on the durability properties of concrete. Sustainable Environment
Research, [online] 28(1), pp.25-31. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468203917301334 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Salas, D., Ramirez, A., Rodríguez, C., Petroche, D., Boero, A. and Duque-Rivera, J. (2016). Environmental
impacts, life cycle assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production: a literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 113, pp.114-122. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615017485 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Shen, W., Liu, Y., Yan, B., Wang, J., He, P., Zhou, C., Huo, X., Zhang, W., Xu, G. and Ding, Q. (2017). Cement
industry of China: Driving force, environment impact and sustainable development. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, [online] 75, pp.618-628. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116307535 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Shi, C., Jiménez, A. and Palomo, A. (2011). New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit of an alternative to
Portland cement. Cement and Concrete Research, [online] 41(7), pp.750-763. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884611000925 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Song, D., Yang, J., Chen, B., Hayat, T. and Alsaedi, A. (2016). Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a
typical cement production chain. Applied Energy, [online] 164, pp.916-923. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915010715 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Stajanča, M. and Eštoková, A. (2012). Environmental Impacts of Cement Production. Lviv Polytechnic National
University Institutional Repository, [online] pp.296-302. Available at:
http://ena.lp.edu.ua:8080/bitstream/ntb/16692/1/55-Stajanca-296-302.pdf [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].
Sutter, L. and Parry, J. (2015). Comparison of Class C versus Class F Fly Ash for Concrete Pavement. Wisconsin
Highway Research Program, [online] (No. 0092-12-04). Available at:
http://wisconsindot.gov/documents2/research/WisDOT-WHRP-project-0092-12-04-brief.pdf [Accessed 9 Feb.
2018].

Tsakiridis, P., Samouhos, M. and Perraki, M. (2017). Valorization of Dried Olive Pomace as an alternative fuel
resource in cement clinkerization. Construction and Building Materials, [online] 153, pp.202-210. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061817314344 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2016). User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement
Construction. [online] Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/cfa53.cfm [Accessed 28
Jan. 2018].

Uwasu, M., Hara, K. and Yabar, H. (2014). World cement production and environmental
implications. Environmental Development, [online] 10, pp.36-47. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464514000256 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Vargas, J. and Halog, A. (2015). Effective carbon emission reductions from using upgraded fly ash in the cement
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 103, pp.948-959. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615005296 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Wei, Z., Wang, B., Falzone, G., La Plante, E., Okoronkwo, M., She, Z., Oey, T., Balonis, M., Neithalath, N., Pilon,
L. and Sant, G. (2018). Clinkering-free cementation by fly ash carbonation. Journal of CO2 Utilization, [online]
23, pp.117-127. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982017305954
[Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].

Zevenhoven, R. and Kohlmann, J. (2002). CO2 Sequestration by Magnesium Silicate Mineral Carbonation in
Finland. Nordic Minisymposium on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, [online] 2, pp.13-18. Available at:
http://www.entek.chalmers.se/~anly/symp/01zevenhoven.pdf [Accessed 28 Jan. 2018].