Title:
Environmental Benefits of Using Glass Powder in Manhole Production
Author(s):
J.-M. Lessard, J. Cloutier, A. Tagnit-Hamou, B. Amor
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
320
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
19.1-19.14
Keywords:
Concrete, Glass powder, LCA, Life Cycle Assessment, Metakaolin, Supplementary cementitious material, Underground manhole
DOI:
10.14359/51701057
Date:
8/1/2017
Abstract:
Approximately 14,000 underground manholes (UM) are used for the connection and maintenance of the electricity distribution network in Quebec (Canada). These underground reinforced concrete structures are subjected to an aggressive environment (moisture, salts, acidity, temperature) leading to premature deterioration of the concrete and corrosion of the rebar. Replacing 20% of the mass of the ordinary Portland cement (OPC) by glass powder (GP), with
or without 9% of metakaolin (MK) in their concrete mixture is a promising approach to improve their durability while giving an added value to the mixed glass waste. The environmental benefits of such mixtures have been modelled using life cycle assessment (LCA). The results show that using 20% of GP in UM production reduces life cycle damage to human health, ecosystem quality, global warming and non-renewable resource consumption by 37%. An additional
9% of MK lowered these reductions by 44%.
Related References:
1. Ministère du Développement durable de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements Climatiques,2015, Stratégie gouvernementale de développement durable 2015-2020, Québec, 121 pp.
2. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M., 2013, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, McGraw HillProfessional, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Athens, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New Delhi,Singapore, Sydney, Toronto, 675 pp.
3. Aïtcin, P.-C., and Mindess, S., 2011, Sustainability of Concrete, Taylor & Francis, New York, United-States,302 pp.
4. Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., and Jullien, A., 2010, “Environmental impact of cement production : detailof the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation,” J. Clean. Prod., V. 18, No. 5, pp. 478–485.
5. Marceau, M. L., Nisbet, M. A., and Vangeem, M. G., 2007, “Life Cycle Inventory of Portland CementConcrete,” SN3011, Portl. Cem. Assoc. Skokie, Illinois, PCA, 121 pp.
6. Zidol, A., 2014, “Durabilité en milieux agressifs des bétons incorporant la poudre de verre,” PhD thesis,Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada, 234 pp.
7. Zidol, A., 2009, “Optimisation de la finesse de la poudre de verre dans les systèmes cimentaires binaires,”Master’s thesis, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada, 156 pp.
8. Omran, A., and Tagnit-Hamou, A., 2016, “Performance of glass-powder concrete in field applications,”Constr. Build. Mater., V. 109, pp. 84–95.
9. Idir, R., Cyr, M., and Tagnit-Hamou, A., 2011, “Pozzolanic properties of fine and coarse color-mixed glasscullet,” Cem. Concr. Compos., V. 33, No. 1, pp. 19–29.
10. Kamali, M., and Ghahremaninezhad, A., 2015, “Effect of glass powders on the mechanical and durabilityproperties of cementitious materials,” Build. Constr. Mater.,V. 98, pp. 407–416.
11. Saad, R., Charron-Doucet, F., and Clément, E., 2015, “Analyse environnementale du cycle de vie de projetsde commercialisation du verre mixte récupéré via des centres de tri de matières recyclables au Québec.,”Recyc-Québec, pp. 1–4.
12. Jiang, M., and Chen, X., 2014, “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional, Glass Powder, andAlkali-Activated Slag Concrete and Mortar,” J. Infrastruct. …, V. 20, No. 4, p. 4014020.
13. Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Lo, I. M. C., and Cheng, J. C. P., 2016, “Comparative LCA on using wastematerials in the cement industry: A Hong Kong case study,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl.http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.012.
14. ISO, 2006, “ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.,”(International Standards Organization.).
15. ISO, 2006, “ISO 14044: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements andGuidelines.,” (International Standards Organization.).
16. Bentez, E. C., and Thomas, M. D. A., 2014, “Life-365TM Service Life Prediction ModelTM and ComputerProgram for Predicting the Service Life and Life-Cycle Cost of Reinforced Concrete Exposed to Chlorides,”Life-365TM Consort. III.
17. EcoInvent, “Allocation cut-off by classification” Online.. Available:http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/system-models-in-ecoinvent-3/cut-off-system-model/allocation-cut-offby-classification.html. Accessed: 01-Jan-2017..
18. Jolliet, O., Saadé, M., Crettaz, P., and Shaked, S., 2010, Analyse du cycle de vie. Comprendre et réaliser unécobilan, Presses polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, Switzerland,302 pp.
19. Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., and Bolio, H., 2011, “Sustainable cement production-present andfuture,” Cem. Concr. Res., V. 41, No. 7, pp. 642–650.
20. Boesch, M. E., Koehler, A., and Hellweg, S., 2009, “Model for cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of clinkerproduction,” Environ. Sci. Technol., V. 43, No. 19, pp. 7578–7583.
21. Kajaste, R., and Hurme, M., 2016, “Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions - Management options andabatement cost,” J. Clean. Prod., V. 112, pp. 4041–4052.