4.3 Article

Investigation of Global Warming Potential of Concrete with Silica Fume and Blast Furnace Slag

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40996-023-01264-x

关键词

Global warming potential; Blast furnace slag; Silica fume; Carbon dioxide emission; Life-cycle assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Building materials in the construction industry, particularly concrete and cement, contribute significantly to global CO2 emissions. This study investigates the GWP and environmental assessment of concrete with different dosages and mineral additives, revealing the importance of replacing cement with mineral additives to reduce CO2 emissions.
Building materials in the construction industry, particularly concrete and cement, are one of the parameters that cause an increase in global CO2 emissions. Cement production is responsible for 5-8% of these emissions, being a key factor in global warming potential (GWP). This underscores the need for scholarly attention to the reduction of cement consumption and CO2 emissions. Correspondingly, this study investigates the GWPs (CO2-equivalent emissions) and environmental assessment of concrete with different dosages and mineral additives through experiments. Seven different concrete mixtures were prepared at two different dosages (300 kg/m3 and 400 kg/m3), replacing different proportions of cement with blast furnace slag (BFS) and silica fume (SF). The GWPs of the concrete mixtures were obtained using life-cycle assessment (LCA). The results demonstrated 8-11% lower GWP values for concrete containing SF than the concrete without SF. In addition, replacing the cement with BFS reduces the GWP by approximately 8-39%. Both experimental and numerical outcomes highlighted the importance of replacing cement with mineral additives to reduce CO2 emissions, thereby promoting sustainable practice in the construction sector. In addition, an environmental assessment demonstrated that the main criteria air pollutants generally increase with the increasing use of cement.

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

4.3
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