Abstract
The increasing volume of Construction and demolition waste (CDW) associated with economic growth is posing challenges to the sustainable management of the built environment. The largest fraction of all the CDW generated in the member states of the European Union (EU) is End-of-life (EOL) concrete. The most widely applied method for EOL concrete recovery in Europe is road base backfilling, which is considered low-grade recovery. The common practice for high-grade recycling is wet process that processes and washes EOL concrete into clean coarse aggregate for concrete manufacturing. It is costly. As a result, a series of EU projects have been launched to advance the technologies for high value-added concrete recycling. A critical environmental and economic evaluation of such technological innovations is important to inform decision making, while there has been a lack of studies in this field. Hence the present study aimed to assess the efficiency of the technical innovations in high-grade concrete recycling, using an improved eco-efficiency analytical approach by integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). Four systems of high-grade concrete recycling were analyzed for comparison: (i) business-as-usual (BAU) stationary wet processing; (ii) stationary advanced dry recovery (ADR); (iii) mobile ADR; (iv) mobile ADR and Heating Air Classification (A&H). An overarching framework was proposed for LCA/LCC-type eco-efficiency assessment conforming to ISO standards. The study found that technological routes that recycle on-site and produce high-value secondary products are most advantageous. Accordingly, policy recommendations are proposed to support the technological innovations of CDW management.
Highlights
Construction and demolition waste (CDW) is widely acknowledged as one of the most important sources of waste (Koutamanis et al, 2018)
In this eco-efficiency study, the cost indicator is supposed to relate the environmental indicator which is based on life cycle assessment (LCA); the cost indicator was calculated according to the environmental life cycle costing (LCC) methodology (Swarr et al, 2011), in which the LCC is constructed in three steps: 1) goal and scope definition; 2) life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis; 3) life cycle interpretation
The life cycle costs of S3 advanced dry recovery (ADR)-S are slightly higher (9%) than that of S4 A&H, they both can be considered as economically feasible methods for concrete recycling
Summary
Construction and demolition waste (CDW) is widely acknowledged as one of the most important sources of waste (Koutamanis et al, 2018). This is especially true for Europe, where the stock of buildings and infrastructure was built during World War II and renewal including. The CDW has been identified by the European Commission (EC) (2001) as a priority stream because of the large amounts that are generated and the high potential for re-use and recycling embodied in these materials. Experts foresee that landfill of EOL concrete can be reduced to 0% and that the use of recycled concrete aggregates in road construction can significantly contribute to reaching the 70% target for CDW recycling in the EU (Bio Intelligence Service, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
