materials-17-04357

materials
Article
Life-Cycle Assessment and Environmental Costs of Cement-
Based Materials Manufactured with Mixed Recycled Aggregate
and Biomass Ash
Francisco Agrela 1, * , Manuel Rosales 1 , Mónica López Alonso 2 , Javier Ordóñez 2
and Gloria M. Cuenca-Moyano 3
1 Construction Engineering Area, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain; z02rosgm@uco.es

2 Civil Engineering School, University of Granada, 18001 Granada, Spain; mlopeza@ugr.es (M.L.A.);
javiord@ugr.es (J.O.)
3 Department of Building Constructions, University of Granada, 18001 Granada, Spain; gloriacuenca@ugr.es
* Correspondence: fagrela@uco.es
Abstract: The development of new building elements, such as concrete and mortar with sustainable
materials, which produce a lower carbon footprint, is an achievable milestone in the short term.
The need to reduce the environmental impact of the production of cement-based materials is of
vital importance. This work focuses on the evaluation of the life-cycle assessment, production costs,
mechanical performance, and durability of three mortars and three concrete mixtures in which mixed
recycled aggregates (MRAs) and biomass bottom ash from olive waste (oBBA) were included to
replace cement and aggregates. Powdered MRA and oBBA were also applied as complementary
cementitious materials with a reduced environmental footprint. Chemical and physical tests were
performed on the materials, and mechanical performance properties, life-cycle assessment, and
life-cycle cost analysis were applied to demonstrate the technical and environmental benefits of using
these materials in mortar and concrete mixtures. This research showed that the application of MRA
and oBBA produced a small reduction in mechanical strength but a significant benefit in terms of
life-cycle population and environmental costs. The results demonstrated that finding long-term
Citation: Agrela, F.; Rosales, M.; mechanical strength decreases between 2.7% and 14% for mortar mixes and between 1.7% and 10.4%
Alonso, M.L.; Ordóñez, J.;
for concrete mixes. Although there were small reductions in mechanical performance, the savings
Cuenca-Moyano, G.M. Life-Cycle
in environmental and monetary terms make the feasibility of manufacturing these cement-based
Assessment and Environmental Costs
materials feasible and interesting for both society and the business world. CO2 emissions are reduced
of Cement-Based Materials
by 25% for mortar mixes and 12% for concrete mixes with recycled materials, and it is possible to
Manufactured with Mixed Recycled
Aggregate and Biomass Ash.
reduce the cost per cubic meter of mortar production by 20%, and the savings in the cost of production
Materials 2024, 17, 4357. https:// of a cubic meter of concrete is 13.8%.
doi.org/10.3390/ma17174357
Keywords: life-cycle assessment; life-cycle cost; mixed recycled aggregates; biomass bottom ash;
Academic Editor: Geo Paul
mortar; concrete
Received: 11 July 2024
Revised: 31 July 2024
Accepted: 1 August 2024
Published: 3 September 2024 1. Introduction
The use of waste as a recycled product in the manufacture of concrete is a widespread
practice. The use of natural processed materials, such as cement or natural aggregates, has
a significant environmental impact, both in terms of CO2 emissions and the modification
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
of ecosystems. Cement accounts for about 10% of the mass of concrete, 4 Gigatonnes per
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
year, the same quantity as global food consumption [1]. Building-related activities generate
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
7.7 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year, of which cement generates 36% [2]. The processes that
conditions of the Creative Commons
emit the most CO2 are hydrocarbons for the calcination and decarbonation of limestone,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// related to the production of clinker [3,4]. With respect to aggregates, 17.5 Gigatonnes per
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ year are included as gravel and sand in the production of concrete [5].
4.0/).
Materials 2024, 17, 4357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174357 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2024, 17, 4357 2 of 36
As cement is the most environmentally costly element of the building material, the
use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) is of vital importance. Elements, such
as fly ash, blast-furnace slag [6], Metakaolin, or silica fume, replace part of the cement used
in a concrete mix.
By increasing the degree of substitution and optimising mixtures, a 45% reduction
in CO2 emissions can be achieved [3]. In addition, there are recycled materials, such
as Construction & Demolition Waste (CDW) [7], with a high clay and Biomass Bottom
Ash (BBA) [8] composition that can be included as cement substitutes with a previous
crushing process, without including a calcining process. There are studies in which recycled
aggregates are included in cementitious matrices. The study carried out by Chen et al. [9]
includes mechanical resistance tests in which the concrete has been reinforced with steel
and plastic fibers. Furthermore, this study determines the behaviour under eccentric loads,
bringing us closer to the real usefulness of these materials. In addition, the study carried out
by Teng et al. [10] includes basalt fibre reinforced polymer bars and reinforced geopolymer
concrete being subjected to seawater in terms of corrosion and durability.
Currently, there is a diversity of regulations and uses of recycled elements in concrete
for buildings depending on the country of focus. In Spain, mixed recycled aggregate is
limited to 20% as a substitute for coarse aggregate [11], although the scientific literature
determines that the use of recycled elements in concrete can be feasible in higher percent-
ages and as a substitute for cement or fine aggregates [12]. Both in Spain and in other
countries, there is reluctance, materialised through regulations, to use recycled elements in
structural concrete. There are studies that have evaluated the use of recycled aggregate for
columns and beams as reinforced concrete, finding results of mechanical properties and
durability comparable to conventional concrete. Failures and cracks are found in concentric
and eccentric loads with the same progression as conventional concrete [13].
Other materials, such as calcined clay [14], present better values, but, as the calcining
temperature increases to 900 ◦ C, the pozzolanicity decreases, with the fall in resistance
being more accentuated. Clays calcined at 600 ◦ C show a high specific surface area and
the complete dehydroxylation of kaolinite but incomplete decomposition of the clay. For
temperatures of 800 ◦ C, it continues to show an adequate specific surface and a partial
decomposition of the clay, being in an adequate structural disorder. However, when
calcination temperatures exceed 900 ◦ C, we find that crystals form, decreasing their specific
surface and finding limitations in their hardening via hydration [15].
Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is the collection and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and
potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. This method-
ology makes it possible to quantify the associated environmental loads, as well as to identify
the processes that contribute significantly to the impact, which is why it is a fundamental
application tool in the design of materials, products, or systems [16,17].
In this regard, LCA has been used in numerous studies to assess the environmental
impact associated with the manufacture of construction and building materials, such as
concrete [18–23], ceramic tiles [24], thermal insulation materials [25], expanded clay [26],
phase change materials [27], wood-based building materials [18,28], or cement [29–33].
Likewise, in the current context of the circular economy, the manufacture of construc-
tion and building materials with secondary materials from waste entails an environmental
benefit that can be analysed and quantified through the application of LCA. Consequently,
research has been carried out that has technically and environmentally evaluated the in-
corporation of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste or biomass
ash as a replacement for natural aggregates or cement in the manufacture of building
materials, such as masonry mortar [34,35], concrete [19,36], precast concrete [37,38], ce-
ramic tiles [24,39,40], bricks [41,42], road pavement [43], and warm mixture asphalt [44]
These studies have determined the reduction of environmental loads associated with the
substitution of raw materials for secondary materials, which also avoids the final disposal
of waste in the landfill [45–47].
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 3 of 36
Environmental and Material Costs (EMCs) are the total costs of a construction applied
to their parts throughout their life, including the costs of planning, design, construction,
operations, maintenance, and disposal, minus any residual value. EMCs can address a
period of analysis, which covers the entire life cycle, or selected stage(s) or periods of
interest therein.
Including an EMC analysis in mortar and concrete mixture studies together with LCA,
could be very useful for decision makers to choose solutions that are more efficient from
an economic and environmental point of view, and even more so with the increase in
construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs. The use of EMCs as a tool nowadays
is needed to solve several problems, as pointed out in the literature, such as selecting the
correct discount rate and agency costs or quantifying non-agency costs as user costs [48].
In recent years, some experiments have been carried out with the aim of reducing the
environmental impact of mortar and concrete, substituting part of the natural materials
for recycled aggregates. The integrated use of LCA and EMCs could facilitate the decision
to choose the most sustainable option [49,50]. In this research, the authors analyse the
costs of the different materials used to manufacture mortar and concrete mixtures that
replace natural aggregates with recycled aggregates in order to assess which is the most
economical solution.
This study carries out a study of the mechanical behaviour, environmental impact, and
monetary savings of different concrete and mortar mixes with recycled materials. Firstly,
a description and characterisation of the materials in this crude material is established,
followed by a study of the mechanical behaviour and durability of the cement-based
mixes studied. Once the technical feasibility has been demonstrated, the basis for an
environmental study is established by means of software that calculates the pollution
savings of the recycled mixes. Next, the mortar and concrete mixes studied are studied in
economic terms and can be compared with conventional mixes.
It is important to quantify the positive aspects of introducing recycled materials into
cement-based mixes. One of the most appropriate ways to make the use of recycled materi-
als attractive is to show the pollution savings and savings in economic terms. This study
brings together mixed research, ranging from the technical aspects of cement-based materi-
als (mechanical strength and durability) to environmental and monetary research, studying
the LCA and EMCs of different mortar and concrete mixtures. The transfer of knowledge
is essential in scientific activity, so quantifying monetary and environmental savings by
establishing the technical feasibility is an important objective in scientific progress, making
the production of cement-based materials with recycled materials attractive.
2. Materials and Methods

The building materials included in this work were divided into two types, materials
applied in mortar mixtures and materials applied in concrete mixtures. Recycled materials
were included as supplementary cement materials (pBBA and pMRA) and materials re-
placing natural aggregates (fine MRA for mortar mixtures and BBA and MRA for concrete
mixtures) and conventional materials (standard natural sand, ordinary Portland cement,
and natural aggregates). Also included in this section are the dosages of mortar and
concrete. Physicochemical analyses were carried out for all [51].
2.1. Mortar Component Materials

2.1.1. Cement CEM I 42.5R
The cement used in this research was a commercial CEM I 52.5R (Votorantim cements,
Málaga, Spain), and the chemical composition is summarised in Table 1.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 4 of 36
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of Cement CEM I 52.5R.
XRF (%) UNE-EN 196-6 [52]

CEM I 52.5R CaO SiO2 SO3 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 MgO K2 O Na2 O TiO2 Density (kg/m3 )
70.03 17.06 4.49 3.63 1.89 1.36 0.94 0.29 0.31 3070
2.1.2. Powder of Biomass Bottom Ash (pBBA)

With respect to the replacement of cement with waste, biomass bottom ash powder
is presented in this section. This material comes from Linares, Andalucía, Spain, where
the power generation plant is located and where the fuel used is olive pruning and olive
cake derived from oil extraction. The ash was milled to a grain size between 0 mm and
0.125 mm, obtaining pBBA. The properties of the powder pBBA derived from the physical
and chemical characterisation are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Physicochemical characterisation of BBA powder (pBBA).
Cement Substitute Wastes—Characterisation of pBBA

Properties Size Results Test Method
Density-SSD (kg/m3 ) 0–0.125 mm 2840
UNE-EN 1097-6 [53]
Water Absorption (%) 0–0.125 mm 20.96
Acid 0.29
Sulphates (% SO4 ) 0–0.125 mm UNE-ISO 11048 [54]
Water 0.29
Chlorides 0–0.125 mm 0.21 UNE-EN 1744-1 [55]
Organic Content (%) 0–0.125 mm 2.57 UNE 103204 [56]
SiO2 (%) 33.96
CaO (%) 31.73
Al2 O3 (%) 6.66
Fe2 O3 (%) 2.94
MgO (%) 5.11
Composition (%) 0–0.125 mm K2 O (%) 15.32 XRF
SO3 (%) 0.57
Na2 O (%) 0.31
TiO2 (%) 0.29
P2 O5 (%) 2.97
MnO2 (%) 0.14
The density is lower than cement, 2840 kg/m3 , and the chemical composition shown
based on X-ray fluorescence determines that the main elements that make up this powder
are SiO2 , CaO, K2 O, and Al2 O3 . These component values are similar to those in other
studies. The amounts of SiO2 (28%), CaO (30%), and Al2 O3 (4%) are similar to the study
carried out by Carrasco-Hurtado et al. [57]. With respect to K2 O, the hydration of alkalis,
such as potassium, causes changes in rheological properties, setting the time and mechanical
strength. The hydration of alkalis, such as this element, causes instability in dimensional
changes and alters the internal structure of cement-based materials [58].
2.1.3. Processed Mixed Recycled Aggregates (pMRA)

The recycled aggregate is produced by GECORSA, a construction and demolition
waste company, whose plant is located in Córdoba, Andalucía, Spain. The material was
used to replace both cement and aggregate. This section presents the characteristics of the
powder obtained for cement substitution, which is obtained by crushing and sieving until
a grain size between 0 mm and 0.125 mm is obtained. Table 3 shows the data obtained from
the characterisation of the powder from the pulverised recycled aggregate.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 5 of 36
Table 3. Physicochemical characterisation of MRA powder (pMRA).
Cement Substitute Wastes—Characterisation of MRA Powder

Properties Size Results Test Method
Density-SSD (kg/m3 ) 0–0.125 mm 2910
UNE-EN 1097-6 [53]
Water Absorption (%) 0–0.125 mm 9.01
Acid 0.70
Sulphates (% SO4 ) 0–0.125 mm UNE-ISO 11048 [54]
Water 0.24
Chlorides (%) 0–0.125 mm 0.07 UNE-EN 1744-1 [55]
Organic Content (%) 0–0.125 mm 0.19 UNE 103204 [56]
SiO2 (%) 45.68
CaO (%) 33.01
Al2 O3 (%) 9.92
Fe2 O3 (%) 3.38
MgO (%) 2.83
Composition (%) 0–0.125 mm K2 O (%) 1.93 XRF
SO3 (%) 1.59
Na2 O (%) 0.68
TiO2 (%) 0.62
P2 O5 (%) 0.19
MnO2 (%) 0.17
The density of MRA powder is lower than that of the cement used, CEM I 42.5R.
Observing the elemental composition, similarities were found with other studies, such
as the one published by Medina et al. [59]. They found that powders with high Al2 O3
and Fe2 O3 contents give competent pozzolanic and mechanical strength results. The
chloride and sulphate contents are an indication of the quality of this supplementary
cement material. Regulations determine the limits of chloride and sulphate content values,
these being 0.1% and 4%, respectively [7]. The content of alkaline elements indicates the
durability of cement-based materials, such as mortar and concrete mixtures [60]. MgO and
K2 O content results shows low values of 2.83% and 1.93%, respectively.
2.1.4. Normalised Sand (SNS) 0/2 mm Size According to EN 196-1 [61]

Natural sand used in the manufacture of mortar mixtures is standardised according to
EN 196-1 [61]. It is a siliceous sand, and the particle distribution is determined in Table 4.
This sand is artificially produced by sieving in several steps until the desired grain size is
achieved.
Table 4. Particle size distribution.
Sieve (mm) Lower Limit Interval Average Upper Limit

2 0 0 0
1.6 2 7 12
1 28 33 38
0.5 62 67 72
0.16 82 87 92
0.08 98 99 100
2.1.5. Mixed Recycled Fine Aggregates (Fine MRA) 0/2 Size, from Gecorsa Company
(Córdoba, Spain)
The mixed recycled aggregates with grain size 0/2 used to replace sand in mortar
mixtures comes from GECORSA. To obtain this grain size, it was screened by eliminating
the fraction above 2 mm. It was the same type of aggregates from which pMRA was
obtained for cement substitution.
The gross composition, according to UNE-EN 933-11 [61], is shown in Table 5. The
quality of recycled aggregates was able to be defined using this test. These results define
that the recycled mixed aggregates used were of high quality.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 6 of 36
Table 5. Gross composition of MRA.
Constituents Composition MRA (0–22 mm) UNE-EN 933-11 [61]

Concrete Natural Ceramic Bituminous Others Glass Floating
(%) Aggregates (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (cm3 /kg)
44.0 34.5 18.6 2.3 0.6 0 0
It can be observed that it was mainly composed of concrete aggregates and natural
aggregates, and these recycled aggregates are considered to be of quality, without impurities,
such as soil or metals. These results show that the aggregates can provide a good mechanical
behaviour for mortar and concrete mixtures.
Table 6 shows a summary of the physical qualities and chemical properties that define
GECORSA’s MRA. All tests were performed under the standards described below.
Table 6. Physicochemical properties of MRA.
Characterisation of Fine Fraction MRA

Properties
Size Results Test Method
Density-SSD (kg/m3 ) 0–4 mm 2370
UNE-EN 1097-6 [53]
Water Absorption (%) 0–4 mm 9.42
Friability Ratio (%) 0.1–2 mm 23.9 UNE 146404 [62]
Sand Equivalent (%) 0–2 mm 75.28 UNE-EN 933-8 [63]
Organic Content (%) 0–2 mm 0.19 UNE 103204 [56]
Chlorides (%) 0–2 mm 0.04 UNE-EN 1744-1 [55]
Water-soluble
0–2 mm 0.35
sulphates (%)
Acid-soluble
0–2 mm 0.35
sulphates (%)
Two of the most important values for the design of mortar and concrete mixtures are
density and water absorption. Density, being different from a natural aggregate, causes the
volume occupied for the same mass to be different. It is necessary to adjust the weights
so that the volume is conserved. Regarding water absorption by the aggregate, it must
be taken into account for the total amount of water to be added to each mix. If only the
water established based on the water–cement ratio is added, the aggregates may absorb
water, preventing the cement from fully hydrating. For this reason, saturation water
is added, which is necessary to saturate the aggregate, leaving water available for the
complete hydration of the cement. Other authors [64] broke down the regulatory limits
of these values in his study. The most restrictive values for good mechanical performance
determine that MRA density must be greater than 2.2 kg/dm3 and water absorption less
than 7%. Since the MRA studied in this article has a high content of ceramic particles, the
absorption of the 0–4 mm fraction is higher than this value. However, the granulometric
fraction of 4–22 mm has an absorption lower than the most restrictive limit presented by
Brito et al. [64].
The friability and sand equivalent values obtained in this study were 23.9% and
75.28%, respectively. With respect to physical parameters, three recycled aggregates with
friability ratios between 24% and 27% have been studied [65]. Previous studies give higher
values of friability and sand equivalents; for example, the fine recycled sand in one of these
studies has a friability ratio of 32% [66]. The sand equivalent of this recycled aggregate
is 86%.
Chemical parameters, such as chlorides and sulphates [67], compared the values
established by Spanish regulations with values derived from a literature review. Spanish
regulations establish that chlorides should be less than 0.05% and sulphates in water and
acid less than 1% and 0.8%, respectively.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 7 of 36
2.1.6. Admixture
Mortar mixtures containing recycled materials show lower workability, making these
mixtures not as fluid as control mixtures, so a commercial superplasticiser admixture,
called SIKAMENT 3003 ES from the company SIKA (Madrid, Spain), was included in the
mixtures with recycled substitutes.
Thanks to this admixture, the viscosity of the mixtures was achieved, matching the
workability of the control mix. In addition, the amount of water was reduced, so that the
water added was the amount necessary to hydrate the recycled phases and hydrate the
cement. This point is important because an excess of water causes the mixtures to contain
more porosity, making the mechanical strength lower than expected.
2.2. Component Materials of Concrete Mixtures

This section presents the materials used for concrete mixtures. It should be noted that
the milled MRA and milled BBA powder is the same as that used for the mortar mixtures,
so the characterisation is not presented again. Mixed recycled aggregates8 implemented
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 40
in the concrete mixtures come from the same recycling plant, GECORSA, but in this case,
we will focus on describing the parameters of the particle size fraction of 4–22 mm. The
0–4 mm
2.2.2. fraction
Natural was described in the mortars section.
Aggregates
These aggregates came from a dolomitic quarry located in the municipality of
2.2.1. Cement CEM II 42.5
Cordoba. The aggregates were divided into three parts depending on their grain size: fine
naturalThe cements(0–4mm),
aggregates used in this research
medium wereaggregates
natural CEM II 42.5 and CEM
(4–12mm), andI 52.5.
coarseThe physicochem-
natural
ical properties
aggregates of CEM
(12–22mm). ItsIIphysical
42.5 arecharacterisation
summarised inisTable
shown 7,in
and this8 type
Table of cement
and particle sizepresented
around a 18%
distribution of Limestone
in Figure 1. filler. The properties of CEM I 52.4 are summarised in Table 1.
Table
Table8.7.Physical characterisation
Physicochemical of natural
properties aggregates.
of Cement CEM II 42.5.
Characterisation of Natural Aggregate
PropertiesXRF (%) UNE-EN 196-6 [52]
CEM II 42.5 CaO SiO2Density-SSD
SO3 (kg/m Al2 O
3)3 Fe2 O3 MgO K2 O
2590 Na2 O TiO2 Density (kg/m3 )
59.53 27.65 3.73 4.52 0–4 mm
1.42 1.31 1.29 0.28 0.27 3110
Water Absorption (%) 0.72
Density-SSD (kg/m3) 2640 UNE-EN 1097-6
4–12 mm
The cement used was a type of cement with high compressive strength, [53] especially
Density-SSD (kg/m 3)
suitable for mass concrete, reinforced concrete, 2660
non-prestressed prefabricated concrete, and
12–22 mm
Water
for the Absorption
manufacture (%)of mortar mixtures in general.
0.44
2.2.2. Natural Aggregates UNE-EN 933-8
Sand Equivalent (%) 0–2 mm 87.7
These aggregates came from a dolomitic quarry located in the municipality[63] of Cordoba.
10–12.5
The aggregates
Crushing Valuewere
(%) divided into three parts 18.58
depending on their ISOgrain size:
20290-3 fine natural
[68]
mm
aggregates (0–4 mm), medium natural aggregates (4–12 mm), and coarse natural aggregates
UNE-EN 1097-2
(12–22
Losmm). Its(%)
Angeles physical characterisation
10–14 mm is shown
20.0 in Table 8 and particle size distribution
[69]
in Figure 1.
Particle
Figure1.1.Particle
Figure sizesize distribution
distribution of natural
of natural aggregates.
aggregates.
Natural aggregates present a density and absorption in line with other works [70,71],
where it establishes the density of medium and coarse natural aggregates (4–22mm) at
2780 kg/m3 and 2650 kg/m3, respectively and, with respect to their absorption, 1.91% and
1.8%, respectively. Natural sand previously studied has a density of 2600 kg/m3 and water
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 8 of 36
Table 8. Physical characterisation of natural aggregates.
Characterisation of Natural Aggregate

Properties
Density-SSD (kg/m3 ) 2590
0–4 mm
4–12 mm UNE-EN 1097-6 [53]
12–22 mm
Crushing Value (%) 10–12.5 mm 18.58 ISO 20290-3 [68]
Los Angeles (%) 10–14 mm 20.0 UNE-EN 1097-2 [69]
Natural aggregates present a density and absorption in line with other works [70,71],
where it establishes the density of medium and coarse natural aggregates (4–22 mm) at
2780 kg/m3 and 2650 kg/m3 , respectively and, with respect to their absorption, 1.91% and
1.8%, respectively. Natural sand previously studied has a density of 2600 kg/m3 and water
absorption of 0.6% [72]. This same study characterises natural aggregates of a grain size
of 10–14 mm with a Los Angeles coefficient of 15%, a density of 2630 kg/m3 , and water
absorption of 0.3. A study analysing the properties of natural sands from different locations
in Turkey presents three river sands. These sands have sand equivalents between 83%
and 95% and densities between 2560 kg/m3 and 2620 kg/m3 [73]. Natural aggregates of
siliceous nature from western Saudi Arabia have been studied. The Los Angeles coefficient
and the ACV coefficient have values close to those of the natural aggregates studied in
this paper. They obtained values from 14% to 24% for the angels and from 14% to 22% for
the ACV [74].
2.2.3. Mixed Recycled Aggregates (MRAs) (0/22 mm)

To perform the characterisation of mixed recycled aggregates for concrete produc-
tion the distinction between fine and coarse was made for the calculation of density and
absorption. The Friability ratio, Sand equivalent, Aggregates Crushing Value, and Los An-
geles coefficient were calculated following the standards. The results obtained of physical
characterisation are presented in Table 9, with the particle size distribution in Figure 2.
Numerous studies have characterised mixed recycled aggregates for the manufacture
of cement-based materials. Several mixed recycled aggregates have been studied, and their
dry bulk density was between 2590 kg/m3 and 2670 kg/m3 [75]. The water absorptions
presented by this study were between 5.42% and 10.05%. Another study characterised three
types of fine recycled aggregates for the manufacture of mortar mixtures. In this study,
the friability index of the recycled fine aggregates was between 24.02% and 27.20% [65],
in accordance with the results obtained from the MRA studied in this paper. For the
absorption of this recycled sand, the range of values was between 6.12% and 7.48%. Thirteen
construction and demolition wastes from different parts of the Iberian Peninsula were
studied [76]. Of the 13 materials studied, 9 had a coefficient of Los Angeles between 31.27%
and 40.99%, values very close to GECORSA’s mixed recycled aggregate. Observing the
results obtained from the characterisation of GECORSA’s mixed recycled aggregate, the
low values of the Los Angeles coefficient and friability ratio, together with a high value
of the sand equivalent in comparison with other mixed recycled aggregates, made this
material feasible for the production of cement-based materials, such as concrete or mortar.
absorption. The Friability ratio, Sand equivalent, Aggregates Crushing Value, and Los
Angeles coefficient were calculated following the standards. The results obtained of
physical characterisation are presented in Table 9, with the particle size distribution in
Figure 2.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 9 of 36
Table 9. Physical characterisation of mixed recycled aggregates (MRA).
Characterisation of MRA
Properties
Table 9. Physical characterisationSize Results
of mixed recycled aggregates (MRA). Test Method
Density-SSD (kg/m3) 2370
0–4 mm Characterisation of MRA
Water Absorption (%)
Properties 9.42 UNE-EN 1097-6
Density-SSD (kg/m3) 2320 [53]
Density-SSD (kg/m3 )(%) 4–22 mm 2370
Water Absorption 0–4 mm 6.49
Friability Ratio (%) 0.1–2 mm 23.9 UNE-EN 1097-6 [53]
UNE 146404 [62]
4–22 mm UNE-EN 933-8
Water
SandAbsorption
Equivalent(%)
(%) 0–2 mm 6.49
75.28
Friability Ratio (%) 0.1–2 mm 23.9
[63]
UNE 146404 [62]
Crushing
Sand Value
Equivalent (%)(%) 10–12.5 mm
0–2 mm 26.69
75.28 ISO 20290-3
UNE-EN 933-8 [63][68]
Crushing Value (%) 10–12.5 mm 26.69 UNE-EN 1097-2
ISO 20290-3 [68]
LosAngeles
Los Angeles(%)(%) 10–14 mm
10–14 mm 34.72
34.72 UNE-EN 1097-2
[69] [69]
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Particle
Particle size distribution of
size distribution of MRA.
MRA.
2.2.4.Numerous
Biomass BottomstudiesAsh
have (BBA) (0/4 mm)mixed recycled aggregates for the manufacture
characterised
of cement-based
Biomass bottom materials. Several mixed
ash is composed recycled
of unburned aggregates
coarse particles have beeninstudied,
produced and
the primary
their dry bulk
combustion densityduring
chamber was between 2590 kg/m
the biomass energy 3 and 2670 kg/m3 [75]. The water absorptions
production process [77,78]. The BBA came
presented
from by this power
the biomass study were
plant between
located in 5.42% andof10.05%.
Linares AnotherSacyr
the company study characterised
Industrial. The
three types
biomass usedof as
fine recycled
fuel supplyaggregates for generation
for electricity the manufacture of mortar
is composed mixtures.
of 60% wood,Infrom
this
study, the
almond andfriability index
olive tree of theand
pruning, recycled fine aggregates
40% olive cake. was between 24.02% and 27.20%
[65], The
in accordance with the
physic-chemical results obtained
properties of BBA are from the MRA
shown studied
in Table in this
10. BBA paper.
shows Forbulk
a low the
density value 3 ) and a high-water absorption (19.82%). Researchers with a long
absorption of(1.94
this kg/dm
recycled sand, the range of values was between 6.12% and 7.48%.
history
Thirteenofconstruction
studying thisand residue had previously
demolition wastes from tested biomass
different bottom
parts ash
of the for construction
Iberian Peninsula
and building [77]. This paper studies ash from different power generation plants and at
different moments of the year. The absorption values were between 27% and 14% and, for
density values, between 1.82 kg/dm3 and 2.26 kg/dm3 . However, friability ratios of this
study were higher than the BBA included in this work (between 23% to 34%). Previous
work on the Iberian Peninsula states that the amount of organic matter in biomass ash from
olive pruning is 5.10% [79], somewhat higher than the ash under study. A more in-depth
study of the biomass bottom ash from olive burning was carried out before [78]. In this
study, the raw ash was found to have a sulphate content of 0.29 and 0.31 (water and acid
soluble, respectively). Water absorption and density were also determined, with these
values being 21.8% and 1860 kg/m3 .
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 10 of 36
Table 10. Physicochemical properties of biomass bottom ash (BBA).
Characterisation of BBA
Properties
Density-SSD (k) 0–4 mm 1.94 UNE-EN 1097-6 [53]
Water Absorption (%) 0–4 mm 19.82
Organic Content (%) 0–2 mm 3.1 UNE 103204 [56]
Chlorides (%) 0–2 mm 0.23
Water-soluble sulphates (%) 0–2 mm 0.29 UNE-EN 1744-1 [55]
Acid-soluble sulphates (%) 0–2 mm 0.29
2.2.5. Admixture
In concrete mixtures with recycled materials, as in mortar mixtures, a commercial
superplasticiser admixture, called VISCOCRETE 6003 NG from the company SIKA, was
included in the dosage. The main objective was to equalise the workability of the recycled
mixtures to the control mixture without adding more water. When more water was added
to the mix, taking into account the hydration water of the cement and the saturation water
to hydrate the recycled elements, the mechanical strengths were reduced. By adding
this superplasticising admixture, a viscosity of the concrete with recycled elements was
achieved in accordance with the viscosity of the conventional reference concrete without
reducing its mechanical capacities.
2.3. Dosages
Three mortar and three concrete mixtures were made to be evaluated in terms of
environmental cost, monetary cost, and mechanical performance.
In the mortar mixtures, a control mortar made with CEM II 42.5, standard sand, and a
water–cement ratio of 0.5 was included. In addition, two more mixtures were performed
with CEM I 52.5. The first replaced cement with a powder mixture from MRA and BBA. Six
percent of the cement was replaced by pBBA, and 19 percent of the cement was replaced by
pMRA. Due to previous studies [8], the pozzolanic capacities of pMRA were higher than
pBBA due to the high content of ceramic elements. The third mortar mixture studied in this
work contained a cement substitution as the previous one (6% pBBA and 19% pMRA), in
addition to substituting 20% of the normalised sand with the fine fraction of MRA (particle
size between 0 and 2 mm). The dosages are broken down in Table 11.
By adding the substitution of 20% of natural normalised sand for the fine fraction
of MRA, it found that the need to hydrate the aggregates resulted in the existence of
absorption water. In addition, to preserve the consistency of the mortar mixtures, an
admixture was included at 0.22% by weight of the cement. The consistency of the mortar
mixtures was 20.7 cm.
In the concrete mixtures, a control mixture with conventional cement and natural
aggregates was also included. In this case, the cement substitution was given with 19%
pMRA and 6% pBBA for the same reason as explained above. In addition, in the third mix,
natural aggregates were replaced with mixed recycled aggregates and biomass bottom ash.
The concrete dosages are determined in Table 12.
All mixtures had a water–cement ratio of 0.42. Note that the densities of pMRA and
pBBA were lower than that of cement. For dosages with cement replacement, the total
weight of powders (cement, pMRA, and pBBA) was less for the same volume, so the water
required to hydrate all phases was less. The saturation water required to achieve a good
workability is specified in the saturation water column.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 11 of 36
Table 11. Dosages of mortar mixtures (kg/m3 ).
Dosages—Mortar Mixtures (kg/m3 )

Series Name Description CEM I CEMII
pBBA pMRA SNS (0/2 mm) Fine MRA (0/2 mm) Water Water Absorption Admixture
52.5 42.5
M-Control Control CEM II 42.5 - 540 0 0 1620 0 270 0 0
M-EcHy 6% pBBA 19% pMRA 405 - 29.7 96.3 1620 0 265.5 0 0
6% pBBA 19% pMRA
M-EcHy/20M 405 - 29.7 96.3 1296 271.9 265.5 11.5 1.2
20% MRA
Table 12. Dosages of concrete mixtures.
Dosages—Concrete Mixtures (kg/m3 )

Series Name Description CEM I CEM II CA MA FA MRA BBA Water
pBBA pMRA Water Admixture
52.5 42.5 (12/22 mm) (4/12 mm) (0/4 mm) (0/22 mm) (0/4 mm) Absorption
C-Control Control CEM II 42.5 - 365 0 0 915 325 625 0 0 153.3 0 0
C-EcHy 19% pMRA 6% pBBA 256 - 23 69 915 325 625 0 0 146.3 16 0
19% pMRA 6% pBBA
C-EcHy/28M-6B 256 - 23 69 600 170 460 472 80 146.3 53 3.8
28.5% MRA 6% BBA
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 12 of 36
3. Experimental Methods and Results of Mechanical Behaviour of Mortars and

Concrete Mixture
3.1. Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength in Mortar and Concrete Mixtures
To obtain the mechanical performance of each of the mixtures, the compressive
strength of the concrete and mortar mixtures was studied. Compressive strength was
determined according to UNE-EN 12390-3 [80] for concrete and according to UNE-EN
196-1 [61] for mortar mixtures. For the mortar and concrete mixtures, the mechanical
compressive strengths at 7, 28, and 90 days were obtained. For each of the ages, 6 mortar
specimens of 4 × 4 × 4 cm and 3 concrete specimens of 10 × 10 × 10 cm were broken, and
the average values obtained were presented.
Also, flexural strength was determined according to UNE-EN 12390-5 [81] for concrete
mixtures with 2 specimens and according to UNE-EN 196-1 [61] for mortar mixtures with
3 specimens. Average values are presented in this work. These mechanical performances
were determined at 7, 28, and 90 days.
3.1.1. Results of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Mortar Mixtures

Mortar mixtures were tested under standardised compressive and flexural strength
tests, and the results were obtained at 7, 28, and 90 days. The results are shown in Table 13
and Figure 3.
Table 13. Mechanical strength for mortar mixtures.
Compressive S. (Mpa) Flexural S. (Mpa)

Serie Name Description 7 Days 28 Days 90 Days 7 Days 28 Days 90 Days
µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ
M-Control Control CEM II 42.5 48.34 1.07 51.48 0.94 56.66 0.91 6.98 0.14 8.72 0.18 8.91 0.22
Mortar M-EcHy 19% pMRA 6% pBBA 44.83 1.18 49.74 0.97 55.04 1.08 6.14 0.21 7.99 0.19 8.67 0.24
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW
19% pMRA 6% pBBA 13 of 40
M-Echy/20M 37.46 0.79 43.85 0.86 48.61 0.84 4.76 0.24 6.37 0.18 7.84 0.19
20% MRA
(a) (b)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. (a)
(a) Compressive
Compressive strength
strength for
for mortar
mortar mixtures;
mixtures; (b)
(b) flexural
flexural strength
strengthfor
formortar
mortarmixtures.
mixtures.
In the
In the mortar
mortar mixtures
mixtures that
that substituted
substitutedcement
cementand andsand
sand(M-Echy/20M),
(M-Echy/20M), there
there was
was aa
more accentuated drop in strength with respect to the control mix. The
more accentuated drop in strength with respect to the control mix. The drops in mechanical drops in
mechanical compressive
compressive strength were strength
22.5%,were 22.5%,
14.8%, 14.8%, This
and 14.2%. and 14.2%. Thismay
behaviour behaviour
be duemay be
to two
due to two
factors: the factors: the higher
higher porosity porosity
[82] [82] of thewith
of the mixtures mixtures
mixedwith mixedaggregates
recycled recycled aggregates
replacing
replacing
sand sand
and the and the pozzolanicity
pozzolanicity of the new
of the new additions [83],additions
which are[83], which
not as are not as
cementitious as
clinker. In other
cementitious as studies,
clinker. cement
In other wasstudies,
replaced with BBA,
cement was areplaced
20% replacement,
with BBA,havinga 20%a
lower mechanical
replacement, performance,
having a lowerreaching 41.78 MPa
mechanical [78]. Compressive
performance, reachingstrength
41.78 was
MPaable to
[78].
determine
Compressive flexural strength.
strength was These
able tovalues are in accordance
determine with other
flexural strength. studies
These [84,85].
values are in
accordance with other studies [84,85].
3.1.2. Results of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Concrete Mixtures

The concrete mixtures were tested in terms of mechanical strength and dimensional
changes. The compressive and flexural strengths at 7, 28, and 90 days were performed
according to standards. The results are shown in Table 14 and Figure 4.
Table 14. Mechanical strength for concrete mixtures.

cementitious as clinker. In other studies, cement was replaced with BBA, a 20%
replacement, having a lower mechanical performance, reaching 41.78 MPa [78].
Compressive strength was able to determine flexural strength. These values are in
accordance with other studies [84,85].
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 13 of 36
3.1.2. Results of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Concrete Mixtures
changes. The compressive
3.1.2. Results of Compressiveand Strength
flexural and
strengths at 7,
Flexural 28, andof90
Strength days were
Concrete performed
Mixtures
changes. The compressive and flexural strengths at 7, 28, and 90 days were performed
Table 14. Mechanical strength for concrete mixtures.
Serie Name Table 14. Mechanical7 strength
Description Days for28 concrete
Days mixtures.
90 Days 7 Days 28 Days 90 Days
μ σ μ σ μ σ μ σ μ σ μ σ
Serie C-Control
Name Control CEM II 42.5
Description49.7 1.23 55.7
7 Days 1.34
28 Days 58.4 1.09
90 Days 5.09 0.19
7 Days 5.68 0.18
28 Days 5.84 0.22
90 Days
19% pMRA 6% µ 49.1
σ µ
C-EcHy 44.5 1.01 1.14 σ54.7 µ 1.12σ 4.81µ 0.14 σ 5.38 µ 0.16σ 5.74
µ 0.19 σ
pBBA
Concrete C-Control Control CEM II 42.5 49.7 1.23 55.7 1.34 58.4 1.09 5.09 0.19 5.68 0.18 5.84 0.22
C-EcHy
Concrete C-EcHy/28M- 19% pMRA
19% pMRA6% 6% pBBA 44.5 1.01 49.1 1.14 54.7 1.12 4.81 0.14 5.38 0.16 5.74 0.19
pBBA
19% pMRA 6% pBBA39.4 0.98 43.0 1.01 52.3 1.08 4.32 0.21 4.56 0.18 5.42 0.17
6B
C-EcHy/28M-6B
28% MRA 6% BBA
39.4 0.98 43.0 1.01 52.3 1.08 4.32 0.21 4.56 0.18 5.42 0.17
28% MRA 6% BBA
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure4.4.(a)(a)
Compressive
Compressivestrength
strengthfor
forconcrete
concretemixtures;
mixtures;(b)
(b)flexural
flexuralstrength
strengthfor
forconcrete
concrete mixtures.
mixtures.
In concrete mixtures with recycled elements, they cause a drop in strength with respect
to the control mix. Although in the long term, the drops in compressive and flexural
strength were smaller, with drops at 90 days of 6.3% for the C-EcHy mixture that replaced
only cement and 10.4% for the C-EcHy/28M-6B mixture that replaced cement and aggregate.
Other studies like [86] determined that the drop in compressive strength of concrete with
cement and aggregates replacement with BBA and MRA at 90 days is 10% with respect to
the control concrete. This percentage is in accordance with this study.
3.2. Dimensional Changes in Mortar and Concrete Mixtures

During the curing process, the dimensional changes that occurred in the mortar and
concrete mixtures were measured. A micrometre precision comparator was used for these
measurements. For the concrete, the specimens tested were 4 × 4 × 28.5 cm, and for the
mortar mixtures, the specimens tested had original dimensions of 2 × 2 × 28.5 cm. In
order to observe the evolution of the dimensional changes throughout the curing process,
measurements were taken at 2, 7, 14, 28, 56, 72, and 90 days. In addition, the mixtures were
arranged in two environments, in dry and wet chambers.
This section focuses on showing the mechanical capabilities and dimensional changes
of mortar mixtures. In the mortar mixtures, the M-EcHy mixture in which 25% of cement
was replaced with mixed recycled sand powder and biomass bottom ash, and at 7, 28, and
90 days, there was a drop in compressive strength of 7.3%, 3.4%, and 2.8%, respectively.
It is observed that in the long term, the substitution of cement with pBBA increased the
strength [8].
3.2.1. Results of Dimensional Changes of Mortar Mixtures

In order to measure durability parameters, the dimensional changes of the mortar
mixtures were studied. This parameter was measured for specimens subjected to two
7, 28, and 90 days, there was a drop in compressive strength of 7.3%, 3.4%, and 2.8%,
respectively. It is observed that in the long term, the substitution of cement with pBBA
increased the strength [8]
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 3.2.1. Results of Dimensional Changes of Mortar Mixtures 14 of 36
In order to measure durability parameters, the dimensional changes of the mortar
mixtures were studied. This parameter was measured for specimens subjected to two
environments, in aa humid
environments, in humid chamber
chamber (20
(20 ◦°C and70%
C and 70%RH)
RH)and
andsubmerged
submergedininwater.
water.Figure
Figure5
5shows
shows
thethe results,
results, comparing
comparing the behaviour
the behaviour of the mixtures
of the mixtures as of
as a function a the
function of the
environment
environment
to which theytowere
which they were subjected.
subjected.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Dimensional
Dimensional changes
changes for
for mortar
mortar mixtures.
mixtures. (a)
(a) Dry
Dry chamber
chamber environment;
environment; (b)
(b) under
under water
water environment.
environment.
In
In the
the samples
samples subjected
subjected to
to a dry chamber ambient,
ambient, the dimensional
dimensional changeschanges inin the
the
control mortar showed low values. After 20 days of curing, there was volume
control mortar showed low values. After 20 days of curing, there was volume stability, stability,
having
having aalinear
lineardimensional
dimensionalgrowth
growthofof150
150µm/m.
µm/m. Comparing
Comparing thethe
dimensional
dimensional changes
changesof
the mixtures
of the with
mixtures withrecycled materials
recycled with
materials withrespect
respecttotothe
thecontrol
controlmix,
mix,ititisis observed
observed that
that
the
the volume
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW volume stability
stability was
was much
much lower, reaching a shrinkage of 600 µm/m µm/m for for the
the M-EcHy
M-EcHy
15 of 40
mixture
mixture in which only cement was substituted
substituted and
and 750
750µm/m
µm/m for the M-Echy/20M
M-Echy/20Mmixture mixture
in
in which
which natural aggregates and cement were substituted.
In
In the
the samples
samples submerged
submerged under
under water,
water, the
the control mortar had greater dimensional
dimensional
days for all samples. The stabilisation of the control mortar was reached with a shrinkage
changes than
changes thanthe
therecycled
recycledmortar
mortarmixtures,
mixtures,although
although volume
volume stability
stability was was reached
reached at
at 50
of 223 µm/m. The recycled mortar samples had a lower shrinkage than the control, being
50 days for all samples. The stabilisation of the control mortar was reached with a shrinkage
around 10 µm/m for both the M-EcHy and the M-Echy/20M mixtures.
of 223 µm/m. The recycled mortar samples had a lower shrinkage than the control, being
around 10 µm/m for both the M-EcHy and the M-Echy/20M mixtures.
3.2.2. Results of Dimensional Changes in Concrete Mixtures
3.2.2.As
Results
in theofmortar
Dimensional
mixtures,Changes
BBA hasin Concrete Mixtures hardening (90 days). Results
better long-term
showAs that themortar
in the increase in flexural
mixtures, BBA strength
has betterfrom 7 days
long-term to 90 days
hardening (90 is 25.4%
days). for the
Results C-
show
EcHy/28M-6B mixture and 18.3% for the C-EcHy mix. For the C-Control mix, this increase
that the increase in flexural strength from 7 days to 90 days is 25.4% for the C-EcHy/28M-6B
in flexural
mixture strength
and 18.3%isfor
lower, being 14.7%.
the C-EcHy mix. Dimensional change
For the C-Control results
mix, this are shownininflexural
increase Figure
6.
strength is lower, being 14.7%. Dimensional change results are shown in Figure 6.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Dimensional
Dimensional changes
changes for
for concrete
concrete mixtures.
mixtures. (a)
(a) Dry
Drychamber
chamber environment;
environment; (b)
(b) under
under water
water
environment.
environment.
For
For the
the concrete
concrete subjected
subjected to
to the
the dry
dry chamber,
chamber, it
it is
is observed
observed that
that the
the control
control mixture
mixture
reached a volume stability at 14 days, with a shrinkage of 200 µm/m. For the
reached a volume stability at 14 days, with a shrinkage of 200 µm/m. For the mixtures mixtures
with recycled materials, the volume stability was reached at 60 days, causing a shrinkage
of 100 µm/m for C-EcHy and 200 µm/m for C-EcHy/28M-6B.
For concrete specimens subjected to a water-immersed environment, the volume
stability of all specimens was reached at 25 days. The C-Control mixture decreased in size,
having a final shrinkage of 85 µm/m. The mixtures with recycled elements had a swelling
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 15 of 36
with recycled materials, the volume stability was reached at 60 days, causing a shrinkage
For concrete specimens subjected to a water-immersed environment, the volume
stability of all specimens was reached at 25 days. The C-Control mixture decreased in size,
having a final shrinkage of 85 µm/m. The mixtures with recycled elements had a swelling
Mixtures with recycled elements showed similar dimensional change behaviour to
conventional mixtures. Previous studies determined that, due to the saturation water
demand of recycled aggregates, shrinkage increases [87]. There are determining factors
that directly affect the dimensional changes in the mixes, such as the water–cement ratio
or the setting time [88]. In addition, the lower density of the recycled aggregates (see
Tables 9 and 10, density and water absorption of recycled materials) and the porosity of
the mortar added to the old recycled matrix also have repercussions for the dimensional
changes in the concrete and mortar mixes [89,90].
4. LCA Methodology and Results

4.1. LCA Methodology
LCA is defined as the collection and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and potential
environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. According to the
methodology established in the regulations ISO 14040 [91] and ISO 14044 [92], the appli-
cation of the LCA consists of four stages: the definition of the objective and the scope,
the analysis of the inventory, the evaluation of the impact of the life cycle, and finally, the
interpretation of the results.
4.1.1. LCA—Objective, Scope, and System Boundaries

In this study, LCA was carried out to evaluate the environmental impact derived
from the use of MRA and BBA as a replacement for cement and/or natural aggregates in
the manufacture of cement mortar and concrete as construction and building materials
for concrete slabs in buildings. The dosages of the mortar and concrete mixtures to be
evaluated are listed in Tables 11 and 12.
The functional unit in mortar and concrete mixtures corresponds to the manufacture
of one cubic metre (1 m3 ). The system boundaries were established from cradle to gate,
that is, at the product stage. The limits of the mortar and concrete system are shown in
Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Specifically, the system boundaries include the following:
• The manufacture of the components of the mortar and concrete mixtures;
• The avoided production of cement, since the use of pBBA and pMRA as a replacement
for cement avoids the production of cement;
• Avoided production of natural aggregates. In the manufacture of mortar mixtures, the
substitution of SNS for fine MRA avoids the production of SNS. In the manufacture
of concrete, the incorporation of MRA and BBA prevents the production of CA, MA,
and FA;
• As the materials to be used were available at the place of manufacture of the mortar
and concrete mixtures, transport distances were not considered;
• The equipment required for the manufacturing process of mortar and concrete mixtures;
The energy consumption required by the equipment during the manufacturing process.
4.1.2. Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI)

To generate the LCI, the main input and output flows of all the processes included in
the system boundaries were compiled. The primary data correspond to specific data of the
production processes collected at the place of production relative to the average production
of the year 2021 provided by the producers. These data establish the energy consumption
of the equipment, power, production, operation time, etc. For secondary data for materials,
energy, and transportation, database processes were used from Ecoinvent v3.8 (allocation,
cut-off by classification—unit “Cut-off, U”) [93].
• As the materials to be used were available at the place of manufacture of the mortar
and concrete mixtures, transport distances were not considered;
• The equipment required for the manufacturing process of mortar and concrete
mixtures;
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 The energy consumption required by the equipment during the manufacturing
16 of 36
process.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 40
Figure
Figure 7.
7. System
System boundaries
boundaries of
of cement
cement mortar
mortar production.
production.
Figure 8.
Figure 8. System
System boundaries
boundaries of
of concrete
concrete production.
production.
4.1.2.The data used

Life-Cycle to generate
Inventory (LCI)the LCI are listed in Table 15. For the development of the
inventory,
To generate the LCI, the main inputwere
the following considerations and taken
outputinto account:
flows of all the processes included in
•the system
Inventories on thewere
boundaries natural aggregates
compiled. The (CA, MA,
primary FA,correspond
data and SNS) were determined,
to specific data of
according to the production processes, by means of primary
the production processes collected at the place of production relative to the data and the Ecoinvent
average
v.3.8 database
production [93].2021
of the year These aggregates
provided by thewere produced
producers. by data
These a dolomitic quarry.
establish The
the energy
material was
consumption of the extracted
equipment,usingpower,
a bulldozer with aoperation
production, ripper without blasting
time, etc. and, after
For secondary
data several crushingenergy,
for materials, and screening processes, several
and transportation, fractions
database were obtained,
processes including
were used from
CA, MA, FA, and SNS.
Ecoinvent v3.8 (allocation, cut-off by classification—unit “Cut-off, U”) [93].
• Inventory
The data usedfor the
to BBA was the
generate developed
LCI arefollowing the drying,
listed in Table 15. Forsieving, and/or crushing
the development of the
treatment to which they were subjected, through
inventory, the following considerations were taken into account: the collection of primary data and
the Ecoinvent v.3.8 database [93]. The treatment began when the wet ash was collected
• Inventories on the natural aggregates (CA, MA, FA, and SNS) were determined,
from the ashtray by means of a loader and transported to an outside storage area for
according to the production processes, by means of primary data and the Ecoinvent
air drying. Once BBA dried, it was collected in a storage area. To obtain 0/4 mm BBA,
v.3.8 database
original BBA was [93]. Theseto aggregates
moved a screeningwere area. produced by a dolomitic
The BBA grinding process quarry. The
was carried
material was extracted using a bulldozer with a ripper without
out in a ball mill for half an hour until the required fineness for pBBA was reached.blasting and, after
• several
MRA crushing
was produced andinscreening
a C&DWprocesses,
treatmentseveral fractions
plant from were obtained,
non-selectively including
collected con-
CA, MA, FA, and SNS.
struction waste. The material, mostly from demolished buildings, was subjected to
• Inventoryprocesses
different for the BBA was developed
of crushing, followingblowing,
iron removal, the drying, andsieving, and/or
screening crushing
until differ-
ent fractions of MRA were obtained. As there were practically no rejects, 100%and
treatment to which they were subjected, through the collection of primary data of
the Ecoinvent
C&DW v.3.8 database
was recycled. From 1t of[93].
RCDThe treatment
treated, 0.28t ofbegan
MRA (0/22whenmm),the wet
0.112ash
t of was
fine
collected
MRA (0/2from
mm), theandashtray
0.608 by
t ofmeans
other of a loaderwere
fractions andobtained.
transported To to an outside
obtain pMRA, storage
MRA
area for air drying. Once BBA dried, it was collected in a storage
(0/22 mm) was run in a ball mill for three hours. The inventory of these components area. To obtain 0/4
mm BBA, original BBA was moved to a screening area. The
was generated from the primary data related to equipment and machinery, and with BBA grinding process
wasprocesses
the carried out in aEcoinvent
of the ball mill for
v.3.8half an hour
database until the required fineness for pBBA
[93];
was reached.
• MRA was produced in a C&DW treatment plant from non-selectively collected
construction waste. The material, mostly from demolished buildings, was subjected
to different processes of crushing, iron removal, blowing, and screening until
different fractions of MRA were obtained. As there were practically no rejects, 100%
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 17 of 36
• For the inventory of cement, water, and admixture, the processes of the Ecoinvent v.3.8
database [93] were used;
• For the mortar and concrete manufacturing process, “Concrete, high exacting require-
ment (CH), concrete production, Cut off, U” was used.
Table 15. Characteristics of the equipment and processes used in the manufacture of cement mortar
and concrete mixtures.
Operation Electrical
Materials Process Equipment Amount Power Production Distance
Time Consumption
(kW) (t/h) (h) (kWh/t) (km)
Cement
CEM I 52.5 Cement, Portland (Europe without Switzerland), production, Cut off, U, (Ecoinvent v3.8).
CEM II 42.5 Cement, alternative constituents 6–20% (Europe without Switzerland) production, Cut off, U, (Ecoinvent v3.8).
CEM EcHy Cement, Portland (Europe without Switzerland), production, Cut off, U, (Ecoinvent v3.8).
pBBA
pMRA
Natural aggregates
CA 12/22 mm Extraction Bulldozer with ripper 1 - 998.87 - - -
MA 4/12 mm Handling Shovel loader 2 - 30.52 - - -
FA 0/4 mm Handling Conveyor belt, 25 m 1 20 168.92 - 0.118 -
SNS 0/2 mm Conveyor belt, 15 m 2 8 112.61 - 0.071 -
Conveyor belt, 5 m 2 4 123.87 - 0.032 -
Screening Vibrating screen 4 18.5 225 - 0.082 -
Crushing Impact mill 1 125.1 400 - 0.313 -
Jaw crusher 1 206.1 400 - 0.515 -
Biomass Bottom Ash
Fine BBA 0/2 mm Handling Shovel loader 4 - 31.221 - - -
pBBA Transport Shovel loader 2 - - 0.006 - 0.03
Transport Shovel loader 2 - 0.01 - 0.05
Crushing Ball mill 1 15 4 0.5 1.88 -
Handling Conveyor belt, 5 m 1 4 22.55 - 0.2130 -
Conveyor belt, 5 m 1 4 22.55 - 0.1770 -
Mixed Recycled Aggregate
MRA 0/22 mm Handling Shovel loader 2 - 100 - - -
Fine MRA 0/2 mm Transport Shovel loader 1 - - 0.02 - 0.1
pMRA Transport Shovel loader 1 - - 0.01 - 0.05
Handling Overband 2 3.68 108.91 - 0.0338 -
Blower 1 14 144.73 - 0.0967 -
Vibrating plate 1 3 80 0.0375 -
Conveyor belt, 15 m 1 7.36 148.51 - 0.0496 -
Conveyor belt, 10 m 1 7.36 108.91 - 0.0676 -
Conveyor belt, 5 m 5 4 108.91 - 0.0367 -
Crushing Jaw crusher 1 160 325 - 0.4920 -
Impact mill 1 75 250 - 0.3000 -
Ball mill 1 15 4 3 11.3 -
Water Tap water (Europe without Switzerland), tap water production, conventional treatment, Cut-off, U (Ecoinvent v3.8).
Admixture Plasticiser, for concrete, based on sulfonated melamine formaldehyde (GLO-ES), production, Cut-off, U, (Ecoinvent v3.8).
In order to comply with the data quality requirements related to technical, geographi-
cal, and technological representativeness, the Ecoinvent processes were modified according
to the data provided by the producers. Likewise, electricity consumption was adapted to
the process of the Spanish electricity network.
4.1.3. Impact Assessment Methodology

According to the recommendations of the UNE-EN 15804:2012+A2 A2 [94] regarding
sustainability of construction works, the impact assessment was conducted for the follow-
ing categories: acidification (AP); climate change (GWP); eutrophication, freshwater (EP-
freshwater); eutrophication, marine (EP-marine); eutrophication, terrestrial (EP-terrestrial);
ozone depletion (ODP); photochemical ozone formation (POCP); resource use, fossils
(ADP-fossils); resource use, minerals, and metals (ADP-min&met) and water use (WDP).
For these categories, the characterisation factors recommended by the EC-JRC [95] were
used. The data collected during the inventory phase were loaded into the SimaPro 9.4.0.49
software and processed using the EN 15804+A2 Method V1.02 [95]. The methodology of
this impact assessment method was aligned with the EF method 3.0 published for use
during the Environmental Footprint transition phase of the European Commission [95].
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 18 of 36
Initially, the impact values associated with the production of components were deter-
mined. Then, the impacts generated by the manufacture of cement mortar and concrete
slab in building and concrete mixtures were calculated and compared in order to identify
those that generated the greatest impact.
4.2. LCA Results and Discussion

4.2.1. LCA of Component Materials
The impacts generated during the manufacture of 1 t of each component material
of cement mortar and concrete mixtures are listed in Table 16. For the impact categories
evaluated, the highest characterisation values correspond to the plasticiser admixture and
second to CEM I. The impacts generated by the manufacture of CEM II were much higher
than those generated during the processing of C&DW and BBA to obtain finely ground
material, both pBBA and pMRA. The greatest variation occurred in the GWP category, since
during the manufacture of CEM I, 869 kg CO2 eq. was emitted, while during the production
of pBBA and pMRA, 1.25 kg CO2 eq./t and 4.89 kg CO2 eq./t were generated, respectively,
which represents a reduction in emissions of up to 99.8%. Likewise, the manufacture of
eco-hybrid cement made up of CEM I, pBBA, and pMRA generates 653 kg CO2 eq./t,
which, compared to 799.9 kg CO2 eq./t emitted by CEM II, represents a reduction of 147 kg
CO2 eq./t that is not released into the environment.
Table 16. Characterisation results of component materials (1 t).
Impact category (Unit)

EP- EP- ADP- ADP min
AP GWP EP-Marine ODP POCP WDP
Freshwater Terrestrial Fossil & met
Material
kg
mol kg kg kg mol kg kg
NMVOC MJ m3 depriv.
H+ eq CO2 eq P eq N eq N eq CFC11 eq Sb eq
eq
CEM I 52.5 1.97 869.52 8.47 × 10−2 5.30 × 10−1 6.02 2.61 × 10−5 1.51 3.29 × 103 1.28 × 10−3 57.2
CEM II
1.83 799.91 7.94 × 10−2 4.90 × 10−1 5.56 2.41 × 10−5 1.40 3.07 × 10 3
1.25 × 10−3 53.2
42.5
CEM EcHy 1.49 653.08 6.38 × 10−2 3.99× 10−1 4.53 1.96 × 10−5 1.14 2.49 × 103 9.62 × 10−4 43.4
pBBA 9.60 × 10−3 1.25 3.04 × 10−4 2.40× 10−3 2.57 × 10−2 1.53 × 10−7 7.23 × 10−3 23.1 7.69 × 10−6 4.80 × 10−1
pMRA 4.06× 10−2 4.89 1.50 × 10−3 8.30 × 10−3 8.77 × 10−2 4.37 × 10−7 2.41 × 10−2 1.03 × 102 1.85 × 10−5 2.59
CA 1.02 × 10−2 1.05 1.60 × 10−4 3.68 × 10−3 4.02 × 10−2 1.76 × 10−7 1.10 × 10−2 17.1 5.37 × 10−6 1.48
MA 1.04 × 10−2 1.07 1.66 × 10−4 3.70 × 10−3 4.05 × 10−2 1.77 × 10−7 1.11 × 10−2 17.5 5.42 × 10−6 1.49
FA 1.04 × 10−2 1.07 1.67 × 10−4 3.70 × 10−3 4.05 × 10−2 1.77 × 10−7 1.11 × 10−2 17.5 5.43 × 10−6 1.49
SNS 1.04 × 10−2 1.07 1.67 × 10−4 3.70 × 10−3 4.05 × 10−2 1.77 × 10−7 1.11 × 10−2 17.5 5.43 × 10−6 1.49
MRA 6.20 × 10−3 8.05 × 10−1 1.28 × 10−4 1.97 × 10−3 2.14 × 10−2 1.28 × 10−7 5.99× 10−3 13.4 2.67 × 10−6 1.95 × 10−1
Fine MRA 6.30 × 10−3 8.18 × 10−1 1.33 × 10−4 1.99 × 10−3 2.15 × 10−2 1.29 × 10−7 6.04× 10−3 13.7 2.75 × 10−6 2.03 × 10−1
BBA 0/2 3.85 × 10−3 5.54 × 10−1 3.45 × 10−5 1.49× 10−3 1.63 × 10−2 1.11 × 10−7 4.60× 10−3 7.95 5.76 × 10−7 4.10 × 10−2
Admixture 8.64 1.19 × 103 3.52 × 10−1 1.10 11.8 2.10 × 10−4 4.37 2.92 × 104 3.78 × 10−2 9.41 × 102
Analysing the three types of cement used in the study, CEM I reached the highest
values and eco-hybrid cement the lowest. Comparatively, eco-hybrid cement loads were
reduced in all impact categories, up to 25% compared to CEM I and up to 23% compared to
CEM II (Figure 9a).
Regarding the impacts generated during the manufacture of natural and recycled
aggregates (Figure 9b), the highest impacts corresponded to natural aggregates, specifically
sand, since its manufacture requires more crushing and screening processes. In the case
of recycled materials, the processing of C&DW to obtain MRA and fine MRA reduced
environmental loads between 20% and 86% for the EP-freshwater and WDP categories,
respectively. Likewise, the lowest impact values corresponded to fine BBA, which compared
to natural sand (FA), for which characterisation values were reduced between 37% for ODP
and 97% for WDP.
Materials 2024,
Materials 2024, 17,
17, 4357
x FOR PEER REVIEW 2119of
of 40
36
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Comparative
Comparativegraph:
graph:CEM
CEMI I52.5/CEM
52.5/CEMII II
43.5/CEM EcHy
43.5/CEM (a) (a)
EcHy andand
natural aggregates
natural vs. vs.
aggregates
MRA and BBA (b).
MRA and BBA (b).
4.2.2. LCA of Cement Mortar Mixtures

The characterisation
characterisation values
values of
of the
the evaluated
evaluated mortar
mortar mixtures
mixtures are
are listed
listed in
in Table
Table 17.
17.
The control mortar reached the highest characterisation values
values in
in all impact categories,
categories,
while the values were lower in the mortar mixtures made
made with
with recycled
recycled materials.
materials.
m33).
(1 m
Table 17. Characterisation results of cement mortar (1
Cement
CementMortar
Mortar
Impact
ImpactCategory
Category Unit
Unit
M-Control
M-Control M-EcHy
M-EcHy M-EcHy/20M
M-EcHy/20M
APAP
mol H+ eq
mol H+ eq
1.12
1.12
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.87
GWP
GWP kg CO 2 eq
kg CO2 eq 475.78
475.78 358.91
358.91 360.21
360.21
EP-freshwater
EP-freshwater kgkgP eqP eq 4.83
4.83 ××1010−2−2 3.70×× 10
3.70 10−−22 3.74××10
3.74 10−−22
EP-marine
EP-marine kg
kg N eqN eq 0.30
0.30 0.23
0.23 0.23
0.23
EP-terrestrial mol N eq 3.38 2.58 2.58
EP-terrestrial mol N eq 3.38 2.58 2.58
ODP kg CFC11 eq 1.49 × 10−5−5 1.14 × 10−−55 1.16 × 10−−55
ODP
POCP kg CFC11
kg NMVOC eq eq 1.49 × 10
0.86 1.14 ×
0.6510 1.160.67
× 10
POCP
ADP-fossil kg NMVOC MJ eq 0.86
1879.75 0.65
1446.38 0.67
1479.53
ADP-fossil
ADP-min&met MJSb eq
kg 1.08 × 10−3
1879.75 × 10−4
1446.38
9.10 × 10−4
1479.53
9.54
Water use 3
ADP-min&met kgmSbdepriv.
eq 1.0846.77
× 10−3 9.1039.12
× 10−4 40.32
9.54 × 10−4
Water use m3 depriv. 46.77 39.12 40.32
Figure 10 shows comparatively the impact variations of the recycled mortar mixtures
with Figure
respect10toshows
the control mortar. Specifically,
comparatively the lowestof
the impact variations impact valuesmortar
the recycled were generated
mixtures
in the M-EcHy mortar, since the replacement of cement with pBBA
with respect to the control mortar. Specifically, the lowest impact values were and pMRA caused
generated
reductions between 16% for the ADP-min&met category and 25% in
in the M-EcHy mortar, since the replacement of cement with pBBA and pMRA caused the GWP category.
Likewise,
reductions in the16%
between M-EcHy/20M mortar, thecategory
for the ADP-min&met impact reductions
and 25% inranged the GWPbetween
category. 12%
for ADP-min&met and 24% for GWP (Figure 10). In this mortar, in order to achieve the
adequate consistency with the replacement of FA with fine MRA, it was necessary to
incorporate an admixture in the dosage, which made the impact values slightly higher than
those of the M-EcHy mortar.
4.2.3. LCA of Concrete Mixtures

The characterisation values of the concrete analysed (Table 18) show that the produc-
tion of 1 m3 of C-Control generates 258.89 kg CO2 eq., while it is 229.43 kg CO2 eq. for
C-EcHy and 233.71 kg CO2 eq. for C-EcHy/28M-6B. Also, the values for EP-freshwater
and POF categories were lower in concrete with CEM EcHy.
Materials 2024,17,
Materials2024, 17,4357
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 36
22 40
Figure10.
Figure 10.Variation
Variationininthe
thecharacterisation
values of of
thethe recycled
recycled mortar
mortar mixtures
mixtures withwith respect
respect to
to the
the control
control mortar.
mortar.
Table Likewise, in the M-EcHy/20M

18. Characterisation mortar,
results of concrete the impact
mixtures (1 m3 ).reductions ranged between 12% for
ADP-min&met and 24% for GWP (Figure 10). In this mortar, in order to achieve the
adequate Concrete Mixtures
Impact consistency
Category with the
Unit
replacement of FA with fine MRA, it was necessary to
incorporate an admixture in the dosage, C-Control
which made the C-EcHy
impact valuesC-EcHy/28M-6B
slightly higher
than thoseAP
of the M-EcHymol
mortar.
H+ eq 0.56 0.57 0.60
GWP kg CO2 eq 258.89 229.43 233.71
4.2.3.EP-freshwater
LCA of Concrete Mixtures
kg P eq 3.16 × 10−2 2.44 × 10−2 2.57 × 10−2
EP-marine
The characterisation kg N eq
values 0.15
of the concrete analysed0.15 (Table 18) show 0.15
that the
EP-terrestrial 3 mol N eq 1.71 1.69 1.72
productionODP
of 1 m of C-Control generates
kg CFC11 eq
258.89
3.91 × 10
kg
− 6 CO 2 eq., while
7.53 × 10 − it
6 is 229.43 kg CO2 eq.
8.29 × 10−6
for C-EcHy
POCPand 233.71 kg CO 2 eq. for C-EcHy/28M-6B. Also, the values for EP-freshwater
kg NMVOC eq 0.44 0.43 0.44
and POF categories were lower
ADP-fossil MJ in concrete with
835.57CEM EcHy.956.83 1063.94
ADP-min&met kg Sb eq 6.13 × 10−4 7.20 × 10−4 8.62 × 10−4
Table 18. Characterisation
Water use 3
results of concrete mixtures
m depriv. 16.82 (1 m ).
3 26.42 30.74
Concrete Mixtures
Impact
FigureCategory Unit
11 shows comparatively the C-Control
impact variations C-EcHy
in the concrete by categories.
C-EcHy/28M-6B
C-Control reached the highest values for GWP, EP-freshwater, and POF categories. For
AP mol H+ eq 0.56 0.57 0.60
these categories, the loads were reduced in concrete mixtures with eco-hybrid cement,
GWP kg CO2 eq 258.89 229.43 233.71
between 3% and 23% for C-EcHy and between 1% and 19% for C-EcHy/28M-6B. For
EP-freshwater kg P eq 3.16 × 10−2 2.44 × 10−2 2.57 × 10−2
the rest of the categories, the highest values corresponded to C-EcHy/28M-6B, for which
valuesEP-marine
increased with respectkg Ntoeq 0.15 1% for EP-terrestrial
C-Control between 0.15 and 53%0.15
for ODP.
ThisEP-terrestrial
increase was due tomol the N eq
replacement of1.71
natural aggregates 1.69(CA, MA, and1.72 FA) with
fine BBAODP kg CFC11 eq have3.91 × 10water-absorption
7.53 × 10−6
capacity,8.29 × 10−6
−6
and MRA. These materials a high greater than
natural POCP
aggregates, sokgtoNMVOC
achieve eqadequate 0.44 0.43
docility of the concrete, 0.44
it was necessary to
ADP-fossil
incorporate MJ
a plasticiser admixture 835.57the amount956.83
and increase 1063.94 For
of water in the dosage.
GWP, EP-freshwater, EP-marine,
ADP-min&met kg Sb eq EP-terrestrial,
6.13 × 10and
−4 POF 7.20
categories,
× 10−4 the lowest values
8.62 × 10 −4
corresponded
Water useto C-EcHy m3concrete,
depriv. as a consequence
16.82 of the incorporation
26.42 of eco-hybrid
30.74
cement in concrete.
Figure 11 shows comparatively the impact variations in the concrete by categories.
4.2.4. LCA of Cement Mortar Mixtures vs. Concrete Mixtures
C-Control reached the highest values for GWP, EP-freshwater, and POF categories. For
theseComparatively,
categories, thethe impacts
loads wereassociated
reduced inwith cementmixtures
concrete mortar and concrete
with mixtures
eco-hybrid are
cement,
shown by categories in Figure 12. As can be seen, the M-Control mortar
between 3% and 23% for C-EcHy and between 1% and 19% for C-EcHy/28M-6B. For the generated the
highest
rest of impacts in all categories,
the categories, the highestso that thecorresponded
values values of the rest of the mortar andfor
to C-EcHy/28M-6B, concrete
which
mixtures are shown relatively.
values increased with respect to C-Control between 1% for EP-terrestrial and 53% for
ODP. This increase was due to the replacement of natural aggregates (CA, MA, and FA)
with fine BBA and MRA. These materials have a high water-absorption capacity, greater
than natural aggregates, so to achieve adequate docility of the concrete, it was necessary
to incorporate a plasticiser admixture and increase the amount of water in the dosage. For
GWP, EP-freshwater, EP-marine, EP-terrestrial, and POF categories, the lowest values
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 21 of 36
corresponded to C-EcHy concrete, as a consequence of the incorporation of eco-hybrid
cement in concrete.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 40
Figure 11.
Figure Comparative chart
11. Comparative chart of
of characterisation
values of
of concrete.
concrete.
4.2.4. LCA of Cement Mortar Mixtures vs. Concrete Mixtures

Comparatively, the impacts associated with cement mortar and concrete mixtures are
shown by categories in Figure 12. As can be seen, the M-Control mortar generated the
highest impacts in all categories, so that the values of the rest of the mortar and concrete
mixtures are shown relatively.
The lowest impacts in several categories (AP, ODP, ADP-fossil, ADP-min&met, and
WDP) corresponded to C-Control, with reductions ranging from 43% for ADP-min&met
to 73% for ODP. This decrease in loads compared to M-Control is directly associated with
the lower amount of cement in the concrete dosage. For the other categories, concrete
made with eco-hybrid cement, C-EcHy, presented the lowest impacts, with reductions of
around 50% compared to M-Control.
According to the analysis carried out in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, the partial
replacement of cement with recycled materials (pBBA and pMRA) considerably reduced
the environmental loads associated with cement mortar and concrete mixtures.
Figure12.
Figure 12. Comparative
Comparative chart
chart by
by impact
impactcategories
categoriesof
ofcement
cementmortar
mortarand
andconcrete.
concrete.
The lowest impacts

5. Environmental in severalCosts:
and Materials categories (AP, ODP,and
Methodology ADP-fossil,
Results ADP-min&met, and
WDP) corresponded to C-Control, with reductions
5.1. Environmental and Materials Costs Methodologies ranging from 43% for ADP-min&met to
73% for ODP. This decrease in loads compared to M-Control is directly associated with the
Environmental and Materials Costs (EMC) is defined as the “economic assessment
lower amount of cement in the concrete dosage. For the other categories, concrete made
considering all agreed projected significant and relevant cost flows over a period of
with eco-hybrid cement, C-EcHy, presented the lowest impacts, with reductions of around
analysis expressed in monetary value. The projected costs are those needed to achieve
50% compared to M-Control.
defined levels oftoperformance,
According including
the analysis carried outreliability,
in Sectionssafety
4.2.2and
andavailability” [96]. replace-
4.2.3, the partial
The European standard EN 60300-3-3 [97] serves as a
ment of cement with recycled materials (pBBA and pMRA) considerably reduced guide to identify the elements
the
that constitute the cost cycle and facilitates its management.
environmental loads associated with cement mortar and concrete mixtures. This standard defines the
EMC as “the process of performing an economic analysis to assess the cost of an item over a portion,
orEnvironmental
5. all, of its life cycleand
in order to makeCosts:
Materials decisions that will minimize
Methodology the total cost of ownership while
and Results
still meeting stakeholder requirements”.
5.1. Environmental and Materials Costs Methodologies
It is important to
Environmental andrule out that,Costs
Materials as in (EMC)
the caseisof the EMC,
defined the“economic
as the limits of the study can
assessment
be established.
considering The phases
all agreed of a cost
projected cycle analysis
significant are the
and relevant following:
cost flows over formulate
a period the context
of analysis
and identify alternatives, define the scope and objectives of the
expressed in monetary value. The projected costs are those needed to achieve defined levels analysis, identify
constraints
of performance, and relevant
includingfinancial parameters,
reliability, safety andand define the[96].
availability” analysis approach [96,97].
Environmental LCC is aligned with LCA in terms of system boundaries, functional
units, inventory, and methodological steps. To assess the environmental cost, the
Environmental PricesV1.02/European Environmental Prices (2015) [98] was adopted. This
method developed by CE Delft is implemented in the SimaPro 9.4.0.49 software (PRé
Sustainability, 2022). Specifically, it expresses the environmental impacts in monetary
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 22 of 36
The European standard EN 60300-3-3 [97] serves as a guide to identify the elements
that constitute the cost cycle and facilitates its management. This standard defines the EMC
as “the process of performing an economic analysis to assess the cost of an item over a portion, or all,
of its life cycle in order to make decisions that will minimize the total cost of ownership while still
meeting stakeholder requirements”.
It is important to rule out that, as in the case of the EMC, the limits of the study can be
established. The phases of a cost cycle analysis are the following: formulate the context and
identify alternatives, define the scope and objectives of the analysis, identify constraints
and relevant financial parameters, and define the analysis approach [96,97].
Environmental LCC is aligned with LCA in terms of system boundaries, functional
units, inventory, and methodological steps. To assess the environmental cost, the Environ-
mental PricesV1.02/European Environmental Prices (2015) [98] was adopted. This method
developed by CE Delft is implemented in the SimaPro 9.4.0.49 software (PRé Sustainability,
2022). Specifically, it expresses the environmental impacts in monetary terms and indicates
the loss of economic welfare that occurs when an additional kilogram of the pollutant
reaches the environment. These prices are called external costs and allow an economic
value to be given to the environmental impact produced by the materials. Environmen-
tal prices are constructed prices for the social cost or pollution, expressed in Euros per
kilogram pollutant.
The environmental costs associated with the production of materials (components,
mortars, and concrete) were calculated. In addition, the inventory of substances was
determined to identify those that contributed mainly to the generation of the environmental
cost, applying a cut-off value of 1.5%.
5.1.1.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW EMC—Objective, Scope, and System Boundaries 25 of 40
In the case of the EMC, the cost of the materials to be used to manufacture the mortar
and concrete mixtures was obtained. The cost of the manufacturing processes, which were
considered
studied wereforthe
thefollowing:
calculation
CA,of MA,
the life
FA,cycle
MRA,(Stage
pBBA,A1), wereand
pMRA, analysed.
BBA. ForThe materials
these
materials,
studied werethe following CA,
the following: cost MA,
structure was pBBA,
FA, MRA, obtained:
pMRA, direct costs: For
and BBA. machinery
these materials,
(Amortization,
the O&M,
following cost and Energy)
structure and directdirect
was obtained: labourcosts:
and indirect costs (Amortization,
machinery (calculated as a O&M,
percentage
and Energy)ofand
direct costs).
direct labour and indirect costs (calculated as a percentage of direct costs).
The costs of materials, cement, water, and admixtures, were obtained directly from
The costs of materials, cement, water, and admixtures, were obtained directly from
market values. Figure 13 represents the cost structure.
market values. Figure 13 represents the cost structure.
Figure13.
Figure 13.Cost
Cost structure
structure ofofthe
thematerials
materialsanalysed. Mortar
analysed. and concrete
Mortar mixtures.
and concrete mixtures.
The objective was to calculate the variation in the cost of mortar and concrete
mixtures when cement and aggregates were replaced with recycled materials. We use the
estimated cost of the control mortar and concrete as a reference. The calculations were
made for 1 m3, both for the case of mortar and concrete.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 23 of 36
The objective was to calculate the variation in the cost of mortar and concrete mixtures
when cement and aggregates were replaced with recycled materials. We use the estimated
cost of the control mortar and concrete as a reference. The calculations were made for 1 m3 ,
both for the case of mortar and concrete.
5.1.2. Environmental and Materials Costs Inventory (EMCI)

For the cost breakdown structure concept, the processes considered for the calculation
of the life cycle (Stage A1) are the ones that have been used to analyse the EMC. In the case
of costs, there is no access to a specific construction and building materials price database
that can be associated with SIMAPRO processes.
The authors programmed the processes that were taken into account for the manufac-
ture of the materials using PYTHON language and following the cost structure indicated
in the EN 60300-3-3 [97] standard and that applied to the case study object.
The structure costs considered (Stage A1) are as follows:
1. Direct costs.
(a) Energy costs. Electricity (0.24 €/kWh). Diesel (1.34 €/l). The consumption
of these inputs was calculated from the data of the production processes
(Stage A1) that were previously defined. The values were obtained from
SIMAPRO using the Ecoinvent database [93]. In order to comply with the
data-quality requirements related to technical, geographical, and technological
representativeness, the Ecoinvent processes were modified according to the
data provided by the producers (see Section 4.1.2).
(b) Calculation of the amortisation costs of the machinery. The calculation of the
performance of the machinery (h/t) was obtained from the estimation of the
time necessary to carry out a work cycle, taking into account the capacity of the
machine and the different speeds of the activities carried out in the cycle. As
an example, in the case of Handling by Shovel Loader, the loading time of the
shovel bucket, the hauling distance with a load, and the unloaded return of the
shovel were considered. In this case, a loader yield of 0.00125 h/t was obtained
for a hauling distance of 130 m, which was the case of the gravel, sand, and
cement manufacturing plant (located in Cordoba). This process was carried
out to calculate the work cycles of the machinery necessary to manufacture
each of the materials that were analysed.
(c) Operation and maintenance (O&M) of machinery and equipment. For the cal-
culation of the operation and maintenance costs, a useful life of the machinery
of 10,000 h was considered. The depreciation cost was obtained by dividing
the purchase price of the machinery by its useful life. O&M costs were 85% of
amortisation costs and include, among others, tyres, overhauls, maintenance,
and lubricant.
2. Indirect costs. Indirect costs were calculated as a percentage of direct costs. They
include general expenses and industrial profit excluding transportation (Stage A2).
From the results of the DELPHI methodology carried out with experts, a percentage
of 40% of the direct costs was considered.
Cement costs (95.23 €/t), water (1.26 €/t), and admixture (123 €/t), considering the
market costs.
From the prices of the materials, the manufacturing costs of the mortar and the concrete
were calculated. Once the structure cost was calculated, the obtained prices were compared
within the real market prices again using the DELPHI methodology, as indicated above.
Finally, the assessment of the externalities of the different mortar and concrete mixtures
was included with the aim of taking into account the social costs and being able to obtain
an economic assessment of each solution, as well as establish a series of conclusions.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 24 of 36
5.2. EMC Results and Discussion

5.2.1. EMC Results and Discussions of the Component Materials
Table 19 summarises the cost structure of the different analysed materials. The consid-
ered costs are shown in Figure 14.
Table 19. Summary of the cost structure of the different materials analysed.
Category Cost (€/tn) pBBA pMRA CA MA FA SNS MRA Fine MRA BBA 0/2
Depreciation Cost Materials 2024, 17, x2.94631
0.47046 FOR PEER REVIEW
1.77992 2.48392 3.58392 3.58392 2.21895 2.21895 0.42646 27 of 40
O&M 0.15789 0.89506 0.61753 0.82873 1.15873 1.15873 0.67127 0.67127 0.14469
Labour Direct Cost 0.05224 0.03483 0.21657 0.21657 0.21657 0.21657 0.01741 0.01741 0.05224
Electricity cost 0.49378 4.95588 0.32476 0.48508 0.98742 0.98742 0.35707 0.35707 0.06377
Indirect Cost
Diesel cost 0.74128 1.00053 0.61134 0.61134 0.61134 0.61134 0.50027 0.50027 1.50590.74128
+ Industrial 0.76626 3.93304 1.42005 1.85026 2.62319 2.62319 1.50599 0.57138
Total Direct Cost 1.91564 9.83261 3.55012 4.62564 6.55798 6.55798 3.76497 3.76497 9 1.42844
Indirect Cost + Profit (IP)
0.76626 3.93304 1.42005 1.85026 2.62319
13.76562.62319 1.50599 1.50599 5.27090.57138
Industrial Profit (IP) Price 2.68190 4.97017 6.47590 9.18118 9.18118 5.27096 1.99982
Price 2.68190 13.76565 4.97017 6.47590 9.18118 5 9.18118 5.27096 5.27096 6 1.99982
Figure 14. Mortar mixtures. Comparison chart of the costs being evaluated.
Figure 14. Mortar mixtures. Comparison chart of the costs being evaluated.
The cost of one tonne of cement at market, which was considered in this study,
The cost of one tonne of cement at market, which was considered in this study, is 95.3
is 95.3 €/t. This price contrasts with the prices of the recycled materials that replace a
€/t. This price contrasts with the prices of the recycled materials that replace a proportional
proportional part part
of the cement for the manufacture of mortar and concrete mixtures: pBBA
of the cement for the manufacture of mortar and concrete mixtures: pBBA (2.68 €/t)
(2.68 €/t) and pMRA (13.76 €/t).
and pMRA (13.76 €/t).
Related to these Related
costs, the pricecosts,
to these increase in the
the price case of
increase in pMRA
the case isofdue
pMRA to the final
is due to the final
crushing and thatcrushing
needed and to increase the to
that needed vibrating
increase screen process
the vibrating to reduce
screen processthe size ofthe
to reduce thesize of the
material. That estimated
material.for
Thattheestimated
electricity
foristhe
4.59 €/t andisrepresents
electricity 4.59 €/t and92.6% of the
represents totalofcost
92.6% the total cost
of electricity
of electricity consumption €/t).
consumption
(4.95 (4.95 €/t).
Table 20 shows the Table 20 shows the
breakdown breakdown
of the of thecement
eco-hybrid eco-hybrid cement
costs that addcoststothat add to
a total of a total of
€96.61/t. The price€96.61/t. The price
per tonne per tonne
of cement typeofCEM
cementI 52.5 124 €/t
typeisCEM I 52.5 is 124
[99]. €/t [99].
If the priceIf of
thethe
price of the
eco-hybrid cement is compared with another equivalent (CEM II) and that contains around contains
eco-hybrid cement is compared with another equivalent (CEM II) and that
15% of additions around 15% of additions (e.g., blast furnace slag), it is observed that the prices are very
(e.g., blast furnace slag), it is observed that the prices are very similar
similar (Cem II 42.5, €95.23/t).
(Cem II 42.5, €95.23/t).
Table 20. Eco-hybrid cement costs.
Material Quantity (Tn) Price (€/Tn) Total

Eco-hybrid cement Cement CEM I 0.75 124.00 93.00
pBBA 0.06 2.68 0.16
pMRA 0.19 13.77 2.62
Proportional share of indirect costs and
industrial profit of added materials pBBA, 30.00% 0.83 0.83
pMRA.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 25 of 36
Table 20. Eco-hybrid cement costs.
Material Quantity (Tn) Price (€/Tn) Total

Eco-hybrid cement Cement CEM I 0.75 124.00 93.00
pBBA 0.06 2.68 0.16
pMRA 0.19 13.77 2.62
Proportional share of indirect costs and industrial
30.00% 0.83 0.83
profit of added materials pBBA, pMRA.
96.61 €/Tn
The environmental costs and substance contribution by tonne of component materials

are listed in Table 21. The highest environmental cost was 407.46 €/t, which corresponds to
the plasticiser admixture, followed by the three types of cement in this order: 122.97 €/t for
CEM I, 114.14 €/t for CEM II, and 92.58 €/t for eco-hybrid cement. For natural aggregates
(CA, MA, FA, and SNS), the environmental cost of each of them was 0.44 €/t, while for
MRA, it was 0.35 €/t, 0.36 €/t for fine MRA, and for pMRA, it was 1.84 €/t. Regarding
BBA 0/2, the environmental costs were 0.17 €/t, and for pBBA, it was 0.43 €/t. These
environmental costs were mainly due to air emissions of carbon dioxide-fossil, nitrogen
oxides, and sulphur dioxide. In the case of natural aggregates and BBA, the emissions into
the air of particulates lower than 2.5 µm was also relevant, as well as the land occupation
of the C&DW treatment plant for the manufacture of MRA.
Table 21. Environmental cost of materials and substance contribution (1 t).
CEM I CEM II CEM Fine BBA

Substance/Compartment Unit pBBA pMRA CA MA FA SNS MRA Admixture
52.5 42.5 EcHy MRA 0/2
Euro 122.97 114.14 92.58 0.43 1.84 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.35 0.36 0.17 407.46
Arsenic (air) % 0.79 0.82 0.79 1.25 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.57 0.26 5.07
Arsenic (water) % 1.20 1.23 1.21 2.56 3.01 1.33 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.29 1.32 0.65 3.46
Barium (water) % 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.67 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.46 2.20
Cadmium (air) % 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.06 1.10
Carbon dioxide, fossil (air) % 38.81 38.46 38.72 15.11 13.83 12.91 12.92 12.93 12.93 12.21 12.23 17.85 13.71
Lead (air) % 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.83 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.39 0.40 0.23 3.48
Manganese (water) % 7.23 7.31 7.23 7.24 8.59 3.77 3.86 3.87 3.87 3.73 3.82 2.02 9.10
Methane, fossil (air) % 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.38 2.28
Nitrogen oxides (air) % 21.71 21.60 21.71 27.82 22.31 43.45 43.14 43.08 43.08 28.68 28.53 45.79 12.96
Particulates, <2.5 µm (air) % 4.36 4.42 4.38 12.55 10.87 15.52 15.46 15.45 15.45 11.10 11.09 16.02 9.77
Particulates, >2.5 µm, and <10
% 5.59 5.72 5.58 3.55 2.53 2.84 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.25 2.27 2.48 4.76
µm (air)
Sulphur dioxide (air) % 10.91 10.97 10.94 17.36 20.29 10.87 11.03 11.06 11.06 10.36 10.53 8.82 23.57
Remaining substances (air) % 7.49 7.52 7.52 10.16 15.64 6.77 6.85 6.86 6.86 28.49 28.30 4.97 8.52
5.2.2. EMC Results and Discussions: Cement Mortar Mixtures

The cost structure of the different mortar mixtures is listed in Table 22. The costs of the
different mortar mixtures (EMC-mat) were compared with the reference mortar, M-Control.
The estimated cost of the control mortar materials (cement, sand, and water) is 86.63 €/m3 .
Table 22. Calculation of EMC-mat to be applied in mortar mixtures (1 m3 ).
Mortar Category Cost (€/m3 ) Cement Water Additive pBBA pMRA SNS MRA Total
Cost amort -
5.806 5.806
O&M - 1.877 1.877
Direct Cost Labour - 0.351 0.351
Electricity cost - 1.600 1.600
M-Control
Diesel cost - 0.990 0.990
Total Indirect Cost Materials - 4.250 4.250
TOTAL COST 43.71 0.28 12.678
Total Indirect EMC-MAT
19.991
Mortar (15%)
51.424 0.340 14.874 86.629
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 26 of 36
Table 22. Cont.
Mortar Category Cost (€/m3 ) Cement Water Additive pBBA pMRA SNS MRA Total
38.568 0.335 38.903
Cost amort 0.014 0.284 5.806 6.104
O&M 0.005 0.086 1.877 1.968
Direct Cost Labour 0.002 0.003 0.351 0.356
M-EcHy Electricity cost 0.015 0.477 1.600 2.092
Diesel cost 0.022 0.096 0.990 1.109
Total Indirect. Cost. 0.023 0.379 4.250 4.651
Total Indirect Cost Mortar 16.554
38.568 0.335 0.080 1.326 14.874 71.736
38.568 0.349 0.148 39.065
Cost amort 0.014 0.284 4.645 0.603 5.546
O&M 0.005 0.086 1.502 0.183 1.775
Direct Cost Labour 0.002 0.003 0.281 0.005 0.290
Electricity cost 0.015 0.477 1.280 0.097 1.869
M-EcHy/20
Diesel cost 0.022 0.096 0.792 0.136 1.047
Additive
Total Indirect Cost 0.023 0.379 3.400 0.409 4.211
Total Indirect Cost Mortar 16.141
38.568 0.349 0.148 0.080 1.326 11.899 1.433 69.943
Note: The amount highlighted in bold is the total cost for the manufacture of 1 m3 of each mortar mixture.
The costs of the materials of the mortar mixtures that replace part of the aggregates
and cement with recycled aggregates and biomass ash are compared. The objective is to
evaluate the impact of the substitutions with recycled material on the price of the materials.
As in the case of the environmental impact analysed in LCA, cement cost represents the
highest percentage (77.17%) of the total cost of the mortar materials.
Figure 15 shows the costs of the mortar materials: M-Control, M-EcHy, and M-
Echy/20M. The substitution of natural aggregates and cement with recycled material
decreases the price of the mortar. In the case of the M-Echy/20M, it represents a decrease
in the cost associated with materials of 17.4% (15.09 €/m3 ). In the case of the M-Echy/20M,
the decrease is 19.2%. The decrease in price is mainly due to the cement. This is the
most expensive material and represents 51.42% of the consumption. It must be considered
that the price of cement tons is 95.23 €/t compared to 2.68 €/t and 13.77 €/t for pBBA
and pMRA.
Figure 16 shows the cost structure of the materials that have been analysed, in the case
of M-EcHy. The costs due to the energy consumption of recycled materials represented
2.92% of direct costs compared to 11.25% associated with equipment and machinery or
0.50% that direct labour implies.
If we add to these costs, the costs of transporting the materials to the factory, manu-
facturing of the dry mortar, and indirect costs, the price of the M-EcHy mortar
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW would
30 of 40 be
71.74 €/m3 compared to a cost of a control mortar of 86.63 €/m3 .
M-Control. 86.63 €/m3 Water;

M-EcHy. 71.54 €/m3 M-Echy/20M. 69.94 €/m3 Water;
SNS; 14.87; Water;
SNS; 14.87; 0.34; 0.33; pMRA; SNS; 11.90; MRA; 1.43; 0.35;
0.39% pMRA; 1.33; 20.73% 17.01% 2.05%
17.17% 0.47% 1.33; 0.50%
1.85% Additive;
Indirect 1.90% 0.15;
Indirect pBBA; 0.21%
pBBA; 0.08; Cost + 0.08;
Cost +
0.11% Industrial
Industrial 0.11% Indirect
Profit €/Tn
Profit €/Tn Cost +
; 16.55;
; 19.99; Industrial
23.08%
23.08% Profit €/Tn;
16.14;
Cement; Cement; 23.08%
51.42; Cement; 38.57;
59.36% 38.57; 55.14%
53.76%
Figure 15. Mortar materials cost. Indirect and industrial and profit cost.
Figure 16 shows the cost structure of the materials that have been analysed, in the
case of M-EcHy. The costs due to the energy consumption of recycled materials
represented 2.92% of direct costs compared to 11.25% associated with equipment and
machinery or 0.50% that direct labour implies.
Figure 16 shows the cost structure of the materials that have been analysed, in the
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 case of M-EcHy. The costs due to the energy consumption of recycled materials 27 of 36
represented 2.92% of direct costs compared to 11.25% associated with equipment and
machinery or 0.50% that direct labour implies.
M-EcHy. 71.74 €/m3

Water; 0.33;
0.47% Indirect Cost +
Industrial Profit
€/Tn ; 16.55; Depreciation Cost
€/Tn; 6.10; 8.51%
23.08%
Labour Direct Cost;
SNS, O&M €/Tn; 1.97; 0.36; 0.50%
pMRA,pBBA; 2.74%
16.28; 22.69% Electricity Cost.
€/Tn; 2.09; 2.92%
Cement; 38.57; Diesel Cost. €/Tn;
53.76% 1.11; 1.55%
Indirect Cost +
Industrial Profit
€/Tn; 4.65; 6.48%
Figure 16.
Figure 16.Characterisation
Characterisationof mortar mixture
of mortar M-EcHy
mixture cost. cost.
M-EcHy
If we add
Table to these
23 shows thecosts, the costs of costs
environmental transporting the materials
associated to themortar
with cement factory,mixtures,
manufacturing of the dry mortar, and indirect costs, the price
as well as the substances that contribute more than 1%. As it can be seen, of the M-EcHy mortar
M-Control
would be 71.74 €/m 3 compared to a cost of a control mortar of 86.63 €/m3.
generated the highest environmental cost of 69.57 €/m , while the cost of M-EcHy mortar
3
Table 23 shows the environmental costs associated with cement mortar mixtures, as
was 53.16 €/m3 and that of the M-EcHy/20M was 53.61 €/m3 . The incorporation of pBBA
well as the substances that contribute more than 1%. As it can be seen, M-Control
and pMRA as a replacement for cement reduced the environmental cost by 24%, and if SNS
generated the highest environmental cost of 69.57 €/m3, while the cost of M-EcHy mortar
was also replaced with fine MRA, the cost
was 53.16 €/m and that of the M-EcHy/20M was 53.61 €/m
3 reduction was 23%.
3. The Regardingofthe
incorporation distribution
pBBA
of
and pMRA as a replacement for cement reduced the environmental cost by 24%, and ifthe main
the environmental cost, the manufacturing stage of the components constitutes
contribution,
SNS was also between
replaced 94%withandfine97%,
MRA, andthethe mortar
cost manufacturing
reduction would be the
was 23%. Regarding responsible
for around 3–6%.
distribution of the Mainly, the substances
environmental cost, the responsible
manufacturing for stage
these of
environmental
the components costs were
the air emissions
constitutes the main ofcontribution,
carbon dioxide-fossil,
between 94% nitrogen
and 97%, oxides,
and theand sulphur
mortar dioxide.
manufacturing
would be responsible for around 3–6%. Mainly, the substances responsible for these
environmental
Table costs werecost
23. Environmental theof
aircement
emissions of carbon
mortar (1 m3 ) and substance
dioxide-fossil,
mixtures nitrogen oxides, and
contribution.
sulphur dioxide.
M-Control M-EcHy M-EcHy/20M
EMC-ENV Stage Substance/Compartment
Table 23. Environmental cost of cement mortar mixtures (1%m3) and substance
Euro Euro contribution.
% Euro %
Total cost M-Control
69.57 100M-EcHy
53.16 M-EcHy/20M
100 53.61 100
EMC-ENV
Materials Stage Substance/Compartment
Euro 67.14% 96.51
Euro 50.74
% 94.44
Euro 51.18
% 95.47
CEM I 52.5 66.41 95.44 49.80 93.68 49.80 92.91
Total cost pBBA 69.57 - 100 53.16
- 100
0.01 53.61
0.02 100
0.01 0.02
Materials pMRA 67.14 -96.51 50.74
- 94.44
0.18 51.18
0.33 95.47
0.18 0.33
CEMSNS
I 52.5 66.41 0.72
95.44 1.04
49.80 0.72
93.68 1.36
49.80 0.58
92.91 1.08
Fine MRA - - - - 0.10 0.18
Water 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04
Admixture - - - - 0.49 0.91
Cement mortar
2.43 3.49 2.43 4.56 2.43 4.53
manufacturing
Arsenic (air) 0.92 1.32 0.64 1.20 0.74 1.38
Arsenic (water) 0.77 1.10 0.72 1.36 0.66 1.23
Carbon dioxide, fossil (air) 26.10 37.51 19.68 37.03 19.74 36.83
Manganese (water) 5.08 7.30 3.89 7.32 3.94 7.34
Mercury (air) 1.6 2.68 1.40 2.63 1.40 2.61
Nitrogen oxides (air) 14.98 21.54 11.42 21.49 11.45 21,36
Particulates, <2.5 µm (air) 3.19 4.58 2.49 4.68 2.52 4.71
Particulates, >2.5 µm, and
3.88 5.58 2.96 5.57 2.98 5.56
<10 µm (air)
Sulphur dioxide (air) 7.75 11.14 5.98 11.25 6.09 11.36
Remaining substances 5.04 7.25 3.98 7.48 4.08 7.61
5.2.3. EMC Results and Discussions: Concrete Mixtures

The distribution of the costs for the different concrete mixtures in relation to the
materials that make them up is summarised in Figures 17 and 18, and Table 24. It is shown
that cement represents 73.42% in the case of C-Control concrete compared to 64.18% in
the case of concrete mixtures that are manufactured with recycled material (C-Echy) or
65.78% in the case of C-EcHy/28M-6B. The use of recycled aggregates that replace natural
aggregates has a lower impact on cost reduction.
Aggregat 0.01762 0.27138 0.85203 0.31454 1.20667 0.04571 3.41878
3
e
Ind. Cost.
11.11917
Concrete
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 24.37888 0.25112 0.46816 0.06168 0.94983 2.98210 1.10090 4.22334 2.48789 0.15999 48.18306
28 of 36
Note: The amount highlighted in bold is the total cost for the manufacture of 1 m3 of each concrete
mixture.
Fine
C-Control. 61.55 €/m3 C-Control;
Water; 0.19; C-EcHy. 49.38 €/m3
Medium
Aggregates; Aggregates; C-EcHy/28M-6B. Fine
Aggregates;
MRA; 2.49;
C-Control; 0.31% 5.74; 48.18 €/m3 5.16%BBA; 0.16;
2.10; 4.26% 4.22; 8.77%
C-Control; Fine C-Control; Coarse 11.62% 0.33%
Medium Aggregates; Medium
Indirect Cost Aggregates; Water; 0.20; Water; 0.25;
Aggregates; 5.74; 9.32% + Industrial
Aggregates;
4.55; 9.21% 0.41% 1.10; 2.28% 0.52%
2.10; 3.42% Profit €/Tn ;
14.20; Coarse Additive;
C-Control; 23.08% pMRA; 0.95; Indirect Cost Aggregates; 0.47; 0.97%
Coarse
1.92% + Industrial 2.98; 6.19% Indirect Cost
Aggregates;
4.55; 7.39% pBBA; 0.06; Profit €/Tn ; + Industrial
0.12% 11.40; pMRA; 0.95; Profit €/Tn ;
23.08% 1.97% 11.12;
23.08%
Cement; pBBA; 0.06;
C-Control; 24.38; 0.13% Cement;
Cement; 49.37% 24.38;
34.76; 56.48% 50.60%
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
Figure
Figure17.
17.Concrete
Concretematerials
materialscost.
cost.Indirect
Indirectand
andindustrial
industrialand
andprofit
profitcost.
cost.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
C- Cotrol
C-EcHy/28M-6B
C-EcHy
Cement Coste amort O&M Direct Cost Labour Electricity cost

Diesel cost Water Ind. Cost. Agregate Ind. Cost. Concrete
Figure 18. Concrete.

Figure 18.Comparison chart of thechart
Concrete. Comparison costsof
being evaluated.
the costs being evaluated.
Table 24. Calculation of EMC-mat to becement

applied in concrete mixtures 3 ).
Results show that represents 77.79%(1inm the case of C-Control concret
compared to 70% in the case of concrete mixtures that are manufactured with recycle
FA, BBA
Concrete Category Cost (€/m3 ) Cement Water
material. Addit
The use pBBA pMRA aggregates
of recycled CA MAthat replace MRA
natural aggregates Total has a lowe
SNS 0/2
C- Control impact
34.75895 on cost reduction because of 315 kg/m of CA (4.97 €/t), 155 kg/m34.95211
0.19316 3 3 of MA (6.47 €/t
Cost amort 1.62863 0.80727 2.23995 4.67586
O&M
and 165 kg/m3 of FA (6.56 €/t) for0.56504 472 kg/m 3 of MRA
0.26934 0.72421
(5.27 €/t) and 8 kg/m 3 of BBA (2.0
1.55859
Direct Cost Labour €/t) for the case of concrete C- EcHy/28M-6B.
0.19816 0.07039 0.13536 0.40390
Electricity cost 0.29715 0.15765 0.61714 1.07194
Diesel cost The environmental costs associated
0.55937 with
0.19868concrete
0.38209 slabs in building are listed in Tab
1.14015
Ind. Cost. Aggregate 25, as well as the substances that1.29934 have a0.60133 1.63950 equal to or greater
contribution 3.54017
than 1%. Th
Ind. Cost. Concrete 14.20281
results
34.75895 determine an environmental
0.19316 cost2.10467
4.54770 of 36.48 €/m3 for C-Control, 61.54553
5.73823 34.88 €/m3 for C
C-EcHy EcHy,
24.37888 and 36.33 €/m3 for C-EcHy/28M-6B, show in Figure 19 According
0.20450 to these value
24.58338
Cost amort 0.01082 0.20330 1.62863 0.80727 2.23995 4.88997
O&M the partial replacement of cement with pBBA
0.00363 0.06176 0.56504 0.26934 0.72421 and pMRA in concrete
1.62398reduced th
Direct Cost Labour environmental cost by 4.38%, and 0.4% if the natural aggregates were also partiall
0.00120 0.00240 0.19816 0.07039 0.13536 0.40751
Electricity cost 0.01136 0.34196 0.29715 0.15765 0.61714 1.42525
Diesel cost replaced by MRA 0.01705and BBA.0.06904Regarding the distribution
0.55937 0.19868 0.38209 by stages, up to 93% of th
1.22623
Ind. Cost. Aggregate environmental cost0.01762
was due0.27138
to the1.29934 0.60133 1.63950
manufacture of the components, and 3.82918
around 7% wa
related
24.37888 to the concrete
0.20450 0.06168 manufacturing
0.94983 4.54770 process. Air emissions of carbon
2.10467 5.73823 dioxide-fossi
49.38115
nitrogen oxides, and sulphur dioxide constituted the main substances that generate
environmental costs.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 29 of 36
Table 24. Cont.
FA, BBA
Concrete Category Cost (€/m3 ) Cement Water Addit pBBA pMRA CA MA MRA Total
SNS 0/2
C-EcHy/28M-6B 24.37888 0.25112 0.46816 25.09816
Cost amort 0.01082 0.20330 1.06795 0.42227 1.64860 1.04735 0.03412 4.43440
O&M 0.00363 0.06176 0.37052 0.14088 0.53302 0.31684 0.01158 1.43823
Direct Cost Labour 0.00120 0.00240 0.12994 0.03682 0.09962 0.00822 0.00418 0.28238
Electricity cost 0.01136 0.34196 0.19485 0.08246 0.45421 0.16854 0.00510 1.25848
Diesel cost 0.01705 0.06904 0.36680 0.10393 0.28122 0.23613 0.05930 1.13346
Ind. Cost. Aggregate 0.01762 0.27138 0.85203 0.31454 1.20667 0.71083 0.04571 3.41878
24.37888 0.25112 0.46816 0.06168 0.94983 2.98210 1.10090 4.22334 2.48789 0.15999 48.18306
Note: The amount highlighted in bold is the total cost for the manufacture of 1 m3 of each concrete mixture.
Results show that cement represents 77.79% in the case of C-Control concrete compared
to 70% in the case of concrete mixtures that are manufactured with recycled material.
The use of recycled aggregates that replace natural aggregates has a lower impact on
cost reduction because of 315 kg/m3 of CA (4.97 €/t), 155 kg/m3 of MA (6.47 €/t), and
165 kg/m3 of FA (6.56 €/t) for 472 kg/m3 of MRA (5.27 €/t) and 8 kg/m3 of BBA (2.00 €/t)
for the case of concrete C- EcHy/28M-6B.
The environmental costs associated with concrete slabs in building are listed in Table 25,
as well as the substances that have a contribution equal to or greater than 1%. The results
determine an environmental cost of 36.48 €/m3 for C-Control, 34.88 €/m3 for C-EcHy, and
36.33 €/m3 for C-EcHy/28M-6B, show in Figure 19 According to these values, the partial
replacement of cement with pBBA and pMRA in concrete reduced the environmental cost
by 4.38%, and 0.4% if the natural aggregates were also partially replaced by MRA and BBA.
Regarding the distribution by stages, up to 93% of the environmental cost was due to the
manufacture of the components, and around 7% was related to the concrete manufacturing
process. Air emissions of carbon dioxide-fossil, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur dioxide
constituted the main substances that generated environmental costs.
Table 25. Environmental EMC-ENV cost of concrete (1 m3 ) and substance contribution.
Substance/Compartment C-Control C-EcHy C-EcHy/28M-6B

EMC Stage
Euro % Euro % Euro %
Total cost 36.48 100 34.88 100 36.33 100
Materials 34.05 93.35 32.45 93.04 33.91 93.32
CEM II 42.5 33.22 91.06 - - - -
Eco-hybrid cement - - 31.62 90.64 31.62 87.02
CEM I 52.5 - - 31.48 90.25 31.48 86.65
pBBA - - 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03
pMRA - - 0.13 0.36 0.13 0.35
CA 0.40 1.10 0.40 1.15 0.26 0.72
MA 0.14 0.40 0.14 0.41 0.08 0.21
FA 0.28 0.76 0.28 0.80 0.20 0.56
MRA - - - - 0.17 0.46
Fine BBA - - - - 0.01 0.04
Water 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05
Admixture - - - - 1.55 4.26
Concrete
2.43 6.65 2.43 6.96 2.43 6.68
manufacturing
Arsenic (air) 0.73 2.01 0.49 1.41 0.57 1.57
Arsenic (water) 0.53 1.45 0.50 1.44 0.56 1.53
Carbon dioxide, fossil (air) 13.65 37.42 12.58 36.06 12.78 35.16
Carbon-14 (air) 0.24 0.67 0.21 0.60 0.22 0.59
Manganese (water) 3.31 9.09 2.57 7.36 2.70 7.44
Nitrogen oxides (air) 7.44 20.41 7.48 21.44 7.61 20.95
Particulates, >2.5 µm, and <10 µm (air) 2.52 6.91 1.94 5.55 2.01 5.52
Radon-222 (air) 0.34 0.93 0.28 0.81 0.29 0.81
Sulphur dioxide (air) 3.77 10.34 3.98 11.41 4.33 11.92
Remaining substances 2.54 6.95 3.16 9.07 3.44 9.47
Materials 2024, 17, x4357
FOR PEER REVIEW 3430of
of 40
36
C-EcHy/28M-6B. 48.18 €/m3

Additive; 0.47;
0.97%
Water; 0.25;
0.52% Indirect Cost +
Industrial Profit
€/Tn ; 11.12; Depreciation Cost
23.08% €/Tn; 4.43; 9.20%
O&M €/Tn; 1.44; Labour Direct

2.98% Cost; 0.28; 0.59%
Otros; 11.97;
24.83% Electricity Cost.
Cement; 24.38;
€/Tn; 1.26; 2.61%
50.60%
Indirect Cost + Diesel Cost. €/Tn;
Industrial Profit 1.13; 2.35%
€/Tn; 3.42; 7.10%
Figure
Figure 19.
19. Characterisation
Characterisation of
of concrete
concrete C-EcHy/28M-6B
C-EcHy/28M-6Bcost.
cost.
Table 25. Environmental

5.3. EMC Final Results EMC-ENV cost of concrete (1 m3) and substance contribution.
Comparatively, the total EMCs associated
Substance/Compartment C-Controlwith cement mortar and concrete
C-EcHy mixtures
C-EcHy/28M-6B
EMC Stage are shown in Table 26. As can be seen, the lowest total cost belongs to C-EcHy concrete,
Euro % Euro % Euro %
84.26 Euros/m3 , which compared to 98.03 euros/m3 of C-Control corresponds to a 14%
Total cost 36.48 100 34.88 100 36.33 100
reduction in cost.
Materials 34.05 93.35 32.45 93.04 33.91 93.32
CEM II 42.5 33.22costs (EMCs)
Table 26. Environmental and material total 91.06 of concrete
- -
and mortar -
mixtures. -
Eco-hybrid
Mortar -
Material Cost - 31.62
Environmental 90.64
Cost 31.62 87.02
Total Cost
cement
(Euros/m3 ) (%) (Euros/m3 ) (%) (Euros/m3 )
CEM I 52.5 - - 31.48 90.25 31.48 86.65
M- Control 86.63
pBBA - 55.5 - 69.57
0.01 44.5
0.03 0.01 156.200.03
M-EcHy 71.74 57.4 53.16 42.6 124.90
M-EcHy/20M pMRA 69.94 - 56.6 - 0.13
53.61 0.36
43.4 0.13 123.550.35
CA C-Control 61.55 0.4062.8 1.10 0.40
36.48 1.15
37.2 0.26 98.030.72
MA C-EcHy 49.38 0.1458.6 0.40 34.88
0.14 41.4
0.41 0.08 84.260.21
FA C-EcHy/28M-6B 48.18 0.28 57.0 0.76 36.33
0.28 43.0
0.80 0.20 84.510.56
MRA - - - - 0.17 0.46
In the case of mortars, the lowest cost is 123.55 Euros/m 3 for the M-EcHy-20M mortar,
Fine BBA - - - - 0.01 0.04
3 for the M-Control.
Water resulting in a 21% cost reduction compared 0.01 to0.04
156.20 Euros/m
0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05
A compilation of all of the final results of CO2 emission savings, monetary savings,
Admixture - - - - 1.55 4.26
and mechanical performance is presented in Figure 20. The X-axis shows the % reduction
Concrete
in CO2 emissions, the Y-axis shows2.43 the % economic
6.65 savings,
2.43 and
6.96the area of the circles
2.43 6.68
manufacturing
determines the compressive strength at 90 days.
Arsenic (air) of mortar mixes
In the comparison 0.73 (Figure 2.01 20a), 0.49
it can be 1.41
seen that 0.57 1.57
the two mixes
Arsenic (water) 0.53 1.45 0.50 1.44
achieved very similar emission and cost reductions. In this case, since M-EcHy has higher 0.56 1.53
Carbon
strengths, thedioxide,
optimum fossil
mix(air) 13.65In the37.42
is M-EcHy. concrete 12.58 36.0620b), the
mixes (Figure 12.78 35.16
compressive
Carbon-14
strengths were in the(air)
same range of0.24magnitude. 0.67 Looking
0.21at Figure
0.6020b, the0.22
C-EcHy 0.59
mix
Manganese
shows higher (water)
greenhouse gas emission3.31reductions
9.09 than2.57 7.36
the C-EcHy/28M-6B 2.70 7.44
mix. Because
of this, the optimum
Nitrogen concrete
oxides (air) mix is7.44
C-Echy. 20.41 7.48 21.44 7.61 20.95
Particulates, >2.5 µm, and <10
2.52 6.91 1.94 5.55 2.01 5.52
µm (air)
Radon-222 (air) 0.34 0.93 0.28 0.81 0.29 0.81
C-EcHy/28M-6B 48.18 57.0 36.33 43.0 84.51
A compilation of all of the final results of CO2 emission savings, monetary savings,
and mechanical performance is presented in Figure 20. The X-axis shows the % reduction
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 31 of 36
in CO2 emissions, the Y-axis shows the % economic savings, and the area of the circles
determines the compressive strength at 90 days.
(a) (b)
Figure 20.
Figure 20. Correlation
Correlation among
among optimal
optimal cost,
cost, CO
CO22savings,
savings,and
andmechanical
mechanicalperformance.
performance.(a)
(a)Mortar
Mortar
mixtures. (b) Concrete mixtures.
mixtures. (b) Concrete mixtures.
6. Conclusions
In the comparison of mortar mixes (Figure 20a), it can be seen that the two mixes
achieved very similar
The following emission can
conclusions andbe cost reductions.
extracted fromIn thethis case,obtained
results since M-EcHy
for thehas higher
durability
strengths, the optimum mix is M-EcHy. In the
and mechanical strength of the mortar and concrete mixtures. concrete mixes (Figure 20b), the
compressive strengths were in the same range of magnitude. Looking at
Concrete and mortar mixtures with eco-hybrid cement, applying a 25% substitutionFigure 20b, the
C-EcHy
of cement,mix shows
show higher
a small greenhouse
drop comparedgas emission reductions
to conventional cement than the C-EcHy/28M-6B
mixtures at 90 days, only
mix. Because
2.8% for mortarof mixtures
this, the optimum concrete
and 6.3% for mix
concrete is C-Echy.
mixtures in compressive strength terms. For
earlier ages, the drop in mechanical strength is greater, with the hardening under hydration
of the recycled phases being slower.
When natural aggregates are replaced with mixed recycled aggregates or biomass bot-
tom ash, the drops are greater. The C-EcHy/28M-6B mixture has a 10% drop compared to
C-Control. The M-EcHy/20M mixture has a 15% drop compared to M-Control. The BBA, in
the long term, has considerable hardening, either substituting cement or substituting sand.
With respect to dimensional changes, the C-EcHy/28M-6B mixture behaves similarly
to the control concrete mix. If we consider a slight drop in mechanical strength and similar-
ity in terms of dimensional changes, the C-EcHy/28M-6B mixture is the most suitable.
The following conclusions can be drawn related to the LCA.
Regarding the impacts associated with the component materials, admixture and
cement generate the highest values. The environmental burdens associated to eco-hybrid
cement manufactured with filler materials derived from MRA and BBA are reduced by up
to 23% compared to CEM II. As for MRA, the loads generated are reduced between 20%
and 86% compared to natural aggregates, while obtaining fine BBA causes reduced impacts
between 37% and 97% compared to natural sand.
The greatest contribution to the impact of cement mortar mixtures corresponds to
the cement extraction and production stage, so the incorporation of MRA and BBA as a
replacement for cement reduces environmental loads, between 16% and 25%. In addition,
if natural sand is replaced by fine MRA, the environmental impacts are reduced between
12% and 24%.
Regarding the incorporation of eco-hybrid cement in concrete, the impact values are
reduced between 3% and 23% for GWP, EP-freshwater, and POF categories. However,
when natural aggregates are also replaced with BBA and MRA, the loads are increased
between 1% for EP-terrestrial and 53% for ODP, because it is necessary to incorporate an
admixture and increase the water dosage to provide the concrete with the required docility.
Regarding EMC, the following conclusions can be drawn.
The greatest impact of the cost of materials in the case of mortar and concrete mixtures
is due to the consumption of cement. The reduction in the consumption of cement as a
consequence of the substitution with recycled material allows the cost of materials to be
reduced. In the case of mortar mixtures, the reduction is up to 20% and in the case of
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 32 of 36
concrete mixtures, it is up to 22%, related to the cost of the mortar and the concrete control,
respectively. The decrease in the cost impact of cement is related to the presented decrease
based on the environmental impact
The environmental costs of the plasticiser admixture and cement are the highest of all
the component materials. For pBBA and pMRA, environmental costs are reduced by up to
99.5% compared to the costs associated with cement. In this way, the partial substitution of
cement with these recycled materials decreases the environmental costs associated with
mortar and concrete mixtures by up to 24% and 4%, respectively.
Likewise, environmental costs decrease for MRA, up to 20%, and for BBA, up to 62%,
with respect to natural aggregates. Therefore, the incorporation of these recycled aggregates
as a partial substitution of natural aggregates reduces the environmental costs related to
mortar and concrete mixtures by up to 23% and 0.4%, respectively.
These environmental costs are mainly generated by the air emissions of carbon dioxide-
fossil, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur dioxide during the manufacturing stage of the compo-
nent materials.
Regarding the contribution of the product stages, the material manufacturing generates
the highest environmental costs, followed by the mortar or concrete manufacturing process.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.A., M.L.A. and J.O.; Methodology, F.A., M.R., G.M.C.-M.
and J.O.; Validation, F.A., M.R., M.L.A., G.M.C.-M. and J.O.; Formal Analysis, M.L.A., G.M.C.-M.
and J.O.; Investigation, F.A., M.R., M.L.A., G.M.C.-M. and J.O.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation,
M.R., M.L.A., G.M.C.-M. and J.O.; Writing—Review, F.A., M.L.A. and J.O.; Supervision, F.A.; Project
Administration, F.A.; Acquisition, F.A., M.L.A. and J.O. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by grant projects PDC2022-133285-C22 and PID2019-107238RBC22
funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR, and
PID2022-141028OB-C21 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data is shown in the article.
Acknowledgments: This work is part of grant projects PDC2022-133285-C22 MCIN/AEI/10.13039/
501100011033/European Union “NextGenerationEU/PRTR” and PID2022-141028OB-C21 funded by
MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. The authors also would like to thank Marta Robles Pérez, a
member of the technical team of the University of Córdoba, and the technical team of the University
of Granada.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Krausmann, F.; Lauk, C.; Haas, W. Wiedenhofer, from resource extraction to outflows of wastes and emissions: The socioeconomic
metabolism of the global economy, 1900–2015. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 52, 131–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Bajželj, B.; Allwood, J.M.; Cullen, J.M. Designing climate change mitigation plans that add up. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47,
8062–8069. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Habert, G.; Miller, S.A.; John, V.M.; Provis, J.L.; Favier, A.; Horvath, A.; Scrivener, K.L. Environmental impacts and decarbonization
strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 559–573. [CrossRef]
4. Chen, C.; Habert, G.; Bouzidi, Y.; Jullien, A. Environmental impact of cement production: Detail of the different processes and
cement plant variability evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 478–485. [CrossRef]
5. Miller, S.A.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J. Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO2 emissions from the production of
concrete by over 20%. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 074029. [CrossRef]
6. Snellings, R. Assessing, understanding and unlocking supplementary cementitious materials. RILEM Technol. Lett. 2016, 1, 50–55.
[CrossRef]
7. Asensio, E.; Medina, C.; Frías, M.; de Rojas, M.I.S. Fired clay-based construction and demolition waste as pozzolanic addition in
cements. Design of new eco-efficient cements. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121610. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 33 of 36
8. Rosales, M.; Rosales, J.; Agrela, F.; de Rojas, M.S.; Cabrera, M. Design of a new eco-hybrid cement for concrete pavement, made
with processed mixed recycled aggregates and olive biomass bottom ash as supplementary cement materials. Constr. Build. Mater.
2022, 358, 129417. [CrossRef]
9. Chen, Z.; Yu, J.; Nong, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Tang, Y. Beyond time: Enhancing corrosion resistance of geopolymer concrete and
BFRP bars in seawater. Compos. Struct. 2023, 322, 117439. [CrossRef]
10. Tang, Y.; Feng, W.; Chen, Z.; Mai, J.; Zheng, J.; Yang, Y. Behaviour of steel-reinforced recycled aggregate concrete-filled GFRP
tubular short columns under eccentric axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct. 2024, 199, 111818. [CrossRef]
11. García Palacios, J. Análisis de Impacto Ambiental del Hormigón Estructural Fabricado con Árido Reciclado; Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya: Barcelona, Spain, 2022.
12. Katerusha, D. Attitude towards sustainability, study contents and the use of recycled concrete in building construction-case study
Germany and Switzerland. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125688. [CrossRef]
13. Deresa, S.T.; Xu, J.; Demartino, C.; Heo, Y.; Li, Z.; Xiao, Y. Clay content of argillites: Influence on cement based mortars. Appl. Clay
Sci. 2009, 43, 322–330.
14. Habert, G.; Choupay, N.; Escadeillas, G.; Guillaume, D.; Montel, J.M. Clay content of argillites: Influence on cement based mortars.
Appl. Clay Sci. 2009, 43, 322–330. [CrossRef]
15. Alujas, A.; Fernández, R.; Quintana, R.; Scrivener, K.L.; Martirena, F. Pozzolanic reactivity of low grade kaolinitic clays: Influence
of calcination temperature and impact of calcination products on OPC hydration. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 108, 94–101. [CrossRef]
16. Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26,
379–388. [CrossRef]
17. Zanni, S.; Simion, I.M.; Gavrilescu, M.; Bonoli, A. Life cycle assessment applied to circular designed construction materials.
Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 154–159. [CrossRef]
18. Jonsson, A.; Bjorklund, T.; Tillman, A.-M. LCA of concrete and steel building frames. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1998, 3, 216–224.
[CrossRef]
19. Marinković, S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) aspects of concrete. In Eco-Efficient Concrete; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2013; pp. 45–80.
20. Flower, D.J.; Sanjayan, J.G. Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 282–288.
[CrossRef]
21. Kim, T.; Lee, S.; Chae, C.U.; Jang, H.; Lee, K. Development of the CO2 emission evaluation tool for the life cycle assessment of
concrete. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2116. [CrossRef]
22. Gursel, A.P.; Masanet, E.; Horvath, A.; Stadel, A. Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2014, 51, 38–48. [CrossRef]
23. Marinković, S.; Malešev, M.; Ignjatović, I. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete made using recycled concrete or natural
aggregates. In Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 239–266.
24. Bovea, M.D.; Simó, A. Life cycle assessment of ceramic tiles: Environmental and statistical analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011,
16, 916–928.
25. Pargana, N.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Silvestre, J.D.; De Brito, J. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of thermal insulation
materials of buildings. Energy Build. 2014, 82, 466–481. [CrossRef]
26. Ingrao, C.; Selvaggi, R.; Valenti, F.; Matarazzo, A.; Pecorino, B.; Arcidiacono, C. Life cycle assessment of expanded clay granulate
production using different fuels. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 398–409. [CrossRef]
27. Cabeza, L.F.; Castell, A.; Pérez, G. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of phase change materials (PCMs) used in buildings. In Eco-Efficient
Construction and Building Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 287–310.
28. Sathre, R.; González-García, S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of wood-based building materials. In Eco-Efficient Construction and
Building Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 311–337.
29. Stafford, F.N.; Raupp-Pereira, F.; Labrincha, J.A.; Hotza, D. Life cycle assessment of the production of cement: A Brazilian case
study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 1293–1299. [CrossRef]
30. Salas, D.A.; Ramirez, A.D.; Rodríguez, C.R.; Petroche, D.M.; Boero, A.J.; Duque-Rivera, J. Environmental impacts, life cycle
assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 114–122.
[CrossRef]
31. Marceau, M.; Nisbet, M.A.; Van Geem, M.G. Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Manufacture; Portland Cement Association:
Skokie, IL, USA, 2006.
32. Huntzinger, D.N.; Eatmon, T.D. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: Comparing the traditional process
with alternative technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 668–675. [CrossRef]
33. Moretti, L.; Caro, S. Critical analysis of the life cycle assessment of the Italian cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 152, 198–210.
[CrossRef]
34. Cuenca-Moyano, G.M.; Martín-Morales, M.; Bonoli, A.; Valverde-Palacios, I. Environmental assessment of masonry mortars
made with natural and recycled aggregates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 191–210. [CrossRef]
35. Tosti, L.; van Zomeren, A.; Pels, J.R.; Comans, R.N. Technical and environmental performance of lower carbon footprint cement
mortars containing biomass fly ash as a secondary cementitious material. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 134, 25–33. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 34 of 36
36. Napolano, L.; Menna, C.; Graziano, S.F.; Asprone, D.; D’Amore, M.; de Gennaro, R.; Dondi, M. Environmental life cycle
assessment of lightweight concrete to support recycled materials selection for sustainable design. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 119,
37. Gayarre, F.L.; Pérez, J.G.; Pérez, C.L.C.; López, M.S.; Martínez, A.L. Life cycle assessment for concrete kerbs manufactured with
recycled aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 41–53. [CrossRef]
38. Ingrao, C.; Giudice, A.L.; Mbohwa, C.; Clasadonte, M.T. Life Cycle Inventory analysis of a precast reinforced concrete shed for
goods storage. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 79, 152–167. [CrossRef]
39. Sappa, G.; Iacurto, S.; Ponzi, A.; Tatti, F.; Torretta, V.; Viotti, P. The LCA methodology for ceramic tiles production by addition of
MSWI BA. Resources 2019, 8, 93. [CrossRef]
40. Pini, M.; Ferrari, A.M.; Gamberini, R.; Neri, P.; Rimini, B. Life cycle assessment of a large, thin ceramic tile with advantageous
technological properties. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1567–1580. [CrossRef]
41. Seco, A.; Omer, J.; Marcelino, S.; Espuelas, S.; Prieto, E. Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction and
demolition wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 167, 154–165. [CrossRef]
42. Qiao, L.; Tang, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, M.; Yuan, X.; Wang, Q.; Ma, Q. Life cycle assessment of three typical recycled products from
construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 376, 134139. [CrossRef]
43. Gulotta, T.; Mistretta, M.; Praticò, F. A Life cycle assessment of three typical recycled products from construction and demolition
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134139.
44. Polo-Mendoza, R.; Penabaena-Niebles, R.; Giustozzi, F.; Martinez-Arguelles, G. Eco-friendly design of Warm mix asphalt (WMA)
with recycled concrete aggregate (RCA): A case study from a developing country. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 326, 126890.
[CrossRef]
45. Mercante, I.T.; Bovea, M.D.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Arena, A.P. Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management
systems: A Spanish case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 232–241. [CrossRef]
46. Guignot, S.; Touzé, S.; Von der Weid, F.; Ménard, Y.; Villeneuve, J. Recycling construction and demolition wastes as building
materials: A life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 1030–1043. [CrossRef]
47. da Costa, T.P.; Quinteiro, P.; Tarelho, L.A.; Arroja, L.; Dias, A.C. Environmental assessment of valorisation alternatives for woody
biomass ash in construction materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 67–79. [CrossRef]
48. Babashamsi, P.; Yusoff, N.I.M.; Ceylan, H.; Nor, N.G.M.; Jenatabadi, H.S. Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review
and analysis. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2016, 9, 241–254. [CrossRef]
49. Li, J.; Xiao, F.; Zhang, L.; Amirkhanian, S.N. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of recycled solid waste materials in
highway pavement: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1182–1206. [CrossRef]
50. Mohammadi, A.; Ramezanianpour, A.M. Investigating the environmental and economic impacts of using supplementary
cementitious materials (SCMs) using the life cycle approach. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 79, 107934. [CrossRef]
51. Eliche-Quesada, D.; Calero-Rodríguez, A.; Bonet-Martínez, E.; Pérez-Villarejo, L.; Sánchez-Soto, P.J. Geopolymers made from
metakaolin sources, partially replaced by Spanish clays and biomass bottom ash. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102761. [CrossRef]
52. UNE-EN-196-6:2019; Methods of Testing Cement—Part 6: Determination of Fineness. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
53. UNE-EN 1097-6:2001; Ensayos Para Determinación las Propiedades Mecánicas y Físicas de los Áridos. Parte 6: Determinación de
la Densidad de Partículas y la Absorción de Agua. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
54. UNE-ISO 11048:2007; Calidad del Suelo. Determinación de Sulfato Soluble en Agua y en Ácido. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2007.
55. UNE-EN 1744-1:2010; Ensayos Para Determinar las Propiedades Químicas de los Áridos. Parte 1: Análisis Químico. AENOR:
Madrid, Spain, 2010.
56. UNE 103204:2019; Determinación del Contenido de Materia Orgánica Oxidable de un Suelo por el Método del Permanganato
Potásico. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
57. Carrasco-Hurtado, B.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A.; Cruz-Pérez, N.; Terrados-Cepeda, J.; Pérez-Villarejo, L. Addition of bottom ash from
biomass in calcium silicate masonry units for use as construction material with thermal insulating properties. Constr. Build. Mater.
2014, 52, 155–165. [CrossRef]
58. Santos, T.A.; Neto, J.S.A.; Cilla, M.S.; Ribeiro, D.V. Influence of the Content of Alkalis (Na2 O and K2 O), MgO, and SO3 Present in
the Granite Rock Fine in the Production of Portland Clinker. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2022, 34, 04021464. [CrossRef]
59. Medina, C.; Banfill, P.F.G.; De Rojas, M.S.; Frías, M. Rheological and calorimetric behaviour of cements blended with containing
ceramic sanitary ware and construction/demolition waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 822–831. [CrossRef]
60. Carrasco, B.; Cruz, N.; Terrados, J.; Corpas, F.A.; Pérez, L. An evaluation of bottom ash from plant biomass as a replacement for
cement in building blocks. Fuel 2014, 118, 272–280. [CrossRef]
61. UNE-EN 933-11:2009; Ensayos Para Determinar las Propiedades Geométricas de los Áridos. Parte 11: Ensayo de Clasificación de
los Componentes de los Áridos Gruesos Reciclados. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2018.
62. UNE 146404:2018; Áridos Para Hormigones. Medida del Coeficiente de Friabilidad de las Arenas. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2018.
63. UNE-EN 933-8:2012; Ensayos Para Determinar las Propiedades Geométricas de los Áridos. Parte 8: Evaluación de los Finos.
Ensayo del Equivalente de Arena. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2018.
64. de Brito, J.; Agrela, F.; Silva, R.V. Construction and demolition waste. In New Trends in Eco-Efficient and Recycled Concrete; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1–22.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 35 of 36
65. Martínez, P.S.; Cortina, M.G.; Martínez, F.F.; Sánchez, A.R. Comparative study of three types of fine recycled aggregates from
construction and demolition waste (CDW), and their use in masonry mortar fabrication. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 118, 162–169.
[CrossRef]
66. Jiménez, J.R.; Ayuso, J.; López, M.; Fernández, J.M.; De Brito, J.M.C.L. Use of fine recycled aggregates from ceramic waste in
masonry mortar manufacturing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 679–690. [CrossRef]
67. Thomas, C.; Setién, J.; Polanco, J. Structural recycled aggregate concrete made with precast wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 114,
68. ISO 20290–3:2019; Aggregates for Concrete. Test Methods for Mechanical and Physical Properties. Part 3: Determination of
Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
69. UNE-EN 1097-2:2021; Ensayos Para Determinar las Propiedades Mecánicas y Físicas de los Áridos. Parte 2: Métodos Para la
Determinación de la Resistencia a la Fragmentación. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2018.
70. Bui, N.K.; Satomi, T.; Takahashi, H. Improvement of mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete basing on a new
combination method between recycled aggregate and natural aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 376–385. [CrossRef]
71. Levy, S.M.; Helene, P. Durability of recycled aggregates concrete: A safe way to sustainable development. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004,
34, 1975–1980. [CrossRef]
72. Juez, J.M.; Cazacliu, B.; Cothenet, A.; Artoni, R.; Roquet, N. Recycled concrete aggregate attrition during mixing new concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 116, 299–309. [CrossRef]
73. Hasdemir, S.; Tuğrul, A.; Yılmaz, M. The effect of natural sand composition on concrete strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112,
74. Al Harthi, A.; Saada, Y.A. Utilisation de granulats naturels d’oueds pour la fabrication de bétons (Ouest de l’Arabie Saoudite).
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 1997, 55, 27–37. [CrossRef]
75. Thomas, C.; De Brito, J.; Cimentada, A.I.A.I.; Sainz-Aja, J.A. Macro-and micro-properties of multi-recycled aggregate concrete.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118843. [CrossRef]
76. Rodríguez-Robles, D.; García-González, J.; Juan-Valdés, A.; Pozo, J.M.M.D.; Guerra-Romero, M.I. Quality assessment of mixed
and ceramic recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes in the concrete manufacture according to the Spanish
standard. Materials 2014, 7, 5843–5857. [CrossRef]
77. Cabrera, M.; Galvin, A.P.; Agrela, F.; Carvajal, M.D.; Ayuso, J. Characterisation and technical feasibility of using biomass bottom
ash for civil infrastructures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 58, 234–244. [CrossRef]
78. Rosales, J.; Cabrera, M.; Beltrán, M.G.; López, M.; Agrela, F. Effects of treatments on biomass bottom ash applied to the
manufacture of cement mortars. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 154, 424–435. [CrossRef]
79. Eliche-Quesada, D.; Felipe-Sesé, M.A.; Martínez-Martínez, S.; Pérez-Villarejo, L. Comparative study of the use of different biomass
bottom ash in the manufacture of ceramic bricks. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04017238. [CrossRef]
80. UNE-EN 12390-3:2020; Ensayos de Hormigón Endurecido. Parte 3: Determinación de la Resistencia a Compresión de Probetas.
AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2018.
81. UNE-EN 12390-5:2020; Ensayos de Hormigón Endurecido. Parte 5: Resistencia a Flexión de Probetas. AENOR: Madrid,
Spain, 2018.
82. Monteiro, P. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials; McGraw-Hill Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
83. Medina, J.M.; Sáez del Bosque, I.F.; Frías, M.; Sánchez de Rojas, M.I.; Medina, C. Characterisation and valorisation of biomass
waste as a possible addition in eco-cement design. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50, 207. [CrossRef]
84. Rajamma, R.; Senff, L.; Ribeiro, M.J.; Labrincha, J.A.; Ball, R.J.; Allen, G.C.; Ferreira, V.M. Biomass fly ash effect on fresh and
hardened state properties of cement based materials. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 77, 1–9. [CrossRef]
85. Beltrán, M.G.; Barbudo, A.; Agrela, F.; Jiménez, J.R.; de Brito, J. Mechanical performance of bedding mortars made with olive
biomass bottom ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 699–707. [CrossRef]
86. Rosales, J.; Beltrán, M.G.; Cabrera, M.; Velasco, A.; Agrela, F. Feasible use of biomass bottom ash as addition in the manufacture
of lightweight recycled concrete. Waste Biomass Valorization 2016, 7, 953–963. [CrossRef]
87. Kikuchi, M.; Miura, T.; Dosho, Y.; Narikawa, M. Application of recycled aggregate concrete for structural concrete. Part
1—Experimental study on the quality of recycled aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete. In Proceedings of the Sustainable
Construction: Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate: Proceedings of the International Symposium organised by the Concrete
Technology Unit, University of Dundee and held at the Department of Trade and Industry Conference Centre, London, UK,
11–12 November 1998.
88. Reddy, B.V.; Gupta, A. Influence of sand grading on the characteristics of mortars and soil–cement block masonry. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2008, 22, 1614–1623. [CrossRef]
89. Mellmann, G.; Meinhold, U.; Maultzsch, M. Processed concrete rubble for the reuse as aggregates. In Exploiting Wastes in Concrete;
Thomas Telford Publishing: London, UK, 1999; pp. 171–178.
90. Silva, J.; De Brito, J.; Veiga, R. Recycled red-clay ceramic construction and demolition waste for mortars production. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2010, 22, 236–244. [CrossRef]
91. ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
Materials 2024, 17, 4357 36 of 36
92. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
93. Ecoinvent v3.8. Available online: https://ecoinvent.org/ (accessed on 1 July 2024).
94. UNE-EN 15804:2012+A2:2020; Sostenibilidad en la Construcción—Declaraciones Ambientales de Producto—Reglas de Categoría
de Productos Básicas para Productos de Construcción. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2020.
95. European Commission. Uso de los Métodos de la Huella Ambiental Para Medir y Comunicar el Comportamiento Ambiental de los
Productos y las Organizaciones a lo Largo de su Ciclo de Vida; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
96. ISO 15686-5; International Organization for Standardization Standard, Buildings and Constructed Assets, Service-life Planning,
Part 5: Life-cycle Costing. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
97. EN 60300-3-3:2017; Dependability Management—Part 3-3: Application Guide—Life Cycle Costing. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
98. de Bruyn, S.; Bijleveld, M.; de Graaff, L.; Schep, E.; Schroten, A.; Vergeer, R.; Ahdour, S. Environmental Prices Handbook EU28
Version. 2018. Available online: https://cedelft.eu/publications/environmental-prices-handbook-eu28-version/ (accessed on
1 July 2024).
99. Vivienda, S.G. Base de Costes de la Construcción de Andalucía (BCCA). Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/
organismos/fomentoarticulaciondelterritorioyvivienda/areas/vivienda-rehabilitacion/planes-instrumentos/paginas/bcca-
ene-2024.html (accessed on 10 January 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

materials-17-04357

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials-17-04357

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials-17-04357

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials

1 Construction Engineering Area, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain; z02rosgm@uco.es

Materials 2024, 17, 4357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174357 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mortar Component Materials

Table 1. Physicochemical properties of Cement CEM I 52.5R.

XRF (%) UNE-EN 196-6 [52]

2.1.2. Powder of Biomass Bottom Ash (pBBA)

Table 2. Physicochemical characterisation of BBA powder (pBBA).

Cement Substitute Wastes—Characterisation of pBBA

2.1.3. Processed Mixed Recycled Aggregates (pMRA)

Table 3. Physicochemical characterisation of MRA powder (pMRA).

Cement Substitute Wastes—Characterisation of MRA Powder

2.1.4. Normalised Sand (SNS) 0/2 mm Size According to EN 196-1 [61]

Table 4. Particle size distribution.

Sieve (mm) Lower Limit Interval Average Upper Limit

Table 5. Gross composition of MRA.

Constituents Composition MRA (0–22 mm) UNE-EN 933-11 [61]

Table 6. Physicochemical properties of MRA.

Characterisation of Fine Fraction MRA

2.2. Component Materials of Concrete Mixtures

Table 8. Physical characterisation of natural aggregates.

Characterisation of Natural Aggregate

2.2.3. Mixed Recycled Aggregates (MRAs) (0/22 mm)

Table 10. Physicochemical properties of biomass bottom ash (BBA).

Table 11. Dosages of mortar mixtures (kg/m3 ).

Dosages—Mortar Mixtures (kg/m3 )

Table 12. Dosages of concrete mixtures.

Dosages—Concrete Mixtures (kg/m3 )

3. Experimental Methods and Results of Mechanical Behaviour of Mortars and

3.1.1. Results of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Mortar Mixtures

Table 13. Mechanical strength for mortar mixtures.

Compressive S. (Mpa) Flexural S. (Mpa)

3.1.2. Results of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Concrete Mixtures

Table 14. Mechanical strength for concrete mixtures.

3.2. Dimensional Changes in Mortar and Concrete Mixtures

3.2.1. Results of Dimensional Changes of Mortar Mixtures

4. LCA Methodology and Results

4.1.1. LCA—Objective, Scope, and System Boundaries

4.1.2. Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 40

4.1.2.The data used

4.1.3. Impact Assessment Methodology

4.2. LCA Results and Discussion

Table 16. Characterisation results of component materials (1 t).

Impact category (Unit)

4.2.2. LCA of Cement Mortar Mixtures

4.2.3. LCA of Concrete Mixtures

Table Likewise, in the M-EcHy/20M

Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 40

4.2.4. LCA of Cement Mortar Mixtures vs. Concrete Mixtures

The lowest impacts

5.1.2. Environmental and Materials Costs Inventory (EMCI)

5.2. EMC Results and Discussion

Material Quantity (Tn) Price (€/Tn) Total

Table 20. Eco-hybrid cement costs.

Material Quantity (Tn) Price (€/Tn) Total

The environmental costs and substance contribution by tonne of component materials

Table 21. Environmental cost of materials and substance contribution (1 t).