Evaluating the use of eggshell powder and sawdust ash as cement replacements in sustainable concrete development

Abstract

Keywords: Cement replacement; concrete; eco-friendly construction; eggshell powder (ESP); environmental impact assessment; life cycle assessment (LCA); sawdust ash (SDA)

1. Introduction

Concrete is a fundamental material in construction and is recognized as the most widely used composite material for infrastructure projects [1]. Traditionally, it is made from a precisely proportioned blend of cement, sand, and aggregates, all essential for its production. The construction sector relies heavily on these raw materials [2]. Numerous studies [3] have highlighted that cement, a primary component of concrete, emits large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO₂) during production [4]. CO₂ is a significant greenhouse gas (GHG), and the rapid expansion of the construction industry has dramatically exacerbated global warming and climate change [5]. As one of the most significant contributors to GHG emissions, the construction sector negatively affects the atmosphere and the environment [6]. Consequently, concrete production has become a key environmental issue, contributing to several challenges the construction industry faces [7–10]. The rising demand for concrete, driven by rapid urbanization, has led the construction industry to explore alternative waste materials that can replace part of the cement content. This approach seeks to lower cement consumption and reduce construction costs since cement production is responsible for 10% to 30% of global CO₂ emissions [11]. As a result, the concrete industry is becoming more interested in alternative aggregates, which offer benefits like social acceptance, economic savings, and sustainability [12]. Utilizing these materials can reduce environmental carbon footprints and foster sustainable development, minimizing environmental damage [13]. The increasing demand for natural resources driven by rapid urbanization and the challenge of agricultural waste disposal in developed countries has opened up opportunities to utilize agrarian waste in construction applications [14]. Farming by-products typically include includes such as rice husks, Sugarcane bagasse residue, wild reed, wood chips, groundnut husks, coconut husks, shellfish shells, tobacco byproducts, palm ash, and similar by-products [15]. Studies have highlighted the significance of Farming by-products substituting 10-30% of cement with Farming by-products can produce durable, high-performance concrete [16]. Even with these replacements, cement incorporating farming by-product ash has demonstrated remarkable resistance in mortar and concrete, even when exposed to hydrochloric acid solutions [17]. Recently, driven by socio-economic development and scientific progress, agro-waste was agreed upon due to its viability and cost-effectiveness. Agro-wastes, rich in fibers, provide a favorable balance of stiffness and toughness, along with high efficiency in thermal insulation, tensile Strength, and unique biomass ash characteristics [18]. While agro-waste is often considered a by-product of agriculture, it presents significant potential as an additive in construction, helping reduce energy demand throughout the construction and operational phases. Additionally, agro-cement offers strong thermal insulation, effectively addressing agricultural waste disposal and urban construction's thermal challenges [19].

This study uses eggshell powder and sawdust ash as alternative materials to replace traditional cement components. Typically considered waste, these materials are readily available, with sawdust originating as a by-product of wood carving industries and eggshells as the discarded outer shell of eggs after consumption. Assessing these waste materials based on their performance, quality, cost, and societal and ecological effects is essential. To accomplish this, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a widely recognized methodology, is an effective tool for evaluating the environmental performance of a product or process across its entire life cycle [20–22]. LCA helps optimize the use of materials and energy while quantifying the total environmental impacts [23, 24]. It is regarded as an ideal method for evaluating the environmental footprint of construction materials [25–31]. This study presents a novel approach by investigating the feasibility of combining two waste materials in concrete mixtures, followed by an impact assessment using SimaPro software to evaluate the environmental implications of four concrete mixtures where cement is replaced by a blend of eggshell powder and sawdust ash at varying proportions. Unlike previous studies that have focused on using eggshell powder (ESP) or sawdust ash (SDA) individually as supplementary cementitious materials, this research examines the combined use of 60% ESP and 40% SDA in various proportions (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%) as replacements for traditional cement in concrete along with the introduction of a thorough Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using SimaPro software to evaluate the environmental impacts, an approach that has been scarce in studies involving these two materials together. The study further delves into the strength growth of concrete at multiple curing intervals (7, 28, and 56 days), providing valuable insights into the long-term performance of concrete made with these alternative materials. Overall, this research offers fresh data on the dual use of ESP and SDA, their strength development, and their environmental advantages, with a strong emphasis on their potential for sustainable concrete applications. The findings are analyzed, and conclusions and recommendations are provided to inform future research in alignment with ISO 14040:2006 guidelines.

2. Literature Review

Eggshell powder (ESP), an agricultural and domestic waste primarily composed of limestone, is known for accelerating setting times and improving the characteristics of concrete and mortar in their plastic and solidified forms. The combination of SDA and ESP has the potential to form a unique cement mixture with improved properties. However, studies investigating ternary cement blends incorporating SDA and ESP to enhance cement quality are limited. According to [32], increased SDA content leads to prolonged setting times, influencing the material's properties. This delay in setting time can be advantageous for preserving workability, particularly under high-temperature conditions.

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp. 1–21, March 2025

On the other hand, incorporating eggshell powder (ESP) has been shown to enhance the fineness of cement by increasing its surface area, which helps accelerate the setting process. When both SDA and ESP are used together, they have opposite effects on the setting time, with SDA tending to extend it, while ESP reduces the setting time as their replacement levels rise. Various industrial, agricultural, and domestic waste by-products—such as fly ash, bottom ash, rice husk ash, SDA, ESP, and metakaolin—have been explored as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), showing varying effectiveness. Research suggests that cement blends containing ESP often achieve strength levels equal to or surpass those of ordinary Portland cement [33–37]. Additionally, incorporating SDA into ESP-based cement blends as an SCM can enhance concrete properties, as SDA's high amorphous silica content makes it a highly reactive pozzolanic material [38]. Eggshell powder has been employed as a partial replacement for cement in varying amounts of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. The impact of these replacements has been evaluated by testing the concrete's mechanical properties, including compressive Strength, flexural Strength, and tensile Strength. Eggshells exhibit good water absorption and concrete permeability, with 15% replacement yielding optimal results [39]. Concrete incorporating up to 15% eggshell as a binder replacement showed improved Strength at 10% replacement compared to control concrete. When combined with fly ash, Strength significantly surpasses conventional concrete [40]. Eggshell powder replacements of 6%, 12%, 18%, and 24% were tested, showing comparable workability, permeability, and Strength to control concrete at the highest replacement rate [41]. Sawdust was used as a partial substitute for fine aggregate, with replacement levels reaching up to 50%. However, the results showed a decline in concrete performance when the sawdust content exceeded 10%, compared to conventional concrete [42]. On the other hand, a mixture of sawdust and rice husk as partial replacements for cement up to 45% led to improvements in both the strength and durability of traditional concrete [43, 44]. When adding an agent to concrete, eggshell enhances its strength beyond conventional concrete, with up to 20% replacement yielding optimal results. The fine texture of sawdust aids in filling voids, improving both permeability and compaction properties. As a result, these materials are efficiently utilized as substitutes in concrete manufacturing [45]. Cement is a widely used binding material in concrete [46], but its production requires substantial natural resources such as shale, clay, gypsum, water, and fossil fuels [47]. Cement manufacturing also generates significant greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change. Research has shown that producing one ton of cement releases an amount of CO₂ equivalent to the cement's weight, causing no environmental harm [48]. This process is highly resource-intensive and results in considerable pollution [49]. In response to these issues, researchers worldwide are exploring industrial and waste by-products as more sustainable alternatives for cement-based materials [50–52].

Given the environmental concerns related to cement-based materials in concrete, this study investigates the potential of using eggshell powder and sawdust ash as alternatives. The ecological impact of these materials was assessed using SimaPro 9.6 software and the Ecoinvent 3 database to develop a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) model, comparing the effects of these alternatives on concrete production. To fully understand the environmental implications of concrete, it is essential to consider its entire life cycle—from production to disposal—and to evaluate the broader environmental impact beyond the project's immediate boundaries [53]. This life cycle encompasses all stages, from raw material extraction to the final disposal of waste [54]. Achieving environmental sustainability is crucial from a conservation standpoint, and by partially replacing cement with alternative materials, it is possible to reduce environmental impacts while maintaining concrete's functional performance [55]. Research on using waste materials as partial replacements for cement, fine aggregates, coarse aggregates, and conducting life cycle assessments (LCA) remains limited. Fly ash (FA) and copper tailings (CT), both by-products of industrial activities, have been explored as substitutes for cement in concrete mixes. An LCA conducted by ISO 14040:2006 standards revealed notable reductions in several environmental impact categories. These include climate change (up to 38%), human toxicity (up to 32.6%), ozone depletion (up to 33.6%), agricultural land use (up to 31.9%), water consumption (up to 34.3%), fossil fuel depletion (up to 34.8%), particulate matter (up to 35.4%), and metal depletion (up to 25.2%) [56]. Additionally, Gursel and Ostertag [57] found that the environmental impact of aggregates decreases as the substitution of natural sand with copper slag increases. For instance, substituting sand with 40% and 100% copper slag led to reductions in embodied energy (8% and 40%), global warming potential (12% and 30%), acidification (8% and 41%), and particulate matter formation (7% and 35%), respectively. Colangelo et al. [58] proposed using "green" recycled aggregates to minimize concrete's environmental and energy impacts. SimaPro© analysis of these aggregates revealed a lower environmental footprint than traditional concrete. Manjunatha et al. [50] prepared concrete using three types of binders: Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), and Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) are commonly used in concrete production. An LCA model developed using SimaPro 9.1 and the Ecoinvent database revealed that PPC and GGBS have a greater environmental impact than OPC. Manjunatha et al. [59] examine the fresh, mechanical, and microstructural properties of M40 grade concrete in which polyvinyl chloride (PVC) waste powder (PWP) partially replaces cement, with 8% silica fume kept constant. Concrete samples were tested with varying PWP percentages from 0% to 30%. The findings suggest that up to 15% PWP can be incorporated without negatively affecting the fresh and mechanical properties, such as compressive, split-tensile, and flexural Strength at 7, 14, 28, and 90 days of curing. The microstructural analysis also reveals

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp. 1–21, March 2025

enhanced calcium-silicate-hydrate gel formation at 15% PWP, in contrast to the mix with 20% PWP. This research presents a viable approach to addressing the increasing demand for cement and the growing issue of plastic waste. Manjunatha et al. [60] evaluate the environmental impact and energy consumption of concrete incorporating industrial waste materials, specifically polyvinyl chloride (PVC) waste powder (PWP) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), compared to conventional concrete. Focusing on both experimental and environmental aspects, the research applies the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, using a constant 30% GGBS and varying PWP content (0%30%) as cement replacements. LCA models, created with SimaPro software and the Ecoinvent database, demonstrate that using 15-20% PWP in combination with GGBS enhances structural performance while significantly reducing environmental impacts. This study offers important insights into the feasibility of sustainable concrete alternatives. Tangadagi et al. [61] investigate the influence of mineral admixtures, alccofine and GGBS, on the Strength and durability of self-compacting concrete (SCC) to reduce cement consumption. Nine M60, M80, and M100 grade SCC mixes were evaluated for their fresh properties, mechanical strengths, and durability characteristics, including creep and shrinkage. The findings demonstrate that incorporating GGBS and alccofine improves fresh and hardened properties, lowers cement consumption, and reduces construction costs. Additionally, this research fills existing gaps in the literature, particularly concerning the behavior of highgrade SCC concerning creep and shrinkage. Manjunatha et al. [62] examine the effects of engineered fibers, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) waste powder, and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) on the fresh and mechanical properties of M50-grade concrete. Fourteen concrete mixes, including those with and without fibers, were prepared with varying PVC waste powder content (0%–30%) and 0.6% SNF superplasticizer. The findings indicate that incorporating up to 20% PVC waste powder along with 30% GGBS and engineered fibers enhances the strength properties and reduces cement consumption, providing a sustainable and cost-effective alternative for concrete production. Pradhan et al. [63] examined the environmental effects of using recycled coarse aggregate (RCA) and the Particle Packing Method (PPM) for mix design, comparing them with concrete made from natural coarse aggregate (NCA) according to the IS code method. Teixeira et al. [64] explored the environmental advantages of incorporating various percentages of two types of fly ash as partial substitutes for cement in concrete mixes. These ashes, by-products from coal or biomass-fueled power plants, were found to reduce environmental impact and improve environmental performance as their replacement levels increased in concrete production. Manjunatha et al. [65] investigate the incorporation of industrial polyvinyl chloride (PVC) waste powder (PWP) as a partial replacement for cement in M60 grade self-compacting concrete (SCC). Several mixes with PWP content ranging from 0% to 30% were evaluated for their fresh properties, mechanical Strength, microstructural

characteristics, and environmental impacts using life cycle assessment. The findings indicate that replacing 5–10% of cement with PWP improves environmental sustainability and lowers costs while maintaining the concrete's Strength and durability. These fly ashes are by-products from coal or biomass-fueled power and heat production sectors. The findings indicated that both types of ash contribute to reduced environmental impact and enhanced environmental performance as cement replacement levels increase in concrete production. Dharek et al. [66] investigate the engineering properties and life cycle assessment (LCA) of hybrid fiber reinforced concrete (HFRC) incorporating equal proportions of glass and polypropylene fibers (ranging from 0% to 2%). The findings indicate that a 1% fiber content significantly improves Strength, durability, and impact resistance, although workability decreases. LCA results demonstrate that HFRC provides environmental and economic advantages over conventional concrete, highlighting its viability for sustainable construction applications. Maddikeari et al. [67] explore the potential of using wastewater as a substitute for potable water in concrete production, focusing on its effects on concrete properties such as Strength, durability, and microstructure. It outlines the advantages of wastewater recycling, including resource conservation, cost reduction, and increased sustainability. The paper also highlights the challenges and the necessity for developing effective methods to incorporate treated wastewater into concrete production, particularly emphasizing the superior performance of reclaimed and tertiary-treated wastewater compared to secondary-treated wastewater. While existing studies have investigated the environmental benefits of using various waste materials—such as fly ash, copper tailings, recycled aggregates, and copper slag—as partial substitutes for cement and aggregates in concrete, there has been limited research specifically focusing on the strength development, including properties like slump, compressive Strength, and tensile Strength, when cement is replaced with eggshell powder and sawdust ash in varying proportions. Furthermore, there is a lack of detailed life cycle analysis (LCA) conducted using SimaPro software to assess the environmental impact of substituting these materials for cement. This gap highlights the need for further research into using eggshell powder and sawdust ash as viable, sustainable alternatives in concrete production to enhance environmental sustainability in the construction sector.

3. Ecosystem Quality measures damage to ecosystems

and biodiversity loss (Eco-indicator 99 Manual for designers).

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp. 1–21, March 2025

Figure 10. Process of producing mixed concrete. The impact estimates from these categories were consolidated into a single value known as the Eco-indicator, which is represented in Points (Pt) or Milli Points (MPt). One Point (Pt) corresponds to 1/1000 of a year of life lost for a healthy European citizen. Additionally, this study employed the ReCiPe 2016 endpoint method in SimaPro for the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This method was selected for its capacity to generate a single score that facilitates the comparison of various concrete mixes. The ReCiPe framework includes both midpoint and endpoint levels of impact. Midpoint impacts, which rely on robust empirical data, cover categories such as climate change, human toxicity, ozone depletion, acidification, and abiotic resource depletion. In contrast, endpoint impacts address broader environmental harm related to material production [50]. This research evaluated endpoint impacts to assess the effects of conventional concrete (100% cement) and concrete with partial cement replacements at 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. The mixes evaluated were: • Mix-1: Conventional mix (100% cement) • Mix-2: 6% ESP and 4% SDA • Mix-3: 12% ESP and 8% SDA • Mix-4: 18% ESP and 12% SDA • Mix-5: 24% ESP and 16% SDA The environmental impacts of all five mixes were compared comprehensively using the ReCiPe 2016 Endpoint (H) method.

3.3.5. Analysis of Inventory For a valid comparison of different methodologies, it is crucial to have precise, controlled data on emissions and resource extraction during the production of commodities. The ecoinvent database v3 was employed to meet this requirement, along with updated inventory data from the European Plastics Industry [78–81]. The ecoinvent database offers a dependable framework that ensures consistent system boundaries and coherent background processes for all materials and commodities, including transportation, electricity, heat, and infrastructure. Furthermore, it offers a thorough range of environmental impact data [78]. In this stage of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), all inputs and outputs from each life cycle phase were considered. The LCA model was developed using the ecoinvent v3 database, and the life cycle inventory (LCI) data for each process is shown in Figure 10.

1. The study highlights that replacing up to 20% of cement

with eggshell powder (ESP) and sawdust ash (SDA) offers both environmental advantages and satisfactory mechanical performance, making it a cost-effective option for large-scale concrete production. This mix significantly reduces CO₂ emissions, resource depletion, and human health impacts, showcasing its potential for promoting sustainable construction practices. Additionally, the 13% cost savings achieved by substituting cement with ESP and SDA provide a practical solution for addressing budget constraints, especially in low-income housing projects or regions with high cement prices. The scalability of this approach is supported by the widespread availability of ESP and SDA as waste materials, and their incorporation into concrete production can be easily implemented with minimal infrastructure changes, making it a viable solution for both small and largescale applications, thereby enhancing the long-term sustainability of the construction industry.

2. Considering potential trade-offs, an optimal balance

between environmental performance and mechanical Strength can be attained by carefully adjusting the cement replacement levels. Thus, a 10-20% cement replacement offers a practical compromise, providing both environmental advantages and adequate mechanical properties, suitable for many standard construction applications. This trade-off arises from the limited presence of calcium oxide (CaO) in ESP and SDA, which impairs the pozzolanic reaction essential for the ongoing strength development as the concrete matures.

3. Carbon dioxide emissions are the primary contributor

to global warming associated with cement production, driven by the high energy consumption and extensive use of natural resources required for its manufacturing process. These emissions can be effectively mitigated by incorporating Eggshell Powder (ESP) and Sawdust Ash (SDA) as sustainable cement-based materials in concrete production. Significantly, in residential or commercial building projects where environmental certifications (like LEED) are essential, using the 10% replacement mix would contribute to sustainability goals because, for projects that prioritize sustainability without significantly compromising on performance, the 10% replacement level offers a strong balance. The growth rate from 7 to 28 days (38.15%) is higher than that of normal concrete (14.80%), and the subsequent growth from 28 to 56 days (13.81%) is moderate but sufficient for many standard applications as per strength requirements for different codes.

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp. 1–21, March 2025

4. By comparing Fossil and Mineral resources, it is very

clear that the production of cement is greatly dependent on Fossil fuel, so partially replacing cement with ESP and SDA at an optimal level, depletion of fossil resources can be avoided, and ecological balance can be conserved along with promoting sustainability in construction materials. 5. From the compressive strength graph, we have not observed any significant difference between 28 and 56 days except for 20 % replacement, which shows an increase of 4.6 MPa concrete strength from 28 to 56 days. So, in low-income housing projects where budget constraints are significant, using the 20% replacement mix can reduce material costs while still providing a durable structure that gains Strength over time because in regions where the price of cement is high or there is an abundance of ESP and SDA, replacing cement with 20% SDA and ESP can be cost-effective while maintaining acceptable performance. The significant gain from 28 to 56 days (29.58%) with 20% replacement suggests that, while the early Strength may not match normal concrete, the long-term performance could be superior.

6. The strength growth analysis of Table 9 highlights the

significant interaction between curing time and replacement levels in compressive Strength development. Between 7 and 28 days, mixes with lower replacement levels (10% and 20%) show considerable strength improvement due to higher early hydration rates. In contrast, mixes with higher replacement levels (30% and 40%) exhibit faster Strength gain initially, but the growth slows considerably after 28 days, suggesting limited long-term strength development. This pattern is likely due to the lower availability of calcium oxide (CaO) in these mixes, which hinders the pozzolanic reaction essential for sustained strength growth. The findings emphasize the need to balance curing time and replacement levels to achieve optimal early and long-term Strength in concrete mixes containing ESP and SDA.

References

1. Prusty, J. K., Patro, S. K., & Basarkar, S. S. (2016). demolition in South Italy. Compos B Eng, 115, 43- Concrete using agro-waste as fine aggregate for sus- 50. [CrossRef] tainable built environment-A review. Int J Sustain [28] Colangelo, F., Petrillo, A., Cioffi, R., Borrelli, C., & Built Environ, 5(2), 312-333. [CrossRef] Forcina, A. (2018). Life cycle assessment of recycled
2. Gunasekaran, K., Annadurai, R., & Kumar, P. S. concretes: A case study in southern Italy. Sci Total (2013). Plastic shrinkage and deflection characteris- Environ, 615, 1506-1517. [CrossRef] tics of coconut shell concrete slab. Constr Build Ma- [29] Kleijer, A. L., Lasvaux, S., Citherlet, S., & Viviani, ter, 43, 203-207. [CrossRef] M. (2017). Product-specific life cycle assessment of
3. Ismail, M. S., & Waliuddin, A. M. (1996). Effect ready mix concrete: Comparison between a recycled of rice husk ash on high strength concrete. Constr and an ordinary concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl, Build Mater, 10(7), 521-526. [CrossRef] 122, 210-218. [CrossRef]
4. Alnahhal, M. F., Alengaram, U. J., Jumaat, M. Z., Alsubari, B., Alqedra, M. A., & Mo, K. H. (2018). Environmental evaluation of green concretes ver- Effect of aggressive chemicals on durability and sus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste microstructure properties of concrete containing Manag, 45, 194-205. [CrossRef] crushed new concrete aggregate and non-traditional [31] Estanqueiro, B., Dinis Silvestre, J., de Brito, J., & supplementary cementitious materials. Constr Build Duarte Pinheiro, M. (2018). Environmental life Mater, 163, 482-495. [CrossRef] cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycled ag-
5. Belhadj, B., Bederina, M., Makhloufi, Z., Dheilly, R. gregates for concrete. Eur J Environ Civ Eng, 22(4), M., Montrelay, N., & Quéneudéc, M. (2016). Contri- 429-449. [CrossRef] bution to the development of a sand concrete light- [32] Marthong, C. (2012). Sawdust ash (SDA) as par- ened by the addition of barley straws. Constr Build tial replacement of cement. Int J Eng Res Appl, 2(4), Mater, 113, 513-522. [CrossRef] 1980-1985.
6. Liuzzi, S., Sanarica, S., & Stefanizzi, P. (2017). Use of agro-wastes in building materials in the Medi- study on partial replacement of cement with coco- terranean area: A review. Energy Procedia, 126, nut shell powder and egg shell powder. Int J Innov 242-249. [CrossRef] Res Sci Eng Technol, 6(5), 8505-8510.
7. Curran, M. A. (2015). Life cycle assessment student handbook. John Wiley & Sons. mental study on partial replacement of cement with
8. Xiao, D., Wang, H., Zhu, J., & Peng, S. (2001). Se- egg shell powder. Int J Innov Eng Technol, 4, 334-341. quent and accumulative life cycle assessment of [35] Dhanalakshmi, M., Sowmya, N. J., & Chandrashekar, materials and products. Mater Des, 22(2), 147- A. (2015). A comparative study on egg shell concrete
9. Jincheng, X., Weichang, H., Xinli, K., & Tianmin, W. Eng Res Technol, 4, 1532-1538. [CrossRef] (2001). Research and development of the object-ori- [36] Yerramala, A. (2014). Properties of concrete with ented life cycle assessment database. Mater Des, eggshell powder as cement replacement. Indian 22(2), 101-105. [CrossRef] Concr J, 88(10), 94-105.
10. Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R., Christiansen, K., & Klüppel, H. J. (2006). The new international stan- (2010). Studies on concrete using fly ash, rice husk dards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO ash and egg shell powder. Int J Civil Struct Eng, 1(3), 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 11, 80-85. [CrossRef] 362-372.
11. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., ... & Suh, S. (2009). Re- lems in ready mix high resistance concrete exposed cent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ to sever solutions [Doctoral dissertation, MSc The- Manage, 91(1), 1-21. [CrossRef] sis]. University of Technology.
12. De Souza, D. M., Lafontaine, M., Charron-Doucet, F., Chappert, B., Kicak, K., Duarte, F., & Lima, L. ity analysis of natural lime concrete. In Reg Conf Sci (2016). Comparative life cycle assessment of ce- Technol Soc Sci (RCSTSS 2016) Theor Appl Sci (pp. ramic brick, concrete brick and cast-in-place rein- 283-290). Springer Singapore. [CrossRef] forced concrete exterior walls. J Clean Prod, 137, [40] Yerramala, A., & Ramachandrudu, C. (2012). Prop- 70-82. [CrossRef] erties of concrete with coconut shells as aggregate
13. Vieira, D. R., Calmon, J. L., & Coelho, F. Z. (2016). replacement. Int J Eng Inventions, 1(6), 21-31. Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the manu- [41] Parkash, A. (2017). Generation of electricity from facturing of common and ecological concrete: A re- sewage sludge using dual chambered microbial fuel 20 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp. 1–21, March 2025 cell containing copper as electrodes. Int J Res Appl methods. Constr Build Mater, 84, 245-252. [CrossRef] Sci Eng Technol, 45, 864-867. [55] Vieira, D. R., Calmon, J. L., & Coelho, F. Z. (2016).
14. Afolayan, M., & Orijajogun, J. (2024). Isolation and Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the manu- physicochemical characterization of starch from facturing of common and ecological concrete: A re- Marama Beans (Tylosema esculentum). Afr J Biol view. Constr Build Mater, 124, 656-666. [CrossRef] Chem Phys Sci, 3(1), 10-18. [56] Dandautiya, R., & Singh, A. P. (2019). Utilization
15. Loganathan, M., Dinesh, S., Vijayan, V., Karuppu- potential of fly ash and copper tailings in concrete as samy, T., & Rajkumar, S. (2020). Investigation of partial replacement of cement along with life cycle mechanical behaviour on composites of Al6063 al- assessment. Waste Manag, 99, 90-101. [CrossRef] loy with silicon, graphite and fly ash. J New Mater [57] Gursel, A. P., & Ostertag, C. (2019). Life‐cycle as- Electrochem Syst, 23(1), 36-39. [CrossRef] sessment of high‐strength concrete mixtures with
16. Dinesh, S., Parameswaran, P., Vijayan, V., Thanikai- copper slag as sand replacement. Adv Civ Eng, karasan, S., & Rajaguru, K. (2019). Study on micro- 2019(1), 6815348. [CrossRef] structure and properties of Al-Cu-Li alloys for elec- [58] Colangelo, F., Forcina, A., Farina, I., & Petrillo, A. trochemical applications. J New Mater Electrochem (2018). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different Syst, 21, 011-014. kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable
17. Prasath, T. A., Sudharsan, P., & Kumar, B. S. (2021). construction. Buildings, 8(5), 70. [CrossRef] A study on incorporation of supplementary cemen- [59] Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., & titious materials for sustainable development. Mater Chilukoti, S. (2021). Influence of PVC waste pow- Today Proc, 37, 3363-3366. [CrossRef] der and silica fume on strength and microstructure
18. Campbell, J. R., & Holland, J. (2005). Development properties of concrete: An experimental study. Case research: Convergent or divergent approaches and Stud Constr Mater, 15, e00610. [CrossRef] understandings of poverty? An introduction. Fo- [60] Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., & caal, 2005(45), 3-17. [CrossRef] Bharath, A. (2022). Engineering properties and en-
19. Jyosyula, S. K. R., Surana, S., & Raju, S. (2020). Role vironmental impact assessment of green concrete of lightweight materials of construction on carbon prepared with PVC waste powder: A step towards dioxide emission of a reinforced concrete building. sustainable approach. Case Stud Constr Mater, 17, Mater Today Proc, 27, 984-990. [CrossRef] e01404. [CrossRef]
20. Badagha, D., & Modhera, C. D. (2017). M55 grade concrete using industrial waste to minimize cement Preethi, S. (2021). Role of mineral admixtures on content incorporating CO₂ emission concept: An strength and durability of high strength self com- experimental investigation. Mater Today Proc, 4(9), pacting concrete: An experimental study. Material- 9768-9772. [CrossRef] ia, 18, 101144. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, Y., Luo, W., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., & Xiao, J. (2019). A review of life cycle assessment (2021). Role of engineered fibers on fresh and me- of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater, chanical properties of concrete prepared with GGBS 209, 115-125. [CrossRef] and PVC waste powder-An experimental study. Ma-
22. Manjunatha, M., Vijaya Bhaskar Raju, K., & Sivapul- ter Today Proc, 47, 3683-3693. [CrossRef] laiah, P. V. (2021). Effect of PVC dust on the perfor- [63] Pradhan, S., Tiwari, B. R., Kumar, S., & Barai, S. V. mance of cement concrete-A sustainable approach. (2019). Comparative LCA of recycled and natural In Recent Dev Sustain Infrastruct: Sel Proc ICRDSI aggregate concrete using Particle Packing Method 2019 (pp. 607-617). Springer Singapore. [CrossRef] and conventional method of design mix. J Clean
23. Bahij, S., Omary, S., Feugeas, F., & Faqiri, A. (2020). Prod, 228, 679-691. [CrossRef] Fresh and hardened properties of concrete contain- [64] Teixeira, E. R., Mateus, R., Camoes, A. F., Bragança, ing different forms of plastic waste-A review. Waste L., & Branco, F. G. (2016). Comparative environ- Manag, 113, 157-175. [CrossRef] mental life-cycle analysis of concretes using biomass
24. Makul, N. (2020). Modern sustainable cement and and coal fly ashes as partial cement replacement ma- concrete composites: Review of current status, chal- terial. J Clean Prod, 112, 2221-2230. [CrossRef] lenges and guidelines. Sustain Mater Technol, 25, [65] Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., Roy, S., e00155. [CrossRef] & Tangadagi, R. B. (2023). Utilization of industri-
25. Ben-Alon, L., Loftness, V., Harries, K. A., DiPietro, al-based PVC waste powder in self-compacting con- G., & Hameen, E. C. (2019). Cradle to site life cycle crete: A sustainable building material. J Clean Prod, assessment (LCA) of natural vs conventional build- 428, 139428. [CrossRef] ing materials: A case study on cob earthen material. [66] Dharek, M. S., Manjunatha, M., Brijbhushan, S., Ven- Build Environ, 160, 106150. [CrossRef] gala, J., & Tangadagi, R. B. (2024). Performance evalu-
26. Jiménez, C., Barra, M., Josa, A., & Valls, S. (2015). ation of hybrid fiber reinforced concrete on engineer- LCA of recycled and conventional concretes designed ing properties and life cycle assessment: A sustainable using the Equivalent Mortar Volume and classic approach. J Clean Prod, 458, 142498. [CrossRef] J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp. 1–21, March 2025 21
27. Maddikeari, M., Das, B. B., Tangadagi, R. B., Roy, S., Nagaraj, P. B., & Ramachandra, M. L. (2024). A The anthropogenic stock extended abiotic deple- comprehensive review on use of wastewater in the tion potential (AADP) as a new parameterisation to manufacturing of concrete: Fostering sustainability model the depletion of abiotic resources. Int J Life through recycling. Recycling, 9(3), 45. [CrossRef] Cycle Assess, 16, 929-936. [CrossRef]
28. Gowsika, D. (2014). Experimental investigation of egg shell powder as partial replacement with ce- Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., ... & Wernet, G. (2013). ment in concrete. Int J Eng Trends Technol, 14(1), Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline 65-68. [CrossRef] for the ecoinvent database version 3. https://vbn.
29. Sivakumar, M., & Mahendran, N. (2014). Strength aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/176769045/Overview_ and permeability properties of concrete using fly and_methodology.pdf ash (FA), rice husk ash (RHA) and egg shell powder [79] PlasticsEurope. (2003). Eco-profiles of the European (ESP). J Theor Appl Inf Technol, 66(2), 489-499. plastics industry. http://www.inference.org.uk/sus-
30. Asman, N. S. A., Dullah, S., Ayog, J. L., Amalu- tainable/LCA/elcd/external_docs/petb_31116f00- din, A., Amaludin, H., Lim, C. H., & Baharum, A. fabd-11da-974d-0800200c9a66.pdf (2017). Mechanical properties of concrete using [80] PRé Sustainability. (2024). SimaPro 9.6. PRé Sus- eggshell ash and rice husk ash as partial replacement tainability. of cement. In MATEC Web Conf, 103, 01002. EDP [81] Consultants, P. (2000). Eco-indicator 99 manual for Sciences. [CrossRef] designers. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
31. Huijbregts, M. A., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hen- the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands. driks, H. W., Hungerbuhler, K., & Hendriks, A. J. [82] Fahad, F., Hossain, M. I., Alam, M. N., Roy, A. K., & (2010). Cumulative energy demand as predictor for Jaher, F. B. (2024). Assessing the concrete compressive the environmental burden of commodity production. strength through partial replacement of cement with Environ Sci Technol, 44(6), 2189-2196. [CrossRef] composite waste (a mixture of waste glass powder and
32. Technical Committee ISO/TC 207, Environmen- sawdust ash). Proceedings of the 7th International tal Management. (2006). Environmental manage- Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable ment-Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework. Development, Khulna, Bangladesh International Organization for Standardization. [83] Kumar, N., Pali, H. S., Sonthalia, A., & Sidharth.
33. Mellino, S., Petrillo, A., Cigolotti, V., Autorino, C., (2022). Higher alcohols as diesel engine fuel. In Jannelli, E., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). A life cycle assess- Gupta, A. K., De, A., Aggarwal, S. K., Kushari, A., ment of lithium battery and hydrogen-FC powered & Runchal, A. K. (Eds.), Advances in energy and electric bicycles: Searching for cleaner solutions to combustion (pp. [chapter pages]). Green Energy and urban mobility. Int J Hydrogen Energy, 42(3), 1830- Technology. Springer, Singapore. [CrossRef] 1840. [CrossRef] [84] US Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Ar-
34. Marinković, S., Radonjanin, V., Malešev, M., & Ig- chived technical factsheet on 1,1,1-trichloroethane. njatović, I. (2010). Comparative environmental as- US EPA Archive Document. sessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. [85] Weerakoon, H. P. A. T., Atapaththu, K. S. S., & As- Waste Manag, 30(11), 2255-2264. [CrossRef] anthi, H. B. (2018). Toxicity evaluation and envi-
35. Khasreen, M. M., Banfill, P. F., & Menzies, G. F. ronmental risk assessment of 2-methyl-4-chloro- (2009). Life-cycle assessment and the environmental phenoxy acetic acid (MCPA) on non-target aquatic impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability, 1(3), macrophyte Hydrilla verticillata. Environ Sci Pollut 674-701. [CrossRef] Res, 25, 30463-30474. [CrossRef]
36. Junnila, S., Horvath, A., & Guggemos, A. A. (2006). Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe netti, C. S. (2017). Herbicide 2,4-D: A review of tox- and the United States. J Infrastruct Syst, 12(1), 10- icity on non-target organisms. Water Air Soil Pollut,
37. Turk, J., Cotič, Z., Mladenovič, A., & Šajna, A. (2015).
38. Nivedhitha, M., & Sivaraja, M. (2017). Experimental
39. Kumar, P., Vijaya, R. S., & Jose, R. B. (2015). Experi-
40. Al-Heaty, A. K. (2000). Controlling slump loss prob-
41. Tan, Y. Y., Doh, S. I., & Chin, S. C. (2018). Durabil-
42. Schneider, L., Berger, M., & Finkbeiner, M. (2011).

Share and Cite