materials

Article
Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of
Recycled Coarse Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study
Adriana B. Dias 1 , João N. Pacheco 2, *, José D. Silvestre 3 , Isabel M. Martins 4 and Jorge de Brito 3

1 c5Lab, Sustainable Construction Materials Association, 2795-242 Lisbon, Portugal; adias@c5lab.pt

2 CERIS, c5Lab, Sustainable Construction Materials Association, 2795-242 Lisbon, Portugal
3 CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico,
Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal; jose.silvestre@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (J.D.S.);
jb@civil.ist.utl.pt (J.d.B.)
4 Department of Materials, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal;
imartins@lnec.pt
* Correspondence: jpacheco@c5lab.pt

Abstract: The incorporation of recycled aggregates in concrete not only reduces the extraction of
natural resources, but also decreases landfill disposal of construction and demolition waste. Hence,
environmental impacts and costs are reduced, promoting the use of recycled aggregates and circular
economy. However, the impacts of transport depend on the distance between facilities and longer
distances may result in recycled aggregates being more costly and having larger environmental
impact than natural aggregates. This paper discusses this topic, presents a review on the use of
life cycle assessment methodology on natural and recycled aggregates for concrete, and applies



this methodology in a real context pertaining the procurement of coarse aggregates to ready-mix


concrete plants. A case study of two Portuguese regions, Coimbra and Lisbon, is presented. For
Citation: Dias, A.B.; Pacheco, J.N.;
each region, a quarry, a construction and demolition waste plant, and a ready-mix concrete plant
Silvestre, J.D.; Martins, I.M.; de Brito,
are chosen and a comparative life cycle assessment is made. Different scenarios for the supply of
J. Environmental and Economic Life
natural and recycled aggregates are studied and the scenarios for recycled aggregates procurement
Cycle Assessment of Recycled Coarse
Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study.
include different hypotheses for the installation (construction and demolition waste plant or quarry)
Materials 2021, 14, 5452. https:// processing the construction and demolition waste into recycled aggregates. For this case study and
doi.org/10.3390/ma14185452 both regions, it was found that the supply of recycled aggregates produced at the construction and
demolition waste plant has lower environmental impact and cost than all other scenarios, including
Academic Editor: Alessandro the provision of natural aggregates, except when it is assumed that the quarry is licensed and
P. Fantilli equipped for receiving unsorted construction and demolition waste and processing it into recycled
aggregates. The paper shows that transport distance is a determining factor in the comparison of
Received: 19 August 2021 the impacts of the procurement of natural and recycled aggregates. Moreover, in the Portuguese
Accepted: 19 September 2021
context, the environmental impacts of the procurement of recycled aggregates may be smaller than
Published: 21 September 2021
those of natural aggregates, but cost may be larger for recycled aggregates, preventing that the most
sustainable option is chosen.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Keywords: construction and demolition waste; life cycle assessment; natural aggregates; recycled aggregates
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction

Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.

The incorporation of recycled aggregates (RAs) in concrete contributes to the European
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Union’s (EU) goal of 70% of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (CDW)
This article is an open access article
reuse/recycling, defined in EU Directive 2008/98/CE [1].
distributed under the terms and The technical feasibility of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) has been demonstrated
conditions of the Creative Commons in several previous studies [2–4] in what concerns the mechanical and durability properties
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// of concrete, as well as structural performance. Additionally, recent developments towards
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the standardization of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) design [4] including a specific
4.0/). annex of prEN1992 [5] are expected to address reservations of construction agents towards

Materials 2021, 14, 5452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185452 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2021, 14, 5452 2 of 15

RAC, contributing to its upscaling as a structural material. Moreover, under some condi-
tions, the cost [6] and environmental impacts (EI) [6–11] associated with the procurement
of aggregates by ready-mix plants are reduced when RAs are used instead of NAs.
However, this is not always the case and the EI (and cost) of RAC may be larger
than those of natural aggregate concrete (NAC) [12–14]. Since the main motivation for
RAC is the sustainability of the concrete industry, this implies that RAC may not always
be the better option. Environmental and economic impacts vary from case to case and
depend on transport distances, equipment, and technology used [13,15–19]. Due to these
variations, it is important to study whether NAC or RAC is the most sustainable option on
a case-by-case basis. This should take into account regional particularities, and consider
the specific alternatives for the production and transport of NAs and RAs to the ready-mix
plant under study.
In this context, this paper presents a comparative environmental and economic life
cycle assessment (LCA) of the procurement of NAs and RAs to ready-mix plants, including
their production. This LCA is made for two Portuguese regions, Lisbon and Coimbra. For
each region, a quarry, a CDW plant, and a ready-mix concrete plant are selected. Three
main scenarios are defined for the LCA: the production of NAs in quarries; the production
of RAs in CDW plants with additional processing in quarries; and the production of RAs in
quarries. The impact categories considered in the environmental LCA are global warming
potential (GWP) and consumption of non-renewable energy resources (PE-NRe) due to
their impact on carbon footprint and embodied energy.

2. Summary of Properties of Recycled Aggregates and Recycled Aggregate Concrete

NAs and RAs have different characteristics, so the incorporation of RAs results in
concrete with different properties than those of NAC. RAs are less dense and more porous
and deformable [20] than NAs. RAs are also weaker [21] than NAs. Therefore, typically
RAC has lower compressive strength, Young’s modulus, and tensile strength than NAC,
and has larger shrinkage and creep [22]. Regarding durability, Visintin et al. [23] showed
a reduction of the resistance to the ingress of external agents when RAs are used. This
occurs because of the large porosity of RAs and due to the typically larger water/cement
ratio (to maintain workability) of RAC in comparison to NAC. However, as the strength
class increases, the influence of RAs on durability tends to decrease—this occurs because
high-strength concrete has a small water/cement ratio, which is characterized by small
interconnectivity of pores and slow ingress of external agents into concrete [24], mitigating
the detrimental influence of the porosity of RAs on durability.
In what concerns structural behavior, most resistance mechanisms rely strongly on the
properties and layout of reinforcement. Therefore, the load-bearing capacity of reinforced
RAC elements is not as affected by RAs as the properties of (plain) concrete [2,3]. Long-
and short-term deformations increase and this is a consequence of the influence of RAs on
Young’s modulus [25] and creep [26].
In order to ensure that RAC has equivalent properties to analogue NAC mixes, cement
content may be increased [13]. This improves concrete properties due to a stronger, stiffer,
and less porous cementitious matrix, since the same workability is met with a smaller
water/cement ratio. However, increases of cement content are associated with larger cost
and EI [19,27], so adoption of alternative solutions is usual.

3. Life-Cycle Assessment of Recycled Aggregates and Recycled Aggregate Concrete

Several studies have been carried out regarding the comparison of environmental and
economic impacts of NAs and RAs and NAC and RAC. In most cases, these studies are
made with specific data from producers. In the case of the comparison between NAC and
RAC, some authors [7,19] resort to the same mix design for both types of concrete, while
others [12,13] change mix design (e.g., increase cement ratio) when RAs are incorporated.
Marinković et al. [12] compared the EI of the production of NAC and RAC, based
on local data and typical conditions in Serbia. NAC was made with fine and coarse river
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 3 of 15

aggregates and RAC with natural fine river aggregates and recycled coarse aggregates. Two
transport scenarios were studied, one for typical transport distances to Belgrade (100 km
for river aggregates and 15 km for recycled aggregates) and the other considering the
same transport distance for both types of aggregates (100 km). Four impact categories were
analyzed: global warming, eutrophication, acidification, and photochemical ozone creation.
For the transport scenario in typical conditions, the EI of concrete with NAs were 2% to 4%
lower than those of concrete with RAs. However, when the transport distance is the same,
the EI of NAs are 11% to 37% smaller than those of RAs, depending on the impact category,
due to the transport type (RAs are transported by trucks while NAs are transported by
ships). As shown in this study, the transport mode and distance may result in RAs with
larger environmental impact than NAs.
Tošić et al. [7] studied different aggregate types and transport scenarios to determine
the optimal solution for concrete production with the lowest environmental and economic
impacts. An LCA combined with multi-criteria optimization was used. Four types of
ready-mix concrete were considered, with fine and coarse river aggregates, fine and coarse
crushed stone, and coarse recycled concrete aggregates, all produced in Serbia. The alter-
natives were evaluated according to the energy use, the environmental load, the waste
generation, the mineral resource depletion, and an economic criterion. In economic terms,
the solution with river aggregates has the lowest impacts and, in environmental terms, the
solution with 100% of coarse recycled aggregates is the best alternative. To overcome the
problem of natural resource depletion in Serbia, the increase of the cost of NA extraction
was proposed.
Hossain et al. [8] applied LCA to assess and compare the EI of the production of
fine and coarse NAs and RAs using data from producers in Hong Kong. The results
showed a reduction of 65% in greenhouse gas emissions and 58% in non-renewable energy
consumption in the production of recycled coarse aggregates when compared to NAs.
The overall EI in the production of RAs can be reduced up to 50% when compared to the
production of crushed stone. Additionally, the use of RAs leads to a reduction of landfill
disposals and mitigates the shortage of NAs.
Braga et al. [6] presented a comparison of the life cycle impacts of concrete with
NAs and RAs using data collected from Portuguese companies. In comparison to granite,
limestone has smaller environmental impact, while the natural fine aggregate with lower
impact is river sand (in comparison to crushed fine aggregates). When RAs are used,
the EI and costs associated with the production and transport are significantly reduced.
However, the use of RAs is often associated with the increase of the concrete cement
content and this leads to higher EI when the LCA concerns concrete rather than coarse
aggregates. Regarding the economic impacts, the use of limestone instead of granite leads
to 50% savings. When granite and RAs are compared, RA results in cost savings of 80%.
Fraj and Idir [13] compared the environmental impact of RAC with that of NAC. Data
were collected from companies located in Paris. It was found that the results are very
dependent on the transport distance and on the amount of RAs incorporated (because
this study assumed that additional cement was added when RAs were used to offset
the decrease of compressive strength due to the RAs). In this study, the impacts of the
production of RAs are generally higher than those of NAs, namely in energy consumption
(19% higher) and global warming (34% higher) impact categories. However, regarding
the influence of transport distance, NAs were found to be more advantageous in terms of
GWP when the quarry is located at a maximum distance of 22 km.
Estanqueiro et al. [15] presented a comparison of the use of NAs and RAs in concrete,
through an environmental LCA, using site-specific data supplied by Portuguese companies.
Three scenarios were considered, one with NAs and the other two with RAs, one using a
fixed recycling plant and the other using a mobile recycling plant. When compared to NAs,
the use of RAs only presents better environmental performance in terms of land use and
respiratory inorganics impact categories. However, using fine recycled aggregates instead
of sending them to a landfill reduces EI by 23% in terms of GWP, when compared to NAs.
 Estanqueiro et al. [15] presented a comparison of the use of NAs and RAs in concrete,
through an environmental LCA, using site-specific data supplied by Portuguese compa-
nies. Three scenarios were considered, one with NAs and the other two with RAs, one
using a fixed recycling plant and the other using a mobile recycling plant. When compared
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 to NAs, the use of RAs only presents better environmental performance in terms of land 4 of 15
use and respiratory inorganics impact categories. However, using fine recycled aggre-
gates instead of sending them to a landfill reduces EI by 23% in terms of GWP, when
compared to NAs. It was also shown that the location of the quarry, demolition site, and
concrete
It was plant have athat
also shown large
theinfluence
location ofonthe
thequarry,
comparison between
demolition site,NAs
and and RAs.plant have a
concrete
Park et al. [14] analyzed the impacts of dry and wet methods for removal of attached
large influence on the comparison between NAs and RAs.
mortar Park
from etrecycled concrete aggregates
al. [14] analyzed the impactsduring theirwet
of dry and production
methods for using the Life
removal Cycle
of attached
Index Database of Korea. In the dry method, the attached mortar of this type of
mortar from recycled concrete aggregates during their production using the RACycle
Life is
Index Database
separated of Korea. surface
from the aggregate In the bydryusing
method, the attached
two cone crushers, mortar
while inofthethis
wettype of RA
method
is separated
a complex systemfrom
thatthe aggregate
includes a jawsurface bytwo
crusher, using
conetwo cone crushers,
crushers, while in
and air blowers the wet
is used.
method a complex system that includes a jaw crusher, two cone crushers,
The impacts of wet production were up to 16% and 40% higher than those of dry produc- and air blowers
is used.
tion, The impacts
regarding of wet production
eutrophication were up
and acidification to 16% respectively.
potential, and 40% higher than those
However, of dry
the wet
production, regarding eutrophication and acidification potential, respectively.
production was more effective, with better quality aggregates. It was also found that the However,
the wet
impacts of production
RA production waswere
moreup effective,
to twicewith better
as high quality
as those aggregates.
of NAs (gravel It wassea,
from alsoland,
found
that the impacts of RA production were up to twice as high as those of NAs (gravel from
and mountains) due to the amount of energy required for their production. However, in
sea, land, and mountains) due to the amount of energy required for their production.
terms of abiotic resource depletion potential, the results were higher for NAs because of
However, in terms of abiotic resource depletion potential, the results were higher for NAs
the use of natural resources, since RAs result from construction waste.
because of the use of natural resources, since RAs result from construction waste.
Figure 1 shows the EI of the production and transport stages of the NAs and RAs of
Figure 1 shows the EI of the production and transport stages of the NAs and RAs of
the studies described above in terms of GWP and PE-NRe. The results in blue are related
the studies described above in terms of GWP and PE-NRe. The results in blue are related
to NAs and the ones in green to RAs. The results follow a linear relationship, with an R2 2
to NAs and the ones in green to RAs. The results follow a linear relationship, with an R
value (coefficient of determination which, in this case, gives the proportion of the varia-
value (coefficient of determination which, in this case, gives the proportion of the variation
tion in the value of PE-NRe that is predictable from the change in the value of GWP) very
in the value of PE-NRe that is predictable from the change in the value of GWP) very close
close to 1 (0.97) when the outliers circled in orange, away from the trend line, are ne-
to 1 (0.97) when the outliers circled in orange, away from the trend line, are neglected.
glected. When these results are included,2the R2 value decreases to 0.83.
When these results are included, the R value decreases to 0.83.

600

500

400
PE-NRe (MJ)

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
GWP (kg CO2 eq)

Figure 1. GWP vs. Pe-NRe, per tonne of aggregate. Data from the EI appraised in this literature
Figure 1. GWP
review vs. NA
(blue for Pe-NRe, per tonne
and green of aggregate. Data from the EI appraised in this literature
for RA).
review (blue for NA and green for RA).
Other authors have studied the environmental and economic impacts of aggregates,
Other authors
considering otherhave
typesstudied the
of data. environmental
Some and are
of their results economic
presentedimpacts of aggregates,
below.
considering other types of data. Some of their results are presented below.
Jullien et al. [16] analyzed the energy consumption and atmospheric emissions of
theJullien et al. [16]
production of 1analyzed
tonne of the
fineenergy consumption
and coarse and atmospheric
natural aggregates in threeemissions of the
different quarries
production
in France.ofThe
1 tonne of fine
results wereand coarse natural
compared by sevenaggregates
indicatorsin of
three
thedifferent quarries in It
LCA methodology.
France. The results
was found were
that the compared
energy by seven varies
consumption indicators
fromofsite
the to
LCAsite,methodology. It was in
which is reflected
different EI. Some differences between facilities, related to processes and equipment,
explain the differences on the results. Fine aggregates have large impacts in terms of
energy consumption due to the onsite production process. It was also found that the use of
explosives has an impact of less than 1% on the total impacts.
Simion et al. [9] quantified the impacts of the production of RAs from CDW and
compared them with those of the production of NAs (of undisclosed lithology), using
LCA. The analysis was carried out in the Italian Emilia Romagna region and was based
on primary data collection. The results showed that the EI of the production of RAs are
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 5 of 15

about 40% lower than those of NAs production, where the GWP for RAs is 7 times less
than for NAs.
Faleschini et al. [28] also studied the EI of the NA and RA production in the Italian
context. The case study was an integrated plant for the extraction of natural resources
and recycling of CDW, using site-specific data. It was found that the integration of the
processing of NAs and RAs on the same plant leads to a reduction of the EI of production.
To reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy, a photovoltaic installation was
assumed in a sensitivity analysis. This option allowed increasing the delivery distance by
45 km for the global warming potential category of the NAs and RAs production chains,
comparing with the solution of the integrated plant without photovoltaic installation.
Rosado et al. [10] compared through LCA, with site-specific data, the production of
basalt NAs with that of RAs produced from mixed CDW. These aggregates are meant
for road construction in Southeast Brazil. It was found that, for global warming and non-
renewable energy impact categories, RAs are preferable to NAs. Moreover, if the distance
from the recycling facility to the consumer is below 20 km, the production of RAs results in
smaller EI for all categories.
The LCA of the production of NAs and RAs includes all stages regarding extraction
and processing of the aggregates to be used in concrete, while the LCA of concrete with
NAs and RAs appraises the production and transport to the ready-mixed plant of the
various constituents of the concrete, namely cement, admixtures, water, and aggregates
(natural or recycled), and the production of concrete itself.
Kurda et al. [11] compared the EI of different concrete mixes produced in Portugal.
The mixes had varying incorporation ratios of fly ash (FA) and fine and coarse recycled
concrete aggregates. It was found that the increase of fine recycled concrete aggregates
does not change the abiotic depletion potential (ADP), but the incorporation of FA has a
positive influence on this impact category. Regarding GWP, this category also decreases
when FA is incorporated to replace cement. The results were practically the same when fine
RAs were used instead of fine NAs since the decrease in GWP due to the smaller transport
distance of the fine RAs is offset by the smaller GWP of the production of fine NAs (river
sand, which is not crushed). Regarding coarse aggregates, the impacts of RAs were lower
due to the production and transport stages (production of NAs results in larger GWP than
that of RAs since coarse NAs are crushed limestone).
Göswein et al. [17] focused on the transportation impacts related to the environmental
assessment of concrete mixes with incorporation of FA and RAs. Based on two Portuguese
cities as case studies, a method combining LCA and geospatial analysis was proposed.
Transportation was found to be relevant especially when the mixes have high incorpora-
tions of either FA or RAs, due to the transport distance of both materials from suppliers to
concrete plants.
Colangelo et al. [18] analyzed the environmental impact of RAC in a specific region
of Southern Italy. Through LCA, a comparison between several concrete mixes with dif-
ferent incorporations of CDW, marble sludge, and cement kiln dust was made. Several
disposal/recovery scenarios were considered, taking into account the amount of aggregates
disposed of in landfills, the amount of recycling, and the distance from the site. The EI
increase when distance increases and the smaller impacts are related with mixes with CDW,
while NAC is the mix with the highest EI.
Pradhan et al. [19] compared the EI of the production of NAC and RAC. Data related
to the production of aggregates were collected from facilities in India. It was found that
higher EI are mostly caused by the cement content, followed by transportation activities.
As understood from this appraisal, in general RA and RAC have smaller environ-
mental impacts than NAC. However, differences related to the shape of aggregates (e.g.,
the use of river or crushed gravel), to the mix design (e.g., increases of cement content of
RAC when RAs are used), to processing [16], and transport [17] lead different authors to
reach distinct findings. Moreover, these studies are accounting for the impacts associated
with the production of aggregates and concrete (including transport). When RAs are used,
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 6 of 15

since landfill disposals are reduced and the extraction of NA is prevented, there are social
and uncountable environmental benefits that are not being considered. This is a typical
limitation of LCA on RA and RAC that could be accounted for with other methods, such
as multi-criteria methods [29] or using consequential instead of attributional LCA. Such
methods are outside the scope of this paper.

4. Case Study in the Portuguese Context

4.1. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment
In this study, an LCA is carried out to compare the environmental and economic
impacts of NAs and RAs. This requires the definition of functional unit, system boundaries,
and life cycle inventory. The functional unit was chosen as 1 tonne of aggregates and
implies that the impacts of NAs and RAs will be compared for the same mass of aggregate.
The system boundaries define which processes are included (in this case production and
transport, including the production and delivery of raw materials, the production of the
coarse aggregate, and its transport to the ready-mix plant) and the life cycle inventory
gives information about the data collection.
For each of the two regions analyzed (Lisbon and Coimbra), different industrial units
were selected:
• A quarry for the extraction of NAs;
• A demolition site for the CDW collection;
• A CDW plant for the reception of these wastes and production of RAs;
• A ready-mix concrete plant, where concrete is produced and raw materials (including
coarse aggregates) received.
The ready-mixed plants selected for this study are those of an ongoing research project
that aims at the industrial production of recycled aggregate concrete at those plants. The
quarry selected for each region is the one that usually supplies NAs to each ready-mix
plant. The CDW plants were selected based on preferences of the owners of the ready-mix
plants.
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Transport distances between the main operating locations of Coimbra are presented 7 of 16
in Figure 2 and of Lisbon in Figure 3.

CDW plant 41 km
14 km
Demolition site

Concrete plant 42 km

25 km

45 km

Quarry

Figure2.2.Transport
Figure Transport distances
distances of aggregates
of the the aggregates through
through theoperating
the main main operating
locationslocations in region.
in Coimbra Coimbra
region.

In Table 1, a comparison of all transport distances between the two regions is shown.
The main differences between the two regions are the distance from the demolition site to
the CDW plant, which is about 62% longer for the region of Coimbra, and the distance
from the CDW plant to the ready-mix concrete plant, which is 40% shorter for the region
of Coimbra. These differences have opposite effects: increased distances from demolition
site to CDW are associated with larger impacts from the procurement of RAs, while de-
creases in distances from CDW plant to ready-mix concrete plant result in smaller impacts
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 7 of 15
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Quarry

50 km

55 km

77 km

Concrete plant

Demolition site

35 km 25 km

CDW plant

Figure3.3.Transport
Figure Transport distances
distances of the
of the aggregates
aggregates through
through the operating
the main main operating locations
locations in Lisboninregion.
Lisbon re-
gion.
In Table 1, a comparison of all transport distances between the two regions is shown.
Table
The 1. Transport
main distances
differences (in km)
between theoftwo
the regions
aggregatesarethrough the main
the distance operating
from locations. site
the demolition
to theRegion
CDW plant, which is about 62%
Location CDWlonger for theQuarry
Plant region of Ready-Mix
Coimbra, and the distance
Concrete Plant
from the CDW plant to the ready-mix
Demolition site concrete
40.7 plant, which
25.3 is 40% shorter for- the region of
Coimbra. These differences have opposite effects: increased distances from demolition site
Coimbra CDW plant - 41.6 14.1
to CDW are associated with larger impacts from the procurement of RAs, while decreases
in distances from CDW Quarry
plant to ready-mix- concrete plant - result in smaller 45.5
impacts for the
same raw material. Demolition site 25.4 55.1 -
Lisbon
LCA was basedCDW plant scenarios
on different - shown in Table
76.9 2, which are explained
35.5 below:
• Quarry - -
Scenario 1—NAs are produced at the quarry, where they are crushed, washed, and 50
sieved prior to their delivery to the ready-mix concrete plant;
• The life 2a—CDW
Scenario cycle inventory data, collected
is transported from
from the previous studies
demolition from
site to the Portuguese
CDW com-
plant, where
panies,
the CDW is sorted, crushed into RAs, and sieved, and then the RAs are deliveredpro-
are shown in Table 3. The values correspond to the production and transport to
cesses
theofready-mix
NAs and concrete
RAs. plant;
• Scenario 2b—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the CDW plant, where
the CDW is sorted, crushed into RAs, and sieved, and then the RAs are transported to
the quarry, where they are washed and sieved, and finally RAs are delivered to the
ready-mix concrete plant;
• Scenario 2c—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the CDW plant, where the
CDW is sorted (therefore, contaminants are minimized), then the CDW is transported
to the quarry, where it is crushed, washed, and sieved, and finally RAs are delivered
to the ready-mix concrete plant;
 Materials 2021, 14, 5452 8 of 15

• Scenario 3—CDW is transported from the demolition site to the quarry, where it is
received in conformity with a suitable code of the European List of Wastes; then, the
CDW is sorted and the content of contaminants is reduced. Afterwards, CDW is
crushed into RAs, which are washed and sieved. Finally, RAs are delivered to the
ready-mix concrete plant.

Table 1. Transport distances (in km) of the aggregates through the main operating locations.

Ready-Mix
Region Location CDW Plant Quarry
Concrete Plant
Demolition site 40.7 25.3 -
Coimbra CDW plant - 41.6 14.1
Quarry - - 45.5
Demolition site 25.4 55.1 -
Lisbon CDW plant - 76.9 35.5
Quarry - - 50
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

The life cycle inventory data, collected from previous studies from Portuguese
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
compa-
nies, are shown in Table 3. The values correspond to the production and transport processes
Table 2. Transport of the aggregates and main operations for
of NAs and RAs.
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
Current scenario
Table 2. Transport
Table of the aggregates
2. Transport of the aggregates and main Table
and operations
main 2. Transport for each
operations offorthe
scenario.
eachaggregates
scenario.and main operations for each scenario.
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(1)
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
(N
Current
Current scenario
scenario Current scenarioIntermediate scenario Quarry Quarry CDW plant Quarry
Table 2. Transport of the aggregates Table 2.and Transport
main operations
of the aggregatesTable
for each 2. and
Transport
scenario.
Demolition main operations
ofsite Concrete
the aggregates for each andplant
Concrete
scenario.
main plant
operations for
(1) (1) (1) (2a) (NA (NA crushing)
crushing) (RA crushing) (NA crushing
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
Current
Intermediate scenario
Intermediate scenario
scenario Current scenario IntermediateIntermediate Current
scenario
CDW
CDW plant scenario
plant scenario Quarry CDW plant Quarry CDW plant
Table Demolition
2. Transportsite
Demolition ofsite
the aggregates
Table 2.and Transport
main operations
of Demolition
the aggregates
Table
for each 2.
siteand
Transport
scenario.
Demolition main operations
ofsite Concrete
the aggregates for each andplant
Concrete
scenario.
main operationsCon
plant for
(1)(2a)
(2a) (1) (2a) (RA (RA crushing)
crushing)
(1)
(2b) (NA crushing) (RA crushing) (NA (RA crushing)
crushing) (N
Current
Intermediate scenario
Intermediate scenario
scenario Intermediate Current scenario scenario Intermediate
Intermediate Current
CDW
scenario
CDW plant scenario
plant scenario Quarry
CDW plant CDW plant Quarry CDW plant
Demolition
DemolitionTable site2. Transport of Demolition
site the aggregates site and main
Demolition Table operations
2. Quarry
Transport
Demolition
site
Quarry for eachofsitethe Concrete
scenario.
aggregates and
CDWplant
Concrete main plant
plantoperations
Quarry Con
for
(1)(2b)
(2a)
(2b) (1)
(2a) (2b) (RA (RA crushing)
crushing)
(1)
(2a)
(2c) (NA(RA crushing)
crushing)(RA crushing) (NA (RA crushing)
crushing) (N
(
Intermediate
Intermediate Current scenario
scenario
scenario IntermediateIntermediate
scenario Intermediate Current
CDW plant
scenario scenario
scenario CDW
Quarry Quarry plant Quarry CDW plant Quarry
Demolition
Demolition site
site Future
CDW plant
Demolition
CDW scenario
plant site Demolition
Quarry siteCDWConcrete plantConcrete plant
Quarry Concrete
plant plant Con
(2a)
(2b)
(2c)(2c) (1) (2a)
(2b) (2c) (RA crushing) (1) Demolition
(2a)
(2b) (RA
site
(RA
Demolition
(RA crushing)
crushing)
crushing) (NA sitecrushing) (RA crushing) (RA crushing (N
(3) (
Intermediate Intermediate
scenario
Future scenario scenario
Intermediate scenario Intermediate CDW plantscenario CDW plant Quarry CDW Quarry plant CDW plant
Quarry
Future scenario Demolition
Demolition site
site Future scenario
Demolition site
Demolition site
CDW plant Demolition site Demolition
Quarry
CDW plant site Concrete Concrete
Quarry
CDWplant plant
Concrete
plant Quarry
plant Con
(2b)
(2c) (3) (2a) Demolition (2c) site
(2b) (RA crushing) (2a)
(2c) (RA crushing)
(2b) (RA (RA
(RA crushing)
crushing)
crushing) Concrete (RA (RA plant
crushing)
crushing) (
(3) (3) (RA Table crushing)
3. EI for the production and transport (RA crushing
of NAs and
Intermediate Intermediate
scenario scenario
Intermediate scenario Intermediate scenario
CDW plant Quarry CDW
Quarry plant
Future scenario Future scenario
Demolition Demolition site
site Future
Demolition
CDW scenario
plant site Quarry
Demolition
CDW plantsite Quarry Concrete Quarry
CDWplant Concrete
plant plant Con
(2c) (2b) Demolition (2c)
Table site
3. EI for the production Demolition (2b)
(2c)
and site
(RA crushing)
transport of NAs(RA Demolition
crushing)
and RAs. Production site Concrete (RA
of (RA
1 plant
crushing)
Tonne ProductionCon
crushing) of((
(3) (3)
Table 3. EI for the production and transportTable (3) of NAs 3. and
EI for (RA
RAs. crushing)
the production and transport of NAs and RAs. (RA crushing)
Intermediate
Future scenario Production scenario
Future scenario Intermediate
Future scenario
scenario ofQuarry
RAs at the Quarry Tonne of NAs
of 1 Tonne
Demolition Demolition
site Production site of 1 Tonne
Demolition site CDW plant Quarry
Production Demolition
of 1 Tonne
Demolition site
site Transport
Concrete
Quarry
CDW Concrete
by Truck
plant plant plant
(3) (2c) Production
(3) the productionTable of 1 Tonne (2c)
Production of 1 Production (RAof 1crushing)
Transport
Tonne Production
[30] by Truck
·km)of 1of [31] Con
Production (
of RAs
Table at the
3. EIQuarry
for of NAs
and 3. EI(3)
transport for the
of NAs and(RA
production RAs. of
Table
andcrushing)
RAs transport
3. EI for the NAs and(1(RA
of production Tonne
RAs.and crushing)
transport NAs and(
Future scenario [30] of RAs at the Quarry
[31]
Future scenario Tonne of NAs Tonne
of RAs
GWP
[31] of
at RAs
the Quarry
Quarry (1 Tonne·Tonne km)
[31] of NAs Tonne of
Demolition 8.72 × 10−1 2.86plant
× 101
(3)Table 3. EI−for Production [30]ofsite1 Tonne(3) Production
Production
[31] of 1ofProduction Demolition
1 Tonne
(kgCO [31]
2eq) [30]
(RA
site
Production
ofProduction
1crushing)
Transport of[31]
of
1 Production
by
1 Tonne
Truck
[31] Concrete
Production
of 1 Transpo[31] of
GWP
× 10 1 the
8.72GWP productionTable and ×
2.86 transport
3.10EI1 for theof NAs production
and RAs. Table
and×transport
2.45 3.10EI
0 for the of production
NAs and4.98 RAs.and× transport
10 −2 of NAs and(
(kgCO2 eq) of RAs at the Quarry Tonne of RAs of NAs
GWP at theTonne Quarry
PE-NRe of RAs Tonneof RAs of(1NAs
atTonne·
the Tonne
Quarry
km) ofTonne RAs of(1NAs To
8.72 × 10−1 2.86 × 101 2.458.72 × 10×0 10−1 9.98 4.98 ×of×2.86
10 10
0 −2 × 101 4.01 2.45
× 10×2of1
(kgCO 2eq) Production [30]of 1 Tonne Production
Production
[31]
(kgCO 2eq)of 1
[30]of Production
1 Tonne
(MJ) [31] Production
ofProduction
1 Transport
[31] of
[30] 1
[31] Production
by
1 Tonne
Truck[31] Production
of 1 Transpo
[31]
PE-NRe
9.98
GWP× 100 Table 3. EI for the production
of RAs at the4.01 × 102 Tonne
Quarry
GWP
and transportTable
ofPE-NRe
RAs
of NAs at the
of NAs
3.86
Tonne ×3.10EI
Quarry
GWP
and
1 forRAs.
of RAs
the production
Tonneof RAs of(1NAs
atTonne·6.73
the
and×km)
Tonne
Quarry
transport
10 −1
ofTonne
of NAs and
RAs of(1NAs To
(MJ) PE-NRe
8.72
9.98 ×× 10 10 −1 2.86
4.01 × 10
8.72 21 × 10−12.45 3.86 × 10×10 10
9.98 2.860 ×8.72 104.98
1 × 10
6.73 ×4.01
10
−1 2.45
−2
× 10×2100 2.863.86 × 10×4.91
of1
0 −1
(kgCO
(MJ)2eq) [30]Production
(kgCO2eq) of 1 [31] Tonne
(MJ) [30] Production
(kgCO The [31] of 1Production
results
2eq) Production
in[31]
terms [30] of
ofEI
[31]
of 11Tonne
Transport
of the Production
by[31]
[31]production Truck and
GWP The results in terms
PE-NRe ofPE-NRe
RAs
GWPat the Quarry Tonne
4 and GWP
PE-NRe of NAs4of
Figure Tonne
showRAsthe at
of the RAsQuarry
results in(1terms
Tonne·
Tonneof km)of NAs
GWP an
8.72
9.98 ×× 10 10−10 of EI of the 2.86
4.01production
× 10
8.72
9.98 12 × 10
×NRe.and
10 −1 transport
0 2.45
3.86
In
× 1001 2.86
these
are presented
4.01
tables
×8.72
104.98
9.98
and
12 × 10
6.73 × 10
× 10 below.
0 2.45
−1
figures:
−2
3.86
−1 ×Table 4 × 104.9
1001 2.86
4.01 12
6.7
(kgCOThe
(MJ)
and results
Figurein
2eq) termsthe
4 show of EI (kgCOof
(MJ)
results the 2eq)[30]
inproduction
terms ofThe GWP andresults
and (kgCO [31]
transport
in
(MJ)
Tableterms
2eq)
5are
andofpresented
EI [31]
of the5 in
Figure [30]
production
below.
termsTable [31] [31]
and transport ar
of PE-NRe.
4 and PE-NRe Figure 4 showGWP
In these tables 9.98 the results
and ×figures: PE-NRein terms 4 ofandGWP Figure and • 4Table
show
GWP
PE-NRe
QC 5 the
and
is results
the Figure
quarry in5 terms
in
of terms of
Coimbra, GWP
of PE- and QL
while Table 5 1anq
is the
100 8.72 × 10 4.01−1
×In10
9.98 2 × 10 2.86 × 10×1101 4.012.45
0 3.86 ×8.72
10×6.73
9.98 210××010
10
× 10−1
0 3.86
−1 ×4.98
101×2.8610−2× 106.7
4.01 2
NRe.(MJ) In these
The
• results tables
(kgCO and
in terms2eq)figures:
of EI of The
(MJ)the resultsNRe.
production in
QC is the quarry of Coimbra, while QL is the quarry of Lisbon;
termsthese
and of• tables
transport
EI
(kgCO of
The
(MJ)
CPC and
the
2 results
eq)are
and figures:
production
presented
CPL in terms
are and
the below.
of transport
EI of
ready-mix Table
the production
are presented
concrete andb
plan
4• andQC •Figure the4 quarry
is CPC show
PE-NRe
and CPL the
of results
4 and
Coimbra,
are thein while4•of
Figure
terms
ready-mix QLshow
GWPQC the
is the isand • Table
results
4
quarry
0 concrete plants
the and
quarryDSC
PE-NRe Figure
in5Lisbon;
of terms
and
and
of 4Figure
show
of GWP
DSL
Coimbra, 5the
are in and
the
while results
termsTable
QLof
demolitionin
isPE-
5terms
and
the Figure
of GWP
sites
quarry of of 5Lisb
Coim in
an
9.98 × 10 4.01 In ×of 10 Coimbra
2 and
3.86 9.98×Lisbon;
10 ×1100 6.73 ×4.0110−1× 102
•
NRe. In
The
CPC
• these
results
and tables
CPL in(MJ) and
terms
are thefigures:
of NRe.
EI of
ready-mix In
The
the these
results• tables
production
concrete
DSC and DSL are the demolition sites of Coimbra and Lisbon; in CPC and
terms and
plants andof•
figures:
NRe.
transport
ofEI
CPL CDWpC
of
The
(MJ)
Coimbra these
the
are results
are tables
is
production
the the
presented
and in
ready-mix and
CDW
terms
Lisbon; and figures:
plant
below.
of of
transport
EI
concrete of Coimbra
Table
the and
production
are
plants presented
of CoimbrCDWand b
4• andDSC QC Figure
and
• is CDWpC 4 show
DSL
the quarry the
are the
is the CDW•
results
4 and
demolition
of Coimbra, in
QCFigure
plantterms
while 4•
sites
is the of
QLshow
GWP
of
quarry
of Coimbra DSC the
Coimbra
is the and
and
ofand •
• CDWpL
results
4
quarry Table
and
DSL
Coimbra, and Places
QC Figure
in5
are terms
and
Lisbon;
of Lisbon;
is marked
the
while 4
thethe
is Figure
show
of GWP
demolition
quarry
QL CDW with
5the
is the in
of and * represent
results
termsTable
sites
Coimbra,
plantquarry ofin PE-
5 the
terms
and
Coimbra
of while
of Lisbon; Lisbon; locations
Figure
of GWP
and 5
Lisb
QL is the q in
an w
•
NRe. In
• these
CDWpC
CPC and tables
is
PlacesCPLthe and
CDW
The
are
marked the •ready-mix
figures:
NRe.
plant
results
with inof In
*CPC these
Coimbra
terms and
represent of•tables
EI
concrete
CPLand
the and
ofCDWpC
CDWpL
the
are
plants
locations • ready-mix
figures:
NRe.
is is
production
the of theating
InCDW
the
The
Coimbra
CPC
where CDWcrushing
these
results
and
and tables
plantplant
transport
concrete
and
crushing CPL of at
and
of
inLisbon;
terms
are CDW
Coimbra
plants
takes are
the of plant
figures:
Lisbon; and
presented
EI of
ready-mix
of
place, the
Coimbra (scenario
CDWpL andis2b)
production
below.
concrete
differentiat- the
Table
Lisbon;from
CD
and
plan
•• Places
DSC
QC isandmarked
ing
the 4DSL
and are
crushing
quarry with
Figure
ofthe 4•demolition
*CDWrepresent
show
atCoimbra, DSC
QC the
plant
whilethe
isand •locations
results
sitesDSL
(scenario
the QL ofPlaces
quarry in
isareterms
Coimbra
2b)
the of the •4demolition
where
marked
from
quarry of
and
Coimbra, and crushing
GWP
DSC
In
QCof with
Figure
Lisbon;
Table
crushing and
Lisbon;
is
whilethe *44,
sitesrepresent
takes
Table
show
DSL
at the
the
quarry
QL ofis place,
5the
are and
Coimbra
best
quarry
theofthe the differenti-
locations
Figure
demolition
results and in
of5Lisbon;
are
(scenario
Coimbra,
quarry terms
in
while where
terms
of
QLGWP
sites
marked
3).
Lisbon; of
incrushi
of
is PE-
Coim
green
the anq
• ating
CDWpC crushing
NRe.
is the Inat
CDW
CPC and CPL are the ready-mixCDW
these •
plant plant
tables of
CDWpC (scenario
and
Coimbra
CPC and figures:
is
concrete the
and2b)
CPL areating
CDW from
CDWpL
plants •
crushing
crushing
NRe.
plant
theGWP is In
CDWpC
ready-mixthe
of
of Coimbra at CDW
at
these
Coimbra
CDW
and and
CPC the
PE-NRe: is plant
quarry
tables
plant
concrete
and the
and
CPLLisbon; and
CDW
of
are (scenario
CDWpL (scenario
figures:
Lisbon;
plants plant
the ready-mix isof2b)
the
of Coimbra 3). from
Coimbra
CDW crushing
plant
and
concrete
and Lisbon;CDW
of
plan Lia
• Places
DSC
In Tableand•4,DSL
marked theQC with
are
bestisthe * •represent
results
the quarry Places
demolition
DSC
are of the
andmarked
sites
marked locations
DSL
Coimbra, of
in with
Inare
Coimbra
green
Table
while where
* •
the•and represent
4,QL thePlaces
crushing
demolition
and DSC
the
QC Lisbon;
isbest
The worst
the
is the
andmarked
sitestakes
results
the
quarry
impacts locations
DSL of
in are
quarry ofwith
place,
are
Coimbra
orange. the where
*
marked
Lisbon;
of
the represent
differenti-
demolition
In
Coimbra,
lowest and
termscrushing
in the
forLisbon;
thesites
green
of
while locations
takes
QLofis
and
region plac
Coim
thethe
of Cow
wo q
•GWPCDWpCating
and PE-NRe: •is theCPC
crushing at CDW
CDW and • CPL
plant plant ating
of
CDWpC
are (scenario
Coimbracrushing
the is the
GWP and2b)
ready-mix at
CDW
and from
CDWpL CDW • crushing
plant
PE-NRe:
concrete plant
ating
isCPC
CDWpC
the
of (scenario
at
crushing
Coimbra
CDW
plants
and the
is quarry
plant
CPL
of the
and2b)at
CDW
of
Coimbra
are from
CDW
CDWpL (scenario
Lisbon;
the crushing
plant
and plant
isof
ready-mix
of Lisbon in Scenario 2a, and the highest for th the3).
(scenario
at
Coimbra
Lisbon; CDW the quarry
2b)
plant
and
concrete from
CDW
of
plan Li(
•• Places
In
TheTable
impacts•4, the
marked DSC
are with
theand
best * •represent
results
lowestDSLPlaces
Inare
are
for Table the
themarked
marked
the 4,locations
•demolition
region thein
Thewith
best
green
of *•and
where
sitesrepresent
results
Coimbra
impacts Places
ofcrushing
DSC
In
the Coimbra
areTable
worst
Regarding
are
in the
andmarked
marked
Scenario
the takes
lowestlocations
4,DSL
inand
the with
place,
areLisbon;
3orange.
inand
best
production
forgreenthe
the where
*Inrepresent
differenti-
demolition
results
for and termscrushing
the
are
impacts,
region
the ofof
region the
worst
marked
the
Coimbralocations
takes
sitesinof
bestin plac
Coim
orange Scew
green
result
in
ating
GWPofand • in Scenario
crushing
PE-NRe:
Lisbon at CDW
CDWpCGWP 2a, plant
is theandating
CDW
and (scenario
crushing
plant of
thePE-NRe:
highest 2b) at
offor from
Coimbra
Lisbon the•GWP
CDW crushing
firstplant
inandating
CDWpC
and (scenario
CDWpL
directly
Scenario
scenario at
crushing
the
PE-NRe: is
at2a, quarry
the 2b)
isboth
inthe the
and at
CDW from
CDW
CDW
quarry
the (scenario
regions; crushing
plant plant
plant 3).
(scenario
of Coimbra
(Scenarios
highest at
of Lisbon;
for the
2c and
the quarry
2b)
and
first 3); from
CDW
scenar (
• Places marked with * represent the • locations
Places where markedcrushing with * represent takes place, the differenti-
locations w
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 9 of 15

In Table 4, the best results are marked in green and the worst in orange. In terms of
GWP and PE-NRe:
• The impacts are the lowest for the region of Coimbra in Scenario 3 and for the region
of Lisbon in Scenario 2a, and the highest for the first scenario in both regions;
• Regarding production impacts, the best results are related to the production of RA
directly at the quarry (Scenarios 2c and 3);
• Regarding the impacts of transport, the best results are those of Scenario 1, because
of the reduced transport distances between facilities. However, differences between
Scenario 1 and 2a are small in both regions;
• Concerning RAs, the best solution for immediate implementation is Scenario 2a
(procurement of RAs produced and delivered by the CDW plant) for both regions.
Moreover, this solution results in much smaller impacts than the procurement of NAs.
In this preliminary study, the functional unit was defined in terms of mass. Since
RAs are less dense than NAs, the required mass of RAs to replace NAs in the production
of concrete is lower and the functional unit is not exactly the same. However, as seen in
Section 2, this is the typical option of comparative LCA concerning the production of NAs
and RAs.

Table 4. GWP for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.

GWP Production GWP Transport GWP Total

Scenarios
(kg CO2 eq) (kg CO2 eq) (kg CO2 eq)
1 QC|CPC 28.6 2.3 30.9
1 QL|CPL 28.6 2.6 31.1
2a DSC|CDWpC|CPC 2.5 2.7 5.2
2a DSL|CDWpL|CPL 2.5 3.0 5.5
2b DSC|CDWpC *|QC|CPC 2.5 6.4 8.8
2b DSL|CDWpL *|QL|CPL 2.5 7.6 10.0
2c DSC|CDWpC|QC *|CPC 0.9 6.4 7.2
2c DSL|CDWpL|QL *|CPL 0.9 7.6 8.5
3 DSC|QC *|CPC 0.9 3.5 4.4
3 DSL|QL *|CPL 0.9 5.2 6.1
* Locations where crushing takes place.

Table 5. PE-NRe for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.

PE-NRe Production PE-NRe Transport PE-NRe Total

Scenarios
(MJ) (MJ) (MJ)
1 QC|CPC 401.0 30.6 431.6
1 QL|CPL 401.0 33.7 434.7
2a DSC|CDWpC|CPC 36.8 36.9 73.7
2a DSL|CDWpL|CPL 36.8 41.0 77.8
2b DSC|CDWpC *|QC|CPC 36.8 86.0 122.8
2b DSL|CDWpL *|QL|CPL 36.8 102.5 139.3
2c DSC|CDWpC|QC *|CPC 10.0 86.0 96.0
2c DSL|CDWpL|QL *|CPL 10.0 102.5 112.5
3 DSC|QC *|CPC 10.0 47.7 57.6
3 DSL|QL *|CPL 10.0 70.7 80.7
* Locations where crushing takes place.
 2b DSL|CDWpL*|QL|CPL 36.8 102.5 139.3
2c DSC|CDWpC|QC*|CPC 10.0 86.0 96.0
2c DSL|CDWpL|QL*|CPL 10.0 102.5 112.5
3 DSC|QC*|CPC 10.0 47.7 57.6
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 3 DSL|QL*|CPL 10.0 70.7 80.7 10 of 15
* Locations where crushing takes place.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Scenario 2c Scenario 3

35
30

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

25
20
15
10
5
0

GWP production (kg CO2 eq) GWP transport (kg CO2 eq)
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
Figure 4. GWP for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.
Figure 4. GWP for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Scenario 2c Scenario 3

500
450
400
350
PE-NRe (MJ)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

PE-NRe production (MJ) PE-NRe transport (MJ)

Figure 5. PE-NRe
Figure for for
5. PE-NRe production andand
production transport of 1oftonne
transport of aggregates.
1 tonne of aggregates.

4.2.4.2. Economic
Economic LifeLife Cycle
Cycle Assessment
Assessment
Production
Production costs
costs werewere collected
collected from from a previous
a previous study
study related
related to Portuguese
to Portuguese com-
compa-
panies [31]. For NAs, the production cost assumed was 4.60 €/t,
nies [31]. For NAs, the production cost assumed was 4.60 €/t, while the cost for the pro-the
while the cost for
production
duction of RAsof was
RAs assumed
was assumedas 2.00 €/t. €/t.
as 2.00 In what
In what concerns
concerns transportation,
transportation, thethe average
average
transport cost in Europe in 2016, in an
transport cost in Europe in 2016, in an articulated articulated
lorry with a maximum capacity of 27 of
lorry with a maximum capacity
27 tonnes was assumed. This cost is 4.88−2 × 10−2 €/t·km [32].
tonnes was assumed. This cost is 4.88 × 10 €/t·km [32].
The economic impacts of the production and transport are shown in Table 6 and
The economic impacts of the production and transport are shown in Table 6 and Fig-
Figure 6. It is shown that:
ure 6. It is shown that:
• Scenario 2a is the least costly and the one with the most feasible and immediate
• Scenario 2a is the least costly and the one with the most feasible and immediate im-
implementation because there is no need to further investment on equipment or in
plementation because there is no need to further investment on equipment or in li-
licenses to receive CDW at the quarry;
censes to receive CDW at the quarry;
• Scenarios 2b and 2c present the highest costs;
• Scenarios 2b and 2c present the highest costs;
• In terms of production cost, the results are better for the scenarios with RAs;
• In terms of production cost, the results are better for the scenarios with RAs;
• On the other hand, transport costs are lower for the first scenario, concerning NAs,
due to the shorter transport distance.

Table 6. Cost for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.

 Materials 2021, 14, 5452 11 of 15

• On the other hand, transport costs are lower for the first scenario, concerning NAs,
due to the shorter transport distance.

Table 6. Cost for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.

Production Cost Transport Cost Total Cost

Scenarios
(€) (€) (€)
1 QC|CPC 4.6 2.2 6.8
1 QL|CPL 4.6 2.4 7.0
2a DSC|CDWpC|CPC 2.0 2.7 4.7
2a DSL|CDWpL|CPL 2.0 3.0 5.0
2b DSC|CDWpC *|QC|CPC 2.0 6.2 8.2
2b DSL|CDWpL *|QL|CPL 2.0 7.4 9.4
2c DSC|CDWpC|QC *|CPC 2.0 6.2 8.2
2c DSL|CDWpL|QL *|CPL 2.0 7.4 9.4
Materials
3 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
DSC|QC *|CPC 2.0 3.5 5.5 12 of 16
3 DSL|QL *|CPL 2.0 5.1 7.1
* Locations where crushing takes place.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Scenario 2c Scenario 3

10
9
8
7
6
Cost (€)

5
4
3
2
1
0

Production cost (€) Transport cost (€)

Figure 6. Cost for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.

Figure 6. Cost for production and transport of 1 tonne of aggregates.
Regarding costs, it is highlighted that:
Regarding costs, it is highlighted that:
• The same cost was considered for RAs produced either at the CDW plant or at
• The same
the cost was considered for RAs produced either at the CDW plant or at the
quarry;
• quarry;
The investment needed for the quarry to be able to produce RAs with CE marking
• The investment
was needed
not accounted forfor the quarry
(Scenarios to be
2c and 3);able to produce RAs with CE marking
• was not accounted for (Scenarios 2c and 3);
The licensing cost for the quarries to be able to receive CDW was also not considered
• The licensing2c
(Scenarios cost
andfor3).
the quarries to be able to receive CDW was also not considered
(Scenarios 2c and 3).
4.3. Discussion of Results and Sensitivity Analyses
4.3. Discussion of Resultsinand
As understood Sensitivity
Sections Analyses
4.1 and 4.2, Scenario 2a is the best option in what concerns
As environmental
both understood in Sections 4.1 andimpacts.
and economic 4.2, Scenario 2a is the
Moreover, thisbest optionhas
scenario in what concerns of
the advantage
both
notenvironmental and economic
requiring investment impacts.ofMoreover,
and licensing this
quarries in scenario
order has the
to receive and advantage of
process CDW
nottorequiring
RAs. investment and licensing of quarries in order to receive and process CDW
to RAs. Based on the impacts per km of transport, the distance for which environmental and
Based onimpacts
economic the impacts per km1of
of Scenario transport, the
(production anddistance
deliveryforofwhich environmental
NAs from the quarryand
to the
economic impacts of Scenario 1 (production and delivery of NAs from the quarry to the
ready-mix plant) are the same as those of Scenario 2a (production and delivery of RAs
from the CDW plant to the ready-mix plant) was calculated. It was found that:
• Scenario 2a is only less costly than Scenario 1 when the transport distance of RAs is
53 km shorter than the transport distance of NA.
 Materials 2021, 14, 5452 12 of 15

ready-mix plant) are the same as those of Scenario 2a (production and delivery of RAs
from the CDW plant to the ready-mix plant) was calculated. It was found that:
• Scenario 2a is only less costly than Scenario 1 when the transport distance of RAs is 53
km shorter than the transport distance of NA.
• In terms of GWP and PE-NRe, Scenario 2a is better than Scenario 1 when RAs are less
than 500 km more distant from the ready-mixed plant than NAs, which will occur
virtually always in the Portuguese context.
In order to better understand the differences between production and transport for
both scenarios, Figure 7 shows a comparison between them. The main difference is related
to the EI of the production of NAs, which are about 90% higher than the impacts of the
production of RAs. This occurs due to the activities related to the extraction of NAs at the
quarries. Regarding economic impacts, the difference is less significant, with a reduction
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of about 30% when replacing NAs with RAs. This leads to two major conclusions: (i) for 13 of 16
the modelling of costs and impacts used in this paper (representative of the Portuguese
context), concrete plants may opt for NAs due to the cost in cases in which RAs would
be the most environmentally friendly option; (ii) for the same transport distance, the
Since the differences
procurement between
of RAs has smaller the impacts of
environmental NAs and
impacts thanRAs could
that of NAs.be larger if the CDW
plant were
Since the differences between the impacts of NAs and RAs couldan
closer to the ready-mix plant, an analysis considering bealternative
larger if theCDW
plant
CDW in Lisbon wascloser
plant were carried
to out. The alternative
the ready-mix plant, CDW plantconsidering
an analysis was selected an so that it would
alternative
be simultaneously closer to the demolition site, to the quarry, and to the ready-mix
CDW plant in Lisbon was carried out. The alternative CDW plant was selected so that con-
crete plant. The differences of the distances between the first selected CDW plant
it would be simultaneously closer to the demolition site, to the quarry, and to the and the
ready-
mix concrete plant. The differences of the distances between the first selected CDW plant
alternative one are shown in Table 7. Figure 8 compares the environmental and economic
and the alternative one are shown in Table 7. Figure 8 compares the environmental and
impacts when either of the CDW plants of Lisbon are considered. With the alternative
economic impacts when either of the CDW plants of Lisbon are considered. With the
plant, the impacts
alternative plant,ofthe
transport
impacts were reduced
of transport byreduced
were about 28% in terms
by about 28%ofinGWP
termsand costs and
of GWP
about 27% in terms of PE-NRe.
and costs and about 27% in terms of PE-NRe.

40 500 8
PE-NRe (MJ/tonne)

Cost (€/tonne)
GWP (kg CO2 eq/tonne)

30 400 6
300
20 4
200
10 100 2
0 0 0

GWP transport PE-NRe transport Transport cost

GWP production PE-NRe production Production cost

Figure 7. Comparison
Figure between
7. Comparison betweenScenario
Scenario1,
1, darker color,and
darker color, andScenario
Scenario2a,2a, lighter
lighter color.
color.

12 160 12
GWP (kg CO2 eq)

9 120 9
PE-NRe (MJ)

Cost (€)

6 80 6

3 40 3

0 0 0
 GWP transport PE-NRe transport Transport cost
GWP production PE-NRe production Production cost
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 13 of 15

Figure 7. Comparison between Scenario 1, darker color, and Scenario 2a, lighter color.

12 160 12
GWP (kg CO2 eq)

9 120 9

PE-NRe (MJ)

Cost (€)
6 80 6

3 40 3

0 0 0

GWP transport PE-NRe transport Transport cost

GWP production PE-NRe production Production cost

Figure8.8. Original
Figure Original CDW
CDW plant
plant (CDWp),
(CDWp), darker
darker color
color and
and alternative
alternative CDW
CDWplant
plant(aCDWp),
(aCDWp),lighter
lightercolor.
color.

Table 7. Comparison of the distance (in km) between the first CDW plant and the alternative one.

First CDW Plant Alternative CDW Plant

Demolition site—CDW plant 25.4 13.7
CDW plant—quarry 35.5 10.1
CDW plant—concrete plant 76.9 42.3

5. Conclusions
The replacement of NAs with RAs is seen as an environmental-friendly option that
reduces the EI associated to the extraction of coarse natural aggregates. Therefore, the
environmental impact of ready-mix concrete production also decreases. However, since
EI of high bulk materials (such as aggregates for construction) are strongly dependent
on transport distance, the procurement of RAs may actually result in larger EI than the
supply of NAs. Therefore, this analysis should be made on a case-to-case basis. Economic
impacts should also be assessed, since RAs must be cost-competitive in order to be a
sustainable solution.
In this study a review of the state of the art of the use of NAs and RAs in concrete is
made, comparing the environmental and economic impacts of both types of aggregates.
Additionally, an environmental and economic LCA was carried out considering two Por-
tuguese regions, Coimbra and Lisbon. For each region, a quarry, a CDW plant, and a
ready-mix concrete plant were selected. Three main scenarios were defined, in order to
evaluate the impacts of the several solutions.
Regarding the EI, the findings are very similar for the two environmental impact
categories analyzed (global warming potential and consumption of non-renewable primary
energy). The lowest EI are related to Scenario 3, for the region of Coimbra, in which the
CDW is directly sent from the construction site to the quarry, sorted, and processed into
RAs, which are then delivered to the ready-mix concrete plant. However, the immediate
implementation of this scenario is impaired due to the need to invest in equipment and
personnel at the quarry and, foremost, legal restrictions for the reception and processing
of waste at quarries. For the region of Lisbon, the best Scenario is 2a, in which the CDW
is transported from the demolition site to the CDW plant and, after processing, RAs are
delivered to the ready-mix concrete plant.
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 14 of 15

Regarding economic impacts, the best option and the one that could be immediately
implemented is Scenario 2a, for both regions.
The worst EI are related to the first scenario, representing the current situation, in
which NAs are produced at the quarry and then are delivered to the ready-mix concrete
plant. The impacts of production are always lower for the scenarios with RAs but the
impacts of transport are higher due to increased total travel distances between facilities
and demolition site (NAs only travel from quarry to ready-mix plant).
The worst economic impacts are related to the scenarios in which CDW is processed
both at CDW plant and at the quarry. This is a consequence of the impacts of transport,
due to the increase of travel distance.
In order to study the influence of transport distance, an alternative CDW plant for the
region of Lisbon was studied in a sensitivity analysis. This plant is closer to the demolition
site, quarry, and ready-mix concrete plant. This solution resulted in a reduction of about
28% in terms of environmental and economic impacts.
Future studies will focus on the comparison of the EI and cost associated with the
production of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Some aspects related to concrete
mix design that were not considered in this paper will be taken into account, such as the
fact that the density of recycled aggregates is lower than that of natural ones (therefore,
1 tonne of natural aggregates will be replaced with less than 1 tonne of recycled aggregates)
and the consideration of probable changes in mix design, needed to offset the influence of
RAs on concrete properties, in the LCA.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B.D. and J.N.P.; methodology, J.D.S.; software, A.B.D.;
validation, J.N.P., J.D.S., I.M.M. and J.d.B.; formal analysis, A.B.D., J.N.P., J.D.S., I.M.M. and J.d.B.;
investigation, A.B.D. and J.N.P.; resources, J.d.B.; data curation, A.B.D.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.B.D. and J.N.P.; writing—review and editing, J.D.S., I.M.M. and J.d.B.; visualization,
A.B.D.; supervision, J.D.S., I.M.M. and J.d.B.; project administration, J.d.B.; funding acquisition, J.d.B.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the support of CERIS (Civil Engineering Research
and Innovation for Sustainability), IST, University of Lisbon, LNEC (National Laboratory for Civil
Engineering), and c5Lab (Sustainable Construction Materials Association).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. EU Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain.
Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2008/98/chapter/I (accessed on 7 July 2021).
2. Xiao, J.; Li, W.; Fan, Y.; Huang, X. An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011). Constr. Build. Mater.
2012, 31, 364–383. [CrossRef]
3. Pacheco, J.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; Soares, D. Destructive horizontal load tests of full-scale recycled aggregate concrete structures.
ACI Struct. J. 2015, 112, 815–826. [CrossRef]
4. Tošić, N.; Torrenti, J.M.; Sedran, T.; Ignjatović, I. Toward a codified design of recycled aggregate concrete structures: Background
for the new Fib Model Code 2020 and Eurocode 2. Struct. Concr. 2021, n/a, 1–23.
5. prEN1992(2020). prEN 1992-1-1 D6 Working file (2020-10-05 Rev. 7), CEN/TC-250/SC-2.
6. Braga, A.M.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with
natural and recycled coarse aggregates. J. Clean. Prod 2017, 162, 529–543. [CrossRef]
7. Tošić, N.; Marinković, S.; Dašić, T.; Stanić, M. Multicriteria optimization of natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structural
use. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 766–776. [CrossRef]
8. Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Lo, I.M.C.; Cheng, J.C.P. Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled
waste materials and virgin sources by LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 67–77. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 5452 15 of 15

9. Simion, I.M.; Fortuna, M.E.; Bonoli, A.; Gavrilescu, M. Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construc-
tion and demolition waste processing using LCA. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2013, 21, 273–287. [CrossRef]
10. Rosado, L.P.; Vitale, P.; Penteado, C.S.G.; Arena, U. Life cycle assessment of natural and mixed recycled aggregate production in
Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 634–642. [CrossRef]
11. Kurda, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and
fly ash. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 407–417. [CrossRef]
12. Marinković, S.; Radonjanin, V.; Malešev, M.; Ignjatović. Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate
concrete. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2255–2264. [CrossRef]
13. Fraj, A.B.; Idir, R. Concrete based on recycled aggregates—Recycling and environmental analysis: A case study of Paris’ region.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 157, 952–964. [CrossRef]
14. Park, W.J.; Kim, T.; Roh, S.; Kim, R. Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of recycled aggregate. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1021.
[CrossRef]
15. Estanqueiro, B.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.D. Environmental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycles
aggregates for concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2018, 12, 429–449. [CrossRef]
16. Jullien, A.; Proust, C.; Martaud, T.; Rayssac, E.; Ropert, C. Variability in the environmental impacts of aggregate production.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 62, 1–13. [CrossRef]
17. Göswein, V.; Gonçalves, A.B.; Silvestre, J.D.; Freire, F.; Habert, G.; Kurda, R. Transportation matters—Does it? GIS-based
comparative environmental assessment of concrete mixes with cement, fly ashes, natural and recycled aggregates. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2018, 139, 1–10.
18. Colangelo, F.; Petrillo, A.; Cioffi, R.; Borrelli, C.; Forcina, A. Life cycle assessment of recycled concretes: A case study in southern
Italy. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 615, 1506–1571. [CrossRef]
19. Pradhan, S.; Tiwari, B.R.; Kumar, S.; Barai, S. Comparative LCA of recycled and natural aggregate concrete using Particle Packing
Method and conventional method of design mix. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 679–691. [CrossRef]
20. Silva, R.V.; de Brito, J.; Dhir, R.K. Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste
suitable for concrete production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 201–217. [CrossRef]
21. Pepe, M.; Grabois, T.M.; Silva, M.A.; Tavares, L.M.; Romildo, D.T.F. Mechanical behaviour of coarse lightweight, recycled and
natural aggregates for concrete. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater. 2018, 173, 70–78. [CrossRef]
22. Bravo, M.; de Brito, J.; Pontes, J.; Evangelista, L. Shrinkage and creep performance of concrete with recycled aggregates from
CDW plants. Mag. Concr. Res. 2017, 69, 974–995. [CrossRef]
23. Visintin, P.; Xie, T.; Bennett, B. A large-scale life-cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete: The influence of functional unit,
emissions allocation and carbon dioxide uptake. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119243. [CrossRef]
24. Thomas, C.; Setién, J.; Polanco, J.A.; Alaejos, V.; de Juan, M.S. Durability of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013,
40, 1054–1065. [CrossRef]
25. Pacheco, J.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; Soares, D. Flexural load tests of full-scale recycled aggregates concrete structures. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015, 101, 65–71. [CrossRef]
26. Tošić, N.; Kurama, Y. Parametric numerical study on service-load deflections of reinforced recycled aggregate concrete slabs and
beams based on fib Model Code 2010. Struct. Concr. 2020, 21, 2854–2868. [CrossRef]
27. Kurda, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Toxicity and environmental and economic performance of fly ash and recycled concrete
aggregates use in concrete: A review. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00611. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Faleschini, F.; Zanini, M.A.; Pellegrino, C.; Pasinato, S. Sustainable management and supply of natural and recycled aggregates in
a medium-size integrated plant. Waste Manag. 2016, 46, 146–155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Josa, I.; Tošić, N.; Marinković, S.; de la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. Sustainability-oriented multi-criteria analysis of different
continuous flight auger piles. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7552. [CrossRef]
30. Braga, A.M. Compared environmental impact of the life cycle of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates (in
Portuguese). Master’s Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2015.
31. Kurda, R. Sustainable development of cement-based materials: Application to recycled aggregates concrete. Ph.D. Thesis,
Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2017.
32. Della. Transport prices Europe. Available online: https://della.eu/price/local/ (accessed on 10 July 2021).