Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconres

Carbon dioxide reduction potential in the global cement industry by 2050

Sabbie A. Millera,⁎, Vanderley M. Johnb,⁎, Sergio A. Paccac, Arpad Horvathd
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, United States
b
Department of Construction Engineering, University of São Paulo, Brazil
c
School of Arts, Sciences, and Humanities, University of São Paulo, Brazil
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper, which is a contribution to the UNEP series on Eco-Efficient Cements, examines the role of material-
Carbon dioxide emissions based solutions to reducing CO2 emissions from cement production considering factors that could influence
Alternative cementitious materials implementation. Global urbanization has led to an increase in demand for cement and cement-based materials.
Global mitigation strategies With its growth in consumption, the associated CO2 emissions from its production are raising concern. However,
Bulk cement
the role of mitigation strategies in a global context that account for regional material availability and degree of
Bagged cement
market adoption have yet to be considered. This work shows that the 2 °C scenario targets for 2050 can be met
Calcined clays
Alkali-activated materials through increased use of calcined clay and engineered filler with dispersants. The introduction of new Portland
Fillers clinker-based cement alternatives, use of alkali-activated materials, and improvement of efficiency of cement use
could further contribute to reduction goals. There are currently-available technologies for reduction that could
be rapidly implemented.

1. Introduction environmental improvements to cement manufacturing through appli-

As urbanization changes the global landscape, demand to expand
the built environment is growing. This demand reflects both a need to
repair infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings) in countries where old
systems have lost functionality and a need to build new infrastructure
in countries that are expanding current systems [1]. To meet this in-
creased demand in infrastructure systems, production of the most
common infrastructure materials has grown, with the pace of cement
production outstripping not only all other materials, but also popula-
tion growth [2–5]. This upturn in materials production is a cause for
concern regarding environmental impact. In 2012 alone, the production
of cement was approximately 3.8 giga tonnes (Gt), equivalent to ap-
proximately 3.2 Gt of CO2 emissions worldwide, approximately 8% of
the annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions [6]. In three years, the pro-
duction of cement, globally, rose to over 4.5 Gt [7] and, with it, so too
did CO2 emissions.
With increased awareness of the CO2 emissions from cement pro-
duction at this large scale, there has been increased focus on reduction
strategies, including a variety of approaches such as consideration of
equipment efficiency, fuel substitution (including increased use of
biofuels), strategic concrete composition for specific applications, use of
alternative raw materials, and use of material substitutes [8,9]. Re-
search in this area has also included examination of the role of
cation of life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology (e.g., [10]), as well
as examination of the role of alternative cementitious materials on re-
ducing the environmental impacts from cement (e.g., [11,12]). In such
studies, consideration has been given to the role of concrete strength
(e.g., [13–15]) and research has been conducted to examine the role of
material properties on guiding concrete mixture proportions (e.g.,
[16–19]). These studies, however, lack a global perspective. The pre-
mier work in the field of global assessment was the 2009 World Busi-
ness Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and International
Energy Agency (IEA) Cement Roadmap [20], which examined the role
of several mitigation methods and the amount of raw materials avail-
able, globally and regionally. In addition to this work, a study by Miller
et al. [6] considered the role of using currently available methods to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cement and concrete at a global
scale by using LCA methodology. Beyond these, little consideration has
been given to the role any set of mitigation strategies would have when
scaled up to the world to the best of the authors' knowledge. Further,
existing research on improvements to mixtures has failed to consider
global impacts on material flows as well as mitigations best suited to
developing regions, which are expected to have high rates of cement
production in the coming years.
In this research, which is a contribution to the UNEP series on Eco-
Efficient Cements, the global use of material-based technologies that

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: sabmil@ucdavis.edu (S.A. Miller), vmjohn@usp.br (V.M. John).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.026
Received 22 November 2016; Received in revised form 14 April 2017; Accepted 29 August 2017
0008-8846/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Miller, S.A., Cement and Concrete Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.026
S.A. Miller et al.
are capable of reducing CO2 emissions in the cement industry are ex-
amined. These methods are presented in the context of 2 °C scenario
reduction targets set out by the IEA for cement production accounting
for projections in growth of cement consumption to the year 2050 [21].
We explore material-based strategies to reduce emissions that are not
dependent on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which
have not been fully developed and may be cost-prohibitive. Further-
more, this work examines the role of market adoption and discusses the
ability for different regions of the world to implement material-based
mitigation strategies based on considerations for currently known ma-
terial reserves.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials assessed for potential contribution to carbon dioxide
reduction
2.1.1. Baseline case
While there are multiple ways of reducing CO2 emissions from the
production of concrete, this assessment focuses on the role of material
alternatives. The first material that will be considered in this assessment
is the baseline production of ordinary Portland cement (OPC). Based on
projections for production of common supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs), such as fly ash or slag, cement production can be
estimated to reach the ~71% clinker fraction goal by 2050 set by the
Cement Roadmap [20], with limestone filler accounting for approxi-
mately 10% of cement by mass. If a 50% average clinker fraction were
targeted instead, it is possible to estimate that use of fly ash and/or slag
with limestone filler would have 40% of the cement market share. For
the remaining 60% of the market, the cement could still contain 10%
limestone filler, but other SCM use could be explored.
In this assessment, OPC is modeled as containing 85% clinker, 5%
gypsum, and 10% limestone by mass. The quantity of replacement of
this OPC by alternative materials was used to determine CO2 emission
reduction values. Clinker substitution by filler, calcined clay and filler,
or use of alternative cements will be developed as an addition to the
10% limestone content and 5% gypsum content already consider in the
mitigation scenario.
2.1.2. Innovative use of currently applied materials
The first group of materials assessed can act to partially replace
Portland clinker through innovative versions of already in-use SCMs.
The materials considered at this phase of assessment are: (a) the com-
bination of calcined clay with limestone filler, based on Scrivener et al.
[22], and (b) increased use of engineered filler with dispersants, based
on John et al. [23]. These materials have a high potential for scale-up
by industry because these materials utilize globally available raw ma-
terials, require modest changes in existing production lines, and require
no new quarries or large investments. As such, the main limitations for
their adoption are those imposed by technical performance of cement in
different applications and the familiarity of industry and clients.
With regard to the calcined clay pozzolans, CO2 emissions benefits
are expected both from the ability to reduce raw-material derived CO2
emissions as well as from reducing thermal energy required during
processing. This assessment considers calcined clay combined with
clinker-based cement and limestone filler, which not only dilutes the
binders, but also increases chemical reaction and improves the rheo-
logical behavior of the system. In this work, it is assumed that as a
global average it is possible to replace 50% of the clinker by a combi-
nation of between 25 and 35% of calcined clay and 15% of limestone
filler.
The second innovative use of currently applied materials considers
increased use of fillers, here modeled as limestone filler. The use of
limestone filler, with purity similar to clinker grade, is currently well
established at about 7% global average [24]. Data show it can be in-
creased to about 10% without significant loss of strength due to dilution
2
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
[25]. New approaches to the inclusion of limestone filler based on en-
gineered filler and dispersion, which allow for a reduction of water,
make 70% of binder substitution possible. However, because of the
water reduction, the net benefit is lower than the clinker fraction in the
cement. Therefore, we estimate that when fully developed, the tech-
nology may allow for an average net benefit equivalent to a clinker
substitution of 35%.
2.1.3. New cements and clinkers
The second group of materials assessed to reduce CO2 emissions
from the production of concrete are (a) alkali-activated binders, based
on Provis [26], (b) Belite-Ye'elimite-Ferrite clinkers (BYF), based on
Gartner and Sui [27], and (c) Carbonatable Calcium Silicate clinkers
(CCSC), based on Gartner and Sui [27]. Use of these materials is not as
well established in industrial practice; although incorporation of some
of these new cements has started for certain applications (e.g., use of
geopolymers in concrete construction in Australia [26]). Due to the
maturity of these technologies, availability of raw materials, and po-
tential change in cost relative to the production of OPC, it is possible
these materials will face more limited market application than the first
group of materials discussed. Nevertheless, since potential use of this
second group is more developed than CCS technology for the cement
industry, this assessment (i.e., at production levels and CO2 emission
reduction goals for the 2 °C scenario in 2050) assumes that incorpora-
tion of these materials could be implemented at lower cost than CCS
technology.
Alkali-activated binders and geopolymers can use several sources of
silicates and alumina with a variety of activators to produce cementi-
tious material [28]. They can harden quickly, and studies have shown a
potential for reduction in CO2 emissions relative to OPC [15]. As a
result of the range of material inputs and fuel sources that could be used
in the production of these materials, a broad range is associated with
their ability to alter the CO2 emissions from common cement produc-
tion [15]. If fly ash and slag are used as the sources of the solid pre-
cursor, a low CO2 footprint for the production of geopolymers can be
found when these material inputs are modeled as byproducts from other
industries with little to no associated emissions from production. The
main limitation to this method of producing geopolymers is that it is
dependent on diverting flows of fly ash and slag that could otherwise be
used as supplementary cementitious materials with conventional ce-
ments made from Portland clinker, so limited additional mitigation is
expected. However, other industrial by-products or co-products could
also be used as the solid precursor to geopolymers if they can provide
adequate sources of silicates and alumina; further, fly ash that might
not be suitable as an SCM could be viable as a solid precursor for
geopolymers [26]. These products have the potential to offer low CO2
embodied materials for the production of alkali-activated materials.
Because at a global scale, mitigation strategies for CO2 emissions from
the production of concrete often assume use of fly ash and slag flows as
cementitious materials [20], this assessment considers use of calcined
clay as the source of silicates and alumina as well as other industrial
byproducts. When other sources of silicates and alumina are modeled,
such as using calcined clay as an input, the mitigation potential for
alkali-activated materials drops. However, with improved production
methods for alkali-activators, lower CO2 emissions from the production
of the associated cements can be expected. Evaluations of availability of
materials for this research are cautious and are based primarily on the
current availability of resources. Consideration is mainly given to
economic reserve, availability at low cost as byproducts, rather than
reserve base, physical availability [29]. Future use of SCMs in geopo-
lymers could change if the market were prepared to pay for their pro-
duction or in markets where the availability of SCMs exceeded that of
the resources to produce OPC. Of course, any changes in production
that could affect allocation of environmental impacts would then need
to be included in calculation of emissions generated.
For the production of BYF clinkers, there is a twofold benefit
S.A. Miller et al.
relative to the production of OPC. First, the BYF clinkers require a
different raw material feed than typical Portland clinkers, namely, they
require lower limestone content [27]. This reduced limestone in the
clinker lowers the quantity of raw material-derived CO2 emissions from
the pyroprocessing stage of clinker production. Second, the production
of BYF occurs at a slightly reduced kiln temperature [27], which re-
duces the fuel energy required and the associated fuel-related emis-
sions. Both of these factors result in lower expected CO2 emissions
while using existing clinker processing infrastructure. Yet, due to high
amount of ettringite, BYF cements may suffer from loss of strength due
to carbonation if used in thin porous components. Additionally, avail-
ability of abundant high-alumina mineral, not captured by the more
valuable aluminum industry, is the key for the competitiveness of this
technology. As such, there are some potential limitations to widespread
implementation.
For the production of CCSC, there are more avenues for potential
CO2 reductions than those proposed by BYF. Again, reductions can be
expected in raw material-derived CO2 emissions because raw material
sources differ from those used in OPC and fuel-derived emissions would
be expected to be lower than for OPC, totaling in an estimated over 30%
reduction in CO2 emissions relative to OPC [27]. The additional benefit
noted in the use of CCSC clinkers is a result of their being cured in a
CO2-rich environment, beneficially utilizing CO2. Similarly to BYF,
CCSC clinkers can be processed in conventional cement kilns. However,
these clinkers possess a greater number of limitations. They are not
fully developed and there are no available standards. These clinkers
require curing in an environment saturated with CO2, thus capturing
the process CO2. As such, their market is limited to industrialized
concrete plants, particularly for thin or porous sections, without steel
reinforcement, which is a relatively small market in developing coun-
tries where cement demand is expected to grow.
2.2. Calculation of emissions factors
Emission factors for all alternative materials were calculated using
life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. These assessments were
conducted to determine CO2 emissions associated with the production
of the materials, considering raw material use, energy demand, fuel
mixes, electricity mixes, transportation, and raw material-derived CO2
emissions. The life-cycle phases considered were from raw material
acquisition through cement production (i.e., cradle to gate) and as-
sessments were based on production of 1000 kg of material. Process
flow diagrams detailing the considered phases are shown in Fig. 1.
To perform these assessments, production was considered at re-
gional levels and, using weighted averages, outcomes were combined to
develop global emissions factors. To capture data inputs, such as kiln
efficiencies and regional production, several datasets were combined.
The Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) database [24] reported kiln use
by region as well as kiln efficiency in terms of MJ/t clinker for each kiln
type. These data were used to find energy for clinker production by
region. Fuel mixes were estimated based on data from GNR [24] and
the IEA [30]; CO2 emissions from fuel were calculated based on values
reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [31] for
stationary combustion in manufacturing industries and construction. In
the production of clinker, these kiln efficiencies, fuel types, and elec-
tricity requirements for processing were considered as well as raw
material-derived emissions, which were assumed to be 0.507 kg CO2/kg
of clinker [32].
Models for the CO2 emissions from each of the materials were as-
sessed separately, then compared to one another at different levels of
replacement. For models of cement containing solely clinker and
gypsum, the use of Portland clinker was modeled with additional pro-
cessing and the inclusion of 5% gypsum by mass. Beyond this cement,
the production and consumption of SCMs, namely blast furnace slag, fly
ash, natural pozzolans, and limestone filler, in cement or as cementi-
tious replacement were considered. Carbon dioxide emission factors for
3
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
these materials were based on calculations by Gursel and Horvath [33]
using regional electricity mixes for processing of clinker and other ce-
mentitious products based on calculations by Miller et al. [6]. For more
detail on modeling inputs and assumptions made, see the Supplemen-
tary Material.
Similar calculations were conducted in the assessment of CO2
emission factors for the material alternatives proposed as mitigation
strategies. These included assessment of emission factors for calcined
clay in which assessments were based on two datasets for production:
Berriel et al. [34] and Vieira et al. [35]. These models were extended to
different regional fuel and electricity mixes used in the production of
cement and values were estimated for the carbon dioxide emissions
expected to result from the production of calcined clay as well as a
cementitious blend containing 35% calcined clay, 15% limestone filler,
and the remainder as clinker.
The CO2 emissions associated with the production of alkali-acti-
vated cements were calculated in two phases. First, emissions asso-
ciated with production of the alkali-activator were determined. Because
different raw materials, raw material sources, and processing can be
implemented in the production of these activators, a range of emissions
was considered. On the low end of emissions, a carbon emissions model
was developed for the production of sodium silicate based on raw
material-derived carbon dioxide emissions and the energy efficiency
associated with the production of glass, which contains similar che-
mical constituents, resulting in CO2 emissions of approximately
0.9 kg CO2/kg material, dry basis, based on communication with
Gartner [36]. To capture a higher emissions factor, data from Habert
and Ouellet-Plamondon [15] were used to find a factor of approxi-
mately 1.8 kg CO2/kg material, dry basis. These activators were then
considered to be used with calcined clay as the source of silicates and
alumina with a 25–50% range of activator needed by mass, depending
on properties of raw material inputs and application requirements [26].
For the production of BYF and CCSC, CO2 emissions factors were
calculated by adapting the LCA model for the production of Portland
clinker. Using adjusted raw-material derived CO2 emissions and
thermal energy demands for these technologies as noted by Gartner and
Sui [27], reductions in total emissions were calculated. It must be noted
that CO2 capture during curing was not considered for CCSC technology
because concrete batching was considered outside the scope of assess-
ment. Lower cumulative CO2 emissions would be expected with a larger
scope of analysis.
For more detail on the LCA approach, the scope of the assessment
applied herein, and details on how emissions factors were calculated,
see the Supplementary Material. Also considered in the Supplementary
Material are alternatives, which have not been included in this assess-
ment due to their limited reduction potential, e.g., Reactive Belite-rich
Portland cement (RBPC).
For this assessment, emissions factors for production of OPC and the
alternative materials were performed based on cradle-to-gate calcula-
tions incorporating current kiln technologies, energy mixes, and pro-
duction statistics (discussed in more detail in the Supplementary
Material). The factors developed based on regional assessments were
then aggregate to develop factors for a global assessment. These ag-
gregated factors for alternative materials were then examined at dif-
ferent potential global market adoption rates and compared using 2050
projected cement production and the 2 °C scenario CO2 emission re-
duction goals. Because this research focuses on the role of alternative
materials in contributing to CO2 emission reduction goals in the ce-
ment-based materials industry, assessments focused on the degree of
market adoption necessary at a global scale. Due to the scope of this
assessment, models projecting change in commodity cost and its role on
reserve base, local implementation plans, and the influence of socio-
economic factors on use of alternative materials as well as change in
technology efficiency and change of energy mixes were not included.
S.A. Miller et al. Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Process flow diagrams for cementitious materials assessed

Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) (note: fuel requirements and transportation considered at all per-
Crushing, tinent stages).
Raw Material Grinding, and Pyroprocessing Finish Grinding
Acquisition and Milling
Milling

Mineral Additions

Cement with Calcined Clay

Crushing,
Raw Material Grinding, and Pyroprocessing Finish Grinding
Acquisition and Milling
Milling

Mineral Additions

Clay Calcination

Cement with Increased Filler*

Crushing,
Raw Material Grinding, and Finish Grinding Batching for Use End of Life
Pyroprocessing
Acquisition and Milling Application
Milling

Mineral Additions

Alkali-Activated Cement

Crushing,
Raw Material Grinding, and Heat Processing Finish Grinding
Acquisition and Milling
Milling

Clay Calcination

Mineral Additions

Belite- -Ferrite (BYF)**

Crushing,
Raw Material Grinding, and Pyroprocessing Finish Grinding
Acquisition and Milling
Milling

Mineral Additions

Carbonate Calcium Silicate Clinkers (CCSC)***

Crushing,
Raw Material Grinding, and Pyroprocessing Finish Grinding
Acquisition and Milling
Milling

Mineral Additions

* Contains more limestone filler than OPC

** Contains different raw materials than OPC and requires less heat in pyroprocessing
*** Contains different raw materials than OPC and requires less heat in pyroprocessing & carbonation benefits not considered

2.3. Raw material availability
One of the most notable constraints on the use of material alter-
natives in cement production is limitation in availability. Due to the
high consumption levels of cement globally, mitigation requires that
the material alternatives be available in large quantities. First, the fu-
ture availability of common SCMs used today must be considered. For
fly ash and slag, two prevalent SCMs globally, annual consumption
levels are nearing current production levels [6]. Projecting to 2050, the
ratio of available blast furnace slag to cement production has been es-
timated to be approximately the same as observed today, around
370 million tonnes (Mt) in 2050, about the same value estimated in the
Cement Roadmap 2009 [20]. There is no available estimate of fly ash
production in 2050, apart from the 368 Mt estimated by the Cement
Roadmap 2009, a value lower than the estimated 590 Mt in 2005 and
623 Mt estimated for 2010. Therefore, production of blast furnace slag
and fly ash together are projected to be around 16% of cement pro-
duction in 2050. Global cement production and ratios of annual pro-
duction of these popular SCMs are shown in Fig. 2.
Filler and calcined clay plus limestone filler face limitation due to
limits of clinker substitution as opposed to material availability. In
addition to limits from clinker substitution, high filler substitution will
require the introduction of dispersant organic admixture at the cement
plant. In order to scale up the technology, the production of these
dispersants must increase; however, this increase is not expected to be
problematic and thus is not considered a limitation [37].
These low ratios and current prevalence of these materials as SCMs
suggest they may be used as SCMs rather than as a solid precursor to
geopolymers. However, as mentioned before, remaining ash and other
industrial byproducts could be used in production of geopolymers.
For production of geopolymers with calcined clay, to scale up it is
necessary to increase the production of sodium silicate. Today, pro-
duction is estimated to be only 6 Mt, sufficient to produce only
30–40 Mt of geopolymer, based on [38,39]. However, there are ex-
tensive reserves of soda ash and silica, which are needed to develop the
product [40]. Therefore, it is assumed in the model that geopolymers
composed of activated clay may have a limited market adoption, con-
sidered in this research as between 0 and 15% of the market share. Due
to extensive amounts of industrial waste or byproducts that could be
viable as the solid precursor to geopolymers, these materials were not
considered to be a limiting factor; however, further research into the
viability of different waste flows and their influence on material
properties in cement-based composites should be conducted.
For BYF, the critical materials are bauxite and other high-alumina
minerals of which the fraction of Al2O3 is 16.4% [41]. Bauxite extrac-
tion in 2016 was 274 Mt worldwide. Economically explorable reserves
are 28 Gt, but resources are estimated to be 55–75 Gt, and 91% of the
reserves are located in only 15 countries [42] (Fig. 2c). Al2O3 content in
bauxite is circa 40% [43], and there are reserves to increase bauxite
production. If all of today's bauxite extraction is diverted to BYF ce-
ment, it will be possible to produce around 650 Mt of cement. This
value suggests material availability is not a hindering factor, but be-
cause the aluminum industry may offer a more economically competi-
tive use of the material, there is a potential limitation associated with
the opportunity cost. As a result, the degree of market adoption is
considered to be between 0 and 15% for this research.
Because there are no published studies on future market share of
industrialized cement-based components, which excludes dry-mixed
mortar and the early stages of development of this technology, new
technologies such as carbonation-hardening CCSC that require special
industrial facilities was limited to 15% of market share in 2050. This is
considered an optimistic value, justifiable because it helps to make
evident the mitigation potential of the technology. CCSC can be formed
using simple calcium silicates, such as wollastonite (raw material
availability shown in Fig. 2d). Again, considering both material avail-
ability and specialized industrial facilities, in this research, the degree

4
S.A. Miller et al.
of market adoption for CCSC technology is assessed between 0 and
15%.
2.4. Mitigation potential
The mitigation potential (tonnes of CO2, tCO2) of a technology is a
function of the specific mitigation potential, smp (kg CO2/t), multiplied
by the amount of cement produced, which can be expressed as the
fraction of market shares of the total market of 4566 Mt forecasted in
2050 [21]. Therefore, we are not addressing the time scale of the in-
troduction of each technology, which is not the same for all technolo-
gies and may become a relevant factor:
smp = Ct − Cc
where Ct is the CO2 footprint of the technology, and Cc is the CO2
footprint of the cement it displaces from the market, in our case,
Portland cement with 10% of filler and 5% of gypsum. An underlying
assumption in our model is that all technologies will produce cements
that on average will have the same efficiency in terms of the amount of
cement needed to fulfill the desired performance, for example, me-
chanical strength. This assumption is not accurate in all situations since
efficiency depends on the end use, an aspect that is not possible to
model accurately at a global scale. The mitigation potential calculated
is then compared to projected 2 °C scenario mitigation goals for cement
production. Again, because this research approaches this issue from a
global perspective, quantity of implementation at the local level and
rate of implementation were not considered. Rather, global totals based
on current reserves and cumulative material replacement were con-
sidered regardless of time or location of implementation.
3. Results
3.1. Emissions factors for materials considered
Table 1 contains selected of the emissions factors calculated in this
5
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Maps of material resources showing (a) avail-
ability of fly ash relative to cement production by region
(calculated based on Miller et al. [6]); (b) slag relative to
cement production by region (calculated based on Miller
et al. [6]); (c) country based production of alumina and
bauxite [58], which is necessary for the production of
BYF; and (d) resource availability of wollastonite [59],
which can be used in the production of CCSC.
assessment weighted by regional hydraulic cement production (more
detail on the emissions factors calculated can be found in the Supple-
mentary Material). Based on the assessments conducted, it can be seen
that each of the materials assessed offer different carbon emission
profiles. The natural minerals, such as natural pozzolans or limestone
filler, have the lowest carbon emission factors, followed by the in-
dustrial byproducts, which have no allocated emissions from produc-
tion, but are allocated emissions associated with collection, refinement,
and transportation. Calcined clay alone offers over a 50% reduction in
CO2 emissions relative to Portland clinker and gypsum, but it is con-
sidered to be a blended material with clinker and limestone filler as a
mitigation strategy. The alkali-activated cements have a wide range of
associated emissions based on material inputs, showing the potential to
either reduce or increase CO2 emissions relative to Portland clinker and
gypsum. This finding suggests that further refinement of materials used
and appropriate application of geopolymers must be examined to pro-
vide the best mitigation of CO2 emissions. Finally, BYF and CCSC
clinkers show a reduction in CO2 emissions relative to Portland clinker
by 25–40%. The CO2 emissions for CCSC clinker could have an even
lower CO2 emissions factor of approximately 0.19 kg CO2/kg material
(or 65% lower than the factor listed) if carbonation were within the
scope of assessment.
3.2. Mitigation potential
Using the emission factors calculated and projections for cement
consumption in the year 2050, mitigation strategies relative to use of
OPC were assessed. Fig. 3 presents potential reductions in CO2 emis-
sions from innovative use of currently applied material alternatives in
the cement industry. Fig. 3a shows an estimate of the mitigation po-
tential of a combination of 25% to 35% of calcined clay with fixed 15%
of limestone filler with minimum 50% clinker content. The mitigation
currently allocated by carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be reached
if this technology were scaled up to 50–60% of the cement market.
Another option is substitution of binder by 25–35% of engineered fillers
S.A. Miller et al.
Table 1
Carbon dioxide emission factors for cementitious materials including 95% clinker Portland cement, supplementary cementitious materials, and fillers currently used, as well as alternative
cementitious materials and filler. Factors were developed by regional assessment and weighted by regional production.
Clinker Fly ash Slag Natural Calcined clay
+ gypsum pozzolans
0.86 0.04 0.09 0.007 0.21–0.33
BYF: Belite-Ye'elimite-Ferrite.
a
Carbonated calcium silicate cement, modeled without carbon capture.
combined with dispersant, a technology that compensates dilution by
reducing the amount of water, that will deliver mitigation originally
attributed to CCS with slightly lower market share, between 37% and
55% (Fig. 3b). These two technologies, which are based on minerals
and production processes with which the cement industry is familiar, if
further developed and adapted can be combined to cope with peculia-
rities of each market, giving flexibility to companies. The engineered
filler combined with dispersant is certainly more challenging to develop
and deploy. However, this method can be employed among the more
capable industrial users of cements.
Apart from these two mitigation methods, other technologies that
do not rely on Portland clinker were explored, namely use of alkali-
activated cement, as well as CCSC and BYF clinkers. As a whole, there is
less accumulated industrial knowledge about these technologies than
about the previous one and greater uncertainty regarding costs and
market limitations. Additionally, limited industrial knowledge of these
alternative materials results in greater uncertainty in modeling CO2
emissions from production. Fig. 4 presents an estimate of the potential
mitigation from each of the three new cements and clinkers assessed
considering uncertainty associated with emission factors and expected
potential replacement levels.
To address the uncertainty in the CO2 emission factors for the al-
ternative materials to OPC, sensitivity ranges were incorporated. The
market for CCSC is limited to the production of industrial components
because carbonation hardening requires dedicated industrial facilities.
To capture uncertainty, the emission factor was made to vary 15%
below and above the nominal CO2 footprint. BYF is also not fully de-
veloped; as such, its CO2 footprint and its estimates for cost are subject
to change. The degree of market adoption of this cement will depend on
availability and costs of aluminum-rich minerals in various regions. The
emission factor was considered to vary 15% above and below the
average CO2 footprint.
As discussed in Section 2, the CO2 emission factors for geopolymers
are affected by the source of silicates and alumina, the source of alkali-
activator, and the relative quantities of these materials. This assessment
considers a calcined clay geopolymer with sodium silicate activator. In
the model for the average mitigation potential shown in Fig. 4, the more
conservative (higher) CO2 emissions factor for calcined clay was
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Limestone filler Calcined clay based alkali- Fly ash based alkali-activated BYF CCSCa
activated cement cement
0.008 0.50–1.08 0.09–0.25 0.62–0.65 0.53
Fig. 4. Estimate of mitigation potential of new cement technologies as a function of the
market share for the year 2050 low-demand scenario. These technologies are at earlier
stage of development and, as such, there is greater uncertainty associated with emission
factors. For this plot, “Alkali-Activated Cement (1)” represents use of calcined clay as the
solid precursor and “Alkali-Activated Cement (2)” represents use of waste fly ash as the
solid precursor, as discussed in the text. The horizontal grey line presents a reference of
the mitigation target from the 2 °C change scenario from CCS technologies.
applied (0.33 kg CO2/kg material) with an average of the two sodium
silicate values reported (1.35 kg CO2/kg material) used at 40% by mass
of the geopolymer. The sensitivity assessment of this material considers
both the range of use of the alkali-activator (varying between 25% and
50%) and the emission factor for the alkali-activator. These results
show a formulation with 55% of sodium silicate with 1.1 kg CO2/kg
(dry-basis) will result in no improvement from Portland cement with
10% of limestone filler. As such, calcined clay geopolymers will only
provide a strong means for mitigation if sources of sodium silicate with
a much lower (~ 50%) CO2 emission factor than currently available
were introduced in the market and/or low-content activator formula-
tions were developed. Otherwise the technology can actually lead to an
increase in CO2 emissions.
Fly ash and blast furnace slag-based geopolymers could be expected
to have much lower CO2 footprint than Portland cement, depending on
the amount of sodium silicate. However, to scale up in the market, they
might need to divert SCMs from the Portland cement market, causing
the CO2 emission of Portland cements to increase by the same amount.
Consequently, fly ash- and granulated blast furnace slag-based geopo-
lymer technology will contribute to CO2 mitigation only if (a) they use
Fig. 3. Expected mitigation potential re-
flected as a percent increase in (a) sub-
stitution of cement for a combination of
25–35% calcined clay plus 15% of lime-
stone filler, and (b) potential of filler sub-
stitution varying between 25% and 35% as
a function of market share for the year
2050 low-demand scenario. The horizontal
lines reference the mitigation targets from
the 2 °C change scenario for total targeted
reduction in emissions from cement in-
cluding CCS (upper gray line) and the tar-
geted mitigation share from CCS alone
(lower gray line).
6
S.A. Miller et al.
SCMs with higher efficiency than ordinary Portland cement, an aspect
that it is not yet proven, or (b) they increase the fraction of use of such
materials that can be utilized, e.g., using fly ashes that are not suitable
for SCM in Portland cement. The mitigation potential of using fly ash-
or slag-based geopolymers is currently unknown for a global perspec-
tive; however, to present a range of potential mitigation possible from
use of alkali-activated material, the use of fly ashes not suitable as SCMs
in geopolymers are presented in this assessment. Plotting these data
shows the use of industrial by-product, if allocated only processing CO2
emissions and none from the production of the primary product, could
result in geopolymers that have markedly lower CO2 emissions per kg of
production than OPC. These geopolymers have a great potential to
offset CO2 emissions relative to OPC.
These three technologies are at varying stages of development, but
CCS for the cement industry is also not fully developed. However, they
are potentially of interest for the industry because they can be cheaper
than CCS in most situations and will require much less energy than CCS.
At this stage of knowledge, BYF and CCSC seem to be the more pro-
mising technologies for CO2 mitigation than geopolymers. Geopolymer
mitigation contributions depend on the availability in the world market
of alkali-activators with much lower CO2 footprint than the current
literature shows, and geopolymer formulations that require a low
amount of sodium silicate, particularly if the material uses calcined
clay.
It is worth noting that these calculations are based on current
equipment efficiency, electricity mixes, transportation emission factors,
and thermal energy mixes. With improvement in these areas, a reduc-
tion in CO2 emissions could be expected. Furthermore, these new ma-
terial alternatives to OPC can further benefit from dilution with en-
gineered filler and dispersants, increasing their mitigation potential.
4. Discussion
4.1. Uncertainty and limiting assumptions
This research incorporates several sources of uncertainty and sev-
eral limiting assumptions. A synopsis of these uncertainties and as-
sumptions follows.
First, considering how emission factors were calculated, it must be
noted that some uncertainty arises from data availability. Estimations
for equipment efficiency were not representative of all cement produ-
cers in the world and data are better for some regions than others.
Furthermore, the datasets used to assess equipment efficiency, energy
mixes, transportation, and material production methods were not all
from the same year, potentially affecting calculations. The application
of weighted averages to electricity and thermal energy mixes may not
have accurately captured individual production processes. Varying
sources of data for these inputs, with potential variation in scopes of
assessment, also lead to greater levels of uncertainty. These types of
uncertainties are discussed in more detail in Miller et al. [6].
In modeling the emissions factors for mitigation strategies, there
were several additional factors contributing to uncertainty. Among
these, the use of life-cycle inventory data from various sources for the
mitigation strategies can lead to a level of uncertainty and there is in-
herent variability in each of the processes modeled. While variations
were compensated for by the use of similar transportation, processing,
and energy input models, the uncertainty in comparisons drawn could
not be fully removed. Additionally, the use of weighted averages of
emission factors by region projecting forward could not capture dif-
ferences in production at the local scale nor could it capture differences
depending on region or individual application. These data are based on
present technology, but with deployment of energy efficiency measures,
alternative fuel sources, and the adaptation of material-based alter-
natives, further reductions may be expected. Furthermore, estimates
and assumptions were made to determine cement production projec-
tions, which while not developed in this research, contribute to
7
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
uncertainty [21]. The assumptions made in the modeling of emission
factors are described in more detail in the Supplementary Material.
Calculations and comparisons drawn in this research are based on
mass material alternatives and mass of cement produced. Because ce-
ment is not the end-product used in applications, this research was not
able to capture the role of material properties or durability of cement-
based products in comparing mitigation alternatives. Additionally,
SCMs, such as calcined clay and limestone fillers, often have lower
density than Portland clinker, which would affect the volume of ce-
ment, a key factor in several applications. The changes in material
properties and volume-based comparisons were outside the scope of
this assessment, but should be considered in future work.
The models presented in this work also were not able to capture the
rate of learning in industry and of implementation, nor did they capture
potential changes in material properties resulting from implementation
of the mitigation strategies. These areas should be examined in greater
detail in further assessments.
4.2. Concrete mixture proportioning and full life-cycle impacts of concrete
This research focuses on cradle-to-production gate CO2 emissions
from the production of cement and cement material alternatives;
however, because concrete is a structural material that is often in ser-
vice for an extended period of time, there are many other factors that
could be applied at later stages of the material life cycle to mitigate CO2
emissions. While not all of these mitigation strategies can be easily
scaled to a global assessment to determine their role in reducing CO2
emissions, it is worth discussing these factors as they can contribute to,
if not outweigh, some of the cradle-to-production gate impacts. A few of
these considerations are briefly discussed below.
Strategic mixture proportioning can contribute to reducing CO2
emissions from the production of concrete. For example, the use of
appropriate levels of SCMs, use of the appropriate binder content, use of
chemical admixtures, or changes in aggregate type and gradation, can
influence properties achieved and environmental impacts of concrete
mixtures (e.g., [13,16,17,44–46]). To this extent, use of concrete effi-
ciently by designing members with appropriate strength or other ma-
terial characteristics can contribute to a reduction in concrete needed
and, thus, potentially contribute to lower associated emissions for a
structural element. (e.g., [16,19,47]). Further, it has been shown that if
designs were to occur with higher specified age for strength, different
mixture proportions could be used in concrete structures and could
contribute to lower levels of OPC needed to meet the same application
requirements [18].
The durability of concrete, which would influence both main-
tenance and replacement [48], has the potential to overshadow benefits
gained through manufacturing processes. Research on the influence of
durability mechanisms on the longevity of infrastructure materials has
shown that time-dependent loss of material properties or other me-
chanisms leading to deterioration can offset potential benefits gained
through implementation of beneficial production methods or use of
low-impact constituents [48–50]. Beyond the volumes of cement-based
material that could be altered due to durability leading to changes in
frequency of replacement, the emissions from maintenance have been
shown to have potentially dramatic effects on total CO2 emissions as-
sociated with concrete structures [51].
In addition to the role mixture proportioning, structural design,
durability through intended service life, and maintenance can have on
emissions, carbonation during the use of a concrete structure containing
cement with CH and carbonation of concrete rubble after demolition
can change the emissions profile associated with a structure (e.g.,
[52,53]). However, it should be noted that use of alternative materials
in the production of concrete to reduce clinker content will also reduce
the uptake of CO2 through carbonation.
S.A. Miller et al.
4.3. Role of industrialization
The attractions of using cement are manifold, including ease of use,
readily available raw materials, and affordability. Yet when cement and
cementitious products are manufactured or applied by untrained per-
sonnel, the knowledge or means to optimize mixture proportioning can
be limited, leading to higher consumption than that needed for tech-
nical performance. At larger scales of production, employment of spe-
cialized personnel for improved quality control and optimization of
production becomes possible. For example, a study of construction in
Brazil showed a median waste rate of approximately 50% for bagged
cement used to make site-mixed concrete and just below 50% for ag-
gregates. In contrast, the median waste of ready-mixed (bulk) concrete
was below 10% [54].
This increased ability to have specialized technicians and improved
quality control associated with larger scales of production, which could
be expected to grow with industrialization, has the potential to con-
tribute to a reduction in cement consumption and associated environ-
mental impacts. However, with the exception of a study published by
Lafarge-WWF [47] that discussed a potential reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions by 15% from efficient use of cement, which would be
facilitated by industrialization, the role of industrialization in mitiga-
tion is not a well-examined field in the literature.
Because industrial applications, such as ready-mixed concrete, dry-
mix mortar, precast components, etc., tend to use bulk delivery, the
share of cement used in less monitored applications can be estimated by
the market share of bagged cement. Based on data representing the
percent of cement sold in bags relative to national gross domestic
product (GDP), it is estimated that 42% of cement produced is sold in
bags and 58% is sold in bulk. Data show that the share of bagged ce-
ment decreases with GDP per capita increase (Fig. 5), but there is large
scatter. In developing countries, which consume about 90% of cement,
the share of bulk cement is below 60%. In China, which produces about
40% of the world's cement, bag cement sales are around 40–45% of the
market. In India, the second largest cement consumer, bag cement sales
are much higher, 85–90% of total sales. The large scatter suggests that
local governmental incentives can play a role in promoting in-
dustrialization, but the trend indicates increased GDP is correlated with
distribution of cement through bulk channels.
Through large-scale production, facilitated by industrialization,
more efficient mixture proportioning and concrete application could
contribute to reduced emissions from the cement industry. The cen-
tralization of cement and concrete production would aid the inclusion
of materials such as those discussed in this research as well as other
SCMs. Further, if the 15% reduction from improved efficiency esti-
mated by the WWF-Lafarge report [47] were achieved, a reduction of
approximately 530 Mt of CO2 could be expected based on the calcula-
tions from this research. This value represents approximately 96% of
the 2 °C mitigation target from CCS technologies. Benefits from
Fig. 5. Percent of cement market supplied as bagged cement and bulk cement relative to
GDP per capita. Data from LafargeHolcim Corporate Strategy Estimates as of the first
quarter of 2016 and from the World Bank [60]. Data cover countries responsible for
approximately 90% of total cement production.
8
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
industrialization of cement production are starting to appear. For ex-
ample, the National Climate Change Program of China recommended a
reduction in the quantity of concrete and mortar mixed on construction
sites, resulting in an expected 2.4% reduction in cement consumption
[55–57]. Further, implementation of such strategies could significantly
aid in meeting mitigation goals globally.
4.4. Other material substitutes and mitigation strategies
This research focused on several key material substitutes that could
contribute to the reduction of global CO2 emissions in the production of
cement. However, there are several other strategies that could be im-
plemented, including the often-discussed improved equipment effi-
ciency and alternative fuel mixes. Additionally, other material sub-
stitutes may prove to be viable options with more research and
development. For example, magnesium oxides derived from magnesium
silicates (MOMS) have been discussed as potentially being net carbon
dioxide neutral or negative. While energy would be needed during
processing, there would be no raw material-derived carbon dioxide
emissions. Carbonation of the material, if it resulted in greater carbon
dioxide uptake than emitted during processing, could potentially result
in this material being either carbon neutral or net negative in terms of
CO2 emissions. Because the raw materials needed are abundant, albeit
not uniformly distributed globally, further examination of this class of
materials as an alternative cementitious binder could be a fruitful area
of research. Due to lack of data, the mitigation potential of this or other
new materials is not estimated in this work.
5. Conclusions
This research examined future viable global CO2 mitigation strate-
gies for the cement industry. The estimates show that it is possible for
the cement industry to fulfill the 2 °C scenario mitigation targets
without requiring CCS if application of the discussed material alter-
natives gets underway.
Of the several material alternatives examined, two clinker sub-
stitution methods, calcined clay with limestone filler and engineered
limestone filler combined with dispersant, would facilitate high levels
of substitution. Due to their raw material availability and limited re-
quired infrastructure changes, these methods are expected to have few
limits to implementation and could contribute significantly to CO2 re-
ductions.
Beyond these methods, the development of alternative cement
technologies was shown to have potential to contribute to global mi-
tigation of CO2 emissions from the cement industry. Clinkers with
Ye'elimite as the most reactive phase (BYF, CCSC) can be produced in
conventional cement kilns but require aluminum rich minerals, sul-
phates and carbonates. CCSC uses widely available, not so pure lime-
stone and silicon, processed in conventional cement kilns. They require
curing in a CO2-rich environment capturing the process CO2. Therefore,
their market is limited to industrialized concrete plants, particularly for
thin or porous sections, without steel reinforcement.
Despite limitations, these materials offer promising alternatives for
certain regions and applications. Additionally, alkali-activated mate-
rials produced with calcined clay or industrial waste products appear to
be a scalable technology. Due to raw material inputs, these materials
would likely only contribute to mitigation of CO2 emissions if the
emissions from the alkali-activator could be reduced. As such, further
research and strategic implementation could solidify the benefits
achievable through the use of these materials.
It should be noted that these new technologies are likely more at-
tractive for regions where the cement industry is expanding production
capacity because the new plants can be built with capacity for these
material alternatives. In addition to material substitution alternatives,
industrialization of concrete manufacturing has a significant potential
to increase the efficient use of cement and lead to savings in greenhouse
S.A. Miller et al.
gas emissions. Similarly, the role of decisions regarding mixture pro-
portioning, structural design, durability, and end-of-life can contribute
to changes in CO2 emissions associated with concrete structures and
should continue to be examined and quantified. Also, while not part of
this research, the use of clean energy mixes and best available tech-
nology can contribute to further lowering of emissions from the mate-
rial alternatives presented as well as OPC and other materials used in
the cement-based materials industry.
With increased industrial and societal investment into researching
mitigation strategies, even greater benefits could be achieved than
those presented.
Acknowledgements
S.M. would like to gratefully acknowledge the Engineered
Sustainable Infrastructure Materials and Structural Systems (E-SIMSS)
Laboratory at UC Davis. V.J. and S.P. were supported by The São Paulo
Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant n° 2016/05278-5. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the discussion of the UNEP SBCI Working
Group, particularly Ellis Gartner, Karen Scrivener, and John Provis.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.026.
References
[1] M.W. Doyle, D.G. Havlick, Infrastructure and the environment, Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 34 (1) (2009) 349–373.
[2] T.D. Kelly, H.G. van Oss, Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities:
Cement Statistics, [cited 2015 January 1]; Available from, 2014. http://minerals.
usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-statistics/, .
[3] UNPD, World Population Prospects, the 2015 Revision: Key Findings and Advance
Tables, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division, New York, 2015.
[4] C.A. DiFrancesco, T.D. Kelly, D.I. Bleiwas, M.D. Fenton, Historical Statistics for
Mineral and Material Commodities: Iron and Steel Statistics, [cited 2015 January
1]; Available from, 2014. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical-
statistics/, .
[5] FAO, FAOSTAT, [cited 2015 January 1]; Available from, 2014. http://faostat.fao.
org/site/626/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=626#ancor, .
[6] S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, P.J.M. Monteiro, Readily implementable techniques can cut
annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%, Environ. Res.
Lett. 11 (2016) 074029.
[7] CEMBUREAU, Activity Report 2015, CEMBUREAU, Brussels, 2016.
[8] M. Schneider, M. Romer, M. Tschudin, H. Bolio, Sustainable cement pro-
duction—present and future, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (7) (2011) 642–650.
[9] J.S. Damtoft, J. Lukasik, D. Herfort, D. Sorrentino, E.M. Gartner, Sustainable de-
velopment and climate change initiatives, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2) (2008) 115–127.
[10] M.E. Boesch, S. Hellweg, Identifying improvement potentials in cement production
with life cycle assessment, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (23) (2010) 9143–9149.
[11] D.N. Huntzinger, T.D. Eatmon, A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manu-
facturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies, J. Clean.
Prod. 17 (7) (2009) 668–675.
[12] G. Habert, C. Billard, P. Rossi, C. Chen, N. Roussel, Cement production technology
improvement compared to factor 4 objectives, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (5) (2010)
820–826.
[13] A.P. Gursel, H. Maryman, C. Ostertag, A life-cycle approach to environmental,
mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash,
J. Clean. Prod. 112 (Part 1) (2016) 823–836.
[14] D.M. Flower, J. Sanjayan, Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture,
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5) (2007) 282–288.
[15] G. Habert, C. Ouellet-Plamondon, Recent update on the environmental impact of
geopolymers, Rilem Technical Letters 1 (2016) 17–23.
[16] B.L. Damineli, F.M. Kemeid, P.S. Aguiar, V.M. John, Measuring the eco-efficiency of
cement use, Cem. Concr. Compos. 32 (8) (2010) 555–562.
[17] S.A. Miller, P.J.M. Monteiro, C.P. Ostertag, A. Horvath, Concrete mixture pro-
portioning for desired strength and reduced global warming potential, Constr.
Build. Mater. 128 (2016) 410–421.
[18] S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, P.J.M. Monteiro, C.P. Ostertag, Greenhouse gas emissions
from concrete can be reduced by using mix proportions, geometric aspects, and age
as design factors, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (11) (2015) 114017.
[19] S.A. Miller, P.J.M. Monteiro, C.P. Ostertag, A. Horvath, Comparison indices for
design and proportioning of concrete mixtures taking environmental impacts into
account, Cem. Concr. Compos. 68 (2016) 131–143.
[20] IEA and WBCSD, Cement technology roadmap 2009 carbon emissions reductions up
9
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
to 2050, OECD/IEA; WBCSD, Paris; Conches-Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
[21] OECD and IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2016: Towards Sustainable Urban
Energy Systems, OECD, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2016.
[22] Scrivener, K., F. Martirena, S. Bishnoi, and S. Maity, Calcined clays as supple-
mentary cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. (under review).
[23] John, V.M., B.L. Damineli, R.G. Pileggi, and M.A. Cincotto, Engineered Fillers and
Dispersants in Cementitious Materials. Cem. Concr. Res. (under review).
[24] GNR, Global Cement Database on CO₂ and Energy Information, [cited 2015 June
15]; Available from, 2014. http://www.wbcsdcement.org/GNR-2013/index.html, .
[25] R.D. Hooton, M. Nokken, M.D.A. Thomas, Portland-Limestone Cement: State-of-the-
art Report and Gap Analysis for CSA A 3000, University of Toronto, Skokie, IL,
2007.
[26] Provis, J.L., Alkali-activated binders. Cem. Concr. Res. (in press) https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009.
[27] Gartner, E.M. and T. Sui, Alternative Cement Clinkers. Cem. Concr. Res. (in press)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.002.
[28] B.C. McLellan, R.P. Williams, J. Lay, A. van Riessen, G.D. Corder, Costs and carbon
emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement, J.
Clean. Prod. 19 (9–10) (2011) 1080–1090.
[29] J.B. Guinee, R. Heijungs, A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency
factors for use in product life-cycle assessment, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14 (5)
(1995) 917–925.
[30] IEA, Tracking industrial energy efficiency and CO2 emissions, Support of the G8
Plan of Action: Energy Indicators, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2007.
[31] D.R. Gomez, J.D. Watterson, B.B. Americano, C. Ha, G. Marland, E. Matsika,
L.N. Namayanga, B. Osman-Elasha, J.D.K. Saka, K. Treanton, R. Quadrelli,
S. Eggleston, et al. (Ed.), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Chapter 2: Energy: Stationary Combustion, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Hayama, Kanagawa, 2006, p. 2007 Editors.
[32] M.J. Gibbs, P. Soyka, D. Conneely, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, in: A. Rosland (Ed.), Chapter
3 Industrial Processes: CO2 Emissions from Cement Production, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Montreal, 2001Editor.
[33] A.P. Gursel, A. Horvath, GreenConcrete LCA Webtool, [cited 2014 November 13];
Available from, 2012. http://greenconcrete.berkeley.edu/concretewebtool.html, .
[34] S.S. Berriel, A. Favier, E. Rosa Dominguez, I.R. Sanchez Machado, U. Heierli,
K. Scrivener, F. Martirena Hernandez, G. Habert, Assessing the environmental and
economic potential of limestone calcined clay cement in Cuba, J. Clean. Prod. 124
(2016) 361–369.
[35] S.R. Vieira, S. Soares, J.E. Machado, Production and use of cements with artificial
pozzolan, Cement Plant Environmental Handbook; International Cement Review, 2
2015, pp. 156–159.
[36] Gartner, E.M., Personal Communication 2016.
[37] Cheung, J., L. Roberts, and J. Liu, Admixtures and sustainability. Cem. Concr. Res.
(in press) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.04.011.
[38] ICIS, Chemical profile: sodium silicate, [cited 2016 September 17]; Available from,
2008. http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2008/03/24/9109903/chemical-
profile-sodium-silicate/, .
[39] Transparency Market Research, Transparency Market Research, Sodium Silicate
Market is Expected to Reach US$ 6933.6 Million in 2023, Expanding at a CAGR of
2.5% Between 2015 and 2023, [cited 2016 September 17]; Available from, 2015.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sodium-silicate-market-is-expected-
to-reach-us-69336-million-in-2023-expanding-at-a-cagr-of-25-between-2015-and-
2023-transparency-market-research-522050341.html, .
[40] W.P. Bolen, Mineral Commodity Summaries: Soda Ash, US Geological Survey, 2016.
[41] E.M. Gartner, G. Walenta, V. Morin, P. Termkhajornkit, I. Baco, J.-M. Casabonne,
Hydration of a belite-calciumsulfoaluminate-ferrite cement: aether™, 13th
International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, 2011 (Madrid, Spain).
[42] E.L. Bray, Mineral Commodity Summaries: Bauxite and Alumina, US Geological
Survey, 2016.
[43] S.K. Ritter, Making the most of red mud, Chem. Eng. News 92 (8) (2014) 33–35.
[44] R.J. Flatt, N. Roussel, C.R. Cheeseman, Concrete: an eco material that needs to be
improved, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 32 (11) (2012) 2787–2798.
[45] K. Celik, C. Meral, A. Petek Gursel, P.K. Mehta, A. Horvath, P.J.M. Monteiro,
Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating
concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and
limestone powder, Cem. Concr. Compos. 56 (2015) 59–72.
[46] P. Purnell, L. Black, Embodied carbon dioxide in concrete: variation with common
mix design parameters, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (6) (2012) 874–877.
[47] N. Muller, J. Harnisch, A Blueprint for a Climate Friendly Cement Industry, World
Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, 2008.
[48] P. Billon, J.-C. Galloo, J. Martin-Saint-Leon, et al. (Ed.), Ductal®: A Material at the
Heart of Sustainable Construction, Lafarge, 2010Editors.
[49] S.A. Miller, M.D. Lepech, S.L. Billington, Static versus time-dependent material
selection charts and application in wood flour composites, J. Biobased Mater.
Bioenergy 9 (2) (2015) 273–283.
[50] S.A. Miller, W.V. Srubar III, S.L. Billington, M.D. Lepech, Integrating durability-
based service-life predictions with environmental impact assessments of natural
fiber–reinforced composite materials, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 99 (2015) 72–83.
[51] M.D. Lepech, M. Geiker, H. Stang, Probabilistic design and management of en-
vironmentally sustainable repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete struc-
tures, Cem. Concr. Compos. 47 (2014) 19–31.
[52] R. Andersson, K. Fridh, H. Stripple, M. Häglund, Calculating CO2 uptake for existing
concrete structures during and after service life, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (20)
(2013) 11625–11633.
[53] F. Collins, Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled
S.A. Miller et al.
concrete: influence on their carbon footprint, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (6) (2010)
549–556.
[54] C. Formoso, L. Soibelman, C. De Cesare, E. Isatto, Material waste in building in-
dustry: main causes and prevention, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128 (4) (2002)
316–325.
[55] L. Alcorta, M. Bazilian, R.V. Berkel, A. Boly, S. Fokeer, D. Gielen, O. Memedovic,
Industrial development report 2011: industrial energy efficiency for sustainable
wealth creation capturing environmental, Economic and Social Dividends, United
Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2011.
[56] Xinhua News Agency, Cement Mixing Banned in Cities, [cited 2016 November 21];
Available from, 2007. http://www.china.org.cn/archive/2007-08/02/content_
10
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
1219551.htm, .
[57] M.V. Kamp, I. Shaw, Producing Dry Premix Mortars on an Industrial Scale -
Solutions for Newly Industrialized Countries, [cited 2016 November 21]; Available
from, 2010. http://www.zkg.de/de/artikel/zkg_2010-10_1023044.html, .
[58] E.L. Bray, 2014 Minerals Yearbook: Bauxite and Alumina, Bull. US Geol. Surv
(2016).
[59] D.M. Flanagan, Mineral Commodity Summaries: Wollastonite, Bull. US Geol. Surv.
(2016).
[60] World Bank, World Development Indicators, [cited 2016 August 11]; Available
from, 2016. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-
development-indicators, .