# Sustainability assessment of recycled aggregate concrete structures: A critical view on the current state-of-knowledge and practice

Snežana Marinković, Irène Josa, Sandrine Braymand, Nikola Tošić

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Snežana Marinković, Irène Josa, Sandrine Braymand, Nikola Tošić. Sustainability assessment of recycled aggregate concrete structures: A critical view on the current state-of-knowledge and practice. Structural Concrete, 2023, 24 (2), pp.1956-1979. 10.1002/suco.202201245. hal-04650693

HAL Id: hal-04650693

https://hal.science/hal-04650693v1

Submitted on 16 Jul 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Sustainability assessment of recycled aggregate concrete structures: A critical view on the current state-of-knowledge and practice

Snežana Marinković<fnref n="1" /> ID

Irene Josa<fnref n="2" /> ID

Sandrine Braymand<fnref n="3" /> ID

Nikola Tošić<fnref n="4" /> ID

**Correspondence**

Nikola Tošić, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.
Email: nikola.tosic@upc.edu

**Abstract**

The environmental impacts of activities such as raw material extraction, construction of infrastructure, and demolition, place construction as one of the sectors that exert the highest pressures on the environment, society, and economy. Some of the major environmental impacts for which the construction industry is responsible are mineral resource depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation. Among the different strategies that exist to decrease such impacts, recycling demolition waste into recycled concrete aggregates has been considered a promising alternative. As such, at present, the literature dealing with the impact assessment of recycled aggregate concrete structures is very extensive. Therefore, the objective of this article is to present a critical view of the state-of-the-art in terms of sustainability assessment of recycled aggregate concrete structures, taking a holistic perspective by considering environmental, social, and economic impacts.

**KEYWORDS**

construction, economic impact, environmental impact, recycled aggregate concrete structures, societal impact, state-of-the-art, sustainability

## 1 | INTRODUCTION

The construction industry—including a range of activities from the extraction of raw materials; manufacturing/distribution of construction products; construction, use, and management; maintenance, renovation, and demolition; and recycling of construction and demolition waste (CDW)—is alone responsible for a large portion of

Europe's environmental footprint: 50% of natural raw materials use, 40% of total energy consumption<fnref n="1" /> (as the single largest consumer), 46% of total waste generated,<fnref n="2" /> and 36% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.<fnref n="3" /> Within the construction industry, mineral materials, concrete, and other cement-based materials are responsible for a large share of the industry's environmental impacts. Extremely large production of concrete, with 25 billion tonnes produced annually at the global level,<fnref n="4" /> causes the following major environmental impacts:

Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.

* large consumption of natural mineral resources and energy (mostly for cement and reinforcement steel

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2023 The Authors. *Structural Concrete* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation for Structural Concrete.

<footnote n="1">¹Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, London, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ICube, Strasbourg University, CNRS, UMR, Strasbourg, 7357, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Jordi Girona 1-3, Barcelona, 08034, Spain</footnote>
production; in addition, for maintenance of buildings,
and other structures; finally, for transportation, con-
struction, demolition, and recycling at smaller extent
and except in the case of re-use);

* large emissions of greenhouse gasses, primarily CO₂, which are responsible for climate change and originate mostly from cement production (due to clinker content) and energy consumption; to a smaller extent, emissions of SO₂ are responsible for acidification and mostly originate from the transportation phase;

* large amount of produced CDW (mostly inert and non-dangerous wastes).

For these reasons, it is of crucial importance to find
way(s) of greening the concrete industry, that is, to
decrease its impacts on the environment. Recycling CDW
into recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) is a way to
reduce simultaneously the amount of waste and con-
sumption of natural mineral resources. Besides the fact
that sources of quality sand and stone for aggregate pro-
duction are not endless, especially at a regional level,
their unlimited extraction also has a strong impact on the
environment and leads to direct local devastation of the
natural environment, whether it is a crushed stone or
river aggregate.⁵ Landfill capacity is becoming a very
important and scarce resource nowadays in many coun-
tries. On the other hand, the utilization of RCA in new
concrete structures helps close the concrete loop within
the circular economy context.

However, replacing the virgin aggregates with RCA
does not necessarily and directly lead to better environ-
mental performance in the course of a concrete struc-
ture's life cycle. Besides, the holistic sustainability
assessment should include social and economic assess-
ments as well. Therefore, scientifically based methods
for the assessment of all three sustainability aspects are
needed. For the environmental assessment, the well-
recognized and standardized methodology of Life cycle
assessment (LCA) is usually applied. It allows for evalu-
ating the environmental impacts of processes and prod-
ucts during their life cycle. The LCA is used according
to the ISO 14040 standards,⁶ which provide a frame-
work, terminology, and methodological phases of the
assessment: (1) goal and scope definition (including the
system boundaries and functional unit [FU] definition),
(2) creating the life cycle inventory (LCI), (3) assessing
the environmental impact (LCIA) and (4) interpreting
the results. Besides these four mandatory steps, normali-
zation, grouping, weighting, and additional LCIA data
quality analysis are optional steps within the LCIA
phase. Social and economic assessments should be per-
formed within the same framework and for that pur-
poses social LCA and economic LCA (Life Cycle

Costing) were developed. Currently, LCA standards
related to the built environment are EN 15804
(product),⁷ EN 15978 (buildings)⁸ and EN 17472 (civil
engineering works),⁹ whereas standards related to the
Built Social and Economic assessment are, respectively,
EN 16309-A1¹⁰ and EN 16627¹¹ concerning buildings.
EN 17472⁹ for civil engineering works includes social,
economic, and environmental aspects. Compared with
environmental LCA, economic and especially social
LCA were rarely applied in the sustainability assessment
of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) structures in the
previous research—these methodologies are less system-
atized currently. Finally, there is a big step between the
assessment and standardized design of any kind of con-
crete structure.

The objective of this work is to provide the critical
review of the existing LCA methodologies and those
applied in standards; to explain the limitations and their
consequences; to recommend certain methodological
choices depending on the goal of the LCA study; and to
point out the directions of the future research in the area
of sustainability assessment and design of RAC and struc-
tures made of RAC.

2 | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

To correctly interpret the results of a LCA applied to
RAC structures, it is important to understand the calcula-
tion assumptions and the resulting uncertainties for each
phase of the method. Thus, first, the most important
methodological issues regarding the application of LCA
in the assessment of RAC structures are discussed. Then,
basic environmental impacts suitable for RAC concrete/
structures are presented.

## 2.1 | System boundaries and LCI data modeling

A basic methodological issue in applying LCA for RAC
structures is modeling the concrete waste recycling. The
choice of system boundaries and LCI data modeling
depend on the way concrete recycling is modeled, which
is directly related to the type of LCA that is
performed.12–17 Generally, two types of LCA are distin-
guished: attributional (ALCA) and consequential
(CLCA). In assessments using an attributional approach,
the purpose is to estimate the impacts of a product system
within cradle-to-grave boundaries, at a given point of
time assuming a *status-quo situation*. A consequential
approach on the other hand is intended to estimate the
environmental burdens that occur, directly or indirectly, as a consequence of a certain decision. In that case results represent the net environmental impacts of the change caused by this decision—change in demand. Two major differences between these two approaches are the following:

* Different system boundaries—an ALCA model does not include processes other than those of the life cycle investigated, so allocation based on either physical flows or economic value is usually applied when dealing with multifunctional processes. The CLCA model includes processes that are significantly affected irrespective of whether they are within or outside the cradle-to-grave boundaries, so system expansion is the only way for resolving multifunctional processes. In practice, instead of system expansion, a substitution or so-called avoided burdens approach method is usually applied as being mathematically equivalent at the process level.¹²

* Different data—an ALCA model should include average data on each unit process within the system's life cycle, while the CLCA model should include marginal data on all the interlinked processes/technologies that will be affected by the decision.¹⁶ Besides, changes in the production and alternative use of co-products in CLCA should be based on the analysis of how the relevant markets and price elasticity of supply and demand of each product/co-product are affected.¹⁶

It is the goal of the LCA study (assessment of the product system impact or assessment of the impact of a decision to change) that should determine whether ALCA or CLCA is used. CLCA is much more complex—marginal data on many processes and many assumptions on relevant markets, alternative products, price elasticities, and so forth are needed.

CDW concrete recycling is considered a case of open-loop recycling since the inherent material's properties are changed over the product system and the possibility of endlessly repeated recycling is questionable (not investigated yet). However, it is a multifunctional and multiproduct process: it has two functions (waste management service for the upstream product that is natural aggregate concrete—NAC structure), and material production for the downstream product (RAC structure) and two co-products (RCA and additional iron scrap recovered during the recycling process). The question of how to allocate inputs and outputs between these functions and co-products arises.

ISO 14040⁶ describes a three-step procedure with regard to allocation—partitioning of inputs and outputs between the co-products or functions. As a first step,

allocation should be avoided where possible by dividing the process into subprocesses or by expanding the system boundaries to include all the products/functions involved. As a second step, when allocation cannot be avoided, allocation must be done in a way that reflects an underlying, causal, physical relationship, usually mass allocation. The third step is about “other relationships” such as market value—economic allocation.

LCA can be performed at three levels:

* Cradle-to-gate—includes the product production phase (“factory gate,” commonly used when materials are assessed);

* Cradle-to-grave—includes all life cycle phases from raw materials extraction to disposal;

* Cradle-to-cradle—goes beyond the boundaries of the studied system including the secondary life of recovered materials.

At cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave levels both ALCA and CLCA are applicable and consequently, two approaches are used when modeling concrete recycling.

In the attributional approach, inputs, and outputs of the recycling process at both functional and co-product levels are allocated between NAC and RAC systems. The most traditional allocation procedure for reuse and recycling is not to apply allocation at all. This is a simple cut-off rule, where a product made out of primary materials carries the burdens of those primary materials, and a product made out of secondary materials carries the burdens of the recycling activities of those secondary materials.¹³ In the concrete case, this means that environmental burdens of all stages from raw material production to the disposal of non-recyclable wastes are included in the NAC system under study. The environmental burdens of recycling are excluded from the system, as they are considered burdens to the next product system-RAC,¹⁸ Figure 1. This method however has variations. For example, in France the EPD of RCA excluded impacts due to the reduction of block size which is allocated to the parent concrete with a specific EPD “treatment of deconstruction waste to produce aggregates.”¹⁹ Beside the cut-off rule, the 50:50 partition rule and economic allocation are sometimes used. If an economic allocation is used, recycling activities are allocated proportionally to the shares of waste management service and recycled material in total economic proceeds.²⁰ For example, in the case of blast furnace slag economic allocation (between steel and blast furnace slag) is often used to determine its environmental burdens; it's also the case of fly ash or silica fume. The economic proceeds are calculated based on the quantity and market price of the service or product. The main
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Allocation of recycling between natural aggregate concrete (NAC) and recycled concrete aggregates (RAC) life cycle.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Comparison between attributional and consequential modeling of recycling at cradle-to-gate level (---: cradle-to-grave).</figcaption></figure>

disadvantage of economic allocation is that it is based on market prices, which can be unstable and fluctuate in the case of recycled materials and markets. The main disadvantage of mass allocation is claiming that mass is the best (and only) representative of physical casualties.

Previous research showed that the type of allocation makes no significant differences at the scale of concrete (or RAC) when airborne emissions and energy use are considered. Marinković et al.²¹ reported the energy use and emissions increase by up to 2% when economic allocation is compared with the cut-off rule. Visintin et al.²² reported a maximum of 1.5% change in CO₂-eq emissions when varying the allocation from 0% (a cut-off rule) to 100% (all recycling burdens allocated to NAC). Gervasio et al.¹⁸ tested the cut-off rule, 50:50 partition rule, and

economic allocation with similar conclusions. Therefore, the simplest cut-off rule can be recommended when calculating energy use and impact categories based on airborne emissions. This is because the cement production (especially if it has a high clinker content) is by far the largest contributor to these impacts, while the contribution of aggregate production is rather small, and allocation cannot affect the total result for more than a few percent.

In the consequential approach, the single function system is obtained by subtraction of the alternative substituted process. At the cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave levels of assessment, the recycling process is commonly ascribed fully to the RAC life cycle (at the stage of RCA burdens), and RCA production is credited for the
processes that are displaced by recycling: waste land-
filling and pig iron production.²³,²⁴ This means that
burdens from these processes are considered avoided
burdens for the RAC system (see Figure 2). Credits
from avoided natural aggregate (NA) production are
not included since “the material-production” function
of the recycling process serves the function of the
whole system—the production of concrete/concrete
structure.

At the cradle-to-cradle level, only CLCA is applicable because ALCA includes only processes within the boundaries of the studied system. Recycling is considered a waste management option, and credits through the avoided NA production and transportation are subtracted from the natural aggregate concrete (NAC) life cycle.<sup>25–27</sup> For instance, Blegnini<sup>26</sup> compared two different end-of-life scenarios for an actual residential building in Turin (Italy): complete recycling of waste (except for a small amount of common waste which was landfilled) and complete landfilling. He performed a comprehensive LCA of the whole life cycle of this building with special attention paid to the demolition and recycling phases. For these phases, analysis was based on actual, field-measured data. Since the building was reinforced concrete framed, waste consisted mostly of concrete (83%) and steel rebars (4%). The net impacts from steel and concrete recycling were calculated as the difference between avoided impacts (avoided primary NA production and transportation) and induced impacts (recycling process and transportation). Obtained results showed that the reductions in the recycling option are quite small in comparison with the whole life cycle impacts (0.2%–2.1%). When the comparison was restricted to the pre-use phase (material production and construction phases), 19% savings of energy use and 10% savings of GWP were found for the concrete waste recycling scenario.

The cradle-to-cradle approach is supported (partly) by
EN15804⁷ and EN16757²⁸ standards related to the sus-
tainability of construction products and concrete and
concrete elements, respectively. These standards present
a mix of attributional and consequential modeling. They
use the modular structure for the environmental impact
report: module A—material production and construction
phase, module B—use phase, module C—end-of-life
(EoL) phase, and module D—benefits and loads beyond
the system boundaries for reuse, recovery and recycling
expressed as net loads and benefits. It should be noted
that module D is not included in the calculation of the
total life cycle, it is considered an optional module. Then,
it is in fact an ALCA approach, but it can become simpli-
fied CLCA if module D is included. The EoL system
boundary is set where outputs of the system have reached
the “end-of-waste” state.

Following the “polluter pays” principle CEN stan-
dards prescribe practically the 100:0 cut-off rule for allo-
cation of EoL processes⁷: all loads of secondary materials
before they reach the “end-of-waste” are attributed to the
system that produces waste, while processes after having
reached the “end-of-waste,” required to reach the func-
tional equivalence to replace the primary material, are
beyond the system boundary and declared in module
D. Applied to waste concrete recycling, this means that
crushing and stockpiling of crushed concrete is attributed
to the system under study, while direct substitution of
primary material (in road construction for instance) or
sizing into fractions, stockpiling and use as aggregate in
new concrete are reported in module D. This way of allo-
cating burdens and reporting benefits in module D leads
to promote RCA, and to penalize the stockpiling without
crushing. In comparison, NA issued from careers and
crushed have burdens due to this crushing step as
opposed to RCA (burdens due to crushing steps are
highly reduced).

Hence, when the “end-of-waste” is reached and mate-
rial is recycled, the producer of recycled material can
declare credits for avoided primary material production
in module D. For example, if reinforcement is made of
steel with 54% recycled content and after demolition 96%
of the reinforcement is recycled, the net benefit due to
avoided virgin steel production reported in module D is
96–54 = 42%.²⁹

System expansion is preferred by ISO 14040⁶ as the method of resolving multifunctional processes. However, when avoided burdens approach is applied within an ALCA framework with an assumption that the substitution of virgin with recycled material is 1:1 and without analysis of how the relevant markets and price elasticity are affected, and how the EoL processes technologies will develop in the future, the results of such analysis are questionable.²⁷ Simple subtracting the avoided burdens from the system's life cycle does not make a CLCA—in fact, avoided burdens approach should be applied only within a framework of a proper CLCA.¹⁷ For instance, in previous analyses, the assumption is made that iron scrap is fully utilized in steel-making processes and actually displaces pig iron there, and that there are no differences between them regarding quality and cost.

The same assumption is made for the replacement of
NA with RCA in cradle-to-cradle assessments, and EoL
practices of today are assumed to be valid in the distant
future. Nevertheless, it is accepted in the research com-
munity and, as already mentioned, is supported by
EN15804⁷ and EN16757²⁸ standards if module D is imple-
mented. The application of the avoided burdens approach
within the ALCA framework is partly justified when
using these standards since several criteria must be
fulfilled for reaching the “end-of-waste” state. These cri-
teria make the substitution of primary materials and fuels
with secondary ones more realistic (common application,
existence of a market or demand, fulfillment of existing
legislation and standards for secondary materials, etc.).
The attempt was made also to deal with a functional
non-equivalence of secondary and substituted primary
material, although the provision is rather vague. It says
that when the output flow does not reach the functional
equivalence of the substituting process, “a justified value-
correction factor” should be applied to reflect the differ-
ence in functional equivalence.

At the same time, ALCA fails to encompass the bene-
fits of natural mineral resource preservation and waste
reduction brought by waste concrete recycling. This can
be taken into account through appropriate impact catego-
ries with corresponding indicators (for instance, landfill
capacity depletion and mineral resources depletion).
Unfortunately, most of the proposed methodologies do
not include solid waste production/landfill capacity as an
impact category or consider sand and stone as abiotic
resources that can be depleted. Therefore, it seems rea-
sonable to aim the research towards the development of
special indicators for natural bulk resources depletion⁵
and landfill space depletion.

The previous version of EN 15804, from 2013, fails to
properly include those indicators. Particularly the indica-
tor of resource depletion is not representative of the terri-
torial context. It is a global indicator even though the
resources of natural aggregates are not the same all
around the globe. Moreover, depletion of aggregate
should be evaluated by silicon inventory (element instead
of mineral), well this resource is considered with very lit-
tle depletion. As a result, no significant difference is
observed between inventories of RCA and NA when
using the indicators recommended in the previous stan-
dard EN 15804.³⁰ The land consumption due to waste
storage was also not recognized as impact indicator. The
most recent version (2020) of this standard⁷ includes a
new indicator “land use/soil quality” but there is no
improvement regarding the mineral depletion—standard
“abiotic depletion—minerals and metals” impact cate-
gory is calculated from elements inventory and expressed
in antimony (Sb) equivalents.

## 2.2 | Functional unit

If made with the same water-to-cement ratio without
admixture, RAC has lower compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity, larger creep and shrinkage, and
lower carbonation resistance compared with NAC.<sup>31–34</sup>
To perform the comparative assessment in such a

situation, two solutions are possible. First one is to keep
FU equal to unit volume but to adapt mix designs to
obtain the same mechanical and durability-related prop-
erties if possible, for example by the use of admixture.
Second solution is to correct the unit-volume FU to
account for different properties. Both approaches were
used in previous research but in both cases, it is the mate-
rial properties that determine the FU. Such FU based
only on the material properties can be used for generic
comparisons in order to evaluate the sustainability poten-
tial for material substitution. Besides, such comparative
LCAs should clearly state that the performance of a spe-
cific application of assessed materials is not taken into
account.<sup>35</sup>

Since the concrete structure is a specific product with
a known area of application, the same functional require-
ments regarding safety, serviceability, and durability
(expressed through service life) should be satisfied for all
compared alternatives in comparative LCA. Service life is
not the property of material but a function of the con-
crete structure and therefore it is hardly possible to
obtain functional equivalence with FU based only on the
concrete properties. Therefore, in comparative assess-
ments of concrete structures, FU based on a specific con-
crete structure performance should be applied.

Some standards however rely on the material proper-
ties when taking into account the service life of a struc-
ture. For example, in the case of a French regulatory
calculation, if a material has a 50 years reference service
life, its impacts will be counted twice for the LCA of
works and once for the LCA of a building. Similarly, if a
material has a 100 years reference lifetime, its impacts
will not be divided by two for a building; if a material has
a 40-year lifetime, its impacts will be counted twice for a
building³⁶; this way of calculating can be criticized.

When comparing structures made of concrete with
different properties two approaches for obtaining the
functional equivalence are possible: (1) either to correct
the FU volume to obtain same performance or (2) to nor-
malize the calculated environmental impacts with com-
pressive strength and duration of service life if FU has
the same volume. What however can lead to very differ-
ent assessment results is the fact that for the service life
prediction in the case of deterioration mechanisms which
cause the reinforcement corrosion, only the depth of the
concrete cover in reinforced concrete (RC) member mat-
ters. In previous research, the second approach was
mostly applied. For instance, in References 37 and 38, an
RC column with chosen size dimensions was applied as
FU. Silva et al.³⁹ chose a linear member with a specified
length and cross-section size as FU and performed the
service life prediction for different concrete mixes. These
assessments were based on the FU which represents the
same volume of compared RC alternatives, that is, the
same depth of concrete cover, resulting in different ser-
vice lives of compared alternatives. With this approach,
the functional equivalence regarding durability is not
achieved and for the proper comparison environmental
impacts must be calculated per year of service life or a
certain number of repairs within service life must be
included. This leads to a situation that concretes with
poor resistance to chosen deterioration mechanisms have
significantly larger environmental impacts per year of
service life (since they have much shorter service lives).

At the same time, the same service lives of compared
alternatives can be obtained with different cover depths
keeping the same structural member's strength. Since the
depth of concrete cover is usually equal to several centi-
meters, this causes small changes of volume in FU and
can cause totally different (for the order of magnitude)
environmental impacts during service life.³⁵ The service-
ability aspect should also be taken into account,
especially when analyzing structural members where
long-term deflections are detrimental in design. In Refer-
ence 40, RC slabs representing a typical floor structure of
a residential building and made either of NAC or RAC
with 100% replacement of natural coarse aggregate were
compared. Both slabs were designed to fulfill the same
functional requirements: strength, long-term deflections,
service life of 50 years (for XC3 exposure class according
to Eurocode 2), and fire resistance. In the NAC case,
required slab's height was 160 mm, while in the RAC
case it was 170 and 180 mm for RCA with water absorp-
tion equal to 4.45% and 5.73%, respectively. If 1 m² of slab
area is adopted as a basis, the FU volume for RAC was
6% and 12% higher compared with the FU of NAC,
respectively. If beams were analyzed, the increase in FU
volume would be smaller. Such a small increase in the
FU volume has a much lower influence on the environ-
mental impacts compared with the influence that differ-
ent service lives would have. Hence, care should be taken
when choosing FU in comparative LCA of concrete struc-
tures no matter which type of concrete is used—
functional equivalence of compared structures can be
obtained in more than one way. Thus, considering the
FU on the material level is not sufficient, and the FU on
the element or structural level should be considered with
a multifunctional approach.

2.3 | CO₂ uptake

It is a well-known fact that cement production is respon-
sible for large carbon dioxide emissions, on average of
850 kg of CO2 per ton of clinker.⁴¹ About 60% of this
amount is emitted from the calcination process of

limestone, and the rest comes from the burning of fossil
fuels in the clinker kiln. The calcination process is a
chemical reaction in which limestone (which mainly con-
tains calcium carbonate) is converted to calcium oxide
and carbon dioxide at high temperatures, named decar-
bonation (CaCO₃ + heat → CaO + CO₂). On the con-
trary, when exposed to air, concrete structures will over
time reabsorb CO₂ from the atmosphere through carbon-
ation. It is a chemical process reversed to calcination in
which atmospheric CO₂ diffuses into concrete to react
with hydration products (calcium hydroxide and other
calcium-rich hydrated oxides) and form calcium carbon-
ate again (Ca(OH)₂ + CO₂ → CaCO₃ + H₂O in the case
of portlandite carbonation); theoretically, the resulting
hydration products can react with the same amount of
atmospheric CO₂. Therefore, over the life cycle, chemical
CO₂ released from the calcination process will be reab-
sorbed or uptaken by the concrete structure.

CO₂ absorption by cement-based materials through
carbonation can actually be considered a natural form of
carbon capture and storage. It happens during the entire
life cycle of concrete structure from the moment when
concrete is produced, through service (primary) life, end-
of-life, and secondary life phase. The major problem is
that carbonation is a very slow process—complete reab-
sorption of chemical CO₂, which is theoretically possible,
would take decades, even centuries. Indeed, the carbon-
ation rate is limited by the progression of the carbonation
front which progressively modifies the pore network. If,
after service life, which is normally taken as 50 years for
buildings, demolished concrete waste is crushed into
RCA and then again used in new construction, the car-
bonation process will continue during the “secondary
life” of concrete.⁴² The presence of adhered mortar on
the surface of RCA enables further carbonation. The
amount of captured CO₂ in the secondary life phase
depends on the RCA application: whether it is used in
unbound applications (for sub-base and base of road
structures, embankments, and fillings, where it is com-
monly used) or as aggregate in new concrete construction
or asphalt. In the former case, there is a much larger
potential for natural CO₂ absorption during its second life
because the exposed surface area relative to the volume
of RCA is greatly increased compared with the concrete
structure itself. Between primary and secondary life there
is an intermediate phase where RCA has to be stockpiled
for a certain period of time until it is used again. In this
phase, the carbonation is very fast due to the many times
larger surface area exposed to atmospheric CO₂, as it is in
the case of secondary life unbound applications. But
unlike the secondary life, this phase has the potential of
maximizing the CO₂ absorption by proper choice of
stockpiling manner (for instance, stockpiling of different
particle sizes separately), exposure conditions (sheltered from rain), and enhancing the exposure time to the maximum which is acceptable in industrial practice.

The research in the area of CO₂ uptake started in the last decade in Nordic countries initiated by Nordic Innovation Centre. This research was devoted to CO₂ uptake modeling and calculation of reabsorbed CO₂ by mineralization in the course of the service life of building stock in Nordic countries. Andersson et al.⁴³ proposed a model for CO₂ uptake calculation during the service life of existing concrete structures. The model has been applied to data from Sweden and results showed that a CO₂ uptake in 2011 was about 17% of the total emissions (calcination and fuel) from the production of new cement for use in Sweden in the same year. Other researchers have also advocated that CO₂ uptake should be considered to offset the production emissions within the concrete structure life cycle.⁴⁴⁻⁴⁶

EN 16757:2017 in its Annex BB²⁸ and the new CEN technical report on carbonation and CO₂ uptake in concrete⁴⁷ provide some practical recommendations on the calculation methods for CEM I concrete and indicative correction factors for a selected range of other binders (cement with commonly used additions: fly ash in the range 10%-20% and 30%-40%, limestone in the range 10%-20%, and slag in the range 10%-80%). The report also provides some information on the CO₂ uptake in the EoL phase (concrete crushed into RCA), based on the published research, but no recommendation is given regarding the CO₂ uptake of RAC structures. According to these documents, the CO₂ uptake, in kg per square meter of concrete surface, during t years can be calculated as follows:

$$CO_2uptake = (k\sqrt{t}/1000) \cdot (CO_2uptake_{tcc}) \cdot C \cdot M \quad (1)$$

where $x_c = k\sqrt{t}$ is the carbonation depth (mm) and k is a carbonation rate coefficient (mm/year⁰.⁵) $CO_2uptake_{tcc} = (w\%reactiveCaO/100) \cdot \frac{m_{CO_2}}{m_{CaO}}$ is the maximum theoretical uptake of CO₂ in fully carbonated concrete (kg of CO₂/kg of binder); w% of reactive CaO, part of reactive CaO (100·kg CaO/kg binder); $m_{CO_2}$, molar weight of CO₂ = 44 g/mol; $m_{CaO}$, molar weight of CaO = 56 g/mol; C, binder content; M, degree of carbonation.

For instance, if ordinary Portland cement is the binder (CEM I), which includes at least 95% clinker and 65% of reactive CaO typically, the maximum theoretical CO₂ uptake is (65/100) × 0.95 × (44/56) = 0.49 kg CO₂/kg cement. From Equation (1) it follows that the basic parameters are the carbonation depth, the binding capacity of binder and its content, and degree of carbonation. Unlike the carbonation and CO₂ uptake of NAC, the

RAC CO₂ uptake consists of the uptake of new hardened cement paste in RAC and the uptake of old hardened cement paste in RCA. Florea and Brouwers⁴⁸ have tested the RCA produced in several different ways. For RCA obtained by one-stage crushing of laboratory concrete with a water-to-cement ratio equal to 0.5, authors reported that hydrated cement paste content ranged from 10% to 25%, depending on the RCA fraction size (from 32 to 4 mm). This means that RAC contains reactive CaO in addition to CaO available in cement, as if the mass of cement is increased for a certain percentage of the RCA mass. How much of the reactive CaO remains in the old cement paste depends on the duration of the exposure period and conditions while RCA was stockpiled before being used as aggregate in RAC. Many researchers have proven, on the basis of accelerated carbonation tests, that carbonation depth is larger for RAC than for corresponding NAC and that increase depends on the RCA amount—the more RCA in the mix, the larger the carbonation depth. A comprehensive study is given in Reference 49 and several prediction models for the RAC carbonation were proposed.³⁴,⁵⁰,⁵¹ Therefore, the RAC structure should have greater CO₂ uptake within production and service phase compared with the corresponding NAC structure. However, results reported in previous research vary significantly depending on the assumed prediction model.

Modeling of RAC and especially RCA uptake is a complex task since many parameters are involved; however, several models were developed recently. Fang et al.⁵² developed an empirical CO₂ uptake model for the carbonation of stockpiled RCA while Xiao et al.⁵³ and Huang et al.⁵⁴ developed models which include the carbonation of RAC structures during service life as well as the carbonation of the stockpiled RCA. For the same FU (1 m³ of concrete with an exposed surface area of 5.68 m²), exposure conditions (relative humidity of 76% and volume CO₂ concentration of 0.034%) and scenario (50 years of service life and 30 days of RCA stockpiling period prior to manufacturing RAC) and for similar concrete's strength, they obtained rather different results regarding the CO₂ uptake of RAC, Table 1.

Huang's model seems to be more elaborate and complete. However, this model is valid only for RCA with a diameter larger than 5 mm and the fine RCA which has the fastest carbonation rate in the stockpiling phase is not included. Nevertheless, the major part of total RAC CO₂ uptake comes from the RCA carbonation in the stockpiling phase—about 65% of total CO₂ uptake. Compared with NAC, RAC100 CO₂ uptake is 3.6 times larger. With stockpiling phase prolonged to 90 days total CO₂ uptake increases to 31 kg/m³ with about 75% belonging to RCA carbonation (five times larger compared to NAC) according to authors of Reference 54.
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Results of the CO₂ uptake model by Huang et al.⁵⁵ and Xiao et al.⁵⁴</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">CO₂ emissions per m³ of concrete (kg)</th><th rowspan="2">CO₂ uptake per m³ of concrete (kg)</th><th rowspan="2">[(2)/(1)] · 100(%)</th></tr><tr><th>Concrete type</th><th>(1) Cement production</th><th>(2) Service life + stockpiling</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Huang et al.⁵⁴</td><td>NAC</td><td>269</td><td></td><td>-6.2 (no stockpiling)</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>RAC100<sup>a</sup></td><td>290</td><td></td><td>-(8 + 14.4)</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Xiao et al.⁵³</td><td>NAC</td><td>242</td><td></td><td>-5 (no stockpiling)</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>RAC100</td><td>261</td><td></td><td>-(23.4 + 52.2)</td><td>29.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

A different approach was applied in Wijayasundara et al. work.⁵⁵ The CO₂ uptake in the production phase was calculated on the basis of experimental results of Dayaram⁵⁶ which were extrapolated to industrial conditions (assumed RAC production period from 9 to 16 days, assumed composition of concrete waste, and participation of different RCA fractions, exposure conditions, cement type, etc.). The authors obtained 4.9 and 16.4 kg of uptaken CO₂ per m³ of RAC for 30% and 100% replacement rates, respectively. The CO₂ uptake over the service life of 50 years was calculated for two case study concrete house buildings and reported as incremental values compared to CO₂ uptake obtained for those buildings if they were made of NAC. The authors used the model recommended by CEN/TR 17310:2019 with increased cement content in RAC based on the residual cement mortar in RCA, which was assumed to be 25%. The incremental CO₂ uptake in those two case studies were 6.8 and 22.8 kg/m³ of RAC for 30% and 100% replacement rates, respectively. Prediction models for the RCA uptake are based (among other simplifications) on the assumption that all RCA in the stockpiling phase is equally exposed to CO₂, which in reality does not have to be the case. Since aggregates are usually stored in piles it is possible, especially if different fractions are mixed, that airflow through the pile is prevented and that only outer layers carbonate. While prediction models for NAC and RAC CO₂ uptake can be tested in the laboratory (accelerated carbonation in combination with thermogravimetric analysis and mass spectrometry analysis for instance), prediction models for RCA CO₂ uptake should be tested in large-scale field conditions which are lacking. Very limited field measurements do not support high values of RCA uptake in the stockpiling period obtained with the described prediction models. Kikuchi and Kuroda⁴⁶ performed measurements of CO₂ uptake of RCA that was obtained from several recycling plants in Japan. Usually different fractions are mixed together within piles and fully exposed to the atmosphere for a period between 1 and 3 months. They reported a CO₂ uptake of 11 kg/tonne of RCA, corresponding to about 26 kg CO₂/m³ of demolished concrete. Having in mind that RAC100 usually contains about 1000 kg of RCA, the closest

to this measured value are the Huang et al. predictions.⁵⁴ Andersson et al.⁴³ recommended that, if an improved procedure with air access in the fractions and at least 4 months of storage in at least three fractions is applied, CO₂ uptake of RCA could be set to 20 kg CO₂/m³ of demolished concrete.

To go further in CO₂ capture and its environmental assessment, accelerated carbonation of RCA was studied. It is a process based on the mineralization of industrial gas, especially CO₂ within portlandite and calcium silicate hydrates of RCA cement paste. In laboratory or industrial conditions, gas is in contact with RCA and the carbonation reaction, by the capture of CO₂, leads to obtaining carbonated recycled concrete aggregates (CRCA) with improved qualities (clogging the porosity).⁵⁷⁻⁵⁹ A French National Project (FastCarb), aimed to transpose the accelerated carbonation at an industrial scale at a suitable economic and environmental cost.⁶⁰ In addition to capturing CO₂, by improving the mechanical properties of recycled aggregates, which are weaker than those of natural aggregates and potentially require the use of more cement in concrete, the environmental impact of concrete could be reduced.

An environmental assessment applied in two industrial demonstrators was performed to validate the relevance of the project and to identify the critical points in order to minimize the impacts. Due to the quantity of cement paste of RCA, the amount of CO₂ captured is much more significant for sand (31–39 kgCO₂/t for 0–4 mm) than for gravel (16 kgCO₂/t for 4–16 mm).⁶¹ The impact of accelerated carbonation on the environmental assessment of RAC was carried out by comparing the environmental impacts of concretes formulated with the same cement content (320 kg/m³) and water-to-cement ratio (0.55 in terms of efficient water) and containing varying amounts of natural, recycled and recycled carbonated aggregates. Considering global warming impact, the lowest emissions are observed for the NAC due to its small quantity of admixture. However, if the CO₂ captured by RCA is deducted, the lowest emission is obtained for CRAC (Carbonated RAC) composed of 40% CRCA sand and 100% CRCA gravel. On other

<footnote>ªConcrete with 100% replacement of coarse NA with coarse RCA.</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Impact categories according to Eco-indicator 99 and CML.</caption><thead><tr><th>Eco-indicator 99 (damage-oriented)</th><th>Sub-categories</th><th>CML (baseline) (problem-oriented)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Impact category</td><td>Sub-categories</td><td>Impact category</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Damage to human health</td><td>Caused by carcinogenic substances</td><td>Depletion of abiotic resources<br>Impacts of land use</td></tr><tr><td>Caused by respiratory effects</td><td>Climate change</td></tr><tr><td>Caused by climate change</td><td>Stratospheric ozone depletion</td></tr><tr><td>Caused by ionizing radiation</td><td>Human toxicity</td></tr><tr><td>Caused by ozone layer depletion</td><td>Ecotoxicity</td></tr><tr><td>Caused by ecotoxic substances</td><td>Photo-oxidant formation</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Damage to ecosystem quality</td><td>Caused by acidification and eutrophication by airborne emissions</td><td>Acidification<br>Eutrophication</td></tr><tr><td>Caused by land use</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Caused by the depletion of minerals and fossil fuels</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

environmental aspects, RAC (carbonated or not) are more damaging than NAC due to the use of additives in higher quantities, the recycling and accelerated carbonation installations and the longer transport distances in the studied case. To further improve the environmental impact CRCA is to increase the CRCA sand rate, which is only 40% in this case. In order to reduce transport distances, the case of prefabrication should be studied.

## 2.4 | Impact assessment

Based on the inventory of input and output flows conducted under the defined conditions, the emissions, and consumptions are aggregated and assembled to assess the environmental impact indicators. Characterization factors are defined for each emission or consumption and thus weigh the flows within each impact indicator.

Generally, there are two different types of impact assessment methods. The first one is called the damage-oriented approach where the category indicator is chosen

at the endpoint of the environmental mechanism (also the top-down approach or “endpoints”) and the second one is called the problem-oriented approach where the category indicator is chosen at an intermediate level somewhere along the mechanism—at midpoint (also the bottom-up approach or “midpoints”). The most representative examples of damage-oriented and problem-oriented are Eco-indicator 99 methodology, developed at Pré Consultants B.V., the Netherlands,⁶² and CML methodology, developed at The Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) of the Faculty of Science, Leiden University in the Netherlands,⁶³ respectively, Table 2.

Impact categories defined at the endpoint of the environmental mechanism which express, for instance, the damage to human health, ecosystem quality and resources, are much easier to comprehend than the rather abstract definitions of midpoints such as infrared radiation, UV-B radiation or proton release. However, the problem with this approach is that it is not easy to establish a clear relationship between the LCI results and damage categories. Besides in the “endpoints” approach, it is not possible to avoid normalization, grouping and weighting. Weighting is not a scientifically based operation, but it relies upon the opinion and attitude of experts towards different environmental effects. On the other hand, the relationship between midpoint category indicators and LCI results is easily established through appropriate, scientifically based, characterization models. That is why the “midpoints” approach is often used to quantify the results in the early stage of the cause-effect chain to limit the uncertainties.⁶⁴

Other methodologies for impact assessment are available like TRACI (US Environmental Protection Agency's National Risk Management Research Laboratory), ReCiPe (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Radboud University Nijmegen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Pré Sustainability), EDIP (Institute for Product Development at the Technical University of Denmark), IMPACT 2002+ (EPFL Laussane), and so forth. Some of them use the midpoint approach (TRACI, EDIP), while some combine both approaches (ReCiPe, IMPACT 2002+). Dreyer et al.⁶⁵ compared EDIP97 and CML2001 methodologies and found differences of up to two orders of magnitude for the impact categories describing toxicity to humans and ecosystems due to different characterization models. For the other impact categories, the two methods showed only minor differences.

If the use phase is excluded, the most significant emissions in the course of a concrete structure's life cycle originate from cement production and transport of constituent materials and concrete: GHG (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen dioxide), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxide and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC). Relevant impact categories related to these emissions are climate change (GWP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), and photochemical-oxidant creation (POCP).⁶⁶ Besides them, energy consumption and especially fossil fuel consumption are of interest when assessing concrete structures. Similarly, EN 15804 (problem-oriented approach) prescribes that environmental product declarations (EPD) for construction products shall contain information on abiotic depletion for nonfossil and fossil resources, total climate change declined in fossil fuel, biogenic, land use, and land use change (global warming), acidification, eutrophication declined in aquatic freshwater, aquatic marine, land, photochemical-oxidant creation, ozone depletion, and water need. Besides, EN 15804 assesses additional Environmental Impact Indicators (fine particle emissions, ionizing radiation, ecotoxicity, and human toxicity) and requires additional information on resource use, types and amounts of waste as well as amounts of reused and recycled components and materials.

## 2.5 | Uncertainties in LCA and how to deal with them

LCA is an inherently uncertain methodology due to many reasons. According to Huijbregts,⁶⁷ three types of uncertainty can be distinguished within LCA. The first one is parameter uncertainty caused by the imprecise, incomplete, outdated, or missing values of LCI data. The non-representative territorial scope between countries of European data enhances this uncertainty, especially concerning cement, aggregate, and concrete recycling processes. The second is model uncertainty, for instance, the adoption of linear models instead of nonlinear ones for environmental phenomena modeling. The third is scenario uncertainty due to choices such as, for instance, the choice of system boundaries (which upstream and downstream flows are included), methodological choices (attributional or consequential modeling), choice of FU, allocation approaches, assessment method (damage-oriented or problem-oriented) how to assess future technology trends, etc.

Uncertainty analysis is usually performed using Monte Carlo simulation which requires particular probability distributions of parameter values. It is a probabilistic model parameter uncertainty analysis where a predefined number of combinations (typically 10,000) of random parameters is used to calculate the results. However, the problem is how to estimate the probability distribution of involved parameters. The LCI data uncertainty, for instance, can be dealt with using a simplified approach which includes a qualitative assessment of data quality

indicators based on a pedigree matrix.⁶⁸ Then, uncertainty factors are attributed to each of the quality indicators depending on their scores (from 1 to 5) and the square of geometric standard deviation can be calculated for the assumed probability function for each elementary flow. Such a procedure is applied for instance in the Ecoinvent database where uncertainty factors based on expert judgments are used.⁶⁹ The uncertainty estimations on the level of a unit process are then obtained using Monte Carlo simulation. However, it is stated in this Ecoinvent report⁶⁹ that “the deterministic results are regarded as more reliable than the probabilistic mean values because they are often based on roughly estimated distribution parameters,” which have to be used for probability distribution definition and Monte Carlo simulations. Besides, there can be situations when the probabilistic approach does not help to rank, although it provides a “measure” of uncertainty (or degree of reliability). If the mean values are similar, a clear ranking between the alternatives can be identified if we consider them only. If the standard deviation in the form of 95% confidence intervals is taken into consideration as well, the ranking may become ambiguous due to the overlapping of these intervals.¹⁸

There are two uncertainty aspects specific to concrete structures assessment. The first one is connected to the ignorance of future operation and maintenance of the construction within its service life, future waste treatment technologies in the EoL phase, future utilization of recovered materials etc. Due to the very long life of concrete structures, we have to make certain assumptions which cannot be taken for granted since the distant future cannot be known (especially concerning second-generation RAC, concrete cannot be recycled ad infinitum). In a cradle-to-cradle type of analysis we “borrow” an environmental loan from future generations—the risk of accepting an environmental credit from future generations is taken deliberately.⁷⁰ Furthermore, the quantification of this credit in the case of long-lived constructions can be the source of large uncertainties. Sandin et al.²⁷ showed that assumptions in the EoL phase can significantly influence impact results which may hamper sound decisions regarding the sustainable future; particularly assumptions regarding ways of disposal, the expected technology development of disposal processes and any substituted technology and the choice between attributional and consequential approach. This uncertainty due to ignorance cannot be measured, it needs to be supposed.

The second one is introduced by the variability of constituents' content in the mix design of concrete. Mix-ture proportions, that is, amounts of component materials are essential for the impact assessment. This is especially important for the cement amount (clinker content) because it practically determines the main
environmental impacts of concrete. The cement amount in the mix design is influenced not only by the strength but also by the workability requirement. For different target workability, the same compressive strength can be obtained with (very) different cement content, depending also on the amount of water-reducing admixture. The analysis performed in Reference 35 showed that compressive strength dependence on the concrete mix design introduced similar, maybe even larger uncertainty than that brought by the LCI environmental data uncertainty if Monte Carlo simulation is performed (for instance see Reference 71). This uncertainty due to variability could be sometime estimated by analysis of RCA or historical investigations.

Uncertainty analysis was rarely performed in concrete LCA studies but an increasing trend is observed in recent years. For instance, Mostert et al.⁷² chose to perform the uncertainty analysis regarding the variability of the concrete constituents' content, energy consumption in the EoL phase, and transport distances. They found in their specific case study that CoV of the aggregated LCA results for raw material consumption, water use, cumulative energy demand, and GWP ranged between 1.8% and 8.8%, respectively, with higher uncertainty belonging to RAC compared to NAC structure. Hafez et al.⁷³ established several important sources of uncertainty in concrete LCA: upstream data regarding raw materials depending on the source used, the selected characterization factors in the midpoint approach, service life prediction, the energy use in forecasted technologies for maintenance, demolition, and EoL, CO₂ uptake model. They recommended quantifying the uncertainties by performing scenario analysis on each of the mentioned sources and then running a Monte Carlo simulation repeatedly to aggregate the uncertainty in the final LCA outcome (result).

Unlike uncertainty, which is the consequence of the lack of knowledge about the true value of a quantity, sensitivity is the influence that one parameter has on the value of another parameter. In previously published research sensitivity analysis on the main influencing parameters/choices were often performed. Impact assessment is performed for chosen parameters varied within “realistic” limits and the interval of impact result is obtained instead of one value. It should be kept in mind that the function of the structure must not be affected by these variations, otherwise a sensitivity analysis has no sense. The results of any sensitivity analysis, as well as the results of any LCA, depend strongly on the specific assumed scenarios and usually cannot be generalized.

The most influential parameters in RAC assessment are the cement (clinker) content which in RAC specifically is reflected through the amount and quality of RCA;

transportation distances and types; and modeling approach—ALCA or CLCA.

Transport distances considered in the study context must be determined to be truly representative of the territory. If a long delivery distance for NA contrary to RCA is considered, many environmental impacts (energy use, global warming, eutrophication, acidification, photochemical oxidant) are dependent on the transport conditions (type and distances).²¹ On the contrary, in some territorial cases where the transport distances for the RCA and NA remain low (under 40 km), even when RCA transport distances are longer than the ones for NA, the influence of transport distance and transport route are negligible or remains moderate.³⁰ In those cases, transport distance is not a major factor for environmental effects. Such territorial cases can occur when a ready-mix concrete plant is located in the proximity of natural alluvial aggregate quarry along river. Thus, territorial representativeness is a major factor to be determined.

Sensitivity analysis was most commonly used for testing the effect of transportation distances and types, specifically for the determination of the limit RCA transport distance above which the RAC scenario has no benefit over the NAC scenario. In this case, the results depend mainly on the replacement percentage of NA with RCA, modeling approach, and assumed NA transportation distance. For instance, Marinković et al.⁷⁴ obtained the RCA limit distance of 20 km (100% replacement of coarse NA with coarse RCA, ALCA, NA transport distance up to 150 km), whereas Turk et al.²⁴ calculated this limit distance to be 100 km (about 30% replacement percentage, CLCA with avoided burdens approach, NA transport distance 1 km).

As for the RCA amount, its impact on the environmental results depends on the cement content increase required to maintain the concrete performance similar to referent NAC. Braymand et al.³⁰ showed that the use of RCA in RAC increased environmental impacts at different levels when the increasing of RCA (0%, 30%, 100%) replacement was accompanied by higher cement content; when the RAC was formulated at same component content, the positive effects of RCA amount remain small (effect of 10% max for 100% replacement).

Colangelo et al.⁷⁵ concluded that the effect of the RCA amount (25%, 50%, and 100%) is small, but only RAC with 25% of RCA had lower impacts compared with a reference NAC. Mostert et al.⁷² compared RAC with 43% and 100% replacement and obtained the lowest GWP for RAC with 100% RCA due to very small cement content increase compared to referent NAC (below 3%). The concretes compared in this work were designed for low aggressive environment leading to low durability requirements and therefore the effect of the RCA amount on the
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Impact categories per kilogram of aggregate.<sup>19,76–78</sup></caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>NA (kg)<sup>76</sup></th><th>RCA (kg)<sup>77</sup></th><th>Crushed NA (kg)<sup>19</sup></th><th>Rolled NA (kg)<sup>19</sup></th><th>RCA (kg)<sup>19</sup></th><th>NA (kg)<sup>78</sup></th><th>Dry RCA (kg)<sup>78</sup></th><th>Wet RCA (kg)<sup>78</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total non-renewable energy (MJ)</td><td>5.18E-02</td><td>6.49E-02</td><td>7.14E-02</td><td>7.73E-02</td><td>3.19E-02</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Global warming potential GWP (kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq.)</td><td>4.44E-03</td><td>4.73E-03</td><td>2.60E-03</td><td>2.75E-03</td><td>1.50E-03</td><td>1.43E-02</td><td>2.94E-02</td><td>3.81E-02</td></tr><tr><td>Acidification potential AP (kg SO<sub>2</sub>-eq.)</td><td>2.93E-05</td><td>3.09E-05</td><td>1.47E-05</td><td>1.58E-05</td><td>9.60E-06</td><td>1.98-05</td><td>2.93E-05</td><td>4.13E-05</td></tr><tr><td>Eutrophication potential EP (kg PO<sub>4</sub><sup>3-</sup>-eq.)</td><td>4.50E-06</td><td>5.65E-06</td><td>3.08E-06</td><td>5.71E-06</td><td>2.08E-06</td><td>3.67E-06</td><td>5.44E-06</td><td>6.33E-06</td></tr><tr><td>Photochemical ozone creation potential POCP (kg ethene-eq.)</td><td>2.06E-06</td><td>3.65E-06</td><td>7.05E-07</td><td>7.87E-07</td><td>5.04E-07</td><td>1.41E-05</td><td>1.25E-05</td><td>1.53E-05</td></tr></tbody></table>

cement content was small. Even in this scenario favorable for RAC, the GWP of RAC with 100% of coarse RCA was only 4% lower compared with referent NAC. It can be seen from last two examples (both cradle-to-gate ALCA with 100% allocation to RAC system) how conclusions depend on the assumed scenario. The quality of RCA also affects the environmental impacts since the RCA of lower quality requires a higher cement content increase; however, no such sensitivity analysis was found in the literature. The choice of modeling approach is perhaps the most important parameter. Within the ALCA framework, RCA with 100% replacement of coarse NA has a chance to show slightly lower impacts compared with a reference NAC if the cement content increase is below 5% and RCA transport distances are kept low. On the other hand, within avoided burdens approach framework chances are much higher. Knoeri et al.<sup>23</sup> showed that RAC environmental impacts were reduced to about 70% of the NAC impacts using the Ecoindicator 99 method. Turk et al.<sup>24</sup> obtained that AP, EP, and ADP of fossil fuels were reduced to 88% of the corresponding NAC impacts, while GWP was reduced to only 96% although avoided burdens approach was applied.

## 2.6 | Comparative assessment of RCA and NA

The results of the environmental assessment of RCA depend on the assumptions concerning system boundaries, that is, on the approach to LCI data modeling. As these hypotheses may differ from one study to another and depend on the territorial context, as discussed in the previous sections, it is difficult to present universally applicable conclusions on the LCA results of RCA and consequently on the comparisons between NA and RCA.

Moreover, not many studies focused on the LCA of aggregates alone, as they are rarely used alone. Literature mainly focuses on the use of aggregates (natural or recycled) in their application (concrete, road structures, ...). Therefore, assessment results are application-dependent, usually assuming transport and manufacturing scenarios depending on the type of usage of the aggregates. It is usual to take directly EPDs of aggregates (especially natural) using reference databases or manufacturers' EPDs for LCA studies on NAC and RAC.

Table 3 shows impact category indicators per kg of aggregate taken from Ecoinvent V2.0 database,<sup>76</sup> French Manufacturer database,<sup>19</sup> Josa et al. data used in a concrete LCA study,<sup>77</sup> and Won-Jun et al. data assessed in a specific Korean study.<sup>78</sup> In the case of the French EPD of RCA,<sup>19</sup> impacts due to the reduction of block size is excluded and allocated to the parent concrete, which leads to decreased impacts. Won-Jun et al.<sup>78</sup> assessed the influence of process production (dry/wet) of RCA on environmental impacts in comparison to production of NA using the ISO 14044 standard in the Korean context. The environmental impact of the wet process (RCA) was found to be up to 16% ~ 40% higher compared with the dry process due to the energy used by impact crushers while producing wet RCA. The environmental impact of RCA was found to be up to twice as high as that of NA, largely due to assumed lower energy process used for the production of Korean natural aggregate issued from rivers. Dias et al. collected data (per kg of aggregate) from Portuguese companies indicate value ranges from 8.72E-04 to 2.45E-03 for GWP, and 9.98E-03 to 3.86E-02 for non-renewable energy concerning RCA, and 2.86E-02 for GWP and 4.01E-01 for non-renewable energy concerning NA.<sup>79</sup>

These results in terms of variability confirm the difficulty of comparing the assessment of NA and RCA independently of the territorial context, production processes, and LCA calculation assumptions.
## 2.7 | Results of the research on the environmental assessment of RAC and RAC structures and recommendations

The published research is relatively large in the last decade and it is mostly dedicated to the comparative environmental assessment of NAC and RAC. Several review articles on LCA of recycled aggregate concrete were published recently.⁷³,⁸⁰⁻⁸² The authors dealt with basic methodological issues and the way these issues were resolved in the published research in this area. Based on the reviews performed by mentioned authors some conclusions can be drawn:

* cradle-to-gate analysis was often applied: 75%–87% of all studies, while only 13%–23% and 2–4% was cradle-to-grave and cradle-to-cradle analysis, respectively⁷³,⁸¹,⁸²;

* FU based on unit volume was most frequently used: in 65%–74% of all studies; FU normalized with strength in 14%–25% and FU normalized with strength and service life in 10%–12% of analyzed studies⁷³,⁸¹;

* most of the studies applied an ALCA approach with some type of allocation considering recycling; if avoided burdens approach is used, it is applied within an ALCA framework;

* most of the published research relies on the midpoints method. Hafez et al.⁷³ for instance in their review study found that out of 107 papers only 6 used the endpoints approach. Hossein et al.⁸² found that 84.4% of studies used midpoints, 6.2% endpoints and 9.4% both methods;

* CO₂ uptake during the use phase was rarely taken into account and in very different amounts: only seven out of the 107 references according to Reference 73 included the sequestered carbon in the LCA study;

* uncertainty analysis was also rarely applied: according to Hossein et al.⁸² in only 2 out of 32 analyzed studies analysis regarding the inventory data uncertainty was performed; sensitivity analysis on the other hand is more common, especially regarding transportation distances (in 8 out of 32 studies in Reference 82).

On the methodological level, the results of the assessment mostly depend on FU and on the system boundaries—whether an attributional or consequential approach to inventory data modeling is chosen and whether the secondary life of concrete is included or not. On the material level, results significantly depend on mix proportions including replacement percentages of NA with RCA. Finally, LCI data and transportation data are geographically dependent. Review papers tried to recommend the “proper” way of performing the LCA in order to obtain more reliable results and decrease discrepancies. Generally, FU based on volume (for concrete),

strength, and durability is recommended as well as the cradle-to-cradle type of analysis (read avoided burdens approach within ALCA framework including secondary life of recovered aggregate) and CO₂ uptake inclusion. Uncertainty analysis or sensitivity analysis in combination with uncertainty analysis is also advised.

At the structural level, these recommendations can however be discussed due to the reasons explained above. FU based only on material properties, even if it includes strength and service life, is not recommended in the assessment of structures. When comparing different structures, the best choice for FU is the whole structure. Cradle-to-grave and cradle-to-cradle analysis bring large uncertainties regarding the distant future operation, maintenance and waste treatment technologies, recovered materials utilization, as well as energy carriers and electricity mixes. Several fundamentally different scenarios are needed when modeling future EoL processes, especially if a consequential approach with avoided burdens is applied (having in mind that this approach within the ALCA framework is not justified methodologically and that results are questionable). CO₂ uptake during service life and eventually during stockpiling and secondary life should be taken into account only based on a proper prediction model. Finally, uncertainty analysis should include uncertainties due to different concrete mix design methodologies since they can have a larger impact on the LCA results than for instance, LCI data or scenario uncertainties.

Despite the discrepancies found in LCA studies dealing with the environmental assessment of concrete and concrete structures, the following conclusions are generally valid:

* the contribution of various phases to total life cycle impacts depends on the type of construction. For buildings, life cycle impacts are often dominated by energy consumption during the use phase: it is estimated that the use phase in conventional buildings represents ~80% to 94% (for a common house, not a passive house) of the life cycle energy use, while 6% to 20% is consumed in materials extraction, transportation and production, and less than 1% is consumed in EoL phase.⁸³ Blegnini²⁶ found that, when taking into account other environmental impacts (GWP, AP, EP, POCP), the contribution of the use phase was 93%. With the growing interest toward the development of energy-efficient buildings, the other life cycle phases are becoming more significant. Here, the material production and EoL phases are of special interest, since they are energy, resources, and waste intensive. For other types of construction works such as bridges or dams, the contribution of material production,
<table><caption>TABLE 4 Energy use and impact categories per m³ of middle-strength concrete (assumed mix proportions given in table).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="2">CEM I</th><th colspan="2">Coarse aggregate (crushed) for equivalent volume</th><th rowspan="2">Fine aggregate (river)</th><th rowspan="2">Plasticizer</th><th rowspan="2">Concrete</th><th rowspan="2">Reinforcement</th></tr><tr><th>350 kg</th><th>CEM II</th><th>NA (1100 kg)</th><th>RCA (925 kg)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>350 kg</th><th></th><th></th><th>800 kg</th><th>3.50 kg<sup>a</sup></th><th>m<sup>3</sup></th><th>75 kg<sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total non-renewable energy (MJ)</td><td>1295.0</td><td>1064.0</td><td>56.98</td><td>60.03</td><td>21.52</td><td>109.9</td><td>38.4</td><td>1005.0</td></tr><tr><td>Global warming potential GWP (kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq.)</td><td>314.3</td><td>258.3</td><td>4.884</td><td>4.38</td><td>1.752</td><td>6.58</td><td>3.15</td><td>92.25</td></tr><tr><td>Acidification potential AP (kg SO<sub>2</sub>-eq.)</td><td>0.518</td><td>0.424</td><td>0.0322</td><td>0.0286</td><td>0.0139</td><td>0.0102</td><td>0.0242</td><td>0.6322</td></tr><tr><td>Eutrophication potential EP (kg PO<sub>4</sub><sup>3-</sup>-eq.)</td><td>0.0739</td><td>0.0609</td><td>0.0050</td><td>0.0052</td><td>0.0023</td><td>0.0036</td><td>0.0040</td><td>0.0314</td></tr><tr><td>Photochemical ozone creation potential POCP (kg ethene-eq.)</td><td>0.0497</td><td>0.0410</td><td>0.0023</td><td>0.0034</td><td>0.0013</td><td>0.0011</td><td>0.0022</td><td>0.0430</td></tr></tbody></table>

construction, and EoL phases is more significant, and usually, the impacts from these phases exceed the impacts from the use phase.

* cement (clinker) is by far the largest contributor to all impact categories if the use phase (operation energy) is excluded. Table 4 shows non-renewable energy use and impact categories per m³ of typical medium-range strength NAC and RAC including reinforcement (for RAC it was assumed that coarse NA is replaced with coarse RCA at equivalent volume). Impact category indicators per kg of concrete constituent materials were taken from European manufacturers' EPDs for cement, plasticizer, and reinforcement<sup>84-87</sup> or calculated using the Ecoinvent V2.0 database for aggregate and concrete production.<sup>76</sup> RCA data was taken from Josa et al.<sup>77</sup> It is evident that the contribution of other phases in the concrete production process is for an order of magnitude (and even more) smaller compared to the cement production contribution. Only comparable to it is the reinforcement production but with exception of GWP which is smaller in the reinforcement case. Transportation of constituent materials to the concrete plant was not taken into account since it largely depends on assumed distances (according to the territorial network) and types. Its contribution however should not be neglected in LCA studies because it is usually larger than aggregate and concrete production contribution.

* CLCA (understood as avoided burdens approach) applied within the ALCA framework is usually beneficial for RAC. The main reasons for improvements in the environmental behavior are avoided burdens: avoided waste landfilling and avoided iron production if iron scrap as a co-product of recycling is recovered. In attributional LCA studies where allocation is used

instead avoided burdens approach, results are not so beneficial for RAC. With this approach, at best, for low cement increase in RAC, impacts of RAC and the corresponding NAC are similar, depending on the replacement ratio, mix design, and transport distances. Visintin et al. in their large-scale study<sup>22</sup> concluded that the use of RAC should be limited to concrete strength of 45 MPa or less. According to the authors, in that case, it is possible to produce RAC with the same strength and durability as NAC without any additional emissions via the optimization of mix design. Specially, according to Jiménez et al.<sup>88</sup> with the help of a method called “equivalent mortar volume method,” when a mix proportioning of concrete with a lower cement content is obtained (thanks to admixture) used in RAC design, the RAC impacts are lower compared with those of the corresponding NAC, even with an attributional approach.

* If the replacement percentage of coarse NA with coarse RCA is up to 25%, this will not affect the basic properties of concrete (strength, workability) and functional performance of concrete structure but it will bring benefits through NA preservation and waste reduction. According to the Annual Review of the European Aggregates Association,<sup>89</sup> about 630 million tons of aggregates for the ready-mixed concrete industry were produced in 2016 in 28 European countries (EU-28). In the same year, about 350 million tons of mineral waste from CDW were generated in EU-28 countries.<sup>90</sup> Assuming that concrete waste makes up at least 40% of that amount,<sup>1,91</sup> ~140 million tons of demolished concrete were generated in that year. Therefore, available sources for RCA are enough to replace about 20% of NA

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Plasticizer mass—1% of cement mass (wt/wt).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Reinforcement mass—3% of concrete mass (wt/wt).</footnote>
in ready-mixed concrete and to reduce the amount of landfilled concrete waste by 40%. This means that all of the demolished concrete waste can be used as a source of quality RCA for structural concrete application, without jeopardizing concrete structures' performance or the aggregate industry. The future availability of RCA depends on the ratio of CDW generation and concrete production increase rate.

* When admixtures are used to reach the same mechanical and durability-related properties without increasing cement content, several impacts (GWP, AP, ADP, POCP, EP, ODP) became smaller than those of referent NAC, but the eutrophication potential (EP) increased slightly.⁹²

* Using RCA as a carbon sink instead of aggregate in new concrete can significantly increase the CO₂ uptake during secondary life. Visintin et al.²² have calculated that if concrete waste is crushed to the size of aggregate and buried for another 100 years (for instance if it is used for road base or geotechnical fill), the maximum theoretical limit of CO₂ absorption can be reached: 40%-55% of the emissions associated with manufacture. Using crushed concrete waste as aggregate in new concrete reduced this offset to only 31%.

## 3 | SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

While the assessment of RAC structures in environmental terms has long and extensively been examined in the literature, the analysis of the socioeconomic impacts related to their different lifecycle stages is still in its infancy.

LCA can also be used for the sake of social and economic impacts, even though the most well-known and extended tool can be considered to be environmental LCA. On the one hand, social LCA (S-LCA) focuses on the social aspects of products and services, including both actual and potential positive and negative impacts during their life cycle. On the other hand, the economic LCA (referred to as Life-Cycle Costing, LCC) focuses on economic impacts throughout the life cycle of products and services. More details on these tools as well as the impact categories and corresponding indicators that can be used for social and economic assessment will be described in the following subsections.

### 3.1 | Choice of social impact categories and indicators

There are several tools that can be used to make a choice on social impact categories and indicators, including rating tools, social LCA, or individual indicators.

<table><caption>TABLE 5 Summary of social categories and sub-categories in sustainability rating tools for buildings.</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Issues</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Accessibility</td><td>Accessible public services and amenities<br>Accessible public transport<br>Accessible pedestrian network<br>Accessible bicycling network<br>Alternative transport modes</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>Building management<br>Building design</td></tr><tr><td>Occupant wellbeing</td><td>Building user comfort<br>Health and safety<br>Spatial access</td></tr><tr><td>Security</td><td>Designing out crime</td></tr><tr><td>Social and cultural value</td><td>Social and ethical responsibility<br>Sensitivity to the local community<br>Building aesthetics and context</td></tr></tbody></table>

First, the social impact categories and indicators may be obtained from rating tools aimed at assessing buildings' impacts. A summary of social aspects that are considered in these tools can be found in Table 5. The table includes categories and issues, even though it needs to be noted that there is a third level, sub-issues, which is more specific.

As it can be seen, even though there are multiple categories and indicators regarding social impacts, their application in the context of recycled aggregate concrete structures is not straightforward. Some sub-issues that could have a direct relationship with the use of recycled aggregates are the toxicity of finishing, thermal comfort, or acoustic comfort, which belong to the category of occupant wellbeing, and which might be affected by the material used in the construction.

Second, as it was mentioned above, the framework of S-LCA may also be used in order to determine what social impacts should be assessed. S-LCA differs from environmental LCA in the fact that it not only considers impact categories but also stakeholder groups. The five main stakeholder groups that are proposed by UNEP's guidelines⁹³ are workers, consumers, local community, society and value chain actors.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, there are no studies yet in the literature dealing with the development of an S-LCA for the case of RAC structures. Studies⁹⁴,⁹⁵ did use life-cycle approaches to analyze the sustainability of recycled aggregates, but none of them carried out a complete S-LCA.
Sou et al.⁹⁴ assessed the sustainability of using recycled bottom ash as construction material, which included analyzing its social and legal implications. They did not use the LCA methodology, but fuzzy set theory, and evaluated two indicators, namely social acceptability and legal feasibility. Shi et al.⁹⁵ mentioned the assessment of social impacts in their study on the LCA of concrete pavement containing RCA. They used the TRACI category indicators,⁹⁶,⁹⁷ which include social impacts through indicators of human health particulate air, human health cancer, and human health non-cancer.

Aruakala et al.⁹⁸ analyzed the sustainability of alternatives of coarse aggregates, including recycled options. They chose several indicators, including several social ones: effects on human health and safety and human satisfaction.

Finally, other individual indicators that have been developed until the moment are the Occupational Risk Index (ORI index), which is used to measure the health and safety of workers and occupants, or the third-party effects, measured through building site space. An example of the application of these indicators in the context of recycled aggregate can be found in Reference 77.

## 3.2 | Assessment of social impact categories and indicators

A complexity inherent to the nature of social impact indicators is the data collection methodologies. Social indicators tend to be more subjective, and fewer data are usually available at large scales. The assessment of social indicators may be done quantitatively or qualitatively.

In the case of using quantitative indicators, data can be obtained from open databases from governments or results of surveys distributed to representative samples.

In the case of qualitative indicators, these may be collected through interviews, small-scale surveys, or expert seminars. Usually, they are represented in the form of scales, such as the Likert scale. For instance, Sou et al.⁹⁴ evaluated the indicators using questionnaires distributed among engineering consultants, government officials, and academic institutions. The questionnaires were based on five-point scales. The results of these questionnaires were then analyzed using the fuzzy set theory. A questionnaire was also used by Arukala et al.⁹⁸ to assign values to the Preference Selection Index (PSI) of different alternatives to ultimately choose a sustainable material.

Very commonly, the choice of the type of indicator is not to be made by the researcher but is a constraint of the data available.

<table><caption>TABLE 6 Summary of economic categories and sub-categories in sustainability rating tools for buildings.</caption><thead><tr><td>Category</td><td>Issues</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Financing and management</td><td>Value management—function analysis</td></tr><tr><td>Value management—risk and value management</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Whole life value</td><td>Whole life costs</td></tr><tr><td>Asset value</td></tr><tr><td>Maintenance</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Externalities</td><td>Local and regional impacts</td></tr><tr><td>Image value</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.3 | Choice of economic impact categories and indicators

Regarding the choice of economic impact categories and indicators, one can also resort to rating tools aimed at assessing buildings' impacts. A summary of such categories can be found in Table 6. A differential factor of economic impacts with respect to social and environmental ones is that there is less diversity in indicators, and they tend to be more homogeneous among different products and services.

In addition to rating tools, life cycle costing (LCC) also represents a means of measuring the economic sustainability of products and services. LCC considers both costs that are related to the life-cycle of a product, as well as those economic impacts related to externalities (see Table 7). Such externalities are usually regarded as negative costs because they are considered as impacts from factors such as emissions. Some recommendations on how to calculate externalities can be found in Reference 99. LCC is commonly carried out in compliance with international standard ISO 14040:2006.⁶ As it happened with S-LCA, LCC is not yet as systematized as the environmental LCA.

Related to the issue of externalities, Santero et al.¹⁰¹ discussed the role of economics in the context of GHG emissions and concrete. They also used a method called cost-effectiveness analysis to calculate the cost to reduce GHG emissions in the sector.

There are a few examples of LCCs in the context of concrete in the literature. For instance,¹⁰⁰ performed an LCC of lightweight artificial aggregates from industrial waste. Mah et al.¹⁰² carried out an LCC of concrete waste management alternatives.

Finally, other approaches have been used by researchers to measure economic sustainability.⁹⁵ used the economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) to analyze the impacts of using concrete
<table><caption>TABLE 7 Cost items that may be included in LCC.</caption><thead><tr><th>Cost item</th><th>Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Direct production costs</td><td>Raw materials<br>Direct labour</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect costs</td><td>Overheads<br>Indirect labour<br>Waste treatment<br>Pollutant abatement costs</td></tr><tr><td>Externalities</td><td>Costs related to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Adapted from Reference 100.

pavement with recycled concrete aggregate. EIO-LCA uses economic inputs to estimate the materials and energy resources that are required for activities in the economy, as well as the environmental emissions resulting from them.

The cost-benefit analysis is also a well-known method for economic impact assessment. It was used by Reference 94 to analyze the sustainability of bottom ash generated with construction waste. More simplified cost analysis can be found in Reference 103 to analyze the cost of recycled asphalt concrete mixtures or in Reference 104, where the costs of 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete were assessed.

## 3.4 | Assessment of economic impact categories and indicators

Different to social indicators, economic indicators are seldom assessed qualitatively. Data on costs are commonly available either in construction databases or through direct inquiry with specific companies.

For instance,¹⁰³ used data from the Department of Statistics of Malaysia, and⁷⁷ used data from a Spanish costs database.

## 4 | SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Having seen the existing methods for assessing environmental, social, and economic impacts, this last section describes how all these impacts can be grouped together in order to make a more holistic assessment. Given that this is a timely and relevant topic, there are several reviews in the literature on the different issues involved in sustainability assessment. Therefore, only a brief comment on this topic will be made in this article.

Methods to do such holistic analyses could be grouped into three main types. First, one could perform a life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA), which would involve the evaluation of all environmental, social, and economic impacts throughout the life cycle of a product or service. Namely, the environmental, social, and economic LCAs would be carried out separately and then conclusions would be drawn from the results.

Second, multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM) can be used as a means of simplifying the number of indicators used and aggregating them into a single index.

Third, rating tools recognize and reward organizations that build and manage sustainable services or products (usually buildings). Some of the categories and indicators that these tools contemplate may also be used as a basis to assess the sustainability of recycled concrete aggregate.

These methods are described in more detail next.

### 4.1 | Life cycle sustainability analysis

Costa et al.¹⁰⁵ reviewed the literature on life cycle sustainability assessment. They considered LCSA as the sum of LCA, S-LCA, and LCC. They found that there is a lack of harmonization of the methodology, which has become a central challenge to its operationalization.¹⁰⁶,¹⁰⁷ While their review encompassed studies in different fields, Backes and Traverso¹⁰⁸ did a review on LCSA studies conducted in the construction sector.

While LCSA provides a very thorough method to assess sustainability, it may also be resource-consuming. Therefore, studies that incorporate the three LCAs, environmental, social, and economic, are very scarce.

### 4.2 | Multi-criteria decision-making

MCDM methods are also tools that have been used to assess sustainability in different contexts, including concrete structures with recycled aggregate. The best well-known methods include TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE, VIKOR, and MIVES.

The examples of the application of MCDM to recycled aggregate concrete that have been found are those by References 77,109. On the one hand, Josa et al.⁷⁷ assessed the sustainability of continuous flight auger piles and, among the alternatives that they defined, they included piles both with natural crushed and recycled aggregates. In their study, Josa et al.⁷⁷ used MIVES. On the other hand, Revilla-Cuesta et al.¹⁰⁹ assessed the sustainability of various mixes of self-compacting concrete including
different amounts of recycled concrete aggregate. For the
assessment, methods TOPSIS, AHP, and PROMETHEE
were utilized.

Other studies that fall into similar areas are the fol-
lowing ones:

* Petrillo et al.,¹⁰⁰ who used a multi-criteria model to select lightweight artificial aggregates from industrial waste.

* Hafez et al.,¹¹⁰ who reviewed the literature to analyze the influence of using fine recycled aggregated on the technical, environmental and economic performance of concrete. One of their main conclusions was that the sustainability of using recycled fine aggregates largely depends on the transportation distance.

4.3 | Rating tools

Finally, in addition to the previous two methods, there
are rating tools, which are used to assess and recognize
those products that meet certain requirements or stan-
dards. While there are multiple tools that have been
developed until the present, in the context of this chap-
ter, the most relevant ones are those that assess the sus-
tainability of buildings. Some of the most well-known
tools are BREEAM, CASBEE, SB Tool or LEED. These
environmental quality certifications consider the use of
RCA in the concrete as a criterion of allocation of
points often flooded in more global criteria. As a conse-
quence, the relative weight of recycling becomes rela-
tively weak. The introduction of more explicit sub-
criteria like that implemented in Minergie-Eco
(Switzerland) is a way of improvement. This certifica-
tion comprises an exclusion criterion for applicants
who do not comply with the concrete recycling provi-
sion except if the distance between the concrete plant
and the site exceeds 25 km.¹¹¹

5 | CONCLUSIONS

The sustainability assessment of recycled aggregate
structures should consist of environmental, social, and
economic assessments. While environmental assessment
has a two-decade-long tradition, social assessment was
much less investigated probably due to the inherent
complexity of the nature of different possible social
impacts. On the other hand, some type of economic
assessment was always applied in the evaluation of con-
struction projects and introducing the Life Cycle Cost-
ing should present the advancement of existing
practices.

The basis for the assessment in all three cases should
be LCA. However, common referring to LCA methodol-
ogy is not precise enough since ISO standards provide a
general framework and leave plenty of room for interpre-
tation. In the sustainability assessment of RAC structures
special attention should be paid to:

* choice of the assessment approach: If CLCA is applied, marginal data on many processes and many assumptions on relevant markets, alternative products, price elasticities, distant future operations, and so forth are needed. It should not be applied within the ALCA framework. If ALCA with some type of allocation is applied, which is recommended at the RAC structures' assessment level as simpler and less uncertain than CLCA, indicators describing sand and stone depletion and land use should be included;

* choice of FU: it should be based on the function of the structure (strength, serviceability and durability) and in that sense the best option for FU is a structure as a whole; FU based only on the material properties can be used for generic comparisons in order to evaluate the sustainability potential for material substitution;

* CO₂ uptake during the RAC life cycle should be included in the LCI; the prediction model by Huang et al.⁵⁴ for the production and service phase can be recommended although probably unconservative for the production phase part; large-scale field measurements are needed to improve the reliability of predictions;

* both “endpoints” and ‘midpoints’ approaches in the impact assessment are applicable;

* uncertainty analysis is recommended: preferably, it should include LCI data, concrete mix design, the CO₂ uptake prediction model (if used), and distant future operations uncertainties; at least, sensitivity analysis on the most influential parameters is advised;

* the application of S-LCA in the context of RAC struc-
tures is extremely scarce at present. Some methodolog-
ical challenges (e.g., the selection of the impact
categories, the definition of the FU) hinder the devel-
opment of such applications;

* similar to the case of S-LCA, thorough applications of LCC in the context of RAC structures are not abundant. While there are a few economic analyses where costs are evaluated, a Life Cycle Thinking approach is not always adopted (i.e., other approaches, such as Cost Benefit Analysis, are more common in this context).

The majority of environmental impacts for both RAC
and NAC originate from the cement (clinker) produc-
tion and this is especially valid for GWP; the replacement
of NA with RCA cannot significantly affect the CO₂ emissions amount. At the same time, using RCA as a carbon sink can significantly increase the CO₂ uptake during the secondary life. The wise utilization of RCA is therefore recommended. The best environmental results are probably obtained by combining two applications: first, use RCA as carbon sink for as long as possible, then apply it as aggregate in new concrete. The unbound applications are also recommendable since they provide the prolonged CO₂ uptake. Regardless of the future applications, it is important to crush the demolished concrete waste and separate it into various RCA fractions—the waste management practices should be adapted to maximize the CO₂ absorption.

CEN has issued several standards regarding environmental assessment (EN 15804, EN 16757 and EN 15978 for buildings, and EN 17472 for civil engineering works) and several standards regarding social and economic assessment (EN 16309-A1 and EN 16627 concerning buildings, and EN 17472 for civil engineering works). These standards may serve as guidelines for the sustainability assessment of concrete structures while working on their further development and resolving currently existing flaws and limitations.

Despite all the effort put into the development of sustainability assessment methods and procedures, we are still far away from implementing the “design for sustainability” in the concrete structural codes. The *fib* Model Code for Concrete Structures¹¹² for instance introduced sustainability into the design of concrete structures as a performance criterion along with structural safety and serviceability. The Code however offers only the general procedure for the verification of the environmental and social aspects of sustainability. For the practical application in the design of concrete structures, specific evaluation and verification methods must be defined. Within the performance-based and limit states framework, the verification method includes the target reliability level definition, the safety format choice, and performance requirements and criteria definition. Future research in the area of the sustainability of all types of concrete structures should be focused on the standardization of the evaluation and verification methods for all three aspects of sustainability.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

## ORCID

Snežana Marinković https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1808-392X

Irene Josa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1538-4567

Sandrine Braymand https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3079-

## REFERENCES

1. Oikonomou ND. Recycled concrete aggregates. Cem Concr Compos. 2005;27(2):313-8.

2. Eurostat. 'Generation of waste by waste category, hazardousness and NACE rev. 2 activity'. Luxembourg. 2017.

3. European Parliament. 'Amending Energy Performance of Buildings'. Directive (2018/844/EU). 2018.

4. WBCSD. The cement sustainability initiative. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2009.

5. Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Chen C, Jullien A. Development of a depletion indicator for natural resources used in concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2010;54:364-76.

6. ISO 14040-14043. Environmental management - life cycle assessment. Geneva: ISO; 2006.

7. EN 15804. Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of construction products. Brussels: CEN; 2020.

8. EN 15978. Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method. Brussels: CEN; 2011.

9. EN 17472. Sustainability of construction works. Sustainability assessment of civil engineering works. Calculation methods. Brussels: CEN; 2022.

10. EN 16309. Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of social performance of buildings. Calculation methodology. Brussels: CEN; 2014.

11. EN 16627. Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of economic performance of buildings. Calculation methods. Brussels: CEN; 2015.

12. Tillman AM, Ekvall T, Baumann H, Rydberg T. Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod. 1994; 2(1):21-9.

13. Ekvall T, Tillman AM. Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 1997;2(3):15202.

14. Allacker K, Mathieux F, Manfredi S, Pelletier N, De Camillis C, Ardente F, et al. Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: proposals for product policy initiatives. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2014;88: 1-12.

15. Ekvall T, Weidema BP. System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2004;9(3):161-71.

16. Ekvall T, Andrae A. Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to Lead-free solders. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2006;11(5):344-53.

17. Pelletier N, Ardente F, Brandão M, De Camillis C, Pennington D. Rationales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2015;20:74-86.

18. Gervásio H, da Silva S, Marinković S, Blok R. Concrete recycling in life cycle assessment. In: Bragança L, Koukkari H, Blok R, Gervásio H, Veljkovic M, Plewako Z, et al., editors. Proceedings of the workshop on sustainability of constructions, integrated approach to life-time structural engineering. Timişoara, Romania: European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST); 2009. p. 323-32.
19. UNPG-Module d'information environnementale du traitement de déchets de déconstruction en vue de produire des granulats. www.unpg.fr

20. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G. Economic allocation: examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2004;9(1):23-3.

21. Marinković S, Ignjatović I, Radonjanin V. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete with recycled aggregates (RAs). In: Pacheco-Torgal F, Tam VWY, Labrincha JA, Ding Y, de Brito J, editors. Handbook of recycled concrete and demolition waste. UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2013. p. 569-604.

22. 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.

23. Knoeri C, Sanyé-Mengual E, Althaus HJ. Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013;18(5):909-18.

24. Turk J, Cotič Z, Mladenovič A, Šajna A. Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Manag. 2015;45:194-205.

25. De Schepper M, Van den Heede P, Van Driessche I, De Belie N. Life cycle assessment of completely recyclable concrete. Materials. 2014;7(8):6010-27.

26. Blegnini GA. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ. 2009; 44(2):319-30.

27. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M. Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2014;19(4):723-31.

28. EN 16757:Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - product category rules for concrete and concrete elements. Brussels: CEN; 2017.

29. Mirzaie S, Thuring M, Allacker K. End-of-life modeling of buildings to support more informed decisions towards achieving circular economy targets. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25(11):2122-39.

30. Braymand S, Feraille A, Serres N, Idir R. Life cycle analysis of recycled concrete. In: Colina H, editor. Chap. 30Concrete recycling, research and practice, Francois de Larrard. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2019. p. 489-511.

31. Silva RV, de Brito J, Dhir RK. The influence of the use of recycled aggregates on the compressive strength of concrete: a review. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. 2014;19(7):825-49.

32. Silva RV, de Brito J, Dhir RK. Establishing a relationship between the modulus of elasticity and compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete. J Clean Prod. 2016;112:2171-86.

33. Silva RV, de Brito J, Dhir RK. Comparative analysis of existing prediction models on the creep behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete. Eng Struct. 2015;100:31-42.

34. Xiao J. Recycled aggregate concrete structures. Berlin: Springer; 2018. p. 668.

35. Marinković S, Carević V, Dragaš J. The role of service life in life cycle assessment of concrete structures. J Clean Prod. 2021;290:125610.

36. Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire, France. Réglementation environnementale 2010, Décret no2021-1004 du 29 juillet 2021 relatif aux exigences de performance énergétique et environnementale des construction de bâtiments en France métropolitaine. 2021.

37. Vieira DR, Calmon JL, Zulcão R, Coelho FZ. Consideration of strength and service life in cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of self-compacting concrete in a maritime area: a study in the Brazilian context. Environ Dev Sustain. 2018;20(4):1849-71.

38. Garcia-Segura T, Yepes V, Alcalá J. Life cycle greenhouse emissions of blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2014;19(1):3-12.

39. Silva MG, Saade MRM, Gomes V. Influence of service life, strength and cement type on life cycle environmental performance of concrete. Ibracon Struct Mater J. 2013;6(6):844-53.

40. Marinković S, Carević V. Comparative studies of the life cycle analysis between conventional and recycled aggregate concrete. In: de Brito J, Agrela F, editors. New trends in eco-efficient and recycled concrete. UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2019. p. 257-91.

41. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Eco-efficient cements: potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement based materials industry. Geneva: UNEP; 2017.

42. Engelsen JC, Mehus J, Pade C, Sæther DH. Carbon dioxide uptake in demolished and crushed concrete. Project Report 395-2005. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Building Research Institute; 2005.

43. Andersson R, Stripple H, Gustafsson T, Ljungkrantz C. Carbonation as a method to improve climate performance for cement based material. Cem Concr Res. 2019;124(124): 105819.

44. Pade C, Guimaraes M. The CO₂ uptake of concrete in a 100 year perspective. Cem Concr Res. 2007;37(9):1348-56.

45. Collins F. Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their carbon footprint. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2010;15(6):549-56.

46. Kikuchi T, Kuroda Y. Carbon dioxide uptake in demolished and crushed concrete. J Adv Concr Technol. 2011;9(1): 11164-24.

47. CEN/TR 17310. Carbonation and CO₂ uptake in concrete. Brussels: CEN; 2019.

48. Florea MVA, Brouwers HJH. Properties of various size fractions of crushed concrete related to process conditions and reuse. Cem Concr Res. 2013;52:11-21.

49. Silva RV, de Brito J, Neves R, Dhir RK. Prediction of the carbonation behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete. Cem Concr Compos. 2015;62:22-32.

50. Carević V, Ignjatović I, Dragaš J. Model for practical carbonation depth prediction for high volume fly ash concrete and recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2019;213: 194-208.

51. Liu M, Ju X, Wu L, Guo Q, Wang H, Zhang W. Carbonation depth model for loaded reinforced concrete (RC) beams under time-dependent relative humidity conditions. J Build Eng. 2023;65:105618.

52. Fang X, Xuan D, Poon CS. Empirical modeling of CO₂ uptake by recycled concrete aggregates under accelerated carbonation conditions. Mater Struct. 2017;50(4):200.

53. Xiao J, Xiao Y, Liu Y, Ding T. Carbon emissions analyses of concretes made with recycled materials considering CO₂ uptake through carbonation absorption. Struct Concr. 2020; 22(S1):E58-73.
54. Huang K, Li A, Xia B, Ding T. Prediction on CO₂ uptake of recycled aggregate concrete. Front Struct Civ Eng. 2020;14(3): 746-59.

55. Wijayasundara M, Mendis P, Ngo T. Comparative assessment of the benefits associated with the absorption of CO2 with the use of RCA in structural concrete. J Clean Prod. 2017;158: 285-95.

56. Dayaram K. The Recarbonation of concrete from a New Zealand perspective. New Zealand: University of Canterbury; 2010.

57. Zhang J, Shi C, Li Y, Pan X, Poon CS, Xie Z. Performance enhancement of recycled concrete aggregates through carbonation. J Mater Civ Eng. 2015;27(11):04015029.

58. Pu Y, Li L, Wang Q, Shi X, Fu L, Zhang G, et al. Accelerated carbonation treatment of recycled concrete aggregates using flue gas: a comparative study towards performance improvement. J CO2 Util. 2021;43:101362.

59. Sereng M, Djerbi A, Metalssi OO, Dangla P, Torrenti JM. Improvement of recycled aggregates properties by means of CO2 uptake. Appl Sci. 2021;11(14):6571.

60. Torrenti JM, Ouali A, Barnes-Davin L, Bougrain F. The FastCarb project: taking advantage of the accelerated carbonation of recycled concrete aggregates. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2022;17:e01349.

61. Guyard P, Saadé M, Feraille A. 'Carbonatation accélérée de granulats de béton recyclé quels bénéfices environnementaux ?'.... Asian J Civ Eng. 2022;40:117-31.

62. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R. The eco-indicator 99 a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, Methodology Report. 2001.

63. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al. Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: guide. IIb: operational annex. III: scientific background. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.

64. Mateus R, Bragança L. Lyfe-cycle assessment of residential buildings. In: Bragança L, Koukkari H, Blok R, Gervásio H, Veljkovic M, Borg RP, editors. Proceedings of the international conference on sustainability of constructions-towards a better built environment. Innsbruck: Malta; 2011. p. 25322.

65. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ. Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2003;8(4):191-200.

66. Marinković S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) aspects of concrete. In: Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali, SLabrincha JA, John VM, editors. Eco-Efficient Concrete. UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2013. p. 4110.

67. Huijbregts MA. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 1998;3(5):273-80.

68. Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS. Data quality management for life cycle inventories – an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod. 1996;4(3-4):167-74.

69. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, et al. Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre; 2013.

70. Frischknecht R. LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2010; 15(7):666-71.

71. Van den Heede P, De Keersmaeker M, Elia A, Adriaens A, De Belie N. Service life and global warming potential of chloride exposed concrete with high volumes of fly ash. Cem Concr Compos. 2017;80:210-23.

72. Mostert C, Sameer H, Glanz D, Bringezu S. Climate and resource footprint assessment and visualization of recycled concrete for circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021; 174:105767.

73. Hafez H, Kurda R, Cheung WM, Nagaratnam B. A Systematic review of the discrepancies in life cycle assessment of green concrete. Appl Sci. 2019;9(22):4803.

74. Marinković S, Radonjanin V, Malešev M, Ignjatović I. Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Manag. 2010;30(11): 2255-64.

75. Colangelo F, Gómez Navarro T, Farina I, Petrillo A. Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: a circular economy mindset in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2020;25: 1790-804.

76. Kellenberger D, Althaus H, Jungbluth N, Künniger R, Lehmann M, Thalmann P. Life cycle inventories of building products. Final Report Ecoinvent Data v2.0 No. 7. 2007.

77. Josa I, Tošić N, Marinković S, de la Fuente A, Afuado A. Sustainability-oriented multi-criteria analysis of different continuous flight auger piles. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):7552.

78. Won-Jun P, Taehyoung K, Seungjun R, Rakhyun K. Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of recycled aggregate. Appl Sci. 2019;9:1021.

79. Dias AB, Pacheco JN, Sivestre JD, Marins IM, De Brito J. Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of recycled coarse aggregates: a Portuguese case study. Materials. 2021;14: 5452.

80. Zhang Y, Luo W, Wang J, Wang Y, Xu Y, Xiao J. A review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2019;209:11165-25.

81. Xing W, Tam VWY, Le KN, Hao JL, Wang J. Life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete on its environmental impacts: a critical review. Constr Build Mater. 2022;317: 125950.

82. Hossein AH, Azari Jafari HA, Khoshnazar R. The role of performance metrics in comparative LCA of concrete mixtures incorporating solid wastes: a critical review and guideline proposal. Waste Manag. 2022;140:40-54.

83. Bragança L, Mateus R. New approach to life-cycle analysis in building sustainability rating systems. In: Marinkovic S, Radonjanin V, editors. Proceedings of the conference sustainable construction development. Belgrade: Faculty of Technical Sciences; 2009. p. 257-70.

84. CEMBUREAU (the European Cement Association). Environmental product declaration (EPD). Portland cement (CEMI) produced in Europe. Brussels: CEMBUREAU; 2015.

85. CEMBUREAU (the European Cement Association). Environmental product declaration (EPD). Portland-composite cement (CEMII) produced in Europe. Brussels: CEMBUREAU; 2015.

86. EFCA (European Federation of Concrete Admixtures Associations Ltd.). Environmental product declaration. Concrete admixtures – Plasticisers and Superplasticisers. Belgium: EFCA; 2015.

87. Mittal A. Environmental product declaration. Reinforcing steel in bars. Luxembourg: Arcelor Mittal; 2016.
88. Jiménez C, Barra M, Josa A, Valls S. LCA of recycled and conventional concretes designed using the equivalent mortar volume and classic methods. Constr Build Mater. 2015;84: 245-52.

89. UEPG. European aggregates association annual review: a sustainable industry for a sustainable Europe. Brussels: UEPG; 2016.

90. Eurostat. Generation of waste by waste category, hazardous-ness and NACE Rev. 2 activity, Mineral waste from construc-tion and demolition. 2019.

91. Gálvez-Martosa JL, Stylesb D, Schoenbergerd H, Zeschmar-Lahle B. Construction and demolition waste best manage-ment practice in Europe. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2018;136: 166-78.

92. Kim T, Tae S, Chae CU. Analysis of environmental impact for concrete using LCA by varying the recycling components, the compressive strength and the admixture material mixing. Sus-tainability. 2016;8:389.

93. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Management. 2020;15:104.

94. Sou WI, Chu A, Chiueh PT. Sustainability assessment and prioritisation of bottom ash management in Macao. Waste Manag Res. 2016;34:1275-82.

95. Shi X, Mukhopadhyay A, Zollinger D, Grasley Z. Economic input-output life cycle assessment of concrete pavement con-taining recycled concrete aggregate. J Clean Prod. 2019;225: 414-25.

96. Bare J. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy. 2011;13:687-96.

97. Bare J, Norris G, Pennington DW. The tool for the reduction and assessment impacts. J Ind Ecol. 2003;6:49-78.

98. Arukala SR, Kalpande VP, Pancharathi RK. Evaluation of sus-tainable material through life cycle assessment using PSI method. In: Pancharathi RK, Sangoju B, Chaudhary S, editors. Advances in sustainable construction materials. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 87-101.

99. IPCC. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 1535.

100. Petrillo A, Colangelo F, Farina I, Travaglioni M, Salzano C, Cioffi R. Multi-criteria analysis for life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of lightweight artificial aggregates from industrial waste by double-step cold bonding palletization. J Clean Prod. 2022;351:131395.

101. Santero N, Loijos A, Ochsendorf J. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction opportunities for concrete pavements. J Ind Ecol. 2013;17:859-68.

102. Mah CM, Fujiwara T, Ho CS. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing toward eco-efficiency concrete waste manage-ment in Malaysia. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:3415-27.

103. Yang R, Kang S, Ozer H, Al-Qadi IL. Environmental and eco-nomic analyses of recycled asphalt concrete mixtures based on material production and potential performance. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2015;104:141-51.

104. Han Y, Yang Z, Ding T, Xiao J. Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete. J Clean Prod. 2021;278:123884.

105. Costa D, Quinteiro P, Dias AC. A systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment: current state, methodological challenges, and implementation issues. Sci Total Environ. 2019;686:774-87.

106. Llatas C, Soust-Verdaguer B, Passer A. Implementing life cycle sustainability assessment during design stages in build-ing information modelling: from systematic literature review to a methodological approach. Build Environ. 2020;182: 107164.

107. Valdivia S, Backes JG, Traverso M, Sonnemann G, Cucurachi S, Guinée J, et al. Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2021;26(9):1900-5.

108. Backes JG, Traverso M. Application of life cycle sustainability assessment in the construction sector: a systematic literature review. Processes. 2021;9(7):1248.

109. Revilla-Cuesta V, Skaf M, Espinosa AB, Ortega-López V. Multi-criteria feasibility of real use of self-compacting con-crete with sustainable aggregate, binder and powder. J Clean Prod. 2021;325:129327.

110. Hafez H, Kurda R, Kurda R, Al-Hadad B, Mustafa R, Ali B. A critical review on the influence of fine recycled aggregates on technical performance, environmental impact and cost of con-crete. Appl Sci. 2020;10(3):1018.

111. Braymand S, Pillard W, Bodet R, Francisco P. National Practice. In: de Larrard F, Colina H, editors. Chap. 35Concrete recycling, research and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2019. p. 572-85.

112. fib (Federation Internationale du Beton). fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. 2013.

## AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Snežana Marinković, Full profes-sor, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, Belgrade, Serbia. Email: sneska@imk.grf.bg.ac.rs.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Irene Josa, Research fellow, Department of Civil, Environmen-tal & Geomatic Engineering, Uni-versity College London, London, United Kingdom. Email: i.josa@ucl.ac.uk.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Sandrine Braymand**, Assistant Professor, ICube, Strasbourg University, CNRS, UMR 7357, Strasbourg, France. Email: s.braymand@unistra.fr.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Nikola Tošić**, Assistant professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain. Email: nikola.tosic@upc.edu.

**How to cite this article:** Marinković S, Josa I, Braymand S, Tošić N. Sustainability assessment of recycled aggregate concrete structures: A critical view on the current state-of-knowledge and practice. Structural Concrete. 2023;24(2):1956-79.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202201245