Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Low-Carbon Cementitious Materials: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Lionel Zheng.

Low-carbon cementitious materials are a family of hydracementitioulics binders and concrete constituents formulated to reduce the embodied carbon dioxideor selected to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions assexpressed as CO₂-equivalent associated with cement and concrete production, relative to ordinary Portland cement (OPC)a specified conventional baseline, while retainproviding the binding functionperformance required for structural concrete their intended applications [1]. Emission reductions iscan be achieved primarily by lowering the Portland-clinker fraction through partial replacement with supplementary cementitious materials, such as fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, silica fume, metakaolin, and calcined clay, or by substitutiusing alternative binder chemistries —, including alkali-activated binders, calcium sulfoaluminate cements, belite-rich cements, and magnesium-based cements — that, which may require lower calcination temperatures or avoidreduce reliance on limestone decarbocalcination [2]. Because Oconventional PCortland cement production emits CO2 bothgenerates greenhouse-gas emissions from thboth the calcination of calcium carbonate and from fuel combustion in the kilduring clinker production, the “low-carbon” designation is defined by a reduction in life-cycle performance of a cementitious material is generally assessed by comparing greenhouse-gas emissions per unit of binder, rather than by a single fixedwith those of an appropriate baseline, using a defined system boundary and functional unit [3][4][5]. Such comparisosition or ns should also consider equivalent performance requirements, including strength class, durability, and [3]. Thexpe category is distinguished from conventional blendedted service life, to ensure that emission reductions are evaluated on a functionally comparable basis. Low-carbon cements by the magnitude ofitious materials therefore do not correspond to a single composition, clinker -substitution and by explicit targeting of embodiedlevel, or strength class, and conventional blended cements may also be considered low-carbon rewhen they demonstrate a meaningful reductionn in greenhouse-gas emissions relative to an appropriate reference system.

  • low‑carbon cementitious material
  • low‑carbon binder
  • embodied carbon
  • supplementary cementitious material

Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production •  Building and Construction •  Engineering •  Physical Sciences

References

  1. Ellis Gartner; Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1489-1498. [CrossRef]
  2. Karen L. Scrivener; Vanderley M. John; Ellis M. Gartner; Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 2-26. [CrossRef]
  3. J.S. Damtoft; J. Lukasik; D. Herfort; D. Sorrentino; E.M. Gartner; Sustainable development and climate change initiatives. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 115-127. [CrossRef]
  4. Josefine A. Olsson; Sabbie A. Miller; Joshua D. Kneifel; A review of current practice for life cycle assessment of cement and concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 206, 107619. [CrossRef]
  5. Glenda Terán-Cuadrado; Furqan Tahir; Anissa Nurdiawati; Mohammed A. Almarshoud; Sami G. Al-Ghamdi; Current and potential materials for the low-carbon cement production: Life cycle assessment perspective. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 96, 110528. [CrossRef]
More
Write an Entry