Life Cycle Assessment Based on CO2

Emissions and Energy Calculations

Incorporation of service life in the
sustainability estimation.
LC3 compared with portland cement and fly ash
Prof Ravindra Gettu, IIT Madras
Sanoop Prakasan, IIT Madras
Anusha Basavaraj, IIT Madras
Aanchal Patel, IIT Madras
Dr. Soumen Maity, TARA
Vaibhav Rathi, TARA
 Methodology
• Goal, functional unit, system boundary,
Goal and
Scope etc.

Life Cycle
• Cement plant visit, inventory data
inventory
Analysis
collection and analysis

• Selection of conversion factors and

Life Cycle
Impact characterization
Assessment

Interpretation
• Comparison of OPC, PPC and LC3
2
LCA OF CEMENT - GOAL AND SCOPE
Goal, functional unit, process system and system boundary

3
 Goal and Scope
• Goal
• To calculate the energy and CO2 emission due to
cement production
• Scope
• Product system : Integrated cement plant with dry
processing technology
• Functional Unit : 1 tonne of cement
• System boundary : 1) Ground to gate, 2) Gate to gate
and 3) CSI

4
LCA OF CEMENT –
LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY
Case study, Process mapping, Inventory collection and analysis

5
 Process Map for a Typical Cement Plant in India
– Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)

Major raw materials: Limestone, Coal, Pet coke, Lignite

Other significant inputs: Electricity (from the grid), Alternative fuels, Gypsum, Clay, Water, Plant and
equipment

Important sub-processes: Limestone extraction, Raw meal preparation, Clinkerization, Blending, Packing and
dispatch, Power generation
6
Products: Bulk cement, Cement bags, Clinker
 Process Map for a Typical Cement Plant in India
– Fly Ash Based Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC)

Major raw materials: Limestone, Fly ash, Coal, Pet coke, Lignite
Other significant inputs: Electricity (from the grid), Alternative fuels, Gypsum, Clay, Water, Plant and
equipment

Important sub-processes: Limestone extraction, Raw meal preparation, Clinkerization, Fly ash transport,
Blending, Packing and dispatch, Power generation
7
Products: Bulk cement, Cement bags, Clinker
 Potential Process Map for LC3 Production in a Typical
Indian Cement Plant

Major raw materials: Limestone, Kaolinitic clay (China clay), Coal, Pet coke, Lignite
Other significant inputs: Electricity (from the grid), Alternative fuels, Gypsum, White clay, Water, Plant
and equipment

Important sub-processes: Limestone extraction, Raw meal preparation, Clinkerization, Clay calcination,
Blending, Packing and despatch, Power generation
8
Products: Bulk cement, Cement bags, Clinker
Values Assumed for LC3 Calculations
• LC3 composition: 50% clinker, 30% calcined clay, 15% crushed limestone and 5%
gypsum
• Mass loss in clay during calcination is 13%
• Energy consumption for calcination of clay is taken as 2.6 MJ/kg (as reference) and 2
ranges of value considering scenarios of with and without heat recovery of clay
calcination; 30% losses assumed.
• Electricity required for calcining rotary kiln is assumed to be 0.04 kWh/kg of raw clay
or 0.15 MJ/kg of clay
• Fuel consumption for transportation is based on trucks or bunkers with 23 tonne
freight capacity, and 3 and 4km/litre mileage when fully loaded and empty,
respectively.
• Coal is assumed to be used for the calcination of the clay, and emissions are
calculated based on the carbon content of coal.
• It is assumed that clay will be sourced from Dharmapuri (104 km away), and
transported to and calcined at the cement plant
9
Inventory for 1 ton of Cement
OPC PPC LC3
Raw material (kg)
Limestone 1308 985 723
Clay 57 43 32
Gypsum 40 40 50
Filler limestone 50 150
Fly ash 280
China clay 345

Fuel (kg)
Pet coke 54 41 30
Coal 0.99 0.74 0.55
Lignite 33 25 18
Diesel Oil 0.04 0.00 0.02
RDF (Refuse derived fuel) including plastics 7.63 5.71 4.20
Tyres 1.44 1.08 0.79
Solvents (Paint Sludge) 2.38 1.79 1.31
Other alternative fuels 3.65 2.74 2.01
Diesel Oil (transportation) 0.62 0.00 1.28

Electricity (kWh)
Electricity 83.08 66.66 55.44
10
Considering clay calcination energy of 2.6 MJ/kg
Estimation of Clay Calcination energy
» An equation is developed for the estimation of clay
calcination energy using values from TGA/DSC analysis
» The equation considers the following components of
energy consumption
» Energy required for heating the clay due to its heat
capacity
» Energy required to dry the clay (i.e., remove the
moisture)
» Energy for the calcination of kaolin
» Heat energy that cannot be recovered in the
calciner
11
Results and observations
» Based on following equation,

» Total calcination energy (for exit temperature (Tf) of 100oC)

Total energy (Tf = 100oC) Vs Kaolinitic content
2500
Energy (kJ/kg of clay)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Kaolinite content ,K (%)

Clay samples

» Average total energy = 1287 kJ/kg of clay (± 23%)

» The minimum and maximum value is coming about 689 -2081 kJ/kg of clay
12
Results and observations
» Based on following equation,

» Total calcination energy (for exit temperature (Tf) of 700oC)

Total energy (Tf = 700oC) Vs Kaolinitic content
5000
Energy (kJ/kg of clay)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Kaolinite content ,K (%)

Clay samples

» Average value of total energy = 2794 kJ/kg of clay (±25%)

» The minimum and maximum value is coming about 1428 -4488 kJ/kg of
clay 13
LCA OF CEMENT –
LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Selection of Conversion factors
Selection of Conversion factor
• The energy and CO2 emission conversion factors
for the inventory result is selected from different
sources based on the suitability.
• The priority order of the database for selection is
as follows.
CO2 Emissions conversion factor Energy conversion factors
High Priority • Experimental data High Priority • Experimental data
– CHNS analyzer – Bomb Calorimetry
• EPA – 2014 • Cement plant data
• CSI Protocol • EPA – 2014
• IPCC 2006 • IPCC 2006
Low Priority • Ecoinvent 3 database Low Priority • Ecoinvent 3 database
15
Conversion Factors Used
Heating values and CO2 emission factors of fuels used in processing of cement
Conversion factors selected on Heating Values and CO2 emission of fuels
Energy (MJ/kg) Emission (kg CO2/kg)
Fuel Fuel
Pet coke 33.06 Pet coke 3.06
Diesel Oil 42.68 Diesel Oil 3.03
Lignite 14.92 Lignite 1.36
Coal 25.62 Coal 2.42
RDF (Refuse derived fuel) RDF (Refuse derived fuel)
including plastics 16.96 including plastics 1.21
Tyres 27.49 Tyres 1.95
Solvents (Paint Sludge) 13.26 Solvents (Paint Sludge) 0.94
Other alternative fuels 17.94 Other alternative fuels 1.28

Electricity Production (kg

Electricity Production (MJ/kWh) 13.4 1.09
CO2/kWh)
16
 Conversion Factors Used
Energy and CO2 emission factors for extraction of materials used in cement
processing
Conversion Factors from Simapro_Ecoinvent database

Energy (MJ/kg) Emission (kg CO2/kg)

Raw Material Raw Material

Clays, gypsum and 0.046, 0.041 and Clays, gypsum and limestone 0.003, 0.003 and
limestone (average) 0.030 (average) 0.002
Fuel Fuel
Pet coke 0.55 Pet coke 0.07
Diesel Oil 3.59 Diesel Oil 0.51
Lignite 0.27 Lignite 0.02
Coal 1.79 Coal 0.20

17
GIS Tool Prepared by TARA
• Shows locations of cement plants,
clay mines, thermal power plants,
ports, and railway stations

• Facilitates identification of nearest

clay and fly ash source and
calculation of transportation
distances

• Will help identify potential

locations for LC3 plants

For LCA, the GIS Tool is used

to obtain locations of nearest
clay mines and thermal power
plants for transportation
http://dagroup.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id
=c570f9a7ae0f4a0c9f61cac87fda8fac
distance calculations
18
INTERPRETATION
Energy and emission related to production of OPC, PPC, and LC3
Cements: Ground-to-Gate Calculations
» All processes from extraction of raw materials and fuel to
their end use is accounted for CO2 emissions and energy
consumption.
» Emissions and energy from the extraction of fuels and the
production of electricity is also attributed to cement
production.
» Gives a complete (academic) value for life cycle assessment
» Many assumptions made are not relevant to local conditions and
materials, which could distort the results considerably.
» For LC3
» With heat recovery (Tf = 100oC) calcination energy ranges 690 – 2080 kJ/kg of clay.
» With heat recovery (Tf = 700oC) calcination energy ranges 1430 – 4490 kJ/kg of clay
» And an additional loss of 30% of energy to account efficiency of kiln

20
 Results : Ground to gate
CO2 emission
900
794
800 Services
Packing
700 672
Cement Grinding
608
kgCO2/ton of cement

566 570 Calcination (from fuel)

600 542
511 Calcination (from electricity)
500 Clinkerization (from raw material)
Clinkerization (from fuel)
400
Clinkerization (from electricity)

300 Coal Mill

Grinding of Raw Material
200 Crushing
Transportation
100
Supplimentary material extraction

0 Fuel Extraction
OPC PPC LC3 LC3 LC3 LC3(lowest) LC3 Raw Material Extraction
(Lowest) (highest) (highest)
With heat recovery Without heat recovery 21
 Results : Ground to gate
Energy consumed
5000
4549
4500
Services
Energy consumed in MJ/ton of cement

4000 3812 Packing

3433 3468 Cement Grinding
3500
2984 3177 Calcination (from fuel)
3000 2845 Calcination (from electricity)

2500 Clinkerization (from fuel)

Clinkerization (from electricity)
2000 Coal Mill
1500 Grinding of Raw Material
Crushing
1000
Transportation
500 Supplimentary material extraction
Fuel Extraction
0
OPC PPC LC3 LC3 (Lowest) LC3 LC3(lowest) LC3 Raw Material Extraction
(highest) (highest)
With heat recovery Without heat recovery
22
Cements: Gate-to-Gate Calculations
» Emissions and energy consumption during extraction of
limestone, and transportation of limestone
» Emissions and energy related to extraction of clay, and the
extraction and transportation of clay, fossil fuels, are excluded.
» Provides data for more reliable comparisons
» Avoids assumptions that are not relevant to local conditions and materials.
» For LC3
» With heat recovery (Tf = 100oC) calcination energy ranges 690 – 2080 kJ/kg of clay.
» With heat recovery (Tf = 700oC) calcination energy ranges 1430 – 4490kJ/kg of clay
» And an additional loss of 30% of energy to account efficiency of kiln

23
 Results : Gate-to-Gate
CO2 emission
900

800 787
Services
700 657 Packing
597
kgCO2/ton of cement

600 Cement Grinding

551 555 527
496 Calcination (from fuel)
500
Calcination (from electricity)
400
Clinkerization (from raw material)

300 Clinkerization (from fuel)

Clinkerization (from electricity)

200
Coal Mill
100
Grinding of Raw Material
0 Crushing
OPC PPC LC3 LC3 LC3 LC3(lowest) LC3
(Lowest) (highest) (highest) Transportation

With heat recovery Without heat recovery Supplimentary material extraction

Raw Material Extraction 24

 Results : Gate-to-Gate
Energy consumed
5000

4500 4392
Services
4000 3744 Packing
3500 3311 Cement Grinding
3275
MJ/ton of cement

3020 Calcination (from fuel)

3000 2863 2688 Calcination (from electricity)
2500 Clinkerization (from fuel)

2000 Clinkerization (from electricity)

Coal Mill
1500
Grinding of Raw Material
1000 Crushing
Transportation
500
Supplimentary material extraction
0 Raw Material Extraction
OPC PPC LC3 LC3 LC3 LC3(lowest) LC3
(Lowest) (highest) (highest)
With heat recovery Without heat recovery
25
Cements: CSI System Calculations
» Only direct emissions are considered.
» Emissions and energy consumption during extraction of
limestone, clinkerization and calcination is only considered.
» Provides data for comparison with CSI database
» Based on measurable quantities at the plant level and avoids almost all
assumptions that are not relevant to local conditions and materials.
» For LC3
» With heat recovery (Tf = 100oC) calcination energy ranges 690 – 2080 kJ/kg of clay.
» With heat recovery (Tf = 700oC) calcination energy ranges 1430 – 4490 kJ/kg of clay
» And an additional loss of 30% of energy to account efficiency of kiln

26
 Results : CSI System
CO2 emission
800

700
696

600
581
kgCO2/ton of cement

524
500 475 479
451
420
400 Calcination (from fuel)
Clinkerization (from raw material)
300 Clinkerization (from fuel)
Raw Material Extraction
200

100

0
OPC PPC LC3 LC3 LC3 LC3(lowest) LC3
(Lowest) (highest) (highest)
With heat recovery Without heat recovery 27
 Results : CSI System
Energy consumed
4000

3456
3500

3000
2624
MJ/ton of cement

2500 2340 2376

1965 2085
2000 Calcination (from fuel)
1753
Clinkerization (from fuel)
1500
Raw Material Extraction

1000

500

0
OPC PPC LC3 LC3 (Lowest) LC3 LC3(lowest) LC3
(highest) (highest)
With heat recovery Without heat recovery 28
Conclusions
» The energy and CO2 emissions for LC3 production
were lower with respect to OPC.

» On the other hand, in comparison to PPC, the CO2

emissions for LC3 production were lower, while the
energy difference varied depending on the
calcination energy of clay

29
LCA Ground-to-Gate Calculations: Concrete

LCA Calculations: Cements and Concretes

• Concretes with OPC, OPC + 30% fly ash, and LC3
• 30 MPa and 50 MPa design grades, and C-Mixes (with 360 kg/m3
binder content; w/b = 0.45)

30
Concretes assessed, with OPC, FA30 and LC3
» OPC
» FA30
» 30% fly ash replacement
» LC3
» 50% clinker
» 30% calcined clay
» 15% limestone
» 5% gypsum
» M30 & M50 (4.5 & 7.5 ksi)
» 30 and 50 MPa design
compressive strength grades
» C-Mixes
» Similar mixture proportions Target slump was 80 - 120 mm (3 – 5 in)
» Total binder content = 360 kg/m3
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi
31
 Goal and Scope
• Goal
• To calculate the energy and CO2 emission due to
concrete production

• Scope
• Product system : Onsite concrete production
• Functional Unit : 1 kg of concrete
• System boundary : Ground to gate

32
Assumptions
• Fly ash and Gypsum are considered as waste products
 Only energy & emissions due to their transportation are considered.
• Energy in the production of chemical admixtures is neglected.
• For ground granulated blast furnace slag production, the processes involving
quenching, drying, crushing and grinding are considered.
• Cement is produced at Ariyalur (Tamil Nadu).
• Concrete is produced at Chennai.
• Data from Ariyalur cement plant and Rest of the world database of Ecoinvent
3.0 library of SimaPro.
• Mix design data from studies conducted in IIT Madras.

• Clinker production, cement production and concrete production processes

were modeled in SimaPro using these data
33
LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY AND
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
kgCO2-equivalent for M30 concrete
0.16

0.14

0.12
Others
0.10
kg COշ eq./kg

Electricity
0.08 Transportation
Aggregates
0.06 GGBS
Sand
0.04
Cement
0.02

0.00
OPC OPC with LC³ OPC with
30% fly ash 15% GGBS
*Includes contribution of processes in cement production in kg COշ other than clinker

35
Energy consumption for M30 concrete
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 Others
Energy MJ/kg

0.6 Electricity
0.5 Transportation
Sand
0.4
Aggregates
0.3 GGBS
0.2 Cement
0.1
0.0
LC³ OPC OPC with 30% OPC with 15%
fly ash GGBS

36
 kgCO2-equivalent for M50 concrete
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
Others
kg COշ eq./kg

0.12 Electricity
0.10 Transportation
Aggregates
0.08
GGBS
0.06 Sand
0.04 Cement

0.02
0.00
OPC OPC with LC³ OPC with
30% fly ash 15% GGBS
*Includes contribution of processes in cement production in kg COշ other than clinker
37
Energy consumption for M50 concrete
1.4

1.2

1.0
Others
Energy MJ/kg

Electricity
0.8
Transportation
0.6 Sand
Aggregates
0.4 GGBS
Cement
0.2

0.0
LC³ OPC OPC with 30% OPC with 15%
fly ash GGBS

38
Conclusion
» Energy and emission of LC3 concrete were
significantly lower than OPC concrete irrespective
of the concrete grade.

» However, LC3 concretes showed higher energy (but

lower emissions) as compared to FA30 concrete.

39
 Case Study 1: Multistorey Building in Chennai
• Commercial building, in the IITM Research Park, Chennai, India.
• 11 floors including ground floor; Floor area of 93,232 sq.m.

Material considered Quantity

M30 concrete 42,657 cu.m.
40
Effect of different concretes on kg CO2 equivalent
16000

14000

12000
Tonne COշ eq.

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
OPC OPC with 30% fly OPC with 15% LC³
ash GGBS

41
Incorporation of Service Life Estimations in
LCA: Chloride and Carbonation Induced
Corrosion
 Estimation of service life: How and Why?

fn Dchloride, K CO2 , Clthreshold, pH threshold  fn  icorr , Cresidual 
Initiation phase Propagation phase

Maximum allowable damage level

Damage level

Clsurface

x DChloride or K CO2
Initiation
Corrosion initiation of repair
Clthreshold
Exposure
Time
43
Test variables Constants used Service life estimated (time to
chloride induced corrosion
Clear cover, x 50 mm
initiation), using Dcl, m and Clth
Chloride diffusion • M30 – OPC : 18.7 x 10-12 m2/s
coefficient, DCl • M30 – FA30: 2.8 x 10-12 m2/s
• M30 – LC3 : 4.7 x 10-12 m2/s
• M50 – OPC : 15.6 x 10-12 m2/s
• M50 – FA30: 1.9 x 10-12 m2/s
• M50 – LC3 : 1.6 x 10-12 m2/s
• C-Mix – OPC : 12.6 x 10-12 m2/s
• C-Mix – FA30: 3.5 x 10-12 m2/s
• C-Mix – LC3 : 1.3 x 10-12 m2/s
Decay constant, m OPC 0.35
FA30 0.42
LC3 0.50
Chloride threshold, Clth
• OPC : 0.44 %bwoc
• FA30 : 0.32 %bwoc
• LC3 : 0.17 %bwoc

Maximum chloride Cs, max = 3 % bwoc

conc. at the concrete (0.6 % by wt. of concrete)
Courtesy: L&T Ramboll
surface, Cs, max [800 m away from the coast]
typical bridge girder in India
% bwoc  % by weight of cement 44
Service lives for concretes with 1.0

same strength grades

Cum. Probability
0.8 M30
» In general, 0.6

» Higher strength does not 0.4 OPC - 11 yrs

FA30 - 71 yrs
guarantee enhanced durability 0.2
LC3 - 44 yrs
» Difference between durability of 0.0
0 50 100 150 200
1.0
FA30 and LC3 systems decreases as Time to corrosion initiation (years)

Cum. Probability
0.8
M50
the strength increases
0.6
» For the same strength grades, 0.4
OPC - 12 yrs
» DCl of FA30 and LC3 are of 0.2 FA30 - 103 yrs
similar order of magnitude and 0.0
LC3 - 124 yrs
0 50 100 150 200
one order less than that of OPC Time to corrosion initiation (years)

Service life ranking considering concretes of same strength grades

For M30  FA30 > LC3 > OPC
For M50  LC3 ≈ FA30 >> OPC 45
Service lives of concretes with 1.0

Cum. Probability
similar mixture proportions 0.8
C-Mixes

» DCl: LC3 < FA30 < OPC 0.6

» Clth: LC3 < FA30 < OPC 0.4

OPC - 14 yrs
» For concretes with similar 0.2 FA30 - 56 yrs
LC3 - 156 yrs
mixture proportions, 0.0
0 50 100 150 200
» LC3 performs better than FA30 Time to corrosion initiation (years)
because of lower DCl
» Due to better chloride binding and
enhanced microstructure

Service life ranking considering concretes with

• Similar mixture proportions  LC3 > FA30 >> OPC
• Same strength grades  FA30 ≈ LC3 >> OPC
46
 Impact per year of service life

Average emissions per year of service life (kgCO2 eq. per m3 of concrete)

Chloride-induced
corrosion

• For chloride induced corrosion scenario

o LCA for concretes with similar strength grades  OPC >> LC3 ≈ FA30
o LCA for concretes with similar mix proportions  OPC >> FA30 > LC3 47
Service Life Estimation for Carbonation-induced Corrosion

fn Dchloride, K CO2 , Clthreshold, pH threshold  fn  icorr , Cresidual 
Initiation phase Propagation phase

Maximum allowable damage level

Damage level

Clsurface

x DChloride or K CO2
Residual
capacity?
Corrosion initiation
Clthreshold
Exposure
Time

Tutti’s model 48
 2D Graph 1
Service life estimated for the carbonation of cover
OPC M30
OPC
M30FA30 M30
FA30
LC3 M30
LC3
OPC M50
OPC
M50FA30 M50
FA30
LC3 M50
LC3
OPC C-Mix
OPC
C-Mixes
FA30 C-Mix
FA30
LC3 C-Mix
LC3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Estimated Service life (Years)

The (KCO2 + pHthreshold) effect on carbonation-dominated service life

needs to be studied.
49
 Impact per year of service life

Average emissions per year of service life (kgCO2 eq. per m3 of concrete)

Carbonation-induced
corrosion

• For carbonation-induced corrosion scenario  OPC ≈ FA30 ≈ LC3

50
Conclusions

» Average annual carbon footprint of OPC systems

(during its service life) can be much more than that
of FA30 and LC3 systems, having similar mechanical
performance.

51
Support from the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation through
the Climate Change programme is
gratefully acknowledged.

The LC3 project is led by EPFL.

Thanks also to the Dept. of Science and

Technology, and the Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Govt. of India
Thank you