The Use of Supplementary Cementitious Materials and Carbon Capture Storage for a Greener Concrete

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
Authors
AYMAN ABDULRAHMAN ALMUTLAQAH
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Climate changes and global warming are expected to deteriorate in the future due to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world. Globally, about 6% of CO2 emissions are caused by cement production. Therefore, the cement industries are under pressure to decrease their pollution and they have presented some methods and approaches which can be worthy in reducing the cement content in the concrete and decreasing the greenhouse gasses. The methods include utilizing Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and fly ash (FA) as a partial alternative of cement and injecting CO2 emissions from industries into the fresh concrete by Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) technique. These options can contribute to a reduction in pollution. Additionally, the alternative materials should also have efficient properties such as they can be functional in the early and late age of the concrete. Therefore, this study intended to investigate the compressive strength property and CO2 emissions of GGBS, FA, and CO2 quantity which is injected into the concrete by CCS technique. Furthermore, it aimed to determine the best of the aforementioned materials in terms of compressive strength performance and its contribution in decreasing the emissions of CO2 production. The properties of the concrete due to different quantities of GGBS, FA, and CO2 injection in the concrete and their CO2 emissions were assessed. The compressive strength tests with different curing methods were conducted on the above materials to determine the strength development and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was also assessed to investigate their emissions and their contribution in minimizing CO2 footprints. The results showed that GGBS can be preferable in reducing cement production emissions and CCS technique is desirable in terms of the compressive strength. Moreover, when all advantages and disadvantages of the materials are considered together, GGBS is the best alternative material. Using 0% of Cement in the concrete is not attainable, and therefore the results from this project can be helpful to explore the properties when GGBS or FA and CO2 injection substitute together in the concrete to be completely alternative of Cement in the future.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Collections