Study the impact of design method preference on the usefulness of concrete and on CO₂ emissions

Abdelgader, S H; Kurpinska, M; Abdelgader, H S; Omidi Moaf, F and Amran, M (2025) Study the impact of design method preference on the usefulness of concrete and on CO₂ emissions. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 43(4), pp. 804-825. ISSN 2398-4708

Abstract

Purpose: The research investigates the impact of concrete design methods on performance, emphasizing environmental sustainability. The study compares the modified Bolomey method and Abrams' law in designing concretes. Significant differences in cement consumption and subsequent CO₂ emissions are revealed. The research advocates for a comprehensive life cycle assessment, considering factors like compressive strength, carbonation resistance, CO₂ emissions, and cost. The analysis underscores the importance of evaluating concrete not solely based on strength but also environmental impact. The study concludes that a multicriteria approach, considering the entire life cycle, is essential for sustainable concrete design, addressing durability, environmental concerns, and economic factors. Design/methodology/approach: The study employed a comprehensive design and methodology approach, involving the formulation and testing of 20 mixed concretes with strengths ranging from 25 MPa to 45 MPa. Two distinct design methods, the modified Bolomey method (three equations method) and Abrams' law, were utilized to calculate concrete compositions. Laboratory experiments were conducted to validate the computational models, and subsequent analyses focused on assessing differences in cement consumption, compressive strength, CO₂ emissions, and concrete resistance to carbonation. The research adopted a multidisciplinary perspective, integrating theoretical analysis, laboratory testing, and life cycle assessment to evaluate concrete performance and sustainability. Findings: Conclusion from the study includes substantial variations (56%–112%) in cement content, depending on the calculation method. Abrams' law proves optimal for compressive strength (30 MPa–45 MPa), while the three equations method yields higher actual strength (30%–51%). Abrams' law demonstrates optimal cement use, but concrete designed with the three equations method exhibits superior resistance to aggressive environments. Cement content exceeding 450 kg/m³ is undesirable. Concrete designed with Abrams' law is economically favorable (12%–30% lower costs). The three equations method results in higher CO₂ emissions (38–83%), emphasizing the need for life cycle assessment. Originality/value: This study's originality lies in its holistic evaluation of concrete design methods, considering environmental impact, compressive strength, and cost across a comprehensive life cycle. The comparison of the traditional Abrams' law and the three equations method, along with detailed laboratory tests, contributes novel insights into optimal cement use and concrete performance. The findings underscore the importance of a multicriteria approach, emphasizing sustainability and economic viability. The research provides valuable guidance for engineers and policymakers seeking environmentally conscious and economically efficient concrete design strategies, addressing a critical gap in the field of construction materials and contributing to sustainable infrastructure development.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: cement; CO₂ emission; concrete; concrete design; durability; sustainability
Index terms: environmental concern, durability, engineer, life cycle, carbonation, design method, testing, economic factor, construction material, life cycle assessment, compressive strength, experiment, infrastructure development, laboratory, design strategy, computational model, consumption, preference, environmental sustainability, methodology, variation, environmental impact
Subjects: research methods, decision-making and reasoning, material analysis and testing, economic concepts, health safety and environment, infrastructure engineering, research management, environmental impact, consumer economics, environmental issues, materials science, professional practice, contractual condition, data collection methods, profession, value management, design methods, building materials, modelling and simulation, material degradation and durability
Topics: Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here