Academic Journal
View in EDS
PDF Full Text
HTML Full Text

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study

Bibliographic Details
Title: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study
Authors: Jana Gerta Backes, Pamela Del Rosario, Anna Luthin, Marzia Traverso
Source: Applied Sciences, Vol 12, Iss 18, p 9255 (2022)
Publisher Information: MDPI AG, 2022.
Publication Year: 2022
Collection: LCC:Technology
LCC:Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
LCC:Biology (General)
LCC:Physics
LCC:Chemistry
Subject Terms: LCA, end of life, recycling, carbon-reinforced concrete, steel-reinforced concrete, circular economy, Technology, Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General), TA1-2040, Biology (General), QH301-705.5, Physics, QC1-999, Chemistry, QD1-999
More Details: This study assesses the environmental performance in the end-of-life (EoL) of double walls made of carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) and steel-reinforced concrete (SRC). The most feasible CRC EoL scenarios are evaluated using life cycle assessment and their environmental performances are then compared to those of SRC. The results showed that mechanical recycling is the best CRC EoL scenario, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 7.0 kg CO2 eq., while the use of renewable energy can save over 50% of GWP. For SRC, the best scenario was obtained using a mobile recycling plant (GWP of 8.8 kg CO2 eq.). In general, the further life of the reinforcements is hardly comparable. Steel can be recycled nearly without losses or downcycling, while a closed cycle of carbon fibers is not yet possible. Therefore, carbon fiber properties or EoL processes need to be improved for a closed loop with an optimized environmental performance.
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: English
ISSN: 2076-3417
Relation: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/18/9255; https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417
DOI: 10.3390/app12189255
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111
Accession Number: edsdoj.3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHjPtM4BHU3ZchRwgzYmadcigk49r9CVlbU7V5F6lgH7WwEnKJfqZgXJoreL0PVUbOcfAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMpXIj5r70GN-ZT6YwIBEICBmqjNRxjo4CoP-o2nJu8ynU2R50cNDl06gQa_IOG-hyXmR2o4wEjlKJkhNguEegAGJT04f6JE_qutZcsAfGgezXXi75Lb2XCewBcRKD7cXFw_8SPdPT3zi2Q0EYy-vcH6mx0JFSOWN1gwnnjiBQ9hq6ck5Ew9TaX7MlzTJVwxMPBqCpkkxDAmZeYrALP7b2Qhf0MFIo58DN7Fdtc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159275637;[fdtu]15sep.22;2022Sep27.02:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159275637-1">Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study </title> <p>This study assesses the environmental performance in the end-of-life (EoL) of double walls made of carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) and steel-reinforced concrete (SRC). The most feasible CRC EoL scenarios are evaluated using life cycle assessment and their environmental performances are then compared to those of SRC. The results showed that mechanical recycling is the best CRC EoL scenario, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 7.0 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq., while the use of renewable energy can save over 50% of GWP. For SRC, the best scenario was obtained using a mobile recycling plant (GWP of 8.8 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq.). In general, the further life of the reinforcements is hardly comparable. Steel can be recycled nearly without losses or downcycling, while a closed cycle of carbon fibers is not yet possible. Therefore, carbon fiber properties or EoL processes need to be improved for a closed loop with an optimized environmental performance.</p> <p>Keywords: LCA; end of life; recycling; carbon-reinforced concrete; steel-reinforced concrete; circular economy</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>Building construction globally consumes 40% of materials and 40% of primary energy, causes 40% of waste, and generates 33% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions [[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]]. Furthermore, 8% of the anthropogenic CO<subs>2</subs> emissions are caused by global cement production [[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]].</p> <p>Consequently, sustainability and resource efficiency in the construction industry are increasingly important, where the end-of-life (EoL) performance and circular economy come into play.</p> <p>Technologies such as fiber-reinforced concrete, in the form of carbon- or glass-fiber-reinforced concrete, with high potential of material saving, play an important role in sustainable development [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]]. Currently, steel-reinforced concrete is state-of-the-art in the construction industry. However, C3 e.V. assumes that by 2030, 20% of it can be substituted by carbon concrete [[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]]. Carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) offers several advantages over steel-reinforced concrete (SRC), the most widely used building material worldwide [[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]]. For instance, steel reinforcement is susceptible to corrosion and requires a certain concrete cover serving as corrosion protection, which is not necessary for the load-bearing capacity of the material. In contrast, the corrosion-resistant carbon fiber reinforcement only requires a minimum concrete layer necessary for the bond (up to 50 mm concrete cover needed for steel-reinforced concrete; 10–15 mm concrete cover for CRC needed), enabling a component-dependent reduction of up to 80% in concrete consumption [[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]]. Thus, the environmental impacts related to the concrete cover can also be decreased.</p> <p>To evaluate construction materials such as FRC, in terms of environmental sustainability, life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used, and is used, to quantify environmental impacts. The basis of LCA is the evaluation of different stages of a product's life cycle, beginning with the extraction and processing of raw materials (cradle), associated with different production and use stages (gates), and ending with its end-of-life (EoL). The EoL describes the moment a product is no longer used and disposed, recycled, or utilized in another way (down- or upcycling) [[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]]. Subsequently, an important step is to be able to assess the sustainability of the product's EoL already in the design process of the material. Especially for expensive and energy-intensive carbon fibers, a definition of sustainable concepts for a reutilization or recycling paths is essential [[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]]. Although a consideration of the entire life cycle is relevant, until now, only few LCA studies focus on the EoL or full life cycle of CRC (see Section 2.4).</p> <p>In this study, we analyze how the recycling of CRC compares with the recycling of conventional SRC in terms of environmental impacts. The aim of this study is to identify different CRC EoL scenarios and to assess the environmental impacts of the most feasible ones currently available by means of an LCA. Furthermore, an LCA for the EoL of SRC is made and compared to the environmental impacts of the identified EoL scenarios of CRC.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-3">1.1. Carbon-Reinforced Concrete</hd> <p>Carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) is an innovative composite building material composed of concrete and reinforcement [[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]]. In the construction sector, carbon fibers are made of polyacrylonitrile (PAN), which is obtained from petroleum. The fibers are impregnated and, depending on the desired stability and flexibility of the reinforcing mesh, can be distinguished between two types of impregnation for application in the construction industry: epoxy resin (duromers; EP) or styrene–butadiene rubber (elastomers; SBR). For the reinforcement, up to fifty thousand filaments (individual fibers) are bundled into long fibers and spun into a roving (yarn) [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>]].</p> <p>Since carbon reinforcement is not susceptible to corrosion and no thick concrete cover is needed in the construction element to avoid it, the consumption of aggregates, cement, and water, i.e., essential components of concrete, can be reduced [[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]]. Another significant advantage of CRC, resulting from the corrosion resistance and durability of the carbon reinforcement, is its above-average service life of an estimated 100 years, which is significantly longer than the estimated service life of SRC (50 years) [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]].</p> <p>In CRC, the carbon fibers primarily carry the loads and are significantly stiffer and stronger than the matrix [[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]]. Further material properties include very low creep; good vibration damping; low thermal expansion and conductivity; good electrical conductivity; low X-ray absorption; and high resistance to acid, alkaline, and organic solvents [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]]. The negative properties of carbon fibers include low elongation and the resulting sharp-edged fractures; high price; and, in the event of a fire, the release of toxic gases, smoke, and respirable fibers at temperatures higher than 650 °C [[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-4">1.2. Life Cycle Assessment</hd> <p>LCA provides a robust, structured, and standardized method for evaluating the environmental impacts of systems and quantifying potential environmental emissions and impacts. In LCA, energy and material inputs and associated waste and emissions outputs are evaluated in terms of possible environmental impacts. LCA, according to the ISO 14040/44, consists of four phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation [[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]]. In the goal and scope definition, the functional unit (which is the reference for the results of the assessment), system boundaries, data sources, and impact assessment methods are defined. This phase is followed by the LCI, in which all inputs and outputs in the form of material and energy flows within the system boundaries are collected. Furthermore, the inputs and outputs of the LCI are then classified in different impact categories and characterized according to the chosen impact assessment method in order to calculate the potential environmental impacts produced by the analyzed product (system). Finally, the results of the LCIA are interpreted (interpretation phase) based on the defined goals and recommendations which can be made. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses can be carried out to assess the impact of robustness on the results and assess further life cycle scenarios.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-5">2. End-of-Life of CRC</hd> <p>End-of-life (EoL) describes the end of a product's life cycle and starts when the product no longer accomplishes its function and is considered as waste. The EoL contemplates different routes, such as reuse without structural changes, remanufacturing to like-new condition, recycling treatment of waste products for use as raw material in the same or a different product cycle, as well as incineration with or without energy recovery or landfill [[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]]. For the EoL of CRC, a distinction is made between two types:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) Separation of the demolition material into individual fractions that can be disposed of or recycled individually;</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) Non-separation of the demolition material into individual fractions, resulting in the reuse, recycling, or disposal of a heterogeneous material [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]] (Figure 1).</item> </ulist> <p>Figure 1 shows all currently possible EoL scenarios for CRC—excluding landfilling, as this is not allowed in Germany for carbon fibers with an EP matrix, according to the Deponieverordnung (DepV) (09/1027). It represents both the complete separation of the materials and their continued use as a complete component. The carbon fiber fraction can be used for energy recovery, reinforcement in concrete and plastic, as well as a carbon source for industrial processes. These processes and applications are further discussed in Section 2.2. For the separated concrete fraction, the recycling and use of a filling material in road construction are possible scenarios which are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3. Furthermore, in Figure 1, a distinction between preferred, less preferred, and not preferred EoL scenarios is made—shown graphically with different frames. The terms "preferred" or "not preferred" refer to the properties of the materials at the end of the EoL scenario, based on whether or not their further use avoids downcycling. In general, scenarios are preferred in which the material properties are maintained.</p> <p>Kimm [[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]] rules out the reuse of textile-reinforced concrete components. According to Kimm, reuse should be chosen over material recycling, but in practice a damage-free dismantling is not yet possible. Moreover, the current legal and political system of the construction sector does not promote the dissemination of reuse practices [[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]]. With the demolition and separation of the CRC components, it is expected that the highest-quality outputs for the processed materials (processed concrete and processed carbon fibers) will be achieved [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-6">2.1. Separation of CRC</hd> <p>The following separation process is based on a German study [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]] and was the result of experiments centered around separating CRC. CRC is selectively crushed with a carrier with a concrete pulverizer and sorting grab, resulting in pre-crushed coarse fragments of carbon concrete with carbon reinforcement. The fragments are loaded onto a dump truck with a hydraulic excavator and transported to a stationary preparation plant. The main crushing is performed by a jaw crusher, resulting in a heterogeneous mixture of building materials. The degree of disintegrating the carbon roving fragments from the concrete matrix is over 99% [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]].</p> <p>In the pre-separation stage, metallic-embedded parts are removed from the material flow by a stationary magnetic separator. Concrete fines (largest grain size of 2 mm), light plastic components (e.g., spacers), and carbon reinforcement with a mass fraction estimated at 10% are removed using a cross-flow classifier. After the pre-separation, the material stream contains a heterogeneous accumulation of concrete fragments of grain group 3/56 and exposed carbon roving fragments (average length 80 mm) [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]].</p> <p>A camera-based sorting unit is used for the main separation of fractions. According to Kortmann, 97.7% of the carbon roving fragments can be separated with this type of single-grain sorting. The result is the concrete fraction of grain group 3/56 (the utilization of which is not further discussed in this paper—mainly being used in road construction as gravel or partly in recycled concrete [[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]]) and the separated carbon fiber fraction including foreign mineral constituents of grain group 0/2 [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-7">2.2. Separation of Impregnated Fibers</hd> <p>The main waste management strategies for carbon fibers are incineration with energy recovery and recycling [[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]]. Recycling can be in the form of mechanical, thermal, or chemical recycling [[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]].</p> <p>Thermal recycling includes pyrolysis and fluidized bed pyrolysis, while chemical recycling includes solvolysis, acid digestion, and supercritical fluid solvolysis [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]]. Among these, pyrolysis and mechanical recycling show better potential for industrial application when compared to chemical recycling or fluidized bed pyrolysis [[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]].</p> <p>The sizing (impregnation) material is the most relevant component concerning fiber separation from concrete. Epoxy resin showed to provide the best separation since they dissolve well in a jaw crusher. FRC with elastomeric sizing can also be separated, but the reinforcement textile tends to be more damaged after the separation. Mineral or no sizing at all causes significant damage to the reinforcement and hinders the separation (Kimm et al., 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-8">2.2.1. Mechanical Recycling</hd> <p>An advantage of mechanical processing is that it addresses the growing amounts of carbon fiber waste [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]]. The fiber composite material is shredded and milled through a multi-stage process [[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>]]. Multi-shaft shredders and granulators are used as equipment, followed by a screening of the fibers to obtain a homogeneous particle size distribution [[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>]]. The fibers cannot be completely separated from the matrix (both EP and SBR) [[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]]. However, recycling can also occur without separating the two components [[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref42">27</reflink>]]. The shredded carbon fibers can be downcycled as filler in composites, concrete, asphalt, and coatings [[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]]. Moreover, inserting filler consisting of recycled carbon fibers can increase the mechanical (fatigue and fracture) and tribological (friction and wear) properties of new pure plastics [[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]]. In summary, fast processing and easy scalability are major advantages for this recycling method. Nevertheless, the length of carbon fibers is greatly reduced and contains resin residues, which affects their recyclability into new products [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-9">2.2.2. Thermal Recycling: Pyrolysis</hd> <p>Compared to mechanical recycling, a fundamental advantage of pyrolysis is the complete separation of the polymer matrix, allowing the separate reuse of fibers and the matrix [[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref49">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]]. These are separated in an inert atmosphere (usually nitrogen) under atmospheric pressure at a temperature of at least 350 °C [[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]]. During this process, so-called pyrolysis gases (e.g., H<subs>2</subs>, CH<subs>4</subs>, CO, and CO<subs>2</subs>) are generated from the polymer matrix [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]]. Due to their high calorific value, they can be used as fuel to directly support pyrolysis and can offset some of the energy needed in the process [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref55">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]]. Burning off the polymer matrix (EP or SBR) can cause soot adhesion to the carbon fiber surface, preventing the fibers from bonding with new resin [[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]]. Therefore, subsequent oxidation is necessary to remove the carbon black particles, negatively impacting the elastic modulus and tensile strength of the fibers [[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]]. The extent of this damage largely depends on the operating conditions, such as the pyrolysis and oxidation temperatures, the residence time, and the reaction atmosphere [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]]. In this regard, the best mechanical properties (93% tensile strength and 96% elastic modulus) have been obtained at a pyrolysis and oxidation temperature of 500 °C, a pyrolysis time of one hour, and an oxidation time of two hours [[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]]. The oxidation process may additionally enrich the pyrolyzed fibers with oxidized groups, serving as a crosslink between recycled fibers and new resin [[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref64">42</reflink>]]. However, the composites made with the recycled carbon fibers (rCF) tend to have poorer mechanical properties (reduced elastic modulus and tensile strength) compared to the composites made out of primary fibers [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]]. rCF can be used to increase the strength of plastics in the injection-molded components as well as further processed into nonwovens [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]]. Thus, the recycled fibers find application only in the field of non-structural composites, such as cladding in the automotive and aerospace industries or in lightweight sports equipment [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref68">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref69">42</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-10">2.3. Use of Recycled Fibers and Concrete</hd> <p>After being separated from their sizing, the recycled carbon fibers can be used in different scenarios. For some scenarios, the sizing does not have to be removed. Separated carbon fibers can serve as reinforcement in fiber concrete (FC). In FC, unlike fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC), the fibers lay unoriented in the concrete matrix. They are added during the mixing process of the concrete. In comparison to steel FC, with carbon FC, 18% better mechanical properties can be achieved with about ¼ of the material input. The demand of FC is very high. Germany has a 50 kt/a need of steel FC. By substituting 10% of these steel fibers by rCF, 2/3 of Europe's annual CF waste could be recycled (Kimm, 2019). Another possibility for rCF is the development of nonwovens as concrete or plastic reinforcement (Kimm et al., 2020). rCF nonwovens are ideal reinforcements for sophisticated composites [[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref70">43</reflink>]]. As reinforcement for concrete, the nonwoven is unsuitable due to difficulties in soaking the nonwoven properly in concrete. The generated benefits do not justify the processing expense (Kimm et al., 2020). Further, a staple fiber hybrid yarn at Technische Universität Dresden was tested in composite test pieces and reached a tensile strength of over 80% of comparable pure carbon fiber composite. Because the rCF processed into a yarn can be oriented in the load direction, this method more effectively exploits the mechanical properties of the rCF. The yarn can be used in lightweight construction as, e.g., reinforcement in plastic composites for the automotive industry, where rCF's conductive properties can be beneficial [[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]]. As another alternative for carbon fiber utilization, carbon fiber-reinforced plastics (CFRPs), as a substitute in calcium carbide production, have been investigated on an industrial scale [[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref72">45</reflink>]]. Calcium carbide (CaC<subs>2</subs>) is an important commodity chemical used for organic synthesis and nanotechnology [[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref73">46</reflink>]]. In the production process, CFRP waste can replace up to 20% of the needed carbon source [[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref74">45</reflink>]]. Further, the use of CFRP in the arc furnace steel production as a substitute for carbon sources has been investigated. The results are promising; nevertheless, the process has to be researched further on industrial scale [[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref75">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]].</p> <p>If material recycling for carbon fibers is no option, thermal recycling can be considered [[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]]. The landfilling of carbon fibers with EP matrix is not allowed in Germany. The matrix must be removed. Considering the expensive removal process, landfilling is unfavorable in an economic and environmental way [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]].</p> <p>The recycling of concrete has been researched for a long time. The concrete fraction resulting from the FRC separation process is crushed to particle sizes of 3–56 mm and classified. For use in concrete production, it can be crushed and separated into 0–16 mm fractions. Subsequently, up to 45% volume fraction can be added in the production of new concrete parts for dry surroundings without further examination (Exposure-class XC1). Theoretically, concrete can be recycled like this many times [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]]. Another common way of recycling is utilizing concrete aggregate as a filling material in road construction or in the construction of buildings, mines, and dams [[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>]].</p> <p>A promising approach for a closed life cycle in building industry is "urban mining". Materials in buildings at its EoL, which are still usable, are reused as a whole building part. Helbig et al. (2019) investigated the reuse of 1 m<sups>2</sups> CRC façade panels. First, the panel is deconstructed as a whole. Subsequently, it is transported to a processing plant where it becomes dismantled, refurbished, and re-mantled. After the return to a construction site, the façade panel is assembled again. The strategy of reuse is regarded as a flexible and sustainable solution [[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref81">48</reflink>]].</p> <p>The literature shows a clear necessity of sustainable EoL scenarios for CRC. Regarding the separation of CRC, crushing by mills and camera-based sorting seems to ensure the best results by enabling good separation and the extraction of 97.7% of carbon fibers with an acceptable length (average 80 mm) for further processing. The EP matrix stays on the fibers. To separate the matrix from the fibers, a few different methods are available (pyrolysis, solvolysis, etc.). Pyrolysis is the only method already performed in an industrial scale. However, it should be considered that pyrolysis cannot be performed as many times as desired. Thus, alternative scenarios, e.g., use in steel or calcium carbide production, might represent a more suitable for carbon fibers after being pyrolyzed. Using concrete fraction in the production of new concrete is the most promising scenario because the value of the former product is achieved again in the recycled product.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-11">2.4. LCAs of EoL of CRC</hd> <p>Only some LCA studies considering the EoL of CRC are available. Chen et al. (2010) [[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref82">49</reflink>]] conducted an LCA of waste recycling in the case of cement. As the functional unit (FU), the binding equivalent value BE (kg/m<sups>3</sups>) = cem + k*SCM was used and the system boundaries were set from cradle to gate [[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref83">49</reflink>]]. Colangelo et al. (2018) [[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref84">50</reflink>]] researched the environmental damage of concrete production with LCAs. The functional unit was defined as 1 m<sups>3</sups> of concrete, with a specific weight of 2400 kg/m<sups>3</sups>, and the system boundaries were included the production phase [[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref85">50</reflink>]]. Colangelo et al. (2020) [[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref86">51</reflink>]] analyzed the environmental impact of concrete with recycled aggregates and geopolymer mixtures. They used 1 m<sups>3</sups> of reinforced concrete with a compressive strength of 30 Mpa as their functional unit and cradle-to-grave as their system boundaries [[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref87">51</reflink>]]. Furthermore, Jehle et al. (2017) [[<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref88">52</reflink>]] investigated the key questions regarding the LCA of carbon-reinforced concrete, wherein several experiments were conducted [[<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref89">52</reflink>]]. Moreover, Kimm et al. (2018) [[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref90">53</reflink>]] present the results of recent experiments on the recyclability of the textile components in textile-reinforced concrete [[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref91">53</reflink>]]. Finally, Knoeri et al. (2013) [[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref92">54</reflink>]] analyzed the life cycle impacts of 12 recycled concrete mixtures with two different cement types and compared them with corresponding conventional concretes for three structural applications. The functional unit was set to 1 m<sups>3</sups> of concrete of a specific strength class with system boundaries, including the construction, use, and demolition stages [[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref93">54</reflink>]].</p> <p>For the above reasons, we will consider the EoL of CRC in the following case study and compare it with that of an equivalently functional steel-reinforced concrete component. The aim is to show EoL considerations already in the design phase, search for suitable solutions, and compare the long-term emissions of complete life cycles of the composite materials.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-12">3. Case Study: LCA EoL of SRC and CRC</hd> <p>So far, the authors are not aware of any comparative LCAs of the EoL of CRC and SRC in the form of a double wall. In the following, the EoL of two double walls will be examined and compared using LCA. The aim is to draw attention to future challenges with regard to buildings made of CRC in terms of environmental emissions and impacts, and to suggest suitable solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-13">3.1. Goal and Scope</hd> <p>The aim of this case study is to present the environmental impact range of EoL (modules C1–C3 in DIN EN 15804) [[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref94">55</reflink>]] scenarios of SRC and CRC, determined as a future outlook for 50 and 100 years from now [[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref95">10</reflink>]]. The cut-off method is used as no environmental impacts prior to the demolition are considered [[<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref96">56</reflink>]]. Hotspots and optimization approaches are identified and a comparison with SRC is made. The following scenarios are based on ISO 14040/44 [[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]]. The impact categories used are those in CML2001 (August 2016) and modelled with GaBi ts [[<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref98">57</reflink>]]: abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements [kg Sb eq.], ADP fossil [MJ]), acidification potential (AP [kg SO<subs>2</subs> eq.]), eutrophication potential (EP [kg phosphate eq.]), freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP inf. [kg DCB eq.]), global warming potential (GWP [kg CO<subs>2</subs> eq.]), human toxicity potential (HTP inf. [kg DCB eq.]), marine aquatic toxicity potential (MAETP inf. [kg DCB eq.]), ozone depletion potential (ODP, steady state [kg R11 eq.]), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP [kg ethene eq.]), and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP inf. [kg DCB eq.]). All mentioned impact categories will be analyzed with a special focus on GWP.</p> <p>For comparison reasons, the FU for this case study is defined as the mass of re-usable material of a double wall at its EoL with an equivalent load capacity and function (carbon-reinforced wall: 5 m × 2.5 m × 0.03 m vs. steel-reinforced wall: 5 m × 2.5 m × 0.06 m) (Figure 2) (according to Otto and Adam, 2019 [[<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref99">58</reflink>]]). The reason for the defined FU is a previous conducted cradle-to-gate LCA [[<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref100">59</reflink>]], which provided the starting point of this study and a precise mass definition given by Otto and Adam, 2019 [[<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref101">58</reflink>]].</p> <p>The mass differences between a carbon-reinforced double wall and a steel-reinforced double wall are shown in Table 1. The total weight of the steel-reinforced double wall doubles the total weight of the comparative carbon-reinforced double wall. The concrete cover per double wall varies from 1.42 t concrete per CRC to 2.63 t concrete per SRC, representing the (not) needed corrosion protection. Further, the carbon scrim included as reinforcement per double wall has a weight of 10 kg, whereof the steel reinforcement brings 230 kg (Table 1). The double walls are additionally connected to each other in reality using a composite grid. This is shown in Figure 2 as a black dotted line between the two walls. Such a composite grid can, for example, be made of AR glass textile [[<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref102">60</reflink>]] or steel. This composite lattice (connecting pins) was not named in Otto and Adam's study (2019), and is therefore not included in the current model. Moreover, possible insulation is also not considered in this case study.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-14">3.2. Life Cycle Inventory</hd> <p>Conservative approaches are used in the selection of processes and in the assumptions, when not given as primary or clearly defined literature data. German datasets—the double wall is assumed to be demolished and processed in Germany—are used when possible; where this is not feasible, European (first) and global (second) datasets are used.</p> <p>The life cycle inventory (LCI) for CRC is based on the processes outlined in Section 2, including the energy and fuel needed for demolition (from wall to small re-usable particles), transport routes of ~100 km, and the mechanical recycling or pyrolysis. The energy values and transports, including fuel, refer exclusively to the FU. The entire LCI is based on literature data or datasheets from German companies, which are converted to the target value, according to justified assumptions (Figure 3).</p> <p>For SRC, we assume three different demolition scenarios: (A) a mobile plant at the demolition location, (B) a stationary plant with a conventional processing (dry preparation), and (C) a stationary plant with innovative processing (dry and wet preparation). For SRC, a distance of ~100 km for each transport is assumed. Figure 4 shows the modelled flow chart, starting from the selective demolition on site (Scenario A) or a stationary plant (Scenario B1 and B2). The steel reinforcement is unpacked, meaning it can be ready for recycling at any steel-producing site. The concrete can be demolished into different sizes of reusable material. Flows entering the scope of the assessment are fuel (diesel), electricity, and water.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-15">4. Results</hd> <p>In the discussion, we place a strong emphasis on GWP; nevertheless, all CML2001 (August 2016) midpoint indicators are assessed.</p> <p>It is important to note that the output of concrete demolition can vary greatly, from the result of large fragments, which can be used as crushed stone in road construction, as well as fine grains, which can be used again directly in fresh concrete. Depending on the grain size, the required energy and fuel consumption, and thus the resulting emissions, also vary. Therefore, we list below a range of possible emissions from concrete crushing, which range up to a fineness of 0/1 mm. Considering the GWP in kg CO<subs>2</subs>e, aligning the concrete fraction for the CRC double wall results in a range of 2–14 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e (Figure 5); depending on the processes, the final grain size and required energy can be assumed (and the mass can be demolished).</p> <p>Mechanical recycling results in 4.9 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e. In contrast, pyrolysis produces 18.7 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e per double wall. Adding the concrete fraction and the two fiber EoL scenarios, the results in kg CO<subs>2</subs>e per double wall from carbon reinforcement range from 7 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e for concrete crushing and mechanical recycling to 22.4 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e for concrete crushing and pyrolysis (Figure 6) (including different concrete demolition ranges).</p> <p>Considering the individual EoL steps of the fibers (mechanical recycling and pyrolysis), the main drivers in mechanical recycling are the energy required (70%) and transport (30%) (Figure 7). For pyrolysis, 84% of the total GWP (18.7 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e) can be attributed to the required electricity, whereas only 8% can be attributed to transport and another 8% to gas (Figure 7).</p> <p>For steel recycling (Table 2), we assume that the crushed concrete can vary in the resulting grind sizes. We assume identical crushing steps to the ones for CRC (Figure 3). However, the results differ from those of the CRC due to a higher amount of concrete in SRC. The concrete demolition for the reinforced concrete is at a GWP of 6.9 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e with a particle size of 8/22 mm (Scenario A). The treatment by a conventional stationary plant (scenario B1) leads to 9.5 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e. The innovative stationary plant produced the finest grains (Scenario B2), which can be used directly in fresh concrete. Consequently, the largest amount of energy is required for crushing, which is also reflected in a GWP of 14 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e, the highest GWP for concrete crushing scenarios.</p> <p>For the steel and its EoL, we consider only the detachment from the surrounding concrete, as well as the transport of steel to the nearest steel mill, for melt down and recovery of 100% of steel. The melting itself is not included in the case study because after the steel is detached from the concrete, a reusable material already exists (goal: re-usable material out of double wall). Consequently, the GWP for the predefined steel-reinforced concrete double wall ranges from 5.6 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e to 15.9 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e, depending on the processes used—scenarios A, B1, or B2 (Figure 8).</p> <p>By analyzing scenarios B1 and B2, the following hotspots can be identified in terms of total GWP. Scenario B1 requires a large fraction of fuel for the selective demolition, leading to a fraction of 32% of the total GWP (3.1 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e of total 9.5 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e). The transport accounts for 39% of the total GWP emissions (as the complete wall was transported to the processing plant) and the dry processing accounts for the remaining 28% (Figure 9). In scenario B2, the innovative stationary processing plant additionally uses wet processing, which accounts for the largest share of GWP (8 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e of total 14 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e) due to the required energy, fuel, and water. The wet processing corresponds to 29%. Furthermore, transport has a large share of the GWP with 27%, followed by dry processing and selective demolition (Figure 9).</p> <p>In terms of ADP<subs>fossil</subs>, carbon fraction and mechanical recycling lead to 191.3 MJ, while carbon fraction and pyrolysis amount to 473 MJ. For steel recycling, the impact is similar (412.9–475.5 MJ for stationary plants) or significantly higher in terms of the mobile plant (700.3–725.5 MJ). The HTP for carbon concrete recycling with pyrolysis is almost twice as high as the option with only mechanical recycling (1.0 vs. 0.4 kg DCB eq.), while the HTP for steel recycling ranges between 0.6 and 0.9 kg DCB eq. The MAETP<subs>inf.</subs> for carbon concrete recycling again is significantly higher as the mechanical treatment (more the three times the impact: 1882.6 vs. 557.7 kg DCB eq.). The environmental impacts of recycling of SRC are higher than the mechanical treatment of carbon-reinforced concrete, but lower than the option which includes pyrolysis (769.6–1301.0 kg DCB eq.) (Table 2 and Table 3).</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-16">5. Sensitivity Analysis</hd> <p>As shown in the evaluation of CRC using electricity, fuel, and gas, the main driver for all EoL processes is the required energy (see also Figure 3 and Figure 5 (dry processing and dry and wet processing)). Consequently, in our sensitivity analysis, only a variation in the energy supply is considered. This was previously set as a traditional German electricity mix, which is replaced by a renewable electricity mix.</p> <p>In our scenarios, the concrete fraction is demolished and crushed individually with fuel, and consequently with diesel, which has no impact on energy use and the electricity mix; thus, the emissions remain unchanged. However, the key factor for CRC is mechanical recycling and, in particular, pyrolysis. We assume that both recycling options are purely based on renewable energies [[<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref103">61</reflink>]]. With the substitution of the energy source, emissions are reduced by more than 50% for both options (conventional in diagonally striped muster and renewable in grey, as shown in Figure 10). In pyrolysis, savings as high as 70% can be achieved (Figure 6).</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-17">6. Discussion and Limitations</hd> <p>The case study shows that the environmental impacts of CRC demolition and grinding are significantly influenced by the size of the grains. For GWP, a reduction of about 86% is possible comparing the best with the worst scenario (range: 2–14 kg CO<subs>2</subs>e). Moreover, the use of renewable energy plays an important role in CRC as the use of renewable energy can reduce over 50% of environmental impacts. For SRC, wet processing (scenario B2) provides the largest emissions but offers the smallest particle size for further processing.</p> <p>Although the CRC double walls consist of less material and might have a longer lifespan, the EoL emissions are partly higher than those for SRC. This is due to energy-intensive processes of pyrolysis. Thus, purely renewable energy can already help to reduce the environmental impacts. However, the further life of the reinforcements is hardly comparable. While steel can be recycled nearly without any losses or downcycling, a closed cycle of carbon fibers is, despite high emissions, realistically not possible today. Hence, fiber properties or EoL processes need to be greatly improved for an efficiently improved loop that provides more environmental benefits.</p> <p>Some limitations of the study shall be addressed. For instance, the results are based on literature data and assumptions, as few primary data related to EoL of CRC currently exist. Furthermore, only the EoL is considered and no upstream and downstream processes are included. Downstream processes are not considered as steel and carbon fibers are not comparable if not used for the same purpose again. Moreover, the melting of steel is not accounted for, as a direct further use is assumed. Thus, the comparability can certainly be criticized depending on the use and should be considered accordingly in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-18">7. Conclusions and Future Outlook</hd> <p>The aim of the study was to compare the environmental impacts of the end-of-life (EoL) of carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) and steel-reinforced concrete (SRC). To do so, a life cycle assessment using literature data is performed—only focusing on the end-of-Life scenarios. In the background, we describe in detail all possible options for the EoL of CRC. The results show that the emissions of CRC EoL, despite lower input related to mass and an expected higher lifetime, do not necessarily decrease compared to SRC, but are partly higher. The best SRC scenario in terms of GWP is a mobile plant leading to 8.8 kg CO<subs>2</subs> eq., while the best CRC scenario is mechanical recycling (7.0 kg CO<subs>2</subs> eq. best case and 8.6 kg CO<subs>2</subs> eq. worst case), which does not include pyrolysis and does not provide material circularity. Moreover, the concrete grain size is identified as relevant for emissions; the smaller the particle sizes, the higher the environmental emissions. Carbon fibers cannot be completely looped and downcycling is likely. The use of CRC should therefore be carefully considered. While its use may have advantages in some applications, a general advantage may not be established. Even though it is based on secondary data, the study may provide relevant insight into the EoL for both academics and industry—already today focusing on challenges 100 years from now. A study with primary data and a comparison with glass-fiber-reinforced concrete, another alternative for fiber-reinforced concrete, should be performed in future research.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-19">Figures and Tables</hd> <p>Graph: Figure 1 EoL of the CRC building part (own illustration).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 FU: re-usable material out of carbon fiber vs. steel-reinforced double wall analyzed in the study.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 Flow chart: EoL CRC.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4 Flow Chart: EoL SRC.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5 Concrete demolition range—depending on the grain size and process used.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6 GWP per double wall CRC.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7 Hotspots GWP mechanical recycling (left) and pyrolysis (right).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 8 GWP per SRC double wall.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 9 HotSpots GWP scenario B1 (stationary plant conventional) (left) and scenario B2 (stationary plant innovative) (right).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 10 Using renewable energy mix for mechanical recycling and pyrolysis.</p> <p>Table 1 Volume and weight of concrete and reinforcement (according to [[<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref104">58</reflink>]]).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">Carbon-Reinforced Concrete</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">Amount</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">Unit</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">Steel-Reinforced Concrete</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">Amount</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">Unit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Total weight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Total weight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">2.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Total double wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">m<sup>3</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Total double wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">m<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete per double wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete per double wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">2.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Carbon scrim per m<sup>3</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0170</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Steel scrim per m<sup>3</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.2100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Carbon scrim per double wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Steel scrim per double wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.2310</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Carbon scrim per wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0051</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Steel scrim per wall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">t</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 LCA CRC-EoL CML2001.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">EoL CRC</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">ADPe</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">ADPf</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">AP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">EP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">FAETP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">GWP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">HTP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">MAETP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">ODP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">POCP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">TETP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete fraction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">27.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>2.0</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">33.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Mechanical recycling</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">164.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>4.9</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">521.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete fraction + mech. recycling</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">191.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>7.0</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">554.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Pyrolysis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">445.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>18.7</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1849.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete fraction + pyrolysis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">473.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>20.7</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1882.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3 LCA SRC-EoL CML2001.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" /><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">EoL SRC</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">ADPe</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">ADPf</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">AP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">EP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">FAETP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">GWP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">HTP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">MAETP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">ODP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">POCP</th><th align="center" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin">TETP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" /><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Steel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">25.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>1.9</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">30.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete fraction—mobile plant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">700.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>6.9</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">860.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" /><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">A: Steel + mobile plant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">725.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>8.8</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">891.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">B1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete fraction—stationary conventional</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">412.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>9.5</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">769.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" /><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">B1: Steel + stat. plant con.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">438.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>11.4</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">800.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">B2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">Concrete fraction—stationary innovative</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">475.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>12.8</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1270</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" /><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">B2: Steel + stat. plant inno.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">500.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin"><bold>14.7</bold></td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">1301.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin">0.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0159275637-20">Author Contributions</hd> <p>Conceptualization: J.G.B., P.D.R. and A.L.; methodology: J.G.B., P.D.R. and A.L.; formal analysis and investigation: J.G.B.; writing—original draft preparation: J.G.B., A.L. and P.D.R.; writing—review and editing: J.G.B., P.D.R., A.L. and M.T.; funding acquisition: M.T., J.G.B. and P.D.R.; supervision: M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-21">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>All data used is integrated within this article.</p> <hd id="AN0159275637-22">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <ref id="AN0159275637-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0159275637-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Sizirici B., Fseha Y., Cho C.S., Yildiz I., Byon Y.J. A review of carbon footprint reduction in construction industry, from design to operation. Materials. 2021; 146094. 10.3390/ma14206094. 34683687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2020; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA. 2020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Kortmann J.. Verfahrenstechnische Untersuchungen zur Recyclingfähigkeit von Carbonbeton; Springer Viehweg: Dresden, Germany. 2020. 9783658301255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Schladitz F., Tietze M., Kahnt A. Marktpotenzial Carbonbeton. 7. TUDALIT Anwendertagung, 22.-23.09.; TUDALIT e.V.: Dresden, Germany. 2015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Monteiro P.J.M., Miller S.A., Horvath A. Towards sustainable concrete. Nat. Mater. 2017; 16: 698-699. 10.1038/nmat4930. 28653697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Reichenbach S., Preinstorfer P., Hammerl M., Kromoser B. A review on embedded fibre-reinforced polymer reinforcement in structural concrete in Europe. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021; 307: 124946. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Seifert W., Lieboldt M. Ressourcenverbrauch im globalen Stahlbetonbau und Potenziale der Carbonbetonbauweise. Beton und Stahlbetonbau. 2020; 115: 469-478. 10.1002/best.201900094</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Khasreen M.M., Banfill P.F.G., Menzies G.F. Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability. 2009; 1: 674-701. 10.3390/su1030674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kimm M. Recycling von Carbonbeton: Wie kann eine hochwertige Wiederverwendung gelingen?. TUDALIT leichter Bau. Zukunft Formen. 2019; 21: 35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spelter A., Bergmann S., Bielak J., Hegger J. Long-term durability of carbon-reinforced concrete: An overview and experimental investigations. Appl. Sci. 2019; 91651. 10.3390/app9081651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmeer S., Magin M., Meier M., Mattern S., Schweizerhof K.. Aktueller Stand und Trends in der CFK-Berechnung im Fahrzeugbau; Forschungsvereinigung Automobiltechnik e.V. (FAT): Frankfurt, Germany. 2008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gries T., Roye A., Offermann P., Peled A. Textiles. Textile Reinforced Concrete—State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM TC 201-TRC.Brameshuber W. ; RILEM Publications SARL: Paris, France. 2006: 11-27. 2351580001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ISO 14040. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.: Berlin, Germany. 2006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ISO 14044. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.: Berlin, Germany. 2018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duque Ciceri N., Garetti M., Sperandio S. From product end-of-life sustainable considerations to design management. IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2010; 338: 152-159. 10.1007/978-3-642-16358-6_20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimm M. Ressourceneffizientes und Recyclinggerechtes Design Faserverbundwerkstoffen im Bauwesen. Ph.D. Thesis; RWTH Aachen University: Aachen, Germany. 2020ISBN 9783844078268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimm M., Bhat S., Gries T. Recycling of Textile Reinforced Concrete. Miner. Nebenprodukte Abfälle. 2020; 7: 357-373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Backes J.G., del Rosario P., Petrosa D., Traverso M., Hatzfeld T., Guenther E. Building sector issues in about 100 years: End-of-Life scenarios of carbon-reinforced concrete presented in the context of a Life Cycle Assessment, focusing the Carbon Footprint. Processes. 2022; 101791. 10.3390/pr10091791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khalil Y.F. Comparative environmental and human health evaluations of thermolysis and solvolysis recycling technologies of carbon fiber reinforced polymer waste. Waste Manag. 2018; 76: 767-778. 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.026. 29599023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rybicka J., Tiwari A., Leeke G.A. Technology readiness level assessment of composites recycling technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016; 112: 1001-1012. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shuaib N.A., Mativenga P.T., Kazie J., Job S. Resource Efficiency and Composite Waste in UK Supply Chain. Procedia CIRP. 2015; 29: 662-667. 10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pakdel E., Kashi S., Varley R., Wang X. Recent progress in recycling carbon fibre reinforced composites and dry carbon fibre wastes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021; 166: 105340. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woidasky J., Seiler E., Henning F., Wolf M.-A., Harsch M. Kunststoffe und Bauteile—Umwelt und Recycling. Polymer Engineering 3; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. 2020: 89-139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May D., Goergen C., Friedrich K. Multifunctionality of polymer composites based on recycled carbon fibers: A review. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 2021; 4: 70-81. 10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vincent G.A., de Bruijn T.A., Wijskamp S., Abdul Rasheed M.I., van Drongelen M., Akkerman R. Shredding and sieving thermoplastic composite scrap: Method development and analyses of the fibre length distributions. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019; 176: 107197. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martens H., Goldmann D.. Recyclingtechnik: Fachbuch für Lehre und Praxis2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. 2016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krauklis A.E., Karl C.W., Gagani A.I., Jørgensen J.K. Composite Material Recycling Technology—State-of-the-Art and Sustainable Development for the 2020s. J. Compos. Sci. 2021; 528. 10.3390/jcs5010028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer J., Savage L., Ghita O.R., Evans K.E. Sheet moulding compound (SMC) from carbon fibre recyclate. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2010; 41: 1232-1237. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pickering S.J. Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—Current status. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2006; 37: 1206-1215. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.05.030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornbogen E. Chemische und tribologische Eigenschaften. Werkstoffe—Aufbau und Eigenschaften von Keramik-, Metall-, Polymer-und Verbundwerkstoffen; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. 2002: 220-241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer L.O., Schulte K., Grove-Nielsen E. CFRP-Recycling Following a Pyrolysis Route: Process Optimization and Potentials. J. Compos. Mater. 2009; 43: 1121-1132. 10.1177/0021998308097737</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveux G., Dandy L.O., Leeke G.A. Current status of recycling of fibre reinforced polymers: Review of technologies, reuse and resulting properties. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2015; 72: 61-99. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park J.M., Kwon D.J., Wang Z.J., Gu G.Y., Devries K.L. Effect of thermal treatment temperatures on the reinforcing and interfacial properties of recycled carbon fiber–phenolic composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2013; 47: 156-164. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abdallah R., Juaidi A., Savaş M.A., Çamur H., Albatayneh A., Abdala S., Manzano-Agugliaro F. A Critical Review on Recycling Composite Waste Using Pyrolysis for Sustainable Development. Energies. 2021; 145748. 10.3390/en14185748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López F.A., Rodríguez O., Alguacil F.J., García-Díaz I., Centeno T.A., García-Fierro J.L., González C. Recovery of carbon fibres by the thermolysis and gasification of waste prepreg. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 2013; 104: 675-683. 10.1016/j.jaap.2013.04.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limburg M., Quicker P. Entsorgung von Carbonfasern—Probleme des Recyclings und Auswirkungen auf die Abfallverbrennung. Berliner Abfallwirtschafts Energiekonferenz. 2016; 13: 135-144. 978-3-944310-24-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naqvi S.R., Prabhakara H.M., Bramer E.A., Dierkes W., Akkerman R., Brem G. A critical review on recycling of end-of-life carbon fibre/glass fibre reinforced composites waste using pyrolysis towards a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018; 136: 118-129. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Onwudili J.A., Miskolczi N., Nagy T., Lipóczi G. Recovery of glass fibre and carbon fibres from reinforced thermosets by batch pyrolysis and investigation of fibre re-using as reinforcement in LDPE matrix. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016; 91: 154-161. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang J., Liu J., Liu W., Wang J., Tang T. Recycling of carbon fibre reinforced epoxy resin composites under various oxygen concentrations in nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 2015; 112: 253-261. 10.1016/j.jaap.2015.01.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang J., Chevali V.S., Wang H., Wang C.H. Current status of carbon fibre and carbon fibre composites recycling. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020; 193: 108053. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nahil M.A., Williams P.T. Recycling of carbon fibre reinforced polymeric waste for the production of activated carbon fibres. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 2011; 91: 67-75. 10.1016/j.jaap.2011.01.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzocchetti L., Benelli T., D'Angelo E., Leonardi C., Zattini G., Giorgini L. Validation of carbon fibers recycling by pyro-gasification: The influence of oxidation conditions to obtain clean fibers and promote fiber/matrix adhesion in epoxy composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2018; 112: 504-514. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heilos K., Fischer H., Hofmann M., Miene A. Nonwovens made of recycled carbon fibres (rCF) used for production of sophisticated carbon fibre-reinforced plastics. Vlakna Text. 2020; 27: 65-75</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hengstermann M. Entwicklung von Hybridgarnen aus Recycelten Carbonfasern und Polyamid 6-Fasern für Thermoplastische Verbundbauteile Mit Hohem Leistungsvermögen. Ph.D. Thesis; Technische Universität Dresden: Dresden, Germany. 1986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schueppel D., Stockschlaeder J., von Reden T. End-of-life CFRP as a raw material in steel and of calcium carbide production. Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Composite Materials. Athens, Greece. 24–28 June 2018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konar S., Nylén J., Svensson G., Bernin D., Edén M., Ruschewitz U., Häussermann U. The many phases of CaC2. J. Solid State Chem. 2016; 239: 204-213. 10.1016/j.jssc.2016.04.030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wexler M., Baumann W., Gehrmann H. Optionen der Carbonfaserverwertung in industriellen Hochtemperaturprozessen. Proceedings of the Berliner Abfallwirtschafts- und Energiekonferenz. Berlin, Germany. 10–11 June 2021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helbig M.R., Kahnt A., Grunewald J. Chancen der Wiederverwendung von Fassadenelementen aus Carbonbeton. Proceedings of the Smart Cities/Smart Regions—Technische, Wirtschaftliche und Gesellschaftliche InnovationenGómez J.M., Solsbach A., Klenke T., Wohlgemuth V. ; Springer Viehweg: Oldenburg, Germany. 2019: 179-188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen C., Habert G., Bouzidi Y., Jullien A., Ventura A. LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010; 54: 1231-1240. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colangelo F., Forcina A., Farina I., Petrillo A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of different kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable construction. Buildings. 2018; 870. 10.3390/buildings8050070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colangelo F., Navarro T.G., Farina I., Petrillo A. Comparative {LCA} of concrete with recycled aggregates: A circular economy mindset in {Europe}. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020; 25: 1790-1804. 10.1007/s11367-020-01798-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jehle P., Kortmann J., Kopf F., Bienkowski N. Demolition and recycling of carbon reinforced concrete. Proceedings of the International HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste 2017. Delft, The Netherlands. 21–23 June 2017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimm M., Gerstein N., Schmitz P., Simons M., Gries T., Knoeri C., Sanyé-Mengual E., Althaus H.J., Jehle P., Kortmann J. On the separation and recycling behaviour of textile reinforced concrete: An experimental study. Int. J. Cem. Compos. Light. Concr. 2018; 51: 271-272. 10.1617/s11527-018-1249-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knoeri C., Sanyé-Mengual E., Althaus H.-J. Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013; 18: 909-918. 10.1007/s11367-012-0544-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DIN EN 15804. 2012—Nachhaltigkeit von Bauwerken—Umweltproduktdeklarationen—Grundregeln für die Produktkategorie Bauprodukte; Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) e.V.: Berlin, Germany. 2012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eberhardt L.C.M., van Stijn A., Rasmussen F.N., Birkved M., Birgisdottir H. Development of a life cycle assessment allocation approach for circular economy in the built environment. Sustainality. 2020; 129579. 10.3390/su12229579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CML—Department of Industrial Ecology CML-IA Characterisation Factors. 2016Available online: https://<ulink href="http://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors(accessed">www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors(accessed</ulink> on 12 September 2022)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otto J., Adam R. Carbonbeton und Stahlbeton im wirtschaftlichen Vergleich/Textile-reinforced concrete and reinforced concrete in an economic comparison. Bauingenieur. 2019; 94: 246-253. 10.37544/0005-6650-2019-06-80</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Backes J.G., Traverso M., Horvath A. Sustainability Assessment of a disruptive innovation: Comparative cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Reinforced Concrete. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022in submitted</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von der Heid A.C., Grebe R., Will N., Hegger J. Großformatige Sandwichelemente mit Deckschichten aus Textilbeton: Untersuchungen an Sandwichplattenstreifen. Beton Stahlbetonbau. 2019; 114: 476-484. 10.1002/best.201900021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umweltbundesamt Erneuerbare Energien in Deutschland—Daten zur Entwicklung 2020. Umweltbundesamt. 2021: 1-28</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jana Gerta Backes; Pamela Del Rosario; Anna Luthin and Marzia Traverso</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://resolver.ebsco.com/c/xy5jbn/result?sid=EBSCO:edsdoj&genre=article&issn=20763417&ISBN=&volume=12&issue=18&date=20220901&spage=9255&pages=9255-9255&title=Applied Sciences&atitle=Comparative%20Life%20Cycle%20Assessment%20of%20End-of-Life%20Scenarios%20of%20Carbon-Reinforced%20Concrete%3A%20A%20Case%20Study&aulast=Jana%20Gerta%20Backes&id=DOI:10.3390/app12189255
    Name: Full Text Finder (for New FTF UI) (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: Find It @ SCU Libraries
    MouseOverText: Find It @ SCU Libraries
  – Url: https://doaj.org/article/3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111
    Name: EDS - DOAJ (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: View record from DOAJ
    MouseOverText: View record from DOAJ
Header DbId: edsdoj
DbLabel: Directory of Open Access Journals
An: edsdoj.3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111
RelevancyScore: 922
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 922.154418945313
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jana+Gerta+Backes%22">Jana Gerta Backes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pamela+Del+Rosario%22">Pamela Del Rosario</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+Luthin%22">Anna Luthin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marzia+Traverso%22">Marzia Traverso</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: Applied Sciences, Vol 12, Iss 18, p 9255 (2022)
– Name: Publisher
  Label: Publisher Information
  Group: PubInfo
  Data: MDPI AG, 2022.
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Year
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: Subset
  Label: Collection
  Group: HoldingsInfo
  Data: LCC:Technology<br />LCC:Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)<br />LCC:Biology (General)<br />LCC:Physics<br />LCC:Chemistry
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22LCA%22">LCA</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22end+of+life%22">end of life</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22recycling%22">recycling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22carbon-reinforced+concrete%22">carbon-reinforced concrete</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22steel-reinforced+concrete%22">steel-reinforced concrete</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22circular+economy%22">circular economy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology%22">Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+%28General%29%2E+Civil+engineering+%28General%29%22">Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22TA1-2040%22">TA1-2040</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology+%28General%29%22">Biology (General)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22QH301-705%2E5%22">QH301-705.5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physics%22">Physics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22QC1-999%22">QC1-999</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chemistry%22">Chemistry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22QD1-999%22">QD1-999</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Description
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study assesses the environmental performance in the end-of-life (EoL) of double walls made of carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) and steel-reinforced concrete (SRC). The most feasible CRC EoL scenarios are evaluated using life cycle assessment and their environmental performances are then compared to those of SRC. The results showed that mechanical recycling is the best CRC EoL scenario, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 7.0 kg CO2 eq., while the use of renewable energy can save over 50% of GWP. For SRC, the best scenario was obtained using a mobile recycling plant (GWP of 8.8 kg CO2 eq.). In general, the further life of the reinforcements is hardly comparable. Steel can be recycled nearly without losses or downcycling, while a closed cycle of carbon fibers is not yet possible. Therefore, carbon fiber properties or EoL processes need to be improved for a closed loop with an optimized environmental performance.
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: article
– Name: Format
  Label: File Description
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: electronic resource
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2076-3417
– Name: NoteTitleSource
  Label: Relation
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/18/9255; https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.3390/app12189255
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://doaj.org/article/3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111" linkWindow="_blank">https://doaj.org/article/3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: edsdoj.3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111
PLink https://login.libproxy.scu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&scope=site&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.3783bdacaa7c4ab395902febc55d1111
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.3390/app12189255
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 1
        StartPage: 9255
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: LCA
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: end of life
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: recycling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: carbon-reinforced concrete
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: steel-reinforced concrete
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: circular economy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: TA1-2040
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biology (General)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: QH301-705.5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: QC1-999
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chemistry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: QD1-999
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete: A Case Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jana Gerta Backes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pamela Del Rosario
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna Luthin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marzia Traverso
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 20763417
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 12
            – Type: issue
              Value: 18
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Sciences
              Type: main
ResultId 1