Volume 15, Issue 9 · IJARST · ISSN 2319-1783 / 2320-1126

Sustainable and Low-Carbon Construction Materials for Future Infrastructure an Integrated Performance, Durability, Carbon and Life-Cycle Cost Assessment Framewor

Sustainable and Low-Carbon Construction Materials for Future Infrastructure an Integrated Performance, Durability, Carbon and Life-Cycle Cost Assessment Framewor is an open-access, peer-reviewed research paper by Monpara Jayesh Rameshbhai, published in Volume 15, Issue 9 of the International Journal of Advanced Research in Science and Technology (IJARST), a UGC-approved journal (Print ISSN 2319-1783, Online ISSN 2320-1126).

Author

Monpara Jayesh Rameshbhai

Abstract

The construction sector is facing increasing pressure to reduce embodied carbon, resource consumption and construction waste while maintaining the structural performance, durability and economic viability of infrastructure. This research investigates sustainable and low-carbon construction materials as alternatives to conventional cementitious and aggregate-based materials, with particular emphasis on supplementary cementitious materials, recycled aggregates and waste-derived construction materials. The study proposes an integrated Performance–Durability–Carbon–Life-Cycle Cost (PDCLC) assessment framework for evaluating sustainable material alternatives for future infrastructure. The proposed methodology combines material characterisation, mechanical performance assessment, durability evaluation, embodied carbon analysis and life-cycle cost assessment. Key engineering indicators, including compressive strength, tensile and flexural performance, water absorption, durability behaviour, embodied CO₂ emissions and whole-life cost, are evaluated to establish the relationship between material composition, engineering performance and sustainability outcomes. A multi-criteria assessment approach is then proposed to identify material solutions that provide an appropriate balance between structural performance, durability, carbon reduction and economic feasibility. The research aims to address an important limitation in existing sustainable-material studies, where environmental performance, engineering performance and economic implications are frequently assessed independently. By integrating these dimensions within a single decision-support framework, the study provides a systematic approach for selecting low-carbon materials according to infrastructure requirements and life-cycle performance. The proposed framework can support the development of resource-efficient buildings, roads, bridges, precast systems and modular infrastructure while promoting construction-waste utilization and circular material practices. The research contributes to the advancement of sustainable civil engineering by providing a practical performance–carbon–cost-based methodology for low-carbon material selection. The outcomes are intended to support engineers, construction professionals, project managers and infrastructure decision-makers in reducing environmental impacts while maintaining technical and economic performance. The study therefore contributes to the wider development of resilient, resource-efficient and low-carbon infrastructure and establishes a coherent research direction at the intersection of civil engineering, sustainable construction, material innovation and construction cost management.

Keywords: Sustainable Construction; Low-Carbon Materials; Civil Engineering; Recycled Aggregates; Supplementary Cementitious Materials; Embodied Carbon; Durability; Life-Cycle Cost; Circular Economy; Sustainable Infrastructure

DOI:https://doi.org/10.62226/ijarst20262813

References:

1. Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M., & Gartner, E. M. (2018). Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 2–26. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015.
2. Habert, G., Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Provis, J. L., Favier, A., Horvath, A., & Scrivener, K. L. (2020). Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1, 559–573. doi:10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3.
3. Gartner, E. (2004). Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO₂” cements. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(9), 1489–1498. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.021.
4. Wang, B., Yan, L., Fu, Q., & Kasal, B. (2021). A comprehensive review on recycled aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 171, 105565. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105565.
5. Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Lo, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2016). Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by LCA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 109, 67–77. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.02.009.
6. Gursel, A. P., Ostertag, C., & Horvath, A. (2014). A life-cycle approach to environmental, mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 823–836.
7. Braga, A. M., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2017). Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 529–543.
8. Visintin, P., Xie, T., & Bennett, B. (2020). A large-scale life-cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete: The influence of functional unit, emissions allocation and carbon dioxide uptake. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119243. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119243.
9. Marinković, S., Radonjanin, V., Malešev, M., & Ignjatović, I. (2010). Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Management, 30(11), 2255–2264.
10. Knoeri, C., Sanyé-Mengual, E., & Althaus, H. J. (2013). Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 909–918.
11. Turk, J., Cotič, Z., Mladenovič, A., & Šajna, A. (2015). Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Management, 45, 194–205.
12. Kurda, R., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2018). Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 139, 407–417. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.004.
13. Zhang, Y., Luo, W., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., & Xiao, J. (2019). A review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 209, 115–125. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078.
14. Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Hu, F., & Wang, Y. (2022). Life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete on its environmental impacts: A critical review. Construction and Building Materials, 317, 125950. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125950.
15. Turner, L. K., & Collins, F. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 43, 125–130. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023.
16. McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. D. (2011). Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(9–10), 1080–1090. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010.
17. Duxson, P., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (2007). The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of ‘green concrete’. Cement and Concrete Research, 37(12), 1590–1597. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018.
18. Bernal, S. A., Mejía de Gutiérrez, R., & Provis, J. L. (2012). Engineering and durability properties of concretes based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/metakaolin blends. Construction and Building Materials, 33, 99–108. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.017.
19. Barbhuiya, S., Nepal, J., & Das, B. B. (2023). Properties, compatibility, environmental benefits and future directions of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) concrete: A review. Journal of Building Engineering, 79, 107794. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107794.
20. Mañosa, J., Calderón, A., Salgado-Pizarro, R., Maldonado-Alameda, A., & Chimenos, J. M. (2024). Research evolution of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3), a promising low-carbon binder—A comprehensive overview. Heliyon, 10(3), e25117. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25117.
21. Huang, Z., Liang, T., & Chen, L. (2023). Experimental studies on durability performances of ultra-lightweight low-carbon LC3 cement composites against chloride ingression and carbonation. Construction and Building Materials, 395, 132340. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132340.
22. Endale, S. A., Taffese, W. Z., Vo, D. H., & Yehualaw, M. D. (2023). Rice husk ash in concrete. Sustainability, 15(1), 137. doi:10.3390/su15010137.
23. Tayeh, B. A., Alyousef, R., Alabduljabbar, H., & Alaskar, A. (2021). Recycling of rice husk waste for a sustainable concrete: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127734. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127734.
24. Thomas, B. S., Yang, J., Bahurudeen, A., Abdalla, J. A., Hawileh, R. A., Hamada, H. M., Nazar, S., Jittin, V., & Ashish, D. K. (2021). Sugarcane bagasse ash as supplementary cementitious material in concrete—A review. Materials Today Sustainability, 15, 100086. doi:10.1016/j.mtsust.2021.100086.
25. Bahurudeen, A., & Santhanam, M. (2015). Influence of different processing methods on the pozzolanic performance of sugarcane bagasse ash. Cement and Concrete Composites, 56, 32–45.
26. Xiao, J., Li, W., Fan, Y., & Huang, X. (2012). An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011). Construction and Building Materials, 31, 364–383.
27. Silva, R. V., de Brito, J., & Dhir, R. K. (2014). Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production. Construction and Building Materials, 65, 201–217.
28. Guo, H., Shi, C., Guan, X., Zhu, J., Ding, Y., Ling, T. C., Zhang, H., & Wang, Y. (2018). Durability of recycled aggregate concrete—A review. Cement and Concrete Composites, 89, 251–259.
29. Li, P., Sui, L., Xing, F., & Zhou, Y. (2021). Methods for improving the durability of recycled aggregate concrete: A review. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 15, 6367–6386. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.11.085.
30. Zheng, Y., Li, Q., Zhou, L., Gao, F., Deng, Z., Wang, J., Guo, Z., & Ding, H. (2025). Lifecycle assessment and lifecycle cost analysis of sustainable concrete incorporating recycled aggregates. Sustainability, 17(5), 1779. doi:10.3390/su17051779.
31. Huang, X., Huang, Z., Zhou, Y., Hu, R., & Hu, B. (2025). Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of LC3 concrete considering sustainability and uncertainty. Journal of Building Engineering, 111960. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2025.111960.
32. Linares, R., López-Uceda, A., Piccinali, A., et al. (2024). LCA applied to comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 44023–44035. doi:10.1007/s11356-024-33868-9.
33. Thomas, B. S., et al. (2022). Characterization of bagasse ash and its sustainable use in concrete as a supplementary binder—A review. Construction and Building Materials, 322, 126391. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126391.
34. Barbhuiya, S., Das, B. B., Adak, D., Rajput, A., & Katare, V. (2025). Rice husk ash in structural concrete: Influence on strength, durability and sustainability. Discover Concrete and Cement, 1, 14.
35. Huang, Z., et al. (2023). Global insights into micro-macro mechanisms and environmental implications of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) for sustainable construction applications. Science of the Total Environment, 907, 167794. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167794.

DOI

10.62226/ijarst20262813

PAGES : 2611-2633 | 2 VIEWS | 2 DOWNLOADS

How do you cite this paper?

Monpara Jayesh Rameshbhai — “Sustainable and Low-Carbon Construction Materials for Future Infrastructure an Integrated Performance, Durability, Carbon and Life-Cycle Cost Assessment Framewor.” International Journal of Advanced Research in Science and Technology (IJARST), Volume 15, Issue 9. DOI: 10.62226/ijarst20262813.

Read / Download Full Article