The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use
Open accessAbstract
Abstract This paper presents a comparative environmental assessment of several different green concrete mixes for structural use. Four green concrete mixes were compared with a conventional concrete mix: recycled aggregate concrete with a cement binder, high-volume fly ash concrete with natural and recycled aggregates, and alkali activated fly ash concrete with natural aggregates. All five concrete mixes were designed and experimentally verified to have equal compressive strength and workability. An attributional life cycle assessment, based on the scenario which included construction practice, transport distances, and materials available in Serbia, was performed. When treating fly ash impacts, three allocation procedures were compared: ‘no allocation’, economic, and mass allocation, with mass allocation giving unreasonably high impacts of fly ash. Normalization and aggregation of indicators was performed and the impact of each concrete mix was expressed through a global sustainability indicator. A sensitivity analysis was also performed to evaluate the influence of possibly different carbonation resistance and long-term deformational behavior on the functional unit. In this specific case study, regardless of the choice of the functional unit, the best overall environmental performance was shown by the alkali activated fly ash concrete mix with natural aggregates and the high-volume fly ash recycled aggregate concrete mix. The worst performance was shown by the recycled aggregate concrete mix with a cement binder.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement
McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. D. (2011) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010 · Cited by 1,949
Bernal, S. A., Provis, J. L., Walkley, B., San Nicolas, R., Gehman, J. D., Brice, D. G., Kilcullen, A. R., Duxson, P., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (2013) · Cement and Concrete Research · doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.06.007 · Cited by 1,019
Cited by
Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash
Kurda, R., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2018) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.004 · Cited by 298
A review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete
Zhang, Y., Luo, W., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., & Xiao, J. (2019) · Construction and Building Materials · doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078 · Cited by 294
Life cycle assessment of alkali-activated materials: a systematic literature review
Nikravan, M., Firdous, R., & Stephan, D. (2023) · Low-carbon Materials and Green Construction · doi:10.1007/s44242-023-00014-6 · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Marinković, S., Dragaš, J., Ignjatović, I., & Tošić, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 154
- Pages
- 633-649
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2605177110
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015
- The paper
- Marinković, S., Dragaš, J., Ignjatović, I., & Tošić, N. (2017). Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
