Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash

Kurda, Rawaz, Silvestre, José D., de Brito, Jorge·2018·Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Abstract

Abstract Since concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world, it is important to improve its environmental performance. A possibility is to use supplementary cementitious materials and recycled aggregates. Therefore, the objective of this work is to compare the environmental impacts (EI) of concrete mixes, which contain different incorporation ratios of fly ash (FA) and recycled concrete aggregates (RCA), with and without Superplasticizer (SP). The Life Cycle Assessment methodology was used for environmental assessment, according to ISO 14040 (2006) and EN 15804 (2012). Contrary to most of the previous studies, this one separately obtained the impact for each life cycle stage in detail (e.g. the impact of raw materials production, transportation, and mixing procedure), and explains the reason behind selecting each dataset. Thus, the results of this study can be used for other case studies. The results show that the EI slightly increased when SP was used. Moreover, the incorporation ratio of fine RCA did not change the results for most of the EI categories. Nevertheless, the EI of most of the categories decreased when coarse NA was fully replaced with coarse RCA. Despite the long transportation distance between the coal power plant and the concrete plant considered in the case study, the EI significantly decreased in most categories with increasing amounts of FA.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.004

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fraile-Garcia, 2016, Optimization based on life cycle analysis for reinforced concrete structures with one-way slabs, Eng. Struct., 109, 126, 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.001 · doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.001
  2. Fraile-Garcia, 2017, Repercussion the use phase in the life cycle assessment of structures in residential buildings using one-way slabs, J. Clean. Prod., 143, 191, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.130 · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.130

Metadata

Authors
Kurda, R., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J.
Venue
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
139
Pages
407-417
ISSN
0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2892300992
Cited by
298
References
16
FWCI
14.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
  • CERIS unit from IST-University of Lisbon
  • Foundation for Science and Technology of Portugal

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: Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.004
The paper
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.004

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.