Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Benefit-cost analysis model of using class F fly ash-based green

cement in masonry units
Khaled Shwekat*, Hwai-Chung Wu
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State University, 5701 Jonathon Dearborn, MI, 48126, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Green Cement (GC) is considered as a potential alternative to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). There are
Received 13 March 2016 major drawbacks associated with OPC, such as the emission of greenhouse gasses and high-energy
Received in revised form consumption from cement production. Recycling fly ash and using it to replace cement has positive
16 June 2018
impacts on our environment, such as conserving landfill spaces, conserving natural resources, reducing
Accepted 21 June 2018
CO2 emissions, and saving energy. Fly ash can be further recycled into value-added building products by
Available online 21 June 2018
developing fly ash-based green cement. This study presents an examination of the Benefit-Cost Analysis
Model (BCAM) to characterize the environmental impact of masonry units produced from OPC or GC.
Keywords:
Benefit-cost analysis
Output from BCAM includes the monetary value of energy use, raw materials, atmospheric emissions,
Fly ash-based green cement social costs of CO2, tax costs of carbon's emissions, and avoiding land filling of fly ash. This study has
Reducing CO2 emissions found that Mix (1) which is for OPC has a direct cost of raw materials only, on average $0.460/square foot,
Saving energy and an indirect cost (the monetary value of benefit-cost analysis model, as a result of negative impacts)
Masonry units of on average $0.152/square foot. Therefore, the total cost is $0.612/sf. Mix (2) which is for GC with NaOH
as an activator has a direct cost of raw materials only, on average $2.28/sf, and a saving (the monetary
value of benefit-cost analysis model, as a result of positive impacts) of on average $-1.057/sf. Therefore,
the actual cost (direct cost - savings) is on average $1.222/sf. Mix (3) which is for GC with Na2SO4 as an
activator has a direct cost of raw materials only, on average $0.943/sf and a saving of on average $-1.057/
sf. Therefore, the actual cost is on average $-0.114/sf. The negative cost means that there is a saving as a
result of monetary value of the positive impacts.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction most energy intensive of all industrial manufacturing processes”

From 2007 to 2010, the consumption of cement has decreased,
which is believed to be because of the mortgage foreclosure crisis,
which decreased residential construction spending activity. How-
ever, in 2011, the consumption of cement began to increase, and in
addition to this, the price of cement has been increasing as well. In
December 2011, the price of cement was $101.88/ton, $110.00/ton
in December of 2012, and reached $114.49/ton in May of 2015 (ENR,
2015).
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is one of the most popularly
used building materials around the world. However, even being as
popular as it is, some disadvantages of OPC are still hard to over-
come. In general, there are three major drawbacks associated with
OPC: (1) Energy consumption. “Cement production is one of the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kshwecat@Yahoo.Com (K. Shwekat).
(Wilson and Nicholson, 1993). (2) Emission of greenhouse gases.
About one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the envi-
ronment for one ton of cement production (Wilson and Nicholson,
1993; Davidovits, 2002). (3) “Portland cement concrete may dete-
riorate when exposed to severe environments, such as sulfate, acid,
sea water, and other chemically corrosive” (Mindess, 1981). The
cement industry contributes approximately 4% to all industrial
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States (equivalent to
approximately 2% of total U.S. CO2 emissions), and it consumed 259
Trillion British Thermal Units (TBTU) of final energy in 2009 (about
2.5% of total U.S. manufacturing energy use) and emitted 14.7
metric ton of carbon dioxide (Worrell et al., 2013). In 2009, the
calcinations of clinker was the second largest source (after natural
gas production) of CO2 emissions not related to fuel consumption
(Worrell et al., 2013). Moreover, In 2009, 110 million short tons
(100 Mt) of raw materials were used in the cement industry
(Worrell et al., 2013).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.229
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
444 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451
Those in the Portland cement industry know that they have to
find more environmentally friendly solutions that comply with
sustainable development concepts. A competitor for OPC, Green
Cement (GC), is the candidate for both the inherent sustainability it
presents, along with being more environmentally friendly. In
addition, structures made from GC may require less maintenance
than those constructed with OPC, because of better durability and
the higher temperature/fire resistance of GC (Wu and Sun, 2013). As
a result, the lifetime cost of GC structures may be significantly less
when compared with OPC concrete structures.
A potential application of GC is investigated in this study based
on the market needs and its advantages over OPC. Fly ash, a waste
byproduct material, can be recycled into making value-added
products, in terms of both product quality and influence on the
environment. Therefore, using fly ash-based green cement masonry
units, rather than concrete masonry units (CMUs) for infrastruc-
ture, has at minimum the following advantages: lower energy
consumption, environmental protection, and better durability. As a
case in point, fly ash-based green cement may be a very good
candidate for replacing cement in the making of masonry units
(Sun, 2005). Nevertheless, the cost benefits of GC must be quanti-
fied. Therefore, a benefit-cost analysis should be considered for
enhancing the use of fly ash-based green cement.
2. Methods
Some studies have focused on greenhouse emissions of concrete
and cement, and the impact of fly ash content on the total emis-
sions (O'Brien et al., 2009; Flower and Sanjayan, 2007), quantifying
the benefits of using coal combustion products in sustainable
construction (Ladwig, 2010), the social cost of carbon in U.S. (EPA,
2013), and the life cycle impacts of OPC and concrete production
(O'Brien et al., 2009; Flower and Sanjayan, 2007; Huntzinger and
Eatmon, 2009; Lippiatt and Ahmad, 2004; Habert and Chen et al.,
2010; McLellan et al., 2011). Other Studies have focused on car-
bon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary
Portland cement (McLellan et al., 2011), cost analysis of impacts of
climate change on regional air quality (Russell et al., 2010), and
green maintenance for historic masonry buildings (Forster et al.,
2011). Moreover, Many studies have studied adding fly ash and
metakaolin (binary and ternary blended cements) to concrete
mixes in terms of the rheological and mechanical properties.
Having defined a dosage strength of 25 MPa was obtained, with
cement consumption of 222 kg/m3 (þ49.4 kg fly ash and meta-
kaolin) and a cement consumption index (binder index) of
10.8 kg m3.MPa1(F. Pelisser et al., 2018). In addition, An index of
7.8 kg m3.MPa1 has been obtained for Self-compacting concretes
with higher compressive strength (67 MPa) (Pelisser et al., 2018).
However, the above mentioned studies did not analyze the
environment impacts associated with MUs made with OPC and GC
to convert them to monetary value for a comparative assessment.
Therefore, This study investigates a benefit-cost analysis model
(BCAM) to quantify the range of potential costs and impacts for GC
in comparison to OPC in the making of masonry units in U.S.,
including the impacts of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitro-
gen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), energy savings, damaging
the natural resources, and benefits due to avoided land filling of fly
ash. Two materials have been used as activators, NaOH as an acti-
vator in Mix (2) GC and Na2SO4 as an activator in Mix (3) GC,
subsequently, there are two GC mixes and one mix OPC. BCAM
includes a variety of methods including: identifying and examining
alternatives, defining alternatives in a way that allows for fair
comparison, calculating and placing a dollar value on issues that
regularly do not have a monetary value present, and conducting
sensitivity and risk analysis on the parameters in the benefit-cost
analysis model. Savings on reducing green house emissions, en-
ergy savings, reducing raw materials of producing cement, and
avoiding land filling were considered in this model. Annual emis-
sions of pollutant particulate matter (PM), pollutant CO, organic
hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and mercury (Hg) from cement
production were quantified small. Consequently, they were negli-
gible in this model.
The raw materials and mix used in this study were selected from
a previous study (Wu and Sun, 2010). The impacts of using OPC and
GC were obtained from different references as numbered in the
following Tables 6e8. The analysis considered the three mixes that
presented in Table 1 to produce one square foot of masonry units
for each mix, and mix portions are presented in Table 2.
Based on the available data the following assumptions have
been made. Only raw materials costs are considered, and all other
factors in masonry manufacturing using Green cement or Portland
cement are assumed the same and therefore cancel out in a
comparative benefits analysis. Moreover, savings on reducing green
house emissions, energy savings, reducing raw materials of pro-
ducing cement, and avoiding land filling were considered as indi-
rect costs in this study. The other sources of CO2 emissions
stemming from cement manufacturing operations include trans-
portation equipment used in the mining and transport of raw and
finished materials and the fuels required for operating the process
were not considered in this study. In addition, annual emissions of
pollutant particulate matter (PM), pollutant CO, organic hazardous
air pollutant (HAP), and mercury (Hg) from cement production
were quantified small. Consequently, they were negligible in this
study. Savings on reducing green house emissions, energy savings,
reducing raw materials of producing cement, and avoiding land
filling were considered in this study.
The benefit-cost analysis in this study investigated three
different mixes as presented in Tables 1e4. The environmental and
economic benefits of GC and OPC use were quantified by computing
differences in energy expenditure and global warming potential
between products that were produced with GC and OPC. Fly ash,
which is the main component in GC, is a byproduct of energy
generation and is not produced specifically, as is the construction
material it replaces. Consequently, the resources embodied in their
production are accounted for in electricity production and are
expended regardless of whether fly ash is used beneficially. The
application considered in this study was: masonry walls using Fly
Ash-Based Green cement. In the nearly 7 billion square feet of
masonry walls produced yearly in North America, cement repre-
sents a portion of each unit (8.5%e12% by weight) and each block,
8in x 8in x 16 in, weighs from 25 to 35 pounds each (American
Institute of Architects, 2008).
Cement production is a minor source of hydrogen chloride (HC)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF), so their impacts were considered
negligible (EPA, 2007). Emissions of airborne pollution in the form
of dust, gases, noise and vibration when operating machinery and
during blasting in quarries often occur during cement production;
however, this difference of this pollution could not be adequately
quantified and therefore was ignored.
The environmental benefits of using Fly Ash-Based Green
cement in masonry components were estimated using a benefit-
Table 1
The three mixes that have been used in this study to produce one square foot of
masonry units for each mix.
Mix Type Activator Materials
Mix (1) OPC Non 10% OPC, sand, and Water
Mix (2) GC NaOH 28.8% fly ash, meta, silica fume, sand, and Water
Mix (3) GC Na2SO4 21.4% fly ash, OPC clinker, sand, and Water
 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451 445

Table 2 (front to back) and have a nominal face dimension of 1600 long and
Material mix ratios for Mix (1). 800 high. CMUs have been produced on a large scale during each
Material Price ($/ton) Price ($/m3) Ratio year.
OPC 95e106 33e37 1
The price of the final products, CMUs, on the market includes
Sand 9e17 3e6 Sand/OPC ¼ 1.2 manufacturing costs, raw material costs, profits, and others. For
Water 0.98e1.20 0.34e0.42 W/C ¼ 0.38 Green cement masonry units (GCMUs), however, it is impossible to
This range of prices is adopted from different providers. get the market price of the final commercial products because no
one has started manufacturing them commercially yet. Since the
manufacturing process of CMUs and GCMUs are almost same, it
Table 3 makes sense to compare the cost of raw materials only, especially
Material mix ratios for Mix (2).
OPC versus GC. The cost of the GC mixture is estimated by
Material Price ($/ton) Price ($/m3) Ratio Percentage of Weight researching the material prices of fly ash, metakaolin, silica fume,
FA 50e80 17e28 1 28.80% and two activators (sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfate), which
Metakaolin 380e600 133e210 0.3 8.60% are listed in Tables 2e4. Based on this information, the cost of one
SF 380e600 133e210 0.0975 2.80% square foot of GCMUs was calculated. Table 5 shows the breakdown
Sand 9e17 3e6 1.56 44.90% of material prices for CMUs made with OPC (National Block Com-
NaOH 280e490 89e171 0.13 3.70%
Water 0.98e1.20 0.34e0.42 0.39 11.20%
pany). The amount of material in Table 5 for one batch which it
Total 3.4775 100% yields 138 units of 8  8  16 blocks. Therefore, the cost of one block
is $56.28/138 ¼ $ 0.4078 per block, since one square foot is equiv-
This range of prices is adopted from different providers.
alent to 1.126 block, then the direct cost, cost of raw materials only,
of one square foot of CMUs made with OPC is 1.126*$0.4078 ¼ $0.46
Table 4 per square foot.
Material mix ratios for Mix (3). Tables 6 and 7 show the impacts of using OPC and GC in ma-
Material Price ($/ton) Price ($/m3) Ratio Percentage of Weight sonry industry in terms of GHG emissions, energy consumption,
damage to natural resources, avoiding land filling of fly ash, and
FA 50e80 17e28 1 21.40%
OPC clinker 25e45 9e16 0.12 2.56%
their corresponding financial savings by category that were
Na2SO4 80e150 28e52 0.06 1.28% considered in BCAM.
Sand 9e17 3e6 3 64.10% Simulation with risk analysis has been conducted for three
Water 0.98e1.20 0.34e0.42 0.5 10.66% models (Mix 1, Mix 2, and Mix 3) to combine all the uncertainties
Total 4.68 100%
that have identified in modeling situation. There is no longer the
This range of prices is adopted from different providers. need to reduce what is known about a variable to a single number.
Instead, it has been included in all what has been known about the
variable, including its full range of possible values and some mea-
Table 5
The breakdown of material prices for masonry units that are made with Portland
sures of the likelihood of occurrence for each possible value. The
cement for one batch which produces 138 units of 8  8  16 blocks (National Block techniques of risk analysis have long been recognized as powerful
Company). tools to help decision-makers successfully manage situations sub-
Material Price ($/ton) Price ($/m3) Cost of Total Usage/Batch
ject to uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis has been conducted in order
to determine which of the inputs has the greatest effect on cost of
Sand $9.85 $3.45 $12.20
one SF of CMUs (Mix 1) and GCMUs (Mix 2, Mix 3). Therefore,
Aggregatea $24.60 $8.00 $16.72
Cement III $95.74 $33.50 $23.90 sensitivity analysis was done to all involved parameters (direct cost,
Limestone #9b $11.55 $4.00 $3.46 social cost of CO2, and so on) in each model, and it displayed the
Total $56.28 effect of each parameter on the entire model.
a
Aggregate which is according to ASTM C 144-11.
b
It is a type of aggregate (1/200 top size). 3. Results and discussion

The minimum compressive strengths requirements for non load

cost model. The reductions in energy use and GHG emissions are
primarily obtained by offsetting the production of conventional
materials (e.g., the use of fly ash precludes the need to produce
Portland cement). Economic benefits were calculated based on the
monetary value of the environmental benefits. Unit benefits (e.g.,
environmental benefits per ton of fly ash-based green cement used
in the given application per year) were obtained from predictions
made with replacing OPC with GC making masonry walls. The
model contains environmental data for using OPC and GC making
masonry walls.
The primary unit of measure that has been used for this as-
sembly is the square footage (SF) of the masonry units; other es-
timators may use the unit of measure “number of blocks.” Both
measures are equally effective. The reason to look at the cost of a
masonry wall per square foot rather than the cost per block is
because the unit cost per square foot is more interchangeable or
comparable to other framing systems unit of measure. Concrete
masonry units (CMUs) are made in a variety of sizes but for the
purpose of this study, the standard CMUs are normally 800 thick
bearing (ASTM C129) and load bearing (ASTM C90) are 4.14 MPa
and 13.80 MPa respectively. Since 25 MPa was the minimum
compressive strength obtained in this study, it satisfies the strength
requirements of ASTM C90 and ASTM C129 for masonry units.
Therefore, the benefit-cost analysis model of using fly ash-based
green cement in masonry units was conducted in this study. The
key results from the study are presented in the following tables and
figures. Table 8 has financial data that was derived from Table 6 and
was calculated for one square foot of CMUs made with OPC. Table 8
was estimated on nearly 8 billion block produced annually in North
America, cement represents a small portion of each unit (8.5%e12%
by weight), or only about 3 lbs per block (each block weighs from 25
to 35 pounds each). In terms of square feet, 6,000,000,000 SF per
year to 8,000,000,000 SF per year ¼ 8,656,125 ton cement/year to
11,541,500 ton cement/year.
Fig. 1 shows the probability of cost of one SF of CMUs made with
OPC (Mix 1). As shown, the probability of getting costs from $0.55/
sf to $0.65/sf is 90%. There is only a 5% chance of having a cost of one
square feet (SF) of wall using Portland cement greater than this.
446 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451

Table 6
Impacts of using OPC.

Impact Quantity

GHG Emission CO2 (annual emissions from cement) 66 to 81.4 Million (tons/yr) (a)
23.10 to 28.49 Million (m3/yr) (a)
Tax cost of CO2 (beginning in 2012e2025) $22/ton to $53/ton (a)
$7.70/m3 to $18.55/m3 (a)
Social cost of CO2 $ 12 to $ 60/ton (b)
$4.20/m3 to $21.35/m3 (b)
CO2 emission from cement production 820 kg CO2/ton cement(c)
98 kg CO2/m3 cement(c)
NOx (annual emissions from cement) 219,000 tons/yr (d)
76,650 tons/yr (d)
Average of NOx emissions from wet kilns 9.7 lb NOx/ton of clinker(e)
3.40 lb NOx/m3 of clinker(e)
Average of NOx emissions from dry kilns 3.8 lb NOx/ton of clinker(e)
1.19 lb NOx/m3 of clinker(e)
Benefits of NOX reductions $647/reduced ton (f)
$226.45/reduced m3 (f)
SO2 SO2 (annual emissions from cement) 159,000 (tons/yr) (d)
55,650 (m3/yr) (d)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2). Without trading, damages average (from 2000 to 2007) $1580 per ton (d)
$553 per m3 (d)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2). With trading, damages average (from 2000 to 2007) $1670 per ton (d)
$584 per m3 (d)
Energy The average amount of electricity used at a cement plant 111 kWh/ton cement (g)
38 kWh/m3 cement (g)
The main firing of a cement kiln requires at least 18e20 GJ/ton cement (h)
6e7 GJ/m3 cement (h)
Each 1 ton of cement produced requires 60e130 kg of fuel oil or its equivalent (i)
Each 1 m3 of cement produced requires 21e45 kg of fuel oil or its equivalent (i)
Damage to natural resources To produce 1 ton of cement requires 1.67 tons of raw materials (i)
To produce 1 m3 of cement requires 0.60 m3 of raw materials (i)
Price of Raw Materials ($/metric ton) $4.76 to $13.34 (j)
a
U.S.EPA, 2010.
b
U.S.EPA, 2013.
c
Cullinen, 2011.
d
David et al., 2011.
e
U.S.EPA, 2007.
f
Dallas Burtraw et al., 2001.
g
WBCSD, 2009.
h
The European Cement Association 2010.
i
United States Geological Survey, 2005.
j
U.S.EPA, 2009.

Table 7
Impacts of using one ton or one m3of Fly Ash-Based Green cement.

Impact Quantity per 1 ton Quantity per 1 m3

(a)
GHG Emission Avoiding of greenhouse gas emissions 0.7 ton 1.98 m3(a)
(a)
Financial Savings (US$/ton fly ash) $3.29/ton to $43.00/ton $1.15/m3 - $15.05/m3 (a)

Energy Saving enough electricity to power the average American home for 24 days (b) 8.40 days (b)
Financial Savings for energy $123.50/ton fly ash(a) $43.23/ton fly ash(a)
Avoiding land filling of Fly ash Conserving landfill space of solid waste produced by an average American for 455 days (b) 159.25 days f(b)
a
USEPA, 2008
b
ACAA, 2010.

Table 8
Economic influences due to making CMUs with OPC per square foot.

Impact Quantity

Direct Cost 1 SF of wall of Portland cement costs $ 0.459

GHG Emission Tax costs $ 0.0407 to $ 0.098
Social costs of CO2 $ 0.022 to $ 0.113
reducing the emissions of NOx costs $0.010
SO2 reducing the emissions of SO2 costs $0.0053 to $0.0056

Table 9represents summary for the cost of one SF of CMUs made was $0.03. There are other statistical details presented in Table 9.
with OPC (Mix 1). It shows the minimum ($0.50) and the maximum Fig. 2 shows the probability of cost of one SF of GCMUs with
($0.69) expected cost of one square foot of CMUs made with OPC. NaOH as an activator (Mix 2). As shown in the figure below, the
The mean for this distribution was $0.60 and standard deviation probability of getting costs ranging from $1.13/sf to $1.33/sf is close
 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451 447

Fig. 1. Cost of one SF of CMUs made with OPC (Mix 1).

Table 9
Summary Statistics for cost of one SF of CMUs made with OPC (Mix 1).

Statistics Percentile

Minimum 0.501974909 5% 0.554638713

Maximum 0.695558814 10% 0.565144267
Mean 0.605300001 15% 0.573048706
Std. Dev 0.030249821 20% 0.579442006
Variance 0.000915052 25% 0.584731739
Skewness 0.052278173 30% 0.589812303
Kurtosis 2.729760457 35% 0.594089611
Median 0.605498145 40% 0.598244717
Mode 0.600891354 45% 0.60184055
Left X 0.554638713 50% 0.605498145
Left P 5% 55% 0.609427261
Right X 0.65504422 60% 0.613252629
Right P 95% 65% 0.617257203
Diff X 0.100405507 70% 0.621333278
Diff P 90% 75% 0.626007453
#Errors 0 80% 0.631237638
Filter Min Off 85% 0.637678193
Filter Max Off 90% 0.644426878
#Filtered 0 95% 0.65504422

to 90%. There is only about 5% chance of having a cost of one SF of
GCMUs (Mix 2) greater than this.
Table 10 represents summary statistics for costs of one SF of
GCMUs with (NaOH) as an activator (Mix 2). It shows the minimum
($1.04/sf) and the maximum ($1.43/sf) expected cost of SF of
GCMUs (Mix 2). The mean for this distribution was $1.22 and
standard deviation was $0.059. There are other statistical details
presented in Table 10.
Fig. 3 shows the probability of cost of one SF of GCMUs with
Na2SO4 as an activator (Mix 3). As shown in the below figure, the
probability of getting a cost ranging from $-0.19/sf to $-0.024/sf is
about 90%. The sign () here indicates that there is a saving as a
result of the benefits of impact using GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3).
In other words, the monetary value of benefits using one SF of
GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3) is greater than its cost. There is only
about 5% chance of having a cost of one SF of GCMUs with Na2SO4
(Mix 3) greater than this.
Table 11 represents summary statistics for the cost of one SF of
GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3) as an activator (Mix 3). It shows the
minimum ($-0.23/sf) and the maximum ($0.02/sf) expected cost of
one of GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3). The mean for this distribution
was $-0.10 and standard deviation was $0.049. There are other
statistical details presented in Table 11.
The sensitivity analysis gives a better understanding of the
model. As this understanding develops, one can take action when
appropriate. The more one can minimize the sensitivities, the more
precise the estimate of the outcome will be. Table 12 represents the
range of change in output statistics of all involved parameters from
minimum probable cost to maximum probable cost of one SF of
CMUs made with OPC (Mix 1). Therefore, the involved parameters
were arranged in order of their range of change from minimum
probable cost to maximum probable cost, as represented in
Table 12, direct cost of one SF of CMUs made with OPC (Mix 1)
which is in rank 1 has the largest range of change from minimum
probable cost to maximum probable cost ($ 0.567/sf to $ 0.638/sf)
and the monetary value of negative impacts for SO2 emissions
which is in rank 5 has the lowest range of change from minimum
probably cost to maximum probably cost ($ 0.603/sf to $ 0.607/sf)
Table 13 represents the range of change in output statistics of all
involved parameters from minimum probable cost to maximum
probable values for cost of one SF of GCMUs with (NaOH) (Mix 2).
As represented in Table 13, the monetary value of savings on
448 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451

Fig. 2. Cost of one SF of GCMUs with NaOH (Mix 2).

Table 10
Summary Statistics for cost of one SF of GCMUs with (NaOH) (Mix 2).

Statistics Percentile

Minimum 1.047485447 5% 1.13108936

Maximum 1.430409556 10% 1.15088765
Mean 1.229517012 15% 1.164801264
Std Dev 0.059788144 20% 1.176886655
Variance 0.003574622 25% 1.187380881
Skewness 0.020976728 30% 1.196887088
Kurtosis 2.667816606 35% 1.205567897
Median 1.229393171 40% 1.213961726
Mode 1.228892026 45% 1.222163237
Left X 1.13108936 50% 1.229393171
Left P 5% 55% 1.237563227
Right X 1.329315964 60% 1.24485035
Right P 95% 65% 1.252644508
Diff X 0.198226603 70% 1.26170761
Diff P 90% 75% 1.271105609
#Errors 0 80% 1.280377584
Filter Min Off 85% 1.293052976
Filter Max Off 90% 1.307823698
#Filtered 0 95% 1.329315964

reducing emissions of CO2 for one SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) which is in
rank 1 has the largest range of change from minimum probable cost
to maximum probable cost ($ 1.145/sf to $ 1.313/sf) and the mon-
etary value of savings on avoiding land filling of fly ash for one SF of
GCMUs (Mix 2) which is in rank 6 has the lowest range of change
from minimum probable cost to maximum probable cost ($1.22/sf
to $ 1.23/sf)
Table 14 represents the range of change in output statistics of all
involved parameters from minimum probable cost to maximum
probable values for cost of one SF GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3). As
represented in Table 14, the monetary value of savings on reducing
emissions of CO2 for one SF of GCMUs (Mix 3) which is in rank 1 has
the largest range of change from minimum probable cost to
maximum probable cost ($-0.190/sf to $ 0.023/sf) the negative
cost means that there is a saving as a result of monetary value of the
environmental impacts of using GC. The monetary value of savings
on avoiding land filling of fly ash for one SF of GCMUs (Mix 3) which
is in rank 6 has the lowest range of change from minimum probable
cost to maximum probable cost ($1.22/sf to $ 1.23/sf). As a result of
change in cost of activators (NaOH,which is more expansive, and
Na2SO4), The rank of direct cost has changed from rank 2 for one SF
of GCMUs (Mix 2) to rank 5 for one SF of GCMUs (Mix 3).
This study reports results of research on the benefit-cost anal-
ysis of using fly ash-based green cement with comparison on the
use of OPC in masonry components. It seems to have considerable
potential for fly ash-based green cement to be cost effective and
environmentally beneficial. Therefore, It has been established that
fly ash-based green cement may be a good candidate to replace OPC
 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451 449

Fig. 3. Cost of one SF of GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3).

Table 11
Summary Statistics for cost of one of GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3).

Statistics Percentile

Minimum 0.236756664 5% 0.190582

Maximum 0.020530727 10% 0.174577
Mean 0.107483103 15% 0.161809
Std Dev 0.049839673 20% 0.151794
Variance 0.002483993 25% 0.14294
Skewness 0.003104298 30% 0.134917
Kurtosis 2.425210871 35% 0.128205
Median 0.10736042 40% 0.121322
Mode 0.104115447 45% 0.114391
Left X 0.190582262 50% 0.10736
Left P 5% 55% 0.10122
Right X 0.024763351 60% 0.093782
Right P 95% 65% 0.086905
Diff X 0.165818911 70% 0.080001
Diff P 90% 75% 0.071573
#Errors 0 80% 0.062446
Filter Min Off 85% 0.052324
Filter Max Off 90% 0.040642
#Filtered 0 95% 0.024763

Table 12 considered to lessen costs. Savings associated with reductions in

Change in output statistics for cost of one SF of CMUs made with OPC (Mix 1). energy and lower green house gas (GHG) emissions are primarily
Rank Name Min. ($) Max. ($)
accrued by offsetting the need for OPC production. Since the
monetary value of all involved parameters of the indirect cost was
1 Direct cost 0.5673174 0.63857160
estimated based on the conservative side in the case of upper/max.
2 with Social cost of CO2 0.573754 0.63802642
3 with Tax cost 0.5863187 0.62648652 cost, so the upper/max. with indirect cost has increased. In regards
4 with NOx cost 0.6025166 0.60921728 to finance, this study has found that the total environmental ben-
5 with SO2 cost 0.6037572 0.60759176 efits obtained by replacing Portland cement with green cement are
remarkable.
Based on nearly 7 billion square feet of masonry walls produced
in the making of masonry units. However, Key challenges for GC yearly in North America (American Institute of Architects, 2008), if
development will include the need to reduce cost by utilizing less we were to replace concrete masonry with green cement masonry,
expensive activators. From cost viewpoint, sodium hydroxide and considerable benefits in terms of saving energy, reducing raw ma-
sodium sulfate are expensive materials in the system. Metakaolin terials, avoiding GHG emissions and also avoiding extra CO2 emis-
and Silica fume are also more expensive than fly ash. Since there is sions would be achievable as summarized in Table 15.
no need for high strength in the masonry industry as the present fly The greatest environmental benefits in sustainable construction
ash-based green cement mortar possesses, optimizing mix com- are currently being accrued through the use of coal combustion
positions in terms of reduced strength and unit weight can be products (CCPs) (mainly fly ash) in concrete production. Use of fly
450 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451

Table 13
Change in output statistics for cost of one SF of GCMUs with (NaOH) (Mix 2).

Rank Name Min. ($) Max. ($)

1 1 SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) savings on reducing emissions of CO2 1.145217 1.313044

2 Direct cost of 1 SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) 1.1733878 1.287525
3 1 SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) savings (Energy) 1.2181632 1.2453089
4 1 SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) savings (Natural Resources) 1.2179908 1.2435422
5 1 SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) savings on reducing (NOx) 1.2193383 1.23771
6 1 SF of GCMUs (Mix 2) savings (Avoiding Land Filling) 1.2251964 1.2337806

Table 14
Change in output statistics for cost of one SF GCMUs with Na2SO4 (Mix 3).

Rank Name Min. ($) Max. ($)

1 1 SF GCMUs (Mix 3) savings on reducing emissions of CO2 0.190901 0.023318

2 1 SF GCMUs (Mix 3) savings (Energy) 0.124827 0.090263
3 1 SF GCMUs (Mix 3) savings (Natural Resources) 0.114841 0.098109
4 1 SF GCMUs (Mix 3) savings on reducing (Nox) 0.11175 0.099873
5 Direct cost of 1 SF GCMUs (Mix 3) 0.111868 0.102695
6 1 SF GCMUs (Mix 3) savings (Avoiding Land Filling) 0.109837 0.103128

Table 17
Table 15 Benefits of using one square foot of fly ash in masonry units.
The benefits of using fly ash-based green cement with comparison on the use of
OPC in masonry components. Benefits
a 0.024 million Btu of energy saved
Benefits
4.20 kg of green house gases reduced
167.5 million Btu of energy saved
29.4 million tons of GHG emissions avoided
16.86 million tons of raw material for cement manufacture reduced in its
consumption 2010). Thus, the use of one square foot of wall (5985.03 g of fly ash)
1.7 million tons of extra CO2 emissions avoided
would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equal to 0.36 day or 8.5 h of
a
These benefits are based on nearly 7 billion square feet of masonry walls automobile use.
produced yearly in North America (American Institute of Architects, 2008).

ash as a cement substitute in general construction annually saves
more than 55 trillion Btu of energy annually (zequivalent to
600,000 households) and reduces GHG emissions by 9.6 million
tons CO2 (zequivalent to 1.7 million passengers cars) (Ladwig,
2010).
In 2008 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
found that using fly ash has positive environmental impacts as
presented per one ton and one m3 in Table 16. Therefore, using Fly
Ash-Based green cement in masonry wall manufacturing results in
even more energy savings and reducing green house gases as
shown in Table 17 which presents the benefits of using one square
foot of fly ash in masonry units.
Though annual emissions of pollutant particulate matter (PM),
pollutant CO, organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and mercury
(Hg) from cement production were quantified as small as 37,000
tons/yr, 150,000 tons/yr, 3700 tons/yr, and 7 tons/yr respectively
(EPA, 2007); we should realize that they still have negative impacts
on our environment. Replacing one-ton cement with fly ash would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions equal to two months use of an
automobile (ACAA, 2010). If all the fly ash generated each year were
used in producing concrete, the reduction of carbon dioxide
released because of decreased cement production would be
equivalent to eliminating 25 percent of the world's vehicles (ACAA,
4. Conclusion
This study indicates that there is a great potential for green
cement to reduce the environmental impacts of cement produc-
tion. This analysis has found that Mix (1) has total cost (direct
cost þ indirect cost) ¼ $0.612/sf, Mix (2) has total cost (direct cost -
savings) ¼ $1.22/sf, and Mix(3) has total cost (direct cost -
savings) ¼ $-0.114/sf which means that we save $0.114/sf. This
model shows that the financial savings are significant and that $5 to
$10 billion as a result of monetary value of the impacts in case of
average 7 billion square feet of masonry walls using green cement
produced yearly in US. The total value of savings of $5 to $10 billion
yearly is included in the monetary value of benefits (energy saving,
reducing emissions of GHG, reducing consumption of raw mate-
rials, and avoiding CO2 emissions due to avoid land filling of fly ash)
by producing an average of 7 billion square feet of masonry walls
using green cement per year. The range of $5 to $10 billion was
estimated based on the range of change in output statistics of all
involved parameters from minimum probable to maximum prob-
able values for a cost of one SF of GCMUs multiply by 7 billion
square feet of masonry walls using green cement per year. These
quantities indicate that fly ash-based green cement use in con-
struction can contribute significantly to sustainability in the US and
the world, and should be further nurtured and enhanced.

References

Table 16
Benefits of using one ton or one m3 of Fly Ash (EPA, 2008).
Benefits
(0.7 ton or 0.245m3 of greenhouse gas emissions) avoided
(4 million Btu of energy/ton or 1.4 million Btu of energy/m3) saved
ACAA, (American Coal Ash Association), 2010. Coal Combustion Product (CCP)
Production Use and Survey. http://www.acaa-usa.org.
American Institute of Architects, 2008. Diener Brick Teams up with Williamson
Trade School for Masonry Production Demonstration by 1228. Ryan Rutherford.
Burtraw, Dallas, Palmer, Karen, Bharvirkar, Ranjit, Paul, Anthony, 2001. Cost-effec-
tive reduction of NOX emissions from electricity generation. Resources for the
Future. July 2001.
 K. Shwekat, H.-C. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 443e451
Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., 2010. Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability
evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (5), 478e485.
Cullinen, Matthew Stanley, March 2011. Cement. Primer Report, Carbon War Room.
David, D., et al., 2011. The social cost of trading: measuring the increased damages
from sulfur dioxide trading in the United States. J. Pol. Anal. Manag. 30 (3),
598e612 (2011).
Davidovits, J., 2002. Environmental driven geopolymer cement applications. In:
Geopolymer Conference. Melbourne, Australia, October, 2002b.
Engineering News Record, 2015. Construction Economics Section, Quarterly Cost
Reports.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2007. Alternative Control Technologies
Document Update- NOx Emissions from New Cement Kilns. November 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008. EPA's 2008 Report on the
Environment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-07/045F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis:
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland
Cement Manufacturing Industry. April 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010. Available and Emerging Tech-
nologies or Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Portland Cement
Industry.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013. Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon.
Nov.2013.
Flower, D., Sanjayan, J., 2007. Green house gas emissions due to concrete manu-
facture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5), 282e288.
Forster, Alan M., Carter, Kate, Banfill, Phillip F.G., Kayan, Brit, 2011. Green mainte-
nance for historic masonry buildings: an emerging concept. Build. Res. Inf. 39
(6), 654e664, 2011.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technolo-
gies. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (7), 668e675.
451
Ladwig, K., 2010. Quantifying the benefits of using coal combustion products in
sustainable construction. Final Report. November 2010.
Lippiatt, B.C., Ahmad, S., 2004. Measuring the life-cycle environmental and eco-
nomic performance of concrete: the BEES approach. In: International Workshop
on Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology. Iowa State University,
Beijing, China, pp. 213e230.
McLellan, B.C., et al., 2011. Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in
comparison to ordinary Portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2011), 1080e1090.
Mindess, S., Young, J.F., 1981. Concrete. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
O'Brien, K., Me nache
, J., O'Moore, L., 2009. Impact of fly ash content and fly ash
transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption in concrete. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
Pelisser, Fernando, Vieira, Alexandre, Michael Bernardin, Adriano, 2018. Efficient
self-compacting concrete with low cement consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 175,
324e332.
Sun, Peijiang, 2005. Fly Ash Based Inorganic Polymeric Building Material. Doctor of
Philosophy.
Russell, Armistead G., Liao, Kuo-Jen, Tagaris, Efthimios, Amar, Praveen, He, Shan,
Manomaiphiboon, Kasemsan, Woo, Jung-Hun, 2010. Cost analysis of impacts of
climate change on regional air quality. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 60 (2),
195e203, 2010.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development e WBCSD, 2009. Carbon
Emissions Reductions up to 2050.
Wilson, A.D., Nicholson, J.W., 1993. Acid-based Cements, Their Biomedical and In-
dustrial Applications. Cambridge University Press.
Worrell, Ernst, Kermeli, Katerina, Galitsky, Christina, 2013. Energy efficiency
improvement and cost saving opportunities for cement making. An Energy Star
Guide for Energy and Plant Managers.
Wu, H.C., Sun, P., 2010. Effect of mixture compositions on workability and strength
of fly ash based inorganic polymer mortar. ACI Mater. J. 107 (6), 554e561.
Wu, H.C., Sun, P., 2013. Chemical and freeze-thaw resistance of fly ash based
inorganic mortars. Fuel 111, 740e745.