ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
BENEFITS OF CONCRETE
May 2009
CONCRETE VALUE CHAIN IS FACING A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY
TO POSITION ITSELF AS THE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION
Description
Implications
• Obama administration showing determination on
environmental policy
Importance of
Sustainability
• It is an important aspect of the stimulus package
• New regulation expected at different levels
• Sustainability is not a fad, but rather
a necessary part in all aspects of life
• Topic of high relevance for the general public
Perception
Adequate
Arguments
• Negative perception of cement industry is the #1
challenge
- High total emissions make cement a
problem
• Looking only at production emissions may be
shortsighted
• Lifecycle assessments are key for sustainability
• Concrete value chain is of significant
value to society
• Irreplaceable in many applications
• Benefits of concrete far outweigh
initial construction emissions
-2-
FOCUS OF THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE ON ECONOMIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF CONCRETE
In applications that have competing materials and represent most of the volume
USA Cement Consumption(1)
3.7%
2.0%
9.8%
4.1%
Non Construction
Utilities
Water & Waste
6.5%
Public Works
Bridges
4.4%
Public Bldgs
14.3%
Cement Alternatives
No Alternative
% Consumption
15.5%
Commercial
Partial
Substitution
29.9%
Residential
25.3%
Streets & Hwys
59.2%
Comments
• Applications ranging from oil
wells to dams are not suited for
other construction materials
• Some elements of the
construction can be done with
other materials (i.e. building
envelop)
• But slabs among others can only
be made from concrete
Possible
Substitution
25.3%
• It is possible to make construction
entirely of competing materials
Segments
(1) PCA 2007 Data
-3-
AGENDA
Concrete Pavements
Concrete Wall Systems
Next Steps
-4-
PAVEMENT DESIGNS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY DEPENDING ON
ROAD USE AND SOIL CONDITIONS AMONG OTHER THINGS
Examples of Concrete Designs
Examples of Asphalt Designs
0.75-1.5” Frict. Course
5.5” Asphalt
Ty-SP
12” Limerock
Base Course
(LBR = 100)
9.5” Asphalt
Superpave
10” Aggregate
Base Course
12.0” PCC
Jointed
w/ Dowels
4” ATPB
non-structural
1” Asph. Struc. Layer
12” Type-B
Stabilized
Subgrade
(LBR=40)
14” Aggregate
Subbase Course
Subgrade
Subgrade
12” Type-B
Stabilized
Subgrade
(LBR=40)
Subgrade
12.0” PCC
Jointed w/ Dowels
12.0” PCC
Jointed w/ Dowels
12.0” PCC
Jointed w/ Dowels
1” Asphalt Interlayer
6” Aggregate
Base Course
6” Cement Treated
Base Course
4” Asphalt Treated
Base Course
Subgrade
Subgrade
Subgrade
Research efforts could focus on most common design types
-5-
HISTORICALLY ASPHALT HAD THE INITIAL COST ADVANTAGE
Even with recent asphalt prices decline, difference has narrowed
Asphalt mix prices have
increased 96% since 2000(1)
Concrete Initial cost gap has
decreased, but still remains high
300
22%
Asphalt Mix Price
250
M$
200
Concrete
$36.1
Asphalt
150
$29.5
31%
100
50
$25.2
CAGR 8.5%
0
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
600
$19.2
Bitumen Price
500
400
300
200
100
CAGR 8.8%
0
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
00
2004
2009
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm
Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders
Asphalt design: 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade, 12” Limerock Base Course, 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP, 0.75-1.5” Frict. Course
2004: Asphalt = $62.33 / ton, Concrete = $76.05 / CY
- 6 - / CY
Concrete design: 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade, 1” Asph. Structural Layer, 4” ATPB non-structural, 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 2009: Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62
ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN
New design procedure based on advanced models &
actual field data collected across the US
Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG)
Description
 A new mechanistic design
procedure based on most
advanced pavement performance
models
 Comprehensive methodology that
incorporates layer thicknesses,
material properties, climate, and
traffic loadings
 It uses mechanistic-empirical
numerical models to analyze
traffic, climate, materials, and
proposed structure to estimate
accumulated damage of the
analysis period
Process
 Provides predicted performance
of a given structure during
analysis period
 AASHTO 93 only provides
thickness (no performance)
 Concrete Criteria = cracking,
faulting, IRI, cumulative damage,
and load transfer
Validation
 Adopted by AASHTO in 2007 as
the Interim Pavement Design
Guide
 Most states are currently in the
process of calibrating and
validating the design procedure
with actual field performance data
 Improves accuracy of
performance prediction for
each pavement type
 Provides “true” performance of
each pavement type
-7-
MEPDG ALLOWS FOR DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
Making Concrete’s Initial Cost More Attractive
Asphalt Design
FDOT
Concrete Design
Optimized
Concrete
0.75-1.5” Frict. Course
5.5” Asphalt
Ty-SP
12” Limerock
Base Course
(LBR = 100)
Initial Cost Diff. Asphalt vs. Concrete
% Cost Difference
12.0” PCC
Jointed
w/ Dowels
4” ATPB
non-structural
31.5%
9.1%
10.0” PCC
Jointed
w/ Dowels
1” Asph. Struc. Layer
1.5” Asph. Struc. Layer
12” Type-B
Stabilized
Subgrade
(LBR=40)
12” Type-B
Stabilized
Subgrade
(LBR=40)
12” Limerock
Stabilized Base
(LBR=70)
Subgrade
Subgrade
Subgrade
19.7%
2.7%
Initial Gap Inflation MEPDG New Gap
Effect Redesign
Initial cost gap is significantly reduced when using MEPDG
Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders. Costs include Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor
Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY
-8-
MOREOVER, CONCRETE DELIVERS SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS
THROUGHOUT THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE ASSET
Nominal Expenditures by Pavement Type for 10 Miles
Total Cost Net Present Value
Concrete Rehab: Patch & diamond grind at years 30 and 45
M$
Asphalt Rehab: 4” AC Overlay in years 14 & 28
2” Mill / 4” AC Overlay in year 42
$103.9
$52.7
54%
M$
$34.3
$62.4
$61.1
$35.3
$29.5 $30.3
$20.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
year
Discount Rate=8%
Asphalt is 54% more expensive than Concrete throughout the life cycle of the road
Design – Asphalt: 6.5” AC (inc 1.5” PFC) / 12” Limerock (LBR=100) / 12” Limerock (LBR=40); Concrete: 10” JPCP / 1.5” AC / 12” Limerock (LBR=70)
Initial costs - Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor (Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY)
•Rehabilitation - Concrete activities based on MEPDG, Asphalt Activities based on standard FDOT Standards
Current year costs are inflated at 4%
Rehab costs also include other Incidental Costs (striping, mob, etc) - Assumed to be 40% of Material Costs and Traffic Control - 5% of material cost,
Engineering & Inspection - 5% of material cost
Asphalt
Concrete
-9-
UP TO THIS POINT, ALL COMPARISONS HAVE
BEEN MADE WITH THE SAME INFLATION RATES
However, asphalt prices are much more volatile
Inflation Rates since Jan 1960
1,800
Month-to-Month Change in PPI since Jan 1960
50%
Paving Asphalt
Cement
Conc. Products
1,600
1,400
40%
Asphalt CAGR = 5.9%
Cement CAGR = 4.1%
Conc. Product CAGR = 4.0%
1,200
1,000
Paving Asphalt
Conc. Products
Max Asphalt Change = 39.4%
Max Concrete Change = 5.1%
30%
20%
800
600
10%
400
0%
200
0
-10%
08
04
00
96
92
88
84
80
76
72
68
64
60
08
04
00
96
92
88
84
80
76
72
68
64
60
Assuming this inflation difference, asphalt’s lifecycle
disadvantage to concrete can effectively double
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm
Paving Asphalt Series ID = wpu13940113
Cement Series ID = wdu13220131 and wpu13220161
Concrete Products Series ID = wpu133
- 10 -
SINCE CONCRETE ROADS REQUIRE LESS MAINTENANCE,
STATES WOULD HAVE MORE FUNDING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Impact of Pavement Choice on State System
• Assume a constant $1.0 B budget per year for 50 years
with no inflation (Total Cumulative Budget = $50 B)
- All funds are initially used for new construction
Cumulative 50 year Expenditure Breakdown
%
- When rehabilitation is required, funds are first used
for rehabilitation and the remainder for new
construction
55.5
• Consider three pavement choices
97.9
Rehab
savings
Rehab
savings
92.7
- Asphalt
- Concrete with traditional design
42.3%
- Concrete with MEPDG
• Take Florida’s materials and construction cost
44.5
7.3
2.1
Trad. Concrete
37.1%
Asphalt
MEPDG Concrete
• After 50 years, Pavement choice has a great impact on
number of Lane Miles constructed in the system
Lane Miles
Traditional Concrete: Initial Life = 40 years
Asphalt: initial Life = 14 year
MEPDG Concrete: initial Life = 30 year
Concrete & Asphalt Inflation = 4.0%
8,316
Budget allocated for
new construction
Asphalt Maintenance every 10 yrs
5,849
9,425
Budget required for
rehabilitation
Budget at year 50
- 11 -
ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING, ASPHALT HAS LESS EMBODIED
CO2 COMPARED TO CONCRETE IN INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
26% advantage over JPCP and 50% over CRCP for traditional
concrete design, while 7% and 31% respectively with MEPDG
Concrete
Asphalt
238
MT CO2 / Mile Road
1,492
MT CO2 / Mile Road
Traditional
87
48
1,067
1,254
25
26
Traditional
102
991
1,022
331
1,301 MEPDG
25
305
Cement
Batching
Steel
43
185
1,063 MEPDG
Bitumen
Production
Steel
Aggregates
(Base)
Asphalt Plant
Operations
Total Asphalt
(1)
Aggregates
Installation
JPCP
CRCP
Bitumen
Transportation
Aggregates
Installation
(Paving)
(1) Inherent Energy: potential energy from reprocessing bitumen into fuels
Note: Pavement designs are 12” CRCP/JPCP over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base
Source: CEMEX USA production data; Portland Cement Association, DOE CO2 emission report; et al
Inherent
Energy
Sensitivity
- 12 -
BUT USE OF CONCRETE REDUCES CONSTRUCTION
EMISSIONS OVER THE LIFE OF THE ROAD
Total (MT/mile)
Lifecycle construction carbon emissions by pavement type
1,254
MT CO2 / Mile Road
2,692
Asphalt
Traditional
Traditional Concrete
992
53%
MEPDG Concrete
69%
MEPDG
1,063
1,758
340
340
340
340
82
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
340 340
1,597
82
35
40
45
50
Over the life of the road, Asphalt produces significantly more CO2 emissions than Concrete
Source: FHWA TA T5080.3 Price Adjustment Contract Provisions (FHWA 1980)
Concrete rehabilitation activity assumed to use same fuel as original asphalt pavement placement (highest placement value)
Note: 12” JPCP over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base, Asphalt overlay on concrete road at year 50
- 13 -
PER-MILE CO2 SAVINGS FROM CONCRETE GREATLY
REDUCES ANNUAL EMISSIONS OVER A ROAD’S LIFE
Annual Emissions Comparison
Annual Savings per Mile
63.6
MT CO2/mi
23.5
3.8
11.1
1.6
8.1
38.5
3.8
MMT CO2
0.9
58.2
16.0
11.1
8.0
0.7
34.7
9.5
23.9
6.7
-5.2
Initial
Construction
Rehabilitation
Savings
Savings from
congestion
Total
Construction
Emissions
Transporation Total Savings
Fuel Savings
Construction Total Savings 2.0M Vehicles 2 Coal Power
Savings
Plants
Traditional Paving
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High Administration, Fuel Consumption by Transportation Mode,
Edwards, M. Highway User’s perspective on innovative contracting/quality in highway construction
MEPDG
Savings with Asphalt
inherent energy
- 14 -
CONCRETE PAVEMENTS DELIVER SUBSTANTIAL CO2 SAVINGS
Initial construction disadvantage is quickly offset
Concrete Paving Annual CO2 Savings vs. Asphalt
Traditional Concrete
MEPDG Concrete
3500
MT
CO2/mile
3,100
3000
2,909
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40 Year 50
0
10
20
30
40
Year
50
-500
Source: U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report
- 15 -
AGENDA
Concrete Pavements
Concrete Wall Systems
Next Steps
- 16 -
CONCRETE WALL SYSTEMS IMPROVE
A BUILDING’S SHELL PERFORMANCE
Source of Energy Loss (1)
%
Air
Infiltration
35%
31%
22%
19%
ICF Energy
Profile
CMU
Energy
Profile
Tilt-up
Energy
Profile
65% (2)
22% (2)
50% (2)
Walls
14%
Floors &
Below Grd.
14%
Ceiling/Roof
Ceiling
13%
13%
Concrete Wall Systems:
• Reduce Air Infiltration
• Temper thermal Benefit
• Continuous Insulation
Doors &
Doors
&
Windows
Windows
20% 20%
2x4 Wood
Energy
Profile
Air
Infiltration
Savings
Thermal
Mass
Savings
Insulation
Savings
An improved building envelop drastically reduces a home’s CO2 emissions
(1) Energy Efficient Builders Association – Guide to Construction; National Insulation Contractors Association
(2) Portland Cement Association – Technical Brief on Benefits of Concrete Wall Systems
- 17 -
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVANTAGE COULD TRANSLATE
INTO SIGNIFICANT CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Potential Annual CO2 Emissions Reduction
% CO2 Emissions
2.5 % Reduction
1.8%
0.7%
21
Residential
MMT CO2
18
18
Commercial
17
13
Transportation
13
14
Industry
14
18
Land Use Changes
18
13
Agricultural
13
3
Others
Current Emissions
Annual Emissions Comparison
134
123
120
106
78
3
Residential
Reduction
Commercial
Reduction
Reduced
Emissions
Steel
Industry
ICF Impact
30 Coal
Power
Plants
Cement
Industry
Wood
Industry
Performance benefits of Concrete Wall Systems could potentially
reduce U.S. emissions by 2.5%, eliminating 123 MMT of CO2 annually
EPA Sector Performance Report – 2008
Assumes PCA-stated energy performance results for applications benefiting from the use of high-performance exterior envelopes
- 18 -
THE DRASTIC REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS MORE
THAN OFFSETS INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY
ICF Annual CO2 Savings vs. Wood
CMU Annual CO2 Savings vs. Wood
120
MT
CO2
102
100
80
4” ICF vs 2x4 Wood
60
62
58
CMU vs 2x4 Wood 40
4” ICF vs 2x6 Wood
40
20
CMU vs 2x6 Wood
4” ICF vs 2x6 Wood
0
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
-20
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report
Year
- 19 -
AGENDA
Concrete Pavements
Concrete Wall Systems
Next Steps
- 20 -
WE BELIEVE THE INDUSTRY HAS THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS
BUT THIRD PARTY CREDIBLE VALIDATION IS NEEDED
Objective is to corroborate industry is reaching the correct conclusions
and provide unbiased confirmation to support communication efforts
Segment
Mainline
Paving
Studies
• Initial construction & rehabilitation embodied
energy and CO2 emissions comparison
- Includes materials, freight, construction
and traffic emissions
• Fuel efficiency
- Cars fuel consumption difference
- Semi-truck mpg efficiency (similar to
Athena report)
• Embodied energy comparison (ICF/CMU vs.
Wood)
Wall
Systems
Methodology
• Quantifying concrete wall energy efficiency vs.
non-concrete alternatives. Potential sources:
- Reduced Air Infiltration
- Benefits of Thermal Mass
- Benefits of Continuous Insulation
• Process for Economic and Environmental
lifecycle assessment
Timeframe
Short
Comments
•
•
Mostly data gathering and
calculations
Relatively short period of time
Medium
•
•
High impact potential
Lengthy study due to extensive field
research
Medium
•
Low impact on decision making
Short
•
Potentially the greatest source for
environmental benefits of concrete
Short
•
•
Relatively quick academic exercise
Key component for new legislation
- 21 -