<%BANNER%>

Impact of Transportation on Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions for Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024431/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Transportation on Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions for Recycled Concrete Aggregate
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hameed, Mohamed
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aggregate, concrete, cost, crusher, demoition, emission, energy, impact, landfill, particulate, plant, portable, recycled, recycling, transportation, virgin
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION ON COST, ENERGY AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE Transportation distances can have a huge impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions for concrete recycling. This study looks at the alternative methods that could be taken for the procurement of coarse aggregate. This research looks at the feasibility of recycled concrete aggregate over virgin aggregate in terms of cost, energy, and particulate emissions. This study was also conducted to determine the extent to which transportation impacts the cost, energy, and particulate emissions. The study was undertaken using Gainesville, Florida, as the location of the jobsite and tested for varying transportation distances. The conclusions from the analysis of the results showed (1) that using a portable crusher onsite to crush the demolished concrete is the most favored option in terms of cost, energy, and particulate emission for reuse on the same site; and (2) that the transportation distance has a direct impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions and determines the preferability of recycled concrete aggregate or virgin aggregate
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mohamed Hameed.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Chini, Abdol R.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024431:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024431/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Transportation on Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions for Recycled Concrete Aggregate
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hameed, Mohamed
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aggregate, concrete, cost, crusher, demoition, emission, energy, impact, landfill, particulate, plant, portable, recycled, recycling, transportation, virgin
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION ON COST, ENERGY AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE Transportation distances can have a huge impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions for concrete recycling. This study looks at the alternative methods that could be taken for the procurement of coarse aggregate. This research looks at the feasibility of recycled concrete aggregate over virgin aggregate in terms of cost, energy, and particulate emissions. This study was also conducted to determine the extent to which transportation impacts the cost, energy, and particulate emissions. The study was undertaken using Gainesville, Florida, as the location of the jobsite and tested for varying transportation distances. The conclusions from the analysis of the results showed (1) that using a portable crusher onsite to crush the demolished concrete is the most favored option in terms of cost, energy, and particulate emission for reuse on the same site; and (2) that the transportation distance has a direct impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions and determines the preferability of recycled concrete aggregate or virgin aggregate
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mohamed Hameed.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Chini, Abdol R.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024431:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION ON COST, ENERGY, AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR RECYLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE By MOHAMED HAMEED A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQ UIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Mohamed Hameed

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my entire family for supporting me in all my endeavors. I thank Dr. Chini for giving me the idea for this study and also for his direction and support throughout the period of undertaking the study. I also thank Dr. Ries and Dr. Sullivan for their continued support.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10 Background .................................................................................................................................. 10 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 13 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 13 Virgin Aggregate ......................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................ 14 Recycled Concrete Aggregate .................................................................................................... 15 Why Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA)? ..................................................................... 16 How Is It Produced? ............................................................................................................ 18 Applications ......................................................................................................................... 19 Issues and Concerns ............................................................................................................. 20 Embodied Energy ........................................................................................................................ 21 Particulate Emissions .................................................................................................................. 22 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 24 General ......................................................................................................................................... 24 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 35 Cost .............................................................................................................................................. 35 Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Particulate Emissions .................................................................................................................. 40 Summary of results from Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions ......................................... 45 Impact of transportation on Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions ...................................... 46

PAGE 6

6 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 51 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 51 Recommendati on ......................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX A CALCULATION FOR COST, ENERGY AND PARTICULATE EMISSION .................... 54 B IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION ON COST, ENERGY AND PARTICULATE EMISSION .................................................................................................................................. 64 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 88

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Cost calculations for case 1 ................................................................................................... 35 4 2 Cost calculations for case 2 ................................................................................................... 35 4 3 Cost calculations for case 3 ................................................................................................... 36 4 4 Results of cost ......................................................................................................................... 36 4 5 Energy calculations for case 1 ............................................................................................... 37 4 6 Energy calculations for case 2 ............................................................................................... 38 4 7 Energy calculations for case 3 ............................................................................................... 39 4 8 Res ults of energy .................................................................................................................... 39 4 9 PM results for case 1 .............................................................................................................. 41 4 10 PM results for case 2 .............................................................................................................. 41 4 11 PM results for case 3 .............................................................................................................. 42 4 12 Summary of results ................................................................................................................ 46 4 13 Impact on cost ......................................................................................................................... 47 4 14 Impact on energy .................................................................................................................... 48 4 15 Impact on PM10 ..................................................................................................................... 48 4 16 Impact on PM 2.5 ................................................................................................................... 49

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Flowchart for case 1 ............................................................................................................... 30 3 2 Flowchart for case 2 ............................................................................................................... 31 3 3 Flowchart for case 3 ............................................................................................................... 32 4 1 Results of cost ......................................................................................................................... 37 4 2 Results of energy .................................................................................................................... 40 4 3 PM results for loading and unloading operations ................................................................. 43 4 4 PM results for crushing .......................................................................................................... 43 4 5 PM results for screening ........................................................................................................ 44 4 6 PM results for transportation ................................................................................................. 45 4 7 Summary of results ................................................................................................................ 46 4 8 Impact of cost ......................................................................................................................... 47 4 9 Impact on energy .................................................................................................................... 48 4 10 Impact on PM 10 .................................................................................................................... 49 4 11 Impact on PM 2.5 ................................................................................................................... 49

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D egree of Master of Science in Building Construction IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION ON COST, ENERGY AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE By Mohamed Hameed May 2009 Chair: Abdol R. Chini Major: Building Construction Transportation distanc es can have a huge impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions for concrete recycling. This study looks at the alternative methods that could be taken for the procurement of coarse aggregate. This research looks at the feasibility of recycled concret e aggregate over virgin aggregate in terms of cost, energy, and particulate emissions. This study was also conducted to determine the extent to which transportation impacts the cost, energy, and particulate emissions. The study was undertaken using Gainesv ille, Florida, as the location of the jobsite and tested for varying transportation distances. The conclusions from the analysis of the results showed (1) that using a portable crusher onsite to crush the demolished concrete is the most favored option in t erms of cost, energy, and particulate emission for reuse on the same site; and (2) that the transportation distance has a direct impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions and determines the preferability of recycled concrete aggregate or virgin aggregate.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When a concrete structure is demolished, concrete recycling is done regularly instead of disposing it at landfills. Concrete crushers are used to crush the demolished concrete. The small pieces of crushed concrete ag gregate can be used as aggregate for new construction projects, and the larger pieces are used as sub base for road construction. This method helps minimize mining for aggregates, decreases landfill wastes and also helps to keep construction costs low. Env ironmental awareness groups and other governmental regulations and incentives have helped gain recognition for this method. Background Concrete has been one of the main building materials used widely all over the world. In recent times, increased concern has arisen about the environmental impact of concrete usage. The production of concrete requires the usage of non renewable natural resources. One of the major components of concrete is the coarse aggregate. The coarse aggregate is usually obtained through mining a quarry or extraction fr om domestic riverbeds and banks To minimize depletion of natural resources, there has been an increased effort to recycle concrete. The total impact of concrete recycling could be assessed only through analyzing its econom ic and environmental impact. Some of the parameters that this study takes into consideration are the cost, energy consumption, and particulate emission. The cost includes the overall cost for production and transportation of recycled concrete aggregate and virgin aggregate. To estimate the total energy consumption for the usage of concrete, all stages in the life of concrete has to be considered, which involves the energy for production, construction, life cycle and demolition. However, this study looks onl y at the total energy required for production and transportation of recycled concrete and virgin aggregate. The production of recycled concrete involves the crushing of

PAGE 11

11 demolished concrete in a concrete crusher. For virgin aggregate, the production involve s mining and crushing. Transportation for recycled concrete involves the transportation from the demolition site to the recycling plant and then from the recycling plant to the construction site. The particulate emissions include the emissions for the prod uction and transportation of the recycled concrete aggregate and the virgin aggregate. Sometimes the cost, embodied energy and particulate emissions for recycled concrete are more than for virgin aggregate. This largely depends on the transportation distances for concrete. Sometimes the transportation distance between the construction site and the source of virgin aggregate is closer than that of recycled aggregate which involves transportation between the demolition site, recycling plant, and the construct ion site. This study will compare the cost, embodied energy, and particulate emissions for production and transportation of virgin aggregate and recycled aggregate by giving different values for the transportation distances. Objective In recent times, more concrete recycling has taken place, thus helping in minimizing the use of natural resources. Other costs and environmental impacts of concrete recycling have to be considered to truly estimate its environmental benefits. The other costs and environmental impacts that have to be taken into account are the cost, embodied energy, and particulate emissions required for production and transportation of recycled concrete aggregate. The cost, embodied energy and particulate emissions in the transportation and pr oduction of recycled concrete can sometimes be more than using virgin aggregate. Some research has been done in this area, but most of the studies have focused on economic feasibility. No specific research on cost, embodied energy, and particulate emission for production and transportation of recycled concrete has been found during the preliminary literature review. The objectives of this study are

PAGE 12

12 1 To determine the cost, embodied energy, and particulate emission for the transportation and production of recy cled concrete aggregate and virgin aggregate. 2 To compare the cost, embodied energy, and particulate emission for the transportation and production of recycled concrete aggregate and virgin aggregate for varying distances and to show the impact of transport ation on cost, embodied energy, and particulate emission. Scope The environmental factor considered in this study is limited to energy and particulate emissions (i.e., embodied energy and particulate emissions required for production and transportation). T his study takes into account only one scenario: a concrete structure has been demolished and a new concrete structure has to be built on that same site, and an alternative has to be found for the best use of this demolished concrete. This study is done usi ng Gainesville, Florida as the location of the site that was created to study this problem and this may not be suitable for all situations.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Aggregate is an industrial commodity term for sand, gra vel, and crushed roc k materials in their natural or processed state (Barksdale, 2000). Aggregate is extensively used (Robinson and Kapo, 2004) in asphalt pavement, cement concrete, and structural fill in construction activities to provide bulk, support, strength, and wear res istance. Aggregate is a high -bulk, low unit -value (Bates, 1969) mineral commodity whose cost to the end user is strongly influenced by the cost of transporting processed aggregate from the source site (quarry, pit, or processing site) to the construction site (Poulin, Pakalnis and Sinding 1994). According to Poulin et al. (1994), a ggregate production sites (including recycled aggregate) that are closer to the consumer can be more competitive than aggregate producers offering higher quality aggregate from more distant locations Virgin Aggregate Natural aggregate consists of sand and gravel mined from sedimentary deposits and stone crushed from a variety of hard rock deposits ( Robinson and Kapo, 2004) According to U.S Geological Survey (USGS, 2009), c rushe d stone valued at $12 billion was produced by 1,450 companies operating 3,620 quarries, 86 underground mines, and 193 sales/distribution yards in 50 states. Leading s tates, in descending order of production, were Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Georgia, Ill inois, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, and Ohio, together accounting for 51% of the total c rushed stone output Of the total crushed stone produced in 2008, about 69% was limestone and dolomite, 15% was granite 7% was traprock, the remaining 9% was shared, in descending order of tonnage, by miscellaneous stone, sandstone and quartzite, marble, volcanic cinder and scoria, slate, shell, and calcareous marl According to USGS (2009), it was

PAGE 14

14 estimated that 1.36 bi llion tons of crushed stone were c onsumed in the United States in 2008. Of the 666 million tons reported by use, 83% was used as construction aggregates, mostly for highway and road construction and maintenance; 11% for cement manufacturing; 2% for lime manufacturing; 2% for agricultural u ses; and 2% for special and miscellaneou s uses and products Environmental Impacts According to USGS (2009), shortages in some urban and industrialized areas are expected to continue to increase owing to local zoning r egulations and land devel opment alter natives These issues are expected to continue and to cause new crush ed stone quarries to locate farther from large population centers, causing longer distances of travel for the procurement of material to the jobsite and eventually leading to higher parti culate emissions. The crushed stone industry (USGS, 2009) continues to be concerned with environmental, health, and safety regulations. According to Hsiao, Huang, Yu, and Wernick (2002), u ntil the late 1990s, more than 90% of the aggregate sup ply has been extracted fr om domestic riverbeds and banks Years of digging have left ecological damage and a depleted reserve base as a legacy (Chen, 1998). Thus causing the depletion of non -renewable resources. Continued unauthorized extraction causes severe erosion o f riverbeds and infrastructure (Hsiao et al., 2002). Virgin aggregate deposits have already been depleted in many areas (Mehta, 2001) The most obvious environmental impact of aggregate mining is the conservation of land use, most likely from undeveloped o r agricultural land use, to a hole in the ground. According to Langer and Arbogast (2003), the major impact effects of aggregate mining are loss of habitat, noise, dust, vibration, chemical spills, erosion, sedimentation, changes to the visual scene, and dereliction of the mined site. Mining in some environments may cause stream erosion. Erosion may cause loss of shade along stream banks,

PAGE 15

15 which, in turn, may cause loss of fish habitat ( Langer and Arbogast, 2003) Therefore the use of virgin aggregates has a huge environmental impact. Recycled Concrete Aggregate Recycled aggregate consists mainly of crushed asphalt pavement ( Robinson and Kapo, 2004) reclaimed primarily from road paving and parking lot construction activities and crushed Portland cement concr ete, which is reclaimed from construction and demolition debris. According to Wilburn and Goonan (1998), r eclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed Portland cement concrete (RPCC) are the most abundant and available of the potential substitutes for natural aggr egate in urban areas According to Chini and Bruen ing (2005), b uil d ing related C&D waste was estimated to be 143.3 million metric tons (MMT) in 2000. An estimated 35% to 45% of this debris is sent to Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills or unper mi t ted landfills and 20% to 30% is reused or recycled Total building related and infrastructural C&D waste concrete generated annually in U nited S tates, is est i mated to be 182 MMT (Sandler, 2003). It is estimated that 50% (91 MMT) of waste concrete is recycled annually into usable aggregates. This is roughly 5% of the 1.8 bi l lion metric tons total aggregates market (Chini, 2007) More than 91 MMT of worn -out asphalt pavements are reco vered annually. About 80% of the recovered material is currently recy cled and the remaining 20% is land filled. One -third of the recycled material is used as aggregates for new asphalt hot mixes and the remaining two third s is used as road base (Kelly, 1998). An estimated 68% of aggregate rec y cled from concrete is used as road base and the remainder is used for new concrete (6%), asphalt hot mixes (9% ), and low value products like general fill (Deal, 1997). The low usage rate of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in new

PAGE 16

16 concrete and asphalt hot mixe s (15%) compared to hig her usage rates in lower valued pro d ucts is related to real and perceived quality issues. In recent years, the recycling of concrete to produce aggregates suitable for nonstructural concrete applications is emerging as a commercially viable and technical ly feasible operation (Sagoe Crentsil Brown and Taylor 2001) Many demolition co n tactors are integrating recycling as a side business. According to one es timate in 2005, 3 500 C&D recycl ing facilities were in the United States. (Taylor 2005). Why Recyc led Concrete Aggregate (RCA)? According to the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA, 2009), recycled concrete aggregate is a high quality material and meets or exceeds all applicable state and federal specifications. It is an accepted source of aggregate used in new co ncrete by ASTM and AASHTO. Recycled concrete aggregate i s currently being used in concrete and asphalt products with better performance over com parable virgin aggregates Recycled concrete aggregate provides superior compaction a nd constructability. R ecycled aggregates are higher yield and lighter weight per unit of volume, which means less weight per cubic yard, resulting in reduced material costs, haul costs, and overall project costs It weighs 10%15% less than comparable virgin quarry products. Recycled concrete aggregate o ffers a way to reduce landfill waste streams and it minimizes the environmental impact in an urban q uarry setting (CMRA 2009). According to Robinson and Kapo (2004) t he use of r ecycled aggregate has increa sed in response to : 1) the in creasing demand for aggregate; 2) the difficulty and cost of developing and permitting new sites of natural aggregate production; 3) other costs such as increasing waste disposal fees and increasing transport distance from sit es of natural aggregate production to construction sites; and 4) national and community efforts to reduce waste streams through the

PAGE 17

17 substitution of natural resources with reused and recycled materials Increasing transportation cost s for natural aggre gate plus increasing costs and decreasing availability of land dispose of construction and other wastes creates an economic incentive to market recycled aggregate materials reclaimed from local sources of construction debris (Wilburn and Goonan, 1998). Proximity to population centers, major transportation corridors, and a lack of local availability of other aggregate sources are business conditions that favor the development of local recycling of aggregate materials (Robinson, Menzie and Hyan, 2004). Th is rise in demand for aggregat e and the difficulty of developing and permitting new sites of natural aggr egate production (Stanley, Marlon and Harris 2000) creates a marketplace incentive to expand the recycling of aggregate and create more aggregate recycling centers throughout the r egion that are strategically located close to areas of construction activity and major transportation corridors. According to Wilburn and Goonan (1998), r ecycling of construction debris into new construction offers a way to reduce waste disposal loads sent to ar ea land and to extend the life of natural resources by supplementing resource supply. According to Robinson et al. ( 2004) d ual -haul strategies where construction debris is hauled from the construction site to the recycling site and processed aggregate or asphalt hot mix is returned to the construction site can result in signi transportation cost reductions Recycling concrete waste for new production is a cost effective method that also helps protecting the environment and achieves construction s ustainability (Tam, 2008). According to Gao, Ariyama, Ojima and Meier (2001) t he energy consumption needed to recycle most disassembled materials is less than that for a virgin product This shows that recycled concrete can save energy.

PAGE 18

18 How Is It P roduced ? According to Construction Material Recycling Association (CMRA, 2009), p roducts (aside from base course) are high quality aggregate, processed in steps with time and effort involved in crushing, pre -sizing, sorting, screening an d contaminant elimination The major factor is to start wit h clean quality rubble to meet design criteria easily and ultimately yield a quality product that will go into end use Crushing and screening systems start with primary jaws, cones and/or large impactors taking rubble f rom 30 inches to 4 feet A secondary cone or impactor may or may not need to be run, and then primary and secondary screens may or may not be used, depending upon the project, the equipment used and the final product desired A scalping screen will remove d irt and foreign particles A fine harp deck screen will remove fine mater ial from coarse aggregate Further cleaning is necessary to ensure that the recycled concrete product is free f rom dirt, clay, wood, plas tic, and organic materials. This procedure i s done by water floatation, hand picking, air separators, and electromagnetic separators Mobile recycling plants This type of recycling plant can be moved to various locations economically. Track mounted plants allow superior on -site mobility Portable r ecycling plant Choosing the right crusher for a particular concrete recycling project depends on several factors to be successful and profitable (CMRA, 2009) What goes into the crusher, what is used to feed it (loader or hoe) and the specification s for t he final product determine the size, type, and cap acity of the units

PAGE 19

19 Most popular types of crushers Jaw Crushers : Jaws compress the concrete between a stat ionary and moveable plate (CMRA, 2009) Concrete is reduced in size as it travels down the length of the wedge between the tw o plates Jaws are used as primary crushers and typically produce a 4" to 8" minus product usually used as fill Impact Crushers: Impactors have a spinning rotor with bars or hammers that fling the concrete into a solid plate, several plates, or rods (CMRA 2009). Impactors can be used as primary, secondary, and even tertiary crushers and produce a product typically 2" minus used as base material in some parts of the country Cone Crushers : Cones are also compression type machi nes with the concrete being compressed between two cone shaped plates (CMRA 2009). Concrete feed to a cone is typically 6" minus as they are used mostly as secondary crushers behin d a Jaw or Impact Primary Cones typically produce products of 1 1/2" min us Portable crushers are mounted on rubber -tired chassis and t owed to the site by truck. On site they are moved by loaders or tugs Mobile crushers are carried to the site by truck and trailer and have their own onboard drive syst em typically track driven. These units move easily on sites where s everal moves are required Stationary crushers are just that they are perman ently fixed to the ground, t ypically used in a recycling yard where all materi als are trucked to the site Most recycling projects require the operator to produce a sized or specified end product with grada tions that need to be met Applications In general, applications without any processing include: 1) many types of general bulk fills 2) bank protection 3) base or fill for drainage structu res 4) road construction 5) noise barriers and

PAGE 20

20 embankments. Most of the unprocessed crushed concrete aggregate is sold as 37.5 mm (1 1 or 50 mm (2 in.) fraction for pavement subbases (ACI, 2001). After removal of contaminants through selective demol ition, screening, and /or air separation and size reduction in a crusher to aggregate sizes, crushed concrete can be used as: 1) new concrete for pavements, shoulders, median barriers, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and bridge foundations 2) structural grad e concrete 3) soil -cement pavement bases 4) lean concrete or econocrete base and 5) bituminous concrete (ACI, 2001). Issues and Concern s According to Cosper and Ste phen (2007) t he presence of lead -based paint on concrete from demolition projects raises q uestions regar ding suitable reuse or disposal. According to Environmental Council of Concrete Organizations (ECCO 2009), c oncrete recovered from urban locations is more likely to contain contaminants such as plaster, soil, wood, gypsum, asphalt, plastic, vinyl, or rubber. If the aggregate is to be used in a concrete, the contaminant level must be monitored and kept equal to or less than the virgin aggregate. When used as aggregate in concrete, some ready -mix companies voice concerns about the durabil ity of recovered concrete The irregular surface of recovered concrete aggregate can be less effective than sand or crushed stone because it takes more cement to fill the voids This is potentially counterproductive, as it requires the use of more cement, and thereby increases the energy and raw materials needed for the concrete mix (ECCO 2009). The major intrinsic material properties that limit the use of Reclaimed Portland cement concrete are (Forster, 1997): speci absorption, soundness (resistance to environmental conditions such as chemical and physical weathering), gradation (grain -size distribution), and contaminant solubility and the potential for groundwater contamination. The major external factors that limit the use of RPCC are (Forster,

PAGE 21

21 1997): cost, state speci regulations. According to Robinson et al. (2004) reclaimed Portland cement concrete as an aggregate alters the new concrete in multipl e ways. Its compressive strength will be lower than non recycled concretes because of weaker aggregate particles Some RPCC can dissolve in the water passing through the pavement system. This dissolved material will raise the pH of the groundwater and may possibly affect vegetation within the vicinity of the road. When this water containing dissolved concrete meets the outside air, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will precipitate out calcium carbonate, which can potentially clog up a drainage system (F orster, 1997). Soundness, solubility, and groundwater contamination still remain concerns (Forster, 1997). Embodied Energy Embodied energy is the quantity of energy required to manufacture and supply to the point of use of a product, material or servic e (P earce, Johnsona and grant 2007). According to Pulselli, Simoncini, Ridolfi, and Sinding (2008) Energy is embodied through a chain of transformation processes and its memory is conserved in the building frame Embo died energy can be split into: 1) energy consumed in the production of basi c building materials, 2) energy needed for transportation of the building materials, and 3) energy required for assembling the various materials to form the building ( Reddy and Jagadish, 2001). A ccording to Bonilla and Sal ling (2008), the energy required for the transportation of material for every 100 km is 265.5kJ/kg. And according to Lippiatt (2007) the energy used in the production of crushed aggregate is 82kJ/kg. To minimize the transportation distances, some methods suc h as the Weights of E vidence analyses (WofE) and weighted logistic regression (WLR) were used regionally as a reconnaissance method to quickly identify tracts that rank the relative suitability for the presence

PAGE 22

22 of an aggregate recycling center location in a particular area based on transportation network and population parameters (Robinson and Kapo, 2004). Particulate Emissions An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere wi th an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (EPA, 2009). Some of the activities that cause particulate emissions in our study are loading and unloading of material, crushing and screening operations and transportation of material from one point to the other. Transportation of material through the paved road is one of the major factors that cause particulate emissions. The paved road emissions model in AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors is based on the intuitively appealing idea that PM 10 emissions from paved roads are primarily caused by resuspension of material deposited on the road ( Venkatram, 2000). The AP 42 model for estimating particulate matter of size 10 m ( PM 10) emissions from paved roads was developed by Midwest Research Institute under contract with the US EPA (Cowherd and Englehart, 1984). Gaffney, Bode and Murchison (1995) estimated that about 30% of PM 10 emissions in California are associated with traffic activity on paved roads. Zimmer, Reeser, and Cummins (1992) estimated that PM 10 emissions from paved roads accounted for about 40 70% of the total PM 10 impacts at modeled receptors in the Denver metropolitan area. For many years, the atmospheric particulate standards of many countries were based on the mas s concentration measurement of the total suspended particles (TSP). Since an important mass fraction of TSP is made of noninhalable particles with a lower impact on respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, the relationship between health effects and TSP l evels was found to be much lower than the levels of atmospheric particulates finer than 10, 2.5 or 1 m (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1, respectively), on comparison. This was the reason for the application of PM10 and

PAGE 23

23 PM2.5 measurements to the U S am bient air quality standards (US EPA, 2009). Future trends for particulate monitoring strategies tend to monitor PM2.5 rather than PM10 because of its more direct relationship with health effects and to avoid natural particulate interference. However, industrial activities with high primary particulate emissions, such as cement, concrete, ceramics or the mining sectors, may have a great impact on the ambient air quality due to their intensive particulate emissions in th e 2.5 10 m range ( Querol et al., 2001).

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY General The primary objective of this researc h was to compare the cost, energy consumption and particulate emissions for the three alternative methods used in handling concrete demolition waste and al so to determine t he best alternative for the disposition of this demolished concrete. A case was therefore created in which a four -story concrete structure is demolished. This theoretical building is located in Gainesville, Florida at the intersection of University Avenue and 13th St reet Three different demolition and disposal alternative s were examined All thr ee cases were studied using actual locations in Gainesville, Florida. The first case considered was to recycle the demolished concrete using a por table crusher and hence to use the same recycled concrete aggregate as a base material at the same site. The second case considered was to dispose the demolished concrete at the nearest landfill and then b uy new virgin aggregate from a c oncrete plant for t he same site. The third case considered was to dispose the demolished concrete at a concrete recycling plant and then to buy the recycled concrete aggregate from the same recycling plant. All the three cases were studied and analyzed and their cost, energ y consumption and particulate emissions were determined. Data were collected by personally visiting the different concrete related companies in and around Gainesville, Florida. The Model A model was created to calculate the cost, energy consumption, and p articulate emission for all three cases. The model structure and development is explained in the following sections.

PAGE 25

25 Cost The overall quantity of concrete that has to be processed or new aggregate purchased is 6,169 metric tons. The cost was based on pri ce quotes from local aggregate suppliers. The cost for case 1 involves the cost for using a portable crusher onsite to crush the demolished concrete and to use the same as base material in the same site. The portable crusher, rented from Florida Concrete R ecycling Inc is located at a distance of 2.41 km from the jobsite. The cost for using a portable crusher was $5.44 for every metric ton of concrete crushed. An additional cost of $5,000 was charged for mobilization and installation. The cost for case 2 in volves the cost for disposing the demolished concrete waste at the landfill and buying new virgin aggregate from the quarry. The landfill that was considered in the study was the Watson C & D landfill located at Archer, Florida, at a distance of 26.5 km fr om the jobsite. The cost for landfilling was $5.98 for every metric ton of concrete waste. This overall cost for landfilling includes the cost for loading/unloading and transportation. The virgin aggregate was bought from Limerock industries Inc, which is located in Newberry, Florida at a distance of 24.7 km from the jobsite. The cost for buying virgin aggregate was $10.84 for every metric ton, and this cost includes the cost of material and the cost for delivery. The virgin aggregate required for this site is 6,169 metric tons. The cost for case 3 involves the cost of disposing the concrete waste at the recycling plant, which is slightly less than the cost of disposing at the landfill, and the cost for buying recycled concrete aggregate from the same recycling plant. The recycling plant chosen for case 3 is the same recycling plant considered in case 1, which is the Florida Concrete Recycling Inc located at a distance of 2.41 km from the jobsite. The overall cost for disposing the waste concrete at the recy cling plant was $4.35 per metric ton. The overall cost of buying recycled concrete aggregate

PAGE 26

26 from the same plant was $10.34 for every metric ton. Quantity of 6,169 metric tons of RCA was required for the site. A tax of $6.75 was charged for the overall cos t for the activities in all the cases. Energy The two major areas in which energy consumption was calculated were for crushing and transportation in all three cases. The energy consumption was calculated based on Building for E nvironmental and E conomic S us tainability Technical Manual and User Guide ( Lippiatt, 2007). According to BEES 4.0 ( Lippiatt, 2007), the energy used in the production of crushed aggregate is 82 kJ/kg and a ccording to Bonilla and Salling (2008), the energy required for the transportatio n of material for every 100 km is 265.5 kJ/kg. The energy consumption in the first case involves the energy consumed for transporting the portable crusher to the jobsite and the energy consumed in crushing the demolished concrete using the portable crusher The total round trip distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite and back to the recycling plant was 4.81 km. The total quantity of waste concrete required to be crushed by the portable crusher was 6,169 metric tons. Using these values, the total e nergy consumption in the first case was calculated. The energy consumption in the second case involves the energy consumed in transporting the waste concrete from the jobsite to the landfill, energy consumed in transporting the virgin aggregate from the r ecycling plant to the landfill, and the energy consumed in crushing for the production of virgin aggregate. The distance between the jobsite and the quarry pit was 24.7 km and the distance between the jobsite and the landfill was 26.5 km. Using these value s, the total energy consumption in the case 2 was calculated.

PAGE 27

27 The energy consumption in the case 3 involves the energy consumed in transporting the waste concrete from the jobsite to the recycling, energy consumed in transporting the recycled concrete agg regate from the recycling plant to the jobsite, and energy consumed in crushing the demolished concrete at the recycling plant. The distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant is 2.41 km. By using these values, the total energy consumption in the third was calculated. Particulate Emission The particulate emissions were calculated based on the Environmental protection agencys (EPA) emission factor and AP 42. The activities that cause the particulate emissions in all three cases are loading, unloa ding and material transfer operation, crushing and screening operation, and transportation. PM for Loading and Unloading Operation The particulate emissions from the loading and unloading operations were calculated from section 13.2.4 of EPAs AP 42 using the formula: EF K 0.0016 U 2.2 1.3 M 2 1.4 (3 1) Where EF is the emission factor, K is particle size multiplier, U is mean wind speed (m/s), and M is material moisture content ( %). From section 13.2.4 of EPA AP 42, the value for K is 0.35, U is 3 m/s, and M is 0.7. Using these values, the value of emission factor (EF) was found to be 0.0036 kg/mt. Since the value for loading and unloading is the same for all three cases, the tot al emissions from loading and unloading operations can be calculated from EPA AP 42 using the formula:

PAGE 28

28 100 1 EREF A E (3 2) Where, E is the total emission, A is t he activity rate, EF is the emission factor, and ER is the emission reduction efficiency. From section 13.2.4 of EPA AP 42, the value of ER was found to be 0.03 and the value of A is 6,169 metric tons from this study. Therefore, by using these values in th e Equation 3 2, the value of emission (E) was found to be 0.21806 kg. This value is the same for all loading and unloading operations in all three cases. PM for Crushing Operation The emission factors from crushing operations can be calculated for PM 10 an d PM 2.5 from table 11.19.2.1 of EPA AP 42. From table 11.19.2.1, the value of ER was found to be 0.77. Using these values in Equation 3 2, the value for emission (E) for crushing operations can be calculated. PM for Screening O peration The emission factor s from screening operations can be calculated for PM 10 and PM 2.5 from table 11.19.2.1 of EPA AP 42. From table 11.19.2.1, the value of ER was found to be 0.77. Using these values in Equation 3 2, the value for emission (E) for screening operations can be calculated. PM for Transportation The particulate emission for PM 10 from the transportation operations were calculated from section 13.2.2.1 of EPAs AP 42 using the formula: EF Ks 12 a S 30 d M 0.5 C C (3 3)

PAGE 29

29 Where, EF is the size specific emission factor (lb/VMT) s is surface material silt content (%), W is mean vehicle weight (tons), M is surface material moisture content (%), S is mean vehicle speed (mph) and C is emission f actor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear. k, a, c and d are empirical constants From section 13.2.2.1 of EPAs AP 42, the value of K is 1.8, s is 0.048, S is 50, M is 0.05, a is 1, d is 0.5, c is 0.2, and C is 0.00047. Using these values, the emission factor (EF) was calculated to be 0.01473 lb/VMT This can be converted to lb/VKT using the formula: 1 lb / VMT 281.9 g / VKT (3 4) Using this formula, the value of EF was found to be 4.0204 g/VKT. From table 13.2.25, the value of ER was found to be 0.95. The activity rate A is 6,169 metric tons and the capacity of each truck was assumed to be 36.74 metric tons to transport the concrete. Therefore, it takes approximate ly 168 trips to transport 6,169 metric tons of concrete. Using these values in Equation 3 2, the value of emission (E) was found to be 0.3377 g/km. Similarly, the emission factor (EF) for PM 2.5 was calculated the same way as for PM 10, except the value of C was changed to 0.00036, found in table 13.2.24. Therefore, the value of EF was found to be 0.3138 g/VKT. From table 13.2.2 5, the value of ER was found to be 0.95. The activity rate A is 6,169 metric tons, and the capacity of each truck was assumed to be 36.74 metric tons to transport the concrete. Therefore, it takes approximately 168 trips to transport 6,169 metric tons of concrete. Using these values in Equation 3 2, the value of emission (E) was found to be 0.0263 g/km.

PAGE 30

30 PM Calculation for Case 1 Th e activities that produce particulate emissions in case 1, given in sequential order, are as follows: Figure 3 1. Flowchart for case 1 The first and last activity in case 1 is the transportation of the portable crusher. The emission (EF) for transporta tion, as calculated above, was 4.02 g/VKT and 0.3138 g/VKT for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. The value of ER is 0.95 and the round trip distance between the recycling plant and the jobsite is 4.81. Therefore, from these values, the emission (E) for trans portation in case 1 was calculated to be 0.0000096 kg and 0.00000075 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5 respectively. The loading and unloading operations, as previously calculated are the same for all three cases, and it is 0.21806 kg The crushing operation for PM 10 and PM 2.5, as calculated before is the same for all cases and it is equal to 0.00383kg and 0.00070 kg for PM 10

PAGE 31

31 and PM 2.5, respectively. The screening operation for PM 10 and PM 2.5, as calculated before is the same for all three cases and it is equal to 0.00205 kg and 0.00013 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. PM Calculation for Case 2 The activities that produce particulate emissions in case 2, given in sequential order, are as follows: Figure 3 2. Flowchart for case 2 The emission (E) for tra nsportation, as calculated before was 0.3377 g/km and 0.0263 g/km for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. The round trip distance between the landfill and the jobsite is 52.6 km. Therefore from these values the emission (E) for transportation to landfill was c alculated to be 0.0177 kg and 0.00138 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5 respectively. Similarly, the round trip distance between the quarry pit and the jobsite is 49.56 km. The emission (E) for transportation from the quarry pit was calculated to be 0.0167 kg and 0. 0013 kg for PM 10 and

PAGE 32

32 PM 2.5, respectively. The loading and unloading operations, as calculated before, are the same for all three cases, and it is 0.21806 kg The crushing operation for PM 10 and PM 2.5, as calculated before, is the same for all three cas es, and it is equal to 0.00383kg and 0.00070 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. The screening operation for PM 10 and PM 2.5, as calculated before is the same for all three cases, and it is equal to 0.00205 kg and 0.00013 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respe ctively. PM Calculation for Case 3 The activities that produce particulate emissions in case 3 given in sequential order are as follows: Figure 3 3. Flowchart for case 3 The emission (E) for transportation, as previously calculated, was 0.3377 g/km and 0.0263 g/km for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. The round trip distance between the recycling plant and the jobsite is 4.81 km. Therefore, from these values, the emission (E) for transportation from

PAGE 33

33 the jobsite to the recycling plant was calculated to be 0.0016 kg and 0.00012 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5 respectively. Similarly, the emission (E) for transportation from the recycling plant to the jobsite was the same and found to be 0.0016 kg and 0.00012 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. The loading and unloading operations, as calculated before is the same for all three cases, and it is 0.21806 kg The crushing operation for PM 10 and PM 2.5, as calculated before, is the same for all cases and it is equal to 0.00383kg and 0.00070 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5, res pectively. The screening operation for PM 10 and PM 2.5, as calculated before, is the same for all cases and it is equal to 0.00205 kg and 0.00013 kg for PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively. Impact of Transportation on Cost, Energy and P articulate Emission To t est the impact of transportation distance on cost, energy consumption, and particulate emissions, the distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant was changed at an increment of every 5 km from 5 km to 35 km. The other distances were kept constant. The case 1 and case 3 were calculated again the same way, as calculated before, except the distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant was changed at an increment of 5 km each time up to 35 km. List of A ssumptions The assumptions made in this stu dy are The study begins after the building is demolished and the concrete debris is separated from steel and stockpiled. The portable crusher in the first case comes from the same recycling plant as considered in the third case. The energy consumption for producing crushed virgin aggregate and recycled concrete aggregate is assumed to be the same for all three cases. The energy consumption for transportation of virgin aggregate or recycled concrete aggregate per kilometer is assumed to be the same for all vehicles in all the cases considered in this study.

PAGE 34

34 The particulate emissions from loading and unloading operations were assumed to be the same for all cases and at all locations. The particulate emissions from crushing and screening operations were assum ed to be the same for all three cases. The particulate emissions from transportation operations per kilometer were assumed to be the same for all the vehicles in all three cases. Limitations of the study Limitations of this study are Crushing concrete debr is and using the recycled concrete aggregate onsite may take longer than buying virgin aggregate from the quarry. This factor was not considered in the study. The use of EPA AP 42 may not be a comprehensive approach to calculate particulate emissions. The effect of pollution from the particulate matter between crushing and screening operations onsite (urban) and at the aggregate plant (rural) was not considered in this study. The use of a portable crusher onsite requires a minimum threshold limit of at leas t 1,000 metric tons of concrete for it to be economically feasible. The use of a portable crusher onsite requires enough space for crushing the concrete and stockpiling. The use of a portable crusher onsite requires at least two weeks prior notice for get ting the necessary paperwork from the respective county in order to get the permit for the use of portable crusher at the specific location.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Data was collected for three parameters namely energy, cost, and particulate emissions for three different cases separately. The data from all three cases were then analyzed thoroughly by comparing them with each other. Cost The cost incurred in the first case was the cost for renting the portable crusher for recycling the demolished concrete that wa s $5.44 per metric ton. Table 4 1. Cost calculations for case 1 Cost for using portable crusher to recycle concrete onsite per ton $5.44 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6,169.00 mt Cost $33,559.00 Cost for mobilization and installation $5,000 .00 Tax 6.75% $2,265.00 Total Cost $40,824.00 Hence, the total cost for recycling 6,169 metric tons of concrete using the portable crusher was $33,559. An additional cost of $5,000 was charged for mobilization and installation of the portable crus her. Therefore, the total cost, including taxes amounted to $40,825 for the first case. The second case involves the disposing of the demolished concrete and buying new virgin aggregate. The cost incurred for the second case was the cost for landfill and the cost for buying new virgin aggregate. Table 4 2. Cost calculations for case 2 Cost to landfill demolished concrete per ton $5.98 /mt Quantity of demolished Concrete 6,169.00 mt Cost to landfill demolished concrete $36,891.00 Cost for buying V irgin aggregate per ton $10.84.00 /mt Quantity of virgin aggregate needed 6,169.00 mt Cost for buying Virgin aggregate $66,853.00 Total cost $103,744.00 Tax 6.75% $7,003.00 Total cost $110,747.00

PAGE 36

36 The cost for landfill was $5.98 per metric ton, which amounted to $36,891 for 6,169 metric tons. The cost for buying virgin aggregate was $10.84 per metric ton, which amounted to $66,853 for 6,169 metric tons. Therefore, the total cost incurred in the second case including the taxes, amounted to $110,747. The cost incurred in the third case involved cost for disposing the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buying recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) from the same recycling plant. Table 4 3. Cost calculations for case 3 Cost for disposing concr ete at the recycling plant $4.35 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6,169.00 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $26,860.00 Cost for buying RCA per ton $10.34 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6,169.00 mt Cost for buying RCA $ 63,787.00 Total Cost $90,647.00 Tax 6.75% $6,119.00 Total Cost $96,766.00 The cost for disposing the demolished concrete at the recycling plant was $4.35 per metric ton, which amounted to $26,860 for 6,169 metric tons, and the cost for buyi ng RCA was $10.34 per metric ton, which amounted to $63,787 for 6,169 metric tons. Therefore, the total cost incurred in the third case including taxes, amounted to $96,766. Table 4 4. Results of cost CASES COST ($) Portable crusher $40,825 Virgin aggr egate $110,747 Recycling plant $96,766

PAGE 37

37 Comparing the costs for all three cases shows that using the portable crusher from the first case is the most cost -effective and buying virgin aggregate from the second case is the least cost -effective. Figure 4 1. Results of cost Energy The energy required to recycle the concrete is 82 kJ/kg ( Lippiatt, 2007), and the energy required to transport material for every 100 km is 265.5 kJ/kg ( Bonilla and Salling 2008). The energy consumption in the first case invol ves the energy required to crush the demolished concrete and the energy consumption in the transportation of the portable crusher. Table 4 5. Energy calculations for case 1 Energy required to recycle 6,169mt of concrete 505,858,000.00 KJ Distance fr om the recycling plant 2.41 Km Approximate Weight of the portable crusher 5000.00 Kg Energy required for transportation 63,985.50 KJ Total energy consumption 505,921,985.50 KJ Or 505.92 GJ

PAGE 38

38 The energy required in recycling 6,169,000 kg of demolish ed concrete using a portable crusher equals 505,858 MJ, and the energy required in the transportation of the portable crusher is 63,985.50 KJ. Therefore, the total energy consumption in the first case is 505.92 GJ. The energy consumption in the second case involves the energy required to transport the demolished aggregate from the jobsite to the landfill, the energy required to produce the virgin aggregate and the energy required to transport the virgin aggregate from the quarry pit to the jobsite. Table 4 6. Energy calculations for case 2 Energy required to produce virgin aggregate 505,858,000.00 KJ Distance from the jobsite to the landfill 26.50 Km Energy required to transport demolished concrete to landfill 434,035,418.00 KJ Distance from the quarry pit to the jobsite 24.70 Km Energy required to transport VA from quarry pit to the jobsite 404,553,767.00 KJ Total Energy 1,344,447,184.00 KJ Or 1,344.44 GJ The energy required to transport the demolished concrete from the jobsite to the landfill equals 434,035 MJ. The energy required to produce 6169,000 kg of virgin aggregate equals 505,858 MJ, and the energy required to transport virgin aggregate from the quarry pit to the jobsite is 404,553 MJ. Therefore, the overall energy consumption in the second case is 1,344.44 GJ. The energy consumption in the third case involves the energy required to transport the demolished concrete from the jobsite to the recycling, the energy required to recycle the concrete at the recycling plant and the energy required to transport the recycled concrete aggregate from the recycling plant to the jobsite.

PAGE 39

39 Table 4 7. Energy calculations for case 3 Energy required to recycle the demolished concrete 505,858,000.00 KJ Distance from the jobsite to t he recycling pant 2.41 Km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 39,472,655.00 KJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite 2.41 Km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 39,472,655.00 KJ Total Energy 584,803,310.00 K J Or 584.80 GJ The energy required to transport 6169,000 kg of demolished concrete to the recycling plant is 39,473 MJ. The energy required to recycle the concrete is 505,858 MJ, and the energy required to transport the recycled concrete to the jobsite is 39,473 MJ. Therefore, the overall energy consumption in the third case equals 584.803 GJ. Table 4 8. Results of energy CASES ENERGY (GJ) Portable crusher 505.92 Virgin aggregate 1,344.44 Recycling plant 584.80 Comparing energy consumption for all three cases shows that the first case in which portable a crusher is used onsite to recycle the concrete is the most energy efficient and the second case, which involves the disposal of demolished concrete and the buying of virgin aggregate, is the least energy efficient.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 4 2 Results of e nergy Particulate Emissions Emission factors from the EPA AP 42 are representative numbers that attempts to relate the amount of emissions released to the atmosphere with the activity that released the polluta nt. The particulate emissions were calculated, based on emission factors section from the EPA AP 42. The activities that cause the release of particulate emissions in the first case are the loading of material into the portable crusher, crushing and screen ing, unloading of material from the portable crusher, and the transportation of the portable crusher to the jobsite from the recycling plant. The total emissions for the loading and unloading operations in the first case amounted to 0.43613 kg. The crushing operation for PM 10 in the first case amounted to 0.0038 kg and 0.000709 kg for PM 2.5. The screening operation in the first case amounted to 0.00205 kg for PM 10 and 0.0001388 kg for PM 2.5. The particulate emission from transportation for PM 10 and PM 2.5 is negligible.

PAGE 41

41 Table 4 9. PM results for case 1 CASE 1 PM (kg) PM 10 (kg) PM 2.5 (kg) Loading/Unloading 0.43613 Tertiary Crushing 0.00383 0.00071 Screening 0.00205 0.00014 Transportation 0.00001 0.00000075 In the second case, the activit ies that cause the release of particulates in the second case are loading of material into the truck from the demolition site, transportation of material from the jobsite to the landfill, unloading of material into the landfill, crushing and screening of v irgin aggregate, loading of virgin aggregate, and unloading virgin aggregate into the jobsite. Particulate emissions from all the loading and unloading operations in the first case amounted to 0.87226 kg. The particulate emission for the crushing operation in the second case amounted to 0.0038 kg and 0.000709 kg for PM 2.5. The screening operations in the second case amounted to 0.00205 kg for PM 10 and .0001388 kg for PM 2.5. The particulate emission from transportation for PM 10 was 0.0345 kg and 0.00269 kg for PM 2.5. Table 4 10. PM results for case 2 CASE 2 PM (kg) PM 10 (kg) PM 2.5 (kg) Loading/Unloading 0.87226 Tertiary Crushing 0.00383 0.00071 Screening 0.00205 0.00014 Transportation 0.03450 0.00269 The activities that cause the emissi on of particulates in the third case are loading of material into the truck, transportation of material from the jobsite to the recycling plant, unloading of material into the recycling plant, crushing and screening operations, loading of material into the truck, transportation of material from the recycling plant to the jobsite, and the unloading material at the jobsite.

PAGE 42

42 The particulate emissions for all the loading and unloading operations in the third case amounted to 0.87226 kg. All the transportation o perations amounted to 0.003255 kg for PM 10 and 0.000254 kg for PM 2.5. The particulate emission from the crushing operations in the third case amounted to 0.0038 kg and 0.000709 kg for PM 2.5. The screening operations in the third case amounted to 0.00205 kg for PM 10 and .0001388 kg for PM 2.5. Table 4 11. PM results for case 3 CASE 3 PM (kg) PM 10 (kg) PM 2.5 (kg) Loading/Unloading 0.87226 Tertiary Crushing 0.00383 0.00071 Screening 0.00205 0.00014 Transportation 0.00326 0.00025 Compar ing the particulate emissions in all three cases shows that the first case where a portable crusher is used, emits the least particulate emissions and the second case in which demolished concrete is landfilled and virgin aggregate is bought, emits the most particulate emissions. PM Results for Loading and Unloading Operations The results of loading and unloading for particulate emissions shows that case 1 where the portable crusher is used emits the least particulate emissions compared to case 2 and case 3.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 4 3. PM results for loading and unloading operations PM results for Crushing Operation The results of crushing operation for particulate emissions show that case 1, case 2 and case 3 emit the same amount of particulate emission for PM 10 and P M 2.5. Figure 4 4. PM results for crushing

PAGE 44

44 PM Results for Screening The results of the screening operation for particulate emissions shows that case 1, case 2 and case 3 emit the same amount of particulate emission for PM 10 and PM 2.5. Figure 4 5. PM results for screening PM Results for Transportation The PM results for transportation for PM 10 and PM 2.5 show that case 2 in which virgin aggregate is used emits the most amount of particulate matter into the atmosphere, and case 1 where a portable c rusher is used onsite emits the least amount of particulates.

PAGE 45

45 Figure 4 6. PM results for transportation Summary of results from Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions The results for cost, energy, and particulate emissions in all three cases show that u sing a portable crusher (case 1) is the most favorable option followed by the buying of recycled concrete aggregate (case 2). Case 3 in which virgin aggregate is bought is the least favorable option in all three cases for cost, energy, and particulate emis sion.

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 12. Summary of results CASES COST ($) ENERGY (MJ) PM (kg) PM 10(kg) PM 2.5(kg) Portable crusher $40,825 505,858 0.4361 0.0058 0.00088 Virgin aggregate $110,747 1,344,447 0.8722 0.0403 0.00354 Recycling plant $96,766 584,803 0.8722 0.009 1 0.00110 Figure 4 7. Summary of results Impact of transportation on Cost, Energy and Particulate Emissions The results from all the three cases show that the first case in which portable crusher is used, is the most preferred option. The cost, energy consumption, and particulate emissions are much lower and more favorable compared to the third case, where the demolished concrete is

PAGE 47

47 sent to the recycling plant, and the recycled concrete aggregate is bought and used at the same site. Case 1 is also more favorable than the second case, where the demolished concrete is disposed and new virgin aggregate is bought. The distance between the recycling plant and the jobsite is only 2.41 km, which is much less than the distance between the jobsite and the quarry pit, which is 24.7 km. Therefore, to test the impact of transportation distance on cost, energy consumption, and particulate emissions, the distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant was changed at the increment of every 5 km from 5 km to 35 km. The distances between the jobsite and landfill and the jobsite and quarry pit remained the same. The new results show that when the distance between the jobsite and recycling plant becomes more than 20km, then the use of virgin aggregate becomes a more cost effective option than using RCA in case 3. Table 4 13. Impact on cost DISTANCE BETWEEN THE JOBSITE AND RECYCLING PLANT Distance 5km 10km 15km 20km 25km 30km 35km Cost $99,822 $103,351 $106,644 $109,937 $113,229 $116,522 $119,815 Figure 4 8. Imp act of cost

PAGE 48

48 The results show that when the distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant become more than 25km, then the total energy consumed for using a recycled concrete aggregate in case 3 becomes more than using a virgin aggregate in case 2. Ta ble 4 14. Impact on energy DISTANCE BETWEEN THE JOBSITE AND RECYCLING PLANT Distance 5km 10km 15km 20km 25km 30km 35km Energy (GJ) 669.64 833.43 997.21 1,161.00 1,324.79 1,488.58 1,652.36 At this point, the use of virgin aggregate is a more energy ef ficient option than RCA. Figure 4 9. Impact on energy Similarly, when distance the distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant becomes more than 25km, the total PM 10 emitted becomes more for using a recycled concrete aggregate in case 3 than using a virgin aggregate in case 2. Table 4 15. Impact on PM10 DISTANCE BETWEEN THE JOBSITE AND RECYCLING PLANT Distance 5km 10km 15km 20km 25km 30km 35km PM 10 (kg) 0.0126 0.0193 0.0261 0.0329 0.0396 0.0464 0.0531

PAGE 49

49 Figure 4 10. Impact on PM 10 After the distance between the jobsite and the recycling plant becomes more than 25km, PM 2.5 emitted becomes more for using a recycled concrete aggregate in case 3 than a using a virgin aggregate in case 2. Table 4 16. Impact on PM 2.5 DISTANCE BETWEEN THE J OBSITE AND RECYCLING PLANT Distance 5km 10km 15km 20km 25km 30km 35km PM 2.5 (kg) 0.0013 0.0019 0.0024 0.0029 0.0034 0.0040 0.0045 Figure 4 11. Impact on PM 2.5

PAGE 50

50 Comparing the two studies in which the transportation distances between the jobsite and the recycling plant were changed at 5 km increments, shows that the second case, in which virgin aggregate is used, can become more favorable than the third case, in which recycled concrete aggregate is used after a certain distance in terms of cost, energ y consumption, and particulate emissions. However, case 1 remains the preferred option. Therefore, this study shows that the transportation distances between jobsite and the source of materials (recycled concrete aggregate or virgin aggregate) has a huge i mpact on cost, energy consumption, and particulate emissions.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM MENDATIONS Conclusions The results from this study show how different approaches can be taken for the use of demolished concrete, and how the distance for transportation for the source of concrete material plays a huge role in the selection process. Cost, energy, and particulate emissions have their own costs and benefits. Transportation for the procurement of material affects the cost, energy, and particulate emi ssions in their own way. The cost for all three cases involves the cost for procurement of the material and the cost for transportation. The results show that, the first case in which a portable crusher was used to recycle the concrete was most cost effec tive option. And the second case in which the demolished concrete was landfilled and new virgin aggregate was bought was the least cost effective option. Therefore, using a portable crusher in which the demolished concrete is crushed onsite and which invol ves less transportation to and from the jobsite is the most economic option. The major energy consumption involved in the process of obtaining recycled concrete aggregate is the energy required for the crushing and screening of demolished concrete, as well as the energy required for the transportation of the concrete material from the source to the jobsite. The three cases studied in this research show that using a portable concrete crusher onsite to crush the demolished concrete consumes the least amount o f energy, and purchasing virgin aggregate is the most energy consuming. This shows that using a portable concrete crusher is the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly alternative. The particulate emissions involved in the production and procur ement of concrete are the crushing and screening of material, loading, unloading, and transfer of material and the

PAGE 52

52 transportation of material from the source to the jobsite. The portable crusher emitted lower amounts of particulate emissions whereas purcha sing virgin aggregate produced the greatest amount. Therefore, using a portable crusher onsite emits the least amounts of particulates into the atmosphere. To truly show the impact that transportation has on the results, a few changes were made and tested for varying distances. The distance from the jobsite to the recycling plant was changed and tested at 5 km increments. The new results show that at some point as the distance between the jobsite and recycling plant increases, virgin aggregate becomes a mo re favorable option in terms of cost, energy consumption, and particulate emissions, than using a recycled concrete aggregate from a recycling plant. The results of this study strongly show the profound impact of transportation both economically and environmentally. Recommendation The results of this study show how the distance and the type of aggregate production have a big impact on cost, energy, and particulate emissions. Cost in most cases determines the method of procuring aggregate. And the cost is di rectly proportional to the distance traveled for the procurement of aggregate. Therefore, further research has to be conducted to determine appropriate locations for the recycling plant, which minimizes the long distances traveled for the procurement of ag gregate. This study did not take into consideration the duration of time taken for the use of a portable crusher. Therefore, further research has to be done taking this into account. The study also showed that transportation is the major emitter of particu late emissions followed by crushing and screening operations to a lesser extent. Particulate emissions pose serious problems for health and the atmosphere. Particulate matter of the size of 10 microns, 2.5 microns and smaller, poses bigger problems than th e total suspended matter (TSP). Very little research has been done in the area of particulate emissions for construction. The EPA AP 42 has

PAGE 53

53 little information on emission factors for construction, hence its evaluation may not be very comprehensive. Further research on particulate emissions in the field of construction will help to better understand the problems and act to implement the particulate reduction and control strategies. Also, this study did not take into consideration the effect on pollution betw een crushing and screening concrete onsite (urban) and in an aggregate plant (rural). Further research in this area will help to understand and distinguish the effects of pollution between the crushing onsite and crushing in an aggregate plant. Other limit ations of this study that has to be considered in the future are the site logistics, space, time, and the minimum threshold quantity of concrete required for the use of portable crusher onsite to be feasible. Further study in this area will help in the imp lementation of practical use of a portable crusher onsite. Other environmental factors that need to be considered for similar research are the depletion of natural resources, conservation of land use, and the impact of disposing concrete wastes to landfill s.

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX A CALCULATION FOR COST ENERGY AND PARTICU LATE EMISSION Case 1 Recycle the demolished concrete using portable crusher, and use the same recycled concrete in the same site COST Cost for using portable crusher to recycle concrete onsit e 5.44 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt cost $33,559 cost for installation $5,000 Tax 6.75% $2,265.26 Total Cost $40,824.62 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the recycling plant= 2.41 km Energy required for transportation 12.7971 KJ Total energy consumption 505,858,012.80 KJ 505.858 GJ NOTE: Energy required to crush concre te 82 kJ/kg Energy required for transporting material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/kg PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading of material into the portable crusher EF=[K(0.0016)(U/2.2)^1.3]/(M/2)^1.4 (Ref 13.2.4) Where,

PAGE 55

55 K=Particle size multiplier U=Mean wind speed (m/s) M=material moisture content (%) Where, K= 0.35 U= 3 m/s M= 0.7 EF = 0.003644189 kg/mt E= A*EF*(1 ER/100) Where, A=activ ity rate EF=Emission factor ER=Emission reduction efficiency ER= 0.03 A= 6169 mt E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) EF = 0.0002 7 kg/Mg(mt) (Ref 11.19.2.1, Table 11.19.2.1) ER = 0.77 (Ref 11.19.2.1) A= 6169 mt E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) EF = 0.00037 Kg/Mg ER = 0.91

PAGE 56

56 E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) EF = 0.00005 Kg/Mg ER = 0.77 E= 0.000709435 kg Screening (PM 2.5) EF = 0.000025 kg/Mg ER = 0.91 E= 0.000138803 k g Unloading of material from the crusher E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation to and from the jobsite (PM 10) E= 0.00966909 g or 9.66909E 06 kg(negligible) Transportation to an d from the jobsite (PM 2.5) E= 0.000754705 g or 7.54705E 07 (Negligible)

PAGE 57

57 Case 2 Dispose the demolished concrete and buy virgin aggregate COST Cost to landfill demolished concrete pe r ton $5.98 /m t Quantity of demolished Concrete 6169 mt Cost to landfill demolished concrete $36,891 Cost for buying Virgin aggregate per ton $10.84 /m t Quantity of virgin aggregate needed 6169 mt Cost for buying Virgin aggregate $66,853 Total cost $103,744 Tax 6.75% $7,003 Total cost $110,747 ENERGY Energy required to produce virgin aggregate= 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the landfill= 26.5 km Energy required to transport demolished concrete to landfill= 434,035,418 kJ Distance from the quarry pit to the jobsite= 24.7 km Energy required to transport VA from quarry pit to the jobsite= 404,553,767 kJ Total Energy 1,344,447,184 kJ 1,344.447 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ

PAGE 58

58 Energy required for transporting material for 100 Km 265.5 kJ PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading of material into the truck E= 0.218065728 g Transportation to the landfill (PM 10) EF= [K*(s/12)^a*(S/30)^d/(M/0.5)^c] C (Ref 13.2.2.1) Where, EF=Emission factor (lb/VMT) s=surface material silt content(%) M=mean vehicle speed (Mph) C= Vehicle emission factor fleet exhaust K= 1.8 s= 0.048 a= 1 S= 50 d= 0.5 M= 0.05 c= 0.2 C= 0.00047 (Ref 13.2.2 4) EF= 0.014731836 ( C) EF= 0.014261836 lb/VMT 1lb/VMT= 281.9 g/VKT EF= 4.020411528 g/VKT ER= 0.95 (Ref 13.2.2 5) Quantity per truck= 36.74 mt To tal quantity of concrete= 6169 mt No. of trips= 168

PAGE 59

59 E= A*EF*(1 ER/100) E= 0.337714568 g/km Distance to and from landfill= 52.6 Km E= 17.76378629 g or 0.017763786 kg T ransportation to the landfill (PM 2.5) EF= 0.001473184 ( C) C= 0.00036 (Ref 13.2.2 4) EF= 0.001113184 lb/VMT or EF= 0.313806453 g/VKT E= 0.026359742 Distance to and from landfill= 52.6 Km E= 1.386522431 g or 0.001386522 kg Unloading of material into the landfill E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.0038309 49 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg

PAGE 60

60 Screening ( PM 2.5) E= 0.000138803 kg Loading of material into th e truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation to the Construction site (PM 10) Distance to and from the Quarry pit to the Construction site= 49.56 km E= 16.73713401 g or 0.016737134 kg Tr ansportation to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E 1.306388815 g or 0.001306389 kg Unloading of material from the truck E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 61

61 Case 3 Dispose the demolished concrete at t he recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 4.354 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $26,860 Cost for buying RCA per ton 10.34 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost for buying RCA $63,787 Total Cost $90,647 Tax 6.75% $6,119 Total Cost $96,766 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 2.41 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 39,472,655 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 2.41 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 39,472,655 kJ Total Energy 584,803,310 kJ 584.803 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg Energy required for transporti ng material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg

PAGE 62

62 PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 g Dis tance to and from the recycling plant= 4.82 km E= 1.627784219 g or 0.001627784 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 0.127053957 g or 0.000127054 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 63

63 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 1.627784219 g or 0.001627784 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 0.127053957 g or 0.000127054 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.2180657 28 kg

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX B IMPACT OF TRANSPORTA TION ON COST, ENERGY AND PARTICULATE EMIS SION Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 5 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant Di stance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 5km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 4.604 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $28 ,402 Cost for buying RCA per ton 10.55 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost for buying RCA $65,108 Total Cost $93,510 Tax 6.75% $6,312 Total Cost $99,822 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 5.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 81,893,475 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 5.00 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 81,893,475 kJ Total Energy 669,644,950 kJ 669.645 GJ

PAGE 65

65 NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg Energy required for transporting materia l for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plant= 10 km E= 3.377145683 g or 0.003377146 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 0.26359742 g or 0.000263597 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5)

PAGE 66

66 E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5) E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 3.377145683 g or 0.003377146 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 0.26359742 g or 0.000263597 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 67

67 Di stance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 10 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 10km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 4.854 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $29,944 Cost for buying RCA per ton 10.84 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 616 9 mt Cost for buying RCA $66,872 Total Cost $96,816 Tax 6.75% $6,535 Total Cost $103,351 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 10.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 163,786,950 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 10.00 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 163,786,950 kJ Total E nergy 833,431,900 kJ 833.432 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg

PAGE 68

68 Energy required for transporting material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material int o the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plant= 20 km E= 6.754291367 g or 0.006754291 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 0.527194841 g or 0.000527195 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushi ng (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 69

69 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 6.754291367 g or 0.006754291 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 0.527194841 g or 0.000527195 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 70

70 Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 15 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 15km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 5.104 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 m t Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $31,487 Cost for buying RCA per ton 11.09 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost for buying RCA $68,414 Total Cost $99,901 Tax 6.75% $6 ,743 Total Cost $106,644 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 15.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 245,680,425 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 15.00 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 245,680,425 kJ Total Energy 997,218,850 kJ 997.219 GJ NOTE: Energy required for r ecycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg Energy required for transporting material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg

PAGE 71

71 PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycl ing plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plant= 30 km E= 10.13143705 g or 0.010131437 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 0.790792261 g o r 0.000790792 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 72

72 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 10.13143705 g or 0.010131437 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 0.790792261 g or 0.000790792 kg Unloading of materia l at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 73

73 Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 20 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant Distance between the job site and recycling plant= 20km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 5.354 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $33,029 Cost for buying RCA per ton 11.34 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost for buying RCA $69,956 Total Cost $102,985 Tax 6.75% $6,952 Total Cost $109,937 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 20.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 327,573,900 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 20.0 0 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 327,573,900 kJ Total Energy 1,161,005,800 kJ 1,161.006 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg

PAGE 74

74 Energy required for transporting material fo r 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plan t= 40 km E= 13.50858273 g or 0.013508583 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 1.054389681 g or 0.00105439 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218 065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709 435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 75

75 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 13.50858273 g or 0.013508583 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 1.054389681 g or 0.00105439 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 76

76 Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 25 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 25km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the rec ycling plant 5.604 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $34,571 Cost for buying RCA per ton 11.59 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost f or buying RCA $71,499 Total Cost $106,070 Tax 6.75% $7,160 Total Cost $113,229 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l an t= 25.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 409,467,375 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 25.00 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 409,467,375 kJ Total Energy 1,324,792, 75 0 kJ 1,324.793 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg

PAGE 77

77 Energy required for transporting material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plant= 50 km E= 16.88572842 g or 0.016885728 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 1.317987102 g or 0.001317987 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 78

78 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into t he truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 16.88572842 g or 0.016885728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 1.317987 102 g or 0.001317987 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 79

79 Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 30 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant an d buy new RCA from recycling plant Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 30km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 5.854 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $36,113 Cost for buying RCA per ton 11.84 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost for buying RCA $73,041 Total Cost $109,154 Tax 6.75% $7,368 Total Cost $116,522 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505,858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 30.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 491,360,85 0 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 30.00 km Energy to transport RCA to the jobsite 491,360,850 kJ Total Energy 1,488,579,700 kJ 1,488.580 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling conc rete 82 kJ/Kg

PAGE 80

80 Energy required for transporting material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg PARTICULATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plant= 60 km E= 20.2628741 g or 0.020262874 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 1.581584522 g or 0.001581585 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 81

81 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Constructio n site (PM 10) E= 20.2628741 g or 0.020262874 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 1.581584522 g or 0.001581585 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg

PAGE 82

82 Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 35 km Dispose the demolished concrete at the recycling plant and buy new RCA from recycling plant Distance between the jobsite and recycling plant= 35km COST Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant 6.104 /mt Quantity of concrete to be recycled 6169 mt Cost for disposing concrete at the recycling plant $37,656 Cost for buying RCA per ton 12.09 /mt Quantity of RCA needed 6169 mt Cost for buying RCA $74,583 Total Cost $112,239 Tax 6.75% $7,576 Total Cost $119,815 ENERGY Energy required to recycle the concrete 505, 858,000 kJ Distance from the jobsite to the recycling p l ant= 35.00 km Energy to transport demolished concrete to the recycling plant 573,254,325 kJ Distance from the recycling plant to the jobsite= 35.00 km Energy to transpo rt RCA to the jobsite 573,254,325 kJ Total Energy 1,652,366,650 kJ 1,652.367 GJ NOTE: Energy required for recycling concrete 82 kJ/Kg

PAGE 83

83 Energy required for transporting material for 100Kms 265.5 kJ/Kg PARTICUL ATE EMISSION Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transporting material to the Recycling plant (PM 10) E= 0.337714568 Distance to and from the recycling plant= 70 km E= 23.640019 78 g or 0.02364002 kg Transporting material to the recycling plant (PM 2.5) E= 1.845181942 g or 0.001845182 kg Unloading material at the recycling plant E= 0.218065728 kg Crushing and screening 1. Tertiary crushing (PM10) E= 0.003830949 kg Screening (PM 10) E= 0.002054277 kg 2. Tertiary crushing (PM 2.5) E= 0.000709435 kg Screening ( PM 2.5)

PAGE 84

84 E= 0.000138803 kg Loading material into the truck E= 0.218065728 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 10) E= 23.64001978 g or 0.02364002 kg Transportation of material to the Construction site (PM 2.5) E= 1.845181942 g or 0.001845182 kg Unloading of material at the Construction site E= 0.218065728 kg Summary DISTANCE BETWEEN THE JOBSITE AND RECYCLING PLANT 5km 10km 15km 20km 25km 30km 35km COST ($) $99,822 $103,351 $106,644 $109,937 $113,229 $116,522 $119,815 ENERGY (MJ) 669.645 833.432 997.219 1,161.006 1,324.793 1,488.580 1,652.367 TOTAL PM (kg) 0.87226 0.87226 0.87226 0.87226 0.87226 0.87226 0.87226 PM 10(kg) 0.01264 0.01939 0.02615 0.03290 0.03966 0.04641 0.05317 PM 2.5(kg) 0.00138 0.00190 0.00243 0.00296 0.00348 0.00401 0.00454

PAGE 85

85 LIST OF REFERENCES ACI, (2001). Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete ACI Committee 555 Report, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI Barksdale R.D. (2000). The Aggregate H andbook. Arlington, VA: National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association Bates R.L. (1969). Geology of the Industrial Rocks and M inerals. New York, USA: Dover Publications Inc. Bonilla, D. and Sal ling, K. (2008). Energy Consumption and Truck Freight Transport Demand: Is Denmark a Special C ase TSU and St. Annes College, Oxford University Technical University of Denmark < http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/events/nectar/bonilla_salling_pres.ppt 267,7,Freight transport energy intensity >(March 3, 2009) Chen C. (1998) Marine Sand for Sustainable Aggregate Su pply. Marine Resource Conservation (MRC) (Chile) Bulletin, October 1998. Chini, A. and Bruening, S. (2005). Deconstruction and Materials Reuse in the United States, in Deconstruction and Materials Reuse An International Overview CIB Publication 300, March 2005. CMRA, (2009). Construction Materials Recycling Association. < http://www.concreterecycling.org/plants.html > (Jan. 25, 2009). Cosper, S. (2007). LBP Concerns in Producing Recycle d Concrete Aggregate from Former Fort Family Housing. Engineer Research and development center Champaign IL. Cowherd and Englehart (1984). Paved Road Particulate E missions. EPA -600/784077. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Deal, T. ( 1997). What It Costs To R ecycle Concrete: C&D Debris Recycling. Septe m ber/October. P g 10 13. Environmental Council of Concrete Organizations (ECCO) (2009). Recycling Concrete Saves Resources, Eliminates Dumping, (1997) Skokie IL. < http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1 &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.p2p ays.org%2Fref%2F14%2F13602.pdf&ei=oeDJSeKdOY3Ctwem2rGkAw&usg=AFQjCNF6Gsc NrvATPwW0o8ko2TalgYRZwQ&sig2=XEnSQIbiJTyFrFOgW FCMw > (Jan. 15, 2009) EPA (2009) United states Environmental Protection A gency. < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ > (Feb. 15, 2009) Forster, S. (1997). FHWA Views On Recycling Concrete P avements. Federal Highway Administration International Center for Aggregates Research Fifth Annual Symposium, yr: 1997, vol: 20, issue: 23.

PAGE 86

86 Gaffney, P., Bode, R. and Murchison, L. (1995). PM 10 Emission Inventory I mpro vement Program for California. Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA Gao W., Ariyama T., Ojima T., and Meier A. (2001). Energy impacts of Recycling D i sassembly Material in Residential B uildings. Energy and Buildings yr: 2001, vol: 33, Pg: 553562. Hsiao T., Huang, Y., Yu Y., and Wernick I.K. (2002). Modeling Materials Flow of Waste Concrete from C onstruction and Demolition W astes in Taiwan. Re sources Policy yr: 2002, vol: 28, Pg: 39 47. Kelly, T.D. (1998). The Substitution of Crushed Cement C oncre te for Constriction Aggregates: U. S. Ge o logical Survey Circular < http://greenw ood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/circulars/c1177/ >(Feb. 23, 2009) Lippiatt, B (2007). Building for E nvironmental and E conomic S ustainability Technical Manual and User Guide National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Langer W.H and Arboga st, B.F. (2003). Environmental Impact of Mining Natural A ggregate. Deposit and Geoenvironmental Models for Resource Exploitation and Environmental Security. Pg 151170. Mehta P. K. (2001). Reducing the Environmental Impact of Concrete. Concrete Inter national yr: 2001, vol: 23, iss ue: 10, Pg: 61. Pearce J., Johnsona S., and Grant, G. (2007). 3D Mapping Optimization of Embodied Energy of T ransportation. Resources, conservation, and recycling, yr: 2007, vol: 51 iss ue: 2, Pg : 435. Poulin, R., Pakal nis, R., and Sinding, K. (1994). Aggregate Resources Production and Environmental C onstraints. Environmental Geology vol: 23, issue: 3, Pg : 221 227. Pulselli, R., Simoncini, E., Ridol R., and Bastianoni S. (2008). Speci and Concr ete: An E nergybased Appraisal of Building Materials and Their T ransport. ecologic al indicators yr: 2008, vol: 8, Pg: 647 656. Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Sergio, R., Plana F., Mantilla E., and Ruiz, C. (2001). Monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 Around Primar y Particulate Anthropogenic Emission S ource. Atmospheric Environment yr: 2001, vol: 35, Pg: 845858. Reddy, B. and Jagadish, K. (2001). Embodied Energy of Common and A l ternative B uilding Materials and T echnologies. Energy and Buildings yr: 2003, vol: 3 5 Pg: 129 137. Robinson, G. David, W., and Hyun, H. (2004). Recycling of Construction Debris as Aggregate in T he Mid -Atlantic Region, USA. Resour ces, Conservation and Recycling yr: 2004, vol: 42 Pg: 275 294.

PAGE 87

87 Robinson, G., and Kapo K. E. (2004) A GIS Analysis of Suitability for C onstruction Aggregate Recycling Sites Using R egional Transportation N etwork a nd P opulation Density F eatures. Resources, Conservation and Recycling yr: 2004, vol: 42, Pg: 351 365. Sagoe -Crentsil, K., Brown T., and Taylor, A .H. (2001). Performance of Concrete Made with Commercially Produced Coarse Recycled Concrete A ggregate. Cement and concrete research, yr: 2001, vol: 31, iss ue: 5, Pg : 707. Sandler, K. (2003). Analyzing Whats Recyclable in C&D Debris BioCycle, Novemb er 2003, Pg 5154. Stanley, M., Marlow, J.E., and Harris, D.P. (2000). Landuse Issues and The Aggregates Industry An Introduction to The Issues We Face. Aggregates Manager vol: 5, issue: 9, pg 30 33. Tam V.W.Y (2008). Economic Comparison of Concr ete Recycling: A Case Study A pproach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling yr: 2008, vol: 52, Pg: 821 828. Taylor, M. (2005). Moving and Shaking, Waste Age. October 2005, Pg 34 40. U.S Geological Survey, ( 2009). Mineral Commodity Summaries < http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone_crushed/mcs 2009-stonc.pdf > (Feb. 12. 2009). Venkatram A. (2000). A Critique of Empirical Emission Facto r Models: A Case Study of T h e AP 42 Model for E stimating PM 10 Emissions From Paved R oads. Atmospheric Environment yr: 2008, vol: 34, Pg: 1 11. Wilburn, and Goonan, D. (1998). Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources: Economic Assessments for Constr uction Applications A Materials Flow S tudy. U.S. Geological Surve y Circular, vol: 1176, Pg: 37. Zimmer, R. Reeser, W.K. and Cummins, P. (1992). Evaluation of PM 10 Emission Factors for Paved S treets. PM10 Standards and Nontraditional Particulate Sour ce Controls, Pg 311 323.

PAGE 88

88 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mohamed Hameed was born and raised in Chennai, India. He received his Bac helor of Engineering degree in civil engineering from Anna University in 2007 and his masters degree in building construction from Uni versity of Florida in the spring of 2009. Mohamed intends to work for the heavy industrial construction industry.