Abstract

With the boom in construction industry, demand for sustainable construction materials have come into a high demand. Compared to traditional construction materials, which caused enhanced pollution to the environment, new-age industry is more focussed on adopting sophisticated, innovative and sustainable building processes, materials and products. Concrete is the most widely used construction material globally, but its environmental burden—particularly from Portland cement production—contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and resource depletion. Rice husk ash (RHA), an agricultural by-product obtained from controlled combustion of rice husk, has emerged as a promising supplementary cementitious material (SCM) for sustainable construction. This paper compares the sustainability performance of conventional concrete and RHA-based concrete using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. Environmental indicators such as global warming potential (GWP), cumulative energy demand (CED), and resource efficiency are evaluated on a functional unit basis (1 m³ of concrete). With a new mix proportioning technique in this experimental study, the simulation study shows that incorporating 10–30% RHA as partial cement replacement can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 25–40%, lower energy consumption, and improve durability properties. The findings highlight that RHA concrete represents a sustainable alternative to conventional concrete, provided that the ash is processed under controlled conditions and sourced locally to minimize transport impacts.

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. Mehta, P.K. (1992). Rice husk ash—a unique supplementary cementing material. Proceedings, Advances in Concrete Technology, Ottawa, Canada.
2. Habeeb, G.A. & Mahmud, H.B. (2010). Study on properties of rice husk ash and its use as cement replacement material. Materials Research, 13(2), 185–190.
3. Gursel, A.P., Masanet, E., Horvath, A., & Stadel, A. (2014). Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 141–152.
4. Thomas, B.S. (2018). Green concrete partially comprised of rice husk ash as a supplementary cementitious material—A comprehensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 925–959.
5. Madlool, N.A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N.A., & Kamalisarvestani, M. (2011). An overview of energy savings measures for cement industries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4), 2042–2060.
6. Chandra, S. & Berntsson, L. (2002). Lightweight Aggregate Concrete: Science, Technology and Applications. Norwich: Noyes Publications.
7. Neville, A.M. (2011). Properties of Concrete. 5th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.
8. Siddique, R. (2008). Waste Materials and By-Products in Concrete. Springer-Verlag.
9. Chindaprasirt, P., Rukzon, S., & Sirivivatnanon, V. (2008). Resistance to chloride penetration of blended Portland cement mortar containing palm oil fuel ash, rice husk ash and fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 22(5), 932–938.
10. Zhang, M.H. & Malhotra, V.M. (1996). High-performance concrete incorporating rice husk ash as a supplementary cementing material. ACI Materials Journal, 93(6), 629–636.
11. Ganesan, K., Rajagopal, K., & Thangavel, K. (2008). Rice husk ash blended cement: Assessment of optimal level of replacement for strength and permeability properties of concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 22(8), 1675–1683.
12. Isaia, G.C., Gastaldini, A.L.G., & Moraes, R. (2003). Physical and pozzolanic action of mineral additions on the mechanical strength of high-performance concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(1), 69–76.
13. Juenger, M.C.G. & Siddique, R. (2015). Recent advances in understanding the role of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 78, 71–80.
14. Miller, S.A., Horvath, A., & Monteiro, P.J.M. (2016). Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO₂ emissions from the production of concrete. Environmental Research Letters, 11(7), 074029.
15. Scrivener, K., John, V.M., & Gartner, E. (2018). Eco-efficient cements: Potential, economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 2–26.
16. Davidovits, J. (2015). Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications. 4th Edition. Geopolymer Institute.
17. Aprianti, S.E. (2017). A huge number of artificial waste material can be supplementary cementitious material (SCM) for concrete production—A review part II. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4), 4178–4194.
18. Mo, K.H., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., & Goh, W.I. (2016). Utilization of waste materials in lightweight concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 120, 713–727.
19. Oner, A. & Akyuz, S. (2007). An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(6), 505–514.
20. Muthusamy, K. & Zamri, N.A. (2016). Mechanical properties of oil palm shell lightweight concrete containing rice husk ash as partial cement replacement. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, 7(1), 36–40.
21. Rahman, M.A. (1987). Properties of rice husk ash and its use in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 17(3), 409–419.
22. UNEP (2016). Eco-efficient Cements: Potential Economically Viable Solutions for a Low-CO₂, Cement-based Materials Industry. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme.
23. Kua, H.W. & Kamath, V. (2019). An application of life cycle assessment and Monte Carlo simulation in estimating uncertainty in building environmental impact assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1531–1542.

24. Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., & Jullien, A. (2010). Environmental impact of cement production: Detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 478–485.
25. Habert, G., Denarié, E., Šajna, A., & Rossi, P. (2013). Lowering the global warming impact of bridge rehabilitations by using ultra high performance fibre reinforced concretes. Cement and Concrete Composites, 38, 1–11.

Abstract

With the boom in construction industry, demand for sustainable construction materials have come into a high demand. Compared to traditional construction materials, which caused enhanced pollution to the environment, new-age industry is more focussed on adopting sophisticated, innovative and sustainable building processes, materials and products. Concrete is the most widely used construction material globally, but its environmental burden—particularly from Portland cement production—contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and resource depletion. Rice husk ash (RHA), an agricultural by-product obtained from controlled combustion of rice husk, has emerged as a promising supplementary cementitious material (SCM) for sustainable construction. This paper compares the sustainability performance of conventional concrete and RHA-based concrete using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. Environmental indicators such as global warming potential (GWP), cumulative energy demand (CED), and resource efficiency are evaluated on a functional unit basis (1 m³ of concrete). With a new mix proportioning technique in this experimental study, the simulation study shows that incorporating 10–30% RHA as partial cement replacement can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 25–40%, lower energy consumption, and improve durability properties. The findings highlight that RHA concrete represents a sustainable alternative to conventional concrete, provided that the ash is processed under controlled conditions and sourced locally to minimize transport impacts.

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. Mehta, P.K. (1992). Rice husk ash—a unique supplementary cementing material. Proceedings, Advances in Concrete Technology, Ottawa, Canada.
2. Habeeb, G.A. & Mahmud, H.B. (2010). Study on properties of rice husk ash and its use as cement replacement material. Materials Research, 13(2), 185–190.
3. Gursel, A.P., Masanet, E., Horvath, A., & Stadel, A. (2014). Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 141–152.
4. Thomas, B.S. (2018). Green concrete partially comprised of rice husk ash as a supplementary cementitious material—A comprehensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 925–959.
5. Madlool, N.A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N.A., & Kamalisarvestani, M. (2011). An overview of energy savings measures for cement industries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4), 2042–2060.
6. Chandra, S. & Berntsson, L. (2002). Lightweight Aggregate Concrete: Science, Technology and Applications. Norwich: Noyes Publications.
7. Neville, A.M. (2011). Properties of Concrete. 5th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.
8. Siddique, R. (2008). Waste Materials and By-Products in Concrete. Springer-Verlag.
9. Chindaprasirt, P., Rukzon, S., & Sirivivatnanon, V. (2008). Resistance to chloride penetration of blended Portland cement mortar containing palm oil fuel ash, rice husk ash and fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 22(5), 932–938.
10. Zhang, M.H. & Malhotra, V.M. (1996). High-performance concrete incorporating rice husk ash as a supplementary cementing material. ACI Materials Journal, 93(6), 629–636.
11. Ganesan, K., Rajagopal, K., & Thangavel, K. (2008). Rice husk ash blended cement: Assessment of optimal level of replacement for strength and permeability properties of concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 22(8), 1675–1683.
12. Isaia, G.C., Gastaldini, A.L.G., & Moraes, R. (2003). Physical and pozzolanic action of mineral additions on the mechanical strength of high-performance concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(1), 69–76.
13. Juenger, M.C.G. & Siddique, R. (2015). Recent advances in understanding the role of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 78, 71–80.
14. Miller, S.A., Horvath, A., & Monteiro, P.J.M. (2016). Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO₂ emissions from the production of concrete. Environmental Research Letters, 11(7), 074029.
15. Scrivener, K., John, V.M., & Gartner, E. (2018). Eco-efficient cements: Potential, economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 2–26.
16. Davidovits, J. (2015). Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications. 4th Edition. Geopolymer Institute.
17. Aprianti, S.E. (2017). A huge number of artificial waste material can be supplementary cementitious material (SCM) for concrete production—A review part II. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4), 4178–4194.
18. Mo, K.H., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., & Goh, W.I. (2016). Utilization of waste materials in lightweight concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 120, 713–727.
19. Oner, A. & Akyuz, S. (2007). An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(6), 505–514.
20. Muthusamy, K. & Zamri, N.A. (2016). Mechanical properties of oil palm shell lightweight concrete containing rice husk ash as partial cement replacement. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, 7(1), 36–40.
21. Rahman, M.A. (1987). Properties of rice husk ash and its use in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 17(3), 409–419.
22. UNEP (2016). Eco-efficient Cements: Potential Economically Viable Solutions for a Low-CO₂, Cement-based Materials Industry. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme.
23. Kua, H.W. & Kamath, V. (2019). An application of life cycle assessment and Monte Carlo simulation in estimating uncertainty in building environmental impact assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1531–1542.

24. Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., & Jullien, A. (2010). Environmental impact of cement production: Detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 478–485.
25. Habert, G., Denarié, E., Šajna, A., & Rossi, P. (2013). Lowering the global warming impact of bridge rehabilitations by using ultra high performance fibre reinforced concretes. Cement and Concrete Composites, 38, 1–11.