Report No. CSS07-03 April 30, 2007 Discovering Institutional Drivers and Barriers to Sustainable Concrete Construction Peter Arbuckle Discovering Institutional Drivers and Barriers to Sustainable Concrete Construction By: Peter Arbuckle A project submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) University of Michigan Ann Arbor April 30, 2007 Faculty Advisors: Dr. Greg Keoleian, Associate Professor Dr. Michael Lepech, Post-doctoral Fellow Dr. Thomas Princen, Associate Professor A report of the Center for Sustainable Systems Report No. CSS07-03 Document Description DISCOVERING INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Peter Arbuckle Center for Sustainable Systems, Report No. CSS07-03 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan April 30, 2007 106 pp., 11 tables, 35 figures, 3 appendices This document is available online at: http://css.snre.umich.edu Center for Sustainable Systems School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan 440 Church Street, Dana Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041 Phone: 734-764-1412 Fax: 734-647-5841 Email: [email protected] Web: http://css.snre.umich.edu © Copyright 2007 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Abstract Using industry standards to commodify cement beginning in 1904, the cement and concrete industry surrendered control of their product to the market and the concrete industry as a whole developed a technocratic and conservative culture. Both industry standards and the culture which they have created have had lasting impacts on the industry with respect to innovation and potentially more sustainable concrete construction. Industry standards and project specifications have institutionalized concrete optimized for high early strength and rapid construction rather than durability. The objective of this research is to identify specific points at which industry standards can limit innovation and more sustainable concrete construction and then demonstrate the benefits of concrete optimized for durability. This thesis was tested using social networking tools to inform case study analysis. Networking results generated a ranking of the most central U.S. industry standards related to concrete bridge construction, providing a framework for case study analysis. The highest ranked standards, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 150 “Standard Specification for Portland Cement” and American Concrete Institute (ACI) 211.1 “Standard Practice for Proportioning Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete,” were then evaluated using sustainability metrics. These documents do not explicitly limit innovation or more sustainable construction, but it is the way these documents are used that impacts sustainable concrete construction. C 150 itself does not inhibit more sustainable material, but the way in which it is used by architects and engineers to garner high early strength renders concrete with heavier environmental impacts than necessary. Even though ACI 211.1 is not a i legally binding document, it has established the status quo for proportioning concrete for high early strength. The industry has evolved under pressure to optimize for high early strength at the cost of durability. Industry standardization has developed a conservative culture, but it is actually the individual project specifications rather than industry standards that explicitly inhibit sustainable concrete construction. This study also demonstrates the benefits of optimizing for durability. Designing a durable concrete using well-graded aggregates and performance-based specifications significantly reduced cement paste requirements in nearly all cases, which showed reduced material impact of fresh mixes. Durability projections augmented the sustainability benefits dramatically. Well-graded mix designs with 6% air entrainment categorically showed longer service lives and reduced annual material impact compared to their gap graded counterparts. Mixes designed using National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association model performance based specifications similarly demonstrated drastic environmental and durability improvements. ii Acknowledgements This research was funded through an NSF MUSES Biocomplexity Program Grant (CMS-0329416) and would not have been possible without the support of the Principle Investigators, Greg Keoleian and Victor Li, and especially my thesis committee Michael Lepech and Tom Princen. Mike was my “Ambassador of Concrete.” His substantial commitment of time and energy to help me understand the technical aspects of concrete material and the concrete industry, dramatically improved the quality of this paper. Professor Princen was invaluable helping me understand how to critically frame an argument and deliver supporting qualitative historical and institutional data. I also thank Helaine Hunscher and the rest of the MUSES team for administrative and inspirational support over the past two years. My research was largely based on primary research and many of my finding were derived from conversations with concrete industry insiders. I would like to acknowledge Jim Olshefsky, American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), for providing me with industry contacts with expertise on specific standards and sectors of the industry. Two concrete industry veterans, Joe Lamond, United States Army Corp of Engineers, Chief Materials Engineer-Retired, and Lou Spellman Atlantic Cement-Retired, provided invaluable historical context of the evolution of industry consciousness, practical technical expertise, and referrals to fantastic resources. Lastly, several other industry insiders, Paul Tennis and Steve Kosmatka, Portland Cement Association, Karthik Obla, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, and Jim Shilstone were helpful in understanding eminent problems, initiatives, and developments in the industry. iii 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Terminology........................................................................................................ 3 2 Standards Establish Industry Institutions.................................................................... 7 2.1 Industry Standards Created Commodity Cement ............................................... 7 2.1.1 Cement Quality ........................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Standards Shape Industry.......................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Resource Commodification ...................................................................... 12 2.2 Standardization Created Technocratic Culture ................................................. 15 2.2.1 “Technikers” ............................................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Concrete Reduction................................................................................... 17 2.2.3 Prescriptive Standards............................................................................... 20 2.2.4 Performance-Based Standards .................................................................. 24 2.3 Impact of Standardization on Innovation.......................................................... 27 2.3.1 Consensus Process .................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Industry Fragmentation............................................................................. 31 2.4 Standards Impact on Sustainability................................................................... 33 3 Methodology............................................................................................................. 37 4 Networking Concrete Industry Standards................................................................. 38 4.1 Networking Methodology................................................................................. 38 4.1.1 Network Boundaries ................................................................................. 39 4.1.2 Compiling Network Data.......................................................................... 44 4.2 Results............................................................................................................... 46 4.3 Discussion......................................................................................................... 47 5 ASTM C 150- Standard Specification for Portland Cement .................................... 49 5.1 Chemical Requirements.................................................................................... 51 5.2 Physical Requirements...................................................................................... 55 5.3 Alternative Cement Products ............................................................................ 59 5.4 ASTM C 150 Conclusions................................................................................ 61 6 ACI 211.1- Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete............................................................................................................ 63 6.1 Concrete Mix Proportioning ............................................................................. 63 6.2 Institutional Barriers ......................................................................................... 69 6.3 Methodology....................................................................................................