Assessment of environmental, economic and technical performance of geopolymer concrete: a case study
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Although several studies report the CO2 reduction obtained from alkali-activated materials/geopolymers, only a few investigate their engineering, environmental and economic aspects. The present paper provides an evaluation approach to address these three major aspects of geopolymer concrete by choosing three scenarios for industrial precast applications. Using the analytical hierarchy process, a single sustainability score was determined for three scenarios using technical, environmental and economic parameters. Such sustainability sensitivity analysis led to decision-making for various scenarios. This case study provides an example of reaching these parameters for choosing suitable concrete mixtures for a given application or requirements. The technical and environmental results showed that a wide range of late and early age compressive strength could be achieved by changing the mix composition and proportions. However, all the geopolymer concrete samples exhibited a lower environmental footprint than OPC concrete.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. International Energy Agency (IEA), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) (2018) Technology Roadmap - Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry, France
2. Editorial, 2021 Concrete needs to lose its colossal carbon footprint Nat https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02612-510.1038/d41586-021-02612-5 ↗
3. Monteiro J, Roussanaly S (2022) CCUS scenarios for the cement industry is CO2 utilization feasible? J CO2 Util. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.10201510.1016/j.jcou.2022.102015 ↗
4. Bilodeau A, Malhotra VM (2000) High-volume fly ash system: concrete solution for sustainable development. ACI Mater J. https://doi.org/10.14359/80410.14359/804 ↗
5. Herrmann A, Koenig A, Dehn F (2017) Structural concrete based on alkali-activated binders: terminology, reaction mechanisms, mix designs and performance. Struct Concr. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.20170001610.1002/suco.201700016 ↗
6. Document 52019DC0640, Der europäische Grüne Deal, 2019. European Kommision
7. Firdous R, Stephan D (2019) Effect of silica modulus on the geopolymerization activity of natural pozzolans. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.16110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.161 ↗
8. Firdous R, Stephan D, Djobo JNY (2018) Natural pozzolan based geopolymers: a review on mechanical, microstructural and durability characteristics. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.19110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.191 ↗
9. Provis JL, van Deventer JSJ (2014) Alkali activated materials, state-of-the-art report, RILEM TC 224-AAM. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London10.1007/978-94-007-7672-2 ↗
10. Dontriros S, Nooaek P, Supakata N (2020) Geopolymer bricks from concrete residue and palm oil fuel ash: evaluating physical-mechanical properties, life cycle assessment and economic feasibility. EnvironmentAsia. https://doi.org/10.14456/EA.2020.1410.14456/EA.2020.14 ↗
11. Colangelo F, Farina I, Travaglioni M, Salzano C, Cioffi R, Petrillo A (2021) Eco-efficient industrial waste recycling for the manufacturing of fibre reinforced innovative geopolymer mortars: Integrated waste management and green product development through LCA. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.12777710.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127777 ↗
12. Jiang M, Chen X, Rajabipour F, Hendrickson CT (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete and mortar. J Infrastruct Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.000021110.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000211 ↗
13. Marinković S, Dragaš J, Ignjatović I, Tošić N (2017) Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.01510.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015 ↗
14. Teh SH, Wiedmann T, Castel A, de Burgh J (2017) Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.12210.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.122 ↗
15. Abdulkareem M, Havukainen J, Horttanainen M (2019) How environmentally sustainable are fibre reinforced alkali-activated concretes? J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.07610.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.076 ↗
16. Robayo-Salazar R, Mejía-Arcila J, Mejía de Gutiérrez R, Martínez E (2018) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an alkali-activated binary concrete based on natural volcanic pozzolan: a comparative analysis to OPC concrete. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.01710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.017 ↗
17. Yang K-H, Song J-K, Song K-I (2013) Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.00110.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.001 ↗
18. Turner LK, Collins FG (2013) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.02310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023 ↗
19. Dahmen J, Kim J, Ouellet-Plamondon CM (2018) Life cycle assessment of emergent masonry blocks. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.04410.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.044 ↗
20. EN 196–6 (2010) Methods of testing cement – Part 6: Determination of fineness, Brussels. CEN (EN 196–6)
21. EN 206–1:2000 (2000) Concrete — Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity
22. EN 1015–3 (2007) Methods of test for mortar for masonry: Part 3: Determination of consistence of fresh mortar (by flow table) (EN 1015–3)
23. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework
24. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines
25. ISO 14025 (2006) Environmental labels and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures
26. EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 Sustainability of construction works — Environmental Product Declarations — Core rules for the product category of construction products
27. EN 16908 Cement and building lime – Environmental product declarations – Product category rules complementary to EN 15804; German version EN 16908:2017
28. (2018) EPD-C 20/25; C 25/30, C 30/37, C 35/45, C 45/55, C 50/60, https://www.beton.org/wissen/nachhaltigkeit/umweltproduktdeklarationen/. InformationsZentrum Beton GmbH
29. ÖKOBAUDAT (2022) https://oekobaudat.de/OEKOBAU.DAT/datasetdetail/process.xhtml?uuid=a8640bfd-5ae3-4893-bfe8-d5ab59ec8134&version=20.20.020&stock=OBD_2021_II&lang=de. Federal Ministry for Housing
30. Nationale Milieu Database (2022) https://data.mrpi.nl/datasetdetail/process.xhtml?uuid=839ab4c9-f857-495f-b533-dac14263bc82&version=04.01.000&stock=PUBLIC&lang=en. Milieu Relevante Product Informartie
31. SBK (2019) Stichting Bouwkwaliteit (SBK) – Foundation for building quality: Determination method: environmental performance of buildings and civil engineering works
32. Seraj S, Nikravan M, Ramezanianpour AA, Zendehdel P (2020) Evaluation of the application of municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) ash in civil engineering using a sustainability approach. Detritus. https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2020.1392210.31025/2611-4135/2020.13922 ↗
33. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. IJSSCI. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.01759010.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590 ↗
34. Díaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2004) In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecol Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.00510.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.005 ↗
35. Mateus R, Neiva S, Bragança L, Mendonça P, Macieira M (2013) Sustainability assessment of an innovative lightweight building technology for partition walls – Comparison with conventional technologies. Build Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.01210.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.012 ↗
36. Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Springer, Berlin10.1007/978-1-4615-5127-0 ↗
37. Firdous R, Hirsch T, Klimm D, Lothenbach B, Stephan D (2021) Reaction of calcium carbonate minerals in sodium silicate solution and its role in alkali-activated systems. Miner Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2021.10684910.1016/j.mineng.2021.106849 ↗