Life Cycle Assessment of Geopolymer concrete with various precursors
Main Article Content
Abstract
The production of cement used in conventional concrete is contributing to approximately 8% of the global carbondioxide emmisions .There is a neccisity to address this issue and develop sustainable construction materials.This study evaluates the impact caused by the production of materials used in conventional concrete of M40 grade and also the impact caused by the geopolymer concrete (GPC) of M40 grade.The geopolymer concrete used in this study is made using fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and metakaolin as as primary binder materials. The aim is to evaluate the feasibility of GPC as a low-carbon alternative to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete by comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).The LCA is carried out as per the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 guidelines by using SimaPro software .Simapro software uses the Ecoinvent database to evaluate the impact caused by various process on the environment.To find the impact of the materials used in the study the functional unit of 1 m³ of concrete is used , and the assessment is carried out from cradle-to-gate . The impact of the materials is assessed on the key categories, which includeglobal warming potential (GWP),ozone depletion , acidification, eutrophication, and human toxicity, by using the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) method.The results show that geopolymer concrete production reduced the impact on the environment compared to OPC concrete. The impact of GWP is reduced by 41-45 percent , demonstrating the effectiveness of GPC in lowering carbon emissions. These findings highlight the potential o geopolymer concrete as a sustainable construction material and support its adoption in eco-friendly infrastructure development.
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
1. K. L. Scrivener, V. M. John, and E. M. Gartner, “Eco-efficient cements: Potential, economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 114, pp. 2–26, 2018.
2. International Energy Agency (IEA), “Cement Technology Roadmap 2050,” Paris, 2018.
3. J. Xiao, W. Li, and Y. Fan, “An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 31, pp. 364–383, 2012.
4. M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, 5th ed., Pearson Education, 2011.
5. J. Davidovits, “Geopolymer chemistry and applications,” 3rd ed., Institut Géopolymère, 2011.
6. S. Kumar and R. Kumar, “Development of geopolymer concrete using industrial waste,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 125, pp. 1–10, 2016.
7. P. Nath and P. K. Sarker, “Use of fly ash and slag blended geopolymer concrete in construction,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 124, pp. 866–875, 2016.
8. Hajimohammadi, J. S. J. van Deventer, and L. K. Choo, “Effect of alumina release on geopolymer gel structure,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1324–1330, 2011.
9. P. Weidema et al., “Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database,” Ecoinvent Report, 2013.
10. ISO 14040, “Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework,” International Organization for Standardization, 2006.ISO 14044, “Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines,” International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
11. M. Mannan and C. Ganapathy, “Concrete from agricultural waste materials,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 595–603, 2004.
12. M. Rashad, “A comprehensive overview about recycling rubber as fine aggregate replacement in traditional cementitious materials,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 5, pp. 46–82, 2016.
13. M. S. Imbabi, C. Carrigan, and S. McKenna, “Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 1, pp. 194–216, 2012.
14. Mills-Beale and Z. You, “The mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures with reclaimed asphalt pavement,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 31, pp. 1–7, 2012.
15. M. Huijbregts et al., “ReCiPe2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 22, pp. 138–147, 2017.
16. G. Habert, J. B. d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, and N. Roussel, “An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, pp. 1229–1238, 2011.
17. PRé Consultants, “SimaPro Database Manual: Methods Library,” Netherlands, 2019.
18. ISO 14040, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework, International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
19. ISO 14044, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
20. G. Habert, J. B. d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, and N. Roussel, “An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1229–1238, 2011.
21. L. Imtiaz et al., “Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Recycled Aggregate Concrete and Geopolymer Concrete,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 24, 2021.
22. D. Salas, K. Ramirez, S. Ulloa, H. Baykara, and E. Boero, “Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 190, pp. 170–177, 2018.
23. Q. Munir et al., “Comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of geopolymer and conventional concrete,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 860, 2023.
24. X. Shi et al., “Life cycle assessment and impact correlation analysis of fly ash geopolymer concrete,” Materials, vol. 14, 2021.
25. M. S. Imbabi, C. Carrigan, and S. McKenna, “Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 194–216, 2012.
26. M. A. J. Huijbregts et al., “ReCiPe2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 22, pp. 138–147, 2017.
27. B. P. Weidema et al., “Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database,” Ecoinvent Report, 2013.
28. J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, 3rd ed., Institut Géopolymère, 2011.
29. Palomo, M. W. Grutzeck, and M. T. Blanco, “Alkali-activated fly ashes: A cement for the future,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1323–1329, 1999.
30. IS 3812 (Part 1), Pulverized Fuel Ash—Specification, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2013.
31. IS 9103, Concrete Admixtures—Specification, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1999.
32. IS 383, Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1970.
33. G. Finnveden et al., “Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 91, pp. 1–21, 2009.
34. B. P. Weidema et al., “Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database,” Ecoinvent Report, 2013.
35. European Commission, “Best Available Techniques for the Chlor-Alkali Industry,” 2014.
36. B. B. Sabir, S. Wild, and J. Bai, “Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 441–454, 2001.