A Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Evaluating Environmental Impacts of Geopolymer Concrete
Authors
1
PhD in Energy Systems-Energy and Environment, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2
Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Concrete is the most commonly used material in the construction industry after water because of its special properties. However, the production process of Portland cement has major environmental drawbacks, as it is responsible for 8% of global CO2 emissions (4 billion tons per year). Therefore, it seems necessary to use an alternative to conventional cements (Portland). In recent years, geopolymer has been introduced as a new and environmentally friendly cement agent to replace Portland cement. Geopolymers are chains or networks of mineral molecules linked by covalent bonds and consist of a combination of two main components, the aluminosilicate source (secondary raw material) and the alkaline activating solution. They can have excellent technical properties such as high mechanical strength, good chemical resistance or high thermal resistance. The fact that the good performance of geopolymers can also be achieved by using secondary raw materials such as industrial waste including fly ash or slag has been proven by various studies. This shows the great attention given to this technology. The use of waste to produce geopolymers can not only solve the problem of waste disposal, but also reduce the consumption of secondary raw materials. However, there is limited knowledge about the environmental consequences of geopolymer production. In this paper, an overview of the impacts of geopolymer production from an ecological perspective is presented. In addition, the drivers of the ecological impact of geopolymers are discussed to provide guidance for the development of geopolymer compounds for diverse applications.
Keywords
Bakharev, T. 2005. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(4), 658–670.
Bakharev, T.; Sanjayan, J.G. & Cheng, Y.-B. 1999. Effect of elevated temperature curing on properties of alkali-activated slag concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 29(10), 1619–1625.
Bakharev, T.; Sanjayan, J.G. & Cheng, Y.-B. 2003. Resistance of alkali-activated slag concrete to acid attack. Cement and Concrete Research, 33(10), 1607–1611.
Calderón, L. A.; Iglesias, L.; Laca, A.; Herrero, M. & Díaz, M. 2010. The utility of Life Cycle Assessment in the ready meal food industry. Resources, conservation and recycling, 54(12), 1196-1207.
Chevalier, B.; Reyes, T. & Laratte, B. 2011. Methodology for choosing life cycle impact assessment sector- specific indicators. Paper presented at the DS 68-5: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 5: Design for X/Design to X, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011.
Consultant, P. E. 2013. SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library. Netherlands: Product Ecology Consultant’s Report, Version, 2.
Dombrowski, K.; Weil, M. & Buchwald, A. 2008. Geopolymer binders. Zkg International, 61(3), 70–80.
Dreyer, L.C.; Niemann, A.L. & Hauschild, M.Z. 2003. Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 – Does it matter which one you choose? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(4), 191–200.
Duxson, P.; Fernandez-Jimenez, A.; Provis, J.L.; Lukey, G.C.; Palomo, A. & van Deventer, J.S.J. 2007a. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science, 42(9), 2917–2933.
Duxson, P.; Mallicoat, S.W.; Lukey, G.C.; Kriven, W.M. & Van Deventer, J.S.J. 2007b. The effect of alkali and Si/Al ratio on the development of mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymers. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 292(1), 8–20.
Duxson, P.; Provis, J.L.; Lukey, G.C. & Van Deventer, J.S.J. 2007c. The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of `green concrete’. Cement and Concrete Research, 37(12), 1590–1597.
Ecoinvent. 2006. Database. Ecoinvent Version v 1.3.
Esparham, A. & Moradikhou, A. B. 2021. Factors Influencing Compressive Strength of Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete. Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering, 53(3), 21-21.
Esparham, A.; & Moradikhou, A. B. 2021. A Novel Type of Alkaline Activator for Geopolymer Concrete Based on Class C Fly Ash. Advance Researches in Civil Engineering, 3(1), 1-13.
Esparham, A.; Moradikhou, A. B.; Andalib, F. K. & Avanaki, M. J. 2021. Strength characteristics of granulated ground blast furnace slag-based geopolymer concrete. Advances in Concrete Construction, 11(3), 219–229.
Esparham, A.; Moradikhou, A. B. & Jamshidi Avanaki, M. 2020. Effect of Various Alkaline Activator Solutions on Compressive Strength of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Journal of civil Engineering and Materials Application, 4(2), 115-123.
Esparham, A. 2020. Factors Influencing Compressive Strength of Metakaolin-based Geopolymer Concrete. Modares Civil Engineering journal, 20(1), 53-66.
Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; De Schryver, A.; Struijs, J. & Van Zelm, R. 2009. ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, 1, 1-126.
Gruskovnjak, A.; Lothenbach, B.; Holzer, L.; Figi, R. & Winnefeld, F. 2006. Hydration of alkali-activated slag: comparison with ordinary Portland cement. Advances in Cement Research, 18(3), 119- 128.
Guermazi, N.; Elleuch, K.; Ayedi, H.F.; Zahouani, H, & Kapsa, P. 2008. Susceptibility to scratch damage of high density polyethylene coating. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 492(1–2), 400–406.
Guinée et al. 2001. Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Part1: LCA in perspective. Part 2a: Guide. Part 2b: Operational annex. Part 3: Scientific background. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden Niederlande.
ISO. 14040. 2006. Environmental management- life cycle assessment- principles andframework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Menzel, U. -1991-. Heat treatment of concrete. Concrete plant + precast technology, 12, 92–96.
Moradikhou, A. B.; Esparham, A. & Avanaki, M. J. 2019. Effect of Hybrid Fibers on Water absorption and Mechanical Strengths of Geopolymer Concrete based on Blast Furnace Slag. Journal of civil Engineering and Materials Application, 3(4), 195-211.
Nowak, R. 2008. Geopolymer concrete opens to reduce CO2 emissions. The New Scientist, 197(2640), 28–29.
Solomon, S.; Manning, M.; Marquis, M. & Qin, D. 2007. Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4): Cambridge university press.
Weil, M.; Buchwald, A. & Dombrowski, K. 2006. Sustainable Design of Geopolymers– Integration of Economic and Environmental Aspects in the Early Stages of Material Development. GDCH-Monograph, 36, 297–306.
