IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11167-d652915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life-Cycle Assessment of Fly Ash and Cenosphere-Based Geopolymer Material

Author

Listed:
  • Weixin Tang

    (Faculty of Arts, Design, and Architecture, School of Built Environment, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Kensington, Sydney 2052, Australia)

  • Gloria Pignatta

    (Faculty of Arts, Design, and Architecture, School of Built Environment, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Kensington, Sydney 2052, Australia
    Material and Manufacturing Future Institute (MMFI), University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Kensington, Sydney 2052, Australia)

  • Samad M. E. Sepasgozar

    (Faculty of Arts, Design, and Architecture, School of Built Environment, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Kensington, Sydney 2052, Australia)

Abstract

It was widely reported in the early 2000s that geopolymer technology exhibits superior mechanical properties and lower global warming potential (GWP) over the use of ordinary Portland cement (OPC). However, a major limitation observed in the sustainability evaluation is a lack of consideration of environmental impacts from the use of industrial waste. This observation led to the purpose of this study, which is to identify the key factors throughout geopolymer production that contribute to its sustainability performance. In this paper, two geopolymers made of fly ash (G-FA) and cenospheres (G-C) were examined by mechanical testing while their sustainability impacts on a cradle-to-grave approach were investigated. The industrial waste and transport modelling impacts were given special attention in the performed life-cycle assessment. After 28 days of curing, G-FA exhibited 64.56 MPa and 6.03 MPa of compressive strength and flexural strength, respectively. G-C, with ¾ of G-FA bulk density, achieved 19.09 MPa and 3.13 MPa, respectively, with no significant changes observed after 14 days of curing. By upscaling the inventories to 1 m 3 of industrial production scale, geopolymers showed a GWP reduction up to 49.7% compared to OPC with natural aggregates and presented benefits on human health damage category by 23.7% (G-FA) to 41.6% (G-C). In conclusion, geopolymer mortars establish compressive strength and flexural strength that are adequate for construction applications and present sustainability benefits in GWP, which suggests them to be potential substitutions for OPC. However, the industrial waste treatment (i.e., preparation of fly ash) will deplete water bodies, and the sodium silicate induces significant environmental burdens during its manufacture, becoming the key factor to enhance the geopolymer’s sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Weixin Tang & Gloria Pignatta & Samad M. E. Sepasgozar, 2021. "Life-Cycle Assessment of Fly Ash and Cenosphere-Based Geopolymer Material," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-23, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11167-:d:652915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11167/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11167/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yue Yao & Mingming Hu & Francesco Di Maio & Stefano Cucurachi, 2020. "Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo‐polymer concrete: An ex‐ante study," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(1), pages 116-127, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manideep Samudrala & Syed Mujeeb & Bhagyashri A. Lanjewar & Ravijanya Chippagiri & Muralidhar Kamath & Rahul V. Ralegaonkar, 2023. "3D-Printable Concrete for Energy-Efficient Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-16, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11167-:d:652915. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.