Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based

geopolymer concrete
Rishabh Bajpai a, *, Kailash Choudhary b, Anshuman Srivastava a, Kuldip Singh Sangwan c,
Manpreet Singh d
a
Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, 333031, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineeing, Mody University of Science & Technology, Lakshmangarh, 332311, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, 333031, India
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, 147004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Alkali activated geopolymer is an attractive solution to limit the adverse consequences of cement
Received 27 July 2019 manufacturing. In this paper, an evaluation of environmental impacts of geopolymer containing fly ash
Received in revised form and silica fume is conducted. Life cycle assessment is performed by benchmarking the environmental
16 November 2019
impacts of three geopolymer concrete mixes against the conventional cement concrete, namely: fly ash
Accepted 12 January 2020
geopolymer (with hydroxide and silicate of sodium); fly ashesilica fume blend geopolymer (with hy-
Available online 13 January 2020
droxide and silicate of sodium); and fly ashesilica fume blend geopolymer (with sodium hydroxide).
Handling editor: Baoshan Huang Impact analysis is performed by using ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods in life cycle assessment
software UMBERTO NXT using database of Ecoinvent 3.0. Sensitivity analysis is performed to determine
Keywords: the effect of transportation. One mix design for each concrete of equal water to binder ratio and 28-days
Alkaline activator compressive strength of more than 35 MPa is analysed. Results of life cycle assessment indicate that
Concrete alkaline activators and cement are the major sources of negative environmental impacts for geopolymer
Fly ash and cement concrete, respectively. Global warming potential of geopolymer concretes is lower than
Geopolymer
conventional cement concrete. Fly ashesilica fume geopolymer concrete activated without sodium sili-
Life cycle assessment
cate has lowest environmental impacts. Transportation of raw materials is found to increase the overall
Silica fume
negative of all four concrete mixes. Cost reduction of 10.87%e17.77% per unit volume is achieved with the
use of fly ash e silica fume based geopolymer concrete. Sustainability in terms of cost and environmental
benefits of geopolymer concrete can be further increased by using silica fume. It can be concluded that
the use of fly ash e silica fume blended geopolymer in the construction industry has huge possibility to
improve its sustainability. Furthermore, waste management can be effectively done by utilization of
industrial by-products in concrete.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction major contributors such as infrastructure sector, etc. Development

of infrastructure by human society has led to a limitless demand for
Increasing levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmo- cement concrete (Naik, 2008). Global production of concrete have
sphere is causing climate change. Total annual GHGs emissions in reached up to approximately 15 billion tones and the consumption
2017 touched a record high of 53.5 Gt carbon di oxide e equivalent of one cubic meter per person per year has already been achieved
(CO2-e) (UN Environment, 2018). India is currently contributing (Gartner, 2004). Cement manufacturing is critical for global
7.1% of total GHGs emissions (Olivier and Peters, 2018). To save warming due to huge CO2 emissions; for example, every tonne of
mankind and precious earth, it has become utmost necessary to cement manufacturing emits 0.95 tonnes of CO2 (Davidovits, 2015).
reduce the GHGs emissions by adopting sustainable alternatives to The production of cement has reached up to 330 million tones in
India, making India second largest manufacturer of cement after
China (Government of India, 2017) and worldwide production was
more than 4.1 billion tonnes in 2017 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018).
* Corresponding author.
This higher demand and production of cement has contributed
E-mail address: bajpai.rishabh12@gmail.com (R. Bajpai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120147
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

higher GHGs emissions (Salas et al., 2016). Attempts have been geopolymer concrete performed better in terms of global warming
made to reduce the global warming contribution of cement con- but impact on other categories was greater than cement concrete
crete by using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such due to the use of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3). McLellan et al. (2011)
as fly ash, silica fume and blast furnace slag, etc., (Demirel et al., reported that geopolymer has the potential to reduce the climate
2018; Juenger and Siddique, 2015; Panesar et al., 2017). SCMs not change impacts of concrete, however, modeedistance of trans-
only reduces the cost and consumption of cement but also solves portation, source of material and energy affect the GHGs emission.
the problem associated with disposal activities. Thus, utilization of Inappropriate selection of these factors may lead to higher impacts
such industrial waste in concrete is a huge relive to the on climate change. Other aspects which are responsible for the
environment. increased CO2-e emission of geopolymer concrete are:
Use of industrial wastes in alkali activated geopolymer concrete manufacturing of alkali activators (from mining of raw material to
has become a matter of recent research on concrete sustainability production process) and curing at elevated temperature (Turner
(Gunasekara et al., 2016; Pilehvar et al., 2018; Yazdi et al., 2018). and Collins, 2013). It can be said that environmental impacts of
Geopolymer is a new class of composite materials, chemistry of different aluminosilicate materials have varied magnitudes. Thus, a
which is based on aluminosilicate source materials (Aldred and comprehensive EIA study is required for each blend of materials.
Day, 2012; Davidovits, 1991). Alkali activated geopolymers Fly ash and silica fume have a potential to curb the GHGs
possess higher compressive strength due to the creation of a three- emissions of concrete, because both the materials are industrial by-
dimensional structure of aluminosilicate hydrate associated with products, remain worthless after their production. Also, both fulfil
primary bonding as compared to calcium silicate hydrate of one- the requirement of geopolymer binder, having considerable quan-
dimensional structure with secondary van der Waals bonding tity of silica and alumina (Provis, 2016). Effect of silica fume on the
(Gourley et al., 2011; Matalkah et al., 2016). However, because of properties of fly ash geopolymer has been presented in the litera-
lack of standards and guidelines, the practical and field applications ture (Assi et al., 2016; Deb et al., 2016; Khater, 2016). However, an
of geopolymers are hardly visible. Few organizations have been EIA of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer has not been
conducting pilot studies for a number of years (Glasby et al., 2015; illustrated in the literature. This paper investigates a blend of fly ash
The University of Queensland; Zeobond Pty Ltd, 2019). The appli- and silica fume based geopolymer as an alternative for cement
cability of geopolymer concrete is expected to increase in future through environmental and economic assessments. Three types of
and consequently the replacement of highly polluting cement geopolymer concrete mixes are considered for the analysis: fly ash
would be possible. An environmental study of the industrial waste geopolymer with NaOH and Na2SiO3; fly ash e silica fume blend
based geopolymers can help in their sustainability justification. geopolymer with NaOH and Na2SiO3; and fly ash e silica fume
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method of analyzing environ- blend geopolymer with NaOH only. The geopolymer mixes are then
mental consequences of a plan, policy or program prior to the de- analysed with reference to cement concrete. UMBERTO NXT soft-
cision to move forward with the proposed action (Curran, 1996). ware is used for the quantification of environmental impacts. A
The purpose of conducting LCA is to justify adoption of geopolymer sensitivity analysis is presented for a real case to understand the
concrete as an environment friendly alternate to cement concrete. impacts of transportation. Further, a detailed cost comparison be-
Alkali activated geopolymers are expected to reduce the environ- tween geopolymer and cement concrete is done for Indian scenario.
mental impacts. There is a substantial variability in the specifica-
tions of by-products. This variability calls for the study of
1.1. Research significance
environmental impacts of geopolymers, that would estimate the
benefits of using different precursor materials. The environmental
This study presents an idea of utilizing a silica rich material
impacts generated during extraction of raw materials, production,
(silica fume) in fly ash geopolymer concrete. An effective geo-
and disposal phases of concrete production can be assessed using
polymer mix design consisting of fly ash and silica fume is reported,
life cycle concept (Klo€ pffer, 1997; Nisbet et al., 2002). Geopolymer
which is comparable to conventional cement concrete in terms of
binder have been prepared with several combinations of alumi-
mechanical properties. Results suggest that a blend of fly ash and
nosilicate materials. LCA based quantification of environmental
silica fume can be used as a novel binder for geopolymer, reducing
impacts generated from geopolymers is presented by few studies
the desired quantity of alkali silicate, thereby, improving the
(Duxson et al., 2007; Habert et al., 2011; Weil et al., 2009). It was
environmental performance. Analysis of effect of transportation of
reported that geopolymer produces lesser CO2 as compared to
raw material reveals that if locally available waste materials are
cement production (Duxson et al., 2007). Other studies also pre-
used for geopolymers, then the environmental impacts of concrete
sented the same conclusion with different emission values
can be reduced. Aim of utilizing waste product is that the emission
(McLellan et al., 2011; Stengel et al., 2009; Turner and Collins, 2013;
due to transport must not increase beyond the emission of cement,
Yang et al., 2013). The range of estimated CO2-e by these studies are
otherwise it will not give environmental benefits. Hence, critical
9%e80% lower than cement concrete. The differences in CO2-e arise
transport distance is also estimated. Also, waste management of
because of variability in type and specification of constituent ma-
industrial by-products would become very easy, if the product has
terials; extraction processes, transportation; and amount of energy
the properties like silica fume so that it can be used in fly ash
used. Salas et al. (2018) concluded that the environmental impacts
geopolymer concrete at mass scale. Environmental and economic
of geopolymer consisting natural zeolites, sodium hydroxide
results of this study are expected to pave the way for utilization of
(NaOH), and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) is lesser than cement con-
silica fume and other waste products in concrete.
crete. Global warming potential is reduced by using a combination
of clay and silica fume based geopolymer as discussed by Heath
et al. (2014). Passuello et al. (2017) presented an environmental 2. Materials and methods
impact assessment (EIA) of kaolin. It was concluded that use of
silicate produced with chemically modified rice husk ash has lower Preliminary testing for compressive strength is conducted to get
environmental impacts when compared with kaolin activated with the proportions of all four types of concrete mixes. Cradle-to-grave
a commercial sodium silicate solution. Habert et al. (2011) consid- LCA is performed as per the guidelines of ISO, 2006. LCA method-
ered mix designs from literature and estimated impacts of geo- ology comprises of four steps: goal and scope definition, inventory
polymer on various environmental categories. Although analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation (ISO, 2006).
 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 3

2.1. Goal and scope Na2SiO3 solids, water and low voltage electricity) production were
taken from Ecoinvent 3.0 database (Wernet et al., 2016). Inventory
The foremost aim of this study is the evaluation of environ- data of raw materials is presented in Table 1.
mental impacts of three types of geopolymer concrete mixes and
benchmarking with reference cement concrete. UMBERTO NXT LCA 2.2.1. Materials
software is used to model the stages of concrete production. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC 43) is used for the traditional
Environmental impacts are assessed in three phases (raw material cement concrete model. Properties of cement are within permis-
extraction, concrete production and concrete disposal) for a func- sible limits as per Indian standard IS:269 (2015). Fly ash used for
tional unit of one m3 of concrete. Constituents of concrete are so geopolymer is classified as siliceous type IS:3812 (2013). Chemical
proportioned that the combine volume of all the ingredients is and physical limits of silica fume are within permissible limit pre-
strictly remain as one cubic meter. Concrete consists of several scribed under IS:15388 (2003). Oxide composition and physical
ingredients: binder, water, fine aggregates and coarse aggregates. properties of these constituents are presented in Table 2. The
There is a considerable difference between specific gravity of these strength activity index of fly ash and silica fume considered in this
ingredients. This makes a difference in the volume for equal mass of study are 82.27% and 91.83% respectively, determined as per ASTM
materials. In a comparative analysis of different types of concrete, C311 (2018). NaOH pellets were dissolved in water to produce the
there is a need of an output parameter which remains constant for solution of 10 M and then the solution was left for 24 h before use.
all concrete types. Equal volume is a suitable parameter which can NaOH used in this study was produced by the diaphragm cell
be kept equal across all concrete types. Therefore, mix design is method. Liquid Na2SiO3 of specific gravity of 1.38 is composed of
based on volumetric batching of ingredients for a particular target 15.19% Na2O, 31.42% SiO2 and 53.39% H2O. System boundary for the
compressive strength. Four concrete models are prepared: (i) production process of activators is shown in Fig. 2, which repre-
cement (CC), (ii) geopolymer with fly ash as precursor, NaOH and sents the activities associated with points of emission release for
Na2SiO3 as alkaline activators (GC); (iii) geopolymer with a blend of NaOH and Na2SiO3. Sand of specific gravity 2.55 and fineness
fly ash and silica fume as precursor, NaOH and Na2SiO3 as alkaline modulus of 2.87 is used as fine aggregate. Gravels of specific gravity
activators (G_SF_S), and (iv) geopolymer with a blend of fly ash and 2.67 and 16 mm maximum nominal size are taken as the coarse
silica fume as precursor, only NaOH as alkaline activator (G_SF). aggregate.
System boundary is shown in Fig. 1. Proposed geopolymer is an
emerging composite material and large scale production and use of 2.2.2. Mix proportions
geopolymer concrete have not yet begun, which makes it unreal- The proportions of four concrete mixes undergoing LCA are
istic to predict the probable lifespan of alkali activated geopolymer presented in Table 2. Mix proportions are selected in such a way
concrete (McLellan et al., 2011). Therefore, lifespan of all concrete that the paste volume (~0.338 m3) and ratio of paste to aggregate by
mixes is assumed equal for LCA. volume (~0.511) remain similar in all four concrete mixes. Paste of
cement concrete comprises of cement and water, while binder (fly
2.2. Inventory analysis ash and silica fume), alkaline activators and water constitute the
paste content of geopolymer mixes. Workability of fresh concrete
Experiments for workability of fresh concrete mix and mixes is determined by slump cone test. Compressive strength at
compressive strength of concrete cubes are conducted to generate 28-days is conducted on specimen of size 100*100*100 mm as per
the primary data. The secondary data (inventory values) for raw IS:516, (1959). Ambient curing (23 ± 2
C) and water curing is used
materials (cement, fly ash, silica fume, gravel, sand, NaOH solids, for geopolymer and cement concrete respectively.

Fig. 1. System boundary and process flow model for concrete production.
4 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

Table 1 relevant for human health, represent the years that are lost or that a
Mix proportions (kg/m3) and inventory data. person is disabled due to a disease or accident. The unit for
Raw Ecoinvent 3.0 data (Rest-of-the-world) Concrete Type ecosystem quality is the local species loss integrated over time
material
CC GC G_SF_S G_SF
(species year). However, ReCiPe midpoint is an assessment method
in which impacts are measured in independent and absolute unit
Cement Cement, Portland 421 e e e
(Huijbregts et al., 2016). Environmental impact is measured for
Fly ash e e 369 305 299
Silica fume e e e 68 75 eight categories namely Agricultural land use (m2a); Climate
NaOH Chlor-alkali electrolysis, diaphragm cell e 39 37 56 change or global warming potential (kg CO2-e); Fossil depletion (kg
Solids oil-e); Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DCB-e); Human toxicity (kg 1,
Na2SiO3 Sodium silicate production, 49 37
e e
4-DCB-e); Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11-e); Particulate matter for-
Solids hydrothermal liquor
Sand Silica sand 665 681 699 705 mation (kg PM 10-e); and Water depletion (m3). Global warming
Gravel Crushed gravel 1070 1054 1036 1030 potential is the amount of additional radiative forcing integrated
Water Tap water 199 139 142 135 caused by an emission of 1 kg of GHGs relative to the radiative
forcing integrated caused by the emission of 1 kg of carbon di-oxide
(CO2) over the same time horizon. Land use refers to the loss due to
Table 2 land transformation, land occupation and land relaxation. Midpoint
Oxide composition and physical properties of binder materials. indicator for fossil depletion is the ratio of energy content of
Parameter Unit Cement Fly ash Silica Fume particular fossil resource to the energy content of crude oil and it is
calculated on the basis of higher heating values. Toxicity is
Oxide composition
Silicon dioxide % SiO2 19.67 52.83 92.39 expressed in kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents, it is estimated by
Aluminium oxide % Al2O3 4.82 21.50 1.41 dividing the impact of a chemical by the impact of dichlorobenzene
Ferric oxide % Fe2O3 3.53 10.49 0.154 emitted to air and freshwater. Emissions of substances causing
Calcium oxide % CaO 64.21 6.44 0.547 depletion of ozone are responsible to damage to human health as
Magnesium oxide % MgO 4.10 0.89 e
Potassium Oxide % K2O 0.75 1.76 <1
resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation have may cause cataracts
Sodium oxide % Na2O 1.08 0.82 e and skin cancer. Ozone depletion is defined as the amount of ozone
Titanium dioxide % TiO2 0.19 1.60 <1 that a substance depletes with respect to loss to ozone due to
Phosphorus pentoxide % P2O5 0.10 1.75 2.32 chlorofluorocarbons for a specific time horizon. Particulate matter
Physical properties
formation is related to the human health problems arising due to
Loss on ignition % LOI 0.92 1.50 2.59
Specific gravity e 3.11 2.29 2.23 the release of fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5e10 mm.
Specific surface area m2/Kg 337 399.70 21170 Water depletion is related with the consumed water that is not
Median particle size microns 51 26.64 <1 available for humans and ecosystem. It is measured in terms of
cubic meter of water lost by watershed of origin. Characterization
factor at the midpoint level are located somewhere along the
2.3. Impact assessment impact pathway, typically at the point after which the environ-
mental mechanism is identical for all the environmental flows
Impact assessment provides the quantification of environ- assigned to that impact category (Goedkoop et al., 2013). The ap-
mental impacts of a product. ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint proaches are complimentary in that the midpoint has a stronger
methods are used for impact assessment (Dong and Ng, 2014). relation to the environmental flows and a relatively low uncer-
ReCiPe method provides the quantitative evaluation at both tainty, while the endpoint provides better information on the
endpoint and midpoint levels. Endpoint impact assessment is a top environmental relevance of the environmental flows but is also
down approach which allows the environmental load of a product more uncertain than the midpoint characterization factors
to be expressed as a single standardized point score. The damage (Hauschild and Huijbregts, 2015). Demirel et al. (2018) had suc-
categories under endpoint method are ecosystem quality, human cessfully applied ReCiPe method on waste fly ash and cement.
health and resources. DALYs (disability adjusted life in years),

Fig. 2. System boundary for production of alkali activators.

 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 5

2.4. Assumptions relative quantity of Na2SiO3 is reduced to maintain the constant

molar ratio in all geopolymer mixes.
1. Present study deals with the environmental impacts of pro-
duction of materials and concrete. Hence, transportation of raw
3.2. End point assessment
materials is considered for sensitivity and critical distance
analysis.
End point assessment represents the gross impacts of the ac-
2. Fly ash and silica fume are by-products of coal thermal power
tivities and raw materials. Fig. 4 displays the effect of raw materials
plants and silicon alloy plants respectively. There are no sepa-
and disposal of four concrete mix. Life cycle activities of concrete
rate processes required for the manufacturing of these constit-
have high adverse effects on human health. The impact of CC mix is
uents. Hence, no allocation concept was used in this study, i.e.,
highest followed by GC mix for all three damage categories. GHGs
fly ash and silica fume are the waste products and have no
emissions and energy consumption of 1.8 GJ/tones during the
impact or relationship with the final product effect on envi-
manufacturing of cement is the main cause for high environmental
ronment as done by (Habert et al., 2011).
impacts of CC mix (Nisbet et al., 2002). On the other hand, geo-
polymer concrete does not require high carbon footprint material
3. Results and discussion like cement, instead it is prepared with the coal fly ash for which
specific production process is not required; thus, emitting lesser
This section describes the environment impacts in endpoint and GHGs. Moreover, the utilization in geopolymer resolves the prob-
midpoint categories for four concrete mixes and benchmarking of lems of disposal of fly ash, thus, saving the environment. Elimina-
geopolymer concretes with reference to cement concrete. tion of Na2SiO3 by using silica fume causes the highest reduction of
impacts of geopolymer as Na2SiO3 production is a high energy
3.1. Mechanical properties intensive process (Pozzo et al., 2019). Silica fume contains a larger
proportion of reactive silica, which upon reaction with an alkaline
Fig. 3 shows slump loss and 28-days compressive strength of solution produces excess aluminosilicate hydrated gel, thereby,
four concrete mixes under consideration. Highest workability is improving the compressive strength (Adak et al., 2017; Zhao et al.,
observed for CC mix as quantity of water is high as compared to 2018). It suggests that silica fume, when added in alkali activated fly
other mixes. Geopolymer mixes have lower slump loss because of ash geopolymer, can produce a sustainable concrete without
high rate of reaction of alkali activated fly ash particles. It can be compromising the strength. Fig. 5 represents the overall impact of
seen that compressive strength of concrete mixes remain in the raw materials on ecosystem, human health and resources for four
range of 35e40 MPa. As equal aggregate volume is used in all concrete mixes. Endpoint score of raw materials of CC mix is
concrete mixes, the difference in compressive strength is very highest (68.52). Total endpoint score is 71.64; 42.56; 39.02; and
small. Silica fume when added in the geopolymer mix, increases the 36.58 for CC, GC, G_SF_S, and G_SF respectively. Hence, in com-
molar ratio of geopolymer, thereby, lessening the requirement of parison with CC, total reduction in environmental impacts of
Na2SiO3 in geopolymer. High compressive strength can be obtained 42.37%, 47.54% and 51.10% are achieved by the raw materials of
if the molar ratio (Si/Al) is above 2 (Rowles and O’Connor, 2003). concrete type GC, G_SF_S and G_SF respectively. Maximum reduc-
Inclusion of silica fume increases the compressive strength of tion in environmental impacts are obtained by G_SF. Hence, utili-
geopolymer concrete when Na2SiO3 is used and decreases in the zation of silica fume in fly ash geopolymer concrete has the
absence of Na2SiO3. However, this difference is not very significant potential to reduce the negative effects of concrete on the envi-
because when silica fume is added in the geopolymer mix, the ronment. This study considered the concrete as an inert waste after

Fig. 3. Compressive strength, and workability of concrete mixes.

6 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

score 54.56) of environmental impacts of CC mix. Hence, reduction

in the negative environmental impacts of cement concrete can be
accomplished by minimising the cement content in the concrete.
Fig. 7a exhibits the role of ingredients in GC mix in the environment
impacts. Majority of the negative impacts are created by the
chemical activators and mostly on human health. Combine
endpoint score for NaOH and Na2SiO3 is 25.51, which contributes
59.97% of impacts of GC mix. Similar result was reported by Salas
et al. (2018). This is because a separate production process is
required for both the chemicals, which emits a considerable
quantity of GHGs into the environment and pollutes surround
water system due to disposing out waste water (Fawer et al., 1999;
Thannimalay et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013). Total impact of alkaline
activator is greater than the aggregates and water as shown in
Fig. 7b. An important observation is that the effect of activators on
the ecosystem is lower than that of combined aggregates. It can be
attributed to the use of comparatively less quantity of activators. On
the other hand, extraction and processing of aggregates require
high energy consuming machinery leading to large amount of
Fig. 4. Environmental impacts (score) for endpoint damage categories.
harmful emissions to terrestrial, freshwater systems etc. This dis-
turbs the ecosystem. In terms of resources, the activators’ contri-
bution is more than other ingredients of GC because of the
its functional useful life. The effect of disposal of four concrete utilization of sodium chloride, water, sodium carbonate (soda ash),
mixes is found to be approximately same for the three categories. silica sand, furnace oil, and electricity in the preparation of NaOH
and Na2SiO3 (Salas et al., 2018). The waste generated after the
functional life of concrete is considered as the disposal. Impact from
3.2.1. Contributing factors towards the negative impacts for CC and the disposal of GC (impact score 3.12) is slightly higher than that of
GC CC (impact score 2.88). It is attributed to alkali present in the
Figs. 6 and 7 represent endpoint impact scores of ingredients geopolymers, which would pollute the soil and fresh water system
and activities of CC and GC mixes respectively. Fig. 6a shows that after disposal.
cement has the highest negative effect on the environment, fol-
lowed by gravel and sand. Human health is mostly affected by 3.3. Midpoint assessment
cement because of mining and transportation for the extraction of
natural resources (calcareous and argillaceous materials) and Assessment at midpoint level exhibits the impact of materials
manufacturing (mixing, heating and drying) of cement in the plant. and activities on different categories (Souza et al., 2015). Fig. 8
Effect of aggregates is higher on ecosystem compared to other two shows that for the raw material phase, the geopolymer concrete
categories; mainly due to the mining process of natural resources. has lesser impact on the climate change, fossil depletion and par-
However, cement has the maximum impact on all three categories. ticulate matter formation. However, impacts are almost equal for
Fig. 6b represents the total contribution of each constituent on other categories. Disposal of concrete mainly affects agricultural
damage categories. Cement is responsible for 76.42% (endpoint land, climate change (global warming), fossil depletion, and par-
ticulate matter formation. Agricultural land is highly affected by
inert waste disposal as dumping of concrete degrades the fertility of
G_SF land. Energy consumed during concrete was taken as low voltage
33.5 electricity; hence, due to lower energy value manufacturing of
concrete (production process) does not affect any of the categories
significantly. Table 3 represents the percentage variation of
midpoint environmental level scores of three geopolymer concrete
CC mixes with scores of cement concrete. G_SF mix has lowest envi-
68.52 ronment impacts for all the categories. Geopolymer mixes GC and
G_SF_S have lesser impact on climate change (global warming
potential), fossil depletion, particulate matter, and water depletion
(except for agricultural land and human toxicity). However, if
proper precautions are taken during the handling and operation of
G_SF_S chemical activators, human toxicity can be easily minimized.
35.94 Most encouraging result is the reduction of global warming
potential by using geopolymer concrete, mainly due to the elimi-
nation of cement. Global warming potential of GC, G_SF_S, and
G_SF is 148, 135 and 133 kg CO2-e, compared to 597.54 kg CO2-e
emitted by CC mix. Fossil depletion category is highly affected by CC
mix (74.1 kg oil-e). Because of extraction of limestone and other
ingredients and manufacturing in a sophisticated plant need huge
GC amount of fuel, thus impacting the fossil depletion i.e., 56.2 kg oil-e.
39.49 Similar trend is observed for ozone depletion and water depletion
categories. GC mix has impact of 1.17 and 67.1 kg 1,4-DCB-e on
Fig. 5. Endpoint score of raw materials of four concrete mixes. freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity respectively, which is
 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 7

Fig. 6a. Scores of ingredients of cement concrete (CC) on endpoint damage categories.

categories as observed in endpoint assessment. Sand and gravel

come second and third after cement in terms of negative effects.
Impact of sand is slightly higher than gravel, as mining of sand from
river beds causes disruption of surroundings of river and natural
water flow. Fig. 10 e 12 represent the impact of ingredients used in
the production of GC, G_SF_S and G_SF respectively. Majority of the
impacts are contributed to NaOH followed by Na2SiO3. It is attrib-
uted to the involvement of high energy consuming process, such as
fusing process, during production of NaOH. Hence, any sustain-
ability improvement during alkaline activator production would
minimize the environmental impacts of alkali activated geo-
polymer as explained in endpoint analysis. Production processes of
alkaline activators release toxic by-products (waste product), which
are generally being disposed off in flowing water channels such as
river, lakes, etc. leading to negative impact on fresh water and
human toxicity. Moreover, improper handling of alkaline activators
during production of concrete may cause health problems to
humans. Category of ozone depletion is affected mostly by NaOH
Fig. 6b. Total endpoint scores of ingredients of cement concrete (CC).
due to involvement of electrolysis process. The disposal of geo-
polymer concrete affects agricultural land. This is due to the in-
crease in pH value of the soil by alkaline activators leading to soil
highest among all concrete mixes. It is attributed to the chemical
infertility. The contribution to impacts of NaOH and Na2SiO3 have
used and contaminated water produced during production of
slightly reduced for G_SF_S and G_SF concrete types as addition of
NaOH and Na2SiO3, which may pollute the waterbodies and
silica fume decreases the required quantity of alkaline activators
ecosystem. G_SF mix has lowest on toxicity categories because of
(Fig. 11 and Fig. 12).
absence of Na2SiO3. It is observed that unlike cement concrete,
geopolymer has minimal effect on ozone depletion. Impact on
water depletion category of geopolymer is lower than that of CC. It 3.4. Environmental impacts due to transport distances
is attributed to the high-water requirement during the production
of cement. However, impact on water depletion is crucial for all Transportation environment impacts may be significant in
concrete mixes, as considerable quantity of water is needed during concrete production. Since environmental impacts of production of
production of raw materials and concrete making process. Impact fly ash and silica fume are the considered as negligible in this study,
of ingredients used in the production of CC on damage categories hence, impacts of these materials are attributed to transportation
are presented in Fig. 9. Cement is main component affecting all only. This section describes the effect of transportation of raw
8 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

Fig. 7a. Scores of ingredients of geopolymer concrete (GC) on endpoint damage categories.

Fig. 7b. Total endpoint scores of ingredients of geopolymer concrete (GC).

materials from a manufacturing plant to the concrete making fa- in impacts (% increase of endpoint score) is obtained for G_SF_S mix
cility. A real case scenario is taken for the city of Jaipur in India. (29.01%), followed by G_SF (23.34%), GC (20.83%) and CC (9.71%).
Transport inventory for the raw materials is shown in Table 4. These Global warming potential or climate change (kg CO2-e) due to
distances are the average distances of suppliers of a particular raw transportation is shown in Fig. 13. Relative increase in global
material to Jaipur city for Rajasthan. Distances were determined by warming potential, when transportation is considered, are as fol-
locating respective locations and then measuring the distances on lows: 8.90% for CC; 39.91% for GC; 45.66% for G_SF_S; and 47.61% for
google map. G_SF. Increase in emission of CO2 is higher for geopolymer concrete
Differences arise in the endpoint environment scores due to due to the fact that transportation is required for both fly ash and
transportation distances as shown in Table 5. The highest variation silica fume and number of sources for these materials are less than
 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 9

Fig. 8. Environmental impacts (%) of concrete mixes on midpoint damage categories.

Table 3 warming potential of all geopolymer mixes is plotted for increase in

Raw materials of geopolymer mixes at midpoint level in comparison with cement distance. Thus, critical distance of a concrete mix will be the point
concrete (%).
on horizontal axis (distance axis) at which the plot of respective
Impact Indicators GPC G_SF_ S G _SF geopolymer mix crosses the plot of CC mix as shown in Fig. 14.
Agricultural land use þ5.87 16.31 8.22 Estimated critical distance is the average of distances of individual
Climate Change 75.25 77.29 77.71 ingredients. Thus, critical distance of individual ingredient varies
Fossil Depletion 42.47 46.74 48.31 with respected concrete mix, presented in Table 6. It is important to
Human Toxicity þ31.65 þ15.78 1.03
mention that critical distance of an ingredient is interrelated with
Particulate Matter 68.08 54.84 54.90
Water Depletion 36.56 40.35 43.94 the distances of other materials of particular concrete, because
transportation emission of materials is calculated based on the
quantities required to produce one cubic meter concrete. Sensi-
cement plants around Jaipur. This makes the total transport dis- tivity analysis of transport distances is carried out to measure the
tance for geopolymer mixes large as compared to cement. However, extent of consequences of change in distances between various
for the scenario considered in this study, CC mix remains high manufacturing plants and concrete making facilities. Transport
impact creating concrete type and the order of concrete mixes distances are varied by ±5% and percentage change in the endpoint
(towards impacts on environment) has not changed even after scores are shown in Table 7. This suggests that geopolymer will be
considering transportation. affected to a greater extent than cement concrete due to trans-
O’Brien et al., 2009 estimated the critical transportation distance portation. However, the maximum relative increase in emissions is
of fly ash (3800 km for rigid truck freight and 11100 km for artic- 3.48%, which is less than 5%. Therefore, it can be said that the effect
ulated truck freight) on the basis of emission factors for trans- of transportation does not affect the relative ranking of concrete
portation. They concluded that as long as the transportation types statistically. However, it is important to mention that the
distance of fly ash remains less than the critical distance, then effect of transportation depends upon the local conditions and it
utilization of fly ash in concrete will cause a decrease in GHGs can vary significantly. For example, the effect in sparsely populated
emissions if used to replace cement. In the present work, critical countries will be high than the densely populated countries
distance for each geopolymer mixes is estimated based on the in- assuming that per capita demand and manufacturing of concrete is
crease in global warming potential due to transportation of raw same.
materials. It is assumed that the cement is collected from a single
source, i.e., distance of cement manufacturing plant is kept as
3.5. Economic analysis
constant. Distances of other raw materials of four concrete types
are increased at an equal percentage. This increase in the distances
Adoption of an alternative material by the construction industry
produces higher GHGs (kg CO2-e for the present case). Global
depends upon its relative cost at user level. For this purpose,
10 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

Inert Waste Electricity Water Gravel Sand Cement

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Agricultural Climate Fossil Freshwater Human Ozone Particulate Water
land occupation change depletion ecotoxicity toxicity depletion matter formation depletion

Fig. 9. Midpoint environmental impacts of ingredients of cement concrete (CC).

Fig. 10. Midpoint environmental impacts of ingredients geopolymer concrete (GC).

 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 11

Inert Waste Electricity Na SiO

Na2SiO3 NaOH Water Gravel Sand
2 3

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Agricultural Climate Fossil Freshwater Human Ozone Particulate Water
land occupation change depletion ecotoxicity toxicity depletion matter formation depletion

Fig. 11. Midpoint environmental impacts of ingredients of geopolymer (G_SF_S).

estimate of cost for geopolymer concrete is presented for the local 4. Summary and conclusions
scenario. Industrial by-products do not require a separate
manufacturing process; thus, cost of fly ash and silica fume is Mechanical properties of geopolymer are directly proportional
comparatively less than the cost of cement (Public Works to the molar ratio (proportion of SiO2) of binder paste. Exclusion of
Department Jaipur, 2019). Silica fume has higher unit cost than Na2SiO3 from fly ash geopolymer reduces the molar ratio, however,
fly ash, this is due to the special packaging of very fine particles of addition of silica fume adjusted the desired content of SiO2.
silica fume. The cost estimation for one cubic meter concrete is Therefore, comparable compressive strength is obtained by geo-
prepared for Jaipur city, capital of Rajasthan state, India, as shown polymer containing silica fume, even without using alkali silicate.
in Table 8. Unit prices are shown for cost of raw material and Among the geopolymers analysed here, G_SF presents the lowest
transportation from manufacturing plant to the concrete making environmental impacts per cubic meter, on most categories. Also,
facility. Transportation cost at user level includes money spent for all three geopolymer concrete possess compressive strength similar
fuel, toll, tyre, maintenance, manpower (driver), national permit, to that of CC. Hence, the proposed fly ash and silica fume based
insurance, and taxes. Transportation cost of NaOH and Na2SiO3 is geopolymer are suitable for applications that need higher
included in the respective unit prices, as supplied by the manu- compressive strength values. Environmental impacts show alkali
facturer. Cost of water consists of electricity for pumping of water activators reduce the sustainability of geopolymer. Hence, silica
from local water storage to the casting field. However, it is worth to fume based geopolymer appears as a promising alternative for the
note that the end user cost is presented in this study, which tends to production concrete with decreased environmental impacts in
vary with different location. Cost of aggregates were much lesser most of the categories considered. Use of industrial by-products
than cement because of affluent availability in the locality. It can be like in concrete is a noble step towards the creation of an eco-
seen that alkaline activators are costlier than fly ash, even utilized friendly material by producing a cement less concrete. The use of fly
in lesser quantity. Hence, replacement of Na2SiO3 helps in reducing ash and silica fume also solve the disposal problem of these waste
the cost of geopolymer by using silica fume. Geopolymer concrete is materials, imparting additional sustainability.
found to be cheaper than cement concrete because of absence of This paper presents life cycle assessment of traditional cement
costly cement. A reduction in cost is achieved by GC, G_SF_S and concrete and three geopolymer based concretes. The environ-
G_SF concrete mixes are 10.87%, 11.52% and 17.77% respectively. mental impacts of fly ash e silica fume geopolymers are bench-
This estimation suggests that geopolymer concrete has the capa- marked against the traditional cement concrete. It is expected that
bility of providing economical alternative to cement concrete. In- these results will be useful for industry and future researchers. The
clusion of silica fume in geopolymer concrete is proved to be more environmental and economic benefits due to replacement of
economical. cement from concrete are observed in the study. Based on the life
12 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

Inert Waste Electricity NaOH Water Gravel Sand

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Agricultural Climate Fossil Freshwater Human Ozone Particulate Water
land occupation change depletion ecotoxicity ecotoxicity depletion matter formation depletion

Fig. 12. Midpoint environmental impacts of geopolymer produced without Na2SiO3 (G_SF).

Table 4 Table 5
Transport distances e mean of values measured for Jaipur, Rajasthan state (India). Effect of transport of raw materials on endpoint scores.

Raw Cement Fly ash Silica NaOH Na2SiO3 Sand Gravel Concrete Endpoint impact e without Endpoint impact e with Variation
materials fume Type transportation transportation (%)

Distance 302 ± 10 398 ± 10 458 ± 10 112 ± 10 112 ± 10 52 ± 10 52 ± 10 CC 71.64 78.59 þ9.71

(km) GC 42.56 51.42 þ20.83
G_SF_S 39.02 50.34 þ29.01
± is used to indicate the variation in route.
G_SF 36.58 45.12 þ23.34

cycle environmental impacts, it can be concluded that alkali acti-

vated fly ash based geopolymer is a sustainable alternative to the 3. Sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate are the main constituents
traditional cement concrete. Some specific conclusions of the responsible for 59.97% of total environmental impacts of geo-
research are: polymer concrete (GC). The replacement of sodium silicate by
silica fume has led to the further decrease in the environmental
1. Combine endpoint score on ecosystem, human health, and re- impacts of geopolymer concrete.
sources for geopolymer concrete are less than cement concrete 4. Geopolymer concretes exhibits better performance in terms of
i.e., 42.56 for geopolymer without silica fume (GC), 39.02 for climate change. The global warming potential of concrete is
geopolymer with silica fume (G_SF_S), and 36.58 for geo- reduced to 148, 135 and 133 kg CO2ee for geopolymer without
polymer with silica fume in the absence of Na2SiO3 (G_SF) in silica fume (GC), for geopolymer with silica fume (G_SF_S), and
comparison with 71.64 for cement concrete (CC). Endpoint 47.61% for geopolymer with silica fume in the absence of
assessment shows that geopolymer prepared by the substitu- Na2SiO3 (G_SF) respectively, as compared to 597.54 kg CO2ee for
tion of sodium silicate with silica fume provides highest conventional cement concrete. However, the production of
reduction in environmental impacts on all categories. geopolymer concrete has marginally higher negative influence
2. Environmental impacts of cement in concrete is highest as on agricultural land and human toxicity impact categories.
compared to other ingredients of the concrete. Combine 5. Freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity of geopolymer mix
endpoint score of cement is 54.75, which is 76.42% of impact of (GC) is slightly higher than cement mix (CC). Freshwater eco-
cement concrete. toxicity of 1.17 is created by GC compared with 0.984 1,4-DCB-e
 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 13

Table 8
Cost estimate.

Raw material Unit price Total cost (INRa)

Materialsb Transportationc CC GC G_SF_S G_SF

Cement 9.00 35 3983.64 e e e

Fly ash 1.50 35 e 671.64 591.55 609.75
Silica fume 6.00 35 e e 440.10 497.51
NaOH Solids 23.47 e e 915.33 868.39 1314.32
Na2SiO3 29.55 e e 1447.95 1093.35 e
Solids
Sand 2.23 35 1507.93 1544.21 1585.03 1598.63
Gravel 3.42 35 3688.16 3633.01 3570.96 3550.28
Water 0.80 e 159.20 111.20 113.60 108.00
Total: 9338.92 8323.34 8262.99 7678.49
a
Indian national rupees.
b
INR per kg for March 2019.
c
INR per 19 m3 per km for March 2019.

observed for geopolymer without silica fume (GC), geopolymer

Fig. 13. Effect of transport distances on global warming potential. with silica fume (G_SF_S), and geopolymer with silica fume in
the absence of Na2SiO3 (G_SF) in comparison with 9.71% for
cement concrete (CC). Similar to endpoint assessment, the
transport distance has high impact on the global warming po-
tential of geopolymer mixes. Relative increase in global warm-
ing potential, when transportation is considered, are as follows:
8.90% for cement concrete (CC); 39.91% for geopolymer without
silica fume (GC); 45.66% for geopolymer with silica fume
(G_SF_S); and 47.61% for geopolymer with silica fume in the
absence of Na2SiO3 (G_SF).
7. Minimum critical transport distance of raw ingredients of geo-
polymer mixes is 3219.27 km, 3704.58, 905.92 km, 922.74 km
and 420.60 km for fly ash, silica fume, NaOH, Na2SiO3, fine and
coarse aggregates respectively. If materials are collected from a
source located beyond the critical distance, then the impacts of
geopolymer mixes will become greater than cement concrete.
8. Sensitivity analysis of transport distance represent that for the
scenario adopted in this study, transportation distance does not
alter the comparison of concrete mixes. The change in impacts is
0.87%e3.48%.
9. Saving of 10.87%e17.77% in the cost of concrete can be achieved
through the replacement of cement with the proposed geo-
Fig. 14. Critical transport distances for one cubic meter geopolymer concrete.
polymer concrete.

Table 6
Critical transport distance (km) for ingredients of geopolymer mixes. 4.1. Limitation of the study
Concrete type Fly ash Silica fume NaOH Na2SiO3 Sand Gravel

GC 3363.20 e 946.43 946.43 439.41 439.41

Results of this study present the performance of one mix of four
G_SF_S 3279.04 3773.37 922.74 922.74 428.41 428.41 concrete types; however, the quality and specification of industrial
G_SF 3219.27 3704.58 905.92 e 420.60 420.60 by-products may vary from source to source and country to coun-
try. Hence, same materials collected from other sources will be
included in future research. While estimating effect of transport, an
Table 7 assumption is taken that pavement quality and other transport
Sensitivity of emissions due to transport distance. factors (traffic, gradients, vehicle condition, environmental condi-
Concrete Type tion, etc.) remain similar throughout the transport of raw materials.
This assumption may affect the results reported in this study. Also,
CC GC G_SF_S G_SF
critical transport of materials of geopolymer mixes depends upon
Relative increase in emissions (%) (5% increase in 0.87 2.68 3.48 1.11 the mix proportions of concrete considered in this study. Hence, if
average distances)
different proportion is taken for the analysis, critical transport
distance values may vary.

of CC mix. Human toxicity of 67.1 is caused by GC compared with Author contributions

51.00 1,4-DCB-e of CC mix.
6. Geopolymer mixes are tend to be affected more by trans- Rishabh Bajpai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
portation of raw materials than cement concrete. Increase in Resources, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing,
combine endpoint score of 20.83%, 29.01%, and 23.34% is Visualization. Kailash Choudhary: Investigation, Software.
14 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147

Anshuman Srivastava: Resources, Supervision, Writing - Original 2016: A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and
Endpoint Level, Report I: Characterization. Bilthoven.
Draft. Kuldip Singh Sangwan: Project administration, Supervision,
IS:15388, 2003. Silica Fume - Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards, India.
Writing - Review & Editing. Manpreet Singh: Conceptualization, IS:269, 2015. Ordinary Portland Cement - Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards,
Visualization, Writing - Review & Editing. India.
IS:3812 (Part 1), 2013. Pulverized Fuel Ash d Specification, Part 1 for Use as
Pozzolana in Cement, Cement Mortar and Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards,
Declaration of competing interest India.
IS:516, 1959. Indian Standard: Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete. Bureau of
Indian Standards, India.
The authors declare that they have no known competing ISO 14040, 2006. International Standard (2006) Environmental Managementd Life
financial interests or personal relationships that could have Cycle AssessmentdPrinciples and Framework (Switzerland, Geneva).
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Juenger, M.C.G., Siddique, R., 2015. Recent advances in understanding the role of
supplementary cementitious materials in concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 78,
71e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.03.018.
Funding source Khater, H.M., 2016. Effect of nano-silica on microstructure formation of low-cost
geopolymer binder. Nanocomposites 2, 84e97. https://doi.org/10.1080/
20550324.2016.1203515.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding €pffer, W., 1997. Life Cycle Assessment: from the beginning to the current state.
Klo
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 4, 223e228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02986351.
Matalkah, F., Soroushian, P., Balchandra, A., Peyvandi, A., 2016. Characterization of
alkali-activated nonwood biomass ashebased geopolymer concrete. J. Mater.
References Civ. Eng. 25, 864e870. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.
McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and
Adak, D., Sarkar, M., Mandal, S., 2017. Structural performance of nano-silica modi- carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland
fied fly-ash based geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 135, 430e439. cement. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1080e1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.111. j.jclepro.2011.02.010.
Aldred, J., Day, J., 2012. Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional Naik, T.R., 2008. Sustainability of concrete construction. Pract. Period. Struct. Des.
concrete?. In: 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, Constr. 13, 98e103. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE)1084-0680(2008)13:2(98).
pp. 29e31. Singapore. Nisbet, M.A., Marceau, M.L., VanGeem, M.G., 2002. Environmental Life Cycle In-
Assi, L.N., Deaver, E., Elbatanouny, M.K., Ziehl, P., 2016. Investigation of early ventory of Portland Cement Concrete. Report 2137a.
compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. O’Brien, K.R., Me nache , J., O’Moore, L.M., et al., 2009. Impact of fly ash content and
Mater. 112, 807e815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.008. fly ash transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and
ASTM C311/C311M-18, 2018. Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash water consumption in concrete. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
or natural pozzolans for use in portland-cement concrete. https://doi.org/10. 14 (7), 621e629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0105-5.
1520/C0311_C0311M-18. Olivier, J.G.J., Peters, J.A.H.W., 2018. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas
Curran, MaA., 1996. Environmental life-cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. Emissions: 2018 Report.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978949. Springer. Panesar, D.K., Seto, K.E., Churchill, C.J., 2017. Impact of the selection of functional
Davidovits, J., 2015. GEOPOLYMER: Chemistry & Applications, fourth ed. Institute unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22,
Geopolymer. 1969e1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1284-0.
Davidovits, J., 1991. Geopolymers - inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Passuello, A., Rodríguez, E.D., Hirt, E., Longhi, M., Bernal, S.A., Provis, J.L.,
Anal. 37, 1633e1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01912193. Kirchheim, A.P., 2017. Evaluation of the potential improvement in the envi-
Deb, P.S., Sarker, P.K., Barbhuiya, S., 2016. Sorptivity and acid resistance of ambient- ronmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators. J. Clean.
cured geopolymer mortars containing nano-silica. Cement Concr. Compos. 72, Prod. 166, 680e689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007.
235e245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.06.017. Pilehvar, S., Cao, V.D., Szczotok, A.M., Carmona, M., Valentini, L., Lanzo n, M.,
€ H.O.,
Demirel, S., Oz, € Güneş, M., Çiner, F., Adın, S., 2018. Life-cycle assessment ( LCA ) Pamies, R., Kjøniksen, A.L., 2018. Physical and mechanical properties of fly ash
aspects and strength characteristics of self-compacting mortars ( SCMs ) and slag geopolymer concrete containing different types of micro-encapsulated
incorporating fly ash and waste. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/ phase change materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 173, 28e39. https://doi.org/
s11367-018-1562-5. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.016.
Dong, Y.H., Ng, S.T., 2014. Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based Pozzo, A.D., Carabba, L., Bignozzi, M.C., Tugnoli, A., 2019. Life cycle assessment of a
on ReCiPe - a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong. Int. J. Life Cycle geopolymer mixture for fireproofing applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
Assess. 19, 1409e1423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0743-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01603-z.
Duxson, P., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., van Deventer, J.S.J., 2007. The role of inorganic Provis, J.L., 2016. Alkali-activated materials. Cement Concr. Res. https://doi.org/
polymer technology in the development of “green concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009.
37, 1590e1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018. Public Works Department Jaipur, 2019. Basic Schedule of Rates 2019, Government of
Fawer, M., Concannon, M., Rieber, W., 1999. Life cycle inventories for the production Rajasthan.
of sodium silicates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4 https://doi.org/10.1007/ Rowles, M., O’Connor, B., 2003. Chemical optimisation of the compressive strength
BF02979499, 212e212. of aluminosilicate geopolymers synthesised by sodium silicate activation of
Gartner, E., 2004. Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. metakaolinite Matthew. Journal of Materials Chemistry 13, 1161e1165. https://
Cement Concr. Res. 34, 1489e1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/ doi.org/10.1039/b212629j.
j.cemconres.2004.01.021. Salas, D.A., Ramirez, A.D., Rodríguez, C.R., Petroche, D.M., Boero, A.J., Duque-
Glasby, T., Day, J., Genrich, R., Aldred, J., 2015. EFC geopolymer concrete aircraft Rivera, J., 2016. Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and potential
pavements at Brisbane west Wellcamp airport. In: Concrete 2015 Conference, improvement measures for cement production: a literature review. J. Clean.
Australia, pp. 1e9. Melbourne, Australia. Prod. 113, 114e122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.078.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., Zelm, R. van, Salas, D.A., Ramirez, A.D., Ulloa, N., Baykara, H., Boero, A.J., 2018. Life cycle assess-
2013. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised ment of geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 190, 170e177. https://
Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Ministry of Foreign doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123.
Affairs, Rijnstraat 8, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2307/40184439. Souza, D.M. De, Lafontaine, M., Charron-Doucet, F., Bengoa, X., Chappert, B.,
Gourley, T., Duxson, P., Lloyd, N., South, W., 2011. Recommended Practice : Geo- Duarte, F., Lima, L., 2015. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of ceramic versus
polymer Concrete, first ed. ed. Concrete Institute of Australia, Sydney. concrete roof tiles in the Brazilian context. J. Clean. Prod. 89, 165e173. https://
Government of India, 2017. Report on Fly Ash Generation at Coal/Lignite Based doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.029.
Thermal Power Stations and its Utilization in India for the Year 2016-17. Stengel, T., Reger, J., Heinz, D., 2009. Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete e
Gunasekara, C., Law, D.W., Setunge, S., 2016. Long term permeation properties of what is the environmental benefit?. In: Concrete 09, 24th Biennial Conf
different fly ash geopolymer concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 124, 352e362. Australian Concrete Institute. Concrete Institute of Australia, pp. 54e62. Sydney,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.121. Australia.
Habert, G., D’Espinose De Lacaillerie, J.B., Roussel, N., 2011. An environmental Thannimalay, L., Yusoff, S., Zawawi, N.Z., 2013. Life cycle assessment of sodium
evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current hydroxide. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7, 421e431.
research trends. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1229e1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/ The University of Queensland, n.d. World First Structural Use of Earth Friendly
j.jclepro.2011.03.012. Concrete - the Global Change Institute - The University of Queensland, Australia.
Hauschild, M.Z., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2015. Life cycle impact assessment, environ- Turner, L.K., Collins, F.G., 2013. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a
mental life cycle assessment. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19138-6. comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr. Build.
Heath, A., Paine, K., McManus, M., 2014. Minimising the global warming potential of Mater. 43, 125e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023.
clay based geopolymers. J. Clean. Prod. 78, 75e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/ U.S. Geological Survey, 2018. Mineral commodity summaries, 2018. https://doi.org/
j.jclepro.2014.04.046. 10.3133/70194932.
Huijbregts, Steinmann, Z.P., Elshout, P., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., 2016. ReCiPe UN Environment, 2018. Emissions Gap Report 2018.
 R. Bajpai et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020) 120147 15

Weil, M., Dombrowski, K., Buchwald, A., 2009. Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers. microstructural and mechanical properties of geopolymers produced from fly
In: Geopolymers: Structures, Processing, Properties and Industrial Applications. ash and slag at room temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 191, 330e341. https://
Woodhead Publishing Series Ltd, Cambridge, UK, pp. 194e210. doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.037.
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016. Zeobond Pty Ltd, 2019. E-crete geopolymer concrete. Fly Ash Concrete| Zeobond
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.zeobond.com/products-e-crete.html.
Cycle Assess. 21, 1218e1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8. accessed 3.6.19.
Yang, K.H., Song, J.K., Song, K. Il, 2013. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali- Zhao, Z., Qu, X., Li, F., Wei, J., 2018. Effects of steel slag and silica fume additions on
activated concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 265e272. https://doi.org/10.1016/ compressive strength and thermal properties of lime-fly ash pastes. Constr.
j.jclepro.2012.08.001. Build. Mater. 183, 439e450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.220.
Yazdi, M.A., Liebscher, M., Hempel, S., Yang, J., Mechtcherine, V., 2018. Correlation of