Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preparation of geopolymer concrete using Egyptian kaolin clay and the study of its environmental effects and economic cost

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Concrete is the basic building material in the world, and cement is the main material used in the production of concrete. However, there is an urgent need to reduce the consumption of cement, where cement production leads to 5–8% of global emissions of carbon dioxide. Geopolymer concrete is an innovative building material produced by alkaline activation of pozzolanic materials such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag, and kaolin clay. Geopolymers are widely used in the production of geopolymer concrete due to their ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce high energy consumption. During the present study, the environmental impact of two strength grades (30 MPa and 40 MPa) of metakaolin geopolymer concrete (GPC) was evaluated to study its applicability in the construction sector. The kaolin clay extracted from the Aswan quarries was activated by a mixture of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solution. To introduce geopolymer concrete in the Egyptian industry sector, its environmental performance, together with its technical performance, should be competitive to the cement concrete used mainly for the time being. The cost of this new concrete system should also be evaluated. The environmental impact of GPC was evaluated and compared with cement concrete using life cycle assessment analysis and IMPACT 2002+ methodology. The cost of production was calculated for 1 m3 of geopolymer concrete and conventional cement concrete. Metakaolin geopolymer concrete achieved a high compressive strength of ~ 56 MPa, splitting tensile strength of 24 MPa, and modulus of elasticity of 8.5 MPa. The corrosion inhibition of metakaolin geopolymer concrete was ~ 80% better than that of conventional cement concrete. Geopolymer concrete achieved a reduction in global warming potential by 61% and improved the human health category by 9.4%. However, due to the heavy burdens of sodium silicate, the geopolymer concrete negatively affected the quality of the ecosystem by 68% and showed a slightly higher impact than cement concrete on the resource damage category for low strength grade of 30 MPa. The high cost of the basic ingredients of the geopolymer resulted in a high production cost of geopolymer concrete (~ 92 US$) that was three times that of cement concrete (~ 31 US$). Based on the environmental results, geopolymer concrete based on locally available metakaolin clay can be applied in the construction sector as a green alternative material for cement concrete.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akhtar A, Sarmah AK (2018) Novel biochar-concrete composites: manufacturing, characterization and evaluation of the mechanical properties. Sci Total Environ 616–617:408–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali AAM, Negm AM, Bady MF, Ibrahim MGE (2015) Environmental life cycle assessment of a residential building in Egypt: a case study. Proc Technol 19:349–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali AAM, Negm AM, Bady MF, Ibrahim MGE, Suzuki M (2016) Environmental impact assessment of the Egyptian cement industry based on a life-cycle assessment approach: a comparative study between Egyptian and Swiss plants. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(4):1–16

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Assi L, Carter K, Deaver EE, Anay R, Ziehl P (2018) Sustainable concrete: building a greener future. J Clean Prod 198:1641–1651

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baioumy H (2014) Provenance of sedimentary kaolin deposits in Egypt: evidences from the Pb, Sr and Nd isotopes. J Afr Earth Sci 100:532–540

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baioumy H, Gilg HA (2011) Pisolitic flint kaolin from Kalabsha, Egypt: a laterite-derived facies. J Sedim Geol 236(1–2):141–152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baioumy H, Gilg HA, Taubald H (2012) Mineralogy and geochemistry of the sedimentary kaolin deposits from Sinai, Egypt: implications for control by the source rocks. Clay Clay Miner 60(6):633–654

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benhelal E, Zahedi G, Shamsaei E, Bahadori A (2013) Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J Cleaner Prod 51:142–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges PHR, de Lourenço TMF, Foureaux AFS, Pacheco LS (2014) Comparative study of the life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete and CP II Portland cement concrete. Ambiente Constr 14(2):153–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekhar S (1996) Influence of metakaolinization temperature on the formation of zeolite from kaolin. Clay Miner 31:253–261

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A, Ventura A (2010) LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral additions in concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(12):1231–1240

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen L, Wang Z, Wang Y, Feng J (2016) Preparation and properties of alkali activated metakaolin-based geopolymer. Materials 9(9):767–779

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva Rocha T, Dias DP, França FC, de Salles Guerra RR, de Oliveira LR (2018) Metakaolin-based geopolymer mortars with different alkaline activators (Na+ and K+). Constr Build Mater 178:453–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Dange S, Suryawanshi Y (2017) Comparison of geopolymer concrete based on strength and cost with concrete. Imp J Interdiscip Res 3(9):1026–1029

    Google Scholar 

  • Das SK, Mishra J, Mustakim SM (2018) An overview of current research trends in geopolymer concrete. Int Res J Eng Technol 5(11):376–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidovits J (1991) Geopolymers inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal 37(8):1633–1656

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davidovits J (1994) Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries. World Resour Rev 6(2):263–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidovits J (2015) False values on CO2 emission for geopolymer cement/concrete published in scientific papers. Technical paper no. 24, Geopolymer Institute Library, pp 1–9

  • Duxson P, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Mallicoat SW, Kriven WM, Van Deventer JSJ (2005) Understanding the relationship between geopolymer composition, microstructure and mechanical properties. Colloids Surf A 269(1–3):47–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duxson P, Fernández-Jiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, Van Deventer JSJ (2007a) Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J Mater Sci 42(9):2917–2933

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duxson P, Provis JL, Lukey GC, van Deventer JSJ (2007b) The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of “green concrete”. Cem Concr Res 37(12):1590–1597

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fawer M, Concannon M, Rieber W (1999) Life cycle inventories for the production of sodium silicates. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(4):207–212

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feiz R, Ammenberg J, Baas L, Eklund M, Helgstrand A, Marshall R (2015) Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: utilizing life-cycle assessment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry. J Cleaner Prod 98:272–281

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Jiménez AM, Palomo A, Lopez-Hombrados C (2006) Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater J 103(2):106–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M (2012) Gap analysis for the life cycle assessment of container packaging. FEVE aibsl, Brussels. Final report for the European container glass federation: 2012-60

  • Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(5):282–288

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • García-Gusano D, Garraín D, Herrera I, Cabal H, Lechón Y (2015) Life cycle assessment of applying CO2 post-combustion capture to the Spanish cement production. J Clean Prod 104:328–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Herrero I, Margallo M, Onandía R, Aldaco R, Irabien A (2017a) Environmental challenges of the chlor-alkali production: seeking answers from a life cycle approach. Sci Total Environ 580:147–157

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Herrero I, Margallo M, Onandía R, Aldaco R, Irabien A (2017b) Life cycle assessment model for the chlor-alkali process: a comprehensive review of resources and available technologies. Sustain Prod Consum 12:44–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99 methodology: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, methodology report. PRA Consultants, Netherlands

  • Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, Van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards: part 2a—guide. Center of Environmental Science, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Gursel AP, Ostertag CP (2016) Impact of Singapore’s importers on life-cycle assessment of concrete. J Cleaner Prod 118:140–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Habert G, Billard C, Rossi P, Chen C, Roussel N (2010a) Cement production technology improvement compared to factor 4 objectives. Cem Concr Res 40(5):820–826

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Habert G, D’Espinose De Lacaillerie JB, Lanta E, Roussel N (2010b) Environmental evaluation for cement substitution with geopolymers. Second international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies. Ancona, Italy

  • Habert G, D’Espinose De Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N (2011) An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J Cleaner Prod 19(11):1229–1238

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol. 2: scientific background. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath A, Paine K, McManus M (2014) Minimising the global warming potential of clay based geopolymers. J Cleaner Prod 78:75–83

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt RG, Sellers JD, Frankling WE (1992) Resource and environmental profile analysis: a life cycle environmental assessment for products and procedures. Environ Impact Assess Rev 12:245–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussien M (2015) Egyptian regulations for coal related activities and cement industries in Egypt. Ministry of Environment, Egypt

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim SS, Hagrass AA, Boulos TR, Youssef SI, El-Hossiny FI, Moharam MR (2018) Metakaolin as an active pozzolan for cement that improves its properties and reduces its pollution hazard. J Miner Mater Char Eng 6:86–104

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ilić BR, Mitrović AA, Miličić LR (2010) Thermal treatment of kaolin clay to obtain metakaolin. Hem Ind 64(4):351–356

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14040 (2006) International Organization for Standardization. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Switzerland, Geneva

  • ISO 14044 (2006) International Organization for Standardization. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guilelines. Switzerland, Geneva

  • Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Komnitsas K, Zaharaki D (2007) Geopolymerisation: a review and prospects for the minerals industry. Miner Eng 20(14):1261–1277

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems: a Review. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11(2):403–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen T, Sarkkinen M, Kemppainen K, Rämö J, Lassi U (2016) Metakaolin geopolymer characterization and application for ammonium removal from model solutions and landfill leachate. Appl Clay Sci 119:266–276

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen T, Abdollahnejad Z, Yliniemi J, Kinnunen P, Illikainen M (2018) One-part alkali-activated materials: a review. Cem Concr Res 103:21–34

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maroušek J, Vochozka M, Plachý J, Žák J (2016) Glory and misery of biochar. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19(2):311–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroušek J, Kolář L, Vochozka M, Stehel V, Maroušková A (2018) Biochar reduces nitrate level in red beet. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:18200–18203

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzouk M, Azab S (2017) Analyzing sustainability in low-income housing projects using system dynamics. Energy Build 134:143–153

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 67:147–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathew BJ, Sudhakar M, Natarajan C (2013) Strength, economic and sustainability characteristics of coal ash -GGBS based geopolymer concrete. Int J Comput Eng Res 3(1):207–212

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath TE, Cox S, Soutsos M, Kong D, Mee LP, Alengaram JUJ (2018) Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete: a Malaysian context. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 431:092001

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclellan BC, Williams RP, Lay J, Riessen AV, Glen D (2011) Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement. J Cleaner Prod 19(9–10):1080–1090

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen L, Moseson AJ, Farnam Y, Spatari S (2018) Effects of composition and transportation logistics on environmental, energy and cost metrics for the production of alternative cementitious binders. J Clean Prod 185:628–645

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ostwal T, Chitawadagi MV (2014) Experimental investigations on strength, durability, sustainability and economic characteristics of geopolymer concrete blocks. Int J Res Eng Technol 3(6):115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Palomo A, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT (1999) Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for the future. Cem Concr Res 29(8):1323–1329

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Passuello A, Rodríguez ED, Hirt E, Longhi M, Bernal SA, Provis JL, Kirchheim AP (2017) Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators. J Cleaner Prod 166:680–689

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petrillo A, Cioffi R, Ferone C, Colangelo F, Borrelli C (2016) Eco-sustainable geopolymer concrete blocks production process. Agric Agric Sci Proc 8:408–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasara-A J, Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T, Pongpat P, Sawaengsak W (2019) Environmental and social life cycle assessment to enhance sustainability of sugarcane-based products in Thailand. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21(7):1447–1458

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamane NP, Nataraja MC, Jeyalakshmi R, Nithiyanantham S (2015) Greener durable concretes through geopolymerisation of blast furnace slag. Mater Res Express 2(5):055502

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashad AM (2017) Insulating and fire-resistant behaviour of metakaolin and fly ash geopolymer mortars. Proc Inst Civil Eng Constr Mater 172:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashwan MM, Megahed AR, Essa MS (2015) Effect of local metakaolin on properties of concrete and its sulfuric acid resistance. J Eng Sci 43:183–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette R (2012) LCA of geopolymer concrete (E-Crete). Aurora construction materials, Melbourne, Australia. Project report, pp 1–36

  • Salas DA, Ramirez AD, Ulloa N, Baykara H, Boero AJ (2018) Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 190:170–177

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singh N, Vyas S, Pathak RP, Sharma P, Mahure NV, Gupta SL (2013) Effect of aggressive chemical environment on durability of green geopolymer concrete. Int J Eng Innov Technol 3(4):277–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel T, Reger J, Heinz D (2009) Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete: what is the environmental benefit. Paper presented at the proceeding of the 24th biennial conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia, Sydney, Australia 17–19 September

  • 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 152:312–320

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tempest B, Snell C, Gentry T, Trejo M, Isherwood K (2015) Manufacture of full-scale geopolymer cement concrete components: a case study to highlight opportunities and challenges. PCI J 60(6):39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Temuujin J, Williams RP, Van Riessen A (2009) Effect of mechanical activation of fly ash on the properties of geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. J Mater Process Technol 209(12–13):5276–5528

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thaarrini J, Dhivya S (2016) Comparative study on the production cost of geopolymer and conventional concretes. Int J Civ Eng Res 7(2):117–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Thannimalay L, Yusoff S, Zawawi NZ (2013) Life cycle assessment of sodium hydroxide. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 7(2):421–431

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toniolo N, Boccaccini AR (2017) Fly ash-based geopolymers containing added silicate waste: a review. Ceram Int 43(17):14545–14551

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner LK, Collins FG (2013) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build Mater 43:125–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilamová Š, Piecha M (2016) Economic evaluation of using of geopolymer from coal fly ash in the industry. Acta Montanistica Slovaca 21(2):139–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardhono A (2015) The durability of fly ash geopolymer and alkali-activated slag concretes. Dissertation, RMIT University

  • Weil M, Dombrowski K, Buchwald A (2009) Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers. In: Provis JL, Van Deventer JSJ (eds) Geopolymers-structure, processing, properties and industrial applications. CRC Press, North America, pp 194–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams AS (2009) Life cycle analysis: a step by step approach. Illinois Sustainable Technology Center, Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Champaign

  • Yacout DMM (2019) Assessing status of life cycle assessment studies in Egypt. Curr Appl Sci Technol 19(2):177–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao X, Zhang Z, Zhu H, Chen Y (2009) Geopolymerization process of alkali-metakaolinite characterized by isothermal calorimetry. Thermochim Acta 493(1–2):49–54

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang P, Huang G, An C, Fu H, Gao P, Yao Y, Chen X (2019) An integrated gravity-driven ecological bed for wastewater treatment in subtropical regions: process design, performance analysis, and greenhouse gas emissions assessment. J Clean Prod 212:1143–1153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu X, Chen B, Zhu L, Xing B (2017) Effects and mechanisms of biochar-microbe interactions in soil improvement and pollution remediation: a review. Environ Pollut 227:98–115

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Živica V, Balkovic S, Drabik M (2011) Properties of metakaolin geopolymer hardened paste prepared by high-pressure compaction. Constr Build Mater 25(5):2206–2213

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciatively acknowledge the Ministry of Scientific Research and the Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) who provided the financial support for the project “Green Building System for Low-Cost Housing,” Grant Number 5848 under which this research was performed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Materials Science Department, Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, Alexandria University, 163 Horreya Avenue, Shatby, 21526, Egypt

    Rafik Abbas, Mona Aly Khereby & N. Elkhoshkhany

  2. Faculty of Science, Helwan University, Cairo, 11795, Egypt

    Hanaa Y. Ghorab

Authors
  1. Rafik Abbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mona Aly Khereby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanaa Y. Ghorab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Elkhoshkhany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Aly Khereby.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbas, R., Khereby, M.A., Ghorab, H.Y. et al. Preparation of geopolymer concrete using Egyptian kaolin clay and the study of its environmental effects and economic cost. Clean Techn Environ Policy 22, 669–687 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01811-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01811-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation