Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review
h i g h l i g h t s
A comprehensive review of current foam concrete technology and geopolymer technology.
A concept of developing geopolymer foam concrete with great environmental benets.
A concrete with low cost, high strength/weight ratio and potential re resistance.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 August 2013
Received in revised form 25 January 2014
Accepted 27 January 2014
Available online 21 February 2014
Keywords:
Sustainability
Geopolymer
Foam concrete
Fire resistance
Eforescence
a b s t r a c t
The development of sustainable construction and building materials with reduced environmental footprint in both manufacturing and operational phases of the material lifecycle is attracting increased interest in the housing and construction industry worldwide. Recent innovations have led to the development
of geopolymer foam concrete, which combines the performance benets and operational energy savings
achievable through the use of lightweight foam concrete, with the cradle-to-gate emissions reductions
obtained through the use of a geopolymer binder derived from y ash. To bring a better understanding
of the properties and potential large-scale benets associated with the use of geopolymer foam concretes,
this paper addresses some of the sustainability questions currently facing the cement and concrete industry, in the context of the utilisation of foam concretes based either on ordinary Portland cement (OPC) or
on geopolymer binders. The potential of geopolymer binders to provide enhanced re resistance is also
signicant, and the aluminosilicate basis of the geopolymer binding phases is important in bringing high
temperature stability. The standardisation (quality control) of feedstocks and the control of eforescence
are two challenges facing the development of commercially mature geopolymer foam concrete technology, requiring more detailed exploration of the chemistry of raw materials and the microstructural development of geopolymers.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sustainability in the cement and concrete industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Current status of sustainable development efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Geopolymers alternative binders to Portland cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foam concrete technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Composition of foam concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1.
Binder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2.
Voids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3.
Water and others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
114
114
115
116
116
116
116
116
114
3.2.
4.
5.
6.
1. Introduction
Over the past century, Portland cement-based concrete has become the highest-volume manufactured product on Earth, due to
the versatility and generally highly reliable performance of this
material, and also the widespread availability and comparatively
low cost of the necessary raw materials and processing technology.
However, since the widespread adoption of sustainability as a key
criterion for the assessment of materials by both the engineering
community and the general public, the construction materials
industry is facing increased pressure as Portland cement production
is becoming perceived as unsustainable. Although the embodied energy intensity per functional unit remains lower than most other
available building materials [1], the very large production volumes
required to meet global demand lead to high sector-wide consumption of raw materials and energy, emission of greenhouse gases
(GHGs), and dust pollution [2]. Thus, the development of sustainable
construction and building materials with reduced environmental
footprint through both manufacturing and operational phases is currently a key focus in the global housing and construction industry.
This paper discusses the concept of geopolymer foam concrete
as one potential aspect of the global solution to this issue. As a
basis for this, the current status of foam concrete technology and
some fundamental physico-chemical aspects of geopolymer formation are reviewed. A geopolymer is an aluminosilicate binder
formed by alkaline activation of solid alumina- and silica-containing precursor materials at or slightly above room temperature. This
class of materials has emerged as one of the key alternatives to ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as a binder for concrete production
in the last decades [3]. Although considerable research has been
conducted on many aspects of geopolymer technology, application
of this technology is not yet widespread, for both technical and
non-technical reasons [4,5]. This review highlights some of these
issues in the specic context of foamed lightweight geopolymer
concrete production, and outlines the importance of developing
deeper and more comprehensive understanding of factors includ-
117
117
117
117
117
118
118
118
118
119
120
120
120
120
120
121
121
121
122
124
124
124
124
124
124
125
4000
3000
Others
EU27
USA
India
China
2000
1000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Fig. 1. Global cement production and distribution (data from [710]).
115
116
The bubbles lead to expansion of the cement paste or the mortar, which must have a suitable consistency to prevent their escape
[53]. The dose and particle size of the metallic powder can be designed according to the target density. Autoclaved aerated concrete
(AAC) is a typical product made using this method, where aluminium powder addition is around 0.05% by mass of all solid materials
[46].
The direct introduction of air bubbles can be achieved by a prefoaming method, or alternatively by mixing a foam concentrate
with paste or mortar using a high-shear mixer. The pre-foaming
method uses foaming agents, either synthetic surfactants [5456]
or protein-based [5759], to make a wet foam or a dry foam.
3.1.3. Water and others
Water used in mixing of foam concretes, similar to the case of
concretes in general, should be free of deleterious amounts of oil,
dissolved electrolytes and/or organic materials, which would adversely affect the properties of fresh and hardened foam concretes
[60]. The quantity of water needed in a foam concrete depends on
the composition of cementitious materials, ller type and workability requirements of the mixture. A common understanding is
that when water absorbing llers are used, such as expanded perlite [61], high water content is required to achieve suitable owability. The commonly used water-cement ratios (w/c) range
from 0.45 to 0.65, and may be up to 1.25 in cases with little or
no superplasticizer [20].
The strength of foam concrete is mainly governed by the induced voids and the volume of evaporable water in the binder;
which means that reducing w/c is generally benecial for achieving
high strength [53]. An appropriate superplasticizer in combination
with mineral admixtures can decrease the water needed to achieve
specied ow properties [62]. Other chemical additives such as latexes and acrylics may also be used in foam concretes to improve
strength or reduce permeability and absorbance [60]. However, the
compatibility between foaming agents and superplasticisers or
other chemical additives should be taken into consideration.
117
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
3.2.4. Shrinkage
Foam concrete exhibits much higher shrinkage than normal
weight concrete. The measured drying shrinkage of foam concrete
after 1 year ranges from 0.1% to 0.36% [83], which is 510 times
higher than the typical shrinkage of dense mortar and concrete
specimens with aggregate/cement ratios from 3 to 7 [53].
The factors contributing to the high shrinkage include the use of
little or no aggregate, and/or the microstructure of the hydration
products, particularly the pore size and specic surface. According
to Neville [53], it is the aggregate that restrains shrinkage. When
the sand to cement ratio increases from 1 to 3, the shrinkage of
foam concrete decreases from 0.125% to 0.075% [84]. As y ash
or other supplementary cementitious materials are introduced,
the hydration products will change in composition and structure.
This is very important because the shrinkage properties of the
hydrate phases will also be changed according to the gel chemistry,
pore structure and specic surface area [85,86]. To minimise
shrinkage, it is suggested to keep the content of llers such as lime
and y ash at a lower level; in comparison, the dosages of superplasticizer, aerating agents and silica fume have been noted to have
much smaller inuence [69].
Table 1
Air void features achieved by different foaming methods.
Foaming method
Diameter of air
voids (mm)
Volume of
air voids
Shape
Density (kg/m3)
Refs.
0.53.0
0.11.0
1565%
1050%
Spherical
Less spherical, with shape factor 1.21.4
[6367]
[58,67,68]
118
Table 2
Overview of llers and foam contents used in foam concretes, and the resulting density and compressive strengths.
Filler type
Foaming
Method
Volume/m /m
w/c
Density (kg/m3)
Refs.
13001900
8001320
Moist-cured
Autoclaved
10001400
4301490
1670
1.816.7
210
7.47.9
1214
112
1.59.9
12.1
[74]
[75]
[76]
Moist-cured
Autoclaved
6501224
10001400
5.57.5
7.99.3
217.8
3.97.3
[76]
8001250
10741141
7101520
2751400
7001200
7871318
4501100
214
6
4.223.7
0.10.8
530
1.210.7
216
[78]
[79]
[62]
[49]
[71]
[78]
[80]
3b
Sand
Fine sand
Sand
Sand
M-P
M-PD
C-Al
0.390.11
0.470.25
0.60.8
0.30.4
Sand
Sand
Sand
M-PD
M-PW
M-P
0.250.17
0.690.26
0.5
0.7
C-Al
FA
Low lime FA
M-PD
M-PD
0.40.1
0.180.07
0.40.6
1.11.5
Others
Fine sand + FA (1:1)
Sand + FA(3:7)
Sand + slag + SFc + FA
EPSd
Expanded clay
None
None
M-PD
C-Al + H
M-PW
M-PD
M-P
M-PD
C-Al
0.420.15
0.60.3
0.630.30
0.40.6
0.7
0.3
0.30.1
0.50.2
0.30.4
0.40.6
[77]
[62]
[61]
[78]
[77]
a
M-P = mechanical mixing of preformed foam (whether wet or dry is unknown); M-PD = mechanical mixing of preformed foam by dry method; M-PW = mechanical
mixing of preformed foam by wet method; C-Al = chemical foaming by alumina powder; C-Al + H = chemical foaming by alumina powder and hydrogen peroxide.
b
Ranges of values are written in corresponding directions for each sample, so that the rst and last values quoted for each property are each referring to the same mixes.
c
SF = silica fume.
d
EPS = expanded polystyrene particles.
(a)
Q-
M
QM
M M
Q
Q M
Fly ash
4.1. Geopolymerization
Q
K
K
K
10
Metakaolin
20
30
40
50
60
70
2 ( )
(b)
Heat evolution rate
(mW/g solid material)
Mullite
Quartz
K - Kaolinite
M-
40
30
20
10
Metakaolin
Fly ash
0
0
12
16
20
24
Time (h)
Fig. 3. (a) XRD patterns of metakaolin and y ash, and (b) their alkali activation
heat evolution as measured by isothermal calorimetry. Activator has SiO2/Na2O
ratio of 1.4, total dissolved solids concentration of 40%; the BET surface areas of
metakaolin and y ash are 14 and 0.9 m2/g, respectively.
119
Curing procedures
Property description
Refs.
100% FA
85 C (5 h7 d)
[120]
100% FA
I: 25 C (16676 h)
[116,122]
100% FA
85% FA + 15%
Kaolin
FA + silica fume
FA + ground slag
II: 40 C (72168 h)
III: 60 C (16120 h)
IV: 85 C (16 h)
I: 20 C 21 d
II: 70 C 24 h + 20oC 7 d
(30/50/70 C) (648 h)
I: 95 C covered 8 h
II: 95 C 2 h covered + 150 C 6 h dry
oven
III: 95 C 2 h covered + 95 C 6 h
steam
I: 27 C 28 d
II: 27 C 48 h + 60 C 4 h
[121]
[111]
[123]
[124]
The third and most important difference is the structural stability of geopolymers, which will affect their potential applications.
Geopolymers with Si/Al <3.8 derived from metakaolin can exhibit
a trend of transformation from amorphous to zeolite-like
crystalline structure under continuous curing conditions (moisture
and warmth) [118]. A systematic ageing study and an extensive
review of accelerated aging of geopolymers were presented by
Lloyd [119], who concluded that amorphous geopolymer gels
synthesized from metakaolin form crystalline zeolites upon
hydrothermal ageing (95 C), accompanied by major restructuring
of the gel and loss of compressive strength. In comparison, much
less of the gel in a geopolymer derived from y ash is converted
to zeolite phases during ageing, corresponding with negligible
strength loss. For these reasons, as Lloyd [119] suggested,
geopolymers based on metakaolin must be considered unsuitable for
construction purposes.
120
Fig. 4. (a) Digital photograph of sintered geopolymer foam, and (b) an SEM image of the pore structure of sintered product [127]. Original gures were provided by the
authors of Ref. [127] and are acknowledged.
20
Thermal conductivity
Compressive strength
1.6
16
1.2
12
0.8
0.4
0.0
400
800
1200
1600
2.0
0
2000
Density (kg/m3)
Fig. 5. The thermal conductivity and compressive strength of metakaolin-based
foam geopolymers (not oven-dried). Data from [131].
121
are both very important in pore size control, and thus determine
the homogeneity of the structure as a whole. It was suggested that
curing at 70 C (11.5) h followed by 23 C 20 d, or 55 C 9 d,
is helpful to control the pore size in a range around 1 mm [138].
However, in comparison with OPC foam concrete and Al-foamed
geopolymers, the pore size and distribution of this kind of foam
is too large, and this could be one reason for the low strength
(1 MPa) of these materials [139]. Given that the thermal conductivity is only 0.220.24 W/m K (estimated value, as the product
was too heterogeneous to be measured directly), it is possible that
it can be used as a non-structural insulation material [135].
4.3.2.3. Mechanical pre-foaming technique. In addition to the above
cases based on metakaolin, y ash has been used to make geopolymer foam concrete. Zhang et al. [140] reported a geopolymer foam
concrete synthesized using Class F y ash (CaO content 2.6 wt.%)
by mechanical mixing of preformed foam prepared with a diluted
surfactant solution by a wet method. Fig. 7 shows the foam concrete and its microstructure. The void sizes are predominantly in
the diameter range 50400 lm and with an average roundness factor of 0.6. It possesses a dry density of 850950 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 49 MPa depending on the alkali activator. Al
Bakri Abdullah et al. [141] reported their research on geopolymer
foam concrete based on a Class C y ash (CaO content 21.6 wt.%),
synthesized by mixing pre-formed foam into the geopolymer mixture at a 2:1 volume ratio, and cured at two different conditions:
room temperature and 60 C 24 h + room temperature. The
heat-cured products exhibited higher early strength as expected,
but equal density (16501667 kg/m3), pore structure and 28 d
strength (18.118.2 MPa) compared to those which were not
heated.
Overall the development of geopolymer foam concrete is a relatively new eld. Only limited information has been reported
regarding the relationship between composition, structure and
properties of such new materials.
4.4. Perspectives for of geopolymer foam concrete
Fig. 6. Geopolymers foamed with different Al powder contents: C1, C2, C3 and C4
contain 5, 10, 15 and 20 mg Al powder per 100 mL activator respectively; the
binders contain Si/Al = 2.0; C4 produces about 70 vol.% porosity; the diameter of the
cylinder is 18.85 mm. All specimens cured at room temperature [132]. Original
photographs were provided by the authors of Ref. [132] and are acknowledged.
cured at 70 C. The typical synthesis protocol of the in situ geopolymer foams includes alkali activator dissolution, stirring with
metakaolin and silica fume and curing. In the sealed curing period,
free silicon from the silica fume will be oxidized by water, releasing hydrogen gas, i.e. 4H2O + Si0 ? 2H2 + Si(OH)4. During the period when the geopolymer gels are growing and setting, the released
gas is trapped and thus high porosity is obtained.
The alkali activator solution type and concentration, clay type,
silica fume and curing period will have effects on the foaming
efcacy and also the properties of resultant geopolymer foams.
For example, increasing K/Al ratio from 0.65 to 1.73 by using more
KOH, the foaming efciency (nal volume/initial volume) increases
[135]; geopolymer foam derived from a K+ based activator is more
ready to dissolve or degrade compared to that derived from an Na+
based activator [136]. By comparing the infrared spectra before
and after reaction, and the appearances of the four samples,
metakaolin was seen to exhibit a higher reactivity and to result
in a more homogeneous sample than kaolin, illite or montmorillonite, which are also able to be used as precursors for in situ geopolymer foam synthesis [137]. The curing temperature and time
122
Fig. 7. (a) Geopolymer foam concrete synthesized by mechanical mixing of preformed foam with Class F y ash geopolymer binder, (b) the top surface of the sample, (c) an
optical micrograph of the pore structure, and (d) an SEM image of the wall between two large voids.
well reviewed in the recent literature [145]. Metakaolin-based geopolymer binders tend to decrease in strength gradually up to
800 C, while increasing in strength after 1000 C exposure
[146,147]; conversely alkali activated slag/metakaolin blend mortar and concrete tend to lose strength consistently after heating
from 200 to 1000 C [148]. Volcanic ash-based geopolymer mortars
also show an increase in compressive strength after heating at
900 C compared to 750 C [149], and y ash-based geopolymers
exhibit good strength maintenance after re temperature exposure
[146,150]. Fig. 8 shows the variation of compressive strength in
some typical metakaolin, metakaolin/slag blend and y ash-based
geopolymers after high temperature exposure. It is noted that
these are all post-cooling strength tests; the actual strength of
the material during high-temperature exposure is also critical,
but much less widely studied for either Portland cement or geopolymer materials.
The mechanisms governing the strength variation may be different for different types of geopolymers. Studies of metakaolinbased geopolymers by using conventional inferred spectroscopy
and X-ray diffractometry [151], and more recently by the X-ray
pair distribution function (PDF) method [152154], have revealed
the transformation of reaction products from amorphous to crystalline (usually anhydrous members of the zeolite family) at high
temperatures at an atomic scale. Briey, amorphous aluminosilicate gels lose free water below 200300 C with negligible change
in the structural framework. After heating above 200300 C gels
release chemically bound TOH groups and condense to form T
OT linkages, along with relocation of alkali cations, resulting in
123
60
Non-heated
o
after 600 C
o
after 1000 C
50
Binder
Binder
40
Concrete
30
20
10
0
0.2
0.4
Slag/(slag+metakaolin)
(b)
250
Collie non-heated
o
Collie after 1000 C
Eraring non-heated
o
Eraring after 1000 C
Tarong non-heated
o
Tarong after 1000 C
200
150
100
50
2.0
2.5
3.0
Si/Al ratio
Fig. 8. Compressive strength of different types of geopolymers before and after high
temperature exposure: (a) metakaolin/slag blend-based binder and concrete (data
from [147,148]); (b) binders derived from different y ashes (data from [150]).
increased overall connectivity. The condensed gels start to crystallise at a certain onset temperature, which is inuenced greatly by
the composition, in particular Si/Al ratio and alkali cation type.
Na-aluminosilicate geopolymer gel with Si/Al = 1.15 forms nepheline upon heating to 650 C, and at 800 C with Si/Al = 2.15 [151];
K-aluminosilicate geopolymer gels formed tetragonal leucite at
1000 C when starting from an initial composition of KAlSi2O6
4.78D2O0.72H2O [154] or 1050 C with a composition of KAlSi2O6
5.5H2O [152]; Cs-aluminosilicate geopolymer gels with Si/Al = 2.0
form crystalline pollucite above 1000 C [153]. In combination
with the ndings from thermal shrinkage measurements
[155,156], it is proposed that: (1) the large shrinkage along with
the loss of free water could be the main reason for the loss of
strength; (2) the shrinkage due to the release of chemically bound
OH and gel condensation at high temperature does not affect the
strength to a major extent, and (3) the condensation of the gels to
form glass and ceramics after onset temperature is the main reason
for the post-cooling strength increase. However, this may be associated with volume variation, and could also result in softening
during exposure to the high temperature which could compromise
in situ (pre-cooling) strength retention properties. The zeolite crystalline phases present in the geopolymer structure, may contribute
to the good post-exposure strength, and the formation of dense
glassy binder regions may also be important [146,157,158].
Fly ash-based geopolymers also generally show good retention
of strength after high temperature exposure. The microstructures
of these materials consist of geopolymeric gels, some zeolitic
phases, and a large volume fraction of residual y ash particles
-quartz
-mullite
-hematite
-nepheline
Intensity (cps)
(a)
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
800 C
o
400 C
o
100 C
o
20 C
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2-theta (degree)
Fig. 9. XRD analysis of y ash-based geopolymer foam synthesised at 20 C, and
heated at 100, 400 and 800 C for 3 h.
124
References
[1] Purnell P. Material nature versus structural nurture: the embodied carbon of
fundamental structural elements. Environ Sci Technol 2011;46(1):45461.
[2] Mehta PK. Sustainable cements and concrete for the climate change era a
review. In: Zachar J, Claisse P, Naik TR, Ganjian E, editors. Proceedings of the
second international conference on sustainable construction materials and
technologies, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy; 2010. p. 1
10.
[3] Juenger MCG, Winnefeld F, Provis JL, Ideker J. Advances in alternative
cementitious binders. Cem Concr Res 2011;41(12):123243.
[4] van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P, Brice DG. Chemical research and climate
change as drivers in the commercial adoption of alkali activated materials.
Waste Biomass Valor 2010;1(1):14555.
[5] van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P. Technical and commercial progress in
the adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner Eng 2012;29:89104.
[6] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future.
Chapter 2: Towards sustainable development. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 1987.
[7] Sinoma. China National Development and Reform Commission: cement
production in 2010 increased by 15.5%. <http://www.sinoma.cn/news/
ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=6595> [accessed 30.01.11].
[8] CEMBUREAU. The European Cement Association, Key Facts & Figures, <http://
www.cembureau.eu/about-cement/key-facts-gures>;
2012
[accessed
09.04.13].
[9] He Y. The importance of cement grinding aids and concrete admixtures in
cement and concrete production (in Chinese). <http://tech.sg8.cc/czzn/2010/
1130/34639.html> [accessed 30.11.10].
[10] CCM China Commodity Marketplace, . Policy of China cement industry in
the rst year of 12th Five Year Plan. <http://www.chinaccm.com/07/0720/
072001/news/20110308/161130.asp>; 2011 [accessed 08.03.11].
[11] Schneider M, Romer M, Tschudin M, Bolio H. Sustainable cement production
present and future. Cem Concr Res 2011;41(7):64250.
[12] UNIDO. Cement production in Vertical Shaft kilns in China- status and
opportunities for improvement. A report to the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization; 2006.
[13] Damtoft JS, Lukasik J, Herfort, Sorrentino D, Gartner EM. Sustainable
development and climate change initiatives. Cem Concr Res 2008;38:11527.
[14] Olivier JGK, Janssens-Maenhout G, Peters JAHW. Trends in global CO2
emissions; 2012 report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency, The Hague, Netherlands; 2012.
[15] Flower D, Sanjayan J. Greenhouse gas emissions due to concrete manufacture.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 2007;2007(12):2828.
[16] Sorrentino F. Chemistry and engineering of the production process: State of
the art. Cem Concr Res 2011;41:61623.
[17] Pera J, Boumaza R, Ambroise J. Development of a pozzolanic pigment from red
mud. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(10):151322.
[18] Bleszynski R, Hooton RD, Thomas MDA, Rogers CA. Durability of ternary blend
concrete with silica fume and blast-furnace slag, laboratory and outdoor
exposure site studies. ACI Mater J 2002;99(5):499508.
[19] Hendriks CA, Worrell E, de Jager D, Blok K, Riemer P. Emission reduction of
greenhouse gases from the cement industry. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
Interlaken, Austria, August 30September 2, IEA GHG R&D Programme, UK;
1998. <http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/prghgt42.htm>.
[20] Ramamurthy K, Nambiar EKK, Ranjani GIS. A classication of studies on
properties of foam concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31:38896.
[21] Worrell E, Van Heijningen RJJ, de Castro JFM, Hazewinkel JHO, de Beer JG,
Faau APC, et al. New gross energy requirement gures for material
production. Energy 1994;19(6):62740.
[22] Corinaldesi V, Moriconi G. Behaviour of cementitious mortars containing
different kinds of recycled aggregate. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(1):28994.
[23] Tang M. State of art and prospect of cement and concrete industries in China. J
Southeast Uni(Natural Sci Ed) 2006;36(suppl(II)):16 (in Chinese).
[24] Gartner EM, Macphee DE. A physico-chemical basis for novel cementitious
binders. Cem Concr Res 2011;41:73649.
[25] Duxson P, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Van Deventer JSJ. The role of inorganic polymer
technology in the development of green concrete. Cem Concr Res
2007;37:15907.
[26] Fernandez NP. The inuence of construction materials on life-cycle energy
use and carbon dioxide emissions of medium size commercial buildings.
Masters degree thesis. Victoria University of Wellington; 2008.
[27] Pullen S. Energy used in the construction and operation of houses. Archit Sci
Rev 2000;43(2):8794.
[28] Pacheco-Torgal F, Faria J, Jalali S. Embodied energy versus operational energy.
Showing the shortcomings of the energy performance building directive
(EPBD). Mater Sci Forum 2013;730732:58791.
[29] Davidovits J. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Saint-Quentin,
France: Institut Gopolymre; 2008.
[30] Shi C, Krivenko PV, Roy DM. Alkali-activated cements and concrete. Abingdon,
UK: Taylor & Francis; 2006.
125
[31] Provis JL, Van Deventer JSJ, Introduction to geopolymers. In: Provis JL, Van
Deventer JSJ, editors. Geopolymers: structure, processing, properties and
industrial applications. Woodhead, Cambridge, UK; 2009. p. 17.
[32] Hajimohammadi A, Provis JL, Van Deventer JSJ. One-part geopolymer mixes
from geothermal silica and sodium aluminate. Ind Eng Chem Res
2008;47(23):9396405.
[33] Duxson P, Provis JL. Designing precursors for geopolymer cements. J Am
Ceram Soc 2008;91(12):38649.
[34] Feng D, Provis JL, van Deventer JSJ. Thermal activation of albite for the
synthesis of one-part mix geopolymers. J Am Ceram Soc 2012;95(2):56572.
[35] Kolouek D, Brus J, Urbanova M, Andertova J, Hulinsky V, Vorel J. Preparation,
structure and hydrothermal stability of alternative (sodium silicate-free)
geopolymers. J Mater Sci 2007;42(22):926775.
[36] Stengel T, Reger J, Heinz D. Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete
What is the environmental benet? Concrete Solutions 09: Proceedings of
the 24th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia, Sydney;
2009.
[37] McLellan BC, Williams RP, Lay J, Van Riessen A, Corder GD. Costs and carbon
emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement.
J Cleaner Prod 2011;19:108090.
[38] EAEP Energy and Environmental Prole of the U.S. Chemical Industry.
Chapter 6: The Chlor-alkali industry, U.S. Department of Energy Ofce of
Industrial Technologies; 1999. p. 175200.
[39] Fawer M, Concannon M, Rieber W. Life cycle inventories for the production of
sodium silicates. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1999;4:20712.
[40] Habert G, dEspinose de Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N. An environmental
evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current
research trends. J Clean Prod 2011;11:122938.
[41] Tuner LK, Collins FG. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a
comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2013;43:12530.
[42] Valore RC. Foam and gas concrete. In Structural foams, Proceedings of a
conference presented as part of the 1960 Fall Conference of the Building
Research Institute. National Academy of Sciences National Research
Council, publication 892, 1961.
[43] Kearsley EP, Wainwright PJ. The effect of high y ash content on the
compressive strength of foamed concrete. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:10512.
[44] Jones MR, McCarthy A. Utilising unprocessed low-lime coal y ash in foamed
concrete. Fuel 2005;84:1398409.
[45] Wee TH, Babu DS, Tamilselvan T, Lin HS. Air-void systems of foamed concrete
and its effect on mechanical properties. ACI Mater J 2006;103(1):4552.
[46] Mostafa NY. Inuence of air-cooled slag on physicochemical properties of
autoclaved aerated concrete. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:134957.
[47] Zawada JM, Mont A. Lightweight, waterproof, insulating, cementitious
composition. U.S. Patent 5,782,970; 1998.
[48] Shi C. Composition of materials for use in cellular lightweight concrete and
method thereof. U.S. Patent 6,488,762 B1; 2002.
[49] Laukaitis A, Zurauskas R, Keriene J. The effect of foam polystyrene granules on
cement composite properties. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27:417.
[50] Bui TH. Lightweight structural concrete provided with various wood
properties. U.S. Patent 7,736,431 B2; 2010.
[51] Spinney SC. Cellular concrete. U.S. Patent, 5,183,505A; 1993.
[52] Chen B, Liu J. Properties of lightweight expanded polystyrene concrete
reinforced with steel ber. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:125963.
[53] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 5th ed. London, UK: Pearson; 2011.
[54] Bing C, Zhen W, Ning L. Experimental research on properties of high-strength
foamed concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 2012;24(1):1138.
[55] olak A. Density and strength characteristics of foamed gypsum. Cem Concr
Compos 2000;22(3):193200.
[56] Huang J, Liu K. Mechanical properties of cement foams in shear. J Mater Sci
2001;36:7717.
[57] Kearsley E, Wainwright P. The effect of porosity on the strength of foamed
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2002;32(2):2339.
[58] Nambiar EKK, Ramamurthy K. Airvoid characterisation of foam concrete.
Cem Concr Res 2007;37:22130.
[59] Othuman MA, Wang YC. Elevated-temperature thermal properties of
lightweight foamed concrete. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):70516.
[60] Fouad FH. Cellular concrete. In: Lamond JF, Pielert JH, editors. Signicance of
tests and properties of concrete and concrete making materials. ASTM
International; 2006. p. 5619.
[61] Hunaiti Y. Strength of composite sections with foamed and lightweight
aggregate concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 1997;9(2):5861.
[62] Pan Z, Hiromi F, Tionghuan W. Preparation of high performance foamed
concrete from cement, sand and mineral admixtures. J Wuhan Uni TechMater Sci Ed 2007;22(2):2958.
[63] azniewska-Piekarczyk B, Szwabowski J. Anti-foaming admixture (AFA) and
its inuences on the properties of a fresh self-compacting concrete mix. J Civil
Eng Manage 2012;18(2):1517.
[64] Visagie M, Kearsely EP. Properties of foamed concrete as inuenced by airvoid parameters. Concrete Beton 2002;101:814.
[65] Schober G. Porosity in autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC): a review on pore
structure, types of porosity, measurement methods and effects of porosity on
properties. In: 5th International Conference on Autoclaved Aerated Concrete,
Bydgoscsz, Poland; 2011. p. 3519.
[66] Kreft O, Hausmann J, Hublkov J, Aneziris CG, Steaube B, Schoch T. Pore size
distribution effects on the thermal conductivity of light weight autolaved
126
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[149]
[150]
[151]
[152]
[153]
[154]
[155]
[156]
[157]
[158]
[159]
[160]
[161]
[162]
[163]
[164]
[165]
[166]
[167]
[168]
127