Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Environmental Systems

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-environmental-systems

Energy and CO2 emission assessments of alkali-activated concrete and

Ordinary Portland Cement concrete: A comparative analysis of different
grades of concrete
Ali Alsalman a, b, Lateef N. Assi c, *, Rahman S. Kareem d, e, Kealy Carter, PhD f, Paul Ziehl c
a
Tatum Smith Welcher Engineers, Inc., 3100 S Market St., Rogers, AR, 72758, USA
b
Almaaqal University, College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Basra, 61003, Iraq
c
University of South Carolina, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 300 Main St., C206, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA
d
University of Arkansas, Department of Civil Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA
e
Department of Structure, Shatrah Technical Institute, Southern Technical University, Shatrah, Dhi Qar, Iraq
f
University of South Carolina, Darla Moore School of Business, 1014 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research has shown that alkali-activated concrete (AAC) is comparable to ordinary Portland cement concrete
Energy (OPCC) in terms of mechanical properties and may offer ecological benefits compared to OPCC. This study
Emissions evaluates the energy and emission of AAC and OPCC across different classifications of concrete compressive
Alkali-activated concrete
strength (40, 60, and 100 MPa). Analysis indicates that the selection of constituent materials can substantially
Ordinary portland cement concrete
affect the energy and emission of AAC and OPCC. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) is the principal contributor to
the energy and emission of OPCC, accounting for 80% of energy and 91% of emissions of OPCC. The activating
solution, meanwhile, is the main contributor to the energy and CO2 emission of AAC. Normal strength AAC
(40 MPa) shows 46% less energy and 73% less CO2 emission than OPCC. However, high-strength AAC (60 MPa),
using metakaolin as a base material, experiences higher energy (8%) than OPCC yet the emission is 40% less than
OPCC. A substitution of fly ash for metakaolin results in superior efficiency of AAC compared to OPCC. Two
mixtures of ultra-high-strength AAC (100 MPa) result in contradictory findings. One mixture with a sodium
hydroxide and silica fume activating solution shows 5% and 30% less energy and CO2 emission, while the other
mixture with a sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate activating mixture is less efficient than OPCC.

1. Introduction
Worldwide, ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC) is considered
one of the most consumed construction materials after water (Gartner,
2011) with current consumption estimated at one cubic meter per person
annually (Gartner, 2004). Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) accounts for
approximately 5% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and 14% of the
total global energy use from the industrial division (Thwe et al., 2021).
There are several reasons for the high emission of OPC, including but not
limited to the required limestone calcination and the required energy
during the manufacturing process (Gartner, 2004). Due to the high
consumed embodied energy throughout (OPC) production, the CO2
emission of each ton of OPC ranges between 0.82 and 1.0 metric tons
(Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009; Li et al., 2011; Maji and Adamu, 2021;
Peng et al., 2013). Due to the amount of OPC consumed annually and the
high associated embodied energy, researchers have started to look into
new, more environmentally-friendly materials to reduce CO2 emissions
(McLellan et al., 2011; Teh et al., 2017; Tempest et al., 2009).
Blended cement has been proposed to reduce the dependency on OPC
and, consequently, reduce the associated emission. Blended cement
typically consists of OPC partially blended with supplementary cemen-
titious materials (SCMs) such as fly ash (FA), ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBFS), and silica fume (SF). Most of these SCMs are by-
products materials. Thus, using them minimizes the waste materials
that go to the landfill (Wu et al., 2018). Additionally, it is estimated that
blended cement could reduce CO2 emissions by approximatey13-22%
(Flower and Sanjayan, 2007). The reduction in CO2 emissions depends
on several key attributes, such as SCMs blended quantity, raw material

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: alialsalman609@gmail.com (A. Alsalman), lassi@email.sc.edu (L.N. Assi), rahman.s.kareem@stu.edu.iq (R.S. Kareem), kealy.carter@moore.sc.
edu (K. Carter), ZIEHL@sc.edu (P. Ziehl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100047
Received 4 January 2021; Received in revised form 14 April 2021; Accepted 29 July 2021
2666-7894/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Alsalman et al.
Fig. 1. The required energy of constituents' materials. Note: OPC ¼ ordinary
Portland cement; FA ¼ fly ash; SF ¼ silica fume; GGBFS ¼ ground granulated
blast furnace slag; MK ¼ metakaolin; GJ ¼ gigajoule; and t ¼ metric tone.
Fig. 2. The resultant emission of constituents' materials Note: OPC ¼ ordinary
Portland cement; FA ¼ fly ash; SF ¼ silica fume; GGBFS ¼ ground granulated
blast furnace slag; MK ¼ metakaolin; GJ ¼ gigajoule; and t ¼ metric tone.
source, and manufacturing facility types.
Alternative types of concrete, termed geopolymer or alkali-activated
concrete (AAC), have been introduced to fully or partially substitute
OPCC. Davadovits (1994) was the first to introduce a geopolymer binder,
which was described as an inorganic material rich in silicon (Si) and
Aluminum (Al) that reacts with an alkaline activating solution (Davido-
vits, 1994). The common activating solutions are a mixture of a source of
2
Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047
strong alkaline solution, such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hy-
droxide, and a source of silica, including but not limited to sodium sili-
cate or silica fume (Duxson et al., 2007a,b; Palomo et al., 1999; Tempest
et al., 2009). Because of availability, a combination of sodium hydroxide
and sodium silicate is the most common activating solution (Hardjito and
Rangan, 2005). An external source of heat that ranges from 40 to 80
C is
necessary to accelerate the strength gain of the alkali-activated binder
(Hardjito et al., 2004; Kong and Sanjayan, 2010). However, the external
heat can be eliminated using a small amount of OPC as a partial
replacement (Assi et al., 2016a,b; Nath and Sarker, 2015).
Several studies have investigated how much fuel energy (embodied
energy) and CO2 emissions are required to produce both AAC and OPCC
(Tempest et al., 2009; Turner and Collins, 2013). Different procedures,
including life cycle assessment (LCA), have been used to evaluate these
parameters (Salas et al., 2018). LCA is an analytic tool for evaluating the
environmental performance of the material over its lifecycle. The
reduction in CO2 emissions of AAC compared to OPCC is estimated be-
tween 26 and 45% (Habert et al., 2010; Witherspoon, 2009) with some
studies demonstrating a decrease in CO2 emissions up to 80% compared
with OPCC (Duxson et al., 2007a,b; van Deventer et al., 2010). The
magnitude of the decrease is due to several factors, including the trans-
portation of raw materials, manufacturing techniques, and type of ma-
terials used. While AAC appears to be an environmentally friendly
alternative to OPCC, there are no studies comparing sustainable binder
mixtures across compressive strength grades to the OPCC equivalents.
The present research fills this gap by evaluating the CO2 emissions
and embodied energy for several mixture proportions of OPCC and AAC
of the same grade. Specifically, the selected mixtures account for a va-
riety of concrete compressive strengths including 40, 60, and 100 MPa.
While the study herein is not based on a lifecycle analysis, the energy and
emission parameters are collected from the extant literature. Then, the
total energy and emission of one cubic meter of concrete are estimated.
The emissions from transportation are not considered in the evaluation
due to the variance and dependence on other influencing factors such as
distance, type of engine, and raw materials location.
2. Materials and method
Energy and CO2 emission of selected mixtures of OPCC and AAC of
different strength grades are evaluated. This approach is achieved by
obtaining the energy and CO2 emission of each component of the mixture
proportions from the literature, and then the energy and emission of one
cubic meter of concrete are calculated for each mixture.
2.1. Energy variables
The source of energy consumption required to produce one cubic
meter of AAC consists of several variables. These variables include the
base materials or SCMs (e.g., FA, SF, GGBFS, and metakaolin (MK))),
aggregates, admixtures, activating solution, and heat curing of the con-
crete, if applicable.
The most commonly used SCMs in AAC are waste materials, and they
require low energy for their production compared to other constituents.
Previous studies assumed the energy required for the production of SCMs
is equal to zero when calculating the total energy of one cubic meter of
concrete (Assi et al., 2018; Stengel et al., 2009). However, energy occurs
during collecting, milling, and grinding (to achieve a specific size dis-
tribution). Therefore, a value of energy should be considered to create a
reasonable comparison and accurate estimation. The energies required to
produce one metric ton of FA, SF, and GGBFS are 0.033, 0.036, and
0.857 GJ/t, respectively (Jones et al., 2011; The Concrete Centre, 2009).
Other SCMs that are not waste materials such as MK require higher en-
ergy. A typical value of 2.5 GJ/t has been reported by (Heath et al., 2014)
for MK.
Aggregates (fine and coarse) represent the largest component by
volume of AAC, and they are responsible for the stiffness (modulus of
A. Alsalman et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047

Fig. 3. Relationship between (a) compressive strength and sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios and (b) compressive strength and the sodium hydroxide
concentration (M).

Table 1 Table 2
Mixture proportions of 40 MPa concrete. Mixture proportions of 60 MPa concrete.
Material Mixture proportions (kg/m3) Material Mixture proportions (kg/m3)

AAC (Nath and Sarker, 2014) OPCCa AAC (Pouhet and Cyr, 2016) OPCCa

OPC Type I – 460 OPC – 505

FA (class F) 340 – FA – 60
GGBFS 60 – MK 289 –
Fine aggregate 651 622 Fine aggregate 796.3 630
Coarse aggregate 1209 1105 Coarse aggregate 1055.3 1030
Water – 193 Water 3.9b 195
Sodium hydroxide (40.43% 45.7 – Admixtures (high range water – 1.3
solid) reducer)
Sodium silicate (41.5% solid) 114.3 – Sodium hydroxide (100% solid) 24.2 –
Curing regimen Ambient temperature Moist Sodium silicate (37% solid) 238.9 –
(18
C–23
C) curing Curing regimen Ambient temperature Moist
Measured compressive strength 40 MPa 40 MPaa (20
C) curing
Measured compressive strength 58.5 MPa 65 MPa
Note: OPC ¼ ordinary Portland cement, FA ¼ fly ash, GGBFS ¼ ground granu-
a
lated blast furnace slag. This mixture was used in water tower place, Chicago, USA as cited in (ACI
a 363, 2011).
The concrete mixture was designed based on the method stated in (ACI
b
211.1, 1991); specified strength ¼ 40 MPa, fineness modulus of fine Added water that is independent of the water of the activating solution.
aggregate ¼ 2.6, maximum size of coarse aggregate ¼ 25 mm, dry-rodded unit
weight of coarse aggregate ¼ 1602 kg/m3, slump ¼ 75–100 mm, and normal used. To achieve an accurate evaluation of the total energy of AAC and
exposure condition. OPCC, the energy required for these admixtures is incorporated. How-
ever, they are typically used in small amounts compared to other con-
elasticity) and dimensional stability of the concrete (creep and stituents. The required energy for the production of admixtures is
shrinkage) (Mehta and Monteiro, 2006). Some previous studies have 29.1 GJ/t (European Federation of Concrete, 2015).
disregarded the energy associated with aggregates in the calculation Activating solutions are the main contributor to the energy of AAC
since OPCC and AAC may have approximately the same amount of ag- (Assi et al., 2018; Turner and Collins, 2013). Sodium hydroxide requires
gregates in the mixture (Assi et al., 2018; Tempest et al., 2009). However, high energy for production - 20.5 GJ/t (100% solid) (Tempest et al.,
since the base materials in OPCC (mainly OPC) and AAC (mainly SCMs) 2009). On the other hand, the required energy for the production of
are different, the volume occupied by aggregates is different. This is sodium silicate (48% solid) is approximately 5.371 GJ/t (Fawer et al.,
attributed to the difference in the specific gravity of OPC and SCMs. 1999). Other types of activating solutions are not considered in this study
Therefore, based on the absolute volume method, the volume occupied since sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate, and a combination of sodium
by aggregates in OPCC and ACC is not similar for the same amount of hydroxide and silica fume are the most common activating solutions.
binder materials (ACI 211.1, 1991). The energies to produce one tone of Typically, the mixing of the alkaline solution yields an exothermic pro-
fine and coarse aggregates are approximately 0.081 GJ/t and 0.083 GJ/t, cess (temperature > 80
C). Some studies have reported that the acti-
respectively (Hammond et al., 2011). Since the difference in energies of vating solution needs to be maintained at an elevated temperature for
fine and coarse aggregates are nearly the same, the upper limit of the 12–24 h to ensure complete dissolution of the activating solution.
value is considered for both aggregates. Consequently, the energy required to maintain the activating solution at
The production of concrete admixtures such as superplasticizers and a specific temperature should be included when such a procedure is
retarders also requires energy. Typically, admixtures are needed to pro- considered. The required energy of maintaining the temperature of the
duce high-strength concrete when a relatively low water to binder ratio is alkaline solution for 12 h at 75
C is 0.0029 GJ/m3 for 100 L (Tempest

3
A. Alsalman et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047

Table 3 et al., 2009). On the other hand, there is no need to include the energy
Mixture proportions of 100 MPa concrete. required to raise the temperature of the alkaline solution from the at-
Material Mixture proportions (kg/m3) mospheric temperature to 75
C since the reaction of the activating so-
lution results in a high temperature as stated earlier in this section.
AAC-I (Assi et al., AAC-II (Liu et al., OPCC (ACI
2016b) 2020) 363, 2011) Elevated curing temperature might be necessary for AAC to achieve
similar mechanical properties in comparison with OPCC (Duxson et al.,
OPC Type II – – 228
FA (class F) 474 172 –
2007a,b; Hardjito et al., 2004; Palomo et al., 1999). The elevated curing
GGBFS – 688 308 temperature requires energy. Thus, this type of energy should be
SF 46.2 45 45 included in calculating the total energy required to produce AAC when
Fine aggregate 793 905 800 heat curing or stem curing regimens are implemented. The energy of
Coarse aggregate 793 – 1110
curing concrete samples can be divided into two parts - the required
Water 163 97a 131
Admixtures (high range 7.125 – 15.6 energy to heat the concrete sample to a specific temperature and the
water reducer) required energy to maintain the concrete sample at that temperature for a
Sodium hydroxide 61.6 45 – specific time. The energy required to cure the OPCC at 54
C for 24 h is
(100% solid) 0.0062 GJ/m3 (Nisbet et al., 2000). However, this value does not include
Sodium silicate – 314 –
(38.85% solid)
the energy required to raise the temperature from ambient to the targeted
Curing regimen Heat curing at Heat curing at Moist curing curing temperature. The required energy to heat the AAC blocks of one
75
C for 48 h 80
C for 24 h cubic meter to 60
C for 24 h is 0.146 GJ/m3, which also accounts for the
Measured compressive 106 MPa 102 MPa 105 MPa heat loss through the curing kiln walls (Salas et al., 2018). The value
strength
provided by Salas et al. (2018) is more realistic, and therefore, it is
a
This value does not account for the water of the sodium silicate solution. considered in this study.

Fig. 4. Energy of 40 MPa concrete mixtures (a) AAC (b) OPCC. Note: AAC: alkali-activated concrete and OPCC ¼ ordinary Portland cement concrete.

Fig. 5. Emission of 40 MPa concrete mixtures (a) AAC (b) OPCC. Note: AAC: alkali-activated concrete and OPCC ¼ ordinary Portland cement concrete.

4
A. Alsalman et al.
Fig. 6. Energy of 60 MPa concrete mixtures (a) AAC (b) OPCC. Note: AAC: alkali-activated concrete and OPCC ¼ ordinary Portland cement concrete.
Fig. 7. Emission of 60 MPa concrete mixtures (a) AAC (b) OPCC. Note: AAC: alkali-activated concrete and OPCC ¼ ordinary Portland cement concrete.
The required energy to produce OPCC includes the energies of the
constituent materials such as OPC, SCMs, aggregates, and admixtures.
The energy required to produce OPC relies primarily on the kiln type –
wet (5.9 GJ/t), semi-wet (4.6 GJ/t), dry (3.3 GJ/t), or semi-dry kiln
(3.5 GJ/t) (Hammond and Jones, 2008). A value between 3.6 GJ/t to
6 GJ/t is considered a typical average fuel consumption to produce
clinker. The Office of Energy Efficiency (2001) reported that the average
energy usage of fifteen plants is 4.69 GJ/t. The reported general value
was 4.6  2 GJ/t. The Concrete Centre (2009) indicated that the reported
energy of producing OPC is 1194 kWh, which is approximately 4.3 GJ/t.
Hammond et al. (2011) also reported a weighted average value of
4.5 GJ/t that includes all of the cement within the United Kingdom.
Marceau et al. (2006) reported that the embodied energy of OPC aver-
aged over several manufacturing methods is 4.8 GJ/t. Since there are
several reported values, the authors considered the average of the values
– 4.53 GJ/t. Fig. 1 illustrates the summary of energy required for con-
stituent materials of AAC and OPCC which are used to estimate the en-
ergy of the resultant concrete mixtures.
5
Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047
2.2. Emission variables
Due to the energy consumption (e.g., diesel, electricity, liquid pe-
troleum gas, explosives, and coal) to produce the materials for AAC and
OPCC, CO2 emissions are released into the atmosphere. OPC results in
higher emissions than other cementitious materials such as FA, SF,
GGBFS, and MK. The production of one ton of OPC yields nearly
0.73–0.85 tons of CO2 (Hasanbeigi et al., 2012; Hills et al., 2016). A value
of 0.84 t-CO2/t, which is used in the calculations herein, is considered the
worldwide average (Sanjuan et al., 2020). On the other hand, aggregates
require low energy for production compared to other materials, resulting
in relatively low CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions of FA, SF, GGBFS, and
MK are 0.004 t-CO2/t, 0.014 t-CO2/t, 0.052 t-CO2/t, and 0.33 t-CO2/t,
respectively (Hammond et al., 2011; Hammond and Jones, 2008, 2008;
2008; Heath et al., 2014; The Concrete Centre, 2009). Hammond et al.
(2011) reported a value of 0.0048 t-CO2/t for both fine and coarse ag-
gregates. The emissions associated with the production of admixtures
such as superplasticizers and retarders is 1.88 t-CO2/t (European
Federation of Concrete, 2015).
The activating solution compounds, such as sodium hydroxide and
sodium silicate, require high energy for their production, and therefore,
A. Alsalman et al.
Fig. 8. Energy of 100 MPa concrete mixtures (a) AAC-I (b) AAC-II (c) OPCC.
Note: AAC: alkali-activated concrete and OPCC ¼ ordinary Portland
cement concrete.
result in significant emissions. Sodium hydroxide emissions are approx-
imately 1.915 t-CO2/t (Turner and Collins, 2013); this value is for 100%
solid of sodium hydroxide.
On the other hand, sodium silicate produces lower emissions than
sodium hydroxide - between 0.30 t-CO2/t to 0.42 t-CO2/t (Fawer et al.,
1999; McLellan et al., 2011). (Turner and Collins, 2013) reported a value
– 1.514 t-CO2/t which is for 100% solid of sodium silicates. However, this
value also contains the emission that is associated with the transportation
(0.292 t-CO2/t). Since this study does not consider the effect of trans-
portation, the emission that is related to the transportation is omitted and
a net value of 1.222 t-CO2/t is considered. It is worth to mention that
(Turner and Collins, 2013) in their study considered the total value of
emission of sodium silicates; however, this is misleading as the sodium
6
Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047
Fig. 9. Emission of 100 MPa concrete mixtures (a) AAC-I (b) AAC-II (c) OPCC.
Note: AAC: alkali-activated concrete and OPCC ¼ ordinary Portland
cement concrete.
silicates is between 37% and 42% solid (Assi et al., 2020; Davidovits,
2015).
The curing of the concrete samples and maintaining the heat of the
activating solution at a specific temperature generate emissions, which
are included in the calculations. Emissions related to the curing of con-
crete are approximately 0.039 t-CO2/m3 for 24 h at 85
C (Yang et al.,
2013). This emission value includes the emission from heating the con-
crete to that temperature and maintaining the curing at that temperature
for 24 h. This reference value (0.039 t CO2/m3) is used to calculate the
emission of concrete mixtures if a different curing temperature is used.
For example, if 75
C is used to cure the concrete for 24 h, the associated
emission is calculated as shown in Eq. (1). The literature does not report
the emissions resulting from heating of the activating solution from
A. Alsalman et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047

Table 4 0:0058 GJ=m3 x0:034 t  CO2 =m3

Emission ðactivating solutionÞ ¼ ð Þ
The efficiency of the selected mixtures. 0:183 t  CO2 =m3

Mixture Compressive Total Total Emission MJ/ kg-
Strength (MPa) Energy GJ/ kg-CO2/m3 MPa CO2/ ¼ 0:0011 t  CO2 m3 (2)
m3 MPa

Normal strength concrete Fig. 2 presents all the emission values that are considered in this
OPCC 40 2227 395 55.7 9.9 study.
AAC 40 1209 222 30.2 2.7
High strength concrete
OPCC 65 2465 435 37.9 6.7
2.3. Mixture proportions and mixture selection
AAC 58.5 2655 512 45.4 4.4
Ultra-high strength concrete Numerous mixture proportions have been reported in the literature
OPCC 105 1911 247 18.2 2.4 for AAC. The mixture proportions affect the mechanical properties,
AAC-I 106 1808 174 17.1 1.6
durability, cost, energy, and consequential emission of the resulting
AAC-II 102 3476 639 34.1 3.1
concrete. This section describes some of the mixture proportion variables
that can affect the energy and the associated emission of a specific
mixture.
The type and the amount of the binder can have a considerable role in
both energy and emissions. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, each base material
has different values of energy and emission. In the following study,
different types of base materials are selected to show this effect.
The components and the amount of the activating solution (alkaline
solution) can considerably affect the energy and emission of AAC. The
use of the alkaline solution releases the alumina and silica from the base
materials. In other words, the activating solution plays a significant role
in polymerization, which influences the efficiency of silica and alumina
in the geopolymer system of the resulting concrete. Based on previous
literature, typically, the activating solution consists of soluble alkali
metals such as sodium or potassium. The most common activating solu-
tion is the mixture of silicates and hydroxides of sodium or potassium
(Singh et al., 2015). Both the ratio of sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate
in the activating solution and the concentration of sodium hydroxide can
influence the performance (e.g., compressive strength) of the AAC, and
affects the energy and emissions of AAC. The energy and emission values
of sodium hydroxide that are presented in Figs. 1 and 2 are for 100% solid
material.
Several studies in the literature have examined the optimum sodium
silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio and sodium hydroxide concentration
(M) (Ahmed et al., 2011; Deb, 2012; Gunasekara et al., 2016; Hadi et al.,
2017; Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Kumar et al., 2018; Kusbiantoro et al.,
2012; Nath and Sarker, 2015, 2017; Nazari and Sanjayan, 2015; Nur-
uddin et al., 2011; Okoye et al., 2015; Olivia and Nikraz, 2012; Parthiban
and Mohan, 2017; Pouhet and Cyr, 2016; Sarker et al., 2013; Shi et al.,
2012; Sujatha et al., 2012; Sumajouw and Rangan, 2006; Vora and Dave,
2013; Xie and Ozbakkaloglu, 2015). The common sodium silicate to
sodium hydroxide ratio ranges from 1.5 to 2.6, approximately 91% of the
total data falls into that region (shaded area of Fig. 3 (a)). Fig. 3 (b) shows
the effect of sodium hydroxide (M) on the compressive strength of AAC.
While studies from the literature have used different concentrations of
sodium hydroxide, the lowest sodium hydroxide was 8 M, and the
highest was 16 M. The most common concentration is 14 M, which
represents approximately 40% of the collected data. Concentrations of
8 M and 12 M represent 20% and 20% of the data, respectively. 93% of
the data falls between 8 M and 14 M. Other studies in the literature have
Fig. 10. Correlation between (a) compressive strength and energy; (b)
compressive strength and emission.
used a different combination of activation solutions for different reasons,
such as enhancing the performance of the concrete or reducing the en-
ergy and emission associated with the typical combination of the acti-
ambient temperature. However, this emission can be calculated using the
vating solution (sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate).
energy of curing the concrete, the energy of maintaining the heat of
To illustrate the effect of different factors on energy and associated
activating solution, and the emission value from Eq. (1) as shown in Eq.
emissions, three mixtures are examined. The selected mixtures were
(2).
classified based on the compressive strength, which is the most important
75
C  0:039 t  CO2 =m3 property of concrete for design purposes, and all other properties are
Emission ðheating þ curingÞ ¼ ð Þ related to it. Three compressive strength grades were selected (40, 60,
85
C
 and 100 MPa) to cover a wide range of concrete that can be used for
¼ 0:034 t  CO2 m3 (1) different purposes. The 40 MPa concrete is considered standard strength
concrete, and it is common for most structural uses where outstanding
compressive is not required. Typically, SCMs are not needed to achieve

7
A. Alsalman et al.
the desired mechanical properties.
On the other hand, the 60 MPa is high strength concrete with
compressive strength >55 MPa (ACI 363, 2011). This type of concrete is
commonly used in high-rise buildings where loads are significantly high
such as columns on lower floors. High binder content, SCMs, low water to
binder ratio (w/b), and high-range water reducer are necessary for
high-strength concrete to achieve the desired strength and workability.
Finally, the 100 MPa is ultra-high-strength concrete with compressive
strength 100 MPa (Kareem et al., 2021; Ozbakkaloglu, 2013; Vincent
and Ozbakkaloglu, 2013). This type of concrete is proper for lightweight
structures or structural components that are exposed to severe environ-
ments. This class of concrete requires higher binder content compared to
high-strength concrete. The use of SCMs is a must, especially, silica fume.
Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 summarize all mixtures used in this study. It
can be noticed that two AACs were selected for the grade 100 MPa. Two
mixtures were selected since exploration of ultra-high-strength mixtures
in the literature is limited, and the results show how the selection of
materials may influence the energy and emission of the concrete with the
same classification of strength.
3. Results and discussion
The energy and emission of all mixtures are calculated for one cubic
meter of concrete. Detailed calculation tables are presented in Appendix
A (Table A1 to A6). The following subsections discuss the results for the
three grades of concrete.
3.1. Normal strength concrete (40 MPa)
Figs. 4 and 5 present the required energy and associated emissions of
one cubic meter of AAC and OPCC. OPCC results in 84% and 270%
higher energy and emissions, respectively, compared to AAC. The high
energy and emissions are mainly attributed to the use of OPC, which
accounts for 94% and 98% of the total energy and emission of OPCC, as
shown in Figs. 4 (b) and Fig. 5 (b). On the other hand, the combination of
sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate accounts for 82% and 87% of the
total energy and emission of AAC as shown in Figs. 4 (a) and Fig. 5 (a).
The sodium silicate itself accounts for 51% and 54% of the total energy
and emission, respectively. If the value of emission of sodium silicate
reported by Fawer et al. (1999) was used, the emission of AAC would be
reduced by 9% only compared to the use of the value reported by Turner
and Collins (2013). The base materials for AAC (FA and GGBFS) are
responsible for approximately 5% and 2% of the total energy and emis-
sion of AAC. The effect of the aggregates on the energy and emission of
OPCC and AAC is minimal.
3.2. High-strength concrete (60 MPa)
The energy and CO2 emission of high-strength concrete are presented
in Figs. 6 and 7. AAC shows comparable energy to OPCC - 8% higher
only. On the other hand, the OPCC shows higher emission – 68% higher
compared to AAC. The main contributor to the high energy and emission
of AAC is sodium silicate, which is responsible for 48% and 42% of the
total energy and emissions of AAC as shown in Figs. 6 (a) and Fig. 7 (a). If
the value of emissions of sodium silicate reported by (Fawer et al., 1999)
were used, the emissions of AAC would be reduced by 3% only compared
to the use of the value reported by Turner and Collins (2013). MK, which
is the base material for AAC, is not a by-product material. Consequently,
it adds to the energy and emission of AAC compared to other alternatives.
If FA were used instead of MK, for example, the total energy and emission
would be 1.942 MJ/m3 (a 27% reduction) and 0.157 t-CO2/m3 (a 37%
reduction), respectively. Similar to regular strength concrete, OPC is the
major contributor to the energy and emission of OPCC, as shown in
Figs. 6 (b) and Fig. 7 (b). The effect of admixtures and aggregates on the
total energy and CO2 emissions is insignificant. FA as well does not have a
noticeable influence on the energy and emission of OPCC, as shown in
8
Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047
Figs. 6 (b) and Fig. 7 (b), respectively.
3.3. Ultra-high-strength concrete (100 MPa)
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 present the analysis of the energy and emission of
ultra-high-strength concrete. AAC-I mixture results in the lowest energy
and emissions compared to AAC-II and OPCC. The energy is 48% and 5%
less compared to AAC-II and OPCC, and the emissions are 44% and 30%
less, respectively. Sodium hydroxide is the major contributor to the en-
ergy and emission of AAC-I, as shown in Figs. 8 (a) and Fig. 9 (a). This
mixture does not contain sodium silicate, as the sodium hydroxide and
silica fume were used as the activating solution instead. The combination
of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicates of AAC-II contribute to the
total energy and emission by 75% and 75%, respectively. The sodium
silicate itself is responsible for approximately 47.6% of the total emission
of AAC-II. If the value of emissions of sodium silicate reported by Fawer
et al. (1999) and McLellan et al. (2011) is replaced by the emission value
reported by Turner and Collins (2013), the total emission would be
0.296 t-CO2/m3; which is only 5%.
The curing of the concrete, heating of the activating solution, and
aggregates have an insignificant effect on the energy and emission of
AAC-I and AAC-II. OPCC experiences comparable energy and emission
compared to AAC-II. This is due to the incorporation of SCMs (SF and
GGBFS); these SCMs account for 61% of the total binder content, 581 kg/
m3 (refer to Table 3). However, OPC is still the major contributor to the
energy and emission of OPCC. Due to the low water to binder ratio of
OPCC, admixtures (superplasticizer) was incorporated in large amount.
As a result, admixtures are responsible for 24% and 12% of the energy
and emission of OPCC as shown in Fig. 9 (c) and Fig. 9 (b). The contri-
bution of the aggregates is minor compared to other constituents.
4. Efficiency analysis of selected mixtures
Table 4 summarizes the efficiency of all selected mixtures. The effi-
ciency is presented as the energy required and the resulting emissions to
produce one MPa of compressive strength. The efficiency is a comparison
between the same grade of concretes only. It can be seen from the table
that for normal strength concrete, the AAC is more efficient compared to
OPCC. The reductions in energy and emission are 46% and 73%,
respectively. Turner and Collins (2013) also evaluated the emissions of
AAC and OPCC of 40 MPa concrete. They reported that AAC showed 9%
less emissions compared to OPCC. However, the small reduction was due
to that they considered sodium silicate as a 100% solid when they esti-
mated the total energy. In fact, the sodium silicate in their mixture was
(44.1% solid). If they considered the sodium silicate as only 44.1%, the
reduction in emission would be 34% compared to OPCC.
For the high-strength concrete OPCC shows higher efficiency
regarding the energy factor. The energy is 16% lower compared to AAC.
Tempest et al. (2009) evaluated the energy of AAC and OPCC found that
AAC yielded 30% less energy than OPCC of the same strength. However,
they did not use MK and sodium silicate. On the other hand, AAC shows
higher efficiency regarding the emission factor as shown in Table 4.
In the case of ultra-high-strength concrete, AAC-I illustrates higher
efficiency compared to AAC-II and OPCC per one MPa on strength. A
similar finding was reported by Assi et al. (2018) who found that the use
of AAC can reduce the energy up to 36% compared to OPCC of
ultra-high-strength concrete.
Fig. 10 plots the compressive strength against the energy required and
the associated CO2 emission per one MPa. It can be seen from Fig. 10 (a)
and Fig. 10 (b) that there is no direct correlation between compressive
strength and the energy and compressive strength and emission. It can be
concluded that energy and associated emissions depend on the mixture
proportions of a specific mixture. This point can be illustrated when
comparing AAC mixtures of ultra-high-strength concrete. The combina-
tion of the activating solutions of these mixtures was the key point.
A. Alsalman et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047

5. Discussion and conclusions directly correlated with energy and emissions. Additionally, the results
show how selection of AAC mixtures needs to be carefully considered for
5.1. Findings and implications each grade of concrete in order to achieve positive environmental per-
formance relative to OPCC.
Across three different grades of concrete, the results demonstrate the
potential for AAC to act as a more environmentally friendly alternative to
5.2. Limitations and directions for future research
OPCC. Using energy and emission parameters of all the constituents from
the data available in the literature, the energy and emissions per cubic
While the results demonstrate the efficiency of AAC compared to
meter of concrete are estimated for four AAC mixtures and three com-
OPCC across three different grades of concrete, the energy and emissions
parable OPCC mixtures. Based on the results, AAC can offer advantages
of the concrete compounds were collected from the literature and not
over OPCC in terms of energy and CO2 emissions depending on the
directly calculated. Future studies might employee a lifecycle analysis
constituents included in the mixtures. While the effect of aggregates,
approach to confirm these findings. The results of energy and emissions
curing of concrete, and admixtures are minimal on the energy and CO2
of concrete (OPCC or AAC) may vary if different mixture proportions
emissions, the activating solution and base materials can significantly
were selected. This issue may also merit further investigation. Addi-
influence the energy and emission of AAC.
tionally, the present research does not include the energy and emissions
The alkaline activating solution is a significant contribution to the
associated with transportation. The evaluation of the energy and emis-
energy and emission of AAC. As an average, it is responsible for 73% and
sions of locally produced mixtures of OPCC and AAC, including the
72% of the total energy and emissions. As demonstrated by three of the
transportation parameters, should be considered in future work.
four AAC mixtures, sodium silicate is a major contributor to both energy
and emissions. By using an activating solution of sodium hydroxide and
silica fume (instead of sodium silicate), the AAC-I ultra-high-strength Declaration of competing interest
mixture results in superior efficiency compared to both OPC and AAC-II.
Additionally, the choice of base materials impacts both energy and The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
emissions of AAC mixtures. The high-strength AAC mixture assumes the interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
use of metakaolin as the base material, and as a result, does not perform the work reported in this paper.
as well as OPCC in terms of energy and emissions. However, if fly ash
were used instead of metakaolin, the AAC mixture would be more effi- Acknowledgment
cient than OPCC. Meanwhile, OPC is the major contributor to the energy
and emissions of OPCC, accounting for 80% and 91% of the energy and This research is supported by Tatum-Smith-Welcher structural Engi-
emissions, respectively. neers, The University of South Carolina at Columbia, and the University
This study also provides evidence that compressive strength is not of Arkansas at Fayetteville.

APPENDIX A

Table A 1
The energy of the 40 MPa

AAC OPCC

FA 0.011 OPC 2.084

GGBFS 0.051 Aggregates 0.143
Aggregates 0.154 Sum 2.227
Sodium hydroxide 0.378
Sodium silicate 0.614
Sum 1.209

Table A 2
The energy of the 60 MPa

AAC OPCC

MK 0.723 OPC 2.288

Aggregates 0.154 FA 0.002
Sodium hydroxide 0.496 Aggregates 0.138
Sodium silicate 1.283 Plasticizer 0.038
Sum 2.655 Sum 2.465

Table A 3
The energy of the 100 MPa

AAC- I AAC- II OPCC

FA 0.016 FA 0.006 OPC 1.033

SF 0.002 GGBFS 0.590 SF 0.002
Aggregates 0.132 SF 0.002 GGBFS 0.264
Admixtures 0.207 Aggregates 0.075 Aggregates 0.159
Sodium hydroxide 1.263 Sodium hydroxide 0.923 Admixtures 0.454
(continued on next column)

9
A. Alsalman et al. Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047

Table A 3 (continued )
AAC- I AAC- II OPCC

Curing 0.183 Sodium silicate 1.686 Sum 1.911

Heating solution 0.0058 Curing 0.1952
Sum 1.808 Sum 3.476

Table A 4
Emission of the 40 MPa

AAC - 40 MPa OPCC - 40 MPa

FA 0.011 OPC 0.386

GGBFS 0.051 Aggregates 0.008
Aggregates 0.154 Sum 0.395
Sodium hydroxide 0.378
Sodium silicate 0.614
Sum 1.209

Table A 5
Emission of the 60 MPa

AAC - 60 MPa OPCC - 60 MPa

MK 0.095 OPC 0.424

Aggregates 0.009 FA 0.00024
Sodium hydroxide 0.046 Aggregates 0.008
Sodium silicate 0108 Plasticizer 0.002
Sum 0.259 Sum 0.435

Table A 6
Emission of the 100 MPa

AAC- I AAC- II OPCC

FA 0.002 FA 0.001 OPC 0.192

SF 0.001 GGBFS 0.036 SF 0.001
Aggregates 0.008 SF 0.001 GGBFS 0.016
Admixtures 0.013 Aggregates 0.004 Aggregates 0.009
Sodium hydroxide 0.118 Sodium hydroxide 0.086 Admixtures 0.029
Curing 0.03173 Sodium silicate 0.149 Sum 0.247
Heating solution 0.0011 Curing 0.036
Sum 0.174 Sum 0.313

References European Federation of Concrete, 2015. Concrete Admixtures – Plasticisers and

Superplasticisers. Admixtures Associations Ltd. (EFCA) Admixtures Associations Ltd.
(EFCA).
ACI 211.1, 1991. Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight,
Fawer, M., Concannon, M., Rieber, W., 1999. Life cycle inventories for the production of
and Mass Concrete: (ACI 211.1-91. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
sodium silicates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 207.
ACI 363, 2011. Guide to Quality Control and Assurance of High-Strength Concrete.
Flower, D.J.M., Sanjayan, J.G., 2007. Green house gas emissions due to concrete
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 282. https://doi.org/10.1065/
Ahmed, M.F., Nuruddin, M.F., Shafiq, N., 2011. Compressive strength and workability
lca2007.05.327.
characteristics of low-calcium fly ash-based self-compacting geopolymer concrete.
Gartner, E., 2011. Are there any practical alternatives to the manufacture of Portland
Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 5, 64–70.
cement clinker? J. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 40 (1) (Lafarge Central Research, France).
Assi, L., Carter, K., Deaver, E., Eddie), Anay, R., Ziehl, P., 2018. Sustainable concrete:
Gartner, E., 2004. Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cement and
building a greener future. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 1641–1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Concrete Research, H. F. W. Taylor Commemorative Issue 34, 1489–1498. https://
j.jclepro.2018.07.123.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.021.
Assi, L., Ghahari, S., Deaver, E., Eddie), Leaphart, D., Ziehl, P., 2016a. Improvement of the
Gunasekara, C., Law, D.W., Setunge, S., 2016. Long Term Engineering Properties of Fly
early and final compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete at ambient
Ash Geopolymer Concrete.
conditions. Construct. Build. Mater. 123, 806–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Habert, G., Lacaillerie, J., Lanta, E., Roussel, N., 2010. Environmental evaluation for
j.conbuildmat.2016.07.069.
cement substitution with geopolymers. In: Second International Conference on
Assi, L.N., Carter, K., Deaver, E., Ziehl, P., 2020. Review of availability of source materials
Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies. Ancona, Italy, p. 9.
for geopolymer/sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 263, 121477. https://doi.org/
Hadi, M.N.S., Farhan, N.A., Sheikh, M.N., 2017. Design of geopolymer concrete with
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121477.
GGBFS at ambient curing condition using Taguchi method. Construct. Build. Mater.
Assi, L.N., Deaver, E., Eddie), ElBatanouny, M.K., Ziehl, P., 2016b. Investigation of early
140, 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.131.
compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater.
Hammond, G., Jones, C., Lowrie, F., Tse, P., 2011. Building Services Research and
112, 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.008.
Information Association. University of Bath. Embodied carbon: the Inventory of
Davidovits, J., 2015. False Values on CO2 Emission for Geopolymer Cement/concrete
Carbon and Energy (ICE). BSRIA, Bracknell.
Published in Scientific Papers. Technical paper 24, 1–9.
Hammond, G.P., Jones, C.I., 2008. Embodied energy and carbon in construction
Davidovits, J., 1994. Properties of geopolymer cements. In: Properties of Geopolymer
materials. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 161, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1680/
Cements. Presented at the Alkaline Cements and Concretes, KIEV, Ukraine, p. 19.
ener.2008.161.2.87.
Deb, P., 2012. Durability of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Curtin University.
Hardjito, D., Rangan, B.V., 2005. Development and Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-
Duxson, P., Fern andez-Jim enez, A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Palomo, A., van
Based Geopolymer Concrete (research report Faculty of Engineering Curtin
Deventer, J.S.J., 2007a. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J. Mater.
University of TechnologyPerth, Australia).
Sci. 42, 2917–2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z.
Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D.M.J., Rangan, B.V., 2004. On the development of
Duxson, Peter, Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., van Deventer, J.S.J., 2007b. The role of inorganic
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. M O 101, 467–472. https://doi.org/10.14359/
polymer technology in the development of ‘green concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 37,
13485.
1590–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018.

10
A. Alsalman et al.
Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., Lin, E., 2012. Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emission-
reduction technologies for cement and concrete production: a technical review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 6220–6238. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2012.07.019.
Heath, A., Paine, K., McManus, M., 2014. Minimising the global warming potential of clay
based geopolymers. J. Clean. Prod. 78, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.04.046.
Hills, T., Florin, N., Fennell, P.S., 2016. Decarbonising the cement sector: a bottom-up
model for optimising carbon capture application in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 139,
1351–1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.129.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement
manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, Present and Anticipated Demands for Natural
Resources: Scientific, Technological, Political, Economic and Ethical Approaches for
Sustainable Management 17, 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2008.04.007.
Jones, R., McCarthy, M., Newlands, M., 2011. Fly ash route to low embodied CO2 and
implications for concrete construction. In: World of Coal Ash Conference, Denver,
Colorado, USA.
Kareem, R.S., Dang, C.N., Hale, W.M., 2021. Flexural behavior of concrete beams cast
with high-performance materials. J. Build Eng. 34, 101912. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101912.
Kong, D.L.Y., Sanjayan, J.G., 2010. Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer paste,
mortar and concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 40, 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2009.10.017.
Kumar, P., Pankar, C., Manish, D., Santhi, A.S., 2018. Study of mechanical and
microstructural properties of geopolymer concrete with GGBS and Metakaolin.
Mater. Today: Proceedings 5, 28127–28135.
Kusbiantoro, A., Nuruddin, M.F., Shafiq, N., Qazi, S.A., 2012. The effect of microwave
incinerated rice husk ash on the compressive and bond strength of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 36, 695–703.
Li, C., Gong, X.Z., Cui, S.P., Wang, Z.H., Zheng, Y., Chi, B.C., 2011. CO2 Emissions Due to
Cement Manufacture [WWW Document]. Materials Science Forum. https://doi.org
/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.685.181.
Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Shi, C., Zhu, D., Li, N., Deng, Y., 2020. Development of ultra-high
performance geopolymer concrete (UHPGC): influence of steel fiber on mechanical
properties. Cement Concr. Compos. 112, 103670. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2020.103670.
Maji, I.K., Adamu, S., 2021. The impact of renewable energy consumption on sectoral
environmental quality in Nigeria. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2, 100009. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100009.
Marceau, M., Nisbet, M.A., Van Geem, M.G., 2006. Life Cycle Inventory of Portland
Cement Manufacture. Portland Cement Association Skokie, IL.
McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement.
J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010.
Mehta, P.K., Monteiro, P.J.M., 2006. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials,
third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2017. Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured
blended low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 130,
22–31.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2015. Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength properties
of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature. Cement
Concr. Compos. 55, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.08.008.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2014. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Construct.
Build. Mater. 66, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080.
Nazari, A., Sanjayan, J.G., 2015. Synthesis of geopolymer from industrial wastes. J. Clean.
Prod. 99, 297–304.
Nisbet, M.A., VanGeem, M.G., Gajda, J., Marceau, M., 2000. Environmental life cycle
inventory of portland cement concrete. PCA R&D Serial (2137a).
Nuruddin, M.F., Qazi, S.A., Kusbiantoro, A., Shafiq, N., 2011. Utilisation of waste material
in geopolymeric concrete. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Construction Materials 164, 315–327.
Office of Energy Efficiency, 2001. Energy consumption benchmark guide. Cement Clinker
Production.
Okoye, F.N., Durgaprasad, J., Singh, N.B., 2015. Fly ash/Kaolin based geopolymer green
concretes and their mechanical properties. Data in brief 5, 739–744.
Olivia, M., Nikraz, H., 2012. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
Taguchi method, 1980-2015 Mater. Des. 36, 191–198.
11
Cleaner Environmental Systems 3 (2021) 100047
Ozbakkaloglu, T., 2013. Behavior of square and rectangular ultra high-strength concrete-
filled FRP tubes under axial compression. Compos. B Eng. 54, 97–111. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.007.
Palomo, A., Grutzeck, M.W., Blanco, M.T., 1999. Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for
the future. Cement Concr. Res. 29, 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-
8846(98)00243-9.
Parthiban, K., Mohan, K.S.R., 2017. Influence of recycled concrete aggregates on the
engineering and durability properties of alkali activated slag concrete. Construct.
Build. Mater. 133, 65–72.
Peng, J.X., Huang, L., Zhao, Y.B., Chen, P., Zeng, L., Zheng, W., 2013. Modeling of Carbon
Dioxide Measurement on Cement Plants [WWW Document]. Advanced Materials
Research. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.610-613.2120.
Pouhet, R., Cyr, M., 2016. Formulation and performance of flash metakaolin geopolymer
concretes. Construct. Build. Mater. 120, 150–160.
Salas, D.A., Ramirez, A.D., Ulloa, N., Baykara, H., Boero, A.J., 2018. Life cycle assessment
of geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 190, 170–177. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123.
 Andrade, C., Mora, P., Zaragoza, A., 2020. Carbon dioxide uptake by
Sanjuan, M.A.,
cement-based materials: a Spanish case study. Appl. Sci. 10, 339.
Sarker, P.K., Haque, R., Ramgolam, K.V., 2013. Fracture behaviour of heat cured fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Mater. Des. 44, 580–586.
Shi, X.S., Collins, F.G., Zhao, X.L., Wang, Q.Y., 2012. Mechanical properties and
microstructure analysis of fly ash geopolymeric recycled concrete. J. Hazard Mater.
237, 20–29.
Singh, B., Ishwarya, G., Gupta, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., 2015. Geopolymer concrete: a
review of some recent developments. Construct. Build. Mater. 85, 78–90. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036.
Stengel, T., Heinz, D., Reger, J., 2009. Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete–what
is the environmental benefit. In: Proceeding of the 24th Biennial Conference of the
Concrete Institute of Australia, pp. 54–62.
Sujatha, T., Kannapiran, K., Nagan, S., 2012. Strength Assessment of Heat Cured
Geopolymer Concrete Slender Column, vol. 13, pp. 635–646.
Sumajouw, M., Rangan, B.V., 2006. Low-calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete:
Reinforced Beams and Columns.
Teh, S.H., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.03.122.
Tempest, B., Sanusi, O., Gergely, J., Ogunro, V., Weggel, D., 2009. Compressive strength
and embodied energy optimization of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. In: World
of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, pp. 1–17.
The Concrete Centre, 2009. The concrete industry sustainability performance 1st report.
Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB.
Thwe, E., Khatiwada, D., Gasparatos, A., 2021. Life cycle assessment of a cement plant in
Naypyitaw, Myanmar. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2, 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cesys.2020.100007.
Turner, L.K., Collins, F.G., 2013. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a
comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construct. Build. Mater.
43, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023.
van Deventer, J.S.J., Provis, J.L., Duxson, P., Brice, D.G., 2010. Chemical research and
climate change as drivers in the commercial adoption of alkali activated materials.
Waste Biomass Valor 1, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-010-9015-9.
Vincent, T., Ozbakkaloglu, T., 2013. Influence of concrete strength and confinement
method on axial compressive behavior of FRP confined high- and ultra high-strength
concrete. Compos. B Eng. 50, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2013.02.017.
Vora, P.R., Dave, U.V., 2013. Parametric studies on compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete. Procedia Engineering 51, 210–219.
Witherspoon, R., n.d. Energy and emissions analysis of fly ash based geopolymers
(Engineering Collection) - Informit, in: SSEE 2009: Solutions for a Sustainable Planet.
p. 3.
Wu, M., Zhang, Y., Ji, Y., Liu, G., Liu, C., She, W., Sun, W., 2018. Reducing environmental
impacts and carbon emissions: study of effects of superfine cement particles on
blended cement containing high volume mineral admixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 196,
358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.079.
Xie, T., Ozbakkaloglu, T., 2015. Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based
geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Ceram. Int. 41, 5945–5958.
Yang, K.-H., Song, J.-K., Song, K.-I., 2013. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated
concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.08.001.