Journal Pre-proof

Sustainable criterion selection framework for green building

materials – An optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer
concrete

Malindu Sandanayake, Chamila Gunasekara, David Law, Guomin

Zhang, Sujeeva Setunge, Dennis Wanijuru

PII: S2214-9937(19)30031-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2020.e00178
Reference: SUSMAT 178

To appear in: Sustainable Materials and Technologies

Received date: 7 February 2019

Revised date: 28 February 2020
Accepted date: 12 May 2020

Please cite this article as: M. Sandanayake, C. Gunasekara, D. Law, et al., Sustainable
criterion selection framework for green building materials – An optimisation based study
of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete, Sustainable Materials and Technologies (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2020.e00178

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Sustainable criterion selection framework for green building materials – An

optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete
Malindu Sandanayake a*, Chamila Gunasekara b , David Lawb , Guomin Zhang b , Sujeeva Setunge b , Dennis
Wanijuru a

a School of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC 3011, Australia
b School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia

*Corresponding author, email: kevin.zhang@rmit.edu.au, tel: +613 99253824

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

1
 Journal Pre-proof

Sustainable criterion selection framework for green building materials – An

optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete

ABSTRACT
Green materials are considered as one of the prominent elements in designing an environmentally sustainable
construction project. Studies have highlighted cement replacement is a popular method of reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and replacing virgin materials in concrete. These options incur cost implications through
sophisticated designs and technologies. The importance of maintaining a balance between environmental and
economic benefits of a green design is critical for the decision making stakeho lders in a construction project.
However, designers often lack the resources and tools to initiate informed decision making for the optimu m
selection of a green material. In order to systemize the optimising process, the current study suggests a multi-
objective optimisation based decision making framework for optimising the cement replacement materials in
concrete. The study aims to present a sustainable criterion optimisation framework that could well be adopted to

f
assess the sustainability of green materials in concrete production. A case study using fly ash geopolymer concrete

oo
in Melbourne demonstrated a reduction of 3.63% to 41.57% and 23.80% to 30.25% can be achieved for GHG
emissions and production cost respectively if the developed optimisation based framework is implemented. The
scenario results highlighted around 3% to 8% GHG and cost increase if material is not available locally. A similar
pr
approach can be utilised to optimise the environmental and cost savings of other cement replacement materials.
Further studies are encouraged on comparing environmental and cost savings of other cement replacement
materials using the developed framework. The framework will be valuable for designers in making decisions on
e-
sustainable cement replacement materials.
Pr

Keywords: Greenhouse gas emissions, fly ash, Cost, Concrete, Construction, Geopolymer
al

1. Introduction
rn

Material embodied emissions are considered as one of the major contributors of emissions and
u

energy in a building [1]. Concrete is undoubtedly the most frequently used material in building
Jo

construction with reports stating an annual production of over ten billion tons of concrete in the USA

[2, 3]. With the associated emissions and contribution towards natural resources depletion, concrete

production has become one of the major environmental concerns in the building industry. In the recent

past both the industry and the research communities have made attempts to explore new strategies to

develop environmentally friendly and cost-effective concrete. Increasing the strength of the concrete,

replacement of virgin materials in concrete mix design and use of waste materials in concrete are some

of the strategies adopted to produce green concrete.

2
 Journal Pre-proof

Initially, simply using a waste or environmentally friendly material was considered as green with

research extending towards finding more such materials [4]. However, with the introduction of

sustainable guidelines and advancements in Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), the sustainable criterion

for materials has become more rigorous [5-10]. Factors such as local availability, life cycle behaviour,

transportation distance and life cycle costs have been considered in previous studies to evaluate the

sustainability of alternate building materials [11]. Therefore, selecting the most suitable green

construction material is a daunting challenge that needs further research and investigation.

Today, cement replacement has become a popular technique for achieving sustainable concrete and

f
oo
numerous research studies have investigated a range of cement replacement materials for concrete [12,

13]. Shafigh et al. [14] produced concrete containing 50% fly ash and observed compressive strength
pr
of 22.1 MPa and 41.5 MPa at 7 and 90 days. Kumar et al. [15] also developed concrete containing 50%
e-
fly ash and reported that compressive strength varied between 20-55 MPa at a water/cement (w/c) ratio

of 0.4 and 32-80 MPa at a w/c ratio of 0.3, over a 7 to 365 days period. Arel and Aydin [16] examined
Pr

the effects of high proportions of fly ash in cement-paste composites and concluded that composites

with 75% replacement of cement by fly ash are potentially suitable for low-strength applications. Most
al

of these studies have concentrated on achieving the required strength and other long-term characteristics
rn

while investigating environmental and green considerations in the later stages [17-20]. This is further
u

illustrated in previous studies where certain mix designs produce higher greenhouse gas (GHG)
Jo

emissions than normal Portland Cement (PC) concrete [21]. Therefore, it is important to obtain a green

mix design that compliments both the environmental and material properties of concrete. Moreover,

with the availability of a number of materials at different locations, a more sustainable option would be

to consider an optimum mix design by blending the various available green materials. This would also

enable local availability considerations, transportation distances and other life cycle considerations

when selecting the optimum mix design.

However, so far a systematic evaluation framework has not been developed to evaluate the

sustainable criterion of cement replacement materials by developing a blended mix. Thus, the first stage

of the study aims to review the current research output to understand the most commonly investigated

3
 Journal Pre-proof

and utilised green materials in the industry. The initial stage will also consider the development of a

step-wise procedural framework for benchmarking the sustainable criterion of a green material. The

second stage of the study will focus on validating the framework using a practical case study. The results

of the study are expected to inform the various stakeholders of the importance of considering different

criteria in selecting a green building material.

2. Research significance and focus

To date, many research studies have focused on developing a sustainable geopolymer concrete mix

design using industrial waste material obtained from a single source. However, these studies have not

f
oo
focused on optimising cost and environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of material at the

mix optimisation stage. Moreover, the optimisation is dependent on local availability, transportation
pr
modes and distances. For instance, if fly ash is available in multiple locations, the most sustainable
e-
option may be to use a mixture of different fly ashes in the mix designs to optimise cost and

environmental impacts, rather than a single ash. Thus, the current study aims to develop a framework
Pr

that can optimise geopolymer mix proportions incorporating cost and environmental impacts of fly ash

obtained from different sources.

al
rn

3. Literature review

A network assessment of previous studies is the key to understand the main research focus in green
u

building materials. Therefore, using VOS viewer the keywords related to “green building materials” are
Jo

categorised using 2500 entries from 2004 to 2018. The resulting categorisation is shown in Figure 1.

According to the figure it is evident that fly ash geopolymer and alkali activated slag are the two major

green material types that have been studied utilizing green building materials. Most of these studies

have used one type of cement replacement material to investigate the strength and durability

characteristics. However, recent studies have emphasized that the green/sustainable criterion depends

on several factors such as local availability, transportation distance, and process efficiency [21].

Therefore, there is a necessity to investigate the incorporating these constraints in optimising green mix

designs.

4
 Journal Pre-proof

Geopolymer concrete can be produced from a range of source materials that are rich in silica and

alumina, such as metakaolin, blast furnace slag, natural pozzolans, high calcium fly ash, low calcium

fly ash and bottom ash [19, 22-28]. In the geopolymeric reaction, silica and alumina oxides contained

in fly ash react under highly alkaline conditions, typically provided by sodium based hydroxide and

silicate solution, and produce an amorphous three dimensional network of silicon and aluminium atoms

linked by oxygen atoms in a four-fold coordination. The presence of sodium cations is important due to

charge balancing and catalytic properties. The main outcome of the geopolymeric reaction is thus

sodium-aluminosilicate gel, which governs the mechanical properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete

f
over the long term. A major challenge faced by the construction industry in adopting fly ash geopolymer

oo
concrete is the variability of fly ash from different sources and the effect this can have on the range of

material properties produced.

pr
e-
On the other hand, in alkali activated slag concrete, calcium silicate hydrates gel is the main product,

which is similar to the primary binding phase of Portland cement and blended cement concretes [29].
Pr

Bernal et al. [30] showed that the binder content of the concrete has a particularly strong effect on the

long term properties of alkali activated slag concrete. Furthermore, the concrete has lower absorption
al

characteristics due to the presence of a very refined, tortuous and closed porosity in the pore matrix
rn

[31], which in turn influences the long term durability. Recycled aggregates, crushed residue from old
u

concrete structures, can be used as an alternative to natural quarry aggregate in concrete. The effects of
Jo

recycled aggregates on alkali activated slag concrete is expected to differ from those of Portland cement

concrete. The unhydrated cement portions in recycled aggregate may stimulate the hydration of alkali

activated slag concrete and densify the interface microstructures. In contrast, the concentration of alkali

activator in the alkali activated slag concrete can also become diluted due to the water absorbed in the

recycled aggregates, resulting in a decrease in the degree of hydration. At higher recycled aggregate

content, an increase in the fines with reduced liquid content to complete the hydration reaction leads to

reduction in slump values resulting in strength reduction [32].

Due to the environmental benefits provided these concretes have been labelled as a “sustainable

material”. In several studies sustainability is defined as efficient usage of a product process without

5
 Journal Pre-proof

compromising the future use [33-35]. Known as the triple bottom line approach, sustainability of a

product or process aims to achieve economic, environmental and social benefits. This triple bottom line

of sustainability should be investigated from a life cycle perspective. However, in doing so, certain life

cycle stages may be neglected based on the consideration of the overall aspects of the projects. For

instance, life cycle economic benefits of a building design may be considerable for an expensive

construction design. While acknowledging the importance of analysing the life cycle impacts, for

materials often the operation and end-of-life performances are considered similar and hence

sustainability aspects in the design and construction stage becomes the governing factor in

f
green/sustainable material selection [36].

oo
In addition to this, several studies have attempted to develop tools and frameworks to estimate
pr
emissions and environmental impacts at the building construction stage [37-42]. These tools estimate
e-
project level emissions or activity level emissions associated with the construction stage of the project.

However, despite considering the materials emissions and impacts these tools lack the capacity to
Pr

conduct an in-depth analysis of material emissions. Moreover, none of these tools consider the cost

component which is a direct concern for industry stakeholders who are keen on maintaining a balance
al

between environmental and cost savings. Therefore, proper optimisation between economic and
rn

environmental savings is required prior classification of concrete as “sustainable”. For instance, if the
u

cost of construction and procurement of a certain green material is high, it may persuade the contractors
Jo

to overlook that material as a result of budget constraints. In addition, these materials may incur indirect

environmental emissions and impacts which may hamper the environmental benefits if life cycle effects

are considered. Therefore, extensive analysis is required prior to selection or categorisation of a material

as a sustainable or green material in building construction. Often this decision is governed by case study

specific constraints and limitations which need further investigation in the pre-design stage prior

material selection. Thus, the best approach is to conduct an optimisation between the environmental and

cost aspects to find the optimal solution for selection of sustainable/green material for construction.

6
 Journal Pre-proof

o f
r o
- p
r e
l P
n a
u r
J o

Figure 1 Network diagram of main research areas in green materials (occurrence using keywords)

7
 Journal Pre-proof

Thus, the initial stage of the study aims to analyse the critical factors that contribute to the sustainable

selection criterion for cement replacement and develop a selection framework. The later stage of the

study aims to develop a multi-objective optimisation algorithm to minimise the construction cost and

environmental impacts of fly-ash based geo polymer concrete while considering the project specific

constraints. Based on the optimisation study the optimised mix designs are further investigated for

strength characteristics prior to exploring the practical implementations. The practical consideration of

local availability of materials is further investigated using a scenario analysis. The results of the study

can provide insights for the optimal mix for sustainable material selection in building construction.

f
oo
4. Framework development for sustainability criteria evaluation of materials

According to a recent study, sustainable development is achieved through integration, community

pr
involvement, precautionary behaviour, equity within and between generations and continual
e-
improvement [43]. The study further defines sustainable construction as achieving project success and
Pr

performance with the least environmental impact while facilitating global, national and local social and

economic improvement. This concept of balancing economic, environmental and social impacts for a
al

product is highlighted in a number of previous sustainable studies [44-46]. One study identified the

criteria for selection of sustainable materials in terms of mechanical properties, economic properties and
rn

environmental properties [47]. The mechanical properties include both long term and short term
u

properties while economic properties involved purchase cost, process cost and transportation cost.
Jo

Environmental properties include pollution, resource usage, energy consumption and recyclability.

However, each construction project is unique and depends on factors such as project objectives and

priorities, project restrictions and constraints. Therefore, prioritizing and selecting the most significant

environmental and economic indicators is a decision to be made by the major stakeholders associated

with a specific project. The majority of the studies used multi-criteria decision making models to

evaluate sustainable materials used in construction projects [48-50]. In those studies life cycle

environmental and cost aspects were given priority in terms of sustainability evaluation. However, these

studies were unable to provide a quantitative comparison on the environmental and cost savings of green

materials. Moreover, designers and contractors seek a tool that can provide optimised decisions for

8
 Journal Pre-proof

green material design mixes with minimum environmental and cost implications. Thus, the current study

suggests a novel selection framework, as shown in Figure 2, to select a blended mix design with

optimised environmental and economic criteria. The first step of the framework is to select the materials

that can be blended to develop the composite mix design. This selection can be a single material obtained

from different locations or different materials obtained from one location or various locations. The

optimisation framework is based on multi-objective genetic algorithms. The objective functions and the

constraints will be developed based on the decisions of selecting materials, mix designs, environmental

and economic indicators.

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

9
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 1
Economic and Environmental indictors of Green criteria for different concrete types

Green material References

criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total

Cost indicators
Construction cost x x x x x 5
Transportation cost
Procurement cost x
x x x
x
o f 3
2
Replacement cost x

r o x 2
Environmental indicators
Energy x x x x x
- p x x x 8
Local availability x

r e x 2
Reusability/ x

P x x 3

al
Recyclability
Waste reduction x x x x x x x 7
GHG emissions x x x x x

r n x x x x x x x x x x 15
Type of material
Cement replacement x x x

o x
u x x x x x 9
Self-consolidating
Other including waste
Reference/s [21] [51] [52]
J
[53] [54]
x
[55]
x

[56] [57]
x

[58] [59] [60] [61]

x
x

[62]
x

[44]
x
[63]
x

[64]
x

[65]
x

[66]
x
[67]
x
[68]
7
5
20

10
 Journal Pre-proof

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn

Figure 2 Optimised blended green mix design selection procedure

Jo

5. Multi-objective optimisation methodology

The current study considers the multi-objective optimisation of sustainable material selection. Thus,

the following decision variables, objective function, constraints and the optimisation technique are

defined.

5.1 Optimisation technique and methodology

There are two general approaches to multi-objective optimisation. The first one is to combine the

two objective functions into one using methods such as weighted sum approach and utility theory, etc.

[69]. However, the accuracy of the function depends on the decision maker’s preferences and cannot be

11
 Journal Pre-proof

considered as a generic approach. The second approach is to obtain a Pareto optimal set of solutions

from the subset of outputs. This approach is considered feasible in real-world applications because the

decision maker’s preferences are considered only when the optimised set of solutions are obtained.

Genetic algorithm (GA) is a well-known multi objective optimisation method that can generate a set

of potential solutions through the first solution generated [70]. Since GA is predominantly a population

approach, it is well-suited in multi objective optimisation functions. GA is a population based stochastic

global optimisation technique originated from natural selection and combination in biological

applications [71]. Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) is used in the current study since it is

f
oo
simple extension of a single objective GA. Despite the slow convergence, MOGA is effective in case

of objective functions with limited constraints and variables [72, 73]. In addition, the following project
pr
specific characteristics led to the selection of optimisation technique.
e-
 The context defined in the current study is a multi-objective optimisation problem because it aims
Pr

to find the optimum mix design quantities of fly-ash in geopolymer concrete by minimising

construction cost and greenhouse gas emissions. These two objectives are distinct and hard to
al

model in one algorithm

rn

 In practical circumstances the decision makers are considering a group of solutions that they can

select from. In the current scenario such a set of solutions is necessary to further investigate the
u

strength and durability characteristics of the optimised mixed designs to finalise the preferred mix
Jo

design. In multi-objective optimisation this is called as the Pareto-optimal solutions which is non-

dominant over the other solutions in the decision space.

 The optimisation problems include both continuous and discrete variables which complicate

single optimisation.

Hence MOGA will be used to achieve the first objective of finding the best set of solutions close to

the Pareto-optimal solutions to assist the designers to find the cost-effective green material mix design

for fly-ash concrete.

12
 Journal Pre-proof

6. Case Study - Local

6.1 Design Variables

In this study, the major objective was to develop a sustainable criterion selection framework for

sustainable materials, specifically in concrete. Based upon the network assessment the use of fly ash as

the binder for geopolymer concrete was selected [18]. Therefore, the case study focuses on finding the

optimised mix design for fly ash geopolymer concrete (FAGP) concrete using four different fly ash

types available in Australia. Based on the indicators identified in Table 1 the following variables are

selected to incorporate the criterion for green material selection of FAGP concrete.

f
oo
 Transportation distance for raw materials – transportation distance include sea transportation

and road transportation. Sea transportation is used as the major transportation mode to transport
pr
fly ash from different states. This is because previous studies have concluded sea transportation
e-
to be the most cost and emission effective mode of transportation [21]. Road transportation
Pr

considers the transportation of fly ash from plant to port and port to concrete batching plant.

 Availability of fly ash (FA) – Fly ash is not available in all the states/cities in Australia. Hence,
al

the fly ash needs to be transported for concrete production. Therefore, availability of fly ash is

considered as design variable.

rn

 Quantity of sustainable material (fly ash) – The objective of the study is to obtain the optimum
u

mix design which considers different fly ash quantities obtained from different locations in
Jo

Australia. Therefore, quantity of fly ash is considered as a design variable in the optimisation

function.

As per the suggested framework a suitable weighting criteria should be defined for the current case

study based on the project specific limitations. With the absence of a specific project equal importance

is assigned for all the design variables. Nevertheless, in a practical scenario, such weighting should be

defined by the decision makers based on the current regulations and standards applicable to the project.

The case study considers fly ash geopolymer concrete production for a construction project in

Melbourne based on available fly ash across Australia. The fly ashes were selected from four different

13
 Journal Pre-proof

power stations across Australia as shown in Table 2. The definition of local availability is the availability

of a resource within the boundary of the study scope. In this case, fly ash is not available in Melbourne,

and the power stations are considered as locally available materials as they are in the same country.

However, this definition of local availability can be adjusted as appropriate, ie within a certain distance.

Table 2
Details of fly ash availabilities in Australia

Type Power Station State Nearest Port Distance to nearest port

A Gladstone Queensland Port of Gladstone 4.5 km
B Port Augusta South Australia Port Augusta 3.2 km

f
C Collie Western Australia Bunbury port 56.8 km

oo
D Tarong Queensland Port of Brisbane 204 km

pr
While acknowledging the importance of considering life cycle impacts, it is important to investigate
e-
the sustainable selection with one type of material. For example, if sustainability of cement replacement

materials is considered, the maintenance and operation emissions and costs will not vary significantly.
Pr

Hence, the cradle to gate emissions and costs carries significant importance in evaluating sustainability.

Thus, the current study aims to optimise cost and environmental impacts to facilitate the sustainability
al

evaluation of green concrete by mixing different cement replacement materials.

rn

Moreover, it is noted that GHG emissions is the most influential environmental indicator while
u

production cost is the most important economic indicator in comparing green concrete. In this study, fly
Jo

ash is used as the sole source material for geopolymer production, thus, material production cost is the

governing economic indicator. Therefore, the current case study considers GHG emissions as the major

environmental indicator while material production cost is considered as the economic indicator.

Optimised mix designs shown in Table 3 are based on previous studies on fly ash geopolymer

concrete [21, 28, 74]. The chemical composition of the specific fly ash is tabulated in Table 4. Four

standard cylindrical specimens were tested for each data point and the mean value was reported. The

commercially available liquid Na 2 SiO3 (Grade D, Na 2 O=14.7% and SiO2 =29.4% by mass) and 15 molar

liquid NaOH were used as alkaline activator. The river sand used as fine aggregate (2600kg/m 3 of

14
 Journal Pre-proof

density) and the crushed granite aggregate used as coarse aggregate (2650kg/m3 of density, 10mm in

size).

A 60-litre concrete mixer was used to mix geopolymer concrete. In geopolymer concrete, the fly ash,

sand and coarse aggregates were mixed initially for 4 minutes. The activator, which was pre-mixed, and

water put to the dry mix and mixed another 8 minutes. The vibration table was used to vibrate all

concrete specimens until remove air bubbles. Then all specimens were first stored at room temperature

for 1 day and then kept in a dry oven for another day at 80°C temperature. After heat curing, the

geopolymer specimens were removed from the oven and left to cool to room temperature before

f
oo
demoulding. The compressive strength testing was performed at 28 days using MTS machine with a

loading rate of 20 MPa/min according to AS 1012.9 [75].

pr
Based upon the tests results the limits for the blended mix designs were set to 412 kg as the lower
e-
limit and 420 as the upper limit based on the fly ash quantities in Table 2.
Pr

Table 3
Optimised mix designs [21, 28, 74] and Compressive strength (M Pa)
al

Aggregates (kg) Activator (kg) Added 28-day

Fly ash
Geopolymer Na2 SiO3 NaOH water Compressive
(kg) Sand 7mm 10mm
rn

(kg) Strength (MPa)

(Liquid) (15 M)
Gladstone 416 699 309 618 292 65 8 48.70 ± 1.95
u

Pt.Augusta 416 699 309 618 292 65 8 42.90 ± 2.35

Jo

Collie 420 706 312 624 241 92 15 33.10 ± 0.95

Tarong 412 693 306 612 342 39 0 24.25 ± 1.20
Note: Mix designs are based on previous studies on geopolymer concrete [21, 28, 74]

Table 4
Chemical composition of the different fly ashes

By weight (%)
Fly ash Type
SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO K2 O TiO2 P2 O5 MgO Na2 O SO3 MnO
Gladstone 47.87 28.0 14.09 3.81 1.81 1.99 0.93 0.62 0.27 0.21 0.41
Pt.Augusta 49.37 31.25 4.47 4.80 1.65 2.94 1.28 2.21 0.24 0.04 1.30
Collie 52.67 29.60 11.27 0.94 0.65 1.83 1.13 0.72 0.10 0.48 0.21
Tarong 75.66 19.0 1.38 0.30 1.0 1.83 0 0.63 0.03 0.02 0.15

15
 Journal Pre-proof

6.2 Objective functions

The current study is an optimisation between several fly ash combinations and hence operation costs

and operation stage emissions can be considered similar. Therefore, based on the current scope of the

study the sustainable material selection is investigated through production cost (PC) and greenhouse gas

emissions E(GHG). If “µ” denotes the design variable vector, the objective functions to calculate PC and

E(GHG) are as follows:

Objective Function 1: Minimise, PC (µ) =  1 MPC (µ) +  2 TC (µ) +  3 EC (µ) ----------------------- (1)

f
Objective Function 2: Minimise, E (GHG) (µ) = ẞ1 MEE (µ) + ẞ2 TE (µ) ----------------------------------- (2)

oo
Where, MPC is material production cost in AU$, TC is transportation cost in AU$ and electricity
pr
cost in AU$. Where MEE is material embodied GHG emissions in kgCO 2 and TE is transportation GHG
e-
emissions in kgCO2 .  and ẞ are the weighting factors decided based on the priority of the variables in

the objective functions. These factors are case specific and should be determined on case by case. If no
Pr

priority is needed both  and ẞ are considered as 1. The variables in objective functions (1) and (2) are
al

represented in terms of the variables as follows:

rn

MEE =  EFm * Qmx +  EFy * Qy (1+ƛ y)+Ez ------------------------------------------------------------------ (3)

u

EFm corresponds to the emission factor of different cement replacement (fly ash) quantities used in
Jo

concrete respectively. For the current study Q mx corresponds to the quantity of xth fly ash type collected

from a power station in Australia in kg. EFy , Qy and ƛy corresponds to the emission factor, quantity and

the waste factor for the other raw materials such as aggregates and alkali activators etc. E z represents

emission due to heat curing energy consumption.

Equation (3) represents a cradle-to-gate process based life cycle assessment (LCA) model to estimate

the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction materials.

TE =  EFt * dt * Q(mx)t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (4)

16
 Journal Pre-proof

EFt is the emission factor for the transportation mode “t” and dt is the transportation distance for fly ash

using the t transport mode and Q (mx)t is the amount of xth cement replacement material transported using

“t” transportation mode.

MPC (µ) =  Qmx * Cfa +  Qy * Cy +  Qz * Cz -------------------------------------------------------------- (5)

Cfa is the unit cost of fly ash processing, Q y and Qz are quantities of yth aggregate and zth alkali activator

respectively in kgs and Cy and Cz are the unit costs of yth aggregate and zth alkali activator respectively

AU$/kg.

f
oo
TC (µ) =  Ctx * dmx * Qmx --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (6)

pr
Ctx, dmx and Qmx are the unit transportation cost in AU$/km/kg and distance transported in km for xth

flyash type.
e-
EC (µ) =  Qmx * ECx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (7)
Pr

ECx is the unit electricity cost for the for xth flyash type.
al

6.3 Constraints
rn

In a typical construction optimisation problem, both discrete and continuous variables are prevalent
u

due to practical limitations. For instance, fly-ash types for the current analysis should be taken as
Jo

Gladstone, Pt Augusta, Collie and Tarong and are based on the availability of raw materials. Therefore,

the following constraints are defined for the optimisation algorithm;

 The sum of quantities of fly ash quantities used in the objective function is within the range initiated
through initial experiments (412 < Q m1 + Qm2 + Qm3 + Qm4 (= Qmx ) < 420)
 Since the total binder quantity (i.e. total fly ash) is not changing, the quantities of alkali activators
are unchanged
 Transportation distance for each fly-ash type is a discrete value
 Transportation cost is a function of the distance travelled and weight of the fly ash quantities
transported. Each fly-ash demonstrate a different unit transportation cost due to state and other
requirements

17
 Journal Pre-proof

7. Optimisation results and discussion

The 100 outputs of Pareto front obtained from optimisation algorithm for three different simulations

using MOGA are shown in Figure 3. In a practical scenario, it is hard to attain a global optimised Pareto

solution and the closest convergence created from the output points can be regarded as representing the

optimised solutions for different weightings of the production costs and GHG emissions. The three

simulations converged to fifteen optimal Pareto solutions pertaining to three regions. Zone 1 in the

figure corresponds to the optimum blended mix design outputs with low GHG emissions and high

production costs. Zone 2 corresponds to the optimum outputs with low GHG emissions and low

f
production costs while zone 3 corresponds to the optimum outputs with high GHG emissions and low

oo
production costs. Selection of the zone and the best outputs depends on the stakeholder priorities. For

pr
example, if the major project objective is to reduce production costs, an output from Zone 3 can be

selected while and output from Zone 1 can be selected if the primary objective is to minimise the GHG
e-
emissions. Since, the objective of the current study is to demonstrate the optimised combination of
Pr

production cost and GHG emissions, outputs from Zone 2 are selected which represents optimum

blended mix designs with both low GHG emissions and production costs. Based on the obtained Pareto
al

optimised front, five mix design outputs (marked in Figure 3) are selected for testing and analysis to
rn

investigate the strength characteristics. Error! Reference source not found.5 shows the mix designs

for the five optimised solutions selected, OPT1 – OPT5, the initial 100% fly-ash from each power plant,
u

N1 – N4, and the corresponding GHG emissions and construction cost. The PC and GHGE values in
Jo

Figure 3 corresponds to 1m3 of concrete production. The results show that sustainable optimisation of

the mix design leads to 23.8 to 30.25% of cost savings and 3.63 to 41.57% of GHG emission savings.

For a typical mega construction project (Assuming 20,000 m3 of concrete is used), this savings can be

substantial if a decision is made to use fly ash Geopolymer concrete.

18
 Journal Pre-proof

f
oo
pr
e-
Figure 3 Pareto set of solutions for FAGP concrete mix from the solution space
Pr

Table 5
Details of the selected optimised outputs for one m3 of concrete production

GHGE* PC* Different fly ash types

Index
al

in KgCO2 in AU$ Qm1 (Gladstone) Qm2 (Pt Augusta) Qm3 (Collie) Qm4 (Tarong)
N1 425.35 2,073.50 416 - - -
rn

N2 415.54 2,073.25 - 416 - -

N3 518.85 1,956.75 - - 420 -
u

N4 581.25 2,190.25 - - - 412

Jo

OPT1 410.45 1,681.50 100.70 222.72 50.82 41.97

OPT2 410.55 1,681.35 100.09 223.71 46.60 45.67
OPT3 410.75 1,681.20 100.75 222.35 60.04 33.08
OPT4 411.1 1,681.30 100.71 222.89 63.97 28.51
OPT5 411.7 1,680.80 100.43 222.53 56.83 37.00
*GHGE,CC – Greenhouse gas emissions, Construction cost

8. Verification through experimental program

The results obtained from the optimisation algorithm is only based on the environmental and

economic benefits of using fly ash based geopolymer concrete as compared to ordinary Portland cement

concrete. However, the suitability of the Pareto-optimal mix designs in terms of strength and other

19
 Journal Pre-proof

structural characteristics are crucial prior to deciding on the practical application of the optimal concrete

mix. The specific mix designs for the five optimised designs are given in Table 6.

Table 6
Selected Mix design details based on Pareto optimised front (kg/m3 )

Fly ash type (kg) Total Aggregates (kg) Activator (kg)

Added
binder
Index Qm1 Qm2 Qm3 Qm4 Na2 SiO3 NaOH water
content Sand 7 mm 10 mm
(Gladstone) (Pt Augusta) (Collie) (Tarong) (kg)
(kg) (Liquid) (15 M)
OPT1 100.70 222.72 50.82 41.97 416.21 699 309 618 292 65 8
OPT2 100.09 223.71 46.60 45.67 416.07 699 309 618 292 65 8
OPT3 100.75 222.35 60.04 33.08 416.22 699 309 618 292 65 8

f
OPT4 100.71 222.89 63.97 28.51 416.08 699 309 618 292 65 8

oo
OPT5 100.43 222.53 56.83 37.00 416.79 699 309 618 292 65 8

8.1 Experimental results pr

e-
The 28-day compressive strength of five optimised geopolymer concrete mixes noted in Table 5 is

compared with the 28-day compressive strengths of the original geopolymer mixes (Table 3). Figure 4
Pr

shows the compressive strength comparison between the blended mix designs and the normal four mix

designs (N1-N4). The OPT1and OPT2 geopolymer concrete mixes obtained the highest and lowest
al

compressive strength, 43.11 MPa and 36.26 MPa, respectively, whilst other three mixes, OPT3, OPT4
rn

and OPT5, gave compressive strengths of 36.67 MPa, 38.86 MPa and 39.70 MPa, respectively. It is
u

evident that all the optimised blended geopolymer concrete mixes exhibit higher compressive strengths
Jo

than the individual Collie and Tarong flay ash based geopolymer concretes. However, both Gladstone

and Pt.Augusta achieved a higher compressive strength than optimised geopolymer concrete mixes. As

shown in Figure 4, out of the five optimal mix designs considered, OPT1 exhibit the best results

achieving higher compressive strengths than normal mix designs N2, N3 and N4. None of optimised

mix designs could achieve the compressive strength of N1 (Gladstone fly ash). However, OPT1 mix

design with the use of 24.16% of Gladstone fly ash (100.70 kg) achieves 90% of the N1 compressive

strength. Therefore it can be observed that the optimum mix design (OPT1) can be regarded as a

sustainable mix design with maximum GHG emissions and cost savings. The long term durability

20
 Journal Pre-proof

characteristics and other long-term characteristics are not considered in the optimisation study. These

factors need to be further investigated before final implementation of the mix design.

50
28-day Compressive Strength (MPa)

40

Optimum Mixes
30

f
Gladstone (N1)

oo
Pt.Augusta (N2)
20 Collie (N3)
pr Tarong (N4)
e-
10
Pr

0
OPT1 OPT2 OPT3 OPT4 OPT5
al

Optimum blended mixes & Normal geopolymer mixes

Figure 4 28 day compressive strengths for optimum blended mixes and normal mix designs
rn

9. Case Study - International

u

9.1 Design Variables

Jo

A common issue in using fly ash as cement replacement material is the shutdown of local (national)

coal power plants [21]. Under these circumstances, fly ash may have to be imported from foreign plants.

Increased transportation distance and import costs may affect the Pareto-optimal solution. The second

case study considers material import from three foreign countries where fly ash is produced.

Scenario 1 considers fly-ash import from China whereas scenario 2 and 3 corresponds to importing

fly ash from India and the United States of America (USA). Error! Reference source not found.7

highlights the details of the three power stations used for the scenario analysis. The coal power stations

are selected randomly to demonstrate the objective of the analysis. This scenario analysis aims to assess

21
 Journal Pre-proof

the importance of the local availability of materials in selecting sustainable materials. However, it is

assumed that the mechanical properties of the three different types are same as that in Australia. The

shipping cost and shipping emissions are calculated based on the assumptions of considering one way

transportation and 20% of the ship is dedicated to fly ash transportation.

Table 7
Details of importing fly ash in different scenarios

Scenario Power Station Country Nearest Port/Distance Distance to port

(km)
SC1 Guodian Beilun Power Station China Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan 94
SC2 Vindhyachal Thermal Power Station India Visakhapatnam Port 1053

f
oo
SC3 Robert W Scherer Power Plant USA Georgia Port 334

Despite a comprehensive assessment and methodology design, the study is subjected to the following

constraints.
pr
e-
 It is assumed that Pareto-optimal solutions obtained from the optimisation algorithm do not change
Pr

for the scenario analysis. However, in reality, the algorithm should be re-run to obtain the most

feasible Pareto solutions. The objective of the current scenario analysis was to investigate the
al

variation of emissions and costs in Pareto-optimal solution as a result of material imported from a
rn

foreign country.

 The cost of material transportation did not consider bulk discounts, discounts between countries,
u

import tariffs and other promotions or special offers for bulk procurement of materials which
Jo

should be considered in the objective function or constraints.

9.2 Scenario analysis results

The results of the scenario analysis are shown in Table 8. These results are obtained and compared

with respect to the optimum design (OPT1) which displayed the highest strength characteristics.

According to the results it is evident that importing fly ash from foreign countries increases both cost

and GHG emissions.

22
 Journal Pre-proof

The results also signify importing fly ash from China is the most sustainable option for production

of geopolymer concrete in Melbourne with minimum costs and emissions implications. However, these

observations of emissions and costs increase are case specific and can depend on factors such as project

size, location and availability of materials. A project in the USA or China, would benefit in conducting

comparative studies as fly-ash is available in multiple locations within the country. Moreover, in

countries where power plants are not available, such an analysis would be vital in finding the best

material for green material designs. For instance In Europe or SE Asia, foreign power plants may be

closer to a project site than local (national) plants and thus could be used in green material designs with

f
low cost and GHG emissions.

oo
Table 8
Scenario analysis results for m3 concrete production

Original observations
pr
Scenario analysis results
e-
No GHG emissions Cost GHG emissions Cost % emission % cost
(kgCO2 ) (AU$) (kgCO2 ) (AU$) increase increase
Pr

OPT1 410.45 1,681.50 - - - -

SC1 - - 428.15 1745.85 4.31% 3.83%
SC2 - - 432.15 1752.60 5.26% 4.23%
al

SC3 - - 445.23 1815.40 8.47% 7.97%

rn

10. Conclusions and Further Research

u

Green materials have been considered as one of the pre-eminent options to achieve environmental
Jo

friendly building design. However, with elevated costs and availability issues these green materials are

subject to criticism for higher life cycle environmental impacts and construction costs. Therefore

designers and contractors in the construction industry are faced with the dilemma of delivering green

construction projects within the budget constraints. Cement replacement is predominantly considered

as a sustainable solution and research has focused on replacing cement with alternate materials.

However, these research studies have seldom considered the combined effect of cost implications and

environmental savings which is generally the remit of the designer. This study has been conducted to

address the issues of financial costs and GHG emissions with the development of a decision making

framework that enables designers and contractors to optimise the green material design in order to

23
 Journal Pre-proof

maximise both environmental and cost savings. Therefore, the current study comprehensively

elaborated the importance of developing a decision-making framework for selection of green materials

to improve sustainability. It also highlighted the importance of a collective experimental and analytical

assessment process prior to the decision making on the sustainability of green materials.

The results exemplified a reduction of 3.63 to 41.57% for GHG and 23.8 to 30.25% for cost as a

result of using optimisation. The best optimised blended mix design achieved 90% of the compressive

strengths of the control mix (N1), which displayed the highest strength. This outcome is achieved by

using only 24% of the fly ash used in control mix design; N1. Furthermore, the three scenario analysis

f
oo
results showed that for the case study there is around 3% to 8.5 % increase in cost and GHG emissions

for one m3 of concrete production, if fly ash is imported from other countries. These results signify the
pr
importance of considering the locality of the available materials in developing a green material mix
e-
design. However, the definition of local availability is not generic can be either the resource is available

in the region, in the same country or from a different country. Therefore, the suggested decision making
Pr

framework can be effectively used to compare local availability constraints in designing green materials.
al

Despite these issues, fly ash can still be considered as a waste material which can be a replacement
rn

for virgin cementitious materials and thus considered as a green material. The findings of the study

could lead to better green designs and sustainable practices in the construction industry. It can also
u

persuade the designers and contractors to design more green buildings with higher green points. The
Jo

current drawbacks of green/sustainability labelling of materials without considering the project specific

limitations needs to be updated with a more rigorous decision-making model for material selection.

Using a case study of different fly ash combinations the current study illustrated a systematic assessment

of sustainability criteria of various building materials. Based on the suggested framework different

objective functions can be defined based on various priorities for sustainable assessment of alternate

building materials. Further studies are encouraged on development of a knowledge-based framework to

enhance the sustainable decision making of material selection for building construction. Previous

studies have highlighted that alkali activators in geopolymer mix design majorly contribute to GHG

emissions and the current study confirms it is the same with the production cost [21]. Therefore, further

24
 Journal Pre-proof

experiments should be conducted to minimise the alkali activators content in the mix design. Further

analysis could also be carried out by incorporating life cycle stage emissions and energy consumption

in optimising the sustainable decision making of building construction. The current results also

exemplify the future need for a platform that can analyse sustainable criteria for alternate and composite

materials in building construction. The framework can be further upgraded by introducing a weighting

system that prioritize project specific economic/environmental indicators and hence achieve more

practically feasible green building materials.

References

f
oo
1. Sandanayake, M., G. Zhang, and S. Setunge, Environmental emissions at foundation construction stage of
buildings – Two case studies. Building and Environment, 2016. 95: p. 189-198.
2. Liu, Z., et al., Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in

3.
4.
China. Nature, 2015. 524(7565): p. 335.
pr
Le Quéré, C., et al., Global carbon budget 2014. Earth System Science Data, 2015. 7(1): p. 47-85.
Kibert, C.J., Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. 2016: John Wiley & Sons.
e-
5. Wu, P., et al., A decade review of the credits obtained by LEED v2. 2 certified green building projects.
Building and Environment, 2016. 102: p. 167-178.
6. Illankoon, I.C.S., et al., Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. Journal of
Pr

cleaner production, 2017. 164: p. 209-220.

7. Chau, C.K., et al., Environmental impacts of building materials and building services component s for
commercial buildings in Hong Kong. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007. 15(18): p. 1840-1851.
8. Luo, W., M. Sandanayake, and G. Zhang, Direct and indirect carbon emissions in foundation construction
– Two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 211: p.
al

1517-1526.
9. Sandanayake, M., G. Zhang, and S. Setunge, Estimation of environmental emissions and impacts of
building construction – A decision making tool for contractors. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019. 21:
rn

p. 173-185.
10. Sandanayake, M., W. Luo, and G. Zhang, Direct and indirect impact assessment in off-site construction—
u

A case study in China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019. 48: p. 101520.
11. Miller, D., J.-H. Doh, and M. Mulvey, Concrete slab comparison and embodied energy optimisation for
Jo

alternate design and construction techniques. Construction and Building Materials, 2015. 80: p. 329-338.
12. Gunasekera, C., et al., Performance of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete Incorporating Lime Water. ACI
Materials Journal, 2018. 115(2): p. 289-297.
13. Omrani, E., P.L. Menezes, and P.K. Rohatgi, State of the art on tribological behavior of polymer matrix
composites reinforced with natural fibers in the green materials world. Engineering Science and
Technology, an International Journal, 2016. 19(2): p. 717-736.
14. Shafigh, P., et al., Engineering properties of lightweight aggregate concrete containing limestone powder
and high volume fly ash. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016. 135: p. 148-157.
15. Kumar, B., G. Tike, and P. Nanda, Evaluation of properties of high-volume fly-ash concrete for pavements.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2007. 19(10): p. 906-911.
16. Arel, H.Ş. and E. Aydin, Use of Industrial and Agricultural Wastes in Construction Concrete. ACI
Materials Journal, 2018. 115(1): p. 55-64.
17. Wardhono, A., et al., Comparison of long term performance between alkali activated slag and fly ash
geopolymer concretes. Construction and Building materials, 2017. 143: p. 272-279.
18. Gunasekara, C., D.W. Law, and S. Setunge, Long term permeation properties of different fly ash
geopolymer concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 2016. 124: p. 352-362.
19. Gunasekara, C., S. Setunge, and D.W. Law, Long-term mechanical properties of different fly ash
geopolymers. ACI Structural Journal, 2017. 114(3): p. 743.
20. Khalid, N.R., et al., Carbonaceous-TiO2 nanomaterials for photocatalytic degradation of pollutants: A
review. Ceramics International, 2017. 43(17): p. 14552-14571.

25
 Journal Pre-proof

21. Sandanayake, M., et al., Greenhouse gas emissions of different fly ash based geopolymer concretes in
building construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 204: p. 399-408.
22. Wardhono, A., The Durability of Fly Ash Geopolymer and Alkali-Activated Slag Concretes, in School of
Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering . 2015, RMIT University: Melbourne, Australia. p. 1-326.
23. Pimraksa, K., et al., Lightweight geopolymer made of highly porous siliceous materials with various
Na2O/Al2O3 and SiO2/Al2O3 ratios. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2011. 528(21): p. 6616-6623 .
24. Bondar, D., et al., Engineering properties of alkali-activated natural pozzolan concrete. ACI Materials
Journal, 2011. 108(1): p. 64-72.
25. Sathonsaowaphak, A., P. Chindaprasirt, and K. Pimraksa, Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash
geopolymer mortar. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009. 168(1): p. 44-50.
26. Chindaprasirt, P., T. Chareerat, and V. Sirivivatnanon, Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly
ash geopolymer. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2007. 29(3): p. 224-229.
27. Wang, H., H. Li, and F. Yan, Synthesis and mechanical properties of metakaolinite-based geopolymer.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2005. 268(1-3): p. 1-6.
28. Gunasekera, C., S. Setunge, and D.W. Law, Correlations between Mechanical Properties of Low-Calcium
Fly Ash Geopolymer Concretes. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2017. 29(9): p. 04017111.
29. Sakulich, A.R., et al., Mechanical and microstructural characterization of an alkali-activated

f
slag/limestone fine aggregate concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 2009. 23(8): p. 2951-2957.

oo
30. Bernal, S.A., et al., Effect of binder content on the performance of alkali-activated slag concretes. Cement
and Concrete Research, 2011. 41(1): p. 1-8.
31. Collins, F. and J. Sanjayan, Effect of pore size distribution on drying shrinking of alkali -activated slag
concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 2000. 30(9): p. 1401-1406.
32.

33.
pr
Lee, N.K., S.Y. Abate, and H.-K. Kim, Use of recycled aggregates as internal curing agent for alkali-
activated slag system. Construction and Building Materials, 2018. 159: p. 286-296.
Ortiz, O., F. Castells, and G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent
e-
developments based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials, 2009. 23(1): p. 28-39.
34. Bob, C., T. Dencsak, and L. Bob. Sustainability of buildings. in Proceedings of the 4 th WSEAS
International Conference on Renewable Energy Sources (Res' 10). 2010.
Pr

35. Shen, L.Y., et al., A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. Journal of
civil engineering and management, 2007. 13(4): p. 273-281.
36. Kibert, C.J., Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery: Green Building Design and
Delivery. 2012: John Wiley & Sons.
37. Sandanayake, M., et al., Models and method for estimation and comparison of direct emissions in building
al

construction in Australia and a case study. Energy and Buildings, 2016. 126: p. 128-138.
38. Sandanayake, M., G. Zhang, and S. Setunge, Estimation of environmental emissions and impacts of
rn

building construction – A decision making tool for contractors. Journal of Building Engineering, 2018.
39. Sandanayake, M., G. Zhang, and S. Setunge, A comparative method of air emission impact assessment for
building construction activities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2018. 68: p. 1-9.
u

40. Guggemos, A.A. and A. Horvath, Decision-support tool for assessing the environmental effects of
constructing commercial buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2006. 12(4): p. 187-195.
Jo

41. Sihabuddin, S.S. and S.T. Ariaratnam, Methodology for estimating emissions in underground utility
construction operations. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 2009. 7(1): p. 37-64.
42. Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017.
43. Oke, A.E. and C.O. Aigbavboa, Sustainability in Construction, in Sustainable Value Management for
Construction Projects. 2017, Springer International Publishing: Cham. p. 87-106.
44. Naik, T.R. and G. Moriconi. Environmental-friendly durable concrete made with recycled materials for
sustainable concrete construction. in International Symposium on Sustainable Development of Cement,
Concrete and Concrete Structures, Toronto, Ontario, October. 2005. Citeseer.
45. Yeo, D. and R.D. Gabbai, Sustainable design of reinforced concrete structures through embodied energy
optimization. Energy and Buildings, 2011. 43(8): p. 2028-2033.
46. Chen, Y., G.E. Okudan, and D.R. Riley, Sustainable performance criteria for construction method
selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction, 2010. 19(2): p. 235-244.
47. Zhou, C.-C., G.-F. Yin, and X.-B. Hu, Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable
products: Artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Materials & Design, 2009. 30(4): p.
1209-1215.
48. Akadiri, P.O., P.O. Olomolaiye, and E.A. Chinyio, Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of
sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 2013. 30: p. 113-125.
49. Takano, A., et al., The effect of material selection on life cycle energy balance: A case study on a
hypothetical building model in Finland. Building and Environment, 2015. 89: p. 192-202.

26
 Journal Pre-proof

50. Drejeris, R. and A. Kavolynas, Multi-criteria Evaluation of Building Sustainability Behavior. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014. 110: p. 502-511.
51. Turner, L.K. and F.G. Collins, Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2-e) emissions: a comparison between
geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 2013. 43: p. 125-130.
52. Marzouk, M., S. Azab, and M. Metawie, BIM-based approach for optimizing life cycle costs of sustainable
buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 188: p. 217-226.
53. Shwekat, K. and H.-C. Wu, Benefit-cost analysis model of using class F fly ash-based green cement in
masonry units SEND CORRESPONENCE TO. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018.
54. Şanal, İ., Discussion on the effectiveness of cement replacement for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissi on
reduction in concrete. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 2018. 8(2): p. 366-378.
55. Bostanci, S.C., M. Limbachiya, and H. Kew, Use of recycled aggregates for low carbon and cost effective
concrete construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 189: p. 176-196.
56. Senaratne, S., et al., Recycled Concrete in Structural Applications for Sustainable Construction Practices
in Australia. Procedia Engineering, 2017. 180: p. 751-758.
57. Aprianti, E., A huge number of artificial waste material can be supplementary cementitious material (SCM)
for concrete production–a review part II. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017. 142: p. 4178-4194.
58. Nath, P., P.K. Sarker, and W.K. Biswas, Effect of fly ash on the service life, carbon footprint and embodied

f
energy of high strength concrete in the marine environment. Energy and Buildings, 2018. 158: p. 1694-

oo
1702.
59. McLellan, B.C., et al., Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary
portland cement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2011. 19(9): p. 1080-1090.
60. Weil, M., K. Dombrowski, and A. Buchwald, 10 - Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers, in Geopolymers,

61. pr
J.L. Provis and J.S.J. van Deventer, Editors. 2009, Woodhead Publishing. p. 194-210.
Fan, C. and S.A. Miller, Reducing greenhouse gas emissions for prescribed concrete compressive strength.
Construction and Building Materials, 2018. 167: p. 918-928.
e-
62. Meyer, C. Concrete as a green building material. in Construction Materials Mindess Symposium. 2005.
63. Mohamed Lachemi, K.M.A.H.V.L. and B. Nabil, Development of Cost-Effective Self-Consolidating
Concrete Incorporating Fly Ash, Slag Cement, or Viscosity-Modifying Admixtures. Materials Journal.
Pr

100(5).
64. Abbas, A., et al. Environmental benefits of green concrete. in EIC Climate Change Technology, 2006 IEEE.
2006. IEEE.
65. Gursel, A.P., H. Maryman, and C. Ostertag, A life-cycle approach to environmental, mechanical, and
durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
al

112: p. 823-836.
66. Ghisellini, P., M. Ripa, and S. Ulgiati, Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a
rn

circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 2018. 178: p. 618-643.
67. Hossain, M.U. and C.S. Poon, Comparative LCA of wood waste management strategies generated from
u

building construction activities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 177: p. 387-397.

68. Oldfield, T.L., E. White, and N.M. Holden, The implications of stakeholder perspective for LCA of wasted
Jo

food and green waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 170: p. 1554-1564.
69. Konak, A., D.W. Coit, and A.E. Smith, Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2006. 91(9): p. 992-1007.
70. Holland, J.H., Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to
biology, control, and artificial intelligence. 1992: MIT press.
71. Wang, W., R. Zmeureanu, and H. Rivard, Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building
design optimization. Building and Environment, 2005. 40(11): p. 1512-1525.
72. Cui, Y., et al., Review: Multi-objective optimization methods and application in energy saving. Energy,
2017. 125: p. 681-704.
73. King, D.M. and B.J.C. Perera, Morris method of sensitivity analysis applied to assess the importance of
input variables on urban water supply yield – A case study. Journal of Hydrology, 2013. 477(0): p. 17-32.
74. Gunasekara, C.M., Influence of properties of fly ash from different sources on the mix design and
performance of geopolymer concrete. 2016, RMIT University Melbourne, Australia.
75. AS, Method of testing concrete, Method 9: Determination of the compressive stren gth of concrete
specimens, in AS (Australian Standards). 1999, Standards Australia: Australia. p. 1-12.

27
 Journal Pre-proof

CRediT author Statement

Malindu Sandanayake: Conceptualization, Writing - Original draft, Formal analysis,

Validation, methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Chamila Gunasekara: Conceptualization, Writing original draft, investigation, Writing –

Review & Editing

David Law: Supervision, Editing, project administration

Guomin Zhang: Reviewing, Supervision

Sujeeva Setunge: Supervision

f
oo
Dennis Wanijuru: Software

pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

28
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

29
 Journal Pre-proof

 A new selection framework for green building materials is developed

 Multi-objective optimisation algorithms are used for environmental and economic
considerations
 Optimisation achieve maximum 41% GHG emission savings for mix design
 Optimisation achieve maximum 30% GHG emission savings for mix design
 Scenario analysis highlight the importance of local availability considerations

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

30