LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE STRUCTURES

A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the award of the degree

of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
In
CIVIL ENGINEERING
With specialization in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
By
MANASI PRIYA DAS
(Regd. No.- 2207320011)
Under the guide of
MISS DIBYAJYOTI NAYAK
Assistant Professor
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ARYAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY

ARYA VIHAR,

BHUBANESWAR PIN-752050

JANUARY 2024

i
 CERTIFICATE
This to certify that the work which is being presented in the project title “LIGHT
WEIGHT CONCRETE STRUCTURES” in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology on Civil
Engineering with specialization in “Structural Engineering” and submitted in
Civil Engineering Department, Aryan Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Bhubaneswar is an authentic record of work carried out by MANASI PRIYA
DAS, Regd. No – 2207320011 under the guide of MISS DIBYAJYOTI
NAYAK, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department.

The above statement made is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date:
MANASI PRIYA DAS
Regd.NO-2207320011

Principal Head of Department Project Guide External

Examiner
Aryan Institute of Civil Engineering Civil Engineering
Engineering and Department Department
Technology

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to all the people behind the

screen who helped me to transform an idea into a real application.

I profoundly thank Asst. Prof. DIBYAJYOTI NAYAK, Head of the

Department of Civil Engineering who has been an excellent guide and also a
great source of inspiration to my work. I would also like to thank her for her
technical guidance, constant encouragement and support in carrying out my
project at college. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our Principal
Sir, Dr. Bimal Sarangi and our College Management for their constant
support in helping me carrying out this project work. The satisfaction and
euphoria that accompany the successful completion of the task would be great
but incomplete without the mention of the people who made it possible with
their constant guidance and encouragement crowns all the efforts with success.
In this context, I would like thank all the other staff members, both teaching and
non-teaching, who have extended their timely help and eased my task.

Date:

MANASI PRIYA DAS

Regd. NO.- 2207320011

iii
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the Project entitled “LIGHT WEIGHT
CONCRETE STRUCTURES” carried out by us under the guidance of Asst.
Prof. Dibyajyoti Nayak, is submitted to Biju Patnaik University of Technology,
Odisha, in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering with specialization Structural
Engineering.

The results embodied in this report have not been copied from any
source. The results embodied in this report have not been submitted to any other
University or Institute for the award of any other degree.

Date:

MANASI PRIYA DAS

Regd. No.- 2207320011

iv
 Abstract
In order to compare the environmental effects of traditional and geopolymer
bricks throughout the course of their full life cycles, this study performed a life
cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is a commonly used process for assessing how
environmentally friendly products are at every stage, including extraction of
raw materials, production, transportation, usage, and disposal at the end of their
useful lives.

According to the LCA analysis, the main environmental costs associated with
conventional bricks are related to the mining of clay and shale, energy use
during production, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during fire. The
movement of bricks between their place of manufacture and construction sites
also adds to their total environmental impact. Due to the reuse or recycling of
conventional bricks, the end-of-life stage is rather benign.

However, geopolymer bricks, which are created using industrial waste materials
like fly ash or slag, alkaline activator (NaOH,Na2SiO3) & silica-alumina have
substantial environmental benefits. Since the geopolymer binder is made from
waste materials, there is no need to extract raw ingredients. This lessens the
impacts of depletion of natural resources. In addition, the production of
geopolymer bricks uses less energy and produces less greenhouse gases (GHGs)
than the production of conventional bricks. The effects on transportation are
comparable to those of conventional bricks. At the end of their lifespan,
geopolymer bricks can be recycled or used again, substantially lowering their
environmental impact.

The LCA results show that, in terms of resource depletion, energy consumption,
GHG emissions, and end-of-life disposal, geopolymer bricks have less of an
impact on the environment than traditional bricks. The results show the
potential of geopolymer technology as a sustainable substitute for the
manufacture of conventional bricks, providing a chance to lessen environmental
responsibilities in the building industry. To address technological issues,
improve manufacturing procedures, and broaden market acceptance of
geopolymer bricks, more study and development is required.

As one of the most widely accessible building materials, Portland cement (PC)
has historically been used primarily in the construction sector to produce bricks.
v
However, the use of waste industrial material in the production of bricks can
significantly increase sustainability in the building industry. An option could be
geopolymer bricks created from brown coal fly ash, a promising industrial
waste byproduct. This study used a life cycle assessment (LCA) to completely
investigate the environmental effects of the entire production process, from the
procurement and transportation of source materials to brick manufacturing,
distribution, use, and end-of-life. According to the LCA of the brown coal
bricks, the manufacturing and use of the raw materials had the most effects on
the environment.

Based on the processes for creating bricks from waste materials, the research
can be split into three groups: burning, cementing, and geopolymerization. In
order to create amorphous to semi-crystalline aluminosilicate inorganic polymer
or geopolymers, geopolymerization relies on the chemical reaction of
amorphous silica and alumina rich materials with alkaline solution.
Geopolymers are brand-new materials that have been researched, tested, and
used by several scientists throughout the world for many years. Due to the
utilisation of industrial byproducts as solid precursors and low calcination
temperatures, geopolymers represent an environmentally benign, inexpensive,
and low power consumption alternative to conventional inorganic matrices and
composites in the construction industry.

Key word- Traditional bricks, geopolymer bricks, life cycle analysis (LCA),
environmental effects, resource depletion, energy use, greenhouse gas
emissions, and end-of-life disposals.

vi
 Table of Content
1-COVER PAGE i
2-CERTIFFICATE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & DECLARATION ii-iv
3-ABSTRACT v-vi
4- TABLE OF CONTENT
5- LIST OF FIGURE ix
6- LIST OF TABLE x
7- INTRODUCTION 1-7
1.1- LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 3
1.2- TRADITIONAL BRICK 3
1.3- GEOPOLYMER BRICK 5
2- LITERATURA REVIEW 8-11
3- STUDY AREA 12-16
3.1- BRICK LAC COMPARSION 13
3.2- RAW MATERIAL EXTRACTION 13

A- TRADITIONAL BRICK
B- GEOPOLYMER BRICK
3.3- MANUFACTURING 14
A- TRADITIONAL BRICK
B- GEOPOLYMER BRICK
3.4- SODIUM SILICATE 15
3.5- CONCRETE ADMIXTURE 16
4- METHODOLOGY 17-46
4.1- TRADITIONAL BRICK 18
4.2-GEOPOLYMER BRICK 19
4.3- TRADITIONAL BRICK COMPOSITION 20
4.4-GEOPOLYMER BRICK COMPOSITION 21
4.5- TRADITIONAL BRICK STRENGTH 22
4.6-GEOPOLYMER BRICK STRENGTH 24
vii
4.7- TRADITIONAL BRICK DURING 24
4.8 -GEOPOLYMER BRICK DURING 26
4.9- TRADITIONAL BRICK CURING 27
4.10 - BRICK CURING 28
GEOPOLYMER
4.11- TRADITIONAL BRICK TEMPERATURE 29
4.12 - BRICK TEMPERATURE 30
GEOPOLYMER
4.13- TRADITIONAL BRICK ECONOMY 30
4.14 - BRICK ECONOMY 31
GEOPOLYMER

4.15- RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 33

4.16- MATERIAL AND METHOD 34
4.17- SCOPE OF STUDY 34
4.18- LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND DATA GATHERING 34
4.19- LIFE CYCLE IMPACT EVALUATION 35
4.20- GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINATION 36
4.21- LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS 40
4.22- CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 40
4.23- FRG USED AS UMS 43
4.24- PROPERTIES AND APPLICATION OF GEOPLOYMER 44
5- RESULT AND DISCUSSION 47-52
6-CONCLUSION 53-56
7-REFERENCE 57-64

viii
 List of Figures
Figure 1- Traditional Brick and Geopolymer Brick 2

Figure 2- Geopolymer Brick Preparation 7

Figure 3- Process of Sodium Silicate Solution 15

Figure 4- Manufacturing Process of Sodium Silicate Solution 16

Figure 5- Traditional Brick Kiln 19

Figure 6- Shows SEM Picture of theTransition Zone in Uncoated Steel 20

fiber matrix

Figure 7- Compessive strength test of traditional brick 23

Figure 8- Formulate Geopolymer based on waste material of construction 29

Figure 9- Geopolymer concrete Manufactring Details 35

Figure 10- System Boundary of The Life Cycle for The Concrete brick wall. 38

Figure 11- Comparison of the environmental impact of geopolymer 41

brick and traditional brick

Figure 12- Flow Chart 42

Figure 13- Application of Geopolymer 46

Figure 14- CO2 footprint of production of (a) OPC based concrete 49

paving blocks and (b) geopolymer concrete ones

Figure 15- Single score results with respect to process raw material 50

Figure 16- N-A-S-H Amorphous geopolymer gels 51

Figure 17- Coagulation- Condensation step 52

Figure 18- Geopolymerization process 52

ix
 List of Table

Table 1- Traditional and Geopolymer brick test report 32

x
 Chapter- 1

INTRODUCTION

1
 1- INTRODUCTION

To examine the environmental impacts associated with a product's life cycle,

from raw material extraction and manufacture to use, disposal, and maybe
recycling, a procedure known as life cycle assessment (LCA) is performed.
Let's compare traditional bricks and geopolymer bricks by looking at the crucial
stages of their life cycles and the consequences on the environment.

TRADITIONAL BRICK

GEPOLYMER BRICK

Fig-1

2
 1.1- Life Cycle Assessment:

The practise of measuring potential environmental effects connected with all

phases of a product, from raw materials to disposal, is known as life cycle
assessment. Due to differences in purpose, scope, quality, and other criteria,
LCA from different analysts and studies shouldn't typically be compared.

1.2-Traditional Bricks:Clay is the primary component of traditional bricks,

hence clay resources must be mined to provide the raw material. Energy
consumption, habitat destruction, and soil erosion are all potential effects of the
extraction process.(1) It is essential to quantify sustainability issues using actual
data in order to raise awareness of the various environmental effect categories.
Early-stage LCA studies are crucial for disseminating the knowledge needed to
minimise environmental consequences by integrating the production phases of
building materials for the complete LCA research. Furthermore, the majority of
traditional brick LCA studies to date have concentrated solely on the first
phases of production, or cradle-to-gate , and a constrained range of effect
categories . This study investigated all aspects of the life cycle assessment
(LCA) of using leftover brown coal ash from the two power stations in
Victoria's La Trobe Valley to make geopolymer bricks, including the twelve key
effect categories for the "cradle-to-grave" phases. The analysis included twelve
significant impact categories.(3) A promising strategy for reducing CO2 is the
creation of insulating materials for homes using waste materials and renewable
resources.

In this research, a new class of environmentally friendly insulation materials

built from geopolymer foams reinforced with natural fibres is compared to the
insulating qualities and carbon footprint of conventional insulation materials
based on polystyrene, mineral wool, and foamed silicates.(4) Nigeria,
Bangladesh, Sudan, and Ethiopia are among the nations that produce the most
3
solid garbage among developing nations. For instance, Senegal generates more
than 2.4 million tonnes of trash annually. Nevertheless, only 1.08 million tonnes
are collected.claims that recent changes in environmental legislation have given
rise to a number of viable methods for integrated solid waste management.
Brazilian law 12.305/2010 established the national solid waste policy, which
was thereafter governed by decree 7.404 of December 23, 2010 [7]. According
to Oliveira et al. [8], tight government rules everywhere have accelerated the
implementation of reverse logistics projects, giving wastes a new significance
within their life cycle.(6) The advantages of using traditional brick clamps in
Western Maharashtra include reduced initial costs, access to traditional
knowledge, flexibility in location when it comes to where the raw material (soil)
is accessible, and least reliance on mechanisation. Thus, despite the promotion
of other technologies, it is anticipated that traditional brick clamps will continue
to exist and operate at the same scale for years to come. Therefore, it is even
more crucial to have these old-fashioned kilns lessen their negative effects on
the environment. Although numerous studies have been conducted on the
effectiveness of coal combustion, various kiln types (such as tunnel kilns,
VSBKs, and BTKs), and associated environmental and socioeconomic
difficulties, no comparable research has been conducted for the traditional brick
clamp in India.(8) However, the main objective of the current review paper is to
value lignocellulosic biomass ash when it is utilised to produce burnt and
unfired Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10669. 3 out of 32 bricks. The burning of various
kinds and forms of solid biofuels fed into boilers, stoves, and furnaces results in
the production of a sizeable volume of this waste each year,

A possible approach to reducing the environmental risks connected with this

type of waste, easing the burden on clay resources, and reducing energy use and
carbon dioxide emissions would be to include ash into the production of

4
ceramics. As a result, one tries to provide a complete overview of the different
raw materials used, the different.

1.3- Geopolymer Bricks:Geopolymer bricks are made from industrial

waste materials from metal smelting or power plants, like fly ash or slag.
Utilising these byproducts reduces the need for raw material extraction and
keeps waste out of landfills.(1) A benefit analysis on the application of
performance indicator methodologies is not present in the current research on
LCA assessment of brown coal ash geopolymer bricks. This study analysed the
environmental impacts of two brown coal geopolymer bricks throughout their
"cradle-to-grave" life cycle in order to find potential for improving the
environmental and economic performance of brown coal bricks during their
production. Additionally, their environmental performance was contrasted with
that of typical PC concrete bricks. The study establishes the foundation for
future research techniques that will strive to maximise the eco-sustainability of
geopolymer bricks generated from brown coal fly ash.(2)Based on the processes
for creating bricks from waste materials, the research can be split into three
groups: burning, cementing, and geopolymerization. In order to create
amorphous to semi-crystalline aluminosilicate inorganic polymer or
geopolymers, geopolymerization relies on the chemical reaction of amorphous
silica and alumina rich materials with alkaline solution. Geopolymers are brand-
new materials that have been researched, tested, and used by several scientists
throughout the world for many years. Due to the utilisation of industrial
byproducts as solid precursors and low calcination temperatures, geopolymers
represent an environmentally benign, inexpensive, and low power consumption
alternative to conventional inorganic matrices and composites in the
construction industry. They show some superior engineering qualities than
Portland cement.(5)The need for power rises along with the world's population.
Although there are many carbon-free energy options, coal is generally
5
accessible and inexpensive. As a byproduct of burning coal, coal fly ash is
created, and the amount of waste fly ash produced globally is rising.
Worldwide, millions of tonnes of coal ash are created. About 32.6 billion tonnes
of coal ash were produced by coal-fired power plants in South Africa during
2016 and 2017 [6]. Due to the extremely small particles (less than 10 m in
diameter), dry fly ash from badly kept ash piles offers a health concern if
inhaled. Beneficiation of coal fly ash could prevent the loss of enormous tracts
of land to ash ponds and landfills while reducing pollution and liability risks
associated with these sources.(7) acts as evidence of the current widespread
proliferation in the building and public works sectors.

This has a severe impact on our ecosystem and results in a significant increase
in the consumption of natural resources. In fact, the materials used in building
today require a lot of energy and are not environmentally friendly because they
are constructed of non-biodegradable minerals and carbon-based materials.
Additionally, the manufacture of such materials is always associated with
pollutant emissions of particulate matter (PMs) and gaseous pollutants. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the building industry alone
uses around 30% of the global energy supply and contributes to over 40% of
greenhouse gas emissions.

6
Fig-2

7
 CHAPTER-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

8
2- LITERATURE REVIEW

* Laurie (1923) - A set of alternative bricks was made by incorporating

industrial wastes, keeping up with trends towards creating more sustainable
building materials. The potential of producing bricks and other building
materials from oil industry waste, which provided a notion of an alternative
brick at a period when sustainability were not yet concepts, was discussed;
nonetheless, this idea is not at all new.

* Klang et al.,( 2003)- Alternative brick creation has gained traction

recently as a resource-efficient way to recycle garbage. When compared to
traditional bricks, alternative bricks exhibit some differences throughout their
life-cycle (Fig. 2), for example, wastes may completely or partially replace clay
during the raw material extraction stage, and stabilisation procedures frequently
take the place of firing during the production stage.

* Correia et al., (2005)-Bricks are one of the most used and oldest building
materials, with a history of over 7000 years Murmu Patel 2018 Because of the
mineralogical composition of clay and their exceptional physical, mechanical,
and thermal properties, traditional bricks are extremely resistant and durable
(Ukwatta and Mohajerani, 2017)। Furthermore, bricks have tensile,

compression, and weather resistance (El-Midany and Mahmoud, 2015).

Because of this, they can be used for a variety of purposes, such as refractory
(An et al., 2018), pavement, or permeable structures (Yuan et al., 2018), apart
from their traditional use in wall construction.

9
* Diaz-Loya et al., (2011), Hardjitoand Rangan, (2005), Nath and
Sarker, (2012), Ryu et al., (2013)-Due to the lack of extensive data, the
use of geopolymer binders in structural concrete is still in the experimental
stage worldwide. Numerous constituent elements, including fly ash, GGBS, and
metakaolin, as well as their technical qualities, were the focus of the majority of
earlier investigations on geopolymer concrete. There is still a dearth of
published research on geopolymer concrete's structural uses.

* Buyle et al., (2013)-To determine whether alternative bricks are actually

more environmentally friendly than conventional ones, it is crucial to evaluate
both types of bricks from an environmental standpoint. In this regard, life cycle
assessment (LCA) is an effective method for evaluating all potential
environmental effects, inputs, and outputs of products throughout the course of
their whole life cycle (ISO 14040, 2006). Even LCA could be taken into
account at the stages of product development and design (Luz et al., 2018). In
addition, LCA is useful for comparing old and new technologies (Santos et al.,
2017), and it is a flexible method that enables investigations in a variety of
fields and industrial sectors (Salvador et al., 2018), such as the construction
industry.

* Condeixa et al., 2014; Souza et al., (2016)- Considering the LCA of

bricks, current studies focused on assessing individually the environmental
With regard to bricks' LCA, recent research have concentrated on evaluating
each type of brick's environmental performance (Christoforou et al., 2016;
Souza et al., 2016; Marcelino-Sadaba et al., 2017; Mohajerani et al., 2018; Seco
et al., 2018). Bricks were compared with alternative building materials in
certain situations and with conventional ones in others (Galan-Marin et al.,
2016; Lozano-Miralles et al., 2018).performance of traditional brick.

10
* Galan-Marin et al.,( 2016)- Despite their numerous advantages,
traditional clay bricks require non-renewable raw materials throughout their
life-cycle (Fig. 1), high temperatures to produce them, and consequently large
amounts of energy, emitting greenhouse gases responsible for global warming
(Huang et al., 2019), and, at the end of their useful lives, brick wastes are
disposed of in landfills, polluting the soil (Erduran et al., 2019).

* Sandanayake et al.,(2018)-Construction is one of the least sustainable

industrial sectors due to a number of factors, including the high energy
consumption (Geng et al., 2017), the indiscriminate use of non-renewable
resources that contributes to product scarcity (Huedo et al., 2016), and the
emissions from its activities that pollute the environment (Sandanayake et al.,
2018).

* Carvalho Araújo et al., (2019)-One of the biggest issues facing the

building sector is becoming more sustainable (Murmu and Patel, 2018). In this
context, alternative building materials are created to lessen negative
environmental effects and to adhere to sustainable development, manufacturing,
and consumption patterns (Balaguera et al., 2018).

11
CHAPTER-3

STUDY AREA

12
 3- STUDY AREA

3.1- Brick LAC Comparsion-

When raw materials are extracted, manufactured, transported, used, and

recycled, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic methodology used to
assess the environmental effects of a product or process throughout its life
cycle। Let's look at the LCA of geopolymer bricks and traditional clay

bricks.The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method is used to assess how

products or activities affect the environment at every stage of their life cycles,
from the extraction of raw materials to disposal. To comprehend the respective
environmental footprints of traditional bri ck and geopolymer brick, we shall
compare their LCAs in this instance.

3.2- Raw Material Extraction-

A- Traditional Bricks- Natural clay, which is often extracted from quarries or

open-pit mines, is used to make traditional clay bricks. Removal of the soil and
energy-intensive transportation are part of the extraction process. Brick clay is
needed to make conventional bricks, which is often acquired by mining or
excavation.Traditional bricks' main component is clay, which must be mined
and excavated from clay deposits.Clay mining and transportation both require
energy.

B- Geopolymer Bricks- Industrial waste items like fly ash, a byproduct of coal-
fired power stations, and blast furnace slag, a byproduct of the production of
iron and steel, are used to make geopolymer bricks. By using these byproducts,
the need for new raw materials is decreased, and garbage is diverted from
landfills.Fly ash and slag, two industrial by-products, are frequently used to
make geopolymer bricks, decreasing the requirement for new raw materials and

13
maximising the use of leftover materials.Typically, mining waste or industrial
waste products like fly ash, slag, or slag are used to make geopolymer bricks.

They might affect mining activities less than ordinary bricks because they
employ leftover resources.

3.3- Manufacturing-

A- Traditional Bricks- Traditional bricks are frequently large and heavy,

which increases the energy and emissions associated with transportation,
especially if they must be transported over long distances.Traditional clay
bricks have a long history of use in construction and a track record of
reliability.Traditional bricks can frequently be recycled or reused once their
useful lives are through in a variety of construction applications.Due to the
energy-intensive firing method used in traditional clay brick manufacture, the
carbon footprint is relatively significant.Clay is shaped during the production of
traditional bricks, which is followed by drying and kiln burning. The act of
firing uses a lot of energy and emits greenhouse gases.

B-Geopolymer Bricks- Due to their production at lower temperatures than

regular bricks, geopolymer bricks take less energy to manufacture. Alkaline
solution and curing are typically used to activate the geopolymer binder.

14
Fig.3-Process of sodium silicate solution

3.4- Sodium silicate-

A mixture of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) and

sodium silicate (SiO2) or potassium silicate is the most popular alkaline
activator used in geopolymerization.

According to Palomo et al. (1999), the kind of activator used is crucial to the
polymerization process.

One of the most significant alkaline solutions utilised in the creation of

geopolymers is sodium silicate. The solution is created by calcining and
dissolving silica and carbonate salts in water in certain amounts, resulting in
energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In the current investigation, sodium
silicate was made at a chemical manufacturing facility called PROCHIN
ITALIA, which is situated in Campania (Southern Italy).The injection of
waterglass into the crushing hopper initiates the industrial production of sodium
silicate, as shown in Fig 3. Following the mixing phase, the admixture and
water vapour are introduced into the autoclave using a piping system, which
raises the admixture pressure. The mixture is then placed in silos that are
significantly depressurized and kept there for a while before being put through a
15
filter press. The sodium silicate solution is then channelled into horizontal tanks
for sedimentation, during which precipitate silicate trash is gathered and
transported to a landfill for eventual disposal.

Fig. 4. Manufacturing process of sodium silicate solution

3.5- Concrete Admixtures- The creation of the geopolymeric concrete

admixtures utilised sodium silicate and a 5M concentration of NaOH solution.
For the concrete admixture, regular Portland cement was employed.

The samples were cured at a temperature of 20 2 °C and a humidity level of

80%.

The composition of the OPC and geopolymer admixtures considered for

industrial manufacturing.

16
 CHAPTER-4

METHODOLOGY

17
 4- METHODOLOGY

4.1- Traditional Brick-

* A rectangular block of clay or shale that has been formed into a building
material and then hardened by baking or burning in a kiln is known as a
traditional brick. It has been a main building material for structures and
buildings for ages.

* Traditional bricks are made by combining clay or shale with water to make a
paste that is pliable. The paste is then either moulded into long strands that are
chopped into brick-sized units, or it is fashioned into individual brick moulds.
These items are allowed to dry before being heated at a high temperature—
typically between 900 and 1200 degrees Celsius, or 1650 and 2200 degrees
Fahrenheit—in a kiln. The clay is made sturdy and weather-resistant by the fire
process, which hardens the clay.

* Traditional bricks are renowned for their power, toughness, and adaptability.
They can be utilised for a variety of structural and adornment purposes,
including load-bearing walls, facades, fireplaces, and others. There are many
various design options available thanks to the variety of sizes, hues, and textures
of bricks.

* While conventional brick has been used for many years, alternative building
materials and techniques have become more common because of things like
cost, construction time, and environmental concerns. However, conventional
brick is still a popular and tried-and-true option for many construction projects.

18
 Fig-5

4.2- Geopolymer Brick-

* The most recent advancement in the brick industry is called geopolymer

bricks. Flyash serves as the raw material for geopolymer bricks, and an alkaline
activator is used to start the polymerization reaction. Dimensions:
190x90x90mm, 3kg, 10m alkaline. Samples were examined between 7 and 28
days.

* Geopolymers are inorganic, typically ceramic,alumino-silicate forming long-

range , covalently bonded, non-crystalline network,obsidian fragments are a
component of some geopolymer blend.

19
Figure 6-Shows SEM pictures of the transition zone in an uncoated steel fibre matrix. Debonding at the
steel fiber's surface-to-geopolymeric product interface

4.3- TRADITIONAL BRICK COMPOSITION-

Traditional brick construction frequently includes a few essential elements:

* Clay-The primary ingredient in traditional bricks is clay. It provides

the structural integrity and durability of the brick. Clay is a natural
material that is abundant in many regions.

* Water- To make the clay more malleable and sculptable, water is added to it.
By holding the clay granules together, it facilitates mixing and moulding.

* Sand- To increase the brick's strength and lessen shrinkage during the drying
and fire processes, sand is frequently added to the clay mixture. It also aids in
giving the brick's surface a smoother feel.

* Lime or cement-In some cases, lime or cement is added to the clay

mixture to enhance the brick's strength and reduce cracking. Lime
acts
20
as a binding agent and helps to improve the overall durability of the
brick.

* Additives- A variety of additives may be added to the brick composition to

change certain aspects of it. To increase the insulation properties of the brick,
for instance, sawdust or rice husk ash can be added, whereas colouring
chemicals can be employed to create desired aesthetic results.

Typically, when the clay mixture has been made, it is shaped into the desired
brick shape and allowed to dry. The bricks are burned at high temperatures in a
kiln after drying to make them harder and more durable. The drying and tighter
binding of the particles are two additional benefits of burning.

It's important to keep in mind that traditional brick composition may vary
depending on the region because different places may have access to different
types of clay and regional elements.

4.4- GEOPOLYMER BRICK COMPOSITION-

An aluminosilicate substance and an alkaline activator solution are generally

combined to create geopolymers, a group of inorganic polymers. According to
the particular application and desired qualities, geopolymer composition might
vary, although the following general elements are frequently present in
geopolymer formulations:

* Aluminosilicate Source:Geopolymers must contain an aluminosilicate

substance as their main constituent. This can be obtained from a variety of
sources, including fly ash (produced during the burning of coal), blast furnace
slag (produced during the iron-making process), metakaolin (a calcined type of
kaolin clay), and natural pozzolans. High concentrations of silica (SiO2) and
alumina (Al2O3) can be found in these materials.
21
* Alkaline Activator- Alkali metal hydroxides (such as sodium hydroxide or
potassium hydroxide) or alkali metal silicates (such as sodium silicate or
potassium silicate) are commonly used in alkaline solutions to activate
geopolymers. The conditions required for the geopolymerization of the
aluminosilicate are provided by the alkaline activator.

* Water- As it takes part in the interaction between the aluminosilicate source

and the alkaline activator, water is crucial for the geopolymerization process.
The characteristics and workability of the geopolymer mixture might be
affected by the amount of water utilised.

* Additives- The composition of the geopolymer can be altered by adding a

variety of additives to change certain qualities. For instance, plasticizers or
superplasticizers can be added to increase flow and workability, while fibres
(such glass or polymeric fibres) can improve the geopolymer's mechanical
qualities.

4.5-TRADITIONAL BRICK STRENGTH-

Traditional bricks' strength might differ depending on elements including their

composition, manufacturing method, and quality control procedures.
Compressive strength, or the highest load a brick can support under
compression without breaking, is typically used to gauge a brick's strength.

Traditional bricks typically have compressive strengths between 3.5 and 50

megapascals (MPa). It's crucial to remember that these figures can differ
significantly based on the particular type of brick.

Traditional brick kinds that are frequently used and their typical compressive
strengths include:

22
* Clay bricks-Bricks made of clay are one of the most widely used types of
construction material. Their compressive strengths typically range from 7 MPa
to 20 MPa.

* Concrete bricks- Cement, aggregate, and water are combined to create

concrete bricks. They are renowned for their extreme toughness and longevity.
Concrete bricks' compressive strength might range from 10 MPa to 50 MPa or
more.

* Fly ash bricks-Fly ash, cement, sand, and water are combined to create fly
ash bricks. They are renowned for being thermally insulating and lightweight.
Fly ash bricks typically have compressive strengths between 7 MPa and 15
MPa.

Fig-7 Compressive strength test of traditional brick

23
4.6- GEOPOLYMER BRICK STRENGTH-

Due to its great strength and favourable effects on the environment, geopolymer
bricks are a form of building material that is becoming more and more well-
liked. The composition of the geopolymer mixture, the curing environment, and
the manufacturing processes are only a few of the variables that might affect
how strong geopolymer bricks are.

Compressive strengths for geopolymer bricks typically range from 10 MPa

(megapascals) to 50 MPa or more. The compressive strengths of conventional
clay bricks, which typically range from 5 MPa to 30 MPa, are comparable to or
even higher than those of this range of strength.

The kind and proportion of raw materials used, the temperature and length of
the curing process, and the presence of reinforcing elements can all have an
impact on the strength of geopolymer bricks. In general, geopolymer mixtures
with higher proportions of fly ash or slag—industrial waste materials strong in
silica and alumina—show higher strengths. Alkaline activators, like as sodium
hydroxide or sodium silicate, can also speed up the geopolymerization process
and produce bricks that are more durable.

4.7- TRADITIONAL BRICK DURING-

Making bricks traditionally entails using clay or a clay-based combination to

create the bricks. Here is a broad description of how traditional bricks are made:

* Material Selection-Clay is the main component used in conventional brick

production, however occasionally other additives, such as sand or shale, may be
added to enhance the bricks' qualities.

24
* Preparation-Clay is initially mined or extracted from natural sources,
including clay pits or quarries, as part of the preparation process. After that, it is
cleaned to get rid of big particles, pebbles, and other contaminants. In order to
get the desired consistency and plasticity, clay is typically combined with water.

* Moulding- Using moulds or by hand, the produced clay is subsequently

formed into individual brick units. The size and proportions of the bricks are
determined by moulds, which can be created from wood, metal, or other
materials.

* Drying- Following moulding, the freshly produced bricks are given some
time to air dry. As a result, the extra moisture might evaporate and the bricks
can solidify. The length of time it takes for the bricks to dry can vary based on
the size of the bricks and the weather.

* Firing-Bricks are fired or baked in a kiln or oven once they have sufficiently
dried to further harden them. The bricks are heated to extremely high
temperatures during the firing process, usually between 900 and 1,100 degrees
Celsius (1,650 and 2,010 degrees Fahrenheit). This fire turns the clay into a
sturdy, solid substance.

* Cooling and inspection- The bricks are allowed to slowly cool within the
kiln after the firing process. They are examined for flaws or cracks that might
have developed during the firing after they have cooled. Bricks that pass the
quality inspection are regarded as being usable.

25
4.8- GEOPOLYMER BRICK DURING-

A type of building material called geopolymer bricks is gaining popularity as a

more environmentally friendly substitute for conventional clay or concrete
bricks. Using an alkaline solution and inorganic substances like fly ash, silica
fume, or slag, geopolymer technology produces a binder that solidifies and
forms a solid structure.

The raw components are combined with the alkaline solution during the
production of geopolymer bricks to start the chemical reaction. A hardened
material with qualities resembling those of conventional bricks is produced by
this reaction, which forms a three-dimensional network of links. After that, the
material is poured into moulds where it is let to dry and strengthen over time.

The advantages of geopolymer bricks include:

* Reduced carbon emissions- The use of industrial byproducts like fly ash in
geopolymer bricks decreases the need for clays and, as a result, lowers the
carbon emissions related to the manufacturing of clay bricks.

* Energy conservation- Compared to conventional clay bricks, geopolymer

bricks require lower fire temperatures during production, which saves energy.

* Durability- Geopolymer bricks are extremely strong and long-lasting, making

them appropriate for use in a variety of construction applications.

* Chemical resistance-Geopolymer bricks are suitable for usage in severe

locations or chemical processing industries due to their high chemical
resistance.

* Fire resistance-Comparedto conventional clay bricks, geopolymer bricks

often offer superior fire resistance.
26
* Recyclability: Geopolymer bricks are recyclable because they can be crushed
and used as a raw material to make new bricks, which cuts down on waste
creation.

4.9- TRADITIONAL BRICK CURING-

The curing time of traditional brick varies according to a number of factors,

including the type of brick, the environment, and the particular curing process
used। But as a general rule, traditional brick usually needs a curing period of 7–
14 days.

To guarantee optimum hydration and strength development during the earliest

phases of curing, it is essential to prevent the bricks from drying out too
quickly. This can be accomplished by putting a layer of wet burlap or plastic
sheeting over the bricks and regularly misting them with water to keep a moist
environment. The bricks might gradually become more durable and strong
thanks to this technique.

The bricks can be left exposed and allowed to air dry for an additional amount
of time after the initial curing period. Depending on variables like humidity
levels and brickwork thickness, this secondary drying period may last several
weeks or even months. For the bricks to gradually lose their excess moisture
during this phase, it is crucial to guarantee appropriate ventilation.

27
4.10- GEOPOLYMER BRICK CURING-

The particular geopolymer mixture used, the surrounding temperature,

humidity, and the required final product strength can all affect how long it takes
for geopolymer bricks to cure. However, in comparison to conventional clay or
cement bricks, geopolymer bricks typically have faster cure times.

Typically, geopolymer bricks can start to gain sufficient strength within a few
hours of casting, but they may require additional time for complete curing and
achieving their maximum strength. The initial setting time, when the
geopolymer mixture starts to harden, is usually around 1 to 2 hours. However, it
is important to note that the bricks may still be fragile during this period.

It is advised to let geopolymer bricks cure for at least 24 to 48 hours for the
whole curing process. The geopolymer mixture's chemical reactions continue to
develop during this time, leading to a rise in strength and durability. Remember
that cure periods can change based on the precise geopolymer formulation and
the surrounding environment.

For particular curing advice, it is usually advisable to refer to the manufacturer's

instructions or to the provider of the geopolymer combination. For the specific
geopolymer mixture you are using, they can give you comprehensive
information on the ideal curing circumstances and time frame.

28
 Fig- 8

4.11- TRADITIONAL BRICK TEMPERATURE-

Traditional bricks' temperatures can change depending on a number of

variables, including the type of brick, the surrounding temperature, and
exposure to direct sunshine. However, the maximum temperature for
conventional burned clay bricks is normally limited to between 1,200 and 1,400
degrees Celsius (2,192 to 2,552 degrees Fahrenheit) during the firing process.

The temperature of bricks that have already been made and used in building is
typically affected by the environment. Bricks may absorb heat from the sun's
rays and get fairly warm to the touch. The amount of sunlight, the temperature
of the surrounding air, and the thermal conductivity of the brick material will all
have an impact on the actual temperature.

It is important to remember that handling or touching hot bricks without the

correct safety precautions might result in burns or discomfort. Therefore, it is
generally advised to use caution when working with bricks that have spent a lot
of time in the sun or heat.

29
4.12- GEOPOLYMER BRICK TEMPERATURE-

Building materials known as geopolymer bricks are created by combining

aluminosilicate elements with an alkaline solution that acts as a binder. These
bricks are more popular than conventional clay bricks since they are more
environmentally friendly and provide superior fire resistance.

The precise composition and manufacturing procedure can have an impact on

the geopolymer bricks' endurance to temperature. Geopolymer bricks can
endure high temperatures and have good thermal stability in general. Usually,
they are made to have a greater melting point than standard clay bricks.

Generally speaking, geopolymer bricks can endure temperatures between 800

and 1200 degrees Celsius (1472 and 2192 degrees Fahrenheit). It's crucial to
remember that the precise temperature tolerance can change depending on
elements like the formulation, curing method, and additives used in the
production of the geopolymer bricks.

To ensure correct use and temperature constraints, it is always advised to refer

to the manufacturer's specifications and directions for the specific geopolymer
brick product you are using.

4.13- TRADITIONAL BRICK ECONOMY-

In economic discourse, the phrase "traditional bricks economy" is not frequently

used or acknowledged. However, given the limited context, it appears that you
may be referring to an economy that places a significant emphasis on the
creation and consumption of conventional building bricks composed of
materials like concrete or clay.

30
The brick business would be crucial to building and infrastructure development
in such an economy. Bricks are adaptable building materials that have been
employed for countless construction projects over the years. They are
dependable, reasonably priced, and readily accessible in many areas.

There would probably be brick producers who produce bricks in huge amounts
in a traditional bricks industry. These producers may purchase raw materials
like clay or concrete, and then employ specialised tools and methods to create
bricks of various shapes and sizes. In order to build houses, walls, roads, and
other constructions, these bricks would subsequently be distributed to
construction firms, builders, and individual customers.

In such an economy, the demand for bricks would be influenced by the pace of
infrastructure development. The demand for bricks would be impacted by
elements like population increase, urbanisation, and government initiatives
supporting construction and housing projects.

Overall, the manufacture, distribution, and use of bricks as a key building

material would be the focus of a traditional bricks economy. The dominance of
conventional bricks in the construction industry may be threatened by the
introduction of alternative materials and methods brought about by current
construction techniques and developing technologies.

4.14- GEOPOLYMER BRICK ECONOMY-

The economic factors connected to the manufacture, sale, and usage of

geopolymer bricks are referred to as the geopolymer brick economy. As an
alternative to conventional clay or concrete bricks, geopolymer bricks are often
created by combining industrial waste items like fly ash or slag with alkali
activators.

31
 Tab-1

Here are some key points related to the geopolymer brick economy:

* Sustainable Material- Geopolymer bricks, which use industrial waste to

reduce the need for traditional clay and concrete materials, are regarded as a
sustainable building material. Geopolymer bricks assist reduce waste and can
lessen the environmental effect of the construction sector by recycling these
waste materials.

* Lower Production Costs- Because industrial wastes are used as raw

materials, geopolymer bricks can be more affordable to produce than regular
bricks. Geopolymer bricks can be made at a cheaper cost than traditional bricks,
depending on the cost of activators and the cost of waste materials in the area.

* Energy Efficiency-When compared to the creation of regular bricks,

geopolymer bricks often consume less energy. Geopolymerization is an energy-
efficient alternative since it requires less energy because the firing temperatures
are lower.

32
* Market Potentia- Interest in geopolymer-based building materials is rising as
sustainability and environmental issues continue to receive attention.
Governments, businesses, and individuals may demand more geopolymer bricks
as they look for more environmentally friendly building materials. The
geopolymer brick industry's suppliers and producers may benefit financially
from this increasing demand.

* Research and Development-Ongoing efforts are being made to enhance the

functionality, longevity, and manufacturing procedures of geopolymer bricks.
Geopolymer bricks' overall competitiveness and economic viability in the
building industry can be improved by innovations in formulation,
manufacturing processes, and quality control.

It's important to remember that the geopolymer brick industry is still

developing, and that its development and uptake will depend on a variety of
circumstances, including local laws, consumer demand, and the availability of
acceptable waste materials.

4.15- Research Framework-

The environmental effects and advantages of producing geopolymer concrete

bricks from brown coal ash provided by numerous power plant locations were
thoroughly investigated using life cycle assessment (LCA).

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic strategy that uses a methodology to

examine the ecological efficacy of products and processes over the length of
their life cycle in order to pinpoint areas that require improvement [26]. This
approach has been adopted by several academics, including. The LCA strategy
described in ISO 14040 [13] was applied to make sure that stringent
requirements were being used. LCA's primary objective is to assess and

33
quantify a product or process' environmental performance in order to support
informed decision-making.

4.16- Materials and Methods-

Brazilian clay brick production's environmental performance was assessed using

a life cycle assessment (LCA) study based on the international standards ISO
14040 and ISO 14044. In order to evaluate the environmental impacts of clay
brick manufacture, the current study compares the standard method with the
addition of OSPW to clay bricks.

4.17- Scope of the Study-

The production of 1 kilogramme of clay brick was designated as the functional

unit based on the properties of the clay sample from Campos dos Goytacazes,
RJ, and the decorative stone processing waste included in the study from
Cachoeiro de Itapemirim, ES.

Two scenarios were created: the first (S1) represents the standard method of
producing clay bricks (0 W), and the second (S2) represents the creation of clay
bricks with 5% OSPW in mass (5 W). The limitations for both Systems were
described, starting with the extraction and processing of raw materials and
ending with end-of-life issues.

4.18- Life Cycle Assessment and Data Gathering-

CollectionThis LCI study provides inventory and impact assessment data (Table
1) connected to the manufacturing of clay bricks from the cradle to the gate.

34
The end-of-life impact is produced after the useful life. According to this
investigation, a ceramic brick with an incorporated OSPW (5 W) has a 2.91-fold
longer usable life than a typical brick. Once a brick's useful life is over, it is
removed and disposed.

For both options, the data input into the model is based on the Brazilian context.
[8] reports that data on the chemical composition of red ceramic bricks
produced at a laboratory scale (0 W) and those produced with stone waste (5 W)
were acquired . Secondary data gathered from Ecoinvent 3.3 was used to
complete any data that was either unavailable or missing.

Fig-9

4.19- Life Cycle Impact Evaluation-

The assessment tool used to support models was SimaPro 9.0. The Recipe
Midpoint (V 1.13; Europe) technique was used for the impact
study.beginningRecipe H). Global warming (GW), stratospheric ozone
depletion (OD), ionising radiation (IR), ozone formation, human health
(OFHH), terrestrial ecosystems (OFTE), terrestrial acidification (TA),
35
freshwater eutrophication (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), terrestrial
ecotoxicity (TE), freshwater ecotoxicity (FEC), and human carcinogenic were
the midpoint categories in this study.

4.20- Goal and Scope Definition-

This study's objective was to evaluate the environmental advantages and

disadvantages of geopolymer concrete bricks produced in Victoria using brown
coal ash sourced from two La Trobe Valley power units.

This study also examined the financial gains dependent on where the fly ash
was stored at the end of its useful life. By relating the environmental effect
categories in the comparative unit, the economic assessment was able to
quantify the advantages.

Based on the functional performance unit published by Damineli et al. the

functional unit for the process was chosen. Using this method, the LCA study
analysed the environmental effects connected to various concrete types and
performances (compressive strength). This led to the adoption of a factor known
as impact intensity (Equation 1), which enables a comparison of the three types
of bricks.

36
Impact intensity (ix) = x/cs

where x is the overall impact as determined by the LCA analysis; cs is the

brick's compressive strength; and ix is defined as the impact intensity for the "x"
impact category.

The functional unit "1 m3 of brick mixture" was employed in the economic
study. The "1 m3 of brick mix" functional unit was used for the life cycle cost
analysis. For the overall cost study, the "per brick" functional unit was used.

The "cradle-to-grave" life cycle of products was taken into account in this
study. It has four stages, or phases, in the life cycle:

• Extraction and production of raw materials, which depicts the creation and
preparation of various materials used in the latter stages of manufacturing.
These materials included Na2SiO3, the two brown coal fly ashes, the extraction
of aggregates, and the creation of PC. The creation of the fly ash bricks utilised
aggregates, Na2SiO3, NaOH, brown coal fly ashes, and these substances. The
PC concrete was created using the PC and aggregates.

• The stage of brick manufacture indicated the movement of the raw materials
used in the manufacturing process.

• Distribution and utilisation symbolised the movement of the bricks and the
building of a brick wall.

37
• Transportation of demolished brick walls to a landfill was considered end-of-
life.

Figure 1 shows the system boundary of the geopolymer and PC brick wall
construction.

Sustainability 2023, 15, x TO PERSONAL REVIEW 4 of 21

Na2SiO3, the two fly ashes from brown coal, the gathering of aggregates, and
the creation of PC. The creation of the fly ash bricks utilised aggregates,
Na2SiO3, NaOH, brown coal fly ashes, and these substances. The PC concrete
was created using the PC and aggregates.

Figure-10

38
System

boundary of the life cycle for the concrete brick wall.

Models and Testing Scenarios-

The ReCiPe Mid-Point (Europe H) approach, which was used as the impact
assessment methodology in this study, provided a thorough analysis of the
environmental implications.

Twelve of the total eighteen impact categories produced by this method—which

include climate change, ozone depletion, terrestrial acidification, human
toxicity, photochemical oxidant formation, particulate matter formation,
terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, water
depletion, metal depletion, and fossil fuel depletion—were taken into account
for the midpoint impact categories analysis.

In this study, the environmental impact data of PC concrete blocks and brown
coal fly ash brick were analysed and compared. A PC mix design and two
brown coal brick mix designs were adopted (2) The Yallourn brown coal fly ash
(YFA) mix had a lower compressive strength, 6.8 MPa, and therefore can be
used as a general-purpose brick. The Loy Yang brown coal fly ash (LYFA) mix
achieved a 21.7 MPa compressive strength at 28 days, which corresponds to
the application as fire bricks in Australia. The mix ratios for the two types of
bricks are displayed in Table.

39
4.21 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis-

LCA phases that were chosen for each brick group. Based on the unique
production circumstances for the geopolymer and PC bricks, these phases were
chosen. The extraction, production, and collection/drying stages of the raw
material manufacturing process were included. The mixing and heat-curing
procedures listed in Table 2 were both used during the brick production phase.

4.22- Contribution Analysis-

Illustrates the proportional impacts and intensities of the impact categories in

relation to the twelve midway categories for each life cycle stage of brick
production for the LYFA, YFA, and PC bricks. The primary differences
between the LYFA and YFA bricks were the fly ash collection location (travel
distance), mix design, and brick compressive strength. According to Figure,
both the LYFA and YFA bricks showed a comparable percentage variance for
all midway categories. For all types of bricks, the climate change had the
greatest effect on the fabrication of the materials. However, the combined
contributions from PC bricks exceeded 80% in the climate change category,
while the combined contributions from both brown coal geopolymer bricks
were only about 62%.

40
Figure 11. Comparison of the percentage of the environmental impacts of brown coal geopolymer

bricks and traditional bricks.

Figure 4 shows the impact intensities for the twelve chosen environmental
impact categories and significant LCA phases for the geopolymer and PC
bricks. The total percentage of impacts in the comparative analysis supported
the findings that the YFA bricks produced greater impact intensities for all
impact categories based on six LCA phases. However, the phases of material
production and use revealed higher values for both geopolymer and PC bricks in
the category of climate change impact. In contrast, the material manufacturing
phase was responsible for the highest proportion of LYFA and YFA compared
to PC, which were terrestrial acidification human toxicity and end-of-life phase
for ozone depletion.

41
Flow chart (Figure - 12)

42
The preparation of the raw ingredients for the geopolymer and traditional
bricks, which included gathering, drying, and processing, made up the material
manufacturing step. At the material manufacturing stage, Figure 5 compares the
environmental effects of each raw material used to make bricks in detail. The
findings made it abundantly evident that, aside from water and metal depletion,
alkaline activators were to blame for more than 80% of all impacts connected
with the material manufacturing stage for both LYFA and YFA bricks.

4.23- Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers (FRG) Used as Unreinforced Masonry

Structure-

Fibre reinforcement aids in reducing the drying shrinkage of geopolymers.

Guo et al. noted that adding fibres to geopolymers may also lessen cracking.
Guo et al. found that adding fibres increases the specific surface area of the
pores while decreases the average pore diameter, and that the greater the
decrease in the surface area of the pores, the smaller the fibre must be. The
geopolymer's mechanical characteristics improve with increasing pore
complexity.

Although little research has been done on the subject, fiber-reinforced

geopolymers (FRG) can be used to reinforce and rebuild URMs. When the term
"fiber-reinforced geopolymers" is used in a search, there are around 1571 hits.
43
Only 44 items are visible when the search is refined to "fiber-reinforced
geopolymers used in unreinforced masonry structures," though. Out of these 44
outcomes, only one study—the study by Tamburini et al. examined the use of
FRG in URMs in-depth. The reinforced geopolymer grouts, according to the
researchers, had a great deal of potential to improve current masonry projects.
To reinforce geopolymer grout, steel textiles and fibre meshes are utilised.

The spread of microcracks can be slowed down by adding fibres to a

geopolymer matrix. A research by Wang et al. [115] describes the interaction
between the fibres and the matrix and suggests that the fibres serve as a conduit
for the energy that the matrix absorbs. In order to prevent fracture localization
along a path, the branching effect and crack deflection are mostly caused by the
interfacial bond between the fiber's surface and the matrix.

4.24- Properties and applications of geopolymers-

Geopolymers have a very diverse variety of applications, from straightforward,

low-cost materials to sophisticated compounds for specialised uses. All
aluminosilicates with a Si/Al atomic ratio ranging from 1 to 3 can be used as
raw materials to produce inexpensive products (for example, metakaolin, blast
furnace slag, and fly ash). The atomic ratio can vary up to 35 for the synthesis
of more complex materials

According to the Si/Al atomic ratio, the field of application, and technological
intervention, Davidovits offers the many types of materials.

• Flexural and compressive strength;

• Resistance to high temperatures;

44
• Resistance to chemical attack;

• Low permeability to fluids and chloride ions;

• Processing/recovery of industrial waste; and

• Low CO2 emission.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Pyrament, a Portland and activated alkali hybrid
concrete with a high initial strength, was commercialised in North America.
One of the first nations in Europe to use fly ash and blast furnace slag as a
binder for the creation of acid-resistant pipes was the Netherlands. Activated
alkaline materials used in civil construction later attracted businesses from other
United Kingdom nations and spread throughout the continent.

45
Fig. 13. Applications of geopolymers

46
 CHAPTER-5

RESULT AND DICUSSION

47
5- Result & Discussion

* In this study, the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2-e) produced by

all the processes required for the procurement of raw materials, the production
of concrete, and the construction of a 10000 SBE are quantified. We compare
the CO2-e footprints of 100% OPC concrete versus concretes made with
geopolymer binders. Because manufacturers don't reveal any particular
technical information on emissions from the processes and energy use, sodium
silicate solution manufacturing's emissions aren't included in the study. As a
result, Fawer et al.'s inventory of the energy used in the manufacturing of
sodium silicate is the foundation for our estimations of energy usage and
consumption. Our findings demonstrate that the manufacture of geopolymer
concrete pavers has a marginally smaller carbon footprint than those made of
conventional Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete.

* However, they also demonstrate that the manufacture of geopolymer concrete

has a greater negative impact on the environment than the heavy side effects of
sodium silicate solution production. Comparable concrete made with 100%
OPC binder has a CO2 footprint that is roughly 16% greater than that of
geopolymer concrete.

* The acquisition, treatment, and transportation of raw materials for the

production of alkali activators for geopolymers, the significant energy
consumption during the production of alkali activators, and the necessity of
curing geopolymers at elevated temperatures were key factors that contributed
to the higher than expected emissions for geopolymer concrete.

48
Fig. 14. CO2 footprint of production of (a) OPC based concrete paving blocks and (b) geopolymer
concrete ones

* Secondary data are used to estimate the brick kiln emission and the derived
emission factors. The amount of each air pollutant released varies greatly
between kilns and during a burning batch. The average CO, SO2, and
particulate matter (PM) emission factors per 1,000 bricks were 6.35–12.3, 0.52–
5.9, and 0.64–1.4 kg, respectively. The size distribution of the PM emissions in
the gas was approximated using IPCC data. On the ambient air quality (SO2,
PM, CO, and PM dry deposition flux), the effects of various emission scenarios
were evaluated.

* The impact assessment's single score approach assigns emissions to processes.

The brick kiln burning is where the emissions are at their highest, as shown in
Fig. 4. Per brick, the coal combustion process in the kiln yields 0.050503 mpt of
inorganics.

Because of insufficient coal combustion in the brick kiln, a high amount of the
corresponding inorganics are produced. The amount of respirable inorganics
49
exceeds the 0.012 limit set by USEPA AP-42 Section 11.3 (1997) for VOC
emission limitations.

Fig. 15. Single score results with respect to process and raw material

Low viscosity polymeric resin can be used to strengthen geopolymers with high
porosity.

* The impact of adding unsaturated orthophtalic polyester resin to extremely

porous metakaolin-based geopolymers is examined in the study by Fiset et al.
[125]. Using hydrogen peroxide and saponified canola oil, the team created
open holes in the metakaolin-based geopolymers, which were then followed by
the polyester resin that polymerizes with the geopolymeric framework. They
discovered that the reinforced geopolymers' mechanical properties have been
greatly improved by 12 to 40 percent for compressive strength and by 2 percent
for ductility. For Shaikh [91], the reinforcing material for cement-fly ash (CFA)
geopolymer mortar is recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibre.

* Comparable to cement and CFA composites, PET fiber-reinforced

geopolymer has a higher compressive strength. The compressive strength of
composites reinforced with polypropylene fibre was higher than that of

50
composites reinforced with PET fibre, nevertheless. When the combined
amount of both fibres is increased from 1% to 1.5%, strength is still reduced.

.Fig-16N-A-S-H amorphous geopolymer gels

51
Fig-17Coagulation-condensation step

Fig-18 Geopolymerization process

52
CHAPTER-6

CONCLUSION

53
 6- Conclusions and Future Research

Two brown coal ash geopolymer bricks underwent an environmental

investigation using life cycle assessment. Based on the outcomes, the following
conclusions can be drawn the result.

• Intensities of the effects of climate change on the Loy Yang FA (LYFA)

bricks were slightly higher than those on Portland cement (PC) bricks.

• Due to their lower compressive strength, Yallourn FA (YFA) bricks had

greater environmental effect intensities than LYFA and PC bricks for all
intermediate categories.

• The two environmental issues with the greatest potential for influence during
brick production were identified as fossil fuel depletion and climate change.

• For both brown coal geopolymer bricks, the sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide mixture had a 90% overall influence on all categories, with the
exception of metal ( 50%) and water depletion ( 30%).

• Compared to PC bricks, LYFA bricks had worse effects on environmental

acidification, human toxicity, photochemical oxidant formation, particulate
matter formation, terrestrial and marine ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel depletion.

• By using brown coal ash in the brick-making process, significant

environmental advantages can be realised in terms of human, freshwater, and
marine water ecotoxicity.

• Due to the replacement of PC as a raw material, the most notable advantages

of the LYFA geopolymer bricks over the PC bricks were noted for the
categories of ozone depletion, water depletion, and metal depletion (natural
resources other than fossil fuels).
54
• None of the formulations created for this investigation included the use of
coarse aggregate, sand, or cement.

A series of trials produced compressive strengths ranging from 13.39 1.42 MPa
to 89.32 7.1 MPa.

* The product's water absorption ranged from 3.74 0.78 to 7.55 0.17%,
indicating limited water penetration. This variation was caused by the decrease
in alkalinity during geopolymerization.

* The results of the study showed that, when compared to PC bricks, there is a
significant potential to lessen the environmental impact of brown coal
geopolymer bricks, particularly the LYFA bricks. Emissions and energy
consumption can be greatly decreased by switching from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources during heat curing and by optimising the activator
concentration, kind, and ratio. Additionally, taking the right procedures when
using and handling chemical activators can reduce the chances of human
toxicity. These elements should be taken into account in future studies to reduce
the environmental effects of manufacturing brown coal geopolymer bricks.

* This study shows that paving blocks made from C&D waste will address
sustainability challenges including resource conservation and turning trash into
useful and valued goods.

* Second, since carbonates are calcinated throughout the production process, it

is obvious that alkali activators raise CO2 stockpiles. The kind, amount, and
dose of the alkali activators determine the CO2 footprint of the geopolymer
concrete paving blocks. Therefore, there is a definite need to concentrate on
additional study employing admixtures with various solution and precursor
ratios and, as a result, examine and compare their environmental implications.

55
* This study's findings may shift coal fly ash from waste to a resource that can
be used to make a variety of materials. The only items that have been produced
at the lab-scale are roof tiles and paving bricks. However, the formulations and
conditions developed in this research could be used to make other building
materials, ceramics, or art objects.

56
CHAPTER

REFERENCE

57
1- Jingxuan Zhang 1 , Sarah Fernando 1,2, David W. Law 1 , Chamila
Gunasekara 1 , Sujeeva Setunge 1 ,

Malindu Sandanayake 3

and Guomin ZhangAccepted: 23 April 2023

Published: 8 May 2023.

2- Antonella Petrilloa , Raffaele Cioffia , Claudio Feronea , Francesco

Colangeloa , Claudia

Borrellia2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer

-review under the responsibility of the Simone Cesa.

3- Witzleben, S. Minimizing

the Global Warming Potential

with Geopolymer-Based

Insulation Material with

Miscanthus Fiber.

Polymers 2022, 14, 3191. https://

doi.org/10.3390/polym14153191

Academic Editors: Wei-Hao Lee,

Yung-Ching Ding and Kae-Long Lin

58
Received: 28 June 2022

59
Accepted: 28 July 2022

Published: 5 August 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil

iations.

4- Tulane Rodrigues da Silva 1,2, Afonso Rangel Garcez de Azevedo 3,* ,

Daiane Cecchin 1 ,

Markssuel Teixeira Marvila 2 , Mugahed Amran 4,5 , Roman Fediuk 6,* ,

Nikolai Vatin 7 , Maria Karelina 8 ,

Sergey Klyuev 9

and Maciej SzelagAccepted: 23 June 2021

Published: 25 June 2021.

5- Rosicky Methode Kalombe 1,2,* , Victor Tunde Ojumu 1 , Chuks Paul Eze 3
,

Sammy Mwasaha Nyale 4 , John Kevern 2 and Leslie Felicia Petrik, Accepted:
23 November 2020; Published: 14 December 2020.

6- Shridhar Kumbhar a,b, Nitin Kulkarni a,c, Anand B. Rao a and Bakul Rao,©
2014 Bakul Rao. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license.

60
7- Ines Labaied 1,2, Omar Douzane 2 , Marzouk Lajili 1,* and Geoffrey

Promis Accepted: 16 October 2022

Published: 21 October 2022

8- Esther Obonyo 1 , Elie Kamseu 2,3,*, Uphie C. Melo 3 and Cristina

LeonelliReceived: 9 January 2011 / Accepted: 9 February 2011 / Published: 16
February 2011

9-J.A. Torres-Ochoa

1,4 , N.R. Osornio-Rubio

1,2 , H. Jiménez-Islas3 , J.L. Navarrete-Bolaños3 ,

G.M. Martínez-GonzálezReceived: October 15 2018; Accepted: November 20,

2018

10- Fabrizio Ascione 1,* , Rosa Francesca De Masi 2 , Nicoletta Del Regno 3 ,
Filippo De Rossi 4 , Antonio Gigante 2

and Silvia Ruggiero Accepted: 30 August 2022

Published: 1 September 2022

11- Girts Bumanis 1,* , Diana Bajare 2 , Aleksandrs Korjakins 2

and Danut

61
e Vaiˇciukynien

e Accepted: 2 September 2022

Published: 8 September 2022

12- Lahiba Imtiaz 1 , Sardar Kashif Ur Rehman 1,*, Shazim Ali Memon 2,* ,

Muhammad Khizar Khan 1,3 and Muhammad Faisal JavedReceived: 25 August

2020; Accepted: 23 October 2020; Published: 5 November 2020

13- Leandro B. de Oliveira

,* Afonso R.G. de Azevedo, Markssuel T. Marvila, Elaine C.Pereira , Roman

Fediuk , Carlos Mauricio F. VieiraReceived 8 September 2021; Received in
revised form 28 November 2021; Accepted 7 December 2021.

14- Anabel B. Abulencia 1,*, Ma. Beatrice D. Villoria 1 , Roneh Glenn D.

Libre, Jr. 2 , Pauline Rose J. Quiatchon 1 ,

Ithan Jessemar R. Dollente 1 , Ernesto J. Guades 3 , Michael Angelo B.

Promentilla 2 ,

Lessandro Estelito O. Garciano 2 and Jason Maximino C. Ongpeng 2Accepted:

8 November 2021

Published: 11 November 2021

15- Mahasenan, N.; Smith, S.; Humphreys, K. The Cement Industry and Global
Climate Change Current and Potential Future Cement

62
Industry CO2 Emissions. In Proceedings of the Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies—6th International Conference, Kyoto,

Japan, 1–4 October 2002; pp. 995–1000.

16- Pham, T.M.; Lim, Y.Y.; Pradhan, S.S.; Kumar, J. Performance of rice husk
Ash-Based sustainable geopolymer concrete with

Ultra-Fine slag and Corn cob ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 279, 122526.

17- Neupane, K.; Hadigheh, S.A. Sodium hydroxide-free geopolymer binder for
prestressed concrete applications. Constr. Build.

Mater. 2021, 293, 123397.

18- Ricciotti, L.; Molino, A.; Roviello, V.; Chianese, E.; Cennamo, P.; Roviello,
G. Geopolymer Composites for Potential Applications

in Cultural Heritage. Environments 2017, 4, 91.

19- Gursel, A.P.; Maryman, H.; Ostertag, C. A life-cycle approach to

environmental, mechanical, and durability properties of ―green‖

concrete mixes with rice husk ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 823–836.

20- Kumar, A.; Kumar, S. Development of paving blocks from synergistic use
of red mud and fly ash using geopolymerization. Constr.

Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 865–871.

63
21- Kalaw, M.E.; Culaba, A.; Hinode, H.; Kurniawan, W.; Gallardo, S.;
Promentilla, M.A. Optimizing and characterizing geopolymers

from ternary blend of philippine coal fly ash, coal bottom ash and rice hull ash.
Materials 2016, 9, 580.

22- Yaseri, S.; Verki, V.M.; Mahdikhani, M. Utilization of high volume cement
kiln dust and rice husk ash in the production of sustainable geopolymer. J.
Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 592–602.
23- 23-

Yaseri, S.; Verki, V.M.; Mahdikhani, M. Utilization of high volume cement kiln
dust and rice husk ash in the production of

sustainable geopolymer. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 592–602

24- Moni, S.M.F.K.; Ikeora, O.; Pritzel, C.; Görtz, B.; Trettin, R. Preparation
and properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete

with alkaline waste water obtained from foundry sand regeneration process. J.
Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 1434–1443.

25- Sathonsaowaphak, A.; Chindaprasirt, P.; Pimraksa, K. Workability and

strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. J.

Hazard. Mater. 2009, 168, 44–50.

26- 26-

64
Thokchom, S.; Dutta, D.; Ghosh, S. Effect of Incorporating Silica Fume in Fly
Ash Geopolymers. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2011,

5, 5.

27- . Ban, C.C.; Ee, T.L.; Ramli, M. The engineering properties and
microstructure of sodium carbonate activated fly ash/ slag blended

mortars with silica fume. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 160, 558–572.

28- . Rashad, A.M.; Ouda, A.S. An investigation on alkali-activated fly ash

pastes modified with quartz powder subjected to elevated

temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 122, 417–425.

29- Rashad, A.M.; Ouda, A.S. An investigation on alkali-activated fly ash

pastes modified with quartz powder subjected to elevated

temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 122, 417–425.

30- Huang, Y.; Han, M. The influence of Al2O3 addition on microstructure,

mechanical and formaldehyde adsorption properties of

fly ash-based geopolymer products. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 193, 90–94.

65