2009 World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference - May 4-7, 2009 in Lexington, KY, USA

http://www.flyash.info/

Compressive Strength and Embodied Energy

Optimization of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer
Concrete
Brett Tempest1, Olanrewaju Sanusi 1, Janos Gergely1,
Vincent Ogunro1, David Weggel1
1
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223

KEYWORDS: Geopolymer, inorganic polymer, fly ash, beneficial use, embodied energy

ABSTRACT

Geopolymer cements can be used to produce structural strength concrete without the
considerable carbon dioxide emissions that characterize Portland cement manufacture.
Geopolymers are formed when alumino-silicates, such as fly ashes, dissolve in a strong
alkaline solution, reorganize and precipitate in a hardened state. The economical and
sustainable production of geopolymer cements for structural uses hinges on minimizing
the quantity of high energy materials, like NaOH, required to activate the fly ashes. This
paper details the optimization of the mix design and curing regimen for a geopolymer
concrete by relating strength development to the quantity of energy that is consumed to
activate the fly ashes and curing the concrete at elevated temperatures. The concretes
were produced with the addition of NaOH at the rate of 10%, 13% and 16% of the fly
ash mass. Cylindrical samples (76mm diameter by 152mm height) were made and
aged in batches at room temperature and then cured at 75⁰ C. The duration of the
aging and curing process was manipulated to determine the most effective combination
for developing compressive strength. The compressive strength of samples from each
batch was measured at 28 days and the results were used to optimize the mix design.
The material and energy inputs for the optimized geopolymer concrete are compared to
Portland cement concrete of equivalent compressive strength.

INTRODUCTION

As worldwide awareness and concern over global climate change increases, the
greenhouse gas intensiveness of Portland cement manufacture is attracting scrutiny. A
viable replacement, geopolymer cement, is currently receiving increased attention in
academic and industrial communities for its ability to serve as a binder in structural
concrete applications. Geopolymers are formed when alumino-silicates dissolve in a
strong alkaline solution, reorganize and precipitate in a hardened state 1,2. The term
“geopolymer” was coined by Davidovits following research into inorganic-polymer
technologies for industrial applications 2. Geopolymers have been manufactured from

1
alumino-silicate rich industrial wastes, such as blast furnace slag, for more than 60
years and are also often referred to as alkali-activated cements or inorganic polymer
cements 1. The bulk of research into the use of industrial waste in these cements has
centered on fly ash due to its abundance and the current scarcity of useful applications
for it relative to the quantities produced 1,3-10. Geopolymer cement concrete can have
properties very similar to Portland cement concrete when formed under suitable
conditions 11. In addition to providing a gainful use for waste material and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, the geopolymerization has also been shown to immobilize
some heavy metals present in fly ashes 12.

The preparation of geopolymer cement concretes has been accomplished by mixing the
aluminosilicate source material (typically fly ash or metakaolin) with an “activating
solution” that contains the alkalinity, and sometimes a supplementary source of soluble
silicate. Following the addition of the activating solution, the concrete is mixed and
finally cured under suitable conditions. The nature of these conditions depends on the
chemistry of the source material and the activating solution. Besides the material inputs
and curing requirements, geopolymer cement concretes are mixed and used in a similar
fashion to Portland cement concretes.

Geopolymer cements have been used to create structural concretes by Hardjito and
Rangan 13. In the course of their preliminary research, mixing procedures similar to
those common for Portland cement concrete were used. It was also discovered that
superplasticizers could be used effectively. Concretes were produced with compressive
strength in the range of 44-90 MPa 13.

The process of curing and hardening is different for geopolymer cement concrete than
for Portland cement concrete. Geopolymers tend to increase in strength following a
period of curing at elevated temperatures, ranging from room-temperature to nearly
100⁰ C depending on the source materials and strength development requirements.
Temperature has been found to affect setting time, the pore structure and the
development of strength. Sinhunata et al. found that the geopolymerization reaction
proceeded more quickly at elevated temperatures 14. As temperatures increased from
30 to 50 to 75⁰ C the Al and Si precursors were more readily dissolved from the source
material. The apparent setting time was also found to decrease as the temperatures
increased 14.

Alonso and Palomo also studied the effect of heat addition to the geopolymer gel and
found that increased temperatures accelerated the reaction and promoted hardening 15.
Using isothermal calorimetry, the heat evolution was monitored from the initial contact
between activator and metakaolin through the end of the geopolymerization process.
An exothermic peak corresponding to condensation occurs earlier as the ambient
temperatures increase from 35 to 60⁰ C 15. Some studies have related curing time with
temperature. Swanepoel et al found that an optimum strength was achieved by curing
fly ash based geopolymer at 60⁰C for 48 hours 16. However, a study by Xie and Xi
developed much stronger pastes with different materials by curing under the optimal
temperature of 55⁰C for only 12 hours. Others have developed geopolymers with

2
compressive strengths suitable for structural application through room temperature
curing 9.

Another aspect of geopolymer preparation that has impacts on strength development is

the selection of an activating solution. Researchers have used potassium hydroxide
(KOH) as well as sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for alkalinity. NaOH is generally favored for
its greater efficiency in liberating aluminate and silicate from the source material, as well
as its economy. Increased alkali concentration results in greater solubility of the source
material 17. However, an excess of alkali hydroxide or of soluble silicate tends to retard
strength development. Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) is also a preferred activating solution
due to its soluble silicate content, which tends to increase the rate of the polymerization
reaction. Previous, unpublished research at UNCC has shown that activating solutions
containing more than NaOH/Fly ash ratios greater than 0.16 are typically difficult to work
with. Concretes made with these activators tend to exhibit poor workability and often
set-up erratically before cylinder specimens can be created.

It has been shown that curing temperatures as well as the type of activating solution
have an interrelated role in determining the workability and strength development of
geopolymer cement concrete. Thus, the curing routine must be matched to the
activating solution and the aluminosilicate source material. This interrelation provides
opportunities to optimize the production process for geopolymer cement concrete in
order to reduce the total energy required to produce material of a particular strength.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Three batches of geopolymer cement concrete were prepared using the proportions
given in Table 1. The concrete was mixed in 0.05 m3 batches in a 0.085 m3 rotary mixer
by mixing the dry ingredients for two minutes and then adding the activating solution for
five additional minutes of mixing. 76x152 mm cylinders were prepared by adding the
concrete in three lifts and rodding 25 times per lift with a 9.5 mm diameter rod. For
consistency, the step of vibrating all the cylinders for 1 minute after rodding was added.

The fly ash used in this study was sourced from a southeastern steam station. X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) analysis was used to determine the composition and results are
presented in Table 2. Aggregates used in the study were secured from a local quarry.
Coarse aggregates were granitic with 9.5mm maximum nominal diameter. The
gradation for both fine and coarse aggregates is given in Table 3.

3
 Table 1: Mixing proportions kg/m3

Mix # Fly Water NaOH Silica Fine Coarse

Ash Fume Aggregate Aggregate
1 495 163 49.5 37.1 793 793
2 474 163 61.6 46.2 793 793
3 455 163 72.7 54.5 793 793

Table 2: XRF analysis of fly ashes

Oxide % by
Mass
SiO2 56.20
TiO2 1.46
Al2O3 28.00
Fe2O3 5.22
MnO 0.02
MgO 1.00
CaO 1.52
Na2O 0.21
K2O 2.74
P2O5 0.18
Totals 96.55
LOI 3.32

Table 3: Gradation of aggregates

% finer
Sieve Coarse Fine
[mm] Aggregate Aggregate
16.0 100.00 100.00
12.5 99.50 100.00
9.50 85.30 99.77
4.75 28.80 99.54
2.36 5.50 97.94
1.18 1.30 90.37
0.425 0.70 37.16
0.300 0.70 19.95
0.150 0.50 1.61
Pan 0.00 0.00

4
The cylinders were aged and cured according to the schedule presented in Table 4.
The aging process occurred under ambient conditions in the Structural Materials
Laboratory at UNC Charlotte. After the cylinders were made, the 0-hour aging batch
was placed directly in a 75⁰ C curing oven. The other cylinders were left out in the lab
and added to the oven after either 24 or 48 hours of aging. Cylinders were demolded
immediately after the requisite period of curing and were stacked on a pallet under the
ambient conditions in the lab until testing on the 28th day. From each batch and curing
group, three cylinders were tested in compression in accordance with ASTM C39 18.
The procedure was carried out on a universal testing machine at UNC Charlotte.

Table 4: Number of cylinders made with each aging and curing regimen

Aging Curing
24 hours 48 hours
0 hours 10 10
24 hours 10 10
48 hours 10 10

RESULTS

The compression tests revealed that the material strength ranged from a minimum of
32.5 MPa to a maximum of 67.5 MPa. The results show that strength development is
related to all three variables that were manipulated in this experiment: activator
concentration, aging time and curing time. These results verify trends found by other
researchers as well as provide insight into their interrelation.

The average mix strength was highest for the Mix #2 group and lowest for the Mix #3
group. Thus, strength seemed to improve when the alkalinity of the activating solution
was increased from 10% NaOH/fly ash to 13% NaOH/fly ash, but declined when the
alkalinity was further increased to 16% NaOH/fly ash. Despite these general trends with
strength development related to the alkalinity of the activating solution, there is an
important influence from the aging and curing schedule.

The results presented in Table 5 show two main trends in strength development for the
aging and curing routines used in this course of experiments. Increasing aging time
from 0 to 2 days improved the 28-day compressive strength in all cases. Increased
curing time at 75⁰ C also improved the 28 day strength in all cases. These results are
illustrated in Figure 1. For the Mix #1 specimens, high temperature curing for an
additional day improved the compressive strength an average of 12%. For these same
specimens, the impact of additional aging was an average of 6% increase in

5
compressive strength. For the Mix #2 specimens, the effect of additional high
temperature curing time was an average compressive strength increase of 13%. The
impact of additional aging time on these specimens was an increase of strength by 8%
on average. Mix #3 showed the greatest improvement in strength with both increased
aging time and 24 hours of curing. However, the maximum strength attained is that
achieved by Mix #2.

Figure 1 also shows that there might be room for further improvement in compressive
strength by aging the specimens for more than two days prior to heat curing. Whereas
the improvement in strength for Mix #1 has leveled off by day two, Mixes #2 and #3
appear to still be increasing at day two. Further experimental work would be required to
examine this trend.

Table 5: Results of compression and tension tests

Mix # Aging Time Curing Time

[days] [hours] [MPa]
1 0 24 37
1 0 48 41
1 1 24 41
1 1 48 45
1 2 24 41
1 2 48 48
2 0 24 51
2 0 48 55
2 1 24 53
2 1 48 64
2 2 24 57
2 2 48 67
3 0 24 32
3 0 48 44
3 1 24 43
3 1 48 47
3 2 24 55
3 2 48 56

6
 70

65

60

55
Compressive Strength [MPa]

50

45

40

Mix #1-24
35
Mix #2-24

30 Mix #3-24
Mix #1-48
25 Mix #2-48
Mix #3-48
20
0 1 2

Aging Time [days]

Figure 1: Compressive strength development with aging and curing time

The benefit of aging for longer periods versus curing for longer periods is demonstrated
in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Mixes #1 and #2 both showed compressive strength gains of
approximately 25% through the combination of increased aging and curing periods. By
comparing the batches that were aged for 0 days and cured for 24 hours with those
aged for 2 days and then cured for 24 and 48 hours, it is possible to determine the
effect of each process on the final strength development. These differences are
illustrated in Figure 2 by the regions labeled “A” and “B.” Region “A” is the difference in
compressive strength of cylinders that were aged for 0 days and cured for 24 hours and
the strength of cylinders that were aged for 2 days and cured for 24 hours. Thus, it
describes the effect of two days of aging time. Region “B” quantifies the difference in
compressive strength of cylinders aged for two days and cured for 24 or 48 hours. For
Mixes #1 and #2, 38% of the gains between the batch not aged and cured for only 24
hours and the batch aged for two days and cured for two days were related to aging
while 62% were related to heat curing. The higher alkalinity Mix #3 showed much

7
different behavior with 95% of the strength gains being attributable to aging and only 5%
attributable to heat curing.

It would appear that heat is playing a role in two different reaction mechanisms. For
instance, in the lower alkalinity concretes, the heat might help strength development by
improving the dissolution processes by increasing the solubility of silica. In higher
alkalinity systems the heat is probably not required to improve dissolution due to the
greater quantity of available OH- ions. This may be explained by the very small
difference in strength between Mix #3 specimens aged for 2 days and cured for 24
hours versus those cured for 48 hours.

80
Compressive Strength [MPa]

70 B
60
50
40 Curing Time
30 48 hours

20 24 hours

10
0 A
0 24 48
Aging Time [days]

Figure 2: Compressive strength after 24 and 48 hours of curing for Mix #1

80
Compressive Strength [MPa]

70
60
50
40 Curing Time
30 48 hours

20 24 hours

10
0
0 24 48
Aging Time [days]

Figure 3: Compressive strength after 24 and 48 hours of curing for Mix #2

8
 80
Compressive Strength [MPa]

70
60
50
40 Curing Time
30 48 hours

20 24 hours

10
0
0 24 48
Aging Time [days]

Figure 4: Compressive strength after 24 and 48 hours of curing for Mix #3

ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR GEOPOLYMER CEMENT CONCRETE

As an industrial process, the production of geopolymer concrete must be made as

economical as possible with regard to energy and material inputs. From a sustainability
standpoint, geopolymer concrete can only be considered as an option for green
construction if the processes used to manufacture it do not cause unacceptable harm to
the environment, depletion of resources or damage to human health. For the purposes
of evaluating sustainability, life cycle assessment is often used to quantify all the inputs
and outputs required to manufacture, maintain and dispose of a product or material. A
full life cycle analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. However, to determine the
most efficient manner by which the compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete
specimens can be improved, an energy assessment was performed on a hypothetical
production technique.

The analysis was performed on a hypothetical technique because the actual inputs and
outputs in an industrial setting are not known very precisely for geopolymer concrete.
As industrial scale processes are perfected, the conservative values used here will be
refined. The values used here are assumed or extrapolated from those determined in
the lab according to the following methodology. The processes examined are: 1)
production of the alkalinity source, NaOH, 2) the production of the activating solution by
mixing silica fume with NaOH and water and heating for 24 hours, 3) high temperature
curing.

In this study, the energy required to produce geopolymer concrete is ultimately

compared to that required to manufacture Portland cement concrete of similar strength.

9
In order to compare the results of a life cycle analysis for different materials, it is
necessary to define a functional unit. This is an especially critical step when comparing
radically different systems, such as timber columns versus steel columns. But, since
concrete bound with geopolymer cement can be used in an overwhelmingly similar
capacity as precast Portland cement concrete, the functional unit used for this analysis
is simply 1 m3 of 70 MPa concrete. The two materials can be cast into identical shapes
that can be expected to offer similar structural performance. Therefore, the energy
comparison that is presented is solely related to the development of the concrete
strength and does not include the energy required for other concreting practices. The
main differences in the two processes relate to the preparation of the cement. In the
case of Portland cement, manufacturing energy is applied prior to mixing the concrete.
For geopolymer cement, the energy used to develop strength is applied to prepare the
activating solution and to heat the concrete after it is mixed and placed. However, the
mixing processes, formwork preparation, reinforcing requirements, concrete placement
and consolidation practices are very similar.

Energy Requirements

The energy necessary to collect fly ash and silica fume used to produce geopolymer
was neglected from this study. Because these are both industrial byproducts that must
be collected for compliance with air quality regulations, it is typical to neglect their
upstream energy requirements. An important energy input to the use of these materials
is that for transportation. However, since transportation energy is not considered in the
comparison of geopolymer cement concrete with Portland cement concrete production,
it is left out of the analysis altogether. Also not considered are the energy requirements
for making the concrete admixtures used because their quantities are small enough as
to not be significant in the overall analysis.

Phase 1, production of alkalinity source:

NaOH is most commonly produced by electrolysis of brine solution. The reaction

produces chlorine gas at the anode and a weak alkali at the cathode. The alkaline
solution is typically concentrated to 50% strength for shipment. The SPLINE LCA
dataset quantifies the energy required to produce sodium hydroxide as 20.5 MJ/kg 19.

Phase 2, production of the activator solution

The method of producing alkaline activator solution for the concretes made in this set of
experiments was to mix water, silica fume and the sodium hydroxide together and then
to heat the solution overnight. To estimate the energy required for this process only the
energy required to maintain an elevated temperature of 75⁰ C in a well insulated tank
was included. The energy required to heat the solution to 75⁰ C was not included
because the dissolution of the sodium hydroxide in the water produces temperatures
that far exceed 75⁰ C. The reaction with the silica fume is also quite violent and
elevates the temperature further. It was estimated that a well insulated tank will lose

10
heat energy at the rate of 0.194 MJ m-2 h-1 when the contents are maintained at 75⁰ C
and the ambient conditions outside the tank are 21⁰ C. In the lab, small quantities of
activator are produced in an oven. However, in an industrial setting it would be
produced in a much different manner. In this experiment, the quantity of activator
solution required to produce 1 m3 of concrete is about 100 L. A cylindrical 100 L tank
with a height twice its diameter would have a surface area of 1.25 m 2. Thus, the energy
required to maintain the sodium silicate solution at 75⁰ C for 24 hours would be 5.8 MJ.

Phase 3, High temperature curing of geopolymer

In the absence of measured quantities, the specific heat of geopolymer concrete was
assumed to be similar to that of Portland cement concrete, 0.88 J G-1 K-1. Other
researchers have determined the specific heat of geopolymer-sand mortars to range
between 0.7 and 1.0 J G-1 K-1 20. As the bulk of constituents in both materials is
aggregate (~80%), this assumption is felt to be reasonably valid. However, properly
measuring the specific heat of geopolymer concrete would refine the accuracy of this
energy analysis. The heat required to raise the geopolymer concrete from 21⁰ C to 75⁰
C is calculated as 102.8 MJ. The concrete must then be held at an elevated
temperature for 24-48 hours. As with the activating solution production, heat losses
from a well insulated oven wall were estimated at 0.194 MJ m-2 h-1. An oven slightly
larger in volume than the concrete would show losses of 2.6 MJ h-1. Thus, longer curing
durations will require greater inputs of energy to maintain elevated temperatures for
longer periods of time.

The energy use of each batch and curing group was calculated using the methodology
described above. A comparison of the energy requirements for the three mix designs
and six curing regimens is shown in Table 6. In studying these results it is clear that the
bulk of the embodied energy in the geopolymer cement production is tied to the NaOH
content. However, since compressive strength gains decreased with additions of NaOH
in excess of 13% of the fly ash content, the other factors are very significant. In these
experiments, the impact of 24 additional hours of high temperature curing was a 12%
gain in compressive strength. The energy required for the additional curing is estimated
at 62.6 MJ, which is a more efficient method of increasing the strength than adding
alkalinity.

The highest strength concrete produced contained the materials of Mix #2 and was
aged for 48 hours and cured for 48 hours. Specimens from this group had an average
compressive strength of 67 MPa. As shown in the rightmost column of Table 6, the
strength per MJ of energy input is calculated for all batches. The highest strength is
associated with the lowest MJ/MPa designation. This demonstrates that optimizing the
curing regimen is a more energy efficient and effective method of increasing the
strength of geopolymer cement concrete than the addition of alkalinity. Thus, the 67
MPa batch is selected as the optimum concrete design. The energy required to develop
the cementitious component of 1 m3 of this concrete is estimated at 1,501 MJ.

11
Energy required to produce Portland cement concrete

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has published a lifecycle inventory of the
energy and material inputs to concrete 21. In this document the Portland cement
products ready-mix concrete, precast concrete and concrete masonry units are
analyzed. Due to the heating requirements of the geopolymer cement concrete
presented in this paper that require it to be produced in a factory setting, it is most
directly comparable to the 70 MPa precast concrete mix that is studied in the PCA
document. The mix design for this concrete is shown in Table 7, below.

Table 6: Energy required to produce concrete of various strengths [MJ]

Age Cure Produce Heat Heat Maintain Total MJ/

Time Time [MPa] NaOH Activator Concrete Concrete Energy MPa
[days] [hours] to at 75⁰ C
75⁰ C
0 24 36.6 1018.2 5.8 102.8 62.8 1189.7 32.5
0 24 50.7 1267.1 “ “ 62.8 1438.5 28.4
0 24 32.5 1495.5 “ “ 62.8 1667.0 51.4
0 48 41.4 1018.2 “ “ 125.6 1252.5 30.2
0 48 55.0 1267.1 “ “ 125.6 1501.4 27.3
0 48 43.7 1495.5 “ “ 125.6 1729.8 39.6
24 24 40.8 1018.2 “ “ 62.8 1189.7 29.2
24 24 53.3 1267.1 “ “ 62.8 1438.5 27.0
24 24 42.5 1495.5 “ “ 62.8 1667.0 39.2
24 48 44.6 1018.2 “ “ 125.6 1252.5 28.1
24 48 64.2 1267.1 “ “ 125.6 1501.4 23.4
24 48 46.7 1495.5 “ “ 125.6 1729.8 37.0
48 24 40.9 1018.2 “ “ 62.8 1189.7 29.1
48 24 57.1 1267.1 “ “ 62.8 1438.5 25.2
48 24 54.6 1495.5 “ “ 62.8 1667.0 30.5
48 48 48.1 1018.2 “ “ 125.6 1252.5 26.0
48 48 67.5 1267.1 “ “ 125.6 1501.4 22.2
48 48 55.8 1495.5 “ “ 125.6 1729.8 31.0

12
 Table 7: Mix design for 70 MPa concrete

Raw Material kg/m3

Cement 445
Silica Fume 56
Water 136
Coarse Aggregate 1,112
Fine Aggregate 611

In order to compare the energy requirement for manufacturing the two concretes, it is
assumed that the primary differences in the production process are in the preparation of
the cement and the necessity for elevated curing temperatures in the case of the
geopolymer cement concrete. Thus, the other processes such as mixing, transporting,
facility lighting and maintenance, etcetera, are similar. The embodied energy of
Portland cement averaged over the many production methods is 4.798 MJ kg-1 22. In
order to produce the 445 kg of cement required for 1 m3 of concrete, 2,131 MJ of
energy would be required. As with the geopolymer cement concrete energy
assessment, the energy used to collect the silica fume is not considered because it is
required to be removed from the flue gas of an unrelated industrial process.

Comparison of production energy of geopolymer and Portland cement concrete

The difference in energy required to produce 70 Mpa Portland cement concrete and
67.5 Mpa geopolymer cement concrete is 630 MJ or 30%. The range of energy
requirements for production of the concretes made in this study are shown in Figure 6.
Also plotted is an estimate of the energy required to produce Portland cement concrete
of various strengths. Other points along the Portland cement concrete curve are also
taken from the Life cycle inventory of Portland cement concrete 21. Figure 6 shows that
the geopolymer cement concretes require less production energy than Portland cement
concretes in concretes with higher compressive strength.

13
 Figure 5: Comparison of energy inputs for various strength geopolymer and Portland
cement concretes

CONCLUSIONS

Three batches of geopolymer cement concrete were produced with activating solutions
having different levels of alkalinity. Cylindrical specimens were created and allowed to
age under ambient conditions for zero, one or two days. These were then cured at 75⁰
C for either one or two days. The results of compression tests on these cylinders have
shown that all three variables have an influence on strength development. The two
concretes produced with lower alkalinity activating solutions benefited most from
additional curing time. The concrete produced with a higher alkalinity activating solution
benefited most from additional aging time.

Energy analyses indicate that geopolymer cement concrete can be produced with a
smaller energy footprint than Portland cement concrete. This distinction is important
relative to both the economics of production and the proportional relationship of energy
use to greenhouse gas generation. Greenhouse gas emissions from Portland cement
manufacture are sourced both from the carbon liberated from the cement source
materials as well as the fuels used to heat the kiln. Producing geopolymer cement from
fly ash eliminates both these greenhouse gas sources. Further, by diverting fly ashes
from ponds and landfills, beneficial reuse eliminates the possibility of the negative
environmental impacts associated with these storage techniques.

The energy savings of geopolymer cement concrete can be extended in several ways.
Production of the alkalinity source is the most energy intensive feature of the concrete
manufacture process. However, it may be possible to locate a source of alkalinity in the
waste stream that can serve as a substitute. Further, curing temperatures that were

14
used in this study, as well as by other research groups, are within a range whereby they
could be maintained by waste heat from another process. Work towards these two
production developments would result in an extremely low-energy and low-emissions
material.

FURTHER RESEARCH

As is seen in figures 1 and 2 it does not seem that the Mix #2 and Mix #3
specimens have completed their aging cycle and might have continued to gain in
strength if an additional day were provided. Longer duration aging cycles should
be investigated since this provides strength gains that do not require the input of
additional energy.

The energy analysis of the geopolymer production process could be made more
accurate if specific heat of geopolymer concrete were known with greater
certainty. Also of interest for improving the accuracy of this energy analysis
would be the inclusion of transportation energy for materials used in both
Portland cement concrete as well as geopolymer cement concrete.

All batches studied for this paper were cured at 75⁰ C. Lower temperatures
might also be effective at producing high strength concretes and would also be
more easily attainable from waste heat sources. Similar experiments should be
attempted at lower curing temperatures.

Acknowledgement: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under
Award Number DE-FG26-08NTO1982

Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government or any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

15
Works Cited

[1]. Duxson P., Fernández-Jiménez A., Provis J., Lukey G., Palomo A. and van
Deventer J. Journal of Materials Science, 2007, 42, pp. 2917-2933.
[2]. Davidovits J. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 1991, 37, pp. 1633-
1656.
[3]. Andini S., Cioffi R., Colangelo F., Grieco T., Montagnaro F. and Santoro L.
Waste Management, 2008, 28, pp. 416-423.
[4]. Buchwald A. and Schulz M. Cement and Concrete Research, 2005, 35, pp. 968
973.
[5]. Duxson P., Provis J.L., Lukey G.C. and van Deventer J.S.J. Cement and
Concrete Research, 2007, 37, pp. 1590-1597.
[6]. Jo B.w., Park S.k. and Park J.b. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2007, 29,
pp. 128-135.
[7]. Palomo A., Grutzeck M.W. and Blanco M.T. Cement and Concrete Research,
1999, 29, pp. 1323-1329.
[8]. Roy D.M. Cement and Concrete Research, 1999, 29, pp. 249-254.
[9]. Sun P. 2005. Fly ash based inorganic polymeric building material. Accessed
[10]. van Deventer J.S.J., Provis J.L., Duxson P. and Lukey G.C. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 2007, 139, pp. 506-513.
[11]. Sofi M., van Deventer J.S.J., Mendis P.A. and Lukey G.C. Cement and Concrete
Research, 2007, 37, pp. 251-257.
[12]. Olanrewaju S., Tempest B., Ogunro V., Gergely J. and Daniels J. Effect of
Hydroxyl Ion on Immobilization of Oxyanions Forming Trace Elements
from Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete. 2009 World of Coal Ash,
Lexington, KY.
[13]. Hardjito D. and Rangan B. Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of
Technology; 2005.
[14]. Sindhunata, vanDeventer J.S.J., Lukey G.C. and Xu H. Effect of Curing
Temperature and Silicate Concentration on Fly-Ash-Based
Geopolymerization. 2006, pp. 3559-3568.
[15]. Alonso S. and Palomo A. Materials Letters, 2001, 47, pp. 55-62.
[16]. Swanepoel J.C. and Strydom C.A. Applied Geochemistry, 2002, 17, pp. 1143
1148.
[17]. Panagiotopoulou C., Kontori E., Perraki T. and Kakali G. Journal of Materials
Science, 2007, 42, pp. 2967-2973.
[18]. ASTM. C39/C39M-05e1 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International; 2005.
[19]. Center for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems.
Sustainable Product Information Network for the Environment. Chalmers,
2008.

16
[20]. Geopolymer Institute. Technical Data Sheet. Institut Géopolymère :
http://www.geopolymer.org/science/technical-data-sheet. Accessed 2009
March 20, 2009.
[21]. Nisbet M.A. and Portland Cement A. Life cycle inventory of Portland cement
concrete. Skokie, Ill.: Portland Cement Association; 2007.
[22]. Marceau M., Nisbet M.A., Van Geem M.G. Life cycle inventory of Portland
cement manufacture. Portland Cement Association; 2006.

17