Scholarlink

<p>Geopolymer concrete (GPC), made from industrial waste materials like cement kiln dust (CKD), offers a sustainable substitute to conventional Portland cement concrete (PCC) by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and waste. However, comprehensive economic viability assessments incorporating durability and end of life (EOL) considerations remain limited. This study conducted a cradle-to-cradle life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) comparing four concrete types: geopolymer concrete (GPC), circular geopolymer concrete (CGPC) with recycled geopolymer aggregates, circular ordinary concrete (COC) with recycled concrete aggregates, and conventional Portland cement concrete (PCC). The methodology involved adjusting 28-day compressive strengths of all mixes to 25–30 MPa for technical comparability, measuring durability via rapid chloride migration tests, and predicting service life (SL) using Fick's second law of diffusion. LCCA integrated material, construction, and EOL costs, with sensitivity analysis on key cost drivers. Results showed minimal differences (&lt; 22%) in initial costs and in life cycle costs (&lt; 13%) between geopolymer-based concretes and PCC when SL and EOL were included. GPC demonstrated approximately 11.5% higher economic sustainability than CGPC, while PCC outperformed COC by about 21.7%. Sensitivity analyses showed that material costs, particularly alkali activators, dominated expenses across all scenarios. Transport and construction costs followed in influence. The findings highlight the significance of including SL and EOL factors in LCCA to avoid biased assessments. Optimizing supply chains for alkali activators and recycled aggregates is critical to enhance the competitiveness of geopolymer concretes. Circular geopolymer concrete shows promise as a sustainable construction material, but requires further cost reductions for wider adoption.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating geopolymer concrete viability: Cradle-to-cradle durability-based life cycle cost assessment

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月4日

查看全文
  • Omid Bamshad,
  • Amir Mohammad Ramezanianpour

摘要

Geopolymer concrete (GPC), made from industrial waste materials like cement kiln dust (CKD), offers a sustainable substitute to conventional Portland cement concrete (PCC) by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and waste. However, comprehensive economic viability assessments incorporating durability and end of life (EOL) considerations remain limited. This study conducted a cradle-to-cradle life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) comparing four concrete types: geopolymer concrete (GPC), circular geopolymer concrete (CGPC) with recycled geopolymer aggregates, circular ordinary concrete (COC) with recycled concrete aggregates, and conventional Portland cement concrete (PCC). The methodology involved adjusting 28-day compressive strengths of all mixes to 25–30 MPa for technical comparability, measuring durability via rapid chloride migration tests, and predicting service life (SL) using Fick's second law of diffusion. LCCA integrated material, construction, and EOL costs, with sensitivity analysis on key cost drivers. Results showed minimal differences (< 22%) in initial costs and in life cycle costs (< 13%) between geopolymer-based concretes and PCC when SL and EOL were included. GPC demonstrated approximately 11.5% higher economic sustainability than CGPC, while PCC outperformed COC by about 21.7%. Sensitivity analyses showed that material costs, particularly alkali activators, dominated expenses across all scenarios. Transport and construction costs followed in influence. The findings highlight the significance of including SL and EOL factors in LCCA to avoid biased assessments. Optimizing supply chains for alkali activators and recycled aggregates is critical to enhance the competitiveness of geopolymer concretes. Circular geopolymer concrete shows promise as a sustainable construction material, but requires further cost reductions for wider adoption.