Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of fly ash–rice husk ash blended
alkali-activated concrete
Sarah Fernando a, b, Chamila Gunasekara a, *, David W. Law a, M.C.M. Nasvi b, Sujeeva Setunge a,
Ranjith Dissanayake b
a
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

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

Keywords: The utilization of industrial and agricultural by-products for the production of alkali activated concrete (AAC)
Greenhouse gas emissions has the potential to yield significant benefits towards sustainability goals. To be a viable material, the con­
Impact assessment struction industry requires a construction material that achieves the requisite strength and the other property
Environmental credits
requirements as specified in codes and standards while demonstrating improved sustainability criteria. Fly ash
Alkali activated binder
and Rice Husk Ash (RHA) are abundantly available waste products, principally located in Asian countries.
Building construction
Cost analysis Currently, a significant proportion of these materials are disposed of in landfills, lagoons and rivers but offer
potential to utilize in AAC. Hence, the identification of variables associated with fly ash and fly ah-RHA blended
AAC by utilizing fly ash and RHA is vital. This study quantifies the environmental and economic factors by
assessing the Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, environmental impacts and benefits, and cost analysis of utilizing
fly ash and RHA in AAC compared to Portland Cement (PC) concrete. Alkaline activator is a key component
responsible for the highest GHG emission, cost and environmental impact amounts obtained for fly ash geo­
polymer and blended alkali-activated concrete compared with PC concrete. Alkali activators contribute to 74% of
the total GHG emission, while heat curing contributed only 9% to the total GHG emission. The addition of 10%
RHA to alkali-activated concrete showed a slight benefit for the analysis. Utilization of waste fly ash and RHA is
responsible for providing significant benefits in terms of fresh and marine water ecotoxicity by avoiding waste
disposal at the dumpsites, rivers, and storage lagoons.

1. Introduction possible measures to conserve resources and the environment, coupled

with implementing possible solutions to the environmental issues
Climate change is attributed to the increase in greenhouse gas related to concrete production. Researchers have made attempts to
emissions (GHG) in the atmosphere. Approximately 54 gigatonnes of reduce the environmental impacts from PC concrete by utilizing indus­
carbon dioxide (CO2-eq) were recorded as the total annual GHGs trial waste, such as fly ash and blast furnace slag (O’Brien et al., 2009;
emissions in 2017. Concrete is one of the main contributors to these Passuello et al., 2017; Sandanayake et al., 2018).
emissions and concrete usage and demand for cement in the construc­ In Sri Lanka, the main fly ash source is from the coal power plant in
tion industry are expected to be increased in the future due to the rapid Norochcholai, Puttalam. It is estimated that approximately 0.3 million
urban development in emerging countries. Annually about 20 billion metric tonnes of fly ash are produced per annum in the coal power plant.
tonnes of concrete are produced worldwide, and Portland Cement (PC) Annually, about 120 million tonnes of Rice husk ash (RHA) is produced
production is responsible for 7–10% of total CO2 emissions (Miller et al., globally, posing several environmental issues due to the disposal of the
2016). This high demand for cement and concrete leads to higher GHG RHA directly into the environment (Das et al., 2018). In Sri Lanka,
emissions (Dal Pozzo et al., 2019; Sandanayake et al., 2018). In addition, approximately 656,730 metric tonnes of rice husk are produced annu­
disposal of industrial and agricultural waste is known to have adverse ally (Rodrigo and Perera, 2011). Assuming RHA to rice husk ratio of
effects on ecology. The research community has been investigating 18%, the total annual RHA production would be approximately 0.1

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Fernando), [email protected] (C. Gunasekara), [email protected] (D.W. Law),
[email protected] (M.C.M. Nasvi), [email protected] (S. Setunge), [email protected] (R. Dissanayake).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113140
Received 21 December 2020; Received in revised form 19 May 2021; Accepted 19 June 2021
Available online 29 June 2021
0301-4797/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

million tonnes per year. In Sri Lanka, currently, RHA has no commercial influence of the 10% RHA substitution and compares the results with
use, hence it is most often dumped into landfills by creating widescale those from 100% PC concrete. All mixes are based on mix designs
environmental pollution. derived for materials available in Sri Lanka. The concrete mixes are
When considering the construction and building sector, approxi­ assessed from cradle to end of construction for GHG emissions, cradle to
mately 80% of the GHG emissions and energy consumption are gener­ gate for life cycle impact assessment and life cycle cost analysis for all
ated during the operation phase of the buildings. Many studies have concrete mix designs.
been conducted and introduced new technologies, policies, and miti­
gation measures/techniques to reduce GHG emissions during the oper­ 3.2. Mix design and compressive strength
ation stages (Sentman et al., 2008). However, around 10–20% of GHG
emission and energy consumption is from material manufacturing, A strength-based approach was adopted, with the 100% fly ash
construction, and demolition (Cheng et al., 2008), with limited studies geopolymer, 10% RHA geopolymer and 100% PC concrete having
reported related to reducing GHG emissions and other environmental comparable strength, while maintaining similar binder content for all
impacts during material production and construction stages. Life Cycle mixes. The analysis is based on one cubic meter of concrete volume. The
Assessment (LCA) is an established and well-known method that can alkali activated concretes studied utilized Class F fly ash and RHA from
evaluate the environmental impacts of products throughout its life cycle. the Norochcholai coal power plant in Puttalam, Sri Lanka and locally
To date, limited studies have been conducted to compare the detailed available rice mills in Sri Lanka.
environmental impact of using blended alkali-activated binders against The alkaline activator used in geopolymer mortar is a mixture of
PC binders in the construction industry. commercially available sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solution and sodium
Life cycle cost analysis (LCC) is a technique that can be used to hydroxide solution (NaOH) of 15 M. The activator modulus (AM) used
evaluate a product’s or service’s economic feasibility throughout its life was 1.375 (i.e., AM is the mass ratio of SiO2 to Na2O in an alkaline
cycle. It is made up of manufacturing cost, operational cost, mainte­ activator). The water to solid ratio is fixed to 0.37. The Na2O dosage (i.
nance/repair cost and disposal cost. Consideration of the type of cost e., mass ratio of Na2O content in alkaline activator to fly ash) was
depends on the scope and goal of a particular study considered (Asiedu maintained at a fixed value of 15% based on previous studies, which
and Gu, 1998). Initial cost refers to the manufacturing cost of the have shown that the use of sodium hydroxide 15M produces the highest
product, including the cost of raw materials and transportation. Initial strength for geopolymer mortars (Adam, 2009). Samples were main­
cost reduction has been considered a vital factor for the construction tained at room temperature for one day and then cured in a dry oven for
industry as clients are now paying more attention to initial construction 24h at 80 ◦ C.
costs. The mix design for PC concrete was developed according to the ACI
Adapting the waste products (fly ash and RHA) by replacing cement 211 standards (ACI211, 2002). Target strength was selected as 30 MPa
in the construction industry reduces the environmental impact and cost for PC concrete when developing the mix design in order to maintain
obtained from source material manufacturing and solves problems similar strength with 100% fly ash geopolymer concrete. The mix pro­
associated with landfill disposal activities (Gursel et al., 2016). The portions and the compressive strength results for 28 days for each mix
utilization of such industrial and agricultural waste could be a massive are summarized in Table 1. Furthermore, 10% and 20% replacement of
benefit to the environment. Hence this study investigates the GHG RHA to the fly ash geopolymer mixes attained 31 ± 0.8 MPa and 20 ±
emissions from cradle to end of building construction stage (cradle to 0.5 MPa compressive strength, respectively. In order to maintain uni­
end of construction), a life cycle impact and benefit assessment of the formity within the strength-based approach, only fly ash geopolymer
manufacturing stage (cradle to gate) and initial cost analysis of fly ash (100FA), blended alkali activated concrete (90FA-10RHA) and PC con­
geopolymer concrete (100FA), alkali-activated fly ash-RHA blended crete were assessed in the study.
concrete (hereafter, used as blended alkali-activated concrete) and
comparing with PC concrete. The outcomes of this study will useful 3.3. Functional unit, life cycle approach and system boundary
when adapting feasible, sustainable alternatives in alkali activated
concrete manufacturing and construction considering the environ­ The functional unit used in this study is 1 m3 of concrete. A similar
mental and economic aspects. functional unit has been adopted in previous studies based on alkali
activated binders (Habert et al., 2011; McLellan et al., 2011; Turner and
2. Significance of research Collins, 2013). In terms of the quantitative approach, this paper uses the
process-based method to calculate GHG emissions. The system boundary
Published research to date on LCA of alkali-activated binders is for the concrete manufacturing process is shown in Fig. 1. The system
focused on general LCA and impact analysis. This research provides a boundary includes emission processes associated with manufacturing
comprehensive systematic LCA analysis and compares two alkali- both raw materials and concrete. The system boundary for the building
activated concretes produced with industrial by-product (fly ash) and construction stage is shown in Fig. 2.
agricultural by-products (RHA) with PC concrete and compares the
environmental and economic aspects of two alkali-activated concretes 3.4. Boundary of the analysis
produced with industrial and agricultural by-products. Furthermore,
quantified environmental benefits due to the utilization of waste by- 3.4.1. GHG emission analysis
products were considered in this study. Hence, the research data pre­ This section consists of two analyses; GHG emission analysis for
sented herein will be beneficial to identify the key variables to reduce concrete manufacturing and a building construction case study. This
impacts caused by alkali activated concrete and to understand the study considered only CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions as these are the GHG
quantified variations of impacts and benefits obtained by fly ash-RHA emissions in the construction industry, which are generally related to
blended alkali activated concrete. fossil fuel combustion. For GHG emission analysis, phases from cradle to
gate are considered, while for the building construction case study,
3. Assessment methodology phases from cradle to end of building construction stages are defined as
the boundary. The construction site and the concrete manufacture were
3.1. Goal and scope definition selected to be in the capital city in the central business district (CBD),
Colombo, Sri Lanka. The transportation distances calculated are based
This paper assesses the GHG emission, life cycle impact/benefit upon this location. For the construction stage, all workers live onsite or
assessment and cost analysis of 100% fly ash geopolymer concrete, the close to the construction site, which is the usual practice in Sri Lanka,

2
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Table 1
Mix design for fly ash geopolymer, blended alkali activated and PC concrete (kg/m3).
Concrete Fly ash RHA PC Sand Coarse Aggregate Alkaline Activator Added Water 28-day strength (MPa)

7 mm 10 mm Na2SiO3 NaOH

Fly ash geopolymer (100FA) 411 – – 691.0 305.3 610.7 289.4 64.4 6.7 32 ± 1.3
Blended Alkali activated concrete (90FA-10RHA) 369.9 41.1 – 691.0 305.3 610.7 289.4 64.4 6.7 31 ± 0.8
a
Blended Alkali activated concrete (80FA-20RHA) 328.8 82.2 – 691.0 305.3 610.7 289.4 64.4 6.7 20 ± 0.5
PC Concrete (ACI211, 2002) – – 410 615 550 550 – – 220 32 ± 1.1
a
This mix design is not utilized to assess LCA as it does not provide the required equivalent strength to maintain the strength-based approach in the study.

Fig. 1. System boundary for concrete manufacture.

Fig. 2. System Boundary for building construction stage.

especially near the CBD; thus, emission due to the transportation of The quantity of material and other structural details for the case
workers is not considered for the analysis in order to represent the real study was obtained from the literature (Sandanayake et al., 2016) for the
condition for the LCA. building construction case study. The waste factor for building material

3
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

(raw material) during the transportation is taken as 2.5% (Chen et al., Hence the transportation mode available in Sri Lanka is considered as
2001) for the construction stage of the analysis. In-situ concrete the road. Sodium hydroxide is imported from overseas and sea freight is
manufacturing is used for PC concrete only, while precast considered as the mode of transportation for NaOH.
manufacturing is considered for all three concrete types. Off-site pre­
fabrication of precast elements is considered in this study. Three types of 3.4.3. Assessment method
concrete elements are adopted, i.e., Precast façade, precast staircase, Calculation models are developed to evaluate the GHG emissions as
and precast corridor slabs for off-site prefabricated element construction shown in Eqs. (1)–(5). Total GHG emissions can be calculated using Eq.
(Mao et al., 2013). Similar elements are considered to be constructed (1). ET,GHG is the total GHG emission and Em can be either caused by mth
in-situ using PC concrete, i.e., onsite construction. The amount of con­ emission source associated with material (i.e., Extraction and Produc­
crete used for these elements is approximately 11% of the total concrete tion), transportation, construction, or waste disposal.
production of the whole building. Fuel (i.e., diesel) and electricity are
∑
5
chosen to be the energy resources for this analysis. Waste generation ET,GHG = Em (1)
from off-site construction during the prefabrication process has been m=1
reported as minimal (Mao et al., 2013). However, based on literature,
Emission from raw materials manufacturing can be determined from
concrete waste generation is taken as 2.5% and 5% of the total concrete
Eq. (2). E1 is the total embodied GHG emissions of ith building materials
amount for prefabricated and in-situ processes, respectively, to calculate
in kgCO2-eq/m3; Mi is the mass of the material i in kg; eim is the GHG
waste generated during casting (Kazaz et al., 2015; Suhaini et al., 2019).
emission factor for the manufacture of the material in kgCO2-eq/kg; and
βi is the waste percentage of raw building material during
3.4.2. Inventory data
transportation.
∑
a) Emission from Fly Ash E1 = Mi * eim *(βi + 1) (2)

Fly ash is a waste product obtained from the combustion of coal from GHG emissions from fuel and energy consumption obtained from the
electricity generated power plants. The Fly Ash is obtained from storage transportation of materials can be determined from Eq. (3). E2 and E4 is
ponds at the premises of the coal power plant, the ash is moved directly the total GHG emission from the transportation of building materials for
to the ponds after precipitation in the power plant. Drying of fly ash is either off-site precast fabrication yard or onsite PC concrete manufac­
done prior to application as the source material for alkali-activated turer and due to transportation of prefabricated elements to the con­
concrete production. Hence, consideration of the drying process, struction site in kgCO2-eq/m3 respectively; Mi is the mass of the material
0.011 kgCO2-eq/kg (Sandanayake et al., 2018) is utilized as the emission i in kg; dm is the distance in km; GHG Emission factor (EFi,t ) for ith
factor for the fly ash manufacturing in this study. material or prefabricated element and transportation mode (t) in tonne
CO2-eq/ton-km. GHG emission factor (EFi,t ) can be calculated by
b) Emission from RHA multiplying energy use (MJ/tonne-km) and fuel GHG emission factor
(kg CO2/MJ). Emission factors for different transportation modes and
RHA, an agricultural waste product, is obtained mainly from local transportation distance details are tabulated in Table 2 and Table 3,
rice mills. Rice husk ash is subjected to a grinding process to obtain the respectively. Transportation of prefabricated elements to the project site
ash containing 100% passing at 75-μm particles. The emission factor for is done using roads as the transportation mode.
the grinding process was calculated as 0.0027 kgCO2-eq. ∑
E2 = E4 = Mi *dm *EFi,t (3)

c) Emission from Alkaline activator E3 is the GHG emission from the energy consumption and fuel
combustion for construction equipment and machinery usage for con­
The generally used industrial process for the manufacturing of NaOH struction procedures (i.e. Prefabricated element assembling or cast in-
is the electrolysis of sodium chloride solution. However, the system situ construction) in kg CO2-eq, determined by Eq. (4), P1 and P2 are
boundary for the NaOH production includes material extraction and the amount of electricity consumption and fuel consumption during
production based on the data and information availability. The emission equipment and machinery usage for construction procedures; P1 in kWh,
factor for NaOH production used is 1.425 kgCO2-eq/kg (Sandanayake and P2 in litres; and EFk1 and EFk2 is the GHG emission factor for fuel
et al., 2018). The emission factor from the manufacturing of Na2SiO3 type k in kgCO2-e/kWh and kgCO2-e/l, respectively; i.e., k1 = electricity
used for this study is 0.78 kg/CO2-eq (Sandanayake et al., 2018). and k2 = fuel (Diesel). GHG emission factor for electricity and diesel is
taken as 1.018 (kg CO2-eq/kWh) (Mao et al., 2013) and 2.617 (kg
d) Emission Aggregate CO2-eq/l) (Pervez et al., 2021).
∑
The acquisition and processing of the aggregates are from local E3 = ((P1 * EFk1 ) + (P2 + EFk2 )) (4)
quarries. In this study, emission factors of 0.039 and 0.014 kgCO2-eq/kg
E5 is the GHG emission from road transportation due to waste
are used for coarse and fine aggregate, respectively (Turner and Collins,
disposal for a landfill in kgCO2-eq. Wi is the amount of waste disposal to
2013).
landfills in tonne, dw,i is the distance between the waste collection

e) Emission from PC
Table 2
GHG emissions from PC manufacturing depends on the raw material GHG Emission factors for different transportation methods.
composition used for cement production and energy consumption dur­
Method of Fuel Energy use Fuel CO2 GHG emission
ing the production process. In Sri Lanka, the emission factor value for Transportation type (MJ/tonne- emission factor factor (kg
cement production is taken as 0.764 kgCO2-eq/kg (Fernando, 2011). km) (Pervez (kg CO2 -eq/MJ) CO2-eq/
et al., 2021) (Pervez et al., tonne-km)
f) Emission from transportation 2021)

Deep-sea Heavy 0.216 0.078 0.0165

All raw materials which used for the production of alkali-activated transport fuel oil
Road -Truck Diesel 2.275 0.074 0.159
and PC concrete are locally manufactured (except sodium hydroxide).

4
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Table 3 Appendix.
Transportation distance and GHG Emission from material and transportation.
Material Transportation Distance Mode GHG emission factor - 3.5.3. Assessment method
from the supplier (km) dm *EFi,t /(kg CO2-eq/kg) The impact assessment was investigated by first categorizing items
into selected impact categories (Habert et al., 2011). Characterization
Fly Ash 150 Road 0.0239
RHA 55.5 Road 0.0088 factors and emission data obtained from the literature (Guinée and
PC 150 Road 0.0239 Lindeijer, 2002; Habert et al., 2011) were used to calculate the impacts
Fine 90 Road 0.0143 and benefits. Once complete, normalization of potential impacts was
Aggregate calculated by dividing the impact from normalization factors (Guinée
Coarse 65 Road 0.0103
Aggregate
and Lindeijer, 2002), which defines the total environmental factor of a
Na2SiO3 16.5 Road 0.0026 specific area or specific period (Guinée and Lindeijer, 2002).
NaOH 5 Road 0.0008 The primary data (Habert et al., 2011) were analyzed based on the
2808 Sea 0.0463 mix design data (utilizing the quantity of raw material) in order to
obtain impacts based on the selected functional unit. The benefits were
quantified by considering the leaching of heavy metals from fly ash and
location (project site or prefabrication yard) and landfill in km. This
RHA to the ground and water sources. By multiplying these values using
study considered, transportation of waste for disposal to landfill is
the characterization factors, benefits were evaluated according to both
considered to be done using roads as the transportation mode; thus, Eq.
mix design and functional unit. All environmental impacts and benefits
(5) was derived using added emission factors for the heavy truck (Diesel)
are converted to relevant equivalent values using conversion factors
road transportation.
∑ tabulated in Table 4. Moreover, the environmental credits obtained from
( )
E5 = 0.159* Wi * dw,i (5) utilizing waste fly ash and RHA from dump sites were assessed and
included by considering the reduction in leaching of heavy metals and
other toxic elements, i.e., Cr, Mn, Zn, Cu, Ni, and Pb. Quantified benefits
3.5. Life cycle impact and benefit assessment (LCI) were obtained using characterization factors (Guinée and Lindeijer,
2002) for each impact category and element composition data of fly ash
3.5.1. Boundary of the analysis and RHA. Hence, HTP, FWE, MWE and AD were identified out of all
The key objective of the impact assessment is the quantification of selected impact categories as the affected categories when considering
the potential environmental impacts/benefits from pollutant compo­ heavy metals leaching for the benefit analysis stage.
nents for the raw material manufacturing stage of the selected concrete
types. Characterization and normalization of the impact categories are 3.6. Initial cost analysis
evaluated as a mandatory requirement for impact assessment as per ISO
14044 (2006). Environmental impact can be measured for a number of 3.6.1. Boundary of the analysis
categories i.e., Climate change or Global warming potential (GWP) in Initial cost analysis is applied to the cradle to gate phase for the three
kgCO2-eq; Acidification Potential (AP) (kg SO2-eq), Eutrophication po­ types of concrete mixes utilized in this study. The total cost includes the
tential (EP) (kg PO−4 3-eq); Fossil depletion (kg oil-eq); Abiotic depletion summation of material extraction or manufacturing cost and trans­
(AD) (kg Sb-eq); Freshwater ecotoxicity (FEW) (kg 1,4-DCB-eq); Marine portation. The cost of all upstream processes of material production is
water ecotoxicity (MWE) (kg 1,4-DCB-eq); Human toxicity potential included in the material cost.
(HTP) (kg 1,4-DCB-eq); Agricultural land use (m2); Ozone depletion
(ODP) (kg CFC-11-eq); Particulate matter formation (kg PM 10-eq); 3.6.2. Inventory data
Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) (kg C2H4-eq) and The unit cost for raw materials extraction/production and trans­
water depletion (m3). The selection of the impact categories is based on portation was obtained by considering the current market value and
the impact severity to the environment, the quantity of emission sub­ from the local vendors in Sri Lanka.
stances released and the data availability. The overall impact of every
individual process is analyzed in order to interpret the variation of each 3.6.3. Assessment method
concrete mixes in each impact category. The use of fly ash and RHA to The life cycle cost (CT) for concrete production was calculated using
produce alkali-activated construction products cause environmental equation (6). CMP is the
credits when compared with PC concrete. Both fly ash and RHA are Raw material manufacturing cost in US $/kg; CMT is the material
locally available waste materials and are currently placed in storage transportation cost in US $/kg; CEU is the cost for enegy usage during
lagoons, landfills, open spaces etc., endangering the fragile ecosystems. conctrete manufacturing process in US $.
Reduction of heavy metal leaching (Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), ∑
Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Nickel (Ni) and Lead (Pb)) (Gupta et al., 2002; CT = ((CMP + CMT ) * Mi ) + CEU (6)
Sarode et al., 2010) to the soil and contamination of groundwater (all
water sources) from fly ash dumping by utilizing the waste in concrete 4. Results
production is a significant environmental benefit. These benefits can be
added to the impact assessment as a negative value and can be either 4.1. GHG emission analysis
reduce the impact due to utilizing waste materials or increase the impact
of PC concrete. Environmental benefits related to the leaching of heavy Total GHG emission for three types of concrete for the manufacturing
metals and toxic elements from fly ash and RHA were only considered stage and GHG emission associated with each raw material for
for this study. GWP, AP, EP, HTP, AD, FWE, MWE, POCP and ODP were manufacturing and transportation is illustrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4,
considered as impact categories for the analysis. respectively. Material manufacturing is accountable for 84–93% of total
GHG emissions for all concrete types. Emissions due to transportation
3.5.2. Inventory data are low, 7–8%, when compared with the emission due to raw material
Primary data for LCI analysis for raw material manufacturing, production. The addition of 10% RHA to the mix only achieves a
including coarse/fine aggregate and activators, were obtained from the reduction of approximately 1 kgCO2-eq/m3. According to the data,
literature (Habert et al., 2011) for selected impact categories. The pri­ approximately 12% reduction in total GHG emission was observed for
mary data and the source of inventory for the LCI can be found in the PC concrete when compared with fly ash geopolymer and blended

5
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Table 4
Characterization factors for impact categories (Guinée and Lindeijer, 2002; Hermann et al., 2007).
GWP (kg AP (kg SO2 EP (kg POFP (kg HTP (kg 1,4- ODP (kg FWE (kg 1,4- MWE (kg 1,4- AD (kg
CO2eq) eq) PO−4 3 eq) C2H4 -eq) DCB-e) CFC− 11 eq) DCB-eq) DCB-eq) Sb-eq)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1.0E+00 – – – – – – – –

Methane (CH4) 2.3E+01 – – – – – – – –
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 3.0E+02 – – – – – – – –
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) – 1.2E+00 – 5.0E-02 1.0E-01 – – – –
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 5.0E-01 1.3E-01 – 1.2E+00 – – – –
Carbon monoxide (CO) – – – 3.0E-02 – – – – –
Non-methane volatile organic – – – 1.0E+00 6.4E-01 1.1E-01 – – –
compounds (NMVOC)
Particulates (PM) – – – – 8.2E-01 – – – –
CFC-11 – – – – – 1.0E+00
Lead (Pb) – – – – 5.2E+00 – 9.6E+00 2.2E+01 1.3E-02
Nickel (Ni) – – – – 4.3E+01 – 3.2E+03 1.1E+04 1.0E-04
Chromium (Cr) – – – – 1.8E+00 – 2.8E+01 6.9E+01 9.0E-04
Copper (Cu) – – – – 4.5E-01 – 1.1E+03 3.6E+03 2.0E-03
Zinc (Zn) – – – – 2.1E-01 – 9.1E+01 2.6E+02 1.0E-03

Fig. 3. GHG emission for alkali-activated concrete and PC concrete.

alkali-activated concretes. However, when considering solid raw mate­ the building construction case study.
rials, only 1% of GHG emission is for waste fly ash and RHA, whereas Total GHG emissions in the construction phase for in-situ PC con­
cement production is responsible for 79% of the GHG emission in the crete, precast PC concrete, fly ash geopolymer concrete and blended
raw material manufacturing stage. alkali-activated concrete is observed as 479 kgCO2-eq/m3, 446.8 kgCO2-
It was noted that Na2SiO3 production is the most massive GHG eq/m3, 491.1 kgCO2-eq/m3 and 490.2 kgCO2-eq/m3, respectively.
emission, accounting for 52% of total emission for fly ash geopolymer When considering total GHG emission, only 0.2% reduction was noted
and blended alkali-activated concretes. Furthermore, alkali activators when 10% RHA was blended with fly ash concrete mix. Furthermore,
contribute to 74% of the total GHG emission. Heat curing contributed approximately 2% of GHG emissions due to transportation can be
9% to the total GHG emission of fly ash geopolymer and blended alkali- avoided by replacing 10% RHA in the fly ash geopolymer mix. Almost
activated concretes. 2.5% and 9% reduction in GHG emission was observed in PC in-situ and
precast concrete, respectively, compared to fly ash geopolymer and
blended alkali-activated concrete. Alkali activated concrete showed
4.2. Case study: building construction stage emission higher GHG emissions, i.e., approximately a 10% increment of GHG
emissions when considering only raw material manufacturing/extrac­
Total GHG emission for the building construction case study is tion. GHG emission of around 62 kgCO2-eq/m3 was due to trans­
summarized in Table 5. PC concrete was considered as onsite in situ portation (including raw material, precast elements and waste
casting and off-site prefabricated element casting, while fly ash geo­ transportation) of the alkali-activated concrete project while PC con­
polymer and blended alkali-activated concrete was considered as off-site crete in-situ and precast are responsible for around 74 kg CO2-eq/m3 and
prefabricated element casting and assembling. Detailed GHG emissions 59 kg CO2-eq/m3 of GHG emission for all transportation types in the
are shown in Table 5, by considering the different emission sources for

6
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Fig. 4. GHG emission for manufacturing and transportation stages of concrete production.

normalized potential impacts/benefits for selected impact categories are

Table 5
given in Table 6.
GHG emission for the building construction case study.
All benefit values are denoted as negative to indicate that the impact
Type of Concrete GHG Emission/(kgCO2-eq/m3) can be subtracted to obtain the resultant impact for the respective cat­
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 ET egories. The resultant percentage of normalized impact amounts is
A1: PC Concrete – In-situ 375.8 29.9 29.5 0.0 43.7 479.0
illustrated in Fig. 5.
A2: PC Concrete - Precast 375.8 29.9 12.3 6.9 21.9 446.8 GWP for all three concrete types was similar for all mixes used in this
B: 100% FA Concrete 417.2 33.0 12.3 6.9 21.9 491.1 study. However, higher impacts for all categories were reported except
C: 90% FA – 10% RHA 416.8 32.3 12.3 6.9 21.9 490.2 MWE for alkali-activated concrete when compared with PC concrete. A
Percentage difference − 11.0 − 10.0 58.5 − 100.0 50.0 − 2.5
negative MWE value of approximately 50% was obtained for the alkali-
(A1-B) (%)
Percentage difference − 11.0 − 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 − 9.9 activated concrete mix. The reasons for these normalized impact vari­
(A2-B) (%) ations can be ascertained by an analysis of the data illustrated in Fig. 6.
Percentage difference 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 When considering GWP, EP, POFP, HTP, ODP, FWE and AD approxi­
(B–C) (%)
mately 70–90% of impact was obtained due to sodium silicate for fly ash
geopolymer and blended alkali-activated concrete mixes. However,
building construction case study. However, when considering only en­ almost 0–5% lower impact was estimated for AP and MWE from sodium
ergy consumption and waste disposal during the building construction silicate for fly ash geopolymer and blended alkali-activated concrete
process, approximately 50–60% reduction of GHG emission was ob­ mixes. NaOH is responsible for around 90% of AP impact, Fig. 6(b).
tained for fly ash geopolymer and alkali-activated concrete. However, the impact of both alkaline activators is responsible for
approximately 80–97% of the total impact for all categories except
MWE. Waste fly ash and RHA contributes only 1–3% of the impact from
4.3. Life cycle impact and benefit assessment all categories except FWE and MWE. In PC concrete, cement is the main
contributor to all impact categories responsible for 80–98% of impact
The raw material extraction and production stages were considered values. Furthermore, Fig. 6(g) and (h) illustrated a beneficial component
for the impact assessment for the three mix designs. Characterized and

Table 6
Characterization values of geopolymer, alkali-activated and PC concretes.
Categories Characterized Potential Normalization Factor Normalization potential
Impacts/Benefits (per m3 of concrete) (Sandanayake et Impacts/Benefits
al., 2016)
100 PC 100% FA 90%FA- 100 PC 100% FA 90%FA-
10%RHA 10%RHA

GWP 3.19E+02 3.27E+02 3.26E+02 3.86E+13 8.26E-12 8.46E-12 8.46E-12

AP 6.50E-01 7.58E-01 7.56E-01 2.99E+11 2.17E-12 2.53E-12 2.53E-12
EP 2.51E-01 2.09E-01 2.08E-01 1.29E+11 1.95E-12 1.62E-12 1.61E-12
POCP 1.89E-02 2.66E-02 2.65E-02 4.55E+10 4.15E-13 5.85E-13 5.83E-13
HTP 2.07E+01 2.984E+02 2.984E+02 4.98E+13 4.16E-13 5.99E-12 5.99E-12
– − 2.88E-01 − 2.63E-01 4.98E+13 − 5.77E-15 − 5.29E-15
ODP 9.96E-06 3.63E-05 3.62E-05 5.15E+08 1.93E-14 7.06E-14 7.03E-14
FWE 6.95E-01 7.77E+01 7.77E+01 1.57E+11 4.43E-12 4.95E-10 4.95E-10
– − 1.68E+01 − 1.58E+01 1.57E+11 − 1.07E-10 − 1.01E-10
MWE 2.65E+00 1.13E-01 1.05E-01 2.03E+12 1.31E-12 5.57E-14 5.17E-14
– − 5.65E+01 − 5.33E+01 2.03E+12 − 2.78E-11 − 2.62E-11
AD 1.45E-02 2.32E+00 2.31E+00 5.12E+14 2.83E-17 4.52E-15 4.51E-15
– − 8.80E-04 − 7.94E-04 5.12E+14 − 1.72E-18 − 1.55E-18

7
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Fig. 5. Normalized resultant impact and benefit percentage of different concrete.

(negative percentage) for raw fly ash and RHA for FWE and MWE, (Thannimalay et al., 2013). In the raw material manufacturing stage,
respectively. The addition of 10% RHA to blended alkali-activated emission, impact and cost due to fly ash and RHA are insignificant
concrete provides a slight reduction i.e., less than 1%, of impact compared to PC. This is because the fly ash and RHA are produced as
values for all impact categories except for FWE and MWE. Approxi­ waste material from other processes not directly for the alkali-activated
mately 5% benefit contribution for RHA was obtained when compared concrete production. However, when considering PC, the clinker pro­
with fly ash in alkali-activated concrete for FWE and MWE. duction is an energy-intensive process responsible for high GHG emis­
sions and environmental impact as part of the PC manufacturing process
(Chen et al., 2010). Emissions due to transportation showed minimal
4.4. Initial cost analysis
values for all concrete types, as all raw materials (except NaOH) are
locally manufactured. Heat curing is required for the fly ash geopolymer
The cradle-to-gate initial cost analysis for the concretes is illustrated
and RHA blended alkali-activated binders to achieve the requisite
in Fig. 7. The total cost for fly ash geopolymer and blended alkali-
strength. Hence, if the heat curing process could be optimized (curing
activated concrete is more than double compared to PC concrete. The
time and temperature) to a minimum while maintaining the strength
reasons can be identified in a detailed analysis of the cost contribution of
requirement, emissions due to heat curing could be reduced signifi­
each material and the transportation costs for each concrete type, as
cantly. Furthermore, an alternative heat curing process could be adapted
illustrated in Fig. 7. According to the results, PC concrete has a signifi­
in order to reduce the GHG emission from alkali-activated concrete such
cant cost reduction of approximately $86 when compared with the
as gas fan burners and the use of waste heat sources (Weil et al., 2009).
alkali-activated concrete. This is principally due to the higher cost
It is evident that the major benefits related to FWE and MWE are due
involved in manufacturing alkali activators (i.e., NaOH and Na2SiO3).
to the utilization of waste RHA from dumpsites, which is beneficial in
Alkaline activators are accountable for 74% cost of the total initial cost
avoiding contamination of water sources. Disposal of fly ash and RHA is
for both fly ash geopolymer and blended alkali-activated concrete.
responsible for releasing substantial trace metals (Zinc and Copper) and
When considering the solid raw materials, the cost for manufacturing of
toxic elements such as lead, nickel and chromium (Sarode et al., 2010).
fly ash and RHA is negligible as those materials can be directly obtained
A negative percentage for MWE for both fly ash geopolymer and RHA
as waste by-products. The cost of PC manufacturing has a $45 excess
blended alkali-activated concrete was obtained due to the use of fly ash
when compared with raw fly ash and RHA. Therefore, PC alone
and RHA, which leads to avoidance of disposal and the associated
responsible for 53% of the total cost of the PC concrete, while fly ash and
reduction in marine water contamination. According to the results,
RHA responsible for only 5–8% of the total initial cost. When consid­
benefits associated with HTP and AD are minimal when compared to
ering transportation, the cost is similar in all concrete types; thus, the
FWE and MWE for fly ash and RHA. This is as the leaching of heavy
prominent contributor to the cost that should be considered is the ma­
metals has relatively less impact on HTP and AD according to the
terial cost, including extraction and production. The addition of 10%
characterization impact factors (Guinée and Lindeijer, 2002).
RHA leads to an increase of only 3% of the total cost when compared
Results provide direct evidence that all impacts were greatly affected
with fly ash geopolymer concrete. However, these costs would vary
(more than 90%) by the alkali activators. Hence, in fly ash geopolymer
depending on the transportation distance of each raw material.
and blended alkali-activated concrete, environmental and financial
impacts can be drastically reduced by adopting optimized mixes by
5. Discussion
minimizing the amount of activators or replacing the activators with
suitable alternatives while maintaining the required strength charac­
This study shows that the mix designs utilizing fly ash and RHA
teristics. Furthermore, when considering the cost assessment, this study
blended alkali-activated binders result in higher GHG emissions, higher
focused on the cradle to gate cost analysis. In order to identify the
environmental impacts (except MWE), and higher costs than PC con­
overall financial impact, cradle to grave cost analysis should be taken
crete. The results clearly highlight that the alkali activators are the
into account. Cradle to grave cost analysis considers operation cost and
primary reason for the high GHG emission for all the impacts except
durability-related cost (maintenance/repair); thus, significant cost dif­
MWE and costs. This is the production of sodium silicate, which includes
ferences could be attained. This analysis is with respect to laboratory-
dissolution, processing and filtering, requires higher energy consump­
scale production of materials and transportation; improved economic
tion (i.e., electricity and thermal energy), and generates high emissions
benefits can be expected with mass-scale production (McLellan et al.,
to air and water and solid waste generation (Fawer et al., 1999; Gomes
2011; Piccinno et al., 2016).
et al., 2019). Furthermore, electrolysis of sodium chloride process is also
However, contrasting conclusions have been made by different re­
an energy-consuming process (Habert et al., 2011) in the production of
searchers for alkali activated binders due to different methodologies (i.
NaOH, resulting in higher GHG emission and environmental impacts
e., curing condition). Dal Pozzo et al. (2019) showed that the global
principally due to electricity usage, natural gas usage and waste disposal

8
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Fig. 6. Percentage characterized impact and benefit assessment comparison: (a) GWP (kg CO2 eq),(b) AP (kg SO2 eq), (c) EP (kg PO4-3 eq), (d) POFP (kg C2H4 -eq),
(e) HTP (kg 1,4-DCB-eq), (f) ODP (kg CFC− 11 eq), (g) FWE (kg 1,4-DCB-eq), (h) MWE (kg 1,4-DCB-eq) and (i) AD (kg Sb-eq).

9
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Fig. 7. Cost (USD) of material production and transportation for 1 m3 concrete.

warming impact is 42% lower than conventional PC concrete for fly ash 6. Conclusions
geopolymer-based concrete. Passuello et al. (2017) showed that room
temperature curing is responsible for reducing a significant proportion This study utilized life cycle assessment tools to undertake a detailed
of GHG emissions. It is also interesting to note that the environmental analysis of fly ash geopolymer and blended fly ash-Rice husk ash (RHA)
impacts of alkali activated binders vary depend on the geographical alkali-activated concrete produced for a specifically developed mix
context. According to the Australian context, it is noted that lower GHG design. Based on the results following conclusions can be made.
emissions (around 28% for the cradle to gate) were obtained for the
study of Tuner and Collins (2013) compared with the present study. • Approximately 12% and 48% increment in total greenhouse gas
Moreover, Bajpai et al. (2020) reported a lower climate change impact (GHG) emission and initial cost was observed, respectively, for fly
(almost 208 kg CO2-eq/m3) for raw material acquisition and trans­ ash geopolymer and blended alkali-activated concretes when
portation phases based on the Indian context compared with the current compared with Portland Cement (PC) concrete for the selected mix.
study (almost 450 kg CO2-eq/m3). The differences in emissions obtained • Alkaline activator is responsible for the highest GHG emission, cost
are due to the variability in the mix design, type of constituents; and environmental impacts for both fly ash geopolymer and blended
different acquisition processes; transportation distance variation and alkali-activated concrete when compared with PC concrete.
energy usage (the quantity and the source). • Alkali activators contribute to 74% of the total GHG emission, while
Low calcium based alkali activated binders are subjected heat curing heat curing contributed 9% to the total GHG emission of fly ash
in order to achieve early age strength development. Hence the mix geopolymer and blended alkali-activated concrete production.
design developed in current study requires elevated temperature curing. • The addition of 10% RHA leads to a reduction of approximately 1
However, researchers (Kar et al., 2014; Ramagiri et al., 2019; Sarker and kgCO2-eq/m3 of GHG emission for the selected mix design.
Nath, 2014) have reported the feasibility of producing alkali activated • Sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide are responsible for approxi­
binders using ambient temperature curing for specific mix designs by mately 80–97% of the total impact for all categories except marine
adding calcium based materials/additives. Thus, energy consumption water ecotoxicity.
could be optimized by adding additive to the mix design to gain strength • According to the impact and benefit assessment, utilization of waste
without elevated temperature. fly ash and RHA provides significant benefits in terms of fresh and
Usage of waste-derived activators for alkali activated binders have marine water ecotoxicity by avoiding the disposal of waste at
shown favourable impact for alkali activated mortar. Passuello et al. dumpsites, rivers and storage lagoons.
(2017) showed sodium silicate solution could be replaced by chemically
modified RHA, obtaining a reduced environmental impact in AP, GWP, Hence, it is recommended that future research should focus on the
EP and POCP indicators for calcined kaolin sludge alkali activated mix design to reduce alkaline activator usage, i.e., Sodium silicate and
mortar. Abdulkareem et al. (2021) evaluated the production of alkali sodium hydroxide, while maintaining the required mechanical and
activator solutions to substitute conventional activators using waste durability properties. Moreover, mix designs should be optimized not
materials (RHA and waste glass) for alkali activated mortar. only considering compressive strength requirements but also concerning
A strength-based approach was utilized in this study to evaluate the GHG emissions, environmental impacts and economic feasibility of the
life cycle assessment of the RHA blended alkali-activated binders. fly ash geopolymer and blended alkali activated concrete to obtain a
However, in order to validate the assumption of the life span of the noticeable reduction compared to PC concrete.
product, a performance-based approach is recommended. This will
provide more precise results validating the analysis conducted in this Data availability
study. A performance-based approach is based on the measurement of
the actual concrete properties, which elucidate the service life and All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear
performance of the operation stage of the specific structure. in the submitted article.

10
S. Fernando et al. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (2021) 113140

Declaration of competing interest Guinée, J.B., Lindeijer, E., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide
to the ISO Standards. Springer Science & Business Media.
Gupta, D.K., Rai, U.N., Tripathi, R.D., Inouhe, M., 2002. Impacts of fly-ash on soil and
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial plant responses. J. Plant Res. 115, 401–409.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Gursel, A.P., Maryman, H., Ostertag, C., 2016. A life-cycle approach to environmental,
the work reported in this paper. mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash.
J. Clean. Prod. 112, 823–836.
Habert, G., De Lacaillerie, J.D.E., Roussel, N., 2011. An environmental evaluation of
Acknowledgment geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J. Clean.
Prod. 19, 1229–1238.
Hermann, B.G., Kroeze, C., Jawjit, W., 2007. Assessing environmental performance by
Scholarship provided by the School of Engineering, RMIT University combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental
and Faculty of Engineering, the University of Peradeniya to the first performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1787–1796.
author, is gratefully acknowledged. This project is funded by ARC-ITRH ISO14040, 2006. Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles
Framework, vol. 14040. European Committee for Standardization, p. 2006.
(Australian Research Council-Industrial Transformation Research Hub) Kar, A., Ray, I., Halabe, U.B., Unnikrishnan, A., Dawson-Andoh, B., 2014.
research grant (IH200100010) allocated for Transformation of Characterizations and quantitative estimation of alkali-activated binder paste from
Reclaimed Waste Resources to Engineered Materials and Solutions for a microstructures. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 8,
213–228.
Circular Economy (TREMS). Kazaz, A., Ulubeyli, S., Er, B., Arslan, V., Atici, M., Arslan, A., 2015. Fresh ready-mixed
concrete waste in construction projects: a planning approach. Organ. Technol.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Manag. Construct. Int. J. 7, 1280–1288.
Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L., Tang, L., 2013. Comparative study of greenhouse gas
emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods:
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 66, 165–176.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113140. McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement.
J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1080–1090.
Credit author statement Miller, S.A., Horvath, A., Monteiro, P.J., 2016. Readily implementable techniques can cut
annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%. Environ. Res.
Conceptualization: Sarah Fernando; Chamila Gunasekara; David W. Lett. 11, 074029.
O’Brien, K.R., Ménaché, J., O’Moore, L.M., 2009. Impact of fly ash content and fly ash
Law. Methodology & formal analysis: Sarah Fernando; Chamila Guna­ transportation distance on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water
sekara; David W. Law; M. C. M. Nasvi. Writing—original draft prepa­ consumption in concrete. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 621–629.
ration: Sarah Fernando. Writing—review and editing: Chamila Passuello, A., Rodríguez, E.D., Hirt, E., Longhi, M., Bernal, S.A., Provis, J.L.,
Kirchheim, A.P., 2017. Evaluation of the potential improvement in the
Gunasekara; David W. Law; M. C. M. Nasvi; Sujeeva Setunge; Ranjith environmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators. J. Clean.
Dissanayake. Supervision: Chamila Gunasekara; David W. Law; M.C.M. Prod. 166, 680–689.
Nasvi; Sujeeva Setunge; Ranjith Dissanayake. Pervez, H., Ali, Y., Petrillo, A., 2021. A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from conventional and modular construction: a case of developing
country. J. Clean. Prod. 294, 126210.
References Piccinno, F., Hischier, R., Seeger, S., Som, C., 2016. From laboratory to industrial scale: a
scale-up framework for chemical processes in life cycle assessment studies. J. Clean.
Abdulkareem, M., Havukainen, J., Nuortila-Jokinen, J., Horttanainen, M., 2021. Prod. 135, 1085–1097.
Environmental and economic perspective of waste-derived activators on alkali- Ramagiri, K.K., Chauhan, D., Gupta, S., Kar, A., Adak, D., 2019. Evaluation of Structural
activated mortars. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124651. Performance of Concrete with Ambient-Cured Alkali-Activated Binders, National
Aci211, 2002. Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight and Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management. Springer,
Mass Concrete ACI. American concrete Institute, pp. 1–91, 211. pp. 1–10.
Adam, A., 2009. Strength and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash- Rodrigo, A.S., Perera, S., 2011. Electricity Generation Using Rice Husk in Sri Lanka:
Based Geopolymer Concrete. Potential and Viability. National Energy Symposium.
Asiedu, Y., Gu, P., 1998. Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. Int. J. Sandanayake, M., Gunasekara, C., Law, D., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., 2018. Greenhouse gas
Prod. Res. 36, 883–908. emissions of different fly ash based geopolymer concretes in building construction.
Bajpai, R., Choudhary, K., Srivastava, A., Sangwan, K.S., Singh, M., 2020. Environmental J. Clean. Prod. 204, 399–408.
impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer concrete. J. Clean. Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., 2016. Environmental emissions at foundation
Prod. 254, 120147. construction stage of buildings–Two case studies. Building and Environmental
Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., 2010. Environmental impact of cement management-Life cycle assessment-Principles 95, 189–198.
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. Sarker, P., Nath, P., 2014. Geopolymer concrete for curing at normal temperature.
J. Clean. Prod. 18, 478–485. Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Conclave on Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Binders,
Chen, T., Burnett, J., Chau, C., 2001. Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential Concretes Other Building Materials, pp. 62–68.
building of Hong Kong. Energy Procedia 26, 323–340. Sarode, D.B., Jadhav, R.N., Khatik, V.A., Ingle, S.T., Attarde, S.B., 2010. Extraction and
Cheng, C.-C., Pouffary, S., Svenningsen, N., Callaway, J.M., 2008. The Kyoto Protocol, leaching of heavy metals from thermal power plant fly ash and its admixtures. Pol. J.
the Clean Development Mechanism and the Building and Construction Sector: A Environ. Stud. 19, 1325–1330.
Report for the UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative. Sentman, S.D., Del Percio, S.T., Koerner, P., 2008. A climate for change: green building
Dal Pozzo, A., Carabba, L., Bignozzi, M.C., Tugnoli, A., 2019. Life cycle assessment of a policies, programs, and incentives. Journal of green building 3, 46–63.
geopolymer mixture for fireproofing applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, Suhaini, N.A., Abas, N.H., Nagapan, S., Nadarason, K., 2019. Identification of
1743–1757. Construction Waste Generated at Precast Concrete Plants: Case Study, IOP
Das, S.K., Mishra, J., Mustakim, S.M., 2018. Rice husk ash as a potential source material Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing, 012036.
for geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 13, 81–84. Thannimalay, L., Yusoff, S., Zawawi, N., 2013. Life cycle assessment of sodium
Fawer, M., Concannon, M., Rieber, W., 1999. Life cycle inventories for the production of hydroxide. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci 7, 421–431.
sodium silicates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 207. Turner, L.K., Collins, F.G., 2013. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a
Fernando, K.C.A, 2011. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Analysis towards a Sustainable comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construct. Build. Mater.
Cement Industry for Sri Lanka: an Analysis of Three Process Pathways. Master’s 43, 125–130.
Thesis: University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Weil, M., Dombrowski, K., Buchwald, A., 2009. Life-cycle Analysis of Geopolymers,
Gomes, K.C., Carvalho, M., Diniz, D.d.P., Abrantes, R.d.C.C., Branco, M.A., Carvalho Geopolymers. Elsevier, pp. 194–210.
Junior, P R O d J M, 2019. Carbon emissions associated with two types of
foundations: CP-II Portland cement-based composite vs. geopolymer concrete 24.

11