PMID- 37863214
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
LR  - 20231121
IS  - 1879-1026 (Electronic)
IS  - 0048-9697 (Linking)
VI  - 907
DP  - 2024 Jan 10
TI  - Strength, porosity and life cycle analysis of geopolymer and hybrid cement 
      mortars for sustainable construction.
PG  - 167839
LID - S0048-9697(23)06466-5 [pii]
LID - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167839 [doi]
AB  - Owing to the application of industrial wastes, geopolymers are generally regarded 
      as a sustainable alternative to traditional construction materials. However, 
      their lack of adoption on the industrial scale demands detailed investigations. 
      This study conducts a comparative analysis of the compressive strength of 
      different geopolymer and hybrid cement mortars with varying proportions of sodium 
      hydroxide (from 5 to 25 wt%) and ordinary Portland cement (OPC) (from 15 to 
      35 wt%), respectively. The porosity of all designed mixtures was also analyzed 
      using X-ray computed tomography (XCT) and water absorption tests. ReCiPe 2016 
      Midpoint (H) method was used for the Life cycle analysis of the geopolymer and 
      hybrid cement mortars. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach was used to 
      assess the sustainability potential of the designed mixtures based on compressive 
      strength, porosity and overall environmental impact. Experimental results 
      revealed that the increase in sodium hydroxide in geopolymer mortars up to 15 wt% 
      offered its maximum compressive strength. Superior compressive strength was 
      obtained at 35 wt% of OPC in hybrid cement mortars due to the formation of more 
      C-S-H, C-A-S-H and N-A-S-H gels which fill up the voids and pores. Analysis of 
      the macro and micro-porosity revealed that hybrid cement mortars yield denser 
      structure than geopolymer mortars. Life cycle analysis based on 8 distinct impact 
      categories showed that hybrid cement mortars outperform the geopolymers in all 
      impact categories except 'mineral resource scarcity'. However, the overall 
      environmental impact assessment using the 'coefficient of performance' depicts 
      that hybrid cement mortars offer a significantly lower environmental burden than 
      geopolymers. MCDM analysis shows that hybrid cement mortar with 5 wt% of sodium 
      hydroxide and 35 wt% of OPC is the best choice for construction applications. 
      This idea of sustainable hybrid cement mortar will be helpful for the 
      construction industry to limit the environmental impact without compromising 
      their structural performance.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
FAU - Raza, Muhammad Huzaifa
AU  - Raza MH
AD  - Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of 
      Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Electronic address: huzaifa@connect.hku.hk.
FAU - Khan, Mahram
AU  - Khan M
AD  - Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 
      Electronic address: mkhan@connect.hku.hk.
FAU - Zhong, Ray Y
AU  - Zhong RY
AD  - Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of 
      Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20231019
PL  - Netherlands
TA  - Sci Total Environ
JT  - The Science of the total environment
JID - 0330500
SB  - IM
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Environmental impact
OT  - Geopolymers
OT  - Hybrid cement mortars
OT  - Life cycle analysis
OT  - Sustainable construction
COIS- Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known 
      competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared 
      to influence the work reported in this paper.
EDAT- 2023/10/21 05:42
MHDA- 2023/10/21 05:43
CRDT- 2023/10/20 19:28
PHST- 2023/07/01 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2023/09/25 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2023/10/12 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2023/10/21 05:43 [medline]
PHST- 2023/10/21 05:42 [pubmed]
PHST- 2023/10/20 19:28 [entrez]
AID - S0048-9697(23)06466-5 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167839 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Sci Total Environ. 2024 Jan 10;907:167839. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167839. 
      Epub 2023 Oct 19.