Life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis to determine the performance of 3D printed cement mortars and geopolymers

References

• ARGOS_360, Caracterización de impactos ambientales en la industria de la construcción, (2020). [cited May 25, 2020]. https://www.360enconcreto.com/blog/detalle/impactos-ambientales-en-la-industria-de-la-construccion.
   Google Scholar
• UEPG, European aggregates association a sustainable industry for a sustainable Europe, 2017. [cited May 25, 2020]. www.uepg.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Lehne J, Preston F. Concrete change innovation in low-carbon cement and concrete. London: Chatham Ho, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2018. [cited May 25, 2020]. https://reader.chathamhouse.org/making-concrete-change-innovation-low-carbon-cement-and-concrete#.
   Google Scholar
• Medina C, Sáez del Bosque IF, Asensio E, et al. New additions for eco-efficient cement design. Impact on calorimetric behavior and comparison of test methods. Mater Struct. 2016;49(11):4595–4607.
   Google Scholar
• Asensio E, Medina C, Frías M, et al. Characterization of Ceramic-Based construction and demolition waste: use as pozzolan in cements. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2016;99(12):4121–4127.
   Google Scholar
• Islam GS, Rahman MH, Kazi N. Waste glass powder as partial replacement of cement for sustainable concrete practice. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017;6(1):37–44.
   Google Scholar
• Pan S-C, Tseng D-H, Lee C-C, et al. Influence of the fineness of sewage sludge ash on the mortar properties. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003;33(11):1749–1754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juenger MCG, Snellings R, Bernal SA. Supplementary cementitious materials: New sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019;122:257–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Zhang W, Li C, et al. Eco-friendly mortar with high-volume diatomite and fly ash: Performance and life-cycle assessment with regional variability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;261:121224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller SA. Supplementary cementitious materials to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from concrete: can there be too much of a good thing? J. Clean. Prod. 2018;178:587–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Zhang W, Li C, et al. Green concrete containing diatomaceous earth and limestone: workability, mechanical properties, and life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019;223:662–679.
   Google Scholar
• J, DavidovitsGeopolymer. Chemistry and application, 3rd ed., Institut Géopolymère, 2011. www.geopolymer.org.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Zhang Z, Yang K, et al. Characterisation of pore structure development of alkali-activated slag cement during early hydration using electrical responses. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018;89:139–149.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Zhang M, Yang K, et al. Setting behaviors and early-age microstructures of alkali-activated ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) from different regions in China. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020;114:103782.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Lodeiro I, Fernández-Jimenez A, Palomo A. Cements with a low clinker content: versatile use of raw materials. J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 2015;4(2):140–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medina C, Zhu W, Torsten H, et al. Influence of mixed recycled aggregate on the physical – mechanical properties of recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2014;68:216–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Corominas A, Etxeberria M, Poon C-S. Influence of the quality of recycled aggregates on the mechanical and durability properties of high performance concrete. Waste Biomass Valor. 2017;8(5):1421–1432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Uceda A, Ayuso J, López M, et al. Properties of non-structural concrete made with mixed recycled aggregates and low cement content. Materials. 2016;9(2):74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provis JL, Bernal SA. Geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2014;44(1):299–327.
   Google Scholar
• Provis JL. Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: why, how, and what? Mater Struct. 2014;47(1-2):11–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecomte I, Henrist C, Liégeois M, et al. (Micro)-structural comparison between geopolymers, alkali-activated slag cement and Portland cement. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2006;26(16):3789–3797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junaid MT, Kayali O, Khennane A, et al. A mix design procedure for low calcium alkali activated fly ash-based concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015;79:301–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang P, Zheng Y, Wang K, et al. A review on properties of fresh and hardened geopolymer mortar. Composites. 2018;152:79–95.
   Google Scholar
• Yan B, Duan P, Ren D. Mechanical strength, surface abrasion resistance and microstructure of fly ash-metakaolin-sepiolite geopolymer composites. Ceram. Int. 2017;43(1):1052–1060.
   Google Scholar
• Meesala CR, Verma NK, Kumar S. Critical review on fly‐ash based geopolymer concrete. Struct. Concr. 2019;1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Duxson P, Provis JL, Lukey GC, et al. The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of “green concrete”. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007;37(12):1590–1597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teh SH, Wiedmann T, Castel A, et al. Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;152:312–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas DA, Ramirez AD, Ulloa N, et al. Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018;190:170–177.
   Google Scholar
• Passuello A, Rodríguez ED, Hirt E, et al. Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;166:680–689.
   Google Scholar
• Bajpai R, Choudhary K, Srivastava A, et al. Environmental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;254:120147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz I, Alonso-Madrid J, Menéndez-Muñiz M, et al. Life cycle assessment of integrated additive-subtractive concrete 3D printing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2021;112(7-8):2149–2159.
   Google Scholar
• Alhumayani H, Gomaa M, Soebarto V, et al. Environmental assessment of large-scale 3D printing in construction: a comparative study between cob and concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;270:122463.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammad M, Masad E, Al-Ghamdi SG. 3D concrete printing sustainability: a comparative life cycle assessment of four construction method scenarios. Buildings. 2020;10(12):245.
   Google Scholar
• Han Y, Yang Z, Ding T, et al. Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;278:123884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddika A, Abdullah_Al_Mamum M, Ferdous W, et al. 3D-printed concrete: applications, performance, and challenges. J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• El-Sayegh S, Romdhane L, Manjikian S. A critical review of 3D printing in construction: benefits, challenges, and risks. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2020;20
   Google Scholar
• Elizondo-Martínez E, Andrés-Valeri V, Rodríguez-Hernández J, et al. Selection of additives and fibers for improving the mechanical and safety properties of porous concrete pavements through multi-criteria decision-making analysis, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A. Extended MULTIMOORA method based on shannon entropy weight for materials selection. J Ind Eng Int. 2016;12(1):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Mardani A, Nilashi M, Zakuan N, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017;57:265–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slebi-Acevedo CJ, Pascual-Muñoz P, Lastra-González P, et al. A multi-criteria decision-making analysis for the selection of fibres aimed at reinforcing asphalt concrete mixtures. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2019;0:1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Ly O, Yoris-Nobile AI, Sebaibi N, et al. Optimisation of 3D printed concrete for artificial reefs: biofouling and mechanical analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021;272:121649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao ZT, Ji XS, Sarker PK, et al. A comprehensive review on the applications of coal fly ash. Earth-Science Rev. 2015;141:105–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gollakota ARK, Volli V, Shu CM. Progressive utilisation prospects of coal fly ash: a review. Sci Total Environ. 2019;672:951–989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie T, Ozbakkaloglu T. Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Ceram. Int. 2015;41(4):5945–5958.
   Google Scholar
• Assi LN, Deaver E, ElBatanouny MK, et al. Investigation of early compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016;112:807–815.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashidian-Dezfouli H, Rangaraju PR. A comparative study on the durability of geopolymers produced with ground glass fiber, fly ash, and glass-powder in sodium sulfate solution. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017;153:996–1009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Görhan G, Kürklü G. The influence of the NaOH solution on the properties of the fly ash-based geopolymer mortar cured at different temperatures. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014;58:371–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R, Abbas MA, Khereby H, Y, Ghorab, et al. Preparation of geopolymer concrete using egyptian kaolin clay and the study of its environmental effects and economic cost. Clean Techn Environ Policy. 2020;22(3):669–687.
   Google Scholar
• UNE-EN 933-1. Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. Part 1: Determination of particle size distribution – Sieving method., AENOR – Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Álvaro R. Morteros para revestimiento con árido procedente de concha de mejillón, Universidade da Coruña, 2014. [cited June 27, 2019]. https://ruc.udc.es/dspace/handle/2183/13632.
   Google Scholar
• Martínez García C. Estudio del comportamiento de la concha de mejillón como árido para la fabricación de hormigones en masa: aplicación en la cimentación de un módulo experimental (Módulo Biovalvo), Universidade da Coruña, 2016. [cited June 27, 2019]. https://ruc.udc.es/dspace/handle/2183/17489.
   Google Scholar
• Long W-J, Tao J-L, Lin C, et al. Rheology and buildability of sustainable cement-based composites containing micro-crystalline cellulose for 3D-printing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019;239:118054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buswell RA, Leal de Silva WR, Jones SZ, et al. 3D printing using concrete extrusion: a roadmap for research. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018;112:37–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estellé P, Lanos C, Perrot A, et al. Processing the vane shear flow data from couette analogy. Appl. Rheol. 2008;18:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lanos C, Estellé P. Vers une réelle rhéométrie adaptée aux bétons frais. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2009;13(4):457–471.
   Google Scholar
• Estellé P, Lanos C, Perrot A. Processing the couette viscometry data using a bingham approximation in shear rate calculation. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 2008;154:31–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNE-EN_196-1. Methods of testing cement. Part 1: determination of strength. AENOR – Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio_de_Fomento, Base de precios de referencia de la dirección generla de carreteras, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Solutions MB. Productos y sistemas BASF. Construction Chemicals España, S.L., 2017.
   Google Scholar
• ISO_14040. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, 2 nd. International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• ISO_14044. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines, 1 edn. International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Grist ER, Paine KA, Heath A, et al. The environmental credentials of hydraulic lime-pozzolan concretes. J. Clean. Prod. 2015;93:26–37.
   Google Scholar
• NREL, U.S. Life Cycle Invent. Database, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Turner LK, Collins FG. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013;43:125–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNE-EN_15804, UNE-EN 15804:2012 + A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Lizasoain-Arteaga E, Indacoechea-Vega I, Pascual-Muñoz P, et al. Environmental impact assessment of induction-healed asphalt mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 2019;208:1546–1556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process, planning, priority setting, resource allocation, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Wang E, Alp N, Shi J, et al. Multi-criteria building energy performance benchmarking through variable clustering based compromise TOPSIS with objective entropy weighting. Energy. 2017;125:197–210.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Zhan W. Dynamic engineering multi-criteria decision making model optimized by entropy weight for evaluating bid. Syst. Eng. Procedia. 2012;5:49–54.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Berlín: Springer 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, et al. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektron. Ir Elektrotechnika. 2012;122:3–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gholampour A, Ho VD, Ozbakkaloglu T. Ambient-cured geopolymer mortars prepared with waste-based sands: Mechanical and durability-related properties and microstructure. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019;160:519–534.
   Google Scholar
• Chen P. Effects of normalization on the entropy-based TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl. 2019;136:33–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar