IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i8p3579-d1128756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structural Performance of Energy Efficient Geopolymer Concrete Confined Masonry: An Approach towards Decarbonization

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Mubashir Ajmal

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan)

  • Asad Ullah Qazi

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan)

  • Ali Ahmed

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan)

  • Ubaid Ahmad Mughal

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan)

  • Safeer Abbas

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan)

  • Syed Minhaj Saleem Kazmi

    (School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia)

  • Muhammad Junaid Munir

    (School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia)

Abstract

Geopolymer concrete is preferred over OPC due to its use of energy waste such as fly ash, making it more sustainable and energy-efficient. However, limited research has been done on its seismic characterization in confined masonry, highlighting a gap in sustainable earthquake-resistant structures. Our study compares the performance of alkali-activated fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete bare frame and confined masonry wall panels with conventional concrete. Experimental results showed that geopolymer concrete bare frame has 3.5% higher initial stiffness and 1.0% higher lateral load-bearing capacity compared to conventional concrete. Geopolymer concrete confined masonry exhibited 45.2% higher initial stiffness and 4.1% higher ultimate seismic capacity than traditional concrete. The experimental results were verified using a numerical simulation technique with ANSYS-APDL, showing good correlation. Comparison with previously tested masonry walls revealed that GPC confined masonry has similar structural behavior to cement concrete masonry. This study demonstrates that geopolymer concrete made from waste energy such as fly ash is a sustainable and low-energy substitute for OPC concrete, particularly in highly seismic-prone areas, for a cleaner environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Mubashir Ajmal & Asad Ullah Qazi & Ali Ahmed & Ubaid Ahmad Mughal & Safeer Abbas & Syed Minhaj Saleem Kazmi & Muhammad Junaid Munir, 2023. "Structural Performance of Energy Efficient Geopolymer Concrete Confined Masonry: An Approach towards Decarbonization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-27, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:3579-:d:1128756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3579/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3579/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendrik G. van Oss & Amy C. Padovani, 2003. "Cement Manufacture and the Environment Part II: Environmental Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(1), pages 93-126, January.
    2. Asaad Almssad & Amjad Almusaed & Raad Z. Homod, 2022. "Masonry in the Context of Sustainable Buildings: A Review of the Brick Role in Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-18, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sanna, Aimaro & Dri, Marco & Hall, Matthew R. & Maroto-Valer, Mercedes, 2012. "Waste materials for carbon capture and storage by mineralisation (CCSM) – A UK perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 545-554.
    2. Meredith Fowlie & Mar Reguant & Stephen P. Ryan, 2016. "Market-Based Emissions Regulation and Industry Dynamics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 249-302.
    3. Navia, R. & Rivela, B. & Lorber, K.E. & Méndez, R., 2006. "Recycling contaminated soil as alternative raw material in cement facilities: Life cycle assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 339-356.
    4. Atmaca, Adem & Kanoglu, Mehmet, 2012. "Reducing energy consumption of a raw mill in cement industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 261-269.
    5. Reijnders, L., 2005. "Disposal, uses and treatments of combustion ashes: a review," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 313-336.
    6. Woodward, Rachel & Duffy, Noel, 2011. "Cement and concrete flow analysis in a rapidly expanding economy: Ireland as a case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 448-455.
    7. Amjad Almusaed & Asaad Almssad & Asaad Alasadi & Ibrahim Yitmen & Sammera Al-Samaraee, 2023. "Assessing the Role and Efficiency of Thermal Insulation by the “BIO-GREEN PANEL” in Enhancing Sustainability in a Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Azad Rahman & Mohammad G. Rasul & M.M.K. Khan & Subhash C. Sharma, 2017. "Assessment of Energy Performance and Emission Control Using Alternative Fuels in Cement Industry through a Process Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Peter Holmes & Tom Reilly & Jim Rollo, 2011. "Border carbon adjustments and the potential for protectionism," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 883-900, March.
    10. Amjad Almusaed & Ibrahim Yitmen & Asaad Almssad, 2023. "Enhancing Smart Home Design with AI Models: A Case Study of Living Spaces Implementation Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-23, March.
    11. Boughton, Bob, 2007. "Evaluation of shredder residue as cement manufacturing feedstock," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 621-642.
    12. Jeffrey T. Macher & Nathan H. Miller & Matthew Osborne, 2021. "Finding Mr. Schumpeter: technology adoption in the cement industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(1), pages 78-99, March.
    13. Yurong Zhang & Chaojun Mao & Jiandong Wang & Yanhong Gao & Junzhi Zhang, 2020. "Sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Beams with/without BF Influenced by Cracking Capacity and Chloride Diffusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-12, February.
    14. Chau, C.K. & Leung, T.M. & Ng, W.Y., 2015. "A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 395-413.
    15. Beatrice Castellani & Elena Morini & Mirko Filipponi & Andrea Nicolini & Massimo Palombo & Franco Cotana & Federico Rossi, 2014. "Comparative Analysis of Monitoring Devices for Particulate Content in Exhaust Gases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Hashimoto, Shizuka & Fujita, Tsuyoshi & Geng, Yong & Nagasawa, Emiri, 2010. "Realizing CO2 emission reduction through industrial symbiosis: A cement production case study for Kawasaki," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(10), pages 704-710.
    17. Ali Naqi & Jeong Gook Jang, 2019. "Recent Progress in Green Cement Technology Utilizing Low-Carbon Emission Fuels and Raw Materials: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Lahiba Imtiaz & Sardar Kashif-ur-Rehman & Wesam Salah Alaloul & Kashif Nazir & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Fahid Aslam & Muhammad Ali Musarat, 2021. "Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, Geopolymer Concrete, and Recycled Aggregate-Based Geopolymer Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Vasile-Mircea Venghiac & Cerasela-Panseluta Neagu & George Taranu & Ancuta Rotaru, 2023. "Time History Analyses of a Masonry Structure for a Sustainable Technical Assessment According to Romanian Design Codes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-29, February.
    20. Wesseling, Joeri H. & van der Vooren , Alexander, 2016. "Lock-in of mature innovation systems, The transformation toward clean concrete in the Netherlands," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/17, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:3579-:d:1128756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.