sustainability

Article
Economic Analysis of Geopolymer Brick
Manufacturing: A French Case Study
Nicolas Youssef 1, * , Zoubeir Lafhaj 1 and Christophe Chapiseau 2
1 Centrale Lille, UMR 9013–LaMcube–Laboratoire de Mécanique, Multiphysique, Multi-échelle,
F-59000 Lille, France; zoubeir.lafhaj@centralelille.fr
2 Briqueteries du Nord (BdN), Port Fluvial, 59000 Lille, France; christophe.chapiseau@bdn.fr
* Correspondence: nicolas.youssef@centralelille.fr or nicolas.youssef@gmail.com; Tel.: +33-0666-066-906




Received: 10 August 2020; Accepted: 4 September 2020; Published: 9 September 2020


Abstract: This paper presents an economic analysis of manufacturing geopolymer bricks for use
in the construction sector. The manufacturing processes of both geopolymer bricks and traditional
fired bricks were investigated. For this study, we collected and analyzed all phases of geopolymer
brick production from the extraction of raw materials to storage. Seven formulations of geopolymer
bricks based on clay and waste bricks were analyzed. We considered the cost of raw materials and
logistics operations in the production line of brick manufacturing. The results of this study prove
that the manufacturing cost of geopolymer bricks based on clay provides an economic gain of 5%
compared to fired bricks for the same compressive strength of 20 MPa. In the case of waste bricks,
for the same production cost, the compressive strength of the geopolymer bricks is double that of fired
bricks. Hence, this study shows the economic interest in the industrial production of geopolymer
bricks. It also confirms that future research is needed that focuses on necessary changes to the current
industrial production chain required for the manufacture of geopolymer bricks.

Keywords: economic analysis; manufacturing; geopolymer; clay; waste bricks

1. Introduction
After the economic crisis in 2008, construction activity in France grew rapidly. This activity
was followed by a strong demand for building materials. The production of these materials caused
pressure on limited natural resources and an increase in construction waste and CO2 emissions. In 2018,
CO2 emissions related to human activities reached a world historical level of 37.1 billion metric tons [1].
In France, the construction sector is responsible for about 40% of total energy consumption [2].
This value only represents the consumption related to the building process, without considering the
industrial part of manufacturing and transport of building materials. In 2011, the CO2 emissions
due to the construction sector were estimated to be 10% of total CO2 emissions, of which 52% was
attributed to the concrete industry. In addition, the construction industry produces 75% of waste in
France, making it the largest waste producer [2].
The pressure of economic and environmental costs is motivating academic and industrial parties
to develop innovative building materials. These targeted materials must respond to the challenges of
recycling construction waste, reducing CO2 emissions, conserving non-renewable natural resources,
and reducing costs at the industrial level. In this context, geopolymer-based materials show promise
for replacing traditional materials in the building industry due to their interesting properties and low
environmental impact [2].
The term geopolymer was invented by Joseph Davidovits in the 1970s [3]. Materials comparable to
geopolymers were created in the Soviet Union starting in the 1950s [4,5]. These materials have also
been called soil cements [6–9]. They generally consist of pozzolanic materials such as kaolin [10–12],

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403; doi:10.3390/su12187403 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 2 of 12

metakaolin [13–15], blast furnace slag [16–18], fly ash, and ceramic wastes [19,20]. These materials
are activated by an alkaline solution usually containing varying amounts of dissolved silicate [21].
Geopolymer is a term that refers to a range of synthetic aluminosilicate polymeric materials, often called
alkali-activated binders. Geopolymer materials can be produced from a range of natural and synthetic
pozzolanic solids activated with alkaline solutions such as sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate.
Geopolymers have a wide range of applications due to their useful properties, such as their
resistance to acid/sulphate attacks [22–24], freeze/thaw [22,25], and high temperatures [22,26]. In the
construction sector, geopolymers are referred to as green concrete [27,28] due to their ability to reduce
CO2 emissions and lower production energy [21].
Geopolymers have been applied in various contexts: geopolymer cement and
concrete, flame-retardant high-tech applications, aircraft and automotive interiors [3,29],
seawater applications [30], immobilization of toxic metals and wastes [31–33], heat-resistant
pavement [34], structural elements [35], geopolymer concrete pipes [36], ceramic materials [3],
electrical fuses [3], and fire-resistant particleboard [3]. Geopolymers have the potential to be used in
a variety of applications due to their durability, chemical and thermal resistance, rapidly evolving
mechanical strength, and economic and environmental benefits as industrial by-products [3,37].
Since 1972, geopolymer applications have been developed in France, Europe, and the USA. In 1979,
a French scientific organization, the Geopolymer Institute, was created [3]. Geopolymers are used in
different applications, based on 30 patents registered and issued in several countries [3].
In the literature, studies on the economic feasibility of geopolymer materials are limited [38–40].
Geopolymers can act as a binder to replace other binders such as Portland cement pastes in concrete
products [40]. Geopolymer bricks based on waste bricks and clay were investigated in a previous
study [41]. The environmental impact of these geopolymer bricks was evaluated [42]. The results of
these studies showed that these geopolymer bricks could be a possible alternative to fired brick (FB)
based on their mechanical properties and environmental impact.
The objective of this study was to develop an economic analysis for the implementation of a
new brick based on geopolymer materials, which could serve as an alternative to the fired brick
manufactured at the French brickworks.
In this study, an economic analysis of the production cost was carried out using different
geopolymer brick formulations based on waste bricks and clay. The production costs of both the
economic feasibility and mechanical properties were analyzed to study the technical feasibility.
The production cost of one metric ton of brick was determined based on the cost of ingredients in the
French market. Hence, this novel study focused on developing a product database for the production
of building materials in France, assessing the change needed to incorporate the product in the chain of
production, and presenting a case study in the field of masonry with geopolymer bricks.

2. Materials, Methods, Objectives, and Research Methodology

2.1. Research Objectives

The traditional process of producing fired bricks is considered energy-intensive and uses natural
materials, mainly clay. In this study, attention was paid to the manufacture of geopolymer bricks and
the implementation of this process as a substitute for the brick production process.
The manufacturing process of traditional bricks includes transporting raw materials to the
factory, crushing, storing in silos, dosing, dry mixing, mixing with water, and preparing the blocks.
The paramount step for fired brick is the use of a high temperature kiln that cures the bricks at a
temperature above 1100 ◦ C and ends with packaging and storage at the factory.
The manufacturing process of geopolymer bricks follows the same preparation process with the
elimination of a high temperature curing phase, which is costly from economic and environmental
points of view.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 3 of 12

Sustainability 2020, 12, x 3 of 11

In geopolymer bricks, hardening is based on alkaline activation between the solid materials
used (clay, sand, and brick
In geopolymer bricks,waste) andisalkaline
hardening based onactivators (hydroxide
alkaline activation andthe
between sodium silicate).used
solid materials With the
(clay, sand, and brick waste) and alkaline activators (hydroxide and sodium silicate).
elimination of the high temperature curing phase, this new manufacturing process consumes less With the
elimination
energy than theof the high temperature
conventional fired brickcuring phase,
process. Thethis new manufacturing
different process
phases of these consumes
two brick less
manufacturing
energy than the conventional
processes are illustrated in Figure 1. fired brick process. The different phases of these two brick
manufacturing processes are illustrated in Figure 1.

Fired brick process Geopolymer brick process

Elimination of the high temperature curing step

in the geopolymer brick manufacturing
Figure1.1.Manufacturing
Figure Manufacturing process
processofoffired and
fired geopolymer
and bricks.
geopolymer bricks.

In this
In this study,
study, a comparisonbetween
a comparison between the
the cost
costofofproduction
productionof fired bricks
of fired and and
bricks geopolymer bricks bricks
geopolymer
was carried out to evaluate the economic value of the use of the geopolymer bricks in brickwork.
was carried out to evaluate the economic value of the use of the geopolymer bricks in brickwork.
2.2. Cost Evaluation Method
2.2. Cost Evaluation Method
The cost evaluation of bricks consists of the final cost of the bricks (based on the production
The cost
chain) andevaluation of bricks
the cost of raw consists
materials of the
used in themanufacturing
final cost of the bricksThis
process. (based on the production
evaluation is composed chain)
and of
the cost of raw
three steps: materials used in the manufacturing process. This evaluation is composed of
three steps:
(1) Step 1: Brick formulation and geopolymer references:

(1) • Step
Reference
1: Brickgeopolymer brick
formulation andformulation;
geopolymer references:
• Determine characteristics of raw material;
• • Study differentgeopolymer
Reference formulationsbrick
of geopolymer bricks.
formulation;
• (2)Determine characteristics
Step 2: Calculation of raw
of the initial material;
cost:
• Study different formulations of geopolymer bricks.
• Determination of unit prices for the different materials used;
(2) • Step
Identification of theofdifferent
2: Calculation phases
the initial cost:of production of geopolymer bricks;
• Calculation of the global cost of geopolymer and fired brick production for the different
• formulations studied.
Determination of unit prices for the different materials used;
• (3)Identification of case
Step 3–Business the different
analysis: phases of production of geopolymer bricks;
• Calculation of the global cost of geopolymer and fired brick production for the different
• Identification of parameters;
formulations
• Calculation studied.
of indicators related to the chosen parameters;
(3) • Step
Performance analysis
3–Business based on fired brick of the Briqueterie du Nord de la France (BdN);
case analysis:
• Demonstration of the most efficient geopolymer brick formulations.
• Identification of parameters;
3. Material Input for Brick Manufacturing and Cost Analysis
• Calculation of indicators related to the chosen parameters;
• Materials
3.1. Performance analysisUsed
and Formulations based on Geopolymer
in the fired brickFormulations
of the Briqueterie du Nord de la France (BdN);
• Demonstration of the most efficient geopolymer brick formulations.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 4 of 12

3. Material Input for Brick Manufacturing and Cost Analysis

3.1. Materials and Formulations Used in the Geopolymer Formulations

The solid materials used in the preparation of geopolymer bricks were waste brick (WB), clay,
sand, and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). The chemical composition of these materials
is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Chemical composition of the solid materials in the geopolymer bricks.

Materials
Oxides (wt %)
Waste Bricks Clay GGBFS Sand
MgO 1.41 1.15 5.76 0.47
Al2 O3 12.68 13.59 9.16 5.57
SiO2 73.106 73.676 33.84 89.99
K2 O 3.45 3.48 0.54 1.2
CaO 1.02 1.95 49.17 0.19
TiO2 0.87 0.94 0.77 0.2
MnO 0.68 0.094 0.3 0.02
Fe2 O3 6.74 5.12 0.46 2.35
Ni2 O3 0.009 - - 0.01
Cu2 O 0.007 - - -
ZnO 0.02 - - -
GaO3 0.008 - - -
GGBFS: ground granulated blast furnace slag.

The analysis of the chemical composition of the solid precursors indicated that the waste brick had
a high content of 73.106% of SiO2 compared to 12.68% for Al2 O3 . The value 6 of mass ratio SiO2 /Al2 O3
classifies the waste bricks as a siliceous material [43]. A similar chemical composition of the waste
bricks was achieved for the clay with 73.676% for SiO2 and 13.59% for Al2 O3 . In the case of GGBFS,
SiO2 and CaO were the two main components with a minority of Al2 O3 . The composition of the sand
displayed that the main phase was composed of SiO2 , which accounted for 89.99% of its total mass.
The alkaline activators used in the preparation of the geopolymer consisted of a combination of
hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 ). The mass composition of sodium silicate contained
27% SiO2 , 8% Na2 O and 65% H2 O. The sodium hydroxide solution was prepared with a concentration
of 8M from solid NaOH capsules of 98% purity.
The compositions of the seven geopolymer brick’s formulations studied in this research are
illustrated in Table 2. These geopolymer brick formulations were presented in previous studies and
are prepared with clay and waste bricks [41,42]. GC and GWBi represent the geopolymer brick’s
formulations based on clay and waste brick respectively. The value i varies from 1 to 5 to refer to the
five geopolymer brick formulations based on waste bricks.

Table 2. Composition of the geopolymer brick formulations

Component of Different Geopolymer Brick Formulations (g)

Formulations
Sand Clay WB GGBFS NaOH Na2 SiO3 Water
GC 827 827 0 0 92.83 93.77 293.04
GWB1 827 0 827 0 362 44 137
GWB2 827 0 661.6 165.4 362 44 137
GWB2 827 0 496.2 330.8 362 44 137
GWB3 827 0 330.8 496.2 362 44 137
GWB4 827 0 165.4 661.6 362 44 137
GWB5 827 0 0 827 362 44 137
GC: geopolymer bricks based on clay; GWB: geopolymer bricks based on waste bricks; WB: waste brick.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 5 of 12

3.2. Parameter Used in the Economic Analysis

The parameter used in this study to evaluate the economic analysis of fired and geopolymer bricks
was the compressive strength of the different formulations. The compressive strength values for waste
geopolymer bricks are based on a study carried out by Youssef et al. (2019) [41,42]. In this study, a new
geopolymer brick formulation based on clay was added. The reference-fired brick was manufactured
by the brickworks in the north of France and is called FB. The mechanical strength of the fired brick
was 20 MPa. Table 3 presents the compressive strength of the geopolymer and the fired bricks (FB).

Table 3. Compressive strength of the geopolymer and fired bricks.

Formulations FB GC GWB1 GWB2 GWB3 GWB4 GWB5 GWB6

Rc (MPa) 20 20 38.96 44.78 51.92 62.3 89.91 72.48
FB: the reference fired brick produced by the brickworks; Rc: Compressive strength of bricks.

3.3. Cost of Fired Brick Manufacturing: Data Source

In brickwork, the different types of fired bricks are differentiated by their mass in metric tons.
For this reason, the production cost of geopolymer bricks was evaluated in metric tons of brick to
facilitate the comparison with fired bricks. In this section, the data source for the production cost of
fired bricks is based on the annual business model of fired brick production at the brickworks in the
north of France. This business model for French brickwork was used to derive the actual cost of one
metric ton of fired bricks produced in France.
Table 4 presents the production cost of one metric ton of bricks according to the parameters used in
the business model of the fired brick production at the French brickworks. In this model, the following
data that covers the production stage of fired bricks are considered:

(1) Extraction of raw materials (clay and sand);

(2) Energy consumption: use of natural gas, electricity, and fuel throughout the production chain
and in the factory premises; and
(3) Maintenance and humanpower.

Table 4 provides the business model of the annual production of fired bricks at the French
brickwork case. This table is divided into three stages: The first stage shows the materials costs,
the labor cost, and the annual cost of fired brick production in one year in this French brickworks
case. The second section presents the quantity of fired bricks produced, which corresponds to the costs
consumed in the first section. The third section demonstrates the cost of 1 metric ton of fired bricks
calculated from the first two sections.

3.4. Cost of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing

This part of the study focused on the production cost of geopolymer bricks. This cost had two
data sources: (1) the French market to find the cost of the ingredients used in the geopolymer brick’s
formulations and (2) the business model for the French market brickworks used to calculate the
production stage of the geopolymer bricks. This calculation covers the production of the geopolymer
bricks, from the raw materials to storing of bricks.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 6 of 12

Table 4. Annual business model of the production stage of the fired bricks in the French brickworks case.

Production Stages Product Quantity Unit Cost Unit Total Cost Unit
Clay 24,113 t/year 20 EUR/t 482,260 EUR/year
STAGE 1 Sand 10,620 t/year 40 EUR/t 424,800 EUR/year
Materials, labor, Water 3355 m3 /year 3 EUR/m3 10,065 EUR/year
and annual cost Natural gas 17,500,000 kWh/year 0.0589 EUR/kWh 1030,750 EUR/year
Production Electricity 2446,125 kWh/year 0.1483 EUR/kWh 362,760 EUR/year
Domestic fuel 17,911 L/year 0.875 EUR/L 15,673 EUR/year
Maintenance 350,000 EUR/year 350,000 EUR/year
Labor 350,000 EUR/year 350,000 EUR/year
Total annual cost of fired brick production 3026,308 EUR/year
STAGE 2
Annual production quantity Annual production quantity of fired bricks 25,219 t/year
of fired bricks
STAGE 3
Calculation of the
Production cost of one metric ton of fired bricks produced 120 EUR/t
production cost of
fired bricks
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 7 of 12

3.4.1. Cost of Raw Materials in the Geopolymer Formulations

Table 5 presents the geopolymer brick’s ingredients and its cost on the French market. This cost
represents the average cost of the different French suppliers.

Table 5. Geopolymer brick’s ingredients and its cost.

Materials Cost (EUR/t)

Clay 20
Sand 40
Waste bricks 10
GGBFS 65
Sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 ) 268.2
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 470.7
Water 3

3.4.2. Natural Gas and Domestic Fuel Oil Consumption

According to data from the French brickworks, the total amount of consumed natural gas is equal
to 670.8 kWh for each metric ton of fired bricks produced. The kiln consumes 50% of the total amount
of natural gas. However, in the manufacture process of geopolymer bricks, the absence of curing saves
50% from this total natural gas consumption and therefore the consumption of natural gas will be
reduced to 335.4 per metric ton of geopolymer bricks produced.
For domestic fuel oil, the same amount used in the production of fired bricks is used in the
manufacturing process of geopolymer bricks.

3.4.3. Electric Power Consumption

The geopolymer bricks were manufactured at low temperature and the kiln stage was eliminated
from the manufacturing process. This temperature was much lower than that used in the manufacture
of traditional bricks, which is between 1100 ◦ C and 1400 ◦ C.
The other machines present in the industry are used in the manufacture of geopolymer bricks.
Molding, drying, and supplying by conveyor belts do not depend on the materials used. Moreover,
the crushing and sieving system used in the production of fired bricks will still be involved in the case
of geopolymer bricks. The electric power consumption in the production of geopolymer brick waste is
showed in detail in Table 6.

Table 6. Electric power consumption in the production of geopolymer bricks

Electric Power Consumption

Phase kW/h h/day kWh /day J/week kWh/week
Maturing 52.39 5 261.95 5 1309.75
Molding 284.88 10 2848.80 5 14244
Dryer 120.28 24 2886.72 7 20,207.04
Keller 1.54 6 9.24 5.5 50.82
Set up in the kiln 9.39 11 103.29 5 516.45
Automatic sawing 11.11 6 66.66 5 333.3
Removing from the kiln 10.03 11 110.33 5.5 606.815
Lightning (production and building) 8.63 12 103.56 5 517.8
workshop 0.49 16 7.84 5 39.2
Office utilities 4.93 8 39.44 5 197.2
Social local 3.26 8 26.08 5.5 143.44
External lighting 2.83 6 16.98 5 84.9
Total weekly electric power consumption by the French brickwork 38,251
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 8 of 12

The weekly cost of electric power consumption obtained corresponds to an annual cost of
1,739,103 kWh. Therefore, the production cost of one metric ton of geopolymer bricks corresponds to
EUR 10.23 based on the unit price of EUR 0.1483/kWh of electric power paid by the brickworks.

3.4.4. Maintenance and Labor Cost

The kiln represents 30% of the total maintenance cost in the factory, which means a reduction
from EUR 13.41 to 9.387/t of geopolymer bricks produced without curing. Regarding labor, the cost
remains the same at EUR 13.42 per metric ton of brick produced.

3.4.5. Global Cost of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing

After collecting initial data for the geopolymer brick production chain, an overall economic
assessment was conducted to determine the cost of production according to different formulations of
geopolymer bricks based on clay and waste bricks.
Table 7 displays a global assessment of the cost of producing a metric ton of geopolymer bricks
according to the seven formulations studied.

Table 7. Global assessment of the cost of a metric ton of geopolymer bricks according to the 7
formulations studied.

Production Cost of One Metric Ton of Geopolymer Bricks According to Different Formulations (EUR/t)
Product (EUR/t) GC GWB1 GWB2 GWB3 GWB4 GWB5 GWB6
WB 0 3.70 2.96 2.22 1.48 0.74 0
GGBFS 0 0 4.81 9.63 14.44 19.26 24.07
Sand 15.28 14.81 14.81 14.81 14.81 14.81 14.81
Clay 7.64 0 0 0 0 0 0
Na2 SiO3 10.71 39.64 39.64 39.64 39.64 39.64 39.64
NaOH 27 8.86 8.86 8.865 8.86 8.86 8.86
Water 0.396 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
Natural gas 19.75 19.75 19.75 19.75 19.75 19.75 19.75
Electric power 10.23 10.23 10.23 10.23 10.23 10.23 10.23
Fuel 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Maintenance 9.38 9.38 9.38 9.38 9.38 9.38 9.38
Labor 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.42 13.42
Total Cost 114.43 120.61 125.08 128.76 132.84 136.91 140.98

4. Results and Discussion

The production cost of one metric ton of bricks was calculated for the different geopolymer and
fired bricks formulations, based on the compression strength obtained in our previous work [41,42].
The results are illustrated in detail in Figure 2.
The values obtained showed a variation in the cost of production of one metric ton of geopolymer
bricks according to the ingredients of each formulation. For geopolymers based on waste bricks,
the cost of Na2 SiO3 dominates the costs of the other ingredients in the formulation.
The clay-based geopolymer brick has the lowest production cost of EUR 114/t, resulting in a
financial gain of 4.64% compared to the traditional fired brick for the same compressive strength
of 20 MPa. The cost of geopolymer bricks based on waste bricks evolves proportionally with the
quantity of GGBFS. The GWB1 formulation has a production cost of EUR 120/t for a compressive
strength of 38.96 MPa. This formulation is cost-effective from an economic and technical point of view.
The geopolymer brick formulations increase production cost from 4.23% to 17%, with a proportional
increase in compressive strength from 94.8% to 350%. By classifying geopolymer bricks in grade
according to their compressive strength, these results correspond to the literature [38,39] where the cost
of production of geopolymer concrete is higher than ordinary concrete at higher grades of formulations.
 Total Cost 114.43 120.61 125.08 128.76 132.84 136.91 140.98

4. Results and Discussion

The production cost of one metric ton of bricks was calculated for the different geopolymer and
fired bricks2020,
Sustainability formulations,
12, 7403 based on the compression strength obtained in our previous work [41,42].
9 of 12
The results are illustrated in detail in Figure 2.

Production cost
Figure 2. Production cost of one metric ton of bricks and the compressive strength according to the
geopolymer and fired brick formulations, [41,42].

The interpretation
The values obtained of the results ashowed
showed that in
variation both
theGCcost
andofGWB1 formulations
production of onearemetric
economically
ton of
acceptable and represent a technical feasibility for the construction sector.
geopolymer bricks according to the ingredients of each formulation. For geopolymers based on waste
These
bricks, results
the cost of Nademonstrated that the production cost of geopolymer bricks depends on the
2SiO3 dominates the costs of the other ingredients in the formulation.
components of the formulation.
The clay-based geopolymer brickThe has
production
the lowest of geopolymer
production cost bricks is economically
of EUR feasible.
114/t, resulting in a
The decision to use this method is related to its technical feasibility and depends
financial gain of 4.64% compared to the traditional fired brick for the same compressive strength ofon well-defined
parameters
20 MPa. The such
costasofcompressive
geopolymerstrength. The results
bricks based on wasteof this study
bricks can beproportionally
evolves added to the database
with the
of investors
quantity and production
of GGBFS. The GWB1 companies to clarify
formulation has a their decisions
production costregarding geopolymer
of EUR 120/t use at the
for a compressive
industrialoflevel.
strength 38.96 MPa. This formulation is cost-effective from an economic and technical point of
view. The geopolymer brick formulations increase production cost from 4.23% to 17%, with a
5. Conclusions
proportional increase in compressive strength from 94.8% to 350%. By classifying geopolymer bricks
In this
in grade study, to
according wetheir
performed an economic
compressive strength,analysis of the
these results use of geopolymer
correspond brick [38,39]
to the literature at the
industrial
where the level. The
cost of research presents
production a Frenchconcrete
of geopolymer case study of the brickworks
is higher than ordinaryin the North of
concrete at France.
higher
Different
grades ofgeopolymer
formulations. brick formulations based on clay and waste bricks were studied. The production
cost of
Theone metric ton ofofbricks
interpretation and the
the results compressive
showed that both strength
GC andofGWB1 the geopolymer
formulationsbricks were the two
are economically
parametersand
acceptable used to evaluate
represent the feasibility
a technical of production
feasibility of geopolymer
for the construction bricks at the industrial level.
sector.
The determination
These results of the production
demonstrated cost
that theof production
the geopolymer cost bricks was basedbricks
of geopolymer on the depends
annual business
on the
model of the of
components brickworks, which was
the formulation. The used to find of
production allgeopolymer
data sourcesbricks
needed.is economically feasible. The
The results
decision to use of thisthis study demonstrated
method is related to its thattechnical
the production costand
feasibility of geopolymer
depends onbricks changes
well-defined
significantlysuch
parameters depending on the ingredients
as compressive strength. The usedresults
in the of
formulation.
this study can Thebegeopolymer
added to thebrick based on
database of
clay gives aand
investors financial gain of companies
production 5% compared to toclarify
traditional
their fired brick for
decisions the samegeopolymer
regarding compressive use
strength of
at the
20 MPa. Inlevel.
industrial the case of the geopolymer bricks manufactured with waste brick, an improvement of 100%
in compressive strength can be achieved with the same production cost as fired bricks. These results
5.
canConclusions
be considered as a database for use in the production of geopolymer-based building materials at
the industrial level.
In this study, we performed an economic analysis of the use of geopolymer brick at the industrial
level.
AuthorThe research presents
Contributions: a French caseN.Y.
Conceptualization, studyandofZ.L.;
the brickworks
methodology, in the
N.Y.;North of France.
validation, C.C. Different
and Z.L.;
geopolymer
formal analysis,brick
N.Y.;formulations based
investigation, N.Y. andon clay
Z.L.; and waste
resources, bricks
C.C. and were
Z.L.; studied. Thedraft
writing—original production cost
preparation, of
N.Y.;
writing—review and editing, N.Y. and Z.L.; visualization, N.Y. and Z.L.; supervision, Z.L.; project administration,
N.Y.; funding acquisition, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the support of the Brickworks of the North of France (BdN)
for the donation of data source and solid ingredients used in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 10 of 12

References
1. Olivier, J.G.; Peters, J.A.H.W. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2018 Report;
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018.
2. Davidovits, J. Geopolymers—Inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Anal. 1991, 37, 1633–1656.
[CrossRef]
3. Davidovits, P.J. 30 Years of Successes and Failures in Geopolymer Applications. Market Trends and Potential
Breakthroughs. In Proceedings of the Geopolymer 2002 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 28–29 October
2002; pp. 1–16.
4. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Alkali-activated binders: A review Part 1. Historical background,
terminology, reaction mechanisms and hydration products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1305–1314.
[CrossRef]
5. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.P.; Jalali, S. Adhesion characterization of tungsten mine waste
geopolymeric binder. Influence of OPC concrete substrate surface treatment. Constr. Build. Mater.
2008, 22, 154–161. [CrossRef]
6. Dutt, K.S.; Kumar, K.V.; Kishore, I.S.; Chowdary, C.M. A case ctudy on fly ash based Geo-polymer concrete.
Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 2016, 34, 58–62. [CrossRef]
7. Alonso, S.; Palomo, A. Alkaline activation of metakaolin and calcium hydroxide mixtures: Influence of
temperature, activator concentration and solids ratio. Mater. Lett. 2001, 47, 55–62. [CrossRef]
8. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Properties of tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1201–1211. [CrossRef]
9. Shi, C.; Fern, A. Stabilization / solidification of hazardous and radioactive wastes with alkali-activated
cements. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137, 1656–1663. [CrossRef]
10. Pruett, R.J. Kaolin deposits and their uses: Northern Brazil and Georgia, USA. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016, 131, 3–13.
[CrossRef]
11. Naghsh, M.; Shams, K. Synthesis of a kaolin-based geopolymer using a novel fusion method and its
application in effective water softening. Appl. Clay Sci. 2017, 146, 238–245. [CrossRef]
12. Selmani, S.; Sdiri, A.; Bouaziz, S.; Joussein, E.; Rossignol, S. Effects of metakaolin addition on geopolymer
prepared from natural kaolinitic clay. Appl. Clay Sci. 2017, 146, 457–467. [CrossRef]
13. Elizondo-Martinez, E.J.; Tataranni, P.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Castro-Fresno, D. Physical and mechanical
characterization of sustainable and innovative porous concrete for urban pavements containing metakaolin.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4243. [CrossRef]
14. Robayo-Salazar, R.A.; Mejia de Gutiérrez, R.; Puertas, F. Effect of metakaolin on natural volcanic
pozzolan-based geopolymer cement. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016, 132–133, 491–497. [CrossRef]
15. Duxson, P.; Mallicoat, S.W.; Lukey, G.C.; Kriven, W.M.; van Deventer, J.S.J. The effect of alkali and Si/Al
ratio on the development of mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymers. Colloids Surfaces A
Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2007, 292, 8–20. [CrossRef]
16. Sisol, M.; Kudelas, D.; Marcin, M.; Holub, T.; Varga, P. Statistical evaluation of mechanical properties of
slag-based alkali-activated material. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5935. [CrossRef]
17. Jeong, Y.; Oh, J.E.; Jun, Y.; Park, J.; Ha, J.H.; Sohn, S.G. Influence of four additional activators on hydrated-lime
[Ca (OH) 2] activated ground granulated blast-furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 65, 1–10. [CrossRef]
18. Rousekov, I.; Bajza, A.; Zivica, V. Silica fume-basic blast furnace slag systems activated by an alkali silica
fume activator. Cem. Concr. Res. 1997, 27, 1825–1828. [CrossRef]
19. Khale, D.; Chaudhary, R. Mechanism of Geopolymerization and Factors Influencing Its Development:
A review. J. Mater. 2007, 42, 729–746. [CrossRef]
20. Davidovits, J. Properties of Geopolymer Cements. In First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and
Concretes; Kiev State Technical University: Kiev, Ukraine, 1994; pp. 131–149.
21. Komnitsas, K.; Zaharaki, D. Geopolymerisation: A review and prospects for the minerals industry. Miner. Eng.
2007, 20, 1261–1277. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 11 of 12

22. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Abdollahnejad, Z.; Camões, A.F.; Jamshidi, M.; Ding, Y. Durability of alkali-activated
binders: A clear advantage over Portland cement or an unproven issue? Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 30,
400–405. [CrossRef]
23. Amalia, F.; Akifah, N.; Irfanita, R.; Afifah, K.N.; Zulkifly, K.; Yong, H.C.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Faris, M.A.
Durability of Bricks Coated with Red mud Based Geopolymer Paste. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advances in Materials and Manufacturing Applications (IConAMMA), Bangalore, India,
14–16 July 2016.
24. Lavanya, G.; Jegan, J.; Lavanya, G.; Jegan, J. Durability Study on High Calcium Fly Ash Based Geopolymer
Concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015, 731056. [CrossRef]
25. Fu, Y.; Cai, L.; Wu, Y. Freeze—thaw cycle test and damage mechanics models of alkali-activated slag concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 3144–3148. [CrossRef]
26. Pacheco-Torgal, F. Alkali-activated binders: A review. Part 2. About materials and binders manufacture.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1315–1322. [CrossRef]
27. He, J.; Zhang, J.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, G. The strength and microstructure of two geopolymers derived from
metakaolin and red mud-fly ash admixture: A comparative study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 30, 80–91.
[CrossRef]
28. Obonyo, E.; Kamseu, E.; Melo, U.C.; Leonelli, C. Advancing the use of secondary inputs in geopolymer
binders for sustainable cementitious composites: A review. Sustainability 2011, 3, 410–423. [CrossRef]
29. Lee, W.; Cheng, T.; Lin, K.; Lin, K.; Wu, C.; Tsai, C. Geopolymer Technologies for Stabilization of Basic
Oxygen Furnace Slags and Sustainable Application as Construction Materials. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5002.
[CrossRef]
30. Liew, Y.M.; Heah, C.Y.; Mohd Mustafa, A.B.; Kamarudin, H. Structure and properties of clay-based
geopolymer cements: A review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2016, 83, 595–629. [CrossRef]
31. Mobili, A.; Belli, A.; Giosuè, C.; Bellezze, T.; Tittarelli, F. Metakaolin and fly ash alkali-activated mortars
compared with cementitious mortars at the same strength class. Cem. Concr. Res. 2016, 88, 198–210.
[CrossRef]
32. Fabien, F.; Charlène, D.C. Geopolymers as waste encapsulation materials: Impact of anions on the materials
properties. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2010, 69, 174–179.
33. Cozzi, A.D.; Bannochie, C.J.; Burket, P.R.; Crawford, C.L. Immobilization of Radioactive Waste in Fly Ash
Based Geopolymers. In Proceedings of the World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, Denver, CO, USA,
9–12 May 2011.
34. Tzanakos, A.; Mimilidou, K.; Anastasiadou, A.; Stratakis, E.; Gidarakos, K. Synthesis and heavy metal
immobilization behaviors of medical waste and based geopolymer. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Athens, Greece, 5–7 September 2013.
35. Kong, D.L.Y.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Sagoe-crentsil, K. Comparative performance of geopolymers made with
metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 1583–1589.
[CrossRef]
36. Sumajouw, D.; Hardjito, S.E.; Wallah, B.V.; Rangan, D.M.J. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: Study of
slender reinforced columns. J. Mater. Sci. 2007, 42, 3124–3130. [CrossRef]
37. Gourley, T.; Duxson, P.; Setunge, S.; Lloyd, N.; Dechsler, M.; South, W. Geopolymer Concrete; Concrete Institute
of Australia: North Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2011.
38. Janardhanan, T.; Thaarrini, J.; Dhivya, S. Comparative Study on the Production Cost of Geopolymer and
Conventional Concretes. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res. 2016, 7, 117–124.
39. Vilamová, Š.; Piecha, M. Economic evaluation of using of geopolymer from coal fly ash in the industry.
Acta Montan. Slovaca 2016, 21, 139–145.
40. You, S.; Ho, S.W.; Li, T.; Maneerung, T.; Wang, C.H. Techno-economic analysis of geopolymer production
from the coal fly ash with high iron oxide and calcium oxide contents. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 361, 237–244.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Youssef, N.; Rabenantoandro, A.Z.; Dakhli, Z.; Chapiseau, C.; Waendendries, F.; Hage Chehade, F.; Lafhaj, Z.
Reuse of waste bricks: A new generation of geopolymer bricks. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1252. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7403 12 of 12

42. Youssef, N.; Rabenantoandro, A.Z.; Dakhli, Z.; Hage Chehade, F.; Lafhaj, Z. Environmental evaluation
of geopolymer bricks. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, INCER 2019, Beirut, Lebanon,
3–5 April 2019; pp. 1–5.
43. Tiffo, E.; Elimbi, A.; Manga, J.D.; Tchamba, A.B. Red ceramics produced from mixtures of kaolinite clay and
waste glass. Braz. J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 2, 4. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).