What does this research mean for the field?

A comparative cradle-to-material production assessment quantifies the embodied carbon emissions, energy demand, and material costs of alkaline activators in geopolymer concrete relative to traditional cementitious binders. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate and compare the cradle-to-material production embodied carbon emissions, embodied energy demand, and costs of geopolymer binders and alkaline activators against conventional cement.

September 3, 2026Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and ResilienceOpen Access

Sustainability assessment of geopolymer concrete: embodied carbon, energy demand and the role of alkaline activator from cradle-to-material production

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

BKBalamurali Kanagaraj NAN. Anand

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Comparative life cycle analysis evaluates embodied carbon and energy in geopolymer binders and alkaline activators, highlighting trade-offs in sustainable zero-cement concrete production.

Key Points

To evaluate and compare the cradle-to-material production embodied carbon emissions, embodied energy demand, and costs of geopolymer binders and alkaline activators against conventional cement.
Conducted a comparative cradle-to-material production sustainability assessment evaluating cementitious binders and alkaline activators.
Excluded transport, aggregate extraction, mixing, curing energy, construction operations, maintenance, and end-of-life phases from the boundary.
Characterized the embodied carbon and embodied energy profiles specifically contributed by alkaline activator production in zero-cement formulations.
Identified that cradle-to-material impacts and raw material costs are critical drivers in determining the net environmental viability of geopolymer alternatives.

Cite This Study

Kanagaraj et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9935d8636c6408cfa7e547 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43065-026-00213-y

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 3, 2026Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and ResilienceOpen Access

Sustainability assessment of geopolymer concrete: embodied carbon, energy demand and the role of alkaline activator from cradle-to-material production

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

BKBalamurali Kanagaraj NAN. Anand

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Comparative life cycle analysis evaluates embodied carbon and energy in geopolymer binders and alkaline activators, highlighting trade-offs in sustainable zero-cement concrete production.

Key Points

To evaluate and compare the cradle-to-material production embodied carbon emissions, embodied energy demand, and costs of geopolymer binders and alkaline activators against conventional cement.
Conducted a comparative cradle-to-material production sustainability assessment evaluating cementitious binders and alkaline activators.
Excluded transport, aggregate extraction, mixing, curing energy, construction operations, maintenance, and end-of-life phases from the boundary.
Characterized the embodied carbon and embodied energy profiles specifically contributed by alkaline activator production in zero-cement formulations.
Identified that cradle-to-material impacts and raw material costs are critical drivers in determining the net environmental viability of geopolymer alternatives.

Cite This Study

Kanagaraj et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9935d8636c6408cfa7e547 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43065-026-00213-y

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark