Collaboration with UAF School of Management: Associate professor Jim Collins, UAF School of Management Director of Entrepreneurship, has taken an interest in this project and begun involving some of his students in working on the economic feasibility and business-planning aspects. This project provides students with an excellent opportunity to leverage their academic study and exercises into real-world results. CCHRC is pleased and grateful to have the opportunity to collaborate with these students and for Dr. Collins’ interest and mentorship. Collaboration with Small Businesses in Fairbanks & North Pole: A growing number of local cement-related business owners and managers are expressing interest in participating directly in CCHRC’s efforts to develop the commercial applications of geopolymer cements and concretes. These businesses presently include Stonecastle Masonry, Fairweather Masonry, MAPPA Test Lab, and Fairbanks Precast & Rebar. One of the top 20 in the 2010 Arctic Innovation Competition: Out of more than 200 entries in the UAF School of Management 2010 Arctic Innovation Competition, CCHRC’s presentation (given by Ty Keltner) on the potential for local geopolymer development was selected as one of the top 20. The final four projects were notably further along in the process of establishing a specific business. CCHRC’s involvement in the competition helped establish connections with individuals contributing suggestions and expressing interest in working with us in the future. These included Jim Collins in the School of Management and Shiva Hullavarad in the Advanced Materials Group of the UAF Institute of Northern Engineering. Collection and organization of 2.5GB of relevant literature: CCHRC staff have collected, organized and partially reviewed more than 2.5 GB of text on the alternatives to portland cement. That currently amounts to 2,049 files in 161 folders and seven mind-maps, including over 600 research papers. Plus seven text books on geopolymer cements. Although it is outside the scope of this project, the organization of this information has been done in a manner which will facilitate references, abstracts and CCHRC’s notes being made publically available on the Internet without copyright infringement. It is our hope that this extensive and on-going literature

1. M. Weil, E. Gasafi, A. Buchwald, K. Dombrowski:
Sustainable Design of Geopolymers - Integration of Economic and
Environmental Aspects in the Early Stages of Material Development.
11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research
Conference, Helsinki, Finnland 2005

2. Sustainable Design of Geopolymers -
Integration of Economic and Environmental Aspects in the
Early Stages of Material Development
Marcel Weil*
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institute for Technical Chemistry, Department of
Technology-Induced Material Flow, Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
E-mail: marcel.weil@itc-zts.fzk.de
*Corresponding author
Edgar Gasafi
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institute for Technical Chemistry, Department of
Technology-Induced Material Flow, Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
Anja Buchwald
Bauhaus University Weimar, Chair of Building Chemistry, Coudraystr. 13,
99421 Weimar, Germany
Katja Dombrowski
Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Institute for Ceramic, Glass, and
Construction Materials, Agricolastr. 17, 09596 Freiberg, Germany
Abstract
Design of novel products is a complex, multi-level process. It may be divided
into the two main phases of material and product development. Up to now,
economic and ecological assessments have been carried out mainly after the
development of materials. At that point of time, however, there is only a small
degree of freedom to change the composition or process and to optimize the
materials. The authors present a new systematical approach which considers
economic and ecological aspects in the early phase of materials development, as
shall be illustrated by the example of geopolymers (alkali-activated material).
1/14

3. In this approach, systems analysis tools like Multi-criteria Decision Analyses
(MCDA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) will be
used with the aim of guiding the development of geopolymers in a sustainable
way. The presented paper shall focus on the first of three steps of the approach,
namely, the evaluation of the solid raw materials for geopolymer manufacturing.
Keywords
Systems analyses, Multi-criteria Decision Analyses, Life Cycle Costing, Material
Flow Analyses, material development, composite materials, geopolymers, alkali-
activated material, evaluation of raw materials, building products
Biographical notes:
Marcel Weil has been awarded a PhD in engineering by the Technical University
of Darmstadt. His research interests and areas of experience include Life Cycle
Assessment - especially of newly developed products and processes, Eco-
Labeling, Material Flow Analyses, Life Cycle Thinking, and Systems Analyses.
1 Introduction
The design phase of a product has to take into account different aspects for a
successful product implementation.
Early stage
Material
development
Degree of
freedom
TP
Information
Product
development
TM [t]
Late stage
Product
Figure 1: Degree of freedom for modifications of material combinations or the manufacturing
process in the phase of material and product development
2/14

4. Economic considerations are always important to product development, but also
environmental aspects have become an important issue in recent years. The
environmental aspects will get even more attention in the future, if an
environmental product declaration (EPD) will become obligatory for building
products in the European Union (EU 2004).
In contrast to this, the main focus of investigations of material development is on
technical aspects like mechanical strength. If at all in material development,
economic and ecological assessment are carried out after the technical
investigations are finished (TM, Figure 1). More often, they are postponed to the
subsequent phase of product development (TM-TP, Figure 1).
This course of action has several drawbacks.
If economic and ecological aspects are neglected during material development,
they are not available in the early phase of product development, thus a selection
can only be based on the technical properties of the materials.
Two cases are conceivable:
• For product development, some candidates with good technical
properties are considered, which might have no chance of being
implemented on the market due to their bad economic and/or ecologic
performance. Consequently, time and money will be squandered.
• If a less suitable economic and/or ecologic performance of a candidate
becomes obvious during the phase of product development, there is only
a small degree of freedom to change or to optimize the composition or
the manufacturing process of the material without spending additional
time and money for basic investigations.
Therefore, a prospective development of materials should consider technical, but
also economic and ecological aspects for a successful and efficient product
development.
But also for the material development itself, integration of economic and
ecological aspect has advantages.
As research projects are limited in time and money, a group or a selection of raw
materials or a selection of raw material combinations is very often investigated
for the technical properties only. A systematic investigation covering all sensible
raw materials and mixtures would exceed the possibilities and capabilities of a
normal project because of the high expenditure needed.
3/14

5. Only a screening which does not only consider technical aspects, but also
economic and/or ecological aspects allows for an efficient and systematic
material development that is initially based on all sensible materials and
successively excludes the less promising materials from the further
investigations. The level of screening has to be adjusted to the availability of
information, the aim, and time span of the project.
2 Background Geopolymer
Geopolymers consist of a silicate-aluminate solid component (binding material)
and an alkaline liquid component (alkaline activator), see Figure 2. After simple
mixing of both components, dissolution takes place, accompanied and followed
by a polycondensation (Davidovits 1976). The formed polymeric network of
alumosilicates (geopolymer binder) hardens in an amorphous to semi-crystalline
structure. Depending on the amount of soluble calcium oxide in the raw
materials, also mineral phases may occur, similar to the hydration products of
portland cement (Buchwald et al. 2005a). In this respect, geopolymers represent
a link between ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and sodium silicate binders.
Binder
Geopolymer
setting
mixing
Binding material:
•metakaolin
•slag
•fly ash
•activated clay
•...
Alkaline activator:
•NaOH/KOH
•sodium water glass
•potassium water glass
•...
+ water
Figure 2: Production of the geopolymer
Geopolymers have been investigated for more than 25 years. Despite these long-
lasting and continuous investigations, geopolymers have not yet reached a wide
application. In fact, a wide range of applications is described in literature, but
only a few niche applications can be found on the market.
4/14

6. This is surprising, especially because geopolymers (in comparison to cement-
based composite materials or ceramics) are reported to have many advantages:
• Resistance against acids
• Temperature resistance
• High strength
• High durability
• Cold setting
• Quick setting
• Stable bonding of heavy metals and harmful substances
• Simple manufacturing technique
The favorable technical properties are proved by numerous investigations, e.g.
(Bakharev 2005), (Fernandez-J. and Palomo 2003), (Bakharev and Sanjayan
2002), (Hermann et al. 1999). But they depend on the curing time and
temperature and very strongly on the mixture composition of the chosen solid
and liquid components.
Ecological and economic features of geopolymers have hardly been investigated
so far (e.g. in (Davidovits 2002)). But it can be assumed that they depend very
strongly on the mixture composition, too.
So far, metakaolin has been applied mainly as a solid component to produce
high-performance geopolymers. However, thermally activated kaolin
(metakaolin) is a relatively expensive raw material. Consequently, the application
fields are restricted due to the costs.
In contrast to this, relatively cheap industrial by-products or residues, such as
blast furnace slag, fly ashes or sewage sludge ashes, can also be used as solid
components. These activated solids, however, may be associated with some
drawbacks regarding the technical performance, e.g. retarded setting or low
mechanical strength. Furthermore, the geopolymer system is very sensitive to
changes of the chemical composition. As the chemical variations of secondary
raw materials generally are larger than those of natural raw materials, it is more
difficult to reproduce such geopolymers with comparable properties. Hence, the
application fields are restricted by the performance.
5/14

7. 3 Development of Geopolymers
3.1 Goals
The overall goal of the work presented here is the selection and optimization of
the most promising geopolymer compositions for specific fields of application.
The pretension of this approach is to consider all sensible raw materials or
material combinations and to investigate them in a systematic manner.
A methodological approach has to be performed to reach the goals and to fulfill
the pretension.
3.2 Systems Analysis Tools
For this approach, a set of systems analysis tools or methods were selected:
• LCA (Life Cycle Assessment, according DIN EN ISO 14040ff , 1997)
to list the ecological advantages and disadvantages over a specific period
and/or the whole life cycle of geopolymers compared to traditional
materials or products. The LCA results will also be used for the
optimizations of geopolymers.
• LCC (Life Cycle Costing)
to present the economic advantages and disadvantages over a specific
period and/or the whole life cycle of geopolymers compared to
traditional materials or products. The LCC results will also be used for
the optimizations of geopolymers.
• MFA (Material Flow Analyses)
to answer questions regarding the availability of raw materials and to
show the effects of different recycling scenarios of the materials
compared
• MCDA (Multi-criteria Decision Analyses)
is used to select (screening) the more promising raw materials for
geopolymers manufacturing and to identify the most promising
geopolymers for specific applications. As a very high number of
different properties have to be compared and balanced for the selection,
MCDA has a very central position in this approach.
6/14

8. AHP (Analytical Hierarchic Process) shall be used to elicit the weights
of attributes and objectives (technique, ecology/health, economy) and for
the calculation of the aggregated score of each alternative. The results of
AHP will be compared with the results of a dominance concept (Weber
and Eisenführ 1993) which will be conducted in parallel, without any
weighting of the objectives.
This set of systems analysis tools or methods was selected for the development of
geopolymers. However, these tools and methods could also be applied to other
developments of materials. This does not means that no other or additional tools
and methods are more suitable under specific circumstances (different initial
situation).
3.3 Overview of the Approach
The authors will present a methodological approach to integrating technical,
economic, and ecological aspects in the early stages of material development.
It is started from a broad variety of raw materials, which will be reduced
(screening) step by step to a few promising material combinations (geopolymeric
product) for specific applications (Figure 3).
For a promising selection and optimization of the different candidates, screening
with regard to technique, economy, and ecology has to be based on information
on the application fields. Therefore, its is crucial to investigate the general
conditions of the application fields and the final 3rd
step (Figure 3) of the specific
application. This means that also the market, standards, regulations, and
guidelines have to be considered in this early phase of material development.
7/14

9. 1
22
33
3rd
Step:
Detailed LCA, LCC, and optimization
of most promising geopolymers
1st
Step:
Screening of mineral raw
materials
2nd
Step:
Streamlined LCA, LCC, and
key properties of geopolymers
Development
of
geopolymers
for specific
applications
Figure 3: Development of geopolymers for specific applications. The approach comprises three
steps of investigation
The approach is subdivided into three single steps (Figure 3):
First step
The first step is characterized by a screening of the solid raw materials. This has
to be carried out in the early phase of material development (Figure 1) where
only few information are available. Therefore several qualitative attributes were
used.
Overall 53 raw materials (binding materials) were considered, activated with one
standard alkaline activator.
To rank the different raw materials, a two-stage process is developed (Figure 4).
The first stage considers the technical attributes only, the second stage considers
all attributes (technique, economy, and ecology/health). In both, MCDA tools
(Zimmermann and Gutsche, 1991) are used to identify the most promising raw
materials for certain application fields. Less promising raw materials will be
excluded from further investigations.
8/14

10. Objectives
Economy Ecology/HealthTechnique
a1 a2 ... an b1 b2 ... bn c1 c2 ... cn
Stage 1
Stage 2
Attributes
Figure 4: Two-stage process. The objectives technique, economy, and ecology/health and their
measurable attributes
Second step
In the second step, technical key properties (e.g. acid resistance) of material
combinations are investigated. This technical investigation is accompanied by
streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). The
results are used to identify the most promising material combinations for specific
application fields. In this step, geopolymer material combination will be
compared with products existing in the respective field of application to also
obtain further information for the optimization process during the third step. Less
promising geopolymer material combinations will be excluded from further
investigations.
Third step
The third step is characterized by the optimization of the most promising
geopolymer material combination for a set of specific applications. A detailed
LCA and LCC regarding a specific application will be made for both
geopolymeric and existing products. The results will reveal not only proven
profiles of properties (technical, economic, ecological), but also indicate in which
applications geopolymers possess a competitive position.
3.4 First Step of the Approach
This section shall deal with the first step exclusively.
9/14

11. The aim of the first step is the evaluation and ranking of different raw materials
for certain fields of application. Three objectives (criteria), which are measured
with attributes (indicators), will be considered (see Figure 4):
Technique
- reactivity (quantitative)
- mechanical strength (quantitative)
- resistance against acids (qualitative)
- temperature resistance (quantitative)
- fast setting (quantitative)
- workability (qualitative)
Economy
- raw material costs (quantitative)
- costs of the thermal activation of raw materials (qualitative)
- costs of grinding raw materials (qualitative)
- follow-up costs caused by slow setting (qualitative)
- follow-up costs caused by high water sorption (qualitative)
Ecology/Health
- availability/consumption of mineral resources (quantitative)
- consumption of energy resources (qualitative)
- toxic load (qualitative)
- health and safety at the workplace (qualitative)
The different quantitative and qualitative indicator values are comparable and
countable, as they are transformed into values between 0 and 1 . Values close to
0 are less favorable, values close to 1 are very favorable. For each attribute, a
proper scale of transformation has to be determined, cf. (Buchwald et al. 2005b).
This will be illustrated by the example of the attributes of toxic load:
Toxic load:
Information about the toxic load is deduced from the content of heavy
metals. The content was compared to limit values for the use of
secondary recourses (Z2, restricted usage) in Germany (LAGA 2003).
Numerical values are given, if the raw material:
- Does not reach any limit (1),
- exceeds the limit only slightly in some cases (0.8),
10/14

12. - exceeds the limit slightly very often (0.6),
- exceeds the limit considerably in some cases only (0.4),
- exceeds the limit considerably in some cases and slightly often (0.2)
- exceeds the limit considerably very often (0).
Exceeding of the chromium limit leads to a strong devaluation because
of the oxidation from chromium-(IV) to chromium-(VI) in alkaline
media.
The ranking will be made for all application fields considered. A two-stage
process was used (Figure 4). In an expert panel, it was determined that the
technical aspects in the early phase of material development (Figure 1) were to
be superior to economic and ecological aspects. Therefore, only technical aspects
were considered in the first stages to identify and exclude the less promising
candidates.
Stage 1(ranking with respect to technical aspects):
The AHP-Method (Satty 1980) is used to elicit the weightings of the
different technical attributes (indicator) with respect to the specifications
of the application. That means, that the different weightings depends
very strong on the required specifications in the application fields. The
elicitation of the weightings has to be done for all application fields
considered.
By calculating all different raw material alternatives with the different
set of weightings, a ranking order of all raw materials is obtained for
each application field. Less promising alternatives (with low values) are
excluded from the next ranking step. The cut-off value has to be
determined by an expert panel.
Stage 2 (ranking with respect to technical, economic/ecological aspects):
After the first stage, the alternatives remaining in each application field
are ranked with respect to technical, economic, and ecological aspects.
The weighting factors of the different objectives (technique, economy,
ecology) will based on a survey which will published elsewhere. The
result of a new calculation is a new ranking order of the raw materials.
Again, the less promising materials in each application field are excluded
from further investigations.
11/14

13. Compared to the weighting procedure in stage 1,which is based on the
requirements of the application fields, the weighting of the objectives
technique, economy and ecology in stage 2, which is based on a survey,
is an even more critical point in the presented approach. In addition to
the AHP method, the “dominance concept” (Eisenführ and Weber 2003)
without weighting of the objectives (criteria) will therefore be applied, to
identify the less promising candidates. The results of both investigations
will be compared.
After this, the promising raw materials can be used in step two of the approach
(Figure 3) to develop and optimize raw material combinations for specific
application fields.
The preliminary results of this first step are published in Buchwald et al. (2005b)
and Weil et al. (2005).
4 Conclusions
The sustainable development of materials with enhanced properties, but also with
economic and ecologic advantages is one of the challenges of modern materials
science. In practice, economic and ecological aspects are considered rarely,
which is probably due to the low level of information available in the early phase
of material development. Based on the example of the development of
geopolymers, the authors presented a methodological approach to integrating
technical, economic, and ecological aspects in the early stages of material
development. The approach is subdivided into three single steps.
It is started from a broad variety of raw materials, which will be reduced step by
step to a few promising material combinations for specific applications.
This course of action is supported by the use of systems analysis tools. Besides
LCA, LCC and MFA especially Multi-criteria Decision Analyses tools play a
prominent role.
Acknowledgements
This paper was drawn up with the financial support of the Volkswagen-Stiftung,
Germany.
12/14

14. 5 References
Bakharev, T. (2005) Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cement
and Concrete Research, Volume 35, Issue 4, April 2005, pages 658-
670
Buchwald, A., Dombrowski, K. and Weil, M. (2005a) The influence of calcium
content on the performance of geopolymeric binder especially the
resistance against acids. Geopolymer Conference 2005, Saint-
Quentin, France
Buchwald, A., Dombrowski, K. and Weil, M. (2005b) Evaluation of primary and
secondary materials under technical, ecological and economic
aspects for the use as raw materials in geopolymeric binders. 2nd
International Symposium. Non-Traditional Cement & Concrete,
2005. Brno, Czech Republic
Davidovits, J. (1976) Solid-phase synthesis of a mineral block polymer by low
temperature polycondensation of aluminosilicate polymers.
I.U.P.A.C. International Symposium on Macromolecules,
Stockholm; Sept. 1976; Topic III, New Polymers of high stability
Davidovits, J. (2002) Environmental Drivers. International Conference
Proceedings of Geopolymer 2002. Melbourne, Australia, 2002
DIN EN ISO 14040ff (1997) Environmental Management – Life Cycle
Assessment – Principles and Framework. Berlin: DIN (Deutsches
Institut für Normung), 1997
Eisenführ, F. and Weber, M. (2003) Rationales Entscheiden. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg New York, 4. edition, 2003
European Commission -EU- (2004) Development of horizontal standardized
methods for the assessment of the integrated environmental
performance of buildings. EWG 04/081A (Construction Product
EPDs)
Fernandez-Jimenez, A. and Palomo, A. (2003) Alkali Activated Fly Ashes:
Properties and Characteristics. Proceedings of 11th International
Congress on the Chemistry of Cement (ICCC), 2003 Durban, South
Africa, pages 1332 –1339
13/14

15. Bakharev, T. and Sanjayan, J.G. (2002) Alkali-activated slag concrete: Durability
in aggressive environment. Geopolymer 2002, Melbourne, Australia
Hermann, E., Kunze, C., Gatzweiler, R., Kiesslig, G., Davidovits, J. (1999)
Solidification of various radioactive residues by geopolymer with
special emphasis on long-term-stability. Geopolymer 1999, Saint-
Quentin, France
Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall -LAGA- (2003) Anforderungen an die
Stoffliche Verwertung von mineralischen Reststoffen /Abfällen.
Technischen Regeln
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytical Hierarchial Process. McGraw Hill Company,
New York, 287 p.
Weber, M. and Eisenführ, F. (1993) Behavioural influence on weight judgements
in multiattribute decision making. European Journal of Operational
Research, Volume 67, Issue 1, May 1993, Pages 1-12
Weil, M., Dombrowski, K. and Buchwald, A. (2005) Development of
Geopolymers Supported by Systems Analysis. 2nd International
Symposium. Non-Traditional Cement & Concrete, 2005. Brno,
Czech Republic
Zimmermann, H.J. and Gutsche, L. (1991) Multi-Criteria Analyse. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York
14/14