The last few years have seen spectacular technological progress in the development of geosynthesis and geopolymeric applications.

New state-of-the-art materials designed with the help of geopolymerisation reactions are opening up new applications and procedures, and transforming ideas that have been taken for granted in inorganic and mineral chemistry.

Since the discovery of the geopolymer chemistry by Prof. Joseph Davidovits (see also in the Library the scientific paper IUPAC 1976) this new generation of materials, whether used pure, with fillers or reinforced, is already finding applications in all fields of industry. These applications are to be found in the automotive and aerospace industries, non-ferrous foundries and metallurgy, civil engineering, cements and concretes, ceramics and plastics industries, waste management, art and decoration, retrofit of buildings, etc. One third of the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications is dedicated to geopolymeric applications. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers, for example #21 Geopolymer cement review 2013.

Some of the geopolymer applications are still in development whereas others are already industrialized and commercialized. They will be listed in six (6) categories, namely:

Geopolymer Precursor

Geopolymer Resin, paint, binder, grout

Geopolymer cement, concrete, waste management, global warming

Applications with geopolymer cements and concretes are described in the section Geopolymer Cement with special emphasis on the introduction of user-friendly systems. It is striking to notice that Geopolymer cements manufacture emits 80 to 90% less CO₂ (greenhouse effect gas) than Portland Cement. See in GLOBAL WARMING. They are perfect examples of Green Chemistry and Sustainable Development.

For information on Fly Ash-based geopolymer cements go to European Research Project GEOASH. For updated very recent detailed information, read Chapters 12, 24, 25 in Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications; you may also download previous papers in the Library .

Rock-based geopolymer cements are ideal for environmental applications, such as the permanent encapsulation of radioactive and other hazardous wastes, toxic metals, as well as sealants, capping, barriers, and other structures necessary for remedying toxic waste containment sites (see our European Research Project GEOCISTEM and the GEOPOLYTECH process). See also in the Library .

Rock-based geopolymer cements and concretes for building and repairing infrastructure have very high early strength, their setting times can be entirely controlled, and they remain intact for a very long time without the need for repair. See in Davidovits’ book, Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, the Chapters 9, 10, 24 and 25. The strength of geopolymeric rock-based geopolymer concrete is such that a heavy Boeing or Airbus can land on a runway freshly patched with geopolymeric rock-based geopolymer concrete only four hours after patching has been completed. The discovery of this new cement was awarded with a Gold Ribbon by the American National Association for Science, Technology and Society (NASTS) in 1994 (Library paper #3 NASTS award ).

Geopolymer specialty

Geopolymer ceramic

Several decades ago, ceramicists tried to manufacture ceramic tiles at temperatures lower than 450°C, without firing. Geopolymer science masters the transformation of kaolinite, the major component of ceramic clays, into geopolymers of the poly(sialate) and poly(sialate-siloxo) types. Application of this chemistry yielded several technological breakthroughs pertaining to LTGS, Low-Temperature-Geopolymeric-Setting and geopolymerized modern ceramic processing. See in Chapter 23 of Davidovits’ book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications .

Geopolymer high-tech/ fiber reinforced composite

Geopolymer composites have three main properties that make them superior to ceramic-matrix composites, plastics, and organic composite materials.

First:
Geopolymers are very easy to make, as they handle easily and do not require high heat.
Second:
Geopolymeric composites have a higher heat tolerance than organic composites. Tests conducted on Geopolymer carbon-composites showed that they will not burn at all, no matter how many times ignition might be attempted.
Third:
The mechanical properties of Geopolymer composites are as good as those of organic composites. In addition, Geopolymers resist all organic solvents (and are only affected by strong hydrochloric acid).

Before the discovery of geopolymerization, these three critical properties had not been incorporated into any one material. More information are available in applications called GEO-COMPOSITE and GEO-STRUCTURE and in Davidovits’ book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications , Chapter 21.

An Example of the Development of Geopolymeric Composites and Cements That Improves Air Travel Safety and Airport Efficiency*

The Chapters of the book GEOPOLYMER Chemistry & Applications dedicated to these applications are referred to in italic.

A jet is preparing for takeoff from a runway in New York as a crew begins placing a section of geopolymer concrete (Chapters 24, 25) on a Los Angeles runway. The plane is equipped with a fire-resistant geopolymer-encased electronic flight recorder. The jet’s cabin has also been rendered fireproof with sandwich panels of carbon/Geopolymite® composites (Chapter 21) and geopolymer foam insulating boards (Chapter 22). The jet is also equipped with a highly advanced fireproof air filter. Several structural components of the jet, made with an advanced SPF Al superplastic aluminum alloy, have been manufactured at 550°C using compression ceramic tools made of geopolymer materials (Chapter 20).

When the plane is ready to land in Los Angeles, the runway repaired with Pyrament® concrete will be ready for it.

*This fictitious example illustrates possible applications that are or have been manufactured and/or patented by several companies

Pechiney developed Geopolymer refractory materials for safe casting of corrosive aluminum/lithium (Al/Li) alloys in liquid state. Source: Pechiney patent

Since 1986, the French aeronautic company Dassault Aviation is using geopolymer mold and tooling in the development of the Rafale fighter plane.
source: Dassault Aviation public research report

In addition, we made for Northtrop Aviation a geopolymer composite tooling prototype (self-heated carbon/SiC/Geopolymite composite) used in the fabrication of carbon/APC2 composite designed for a new US Airforce bomber.

More than a hundred tooling and items has been delivered for aeronautic applications (Airbus) and SPF Aluminum processing. Sources: various annual reports, patents, technical papers.

In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications these applications are outlined in Chapter 20. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

Geopolymer insure thermal protection of industrial buildings and facilities up to 1200°C. Hüls AG (Dynamit Nobel) and its licensees, including Willig, have invented the TROLIT-WILLIT material known as the “mineral plastic” involved in the manufacture of:

• Expanded foam
• Monolithic compound
• Composite

Sources: Annual reports. In the recently updated book GEOPOLYMER Chemistry & Applications these geopolymeric applications are outlined in Chapter 22.

Geopolymer composite material for structural or protective applications, temperature range 300°C to 1000°C.

These peculiar materials are now tested and used for their outstanding properties.

During the Grand Prix season 1994 and 1995, Benetton-Renault Formula 1 Sport Car designed a unique thermal shield made out of carbon/geopolymer composite. It helped Michael Schumacher to win twice the world championship and offered to his technical team to become World Champion of car builders during these two years. Still today, most Formula 1 teams are using geopolymer composite materials. A geopolymer-composite exhaust pipe system has been developed by Porsche. Source: Porsche PCT Patent, 2004.

The Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.), Rutgers State University, U.S.A., and other Institutions have initiated an evaluation program for these new composite materials. These materials would contribute to be the standard in fire protection for the aeronautic industry. In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications the fire and heat resistant composite applications are thoroughly outlined in Chapter 21. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

The First Non-flammable fabric laminate for Aircraft cabin and cargo interiors, geopolymer Composite was introduced on November 18, 1998, in Atlantic City, NJ, USA, at the International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration.

For other Fireproof, Fire Resistant Applications (ship, ferry), see also in GEOPOLY-THERM .

Giving Survivors More Time to Escape

A carbon-epoxy aerospace composite (left) is burning while a carbon-geopolymer composite (right) still resists a 1200°C fire.

When a plane crash-lands and catches fire, half the people who survive the impact may not get out in time. That is because the plastics in the cabin—the seat cushions, carpeting, walls and luggage bins—are combustible. And when they burn, they give off flammable gases that, in two minutes, can explode into a fireball.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.), wants to give passengers more time to escape. In 1994 the F.A.A. initiated a cooperative research program to develop low-cost, environmentally-friendly, fire resistant matrix materials for aircraft composites and cabin interior applications. The geopolymer composite has been selected by F.A.A. as the best candidate for this program.
Several positive factors favoring geopolymer composite include lower cost and the ability to use existing processing machinery and technology. However, F.A.A. is also requesting that the materials must be used in other industries in order to provide standardized and long-term manufacturing capabilities.

Aviation

Aircraft cabin materials targeted for geopolymer composite include cargo liners, ceiling, floor panels, partitions and sidewalls, stowage bins, wire insulation, yielding 2500-3000 kg.
There is an increase demand for fire-resistant containers. For example:
Cargo pilots are pushing for fireproof cargo containers. On September 5th., 1996 they had a DC-10 burn up when cargo in a container ignited during flight. The airplane made an emergency landing and no one was injured but the aircraft was totally destroyed. What they would like to do is to fireproof their existing containers and to eventually replace them with new improved containers as the old containers wear out.

Civil and military ships/submarines

A significant technical issue which limits composite use on board Naval ships and submarines is the combustible nature, and hence, the fire, smoke, and toxicity of organic matrix based composite materials. The main conclusion from the extensive fire testing conducted by U.S. NAVY is that unprotected composite systems cannot meet the stringent fire requirements specified for interior spaces. Military vessels must perform their mission even when damaged, and must survive the fire for sufficient period of time to carry out rescue missions. The effects of fires aboard vessels have been demonstrated as a result of collision between ships and ferries during peace time, and by experiences of the British Navy in the Falkland Islands and the American Navy in the Persian Gulf.
NAVY testing of geopolymer composite and GEOPOLY-THERM panels is scheduled, as well as panel testing for ferries and cruisers.

Automotive applications

During the Grand Prix season 1994 and 1995, the Benetton Formula 1 team designed a unique thermal shield made out of geopolymer composite. All the parts were around the exhaust area, with special parts replacing titanium. They brilliantly withstood the severe vibration and heat (over 700°C) seen on a Formula One car. It helped the team to become World Champion of car builders and pilots during these two years. Still today, most Formula 1 teams are using geopolymer composite materials.

All American Racers (Dan Gurney’s team) has introduced a more sophisticated design on an American C.A.R.T. car (former Indy-Cart) recognizable with its unique design and distinctive note of the exhaust system going through the molded carbon geopolymer composite body (Eagle 1999).
As stated by Prof. Davidovits at the Geopolymer 2002 Conference, Melbourne (see paper #15 in the Library), the experience gained on racing cars for exhaust parts could be transferred and applied for the mass production of regular automobile parts (corrosion resistant exhaust pipes and the like) as well as heat shields. A geopolymer-composite exhaust pipe system has been developed by Porsche. Source: Porsche PCT Patent, 2004

Infrastructure and building applications

F.A.A. is aware that the adoption of the new geopolymer composite materials technology by aircraft and cabin manufacturers requires that it be cost effective to install and use, so it is expected that these new aircraft materials will be broadly applicable in transportation and infrastructure where a high degree of intrinsic fire resistance is needed at low to moderate cost and mass production. To this end the F.A.A. had funded the evaluation program carried out at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (the GEO-STRUCTURE program) based on the geopolymer technology.

A relatively new and very attractive repair method for concrete, brick and stone structures consists of externally bonding flexible sheets of fiber composites. Another application for continuous fiber composites in infrastructure, already well underway in Japan and USA is the wrapping of concrete columns to reinforce new construction and damaged bridges and buildings in earthquake and hurricane prone areas. In this application, particularly for exposed interior building columns, flammability is a serious concern. Fire safety is a concern often voiced by those who are skeptical about the use of composite materials in the infrastructure and building industry.
In Europe, the market targets on the retrofit of valuable Cultural Heritage buildings where fire safety is the major concern.

The Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.), USA, has recently initiated a research program to develop low-cost, environmentally-friendly, fire resistant matrix materials for use in aircraft composites and cabin interior applications. The flammability requirement for new materials is that they withstand a 50 kW/m² incident heat flux characteristic of a fully developed aviation fuel fire penetrating a cabin opening, without propagating the fire into the cabin compartment. The goal of the program is to eliminate cabin fire as cause of death in aircraft accidents. However, voluntary adoption of the new materials technology by aircraft and cabin manufacturers requires that it be cost effective to install and use, so it is expected that these new aircraft materials will be broadly applicable in transportation and infrastructure where a high degree of intrinsic fine resistance is needed at low to moderate cost. To this end the F.A.A. is evaluating a new, low-cost, inorganic geopolymer matrix derived from the naturally occurring geological materials- silica and alumina. At irradiance levels of 50 kW/m² typical of the heat flux in a well developed fire, glass- or carbon-reinforced polyester, vinylester, epoxy, bismaleinide, cyanate ester, polyimide. phenolic, and engineering thermoplastic laminates ignited readily and released appreciable heat and smoke, while carbon-fiber reinforced geopolymer composites did not ignite, burn, or release any smoke even after extended heat esposure.

In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications the fire and heat resistant composite applications are thoroughly outlined in Chapter 21. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers..

Excerpt from the technical press
Performance Materials,
February 5, 1996, page 5.

As Hot as You Like It

Mechanical Properties are Looking Good for French Inorganic Polymer that Doesn’t Burn.

Fire safety is a concern often voiced by those who are skeptical about the use of composite materials in the infrastructure. These fears may be put to rest by a revolutionary European matrix material that doesn’t burn at all (PM, July 31, 1995). “Fire is going to be the limiting criterion in a lot of infrastructure applications C says Rich Lyon of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Tech Center in Atlantic City. But his ICCI ‘96 presentation about the new family of inorganic polymer composites was almost anticlimactic. “It’s a fairly boring story because there is no fire response,” Lyon said in Tucson.

FAA Is Interested, Too

The inorganic polymeric materials are cheap, at about $2-3 a pound. They cure at low temperatures.
And now there is evidence that the new material family, trade named Geopolymer (or, more precisely, Géopolymère), boasts mechanical properties comparable to those of organic-matrix composites. FAA-supported testing was conducted at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
“The initial results are very encouraging: Prof. P (Bala) Balaguru of Rutgers said at the Tucson infrastructure meeting. Carbon-matrix composites made with the Geopolymer matrix demonstrated a strength of approximately 327 MPa (about 225 ksi), he said, quite comparable to organic composites. “The same thing is true for flex and shear;’ Balaguru said. The Rutgers test coupons were made using 3K, polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fiber that was manually impregnated and vacuum-bagged for curing in an 80°C (176°F) heated press. The samples were post-cured in an 80°C oven for 24 hours.
Experimenters have thus far made samples only via hand layup, and have been able to achieve fiber loadings of only 50 % (the Rutgers tests were conducted on 45-percent material). At least 60 % is expected when fabrication processes are refined, says the FAA’s Lyon. Problems with voids are also expected to be solved when better fabrication techniques are applied.
“These materials are in their infancy) FAA Lyon says. Geopolymer inventor Joseph Davidovits spent much of his career as a textile chemist and began pursuing inorganic polymers in part, he says, behind a tragedy in France in which the deaths by fire of more than 100 young night club patrons were attributed to fast-burning polyester curtains. Davidovits cites three key Geopolymer attributes his company says “make them superior to ceramics, plastics, and organic composite materials:” (Performance Materials, February 5, 1996).

The First Non-flammable fabric laminate for Aircraft cabin and cargo interiors, Géopolymère Composite was introduced on November 18, 1998, in Atlantic City, NJ, USA, at the International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration. More details in Press Release (see page 3)

Predicted time to flashover in ISO 9705 corner/room fire test with various structural composites as wall materials

Press Release, November 20, 1998
The First Non-Flammable Material for Aircraft Cabin Safety presented at FAA.

Fire Safety Meeting in Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA

The First Non-flammable fabric laminate for Aircraft cabin and cargo interiors, Géopolymère Composite was introduced on November 18, 1998, in Atlantic City, NJ, USA, at the International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Current aircraft design utilizes several tons of combustible plastics for cabin interior components that includes the passenger compartment, cockpit and cargo compartments. This is a fire load comparable to the equivalent weight of aviation fuel. The recent introduction of fly-by-wire control system as well as the increase of electronics components on an aircraft (such as flat panel displays for TV, telephones and computers) represents a new, higher risk of electrical fires and the potentially tragic consequences of uncontained in-flight fires. The FAA is working to eliminate cabin fire as a cause of death in aircraft accidents. In the unusual event of an aircraft accident, there are only seconds for passengers to escape before toxic fumes and fire fill the cabin compartment.

The FAA flammability requirement for new materials is that they must withstand the 50-kw/m² incident heat flux characteristic of a fully developed aviation fuel fire that penetrates the cabin skin. The material must prevent propagation of the fire into the cabin compartment. The first material to withstand this arduous test is Géopolymère Composite developed by Professor Joseph Davidovits of the Geopolymer Institute in France. Géopolymère Composite is described as an inorganic polymer (a silico-aluminate polysialate polymer) derived from the naturally non-flammable occurring geological materials silica and alumina, hence the name Geopolymer or Géopolymère in French.

Since January 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration has conducted a research and evaluation program on carbon fiber reinforced Géopolymère Composite. Tests were carried out at the FAA Fire Research Section, FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ and at the Department of Civil Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, in collaboration with Prof. Davidovits’ French company, CORDI-Géopolymère SA, Saint-Quentin, France. The FAA experiments indicate that even after exposure to a severe fire environment (more than 1,500°F during several hours), the carbon fiber reinforced Géopolymère Composite retained 63 % of its original flexural strength of 245 Mpa (approximately 169 ksi). In comparison, all materials presently used in an aircraft, including aluminum sheets and parts, organic based laminate composites and plastics, actually burn and are destroyed when submitted to the same severe fire environment.
Aircraft operators and manufacturers are sensitive to cost and cost-effectiveness. Aircraft operators estimate that each pound of weight on a commercial aircraft costs between $100 to $300 in operating expenses over the service life of the aircraft. Consequently, fire safe materials for use in aircraft must be extremely lightweight. With its low density of 1.85, carbon fiber reinforced Géopolymère Composite is lighter than aluminum (density 2.70) and structural steel (density 7.86).

Geopolymer Composite Applications, Fireproof panels, Fireproof Decoration

The patented GEOPOLY-THERM technology is based on the use of geopolymer binders. The effects of fires aboard vessels have been demonstrated as a result of collision between ships and ferries during peace time, and by experiences of the British Navy in the Falkland Islands and the American Navy in the Persian Gulf. The GEOPOLY-THERM technology provides a safe and proven method for fire resistant composite systems.

In addition to the properties investigated by the American Federal Aviation Administration F.A.A. for Aircraft applications, see for more details the development program GEO-COMPOSITE , the GEOPOLY-THERM technology provides excellent fire insulation values. The chemically bounded water – (hydroxyl groups of the poly(sialates) molecules) – induces endothermicity ranging from 400-500 cal./gram of Geopolymer Na-PS [Na-Poly(sialate) Si:Al=1] to 70-100 cal./gram of Geopolymer K-PSDS [K-Poly(sialate-disiloxo) Si:Al=3].

The values of the charts account for panels
dried up at 100°C during 12 hours, before testing.

In opposition to regular commercialized systems based on hydrated compounds (for example aluminum hydroxide hydrates), the values displayed in the figure for GEOPOLY-THERM panels do not include the endothermicity, which usually results from physically absorbed water (<100°C). this physically absorbed water was eliminated during the preliminary extensive 12 hour drying at 100°C. The geopolymer composites of various chemical types may be combined with one another, resulting in complex composite panels suitable for a very wide scope of applications.

GEOPOLY-THERM technology offers:

• Excellent burn-through fire resistance
• No ignitability
• No flammability
• No combustion gases
• No toxicity
• No smoke emanation
• No heat release
• No combustion gas generation

In addition the GEOPOLY-THERM technology may be associated with decorative coatings and skins for fireproof decoration. (more details on Art and Decoration )

GEOPOLY-THERM can be produced with all geopolymer binders. GEOPOLY-THERM provides excellent fire rating properties to organic cores (foam, honey-comb) resulting in various interesting sandwich structures. GEOPOLY-THERM is produced with processes and operation familiar to organic matrix users.

Infrastructure in the United States such as bridges are degrading due to the corrosion of steel-reinforced concrete by salty water and deicing compounds. A relatively new and little known repair method for concrete and brick structures, consists of externally bonding flexible sheets of fiber composites. Another application for continuous fiber composites in infrastructure, already well underway in Japan (with organic matrix) is the wrapping of concrete columns to reinforce new construction and damaged bridges and buildings in earthquake and hurricane prone areas. In this application, particularly for beams, interior building columns, flammability is a serious concern. The flammability of organic polymer matrix, fiber-reinforced composites also limits the use of these materials in offshore oil platforms, military vehicles and public transportation where fire endurance and fire hazard are important design considerations.

This susceptibility to fire currently limits the use of polymer composites in infrastructure precluding any useful advantage in specific strength/ stiffness and corrosion resistance compared to steel or concrete. Carbon-fiber reinforced geopolymer composites did not ignite, burn, or release any smoke even after extended heat flux.The geopolymer matrix carbon fiber composite retains sixty-three percent of its original 245 MPa flexural strength after a simulated large fire.

For further information download the paper #2 Reinforced concrete beams with Geopolymer-Carbon composite .

Sticks Better, Too

Not Only Does the Material Not Burn, But It Adheres Better than Epoxy to Concrete.

Experiments by researchers at Rutgers University indicate that a new European composite material dubbed Geopolymer not only does not burn, but adheres better to concrete more effectively and reliably than organic materials, paving the way for use in strengthening both new concrete structures and enhancing old ones.

Fabrics Fail First

“Geopolymer provides excellent adhesion both to concrete surface and in the interlaminar planes of fabrics;’ states Prof. Bala Balaguru of Rutgers University. Geopolymer composites were affixed to concrete beams, and “all three beams failed by tearing of fabrics;’ Balaguru reports. “This is significant because … the most common failure pattern reported in the literature is the failure by delamination of fabrics at the interface of concrete and fabrics;’ says the report. “Hence it can be stated that Geopolymer provides as good or better adhesion in comparison with organic polymers”.

At least part of the Rutgers research is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration, which is interested in Geopolymer for aircraft interiors. “Tests conducted on Geopolymer carbon-composites showed that they will not burn at all, no matter how many times ignition might be attempted;’ developers say.

Other results

Beam prior to start of testing Geopolymer-Carbon unidirectional fabric (2,3,5 layers) at the bottom surface of the beam

Summary of test Results

A recent Technical Paper #24 denounces the false values on CO₂ emission published in several scientific papers. See at “False CO₂ values published in scientific papers“.

Geopolymer cement is often mixed up with alkali-activated slag. The later was developed since 1956 in the former USSR (now Ukraine) by G.V. Glukhovsky. Alkali-activation, which is generally performed with corrosive chemicals (see below User-friendly), is used for the making of concretes exclusively. The alkali-activated materials are not manufactured separately and not sold to third parties as commercial cements. On the opposite, geopolymer technology was from the start aimed at manufacturing binders and cements for various types of applications.

A video stresses the major differences between alkali-activated materials/alkali-activated construction materials and geopolymers, go to  “Why Alkali-Activated Materials are NOT Geopolymers?“

For detailed information on Fly Ash based Geopolymer Cements and Concretes see in the Library the Technical paper #22 at GEOASH: fly ash-based geopolymer cements as well as the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, Chapters 12, 24 and 25, and the results of the European Research project GEOASH in the next section. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers, for example #21 Geopolymer cement review 2013, #22 GEOASH, #23 GP-AIRPORT.

In this section we are developing:
a) The recent industrial development of geopolymer concrete (100,000 tonnes and +)
b) The User-friendly geopolymer cement concept.

100,000 tonnes of Geopolymer Concrete for Airport + Eco-building

Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport (BWWA), Toowoomba, Queensland, is Australia’s first greenfield public airport to be built in 48 years. BWWA became fully operational with commercial flights operated by Qantas Link in November 2014. See our News dated of October 14, 2014, 70,000 tonnes Geopolymer Concrete for airport.

This project marks a very significant milestone in engineering – the world’s largest geopolymer concrete project. BWWA was built with approximately 40,000 m³ (100,000 tonnes) of geopolymer concrete making it the largest application of this new class of concrete in the world. The geopolymer concrete developed by the company Wagners, known as Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), was found to be well suited for this construction method due to its high flexural tensile strength, low shrinkage and workability characteristics. Heavy duty geopolymer concrete, 435 mm thick, used for the turning node, apron and taxiway aircraft pavements, welcomes a heavy 747 cargo for regular air traffic between Toowoomba-Wellcamp BWWA airport and Hong Kong. For technical details read the paper by Glasby et al. (2015), EFC Geopolymer Concrete Aircraft Pavements at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, in our Library, Technical paper #23 GP-AIRPORT. Technical Paper on Geopolymer Aircraft Pavement.

Prof. Joseph Davidovits’ visit to the Toowoomba-Wellcamp-Airport.

On October 3, 2015, Joseph and Ralph Davidovits flew from Sydney Airport to Toowoomba-Wellcamp-Airport, for a visit to the company Wagners.

Prof. Joseph Davidovits’ visit to the Global Change Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

On October 7, 2015, Joseph and Ralph Davidovits drove with Tom Glasby and Russell Genrich, company Wagners, from Toowoomba to Brisbane. Our News dated December 10, 2013, was titled World’s first public building with structural Geopolymer Concrete. It introduced the world’s first building to successfully use geopolymer concrete for structural purposes, the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. The 4 story high building, for general public use, comprises 3 suspended geopolymer concrete floors involving 33 precast panels. They are made from slag/fly ash-based geopolymer concrete coined Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), a Wagners brand name for their commercial form of geopolymer concrete.

Mass Production of Geopolymer Cement

At the Geopolymer Camp 2009 at Saint-Quentin, France, Prof. Joseph Davidovits presented a keynote on “Practical Problems on Mass Produced Geopolymer Cement”. What are the key issues and what are the dead ends? What to do to make a cement that reduces the CO₂ emission by 60 up to 80%?

J. Davidovits’ Keynotes at Geopolymer Camp 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 contain additional information. Go to Keynotes of the Geopolymer Camp.

In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications several chapters are dedicated to geopolymer , metakaolin-based, rock-based and fly ash-based cements and concretes, see in Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24 and 25. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

If we compare in a microscope the structure of mortar made of regular cement with another sample made of geopolymer, we notice that the regular cement is a coarse stacking of grains of matter. This causes cracks and weaknesses. On the opposite, geopolymer cement (in black) is smooth and homogeneous. This provides, in fact, superior properties.

User-friendly geopolymer cements

Although geopolymerization does not rely on toxic organic solvents but only on water, it needs chemical ingredients that may be dangerous and therefore requires some safety procedures. Material Safety rules classify the alkaline products in two categories:

• corrosive products
• irritant products

The two classes are recognizable through their respective logos displayed below.

The Table lists some alkaline chemicals and their corresponding safety label. The corrosive products must be handled with gloves, glasses and masks. They are User-hostile and cannot be implemented in mass applications without the appropriate safety procedures. In the second category one finds Portland cement or hydrated lime, typical mass products. Geopolymeric mixes belonging to this class may also be termed as User-friendly.

When, in 1983 at the Central Laboratory of the American company Lone Star Industries, we started the research on geopolymer cements (Pyrament cement), we decided to select alkaline conditions that are User-friendly. (Na,K,Ca)-Poly(sialate-siloxo) and K-Poly(sialate) products (resins, binders and cements) have starting molar ratio SiO₂:M₂O ranging from 1.45 to 1.85. Unfortunately, this is not followed by other scientists and technicians involved in the development of so-called alkali-activated-cements, especially those based on fly ashes, with molar ratio in average below 1.0. Looking only at low-costs consideration, not at safety and User-friendly issues, they propose systems based on pure NaOH (8M or 12M). For example in a “State of the Art” on alkali-activated fly-ash cements, wrongly named geopolymer technology, published in 2007, several scientists claimed that the pure NaOH system should be considered as the reference for fly-ash-based cements (see: Duxson P., Fernandez-Jimenez A., Provis J.L., Lukey G.C., Palomo A. and van Deventer J.S.J., Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci., 42, 2917-2933, 2007). These are User-hostile conditions for the ordinary labor force employed in the field.

Finally, companies refuse to support the liability and pay high insurance fees based on such out-of-date processes. Indeed, laws, regulations, and state directives push to enforce for more health protections and security protocols for workers’ safety. Further details on fly-ash-based geopolymer cement in the page GEOASH, a project aimed to develop a real industrial process driven by these constraints.

Up to 90% reduction of CO₂ Greenhouse Gas emission during cement manufacture

Professor J. Davidovits started working on CO₂ emissions mitigation as earlier as 1990, at PennState Materials Research Laboratory, Pennstate University, USA. Unfortunately, American Agencies (DOE and EPA) stated that this was not an important issue and both institutions declined to support research proposals.
In this section we develop:
a) Rock-based Geopolymer cements;
b) Fly ash-based Geopolymer cements

Ordinary cement, often called by its formal name of Portland cement, is a serious atmospheric pollutant. Studies have shown that one ton of carbon dioxide gas is released into the atmosphere for every ton of Portland cement which is made anywhere in the world. The only exceptions are so-called ‘blended cements’, using such ingredients as coal fly ash, where the CO₂ emissions are slightly suppressed, by a maximum of 10%-15%. There is no known technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of Portland cement any further.

European cement manufacturers are confronted with the EC CO₂ eco-tax proposal and are lobbying Brussel’s Administration. They claim that the eco-tax would have a negative effect on the competitiveness of the European cement industry. The planned CO₂ eco-tax on energy is likely to induce industries to move abroad. The representative of one of the world leading cement experts argues that ”(…) if Europe is the only one to adopt it [the eco-tax], it will be more profitable to install our factories in Algiers [North Africa], rather than in Marseille [France]. Freight costs would be equivalent to the increase in manufacturing costs (…)”. This statement does not reflect the true scope of the issue, which was addressed by J. Davidovits at the 5th GLOBAL WARMING International Conference (see «Global Warming Impact On the Cement and Aggregates Industries», in World Resource Review Vol. 6, N°2, 263-278, 1994) (see in LIBRARY the paper #5 Global Warming ). The burden would be shifted towards third world countries and international cement production would continue to grow.

Cement, (Portland cement), results from the calcination of limestone (calcium carbonate) at very high temperatures of approximately 1450-1500°C, and silico-aluminous material according to the reaction

5CaCO₃ + 2SiO₂ —> (3CaO,SiO₂) + (2CaO,SiO₂) + 5CO₂

this means that the manufacture of 1 metric tonne of cement generates 1 metric tonne of CO₂ greenhouse gas.

As time passes by, Portland cement manufacture increases CO₂ emissions, and, therefore, the predicted BaU (Business as Usual) values for future atmospheric CO₂ concentration should be corrected accordingly.

Assuming a 5% yearly increase, in year 2015 world cement CO₂ emissions could equal the 3,500 millions tonnes presently emitted by European (E.U.) industrial activities (industry + energy + transportation), or 65% of the present total U.S. CO₂ emissions . This illustrates the need for new technologies to be adapted to the economy of developing countries.

Estimated World Cement CO₂, Million Metric Tonnes (MT),
in year 1988, 2000 and 2015, after J. Davidovits (1990).
In 2015 World Cement CO₂ = total Europe or 67% of total USA

Unless something drastic and different is done, the world’s atmosphere will go on being destroyed by the production of Portland cement, which is a far worse source of atmospheric pollution than the oil industry or any other known industry. The fact that the dangers to the world’s ecological system from the manufacture of Portland cement is so little known by politicians and public makes the problem all the more urgent: when nothing is known, nothing is done.
This situation clearly cannot continue if the world is going to survive. The conversion of existing cement factories to clean production of geopolymeric cement does not necessitate any re-equipment. The same grinders and the same ovens can be retained for the new process, but the ovens are merely run at half-temperature. For geopolymeric cement production, no temperature higher than 750°C is ever needed. This means that only one third of the fuel requirement is needed for cement production, and of course the fuel emissions are thus reduced by two thirds. This means local benefits for coal-burning regions, with drastic reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions, as well as suppression of particulate emissions. But the main benefits of geopolymeric cements are the reductions in carbon dioxide: the chemical process emits zero carbon dioxide, and the fuel much less, so the end result is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for cement manufacture of between 80% and 90%.

There is no other existing and proven technology in the world today which offers such hope for saving the world’s atmosphere.

In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications Low-CO₂ geopolymer cement applications are thoroughly outlined in Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12 and 24.

From the scientific press: NEW SCIENTIST, 19 July 1997, page 14

THE CONCRETE JUNGLE OVERHEATS:
Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from one of the world’s growth industries
have been grossly underestimated.
“CEMENT kilns contribute more to the world’s output of carbon dioxide than aircraft and could soon be responsible for 10 % of all emissions of the greenhouse gas. New calculations by an industry scientist reveal that cement manufacturers already produce 7 % of global CO₂ emissions-almost three times previously published estimates, and that CO₂ output is increasing faster from cement works than from any other industrial source.
Cement production creates CO₂ in two ways: by the conversion of calcium carbonate to calcium oxide inside the kilns, and by burning large quantities of fossil fuels to heat the kilns to the 1450°C necessary for roasting limestone. Previous estimates for CO₂ emissions from cement production have concentrated only on the former source. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the industry’s total contribution to CO₂ emissions at 2.4 %; the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee quotes 2.6 %.
Now Joseph Davidovits of the Geopolymer Institute, a research institution based in Saint-Quentin, Picardie, France, has for the first time looked at both sources. He as calculated that world cement production of 1.4 billion tonnes a year produces 7 % of current CO₂ emissions. This puts it behind power generation and vehicle exhausts as a source of the gas, but ahead of aircraft, which have excited huge attention from politicians concerned about curbing global warming.
Dale Kaiser at Oak Ridge confirmed this week that “our calculation only singles out the chemical transformation aspect”. (…) John Lanchbery director of environmental projects at the Verification Technology Information Centre in London, who analyses national CO₂ emissions inventories, says: “Cement is well known as the biggest manufacturing source of CO₂, but I certainly had no idea the total was as high as is being suggested.”
Globally cement production is rising by 5 % a year, says Davidovits. He predicts that it will be responsible for a tenth of global CO₂ emissions by 2000. It is growing fastest in the “tiger” economies of east Asia, where construction of buildings, roads and other infrastructure is booming. In Korea, the industry is already responsible for an estimated 13 % of the country’s CO₂ emissions. (…) The silence on cement manufacture as a cause of global warming contrasts with the growing concern over aircraft emissions, which are estimated to contribute a maximum of 5 %. Last month at the Earth Summit in New York, the European Union called for a global tax on aircraft fuel. But proposals for an internal EU tax on energy aimed at reducing CO₂ emissions, specifically excluded the cement industry because its energy use is so high that it was thought a tax would damage it. Fred Pearce

Rock-based Geopolymer cements reduce CO₂ emission by 80 %

The technology developed for Rock-based Geopolymer cements reduces CO₂ emission by 80%. Geopolymeric cements are manufactured in a different manner than Portland cement. Geopolymers do not rely on the calcination of calcium carbonate and therefore do not release bounded CO₂. They also do not require extreme high temperature kilns, with large expenditure of fuel, nor do geopolymers require such a large capital investment in plants and equipment. The mechanical properties of these novel geopolymeric cements are similar to those of regular Portland cement. Appropriate geological resources are available on all continents for providing suitable raw materials. The issue of long term durability was studied in relation with archaeological analogues, namely ancient Roman cements. A new linguistic study of the Latin author Vitruvius’ famous book «De Architectura» (1st century B.C.) outlines the unique properties of a “carbunculus” cement, which was manufactured by calcining geological materials (see in Archaeo-Analogues and in the paper #E Searching for Carbunculus ). During cement manufacture, this re-created ancient Roman cement reduces CO₂ emissions by 55-60%.

Introducing low-CO₂ Rock-based Geopolymer cements would, on one hand, allow unlimited development of concrete infrastructures for the Global Economy and, on the other hand, dramatically mitigate CO₂ Greenhouse Gas emissions. The European industrial research consortium GEOCISTEM (European multidisciplinary Brite Euram industrial research project funded by the European Commission) developed Rock-based Geopolymer cements that mitigate CO₂ emissions by 80%. See the results on the page GEOCISTEM.

Successful accomplishment of the GEOCISTEM exemplifies the theoretical studies of the Background knowledge (see the Research Project Global Warming and in the LIBRARY the paper #5 Global Warming, and also for example #21 Geopolymer cement review 2013) and demonstrates that it is possible to manufacture new cements with low-CO₂ emission during their fabrication, to minimize the «Green House» Global-Warming. The Table and Figure show interesting data on energy cost and CO₂ emission for Portland cement and for three types of geopolymeric cements developed during the GEOCISTEM project: glass cement and two CARBUNCULUS cements

Cement type	Manufacturing temperature	Energy consumption	CO2 emission
Portland	1450-1500°C	100	100
Glass	750°C-1350°C	64 (-36%)	35 (-65%)
Carbunculus	750-800°C	40 (-60%)	20 (-80%)
Carbunculus	nat. 20-80°C	30 (-70%)	10 (-90%)

Comparison between Energy consumption and CO₂ emission
during manufacture, for various cement types, assuming Portland=100

Fly ash-based cements: the GEOASH project

Fly ash-based geopolymer cements reduce CO₂ emissions by 90% when compared to Portland cement. The GEOASH (2004–2007) project was carried out with a financial grant from the Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Community. The GEOASH project is known under the contract number RFC-CR-04005. It involves: Antennuci D., ISSeP, Liège, Belgium; Nugteren H.and Butselaar-Orthlieb V., Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Davidovits J., Cordi-Géopolymère Sarl, Saint-Quentin, France; Fernández-Pereira C. and Luna Y., University of Seville, School of Industrial Engineering, Sevilla, Spain; Izquierdo M. and Querol X., CSIC, Institute of Earth Sciences “Jaume Almera”, Barcelona, Spain.

Seventeen samples of (co-)combustion European fly ashes were tested on their suitability for geopolymeric cements. Normally, curing of fly ash-based matrices is done at temperatures between 60 and 90°C. In this project, since the idea is to use the geopolymer as a cement, the curing is taking place at ambient temperature, with a modified (Ca,K)-based geopolymeric system. The Final Technical and Scientific Report was presented mid 2008. Detailed information may be found in the Technical paper #22 at GEOASH: fly ash-based geopolymer cements as well as in the updated 3rd edition of Davidovits’ book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, Chapter 12.

Two methods were used and compared with. One, called the classical or conventional method, relies on alkali-activation and pure NaOH (8M, 12M), i.e. User-hostile conditions. The second is based on geopolymerization with (Ca,K,Na) geopolymeric systems, i.e. User-friendly conditions. A recent video stresses the major differences between alkali-activation and geopolymerization in Why Alkali-Activated Materials are NOT Geopolymers ?. The geopolymeric method was developed for the implementation of all kind of geological materials, eg. Rock-based geopolymers. The (K,Na,Ca)-poly(sialate-siloxo) process is based on the system fly ash / slag / Ksil / H₂O reacting at room temperature. The ashes, 60-80% by weight of the mix, were mixed with the geopolymeric slurry containing alkali-silicate solution (molar SiO₂:M₂O > 1.40), blast furnace slag and water, and cured at room temperature.

The investigations by Palomo and his team (Fernández-Jiménez and Palomo, 2003), are often taken in the literature as a reference. They claim that the pure NaOH based zeolitic system should be considered as the reference in the determination of the chemical parameters leading to a material with optimal binding properties. According to these standard criteria, any fly ash with a mullite content higher than 5% is not suitable and may not be used. Six fly ashes were selected and submitted to this criteria. The results are shown in the Figure below. Only two fly ashes, CSIC-4 and CSIC-5 have mullite content lower than 5% and might work with alkali-activation. The Figure displays the results of the (Ca,K)-based geopolymeric method. It shows the 28 day compressive strength obtained in relation with the mullite content. All values are higher than 50 MPa, the majority reaching strengths higher than 70 MPa. It is therefore important to notice that practically all class F fly ash types, i.e. those with low free CaO, can be used with this user-friendly system.

It has also been measured that for a given fly ash, the conventional alkali-activation (zeolitic method) provides lower compressive strength than the (Ca,K,Na)-based geopolymeric procedure. The geopolymeric method yields higher strengths as well as lower costs (no thermal activation needed) and safer and easier handling treatment, i.e. user-friendly.

Compressive strength at 28 days in relation with mullite content, room temperature curing (GEOASH).

Geosynthesis of Rock-based Geopolymer cements was the objective of the European multidisciplinary BriteEuram industrial research project GEOCISTEM. The project titled cost effective GEOpolymeric Cements for Innocuous Stabilization of Toxic EleMents, in short GEOCISTEM, started on Jan. 1994 and has been completed on June 1997.

In J. Davidovits’ book, Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, Chapter 10 is dedicated to Rock-based Geopolymer cements.

The project seek to manufacture economical geopolymeric cements primarily for the long-term containment of hazardous and toxic wastes and for restoring sites highly contaminated with uranium mining waste (the WISMUT sites in former East Germany). The patented GEOPOLYTECH® process is currently undergoing industrial testing on various sites. In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications this application is outlined in Chapter 26. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

Rock-based Geopolymer cements are manufactured in a different manner than Portland cement. Geopolymeric cements do not require high temperature kilns, or large expenditures of fuel, nor do they require such a large capital investment for the plant and equipment. Thermal processing at temperatures not higher than 600-700°C of naturally occurring alkali-silico-aluminates and alumino-silicates (geological resources available on all continents) provides suitable rock-based geopolymeric raw-materials.

In addition, the GEOCISTEM technology reduces the energy consumption of manufacturing cement. The global introduction of these low-CO₂ geopolymeric cements, for civil engineering, infrastructure and general construction purposes will reduce the CO₂ emissions created by the cement concrete industry by 80%. This can mitigate overall Global Warming .

Partners:

• European Commission, Brussels
• B.R.G.M. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (France)
• CORDI-GEOPOLYMERE SA (France)
• LAVIOSA CHIMICA MINERARIA SPA (Italy)
• CAGLIARI UNIVERSITY, Dpt Scienze della Terra (Italy)
• BARCELONA UNIVERSITY, Facultat de Geologia (Spain)

Sub-contrators for Cordi-Geopolymere SA, Saint-Quentin:

• WISMUT GmbH, Chemnitz (Germany)
• HEIDELBERGER ZEMENT AG, Heidelberg (Germany)
• NAMUR University, Namur (Belgium)
  CEMENTI BUZZI, Torino (Italy)
• CAEN UNIVERSITY, Centre Etude et Recherche sur l’Antiquité (France)
• Project leader: Prof. Dr. Joseph Davidovits, Cordi-Geopolymere SA

Acid Resistant Concrete for Uranium and Metallic Mining Sites

Metallic mine tailings are usually generating sulphuric acid that results from the oxidation of pyrite. The resistance to strong sulphuric acid solution (5% H₂SO₄ solution) was investigated after the standard 28 days of hardening. Testing involved comparative sand mortar standard methods with Portland cement (type I 42.5 R from our sub-contractor Cementi Buzzi) and a geopolymeric cement that comprises 75% by weight of geological elements. This cement is coined CARBUNCULUS cement because of it similarity with the calcined pozzolan “carbunculus”, which according to the Roman architect Vitruvius (1st Century AD) was the basic material of the good Roman mortar (see in Archaeo-Analogues and also the paper #D Searching for Carbunculus ). After 60 days, CARBUNCULUS cement remains practically intact whereas the acid corrosion has destroyed more than 65% of Portland Cement I.42.5 (weight loss and change in shape and volume).

Comparative test CARBUNCULUS cement vs. Portland cement I.42.5, 28 days of hardening. Weight loss after 7, 28 and 60 days in Sulphuric acid solution (5%, pH=0).

The patented GEOPOLYTECH technology is based on the use of geopolymer binders. The GEOPOLYTECH technology could provide a safe and proven method for the encapsulation and long-term containment of toxic, hazardous, and radioactive sludges from decantation ponds and pasty wastes (filter cakes) from water treatment facilities. The technology is presently applied in Germany by B.P.S. Engineering .

The patented GEOPOLYTECH technology provides excellent retention for highly toxic elements, including:

• heavy metals
• uranium
• radium
• arsenic
• hydro-carbons

Like vitrification, the GEOPOLYTECH technology offers:

• high strength
• acid resistance
• long term durability
• geological analogues
• archaeological analogues

But unlike vitrification, the GEOPOLYTECH technology does not require energy-consuming drying and melting.

GEOPOLYTECH can be produced with inexpensive Geopolymer binders or cements. GEOPOLYTECH requires only simple mixing equipment. GEOPOLYTECH is produced at room temperature.

Scientific background

In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Management applications are thoroughly outlined in Chapter 26. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

Laboratory and pilot-scale studies

The European research project GEOCISTEM successfully tested this technology in various research projects performed for the German company WISMUT GmbH. The testing was conducted to rehabilitate uranium mining sites in former East Germany, where the contaminants included uranium, radium, hydro-carbons, and arsenic.

Lighting has tremendous importance in sculpture. I call “dramatized sculpture” the idea of developing the sculpture and suitable lighting together. In these, the artist has incorporated light sources into the work itself, allowing the spectator to feel the key-points and sense the finesse in the half-shadow light that the sculptor tried to convey.
To convey this feeling faithfully, a material both noble and reliable was needed. Thanks to geopolymers that I am using with success since 1982, we are able to reproduce exactly some natural rock material. Hardening of the geopolymer stone mixture occurs in a silicone mold. This process, while retaining the spontaneity of the original clay, also enables to reproduce the desired subtleties in a faithful way. The built-in lights make the subtleties moving, convincing some times to fascination.

Applications in ART and DECORATION

Chapter 1 of Davidovits’ book The Pyramids: an Enigma Solved reads as follows (more details on J. Davidovits’s books in the Archaeology Books page ): “Egypt’s legendary reputation as master of the stone arts spans almost the entire history of civilization. At a time before hieroglyphs or numbers were written or copper was smelted, prehistoric settlers in the Nile valley either inherited or began a remarkable legacy that has survived for at least 6,000 years. During this era, hard stone vessels made of slate, metamorphic schist, diorite, and basalt first appeared. All but indestructible, these items are among the most unusual and enigmatic of the ancient world. In a later era, 30,000 such vessels were placed in an underground chamber of the first pyramid, the Third Dynasty Step Pyramid at Saqqarah. “On examining them attentively, I only became more perplexed,” wrote the renowned German scholar, Kurt Lange, after encountering these stone vessels. “How were they made, the dishes, plates, bowls, and other objects in diorite, which are among the most beautiful of all the fine stone objects? I have no idea… But how could such a hard stone be worked? The Egyptian of that time had at his disposal only stone, copper, and abrasive sand… It is more difficult to imagine the fabrication of hard stone vases with long narrow necks and rounded bellies.” Admittedly, the vessels present a problem that Lange’s “imagination could not handle.”
Metamorphic schist is harder than iron. The diorite used, a granitic rock, is among the hardest known. Modern sculptors do not attempt to carve these varieties of stone. Yet, these vessels were made before the introduction into Egypt of metals strong enough to cut hard stone. Numerous vessels have long, narrow necks and wide, rounded bellies. Their interiors and exteriors correspond perfectly. The tool has not been imagined that could have been inserted into their long necks to shape the perfect, rounded bellies. Smooth and glossy, these vessels bear no trace of tool marks. How were they made?

Since 1979, Prof. Davidovits claims that these hard stone vases were made of synthetic (man-made) stone. More details in the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications Chapter 20. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers. The GEOPOLYSTONE technology is the modern equivalent to the 5000 year old Egyptian technique.

The GEOPOLYSTONE technology is based on the use of modern geopolymer binders and cements. Like the Ying and the Yang, the GEOPOLYSTONE technology connects together two often opposed way of life: high-tech and arts. The properties of geopolymeric binders and cements have been evaluated by several renown international institutions, their quality proven by numerous tests conducted according to the most severe ASTM and DIN Codes.

The rosette is the modern replica of the famous ancient Triskel Celtic Stone featured in the oldest European Christian Churches (between the 9th and the 11th Century AD).

In the 19th Century, the famous painting technique called “Impressionism” was directly derived from the fact that new oil paints were easy to be used outdoors. It could be the same with GEOPOLYSTONE® sculptures that can be produced in thousands exemplars.
Art crafts are very sensitive to fashion. Nevertheless, business results may be substancial because GEOPOLYSTONE® allows to reproducing art works with very subtle details that are often important.

Collection of various statues in geopolystone (reconstituted natural stone): limestone, granite, anorthose, porphyr, sandstone, arkose, etc.

The company CORDI-Géopolymère has finalized an amazing use of the geopolystone technology. Indeed, it has developed an industrial application that moulds this reconstituted natural stone directly on an aerated concrete (AAC/ALC Ytong or Hebel type). The geopolystone perfectly sticks onto it without the need of any glue. This application is dedicated to external and internal walls, and decoration. Any kind of stones, colours and surface treatments can be used (rough surface, dull, shiny, polished, etc.). We can make different shapes, ideal for facades, pediment, and outlines of cornices. The advantage of this process is that no additional protection with any external coating or front face (bricks, tiles etc.) is needed. It is manufactured directly in the plant, ready for use on the building site. Thus, time saving is important, and new opportunities for decorations and new textures will excite architects.
This application can only be applied by an industrial process, and is designed only for aerated concrete manufacturers. Unfortunately, masons cannot produce it manually.

GEOPOLYSTONE® technology offers:

• beauty of natural stone
• excellent reproducibility
• UV and IR resistance
• excellent freeze-thaw behaviour
• excellent wet-dry behaviour
• long term stability

In addition the GEOPOLYSTONE® technology may be associated with fiber reinforced composites for fireproof DECORATION .

The task LONGTERM in the GEOCISTEM project dealt with the better understanding of long-term durability. It is difficult to predict extended durability on the basis of operating experience, laboratory experimentation and prototype testing. Two thousand years are generally accepted as a sufficient amount of time to permit decay of fission products that represent the most hazardous fraction in low-level rad-waste material. The present ongoing research involves geological, chemical and archaeological aspects by studying the durability of archaeological analogues and understanding their chemical make-up. Ancient Roman concrete structures like the Coliseo (2.000 years old) are still functioning today and thereby could provide historical documentation of the extended durability of geopolymeric cements.

Fundamental research carried out by Joseph Davidovits at Institute for Applied Archaeological Sciences, Barry University, USA (1983-1989) and studies performed since 1991 by Frederic Davidovits at several French Universities (Amiens, Paris-Nanterre, Caen) on Ancient Roman mortars, especially Opus Signinum masonry, provided background knowledge for this task, in relation with the descriptions by the Roman author Vitruvius in De Architectura. Civil infrastructures, especially works related to water storage (cisterns, aqueducts) required a high-performance material Opus Signinum that involves a hardening mechanism based on the alkali-activation with lime of calcined clay (named testa in latin) similar to the MK-750 (or kandoxi) materials used in modern geopolymeric cements.

According to Vitruvius in De Architectura, another raw material for concretes and mortars is a very unique geological material called carbunculus (see paper #D Searching for Carbunculus ). Carbunculus was processed at high temperature, i.e. in the range of 800°C, (sic in Etruria excocta materia efficitur carbunculus). In Book II, Chapter VI, Vitruvius compares the properties of the true natural pozzolan from the Bay of Naples around Mount Vesuvius (Pozzuoli), with those of carbunculus, a calcined stone from Etruria (North of Rome). Both are excellent for concrete structures, yet carbunculus has advantages in buildings on land, whereas true pozzolan is best for piers built into the sea.

A sampling of archaeological mortars and concretes dating back to the 3rd century BC and later was carried out in Rome and Ostia, Italy. Two series of artefacts:

• Opus Signinum, 7 samples in Rome, (pavement of Santo Omobono, Rome, 3rd c. BC, samples ROM 1, 2, interior coatings of Cistern, Trajan Baths, 2nd. c. AD, samples ROM 3, 4, 5, 6). The Opus Signinum contains the element testa, which is a calcined kaolinitic clay equivalent to the MK-750 (or kandoxi) used in the GEOCISTEM cements, and carbonated lime.
• Opus Caementicum/Testacaem: 15 samples of mortars and concretes (carbunculus?) in Ostia, OST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (G for grey and R for red). The mortar usually contains carbonated lime and volcanic tuff aggregates and sand called in Italian cretoni. Some of the cretoni could be the element carbunculus, which is equivalent to the calcined volcanic tuffs used in the GEOCISTEM cements.

We thank Dot.ssa Sartorio, director of Museo della Cività Romana, Rome, for her help in the sampling of the archaeological cements. In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, the Archaeological analogues and Long-Term Durability of geopolymers are outlined in Chapter 17. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

NMR Analysis of Roman cements compared with GEOCISTEM cements.

We found at least two specimens of Roman cement (ROM 4 and OST 7G) whose ²⁹Si NMR Spectrum show the same resonances as those of GEOCISTEM cements. The spectrum for the cement ROM 4 (Opus Signinum) is similar to the spectra of Ca 01/Ca 02 GEOCISTEM cements. These particular GEOCISTEM cements were made of MK-750 (or kandoxi) and zeolithic tuffs Ca01, Ca02 (philipsite type). The spectrum for the cement OST 7G is equivalent to the LA01 GEOCISTEM volcanic tuff cement .

Comparative 29Si NMR spectra for Cements ROM 4/Ca 01,
Ca 02 GEOCISTEM (left), and Cements OST 7G/LA 01 GEOCISTEM (right).

ROM 4 results from the reaction between lime and a special ceramic testa different from plain kaolinitic clay. This chemical reaction yields an alumino-silicate structure (polysialate geopolymer type) with a major resonance at -86 ppm suggesting a structure of the Si(Q₃Si,1OH) and Si(Q₄) types, or a hydrated felspathoid geopolymer analogue. In addition, the presence of hydrated gehlinite in ROM 4 cement deducted from ²⁷Al Spectroscopy suggests following final make-up for ROM 4 cement:

• hydrated gehlinite,
• recarbonated lime,
• hydrated feldspathoid, (K,Na)-polysialate geopolymer,
• fine grained zeolitic volcanic tuff.

The 29Si NMR spectrum of OST 7G cement is equivalent to the one of the LA01 GEOCISTEM volcanic tuff cement. OST 7G mortar results from the reaction between lime and analcime type cretoni. The product of this reaction is an alumino-silicate of type Si(Q₃, 1OH) and Si(Q₄) (-86 ppm to -94 ppm range) different from those expected with regular pozzolan. There is no hydrated gehlinite in OST 7G cement deducted from 27Al Spectroscopy. The final make-up of OST 7G cement would be:

• recarbonated lime,
• hydrated feldspathoid, Na-polysialate geopolymer,
• fine grained zeolitic volcanic tuff.

Hydrated feldspathoid and hydrated gehlinite are X-ray amorph. This explains why the chemical and mineralogical analysis carried out by the GEOCISTEM geologist team at Cagliari University on these ancient mortars, did not provide detailed information on the make-up of the lime-cement.
See also in The Mystery of Roman Concretes unveiled .

The geopolymer LTGS brick is an ideal construction technology for emerging countries, because it offers many characteristics that fulfils the population demands.

This brick uses a very cheap material available in great quantity: lateritic clay earth. This special and abundant earth, mixed with a simple geopolymer binder is compressed to give the shape of a brick then heated in a furnace. Heated at 85°C, LTGS brick is water stable and has enough compressive strength to build a wall. Heated at 250°C, it resists to freezing. At 450°C, its strength increases more, so that it is possible to manufacture structural elements like beams for doors and windows. Compared to a traditional brick fired at 1000°C in a kiln, the LTGS brick needs about eight times less energy for an equivalent strength. Contrary to a traditional brickyard, it requires less equipment and is less expensive to produce. A traditional brickyard must have a certain size before being profitable, whereas LTGS brick can be produced by small brickyards in a village or a small city with less equipment and finance.

Get a natural fresh house

But beyond its strength identical to traditional brick, its lower manufacturing cost and its low energy consumption, a house built out of LTGS brick will be naturally air-conditioned and fresher. This “interior comfort” quality or “passive cooling”, alike pisé, rammed earth or other earth materials, is related to the essential physical and chemical characteristics of geopolymers for LTGS bricks. These geopolymers, which constitutes the matrix of the brick, have zeolitic properties, i.e. the property “to breathe”, to be in constant hygrometrical balance with the interior of a dwelling in order to be an excellent insulation material against heat. We know that, in hot and dry areas, the traditional earth material is providing a comfort much higher than modern insulating material used in industrialized northern countries. LTGS bricks absorb moisture. At night, they store condensation moisture from the surrounding air. During the day, they release this moisture, either inside the house if the relative humidity should be compensated, or outside. So there is evaporation, therefore a drop in the temperature of the material, therefore a cooling of the house and insulation against the heat!

This technology may be used by anyone

The LTGS brick technology was patented in France under the number 80 20386, filed on the 23 September 1980. It is now in the public domain, which means any person in the world can commercially exploit it without the agreement of the first owner, our company CORDI-Géopolymère. However, this system is not understandable by the lay man or the handy person who wants to build a wall in his garden, and unfortunately grocery stores are not selling the required materials! The person who wishes to manufacture LTGS bricks needs chemical and material science backgrounds because it requires some equipments and to develop – invent the right formula for each lateritic soil.

How to know more?

Download the technical paper #14 Geopolymeric Cross-Linking (LTGS) and Building Materials (70 KB) from the Geopolymer’88 Proceedings.

In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, the Low-Energy ceramic manufacture and low-tech LTGS bricks are thoroughly outlined in Chapter 23. Also, additional scientific papers can be downloaded at the Library.

Watch a video presentation of this technology

Prof. Joseph Davidovits presented at the Ceramics and Brotherhood Symposium, Verona, Italy, July 4th 2008, the manufacture of the LTGS bricks, an opportunity for small environment-friendly productions in construction materials, for Africa, Asia, America, Middle East and Oceania. The bricks are set at low temperature, low energy and low cost, but with first-class quality and strength.

Click here to download the free video in full lentgh, high quality.
22min 06s – 50 MB – 640×480 30fps – MPEG4 H.264 AVC format
Watch it with Quicktime, VLC, Mplayer, or any MPEG4 H.264 AVC player.

What do I need to implement this technology?

You will find in the above paper all the required information in order to develop the LTGS brick technology by yourself. You need to gather a team of expertise: a geologist to find the right lateritic soil, a material scientist to search for the right chemical material provider and to finalize the chemical formula, and a specialist in manufacturing fired clay bricks. They will find all information needed in the above paper.