See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312575584

Comparison of the Thermal Characteristics of Portland Cement and Geopolymer

Cement Concrete Mixes

Article in Journal of Architectural Engineering · January 2017

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000240

CITATIONS READS
36 3,321

3 authors:

Clarke Snell Brett Tempest

Stevens Institute of Technology University of North Carolina at Charlotte
3 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 440 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thomas Gentry
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates
8 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Clarke Snell on 28 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of the Thermal Characteristics of Portland
Cement and Geopolymer Cement Concrete Mixes
Clarke Snell1; Brett Tempest, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE2; and Thomas Gentry3

Abstract: Concrete is widely used in buildings as a structural and finish material, and mix designs for these applications are well established.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The thermal properties of concrete are also embedded in a number of building envelope design strategies, but mix designs to optimize for these
performance characteristics are not generally considered. In this study, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and compressive strength
of concrete mixes were investigated. It was determined that a broad range of thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity values can be
obtained through the adjustment of mix paste percentages. Portland cement (PC) and geopolymer cement concrete (GCC) mixes were com-
pared for this application, with the range of thermal variability found to be greater with concretes that use the geopolymer binder. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000240. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geopolymer cement concrete (GCC); Specific heat capacity; Thermal conductivity; Compressive strength.

Introduction GC is very different from that of hydrated portland cement (PC).

Therefore, the ability to adjust mix proportions to achieve particular
performance characteristics in GCC may be different from PCC.
Maximizing Thermal Performance of Concrete through This also gives rise to the possibility that the thermal characteristics
Mix Design (specific heat and thermal conductivity) of the aluminosilicate GC
The malleability of concrete’s performance characteristics is one of will be substantially different from those of the calcium silicate PC.
its inherent advantages as a construction material. By adjusting a The thermal characteristics of concrete are critical to building
variety of variables including paste percentage, water content, ag- design and have been availed as both thermal storage and to reduce
gregate composition, paste characteristics, and a number of avail- or enhance thermal movement through and within building enve-
able admixtures, a variety of physical characteristics can be con- lopes for thousands of years. The public Roman baths built in Ostia
trolled. Typically, concrete used in buildings is divided into two almost 2,000 years ago are an example of this use. The Romans
categories: structural and architectural (sometimes called finish), used large complex masonry and concrete materials in walls and
with nuanced and exacting mix designs well established through a floors as storage masses for solar heat and as part of a centralized ra-
long development history to create a wide spectrum of strength, du- diant heating system in which heat from a wood fire was moved
rability, and appearance performance within each category. under the floor and through the walls (Ring 1996). Other cultures
The binder geopolymer has added a new option to the material developed similar technologies throughout the world during various
palette for concrete design and construction. Compared with port- epochs. In a similar fashion, long before the contemporary concept
land cement concrete (PCC), geopolymer cement (GC) and geopol- of insulation, concrete and other mass materials, such as stone,
ymer cement concrete (GCC) have demonstrated superior environ- earth, and brick, have constituted the full volume of the building
mental performance by having a reduced carbon footprint and the envelopes of a considerable portion of the world’s buildings. The
potential to incorporate waste stream materials as inputs to produc- high mass envelope provided a small resistance to heat flow but pri-
tion (Weil et al. 2009). They also feature very similar strength and marily provided thermal comfort by its ability to store and release
elastic performance (Hardjito and Rangan 2005; Sofi et al. 2007; large quantities of heat with only small changes in temperature
Tempest et al. 2009) and improved durability compared with PCC (Zhai and Previtali 2010).
(Bakharev 2005; Reddy et al. 2011; Roy et al. 2000; Wallah et al. Over the last 100 years, the development of discrete materials
2004). Despite these similarities, the physiochemical make-up of with low thermal conductivity, usually called insulation, have
allowed considerable design control over heat movement through
building envelopes. Building assemblies and configurations combin-
1
Industry Associate Professor, Schaefer School of Engineering and ing mass for thermal storage and dedicated insulation materials for
Science, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point Terrace, thermal resistance have become common, especially in residential
Hoboken, NJ 07030. E-mail: csnell@stevens.edu construction. More recently, massive insulated envelope systems
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, suitable for large-scale commercial applications, such as continu-
Univ. of North Carolina, Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, ously insulated precast concrete panels, have been developed and
NC 28223-0001 (corresponding author). ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000 are gaining in popularity. One such panel featuring two wythes of
-0001-6096-4520. E-mail: brett.tempest@uncc.edu concrete separated by 16 cm of rigid insulation is shown in Fig. 1.
3
Architect, Madsen, Kneppers and Associates, Inc., 5600 Greenwood
Yet, standard concrete mix design practices focus primarily on
Plaza Blvd., Greenwood Village, CO 80111. E-mail: tgentry@mkainc.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 6, 2015; approved on strength and durability objectives, and provisions to adjust their ther-
October 20, 2016; published online on January 19, 2017. Discussion pe- mal characteristics to better suit performance in building envelopes
riod open until June 19, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for are essentially nonexistent (ACI 1991).
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural By quantifying energy use through rigorous lifecycle analysis, it
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431. has been well established that the greatest proportion of a typical

© ASCE 04017002-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 building’s environmental impact is through its operation (Sartori and
Hestnes 2007). Therefore, improving building operational perform-
ance will have the most significant effect on its energy and carbon
impact. The next step toward more energy-efficient building enve-
lopes is to optimize the thermal characteristics of concrete by manipu-
lating mix designs. This would enable designers to take full advantage
of the considerable thermal storage and heat transfer properties (e.g.,
through embedded hydronics) of concrete while consciously lowering
the associated carbon footprint, the current Achilles heel of PCC in
the context of sustainable design. The ubiquity with which concrete is
used as a major component of the built environment generally and
building envelopes specifically leads to the conclusion that there is a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compelling rationale for investigating thermal optimization strategies

for concrete mix designs in building envelopes.
Affecting the overall thermal characteristics of concrete can be
accomplished by altering the proportions of components that have
different thermal properties of specific heat (cp) and thermal con-
ductivity (k). These two properties determine the quantity of heat
that may be stored in materials and the rate that it is transferred into
and out of the material, respectively. Because various aggregate
materials and cements have different values of cp and k, their rela-
tive proportions can be adjusted to change the bulk characteristics
of the composite. Further, materials could be specially selected
based on their thermal characteristics. Current proportioning prac-
tices are related to producing concrete with workable fresh charac-
teristics, desired strength and durability characteristics in the hard-
ened form, and economy of finished product. The quantity of PC
proportioned into concrete is limited by economy, required
strength, and hydration processes that might affect shrinkage and
durability. However, because non-PC binders may deliver a similar
mechanical performance with different constraints to proportioning,
they may also offer the opportunity to further tailor concrete thermal
properties to building climate needs. Through physical testing of a
variety of concrete mixes representing different paste percentages Fig. 1. Continuously insulated precast wall panel being installed as
for specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and compressive part of a net zero energy project (image by Clarke Snell)
strength, this study establishes that considerable variations in ther-
mal performance can be achieved through mix design.
A small number of studies into the thermal properties of geopol-
ymer pastes and concretes exist in the literature, for example, focus-
Scope and Significance of Research ing on adjustments to the aluminosilicate component (Duxson et al.
Specific heat capacity (cp) and thermal conductivity (k) of a con- 2006; Subaer and van Riessen 2007) or concerning foamed mixes
crete mix define its thermal performance as part of a building enve- (Liu et al. 2014), but none deals with a comparison of component
lope and are essential to modeling and predicting heat transfer. mix ratios, as is the case with the present study. The number of stud-
Research presented in this paper had two objectives. The first objec- ies dealing with thermal conductivity and specific heat of PCCs is
tive was to experimentally establish the thermal characteristics, spe- larger, but still surprisingly small in relation to the important role
cific heat capacity (cp), and thermal conductivity (k) of GC paste concrete plays in the built environment generally and building enve-
and aggregates. Second, by way of further experimentation, GCC lopes specifically. Still, a perusal of this literature leads to the con-
mixes prepared with varying proportions of aggregates were eval- clusion that the PCC mix of specific heat and thermal conductivity
is dependent on core variables, such as aggregate source water/
uated for their composite thermal characteristics. Additionally, the
cement ratios, chosen additives (Kim et al. 2003), and especially ag-
compressive strength was measured for all mixes. Although struc-
gregate source (Chan 2013; Waples and Waples 2004). For this rea-
tural concrete design depends on more properties than only com-
son, thermal performance comparisons between GCC and PCC
pressive strength, this measure was selected as an indicator due to
mixes seem primarily useful when the mixes in question are equiva-
its proportionality to other important parameters, such as shear
lent relative to these core variables, as is the case with the current
strength and modulus of elasticity.
study in which aggregates were identical and other core variables
A set of PCC specimens was prepared for comparison with the
were tightly controlled for both mix types as a group.
GCC materials. The PCC was chosen as a material for comparison
because it is the standard used by construction industries worldwide.
The significance of investigating GCC is that (1) its considerably Materials and Methods
lower carbon footprint compared with PCC is well established in the
literature (Duxson et al. 2007), and (2) its binder components have dis-
Fly Ashes
tinctly different physical characteristics than those for PCC mixes.
Therefore, GCC could have advantages for thermal envelope construc- The GCs are formed by dissolving an aluminosilicate in a strong
tion in addition to reduced emissions and mechanical performance. alkaline solution. For this study, coal combustion waste fly ashes

© ASCE 04017002-2 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 Table 1. Oxide Composition of Fly Ashes Used in GC Mixes

Oxide % by Mass
SiO2 56.20
TiO2 1.46
Al2O3 28.00
Fe2O3 5.22
MnO 0.02
MgO 1.00
CaO 1.52
Na2O 0.21
K2O 2.74
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

P2O5 0.18
Totals 96.55
Loss on ignition 3.32

Table 2. GC Paste Mix Proportions

Component Quantity (kg/cylinder)

Fly ash 1.87
Sodium silicate 0.46
Sodium hydroxide 0.07
Water 0.13

were the chosen aluminosilicate source. Fly ashes for GCC mixes
were sourced from a steam generation station in the southeastern
United States. X-ray fluorescence was used to determine the oxide
composition, which is reported in Table 1, and shows a similar
make-up to ashes frequently used in geopolymer production
(Fernandez-Jimenez and Palomo 2003). The ashes were marketed
as ASTM Class-F (ASTM 2003). Fig. 2. GCC sample on TCi thermal sensor

Aggregates prepared. In the first batch, no additional water was added to the
Most often, the aggregates in concrete are naturally occurring min- oven-dried aggregate. In the second batch, water was added in pro-
erals whose thermal characteristics can vary based on geographical portions calculated to saturate the aggregate according to their
changes in geology (Waples and Waples 2004). The aggregates measured absorption capacity. After placement in cylinders, mixes
used to prepare both the PC and GC concrete mixes were the same were set on a vibrating table for 1 min and then aged at room tem-
and sized in accordance with ASTM C33 (ASTM 2013). Fine ag- perature for 2 days before being cured in an oven at 75°C for 48 h.
gregate was silica sand graded for concrete use and coarse aggre-
gate was 9.5 mm crushed granite, both sourced from the southeast- Specific Heat Capacity
ern United States quarries. Aggregates were oven dried prior to It has been well established that the cp of a composite such as con-
mixing so that the moisture content of each batch could be more crete can be accurately described as a linear combination of the heat
closely controlled. The measured absorption capacity of the aggre- capacity of its discrete (aggregate) and continuous (paste) elements
gates was 0.47 and 4.82% for coarse and fine, respectively. (Bergman et al. 2011; Waples and Waples 2004). Aggregate and
paste elements used in the concrete mixes considered for this study
General Sample Description and Preparation were prepared and tested as described in this section with the results
The PC mixes were prepared in accordance with ASTM C150 used to derive the specific heat capacity of a concrete mix (compos-
(ASTM 2012) with Type I/II PC. The 100% paste mixes had a ite) using the following equation:
water/cement ratio of 0.35. In batches containing aggregates, addi- X
x
ccomposite ¼ ci mi (1)
tional water equivalent to the absorption capacity of the aggregates
i¼1
was added to mixes so that each batch would contain the same quan-
tity of free water for hydration after absorption, regardless of the ag- where ccomposite = specific heat of composite; cx = specific heat of
gregate proportion. Mixes were placed in cylinder forms 75 mm in material x; and mx = mass of material/mass of composite x.
diameter and 150 mm in depth. After 24 h, all cylinders were Samples were prepared and tested through differential scanning
demolded and placed in a curing tank containing saturated lime calorimetry in accordance with ASTM E1269 (ASTM 2005b). In
water (3 g/L hydrated lime) for 28 days before being further proc- this method, a crucible containing the sample and an empty crucible
essed for testing, as described next. are heated at a controlled rate in a controlled atmosphere, and the
The GC pastes were prepared with fly ash and an activating solu- difference in heat flow between the two is measured as a function of
tion mixture of sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide, and water with time and temperature change.
the proportions shown in Table 2. Mixes were placed in cylinder The PC and GC pastes were prepared as previously described.
forms 75 mm in diameter and 150 mm deep. Two mix batches were These pastes, as well as samples of fine and coarse aggregate, were

© ASCE 04017002-3 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 then ground separately in a ring mill, creating powders with particle Thermal Conductivity
sizes of 0.7 mm or less. These powders were then oven dried at 105°C
Unlike specific heat capacity, heat flow through a composite is
for 24 h and stored in airtight containers until testing. Samples
much more difficult to model based on the characteristics of the dis-
were placed in 270-mL aluminum crucibles and tested in a
crete components. For this study samples representing a variety of
SENSYS evo TG-DSC apparatus (Setaram, Inc., Hillsborough,
paste percentages were prepared, and the thermal conductivity of
New Jersey) over a temperature range of −50 to 50°C. The calibra-
each sample was determined experimentally. Paste percentage is
tion standard used was synthetic sapphire.
defined as P/(P þ A), where P = mass of the paste; and A = sum of
the masses of all aggregates in a given concrete mix.
Sensor The PCC and GCC samples were prepared having the following
locations paste percentages: 1.0, 0.85, 0.65, 0.45, 0.25, 0.15, and 0.10. The
aggregate blend was comprised of a 50/50 mix of fine and coarse
aggregates. A wet saw was used to cut three 40-mm-thick disks out
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of each cylinder. These samples were then conditioned in accord-

ance with ASTM C870 (ASTM 2011) by being stored in open con-
tainers for two weeks in a climate-controlled environment with am-
bient conditions approximating 20°C and 50% relative humidity.
Samples were tested with a thermal conductivity analyzer
[TCi version 2.0 (C-Therm Technologies Ltd., Fredericton, NB,
Canada)] using the modified transient plane source method in
which the rate of temperature change is measured by a sensor and
used to calculate the resistance of the sample to heat flow. The
middle 40-mm sample of the three cut from each cylinder was
tested in a thermal chamber at 20°C and then a subset at 40°C
(Fig. 2). Five test locations were selected on each disk using a lay-
out pattern, as illustrated in Fig. 3, to collect a representative sam-
pling of aggregate-dominated and paste-dominated regions. This
methodology was chosen because the size of the coarse aggregate
in the mixes is large compared with the size of the sensor; there-
fore, each test location may have a different thermal conductivity.
Six measurements were made at each of the five locations, and
Fig. 3. Sampling pattern for thermal conductivity testing; the number the mean value of these six was taken as the thermal conductivity of
of locations was chosen based on the size of the sensor to ensure no the given location. In turn, the mean of these five measurements
overlap between measurements was reported as the thermal conductivity of the sample.

Table 3. Mean Measured Specific Heat Values of Aggregates and Cement Pastes

cp (J/kg·K) Aggregate cp/paste cp ratio

Temperature (8C) Fine aggregate silica sand Coarse aggregate granite PC paste GC paste Fine/PC paste Fine/GC paste
−50 498.4 491.1 686.4 549.9 0.73 0.91
0 627.2 623.3 828.5 685.6 0.76 0.91
20 666.9 663.5 877.9 730.1 0.76 0.91
50 735.6 722.1 931.3 790.8 0.79 0.93

950
900 PC Paste
850
800 GC Paste
750
cp (J/kg*K)

700
Silica
650 Sand
600
Granite
550
500
450
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temp (C)

Fig. 4. Specific heat of concrete components as measured over a range of ambient temperatures

© ASCE 04017002-4 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 Compressive Strength 20, and 50°C from the full data set. Fine and coarse aggregate
sample mean values were essentially identical, ranging from 500
Cylinders from each batch described earlier for the thermal conduc-
J/kg·K at −50°C to 735 J/kg·K at 50°C. At 20°C both measured
tivity testing were analyzed for compressive strength in accordance
about 665 J/kg·K. Paste values were higher than aggregates with
with ASTM C39 (ASTM 2005a). After curing for 28 days in a water
the differences decreasing as temperatures rose. The GC pastes
bath, a universal testing machine (UTM) was used to apply a com-
ranged from 9.5% higher than aggregates at −50°C to 7% higher
pressive axial force until failure, and then the compressive strength
at 50°C. The PC pastes ranged from 27.5% higher than aggregates
of the sample was calculated per the standard. Three cylinders of
at −50°C to 21% higher at 50°C. The ratio of cp for fine aggregate
each paste percentage were tested in this fashion.
to PC paste was lower than the ratio of fine aggregate to GC paste.
Standard deviations for PC paste, coarse aggregate, and GC
Results paste were 2, 6, and 9, respectively, with value ranges (minimum/
maximum) between 1 and 4%. Silica sand fine aggregate samples
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

had a wider range with a standard deviation of 26 and min/max

General Observations ranges of 11%. Although this result is worth noting, all values were
The thermal testing temperature range (−50 to 50°C) for this study was within published ranges for similar materials (Waples and Waples
chosen to approximate temperatures that materials in a building enve- 2004).
lope might encounter. Within this range, the relationship of cp and k
values to changes in temperature were essentially linear, which means Concrete Mixes
that there were no data spikes or troughs. These results match published By using the discrete component specific heat measurements and
trends for specific heat and thermal conductivity in a wide variety of Eq. (1), the specific heat of aggregate-binder systems was esti-
materials that do not experience a component change of phase through mated and is shown in Table 4 and Fig. 5. For both mix types spe-
the testing temperature range. There are a number of examples of stud- cific heat was highest with the 100% paste mixes and decreased in
ies that establish this trend in PCC mixes (Khan 2002). linear fashion as aggregate percentages increased. The 100% PC
pastes had a cp of 877.9 J/kg·K, which is 17% higher specific heat
than GC pastes. At a paste percentage of 10% the two concrete
Specific Heat Capacity
types had almost identical specific heat values. Specific heat of
Discrete Components the mixes decreases as the ambient temperature increases, but the
The measured specific heat of discrete concrete constituents at relationship describing the rate of change relative to paste per-
−50, 0, and 50°C are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 4. Fig. 4 pro- centage was essentially identical across temperature ranges con-
vides data that were measured over the range of −50 to 50°C in sidered in this study. The ratio of specific heat of GCC to that of
1°C increments. Table 3 provides a few discrete values at −50, 0, PCC (Table 4) illustrates that although GC paste has a signifi-
cantly lower cp than PC paste, as the proportion of aggregate in
Table 4. Calculated Specific Heat of Concrete Mixes Using Eq. (1) and the concrete increases, the cp of the PCC becomes very similar to
Measured Mean Values of Discrete Components at 20°C that of GCC. This relationship is also clear in Fig. 5.
cp (J/kg·K)
Thermal Conductivity
Paste (%) PCC GCC GCC/PCC (%)
As shown in Table 5 and Fig. 6, the trend for thermal conductivity
100 877.9 730.1 83 was the opposite of that for specific heat. The 100% paste mixes of
85 846.0 720.3 85 both concrete types had the lowest k values and increased in a gen-
65 803.4 707.4 88 erally linear fashion as aggregate percentage rose. The PC pastes
45 760.9 694.4 91 had approximately twice the thermal conductivity of GC pastes. As
25 718.4 681.4 95
the aggregate percentage in the mix increased, the relative differ-
15 697.1 674.9 97
ence in thermal conductivity between GCC and PCC mixes
10 686.5 671.7 98
decreased. GCC mortars with less than 25% paste content had too

900

850

800
cp (J/kgK)

750
PCC@20degC
700 GCC@20degC

650

600
10 15 25 45 65 85 100
Paste percentage

Fig. 5. Specific heat capacity of concrete mixes at 20°C

© ASCE 04017002-5 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 many voids to allow for k value measurements with the sensor used to shrinkage and cost of production (the cost of PC paste is at least
for this study. The GCC mixes prepared with saturated aggregate 10 times that of aggregate). Therefore, traditional concrete mix
had lower thermal conductivity than those with oven dry aggregate. design strategies are processes of proportioning cement and aggre-
As shown in Fig. 7, k values were a function of temperature, gates with an emphasis on economizing cement as much as possi-
decreasing as temperature increased. This trend was more pro- ble, while still achieving the strength and workability (flow, slump,
nounced with GC paste than with PC paste. When the ambient tem- finishability, etc.) required for the given application. Even if costs
perature was increased from 20 to 40°C, thermal conductivity of the were not a factor, there are also physical limits on feasible paste per-
PC paste dropped by 19%, whereas the GC paste fell 38%. centages for PCCs. Volume changes of hydration products and loss

Compressive Strength 1.40

1.30
As shown in Table 6 and Fig. 8, PCC mixes had higher compressive
1.20
strengths when compared with GCC mixes with the same paste per-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.10
centage. Pastes had higher strengths than mixes with aggregates.
1.00
The GCC mixes with oven dry aggregate (and therefore less water)
0.90
were stronger than mixes with saturated surface dry aggregate. This

k (W/mK)
trend increased as aggregate percentage increased. Compared with 0.80
GCC mixes with saturated aggregate, oven dry aggregate GCC 0.70
mixes were 9% stronger as pastes, 20% stronger with 55% aggre- 0.60
gate, and 67% stronger with 85% aggregate content. Most of the 0.50
GCC mixes tested had a compressive strength of between 22 and 0.40
60 MPa, which is suitable for a range of structural and nonstructural 0.30
applications in building construction. 0.20
0.10
0.00
Analysis and Discussion 20 40
The cementitious material in concretes provides the strength in the PC Paste GC Paste
hardened state and contributes workability in the fresh condition.
However, an excess of PC might cause a range of problems related Fig. 7. Thermal conductivity of 100% cement pastes at 20 and 408C

Table 5. Mean Measured Thermal Conductivity Values of Concrete

Mixes at 20°C
Table 6. Measured Compressive Strength of Concrete Mixes
k (W/m·K)
Cement GCC1a GCC2b PCC GCC1/PCC GCC2/PCC GCC2/GCC1
Paste (%) PCC GCC1a GCC2b GCC1/PCC (%) GCC2/PCC (%) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (%)
100 1.07 0.57 0.47 54 44 100 53.67 48.79 60.45 89 81 91
85 1.29 0.75 0.59 58 46 85 43.08 38.58 57.15 75 67 90
65 1.25 0.92 0.88 74 71 65 35.74 31.54 55.94 64 56 88
45 1.48 1.02 0.89 69 61 45 31.28 25.09 41.69 75 60 80
25 1.56 1.26 0.92 81 59 25 21.95 12.19 33.80 65 36 56
15 1.62 1.49 — 92 — 15 10.89 3.61 29.16 37 12 33
10 1.63 — — — — 10 0.00 1.73 12.67 — 14 —
a a
Dry aggregate. Dry aggregate.
b b
Saturated surface dry aggregate. Saturated surface dry aggregate.

1.80 R² = 0.9157
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20 R² = 0.9871
PCC@20degC
k (W/mK)

1.10
1.00
0.90 GCC @ 20 deg C dry
0.80 R² = 0.8473 aggregate
0.70
0.60 GCC @ 20 deg C saturated
0.50 aggregate
0.40
10 15 25 45 65 85 100
Paste percentage

Fig. 6. Thermal conductivity of concrete mixes at 208C

© ASCE 04017002-6 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 70
R² = 0.9441
60
R² = 0.9861
50

40

f''c (MPa)
30 PCC
GCC dry aggregate
20 R² = 0.9827
GCC saturated aggregate

10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
10 15 25 45 65 85 100
Paste percentage

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of concrete mixes at 208C

of water from mix pore structure through the curing process cause 250
shrinkage. Some percentage of aggregates are required in the mix to
restrain shrinkage cracking, which can range in effect from an aes- 200
thetic nuisance to the cause of durability problems and, in the rare

$/metric ton
case, structural failure. 150
Because aggregates used for both mix types can be identical, GCC
100
price differences between GCC and PCC are confined to the binding
PCC
cements. Cost comparisons between geopolymers and PCs are
50
inconclusive in the literature because they depend on many factors
that are not easily generalized. An Australian study found that GC 0
pricing in that country fell between 7% lower and 39% higher than 10% 15% 25% 45% 65% 85% 100%
PC (McLellan et al. 2011). In Fig. 9, the approximate material costs Paste percentage
to produce GCC and PCC on a laboratory scale are reproduced
from Snell (2014) and are reflective of the cost ratios for the mixes Fig. 9. Cost of concrete mixes (Snell 2014)
produced for this study. In this case, GC proved to be over double
the price of PC. For mixes that have similar compressive strength,
the cost differences are greater. For instance, the GCC mix with
85% paste content and the PCC mix with 45% paste content both the materials required to activate their cementitious properties are,
developed a compressive strength of approximately 43 MPa. As is as is apparent in Fig. 9. With costs aside, the feasible zone for GCC
shown in Fig. 9, the cost to manufacture this mix is approximately encompasses all paste percentages covered in this study (Fig. 11).
$56/t for PCC and $198/t for GCC. In both cases, as aggregates are In other words, mixes between 15 and 100% paste content are
added to mixes, the cost of materials becomes more similar. It is im- physically feasible. This is because of limited autogenous shrinkage
portant to acknowledge that GCC has not been widely commercial- observed in GCC and insusceptibility to durability challenges that
ized; therefore, it has not benefited from the efficiencies that will are typical of PC binders. The possibility of incorporating more GC
come with producing it on a large scale. paste provides the full thermal design range expressed by the data,
In Fig. 10, the economical zone represents the range of concrete as summarized in Figs. 5 and 6. Table 7 shows that the combined ec-
mixes defined as typical by the Portland Cement Association and onomical and feasible zones for GCC mixes allow for a range of
encompasses most of the concrete being poured as part of buildings about 8% in specific heat values and over 217% in thermal conduc-
and other hardscape (Kosmatka and Panarese 2002). As shown in tivity values. This degree of adjustability for these properties could
Fig. 10, there is only a potential to adjust thermal performance pa- make them both variables to be manipulated in thermal envelope
rameters of PCC by less than 5% for both specific heat and thermal design. It is also apparent that higher thermal conductivity is associ-
conductivity within this paste percentage range. Although there are ated with lower paste content and, therefore, lower strength. This
many factors that determine whether a mix will have sufficient du- could also have implications for selecting appropriate usage loca-
rability and strength for its specific application, the feasible zone in tions within the building envelope.
Fig. 10 is an approximation of paste percentages that could be To make a baseline for comparison, the 15% paste PCC mix,
applied from a mechanical properties standpoint, discounting cost. which was found to have a compressive strength of 29 MPa (Table
In contrast to PCC, a basic description of the make-up of the GC 6), may be used. Such a mix would be typical of general purpose
mixes used in this study can be found in an earlier section of this pa- structural concrete; therefore, it is representative of the thermal per-
per. The main ingredient of GC, an alumina silicate, can be sourced formance of concrete mixes used presently in building envelopes.
from many raw materials including certain naturally occurring clays As seen in Table 7, the 15% paste mix would have a specific heat
and industrial by-products, such as burnt rice husks or, as in the capacity of 697.1 J/kg·K and a thermal conductivity of 1.62 W/m·K.
case of the mixes used in this study, fly ash produced as a waste Because this standard baseline mix has the highest k value of all
product in coal combustion. Although the ashes are not expensive, mixes, GCC materials with k values more than 2 times lower (or R

© ASCE 04017002-7 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 1000 3.0
900
800 2.5
700 2.0

k(W/m*K)
600

cp (J/kg*K)
500 1.5
400
300 1.0
200 0.5
100
economical feasible
0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Paste percentage

Specific heat@20degC Thermal conductivity@ 20degC

Fig. 10. cp and k of PCC mixes at 208C

1000 3.0
900
800 2.5
700 2.0

k(W/m*K)
600
500 1.5
cp (J/kg*K)

400
300 1.0
200 0.5
100
economical feasible
0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Paste percentage

Specific heat@20degC Thermal conductivity@ 20degC

Fig. 11. cp and k of GCC mixes at 208C

Table 7. Thermal Performance Ranges of Feasible Concrete Mixes in be produced would further augment the range of outcomes for the
This Study envelope adjustments previously mentioned.
One example of this customization potential is the wall section
Maximum/minimum Range (low to high)
pictured in Fig. 12. The interior concrete wythe is conceived as
Mix [P/A (%)] cp (J/kg·K) k (W/m·K) cp [% (J/kg·K)] k [% (W/m·K)] having two distinct thermal zones. The zone closest to the insula-
PCC 15 697.1 1.62 9.1 (63.8) 9.4 (0.14) tion contains embedded hydronics and is involved in the thermal
PCC 45 760.9 1.48 transfer of heat in and out of the wall. In this area, concrete having
GCC 15 674.9 1.49 8.2 (55.2) 217 (1.02) higher thermal conductivity, such as the mixes with low paste
GCC 100 730.1 0.47 percentage, are desirable. The zone closest to the interior is
intended for thermal storage. In this area, mixes that balance
higher specific heat and higher thermal conductivity are desirable,
such as the mixes with moderate paste percentage. Using existing
values more than 2 times higher) than that of the norm can be pro- precast concrete methodologies, each zone could be made up of a
duced through paste percentage adjustment. Although these k val- discrete concrete mix designed to optimize the specific intended
ues would not bring associated concrete mixes into the realm of cur- thermal performance profile. The actual mix designs could not be
rent low conductivity materials used as insulation in building generalized and would be a function of many variables including
assemblies, such performance malleability could be of value for local climate and microclimate, building siting, building size and
adjusting the rate of thermal release for thermal storage masses, form, and many others. As a result, exacting project-specific per-
adjusting thermal conductivity profiles of embedded hydronics, formance modeling and design inputs would be needed. Such an
increasing fire protection, or to define a baseline mix for existing exercise is outside the scope of this current study, but the results
concrete thermal conductivity adjustment methodologies, such as presented here suggest that such modeling is worth investigating
foaming. Although less impressive as a ratio, the fact that GCC because ranges of thermal properties for concrete mixes are
mixes with cp values 5% higher and 3% lower than the norm could potentially significant.

© ASCE 04017002-8 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Section of a high-performance precast concrete wall system under study at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte (Note: PCM = phase
change material)

Although the feasible zone identified in the previous analysis is Conclusions: Concrete Mix Design to Optimize
wholly a practical consideration, the boundaries of the economical Thermal Performance
zone are also important to discuss. Mixes emulating paste percen-
tages in the economical zone for GCC would be more expensive Results presented from this study indicate that the specific heat of
than their PCC counterparts if manufactured using the material geopolymer paste is lower than the specific heat of PC paste and
sourcing used for this study (Snell 2014). However, although the more similar to the specific heat of granite and silica sand. The ther-
current production costs of GCC are high in the United States, this mal conductivity of geopolymer paste was also found to be signifi-
need not be the case. The expense of GC is a result of the reagents, cantly lower than that of PC paste. GCC mixes with acceptable
sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide. Sodium silicate in particular compressive strength for structural and cladding applications
is responsible for more than 85% of the materials cost to manufac- showed an adjustment range (high to low) of about 8% in specific
ture the GCs for this study (Snell 2014). This is true only because heat values and over 217% in thermal conductivity.
GCs are still mostly products of the research laboratory, even though When discussing general characteristics, such as the fact that con-
they have been in development for several decades. As such, they crete is dense and therefore a good storage medium for heat, such
have not yet been value engineered to compete in the market. If GCs nuances are unimportant. However, in the context of investigations
are to compete with PCs, then soluble silicate and alkalinity alterna- attempting to optimize thermal properties of high-performance build-
tives must be identified that lead to costs typical of high mass materi- ing envelopes using concrete, these differences become more mean-
als produced at the scale of concretes used in buildings. ingful. The data in this study establish a clear difference in thermal
The largest mass fraction of the cementitious portion of GCC is characteristics when comparing cement pastes with aggregates. This
the fly ash. Fly ash stored in ponds and landfills is an acknowledged relative difference is greater with concretes that use geopolymer bind-
environmental hazard. At the time of this writing one of the largest ers. Such a relationship could be used to optimize thermal mix design
fly ash spills in history occurred in the southeastern United States through careful aggregate selection based on measured cp and k values
(Morrison 2014). The EPA has recently released guidelines that en- and, more fundamentally, through the adjustment of paste percentage
courage the beneficial use of fly ashes in concrete applications in concrete mixes. This will allow the further integration of structure
(EPA 2014). Fly ash is an abundant, inexpensive commodity and building energy performance in design. It can also add energy use
because it is a waste product that often requires no additional proc- reduction strategies to the existing options available to designers.
essing for use in concrete than what is typical to prepare it for dis- As a first step toward determining whether this fact can be
posal. Therefore, if reagent production can be successfully value exploited to generate meaningful thermal benefits in building enve-
engineered, fly ash GCs will have a cost advantage over PC, the lopes using concrete, at least four areas of inquiry need to be pur-
economy of which is linked closely to energy prices because kiln sued, that is, (1) quantification of potential benefits for a variety of
firing of limestone is required for PC production. building envelope scenarios through modeling, (2) identification of

© ASCE 04017002-9 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., -1--1

 the portion of the potential paste percentage mixes that are practical determining gel interconnectivity.” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45(23),
for implementation, (3) detailed comparison of PCC and GCC ther- 7781–7788.
mal mix performances in this context, and (4) physical testing of Duxson, P., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C., and van Deventer, J. S. J. (2007).
“The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of ‘green
built assemblies in a guarded hot box to allow for test results to be
concrete.’” Cem. Concr. Res., 37(12), 1590–1597.
compared with modeled results. EPA. (2014). 2014 Final rule: Disposal of coal combustion residuals from
As a mix design methodology that considers thermal characteris- electric utilities, Washington, DC.
tic development, it will become important to begin to classify aggre- Fernandez-Jimenez, A., and Palomo, A. (2003). “Characterisation of fly ashes.
gates based on cp and k values as well as to investigate production- Potential reactivity as alkaline cements.” Fuel, 82(18), 2259–2265.
related testing methodologies that would allow for mix-specific Hardjito, D., and Rangan, B. (2005). Development and properties of low-
thermal testing at the batch plant. Such a testing regimen would be calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Curtin Univ. of
analogous to the present practice of breaking cylinders to corrobo- Technology, Perth, Australia, 103.
rate mix compressive strength. The methodology would also need Khan, M. (2002). “Factors affecting the thermal properties of concrete and
applicability of its prediction models.” Build. Environ., 37(6), 607–614.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Stevens Institute of Technology on 01/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to incorporate other constraints and limitations to very high and

Kim, K. H., Jeon, S. E., Kim, J. K., and Yang, S. (2003). “An experimental
very low paste percentages, such as strength parameters other than study on thermal conductivity of concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res., 33(3),
compressive strength, durability, and economy. 363–371.
Kosmatka, S. H., and Panarese, W. C. (2002). Design and control of con-
crete mixtures, Vol. 5420, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Acknowledgments Liu, M. Y. J., Alengaram, U. J., Jumaat, M. Z., and Mo, K. H. (2014).
“Evaluation of thermal conductivity, mechanical and transport proper-
The authors thank the following organizations from the University ties of lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete.” Energy
of North Carolina (UNC), Charlotte, for their support: the Energy Build., 72, 238–245.
Production & Infrastructure Center, the Department of Civil and McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., and Corder, G. D.
Environmental Engineering, the School of Architecture, and the (2011). “Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison
Materials Characterization Lab (directed by Dr. Katherine to ordinary portland cement.” J. Cleaner Prod., 19(9), 1080–1090.
Morrison, C. (2014). “What do you do with 100 million tons of coal ash?”
Wheeler). From industry, the authors thank the PCI Foundation.
Citizen Times, July 10.
Reddy, D. V., Edouard, J. B., Sobhan, K., and Rajpathak, S. S. (2011).
Notation “Durability of reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer concrete in the ma-
rine environment.” Proc., 36th Conf. on Our World in Concrete &
The following symbols are used in this paper: Structures, CI-Premier PTE LTD, Singapore, 14–16.
cp ¼ specific heat capacity (J/kg·K); Ring, J. W. (1996). “Windows, baths, and solar energy in the Roman
k ¼ thermal conductivity (W/m·K); and empire.” Am. J. Archaeol., 100(4), 717–724.
P/(P þ A) ¼ percentage paste of the sum of the masses of Roy, D. M., Jiang, W., and Silsbee, M. R. (2000). “Chloride diffusion in or-
dinary, blended, and alkali-activated cement pastes and its relation to
paste (P) and all aggregate (A) components in a
other properties.” Cem. Concr. Res., 30(12), 1879–1884.
concrete mix. Sartori, I., and Hestnes, A. G. (2007). “Energy use in the life cycle of con-
ventional and low-energy buildings: A review article.” Energy Build.,
39(3), 249–257.
References Snell, F. C. (2014). “Optimizing thermal performance of concrete in build-
ing envelopes: A comparison of portland cement and geopolymer
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (1991). “Standard practice for selecting cement concrete mixes.” M.Arch. thesis, Univ. of North Carolina,
proportions for normal, heavyweight, and mass concrete (reapproved Charlotte, NC.
2009).” ACI 211.1-91, Farmington Hills, MI. Sofi, M., van Deventer, J. S. J., Mendis, P. A., and Lukey, G. C. (2007).
ASTM. (2003). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined “Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs).” Cem.
natural pozzolan for use in concrete.” C618-12, West Conshohocken, PA. Concr. Res., 37(2), 251–257.
ASTM. (2005a). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical Subaer, A., and van Riessen, A. (2007). “Thermo-mechanical and micro-
concrete specimens.” ASTM C39/C39M-05e1, West Conshohocken, PA. structural characterisation of sodium-poly(sialate-siloxo) (Na-PSS) geo-
ASTM. (2005b). “Standard test method for determining specific heat polymers.” J. Mater. Sci., 42(9), 3117–3123.
capacity by differential scanning calorimetry.” ASTM E1269-05, West Tempest, B., Olanrewaju, S., Gergely, J., Ogunro, V., and Weggel, D.
Conshohocken, PA. (2009). “Compressive strength and embodied energy optimization of fly
ASTM. (2011). “Standard practice for conditioning of thermal insulating ash based geopolymer cement concrete.” Proc., 2009 World of Coal
materials.” ASTM C870-11, West Conshohocken, PA. Ash, American Coal Ash Association, Aurora, CO.
ASTM. (2012). “Standard specification for portland cement.” ASTM C150- Wallah, S., Hardjito, D., Sumajouw, D., and Rangan, B. (2004). “Creep
12, West Conshohocken, PA. behaviour of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.” Proc., 7th CANMET/
ASTM. (2013). “Standard specification for concrete aggregates.” ASTM ACI Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology, CANMET/
C33-13, West Conshohocken, PA. ACI, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Bakharev, T. (2005). “Geopolymeric materials prepared using Class F fly ash Waples, D. W., and Waples, J. S. (2004). “A review and evaluation of spe-
and elevated temperature curing.” Cem. Concr. Res., 35(6), 1224–1232. cific heat capacities of rocks, minerals, and subsurface fluids. Part 1:
Bergman, T. L., Lavine, A. S., Incropera, F. P., and DeWitt, D. P. (2011). Minerals and nonporous rocks.” Nat. Resour. Res., 13(2), 97–122.
Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Weil, M., Dombrowski-Daube, K., and Buchwald, A. (2009). Life cycle
Chan, J. (2013). Thermal properties of concrete with different Swedish ag- analysis of geopolymers, Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Abington Hall,
gregate materials, Division of Building Materials, Lund Univ., Lund, Cambridge, UK, 194–210.
Sweden. Zhai, Z., and Previtali, J. (2010). “Ancient vernacular architecture:
Duxson, P., Lukey, G. C., and van Deventer, J. S. (2006). “Thermal con- Characteristics categorization and energy performance evaluation.”
ductivity of metakaolin geopolymers used as a first approximation for Energy Build., 42(3), 357–365.

© ASCE 04017002-10 J. Archit. Eng.

View publication stats J. Archit. Eng., -1--1