Roads Australia Capacity Chapter Workshop November... · match the quality of Portland Cement...

of 17

MINUTES

Roads Australia Sustainability Chapter - Geopolymer Forum

18 November 2014

Location: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 77 Grenfell Street

ADELAIDE

Introduction

Mandi Mees, Policy Manager for Roads Australia, welcomed RA members and guests to the

Geopolymer Forum.

Mandi discussed RA’s policy development cycle, the annual policy alignment session with state road

authorities and provided an update on the Chapter’s work program to date in 2014.

RA is encouraging the standardisation and harmonisation of technical specifications, smarter decision

making to increase value for money, providing forums to review best practice maintenance and road

safety outcomes, and collaborating on intelligent transport systems and tax reform.

Welcome

Rick Henning, Director, Statewide Operations and Programs, Department of Planning, Transport and

Infrastructure welcomed participants to the forum.

Rick highlighted that the Department is working to include geopolymer specifications, where results

match the quality of Portland Cement concrete. Rick spoke about the benefits of reusing waste

materials such as fly ash from Port Augusta and slag from Port Pirie.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF USING GREEN CONCRETE AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS

Warren South, Director, Research and Technical Services - CCAA

Warren South, Director of Research and Technical Services at Cement, Concrete and Aggregates

Australia described his 28 years of experience in cement manufacture and concrete application,

particularly with inorganic polymers over the past decade.

Warren described the innovation strategies he led in both Australia and New Zealand, shared his

achievements using geopolymer concrete (with fly ash and slag) and his research work with the

University of Auckland.

Warren commented that the uptake in use of inorganic polymer technologies has been restricted due

to risk and commercial considerations.

of 17

Warren discussed the benefits of concrete and the considerations to be preserved when developing

new innovation in concrete. Concrete is the second most consumed product in the world (after water).

55 million tonnes are used in Australia each year. It is universal, versatile, locally

engineered/manufactured, resilient and evolving (to incorporate industrial by-products).

The environmental measures, lifecycle considerations, conventional thought in the industry, key

market drivers and alternate technologies were detailed by Warren.

Concrete is well-established and contributes positively to the nation’s triple the bottom line. During the

last 30 years, measurement of the environmental features of concrete have evolved from climate

change to cost lifecycle analysis, which includes the cost of materials, maintenance and repair during

the life of the project.

Warren explained the preparation of an environmental product declaration (EPD) for a concrete

product which is completed to communicate the environmental effects of the manufacture and use of

a product. It is a comprehensive interrogation of the product and is measured using 14 damage

(impact) categories to create the EPD. It took 14 months to complete, and cost NZ$120,000. It

developed savings by identifying improvements in the internal processes and created value in excess

of the amount paid for the EPD.

Warren encourages those preparing a lifecycle analysis to consider the cradle to grave approach,

across the design life. The concrete LCA for a concrete road is complex. Each input, output, energies

and CO2. A. lot of the data between the LCA and EPD is interchangeable.

Encouraging the use of sustainable materials

SOCIAL

Essential part of

construction industry

(10% of GDP)

Provides livelihood for

employees

Create structures

providing safe shelter

Contributes to

aesthetic of built

environment

Flood and fire

protection

ENVIRONMENTAL

Key enabler of renewable

energy technologies

Superior performance

- Thermal mass

- Durability

- Sound Insulation

Readaptation and reuse of

structures

Recycling of materials at

end of life

ECONOMIC

Relatively low economic

cost vs performance

Lowest whole-of-life cost

(NPV) in infrastructure

Good geographic

availability (lower

transport costs)

Durability lowers

maintenance costs

CONCRETE IS A SUSTAINABLE AND

RESILIENT MATERIAL


Life Cycle – Cost

Analysis

Environmental

Product

Declarations

Tools developed to measure the

actual environmental burden.

Refinement of inputs and boundaries

required.

Climate Change Embodied

energy/emissions

AN EVOLUTION OF MEASUREMENT


EPD - A COMPREHENSIVE INTERROGATION

Damage Categories

Global

warming

potential

Ionising

Radiation

Ozone

Depletion

Photochemical

Smog

Eco-toxicity

AcidificationEutrophication

Water

depletion

Land

transformation

and use

Abiotic

resource

depletion

Nuisance

Respiratory

Effects

Human

Toxicity

Indoor

Environmental

Quality

CLIMATE CHANGERESOURCE

DEPLETIONECOLOGICAL QUALITY HUMAN HEALTH

Eutrophication

Water

depletion

Land

transformation

and use

Ionising

Radiation

Ozone

Depletion

Photochemical

Smog


THE FOUNDATIONS ARE LAID

PRODUCT CATEGORY RULES FIRST IN AUSTRALASIA

of 17

Warren described the elements and the lifecycle considerations incorporated into a concrete LCA.

Concrete can be made durable in an aggressive

environment.

A long service life means not having to replace it so

often or close it down infrastructure for repair.

A long life cycle lowers lifecycle costings and the

intangible costs associated with user

inconvenience.

Warren suggests there is little point pursuing ‘green’

alternatives to concrete unless it perform as well, and is as

durable as existing concrete. If a structure, pavement or building has a shorter service life or needs

more repairs, then it is not sustainable.

Luckily, many of the materials used to make concrete green also increase its durability (provided

attention is paid to construction practices).

With reference to construction practices, Warren highlighted aspects of cement and concrete

production and application that creates improvements in environmental outcomes.

Warren briefly described the improvements in cement

production over the past 2-3 decades, and provided

update on the green star environmental rating system for

construction to achieve a reduction in embodied energy,

waste minimisation and preservation of natural resources.

Warren explained the revision of MAT-4 concrete credit

where it seeks to achieve a reduction in resource use and

emissions, and encourage the replacement of Portland

Cement.

To summarise the obstacles and opportunities for geopolymer concrete, Warren presented views on

the commercial reality and the current state of play. In closing, Warren shared a list of resources and

encouraged collaboration.


CONSTRUCTION

Equipment

Traffic delay

Transportation

USE

Rolling resistance

Carbonation

Albedo

Lighting

Leachate

MAINTENANCE

Materials phase

Construction

phase

END OF LIFE

Equipment

Landfilling

Recycling/Reuse

Transportation

MATERIALS

Extraction

Production

Transportation

MATERIALS

Extraction

Production

Transportation

CONSTRUCTION

Equipment

Temporary structures

Transportation

USE

Plug loads

Lighting

HVAC systems

Thermal Mass

Routine maintenance

END OF LIFE

Demolition

Landfilling

Recycling/reuse

Transportation

RO

AD

SB

UIL

DIN

G

ELEMENTS TO CONCRETE LCAs


LESS EMISSIONS INTENSIVE PRODUCT

Cement production

• Thermal and

electrical efficiency

• Alternative fuels

• Clinker substitution

• “Low carbon”

cements

Concrete production

• Efficient use of

natural resources

• Use of industrial co-

products in binders

and aggregates

• Use of

recycled/reclaimed

water

Concrete application

• Design for efficient

use of delivered

concrete

• Life Cycle Analysis

• Design for durability

and resilience


GEOPOLYMERS – A COMMERCIAL REALITY (2002)

The Challenge…….Commercial Hurdles

Technology BarriersIndustry Obstacles• Lack of vision

• Lack of science to support the intellectual property and patent claims

• Fragmented commercial effort

• Conservatism within the construction industry

• Perception of higher costs than cement based products

• Scientific base

• Ease of use

• The problem of reactive fillers

• Building Codes and Standards

• Chain to Market

• Durability Understanding

• Open disclosure

• Educate your audience………

• Emphasise the positive


CURRENT STATE OF PLAY

DRIVERS

Environmental

Greenhouse and Government incentives

Technical

Durability (no lime) and less permeable; strength and set

control

Special properties

Binding ability, cheap aggregate

Hi Tech applications

Economical

High material cost, lower production cost, application benefits

Availability and control

Waste treatment/reduction

Binding capacity, low permeability for toxic and nuclear waste

Cement production capacity

Additional capacity in times of high demand

BARRIERS

Lack of long term durability data

Lab tests not sufficient, field testing required

Appropriate product standards

Long term process

RILEM TC 224; CIA Recommended Practice

Reluctance by specifiers

Who carries the liability?

Application skills

Significant OH&S concerns

Temperamental and unforgiving

Variability

Availability and cost of components

Control of precursor sources

Cost of activators

Profitability

Market dynamics; influence of carbon charge

of 17

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH _ GEOPOLYMER

Mark Drechsler, Worley Parsons Services

Mark Consultant Engineering Geologist with Worley Parsons, also adjunct senior lecturer at the

University Of Adelaide. Mark has been working with colleagues, including Dr. Phillip Visintin and

industry stakeholders to investigate the properties of geopolymer since 2009.

Mark spoke about the impact of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) on costs and greenhouse gases,

and shared strategies for improving the OPC carbon footprint and production efficiencies.

Mark described geopolymer research conducted over consecutive years by the University of

Adelaide. It focused on three waste materials – Port Augusta Power Station Clash E ash, Nyrstar

smelter slag and OneSteel iron slag and asked fundamental questions as to how these waste

materials may be used for geopolymer concrete.

Port Augusta Power Station Clash E ash

In 2009, research was conducted on bottom and fly ash mixes, reviewing slump and average

compressive strength gains.

In 2010, research continued on bottom and fine fly ash mixes (including 110% fine fly ash, dried

bottom ash ground down and varying mixes) comparing compressive strength with OPC.

In 2012, research created results using bottom and coarse fly ash varying from 100% bottom and

100% coarse fly ash with varying activator liquid to ash ratio, differing curing times and temperatures.

In 2013, research on the workability of fine fly ash mixes was conducted with different super

plasticiser to binder and water to binder ratios, varied curing temperature conditions reviewing

strength versus slump for different mixes. With the help of Hallett Concrete and Rocla, geopolymer

concrete pre-cast beams were tested.

The research results for fly ash reveal the following structural characteristics:

• Indirect tensile strength exceeds AS3600 for OPC for both ambient and heat cured specimens

• Stress-strain progression under uniaxial loading exhibited

• Modulus of Elasticity fell within AS3600 predicted model

• Modulus of Rupture exceeds AS3600 requirements

• Poissons Ratio of 0.2 as per AS3600

• Heat curing lower drying shrinkage than ambient curing, but both lower that typical OPC

concrete values.

From 2013 – 2015, PhD student Mohammed Albitar will continue to research the structural properties

of geopolymer concrete on fine fly ash mixes.

The investigation will include durability testing, bond characteristic through pull-out testing, corrosion

effect on bond strength, flexural and shear behaviour of reinforced beams, tension stiffening, creep

behaviour and drying shrinkage.

of 17

Nyrstar smelter slag

In 2012, the part time operation of the port Augusta Power Station restricted the supply of fly ash, so

the research team began to look at Port Pirie Nyrstar granulated slag (black sand) as an alternative

waste material for geopolymer concrete if an industry was to be developed in South Australia.

The research, conducted in 2013, looked at replacing fly ash with the black sand as the geopolymer

binder, replacing natural sand with black sand for the fine aggregate fraction and used varying sieved

size fraction of black sand as a binder to see if reactivity improved with increased fineness.

Improving the reactivity of the Nyrstar black sand is generally cost prohibitive with conventional tower mill or ball mill grinding operations. Slags require high energy input for fine grind sizes. Mark introduced super fine crushing technology that is currently being developed in South Australia. A research program has been developed by the University of Adelaide with Zerowaste SA to determine the improvement of reactivity of slags with super fine crushing. Once the technology is proven, the intention is to scale up and commercialise the technology. Results showing Nyrstar black sand processed using a P100 super fine crusher to produce different size fractions for the geopolymer binder were showcased by Mark. Results prove increasing strength with increased fineness. Mark discussed the proposed geopolymer research that University of Adelaide will work towards as:

• Continue structural and long term durability of fly ash mixes

• Conduct similar structural and long term durability tests for slag and fly ash/slag mixes

• Continue to explore improving reactivity of ashes (fly, coarse and bottom ashes) and slags with

Super Fine Crushing

• Geopolymer mix designs using SA Water wastes

• Geopolymer mix designs using other Super Fine Crushed waste materials such as recycled

concrete and glass

• Support industry commercialisation of geopolymer concrete

To promote the commercialisation of geopolymer concrete, Mark detailed what industry needs to do

to create a pull for the product to give customers an option:

• Support (and direct) university research towards commercial outcomes

• Changes to standards and guidelines

• Develop waste material logistic network and quality program

• Address workability and other fine tuning of mix designs

• Encouragement by State and local government authorities

• Identification and management of product risks

• Identification of ‘niche’ market applications –precast units

• Provide clients with ‘green’ options

• Decisions based on life cycle analysis, not unit costs

of 17

In closing, Mark thanked supporters of the research into geopolymer in 2014 which included Parsons

Brinckerhoff, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Zero Waste SA, SA

Government Catalyst Grant, IMPTEC, Worley Parsons, Adelaide Brighton and Hallett Concrete.

INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE

Tom Glasby, Wagners

Tom Glasby introduced Wagners, an Australian company of 25 years and 900 people, based in

Toowoomba, who is delivering international projects in contract quarrying, contract concrete, cement,

pre-case concrete, composite fibre technologies, steel reinforcing, bulk haulage and transport

services.

Tom detailed the scope of works for Wagners’ concrete supply contract for Ichthys Project onshore

LNG facilities in Darwin and showcased Wagners innovation in building products such as cross arms,

bridge beam replacement, road bridges, pedestrian

bridges, boardwalk and floating structures.

Tom spoke about the 9 year development of Wagners

Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), a cement free concrete

with binder constituents that include fly ash, ground

granulated blast furnace slag, purpose made admixtures

and water. Tom explained that it displays setting and

construction characteristics similar to normal concrete at

ambient temperature curing. EFC concrete batch plant is

mobile.

Wagners EFC is a slag-based geopolymer and to date,

Wagners has a good track record of using it. The only

difference with geopolymer is the binder itself. It will works

with sands and aggregates.

Tom described way geopolymer binders work has being derived from an aluminium silicate source

which has been activated with a highly alkaline solution. The alumina and the silica molecules come

free and come together in a chain-like reaction, hence the term geopolymer. The word ‘geo’ come

from the powders the creator was using which has geological origins (e.g. clay) and polymer to

describe the chain reaction.

Wagners has developed up a commercial concrete that

can be made just like normal concrete in a batch plant with

a few modifications to handle the activator solutions and

the windows of setting are very similar.

Tom showcased the first public airport to be built in the last

50 years, the Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport (BWWA),

where virtually all the concrete produced for the airport is

Wagners EFC.

EFC Production

BWWA Site

EFC Concrete Batch Plant

Wagners Earth Friendly Concrete

EFC

of 17

Tom described the twin batch plant (reused from New Guinea – wet mix 3 metre cube bowl, with

bigger pumps and holding tanks – straightforward modifications to existing equipment) in use for the

project which created a show 120 cube an hour capacity to feed a rotator machine that puts down the

very deep, heavy duty 435mm deep pavements that has been used on the aprons and taxi ways.

Tom reinforced Wagners commitment to ensuring any innovation in concrete fits the way the

construction industry works, or the product will not take.

Participants viewed images showing how EFC can be delivered by truck, pump or chute just like

conventional concrete. Wagners has produced about 45,000 to 50,000 cubic metres of EFC to date.

On the BWWA project alone, 30,000 to 40,000 cubic metres of EFC has been used in the terminal

building and pavements. Tom listed other project examples

where EFC has been used effectively, for example

structural precasts, pavements, water tanks, road bridge

decks and precast tunnel segments. It’s a natural off-white

colour so fits many uses.

The Global Change Institute Building created in 2012

(architects Hassell, consultant engineer AECOM) helped

raise the profile of geopolymer in structural applications.

Tom shared many project examples of where geopolymer

has been used by Wagners, including a video of the BWWA.

Tom highlighted that all quarrying was done on site and all

plant equipment remained onsite, therefore there were no

truck movements on or off the site for the BWWA. The

geopolymer concrete is very dry, good for machine

application and it hardly has any bleed.

Tom spoke about ongoing data collection projects

(prestressed bridge beams) being conducted with geopolymer

binder by Wagners, and mentioned a production trial on

tunnel segments for the international market.

Tom presented a table of EFC’s structural performance in

comparison to Portland Cement Concrete, which shows

equivalent compressive strength, 30% higher flexural tensile

strength, good early age strength, lower shrinkage, similar or

higher stiffness and similar Poissons ratio.

Precast EFC Panels

Natural off - white

colour

University of QLD Campus,

Brisbane

Global Change Institute Building

BWWA – HD aircraft pavements

• Turning node - 16,000 m2 , 435 mm thick.

• Aprons and taxiways -32,000 m2 , 435 mm thick.

• Hangars - 2,500 m2 , 435 mm thick.

VIDEO

of 17

Tom explained that the big performance advantage of EFC is durability with properties such as high

acid resistance, high sulphate resistance, great chloride resistance, low heat of reaction and high fire

resistance. This data has been worked on by Wagners together with RMIT in Melbourne. Tom is

working to have geopolymer incorporated into standards and certified for wider user. Currently,

Wagners is working with the German Construction Institute to achieve certification where tests are

ongoing.

Tom announced that the first Australian standard for geopolymer concrete is currently being produced

by a CRC group led by the University of NSW. An interim standard and commentary will be produced

within 3 years which will follow the performance based provisions of AS 3600 ‘concrete structures’.

In closing, Tom highlighted the environmental performance of EFC and the major benefits it offers the

construction industry.

Zalman Paris, Marketing Manager, Rocla

Before morning tea, Zalman Paris, marketing Manager at Rocla, introduced Rocla and Greg Johnson,

a senior material scientist involved in the development and use of geopolymer concrete.

Rocla holds a commanding position as a low cost producer of the concrete pipes, concrete poles,

railway sleepers and road barriers with key manufacturing sites across Australia (Fletcher Building is

the holding company of Rocla).

Greg Johnson, Chief Materials Scientist, Rocla

Greg Johnson, Chief Materials Scientist from Rocla spoke about development work and the

properties of geopolymer and why geopolymer is used to make Rocla products. Greg began

describing Rocla’s version of geopolymer as a binder without cement.

It begins with a base of aluminium silicate material – this is where fly ash and slag are suitable

contenders. A combination of both fly ash and slag are used with alkaline chemicals (such as sodium

hydroxide). The chemicals partially dissolve the binder particles to produce a feed stock of aluminium

and silicon hydroxide polymers. Those polymers combine in a reaction to form chains and the chains

grow. The same aggregate that is used in regular concrete is used in geopolymer concrete.

Rocla began working on developing geopolymer concrete products in 1988.

EFC Environmental Performance

• Extremely low CO2 emission and embodied energy

• EFC binder has 80-90 % reduction CO2 emissions compared to Portland Cement

• Recycled materials: slag and flyash

• CO2 Emissions Reduction

– 1 m3 EFC 25 MPa saves 154 kg of CO2



EFC Summary

• Commercial geopolymer concrete

• Lowest CO2 emission concrete

• High resistance to chloride ingress

• High resistance to Acid attack

• High resistance to Sulfate attack

• Very little temperature rise

• Low shrinkage

of 17

The first experiment was to see if geopolymer could be used to produce pipes for roller suspension

which requires a dry concrete, no slump. Laboratory trials were undertaken to develop the formulation

and plant trials to develop the process, which produced a formulation and came up with the technique

to make pipes of all diameters up to 1800mm in size.

The next step was to check the acid resistance of the

pipes which was done together with the South Australian

Water Corporation where samples were put into the sewer

system for a 6 month period, then taken washed and

examined to determine mass loss in comparison to OPC.

The accelerated acid resistance test revealed that by the

time the OPC pipe has lost around 40% of its mass, the

geopolymer pipe have only lost 5% of its mass, meaning

that the pipe will last longer than OPC pipe in the sewer

environment.

Rocla prepared a model to determine the service life of the

geopolymer pipe at 100 years. Greg noted that not all

geopolymer formulations perform equally, because they

don’t have the same properties.

Greg spoke about a live trial currently underway on

Toowoomba where about a dozen 375mm pipes have been

in the sewer line for about 8 years. Video imagery shows the

pipes are still in excellent condition.

Wall panels are another application where geopolymer is

creating benefits. The wall panels can be drilled into and

sawn, and they have good fire ratings.

Greg shared the results of recent work with the CSIRO to manufacture geopolymer sleepers (to

replace timber and spoke about the bonding benefits of Rocla geopolymer (greater than OPC). Greg

highlighted an installation of Rocla geopolymer sleepers at Gunning and that modern burial systems

now embrace Rocla geopolymer for graves.

Ross George from AustEng Engineering

Ross George, AustEng Engineering is a customer of Rocla who is assisting to commercialise

geopolymer products. Ross spoke about his growing need for geopolymer products and how the

characteristics of geopolymer support his business and customer base.

Ross finds geopolymer to be a low risk option, particularly due to its chemical resistance and

incredible strength. It creates an aesthetic finish and creates a good surface finish. It also offers a

quick turn-around, can be poured at low viscosity and is an environmentally-friendly option.

Sewer Pipes

11/12/2014 PRESENTATION | ROCLA 6

• Geopolymer sewer pipes up to 1800mm

GPC VS OPC

11/12/2014 PRESENTATION | ROCLA 9

• Sample comparisons after three years advanced water testing – SA Water Authority

of 17

SPECIFICATIONS AND USE OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Fred Andrews-Phaedonos, Principal Engineer, Concrete Technology, VicRoads

Fred Andrews-Phaedonos, Principal Engineer, Concrete Technology at VicRoads one of Australia’s

most experienced practitioners with geopolymer.

Fred spoke about the definition of geopolymer, its components, characteristics, a typical mix design

and its ability to reduce carbon emissions by 40- 80%.

Fred spoke about VicRoads’ experience with geopolymer which was introduced into VicRoads

specifications as a substitute to Portland Cement Concrete in 2010 (section 703 general concrete

paving).

Fred discussed the strength grade of geopolymer and the consistent construction requirements of

geopolymer as the same as Portland cement concrete. To facilitate the delivery of the specification,

VicRoads developed a definition around the use of geopolymer (see above slide to the right).

Fred shared the VicRoads’ approach to incorporating geopolymer in precast geopolymer concrete

pipes for underground stormwater drainage (section 701), drainage pits (section 705), wire rope

safety barrier for anchor blocks, post footings and maintenance strips (section 711), including steps

taken to ensure the specifications meet international and national standards.

Fred described a project where geopolymer concrete

footpath panels are in use on the Salmon Street Bridge

over the Westgate Freeway in Melbourne, and have had 5

years of successful performance to date.

Fred spoke about curing using polyethylene, the length of

time for curing, how to utilise the activator to achieve the

properties of strength required by an application.

Typical Geopolymer Mix Design

Materials Mass (kg/m3)

Precast/Cast-in-situ/Pipes

Cementitious Binder VR330/32-VR470/55 - Equiv

Coarse Aggregates (60%)

20 mm Similar to Conventional

14 mm Similar to Conventional

Fine Sand (40%) Similar to Conventional

Fly Ash % Could be low to large

GGBF Slag (%) Large %

Mineral Additives (GP Cement) (x %)

Nil (in some systems small amount)

Sodium Silicate solution(SiO2/Na2O=2)

-

Sodium Hydroxide Solution -

Solid Sodium Silicate (y %) Some

Superplasticiser Nil

Air Entrainer Some

Water Much higher than conventional

Water/Binder Ratio Relatively High

Slump 120 – 180 mm

Where’s the geopolymer

recipe??

What did you do with the

geopolymer recipe????

3

• Introduced as equivalent product to Portland cement concrete - in 2010.

• Definitions to facilitate compliant use: Alkaline Component: Combinations of alkali and alkali earth containing

salts, minerals and glasses Geopolymer Binder: Binder containing greater than 80% fly ash, Slag,

silica fume or metakaolin and up to 20% alkaline components Geopolymer Concrete: Concrete which comprises geopolymer binder,

aggregates, water and admixtures.

• Strength grade same as normal concrete of 20 MPa, 25 MPa and 32 MPa.

• Construction requirements of placing, compaction, finishing, curing and sampling & testing of geopolymer concrete same as conventional concrete.

• Due to greater susceptibility to unsatisfactory practices, manufacture and delivery practices for geopolymer concrete more in line with Section 610.

Provision of Geopolymer Concrete in VicRoads Specifications, Section 703 – General concrete paving

This must be the first

standard specification

in the world to define

geopolymer concrete!6

Geopolymer Concrete Footway Panels Salmon Street Bridge Over West Gate Fwy

180 precast footway units, concrete grade VR470/55 to Section 610

manufactured and installed in 2009

The full scale production and installation completed within the same

timeframe as achieved by conventional type concrete

Satisfactory in-service performance based on visual monitoring for

past 5 years

Satisfactory structural performance without evidence of distress.

10

of 17

Fred described testing of geopolymer performance in retaining walls in a bridge over the Yarra River

using references electrodes to measure the half-cell potentials of the upstream and downstream

walls. To date results show they have stabilised. Other tests on chloride resistance and volume of

permeable voids are also under investigation.

Fred spoke about the significant lengths of footpaths and bicycle paths in Melbourne that have used

geopolymer concrete since 2009 with no visual signs of cracking. Fred detailed the first major in-situ

construction on a major infrastructure project (a 450 metre near straight retaining wall) that is in use

on the M80 Western Ring Road, and that geopolymer concrete was used on two metre wide precast

panels (2-4 metres high) for the Regional rail Link project.

Trials of synthetic fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete precast pipes continue (water absorption) and

Victorian manufacture began in 2013.

Fred listed other applications where geopolymer concrete is in use on projects across Victoria and

summarised the properties of geopolymer concrete as they are known today.

In closing, Fred highlighted VicRoads’ use of geopolymer over the last 5 years has created an

impetus for significant progress in the commercialisation of geopolymer concrete. Fred described the

desire to take up low embodied carbon alternatives and summarised the impediments and how to

overcome the barriers.

Retaining Walls - Bridge over Yarra River

Monitoring Junction Boxes, Reference Electrodes

& Electro potentials – since 2009

MnMnO2 Reference Electrode

Half-cell potentials of retaining walls

Downstream retaining wall Upstream retaining wall

The half-cell

potentials of

upstream &

downstream wall

cells appear to

have stabilised

between -350mV

and -250 mV CSE

12

Duration

of

immersion

(days)

Initial

Chloride

Content

(%)

Chloride

content

at the

boundary,

Cs (%)

Diffusion

Coefficient

(m2/s)

35 0.01 1.15 1.58 × 10-13

Voltag

e (V)

Initial

Current

(mA)

Total Charge

after 6 hours

(C)

Penetrability

60 31.7 648 Very low

ASTM C1202 test results (Chloride Resistance)

NT Build 443 test results (Chloride Diffusion)

Retaining Walls - Bridge over Yarra River

Downstream Wall – Other Testing

This may have resulted from the high slag content of

the concrete, which would reduce the amount of ionic

charges in the pore solution of the concrete, rather

than from low porosity of concreteASTM C1202 test

(Chloride Resistance)

13

The low results are aided by the blocking effect of weak solution of

sodium metasilicates within the nano- or meso- porosity which in-situ

can still percolate as efflorescence via the interconnected void space

Properties of Geopolymer Concrete (1)

For specific geopolymer concrete systems properties similar to cement system

Geopolymer concrete able to comply with requirements of Sections 703 & 610 Strength – satisfactory Drying shrinkage - 375 to 730 microstrain < 750 microstrain at 56 days

VPV only property struggling. Pipes o.k - refined mix to suit manufacture

Tensile 4.5 MPa for 32 MPa and 6.0 MPa for 40 MPa mixes (@Aldred and Day)

Flexural strength 6.2 MPa for 32 MPa and 6.6 MPa for 40 MPa mixes

Elastic modulus 31.8-38.5 GPa for 32-40 MPa mixes (similar to cement system)

Poisson’s ratio of 0.20 to 0.24 slightly higher than cement based systems

Specific Creep 15 to 29x10-6/MPa after 1 year for strength of 40-67 MPa (@Wallah) – about half of conventional concrete. Creep Coefficient 0.4/0.5 for 67MPa, 0.5/0.6 for 40MPa to 57MPa

23

Properties of Geopolymer Concrete (2)

• Higher VPV not due to larger interconnected void space (exceed Sec 610)

Due to excess amount of sodium silicate in mix which is not fully

assimilated into the geopolymer binder

Not picked up by RCPT or Diffusion Test

Excess water soluble sodium silicate also confirmed by SEM/EDX results!!

• Low chloride diffusion coefficient

Large amount of water in geopolymer concrete mix

Weak sodium metasilicate gel deposited in capillary pores

Preventing transport of chloride ions during the test

However, in-situ it can be carried through to the surface as efflorescence

VPV Test (AS 1012.21)

24

of 17

GEOPOLYMER SPECIFICATION PROJECT

Professor Jay Sanjayan, Swinburne University of Technology

Professor Jay Sanjayan, Swinburne University of Technology, highlighted the increasing number of

research projects in geopolymer and the challenges for practical geopolymer applications with current

standards and code environment (which is empirical and based on Portland Cement Concrete).

Jay suggested the necessary steps to encourage the field use of geopolymer concrete which include

field monitoring of geopolymer concrete applications and by producing a Standards Australia

Handbook for geopolymer use.

Jay outlined the structure and methodology (considering the environmental conditions, supply of

materials and structure type – AS 3600) of the proposed handbook for low carbon concrete use.

Jay spoke about ongoing testing in the areas of shrinkage, creep, setting time, chloride and sulphate

levels and carbonation performance testing.

Jay showcased many major international structures that have been created using geopolymer

concrete.

In closing, Jay presented a content outline of the handbook to be produced.

ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS

Rick Walters, Technical Director, Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA)

Rick Walters, Technical Director, Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia offered an update

on ISCA, the IS rating tool, its benefits, current training sessions rolling out nationally and a summary

of projects that have had their IS ratings certified and have recently been registered for an IS rating.

Rick’s presentation highlighted projects such as the Whitsundays STP Upgrades, Great Eastern

Highway Upgrade, the enlarged Cotter Dam in the ACT, Gold Coast Light Rail, GatewayWA and the

Googong Water Treatment Plant in NSW.

Belgium Structures

Les ateliers Delle in Ukkel built in 1957

Handbook Outline1. Introduction

2. Constituent Materials - Binders, admixtures, any special requirements

3. Properties and Applications of Geopolymer Concrete (Literature review)

4. Model Performance-Based Specification for Geopolymer Concrete

- Intended for owners or consultants to use to specify geopolymer concrete.

Will largely follow AS 1379 for supply and AS 3600 for durability except where

special requirements are necessary or where there is insufficient knowledge.

5. Commentary on AS 3600 for Design of Geopolymer Concrete Structures

- Will discuss departures to AS 3600 in relation to design

6. Recommended Performance Test Methods

- Test methods will largely follow AS 1012. Durability properties such as

carbonation coefficient, VPV, chloride diffusion coefficient, sorptivity, ASR

7. Case Histories and Long-Term Durability

- Literature review of published case histories, field testing results

of 17

Rick announced that the following projects have received ISCA registrations for IS ratings – Wynyard

Walk, Sydney CBD and SE Light Rail, Elisabeth Quay, NorthLink WA, Capital Metro, Madden and

Pakenham St Road Upgrade, Auckland Airport Operations, North-South Corridor (Torrens Road to

Torrens River) and Auckland’s City Rail.

In closing, Rick outlined the categories and themes for an IS rating tools, specifically focussing on

materials and innovation categories.

Rick summarised the objectives, participating members and scope of the ISCA Materials Working

Group.

DISCUSSION FORUM

Encouraging sustainable materials and use of Geopolymer concrete in South Australia – the

way forward?

Facilitated by Rick Walters, Technical Director, Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia

Mandi Mees introduced Rick Walters, Technical Director of the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of

Australia to facilitate the interactive session.

The objective of the discussion forum is draw on the knowledge and experience of industry and

government participants at the forum to find ways to encourage the manufacture and use of

sustainable materials and geopolymer concrete in South Australia in the future.

Participants were divided into tables and invited to consider the following two questions, to list and

then share their responses with the wider group:

1. What are the current barriers and constraints for using geopolymer concrete?

2. What is needed for the manufacture and use of geopolymer in South Australia?

(List the opportunities, specifications and research)

A summary of the responses received during discussion forum are detailed on the following page:

• Rewards reduction in materials environmental lifecycle impacts demonstrated (compared to a base case)

• Uses an LCA based Materials Calculator• Cradle to infrastructure gate• Generic average industry data (BPIC and other sources)• Metric is EcoPoints• Encourages:

– Better design, less material– Internal reuse and recycling– Use of more sustainable materials e.g. cement substitution

• Includes 10-70% cement substitution• Up to 6.25 points

30

Mat-1 Materials Lifecycle Impacts

1. Review of current calculator– To review the IS Materials Calculator and Guidelines– Improved reporting– Where to get best data for calculator? Accurate, up to date, how to

maintain?

2. Broader Industry Review– To contribute to the enhancement and further development of the IS

Materials Category– To review the direction of the Life Cycle Assessment and Thinking in

relation to the rating tool– What has happened since development of the tool and calculator and

what is going on around the world– Integration of EPD’s– LCA methodology and metrics– What has been done in IS certified ratings

35

Materials Working Group - Scope

of 17

Q1. What are the current barriers and

constraints for using geopolymer concrete?

Q2. What is needed for the manufacture and

use of geopolymer in South Australia?

• Supply and suitability of mix (IP and activator)

• Proximity of materials • Long term material availability (e.g. fly ash) • Variability of ingredients (supply,

performance – bleed, placing technique)

• Sharing experience e.g. Austroads • Seeking out industry expertise • Educate potential market • Bring industry suppliers along, not

monopoly • Agree jointly where we want to be in future

• Lack of experience in plastic properties • Lack of technology understanding/

acceptance

• Mass concrete applications • Specialist application i.e. precast usage • Begin with low risk concrete products • Develop a set of tests to determine what is

good versus poor concrete • Demonstrate early strength/precast

• Construction industry acceptance • Conflicting interests – cement

manufacturers

• Need greater sharing of intellectual property - e.g. supply mix designs

• Design specifications and standards • Lack of design guidelines • Need performance-based specifications

• Cheapness of raw materials • Reduction of virgin quarried materials • Supply products for R&D • Slag availability locally

• Client appetite, customer acceptance • Reluctance to change • Need confidence - not only research, need

to apply it (learnings) • Willingness to trial

• Road Authorities/other clients achieve consistency using performance-based standards, specify geopolymer)

• Government leadership/incentive to use geopolymer (commitment/rebate)

• Need greater sharing of intellectual property - e.g. supply mix designs

• Australian performance-based standards and specifications

• Cost – perceived implications • Viability/capex spend

• IS materials calculator category (take out Portland Cement, but not other benefits)

• Risk – manufacturer, warranty, client, OH&S, economic risk of innovation

• Economy is a major driver

• Perception of isolated research

• Concrete durability

• Workability/long term results/durability (VPV)

• Use of waste materials converted to by-products, zero waste, reduction in CO2

• Small market scale • Endorsement from industry associations and road authorities

of 17

Conclusion

Representatives from 38 organisations are keen to embrace geopolymer concrete applications in

South Australia, and across Australia.

The long term supply of waste materials, general acceptance of geopolymer as an alternative to

Portland Cement concrete, lack of experience with the product technology, variability of mix design,

lack of design standards and specifications, risk profile to manufacturer/client and perceived cost

implications are acknowledged as the barriers to the use of geopolymer concrete in the South

Australian market.

Sharing geopolymer experience across the supply chain particularly around mix design and

performance results, educating the market about geopolymer characteristics and expectations,

demonstrating successful applications of geopolymer in a mass market environment, developing

nationally consistent performance-based standards and specifications and endorsement from road

authorities and industry associations are identified opportunities to encourage the use and

manufacture of geopolymer concrete.

To download the presentations from the event, visit the Roads Australia website:

http://www.roads.org.au/event-details?EventId=1625

To view the image gallery from the day, including the site visit to the superfine concrete crushing pilot

facility in Hope Forrest, visit the Roads Australia website:

http://www.roads.org.au/Gallery/AlbumID/882-12

Roads Australia would like to thank all attendees that participated in the Geopolymer Forum, and in

particular, Anne Welsh and Richard Herraman at the Department of Planning, Transport and

Infrastructure, Chris and Simon Kelsey from IMPTEC and Kane Salisbury from MSP group for their

support to the Geopolymer Forum.

Chris Kelsey from IMPTEC and the

superfine concrete crusher pilot

Industry and government discussing

the use of sustainable materials

http://www.roads.org.au/event-details?EventId=1625

http://www.roads.org.au/Gallery/AlbumID/882-12

of 17

Participants

First Name Surname Organisation Role

Simon Abrahams Downer Australia General Manager SA/NT

Mohammad Albitar University of Adelaide

Postgraduate Student School of Civil Environmental & Mining Engineering

Peter Alfred BASF Technical Sales Representative

Fred Andrews-Phaedonos VicRoads

Principal Engineer - Concrete Technology

Sarah Bachmann National Precast Concrete Association Australia Chief Executive Officer

Jimmy Baltidis Hallett Concrete General Manager

Peter Barclay Community Training Initiatives Business Development Manager

Tom Benn University of Adelaide Lecturer - School of Natural and Built Environments

Mars Capasso Adelaide Brighton Manager SA/NSW

Cathy Chesson Mott McDonald Senior Environmental Scientist

David Cockburn Ancon Beton Concrete and Construction Consultant

Ken Cowen Department of State Development Principal Industry Development Officer

Lachlan Crowe

Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy

Manager, Mining Industry Participation Office

David Cruickshanks-Boyd Parsons Brinckerhoff Regional Director SA

Mark Drechsler WorleyParsons Consultant Engineering Geologist

Jamie Egan Lend Lease Pavements Manager

George Ferteklis Adelaide City Council Senior Engineer (Civil)

Robert Frangiosa Downer Australia Asphalt Operations Manager

Ross George AustEng Engineering Managing Director

Tom Glasby Wagners Project Manager - Earth Friendly Concrete

Russell Hanna Terra Volturnus Director

Glenn Hedges Thiess Pty Ltd Environment Manager - Project Support

Rick Hennig DPTI Director Statewide Operations & Programs

Richard Herraman DPTI Manager, Geotechnical Group

Noel Hoare RI Industries Purchasing and Project Manager

Jason Homa Adelaide Brighton Technical Services Manager

Robert Hosking Nyrstar Environment Superintendent

Sri Janarthanan DPTI Manager

Greg Johnson Rocla Scientist

Chris Kelsey IMPTEC Technical Director

Simon Kelsey Kelsey Engineering Engineering Manager

Johnathan Kim Reinforced Concrete Pipes Australia Business Development Manager

Bernard Larkin DPTI Project Management

Lisa Lloyd Boral Technical Manager

of 17

First Name Surname Organisation Role

Joe Maiolo Hallett Concrete Technical Manager

Mandi Mees Roads Australia National Policy Manager

Tony Mignone Hanson Technical Manager

Phil Molloy DPTI Senior Design Engineer

Amanda Mussared South Australian Water

Scientist, Sensors Technology and Assets Research, Research and Innovation Services

Zalman Paris Rocla Marketing Manager

Alistair Paul DPTI Bridge Management

Kym Pointon Hallett Concrete Project Engineer

Kit Poon GHD Structural Engineer

Tony Polec DPTI Bridge Design Engineer

Maroun Rahme Nu-Rock Managing Director

Alan Richards DPTI Principal Policy Officer, Planning and Transport Policy

Kane Salisbury MSP Group Chief Executive Officer

Jay Sanjayan Swinburne University of Technology

Research Centre Director, Sustainable Infrastructure, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology

Warren South Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia Director Research & Technical Services

Tom Sullivan South Australian Water

Jimmy Tyler Nyrstar Environment Manager Port Pirie Lead Smelter

Paul Vince South Australian Water Principal Materials Engineer

Phillip Visintin University of Adelaide Research Associate

Rick Walters ISCA Technical Director

Anne Welsh DPTI Principal Environmental Officer

Larry Yang DPTI Project Engineer Structures

Roads Australia Capacity Chapter Workshop November... · match the quality of Portland Cement...

Documents

Transcript of Roads Australia Capacity Chapter Workshop November... · match the quality of Portland Cement...