by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Concrete In Australia : September 2013
Concrete in Australia Vol 39 No 3 33 Based on review of prior studies and an industry survey, there are many issues and concerns that need to be addressed. Of these, development of standard specifications, development of new standards specific to geopolymer concrete that include performance requirements, provision for use of in state and local specifications and more independent research on engineering properties and long-term durability are regarded the highest priority. However, it is also important to consider and address other identified problems. In the short-term, it is likely that the greatest volume uses for geopolymer will be precast and non-structural applications, footpaths and shared paths, pipes and fire or chemical resistant purposes. REFERENCES 1. Gartner, E., Industrially interesting approaches to "low -- CO2" cements, Cement and Concrete Research, 34(9), 2004, pp. 1489-1498. 2. Andrews-Phaedonos, F., Reducing the carbon footprint- e VicRoads experience, Concrete in Australia, 40(1), 2012, pp. 40-48. 3. Concrete Institute of Australia, Recommended Practice for Geopolymer Concrete, Z16, 2011. 4. Van Deventer, J.S.J., Provis, J.L. et al., Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement, Minerals Engineering, 29(1), 2012, pp. 82-104. 5. Duxson, P. and Provis, J., Low CO2 concrete: Are we making any progress?, BEDP Environment Design Guide, November 2008. 6. Aldred, J. and Day, J., Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional concrete?, 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, Singapore, 29-31 August 2012, pp. 1-14. 7. FHWA, Geopolymer concrete, CPTP TechBrief, FHWA- HIF-10-014, March 2010, Washington DC. 8. McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P. et al., Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(9-10) 2011, pp. 1080-1090. 9. Turner, L. and Collins, F., Geopolymers: A greener alternative to Portland cement?, Concrete in Australia, 40(1), 2012, pp. 49-56. 10. Maine, E., Probert, D. et al., Investing in new materials: A tool for technology managers, Technovation, 25(1), 2005, pp. 25-23, 2005. 11. Transportation Research Board, Research Agenda for Transportation Infrastructure Preservation and Renewal, Reports from a Conference, November 12--13, 2009, Washington, D.C.