# Economic Analysis of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing: A French Case Study

Nicolas Youssef, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Christophe Chapiseau

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Nicolas Youssef, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Christophe Chapiseau. Economic Analysis of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing: A French Case Study. Sustainability, 2020, 12 (18), pp.7403. 10.3390/su12187403. hal-04507060

HAL Id: hal-04507060

https://hal.science/hal-04507060v1

Submitted on 15 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# Economic Analysis of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing: A French Case Study

Nicolas Youssef <fnref n="1" />,* , Zoubeir Lafhaj <fnref n="1" /> and Christophe Chapiseau <fnref n="2" />

Received: 10 August 2020; Accepted: 4 September 2020; Published: 9 September 2020

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

**Abstract:** This paper presents an economic analysis of manufacturing geopolymer bricks for use in the construction sector. The manufacturing processes of both geopolymer bricks and traditional fired bricks were investigated. For this study, we collected and analyzed all phases of geopolymer brick production from the extraction of raw materials to storage. Seven formulations of geopolymer bricks based on clay and waste bricks were analyzed. We considered the cost of raw materials and logistics operations in the production line of brick manufacturing. The results of this study prove that the manufacturing cost of geopolymer bricks based on clay provides an economic gain of 5% compared to fired bricks for the same compressive strength of 20 MPa. In the case of waste bricks, for the same production cost, the compressive strength of the geopolymer bricks is double that of fired bricks. Hence, this study shows the economic interest in the industrial production of geopolymer bricks. It also confirms that future research is needed that focuses on necessary changes to the current industrial production chain required for the manufacture of geopolymer bricks.

**Keywords:** economic analysis; manufacturing; geopolymer; clay; waste bricks

## 1. Introduction

After the economic crisis in 2008, construction activity in France grew rapidly. This activity was followed by a strong demand for building materials. The production of these materials caused pressure on limited natural resources and an increase in construction waste and CO₂ emissions. In 2018, CO₂ emissions related to human activities reached a world historical level of 37.1 billion metric tons [1].

In France, the construction sector is responsible for about 40% of total energy consumption [2]. This value only represents the consumption related to the building process, without considering the industrial part of manufacturing and transport of building materials. In 2011, the CO₂ emissions due to the construction sector were estimated to be 10% of total CO₂ emissions, of which 52% was attributed to the concrete industry. In addition, the construction industry produces 75% of waste in France, making it the largest waste producer [2].

The pressure of economic and environmental costs is motivating academic and industrial parties to develop innovative building materials. These targeted materials must respond to the challenges of recycling construction waste, reducing CO₂ emissions, conserving non-renewable natural resources, and reducing costs at the industrial level. In this context, geopolymer-based materials show promise for replacing traditional materials in the building industry due to their interesting properties and low environmental impact [2].

The term geopolymer was invented by Joseph Davidovits in the 1970s [3]. Materials comparable to geopolymers were created in the Soviet Union starting in the 1950s [4,5]. These materials have also been called soil cements [6–9]. They generally consist of pozzolanic materials such as kaolin [10–12],

<footnote n="1">¹ Centrale Lille, UMR 9013–LaMcube–Laboratoire de Mécanique, Multiphysique, Multi-échelle, F-59000 Lille, France; zoubeir.lafhaj@centralelille.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Briqueteries du Nord (BdN), Port Fluvial, 59000 Lille, France; christophe.chapiseau@bdn.fr</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: nicolas.youssef@centralelille.fr or nicolas.youssef@gmail.com; Tel.: +33-0666-066-906</footnote>
metakaolin [13–15], blast furnace slag [16–18], fly ash, and ceramic wastes [19,20]. These materials are activated by an alkaline solution usually containing varying amounts of dissolved silicate [21]. Geopolymer is a term that refers to a range of synthetic aluminosilicate polymeric materials, often called alkali-activated binders. Geopolymer materials can be produced from a range of natural and synthetic pozzolanic solids activated with alkaline solutions such as sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate.

Geopolymers have a wide range of applications due to their useful properties, such as their resistance to acid/sulphate attacks [22–24], freeze/thaw [22,25], and high temperatures [22,26]. In the construction sector, geopolymers are referred to as green concrete [27,28] due to their ability to reduce CO₂ emissions and lower production energy [21].

Geopolymers have been applied in various contexts: geopolymer cement and concrete, flame-retardant high-tech applications, aircraft and automotive interiors [3,29], seawater applications [30], immobilization of toxic metals and wastes [31–33], heat-resistant pavement [34], structural elements [35], geopolymer concrete pipes [36], ceramic materials [3], electrical fuses [3], and fire-resistant particleboard [3]. Geopolymers have the potential to be used in a variety of applications due to their durability, chemical and thermal resistance, rapidly evolving mechanical strength, and economic and environmental benefits as industrial by-products [3,37]. Since 1972, geopolymer applications have been developed in France, Europe, and the USA. In 1979, a French scientific organization, the Geopolymer Institute, was created [3]. Geopolymers are used in different applications, based on 30 patents registered and issued in several countries [3].

In the literature, studies on the economic feasibility of geopolymer materials are limited [38–40]. Geopolymers can act as a binder to replace other binders such as Portland cement pastes in concrete products [40]. Geopolymer bricks based on waste bricks and clay were investigated in a previous study [41]. The environmental impact of these geopolymer bricks was evaluated [42]. The results of these studies showed that these geopolymer bricks could be a possible alternative to fired brick (FB) based on their mechanical properties and environmental impact.

The objective of this study was to develop an economic analysis for the implementation of a new brick based on geopolymer materials, which could serve as an alternative to the fired brick manufactured at the French brickworks.

In this study, an economic analysis of the production cost was carried out using different geopolymer brick formulations based on waste bricks and clay. The production costs of both the economic feasibility and mechanical properties were analyzed to study the technical feasibility. The production cost of one metric ton of brick was determined based on the cost of ingredients in the French market. Hence, this novel study focused on developing a product database for the production of building materials in France, assessing the change needed to incorporate the product in the chain of production, and presenting a case study in the field of masonry with geopolymer bricks.

## 2. Materials, Methods, Objectives, and Research Methodology

### 2.1. *Research Objectives*

The traditional process of producing fired bricks is considered energy-intensive and uses natural materials, mainly clay. In this study, attention was paid to the manufacture of geopolymer bricks and the implementation of this process as a substitute for the brick production process.

The manufacturing process of traditional bricks includes transporting raw materials to the factory, crushing, storing in silos, dosing, dry mixing, mixing with water, and preparing the blocks. The paramount step for fired brick is the use of a high temperature kiln that cures the bricks at a temperature above 1100 °C and ends with packaging and storage at the factory.

The manufacturing process of geopolymer bricks follows the same preparation process with the elimination of a high temperature curing phase, which is costly from economic and environmental points of view.
In geopolymer bricks, hardening is based on alkaline activation between the solid materials used (clay, sand, and brick waste) and alkaline activators (hydroxide and sodium silicate). With the elimination of the high temperature curing phase, this new manufacturing process consumes less energy than the conventional fired brick process. The different phases of these two brick manufacturing processes are illustrated in Figure 1.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Manufacturing process of fired and geopolymer bricks.</figcaption></figure>

In this study, a comparison between the cost of production of fired bricks and geopolymer bricks was carried out to evaluate the economic value of the use of the geopolymer bricks in brickwork.

## 2.2. *Cost Evaluation Method*

The cost evaluation of bricks consists of the final cost of the bricks (based on the production chain) and the cost of raw materials used in the manufacturing process. This evaluation is composed of three steps:

(1) Step 1: Brick formulation and geopolymer references:

* Reference geopolymer brick formulation;

* Determine characteristics of raw material;

* Study different formulations of geopolymer bricks.

(2) Step 2: Calculation of the initial cost:

* Determination of unit prices for the different materials used;

* Identification of the different phases of production of geopolymer bricks;

* Calculation of the global cost of geopolymer and fired brick production for the different formulations studied.

(3) Step 3–Business case analysis:

* Identification of parameters;

* Calculation of indicators related to the chosen parameters;

* Performance analysis based on fired brick of the Briqueterie du Nord de la France (BdN);

* Demonstration of the most efficient geopolymer brick formulations.
## 3. Material Input for Brick Manufacturing and Cost Analysis

### 3.1. Materials and Formulations Used in the Geopolymer Formulations

The solid materials used in the preparation of geopolymer bricks were waste brick (WB), clay, sand, and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). The chemical composition of these materials is presented in Table 1.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Chemical composition of the solid materials in the geopolymer bricks.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Oxides (wt %)</th><th colspan="4">Materials</th></tr><tr><th>Waste Bricks</th><th>Clay</th><th>GGBFS</th><th>Sand</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MgO</td><td>1.41</td><td>1.15</td><td>5.76</td><td>0.47</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>12.68</td><td>13.59</td><td>9.16</td><td>5.57</td></tr><tr><td>SiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>73.106</td><td>73.676</td><td>33.84</td><td>89.99</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>3.45</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.54</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>1.02</td><td>1.95</td><td>49.17</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>TiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.87</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>MnO</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.094</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>6.74</td><td>5.12</td><td>0.46</td><td>2.35</td></tr><tr><td>Ni<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>0.009</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Cu<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>0.007</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>ZnO</td><td>0.02</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GaO<sub>3</sub></td><td>0.008</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

GGBFS: ground granulated blast furnace slag.

The analysis of the chemical composition of the solid precursors indicated that the waste brick had a high content of 73.106% of SiO₂ compared to 12.68% for Al₂O₃. The value 6 of mass ratio SiO₂/Al₂O₃ classifies the waste bricks as a siliceous material [43]. A similar chemical composition of the waste bricks was achieved for the clay with 73.676% for SiO₂ and 13.59% for Al₂O₃. In the case of GGBFS, SiO₂ and CaO were the two main components with a minority of Al₂O₃. The composition of the sand displayed that the main phase was composed of SiO₂, which accounted for 89.99% of its total mass.

The alkaline activators used in the preparation of the geopolymer consisted of a combination of hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃). The mass composition of sodium silicate contained 27% SiO₂, 8% Na₂O and 65% H₂O. The sodium hydroxide solution was prepared with a concentration of 8M from solid NaOH capsules of 98% purity.

The compositions of the seven geopolymer brick's formulations studied in this research are illustrated in Table 2. These geopolymer brick formulations were presented in previous studies and are prepared with clay and waste bricks [41,42]. GC and GWBi represent the geopolymer brick's formulations based on clay and waste brick respectively. The value i varies from 1 to 5 to refer to the five geopolymer brick formulations based on waste bricks.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Composition of the geopolymer brick formulations</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Formulations</th><th colspan="7">Component of Different Geopolymer Brick Formulations (g)</th></tr><tr><th>Sand</th><th>Clay</th><th>WB</th><th>GGBFS</th><th>NaOH</th><th>Na<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub></th><th>Water</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GC</td><td>827</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>92.83</td><td>93.77</td><td>293.04</td></tr><tr><td>GWB1</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>362</td><td>44</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>GWB2</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>661.6</td><td>165.4</td><td>362</td><td>44</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>GWB2</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>496.2</td><td>330.8</td><td>362</td><td>44</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>GWB3</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>330.8</td><td>496.2</td><td>362</td><td>44</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>GWB4</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>165.4</td><td>661.6</td><td>362</td><td>44</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>GWB5</td><td>827</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>827</td><td>362</td><td>44</td><td>137</td></tr></tbody></table>

GC: geopolymer bricks based on clay; GWB: geopolymer bricks based on waste bricks; WB: waste brick.
## 3.2. Parameter Used in the Economic Analysis

The parameter used in this study to evaluate the economic analysis of fired and geopolymer bricks was the compressive strength of the different formulations. The compressive strength values for waste geopolymer bricks are based on a study carried out by Youssef et al. (2019) [41,42]. In this study, a new geopolymer brick formulation based on clay was added. The reference-fired brick was manufactured by the brickworks in the north of France and is called FB. The mechanical strength of the fired brick was 20 MPa. Table 3 presents the compressive strength of the geopolymer and the fired bricks (FB).

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Compressive strength of the geopolymer and fired bricks.</caption><thead><tr><th>Formulations</th><th>FB</th><th>GC</th><th>GWB1</th><th>GWB2</th><th>GWB3</th><th>GWB4</th><th>GWB5</th><th>GWB6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rc (MPa)</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>38.96</td><td>44.78</td><td>51.92</td><td>62.3</td><td>89.91</td><td>72.48</td></tr></tbody></table>

FB: the reference fired brick produced by the brickworks; Rc: Compressive strength of bricks.

## 3.3. Cost of Fired Brick Manufacturing: Data Source

In brickwork, the different types of fired bricks are differentiated by their mass in metric tons. For this reason, the production cost of geopolymer bricks was evaluated in metric tons of brick to facilitate the comparison with fired bricks. In this section, the data source for the production cost of fired bricks is based on the annual business model of fired brick production at the brickworks in the north of France. This business model for French brickwork was used to derive the actual cost of one metric ton of fired bricks produced in France.

Table 4 presents the production cost of one metric ton of bricks according to the parameters used in the business model of the fired brick production at the French brickworks. In this model, the following data that covers the production stage of fired bricks are considered:

(1) Extraction of raw materials (clay and sand);

(2) Energy consumption: use of natural gas, electricity, and fuel throughout the production chain and in the factory premises; and

(3) Maintenance and humanpower.

Table 4 provides the business model of the annual production of fired bricks at the French brickwork case. This table is divided into three stages: The first stage shows the materials costs, the labor cost, and the annual cost of fired brick production in one year in this French brickworks case. The second section presents the quantity of fired bricks produced, which corresponds to the costs consumed in the first section. The third section demonstrates the cost of 1 metric ton of fired bricks calculated from the first two sections.

## 3.4. Cost of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing

This part of the study focused on the production cost of geopolymer bricks. This cost had two data sources: (1) the French market to find the cost of the ingredients used in the geopolymer brick's formulations and (2) the business model for the French market brickworks used to calculate the production stage of the geopolymer bricks. This calculation covers the production of the geopolymer bricks, from the raw materials to storing of bricks.
<table><caption>Table 4. Annual business model of the production stage of the fired bricks in the French brickworks case.</caption><thead><tr><th>Production Stages</th><th>Product</th><th>Quantity</th><th>Unit</th><th>Cost</th><th>Unit</th><th>Total Cost</th><th>Unit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">STAGE 1<br>Materials, labor,<br>and annual cost<br>Production</td><td>Clay</td><td>24,113</td><td>t/year</td><td>20</td><td>EUR/t</td><td>482,260</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Sand</td><td>10,620</td><td>t/year</td><td>40</td><td>EUR/t</td><td>424,800</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td><td>3355</td><td>m³/year</td><td>3</td><td>EUR/m³</td><td>10,065</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Natural gas</td><td>17,500,000</td><td>kWh/year</td><td>0.0589</td><td>EUR/kWh</td><td>1030,750</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity</td><td>2446,125</td><td>kWh/year</td><td>0.1483</td><td>EUR/kWh</td><td>362,760</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Domestic fuel</td><td>17,911</td><td>L/year</td><td>0.875</td><td>EUR/L</td><td>15,673</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Maintenance</td><td></td><td></td><td>350,000</td><td>EUR/year</td><td>350,000</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>Labor</td><td></td><td></td><td>350,000</td><td>EUR/year</td><td>350,000</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Total annual cost of fired brick production</td><td>3026,308</td><td>EUR/year</td></tr><tr><td>STAGE 2<br>Annual production quantity<br>of fired bricks</td><td colspan="4">Annual production quantity of fired bricks</td><td>25,219</td><td>t/year</td></tr><tr><td>STAGE 3<br>Calculation of the<br>production cost of<br>fired bricks</td><td colspan="4">Production cost of one metric ton of fired bricks produced</td><td>120</td><td>EUR/t</td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.4.1. Cost of Raw Materials in the Geopolymer Formulations

Table 5 presents the geopolymer brick’s ingredients and its cost on the French market. This cost represents the average cost of the different French suppliers.

<table><caption>Table 5. Geopolymer brick’s ingredients and its cost.</caption><thead><tr><td>Materials</td><td>Cost (EUR/t)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Clay</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Sand</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Waste bricks</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>GGBFS</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Sodium silicate (Na<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub>)</td><td>268.2</td></tr><tr><td>Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)</td><td>470.7</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.2. Natural Gas and Domestic Fuel Oil Consumption

According to data from the French brickworks, the total amount of consumed natural gas is equal to 670.8 kWh for each metric ton of fired bricks produced. The kiln consumes 50% of the total amount of natural gas. However, in the manufacture process of geopolymer bricks, the absence of curing saves 50% from this total natural gas consumption and therefore the consumption of natural gas will be reduced to 335.4 per metric ton of geopolymer bricks produced.

For domestic fuel oil, the same amount used in the production of fired bricks is used in the manufacturing process of geopolymer bricks.

### 3.4.3. Electric Power Consumption

The geopolymer bricks were manufactured at low temperature and the kiln stage was eliminated from the manufacturing process. This temperature was much lower than that used in the manufacture of traditional bricks, which is between 1100 °C and 1400 °C.

The other machines present in the industry are used in the manufacture of geopolymer bricks. Molding, drying, and supplying by conveyor belts do not depend on the materials used. Moreover, the crushing and sieving system used in the production of fired bricks will still be involved in the case of geopolymer bricks. The electric power consumption in the production of geopolymer brick waste is showed in detail in Table 6.

<table><caption>Table 6. Electric power consumption in the production of geopolymer bricks</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Phase</th><th colspan="5">Electric Power Consumption</th></tr><tr><th>kW/h</th><th>h/day</th><th>kWh/day</th><th>J/week</th><th>kWh/week</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maturing</td><td>52.39</td><td>5</td><td>261.95</td><td>5</td><td>1309.75</td></tr><tr><td>Molding</td><td>284.88</td><td>10</td><td>2848.80</td><td>5</td><td>14244</td></tr><tr><td>Dryer</td><td>120.28</td><td>24</td><td>2886.72</td><td>7</td><td>20,207.04</td></tr><tr><td>Keller</td><td>1.54</td><td>6</td><td>9.24</td><td>5.5</td><td>50.82</td></tr><tr><td>Set up in the kiln</td><td>9.39</td><td>11</td><td>103.29</td><td>5</td><td>516.45</td></tr><tr><td>Automatic sawing</td><td>11.11</td><td>6</td><td>66.66</td><td>5</td><td>333.3</td></tr><tr><td>Removing from the kiln</td><td>10.03</td><td>11</td><td>110.33</td><td>5.5</td><td>606.815</td></tr><tr><td>Lightning (production and building)</td><td>8.63</td><td>12</td><td>103.56</td><td>5</td><td>517.8</td></tr><tr><td>workshop</td><td>0.49</td><td>16</td><td>7.84</td><td>5</td><td>39.2</td></tr><tr><td>Office utilities</td><td>4.93</td><td>8</td><td>39.44</td><td>5</td><td>197.2</td></tr><tr><td>Social local</td><td>3.26</td><td>8</td><td>26.08</td><td>5.5</td><td>143.44</td></tr><tr><td>External lighting</td><td>2.83</td><td>6</td><td>16.98</td><td>5</td><td>84.9</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="6">Total weekly electric power consumption by the French brickwork</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">38,251</td></tr></tfoot></table>
The weekly cost of electric power consumption obtained corresponds to an annual cost of 1,739,103 kWh. Therefore, the production cost of one metric ton of geopolymer bricks corresponds to EUR 10.23 based on the unit price of EUR 0.1483/kWh of electric power paid by the brickworks.

### 3.4.4. Maintenance and Labor Cost

The kiln represents 30% of the total maintenance cost in the factory, which means a reduction from EUR 13.41 to 9.387/t of geopolymer bricks produced without curing. Regarding labor, the cost remains the same at EUR 13.42 per metric ton of brick produced.

### 3.4.5. Global Cost of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing

After collecting initial data for the geopolymer brick production chain, an overall economic assessment was conducted to determine the cost of production according to different formulations of geopolymer bricks based on clay and waste bricks.

Table 7 displays a global assessment of the cost of producing a metric ton of geopolymer bricks according to the seven formulations studied.

<table><caption>**Table 7.** Global assessment of the cost of a metric ton of geopolymer bricks according to the 7 formulations studied.</caption><caption>Production Cost of One Metric Ton of Geopolymer Bricks According to Different Formulations (EUR/t)</caption><thead><tr><th>Product (EUR/t)</th><th>GC</th><th>GWB1</th><th>GWB2</th><th>GWB3</th><th>GWB4</th><th>GWB5</th><th>GWB6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>WB</td><td>0</td><td>3.70</td><td>2.96</td><td>2.22</td><td>1.48</td><td>0.74</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>GGBFS</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4.81</td><td>9.63</td><td>14.44</td><td>19.26</td><td>24.07</td></tr><tr><td>Sand</td><td>15.28</td><td>14.81</td><td>14.81</td><td>14.81</td><td>14.81</td><td>14.81</td><td>14.81</td></tr><tr><td>Clay</td><td>7.64</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>3</sub></td><td>10.71</td><td>39.64</td><td>39.64</td><td>39.64</td><td>39.64</td><td>39.64</td><td>39.64</td></tr><tr><td>NaOH</td><td>27</td><td>8.86</td><td>8.86</td><td>8.865</td><td>8.86</td><td>8.86</td><td>8.86</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Natural gas</td><td>19.75</td><td>19.75</td><td>19.75</td><td>19.75</td><td>19.75</td><td>19.75</td><td>19.75</td></tr><tr><td>Electric power</td><td>10.23</td><td>10.23</td><td>10.23</td><td>10.23</td><td>10.23</td><td>10.23</td><td>10.23</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Maintenance</td><td>9.38</td><td>9.38</td><td>9.38</td><td>9.38</td><td>9.38</td><td>9.38</td><td>9.38</td></tr><tr><td>Labor</td><td>13.42</td><td>13.42</td><td>13.42</td><td>13.42</td><td>13.42</td><td>13.42</td><td>13.42</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total Cost</td><td>114.43</td><td>120.61</td><td>125.08</td><td>128.76</td><td>132.84</td><td>136.91</td><td>140.98</td></tr></tfoot></table>

## 4. Results and Discussion

The production cost of one metric ton of bricks was calculated for the different geopolymer and fired bricks formulations, based on the compression strength obtained in our previous work [41,42]. The results are illustrated in detail in Figure 2.

The values obtained showed a variation in the cost of production of one metric ton of geopolymer bricks according to the ingredients of each formulation. For geopolymers based on waste bricks, the cost of Na₂SiO₃ dominates the costs of the other ingredients in the formulation.

The clay-based geopolymer brick has the lowest production cost of EUR 114/t, resulting in a financial gain of 4.64% compared to the traditional fired brick for the same compressive strength of 20 MPa. The cost of geopolymer bricks based on waste bricks evolves proportionally with the quantity of GGBFS. The GWB1 formulation has a production cost of EUR 120/t for a compressive strength of 38.96 MPa. This formulation is cost-effective from an economic and technical point of view. The geopolymer brick formulations increase production cost from 4.23% to 17%, with a proportional increase in compressive strength from 94.8% to 350%. By classifying geopolymer bricks in grade according to their compressive strength, these results correspond to the literature [38,39] where the cost of production of geopolymer concrete is higher than ordinary concrete at higher grades of formulations.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Production cost of one metric ton of bricks and the compressive strength according to the geopolymer and fired brick formulations, [41,42].</figcaption></figure>

The interpretation of the results showed that both GC and GWB1 formulations are economically acceptable and represent a technical feasibility for the construction sector.

These results demonstrated that the production cost of geopolymer bricks depends on the components of the formulation. The production of geopolymer bricks is economically feasible. The decision to use this method is related to its technical feasibility and depends on well-defined parameters such as compressive strength. The results of this study can be added to the database of investors and production companies to clarify their decisions regarding geopolymer use at the industrial level.

**5. Conclusions**

In this study, we performed an economic analysis of the use of geopolymer brick at the industrial level. The research presents a French case study of the brickworks in the North of France. Different geopolymer brick formulations based on clay and waste bricks were studied. The production cost of one metric ton of bricks and the compressive strength of the geopolymer bricks were the two parameters used to evaluate the feasibility of production of geopolymer bricks at the industrial level. The determination of the production cost of the geopolymer bricks was based on the annual business model of the brickworks, which was used to find all data sources needed.

The results of this study demonstrated that the production cost of geopolymer bricks changes significantly depending on the ingredients used in the formulation. The geopolymer brick based on clay gives a financial gain of 5% compared to traditional fired brick for the same compressive strength of 20 MPa. In the case of the geopolymer bricks manufactured with waste brick, an improvement of 100% in compressive strength can be achieved with the same production cost as fired bricks. These results can be considered as a database for use in the production of geopolymer-based building materials at the industrial level.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.Y. and Z.L.; methodology, N.Y.; validation, C.C. and Z.L.; formal analysis, N.Y.; investigation, N.Y. and Z.L.; resources, C.C. and Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Y.; writing—review and editing, N.Y. and Z.L.; visualization, N.Y. and Z.L.; supervision, Z.L.; project administration, N.Y.; funding acquisition, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The author would like to thank the support of the Brickworks of the North of France (BdN) for the donation of data source and solid ingredients used in this study.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References

1. Olivier, J.G.; Peters, J.A.H.W. *Trends in Global CO₂ and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2018 Report*; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018.

2. Davidovits, J. Geopolymers—Inorganic polymeric new materials. *J. Therm. Anal.* **1991**, *37*, 1633–1656.
[CrossRef]

3. Davidovits, P.J. 30 Years of Successes and Failures in Geopolymer Applications. Market Trends and Potential Breakthroughs. In Proceedings of the Geopolymer 2002 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 28–29 October 2002; pp. 1–16.

4. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Alkali-activated binders: A review Part 1. Historical background, terminology, reaction mechanisms and hydration products. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2008**, *22*, 1305–1314.
[CrossRef]

5. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.P.; Jalali, S. Adhesion characterization of tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder. Influence of OPC concrete substrate surface treatment. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2008**, *22*, 154–161.
[CrossRef]

6. Dutt, K.S.; Kumar, K.V.; Kishore, I.S.; Chowdary, C.M. A case study on fly ash based Geo-polymer concrete. *Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol.* **2016**, *34*, 58–62.
[CrossRef]

7. Alonso, S.; Palomo, A. Alkaline activation of metakaolin and calcium hydroxide mixtures: Influence of temperature, activator concentration and solids ratio. *Mater. Lett.* **2001**, *47*, 55–62.
[CrossRef]

8. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Properties of tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2008**, *22*, 1201–1211.
[CrossRef]

9. Shi, C.; Fern, A. Stabilization / solidification of hazardous and radioactive wastes with alkali-activated cements. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2006**, *137*, 1656–1663.
[CrossRef]

10. Pruett, R.J. Kaolin deposits and their uses: Northern Brazil and Georgia, USA. *Appl. Clay Sci.* **2016**, *131*, 3–13.
[CrossRef]

11. Naghsh, M.; Shams, K. Synthesis of a kaolin-based geopolymer using a novel fusion method and its application in effective water softening. *Appl. Clay Sci.* **2017**, *146*, 238–245.
[CrossRef]

12. Selmani, S.; Sdiri, A.; Bouaziz, S.; Joussein, E.; Rossignol, S. Effects of metakaolin addition on geopolymer prepared from natural kaolinitic clay. *Appl. Clay Sci.* **2017**, *146*, 457–467.
[CrossRef]

13. Elizondo-Martinez, E.J.; Tataranni, P.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Castro-Fresno, D. Physical and mechanical characterization of sustainable and innovative porous concrete for urban pavements containing metakaolin. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 4243.
[CrossRef]

14. Robayo-Salazar, R.A.; Mejia de Gutiérrez, R.; Puertas, F. Effect of metakaolin on natural volcanic pozzolan-based geopolymer cement. *Appl. Clay Sci.* **2016**, *132–133*, 491–497.
[CrossRef]

15. Duxson, P.; Mallicoat, S.W.; Lukey, G.C.; Kriven, W.M.; van Deventer, J.S.J. The effect of alkali and Si/Al ratio on the development of mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymers. *Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp.* **2007**, *292*, 8–20.
[CrossRef]

16. Sisol, M.; Kudelas, D.; Marcin, M.; Holub, T.; Varga, P. Statistical evaluation of mechanical properties of slag-based alkali-activated material. *Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, 5935.
[CrossRef]

17. Jeong, Y.; Oh, J.E.; Jun, Y.; Park, J.; Ha, J.H.; Sohn, S.G. Influence of four additional activators on hydrated-lime [Ca(OH)2] activated ground granulated blast-furnace slag. *Cem. Concr. Compos.* **2016**, *65*, 1–10.
[CrossRef]

18. Rousekov, I.; Bajza, A.; Zivica, V. Silica fume-basic blast furnace slag systems activated by an alkali silica fume activator. *Cem. Concr. Res.* **1997**, *27*, 1825–1828.
[CrossRef]

19. Khale, D.; Chaudhary, R. Mechanism of Geopolymerization and Factors Influencing Its Development: A review. *J. Mater.* **2007**, *42*, 729–746.
[CrossRef]

20. Davidovits, J. Properties of Geopolymer Cements. In *First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes*; Kiev State Technical University: Kiev, Ukraine, 1994; pp. 131–149.

21. Komnitsas, K.; Zaharaki, D. Geopolymerisation: A review and prospects for the minerals industry. *Miner. Eng.* **2007**, *20*, 1261–1277.
[CrossRef]
22. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Abdollahnejad, Z.; Camões, A.F.; Jamshidi, M.; Ding, Y. Durability of alkali-activated binders: A clear advantage over Portland cement or an unproven issue? *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2012**, *30*, 400–405. [CrossRef]

23. Amalia, F.; Akifah, N.; Irfanita, R.; Afifah, K.N.; Zulkifly, K.; Yong, H.C.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Faris, M.A. Durability of Bricks Coated with Red mud Based Geopolymer Paste. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Materials and Manufacturing Applications (IConAMMA), Bangalore, India, 14–16 July 2016.

24. Lavanya, G.; Jegan, J.; Lavanya, G.; Jegan, J. Durability Study on High Calcium Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. *Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.* **2015**, *2015*, 731056. [CrossRef]

25. Fu, Y.; Cai, L.; Wu, Y. Freeze-thaw cycle test and damage mechanics models of alkali-activated slag concrete. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2011**, *25*, 3144–3148. [CrossRef]

26. Pacheco-Torgal, F. Alkali-activated binders: A review. Part 2. About materials and binders manufacture. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2008**, *22*, 1315–1322. [CrossRef]

27. He, J.; Zhang, J.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, G. The strength and microstructure of two geopolymers derived from metakaolin and red mud-fly ash admixture: A comparative study. *Constr. Build. Mater.* **2012**, *30*, 80–91. [CrossRef]

28. Obonyo, E.; Kamseu, E.; Melo, U.C.; Leonelli, C. Advancing the use of secondary inputs in geopolymer binders for sustainable cementitious composites: A review. *Sustainability* **2011**, *3*, 410–423. [CrossRef]

29. Lee, W.; Cheng, T.; Lin, K.; Lin, K.; Wu, C.; Tsai, C. Geopolymer Technologies for Stabilization of Basic Oxygen Furnace Slags and Sustainable Application as Construction Materials. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 5002. [CrossRef]

30. Liew, Y.M.; Heah, C.Y.; Mohd Mustafa, A.B.; Kamarudin, H. Structure and properties of clay-based geopolymer cements: A review. *Prog. Mater. Sci.* **2016**, *83*, 595–629. [CrossRef]

31. Mobili, A.; Belli, A.; Giosuè, C.; Bellezze, T.; Tittarelli, F. Metakaolin and fly ash alkali-activated mortars compared with cementitious mortars at the same strength class. *Cem. Concr. Res.* **2016**, *88*, 198–210. [CrossRef]

32. Fabien, F.; Charlène, D.C. Geopolymers as waste encapsulation materials: Impact of anions on the materials properties. *Adv. Sci. Technol. 2010*, *69*, 174–179.

33. Cozzi, A.D.; Bannochie, C.J.; Burket, P.R.; Crawford, C.L. Immobilization of Radioactive Waste in Fly Ash Based Geopolymers. In Proceedings of the World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 9–12 May 2011.

34. Tzanakos, A.; Mimilidou, K.; Anastasiadou, A.; Stratakis, E.; Gidarakos, K. Synthesis and heavy metal immobilization behaviors of medical waste and based geopolymer. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Athens, Greece, 5–7 September 2013.

35. Kong, D.L.Y.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Sagoe-crentsil, K. Comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. *Cem. Concr. Res.* **2007**, *37*, 1583–1589. [CrossRef]

36. Sumajouw, D.; Hardjito, S.E.; Wallah, B.V.; Rangan, D.M.J. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: Study of slender reinforced columns. *J. Mater. Sci.* **2007**, *42*, 3124–3130. [CrossRef]

37. Gourley, T.; Duxson, P.; Setunge, S.; Lloyd, N.; Dechsler, M.; South, W. Geopolymer Concrete; Concrete Institute of Australia: North Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2011.

38. Janardhanan, T.; Thaarrini, J.; Dhivya, S. Comparative Study on the Production Cost of Geopolymer and Conventional Concretes. *Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res.* **2016**, *7*, 117–124.

39. Vilamová, Š.; Piecha, M. Economic evaluation of using of geopolymer from coal fly ash in the industry. *Acta Montan. Slovaca* **2016**, *21*, 139–145.

40. You, S.; Ho, S.W.; Li, T.; Maneerung, T.; Wang, C.H. Techno-economic analysis of geopolymer production from the coal fly ash with high iron oxide and calcium oxide contents. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2019**, *361*, 237–244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

41. Youssef, N.; Rabenantoandro, A.Z.; Dakhli, Z.; Chapiseau, C.; Waendendries, F.; Hage Chehade, F.; Lafhaj, Z. Reuse of waste bricks: A new generation of geopolymer bricks. *SN Appl. Sci.* **2019**, *1*, 1252. [CrossRef]
42. Youssef, N.; Rabenantoandro, A.Z.; Dakhli, Z.; Hage Chehade, F.; Lafhaj, Z. Environmental evaluation of geopolymer bricks. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, INCER 2019, Beirut, Lebanon, 3–5 April 2019; pp. 1–5.

43. Tiffo, E.; Elimbi, A.; Manga, J.D.; Tchamba, A.B. Red ceramics produced from mixtures of kaolinite clay and waste glass. *Braz. J. Sci. Technol.* **2015**, *2*, 4. [CrossRef]

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).