Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Incorporation of Phase Change Materials and Application of 3D Printing Technology in the Geopolymer Development

Written By

Ahmed Nmiri

Submitted: 09 October 2020 Reviewed: 26 February 2021 Published: 13 October 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.96886

From the Edited Volume

Advances in Geopolymer-Zeolite Composites - Synthesis and Characterization

Edited by Petrică Vizureanu and Pavel Krivenko

Chapter metrics overview

316 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The building sector accounted for the largest share of both global final energy use and energy-related CO2 emissions. Despite the efforts made during the last decade to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, the demand for energy is increasing steadily. Thus, development of novel strategies to reduce energy costs and save the environment through a new building regulation has critical importance. Several new technologies are emerging to help achieve the aim of reducing energy usage in building sectors, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, and recycling waste. Some of these technologies are: (1) the development of geopolymer binder that may be used as an alternative to ordinary Portland cement, (2) the adoption of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in the civil engineering, and (3) the integration of phase change materials (PCM) in cementitious materials to increase energy efficiency of buildings. In this chapter we review some research about phase change materials-based geopolymer cement, and the adoption of the additive manufacturing technology in geopolymer applications, as well as, point to further areas of study required for wide-scale industry adoption.


  • Aluminosilicate materials
  • Alkaline activator
  • Geopolymer
  • Phase change material
  • 3D printing

1. Introduction

Due to some advantageous properties of thermal conductivity, high density, and high mechanical strength of Portland cement concrete (PCC), it is a frequently used concrete for applications utilizing PCMs in especially microencapsulated form [1, 2, 3]. However, carbon dioxide emission during the production of PCC causes a negative effect on the environment. Compared to PCC, geopolymer concrete (GPC) has several beneficial properties as PCC, but also higher initial strength [4], superior acid resistance [5], high fire resistance [6], and shorter setting time [7, 8]. These features of GPC make it an alternative binder for preparation of PCM containing cementitious materials to be considered for improving building energy efficiency.

Phase change material (PCM), the thermal energy storage (TES), is one of the promising methods used to reduce the environmental impact and to increase energy efficiency of buildings. Phase change materials (PCM) are latent heat storage materials, which can store and release large amounts of energy during a phase change that can occur according to one of many matter transitions (solid–liquid or solid–gas or liquid–gas or solid–solid). However, the most commercially viable transition is between the liquid and solid phases. When the temperature rises above melting point of PCM, this last one melts and absorbs heat, when the temperature drops below melting point; the PCM solidifies and release heat. Heat can also come from other sources such as non-air-conditioned buildings and industrial machinery. There are three main types of PCM: organic, inorganic and eutectic. The most commercially viable PCM is organic since it is chemically stable, safe and nonreactive, does not loss its effectiveness with cycling, can be microencapsulated and has a wide temperature range [9]. The addition of PCM into building materials leads to store the excess of the outdoor environment heat (During the day) and reduce heat transfer to the indoor side of the concrete wall. While, during the cold periods (or at night) the PCM release the stored heat into the building if the inside temperature is too low, and thus causing an increase comfort level in building through providing heating in the winter and providing cooling in the summer without the use of an air-conditioning system. Thereby reduce the fossil fuels-based energy consumption.

Most of the investigations were focused on the addition of microencapsulated PCM (MPCM) to the standard concrete recipes. The literature survey indicated that the combination of MPCM with cementitious material resulted in low composition fraction due to the fact that more loading is resulted in the final product with low TES capacity and low mechanical strength. Another problem is the leakage of PCM caused by breaking some parts of capsules during mixing and compression processes. Moreover, the combination of MPCM with GP is not cost effective because of the high cost and complex synthesis nature of MPCM.

Moreover, microencapsulated or encapsulated phase change materials are particles consisting of a core material the (PCM) and an outer wall (shell). The shell is an inert, stable polymer or plastic or metallic [10]. It does not melt under normal processing and use conditions. The shell acts as a barrier between the core material and the surrounding matrix and controls the volume change of the PCM during its phase change. Due to the very high cost of PCM metal-based encapsulations other method has been adopted to avoid the high cost of the encapsulation of PCM. This method consists in direct incorporation of non-encapsulated PCM into concrete materials. However, this method leads to the leakage of PCM during its liquid state, as well as the corrosion of the concrete matrix due to the corrosive nature of some PCMs. Not to mention the corrosion of the exposed surfaces of the concrete matrix and the reinforcement bar embedded in concrete causing by the environment (air, humidity, salt water, or other hostile environment), which enhances the porosity and permeability of the materials, thereby reducing its mechanical and structural properties.

Because of its cost-effective and eco-friendly, 3D printing is an excellent method to create a building with an efficient thermal regulation and make the integration of PCM in building more efficient, less expensive and more environment friendly [11]. However, among the obstacles for application of 3D printing in geopolymer-based construction are the low mechanical strength, long setting time, and low tensile strength [12, 13].


2. Geopolymers

Geopolymer cement (GP) has several beneficial properties as Portland cement (PC), but also it is much more ecological. It is known as green material [14], because of its low energy consumption, and low emission of polluting gases during manufacture, which makes it an alternative binder for cementitious materials. Geopolymer is produced from the activation of aluminosilicate materials such as metakaolin [15], blast furnace slag [16], fly ash [17] and so on, by a homogenous solution of alkali hydroxide and alkaline silicate, at ambient conditions [14, 18]. The mechanism consists of (1) the dissolution of the aluminosilicate structure under the effect of the alkali hydroxide to form oligomers of silicate [SiO(OH)3] and aluminate [Al(OH)4], and (2) the condensation of these free oligomers under the effect of the alkaline silicate to form another amorphous three-dimensional network [14, 18, 19]. The role of Na+ and K+ ions consists in balancing the electrical charge of Al3+ in IV-fold coordination [20, 21]. Geopolymer materials can be used for encapsulating heavy metals. In fact, the charge-balancing-alkali ions in the geopolymer network can be partially replaced, by ion exchange, with radioactive elements, and reducing them migration into the environment.

Alkali silicate solutions, also called water glass, such as sodium silicate, potassium silicate, lithium silicate etc. are consolidating agents for the material, they increase the formation rate of tetrahedrally coordinated aluminum [22] and improve the mechanical and physical properties of the final materials. Alkali silicate solutions have many applications, such as the production of silica gel and formulation of refractory ceramics and cements. The use of a highly reactive alkaline silicate solution and a highly amorphous aluminosilicate material enhances the formation of the geopolymer network [22]. The reactivity of alkaline silicate solutions was found to be dependent on the SiO2/Al2O3 and SiO2/Na2O ratios. According to some literatures [15, 23, 24, 25], the highest mechanical properties of geopolymers is obtained when SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio is between 3.0 and 3.8, Na2O/Al2O3 molar ratio is about 1 and the NaOH solution concentration is approximately 10 M. The SiO2/Al2O3 ratio may change with the type of raw material used as source of alumino-silicate [17] and then impacts on geopolymers properties [26]. The physical properties of geopolymers are improved when SiO2 are added to the mixture [14, 27]. Kong and Sanjayan [28] stated that alkaline solution selection and SiO2/Al2O3 ratio are critical parameters necessary to optimize the performance of geopolymer (at ambient or at elevated temperature).

Recent studies show that use waste can offer an alternative to alkaline silicate with potential advantage of lower cost and lower environmental impact. Torres-Carrasco and Puertas [21] have studied the feasibility of using industrial waste glass as a source of silica to replace sodium silicate in the alkaline activation of fly ash. They found, according to the analysis of the mechanical properties, degree of reaction and microstructure of alkali-activated fly ash, that the dissolved waste glass silicate by the NaOH solution had a substantial impact on the composition of the geopolymerisation reaction. Other studies demonstrated that usage of waste glass in concrete enhances its acid resistance as well as its physical and mechanical properties [29, 30]. In contrast the addition of waste glass reduces the plasticity of the fresh paste, thereby reduce its workability, thus a super-plasticizer is needed [31].

Tong et al. [32] investigated the production of sodium silicate solution from Rice Husk Ash (RHA). A hydrothermal process for the dissolution of RHA in sodium hydroxide solution was developed. Optimized procedure parameters were found to be: NaOH concentration 3 M, heating temperature 80°C and heating duration 3 h. The obtained solution was used for the production of alkali-activated binder made with a blend of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Obtained compressive strength of mortar was in the range of 60 MPa at 28 days, which confirmed the equivalence between the solution produced with the optimized method and commercially available options. Cost analysis indicated that the proposed method could allow a reduction of almost 55% of the cost for the activation of alkali-activated binder.

Silica fume has been used as activator in metakaolin-geopolymer preparation [24], the Mk-based geopolymer with a silica fume content of 6 wt% (compared with those with 2% and 10%), corresponding to a SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of 3.84, resulted in the highest compressive strength, which was explained based on its high compactness with the smallest porosity. Silica fume improved the compressive strength by filling interstitial voids of the microstructure because of its fine particle size.

Geopolymer materials are differentiated by their SiO2/Al2O3 ratio that affects their structure and application. Aluminosilicate-based GPs are designated by the term “poly (sialate),” which is an abbreviation of poly (silico-oxo-aluminate) or (-Si-O-Al-O)n. The various types of poly (sialate), according to Davidovits [14], are polysialate or (-Si-O-Al-O-) or (PS) (with SiO2/Al2O3 = 2), poly (sialate-siloxo) or (-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-) or (PSS) (with SiO2/Al2O3 = 4) and poly (sialate-disiloxo) (-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-Si-O-) or (PSDS) (with SiO2/Al2O3 = 6). Each type of GP cement possesses special features: good thermal insulation for PS, high strength and good solidification in presence of toxic waste for PSS, excellent fire resistance and high adhesion for PSDS [14, 33].

Silva et al. [15] revealed that the properties of GP systems can be drastically affected by minor changes in the available SiO2 and Al2O3 concentrations during synthesis. The best resistance of metakaolin-based GPs was obtained when the SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio is between 3.0 and 3.8. These ratios could however change according to the type of raw material used as a source of aluminosilicate. Yunsheng et al. [34] found for example the highest compressive strength (34.9 MPa) for metakaolin-based GPs with a higher SiO2/Al2O3 ratio (equal to 5.5).

Burciaga-Diaz et al. [35] investigated the compressive strength evolution as a function of the curing temperature at 20 and 80°C, and using the molar ratios of SiO2/Al2O3 (2.64–4.04) and Na2O/Al2O3 (0.62–1.54). The results revealed that the optimal ratios that yielded the greatest compressive strength were SiO2/Al2O3 = 2.96 and Na2O/Al2O3 = 0.62, 0.93. For greater SiO2/Al2O3 ratios, good final compressive strengths were registered, but the setting time was very long. Curing at 80°C for 24 h was favorable for a rapid strength gain only at early ages, however, at later ages, the highest compressive strengths were obtained after curing at 20°C (this temperature makes it possible to avoid any thermal degradation of the geopolymer). Catauro et al. [36] investigated the structure and the mechanical behavior of the organic–inorganic hybrid materials consisting of an inorganic matrix of a metakaolin-based GP in which the polyethylene glycol (PEG) was added as a plasticizer. The results revealed that the elastic strain increased for a fixed value of stress with the percentage of PEG increases but a decrease of flexural and compressive strengths due to the increasing of porosity. PEG-free samples can reach final mechanical resistance faster than hybrid systems.


3. PCM and construction materials

Numerous studies have investigated the integration of PCM to improve the building energy efficiency. Shadnia et al. [37] studied the mechanical and thermal properties of fly ash-based GP mortar containing different amount of PCM in the form of micro-encapsulated powder. They found that the unit weight and compressive strength of the GP mortar decreased when more PCM was incorporated due to lightweight, small shear strength and stiffness of PCM. In the meantime, the effect of the melting of PCM on the strength of GP mortar is negligible. Cao et al. [7] investigated the effect of microencapsulated PCM (paraffin Rubitherm) on the thermal performance and compressive strength of PC concrete and GP concrete. The results revealed that the increasing of the amount of micro-encapsulated PCM (MPCM) improved the latent heat, lowered the thermal conductivity, which could improve the thermal performance of building materials, and decreased the compressive strength in GP concrete compared to PC concrete due to the enhancement of porosity. The results also revealed that GP concrete exhibited better energy saving properties than PC concrete at the same conditions.

In another investigation, Duy Cao et al. [38] conducted a more detailed study on the effect of the polymer shell on the microstructure, thermal, and mechanical properties of GP concrete by using different kinds of MPCMs. They have found that the integration of PCM with a polymer shell containing polar functional groups into GP concrete at 5.2% by weight shows the best thermal performance but the lowest compressive strength due to the largest increase of GP concrete porosity and better interface bonds between microcapsules and the concrete matrix.

In order to know and examine the cause of low compressive strength after adding PCM, Pilehvar et al. [39] investigated the effect of incorporation of MPCM in solid and liquid states on the mechanical properties and microstructure of both GP and PC concretes. The results revealed that the compressive strength of both GP concrete and PC concrete decreased with increasing amount of MPCM. This decrease might be caused by the lower stiffness and strength of MPCM compared to sand, causing MPCM to be deformed or broken during the compression test [37]. It is also possible that air gaps, low adhesion and weak bonds between MPCM and the surrounding matrix may contribute to the strength reduction. The results also revealed that whether the PCM was in solid (Temperature below melting point) or liquid (temperature above melting point) state did not significantly affect the mechanical properties of GPC, while melting the PCM was found to reduce the strength of PC concrete. This was due to the fact that GP concrete has higher compression strength than PC concrete.

GP has been considered as an alternative carrier matrix to hold PCM in macro or micro encapsulated form as well as their being of more environmentally friendly material. Jacob et al. [33] fabricated encapsulated phase change materials EPCM (10 mm) consisting of molten chloride salt as a core encapsulated by fly ash geopolymer-based shells. They employed tow methods (dip-coating and pre-formed shells) to fabricate the geopolymer capsules. They found that the dip-coated capsules resulted in non-uniform shell thickness and shape, which promotes uneven heat transfer and high stress areas during phase change. However, the preformed capsules method allowed a greater control over size, shape and shell thickness.

Frattini et al. [40] synthesized GP mortar containing an expanded clay aggregate (supporting-shape) incorporated paraffine PCM. The results showed that with the paraffin content up to about 30–40% by weight, the matrix exhibited good mechanical properties and very high fire resistance.

Sukontasukkul et al. [41] studied the mechanical properties and heat insulation of wall panels made of fly ash-GPC containing porous lightweight aerated block (9.5–19 mm) impregnated with paraffin PCM. The results showed that the incorporation of PCM aggregate improved both thermal storage and heat insulation of GP panel. The results also showed that the density of GP increased with the increase in paraffin content in aggregate. Nonetheless, since lightweight aggregate was much weaker than GP paste, the increase in lightweight aggregate content caused the strength reduction.

Wang et al. [42] studied the influence of PCM on mechanical and thermal properties of clay GP mortar, PCM has been prepared by vacuum method using paraffin as the heat-absorbing material, expanded perlite as the supportive material, and two encapsulation methods were developed by using CaSiO3 and Na2SiO3 as the capsules, and the corresponding PCMs were incorporated with clay GP mortar. They found that the incorporated PCM in clay GP mortar effectively reduced the transport heat. In addition to this, expanded perlite plays good package effect on paraffin during the process of solid–liquid phase change, which can guarantee the composite PCM in solid conditions during the solid–liquid phase change in the macro. By using CaSiO3 and Na2SiO3 as the capsules, the PCM building materials can effectively avoid the leakage of paraffin.

In order to obtain effective composite PCMs for thermal energy storage purpose in buildings, Sarı et al. [3] developed a form-stable composite PCM composed of the cement impregnated with the eutectic mixture of capric acid(CA)-myristic acid(MA) as PCM through vacuum impregnation method. And then they investigated its chemical structure. The FTIR spectra/XRD patterns not showed any new band/peak. This result confirms the fact that any chemical reaction is not carried out between the cement matrix and form-stable composite PCMs.

Kastiukas et al. [43] performed an investigation to determine the most efficient coating method and material regarding its ability at retaining the PCM. They produced macro-encapsulated aggregates using expanded clay lightweight aggregates (in the 2–10 mm size range + numerous small and large pores) as supportive shape impregnated with paraffin PCM. The different coating materials used were: Sika Latex, Weber dry-lastic and polyester resin adhesive (Palatal). The macro-encapsulated aggregates were then used as aggregates in GP binders made from a combination of aluminosilicate rich mud and waste glass. The results revealed that PCM vacuum impregnation was very successful for expanded clay lightweight aggregate. The polyester resin was determined to be the most suitable choice of coating material for the PCM impregnated lightweight aggregates. Polyester resin coating was also chemically stable and neutral, and improving thermal conductivity.

As conclusion several methods have been proposed to incorporate PCM in buildings:

  1. The first method is direct incorporation of PCM into concrete materials at the time of mixing [44]. In this case, PCM is distributed freely in concrete. However, this method leads to the leakage of PCM during their liquefaction. This causes contamination of the host material, PCM loss and a reduction of the thermal energy storage capacity and mechanical properties of the building materials.

  2. The second method consists in microencapsulation of PCM into small closed sphere capsules called microencapsulated phase change materials MPCM to mixing them later with the fresh concrete [7]. This method prevents leakage. MPCM improve thermal energy storage. However, this method is very expensive and the deterioration of MPCM during the mixing process may cause leakage of PCM into the building materials. In addition, a poor compatibility between MPCM and the concrete matrix, and the tendency of MPCM to agglomerate may be the main causes of increased porosity, and therefore a decrease in compressive strength of the building materials [45].

  3. The third method consists in direct immersion of the cementitious powder in liquid PCM until obtain a form-stable PCM material [46]. This method is simple and low cost and allows for better dispersion of PCM. However, the stress of the volume expansion during phase change process leads to enhance the porosity in buildings, and crack the concrete matrix, thereby causing the concrete matrix to crack and reduce mechanical strength.

  4. Another method is the impregnation of PCMs in porous supportive shape materials through vacuum impregnation to obtain a macro-encapsulated PCMs and then mixing them with fresh concrete [33]. This method controls the volume expansion during phase change process. However, the solidification of PCM only around the edges during the time of heat regaining from liquid state prevents effective heat transfer. Overall, encapsulated PCM may be spherical, rectangular, cylindrical or irregular. It was found that spherical capsules resulted in the highest heat transfer rate. Also, the small size of encapsulated PCM leads to an increase in the heat transfer rate [33]. Moreover, the small encapsulated PCM can fill the cavities between aggregates and sand, thereby reducing the concrete porosity [7].

Therefore, there is strongly needed to develop geopolymer material with thermal energy storage TES ability besides without including these difficulties. In order to make this product more efficient, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, the 3D printing technology could be used [11, 13].


4. Additive manufacturing

Additive manufacturing technology, also called 3D printing technology, is also one of the promising methods used to reduce the energy demand and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in fact the application of this method takes less time than conventional manufacturing, and it uses the precise amount of material needed for the construction, which reduces the material costs, waste and negative impact on the environment [47, 48]. The digitally controlled construction process is done by a 3D printer. It consists in placing the fresh paste inside the loading container. Then, this last one is installed on the construction robot to start the printing process. The movable extrusion head is controlled by software to move in x, y, and z directions. The printer nozzle, on the extrusion head, traces the desired shape, layer by layer, until the final structure is achieved. The printing conditions could be optimized by modifying the nozzle diameter, the extrusion speed, layer heights, and the time gap between each layer [47, 48, 49].

The development of building materials adapted to the construction-based 3D printing technology has become of great importance in the world since the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century [11, 50].

3D printing process depends on two main factors, namely flowability and buildability [51]. The flowability is the fresh concrete extrusion capacity through the nozzle of the printer. The buildability is the ability of fresh concrete to retain the desired shape and hold layer overlays without collapsing. The buildability depends on the setting time and the mechanical property of the fresh material. Flowability and buildability can be considered as against each other, indeed if flow is increased, buildability decreases, and vice versa. Which is the main obstacle to applying the 3D printing method in the building construction [11, 52].

The mechanical activation of raw materials is one of many solutions used to overcome these obstacles. The mechanical activation reduces the setting time and improves the mechanical performance of the resulting material [53]. For example, the increasing of grinding time of the raw materials breaks the crystalline structure of the inert material and increases its reactivity which improves the mechanical properties of the hardened product. However, overgrinding leads to a decrease in fresh material flowability, which causes further demand of water to reincrease the flowability [54]. Then the evaporation of water during curing process increases shrinkage and cracks in the resulting material which causes a decrease in its mechanical properties. If water does not added, the interaction between activators and aluminosilicate material remains low, thereby the unreacted materials causes cracks and affects the mechanical properties of the resulting material [55]. To increase the flowability and workability of fresh past while maintaining its mechanical performance, plasticizers should be used [56].

To reinforce the geopolymer material, Ma et al. [57] entrained a continuous micro steel cable during filaments deposition process, which demonstrated significant improvement of mechanical strength, toughness and post-cracking deformation of geopolymer composite. Shakor et al. [58] added lithium carbonate to reduce the setting time for the cement mixture.


5. Wall coating material with anti-corrosion and anti-leakage properties

Wall coatings are decorative or protective layer that are applied to the interior or exterior surfaces of walls. Coating is applied to the surface of the wall via different methods depending on the nature of that wall and the nature of the coating itself. Among these methods are plastering [59], paint brush [60], roller [61], air spray [62] and etc. Coating designed for thermal energy storage and thermoregulating should be corrosion resistance, anti-leakage and anti-heat [63, 64, 65].

Corrosion is the gradual destruction of the concrete matrix by chemical reaction with the environment [66, 21]. This reaction enhances the porosity and permeability in the concrete matrix. Moisture, CO2, chloride, and other harmful ions could reach the surface of reinforcement bars, thereby causing corrosion of the bars and reducing the mechanical and structural properties of the concrete.

To reduce the water absorption and chloride diffusion coefficient, Zheng et al. [67] coated the concrete with Epoxy resin nanocomposites containing 0.3 wt% of graphene oxide. The chloride ion penetration resistance is due to the formation of crosslinking in the composite coating, improvement of hydrophobicity and shielding effects of graphene oxide.

To prevent penetration of hostile elements, and early crack of concrete, epoxy resin nanocomposites modified with graphene oxides (GOs) were prepared using a solution blending process and then sprayed onto testing blocks of concrete [68].

Waterborne silicate coating is an anticorrosive coating used to protect steel bar in the concrete, it consists of alkali metal silicate, rust-proof pigment, and modification material (to modify the alkali metal silicate solutions) such as acid modification, silicone acrylic emulsion, styrene acrylic emulsion… [69, 70]. The waterborne silicate coating has excellent corrosion resistance, good acid-alkali resistance and high heat resistance [71]. The zinc silicate works with the alkali metal silicate, forming a dense and stable film on the metal surface, and reducing the penetration rate of water and other ions. Coatings for reinforcement bars are widely available. In addition, the reinforcement bars are embedded in the concrete matrix and they do not expose to the hostile environment. Moreover, geopolymer materials have high corrosion resistance. The coating of the reinforcement bars may be not necessary The interaction between geopolymer-based coating material and the superficial elements of reinforcement bar or mild steel leads to formation of passive layer which prevent reinforcement bar and mild steel from corrosion [66]. Fly ash-slag geopolymer has good corrosion resistance and low corrosion rate compared to fly ash geopolymer [72].

Afshar et al. [73] reported that the zinc-rich epoxy primer as a coating on mild steel rebar has the best performance when used in combination with concrete containing 25% fly ash, 10% silica fume and 3% inhibitor by cementitious material weight.

Zhao et al. [74] believed that adding ultrafine silica powders dispersed by hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) and polyacrylic acid PA emulsion improved the water, acid, alkali, heat and aging resistance of the polymer modified cementitious coatings PCCs. The appropriate amount of the modified ultrafine silica powders is about 5% of the mass of the PA emulsion, because higher water absorption and decreased tensile properties happened when the amount is too large (10%). Hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) disperses the ultrafine silica SiO2 powders and reduces their agglomeration. SiO2 chemically interacts with the polyacrylic acid PA emulsion to form a cross-linked network structure. It was found the PCCs with 4 wt% HMDS modified SiO2 powders had fewer micro-defects and more compactness, thus the tensile properties and durability under different conditions, such as water, acid, alkali, heat and artificial aging, were significantly improved. The water absorption and chloride ion permeability coefficient of concrete coated by the PCCs with 4 wt% well-dispersed SiO2 powders were also decreased.

Xu et al. [75] developed a colorful and robust superhydrophobic concrete (CSC) coating composed of cement, sand, water-based stone protector, and dyes, and meets both performance and esthetic requirements. And they reported that this coating exhibits excellent chemical durability and weather resistance, and has promising application prospects on the outside wall of concrete.

Several studies demonstrated that usage of glass waste in concrete enhances its acid resistance as well as its physical and mechanical properties. Bisht et al. [29] have used waste of glassy materials made of soda lime to produce acid resistance concrete. They have shown that the best optimized performance in terms of compressive strength and acid resistance can be obtained by substituting up to 21% of sand by glass waste. The overadding of glass waste above to 21%, although it increases the acid resistance, it enhances the porosity which decreases mechanical strength of the concrete. Glass waste can also be used as aggregate or as source of silicate in the manufacturing of geopolymer concrete [30]. In contrast the addition of glass waste reduces the plasticity of the fresh paste, thereby reduce its workability, thus a super-plasticizer is needed [31].

Morefield el al. [76] have developed a novel coating that is based on hydraulically reactive silicate cement blended with a glass enameling frit and fused onto the steel reinforcement: If the enamel coating is cracked the freshly exposed calcium silicate cement grains will react with any humidity in contact with them to produces a cement paste in the crack.


6. Discussion and conclusion

As can be seen from the literature, the PCMs were incorporated by building materials in two ways: (i) addition of MPCM to building materials (ii) the addition of non-encapsulated PCM to building materials by impregnation (directly or by vacuum) method. Despite numerous studies carried out to make fresh materials suitable for 3D printing, no study has developed geopolymer-based PCM for 3D printing construction.

Although the vermiculite and perlite clay minerals have been used to prepare FSCPCMs with leakproof property until now [77, 78], vermiculite and perlite based FSCPCMs has not been yet integrated with fly ash based-GP to prepare novel kinds of GP-FSCPCM concretes which can be used to decrease temperature fluctuations of building inside.

Literature survey indicated that paraffin as PCMs were commonly used with geopolymers. However, bio-based fatty acid eutectic mixtures are rarely used. When compared to the paraffins, the fatty acid has better TES characteristics in terms of especially subcooling degree, volume change, latent heat energy storage capacity, phase change reversibility and low-cost due to their produce ability from the vegetable and animal fats [79, 80].

Therefore, based on these considerations, we think that the most proper way to achieve GP-FSCPCM concrete with the most effective is incorporation of non-encapsulated PCM with proper material by vacuum infiltration method and then addition to the GP mortar.

To prepare form-stable composite phase change materials (FSCPCMs), PCMs may be impregnated separately with vermiculite and perlite using vacuum impregnation technique (Figure 1) [78, 81].

Figure 1.

Vacuum impregnation technique used for preparation of FSCPCMs.

To achieve the form-stable composition, the mass fraction of PCM could be changed. Then, each of the vermiculite/PCM and perlite/PCM composite samples could be subjected to leakage test by heating them above melting temperature of regarded PCM. After this test, the composite with free of leakage will be defined as FSCPCM.

Different clays such as diatomite, perlite, kaolinite, bentonite, vermiculite etc. as porous, lightweight supporting materials have been used to produce form-stable composite PCMs (FSCPCMs) [82, 83]. Among these clay minerals, vermiculite (VMT) and perlite (PER) are good supporting materials for absorbing organic PCMs. VMT is a lightweight material with porous, inexpensive, ecologically harmless, non-toxic and expandable as much as 8–30 times its original size, when heated to about 800°C. Therefore, VMT is used for construction and insulation in buildings. Perlite (PER) is glassy volcanic rhyolitic rock. PER can be expanded up to 10–20 times its original volume when heated rapidly at 850–1150°C. The resulting expanded perlite (EPER) particles are spherical in shape, usually fluffy, highly porous due to a foam-like cellular internal structure. EPER has low sound transmission, high fire resistance, a large surface area, low moisture retention and a very low density. Besides it is classified as environmentally safe ultra-lightweight building material. In the buildings, VMT and PER are used as lightweight aggregate for plaster, concrete compounds, firestop mortar, and component of interior fill for walls. Moreover, they have good chemical compatibility with organic PCMs such as fatty acids and their binary mixtures. Therefore, both clay minerals are promising candidates as building material to prepare FSCPCMs for TES applications in buildings [78, 81].

By using, 3D printing technology, GP, PCMs and charging storage facilities with energy generated from renewable sources, we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and the dependence on fossil fuels, preserve the environment, attenuate the overheating or excessive cooling of the room and maintain a desirable temperate without the use of the air-conditioning system, allow to positively influencing indoor room temperature by storing direct solar radiation.


  1. 1. Tyagi V V., Kaushik SC, Tyagi SK, et al. Development of phase change materials based microencapsulated technology for buildings: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011; 15: 1373-1391
  2. 2. Rao VV, Parameshwaran R, Ram VV. PCM-mortar based construction materials for energy efficient buildings: A review on research trends. Energy Build 2018; 158: 95-122
  3. 3. Sarı A, Bicer A, Karaipekli A, et al. Preparation, characterization and thermal regulation performance of cement based-composite phase change material. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2018; 174: 523-529
  4. 4. Rajini B, Rao AVN. Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete with Fly Ash and GGBS as Source Materials. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 2014; 03: 15944-15953
  5. 5. Valencia-saavedra WG, Mejía R, Gutiérrez D, et al. Performance of FA-based geopolymer concretes exposed to acetic and sulfuric acids. Constr Build Mater 2020; 257: 119503
  6. 6. Dupuy C, Gharzouni A, Texier-Mandoki N, et al. Thermal resistance of argillite-based alkali-activated materials. Part 1: Effect of calcination processes and alkali cation. Mater Chem Phys 2018; 217: 323-333
  7. 7. Cao VD, Pilehvar S, Salas-Bringas C, et al. Microencapsulated phase change materials for enhancing the thermal performance of Portland cement concrete and geopolymer concrete for passive building applications. Energy Convers Manag 2017; 133: 56-66
  8. 8. Zhang P, Zheng Y, Wang K, et al. A review on properties of fresh and hardened geopolymer mortar. Compos Part B Eng 2018; 152: 79-95
  9. 9. Abhat A. Low temperature latent heat thermal energy storage: Heat storage materials. Sol Energy 1983; 30: 313-332
  10. 10. Pitié F, Zhao CY, Cáceres G. Thermo-mechanical analysis of ceramic encapsulated phase-change-material (PCM) particles. Energy Environ Sci 2011; 4: 2117-2124
  11. 11. Panda B, Paul SC, Hui LJ, et al. Additive manufacturing of geopolymer for sustainable built environment. J Clean Prod 2017; 167: 281-288
  12. 12. Chan SSL, Pennings RM, Edwards L, et al. 3D printing of clay for decorative architectural applications: Effect of solids volume fraction on rheology and printability. Addit Manuf 2020; 101335
  13. 13. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, et al. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng 2018; 143: 172-196
  14. 14. Davidovits J. Properties of geopolymer cements. Saint-Quentin, France: Geopolymer Institute, 1994
  15. 15. Silva P De, Sagoe-Crenstil K, Sirivivatnanon V. Kinetics of geopolymerization: Role of Al2O3 and SiO2. Cem Concr Res 2007; 37: 512-518
  16. 16. Huang X, Yu L, Li DW, et al. Preparation and properties of geopolymer from blast furnace slag. Mater Res Innov 2015; 19: S10-413-S10-419
  17. 17. Van Jaarsveld JGS, Van Deventer JSJ, Lukey GC. The characterisation of source materials in fly ash-based geopolymers. Mater Lett 2003; 57: 1272-1280
  18. 18. Weng L, Sagoe-Crentsil K. Dissolution processes, hydrolysis and condensation reactions during geopolymer synthesis: Part I-Low Si/Al ratio systems. J Mater Sci 2007; 42: 2997-3006
  19. 19. A. Nmiri, N. Hamdi, O. Yazoghli-Marzouk, et al. Synthesis and characterization of kaolinite-based geopolymer: Alkaline activation effect on calcined kaolinitic clay at different temperatures. J Mater Environ Sci 2017; 8: 276-290
  20. 20. Subaer. The influence of aggregate on the microstructure of geopolymer, PhD thesis of Curtin University of Technology, Department of Applied Physics. 2004
  21. 21. Torres-Carrasco M, Puertas F. Waste glass in the geopolymer preparation. Mechanical and microstructural characterisation. J Clean Prod. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.074
  22. 22. Vidal L, Gharzouni A, Rossignol S. Alkaline Silicate Solutions: An Overview of Their Structure, Reactivity, and Applications
  23. 23. Bernal SA, Rodríguez ED, Mejía de Gutiérrez R, et al. Mechanical and thermal characterisation of geopolymers based on silicate-activated metakaolin/slag blends. J Mater Sci 2011; 46: 5477-5486
  24. 24. Ahmed Nmiri, Myriam Duc, Noureddine Hamdi, Oumaya Yazoghli-Marzouk ES. Replacement of alkali silicate solution with silica fume in metakaolin-based geopolymers. Int J Miner Metall Mater 2019; 26: 555-564
  25. 25. Heah CY, Kamarudin H, Mustafa Al Bakri a. M, et al. Kaolin-based geopolymers with various NaOH concentrations. Int J Miner Metall Mater 2013; 20: 313-322
  26. 26. Komnitsas K, Zaharaki D. Geopolymerisation: A review and prospects for the minerals industry. Miner Eng 2007; 20: 1261-1277
  27. 27. De Silva P, Sagoe-Crentsil K. The Effect of Al2O3 and SiO2 On Setting and Hardening of Na2O-Al2O3 -SiO2 - H2O Geopolymer Systems. J Austalia Ceram Soc 2008; 1: 39-46
  28. 28. Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG. Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures. Cem Concr Compos 2008; 30: 986-991
  29. 29. Bisht K, Ahmed KIS, Ramana P V. Gainful utilization of waste glass for production of sulphuric acid resistance concrete. Constr Build Mater 2020; 235: 117486
  30. 30. Avancini TG, Souza MT, de Oliveira APN, et al. Magnetic properties of magnetite-based nano-glass-ceramics obtained from a Fe-rich scale and borosilicate glass wastes. Ceram Int 2019; 45: 4360-4367
  31. 31. Jimenez-Millan J, Abad I, Jimenez-Espinosa R, et al. Assessment of solar panel waste glass in the manufacture of sepiolite based clay bricks. Mater Lett 2018; 218: 346-348
  32. 32. Tong KT, Vinai R, Soutsos MN. Use of Vietnamese rice husk ash for the production of sodium silicate as the activator for alkali-activated binders. J Clean Prod. Epub ahead of print 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.025
  33. 33. Jacob R, Trout N, Raud R, et al. Geopolymer encapsulation of a chloride salt phase change material for high temperature thermal energy storage. AIP Conf Proc; 1734. Epub ahead of print 2016. DOI: 10.1063/1.4949119
  34. 34. Yunsheng Z, Wei S, Zongjin L. Composition design and microstructural characterization of calcined kaolin-based geopolymer cement. Appl Clay Sci 2010; 47: 271-275
  35. 35. Burciaga-Diaz O, Escalante-Garcia JI, Gorokhovsky A. Geopolymers based on a coarse low-purity kaolin mineral: Mechanical strength as a function of the chemical composition and temperature. Cem Concr Compos 2012; 34: 18-24
  36. 36. Michelina Catauroa, Ferdinando Papalea, Giuseppe Lamannaa, et al. Synthesis and Investigation of the Polymer Influence on Microstructure and Mechanical Behavior. Mater Res 2014; 18: 698-705
  37. 37. Shadnia R, Zhang L, Li P. Experimental study of geopolymer mortar with incorporated PCM. Constr Build Mater 2015; 84: 95-102
  38. 38. Cao VD, Pilehvar S, Salas-Bringas C, et al. Influence of microcapsule size and shell polarity on thermal and mechanical properties of thermoregulating geopolymer concrete for passive building applications. Energy Convers Manag 2018; 164: 198-209
  39. 39. Pilehvar S, Cao VD, Szczotok AM, et al. Mechanical properties and microscale changes of geopolymer concrete and Portland cement concrete containing micro-encapsulated phase change materials. Cem Concr Res 2017; 100: 341-349
  40. 40. Frattini D, Roviello G, Ferone C, et al. Geopolymer-Based Composite Materials Containing Pcm for Thermal Energy Storage. Ceram Energy, Naples, Italy,2015 2015; 6-7
  41. 41. Sukontasukkul P, Nontiyutsirikul N, Songpiriyakij S, et al. Use of phase change material to improve thermal properties of lightweight geopolymer panel. Mater Struct Constr 2016; 49: 4637-4645
  42. 42. Wang Z, Su H, Zhao S, et al. Influence of phase change material on mechanical and thermal properties of clay geopolymer mortar. Constr Build Mater 2016; 120: 329-334
  43. 43. Kastiukas G, Zhou X, Castro-Gomes J. Development and optimisation of phase change material-impregnated lightweight aggregates for geopolymer composites made from aluminosilicate rich mud and milled glass powder. Constr Build Mater 2016; 110: 201-210
  44. 44. Razak RA, Khang Zhe AC, Bakri Abdullah MM Al, et al. Paraffin as a Phase Change Material in Concrete for Enhancing Thermal Energy Storage. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng; 743. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/743/1/012012
  45. 45. Hunger M, Entrop AG, Mandilaras I, et al. The behavior of self-compacting concrete containing micro-encapsulated Phase Change Materials. Cem Concr Compos 2009; 31: 731-743
  46. 46. Sari A, Biçer A. Preparation and thermal energy storage properties of building material-based composites as novel form-stable PCMs. Energy Build 2012; 51: 73-83
  47. 47. Craveiro F, Nazarian S, Bartolo H, et al. An automated system for 3D printing functionally graded concrete-based materials. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101146
  48. 48. Vlachakis C, Perry M, Biondi L, et al. 3D printed temperature-sensing repairs for concrete structures. Addit Manuf 2019; 101238
  49. 49. Khan MA. Mix suitable for concrete 3D printing : A review. Mater Today Proc. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.825
  50. 50. Xia M, Sanjayan J. Method of formulating geopolymer for 3D printing for construction applications. Mater Des 2016; 110: 382-390
  51. 51. Wu P, Wang J, Wang X. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry. Autom Constr 2016; 68: 21-31
  52. 52. Khalil N, Aouad G, El K, et al. Use of calcium sulfoaluminate cements for setting control of 3D-printing mortars. Constr Build Mater 2017; 157: 382-391
  53. 53. Singh S, Aswath MU, Ranganath R V. Effect of mechanical activation of red mud on the strength of geopolymer binder. Constr Build Mater 2018; 177: 91-101
  54. 54. Yamchelou MT, Law DW, Patnaikuni I, et al. Alkali activation of mechanically activated low-grade clay. J Sustain Cem Mater 2020; 1-17
  55. 55. Al Bakri Abdullah MM, Hussin K, Bnhussain M, et al. Fly ash-based geopolymer lightweight concrete using foaming agent. Int J Mol Sci 2012; 13: 7186-7198
  56. 56. Sukontasukkul P, Chindaprasirt P, Pongsopha P, et al. Effect of fly ash/silica fume ratio and curing condition on mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced geopolymer. J Sustain Cem Mater 2020; 0: 1-15
  57. 57. Ma G, Li Z, Wang L, et al. Micro-cable reinforced geopolymer composite for extrusion-based 3D printing. Mater Lett 2019; 235: 144-147
  58. 58. Shakor P, Sanjayan J, Nazari A, et al. Modified 3D printed powder to cement-based material and mechanical properties of cement scaffold used in 3D printing. Constr Build Mater 2017; 138: 398-409
  59. 59. Ibrahim M, Biwole PH, Wurtz E, et al. A study on the thermal performance of exterior walls covered with a recently patented silica-aerogel-based insulating coating. Build Environ 2014; 81: 112-122
  60. 60. Yu CJ, Ri BH, Kim CH, et al. Formation and characterization of ceramic coating from alumino silicate mineral powders in the matrix of cement composite on the concrete wall. Mater Chem Phys 2019; 227: 211-218
  61. 61. Zhao J, Liebscher M, Michel A, et al. Plasma-generated silicon oxide coatings of carbon fibres for improved bonding to mineral-based impregnation materials and concrete matrices. Cem Concr Compos 2020; 103667
  62. 62. Sow M, Hot J, Tribout C, et al. Characterization of Spreader Stoker Coal Fly Ashes (SSCFA) for their use in cement-based applications. Fuel 2015; 162: 224-233
  63. 63. Mohseni E, Tang W, Khayat KH, et al. Thermal performance and corrosion resistance of structural-functional concrete made with inorganic PCM. Constr Build Mater 2020; 249: 118768
  64. 64. Karlessi T, Santamouris M, Synnefa A, et al. Development and testing of PCM doped cool colored coatings to mitigate urban heat island and cool buildings. Build Environ 2011; 46: 570-576
  65. 65. Ferrer G, Solé A, Barreneche C, et al. Corrosion of metal containers for use in PCM energy storage. Renew Energy 2015; 76: 465-469
  66. 66. Zainal FF, Fazill MF, Hussin K, et al. Effect of Geopolymer Coating on Mild Steel. 2018; 273: 175-180
  67. 67. Zheng W, Chen WG, Feng T, et al. Progress in Organic Coatings Enhancing chloride ion penetration resistance into concrete by using graphene oxide reinforced waterborne epoxy coating. 138. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2019.105389
  68. 68. Zheng W, Chen WG, Feng T, et al. Enhancing chloride ion penetration resistance into concrete by using graphene oxide reinforced waterborne epoxy coating. Prog Org Coatings; 138. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2019.105389
  69. 69. Zhong Z, Sha Q , Zheng J, et al. Sector-based VOCs emission factors and source profiles for the surface coating industry in the Pearl River Delta region of China. Sci Total Environ 2017; 583: 19-28
  70. 70. Cheng L, Liu C, Han D, et al. Effect of graphene on corrosion resistance of waterborne inorganic zinc-rich coatings. J Alloys Compd 2019; 774: 255-264
  71. 71. Cheng L, Liu C, Han D, et al. Effect of graphene on corrosion resistance of waterborne inorganic zinc-rich coatings. J Alloys Compd 2019; 774: 255-264
  72. 72. Rieger D. Corrosion Studies of Fly Ash and Fly Ash-Slag Based. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/209/1/012026
  73. 73. Afshar A, Jahandari S, Rasekh H, et al. Corrosion resistance evaluation of rebars with various primers and coatings in concrete modified with different additives. Constr Build Mater 2020; 262: 120034
  74. 74. Zhao Z, Qu X, Li J. Application of polymer modified cementitious coatings ( PCCs ) for impermeability enhancement of concrete. Constr Build Mater 2020; 249: 118769
  75. 75. Xu K, Ren S, Song J, et al. Colorful superhydrophobic concrete coating. Chem Eng J 2021; 403: 126348
  76. 76. Morefield SW, Hock VF, Weiss CA, et al. STEEL IN CEMENT-BASED COMPOSITES
  77. 77. Karaipekli A, Sari A. Capric-myristic acid/expanded perlite composite as form-stable phase change material for latent heat thermal energy storage. Renew Energy 2008; 33: 2599-2605
  78. 78. Karaipekli A, Sari A. Capric-myristic acid/vermiculite composite as form-stable phase change material for thermal energy storage. Sol Energy 2009; 83: 323-332
  79. 79. Sari A. Fabrication and thermal characterization of kaolin-based composite phase change materials for latent heat storage in buildings. Energy Build 2015; 96: 193-200
  80. 80. Yuan Y, Zhang N, Tao W, et al. Fatty acids as phase change materials: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014; 29: 482-498
  81. 81. Zhang N, Yuan Y, Yuan Y, et al. Lauric-palmitic-stearic acid/expanded perlite composite as form-stable phase change material: Preparation and thermal properties. Energy Build 2014; 82: 505-511
  82. 82. Lv P, Liu C, Rao Z. Review on clay mineral-based form-stable phase change materials: Preparation, characterization and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017; 68: 707-726
  83. 83. Rashidi S, Esfahani JA, Karimi N. Porous materials in building energy technologies—A review of the applications, modelling and experiments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018; 91: 229-247

Written By

Ahmed Nmiri

Submitted: 09 October 2020 Reviewed: 26 February 2021 Published: 13 October 2021