STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Journal of Polymer & Composites Original Research

Investigation of Sulphate, Alkali and Carbonation Chemical attack in GGBS-Based Geopolymer Concrete and OPC Concrete

  1. Akshay Dhawan Department of Civil Engineering, GLA University, Mathura
  2. Manvendra Verma Department of Civil Engineering, GLA University, Mathura

Abstract

This study presents a comparative evaluation of the durability of GGBFS-based Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) and OPC concrete in rapid carbonation, sulphate, and alkali environments. All samples were subjected to three severe conditions are carbonation at 4% CO₂, 25°C and 60% relative humidity, exposure to a 10% sodium sulphate (Na₂SO₄) solution, and immersion in a 10% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution for alkali resistance. The durability characteristics were evaluated by the compressive strength (CS) retention, weight variation, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), and carbonation depth. GPC-7 exhibited the highest strength retention, little weight loss, and the least depth of carbonation across all exposure circumstances. The GPC-7 mix, including 80% GGBFS, 10% fly ash, and 10% micro silica, surpassed the performance of the other ten concrete mixes. The alkaline activator comprises sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na₂SiO4), markedly improving geopolymerization and yielding a thick, chemically stable matrix in GPC mixes. The remarkable performance results from its meticulously controlled binder composition, decreased calcium hydroxide content, and refined pore structure achieved by the synergistic effects of fly ash and micro silica. These findings confirm that GPC-7 is a resilient, sustainable, and high-performance alternative to OPC concrete in chemically aggressive environments.

Keywords

References (43)

  1. Provis, J.L.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. Alkali Activatd Materials State-of-the-Art Report, RILEM TC 224-AAM; Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London, 2014; ISBN 978-94-007-7671-5.
  2. Adam, A.A.; Arham, A.; Sc, A.M. Strength and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 2009.
  3. Pasupathy K, Berndt M, Castel A, Sanjayan J, Pathmanathan R. Carbonation of a blended slag-fly ash geopolymer concrete in field conditions after 8 years. Construction and Building Materials. 2016;125:661-669. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.078
  4. Jang JG, Lee NK, Lee HK. Fresh and hardened properties of alkali-activated fly ash/slag pastes with superplasticizers. Construction and Building Materials. 2014;50:169-176. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.048
  5. Bhutta MAR, Hussin WM, Azreen M, Tahir MM. Sulphate Resistance of Geopolymer Concrete Prepared from Blended Waste Fuel Ash. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2014;26(11). doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001030
  6. Verma M, Dev N. Effect of ground granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash ratio and the curing conditions on the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete. Structural Concrete. 2021;23(4):2015-2029. doi:10.1002/suco.202000536
  7. Verma M, Dev N. Sodium hydroxide effect on the mechanical properties of flyash‐slag based geopolymer concrete. Structural Concrete. 2020;22(S1). doi:10.1002/suco.202000068
  8. Turk J, Cotič Z, Mladenovič A, Šajna A. Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Management. 2015;45:194-205. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.035
  9. Nath P, Sarker PK. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Construction and Building Materials. 2014;66:163-171. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
  10. Palanisamy S, Kalimuthu M, Azeez A, Palaniappan M, Dharmalingam S, Nagarajan R, et al. Wear Properties and Post-Moisture Absorption Mechanical Behavior of Kenaf/Banana-Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites. Fibers. 2022;10(4):32. doi:10.3390/fib10040032
  11. Almeshaal M, Palanisamy S, Murugesan TM, Palaniappan M, Santulli C. Physico-chemical characterization of Grewia Monticola Sond (GMS) fibers for prospective application in biocomposites. Journal of Natural Fibers. 2022;19(17):15276-15290. doi:10.1080/15440478.2022.2123076
  12. Kumar R, Verma M, Dev N. Analysis of PCE-based Superplasticiser for the Different Types of Cement using Marsh Cone Test. Evergreen. 2024;11(2):665-672. doi:10.5109/7183337
  13. Kumar R, Verma M, Dev N. Investigation on the Effect of Seawater Condition, Sulphate Attack, Acid Attack, Freeze–Thaw Condition, and Wetting–Drying on the Geopolymer Concrete. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering. 2021;46(4):2823-2853. doi:10.1007/s40996-021-00767-9
  14. Kumar R, Dev N, Ram S, Verma M. Investigation of dry-wet cycles effect on the durability of modified rubberised concrete. Forces in Mechanics. 2023;10:100168. doi:10.1016/j.finmec.2023.100168
  15. Kumar R, Verma M, Dev N, Lamba N. Influence of chloride and sulfate solution on the long‐term durability of modified rubberized concrete. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2022;139(37). doi:10.1002/app.52880
  16. Palanisamy S, Kalimuthu M, Palaniappan M, Alavudeen A, Rajini N, Santulli C, et al. Characterization of Acacia caesia Bark Fibers (ACBFs). Journal of Natural Fibers. 2021;19(15):10241-10252. doi:10.1080/15440478.2021.1993493
  17. Palaniappan M, Palanisamy S, Khan R, H.Alrasheedi N, Tadepalli S, Murugesan TM, et al. Synthesis and suitability characterization of microcrystalline cellulose from Citrus x sinensis sweet orange peel fruit waste-based biomass for polymer composite applications. Journal of Polymer Research. 2024;31(4). doi:10.1007/s10965-024-03946-0
  18. Palaniappan M, Palanisamy S, Murugesan TM, Alrasheedi NH, Ataya S, Tadepalli S, et al. Novel Ficus retusa L. aerial root fiber: a sustainable alternative for synthetic fibres in polymer composites reinforcement. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 2024;15(5):7585-7601. doi:10.1007/s13399-024-05495-4
  19. Verma, M. Study on Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete, Delhi Technological University: New Delhi, 2021.
  20. T. S, P.R. KR, M. S, A. S, R. J. A state-of-the-art on development of geopolymer concrete and its field applications. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 2022;16:e00812. doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00812
  21. Pasupathy K, Berndt M, Sanjayan J, Rajeev P, Cheema DS. Durability of low‑calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete culvert in a saline environment. Cement and Concrete Research. 2017;100:297-310. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.07.010
  22. Zhang H, Li L, Sarker PK, Long T, Shi X, Wang Q, et al. Investigating Various Factors Affecting the Long-Term Compressive Strength of Heat-Cured Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete and the Use of Orthogonal Experimental Design Method. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials. 2019;13(1). doi:10.1186/s40069-019-0375-7
  23. Guo X, Shi H, Dick WA. Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer. Cement and Concrete Composites. 2010;32(2):142-147. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.11.003
  24. ElKhatib L, Al Aridi F, ElKordi A, Khatib J. MECHANICAL AND DURABILITY PROPERTIES OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE – A REVIEW. BAU Journal - Science and Technology. 2022;3(2). doi:10.54729/suiq7034
  25. Bernal SA, Mejía de Gutiérrez R, Provis JL. Engineering and durability properties of concretes based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/metakaolin blends. Construction and Building Materials. 2012;33:99-108. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.017
  26. Vieira T, Alves A, de Brito J, Correia JR, Silva RV. Durability-related performance of concrete containing fine recycled aggregates from crushed bricks and sanitary ware. Materials & Design. 2016;90:767-776. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.11.023
  27. Das SK, Shrivastava S. Siliceous fly ash and blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete under ambient temperature curing condition. Structural Concrete. 2020;22(S1). doi:10.1002/suco.201900201
  28. Parathi S, Nagarajan P, Pallikkara SA. Ecofriendly geopolymer concrete: a comprehensive review. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 2021;23(6):1701-1713. doi:10.1007/s10098-021-02085-0
  29. Nazari A, Bagheri A, Sanjayan J, Yadav PNJA, Tariq H. A Comparative Study of Void Distribution Pattern on the Strength Development between OPC-Based and Geopolymer Concrete. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2019;2019:1-7. doi:10.1155/2019/1412757
  30. Khan MA, Memon SA, Farooq F, Javed MF, Aslam F, Alyousef R. Compressive Strength of Fly‐Ash‐Based Geopolymer Concrete by Gene Expression Programming and Random Forest. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2021;2021(1). doi:10.1155/2021/6618407
  31. Nigam M, Verma M. Effect of nano-silica on the fresh and mechanical properties of conventional concrete. Forces in Mechanics. 2023;10:100165. doi:10.1016/j.finmec.2022.100165
  32. Sabir BB, Wild S, Bai J. Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: a review. Cement and Concrete Composites. 2001;23(6):441-454. doi:10.1016/s0958-9465(00)00092-5
  33. Yang, T.-R.; Chang, T.-P.; Chen, B.-T.; Shih, J.-Y.; Lin, W.-L. EFFECT OF ALKALINE SOLUTIONS ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ALKALI-ACTIVATED GGBFS PASTE. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2012, 20, 311–318.
  34. Chouksey A, Verma M, Dev N, Rahman I, Upreti K. An investigation on the effect of curing conditions on the mechanical and microstructural properties of the geopolymer concrete. Materials Research Express. 2022;9(5):055003. doi:10.1088/2053-1591/ac6be0
  35. Verma M, Dev N. Effect of Liquid to Binder Ratio and Curing Temperature on the Engineering Properties of the Geopolymer Concrete. Silicon. 2021;14(4):1743-1757. doi:10.1007/s12633-021-00985-w
  36. Wiyono D, Antoni, Hardjito D. Improving the Durability of Pozzolan Concrete Using Alkaline Solution and Geopolymer Coating. Procedia Engineering. 2015;125:747-753. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.121
  37. Davidovits J. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Geopolymer Institute; 2008.
  38. Kim JK, Kim CY, Yi ST, Lee Y. Effect of carbonation on the rebound number and compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites. 2009;31(2):139-144. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.10.001
  39. Rostami V, Shao Y, Boyd AJ. Carbonation Curing versus Steam Curing for Precast Concrete Production. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2012;24(9):1221-1229. doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000462
  40. Karakoç MB, Türkmen İ, Maraş MM, Kantarci F, Demirboğa R. Sulfate resistance of ferrochrome slag based geopolymer concrete. Ceramics International. 2016;42(1):1254-1260. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.09.058
  41. Bondar D, Lynsdale CJ, Milestone NB, Hassani N. Sulfate Resistance of Alkali Activated Pozzolans. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials. 2014;9(2):145-158. doi:10.1007/s40069-014-0093-0
  42. Provis JL. Alkali-activated materials. Cement and concrete research. 2018 Dec 1;114:40-8.
  43. Isfahani, F.T.; Redaelli, E.; Lollini, F.; Li, W.; Bertolini, L. Effects of Nanosilica on Compressive Strength and Durability Properties of Concrete with Different Water to Binder Ratios. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2016.
Support