Evaluation of durability behavior of geopolymer concrete containing nano-silica and nano-clay additives in acidic media

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Soochow University, Jiangsu, China.

10.22034/jcema.2019.95839

Abstract

The present study mainly aims at the identification and laboratory production of geopolymer concrete with the increased resistance to acid attack. For this purpose, after evaluating the reactivity of the raw materials and their applicability in the production of geopolymer cement among the available aluminosilicate materials, the metakaolin pozzolan was selected as the appropriate raw material. After the selection of the binder and activator of sodium hydroxide, the alkali activation process was performed for the mixtures of raw materials. Then, for the initial estimate of the durability performance of geopolymer cements in acidic media, the durability of concrete samples was investigated in 1M sulfuric acid for 7, 28 and 90 days. The results showed that the nano-silica and nano-clay are effective in improving the performance of geopolymer concrete, as the addition of 3% nano-silica resulted in the 0.44% increase in the strength of the geopolymer concrete. Also, the addition of 3% nano-clay led to the increase in the strength of geopolymer samples up to 0.54. In addition, the samples are more durable in acidic media so the weight loss of nano-clay-containing geopolymer samples in 90 days is 1.2 times that of geopolymer concrete samples without this additive.

Keywords


1. Singh NB. Fly ash-based geopolymer binder: A future construction material. Minerals. 2018 Jul;8(7):299. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

2. Patel YJ, Shah N. Development of self-compacting geopolymer concrete as a sustainable construction material. Sustainable Environment Research. 2018 Nov 1;28(6):412-21. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

3. Valizadeh A, Aslani F, Asif Z, Roso M. Development of Heavyweight Self-Compacting Concrete and Ambient-Cured Heavyweight Geopolymer Concrete Using Magnetite Aggregates. Materials. 2019 Jan;12(7):1035. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

4. Sá Ribeiro RA, Sá Ribeiro MG, Kutyla GP, Kriven WM. Amazonian metakaolin reactivity for geopolymer synthesis. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2019. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

5. Abdullah MM, Ming LY, Yong HC, Tahir MF. Clay-Based Materials in Geopolymer Technology. Cement Based Materials. 2018 Oct 10:239. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

6. Nobouassia Bewa C, Tchakouté HK, Fotio D, Rüscher CH, Kamseu E, Leonelli C. Water resistance and thermal behavior of metakaolin-phosphate-based geopolymer cements. Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies. 2018 Jul 3;6(3):271-83. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

7. Ding YC, Cheng TW, Dai YS. Application of geopolymer paste for concrete repair. Structural Concrete. 2017 Aug;18(4):561-70. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

8. Bashar II, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Islam A. The effect of variation of molarity of alkali activator and fine aggregate content on the compressive strength of the fly ash: palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2014;2014. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

9. Oleiwi SM, Algın Z, Nassani DE, Mermerdaş K. Multi-Objective Optimization of Alkali Activator Agents for FA-and GGBFS-Based Geopolymer Lightweight Mortars. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 2018 Oct 1;43(10):5333-47. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

10 Oleiwi SM, Algın Z, Nassani DE, Mermerdaş K. Multi-Objective Optimization of Alkali Activator Agents for FA-and GGBFS-Based Geopolymer Lightweight Mortars. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 2018 Oct 1;43(10):5333-47. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

11. Razak R, Abdullah M, Hussin K, Ismail K, Hardjito D, Yahya Z. Optimization of NaOH molarity, LUSI mud/alkaline activator, and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio to produce lightweight aggregate-based geopolymer. International journal of molecular sciences. 2015 May;16(5):11629-47. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

12. Azevedo AG, Strecker K, Barros LA, Tonholo LF, Lombardi CT. Effect of Curing Temperature, Activator Solution Composition and Particle Size in Brazilian Fly-Ash Based Geopolymer Production. Materials Research. 2019;22. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

13. Wang YS, Alrefaei Y, Dai JG. Silico-aluminophosphate and Alkali-aluminosilicate Geopolymers: A comparative review. Frontiers in Materials. 2019;6:106. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

14. Zhuang HJ, Zhang HY, Xu H. Resistance of geopolymer mortar to acid and chloride attacks. Procedia engineering. 2017 Jan 1;210:126-31. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

15. Li X, Rao F, Song S, Ma Q. Deterioration in the microstructure of metakaolin-based geopolymers in marine environment. Journal of Materials Research and Technology. 2019 May 1;8(3):2747-52. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

16. Merabtene M, Kacimi L, Clastres P. Elaboration of geopolymer binders from poor kaolin and dam sludge waste. Heliyon. 2019 Jun 1;5(6):e01938. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

17. Toniolo N, Boccaccini AR. Fly ash-based geopolymers containing added silicate waste. A review. Ceramics International. 2017 Dec 1;43(17):14545-51. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

18. Colangelo F, Roviello G, Ricciotti L, Ferone C, Cioffi R. Preparation and characterization of new geopolymer-epoxy resin hybrid mortars. Materials. 2013;6(7):2989-3006. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

19. Luukkonen T, Abdollahnejad Z, Yliniemi J, Kinnunen P, Illikainen M. One-part alkali-activated materials: A review. Cement and Concrete Research. 2018 Jan 1;103:21-34. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

20. Vafaei M, Allahverdi A. Durability of geopolymer mortar based on waste-glass powder and calcium aluminate cement in acid solutions. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2017 Jul 24;29(10):04017196. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

21. Rashidian-Dezfouli H, Rangaraju PR. Comparison of strength and durability characteristics of a geopolymer produced from fly ash, ground glass fiber and glass powder. Materiales de Construcción. 2017 Oct 5;67(328):136. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

22Farhana ZF, Kamarudin H, Rahmat A, Al Bakri Abdullah MM, Norainiza S. Corrosion Performance of Reinforcement Bar in Geopolymer Concrete Compare With Its Performance in Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete: A Short Review. InAdvanced Materials Research 2013 (Vol. 795, pp. 509-512). Trans Tech Publications. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

23. Bakharev T. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cement and concrete research. 2005 Apr 1;35(4):658-70. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

24. Vafaei M, Allahverdi A, Dong P, Bassim N. Durability performance of geopolymer cement based on fly ash and calcium aluminate cement in mild concentration acid solutions. Journal of Sustainable Cement-Based Materials. 2019 Jun 7:1-9. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

25. Alzeebaree R, Çevik A, Nematollahi B, Sanjayan J, Mohammedameen A, Gülşan ME. Mechanical properties and durability of unconfined and confined geopolymer concrete with fiber reinforced polymers exposed to sulfuric acid. Construction and Building Materials. 2019 Aug 10;215:1015-32. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

26. Özcan A, Karakoç MB. The Resistance of Blast Furnace Slag-and Ferrochrome Slag-Based Geopolymer Concrete Against Acid Attack. International Journal of Civil Engineering. 2019:1-3. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

27. Rajak M, Rai B. Effect of Micro Polypropylene Fibre on the Performance of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Journal of Applied Engineering Sciences. 2019 May 1;9(1):97-108. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

28. Venkateswara Rao J, Srinivasa Rao K, Rambabu K. Performance of heat and ambient cured geopolymer concrete exposed to acid attack. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Construction Materials. 2017 Aug 4:1-9. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

29. Valikhani A, Jaberi Jahromi A, Azizinamini A. Experimental Investigation of High-Performing Protective Shell Used for Retrofitting Bridge Elements. 2018. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

30. Valikhani A, Jahromi AJ, Azizinamini A. Retrofitting Damaged Bridge Elements Using Thin Ultra High Performance Shell Elements. 2017. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

31. Naseri F, Jafari F, Mohseni E, Tang W, Feizbakhsh A, Khatibinia M. Experimental observations and SVM-based prediction of properties of polypropylene fibres reinforced self-compacting composites incorporating nano-CuO. Construction and Building Materials. 2017 Jul 15;143:589-98. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

32. Khotbehsara MM, Miyandehi BM, Naseri F, Ozbakkaloglu T, Jafari F, Mohseni E. Effect of SnO2, ZrO2, and CaCO3 nanoparticles on water transport and durability properties of self-compacting mortar containing fly ash: Experimental observations and ANFIS predictions. Construction and Building Materials. 2018 Jan 15; 158:823-34. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

33. Ghanei A, Jafari F, Khotbehsara MM, Mohseni E, Tang W, Cui H. Effect of nano-CuO on engineering and microstructure properties of fibre-reinforced mortars incorporating metakaolin: Experimental and numerical studies. Materials. 2017;10(10):1215. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

34. Adak D, Sarkar M, Mandal S. Structural performance of nano-silica modified fly-ash based geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 2017 Mar 15;135:430-9. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

35. Triani DN, Ekaputri JJ, Hardono S, Susanto TE. Application of Pozzolan as Materials of Geopolymer Paste. InMaterials Science Forum 2016 (Vol. 841, pp. 111-117). Trans Tech Publications. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

36. Aly AM, El-Feky MS, Kohail M, Nasr ES. Performance of geopolymer concrete containing recycled rubber. Construction and Building Materials. 2019 May 20; 207:136-44. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

37. Hassan A, Arif M, Shariq M. Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and sustainable environment–A review of mechanical properties and microstructure. Journal of cleaner production. 2019 Mar 11. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

38. Ekinci E, Türkmen İ, Kantarci F, Karakoç MB. The improvement of mechanical, physical and durability characteristics of volcanic tuff based geopolymer concrete by using nano silica, micro silica and Styrene-Butadiene Latex additives at different ratios. Construction and Building Materials. 2019 Mar 20;201:257-67.[View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

39. Assaedi H, Shaikh FU, Low IM. Effect of nano-clay on mechanical and thermal properties of geopolymer. Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies. 2016 Mar 1;4(1):19-28. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

40. Çevik A, Alzeebaree R, Humur G, Niş A, Gülşan ME. Effect of nano-silica on the chemical durability and mechanical performance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Ceramics International. 2018 Aug 1;44(11):12253-64. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

41. Badarloo B, Kari A, Jafari F. Experimental and Numerical Study to Determine the Relationship between Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength of Concrete. Civil Engineering Journal. 2018 Nov 30;4(11):2787-800. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

42. Davidovits J, Comrie DC, Paterson JH, Ritcey DJ. Geopolymeric concretes for environmental protection. Concrete International. 1990 Jul 1;12(7):30-40. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].