Characterization and Early Age Physical Properties of Ambient Cured Geopolymer Mortar Based on Class C Fly Ash
Source abstract
Abstract
The critical element for sustainable growth in the construction industry is the development of alternative cements. A new technological process called geopolymerization provides an innovative solution, and the presence of aluminum and silicon oxides in fly ash has encouraged its use as a source material. Many previous investigations have involved curing the binder in a heated environment. To reduce energy consumption during the synthesis of geopolymers, the present study investigated the properties of ambient cured geopolymer mortar at early ages. An experimental program was executed to establish a relationship between the activator composition and the properties of geopolymer mortar in fresh and hardened states. Concentrations of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate were ascertained that are advantageous for constructability and mechanical behavior. Scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques were also used to characterize the material. Test results indicate that there is potential for the concrete industry to use fly ash based geopolymer as an alternative to portland cement.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production · Magnesium Oxide Properties and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. ASTM C1064 (2011). Standard test method for temperature of freshly mixed hydraulic-cement concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
2. ASTM C1437 (2007). Standard test method for flow of hydraulic cement mortar. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
3. ASTM C136 (2006). Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
4. ASTM C33 (2011). Standard specification for concrete aggregates. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
5. ASTM C109 (2011). Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
6. ASTM C128 (2012). Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity) and absorption of fine aggregate. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
7. ASTM C618 (2012). Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
8. Davidovits, J. (1994). Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries. World Resource Review,6(2), 263–278.
9. Davidovits, J. (2011). Geopolymer chemistry & applications (3rd ed.). Saint-Quentin: Institut Geopolymere.
10. Guo, X., Shi, H., & Dick, W. A. (2010). Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer. Cement & Concrete Composites,32, 142–147.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.11.003 ↗
11. Hanle, L. J., Jayaraman, K. R., & Smith, J. S. (2011). CO2 emissions profile of the U.S. cement industry. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
12. Jaarsveld, J., Deventer, J., & Lukey, G. (2002). The effect of composition and temperature on the properties of fly ash- and kaolinite-based geopolymers. Chemical Engineering Journal,89, 63–73.10.1016/S1385-8947(02)00025-6 ↗
13. Jiang, W., & Roy, D. M. (1992). Hydrothermal processing of new fly ash cement. American Ceramic Society Bulletin,71(4), 642–647.
14. Leelathawornsuk, Y. (2009). The role of sodium hydroxide concentration in fly ash-based geopolymer. Bangkok, Thailand: Kasetsart University.
15. Mindess, S., & Young, J. F. (1981). Concrete. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Mustafa, A. M., Kamarudin, H., Omar, A. K., Norazian, M. N., Ruzaidi, C. M., & Rafiza, A. R. (2011). The effect of alkaline activator ratio on the compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymers. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,5(9), 1916–1922.
17. PCA (2012). Green in practice 102—concrete, cement and CO2. Retrieved from Portland Cement Association: www.concretethinker.com/papers.aspx?docid=312 .
18. Pearce, F. (1997). The concrete jungle overheats. New Scientist, 155(2091), 14.
19. Popovics, S. (1982). Fundamentals of portland cement concrete: A quantitative approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
20. Seal, S., Hench, L. L., Moorthy, S. B., Reid, D., & Karakoti, A. (2011). United States of America Patent No. US 2011/0112272 A1.
21. Silverstrim, T., Martin, J., & Rostami, H. (1999). Geopolymeric fly ash cement. In J. Davidovits, R. Davidovits & C. James (Eds.), Geopolymer international conference (pp. 107–108). Saint-Quentin: Institute Geopolymere.
22. Somna, K., Jaturapitakkul, C., Kajitvichyanukul, P., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2011). NaOH-activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel,90, 2118–2124.10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.018 ↗
23. USGBC. (2005). LEED for new construction & major renovations. Retrieved from United States Green Building Council: www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1095 .
24. Vijai, K., Kumutha, R., & Vishnuram, B. G. (2010). Effect of types of curing on strength of geopolymer concrete. International Journal of the Physical Sciences,5(9), 1419–1423.
25. Worrell, E., & Galitsky, C. (2008). Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for cement making. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.10.2172/939891 ↗