The Resistance of Blast Furnace Slag- and Ferrochrome Slag-Based Geopolymer Concrete Against Acid Attack

  • Ahmet Özcan
  • Mehmet Burhan KarakoçEmail author
Research paper


In this study, blast furnace slag- (BFS) and Elazığ ferrochrome slag (EFS)-based geopolymer concretes were produced. Samples were immersed in 5% phosphoric acid (H3PO4), hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrofluoric acid (HF) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solutions for 12 weeks. The compressive strengths, ultrasonic pulse velocities, weight and length changes of the samples were determined in this process. At the same time, visual inspections of the samples were investigated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed for the microstructure analysis of the samples removed from the solutions. 5% H2SO4 solution had the most negative effect on the samples. As the EFS ratio in the geopolymer concrete mixture increased, the loss rate in the strength of the samples exposed to acid solutions decreased. H3PO4 solution caused less weight loss in samples than other acid solutions. It was seen that the samples immersed in H3PO4 and HCl solutions shrank and that the samples immersed in HF and H2SO4 solutions expanded. Softening, cracking and corruption occurred on the surfaces of the samples exposed to the acid solutions for 12 weeks. With increasing EFS ratio in the mixture, the deterioration of the samples’ surfaces exposed to acid solutions decreased. Ettringite formations were seen in the SEM images of geopolymer concretes immersed in 5% H2SO4 solution.


Blast furnace slag Elazığ Ferrochrome slag Geopolymer concrete Durability Chemical effect Acid attack 



The research work reported in this paper was supported within the research project number BAP 2016/115 by Inonu University, Scientific Research Project program.


  1. 1.
    Thokchom S, Ghosh P, Ghosh S (2009) Effect of Na2O content on durability of geopolymer mortars in sulphuric acid. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Science Index 27. Int J Civil Environ Struct Constr Arch Eng 3(3):193–198Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh B, Ishwarya G, Gupta M, Bhattacharyya SK (2015) Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments. Constr Build Mater 85:78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewayde E, Nehdi M, Allouche E, Nakhla G (2006) Effect of geopolymer cement on microstructure, compressive strength and sulphuric acid resistance of concrete. Mag Concr Res 58(5):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidovit J (1991) Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal 37:1633–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niemelä P, Kauppi M (2007) Production, characteristics and use of ferrochromium slags Infacon XI, February 18–21, Taj Place, New Delhi, India, pp 171–179Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Imbabi MS, CarriganC McKenna S (2012) Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology. Int J Sustain Built Environ 1:194–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monteny J, De Belie N, Vincke E, Verstraete W, Taerwe L (2001) Chemical and microbiological tests to simulate sulfuric acid corrosion of polymer-modified concrete. Cem Concr Res 31:1359–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakharev T (2005) Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem Concr Res 35:658–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ariffin MAM, Bhutta MAR, Hussin MW, Tahir MM, Aziah N (2013) Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 43:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Acharya PK, Patro SK (2016) Acid resistance, sulphate resistance and strength properties of concrete containing ferrochrome ash (FA) and lime. Constr Build Mater 120:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nuaklong P, Sata V, Chindaprasirt P (2018) Properties of metakaolin-high calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled aggregate from crushed concrete specimens. Constr Build Mater 161:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh M, Siddique R (2014) Compressive strength, drying shrinkage and chemical resistance of concrete incorporating coal bottom ash as partial or total replacement of sand. Constr Build Mater 68:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganesan N, Abraham R, Raj SD (2015) Durability characteristics of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 93:471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deb PS, Sarker PK, Barbhuiya S (2016) Sorptivity and acid resistance of ambient-cured geopolymer mortars containing nano-silica. Cement Concr Compos 72:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Djobo JNY, Elimbi A, Tchakouté HK, Kumar S (2016) Mechanical properties and durability of volcanic ash based geopolymer mortars. Constr Build Mater 124:606–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mehta A, Siddique R (2017) Sulfuric acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 146:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sata V, Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P (2012) Resistance of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid attack. Cement Concr Compos 34:700–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wei B, Zhang Y, Bao S (2017) Preparation of geopolymers from vanadium tailings by mechanical activation. Constr Build Mater 145:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kwasny J, Aiken TA, Soutsos MN, McIntosh JA, Cleland DJ (2018) Sulfate and acid resistance of lithomarge-based geopolymer mortars. Constr Build Mater 166:537–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM International (2012) Standard test methods for chemical resistance of mortars, grouts, and monolithic surfacings and polymer concretes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM C597-16 (2016) Standard test method for pulse velocity through concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM C39/C39M-18 (2018) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baradan B, Yazıcı H, Ün H (2002) Durability in reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Faculty, Dokuz Eylul Univ., Izmir, pp 282Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tharmaratnam K, Tan BS (1990) Attenuation of ultrasonic pulse in cement mortar. Cement Concrete Res 20:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Demirboga R, Türkmen İ, Karakoç MB (2004) Relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength for high-volume mineral-admixtured concrete. Cement Concrete Res 34:2329–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Omer SA, Demirboga R, Khushefati WH (2015) Relationship between compressive strength and UPV of GGBFS based geopolymer mortars exposed to elevated temperatures. Constr Build Mater 94:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringInonu UniversityMalatyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringKütahya Dumlupınar UniversityKütahyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations