Advertisement

Sādhanā

, 43:49 | Cite as

Effect of binder type and content on physical and mechanical properties of geopolymers

  • Niyazi Ugur Kockal
  • Ozge Beycan
  • Nihan Gulmez
Article
  • 144 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, the physical and mechanical behaviors of geopolymers prepared by using different amounts of silica fume and calcium hydroxide as binding materials, acidic pumice as fine aggregate and waste aluminium particles as air-entraining agent were investigated. Test results showed that binder types, amount of binders and alkali activator (sodium hydroxide) significantly affected the physical and mechanical behavior of geopolymer specimens. Bulk density, compressive and flexural strength decreased with the higher alkali activator content. Addition of waste aluminium particles led to decrease in bulk density and strength due to the some extent of entrained air. In the case of same alkali activator content, compressive and flexural strength increased with increase in silica fume and calcium hydroxide up to a certain level.

Keywords

Alkali activator geopolymer binder waste aluminium particles 

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang H Y, Kodur V, Wu B, Cao L and Wang F 2016 Thermal behavior and mechanical properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 109: 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee N K and Lee H K 2015 Reactivity and reaction products of alkali-activated, fly ash/slag paste. Constr. Build. Mater. 81: 303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liew Y M, Kamarudin H, Mustafa Al Bakri A M, Binhussain M, Luqman M, Khairul Nizar I, Ruzaidi C M and Heah C Y 2011 Influence of solids-to-liquid and activator ratios on calcined kaolin cement powder. Phys. Procedia 22: 312–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boonserm K, Sata V, Pimraksa K and Chindaprasirt P 2012 Improved geopolymerization of bottom ash by incorporating fly ash and using waste gypsum as additive. Cem. Concr. Compos. 34: 819–824Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yunsheng Z, Wei S, Qianli C and Lin C 2007 Synthesis and heavy metal immobilization behaviors of slag based geopolymer. J. Hazard. Mater. 143: 206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okoye F N, Durgaprasad J and Singh N B 2016 Effect of silica fume on the mechanical properties of fly ash based-geopolymer concrete. Ceram. Int. 42: 3000–3006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kockal N U 2013 Effects of elevated temperature and re-curing on the properties of mortars containing industrial waste materials. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 37(C1): 67–76Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang Z, Zhang B and Yan P 2016 Hydration and microstructures of concrete containing raw or densified silica fume at different curing temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 121: 483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lei D-Y, Guo L-P, Sun W, Liu J, Shu X and Guo X-L 2016 A new dispersing method on silica fume and its influence on the performance of cement-based materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 115: 716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kockal N U 2015 Behavior of mortars produced with construction wastes exposed to different treatments. Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 22: 203–214Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kockal N U and Turker F 2007 Effect of environmental conditions on the properties of concretes with different cement types. Constr. Build. Mater. 21: 634–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu Z, Shi C and Khayat K H 2016 Effect of silica fume content on microstructure development and bond to steel fiber in ultrahigh strength cement-based materials (UHSC). Cem. Concr. Compos. 71: 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramana G V, Potharaju M, Mahure N V and Ratnam M 2013 Study on long term strength development and durability of multi blended concretes containing fly ash and silica fume. Int. J. Emerging Technol. Adv. Eng. 3: 599–608Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kockal N U, Beycan O and Gulmez N 2017 Physical and mechanical properties of silica fume and calcium hydroxide based geopolymers. Acta Phys. Pol. A. 131: 530–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chindaprasirt P, Paisitsrisawat P and Rattanasak U 2014 Strength and resistance to sulfate and sulfuric acid of ground fluidized bed combustion fly ash–silica fume alkali-activated composite. Adv. Powder Technol. 25: 1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dutta D, Thokchom S, Ghosh P and Ghosh S 2010 Effect of silica fume additions on porosity of fly ash geopolymers. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 5: 74–79Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mijarsh M J A, Megat Johari M A and Ahmad Z A 2015 Compressive strength of treated palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar containing calcium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide and silica fume as mineral additives. Cem. Concr. Compos. 60: 65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang K H, Cho A R and Song J K 2012 Effect of water–binder ratio on the mechanical properties of calcium hydroxide-based alkali-activated slag concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 29: 504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vargas A S, Dal Molin D C C, Masuero  B, Vilela A C F, Castro-Gomes J and de Gutierrez R M 2014 Strength development of alkali-activated fly ash produced with combined NaOH and Ca(OH)2 activators. Cem. Concr. Compos. 53: 341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reig L, Soriano L, Borrachero M V, Monzó J and Payá J 2014 Influence of the activator concentration and calcium hydroxide addition on the properties of alkali-activated porcelain stoneware. Constr. Build. Mater. 63: 214–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alonso S and Palomo A 2001 Alkaline activation of metakaolin and calcium hydroxide mixtures: influence of temperature, activator concentration and solids ratio. Mater. Lett. 47: 55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM C 29-97 1997 Standard test method for bulk density (unit weight) and voids in aggregate. American Society for Testing and Materials, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    TS 3530 EN 933-1 1999 Agregaların geometrik özellikleri için deneyler bölüm 1: Tane büyüklüğü dağılımı tayini- eleme metodu. Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM C 642-13 2013 Standard test method for density, absorption, and voids in hardened concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASTM C 177-13 2013 Standard test method for steady-state heat flux measurements and thermal transmission properties by means of the guarded-hot-plate apparatus. American Society for Testing and Materials, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    TS EN 1015-11 2000 Methods of test for mortar for masonry Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara (In Turkish)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thokchom S, Ghosh P and Ghosh S 2009 Effect of water absorption, porosity and sorptivity on durability of geopolymer mortars. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 4: 28–32Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smilauer V, Škvára F, Němeček J and Hlaváček P 2010 Application of micromechanics on alkali-activated materials. Adv. Sci. Technol. 69: 75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thakur R N and Ghosh S 2009 Effect of mix composition on compressive strength and microstructure of fly ash based geopolymer composites. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 4: 68–74Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patankar S V, Jamkar S S and Ghugal Y M 2013 Effect of water-to-geopolymer binder ratio on the production of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Adv. Technol. Civ. Eng. 2: 79–83Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rashad A M and Khalil M H 2013 A preliminary study of alkali-activated slag blended with silica fume under the effect of thermal loads and thermal shock cycles. Constr. Build. Mater. 40: 522–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rattanasak U and Chindaprasirt P 2015 Properties of alkali activated silica fume–Al(OH)3–fluidized bed combustion fly ash composites. Mater. Struct. 48: 531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garcia-Lodeiro I, Palomo A, Fernández-Jiménez A and Macphee D E 2011 Compatibility studies between N–A–S–H and C–A–S–H gels. Study in the ternary diagram Na2O–CaO–Al2O3–SiO2–H2O. Cem. Concr. Res. 41: 923–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wongkeo W, Thongsanitgarn P, Pimraksa K and Chaipanich A 2012 Compressive strength, flexural strength and thermal conductivity of autoclaved concrete block made using bottom ash as cement replacement materials. Mater. Des. 35: 434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Albayrak M, Yorukoglu A, Karahan S, Atlihan S, Aruntas H Y and Girgin I 2007 Influence of zeolite additive on properties of autoclaved aerated concrete. Build. Environ. 42: 3161–3165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gomes M G, Flores-Colen I, Manga L M, Soares A and de Brito J 2017 The influence of moisture content on the thermal conductivity of external thermal mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 135: 279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Belkharchouche D and Chaker A 2016 Effects of moisture on thermal conductivity of the lightened construction material. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41: 7119–7125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niyazi Ugur Kockal
    • 1
  • Ozge Beycan
    • 1
  • Nihan Gulmez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations