Advertisement

Applications of Geopolymers in Concrete for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Containers

  • Kyle D. Poolman
  • Deon Kruger
Conference paper

Abstract

The purpose of this mini-thesis research paper is to investigate the applications of geopolymer concrete as a replacement for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete currently used for the containment and transportation of low-level radioactive waste in South Africa. Geopolymers are materials which are high in aluminosilicates and use polymerisation reactions to bond together, as opposed to the conventional calcium-silicate-hydrate hydration reaction that occurs in traditional cement. The nuclear waste applications of geopolymers are investigated in the South African context – using locally available fine and coarse aggregates and class S fly ash originating from Kriel Power Station in Mpumalanga. Three geopolymer mix designs are tested – all of which use the same 1:2:2 mix proportion but with differing aggregate sizes, a common water/cement ratio of 0.5 and an 8 M or 12 M NaOH and Na2SiO3 activator. The aim of this research is to reach a density of greater than 2400 kg/m3, compressive strength of 50 MPa and a tensile strength of 4.5 MPa using readily available industry materials. The mixes were cast and cured in an oven at 80° for 1 day and 3 days, respectively, after which the 8 M NaOH-only mix produced the best results at 11.9 MPa compressive strength, a 1.0 MPa tensile strength and a density of 2070 kg/m3. These results have not met the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA)’s standards as of yet, and the mixes will have to be further developed as a possible precast low-intermediate radioactive waste container solution.

References

  1. 1.
    Kemm, K. (2017). Engineering News, [Online]. Available: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nuclear-build-initiative-now-rolling. [Accessed March 2017].
  2. 2.
    Horiuchi, C. (2007). Managing nuclear waste. In Handbook of globalizaton and the environment (pp. 381–399). San Francisco: University of San Francisco.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2005). Upgrading of near surface repositories for radioactive waste, Technical Reports (Vol. I, no. 433).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adam, A. A., Molyneaux, T. C. K., Patnaikuni, I., & Law, D. W. (2010). Strength, sorptivity and carbonation in blended OPC-GGBS, alkali activated slag, and fly ash based geopolymer concrete. In ISEC-5 2009 (pp. 563–568). CRC Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. (2005). Manufacturing of TES concrete waste disposal drums. Cape Town.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SABS Standards Division. (2006). SANS5860:2006 – Concrete tests. Pretoria: SABS.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SABS Standards Division. (2006). SANS 5863:2006 strength tests (1.1 ed.). Pretoria: SABS.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    SABS Standards division. (2006). SANS 6253:2006 (1.1 ed.). Pretoria: SABS.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    SABS Standards Division. (2006). SABS 6250:2006 concrete density test (1.1 ed.). Pretoria: SABS.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ulula Ash (Pty)Ltd. (2016). Test certificate for class S fly ash (SFA). Pretoria: PPC Group Laboratory Services.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SABS Standards Division. (2006). SANS 5861. 2006. (Part 1–3) (1.1 ed.). Pretoria: SABS.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, S., Van Riessen, A., & Chon, C. M. (2016). Benefits of sealed-curing on compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymers. Materials, 9(7), 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JohannesburgGautengSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations