RETRACTED ARTICLE: Durability studies on conventional concrete and slag-based geopolymer concrete in aggressive sulphate environment

Abstract

As a potential substitute to conventional concrete, slag-based geopolymer concrete can be a promising material towards green and low carbon building approach. However, the lack of understanding of its performance subjected to sulphate environment can prohibit its use to some extent. This study examines the properties of conventional concrete exposed to a severe sulphate environment in comparison with slag-based geopolymer (SGPC). Plain cement concrete (PCC) also known as conventional concrete was cast using ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) as a binder. The durability of both types of concrete was examined by immersing test specimens in sulphate solutions (for varied salt concentrations of 2 and 4 g/l) for different curing ages up to a year. The performance of both types of concrete was studied for both mechanical and durability properties. Mechanical properties included compressive, tensile and flexural strengths (FS), while durability consisted of sorptivity, chloride diffusion, corrosion, EDS and SEM studies. The outcomes of this study revealed that the compressive (CS) and split tensile strengths (STS) of both OPC and SGPC decreased with the increase in magnesium sulphate salt concentrations and curing age. After being exposed to a 4% sulphate solution for 365 days, a decrease in the compressive strength was observed by 36.53% in SGPC and 55.97% in OPC, and a similar trend was found for the FS and STS. Rapid chloride permeability (RCPT) and sorptivity test results showed an increased diffusion with age and thus supported the findings of the compressive strength. Micro-structural properties were also studied, and observations showed that the formation of Sodium alumino-silicate hydrate (N–A–S–H) and Calcium alumino-silicate hydrate (C–A–S–H) was more obvious with the curing age in SGPC. At the same time, C–S–H gel formation decreased in conventional concrete with an increase in sulphate salt concentration. The cumulative effect of all these factors led to a much higher corrosion rate of rebars embedded in conventional concrete than in SGPC. Therefore, slag-based geopolymer concrete performed better than conventional concrete in an aggressive sulphate environment for all curing periods.

Keywords

Slag-based geopolymer concrete (SGPC) / Compressive strength / Tensile strength / Flexural strength / Chloride diffusion / Sorptivity / Polarization resistance

References

[1] AlbitarM, Mohamed AliMS, VisintinP, DrechslerM. Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional concretes. Constr Build Mater, 2017, 136: 374-385

[2] AljerfL. Effect of thermal-cured hydraulic cement admixtures on the mechanical properties of concrete. Interceram—Int Ceram Rev, 2015, 64: 346-356

[3] BakharevT. Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions. Cem Concr Res, 2005, 35(6): 1233-1246

[4] BakharevT. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem Concr Res, 2005, 35(4): 658-670

[5] BalamuralikrishnanR, SaravananJ. Effect of addition of alccofine on the compressive strength of cement mortar cubes. Emerg Sci J, 2021, 5(2): 155-170

[6] BarceloL, KlineJ, WalentaG, GartnerE. Cement and carbon emissions. Mater Struct/mater Et Constr, 2014, 47(6): 1055-1065

[7] BerrocalCG, LundgrenK, LöfgrenI. Corrosion of steel bars embedded in fibre reinforced concrete under chloride attack: state of the art. Cem Concr Res, 2016, 80: 69-85

[8] BuenfeldNR, NewmanJB. The permeability of concrete in a marine environment. Mag Concr Res, 1984, 36(127): 67-80

[9] EdserC. Reducing the environmental impact of laundry. Focus Surf, 2005, 2005(4): 1-2

[10] GuptaN, SiddiqueR. Durability characteristics of self-compacting concrete made with copper slag. Constr Build Mater, 2020

[11] HendriksCA, WorrellE, DdeJ, BlokK, RiemerP. Emission reduction of greenhouse gases from the cement industry. Greenhouse Gas Control Technol Conf, 2003

[12] IS 10262 (2019) Concrete mix proportioning—guidelines (Second Revision) Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi India 110002.

[13] IS 383 (2016) Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete- specification. in bureau of Indian standard, BIS, New Delhi India 110002

[14] IS 4563 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete—code of practice. bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi India 110002

[15] IS 516 (2018) Indian standard methods of tests for strength of concrete (First Revision) Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi India 110002

[16] JindalBB, SinghalD, SharmaS, ParveenJ. Enhancing mechanical and durability properties of geopolymer concrete with mineral admixture. Comput Concr, 2018, 21(3): 345-353

[17] JosephB, MathewG. Influence of aggregate content on the behavior of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Sci Iran, 2012, 19(5): 1188-1194

[18] Liptak BG (1974) Water pollution. V.1, Environmental Engineer’s Handbook, pp 1–419

[19] MalhotraVM. Global warming and role of supplementary cementing materials and superplasticisers in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing of portland cement. Int J Struct Eng, 2010, 1(2): 116-130

[20] Mathew NS, Usha S (2016) Effects of copper slag as partial replacement for fine aggregate in geopolymer concrete. In: IOSR J Mech Civil Eng, 73–77

[21] MorlaP, GuptaR, AzarsaP, SharmaA. Corrosion evaluation of geopolymer concrete made with fly ash and bottom ash. Sustainability (switzerland), 2021, 13(1): 1-16

[22] MuhammedN, ShihabL, SakinS. Ultimate load of different types of reinforced self-compacting concrete columns attacked by sulphate. Civil Eng J (iran), 2022, 8(10): 2069-2083

[23] MustakimSM, DasSK, MishraJ, AftabA, AlomayriTS, AssaediHS, KazeCR. Improvement in fresh, mechanical and microstructural properties of fly ash- blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete by addition of nano and micro silica. SILICON, 2021, 13(8): 2415-2428

[24] ParveenJ, SinghalD. Development of mix design method for geopolymer concrete. Adv Concr Constr, 2017, 5(4): 377-390

[25] ParveenSD, JunaidMT, JindalBB, MehtaA. Mechanical and microstructural properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete incorporating alccofine at ambient curing. Constr Build Mater, 2018, 180(2018): 298-307

[26] ParveenSaloniMAS. Effect of ultra-fine slag on mechanical and permeability properties of Metakaolin-based sustainable geopolymer concrete. Adv Concr Constr, 2019, 7(4): 231-239

[27] PasupathyK, SanjayanJ, RajeevP, LawDW. The effect of chloride ingress in reinforced geopolymer concrete exposed in the marine environment. J Build Eng, 2021, 39(February): 102281

[28] PatankarSV, JamkarSS, GhugalYM. Effect of water-to-geopolymer binder ratio on the production of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Int J Adv Technol Civil Eng, 2013, 1: 79-83

[29] PunuraiW, KroehongW, SaptamongkolA, ChindaprasirtP. Mechanical properties, microstructure and drying shrinkage of hybrid fly ash-basalt fiber geopolymer paste. Constr Build Mater, 2018, 186: 62-70

[30] Robayo-SalazarR, Mejia-ArcilaJ, Mejia de GutierrezR, MartinezE. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an alkali-activated binary concrete based on natural volcanic pozzolan: a comparative analysis to OPC concrete. Constr Build Mater, 2018, 176: 103-111

[31] SaloniSA, SandhuV, JatinP. Effects of alccofine and curing conditions on properties of low calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Mater Today Proc, 2020

[32] SaloniP, PhamTM, LimYY, PradhanSS, JatinKJ. Performance of rice husk ash-based sustainable geopolymer concrete with ultra-fine slag and corn cob ash. Constr Build Mater, 2021, 279: 122526

[33] SangojuB, BharatkumarBH, GettuR, SrinivasanP, RamanjaneyuluK, IyerNR. Influence of PCE-SP and calcium nitrite inhibitor on mechanical and durability parameters of concrete. J Sci Ind Res, 2015, 74(2): 82-87

[34] SasuiS, KimG, NamJ, KoyamaT, ChansomsakS. Strength and microstructure of class-C fly ash and GGBS blend geopolymer activated in NaOH & NaOH + Na2SiO3. Materials, 2020

[35] SomuahSK, BoahJK, LeblancP, Al-TayyibAJ, Al-ManaAI. Effect of sulfate and carbonate ions on reinforcing steel corrosion as evaluated using AC impedence spectroscopy. ACI Mater JL, 1991, 88: 49-55

[36] SouzaDJ, MedeirosMH, Hoppe FilhoJ. Evaluation of external sulfate attack (Na2SO4 and MgSO4): portland cement mortars containing siliceous supplementary cementitious materials. Rev IBRACON De Estruturas e Mater, 2020, 13(4): 1-16

[37] ThanhTP, NguyenTT, NguyenTT. Experimental evaluation of geopolymer concrete strength using sea sand and sea water in mixture. Civil Eng J (iran), 2022, 8(8): 1574-1583

[38] Vázquez-RoweI, Ziegler-RodriguezK, LasoJ, QuispeI, AldacoR, KahhatR. Production of cement in Peru: understanding carbon-related environmental impacts and their policy implications. Resour Conserv Recycl, 2019, 142(December): 283-292

[39] WeeTH, SuryavanshiAK, TinSS. Evaluation of rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT) results for concrete containing mineral admixturesitle. Aci Struct J, 2000, 97(2): 221-232

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Joint Center on Global Change and Earth System Science of the University of Maryland and Beijing Normal University