The Comparison of the Properties of Geopolymer Paste and Ordinary Portland Cement Mortar Produced Using Polycarboxylate Based Admixture

Year 2022, Issue: 34, 537 - 540, 31.03.2022

Evren Arıöz , Gamze Saraç , Ömer Arıöz , Ö. Mete Koçkar

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1083318

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Chemical admixtures are generally used in ready mixed concrete production to improve and enhance the concrete properties. Polycarboxylate based superplasticizers are classified as third generation plasticizing admixtures which increase fluidity and workability without decreasing compressive strength. Geopolymers having many superior properties are alternative materials to ordinary Portland cement concrete. Geopolymers are environmentally friendly and sustainable materials because they can be synthesized from waste materials such as fly ash. In this experimental study, geopolymer pastes were produced by using fly ash, 10 M sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate solution and plasticizer. Cement mortars were produced according to TS EN 196-1 standard. Polycarboxylate based plasticizers synthesized at laboratory conditions were used at 1% by weight in both ordinary Portland cement mortar and geopolymer paste. Geopolymer samples were aged for 7 and 28 days at laboratory conditions while cement mortars were aged in water bath. The fluidity values of fresh mixtures were determined. The flexural strength and compressive strength tests were conducted at the ages of 7 and 28 days. The plasticizers had positive effects on cement mortars but unfavorable results on geopolymer. The use of plasticizer increased the fluidity and the strength values in mortars, on the contrary, admixtures caused decrease in the values of geopolymer samples. The highest compressive strength was obtained as 38.3 MPa for mortar sample aged for 28 days and was 15.3 MPa for geopolymer samples.

Keywords

Plasticizer, Cement mortar, Geopolymer, Compressive strength

References

• Cagg, C. R. (2014). Cement and concrete as an engineering material: An historic appraisal and case study analysis. Engineering Failure Analysis, 40, 114 – 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.02.004
• SinghN.B., KumarM. & Rai S. (2020). Geopolymer cement and concrete: Properties. Materials Today: Proceedings, 29, 743-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.513
• Damme, H.V. (2018). Concrete material science: Past, present, and future innovations. Cement and Concrete Research, 112, 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.002
• Thamilselvi, P., Siva A., & D. Oyejobi. (2017). Geopolymer Concrete: Overview. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 8, 10-14.
• Pavithra P., Reddy M.S., Dinakar P., Rao B. H., Satpathy B.K. & Mohanty A.N. (2016). A mix design procedure for geopolymer concrete with fly ash. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.041
• Mehta A. & Siddique R. (2016). An overview of geopolymers derived from industrial by-products. Construction and Building Materials, 127, 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.136
• Li F., Chen D., Yang Z., Lu Y., Zhang H. & Li S. (2022). Effect of mixed fibers on fly ash-based geopolymer resistance against carbonation. Construction and Building Materials, 322, 126394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126394
• Degefu D.M., Liao Z., Berardi U. & Labbe G. (2022). The dependence of thermophysical and hygroscopic properties of macro-porous geopolymers on Si/Al. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 582, 121432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2022.121432
• Podolsky Z., Liu J., Doh J.H., Guerrieri M. & Fragomeni S. (2021). State of the art on the application of waste materials in geopolymer concrete. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, e00687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00637
• Li S., Zhang J., Li Z., Gao Y. & Liu C. (2021). Feasibility study of red mud-blast furnace slag based geopolymeric grouting material: Effect of superplasticizers. Construction and Building Materials, 267, 120910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120910
• Mardani-Aghabaglou A., Tuyan M., Yılmaz G., Arıöz Ö. & Ramyar K. (2013). Effect of different types of superplasticizer on fresh, rheological and strength properties of self-consolidating concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 47, 1020-1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.105
• Wang C., Kayali O. & Liow J. (2021). The effectiveness and mechanisms of superplasticisers in dispersing class F fly ash pastes. Powder Technology, 392, 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.06.054
• Kang S.H., Kwon M., Kwon Y. & Moon J. (2021). Effects of polycarboxylate ether (PCE)-based superplasticizer on the dissolution and subsequent hydration of calcium oxide (CaO). Cement and Concrete Research, 146, 106467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106467
• Ren J., Wang X., Xu S., Luo Q., Fang Y., Zhu J. & Xing F. (2021). Effects of polycarboxylate superplasticiser on hydration characteristics and hardened properties of cement blended with seawater. Construction and Building Materials, 304, 124660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124660
• Al-Shwaiter A., Awang H. & Khalaf M. A. (2021). The influence of superplasticiser on mechanical, transport and microstructure properties of foam concrete. Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, In Press, Corrected Proof, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2021.02.010