Assessment of the Geopolymer Concrete Performance Compared to Conventional Concrete at High Temperatures from Microstructural Perspective

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. amiri 1
M. Aryanpoor 2
1 Assistant Professor, University of Hormozgan, Faculty of Engineering, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
2 Master Student, Islamic Azad University of Bandar Abbas, Faculty of Engineering.
Abstract
Nowadays, protecting various structures including commercial, medical, industrial, and residential infrastructures against fire is a very complex issue. High heat causes microstructural changes and decreases compressive strength of the concrete containing conventional portland cement, but geopolymers as the third generation of cement due to amorphous structure and aluminosilicate 3D networks lead to more stable behavior under high heat conditions considering the conventional concrete. Calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (C-A-S-H) nanostructures are products of the hydration and geopolymerization processes that play an important role in increasing the strength of conventional and geopolymeric concrete, But heat, either in transient or steady state, changes the mechanical properties and microstructure of the concrete. Hence for a deeper understanding of the behavior of C-S-H and C-A-S-H nanostructures affected by high temperatures, geopolymer concrete has been compared with conventional concrete. In this regard, about 300 samples were cured in the humidity bath for 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days. All samples were then put in of 25, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 700, and 900°C temperatures for 2 hours. Length and weight change percentages, compressive strength, and ultrasonic and cracking behavior tests were performed on all samples. Images from the scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis were also used to evaluate the microstructural behavior of samples in various temperatures. According to the results, the strength of both types of concrete decreases with increasing temperature. By increasing the temperature to more than 700 °C, the geopolymer concrete structure has transformed to a porous and semi-stable ceramic structure. This change in the ceramic structure has made a difference in the high heat compressive strength of geopolymer concrete vs. conventional concrete. The compressive strength of 28-day aged geopolymer concrete and conventional concrete samples at 900 °C was 7.35 and 4.31 MPa, respectively.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Tian Q, Nakama S, Sasaki K. Immobilization of cesium in fly ash-silica fume based geopolymers with different Si/Al molar ratios. Science of the total environment. 2019;687:1127-37.
2. Chen Q, Tyrer M, Hills CD, Yang X, Carey P. Immobilisation of heavy metal in cement-based solidification/stabilisation: a review. Waste management. 2009;29(1):390-403.
3. Tan H, Li M, Ren J, Deng X, Zhang X, Nie K, et al. Effect of aluminum sulfate on the hydration of tricalcium silicate. Construction and Building Materials. 2019;205:414-24.
4. Bellmann F, Sowoidnich T, Ludwig H-M, Damidot D. Dissolution rates during the early hydration of tricalcium silicate. Cement and Concrete Research. 2015;72:108-16.
5. Chen JJ, Thomas JJ, Taylor HF, Jennings HM. Solubility and structure of calcium silicate hydrate. Cement and concrete research. 2004;34(9):1499-519.
6. Aryanpour m, Amiri m. The Effects of High Temperatures on Concrete Performance based on Nanostructural Changes in Calcium Silicate Hydrate (C-S-H). Concrete Research. 2019;12(4):69-80 (In Persian).
7. Aguirre-Guerrero AM, Robayo-Salazar RA, de Gutiérrez RM. A novel geopolymer application: Coatings to protect reinforced concrete against corrosion. Applied Clay Science. 2017;135:437-46.
8. Cheng T, Chiu J. Fire-resistant geopolymer produced by granulated blast furnace slag. Minerals Engineering. 2003;16(3):205-10.
9. Majidi B. Geopolymer technology, from fundamentals to advanced applications: a review. Materials Technology. 2009;24(2):79-87.
10. Amari S, Darestani M, Millar GJ, Rintoul L, Samali B. Microchemistry and microstructure of sustainable mined zeolite-geopolymer. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019.
11. Su H, Xu J, Ren W. Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete exposed to dynamic compression under elevated temperatures. Ceramics International. 2016;42(3):3888-98.
12. Zhang HY, Kodur V, Wu B, Cao L, Wang F. Thermal behavior and mechanical properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperatures. Construction and Building Materials. 2016;109:17-24.
13. Nikolić V, Komljenović M, Baščarević Z, Marjanović N, Miladinović Z, Petrović R. The influence of fly ash characteristics and reaction conditions on strength and structure of geopolymers. Construction and Building Materials. 2015;94:361-70.
14. Davidovits J. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. Journal of Thermal Analysis and calorimetry. 1991;37(8):1633-56.
15. Temuujin J, Minjigmaa A, Rickard W, Van Riessen A. Thermal properties of spray-coated geopolymer-type compositions. Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry. 2011;107(1):287-92.
16. Sreevidya V. Investigations on the flexural behaviour of ferro geopolymer composite slabs. 2013.
17. Ghoddousi P, Salehi AM. Study of self-consolidating concrete robustness containing limestone powder based on rheological parameters. Modares Civil Engineering journal. 2019;18(5):155-63.
18. Yip CK, Lukey G, van Deventer JS. The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cement and concrete research. 2005;35(9):1688-97.
19. Guo XL, Shi HS, Lin MS, Dong WJ, editors. Effects of Calcium Contents in Class C Fly Ash Geopolymer. Advanced Materials Research; 2013: Trans Tech Publ.
20. Jindal BB. Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete with mineral admixtures: A review. Construction and Building Materials. 2019;227:116644.
21. Lemougna PN, Nzeukou A, Aziwo B, Tchamba A, Wang K-t, Melo UC, et al. Effect of slag on the improvement of setting time and compressive strength of low reactive volcanic ash geopolymers synthetized at room temperature. Materials Chemistry and Physics. 2020;239:122077.
22. ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1984.
23. Feng D, Tan H, Van Deventer J. Ultrasound enhanced geopolymerisation. Journal of materials science. 2004;39(2):571-80.
24. García-Lodeiro I, Palomo Ay, Fernández-Jiménez A. Alkali–aggregate reaction in activated fly ash systems. Cement and Concrete Research. 2007;37(2):175-83.
25. Yazdi MA, Liebscher M, Hempel S, Yang J, Mechtcherine V. Correlation of microstructural and mechanical properties of geopolymers produced from fly ash and slag at room temperature. Construction and Building Materials. 2018;191:330-41.
26. Amiri M, Aryanpour M. The Effect of High Temperatures on the Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Geopolymer Concrete. Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering. 2019 (In Persian).
27. Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Collins F. Effect of transient creep on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete for elevated temperature exposure. Cement and concrete research. 2014;56:182-9.
28. Brindley G, editor Thermal transformations of clays and layer silicates. Proceedings of International Clay Conference; 1975: Applied Publishing Ltd., Wilmette, Illinois, USA.
29. Hu S-g, Wu J, Yang W, He Y-j, Wang F-z, Ding Q-j. Preparation and properties of geopolymer-lightweight aggregate refractory concrete. Journal of Central South University of Technology. 2009;16(6):914.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 20, Issue 4
November and December 2020
Pages 39-53