Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of granite waste in slag-based geopolymer activated by RHA derivative

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study presents an in-depth investigation into the utilization of granite waste as a partial replacement for the M-sand in geopolymer concrete in various proportions such as 5, 10, 15, and 20%. Geopolymer in this study is made using GGBS as the precursor material and RHA-based derivative as the activator solution. The experimental research focuses on geopolymer concrete that is activated using a derivative of rice husk ash (RHA). The primary objective is to assess the potential enhancement of mechanical properties and durability characteristics by incorporating granite waste powder. A series of tests were conducted to evaluate the effects of varying levels of granite waste powder and RHA derivative on properties such as compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths, water absorption, chloride penetration resistance, and resistance to acid attack. Followed by the scrupulous discussion part, SEM analysis is performed to determine the morphology of the optimum specimen. The research revealed enhanced mechanical and durability properties at 10% utilization of granite waste due to the improved microstructure with reduced porosity owing to the fine and angular nature of granite waste. Additionally, geopolymer concrete activated with the RHA derivative demonstrates promising potential as a sustainable alternative to conventional alkaline activators. These findings contribute valuable insights to the field, offering a sustainable approach to enhancing geopolymer concrete properties while minimizing environmental impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

GC:

Geopolymer concrete

GGBS:

Ground granulated blast furnace slag

FA:

Fly ash

SEM:

Scanning electron microscopic

GP:

Granite waste powder

RCC:

Reinforced cement concrete

SSA:

Specific surface area

RHA:

Rice hush ash

CS:

Compressive strength

TS:

Tensile strength

FS:

Flexural strength

SSA:

Sugarcane straw ashes

RCPT:

Rapid chloride penetration test

ITZ:

Interfacial transition zone

References

  1. Alex J, Dhanalakshmi J, Ambedkar B (2016) Experimental investigation on rice husk ash as cement replacement on concrete production. Constr Build Mater 127:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Meyer C (2002) Concrete and sustainable development. ACI Mater J 94:409–416

    Google Scholar 

  3. Heath A, Paine K, McManus M (2014) Minimising the global warming potential of clay based geopolymers. J Clean Prod 78:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mikulčić H, Klemeš JJ, Vujanović M, Urbaniec K, Duić N (2016) Reducing greenhouse gasses emissions by fostering the deployment of alternative raw materials and energy sources in the cleaner cement manufacturing process. J Clean Prod 136:119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:282–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-007-0327-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kajaste R, Hurme M (2016) Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions—management options and abatement cost. J Clean Prod 112:4041–4052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Turner LK, Collins FG (2013) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build Mater 43:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davidovits J (1994) GEOPOLYMERS: man-made rock geosynthesis and the resulting development of very early high strength cement. Mater Eduuc 16:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chithambar Ganesh MS, Muthukannan M, Rajeswaran M, Uma Shankar T (2018) Comparative study on the behavior of geopolymer concrete using M-sand and conventional concrete exposed to elevated temperature. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 9:981–989. https://doi.org/10.1021/je60086a034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ganesh AC, Kumar MV, Mukilan K, Kumar AS (2022) Investigation on the effect of ultra fine rice husk ash over slag based geopolymer concrete. Res Eng Struct Mater. https://doi.org/10.17515/resm2022.501ma0814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Suresh Kumar A, Muthukannan M, Arunkumar K, Chithambar Ganesh A, Kanniga Devi R (2022) Utilisation of waste glass powder to improve the performance of hazardous incinerated biomedical waste ash geopolymer concrete. Innov Infrastruct Solut. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00694-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Suresh Kumar A, Muthukannan M, Irene ADKB, Arunkumar K, Chithambar GA (2022) Flexural behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete incorporated with hazardous heavy metal waste ash and glass powder. Mater Sci Forum 1048:345–358. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1048.345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chithambar Ganesh A, Muthukannan M (2019) Investigation on the glass fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete made of M-sand. J Mater Eng Struct 6:501–512

    Google Scholar 

  14. Arunkumar K, Muthukannan M, Kumar AS, Ganesh AC, Devi RK (2022) Cleaner environment approach by the utilization of low calcium wood ash in geopolymer concrete. Appl Sci Eng Prog 15:1–13. https://doi.org/10.14416/j.asep.2021.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ganesh AC, Mukilan K, Srikar BPV, Teja LVS, Prasad KSV, Kumar AA, Sharath RP (2022) Effect of flyash-rice husk ash blend in the energy efficient geopolymer tiles using industrial wastes. Mater Sci Forum 1048:403–411. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1048.403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ganesh C, Muthukannan M, Suresh Kumar A, Arunkumar K (2021) Influence of bacterial strain combination in hybrid fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete subjected to heavy and very heavy traffic condition. J Adv Concr Technol 19:359–369. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.19.359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chithambar Ganesh A, Vinod Kumar M, Kanniga Devi R, Srikar P, Prasad S, Manoj Kumar M, Sarath RP (2021) Pervious geopolymer concrete under ambient curing. Mater Today Proc 46:2737–2741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ganesh AC, Deepak N, Deepak V, Ajay S, Pandian A (2020) Utilization of PET bottles and plastic granules in geopolymer concrete. Mater Today Proc 42:444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mohana R, Bharathi SL (2022) Sustainable utilization of pre-treated and nano fly ash powder for the development of durable geopolymer mortars. Adv Powder Technol 33:103696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rajendran M, Akasi M (2020) Performance of crumb rubber and nano fly ash based ferro-geopolymer panels under impact load. KSCE J Civ Eng 24:1810–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-0854-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mohana R, Soundarapandian N (2015) Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading. Sci Eng Compos Mater 22:331–341. https://doi.org/10.1515/secm-2013-0012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rao AK, Kumar DR (2020) Effect of various alkaline binder ratio on geopolymer concrete under ambient curing condition. Mater Today Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghafoor MT, Khan QS, Qazi AU, Sheikh MN, Hadi MNS (2020) Influence of alkaline activators on the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mehta A, Siddique R (2018) Sustainable geopolymer concrete using ground granulated blast furnace slag and rice husk ash: strength and permeability properties. J Clean Prod 205:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saeed A, Najm HM, Hassan A, Sabri MMS, Qaidi S, Mashaan NS, Ansari K (2022) Properties and applications of geopolymer composites: a review study of mechanical and microstructural properties. Materials (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15228250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Qaidi S, Najm HM, Abed SM, Ahmed HU, Al Dughaishi H, Al Lawati J, Sabri MM, Alkhatib F, Milad A (2022) Fly ash-based geopolymer composites: a review of the compressive strength and microstructure analysis. Materials (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ganesh AC, Muthukannan M, Aakassh S, Subramanaian B (2020) Energy efficient production of geopolymer bricks using industrial waste. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/872/1/012154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chithambar Ganesh A, Muthukannan M (2018) A review of recent developments in geopolymer concrete. Int J Eng Technol 7:696–699. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.29.14000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Özkan I (2016) Production of sodium silicate cullets by using trona. Acta Phys Pol A 129:451–454. https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.129.451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Luukkonen T, Abdollahnejad Z, Yliniemi J, Kinnunen P, Illikainen M (2018) Comparison of alkali and silica sources in one-part alkali-activated blast furnace slag mortar. J Clean Prod 187:171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moraes JCB, Font A, Soriano L, Akasaki JL, Tashima MM, Monzó J, Borrachero MV, Payá J (2018) New use of sugar cane straw ash in alkali-activated materials: a silica source for the preparation of the alkaline activator. Constr Build Mater 171:611–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Villaquirán-Caicedo MA, de Gutiérrez RM, Sulekar S, Davis C, Nino JC (2015) Thermal properties of novel binary geopolymers based on metakaolin and alternative silica sources. Appl Clay Sci 118:276–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Villaquirán-Caicedo MA, de Gutiérrez RM (2018) Synthesis of ceramic materials from ecofriendly geopolymer precursors. Mater Lett 230:300–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.07.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tchakouté HK, Rüscher CH, Kong S, Kamseu E, Leonelli C (2016) Comparison of metakaolin-based geopolymer cements from commercial sodium waterglass and sodium waterglass from rice husk ash. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol 78:492–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-016-3983-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rajan HS, Kathirvel P (2021) Sustainable development of geopolymer binder using sodium silicate synthesized from agricultural waste. J Clean Prod 286:124959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Padmalal D, Maya K, Sreebha S, Sreeja R (2008) Environmental effects of river sand mining: a case from the river catchments of Vembanad lake Southwest coast of India. Environ Geol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0870-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Anthony EJ, Brunier G, Besset M, Goichot M, Dussouillez P, Nguyen VL (2015) Linking rapid erosion of the Mekong River delta to human activities. Sci Rep 5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kondolf GM (1997) Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environ Manag 21:533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tangaramvong S, Nuaklong P, Khine MT, Jongvivatsakul P (2021) The influences of granite industry waste on concrete properties with different strength grades. Case Stud Constr Mater 15:e00669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chouhan DS, Agrawal Y, Gupta T, Sharma RK (2017) Utilization of granite slurry waste in concrete: a review. Indian J Sci Technol 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i6/88279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Qaidi S, Najm HM, Abed SM, Özkılıç YO, Al Dughaishi H, Alosta M, Sabri MMS, Alkhatib F, Milad A (2022) Concrete containing waste glass as an environmentally friendly aggregate: a review on fresh and mechanical characteristics. Materials (Basel) 15:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15186222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Singh S, Nagar R (2016) Feasibility as a potential substitute for natural sand : a comparative study between granite cutting waste and marble slurry. Procedia Environ Sci 35:571–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mbengue MTM, Gana AL, Messan A, Pantet A (2022) Geotechnical and mechanical characterization of lateritic soil improved with crushed granite. Civ Eng J 8:843–862. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-05-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Balakrishnan D, John T, Thomas J (2013) Properties of fly ash based geo-polymer concrete. Am J Eng Res 4:21–25

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mary ML, Peter C, Mohan K, Greens S, George S (2018) Energy efficient production of clay bricks using industrial waste. Heliyon 4:e00891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chithambar Ganesh A, Muthukannan M, Dhivya M, Sangeetha CB, Daffodile SP (2020) Structural performance of hybrid fiber geopolymer concrete beams. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/872/1/012155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ganesh AC, Muthukannan M (2021) Development of high performance sustainable optimized fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete and prediction of compressive strength. J Clean Prod 282:124543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Anuradha R, Sreevidyaa VV, Rangan BV (2011) Modified guidelines for geopolymer concrete mix design using Indian standard. Asian J Civ Eng Build. Housing 13:357–368

    Google Scholar 

  49. I.- 2009 (2009) Guidelines for concrete mix design proportioning. Bur Indian Stand. New Delhi, pp 1–14

  50. IS:1199-1959 (2004) Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete. https://doi.org/10.2174/18722105130103.

  51. Singh S, Nagar R, Agrawal V, Rana A, Tiwari A (2016) Sustainable utilization of granite cutting waste in high strength concrete. J Clean Prod 116:223–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gupta LK, Vyas AK (2018) Impact on mechanical properties of cement sand mortar containing waste granite powder. Constr Build Mater 191:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. I.S. 516-1959 (1959) Method of tests for strength of concrete. Bur Indian Stand, pp 1–30

  54. Jain A, Gupta R, Chaudhary S (2019) Performance of self-compacting concrete comprising granite cutting waste as fine aggregate. Constr Build Mater 221:539–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Savadkoohi MS, Reisi M (2020) Environmental protection based sustainable development by utilization of granite waste in reactive powder concrete. J Clean Prod 266:121973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Medina G, Sáez del Bosque IF, Frías M, Sánchez de Rojas MI, Medina C (2017) Mineralogical study of granite waste in a pozzolan/Ca(OH)2 system: influence of the activation process. Appl Clay Sci 135:362–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2016.10.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. I.S. 5816-1999 (1999) Indian standard Splitting tensile strength of concrete- method of test. Bur Indian Stand., pp 1–14

  58. Shilar FA, Ganachari SV, Patil VB, Nisar KS, Abdel-Aty AH, Yahia IS (2022) Evaluation of the effect of granite waste powder by varying the molarity of activator on the mechanical properties of ground granulated blast-furnace slag-based geopolymer concrete. Polymers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14020306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ghannam S, Najm H, Vasconez R (2016) Experimental study of concrete made with granite and iron powders as partial replacement of sand. Sustain Mater Technol 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2016.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. A.- C642-97 (2005) Standard test methods for density, absorption, and voids in hardened concrete. ASTM Int., pp 1–3

  61. Zafar MS, Javed U, Khushnood RA, Nawaz A, Zafar T (2020) Sustainable incorporation of waste granite dust as partial replacement of sand in autoclave aerated concrete. Constr Build Mater 250:118878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mashaly AO, Shalaby BN, Rashwan MA (2018) Performance of mortar and concrete incorporating granite sludge as cement replacement. Constr Build Mater 169:800–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. A. C1202-12 (2012) Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration. ASTM, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1520/C1202-12.2

  64. Jain KL, Sancheti G, Gupta LK (2020) Durability performance of waste granite and glass powder added concrete. Constr Build Mater 252:119075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vijayalakshmi M, Sekar ASS, Ganesh Prabhu G (2013) Strength and durability properties of concrete made with granite industry waste. Constr Build Mater 46:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. ASTM-C267-98 (1998) Standard test methods for chemical resistance of mortars, grouts and monolithic surfacings and polymer concretes. ASTM Int, vol 4, pp 1–6

  67. Saxena R, Gupta T, Sharma RK, Panwar NL (2021) Influence of granite waste on mechanical and durability properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Environ Dev Sustain 23:17810–17834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01414-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Benalia S, Zeghichi L, Benghazi Z (2022) A comparative study of metakaolin/slag-based geopolymer mortars incorporating natural and recycled sands. Civ Eng J 8:1622–1638. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-08-07

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India

    A. Chithambar Ganesh

  2. Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, Tirupati, India

    Hemadri Prasad Raju

  3. Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, Sivakasi, India

    J. Ram Prasad

  4. Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, India

    K. Mukilan

Authors
  1. A. Chithambar Ganesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hemadri Prasad Raju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Ram Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Mukilan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Chithambar Ganesh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ganesh, A.C., Raju, H.P., Prasad, J.R. et al. Effect of granite waste in slag-based geopolymer activated by RHA derivative. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 8, 269 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01241-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01241-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation