Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering and Durability Performances of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Mortar Containing Aluminosilicate Rich Flood Soil Waste With and Without Lime Treatment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Silicon Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study attempts to identify the potential of geopolymerization in developing a sustainable binding material using fly ash and flood soil waste as source material. The flood soil used in the study was collected from flood-affected areas of Kerala during the 2018 outburst. The dominance of silica in flood soil waste was revealed by microstructural characterization methods such as XRF, SEM, EDX, XRD, TGA and FTIR analysis. A set of 30 mix proportions were designed using the central composite design in design expert software to obtain the optimal mix. The parameters such as molarity of sodium hydroxide solution, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio (S/N), curing temperature and percentage of clay were analyzed statically using response surface methodology. A study was conducted regarding the influence of above parameters on properties such as compressive strength, dry density and water absorption. The outcome revealed that the compressive strength and dry density reached their maximum value and then decreased with an increase in molarity of sodium hydroxide solution and temperature of curing, while variations in water absorption followed a reverse trend. The optimum mix was at a molarity of 7 M, S/N ratio of 2 at 25 % flood soil waste and 75 °C of curing temperature. It was observed that treating flood soil waste with 4 % lime improved engineering properties in terms of compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength. Again, the durability performances in terms of water absorption, sorptivity, impact resistance, abrasion resistance, drying shrinkage, acid attack resistance and sulfate attack resistance were also observed to be improved with the addition of lime. The improvement in engineering and durability performances after lime treatment of flood soil was attributed to the formation of C-S-H gel in the matrix which was discussed with the microstructural studies such as XRD and FTIR analysis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The information regarding materials used and regarding its collection is already discussed in the research article. The data related to this research article was obtained by performing tests experimentally and is discussed.

References

  1. Davidovits J (1994) Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries. World Resour Rev 6(2):263–278

    Google Scholar 

  2. Laskar SM, Talukdar S (2017) Development of ultrafine slag-based geopolymer mortar for use as repairing mortar. J Mater Civ Eng 29(5):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Davidovits J (1989) Geopolymer and geopolymer materials. J Thermal Anal 35:429–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01904446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sakthidoss DD (2020) A study on high strength geopolymer concrete with alumina- silica materials using manufacturing sand. Silicon 12:735–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-019-00263-w

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Duxson P, Provis JL, Si F (2008) Designing precursors for geopolymer cements. JACTAW 91(12):3864–3869. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02787.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, Hatanaka S, Cao T (2011) High-strength geopolymer using fine high-calcium fly ash. J Mater Civ Eng 23(3):264–270. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Winnefeld F, Leemann A, Lucuk M, Svoboda P, Neuroth M (2010) Assessment of phase formation in alkali activated low and high calcium fly ashes in building materials. Constr Build Mater 24(6):1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Soutsos M, Boyle AP, Vinai R, Hadjierakleous A, Barnett SJ (2016) Factors influencing the compressive strength of fly ash based geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 110:355–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.045

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Roy DM, Arjunan P, Silsbee MR (2001) Effect of silica fume, metakaolin, and low-calcium fly ash on chemical resistance of concrete. Cem Concr Res 31(12):1809–1813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00548-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bakharev T (2005) Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem Concr Res 35(4):658–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.06.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huseien GF, Mirza J, Ismail M, Ghoshal SK, Abdulameer Hussein A (2017) Geopolymer mortars as sustainable repair material: A comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 80:54–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nagajothi S, Elavenil S (2021) Effect of GGBS addition on reactivity and microstructure properties of ambient cured fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Silicon 13:507–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-020-00470-w

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jithendra C, Elavenil S (2020) Effects of silica fume on workability and compressive strength properties of aluminosilicate based flowable geopolymer mortar under ambient curing. Silicon 12:1965–1974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-019-00308-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Le CH, Louda P, Buczkowska KE (2021) Investigation on flexural behavior of geopolymer-based carbon textile / basalt fiber hybrid composite. Polymers 13:751. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13050751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lingyu T, Dongpo H, Jianing Z, Hongguang W (2021) Durability of geopolymers and geopolymer concretes: A review. Rev Adv Mater Sci 60:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/rams-2021-0002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin W, Lin K, Korniejenko K, Fiala L (2021) Comparative analysis between fly ash geopolymer and reactive. Int J Eng Technol Innov 11(3):161–170. https://doi.org/10.46604/ijeti.2021.7129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gailitis R, Korniejenko K, Sprince A, Pakrastins L (2020) Comparison of the long-term properties of foamed concrete and geopolymer concrete in compression. AIP Conference Proceedings 2239, 020012. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0007787

  18. Saranya P, Nagarajan P, Shashikala AP (2019) Development of ground-granulated blast-furnace slag-dolomite geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 116(6):235–243. https://doi.org/10.14359/51716981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fazil H, Yan D, Zhang Y, Zeng Q (2021) Effect of size of coarse aggregate on mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete and ordinary concrete. Materials 14:3316. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ogundiran MB, Kumar S (2015) Synthesis and characterization of geopolymer from Nigerian Clay. Appl Clay Sci 108:173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.02.022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Priyadharshini P, Ramamurthy K, Robinson RG (2017) Excavated soil waste as fine aggregate in fly ash based geopolymer mortar. Appl Clay Sci 146:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.05.038

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nampi PP, Moothetty P, Berry J, Gopakumar K (2010) Aluminosilicates with varying alumina – Silica ratios: Synthesis via a hybrid sol – Gel route and structural characterisation. Dalton Trans 39:5101–5107. https://doi.org/10.1039/c001219j

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Anbalagan G, Gunasekaran S (2010) Spectroscopic characterization of indian standard sand. J Appl Spectrosc 77(1):86–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10812-010-9297-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. ASTM C618 (2010) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  25. ASTM C 311-04 (2005) Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or natural pozzolans for use in portland-cement concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zahid M, Shafiq N, Isa MH, Gil L (2018) Statistical modeling and mix design optimization of fly ash based engineered geopolymer composite using response surface methodology. J Clean Prod 194:483–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang P, Zheng Y, Wang K, Zhang JSC (2018) A review on properties of fresh and hardened geopolymer mortar. Compos B Eng 152:79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.06.031

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. ASTM C1437-15 (2013) Standard test method for flow of hydraulic cement mortar. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  29. ASTM C109/109M-16a (2016) Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  30. IS 5816: 1999 Indian standard Splitting tensile strength of concrete- method of test. Bur. Indian Stand, New Delhi, India. bis.gov.in

  31. ASTM C348 (1999) Standard test method for flexural strength of dimension stone. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  32. ASTM C642-13 (2015) Standard test method for density, absorption, and voids in hardened concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  33. ASTM C1585-13 (2013) Standard test method for measurement of rate of absorption of water by hydraulic cement concretes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  34. ASTM C 157/C 157M – 03 (2003) Standard test method for length change of hardened hydraulic-cement mortar. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  35. ACI 544.2R-89 (1999) Measurement of properties of fiber reinforced concrete. reported by ACI committee 544

  36. Saranya P, Nagarajan P, Shashikala AP (2021) Performance studies on steel fiber– Reinforced GGBS-dolomite geopolymer concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 33(2):0899–1561. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003530

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zeng XH, Xie YJ, Deng DH, Wang P, Qu FL (2016) A study of the dynamic mechanical properties of CRTS I type CA mortar. Constr Build Mater 112(2):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. IS:15658 – 2006 Indian Standard Precast Concrete Block for Paving-Specification Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi, India, bis.gov.in

  39. ASTM C1898-20 (2020) Standard test methods for determining the chemical resistance of concrete products to acid attack. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  40. ASTM C267-20 (2012) Standard test methods for chemical resistance of mortars, grouts, and monolithic surfacings and polymer concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  41. Görhan G, Kürklü G (2014) The influence of the NaOH solution on the properties of the fly ash-based geopolymer mortar cured at different temperatures. Compos Part B Eng 58:371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Mo H, Zhu H, Cui XM, He Y, Gong SY (2014) Effect of curing temperature on geopolymerization of metakaolin-based geopolymers Appl. Clay Sci 99:144–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.06.024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Jin M, Zheng Z, Sun Y, Chen L, Jin Z (2016) Resistance of metakaolin-MSWI fly ash based geopolymer to acid and alkaline environment. J Non Cryst Solids 450:116–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Guo L, Wu Y, Xu F, Song X, Ye J, Duan P, Zhang Z (2020) Sulfate resistance of hybrid fiber reinforced metakaolin geopolymer composites. Comp Part B 183:107689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Parathi S, Naagarajan P, Pallikkara SA (2021) Ecofriendly geopolymer concrete: a comprehensive review. Clean Technol Environ Policy 23:1701–1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02085-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Saranya P, Naagarajan P, Shashikala AP (2020) Engineering and durability properties of slag-dolomite geopolymer mortars. Proc Inst Civ Eng: Constr Mater :1–32. https://doi.org/10.1680/jcoma.18.00096

  47. Mermerdas K, Manguri S, Nassani DE, Oleiwi SM (2017) Effect of aggregate properties on the mechanical and absorption characteristics of geopolymer mortar. Eng Sci Technol An int J 20(6):1642–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the staffs and faculty members of NITC for the invaluable help and support extended in performing the experimental work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kattangal, Kerala, India

    Sreedevi Lekshmi & J. Sudhakumar

Authors
  1. Sreedevi Lekshmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Sudhakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed towards the experimental investigation and drafting of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sreedevi Lekshmi.

Ethics declarations

This manuscript has not been submitted or under review in other journals.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

As the corresponding author, I declare the consent to participate.

Consent for Publication

As the corresponding author, I give my consent for the publication of details given in the research article.

Conflict of Interest

Not applicable.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest. 

Research Involving Human Participants or Animals

Not applicable.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lekshmi, S., Sudhakumar, J. Engineering and Durability Performances of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Mortar Containing Aluminosilicate Rich Flood Soil Waste With and Without Lime Treatment. Silicon 14, 6141–6156 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-021-01391-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-021-01391-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation