Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a biopolymer modified geopolymer based cementitious material for enhancement of pumpable roof support

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the utilization of biopolymer to improve the ductility of class F fly ash based geopolymer cementitious material developed for pumpable roof support. Specifically, two biopolymers, kappa-carrageenan (CAR) and gellan gum (GEL), at different dosages, were used to prepare the geopolymer cementitious material specimens and systematic tests were performed to measure the peak uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Young’s modulus, residual UCS, and tensile strength of the hybrid geopolymer-biopolymer cementitious material (HGBCM). The results show that incorporation of biopolymer up to 0.5 wt.% slightly increases or decreases the peak UCS and Young’s modulus, but effectively increases the maximum residual UCS at 0.3 wt.% biopolymer as required. Furthermore, the included biopolymer slightly decreases the tensile strength, with the HGBCM containing CAR showing higher tensile strength than that containing GEL. Compared with the cementitious material currently used in practice, the HGBCM developed in this study shows superior performance.

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
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and models generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.

References

  1. Amick M, Mazzoca J, Vosefski D (1993) The Use of foamed cement cribs at american electric power fuel supply meigs division. In: 12th International conference on ground control in mining. West Virginia University, pp 55–58

  2. Barczak TM, Tadolini SC (2008) Pumpable roof supports: an evolution in longwall roof support technology. Trans Soc Mining, Metall Explor 324:19–31

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nikvar-Hassani A, Zhang L (2020) Development of a New Geopolymer Based Cementitious Material for Pumpable Roof Supports in Underground Mining. Geo-Congress 2020: Engineering, Monitoring, and Management of Geotechnical Infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp 325–334

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Mills PS (2009) Cement-containing compositions and method of use. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/297,919

  5. Jennmar Corporation (2013) J-CRIB pumpable crib catalogue. Taken from “www.jennchem.com.au”

  6. Heintzmann Corporation (2001) Heitech pumbable cribs catalogue. Taken from “http://www.heintzmann.eu”

  7. Cheng J, Li W, Zhang P (2015) A novel backfill material for roof supports in the cut-through entries of longwall mining. Teh Vjesn 22:201–208. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20141130115523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Batchler T (2017) Analysis of the design and performance characteristics of pumpable roof supports. Int J Min Sci Technol 27:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2016.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abbasi SM, Ahmadi H, Khalaj G, Ghasemi B (2016) Microstructure and mechanical properties of a metakaolinite-based geopolymer nanocomposite reinforced with carbon nanotubes. Ceram Int 42:15171–15176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khater HM, Abd El Gawaad HA (2016) Characterization of alkali activated geopolymer mortar doped with MWCNT. Constr Build Mater 102:329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang Z, Li F, Li W et al (2021) Effect of carbon nanotubes on porosity and mechanical properties of slag-based geopolymer. Arab J Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-05555-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Saafi M, Andrew K, Tang PL et al (2013) Multifunctional properties of carbon nanotube/fly ash geopolymeric nanocomposites. Constr Build Mater 49:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chougan M, Hamidreza Ghaffar S, Jahanzat M et al (2020) The influence of nano-additives in strengthening mechanical performance of 3D printed multi-binder geopolymer composites. Constr Build Mater 250:118928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang Q, Lai MH, Zhang J et al (2020) Greener engineered cementitious composite (ECC) – The use of pozzolanic fillers and unoiled PVA fibers. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang S, Tan KH (2021) Flexural performance of reinforced carbon nanofibers enhanced lightweight cementitious composite (CNF-LCC) beams. Eng Struct 238:112221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Xie XL, Mai YW, Zhou XP (2005) Dispersion and alignment of carbon nanotubes in polymer matrix: a review. Mater Sci Eng R Reports 49:89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2005.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ashton HC (2009) The Incorporation of Nanomaterials into Polymer Media. Polym Nanocomposites Handb 35–58

  18. Yazdanbakhsh A, Grasley Z, Tyson B, Abu Al-Rub RK (2010) Distribution of carbon nanofibers and nanotubes in cementitious composites. Transp Res Rec. https://doi.org/10.3141/2142-13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moniruzzaman M, Winey KI (2006) Polymer nanocomposites containing carbon nanotubes. Macromolecules 39:5194–5205. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma060733p

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mann S (2001) Biomineralization: principles and concepts in bioinorganic materials chemistry. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yu S-H, Chen S (2009) Biomineralization: self-assembly processes. Encycl Inorg Chem. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470862106.ia353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Espinosa HD, Rim JE, Barthelat F, Buehler MJ (2009) Merger of structure and material in nacre and bone - Perspectives on de novo biomimetic materials. Prog Mater Sci 54:1059–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunlop JWC, Fratzl P (2010) Biological Composites. Annu Rev Mater Res 40:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070909-104421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Loong CK, Rey C, Kuhn LT et al (2000) Evidence of hydroxyl-ion deficiency in bone apatites: an inelastic neutron-scattering study. Bone 26:599–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8756-3282(00)00273-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ritchie RO, Buehler MJ, Hansma P (2009) Plasticity and toughness in bones. Phys Today 62:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jackson AP, Vincent JFV, Turner RM (1990) Comparison of nacre with other ceramic composites. J Mater Sci 25:3173–3178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00587670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jackson AP, Vincent JFV, Briggs D et al (1986) Application of surface analytical techniques to the study of fracture surfaces of mother-of-pearl. J Mater Sci Lett 5:975–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01730253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Meyers MA, Lin AYM, Chen PY, Muyco J (2008) Mechanical strength of abalone nacre: Role of the soft organic layer. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 1:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2007.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pokroy B, Demensky V, Zolotoyabko E (2009) Nacre in mollusk shells as a Multi layered structure with strain gradient. Adv Funct Mater 19:1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.200801201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ortiz C, Boyce MC (2015) Bioinspired structural materials. Nat Mater 14:23–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tang Z, Kotov NA, Magonov S, Ozturk B (2003) Nanostructured artificial nacre. Nat Mater 2:413–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shen X, Tong H, Jiang T et al (2007) Homogeneous chitosan/carbonate apatite/citric acid nanocomposites prepared through a novel in situ precipitation method. Compos Sci Technol 67:2238–2245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2007.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li Z, Chen R, Zhang L (2013) Utilization of chitosan biopolymer to enhance fly ash-based geopolymer. J Mater Sci 48:7986–7993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-013-7610-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li Z, Zhang L (2016) Fly ash-based geopolymer with kappa-carrageenan biopolymer. Biopolym Biotech Admixtures Eco-Efficient Constr Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100214-8.00009-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Abdollahnejad Z, Kheradmand M, Pacheco-Torgal F (2017) Short-term compressive strength of fly ash and waste glass alkali-activated cement-based binder mortars with two biopolymers. J Mater Civ Eng 29:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. ASTM C618–12a, (2010) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural Pozzolan for Use. Astm 3–6 https://doi.org/10.1520/C0618

  37. ASTM C494, C494M−17, (2017) Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete. ASTM Int 1–10 https://doi.org/10.1520/C0494

  38. Dul M, Paluch KJ, Kelly H et al (2015) Self-assembled carrageenan / protamine polyelectrolyte nanoplexes — Investigation of critical parameters governing their formation and characteristics. Carbohydr Polym 123:339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.01.066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Banik RM, Kanari B, Upadhyay SN (2000) Exopolysaccharide of the gellan family: Prospects and potential. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 16:407–414. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008951706621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fink J (2015) Petroleum engineer’s guide to oil field chemicals and fluids. Elsevier Science, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  41. ASTM C39, C39M - 16b, (2016) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM Int 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1520/C0039

  42. E111-17 A, (2017) Standard test method for young’s modulus, tangent modulus, and chord modulus. ASTM Int 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1520/E0111-17

  43. Astm D3967–08, 2008 (2008) Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens. ASTM Int West Conshohocken, PA, 20–23 10.1520/D3967-08.2

  44. Nakamatsu J, Kim S, Ayarza J et al (2017) Eco-friendly modification of earthen construction with carrageenan: water durability and mechanical assessment. Constr Build Mater 139:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chang I, Im J, Cho G-C (2016) Geotechnical engineering behaviors of gellan gum biopolymer treated sand. Can Geotech J 53:1658–1670. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Manjarrez L, Nikvar-Hassani A, Shadnia R, Zhang L (2019) Experimental study of geopolymer binder synthesized with copper mine tailings and low-calcium copper slag. J Mater Civ Eng 31:04019156. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K (2009) Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. J Hazard Mater 168:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lizcano M, Gonzalez A, Basu S et al (2012) Effects of water content and chemical composition on structural properties of alkaline activated metakaolin-based geopolymers. J Am Ceram Soc 95:2169–2177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05184.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nematollahi B, Sanjayan J (2014) Effect of different superplasticizers and activator combinations on workability and strength of fly ash based geopolymer. Mater Des 57:667–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.01.064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pereira P, Evangelista L, De Brito J (2012) The effect of superplasticizers on the mechanical performance of concrete made with fine recycled concrete aggregates. Cem Concr Compos 34:1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Xie J, Kayali O (2016) Effect of superplasticiser on workability enhancement of Class F and Class C fly ash-based geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 122:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bezerra UT, Ferreira RM, Castro-gomes JP (2011) The effect of latex and chitosan biopolymer on concrete properties and performance. InKey Eng Mater 466:37–46. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.466.37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bezerra UT (2016) Biopolymers with superplasticizer properties for concrete. Elsevier Ltd

  54. Mohamed AM, Osman MH, Smaoui H et al (2018) Durability and microstructure properties of concrete with Arabic Gum biopolymer admixture. Adv Civil Eng 2018:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Annaamalai MGL, Maheswaran G, Ramesh N et al (2018) Investigation of corrosion inhibition of welan gum and neem gum on reinforcing steel embedded in concrete. Int J Electrochem Sci 13:9981–9998. https://doi.org/10.20964/2018.10.41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shanmugavel D, Selvaraj T, Ramadoss R, Raneri S (2020) Interaction of a viscous biopolymer from cactus extract with cement paste to produce sustainable concrete. Constr Build Mater 257:119585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Abbas WA, Mohsen HM (2020) Effect of Biopolymer Alginate on some properties of concrete. J Eng 26:121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gnana GB, Sivakumar N, Deepak MS (2021) Materials Today: Proceedings Experimental study of biopolymer in corrosion resistance for industrial exposure condition. Mater Today Proc 44:651–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Chang I, Im J, Prasidhi AK, Cho GC (2015) Effects of Xanthan gum biopolymer on soil strengthening. Constr Build Mater 74:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Chang I, Im J, Cho GC (2016) Introduction of microbial biopolymers in soil treatment for future environmentally-friendly and sustainable geotechnical engineering. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030251

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by the Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health, Inc. (ALPHA FOUNDATION). The views, opinions and recommendations expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not imply any endorsement by the ALPHA FOUNDATION, its directors and staff. The first author would like to thank Esther Taheri for constructive discussion on the statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering and Mechanics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85719, USA

    Arash Nikvar-Hassani & Lianyang Zhang

Authors
  1. Arash Nikvar-Hassani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lianyang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Arash Nikvar-Hassani or Lianyang Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

1.1 Statistical analysis on the effect of included biopolymer on the mechanical properties of the HGBCM

To better understand the effect of incorporated biopolymer on the mechanical properties of the HGBCM, statistical analyses were performed on the data of mechanical properties. Specifically, ANOVA test was performed on the peak UCS, Young’s modulus, and residual UCS of the HGBCM to verify the significance of biopolymer with a 95% confidence (p-value < 0.05). It should be noted that the ANOVA test was conducted on two sample (“Sample” is a term used here for a group of specimens that belong to the same population) categories as shown in Table

Table 3 A simple representation of the dataset prepared for the ANOVA test
Full size table

3: (1) W/S = 0.55: This sample comprised of specimens prepared with W/S = 0.55 including 1 and 2 wt.% SP and different biopolymer contents, and (2) W/S = 0.60: This sample comprised of specimens prepared with W/S = 0.60 including 1 and 2 wt.% SP and different biopolymer contents. In this case, two sets of ANOVA tests were performed: (1) Between X and Y1, and (2) Between X and Y2. The data from the two SP dosages for each W/S ratio were combined in order to have a large dataset to run an appropriate ANOVA test.

Table 3 shows the results of the ANOVA test performed on the effect of included CAR on the mechanical properties of the HGBCM specimens at different conditions. As can be seen, the effect of CAR on the peak UCS is significant only for the W/S = 0.55 sample. This is probably because CAR is included in stream 2 as a wt.% of FFA and CKD in stream 1, and in this case, a higher W/S ratio means a lower amount of CAR included in the geopolymer paste. Therefore, the functionality of the CAR in the W/S = 0.60 sample is lower, and not reflected in the test results. This is also observed in Fig. 

Fig. 14
figure 14

The mean a peak UCS, b Young’s modulus, and c residual UCS of the HGBCM specimens modified with CAR and prepared at different conditions calculated for different samples

Full size image

14a which shows the mean peak UCS calculated for the W/S = 0.55 and W/S = 0.60 sample categories. At W/S = 0.55, the mean peak UCS increases with higher CAR dosage up to 0.1 wt.% and then decreases when the CAR dosage further increases. At W/S = 0.60, however, the mean peak UCS does not show a noticeable increase or decrease trend, indicating that CAR does not have a significant impact on the peak UCS. Moreover, as can be seen in Table 3, at both W/S = 0.55 and W/S = 0.60, the included CAR does not have a significant impact on Young’s modulus of the HGBCM (p-values > 0.05). This can also be seen in Fig. 14b which clearly shows no definite relationship between the Young’s modulus and the CAR dosage. In terms of the residual UCS, the ANOVA test results in Table

Table 4 ANOVA test results for the effect of included CAR on the mechanical properties of HGBCM
Full size table

4 show that the included CAR has a significant effect at W/S = 0.55 (p-value = 0.031 < 0.05) but not at W/S = 0.60 (p-value = 0.168 > 0.05). The specific trend of the mean residual UCS versus the CAR dosage can be seen in Fig. 14c.

Table

Table 5 ANOVA test results for the effect of included GEL on the HGBCM mechanical properties
Full size table

5 shows the results of the ANOVA test performed on the effect of included GEL on the mechanical properties of the HGBCM specimens at different conditions. As can be seen, unlike CAR, the effect of GEL on the peak UCS is significant at both W/S = 0.55 and W/S = 0.60. This is also reflected in Fig. 

Fig. 15
figure 15

The mean a peak UCS, b Young’s modulus, and c residual UCS of the HGBCM specimens modified with GEL and prepared at different conditions calculated for different samples

Full size image

15a as a general slight decrease trend of the peak UCS at both W/S ratios. Similar to CAR, at both W/S = 0.55 and W/S = 0.60, the included GEL does not have a significant impact on the Young’s modulus of the HGBCM (p-values > 0.05) as can be seen in Table 5. It can also be seen in Fig. 15b that no specific trend between the mean Young’s modulus and the GEL dosage can be found. However, the ANOVA test shows similar results to those when using CAR. The impact of GEL on the residual UCS is significant at W/S = 0.55 (p-value = 0.019 < 0.05) but not at W/S = 0.60 (p-value = 0.514 > 0.05). The specific trend of the mean residual UCS versus the GEL dosage can be seen in Fig. 15c.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nikvar-Hassani, A., Zhang, L. Development of a biopolymer modified geopolymer based cementitious material for enhancement of pumpable roof support. Mater Struct 55, 116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01953-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01953-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation