Advertisement

Low Carbon Geopolymer Hollow Block—Mix Design, Casting and Strength Comparison with OPC Hollow Block

  • U. Johnson AlengaramEmail author
  • Iftekhair Ibnul Bashar
  • Marios Soutsos
  • Karthick Srinivas
  • Daniel Kong
  • Arreshvhina Narayanan
  • Ooi Jieun Lin
  • P. S. Khoo
  • Abhey Gupta
  • William Doherty
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)

Abstract

Cement masonry units are not considered as sustainable due to consumption of fuel, cement and natural resources and embracing alternatives is mandatory. Geopolymer is a green cementitious material and has excellent mechanical properties, consumes low energy in production and emits less carbon dioxide. The effects of paste volume, proportion of alkaline activator and water/solid ratio were investigated to develop self-standing dry mix of geopolymer hollow block and compared with OPC mix. Factors that require attention in casting geopolymer dry mix are discussed in this article. The optimized mix of geopolymer self-standing dry mix is expected to be found between 30 and 35% of geopolymer paste volume for 7.5% of alkaline dosage and alkaline molar ratio of 1.00.

Keywords

Low carbon Dry mix Hollow masonry unit/block Geopolymer Failure pattern 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support under the research grant Newton-Ungku Omar coordination fund IF007-2017: Low carbon footprint precast concrete products for an energy efficient built environment.

References

  1. 1.
    Bashar II, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Islam A (2014) The effect of variation of molarity of alkali activator and fine aggregate content on the compressive strength of the fly ash: palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar. Adv Mater Sci EngGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bashar II, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Islam A, Santhi H, Sharmin A (2016) Engineering properties and fracture behaviour of high volume palm oil fuel ash based fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 111:286–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hettiarachchi H, Mampearachchi W (2019) Validity of aggregate packing models in mixture design of interlocking concrete block pavers (ICBP). Road Mater Pavement Des 20(2):462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohsen MS, Akash BA (2001) Some prospects of energy savings in buildings. Energy Convers Manag 42(11):1307–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soutsos M, Boyle AP, Vinai R, Hadjierakleous A, Barnett SJ (2016) Factors influencing the compressive strength of fly ash based geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 110:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wattanasiriwech D, Saiton A, Wattanasiriwech S (2009) Paving blocks from ceramic tile production waste. J Clean Prod 17(18):1663–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu J, Yang J, Xiong C (2015) Study of dynamic thermal performance of hollow block ventilated wall. Renew Energy 84:145–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Johnson Alengaram
    • 1
    Email author
  • Iftekhair Ibnul Bashar
    • 1
  • Marios Soutsos
    • 2
  • Karthick Srinivas
    • 1
  • Daniel Kong
    • 3
  • Arreshvhina Narayanan
    • 4
  • Ooi Jieun Lin
    • 4
  • P. S. Khoo
    • 5
  • Abhey Gupta
    • 6
  • William Doherty
    • 7
  1. 1.Centre for Innovative Construction Technology (CICT)Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Natural and Built EnvironmentQueen’s UniversityBelfastUK
  3. 3.Monash UniversityBandar SunwayMalaysia
  4. 4.Sunway Paving Solutions Sdn BhdBandar SunwayMalaysia
  5. 5.Ikhmas Jaya Group BerhadPetaling JayaMalaysia
  6. 6.Macrete (Ireland) LimitedAntrimUK
  7. 7.Creagh Concrete Products LimitedAntrimUK

Personalised recommendations