IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14407-d1251978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Acid and Thermo-Mechanical Attacks on Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Mortar with Different Eco-Friendly Materials

Author

Listed:
  • Ebrahim Sharifi Teshnizi

    (Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad 9177948974, Iran)

  • Jafar Karimiazar

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Seraj Higher Education Institute, Tabriz 5166616471, Iran)

  • Jair Arrieta Baldovino

    (Civil Engineering Department, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena de Indias 130014, Colombia)

Abstract

This research examined how changing the ratios of certain substances affected the strength and durability of a specific type of building material when exposed to acid and heat. This study used various combinations of zeolite, metakaolin, slag, and Portland cement as primary materials. It also used different amounts of potassium hydroxide (KOH) to make the geopolymer mortar. The concentrations of KOH used were 8 M, 12 M, 14 M, and 16 M. The cement-based material had the highest water absorption. A total of 240 tests were conducted, including 20 samples for each mix design tested at curing times of 7, 14, 21, 28, and 90 days. The results showed that the samples made with slag base material and 8 M mixing design had the highest average compressive strength at 28 and 90 days in the acidic environment test, and the zeolite and metakaolin base material samples had the highest corrosion and weight loss, possibly due to their high specific surface and aluminosilicate origin. The samples made with slag-based material had better resistance and the highest average compressive strength in the 300 °C and 500 °C thermo-mechanical tests. The lowest average compressive strength in the thermal and mechanical stress test was related to the samples made with a metakaolin base material. The tests performed on the samples made with slag base material had better compressive strength than the three other base materials in the acid and heat tests. The zeolite-based mortar lost the most weight under 30% acidic sulfuric water. The findings suggest that changes in the molar ratios of alkaline activators can significantly affect the durability properties and strength of geopolymer mortar, and the slag-based material with an 8 M mixing design had the best performance; also, SEM analysis verified this mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Ebrahim Sharifi Teshnizi & Jafar Karimiazar & Jair Arrieta Baldovino, 2023. "Effect of Acid and Thermo-Mechanical Attacks on Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Mortar with Different Eco-Friendly Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14407-:d:1251978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14407/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14407/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jawad Ahmad & Karolos J. Kontoleon & Ali Majdi & Muhammad Tayyab Naqash & Ahmed Farouk Deifalla & Nabil Ben Kahla & Haytham F. Isleem & Shaker M. A. Qaidi, 2022. "A Comprehensive Review on the Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) in Concrete Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-27, July.
    2. Nagarajan Arunachelam & Jeyaprakash Maheswaran & Maheswaran Chellapandian & Togay Ozbakkaloglu, 2022. "Effective Utilization of Copper Slag for the Production of Geopolymer Concrete with Different NaOH Molarity under Ambient Curing Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-25, December.
    3. Malindu Sandanayake & Yanni Bouras & Robert Haigh & Zora Vrcelj, 2020. "Current Sustainable Trends of Using Waste Materials in Concrete—A Decade Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-38, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Noushin Islam & Malindu Sandanayake & Shobha Muthukumaran & Dimuth Navaratna, 2024. "Review on Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management—Challenges and Research Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Buthainah Nawaf AL-Kharabsheh & Mohamed Moafak Arbili & Ali Majdi & Jawad Ahmad & Ahmed Farouk Deifalla & A. Hakamy & Hasan Majed Alqawasmeh, 2022. "Feasibility Study on Concrete Made with Substitution of Quarry Dust: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-25, November.
    3. Gaurav Thakur & Yatendra Singh & Rajesh Singh & Chander Prakash & Kuldeep K. Saxena & Alokesh Pramanik & Animesh Basak & Shankar Subramaniam, 2022. "Development of GGBS-Based Geopolymer Concrete Incorporated with Polypropylene Fibers as Sustainable Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-24, August.
    4. Ichiro Tsuchimoto & Yuya Kajikawa, 2022. "Recycling of Plastic Waste: A Systematic Review Using Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-39, December.
    5. Jawad Ahmad & Sallal R. Abid & Mohamed Moafak Arbili & Ali Majdi & A. Hakamy & Ahmed Farouk Deifalla, 2022. "A Review on Sustainable Concrete with the Partially Substitutions of Silica Fume as a Cementitious Material," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Robert Haigh, 2023. "A Decade Review of Research Trends Using Waste Materials in the Building and Construction Industry: A Pathway towards a Circular Economy," Waste, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-25, November.
    7. Vincent Augiseau & Eunhye Kim, 2021. "Inflows and Outflows from Material Stocks of Buildings and Networks and their Space-Differentiated Drivers: The Case Study of the Paris Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Nehdi, Moncef L. & Marani, Afshin & Zhang, Lei, 2024. "Is net-zero feasible: Systematic review of cement and concrete decarbonization technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14407-:d:1251978. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.