International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 1 (January 2023), Pages: 62-68

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Variation of sodium hydroxide concentration impact on rheological properties of geopolymer paste

 Author(s): Ram Kishore Manchiryal, Kiran Kumar Poloju *, Yasser Ali Akbar Al Balushi, Ward Naser Mohammad Al Banna

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East College, Muscat, Oman

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2973-8079

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.01.009

 Abstract:

This study focuses on novel technologies that provide breakthrough CO2 capture and performance. This research aims to identify the usual consistency and to set the time of geopolymer paste to ensure that cement may be substituted with calcined materials. However, it is necessary first to investigate the properties of geopolymer paste, including varied proportions of calcined materials and sodium hydroxide concentrations. According to the published studies, there is a shortage of studies on the entire replacement of fly ash with GGBS (0-100%) with varying concentrations of sodium hydroxide (8M-12M) with an SS/SH ratio of 2.5. Thus, this work might be unique. Moreover, this research work would stand as a benchmark for future researchers in this area. Thus, 198 specimens were prepared to determine the geopolymer paste’s normal consistency and setting behavior. The experimental results showed that increasing the amount of GGBS to geopolymer paste reduces the setting time of the paste and raises the standard consistency value for intermediate mixes compared to fly ash combinations. The key finding of this investigation is that an increase in sodium hydroxide concentration does not affect the normal consistency. As a result, the consistency is determined to be 37 percent when using a combination of 80 percent GGBS and 20 percent fly ash is shown to be the most effective in achieving higher performance.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Normal consistency, Setting time, Alkaline activator, Sodium hydroxide, Sodium silicate

 Article History: Received 24 May 2022, Received in revised form 12 September 2022, Accepted 23 September 2022

 Acknowledgment 

The Authors would like to extend their gratitude to the civil engineering laboratory staff of Middle East College, Oman, and The Research Council for funding this project under Research Grant (RG).

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Manchiryal RK, Poloju KK, Al Balushi YAA, and Al Banna WNM (2023). Variation of sodium hydroxide concentration impact on rheological properties of geopolymer paste. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(1): 62-68

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7

----------------------------------------------    

 References (32)

  1. Al Bakri AM, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Rafiza AR, and Zarina Y (2012). Effect of Na2Sio3/NaOH ratios and NaOH molarities on compressive strength of fly-ash-based geopolymer. ACI Materials Journal, 109(5): 503-508. https://doi.org/10.14359/51684080   [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Ruqaishi AZM, Allamki MSHA, and Poloju KK (2019). The advancement of ceramic waste in concrete. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(11): 102-108. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.11.013   [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakharev T (2000). Alkali activated slag concrete: Chemistry, microstructure and durability. Monash University, Clayton, Australia.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakharev T (2005). Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(6): 1233-1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.002   [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, and Cheng YB (1999). Effect of elevated temperature curing on properties of alkali-activated slag concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 29(10): 1619-1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00143-X   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, and Cheng YB (2001). Resistance of alkali-activated slag concrete to alkali–aggregate reaction. Cement and Concrete Research, 31(2): 331-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00483-X   [Google Scholar]
  7. Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, and Sirivivatnanon V (2007). Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(3): 224-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.002   [Google Scholar]
  8. Davidovits J (1984). U.S. Patent No. 4,472,199. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C., USA.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Davidovits J, Comrie DC, Paterson JH, and Ritcey DJ (1990). Geopolymeric concretes for environmental protection. Concrete International, 12(7): 30-40.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Deb PS, Nath P, and Sarker PK (2014). The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash and activator content on the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Materials and Design (1980-2015), 62: 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.001   [Google Scholar]
  11. Duxson P, Fernández-Jiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, and van Deventer JS (2007). Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science, 42(9): 2917-2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z   [Google Scholar]
  12. Lehne J and Preston F (2018). Making concrete change: Innovation in low-carbon cement and concrete. Chatham House Report, Energy Enivronment and Resources Department, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Madheswaran CK, Gnanasundar G, and Gopalakrishnan N (2013). Effect of molarity in geopolymer concrete. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 4(2): 106-115.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Mallikarjuna Rao G and Gunneswara Rao TD (2015). Final setting time and compressive strength of fly ash and GGBS-based geopolymer paste and mortar. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 40(11): 3067-3074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1757-z   [Google Scholar]
  15. Memon FA, Nuruddin MF, Khan S, Shafiq N, and Ayub T (2013). Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on fresh properties and compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 8(1): 44-56.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Morsy MS, Alsayed SH, Al-Salloum Y, and Almusallam T (2014). Effect of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios on strength and microstructure of fly ash geopolymer binder. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 39(6): 4333-4339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1093-8   [Google Scholar]
  17. Parthiban K, Saravanarajamohan K, Shobana S, and Bhaskar AA (2013). Effect of replacement of slag on the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET), 5(3): 2555-2559.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Pinto AT (2004). Alkali-activated metakaolin-based binders. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Poloju KK and Srinivasu K (2021). Impact of GGBS and strength ratio on mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete under ambient curing and oven curing. Materials Today Proceedings, 42(2): 962-968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.934   [Google Scholar]
  20. Poloju KK and Srinivasu K (2022). Influence of GGBS and alkaline ratio on compression strength of geopolymer concrete. ECS Transactions, 107(1): 8897. https://doi.org/10.1149/10701.8897ecst   [Google Scholar]
  21. Poloju KK, Anil V, and Manchiryal RK (2017a). Properties of concrete as influenced by shape and texture of fine aggregate. American Journal of Applied Scientific Research, 3(3): 28-36. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajasr.20170303.12   [Google Scholar]
  22. Poloju KK, Darwesh HS, and Tabnaj MAMJ (2017b). An experimental study on compressive strength of sustainable concrete using ceramic waste as partial replacement of cement. Elixir International Journal/Elixir Civil Engineering, 107(2017): 46954-44956.  https://doi.org/10.47611/jsr.vi.542   [Google Scholar]
  23. Poloju KK, Manchiryal RK, and Rahul C (2018a). Strength studies on different grades of concrete considering fire exposure. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 6(1): 16-23. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20180601.14   [Google Scholar]
  24. Poloju KK, Rahul C, and Anil V (2018b). Glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC)-Strength and stress strain behavior for different grades of concrete. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.5): 707-712. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.5.25064   [Google Scholar]
  25. Poloju KK, Shill A, Zahid ARAB, and Al SRS (2020a). Determınatıon Of strength propertıes of concrete wıth marble powder. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(8): 4004-4008.   [Google Scholar]
  26. Poloju KK, Srinivasu K, and Rao M (2020b). Study on mechanical characterization of geopolymer cement mortar with single solution and combined solution. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, XII(VIII): 481-487.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Purdon AO (1940). The action of alkalis on blast-furnace slag. Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, 59(9): 191-202.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Rao GM, Kumar KS, Poloju KK, and Srinivasu K (2020). An emphasis of geopolymer concrete with single activator and conventional concrete with recycled aggregate and data analyzing using artificial neural network. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, 998(1): 012060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/998/1/012060   [Google Scholar]
  29. Rattanasak U, Pankhet K, and Chindaprasirt P (2011). Effect of chemical admixtures on properties of high-calcium fly ash geopolymer. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy, and Materials, 18(3): 364-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12613-011-0448-3   [Google Scholar]
  30. Varaprasad BSKRJ, Reddy KNK, and Reddy KNK (2010). Strength and workability of low lime fly-ash based geopolymer concrete. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(12): 1188-1189. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2010/v3i12.11   [Google Scholar]
  31. Wallah SE, Hardjito D, Sumajouw DM, and Rangan BV (2005). Sulfate and acid resistance of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. In the Australian Structural Engineering Conference 2005, Engineers Australia, Sydney, Australia: 733-742.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Wan H, Shui Z, and Lin Z (2004). Analysis of geometric characteristics of GGBS particles and their influences on cement properties. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(1): 133-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00252-7   [Google Scholar]