- Email: [email protected]
Properties of cellular lightweight high calcium bottom ash-portland cement geopolymer mortar
Journal Pre-proof Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong, Kitsada Krosoongnern, Jaksada Thumrongvut, Piti Sukontasukkul, Suksun Horpibulsuk, Prinya Chindaprasirt
PII:
S2214-5095(20)30009-7
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00337
Reference:
CSCM 337
To appear in:
Case Studies in Construction Materials
Received Date:
22 August 2019
Revised Date:
16 January 2020
Accepted Date:
17 January 2020
Please cite this article as: Suksiripattanapong C, Krosoongnern K, Thumrongvut J, Sukontasukkul P, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P, Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar, Case Studies in Construction Materials (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00337
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Revised manuscript: CSCM-D-19-00024
Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong1*, Kitsada Krosoongnern1, Jaksada Thumrongvut1, Piti Sukontasukkul2, Suksun Horpibulsuk3 and Prinya Chindaprasirt4 1
Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, THAILAND King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, THAILAND 3 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, THAILAND 4 Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, THAILAND
ro of
2
-p
Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong (corresponding author) Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
lP
re
Kitsada Krosoongnern M. Eng Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND
na
Jaksada Thumrongvut Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND
ur
Piti Sukontasukkul Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Pracharath I Road, Wongsawang, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800,Thailand
Jo
Suksun Horpibulsuk Professor, School of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center of Excellence in Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. Prinya Chindaprasirt Professor, Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, 123 Moo 16 Mittapap Rd., NaiMuang, Muang District, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand Date written: 16 January 2020 1
Number of words: 5,787 NOTE: The first author is the corresponding author. Please mail communication to Asst. Prof. Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND
Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar
ABSTRACT: In this study, the bottom ash obtained from Mae Moh electrical powerplant
ro of
was used as a sustainable material in the production of geopolymer cellular lightweight
mortar blocks. The mix proportions for the solid content consisted of a sand/binder ratio
(S/B) of 1:1, and six different bottom ash/cement (BA/C) ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30,
-p
60:40 and 50:50 with a constant liquid alkaline activator/binder (L/B) ratio at 0.60. Three
different Na2SiO3:NaOH (NS/NH) ratios of 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50 were used with four different
re
NaOH concentrations at 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars. To produce air bubbles into the mix, the foam
lP
content was set at 0, 1, 2 and 3% by total solid weight. The experimental series consisted of unit weight, porosity, compressive strength, and thermal conductivity at different ages. The results
na
showed that the unit weight of the cellular lightweight bottom ash based geopolymer (CLBAG) mortar depended mainly on the foam content. The lowest unit weight of 11.09 kN/m3 was
ur
obtained at the mix with S/B ratio of 1:1, NS/NH ratio of 50:50, BA/C ratio of 100:0, and foam content of 3%. The compressive strength was found to increase with the increasing binder and
Jo
NS content but decreased with the increasing foam content. The thermal conductivity was found to decrease in proportional to the increasing porosity.
KEYWORDS: Bottom ash geopolymer; Cellular lightweight mortar; Porosity; Thermal conductivity; Unit weight; Compressive strength
2
1. INTRODUCTION Lightweight concrete blocks have been widely used around the world due to its low unit weight, high thermal insulation, and good freeze/thaw stability [1,2]. Generally, lightweight concrete blocks are classified into two types: autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) and cellular lightweight concrete (CLC). The AAC consists mainly of cement, sand, water and aluminum powder while the CLC consisted of cement, sand and foaming agent. The production of AAC consumes more energy than that of CLC due to the use of autoclave
ro of
curing. It must be noticed that Portland cement is used as one of the main constitutes in the production of both AAC and CLC. Since the production of Portland cement consumes large amount of energy and emits large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [3], it
-p
becomes number one priority for researchers to reduce the amount of cement usage in the construction industry.
re
Geopolymer is considered an environmentally friendly cementitious material [4,5].
lP
Current researches indicate that the reaction of geopolymer (geopolymerization) with aluminosilicate-rich materials can generate sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gel, resulting in strong cementitious compounds [6,7]. In these reactions, high alkaline liquids
na
(Sodium silicate, Sodium hydroxide and Potassium hydroxide) play an important role in the cementitious compound [8,9]. The silica and alumina in fly ash [10-18] and bottom ash [19-
ur
22] can be used as a precursor for geopolymer. The geopolymerization reaction of low
Jo
calcium additive needed to be stimulated with temperature curing at 60oC-80oC and this added to the increased consumption of energy [8,9]. However, high calcium additive helps with the setting time and strength development [23] particularly needed for the ambient curing condition. Several studies indicated that partial mix of cement into geopolymer mix can improve the properties of geopolymer and allow the geopolymer to be cured under normal
3
temperature. The use of cement in the geopolymerization process in fly ash geopolymers is a complex system due to the different nature of hydration and geopolymerization process. Nath et al. [24] indicated that the use of cement up to 5-10% in hybrid systems can improve the compressive strength of geopolymers, a higher calcium source dosage (40%) causes a decrease in compressive strength [25]. Moreover, Garcia-Lodeiro et al. [26] investigated the structure development and mechanical properties of hybrid system (fly ash:cement = 70:30) under ambient temperature and high alkalinity conditions. They found that at the early ages
ro of
of activation, calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-SH) gels were formed simultaneously in the systems with additional calcium source. However, at longer period, C-S-H gel transformed into calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (C-A-S-H) gel
-p
which was more stable [26].
Bottom ash (BA) is a type of ashes produced at the coal based electrical power plant.
re
Unlike fly ash, bottom ash is often discarded due to its inferior properties. However, due to
lP
the increasing amount of BA deposit every year, several researches related to BA have been conducted recently especially in the field of geopolymer. The chemical composition of BA is essentially similar to that of the fly ash in which it is rich in aluminosilicate and suitable for
na
manufacturing geopolymer materials [19]. However, the compressive strength of BA based geopolymer was slightly lower than that of fly ash based geopolymer due to its large particle
ur
size [20]. Xie and Ozbakkaloglu [27] reported behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash
Jo
based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. The 28-day compressive strength was found to increase with the increasing fly ash to bottom ash (FA/BA) ratio due to the higher degree of polymerization of fly ash as compared to that of bottom ash. Larger FA/BA ratio also resulted in large amount of unreacted bottom ash particles leftover in the specimens [20]. In the future, the high calcium BA geopolymer may be applied to improve soft clay, such as embankment subgrade and deep foundation [28-31].
4
Number of researches have been carried out to investigate properties of lightweight geopolymer concrete using lightweight aggregates [23,27,32,33], chemical technique (aluminum and zinc) [34-36] and mechanical technique (foaming agent) [3,37,38]. Posi et al. [23] produced lightweight geopolymer concrete from recycled lightweight block and fly ash geopolymer. They reported the 28-day compressive strength and density values of samples of about 1.0–16.0 MPa and 860–1400 kg/m3, respectively. Sanjayan et al. [28] reported properties of lightweight aerated geopolymer produced from chemical reaction of aluminum
ro of
(Al) powder. Their concrete exhibited density as low as 403 kg/m3 and compressive strengths of about 0.9 MPa. The compressive strength decreased with the increasing aluminum powder content. The lightweight aerated geopolymer specimens gave the compressive strength and
-p
density ranging from 0.9-to 4.35 MPa and from 403 to 1309 kg/m3, respectively.
Suksiripattanapong et al. [3] investigated the unit weight, strength and microstructure
re
of water treatment sludge-fly ash lightweight cellular geopolymer. The optimum liquid
lP
alkaline activator content was found at around liquid limit state (LL) for all ingredients and heat curing conditions. The optimum heat curing condition was observed at 65oC for 72 hours. Recently, Huiskes et al., [37] produced ultra-lightweight geopolymer concrete using
na
activated coal fly ash class F and ground granulated blast furnace slag as binder. The compressive strength of 10 MPa and thermal conductivity of 0.11 W/(m·K) were observed at
ur
the density around 800 kg/m2.
Jo
Although there are number of research on properties of cellular lightweight geopolymer, there is none on high calcium bottom ash. This research aims to investigate the properties such as unit weight, porosity, compressive strength and thermal conductivity of cellular lightweight bottom ash base geopolymer (CLBAG) mortar mixed with cement and foaming agent. The effect of parameters such as sand/binder (S/B) ratios, Na2SiO3/NaOH
5
ratios, NaOH concentration, bottom ash/cement ratio (BA/C), and foam content was investigated.
2 2.1
MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials Sand (S) with specific gravity of 2.67 tested according to ASTM C778 [39], median particles size (D50) of 0.84 mm. and particle size distribution as shown in Figure 1 was
ro of
used. Bottom ash (BA) obtained from Mae Moh power plant in northern Thailand. The
chemical compositions are in accordance to the standard ASTM E1621 [40] as shown in
-p
Table 1. The sum of silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), and ferric oxide (Fe2O3) was 65.69% and Calcium Oxide (CaO) was 21.76%. It was classified as class C according to the
re
standard ASTM C618 [41]. The median grain size (D50) of BA was 0.63 mm as shown in
lP
Figure 1.
Portland cement type I (C), according to ASTM C150, with properties as shown in Table
na
1 was used.
The liquid alkaline activator (L) was a mixture of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3, NS) and
ur
sodium hydroxide (NaOH, NH). The commercially available NS composed of Na2O = 9%, and SiO2 = 30% by weight and the commercially available NH with 97% purity were
Jo
used. To prepare the L, NH pellets were dissolved in distilled water to obtain the NH concentrations of 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars and then mixed with NS with NS:NH ratios of 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50.
Foaming agent (F) provided by Sika (Thailand), Co, ltd. The mixture of the foaming agent was set at 2.5% by weight of water.
6
2.2 Specimen Preparation and Test Procedure The CLBAG mortar samples composed of S, BA, C, L and F at different proportions. The L/B ratio was fixed at 0.60. This ratio was previously recommended for compressive and shear bond strengths of fly ash- granulated blast furnace slag geopolymer [42]. The S/B ratio was at 1:1. Three NS/NH ratios were set at 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50. The concentrations of NaOH solution were set at 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars. The BA was partially replaced by cement at 6 different proportions (BA/C) as follows 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50 by
proportions of CLBAG mortars were given in Table 2.
ro of
weight. Three foam content was added at 1, 2 and 3% by total weight of solid content. Mix
To prepare the specimens, the dried S and BA were passed through a 4.75 mm sieve.
-p
All solid contents were dry mixed for 1-2 minutes, then the liquid alkaline activator was
added and the mixing process continued for another 5 minutes to ensure homogeneity. Later,
re
the foam was added into the fresh mix and mixing continued for another 5 minutes. The CLBAG samples were poured into mold with dimension of 50x50x50 mm. The samples were
lP
demolded, wrapped in vinyl sheet and cured at room temperature (27-30οC) until the date of test. The total mixing time was around 11-12 minutes which had no effect on the performance
na
as the setting time of BA geopolymer was rather slow. Hanjitsuwan et al., [43] reported the final setting time of BA-C geopolymer of 35-675 minutes for cement content of 0-30%. Unit
ur
weight and strength were measured after 7, 14, 28, 60, and 90 days of curing in accordance
Jo
with ASTM C138 [44] and ASTM C109 [45], respectively. The porosity and thermal conductivity were tested after 28 days of curing as per ASTM C20 [46] and ASTM E1225-04 [47]. For the unit weight and strength determination, the reported results were the average of 3 samples. For the thermal conductivity and porosity determination, the reported results were the average of 3 samples.
7
3. TEST RESULTS 3.1 Unit weight Results on the 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortars are given in Figure 2. The test result showed that the unit weight increased with the increasing cement content for all NS:NH ratios and F contents. For example, 7-day unit weight of sample at NS/NH ratio of 70:30 with BA/C ratio varied from 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50 exhibited unit weight of 14.11, 14.81, 15.30, 15.93, 16.14 and 16.33 kN/m3, respectively. This is because
ro of
the specific gravity of cement is higher than that of BA [48]. Also because the particle size of cement is smaller than that of S and BA, this helped filling up voids between S and BA
[49,50]. The lowest 7-day unit weight (approximately 1400 kg/m3) was found at S/B ratio of
-p
1:1 and BA/C ratio of 100:0.
The unit weight was also found to decrease with the foam content. This is because
re
addition of air bubbles caused the microstructure of geopolymer paste to be more porous [51]. For example, the 7-day unit weights of samples with S/B ratio of 1:1 and BA/C ratio of
2 and 3%, respectively.
lP
100:0 were 14.11, 12.98, 11.97 and 11.18 kN/m3 for CLBAG mortars with F content of 0, 1,
na
The effects of NS/NH ratio on the 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, NaOH concentration of 8 M, BA/C ratio of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40
ur
and 50:50 and foam content (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3% are shown in Figure 2. The 7-day unit
Jo
weight was found to increase with the NS/NH ratio increased for all BA:C ratios and F contents. This is because the unit weight of NS is higher than that of NH. The effects of NaOH concentration on the 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar
samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratio of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50, the NS:NH ratio of 70:30 and foam content (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3% are shown in Figure 3. The 7day unit weight was found to increase slightly as the NaOH concentration increased for all
8
BA:C ratios and F contents. For instance, the 7-day unit weights of the samples with BA/C ratio of 100:0 and foam content of 3% were 11.18, 11.40, 11.60 and 11.61 kN/m3 for NaOH concentration of 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars, respectively. This was because high NaOH content reacted with SiO2 and Al2O3 and formed zeolite resulting in a dense matrix [52] and also the NaOH solutions with high concentration are higher in unit weight [53]. Figure 4 shows the effect of curing time on unit weight of CLBAG mortar samples with S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratios from 100:0 to 50:50, F from 0 to 3% and cured from 7 to
ro of
90 days. The NH concentration of 8 M and NS:NH ratio of 70:30 were chosen based on the previous recommendation for strength development [17-18,54]. For all cement contents, the unit weight of CLBAG mortar increased with the increasing curing time. This was due to the
-p
continued hydration reaction of cement and the pozzolanic reaction of BA in the presence of moisture [55,56]. The reaction products thus filled the pore spaces and resulted in the
re
increase in unit weight [55,56]. On the other hand, for cement content of 0%, the unit weight
lP
of CLBAG mortar tended to decrease with increasing in curing time. This is because calcium from BA is insufficient to produce CSH product.
na
3.2 Compressive Strength
The results on 7-day compressive strength of CLBAG with S/B ratio of 1:1, NS/NH
ur
ratios of 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50, NaOH concentration of 8 M, BA/C ratios of 100:0, 90:10,
Jo
80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50 and foam contents (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3% are shown in Fig. 5. The replacement of C and F provided opposite effect on the 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar samples. The strength was found to increase with the increasing cement content but decrease with increasing foaming content. The maximum 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar was observed in a sample containing the highest cement content without foaming agent (S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and F of 0%. This is because the hydration reactions of cement
9
and the pozzolanic reaction between cement and BA creating higher chemical bonding between particle [46,58]. On the other hand, the strength decreased gradually with the increasing foaming content due to the increase of air voids in the system [51]. Figure 5 shows the effect of NS/NH ratio on 7-day compressive strength of CLBAG samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50, NaOH concentration of 8 M and foam contents (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3%. The optimum NS/NH ratio was at 70:30, which offered the maximum compressive strength of CLBAG mortar
ro of
sample. With the NS/NH ratio of 80:20, the higher NS content in CLBAG mortar reacts with cement and resulted in fast setting and reduced workability. The smaller amount of NS in
from BA which also resulted in low strength mix.
-p
CLBAG mortar with NS/NH ratio of 50:50 was insufficient to react with silica and alumina
re
Figure 6 shows the effect of NaOH concentration on 7-day compressive strength of CLBAG samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and
lP
50:50, NS/NH ratio of 70:30 and foam contents (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3%. The increasing concentration of NaOH solution also yielded positive effect on the 7-day compressive
na
strength. This is because the increasing amount of alkaline can leach more silica and alumina from bottom ash which results in better formation of geopolymer products. However, the
ur
strength of CLBAG mortar sample at cement content of 50% decreased with the high NaOH
Jo
concentration beyond 12 M. This is because the high NaOH concentration could result in the interruption of the geopolymerization process [59]. The maximum 7-day strength of 12.04 MPa was observed in samples with NS/NH ratio of 70:30, NaOH concentrations of 12 M, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and 0% foam. The strength development with curing time of 7, 14, 28 ,60 and 90 days are shown in Figure 7. The strength development of CLBAG mortar increased with increasing curing
10
time. This dual effect was the compatibility of reaction between calcium silicate hydrate (CS-H) and sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gels. However, the effect of foam content on the compressive strength of CLBAG mortar without cement was insignificant. This was because the foam filled the pores of BA particles [60] and less foam was available.
The Thailand Industrial Standard (TIS 2601-2556) classified cellular lightweight concrete blocks into 8 types based on compressive strength and density as shown in Table 3.
ro of
It can be seen that all CLBAG mortar samples were not suitable for cellular lightweight concrete blocks class C6 to C14 because their 7-day unit weights were greater than the
requirement (>13.73 kN/m3) and 7-day compressive strength was lower than the requirement
-p
(5 MPa).
The optimum CLBAG mortar mix in terms of economy was at S/B ratio of 1/1,
re
NS/NH ratio of 70:30, NaOH concentration of 10 M, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and foam content
lP
of 2%, complying with the standard for Class 16 CLC blocks on both strength and density requirements.
na
3.3 Thermal conductivity and porosity
Figure 8 shows the relationship between porosity and thermal conductivity of
ur
CLBAG mortar at different BA/C ratio, NaOH concentration and F. Regardless of NaOH
Jo
concentration, it can be seen that the thermal conductivity decreased with the increasing porosity for all type of CLBAG mortar samples. The increase in porosity was the direct result of increasing foaming agent which created large number of pores in various sizes [50,60]. The relationship between porosity and foam content at different BA:C ratios can be expressed in Eq.1 (Fig.9)
aF b
(1)
11
where is porosity (%), F is foam content (%) and a and b are constant. From Figure 9, it can be observed that the porosity depends mainly on the cement content. Subsequently, both constants a and b can be expressed in term of cement content (C) as shown in Figure 10 and Eqs. 2 and 3.
a 0.0134C 7.1737
(2)
b 0.1673C 30.349
(3)
Using equations 1-3, at F = 0%, and C = 0% and 50%, the porosity was estimated
ro of
equal to 30.35% and 21.98%, respectively. The porosity of CLBAG mortar decreases as C content increases due to the lower particle size, and filling up voids between S and BA.
-p
From an analysis of the test data on thermal conductivity, the thermal conductivity
was inversely proportional to porosity as shown in Figure 8. This is due to the fact that the
re
pore space slow down the rate of heat transfers in materials. Therefore, the higher volume of pore (high porosity) results in the lower thermal conductivity. The relationship between
lP
porosity and thermal conductivity of CLBAG mortars at the age of 28 days can be expressed
5.2123e0.065
na
by Eq. 4 in the form of exponential function.
(4)
where is the thermal conductivity and is the obtained from Eq.1. Further investigation
ur
of numerical and statistical approach of compressive strength, unit weight, porosity and
Jo
thermal conductivity of CLBAG mortar is recommended for future work.
4. CONCLUSIONS Based on the test results and discussion, the conclusions can be drawn as follows. 1. The unit weight of the cellular lightweight bottom ash based geopolymer (CLBAG) mortar depended mainly on the foam content. The lowest unit weight of 11.09
12
kN/m3 was obtained at the mix with S/B ratio of 1:1, NS/NH ratio of 50:50, BA/C ratio of 100:0, and foam content of 3%. 2. The compressive strength was found to increase with the increasing binder and NS content but decreased with the increasing foam content. 3. The strength of CLBAG mortar sample at cement content of 50% decreased with the high NaOH concentration beyond 12 M. This is because the high NaOH concentration could result in the interruption of the geopolymerization process.
ro of
4. The optimum CLBAG mortar mix in terms of economy was at S/B ratio of 1/1, NS/NH ratio of 70:30, NaOH concentration of 10 M, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and foam content of 2%
-p
5. The thermal conductivity was found to decrease in proportional to the increasing
porosity. The proposed equation was useful in estimating thermal conductivity of
lP
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
re
CLBAG mortar providing that the porosities of the geopolymer mixes are known.
na
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under the
ur
Research and Researcher for Industry (RRi) program Grant No. MSD60I0099 and the TRF Distinguished Research Professor Grant No. DPG6180002. The authors also acknowledge the
Jo
financial support from the Pakpanyawat Ltd. Part. and the Rajamangala University of Technology Isan.
13
REFERENCES
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[10]
Jo
[11]
lP
[9]
na
[8]
ur
[7]
re
-p
[6]
Ramamurthy, K., Kunhanandan Nambiar, E.K., & Indu Siva Ranjani, G. 2009. A classification of studies on properties of foam concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 31(6), 388-396. Kashani, A., Ngo, T.D., Mendis, P., Black, J.R, & Hajimohammadi, A. (2017). A sustainable application of recycled tire crumbs as insulator in lightweight cellular concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 925-935. Suksiripattanapong C, Horpibulsuk S, Boongrasan S, Udomchai A, Chinkulkijniwat A, Arulrajah A., (2015b). Unit weight, strength and microstructure of water treatment sludge-fly ash lightweight cellular geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials. 94:807-16. Roviello G, Menna C, Tarallo O, Ricciotti L, Messina F, Ferone C, Asprone D, Cioffi R., (2017). Lightweight geopolymer-based hybrid materials. Composites Part B: Engineering, 128(1), 225-237 Habert G, Ouellet-Plamondon C., (2016). Recent update on the environmental impact of geopolymers. Rilem Tech Lett, 1, 17-23. Davitdovits, J. (1994). Properties of Geopolymer Cements, Proceedings of The First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Scientific Research Institute on Binders and Materials, Kiev State Technical University, Kiev, Ukraine: 131-149. Davidovits, J. (2008). Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications. Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France. Sukmak P, Horppibulsuk S, Shen SL. Strength development in clay-fly ash geopolymer, Construction and building Materials 2013;40:566-574. Sukmak P, Horppibulsuk S, Shen SL, Chindaprasirt P, Suksiripattqanapong C. Factors influencing strength development in clay-fly ash geopolymer, Construction and Building Materials 2013;40:1125-1136. Sukmak P, Silva P-D, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P, Sulphate resistance of clayPortland cement and clay-high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineeing 2014 Suksiripattanapong C, Horpibulsuk S, Chanprasert P, Sukmak P, Arulrajah A. Compressive strength development in geopolymer masonsy units manufactured from water treatment sludge. Construction and Building Materials 2015, 82: 20-30. Horpibulsuk S., Suksiripattanapong C., Samingthong W., Rachan R., Arulrajah A., Durability against wet-dry cycles of water treatment sludge-fly ash geopolymer, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineeing (Accepted for publication). Suksiripattanapong C, Srijumpa T, Horpibulsuk S, Sukmak P, Arulrajah A, Du YJ. Compressive strengths of water treatment sludge-fly ash geopolymer at various compression energies. Lowland Technology International 2015, 17 (3): 147-156. Chindaprasirt C, Chareerat T, Sirivivatnanon V. Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cement and Concrete Composites 2007;29:224-229. Posi P, Teerachanwit C, Tanutong C, Limkamoltip S, Lertnimoolchai S, Sata V,
ro of
[1]
[12]
[13]
[14] [15]
14
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
Chindaprasirt P. Lightweight geopolymer concrete containing aggregate from recycle lightweight block, Materials and Design 2013;52:580–586. [16] Phetchuay, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Suksiripattanpong, C., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Arulrajah, A. and Disfani, M.M., 2014. Calcium carbide residue: Alkaline activator for clay-fly ash geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, 69:285-294. [17] Phetchuay, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Arulrajah, A., Suksiripattanpong, C. and Udomchai, A., 2016. Development in soft marine clay stabilized by fly ash and calcium carbide residue based geopolymer. Applied Clay Science, 127-128:134-142. [18] Arulrajah, A., Kua, T-A., Horpibulsuk, S., Phetchuay, C., Suksiripattanapong, C. and Du, Y-J., 2016a. Strength and microstructure evaluation of recycled glass-fly ash geopolymer as low-carbon masonry units. Construction and Building Materials, [19] Boonserm, K., Sata, V., Pimraksa, K., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2012). Improved geopolymerization of bottom ash by incorporating fly ash and using waste gypsum as additive. Cement and Concrete Composites, 34(7): 819-824. [20] Chindaprasirt, P., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chalee, W., & Rattanasak, U. (2009). Comparative study on the characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash geopolymers. Waste Management, 29(2): 539-543. [21] Sata V, Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P. Resistance of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid attack. Cement and Concrete Composites 2012;34(5):700-708 [22] Sathonsaowapark, A, Chindaprasirt, P., Pimraksa, K., (2009). Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. Journal of Harzadous Materials 168:44-50. [23] Posi, P., Thongjapo, P., Thamultree, N., Boontee, P., Kasemsiri, P., Chindaprasirt, P., (2016). Pressed lightweight fly ash-OPC geopolymer concrete containing recycled lightweight concrete aggregate. Construction and Building Materials 127:450–456 [24] Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., (2015). Cement & concrete composites use of OPC to improve setting and early strength properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature, Cem. Concr. Compos. 55: 205–214. [25] Yip, C.K., Lukey, G.C., Provis, J.L., van Deventer, J.S.J., (2008). Effect of calcium silicate sources on geopolymerisation, Cem. Concr. Res. 38(4): 554–564. [26] García-Lodeiro, I., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Palomo, A., (2013). Variation in hybrid cements over time. Alkaline activation of fly ash-portland cement blends, Cem. Concr. Res. 52: 112–122. [27] Xie,T., Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2015). Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Ceramics International 41:5945– 5958 [28] Shen, S.L., Wang, Z.F., Yang, J., and Ho, CE. (2013). Generalized approach for prediction of jet grout column diameter, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(12), 2060-2069. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000932 [29] Shen, S.L., Wang, Z.F., Cheng, W.C. (2017). Estimation of lateral displacement induced by jet grouting in clayey soils, Geotechnique, ICE, 67(7), 621-630. (DOI): 10.1680/geot.16.P.159 [30] Wang, Z.F., et al. (2013). Investigation of field-installation effects of horizontal twinJet grouting in Shanghai soft soil deposits, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(3): 288297. dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0199
15
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
[31] Wang, Z.F., et al (2019). Enhancing discharge of spoil to mitigate disturbance induced by horizontal jet grouting in clayey soil: Theoretical model and application. Computers and Geotechnics, 111(2019), 222-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.03.012 [32] Liu MYJ, Alengaram, UJ, Jumaat, MZ, and Mo, KH. (2014). “Evaluation of thermal conductivity, mechanical and transport properties of lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete.” Energy and Buildings, 72, 238-245 [33] Ismail N, and El-Hussin, H. (2018). “Development and Characterization of Fly Ash– Slag Blended Geopolymer Mortar and Lightweight Concrete.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 30(4). [34] Arellano Aguilar R, Burciaga Díaz O, Escalante García JI., (2010).Lightweight concretes of activated metakaolin-fly ash binders, with blast furnace slag aggregates. Constr Build Mater. 24(7):1166–75. [35] Brooks R, Bahadory M, Tovia F, Rostami H., (2010). Properties of alkali-activated fly ash: high performance to lightweight. Int J Sustainable Eng. 3(3):211–8. [36] Sanjayan, J.G., Nazari, A., Chen, L., Nguyen, G.H., (2015). Physical and mechanical properties of lightweight aerated geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials 79 (2015) 236–244 [37] Huiskes, D.M.A., Keulen, A., Yu, Q.L., Brouwers, H.J.H., (2016). Design and performance evaluation of ultra-lightweight geopolymer concrete. Materials and Design 89: 516–526 [38] Abdullah MMAB, Hussin, K, Bnhussain, M, Ismail, KN, Yahya, Z, and Razak, RA. (2012). “Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Lightweight Concrete Using Foaming Agent.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 13, 7186-7198 [39] ASTM C778 (2006). Standard specification for standard sand. Annual Book of ASTM Standard Vol 4.02. [40] ASTM E1621, (2013). Standard Guide for Elemental Analysis by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.03.05. [41] ASTM C618 (2008). Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in cement. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. [42] Phoo-ngernkham, T. Maegawa, A. Mishima, N. Hatanaka, H. Chindaprasirt, P. (2015). Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutionson compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–GBFS geopolymer, Construction and Building Materials, 91(30), 1-8. [43] Hanjitsuwan, S. Phoo-ngernkham, T. Damrongwiriyanupap, N. Du, Y.J. Shen, S.L. (2016). Comparative study using Portland cement and calcium carbide residue as a promoter in bottom ash geopolymer mortar, Construction and Building Materials 133, 128–134 [44] ASTM C138/C138M, (2017). Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.04.02. [45] ASTM C109, (2002). Standard test method of compressive strength of hydrualic cement mortars (using 2-in. or [50 mm] cube speciments). Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.04.01. 16
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
[46] ASTM C20 (2000). Apparent Porosity, Water Absorption, Apparent Specific Gravity, and Bulk Density of Burned Refractory Brick and Shapes by Boiling Water. Annual Book of ASTM. [47] ASTM E1225, (2013). Standard Test Method for Thermal Conductivity of Solids Using the Guarded-Comparative-Longitudinal Heat Flow Technique. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.14.05. [47] Kunchariyakun, K. Asavapisit, S. Sombatsompop, K. (2015) “Properties of autoclaved aerated concrete incorporating rice husk ashas partial replacement for fine aggregate” Cement & Concrete Composites. 55:11-16 [48] Poon, C. S., Lam, L., and Wong, Y. L., (2000) "A Study on High Strength Concrete Prepared with Large Volume of Low Calcium Fly Ash" Cement and Concrete Research, 30(3):447-455. [49] Chindaprasirt, P., Cao, T., and Suwanvitaya, P., (2000) "Influence of Binder Type on Quality of Concrete for Durable Structures," Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 581590. [50] Just, A., & Middendorf, B. (2009). Microstructure of high-strength foam concrete. Materials Characterization, 60(7): 741-748. [51] Eiamwijit, M. Pachana, K. Kaewpirom, S. Rattanasak, U. Chindaprasirt, P. (2015). “Comparative study on morphology of ground sub-bituminus FBC fly ash geopolymeric material” Advanced Powder Technology. 26(4):1053-1057. [52] Chembuddy R. (2005). Concentration and solution calculator program - density tables. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&right= density_tables (2019, March 11) [53] Iffat, S. (2015) “Relation Between Density and Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete” Concrete Research Letters, 6(4):182-189 [54] Kua, T.A. Arulrajah, A. Horpibulsuk, S. Du, Y.J. Shen, S.L. (2016). Strength assessment of spent coffee grounds-geopolymer cement utilizing slag and fly ash precursors, Constr. Build. Mater. 115, 565–575. [55] Young, J.F. (1974) “An assessment of the influence of microstructure on time-dependent deformations of hardened cement paste” Proceedings the 1st Australian Conference on Engineering Materials, UNSW, Sydney, 3-28 [56] Thakur, R.N. and Ghosh, S., (2009). “Effect of Mix Proportion on Compressive Strength and Microstructure of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Composites,” ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4 (4):68-74 [57] Yip CK, Van Deventer JSJ, (2003). “Microanalysis of calcium silicate hydrate gel formed within a geopolymeric binder”. Journal of Materials Science, 38(18):38513860. [58] Hamidi, R.M., Man, Z., & Azizli, K.A. (2016). Concentration of NaOH and the effect on the properties of fly ash based geopolymer. Procedia Engineering, 148: 189-193. [59] Chindaprasirt, P., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chalee, W., and Rattanasak, U. (2009). “Comparative study on the characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash geopolymers.” Waste Manage., 29(2), 539–543.
17
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
[60] Kim, H.K. Jeon, J.H. Lee, H.K. (2012). "Workability, and Mechanical, Acoustic and Thermal Properties of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete with a High Volume of Entrained Air", Construction and Building Materials 29:193-200.
18
Bottom Ash Sand OPC
80
60
40
20
0 10
100
1000
Particle Size (m)
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
Figure 1: Particle size of bottom ash, sand and Portland cement
19
10000
-p
1
ro of
Percentage Passing (%)
100
22
NS/NH = 80:20
Cement 0 % Cement 10 % Cement 20 % Cement 30 % Cement 40 % Cement 50 %
20 18 16 14 12
22
ro of
10
NS/NH = 70:30
3
Unit weight (kN/m )
20
-p
18 16
re
14 12
22
lP
10
NS/NH = 50:50
na
20 18
14
Jo
12
ur
16
10
0
1
2
3
Foam Content (%)
Figure 2: The 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar with different NS/NH ratios
20
20
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
18
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
16 14 12 10
ro of
18 16 14 12
-p
3
Unit Weight (kN/m )
20
re
10
Cement = 50%
Cement = 20%
20
lP
18 16
12 10
10
12
8
14
10
12
14
NaOH Concentration (Molar)
Jo
ur
8
na
14
Figure 3: The 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar with different NaOH concentrations
21
20
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
18
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
16 14 12 10
ro of
18 16 14 12 10 Cement = 20%
Cement = 0%
re
20
-p
Unit weight (kN/m3)
20
18
lP
16 14
10 7
na
12
14
28
60
90
7
14
28
60
90
Curing time (days)
Jo
ur
Figure 4: The unit weight of CLBAG mortars at curing age of 7, 14, 28, 60 and 90 days
22
10
Cement 0 % Cement 10 % Cement 20 % Cement 30 % Cement 40 % Cement 50 %
Na2SiO3:NaOH = 80:20
8
6
4
2
Na2SiO3:NaOH = 70:30
8
-p
6
4
re
Compressive strength (MPa)
10
ro of
0
2
10
Na2SiO3:NaOH = 50:50
na
8
Jo
2
ur
6
4
lP
0
0
0
1
2
3
Foam Content (%)
Figure 5: The 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar with different NS/NH ratios
23
12
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
10 8 6 4 2
ro of
12 10 8 6
-p
4 2 0 12
re
Compressive strength (MPa)
0
Cement = 50%
Cement = 20%
lP
10 8 6
2 0
10
ur
8
na
4
12
8
14
10
12
14
NaOH Concentration (Molar)
Jo
Figure 6: The 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar with different NaOH concentrations
24
14
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
12 10
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
8 6 4 2
14
ro of
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 14
Cement = 50%
7
60
re
Cement = 20%
-p
Compressive strength (MPa)
0
12 10
lP
8 6
2 0
14
28
60
90
14
28
Curing time (days)
ur
7
na
4
Jo
Figure 7: The strength of CLBAG mortar at curing time of 7, 14, 28, 60 and 90 days
25
90
ro of -p
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
Figure 8: The relationship between porosity and thermal conductivity of CLBAG mortar at different BA/C ratio, NaOH concentration and F
Figure 9: The relationship between F and porosity of CLBAG mortar at different BA:C ratio, NaOH concentration and F.
26
ro of -p
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
Figure 10: The relationship between C content and parameter a and b.
27
Table 1: Chemical composition of OPC and BA OPC (%)
BA (%)
SiO2
20.93
36.33
Al2O3
4.35
13.71
Fe2O3
3.45
15.65
CaO
65.11
21.76
MgO
1.35
N.D.
SO3
2.71
10.15
Na2O
0.42
N.D.
K2O
0.11
1.20
LOI
0.65
0.50
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
Chemical compositions
28
Table 2: Mix proportions of CLBAG mortar.
Item
7-day unit weight and
unit weight and strength Thermal conductivity
strength
development
Sand/Binder 1
and porosity
1
1
BA/Cement
100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50
L/B
0.6
0.6
0.6
NS/NH
80:20, 70:30, 50:50
70:30
70:30
8, 10, 12, 14
8
8, 10, 12, 14
0, 1, 2, 3
Curing time 7
7, 14, 28, 60, 90
-p
foam content 0, 1, 2, 3
ro of
NaOH concentration
100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50 70:30, 60:40, 50:50
0, 1, 2, 3 28
re
Table 3: Unit weight and strength requirement for lightweight cellular concrete block according to the Thailand Industrial Standard (TIS).
C6
4.91-5.89
C7
5.90-6.87
C8
6.88-7.85
C9
7.86-8.83
C10
8.84-9.81
C14 C16
2
ur
2.5
9.82-11.77
Jo
C12
Strength (MPa)
lP
Unit weight (kN/m3)
na
Type
11.78-13.73 5.0
13.73-15.70
29
PII:
S2214-5095(20)30009-7
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00337
Reference:
CSCM 337
To appear in:
Case Studies in Construction Materials
Received Date:
22 August 2019
Revised Date:
16 January 2020
Accepted Date:
17 January 2020
Please cite this article as: Suksiripattanapong C, Krosoongnern K, Thumrongvut J, Sukontasukkul P, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P, Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar, Case Studies in Construction Materials (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00337
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Revised manuscript: CSCM-D-19-00024
Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong1*, Kitsada Krosoongnern1, Jaksada Thumrongvut1, Piti Sukontasukkul2, Suksun Horpibulsuk3 and Prinya Chindaprasirt4 1
Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, THAILAND King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, THAILAND 3 Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, THAILAND 4 Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, THAILAND
ro of
2
-p
Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong (corresponding author) Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
lP
re
Kitsada Krosoongnern M. Eng Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND
na
Jaksada Thumrongvut Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND
ur
Piti Sukontasukkul Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Pracharath I Road, Wongsawang, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800,Thailand
Jo
Suksun Horpibulsuk Professor, School of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center of Excellence in Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. Prinya Chindaprasirt Professor, Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, 123 Moo 16 Mittapap Rd., NaiMuang, Muang District, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand Date written: 16 January 2020 1
Number of words: 5,787 NOTE: The first author is the corresponding author. Please mail communication to Asst. Prof. Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, 744 Suranarai Road, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND
Properties of Cellular Lightweight High Calcium Bottom Ash-Portland Cement Geopolymer Mortar
ABSTRACT: In this study, the bottom ash obtained from Mae Moh electrical powerplant
ro of
was used as a sustainable material in the production of geopolymer cellular lightweight
mortar blocks. The mix proportions for the solid content consisted of a sand/binder ratio
(S/B) of 1:1, and six different bottom ash/cement (BA/C) ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30,
-p
60:40 and 50:50 with a constant liquid alkaline activator/binder (L/B) ratio at 0.60. Three
different Na2SiO3:NaOH (NS/NH) ratios of 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50 were used with four different
re
NaOH concentrations at 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars. To produce air bubbles into the mix, the foam
lP
content was set at 0, 1, 2 and 3% by total solid weight. The experimental series consisted of unit weight, porosity, compressive strength, and thermal conductivity at different ages. The results
na
showed that the unit weight of the cellular lightweight bottom ash based geopolymer (CLBAG) mortar depended mainly on the foam content. The lowest unit weight of 11.09 kN/m3 was
ur
obtained at the mix with S/B ratio of 1:1, NS/NH ratio of 50:50, BA/C ratio of 100:0, and foam content of 3%. The compressive strength was found to increase with the increasing binder and
Jo
NS content but decreased with the increasing foam content. The thermal conductivity was found to decrease in proportional to the increasing porosity.
KEYWORDS: Bottom ash geopolymer; Cellular lightweight mortar; Porosity; Thermal conductivity; Unit weight; Compressive strength
2
1. INTRODUCTION Lightweight concrete blocks have been widely used around the world due to its low unit weight, high thermal insulation, and good freeze/thaw stability [1,2]. Generally, lightweight concrete blocks are classified into two types: autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) and cellular lightweight concrete (CLC). The AAC consists mainly of cement, sand, water and aluminum powder while the CLC consisted of cement, sand and foaming agent. The production of AAC consumes more energy than that of CLC due to the use of autoclave
ro of
curing. It must be noticed that Portland cement is used as one of the main constitutes in the production of both AAC and CLC. Since the production of Portland cement consumes large amount of energy and emits large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [3], it
-p
becomes number one priority for researchers to reduce the amount of cement usage in the construction industry.
re
Geopolymer is considered an environmentally friendly cementitious material [4,5].
lP
Current researches indicate that the reaction of geopolymer (geopolymerization) with aluminosilicate-rich materials can generate sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gel, resulting in strong cementitious compounds [6,7]. In these reactions, high alkaline liquids
na
(Sodium silicate, Sodium hydroxide and Potassium hydroxide) play an important role in the cementitious compound [8,9]. The silica and alumina in fly ash [10-18] and bottom ash [19-
ur
22] can be used as a precursor for geopolymer. The geopolymerization reaction of low
Jo
calcium additive needed to be stimulated with temperature curing at 60oC-80oC and this added to the increased consumption of energy [8,9]. However, high calcium additive helps with the setting time and strength development [23] particularly needed for the ambient curing condition. Several studies indicated that partial mix of cement into geopolymer mix can improve the properties of geopolymer and allow the geopolymer to be cured under normal
3
temperature. The use of cement in the geopolymerization process in fly ash geopolymers is a complex system due to the different nature of hydration and geopolymerization process. Nath et al. [24] indicated that the use of cement up to 5-10% in hybrid systems can improve the compressive strength of geopolymers, a higher calcium source dosage (40%) causes a decrease in compressive strength [25]. Moreover, Garcia-Lodeiro et al. [26] investigated the structure development and mechanical properties of hybrid system (fly ash:cement = 70:30) under ambient temperature and high alkalinity conditions. They found that at the early ages
ro of
of activation, calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-SH) gels were formed simultaneously in the systems with additional calcium source. However, at longer period, C-S-H gel transformed into calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (C-A-S-H) gel
-p
which was more stable [26].
Bottom ash (BA) is a type of ashes produced at the coal based electrical power plant.
re
Unlike fly ash, bottom ash is often discarded due to its inferior properties. However, due to
lP
the increasing amount of BA deposit every year, several researches related to BA have been conducted recently especially in the field of geopolymer. The chemical composition of BA is essentially similar to that of the fly ash in which it is rich in aluminosilicate and suitable for
na
manufacturing geopolymer materials [19]. However, the compressive strength of BA based geopolymer was slightly lower than that of fly ash based geopolymer due to its large particle
ur
size [20]. Xie and Ozbakkaloglu [27] reported behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash
Jo
based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. The 28-day compressive strength was found to increase with the increasing fly ash to bottom ash (FA/BA) ratio due to the higher degree of polymerization of fly ash as compared to that of bottom ash. Larger FA/BA ratio also resulted in large amount of unreacted bottom ash particles leftover in the specimens [20]. In the future, the high calcium BA geopolymer may be applied to improve soft clay, such as embankment subgrade and deep foundation [28-31].
4
Number of researches have been carried out to investigate properties of lightweight geopolymer concrete using lightweight aggregates [23,27,32,33], chemical technique (aluminum and zinc) [34-36] and mechanical technique (foaming agent) [3,37,38]. Posi et al. [23] produced lightweight geopolymer concrete from recycled lightweight block and fly ash geopolymer. They reported the 28-day compressive strength and density values of samples of about 1.0–16.0 MPa and 860–1400 kg/m3, respectively. Sanjayan et al. [28] reported properties of lightweight aerated geopolymer produced from chemical reaction of aluminum
ro of
(Al) powder. Their concrete exhibited density as low as 403 kg/m3 and compressive strengths of about 0.9 MPa. The compressive strength decreased with the increasing aluminum powder content. The lightweight aerated geopolymer specimens gave the compressive strength and
-p
density ranging from 0.9-to 4.35 MPa and from 403 to 1309 kg/m3, respectively.
Suksiripattanapong et al. [3] investigated the unit weight, strength and microstructure
re
of water treatment sludge-fly ash lightweight cellular geopolymer. The optimum liquid
lP
alkaline activator content was found at around liquid limit state (LL) for all ingredients and heat curing conditions. The optimum heat curing condition was observed at 65oC for 72 hours. Recently, Huiskes et al., [37] produced ultra-lightweight geopolymer concrete using
na
activated coal fly ash class F and ground granulated blast furnace slag as binder. The compressive strength of 10 MPa and thermal conductivity of 0.11 W/(m·K) were observed at
ur
the density around 800 kg/m2.
Jo
Although there are number of research on properties of cellular lightweight geopolymer, there is none on high calcium bottom ash. This research aims to investigate the properties such as unit weight, porosity, compressive strength and thermal conductivity of cellular lightweight bottom ash base geopolymer (CLBAG) mortar mixed with cement and foaming agent. The effect of parameters such as sand/binder (S/B) ratios, Na2SiO3/NaOH
5
ratios, NaOH concentration, bottom ash/cement ratio (BA/C), and foam content was investigated.
2 2.1
MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials Sand (S) with specific gravity of 2.67 tested according to ASTM C778 [39], median particles size (D50) of 0.84 mm. and particle size distribution as shown in Figure 1 was
ro of
used. Bottom ash (BA) obtained from Mae Moh power plant in northern Thailand. The
chemical compositions are in accordance to the standard ASTM E1621 [40] as shown in
-p
Table 1. The sum of silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), and ferric oxide (Fe2O3) was 65.69% and Calcium Oxide (CaO) was 21.76%. It was classified as class C according to the
re
standard ASTM C618 [41]. The median grain size (D50) of BA was 0.63 mm as shown in
lP
Figure 1.
Portland cement type I (C), according to ASTM C150, with properties as shown in Table
na
1 was used.
The liquid alkaline activator (L) was a mixture of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3, NS) and
ur
sodium hydroxide (NaOH, NH). The commercially available NS composed of Na2O = 9%, and SiO2 = 30% by weight and the commercially available NH with 97% purity were
Jo
used. To prepare the L, NH pellets were dissolved in distilled water to obtain the NH concentrations of 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars and then mixed with NS with NS:NH ratios of 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50.
Foaming agent (F) provided by Sika (Thailand), Co, ltd. The mixture of the foaming agent was set at 2.5% by weight of water.
6
2.2 Specimen Preparation and Test Procedure The CLBAG mortar samples composed of S, BA, C, L and F at different proportions. The L/B ratio was fixed at 0.60. This ratio was previously recommended for compressive and shear bond strengths of fly ash- granulated blast furnace slag geopolymer [42]. The S/B ratio was at 1:1. Three NS/NH ratios were set at 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50. The concentrations of NaOH solution were set at 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars. The BA was partially replaced by cement at 6 different proportions (BA/C) as follows 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50 by
proportions of CLBAG mortars were given in Table 2.
ro of
weight. Three foam content was added at 1, 2 and 3% by total weight of solid content. Mix
To prepare the specimens, the dried S and BA were passed through a 4.75 mm sieve.
-p
All solid contents were dry mixed for 1-2 minutes, then the liquid alkaline activator was
added and the mixing process continued for another 5 minutes to ensure homogeneity. Later,
re
the foam was added into the fresh mix and mixing continued for another 5 minutes. The CLBAG samples were poured into mold with dimension of 50x50x50 mm. The samples were
lP
demolded, wrapped in vinyl sheet and cured at room temperature (27-30οC) until the date of test. The total mixing time was around 11-12 minutes which had no effect on the performance
na
as the setting time of BA geopolymer was rather slow. Hanjitsuwan et al., [43] reported the final setting time of BA-C geopolymer of 35-675 minutes for cement content of 0-30%. Unit
ur
weight and strength were measured after 7, 14, 28, 60, and 90 days of curing in accordance
Jo
with ASTM C138 [44] and ASTM C109 [45], respectively. The porosity and thermal conductivity were tested after 28 days of curing as per ASTM C20 [46] and ASTM E1225-04 [47]. For the unit weight and strength determination, the reported results were the average of 3 samples. For the thermal conductivity and porosity determination, the reported results were the average of 3 samples.
7
3. TEST RESULTS 3.1 Unit weight Results on the 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortars are given in Figure 2. The test result showed that the unit weight increased with the increasing cement content for all NS:NH ratios and F contents. For example, 7-day unit weight of sample at NS/NH ratio of 70:30 with BA/C ratio varied from 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50 exhibited unit weight of 14.11, 14.81, 15.30, 15.93, 16.14 and 16.33 kN/m3, respectively. This is because
ro of
the specific gravity of cement is higher than that of BA [48]. Also because the particle size of cement is smaller than that of S and BA, this helped filling up voids between S and BA
[49,50]. The lowest 7-day unit weight (approximately 1400 kg/m3) was found at S/B ratio of
-p
1:1 and BA/C ratio of 100:0.
The unit weight was also found to decrease with the foam content. This is because
re
addition of air bubbles caused the microstructure of geopolymer paste to be more porous [51]. For example, the 7-day unit weights of samples with S/B ratio of 1:1 and BA/C ratio of
2 and 3%, respectively.
lP
100:0 were 14.11, 12.98, 11.97 and 11.18 kN/m3 for CLBAG mortars with F content of 0, 1,
na
The effects of NS/NH ratio on the 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, NaOH concentration of 8 M, BA/C ratio of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40
ur
and 50:50 and foam content (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3% are shown in Figure 2. The 7-day unit
Jo
weight was found to increase with the NS/NH ratio increased for all BA:C ratios and F contents. This is because the unit weight of NS is higher than that of NH. The effects of NaOH concentration on the 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar
samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratio of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50, the NS:NH ratio of 70:30 and foam content (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3% are shown in Figure 3. The 7day unit weight was found to increase slightly as the NaOH concentration increased for all
8
BA:C ratios and F contents. For instance, the 7-day unit weights of the samples with BA/C ratio of 100:0 and foam content of 3% were 11.18, 11.40, 11.60 and 11.61 kN/m3 for NaOH concentration of 8, 10, 12 and 14 molars, respectively. This was because high NaOH content reacted with SiO2 and Al2O3 and formed zeolite resulting in a dense matrix [52] and also the NaOH solutions with high concentration are higher in unit weight [53]. Figure 4 shows the effect of curing time on unit weight of CLBAG mortar samples with S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratios from 100:0 to 50:50, F from 0 to 3% and cured from 7 to
ro of
90 days. The NH concentration of 8 M and NS:NH ratio of 70:30 were chosen based on the previous recommendation for strength development [17-18,54]. For all cement contents, the unit weight of CLBAG mortar increased with the increasing curing time. This was due to the
-p
continued hydration reaction of cement and the pozzolanic reaction of BA in the presence of moisture [55,56]. The reaction products thus filled the pore spaces and resulted in the
re
increase in unit weight [55,56]. On the other hand, for cement content of 0%, the unit weight
lP
of CLBAG mortar tended to decrease with increasing in curing time. This is because calcium from BA is insufficient to produce CSH product.
na
3.2 Compressive Strength
The results on 7-day compressive strength of CLBAG with S/B ratio of 1:1, NS/NH
ur
ratios of 80:20, 70:30 and 50:50, NaOH concentration of 8 M, BA/C ratios of 100:0, 90:10,
Jo
80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50 and foam contents (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3% are shown in Fig. 5. The replacement of C and F provided opposite effect on the 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar samples. The strength was found to increase with the increasing cement content but decrease with increasing foaming content. The maximum 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar was observed in a sample containing the highest cement content without foaming agent (S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and F of 0%. This is because the hydration reactions of cement
9
and the pozzolanic reaction between cement and BA creating higher chemical bonding between particle [46,58]. On the other hand, the strength decreased gradually with the increasing foaming content due to the increase of air voids in the system [51]. Figure 5 shows the effect of NS/NH ratio on 7-day compressive strength of CLBAG samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50, NaOH concentration of 8 M and foam contents (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3%. The optimum NS/NH ratio was at 70:30, which offered the maximum compressive strength of CLBAG mortar
ro of
sample. With the NS/NH ratio of 80:20, the higher NS content in CLBAG mortar reacts with cement and resulted in fast setting and reduced workability. The smaller amount of NS in
from BA which also resulted in low strength mix.
-p
CLBAG mortar with NS/NH ratio of 50:50 was insufficient to react with silica and alumina
re
Figure 6 shows the effect of NaOH concentration on 7-day compressive strength of CLBAG samples at S/B ratio of 1:1, BA/C ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and
lP
50:50, NS/NH ratio of 70:30 and foam contents (F) of 0, 1, 2 and 3%. The increasing concentration of NaOH solution also yielded positive effect on the 7-day compressive
na
strength. This is because the increasing amount of alkaline can leach more silica and alumina from bottom ash which results in better formation of geopolymer products. However, the
ur
strength of CLBAG mortar sample at cement content of 50% decreased with the high NaOH
Jo
concentration beyond 12 M. This is because the high NaOH concentration could result in the interruption of the geopolymerization process [59]. The maximum 7-day strength of 12.04 MPa was observed in samples with NS/NH ratio of 70:30, NaOH concentrations of 12 M, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and 0% foam. The strength development with curing time of 7, 14, 28 ,60 and 90 days are shown in Figure 7. The strength development of CLBAG mortar increased with increasing curing
10
time. This dual effect was the compatibility of reaction between calcium silicate hydrate (CS-H) and sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gels. However, the effect of foam content on the compressive strength of CLBAG mortar without cement was insignificant. This was because the foam filled the pores of BA particles [60] and less foam was available.
The Thailand Industrial Standard (TIS 2601-2556) classified cellular lightweight concrete blocks into 8 types based on compressive strength and density as shown in Table 3.
ro of
It can be seen that all CLBAG mortar samples were not suitable for cellular lightweight concrete blocks class C6 to C14 because their 7-day unit weights were greater than the
requirement (>13.73 kN/m3) and 7-day compressive strength was lower than the requirement
-p
(5 MPa).
The optimum CLBAG mortar mix in terms of economy was at S/B ratio of 1/1,
re
NS/NH ratio of 70:30, NaOH concentration of 10 M, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and foam content
lP
of 2%, complying with the standard for Class 16 CLC blocks on both strength and density requirements.
na
3.3 Thermal conductivity and porosity
Figure 8 shows the relationship between porosity and thermal conductivity of
ur
CLBAG mortar at different BA/C ratio, NaOH concentration and F. Regardless of NaOH
Jo
concentration, it can be seen that the thermal conductivity decreased with the increasing porosity for all type of CLBAG mortar samples. The increase in porosity was the direct result of increasing foaming agent which created large number of pores in various sizes [50,60]. The relationship between porosity and foam content at different BA:C ratios can be expressed in Eq.1 (Fig.9)
aF b
(1)
11
where is porosity (%), F is foam content (%) and a and b are constant. From Figure 9, it can be observed that the porosity depends mainly on the cement content. Subsequently, both constants a and b can be expressed in term of cement content (C) as shown in Figure 10 and Eqs. 2 and 3.
a 0.0134C 7.1737
(2)
b 0.1673C 30.349
(3)
Using equations 1-3, at F = 0%, and C = 0% and 50%, the porosity was estimated
ro of
equal to 30.35% and 21.98%, respectively. The porosity of CLBAG mortar decreases as C content increases due to the lower particle size, and filling up voids between S and BA.
-p
From an analysis of the test data on thermal conductivity, the thermal conductivity
was inversely proportional to porosity as shown in Figure 8. This is due to the fact that the
re
pore space slow down the rate of heat transfers in materials. Therefore, the higher volume of pore (high porosity) results in the lower thermal conductivity. The relationship between
lP
porosity and thermal conductivity of CLBAG mortars at the age of 28 days can be expressed
5.2123e0.065
na
by Eq. 4 in the form of exponential function.
(4)
where is the thermal conductivity and is the obtained from Eq.1. Further investigation
ur
of numerical and statistical approach of compressive strength, unit weight, porosity and
Jo
thermal conductivity of CLBAG mortar is recommended for future work.
4. CONCLUSIONS Based on the test results and discussion, the conclusions can be drawn as follows. 1. The unit weight of the cellular lightweight bottom ash based geopolymer (CLBAG) mortar depended mainly on the foam content. The lowest unit weight of 11.09
12
kN/m3 was obtained at the mix with S/B ratio of 1:1, NS/NH ratio of 50:50, BA/C ratio of 100:0, and foam content of 3%. 2. The compressive strength was found to increase with the increasing binder and NS content but decreased with the increasing foam content. 3. The strength of CLBAG mortar sample at cement content of 50% decreased with the high NaOH concentration beyond 12 M. This is because the high NaOH concentration could result in the interruption of the geopolymerization process.
ro of
4. The optimum CLBAG mortar mix in terms of economy was at S/B ratio of 1/1, NS/NH ratio of 70:30, NaOH concentration of 10 M, BA/C ratio of 50:50 and foam content of 2%
-p
5. The thermal conductivity was found to decrease in proportional to the increasing
porosity. The proposed equation was useful in estimating thermal conductivity of
lP
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
re
CLBAG mortar providing that the porosities of the geopolymer mixes are known.
na
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under the
ur
Research and Researcher for Industry (RRi) program Grant No. MSD60I0099 and the TRF Distinguished Research Professor Grant No. DPG6180002. The authors also acknowledge the
Jo
financial support from the Pakpanyawat Ltd. Part. and the Rajamangala University of Technology Isan.
13
REFERENCES
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[10]
Jo
[11]
lP
[9]
na
[8]
ur
[7]
re
-p
[6]
Ramamurthy, K., Kunhanandan Nambiar, E.K., & Indu Siva Ranjani, G. 2009. A classification of studies on properties of foam concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 31(6), 388-396. Kashani, A., Ngo, T.D., Mendis, P., Black, J.R, & Hajimohammadi, A. (2017). A sustainable application of recycled tire crumbs as insulator in lightweight cellular concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 925-935. Suksiripattanapong C, Horpibulsuk S, Boongrasan S, Udomchai A, Chinkulkijniwat A, Arulrajah A., (2015b). Unit weight, strength and microstructure of water treatment sludge-fly ash lightweight cellular geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials. 94:807-16. Roviello G, Menna C, Tarallo O, Ricciotti L, Messina F, Ferone C, Asprone D, Cioffi R., (2017). Lightweight geopolymer-based hybrid materials. Composites Part B: Engineering, 128(1), 225-237 Habert G, Ouellet-Plamondon C., (2016). Recent update on the environmental impact of geopolymers. Rilem Tech Lett, 1, 17-23. Davitdovits, J. (1994). Properties of Geopolymer Cements, Proceedings of The First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Scientific Research Institute on Binders and Materials, Kiev State Technical University, Kiev, Ukraine: 131-149. Davidovits, J. (2008). Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications. Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France. Sukmak P, Horppibulsuk S, Shen SL. Strength development in clay-fly ash geopolymer, Construction and building Materials 2013;40:566-574. Sukmak P, Horppibulsuk S, Shen SL, Chindaprasirt P, Suksiripattqanapong C. Factors influencing strength development in clay-fly ash geopolymer, Construction and Building Materials 2013;40:1125-1136. Sukmak P, Silva P-D, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P, Sulphate resistance of clayPortland cement and clay-high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineeing 2014 Suksiripattanapong C, Horpibulsuk S, Chanprasert P, Sukmak P, Arulrajah A. Compressive strength development in geopolymer masonsy units manufactured from water treatment sludge. Construction and Building Materials 2015, 82: 20-30. Horpibulsuk S., Suksiripattanapong C., Samingthong W., Rachan R., Arulrajah A., Durability against wet-dry cycles of water treatment sludge-fly ash geopolymer, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineeing (Accepted for publication). Suksiripattanapong C, Srijumpa T, Horpibulsuk S, Sukmak P, Arulrajah A, Du YJ. Compressive strengths of water treatment sludge-fly ash geopolymer at various compression energies. Lowland Technology International 2015, 17 (3): 147-156. Chindaprasirt C, Chareerat T, Sirivivatnanon V. Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cement and Concrete Composites 2007;29:224-229. Posi P, Teerachanwit C, Tanutong C, Limkamoltip S, Lertnimoolchai S, Sata V,
ro of
[1]
[12]
[13]
[14] [15]
14
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
Chindaprasirt P. Lightweight geopolymer concrete containing aggregate from recycle lightweight block, Materials and Design 2013;52:580–586. [16] Phetchuay, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Suksiripattanpong, C., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Arulrajah, A. and Disfani, M.M., 2014. Calcium carbide residue: Alkaline activator for clay-fly ash geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, 69:285-294. [17] Phetchuay, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Arulrajah, A., Suksiripattanpong, C. and Udomchai, A., 2016. Development in soft marine clay stabilized by fly ash and calcium carbide residue based geopolymer. Applied Clay Science, 127-128:134-142. [18] Arulrajah, A., Kua, T-A., Horpibulsuk, S., Phetchuay, C., Suksiripattanapong, C. and Du, Y-J., 2016a. Strength and microstructure evaluation of recycled glass-fly ash geopolymer as low-carbon masonry units. Construction and Building Materials, [19] Boonserm, K., Sata, V., Pimraksa, K., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2012). Improved geopolymerization of bottom ash by incorporating fly ash and using waste gypsum as additive. Cement and Concrete Composites, 34(7): 819-824. [20] Chindaprasirt, P., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chalee, W., & Rattanasak, U. (2009). Comparative study on the characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash geopolymers. Waste Management, 29(2): 539-543. [21] Sata V, Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P. Resistance of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid attack. Cement and Concrete Composites 2012;34(5):700-708 [22] Sathonsaowapark, A, Chindaprasirt, P., Pimraksa, K., (2009). Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. Journal of Harzadous Materials 168:44-50. [23] Posi, P., Thongjapo, P., Thamultree, N., Boontee, P., Kasemsiri, P., Chindaprasirt, P., (2016). Pressed lightweight fly ash-OPC geopolymer concrete containing recycled lightweight concrete aggregate. Construction and Building Materials 127:450–456 [24] Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., (2015). Cement & concrete composites use of OPC to improve setting and early strength properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature, Cem. Concr. Compos. 55: 205–214. [25] Yip, C.K., Lukey, G.C., Provis, J.L., van Deventer, J.S.J., (2008). Effect of calcium silicate sources on geopolymerisation, Cem. Concr. Res. 38(4): 554–564. [26] García-Lodeiro, I., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Palomo, A., (2013). Variation in hybrid cements over time. Alkaline activation of fly ash-portland cement blends, Cem. Concr. Res. 52: 112–122. [27] Xie,T., Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2015). Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Ceramics International 41:5945– 5958 [28] Shen, S.L., Wang, Z.F., Yang, J., and Ho, CE. (2013). Generalized approach for prediction of jet grout column diameter, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(12), 2060-2069. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000932 [29] Shen, S.L., Wang, Z.F., Cheng, W.C. (2017). Estimation of lateral displacement induced by jet grouting in clayey soils, Geotechnique, ICE, 67(7), 621-630. (DOI): 10.1680/geot.16.P.159 [30] Wang, Z.F., et al. (2013). Investigation of field-installation effects of horizontal twinJet grouting in Shanghai soft soil deposits, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(3): 288297. dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0199
15
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
[31] Wang, Z.F., et al (2019). Enhancing discharge of spoil to mitigate disturbance induced by horizontal jet grouting in clayey soil: Theoretical model and application. Computers and Geotechnics, 111(2019), 222-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.03.012 [32] Liu MYJ, Alengaram, UJ, Jumaat, MZ, and Mo, KH. (2014). “Evaluation of thermal conductivity, mechanical and transport properties of lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete.” Energy and Buildings, 72, 238-245 [33] Ismail N, and El-Hussin, H. (2018). “Development and Characterization of Fly Ash– Slag Blended Geopolymer Mortar and Lightweight Concrete.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 30(4). [34] Arellano Aguilar R, Burciaga Díaz O, Escalante García JI., (2010).Lightweight concretes of activated metakaolin-fly ash binders, with blast furnace slag aggregates. Constr Build Mater. 24(7):1166–75. [35] Brooks R, Bahadory M, Tovia F, Rostami H., (2010). Properties of alkali-activated fly ash: high performance to lightweight. Int J Sustainable Eng. 3(3):211–8. [36] Sanjayan, J.G., Nazari, A., Chen, L., Nguyen, G.H., (2015). Physical and mechanical properties of lightweight aerated geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials 79 (2015) 236–244 [37] Huiskes, D.M.A., Keulen, A., Yu, Q.L., Brouwers, H.J.H., (2016). Design and performance evaluation of ultra-lightweight geopolymer concrete. Materials and Design 89: 516–526 [38] Abdullah MMAB, Hussin, K, Bnhussain, M, Ismail, KN, Yahya, Z, and Razak, RA. (2012). “Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Lightweight Concrete Using Foaming Agent.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 13, 7186-7198 [39] ASTM C778 (2006). Standard specification for standard sand. Annual Book of ASTM Standard Vol 4.02. [40] ASTM E1621, (2013). Standard Guide for Elemental Analysis by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.03.05. [41] ASTM C618 (2008). Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in cement. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. [42] Phoo-ngernkham, T. Maegawa, A. Mishima, N. Hatanaka, H. Chindaprasirt, P. (2015). Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutionson compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–GBFS geopolymer, Construction and Building Materials, 91(30), 1-8. [43] Hanjitsuwan, S. Phoo-ngernkham, T. Damrongwiriyanupap, N. Du, Y.J. Shen, S.L. (2016). Comparative study using Portland cement and calcium carbide residue as a promoter in bottom ash geopolymer mortar, Construction and Building Materials 133, 128–134 [44] ASTM C138/C138M, (2017). Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.04.02. [45] ASTM C109, (2002). Standard test method of compressive strength of hydrualic cement mortars (using 2-in. or [50 mm] cube speciments). Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.04.01. 16
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
[46] ASTM C20 (2000). Apparent Porosity, Water Absorption, Apparent Specific Gravity, and Bulk Density of Burned Refractory Brick and Shapes by Boiling Water. Annual Book of ASTM. [47] ASTM E1225, (2013). Standard Test Method for Thermal Conductivity of Solids Using the Guarded-Comparative-Longitudinal Heat Flow Technique. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol.14.05. [47] Kunchariyakun, K. Asavapisit, S. Sombatsompop, K. (2015) “Properties of autoclaved aerated concrete incorporating rice husk ashas partial replacement for fine aggregate” Cement & Concrete Composites. 55:11-16 [48] Poon, C. S., Lam, L., and Wong, Y. L., (2000) "A Study on High Strength Concrete Prepared with Large Volume of Low Calcium Fly Ash" Cement and Concrete Research, 30(3):447-455. [49] Chindaprasirt, P., Cao, T., and Suwanvitaya, P., (2000) "Influence of Binder Type on Quality of Concrete for Durable Structures," Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 581590. [50] Just, A., & Middendorf, B. (2009). Microstructure of high-strength foam concrete. Materials Characterization, 60(7): 741-748. [51] Eiamwijit, M. Pachana, K. Kaewpirom, S. Rattanasak, U. Chindaprasirt, P. (2015). “Comparative study on morphology of ground sub-bituminus FBC fly ash geopolymeric material” Advanced Powder Technology. 26(4):1053-1057. [52] Chembuddy R. (2005). Concentration and solution calculator program - density tables. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&right= density_tables (2019, March 11) [53] Iffat, S. (2015) “Relation Between Density and Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete” Concrete Research Letters, 6(4):182-189 [54] Kua, T.A. Arulrajah, A. Horpibulsuk, S. Du, Y.J. Shen, S.L. (2016). Strength assessment of spent coffee grounds-geopolymer cement utilizing slag and fly ash precursors, Constr. Build. Mater. 115, 565–575. [55] Young, J.F. (1974) “An assessment of the influence of microstructure on time-dependent deformations of hardened cement paste” Proceedings the 1st Australian Conference on Engineering Materials, UNSW, Sydney, 3-28 [56] Thakur, R.N. and Ghosh, S., (2009). “Effect of Mix Proportion on Compressive Strength and Microstructure of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Composites,” ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4 (4):68-74 [57] Yip CK, Van Deventer JSJ, (2003). “Microanalysis of calcium silicate hydrate gel formed within a geopolymeric binder”. Journal of Materials Science, 38(18):38513860. [58] Hamidi, R.M., Man, Z., & Azizli, K.A. (2016). Concentration of NaOH and the effect on the properties of fly ash based geopolymer. Procedia Engineering, 148: 189-193. [59] Chindaprasirt, P., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chalee, W., and Rattanasak, U. (2009). “Comparative study on the characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash geopolymers.” Waste Manage., 29(2), 539–543.
17
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
[60] Kim, H.K. Jeon, J.H. Lee, H.K. (2012). "Workability, and Mechanical, Acoustic and Thermal Properties of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete with a High Volume of Entrained Air", Construction and Building Materials 29:193-200.
18
Bottom Ash Sand OPC
80
60
40
20
0 10
100
1000
Particle Size (m)
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
Figure 1: Particle size of bottom ash, sand and Portland cement
19
10000
-p
1
ro of
Percentage Passing (%)
100
22
NS/NH = 80:20
Cement 0 % Cement 10 % Cement 20 % Cement 30 % Cement 40 % Cement 50 %
20 18 16 14 12
22
ro of
10
NS/NH = 70:30
3
Unit weight (kN/m )
20
-p
18 16
re
14 12
22
lP
10
NS/NH = 50:50
na
20 18
14
Jo
12
ur
16
10
0
1
2
3
Foam Content (%)
Figure 2: The 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar with different NS/NH ratios
20
20
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
18
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
16 14 12 10
ro of
18 16 14 12
-p
3
Unit Weight (kN/m )
20
re
10
Cement = 50%
Cement = 20%
20
lP
18 16
12 10
10
12
8
14
10
12
14
NaOH Concentration (Molar)
Jo
ur
8
na
14
Figure 3: The 7-day unit weight of CLBAG mortar with different NaOH concentrations
21
20
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
18
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
16 14 12 10
ro of
18 16 14 12 10 Cement = 20%
Cement = 0%
re
20
-p
Unit weight (kN/m3)
20
18
lP
16 14
10 7
na
12
14
28
60
90
7
14
28
60
90
Curing time (days)
Jo
ur
Figure 4: The unit weight of CLBAG mortars at curing age of 7, 14, 28, 60 and 90 days
22
10
Cement 0 % Cement 10 % Cement 20 % Cement 30 % Cement 40 % Cement 50 %
Na2SiO3:NaOH = 80:20
8
6
4
2
Na2SiO3:NaOH = 70:30
8
-p
6
4
re
Compressive strength (MPa)
10
ro of
0
2
10
Na2SiO3:NaOH = 50:50
na
8
Jo
2
ur
6
4
lP
0
0
0
1
2
3
Foam Content (%)
Figure 5: The 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar with different NS/NH ratios
23
12
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
10 8 6 4 2
ro of
12 10 8 6
-p
4 2 0 12
re
Compressive strength (MPa)
0
Cement = 50%
Cement = 20%
lP
10 8 6
2 0
10
ur
8
na
4
12
8
14
10
12
14
NaOH Concentration (Molar)
Jo
Figure 6: The 7-day strength of CLBAG mortar with different NaOH concentrations
24
14
Foam 0% Foam 1% Foam 2% Foam 3%
12 10
Cement = 0%
Cement = 30%
Cement = 10%
Cement = 40%
8 6 4 2
14
ro of
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 14
Cement = 50%
7
60
re
Cement = 20%
-p
Compressive strength (MPa)
0
12 10
lP
8 6
2 0
14
28
60
90
14
28
Curing time (days)
ur
7
na
4
Jo
Figure 7: The strength of CLBAG mortar at curing time of 7, 14, 28, 60 and 90 days
25
90
ro of -p
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
Figure 8: The relationship between porosity and thermal conductivity of CLBAG mortar at different BA/C ratio, NaOH concentration and F
Figure 9: The relationship between F and porosity of CLBAG mortar at different BA:C ratio, NaOH concentration and F.
26
ro of -p
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
Figure 10: The relationship between C content and parameter a and b.
27
Table 1: Chemical composition of OPC and BA OPC (%)
BA (%)
SiO2
20.93
36.33
Al2O3
4.35
13.71
Fe2O3
3.45
15.65
CaO
65.11
21.76
MgO
1.35
N.D.
SO3
2.71
10.15
Na2O
0.42
N.D.
K2O
0.11
1.20
LOI
0.65
0.50
Jo
ur
na
lP
re
-p
ro of
Chemical compositions
28
Table 2: Mix proportions of CLBAG mortar.
Item
7-day unit weight and
unit weight and strength Thermal conductivity
strength
development
Sand/Binder 1
and porosity
1
1
BA/Cement
100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50
L/B
0.6
0.6
0.6
NS/NH
80:20, 70:30, 50:50
70:30
70:30
8, 10, 12, 14
8
8, 10, 12, 14
0, 1, 2, 3
Curing time 7
7, 14, 28, 60, 90
-p
foam content 0, 1, 2, 3
ro of
NaOH concentration
100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50 70:30, 60:40, 50:50
0, 1, 2, 3 28
re
Table 3: Unit weight and strength requirement for lightweight cellular concrete block according to the Thailand Industrial Standard (TIS).
C6
4.91-5.89
C7
5.90-6.87
C8
6.88-7.85
C9
7.86-8.83
C10
8.84-9.81
C14 C16
2
ur
2.5
9.82-11.77
Jo
C12
Strength (MPa)
lP
Unit weight (kN/m3)
na
Type
11.78-13.73 5.0
13.73-15.70
29