Next Article in Journal
The Optical and Electrical Performance of CuO Synthesized by Anodic Oxidation Based on Copper Foam
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Boric Acid Content in Aluminosilicate Matrix on Mechanical Properties of Carbon Prepreg Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 13
Issue 23
10.3390/ma13235410
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Performance Evaluation of Cementless Composites with Alkali-Sulfate Activator for Field Application

by
Jaehyun Lee
1,†,
Taegyu Lee
2,†,
Seungwoo Lee
3 and
Hyeonggil Choi
3,*
1
Department of Safety Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01811, Korea
2
Department of Fire and Disaster Prevention, Semyung University, 65 Semyung-ro, Jecheon-si, Chungbuk 27136, Korea
3
School of Architecture, Civil, Environment, and Energy Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Buk-Gu, Daegu 41566, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work as first author.
Materials 2020, 13(23), 5410; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235410
Submission received: 17 November 2020 / Revised: 24 November 2020 / Accepted: 26 November 2020 / Published: 27 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Construction and Building Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study analyzed the performance evaluation of alkali-activated composites (AAC) with an alkali-sulfate activator and determined the expected effects of applying AACs to actual sites. Results revealed that when the binder weight was increased by 100 kg/m3 at 7 days of age, the homogel strength of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and AAC increased by 0.9 and 5.0 MPa, respectively. According to the analysis of the matrix microstructures at 7 days of age, calcium silicate hydrates (C–S–H, Ca1.5SiO3.5·H2O) and ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O) were formed in AAC, which are similar hydration products as found in OPC. Furthermore, the acid resistance analysis showed that the mass change of AAC in HCl and H2SO4 solutions ranged from 36.1% to 88.0%, lower than that of OPC, indicating AAC’s superior acid resistance. Moreover, the OPC and AAC binder weight ranges satisfying the target geltime (20–50 s) were estimated as 180.1–471.1 kg/m3 and 261.2–469.9 kg/m3, respectively, and the global warming potential (GWP) according to binder weight range was 102.3–257.3 kg CO2 eq/m3 and 72.9–126.0 kg CO2 eq/m3. Therefore, by applying AAC to actual sites, GWP is expected to be 29.5 (28.8%)–131.3 (51.0%) kg CO2 eq/m3 less than that of OPC.

1. Introduction

Portland cement is the most widely used binder in the concrete industry. According to the Activity Report [1] published by the European Cement Association, global cement production in G20 countries, which are main world producers, is estimated to be about 4.1 billion tons in 2017. Among the different types of Portland cement, ordinary Portland cement (OPC)-based concrete is the most widely used [2], owing to its excellent performance and advantages as an economical construction material. To date, cement is irreplaceable as a building material [3].
However, Portland cement is reported to contribute 5–6% of the annual global CO2 emissions [2], which is relatively high, resulting in environmental issues worldwide. Accordingly, researchers are investigating alternatives to replace cement [3,4]. Although completely replacing cement in the construction industry is challenging, it can be partially replaced with binders that are suitable for different structural purposes. Thus, numerous researchers have studied a variety of materials for cement replacement [5,6,7,8].
Among them, ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and fly ash (FA) can exhibit the same performance as the OPC. When GGBS and FA are used to partially replace cement, they are called an alkali-activated composite (AAC). AAC is garnering attention as an environmentally friendly material that can enhance the performance of concrete through its high initial strength and excellent durability. Accordingly, many researchers have investigated the performance of materials using AAC [9,10]. Cartwright et al. [11] found that AAC exhibited 3–6 times more shrinkage than OPC. Likewise, Kumarappa et al. [12] and Atis et al. [13] reported that AAC showed considerably higher shrinkage than OPC, which can lead to serious issues when used in structures. In response, Choi et al. [14] added a calcium sulfoaluminate-based expansive additive (CSA; 0%, 2.5%, 5.0%, and 7.5% based on the mass of the binder) to compensate for the shrinkage of AAC mortar. Researchers reported that, when the elastic modulus was low, CSA greatly compensated for the dry shrinkage of AAC mortar in the initial curing period. Therefore, research on suitable mixing materials to compensate for shrinkage is important for applying AAC.
In developing new resources and reusing waste for sustainable development, circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) ash has recently become one of the most widely used combustion technologies [15,16]. CFBC, a clean coal technology, is commonly used as an eco-friendly power generation solution due to its effective control of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal in thermal power plants [17,18]. To promote the sustainable development of CFBC power generation technology, much attention has been paid to recycling based on the self-hardening properties of CFBC ash, a fundamental physical and chemical property. Specifically, in countries operating large-scale CFBC power plants, such as China and Korea, researchers are investigating the use of CFBC ash as a binder for low-strength materials [19]. Such studies include research on whether a combination of CFBC and GGBS can be used as a binder in the compression production of bricks, research on technology for enhancing the bonding strength of the cement mixture by adding CFA and additives to the aluminate cement of lightweight brick, and research on the use of CFBC ash as a binder for stabilizing soil [16,20,21]. Furthermore, CFBC is characterized by its superior performance and few pollutant emissions compared to conventional pulverized coal combustion technology. Moreover, researchers have reported its application to petroleum coke, which is suitable for a variety of fuels and has sulfur content of less than 5%, follows the principle of waste recycling [22].
However, CFBC has considerable disadvantages that have impeded its adoption in the industry. For example, using a large amount of FA in OPC-based concrete increases the setting time and degrades the initial mechanical properties. Moreover, for the alkaline activation of FA, an appropriate alkaline silicate and/or hydroxide containing a high alkali activator must be used [23,24,25]. These problems limit the sustainable benefits afforded by the CFBC system. Consequently, researchers have attempted to alleviate some of the concerns regarding alkali activation systems using powder activators, with some success [26,27]. Studies have investigated the use of neutral salts, such as sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate, as FA activators in large amounts of FA-based concrete as an alternative to sustainable concrete [28,29,30].
However, there is no research on AAC as a replacement for OPC that can be applied to actual sites. Moreover, no studies have proposed an optimal mixing guide using local AAC materials or presented the expected effects of AAC through calculations of its impact on the environment. Accordingly, this study derived the composition of AAC with alkali-sulfate activator that can replace OPC based on previous research. The chemical reaction mechanism [31] for this material is shown in Figure 1.
This study aims to analyze the engineering properties, acid resistance, and CO2 reduction properties of alkali-activated composites (AAC) with an alkali-sulfate activator and determine the expected effects of applying AAC to actual sites. Experiments were conducted with liquid B, where the water/binder ratio was set to 100, 120, and 140%, and the replacement ratio to 50%, 60%, and 70%. In series I, raw material analysis was conducted via scanning electron microscopy and X-ray fluorescence. In series II, for the engineering properties analysis, the geltime and homogel strength were measured, after which the microstructure of the matrix was analyzed using a scanning electron microscope. Subsequently, in series III, the acid resistance and CO2 reduction properties were evaluated through mass change and global warming potential (GWP) analyses.

2. Experimental Procedure

2.1. Materials

Table 1 shows the chemical compositions of OPC (Halla Cement, Gangneung-si, Korea), AAC (Zian Corporation, Wanju-gun, Korea), and sodium silicate solution (SSS, Youngil Chemical, Incheon, Korea) used in this study. AAC had higher content of SiO2, Al2O3, and SO3 than OPC. SSS was composed of SiO2, Fe2O3, H2O, and Na2O. Table 2 shows the physical properties of the materials used. For OPC, Type 1 (KS L 5201) with a specific surface area of 3120 cm2/g was used [32], and for AAC, a mixture of GGBS, CFBC ash, and petro cokes desulfurization gypsum (PCDG) with a specific surface area of 4120 cm2/g was used. In particular, PCDG acts as an alkali-sulfate activator with a granular geometry as shown by the SEM analysis in Figure 2. From Figure 3, the chemical composition of CFBC ash differs from the existing pulverized coal combustion (PCC) ash. CFBC ash has a higher content of CaO, MgO, and SO3 than PCC ash. Meanwhile, for SSS, Type 3 (KS M 1415) with water insolubility of 0.0026 was used [33].

2.2. Experimental Procedures

Table 3 shows the experimental plan of this study. The binder type of liquid B was set to two levels (OPC and AAC), the W/B ratio to three levels (100, 120, and 140%), and the replacement ratio to three levels (50, 60, and 70%). In series I, measurements were conducted for the raw material analysis via scanning electron microscopy (Emcrafts, Gwangju-si, Korea) and X-ray fluorescence (Malvern Panalytical, Seongnam-si, Korea). In series II, for the engineering properties analysis, the geltime and homogel strength were measured and SEM analysis was performed. Then, in series III, the mass change and global warming potential (GWP) were evaluated for the acid resistance and CO2 reduction properties analysis. Table 4 displays the mixing proportions used.

2.3. Test Methods

Table 5 shows the test method for each evaluation item. Tests were performed for each evaluation item (scanning electron microscope, X-ray fluorescence) in series I according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C1723 [34] and ASTM C114 [35], respectively. For series II, the geltime test was conducted according to ASTM D4217 [36], the homogel strength to ASTM C109 [37], and SEM to ASTM C1723 [34]. The target geltime was set to 20–50 s, and the target homogel strength to at least 2 MPa [10].
For Series III, mass change and GWP were evaluated in accordance with the test methods ASTM C267 [38], 579 [39], and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 [40]. In particular, the characterized environmental impacts index for evaluating GWP was calculated based on the LCI DB [41,42]. The index is shown in Table 6. In particular, simple regression analysis was used to analyze the statistical correlation of each variable obtained as a test result.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Engineering Properties Analysis

Figure 4 shows the change in geltime according to the binder weight of OPC and AAC. In both OPC and AAC, the geltime tended to decrease as the binder weight increased. In OPC, when the binder weight increased from 291.1 kg/m3 to 531.3 kg/m3, the geltime decreased from 40 s (100%) to 15 s (37.5%). When the binder weight increased by increments of 10 kg/m3, the geltime decreased by 1.0 s per increment. Meanwhile, in AAC, when the binder weight increased from 285.0 kg/m3 to 516.8 kg/m3, the geltime decreased from 49 s (100%) to 15 s (30.6%). When the binder weight increased by increments of 10 kg/m3, the geltime decreased by 1.4 s per increment. Under similar mixing conditions, the OPC test specimen showed lower geltime than AAC overall, demonstrating that OPC is more advantageous for shortening the geltime than AAC.
Figure 5 illustrates the homogel strength according to the replacement ratio of OPC and AAC. Figure 5a shows the results at 3 days of age; the test specimen exhibited the highest homogel strength at a replacement ratio of 70%. At W/B ratios of 100%, 120%, and 140%, and a replacement ratio of 70%, AAC exhibited higher homogel strength than OPC by 5.5 MPa (193.2%), 3.8 MPa (179.2%), and 3.2 MPa (188.9%), respectively. Meanwhile, Figure 5b shows the homogel strength according to W/B ratios of 100%, 120%, and 140% at a replacement ratio of 70% at 7 days of age, at which AAC exhibited higher homogel strength than OPC by 9.4 MPa (236.2%), 5.9 MPa (195.2%), and 5.3 MPa (198.1%), respectively. As the age increased from 3 days to 7 days, the difference in homogel strength between most AAC specimens and OPC increased. Furthermore, in both OPC and AAC, the homogel strength tended to increase when W/B decreased and the replacement ratio increased. Under the same mixing conditions, the AAC specimens exhibited homogel strength up to 236.2% higher than OPC, demonstrating that AAC is more suitable for securing homogel strength than OPC.
Figure 6 shows the homogel strength according to increases in binder weight of the OPC and AAC specimens. The homogel strength tended to increase as the binder weight increased. At 3 days of age, OPC showed an increase of 1.7 MPa when the binder weight increased by 100 kg/m3, whereas AAC showed an increase of 4.1 MPa. This is illustrated in Figure 6a. The ratios of maximum homogel strength to minimum homogel strength of OPC and AAC were 393.3% and 495.7%, respectively. Figure 6b displays the results at 7 days of age, at which OPC showed an increase of 0.9 MPa when the binder weight increased by 100 kg/m3, whereas AAC showed an increase of 5.0 MPa. The ratios of maximum homogel strength and minimum homogel strength of OPC and AAC were 146.8% and 379.1%, respectively. These results indicate that the strength enhancement effect according to binder weight of the AAC specimen was greater than that of OPC. For further analysis, the relationship between the increase rate of strength by age according to the increases in binder weight was expressed as a regression line, as shown in Figure 7. According to the results, as the binder weight increases, the increase rate decreases, and the equation y = 0.0007x2 − 0.8653x + 392.14 was derived for all specimens excluding Mix number O-140-50.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between geltime and homogel strength, which was found to be inversely related. The regression equations derived for OPC and AAC were y = −2.276ln(x) + 12.985 and y = −9.861ln(x) + 43.696, respectively. SEM images at 5000× magnification were taken to analyze the microstructure of the hardened OPC and AAC specimens at 7 days of age, as shown in Figure 9. From the results, similar hydration products as in OPC, calcium silicate hydrates (C–S–H, Ca1.5SiO3.5·H2O)) and ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O), were formed in AAC. These findings proved that in the AAC specimens, GGBS, CFBC ash, and PCDG produced hydrates similar to OPC through chemical hydration reactions even though OPC was not used.

3.2. Acid Resistance Analysis

Figure 10 shows the mass change measurements according to the immersion period of the OPC and AAC specimens in HCl solution. Figure 10a illustrates the results of immersion in 5% HCl solution, in which both OPC and AAC exhibited a sharp decrease in mass change until 30 days of immersion, after which they showed a more gradual decrease. After 180 days of immersion, the mass change of AAC was low at 59.2% of OPC. When immersed in 10% HCI solution as illustrated in Figure 10b, AAC exhibited a sharp decrease in mass change until 30 days of immersion, after which mass change gradually decreased, while OPC showed a rapid decrease throughout the immersion period up to 180 days. At 180 days of immersion, the mass change of AAC was low at 36.1% of that for OPC.
Meanwhile, Figure 11 displays the mass change according to the immersion period of the OPC and AAC specimens in H2SO4 solution. In Figure 11a, the results of immersion in 5% H2SO4 solution indicate that mass change decreased rapidly for OPC and gradually for AAC. After 180 days of immersion, the mass change of AAC was low at 29.0% of that for OPC. Conversely, in 10% H2SO4 solution as shown in Figure 11b, the mass change of AAC was somewhat lower at 88.0% of that for OPC. The mass change of AAC gradually decreased until 90 days of immersion, after which it rapidly decreased; in contrast, for OPC, mass change rapidly decreased in 60 days of immersion and then gradually decreased.
The acid resistance properties analysis showed that the mass change of AAC in HCl and H2SO4 solutions ranged from 36.1 to 88.0%, lower than that of OPC, indicating AAC’s superior acid resistance compared to OPC. From the explanation in “3.1. Engineering Properties Analysis,” the homogel strength of the AAC specimen is higher than that of OPC under the same mixing conditions. Therefore, its acid resistance is related to its excellent properties.

3.3. CO2 Reduction Properties Analysis

Figure 12 shows a comparative analysis of GWP of the OPC and AAC specimens. According to the analysis of change in GWP relative to binder weight in Figure 12a, GWP tended to increase as the binder weight increased. For OPC, GWP increased by 25.45 kg CO2 eq with a 100 kg/m3 increase in binder weight, while GWP of AAC increased by 53.25 kg CO2 eq. Thus, under the same mixing conditions, the GWP of AAC was low at 47.7 to 48.9% of OPC. Figure 12b illustrates the change in GWP according to the homogel strength; both OPC and AAC exhibited an increase in GWP as the homogel strength increased. In particular, for OPC, the relationship between homogel strength and GWP presented a steeper slope than that of AAC. This demonstrates that AAC has a greater effect on CO2 reduction than OPC.
Figure 13 shows the binder weight range and GWP of OPC and AAC that satisfy the target geltime range (20–50 s). For reference, all specimens satisfying the target geltime range exceeded the target homogel strength of 2 MPa. According to the analysis, the OPC and AAC binder weight ranges satisfying the target geltime range were estimated at 180.1–471.1 kg/m3 and 261.2–469.9 kg/m3, respectively. Moreover, GWP in relation to binder, weight range was 102.3–257.3 kg of CO2 eq/m3 and 72.9–126.0 kg of CO2 eq/m3. Therefore, by applying AAC to actual sites under conditions that satisfy the target geltime range, the GWP was expected to be 29.5 (28.8%)–131.3 (51.0%) kg CO2 eq/m3 less than that of OPC.

4. Conclusions

This study analyzed the performance evaluation of alkali-activated composites (AAC) with an alkali-sulfate activator. The results are summarized as follows:
  • Geltime decreased by 1.0 and 1.4 s in OPC and AAC, respectively, for each increase in binder weight of 10 kg/m3. Thus, under similar mixing conditions, OPC had more advantageous properties with a shorter geltime than AAC.
  • In both OPC and AAC specimens, the homogel strength tended to increase as W/B decreased and the replacement ratio increased. At 7 days of age, W/B ratios of 100%, 120%, and 140%, and a replacement ratio of 70%, the AAC specimens exhibited higher homogel strength by 9.4 MPa (236.2%), 5.9 MPa (195.2%), and 5.3 MPa (198.1%), respectively. Hence, under the same mixing conditions, AAC is more advantageous for securing homogel strength than OPC.
  • At 3 days of age, OPC showed an increase of 1.7 MPa when the binder weight increased by 100 kg/m3, whereas AAC showed an increase of 4.1 MPa. In addition, at 7 days of age, OPC showed an increase of 0.9 MPa when the binder weight increased by 100 kg/m3, whereas AAC showed an increase of 5.0 MPa. Geltime and homogel strength were found to be inversely related for both OPC and AAC.
  • Based on the 5000× magnification SEM images taken at 7 days to analyze the matrix microstructures, similar hydration products found in OPC, calcium silicate hydrates (C–S–H, Ca1.5SiO3.5·H2O)) and ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O), were formed in AAC. These findings proved that in the AAC specimens, GGBS, CFBC ash, and PCDG produced hydrates similar to OPC through chemical hydration reactions, although OPC was not used.
  • The acid resistance properties analysis showed that the mass change of AAC in HCl and H2SO4 solutions ranged from 36.1 to 88.0%, lower than that of OPC, indicating AAC’s superior acid resistance. Furthermore, for OPC, GWP increased by 25.45 kg CO2 eq with a 100 kg/m3 increase in binder weight, while GWP of AAC increased by 53.25 kg CO2 eq. This demonstrates that AAC has a greater effect on CO2 reduction than OPC.
The OPC and AAC binder weight ranges satisfying the target geltime (20–50 s) were estimated at 180.1–471.1 kg/m3 and 261.2–469.9 kg/m3, respectively, and the GWP according to binder weight range was 102.3–257.3 kg CO2 eq/m3 and 72.9–126.0 kg CO2 eq/m3, respectively. Therefore, by applying AAC to actual sites, GWP is expected to be 29.5 (28.8%)–131.3 (51.0%) kg CO2 eq/m3 less than that of OPC.
In this study, raw material analysis, engineering properties analysis, acid resistance and CO2 reduction properties analysis were performed as basic research on AAC. In the future, in-depth tests of various mechanical properties (tensile stress, shear stress, elastic deformation, modulus of elasticity, etc.) for AAC will be conducted. In addition, a detailed evaluation of the life cycle assessment and environmental impact assessment (global warming potential, ozone layer depletion potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, abiotic depletion potential, etc.) will be performed to analyze eco-friendly properties.

Author Contributions

J.L., T.L., and H.C. equally contributed to the research conceptualization and all investigations performed under its purview; resource procurement was handled by J.L. and T.L.; the original draft of the manuscript was prepared by J.L. and T.L., whereas the final draft was reviewed and edited by J.L., T.L., S.L., and H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (No. 2018R1D1A1B07049812).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AACAlkali-activated Composites
OPCOrdinary Portland Cement
GWPGlobal Warming Potential
GGBSGround Granulated Blast-furnace Slag
FAFly Ash
CSACalcium Sulfoaluminate
CFBCCirculating Fluidized Bed Combustion
PCDGPetro Cokes Desulfurization Gypsum
PCCPulverized Coal Combustion
SSSSodium Silicate Solution
SEMScanning Electron Microscope

References

  1. The European Cement Association. Activity Report; CEMBUREAU: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; pp. 1–56. [Google Scholar]
  2. Parron-Rubio, M.E.; Perez-Garcia, F.; Gonzalez-Herrera, A.; Oliveira, M.J.; Rubio-Cintas, M.D. Slag Substitution as a Cementing Material in Concrete: Mechanical, Physical and Environmental Properties. Materials 2019, 12, 2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Anand, S.; Vrat, P.; Dahiya, R. Application of a system dynamics approach for assessment and mitigation of CO2 emissions from the cement industry. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 79, 383–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roskovi, R.; Bjegovi, D. Role of mineral additions in reducing CO2 emission. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 974–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Coppola, L.; Co etti, D.; Crotti, E.; Pastore, T. CSA-based Portland-free binders to manufacture sustainable concretes for jointless slabs on ground. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 187, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pacheco, F.-T.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Alkali-activated binders: A review: Part 1. Historical background, terminology, reaction mechanisms and hydration products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1305–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Małek, M.; Łasica, W.; Jackowski, M.; Kadela, M. Effect of Waste Glass Addition as a Replacement for Fine Aggregate on Properties of Mortar. Materials 2020, 13, 3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lee, J.; Lee, T. Influences of Chemical Composition and Fineness on the Development of Concrete Strength by Curing Conditions. Materials 2019, 12, 4061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Coppola, L.; Co etti, D.; Crotti, E.; Marini, A.; Passoni, C.; Pastore, T. Lightweight cement-free alkali-activated slag plaster for the structural retrofit and energy upgrading of poor quality masonry walls. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 104, 103341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, J.; Kim, G.; Kim, Y.; Mun, K.; Nam, J. Engineering Properties and Optimal Conditions of Cementless Grouting Materials. Materials 2019, 12, 3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cartwright, C.; Rajabipour, F.; Radlinska, A. Shrinkage characteristics of alkali-activated slag cements. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 27, 4014007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kumarappa, D.B.; Peethamparan, S.; Ngami, M. Autogenous shrinkage of alkali activated slag mortars: Basic mechanisms and mitigation methods. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 109, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Atis, C.D.; Bilim, C.; Çelik, Ö.; Karahan, O. Influence of activator on the strength and drying shrinkage of alkali-activated slag mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Choi, S.; Ryu, G.S.; Koh, K.T.; An, G.H.; Kim, H.Y. Experimental Study on the Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Properties of AAC Mortar Mixed with CSA Expansive Additive. Materials 2019, 12, 3312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Nguyen, H.-A.; Chang, T.-P.; Shih, J.-Y.; Chen, C.-T.; Nguyen, T.-D. Influence of circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) fly ash on properties of modified high volume low calcium fly ash (HVFA) cement paste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 91, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, T.; Chi, M.; Huang, R. Characteristics of CFBC fly ash and properties of cement-based composites with CFBC fly ash and coal-fired fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Oka, S.N.; Anthony, E.J. Fluidized Bed Combustion; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 1–31. ISBN 0-8247-4699-6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cuenca, M.A.; Anthony, E.J. Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion; Blackie Academic & Professional: London, UK, 1995; pp. 80–113. ISBN 978-94-011-0617-7. [Google Scholar]
  19. Conn, R.E.; Sellakumar, K.; Bland, A.E. Utilization of CFB Fly ash for Construction Applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Livingston, NJ, USA, 16–19 May 1999; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhang, Z.; Qian, J.; You, C.; Hu, C. Use of circulating fluidized bed combustion fly ash and slag in autoclaved brick. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, X.; Yan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Z. Utilization of circulating fluidized bed fly ash for the preparation of foam concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blondin, J.; Anthony, E. A Selective Hydration Treatment to Enhance the Utilization of CFBC Ash in Concrete. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on FBC, Orlando, FL, USA, 7–10 May 1995. [Google Scholar]
  23. Peng, Z.; Vance, K.; Dakhane, A.; Marzke, R.F.; Neithalath, N. Microstructural and 29Si MAS NMR spectroscopic evaluations of alkali cationic effects on fly ash activation. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 57, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bernal, S.A.; Provis, J.L.; Rose, V.; De Gutierrez, R.M. Evolution of binder structure in sodium silicate-activated slag-metakaolin blends. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dakhane, A.; Peng, Z.; Marzke, R.; Neithalath, N. 29 Si NMR investigations on alkali activated fly ash or slag: The role of the alkali cation. Spec. Publ. 2016, 312, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ravikumar, D.; Neithalath, N. Reaction kinetics in sodium silicate powder and liquid activated slag binders evaluated using isothermal calorimetry. Thermochim. Acta 2012, 546, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, K.-H.; Song, J.-K.; Ashour, A.F.; Lee, E.-T. Properties of cementless mortars activated by sodium silicate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1981–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Donatello, S.; Fernández-Jimenez, A.; Palomo, A. Very high volume fly ash cements. Early age hydration study using Na2SO4 as an activator. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2013, 96, 900–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abdalqader, A.; Jin, F.; Al-Tabbaa, A. Development of greener alkali-activated cement: Utilisation of sodium carbonate for activating slag and fly ash mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mobasher, N.; Bernal, S.A.; Provis, J.L. Structural evolution of an alkali sulfate activated slag cement. J. Nucl. Mater. 2016, 468, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, J.; Lee, T. Effects of High CaO Fly Ash and Sulfate Activator as a Finer Binder for Cementless Grouting Material. Materials 2019, 12, 3664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Korean Industrial Standards. Portland Cement (KS L 5201); Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  33. Korean Industrial Standards. Sodiun Silicate Liquid (KS M 1415); Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. ASTM C1723-16. Standard Guide for Examination of Hardened Concrete Using Scanning Electron Microscopy; American Society of Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010; Volume 4, p. 2.
  35. ASTM C114-18. Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement; American Society of Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
  36. ASTM D4217-07. Standard Test Method for Geltime of Thermosetting Coating Powder; American Society of Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  37. ASTM C109/C109M-20a. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens); American Society of Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  38. ASTM C267-01. Standard Test Methods for Chemical Resistance of Mortars, Grouts, and Monolithic Surfacings and Polymer Concretes; American Society of Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
  39. ASTM C579-18. Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Chemical-Resistant Mortars, Grouts, Monolithic Surfacings, and Polymer Concretes; American Society of Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
  40. ISO 14040. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Requirements and Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  41. Jeong, J.; Hong, T.; Kim, J.; Chae, M.; Ji, C. Multi-criteria analysis of a self-consumption strategy for building sectors focused on ground source heat pump systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute (KEITI). Available online: http://www.epd.or.kr/ (accessed on 21 November 2019).
Materials 13 05410 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical reaction mechanism diagram of alkali-activated composites (AAC).
Figure 1. Chemical reaction mechanism diagram of alkali-activated composites (AAC).
Materials 13 05410 g001
Materials 13 05410 g002 550
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope of petro cokes desulfurization gypsum (PCDG) at (a) 1000× and (b) 10,000× magnification.
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope of petro cokes desulfurization gypsum (PCDG) at (a) 1000× and (b) 10,000× magnification.
Materials 13 05410 g002
Materials 13 05410 g003 550
Figure 3. Chemical compositions of circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) ash and pulverized coal combustion (PCC) ash.
Figure 3. Chemical compositions of circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) ash and pulverized coal combustion (PCC) ash.
Materials 13 05410 g003
Materials 13 05410 g004 550
Figure 4. Geltime of OPC and AAC as a function of binder weight.
Figure 4. Geltime of OPC and AAC as a function of binder weight.
Materials 13 05410 g004
Materials 13 05410 g005 550
Figure 5. Homogel strength of OPC and AAC by replacement ratio: (a) 3 days (b) 7 days.
Figure 5. Homogel strength of OPC and AAC by replacement ratio: (a) 3 days (b) 7 days.
Materials 13 05410 g005
Materials 13 05410 g006 550
Figure 6. Homogel strength of OPC and AAC by binder weight: (a) 3 days (b) 7 days.
Figure 6. Homogel strength of OPC and AAC by binder weight: (a) 3 days (b) 7 days.
Materials 13 05410 g006
Materials 13 05410 g007 550
Figure 7. Development ratio of OPC and AAC by binder weight.
Figure 7. Development ratio of OPC and AAC by binder weight.
Materials 13 05410 g007
Materials 13 05410 g008 550
Figure 8. Correlations between geltime and homogel strength.
Figure 8. Correlations between geltime and homogel strength.
Materials 13 05410 g008
Materials 13 05410 g009 550
Figure 9. Scanning electron microscope images: (a) OPC, (b) AAC at 7 days (5000× magnification).
Figure 9. Scanning electron microscope images: (a) OPC, (b) AAC at 7 days (5000× magnification).
Materials 13 05410 g009
Materials 13 05410 g010 550
Figure 10. Mass change of OPC and AAC by immersion period in (a) 5% HCl and (b) 10% HCl solution.
Figure 10. Mass change of OPC and AAC by immersion period in (a) 5% HCl and (b) 10% HCl solution.
Materials 13 05410 g010
Materials 13 05410 g011 550
Figure 11. Mass change of OPC and AAC by immersion period: (a) 5% H2SO4 (b) 10% H2SO4 solution.
Figure 11. Mass change of OPC and AAC by immersion period: (a) 5% H2SO4 (b) 10% H2SO4 solution.
Materials 13 05410 g011
Materials 13 05410 g012 550
Figure 12. Global warming potential (GWP) of OPC and AAC: (a) binder weight, (b) compressive strength.
Figure 12. Global warming potential (GWP) of OPC and AAC: (a) binder weight, (b) compressive strength.
Materials 13 05410 g012
Materials 13 05410 g013 550
Figure 13. OPC and AAC binder weight range and GWP that satisfy the target geltime.
Figure 13. OPC and AAC binder weight range and GWP that satisfy the target geltime.
Materials 13 05410 g013
Table
Table 1. Chemical compositions of the used materials.
Table 1. Chemical compositions of the used materials.
MaterialChemical Composition (%)
CaOSiO2Al2O3Fe2O3MgOSO3H2ONa2OOther
OPC (1)66.7017.204.383.133.033.48 2.08
AAC (2)56.2820.728.290.512.3110.51 1.38
SSS (3) 27.2 0.01 63.69.140.05
(1) OPC: Ordinary Portland cement; (2) AAC: Alkali-activated composites; (3) SSS: Sodium silicate solution.
Table
Table 2. Physical properties of the materials.
Table 2. Physical properties of the materials.
MaterialProperty
OPCType 1 ordinary Portland cement (KS L 5201)
Density: 3.15 g/cm3, specific surface area: 3120 cm2/g
AACAlkali-activated composites
Density: 2.82 g/cm3, specific surface area: 4120 cm2/g
SSSType 3 Sodium silicate solution (KS M 1415)
Density: 1.38 g/cm3, Water insolubility: 0.0026
Table
Table 3. Experimental plan.
Table 3. Experimental plan.
SeriesExperimental Factor and LevelEvaluation Item
Binder TypeW/B Ratio (%)Replacement Ratio (%)
Ⅰ. Raw material analysisOPC
AAC		100
120
140		50
60
70		Scanning electron microscope
X-ray fluorescence
Ⅱ. Engineering properties analysisGeltime (s)
Homogel strength (MPa)
Scanning electron microscope
Ⅲ. Acid resistance and CO2 reduction properties analysisMass change (%)
Global warming potential (kg CO2 eq/m3)
Table
Table 4. Mixing proportions.
Table 4. Mixing proportions.
Mix No.Liquid A (kg/m3)Liquid B (kg/m3)Mix No.Liquid A (kg/m3)Liquid B (kg/m3)
SSSWaterOPCSSSSSSWaterAACWater
O-100-50346.0250.0379.5379.5A-100-50346.0250.0369.1369.1
O-100-60276.8200.0455.4455.4A-100-60276.8200.0442.9442.9
O-100-70207.6150.0531.3531.3A-100-70207.6150.0516.8516.8
O-120-50346.0250.0329.5395.4A-120-50346.0250.0321.6385.9
O-120-60276.8200.0395.4474.5A-120-60276.8200.0385.9463.1
O-120-70207.6150.0461.3553.6A-120-70207.6150.0450.3540.3
O-140-50346.0250.0291.1407.6A-140-50346.0250.0285.0398.9
O-140-60276.8200.0349.4489.1A-140-60276.8200.0342.0478.7
O-140-70207.6150.0407.6570.6A-140-70207.6150.0398.9558.5
Table
Table 5. Test methods by evaluation items.
Table 5. Test methods by evaluation items.
SeriesEvaluation ItemTest Method
Ⅰ. Raw material analysisScanning electron microscopeASTM C1723
X-ray fluorescenceASTM C114
Ⅱ. Engineering properties analysisGeltime (s)ASTM D4217
Homogel strength (MPa)ASTM C109
Scanning electron microscopeASTM C1723
Ⅲ. Acid resistance and CO2 reduction properties analysisMass change (%)ASTM C267, 579
Global warming potential (kg CO2 eq/m3)ISO 14040
Table
Table 6. Characterized environmental impacts index of materials used.
Table 6. Characterized environmental impacts index of materials used.
MaterialsGWP (kg CO2 eq.)
OPC5.32 × 10−1
GGBS5.01 × 10−1
CFBC ash1.01 × 10−2
PCDG5.96 × 10−4
SSS1.73 × 10−3
Water8.88 × 10−3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.; Lee, T.; Lee, S.; Choi, H. Performance Evaluation of Cementless Composites with Alkali-Sulfate Activator for Field Application. Materials 2020, 13, 5410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235410

AMA Style

Lee J, Lee T, Lee S, Choi H. Performance Evaluation of Cementless Composites with Alkali-Sulfate Activator for Field Application. Materials. 2020; 13(23):5410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235410

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Jaehyun, Taegyu Lee, Seungwoo Lee, and Hyeonggil Choi. 2020. "Performance Evaluation of Cementless Composites with Alkali-Sulfate Activator for Field Application" Materials 13, no. 23: 5410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235410

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop