Next Article in Journal
Geopolymeric Composite Materials Made of Sol-Gel Silica and Agroindustrial Wastes of Rice, Barley, and Coffee Husks with Wood-Like Finishing
Next Article in Special Issue
The Performance of Alkali-Activated Self-Compacting Concrete with and without Nano-Alumina
Previous Article in Journal
Is Circular Economy for the Built Environment a Myth or a Real Opportunity?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/su142416688
sustainability-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

The Effect of Nano-Silica and Nano-Alumina with Polypropylene Fiber on the Chemical Resistance of Alkali-Activated Mortar

by
Mahmood Hunar Dheyaaldin
1,
Mohammad Ali Mosaberpanah
2,* and
Radhwan Alzeebaree
3,4
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Cihan University-Erbil, Erbil 44001, Iraq
2
Civil Engineering Department, Cyprus International University, Nicosia 99258, North Cyprus, Turkey
3
Highway and Bridge Department, Duhok Polytechnic University, Duhok 42001, Iraq
4
Civil Engineering Department, Nawroz University, Duhok 42001, Iraq
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 16688; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416688
Submission received: 3 October 2022 / Revised: 26 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 December 2022 / Published: 13 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Issues in Development of Materials in Civil Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates the simultaneous effect of nano-silica and nano-alumina with and without polypropylene fiber on the chemical-resistant of alkali-activator mortar (AAM) exposed to (5% Sulfuric Acid, 5% Magnesium Sulphate, and 3.5% Sodium chloride) attack. Design-expert software provided the central composite design (CCD) for mixed proportions. Nano-silica (NS) and nano-alumina (NA) at 0, 1%, and 2%, and with polypropylene fiber (0, 0.5%, and 1%) were used in the production of AAM. The alkali activator mortar mixes were created using an alkaline activator to binder ratio of 0.5. The binder materials include 50% fly ash Class F (FA) and 50% ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). A sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH) were combined in the alkaline activator at a ratio of 2.5 (Na2SiO3/NaOH). The mechanical properties of AAM were tested via compressive strength and flexural strength tests. The results show that the acid attack, more than the sulphate and chloride attacks, significantly influenced the AAM. The addition of both nanomaterials improved the mechanical properties and chemical resistance. The use of nanomaterials with PPF showed a superior effect, and the best results were indicated through the use of 2%NA–1%PPF.

1. Introduction

Concrete is a widely used construction material. Currently, 8–10 billion tons of concrete is produced each year. Significant amounts of natural resources are necessary to provide the aggregate and cement production to supply the large concrete production volume [1]. A geopolymer is a third-generation binder, following lime and ordinary PC. Amorphous aluminosilicates are also known as “geopolymers”. Recoments, inorganic polymers, alkali-activated binders, alkali-bonded ceramics, and hydrocarbons are also often used [2]. Despite their many names, they all relate to materials made using the same chemical [3]. Binders from thermally activated materials or industrial byproducts often include silicon and aluminum. Geocrete, also known as inorganic polymer cement or alkaline-activated cement, is made by activating the molecular chains and networks using an alkaline solution [4]. Concrete produced with Portland cement may become more durable in withstanding environmental challenges since OPC is a long-lasting, useful, and sustainable part of construction. Cement and concrete are the most frequently used items on Earth, behind only water in popularity. Concrete is responsible for 5–8% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO) emissions. On the other hand, exposure to damaging elements such as chlorine and acidified gases such as CO2 are well known in producing damage to reinforced steel and, as a result, structural deterioration over time [5]. Three phases are required for the reaction mechanisms: (1) Strong alkaline solutions are used to dissolve aluminosilicate oxide-containing solids in order to liberate free SiO4 and AlO4 tetrahedral units, which are then united to generate aluminosilicate oxide. (2) The inorganic polymer gel phase is generated by the condensation reaction of the alumina/silica-hydroxyl species. (3) Geopolymers are synthesized when the gel phase hardens [6]. Geopolymer production produces significantly less carbon dioxide than conventional Portland cement production because geopolymers do not require limestone calcination or fuel burning in the kiln. As a result, the phrase “green” cement refers to ecologically friendly cement. On the other hand, due to increased qualities such as high early strength growth, chemical resistance, high surface hardness, and stronger fire resistance, interest in this cementitious material is growing, and they are now viewed as an alternative to conventional Portland cement [7,8]. We evaluated the CO2 emissions of concretes made of using aluminosilicate binders and alkali activator versus concrete made with entirely of OPC. Much less than anticipated by earlier studies, the CO2 footprint of geopolymer concrete was about 9% lower than that of equivalent concrete having a 100% OPC binder [9]. The study’s outcomes have shown that using FA as a substitute for earth materials offers a sustainable solution to dwindling natural resources with lower prices and carbon footprints [10,11]. Composites have been studied, including geopolymer composites reinforced with particles, continuous fibers, and short fibers [12]. Polypropylene fiber (PPF) has been widely used as a reinforcement in Portland cement-based materials due to its high toughness and durability; nevertheless, there has been some dispute about the relationship between PPF content and concrete compressive strength. Although the Building Research Establishment (2000) states that adding PPF to concrete significantly affects compressive strength, others contend that there is no noticeable compressive strength drop due to the PPF concentration [13].
Davidovits recommended employing fly ash, blast furnace slag, and rice husk ash as geological raw materials or by-products to create binders by reacting silicon (Si) and aluminum (Al) with an alkaline liquid [14]. Several studies studied the production of alkali-activated concrete and mortar using a byproduct of (FA) fly ash and (GGBS) ground granulated blast slag. The production of alkali-activated concretes significantly reduces industrial waste by at least 12.2 million tons per year while emitting five to six times less CO2 [15,16].
The yearly worldwide ash production is around 500 million tons, with fly ash (FA) accounting for 75–80% of it. However, due to the disposal issues associated with fly ash (FA), researchers have started to utilize it in the production of Portland cement. As a result, some researchers have focused on developing cement-free concrete, also known as alkali-activated concrete, utilizing fly ash (FA) as a raw material [11,17].
The researchers investigate the durability of conventional concrete and geopolymer. The geopolymer concrete studied includes either fly ash alone or a combination of slag and fly ash. The concrete cube was stored in four chemical solutions for up to nine months: 5% NaCl, 5% Na2SO4, 5% MgSO4, and 3% H2SO4. Compared to slag (GGBS) and fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete, OPC concrete had reduced absorptivity and water absorption rate [18]. Researchers examined the acid resistance of numerous mortars by measuring the weight and compressive strength variations of the soaked sample before and after the acid attack [19]. It was found that after 56 days of exposure to an H2SO4 solution, the weight loss of the OPCC was roughly 75%, and the degradation loss was 100% after 103 days of exposure to the same solution. However, the GGBFS-based GPC only lost about 10% of its body weight after being exposed to the H2SO4 solution for 365 days [20]. Compared to the ordinary Portland cement (OPC), the GPC exhibits a lower reduction in compressive strength (36.4–39.1%) after 365 days of exposure to the H2SO4 solution (as compared to the OPC, which suffered approximately 90% loss after 90 days) [21]. The appearance of the specimen demonstrated that the GPC, which contained 20% SiO2 in the acid solution, had not degraded and that the surface had not been eroded. In contrast, the OPC displayed surface corrosion and edge breakage. The OPC demonstrated the most weight loss and the most significant compressive strength loss of all the samples tested in the H2SO4 solution [22]. Sulfuric acid at a concentration of 5% by weight was used in the study. All specimens were exposed to sulfuric acid for 90 days to evaluate the durability of geopolymer concrete in an acidic environment. After 90 days of exposure, GPC0, GPC1, GPC2, and GPC3 weighed 6.986 kg, 8.255 kg, 8.371 kg, and 8.106 kg, with corresponding percentage weight losses of 13.97%, 3.47%, 2.82%, and 3.91%. At a pH of one, positive hydrogen ions from the acid solution broke down the Si-O-Al connections in the geopolymer [23] and increased the number of Si-OH and Al-OH bonds, as well as the concentration of silicic acid in the geopolymer matrix [21].
Sulfate attack is a significant issue for the durability and serviceability of geopolymer materials used in construction. Concrete specimens produced with Portland cement and mixed cement in the past deteriorated when subjected to sulfate attack in the environment [24,25]. Significant strength and microstructural changes were seen in the 5% sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate solutions. It has been shown that alkalis move from geopolymer specimens into a sodium sulfate. The diffusion of alkali ions into the solution caused significant stresses in specimens prepared using a sodium and potassium hydroxide combination, resulting in the formation of deep vertical cracks [26]. Wallah and Rangan investigated sulfate attacks on geopolymer concrete. After one year of immersion in sulfate solution, geopolymers were shown to have excellent durability properties, with extremely little changes in length and a negligible increase in mass [27]. In another investigation, Bakharev [11] activated geopolymer materials with various alkali solutions before immersing them in varying volumes of a sulfate solution. The mechanical strength of the FA/GBFS and OPC concretes increased between the 60th and 120th day of sulfate exposure, with values ranging between 2 and 12 percent higher than the control samples (cured in either a sulfate absent environment, totally immersed in water) [28]. The researchers who studied the behavior of GPC discovered that GGBS mortars and GGBS/FA 50:50 mixes activated with sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide had good resistance to sulfate attacks. However, because expansive phases such as gypsum and ettringite were present in the NaOH-activated mixtures, they were more prone to degradation [29].
One of the most important components of OPC concrete is its durability since it is the primary source of reinforcement corrosion. Because of the high alkalinity of OPC concrete, a protective oxide coating forms on the surface of the steel reinforcement. In the presence of water and oxygen, chloride can cause the passive protective layer to disintegrate. Chloride ions are transported through the concrete matrix by capillary absorption, hydrostatic pressure/convection, diffusion, and hydrostatic pressure [30,31]. The alkalinity of the solution rises as the alkaline solution to slag (AS/S) ratio rises; as a result, the alkalinity of the GPC falls more slowly and the carbonation depth becomes less important [32]. Furthermore, the ability of greater acid sensitivity is displayed. Sulfuric acid treatment of the material generated no visible signs of structural degradation. Other researchers discovered that when the FA-based GPC was exposed to magnesium sulfate conditions for 24 weeks, minor fractures were identified on several samples but no obvious cracks were recorded on the samples, depending on the quantity of the sodium oxide concentration in the GPC mix [33].
Although there has been research on the use of nanoparticles and PPF in conventional concrete, there has been little research on AAM’s durability behavior and mechanical performance when exposed to chemical attack. This research aims to investigate the durability and mechanical properties of alkali-activated mortar containing nanomaterials (nano-silica and nano-alumina) and polypropylene fiber (PPF). The strength behavior of alkali-activated mortar with varying curing ages was also investigated. Furthermore, the compressive and flexural strength at 28 and 90 days of curing were evaluated to investigate the performance of nanomaterials and polypropylene fiber (PPF) over a long curing time.

2. Materials

In this experimental investigation, class F fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag were used as the primary—alumino-silicate source materials for the alkali activator mortar (AAM). The chemical composition of GGBS and fly ash is displayed in Table 1. One type of alkali activator for binders was a solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3). Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) pellets with a purity of 98% were dissolved in drinking water with 12 molarity to create the solution with the required concentration. Sodium silicate solution was obtained from a local commercial producer, DCP company. It was colorless and had a chemical composition of Na2O:17.98%, SiO2: 28.1, and water: 54.12% by mass. Additionally, the ratio of SS/SH is 2.5 [34,35]. As a fine aggregate, natural sand was utilized, and the sieve analysis of fine aggregates is shown in Figure 1. Nano-silica (amorphous) with 99.8% purity and nano-alumina (gamma) with 99.9% purity are used as nanomaterial additives. Furthermore, the particle size of both nanomaterials is in the range of 20–30 nm. Moreover, the polypropylene fiber with a length of 6 mm and a diameter of 13 µm was used in this experiment. The performance of a superplasticizer (Gelanium 51) developed by Basf Chemical Construction is used for increasing the workability of alkali mortar.

3. Methods and Mix Design

A combination of 50% fly ash (FA) and 50% ground granulated blast slag by weight were used as AAM’s binder materials. A constant binder weight of 700 kg/m3 was used to produce the AAM mixtures and it is the total binder ratio without nanomaterials. In addition, nano materials by different percentages are replaced by the weight of the binder. The central composite design (CCD) method was applied using the Design–Expert statistics computer software to carry out the mix design. The CCD method was used to assess three components’ individual and synergistic potential effects with three levels in one response. This method can restrict the number of tests needed to determine each variable’s key effects and interactions [36,37]. Nano-silica and Nano-alumina were used at varying percentages of 1% and 2% [38,39] of the binder by weight, respectively. Polypropylene fiber (PPF) was added to the mixture at concentrations of 0.5 and 1% by volume. Table 2 displays the mix design materials and weights at kg/m3. It was noted that the numbers (0–0.5%) indicates polypropylene fiber percentages by volume. The ratio of NS and NA used was (1% and 2%) by weight of binder materials [40,41,42,43].
The dry materials, fine aggregates, fly ash (FA), and ground granulated blast slag (GGBS) were mixed firstly for 2.5 min then the natural sand was added and mixed for extra 2.5 min. Furthermore, The alkali activator and superplasticizer were added to the mixture and stirred for an additional two minutes [39,44]. Additionally, for each exact mix, three identical specimens were produced.

4. Specimen Preparing and Curing

The ASTM C 267 test method [45] recommends that specimens be submerged in water for 24 h to obtain water-saturated specimens before chemical exposure. Therefore, specimens were soaked in water for 24 h and the initial saturated weights of the AAMs were measured. Then, the specimens were kept in 5% sulfuric acid, 5% magnesium sulfate and 3.5% sodium chloride solutions [44] for 90 days illustrated from Figure 2. At the same time, control specimens for each concrete were also kept in an ambient condition at a room temperature of 23 ± 2 °C in the laboratory for 90 days for comparison. The chemical resistance of the AAM was assessed via visual inspection, change in mass, and the compressive and flexural strengths variations.

5. Testing Procedure

5.1. Compressive Strength Test

Compressive strength refers to a material’s or structure’s ability to bear axial loads. ASTM C109 [46] was used to create geopolymer mortar cubes (50 × 50 × 50). The mold was filled in two layers, each vibrating for 30 s before the top of the specimen was leveled. For 24 h, the molds were sealed in a plastic bag. At 90 days, the molds were evaluated for ambient, sulfuric acid, magnesium sulfate, and sodium chloride compressive strength. Additionally, the specimens are presented in Figure 3a.

5.2. Flexural Strength Test

After 24 h of covering with plastic and curing at room temperature, the geopolymer mortar specimens are ready to test. Flexural tensile strength testing was performed according to British standard BS EN 196-1:2005 [47] via a 3000 kN capacity (digital machine-Control) three-point bending load conducted on 40 × 40 × 160 mm identical Prism specimens were tested for each mixture presented in Figure 3. The flexural tensile strength was calculated using the formula below:
R f = 1.5 × F f × l b 3  
where Ff, I, and b represent the peak load (N), span length (mm), and the side of the square section of the prism (mm), respectively. Figure 3b shows the details of the three-point bending test setup as well as the specimens that were tested.

6. Result and Discussion

6.1. Visual Inspection

6.1.1. Sulfuric Acid Attack

The visual appearances of various geopolymer mortar specimen mixes after 90 days in 5% percent sulfuric acid solutions are presented. Figure 4 shows that the performance of AAM specimens subjected to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and the current specimens is deteriorating. Additionally, Figure 4 revealed moderate surface erosion. As exposure duration grew, so did the degree of erosion. Specimens with and without nano materials, which have the lowest CaO amount compared to specimens containing polypropylene fiber, showed the lowest surface erosion among specimens due to the bonds between the fibers and geopolymer matrix. Fly ash/ground granulated blast slag-based AAM specimens without polypropylene fiber showed slightly higher surface deterioration throughout the long-term curing period of the specimens in sulfuric acid solutions than those containing polypropylene fibers. As a result, it is easy to see how significantly polypropylene fibers impact the AAM’s durability performance. However, compared to unexposed specimens, all specimens showed softening on the surfaces.

6.1.2. Magnesium Sulphate Attack

The visual appearances of various geopolymer mortar specimen mixes after 90 days in 5% percent magnesium sulphate solutions are presented. The performance of AAM specimens subjected to megnesium sulphate present no changes in shape and deterioration. Additionally, Figure 4 shows reduction surface erosion at their surfaces and the colour of the specimens has changed during the curing period in the MgSO4 solution. However, the erosion amount did not increased with an increase in the exposure time. Specimens with and without nano materials contain Polypropylene fiber, which have the highest CaO amount compared to specimens in sulfuric acid solutions. In the long-term curing period of specimens in magnesium sulphate solutions, fly-ash/ground granulated blast slag-based AAM specimens with and without polypropylene fiber which contain nano materials shown to have not change mortar samples’ shapes and lengths.

6.1.3. Sodium Chloride Attack

After 90 days in 5% chloride solutions, the visual appearances of a range of geopolymer mortar specimen mixes are exhibited. The performance of AAM specimens treated with chloride has been studied in recent years, and the current specimens have shown no significant change in shape or degradation. Additionally, as shown in Figure 4, there is severe surface erosion on their surfaces, as well as a change in the color of the specimens during the curing period in the chloride solution. The length of the erosion quantity does not grow as the exposure period increases. Compared to the specimens in sulfuric acid solutions, which destroy the sizes and matrix of materials, specimens with and without nanomaterials and containing polypropylene fiber have the most considerable CaO level. Fly-ash/ground granulated blast slag-based AAM specimens with and without polypropylene fiber, including nanomaterials, did not alter the shapes and lengths of the mortar samples during long-term curing in chloride solutions.

6.2. Weight Change

After 90 days, the weight change in AAM specimens made of geopolymer mortar was noted and distributed every 10 days from various chemical conditions. For comparison, control specimens were kept in a natural setting. All control specimens in an ambient setting showed a weight loss. Since most hydration reactions occurred within the first few days, it may be attributed to various water-based curing conditions, including sulfuric, magnesium sulphate, and chloride water solutions for the AAM specimens, showing the weight change of specimens in the 5% sulfuric acid environment. The weight gain was observed for the specimens after two weeks of chemical exposure. The weight gains of the current study exposed in the sulfuric acid solution were reported and shown in Figure 5. The specimens approximately increased by about 1.2% for samples contain 2% NA; 1.1%, for example, contains 2% NA with 1% PPF, 7.1% for specimens containing 1% PPF, the specimens containing 2% NS with 2% NA decreased by about −0.9%, and the specimens containing 2% NS, 2% NA with 1% PPF. The weight of specimens increased by about 3%, 3.2% for the specimens containing 6% NS, a nearly −0.9% decrease for control specimens, which are without nanomaterials and polypropylene fibre and 1.30% for specimens containing 2% NS with 1% PPF, 7.9% of specimens containing 1% NS, 1% NA. Furthermore, specimens containing 1% NS, 2% NA with 0.5% PPF are increasing by about 5.2%, and specimens containing nanomaterials with different percentages with 0.5% PPF increase the weight of the specimens in the sulfuric solution after 30 days of the curing period. Generally, all the varied mixes, the weight of all specimens at 30 days except M4 and M7 contain 2% nanomaterials and control specimens. Additionally, at 60 days of the curing period in the sulfuric acid solution, the weight of samples containing nanomaterials with with 0.5% polypropylene decreased compared to 30 days of the curing period, with M15 increasing by about 1% which contains 1% NS, 1% NA with 0.5% polypropylene fiber, respectively. Additionally, specimens containing 2% of NA M1 and 2% of NS M6 decreased by about 3% after 60 days, compare to M2 with an added 1% of PPF increased by about 1% after 30 days. Additionally, the control specimen M7 increased the weight by about 3.5% at 60 days compared to 30 days. In addition, the specimens contain both nanomaterials 1% M9 and 1% PPF M8, decreased the weight by about 3.5% and 1% after 30 days. On the other hand, the specimens contain 2% of NA M1 and 2% of NS M6, approximately lost a weight of about 6.2% to 4% after 90 days of curing in sulfuric acid solutions. The samples containing nanomaterials with different percentages are mixed with 0.5% PPF (5M10–M15).
The weight gains of the current study exposed in magnesium sulphate solution were reported and shown in Figure 6. At 30 days of the curing period in the magnesium sulphate solution, the specimens were approximately −4.8% for specimens containing 2% NA (M1), and −0.8% for specimens containing 2% NS (M6). The specimens contain 2% NA with 1% PPF −0.7%. This means that polypropylene fiber has extra advantages in chemical resistance and resistant alkali activator mortar under MgSO4. In addition, specimens containing 1% PPF increase by about 0.8%, showing that the specimens containing PPF without nanomaterials have better potential for weight gain. The specimens containing 2% NS, 2% NA with 1% PPF (M5); the weight of specimens lost about −0.6% in weight. The specimens containing 2% NS and 2% NA (M4) showed a nearly −0.5% decrease. On the other hand, control specimens (M7) without nanomaterials and polyropylene fiber decreased slightly by 0.2%. For specimens containing 2% NS with 1% PPF (M8),the weight of samples increased by about 0.3% and for specimens containing 1% NS, 1% NA (M9) the weight of samples increased by about 0.5%. The samples containing nanomaterials with different percentages with 0.5% polypropylene fiber decrease by about −0.5, −0.4, −0.2 and −0.4 for M10, M13, M14, and M15, repectively, and M11 and M12 are increased by about 0.4% and 0.3%. Furthermore, specimens after 60 days of the curing period in the MgSO4 solution have a different potential in the weight of samples and are changed according to mixes. Specimens contain 2% NS (M6), 2% NA (M1). The weight of the specimens is decreasing by about −0.9%, −0.5%. Additionally, specimens containing 1% PPF (M3) increased slightly by about 0.9% and adding 2% NA with 1% PPF decreased by about −0.8% compared to the control weight. Additionally, the specimen providing 2% NA and 2% NS (M4) nearly decreased by about −0.4% compared to the control weight of the specimen. Furthermore, the same mix containing 1% of PPF (M5) decreases by about −0.5% and the weight of the control specimens without adding any extra materials such as nanomaterials and polypropylene fiber containing nanomaterials is slightly decreasing by about −1.4%. The weight of the specimens containing 2% NS with 1% polypropylene fibre (M8) samples at 60 days in the MgSO4 solution, increase by about 0.8% and M9 with 1% both nano-alumina and nano-silica is decreasing. The specimens contain different percentages of nanomaterials and added 0.5% PPF (M10,11, 12, 14, 15) are decreasing, the accepted M13 containing 1%NA with 0.5% PPF materials and control specimens. Additionally, at 90 days of the curing period in the magnesium sulphate solutions, the weight of the samples from all samples decreasing by about 0.5% to 1.5% compared to control weight of samples accepted (M1 and M3) slightly increased the weight by about 0.5% to 1%.
The weight gains of the current study exposed in sodium chloride solution are reported and shown in Figure 7. At 30 days of the curing period in sodium chloride solution, the specimens were approximately decreasing by about −1.6%, and for specimens containing 2% NA (M1), increasing by about 0.25% for specimens containing 2% NS (M6). The specimens contain 2% NA with 1% PPF is slightly decreasing the weight gain by about 0.2%. This means that polypropylene fiber has extra advantages on the chemical resistance of alkali activator mortar in MgSO4 solution. In addition, specimens containing 1% PPF increased by about 0.8%, showing that specimens containing PPF without nanomaterials have better chemical resistance. The specimens contain 2% NS, 2% NA with 1% PPF (M5). The weight of specimens lose about −0.5% in weight. The specimens containing 2% NS and 2% NA (M4) nearly decrease by −0.5% and the specimens containing 2% NS and 2% NA (M4) slightly increase for 0.5% compared to the control weight of current samples. On the other hand, control specimens (M7) without nanomaterials and polypropylene fiber are increased slightly by 0.2%. For specimens containing 2% NS with 1% PPF (M8), the weight of the samples decreased by about −0.5%, and for specimens containing 1% NS, 1% NA (M9) in the weight of samples gained about 0.3%. Additionally, the samples containing nanomaterials with different percentages with 0.5% polypropylene fiber decrease by about −0.7, −2.8, for (M12, M15) and for the samples containing 1%NA and 1%NS with 1% PPF (M11) have not changed in weight and (M14) have not changed in the weight of the samples containing 2% NS, 1% NA with 0.5%. In addition, samples containing 1% NS and 2% NA with 0.5% PPF increase by about 0.9% and 1% of NA with 0.5% PPF, respectively. Furthermore, specimens at 60 days of the curing period in the MgSO4 solution have different potentials in the weight of samples, and it is changed according to the mixes. Specimens containing 2% NA (M1) decrease in weight by about −1.6%, and increase by about 0.3% for 2% NS (M6). Additionally, specimens containing 1% PPF (M3) are increasing slightly by about 0.3%, and with the addition of 2% NA with 1% PPFdecreased by about −3.6% compared to the control weight. Additionally, the specimen provides 2% NA and 2% NS (M4), which is approximately decreasing by about 0.5% compared to the control weight of the specimen. Furthermore, the same mix with an added 1% of PPF (M5) decreases by about −4.7% and the weight of the control specimens without adding any extra materials such as nanomaterials and polypropylene fibre is slightly decreasing by about −0.6%. The weight of specimens contains 2% NS with 1% polypropylene fiber (M8) sample at 60 days in MgSO4 solutions, increasing by about 0.8% and (M9) with 1% both nano-alumina and nano-silica is decreasing slightly. The specimens contain different percentages of nanomaterials and added 0.5% PPF (M10,11, 13, 14) is decreasing slightly compared to the current specimens at 60 days of curing accepted (M12 and M15) are increasing for 0.2%, which contain 1% NS with 0.5% PPF and 4% which contain 1%NA, 1%NS with 0.5% PPF. The 0.5% of PPF containing in mix proportion of alkali activator mortar significantly affects chemical resistance under the sodium chloride solution after 90 days of the curing period. Additionally, at 90 days of the curing period in magnesium sulphate solutions, the weight of samples from all samples decreased for different percentages compared to the control weight of samples, but the specimens containing 1% PPF (M3) without nano materials are increasing the weight gain of specimens at 90 days of curing and it is an essential result in chloride solutions for 90 days. Furthermore, the specimens containing 2% of NA (M1) decreases by about −1.2% compared to the control weight of the sample but mixing with 1% of PPF losing the samples’ weight by 4% after 90 days of curing period. Additionally, the specimens containing both 2% nano-silica and nano-alumina (M4) demonstrated higher resistance than specimens containing nanomaterials separately. Additionally, the control specimens decrease by about 0.9% compared to control specimens. The specimens containing 2% NS decrease by about −1.2%, but when we added 1% of PPF, it decreased by about 2.9%. By all means the 1% of polypropylene fiber has a higher chemical resistance and better potential than samples containing 1% of PPF with 2% of NS (M6) and 2% of NA (M1). Additionally, the specimens containing both nanomaterials with different percentages performed better than the specimens separately. Furthermore, the specimens contain 0.5% of PPF with different percentages of nanomaterials have higher resistance than other mixes and it is slightly decreasing by about 0.2% to 1%, respectively. The M15, which contains 1% of NA, NS with 0.5% is increasing for 0.8% compared to control specimens’ weight.

6.3. Sulfuric Acid Attack

The 5 wt% sulfuric acids were used in the study. All AAM specimens were subjected to sulfuric acid attack for 90 days to study the durability of the geopolymer concrete in an acidic environment [48]. Early scaling and softening of the OPC-based concrete has been noticed after exposure to acid due to the calcium hydroxide’s breakdown and the significant amount of gypsum that is produced. As a result, prolonged contact to an aggressive acid-rich environment, such as a sewage system, causes concrete to lose strength [49,50] significantly. The samples that have been for cured 90 days in sulfuric solution, illustrated, from Figure 2c, that the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar from all mixes decreased.

6.3.1. Compressive Strength

The destruction of the oxy-aluminum bridge (-Al-Si-O) of geopolymeric gel may be to blame for the decrease in strength of fly ash/GGBs-based GPC specimens exposed to acid attack [51]. The specimens’ compressive strength after exposure to a solution of sulfuric acid was at 5%. The maximum deterioration was seen for all specimens after a 90-day exposure period. At 90 days, the strength of samples containing polypropylene fiber decreased on average by 40% compared to control samples, whereas that of those containing nanomaterials without polypropylene fiber decreased on average by 73%. Additionally, it shows that polypropylene fiber sustains more strength and performs better ductility (Figure 8). Song et al. [31] showed a comparable drop in strength for the geopolymer concrete specimens submerged in a 10% sulfuric acid solution, ranging from 32–37% [52].

6.3.2. Flexural Strength

The flexural strength of the alkali activator mortar tested according to the British standard BS-2005 [47]. Additionally, it shows that from Figure 9 the flexural strength of alkali activator mortar decreases during the curing ages, and it shows that from Figure 3 the surface of the samples lose their standard shapes and all mixes lose strength. The specimens’ residual flexural strengths after three identical samples were used to calculate the average compressive strength for each alkali activator. The flexural strength test results of the specimens were slightly decreased than the control. However, samples containing polypropylene fiber gives higher performance than the samples containing nanomaterials; furthermore, the samples contain 2% NA, slightly decreasing by about 1% and M8, decreasing by about 52%. Additionally, it shows that the polypropylene fiber sustains more strength and performs better ductility.

6.4. Magnesium Sulphate Attack

Due to its alternative low-toxicity coating material, geopolymers have significantly greater resistance to sulfate assaults (RSA) than +OPC [51,53]. Figure 2b shows a lack of gypsum development, color change, spalling, or cracking was seen on the sample surfaces due to the specimens being exposed to geopolymer mortar samples made from magnesium sulfate-based fly ash and GGBS. Conclusion: For fly ash and GGBS-based geopolymer, sulfuric acid attack appears to be riskier than magnesium sulfate solutions.

6.4.1. Compressive Strength

The specimens’ compressive strength after exposure to a 5% magnesium sulphate solution. The 90-day exposure period produced the greatest amount of deterioration for all specimens. Compared to control (ambient curing) specimens, the strength decreased, and the percentage of the decreasing is changed according to the type of materials into mixed proportions at 90 days. Samples containing polypropylene fiber are resistant under magnesium sulfate and samples containing both nanomaterials which are nano-silica and nano-alumina with 1% of polypropylene fiber compared to the sample containing nano materials with 0.5% polypropylene fiber, which gives better performance than 1% of PPF. Additionally, the sample contains different percentage of nanomaterials such as M11, M12, M13, M14, M15 have significant results after 90 days in the magnesium sulfate water solution. However, M12 is increasing by about 12% (Figure 10).

6.4.2. Flexural Strength

The flexural strength of the alkali activator mortar was tested according to the British standard BS-2005. Additionally, it shows that from Figure 11 the flexural strength of the alkali activator mortar decreases during the curing ages, and it shows that from Figure 3 the surface of the samples loses the standard shapes and all the mixes loses strength. The findings of the GPC specimens’ flexural strength tests were conducted in settings with five % magnesium sulphate. The specimens’ residual flexural strengths (percent) after exposure to the relevant chemical were indicated by the numbers at the top of each associated graphic. An average compressive strength value was calculated for each alkali activator using three identical samples. Flexural strength test results of the specimens showed a slight decrease than in the control. However, samples containing polypropylene fiber gives a higher performance than samples containing nanomaterials; furthermore, the samples that contain 2% NA, slightly decreasing by about 1% and M8 decreasing by about 52%. Additionally, it shows that polypropylene fiber sustains more strength and performs better ductility.

6.5. Sodium Chloride Attack

The AAM specimens exposed in the Chloride solutions for the 60 and 90 days of curing period demonstrated AAM’s performance in the sodium chloride solution [54].

6.5.1. Compressive Strength

The results revealed that when exposed to the chloride solution, the strength of the M15 varied mixes decreased continuously. The better performance of geopolymeric production in chloride solution is M12 which compressive strength of samples contain 2% of NA and 1% of nano silica with 0.5% of polypropylene fiber M12 and 1% of PPF M3 slightly increasing in compressive strength by about 5% and 3% due to curing in chloride solution after 90 days of curing period. However, all remaining mixes from this research study that the compressive strength is decreasing by different percentages. The samples containing polypropylene fiber are more resistant than samples without PPF and nano materials. This means that the polypropylene fiber has a significant advantage on alkali activator mortar under chloride attack at 90 days (Figure 12).

6.5.2. Flexural Strength

The flexural strength of the alkali activator mortar was tested according to British standard BS-2005. Additionally, it shows that from Figure 13 the flexural strength of alkali activator mortar decreases and increases during the curing ages and changes for mix proportions. The GPC specimens’ flexural strength test results in settings with 3.5% salt chloride. The specimens’ residual flexural strengths (percent) after exposure to the relevant chemical were indicated by numbers at the top of each associated graphic. An average flexural strength value for each alkali activator was calculated using three identical samples. The specimens tested for flexural strength revealed marginally lower results than the control. However, samples contain polypropylene fiber gives lower performance than samples contain nano materials, and decreasing; however, samples contain 2% NA (M1) and 1% NA and 1% NS (M4) the flexural strength is increasing slightly during lifted samples under sodium chloride for 90 days of curing period.

7. Conclusions

It is described and evaluated that the mechanical properties and durability performance of fly ash/GGBS based of alkali activator mortar with and without nano-silica and nano-alumina combined with polypropylene fiber were investigated in chemical environments (5% sulfuric acid, 5% magnesium sulfate, and 3.5% seawater) and that the results were compared to that of samples in normal ambient condition. The following findings were summarized below:
  • Visual examination revealed that AAM specimens exposed to magnesium sulfate and chloride had moderate surface erosion, but those exposed to sulfuric acid had severe surface erosion. Furthermore, AAM specimens retained their original conditions in the presence of magnesium sulfate and chloride, despite the fact that the color of the specimens changed. Even after a short duration of chemical exposure, the beneficial effect of nano materials on the durability performance of AAM can be clearly seen. In addition, the PPF exhibits superior influence in chemical solutions.
  • The weight loss of AAM specimens after exposure to chemical solutions. At 30 days exposed to magnesium sulphate solution, the specimens decreased by approximately −4.8% for specimens containing 2% NA (M1) and −0.8% for specimens containing 2% NS (M6). However, the weight of the specimens exposed to chloride solution were reduced slightly; however, when PPF was added, the weight of the specimens increased in the chloride solution.
  • For all AAM specimens, the chemical environments of sulfuric acid, magnesium sulfate, seawater environments led to lower compressive strength and flexural strength. Sulfuric acid was observed to be the most hazardous environments.
  • Mechanical strength tests (compressive and flexural) revealed that specimens exposed to chloride performed marginally better than those exposed to sulfuric acid and magnesium sulfate. Specimens in the same solution contained PPF performed better than specimens without PPF.
  • When AAM exposed to sulfuric acid, the specimen includes 2% NA and the specimen presence nanomaterials and PPF) demonstrated the minimum mechanical strength degradation. In terms of flexural strength, M8 performed the lowest, whereas M1 performed the best.
  • Polypropylene fiber specimens are resistant to magnesium sulphate, and specimens including both nano materials, nano silica and nano alumina, with 1% polypropylene fiber, performed better than samples containing 0.5% polypropylene fiber. Moreover, specimens containing 2% NA slightly decrease approximately 1% and M8 decrease about 52%. It also demonstrates that polypropylene fiber has greater strength and ductility.
  • The better performance of AAM specimens exposed to chloride solution is M12, which is the compressive strength of samples containing 2% NA and 1% nano silica with 0.5% polypropylene fiber. Additionally, 1% PPF M3 slightly increasing in compressive strength by 5% and 3% after 90 days of curing in chloride solution. Polypropylene fiber samples perform worse than nanomaterial samples, however the difference is reducing; samples contain 2% NA (M1) and 1% NA and 1% NS (M4) The flexural strength increases marginally during the 90-day curing period of lifted samples in sodium chloride.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.M. and M.H.D.; methodology, M.H.D.; software, M.H.D., M.A.M. and R.A.; validation, M.A.M.; formal analysis, M.H.D. and M.A.M.; investigation, M.A.M.; resources, M.H.D. and R.A.; data curation, M.H.D.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.D., M.A.M. and R.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A.M. and R.A.; visualization, M.A.M.; supervision, M.A.M.; project administration, M.H.D.; funding acquisition, M.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Generated during the experimental study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Neeraj, M.; Aashish, S.; Aman, M. Green Concrete: An Innovative Approach to Sustainable Development. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Approach 2015, 2349–3607. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lahoti, M.; Tan, K.H.; Yang, E.-H. A Critical Review of Geopolymer Properties for Structural Fire-Resistance Applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 221, 514–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Singh, B.; Ishwarya, G.; Gupta, M.; Bhattacharyya, S.K. Geopolymer Concrete: A Review of Some Recent Developments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 85, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Davidovits, J. Properties of Geopolymer Cements. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Kiev, Ukraine, 11–14 October 1994; Volume 1, pp. 131–149. [Google Scholar]
  5. Law, D.W.; Adam, A.A.; Molyneaux, T.K.; Patnaikuni, I.; Wardhono, A. Long Term Durability Properties of Class F Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Prud’Homme, E.; Michaud, P.; Joussein, E.; Peyratout, C.; Smith, A.; Rossignol, S. In Situ Inorganic Foams Prepared from Various Clays at Low Temperature. Appl. Clay Sci. 2011, 51, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Robayo-Salazar, R.; Mejía-Arcila, J.; de Gutiérrez, R.M.; Martínez, E. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of an Alkali-Activated Binary Concrete Based on Natural Volcanic Pozzolan: A Comparative Analysis to OPC Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 176, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Syed, M.; GuhaRay, A.; Garg, A. Performance Evaluation of Lime, Cement and Alkali-Activated Binder in Fiber-Reinforced Expansive Subgrade Soil: A Comparative Study. J. Test. Eval. 2021, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Turner, L.K.; Collins, F.G. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2-e) Emissions: A Comparison between Geopolymer and OPC Cement Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ashfaq, M.; Moghal, A.A.B. Cost and Carbon Footprint Analysis of Flyash Utilization in Earthworks. Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 2022, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bakharev, T. Geopolymeric Materials Prepared Using Class F Fly Ash and Elevated Temperature Curing. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 1224–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. He, P.; Jia, D.; Lin, T.; Wang, M.; Zhou, Y. Effects of High-Temperature Heat Treatment on the Mechanical Properties of Unidirectional Carbon Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Composites. Ceram. Int. 2010, 36, 1447–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aulia, T.B. Effects of Polypropylene Fibers on the Properties of High-Strength Concretes; Institutes Massivbau Baustoffechnologi, Universität Leipzig: Leipzig, Germany, 2002; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
  14. Davidovits, J. High-Alkali Cements for 21st Century Concretes. Spec. Publ. 1994, 144, 383–398. [Google Scholar]
  15. Amran, Y.H.M.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; El-Zeadani, M. Clean Production and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete; A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, P.; Wang, K.; Li, Q.; Wang, J.; Ling, Y. Fabrication and Engineering Properties of Concretes Based on Geopolymers/Alkali-Activated Binders-A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahmaruzzaman, M. A Review on the Utilization of Fly Ash. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36, 327–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Albitar, M.; Ali, M.S.M.; Visintin, P.; Drechsler, M. Durability Evaluation of Geopolymer and Conventional Concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 136, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vafaei, M.; Allahverdi, A.; Dong, P.; Bassim, N. Acid Attack on Geopolymer Cement Mortar Based on Waste-Glass Powder and Calcium Aluminate Cement at Mild Concentration. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 193, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fernando, P.-T.; João, C.-G.; Said, J. Durability and Environmental Performance of Alkali-Activated Tungsten Mine Waste Mud Mortars. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2010, 22, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bakharev, T.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Cheng, Y.-B. Resistance of Alkali-Activated Slag Concrete to Acid Attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1607–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aydın, S.; Yazıcı, H.; Yiğiter, H.; Baradan, B. Sulfuric Acid Resistance of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 717–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chindaprasirt, P.; Rattanasak, U. Improvement of Durability of Cement Pipe with High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Covering. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 956–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mehta, P.K. Sulfate attack on concrete separating myths from reality. Concr. Int. 2000, 8, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  25. Irassar, E.F.; Di Maio, A.; Batic, O.R. Sulfate Attack on Concrete with Mineral Admixtures. Cem. Concr. Res. 1996, 26, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bakharev, T. Durability of Geopolymer Materials in Sodium and Magnesium Sulfate Solutions. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 1233–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sumajouw, M.; Rangan, B.V. Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete: Reinforced Beams and Columns; Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2006; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/23928 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  28. Valencia Saavedra, W.G.; Angulo, D.E.; de Gutiérrez, R. Fly Ash Slag Geopolymer Concrete: Resistance to Sodium and Magnesium Sulfate Attack. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 4016148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Puertas, F.; Gutierrez, R.D.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Delvasto, S.; Maldonado, J. Alkaline Cement Mortars. Chemical Resistance to Sulfate and Seawater Attack. Mater. Constr. 2002, 52, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Stanish, K.; Hooton, R.D.; Thomas, M.D.A. The Rapid Migration Test, An Alternative to AASHTO T 277; HPC Bridge Views; National Concrete Bridge Council: Skokie, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. Elakneswaran, Y.; Nawa, T.; Kurumisawa, K. Influence of Surface Charge on Ingress of Chloride Ion in Hardened Pastes. Mater. Struct. 2009, 42, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Behfarnia, K.; Rostami, M. An Assessment on Parameters Affecting the Carbonation of Alkali-Activated Slag Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Thokchom, S.; Ghosh, P.; Ghosh, S. Effect of Water Absorption, Porosity and Sorptivity on Durability of Geopolymer Mortars. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2009, 4, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  34. Alzeebaree, R.; Çevik, A.; Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J.; Mohammedameen, A.; Gül\csan, M.E. Mechanical Properties and Durability of Unconfined and Confined Geopolymer Concrete with Fiber Reinforced Polymers Exposed to Sulfuric Acid. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 215, 1015–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stefanidou, M.; Tsardaka, E.-C.; Pavlidou, E. Influence of Nano-Silica and Nano-Alumina in Lime-Pozzolan and Lime-Metakaolin Binders. Mater. Today Proc. 2017, 4, 6908–6922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moutaoukil, G.; Alehyen, S.; Sobrados, I.; Fadil, M.; Taibi, M. Optimization of Compressive Strength of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymers Using Central Composite Design. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2021, 44, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Eren, O. Statistical Flexural Toughness Modeling of Ultra High Performance Concrete Using Response Surface Method. Comput. Concr. 2016, 17, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dheyaaldin, M.H.; Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Alzeebaree, R. Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Properties of Alkali Activated Mortar Incorporating Nanomaterials and Polypropylene Fiber. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 23159–23171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gülşan, M.E.; Alzeebaree, R.; Rasheed, A.A.; Niş, A.; Kurtoğlu, A.E. Development of Fly Ash/Slag Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Nano-Silica and Steel Fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Assaedi, H.; Shaikh, F.U.A.; Low, I.M. Effect of Nanoclay on Durability and Mechanical Properties of Flax Fabric Reinforced Geopolymer Composites. J. Asian Ceram. Soc. 2017, 5, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Singh, B.; Rahman, M.R.; Paswan, R.; Bhattacharyya, S.K. Effect of Activator Concentration on the Strength, ITZ and Drying Shrinkage of Fly Ash/Slag Geopolymer Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 118, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saini, G.; Vattipalli, U. Assessing Properties of Alkali Activated GGBS Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Nano-Silica. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 12, e00352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Riahi, S.; Nazari, A. The Effects of Nanoparticles on Early Age Compressive Strength of Ash-Based Geopolymers. Ceram. Int. 2012, 38, 4467–4476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Çevik, A.; Alzeebaree, R.; Humur, G.; Niş, A.; Gülşan, M.E. Effect of Nano-Silica on the Chemical Durability and Mechanical Performance of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 12253–12264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. ASTM C267-01; Standard Test Methods for Chemical Resistance of Mortars, Grouts and Monolithic Surfacing and Polymer Concretes. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  46. ASTM C109/C109M-20; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or Cube Specimens). WASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 1–10.
  47. BS EN 196-1:2015; British Standard Methods of Testing Cement—Part 1 Determination of Strength. BSI: London, UK, 2015.
  48. Karthik, A.; Sudalaimani, K.; Vijayakumar, C.T. Durability Study on Coal Fly Ash-Blast Furnace Slag Geopolymer Concretes with Bio-Additives. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 11935–11943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Parande, A.K.; Ramsamy, P.L.; Ethirajan, S.; Rao, C.R.K.; Palanisamy, N. Deterioration of Reinforced Concrete in Sewer Environments. Inst. Civ. Eng. Proc. Munic. Eng. 2006, 159, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gutberlet, T.; Hilbig, H.; Beddoe, R.E. Acid Attack on Hydrated Cement- Effect of Mineral Acids on the Degradation Process. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 74, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chindaprasirt, P.; Rattanasak, U.; Taebuanhuad, S. Resistance to Acid and Sulfate Solutions of Microwave-Assisted High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Song, X.J.; Marosszeky, M.; Brungs, M.; Munn, R. Durability of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete against Sulphuric Acid Attack. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon, France, 17–20 April 2005; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
  53. Castel, A.; Foster, S.J. Bond Strength between Blended Slag and Class F Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete with Steel Reinforcement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 72, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hussein, T.A.; Dheyaaldin, M.H.; Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Ahmed, Y.M.; Mohammed, H.A.; Omer, R.R.; Hamid, S.M.; Alzeebaree, R. Chemical resistance of alkali-activated mortar with nano silica and polypropylene fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 363, 129847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 16688 g001 550
Figure 1. Sieve analysis of natural sand.
Figure 1. Sieve analysis of natural sand.
Sustainability 14 16688 g001
Sustainability 14 16688 g002 550
Figure 2. Specimens Curing in (a) Sodium Chloride, (b) Magnesium Sulphate, (c) Sulfuric Acid.
Figure 2. Specimens Curing in (a) Sodium Chloride, (b) Magnesium Sulphate, (c) Sulfuric Acid.
Sustainability 14 16688 g002
Sustainability 14 16688 g003 550
Figure 3. Mechanical Strength Tests.
Figure 3. Mechanical Strength Tests.
Sustainability 14 16688 g003
Sustainability 14 16688 g004a 550Sustainability 14 16688 g004b 550Sustainability 14 16688 g004c 550
Figure 4. The demonstration of the specimen under ambient, Sulfuric Acid, Magnesium Sulphate, and Sodium Chloride Attack.
Figure 4. The demonstration of the specimen under ambient, Sulfuric Acid, Magnesium Sulphate, and Sodium Chloride Attack.
Sustainability 14 16688 g004aSustainability 14 16688 g004bSustainability 14 16688 g004c
Sustainability 14 16688 g005 550
Figure 5. Weight changes of the series number of a mixture under sulfuric acid solution.
Figure 5. Weight changes of the series number of a mixture under sulfuric acid solution.
Sustainability 14 16688 g005
Sustainability 14 16688 g006 550
Figure 6. Weight changes of series number of mixtures under magnesium sulphate solution.
Figure 6. Weight changes of series number of mixtures under magnesium sulphate solution.
Sustainability 14 16688 g006
Sustainability 14 16688 g007 550
Figure 7. Weight changes of series number of mixtures under sodium chloride solution.
Figure 7. Weight changes of series number of mixtures under sodium chloride solution.
Sustainability 14 16688 g007
Sustainability 14 16688 g008 550
Figure 8. Compressive strength of AAM under Sulfuric acid solution.
Figure 8. Compressive strength of AAM under Sulfuric acid solution.
Sustainability 14 16688 g008
Sustainability 14 16688 g009 550
Figure 9. Flexural strength of alkali activator mortar under sulfuric Acid.
Figure 9. Flexural strength of alkali activator mortar under sulfuric Acid.
Sustainability 14 16688 g009
Sustainability 14 16688 g010 550
Figure 10. Compressive strength of alkali activator mortar under magnesium sulphate solution.
Figure 10. Compressive strength of alkali activator mortar under magnesium sulphate solution.
Sustainability 14 16688 g010
Sustainability 14 16688 g011 550
Figure 11. Flexural strength of alkali activator mortar under magnesium sulphate.
Figure 11. Flexural strength of alkali activator mortar under magnesium sulphate.
Sustainability 14 16688 g011
Sustainability 14 16688 g012 550
Figure 12. Compressive strength of alkali activator mortar under chloride solution.
Figure 12. Compressive strength of alkali activator mortar under chloride solution.
Sustainability 14 16688 g012
Sustainability 14 16688 g013 550
Figure 13. Flexural strength of alkali activator mortar under sodium chloride solutions.
Figure 13. Flexural strength of alkali activator mortar under sodium chloride solutions.
Sustainability 14 16688 g013
Table
Table 1. The chemical and physical properties of FA and GGBS.
Table 1. The chemical and physical properties of FA and GGBS.
ComponentCaOSiO2Al2O3Fe2O3MgOTiO2SO3K2OP2O3Mn2O3Na2OSrOLoISSAParticle SizeDensity
FA%15.4848.4317.1511.961.352.680.820.410.40.170.00190.21.4736045 µ<2.6 g/cm3
GGBS%47.7528.178.60.423.890.941.450.290.060.470.020.0760.2419-2.9 g/cm3
Table
Table 2. Quantity of materials of alkali activator mortar.
Table 2. Quantity of materials of alkali activator mortar.
Mix No.MixesNSNAPPFFA
kg/m3		GGBS
kg/m3		S.H
kg/m3		S. S
kg/m3		F. Agg
kg/m3		SP
kg/m3		E.W
kg/m3
M1NA%2−11−13433431002501033.52133.35
M2NA%2-PPF%1−1113433431002501033.52133.35
M3PPF%1−1−113503501002501033.52133.35
M4NA%2-NA%211−13363361002501033.52133.35
M5NS%2-NA%2-PPF%11113363361002501033.52133.35
M6NS%21−1−13433431002501033.52133.35
M7Control−1−1−13503501002501033.52133.35
M8NS%2-PPF%11−113433431002501033.52133.35
M9NS%1-NA%100−13433431002501033.52133.35
M10NS%1-NA%2-PPF%0.5010339.5339.51002501033.52133.35
M11NS%1-NA%1-PPF%10013433431002501033.52133.35
M12NS%1-PPF%0.50−10346.5346.51002501033.52133.35
M13NA%1-PPF%0.5−100346.5346.51002501033.52133.35
M14NS%2-NA%1-PPF%0.5100339.5339.51002501033.52133.35
M15NS%1-NA%1-PPF%0.50003433431002501033.52133.35
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dheyaaldin, M.H.; Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Alzeebaree, R. The Effect of Nano-Silica and Nano-Alumina with Polypropylene Fiber on the Chemical Resistance of Alkali-Activated Mortar. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16688. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416688

AMA Style

Dheyaaldin MH, Mosaberpanah MA, Alzeebaree R. The Effect of Nano-Silica and Nano-Alumina with Polypropylene Fiber on the Chemical Resistance of Alkali-Activated Mortar. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16688. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416688

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dheyaaldin, Mahmood Hunar, Mohammad Ali Mosaberpanah, and Radhwan Alzeebaree. 2022. "The Effect of Nano-Silica and Nano-Alumina with Polypropylene Fiber on the Chemical Resistance of Alkali-Activated Mortar" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16688. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416688

APA Style

Dheyaaldin, M. H., Mosaberpanah, M. A., & Alzeebaree, R. (2022). The Effect of Nano-Silica and Nano-Alumina with Polypropylene Fiber on the Chemical Resistance of Alkali-Activated Mortar. Sustainability, 14(24), 16688. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416688

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