Next Article in Journal
Study the Electrical Properties of Surface Mount Device Integrated Silver Coated Vectran Yarn
Next Article in Special Issue
Numerical Simulation of the Response of Concrete Structural Elements Containing a Self-Healing Agent
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrogen Sorption Behavior of Cast Ag-Mg Alloys
Previous Article in Special Issue
Modeling the Effect of Alternative Cementitious Binders in Ultra-High-Performance Concrete
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/ma15010271
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

Mechanical and Durability Properties of Cementless Concretes Made Using Three Types of CaO-Activated GGBFS Binders

by
Woo Sung Yum
,
Juan Yu
,
Dongho Jeon
,
Haemin Song
,
Sungwon Sim
,
Do Hoon Kim
and
Jae Eun Oh
*
School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(1), 271; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010271
Submission received: 8 November 2021 / Revised: 28 December 2021 / Accepted: 28 December 2021 / Published: 30 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Construction Materials: From Paste to Concrete)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined the mechanical and durability properties of CaO-activated ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) concretes made with three different additives (CaCl2, Ca(HCOO)2, and Ca(NO3)2) and compared their properties to the concrete made with 100% Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). All concrete mixtures satisfied targeted air content and slump ranges but exhibited significantly different mechanical and durability properties. The CaO-activated GGBFS concretes showed different strength levels, depending on the type of additive. The added CaCl2 was the most effective, but Ca(NO3)2 was the least effective at increasing mechanical strength in the CaO-activated GGBFS system. The OPC concrete showed the most excellent freezing–thawing resistance in the durability test, but only the CaO-activated GGBFS concrete with CaCl2 exhibited relatively similar resistance. In addition, the chemical resistance was significantly dependent on the type of acid solution and the type of binder. The OPC concrete had the best resistance in the HCl solution, while all CaO-activated GGBFS concretes had relatively low resistances. However, in the H2SO4 solution, all CaO-activated GGBFS concretes had better resistance than the OPC concrete. All concrete with sulfate ions had ettringite before immersion. However, when they were immersed in HCl solution, ettringite tended to decrease, and gypsum was generated. Meanwhile, the CaO-activated GGBFS concrete with CaCl2 did not change the type of reaction product, possibly due to the absence of ettringite and Ca(OH)2. When immersed in an H2SO4 solution, ettringite decreased, and gypsum increased in all concrete. In addition, the CaO-activated concrete with CaCl2 had a considerable amount of gypsum; it seemed that the dissolved C-S-H and calcite, due to the low pH, likely produced Ca2+ ions, and gypsum formed from the reaction between Ca2+ and H2SO4.

1. Introduction

With global warming, abnormal climates are occurring worldwide, causing many problems [1,2]. The international community agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Paris Climate Agreement, to prevent accelerating global warming.
There is increasing demand for materials to replace Portland cement [3,4] because the OPC industry accounts for 8 to 10% of worldwide CO2 emissions, accelerating global warming [5]. Therefore, many studies have been conducted on developing alternative binders with a low carbon footprint, using various industrial by-products, such as fly ash or ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) to replace OPC [6,7,8]. Fly ash-based geopolymers using fly ash as the main material use alkaline activators, such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), or sodium silicates (e.g., water glass). Palomo et al. [9] reported that geopolymer activated with NaOH 8–12 M cured at 85 °C showed a compressive strength of about 40 MPa, and it reached nearly 90 MPa when water glass was added to the binder. Sun et al. [10] explored the effect of three different aggregate sizes on the strength of geopolymers. M.A.M Ariffin et al. [11] showed that geopolymer concrete exhibited better sulfuric acid resistance than OPC concrete. Although geopolymer has high compressive strength and durability, it has the disadvantage that its performance changes depending on the type of activator and curing temperature [12]. Furthermore, U Yurt et al. [13] showed the performance of alkali-activated GGBFS composite varying with the different alkali activators and activation temperature. In addition, many studies [14,15] reported that alkaline activated GGBFS binders have high compressive strength and chemical resistance. However, similar to geopolymers, GGBFS-based cementless binders have drawbacks in the following usages [16]: (1) high material costs, (2) user safety, and (3) difficulty in producing a one-part binder. Despite these problems, alkali-activated binders produce comparable mechanical properties compared to the OPC binder [17,18]; thus, many studies have been conducted at the concrete level to validate the mechanical and durability properties [19,20].
On the other hand, the CaO-activated binder system [21,22] relatively overcame the disadvantages mentioned above of alkali-activated binders. Kim et al. [23] studied CaO-activated GGBFS binder, and Yum et al. [21,24,25] enhanced mechanical properties of CaO-activated GGBFS binders by adding different types of additional activators. In addition, there are studies to develop cementless binders by activating fly ash using CaO and other chemical additives [22,26]. Although the CaO-activated binders can potentially apply to construction fields, no study has been conducted at the concrete level on mechanical properties and durability.
Therefore, this study compared the mechanical and durability properties of various CaO-activated GGBFS concretes using additives, CaCl2, Ca(HCOO)2, and Ca(NO3)2. Mechanical properties, such as compressive strength, tensile splitting strength, and elastic modulus were measured. In addition, the durability properties were evaluated by the freezing and thawing cycle test and the chemical resistance test using hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Changes in hydration products were examined through powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurement and thermogravimetry analysis (TGA).

2. Materials and Methods

Commercial OPC (type I, 42.5N) and GGBFS were used in this study. In addition, all used chemicals were analytical grade. CaO (Daejung, Korea) was the main activator, and CaCl2 (Daejung, Korea), Ca(HCOO)2 (Aladdin, China), Ca(NO3)2 (Sigma Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA), and CaSO4 (Daejung, Korea) were additives. The maximum size of coarse aggregate was 25 mm. Fine aggregate were classified as aggregates with a size less than 5 mm. All aggregates were used under saturated surface dry (SSD) conditions. In addition, a naphthalene-based commercial plasticizer was used in concrete mixtures.
XRD, XRF, and particle size distribution analysis were performed to identify the characteristics of the raw materials (i.e., OPC and GGBFS). XRD patterns were recorded by means of a D/Max2500 V diffractometer (Rigaku, Japan) with an incident beam of Cu-kα radiation (λ = 1.5418 nm) in a 2θ scanning range from 5° to 60°; X-ray fluorescence was conducted with S8-Tiger spectrometer (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA).
Particle size distribution results (Figure 1) show that the average particle sizes of OPC and GGBFS were 25 and 30 µm, respectively. Table 1 exhibits the XRF results of OPC and GGBFS, and they mainly consisted of CaO and SiO2. In Figure 2, the XRD results show that akermanite [Ca2Mg(Si2O7)] was identified in GGBFS, and GGBFS primarily consisted of an amorphous phase. On the other hand, dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium silicate (C3S), tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF), tricalcium aluminate (C3A), and gypsum (CaSO4) were identified in OPC [27].
The material proportions of binders used to produce concrete samples are shown in Table 2. The P-binder was 100% OPC. The other binders (C-, F-, and N-binders) were CaO-activated GGBFS binders, which used CaO as a primary activator for activating GGBFS while included different additives. The C-binder, F-binder, and N-binder used CaCl2, Ca(HCOO)2, and Ca(NO3)2, respectively, as additives, and their material proportions were determined via previous studies [21,24,25]. Note that F-binder and N-binder additionally used five weight percentages of CaSO4 to enhance the early compressive strength of the binders.
The mixture proportions of concrete are given in Table 3, and the samples were labeled similarly after the used binders. According to the Korea Concrete Specification [28], concrete mixture proportions were designed, and the targeted compressive strength was above 45 MPa. Targeted slump and air content ranges were 5–15 cm and 3–6%, respectively.
For concrete production, all mixing procedures followed the Korea Standard (KS) F 2403 [29]. The fresh concrete samples were cast in cylindrical molds (φ 10 cm × 20 cm3) to test determine compressive strength, split strength, elastic modulus, and chemical resistance, and samples in prism molds (10 × 10 × 40 cm3) for freezing and thawing cycle tests. The fresh concrete samples were compacted and cured at 23 °C and 99% relative humidity.
Slump and air content were examined according to the KS F 2402 and KS F 2421 [30,31]. The slump and air content tests were conducted once for each mixture proportion. Triplicate samples were tested for compressive and split strength of each mixture at 3, 7, and 28 days of curing. Chord elastic modulus was measured for the 28-day cured samples, and triplicate specimens were tested for each mixture. The elastic modulus was calculated using the chord modulus using stress-strain curves obtained from three linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) installed in longitudinal directions of concrete [27]. The measured elastic modulus was compared with models proposed by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 and the Euro-International Committee for Concrete—the International Federation for Pre-stressing (CEB-FIP); the CEP-FIP equations are as follows [32,33]:
ACI   Model :   E c = W c 1.5 × 0.043 f 28
CEB - FIP :   E c = 2.15 × 10 4 ( f 28 10 ) 1 / 3
where E c is the elastic modulus (GPa), f 28 is the 28-day compressive strength (MPa), and w c is density (kg/m3).
Freezing and thawing cycle resistance tests were performed using 14-day cured samples, and all experimental procedures followed by KS F 2456 [34]. In addition, three identical samples were used on each measurement date. The initial weight and dynamic modulus of elasticity were recorded for 14 days after curing, and then the samples were tested for freezing and thawing cycles. Each cycle consisted of −20 °C to 4 °C; the time of each cycle was less than 4 h, and the relative dynamic modulus of elasticity and weight change were measured every 30 cycles. Three identical samples were used for each concrete, and the experiments were conducted up to 300 cycles.
Chemical resistance tests were carried out according to ASTM C 267 [35]. The 28-day cured samples were immersed in a container with 5% HCl and 5% H2SO4 solutions, and the solutions were replaced once in 4 weeks. The weight changes were measured at 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 91 days after immersion to identify the evolution of reaction products. On each weight measurement, three identical specimens were weighed. Analysis of XRD and TGA identified reaction products after 28, 56, and 91 days of immersion. The exposed samples were fractured and finely ground using a mortar and pestle. In addition, XRD and TGA were conducted once for each measurement day and mixture proportion. In addition, SDT Q600 (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) was used to measure the reaction products of each sample with a heating rate of 30 °C/min from 25 to 1000 °C in a nitrogen atmosphere in an alumina pan.

3. Results

3.1. Slump and Air Content

Figure 3 displays the air content and slump measurement test results. The air content and the slump values satisfied the criteria specified in KS F 2421 (air content = 3–6%) and KS F 2402 (slump = 5–15 cm) [30,31], respectively.

3.2. Compressive and Split Strength

Compressive strengths of hardened concretes are shown in Figure 4, and the greatest compressive strength was measured from P-CON at all curing days. In addition, all mixtures showed increased strengths with increasing curing days. All cementless concrete samples exhibited significantly lower compressive strengths than P-CON at three days, mainly due to the lower reaction rate of CaO-activated GGBFS binders than OPC binder [36]. The type of used additives influenced the strength development of CaO-activated GGBFS concretes. CaCl2 was the most effective in increasing strength, while Ca(NO3)2 was the least effective.
The mixture proportion of concrete was designed following the Concrete Standard Specification in Korea [37], and the designed 28-day compressive strength (fcr) was 45 MPa. The compressive strength was 48 MPa for P-CON, but the CaO-activated GGBFS concretes gained only about 10 to 30 MPa, significantly lower compressive strength than fcr.
The split strengths are presented in Figure 5. The tensile strength of OPC concrete was reported as about 10 to 15% of the compressive strength [27]. The concrete specimens made with CaO-activated GGBFS binders having no OPC also exhibited a similar trend in this study.

3.3. Chord Elastic Modulus

The measured elastic modulus values of concrete samples are given in Table 4 with the calculated values from ACI 318 and CEB-FIP model codes. It is known that the strength and elastic modulus had a proportional relationship in OPC concrete [27], and the same tendency was observed for all binder types of concrete in this study.
When comparing the experimental values with the calculated values from the ACI and CEB-FIP models, the models showed significantly higher elastic modulus than the measured values. Previous studies similarly reported that the ACI and CEB-FIP models tended to overestimate the elastic modulus of OPC concrete, and it was observed for all types of concretes in this study [38,39,40].

3.4. Freezing and Thawing Cycle Tests

Figure 6 presents the freezing and thawing cycle test results for changing relative dynamic modulus of elasticity and weight loss with increasing cycles.
The dynamic elastic modulus of P-CON and C-CON decreased down to about 60% up to 300 cycles, while those of F-CON and N-CON were not measured because they were damaged significantly before reaching 300 cycles. Thus, F-CON and N-CON are vulnerable to freezing and thawing cycles.
It is worth noting that although C-CON and F-CON had similar compressive strengths and elastic modulus, they showed significantly different resistances to freezing and thawing cycles. However, a sample with a higher drop of the dynamic modulus tended to show a steeper decrease in the weight. Thus, the strength itself was a less accurate indicator than the dynamic modulus for estimating the ability to resist freezing and thawing cycles in this study.
For OPC concretes, KS F 2456 [34] determines that OPC concrete is susceptible to freezing and thawing cycles when OPC concrete samples are destroyed before 300 cycles or when the dynamic elastic modulus decreases below 60% after 300 cycles. Thus, this study implies that KS F 2456 can also be applied to the CaO-activated GGBFS system.

3.5. Chemical Resistance Tests (5% HCl and 5% H2SO4)

The results of chemical resistance tests using 5% HCl and 5% H2SO4 solutions are shown in Figure 7. Significantly different results were obtained, depending on the type of solutions. In 5% HCl aqueous solutions, although weight loss was observed in all immersed samples, P-CON had the most excellent resistance, while N-CON was the most vulnerable. However, the samples immersed in 5% H2SO4 aqueous solutions yielded different results; the most considerable weight loss occurred in P-CON, followed by N-CON, F-CON, and C-CON, in order.

XRD and TG/DTG Analysis in Chemical Resistance Tests

When concrete samples were immersed in acid solutions (i.e., HCl and H2SO4), the pH of the concrete was lowered, resulting in the change of hydration products.
In the HCl solution, the change of the reaction products was investigated using the XRD and TG/DTG analysis, shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. After immersion, Ca(OH)2 disappeared in the P-CON sample, and Friedel’s salt (Ca2Al(OH)6Cl(H2O)2) was found. The HCl solution likely lowered the pH of P-CON, resulting in removing OH− of Ca(OH)2 [41,42], and Friedel’s salt was produced by the reaction of Cl− ions from HCl and Ca2+ ions from Ca(OH)2. In addition, regeneration of Ca(OH)2 was observed at the 91-day sample. It seemed that as the chemical resistance test proceeded, Ca(OH)2 was regenerated by a complex chemical reaction; more research will likely be needed for the regeneration of Ca(OH)2.
The XRD showed that all samples with sulfate ion (SO42−) (i.e., P-, F-, and N-CON) had ettringite before immersion. When immersed in HCl solution, the DTG analysis showed that ettringite tended to decrease, and gypsum was generated; F-CON exhibited the most prominent decrease of ettringite, while N-CON displayed the slightest change in ettringite peak. Previous studies [41,43,44] reported that, below pH value of 10.6, ettringite was no longer stable, and gypsum formed. Unlike the other samples, C-CON did not change the type of reaction product in the HCl solution, possibly due to the absence of ettringite and Ca(OH)2 before immersion. In addition, the weight loss occurred in the vicinity of 800 to 900 °C in CaO-activated concrete, which might be the recrystallization of C-S-H [45].
Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the results of XRD and TG/DTG tests, respectively, for the samples in the H2SO4 solution. In addition, similar to the HCl results, regeneration of Ca(OH)2 at the P-CON sample and crystallization were observed. It is worth noting that ettringite is relatively more susceptible to the drying process of sample preparation than other cementitious reaction products and, thus, ettringite can often be underestimated in quantity in XRD and TG/DTG [46,47]. Unfortunately, in this study, the result for ettringite in the H2SO4 solution in TG/DTG was not precisely consistent with that of XRD; however, careful interpretation enabled us to recognize the approximate tendency of the product change.
In the samples that had ettringite before immersion (i.e., P-, F-, and N-CON in Figure 10), as the DTG peaks of ettringite decreased, the gypsum DTG peaks tended to increase, as shown in Figure 11. In particular, the F-CON and N-CON samples showed relatively strong gypsum XRD and DTG peaks, and the peaks were even stronger than those of samples in the HCl solution. The cause of gypsum formation was similar to the case of HCl immersion; as the pH of the concrete was likely lowered in the H2SO4 solution, ettringite became unstable and decomposed, producing gypsum.
However, note that gypsum can also form from the reaction between Ca(OH)2 and H2SO4 without ettringite decomposition [27,41]. For instance, in P-CON, because Ca(OH)2 was present before immersion, this reaction surely accounted for a portion of gypsum formation. However, this reaction was also likely responsible for the gypsum formation in C-CON despite no Ca(OH)2 before immersion (Figure 10b and Figure 11b). Previous studies [27,41,48,49,50,51] reported that C-S-H and calcite can dissolve, producing Ca2+ ions (or Ca(OH)2) when the pH is lowered. In the TG/DTG results, the decrease in calcite peak was—relatively—clearly seen, but the decrease in C-S-H peak was difficult to observe because the C-S-H peak below 200 °C overlapped with the peaks of ettringite and gypsum, making it challenging to analyze. However, when referring to the other study results [49,50,51], C-S-H likely dissolved to some extent similar to calcite. Thus, the dissolved Ca2+ ions can produce gypsum from the reaction with H2SO4 in C-CON. On the other hand, in the case of P-CON, the coexistence of Ca(OH)2 generally prevents chemical deterioration of C-S-H [49,52]; thus, a relatively smaller amount of C-S-H likely dissolved than the other samples.

4. Conclusions

This study examined the mechanical and durability properties of three types of CaO-activated GGBFS concretes made with three different additives (CaCl2, Ca(HCCO)2, and Ca(NO3)2), and compared their properties with those of Portland cement concrete. Detailed conclusions are summarized as follows:
  • All CaO-activated GGBFS concretes satisfied the targeted air content and slump ranges. However, they exhibited lower mechanical properties (compressive strength, split strength, and elastic modulus) than OPC concrete.
  • In the CaO-activated GGBFS system, the additive CaCl2 was the most effective at increasing strength and elastic modulus, while the additive Ca(NO3)2 was the least effective.
  • In the freezing and thawing cycle test, the CaO-activated GGBFS concretes with added Ca(HCOO)2 and Ca(NO3)2 were destroyed before 300 cycles; however, the one made with CaCl2 had a relatively comparable resistance in the freezing and thawing cycles test to OPC concrete.
  • The strength was a less accurate indicator than the dynamic modulus for estimating the ability to resist freezing and thawing cycles in this study.
  • The chemical resistance tests using 5% HCl and 5% H2SO4 solutions showed significantly different results depending on the type of acid solutions. In a 5% HCl solution, although weight loss was observed in all immersed samples, the OPC concrete had the most excellent resistance, while the CaO-activated GGBFS concrete with Ca(NO3)2 was the most vulnerable. However, in 5% H2SO4 aqueous, the most considerable weight loss occurred in the OPC concrete.
  • In XRD, all concrete with added sulfate ion (SO42−) (i.e., Portland cement concrete and CaO-activated GGBFS concretes with Ca(HCOO)2 and Ca(NO3)2) had ettringite before immersion. When they were immersed in HCl solution, their DTG results showed that ettringite tended to decrease, and gypsum was generated; however, the CaO-activated GGBFS concrete with CaCl2 did not change the type of reaction product in the HCl solution, possibly due to the absence of ettringite and Ca(OH)2 before immersion.
  • When immersed in H2SO4 solution, similar to the case of HCl, the DTG peaks of ettringite decreased, and the gypsum DTG peaks tended to increase. However, in the H2SO4 solution, gypsum was synthesized from the reaction between Ca(OH)2 and H2SO4 in all concrete samples. In particular, the concrete without ettringite (i.e., CaO-activated GGBFS concrete with CaCl2) had a considerable amount of gypsum formation; in this concrete, dissolved C-S-H and calcite, due to the low pH, likely produced Ca2+ ions, and gypsum formed from the reaction between Ca2+ and H2SO4.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.S.Y. and J.Y.; methodology, W.S.Y. and D.J.; software, W.S.Y. and H.S.; investigation, W.S.Y. and S.S.; resources, W.S.Y. and D.H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, W.S.Y. and J.E.O.; writing—review and editing, W.S.Y. and J.E.O.; visualization, W.S.Y. and J.E.O.; supervision, J.E.O.; project administration, J.E.O.; funding acquisition, J.E.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Basic Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the MSIT (grant number: 2021R1A4A1030867), and Carbon Neutral Institute Project Fund (Project Number: 1.210109.01) of UNIST(Ulsan National Institute of Science & Technology).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kerr, R.A. Global warming is changing the world. Science 2007, 316, 188–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Drake, F. Global Warming; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aïtcin, P.-C. Cements of yesterday and today: Concrete of tomorrow. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1349–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aydin, E. Novel coal bottom ash waste composites for sustainable construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 124, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Poudyal, L.; Adhikari, K. Environmental sustainability in cement industry: An integrated approach for green and economical cement production. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 4, 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hwang, C.-L.; Huynh, T.-P. Engineering, Evaluation of the performance and microstructure of ecofriendly construction bricks made with fly ash and residual rice husk ash. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015, 891412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Karim, M.; Zain, M.F.M.; Jamil, M.; Lai, F. Fabrication of a non-cement binder using slag, palm oil fuel ash and rice husk ash with sodium hydroxide. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 49, 894–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Billong, N.; Melo, U.; Kamseu, E.; Kinuthia, J.; Njopwouo, D.J.C. Improving hydraulic properties of lime–rice husk ash (RHA) binders with metakaolin (MK). Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2157–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Palomo, A.; Grutzeck, M.; Blanco, M. Alkali-activated fly ashes: A cement for the future. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29, 1323–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, Z.; Lin, X.; Vollpracht, A. Pervious concrete made of alkali activated slag and geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 189, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ariffin, M.; Bhutta, M.; Hussin, M.; Tahir, M.M.; Aziah, N. Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ryu, G.S.; Lee, Y.B.; Koh, K.T.; Chung, Y.S. The mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with alkaline activators. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yurt, Ü. High performance cementless composites from alkali activated GGBFS. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 264, 120222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rostami, M.; Behfarnia, K. The effect of silica fume on durability of alkali activated slag concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 134, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Messina; Ferone; Colangelo; Roviello; Cioffi. Alkali activated waste fly ash as sustainable composite: Influence of curing and pozzolanic admixtures on the early-age physico-mechanical properties and residual strength after exposure at elevated temperature. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 132, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Van Deventer, J.S.; Provis, J.L.; Duxson, P. Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner. Eng. 2012, 29, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, K.-H.; Song, J.-K.; Song, K.-I. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fernandez-Jimenez, A.M.; Palomo, A.; Lopez-Hombrados, C. Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater. J. 2006, 103, 106. [Google Scholar]
  19. Atiş, 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]
  20. Palacios, M.; Puertas, F. Effect of carbonation on alkali-activated slag paste. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2006, 89, 3211–3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yum, W.S.; Suh, J.-I.; Sim, S.; Yoon, S.; Jun, Y.; Oh, J.E. Influence of calcium and sodium nitrate on the strength and reaction products of the CaO-activated GGBFS system. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 215, 839–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Suh, J.-I.; Yum, W.S.; Jeong, Y.; Park, H.-G.; Oh, J.E. The cation-dependent effects of formate salt additives on the strength and microstructure of CaO-activated fly ash binders. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 194, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, M.S.; Jun, Y.; Lee, C.; Oh, J.E. Use of CaO as an activator for producing a price-competitive non-cement structural binder using ground granulated blast furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Res. 2013, 54, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yum, W.S.; Jeong, Y.; Yoon, S.; Jeon, D.; Jun, Y.; Oh, J.E. Effects of CaCl2 on hydration and properties of lime (CaO)-activated slag/fly ash binder. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 84, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yum, W.S.; Suh, J.-I.; Jeon, D.; Oh, J.E. Strength enhancement of CaO-activated slag system through addition of calcium formate as a new auxiliary activator. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 109, 103572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jeon, D.; Yum, W.S.; Jeong, Y.; Oh, J.E. Properties of quicklime (CaO)-activated Class F fly ash with the use of CaCl2. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 111, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mehta, P.K.; Monteiro, P.J. Concrete Microstructure, Properties and Materials; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ministry of Land, I.T. Korea, Korea Concrete Specification; Ministry of Land: Daejeon, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Korean Standards Association. Standard Test Method for Making Concrete Specimens; KS F 2403; Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Korean Standards Association. Method of Test for Slump of Concrete; KS F 2402; Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  31. Korean Standards Association. Standard Test Method for Air Content of Fresh Concrete by the Pressure Method (Air Receiver Method); KS F 2421; Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  32. ACI Committee. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  33. Comite Euro-International Du Beton. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Design Code; Institution of Civil Engineers Publishing: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  34. Korean Standards Association. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing; KS F 2456; Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. ASTM. Standard Test Methods for Chemical Resistance of Mortars, Grouts, and Monolithic Surfacings and Polymer Concretes; ASTM C 267; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jeong, Y.; Park, H.; Jun, Y.; Jeong, J.-H.; Oh, J.E. Microstructural verification of the strength performance of ternary blended cement systems with high volumes of fly ash and GGBFS. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 95, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Korea, Concrete Standard Specification; Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jo, B.-W.; Shon, Y.-H.; Kim, Y.-J. The evalution of elastic modulus for steel fiber reinforced concrete. Russ. J. Nondestruct. Test. 2001, 37, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, J.-K.; Han, S.H.; Song, Y.C. Effect of temperature and aging on the mechanical properties of concrete: Part I. Experimental results. Cem. Concr. Res. 2002, 32, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alsalman, A.; Dang, C.N.; Prinz, G.S.; Hale, W.M. Evaluation of modulus of elasticity of ultra-high performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 918–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Allahverdi, A.; Škvára, F. Acidic corrosion of hydrated cement based materials. Ceram. Silikáty 2000, 44, 152–160. [Google Scholar]
  42. Shi, Z.; Geiker, M.R.; Lothenbach, B.; De Weerdt, K.; Garzón, S.F.; Enemark-Rasmussen, K.; Skibsted, J. Friedel’s salt profiles from thermogravimetric analysis and thermodynamic modelling of Portland cement-based mortars exposed to sodium chloride solution. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 78, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Goyal, S.; Kumar, M.; Sidhu, D.S.; Bhattacharjee, B. Resistance of mineral admixture concrete to acid attack. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2009, 7, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Roy, D.; Arjunan, P.; Silsbee, M. Effect of silica fume, metakaolin, and low-calcium fly ash on chemical resistance of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 1809–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Taylor, H.F. Cement Chemistry; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1997; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  46. Scrivener, K.; Snellings, R.; Lothenbach, B. A Practical Guide to Microstructural Analysis of Cementitious Materials; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  47. Song, H.; Jeong, Y.; Bae, S.; Jun, Y.; Yoon, S.; Eun Oh, J. A study of thermal decomposition of phases in cementitious systems using HT-XRD and TG. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 648–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. 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]
  49. Liu, X.; Feng, P.; Li, W.; Geng, G.; Huang, J.; Gao, Y.; Mu, S.; Hong, J. Effects of pH on the nano/micro structure of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) under sulfate attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021, 140, 106306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sverdrup, H.U. Calcite dissolution and acidification mitigation strategies. Lake Reserv. Manag. 1984, 1, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pedrosa, E.T.; Fischer, C.; Morales, L.F.; Rohlfs, R.D.; Luttge, A. Influence of chemical zoning on sandstone calcite cement dissolution: The case of manganese and iron. Chem. Geol. 2021, 559, 119952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feng, P.; Miao, C.; Bullard, J.W. A model of phase stability, microstructure and properties during leaching of portland cement binders. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 49, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 15 00271 g001 550
Figure 1. Particle size distributions of OPC and GGBFS.
Figure 1. Particle size distributions of OPC and GGBFS.
Materials 15 00271 g001
Materials 15 00271 g002 550
Figure 2. XRD patterns of OPC and GGBFS with identified phases.
Figure 2. XRD patterns of OPC and GGBFS with identified phases.
Materials 15 00271 g002
Materials 15 00271 g003 550
Figure 3. The test results: (a) air content and (b) slump of fresh concrete samples.
Figure 3. The test results: (a) air content and (b) slump of fresh concrete samples.
Materials 15 00271 g003
Materials 15 00271 g004 550
Figure 4. Compressive strengths of hardened concrete samples.
Figure 4. Compressive strengths of hardened concrete samples.
Materials 15 00271 g004
Materials 15 00271 g005 550
Figure 5. Split strengths of hardened concrete samples.
Figure 5. Split strengths of hardened concrete samples.
Materials 15 00271 g005
Materials 15 00271 g006 550
Figure 6. Freezing and thawing test results: (a) relative dynamic modulus of elasticity and (b) weight loss.
Figure 6. Freezing and thawing test results: (a) relative dynamic modulus of elasticity and (b) weight loss.
Materials 15 00271 g006
Materials 15 00271 g007 550
Figure 7. Chemical resistance test results: (a) 5% HCl solution and (b) 5% H2SO4 solution.
Figure 7. Chemical resistance test results: (a) 5% HCl solution and (b) 5% H2SO4 solution.
Materials 15 00271 g007
Materials 15 00271 g008 550
Figure 8. XRD patterns of hardened samples immersed in 5% HCl solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON. (Note. E: ettringite, C: C-S-H, CC: calcite, G: gypsum, H: hydrocalumite, F: Friedel’s salt, P: portlandite, and N: nitrate AFm, respectively).
Figure 8. XRD patterns of hardened samples immersed in 5% HCl solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON. (Note. E: ettringite, C: C-S-H, CC: calcite, G: gypsum, H: hydrocalumite, F: Friedel’s salt, P: portlandite, and N: nitrate AFm, respectively).
Materials 15 00271 g008
Materials 15 00271 g009 550
Figure 9. TG/DTG curves of hardened samples immersed in 5% HCl solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON.
Figure 9. TG/DTG curves of hardened samples immersed in 5% HCl solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON.
Materials 15 00271 g009
Materials 15 00271 g010 550
Figure 10. XRD patterns of hardened samples immersed in 5% H2SO4 solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON. (Note. E: ettringite, C: C-S-H, CC: calcite, G: gypsum, H: hydrocalumite, and P: portlandite, respectively).
Figure 10. XRD patterns of hardened samples immersed in 5% H2SO4 solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON. (Note. E: ettringite, C: C-S-H, CC: calcite, G: gypsum, H: hydrocalumite, and P: portlandite, respectively).
Materials 15 00271 g010
Materials 15 00271 g011 550
Figure 11. TG/DTG curves of hardened samples immersed in 5% H2SO4 solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON.
Figure 11. TG/DTG curves of hardened samples immersed in 5% H2SO4 solution: (a) P-CON, (b) C-CON, (c) F-CON, and (d) N-CON.
Materials 15 00271 g011
Table
Table 1. Oxide compositions: OPC and GGBFS (wt%).
Table 1. Oxide compositions: OPC and GGBFS (wt%).
OxideOPCGGBFS
CaO64.0559.48
SiO218.5923.05
Al2O34.459.72
MgO3.142.54
SO33.551.37
TiO20.290.98
MnO0.190.83
FexOy3.610.68
K2O1.230.68
Na2O0.290.28
Others0.610.4
Table
Table 2. Material proportions of binders used in concrete mixture samples (wt%).
Table 2. Material proportions of binders used in concrete mixture samples (wt%).
Binder TypeOPCGGBFSCaOCaCl2Ca(HCOO)2Ca(NO3)2CaSO4Sum
P-binder100000000100
C-binder09442000100
F-binder08840305100
N-binder08640055100
Table
Table 3. Mixture proportions of concrete samples.
Table 3. Mixture proportions of concrete samples.
SampleBinder
Type		Gmax
(mm)		w/b
(wt%)		s/a
(vol%)		Unit Weight (kg/m3)
WaterBinderFACAPlasticizer
P-CONP-binder2536.7342.31176.63480.82687.81955.860.14
C-CONC-binder676.34939.930.14
F-CONF-binder673.87936.480.14
N-CONN-binder673.87936.480.14
Note: FA denotes fine aggregate; CA denotes coarse aggregate; Gmax denotes the ratios of the maximum size of coarse aggregate; w/b denotes water to binder weight ratio, and s/a denotes sand to aggregate volume.
Table
Table 4. The results of elastic modulus using experiments and model codes.
Table 4. The results of elastic modulus using experiments and model codes.
Sample LabelCompressive Strength at 28 Days (MPa)Density (kg/m3)Elastic Modulus (GPa)
Exp.ACI 318CEB-FIP
P-CON44.82415.528.834.141.5
C-CON30.52372.620.927.435.7
F-CON29.52349.719.126.634.7
N-CON20.72360.217.219.729.1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yum, W.S.; Yu, J.; Jeon, D.; Song, H.; Sim, S.; Kim, D.H.; Oh, J.E. Mechanical and Durability Properties of Cementless Concretes Made Using Three Types of CaO-Activated GGBFS Binders. Materials 2022, 15, 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010271

AMA Style

Yum WS, Yu J, Jeon D, Song H, Sim S, Kim DH, Oh JE. Mechanical and Durability Properties of Cementless Concretes Made Using Three Types of CaO-Activated GGBFS Binders. Materials. 2022; 15(1):271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yum, Woo Sung, Juan Yu, Dongho Jeon, Haemin Song, Sungwon Sim, Do Hoon Kim, and Jae Eun Oh. 2022. "Mechanical and Durability Properties of Cementless Concretes Made Using Three Types of CaO-Activated GGBFS Binders" Materials 15, no. 1: 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010271

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