CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Concrete and Cement Materials ResearchMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Physico-Mechanical Evaluation of Geopolymer Concrete Activated by Sodium Hydroxide and Silica Fume-Synthesised Sodium Silicate Solution

Open access
Adeleke, Blessing O., Kinuthia, John M., Oti, Jonathan, Ebailila, Mansour·2023·Materials
DOI 10.3390/ma16062400PMC PMC10053947
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Commercial sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (SS) have remained two of the leading alkaline activators widely used in producing geopolymer concrete, despite some identified negatives regarding their availability and additional CO2 emissions relating to the overall manufacturing process. This study reports the viability of developing geopolymer concrete using a laboratory-synthesised silica fume (SF)-derived SS solution in combination with NaOH at a molarity of 10M as an alternative binary alkali-alkaline activator to Ground Granulated Blast Furnace slag (GGBS). The use of SF in the development of geoolymer activators will pave the way for the quality usage of other high-silica content by-products from nature, industry, and agriculture. In the currently reported proof of concept, four geopolymer concrete batches were produced using different alkaline activator/precursor-A/P ratios (0.5 and 0.9) and SS to NaOH-SS/SH volume ratios (0.8/1.2 and 1.2/0.8), to establish the impact on the engineering performance. Two controls were adopted for ordinary and geopolymer concrete mixes. The engineering performance was assessed using slump and compaction index (CI) tests, while the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and tensile splitting (TS) tests were measured at different curing ages in accordance with their appropriate standards. The results indicated a reduction in slump values as the A/P ratio decreased, while the CI values showed a reversal of the identified trend in slump. Consequently, mix GC2 attained the highest UCS strength gain (62.6 MPa), displaying the superiority of the alkali activation and polymerisation process over the CSH gel. Furthermore, the impact of A/P variation on the UCS was more pronounced than SS/SH due to its vital contribution to the overall geopolymerisation process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ma16062400

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Particle size distribution of the raw materials.
Figure 1 Particle size distribution of the raw materials.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 TG (dotted lines) and DTG (solid lines) curves of cement, GGBS, and silica fume.
Figure 2 TG (dotted lines) and DTG (solid lines) curves of cement, GGBS, and silica fume.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Consistency of concrete mixes measured by (a) slump and (b) the degree of compactability test.
Figure 3 Consistency of concrete mixes measured by (a) slump and (b) the degree of compactability test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 UCS development of the ordinary and geopolymer concrete mixes made with different AP and SS/SH ratios.
Figure 4 UCS development of the ordinary and geopolymer concrete mixes made with different AP and SS/SH ratios.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Appearance of efflorescence on the surface of geopolymer concrete specimens with higher alkaline content.
Figure 5 Appearance of efflorescence on the surface of geopolymer concrete specimens with higher alkaline content.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Twenty-eight day tensile splitting strength development of the ordinary and geopolymer concrete mixes made with different AP and SS/SH ratios.
Figure 6 Twenty-eight day tensile splitting strength development of the ordinary and geopolymer concrete mixes made with different AP and SS/SH ratios.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Nishanth, 2022, Experimental evaluation on workability and strength characteristics of self-consolidating geopolymer concrete based on GGBFS, flyash and alccofine, Mater. Today Proc., 59, 51, 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.200 · DOI
  2. Adeleke, 2022, Impacts of MgO waste: GGBS formulations on the performance of a stabilised natural high sulphate bearing soil, Constr. Build. Mater., 315, 125745, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125745 · DOI
  3. Abdulrahman, 2022, Mechanical properties and bond stress-slip behaviour of fly ash geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 327, 126909, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126909 · DOI
  4. Raza, 2022, A sustainable roadmap for additive manufacturing using geopolymers in construction industry, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 186, 106592, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106592 · DOI
  5. Nath, 2014, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition, Constr. Build. Mater., 66, 163, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080 · DOI
  6. Fernandes, 2021, Controlling efflorescence in geopolymers: A new approach, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 15, e00740
  7. Yang, 2022, Geopolymer concrete incorporating recycled aggregates: A comprehensive review, Clean. Mater., 3, 100056, 10.1016/j.clema.2022.100056 · DOI
  8. Sun, 2020, Effect of nano-SiO2 on the efflorescence of an alkali-activated metakaolin mortar, Constr. Build. Mater., 253, 118952, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118952 · DOI
  9. Sun, 2022, Evaluation of rheology and strength development of alkali-activated slag with different silicates sources, Cem. Concr. Compos., 128, 104415, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104415 · DOI
  10. Provis, J.L., and Van Deventer, J.S.J. (2013). Alkali Activated Materials: State-Of-The-Art Report (RILEM TC 224-AAM), Springer Science & Business Media. · DOI
  11. Duxson, 2007, Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci., 42, 2917, 10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cheng, 2022, Study on the effectiveness of silica fume-derived activator as a substitute for water glass in fly ash-based geopolymer, J. Build. Eng., 51, 104228, 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104228 · DOI
  13. Liu, 2020, Sodium silicate applications in oil, gas & geothermal well operations, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 195, 107693, 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107693 · DOI
  14. Nilsson, 2011, Concentration- and pH-dependence of highly alkaline sodium silicate solutions, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 356, 37, 10.1016/j.jcis.2010.12.085 · DOI
  15. Lazorenko, 2022, Geopolymer additive manufacturing: A review, Addit. Manuf., 55, 102782
  16. Shilar, 2022, Molarity activity effect on mechanical and microstructure properties of geopolymer concrete: A review, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 16, e01014
  17. Cheah, 2019, The engineering properties and microstructure of sodium carbonate activated fly ash/slag blended mortars with silica fume, Compos. Part B Eng., 160, 558, 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.056 · DOI
  18. Furtak, 2017, Influence of silica fume content on the quality of bond conditions in high-performance concrete specimens, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng., 17, 795, 10.1016/j.acme.2017.02.007 · DOI
  19. Billong, 2021, Using silica fume based activator in sustainable geopolymer binder for building application, Constr. Build. Mater., 275, 122177, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122177 · DOI
  20. Fernando, 2021, Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of fly ash–rice husk ash blended alkali-activated, J. Environ. Manag., 295, 113140, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113140 · DOI
  21. Almutairi, 2021, Potential applications of geopolymer concrete in construction: A review, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 15, e00733
  22. Bahrami, 2022, Lightweight geopolymer concrete: A critical review on the feasibility, mixture design, durability properties, and microstructure, Ceram. Int., 48, 10347, 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.01.298 · DOI
  23. Xie, 2014, Effect of initial water content and curing moisture conditions on the development of fly ash-based geopolymers in heat and ambient temperature, Constr. Build. Mater., 67, 20, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.047 · DOI
  24. Provis, 2010, The role of particle technology in developing sustainable construction materials, Adv. Powder Technol., 21, 2, 10.1016/j.apt.2009.10.006 · DOI
  25. Meesala, 2019, Critical review on fly-ash based geopolymer concrete, Struct. Concr., 21, 1013, 10.1002/suco.201900326 · DOI
  26. Erdemir, 2016, Utilisation and efficiency of ground granulated blast furnace slag on concrete properties—A review, Constr. Build. Mater., 105, 423, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.153 · DOI
  27. Heah, 2012, Study on solids-to-liquid and alkaline activator ratios on kaolin-based geopolymers, Constr. Build. Mater., 35, 912, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.102 · DOI
  28. Yaseri, 2017, The role of synthesis parameters on the workability, setting and strength properties of binary binder based geopolymer paste, Constr. Build. Mater., 157, 534, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.102 · DOI
  29. Sathonsaowaphak, 2009, Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar, J. Hazard. Mater., 168, 44, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.120 · DOI
  30. Sun, 2022, Alkali activation of blast furnace slag using a carbonate-calcium carbide residue alkaline mixture to prepare cemented paste backfill, Constr. Build. Mater., 320, 126234, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126234 · DOI
  31. Xie, 2020, Mix design and mechanical properties of geopolymer and alkali activated concrete: Review of the state-of-the-art and the development of a new unified approach, Constr. Build. Mater., 256, 119380, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119380 · DOI
  32. Shi, 2019, Recent progress in low-carbon binders, Cem. Concr. Res., 122, 227, 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.009 · DOI
  33. Gomaa, 2017, Fresh properties and compressive strength of high calcium alkali activated fly ash mortar, J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci., 29, 356
  34. Provis, 2014, Geopolymers and Related Alkali-Activated Materials, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res., 44, 299, 10.1146/annurev-matsci-070813-113515 · DOI
  35. Chindaprasirt, 2007, Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Compos., 29, 224, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.002 · DOI
  36. Siyal, 2016, Effects of Parameters on the Setting Time of Fly Ash Based Geopolymers Using Taguchi Method, Procedia Eng., 148, 302, 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.624 · DOI
  37. Upadhyay, 2022, Issues and challenges for development of geopolymer concrete, Mater. Today Proc., 65, 1567, 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.520 · DOI
  38. Maegawa, 2015, Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions on compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–GBFS geopolymer, Constr. Build. Mater., 91, 1, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.001 · DOI
  39. Chindaprasirt, 2018, Effect of calcium-rich compounds on setting time and strength development of alkali-activated fly ash cured at ambient temperature, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 9, e00198
  40. Morsy, 2022, Mechanical Characteristics of GGBFS/FA-Based Geopolymer Concrete and Its Environmental Impact, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 27, 04022017, 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000686 · DOI
  41. Bezerra, 2022, Ecological geopolymer produced with a ternary system of red mud, glass waste, and Portland cement, Clean. Eng. Technol., 6, 100379, 10.1016/j.clet.2021.100379 · DOI
  42. Wu, 2020, Simulation study for the formation of alkaline efflorescence on bauxite residue disposal areas following the phosphogypsum addition, J. Clean. Prod., 262, 121266, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121266 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Adeleke, B. O., Kinuthia, J. M., Oti, J., & Ebailila, M.
Affiliations
  • University of South Wales (GB)
  • Bani-Waleed University (LY)
Corresponding author
Adeleke, Blessing O.
ORCID
Venue
Materials
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-03-17
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
2400
ISSN
1996-1944 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ma16062400
PMC
PMC10053947
OpenAlex
W4327736614
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5
FWCI
6.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Faculty of Computing Engineering and Science of the University of South Wales
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Microbial Applications in Construction Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Keywords
geopolymer concrete, sodium hydroxide activation, silica fume, sodium silicate solution, ground granulated blast furnace slag, unconfined compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, slump, compaction index, geopolymerization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review