Effect of Treatment Age on Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete

Diana Ningrum; Handika Setya Wijaya; Elisabeth Van

doi:10.51278/ajse.v1i2.544

Authors

Diana Ningrum Universitas Tribhuwana Tunggadewi, Indonesia
Handika Setya Wijaya Universitas Tribhuwana Tunggadewi, Indonesia
Elisabeth Van Universitas Tribhuwana Tunggadewi, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51278/ajse.v1i2.544

Keywords:

Geopolymer Concrete, Compressive Strength, Modulus of Elasticity

Abstract

There are the same compound content, fly ash does not have the ability to bind, so it requires an alkaline activator for the polymerization reaction or binding reaction to occur. The alkali activators commonly used are sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate. The use of these materials makes concrete with fly ash known as geopolymer concrete. Geopolymer concrete is an alternative to conventional concrete, so it must have optimal strength like conventional concrete, therefore researchers are interested in testing the value of compressive strength, split tensile strength and mode of elasticity of geopolymer concrete using 10 molar alkali activator with a ratio of 3:2. for variations in the age of concrete 7, 14, 21, and 28 days; and the conversion value of geopolymer concrete using 10 molar alkali activator with a ratio of 3:2 for variations in the age of concrete 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. This research is an experimental study using variations in the age of concrete 7, 14, 21, and 28 days for geopolymer concrete using 10 molar alkali activator with a ratio of 3:2. The results of this study indicate that there is an effect of variations in the age of concrete on the value of compressive strength, split tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity of geopolymer concrete. Where the compressive strength, split tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity of geopolymer concrete at the age of 7 days are 31.40%; 35.44%; and 23.32% which at the age variation of 28 days increased by 100%. In addition, in this study, it is known that the conversion value at the age of 28 days for variations in the age of 7 days, 14 days, 21 days, and 28 days, respectively, is 0.31; 0.73; 0.97; 1.00

Keywords: Geopolymer Concrete, Compressive Strength, Modulus of Elasticity

References

[1] K. Chen, D. Wu, L. Xia, Q. Cai, and Z. Zhang, “Geopolymer concrete durability subjected to aggressive environments – A review of influence factors and comparison with ordinary Portland cement,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 279, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122496.
[2] H. Abdulrahman, R. Muhamad, P. Visintin, and A. Azim Shukri, “Mechanical properties and bond stress-slip behaviour of fly ash geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 327, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126909.
[3] B. Zhang, Y. Feng, J. Xie, D. Lai, T. Yu, and D. Huang, “Rubberized geopolymer concrete: Dependence of mechanical properties and freeze-thaw resistance on replacement ratio of crumb rubber,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 310, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125248.
[4] A. Hassan, Y. Rashid, A. H. I. Mourad, N. Ismail, and M. S. Laghari, “Thermal and structural characterization of geopolymer-coated polyurethane foam-phase change material capsules/geopolymer concrete composites,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 12, no. 5, 2019, doi: 10.3390/MA12050796.
[5] P. Nuaklong, V. Sata, A. Wongsa, K. Srinavin, and P. Chindaprasirt, “Recycled aggregate high calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete with inclusion of OPC and nano-SiO2,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 174, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.123.
[6] Z. Q. Cheng, R. Zhao, Y. Yuan, F. Li, A. Castel, and T. Xu, “Ageing coefficient for early age tensile creep of blended slag and low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 262, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119855.
[7] A. A. Aliabdo, A. E. M. Abd Elmoaty, and H. A. Salem, “Effect of cement addition, solution resting time and curing characteristics on fly ash based geopolymer concrete performance,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 123, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.043.
[8] M. H. Al-Majidi, A. P. Lampropoulos, A. B. Cundy, O. T. Tsioulou, and S. Al-Rekabi, “A novel corrosion resistant repair technique for existing reinforced concrete (RC) elements using polyvinyl alcohol fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete (PVAFRGC),” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 164, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.213.
[9] S. M. A. Kabir, U. J. Alengaram, M. Z. Jumaat, S. Yusoff, A. Sharmin, and I. I. Bashar, “Performance evaluation and some durability characteristics of environmental friendly palm oil clinker based geopolymer concrete,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 161, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.002.
[10] V. S. Kumar, N. Ganesan, and P. V. Indira, “Shear strength of hybrid fibre-reinforced ternary blend geopolymer concrete beams under flexure,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 21, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14216634.
[11] K. Pasupathy, S. Ramakrishnan, and J. Sanjayan, “Influence of recycled concrete aggregate on the foam stability of aerated geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 271, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121850.
[12] K. T. Nguyen, N. Ahn, T. A. Le, and K. Lee, “Theoretical and experimental study on mechanical properties and flexural strength of fly ash-geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 106, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.033.
[13] S. Aneja, A. Sharma, R. Gupta, and D. Y. Yoo, “Bayesian regularized artificial neural network model to predict strength characteristics of fly-ash and bottom-ash based geopolymer concrete,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 7, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14071729.
[14] S. Pilehvar et al., “Physical and mechanical properties of fly ash and slag geopolymer concrete containing different types of micro-encapsulated phase change materials,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 173, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.016.
[15] K. Pasupathy, J. Sanjayan, P. Rajeev, and D. W. Law, “The effect of chloride ingress in reinforced geopolymer concrete exposed in the marine environment,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 39, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102281.
[16] J. J. Ekaputri, “Sodium sebagai Aktivator Fly Ash , Trass dan Lumpur Sidoarjo dalam Beton Sodium sebagai Aktivator Fly Ash , Trass dan Lumpur Sidoarjo dalam Beton Geopolimer,” no. April 2013, 2014, doi: 10.5614/jts.2013.20.1.1.
[17] SNI 03-2834-2000, “SNI 03-2834-2000: Tata cara pembuatan rencana campuran beton normal,” Sni 03-2834-2000, pp. 1–34, 2000.
[18] Badan Standardisasi Nasional, “SNI 2460:2014 Spesifikasi abu terbang batubara dan pozolan alam mentah atau yang telah dikalsinasi untuk digunakan dalam beton,” p. 16, 2014.
[19] J. Teknik et al., “Penerapan Mortar Geopolimer Ringan Berbasis Fly Ash PLTU Pangkalan Susu dengan Penambahan EPS untuk Elemen Non Struktural,” vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 185–189, 2021.
[20] F. V. Supit, R. Pandaleke, and S. O. Dapas, “Pemeriksaan Kuat Tarik Belah Beton Dengan Variasi Agregat Yang Berasal Dari Beberapa Tempat Di Sulawesi Utara,” J. Ilm. Media Eng., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 476–484, 2016.
[21] Soelarso, Baehaki, and N. F. Sidik, “Pengaruh Penggunaan Limbah Beton Sebagai Pengganti Agregat Kasar Pada Beton Normal Terhadap Kuat Tekan Dan Modulus Elastisitas,” J. Fondasi, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 22–29, 2016.