Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
2023 Feb 28;6(2):277–289. doi: 10.1007/s41939-023-00147-y

Experimental investigation of geopolymer concrete along with biomedical and bone China waste at different molarities of sodium hydroxide

Rishi 1,✉, Vanita Aggarwal 1
PMCID: PMC9974050

Abstract

In this study, geopolymer concrete (GPC) is prepared using fly ash as source material along with alkaline activators (sodium hydroxide + sodium silicate) for sustainable development. There are three different sodium hydroxide molarities: 8, 12, and 16 utilised. Incinerated biomedical waste ash (BMW) and bone China waste (BCW) are substituted for the fine aggregates in GPC at varying ratios of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50%. The utilisation of wastes in place of fine aggregates in GPC are helpful in solving the dumping problem of wastes, saving energy, and natural resources (sand quarries). The results showed that, relative to the control mix, the density, workability, and strength increased up to 60% replacement of sand by 30% BMW and 30% BCW and beyond this, the strength and other properties decreased. In contrast to the combination of 50% BMW and 0% BCW, the mix with 50% BCW and 0% BMW demonstrated great strength. In terms of molarity, the mixes with 16 M sodium hydroxide concentration showed higher workability, density, strength and lower air content as compared to the mixes with 8 M and 12 M sodium hydroxide concentration.

Keywords: Fly ash, Alkaline activator, Strength, Air content, Density

Introduction

Concrete is the most widely used material in construction, and it is typically made from cement, water, and aggregates without the addition of any other cement-based materials or additives (Monteiro et al. 2017). Due to the enormous quantity of cementitious materials in global production, current procedures used in preparing the constituents for concrete have a significant consumption of energy and greenhouse gas emissions (Heede and Belie 2012). Each tonne of cement manufacturing produces around 0.65–0.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide (Parveen et al. 2018). To create green and sustainable concrete, researchers are eager to reduce the enormous co2 emissions, energy use, and resource usage (Hillman and Ramaswami 2010). At the same time, agricultural wastes and wastes from other industries, such as fly ash (F.A.), RHA, blast furnace slag (GGBS), glass powder, and CCA, are causing significant dumping and disposal issues (Guo et al. 2010). Utilising these wastes will thereby lessen the demand for landfills and the burden on municipal committees (Parveen and Jindal 2019). Alkaline solutions (Davidovits 1991) such as sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide are typically used to activate geopolymer concrete (GPC), which is typically made from waste materials from industrial processes. Researchers have recently concentrated on employing waste-based activators rather than alkaline activators in the GPC to further reduce CO2 footprints (Passuello et al. 2017; Moraes et al. 2018; Ahmed et al. 2018). Recent developments in the field of GPC (Jindal et al. 2017) demonstrated that it seems to be an environmentally friendly building material since it uses industrial wastes (Temuujin et al. 2010) and requires less energy and labour to dispose of Provis (2014). Additionally, the self-sustaining geopolymers have carbon footprints that are roughly 9% lower than those of regular cement-based concrete (Turner and Collins 2013). Additionally, self-sustaining GPC performs similarly to standard concrete in terms of durability and strength (Wang et al. 2020). Investigations on GPC have included adding it to concrete mixes (Zareei et al. 2018), repairing and updating materials, and fire-resisting buildings (Vasconcelos et al. 2011). Amazing achievements have been attained, particularly in the fields of pavements (Phummiphan et al. 2018), masonry buildings (Arulrajah et al. 2016), reinforced GPC composites (Phoo-Ngernkham et al. 2015), and restoration elements (Saloni and Pham 2020). Consequently, self-sustaining GPC can be used as a construction and alternative building material. For several reasons, including those indicated below, this analysis also took into account bone China waste (BCW) and biomedical waste (BMW), in addition to F.A.

Industrial and BMW wastes are examples of hazardous waste and both may comprise poisonous substances. During 2019, 4013.2 tonnes of planned waste were produced, an increase of 8.3 per cent per year from 2015 to 2019 (Prime Minister’s Department 2021). Hospital waste, also referred to as BMW, is generated during processes for diagnosing, treating, or immunising people or animals, as well as when doing research in these areas. In the decades that followed, clinical activities produced more harmful and possibly dangerous substances, and waste production increased worldwide. Additionally, waste generated by treatment methods is a serious problem in both natural and inhabited areas. It is, therefore, probable that BMW will be classified as hazardous waste. All BMW must be disposed of in the most environmentally and human-friendly way possible. Hospital waste is any solid or liquid waste that is produced while diagnosing, treating, or immunising people or animals, or while conducting relevant research, manufacturing, or testing of that waste (Biswal 2013). This includes the waste container and any intermediary products.

Waste volume and weight are reduced by 90% and 75%, respectively, by the incineration process, which also eliminates dangerous substances including germs and poisonous chemicals (Ayilara et al. 2020). By reliably destroying dangerous elements including pathogens, bacteria, viruses, prions, and similar organisms with toxic chemicals, waste volume and weight are reduced by 90% and 75%, respectively (Anicetus et al. 2020). Wet thermal treatment, chemical disinfection, microwave irradiation, and landfill disposal are some of the techniques utilised to handle BMW, with incineration serving as the most widely employed special process (Retnaraj et al. 2021).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant amount of BMW has been produced globally (Asian Development Bank (ADB) 2020). By incinerating this waste, ASH has been formed, which can be better disposed of by using it in the building industry.

Bone ash or calcined bone is used in the production of bone China, which makes it one of the costliest raw materials for the dinnerware industry but generally more translucent and durable than kaolin-based porcelain (Douglas et al. 2015). As a result, it is one of the crucial factors in figuring out how much Bone China ware would cost. However, it is crucial to note that the calcination and cleaning of bones can contribute to pollution, particularly when combustible gases are burned. Utilising Bone China waste is crucial for the tableware sector because of its expensive price as well as its effects on the environment.

The goal of this study is to determine whether it is feasible to replace some of the fine aggregates in concrete with BCW and BMW. In addition to lowering building costs, the effective use of BMW and BCW in F.A.-based GPC would also significantly less environmental deterioration risk.

The novelty of this study is:

  1. Use of waste materials in concrete solving dumping problems.

  2. Reduction of greenhouse effect (CO2) by reducing the use of cement.

  3. Saving energy and natural resources (sand Quarries).

  4. Sustainable development.

The objectives of the study are:

  1. To develop high strength GPC by utilising by-products.

  2. To reduce the cement utilisation as production of cement releases CO2 to atmosphere.

  3. To reduce the utilisation of natural resources.

Materials used

Fly ash (F.A.) was used as the main raw material to prepare the GPC binder. A very active, silicon and alumina-rich source material is called F.A. A little quantity of calcium aluminosilicate gel (C–(A)–S–H) can occur due to the high Ca content in F.A. The result is primarily C–(A)–S–H, and N–A–S–(H) is impossible to coexist when the concentration of Ca is raised to a certain extent (for instance, the Ca/Si ratio of binder is above 0.2 (Qin et al. 2020). In addition, the composition of binders shows that strength rises as the Si/Al ratio increases (Nath and Sarker 2014). For the same type of raw materials, different suppliers will also result in varying GPC efficiencies, which is another challenging area for GPC standardisation. The F.A. was gathered from the nearby thermal power plant, while the BMW was gathered from a Delhi kiln. F.A. had a specific surface area of 465 m2/kg and a density of 2.5 g/cm3. Table 1 displays the F.A., BMW, and BCW physical and chemical characteristics. The chemical composition of materials was determined by Raicon labs Panipat. BCW was gathered from a factory that was close by. As an alkaline activator, the blend of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide was used and taken from a local supplier. Fine aggregates (Fa) following IS 383: 1970 (IS 2016) confirming zone II and coarse aggregates (CA) of size 12.5–19 mm, following IS 2386: 1963 (Bureau of Indian Standard 2386) were utilised. Figures 1 and 2 show the sample images of materials used and aggregate grading curves respectively.

Table 1.

Physical and chemical attributes of materials used

Physical and chemical properties F.A BMW BCW
Specific gravity (kg/cm3) 2.5 2.8 2.9
Fineness (passing 45 µm) 3 4.1 3.7
Al2O3 (%) 27.8 10.0 2.5
SiO2 (%) 50.9 20.0 1
CaO (%) 4.2 35 50
Fe2O3 (%) 6.5 6.4 0.3
MgO (%) 1.2 2.2 1.4
Na2O (%) 1.3 2.6 2.2
TiO2 (%) – 2.71 –
FeO (%) – – –
SO3 (%) 0.9 5.7 –
K2O (%) – 0.6 1.4
P2O5 (%) 0.5 1.167 35
LOI (%) 3.1 – 4.2
Cl (%) – 5.4 –
Others (%) 3.6 7.723 2
Open in a new tab

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Sample images of materials

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Grading curves of aggregates

Specimen preparation and testing

For specimen preparation in the pan half of the liquids (water, alkaline activator, and superplasticizer, which were weighed as indicated in Table 2) are thoroughly mixed for two minutes with the dry ingredients (F.A., BMW, BCW sand, and coarse aggregate). Then, the remaining liquids were added and thoroughly mixed once more for two minutes, until the mixture was homogeneous. Here, the mix design of Abbass M and Singh G has been used (Abbass and Singh 2022a) which is same as Rangan mix design (Rangan 2014). Moulds were made and allowed to cure for seven, twenty-eight, and ninety days at an elevated temperature of 60℃. The control mixture, or FAB0C0, contains no BMW and BCW just F.A. as the binder. The terms 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 signify the percentage of fine aggregates replaced with BMW and BCW in all other GPC mixes. The trial mix proportions are summarised in Table 2. The mix FAB50C0 denotes the mix with 50% replacing fine aggregate with BMW and zero BCW. The mix FAB0C50 denotes the mix with 50% replacing fine aggregate with BCW and zero BMW.

Table 2.

Mix proportions of trial mixes

Mix FAB0C0 FAB10C10 FAB20C20 FAB30C30 FAB40C40 FAB50C50 FAB50C0 FAB0C50
Na2SiO3/NaOH 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
NaOH (kg/m3) 66.67 66.67 66.67 66.67 66.67 66.67 66.67 66.67
AA/BC 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Na2SiO3 (kg/m3) 133.33 133.33 133.33 133.33 133.33 133.33 133.33 133.33
Superplasticizer (kg/m3) 21.31 21.31 21.31 21.31 21.31 21.31 21.31 21.31
Extra water (kg/m3) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
NaOH (M) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
F.A. (kg/m3) 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
CA (kg/m3) 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906
FA (kg/m3) 475.0 380.0 285.0 190.0 95.0 0.00 237.5 237.5
BMW (kg/m3) 0.00 47.5 95 142.5 190 237.5 237.5 0.00
BCW (kg/m3) 0.00 47.5 95 142.5 190 237.5 0.00 237.5
Open in a new tab

To study the properties of fresh geopolymer concrete, three different tests were performed, namely slump flow test; density, and air content tests; and initial setting time (IST). The tests were in agreement with ASTM C143 (ASTM C143, C143M 2015), ASTM C403 (Astm C403, C403M-99,1999), and ASTM C138 (Astm:C138, C138M-13,2013), respectively. Compressive, split tensile and flexural strength tests were performed on hardened geopolymer concrete in agreement with ASTM C39 (ASTM 2008), ASTM C496 (ASTM C496 2011) and ASTM C293 (C293–15 Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading) 2015), respectively.

Results and discussion

Workability

Figure 3 depicts the value of slump in mm of the mixes with different BMW, and BCW percentages and three sodium hydroxide concentrations of 8, 12, and 16 M. The value of slump of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 100 to 140 mm, the highest slump was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest slump was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The slump achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 110 mm which was greater than FAB50C0.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Slump values of the mixes

The slump of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 115 to 160 mm, the highest slump was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest slump was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The slump achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 120 mm which was greater than FAB50C0.

The slump of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 120 to 165 mm, the highest slump was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest slump was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The slump achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 135 mm which was greater than FAB50C0.

The increase in workability is due to the fineness of the materials used as it has been suggested that increased fineness of materials results in increased workability (Kumaravel and Sivakumar 2018; Farhan et al. 2018). The molarity of sodium hydroxide also played role in the increased workability of the mixes as an increase in molarity from 8 to 16 M results in increased workability of GPC mixes (Abbass and Singh 2021a; Gunasekara et al. 2015, 2016). The micro-filler effect of BMW is also responsible for the high workability of the mixes as it is suggested that the use of 30% BMW as replacement of GGBFS in GPC has resulted in high workability (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022a, b, c, 2023; Arunachalam et al. 2022). The enhanced workability is also seen when the replacement of fly ash in GPC by 30% waste wood ash is done (Arunkumar et al. 2023, 2021, 2022a, b; Arun et al. 2022).

Density and air content

Figure 4 depicts the density of the mixes with different BMW, and BCW percentages and three sodium hydroxide concentrations of 8, 12, and 16 M. The density of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 2270 to 2380 kg/m3, the highest density was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest density was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The density achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 2300 kg/m3 which was greater than FAB50C0.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Density of the mixes

The density of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 2300 to 2400 kg/m3, the highest density was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest density was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The density achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 2330 kg/m3 which was greater than FAB50C0.

The density of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 2350 to 2460 kg/m3, the highest density was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest density was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The density achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 2380 kg/m3 which was greater than FAB50C0.

The mixtures containing a 16 M concentration of sodium hydroxide achieved the maximum density overall. Stronger and denser materials are produced when sodium hydroxide concentrations are raised from 8 to 16 M (Kumaravel and Sivakumar 2018; Farhan et al. 2018; Abbass and Singh 2021a; Gunasekara et al. 2015, 2016). The micro-filler effect of BMW is also responsible for the high density of the mixes as it is suggested that the use of 30% BMW as replacement of GGBFS in GPC has resulted in high density (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023; Arunachalam et al. 2022). The enhanced density is also reported, when the replacement of fly ash in GPC by 30% waste wood ash is done (Arunkumar et al. 2023, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Arun et al. 2022). The use of waste glass powder along with BMW in GPC has resulted in compact bonding ultimately resulting in high density of GPC mixes (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022b, 2022c).

Figure 5 depicts the air content (AC) of the mixes with different BMW, and BCW percentages and three sodium hydroxide concentrations of 8, 12, and 16 M. The AC of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 1.54 to 2.1%, the lowest AC was attained by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was lesser than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the highest AC was attained by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The AC attained by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 1.9% which was lesser than FAB50C0.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Air content of the mixes

The AC of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 1.5 to 1.9%, the lowest AC was attained by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30 as replacement of sand which was lesser than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the highest AC was attained by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The AC attained by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 1.84% which was lesser than FAB50C0.

The AC of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 1.48 to 1.82%, the lowest AC was attained by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was lesser than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the highest AC was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The AC by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 1.75% which was lesser than FAB50C0.

The overall lowest air content was attained by the mixes with a 16 M concentration of sodium hydroxide. An increase in the level of sodium hydroxide from 12 to 16 M results in increased strength (Gunasekara 2016; Adesanya and Raheem 2009; Jindal et al. 2018). The air content of the mixes depends on the shape and size of the particles in the mixes (Nath and Sarker 2017; Hardjito et al. 2004; Diaz-Loya et al. 2011; Abbass and Singh 2021b, c, 2022b; Arora, et al. 2022; Hadi et al. 2019; Iftiqar Ahmed and Siddiraju 2016; Hamidi et al. 2016; Dhirendra Singhal and Garg 2017; Abbass et al. 2021).

Compressive strength

Figure 6 depicts the 7-, 28-, and 56-day compressive strength (CST) of the mixes with different BMW, BCW percentages and three sodium hydroxide concentrations of 8, 12, and 16 M. The seven days CST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 20 to 43 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The CST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 28 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days CST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 25 to 48 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The CST achieved by FAB0C50 was 32 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days CST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 26.4 to 50 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The CST achieved by FAB0C50 was 33 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Compressive strength of the mixes

The seven days CST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 25 to 48 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30 as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The CST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 32 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days CST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 30 to 55 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The CST achieved by FAB0C50 was 37 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days CST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 31.2 to 56 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The CST achieved by FAB0C50 was 38 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

The seven days CST of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 30 to 53 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The CST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 36 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days CST of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 33 to 59 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The CST achieved by FAB0C50 was 40 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days CST of the mixes with 16 M concentration of sodium hydroxide varied from 34.5 to 62 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The CST achieved by FAB0C50 was 44 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

The highest CST was obtained at a 16 M concentration of sodium hydroxide. An increase in the level of sodium hydroxide from 12 to 16 M results in increased strength (Gunasekara 2016; Adesanya and Raheem 2009; Jindal et al. 2018; Nath and Sarker 2017; Hardjito et al. 2004). The increased specific surface area of the F.A., which aids in the dissolving, better gel formation, and coagulation of geopolymers, may be the cause of the high CST (Abbass and Singh 2022a; Rangan 2014). Additionally, the degree of homogeneity and uniformity of the Al2O3 and SiO2 distribution in F.A. has a direct impact on how quickly the amorphous outer surface dissolves. The development of the geopolymeric gel and the inclusion of aluminium in the gel matrix are both influenced by the degree of dissolution [70–73]. To achieve high CST, a significant amount of aluminium must be present in octahedral co-ordination in the F.A. and must be converted into tetrahedral units following alkali decomposition. Moreover, in the development of homogenous, well-compacted geopolymeric gel and the generation of high CST GPC, the stable and comfortable transfer of aluminium from octahedral to tetrahedral co-ordination is more essential than the total amount of octahedrally coordinated aluminium (Gunasekara et al. 2015, 2016; Gunasekara 2016).

The micro-filler effect of BMW is also responsible for the high CST of the mixes as it is suggested that the use of 30% BMW as replacement of GGBFS in GPC has resulted in high CST (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022a, b, c, 2023; Arunachalam et al. 2022). The enhanced CST is also reported, when the replacement of fly ash in GPC by 30% waste wood ash is done (Arunkumar et al. 2023, 2021, 2022a, b; Arun et al. 2022). The use of waste glass powder along with BMW in GPC has resulted in compact bonding ultimately resulting in high CST (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022b, c). The self-healing GPC with 1% bacillus subtilis and bacillus sphaericus along with 0.75% glass fibre and 0.25% polypropylene fibre has resulted in increased CST more than 27.75% due to compact bonding and high-density gain (Ganesh et al. 2021).

Split tensile strength

Figure 7 depicts the 7-, 28-, and 56-day split tensile strength (STST) of the mixes with different BMW, BCW percentages and three sodium hydroxide concentrations of 8, 12, and 16 M. The seven days STST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 2.91 to 3.6 MPa, the highest CST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30 as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The STST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 3 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days STST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 3 to 3.9 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The STST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.2 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days STST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 3.1 to 5 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The STST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.3 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Split tensile strength of the mixes

The seven days STST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 3.4 to 4.5 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The STST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 3.8 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days STST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 3 to 5.2 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The STST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.7 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days STST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 3.8 to 5.5 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The STST achieved by FAB0C50 was 4 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

The seven days STST of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 3.9 to 5.3 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The STST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 3.9 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days STST of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 4 to 5.6 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest CST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The STST achieved by FAB0C50 was 4.2 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days STST of the mixes with 16 M concentration of sodium hydroxide varied from 4.2 to 5.8 MPa, the highest STST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest STST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The STST achieved by FAB0C50 was 4.4 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The CST and STST were previously reported to have increased as a result of the manufacturing of GPC using high silica and calcium-based components (Nath and Sarker 2017; Hardjito et al. 2004; Diaz-Loya et al. 2011; Abbass and Singh 2021b, c, 2022b; Arora, et al. 2022; Hadi et al. 2019; Iftiqar Ahmed and Siddiraju 2016; Hamidi et al. 2016; Dhirendra Singhal and Garg 2017; Abbass et al. 2021).

The micro-filler effect of BMW is also responsible for the high STST of the mixes as it is suggested that the use of 30% BMW as replacement of GGBFS in GPC has resulted in high STST (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022a, b, c, 2023; Arunachalam et al. 2022). The enhanced STST is also reported, when the replacement of fly ash in GPC by 30% waste wood ash is done (Arunkumar et al. 2023, 2021, 2022a, b; Arun et al. 2022). The use of waste glass powder along with BMW in GPC has resulted in increased fracture resistance and compact bonding ultimately resulting in high STST (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022b, c). The self-healing GPC with 1% bacillus subtilis and bacillus sphaericus along with 0.75% glass fibre and 0.25% polypropylene fibre has resulted in increased STST more than 46.15% due to compact bonding and high-density gain (Ganesh et al. 2021).

Flexural strength

Figure 8 depicts the 7-, 28-, and 56-day flexural strength (FST) of the mixes with different BMW, BCW percentages and three sodium hydroxide concentrations of 8, 12, and 16 M. The seven days FST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 2 to 4.3 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The FST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 2.9 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days FST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 2.5 to 4.8 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The FST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.3 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days FST of the mixes with 8 M concentration varied from 2.7 to 4.6 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The FST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.4 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Flexural strength of the mixes

The seven days FST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 2.6 to 4.8 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The FST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 3.2 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days FST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 3 to 5.5 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The FST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.7 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days FST of the mixes with 12 M concentration varied from 3.2 to 5.6 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The FST achieved by FAB0C50 was 3.9 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0.

The seven days FST of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 3.1 to 5.3 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by the mix having 30% of BMW and 30% of BCW (FAB30C30) as replacement of sand which was greater than the control mix (FAB0C0) with 0% BMW and BCW, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix having 50% of BMW and 0% of BCW (FAB50C0). The FST achieved by the mix with 0% BMW and 50% BCW (FAB0C50) was 3.6 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The twenty-eight days FST of the mixes with 16 M concentration varied from 3.3 to 5.9 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The FST achieved by FAB0C50 was 4.1 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The fifty-six days FST of the mixes with 16 M concentration of sodium hydroxide varied from 3.5 to 6.2 MPa, the highest FST was achieved by FAB30C30, and the lowest FST was achieved by the mix FAB50C0. The FST achieved by FAB0C50 was 4.4 MPa which was greater than FAB50C0. The FST of GPC that had been cured at room temperature mostly followed the same growth trend as the FST of OPC concrete, according to a comparison of the engineering properties of GPC with various additives and the corresponding OPC (Jindal et al. 2018; Nath and Sarker 2017; Hardjito et al. 2004; Diaz-Loya et al. 2011; Abbass and Singh 2021b, 2021c, 2022b; Arora, et al. 2022; Hadi et al. 2019; Iftiqar Ahmed and Siddiraju 2016; Hamidi et al. 2016; Dhirendra Singhal and Garg 2017; Abbass et al. 2021). GPC of an equivalent grade demonstrated greater FST than OPC (Gunasekara 2016; Adesanya and Raheem 2009; Jindal et al. 2018; Nath and Sarker 2017; Hardjito et al. 2004; Diaz-Loya et al. 2011; Abbass and Singh 2021b, 2021c, 2022b; Arora, et al. 2022; Hadi et al. 2019; Iftiqar Ahmed and Siddiraju 2016; Hamidi et al. 2016; Dhirendra Singhal and Garg 2017; Abbass et al. 2021). Additionally, this held for both ambient and heat-cured GPCs. The observed trend was consistent with the present research.

The micro-filler effect of BMW is also responsible for the high FST of the mixes as it is suggested that the use of 30% BMW as replacement of GGBFS in GPC has resulted in high FST (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023; Arunachalam et al. 2022). The enhanced STST is also reported, when the replacement of fly ash in GPC by 30% waste wood ash is done (Arunkumar et al. 2023, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Arun et al. 2022). The use of waste glass powder along with BMW in GPC has resulted in increased fracture resistance and compact bonding ultimately resulting in high FST (Suresh Kumar et al. 2022b, 2022c). The self-healing GPC with 1% bacillus subtilis and bacillus sphaericus along with 0.75% glass fibre and 0.25% polypropylene fibre has resulted in increased FST more than 53.70% due to compact bonding and high-density gain (Ganesh et al. 2021).

Conclusion

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study.

  • The F.A.-based GPC along with BMW (30%) and BCW (30%) as replacement of sand has obtained more density and lesser air voids as compared to the control mix which is F.A.-based GPC without BMW and BCW.

  • There was a significant increase in workability by the addition of BMW and BCW up to 30% each (total of 60%) in the GPC mixes as compared to the control mix.

  • The CST, STST, and FST showed a significant increase as compared to the control mix when the fine aggregates were replaced by BMW and BCW 30% each (total of 60%) in the mixes.

  • The molarity of sodium hydroxide played important role in the case of workability, density, air content, and strength. As the molarity of sodium hydroxide was increased from 8 to 16 M., all parameters except air content showed a significant increase.

  • Strength, workability, and density increased linearly with the increase in sodium hydroxide concentration, the significantly increased results were obtained at the 16 M sodium hydroxide concentration.

Author contributions

RD: Conceptualization, Methodology, testing, writing. VA: Guide, Supervision.

Data availability statement

All data, Models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted manuscript.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Rishi, Email: rishidhiman52@yahoo.com.

Vanita Aggarwal, Email: aggarwal_vanita@rediffmail.com.

References

  1. Abbass M, Singh G. Rice husk ash and basalt fibre-based sustainable geopolymer concrete in rigid pavements under ambient curing conditions. In: Shukla SK, Raman SN, Bhattacharjee B, Bhattacharjee J, editors. Advances in geotechnics and structural engineering. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Singapore: Springer; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbass M, Singh G. Materials today: proceedings fatigue analysis of rice husk ash and basalt fibre-based sustainable geopolymer concrete in rigid pavements. Mater Today Proc. 2021;45:5014–5022. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.450. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abbass M, Singh G. Impact strength of rice husk ash and basalt fibre based sustainable geopolymer concrete in rigid pavements. Mater Today Proc. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.053. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Abbass, M., Singh, G. (2022a). Optimum mix design of rice husk ash-based geopolymer concrete based on workability, setting time, and compressive strength cured in ambient temperature condition. In: Das BB, Gomez CP, Mohapatra BG (eds) Recent developments in sustainable infrastructure (ICRDSI-2020)—structure and construction management. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 221. Springer, Singapore
  5. Abbass M, Singh G. Durability of rice husk ash and basalt fibre based sustainable geopolymer concrete in rigid pavements. Mater Today Proc. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.196. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Abbass M, Singh D, Singh G. Properties of hybrid geopolymer concrete prepared using rice husk ash, fly ash and GGBS with coconut fibre. Mater Today Proc. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.390. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Adesanya DA, Raheem AA. A study of the workability and compressive strength characteristics of corn cob ash blended cement concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23:311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.12.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ahmed SA, Metwally MEA, Zakey SE. Utilizing industrial waste-water as alkali activator in sand-cement kiln dust bricks. Constr Build Mater. 2018;182:284–289. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.129. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. American Society of Testing and Materials (2015) C293—15 flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with center-point loading), ASTM Int., pp 1–3. 10.1520/C0293
  10. Anicetus H, Samwel M, Josephat S, Julius M (2020) Assessment of air pollutant emissions from healthcare waste incinerators of different design features. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 14(10):311–328. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJEST
  11. Arora S, et al. ‘Environmental Science and Pollution Research Strength, durability, and microstructure of self-compacting geopolymer concrete produced with copper slag aggregates’, (July) Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22170-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Arulrajah A, Kua TA, Horpibulsuk S, Phetchuay C, Suksiripattanapong C, Du YJ. Strength and microstructure evaluation of recycled glass-fly ash geopolymer as low-carbon masonry units. Constr Build Mater. 2016;114:400–406. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Arun KK, Muthukannan M, Abinaya RR, Suresh AK (2022) structural behaviour of green geopolymer concrete beams and columns made with waste wood ash a partial substitution binder. In: Materials science forum, vol 1048. Trans Tech Publications, Ltd, pp 333–344. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.1048.333
  14. Arunachalam SK, Muthiah M, Rangaswamy KD, Kadarkarai A, Arunasankar CG. Improving the structural performance of reinforced geopolymer concrete incorporated with hazardous heavy metal waste ash. World J Eng. 2022;19(6):808–821. doi: 10.1108/WJE-01-2021-0055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Arunkumar K, Muthukannan M, Kumar AS, Ganesh AC, Devi RK. Production of eco-friendly geopolymer concrete by using waste wood ash for a sustainable environment. Pollution. 2021;7:993–1006. [Google Scholar]
  16. Arunkumar K, Muthukannan M, Kumar AS, Ganesh AC, Devi RK. Hybrid fibre reinforced eco-friendly geopolymer concrete made with waste wood ash: a mechanical characterization study. Eng Appl Sci Res. 2022;49:235–247. [Google Scholar]
  17. Arunkumar K, Muthukannan M, Kumar AS, Ganesh AC, Devi RK. Cleaner environment approach by the utilization of low calcium wood ash in geopolymer concrete. Appl Sci Eng Prog. 2022;15:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  18. Arunkumar K, Muthukannan M, Suresh Kumar A, Chithambar Ganesh A, Kanniga Devi R. Incorporation of waste wood ash and polypropylene fibre on the production of sustainable GPC. In: Hau KK, Gupta AK, Chaudhary S, Gupta T, editors. Recent advances in structural engineering and construction management. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Singapore: Springer; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  19. Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2020) Managing infectious medical waste during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2020 ADB. https://www.adb.org/terms-use#openaccess
  20. ASTM (2008) C39–05 standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, ASTM Int
  21. Astm C403/C403M-99 (1999) Standard test method for time of setting of concrete mixtures by penetration resistance, Annu. B. ASTM Stand
  22. ASTM C496 (2011) Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, ASTM Int. i 5. 10.1520/C0496
  23. Astm:C138/C138M-13 (2013) Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air content (gravimetric), ASTM Int. 10.1520/C0138
  24. ASTM C143/C143M (2015) Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete, Astm C143. 10.1520/C0143
  25. Ayilara M, Olanrewaju O, Babalola O, Odeyemi O. Waste management through composting: challenges and potentials. Sustainability. 2020;12(11):4456. doi: 10.3390/su12114456. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Biswal S. Liquid biomedical waste management: an emerging concern for physicians. Muller J Med Sci Res. 2013;4(2):99–106. doi: 10.4103/0975-9727.118238. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Bureau of Indian Standard (1963) Method of test for aggregate for concrete. IS 2386 (Part III)
  28. Davidovits J. Geopolymers. J Therm Anal. 1991;37:1633–1656. doi: 10.1007/bf01912193. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dhirendra Singhal P, Garg A. The behaviour of Fly Ash based Geopolymer Concrete in Fresh State. In J Sci Tech. 2017;10(31):1–4. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i31/113890. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Diaz-Loya EI, Allouche EN, Vaidya S. Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J. 2011 doi: 10.14359/51682495. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Douglas G, Kaneko TT, Kahn H, Conceiçao ES, Antoniassi L. Using bone ash as an additive in porcelain sintering. Ceram Int. 2015;41:487–496. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.08.096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Farhan NA, Sheikh MN, Hadi MNS. Behaviour of ambient cured steel fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete columns under axial and flexural loads. Structures. 2018;15:184–195. doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2018.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ganesh C, Muthukannan M, Kumar AS, Arunkumar K. Influence of bacterial strain combination in hybrid fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete subjected to heavy and very heavy traffic condition. J Adv Concr Technol. 2021;19:359–369. doi: 10.3151/jact.19.359. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gunasekara C (2016) Influence of properties of fly ash from different sources on the mix design and performance of geopolymer concrete. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of RMIT, Australia
  35. Gunasekara C, Law DW, Setunge S, Sanjayan JG. Zeta potential, gel formation and compressive strength of low calcium fly ash geopolymers. Constr Build Mater. 2015;95(1):592–599. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.175. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gunasekara C, Law DW, Setunge S. Long term permeation properties of different fly ash geopolymer concretes. Constr Build Mater. 2016;124:352–362. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Guo X, Shi H, Dick WA. Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer. Cem Concr Compos. 2010;32:142–147. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.11.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hadi MNS, Zhang H, Parkinson S. Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and concretes cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time and workability. J Build Eng. 2019;23:301–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hamidi RM, Man Z, Azizi K. Concentration of NaOH and the effect on the properties of fly ash based geopolymer. Procedia Eng. 2016;148:189–193. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.568. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J. 2004 doi: 10.14359/13485. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hillman T, Ramaswami A. Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for eight U.S. cities. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:1902–1910. doi: 10.1021/es9024194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Iftiqar Ahmed A, Siddiraju S. Strength properties on fly ash based geopolymer concrete with admixtures. Int J Civil Eng Technology (IJCIET) 2016;7(3):4614. [Google Scholar]
  43. IS 383 (2016) Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete—specification, Bur. Indian Standards
  44. Jindal BB, Singhal D, Sharma SK, Parveen Suitability of ambient-cured alccofine added low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Indian J Sci Technol. 2017;10:1–10. doi: 10.1748/ijst/2017/v10i12/110428.33. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jindal BB, Singhal D, Sharma S, Parveen Enhancing mechanical and durability properties of geopolymer concrete with mineral admixture. Comput Concr. 2018 doi: 10.12989/cac.2018.21.3.345. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kumaravel S, Sivakumar I (2018) Influence of fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete
  47. Monteiro PJM, Miller SA, Horvath A. Towards sustainable concrete. Nat Mater. 2017;16:698–699. doi: 10.1038/nmat4930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Moraes JCB, Font A, Soriano L, Akasaki JL, Tashima MM, Monzó J, Borrachero MV, Payá J. New use of sugar cane straw ash in alkali-activated materials: A silica source for the preparation of the alkaline activator. Constr Build Mater. 2018;171:611–621. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.230. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Nath P, Sarker P. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Constr Build Mater. 2014;66:163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Nath P, Sarker PK. Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured blended low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Parveen D, Singhal MT, Junaid BB, Jindal A. Mehta, Mechanical and microstructural properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete incorporating alccofine at ambient curing. Constr Build Mater. 2018;180:298–307. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.286. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Parveen BB, Jindal MT, Junaid S. Mechanical and microstructural study of rice husk ash geopolymer paste with ultrafine slag. Adv Concr Constr. 2019;8:217–223. doi: 10.12989/acc.2019.8.3.217. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Passuello A, Rodríguez ED, Hirt E, Longhi M, Bernal SA, Provis JL, Kirchheim AP. Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators. J Clean Prod. 2017;166:680–689. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Phoo-Ngernkham T, Sata V, Hanjitsuwan S, Ridtirud C, Hatanaka S, Chindaprasirt P. High calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar containing Portland cement for use as repair material. Constr Build Mater. 2015;98:482–488. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Arulrajah A, Shen SL, Chindaprasirt P. High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast furnace slag blends as a pavement base material. J Hazard Mater. 2018;341:257–267. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Prime Minister’s Department (2021) Environment statistics 2020—Press Release. Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 20 August 2021. http://www.dosm.gov.my
  57. Provis JL. Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: why, how, and what? Mater Struct Constr. 2014;47:11–25. doi: 10.1617/s11527-013-0211-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Qin LF, Qu B, Shi CJ, Zhang JH. Effect of Ca/Si ratio on the formation and characteristics of aluminosilicate gel. Mater Rep. 2020;34:12057. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rangan BV (2014) Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Geopolym Cem Concr 68–106
  60. Retnaraj J, Selvan S, Durairaj J, Christyraj S, Adhimoorthy P, Rajagopalan K, Jebaranjitham JN (2021) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on green societies. In: Chakraborty C, Roy S, Sharma S, Tran TA (eds) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on green societies. Springer, Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-030-66490-9
  61. Saloni P, Pham TM. Enhanced properties of high-silica rice husk ash-based geopolymer paste by incorporating basalt fibers. Constr Build Mater. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118422. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Suresh Kumar A, Muthukannan M, Arunkumar K, Sriram M, Vigneshwar R, Gulshan Sikkandar A (2022a) Development of eco-friendly geopolymer concrete by utilizing hazardous industrial waste materials. In: Materials today: proceedings, vol 66, Part 4, pp 152–225. 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.039
  63. Suresh Kumar A, Muthukannan M, Arun Kumar K, Chithambar Ganesh A, Kanniga Devi R. Influence of incinerated biomedical waste ash and waste glass powder on the mechanical and flexural properties of reinforced geopolymer concrete. Aust J Struct Eng. 2022;23(3):254–268. doi: 10.1080/13287982.2022.2044613. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Suresh Kumar A, Muthukannan M, Arunkumar K, et al. Utilisation of waste glass powder to improve the performance of hazardous incinerated biomedical waste ash geopolymer concrete. Innov Infrastruct Solut. 2022;7:93. doi: 10.1007/s41062-021-00694-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Suresh Kumar A, Muthukannan M, Arun Kumar K, Chithambar Ganesh A, Kanniga Devi R. Development of environmental-friendly geopolymer concrete using incinerated biomedical waste ash. In: Hau KK, Gupta AK, Chaudhary S, Gupta T, editors. Recent advances in structural engineering and construction management. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Singapore: Springer; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  66. Temuujin J, Van Riessen A, MacKenzie KJD. Preparation and characterisation of fly ash based geopolymer mortars. Constr Build Mater. 2010;24:1906–1910. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Turner LK, Collins FG. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2013;43:125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Van Den Heede P, De Belie N. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and “green” concretes Literature review and theoretical calculations. Cem Concr Compos. 2012;34:431–442. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Vasconcelos E, Fernandes S, Barroso De Aguiar JL, Pacheco-Torgal F. Concrete retrofitting using metakaolin geopolymer mortars and CFRP. Constr Build Mater. 2011;25:3213–3221. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wang A, Zheng Y, Zhang Z, Liu K, Li Y, Shi L, Sun D. The durability of alkali-activated materials in comparison with ordinary Portland cements and concretes: a review. Engineering. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.08.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zareei SA, Ameri F, Bahrami N. Microstructure, strength, and durability of eco-friendly concretes containing sugarcane bagasse ash. Constr Build Mater. 2018;184:258–268. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data, Models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted manuscript.

Articles from Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES