4.6 Article

Sulfate Resistance of Recycled Aggregate Concrete with GGBS and Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma12081247

Keywords

recycled aggregates; geopolymer concrete; sulfate attack; hydration mechanism; ground granulated blast furnace slag; fly ash

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11627802,51678249, 11602060]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2017B020238006]
  3. Science and Technology Project Foundation of Guangzhou [201704030057, 201807010055, 201707010364]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is a constant drive for the development of ultra-high-performance concrete using modern green engineering technologies. These concretes have to exhibit enhanced durability and incorporate energy-saving and environment-friendly functions. The object of this work was to develop a green concrete with an improved sulfate resistance. In this new type of concrete, recycled aggregates from construction and demolition (C&D) waste were used as coarse aggregates, and granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and fly ash-based geopolymer were used to totally replace the cement in concrete. This study focused on the sulfate resistance of this geopolymer recycled aggregate concrete (GRAC). A series of measurements including compression, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) tests were conducted to investigate the physical properties and hydration mechanisms of the GRAC after different exposure cycles in a sulfate environment. The results indicate that the GRAC with a higher content of GGBS had a lower mass loss and a higher residual compressive strength after the sulfate exposure. The proposed GRACs, showing an excellent sulfate resistance, can be used in construction projects in sulfate environments and hence can reduce the need for cement as well as the disposal of C&D wastes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available