Development and Characterization of Bottom Ash–Fly Ash–GGBS-Based Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Applications

Year : 2025 | Volume : 13 | Special Issue 06 | Page : 32 42
    By

    Vignesh M.,

  • Gunaseelan K.,

  • Balamurugesan T.,

  • Elavarasan S.,

  • Santhosh Kumar P.,

  • Dinesh S.,

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
  2. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
  3. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
  4. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K P R Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
  5. Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R & D Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  6. Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dhanalakshmi College of Engineering, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract

The growing demand for sustainable construction materials has spotlighted geopolymer concrete (GPC) as an environmentally viable substitute for conventional cement-based systems. This study presents an innovative dual-waste valorization approach, integrating pulverized bottom ash (BA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as binders while replacing sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃) in the alkaline activator with treated textile effluent. Unlike prior works that focus solely on solid waste incorporation, this research pioneers the utilization of hazardous liquid effluent as a functional activator component, addressing both material performance and industrial wastewater remediation. Sixty GPC mixes were developed with varying BA: GGBS ratios (75:25, 50:50), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) concentrations (4M, 6M, 8M), and textile effluent replacements (0–100%), maintaining a constant alkaline-to-binder ratio. Ambient-cured specimens were evaluated for compressive strength, identifying two high-performing mixes for further mechanical and fire endurance testing. Notably, mix 6A2BG50E50 (6M NaOH, 50% BA, 50% effluent) achieved M40-grade strength and sustained fire exposure for four hours. This study demonstrates a robust, fire-resistant GPC formulation and introduces a novel method of repurposing both solid and liquid industrial wastes for sustainable infrastructure development.

Keywords: Geopolymer concrete; bottom ash; textile effluent; compressive strength; fire endurance.

[This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer and Composites (jopc)]

How to cite this article:
Vignesh M., Gunaseelan K., Balamurugesan T., Elavarasan S., Santhosh Kumar P., Dinesh S.. Development and Characterization of Bottom Ash–Fly Ash–GGBS-Based Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Applications. Journal of Polymer and Composites. 2025; 13(06):32-42.
How to cite this URL:
Vignesh M., Gunaseelan K., Balamurugesan T., Elavarasan S., Santhosh Kumar P., Dinesh S.. Development and Characterization of Bottom Ash–Fly Ash–GGBS-Based Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Applications. Journal of Polymer and Composites. 2025; 13(06):32-42. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2025/view=231740


Browse Figures

References

  1. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Emergency response planning guidelines and workplace environmental exposure level guides handbook. Fairfax, VA. 2001.
  2. Yuksel I, Bilir T, Ozkan O. Durability of concrete incorporating non-ground blast furnace slag and bottom ash as fine aggregate. Build Environ. 2007;42:2651–9.
  3. Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K. Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. J Hazard Mater. 2009;168(1):44–50.
  4. Atici U, Erosy A. Evaluation of destruction specific energy of fly ash and slag admixed concrete interlocking paving blocks (CIPB). Constr Build Mater. 2008;22:1507–14.
  5. Kurama H, Kaya M. Usage of coal combustion bottom ash in concrete mixture. Constr Build Mater. 2008;22:1922–8.
  6. Aldred J, Day J. Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional concrete? In: Proc Our World in Concrete & Structures Conf; 2012. p. 29–31.
  7. Mathew BJ, Sudhakar M, Natarajan C. Development of coal ash–GGBS based geopolymer bricks. Eur Int J Sci Technol. 2013;2(5):133–9.
  8. Mathew BJ, Sudhakar M, Natarajan C. Strength, economic and sustainability characteristics of coal ash–GGBS based geopolymer concrete. Int J Comput Eng Res. 2013;3:207–11.
  9. Islam A, Alengaram JU, Jumaat MZ, Bashar II. The development of compressive strength of ground granulated blast furnace slag–palm oil fuel ash–fly ash based geopolymer mortar. Mater Des. 2014;56:833–41.
  10. Chindaprasirt P, Chalee W. Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on chloride penetration and steel corrosion of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete under marine site. Constr Build Mater. 2014;63:303–10.
  11. Chitra S, Dhinakaran G. Effect of hot water curing and hot air oven curing on admixed concrete. Int J ChemTech Res. 2014;6(2):1516–23.
  12. Gorhan G, Kurklu G. The influence of the NaOH solution on the properties of the fly ash-based geopolymer mortar cured at different temperatures. Compos Part B Eng. 2014;58:371–7.
  13. Higashiyama H, Sappakittipakorn M, Mizukoshi M, Takahashi O. Efficiency of GGBS replacement in ceramic waste aggregate mortar. Cem Concr Compos. 2014;49:43–9.
  14. Thaarrini J, Venkatasubramani R. Feasibility studies on compressive strength of ground coal ash geopolymer mortar. Period Polytech Civ Eng. 2015;59(3):373–9.
  15. Davidovits J. Properties of geopolymer cements. In: Proc 1st Int Conf on Alkaline Cements and Concrete; 1994. p. 131–49.
  16. Sumesh KR, Palanisamy S, Khan T, Ajithram A, Ahmed OS. Mechanical, morphological and wear resistance of natural fiber/glass fiber-based polymer composites. BioResources. 2024;19(2):3271-89. .
  17. Palanisamy S, Kalimuthu M, Palaniappan M, Alavudeen A, Rajini N . Characterization of Acacia caesia bark fibers (ACBFs). J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(15):10241-52.
  18. Almeshaal M, Palanisamy S, Murugesan TM, Palaniappan M, Santulli C. Physico-chemical characterization of Grewia monticola Sond (GMS) fibers for prospective application in biocomposites. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(17):15276-90.
  19. Palaniappan M, Palanisamy S, Murugesan TM, Alrasheedi NH, Ataya S, Tadepalli S, et al. Novel Ficus retusa L. aerial root fiber: a sustainable alternative for synthetic fibres in polymer composites reinforcement. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2024.
  20. Palanisamy S, Kalimuthu M, Azeez A, Palaniappan M, Dharmalingam S, Nagarajan R, Santulli C. Wear properties and post-moisture absorption mechanical behavior of Kenaf/Banana-fiber-reinforced epoxy composites. 2022;10(4):32.
Special Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 13
Special Issue 06
Received 10/05/2025
Accepted 24/06/2025
Published 25/08/2025
Publication Time 107 Days
171

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics