The growing need for concrete around the world has led to both more concrete being made and more of it being used. Carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere when regular Portland cement is made, which contributes to global warming (OPC). because concrete that is good for the environment needs new kinds of binders. Using different binders could cut down on the energy needed to make traditional concrete and the amount of greenhouse gases it gives off. Portland cement puts out more carbon dioxide into the air than geopolymer. Geopolymer is an inorganic alumino-silicate polymer that is made without cement or water. Geopolymers are glues made from solid alumino-silicate and an extremely alkaline activating solution. Geopolymers can be made from things like fly ash and clay, which both have alumina and silica in them. In the last few decades, geopolymers have become a more popular alternative to Portland cement because they are more sustainable, durable, and longlasting than Portland cement. Geopolymer concrete looks nice and lasts a long time. The building gets stronger, which makes the number of cracks and breaks go down. This paper makes geopolymer mortar and concrete last longer, be easier to use, and be used in more places. Workability and strength are both affected by the way and temperature of curing, as well as by the shape of the aggregate, its strengths, its moisture content, how it is prepared, and how it is graded. Other things that can make a difference are the shape, strength, preparation, and grading of the aggregate.
Keywords: Precast concrete, clay, fly ash, geopolymer, cement replacement, Alumino-silicate binder
[This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer and Composites(jopc)]
1. Ferris J, Norman C, Sempik J. People, land and sustainability: Community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development. Social Policy & Administration. 2001 Dec;35(5):559–68.
2. Kastiukas G, Ruan S, Liang S, Zhou X. Development of precast geopolymer concrete via oven and microwave radiation curing with an environmental assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020 May 10;255:120290.
3. Branscomb LM. Sustainable cities: Safety and security. Technology in Society. 2006 Jan 1;28(1-2):225–34.
4. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. State of the world’s cities 2010/2011: Bridging the urban divide. Earthscan; 2010.
5. Kumar A, Sharma K, Dixit AR. A review of the mechanical and thermal properties of graphene and its hybrid polymer nanocomposites for structural applications. Journal of materials science. 2019 Apr;54(8):5992–6026.
6. Coaffee J. Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities. Energ Policy 2008; 36:4633-8.
7. White L, Lee GJ. Operational research and sustainable development: Tackling the social dimension. European Journal of Operational Research. 2009 Mar 16;193(3):683–92.
8. Chaturvedi R, Islam A, Sharma K. A review on the applications of PCM in thermal storage of solar energy. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021 Jan 1;43:293–7.
9. Wang W, Zmeureanu R, Rivard H. Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Building and environment. 2005 Nov 1;40(11):1512–25.
10. Singh PK, Sharma K. Mechanical and viscoelastic properties of in-situ amine functionalized multiple layer grpahene/epoxy nanocomposites. Current Nanoscience. 2018 Jun 1;14(3):252–62.
11. Palomo A, Blanco-Varela MT, Granizo ML, Puertas F, Vazquez T, Grutzeck MW. Chemical stability of cementitious materials based on metakaolin. Cement and Concrete research. 1999 Jul 1;29(7):997–1004.
12. Sharma A, Chaturvedi R, Sharma K, Saraswat M. Force evaluation and machining parameter optimization in milling of aluminium burr composite based on response surface method. Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies. 2022 Feb 20:1–22.
13. Amran M, Al-Fakih A, Chu SH, Fediuk R, Haruna S, Azevedo A, Vatin N. Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: An in-depth review. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 2021 Dec 1;15:e00661.
14. Maglad AM, Zaid O, Arbili MM, Ascensão G, Șerbănoiu AA, Grădinaru CM, García RM, Qaidi SM, Althoey F, de Prado-Gil J. A study on the properties of geopolymer concrete modified with nano graphene oxide. Buildings. 2022 Jul 22;12(8):1066.
15. Kumar A, Sharma K, Dixit AR. A review on the mechanical properties of polymer composites reinforced by carbon nanotubes and graphene. Carbon letters. 2021 Apr;31(2):149–65.
16. Gomes S, François M, Abdelmoula M, Refait P, Pellissier C, Evrard O. Characterization of magnetite in silico-aluminous fly ash by SEM, TEM, XRD, magnetic susceptibility, and Mössbauer spectroscopy. Cement and Concrete Research. 1999 Nov 1;29(11):1705–11.
17. Mohammed AA, Ahmed HU, Mosavi A. Survey of mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete: a comprehensive review and data analysis. Materials. 2021 Aug 20;14(16):4690.
18. Almutairi AL, Tayeh BA, Adesina A, Isleem HF, Zeyad AM. Potential applications of geopolymer concrete in construction: A review. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 2021 Dec 1;15:e00733.
19. Ma CK, Awang AZ, Omar W. Structural and material performance of geopolymer concrete: A review. Construction and Building Materials. 2018 Oct 20;186:90–102.
20. Singh NB, Kumar M, Rai S. Geopolymer cement and concrete: Properties. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2020 Jan 1;29:743–8.
|Received||December 12, 2022|
|Accepted||May 19, 2023|
|Published||June 15, 2023|