Investigation of Sulphate, Alkali and Carbonation Chemical attack in GGBS-Based Geopolymer Concrete and OPC Concrete

Year : 2025 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 06 | Page : 13 35
    By

    Akshay Dhawan,

  • Manvendra Verma,

  1. PhD Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India
  2. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract

This study presents a comparative evaluation of the durability of GGBFS-based Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) and OPC concrete in rapid carbonation, sulphate, and alkali environments. All samples were subjected to three severe conditions are carbonation at 4% CO₂, 25°C and 60% relative humidity, exposure to a 10% sodium sulphate (Na₂SO₄) solution, and immersion in a 10% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution for alkali resistance. The durability characteristics were evaluated by the compressive strength (CS) retention, weight variation, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), and carbonation depth. GPC-7 exhibited the highest strength retention, little weight loss, and the least depth of carbonation across all exposure circumstances. The GPC-7 mix, including 80% GGBFS, 10% fly ash, and 10% micro silica, surpassed the performance of the other ten concrete mixes. The alkaline activator comprises sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na₂SiO4), markedly improving geopolymerization and yielding a thick, chemically stable matrix in GPC mixes. The remarkable performance results from its meticulously controlled binder composition, decreased calcium hydroxide content, and refined pore structure achieved by the synergistic effects of fly ash and micro silica. These findings confirm that GPC-7 is a resilient, sustainable, and high-performance alternative to OPC concrete in chemically aggressive environments.

Keywords: Geopolymer concrete, chemical analysis; GGBFS, durability, carbonation, sulphate resistance, alkali resistance, RCPT, SEM, sustainable construction.

[This article belongs to Journal of Polymer and Composites ]

aWQ6MjI1NzQ1fGZpbGVuYW1lOjc0MWJjMWM1LWZpLmF2aWZ8c2l6ZTp0aHVtYm5haWw=
How to cite this article:
Akshay Dhawan, Manvendra Verma. Investigation of Sulphate, Alkali and Carbonation Chemical attack in GGBS-Based Geopolymer Concrete and OPC Concrete. Journal of Polymer and Composites. 2025; 13(06):13-35.
How to cite this URL:
Akshay Dhawan, Manvendra Verma. Investigation of Sulphate, Alkali and Carbonation Chemical attack in GGBS-Based Geopolymer Concrete and OPC Concrete. Journal of Polymer and Composites. 2025; 13(06):13-35. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2025/view=225747


References

  1. Provis, J.L.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. Alkali Activatd Materials State-of-the-Art Report, RILEM TC 224-AAM; Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London, 2014; ISBN 978-94-007-7671-5.
  2. Adam, A.A.; Arham, A.; Sc, A.M. Strength and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 2009.
  3. Pasupathy, K.; Berndt, M.; Castel, A.; Sanjayan, J.; Pathmanathan, R. Carbonation of a Blended Slag-Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete in Field Conditions after 8 Years. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 661–669, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.078.
  4. Jang, J.G.; Lee, N.K.; Lee, H.K. Fresh and Hardened Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash/Slag Pastes with Superplasticizers. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 169–176, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.048.
  5. Bhutta, M.A.R.; Hussin, W.M.; Azreen, M.; Tahir, M.M.; Aamer, M.; Bhutta, R.; Ph, D.; Hussin, W.M.; Ph, D.; Azreen, M.; et al. Sulphate Resistance of Geopolymer Concrete Prepared from Blended Waste Fuel Ash. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 1–6, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001030.
  6. Verma, M.; Dev, N. Effect of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash Ratio and the Curing Conditions on the Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete. Concr. 2022, 23, 2015–2029, doi:10.1002/suco.202000536.
  7. Verma, M.; Dev, N. Sodium Hydroxide Effect on the Mechanical Properties of Flyash-Slag Based Geopolymer Concrete. Concr. 2021, 22, E368–E379, doi:10.1002/suco.202000068.
  8. Turk, J.; Cotič, Z.; Mladenovič, A.; Šajna, A. Environmental Evaluation of Green Concretes versus Conventional Concrete by Means of LCA. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 194–205, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.035.
  9. Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K. Effect of GGBFS on Setting, Workability and Early Strength Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Cured in Ambient Condition. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 163–171, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080.
  10. 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. Fibers 2022, 10, 1–10, doi:10.3390/fib10040032.
  11. Almeshaal, M.; Palanisamy, S.; Murugesan, T.M.; Palaniappan, M.; Santulli, C. Physico-Chemical Characterization of Grewia Monticola Sond (GMS) Fibers for Prospective Application in Biocomposites. Nat. Fibers 2022, 19, 15276–15290, doi:10.1080/15440478.2022.2123076.
  12. Kumar, R.; Verma, M.; Dev, N. Analysis of PCE-Based Superplasticiser for the Different Types of Cement Using Marsh Cone Test. Evergreen 2024, 11, 665–672, doi:10.5109/7183337.
  13. Kumar, R.; Verma, M.; Dev, N. Investigation on the Effect of Seawater Condition, Sulphate Attack, Acid Attack, Freeze–Thaw Condition, and Wetting–Drying on the Geopolymer Concrete. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2022, 46, 2823–2853, doi:10.1007/s40996-021-00767-9.
  14. Kumar, R.; Dev, N.; Ram, S.; Verma, M. Investigation of Dry-Wet Cycles Effect on the Durability of Modified Rubberised Concrete. Forces Mech. 2023, 10, 100168, doi:10.1016/j.finmec.2023.100168.
  15. Kumar, R.; Verma, M.; Dev, N.; Lamba, N. Influence of Chloride and Sulfate Solution on the Long‐term Durability of Modified Rubberized Concrete. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2022, 2022, 1–15, doi:DOI: 10.1002/app.52880.
  16. Palanisamy, S.; Kalimuthu, M.; Palaniappan, M.; Alavudeen, A.; Rajini, N.; Santulli, C.; Mohammad, F.; Al-Lohedan, H. Characterization of Acacia Caesia Bark Fibers (ACBFs). Nat. Fibers 2022, 19, 10241–10252, doi:10.1080/15440478.2021.1993493.
  17. Palaniappan, M.; Palanisamy, S.; Khan, R.; H.Alrasheedi, N.; Tadepalli, S.; Murugesan, T. mani; Santulli, C. Synthesis and Suitability Characterization of Microcrystalline Cellulose from Citrus x Sinensis Sweet Orange Peel Fruit Waste-Based Biomass for Polymer Composite Applications. Polym. Res. 2024, 31, doi:10.1007/s10965-024-03946-0.
  18. Palaniappan, M.; Palanisamy, S.; Murugesan, T.M.; Alrasheedi, N.H.; Ataya, S.; Tadepalli, S.; Elfar, A.A. Novel Ficus Retusa L. Aerial Root Fiber: A Sustainable Alternative for Synthetic Fibres in Polymer Composites Reinforcement. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2025, 15, 7585–7601, doi:10.1007/s13399-024-05495-4.
  19. Verma, M. Study on Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete, Delhi Technological University: New Delhi, 2021.
  20. Srividya, T.; Kannan Rajkumar, P.R.; Sivasakthi, M.; Sujitha, A.; Jeyalakshmi, R. A State-of-the-Art on Development of Geopolymer Concrete and Its Field Applications. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e00812, doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00812.
  21. Pasupathy, K.; Berndt, M.; Sanjayan, J.; Rajeev, P.; Cheema, D.S. Durability of Low‑calcium Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete Culvert in a Saline Environment. Concr. Res. 2017, 100, 297–310, doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.07.010.
  22. Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Sarker, P.K.; Long, T.; Shi, X.; Wang, Q.; Cai, G. Investigating Various Factors Affecting the Long-Term Compressive Strength of Heat-Cured Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete and the Use of Orthogonal Experimental Design Method. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2019, 13, doi:10.1186/s40069-019-0375-7.
  23. Guo, X.; Shi, H.; Dick, W.A. Cement & Concrete Composites 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.
  24. ElKhatib, L.; Al Aridi, F.; ElKordi, A.; Khatib, J. Mechanical and Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete – a Review. BAU J. – Sci. Technol. 2022, 3, doi:10.54729/suiq7034.
  25. Bernal, S.A.; Mejía De Gutiérrez, R.; Provis, J.L. Engineering and Durability Properties of Concretes Based on Alkali-Activated Granulated Blast Furnace Slag/Metakaolin Blends. Build. Mater. 2012, 33, 99–108, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.017.
  26. Vieira, T.; Alves, A.; de Brito, J.; Correia, J.R.; Silva, R. V. Durability-Related Performance of Concrete Containing Fine Recycled Aggregates from Crushed Bricks and Sanitary Ware. Des. 2016, 90, 767–776, doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.11.023.
  27. Das, S.K.; Shrivastava, S. Siliceous Fly Ash and Blast Furnace Slag Based Geopolymer Concrete under Ambient Temperature Curing Condition. Concr. 2020, 1–11, doi:10.1002/suco.201900201.
  28. Parathi, S.; Nagarajan, P.; Pallikkara, S.A. Ecofriendly Geopolymer Concrete: A Comprehensive Review. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 1701–1713, doi:10.1007/s10098-021-02085-0.
  29. Nazari, A.; Bagheri, A.; Sanjayan, J.; Yadav, P.N.J.A.; Tariq, H. A Comparative Study of Void Distribution Pattern on the Strength Development between OPC-Based and Geopolymer Concrete. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1412757, doi:10.1155/2019/1412757.
  30. Khan, M.A.; Memon, S.A.; Farooq, F.; Javed, M.F.; Aslam, F.; Alyousef, R. Compressive Strength of Fly-Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete by Gene Expression Programming and Random Forest. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6618407, doi:10.1155/2021/6618407.
  31. Nigam, M.; Verma, M. Effect of Nano-Silica on the Fresh and Mechanical Properties of Conventional Concrete. Forces Mech. 2023, 10, 100165, doi:10.1016/j.finmec.2022.100165.
  32. Sabir, B.; Wild, S.; Bai, J. Metakaolin and Calcined Clays as Pozzolans for Concrete: A Review. Concr. Compos. 2001, 23, 441–454, doi:10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00092-5.
  33. Yang, T.-R.; Chang, T.-P.; Chen, B.-T.; Shih, J.-Y.; Lin, W.-L. EFFECT OF ALKALINE SOLUTIONS ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ALKALI-ACTIVATED GGBFS PASTE. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2012, 20, 311–318.
  34. Chouksey, A.; Verma, M.; Dev, N.; Rahman, I.; Upreti, K. An Investigation on the Effect of Curing Conditions on the Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of the Geopolymer Concrete. Res. Express 2022, 9, 55003, doi:10.1088/2053-1591/ac6be0.
  35. Verma, M.; Dev, N. Effect of Liquid to Binder Ratio and Curing Temperature on the Engineering Properties of the Geopolymer Concrete. Silicon 2022, 14, 1743–1757, doi:10.1007/s12633-021-00985-w.
  36. Wiyono, D.; Hardjito, D.; Antoni, P.; Hardjito, D. Improving the Durability of Pozzolan Concrete Using Alkaline Solution and Geopolymer Coating. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 747–753, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.121.
  37. Davidovits J. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Geopolymer Institute; 2008.
  38. Kim, J.K.; Kim, C.Y.; Yi, S.T.; Lee, Y. Effect of Carbonation on the Rebound Number and Compressive Strength of Concrete. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 139–144, doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.10.001.
  39. Rostami, V.; Shao, Y.; Boyd, A.J. Carbonation Curing versus Steam Curing for Precast Concrete Production. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012, 24, 1221–1229, doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000462.
  40. Burhan, M.; Türkmen, İ.; Murat, M.; Kantarci, F.; Demirbo, R. Sulfate Resistance of Ferrochrome Slag Based Geopolymer Concrete. Int. 2016, 42, 1254–1260, doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.09.058.
  41. Bondar, D.; Lynsdale, C.J.; Milestone, N.B.; Hassani, N. Sulfate Resistance of Alkali Activated Pozzolans. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2015, 9, 145–158, doi:10.1007/s40069-014-0093-0.
  42. Provis JL. Alkali-activated materials. Cement and concrete research. 2018 Dec 1;114:40-8.
  43. Isfahani, F.T.; Redaelli, E.; Lollini, F.; Li, W.; Bertolini, L. Effects of Nanosilica on Compressive Strength and Durability Properties of Concrete with Different Water to Binder Ratios. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2016.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 13
Issue 06
Received 04/08/2025
Accepted 13/08/2025
Published 04/10/2025
Publication Time 61 Days
414

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics