Performance Evaluation of Geopolymer Coconut Shell Concrete: A Comparative Study with Conventional Concrete

Year : 2024 | Volume :11 | Issue : 03 | Page : 63-68
By
vector

Veerendra Vishwakarma,

vector

Harsh Rathore,

Abstract

“] document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_abs_146629’);});Edit Abstract & Keyword

The increasing demand for sustainable construction materials has driven the exploration of alternative aggregates such as coconut shells in geopolymer concrete. This study investigates the characteristics and performance of Geopolymer Coconut Shell Concrete (GPCSC) and compares it with traditional Geopolymer Conventional Concrete (GPCC). Both mixes were evaluated for workability, density, and compressive strength at 3, 7, and 28 days. The slump values for GPCSC and GPCC were 10 mm and 15 mm, respectively, indicating low workability due to the high viscosity of the geopolymer mix. The fresh and hardened densities of GPCSC were measured at 2010 kg/m³ and 1980 kg/m³, while GPCC exhibited densities of 2480 kg/m³ and 2440 kg/m³. The reduced density of GPCSC offers a significant advantage in terms of reduced self-weight, leading to lower reinforcement requirements and cost savings in structural applications. The compressive strength of GPCSC at 28 days reached 32.6 N/mm², while GPCC achieved 35.2 N/mm². Although GPCC demonstrated higher compressive strength, GPCSC reached 93% of its 28-day strength in just 7 days, demonstrating excellent early-age strength development under ambient curing conditions. This study highlights the potential of GPCSC as a viable, sustainable alternative to conventional concrete, offering both environmental and economic benefits, especially in regions where coconut shells are abundant.

Keywords: Geopolymer concrete, coconut shell aggregate, compressive strength, workability, density, sustainable construction, ambient curing

[This article belongs to Journal of Structural Engineering and Management (josem)]

How to cite this article:
Veerendra Vishwakarma, Harsh Rathore. Performance Evaluation of Geopolymer Coconut Shell Concrete: A Comparative Study with Conventional Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering and Management. 2024; 11(03):63-68.
How to cite this URL:
Veerendra Vishwakarma, Harsh Rathore. Performance Evaluation of Geopolymer Coconut Shell Concrete: A Comparative Study with Conventional Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering and Management. 2024; 11(03):63-68. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/josem/article=2024/view=0

“]document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_ref_146629’);});Edit

References

  1. AASHTO (T 259 -80), Standard method of test for resistance of concrete to chloride ion penetration, West Conshohocken, PA: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
  2. ACI 544.IR-96, 2002, Report on Fibre Reinforced Concrete, America Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
  3. ACI 211.2-98, 1998, Standard practice for selecting proportions for structural lightweight concrete (reapproved 2004), American Concrete Institute, Farmington hills, Michigan,
  4. ACI 213R-14, 2014, Guide for structural lightweight-aggregate concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington hills, Michigan,
  5. ACI 318-14, 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington hills, Michigan,
  6. Ahlawat, D & Kalurkar, LG 2014, ‘Coconut shell as partial replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete’, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 61–44.
  7. Alengaram, UJ, Jumaat, MZ, Mahmud, H & Fayyadh, MM, 2011, ‘Shear behaviour of reinforced palm kernel shell concrete beams’, Construction and building materials, 25, no.6, pp. 2918-2927.
  8. Azizul Islam, Alengaram, UJ, Mohd Zamin Junaat, Iftekhair Bashar & Alamgir Kabir, SM 2015, ‘Engineering properties and carbon footprint of ground granulated blast –furnance slag – palm oil fuel ash – based structural geopolymer concrete’, Materials and Construction, vol. 101, 503–523.
  9. Azizul Islam, Alengaram, UJ, Jumaat, MZ & Bashar, 2014, ‘The development of
  10. Bougara, A, Lynsdale, C & Ezziane, K 2009, ‘Activation of Algerian slag in mortars’, Construction and Building Materials, 23, no. 1, pp. 542-547.
  11. BS 8110-1, 1997, Structural use of concrete, code of practice for design and construction, British Standards Institution, London,
  12. BS EN 12390-3, 2009,Testing Hardened Concrete Part 3, Compressive Strength of Test Specimens, British Standard Institution BSI, London,
  13. Chandra, KP, Natrajan, M & Meiaraj, C 2017, ’Eco friendly light weight geo polymer concrete for sustainable development’, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, vol. 8, issue 8, pp. 572 –
  14. Chang, JJ 2003, ‘A study on the setting characteristics of sodium silicate activated slag pastes’, Cement and Concrete Research, 33, no. 7, pp. 1005-1011.
  15. Douglas, E & Brandstetr, J 1990, ‘A preliminary study on the alkali activation of ground granulated blast-furnace slag’, Cement and Concrete Research, 20, no. 5, pp. 746-756.
  16. Dewanshu Ahlawat & Kalurkar, LG, 2014, ‘Coconut shell as partial replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete’, International conference on advances in engineering and technology(ICAET – 2014), pp. 61-64.
  17. EuroLightCon 2000, ‘Properties of LWC Containing Lytag and Liapor, European Union—BriteEuRamIII’, Document BE 963942/ www.sintef.no/static/BM/projects/EuroLight Con/BE3942R08.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2013.
  18. Gonçalves, JP, Tavares, LM, Filho, RDT, Fairbairn, EMR & Cunha, ER 2007, ‘Comparison of natural and manufactured fine aggregates in cement mortars’, Cement and Concrete Research, 37, no. 6, pp. 924–932.
  19. Goretta, KC, Chen, N, Gutierrez-Mora, F, Routbort, JL, Lukey, GC & Van Deventer, JSJ 2004, ‘Solid-particle erosion of a geopolymer containing flyash and blast-furnace slag’, Wear, vol. 256, no. 7-8, pp. 714–719.
  20. Gong, C & Yang, N 2000, ‘Effect of phosphate on the hydration of alkaliactivated red mud-slag cementitious material’, Cement and Concrete Research, 30, no. 7, pp. 1013-1016.
  21. Gunasekaran, K, Kumar, PS & Lakshmipathy, M 2010, ‘Compatibility studies on the coconut shell cement composites’, Indian Journal of Indian Concrete Institute, vol. 11, no. 1, 27–31.
  22. Gunasekaran, K, Annadurai, R & Kumar, PS 2013b, ‘Study on reinforced lightweight coconut shell concrete beam behaviour under shear’, Materials and Design, 46, pp. 293 -301.
  23. IS 1199: 1959, Indian Standard Method of Sampling and Analysis of Concrete, Reaffirmed 2004, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
  24. IS 516: 1959, Indian Standard code of practice for method of tests for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
  25. IS 13311 (Part 1) : 1992, Indian Standard for Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
  26. IS 1237 – 2012 BIS (2012), Cement concrete flooring tiles, 2nd revision, BIS, New Delhi,
  27. IS 456:2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete—Code of Practice; Bureau of Indian New Delhi, India.
  28. IS 2386: Part 1: 1963, Indian standard methods of test for aggregate for concrete Part III, specific gravity, density, voids, absorption and bulking (reaffirmed 2016). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
  29. IS 2386: Part 4: 1963, Indian standard methods of test for aggregate for concrete, Part IV, mechanical properties (reaffirmed 2016), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
  30. IS 383: 2016, Indian Standard for Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete; Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi,
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 11
Issue 03
Received 22/11/2024
Accepted 18/12/2024
Published 21/12/2024
128