| Literature DB >> 28793639 |
Sun-Woo Kim1, Seok-Joon Jang2, Dae-Hyun Kang3, Kyung-Lim Ahn4, Hyun-Do Yun5.
Abstract
Conventional concrete production that uses ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as a binder seems unsustainable due to its high energy consumption, natural resource exhaustion and huge carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. To transform the conventional process of concrete production to a more sustainable process, the replacement of high energy-consumptive PC with new binders such as fly ash and alkali-activated slag (AAS) from available industrial by-products has been recognized as an alternative. This paper investigates the effect of curing conditions and steel fiber inclusion on the compressive and flexural performance of AAS concrete with a specified compressive strength of 40 MPa to evaluate the feasibility of AAS concrete as an alternative to normal concrete for CO₂ emission reduction in the concrete industry. Their performances are compared with reference concrete produced using OPC. The eco-efficiency of AAS use for concrete production was also evaluated by binder intensity and CO₂ intensity based on the test results and literature data. Test results show that it is possible to produce AAS concrete with compressive and flexural performances comparable to conventional concrete. Wet-curing and steel fiber inclusion improve the mechanical performance of AAS concrete. Also, the utilization of AAS as a sustainable binder can lead to significant CO₂ emissions reduction and resources and energy conservation in the concrete industry.Entities:
Keywords: alkali-activated slag (AAS); eco-efficiency; mechanical performance; ordinary Portland cement (OPC); sustainable binder
Year: 2015 PMID: 28793639 PMCID: PMC5458908 DOI: 10.3390/ma8115383
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Chemical composition (% by mass) of GGBS and OPC.
| Component | GGBS | OPC |
|---|---|---|
| Silicon dioxide (SiO2) | 34.7 | 20.9 |
| Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) | 13.8 | 5.39 |
| Calcium oxide (CaO) | 40.1 | 64.7 |
| Iron oxide (Fe2O3) | 0.11 | 2.38 |
| Magnesium oxide (MgO) | 4.38 | 1.51 |
| Titanium dioxide (TiO2) | 0.74 | 1.33 |
| Sodium oxide (Na2O) | 0.20 | 0.27 |
| Potassium oxide (K2O) | 0.48 | 0.22 |
| Sulfur trioxide (SO3) | 4.83 | 1.65 |
| Loss on ignition (LOI) | 2.70 | 5.80 |
| Basicity coefficient (Kb) | 0.92 | 2.52 |
| Hydration modulus (HM) | 1.68 | 3.43 |
Notes: Kb = (CaO + MgO)/(SiO2 + Al2O3); HM = (CaO + MgO + Al2O3)/SiO2.
Mixture proportions of OPC and AAS concretes.
| Mix | w/b | S/a | Unit Weight (kg/m3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | C | AAS | S | G | |||
| OPC | 0.55 | 0.45 | 205 | 373 | - | 756 | 924 |
| AAS | 0.55 | 0.45 | 205 | - | 373 | 756 | 924 |
Notes: w/b is water-to-binder ratio; S/a is sand-to-aggregate ratio; W is water; C is cement; S is sand; and G is coarse aggregate.
Figure 1Shape of a hooked-end steel fiber.
Variables for mechanical tests.
| Test | Specimen | Curing Method | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compression | OPC | 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | Wet-curing |
| AAS-dry | 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | Dry-curing | |
| AAS-wet | 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | Wet-curing | |
| Flexure | OPC | 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | Wet-curing |
| AAS-wet | 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | Wet-curing |
Notes: V is steel fiber volume fraction.
Figure 2Stress-strain curves of test specimens at 28 days. (a) OPC-wet; (b) AAS-dry; (c) AAS-wet.
Figure 3Compressive strength development with age (a) 3 days; (b) 7 days; (c) 28 days.
Figure 4Variation of compressive strain at maximum stress with age. (a) 3 days; (b) 7 days; (c) 28 days.
Compressive test results.
| Specimens | Compressive Strength (MPa) | Strain at Max. Compressive Strength (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Days | 7 Days | 28 Days | 3 Days | 7 Days | 28 Days | |||||
| Wet | Dry | Wet | Dry | Wet | Wet | Dry | Wet | Dry | Wet | |
| OPC-0.0 | 21.7 | - | 29.2 | - | 36.3 | 0.212 | - | 0.211 | - | 0.214 |
| OPC-0.5 | 20.2 | - | 27.8 | - | 42.2 | 0.205 | - | 0.186 | - | 0.225 |
| OPC-1.0 | 14.6 | - | 25.5 | - | 34.0 | 0.241 | - | 0.247 | - | 0.231 |
| OPC-1.5 | 16.4 | - | 24.5 | - | 35.9 | 0.486 | - | 0.239 | - | 0.311 |
| OPC-2.0 | 18.2 | - | 24.2 | - | 36.4 | 1.167 | - | 1.413 | - | 0.457 |
| AAS-0.0 | 14.3 | 21.8 | 22.0 | 31.8 | 34.6 | 0.290 | 0.195 | 0.209 | 0.236 | 0.207 |
| AAS-0.5 | 15.5 | 24.8 | 23.0 | 35.9 | 39.3 | 0.245 | 0.238 | 0.227 | 0.225 | 0.238 |
| AAS-1.0 | 15.8 | 23.4 | 25.5 | 34.6 | 34.7 | 0.285 | 0.246 | 0.272 | 0.228 | 0.219 |
| AAS-1.5 | 17.5 | 27.8 | 28.5 | 38.1 | 42.3 | 0.692 | 0.561 | 0.697 | 0.333 | 0.334 |
| AAS-2.0 | 23.5 | 31.8 | 34.6 | 40.1 | 41.4 | 1.020 | 0.719 | 0.883 | 0.480 | 0.447 |
Figure 5SEM micrographs of steel fiber–matrix transition zone. (a) OPC-wet; (b) AAS-dry; (c) AAS-wet.
Figure 6Flexural strength-deflection curves of test specimens at 28 days. (a) OPC specimens; (b) AAS specimens.
Strengths and deflections at both first crack and peak load.
| Specimen | First Crack | Peak Load | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ff (MPa) | δf (mm) | fu (MPa) | δu (mm) | |
| OPC-0.0 | 6.329 | 0.049 | 6.329 | 0.049 |
| OPC-0.5 | 6.577 | 0.047 | 8.197 | 1.303 |
| OPC-1.0 | 5.755 | 0.042 | 10.557 | 0.531 |
| OPC-1.5 | 5.064 | 0.047 | 10.855 | 1.035 |
| OPC-2.0 | 6.646 | 0.055 | 13.130 | 2.221 |
| AAS-0.0 | 5.501 | 0.050 | 5.501 | 0.050 |
| AAS-0.5 | 4.674 | 0.044 | 6.638 | 1.145 |
| AAS-1.0 | 5.249 | 0.029 | 11.615 | 0.705 |
| AAS-1.5 | 5.910 | 0.019 | 11.714 | 1.427 |
| AAS-2.0 | 4.180 | 0.047 | 13.262 | 0.931 |
Figure 7Comparison of toughness indices.
Figure 8Comparison of residual strength factors.
CO2 evaluation of OPC concrete.
| Item | Material and Production | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | A·B | |
| kg/m3 | CO2-kg/kg | CO2-kg/m3 | |
| OPC | 373 | 0.944 | 352.1 |
| Sand | 756 | 0.0026 | 2.0 |
| Coarse | 924 | 0.0075 | 6.9 |
| Water | 205 | 1.96 × 10−4 | 0.0 |
| Admixture | 0.1492 | 0.25 | 0.0 |
| Conc. production | 2258 | 0.008 | 18.1 |
| – | – | ||
| Wet-curing | – | – | |
Note: * CO2 emission of steel fiber (1.6 CO2-kg/kg) is not included.
CO2 evaluation of AAS concrete.
| Item | Material and Production | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | A·B | |
| kg/m3 | CO2-kg/kg | CO2-kg/m3 | |
| GGBS | 373 | 0.0265 | 9.9 |
| Sand | 756 | 0.0026 | 2.0 |
| Coarse | 924 | 0.0075 | 6.9 |
| Water | 205 | 1.96 × 10−4 | 0.0 |
| Admixture | 0.1492 | 0.25 | 0.0 |
| Conc. production | 2258 | 0.008 | 18.1 |
| – | – | ||
| Dry-curing | – | – | |
| Wet-curing | – | – | |
Note: * CO2 emission of steel fiber (1.6 CO2-kg/kg) is not included.
Final CO2 emission of concrete with fiber inclusion.
| Mix | Curing Method | CO2 Emission with Fiber Volume Fractions (CO2-kg/kg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0% | 0.5% | 1.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | ||
| OPC | wet | 417.7 | 420.6 | 423.6 | 426.6 | 429.6 |
| AAS | dry | 36.9 | 39.9 | 42.9 | 45.9 | 48.9 |
| AAS | wet | 75.4 | 78.4 | 81.4 | 84.4 | 87.4 |
Figure 9Comparison of binder intensity (bi). (a) fiber volume fraction; (b) compressive strength.
Figure 10Comparison of CO2 intensity (ci). (a) Fiber volume fraction; (b) compressive strength.