Singh 24

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e02715
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm
Durability assessment of mechanochemically activated

geopolymer concrete with a low molarity alkali solution
Ashita Singh a, 1, Sudhir Singh Bhadauria b, 2, Akshay Anil Thakare c, 3, Anil Kumar d,
Manish Mudgal d, Sandeep Chaudhary a, *, 4
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Indore, India
b
University Institute of Technology, Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, JSPM Nahre Technical Campus, Pune, India
d
Advanced Radiation Shielding and Cement Free Concrete Group, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research -Advanced Materials and Processes
Research Institute, Bhopal, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The prevailing practices of geopolymer concrete (GC) preparation use a high concentration of
Geopolymer alkali activators, which is uneconomical. It is imperative to develop GC of low-concentration
Mechanochemical activation activators with enhanced durability for field implementation. Mechanochemical activation of
Portland slag cement-based concrete
geopolymer increases the reactivity of its raw materials by converting the crystalline phase to an
Durability
Acid attack
amorphous phase. It has been illustrated in the present study that mechanochemical activation
aids in achieving GC of desired properties at low concentrations of alkali activators. The mech
anochemical activation of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) with sodium metasilicate
was carried out to prepare GC of low (2 M) and high (12 M) alkali concentrations. The Portland
slag cement-based concrete (PC) was cast to compare the durability performance of GC. The
durability of the three concrete mixes was examined in terms of water absorption, the volume of
permeable voids (VPV), water and chloride permeability, homogeneity, and acid resistance. The
microstructural characterization of concrete samples exposed to acid were carried out by X-ray
diffraction, field emission scanning electron microscope, and energy dispersive X-ray spectrom
eter. The results indicated that GC with a low concentration of activator exhibited lesser water
absorption, VPV, and permeability, whereas it offered higher resistance to acids and chloride ion
penetrability. Low-concentration GC had a dense and compact structure due to the coexistence of
geopolymeric and hydration products, leading to better performance than high-concentration GC
and PC. The evaluation of cost and carbon emission of PC, and GC mixes suggests GC as a sus
tainable alternative to traditional concrete. Although PC is economically viable, the study suggest
use of GC with low alkali concentration due to its environmental benefits with a minor increase in
cost.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: schaudhary@iiti.ac.in (S. Chaudhary).
1
ORCID: 0000-0002-2912-6163
2
ORCID: 0000-0003-4500-4569
3
ORCID: 0000-0001-5162-2721
4
ORCID: 0000-0001-6535-9047
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02715
Received 25 August 2023; Received in revised form 26 October 2023; Accepted 22 November 2023
Available online 25 November 2023
2214-5095/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Singh et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e02715
1. Introduction
Geopolymer (GP) is the third-generation binder after lime and ordinary Portland cement for making concrete. It has the potential to
substitute cement products as it employs aluminosilicate solids like fly ash (FA), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), silica
fume (SF), rice husk ash (RHA), corn cob ash (CCA), calcinated clay (CC), red mud, metakaolin, etc. [1–6] to obtain a GP binder. GP
binders have a relatively less carbon footprint than conventional cementitious binders [7]. They are obtained by activating
aluminosilicate-rich materials with strong alkali solutions. The activation process of aluminosilicate-rich species for making GP binder
can be classified into three categories, namely (i) chemical, (ii) mechanical, and (iii) mechanochemical. Chemical activation: the
aluminosilicate material is activated in a highly alkaline medium using discrete or a combination of sodium hydroxide(SH)/silicate
[8], potassium hydroxide/silicate [9], sodium carbonate [10], sodium sulfate [11], calcium hydroxide [12], calcium carbonate [13],
etc. It is the most common method adopted to make GP binders. Moreover, the concentration of alkali activator plays an essential role
in developing polysialate, polysialate siloxo, and polysialate disiloxo networks [4,14,15]. Mechanical activation: the aluminosilicate
material is ground by milling, which enhances the bulk and surface reactivity through physicochemical changes without altering the
overall chemistry of the material [16–18]. Literature shows that mechanically activated slag hydrates completely without any
chemical activator [19,20]. Mechanochemical activation: it is a method involving the dry co-grinding or co-milling of aluminosilicate
material with alkali activator(s) to form a precursor, further mixed with water or alkali solution to form GP binder [21]. Co-grinding of
raw materials increases surface energy and chemical reactivity due to the breakage of the crystalline network [22,23]. GP obtained by
mechanochemical activation possesses an even and dense pore structure because of the increase in the reactivity of sodium silicate (SS)
and aluminosilicate species by 25% and 20%, respectively, compared to unmilled raw materials [21]. The intense grinding of raw
materials increases the reactivity and improves the geopolymerization rate [24,25].
Geopolymer Concrete (GC) is a potential substitute for conventional concrete in many extreme environments, like in sub-surface
water structures, sewer lines, industrial effluent outlets, chemical storage tanks, seawater, marine structures, etc., which are directly
exposed to harmful chemicals, i.e., chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, acid rains, and other aggressive substances [26–28]. The resistance of
GP composite against adverse environmental conditions is one of the critical parameters for assessing the durability of
environment-friendly construction materials. GC has higher early strength, better chemical resistance against harmful acids [29,30],
low permeability, higher resistance to freeze and thaw cycles [31], elevated temperatures [32], and better thermal insulation [33].
Several experimental investigations on the chemical activation of FA [34,35], GGBS [28,36] based GC, or a combination of such
materials are available in the literature. Fig. 1 shows the durability studies of chemically activated GC at different SH concentrations.
Oyebisi et al. [33,37–42] optimized slag-based GC’s design parameters and investigated its mechanical, microstructural, and durability
properties in ambient curing. These properties of GC are governed by reactivity indices. The evaluation of reactivity indices showed
that an increase in CaO, MgO, and Al2O3 enhanced the reactivity of the binder [40]. In contrast, increased SiO2, Fe2O3, and SO3
content, decreased the reactivity [41]. The literature indicates that GC with higher concentrations of SH enhances polymerization,
increases dissolution of alumina and silica, and develops a denser microstructure due to the formation of NASH and/or CASH and/or
C-S-H gel [28]. Thus, GC with higher concentrations of SH (8–16 M) illustrated lower porosity, resulting in lesser sorptivity due to
lesser voids, further reducing water absorption [34,36,43–46]. In calcium-rich species, GC offers higher resistance to sulfate, acid, and
chloride attacks [34–38,40,43–46]. It is attributed to the compact and tortuous structure of GC formed due to the co-esistence of
geopolymerization and hydration products [47]. Only one study compared GC activated with low (1 M) and high (8 M) concentrations
of alkali solution [28]. Its finding suggested that the 8 M SH solution illustrated better mechanical and durability properties, as higher
concentration of alkali increases Na2O and SiO2, promoting NASH gel formation [28]. The CaO in GGBS leads to the formation of
CASH/C-S-H gel [28]. The coexistence NASH and CASH/CSH gels formed a dense microstructure [28]. But the activator concentration
is very high, hampering the economy.
The mechanical activation of FA results in higher reactivity due to the decrease in particle size and an increase in the surface area of
FA. Mechanical activation increased compressive strength by 80% in ambient temperature curing but required 6 M [25] and 14 M [24]
SH solution for making GP. A comparison of four different mixing procedures, i.e., mechanochemically activated, mechanically
activated, one-part modified, and two-part mix, is reported by Hosseini et al. [21]. It is found in the literature [21] that the co-grinding
Fig. 1. Durability studies on chemically activated GC [34–38,40,43–46].
2
of SS powder with bottom ash and FA during mechanochemical activation boosted the scattering of activated particles, modified the SS
and aluminosilicate reaction kinetics, and intensified the interconnectivity of geopolymeric structure, resulting in a decrease of pore
size, and significant increase in the compressive strength around 60–80%. Thus, mechanochemically activated specimens with 14 M
SH performed the best out of the four different mixing procedures. Mechanochemically activated slag-RHA [48], kaolin [23], and
air-cooled slag based [22] GP resulted in an increase in compressive strength by 18%, 29%, and 62%, respectively, in comparison to
conventional counterparts. The increase in compressive strength attributed to decrease in particle size, increase in specific surface
area, and reactivity due to the breakage of the crystalline networks. Change in the mineralogical composition and an increase in the
amorphous phase was also observed [48]. Singh et al. [49,50] adopted mechanochemical activation of precursor (GGBS + sodium
metasilicate) to develop GP with a wide range of SH concentrations varying from 1 M to 12 M. The best performance is found at 2 M
concentration of SH in terms of compressive, tensile, and flexure strength for GC. Researchers [51–53] have investigated viable al
ternatives to conventional concrete and its ingredients in light of the growing need for sustainable and eco-friendly construction. The
practice of geopolymerizing industrial by-products illustrates the present-day focus on sustainability.
As discussed above, chemically activated GC requires a high-concentration alkali activator solution (i.e., 8 M, 10 M, 12 M, 14 M,
and 16 M). The dissolution of alkali hydroxide for making an alkali solution is an exothermic reaction [48] that intensifies with high
concentration, which is perilous while handling for industry and field implementation. Although mechanical activation enhances the
reactivity of the aluminosilicate-rich material, which failed to lower the concentration of the alkali solution. As observed in previous
studies [21,23,48–50], mechanochemical activation improves the efficacy of GP [21,23], but limited research is available in the
literature [48–50]. Moreover, the mechanochemical activation process could be implemented for field applications due to the rela
tively safe and easy production process. Therefore, developing GC with a low-concentrated alkali solution could be more feasible for
construction applications. Furthermore, existing literature [49] shows that low concentration (<8 M) of alkali solution can be obtained
for developing GC using a mechanochemical activation process. However, available studies [21–23,54] focused only to evaluate the
mechanical and microstructural properties of mechanochemically activated FA, slag, and kaolin-based GP. The durability performance
of mechanochemically activated slag-based GC with low concentration (<8 M) and its comparison with high concentration (> 8 M)
activators and conventional concrete remains unexplored. Low and high-concentration alkali-activated GC’s economics and envi
ronmental impacts have hardly been reported.
In the present study, GC is developed by mechanochemical activation of GGBS and sodium metasilicate (SMS) to address con
ventional geopolymerization techniques’ limitations. Two different concentrations of sodium hydroxide solution, i.e., low (2 M) and
high (12 M) alkali activators, are used to prepare GC cured in an ambient environment to explore their impact on the economy and
environment. The efficiency of two different GCs is evaluated by performing microstructural, mechanical, and durability tests on GC
Fig. 2. Chemical composition of (a) GGBS; and (b) PSC.
3
(2 M-GC, 12 M-GC) and control concrete, i.e., Portland slag cement-based concrete (PC). The durability tests, i.e., water absorption and
permeable voids, water and chloride permeability, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), and acid resistance on exposure to sulphuric,
hydrochloric, and nitric acid are performed on GC (low and high concentrations) and PC. The GC samples before and after immersion
in acid have been examined by X-ray diffraction (XRD), field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM), and energy dispersive X-
ray spectrometer (EDAX). The economic and environmental impacts of all three types of concrete are discussed in this study. The study
has finally suggested an eco-friendly concrete mix proportion of GC with detailed insight into its mechanical and durability perfor
mance. The study provides a sustainable solution by offering durable concrete in areas exposed to aggressive chemicals, sewer lines,
industrial effluents, etc., thereby improving the longevity of infrastructure in various construction applications.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Ground granulated blast furnace slag and Portland slag cement (PSC) used for synthesizing GC and PC were procured from Jindal
Steel and Power Limited, Raigarh, India. The chemical composition of GGBS and PSC used in concrete mixes are shown in Fig. 2. The
specific gravity and specific surface area of GGBS were evaluated as 2.73 and 369 m2/kg, respectively. The specific gravity and specific
surface area of PSC were determined as 2.95 and 346 m2/kg, respectively. A well-graded quarry stone of 20 mm nominal size with a
specific gravity of 2.65 and water absorption of 0.80% was used as coarse aggregates. The locally available river sand having particle
size grading of zone II as per IS 383–2019 [55] was used as fine aggregates in concrete mixes. The specific gravity and water absorption
of fine aggregate were estimated as 2.66% and 1.0%, respectively.
The sodium hydroxide (SH) solution and sodium metasilicate (SMS) powder were used as activators for GGBS in GC. The SH pellets
of 97% purity (make: Avantor Performance Materials India Ltd.) and SMS of 97% purity (make: Loba Chemie Pvt. Ltd.) were used in
this study to obtain GC.
2.2. Methods
The study aimed to design and compare the performance of slag-based concrete mixes, i.e., Portland slag cement concrete (PC) and
GGBS-based geopolymer concrete (GC). But due to change in the binder of two different concrete mixes, in the present investigation,
the concrete mixes were developed for the same grade, i.e., M40 for PC and GC. The control Portland slag cement-based concrete (PC)
was prepared at 1:1.47:3.04 (PSC: fine aggregate: coarse aggregate) mix proportion with 0.35 water/cement ratio. The conventional
concrete mixing process was adopted to develop the PC mix samples cured in water for 28 days. The GC was prepared using GGBS
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram illustrating the process of mechanochemical activation of GC.
4
+ SMS combinedly denoted as the GP precursor, SH solution, along with fine and coarse aggregates. The trial mixes of GC resulted in a
grade proportion of 1:1.65:2.97 (GP precursor: fine aggregate: coarse aggregate) with SH solution to GP precursor ratio of 0.45. Two
GC mixes were prepared namely GC-2 M and GC-12 M activated by 2 M and 12 M SH solution, respectively. The GC mixes were cured
in an ambient environment. The mechanochemical activation mixing protocol was used to prepare GC samples. The mechanochemical
activation of raw materials is dependent on grinding speed and time, which was selected based on previous studies [56–59] and
laboratory trials. The mechanochemical activation process is illustrated in Fig. 3. The GC sample preparation procedure is described
below:
(a) GGBS and SMS powder were mixed and placed in a 10 kg capacity laboratory ball mill.
(b) The steel balls of 20–70 mm diameter were put in the ball mill as a grinding media.
(c) The GGBS and SMS were ground in the ball mill at a rate of 1000 rpm for 30 min, which is defined as the mechanochemical
activation strategy. In 5 kg GGBS, the quantity of SMS added was 0.385 kg and 2.32 kg for GC-2 M, and GC-12 M respectively.
(d) The precursor obtained was sieved through a 45-micron IS sieve.
(e) The desired proportion of GP precursor, fine, and coarse aggregates was added to the concrete mixer at a speed of 24 rpm and
mixed for 60 s
(f) The SH solution of the required concentration and quantity was added to the mixer, and mixing was further continued for 150 s
(g) The total mixing time for the wet concrete mix was 210 s to obtain a homogeneous concrete.
The compressive strength and durability of GC and PC mixes were evaluated in terms of water absorption, the volume of permeable
voids, water and chloride permeability, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), and acid resistance on exposure to sulphuric, hydrochloric,
and nitric acid.
Compressive strength test was conducted on GC and PC mixes after 7, 28 and 56 days of ambient (GC), and water (PC) curing.
Mechanical testing of each concrete mix was conducted on three specimens as per IS 516 [60]. The percent water absorption and
percentage of the volume of permeable voids were determined by the test procedure mentioned in ASTM C 642 [61]. The depth of
penetration of water under pressure was measured by VIGA concrete permeability test apparatus, as per IS 516 (Part 2) [62]. The
quality of concrete in terms of homogeneity and uniformity was assessed by Proceq Pundit PL-200 UPV test apparatus, performed as
per IS 516 (Part 5) [63]. The resistance to chloride-ion penetration of concrete samples was determined by the Caltech rapid chloride
permeability (RCPT) test apparatus, as per ASTM C1202 [64]. The charge passed through concrete was measured and correlated to the
chloride ion penetrability of concrete.
In the acid resistance test, 5% solution of each of hydrochloric (HCl), nitric (HNO3), and sulphuric acid (H2SO4) was used for
providing an aggressive environment. The test samples of GC and PC mixes were cured for 28 days and later submerged in three
separate containers carrying 5% acidic solutions as mentioned above. The effects of acidic environment in terms of visual inspection,
loss in mass, change in compressive strength, and UPV were studied at intervals of 7, 28, and 56 days [28]. The compressive strength of
concrete cubes was tested using a Heico compression testing machine (3000 kN capacity). The initial mass, compressive strength, and
UPV (Xi) values were measured before immersing the samples in an acid solution. In each acid solution, 27 cubes (9 GC-2 M, 9
GC-12 M, and 9 PC) were immersed in the container with covered lids, where acid was replaced regularly to maintain constant
concentration. After 7, 28, and 56 days of immersion, 3 cubes from each acid solution of GC and PC were taken out carefully and dried
until a constant mass was achieved, thereafter, the mass, compressive strength, and UPV value (Xf) of cubes were recorded. The change
in mass, compressive strength, and UPV value was calculated using Eq. (1),
( )/
change in mass or compressive strength or UPV value (%) = [100 × X f − X i X i ] (1)
Where Xi and Xf are the mass or compressive strength or UPV values of concrete samples before immersing and after immersing in an
acid solution respectively.
Characterizations of GGBS, PSC, GC, and PC samples were carried out before and after immersing the concrete in acid solution. The
mineralogical phases were investigated using Bruker D8 Advance X-ray diffractometer. The surface morphology was studied using
Zeiss’s ULTRA Plus, a high-resolution field emission scanning electron microscope. The EDAX of Oxford Instruments was used to detect
elemental composition in the concrete.
3. Results and discussions
The characterizations of materials presented in the study provide a deeper insight into changes during different reaction processes
in GC and PC. The parental mechanical property, i.e., compressive strength and durability tests, i.e., water absorption, the volume of
permeable voids, permeability, quality of concrete using UPV, RCPT, and acid resistance were performed for GC and PC (control mix).
The interpretations of results and discussions on the same are as follows.
3.1. Microstructural and mechanical properties
3.1.1. Microstructural analysis

The microstructural analysis of GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC was carried out through XRD analysis and FESEM imaging. The
mineralogical phases observed in GGBS, PSC, and concrete (GC and PC) obtained by XRD are depicted in Fig. 4. Akermanite (K),
5
gehlenite (H), quartz (Q), and wollastonite (L) are evident in GGBS, as indicated in Fig. 4(a) [65,66]. The presence of clinozoisite (C),
gismondine (G), natrolite (N), tobermorite (T), and wairakite (W) phases are observed after the reaction with alkalis, which may be
associated with geopolymerization, in addition to hydration products, i.e., C-S-H gel (S) [47]. The peaks of minerals observed in
GC-2 M are intense and sharp, shown in Fig. 4(a), indicate that the geopolymeric and hydration products have formed. In GC-12 M, the
hump observed in the XRD curve is similar to that of GGBS, representing an incomplete reaction of the products added to the mixture.
The unreacted and excessive amount of alkali in the GC-12 M mix is visible in FESEM images in Fig. 5(b). Significant peaks of alite (A),
calcite (C), and quartz (Q) observed in PSC [67,68] are shown in Fig. 4(b). When water is added to cement, it starts hydrating. The
hydration of PSC results in the formation of C-S-H gel (S), ettringite (E), and calcite (C) phases [67,68].
Fig. 5 shows the FESEM image of GC and PC with EDAX spectra . It can be observed in Fig. 5(a) that the GC-2 M possessed a dense
and compact structure, which may be because of the coexistence of geopolymerization and hydration products leading to a condensed
microstructure generated during geopolymerization [69,70]. The alkali solution added in GC-2 M is of optimum dosage, rendering an
appropriate quantity of sodium, hydroxyl, and silicate species to react with the silica, alumina, and calcium content of GGBS to form a
gel matrix. Fig. 5(b) demonstrates the excess amount of unreacted alkalis (SS and SH) in GC-12 M, forming the gel matrix with un
dissolved alkalis left in the pores. Fig. 5(c) shows the formation of C-S-H gel in PC. The microstructure of the PC appears to be dense and
compact due to the formation of hydration product.
3.1.2. Compressive strength

Concrete with high compressive strength exhibits better durability [71]. In a previous study [49], the authors reported an optimum
dose of alkali solution, i.e., 2 M, beyond which the mechanical performance of GC is compromised. Table 1 shows the compressive
strength of GC and PC at different ages (7, 28, and 56 days) obtained in the present study, offering valuable insights.
The compressive strength of all three types of concretes increased with age. GC-2 M consistently showed the highest compressive
strength. The reactivity of GGBS and SMS escalated by their co-grinding, which led to the destruction of crystalline structures, boosted
the surface energy, and increased aluminosilicate reactivity, which enhanced geopolymerization [18,21,23,72,73]. Co-grinding
enabled irreversible adhesion between primary ingredients, resulting in the formation of GP precursors [18]. When SH solution
was added to the GC raw materials, the geopolymeric gel was formed along with the C-S-H gel [70]. Their coexistence leads to the
formation of a dense and compact structure of GC. However, the dosage of the alkali activator is too high in GC-12 M, leaving behind
unreacted alkalis, which are clearly observed in FESEM image Fig. 5(b), resulting in a lesser gain in compressive strength than GC-2 M.
In contrast, PC’s gain in compressive strength with age is due to the hydration of PSC. GC-2 M exhibits the highest compressive
strength among the mixes, indicating an appropriate proportion of materials used for concrete. GC-2 M demonstrate better
compressive strength for all ages than PC, which suggests its suitability for different applications.
3.2. Water and chloride permeability
3.2.1. Water absorption and permeable voids

The amount of water absorbed and the volume of permeable voids (VPV) in hardened concrete is a crucial durability properties for
the long-term health of concrete structures. The pore size distribution, microstructure, and hydration characteristics of binders are
influenced by the physical, and chemical characteristics of GGBS and alkali used for activation purposes [74]. Water absorption and
VPV of GC and PC were determined at 28 and 90 days of curing age. The results of water absorption and VPV are shown in Table 2.
The 28 days average water absorption of GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC samples is observed to be 4.44%, 4.75%, and 5.08%,
respectively. At 90 days, the water absorption of GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC decreases to 3.91%, 4.27%, and 4.53%, respectively. The
test results showed that at 28 days, the VPV of GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC samples is observed as 10.51%, 10.72%, and 11.66%,
Fig. 4. XRD of (a) GGBS, GC-2 M, GC-12 M and (b) PSC, PC.
6
Fig. 5. FESEM images and EDAX spectra of (a) GC-2 M, (b) GC-12 M, and (c) PC.
respectively. The test performed during 90 day curing period showed the VPV of 9.32%, 9.74%, and 10.48% for GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and
PC, respectively.
The experimental investigation indicated that for all three concrete mixes, the increasing age of concrete decreased the water
absorption and the VPV. Furthermore, it has been observed that the concentration of alkali solutions in GC notably altered the water
absorption and the VPV. The GC-2 M shows the lowest water absorption compared to GC-12 M and PC (Table 2). The highest water
absorption is observed for PC samples. In the VPV test, it is noted that GC-2 M has the lowest VPV followed by GC-12 M and PC.
Co-grinding of raw materials significantly improved the reactivity of GGBS and SMS by increasing their amorphousness [18,72,73].
It may be attributed to the destruction of the crystalline structure which increases the surface energy and chemical reactivity of raw
materials [23]. The GP precursor obtained after co-grinding might have chemically bonded the primary ingredients by irreversible
7
Table 1
Compressive strength of GC and PC.
Compressive strength (MPa)
Age (days) 7 days 28 days 56 days
Mix ID Average SD Average SD Average SD
GC-2 M 42.22 0.04 53.06 0.05 56.17 0.06

GC-12 M 38.04 0.05 47.08 0.07 51.13 0.08
PC 33.11 0.06 50.01 0.09 53.05 0.07
Table 2
Percentage of water absorption and volume of permeable voids observed in GC and PC.
Mix ID Water absorption (%) Volume of permeable voids (%)
28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days
Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD
GC-2 M 4.44 0.08 3.91 0.06 10.51 0.18 9.32 0.12

GC-12 M 4.75 0.07 4.27 0.07 10.72 0.14 9.74 0.14
PC 5.08 0.04 4.53 0.08 11.66 0.07 10.48 0.17
adhesion [18]. The activated aluminosilicate species may reassociate within a more interconnected network of long-chain silicate
oligomers, facilitating the development of a more interconnected Al–O–Si polymerized unit structure that reduces matrix porosity
[21]. Co-grinding of GGBS and SMS might have intensified the aluminosilicate reactivity [21] which catalysed the geopolymerization
reaction [23]. Literature reports that mechanochemical activation of the FA increases the aluminosilicate reactivity by approximately
20% and SS reactivity by approximately 25% [21]. Thus, the water absorption and VPV in GC are lower than in PC, as in GC systems
with high calcium, the coexistence of hydration and geopolymerization products results in the formation of a dense geopolymer matrix
(NASH/CASH) entangled with calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel in GC. Whereas, the formation of C-S-H gel is often observed to be
formed in PC mix [75]. Also, the fineness of GGBS might have increased due to the co-grinding of GGBS and SMS, enhancing the
formation of geopolymeric and C-S-H gel leading to a compact and tortuous structure of GC, which lacked in PC [76]. Since GC
possesses a finer microstructure than PC [77], GC demonstrated lesser water absorption and VPV than PC [78,79]. It is noted that the
results of lower water absorption and VPV in GC than in PC are in line with the previous studies [78–80]. The amount of water
absorbed and VPV observed in GC-2 M are lower than in GC-12 M. The concentration of alkalis has a significant effect on water
absorption and VPV in GC mixes. In a geopolymeric system the composition of the precursor, primarily Si, Al, and Ca content in
fluences the formation of C-S-H, (N, C)-A-S-H, C-(N)-A-S-H, N-(C)-A-S-H gels [81]. During geopolymerization Si, Al, and Ca present in
GGBS react with SH to form geopolymeric gels. There is an optimum dosage of SH at which all the Si, Al, and Ca present in GGBS react
completely. It is found that the excess incorporation of SH beyond optimum dosage results in a decrement in the performance of GC. In
the present investigation, the concentration of alkali solution beyond 2 M, i.e., at 12 M increased the water absorption and VPV. In
GC-12 M mix, the quantity of hydroxide ions probably exceeded the optimum dosage, which further hindered polycondensation
leading to retarded geopolymerization and hydration reaction [82]. The excess of unreacted activator particles might have led to the
formation of porous voids which increased water absorption [83].
3.2.2. Water permeability

Concrete permeability depends on the interconnected voids available in the matrix. In the permeability test, the concrete samples
were subjected to 500 ± 50 kPa pressure for 72 h as per IS 516 (Part 2) [62]. Subsequently, the concrete samples were split into two
halves under the compression testing machine. After this, the depth of water penetration was measured from the outer edge of concrete
samples up to the watermark. Fig. 6 shows the inner face of the GC and PC mixes after splitting, depicting the depth of water pene
tration. The lowest depth of water penetration of 5 mm and the highest depth of water penetration of 46 mm are observed for GC-2 M
Fig. 6. Depth of water penetration (mm) (a) GC-2 M; (b) GC-12 M; and (c) PC.
8
and PC, respectively. The depth of water penetration is in the range of 0–5 mm for GC-2 M, 12–19 mm for GC-12 M and 27–46 mm for
PC. The IRS Concrete Bridge Code 1997 [84] recommends that the depth of water penetration should not exceed 25 mm. In GC mixes,
the depth of water permeability is within the permissible limit [85], whereas it exceeded for PC mix.
As observed in Section 3.2.1, VPV shows the ease of penetration of fluids in concrete from the environment, indicating its durability
in terms of permeability and absorption [86,87]. Lesser the VPV, the lesser will be the water permeability, and vice-versa. The depth of
water penetration is lowest in GC-2 M followed by GC-12 M and PC. The depth of water penetration is associated with VPV. The
co-grinding of GGBS and SMS might have increased the surface area of alumina and silica, leading to the generation of additional
aluminosilicate, which actively participated in dissolution leading to the formation of geopolymer gels [58,88]. Thus, the increased gel
formation filled the pore system and improved the overall pore volume and porosity of the GP [58].
The mechanochemical activation of geopolymeric precursor reduced the particle size of GGBS and SMS, providing a larger surface
area, thereby, enhancing the reactivity of raw materials. This catalysed geopolymerization and hydration reactions during poly
merization in GC, providing a dense matrix with a condensed structure, offering lesser permeability than PC mix [89]. The structure of
GC is dense, and compact due to the formation of NASH/CASH and C-S-H gel simultaneously in a calcium-rich geopolymeric system
[69]. Thus, the presence of calcium improved the microstructure of GC, thereby, reducing the permeability [90].
A considerable decrease in the depth of water penetration is observed for GC-2 M compared to GC-12 M mix. Since GC-2 M had
lesser VPV, it offer higher resistance to water permeation resulting in a lesser depth of water penetration. Whereas, GC-12 M had
higher VPV due to excessive SH and SS in the GP system. Immoderate amounts of SH and SS hinder the evaporation of water molecule
produced during geopolymerization process, disrupting the formation of three-dimensional networks of alumino-silicate, thereby
impeding geopolymerization [91]. The unreacted alkalis present in GC-12 M resulted in a weak and porous structure that increased the
depth of water permeation.
3.2.3. Rapid chloride permeability

A rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT) was performed to measure the electrical conductance of concrete for assessing the
chloride ion penetrability. Chloride ions may exist in a fresh mix of concrete in water, aggregates, or additives and are transported
through channels of porous structures available in concrete [92]. The electrical conductivity of a specimen is associated with the pore
network of structure and chemical composition of pore solution while transportation of ions [93]. The electrical conductance of the
concrete for about 6 h was recorded in Coulomb (C) at intervals of every 30 min, as shown in Table 3. The charge passed through
concrete samples is calculated by the trapezoidal rule [64]. At 28 days, the charge passed through GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC is
observed as 977.61 C, 1065.14 C, and 1887.34 C, respectively. At 90 days, the charge passed through GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC is
observed as 928.73 C, 1023.43 C, and 1792.97 C, respectively.
The experimental investigation in this study indicated that for all concrete mixes, the increase in age decreased the chloride ion
penetrability. Moreover, it is worth noting that GC-2 M had the least chloride ion penetration followed by GC-12 M and PC. According
to ASTM C 1202 [64], the chloride ion penetrability is associated with the charge passed through concrete specimens. The charge
passed in the range of “100–1000 C” is classified as “very low” chloride ion penetrability whereas, the range “1000–2000 C” is defined
as “low” penetrability.
The charge passed through GC-2 M is 977.61 C and 928.73 C for 28 and 90 days, respectively, classifying the “very low” pene
trability of chlorides in samples. Whereas the charge passed through GC-12 M is 1065.14 C and 1023.43 C for 28 and 90 days, resulting
in “low” chloride ion penetrability, which is very close to the charge passed through GC-2 M. Porosity and tortuosity are significant
factors influencing chloride penetration [94]. The co-grinding of GGBS with SMS might have contributed to enhancing the reactivity of
the GP precursor [58] and the rate of geopolymerization [23]. Additionally, the co-grinding increased the surface area and slag
Table 3
Current passed through GC and PC with increasing time in RCPT.
Time (minutes) Current (mA)
28 Days 90 Days
GC-2 M GC-12 M PC GC-2 M GC-12 M PC
0 37.44 41.93 72.28 35.57 39.25 68.67

30 38.64 42.37 74.60 36.71 41.67 70.87
60 39.84 43.81 76.91 37.85 42.06 73.07
90 40.80 44.96 78.77 38.76 43.16 74.83
120 41.76 46.11 80.62 39.67 44.27 76.59
150 42.96 47.55 82.94 40.81 45.65 78.79
180 44.64 49.57 86.18 42.41 47.59 81.87
210 46.32 50.58 89.42 44.00 48.56 84.95
240 49.20 52.04 94.98 46.74 49.96 90.23
270 50.16 53.19 96.84 47.65 51.06 91.99
300 51.36 54.63 99.15 48.79 52.45 94.20
330 52.08 56.50 100.54 49.48 54.24 95.52
360 53.28 58.94 102.86 50.62 56.58 97.72
Charge passed (C) 977.61 1065.14 1887.34 928.73 1023.43 1792.97
Penetrability (ASTM C 1202) Very low Low Low Very Low Low Low
9
reaction rate, leading to additional GP gel formation [58,88], which improved the porosity, resulting in higher resistance to chloride
ion penetration. The total charge passed through concrete decreases as the curing period increases. It may be attributed to the
densification of the geopolymeric and C-S-H gel matrix and the reducing chloride ion penetrability with age [95,96]. The charge passed
through GC-2 M is lower than in GC-12 M. It may be attributed to the higher SH concentration in GC-12 M, which has a more porous
structure than GC-2 M, offering lesser resistance to chloride ion penetration [97].
Moreover, 1887.34 C and 1792.97 C of charge is observed for PC at 28 and 90 days respectively, indicating “low” permeability of
chlorides. The charge passed through GC is lower than PC, and GC offers higher resistance to chloride penetrability than PC [96,98],
due to the formation of anisotropic linkages of CASH leading to a reduction in the pore size [69,99]. Similar findings were reported
earlier that GC exhibited lower chloride penetration than conventional concrete [97,100,101].
It is well known that in the water absorption test, the water penetrates the specimen under ambient conditions (without any
pressure) when the entire specimen is immersed in water for 24 h. Whereas, in the water permeability test, a single side of concrete
specimens is subjected to water pressure of 500 ± 50 kPa for uninterrupted 72 h. On the other hand, a rapid chloride penetration test
(RCPT) is conducted to examine the degree of chloride ion diffusion under a specific current’s flowing rate. The charge passed through
the specimen is estimated, which is further used to indicate the degree of chloride ion penetration as per ASTM C 1202. Since the
concrete specimens are tested under different circumstances, the nature and intensity of water ingress differ in water absorption and
permeability tests. Whereas the rate of current passed is measured, indicating the pore structure of the concrete specimen. Therefore,
the test results of water absorption, water permeability, and rapid chloride ion penetration test show significant differences.
3.3. Ultrasonic pulse velocity
The uniformity and presence of defects, like voids or cracks in concrete can be identified by the UPV test. The results of UPV
determined for GC and PC at 7, 28, 56, and 90 days of curing age are presented in Table 4. The UPV for GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC for
different ages range between 4.87 km/s and 5.21 km/s; 4.52 km/s and 4.97 km/s; and 4.27 km/s and 5.12 km/s, respectively. It is
observed that the UPV values increased with curing age. It may be due to the continuous reaction of geopolymerization and hydration
with time. As the reaction progresses, the pores are filled with a gel matrix, and UPV increases, resulting in concrete of “excellent”
quality [63]. Also, it is noted that UPV was the highest for GC-2 M followed by GC-12 M and PC.
It is evident from the results that the UPV of GC samples varied in the range of 4.52–5.21 km/s classifying it as “excellent” (UPV
more than 4.5 km/s) quality of concrete in terms of homogeneity and uniformity as per IS 516 (Part 5) [63]. As discussed earlier that
high calcium GC possesses a dense and compact structure due to the coexistence of geopolymeric and hydration products, GC is free
from any cracks or discontinuity, resulting in higher UPV values. In addition to this, the co-grinding of GGBS and SMS might have
boosted the dispersion of aluminosilicate particles of GGBS which intensified the interconnectivity of geopolymer structure, and
decreased pore size, thus, forming a dense and compact structure [21].
The UPV of PC is observed in the range of 4.27–5.12 km/s, indicating relatively higher resistance of concrete to ultrasonic pulse
waves, thus, classifying it in “good” (UPV between 3.5 and 4.5 km/s) to “excellent” (UPV more than 4.5 km/s) quality of concrete.
Since GC-2 M has a more consistent and uniform structure, it showed a higher UPV than GC-12 M. The VPV in PC is more than that of
GC indicating the presence of voids and cracks, which reduced the UPV. The UPV results indicate that GC and PC are in good condition
due to lesser discontinuity, which may not affect their long-term performance [102].
3.4. Acid attack
3.4.1. Visible changes

Resistance against aggressive environment due to sulphuric, hydrochloric, and nitric acid, for GC and PC was investigated. Fig. 7(a)
shows the image of all three types of concrete and Fig. 7(b-d) depicts the deterioration in GC and PC after immersion in sulphuric,
hydrochloric, and nitric acid, respectively. Immersion of concrete samples in different acidic solutions deteriorated the samples in
terms of erosion of the surface, and popping out of the surface layer at some places. It may be due to the decomposition of hydration
products, which occurs when an acid reacts with lime resulting in the formation of soluble calcium by-products [28]. Since GC consists
of geopolymeric gel in addition to C-S-H gel, the observed deterioration in GC is lesser than in PC. Even though the hydration products
decompose, but, the geopolymer matrix holds the GC firmly, indicating GC is more durable against acid attack than conventional
concrete. From visual inspection, it is observed that the concrete suffered from leaching of alkali, and the cubes disintegrated when
immersed in HCl and HNO3, whereas, the concrete in H2SO4 showed uneven volumetric expansion due to the formation of gypsum
[103].
Table 4
Assessment of concrete quality based on UPV results obtained for GC and PC.
Age of Concrete (Days) Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (km/s)
GC-2 M Quality of concrete GC-12 M Quality of concrete PC Quality of concrete
7 4.87 Excellent 4.52 Excellent 4.27 Good

28 4.93 Excellent 4.81 Excellent 4.73 Excellent
10
Fig. 7. (a) Concrete before immersion; Concrete after immersing in (b) H2SO4; (c) HCl; and (d) HNO3.
3.4.2. Microstructural analysis

When the concrete is immersed in acid, acid penetrates inside and creates minerological changes observed in detail by XRD
analysis. The XRD of GC and PC samples immersed in various acid solutions are illustrated in Fig. 8(a-c). On exposure to H2SO4, the gel
structure of GC undergoes decalcification of C-S-H and CASH gel, resulting in the development of gypsum. The appearance of gypsum
in concrete indicates that the binder eroded, leaving behind a loose matrix of concrete. Significant peaks of minerals observed after
geopolymerization can be seen in GC-2 M, whereas low peaks in GC-12 M indicate a severe attack by the acid [68]. The deterioration of
concrete samples immersed in HCl and HNO3 may be attributed to the formation of calcium chloride and calcium nitrate, respectively
[68]. The intensity of C-S-H gel significantly lowered in GC and PC due to decalcification, leading to the decrease in gel matrix of the
concrete [67]. Excessive ettringite formation is observed in PC in addition to gypsum, leading to severe deterioration of concrete [68].
Fig. 9 shows the FESEM image of GC and PC with EDAX spectra immersed in different acid solutions. The defects occurring in
concrete due to acid attack, i.e., penetration pores observed in GC-2 M, GC-12 M, and PC, are prominently visible in Fig. 9(a-c) when
immersed in different acid solution. The FESEM images show that penetration pores were formed, making the GC lose its binding
characteristics. It is due to the interruption of Si-O-Si and Si-O-Al bonds leading to depolymerization of aluminosilicate polymers and
liberation of silicic acid [104,105]. In GC-2 M, only a few small penetration pores are visible, which may be attributed to the complete
geopolymerization of the reactants, hardly leaving any unreacted constituent. Whereas GC-12 M possesses unreacted alkali present in
the concrete matrix observed in Fig. 5(b). These unreacted alkalis were attacked by an acid solution, leaving behind large pores. On
further exposure to an acidic environment, the porous structure disintegrated and developed wide cracks in GC-12 M. The deterio
ration of GC cubes in H2SO4 is maximum due to gypsum formation [103].
The rod-shaped formations observed in Fig. 9(c), confirm the formation of excessive ettringite for PC immersed in H2SO4 [106]. The
gypsum formed in PC and ettringite beyond a specific limit led to uneven expansion and cracking of concrete. As the contact period of
concrete specimens with acid prolongs, the acid propagates from the surface to the inner core of concrete, leading to the disintegration
of binder. Thus, the binder particles in GC-12 M and PC appear scattered in FESEM images, with penetration pores and cracks
significantly visible on the concrete surface. The observed extent of acid attack on GC and PC is H2SO4 > HCl > HNO3.
3.4.3. Change in mass and UPV

The change in mass and UPV of GC and PC at the age of 7, 28, and 56 days after immersing the concrete samples in different acid
solutions was measured. The observed mass loss with time due to immersion in different acid solutions is illustrated in Fig. 10(a). The
results on the positive vertical axis show a percentage gain in mass of the concrete specimen, whereas negative vertical axis plots
indicate a percentage loss in concrete’s mass. Initially, an increase in the mass of concrete cubes was observed at 7 days of immersion
for all acid solutions. An initial increase in mass is experienced by all concrete specimens at 7 days, followed by mass loss at 28 and 56
days of immersion in all acid solutions [107]. The mass loss, which occurs after 7 days, increases as the immersion period extends. The
highest mass loss is observed at 56 days, followed by 28 days. This pattern suggests that the deterioration of the concrete is progressive
and becomes more prominent with time. The key reason behind the damage of concrete in an acidic environment is that acids interact
with calcium components present in the binder matrix of concrete, making the binder lose its binding properties [108,109]. The loss of
11
A. Singh et al.
12
Fig. 8. XRD of concrete immersed in acid solutions (a) GC-2 M, (b) GC-12 M, and (c) PC.
Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e02715

Fig. 9. FESEM images and EDAX spectra (top right corner) of concrete after immersing in H2SO4, HCl, and HNO3, respectively, for 56 days: (a) 2 M
GC, (b) 12 M GC, and (c) PC.
Fig. 10. (a) Change in mass, and (b) Reduction in UPV value of GC and PC with age after immersion in different acid solutions.
mass in PC is greater than that in GC, and it is least in GC-2 M, indicating that the concrete composition plays a significant role in its
resistance to acid attack. The gain/loss of mass follows the order H2SO4 > HCl > HNO3 for both GC and PC.
The preliminary temporary increase in mass may be attributed to the reaction between acid and concrete leading to the formation
13
of gypsum, triggering an increase in volume [28]. The expansive nature of gypsum disintegrates the binder leading to mass loss in later
age [28]. Both initial increase and subsequent decrease in mass are the largest in magnitude in PC followed by GC-12 M and GC-2 M
concrete. It may be attributed to the fact that PC contains hydration products only, which further interact with acid solution to form
gypsum and ettrigite, resulting in dissolution of the binder. Whereas, GC consists of geopolymeric gel that does not readily dissolve in
the acid medium [28]. The maximum deterioration is observed for concrete specimens immersed in H2SO4 which may be due to its
strong corrosive properties.
The measured effect of acid attack on UPV is depicted in Fig. 10 (b). The reduction in UPV for all concrete mixes is observed after
immersion in all three acid solutions. A decline in UPV increased with the age of immersion, indicating a progressive weakening of the
internal structure of concrete due to acid exposure. The percentage reduction in UPV is higher for PC compared to GC. It may be due to
ettringite formation in the PC on exposure to acid, which loosened the concrete. This lead to the development of crack, which
decreased the UPV in PC. The reduction is lowest for GC-2 M than GC-12 M and PC. The reduction in UPV is highest for specimens
immersed in H2SO4, and the least in HNO3 indicating that H2SO4 has more adverse impact on UPV than HNO3. Similar findings have
been reported in the literature [28].
3.4.4. Effect on compressive strength

Acid attack, not only deteriorates the physical appearance of the concrete but leads to a loss in mass and reduction in compressive
strength. The compressive strength of GC and PC is indicated in Fig. 11 (a) and the rate of loss in compressive strength of GC and PC in
different acid solutions with age is illustrated in Fig. 11(b-d). The observations reveal a significant reduction in compressive strength
for all three concrete types, with immersion in all three acids. It is progressively pronounced with an increase in the age of immersion,
suggesting that the deleterious effects of acid exposure intensify over time, leading to a gradual weakening of the concrete. The
reduction in compressive strength in GC is lesser than that in PC, due to the formation of etrringite in PC. The higher resistance of GC to
acid attack may be attributed to its condensed micro-structure because of the coexistence of geopolymerization and hydration
products, which appears to be more resilient to the effects of acid exposure compared to solely hydration product-based PC. The loss in
compressive strength is most significant in the case of immersion in H2SO4 as compared to the least impact on HNO3 followed by HCl.
The reduction in compressive strength is highest for all three concretes when immersed in H2SO4. The gel structure of GC undergoes
decalcification of C-S-H and CASH gel on reaction with sulfate, leading to the formation of gypsum. Gypsum absorbs moisture and
expands, increasing the volume and decreasing the density of concrete. This results in spalling and chipping of concrete due to
Fig. 11. (a) Compressive strength of GC and PC for different ages, the percentage loss of compressive strength with time in GC and PC when
immersed in (b) H2SO4, (c) HCl, and (d) HNO3.
14
volumetric strains, thus leading to deterioration in the strength of concrete on exposure to sulfate [28]. The reduction in compressive
strength for all three types of concrete immersed in HCl may be due to the reaction of HCl with calcium compounds in concrete to form
calcium chloride. It is highly soluble and leaches out from concrete leaving behind a highly porous structure that deteriorates the
concrete [28]. The effect of nitric acid is the least on all concretes. As nitrate solution causes a dissolving effect by neutralization
reaction, GC specimens are less susceptible to nitrates as compared to PC. The GC specimens offered high resistance to nitrate, and
deterioration in compressive strength is least significant [28].
Based on the above findings it can be inferred that PC is more susceptible to dissolution and disintegration by the acid solution than
GC. The relative effect of various acids on GC-2 M and GC-12 M may be accounted for by their respective chemical reactions. Since GC-
12 M has an excess amount of alkalis which are unreacted and dissolve readily when exposed to acid attack. On the other hand, GC-2 M
possesses a dense and compact structure that offers higher resistance to acid penetration in the pores. Hence, GGBS-based GC offered
higher resistance to acid attack than PC. The results are in line with the findings of other researchers, where GC is compared with OPC
concrete and Portland pozzolana cement concrete [8,110]. A decrease in the compressive strength of GP on exposure to an acidic
environment was reported in previous research [111]. However, GC offered higher resistance to 5% sulphuric acid compared to
conventional concrete [105].
3.5. Economic and environmental analysis
The feasibility of using any industrial by-product (like GGBS) as an ingredient in concrete can be assessed based on its fundamental
properties. Furthermore, when such a material is implemented as a constituent of GC, its impact on economics and the environment is
equally substantial. The economic and environmental factors, such as equivalent carbon emissions of PC, GC-2 M, and GC-12 M are
studied in detail. The total production cost and equivalent carbon emissions of PC and GC have been determined by multiplying the
total quantity of constituents with the corresponding per-unit value, as shown in Table 5.
The construction industry has moved to geopolymer binding materials which substitutes cement. GC, however, did not become
popular because of the highly concentrated activators used to achieve its mechanical and durability characteristics. In this study, the
economic aspect is assessed by determining the cost of PC, GC-2 M, and GC-12 M at the production cost of constituents. The price of
each ingredient used for developing GC and PC per kg is obtained through a market survey, and the total cost of concrete is estimated.
The cost of PC (per m3) is INR 7391/- which is the lowest compared to GC-2 M and GC-12 M. The price of GC-2 M and GC-12 M is 9%
and 307% higher than PC. The difference in PC and GC-2 M cost is very low, whereas that of GC-12 M is very high.
Cost is not the only factor governing concrete use. This study investigated three types of concrete and found that equivalent carbon
emissions is crucial factor for recommendation of the best mix. The data used for evaluating the equivalent carbon emissions of
different ingredients used for the concrete mixes is adopted from the literature [112–115]. The equivalent carbon emissions of PC (per
m3) is 226.5704 kg/kg. GC-2 M and GC-12 M contribute 47% and 212% of the equivalent carbon emissions of PC. Considering the cost
and equivalent carbon emissions aspects, it is recommended to use GC-2 M. Thus, providing a sustainable solution for the construction
industries and helping conserve natural resources exploited in cement manufacturing.
4. Conclusions
The present research investigated the durability performance, of GGBS-based GC with a low and high concentration of alkali ac
tivators, obtained by mechanochemical activation of geopolymeric precursor. The co-grinding during mechanochemical activation led
to the amorphization of GGBS, enhancing the reactivity of GGBS and SMS. Additional alumina and silica generated increased the
formation of GP gel, thereby enhancing geopolymerization reaction. Mechanical strength and various durability performance criteria
of GC with low and high concentration alkali activator were compared with Portland slag cement-based concrete (PC). The economic
and environmental assessment of GC and PC facilitated in identification of the most efficient mix. Based on the results of experimental
investigations, the following are significant conclusions:
1. The compressive strength of GC-2 M was higher than GC-12 M. It may be due to the presence of excessive alkali left unreacted in
GC-12 M. which disrupted geopolymerization. The compressive strength of GC-2 M was higher than PC for the concrete grade
under consideration.
2. The water absorption and VPV of GC were found to be lower as compared to PC. GC with 2 M concentration had the lowest water
absorption and VPV as compared to 12 M GC mix. The presence of excess hydroxide ions in GC-12 M, hindered polycondensation
thereby retarded geopolymerization and hydration process.
3. The water permeability test revealed that the GC mixes satisfied the limiting criteria of 25 mm water penetration depth, whereas
this permissible limit was exceeded by PC mix. The mechanochemical activation of binding materials formed dense concrete
microstructure in GC mixes, which further led to the decrement in the water permeability compared to PC mixes. Furthermore, GC-
2 M had the lowest permeability due to the condensed structure formed, in comparison to GC-12 M. The permeability of GC-12 M
was higher due to excessive alkali dosage that disrupted the three-dimensional networks of alumino-silicate thereby interfering the
geopolymerization.
4. The UPV test classified GC samples in “excellent” category as it was free from any cracks or discontinuity. Whereas, the quality of
PC mixes changed from “good” to “excellent” with the increase in curing age. The coexistence of geopolymeric and hydration
products filled the pores uniformly in GC leading to a homogeneous structure.
15
Table 5
Economic and environmental analysis of different concrete mixes.
Mix ID PC GC-2 M GC-12 M
Material Cost Quantity Equivalent carbon emission Quantity Equivalent carbon emission Quantity Equivalent carbon emission
INR/ kg/m3 (kg/kg) kg/m3 (kg/kg) kg/m3 (kg/kg)
kg
GGBS 4 - - 422 0.052 422 0.052

PSC 10 422 0.490 - - - -
Fine aggregate 0.6 621 0.0048 738 0.0048 738 0.0048
Coarse aggregate 1.6 1284 0.0048 1328 0.0048 1328 0.0048
Water 0.05 148 .0008 184 .0008 184 .0008
SH 130 - - 16.32 0.86 97.92 0.86
SMS 90 - - 32.64 1.86 195.84 1.86
Admixture 260 5.6 1.88 - - - -
Total INR 7391/- 226.57 8081/- 106.75 30104/- 480.48
5. In the chloride ion penetration test, GC-2 M sample is found as “very low” charge passing mix and GC-12 M and PC are evaluated as
“low” charge passing mixes. The chloride ion penetration is associated with the VPV, the lowest VPV resulted in a better resistance
to chloride ion penetration of GC-2 M followed by GC-12 M and PC.
6. For GC and PC mixes, the intensity of distress due to acid attack was in the order of H2SO4 > HCl > HNO3, which is observed in the
conventional concrete mixes as well. The resistance to an acidic environment is the highest for GC-2 M and further decreased for
GC-12 M and observed the lowest for PC mix. The penetration of harmful chemicals in concrete proportionately affects its dura
bility. The condensed microstructure of GC-2 M due to geopolymeric gel entangled with C-S-H gel enhanced the resistance against
the aggressive environment. However, the empty spaces in GC-12 M and PC caused severe damage when subjected to an acidic
environment.
7. Economic and environmental assessment of GC and PC reveals that, even though PC is the most economically viable solution, but it
is more detrimental to the environment due to higher carbon emissions. GC-2 M has the lowest carbon emission with a 9% increase
in cost, which can be over looked due to its environmental benefits.
It is summarised that the durability of solely GGBS-based GC mix is better in terms of reduction in water absorption, VPV, water and
chloride penetration, improved material integrity, and increment in the resistance to the aggressive environment compared to PC mix.
Furthermore, it is explored that the mechanochemical activation of precursors in GC has the potential to decrease the concentration of
alkali solution with increased durability of concrete. Therefore, the development of GC can be implemented for field applications,
considering its long-term serviceability. The two-fold benefits, i.e., the development of environmental-friendly construction material
with improved durability and practicing the method to lower the concentrations of alkali solutions for cost reduction, which improves
the efficacy of solely GGBS-based GC mix. This study will encourage researchers, professional practitioners, and industries to
implement mechanochemically activated GP for construction applications. The mix proportion data may help select the most
economical concrete mix of eco-friendly GC with desired mechanical and durability properties.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ashita Singh: Conceptualization, Experimentation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing. Sudhir Singh Bhadauria: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Akshay
Anil Thakare: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Anil Kumar: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing. Manish Mudgal: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Sandeep Chaudhary: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
The authors are thankful to National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, New Delhi, Govt. of India for supporting this
research by granting a research project titled, “Durability study of GGBS based cement free concrete pavements for rural areas” (Lr. No.
NRRDA-PO10(21)/2/2018-Dir(Tech)(E:361383)-1 Dated: 15.03.2022). The financial support extended by the Department of Science
and Technology, DST, Govt. of India (File no. PDF/2022/000424) is appreciated.
16
References
[1] R.J. Flatt, N. Roussel, C.R. Cheeseman, Concrete: an eco material that needs to be improved, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 32 (11) (2012) 2787–2798, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2011.11.012.
[2] E. Gartner, H. Hirao, A review of alternative approaches to the reduction of CO2 emissions associated with the manufacture of the binder phase in concrete,
Cem. Conc. Res. 78 (2015) 126–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.04.012.
[3] J.L. Provis, J.S. Van Deventer, Alkali activated materials: State-of-the-art report, RILEM TC 224-AAM, Springer Science & Business Media,, 2013.
[4] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers, J. Therm. Ana 37 (8) (1991) 1633–1656, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01912193.
[5] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments, Const. Build. Mat. 85 (2015) 78–90,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036.
[6] V. Gupta, D.K. Pathak, R. Kumar, A. Miglani, S. Siddique, S. Chaudhary, Production of colored bi-layered bricks from stone processing wastes: structural and
spectroscopic characterization, Const. Build. Mat. 278 (2021) 122339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122339.
[7] O. Wan-En, L. Yun-Ming, H. Cheng-Yong, H. Li Ngee, M.M. Al Bakri Abdullah, M.S. Bin Khalid, F. Kai Loong, O. Shee-Ween, T. Pei Seng, H. Yong Jie,
K. Zulkifly, Towards greener one-part geopolymers through solid sodium activators modification, J. Clean. Prod. 378 (2022), 134370, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134370.
[8] M. Albitar, M.M. Ali, P. Visintin, M. Drechsler, Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional concretes, Const. Build. Mat. 136 (2017) 374–385,
[9] I. Perná, T. Hanzlíček, The setting time of a clay-slag geopolymer matrix: the influence of blast-furnace-slag addition and the mixing method, J. Clean. Prod.
112 (2016) 1150–1155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.069.
[10] A.F. Abdalqader, F. Jin, A. Al-Tabbaa, Development of greener alkali-activated cement: utilisation of sodium carbonate for activating slag and fly ash mixtures,
J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 66–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.010.
[11] A. Rashad, Y. Bai, P.M. Basheer, N. Collier, N. Milestone, Chemical and mechanical stability of sodium sulfate activated slag after exposure to elevated
temperature, Cem. Conc. Res. 42 (2) (2012) 333–343, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.10.007.
[12] K.H. Yang, A.R. Cho, J.K. Song, S.H. Nam, Hydration products and strength development of calcium hydroxide-based alkali-activated slag mortars, Const.
Build. Mat. 29 (2012) 410–419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.063.
[13] F. Bellmann, J. Stark, Activation of blast furnace slag by a new method, Cem. Conc. Res. 39 (8) (2009) 644–650, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2009.05.012.
[14] T.W. Swaddle, Silicate complexes of aluminum(III) in aqueous systems, Coord. Chem. Rev. 219–221 (2001) 665–686, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-8545
(01)00362-9.
[15] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, 2008.
[16] V.B. Vladimir, Mechanochemistry and mechanical activation of solids, Rus Chem. Rev. 75 (3) (2006) 177, https://doi.org/10.1070/
RC2006v075n03ABEH001205.
[17] P. Baláž, Mechanochemistry in Minerals Engineering, in: P. Baláž (Ed.), Mechanochemistry in Nanoscience and Minerals Engineering, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 257–296, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74855-7.
[18] A.Z. Juhász, L. Opoczky, Mechanical activation of minerals by grinding pulverizing and morphology of particles, United States (1990).
[19] R. Kumar, S. Kumar, S. Badjena, S. Mehrotra, Hydration of mechanically activated granulated blast furnace slag, Metall. Mater. Trans. 36 (6) (2005) 873,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-005-0089-x.
[20] S. Kumar, R. Kumar, A. Bandopadhyay, T. Alex, B.R. Kumar, S.K. Das, S. Mehrotra, Mechanical activation of granulated blast furnace slag and its effect on the
properties and structure of portland slag cement, Cem. Conc. Comp. 30 (8) (2008) 679–685, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.05.005.
[21] S. Hosseini, N.A. Brake, M. Nikookar, Ö. Günaydın-Şen, H.A. Snyder, Mechanochemically activated bottom ash-fly ash geopolymer, Cem. Conc. Comp. 118
(2021) 103976, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.103976.
[22] I. Balczár, T. Korim, H. Hullár, A. Boros, É. Makó, Manufacture of air-cooled slag-based alkali-activated cements using mechanochemical activation, Const.
[23] I. Balczár, T. Korim, A. Kovács, E. Mako, Mechanochemical and thermal activation of kaolin for manufacturing geopolymer mortars – comparative study, Cera
Int 42 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.182.
[24] J. Temuujin, R.P. Williams, A. van Riessen, Effect of mechanical activation of fly ash on the properties of geopolymer cured at ambient temperature, J. Mat. Pro
Tech. 209 (12) (2009) 5276–5280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.03.016.
[25] S. Kumar, R. Kumar, Mechanical activation of fly ash: effect on reaction, structure and properties of resulting geopolymer, Cera Int 37 (2) (2011) 533–541,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2010.09.038.
[26] T. Bakharev, J.G. Sanjayan, Y.B. Cheng, Sulfate attack on alkali-activated slag concrete, Cem. Conc. Res. 32 (2) (2002) 211–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0008-8846(01)00659-7.
[27] D.M. Roy, W. Jiang, M.R. Silsbee, Chloride diffusion in ordinary, blended, and alkali-activated cement pastes and its relation to other properties, Cem. Conc.
Res. 30 (12) (2000) 1879–1884, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00406-3.
[28] C.S. Thunuguntla, T.D. Gunneswara Rao, Effect of mix design parameters on mechanical and durability properties of alkali activated slag concrete, Const.
[29] T. Bakharev, Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions, Cem. Conc. Res 35 (6) (2005) 1233–1246, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.002.
[30] O. Burciaga, Díaz, Inorganic polymers based on metakaolin, thermal and chemical resistance as a function of the chemical composition, Ceram. Eng. Cinvestav
(2007).
[31] J.L. Provis, J.S.J. Van Deventer, Geopolymers: Structures, processing, properties and industrial applications, Elsevier,, 2009.
[32] D.L.Y. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures, Cem. Conc. Comp. 30 (10) (2008) 986–991,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.08.001.
[33] W. Okoro, S. Oyebisi, Mechanical and durability assessments of steel slag-seashell powder-based geopolymer concrete, Heliyon 9 (2) (2023), e13188, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13188.
[34] U. Faiz, F. Shaikh, Effects of alkali solutions on corrosion durability of geopolymer concrete, Adv. Concr. Constr. 2 (2014) 109–123, https://doi.org/10.12989/
acc.2014.2.2.109.
[35] O.F. Nnaemeka, N.B. Singh, Durability properties of geopolymer concrete made from fly ash in presence of Kaolin, Mater. Today.: Proc. 29 (2020) 781–784,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.696.
[36] A. Gupta, N. Gupta, K.K. Saxena, Mechanical and durability characteristics assessment of geopolymer composite (GPC) at varying silica fume content,
J. Compos. Sci. (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5090237.
[37] S. Oyebisi, A. Ede, F. Olutoge, S. Ogbiye, Evaluation of reactivity indexes and durability properties of slag-based geopolymer concrete incorporating corn cob
ash, Const. Build. Mat. 258 (2020) 119604, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119604.
[38] S. Oyebisi, A. Ede, F. Olutoge, H. Owamah, T. Igba, Slag-based geopolymer concrete incorporating ash: effects on thermal performance, Aus J. Civ. Eng. 20 (1)
(2022) 208–221, https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2021.1953234.
[39] S. Oyebisi, A. Ede, F. Olutoge, D. Omole, Geopolymer concrete incorporating agro-industrial wastes: effects on mechanical properties, microstructural
behaviour and mineralogical phases, Const. Build. Mat. 256 (2020) 119390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119390.
[40] S. Oyebisi, A. Ede, F. Olutoge, D. Olukanni, Assessment of activity moduli and acidic resistance of slag-based geopolymer concrete incorporating pozzolan,
Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 13 (2020), e00394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00394.
17
[41] S. Oyebisi, A. Ede, F. Olutoge, B. Ngene, Assessment of activity indexes on the splitting tensile strengthening of geopolymer concrete incorporating
supplementary cementitious materials, Mater. Today Commun. 24 (2020) 101356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101356.
[42] S.O. Oyebisi, A.N. Ede, F.A. Olutoge, Optimization of design parameters of slag-corncob ash-based geopolymer concrete by the central composite design of the
response surface methodology, Iran. J. Sci. Tech. Trans. Civ. Eng. 45 (1) (2021) 27–42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-020-00470-1.
[43] A. Gupta, N. Gupta, K.K. Saxena, Experimental study of the mechanical and durability properties of Slag and Calcined Clay based geopolymer composite, Adv.
Mater. Process. Technol. 8 (sup2) (2022) 655–669, https://doi.org/10.1080/2374068X.2021.1948709.
[44] R.R. Bellum, K. Muniraj, S.R.C. Madduru, Influence of slag on mechanical and durability properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, J. Korean Ceram.
Soc. 57 (5) (2020) 530–545, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43207-020-00056-7.
[45] R.R. Bellum, K. Muniraj, S.R.C. Madduru, Exploration of mechanical and durability characteristics of fly ash-GGBFS based green geopolymer concrete, SN
Appl. Sci. 2 (5) (2020) 919, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2720-5.
[46] R.R. Bellum, K. Muniraj, C.S.R. Indukuri, S.R.C. Madduru, Investigation on performance enhancement of fly ash-GGBFS based graphene geopolymer concrete,
J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) 101659, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101659.
[47] Y.J. Zhang, Y.L. Zhao, H.H. Li, D.L. Xu, Structure characterization of hydration products generated by alkaline activation of granulated blast furnace slag,
J. Mater. Sci. 43 (22) (2008) 7141–7147, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-008-3028-9.
[48] I.S. Abbas, M.H. Abed, H. Canakci, Development and characterization of eco- and user-friendly grout production via mechanochemical activation of slag/rice
husk ash geopolymer, J. Build. Eng. 63 (2023) 105336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105336.
[49] A. Singh, S.S. Bhadauria, M. Mudgal, S.S. Kushwah, Effect of alkali activator dosage on compressive and tensile strength of ground granulated blast furnace
slag based geopolymer concrete, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 49 (1) (2022) 73–82, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0558.
[50] A. Singh, S.S. Bhadauria, M. Mudgal, S.S. Kushwah, Engineering properties of geopolymer prepared by mild chemical activation of ground granulated blast
furnace slag, Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 27 (2020) 996–1008. http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/56161.
[51] A.A. Thakare, A. Singh, V. Gupta, S. Siddique, S. Chaudhary, Sustainable development of self-compacting cementitious mixes using waste originated fibers: a
review, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 168 (2021) 105250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105250.
[52] S. Gupta, S. Chaudhary, State of the art review on supplementary cementitious materials in India – II: characteristics of SCMs, effect on concrete and
environmental impact, J. Clean. Prod. 357 (2022) 131945, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131945.
[53] V. Gupta, H.K. Chai, Y. Lu, S. Chaudhary, A state of the art review to enhance the industrial scale waste utilization in sustainable unfired bricks, Const. Build.
Mat. 254 (2020) 119220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119220.
[54] R. Gupta, P. Bhardwaj, D. Mishra, M. Mudgal, R.K. Chouhan, M. Prasad, S.S. Amritphale, Evolution of advanced geopolymeric cementitious material via a
novel process, Adv. Cem. Res. 29 (3) (2017) 125–134, https://doi.org/10.1680/jadcr.16.00113.
[55] IS 383: 2016- Coarse and Fine Aggregate for Concrete - Specification, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India, 2016.
[56] G. Masi, A. Filipponi, M.C. Bignozzi, Fly ash-based one-part alkali activated mortars cured at room temperature: effect of precursor pre-treatments, Open
Ceram 8 (2021) 100178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceram.2021.100178.
[57] S. Kushwah, M. Mudgal, R.K. Chouhan, The process, characterization and mechanical properties of fly ash-based solid form geopolymer via mechanical
activation, S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 38 (2021) 104–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajce.2021.09.002.
[58] M. Hamid Abed, I. Sabbar Abbas, M. Hamed, H. Canakci, Rheological, fresh, and mechanical properties of mechanochemically activated geopolymer grout: a
comparative study with conventionally activated geopolymer grout, Const. Build. Mat. 322 (2022) 126338, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2022.126338.
[59] F. Matalkah, L. Xu, W. Wu, P. Soroushian, Mechanochemical synthesis of one-part alkali aluminosilicate hydraulic cement, Mater. Struct. 50 (1) (2017) 12,
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0968-4.
[60] IS 516: 1959- Methods of Tests for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India, 1959.
[61] ASTM C 642 - Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959,
United States, 1997.
[62] IS, 516 Hardened Concrete - Methods of Test: Part 2 - Properties of Hardened Concrete other than Strength: Section 1, in: Density of Hardened Concrete and
Depth of Water Penetration Under Pressure, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India, 2018.
[63] IS. 516 Hardened Concrete - Methods of Test: Part 5 Non-destructive Testing of Concrete: Section 1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing, Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India, 2018.
[64] ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, United States, 1997.
[65] M.O. Yusuf, M.A.M. Johari, Z.A. Ahmad, M. Maslehuddin, Effects of addition of Al(OH)3 on the strength of alkaline activated ground blast furnace slag-
ultrafine palm oil fuel ash (AAGU) based binder, Const. Build. Mat. 50 (2014) 361–367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.054.
[66] M.O. Yusuf, M.A. Megat Johari, Z.A. Ahmad, M. Maslehuddin, Evolution of alkaline activated ground blast furnace slag–ultrafine palm oil fuel ash based
concrete, Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 387–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.09.047.
[67] R.V. Meena, A.S. Beniwal, A. Jain, R. Choudhary, R. Mandolia, Evaluating resistance of ceramic waste tile self-compacting concrete to sulphuric acid attack,
Const. Build. Mat. 393 (2023) 132042, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132042.
[68] F.Z. Youssari, O. Taleb, A.S. Benosman, Towards understanding the behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete in aggressive environments: acid attacks and
leaching, Const. Build. Mat. 368 (2023) 130444, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130444.
[69] J.L. Provis, R.J. Myers, C.E. White, V. Rose, J.S.J. van Deventer, X-ray microtomography shows pore structure and tortuosity in alkali-activated binders, Cem.
Conc. Res 42 (6) (2012) 855–864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.03.004.
[70] W.K. Part, M. Ramli, C.B. Cheah, An overview on the influence of various factors on the properties of geopolymer concrete derived from industrial by-products,
Const. Build. Mat. 77 (2015) 370–395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.065.
[71] J. Yang, X. Tang, H. Wang, Q. Wang, T. Cosgrove, Durability and compression properties of high-strength concrete reinforced with steel fibre and multi-walled
carbon nanotube, Iran, J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 45 (3) (2021) 1539–1563, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-020-00419-4.
[72] É. Kristóf, A.Z. Juhász, I. Vassányi, The effect of mechanical treatment on the crystal structure and thermal behavior of Kaolinite, Clays Clay Miner 41 (5)
(1993) 608–612, https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1993.0410511.
[73] R.L. Frost, É. Makó, J. Kristóf, E. Horváth, J.T. Kloprogge, Mechanochemical treatment of kaolinite, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 239 (2) (2001) 458–466, https://
doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2001.7591.
[74] R. Tanzer, Dependency of the physical properties of alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag on the nature of the alkaline activator, 8th fib PhD
Symposium (Kgs. Lyngby, Dänemark), 2010, pp. 353–358.
[75] P. Chindaprasirt, P. De Silva, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, S. Hanjitsuwan, Effect of SiO2 and Al2O3 on the setting and hardening of high calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer systems, J. Mat. Sci. 47 (12) (2012) 4876–4883, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-012-6353-y.
[76] S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, V. Rose, R. Mejía de Gutierrez, Evolution of binder structure in sodium silicate-activated slag-metakaolin blends, Cem. Conc. Comp. 33
(1) (2011) 46–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.09.004.
[77] W. Chen, H.J.H. Brouwers, The hydration of slag, part 1: reaction models for alkali-activated slag, J. Mat. Sci. 42 (2) (2007) 428–443, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10853-006-0873-2.
[78] S.A. Bernal, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, A.L. Pedraza, J.L. Provis, E.D. Rodriguez, S. Delvasto, Effect of binder content on the performance of alkali-activated slag
concretes, Cem. Conc. Res. 41 (1) (2011) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.08.017.
[79] S. Thokchom, P. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, Effect of water absorption, porosity and sorptivity on durability of geopolymer mortars, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 4 (7) (2009)
28–32.
[80] M. Olivia, H. Nikraz, Water penetrability of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, (2008).
18
[81] J.N.Y. Djobo, H.K. Tchakoute, N. Ranjbar, A. Elimbi, L.N. Tchadjie, D. Njopwouo, Gel composition and strength properties of alkali-activated oyster shell-
volcanic ash: effect of synthesis conditions, J. Am. Cera Soc. 99 (9) (2016) 3159–3166, https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.14332.
[82] W. Lee, J. Van Deventer, The effects of inorganic salt contamination on the strength and durability of geopolymers, Coll. Surf. A Physicochem Eng. Asp. 211 (2-
3) (2002) 115–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00239-X.
[83] Z. Zidi, M. Ltifi, Z. Ben Ayadi, L. El Mir, Synthesis of nano-alumina and their effect on structure, mechanical and thermal properties of geopolymer, J. Asian
Ceram. Soc. 7 (4) (2019) 524–535, https://doi.org/10.1080/21870764.2019.1676498.
[84] I.R.S. Code of Practice for Plain, Reinforced & Prestressed Concrete for General Bridge Construction Res. Des. Stand. Organ. Lucknow 1999 226011.
[85] IRC:44–2008, Guidelines for Cement Concrete Mix Design for Pavements (Second Revision), Indian Roads Congress, Kama Koti Marg, Sector 6, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi - 110022, 2008.
[86] A.K. Saha, P.K. Sarker, Durability characteristics of concrete using ferronickel slag fine aggregate and fly ash, 70(17) (2018) 865–874. ,https://doi.org/10.
1680/jmacr.17.00260.
[87] F.U.A. Shaikh, Mechanical and durability properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled coarse aggregates, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5 (2)
(2016) 277–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.05.009.
[88] N. Marjanović, M. Komljenović, Z. Baščarević, V. Nikolić, Improving reactivity of fly ash and properties of ensuing geopolymers through mechanical
activation, Const. Build. Mat. 57 (2014) 151–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.095.
[89] K. Chen, D. Wu, L. Xia, Q. Cai, Z. Zhang, Geopolymer concrete durability subjected to aggressive environments – A review of influence factors and comparison
with ordinary Portland cement, Const. Build. Mat. 279 (2021) 122496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122496.
[90] S. Pangdaeng, T. Phoo-ngernkham, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Influence of curing conditions on properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer containing
Portland cement as additive, Mat. Des. 53 (2014) 269–274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.07.018.
[91] S. Wallah, D. Hardjito, Sumajouw, D.M.J. Rangan, Sulfate and acid resistance of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Aus Struc Eng. Conf. (2005) 1–10.
[92] M.M. Hossain, M.R. Karim, M.K. Hossain, M.N. Islam, M.F.M. Zain, Durability of mortar and concrete containing alkali-activated binder with pozzolans: a
review, Const. Build. Mat. 93 (2015) 95–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.094.
[93] C. Shi, Another look at the rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM C1202 or ASSHTO T277), FHWA Resource Center,, Baltimore, 2003.
[94] W.H. Lee, J.H. Wang, Y.C. Ding, T.W. Cheng, A study on the characteristics and microstructures of GGBS/FA based geopolymer paste and concrete, Const.
[95] J.M. Miranda, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J.A. González, A. Palomo, Corrosion resistance in activated fly ash mortars, Cem. Conc. Res. 35 (6) (2005) 1210–1217,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.07.030.
[96] S.A. Bernal, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, J.L. Provis, Engineering and durability properties of concretes based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/
metakaolin blends, Const. Build. Mat. 33 (2012) 99–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.017.
[97] Ş. Bingöl, C. Bilim, C.D. Atiş, U. Durak, Durability properties of geopolymer mortars containing slag, Iran. J. Sci. Tech. Trans. Civ. Eng. 44 (1) (2020) 561–569,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00337-0.
[98] C. Shi, Effect of mixing proportions of concrete on its electrical conductivity and the rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM C1202 or ASSHTO T277) results,
Cem. Conc. Res. 34 (3) (2004) 537–545, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.09.007.
[99] M.C.G. Juenger, F. Winnefeld, J.L. Provis, J.H. Ideker, Advances in alternative cementitious binders, Cem. Conc. Res. 41 (12) (2011) 1232–1243, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.012.
[100] F.U. Shaikh, Effects of alkali solutions on corrosion durability of geopolymer concrete, Adv. Concr. Constr. 2 (2) (2014) 109, https://doi.org/10.12989/
acc.2014.2.2.109.
[101] N. Rajamane, M. Nataraja, N. Lakshmanan, J. Dattatreya, Rapid chloride permeability test on geopolymer and Portland cement, Ind. Concr. J. (2011) 21–26.
[102] C. Gunasekara, D.W. Law, S. Setunge, Long term permeation properties of different fly ash geopolymer concretes, Const. Build. Mat. 124 (2016) 352–362,
[103] M. Vafaei, A. Allahverdi, P. Dong, N. Bassim, Durability performance of geopolymer cement based on fly ash and calcium aluminate cement in mild
concentration acid solutions, J. Sustain. Cem. -Based Mater. 8 (5) (2019) 290–308, https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2019.1615568.
[104] M.A.M. Ariffin, M.A.R. Bhutta, M.W. Hussin, M. Mohd Tahir, N. Aziah, Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete, Const. Build. Mat. 43
(2013) 80–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.018.
[105] T. Bakharev, Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack, Cem. Conc. Res. 35 (4) (2005) 658–670, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.06.005.
[106] A.A. Thakare, T. Gupta, R. Deewan, S. Chaudhary, Micro and macro-structural properties of waste tyre rubber fibre-reinforced bacterial self-healing mortar,
Const. Build. Mat. 322 (2022) 126459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126459.
[107] E.K. Attiogbe, S.H. Rizkalla, Response of concrete to sulfuric acid attack, Acids Mater. J. 85 (6) (1988) 481–488.
[108] J. Monteny, N. De Belie, E. Vincke, W. Verstraete, L. Taerwe, Chemical and microbiological tests to simulate sulfuric acid corrosion of polymer-modified
concrete, Cem. Conc. Res. 31 (9) (2001) 1359–1365, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00565-8.
[109] S. Thokchom, P. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, Effect of Na2O content on durability of geopolymer mortars in sulphuric acid, World Academy of Science, Eng. Technol. 3
(2009) 508–513.
[110] R. Parshwanath, M. Nataraja, N. Lakshmanan, J. Dattatreya, D. Sabitha, Sulphuric acid resistant ecofriendly concrete from geopolymerisation of blast furnace
slag, Ind. J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 19 (2012) 357–367. http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/15164.
[111] P.K. Acharya, S.K. Patro, Acid resistance, sulphate resistance and strength properties of concrete containing ferrochrome ash (FA) and lime, Const. Build. Mat.
120 (2016) 241–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.099.
[112] A. Adesina, Performance and sustainability overview of sodium carbonate activated slag materials cured at ambient temperature, Resour. Environ. Sustain. 3
(2021) 100016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100016.
[113] L.-Y. Xu, L.-P. Qian, B.-T. Huang, J.-G. Dai, Development of artificial one-part geopolymer lightweight aggregates by crushing technique, J. Clean. Prod. 315
(2021), 128200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128200.
[114] A. Alsalman, L.N. Assi, R.S. Kareem, K. Carter, P. Ziehl, Energy and CO2 emission assessments of alkali-activated concrete and Ordinary Portland Cement
concrete: a comparative analysis of different grades of concrete, Clean. Environ. Syst. 3 (2021), 100047, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100047.
[115] R. Gettu, A. Patel, V. Rathi, S. Prakasan, A.S. Basavaraj, S. Palaniappan, S. Maity, Influence of supplementary cementitious materials on the sustainability
parameters of cements and concretes in the Indian context, Mater. Struct. 52 (1) (2019) 10, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-019-1321-5.
19

Singh 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Singh 24

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Singh 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e02715

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

Durability assessment of mechanochemically activated

Fig. 1. Durability studies on chemically activated GC [34–38,40,43–46].

Fig. 2. Chemical composition of (a) GGBS; and (b) PSC.

2. Materials and methods

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram illustrating the process of mechanochemical activation of GC.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Microstructural and mechanical properties

3.1.1. Microstructural analysis

3.1.2. Compressive strength

3.2. Water and chloride permeability

3.2.1. Water absorption and permeable voids

Age (days) 7 days 28 days 56 days

Mix ID Average SD Average SD Average SD

GC-2 M 42.22 0.04 53.06 0.05 56.17 0.06

28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days

Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD

GC-2 M 4.44 0.08 3.91 0.06 10.51 0.18 9.32 0.12

3.2.2. Water permeability

3.2.3. Rapid chloride permeability

GC-2 M GC-12 M PC GC-2 M GC-12 M PC

0 37.44 41.93 72.28 35.57 39.25 68.67

3.3. Ultrasonic pulse velocity

3.4. Acid attack

3.4.1. Visible changes

GC-2 M Quality of concrete GC-12 M Quality of concrete PC Quality of concrete

7 4.87 Excellent 4.52 Excellent 4.27 Good

3.4.2. Microstructural analysis

3.4.3. Change in mass and UPV

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e02715

3.4.4. Effect on compressive strength

3.5. Economic and environmental analysis

GGBS 4 - - 422 0.052 422 0.052

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like