Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Creep, shrinkage and permeation characteristics of geopolymer aggregate concrete: long-term performance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The long-term impact on creep, drying shrinkage, and permeation characteristics of an innovative concrete produced with manufactured geopolymer coarse aggregate (GPA) has been investigated and compared with quarried Basalt aggregate concrete. Microstructure and pore-structure development up to 1 year were examined through scanning electron microscopy, nanoindentation, and X-ray computed tomography. Compressive strength and elastic modulus of GPA concrete varied from 34.6 to 50.8 and 18.5 to 20.5 GPa, respectively, between 28 and 365 days. The 1-year creep strain of GPA concrete was 747 microstrain while the calculated creep coefficient was 0.97, which is significantly lower than the creep coefficient predicted by AS 3600 and CEB-FIP models. Moreover, the 365-day drying shrinkage is 570 microstrain, which is also lower than the maximum permissible limit specified by AS3600. The GPA concrete displayed high water absorption, but lower air and water permeability compared to Basalt aggregate concrete. This is attributed to a porous surface layer with large number of capillaries increasing the water absorption of GPA concrete through capillary suction. The discontinuity in the pore network coupled with a condensed interfacial transition zone formed in GPA concrete could be the reason for lower permeability. Overall, the long-term performance of the GPA demonstrates a potential as a lightweight coarse aggregate for concrete, with the added advantage of reducing the environmental impact utilizing fly ash from coal-fired power generation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ashby MF. Materials and the environment eco-informed material choice. 2nd ed. Waltham: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Meg Calkins F. Concrete minus carbon. In: Landscape architecture magazine. 2017, The Magazine of the American Society of Landscape Architects USA. https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2019/09/19/concrete-minus-carbon-2/. Accessed 15 March 2020.

  3. Ding T, Xiao J, Tam VWY. A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Manag. 2016;56:367–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sustainable Development Report 2009. Mineral Products Association, London, UK. 2009. http://www.mineralproducts.org/documents/MPA_SD_Report_2009.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2020.

  5. Yu M, et al. The carbon footprint of Australia's construction sector. Proc Eng. 2017;180:211–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Slattery K. Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments. Mascot NSW Australia: Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mehta PK. Advancements in concrete technology. Concr Int. 1999;21(6):27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Langer W, Arbogast B. Environmental impacts of mining natural aggregate. In: Fabbri A.G. GG, McCammon R.B., editor. Deposit and geoenvironmental models for resource exploitation and environmental security. Nato science partnership subseries: 2. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media 2002. p. 151–169.

  9. Skrzypczak I, et al. Environmental aspects and renewable energy sources in the production of construction aggregate. In: E3S Web of Conferences, 2017; 22:00160.

  10. Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 5th ed. London, UK: Pearson Education; 2012. p. 872.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gunasekara C, et al. Effect of element distribution on strength in fly ash geopolymers. ACI Mater J. 2017;114(5):795–808.

  12. Gunasekera C, Setunge S, Law DW. Correlations between mechanical properties of low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concretes. J Mater Civ Eng. 2017;29(9):04017111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dirgantara R, et al. Suitability of brown coal fly ash for geopolymer production. J Mater Civ Eng. 2017;29(12):04017247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gunasekara CM. Influence of properties of fly ash from different sources on the mix design and performance of geopolymer concrete. Australia: RMIT University Melbourne; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nadesan MS, Dinakar P. Structural concrete using sintered flyash lightweight aggregate: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2017;154:928–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tajra F, Elrahman MA, Stephan D. The production and properties of cold-bonded aggregate and its applications in concrete: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2019;225:29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Walraven J, et al. Structural lightweight concrete: recent research. HERON. 1995;40(1).

  18. Lambert G. Properties and behaviour of structural lightweight (lytag-sand) concrete, in Civil and Structural Engineering. Sheffield: University of Sheffield (United Kingdom); 1982. p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Joseph G, Ramamurthy K. Workability and strength behaviour of concrete with cold-bonded fly ash aggregate. Mater Struct. 2009;42(2):151–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gesoğlu M, et al. Permeation characteristics of self compacting concrete made with partially substitution of natural aggregates with rounded lightweight aggregates. Constr Build Mater. 2014;59:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bui LA-T et al. Manufacture and performance of cold bonded lightweight aggregate using alkaline activators for high performance concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2012;35:1056–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Güneyisi E, Gesoğlu M, İpek S. Effect of steel fiber addition and aspect ratio on bond strength of cold-bonded fly ash lightweight aggregate concretes. Constr Build Mater. 2013;47:358–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Terzić A et al. Artificial fly ash based aggregates properties influence on lightweight concrete performances. Ceram Int. 2015;41(2):2714–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gomathi P, Sivakumar A. Accelerated curing effects on the mechanical performance of cold bonded and sintered fly ash aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2015;77:276–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou FP, Lydon FD, Barr BIG. Effect of coarse aggregate on elastic modulus and compressive strength of high performance concrete. Cem Concr Res. 1995;25(1):177–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chandra S, Berntsson L. Lightweight aggregate concrete; science, technology. and applications. 1st ed. Norwich, N.J.: Noyes Publications; 2003

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kayali O, Haque MN, Zhu B. Drying shrinkage of fibre-reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete containing fly ash. Cem Concr Res. 1999;29(11):1835–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gesoğlu M, Özturan T, Güneyisi E. Shrinkage cracking of lightweight concrete made with cold-bonded fly ash aggregates. Cem Concr Res. 2004;34(7):1121–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van der Wegen G, Bijen J. Properties of concrete made with three types of artificial PFA coarse aggregates. Int J Cem Compos Lightweight Concrete. 1985;7(3):159–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Willis N. Geopolymers and geopolymer aggregates, international publication No. WO2016/023073 A1, World Intellectual Property Organization. International Bureau, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.

  31. Gunasekera C, Law DW, Setunge S. Effect of geopolymer aggregate on strength and microstructure of concrete. ACI Mater J. 2018; 115(6):899–908.

  32. ASTM. ASTM C150 / C150M-18.  standard specification for Portland Cement. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2018. p. 1-8

  33. Standards Australia. AS 2758.1:2014, Part 1: Concrete aggregates.  Aggregates and rock for engineering purposes. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2014. p. 1–35.

  34. British Standards Institution. BS EN 12620:2013 Aggregates for concrete. London, UK: BSI; 2013. p. 1-60.

  35. Standards Australia. AS 1012.3.1:2014, Method 3.1: determination of properties related to the consistency of concrete - slump test.  Methods of testing concrete. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2014. p. 1–9.

  36. Standards Australia. AS 1012.9:2014, Method 9: Compressive strength tests - concrete, mortar and grout specimens. Methods of testing concrete Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2014. p. 1–13.

  37. Standards Australia. AS 1012.17-1997 (R2014), Method 17: determination of the static chord modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio of concrete specimens.  Methods of testing concrete Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 1997. p. 1–19.

  38. Standards Australia. AS 1012.12.2-1998 (R2014), Method 12.2: determination of mass per unit volume of hardened concrete - water displacement method. Methods of testing concrete Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2014. p. 1–7.

  39. Standards Australia, AS 1012.16—1996, Method 16: determination of creep of concrete cylinders in compression. Methods of testing concrete. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2014. p. 1-11.

  40. Standards Australia. AS 1012.13:2015, Method 13: determination of the drying shrinkage of concrete for samples prepared in the field or in the laboratory. Methods of testing concrete. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2015. p. 1–13.

  41. Autoclam. Autoclam permeability system operating manual, Northern Ireland, U.K: Structural Materials Research Group, The Queen’s University of Belfast, 1995. p. 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  42. Standards Australia. AS 1012.21-1999 (R2014), Method 21: determination of water absorption and apparent volume of permeable voids in hardened concrete Methods of testing concrete. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 1999. p. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Standards Australia. AS 3600:2018 - Concrete Structures. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2018. p. 1–269.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Castel A, et al. Creep and drying shrinkage of a blended slag and low calcium fly ash geopolymer Concrete. Mater Struct. 2015;49(5):1619–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Comité euro-international du béton, i.b., CEB-FIP model code 1990 : design code. 1993, London: T. Telford.

  46. American Concrete Institute. ACI 209.2R–08: guide for modeling and calculating shrinkage and creep in hardened concrete. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lye C-Q, et al. Creep strain of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2016;102:244–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bazant ZP. Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete. Communications in Applied Numerical Methods. vol 6. Illinois, USA: Wiley-Interscience Publication 1988. p. 98–215.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Seara-Paz S, et al. Time-dependent behaviour of structural concrete made with recycled coarse aggregates Creep and shrinkage. Construct Build Mater. 2016;122:95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brooks JJ. 30-year creep and shrinkage of concrete. Maga Concr Res. 2005;57(9):545–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Standards Australia. AS 3600 Supplement 1:2014, Concrete structures—commentary (Supplement to AS 3600–2009). Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia Limited; 2014. p. 1–269.

  52. Rendell F, Jauberthie R, Grantham M. Deteriorated concrete: inspection and physicochemical analysis, ed. R. Jauberthie and M. Grantham. London: Thomas Telford; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Joseph G, Ramamurthy K. Influence of fly ash on strength and sorption characteristics of cold-bonded fly ash aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23(5):1862–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Scrivener KL. Backscattered electron imaging of cementitious microstructures: understanding and quantification. Cement Concr Compos. 2004;26(8):935–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang M-H, Gjørv OE. Microstructure of the interfacial zone between lightweight aggregate and cement paste. Cem Concr Res. 1990;20(4):610–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lo TY, Cui HZ. Effect of porous lightweight aggregate on strength of concrete. Mater Lett. 2004;58(6):916–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Elsharief A, Cohen MD, Olek J. Influence of lightweight aggregate on the microstructure and durability of mortar. Cem Concr Res. 2005;35(7):1368–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Guo Y, Qian J, Wang X. Pore structure and influence of recycled aggregate concrete on drying shrinkage. Math Problems Eng. 2013;2013:1–7.

  59. Schutter G, Audenaert K. Evaluation of water absorption of concrete as a measure for resistance against carbonation and chloride migration. Matér Construct. 2004;37(9):591–6.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bentur A, Igarashi S-I, Kovler K. Prevention of autogenous shrinkage in high-strength concrete by internal curing using wet lightweight aggregates. Cem Concr Res. 2001;31(11):1587–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wei Y, Xiang Y, Zhang Q. Internal curing efficiency of prewetted LWFAs on concrete humidity and autogenous shrinkage development. J Mater Civ Eng. 2014;26(5):947–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their thanks to Polyagg Pvt Ltd. for the supply of coarse aggregates. The authors also wish to acknowledge the X-ray facility and Microscopy & Microanalysis facility provided by RMIT University and the scientific and technical assistance. Scholarship provided by the RMIT University to the first author is gratefully acknowledged.

Funding

This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Research Hub for nanoscience-based construction material manufacturing and funded by the Australian Government (IH150100006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Charitha Seneviratne, Chamila Gunasekara, David W. Law, Sujeeva Setunge & Dilan Robert

Authors
  1. Charitha Seneviratne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chamila Gunasekara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David W. Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sujeeva Setunge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dilan Robert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chamila Gunasekara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All Authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seneviratne, C., Gunasekara, C., Law, D.W. et al. Creep, shrinkage and permeation characteristics of geopolymer aggregate concrete: long-term performance. Archiv.Civ.Mech.Eng 20, 140 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-020-00119-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-020-00119-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation