Properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar incorporated with multi-walled carbon nanotubes

Keywords

carbon nanotubes, compressive strength, metakaolin, scanning electron microscope.

Cite as

Pawandeep Kaur and Jaspal Singh. Properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar incorporated with multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Physicochemical Mechanics of Materials. 2022. 58(6), 121-126.

Abstract

The use of alternative materials, predominantly with high levels of supplementary cemen­titious materials and geopolymer composites for the development of the construction in­dustry is proposed. Metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar along with corn cob ash (CCA) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were characterized and tested. In this paper, the properties of geopolymer mortar was studied by varying the concentrations of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (0%; 0.25%; 0.5%; 0.75% and 1%) along with the replacement levels of metakaolin with corn cob ash (0–10% about 2.5% increment). From the scanning electron microscope analysis, it was depicted that the MWCNTs were distributed uniformly within the geopolymer matrix at 0.50%, while at 1% these were poorly distributed and agglomerated within the matrix. Experimental investigation revealed that there was a significant increase in compressive strength of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar when CCA and MWCNTs were combined at 5% of CCA and 0.5% of MWCNTs, but beyond this combination, there was a reduction in strength.

References

1. W. Chen, and H. J. H. Brouwers, “The hydration of slag, part 1: Reaction models for alkali-activated slag,” J. Mater. Sci., 42, Is. 2, 428–443 (2007).
2. F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Castro-Gomes, and S. Jalali, “Alkali-activated binders: A review. Part 2. About materials and binders manufacture,” Constr. Build. Mater., 22, Is. 7, 1315–1322 (2008).
3. A. Rajarajeswari, and G. Dhinakaran, “Compressive strength of GGBFS based GPC under thermal curing,” Constr. Build. Mater., 126, 552–559 (2016).
4. D. A. Adesanya, and A. A. Raheem, “A study of the workability and compressive strength characteristics of corn cob ash blended cement concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., 23, Is. 1, 311–317 (2009).
5. D. A. Adesanya, and A. A. Raheem, “A study of the permeability and acid attack of corn cob ash blended cements,” Constr. Build. Mater., 24, Is. 3, 403–409 (2010).
6. B. Lothenbach, K. Scrivener, and R. D. Hooton, “Supplementary cementitious materials,” Cement and Concrete Res., 41, Is. 12, 1244–1256 (2011).
7. J. Thaarrini, and S. Dhivya, “Comparative study on the production cost of geopolymer and conventional concretes,” Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res., 7, Is. 2, 117–124 (2016).
8. C. H. Un, J. G. Sanjayan, R. San Nicolas, and J. S. J. Van Deventer, “Predictions of long-term deflection of geopolymer concrete beams,” Constr. Build. Mater.,  94, 10–19 (2015).
9. E. Vasconcelos, S. Fernandes, J. L. Barroso De Aguiar, and F. Pacheco-Torgal, “Concrete retrofitting using metakaolin geopolymer mortars and CFRP,” Constr. Build. Mater., 25, Is. 8, 3213–3221 (2011).
10. P. Duxson, J. L. Provis, G. C. Lukey, and J. S. J. van Deventer, “The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of ‘green concrete’,” Cement and Concrete Res., 37, Is. 12, 1590–1597 (2007).
11. J. E. Oh, P. J. M. Monteiro, S. S. Jun, S. Choi, and S. M. Clark, “The evolution of strength and crystalline phases for alkali-activated ground blast furnace slag and fly ash-based geopolymers,” Cement and Concrete Res., 40, Is. 2, 189–196 (2010).
12. S. K. Nath, and S. Kumar, “Influence of iron making slags on strength and microstructure of fly ash geopolymer,” Constr. Build. Mater., 38, 924–930 (2013).
13. C. Li, H. Sun, and L. Li, “A review: The comparison between alkali-activated slag (Si + Ca) and metakaolin (Si + Al) cements,” Cement and Concrete Res., 40, Is. 9, 1341–1349 (2010).
14. A. M. Rashad, “Alkali-activated metakaolin: A short guide for civil Engineer-An overview,” Constr. Build. Mater., 41, 751–765 (2013).
15. P. Rovnaník, “Effect of curing temperature on the development of hard structure of metakaolin-based geopolymer,” Constr. Build. Mater., 24, Is. 7, 1176–1183 (2010).
16. S. A. Bernal, E. D. Rodríguez, R. Mejía De Gutiérrez, M. Gordillo, and J. L. Provis, “Mechanical and thermal characterisation of geopolymers based on silicate-activated metakaolin/slag blends,” J. of Mater. Sci., 46, Is. 16, 5477–5486 (2011).
17. D. L. Y. Kong, J. G. Sanjayan, and K. Sagoe-Crentsil, “Comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures,” Cement and Concrete Res., 37, Is. 12, 1583–1589 (2007).
18. M. Saafi, K. Andrew, P. L. Tang, D. McGhon, S. Taylor, M. Rahman, S. Yang, and X. Zhou, “Multifunctional properties of carbon nanotube/fly ash geopolymeric nanocomposites,” Constr. Build. Mater., 49, 46–55 (2013).
19. T. Nochaiya, P. Tolkidtikul, P. Singjai, and A. Chaipanich, “Microstructure and characterizations of portland-carbon nanotubes pastes,” Adv. Mater. Res., 55–57, 549–552 (2008).
20. S. S.-U.-H. Gillani, A. Khitab, S. Ahmad, R. A. Khushnood, G. A. Ferro, S. M. Saleem Kazmi, L. A. Qureshi, and L. Restuccia, “Improving the mechanical performance of cement composites by carbon nanotubes addition,” Proc. Structr. Integr., 3, 11–17 (2017).