Submitted:
09 September 2024
Posted:
11 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Raw Materials
| Precursor | SiO2 [%] | Al2O3 [%] | CaO [%] | Fe2O3 [%] | MgO [%] | Na2O [%] | P2O5 [%] | K2O [%] | TiO2 [%] | MnO [%] | LOI-Flux |
| GFNS | 36.9 | 3.61 | 4.18 | 32.8 | 7.41 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.48 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| SF | 88.9 | 0.73 | 0.34 | 1.01 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.03 | 1.50 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 6.82 |
2.2. Concrete Production & Specimens’ Production

2.3. Fresh- and Hardened-State Properties Tests
2.4. Design of Experiment (DOE)
2.5. Heating Regime
2.6. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Method
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. DOE Models
3.2. Optimal Concrete Mix Design for High Temperature Applications
3.3. Olivine Aggregate Replacement in the Optimal Concrete Mix Design
3.4. Fresh State Properties: Slump


3.5. Compressive Strength


3.6. Life Cycle Analysis


5. Conclusions
- Mixture design DOE can be used to accurately (less than 3.1% error in prediction) predict the compressive strength and slump of concrete mixes and thus is an effective mix design methodology for AAC.
- The resulting (best-performing) GFNS-based AAC mix had the following ingredients’ proportions, per m3: 590.7 kg GFNS, 43.6 kg SF, 19 kg KOH, 45 kg KS, 698.1 kg FNS sand, 375 kg limestone aggregates 4-8mm, 689 kg limestone aggregates 8-16mm and 164.1 kg water. The mix developed a high 28d compressive strength when cured at (sealed) ambient conditions (~ 88 MPa) which suggests its applicability in conditions where high-strength concrete is required such as bridges, tunnels, and high-rise buildings.
- The optimal mix was adjusted to achieve a workability and a retention thereof adequate for real-life (upscaled) castings (slump = 210 mm, retained for up to 3h post mixing). This upscaled mix achieved an unheated compressive strength almost identical to the optimal (lab-scaled) DOE mix while its heated compressive strength (after a 2h-heating at 600 °C) was reduced from approximately 34 MPa to 23.5 MPa.
- Limestone aggregates were replaced with olivine aggregates to study the possible enhancement in residual compressive strength post high temperature exposure. The olivine based concrete mix resulted in lower unheated compressive strength, 65 MPa (23 % lower than the limestone-based equivalent) but higher residual compressive strength, 32 MPa (36% higher than its limestone based counterpart) while maintaining a slump of 200 mm.
- The absolute values of slump, compressive strength before and after heat exposure suggest the potential utilization of the proposed olivine based mix in application where its fundamental to preserver the carrying load capacity after exposure to high thermal loads. The construction of the exposed layer of tunnels might be an application for this type of mix.
- A Life Cycle Analysis was carried out to assess the Global Warming Potential of all L-FNS-AAC mixes. Assuming zero economic allocation for FNS (that is, regarding FNS as waste), it was found that the heaviest contributor to GWP (approx. 60%) are the chemicals used to comprise the alkali activator (namely, KOH and KS). Compared to an OPC-based concrete of equivalent unheated strength, the upscaled L-FNS-AAC mix, resulted in 35% or 77% lower CO2-eq. emissions depending on whether FNS (both finely ground and in its sand-like form) is perceived as an industrial by-product or a waste material, respectively.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- P. K. Mehta, “High-performance, high-volume fly ash concrete for sustainable development,” International Workshop on Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology, pp. 3–14, 2004.
- K. L. Scrivener and R. J. Kirkpatrick, “Innovation in use and research on cementitious material,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 128–136, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.09.025. [CrossRef]
- J. Davidovits, “Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries,” World Resource Review, 1994.
- C. Shi, P. V. Krivenko, and D. Roy, Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes. in Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. doi: 10.4324/9780203390672. [CrossRef]
- N. T. Araújo Júnior, V. M.E. Lima, S. M. Torres, P. E.A. Basto, and A. A. Melo Neto, “Experimental investigation of mix design for high-strength alkali-activated slag concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 291, p. 123387, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123387. [CrossRef]
- R. Fernandes, S. Marathe, A. P. Rodrigues, Ł. Sadowski, and S. Akhila, “Smart modelling system for alkali-activated concrete pavements using machine learning techniques,” Asian J Civ Eng, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 2193–2213, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s42107-023-00635-z. [CrossRef]
- M. J. Anderson, P. J. Whitcomb, and M. A. Bezener, Formulation simplified: Finding the sweet spot through design and analysis of experiments with mixtures. in Formulation Simplified: Finding the Sweet Spot through Design and Analysis of Experiments with Mixtures. 2018, p. 190. doi: 10.4324/9781315165578. [CrossRef]
- M. Kharazi, L. M. Lye, and A. Hussein, “Designing and optimizing of concrete mix proportion using statistical mixture design methodology,” Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, vol. 3, no. January, pp. 2269–2278, 2013.
- B. Şimşek, Y. Tansel İç, and E. H.Şimşek, “A Full Factorial Design Based Desirability Function Approach for Optimization of Properties of C 40/50 Concrete Class,” MCA, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 330–339, Dec. 2013, doi: 10.3390/mca18030330. [CrossRef]
- X. Dai, L. Ren, X. Gu, E. Yilmaz, K. Fang, and H. Jiang, “Strength Analysis and Optimization of Alkali Activated Slag Backfills Through Response Surface Methodology,” Front. Mater., vol. 9, p. 844608, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fmats.2022.844608. [CrossRef]
- Y. Gao, J. Xu, X. Luo, J. Zhu, and L. Nie, “Experiment research on mix design and early mechanical performance of alkali-activated slag using response surface methodology (RSM),” Ceramics International, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 11666–11673, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.04.076. [CrossRef]
- N. R. Kanta, M. R. Ponnada, and K. Mishra, “Application of response surface method for optimization of alkali activated slag concrete mix with used foundry sand as partial replacement of sand,” Sādhanā, vol. 47, no. 4, p. 269, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12046-022-02040-9. [CrossRef]
- B. C. Mendes, L. G. Pedroti, C. M. F. Vieira, J. M. F. D. Carvalho, J. C. L. Ribeiro, and C. M. M. D. Souza, “Application of mixture design of experiments to the development of alkali-activated composites based on chamotte and waste glass,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 379, p. 131139, May 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131139. [CrossRef]
- J. Moseson, D. E. Moseson, and M. W. Barsoum, “High volume limestone alkali-activated cement developed by design of experiment,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 328–336, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.11.004. [CrossRef]
- K. Komnitsas, D. Zaharaki, and V. Perdikatsis, “Geopolymerisation of low calcium ferronickel slags,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 3073–3082, 2007, doi: 10.1007/s10853-006-0529-2. [CrossRef]
- Arce, A. Komkova, J. V. D. Sande, C. G. Papanicolaou, and T. C. Triantafillou, “Optimal Design of Ferronickel Slag Alkali-Activated Material for High Thermal Load Applications Developed by Design of Experiment,” 2022.
- CEN/TC 104 Concrete ( performance, production, placing and compliance criteria ), EN 12350-2:2019 Testing fresh concrete - Part 2: Slump test, 2019.
- ASTM International, “ASTM C 39/C 39M – 03, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.” 2003.
- L. Phan, “Fire Performance of High-Strength Concrete: A Report of the State-of-the-Art,” Fire Research, 1996.
- M. S. Abrams, “Compressive strength of concrete at temperatures to 1600F,” presented at the American Concrete Institute, ACI Special Publication, 1971.
- nternational Organization for Standardization, ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.
- D. W. Law, A. A. Adam, T. K. Molyneaux, and I. Patnaikuni, “Durability assessment of alkali activated slag (AAS) concrete,” Mater Struct, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1425–1437, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1617/s11527-012-9842-1. [CrossRef]
- D. L. Y. Kong and J. G. Sanjayan, “Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 986–991, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.08.001. [CrossRef]
- N. Ranjbar, M. Mehrali, U. J. Alengaram, H. S. C. Metselaar, and M. Z. Jumaat, “Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of fly ash/palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar under elevated temperatures,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 65, pp. 114–121, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.064. [CrossRef]
- S. A. Bernal, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, F. Ruiz, H. Quiñones, and J. L. Provis, “Desempeño a temperaturas altas de morteros y hormigones basados en mezclas de escoria/metacaolín activadas alcalinamente,” Materiales de Construccion, vol. 62, no. 308, pp. 471–488, 2012, doi: 10.3989/mc.2012.01712. [CrossRef]
- N. Derinpinar, M. B. Karakoç, and A. Özcan, “Performance of glass powder substituted slag based geopolymer concretes under high temperature,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 331, p. 127318, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127318. [CrossRef]
- M. Guerrieri, J. Sanjayan, and F. Collins, “Residual compressive behavior of alkali-activated concrete exposed to elevated temperatures,” Fire and Materials, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 51–62, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1002/fam.983. [CrossRef]
- K. K. Ramagiri, D. R. Chauhan, S. Gupta, A. Kar, D. Adak, and A. Mukherjee, “High-temperature performance of ambient-cured alkali-activated binder concrete,” Innov. Infrastruct. Solut., vol. 6, no. 2, p. 71, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s41062-020-00448-y. [CrossRef]
- W. Tu and M. Zhang, “Behaviour of alkali-activated concrete at elevated temperatures: A critical review,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 138, p. 104961, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.104961. [CrossRef]
- S. Y. N. Chan, G. Peng, and J. K. W. Chan, “Comparison between high strength concrete and normal strength concrete subjected to high temperature,” vol. 29, no. December, pp. 616–619, 1996.
| Material | Code | CO2-eq. [kg/t] | Energy Consumption [MWh/t] | Mixture Boundaries, by weight (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| Binder | A | 100.41 | 0.533 | 20.6% | 26.6% |
| FNS sand 0–- 4 mm | B | 12.93 | 0.052 | 25.9% | 45.3% |
| Limestone aggregates 4–8 mm | C | 12.55 | 0.051 | 14.3% | 30.4% |
| Limestone aggregates 8– 16 mm | D | 12.55 | 0.051 | 8.8% | 28.6% |
| Water | E | 0.37 | 0.002 | 5.6% | 6.3% |
| Mix ID | Water [kg] | GFNS [kg] | SF [kg] |
KOH [kg] | KS [kg] |
FNS sand 0-4 [kg] |
Limestone aggregates 4-8 [kg] |
Limestone aggregates 8-16 [kg] |
Water* to Binder** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 159.9 | 575.8 | 42.5 | 18.5 | 43.8 | 682.7 | 759.7 | 351.7 | 0.235 |
| 2 | 152.4 | 479.9 | 35.4 | 15.4 | 36.5 | 1119.4 | 548.8 | 231.1 | 0.269 |
| 3 | 156.8 | 564.5 | 41.6 | 18.1 | 43.0 | 919.9 | 449.1 | 429.7 | 0.235 |
| 4 | 164.9 | 559.4 | 41.3 | 18.0 | 42.6 | 896.7 | 564.0 | 351.0 | 0.249 |
| 5 | 144.7 | 478.4 | 35.3 | 15.4 | 36.4 | 1050.4 | 372.0 | 471.5 | 0.256 |
| 6 | 164.1 | 523.3 | 38.6 | 16.8 | 39.8 | 800.7 | 775.3 | 267.2 | 0.265 |
| 7 | 147.4 | 462.0 | 34.1 | 14.9 | 35.2 | 823.0 | 379.1 | 758.3 | 0.270 |
| 8 | 144.9 | 454.1 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 34.6 | 987.3 | 529.7 | 409.8 | 0.270 |
| 9 | 161.8 | 507.1 | 37.4 | 16.3 | 38.6 | 816.7 | 505.6 | 535.1 | 0.270 |
| 10 | 164.1 | 590.7 | 43.6 | 19.0 | 45.0 | 698.1 | 375.0 | 689.6 | 0.235 |
| 11 | 145.9 | 497.5 | 36.7 | 16.0 | 37.9 | 924.3 | 375.1 | 592.1 | 0.248 |
| 12 | 143.7 | 450.3 | 33.2 | 14.5 | 34.3 | 961.6 | 706.8 | 242.2 | 0.270 |
| 13 | 145.6 | 524.2 | 38.7 | 16.9 | 39.9 | 827.8 | 796.5 | 231.2 | 0.235 |
| 14 | 156.6 | 524.2 | 38.7 | 16.9 | 39.9 | 773.6 | 380.5 | 733.3 | 0.253 |
| 15 | 145.5 | 470.5 | 34.7 | 15.1 | 35.8 | 808.2 | 754.9 | 354.9 | 0.262 |
| 16 | 146.1 | 525.9 | 38.8 | 16.9 | 40.0 | 1190.8 | 438.6 | 232.0 | 0.235 |
| 17 | 164.3 | 519.4 | 38.3 | 16.7 | 39.5 | 1160.9 | 375.5 | 314.1 | 0.268 |
| 18 | 145.8 | 524.8 | 38.7 | 16.9 | 39.9 | 744.8 | 477.4 | 635.6 | 0.235 |
| 19 | 157.2 | 550.8 | 40.6 | 17.7 | 41.9 | 693.7 | 656.4 | 470.0 | 0.241 |
| 20 | 155.1 | 558.5 | 41.2 | 18.0 | 42.5 | 986.3 | 580.0 | 230.5 | 0.235 |
| Mix ID | Slump [mm] | Unheated compressive strength¹ [MPa] | Heated compressive strength [MPa] | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Mean | CoV % | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Mean | CoV % | ||
| 1 | 30 | 86.7 | 84.6 | 85.2 | 85.5 | 1.3 | 14.3 | 22.4 | 20.7 | 19.1 | 22.3 |
| 2 | 0 | 64.1 | 68.6 | 71.7 | 68.1 | 5.6 | 31.0 | 30.7 | 31.4 | 31.0 | 1.2 |
| 3 | 70 | 90.0 | 86.2 | 80.2 | 85.5 | 5.8 | 36.8 | 24.3 | 33.4 | 31.5 | 20.5 |
| 4 | 50 | 80.4 | 87.4 | 77.6 | 81.8 | 6.1 | 26.1 | 36.3 | 30.2 | 30.8 | 16.6 |
| 5 | 25 | 61.5 | 71.0 | 66.0 | 66.2 | 10.1 | 15.2 | 16.0 | 12.8 | 14.7 | 11.3 |
| 6 | 150 | 80.4 | 89.1 | 81.9 | 83.8 | 5.5 | 26.3 | 25.9 | 29.0 | 27.0 | 6.3 |
| 7 | 55 | 78.7 | 82.4 | 78.7 | 79.9 | 2.0 | 31.2 | 26.4 | 25.8 | 27.8 | 10.7 |
| 8 | 0 | 69.3 | 63.6 | 69.6 | 67.5 | 5.0 | 30.9 | 24.7 | 27.0 | 27.5 | 11.5 |
| 9 | 35 | 83.1 | 74.7 | 78.3 | 78.7 | 5.3 | 33.9 | 28.9 | 34.6 | 32.5 | 9.6 |
| 10 | 140 | 86.4 | 89.3 | 87.4 | 87.7 | 1.7 | 30.8 | 34.7 | 35.6 | 33.7 | 7.5 |
| 11 | 0 | 85.8 | 87.5 | 77.0 | 83.4 | 1.3 | 36.8 | 36.3 | 33.9 | 35.7 | 4.3 |
| 12 | 0 | 76.0 | 73.5 | 69.1 | 72.8 | 4.8 | 29.9 | 27.2 | 25.3 | 27.5 | 8.5 |
| 13 | 0 | 85.9 | 92.8 | 70.6 | 83.1 | 13.6 | 37.5 | 24.1 | 22.3 | 28.0 | 29.6 |
| 14 | 100 | 88.3 | 88.0 | 87.3 | 87.9 | 0.8 | 35.1 | 36.0 | 38.6 | 36.6 | 4.9 |
| 15 | 0 | 70.2 | 74.5 | 69.0 | 71.2 | 4.1 | 16.4 | 26.7 | 28.9 | 24.0 | 27.7 |
| 16 | 0 | 58.8 | 80.8 | 70.6 | 70.1 | 15.6 | 29.6 | 31.1 | 20.3 | 27.0 | 21.6 |
| 17 | 0 | 69.3 | 55.7 | 72.2 | 65.7 | 13.4 | 23.7 | 25.6 | 25.2 | 24.9 | 4.0 |
| 18 | 15 | 78.8 | 76.9 | 74.6 | 76.7 | 2.7 | 15.6 | 28.2 | 16.6 | 20.1 | 34.9 |
| 19 | 30 | 79.9 | 83.8 | 73.1 | 78.9 | 6.9 | 12.3 | 13.1 | 20.4 | 15.3 | 29.3 |
| 20 | 45 | 66.0 | 69.3 | 81.4 | 72.2 | 11.3 | 17.78 | 21.33 | 17.96 | 19.02 | 10.5 |
| Parameter | A | B | C | D | E | AB | AC | AD | AE | BC | BD | BE | CD | CE | DE | ABC | ABE | ACD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slump [mm] | -39124 | -5863 | -3023 | -6598 | -3170217 | 0.2277 | 66.50 | 57.09 | -0.1065 | 57.36 | 58.66 | |||||||
| Compressive strength | 342.2 | -204.0 | 361.8 | 95.85 | 602.30 | 0.02031 | -0.0380 | |||||||||||
| Compressive strength | -142200 | -54800 | -2113 | 18872 | -1532843 | 6.632 | 2.618 | 1.348 | 54.99 | 1.161 | 0.03984 | 39.29 | 0.6475 | 21.21 | 20.45 | -0.00007879 | -0.001351 | -0.00004490 |
| Response | Mean | Std. Dev. | CoV % | R² | Adjusted R² | Predicted R² | Adequate precision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slump [mm] | 33.1 | 6.08 | 18.4 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.90 | 30.3 |
| Compressive strength¹ unheated [MPa] | 77.8 | 4.90 | 6.3 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.59 | 15.3 |
| Compressive strength heated [MPa] | 26.6 | 3.62 | 13.6 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 10.5 |
| Optimal concrete mix | Water [kg] | GFNS [kg] | SF [kg] | KOH [kg] | KS [kg] | Aggregate(FNS sand, Limestone 4-16 mm) | Slump [mm] | Compressive strength¹ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 [kg] | 4-8 [kg] | 8-16 [kg] | Unheated [MPa] | Heated [MPa] | |||||||
| Predicted | 164.1 | 590.7 | 43.6 | 19 | 45 | 698.1 | 375 | 689.6 | 141.4 | 90.5 | 33.6 |
| Measured² | 164.1 | 590.7 | 43.6 | 19 | 45 | 698.1 | 375 | 689.6 | 140 | 87.7 | 33.7 |
| Difference (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1.00 | -3.10 | 0.30 |
| Upscaled | 169.6 | 604.6 | 44 | 18.2 | 43.4 | 692. 5 | 373.7 | 685.2 | 210 | 85.3 | 23.5 |
| Difference (%) | 3.37 | 2.30 | 0.80 | -4.00 | -3.50 | -0.80 | -0.30 | -0.60 | 50.0 | 1.50 | -30.3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).