skip to main content

Comparison of Physical Properties and Strength of Geopolymer Mortar with White Soil Substitution and Mortar with Portland Pozzolan Cement under Corrosive Seawater Conditions

*Yulita Arni Priastiwi orcid scopus publons  -  Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Rudi Yuniarto Adi  -  Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Arif Hidayat  -  Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Abi Nabil Hanif  -  Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Bima Bima  -  Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia

Citation Format:
Abstract
Construction also causes environmental pollution due to excessive cement production, so an alternative to cement is needed. Geopolymer is considered an alternative material to replace cement. This research compares three variations of mortar (PPC, geopolymer, and geopolymer with white soil) in a seawater environment. Research in the laboratory with 5x5x5 cm mortar specimens and test parameters for porosity, compressive and direct tensile strength, density, and absorption has been carried out. Microstructure due to immersion effect was also carried out but only on MGT15 mortar. The results showed that the PPC mortar had the highest compressive and tensile strength among the three variations, namely 27.80 MPa and 2.540 MPa at 28 days of age, the most negligible porosity and absorption were 1.124% and 76 gram/100cm2, and increased density after immersion. However, when immersing for 56 days, the decrease in strength reached 21%, while geopolymer mortar tended to be stable and even increased to 19%. Microstructure tests in the form of SEM and EDX on MGT15 showed the effect of seawater immersion, such as the presence of cracks, ettringite, and bad reactions. Soaking in seawater caused a decrease in some mortar strength supporting compounds and the appearance of 0.3% free chloride at 28 days of immersion.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Mortar geopolymer; portland pozzolan cement (PPC); corrosive
Funding: LPPM Universitas Diponegoro

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Original Research Article
Language : EN
  1. Asmara, F.J., Suhendra, & Dwiretnani. A., 2021. Comparative Analysis of Compressive and Tensile Strength of concrete using Batang Asai River Sand and Batanghari River Sand. Jurnal Talenta Sipil, Vol 4(1), pp.1-5
  2. Chen. X., Wu. S., and Zhou. J., 2013. Influence of Porosity on Compressive and Tensile Strength of Cement Mortar. Construction and Building Materials. Vol 40. pp. 869-874
  3. Hunggurami, E., Simatupang, P. & Lori, A., 2015. Feasibility Study of Using White Soil as a Substitute for Fine Aggregate (Sand) for Concrete Quality. Jurnal Teknik Sipil, Vol 4, pp.29-38
  4. Jin., M., Wang., Z., Lian., F. & Zhao., P., 2020. Freeze-thaw resistance and seawater corrosion resistance of optimized tannery sludge/metakaolin-based geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 265
  5. Mclellan.B.C., Williams. R., and Riessen. A.V., 2011. Cost and Carbon Emissions for Geopolymer Pastes in Comparison to Ordinary Portland Cement. Journal of Cleaner Production. 19(9), pp. 1080-1090
  6. Mellado. A., Catalan.C., Bouzon.N., and Borrachero. M.V., 2014. Carbon Footprint of Geopolymeric Mortar: Study of the Contribution of the Alkaline Activating Solution and Assessment of an Alternative Route. RSC Advances. 4(45): 23846
  7. Masdari,F., Devy, S.D., Winarn, A., Nugroho, W., & Magdalena, H. 2022. Study of The Effect of Grain Size on Porosity and Hydraulic Conductivityof Sandstone and Claystone. Jurnal Teknologi Mineral FT UNMUL. Vol. 10(2). pp. 18-25
  8. Nurruddin, M. F., Haruna, S., Mohammed, B. S. & Sha'ban, I. G., 2018. Methods of curing geopolymer concrete: A review. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(1), pp. 31-36
  9. Parluhutan, S., Fernando, G., Purwanto. & Priastiwi, Y., 2018. Feasibility Study of Utilization of Mixed Fly Ash and Tanah Putih as Alternative Cement. Jurnal Karya Teknik Sipil, 7(2), pp. 283-288
  10. Putra, D., 2006. Addition of Rice Husk Ash to Concrete in Anticipating Damage Due to Magnesium Sulfate in Sea Water. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Sipil, 10(2), pp. 195-203
  11. Priastiwi, Y.A., Hidayat, A., Daryanto, D., & Salamsyah. Z., 2020. Effect of White Soil Substitution on Geopolymer Mortar Based on Fly Ash with Sodium Hydroxide Activator. Media Komunikasi Teknik Sipil. Vol. 26(1). pp. 9-16
  12. Qomaruddin, M., Nabella, R., Sitohan, I. & Lie, A., 2017. Study of the Effect of Sea Water on Normal Concrete Mortar and Concrete Mortar with Fly Ash. Jurnal Teknik Sipil, Vol. 945
  13. Qomaruddin, M., Ariyanto, Saputro, Y.A, & Sudarno., 2018. Compressive Strength Analysis of Fly Ash Concrete Mortar from Tanjung Jati B Jepara PLTU Industry Using Sand from Tempur River, Jepara Regency. RICE, Vol.02 (1), pp.35-40
  14. Sandya, Y., Prihantono. & Musalamah, S., 2019. Use of Rice Husk Ash as a Substitute for Cement in Geopolymer Concrete. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknik Bangunan dan Sipil
  15. Saputra, A., Lie, A. & Purwanto., 2018. Experimental Study of the Effect of Activator Molarity Differences on the Behavior of Geopolymer Concrete Based on Fly Ash. Jurnal Karya Teknik Sipil, 7(1), pp. 89-98
  16. Sorrentino, F., Damidot, D., & Fentiman, C., 2021. Cao-SiO2-Al2O3-Fe Oxides Chemical System, Description and Applications. Materials Journal, EDP Sciences. DOI: 10.1051/978-2-7598-2480-9
  17. Wang, Y., Yang, J., & Quyang, D., 2019. Effect of Graphene Oxide on Mechanical Properties of Cement Mortar and its Strengthening Mechanism. Materials Journal, MDPI.Vol.12. pp 1-18
  18. Yuan, Q., Liu, Z., Zheng, K., & Ma, C., 2021. Inorganic cementing materials. Civil Engineering Materials, From Theory to Practice, Elsevier. pp 17-57

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-11-27 01:03:39

No citation recorded.