Ggbfs as Potential Filler in Polyester Grout- Compressive Strength Development

7/28/2019 Ggbfs as Potential Filler in Polyester Grout- Compressive Strength Development

1/19

*Second author: [email protected]; [email protected] Page 1

Original citation:

Lim SK, Ling TC, Hussin MW. (2011) Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag as potential filler

in polyester grout: compressive strength development. ACI Materials Journals; 108 (2):

120-127.

http://www.concrete.org/PUBS/JOURNALS/OLJDetails.asp?Home=MJ&ID=51682305

GGBFS AS POTENTIAL FILLER IN POLYESTER GROUT: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

DEVELOPMENT

Siong Kang Lima*

, Tung-Chai Lingb, Mohd Warid Hussin

c

aUniversiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR),

bThe Hong Kong Polytechnic University,

cUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the possibility of using ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) asa partial replacement of filler in polymer grout. In this study, river sand was replaced by

GGBFS at the level of 0% (control), 10%, 20% and 30% by weight. The effects of five curing

conditions on the compressive strength at the age of 7, 28, 90, 180 and 365 days were studied.

Three specimens were used at each specific age and curing condition. Samples microstructure

after 1 year cured under natural weather and sea water were studied using SEM. A comparison

was also made on the development of compressive strength between polyester grout with and

without GGBFS. From the results, it was observed that GGBFS used as filler to the polyester

grout matrix resulted in a better long term compressive strength than that of the control resin.

The positive effects of GGBFS on the compressive strength of polyester grout against the

hostile environment of Malaysia make this material a feasible additive besides its

environmental and economic advantages.

Key words: Polyester; GGBFS; compressive strength; curing condition

INTRODUCTION

Polymer or resin concrete serves as a unique concrete composite, particularly in the area of

repair due to its easy application, quick setting characteristic, high mechanical strength,

chemical resistance, wear resistance, controlled shrinkage and availability in differences

viscosities1, 2

. Polymeric composite materials are relatively one of the youngest building

materials and becoming more popular in the construction industry in developed countries.

Since 1960s the use of various polymer compositions in the construction industry has grownfrom very small beginnings to significant tonnages due to its bond strength that is considerably

greater than the cohesive strength of concrete3, 4

. The composites using polymer along with

cement and aggregated are called polymer modified mortars (PMM), while the composites

made with polymer and aggregates are called polymer mortars (PM) or polymer concrete

(PC)1.

Polymer mortars and resin grouts are produced by using dry aggregates, thermosetting

resin (binder) and curing agents that undergo polymerization (hardening). Thermoset resins

possess a networked (cross-linked) structure, with the restrictive structure preventing melting


2/19


behavior, but decompose irreversibly at high temperatures. Heating may form such a structure

or via a chemical reaction. Due to the excellent thermal stability and rigidity5, various

thermoset resins have been used to prepare polymer concretes and mortars including epoxies,

polyesters, phenol-formaldehyde (or phenolic) and furfural-acetone types. Such materials exist

in various forms such as: liquid resins, redispersable powders, water-soluble photopolymers or

copolymers and latexes6. Since the polyester resins are cost effective, easy to handle and

portable as compared to the epoxy resin, this resulted in polyester resins being the most usedpolymer in PC compositions

7, 8. However, the choice of polymer and the composition of

polymer modified concrete are dictated based on their application and mechanical properties

requirements9.

FILLER TYPES AFFECTING PERFORMANC OF POLYESTER

Fillers are the most important additives in a polymer formulation and serve to reduce the cost

without drastically affecting the properties of the compound. Indeed, in many cases, the

performance may enhance. Powder fillers normally are added to improve gap-filling property

and abrasion resistance. It reduces shrinkage and increases viscosity and heat distortion

temperature (HDT)10

.

Laboratory tests were investigated by researchers around the world to look at thepossibility of using different type of fillers in polyester composites. Fly ash, rice husk ash, fine

tailings, silica powder, and ground calcium carbonate are the alternative materials for partial

replacement of filler in polyester composites. These materials are becoming more and more

common as alternative materials filler due to the environmental, economic, or technical

benefits. However, the kind of alternative material that is used often depends on the availability

and on field of application.

Among these materials, fly ash is the most common filler being studied11- 15

. Varughese

and Chaturvedi11

found that there was a good capability between sand and fly ash in polyester

concrete system when fly ash is used as a fine aggregate in polyester concrete. The existence offly ash also improves the mechanical properties and resistance to water absorption. However,

properties decline at the higher level of fly ash as the mix becomes unworkable. A great

improvement of chemical resistance to acid was detected by Gorninski et al.12, due to the

positive contribution of the fly ash in the polyester-sand interface. They showed that fly ash

displayed good mechanical properties for orthophtalic and disophtalic polyester.

According to Soh et al.13

, the maximum limit of fly ash or ground calcium carbonate

(GCC) filler should be controlled at 60% or less to make the most of the excellent strength of

unsaturated polyester resin mortar. Comparing both fillers, fly ash exhibited a little higher

strength than that of using GCC. Mun et al.14

investigated basic mechanical properties of

polyester mortars containing GCC and fine tailing (FT) from an abandoned mine as a filler.They stated that flexural and compressive strength of polyester mortars containing GCC

demonstrated a decreasing tendency along with an increase in the mixing filler-(filler + binder)

ratio. In contrast, the polyester mortars with FT filler showed an increase in strength with an

increase in the filler-(filler + binder) ratio from 30% to 40%.In addition, studies about the possibilities of using quarry waste and rice husk as partial

replacement of filler in unsaturated polyester composites are made15- 16

. The practices that are

state above stayed on a limited level, because of the clear reduction in strength properties as the

percentage of fillers increased. However, for a given amount of filler and regardless of filler

type, polyester resin composites with smaller filler size exhibited higher strength and impact

properties than those with larger filler size15, 16

. This may be due to the irregularly shaped fillerthat is unable to distribute the stress efficiently especially as the percentage of filler increased.


3/19


In the past decade, many research and developments were made on the topic of utilizing

ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) in the production of mortar and concrete17- 26

.

The results showed that GGBFS is a potential hydraulic binder for Portland cement

replacement. The physical properties of GGBFS increases the workability, reduces bleeding of

fresh cement concrete. Inclusion of GGBFS in concrete matrix also found to be effective in

reducing heat hydration, improves late strength, reduces permeability and alkali-silica

reactivity (ASR) expansion and resistance for sulfate attack26, 27, 28

.During the hardening of polymer grout, the settlement of filler particles primarily

depends on the density, particle size, and the viscosity of the formulated product. Settlement

can be reduced or eliminated by proper formulation. Fine particles fillers with relatively low

specific gravity in high viscosity products will reduce settlement, especially if the product is at

all thixotropic29

. GGBFS is generally glassy granular material that is formed when molten blast

furnace slag is rapidly chilled by contact of water (granulated), dried and ground to a fine

powder30

. The specific gravity of the slag is approximately 2.83 with its bulk density varying in

the range of 1200-1300kg/m3. Due to the specific weight of sand which is relatively higher

than most of the alternative fillers, this caused a settlement during the hardening andnon-uniformity in the final product of the polymer resin grout. This led to the idea to apply

GGBFS as micro-filler by replacing sand partially.

This study is aimed to study the potential use of GGBFS as partial replacement of fillerin polyester grout. A series of tests was conducted to examine the compressive strength. The

strength development up to age of one year of polymer grout containing 10 to 30% GGBFS as

filler replacement were investigated in terms of five curing conditions, namely air, water,

natural weather (ambient environment) wet-dry cycles and tidal zone (seawater). The scanning

electronic microscopy (SEM) was used to evaluate the effects of selected curing conditions on

the one year resin grout samples with and without GGBFS.

MATERIALS

Polyester Resin

An unsaturated polyester resin brand named P9728P isophtalic unsaturated polyester (IUPR) is

used as principal binder during this study. Table 1 shows the typical properties of IUPR used.

Unsaturated polyester resin (UPR) has two main components such as polyester and a reactive

diluent. For most commercial resins, the diluent is styrene monomer, but it is possible to use

other vinyl monomers such as methyl styrene and alkyl methacrylate monomers. These

diluents serve two vital roles for the system. They reduce the viscosity, so the resins can beprocessed, and they cross-link with the double bonds in the polyester, without the evolution of

any by-products31, 32

. Polyesters are joined by ester linkages between carboxylic acid and

alcohol groups; the macromolecule formed may be linear or cross-linked. From the

bi-functional monomers terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol, linear polyester is obtained.

Esterification occurs between the alcohol and acid group on both ends of both monomers,forming long chain macromolecules. When trifunctional acids or alcohol are used as

monomers, cross-linked thermosetting polyesters are obtained33

. During this study IUPR is

dissolved in styrene locally available in the market. Eq. 1 depicts the chemical structure (linear

polymer chain) of IUPR used.


4/19


Table 1Typical properties of ISO-Unsaturated polyester resin P9728P

Appearance Pinkish Brown

Non-Volatile, % 52 - 56

Viscosity @ 250C or 770F, centipoises (Cp) - Brookfield, #3/60 450 650 (Low viscosity)

Elongation (%) 3.7

Heat Distortion Temperature (HDT), 0C or (0F) 60 (140)

Thixotropic Index @ 250C or 770F - #3, 6 and 60 round per minute (rpm) 1.5 2.8

Gel time @ 250C or 770F, minute - 1% MEKP 24 - 30

Acid Value, mgKOH/g - Solid Resin 25

Specific Gravity 1.1

Volumetric Shrinkage, % 9

Note:0C = (

0F-32) 5/9

1 centipoise (Cp) = 1 10-3 Pascal.second (Pa.s)

O O

CH = CH C O CH2 CH2 - O -C - - C O CH2 CH2 O-H (1)

O = C O

OH

Curing agent

According to BS 6319: Part 134

, hardener or curing agent is defined as a material, whichchemically combines with a synthetic resin to produce hardened product. Methyl ethyl ketone

peroxide (MEKP) is widely used as a curing agent of unsaturated polymer resin to mold

products. MEKP is normally produced in the phlegmatizer (dimethyl phthalate, DMP) with

acid as a catalyst. In addition, the product with a concentration up to 10% active oxygen is

neutralized, and then is brought to the desired concentration by further dilution with phthalate.

According to Xinrui Li and partners35

, MEKP is ordinarily a mixture of several isomers, all

isomers contain the bivalent -O-O- linkage, and the molecules and their anions are powerful

nucleophiles. For this study, MEKP in dimethyl phthalate was used to cure the UPR. MEKP is

a clear and colorless liquid. It is organic peroxide. The chemical structure of MEKP is shown in

Eq. 2:

CH3 CH3 CH3 CH3HOO C O -O C - OOH ; HOO C O -O C - OOH (2)CH2CH3 CH2CH3 CH2CH3 CH2CH3

The curing or cross-linking of unsaturated polyester resin (UPR) is achieved at room

temperature by adding a catalyst (or initiator) plus an accelerator (or promoter) and at elevated

O

Ester

Linkage

(Functional

group)

Iso- Phathalic

AnhydrideMaleaic

Anhydrid

Propylene

Glycol

n

Ketone functionalgroupEthyl

Methyl


5/19


temperatures just by adding a catalyst and heating. Eq. 3 shows the cross linked process of

polyester by peroxide curing agent.

O O

[O-CH2-CH2-O-C-HC=CH-C] + H2C=HC-

O O

O-CH2-CH2-O-C-HC-CH-C]

HC-CH2 (3)

O O

O-CH2-CH2-O-C-HC-CH-C

CH2-CH

Filler

Oven-dried fine river sand complied with the specifications of ASTM C 77836

was used as a

primary filler in preparing polyester resin. The ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)

which functions as a powder filler (macro-filler) was used as a partial replacement of primary

filler. GGBFS used in this study is a by-product of the steel industry; Slag cement (Southern)Sdn. Bhd (YTL), Johor Malaysia. Table 2 shows the chemical compositions and physical

properties of GGBFS.

Preparation of Polyester Grout Compositions

The design of the polyester grout composition in this study was based on the capability to

pump, sufficient strength and working life (pot life >30 minutes)37

. The formulations of mixes

are given in Table 3. GGBFS was added from 10 to 30% of total filler weight with an increment

of 10%. The flowability of the polyester grouts tends to decrease with an increase in GGBFS

filler content. The might be due to the inclusion of GGBFS filler increase in solubility and

water absorption of polyester matrix, resulting in high shear rate. When the shear rate increases,

the viscosity of the polyester grout mixes increased. The viscosity of polyester grout is

suggested to be around 2000 centipoises or equivalent to 2 Pascal second (low viscosity) orbelow tested with Brookfield viscometer using spindle 3, 60rpm to ease the pumping or

injection works37

. Therefore, during this study, flowability or rheology of all the polyester

grout compositions was maintained by adjusting the viscosity within the limitations ranging

between 1550 and 2050 centipoises at spindle 3, 60rpm, 300C (86

0F).

Linear polyester Peroxide curing agent

n


6/19


Table 2Chemical compositions and physical properties of GGBFS

TEST PROCEDURES

The gel time of the polyester grout mixture was mainly controlled by the hardener and

accelerator. The viscosity and gel time of polyester grouts were measured in accordance to

ASTM D 247138

. Commonly the accelerator like cobalt is used to reduce the gel time of

polyester mixture. However, cobalt accelerator was not selected because the final polyester

grout product produced in this study was aimed to apply in structural repairing which required

a longer and sufficient working time for pumping. Thus, the percentage of hardener used wasdetermined based on the sufficient working time ranging between 30 and 37 minutes and

without compromising the strength. Table 3 shows the details of compositions polyester grouts

designed.

Methods

The compressive strength test was performed in accordance to ASTM C 579-0139

. Three cubes

of standard size measuring 50mm x 50mm x 50mm (1.9685in x 1.9685in x 1.9685in) were

tested and the result was the mean of individual results. In total, 300 cube specimens were

casted and tested at 7 days, 28 days, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of ages. Five different

exposure conditions were adopted to assess the compressive strength development andresistance to aggressive environments exposure such as tropical climate and tidal zone

(chloride in seawater and sulfate in muddy soil). The specimens were demoulded after 24 hours

of casting, and immediately exposed to the respective condition until their testing age. The

details of the exposure conditions are as follows:

i) Air curing in the laboratory. Average room temperature of 270C (80.6

0F) to 30

0C

(860F) with 65% average humidity.

Chemical constituents of

GGBFS(%)

Silicon dioxide/silica (SiO2) 34.0

Aluminium oxide/ alumina

(Al2O3)

14.0

Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) 0.94

Calcium oxide (CaO) 43.1

Magnesium oxide (MgO) 5.39

Sulphur oxide (SO3) 0.15

Sodium oxide (Na2O) 0.23

Potassium oxide (K2O) 0.34

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) 0.66

Loss on ignition (LOI) 0.13

Sulphide sulphur, S2-

0.26

Chloride, Cl-

0.01

Physical properties (%)

Specific gravity 2.83

Total surface area (g/cm2) 4200

Fineness (% passing 45 m) 100


7/19


ii) Natural weathering outside the laboratory. Temperature ranged from 260C (78.8

0F)

to 360C (96.8

0F) with relative humidity 65% to 90%.

iii) Continuous water curing at 260C (78.8

0F).

iv) Wet-dry cycles. The specimens were put into water tank for 1 week (wet cycle) and

then drawn out from water to be exposed in open air condition for another 1 week (dry

cycle), which would give one complete cycle for testing purpose.

v) Tidal zone. Flow-ebb of sea water

Table 3Composition for polyester grouts designed and tested

Mix Ingredients

Grout composition

IP-CTR IP-10 IP-20 IP-30

Binder : Filler Ratio 1:1.5 1:1.5 1:1.5 1:1.5

GGBFS Content (%)1 0 10 20 30

MEKP (%)1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Viscosity (cP)at 300C

Spindle #3/60rpm

(1550-1650)Consistent Flow




Pot Life (minute) 33-37 31-34 30-33 30-33

1Percentage of GGBFS and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide ( MEKP) is based on the weight of binder

cP : centipoise ; rpm : round per minute1000 centipoise (cP) = 1 Pascal second (Pa.s)

Low viscosity < 2000cP : Consistent flow

2000cP < Medium viscosity < 10000cP : Gelatinous form

High viscosity > 10000cP

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figs. 1-5 show the results of compressive strength of polyester grouts with and without

GGBFS under various curing conditions and cured ages. High compressive strength exhibited

by all the mixes of grouts is evident from the figures. This is probably related to the good

degradation of the resin-filler interface. The compressive strength at 28 days varies from 106

MPa (15374psi) to 124.88 MPa (18112.31psi). This achieved the strength requirement

anticipated for polymer concrete and grouts i.e., 75MPa (10877.83psi). It is important to note

that the lowest value of compressive strength about 93MPa (13488.51psi) was obtained in case

of IP-30 at the age of 7 days, exposed to wet-dry cycles. This deduces the high strength gain bythe polyester grouts at the early ages also. At the early strength of polyester grouts with 10 to

30% GGBFS are lower than the control grout strength up to 28 days. It can be seen that the

strength of polyester grout with GGBFS beyond 90 days was found to be higher than the

control grouts except for the samples cured under tidal zone. This can be explained that


8/19


100.2

2

103.3

3

102.08

103.8

8

105.02

99.2

8

102.13

97.0

4

99.6

4

100

98.6

9

102.4

8

97.2

8

99.4

4

99.3

2

97.7

6102.7

5

93.9

93.0

2

93.6

8

80

90

100

110

120

130

Air Natu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Cond it ion

Com

pressiveStren

gth

(MPa)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 1aCompressive strength of grouts at 7 days of age (in unit MPa)

1

4,5

35.6

8

14,9

86.7

5

14,8

05.4

5

15,0

66.5

2

15,2

31.8

6

14,3

99.3

4

14,8

12.7

0

14,0

74.4

6

14,4

51.5

6

14,5

03.7

7

14

,313.7

7

14,8

63.4

6

14,1

09.2

7

14,4

22.5

5

14,4

05.1

4

14

,178.8

9

14,9

02.6

2

13,6

19.0

4

13,4

91.4

1

13,5

87.1

3

10000

11000

12000

13000

1400015000

16000

17000

18000

19000

20000

Air N atu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Condit ion

Com

pressiveStrength

(psi)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 1bCompressive strength of grouts at 7 days of age (in unit psi)


9/19


124.8

8

118.1

3

117.3

9

1

11.8

5 122.0

5

120.6

2

121.1

8

119.2

117.3

121.2

1

116.4

2

115

117.1

9

117.3

4

120.2

9

118.9

6

119.7

2

118.3

2

119.7

2

106

80

90

100

110

120

130

Air Natu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposu re Cond it ion

Com

pressiveStren

gth

(MPa)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 2aCompressive strength of grouts at 28 days of age (in unit MPa)

18,1

12.3

1

17,1

33.3

0

17,0

25.9

8

16,2

22.4

7

17,7

01.8

5

17,4

94.4

5

17,5

75.6

7

17,2

88.4

9

17,0

12.9

2

17,5

80.0

2

16,8

85.2

9

16,6

79.3

4

16,9

96.9

7

17,0

18.7

2

17,4

46.5

8

17,2

53.6

8

17,3

63.9

1

17,1

60.8

6

17,3

63.9

1

15,3

74.0

0

10000

11000

12000

13000

1400015000

16000

17000

18000

19000

20000

Air N atu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Condit ion

Com

pressiveStr

ength

(psi)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 2bCompressive strength of grouts at 28 days of age (in unit psi)


10/19


128.1

9

129.8

4

127.3

7

126.8

8

121.1

9130.1

6

129.8

7

124.0

7

1

14 1

17.81

25.3

6

127.5

6

123.9

1

115.2 1

21.1

7

123.1

2

119.4

3

125.1

6

118.9

6

115.6

2

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Air Natu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposu re Cond it ion

Com

pressiveStren

gth

(MPa)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 3aCompressive strength of grouts at 3 months of age (in unit MPa)

18,5

92.3

8

18,8

31.6

9

18,4

73.4

5

18,4

02.3

8

17,5

77.1

2

18,8

78.1

1

18,8

36.0

5

17,9

94.8

3

16,5

34.3

0

17,0

85.4

4

18,1

81.9

3

18,5

01.0

1

17,9

71.6

2

16,7

08.3

4

17,5

74.2

2

17,8

57.0

4

17,3

21.8

5

18,1

52.9

2

17,2

53.6

8

16,7

69.2

6

10000

11000

12000

13000

1400015000

16000

17000

18000

19000

20000

Air N atu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Condit ion

Com

pressiveStrength

(psi)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 3bCompressive strength of grouts at 3 months of age (in unit psi)


11/19


118.4

5124.7

4

114.0

2

115.8

119.6

2

119.7

6 130.6

4

117.1

6

116.5

2

118.3

6129.9

7

131.7

5

131.3

6

131.4

120.8

1134.4

4

131.6

8

132.4

5

114.2

132.5

2

80

90

100

110

120

130

Air Natu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Condit ion

Com

pressiveStren

gth

(MPa)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 4aCompressive strength of grouts at 6 months of age (in unit MPa)

17,1

79.7

2

18,0

92.0

0

16,5

37.2

0

16,7

95.3

7

17,3

49.4

1

17,3

69.7

1

18,9

47.7

3

16,9

92.6

2

16,8

99.7

9

17,1

66.6

6

18,8

50.5

5

19,1

08.7

2

19,0

52.1

5

19,0

57.9

5

17,5

22.0

0

19,4

98.8

7

19,0

98.5

6

19,2

10.2

4

16,5

63.3

1

19,2

20.4

0

10000

11000

12000

13000

1400015000

16000

17000

18000

19000

20000

Air N atu ral

Weather

W a ter W e t-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Cond it ion

Com

pressiveStrength

(psi)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 4bCompressive strength of grouts at 6 months of age (in unit psi)


12/19


113.8

7 124.8

10

9.0

7

10

9.3

3

112.2

116

125.7

1

10.6

7

1

10.6

7

1

11.2

129.4

131.3

116.2

7

122.4

120.6

7134.6

7

133.0

7

123.7

3

124.6

7

115.5

4

80

90

100

110

120

130

A ir Natu ral

Weather

W ater W et-D ry

Cycle

Tidal Zone

Exposure Cond ition

Com

pressiveStren

gth

(MPa)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 5aCompressive strength of grouts at 1 year of age (in unit MPa)

16,5

15.4

4

18,1

00.7

0

15,8

19.2

6

15,8

56.9

7

16,2

73.2

3

16,8

24.3

7

18,2

31.2

4

16,0

51.3

2

16,0

51.3

2

16,1

28.1

9

18,7

67.8

8

19,0

43.4

5

16,8

63.5

3

17,7

52.6

1

17,5

01.7

0

19,5

32.2

3

19,3

00.1

7

17,9

45.5

1

18,0

81.8

5

16,7

57.6

6

10000

11000

12000

13000

1400015000

16000

17000

18000

19000

20000

Air N atural

Weather

W ater W et-D ry

Cycle

Tidal

Zone

Exposure Condit ion

Com

pressiveSt

rength

(psi)

IPG-B3CTR

IPG-B3S10

IPG-B3S20

IPG-B3S30

Fig. 5bCompressive strength of grouts at 1 year of age (in unit psi)

GGBFS reduced the reaction heat by resin and its initiator during cross-linking process and

thus decelerated or deferred the polymerization at the early ages. Another possible reason for

this observation concluded by Shariq et at24

, may be due to the slow rate hydration at early ages

for incorporating GGBFS.


13/19


Table 4 presents the percentage difference of compressive strength at various ages as

compared to 28-day compressive strength when being subjected to different curing conditions.

It is worth noting that the strength gain was independent of exposure condition at the age of 7

days and almost all the polyester grouts achieved 80% of 28-day compressive strength,

respectively. This may conclude that the application of GGBFS as filler in polyester grouts

may behave differently as compared to the water based cement concretes or mortars in terms of

early age strength gain. Shariq et at24

found that 7-day compressive strength of cement mortarsincorporating GGBFS at 20%, 40% and 60% only gained about 60% of 28-day strength.

At the ages of 7 and 28 days, the polyester grouts with GGBFS exhibited comparatively

smaller strength gain than that of the control grout. However, this effect was diminished with

time. This could be attributed to the slow process of polymerization of resin matrix to bind the

filler due to the presence of GGBFS. The compressive strength of grouts containing GGBFS as

filler consistently increased up to the age of 1 year and was more pronounced as the percentage

of filler increased. This may be due to the increased surface area as the sand is replaced by

smaller particle size of GGBFS filler. The increase in surface area may result in better

formation of physical and chemical bond between polymer micro-molecules and micro fillers16

.This infers the suitability of GGBFS as filler in polyester grouts in terms of consistency and

long term gain in compressive strength. On the other hand, the control grouts showed a

decrement in the strength beyond 3 months of age where the compressive strength was smallerthan that of the 28 days. In fact, the 28-day compressive strength is commonly considered as

the design strength and supposed to be optimum and presumed to be increased later on but the

control grout could not accomplish this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the polyester grouts at

30% replacement level of GGBFS reached excellent compressive strength and are similar to

those reported in literature. Mum et al.14

examined the properties of polyester mortars using

fine tailing (FT) and ground calcium carbonate (GCC) as a filler. From the view point of

percentage, the compressive strength of polyester mortars reaches maximum at a replacementof 30%, regardless of the type of filler. A study by Soh et al.

13was found that fly ash contents

about 50% is most suitable for attaining maximum increase in strength of unsaturated polyester

resin mortar.

In terms of curing condition, the polyester grouts exposed to the air and natural weather

environments show identical and higher strength than those of the grouts exposed to other

environments particular in water conditions, and this effect is more significant with time. This

phenomenon, however, are contradicts for GGBFS applied in cement concrete. Atis and

Bilim20

and Cakir and Akoz22

stated that water cured of GGBFS concrete indicated marked

positive effect on compressive strength as compared to those dry cured condition. This

explained why the water curing is important for hydration of cement as perceived. Since

Malaysias environment is tropical and cyclic in nature with rain and scorching sunshine

alternatively, it is believed that the cross-linking network forming process was accelerated

during the sunshine, causing heat, resulting in higher strength gain in ambient environment. As

Barbara5

stated, thermoset resin forms its long chain cross-linked structure (solidify) by

heating or via a chemical reaction. On the contrary, the polyester grouts exposed to water and

tidal zone showed lower compressive strength and could be attributed to the loweredtemperature which slowed down the polymerization process, thereby decelerated the

compressive strength development. The ingress of liquids into samples after long-term

immersion also degraded the interfacial bonding between resin matrix and filler, thus

deteriorated the strength. Nevertheless, the grout IP-30 with 30% GGBFS exhibited higher

long-term compressive strength than the other grouts even when it is immersed in seawater due

to GGBFS which possess a good inert mass ability as well as pozzlanic characteristic in

preventing the ingress of liquids. Therefore, it can be concluded that incorporating GGBFS

provides a positive effect on the strength and durability of the polyester resin grouts. Also there


14/19


was neither weight loss, nor apparent deterioration observed in polyester grout samples

exposed to all exposure environments including flow-ebb of seawater.

Table 4Strength development of grouts expressed as percentage of 28-day compressive

strength subjected to different exposing conditions

Age GroutStrength development as percentage of 28 days strength

Air Natural weather Water Wet-dry cycles Tidal Zone

7 days

IPG-CTR 80 87 87 93 86

IPG-10 82 84 81 85 83

IPG-20 85 89 83 85 83

IPG-30 82 86 79 78 88

28 days

IPG-CTR 100 100 100 100 100

IPG-10 100 100 100 100 100

IPG-20 100 100 100 100 100

IPG-30 100 100 100 100 100

3 months

IPG-CTR 103 110 109 113 99

IPG-10 108 107 104 97 97

IPG-20 108 111 106 98 101

IPG-30 103 100 106 99 109

6 months

IPG-CTR 95 106 97 104 98

IPG-10 99 108 98 99 98

IPG-20 112 115 112 112 100

IPG-30 111 112 111 111 108

1 year

IPG-CTR 91 106 93 98 92

IPG-10 96 104 93 94 92

IPG-20 111 114 99 104 100

IPG-30 113 111 105 104 109

Figs. 6-9 show the microstructure images of the control and polyester grout with 30%

GGBFS. From the observation of the factures surfaces, grouts with 30% GGBFS are denser

and uniform, and less porous than the control grouts. Fig. 6 and 8 show the control grouts are

almost caused by the failure of sand particles for both natural weather (ambient environment)

and sea water (immersed in sea facing flow-ebb) exposure conditions, respectively. In Fig. 7

and 9, it can be seen that 30% of very fine GGBFS efficiently fill the micro-pores and are

covered within the grout mass. Furthermore, GGBFS also possess cementitious propertieswhich might enhance the adherence between the particles and the other constituents of thegrout. It is evident that with more cohesive and high strength in final product, durable against

the hostile environments and the flow-ebb of the seawater is developed. Therefore, it is

suggested that polyester grouts with 30% GGBFS replacement of sand as powder/micro-filler

has better resistance to aggressive and hostile environments and is durable in tropical countries.


15/19


Fig. 6Microstructure image of IP-CTR (control) after 1 year exposed to natural weather

(1000X magnification)

Fig. 7Microstructure image of IP-30 (30% GGBFS) after 1 year exposed to natural

weather (1000X magnification)


16/19


Fig.8Microstructure image of IP-CTR (control) after 1 year exposed to sea water

(immersed) (1000X magnification)

Fig. 9Microstructure image of IP-30 (30% GGBFS) after 1 year exposed to sea water

(immersed) (1000X magnification)


17/19


CONCLUSIONS

Grouting is required to fill the joints, fissures, cracks and voids leakage by curtain grouting

irrespective of any construction of the structures. The site engineers suffer a lot of problematic

situation depending upon water spring, shear zones and water table falls etc below the rock

foundation, so for foundation treatments the polyester resins and GGBS are very useful and

other materials parallel like rice husk ash/ sawdust/spongy materials along with sodium silicateas accelerators with grout mix of cement and water are also useful to plug the

leakage/consolidate the cavities/spring zone situations.

The results of this study reveal that the replacement of GGBFS up to 30% by filler mass

as powder/micro-filler in polyester grouts performs better than the polyester grouts without

GGBFS. Although the early strength of GGBFS polyester grouts was less than the control

grouts, however, beyond 28 days their compressive strength kept improving and was higher

than that of the control grouts. The natural weather of Malaysia with rain and scorching

sunshine alternatively shows a positive effect on the long-term compressive strength gain of

GGBFS polyester grouts. The polyester grouts with GGBFS were dense, uniform and lessporous structure which not only exhibit high compressive strength but also efficiently sustain

the aggressive environment in sea water and the flow-ebb of seawater. Thus, on the basis of the

results and the discussions made herein, it can be concluded that GGBFS is a potential materialto be used as powder/micro-filler in the polyester grouts for concrete. The overall performance

of the polyester grouts with GGBFS was alike the epoxy resins and can serve as a cost effective

material for concrete repair work.

REFERENCES

1. Aggarwal, A. K., Thhapliyal, P. C., and Karade, S. R., Properties of Polymer-Modified

Mortars using Epoxy and Acrylic Emulsions, Construction and Building Materials, V. 21, No.

2, 2007, 379-383.

2. Moetaz, M., El-Hawary, and Hisham, A. F., Temperature Effect on the Mechanical

Behavior of Resin Concrete, Construction and Building Materials, V. 14, No. 6, 2000,

317-323.

3. Ribeiro, M. C. S., Novoa, P. R., Ferreira, A. J. M., and Marques, A.T., Flexural

Performance of Polyester and Epoxy Polymer Mortars under Severe Thermal Conditions,Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 26, No. 7, 2004, 803-809.

4. Shaw, J. D. N., Resins in Construction, Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, V.

7, No. 4, 1985, 217-223.

5. Barbara, H. S., Polymer Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Sydney, 2005.

6. Ohama, Y., Polymer Based Admixtures, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 20, No. 2,

1998, 189-212.

7. Xia, C., and Lee, L. J., Control of Shrinkage and Residual Styrene of Unsaturated Polyester

Resins Cured at Low Temperatures, Polymer, V. 44, No. 6, 2003, 1893-1902.

8. Gorvinski, J. P., Dal, M. D. C., and Kazmier, C. C. S., Study of the Modulus Elasticity of

Polymer Concrete Compounds and Comparative Assessment of Polymer Concrete andPortland Cement Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 34, No. 11, 2004, 2091-2095.

9. ACI 548.3R-95, State of the Art Report on Polymer-Modified Concrete, In: ACI Manual

of Concrete Practice, Part-5, Farmigton hills, American Concrete Institute, USA, 2000.

10. Goulding, T. M., Epoxy Resin Adhesives, Handbook of Adhesive Technology, Marcel

Dekker Inc., New York, 1994.

11. Varughese, K. T., and Chaturvedi, B. K., Fly Ash as Fine Aggregate in Polyester Based

Polymer Concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 18, No. 2, 1995, 105-108.

12. Gorninski, J. P., Molin, D. C. D., and Kazmierczak, C. S., Comparative Assessment of


18/19


Isophthalic and Orthophatalic Polyester Polymer Concrete: Different Costs, Similar

Mechanical Properties and Durability, Construction and Building Materials, V. 21, No. 3,

2007, 546-555.

13. Soh, Y. S., Jo, Y. K., and Park, H. S., Effect of Filler on the Mechanical Properties ofUnsaturated Polyester Resin Mortar,In: Polymer Concrete Proc. East Asia Symp., 1997, pp.

67-74.

14. Mun, K. J., Choi, N. W., So, S. Y., and Soh, Y. S., Influence of Fine Tailings on PolyesterMortar Properties, Construction and Building Materials, V. 21, No. 6, 2007, 1335-1341.

15. Willis, M. R., and Masters, I. The Effect of Filler Loading and Process Route on the

Three-Point Bend Performance of Waste Based Composites, Composite Structure, V. 62, No.

3-4, 2003, 475-479.

16. Rozman, H. D., Musa, L., and Abubakar, A., The Mechanical and Dimensional Propertiesof Rice Husk-Unsaturated Polyester Composites, Polymer-Plastics Technology and

Engineering, V. 44, No. 3, 2005, 489-500.

17. Robins, P. J, Austin, S. A. A., and Issaad A., Suitability of GGBFS as a Cement

Replacement for Concrete in Hot Arid Climates,Materials and Structures, V. 25, No. 10,

1992, 598-612.

18. Olorunsogo, F. T., and Wainwright, P. J., Effect of GGBFS Particle-Size Distribution on

Mortar Compressive Strength,Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, V. 10, No. 3, 1998,180-187.

19. Olorunsogo, F. T., Particle-Size Distribution of GGBFS and Bleeding Characteristics of

Slag Cement Mortar, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 28, No. 6, 1998, 907-1010.

20. Atis, C. D., and Bilim, C., Wet and Dry Cured Compressive Strength of Concrete

Containing Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag,Building and Environment, V. 42, No. 8,

2007, 3060-3065.

21. Ozkan, O., Yuksel, I., and Muratoglu, O., Strength Properties of Concrete IncorporatingCoal Bottom Ash and Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, Waste Management, V. 27, No. 2, 2007,

161-167.

22. Cakir, O., and Akoz, F., Effect of Curing Conditions on the Mortars With and Without

GGBFS, Construction and Building Materials, V. 22, No. 3, 2008, 308-314.

23. Felekoglu, B., Optimization of Self-Compacting Filling Grout Mixtures for Repair

Purposes, Construction and Building Materials, V. 22, No. 4, 2008, 660-667.

24. Shariq, M., Prasad, M., and Ahuja, A. K., Strength Development of Cement Mortar and

Concrete Incorporating GGBFS,Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing),

V. 9, No. 1, 2008, 61-74.

25. Escalante-Garcia, J. I., Espinoza-Perez, L. J., Gorokhovsky, A., and Gomez-Zamorano, L.

Y., Coarse Blast Furnace Slag as a Cementitious Material, Comparative Study as a Partial

Replacement of Portland Cement and as an Alkali Activated Cement, Construction and

Building Materials, V. 23, No. 7, 2009, 2511-2517.

26. Lim, S. K., Fadhadli, Z., Warid, H. M., Zuhairi, A., and Roswadi, M., Effect of GGBFS

Content to Cement Grout on the Compressive Strength Development in Tropical Climate,

Proceedings of Asia Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction conference, KualaLumpur, Malaysia, Sept. 2006, pp. B74-83.

27. Noor, A. M., Salihuddin, R. S., and Mahyuddin, R., Performance of High Workability

Slag-Cement Based Mortar for Ferrocement, Building and Environment, V. 42, No. 7, 2007,

2710-2717.

28. Pal, S. C., Mukherjee, A., and Pathak, S. R., Investigation of Hydraulic Activity of

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 33,

No. 9, 2003, 1481-1486.


19/19


29. Goulding, T. M., Epoxy Resin Adhesives, In: Pizzi A., Mittal KL Handbook of Adhesive

Technology, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1984, 1-13, 531-546 pp.

30. ACI 233R-95, Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as a Cementitious Constituent in

Concrete, American Concrete Institute, USA, 1995.

31. Johnson, K. G., and Yang, L. S., Preparation, Properties and Applications of Unsaturated

Polyesters. In: Scheirs J. and Long T. E. Modern Polyesters: Chemistry and Technology of

Polyesters and Copolyesters, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York, 2003, 699-713 pp.32. Weatherhead, R. G., FRP Technology Fibre Reinforced Resin Systems, Applied

Science Publishers Ltd., London, 1980, 204-431 pp.

33. Morris, H., Leo, R. B., Scott, P., and Susan, A., Introduction to Organic and

Biochemistry, Pacific Grove, Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company, California, 1993.

34. BS 6319: Part 1, Method for Preparation of Test Specimens: Testing of Resin

Compositions for Use in Construction, British Standard Institute, 1983.

35. Xinrui, L., Hiroshi, K., Yusaku, I., and Mok, Y. S., Decomposition of Methyl EthylKetone Peroxide and Mixtures with Sulfuric Acid,Journal of Loss Prevention, V. 17, No. 1,

2004, 23-28.36. ASTM C 778 06, Standard Specification for Standard Sand, American Society for

Testing and Materials, 2006.

37. Lim, S. K., Fadhadli, Z., Warid, H. M., Zuhairi, A., and Roswadi, M., Effect of GGBGFSas in Polyester Grout on Flowability and Strength, Proceedings of Asia Pacific Structural

Engineering and Construction conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Sept. 2006, pp.

B141-151.

38. ASTM D 2471 99, Standard Test Method for Gel Time and Peak Exothermic

Temperature of Reacting Thermosetting Resins, American Society for Testing and Materials,

1999.

39. ASTM C 579 01, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength ofChemical-Resistant Mortars, Grouts, Monolithic Surfacing, and Polymer Concretes,

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.

Ggbfs as Potential Filler in Polyester Grout- Compressive Strength Development

Documents

Transcript of Ggbfs as Potential Filler in Polyester Grout- Compressive Strength Development