Determining engineering properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete modified with different waste materials.

Abstract

Reprocessing solid waste materials is a low-cost method of preserving the environment, conserving natural resources, and reducing raw material consumption. Developing ultra-high-performance concrete materials requires an immense quantity of natural raw materials. The current study seeks to tackle this issue by evaluating the effect of various discarded materials, waste glass (GW), marble waste (MW), and waste rubber powder (WRP) as a partial replacement of fine aggregates on the engineering properties of sustainable ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete (UHPGPC). Ten different mixtures were developed as a partial substitute for fine aggregate, each containing 2% double-hooked end steel fibers, 5%, 10%, and 15% GW, MW, and WRP. The present study assessed the fresh, mechanical, and durability properties of UHPGPC. In addition, to evaluate concrete development at the microscopic level due to the addition of GW, MW, and WRP. Spectra of X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and mercury intrusion (MIP) tests were conducted. The test results were compared to current trends and procedures identified in the literature. According to the study, adding 15% marble waste and 15% waste rubber powder reduced ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete's strength, durability, and microstructure properties. Even so, adding glass waste improved the properties, as the sample with 15% GW had the highest compressive strength of 179 MPa after 90 days. Furthermore, incorporating glass waste into the UHPGPC resulted in a good reaction between the geopolymerization gel and the waste glass particles, enhancing strength properties and a packed microstructure. The inclusion of glass waste in the mix resulted in the control of crystal-shaped humps of quartz and calcite, according to XRD spectra. During the TGA analysis, the UHPGPC with 15% glass waste had the minimum weight loss (5.64%) compared to other modified samples.