EffectsofSandPowderonSulfuricAcidResistance,Compressive ...

Research ArticleEffects of Sand Powder on Sulfuric Acid Resistance CompressiveStrength Cost Benefits and CO2 Reduction of High CaO FlyAsh Concrete

Surachet Wanna1 Warangkana Saengsoy 2 Pisanu Toochinda3

and Somnuk Tangtermsirikul1

1School of Civil Engineering and Technology Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology (SIIT) ammasat UniversityBangkok ailand2Construction and Maintenance Technology Research Center (CONTEC) School of Civil Engineering and TechnologySirindhorn International Institute of Technology (SIIT) ammasat University Bangkok ailand3School of Bio-Chemical Engineering and Technology Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology (SIIT)ammasat University Bangkok ailand

Correspondence should be addressed to Warangkana Saengsoy warangkanasiittuacth

Received 24 June 2020 Revised 7 December 2020 Accepted 17 December 2020 Published 28 December 2020

Academic Editor Shengwen Tang

Copyright copy 2020 Surachet Wanna et al )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

)is article studies the efficiency of sand powder as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in improving the sulfuric acidresistance of concrete incorporated with high CaO fly ash Besides the effects of sand powder on compressive strength de-velopment mitigation of carbon dioxide emission and cost-effectiveness are addressed Paste mixtures with WB ratios of 025and 040 were used in this study for the performances of sulfuric acid resistance and long-term compressive strength development)e test results indicated that sand powder could reduce the weight loss of the tested paste specimens in sulfuric acid solution witha pH of 1 compared to the control specimens especially for the specimens incorporated with high CaO fly ash )e sand powderaddition could also increase the compressive strength of cement pastes at the age of 90 days by 2627 and 4380 for WB ratiosof 025 and 040 respectively)e use of sand powder in the evaluated concrete mixture could also reduce CO2 emission by 2323and lower the cost of the mixtures by 805 compared to the control mixture )e addition of sand powder could significantlyincrease the sulfuric acid resistance compressive strength and economic benefits and reduce the CO2 emission of high CaO flyash-cement-based materials

1 Introduction

Concrete is one of the most widely used construction ma-terials It offers satisfactory strength for constructed struc-tures )e cost and the durability of concrete in aggressiveenvironments should be considered Currently many re-searchers have found that the use of supplementary ce-mentitious materials (SCMs) such as fly ash blast furnaceslag and silica fume could improve several performances ofconcrete effectively [1ndash6] A disadvantage of most SCMsespecially fly ash is that they result in low early age com-pressive strength of the concrete Filler materials such as

limestone powder granite dust and ground sand or sandpowder were found to be effective in combination withSCMs to enhance compressive strength [7ndash9]

By designing the concrete mix proportion properly andreasonably concrete with satisfactory mechanical and dura-bility properties low cost and low environmental impactfeatures can be produced )e designed concrete mixturesshould satisfy the short-term and long-term strength anddurability requirements )e mixtures should also be eco-nomical and result in low CO2 emission )ese have beensuccessfully achieved for the past few decades in )ailand viathe application of fly ash concrete In )ailand two main

HindawiAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringVolume 2020 Article ID 3284975 12 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520203284975

kinds of fly ash are commonly used in the concrete industry)e first kind is the fly ash with a high CaO content (MaeMohfly ash) while the other is the one with a low CaO content(BLCP fly ash) )e use of Mae Moh fly ash in concretegenerally results in a higher early strength than the BLCP one[10ndash12] Because of this reason the Mae Moh fly ash is morepopular in the concrete industry in )ailand than the BLCPfly ash It should be noted that the amount ofMaeMoh fly ashis approximately 80 of the total fly ash production in)ailand )e Mae Moh fly ash is the main supply of fly ashfor the concrete industry whereas the production of BLCP flyash is much lower at less than 15 of the total )ai fly ashproduction )e demand of fly ash in )ailand has recentlysurpassed the supply making the price of fly ash higher thanbefore )e high CaO Mae Moh fly ash is more common andmore popular than other low CaO fly ashes in)ailand so itsprice is higher In addition the transportation distance fromLampang province in the north of )ailand to Bangkok andother central regions of )ailand where a majority of theconstruction projects are concentrated is far causing a largeamount of CO2 emission from transportation activity It isknown that fly ashes with different chemical compositionshave different advantages and disadvantages in terms ofconcrete properties Fly ashes with a low CaO content havebeen studied and known to significantly improve the resis-tance to some aggressive environmental attacks [13 14]especially an acid attack However the amount of low CaO flyash in )ailand is limited )e low CaO fly ash in )ailandalso shows disadvantages in many other performances whenused in concrete as compared to the high CaO Mae Moh flyash Considering the abovementioned problems more ben-efits can be achieved if there exists an additional cement-replacing material )is material could be used in combi-nation with the high CaO Mae Moh fly ash to improve theacid resistance reduce the mixture cost and reduce the CO2emission of the concrete mixtures Many researchers studiedthe use of cement-replacing materials (CRMs) with high SiO2contents such as silica fume which can improve both thestrength and acid resistance of concrete [6] However the useof silica fume in )ailand significantly increases the concretecost [15] It also increases the transportation-related CO2emission as it must be imported from foreign countries Inthis study a new alternative filler material is selected for thispurpose sand powder

Sand powder is a filler material that has a high SiO2content A study has found that though not as reactive asother pozzolans SiO2 in sand powder can react withCa(OH)2 from cement hydration to produce new C-S-Hbonds [16] In addition the small sand particles can helpcement to react more completely in the hydration process

)e purpose of this research is to study the possibility ofusing sand powder to improve the acid resistance of concreteincorporated with high CaO Mae Moh fly ash )is researchcan help reduce the cost and total CO2 emission of the sandpowder-incorporated high CaO fly ash concrete mixtureswhen compared to the respective mixtures without the sandpowder Mixtures in which cement was partially replaced bythe high CaO Mae Moh fly ash by low CaO BLCP fly ashand by combined high CaO fly ash with sand powder were

studied and compared for the acid resistance cost and CO2emissions )e results of this study will be useful in thefuture for mix proportion optimization of acid-resistingconcrete with the use of the most typical fly ash type (highCaO fly ash) and sand powder

2 Materials

21 Portland Cement )e Portland cement used in thisstudy is an ordinary Portland cement type I followingASTM C 150 [17] and the )ai Industrial Standard (TIS 15)[18]

22 Cement-Replacing Materials

221 Fly Ash Two different types of fly ash were used in thisstudy one from the Mae Moh electric power plant of theElectricity Generating Authority of )ailand (EGAT) inLampang Province north of )ailand which produces ahigh CaO content fly ash and the other one from the BLCPPower Co Ltd in Rayong province east of)ailand whichproduces a low CaO content fly ash Properties of the flyashes follow the )ai Industrial Standard (TIS 2135ndash2545)[19] )e BLCP fly ash (FAR) containing a low calciumoxide (CaO) content of 232 is classified as Class 2aaccording to TIS 2135ndash2545 (Figure 1(a)) In contrast theMae Moh fly ash (FAM) containing a high calcium oxide(CaO) content of 1363 is classified as Class 2b conformingTIS 2135ndash2545 (Figure 1(b))

222 Sand Powder )e sand powder used in the tests has amean particle size of 1518 μm It was produced by grindingriver sand sourced from Ayutthaya province by a planetaryball mill (Figure 2)

)e chemical compositions and physical properties ofthe materials used in this study are given in Tables 1 and 2respectively

3 Experiment

31 Specimen Preparation Ten mix proportions of pastespecimens (as shown in Table 3) were prepared with water tobinder ratios of 025 and 04)e tenmix proportions consistof three systems of mixtures single binder binary bindersand ternary binders )e single binder system consists ofPortland cement type I as the only binder For binarybinders mixtures with 10 replacement by sand powdermixtures with 30 replacement by high CaO fly ash (FAM)and mixtures with 30 replacement by low CaO fly ash(FAR) were prepared In the case of ternary binders onlyone mixture was used for this study 10 sand powder with20 replacement by high CaO fly ash (FAM) All of themixtures were cast to obtain cube specimens(50times 50times 50mm) following ASTM C109 [20] for thecompressive strength test and acid corrosion test Each testspecimen was removed from the mold one day after castingand cured in lime water until 28 days of age After curing thespecimens were exposed to a sulfuric acid solution with a pH

2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

of 1 for 240 days It is noted that the acid resistance test wasconducted on paste samples in order to accelerate thedegradation of the tested specimens in acid solution

32 Acid Solution Preparation and pH Maintenance Acidsolutions were prepared using sulfuric acid (95ndash97) dis-solved in reverse osmosis water to obtain a solution with a

(a) (b)

Figure 1 )e fly ashes used in this study (a) BLCP fly ash (FAR) (b) Mae Moh fly ash (FAM)

Figure 2 Sand powder (GS)

Table 1 Chemical compositions of Portland cement type I sand powder and fly ashes

Chemical compositions ( by weight) Portland cement type I (OPC) Sand powder (GS)Fly ash

Mae Moh (FAM) BLCP (FAR)SiO2 1970 9851 4093 6191Al2O3 519 mdash 2242 2035Fe2O3 334 mdash 1364 520CaO 6480 mdash 1363 232MgO 120 mdash 293 135Na2O 016 mdash 089 079K2O 044 mdash 239 136SO3 254 mdash 193 028Free lime 087 mdash 022 019LOI 210 mdash 046 568

Table 2 Physical properties of Portland cement type I sand powder and fly ashes

Physical properties Portland cement type I (OPC) Sand powder (GS)Fly ash

Mae Moh (FAM) BLCP (FAR)Specific gravity 313 260 226 216Blaine fineness (cm2g) 3660 3590 2460 3400Mean diameter (microm) 1541 1518 1774 1591

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3

pH of 1)e prepared cement paste specimens with differentmix proportions were immersed in the sulfuric acid solu-tions )e pH of the acid solutions was measured daily byusing a pH meter A pH of 1 was maintained by the additionof acid throughout the test period

33 Test Procedures

331 Compressive Strength )e compressive strength of thepaste specimens was tested at 3 7 28 and 90 days in ac-cordance with ASTM C109 [20] Each compressive strengthvalue was the average of the values obtained from threetested specimens

332 Mass Loss by Acid Attack Mass loss by sulfuric acidattack of paste specimens was measured following themethod applied by Banchong et al [12] and Sirisawat et al[21] After curing the cement paste samples in lime water for28 days the samples were weighed to find their initialweights During submersion in the acid solution the pastesamples were routinely brought out of the acid solution andweighed to find the weight change every week Beforeweighing the paste samples were washed with water andbrushed with a soft brush to eliminate the unsound surfacewhich was the result of the acid attack )ey were then driedby a clean towel After that the weights of the specimenswere measured )e mass loss or weight change (in percent)can be calculated by the following equation

mass loss in percent wi minus wt( 1113857

wi

times 100 (1)

where wi is the initial weight of a specimen after 28-daycuring before immersion in the sulfuric acid solution (g) andwt is the weight of the specimen after immersion in thesulfuric acid solution (g)

333 Porosity Test Pore size distributions of paste speci-mens C100 and C90GS10 with a WB of 025 were deter-mined by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) using aMicromeritics AutoPore V 9600 (USA) with a maximum414MPa intrusion pressure )is MIP instrument is able to

detect the pores with the diameter ranging from 3 nm to500 μm )e cube samples with dimensions of10mmtimes 10mmtimes 10mm were cut out using a diamond sawfrom the midportion of the paste specimens after curing inlime water until 90 days of age After that the small cubesamples were submerged in acetone for 24 h and subse-quently dried in an oven at 50degC for 24 h to stop the hy-dration Two samples were used for each MIP test

4 Inventory Data for Calculating CarbonDioxide Emission of Concrete Mixtures

Figure 3 shows the processes that were considered for theCO2 emissions in obtaining a cubic meter of a concretemixture )ey include raw material production (cementcoarse aggregate fine aggregate and fly ash) transportationof raw materials and concrete production Hence tocompute the CO2 emissions of all mix conditions in thisresearch the inventory data of the concretersquos raw materialsand the other essential processes were collected from severalsources such as cement companies ready-mixed concretecompanies and a literature survey Chemical admixtures arenot considered in the CO2 emission calculation in this studyas the amount of a chemical admixture used is usually smallwhen compared to other concrete ingredients )e calcu-lation to obtain CO2 emissions of a mixture is given by thefollowing equation [22]

EFmix WC times EFC( 1113857 + WG times EFG( 1113857 + WS times EFS( 1113857

+ WFA times EFFA( 1113857 + WGS times EFGS( 1113857 + EFplant(2)

where EFmix is the CO2 emission of a produced concretemixture (t-CO2) WC is the weight of cement per 1m3 ofconcrete (kg)WG is the weight of coarse aggregate per 1m3

of concrete (kg) WS is the weight of fine aggregate per 1m3

of concrete (kg) WFA is the weight of fly ash per 1m3 ofconcrete (kg)WGS is the weight of sand powder per 1m3 ofconcrete (kg) EFC is the emission factor of cement (kg-CO2t-cement) EFG is the emission factor of coarse aggregate (kg-CO2t-coarse aggregate) EFS is the emission factor of fineaggregate (kg-CO2t-fine aggregate) EFFA is the emissionfactor of fly ash (kg-CO2t-fly ash) EFGS is the emission

Table 3 Mix proportions of tested paste specimens

No Mix designation WB Portland cement type I (ratio by weight)Cement-replacing materials

(ratio by weight)C GS FAM FAR

1 C100 025 100 mdash mdash mdash2 C90GS10 025 090 010 mdash mdash3 C70FAM30 025 070 mdash 030 mdash4 C70FAR30 025 070 mdash mdash 0305 C70FAM20GS10 025 070 010 020 mdash6 C100 040 100 mdash mdash mdash7 C90GS10 040 090 010 mdash mdash8 C70FAM30 040 070 mdash 030 mdash9 C70FAR30 040 070 mdash mdash 03010 C70FAM20GS10 040 070 010 020 mdashC is cement GS is sand powder FAM is high CaO (Mae Moh) fly ash FAR is low CaO (BLCP) fly ash

4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

factor of sand powder (kg-CO2t-sand powder) and EFplantis the emission factor for manufacturing a cubic meter ofconcrete by an industrial batching-mixing plant (kg-CO2m3-concrete)

41 Emission Factors of Raw Materials

411 Emission Factor of Cement (EFC) )e CO2 emissioninventory data used in this research for ordinary Portlandcement were obtained from the report of the )ailandGreenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Orga-nization) )e data were collected from 2001 to 2014 fromthe top five cement manufacturers in )ailand [23 24]

)e CO2 emissions of cement production mainly comefrom 2 parts )e first is the direct emission of CO2 fromcalcination and fuel combustion )e second is the indirectemission from the electricity used for external productionMoreover the methodology for calculating CO2 emissionswas from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) methodVersion (B1) [25] From 2001 to 2014 )e )ailandGreenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Orga-nization) reported that the average value of CO2 emission isabout 07935 t-CO2tonne (direct emission of CO2 07330t-CO2tonne and indirect emission of CO2 00605 t-CO2tonne)

412 Emission Factor of Fine Aggregate (EFS) )e emissionfactor of fine aggregate production (EFS) used in this studywas derived from previous research that studied the CO2emission of sand production for concrete works in )ailand[22] )e CO2 emission per tonne of sand is 00046 t-CO2tonne

413 Emission Factor of Coarse Aggregate (EFG) )e datafor estimating the CO2 emission due to the production ofcoarse aggregate were from previous studies [26] )e coarse

aggregate used in our analysis is limestone aggregate whichis usually obtained from a typical mining process )e dataobtained were based on typical aggregate mining and pro-duction processes )ey considered the processes startingfrom the use of explosives to blast the rock from a quarryinto medium-sized boulders and rocks applying diesel-powered excavators and haulers removing the rubble anddumping it into electric crushing and screening equipmentand moving the final graded products into stockpiles bydiesel-powered haulers )is information was taken fromfuel electricity and explosives invoices and site sales figures)e fuel electricity and explosives data were used to cal-culate the amount of CO2 produced per tonne of aggregateproduced at each site )e CO2 emission per tonne of coarseaggregate (EFG) is 0029 t-CO2tonne

414 Emission Factor of Fly Ash (EFFA) Asmentioned thereare two main sources of fly ash that are practically used in theconcrete industry in )ailand Mae Moh and BLCP fly ashesIt is commonly accepted that fly ashes have no direct emissionof CO2 from their production as they are by-products fromelectric power plants However indirect emissions caused byadditional processes for managing the fly ash at the powerplants such as transportation to the stocking silos qualitycontrol processes and consumer-related process should beconsidered In this research the emission factor of fly ashproduction is estimated to be about 00196 t-CO2tonne [26]

415 Emission Factor of Sand Powder (EFGS) )e emissionfactor of the sand powder (EFGS) in this research is calculatedby considering two parts (emission factor of raw materialsand emission factor of grinding sand) For the first part theoriginal sand used for preparing the sand powder was riversand obtained from a sand source in Ayutthaya province)e emission factor data for this part are from Section 412For the second part to prepare the sand powder in the

Carbon dioxide emissions

Sand powder processing

Fly ashes processing

Fine aggregate production

One cubic meter of concrete in structures Concrete production Transportation of raw materials to concrete batching plant

Coarse aggregate production

Cement production

Figure 3 Processes involving CO2 emissions in the production of a cubic meter of concrete

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5

laboratory the original sand was ground to obtain the sandpowder with a mean particle size of about 15 microns In thelaboratory the river sand was ground for about 45min at aspeed of 400 rpm by using a planetary ball mill However inreal mass production the CO2 emission from the energyused for grinding sand was assumed in this study to besimilar to that for grinding limestone to a similar size )edata were obtained from Siam City Concrete )e electricityused was around 51 kWhtonne [27] )e average CO2emission per 1 kW of electricity is equal to 0545 kg-CO2kW[28] So in this research the calculated emission factor ofsand powder (EFGS) is approximately 00324t-CO2tonneAll emission factors that are used for the CO2 emissioncalculation of material production in this study are sum-marized in Table 4

42 Emission Factor for Transportation Inventory data ofenergy and transportation are used for the concrete mate-rials in )ailand )e values of CO2 emissions by thecombustion of fuels (diesel) are estimated at 00714 t-CO2km for 20 t trucks [23] )e distance considered for thecalculation of CO2 emissions by transportation is the dis-tance from the source of the materials to the Bangkokmetropolitan area )e CO2 emission calculations for ma-terial transportation to the Bangkok metropolitan area aresummarized in Table 5

43 Emission Factor for Concrete Manufacturing in Batchingand Mixing Plants (EFplant) )e data on power usage formanufacturing ready-mixed concrete were collected fromseveral ready-mixed concrete plants around Bangkok thatwere reported by Sukontasukkul [22] )e report shows thatthe CO2 emission for manufacturing 1m3 of ready-mixedconcrete is about 00012 t-CO2m3

)e reference mix proportion of concrete used forevaluating CO2 emission and cost is a typical mix proportionused in ready-mixed concrete companies (Table 6) )is mixproportion was obtained from the Concrete Products andAggregate Co Ltd (CPAC) the leading ready-mixedconcrete company in )ailand In this research the CO2emissions from water and the chemical admixture wereneglected due to their insignificant values

5 Cost of Concrete Ingredients

)e cost-effectiveness of the use of sand powder to improveacid resistance performance of the concrete with the highCaO fly ash was also evaluated)e unit price of the concreteand the mix proportions are shown in Table 7 )e mixproportions in Table 7 were obtained based on the referencemix proportion in Table 6 (C100 in Table 7 is the samemixture as the mixture in Table 6)

)e unit prices of the materials used in the concretemixtures were collected from various sources as follows

51 Price of Cement )e unit price of bulk-delivered OPCtypically used for ready-mixed concrete was used for the

calculation of the unit price of cement )e price was av-eraged from the five major cement manufactures in )ai-land ie Siam Cement Group Co Ltd Siam City CementPublic Co Ltd TPI Polene Public Co Ltd Asia CementPublic Co Ltd and Jalaprathan Cement Public Co Ltd

52 Price of Aggregates )e prices of fine and coarse ag-gregates were collected from the Economic and Trade In-dices Database (ETID) Ministry of Commerce 2018 [29])e prices were the annual average prices during 12 monthsin 2018

53 Prices of Fly Ashes )e prices (in 2018) of the Mae Mohand BLCP fly ashes were collected from several ready-mixedconcrete plants in Bangkok

54 Price of Sand Powder )e price of sand powder wasestimated by adding the price of sand in Section 52 with thecost of the grinding process which was obtained from theSiam City Concrete Co Ltd

A summary of the unit prices of concrete ingredients isgiven in Table 8 )e unit prices of the ingredients listed inTable 8 include the transportation cost from their sources tothe Bangkok area

Table 4 Emission inventory data used for CO2 emission calcu-lation of material production

Materials Type CO2 emission factor of materials(t-CO2tonne)

Binders

Cement (OPC) 07935Fly ash (FAM) 00015Fly ash (FAR) 00015Sand powder

(GS) 00324

AggregatesCoarse

aggregate 00290

Fine aggregate 00046

Table 5 Emission inventory data used for CO2 emission calcu-lations for material transportation to the Bangkok metropolitanarea

Materials Type Distance(km)

CO2 emission factor ofmaterials (t-CO2tonne)

Binders

Cement(OPC) 120 00086

Fly ash(FAM) 600 00428

Fly ash(FAR) 190 00136

Sand powder(GS) 60 00043

Aggregates

Coarseaggregate 120 00086

Fineaggregate 60 00043

6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

6 Results and Discussion

61 Effects of Fly Ashes and Sand Powder on CompressiveStrength Compressive strength measurements of thespecimens were carried out at the ages of 3 7 28 and 90days )e compressive strength of a mixture was calculatedfrom the average of 3 tested specimens )e test results areshown in Figure 4 )e compressive strengths of the mix-tures with a WB of 025 and 040 show a similar tendency)e compressive strength of the mix with 10 GS re-placement is higher than that of the control cement-onlyspecimen and also higher than both fly ash mixtures (FAMand FAR mixtures) during the first 28 days )e improve-ment of compressive strength of the mixtures with 10replacement by sand powder at an early age is because itserves as an activator to increase hydration and pozzolanicreactions [30] When 30 fly ash was used in the mixturesthe compressive strengths were lower than that of thecontrol specimen at the ages of 3 7 and 28 days due to thenature of the pozzolanic material and cement dilution ef-fects However the fly ash can improve the compressivestrength to be even higher than that of the control at 90 days)is is due to the continued pozzolanic reaction at a laterage When comparing the effects of different fly ash types onthe compressive strength the mix with 30 FAM re-placement shows a higher strength than the mix with 30FAR )is is due to the higher CaO content of the FAMcompared to FAR )e sand powder improves the com-pressive strength of the tested pastes at an early age espe-cially when it is used in combination with fly ash in themixtures )e ternary binder mixtures (cement + fly

ash + sand powder) show a higher compressive strength at alltested ages compared to the control specimen)is indicatesthat the sand powder can be used to improve the com-pressive strength of the mixtures both with and without flyash

Results obtained fromMIP test of a control cement paste(C100) and a paste with 10 sand powder (C90GS10) at theage of 90 days are illustrated in Figure 5 Cumulative poresize distribution curves of the pastes are shown inFigure 5(a) It is observed that the use of sand powderdecreases the volume of pores when compared with thecontrol cement paste It also decreases the proportion oflarge capillary pores (sizes from 50 nm to 10 μm) and in-creases the proportion of the medium capillary pores (sizesfrom 10 nm to 50 nm) It is noted that the pore size clas-sification was adopted from Mindess et al [31] )e largecapillary pores of C100 and C90GS10 are 840 and 198respectively However the medium capillary pores of C100and C90GS10 are 138 and 777 respectively )e mostprobable pore size of pastes can be obtained from the peak ofthe differential distribution curves [32ndash36] as illustrated inFigure 5(b) It is seen that the most probable pore sizes ofC100 and C90GS10 are 543 nm and 325 nm respectively)ese MIP test results indicate that the sand powder canreduce pore volume and refine the pore structures in pasteseffectively resulting in the compressive strength improve-ment of the mixtures incorporated with the sand powder

62 Effects of Mineral Admixtures on Mass Loss )e resultsof mass loss were obtained in terms of the loss of weight ofpaste specimens after immersion in the sulfuric acid solu-tions with a pH of 1 As shown in Figures 6(a) and 6(b) thecontrol paste specimens (C100) for both (tested) WB ratiosshow the highest weight loss after immersion in the acidsolution )e control paste specimen with a WB of 025almost completely disintegrated at 240 days of immersion Incontrast the resistance to sulfuric acid attack was improvedindicated by a decrease in mass loss when using fly ashes inthe mixes For the binary binder case the mix with 30 FARfly ash replacement showed the lowest weight loss whichwas followed by the mix with 10 sand powder and the mix

Table 6 Mix proportion for the compressive strength of concrete 28MPa at an age of 28 days

Compressive strength (MPa) cylinder(15times 30 cm)

Mix proportion (kgm3)Admixture

(cc)WBratio

Slump(cm)Cementitious

materials Water Fineaggregate

Coarseaggregate

28 298 180 930 1050 700ndash800 060 5ndash10

Table 7 Mix proportions of concrete that are used to compare the unit price

Mixtures Cement (OPC)(kgm3)

Fly ash (FAM)(kgm3)

Fly ash (FAR)(kgm3)

Sand powder (GS)(kgm3)

Coarse aggregate(kgm3)

Fine aggregate(kgm3)

C100 298 mdash mdash mdash 1050 930C90GS10 2682 mdash mdash 298 1050 930C70FAM30 2086 894 mdash mdash 1050 930C70FAR30 2086 mdash 894 mdash 1050 930C70FAM20GS10 2086 596 mdash 298 1050 930

Table 8 Unit prices of concrete ingredients

Type Ingredient Prices (Bahttonne)

Binders

Cement (C) 1920Fly ash (FAM) 1600Fly ash (FAR) 639

Sand powder (GS) 180

Aggregates Coarse aggregate 260Fine aggregate 145

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7

with 30 FAM fly ash that were almost equivalent )eresults confirm that using the tested cement-replacingmaterials which are fly ash and sand powder can improve

the resistance to sulfuric acid of the pastes )is is probablybecause of its ability to reduce the amount of calcium hy-droxide which is vulnerable to sulfuric attack For the

3 days 7 days 28 days 90 daysC100 4506 485 6900 8200C90GS10 5407 5723 7935 8300C70FAR30 3044 35 4100 9056C70FAM30 4055 4123 5727 10004C70FAM20GS10 4996 5194 7574 10354

Com

pres

sive s

tren

gth

(MPa

)

WB = 025

020406080

100120

(a)

3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days122 191 2670 3500

1464 2197 3204 385010 17 2300 4100

1098 1800 2403 45751400 2123 2900 5033

WB = 040

Com

pres

sive s

tren

gth

(MPa

)

C100C90GS10C70FAR30C70FAM30C70FAM20GS10

020406080

100120

(b)

Figure 4 Compressive strength of specimens before immersion in sulfuric acid solution Compressive strength of mixtures with a WB of(a) 025 and (b) 040

Cum

ulat

ive i

ntru

ded

volu

me (

mL

g)

0

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

10 100 1000 100001Pore diameter (nm)

C100 (90 days)C90GS10 (90 days)

(a)

dVd

(log

d) (

mL

g)

0

0001

0002

0003

0004

0005

0006

0007

0008

10 100 1000 100001Pore diameter (nm)

C100 (90 days)C90GS10 (90 days)

(b)

Figure 5 Porosity of specimens with aWB of 025 at 90 days (a) Cumulative intrusion curve showing the cumulative pore size distribution(b) Differential pore size distribution identifying the most probable pore sizes

8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

ternary binder mixture the mixtures with 20 FAM and10 GS show a lower weight loss than the binary mixturewith 30 FAM and the binary mixtures with 10 GS )isshows that the sand powder can improve the acid resistanceof a mixture with high CaO fly ash (FAM)

)e weight losses of the mixtures incorporating FAR30with a lower CaOSiO2 ratio (142) are lower than themixtures incorporating FAM30 with a high CaOSiO2 ratio(190) because the C-S-H bonds produced by the pozzolanicreaction of lower CaOSiO2 ratio fly ash have a higher ca-pacity to resist acid attack than the C-S-H bonds producedby the higher CaOSiO2 ratio fly ash [13 14 37] In additionthe C70FAM20GS10 mixtures show higher performancethan the C70FAM30 mixtures because the inclusion of sandpowder increases the silica content (SiO2) in the mixtures)is reduces the amount of CaO which is the main com-ponent that reacts with sulfuric acid to cause deterioration inthe mixture [38]

63 Cost-Effectiveness and Mitigation of Carbon DioxideEmissions In this research the mix proportion receivedfrom a ready-mixed concrete supplier (C100 as shown inTable 6) is used as the reference mixture for the evaluationsof CO2 emission and cost-effectiveness of the tested binaryand ternary binder systems

Table 9 shows the cost-effectiveness and mitigation ofCO2 emission of the mix proportions with mineral ad-mixtures compared to the mix with cement only For cost-effectiveness the results indicate that C70FAR30 has thelowest cost which is 1733 cheaper than C100 )e nextlower cost is C70FAM20GS10 at 805 cheaper than C100followed by C90GS10 at 589 and C70FAM30 at 325 Formitigation of carbon dioxide emissions C70FAR30 showsthe highest performance at 7613 of C100 which is fol-lowed by C70FAM20GS10 at 7677 C70FAM30 at 7704and C90GS10 at 9208 of the C100 mixture

It is shown by the results that the mixture with fly ashFAM shows higher compressive strength than concrete with

fly ash FAR while other performances ie cost acid resis-tance and CO2 emission are worse However the results inthis research indicate that the sand powder (GS) can improvethe performance of the mixture with FAM (comparingmixtures C70FAM20GS10 with C70FAM30) Table 9 showsthat mixture C70FAM20GS10 has a 480 lower cost and027 lower CO2 emission compared tomixture C70FAM30Figures 4(a) and 4(b) show a compressive strength at an age of90 days for mixture C70FAM20GS10 at 350MPa higher(354 higher) and 458MPa higher (1001 higher) thanmixture C70FAM30 for a WB of 025 and 040 respectivelyFor the performance of resistance to sulfuric acid attack after240 days of submersion it was found that the weight loss ofthe C70FAM20GS10 mixture was 145 lower and 1466lower than the C70FAM30 mixture for a WB of 025 andWB of 040 respectively as shown in Figure 6

Relative performances of all mixtures compared to thecement-only (C100) mixture and relative performances ofthe ternary binder mixture with sand powder(C70FAM20GS10) compared to the binary FAM mixture(C70FAM30) are summarized in Figures 7 and 8 respec-tively )e smaller values on each axis indicate better per-formances on that axis )erefore all evaluatedperformances of mixture C70FAM20GS10 are better thanmixture C70FAM30 as shown by the inner diamond of

Wei

ght c

hang

e (

)WB = 025

ndash100

ndash80

ndash60

ndash40

ndash20

0

20

40

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 2400Immersion in sulfuric acid pH of 1 (days)

C100 WB 025C70FAM30 WB 025C70FAM20GS10 WB025

C90GS10 WB 025C70FAR30 WB 025

(a)

Wei

ght c

hang

e (

)

WB = 040

ndash100

ndash80

ndash60

ndash40

ndash20

0

20

40

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 2400Immersion in sulfuric acid pH of 1 (days)

C100 WB 040C70FAM30 WB 040C70FAM20GS10 WB040

C90GS10 WB 040C70FAR30 WB 040

(b)

Figure 6 Weight change of specimens in sulfuric acid solution with a pH of 1 for 240 days (a) WB of 025 (b) WB of 040

Table 9 Cost-effectiveness and mitigation of carbon dioxideemission of each mix proportion

Mixtures Cost(Bathm3)

Relativecostlowast()

CO2emission

(t-CO2m3)

Relativeemissionlowast

()C100 104017 100 02880 100C90GS10 97892 9411 02652 9208C70FAR30 85991 8267 02192 7613C70FAM30 100638 9675 02218 7704C70FAM20GS10 95639 9195 02211 7677lowastCompared to the C100 mixture

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9

mixture C70FAM20GS10 in all four performance axes asillustrated in Figure 8 )erefore we successfully utilize thesand powder to improve the H2SO4 acid resistance ofconcrete with FAM (the major type of fly ash in)ailand) byachieving three other additional superior performances iecost CO2 reduction and compressive strength )e resultsof this study will be useful for the sustainable mix design ofH2SO4 acid-resisting multibinder concrete in )ailand

7 Conclusions

(1) Using sand powder (GS) to partially replace fly ash asa ternary binder cementitious system can improvethe compressive strength of a tested paste both at anearly age and long term

(2) )e ternary binder mixtures with high CaO fly ashand sand powder (C70FAM20GS10) demonstratehigher sulfuric acid resistance compared to the bi-nary binder mixtures with the high CaO fly ash(C70FAM30)

(3) High CaO fly ash from Mae Moh (FAM) is morepopular and its price is high in )ailand )e use ofsand powder to partially replace fly ash as a ternarybinder mixture (C70FAM20GS10) can reduce thecost of the concrete mixture compared to the binarymixture with high CaO fly ash (C70FAM30)

(4) )e ternary binder mixture with sand powder(C70FAM20GS10) can mitigate more carbon diox-ide emissions than the binary mixture with FAM(C70FAM30)

From the above conclusions we successfully utilize thesand powder to improve sulfuric acid resistance of concretewith high CaO Mae Moh fly ash (FAM) which is the majortype of fly ash in )ailand )ree other superior perfor-mances ie cost CO2 reduction and compressive strengthare also achieved

0000

0200

0400

0600

0800

1000

1compressive strength(90 days)

Weight loss ofimmersion in sulfuric

acid for 240 days

Carbon dioxideemission

Cost-effectiveness

C100C90GS10C70FAR30

C70FAM30C70FAM20GS10

Figure 7 Relative performances of all mixtures compared to the cement-only (C100) mixture

08000

1Compressive strength(90 days)

Weight loss ofimmersion in sulfuric

acid for 240 days

Carbon dioxideemission

Cost-effectiveness

C70FAM30C70FAM20GS10

Figure 8 Relative performances of the ternary binder mixture withsand powder (C70FAM20GS10) compared to the binary bindermixture with FAM (C70FAM30)

10 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Data Availability

)e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

)e authors would like to acknowledge the research supportfrom the National Research Council of )ailand the Centerof Excellence in Material Science Construction and Main-tenance Technology )ammasat University the ChairProfessor Program (P-19-52302) )e National Science andTechnology Development Agency (NSTDA) )ailand andthe scholarship provided to the first author from Pibul-songkram Rajabhat University

References

[1] M R Kamal R Rumman T Manzur M A Noor andM S Bari ldquoA novel durability based concrete mix designusing supplementary cementitious materials and modifiedaggregate band gradationrdquo International Journal of CivilEngineering pp 1ndash12 2020

[2] S Sakir S N Raman M Safiuddin A B M A Kaish andA A Mutalib ldquoUtilization of by-products and wastes assupplementary cementitiousmaterials in structural mortar forsustainable constructionrdquo Sustainability vol 12 no 9p 3888 2020

[3] H Mohammadhosseini M M Tahir A R Mohd SamN H Abdul Shukor Lim and M Samadi ldquoEnhanced per-formance for aggressive environments of green concretecomposites reinforced with waste carpet fibers and palm oilfuel ashrdquo Journal of Cleaner Production vol 185 pp 252ndash2652018

[4] A M Ahmed O A Fargal M Abd Elrazek and A AbdEltawab ldquoEffect of local additive (BM2010) on high perfor-mance concrete under sulphate attackrdquo In IOP ConferenceSeries Materials Science and Engineering IOP Publishingvol 956 no 1 p 012017 2020

[5] M C G Juenger R Snellings and S A Bernal ldquoSupple-mentary cementitious materials new sources characteriza-tion and performance insightsrdquo Cement and ConcreteResearch vol 122 pp 257ndash273 2019

[6] L A Qureshi B Ali and A Ali ldquoCombined effects ofsupplementary cementitious materials (silica fume GGBS flyash and rice husk ash) and steel fiber on the hardenedproperties of recycled aggregate concreterdquo Construction andBuilding Materials vol 263 Article ID 120636 2020

[7] H Li F Huang G Cheng et al ldquoEffect of granite dust onmechanical and some durability properties of manufacturedsand concreterdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 109pp 41ndash46 2016

[8] K De Weerdt M B Haha G Le Saout K O KjellsenH Justnes and B Lothenbach ldquoHydration mechanisms ofternary Portland cements containing limestone powder andfly ashrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 41 no 3pp 279ndash291 2011

[9] S Gurpreet and S Rafat ldquoAbrasion resistance and strengthproperties of concrete containing waste foundry sand (WFS)rdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 28 pp 421ndash4262012

[10] J Khunthongkeaw S Tangtermsirikul and T LeelawatldquoEffect of type and content of fly ash on carbonation ofmortarrdquo Research and Development Journal vol 15 no 12004

[11] T B T Nguyen R Chatchawan W SaengsoyS Tangtermsirikul and T Sugiyama ldquoInfluences of differenttypes of fly ash and confinement on performances of ex-pansive mortars and concretesrdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 209 pp 176ndash186 2019

[12] N Banchong W Saengsoy and S Tangtermsirikul ldquoStudy onmechanical and durability properties of mixtures with fly ashfrom Hongsa power plantrdquo ASEAN Engineering Journalvol 10 no 1 pp 9ndash24 2020

[13] M T Bassuoni andM L Nehdi ldquoResistance of self-consolidatingconcrete to sulfuric acid attack with consecutive pH reductionrdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 37 no 7 pp 1070ndash10842007

[14] W Kunther B Lothenbach and J Skibsted ldquoInfluence of theCaSi ratio of the C-S-H phase on the interaction with sulfateions and its impact on the ettringite crystallization pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 69 pp 37ndash49 2015

[15] S Gupta and H W Kua ldquoCombination of biochar and silicafume as partial cement replacement in mortar performanceevaluation under normal and elevated temperaturerdquo Wasteand Biomass Valorization vol 11 pp 2807ndash2824 2019

[16] H E Elyamany A B M Abd Elmoaty and B MohamedldquoEffect of filler types on physical mechanical and micro-structure of self compacting concrete and Flow-able con-creterdquo Alexandria Engineering Journal vol 53 no 2pp 295ndash307 2014

[17] ASTM C150C150M-2016 Standard Specification for Port-land Cement ASTM International West Conshohocken PAUSA 2016

[18] TIS 15 Part 1-2555 Portland Cement Part 1 Specification)aiIndustrial Standards Institute (TISI) Bangkok )ailand2012

[19] TIS 2135-2545 Coal Fly Ash for Use as an Admixture inConcrete )ai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) Bangkok)ailand 2002

[20] ASTM C109C109M-20b Standard Test Method for Com-pressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in or[50 mm] Cube Specimens) ASTM International West Con-shohocken PA 2020

[21] I Sirisawat W Saengsoy L Baingam P Krammart andS Tangtermsirikul ldquoDurability and testing of mortar withinterground fly ash and limestone cements in sulfate solu-tionsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 64 pp 39ndash46 2014

[22] P Sukontasukkul ldquoMethodology for calculating carbon di-oxide emission in the production of ready-mixed concreterdquo inProceedings of 1st International Conference on ComputationalTechnologies in Concrete Structures [CTCSrsquo09] Jeju SouthKorea June 2009

[23] )ailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (PublicOrganization) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Ce-ment Industry in ailand Sustainability Report )ailandGreenhouse Gas Management Organization Bangkok)ailand 2014

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 11

[24] C Tangthieng ldquoInventory-based analysis of greenhouse gasemission from the cement sector in )ailandrdquo EngineeringJournal vol 21 pp 125ndash136 2015

[25] World Business Council for Sustainable Development CO2Accounting and Reporting Standard for Cement IndustryWorld Business Council for Sustainable Development Ge-neva Switzerland 2005

[26] K Kawai T Sugiyama K Kobayashi et al ldquoInventory dataand case studies for environmental performance evaluation ofconcrete structure constructionrdquo Journal of Advanced Con-crete Technology vol 3 pp 435ndash456 2015

[27] Siam City Concrete Monthly Power Usage Report Siam CityConcrete Bangkok )ailand 2008

[28] EGAT Report on Air Emission Evaluation from Power PlantStacks of EGAT EGAT Bangkok )ailand 2008

[29] Economic and Trade indices Database (ETID) Report of CostConstruction Materials Ministry of Commerce Bangkok)ailand 2018 httpwwwpricemocgoth

[30] J Balasubramanian E Gopal and P Prakash ldquoStrength andmicrostructure of mortar with sand substitutesrdquo GraCevinarvol 68 pp 29ndash37 2015

[31] S Mindess J F Young and D Darwin Concrete Prentice-Hall New Jersey second edition 2002

[32] Y C Flores G C Cordeiro R D Toledo Filho andL M Tavares ldquoPerformance of Portland cement pastescontaining nano-silica and different types of silicardquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 146 pp 524ndash530 2017

[33] L Wang M Jin F Guo Y Wang and S Tang ldquoPorestructural and fractal analysis of the influence of fly ash andsilica fume on the mechanical property and abrasion resis-tance of concreterdquo Fractals 2020

[34] L Wang F Guo H Yang Y Wang and S Tang ldquoCom-parison of fly ash PVA fiber MgO and shrinkage-reducingadmixture on the frost resistance of face slab concrete via porestructural and fractal analysisrdquo Fractals 2020

[35] L Wang R Luo W Zhang M Jin and S Tang ldquoEffects offineness and content of phosphorus slag on cement hydrationpermeability pore structure and fractal dimension of con-creterdquo Fractals 2020

[36] Y Peng J Zhang J Liu J Ke and F Wang ldquoProperties andmicrostructure of reactive powder concrete having a highcontent of phosphorous slag powder and silica fumerdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 101 pp 482ndash487 2015

[37] H Yuan P Dangla P Chatellier and T ChaussadentldquoDegradation modeling of concrete submitted to biogenicacid attackrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 70 pp 29ndash38 2015

[38] I K Jeon A Qudoos S Hussain Jakhrani and H G KimldquoInvestigation of sulfuric acid attack upon cement mortarscontaining silicon carbide powderrdquo Powder Technologyvol 359 pp 181ndash189 2020

12 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering