The effect of CO₂ loading on the properties of normal concrete vs fly ash concrete

Abstract

Purpose There is an increase in greenhouse gasses and global climate change is frequently reported on. What can be done? Certainly to try and reduce the carbon footprint, which is not a new topic, by encouraging applications and activities for concrete during its lifetime (Portland Cement Association, 2019). This study aims to focus on introducing CO2 to normal and fly ash concrete and thus investigating the effect on the carbon footprint of the samples and the effectiveness of the CO2 introduction methods, namely, carbonated water addition during the mixing process and by means of an infusion pipe directly into the concrete when the samples are casted and have been casted. Design/methodology/approach The feasibility of carbon dioxide storage within concrete is determined by investigating the effects of introduced carbon dioxide into concrete samples and the effectiveness of the concrete at storing carbon dioxide. The concrete was mixed in a 1:3:3 ratio for the OPC or blended 52.5 R cement:sand:stone (22 mm) with a 28 day strength of 50 MPa. Samples were also prepared containing low-grade fly ash cement contents ranging from 15% to 60%. CO2 was introduced to the concrete via carbonated mixing water and an infusion pipe system directly to the hardening concrete cubes. In total, 16 g CO2 bicycle carbon dioxide inflators and valve system were used to infuse the concrete over a period of a week until the canister was emptied with valve release on the lowest setting. A compression test was carried out to determine the strength of the concrete cubes with, and without, the introduction of carbon dioxide. Results were also obtained using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometer (EDS) to determine how the carbon dioxide changed the microscopic composition and chemical composition of the concrete. A microcontroller with carbon dioxide sensors was used to gather carbon dioxide emission data for a period of three months. Findings The compressive strength tests show by introducing carbon dioxide to the concrete, the compressive strength has increased by as much as 13.86% as expected from the literature. Furthermore, by infusing carbon dioxide with the fly ash blended cement, will give a higher strength compared to the control with ordinary portland cement. This correlates to an overall reduction in cost for the structure. The optimal fly ash content for the control with minimal strength degradation is 30%. Where the optimal fly ash content for the concrete with carbon dioxide stored within, is 45%. The SEM analysis showed the concrete with sequestered carbon dioxide has significantly more calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel formation, thus the strength increase. Furthermore, the carbon dioxide emission test showed the concrete with infused carbon dioxide stores carbon dioxide more efficiently compared to the control sample. With the data showing the infused sample releases 11.19% less carbon dioxide compared to the control sample. However, the carbonated water sample releases 20.9% more carbon dioxide when compared to the control sample. Thus the introduction of carbon dioxide by means of infusion is more effective. Practical implications This is a practical pilot investigation of carbon dioxide introduction via two methods, one being infusion of CO2 into normal concrete and fly ash concrete and two, mixing normal and fly ash concrete with carbonated water. These results show, cheaper cement can be used to achieve equivalent or better strength. This can help in the reduction of the construction industry’s carbon footprint. Originality/value By reducing the construction industry’s carbon footprint with this research results, a saving can not only be made financially in the construction industry, but this will help to preserve our environment for future generations.

Sustainable construction in the Nigerian construction industry: unsustainable practices, barriers and strategies

“…Currently, the construction process is full of wasteful activity with a focus on profitability without reflection of its long-term impacts (Kibert, 2013; van Tonder and Low, 2021). For example, the land that is constructed on, the fuel to construct and sustain the building, waste removal and water are all provided by nature (Abolore, 2012).…”