Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-xh428 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T02:43:41.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Bio-Based Plasticizers, Made From Starch, on the Properties of Fresh and Hardened Metakaolin-Geopolymer Mortar: Basic Investigations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Adrian Tutal*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Civil Engineering, F. A. Finger-Institute for Building Materials Engineering, Chair of Building Chemistry and Polymer Materials, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, Germany
Stephan Partschefeld
Affiliation:
Faculty of Civil Engineering, F. A. Finger-Institute for Building Materials Engineering, Chair of Building Chemistry and Polymer Materials, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, Germany
Jens Schneider
Affiliation:
Faculty of Civil Engineering, F. A. Finger-Institute for Building Materials Engineering, Chair of Building Chemistry and Polymer Materials, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, Germany
Andrea Osburg
Affiliation:
Faculty of Civil Engineering, F. A. Finger-Institute for Building Materials Engineering, Chair of Building Chemistry and Polymer Materials, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, Germany
*
*E-mail address of corresponding author: adrian.tutal@uniweimar.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional superplasticizers based on polycarboxylate ether (PCE) show an intolerance to clay minerals due to intercalation of their polyethylene glycol (PEG) side chains into the interlayers of the clay mineral. An intolerance to very basic media is also known. This makes PCE an unsuitable choice as a superplasticizer for geopolymers. Bio-based superplasticizers derived from starch showed comparable effects to PCE in a cementitious system. The aim of the present study was to determine if starch superplasticizers (SSPs) could be a suitable additive for geopolymers by carrying out basic investigations with respect to slump, hardening, compressive and flexural strength, shrinkage, and porosity. Four SSPs were synthesized, differing in charge polarity and specific charge density. Two conventional PCE superplasticizers, differing in terms of molecular structure, were also included in this study. The results revealed that SSPs improved the slump of a metakaolin-based geopolymer (MK-geopolymer) mortar while the PCE investigated showed no improvement. The impact of superplasticizers on early hardening (up to 72 h) was negligible. Less linear shrinkage over the course of 56 days was seen for all samples in comparison with the reference. Compressive strengths of SSP specimens tested after 7 and 28 days of curing were comparable to the reference, while PCE led to a decline. The SSPs had a small impact on porosity with a shift to the formation of more gel pores while PCE caused an increase in porosity. Throughout this research, SSPs were identified as promising superplasticizers for MK-geopolymer mortar and concrete.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors.
Figure 0

Table 1. Results of chemical analysis of Metaver R

Figure 1

Table 2. Results of XRD analysis of Metaver R

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Starch modified with sodium sulfonate

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Starch modified with CHPTAC

Figure 4

Table 3. Specific charge density of synthesized SSPs

Figure 5

Table 4. Weight and number average molar mass and polydispersity

Figure 6

Fig. 3. SEC spectra of SSPs and base starch

Figure 7

Table 5. Mix design of reference paste and mortar

Figure 8

Fig. 4. Slump values of fresh mortars

Figure 9

Table 6. Air content of fresh mortar

Figure 10

Table 7. Bulk density of fresh mortar

Figure 11

Fig. 5. Ultrasonic velocity over a time period of 72 h

Figure 12

Fig. 6. Linear shrinkage over a period of 72 h

Figure 13

Fig. 7. Linear shrinkage over a period of 56 days

Figure 14

Fig. 8. Weight change of specimens over the course of 56 days

Figure 15

Fig. 9. Flexural strength after 7 days

Figure 16

Fig. 10. Flexural strength after 28 days

Figure 17

Fig. 11. Compressive strength after 7 days

Figure 18

Fig. 12. Compressive strength after 28 days

Figure 19

Table 8. Porosity and percentage of gel pores and capillary pores

Figure 20

Fig. 13. Cumulative pore-size distribution

Figure 21

Fig. 14. Logarithmic differential intrusion volume