Next Article in Journal
FLGQM: Robust Federated Learning Based on Geometric and Qualitative Metrics
Next Article in Special Issue
Synergistic Improvement in Setting and Hardening Performance of OPC-CSA Binary Blended Cement: Combined Effect of Nano Calcium Carbonate and Aluminum Sulfate
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Deception Asset Deployment in Cybersecurity: A Nash Q-Learning Approach in Multi-Agent Stochastic Games
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/app14010358
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Aloe Vera-Based Concrete Superplasticizer for Enhanced Consolidation with Limestone Calcined Clay Cement

by
Andrew Onderi Nyabuto
1,
Silvester Ochieng Abuodha
1,
John Nyiro Mwero
1,
Lenka Scheinherrová
2,* and
Joseph Mwiti Marangu
3,4
1
Department of Civil and Construction, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nairobi, Nairobi 30197-00100, Kenya
2
Department of Materials Engineering and Chemistry, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Thákurova 7, 166 29 Prague, Czech Republic
3
Institute of Cement and Concrete, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru 972-60200, Kenya
4
Department of Physical Sciences, Meru University of Science and Technology, Meru 972-60200, Kenya
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(1), 358; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010358
Submission received: 12 December 2023 / Revised: 22 December 2023 / Accepted: 28 December 2023 / Published: 30 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances of Low-Carbon Cement)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is renowned for its outstanding workability and ability to seamlessly flow into intricate structures with minimal vibrations, achieved through the incorporation of chemical admixtures. This study pioneers an innovative approach by exploring the use of the cost-effective and readily available plant extract aloe vera mucilage (AVM) as a bio-admixture for SCC. The primary objective is to assess the impact of AVM on SCC formulations, including those comprising ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and blended cement LC3 (clinker 50%, calcined waste clay 30%, limestone 15%, gypsum 5%). AVM is applied at varying dosages at up to 10%. Findings reveal that LC3 exhibits lower consistency, reduced slump values, and extended initial and final setting times compared to OPC. With increasing plasticizer dosage, V-funnel and L-box values decrease. Notably, OPC samples with both plasticizers outperform LC3 in compressive strength at 7, 14, and 28 days. Significantly, a 2.5% AVM dosage demonstrates enhanced compressive strength in both OPC and LC3 samples. In summary, this research positions AVM as an innovative and comparable alternative to commercial plasticizers, contributing to reduced yield stress and increased slump flow in SCC.

1. Introduction

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a unique type of special concrete, often called self-leveling concrete, self-compacting concrete, or super workable concrete [1]. Widely applied in bridges, buildings, and infrastructure [2], SCC distinguishes itself from conventional concrete by deforming with minimal external energy, eliminating the need for manual compaction during placement [3]. The concept originated in 1986 with Prof. Okamura’s proposal in Japan, later implemented by Ozawa in 1988 at the University of Tokyo [4,5,6], aiming to address poor performance in concrete structures attributed to placement methods [7]. Comprising cement, fine and coarse aggregates, and water, SCC achieves its desired properties through admixtures such as superplasticizers [8], ensuring good rheology and workability [9]. SCC provides advantages, including time and machinery cost savings and reduced skilled labor expenses [10]. However, its material cost is typically 20–50% higher due to increased binder and admixture requirements [11]. The sustainability of traditional SCC is compromised by the expense and environmental impact associated with higher dosages of cement.
To address the imperative to reduce carbon emissions from clinker/cement production, alternative building materials with lower cement content have emerged. Developing such materials has been challenging due to the unique properties of cement and the necessity for global cost-effective production. A promising solution is limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) [12]. LC3-50, incorporating gypsum (5%), limestone (15%), calcined clay (30%), and clinker (50%), has demonstrated success in replacing traditional pozzolana cement [12,13,14]. LC3’s introduction has saved energy in clinker production, as noted by Marangu et al. [15] and Odhiambo et al. [16]. This innovative cement can be adapted to SCC production with suitable admixtures. However, supplementary cementitious materials like limestone and calcined clay impact LC3’s fresh properties. For example, Muzenda et al. [17] found that calcined clay increased static and dynamic yield stress, initial thixotropic index, plastic viscosity, and cohesion, while limestone had an opposite effect. Recently, Canbek et al. [18] utilized machine learning to predict LC3’s yield stress. Understanding LC3’s rheological properties is crucial for controlling fresh properties and enhancing applications like SCC.
In addition to various chemical admixtures, cost-effective and environmentally friendly organic extracts can be utilized to impact the properties of fresh (and hardened) concrete. The growing need to enhance concrete quality has driven interest in green concrete, as conventional chemicals are costly and non-biodegradable. These eco-friendly products can be derived from plants, animals, or both. The selection of the eco-friendly admixtures and their impact on the properties of SCC and concrete are summarized in Table 1. Athman et al. [19] studied SCC with gum Arabic from acacia trees, finding that its addition (8% of the weight of cement) maintained low water demand but resulted in a relatively reduced compressive strength. Starch, employed as a viscosity-modifying agent in SCC, was observed to retard setting time with minimal impact on compressive strength [20,21]. Aloe vera mucilage (AVM), obtained from the leaves of the aloe vera plant, emerges as another promising admixture. This succulent plant, thriving in semi-arid and arid regions, has long been utilized globally in cosmetics and medicinal applications [22,23]. Reports indicate that its addition to concrete improves workability, compressive strength, and corrosion inhibition [24,25], as well as facilitating the formation of porous concrete [26]. However, the effects of AVM on rheology and its water-reducing impact in the production of green SCC prepared from LC3 remain unclear.
This paper focuses on two main aspects: utilizing green, environmentally friendly LC3 cement for the preparation of SCC and studying the effects of AVM, a cost-effective organic extract, on its fresh properties. To better understand the effects of AVM, reference samples were prepared using OPC (CEM I 42.5 R/Type I), and the obtained results were compared with samples prepared using a commercial superplasticizer (CS), MasterGlenium 3889. A total of nine trial mixes of SCC with OPC and CS were conducted at w/c ratios of 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 to define the reference mixture. Flow was measured using the flow table, V-funnel, and the L-box. Setting times, consistency, slump flow, yield stress, and compressive strength against flow behavior from the percentage dosage of CS and AVM were studied.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials

For the sample preparation, coarse aggregate (CA), Fine Aggregates (FA), CEM I 42.5 R (OPC, also referred to as type I), already premixed blended limestone calcined clay cement (with 50% of clinker, thus it is labeled as LC3-50), type G: commercial superplasticizer (CS) MasterGlenium 3889, water, limestone dust powder (L), and aloe vera mucilage (AVM) as a bio-admixture were used. The chemical composition of the used raw powders is summarized in Table 2. Coarse aggregates had a specific gravity of 2.75 g/cm3, water absorption of 3.29%, and a fineness modulus of 7.17 of 92.83% gravel, while the fine aggregates exhibited a specific gravity of 2.39 g/cm3, water absorption of 5.76%, and a fineness modulus of 3.758 of 95.83% sand, as per ASTM C33 [27].
CS was purchased from Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (MASTER BUILDERS, Beachwood, OH, USA) at Syokimau, Kenya. It is categorized as the type G superplasticizer in ASTM C-494M [28], and its physiochemical properties, as provided by the producer, are displayed in Table 3.
Mombasa Cement Limited produced the OPC with a specific gravity of 3.09 g/cm3, conforming to the Kenyan standard KS EAS 148-1:2017 [29]. L from Mineral Enterprise, Kitengela, used as a filler, had a fineness index of M16 and a specific gravity of 2.86 g/cm3 with 2.31% water absorption. LC3’s specific gravity was 2.89 g/cm3. Tap water was used. CS adhered to manufacturer specifications and ASTM C-494M [28] for comparison. AV plant leaves, sourced in Kajiado, Kenya, were cleaned, cut, and processed for mucilage extraction without water or chemicals. The mucilage was refrigerated to prevent decomposition and transported to the GC-MS laboratory for analysis in a 10 mL plastic container.

2.2. Mix Design and Sample Preparation

Nine SCC mixes were designed following EFNARC guidelines [30], with variations in the coarse aggregate to fine aggregate ratio of percentage weight (40:40, 36:43, and 32:46) at a w/c ratio of 0.48, as detailed in Table 4. The batched materials were initially dry mixed for three minutes until visually homogeneous. Subsequently, 80% of the required water was added during mixing, and the remaining 20% was added to the superplasticizer solution. CS dosage ranged from 0% to 2% of the cement weight, with adjustments to the AVM ratio (0%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10%) to achieve comparable fresh property results.
Based on the fresh properties (Table 5), including the slump flow, v-funnel, and L-box tests (detailed methods in Section 2.3), TR7 emerged as the optimal SCC design. All fresh SCC mixes were cast into 150 × 150 × 150 mm concrete molds. A total of 85 cubes were cured for 24 h, covered by foil, and subsequently submerged in a curing tank until reaching 7, 14, and 28 days of age. Triplicate tests were conducted to determine their compressive strength properties. Additionally, bulk density, a fundamental physical property, was analyzed per ASTM C138 [31] on the remaining specimens after 28 days of curing.

2.3. Methods

2.3.1. Setting Time and Consistency

The setting time and consistency tests followed the procedures outlined in KS EAS-148-3-2017 [32]. In brief, 300 g of cement was mixed with approximately 125 g of water within 10 s using a mixer for 3 min. The resulting paste was placed in an oiled Vicat mold without compaction, and the plunger was gently lowered and released to record the penetration reading within 30 s, indicating consistency. For the initial setting time, a needle was used, and the depth penetrated was recorded at 10-min intervals until reaching −5 mm. The process was repeated for the final setting time using a ring attachment instead of the needle.

2.3.2. Slump Flow, V-Funnel, and L-Box

About 30 L of SCC was prepared to conduct slump flow tests according to the established mix design procedure outlined by EFNARC [30]. Hydraulic fluid was used to moisten the interior surfaces and flow table surfaces. Abram’s cone with a flow table was set on a level ground. For the volume of a sample needed to work with, the test required three people. The concrete was filled in the cone and the excess was removed. Then, the cone was lifted and the material was left to flow. The diameters of the slump flow were measured and labeled as d1 and d2, and then their average was determined.
Approximately 6 L of a mixture was used for the V-funnel test. The equipment was set at level ground and was filled with the studied SCC. The trap door at the bottom was then opened, and a stopwatch was started simultaneously to record the time needed for the complete discharge (the flow time).
Lastly, the L-box test was also conducted on the fresh mixtures. The apparatus consisted of a rectangular section box in the shape of an “L” with vertical and horizontal sections separated by a movable gate. The vertical part of the equipment was filled with the mixture, and then the movable gate was lifted. The filling and passing ability of the studied SCC were assessed using this test. The depth distance of the horizontal configuration of the channel was measured and noted as “H1” and “H2”. The blocking ratio was then calculated as H2/H1 within five minutes.

2.3.3. Yield Stress

ASTM C1749-17a [33] defines yield stress as the minimum shear stress required to initiate flow, and it can be measured by a rheometer in Pascals (Pas). However, this study adopted Equation (1) by Roussel and Coussot, further modified by Pierre et al. [34] to determine the yield stress from a flow regime initiated in SCC prepared with the help of OPC and LC3-50 cements.
τ c = 225 ρ g 128 π 2 R 2 V o , 2
where, τc—Yield stress (Pa), ρ—density (kg/m3), g—gravity (m/s2), R—radius of spread regime (m), and V—volume of Abram cone (m3).

2.3.4. Compressive Strength

The development of the compressive strength of the studied SCC mixtures was determined after 7, 14, and 28 days of age. At each testing age, three samples from each mixture were removed from the curing tank, wiped, and given 10 min to drain. Then, the samples were placed in a compressive strength test machine model YAW-300 in order to determine their compressive strength. The compressive strength results were recorded in MPa.

2.3.5. Bulk Density

The bulk density was analyzed according to ASTM C138 [31], which was adjusted for the determination of the specimens after curing for 28 days. It means that it was taken into account that the bulk density of the designed SCCs is a parameter, which for a more relevant comparison to other building materials needs to be provided at a constant weight and not on the wet samples. Additionally, the water removal from the samples is beneficial because it helps to stop hydration processes.
Three samples of each mixture were dried in an oven at 50 °C until constant mass was reached. This relatively low temperature was selected in order not to harm the hydration products [35].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of Aloe Vera Mucilage

The AVM was screened for phenols and hydroxyls by means of a GC-MS equipment Shimadzu QP2010 GC-MS. A total of six compounds (with peak areas of 80.74% for 1-hexanol, 2-ethyl-, 4.74% diethyl phthalate, 4.27% hydroperoxide, 1-ethylbutyl, 4.12% ethylbenzene, 3.61% styrene, and 2.82% hydroperoxide, 1-methylpentyl,) were identified as outlined in peaks on Figure 1 and also in Table 6. Compounds such as hydroperoxide are very stable organic peroxides often used as radical initiators, as they perform homolysis at temperatures above 100 °C [36].
The compound with the highest percentage peak height, 1-hexanol, 2-ethyl (also known as 2-ethylhexanol), exhibited a peak height of 84.33%. This compound is poorly soluble in water due to its large alkyl group but is soluble in various organic compounds [37]. It is characterized as a long-chain hydrocarbon with methyl sides and one hydroxyl group per molecule [38]. Notably, 1-hexanol, 2-ethyl easily biodegrades in water [39]. Used in cosmetics and cleaning detergents as a fragrance compound, it also plays a role in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride plasticizers due to its non-crystallizing property and high boiling point [40,41]. Additionally, it reacts with phthalate anhydride to form di-(2 ethylhexyl) phthalate, a widely used plasticizer in PVC production [42]. As reported by Ataman Chemicals [43], 2-ethylhexanol serves as an intermediate plasticizer, breaking the chain during the synthesis of condensation polymers.
Diethyl phthalate with a peak height of 3.21% was also detected. According to Wang et al. [44], diethyl phthalate is a short branched low molecular phthalate. Phthalates are plasticizers synthesized from phthalic acid and are often used to soften and increase the durability of plastics [45]. They can also be used in hair products, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.
These properties listed above highlight the potential of AVM to be used as a superplasticizer in (SCC) concrete.

3.2. Setting Time and Consistency

The setting time and consistency results are summarized in Figure 2 (mixtures with CS) and Figure 3 (mixtures with AVM). Initial setting time (IST) in the analyzed mixtures was influenced by two main factors. First, the content of CS played a role, with an increase from 0 to 2 wt.% accelerating the time for cement pastes to lose plasticity. For OPC samples, this time difference was 8 min between samples without superplasticizer and those with 2 wt.%. In LC3-50 blends, the difference was slightly higher, at 12 min.
The type of cement in the mixes was the second main factor influencing the initial setting time (IST). LC3-50 blends without CS experienced a significantly prolonged time to lose plasticity by 46 min compared to samples with 100% OPC. Even in samples with the maximum CS dosage, the IST difference was 42 min. The decreased amount of cement in LC3-50 blends had a more pronounced impact on IST than the addition of CS. Similar trends were observed for final setting time (FST). These results align with Bhandari et al.’s findings [46], indicating that polycarboxylate-based admixtures like CS reduce Ca2+ concentration, creating a strong bond through adsorption and consequently reducing overall setting times.
In terms of consistency results, the difference between OPC and LC3-50 without CS was 7.2%, reducing to 3.8% in samples with the maximum CS dosage of 2%. This difference can be attributed to the action of superplasticizers, which interfere with the interparticle forces of cement, thereby reducing yield stress [47]. According to Hirata et al. [48], the polymer molecules on superplasticizers shrink and become distorted during adsorption in the mixture for a few minutes.
Adding 2.5 wt.% of AVM to OPC delayed the initial setting time (IST) by 5 min compared to the reference, while a fourfold increase to 10 wt.% AVM only added 10 min in bio-admixture systems. For final setting time (FST) in OPC systems, the lowest AVM content delayed by 13 min, and the highest AVM content increased by 23 min compared to the reference. In LC3-50 mixtures, the IST was 3 min slower with the lowest AVM and extended by 5 min with 10 wt.% AVM. The FST in the latter samples was 16 min longer than LC3-50 mixtures without any addition.
Interestingly, the lowest AVM content had the most significant impact on the consistency results of OPC (increased by 1.6% compared to the results of OPC without a plasticizer), whereas the 10 wt.% addition led to the same results as the reference sample. For the LC3-50 samples, the addition of AVM showed a decreasing trend, with the highest difference in the consistency results by 6.2% in the samples with 10 wt.% AVM addition.
The obtained results for both OPC and LC3-50 systems indicate that CS plays the role of a set accelerator as opposed to AVM acting as a set retarder. OPC systems respond well with CS and AVM by obtaining the optimum 5–7 mm consistency at a water content of 23.8% and 26.5%, respectively. In the LC3-50 systems, the maximal addition of AVM only improved the consistency by achieving a 6.2% change from the reference samples. In the OPC system, AVM was unstable, as increasing the plasticizer dosage led to low consistency. That might be attributed to the low surface area of cement particles and the volume of water available from AVM compared to CS [49]. The result of AVM can be explained by Singh et al. [50], who pointed out that phenols react with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) in cement during the hydration processes. The phenol active part (OH) from AVM adsorbs on the cement ions, causing steric hindrance that helps retain flow and thus improve consistency with increases in percentage dosage.

3.3. Slump Flow Test, V-Funnel Test, and L-Box Test

According to EFNARC [30], a concrete mix qualifies as SCC if it meets criteria for filling ability, passing ability, and segregation resistance, assessed through tests such as slump flow, V-funnel, and L-box. Acceptance criteria set by EFNARC are as follows: slump flow diameter between 650 and 800 mm, V-funnel results between 6 and 12 s, and L-Box results with h2/h1 between 0.8 and 1.0. Summarized results for all mixtures are presented in Table 7 (CS-containing) and Table 8 (AVM-containing).
For OPC-CS (Table 6), slump flow ranged from 452.5 mm to 681.5 mm with increasing CS content, and optimal performance was achieved at 1.5 and 2 wt.% of CS. Even 1 wt.% of CS met the V-funnel passing ability at 11 s, within the acceptable range. L-Box results, like slump flow, indicated that mixtures with 1.5 and 2 wt.% of CS fulfilled EFNARC SCC criteria.
In the case of AVM in OPC (Table 7), none met SCC requirements, but promising results, meeting two of three parameters, were seen with 7.5 and 10 wt.% AVM. Results suggest that keeping AVM dosage between 7.5 and 10 wt.% could meet all three desired values.
In the LC3-50 mixtures, similar to the results of OPC, the addition of 2 wt.% CS and 10 wt.% of AVM provided the most satisfying results in the design of SCC. The LC3-50-CS mixture containing 1.5 wt.% CS fulfilled only one criterion (V-funnel results of 10 s). Regarding the mixtures with the AVM superplasticizer, nearly all requirements (with the exception of V-funnel by one second) were met in the mix with 10 wt.% of AVM.
Summarizing the fresh properties, optimal data were observed at 2 wt.% of CS and between 7.5 and 10 wt.% of AVM in both OPC-CS and LC3-50-CS systems. Singh et al. [50] noted that the combination of phenol compounds in AVM creates steric hindrance, preventing crystallization and enhancing flow. Increased AVM reduces the ratio of cement to phenolic charges, leading to higher flow and improved workability. Excessive AVM may cause bleeding due to an excess -OH group. Additional details on 2-ethyl-1-hexanol as a fragrance material can be found in McGinty et al.’s comprehensive review [39].

3.4. Yield Stress

This section presents yield stress results (Equation (1)) summarized in Figure 4, correlating with slump flow data. In Figure 4a, the yield stress decreased from 2.14 Pa to 0.28 Pa with increasing CS dosage from 0 wt.% to 2 wt.%, while the slump flow diameter gradually increased within the same samples. This indicates improved flow and greater horizontal coverage. Optimal slump flow diameters within the 650–800 mm range were 668.5 mm at 0.30 Pa and 681.5 mm at 0.28 Pa yield stress in OPC-CS with 1.5 and 2 wt.% of CS. Similar results were observed in LC3-50-CS, with yield stress of 0.36 Pa and 0.31 Pa and slump flow diameters of 647.5 mm and 666.0 mm, respectively. In LC3 blends with 0 wt.% CS, the yield stress was 3.75 Pa at a slump flow diameter of 404.5 mm. Generally lower slump flow diameters in LC3 blends compared to OPC are attributed to the higher water demand in LC3-50 cement, as indicated by consistency results.
In the case of the mixtures containing the AVM superplasticizer, the yield stress curves, along with related slump flow results, are depicted in Figure 4b. At 0 wt.% of AVM, OPC and LC3-50 systems indicate slump flow and yield stress of 389 mm at 4.56 Pa and 404.5 mm at 3.75 Pa, respectively. Similar to the mixtures containing CS, as the AVM content increased within the mixtures, it was possible to reduce the yield stress to 0.40 Pa and 0.25 Pa in the OPC samples with 7.5 wt.% and 10 wt.% of AVM, with the related slump flow results of 633.5 mm and 697.0 mm, respectively. For the LC3-50 samples with the same AVM content, the yield stress decreased to 0.35 Pa and 0.27 Pa at the related slump flow diameters of 651.0 mm and 682.5 mm.
Comparing our results to the existing literature, Zhu et al. [51] characterized polycarboxylate superplasticizers (PCEs), including the used CS, as materials with high fluidity on low water-to-cement (w/c) ratio. Excess water hinders adsorption on cement particles, leading to flocculation and bleeding. PCEs, like CS, significantly reduce yield stress [52,53]. In comparing the behavior of PCEs to AVM, both systems show a decrease in yield stress with an increase in slump flow, attributed to the adsorption effect of -COOH and -OH from phenolic groups in the AVM extract.

3.5. Compressive Strength

In this section, compressive strength results for the studied SCC mixtures at 7, 14, and 28 days are presented in Figure 5 (CS-containing samples) and Figure 6 (AVM-containing samples). Compressive strength is a crucial parameter for assessing the performance of newly designed building materials. As expected in water-cured cement-based materials, all mixtures exhibited an increasing trend in compressive strength over time. This trend is primarily attributed to continuous cement hydration, involving main mineral phases like C3S, C2S, C3A, and C4AF [54]. In the case of LC3, chemical reactions between metakaolin and calcium hydroxide also contribute [55]. In OPC, the high proportion of C3S is responsible for early strength development, explaining why the reference OPC system had an early strength approximately 6.69 MPa higher than LC3-50 blends after 7 days of curing. Another factor contributing to the generally lower compressive strength values of LC3-50 is the substantial cement replacement with pozzolana active materials, such as metakaolin, leading to slower early strength development [55]. At later ages, C2S starts contributing to compressive strength, complementing the effect of C3S and further increasing strength over time [56]. The addition of CS superplasticizer to OPC and LC3-50 systems resulted in an increasing trend in compressive strength with its dosage (Figure 5). Notably, in OPC systems, the addition exhibited similar increasing trends for samples after 7 and 28 days, with a minimal impact on 14-day strength—although the reason for this is unclear. After 28 days of curing, OPC samples with 2 wt.% of CS reached 54.09 MPa, while for LC3-50, the compressive strength was 31.67 MPa. The relatively lower results in LC3-50 can be attributed to the presence of inert limestone filler meant for filling existing voids. Optimizing the amount of limestone filler in LC3 can significantly enhance concrete compressive strength, as discussed in studies such as [57,58].
The addition of AVM to the studied samples resulted in a contrasting trend compared to CS. Compressive strength for OPC-AVM and LC3-50-AVM only slightly increased at 28 days of curing with a dosage of 2.5 wt.% AVM, as shown in Figure 6. However, with further dosing of AVM at 5%, 7.5%, and 10% by weight of OPC, the compressive strength results decreased by 16.2%, 35.0%, and 49.6%, respectively. In LC3-50-AVM systems, similar trends were observed with AVM dosages of 5%, 7.5%, and 10% by weight of LC3-50. By 28 days, results decreased to a lesser extent by 7.4%, 27.0%, and 37.2%, respectively.
The observed results can be related to research conducted by Singh et al. [50] on the impact of phenol on cement hydration. The authors noted that phenols retard hydration, and increasing the dosage of hydroxyl groups prolongs setting time. This delay may be attributed to the supply of -COOH and -OH, creating a repelling effect known as steric hindrance. The delayed hydration effect hinders the rapid formation of C-S-H, affecting compressive results due to excessive AVM addition, as illustrated in Figure 6. A similar explanation of the retarding impact of hydroxyl groups in cement was provided in studies such as [59], where the number and stereochemistry of hydroxyl groups were identified as crucial parameters controlling the retardation caused by sugar alcohols and phenols on cement hydration.

3.6. Bulk Density

The impact of superplasticizers on the bulk density of OPC and LC3 systems, cured for 28 days in water and dried at 50 °C before testing, is illustrated in Figure 7. When CS was introduced to the mixtures, the specimen density increased proportionally with its percentage dosage for both studied systems, as anticipated (Figure 7a). These results align with the reported range of bulk density (2200–2400 kg/m3) by Opara et al. [60].
In contrast, the bulk density data for OPC and LC3 decreased with the addition of the AVM plasticizer and an increase in its dosage (Figure 7b). However, at 2.5 wt.% AVM, both OPC and LC3 systems exhibited a density range typical for conventional structural concrete. The results for CS dosage show that a 2 wt.% dosage increased the density of OPC and LC3 specimens by 3% and 2%, respectively, compared to the control at 0 wt.% dosage. Conversely, a 2.5 wt.% AVM dosage in OPC reduced the density by 1%, while in LC3 it remained unchanged.
However, both systems recorded the lowest value of density at 10 wt.% AVM dosage. These results can be attributed to the nature and properties of concrete mixture constituents, such as the specific gravity of cement, limestone filler, CS, AVM, aggregates, and water-powder ratio, as discussed in more detail in [61].

4. Conclusions

In this experimental investigation, the effects of AVM on the fresh properties and mechanical performance of OPC and LC3-50 in producing SCC are presented. Based on the obtained results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
  • Setting time: The setting time of OPC and LC3-50 increased with the percentage dosage of AVM, suggesting the potential of AVM as a set retarder.
  • Workability: In terms of workability (slump flow, V-funnel, and L-Box), the results at a 10 wt.% AVM dosage are well comparable with a 2 wt.% CS dosage in OPC and LC3-50 systems. AVM recorded a slump flow of 672.5 ± 23.25 mm and 656.5 ± 9 mm compared to the control for both OPC and LC3-50 cement systems.
  • Yield stress: The percentage dosage of AVM relatively reduced the yield stress, indicating that AVM acts as a plasticizer and can be used to improve the workability and rheology of concrete systems.
  • Compressive strength: AVM improved compressive strength at small dosages (2.5 wt.%), with 42.45 ± 1.04 MPa for OPC and 28.59 ± 1.39 MPa for LC3-50 at 28 days. However, further increases in dosage reduced overall compressive strength for both systems. At 7.5 wt.%, AVM achieved allowable structural concrete strength of 30.92 ± 1.55 MPa and 19.85 ± 0.99 MPa for OPC and LC3-50 systems after water curing for 28 days, respectively.
  • Density: The density of SCC concrete prepared using 2.5 wt.% of AVM resulted in a bulk density comparable to conventional structural concrete but reduced with an increase in AVM contents.
  • Optimal usage: The findings suggest that AVM is a potential admixture for making SCC at a 7.5 wt.% addition to concrete, achieving favorable workability and providing allowable structural concrete strength. However, long-term durability properties of such SCC should be evaluated for a comprehensive understanding of its performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.O.N.; methodology, A.O.N., J.N.M. and J.M.M.; software, A.O.N. and L.S.; validation, S.O.A., J.N.M. and J.M.M.; formal analysis, A.O.N.; investigation, A.O.N. and J.M.M.; resources, A.O.N., J.N.M. and J.M.M.; data curation, L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.O.N. and L.S.; writing—review and editing, L.S.; visualization, J.M.M. and L.S.; supervision, S.O.A., J.N.M. and J.M.M.; project administration, L.S.; funding acquisition, A.O.N. and L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Meru University of Science and Technology from the 7th Internal Call (Grant No. 12) and by the Czech Science Foundation, grant number 20-14506S.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Meru University of Science and Technology, East Africa Portland Cement, Materials Testing and Research Division, Meru, and University of Nairobi for offering laboratories, and the Czech Science Foundation to conduct this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kiran, K.; Naresh, J. Determination of fresh and hardened state properties of Self Compacting Concrete using GGBFS and RHA. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Tech. 2018, 7, 6491–7005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Siddique, R. Self-Compacting Concrete: Materials, Properties and Applications; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Karakurt, C.; Dumangöz, M.J.M. Rheological and durability properties of self-compacting concrete produced using marble dust and blast furnace slag. Materials 2022, 15, 1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dey, S.; Kumar, V.V.P.; Goud, K.R.; Basha, S.K.J. State of art review on self compacting concrete using mineral admixtures. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2021, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shi, C.; Wu, Z.; Lv, K.; Wu, L.J.C.; Materials, B. A review on mixture design methods for self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Okamura, H.; Ouchi, M. Self-compacting concrete. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2003, 1, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tejaswini, G.L.S.; Rao, A.V. A detailed report on various behavioral aspects of self-compacting concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kumar, M.A.; Magesh, R.; Selvapraveen, S.; Vignesh, M. Assessment on fresh properties and hardened properties of self compacting concrete. AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 2235, 020021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Meko, B.; Ighalo, J.O.; Ofuyatan, O.M. Enhancement of self-compactability of fresh self-compacting concrete: A review. Clean. Mater. 2021, 1, 100019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kalaimani, R.; Subha, C.; Reymond, D.J. Investigation on Strength Characteristics of Self Compacting Concrete incorporated with AR Glass Fibers. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 387, 03005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mahajan, G. Experimental Investigation on Properties of Self Compacting Concrete Using Mineral Admixtures. 2016. Available online: http://ir.aiktclibrary.org (accessed on 22 December 2023).
  12. Scrivener, K.; Martirena, F.; Bishnoi, S.; Maity, S. Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3). Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kafodya, I.; Basuroy, D.; Marangu, J.M.; Kululanga, G.; Maddalena, R.; Novelli, V.I. Mechanical performance and physico-chemical properties of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) in Malawi. Buildings 2023, 13, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marangu, J.M. Physico-chemical properties of Kenyan made calcined Clay-Limestone cement (LC3). Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 12, e00333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Marangu, J.M.; Riding, K.; Alaibani, A.; Zayed, A.; Thiong’o, J.K.; Wachira, J.M. Potential for Selected Kenyan Clay in Production of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement. In Proceedings of the Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  16. Odhiambo, V.O.; Scheinherrová, L.; Abuodha, S.O.; Mwero, J.N.; Marangu, J.M. Effects of Alternate Wet and Dry Conditions on the Mechanical and Physical Performance of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement Mortars Immersed in Sodium Sulfate Media. Materials 2022, 15, 8935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Muzenda, T.R.; Hou, P.; Kawashima, S.; Sui, T.; Cheng, X. The role of limestone and calcined clay on the rheological properties of LC3. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 107, 103516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Canbek, O.; Xu, Q.; Mei, Y.; Washburn, N.R.; Kurtis, K.E. Predicting the rheology of limestone calcined clay cements (LC3): Linking composition and hydration kinetics to yield stress through Machine Learning. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 160, 106925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Athman, C.M.; Abuodha, S.O.; Nyomboi, T. USE of GUM Arabic as a Superplasticizer in Self-Compacting Concrete. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Mod. Eng. 2018, 5, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  20. Isik, I.E.; Ozkul, M.H.; Materials, B. Utilization of polysaccharides as viscosity modifying agent in self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 72, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oni, D.; Mwero, J.; Kabubo, C. The effect of cassava starch on the durability characteristics of concrete. Open J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 14, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Surjushe, A.; Vasani, R.; Saple, D.J. Aloe vera: A short review. Indian J. Dermatol. 2008, 53, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pegu, A.J.; Sharma, M.A. Review on Aloe vera. Int. J. Trend. Sci. Res. Dev. 2019, 3, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aburto-Moreno, Z.; Alvarado-Quintana, H.; Vásquez-Alfaro, I. Influencia del aloe-vera sobre la resistencia a la compresión, infiltración, absorción capilar, tiempo de fraguado y asentamiento en un concreto estructural. SCIENDO 2018, 21, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Herrera-Hernandez, H.; Franco-Tronco, M.I.; Miranda-Hernandez, J.G.; Hernandez-Sanchez, E.; Espinoza-Vazquez, A.; Fajardo, G. Aloe-vera gel as potential corrosion inhibitor for concrete steel reinforcement. Av. Cienc. Ing. 2015, 6, 9–23. [Google Scholar]
  26. Oggu, A.; Madupu, L.N.K.S. Study on properties of porous concrete incorporating aloevera and marble waste powder as a partial cement replacement. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 52, 1946–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. ASTM C33/C33M-18; Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2023.
  28. ASTM C494/C494M-17; Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  29. KS EAS 148-1; Cement—Test Methods—Part 1: Determination of Strength. Kenya Bureau of Standards: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017.
  30. EFNARC. The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete Specification, Production and Use; EFNARC: Flums Hochwiese, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. ASTM C138/C138M-17a; Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2023.
  32. KS EAS 148-3; Cement-Test Methods Part 3: Determination of Setting Times and Soundness. Kenya Bureau of Standards: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017.
  33. ASTM C1749-17a; Standard Guide for Measurement of the Rheological Properties of Hydraulic Cementious Paste Using a Rotational Rheometer. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  34. Pierre, A.; Lanos, C.; Estelle, P. Extension of spread-slump formulae for yield stress evaluation. Appl. Rheol. 2013, 23, 63849. [Google Scholar]
  35. Scheinherrová, L.; Pommer, V.; Vejmelková, E.; Černý, R. Comparison of water removal methods from cement paste at early age. AIP Conf. Proc. 2021, 2343, 030010. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sebbar, N.; Bozzelli, J.W.; Bockhorn, H. Kinetic Study of Di-Tert-Butyl Peroxide: Thermal Decomposition and Product Reaction Pathways. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 2015, 47, 133–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moo-Young, M. Comprehensive Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  38. McGinty, D.; Scognamiglio, J.; Letizia, C.S.; Api, A.M. Fragrance material review on 2-ethyl-1-hexanol. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010, 48, S115–S129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wakayama, T.; Ito, Y.; Sakai, K.; Miyake, M.; Shibata, E.; Ohno, H.; Kamijima, M. Comprehensive review of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol as an indoor air pollutant. J. Occup. Health 2019, 61, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ahmed, W.A.; Yarmo, A.; Salih, N.; Derawi, M.D.; Yusop, M.R.; Salimon, J. Synthesis and lubricity properties analysis of branched dicarboxylate esters based lubricant. Malays. J. Anal. Sci. 2015, 19, 106–117. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bodaghi, A. An overview on the recent developments in reactive plasticizers in polymers. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2020, 31, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stamatelatou, K.; Pakou, C.; Lyberatos, G. Occurrence, toxicity, and biodegradation of selected emerging priority pollutants in municipal sewage sludge. Compr. Biotech. 2011, 6, 473–484. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ataman Chemicals, “2-Ethylhexanol,” Information Society Services Human Resources. Available online: https://www.atamanchemicals.com/2-ethylhexanol_u24548/ (accessed on 12 December 2023).
  44. Wang, Y.; Qian, H. Phthalates and their impacts on human health. Healthcare 2021, 9, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fan, Z.; Lin, L. Exposure science: Contaminant mixtures. Ency. Envir. Health 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bhandari, I.; Kumar, R.; Sofi, A.; Nighot, N.S. A systematic study on sustainable low carbon cement–Superplasticizer interaction: Fresh, mechanical, microstructural and durability characteristics. Heliyon 2023, 9, e19176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Flatt, R.J. Interparticle Forces and Superplasticizers in Cement Suspensions. Ph.D. Thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. Hirata, T.; Branicio, P.; Ye, J.; Zheng, J.; Tomike, Y.; Lange, A.; Plank, J.; Sullivan, M. Atomistic dynamics simulation to solve conformation of model PCE superplasticisers in water and cement pore solution. Adv. Cem. Res. 2017, 29, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pan, J.; Feng, K.; Wang, P.; Chen, H.; Yang, W. Retardation and compressive strength enhancement effect of upcycling waste carrot as bio-admixture for cement mortars. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 62, 105402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Singh, N.B.; Singh, S.P.; Sarvehi, R. Effect of phenols on the hydration of Portland cement. Adv. Cem. Res. 1989, 2, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhu, W.; Feng, Q.; Luo, Q.; Bai, X.; Lin, X.; Zhang, Z. Effects of pce on the dispersion of cement particles and initial hydration. Materials 2021, 14, 3195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, K.; Mezhov, A.; Schmidt, W. Effect of Polycarboxylate Superplasticizer in Ordinary Portland Cement and Sulfate Resistant Cement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023, 35, 04023113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yu, J.; Wu, H.-L.; Mishra, D.K.; Li, G.; Leung, C.K.Y. Compressive strength and environmental impact of sustainable blended cement with high-dosage Limestone and Calcined Clay (LC2). J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bullard, J.W.; Jennings, H.M.; Livingston, R.A.; Nonat, A.; Scherer, G.W.; Schweitzer, J.S.; Scrivener, K.L.; Thomas, J. J Mechanisms of cement hydration. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 1208–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Scrivener, K.; Avet, F.; Maraghechi, H.; Zunino, F.; Ston, J.; Hanpongpun, W.; Favier, A. Impacting factors and properties of limestone calcined clay cements (LC3). Green Mater. 2018, 7, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chang, J.; Jiang, T.; Cui, K. Influence on compressive strength and CO2 capture after accelerated carbonation of combination β-C2S with γ-C2S. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 312, 125359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bederina, M.; Makhloufi, Z.; Bouziani, T. Effect of limestone fillers the physic-mechanical properties of limestone concrete. Phys. Procedia 2011, 21, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dhandapani, Y.; Santhanam, M.; Gettu, R.; Pillai, R. Perspectives on blended cementitious systems with calcined clay-limestone combination for sustainable low carbon cement transition. Indian Concr. J. 2020, 94, 31–45. [Google Scholar]
  59. Nalet, C.; Nonat, A. Effects of functionality and stereochemistry of small organic molecules on the hydration of tricalcium silicate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2016, 87, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Opara, H.E.; Eziefula, U.G.; Eziefula, B.I. Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of river sand concrete with quarry dust concrete. SSP J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 13, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hospodarova, V.; Junak, J.; Stevulova, N. Color pigments in concrete and their properties. Pollack Periodica 2015, 10, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 00358 g001
Figure 1. Organic peaks identified by GC-MS in the AVM sample.
Figure 1. Organic peaks identified by GC-MS in the AVM sample.
Applsci 14 00358 g001
Applsci 14 00358 g002
Figure 2. Consistency and setting times for the systems containing CS.
Figure 2. Consistency and setting times for the systems containing CS.
Applsci 14 00358 g002
Applsci 14 00358 g003
Figure 3. Consistency and setting times for the systems containing AVM.
Figure 3. Consistency and setting times for the systems containing AVM.
Applsci 14 00358 g003
Applsci 14 00358 g004
Figure 4. Yield stress and slump flow results of the mixtures containing (a) CS and (b) AVM superplasticizers.
Figure 4. Yield stress and slump flow results of the mixtures containing (a) CS and (b) AVM superplasticizers.
Applsci 14 00358 g004
Applsci 14 00358 g005
Figure 5. Compressive strength development of (a) OPC mixtures and (b) LC3-50 blends containing commercial superplasticizer for up to 28 days.
Figure 5. Compressive strength development of (a) OPC mixtures and (b) LC3-50 blends containing commercial superplasticizer for up to 28 days.
Applsci 14 00358 g005
Applsci 14 00358 g006
Figure 6. Compressive strength development of (a) OPC mixtures and (b) LC3-50 blends containing AVM superplasticizer for up to 28 days.
Figure 6. Compressive strength development of (a) OPC mixtures and (b) LC3-50 blends containing AVM superplasticizer for up to 28 days.
Applsci 14 00358 g006
Applsci 14 00358 g007
Figure 7. Bulk density OPC mixtures and LC3-50 blends containing (a) CS and (b) AVM superplasticizers.
Figure 7. Bulk density OPC mixtures and LC3-50 blends containing (a) CS and (b) AVM superplasticizers.
Applsci 14 00358 g007
Table 1. Selection of the eco-friendly admixtures and their impact on the properties of SCC and concrete.
Table 1. Selection of the eco-friendly admixtures and their impact on the properties of SCC and concrete.
Type of MixSuperplasticizerDosage/wt.%Slump Flow/mmObservationsRef.
SCC + limestone fillerArabic gum2–12400–800Optimal at 8%, reduced compressive strength[19]
SCC + fly ashWelan gum≤0.01 *600–670A minimum slump-flow of 600 mm using binder contents of 350, 400, or 450 kg [20]
Xathan gum≤0.004 *610–670
Starch ether≤0.5 *590–670
Ordinary concreteCassava starch0.4–298–18Viscosity-modifying agent, less susceptible to sulphate attack, no impact on compressive strength[21]
Ordinary concreteAloe vera2–675–6Increase of 41% of compressive strength was achieved with 2 wt.% compared to reference[24]
Ordinary concreteAloe veraCoatingNot relevantCorrosion inhibitor for steel rebar, > 83% inhibition efficiency[25]
Porous concrete + marble waste powderAloe vera0.25Not relevantAlong with 30% cement replacement with marble waste powder, an increase in the compressive strength was observed[26]
* Weight percentage with respect to binder content.
Table 2. Chemical composition of the raw powders.
Table 2. Chemical composition of the raw powders.
Raw MaterialSO3Al2O3Fe2O3CaOSiO2MgOLOI *
OPC1.145.433.6864.8321.642.50.78
LC3-502.5411.993.9844.5330.141.315.51
L0.330.470.4290.681.420.596.09
* Loss on ignition.
Table 3. Physiochemical properties of CS.
Table 3. Physiochemical properties of CS.
DescriptionProperty
AppearanceWhitish to light brown clear to cloudy liquid
Specific gravity at 25 °C1.073 g/cm3
pH value5.0–7.0
Chloride content“chloride-free” to EN 934-2
Table 4. Mix design of the studied SCC.
Table 4. Mix design of the studied SCC.
TrialsCA (kg/m3)FA (kg/m3)OPC/LC3-50 (kg/m3)L (kg/m3)w/c *w/p *CS/AVM
TR11078.00562.13363.38224.220.430.81.82
TR21078.00562.13363.38224.220.480.93.63
TR3970.20644.57331.41204.490.480.94.97
TR4862.40732.64351.14216.670.480.83.51
TR5862.40732.64351.14216.670.480.97.02
TR6970.20644.57331.41204.490.480.94.97
TR7970.20644.57331.41204.490.480.96.62
TR8970.20644.57331.41204.490.501.04.97
TR9970.20644.57331.41204.490.480.96.62
* w/c—water to cement ration; w/p—water to powder ratio.
Table 5. Slump flow, L-box Test, and V-funnel results of the designed SCC.
Table 5. Slump flow, L-box Test, and V-funnel results of the designed SCC.
Trialsd (mm)Relative SlumpH2/H1 (mm) V-Funnel (s)Observations *Further Testing
TR1398.50.99015+SNo
TR2432.51.16015+SNo
TR3615.02.070.688F; S-VNo
TR4497.51.49015SNo
TR5762.52.810.886F; BNo
TR6515.01.570.1813H-VNo
TR7672.52.360.818FYes
TR8762.52.810.835F; BNo
TR9659.02.300.206F; BNo
* B—Bleeding; F—Flowable; H-V—Highly viscous; S—Stiff; S-V—Slightly viscous.
Table 6. Compounds in Aloe Barbadensis as identified in the GC-MS analysis.
Table 6. Compounds in Aloe Barbadensis as identified in the GC-MS analysis.
Peak Report TIC
Peak#R.TimeAreaArea%HeightHeight %Name
18.46584,2704.1242,5963.75Ethylbenzene
29.35673,8913.6123,4752.07Styrene
310.64987,3664.2744,8713.96Hydroperoxide, 1-ethylbutyl
410.86757,7272.8230,3942.68Hydroperoxide, 1-methylpentyl
512.3761,651,58580.74956,65184.331-Hexanol, 2-ethyl-
621.18990,6864.4336,4403.21Diethyl Phthalate
Table 7. Impact of CS on slump flow, V-funnel, and L-box test results.
Table 7. Impact of CS on slump flow, V-funnel, and L-box test results.
Mix Type% CS
Dosage 		Slump
Flow (mm)		V-Funnel
(s)		L-Box
(h2/h1)		Observations
OPC-CS0452.5No flow0No flow
0.5572.5High viscosity0No flow
1639.5110.46Flowing but viscous
1.5668.590.88Flowing, no bleeding
2681.580.94Flowing
LC3-50-CS0404.5No flow0No flow
0.5472.0High viscosity0No flow
1583.0130.43Flowing but viscous
1.5647.5100.60Flowing
2666.090.88Flowing
Table 8. Impact of AVM on slump flow, V-funnel, and L-box test results.
Table 8. Impact of AVM on slump flow, V-funnel, and L-box test results.
Mix Type% AVM
Dosage		Slump
Flow (mm)		V-Funnel
(s)		L-Box
(h2/h1)		Observations
OPC-AVM0389.0No flow0No flow
2.5505.0High viscosity0No flow
5534.0140Highly viscous
7.5633.590.81Flowing
10697.050.83Flowing
LC3-50-AVM0404.5No flow0No flow
2.5555.0High viscosity0No flow
5596.5140Highly viscous
7.5651.080.82Flowing
10682.550.94Flowing
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nyabuto, A.O.; Abuodha, S.O.; Mwero, J.N.; Scheinherrová, L.; Marangu, J.M. Aloe Vera-Based Concrete Superplasticizer for Enhanced Consolidation with Limestone Calcined Clay Cement. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010358

AMA Style

Nyabuto AO, Abuodha SO, Mwero JN, Scheinherrová L, Marangu JM. Aloe Vera-Based Concrete Superplasticizer for Enhanced Consolidation with Limestone Calcined Clay Cement. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(1):358. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010358

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nyabuto, Andrew Onderi, Silvester Ochieng Abuodha, John Nyiro Mwero, Lenka Scheinherrová, and Joseph Mwiti Marangu. 2024. "Aloe Vera-Based Concrete Superplasticizer for Enhanced Consolidation with Limestone Calcined Clay Cement" Applied Sciences 14, no. 1: 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010358

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop