混凝土的耐久性指的是其抵抗風化、化學侵蝕和磨損的能力。本研究將重點放在對混凝土的化學侵蝕上。在混凝土結構的使用壽命中，混凝土的耐久性顯著影響著強度、外觀和材料性能等因素。我們知道鋼筋對化學腐蝕的抵抗力較差。然而，我們可以利用具有良好耐久性的混凝土來包覆鋼筋，提供一個保護性屏障，防止或減少腐蝕。在這項研究中，我們評估了兩種混凝土的耐久性：無機聚合物混凝土（GPC）和高強度混凝土（HSC），並比較它們的性能。
在研究的第一部分中，GPC和HSC均浸泡在各種化學溶液中長達五個月。這些化學溶液包括3%的硫酸，含有5%硫酸鈉和5%硫酸鎂的溶液，5%的硫酸鈉，以及5%的氯化鈉。在暴露於這些化學溶液後，我們評估了GPC和HSC的外觀、抗壓強度、劈裂抗強度、彎曲強度和質量損失的變化。本研究探討了當GPC和HSC暴露於侵蝕性化學環境時的性能。結果表明，與HSC相比，GPC對硫酸侵蝕表現出更優越的耐久性，其抗壓和彎曲強度損失更小。值得注意的是，由於表面開裂的存在，GPC的劈裂抗強度受到影響。此外，與HSC相比，GPC在暴露於含有硫酸鎂的溶液時表現出卓越的抵抗性，保持較平滑的表面，強度損失較慢。相反，當暴露於氯化鈉溶液時，無論是GPC還是HSC都顯示出最小的表面變化和強度損失。
在第二部分中，我們將GPC和HSC都置於濕潤-乾燥和加熱-冷卻的循環中。這個過程讓我們評估了外觀變化、質量損失和抗壓強度的影響。因此，我們的研究探討了溫度變化對GPC和HSC的影響，特別是在海洋環境中。GPC在這些循環中表現出較不明顯的外貌變化和抗壓強度的增加。這使得GPC成為應對具有挑戰性的環境條件的理想選擇，特別適用於海洋工程（例如防波堤）、污水基礎設施（對抗酸性環境）和高硫酸鹽土壤工程項目（基礎、擋土墙和地下結構）。

The durability of concrete refers to its ability to resist weathering, chemical attacks, and abrasion. In this study, our focus will be on the chemical attack on concrete. During the service life of a concrete structure, factors such as strength, appearance, and material properties are significantly influenced by the concrete's durability. We understand that steel reinforcement has poor resistance to chemical corrosion. However, we can utilize concrete with good durability to encapsulate the steel reinforcement, providing a protective barrier that prevents or minimizes corrosion. In this study, we evaluate the durability of two types of concrete: geopolymer concrete (GPC) and high strength concrete (HSC) and compare their performance.
In the first part of our research, both GPC and HSC concrete were immersed in various chemical solutions for a period of five months. The chemical solutions included 3% sulfuric acid, 5% sodium sulfate with 5% magnesium sulfate, 5% sodium sulfate, and 5% sodium chloride. Following exposure to these chemical solutions, we assessed changes in the appearance, compressive strength, split tensile strength, flexural strength, and mass loss of both GPC and HSC. This study investigates the performance of GPC and HSC when subjected to exposure to aggressive chemical environments. The effects of sulfuric acid, sodium sulfate with magnesium sulfate solution, sodium sulfate solution, and sodium chloride solution on the degradation of GPC and HSC were studied over a five-month period. Results indicate that GPC exhibits enhanced durability against sulfuric acid exposure compared to HSC, with lower losses in compressive and flexural strengths. Notably, the splitting tensile strength of GPC is affected due to the presence of surface cracks. Moreover, GPC demonstrates superior resistance to sodium sulfate with magnesium sulfate solution, maintaining a smoother surface and experiencing slower strength deterioration compared to HSC. In contrast, both GPC and HSC show minimal surface changes and strength reduction when exposed to sodium chloride solution.
In the second part, we subjected both GPC and HSC to cycles of wetting-drying and heating-cooling. This process allowed us to assess the effects on appearance changes, mass loss, and compressive strength. So, our study examines how temperature variations within a marine environment affect GPC and HSC. GPC demonstrates better resistance to damage and an increase in compressive strength during cycles. X-ray Diffraction results indicate GPC's resilience despite introduced substances. This makes GPC suitable for marine and temperature-vulnerable areas. Its durability and strength make it an optimal choice for challenging environmental conditions.

[1] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C267 - 01(2012) Standard Test Methods for Chemcial Resistance of Mortars, Grouts, and Monolithic Surfacings and Polymer Concretes, (2012).
[2] Albitar, M., Mohamed Ali, M. S., Visintin, P., & Drechsler, M. (2017). Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 136, 374–385.
[3] Taiwan's central weather bureau, https://www.cwb.gov.tw/V8/C/D/phRain.html.
[4] International Energy Agency (IEA), https://www.iea.org/reports/cement.
[5] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021, Chapter 9: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change.
[6] Benhelal, E., Zahedi, G., Shamsaei, E., & Bahadori, A. (2013). Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 142–161.
[7] International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020, Energy Technology Perspectives 2020.
[8] Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., & Jullien, A. (2010). Environmental impact of cement production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 478–485.
[9] John Houghton (2005). Global warming. INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 1343–1403.
[10] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.
[11] Beena Patel, Pankaj Patel (2012). Sustainable campus of Claris life sciences through green initiatives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (2012), 4901–4907.
[12] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications 5th edition, Institut Géopolymère, 16 rue Galilée, F-02100 Saint-Quentin, France.
[13] Zhang, Z., Provis, J. L., Reid, A., & Wang, H. (2014). Geopolymer foam concrete: An emerging material for sustainable construction. Construction and Building Materials, 56, 113–127.
[14] Tsai, C.T. (2020). Derivation and Application of Inorganic Polymer Material Proportioning Design Methods. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 2.
[15] Zhang, P., Wang, K., Li, Q., Wang, J., & Ling, Y. (2020). Fabrication and engineering properties of concretes based on geopolymers/alkali-activated binders - A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120896.
[16] Grant Norton, M., & Provis, J. L. (2020). 1000 at 1000: Geopolymer technology—the current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science.
[17] Saha, S., & Rajasekaran, C. (2017). Enhancement of the properties of fly ash based geopolymer paste by incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag. Construction and Building Materials, 146, 615–620.
[18] Salem Aldawsari, Raphael Kampmann, Jörg Harnisch, and Catharina Rohde (2022). Setting Time, Microstructure, and Durability Properties of Low Calcium Fly Ash/Slag Geopolymer: A Review. Materials 2022, 15(3), 876.
[19] Hadi, M. N. S., Zhang, H., & Parkinson, S. (2019). Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and concretes cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time and workability. Journal of Building Engineering 23, 301–313.
[20] Komljenović, M., Baščarević, Z., & Bradić, V. (2010). Mechanical and microstructural properties of alkali-activated fly ash geopolymers. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 181(1-3), 35–42.
[21] Sékou, T., Siné, D., Lanciné, T. D., & Bakaridjan, C. (2017). Synthesis and Characterization of a Red Mud and Rice Husk Based Geopolymer for Engineering Applications. Macromolecular Symposia, 373(1), 1600090.
[22] Singh, N. B., & Middendorf, B. (2020). Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: An overview. Construction and Building Materials, 237, 117455.
[23] Jia Li, Xiaotian Dang, Jingwei Zhang, Peng Yi, and Yongming Li (2023). Mechanical Properties of Fly Ash-Slag Based Geopolymer for Repair of Road Subgrade Diseases. Polymers 2023, 15(2), 309.
[24] Partha, S. D., Pradip, N., & Prabir, K. S. (2013). Strength and Permeation Properties of Slag Blended Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Advanced Materials Research, 651, 168–173.
[25] Graytee, A., Sanjayan, J. G., & Nazari, A. (2018). Development of a high strength fly ash-based geopolymer in short time by using microwave curing. Ceramics International, 44(7), 8216–8222.
[26] Min, H., & Song, Z. (2018). Investigation on the Sulfuric Acid Corrosion Mechanism for Concrete in Soaking Environment. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 1–10.
[27] Santhanam, M., Cohen, M. D., & Olek, J. (2003). Effects of gypsum formation on the performance of cement mortars during external sulfate attack. Cement and Concrete Research, 33(3), 325–332.
[28] Al-Dulaijan, S. U., Maslehuddin, M., Al-Zahrani, M. M., Sharif, A. M., Shameem, M., & Ibrahim, M. (2003). Sulfate resistance of plain and blended cements exposed to varying concentrations of sodium sulfate. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4-5), 429–437.
[29] Aiken, T. A., Kwasny, J., Sha, W., & Soutsos, M. N. (2018). Effect of slag content and activator dosage on the resistance of fly ash geopolymer binders to sulfuric acid attack. Cement and Concrete Research, 111, 23–40.
[30] Valencia Saavedra, W. G., Angulo, D. E., & Mejía de Gutiérrez, R. (2016). Fly Ash Slag Geopolymer Concrete: Resistance to Sodium and Magnesium Sulfate Attack. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 28(12), 04016148.
[31] Ahmet Emin Kurtoğlu, Radhwan Alzeebaree, Omar Aljumaili, Anıl Niş, Mehmet Eren Gülşan, Ghassan Humur, and Abdulkadir Çevik (2018). Mechanical and durability properties of fly ash and slag based geopolymer concrete. Advances in Concrete Construction, Vol. 6, No. 4 (2018) 345-362.
[32] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C188-16 (2016) Standard Test Method for Density of Hydraulic Cement (2016).
[33] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C33-99 (2018) Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates (2018).
[34] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C128-15 (2007) Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate (2007).
[35] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C127-88 (2007) Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of coarse Aggregate (2007).
[36] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C143/C143M-12 (2015) Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete (2015).
[37] Chang, P.-K. (2004). An approach to optimizing mix design for properties of high-performance concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(4), 623–629.
[38] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C31/C31M-19 (2020) Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field (2020).
[39] American Concrete Institute, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 318-05) AND COMMENTARY (ACI 318R-05) (2005).
[40] American Concrete Institute, ACI 201.2R-08 Guide to Durable Concrete (2008).
[41] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C39/C39M-14 (2014) Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (2014).
[42] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C496/C496M-04 (2004) Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (2004).
[43] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C78/C78M-18 (2018) Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (2018).
[44] Sahmaran, M., Erdem, T. K., & Yaman, I. O. (2007). Sulfate resistance of plain and blended cements exposed to wetting–drying and heating–cooling environments. Construction and Building Materials, 21(8), 1771–1778.
[45] Mangi, S. A., Wan Ibrahim, M. H., Jamaluddin, N., Arshad, M. F., Khahro, S. H., & Putra Jaya, R. (2021). Influence of coal ash on the concrete properties and its performance under sulphate and chloride conditions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
[46] García-Lodeiro, I., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Blanco, M. T., & Palomo, A. (2007). FTIR study of the sol–gel synthesis of cementitious gels: C–S–H and N–A–S–H. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 45(1), 63–72.
[47] Karthik, A., Sudalaimani, K., & Vijayakumar, C. T. (2017). Durability study on coal fly ash-blast furnace slag geopolymer concretes with bio-additives. Ceramics International, 43(15), 11935–11943.
[48] M. OLIVIA, and H. NIKRAZ (2013). PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE IN SEAWATER ENVIRONMENT.
[49] Aygörmez, Y., Canpolat, O., Al-mashhadani Mukhallad M., & Uysal, M. (2020). Elevated temperature, freezing-thawing and wetting-drying effects on polypropylene fiber reinforced metakaolin based geopolymer composites. Construction and Building Materials, 235, 117502.