5122_Final_Draft

SessionB4
5122
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering
2015/01/30
1
GEOPOLYMER MORTAR AS A METHOD OF PIPELINE REPAIR
Craig Bair (crb96@pitt.edu, Sanchez 4:00), Nathan Sloan (nas178@pitt.edu, Bon 6:00)
Abstract—Infrastructure of pipelines in the United States,
specifically oil, natural gas, and water-carrying pipelines, is
deteriorating with time and must be repaired. This paper
arguesfor the use of geopolymermortar in place of traditional
methods, such as full pipe replacement, to repair damaged
pipes.Traditional methods require a great deal oftime,money,
labor, and are disruptive to the surrounding environment.
Geopolymer mortar offers a solution that isrelatively easy and
inexpensive to produce.
Details of the benefits of the geopolymer are presented
and explained to strengthen the argument for geopolymer
mortar. These benefits include minimal disruption of the
surrounding as well as a composition that allows the mortar
to be strong and highly resistant to acidic environments, and
the environmental benefit of reducing the carbon emissions.
Finally,a solution to the issue of having a varying ratio of
solution-to-solid material in the mixture depending on the raw
materials used will be discussed. The variation can cause the
geopolymer to become difficult to compact. Methods include
changing the distribution of the particlesso that the structure
is more compact and less permeable.
Geopolymer is an efficient and sustainable solution to a
growing problem.As this technology continuesto be improved
and becomes a primary choice for pipeline repair,the benefits
will be long lasting.
Key Terms— Geopolymer, Pipeline Infrastructure, Trenchless
Repairs, EcoCast, GeoSpray
A FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE
In today’s modern, energy consuming society, everyday
life is highly dependent on natural resources such as crude oil,
natural gas,and water. This is no mystery; however, to many,
it is unknown that the system by which these resources are
transported is failing. The systemofpipelines that spans across
the entire United States is responsible for transporting “almost
100 percent of the natural gas and about 71 percent of the oil
and refined petroleum products consumed in the United
States” [1]. As figure 1 shows, more than half of the nation’s
pipelines were built before or during the 1960’s. Given this,
one can understand why the structuralintegrity of the pipes are
in jeopardy [1]. However, the solution to the situation is being
overlooked. This is due to the fact that repairs are costly and
many people do not see the problem throughout their daily
lives, as most of the pipelines run underground. In fact, U.S.
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure requires $298 billion
in upgrades over the next two decades, with pipelines
accounting for 75% of total needs [2]. Geopolymer mortar
offers a quick and cost efficient solution to this growing
problem that, if overlooked, can create significant danger to
the public and the environment.
Dangers of a Failing Pipeline
The dangers of the failure of pipelines starts with the
release of the material being transported.Some materials, such
as oil and gasoline, are highly flammable and may cause large
fires or explosions that can destroy homes, businesses,and the
environment. Other materials are poisonous to humans and
wildlife alike. As these materials leak, they may enter the
water-supply causing widespread sickness and possibly death.
Outside of the dangers from the leaking material, is the
danger that arises in the repair of such issues. The process to
replace broken pipes can shut down businesses for extended
periods of time. This can be caused by the need to set up a large
worksite outside of a business where the damaged pipe is to be
replaced. Also,depending on the location of the damaged pipe,
the environment could be destroyed by the people and
machines needed for the repair. This can often be seen with
natural gas pipes, which will burst near the source of natural
gas drilling that often takes place in rural areas.
Although the task of fixing such a large-scale issue can
seem impossible and too expensive, there is a new solution
being implemented to eliminate the problem. Still in the early
phases of distribution and use, geopolymer mortar is an up-
and-coming solution that offers quick, effective results in a
cost effective manner.
Figure 1 [1]
Percent of pipelines built in various time periods. The
chart on the left shows the data for pipelines that
carry hazardous liquid, while the other chart shows
the data for pipelines that carry gas.

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
2
WHAT IS GEOPOLYMER MORTAR
In 1978, Joseph Davidovits came up with the idea of
inorganic polymetric materials and called them geopolymers
[3]. Although the technology itself is not new, geopolymer
mortar has been more recently being introduced as a cheaper,
time-efficient option to repair damaged pipes. This solution is
up to 60% faster and 50% cheaper than traditional dig-and-
replace approaches [2]. Studies have been taking place since
the early 1990’s to find the best way to make and use these
geopolymers. It was not until about 2006 that most of the
research to find what combination of materials gave the best
all-around properties had been completed [3]. Once these
studies were completed, EcoCast and Milliken Infrastructure
Solutions Incorporated realized the potential for the
geopolymer. These companies teamed up and started
implementing the geopolymer mortar as a solution to the
failing pipeline infrastructure [3][4]. The mortar now is used
in trenchless repair for patching or full recoating of the pipe.
The mortar is capable of closing separated pipes, preventing
corrosion, and strengthening collapsing pipes. Not only is the
mortar cheaper and more efficient, but it also offers a long-
term solution with a multitude of benefits.
Production Process
The process and material used to produce geopolymer
mortar is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly as
compared to the production of cement, which is typically used
to reconstruct pipelines. The production process plays a huge
role in the sustainability of this product. Geopolymer mortar
improves the quality of life by reducing wastes and emissions
that are harmful to the environment and most of this comes
from the nature of the production and application processes.
Fly-ash, or recycled industrial waste, is used to produce
geopolymer mortar. Fly-ash can be processed at a much lower
temperature than the limestone and clay needed for cement,
lowering the CO2 emissions, as discussed later in the section
on sustainability [5]. Low-calcium fly-ash is preferred to high
calcium fly-ash because calcium can interfere with the
polymerization process that is essential to creating the long
chains of molecules required to make the geopolymer. To
produce the geopolymer, an alkaline mixture, typically
including NaOH or KOH, is mixed with the fly-ash to dissolve
the silicon and aluminum ions. These ions then undergo a
condensation process,often at an elevated temperature,to form
large chains. During this condensation process,Na2Ois added
to increase the rate of the process. One of the most important
factors in mixing these materials is the ratio in which they are
mixed. The ratio of silicate to sodium gives the best properties
at about 1.5 molar, and the mass proportion of Na2Oto fly-ash
at about 10%. If mixed correctly, the materials will combine to
give the geopolymer its favorable properties [6].
The production process of geopolymer mortar, through
the use of fly-ash, reduces the amount of pollution emitted
from the burning of coal as well as other fuels typically
required in the production process of Portland cement. Coal is
burned in electrical generating stations that use the heat to
power turbines. The small pieces of ash that result from the
burning of the coal float up with the hot air. This unburned
residue is collected either by mechanical or electrostatic
separators [7].
The process of collecting the fly-ash by these means
typically starts with an electrostatic separator. This separator
uses a combination of different magnets along with an electric
field to separate the particles of fly-ash into different sizes [8].
The smaller particles are usually ready to be used in the
production of geopolymers, but the larger particles must go on
to further separation. To separate the larger particles, custom
separators are used based on the desired properties of the fly-
ash. These separators can include magnets, triboadhesion
separators,and separators with varying electric fields [8].
Another method of separation, although not widely used
yet as it is still relatively new, is the use of a fluidized bed
separator. The idea of this separator is to create a bubbling
surface that will cause agitation in the fly-ash mixture. This
agitation, over time, will cause denserparticles to settle at the
bottom of the mixture, while the less dense ones move to the
top [9]. In order to keep the particles from clumping, due to
intermolecular forces, a high intensity acoustic field is used to
disrupt these forces. When the now separated particles reach
the end of the bed, they are collected into separate containers
based on the layer they are in [10]. Once collected, the fly-ash
is used, as described in the production process, to help in
forming the long chain-linked structure of the geopolymer
mortar.
Prior to the use of fly-ash in geopolymers, fly-ash was
considered to be the sixth most abandoned material in the
United States [8]. Now, fly-ash can be collected from the
combustion of coal instead of disposed of in the environment,
and it can be put to use in the form of geopolymer mortar
production. The ability to make a new product (geopolymer
Figure 2 [6]
The bonding of the Aluminum to the Silicon allows for
strong, condensed structures to form.

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
3
mortar) from recycled waste contributes to a reduction in cost
and pollution, as further discussed in the section on
sustainability.
Chemical Composition
On a molecular level, once the silicon and aluminum ions
are displaced, they form tetrahedral structures with oxygen.
The oxygen then attaches to neighboring tetrahedral structure
during the condensing process as shown in figure 2 [6]. By
having the covalently bound atoms at the surface of the silicon
and aluminum displaced by alkali molecules, the structure is
disrupted,creating more attachment sites [11]. This increase in
attachment sites allows for long, cross-linked chains to form,
attributing to the superior material properties of strength and
flexibility. Then, through a process called polycondensation,
where atoms are linking everywhere and in all directions,
higher complexes are formed creating a systemwith infinite
chains, rings, ribbons, and layers [11]. The structure also
allows for easy application to the pipe as the atoms at the
surface are looking to bond with the pipe material.
APPLICATION PROCESS
In order to apply the geopolymer mortar, the piping must
first be emptied and cleaned out. This process typically
consists of locating a shut off valve, which must be turned to
close off the pipe [12]. Once the valve is closed, the flow of
the materials ceases and the pipe is then able to be cleaned.
This is usually accomplished with a pressure wash that can be
done using water or air [12]. Once the pipe has been properly
cleaned, it is ready for the application of the geopolymer
mortar.
As of now, there is an exclusive application process
designed by EcoCast. The process uses a machine that
oscillates and sprays the mortar from inside of the pipe. The
spincast application method only requires about ten to thirty
feet of space for application, therefore reducing disruption
[2][4]. The machine works by first pumping in the mortar from
up to 500 feet away through a long, hose-like tube. This is
especially useful in avoiding as much disruption as possible.
The entrance point can be set further away from the problem
area if this minimizes road or business disruption. Also, the
machine is small enough to fit into a manhole which gives it
an advantage over the traditional method of repairing
pipelines. Without the EcoCast machine, workers must shut
down a large area directly over the damaged pipe. The workers
then must excavate the damaged pipe and lay in a new section.
This requires a great deal of time and a large footprint for
application. Depending on the damage, the area could be over
100 feet long.
Once the machine is inside the pipe, it then has an arm
that rotates up to 5,000 rotations per minute, which sprays the
geopolymer mortar inside the pipe. The mortar will adhere to
most surfaces, wet or dry even in extreme temperatures. The
machine can be set to accurately apply the mortar up to three
inches thick on any shape surface [2]. Even with a rather thick
layer of the mortar applied, the curing time is typically only
two hours [2]. This is much less than the curing time for
Portland cement, the standard pipe material, which is around a
minimum of seven days [12]. The shorter curing time allows
the pipes to become functional again quicker, which extends
the benefits all of the way back to the companies using the
pipes and the consumers waiting for the product. Not only is
the application process precise and efficient, but the properties
that the mortar offers, once applied, are highly beneficial.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF
GEOPOLYMERS
The impressive physicalproperties of geopolymers comes
from its structure on the chemical level. The polymer is
produced such that a three-dimensional cross-link of atoms are
formed through the process of polycondensation [1]. This
process produces an infinite number of cross-linked atoms that
form layers upon layers and creates a tightly knit and
extremely durable structure [1]. This structure is the reason for
the "higher compressive strength,higher flexural strength and
higher modulus of elasticity” of geopolymers, when compared
to standard cement material [1]. One experiment compared the
flexural strength,durability and shrinkage of a mix of standard
cement mix containing 40 kg/m³ of steel fiber, with a
geopolymer reinforced mix of just 8 kg/m³ of synthetic fiber
[13]. When examined, it was observed that the geopolymer
reinforced mix was superior in all categories compared to the
cement mix that was reinforced with steel fibers [12]. This
study displays the impressive strength of geopolymer mortar.
The fact that a fifth of the weight can be used to produce a
substance strongerthan steel shows great promise in terms of
Figure 3 [10]
Collection and separation of fly ash

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
4
application. A stronger and lighter material allows for better
efficiency and, potentially, lower cost.
The physical properties of the geopolymer mortar are
largely dependent on the material that is used in the production
process. Fly-ash is the most popular industrial waste material
being used at this time, but other waste materials such as
granulated slag and rice husk are being experimented with to
create the best composition [13]. The amounts of the given
material being used is just as important as the choice of
material when creating the best substance. The ratio of the
amount of the solid material being mixed to the amount of
solution causes for different particle distributions [2]. If the
distribution of the particles in the solution is too great, the
mortar becomes difficult to compact and apply. On the other
hand, if the particles are too tightly packed, the mortar
becomes far too thick and interferes with the ease of
application [2]. With further research on the composition, it is
expected that the geopolymer mortar can become strongerthan
most other materials that are typically used in pipe repair, at a
fraction of the cost and weight.
Geopolymer reinforced piping has also shown an
increased resistivity to acidic environments due to its
crystalline structure [1]. The typical mix of cement is highly
soluble in solutions that have a low pH [5]. This vulnerability
can be a great cause for concern depending on the surrounding
environment and the type of fluids that are being transported.
All of these structural strengths of geopolymer mortar are
important when considering the amount of force that is applied
on the inside and outside of the pipe.
The Importance of the Geopolymer’s Physical
Properties
Although the physical properties of such a small
modification to the pipe may seem unimportant, it is crucial
that the repair material be able to withstand the same forces as
the original pipe itself. As shown by a case study later in the
paper, an ineffective repair only causes all the same problems
as the pipe failing in the first place, along with the high costs
of additional repairs. Whether the whole pipe is relined, or a
small section is patched up,geopolymer mortar will effectively
extend the life of the pipe for a multitude of years.
Since this is a relatively new innovation, there is not much
evidence of its sustainability in the long term, outside of lab
testing.Most lab testing says that the geopolymer material that
is expected to increase the lifespan of a pipe by about 50 years
[4]. The product has recently been approved by many
departments of state transportation because of its impressive
flexural and compressive strength.The company has measured
the flexural strength to be nearly 1,300 psi and after only 28
days of application, the compressive strength of the material
reaches 8,000 psi [4]. Other experiments have found flexural
strengths ranging from 520 psi up to 1,090 psi [2]. Portland
cement, in comparison, typically only has flexural strengths up
to 700 psi [2]. These are impressive numbers that show the
material can withstand dynamic loads from traffic in pipes
being used under transportation routes or the pressure created
by flowing substances in oil, gas, and water applications.
SUSTAINABILITY
The sustainability of geopolymer mortar is apparent in
terms of its eco-friendly application and production processes,
as well as its cost efficiency. It offers a solution to problem that
is prevalent in today’s society,while promising future benefits,
such as pollution reduction, that make the world a betterplace
to live in. As the product continues to develop, improvements
to the production and application process will develop as well,
making geopolymer mortar a sustainable technology.
Environmentally Friendly Geopolymer Mortar
Anotherbenefit of using geopolymer mortar in pipe repair
instead of regular cement, is its reduced amount of pollution in
the production process. It is estimated that the production of
cement contributes from about 5-7% of CO2 emissions
globally [1]. The current method of cement production is
extremely destructive to nature and the atmosphere due to the
pollution. The production of one ton of Portland cement
releases one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [14].
When this number is thought of in terms of a gas, it is an
astounding number that most certainly needs to be reduced.
Using geopolymer mortar instead of substances such as
Portland cement will help to decrease pollution and promote a
healthier environment.
Geopolymer mortar, because of the nature of the
production process and use of recycled industrial material, has
been found to produce significantly lower amounts of
emissions and toxins. In the experiment mentioned earlier
comparing the flexural strength, durability and shrinkage of a
standard cement mix containing 40 kg/m³ of steel fiber with a
geopolymer reinforced mix of just 8 kg/m³ of synthetic fiber,
the emissions from production were also compared [14]. In
Figure 4 [14]
Graph displaying carbon dioxide emissions from open
cut repair versus trenchless repair as a function of
estimated annual average daily traffic (AADT).

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
5
addition to finding that the geopolymer mix was superior in all
physical properties examined, the production of the
geopolymer material reduced carbon emissions by 70% [14].
The graph above compares the amount of carbon dioxide
emissions from trenchless pipe repair versus that of the open
cut method that is typically used. In the production process,a
lower temperature can be maintained, whereas Portland
cement requires a very high temperature for its production. A
lower temperature causes the process to release 80-90% less
carbon dioxide, while using 60% less energy than Portland
cement production [14]. This graph also takes into account
other factors that lead to an increase in carbon emissions such
as the increase in traffic due to lanes or roads having to be
blocked off [14].
Cost-efficiency of Geopolymer Mortar
The cost of geopolymer mortar is considerably less than
that of typical concrete or other repair methods. The cost of
GeoSpray, which is a geopolymer mortar manufactured by
Milliken and applied by EcoCast’s machines, is compared to
otherrepair methods in the graph shown below. Cured in place
pipe is the most commonly used type of pipe repair in the
industry,but as the pipe diameter gets progressively larger, the
cost increases dramatically. GeoSpray and its method of
application is between twenty and fifty percent less in cost than
the cured in place method. GeoSpray is a cheaper method of
repair because of its simple application process that does not
require expensive machinery and labor that is necessary in the
standard dig and replace method [14].
The cost efficiency of the mortar is another important
factor in the sustainability of the product.By reducing the cost
of the pipe repair process,cities in need of pipe repair will be
more willing to use geopolymermortar in orderto save money.
The money saved can then be put to use on otherlocal projects.
As the product becomes more widely used, the production of
cement will go down, reducing the amount of pollution and
therefore improving the quality of the environment. The
following case studies display the benefits of using
geopolymer mortar as well as all the factors of sustainability
previously discussed.
CASE STUDIES INVOLVING
GEOPOLYMER MORTAR
In May of 2013, a pipe measuring 30 feet in length and 9
feet in diameter under Monument Street in Baltimore,
Maryland was in need of repair. The pipe had been repaired
three years earlier but already broke down in that short period
of time and caused a sink hole the width of the road to form,
as seen in the figure below [15].
Monument Street is a busy, two-lane road, so it was
crucial that the pipe repair be done quickly with as little
disruption as possible. It was determined that the use of
geopolymer mortar was the best option to efficiently repair the
pipe without having to completely shut down the road.
The piping was first pressure cleaned before a
hydrophobic grout was applied to the areas of the pipe that
were found to be corroded or damaged. Once the pipe was
properly cleaned and prepped, Milliken’s GeoSpray mortar
was applied using EcoCast’s spraying machine described
earlier [15]. The whole project only required that 100 feet of
the street be blocked off, allowing one lane to be open at all
times. The second lane was reopened in the evening. The
mortar had an eight hour curing time and the storm drain was
back in service only eight hours after completion. The total
time for the project was only five days and was not terribly
disruptive to the natural flow of traffic, nor did it require any
extra road repair time [15].
On a busy street sinkholes are dangerous and could
seriously harm drivers traveling through that area. This
situation displays the importance of a sustainable pipe repair
in ensuring public safety and proper functioning of the
SWP-Spiral Wound
Sliplining
CIPP-Cured In Place
Pipe
GeoTree GeoSpray Geopolymer
Figure 5 [14]
Graph comparing costs of various repair methods with
increasing pipe diameter.
Figure 6 [15]
Image of sinkhole caused by failing pipe in Maryland.

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
6
pipeline. Where the standard method of pipe repair failed,
geopolymer mortar was successfully applied to the piping in a
less disruptive, yet effective, method.
Monteagle Water Treatment Plant
In 2013 in Monteagle, Tennessee, the water treatment
plant responsible for providing water to the town needed to be
repaired. In the sediment basins,most of the original protective
coating had flaked or peeled off and it was estimated that 15 to
20% of the concrete was exposed and eroding [16]. Replacing
the entire treatment facility was out of the question due to the
budget of the town. The treatment facility’s engineer decided
that the cheapest and quickest solution to their problem was to
hire EcoCast to apply the geopolymer mortar [16]. Such
repairs can be difficult because of the necessity of a resource
such as water. The repair has to be quick and everything must
be done correctly to ensure the safety of those who will use the
water coming from the facility. The project budget was
$64,750, whereas an entirely new water treatment plant would
cost millions of dollars to build, not to mention the amount of
time required to build such a facility [16].
The most damaged part of the facility was the water lines,
where existing concrete walls were pitted and scaling [16].
EcoCast was able to come into the treatment facility and
successfully apply around five thousand square feet of the
geopolymer mortar in only six days. The facility was up and
running only a few hours after completion and some residents
said they never even knew the facility was out of commission
due to the quickness of the process [16]. Something like a
water treatment plant is a necessity for a populated area and
cannot be shut down for long, nor afford a malpractice that
causes water contamination. This case study shows that
geopolymer mortar is able to be applied quickly and allow for
the pipe’s contents to remain pure shortly after the process is
completed.
Georgia Tech Sewer Repair
In 2013, Georgia Institute of Technology needed its storm
water drainage system, which had been in place for over a
century to, be repaired. The university had, at first, thought
about physically moving the line to a new location; however,
this was not feasible because the line is located directly below
severalbusy schoolbuildings,streets,sidewalks,and a popular
lawn area [17]. The city of Atlanta proposed that the school
should look into trenchless repair methods and after exploring
the option, decided it would be the best solution [17]. This
project was slightly more difficult than just a typical relining
of pipe, however. Of the sections that needed repaired, there
was 420 meters of a 72 in diameter concrete pipe and a rubble-
wall tunnel with a diameter of 78 inches that connected two
sections ofpipe [17]. The problem with changing diameters of
piping is that it makes it difficult to get a smooth transition
from one pipe to the next and can cause erosion problems in
the future.
Because of the diameter of the pipes and the fact that
diameters change, they decided the method of spray
application was not the best solution. This project was done
with the cured in place pipe method. The first step of this
method is to fill a liner tube with the mortar substance before
rolling the liner with a steel roller to ensure it is evenly coated
with the mortar. The liner is then inserted into the pipe, before
being inverted with air or water pressure (in this case water
was used) causing the liner to be pulled through the piping as
shown in the figure below. The liner flips inside out with the
mortar substance on the side that is flush with the original
piping [17].
The liner was pulled through the pipe at a speed of about
5.5 meters per hour. A machine then sends a tube like object
through the liner that can either release steamor be inflated in
order to make sure the liner is evenly coated and flush on the
pipe wall. Steam was used in this case to form the tight seal
which took approximately 4-6 hours for the substance to
adhere [17]. The project was completed in less than three
weeks and the campus was undisturbed,otherthan a few street
closures for safety precautions [17].
This case study shows the versatility of geopolymer
mortar in its use for cured in place pipe repair rather than the
typical spray method described previously. The school was
able to successfully repair an important section of piping with
little disruption in a very populated area that could not afford
to be shut down for a period of time. Also, the university was
very pleased with the cost and did not need a large budget that
would have been required to dig up the entire piece of piping
and restore the university back to its original aesthetics [17].
Figure 7 [14]
Example of a pipe repaired using GeoSpray.
Figure 8 [17]
Image of the liner for the cured in place pipe method
in which the liner showing is pulled through the pipe
with the mortar substance inside.

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
7
REASONS FOR LIMITED USE
As of now, the use of geopolymer mortar has been
approved by 35 state transportation departments [2]. Although
this is a large portion of the states, many have not made the
mortar the main solution to fixing the pipelines. This is due to
the fact that there are problems still being researched and fixed
as the geopolymer mortar is being used. One of the main
concerns is the variation in the ratio of materials used and the
processes by which to make the geopolymer. Various
researchers have found that while one ratio or process is
favorable to strengthen one quality of the geopolymer, the
same ratio or process will weaken anotherquality. Researchers
Palomo, Grutzeck, and Blanco found in 1999 that the activator
to fly-ash ratio was insignificant and that an increase in curing
temperature led to a faster activation of the fly-ash [3].
However, van Jaarsveld, van Deventer, and Lukey concluded
in anotherstudy in 2002 that the increase in curing temperature
can result in cracking [3]. Also opposing Palomo’s,
Grutzeck’s, and Blanco’s study, is a study conducted by
Daniel, Sanjayan,and Sagoe-Crentsil in 2006 which stated that
the most crucial part of the process was the activator to fly-ash
ratio, which the first study found to be insignificant [3].
Furthermore, researchers Barbosa, MacKenzie, and
Thaumaturgo found in 1999 that the ideal ratio of Na2O to SiO2
was 0.25 molar, while Milliken Infrastructure Solutions
Incorporated of today found the ratio to be 1.5 molar. These
inconsistencies continue to show up in research today which
leads many to be hesitant about using the geopolymer mortar
[3][6].
Additionally, the use is limited by the size of the spincast
machine. Since the machine is larger, it is most effective in
larger diameter pipes,starting at about 36 inches [4]. Although
the machine can still be used in slightly smaller pipes,it is not
as effective in applying an even coating of the geopolymer
mortar. Also,the machine cannot be used at all in smaller pipes
that break off of the main pipe in order to transport the material
to businesses or homes. When such a pipe does need to be
repaired, the geopolymer mortar can still be used, but it must
be applied by hand and may require digging to reach. This then
becomes just as costly and time-consuming as digging the pipe
out and replacing it.
THE FUTURE WITH GEOPOLYMERS
The future of pipe repair is very bright with the use of
geopolymer mortar. Geopolymer mortar offers an efficient and
effective solution to a growing problem in the United States.
Typical pipe repair requires the inefficient and disruptive
process oftrenching and removing the old piping. Geopolymer
mortar is easily applied to the piping surface in varying
thicknesses and distances in a trenchless repair method. The
structuralbenefits are quickly displayed within hours ofrepair,
as the material compacts and quickly becomes functional.
Multiple experiments in different settings have shown the
mortar to have superior physical properties to that of standard
cement repairs. Geopolymer mortar possesses higher flexural
strength,higher compressive strength,and a greater resistance
to acidic environments. These characteristics are extremely
important when the materials involved are toxic or
environmentally damaging liquids as well as basic sewage and
irrigation pipelines located beneath busy,populated areas.The
geopolymer mortar is more environmental-friendly, as it cuts
down on the emission of gases during production and
application compared to that of standard cement. Geopolymer
mortar is an important innovation that could improve a crucial
infrastructure and remain functional for years to come.
REFERENCES
[1] US Department of Transportation.(2011). “The State of the
National Pipeline Infrastructure.” dot.gov. (Online Article).
https://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/docs/Secretarys
%20Infrastructure%20Report_Revised%20per%20PHC_103
111.pdf
[2] T. Illia. (2014). “New Geopolymer Pipe Material Promises
Trenchless Repairs.” ENR.com. (Online Article).
http://enr.construction.com/products/materials/2014/0616-
new-geopolymer-pipe-material-promises-trenchless-
repairs.asp
[3] D. Hardjito, C. Cheak, C. Ing. (2008). “Strength and
Setting Times of Low Calcium Fly Ash-based Geopolymer
Mortar.” Modern Applied Science. (Online Article).
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal.html
[4] (2013). “Advanced Geopolymer Technology.” EcoCast.
(Online Article).
http://www.inlandpiperehab.com/pdf/ecocast.pdf
[5] P. Borges, L. Fonseca, V. Nunes, T. Panzera, C.
Martuscelli. (2014). “Andreasen Particle Packing Method on
the Development of Geopolymer Concrete for Civil
Engineering.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.
(Online Article).
http://rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article
&title=Journal%20of%20Materials%20in%20Civil%20Engi
neering&atitle=Andreasen%20Particle%20Packing%20Met
hod%20on%20the%20Development%20of%20Geopolymer%
20Concrete%20for%20Civil%20Engineering.&author=Borg
es%2C%20Paulo%20H.%20R.&authors=Borges%2C%20Pa
ulo%20H.%20R.%3BFonseca%2C%20Lucas%20F.%3BNun
es%2C%20Vitor%20A.%3BPanzera%2C%20Tulio%20H.%3
BMartuscelli%2C%20Carolina%20C.&date=20140401&vol
ume=26&issue=4&spage=692&issn=08991561
[6] K. Srinivasan, A. Sivakumar. (2013). “Geopolymer
Binders: A Need for Future Concrete Construction.” Hindawi
Publishing Corporation. (Online Article).
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509185/
[7] M. Thomas. (2007). “Optimizing the Use of Fly Ash in
Concrete.” Portland Cement Association. (Online Article).
http://www.cement.org/docs/default-

Craig Bair
Nathan Sloan
8
source/fc_concrete_technology/is548-optimizing-the-use-of-
fly-ash-concrete.pdf?sfvrsn=4
[8] V. Zyryanov, D. Zyryanov. (2010). “Complex Processing
of Pulverized Fly Ash by Dry Separation Methods.” Journal
of Environmental Protection. (Online Article).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%
3A%2F%2Fwww.scirp.org%2Fjournal%2FPaperDownload.a
spx%3FpaperID%3D2623&ei=8rEcVaX6CdOYyASe14GoC
Q&usg=AFQjCNFPtaWgc3BQQ2UFWqsQtiww5Ay0jw&si
g2=5PW6SvmmhAP5O8Xs3mmlkw&bvm=bv.89744112,d.a
Ww
[9] E. Levy, N. Sarunac, J. Salmento. “Fluidized Bed Separator
Being Developed to Remove Unburned Carbon from Fly
Ash.” Lehigh.edu. (Online Article).
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inenr/leu/leu_03.pdf
[10] (2010). “What is Fly Ash.” fly ash Australia. (Online
Article). http://www.flyashaustralia.com.au/whatisflyash.aspx
[11] S. Henning, M. Vellano. (2012). “Understanding the
Science Behind Advanced Geopolymer Mortar Lining
Systems.” Technical Forum. (Online Article).
http://iprindustrial.com/pdf/understanding-science-behind-
geopolymer-mortar-lining.pdf
[12] J. Zemajtis. “Role of Concrete Curing.” PCA. (Online
Article). http://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-
learning/concrete-technology/concrete-construction/curing-
in-construction
[13] M. Reed, W.Lokuge, W. Karunasena. (2014). “Fibre-
reinforced geopolymer concrete with ambient curing for in situ
applications.” Springer Science+Business Media. (Online
Article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/command/detail?sid=ba4c1
da1-f24b-45c7-9035-
13bb4b36b4c0%40sessionmgr4001&vid=1&hid=4212
[14] (2014). “GeoSpray geopolymer mortar system for
structural rehabilitation of sewer and storm water
infrastructure.” GeoSpray. (Online Article).
http://geopolymers.milliken.com/Documents/White%20Paper
/GeoSpray%20Whitepaper.pdf
[15] EcoCast. (2013). “EcoCast Used to Rehabilitate 9 ft.
Diameter Storm Drain Section Beneath Monument St. in
Baltimore, Maryland.” The Science of Underground Solutions.
(Online Article). http://inlandpiperehab.com/pdf/rehabilitate-
9ft-diam-storm-drain-in-baltimore-md.pdf
[16] (2013). “Monteagle WTP Restorative Makeover Saves
Time and Money.” Tennessee Public Works Magazine.
(Online Article). http://www.inlandpiperehab.com/pdf/tn-
public-works-cover-story.pdf
[17] (2013). “Sewer reline wins academic plaudits.” CIPP.
(Online Article). http://www.inlandpiperehab.com/pdf/ga-
tech-cipp-over-the-hole-article-05-13.pdf
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
K. Patil, E. Allouche. (2013). “Examination of Chloride-
Induced Corrosion in Reinforced Geopolymer Concretes.”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. (Online Article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f
0233de1-9295-4129-a5f7-
a59f58623566%40sessionmgr4001&vid=1&hid=4212
M. Liu, U. Alengaram. (2014). “Evaluation of thermal
conductivity, mechanical and transport properties of
lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete.” Energy
and Buildings. (Online Book).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/command/detail?sid=1b55c
455-4c63-429d-b655-
884e518eb041%40sessionmgr4005&vid=1&hid=4212
W. Prachasaree, S. Limkatanyu, A. Hawa, A. Samakrattakit.
(2014). "Development of Equivalent Stress Block Parameters
for Fly-Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete.” King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals. (Online Article).
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Direct.asp?AccessToken=8UPY3
POV0UKX30K1NONKUXXXYPXPVP90U&Show=Object
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the University of Pittsburgh for giving
us the resources and inspiration to complete this research. We
would also to thank Ryan Hughs, James Hare and Eric
Stratman for the support and interaction that helped lead us
throughout our research. Finally, we would like to thank Dan
McMillan and Patrick Hessenius for the constant feedback on
the progress of our paper.

5122_Final_Draft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 5122_Final_Draft

Similar to 5122_Final_Draft (20)

5122_Final_Draft