Strength and Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete With FA and GGBS As Source Materials

Strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete
with FA and GGBS as source materials
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
The geopolymer technology is proposed by Davidovits (1978)

gives considerable promise for application in concrete industry as an
alternative binder to the Portland cement .In terms of reducing global
warming, the geopolymer technology could reduce the co 2 emission into the
atmosphere, caused by cement and aggregate industries about 80%.In this
technology ,the source material that is FA and GGBS [Fly Ash and Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace slag] in silicon (si) and aluminum (Al) is reacts with
a highly alkaline solution through the process of geopolymerisation to
produce the binding material . Geopolymer concrete is a new material which
does not need presence of Portland cement as a binder.
The major problem the world is facing today is the

environmental pollution. The production of cement causes emission of CO 2
.There is two different sources of CO 2 during cement production. Combustion
of fossil fuels to operate the rotating kiln is the largest source and other one is
the chemical process of calcimining limestone into lime in the cement kiln
also production CO2 Hendricks et al (2004) carried out emission reduction of
green house gases from the cement industry. Ernest woverell and Lynn price et
al (2002), have reported that CO2 emission from the global cement industry. In
India about 2069738 thousands of metric tons of CO2 is emitted in the year
2010, and also the cement is manufactured by using the raw materials such as
lime stone, clay and other minerals. Quarrying of these raw materials is also
caused environmental degradation. 1.6 tons of raw materials are required to
produce 1 ton of cement. Formation of lime stone takes much longer time than
the rate at which human beings use it.
1.1. General
The cement industry is extremely energy intensive. After
aluminum and steel, the manufacturing of Portland cement is the most
Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 1

energy intensive process as it consumes 4GJ per tons of energy. After

thermal power plants and the iron and steel sector, the India cement industry
is the third largest user of coal in the country. As a consequence, a huge
amount of fly ash (FA) is generated in thermal power plants, causing several
disposals –related problems. Insplit of initiatives taken by the government
,several non-government organization and research and development
organization , the total utilization of FA is only about 50%.India produce
130million ton of FA annually which is expected to reach 175 million ton by
2012 .FA has been successfully used as a mineral admixture component of
Portland pozzolan blended cement for nearly 60years .These is effective
utilization of FA in making cement concrete as it extends technical
advantages as well as controls the environmental pollution.
In this investigation, in order to produce concrete low-calcium fly ash-

based geopolymer is utilized as binder instead Portland cement. The fly ash-
based geopolymer paste binds the loose coarse aggregates, fine aggregate
sand other un-reacted materials together to form the geopolymer concrete,
with or without the presence of admixtures. The manufacture of geopolymer
concrete is carried out using the usual concrete technology methods.

As in the case of OPC concrete, the aggregates occupy

about 75-80 % by mass, in geopolymer concrete. The silicon and the
aluminum in the low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash react with an alkaline
liquid that is a combination of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide
solutions to form the geopolymer paste which binds the aggregate as well as
other un-reacted material.
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-product
from the blast –furnaces used to make iron. GGBS is a glassy, granular, non-
metallic consistency essentially of silicate and aluminate of calcium and
other bases. GGBS has almost the same particle size as cement. GGBS,
often blended with Portland cement as low cast filler, enhance concrete
workability, density, durability and resistance to alkali –silica reaction.
1.1.2. Geopolymer concrete
It is known factor that the production of Portland cement consumes
significant amount of energy and at the same time it releases abundant
quantity of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. The climate change due to
global warming has become a major concern. The global warming is caused
by the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), to the
atmosphere by human activities. The cement industry is held responsible for
some of the CO2 emissions, because the production of one ton of Portland
cement emits approximately one ton of CO2 into the atmosphere
(Davidovits, 1994; McCaffery, 2002). However, Portland cement is still the
main binder in concrete construction prompting a search for more
environmentally friendly materials. Several efforts are in progress to

supplement the use of Portland cement in concrete in order to address the

global warming issues. These include the utilization of supplementary
cementing materials such as fly ash, silica fume, granulated blast furnace
slag, rice-husk ash and metakaolin, and the development of alternative
binders to Portland cement.
One possible alternative is the use of alkali-activated binder using
industrial by-products containing silicate materials. In 1978, Davidovits
(1999) proposed that binders could be produced by a polymeric reaction of
alkaline liquids with the silicon and the aluminium in source materials of
geological origin or by-product materials such as fly ash, GGBS and rice
husk ash. He termed these binders as geopolymer. The most common
industrial by-products used as binder materials are fly ash (FA) and ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS).
In 2001, when this research began, several publications were available
describing geopolymer pastes and geopolymer coating materials (Davidovits
1991; Davidovits et al. 1994; Balaguru, et al. 1997; Davidovits 1999;
Palomo et al. 1999). However, very little was available in the published
literature regarding the use of geopolymer technology to make low-calcium
(ASTM Class F) fly ash and GGBS based geopolymer concrete. The
research reported in this thesis was dedicated to investigate the process of
making fly ash and GGBS based geopolymer concrete and the short-term
engineering properties of the hardened concrete.
1.2. Objectives and scope of investigation

In this investigation “strength and durability properties of geopolymer
concrete with FA and GGBS as source material” have been studied.
The objectives comprises:-
1. To develop a mixture proportioning process to manufacture
low-calcium fly ash and GGBS based geopolymer concrete.
2. To study the influence of ground granulated blast furnaces slag
on geopolymer concrete. The type of geopolymer concrete mixes
are(i)0%FA and 100%GGBS (ii)25% FA and 75% GGBS.(iii) 50% FA
and 50% GGBS (iv) 75% FA and 25% GGBS (v)100%FA and 0%
GGBS

3. To study the short-term engineering properties of hardened low

calcium fly ash and GGBS based geopolymer concrete such as
compressive strength and split tensile strength.
4. To study the durability properties of geopolymer concrete by
conducting RCPT and Water absorption.
6. To study the effect of concentration of alkaline activators
solution in geopolymer concrete. The molar ratio of hydroxide solution
considered in the investigation is 10M.
Based on the experimental results, an attempt is made to

establish an empirical relationship between compressive strength and
split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete prepared with various
proportions of FA: GGBS at different curing periods.
An attempt is also made to compare the cost of one cubic meter
of CC (M45) at 28 days compressive strength.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This Chapter presents the background to the needs for the
development of alternative binders to manufacture concrete. The available
published literature on geopolymer technology is also briefly reviewed.
2.1 Concrete and environment
The emission of CO 2 is a critical factor in general for
the industries, particularly to the cement industries the emission of CO 2
causes green house effect which increases the global temperature that
may result in climate changes. The production of cement is increasing
about 3% annually (McCaffrey, 2002). The production of one ton of
cement liberates about one ton of CO2 to the atmosphere which causes
global warming. The contribution of Portland cement production
worldwide to the greenhouse gas emission is estimated to be about 1.35
billion tons annually or about 7% of the total greenhouse gas emissions
to the earth’s atmosphere (Malhotra, 2002). Cement is also among the
most energy-intensive construction materials, after aluminium and steel.
The durability of ordinary Portland cement is still under examination as
many concrete structures built-in corrosive environmental deteriorate
after 20 to 30 years, even though they have been designed for more than
50 years of service life (Mehta, 2002). In order to produce
environmentally friendly concrete, Mehta (2002) suggested the use of
fewer natural resources, less energy and minimise carbon dioxide
emissions.
Several efforts are in progress to supplement the use of

Portland cement in concrete in order to address the global warming
issues. These include the utilization of supplementary cementing
materials such as fly ash, silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace

slag, rice-husk ash and metakaolin, and the development of alternative

binders to Portland cement. In this respect, the geopolymer technology
shows considerable promise for application in concrete industry as an
alternative binder to the Portland cement (Duxson et al, 2007). In terms
of global warming, the geopolymer technology could significantly
reduce the CO2 emission to the atmosphere caused by the cement
industries as shown by the detailed analyses of (Gartner, 2004).
2.2 Geopolymers
In 1978, Davidovits proposed that an alkaline liquid
could be used to react with the silicon (Si) and the aluminium (Al) in
a source material of geological origin or in by-product materials such
as fly ash and rice husk ash to produce binders. Because the chemical
reaction that takes place in this case is a polymerisation process,
Davidovits (1994, 1999) coined the term ‘Geopolymer’ to represent
these binders.
Geopolymers are members of the family of inorganic
polymers. The chemical composition of natural zeolitic material,
whereas the microstructure is amorphous instead of crystalline
(Palomo et al. 1999; Xu and van Deventer, 2000). The
polymerisation process involves a substantially fast chemical
reaction under alkaline condition on Si-Al minerals that results in a
three dimensional polymeric chain and ring structure consisting of
Si-O-Al-O bonds.
Geopolymerization involves the chemical reaction of
alumino-silicate oxides (Si2O5, Al2O2) with alkali polysilicates
yielding polymeric Si – O – Al bonds. Polysilicates are generally
sodium or potassium silicate supplied by chemical industry or
manufactured fine silica powder as a by-product of ferro-silicon
metallurgy. Unlike ordinary Portland/pozzolanic cements,
geopolymers do not form calciumsilicate-hydrates (CSHs) for matrix

formation and strength, but utilise the polycondensation of silica and

alumina precursors and a high alkali content to attain structural
strength. Hence, geopolymers are sometimes referred to as alkali
activated alumino silicate binders (Davidovits, 1994a; Palomo et. al.,
1999; Roy, 1999; van Jaarsveld et. al., 2002a).
2.3 Constituents of geopolymer
2.3.1 Source materials
There are two main constituents of geopolymers,
namely the source materials and the alkaline liquids. The source
materials for geopolymers based on alumina-silicate should be rich in
silicon (Si) and aluminium (Al). These could be natural minerals
such as kaolinite, clays, micas, andalousite, spinel, etc whose
empirical formula contains Si, Al, and oxygen (O) (Davidovits,
1988c). Alternatively, by-product materials such as fly ash, silica
fume, slag, rice-husk ash, red mud, etc could be used as source
materials. The choice of the source materials for making
geopolymers depends on factors such as availability, cost, and type
of application and specific demand of the end users. Among the
waste or by-product materials, fly ash and GGBS are the most
potential source of geopolymers. Low calcium (ASTM Class F) fly
ash is preferred as a source material instand of high calcium (ASTM
Class C) fly ash. The presence of calcium in high amount may
interfere with the polymerisation process and alter the microstructure
(Gourley 2003).
2.3.2 Alkali activators
The most common alkaline activator used in
geopolymerisation is a combination of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or
potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium silicate or potassium
silicate (Davidovits 1999). Palomo et al (1999) concluded that the
type of activator plays an important role in the polymerisation
process. Reactions occur at a high rate when the alkaline activator
contains soluble silicate, either sodium or potassium silicate,

compared to the use of only alkaline hydroxides. Xu and van

Deventer (2000) confirmed that the addition of sodium silicate
solution to the sodium hydroxide solution as the alkaline activator
enhanced the reaction between the source material and the solution.
Furthermore, after a study of the geopolymerisation of sixteen
natural Al-Si minerals, they found that generally the NaOH solution
caused a higher extent of dissolution of minerals than the KOH
solution.
A combination of sodium silicate solution and
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution can be used as the alkaline
liquid. It is recommended that the alkaline liquid is prepared by
mixing both the solutions together at least 24 hours prior to use. The
sodium silicate solution is commercially available in different grades.
The sodium silicate solution A53 with SiO2-to-Na2O ratio by mass of
approximately 2, i.e., SiO2 = 29.4%, Na2O = 14.7%, and water =
55.9% by mass, is generally used. The sodium hydroxide with 97-
98% purity, in flake or pellet form, is commercially available. The
solids must be dissolved in water to make a solution with the
required concentration.
The concentration of sodium hydroxide solution can
vary in the range between 8 Molar and 16 Molar; however, 8 Molar
solution is adequate for most applications. The mass of NaOH solids
in a solution varies depending on the concentration of the solution.
For instance, NaOH solution with a concentration of 8 Molar consists
of 8x40 = 320 grams of NaOH solids per litre of the solution, where
40 is the molecular weight of NaOH. Note that the mass of water is
the major component in both the alkaline solutions. In order to
improve the workability, a high range water reducer super plasticizer
and extra water may be added to the mixture. The aggregate both
coarse and fine employed by the concrete industry are also suitable to
produce geopolymer concrete. The aggregate grading curves
currently used in concrete practice are applicable in the case of

geopolymer concrete (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Wallah and

Rangan, 2006; Sumajouw and Rangan, 2006; Gourey, 2003;
Siddiqui, 2007).
2.4 Mixture proportion of geopolymer concrete

The primary depends between Portland cement concrete
and geopolymer concrete is the binder. The silicon and aluminum
oxides in the low-calcium fly ash and GGBS reacts with the alkaline
liquid to form the geopolymer paste that binds the loose coarse
aggregates, fine aggregates, and other un-reacted materials together to
form the geopolymer concrete. As in the case of Portland cement
concrete, the coarse and fine aggregates occupy about 75 to 80% of
the mass of geopolymer concrete. The tools currently available for the
design of Portland cement concrete can be made use of to prepare
geopolymer concrete mixes.
The compressive strength and the workability of
geopolymer concrete are influenced by the proportions and properties
of the constituent materials that make the geopolymer paste.
Experimental results of Hardjito and Rangan (2005) on geopolymer
concrete have shown the following:
 Higher concentration (in terms of molar) of sodium hydroxide
solution results in higher compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete.
 Higher the ratio of sodium silicate solution-to-sodium hydroxide
solution by mass, higher is the compressive strength of
geopolymer material.
 The addition of naphthalene sulphonate-based super plasticizer, up
to approximately 4% of fly ash by mass, improves the
workability of the fresh geopolymer concrete; however, there is a
slight degradation in the compressive strength of hardened concrete
when the super plasticizer dosage is greater than 2%.

 The slump value of the fresh geopolymer concrete increases

when the water content of the mixture increases.
 As the H2O-to-Na2O molar ratio increases, the compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete decreases.
As can be seen from the above, the interaction of various
parameters on the compressive strength and the workability of
geopolymer concrete is complex. In order to assist the design of low-
calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete mixtures, a single
parameter called ‘water-to-geopolymer solids ratio’ by mass was
devised. In this parameter, the total mass of water is the sum of the
mass of water contained in the sodium silicate solution, the mass of
water used in the making of the sodium hydroxide solution, and the
mass of extra water, if any, present in the mixture. The mass of
geopolymer solids is the sum of the mass of fly ash, the mass of
sodium hydroxide solids used to make the sodium hydroxide solution,
and the mass of solids in the sodium silicate solution (i.e. the mass of
Na2O and SiO2). Test were carried out to establish effect of water-to-
geopolymer solids ratio by mass on the workability and compressive
strength and geopolymer concrete. Obviously, as the water-to-
geopolymer solids ratio increased, the workability increased as the
mixtures contained more water (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005).
Rajmane (2006) studied the effect of geopolymeric
binders such as GGBS and FA by activating silicon dioxide and
aluminium oxide present in the binders, to form inorganic polymer
binder system. This binder system can be used to produce concretes
containing river sand as fine aggregate and coarse aggregate in the
form of either sintered FA aggregates (SFFA) or crushed granite
aggregates (CGA). It was concluded that the lightweight aggregate
based geopolymer concrete have one day compressive strength of
about 35 MPa and a 28 days strength of more than 50 MPa. CGA
based geopolymer concretes produced marginally higher compressive
strength of about 45 MPa at one day and 65 MPa at 28 days.

2.5 GPC mix design

Rangan and Hardjito (2005) have noted that unlike
conventional cement concretes GPCs are a new class of construction
materials and therefore no standard mix design approaches are yet
available for GPCs. While GPC involves more constituents in its binder
(viz., FA, GGBS, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide and water), whose
interactions and final structure and chemical composition are under
intense research whereas the chemistry of Portland cement and its
structure and chemical composition (before and after hydration) are well
established due to extensive research carried out over more than century.
While the strength of cement concrete is known to be well
related to its water-cement ratio, such a simplistic formulation may not
hold good for GPCs. Hence, the formulation of GPC has to be made by
trial and error basis. The role and the influence of aggregates are
considered to be the same as in the case of Portland cement concrete.
The mass of combined aggregates may be taken to be between 75% and
80% of the mass of geopolymer concrete. The performance criteria of a
geopolymer concrete mixture depend on the application. For simplicity,
the compressive strength of hardened concrete and the workability of
fresh concrete are selected as the performance criteria. In order to meet
these performance criteria, the alkaline liquid-to-fly ash ratio by mass,
water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass, the wet-mixing time, the
heat-curing temperature, and the heat-curing time are selected as
parameters. The alkaline liquid-to-fly ash ratio values by mass in the
range of 0.30 and 0.45 are recommended.
Sodium silicate solution is cheaper than sodium
hydroxide solids. Commercially available sodium silicate solution A53
with SiO2-to-Na2O ratio by mass of approximately 2, i.e., Na 2O =
14.7%, SiO2 = 29.4%, and water = 55.9% by mass, and sodium
hydroxide solids (NaOH) with 97-98% purity are recommended.
Laboratory experience suggests that the ratio of sodium silicate solution-

to-sodium hydroxide solution by mass may be taken approximately as

2.5 (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005).
Mixture proportion of heat-cured low-calcium fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete with design compressive strength of 45 MPa
is needed for precast concrete products as follows:Assume that normal-
density aggregates in SSD condition are to be used and the unit-weight
of concrete is 2400 kg/m3. Take the mass of combined aggregates as 77%
of the mass of concrete, i.e. 0.77x2400 = 1848 kg/m3. The combined
aggregates may be selected to match the standard grading curves used in
the design of Portland cement concrete mixtures. For instance, the
aggregates may comprise 277 kg/m3 (15%) of 20 mm aggregates, 370
kg/m3 (20%) of 14 mm aggregates, 647 kg/m3 (35%) of 7 mm
aggregates, and 554 kg/m3 (30%) of fine sand are required to meet the
reauirements of standard grading curves. The fineness modulus of the
combined aggregates is approximately 5.0.
The mass of low-calcium fly ash and the alkaline liquid =
2400 – 1848 = 552 kg/m3. Take the alkaline liquid-to-fly ash ratio by
mass as 0.35; the mass of fly ash = 552/ (1+0.35) = 408 kg/m 3 and the
mass of alkaline liquid = 552 – 408 = 144 kg/m 3. Take the ratio of
sodium silicate solution-to-sodium hydroxide solution by mass as 2.5;
the mass of sodium hydroxide solution = 144/ (1+2.5) = 41 kg/m 3; the
mass of sodium silicate solution = 144 – 41 =103 kg/m3.
Therefore, the trial mixture proportion is as follow:
combined aggregates = 1848 kg/m3, low-calcium fly ash = 408 kg/m3,
sodium silicate solution = 103 kg /m 3, and sodium hydroxide solution =
41 kg/m3.
The sodium hydroxide solids (NaOH) with 97-98%
purity is purchased from commercial sources, and mixed with water to
make a solution with a concentration of 8 Molar. This solution comprises
26.2% of NaOH solids and 73.8% water, by mass. For the trial mixture,
water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass is calculated as follows: In
sodium silicate solution, water = 0.559x103 = 58 kg, and solids = 103 –

58 = 45 kg. In sodium hydroxide solution, solids = 0.262x41 = 11 kg,

and water = 41 – 11 = 30 kg. Therefore, total mass of water =58+30 = 88
kg, and the mass of geopolymer solids = 408 (i.e. mass of fly ash)
+45+11 = 464 kg. Hence, the water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass =
88/464 = 0.19. For water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass of 0.19, the
design compressive strength is approximately 45 MPa, as needed.
The geopolymer concrete mixture proportion is therefore as
follows: 20 mm aggregates = 277 kg/m3, 14 mm aggregates = 370 kg/m3,
7 mm aggregates = 647 kg/m3, fine sand = 554 kg/m3, low-calcium fly
ash (ASTM Class F) = 408 kg/m3, sodium silicate solution (Na2O =
14.7%, SiO2 = 29.4%, and water = 55.9% by mass) = 103 kg/m 3, and
sodium hydroxide solution (8 Molar) = 41 kg/m 3 ( Note so as to the 8
Molar sodium hydroxide solution is complete by mixing 11 kg of sodium
hydroxide solids with 97-98% cleanliness in 30 kg of water).
Geopolymer concrete can be manufactured by adopting
the conventional techniques used in the manufacture of Portland cement
concrete. It is recommended that the alkaline liquid is prepared by
mixing both the solutions together at least 24 hours prior to use. In the
laboratory, the fly ash and the aggregates were first mixed together dry in
80-litre capacity pan mixer for about three minutes. The aggregates were
prepared in saturated-surface-dry (SSD) condition. The alkaline liquid
was mixed with the superplasticiser (SP) and the extra water, if any. The
liquid component of the mixture was then added to the dry materials and
the mixing continued usually for another four minutes. The fresh
concrete could be handled up to 120 minutes without any sign of setting
and without any degradation in the compressive strength. The fresh
concrete was cast and compacted by the usual methods used in the case
of Portland cement concrete (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005). Fresh fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete was usually cohesive. The conventional
slump test is used for measuring the workability of concrete.
2.6 Properties of GPC

Several factors have been identified as important

parameters affecting the properties of geopolymers. Palomo et al
(1999) concluded that the curing temperature was a reaction
accelerator in fly ash-based geopolymers, and significantly affected
the mechanical strength, together with the curing time and the type
of alkaline activator. Previous studies have reported that heat-cured
geopolymer concrete possesses the properties of high compressive
strength, low drying shrinkage and creep, and good resistance to
sulfate and acid (Rangan BV, 2004). Sarker et al (2004) studied the
fracture mechanics of heat cured fly ash based geopolymer concrete
and they concluded that the denser interfacial transition zone of
GPC resulted in higher critical stress intensity factor and more
brittle type of failure with smoother fracture plane as compared to
OPC concrete.
Van Jaarsveld et al (2002) concluded that the water
content, and the curing and calcining condition of kaolin clay
affected the properties of geopolymers. However, they also stated
that curing at too high temperature caused cracking and a negative
effect on the properties of the material. Finally, they suggested the
use of mild curing to improve the physical properties of the
material. In another report, van Jaarsveld et al (2003) stated that the
source materials determine the properties of geopolymers,
especially the CaO content, and the water-to-fly ash ratio.
Based on the study of geopolymerisation of sixteen
natural Si-Al minerals, Xu and van Deventer (2000) reported that
factors such as the percentage of CaO, K2O, and the molar Si-to-Al
ratio in the source material, the type of alkali activator, the extent of
dissolution of Si, and the molar Si-to-Al ratio in solution
significantly influenced the compressive strength of geopolymers.
Alkaline activator that contained soluble silicates was proved to
increase the rate of reaction compared to alkaline solutions that
contained only hydroxide (Xu and van Deventer, 2000).

The results of recent studies have shown the potential

use of heat-cured fly ash based geopolymer concrete as a
construction material (Rangan BV, 2004). Fly ash blended with blast
furnace slag (Nath and Sarker, 2012) and rice husk ash (Wongpa et
al., 2010) has also been used as the base material for geopolymer.
Adding slag up to 30% of the total binder achieved compressive
strength of concrete up to 55 MPa and that of mortar up to 63 MPa
at 28 days (Nath and Sarker, 2012). Based on laboratory tests,
Davidovits (1988b) reported that geopolymer cement can harden
rapidly at room temperature and gain the compressive strength in
the range of 20 MPa after only 4 hours at 20oC and 70-100 MPa
after 28 days. Comrie et. al. (1988) conducted tests on geopolymer
mortars and reported that most of the 28- day strength was gained
during the first 2 days of curing.
The presence of alkalis in the normal Portland
cement or concrete could generate dangerous Alkali-Aggregate-
Reaction. However the geopolymeric system is safe from that
phenomenon even with higher alkali content. As demonstrated by
Davidovits (1994a; 1994b), based on ASTM C227 bar expansion
test, geopolymer cements with much higher alkali content compared
to Portland cement did not generate any dangerous alkali-aggregate
reaction .
Geopolymer cement is also acid-resistant. Geopolymer

cements do not rely on lime. They are not dissolved by acidic
solutions. As shown by the tests of exposing the specimens in 5% of
sulfuric acid and chloric acid, geopolymer cements were relatively
stable with the weight lose in the range of 5-8% while the Portland
based cements were destroyed and the calcium alumina cement lost
weight about 30-60% (Davidovits, 1994b). Some recently published
papers (Bakharev, 2005c; Gourley & Johnson, 2005; Song et. al.,
2005a) also reported the result of the tests on acid confrontation of

geopolymers and geopolymer concrete. By observing the weight loss

after acid exposure, these researchers concluded that geopolymers or
geopolymer concrete is superior to Portland cement concrete in terms
of acid resistance as the weight loss is much lower.
2.7 Fields of application

According to Davidovits (1988b), geopolymeric
materials have a wide range of applications in the field of industries
such as in the automobile and aerospace, nonferrous foundries and
metallurgy, civil engineering and plastic industries. The type of
application of geopolymeric materials is determined by the chemical
structure in terms of the atomic ratio Si:Al in the polysialate. Davidovits
(1999) classified the type of application according to the Si:Al ratio as
presented in Table 2.1. A low ratio of Si:Al of 1, 2, or 3 initiates a 3D-
Network that is very rigid, while Si:Al ratio higher than 15 provides a
polymeric character to the geopolymeric material. It can be seen from
Table 2.1 that for many applications in the civil engineering field a low
Si:Al ratio is suitable.
Table 2.1 Applications of geopolymeric materials based on Si:Al atomic

ratio
Si:Al ratio Applications
1 - Bricks
- Ceramics
- Fire protection
2 - Concretes and low CO2 cements

- Toxic waste encapsulation and radioactive
3 - Fire protection
- Foundry equipments
- Heat resistant composites, 2000C to 10000C
- Tooling for aeronautics titanium process

>3 - Sealants for industry, 2000C to 6000C

- Tooling for aeronautics SPF aluminium
20-35 - Fire resistant and heat resistant fibre composites
One of the potential fields of application of

geopolymeric materials is in toxic waste management because
geopolymers behave similar to zeolitic materials that have been known
for their ability to absorb the toxic chemical wastes (Davidovits,
1988b). Another application of geopolymer is in the strengthening of
concrete structural elements. Balaguru et. al. (1997) reported the results
of the investigation on using geopolymers, instead of organic polymers,
for fastening carbon fabrics to surfaces of reinforced concrete beams. It
was found that geopolymer provided excellent adhesion to both
concrete surface and in the interlaminar of fabrics. In addition, the
researchers observed that geopolymer was fire resistant, did not degrade
under UV light, and was chemically compatible with concrete.
In Australia, the geopolymer technology has been used

to develop sewer pipeline products, railway sleepers, building products
including fire and chemically resistant wall panels, masonry units,
protective coatings and repairs materials, shotcrete and high
performance fibre reinforced laminates (Gourley, 2003; Gourley and
Johnson, 2005).
2.8 Fly ash

2.8.1 Introduction
Fly ash (FA) is a by-product of the combustion of
pulverized coal in thermal power plants. It is a fine grained, powdery and
glassy particulate material that is collected from the exhaust gases by
electrostatic precipitators or bag filters. When pulverised coal is burnt to
generate heat, the residue contains 80 per cent fly ash and 20 per cent
bottom ash. The size of particles is largely dependent on the type of dust

collection equipment. Diameter of fly ash particles ranges from less than
1 μm–150 μm. It is generally finer than Portland cement. Their surface
area is typically 300 to 500 m 2/kg, although some fly ashes can have
surface areas as low as 200 m2/kg and as high as 700 m2/kg. However,
the effect of increase in specific surface area beyond 600 m2/kg is
reported to be insignificant.
Fly ash is primarily silicate glass containing silica,
alumina, iron, and calcium. The relative density or specific gravity of fly
ash generally ranges between 1.9 and 2.8 and the colour is generally gray
or tans (Halstead, 1986). The types and relative amounts of
incombustible material in the coal used help in the determination of
chemical composition of fly ash. Depending upon the source and
makeup of the coal being burnt, the components of fly ash vary
considerably, but all fly ash includes substantial amounts of silicon
dioxide (SiO2) (both amorphous and crystalline), aluminium oxide
(Al2O3) and calcium oxide (CaO).
Based on the chemical composition, fly ash is pozzolanic
and some times self-cementitious in nature and it undergoes a
“pozzolanic reaction” with the lime (calcium hydroxide) created by the
hydration of cement and water, to create the same binder (calcium
silicate hydrate ) as cement (Siddique et al., 2011).
2.8.2 Fly ash in concrete
One of the efforts to produce more environmentally
friendly concrete is to reduce the use of OPC by partially replacing the
amount of cement in concrete with by-products materials such as fly ash.
As a cement replacement, fly ash plays the role of an artificial pozzolan,
where its silicon dioxide content reacts with the calcium hydroxide from
the cement hydration process to form the calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-
H) gel. The spherical shape of fly ash often helps to improve the
workability of the fresh concrete, while its small particle size also plays
as filler of voids in the concrete, hence to produce dense and durable

concrete. Generally, the effective amount of cement that can be replaced

by fly ash is not more than 30% (Neville 2000).
An important achievement in the use of fly ash in concrete is
the development of high volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete that
successfully replaces the use of OPC in concrete up to 60% and yet
possesses excellent mechanical properties with enhanced durability
performance. HVFA concrete has been proved to be more durable and
resource-efficient than the OPC concrete (Malhotra, 2002). The HVFA
technology has been put into practice, for example the construction of
roads in India, which implemented 50% OPC replacement by the fly ash
(Desai, 2004).
Activation of fly ash with alkaline solutions enables this by-
product material to be a cement-like construction material. In this case,
concrete binder can be produced without using any OPC; in other words,
the role of OPC can be totally replaced by the activated fly ash. Palomo
et al (1999) described two different models of the activation of fly ash or
other by-product materials. For the first model, the silicon and the
calcium in the material is activated by a low to mild concentration of
alkaline solution. The main product of the reaction is believed to be a
calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) that results from the hydration process.
On the contrary, the material used in the second model contains mostly
silicon and aluminium, and is activated by a highly alkaline solution. The
chemical process in this case is polymerisation.
2.9 Ground granulated blast furnace slag
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-
product from the blast-furnaces used to make iron. These operate at a
temperature of about 1,500 degrees centigrade and are fed with a carefully
controlled mixture of iron-ore, coke and limestone. The iron ore is reduced
to iron and the remaining materials form a slag that floats on top of the
iron. This slag is periodically tapped off as a molten liquid and if it is to be
used for the manufacture of GGBS it has to be rapidly quenched in large
volumes of water. The quenching, optimizes the cementations properties

and produces granules similar to a coarse sand. The dried ‘granulated slag’
is ground to a fine powder. GGBS is the one of the ‘greenest’ materials
used in construction industry.
As well as the environmental benefit of utilizing a by-
product, GGBS replaces something that is produced by a highly energy-
intensive process. By comparison with Portland cement, manufacture of
GGBS requires less than a fifth the energy and produces less than a
fifteenth of the carbon dioxide emissions. Further 'green' benefits are that
manufacture of GGBS does not require the quarrying of virgin materials,
and if the slag was not used as cement it might have to be disposed of to
tip.
The major uses of GGBS is in concrete include:better
workability, making placing and compaction easier, lower early-age
temperature rise, reducing the risk of thermal cracking, high resistance to
chloride ingress, reducing the risk of reinforcement corrosion, high
resistance to attack by sulphate and other chemicals, considerable
sustainability benefits.

CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND MIX DESIGN
3.1. MATERIALS
Although geopolymer concrete can be made using various
source materials, the present study used Class F fly ash and GGBS. Also,
as in the case of OPC, the aggregates occupied 75-80 % of the total mass
of concrete. The following sections discuss constituent materials used for
manufacturing GPC. Chemical and physical properties of the constituent
materials are presented in this section.
3.1.1. FLY ASH
According to ASTM C 618 (2003), Class F fly ash produced from
Rayalaseema Thermal Power Plant (RTPP), Muddanur, A.P. was used. The
chemical and physical properties are presented in the Table 3.1.
Fly ash (FA) is a by-product of the combustion of pulverized
coal in thermal power plants. It is a fine grained, powdery and glassy
particulate material that is collected from the exhaust gases by
electrostatic precipitators or bag filters. When pulverised coal is burnt to
generate heat, the residue contains 80 per cent fly ash and 20 per cent
bottom ash. The size of particles is largely dependent on the type of dust
collection equipment. Diameter of fly ash particles ranges from less than
1 μm–150 μm. It is generally finer than Portland cement. Their surface
area is typically 300 to 500 m2/kg, although some fly ashes can have
surface areas as low as 200 m2/kg and as high as 700 m2/kg. However, the
effect of increase in specific surface area beyond 600 m 2/kg is reported to
be insignificant. Fly ash is primarily silicate glass containing silica,
alumina, iron, and calcium. The relative density or specific gravity of fly
ash generally ranges between 1.9 and 2.8 and the colour is generally gray
or tans (Halstead, 1986). The types and relative amounts of incombustible
material in the coal help in the determination of chemical composition of

fly ash. Depending upon the source and makeup of the coal being burnt,
the components of fly ash vary considerably, but all fly ash includes
substantial amounts of silicon dioxide (SiO 2) (both amorphous and
crystalline), aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and calcium oxide (CaO).
Based on the chemical composition, fly ash is pozzolanic and
sometimes self-cementitious in nature and it undergoes a “pozzolanic
reaction” with the lime (calcium hydroxide) created by the hydration of
cement and water, to create the same binder (calcium silicate hydrate ) as
cement (Siddique et al., 2011).
One of the efforts to produce more environmentally friendly
concrete is to reduce the use of OPC by partially replacing the amount of
cement in concrete with by-products materials . As a cement replacement,
fly ash plays the role of an artificial pozzolan, where its silicon dioxide
content reacts with the calcium hydroxide from the cement hydration
process to form the calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel. The spherical
shape of fly ash often helps to improve the workability of the fresh
concrete, while its small particle size also plays as filler of voids in the
concrete, hence to produce dense and durable concrete. Generally, the
effective amount of cement that can be replaced by fly ash is not more than
30% (Neville, 2000).
An important achievement in the use of fly ash in concrete
is the development of high volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete that
successfully replaces the use of OPC in concrete up to 60% and yet
possesses excellent mechanical properties with enhanced durability
performance. HVFA concrete has been proved to be more durable and
resource-efficient than the OPC concrete (Malhotra 2002). The HVFA
technology has been put into practice, for example the construction of roads
in India, which implemented 50% OPC replacement by the fly ash (Desai
2004).
Activation of fly ash with alkaline solutions enables this by-
product material to be a cement-like construction material. In this case,
concrete binder can be produced without using any OPC; in other words, the
role of OPC can be totally replaced by the activated fly ash. Palomo et al
(1999) described two different models of the activation of fly ash or other by-

product materials. For the first model, the silicon and the calcium in the
material is activated by a low to mild concentration of alkaline solution. The
main product of the reaction is believed to be a calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-
H) that results from the hydration process. On the contrary, the material used
in the second model contains mostly silicon and aluminium, and is activated
by a highly alkaline solution. The chemical process in this case is
polymerisation.
3.1.2. GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG
In the present investigation, GGBS produced from the Vizag steel
plant was used in the manufacturing of GPC. The chemical and physical
properties are presented in the Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Chemical and physical properties of Class F fly ash and GGBS
Class F fly ASTM C 618 Class F GGBS

Particulars
ash fly ash
Chemical composition
% Silica(SiO2) 65.6 30.61

% Alumina(Al2O3) 28.0 16.24
SiO2+ Al2O3+ 0.584
% Iron Oxide(Fe2O3) 3.0
Fe2O3>70
% Lime(CaO) 1.0 34.48
% Magnesia(MgO) 1.0 6.79
-
% Titanium Oxide (TiO2) 0.5
1.85
% Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 0.2 Max. 5.0
Loss on Ignition 0.29 Max. 6.0 2.1

Physical properties
Specific gravity 2.12 2.9
Fineness (m2/Kg) 360 Min.225 m2/kg 400
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-product

from the blast-furnaces used to make iron. These operate at a temperature of

about 1,500 degrees centigrade and are fed with a carefully controlled mixture
of iron-ore, coke and limestone. The iron ore is reduced to iron and the
remaining materials form a slag that floats on top of the iron. This slag is
periodically tapped off as a molten liquid and if it is to be used for the
manufacture of GGBS, it has to be rapidly quenched in large volumes of water.
The quenching, optimises the cementitious properties and produces granules
similar to a coarse sand. This ‘granulated slag’ is then dried out and ground to a
fine powder. GGBS is one of the ‘greenest’ of construction materials as well as
the environmental benefit of utilizing a by-product, GGBS replaces something
that is produced by a highly energy-intensive process. By comparison with
Portland cement, manufacture of GGBS requires less than a one fifth of the
energy and produces less than a fifteenth of the carbon dioxide emissions.
Further 'green' benefits are that manufacture of GGBS does not require
the quarrying of virgin materials, and if the slag was not used as cement it
might have to be disposed of to tip. The major uses of GGBS is in concrete
include: better workability, making, placing and compaction easier, lower
early-age temperature rise, reducing the risk of thermal cracking, high
resistance to chloride ingress, reducing the risk of reinforcement corrosion,
high resistance to attack by sulphate and other chemicals, considerable
sustainability benefits.
3.1.3. COURSE AGGREGATE
Crushed granite stones of size 20 mm and 10 mm were used as
coarse aggregate. The bulk specific gravity in oven dry condition and water
absorption of the coarse aggregate 20 mm and 10mm as per IS 2386 (Part
III, 1963) were 2.58 and 0.30% respectively.
The gradation of the coarse aggregate of size 20mm and
10mm was determined by sieve analysis as per IS 383 (1970) and presented
in the Tables 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. The grading curves of the coarse
aggregates as per IS 383 (1970) are shown in Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 respectively.
Table 3.2. Sieve analysis of 20 mm coarse aggregate
Sieve size Cumulative percent passing
20 mm IS 383 (1970) limits

20 mm 100 85-100
16 mm 56.17 N/A
12.5 mm 22.32 N/A
10 mm 5.29 0-20
4.75 mm 0
Table 3.3. Sieve analysis of 10 mm coarse aggregate
Sieve size Cumulative Percentage passing
10 mm IS 383 (1970) limits
10 mm 99.68 85-100
4.75 mm 8.76 0-20
2.36 mm 2.4 0-5

Fig. 3.1 Grading curve of coarse aggregate of size 20mm
Fig. 3.2 Grading curve of coarse aggregate of size 10mm

3.1.4. FINE AGGREGATE
Natural river sand was used as fine aggregate. The bulk specific
gravity in oven dry condition and water absorption of the sand as per IS
2386 (Part III, 1963) were 2.62 and 1% respectively. The gradation of the

sand was determined by sieve analysis as per IS 383 (1970) and presented in
the Table 3.4. The grading curve of the fine aggregate as per IS 383 (1970) is
shown in Fig. 3.3. Fineness modulus of sand was found to be 2.69.
Table 3.4. Sieve analysis of fine aggregate
Sieve No. Cumulative percent passing

IS: 383-1970 – Zone II
Fine aggregate
requirement
3/8” (10mm) 100 100
No.4 (4.75mm) 98.8 90-100
No.8 (2.36mm) 96.8 75-100
No.16 (1.18mm) 70.8 55-90
No.30 (600μm) 48.2 35-59
No.50 (300μm) 14.4 8-30
No.100 (150μm) 2.0 0-10
Fig. 3.3 Grading curve of fine aggregate
3.1.5. ALKALINE LIQUIDE

The alkaline liquid used was a combination of sodium silicate
solution and sodium hydroxide solution. The sodium silicate solution (Na2O=
13.7%, SiO2=29.4%, and water=55.9% by mass) was purchased from a local
supplier. The sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in flakes or pellets from with 97%-
98% purity was also purchased from a local supplier. The sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) solution was prepared by dissolving either the flakes or the pellets in
water. The mass of NaOH solids in a solution diverse depending on the
concentration of the solution which is expressed in terms of molar, M. For
instance, NaOH solution with a concentration of 10M consisted of 10x40 =
400 grams of NaOH solids (in flake or pellet form) per litre of the solution,
where 40 is the molecular weight of NaOH.
3.2. Test conducted on fly ash
 The following test is conducted on fly ash
(i) Specific gravity
Result:-
The specific gravity of fly ash=2.133
3.3. Test conducted on ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)
 The following test is conducted on GGBS
Result:-
The specific gravity of GGBS=2.92
3.4. Tests conducted on fine aggregate
 The following tests are conducted on fine aggregate
(ii) Water absorption
(iii) Finesse modulus
Result:-
The specific gravity of fine aggregate=2.415
Water absorption for fine aggregate=1%
Finesse modulus of fine aggregate=2.47
3.5. Tests conducted on coarse aggregate
 The following tests are conducted on coarse aggregate of size 10mm
and 20mm
(ii) Water absorption
(iii) Finesse modulus
Result:-
The specific gravity of coarse aggregate =2.16
Water absorption for 10mm coarse aggregate=0.3%
Water absorption for 20mm coarse aggregate=0.3%
Finesse modulus for 10mm coarse aggregate=5.89
Finesse modulus for 20mm coarse aggregate=6.95
3.6. Mix design

Based on the limited past research on GPC (Hardjito & Rangan,

2005), the following proportions were selected for the constituents of the
mixtures.
 The combined mass of coarse and fine aggregates has taken as 77% of the
mass of concrete.
 Ratio of activator solution-to-fly ash and GGBS, by mass, in the range of 0.3
and 0.4. This ratio was fixed at 0.35.
 Class F fly ash and GGBS (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50;
FA75-GGBS25; FA0-GGBS100).
 Ratio of sodium silicate solution-to-sodium hydroxide solution, by mass, of
0.4 to 2.5. This ratio was fixed at 2.5 for most of the mixtures, because the
sodium silicate solution is considerably cheaper than the sodium hydroxide
solution.
 Molarity of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution was kept at 10M.
 Calculate water-to-geopolymer solids.
 Extra water, when added, in mass.
The following scenario describes the GPC mix design of the present study:
Assume that normal-density aggregates in SSD condition are
to be used and the unit-weight of concrete is 2400 kg/m 3. Take the mass of
combined aggregates as 77% of the mass of concrete, i.e. 0.77x2400=1848
kg/m3. The combined aggregates may be selected to match the standard
grading curves used in the design of Portland cement concrete mixtures. For
instance, the coarse aggregates (70%) may comprise 776 kg/m3 (60%) of 20
mm aggregates, 517 kg/m3 (40%) of 10 mm aggregates, and 554 kg/m3
(30%) of fine aggregate to meet the requirements of standard grading curves.
After considering the water absorption values of coarse and fine
aggregates, the adjusted values of coarse and fine aggregates are 774 kg/m3 of
20 mm aggregates, 516 kg/m3 of 10 mm aggregates and 549 kg/m3 (30%) of
fine aggregate.
The mass of geopolymer binders (fly ash and GGBS) and the
alkaline liquid = 2400 – 1848 = 552 kg/m 3. Take the alkaline liquid-to-fly ash
ratio by mass as 0.35; the mass of fly ash = 552/ (1+0.35) = 409 kg/m 3 and

the mass of alkaline liquid = 552 – 409 = 143 kg/m 3. Take the ratio of sodium
silicate solution-to-sodium hydroxide solution by mass as 2.5; the mass of
sodium hydroxide solution = 144/ (1+2.5) = 41 kg/m3; the mass of sodium
silicate solution = 143 – 41 =102 kg/m3. The sodium hydroxide solid (NaOH)
is mixed with water to make a solution with a concentration of 10 Molar. This
solution comprises 40% of NaOH solids and 60% water, by mass.
For the trial mixture, water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass
is calculated as follows: In sodium silicate solution, water = 0.559x102 = 57
kg, and solids = 102 – 57 = 45 kg. In sodium hydroxide solution, solids =
0.40x41 = 16 kg, and water = 41 – 16 = 25 kg. Therefore, total mass of water
= 57+25 = 82 kg, and the mass of geopolymer solids = 409 (i.e. mass of fly
ash and GGBS) + 45 + 16 = 470 kg. Hence, the water-to-geopolymer solids
ratio by mass = 82/470 = 0.17. Extra water of 55 litres is calculated on trial
basis to get adequate workability.
M45 grade of conventional concrete (CC) has been designed (refer
Appendix (B) as per IS 10262 (2009) and IS 456 (2000) for comparative
study.
The CC and geopolymer concrete mixture proportions are given as follows:
Table 3.5. GPC mix proportions

Mass (kg/m3)
M4 FA0- FA25- FA50- FA75- FA100-
Materials
5 GGBS100 GGBS75 GGBS50 GGBS25 GGBS0
Coarse 20mm 606 776 776 776 776 776
aggregate 10mm 404 517 517 517 517 517
Fine aggregate 625 554 554 554 554 554
Cement 533 0 0 0 0 0
Fly ash (Class F) 0 0 102.2 204.5 306.7 409

GGBS 0 409 306.7 204.5 102.2 0

Sodiu silicate solution 0 102 102 102 102 102
Sodium hydroxide 0 41 (10M) 41(10M) 41 (10M) 41 (10M) 41(10M)
solution
Extra water 0 55 55 55 55 55
Alkaline solution/ 0 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
(FA+GGBS) (by weight)
Water/ geopolymer 0 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
solids
(by weight)
3.6.1. Factors affecting the properties of GPC

Several factors have been identified as important parameters affecting
the properties of geopolymers. Palomo et al (1999) concluded that the curing
temperature was a reaction accelerator in fly ash-based geopolymers, and
significantly affected the mechanical strength, together with the curing time and
the type of alkaline activator. Higher curing temperature and longer curing time
were proved to result in higher compressive strength. Alkaline activator that
contained soluble silicates was proved to increase the rate of reaction compared to
alkaline solutions that contained only hydroxide.
Van Jaarsveld et al (2002) concluded that the water content, and the
curing and calcining condition of kaolin clay affected the properties of
geopolymers. However, they also stated that curing at too high temperature caused
cracking and a negative effect on the properties of the material. Finally, they
suggested the use of mild curing to improve the physical properties of the
material. In another report, van Jaarsveld et al (2003) stated that the source
materials determine the properties of geopolymers, especially the CaO content,
and the water-to-fly ash ratio. Based on the study of geopolymerisation of sixteen
natural Si-Al minerals, Xu and van Deventer (2000) reported that factors such as
the percentage of CaO, K2O, and the molar Si-to-Al ratio in the source material,
the type of alkali activator, the extent of dissolution of Si, and the molar Si-to-Al
ratio in solution significantly influenced the compressive strength of geopolymers.
3.6.2. Properties of GPC
Previous studies have reported that geopolymers possess high early
strength, low shrinkage, freeze-thaw resistance, sulfate resistance, corrosion
resistance, acid resistance, fire resistance, and no dangerous alkali-aggregate

reaction. Based on laboratory tests, Davidovits (1988b) reported that geopolymer

cement can harden rapidly at room temperature and gain the compressive
strength in the range of 20 MPa after only 4 hours at 20 0C and about 70-100 MPa
after 28 days. Comrie et. al., (1988) conducted tests on geopolymer mortars and
reported that most of the 28- day strength was gained during the first 2 days of
curing.
Geopolymeric cement was superior to Portland cement in terms of heat
and fire resistance, as the Portland cement experienced a rapid deterioration in
compressive strength at3000C, whereas the geopolymeric cements were stable up
to 600oC (Davidovits, 1988b; 1994b). It has also been shown that compared to
Portland cement, geopolymeric cement has extremely low shrinkage.
The presence of alkalis in the normal Portland cement or concrete could
generate dangerous Alkali-Aggregate-Reaction. However the geopolymeric
system is safe from that phenomenon even with higher alkali content. As
demonstrated by Davidovits (1994a; 1994b), based on ASTM C227 bar
expansion test, geopolymer cements with much higher alkali content compared to
Portland cement did not generate any dangerous alkali-aggregate reaction where
the Portland cement did.
Geopolymer cement is also acid-resistant, because unlike the Portland
cement, geopolymer cements do not rely on lime and are not dissolved by acidic
solutions. As shown by the tests of exposing the specimens in 5% of sulphuric
acid and caloric acid, geopolymer cements were relatively stable with the weight
loss in the range of 5-8% while the Portland based cements were destroyed and
the calcium alumina cement lost weight about 30-60% (Davidovits, 1994b).
Some recently published papers (Bakharev, 2005c; Gourley & Johnson, 2005;
Song et. al., 2005a) also reported the results of the tests on acid resistance of
geopolymer concrete and geopolymers. By observing the weight loss after acid
exposure, these researchers concluded that geopolymers or geopolymer concrete
is superior to Portland cement concrete in terms of acid resistance as the weight
loss is much lower. However, Bakharev and Song et al has also observed that
there is degradation in the compressive strength of test specimens after acid
exposure and the rate of degradation depends on the period of exposure. Tests
conducted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also revealed that geopolymers have

superior resistance to chemical attack and freeze/thaw, and very low shrinkage
coefficients (Comrie et. al., 1988; Malone et. al., 1985).
Fig 3.4 Fly Ash

Fig 3.5 GGBS

Fig 3.6 10mm coarse aggregate
Fig 3.7 20mm coarse aggregate
Fig 3.8 Fine aggregate

Fig 3.9 Sodium hydroxide

Fig 3.10 Sodium silicate

Fig 3.11 Geopolymer concrete in cube moulds
Fig 3.12 Geopolymer concrete in cylindrical moulds

Fig 3.13 Cubes and cylinders kept for ambient curing

Fig 3.14 Compression test of concrete cubes in progress

Fig3.15 Concrete cube after crushing

Fig 3.16 Split tensile test of concrete cylinder in progress
Fig3.15
Concrete cylinder after crushing
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This Chapter presents the details of development of the
process of making low calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash and GGBS based
geopolymer concrete. First, the materials, mixture proportions,
manufacturing and curing of the test specimens are explained. This is then
followed by the test procedures. As far as possible, the current practice
used in the manufacture and testing of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
concrete was followed. The aim of this action was to ease the promotion of
this ‘new’ material to the concrete construction industry. The compressive
strength was chosen as the benchmark to simplify the development
process. This is not unusual because compressive strength has an intrinsic
importance in the structural design of concrete structures (Neville, 2000).
4.2 Mechanical properties
4.2.1 Compressive strength on geopolymer concrete
Compressive strength test was conducted on the cubical specimens
for all the mixes after 7, 28, 56 and 90 days of curing as per IS 516 (1991).

Three cubical specimens of size 150 mm x 150 mm x 150 mm were cast and
tested for each age and each mix. The compressive strength (f’c) of the
specimen was calculated by dividing the maximum load applied to the
specimen by the cross-sectional area of the specimen.
4.2.2. Split tensile strength on geopolymer concrete
Splitting tensile strength (STS) test was conducted on the
specimens for all the mixes after 90 days of curing as per IS 5816 (1999).
Three cylindrical specimens of size 150 mm x 300 mm were cast and tested
for each age and each mix. The load was applied gradually till the failure of
the specimen occurs. The maximum load applied was then noted. Length
and cross-section of the specimen were measured. The splitting tensile
strength (fct) was calculated as follows:
fct (N/mm2) = 2P/ (Π l d)

Where, P = Maximum load applied to the specimen ( Newton);
l = Length of the specimen (mm);
d = cross-sectional diameter of the specimen (mm).
4.3. Durability properties
4.3.1. Water absorption on geopolymer concrete
Water absorption test was conducted on cylindrical specimens of
size 100 mm x 50 mm after 28, 56 and 90 days of curing as per ASTM C 642-
97.Three test specimens were cast and tested for each age and each mix. After
each curing period, these specimens were oven dried for 24 hours at the
temperature of 1100c and oven dry weight of specimens were measured (W1).
After oven drying, these test specimens were immersed in water and measured
the weight of the saturated surface dry specimens at an interval of 12 hours
(W2). This procedure was repeated for not less than 48 hours until the two
successive readings were same. Water absorption of the tested specimen were
calculated as follows:
Water absorption (%) = [(W2 – W1) / W1] x 100.
4.3.2. Rapid chloride permeability test

This test covers the laboratory evaluation of the electrical
conductance of concrete samples to provide a rapid indication of their
resistance to chloride ion penetration. It is widely accepted that the ability of
concrete to resist ingress of chloride ions can result in a significantly more

durable concrete. The ASTM C 1202-07 Standard Test Method for the
Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration
was conducted on specimens. This apparatus consists of a regulated D.C.
power supply of 60 Volt which can be adjustable to ±10 % by an adjustable
potentiometer. The digital LED display indicates the voltage available across
the concrete specimen under test. The power can be fed into the eight sets of
diffusion cells. The current flowing through each diffuser cell can be
monitored by micro-controller with LCD display. The current readings were
noted down.
The diffuser cells are made up of non-corrosive acrylic chamber
as per the standards. The outer groove was machined for 103mm diameter for
a depth of 6mm to keep the sample specimen in its place. The inner groove
diameter is 90mm and machined for depth of 25mm. The inner groove was
fixed with a mesh brass sheet and a brass mesh which will be terminated
through a copper lead to the external terminal for easier power connections.
Rapid Chloride Permeability test (RCPT) was conducted on cylindrical
specimens of size 100 mm x 50 mm after 28, 56 and 90 days of curing. Three
test specimens were cast and tested for each age and each mix. RCPT is a two
component cell assembly checked for air and watertight. The cathode
compartment is filled with 3% NaCl solution and anode compartment is filled
with 0.3 NaOH solutions. Then the concrete specimens were subjected to
RCPT by impressing a 60V from a DC power source between the anode and
cathode as shown in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2. Current is monitored up to 6 hours at
an interval of 30 minutes.

Fig. 4.1. Rapid chloride permeability Test procedure
Fig. 4.2. Rapid chloride permeability test setup
From the current values, the chloride permeability is calculated in

terms of coulombs at the end of 6 hours by using the formula.
Q= 900 (I0 + 2 I30 + 2 I60 + 2 I90 + …………. + 2 I300 + 2 I330 + 2 I360)

The relationship between chloride penetrating rate and the charge passed by
coulombs is given in below Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Chloride penetrability characteristics as per ASTM C1202
Charge Passed
Chloride Penetrability
(Coulomb)
> 4000 High
2000 to 4000 Moderate
1000 to 2000 Low
100 to 1000 Very Low
<100 Negligible
CHAPTER-5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this Chapter, the test results are presented and
discussed. The test results cover the effect of FA and GGBS on
the mechanical properties viz. compressive and split tensile
strength and durability properties of GPC at ambient room
temperature curing. The compressive strength values of GPC
mixes were measured after 7, 28, 56 and 90 days of curing.
The durability properties values of GPC mixes were measured
after 28, 56 and 90 days of curing. These short-term
mechanical and durability properties were then compared to
that of M45 grade of conventional concrete (CC).
5.2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CC AND GPC
5.2.1 Compressive strength

Table 5.1 shows the compressive strength of CC (M 45) and

GPC mixes (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-GGBS25;
FA0-GGBS100) at different curing periods.
Table 5.1 Compressive strength of CC and GPC
Mix type
Mechanical
FA0- FA25- FA50- FA75- FA100-
property Age
M45 GGBS100 GGBS75 GGBS50 GGBS25 GGBS0
7 26.12 54.29 51.11 35.30 13.30 10.51
Compressive 28 51.39 60.23 58.12 46.32 15.55 12.11
strength pc 56 54.23 63.11 59.02 48.33 28.22 18.68
(MPA)
90 56.34 65.23 62.32 51.78 33.02 22.03
For conventional concrete the compressive strength at 7 days

curing period is 26.12Mpa. For geopolymer concrete for mix proportion
FA:GGBS:0:100, FA:GGBS:25:75 and FA:GGBS:50:50, the compressive
strength values at 7 days curing period are higher than that of the conventional
concrete, whereas for mix proportions FA:GGBS:75:25 and FA:GGBS:100:0,the
compressive strength values are lower than that of the conventional concrete.
For conventional concrete the compressive strength at 28 days
curing period is 51.39Mpa. For geopolymer concrete for the mix proportion FA:
GGBS: 0:100 and FA: GGBS: 25:75, the compressive strength values at 28 days
curing period are higher than that of the conventional concrete, whereas for mix
proportions FA: GGBS: 50:50, FA: GGBS: 75:25 and FA: GGBS: 100:0,the
compressive strength values are lower than that of the conventional concrete.
Similar trend is observed at 56 and 90 days curing periods.

Fig. 5.1 Compressive strength versus Age
The variation of the compressive strength of geopolymer

concrete for the various mix proportions of FA: GGBS and for different curing
period is shown as bar diagram in Fig 5.1. From the bar diagram, it is clear
that the geopolymer concrete blended with 100% GGBS shows maximum
compressive strength value at all curing periods and the values are greater than
that of the conventional concrete (M45 grade). In case of geopolymer concrete
blended with 100% FA, the compressive strength values are minimum at all
curing periods and the values are lower than that of conventional concrete
(M45 grade).

7days
70 28days
56days
90days
60
Compressive strength pc(Mpa)
50
40
30
20
10
0:100 25:75 50:50 75:25 100:0

fig 5.2:variation compressive strength with the various proportions of FA:GGBS
The variation of compressive strength of geopolymer

concrete with various proportions of FA: GGBS and for different curing
period is shown in Fig 5.2. From Fig 5.2, it is observed that compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete decreases with increasing FA content in
the mix irrespective of curing period. It is also observed for a given
proportion of the mix, the compressive strength increases with age.
The compressive strength of CC of M 45 grade at 7 days curing
period is 26.12Mpa. In order to achieve the same value of compressive
strength in case of geopolymer concrete the mix proportion FA: GGBS
obtained from the graph (Fig 5.2) is FA: GGBS: 60:40

The compressive strength of CC of M 45 grade at 28 days

curing period is 51.39Mpa.In order to achieve the same value of
compressive strength in case of geopolymer concrete the mix proportion
FA: GGBS obtained from the graph (Fig 5.2) is FA: GGBS: 39:61
curing period is 54.23Mpa. In order to achieve the same value of
FA: GGBS obtained from the graph (Fig 5.2) is FA: GGBS: 35:65
curing period is 56.34Mpa.In order to achieve the same value of
FA: GGBS obtained from the graph (Fig 5.2) is FA: GGBS :38:62
The compressive strength of geopolymer concrete is maximum.
When the proportion FA: GGBS: 0:100 irrespective of curing period. The
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete is compared with the
compressive strength of conventional concrete at same age. That is,
conventional concrete is considered as the reference mix. The percentage
increase in compressive strength values of geopolymer concrete at 7, 28,
56 and 90 days are 107.8%, 17.2%, 16.3% and 15.7% respectively. It is
seen that rate of gain in compressive strength of geopolymer concrete is
very faster at 7 days curing period and the rate gets reduced with age. It is
also observed that compressive strength of GPC decreases with increasing
FA content in the mix irrespective of curing period. It is also observed for
given proportion of the mix , the compressive strength increasing with age.
While comparing M 45 CC and FA0-GGBS100, the mix FA0-

GGBS100 has attained higher values of compressive strength at all ages.
Hence, it is recommended to use the mix proportion of FA0-GGBS100 for
the development M45 grade of sustainable concrete.
So, it is clearly seen that the gain of compressive strength was very
significant in GPC mixes with the increased level of GGBS at all ages as
compared to those of only FA based GPC.

5.2.2 Split tensile strength

Table 5.2 shows the split tensile strength of CC (M 45) and GPC
mixes (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-GGBS25;
FA0-GGBS100) at different curing periods.
Table 5.2 Split tensile strength of CC and GPC

Mix type
Mechanical
FA0- FA25- FA50- FA75- FA100-
property Age
GGBS100 GGBS75 GGBS50 GGBS25 GGBS0
M45
Split tensile 7 2.23 2.46 2.54 1.84 1.273 1.132
strength 28 3.44 3.56 3.23 2.06 1.362 1.160
strength pt 56 3.51 3.82 3.32 2.47 1.485 1.182
(MPA) 90 3.59 4.06 3.54 2.68 1.67 1.32
For conventional concrete the split tensile strength at 7 days

curing period is 2.23Mpa. For geopolymer concrete for mix proportion
FA:GGBS:0:100 and FA:GGBS:25:75 the split tensile strength values at 7
days curing period are higher than that of the conventional concrete, whereas
for mix proportions FA:GGBS:50:50, FA:GGBS:75:25 and
FA:GGBS:100:0,the split tensile strength values are lower than that of the
conventional concrete.
For conventional concrete the split tensile strength at 28 days
curing period is 3.44Mpa. For geopolymer concrete for the mix proportion FA:
GGBS: 0:100, the split tensile strength values at 28 days curing period are
higher than that of the conventional concrete, whereas for mix proportions
FA:GGBS:25:75,FA: GGBS: 50:50, FA: GGBS: 75:25 and FA: GGBS:
100:0,the split tensile strength values are lower than that of the conventional
concrete. Similar trend is observed at 56 and 90 days curing periods.

Fig. 5.2 Split tensile strength versus Age
The variation of the split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete

for the various mix proportions of FA: GGBS and for different curing period is
shown as bar diagram in Fig 5.2. From the bar diagram, it is clear that the
geopolymer concrete blended with 100% GGBS shows maximum split tensile
strength values at all curing periods and the values are greater than that of the
conventional concrete (M45 grade). In case of geopolymer concrete blended with
100% FA, the split tensile strength values are minimum at all curing periods and
the values are lower than that of conventional concrete (M45 grade).

7days
28days
4.2 56days
4.0 90days
3.8
3.6
Split tensile strength pt (Mpa)
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0:100 25:75 50:50 75:25 100:0

fig 5.4:variation split tensile strength with the various prapotions of FA:GGBS
The variation of split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete with

various proportions of FA: GGBS and for different curing periods is shown in
Fig 5.4. From Fig 5.4, it is observed that split tensile strength of geopolymer
concrete decreases with increasing FA content in the mix irrespective of curing
period. It is also observed for a given proportion of the mix, the split tensile
strength increases with age.
The split tensile strength of CC of M 45 grade at 7 days curing
periods 2.23Mpa. In order to achieve the same value of split tensile strength in
case of geopolymer concrete the mix proportion FA: GGBS obtained from the
graph (Fig 5.4) is FA: GGBS:36:64
The split tensile strength of CC of M45 grade at 28 days curing
periods 3.44Mpa.In order to achieve the same value of split tensile strength in
graph (Fig 5.4) is FA: GGBS:11:89

The split tensile strength of CC of M45 grade at 56 days curing

periods 3.51Mpa. In order to achieve the same value of split tensile strength in
graph (Fig 5.4) is FA: GGBS :16:84
The split tensile strength of CC of M45 grade at 90 days curing periods
3.59Mpa.In order to achieve the same value of split tensile strength in case of
geopolymer concrete the mix proportion FA: GGBS obtained from the graph
(Fig 5.4) is FA: GGBS :21:79
The split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete is maximum. When
the proportion FA: GGBS: 0:100 irrespective of curing period. The split tensile
strength of geopolymer concrete is compared with the split tensile strength of
conventional concrete at same age. That is, conventional concrete is considered
as the reference mix. The percentage increase in split tensile strength values of
geopolymer concrete at 7, 28, 56 and 90 days are 23.76%, 3.48%, 8.83% and
13.09% respectively. It is seen that rate of gain in split tensile strength of
geopolymer concrete is very faster at 7 days curing period and the rate gets
reduced with age. It is also observed that split strength of GPC decreases with
increasing FA content in the mix irrespective of curing period. It is also
observed for given proportion of the mix , the split strength increasing with
age.
While comparing M45 CC and FA0-GGBS100, the mix FA0-
GGBS100 has attained higher values of split tensile strength at all ages. Hence,
it is recommended to use the mix proportion of FA0-GGBS100 for the
development M 45 grade of sustainable concrete.
So, it is clearly seen that the gain of split tensile strength was very
significant in GPC mixes with the increased level of GGBS at all ages as
compared to those of only FA based GPC.
5.3 DURABILITY PROPERTIES OF CC AND GPC
Concrete is an important versatile construction material used
wide verity of situation. It is very important to consider the durability of
building material as indirect effect on economy severability and maintenance
concrete should with stand the conditions for which it has been designed. Such

concrete is said to be durable. The useful life of concrete may be reduced by the
environment to which the concrete is exposed or by internal causes within the
concrete itself. The external causes may be physical, chemical or mechanical
the extent of damage produced by these depends largely on the quality of
concrete. The internal causes may be ‘alkali’ aggregate reaction, volume
changes due to the difference in thermal properties of the aggregate and cement
paste and the permeability of concrete. A durable concrete must be relatively
impervious.
5.3.1 Water absorption
Table 5.3 shows the water absorption of CC (M 45) and GPC
mixes (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-GGBS25; FA0-
GGBS100) at different curing periods.
Table5.3 Water absorption values of GPC and CC
Age Water absorption

Mix type
(days) (%)
28 1.23
FA0-GGBS100 56 0.78
90 0.56
28 1.52
FA25-GGBS75 56 1.13
90 0.94
28 2.03
FA50-GGBS50 56 1.69
90 1.47
28 2.90
FA75-GGBS25 56 2.60
90 2.48
28 3.72
FA100-GGBS0 56 3.48
90 3.38
28 3.13
M 45 56 2.83
90 2.69
From the Table 5.3, it is observed that the percentage of water

absorption decreases as the quantity of GGBS increases in the mix of geopolymer
concrete irrespective of curing period.

From the same table, it is also observed that the percentage of water
absorption decreases with curing period irrespective quantity of GGBS in the
mix.
The variation of percentage of water absorption with the age for
geopolymer concrete for different proportions of FA: GGBS in the form of bar
chart is shown in Fig 5.5.
The variation of percentage of water absorption with age in the form
of bar chart for conventional concrete is also shown in Fig 5.5. From figure, it is
observed that the percentage of water absorption for geopolymer concrete with
proportions FA:GGBS:0:100,FA:GGBS:25:75,FA:GGBS:50:50,FA:GGBS:75:25
is less than that of conventional concrete irrespective of age of concrete. Out of
four proportions mentioned above, the water absorption of geopolymer concrete
with mix proportion FA: GGBS: 0: 100 gives least values when compared to
conventional concrete. From the figure, it is also observed that the percentage of
water absorption for geopolymer concrete with mix proportion FA: GGBS: 100:
0 is more than that of conventional concrete irrespective of age of concrete. The
percentage water absorption for geopolymer concrete with mix proportion FA:
GGBS: 0: 100 at 90 days is small when compared to other mixes and
conventional concrete. Hence, it is preferred for preparing geopolymer concrete.

Fig 5.5 water absorption of mixes

5.3.2 Rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT)

Table 5.4 shows the rapid chloride permeability test of CC (M 45)
and GPC mixes (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-
GGBS25; FA0-GGBS100) at different curing periods.
Table 5.4 RCPT values of GPC and CC
Age Charge passed Chloride

Mix type
(days) (Coulombs) penetrating rate
28 1302.6 Low
FA0-GGBS100 56 1081.5 Low
90 973.8 Very low
28 1448.1 Low
FA25-GGBS75 56 1225.8 Low
90 1130.4 Low
28 1665.3 Low
FA50-GGBS50 56 1455.3 Low
90 1379.4 Low
28 2069.4 Moderate
FA75-GGBS25 56 1871.1 Low
90 1778.7 Low
28 2946.0 Moderate
FA100-GGBS0 56 2765.7 Moderate
90 2675.7 Moderate
28 2424.6 Moderate
M 45 56 2169.0 Moderate
90 1924.5 Low
Farm the Table 5.4, it is found that the Chloride penetrating rate of the
geopolymer concrete prepaid with FA: GGBS: 0: 100 mix cured at 90 days is
very low when compared to other mixes and conventional concrete. It indicates
that the geopolymer concrete prepared with the above mix proportion produced
dense concrete with less porous structure.

The variation of RCPT charge passing with the age for

geopolymer concrete for different proportions of FA: GGBS in the form of bar
chart is shown in Fig 5.6.The variation of RCPT charge passing with age in the
form of bar chart for conventional concrete is also shown in Fig 5.6. From the
figure, it is observed that the percentage of RCPT for geopolymer concrete with
mix proportions FA:GGBS:0:100, FA:GGBS:25:75, FA:GGBS:50:50,
FA:GGBS:75:25 is less than that of conventional concrete irrespective of age of
concrete. Out of four proportions mentioned above, the RCPT of geopolymer
concrete with mix proportion FA: GGBS: 0: 100 gives least values when
compared to conventional concrete. From the figure, it is also observed that the
RCPT charge passing for geopolymer concrete with mix proportion FA: GGBS:
100: 0 is more than that of conventional concrete irrespective of age of concrete.

Fig. 5.6 RCPT of mixes

CHAPTER-6
ANLATICAL WORK
The results and discussion on compressive strength and split tensile
strength are discussed in the sections 5.1 and 5.2 respectively.
There is an established relationship for controlled concrete between
tensile strength and compressive strength.
6.1 Relationship between tensile strength and compressive strength
The compression strength test is relatively simple to be
conducted. The compressive strength of concrete is one of the most important
and useful properties of concrete. Attempts have been made to co-relate the
various other strengths such as modulus of rupture or direct tensile strength
and some other properties like modulus of elasticity to the compressive
strength of concrete.
There are number of empirical relationship connecting tensile
strength and compressive strength of concrete. One of the most common
relationship is given below.
Tensile strength =k (compressive strength)n
Pt=k (Pck)n --------------------(6.1)

Where, value of k various from 6.2 for gravels to 10.4 for
crushed rock (average value 8.3) and value of ‘n’ may vary from ½ to 3/4.
Table 6.1 shows relationship between compressive strength and tensile

strength of concrete (PCA).

 Table 6.1: Relationship between compressive strength and split tensile

strength of concrete
Compressive strength of Ratio of direct tensile strength to

concrete (MPA)
compressive strength
7 0.11
14 0.19
21 0.16
28 0.15
35 0.14
42 0.13
49 0.12
56 0.12
63 0.11
The tensile strength of concrete ranges from 8 to 12 per

cent of its compressive strength .An average valve of 10% is generally
adopted (Gambhir and Neha Jamwal(2014))
The relation between compressive strength and split tensile strength of

concrete is presented in Figure 6.1.

Fig:6.1 Relation between compressive strength and split tensile strength

of concrete (Gambhir and Neha Jamwal (2014))
Here, an attempt is made to establish empirical relationship
between the tensile strength of geopolymer concrete based on the experimental
results obtained for concrete prepared with different combinations of
admixtures FA and GGBS.
Tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 represent split tensile strength Vs
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete prepared with different
combinations of admixtures FA and GGBS and cured for various curing
periods.
Table 6.2: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength FA: GGBS: 0:100
Curing period days

7 28 56 90
Period
Compressive strength 54.29 60.23 63.11 65.23
(Mpa)
Split tensile strength 2.76 3.56 3.82 4.06
(Mpa)

Curing period days
7 28 56 90
Period
(Mpa)

(Mpa)
Curing period days
7 28 56 90
Period
(Mpa)

(Mpa)
Curing period days
7 28 56 90
Period
(Mpa)
(Mpa)

Curing period days
7 28 56 90
Period
(Mpa)
(Mpa)
The variation of split tensile strength with respect to compressive

strength of geopolymer concrete prepared with FA: GGBS: with different
combinations of admixtures for different curing periods is shown in Figs 6.2, 6.3, 6.4,
6.5, and 6.6.
Fig 6.2: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete

( FA: GGBS :0:100)

By subjecting all the data to statistical, the treatment by

equation obtained between split tensile strength and compressive strength
of concrete for (FA: GGBS: 0:100) is
Pt=0.0008pc3-0.1494pc2+9.1973pc-186.89 --------------------- (6.2)
Fig 6.3: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength of

geopolymer concrete ( FA: GGBS :25:75)
By subjecting all the data to statistical treatment the equation obtained
between split tensile strength and compressive strength of concrete for (FA:
GGBS: 25:75) is
Pt=-0.0007pc3+0.1223pc2-6.7572pc+125.32 ----------------- (6.3)

Fig 6.3: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete

( FA: GGBS :50:50)
By subjecting all the data to statistical treatment the equation
obtained between split tensile strength and compressive strength of concrete for
(FA: GGBS: 50:50) is
Pt=-0.0025pc3+0.3395pc2-15.113pc+222.32--------------------------- (6.4)

Fig 6.4: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength of geopolymer

concrete ( FA: GGBS :75:25)
By subjecting all the data to statistical treatment the equation
obtained between split tensile strength and compressive strength of concrete for (FA:
GGBS: 75:25) is
Pt=0.0002pc3-0.0126pc2+0.2863pc-0.7474 -------------------- (6.5)

Figure 6.5: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength of

geopolymer concrete ( FA: GGBS :100:0)
By subjecting all the data to stastical treatment the equation

obtained between split tensile strength and compressive strength of concrete for (FA:
GGBS: 100:0) is
Pt=0.0005pc3-0.0216pc2+0.3214pc-0.4172 ------------------------ (6.6)

 Table 6.7:Relationship between compressive strength and split tensile

strength of geopolymer concrete for various proportions of FA and GGBS
and for different curing periods
`
Geopolymer concrete on cubes
Ratio of split tensile strength to
Compressive
S.NO Curing compressive strength
FA:GGBS strength(Mpa)
periods
1 7 54.29 0.05
2 28 60.23 0.05
3 0:100 56 63.11 0.06
4 90 65.23 0.06
5 7 51.11 0.04
6 28 58.12 0.05
7 56 59.02 0.05
8 90 62.23 0.05
25:75
9 7 35.30 0.05
10 28 46.32 0.04
11 56 48.33 0.05
50:50
12 90 51.78 0.05
13 7 13.30 0.09
14 28 15.55 0.08
15 56 28.22 0.05
16 90 33.02 0.05
75:25
17 7 10.51 0.10
18 28 12.11 0.09
19 56 18.68 0.06
20 100:0 90 22.03 0.05
The variation of split tensile strength with respect to

compressive strength of geopolymer concrete prepared with FA: GGBS: geopolymer
concrete for different curing periods for all proportion is shown in Fig 6.6.

Fig 6.6: Split tensile strength Vs Compressive strength of geopolymer

concrete
By subjecting all the data to stastical treatment are unique
relation obtained between split tensile strength and compressive strength of concrete
is
Pt=2E-05pc3-0.0008pc2-0.0308pc+0.9022---------------------- (6.7)
Split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete prepared with different

combinations of FA and GGBS for various curing periods can be predicted knowing
the compressive strength using the co-relations presented herein without conducting
elaborate, tedious and cumbersome tests.

CHAPTER-7
COST ANALYSIS
7.1 COST ANALYSIS OF GPC OVER CC

This section mainly focused on the cost analysis of GPC
(FA39-GGBS69) and M45 grade of CC. Time, cost and quality are the three
important factors which assume significance in construction due to their
impact on the industry as a whole. Any development which has positive
impact on these factors is always in the interest of civil engineering.
The compressive strength test can be relatively easily conducted.
Hence, the most frequently conducted test on concrete is the compressive
strength test. The compressive strength at 28 days after casting is taken as a
criterion for specifying the quality of concrete which is called grade of
concrete. The concrete develops strength with continued hydration. The rate
of gain of strength is earlier to start with and the rate gets reduced with age.
It is customary to assume the 28 days strength as the full strength of
concrete.
The 28 days compressive strength of M 45 grade CC is 51.39Mpa.
In order to achieve the same strength in case of GPC, the proportion of FA:
GGBS is 39: 61. Hence, in this chapter the cost of one cubic meter of GPC
for the above proportion is worked out and is compared with the cost of one
cubic meter of M45 grade of CC.
Calculations of quantities of dry ingredients of CC and GPC for the cost
analysis are presented in Table 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 1: Calculation of quantities of dry ingredients of CC

Quantity calculation of M45 grade of CC
Dry co-efficient of concrete : 1.52 (a)
Quantity per
Volume
Weight Specific Volume cubic meter
Proportio Remar
Material (Kg/m3) gravity (m3) of concrete
ns ks
(b) (c) (d)=(b)/(c) (m3)
(e)=(d)/(f)
(h)=(e)*(a)/(g)
Cement 533 3.06 174.18 (f) 1.00 0.33 Let 1
Sand 625 2.62 238.55 1.37 0.45 cement
CA 20 606.4 2.58 235.04 1.35 0.44 bag of
CA 10 404.3 2.658 156.71 0.90 0.30 50 kg =
0.0347
m3
Total volume of proportions 4.62 (g) Total: 1.52
volume
Table 2: Calculation of quantities of dry ingredients of GPC
Quantity calculation of M45 grade of GPC

Volume Quantity per
Weight Specific Volume Proporti cubic meter
Remar
Material (Kg/m3) gravity (m3) ons of concrete
ks
(b) (c) (d)=(b)/(c) (e)=(d)/ (m3)
(f) (h)=(e)*(a)/(g)
GGBS 249.49 2.9 86.03 (f) 1.00 0.14
Fly ash 159.51 2.12 72.17 0.87 0.12
Sand 554 2.62 211.45 2.50 0.37
CA 20 776 2.58 300.78 3.49 0.52

CA 10 517 2.58 200.39 2.32 0.34
Total volume of proportions 10.18 (g) Total: 1.49
Table 3: Cost analysis of M45 grade of CC and GPC
Control concrete (M45) GPC (FA39-GGBS61)

Rate
Material Unit
(Rs) Amount Amount
Quantity Quantity
(Rs) (Rs)
Cement Bags 250 9.51 2377.50 0 0.00

GGBS m3 70 0 0 0.14 9.8
Fly ash m3 65 0 0 0.12 7.8
CA 20 m3 1076 0.44 473.44 0.54 559.52
CA 10 m3 788 0.30 236.40 0.34 267.92
Sand m3 375 0.45 168.75 0.37 138.75
Sodium silicate Litre
24 0 0 102 2448.00
solution
NaOH pellets Kg 55 0 0 16 880.00
Total 3256.09 4311.79
Cost over CC(%) 32.42
Cost analysis of M45 grade of CC and GPC is made as per standard

schedule of rates (SSR(2013)) and is presented in Table 3. From the Table 3, it is
found that the initial material cost of GPC (FA0-GGBS100) was about 32% higher
than that of CC (M45). Obviously, the higher material cost of GPC over CC gives a
feeling that GPC is much costlier than CC for the same strength.
But having realized the other components of GPC such as savings in

natural resources, sustainability, environment, production cost, maintenance cost
and all other GPC properties (mechanical and durable), it is inferred that these

components would offset the initial material cost of GPC. Though lot of research
work needs to be done on cost-effective GPC, it can be recommended as an
innovative construction material for the use of constructions.
CHAPTER-8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Summary
This chapter summarizes the overall conclusions drawn from the

investigation of FA and GGBS based GPC mixes. The GPC mixture
proportions used in this study were developed based on the previous study on
GPC (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005). In this study, short-term mechanical and
durability properties of FA and GGBS based GPC mixes were studied. This
study also compared the short-term mechanical and durability properties of
GPC with that of M45 grade of CC.
Now a days concrete is one of the most widely used construction
materials in construction industry. Portland cement is the main constituent for
making concrete. Geopolymer can be considered as the key factor which does
not utilize Portland cement, nor releases greenhouse gases. The geopolymer
technology proposed by Davidovits (1978) shows considerable promise for
application in concrete industry as an alternative binder to the Portland cement.
He proposed that binders could be produced by a polymeric reaction of alkaline
liquids with the silicon and the aluminum in source materials of geological
origin or by-product materials such as Fly Ash, Slag and Rice-Husk Ash. He
termed these binders as geopolymers. Among the waste or by-product
materials, Fly Ash and Slag are the most potential source of geopolymers.
Ganapathi Naidu (2011), Parthiban et al (1988), Kishna Rao
(2013), Hardjito et al (2005), Supraja and Kantha Rao (2008), Madheswara and
Ganasundhar (2013) etc have worked in the area of geopolymer concrete.Most
of the researchers have replaced cement by the by-product materials such as
Fly Ash and Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) and have
concentrated on the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete at different
levels.

The objective of this project is to study the effect of class Fly

Ash (FA) and Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) on the
mechanical and durability properties of geopolymer concrete (GPC) at different
replacement levels (FA0-GGBS100; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-
GGBS25 ; FA100-GGBS0). Sodium silicate (Na 2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) solution will be used as alkaline activators. In the present
investigation, it is proposed to study the mechanical properties viz.
compressive strength, split tensile strength and durability properties viz. water
absorption and Rapid Chloride Permeability of low-calcium Fly Ash and Slag
based geopolymer concrete. These properties will be determined at different
curing periods like 7, 28,56 and 90 days at ambient room temperature.
Hence, in this investigation the strength and durability

properties on Geopolymer concrete have been studied.
Chapter 1 deals with the general introduction including the scope and
objectives of the investigation.
Chapter 2 gives a review of literature pertaining to alkaline activators like

Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution, the
development of alternative binders to manufacture concrete such as FA and
GGBS and their constituents and their phase relationship and properties.
Chapter 3 deals with materials used in mix design, and the physical and
chemical properties of FA and GGBS sand, aggregate, alkaline activators ,
water used in this investigation and also the experimental procedure in mix
design. The determination of specific gravity of both FA and GGBS , specific
gravity , water absorption and fineness modulus of both fine aggregate and
course aggregate are also presented. The mix designs used for the preparation
of specimen are also dealt herein.

Chapter 4 deals with different experimental investigations pertaining to

compressive strength, split tensile strength, water absorption and Rapid Chloride
Permeability. Cubes were prepared for testing of compressive strength; cylinders
were prepared for testing of tensile strength, cylindrical specimens of size 100
mm x 50 mm were prepared for testing water absorption and rapid chloride
permeability test.
The results and discussion are presented in chapter 5. The results of the present
investigation are presented both in tabular, bar chart and graphical forms. In
order to facilitate the analysis, interpretation of the results are carried out at each
phase of the experimental work. This interpretation of the results obtained is
based on the current knowledge available in the literature as well as on the
nature of results obtained. The significance of the results is assessed with
reference to the standards specified by the relevant previous mix code.
The results and discussion chapter is divided into four sections.
(i) Results and discussion on compressive strength
(ii) Results and discussion on split tensile strength
(iii) Results and discussion on water absorption
(iv)Results and discussion rapid chloride permeability test
Chapter 6 deals with analytical work. The co-relations between compressive

strength and split tensile strength for geopolymer concrete prepared with FA and
GGBS for various proportions are reported herein.
Pt=0.0008pc3-0.1494pc2+9.1973pc-186.89 (FA: GGBS: 0: 100)
Pt=-0.0007pc3+0.1223pc2-6.7572pc+125.32 (FA: GGBS: 25: 75)
Pt=-0.0025pc3+0.3395pc2-15.113pc+222.32 (FA: GGBS: 50: 50)
Pt=0.0002pc3-0.0126pc2+0.2863pc-0.7474 (FA: GGBS: 75: 25)
Pt=0.0005pc3-0.0216pc2+0.3214pc-0.4172 (FA: GGBS: 100: 0)
By subjecting all the data to stastical treatment an unique relation obtained
between split tensile strength and compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
is
Pt=2E-05pc3-0.0008pc2-0.0308pc+0.9022

Chapter 7 deals with cost analysis. The 28 days compressive strength of M 45

grade CC is 51.39Mpa. In order to achieve the same strength of in case of GPC
the proportion of FA: GGBS: 39: 61. Hence, in this chapter the cost of one cubic
metre of GPC for above proportion is worked out and is compared with the cost
of one cubic meter of M45 grade of CC.
A brief summary of the work and the conclusions drawn are reported in
chapter 8.
8.2 Conclusions
Based on the results reported in this investigation, the following conclusions
are drawn
1. The compressive strength and split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete
decrease with increase in FA content in the mix irrespective of curing period.
2. For a given proportion of mix, the compressive strength and split tensile
strength increase with age.
3. The compressive strength and split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete is
maximum, when the mix proportion FA: GGBS: 0:100 irrespective of curing
period.
4. The rate of gain in compressive strength and split tensile strength of
geopolymer concrete is very faster at 7 days curing period and the rate gets
reduced with age.
5. The initial material cost of GPC (FA39-GGBS61) is about 32% higher than
that of CC (M45) at 28 days compressive strength.
6. The percentage of water absorption decreases as the quantity of GGBS
increases in the mix of geopolymer concrete irrespective of curing period.
7. The percentage of water absorption decreases with curing period
irrespective quantity of GGBS in the mix.
8. RCPT indicates that the geopolymer concrete mixture prepared with FA:
GGBS: 0:100 proportions produces a dense concrete with less porous-
structure.
9. Geopolymer concrete can be recommended as an innovative construction
material for the use of the constructions.

8.3 Scope for further work

In this investigation strength and durability properties of geopolymer
concrete with FA and GGBS as source material are studied. The studies are
concentrated on compressive and split tensile strengths only. All the mixes are
prepared with 10M.
The work can be extended to study the remaining mechanical properties
such as Young’s modulus and flexure of geopolymer concrete. The effect of
molarity on strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete can also be
studied.
In this investigation the durability of geopolymer concrete is studied by
conducting RCPT and water absorption tests. The durability properties of
geopolymer concrete can also be studied by conducting acid and drying shrinkage
tests.
By studying mechanical properties such as compressive strength, split
tensile strength, Young’s modulus and flexural characteristics, and durability like
RCPT , water absorption test, acid test and drying shrinkage, a comprehensive
knowledge regarding geopolymer concrete can be obtained.

REFERENCES
1. ASTM C 1202-07 (1997) Standard Test Method for the Electrical Indication
of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration was conducted on
specimens. Annual book of ASTM standards, vol.4.02, American Society for
Testing and Materials, West conshohcken.
2. ASTM C 618 (1978): specification for pozzuolana, Philadelphia.
3. Bakharev, T. (2005c). Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack.

Cement And Concrete Research, 35(4), 658-670.
4. Balaguru, P., Kurtz, S., & Rudolph, J. (1997). Geopolymer for Repair and
Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Beams. The Geopolymer Institute.
Retrieved 3 April, 2002, from the World Wide Web: www.geopolymer.org
5. Comrie, D. C., Paterson, J. H., & Ritchey, D. J. (1988). Geopolymer

Technologies in Toxic Waste Management. Paper presented at the
Geopolymer ’88, First European Conference on Soft Mineralurgy,
Compiegne, France.
6. Davidovits, J. (1984). Synthetic Mineral Polymer Compound of The

Silicoaluminates Family and Preparation Process, United States Patent -
4,472,199 (pp. 1-12). USA.

7. Davidovits, J. (1988a). Soft Mineralurgy and Geopolymers. Paper presented

at the Geopolymer ’88, First European Conference on Soft Mineralurgy,
Compiegne, France.
8. Davidovits, J. (1988b). Geopolymer Chemistry and Properties. Paper

presented at the Geopolymer ’88, First European Conference on Soft
Mineralurgy, Compiegne, France.
9. Davidovits, J. (1988c). Geopolymers of the First Generation: SILIFACE-

Process. Paper presented at the Geopolymer ’88, First European Conference
on Soft Mineralurgy, Compiegne, France. 82
10. Davidovits, J. (1988d). Geopolymeric Reactions in Archaeological Cements

and in Modern Blended Cements. Paper presented at the Geopolymer ’88,
First European Conference on Soft Mineralurgy, Compiegne, France.
11. Davidovits, J. (1999, 30 June - 2 July 1999). Chemistry of Geopolymeric

Systems, Terminology. Paper presented at the Geopolymere ’99 International
Conference, Saint-Quentin, France.
12. Duxson, P., Lukey, G., & van Deventer, J. (2007). Physical evolution of
Nageopolymer derived from metakaolin up to 1000 °C. Journal of Materials
Science, 42(9), 3044-3054.
13. Desai, J. P. (2004). Construction and Performance of High-Volume Fly Ash

Concrete Roads in India. Eighth CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, Las
Vegas,USA, American Concrete Institute.
14. Gartner E (2004), “Industrially Interesting Approaches to ‘Low-CO2’

Cements”, Cement and Concrete Research, 34(9), 1489-1498.

15. Gourley, J. T. (2003). Geopolymers; Opportunities for Environmentally

Friendly Construction Materials. Paper presented at the Materials 2003
Conference: Adaptive Materials for a Modern Society, Sydney.
16. Gourley, J. T., & Johnson, G. B. (2005). Developments in Geopolymer

Precast Concrete. Paper presented at the International Workshop on
Geopolymers and Geopolymer Concrete, Perth, Australia.
17. Hardjito, D., & Rangan, B. V. (2005). Development and Properties of Low-
Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Research Report GC1, Perth,
Australia: Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology.
18. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw and B.V.Rangan (2005), “On the
development of Fly ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete”, ACI Materials
Journal, pp 467-472.
19. IS 383 (1970). Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural
sources for concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
20. IS 456 (2000). Plain and reinforced concrete code for practice. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
21. IS 516 (1991). Methods of tests for strength of concrete. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
22. IS 5816 (1999). Splitting tensile strength of concrete method of test. Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
23. IS 10262 (2009). Concrete Mix Proportioning-Guidelines. Bureau of Indian


24. IS 2386 (1963). Methods of test for aggregates for concrete. Part III -
Specific gravity, Density, Voids, Absorption and Bulking. Bureau of Indian
25. Malhotra, V. M., & Mehta, P. K. (2002). High-Performance, High-Volume

Fly Ash Concrete: Materials, Mixture Proportioning, Properties,
Construction Practice, and Case Histories. Ottawa: Supplementary
Cementing Materials for Sustainable Development Inc.
26. Malone, P. G., Charlie A. Randall, J., & Kirkpatrick, T. (1985). Potential
Applications of Alkali-Activated Alumino-Silicate Binders in Military
Operations. Washington, DC: Department of The Army, Assistant Secretary
of the Army (R&D).
27. McCaffrey, R. (2002). Climate Change and the Cement Industry. Global
Cement and Lime Magazine (Environmental Special Issue), 15-19.
28. Mehta, P. K. (2002), Greening of the Concrete Industry for Sustainable

Development, ACI Concrete International ;24(7): 23-28
29. Neville, A. M. (2000). Properties of Concrete (Fourth and Final ed.). Essex,
England: Pearson Education, Longman Group.
30. Nath and P.K. Sarker (2012), “ Effect of GGBS on setting, workability and
early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient
condition”, Construction Building Materials Vol. 66 , pp. 163-171.
31. Palomo, A., M.W.Grutzeck, & M.T.Blanco. (1999). Alkali-activated fly

ashes A cement for the future. Cement And Concrete Research, 29(8), 1323-
1329.

32. Roy, D. M. (1999). Alkali-activated cements Opportunities and Challenges.

Cement & Concrete Research, 29(2), 249-254.
33. Rangan, B.V. (2004) “Low-Calcium Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete”,

Chapter 26 in ConcreteConstruction Engineering Handbook, Editor-in
Chief: E.G. Nawy, Second Edition, CRCPress, New York.
34. Siddiqui, K.S. (2007),”Strength and Durability of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-

based Geopolymer Concrete”, Final Year Honours Dissertation, The
University of Western Australia, Perth.
35. Siddique R, Iqbal Khan M. 2011. Supplementary Cementing Materials.

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
36. Song, X. J., Marosszeky, Brungs, M. M., & Munn, R. (2005a, 17-20 April).
Durability of fly ash-based Geopolymer concrete against sulphuric acid
attack. Paper presented at the 10DBMC International Conference on
Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon, France.
37. Sumajouw, M.D.J. and Rangan, B.V. (2006), Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based
Geopolymer Concrete: Reinforced Beams and Columns, Research Report
GC3, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth,
available at espace@curtin or www.geopolymer.org.
38. Sarker P.K., and deMeillon T (2004), “Residual Strength of Geopolymer

Concrete After Exposure toHigh Temperature”, Proceedings of Recent
Developments in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, CD
ROM, Editor: A. Zingoni, Millpress, the Netherlands, 1566-1571.
39. van Jaarsveld, J. G. S., van Deventer, J. S. J., & Lukey, G. C. (2003). The
characterisation of source materials in fly ash-based geopolymers. Materials
Letters, 57(7), 1272-1280.

40. Van Jaarsveld J.G.S, J. S. J. van Devener, and G. C. Lukey(2002), “The

effect of composition and Temperature on the Properties of Fly ash and
Kaolinite-based Geopolymers”, Chemical Engineering Journal, 89 (1-3), pp.
63-73.
41. Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Lorenzon (2008), The Potential
Use of Geopolymeric Materials to Immobilise Toxic Metal: Part 1 Theory
and Application, Minerals Engineering 10(7), 659-669.
42. Wallah, S. E., & Rangan, B. V. (2006). Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based

Geopolymer
43. Concrete: Long-Term Properties (Research Report GC 2). Perth: Faculty of

Engineering Curtin University of Technology.
44. Xu, H., & Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2000). The geopolymerisation of

aluminosilicate.
45. Xu, H.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. (2000). The geopolymerisation of

aluminosilicate minerals. International Journal of Mineral Processing,
59(3), 247-266.
46. Minerals. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 59(3), 247- 266.

Strength and Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete With FA and GGBS As Source Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength and Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete With FA and GGBS As Source Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength and Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete With FA and GGBS As Source Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete

with FA and GGBS as source materials

The geopolymer technology is proposed by Davidovits (1978)

The major problem the world is facing today is the

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 1

energy intensive process as it consumes 4GJ per tons of energy. After

In this investigation, in order to produce concrete low-calcium fly ash-

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 2

As in the case of OPC concrete, the aggregates occupy

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 3

supplement the use of Portland cement in concrete in order to address the

1.2. Objectives and scope of investigation

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 4

3. To study the short-term engineering properties of hardened low

Based on the experimental results, an attempt is made to

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 5

Several efforts are in progress to supplement the use of

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 6

slag, rice-husk ash and metakaolin, and the development of alternative

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 7

formation and strength, but utilise the polycondensation of silica and

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 8

compared to the use of only alkaline hydroxides. Xu and van

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 9

geopolymer concrete (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Wallah and

2.4 Mixture proportion of geopolymer concrete

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 10

 The slump value of the fresh geopolymer concrete increases

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 11

2.5 GPC mix design

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 12

to-sodium hydroxide solution by mass may be taken approximately as

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 13

58 = 45 kg. In sodium hydroxide solution, solids = 0.262x41 = 11 kg,

2.6 Properties of GPC

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 14

Several factors have been identified as important

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 15

The results of recent studies have shown the potential

Geopolymer cement is also acid-resistant. Geopolymer

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 16

geopolymers and geopolymer concrete. By observing the weight loss

2.7 Fields of application

Table 2.1 Applications of geopolymeric materials based on Si:Al atomic

2 - Concretes and low CO2 cements

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 17

>3 - Sealants for industry, 2000C to 6000C

One of the potential fields of application of

In Australia, the geopolymer technology has been used

2.8 Fly ash

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 18

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 19

concrete. Generally, the effective amount of cement that can be replaced

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 20

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 21

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 22

Department of civil engineering SVCET, chittoor Page 23

Class F fly ASTM C 618 Class F GGBS