A STUDY ON DURABILITY PROPERTIES OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

USING Flyash and GGBS

Abstract
Due to current boom in construction industry, Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
demand has escalated which is the main constituent in concrete. OPC is conventionally used
as the primary binder to produce concrete throughout the world. The CO2 emitted into
atmosphere plays the lead role in Global warming and the production of one tonne of cement
emits approximately one tonne of CO2 into atmosphere which is a worrying factor to
humankind. Apart from the harmful gases producing from cement industries, another
problem facing by ecologists to save the environment is disposal of by-products or waste
products produced from various industries throughout the world.
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. Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) and
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution will be used as alkaline activators. Less surface water
absorption indicates that concrete sample in less permeability.The pore structure of concrete
is known to be of high important for the durability of concrete.A characterisation of this pore
structure by means of a simple test is investigate in order to fin a very simple compliance
with respect to concrete durability. Hence the water absorption test can be used for concrete
durability . The result shows that the durability decrease with increase in FA content in the
mix irrespective of different curing periods like 7, 28, 56 and 90 days at ambient room
temperature.

Keywords— Geopolymer concrete, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide, fly ash, granulated
blast furnace slag, compressive strength, split tensile strength.

INTRODUCTION

Geopolymers are alumino-silicate binders made using materials that are rich in alumina
and silica. The typical aluminosilicate source materials used to develop the geopolymers
such as blast-furnace slag, metakaolin, rice husk ash, Al-rich waste, red mud, and fly ash [1-
7]. In the Asian sub-continent, fly ash, which is an industrial waste product is the most
attractive source material due to its ready availability in large quantities. The quality of fly
ash which is typically available is, however, of low grade with little reactive content [8].
Several factors such as reactive oxide contents, particle size, NaOH concentration,
temperature, alkali activator to binder ratio and oxide ratios of SiO2, Al2O3, and Na2O
influence the microstructure and mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymers [6,9-
10]. SiO2/Al2O3, SiO2/Na2O ratios are the dominant factors in strength prediction of
geopolymers. Compressive strength increases with increasing concentration of NaOH in the
activating solution [11]. The quantity of NaOH required depends on the type of fly ash [12].
Geopolymers tends to be less stable at low SiO2/Na2O than at high SiO2/Na2O [9]. The
highest compressive strength is obtained at the ratio of SiO2/Na2O is 0.69 [13]. Increasing
the Al2O3/Na2O and SiO2/Na2O weight ratios in the activating solution influence the
compressive strength [11,14] and the optimum values of 8.01 and 1.94 for SiO2/Na2O and
Al2O3/Na2O ratios to provide highest compressive strength in class F fly ash based
geopolymers [11]. The strength of the geopolymers depends on the vitreous portion of
SiO2/Al2O3 ratio [15].

Fly ash contributes Al and Si to the reaction product, which is supplemented by the
activators. Reactive oxide components especially the reactive Al2O3 and SiO2 are key
oxide contents which are involved the during the geopolymerisation process. Most
commonly used activators are combinations of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium
silicate (NaSiO3), which are mixed in varying proportions. Most researchers did not
consider the contribution from fly ash and hence the ratios reported in the literature are
applicable for the particular fly ash used in the study. The solution ratios derived from
results of a fly ash with high reactive silica content would not require additional NaSiO3 for
achieving high strength. Few researchers considered a vitreous portion of the SiO2 and Al2O3
[15].

Activator solutions would have to be developed considering the composition and the
reactive silica and alumina contents of fly ash. Current paper explores the role of reactive
Al2O3 content, the total reactive oxide ratios including a contribution from fly ash and the
molarity of NaOH on strength development in alkali-activated low calcium fly ash. An
experimental study is conducted using two different low calcium siliceous fly ashes. The
influence of reactive alumina content is evaluated.

I. MATERIALS

Although geopolymer concrete could be made using various source materials, the current
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 next sections discuss constituent materials useful
for manufacturing GPC. Chemical and physical properties of the constituent materials are
presented in this section

Specimens Preparation

For all the specimens the alkaline solution to fly ash ratio was kept constant as 0.5. Initially,
to find the optimum Na2SiO3 to NaOH ratio for various Na2SiO3 modulus (Ms), the NaOH
molarity has been kept constant at 14 M. Then, by keeping the optimum silicates to
hydroxides ratio obtained from the initial study which was found to be 1.5 as constant, further
study on the effect of NaOH molarity on the compressive strengths of mortar specimens
made with different grades of sodium silicates was carried out. The NaOH solutions have
been prepared 24 hours prior to using it in the mix to account for proper dissolution of NaOH
crystals and heat liberation. Identical mixing process and castings were followed for the
individual mix, even though the Na2SiO3 to NaOH ratio and molarity of NaOH were varying.
The final mix was then transferred into 150 × 150 × 150 mm size cube moulds in three layers
each with sufficient vibration. For each mix, three cube specimens were cast. These moulds
were then kept for heat curing at 70°C for a period of 24 hours. After 24 hours of heat curing,
the moulds were then demoulded to keep it for further curing under ambient temperatures
until the day of testing.

2.3 Specimens Testing

Most of the cube specimens were cast and cured at similar conditions as explained above.
The compression testing and split tensile strength has been conducted (a) at the age of
7,14,28 56 and 90 days for the specimens made with various silicates to hydroxide ratios at a
constant NaOH molarity of 14M and different sodium silicate grades, and (b) at the age of
7,14,28 56 and 90 days days for the specimens made with various molarity of NaOH at a
Na2SiO3 to NaOH ratio of 1.5 and for different sodium silicate grades.

2.4 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 according to ASTM C 642-97. Three test specimens
were cast and tested for every age and each mix. After each and every 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 significantly less than 48 hours before the
two successive readings were same. Water absorption of the tested specimen were calculated
as follows:
 Water absorption (%) = [(W2 – W1) / W1] x 100.
2.5 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. 1 and 2. Current is monitored up to 6 hours at an interval of 30
minutes.
 Fig. 1. Rapid chloride permeability Test procedure

Fig. 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 1.
 Table 1 Chloride penetrability characteristics as per ASTM C1202
Charge Passed (Coulomb) Chloride Penetrability
> 4000 High
2000 to 4000 Moderate
1000 to 2000 Low
100 to 1000 Very Low
<100 Negligible

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

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.

1 Water absorption

Water absorption of CC (M45) and GPC mixes (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-

GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-GGBS25; FA0-GGBS100) at different curing periods.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 3. 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.

3
Water absorption (%)

M45 CC
FA0-GGBS100
FA25-GGBS75
2
FA50-GGBS50
FA75-GGBS25
FA100-GGBS0

0
28 56 90
Age (days)

Fig 3 water absorption of mixes

5.3.2 Rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT)

Table 5.4 shows the rapid chloride permeability test of CC (M45) and GPC
mixes (FA100-GGBS0; FA25-GGBS75; FA50-GGBS50; FA75-GGBS25; FA0-
GGBS100) at different curing periods. 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
4.The variation of RCPT charge passing with age in the form of bar chart for conventional
concrete is also shown in Fig 4. 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.

3000

2500
RCPT Charge (Coulombs)

2000
M45 CC
FA0-GGBS100
FA25-GGBS75
1500
FA50-GGBS50
FA75-GGBS25
FA100-GGBS0
1000

500

0
28 56 90
Age (days)

Fig. 5.6 RCPT of mixes

5.3.4 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 M45 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 5.6 and 5.7 respectively.

Table 5.6: 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
bag of
 CA 20 606.4 2.58 235.04 1.35 0.44 50 kg =
0.0347
CA 10 404.3 2.658 156.71 0.90 0.30 m3
volume
Total volume of proportions 4.62 (g) Total: 1.52

Table 5.7: 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)/(f (m3)
) (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 5.7: 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
 3
CA 10 m 788 0.30 236.40 0.34 267.92
3
Sand m 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
32.42
CC(%)
Cost analysis of M45 grade of CC and GPC is made as per standard schedule
of rates (SSR(2013)) and is presented in Table 5.7. From the Table 5.7, 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.

Conclusions

Based on the results reported in this investigation, the following conclusions are drawn

 The percentage of water absorption decreases as the quantity of GGBS increases in the
mix of geopolymer concrete irrespective of curing period.
 The percentage of water absorption decreases with curing period irrespective quantity of
GGBS in the mix.
 RCPT indicates that the geopolymer concrete mixture prepared with FA: GGBS: 0:100
proportions produces a dense concrete with less porous- structure.
 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
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.
 Geopolymer concrete can be recommended as an innovative construction material for the
use of the constructions.

5 REFERENCES
[1] Cheng, T.W. and Chiu, J.P., ‘Fire-resistant geopolymer produced by granulated blast
furnace
slag’, Miner. Eng. 16 (2003) 205-10.
[2] Gao, K., Lin, K.L., Wang, D.Y., Hwang, C.L., Shiu, H.S. and Chang, Y.M. ‘Effects SiO2
molar ratio on mechanical properties and the microstructure of nano-SiO2 metakaolin-based
geopolymers’, Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 503-510.
[3] Hwang, C.L. and Huynh, T.P. ‘Effect of alkali-activator and rice husk ash content on
strength development of fly ash and residual rice husk ash-based geopolymers’, Constr.
Build. Mater.101 (2015) 1-9.
[4] Chindaprasirt, P., Rattanasak, U., Vongvoradit, P. and Jenjirapanya, S., ‘Thermal
treatment and utilization of Al-rich waste in high calcium fly ash geopolymeric materials’,
Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 19 (2012) 872-878.
[5] He, J., Jie, Y., Zhang, J., Yu, Y. and Zhang, G., ‘Synthesis and characterization of red
mud and rice husk ash-based geopolymer composites’, Cem. Concr. Compos. 37 (2013) 108-
118.
[6] Fernandez-Jimenez, A and Palomo, A. ‘Composition and microstructure of alkali
activated fly ash binder: effect of the activator’, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 1984-92.
[7] Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S., Van Deventer, J.S.J. and Lukey, G.C., ‘The characterisation of
source materials in fly ash-based geopolymers’, Mater. Lett. 57 (2003) 1272-80.
[8] Bhagath Singh, G.V.P. and Subramaniam, K.V.L., ‘Quantitative XRD Analysis of Binary
Blends of Siliceous Fly ash and Hydrated Cement’, J. Mater. Civil Engineering (ASCE). 28
(8) (2016) 04016042 (1-7).
[9] Duxson, P., Fernandez-Jimenez, A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Palomo, A. and Van
Deventer, J.S.J., ‘Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art’, J. Mater. Sci. 42
(2007) 2917-33.
[10] Van Deventer, J.S.J., Provis, J.L., Duxon, P. and Lukey, G.C., ‘Reaction mechanisms in
the geopolymeric conversion of inorganic waste to useful products’, J. Hazard. Mater. A 139
(2007) 506-513.
[11] Ryu, G.S., Lee, Y.B., Koh, K.T. and Chung, Y.S., ‘The mechanical properties of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete with alkaline activators’, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 409-18.
[12] Alvarez-Ayuso, E., Querol, X., Plana, F., Alastuey, A., Moreno, N., Izquierdo, M.,
Fonta, O., Morenoa, T., Dieza, S., Vázquezb, E. and Barrab, M., ‘Environmental, physical
and structural characterisation of geoploymer matrixes synthesised from coal (co-)
combustion fly ashes’, J.Hazard Mater. 154(1) (2008) 175-83.
[13] Criado, M., Fernandez-Jimenez, A., De la Torre, A.G., Aranda, M.A.G. and Palomo, A.
‘An XRD study of the effect of the SiO2 ratio on the alkali activation of fly ash’, Cem.
Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 671-679.
[14] Songpiriyakij, S., Kubprasit, T., Jaturapitakkul, C. and Chindaprasirt, P., ‘Compressive
strength and degree of reaction of biomass and fly ash-based geopolymer’, Constr. Build.
Mater. 24 (2010) 236-240.
[15] Jang, J.G. and Lee, H.K., ‘Effect of fly ash characteristics on delayed high-strength
development of geopolymers’, Constr. Build. Mater. 102 (2016) 260-69.