See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304093375

Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer

concrete

Article  in  International Journal of Structural Engineering · January 2016

DOI: 10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.2016.077720

CITATION READS

1 601

1 author:

Kamal Neupane
University of Technology Sydney
5 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamal Neupane on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

262 Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2016

Investigation on modulus of elasticity of

powder-activated geopolymer concrete

Kamal Neupane
University of Technology Sydney,
15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
Email: kamalnep@hotmail.com

Abstract: Geopolymer is an inorganic binder, synthesised by the activation of

aluminosilicate compounds by strong alkali solution. Previous researches
suggested that geopolymer concrete possessed superior mechanical properties
over ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete; however, modulus of elasticity
was found lower than OPC concrete of same grade. Two types of
powder-activated geopolymer binders were used to produced geopolymer
concretes of four different grades and two workability levels; normal and
super-workable. Development of compressive strength and modulus of
elasticity geopolymer concretes were investigated at ambient curing and
compared with OPC concrete of same grade. Early age compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete was lower than OPC concrete of same grade; however,
the ultimate strength was significantly higher. The modulus of elasticity of
geopolymer normal-workable concrete was similar to OPC concrete of same
grade and complied with AS-3600. However, modulus of elasticity of
geopolymer super-workable concrete was significantly lower than
normal-workable concrete of same grade.

Keywords: geopolymer binder; powder-activated; normal-workable;

self-compacting; superworkable; engineering properties; compressive strength;
modulus of elasticity; accelerated curing.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Neupane, K. (2016)

‘Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer
concrete’, Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.262–278.

Biographical notes: Kamal Neupane is a research student in University of

Technology Sydney, NSW. He completed his Bachelor in Civil Engineering
from Tribhuvan Univeristy, Kathmandu, Nepal and Master in Structural
Engineering from University of Technology Sydney, NSW. His current
research is focused on investigation of engineering properties of structural
grade, powder-activated geopolymer concrete.

1 Introduction

Geopolymer is commonly formed by the reaction between alumino-silicate compounds,

such as fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and strong alkali
activators. As a result, silicon and aluminium share oxygen atoms alternatively to create a
tetrahedral chain of SiO4 and AlO4. This reaction is known as geopolymerisation
(Davidovits, 1991). The alumino-silicate compounds of the source material are activated
by alkaline solution to form the geopolymer paste that binds the aggregates and other less

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 263

reacting materials. Liquid sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide and their combination were
the mostly used alkali activator in previous researches (Diaz-Loya et al., 2011; Hardjito
and Rangan, 2005; Nath and Sarker, 2012). Initially, the geopolymer binders were made
from alumino-silicate compounds from geological origin, such as kaolin and metakaolin.
However, industrial by-products, such as fly ash and GGBS are more utilised in recent
decades because of their availability around the world (Heath et al., 2013).
In recent decades, several researches were done on geopolymer binders and concrete
about their chemical, microstructural and engineering properties (Diaz-Loya et al., 2011;
Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Lecomte et al., 2006; Silva et al., 2007). Previous researches
suggested that geopolymer concrete possessed superior engineering and durability
properties over ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete with the added advantages of
environmental sustainability; these key advantages are the major factors for the rising
interest on geopolymer binders (Provis, 2013). Industrial by-products can be utilised as
major source material for geopolymer binder, which contribute to reduce the greenhouse
gas emission in production process. The engineering properties of geopolymer concrete
such as tensile and flexural strengths were found higher than OPC concrete of same
strength grade as well as superior resistivity in sulphate and acidic environments
(Bakharev, 2005; Fernandez-Jimenez et al., 2006; Raijiwala and Patil, 2011; Wallah and
Rangan, 2006). Despite having superior engineering properties, modulus of elasticity of
geopolymer concretes was found to be lower than OPC concrete of same compressive
strength level in several previous researches and considerably lower than the estimated
value of modulus of elasticity calculated from Australian Standard (AS)-3600 (2009) and
ACI-318 (2011) (Fernandez-Jimenez et al., 2006; Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Sofi et al.,
2007; Wallah and Rangan, 2006).
Previous researches in fly ash or metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete were done at
elevated temperature curing (accelerated curing) because of longer setting time and lower
early age strength at ambient temperature (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Puertas et al.,
2000; Rovnaník, 2010). The engineering properties geopolymer concrete investigated at
ambient curing conditions are not abundant. Addition of blast furnace slag can bring
significant impacts in shortening the setting and hardening time and increase early as well
as later age strength of fly ash-based geopolymer at ambient temperature (Nath and
Sarker, 2012; Parthiban et al., 2013). This was due to the formation of geopolymeric gel
and calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H) in slag-fly ash or metakaolin-based geopolymer
where C-S-H gel is responsible for early age strength (Oh et al., 2010; Yip et al., 2005). It
was also suggested that presence of calcium compound accelerate the geopolymerisation
process by increasing the dissolution of fly ash in alkaline medium (Catalfamo et al.,
1997; Diaz et al., 2010; Temuujin et al., 2009).
Super-workable concrete is very similar to self-compacting concrete (SCC) in fresh
and hardened concrete properties which generally contains higher amount of sand and
binder than normal-workable concrete (CIA, 2005). In recent decades, the use of SCC is
spreading globally because of its technical and economic benefits over normal-workable
concrete (Domone, 2006). Some of the past investigations showed that mechanical
properties of SCC were different than normal-workable concrete because of significant
difference in ingredients proportions in concrete mix; sand, coarse aggregate and binder
(Holman et al., 2013; Persson, 2001). This difference in mechanical properties of SCC
has not been recognised in concrete standards of current practice, such as AS-3600
(2009) and ACI-318 (2011).
264 K. Neupane

This paper reports the results of an investigation of compressive strength

development of geopolymer concretes from two types of powder-activated geopolymer
binders (Geopolymer 1 and Geopolymer 2) under normal temperature curing at various
ages (up to 90 days). The investigation was done for geopolymer concretes of four
strength grades (40, 50, 65 and 80 MPa) and two workability levels; normal-workable
and super-workable and the results were compared against OPC (control) concrete of
same grade and workability levels. Modulus of elasticity of geopolymer as well as OPC
concretes of each grade was investigated and compared with estimated values using
AS-3600 (2009) and ACI-318 (2011) relationships.

2 Experimental details

2.1 Materials
Two types of powder-activated geopolymer binders; Geopolymer 1 and Geopolymer 2
recently developed by Cement Australia Pty Ltd. were used as binding materials. In these
binders, all the source materials and finely ground alkali activator (powder) were blended
together in defined proportions. The source material of these binders was a combination
of Class F fly ash (from Gladstone Power Station, Queensland) and GGBS (imported and
ground at Bulwer Island, Queensland). The alkali activator was the combination of
sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide in powder form. Geopolymer 1 contained 70% fly
ash and 30% ground granulated blast furnace slag by weight, whereas Geopolymer 2
contained 40% of fly ash and 60% of slag. Table 1 shows the chemical compositions of
low calcium fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag used in geopolymer binders.
The silicate modulus (molar ratio of SiO2/Na2O) of Geopolymer 1 and Geopolymer 2
binders was 4.5 and 4.05, respectively. Similarly, silica content (molar ratio of
SiO2/Al2O3) was 2.2 and 2.3 for Geopolymer 1 and Geopolymer 2, respectively.
Table 1 Chemical compositions of fly ash, slag and OPC (type GP)

LOI CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO SO3 Na2O K2O Others
Fly ash 0.7 3.2 52.7 26 12.8 1.4 0.2 0.52 0.79 2.05
Slag 0.2 42.6 33.5 13.9 0.9 5.2 1.7 0.26 0.36 1.35
GP 3.5 64 19.2 4.96 3.07 1.14 2.5 0.14 0.41 1.08
Note: Others: SrO, TiO2, Mn2O3 and P2O5, LOI: loss on ignition
These powder-activated geopolymer binders are physically very similar with Portland
cement which can be seen in Figure 1. Mixing of concrete from these binders is similar to
conventional Portland cement concrete; addition of water in mixture of sand, aggregate
and binder for desired workability. Concrete from these geopolymers can set and harden
at ambient conditions because of having significant amount of slag in source materials.
The concentration of sodium hydroxide of the binders changed with the variation of
water/binder ratio in concrete mix. For example, the concentration was around 8 M
(molarity) in Grade 40 MPa concrete (water/binder ratio 0.45), whereas, it was as high as
13 M in 80 MPa concrete (water/binder ratio 0.26).
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 265

Figure 1 Portland cement (GP), Geopolymer 1 and Geopolymer 2 binders (see online version
for colours)

OPC (type GP) without addition of any supplementary cementations materials was used
to produce OPC (control) concrete for this study. The chemical compounds of GP cement
are presented in Table 1.
Crushed river course aggregates having the maximum sizes of either 10 mm or
20 mm source from Mary River, Queensland were used for production of concretes of
different grades and workability levels. A combination of medium and fine river sand
was used as fine aggregate in the concrete from same source.
Two types of chemical admixtures; normal water reducer (type WR) and high range
water reducer (type HWR) were used in OPC (control) concrete to control the water
requirement.

2.2 Mix compositions of concretes

The mix proportions for geopolymer and OPC normal-workable concretes were based on
the BRE mix design guidelines (Teychenné et al., 1997). Based on trial mix design
results, the amount of binder and water content were adjusted (reduced from the
recommended amounts) for geopolymer concrete for comparable 28 days strength and
workability level to OPC concrete. The mix design of super-workable concrete was based
on mix design guidelines by Concrete Institute of Australia (CIA, 2005). The mix
compositions normal and super-workable concretes from different binders are presented
in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

2.3 Production of concretes

Normal-workable concretes of different strength grades; 40, 50, 65 and 80 MPa were
produced from all three binders. Super-workable concretes were produced from OPC and
Geopolymer 2 binder for the same strength grades. Concretes of all grades and types
were mixed in the same way in a rotating pan mixer. Geopolymer concretes of both
workability levels were mixed without addition of any chemical admixtures. OPC
normal-workable and super-workable concretes were produced with addition of normal
and high range water reducing admixture as shown Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
266 K. Neupane

Table 2 Mix compositions of normal-workable concretes

Concrete Binder Aggregate (kg/m3) Water Chemical

Slump
Binder ID grade content 20 10 Coarse Fine content admixtures
3 3 (mm)
(MPa) (kg/m ) mm mm sand sand (kg/m ) (litre/m3)
OPC 40 320 660 460 550 200 150 100 WR 1.12
OPC 50 395 640 440 515 195 174 100 WR 1.38
OPC 65 500 610 420 490 180 179 105 HWR 1.75
OPC 80 555 605 425 495 180 161 140 HWR 2.50
Geopolymer 1 40 310 700 490 585 210 112 120 -
Geopolymer 1 50 330 710 490 575 200 112 120 -
Geopolymer 1 65 360 705 480 565 190 109 110 -
Geopolymer 1 80 480 650 455 520 190 115 160 -
Geopolymer 2 40 280 705 490 595 210 132 110 -
Geopolymer 2 50 295 720 500 580 200 124 120 -
Geopolymer 2 65 360 705 475 565 190 112 120 -
Geopolymer 2 80 455 660 460 535 185 117 100 -

Table 3 Mix compositions of super-workable concretes of different grades

3
Concrete Binder Aggregates (kg/m ) Water Chemical
Spread T500
Binder ID grade content 10 Coarse Fine content admixture
(mm) (sec)
(MPa) (kg/m3) mm sand sand (kg/m3) (litre/m3)
OPC 40 390 860 720 200 640 2.25 194 HWR 1.95
OPC 50 420 855 680 210 590 2.5 201 HWR 2.1
OPC 65 520 815 650 200 550 2.3 197 HWR 2.6
OPC 80 620 775 615 195 620 3.93 179 HWR 3.1
Geopolymer 2 40 405 855 695 200 600 2.07 191 -
Geopolymer 2 50 420 860 680 210 640 3.1 180 -
Geopolymer 2 65 520 805 640 200 640 3.3 185 -
Geopolymer 2 80 570 780 630 200 610 4.7 166 -

The workability of normal-workable concrete was measured by the slump test. For
superworkable concrete, workability was determined by slump flow (spread) and T500
(time to reach 500 mm circle).

2.4 Curing and testing of concrete specimens

Sufficient numbers of concrete cylinders (100 mm × 200 mm) were cast from each
concrete mix to investigate compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete
such that minimum three numbers of cylinders would be available for any particular age.
Then, both OPC and geopolymer concrete cylinders were kept in laboratory temperature
(23°C) for 24 hours before demoulding. After the demoulding, small amount of water
was sprayed in geopolymer concrete cylinders and they were sealed with plastic sheet as
shown in Figure 2. The sealed geopolymer cylinders cured in lab temperature until
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 267

testing. OPC concrete cylinders were cured by immersing in lime saturated water at
23°C.

Figure 2 Sealed geopolymer concrete cylinder for ambient curing (see online version for colours)

The compressive strength of concrete was measured at the ages of 1, 3, 7, 28, 56 and
90 days according to AS-1012.9 (1999). Modulus of elasticity of concretes was measured
according to AS-1012.17 (1997) at the age of 28 and 56 days.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Workability
The water content of concrete mixes from different binders was based on similar
workability of concretes; average 120 mm slump for normal-workable concretes and
500–700 mm spread for super-workable concretes. In Table 2, there was a significant
difference in amount of water required for a comparable workability (120 ± 20 mm
slump) in geopolymer and OPC normal-workable concrete.
The average water content in normal-workable concretes from OPC, Geopolymer 1
and Geopolymer 2 binders were 166, 112 and 121 kg/m3, respectively. Geopolymer,
normal-workable concrete required around 30% less water than OPC concrete for the
comparable workability and 28 days compressive strength, although they were produced
without any chemical admixture.
The high proportion of fly ash in geopolymer binders is the main reason for lower
water demand in geopolymer concrete. When Portland cement is partially replaced
(20–25% by weight) by fly ash, the workability of concrete will be improved
significantly for the same water content in concrete mix because of its round shaped
particles and glassy text texture (Siddique, 2008). Therefore, when the binder contains
more than 50% of fly ash, it can develop higher workability of concrete even in lower
water content. Fly can be easily dispersed in alkaline environment without addition of
chemical admixtures (Chindaprasirt et al., 2007). The nature of geopolymerisation
reaction to recycle water (Davidovits, 1991) is also a reason for lower water demand in
geopolymer concrete. The higher percentage of fly ash (by 30%) in Geopolymer 1 binder
was the major reason for lower water demand in concrete from Geopolymer 1 binder than
Geopolymer 2 binder for same workability.
268 K. Neupane

On the other hand, super-workable concrete from Geopolymer 2 binder required

slightly less amount of water (around 7%) than OPC concrete (prepared with high range
water reducing admixture) for the same workability level.

3.2 Compressive strength development

Compressive strength development of Grades 65 and 50 MPa concretes from different

binder and workability levels is shown in Figure 3. The compressive strength
development patterns of concrete from a particular binder were similar for all strength
grades and workability levels. Medium grade geopolymer concrete concretes (40 and
50 MPa) developed lower compressive strength at early age (1 to 3 days) than OPC
concrete of same grade. After seven days, there was higher rate of strength development
in geopolymer concrete than in OPC concrete which resulted higher 28 days and ultimate
strength of geopolymer concrete than OPC concrete of same grade. This development in
compressive strength was the result of continuous geopolymerisation process for a longer
period. High-strength geopolymer concrete (65 and 80 MPa) attained significant early
age strength as equal as OPC concrete of same grade. The compressive strength growth
from 28 to 90 days in geopolymer concretes was around 18% when compared with 6%
average growth in OPC concretes for the same period.

Figure 3 Compressive strength development (see online version for colours)

For the same strength grade, the amount of binder required in geopolymer concrete was
significantly less than OPC concrete as shown in Table 2. For example, concrete from
Geopolymer 2 binder of 360 kg/m3 developed 82.5 MPa compressive strength at 28 days
which was 5 MPa higher than compressive strength of OPC concrete from 500 kkg/m3.
For the same 28 days strength, concrete from Geopolymer 2 binder required slightly less
amount of binder than from Geopolymer 1 binder because of having higher slag content.
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 269

3.3 Modulus of elasticity

The experimental results for modulus of elasticity of concretes of different grades are
presented in Figure 4, each data represents the average result of minimum three numbers
of specimens. Data points show that geopolymer concretes possessed similar modulus of
elasticity to the OPC concrete of same strength grade. However, super-workable
concretes possess relatively lower modulus of elasticity than normal-workable concrete
of same grade. OPC super-workable concretes showed slightly higher elastic modulus
than geopolymer super-workable concretes of same strength grade.

Figure 4 Experimental data of modulus of elasticity (see online version for colours)

There was a significant growth in modulus of elasticity of geopolymer concrete after

28 days. In normal-workable geopolymer concretes, the average growth in modulus of
elasticity from 28 to 56 days was 11% when compared with 10% average growth in
compressive strength for the same period. Aïtcin and Mehta (1990) reported an average
5% growth in modulus of elasticity of OPC-based concrete for 5% average growth in
compressive strength in the same period. Another study by Baalbaki et al. (1992)
suggested an average 6.5% growth in modulus of elasticity of OPC concrete for 9%
average growth in compressive strength for the period of 28 to 91 days.
Previous investigations suggested that modulus of elasticity of concrete depends on
the types and properties of coarse aggregates used; higher modulus of elasticity of
aggregate resulted higher modulus of elasticity of concrete (Aïtcin and Mehta, 1990;
Beshr et al., 2003). The majority of aggregate rock used in this experiment was
greywacke sedimentary rock having average modulus of elasticity 38.0 GPa (Gokceoglu
and Zorlu, 2004) when compared to 49.0 GPa of limestone and 42.0 GPa of quartzite
aggregates (Baalbaki et al., 1991). The modulus of elasticity results could be different if
other aggregates were used. Since, concretes of different grades and workability levels
270 K. Neupane

were produced with same aggregates, aggregate type was not a factor for the variation of
modulus of elasticity of concretes of different grades and workability levels.

3.3.1 Relationship between modulus of elasticity and compressive strength

In most of the concrete standards of current practice, modulus of elasticity of concrete is
estimated from its density and compressive strength.
• modulus of elasticity recommended by ACI-318 (2011) is as following.

E c = 0.043ρ1.5 √ f c′ MPa (1)

• modulus of elasticity recommended by AS-3600 (2009) is as following

E c = ρ1.5 ( 0.024 √ f cm + 0.12 ) MPa; when f cm > 40 MPa (2)

• modulus of elasticity recommended by European Standard (EN)-1992-1-1 (2004) is:

E c = 22* ( f cm / 10 )
0.3
MPa (3)

where
ρ = concrete cylinder density (kg/m3)
fcm = mean compressive strength (MPa)
f c′ = characteristic strength of concrete (MPa)
Ec = modulus of elasticity

Figure 5 Relationship of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity (see online version
for colours)

Above relationships are plotted in Figure 5 for geopolymer concrete results of this study.
Some additional data of normal-workable geopolymer concrete of this study are also
included in this plot. In this figure, the line representing AS-3600 (2009) equation is very
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 271

close with geopolymer as well as OPC concretes data points. The estimated modulus of
elasticity according to AS-3600 (2009) has an error range of ±20%. However, in this
figure, data points of all geopolymer and OPC normal-workable concretes are located
well inside the ±10% error range of that line. Modulus of elasticity value is said to be
overestimated by ACI-318 (2011) for geopolymer concrete because none of any data
points are located within this line.

3.3.2 Comparison with previous results of geopolymer concretes

Some investigations were done in the past to determine modulus of elasticity of
geopolymer concrete made from different source materials and activators.
Tempest (2010) postulated a relationship model to estimate the modulus of elasticity
of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete from compressive strength as follows.

E c = 3,421 √ f c′ MPa (4)

Diaz-Loya et al. (2011) proposed following relationship to estimate of modulus of

elasticity of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.

E c = 0.037 (ρ)1.5 √ f c′ MPa (5)

Sofi et al. (2007) suggested that equation recommended by AS-3600 was also applicable
to fly ash and slag-based geopolymer concrete.
Hardjito and Rangan (2005) found that accelerated cured fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete possessed relatively lower modulus of elasticity then recommended
by AS-3600.
All these proposed models and individual results are plotted in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Modulus of elasticity of various geopolymer binder concretes (see online version
for colours)
272 K. Neupane

Fernandez-Jimenez et al. (2006) reported significantly lower modulus of elasticity of fly

ash-based geopolymer concrete than OPC concrete. Modulus of elasticity of geopolymer
concrete measured by Diaz-Loya et al. (2011) was also relatively lower than modulus of
elasticity of this study for the same compressive strength. The relationship model
proposed by Tempest (2010) estimates significantly lower values than results of this
study.
In most of the researches, geopolymer concrete specimens were cured in elevated
temperature in order to develop high early strength. Curing at elevated temperature
contributes to evaporate the water from the geopolymer matrix subsequently lead to
higher porosity and lower concrete density (Temuujin et al., 2009). As suggested by
Pauw (1960), lower concrete density may be one of the reasons for the lower modulus of
elasticity of geopolymer concretes in previous studies. Modulus of elasticity results of
ambient cured slag-based geopolymer concrete measured by Douglas et al. (1992) was
higher than in other previous studies and similar with the results of this study. Therefore,
curing method of geopolymer concrete is an important factor to influence in modulus of
elasticity.

3.3.3 Compliance with AS-3600 and ACI-318

In Figure 5, the measured modulus of elasticity of normal-workable geopolymer
concretes were close to the line representing equation of modulus of elasticity suggested
by AS-3600 (2009) and were located within ±10% range of error from that line. A
comparison of measured data and estimated values of modulus of elasticity of
geopolymer concretes according to AS-3600 (2009) and ACI-318 (2011) is presented in
Table 4.
Table 4 Comparison of estimated and measured modulus of elasticity

Measured Calculated Calculated

Compressive
modulus of according to Measured/ according to Measured/
strength
elasticity AS-3600 calculated ACI-318 calculated
(MPa)
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
49.0 32.0 34.3 0.94 35.8 0.89
53.0 33.0 35.1 0.94 37.3 0.89
62.0 36.0 36.8 0.98 40.3 0.89
66.0 36.0 37.5 0.96 41.6 0.87
73.5 37.0 38.8 0.95 43.9 0.84
78.0 38.8 39.5 0.98 45.2 0.86
78.5 39.1 39.6 1.01 45.4 0.86
82.5 39.0 40.2 0.97 46.5 0.84
91.5 40.0 41.6 0.96 49.0 0.82
88.0 40.0 41.1 0.97 48.0 0.83
Ave 0.96 Ave 0.86
Notes: fcm = mean compressive strength (MPa) and MoE = modulus of elasticity (GPa).
As shown in Table 4, calculated values of modulus of elasticity using AS-3600 (2009)
were very close to the measured results of geopolymer concretes. The ratios of measured
values to estimated values ranged from 0.94 to 1.01 with an average of 0.96 for
geopolymer concrete. This ratio was 1.04 for 56 days results because of significant
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 273

development of modulus of elasticity after 28 days. Thus, modulus of elasticity

for geopolymer concretes can be closely estimated using AS-3600 (2009) equation.
However, there was a relatively bigger difference between the estimated and measured
values of modulus of elasticity using ACI-318 (2011) equation in geopolymer concretes
having average value of measured/calculated ratio as 0.87.

3.3.4 Modulus of elasticity of super-workable concrete

In Figure 4, the modulus of elasticity of super-workable concrete was relatively lower
than normal-workable concrete for the same level of compressive strength. In this study,
super-workable concretes were mix designed with maximum 10 mm sized aggregate with
higher proportion of sand and relatively higher amount of binder compared to the
normal-workable concretes.
A study on mechanical properties of normal-workable and SCC by
Holman et al. (2013) found that SCC possessed relatively lower modulus of elasticity
than normal-workable concrete despite of higher compressive strength. Leemann and
Hoffmann (2005) study showed that SCC possessed around 16% lower modulus of
elasticity than normal-workable concrete of same compressive strength. Another study by
Dinakar et al. (2008) postulated a relationship to estimated modulus of SCC elasticity as
following.

E c = 4,180 √ f cm (MPa) (6)

Similarly, Persson (2001) postulated following relationship of modulus of elasticity and

compressive strength for SCC.

E c = 3,750 √ f cm (MPa) (7)

The modulus of elasticity results of super-workable concretes of this study and from
some previous investigations are presented in Figure 7. Some additional data of super-
workable geopolymer concrete were also included in this plot.

Figure 7 Modulus of elasticity of super-workable concretes (see online version for colours)
274 K. Neupane

In this figure, data points of modulus of elasticity of super-workable concrete are

located far below than line of AS-3600 (2009). So, the same relationship used for
normal-workable concrete may not be applicable for super-workable concrete.
Based on available data, a model can be formulated to estimate modulus of elasticity
of geopolymer super-workable concrete.

Modulus of elasticity ( E c ) = ρ1.5 0.034 √ f cm MPa (8)

where ρ = concrete cylinder density (kg/m3) and fcm = mean compressive strength (MPa).
In Figure 7, all the data points of super-workable concrete located within the ±10%
range from the proposed model. The relationship model proposed by Persson (2001) was
very close with the proposed model of this study, whereas model proposed by Dinakar
et al. (2008) estimates higher values of modulus of elasticity but within 10% range of this
proposed model.

3.3.4.1 Factor affecting the modulus of elasticity of super-workable concrete

Concrete as a composite material is affected from the properties of its ingredients;
aggregates and binder matrix. The study of Kaplan (1959) about the effect of the modulus
of elasticity of rock aggregate and binder paste into modulus of elasticity of concrete
postulated following equation.
E c = Va * E a + (1 − Va ) * E m (9)

where Ec, Ea and Em are the modulus of elasticity of concrete, aggregate and binding
paste respectively; Va = volume concentration of aggregate.
Above equation suggests that modulus of elasticity of concrete is the summation of
modulus of elasticity of its ingredients; aggregates and binding paste with respect to their
volume in concrete mix.
The average modulus of elasticity of greywacke aggregate rocks (used in this
experiment) was 38.0 GPa (Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004). Whereas, modulus of elasticity
of cement paste was measured around 24.0 GPa (Alexander, 1994). The binder content in
super-workable concretes was around 35% higher (by weight) than in normal-workable
concretes of same grade, thus higher volume of paste. For example, in Grade 50 MPa
concretes from Geopolymer 2 binder, the calculated volumes of coarse aggregates and
binder paste were 46% and 10% of total concrete volume in normal-workable concrete,
whereas these volumes were 32.5% and 15% of total concrete volume in super-workable
concrete. This significant lower volume of coarse aggregates and higher volume of binder
paste in super-workable concrete can contribute to lower the modulus of elasticity of
super-workable concrete. Felekoğlu et al. (2007) study also concluded that higher amount
of binder was responsible to lower the modulus of elasticity of SCC.
The proportion of coarse and fine aggregates in the concrete mix is also a significant
factor in modulus of elasticity of concrete. Nikbin et al. (2014) found a significant
increase in modulus of elasticity with the increase in proportion of coarse aggregate in
concrete mix. The average proportions of coarse aggregate in normal-workable and
super-workable concretes of this study were 61% and 49% by weight of total aggregates
respectively. The 12% difference in coarse aggregate may be responsible for the decrease
in modulus of elasticity of super-workable concretes.
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 275

Another possible reason for the lower modulus of elasticity of super-workable

concrete was the lower concrete density compared to normal-workable concrete. Holman
et al. (2013) measured relatively lower density of SCC having lower modulus of elasticity
compared to the normal-workable concrete of same strength level. In this research,
average cylinder density of geopolymer super-workable concrete was around
2,340 kg/m3, whereas, the average density of geopolymer normal-workable concrete was
around 2,420 kg/m3. According to Pauw (1960), difference in density may be a
significant factor to lower the modulus of elasticity of super-workable concretes.

4 Conclusions

Geopolymer concrete required significantly less amount of water and binder for the
comparable workability and 28 days strength to OPC concrete. Geopolymer concretes of
both workability levels; normal and super-workable can be prepared without chemical
admixtures.
Normal strength grade geopolymer concrete developed lower early age strength
at ambient temperature compared to the OPC concrete of same grade. However,
high-strength (65 and 80 MPa) geopolymer concrete developed significant early age
strength as equal as OPC concrete of same grade. There was a significant growth in
compressive strength (around 18%) in geopolymer concrete from 28 to 90 days period.
Modulus of elasticity of four different grades and two workability levels of concretes
were measured and evaluated. The measured modulus of elasticity of geopolymer
normal-workable concrete was very close (within 10% error range) to the calculated
modulus of elasticity using AS-3600 (2009) and similar to modulus of elasticity of OPC
concrete of same strength grade. Therefore, the same current model can be used to
estimate modulus of elasticity of geopolymer concrete. The growth in modulus of
elasticity of geopolymer concrete after 28 days was significantly higher when compared
with OPC concrete.
Super-workable geopolymer concrete possessed relatively lower (around 15%) elastic
modulus than normal-workable concretes of same strength grade. Previous studies on
OPC-based SCCs have also postulated similar results. Higher proportion of sand, lower
concrete density and higher volume of binder paste in concrete mix are the reasons for
the lower modulus of elasticity of super-workable concrete. Therefore, a different model
has been proposed to estimate the modulus of elasticity of super-workable geopolymer
concrete.

References
ACI-318 (2011) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI Committee 318,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Aïtcin, P-C. and Mehta, P.K. (1990) ‘Effect of coarse aggregate characteristics on mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp.103–107.
Alexander, M.G. (1994) ‘Effects of aging on mechanical properties of the interfacial zone between
cement paste and rock’, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp.1277–1285.
AS-1012.17 (1997) Methods of Testing Concrete; Method 17: Determination of the Static Cord
Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete Specimens, Standards Australia
International Ltd, Sydney, NSW.
276 K. Neupane

AS-1012.9 (1999) Methods of Testing Concrete; Method 9: Determination of the Compressive

Strength of Concrete Specimens, Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, NSW.
AS-3600 (2009) Concrete Structures, Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, NSW.
Baalbaki, W., Aitcin, P-C. and Ballivy, G. (1992) ‘On predicting modulus of elasticity in
high-strength concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp.517–520.
Baalbaki, W., Benmokrane, B., Chaallal, O. and Aitcin, P-C. (1991) ‘Influence of coarse aggregate
on elastic properties of high-performance concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 5,
pp.499–503.
Bakharev, T. (2005) ‘Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack’, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.658–670.
Beshr, H., Almusallam, A. and Maslehuddin, M. (2003) ‘Effect of coarse aggregate quality on the
mechanical properties of high strength concrete’, Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.97–103.
Catalfamo, P., Pasquale, S.D., Corigliano, F. and Mavilia, L. (1997) ‘Influence of the calcium
content on the coal fly ash features in some innovative applications’, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.119–125.
Chindaprasirt, P., Chareerat, T. and Sirivivatnanon, V. (2007) ‘Workability and strength of
coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer’, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp.224-9.
CIA (2005) Recommended Practice: Super-workable Concrete (Z 40), Concrete Institute of
Australia, National Office, St Leonard, NSW.
Davidovits, J. (1991) ‘Geopolymers-inorganic polymeric new materials’, Journal of Thermal
Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp.1633–1656.
Diaz, E.I., Allouche, E.N. and Eklund, S. (2010) ‘Factors affecting the suitability of fly ash as
source material for geopolymers’, Fuel, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp.992–996.
Diaz-Loya, I.E., Allouche, E.N. and Vaidya, S. (2011) ‘Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based
geopolymer concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 108, No. 3, pp.300–306.
Dinakar, P., Babu, K. and Santhanam, M. (2008) ‘Mechanical properties of high-volume fly ash
self-compacting concrete mixtures’, Structural concrete, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.109–116.
Domone, P.L. (2006) ‘Self-compacting concrete: an analysis of 11 years of case studies’, Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.197–208.
Douglas, E., Bilodeau, A. and Malhotra, V.M. (1992) ‘Properties and durability of alkali-activated
slag concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp.509–516.
EN-1992.1.1 (2004) Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Felekoğlu, B., Türkel, S. and Baradan, B. (2007) ‘Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh and
hardened properties of self-compacting concrete’, Building and Environment, Vol. 42, No. 4,
pp.1795–802.
Fernandez-Jimenez, A.M., Palomo, A. and Lopez-Hombrados, C. (2006) ‘Engineering properties of
alkali-activated fly ash concrete’, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp.106–112.
Gokceoglu, C. and Zorlu, K. (2004) ‘A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive strength
and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock’, Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.61–72.
Hardjito, D. and Rangan, B.V. (2005) Development and Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based
Geopolymer Concrete, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Heath, A., Goodhew, S., Paine, K., Lawrence, M. and Ramage, M. (2013) ‘The potential for using
geopolymer concrete in the UK’, Proceedings of the ICE – Construction Materials, Vol. 166,
No. 4, pp.195–203.
 Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated geopolymer 277

Holman, K.R., Myers, J.J. and Volz, J.S. (2013) ‘Mechanical and durability behaviour of self-
consolidating concerte (SCC)’, Proceeding of the Fifth North American Conference on the
Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, USA.
Kaplan, M.F. (1959) Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity, Poisson’s Ratio
and the Strength of Concrete Made With Thirteen Different Coarse Aggregates, National
Building Research Institute, South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,
Pretoria.
Lecomte, I., Henrist, C., Liegeois, M., Maseri, F., Rulmont, A. and Cloots, R. (2006)
‘(Micro)-structural comparison between geopolymers, alkali-activated slag cement and
Portland cement’, Journal of the European Ceramic Society, Vol. 26, No. 16, pp.3789–3797.
Leemann, A. and Hoffmann, C. (2005) ‘Properties of self-compacting and conventional concrete –
differences and similarities’, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp.315–319.
Nath, P. and Sarker, P.K. (2012) ‘Geopolymer concrete for ambient curing condition’, Proceeding
of the Australasian Structural Engineering Conference 2012, Engineers Australia, Perth.
Nikbin, I.M., Beygi, M.H.A., Kazemi, M.T., Vaseghi Amiri, J., Rahmani, E., Rabbanifar, S. and
Eslami, M. (2014) ‘A comprehensive investigation into the effect of aging and coarse
aggregate size and volume on mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete’, Materials
& Design, Vol. 59, pp.199–210.
Oh, J.E., Monteiro, P.J.M., Jun, S.S., Choi, S. and Clark, S.M. (2010) ‘The evolution of strength
and crystalline phases for alkali-activated ground blast furnace slag and fly ash-based
geopolymers’, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.189–196.
Parthiban, K., Saravanarajamohan, K., Shobana, S. and Bhaskar, A.A. (2013) ‘Effect of
replacement of slag on the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete’,
International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET), Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.2555–2559.
Pauw, A. (1960) ‘Static modulus of elasticity of concrete as affected by density’, ACI Journal
Proceedings, ACI, Vol. 57, pp.679–687.
Persson, B. (2001) ‘A comparison between mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete and
the corresponding properties of normal concrete’, Cement and concrete Research, Vol. 31,
No. 2, pp.193–198.
Provis, J.L. (2013) ‘Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: why, how, and what?’,
Materials and Structures, Vol. 47, Nos. 1–2, pp.11–25.
Puertas, F., Martı́nez-Ramı́rez, S., Alonso, S. and Vazquez, T. (2000) ‘Alkali-activated fly ash/slag
cements: strength behaviour and hydration products’, Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 30, No. 10, pp.1625–1632.
Raijiwala, D.B. and Patil, H.S. (2011) ‘Geopolymer concrete: a concrete of the next decade’,
Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.19–25.
Rovnaník, P. (2010) ‘Effect of curing temperature on the development of hard structure of
metakaolin-based geopolymer’, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, No. 7,
pp.1176–1183.
Siddique, R. (2008) Waste Materials and By-Products in Concrete, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Silva, P.D., Sagoe-Crenstil, K. and Sirivivatnanon, V. (2007) ‘Kinetics of geopolymerization: role
of Al2O3 and SiO2’, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.512–518.
Sofi, M., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Mendis, P.A. and Lukey, G.C. (2007) ‘Engineering properties
of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs)’, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 37, No. 2,
pp.251–257.
Tempest, B. (2010) Engineering Characterization of Waste Derived Geopolymer Cement Concrete
for Structural Applications, PhD Thesis, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Ann
Arbor, USA.
 278 K. Neupane

Temuujin, J., Van Riessen, A. and Williams, R. (2009) ‘Influence of calcium compounds on the
mechanical properties of fly ash geopolymer pastes’, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol. 167, No. 1, pp.82–88.
Teychenné, D.C., Franklin, R.E., Erntroy, H.C. and Marsh, B.K. (1997) Building Research
Establishment-Design of Normal Concrete Mixes, 2nd ed., Construction Research
Communications Ltd., London, England.
Wallah, S.E. and Rangan, B.V. (2006) Low Calcium Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete –
Long Term Properties, Res. Report-GC2, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University, Perth,
Australia.
Yip, C.K., Lukey, G.C. and van Deventer, J.S.J. (2005) ‘The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and
calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation’, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.1688–1697.

View publication stats