Multi-disciplinary Sustainable Engineering: Current and Future Trends – Tekwani, Bhavsar & Modi (Eds)

© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02845-6

Effect of different parameters on the compressive strength

of rubberized geopolymer concrete

Salmabanu Luhar & Sandeep Chaudhary

Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India

Urmil Dave
Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

ABSTRACT: The main objective of this study is to develop rubberized geopolymer con-
crete by using the optimum content of rubber fiber. Finally, the effect of various parameters,
such as ratio of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution, ratio of alkaline liq-
uid to fly ash, by mass, curing temperature, concentration of sodium hydroxide solution,
in terms of Molar, curing time, addition of superplasticizer, water content of mix, and rest
period prior to curing on compressive strength of rubberized geopolymer concrete and con-
trol geopolymer concrete, are compared. In total, 24 geopolymer concrete mixes were cast
to evaluate the effect of various parameters on the compressive strength of geopolymer con-
crete. The test results indicate that rubberized geopolymer requires more water as compared
to the control geopolymer concrete. Compressive strength increases with increase in the cur-
ing temperature, curing time, and concentration of sodium hydroxide solution during rest
period and decreases with increase in the superplasticizer dosage.

Keywords: rubberized geopolymer concrete; Na2SiO3; NaOH; fly ash; superplasticizer

1 INTRODUCTION

Day by day, the demand of concrete is increasing which is increasing the production of
cement. Cement production releases high amount of carbon dioxide gas in to the atmos-
phere. Around 275 MT cement was produced in India in 2014 which released approx 275 MT
CO2 in to the atmosphere.
In India, around 64% energy is produced by coal based thermal power stations which produce
a huge amount of fly ash that is not effectively used. For disposal of this fly ash, several hectares
of land are required. To overcome this problem, we need to utilize fly ash in construction.
Cement, the second most consumed product in the world, contributes nearly 7% of the
global carbon dioxide. One ton of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere while manufacturing
one ton OPC due to the calcination of limestone and combustion of fossil fuel [1].
Geopolymer concrete, which has unique properties, such as high early strength, low shrinkage,
and sulfate and corrosion resistance, could become a viable alternative to conventional cement
and hence substantially reduce CO2 emission caused by cement and concrete industries.

77

NUICONE -Book.indb 77 3/3/2016 3:00:54 PM

 Nowadays demand of natural sand has increased with increase in construction activity
which results in scarcity of natural sand. However, we need to search for other alternative
materials of sand that are eco-friendly and inexpensive. On the other side, disposal of waste
tires creates health and environmental problems. Recycling of waste tires is difficult because
of its highly complex structure. Accumulation of discarded tires in the environment is there-
fore a serious problem. Utilization of waste rubber tires in concrete, therefore, may be one of
the better solutions for the disposal of this waste as this saves natural resources and produces
a more efficient material [17].

2 MATERIALS

2.1 Sodium hydroxide

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in flake form with 98% has been used. Sodium hydroxide solu-
tion was prepared by dissolving the flakes into the water.
Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

2.2 Sodium silicate

Locally available water glass type sodium silicate was used.

2.3 Aggregate
Aggregates of 10 mm and 20 mm in size having 2.59 specific gravity have been used as coarse
aggregates. Locally available river sand of 2.56 specific gravity was used as fine aggregate in
the mixes.

2.4 Superplasticizer
Naphthalene sulfonate based superplasticizer has been used to improve the workability of
the fresh geopolymer concrete.

2.5 Rubber fiber

Rubber fibers of specific gravity 1.07 were used in this study. Ten percent of rubber fibers
were partially replaced as fine aggregates.

3 MIX PROPORTION FOR GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

78

NUICONE -Book.indb 78 3/3/2016 3:00:54 PM

CH12_466.indd 79

Unit Mix-1 Mix-2 Mix-3 Mix-4 Mix-5 Mix-6 Mix-7 Mix-8

3
Kg/m A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B

Fly ash Kg/m3 442.31 442.31 425.93 425.93 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71
F.A Kg/m3 673.75 606.37 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75
Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

Rubber fibre Kg/m3 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318
C.A 20 mm Kg/m3 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75
10 mm 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50
Na2SiO3 Kg/m3 88.46 88.46 99.38 99.38 109.52 109.52 98.57 98.57 109.52 109.52 117.35 117.35 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52
NaOH Kg/m3 44.23 44.23 49.69 49.69 54.76 54.76 65.71 65.71 54.76 54.76 46.94 46.94 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76
Extra water Kg/m3 88.46 88.46 85.19 85.19 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14
Super- Kg/m3 8.85 8.85 8.52 8.52 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
plasticizer
Varying – Alkaline/fly ash Alkaline/fly ash Alkaline/fly ash Na2 sio3/NaoH Na2 sio3/NaoH Na2 sio3/NaoH Curing time Curing time
parameter ratio −0.3 ratio −0.35 ratio −0.4 ratio −1.5 ratio −2.0 ratio −2.5 −24 hr −48 hr
79

Unit Mix-9 Mix-10 Mix-11 Mix-12 Mix-13 Mix-14 Mix-15 Mix-16

Kg/m3 A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B

Fly ash Kg/m3 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71
F.A Kg/m3 673.75 606.375 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75
Rubber fibre Kg/m3 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318
C.A 20 mm Kg/m3 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75
10 mm 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50
Na2SiO3 Kg/m3 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52
NaOH Kg/m3 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76
Extra water Kg/m3 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 61.61 61.61
Super- Kg/m3 8.21 8.21 12.32 12.32 16.43 16.43 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
plasticizer
Varying – Curing time Superplasticizer Superplasticizer Superplasticizer Rest period Rest period Rest period Extra water
parameter −72 hr −2.0% −3.0% −4.0% −0 days −1 days −2 days content
−15%
3/30/2016 3:43:29 PM
CH12_466.indd 80

Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

Unit Mix-17 Mix-18 Mix-19 Mix-20 Mix-21 Mix-22 Mix-23 Mix-24

Kg/m3 A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B

Fly ash Kg/m3 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71 410.71
F.A Kg/m3 673.75 606.375 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75 673.75
Rubber fibre Kg/m3 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318 – 26.318
C.A 20 mm Kg/m3 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75 750.75
10 mm 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50 500.50
80

Na2SiO3 Kg/m3 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52 109.52
NaOH Kg/m3 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76 54.76
Extra water Kg/m3 82.14 82.14 102.68 102.68 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14 82.14
Super- Kg/m3 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
plasticizer
Varying – Extra water Extra water NaoH NaoH NaoH Curing Curing Curing
parameter content content concentration concentration concentration temperature temperature temperature
−20% −25% −10M −12M −14M −60°C −75°C −90°C
3/30/2016 3:43:29 PM
 4 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Parameters affecting the performance of geopolymer concrete and rubberized geopolymer

concrete are as follows:
1. Alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio, by mass.
2. Na2Sio3 to NaOH ratio, by mass.
3. Curing time
4. Addition of superplasticizer
5. Rest period prior to curing
6. Water content of mix
7. Concentration of NaOH solution, in terms of Molar.
8. Curing temperature

5 PARAMETER STUDY
Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

5.1 Alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio

The effect of alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio by mass on compressive strength of concrete at
7 days has been observed by comparing results of Mix 1, Mix 2, and Mix 3. From Figure 1
it is observed that the ratio of alkaline liquid to fly ash does not much affect the compressive
strength of the control and rubberized geopolymer concrete.

5.2 Na2Sio3 to NaOH ratio, by mass

The effect of Na2Sio3 to NaOH ratio, by mass on compressive strength of concrete has been
observed by comparing results of Mix 4, Mix 5, and Mix 6. Figure 2 shows that Na2Sio3 to
NaOH ratio of 2.0 gives the highest compressive strength as compared to the ratios of 1.5
and 2.5.

Figure 1. Effect of alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio on compressive strength.

81

NUICONE -Book.indb 81 3/3/2016 3:00:54 PM

Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

Figure 2. Effect of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution ratio on compressive
strength.

Figure 3. Effect of curing time on compressive strength.

5.3 Curing time

To evaluate the effect of curing time on geopolymer concrete, 100 × 100 × 100 mm cubes were
cured for curing periods of 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours, respectively. Concrete Mix 7,
Mix 8, and Mix 9 were cast for evaluating the curing time on the compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete and rubberized concrete. As per the figure, 48 hrs curing time improved
the polymerization process which results in higher development of compressive strength of
control and rubberized geopolymer concrete.

82

NUICONE -Book.indb 82 3/3/2016 3:00:55 PM

 5.4 Addition of superplasticizer
The effect of superplasticizer on compressive strength of control and rubberized geopolymer
concrete has been evaluated by comparing the results of 2%, 3%, and 4% dosage of
admixture.
It has been observed that the superplasticizer increases the workability of control and
rubberized geopolymer concrete as shown in Figure 4. Concrete Mix 8 with 2% dosage
of superplasticizer achieved higher compressive strength as compared to the concrete
mixes 11 and 12. Thus, the addition of naphthalene based superplasticizer has been able
to increase the workability of geopolymer concrete. However, higher dosage of admix-
ture up to 4% has resulted into reduction of the compressive strength of the geopolymer
concrete.

5.5 Rest period prior to curing

“Rest Period” is the time between the completion of casting of geopolymer concrete speci-
mens to the curing of geopolymer concrete specimen.
Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

The effect of rest period of geopolymer concrete was evaluated by Mix 13, 14, and 15.
The results indicate that a one-day rest period gives higher compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete as compared to that for 0 days and 2 days rest period.

5.6 Water content of Mix

The chemical reaction between the alkaline solution and source materials produces water that
is expelled from the binder. However water does not take any part in the chemical reaction
of geopolymer [10].
The effect of water content on compressive strength of control and rubberized geopolymer
concrete can be observed by comparing results of 15%, 20%, and 25% water content. The
water requirement is more for rubberized geopolymer concrete as compared to the control
geopolymer concrete.

Figure 4. Effect of addition of superplasticizer on compressive strength.

83

NUICONE -Book.indb 83 3/3/2016 3:00:55 PM

Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

Figure 5 Effect of rest period on compressive strength.

Figure 6. Effect of water content on compressive strength.

5.7 Concentration of NaOH solution

The difference between the variation in the molar concentration of NaOH solution of
10 M, 12 M, and 14 M has been evaluated. It can be concluded that a higher concentration
of NaOH solution gives higher compressive strength of control and rubberized geopolymer
concrete.

84

NUICONE -Book.indb 84 3/3/2016 3:00:56 PM

 Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

Figure 7. Effect of concentration of sodium hydroxide solution on compressive strength.

Figure 8. Effect of curing temperature on compressive strength.

5.8 Curing temperature

The effect of curing temperature on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete has been
evaluated by comparing results of concrete mixes 22, 23, and 24.
Results indicate that higher curing temperature achieved higher compressive strength
for control and rubberized geopolymer concrete. Curing temperatures beyond 75°C caused
minor increment in the compressive strength.

85

NUICONE -Book.indb 85 3/3/2016 3:00:56 PM

 6 CONCLUSION

1. The alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio, by mass, does not affect the compressive strength of
the control and rubberized geopolymer concrete.
2. The Na2Sio3 to NaOH ratio of 2.0 gives higher compressive strength as compared to the
other ratios.
3. The increase in NaOH increased the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete.
4. The increase in curing temperature and curing time increased the compressive strength of
control and rubberized geopolymer concrete.
5. The compressive strength of rubberized geopolymer concrete increases with increase in
the curing time.
6. The compressive strength of geopolymer concrete increases with increased rest periods up
to some extent. Results show that a one-day rest period give better results as compared to
zero- and two-day rest periods.
7. The workability of the control geopolymer concrete is more as compared to that of rub-
berized concrete.
Downloaded by [Sharadkumar Purohit] at 21:55 15 July 2016

Rubberized geopolymer concrete gives similar strength as compared to control fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Hence, practical use of rubberized geopolymer concrete can
serve as the solution to two major problems, i.e., disposal of fly ash and waste rubber and
carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere.

REFERENCES

[1] Malhotra V.M., Introduction: Sustainable development and concrete technology, ACI Concrete
International, 24(7), 2002.
[2] Mehta P.K., Reducing the Environmental impact of Concrete, Concrete International, 23(10), 2001,
Pp: 61–66.
[3] Davidovits J., Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, terminology, Geopolymer 99 international con-
ference, France, 1998, Pp: 3077–3085.
[4] Malhotra V.M., Making concrete greener with fly ash, ACI concrete International, 21, May 1999,
Pp: 61–66.
[5] Sumajouw D.M., Hardjito D., Wallah S.E., Rangan B.V., Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: study of
slender reinforced columns, Advances in geopolymer science and technology, 2006, Pp: 3124–3130.
[6] Rajamane N.P., nataraja M.C., Lakshmanan N., Ambily P.S., Geopolymer concrete- An ecofriendly
concrete, The Masterbuilder, 11, 2009, Pp: 200–206.
[7] Chakravarthi M., Bhat V., Utility bonanza from dust -Fly ash, ENVIS Newsletter, 6(2), 2007.
[8] Davidovits J., Properties of Geopolymer cements First international conference on alkaline cements
and concretes, Ukrain, 1994, Pp: 131–149.
[9] Chanh N.V., Trung D.B., Tuan D.V., Recent Research Geopolymer Concrete, The 3rd ACF interna-
tional conference, 2008, Pp: 235–241.
[10] Hardjito D., Rangan B.V., Development and properties of low-calcium fly-ash- based geopolymer concrete,
Research Report GC1, Faculty of engineering, Curtain University, Perth, Australia, 2005.
[11] Wallah S.E., Rangan B.V., Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: Long term properties,
Research Report GC3, Faculty of engineering, Curtain University, Perth, Australia, 2006.
[12] Devidovits J., 30 years of successes and failures in geopolymer applications. Market trends and poten-
tial breakthroughs, Geoolymer 2002 conference, Melbourne, Australia, October 2002.
[13] Balaguru P., Geopolymer for repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beams, Geopolymer, 1997.
[14] Lloyd N.A., Rangan B.V., Geopolymer concrete with fly ash, SS econdinternational conference on
sustainable construction material and technologies, 2010.
[15] Cheema D.S., Lloyd N.A., Rangan B.V., Durability of geopolymer concrete box culverts-A green
Alternative, Proceedings of the 34th Conference on our world in concrete and structures, Singa-
pore, 2009.
[16] Hardjito D., Wallah E., Sumajouw D.M.J., Rangan B.V., Factors influencing the compressive strength
of fly ash-based Geopolymer concrete, Civil engineering dimension, No. 2, Vol. 6, 2004, Pp: 88–93.
[17] Gupta T., Chaudhary S., Assessment of mechanical and durability properties of concrete containing
waste rubber tire as fine aggregate, Construction and Building Materials, 2014, Pp: 562–574.

86

NUICONE -Book.indb 86 3/3/2016 3:00:57 PM