RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter shows the results of the study wherein fly ash and alkali

activators were utilized as cementitious binder in concrete. The researchers

conducted various tests to obtain data that is necessary for the research. The results

were showed through tabular and graphical form for better understanding. All data

were analyzed and evaluated to know the effects of the geopolymer binder as

replacement for ordinary Portland cement in the workability of the fresh concrete,

compressive strength of the hardened concrete.

Unit Weight of Materials

The researchers conducted loose and compact unit weight test for fly ash,

gravel and sand.

Table. Unit weight of materials

Materials Unit Weight (kg/m3)

Fly ash

Sand

Gravel

Statistical Analysis

Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) is the one better fitted to use

upon testing the effectivity of the treatments (considering your data) than One-Way

ANOVA or Completely Randomized Design (CRD). For the reason that, the values of

the response variable were blocked according to Age Days from the molded date to

the testing date. Moreover, after testing the assumptions the results found

supplemented the claim hence, RCBD was used.

Experimental Design
 Two factors, mixing ratio (m) and curing duration (c) were involve in the

experiment. A 3 x 3 factorial experimental design was used.

Treatments

m1 – Fly Ash 73%; Alkali Activators 27%

m2 – Fly Ash 67%; Alkali Activators 33%

m3 – Fly Ash 61%; Alkali Activators 39%

c1 – 7 days curing

c2 – 14 days curing

c3 – 28 days curing

Treatment Combinations

T1 - m1c1 – 73% of fly ash and 27% of alkali activators was added and cured for 7

days

T2 - m1c2 - 73% of fly ash and 27% of alkali activators was added and cured for 14

days

T3 – m1c3 - 73% of fly ash and 27% of alkali activators was added and cured for 28

days

T4 – m2c1 – 67% of fly ash and 33% of alkali activators was added and cured for 7

days

T5 – m2c2 - 67% of fly ash and 33% of alkali activators was added and cured for 14

days

T6 - m2c3 - 67% of fly ash and 33% of alkali activators was added and cured for 28

days

T7 – m3c1 – 61% of fly ash and 39% of alkali activators was added and cured for 7

days

T8 – m3c2 - 61% of fly ash and 39% of alkali activators was added and cured for 14

days
T9 – m3c3 – 61% of fly ash and 39% of alkali activators was added and cured for 28

days

Table 1. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable : Compressive Strength

Source Sum of DF Mean Square F P-VALUE Partial Eta

Squares Squared
Treatment 15455022.222 2 7727511.111 276.841 .000 962
Block 846288.889 2 423144.444 15.159 .000 579
Error 614088.889 22 27913.131
Total 78750200.000 26

The results on table 1 presented the rejection of the null hypothesis

that the treatments used have statistically equal compressive strength. The F

computed is found to be approximately 276.841 for the treatment, having 2 degrees

of freedom. As seen as well on the table, the p-value is 0.000 is less than 1 % level

of significance, which is considered highly significant. It implied that the treatments

have significant effects on the compressive strength. In other words, the different fly

ash and alkali activators contents have different compressive strength.

Even though the blocking variable (Age Days) is not the main focus, RCBD

also showed if its presence has significant value. The F computed is found to be

approximately 15.159 with having 2 degrees of freedom. The p-value is 0.000 which

is less than 1% level of significance, which is considered highly significant. It implies

that the different age days were not significantly different.

Effects of the effect size will add partial eta squared in our output. Partial eta

squared is 0.962 for treatment and 0.579 for block. That is the relative impact of

treatment is more than as strong as block. Last but not the least, adjusted r squared

tells us that 99.00% of the variance in compressive strength is attributable to

treatment and block. This is a high value, indicating very strong relationships

between our factors and compressive strength.

Table. Multiple Comparisons

 Dependent Variable : Compressive Strength
Turkey HSD
Treatment Treatment Mean Std. Error P-value 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Fly Ash 67%: Alkali
Fly Ash 73 %:
Activators 33% -1002.2222* 78.75861 .000 -1200.0688* -804.3756
Alkali Activators
Fly Ash 61%: Alkali
27%
Activators 39% 848.8889* 78.75861 .000 651.0423* 1046.7355
Fly Ash 73 %:
Fly Ash 67%: Alkali Activators 1002.2222* 78.75861 .000 804.3756* 1200.0688
Alkali Activators 27%
33% Fly Ash 61%: Alkali
1851.1111* 78.75861 .000 1653.2645* 2048.9577
Activators 39%
Fly Ash 73 %:
Fly Ash 61%: Alkali Activators -848.8889* 78.75861 .000 -1046.7355* -651.0423
Alkali Activators 27%
39% Fly Ash 67%: Alkali
-1851.1111* 78.75861 .000 -2048.9577* -1653.2645
Activators 33%
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 27913.131.
*. The mean difference is highly significant at the .01 level.
The treatment comparison was shown on table 2 using Tukey Honestly

Significant Difference (Tukey HSD). Tukey HSD is more conservative than the other

comparison test. In other words, more strict compare to Least Significant Difference

(LSD) and maybe Duncan’s as well. As of this part, each treatment mean is being

compared to each other for further identification of the better or more effective

treatment. Such that, a content of Fly Ash 73 %: Alkali Activators 27% was being

compared to Fly Ash 67%: Alkali Activators 33%. The content of Fly Ash 73 %: Alkali

Activators 27% was being compared to Fly Ash 67%: Alkali Activators 33% was

being compared to Fly Ash 61%: Alkali Activators 39%. Respectively, the mean

differences are found to be a whopping 1002.22 psi, and 848.88 psi with a standard

error of approximately 78. 758 psi. However, all of the comparisons in mean

differences have asterisk (**) which indicates that the difference is statistically

significant. The p-value of all the comparisons are approximately 0.000 are less than
1% level of significance, which is highly significant. This claim can be supported by

looking at the 95% confidence interval column wherein zero (0) is not observed within

the lower and upper bounds.

Table. Compressive Strength

Turkey HSDa,b

Subset
Treatment N
1 2 3
Fly Ash 61%:
Alkali Activators 9 613.3333
39%
Fly Ash 73 %:
Alkali Activators 9 1462.2222
27%
Fly Ash 67%:
Alkali Activators 9 2464.4444
33%
p-value 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 27913.131.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 9.000.
b. Alpha = .05.

Table 3 showed that the homogeneity is being tested among the treatments.

No fly ash contents and alkali activators or none of the treatments were observed to

be homogenous because each treatment has different subset. All of the p-value

which is 1.000 is greater than 5% level of significance, failing to reject the null

hypothesis. In other words the means of the compressive strength for Fly Ash 73%:

Alkali Activators 27%, Fly Ash 67%: Alkali Activators 33% and Fly Ash 61%: Alkali

Activators 39% are 1462.22, 2464.44, and 613.33 respectively. It implied that they

are statistically different. Moreover, the empty space on table 3 indicated that the

mean compressive strength of that specific fly ash and alkali activators content is

significantly and statistically different from the other groups under a specific subset.

As shown in the table, the Fly Ash 67%: Alkali Activators 33% has the greatest
compressive strength means so it indicates that the best treatment among fly ash

and alkali activators content is Fly Ash 67%: Alkali Activators 33%.

Compressive Strength Test

Compression tests were done in Cavite Testing Center – Material Testing

Laboratory located at Km. 50 Aguinaldo Highway, Purok 4, Lalaan II, Silang, Cavite.

Cylinders after the specified days of curing were delivered in the laboratory for

compression test. All concrete cylinders tested were released from the water 12

hours before the actual test assuming that the cylinders were completely dry.

Figure 1. Profile Plots for Estimated Marginal Means of Compressive Strength

Estimated Marginal Means Compressive

Strength

3,000.00 2,820.00
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (KPA)

2,490.00
2,500.00
2,083.33
2,000.00
1,606.67
1,546.67 7 days
1,500.00
1,233.33 14 days
28 days
1,000.00
753.33
520.00 566.67
500.00

-
FLY ASH 73%: ALKALI FLY ASH 67%: ALKALI FLY ASH 61%: ALKALI
ACTIVATORS 27% ACTIVATORS 33% ACTIVATORS 39%

TREATMENT

Figure 1 showed the profile plots for estimated marginal means of

compressive strengths. Figure 1 visualizes means for each combination of factors.

As shown in the figure, we see each line going down steeply between Fly Ash 67%:

Alkali Activators 33% and Fly Ash 61%: Alkali Activators 39%. Both treatment and

block seem to have a main effect compressive strength. The effect of treatment is
visualized as a line for each block separately. Since these lines look pretty similar,

the profile plot does not show much of an interaction effect.

Slump Test

It was observed that the slump test varies for the 3 mixtures. The factors that

affect the result were the physical condition of the materials. The shape and sizes of

gravel that were supplied by the hardware was not consistent and so it affects the

interaction of aggregate to the cement paste. Also the inconsistent force of tamping

of the slump was one of the factors that affect the results. Figure shows the graphical

result of the slump test of the mixtures. It is observed that the minimum design and

maximum attain the minimum slump for concrete pavements while the average

design attains a lower slump which is a better result. It may also be affected by the

mix design since average design also shows a better compressive strength result.

Figure# Slump Concrete Diagram

S L U MP D IA GR A M
15.00
14.20
16.00
14.00
SLUMP (centimeters)

12.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
Slump
6.00
4.00
2.00
-
F LY ASH 73% : ALKALI F LY ASH 67% : ALKALI F LY ASH 61% : ALKALI
AC T IVAT O R S 27% AC T IVAT O R S 33% AC T IVAT O R S 39%

TREATMENT

Cost Analysis

Fly ash, crushed sand, gravel, sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide were

used in the production of concrete in this study. The unit cost of a 40-kg fly ash bag is

P140. Crushed sand has a unit price of P1175 per cubic meter. Gravel, on the other

hand, has a unit cost of P1000 per cubic meter. Same amount of these materials was
used in the treatments. Sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide which varied per

treatment were obtained for P88 per liter and P58 per liter, respectively.

Table # Cost production of concrete cylinders in every trial mixture

MIX NO. TREATMENT PRODUCTION COST

1 Original
2 Fly Ash 61%: Alkali
Activators 39%
3 Fly Ash 73 %: Alkali
Activators 27%
4 Fly Ash 67%: Alkali
Activators 33%

The table shows that the cost of production of cylinders of geopolymer

concrete is greater than the cost of production of cylinders of conventional Portland

cement concrete. The cost of geopolymer concrete is higher because of the

presence of the alkaline activating solution but if geopolymer will be used for mass

production, the cost would be very much cheaper. The price of Sodium Hydroxide

could be as low as P7 per kilogram and the price of Sodium Silicate could range as

low as P675 up to P1100 per hundredweight.