Transactions of the Indian Ceramic Society

ISSN: 0371-750X (Print) 2165-5456 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcer20

Development of Geopolymer Concrete from Fly

Ash and Bottom Ash Mixture

Deependra Kumar Sinha, A. Kumar & Sanjay Kumar

To cite this article: Deependra Kumar Sinha, A. Kumar & Sanjay Kumar (2014) Development of
Geopolymer Concrete from Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Mixture, Transactions of the Indian Ceramic
Society, 73:2, 143-148, DOI: 10.1080/0371750X.2014.922427

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0371750X.2014.922427

Published online: 07 Jul 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 95

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcer20
 Trans. Ind. Ceram. Soc., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 143-148 (2014).
© 2014 The Indian Ceramic Society
ISSN 0371-750X (Print), ISSN 2165-5456 (Online)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0371750X.2014.922427

Development of Geopolymer Concrete from

Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Mixture
Deependra Kumar Sinha*, A. Kumar and Sanjay Kumar1
National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology
Department of Applied Science and Humanities
(Environmental Engineering) Hatia, Ranchi
[MS received November 30, 2013; Accepted February 07, 2014]

Fly ash and bottom ash, the two main by-products of thermal power plant, have been used synergistically to
develop geopolymer concrete. Fly ash has been used as active constituent for geopolymerization whereas bottom
ash has been used as replacement of sand. Geopolymerization studies were carried out at ambient (27 oC) and
elevated (55oC) temperatures using isothermal conduction calorimetry. The reaction product was characterized
using X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The geopolymer concrete prepared at 60oC
showed compressive strength in the range of 4-35 MPa. Strength development was studied as a function of alkali
concentration and Si/Al ratio. It was observed that strength got improved significantly with higher alkali concentration
and Si/Al ratio. Attempt has been made to correlate the structure with properties.
[Keywords: Geopolymer, Fly ash, Bottom ash, GBFS, Flexural strength, Compressive strength, Aluminosilicate]

Introduction geopolymerization with reasonable strength after being

Fly ash and bottom ash are by-products generated
during the combustion of coal in thermal power plant. Fly
ash consists of smaller particles ranging from 200 m to
submicron size and is collected in electrostatic precipitator.
Bottom ash, due to its coarser size and lump form, gets
accumulated below the boiler. Chemically bottom ash
contains more iron oxides and CaO. Use of fly ash as
blending material in cement, as filler in concrete and for
brick making is well established. Recent trend shows lots
of interest in its use for geopolymer preparation.
Geopolymers are new class of binder materials formed
due to reaction between various aluminosilicates, oxides
and silicates under highly alkaline condition, yielding
polymeric Si–O–Al–O bonds.1 Due to its binding properties,
it is considered as an alternative of Portland cement. The
products formed as a result of geopolymerization exhibit
good mechanical properties, excellent durability and
longevity.
Fly ash, due to its aluminosilicate composition, fine size
and significant amount of glassy content, is considered a
suitable raw material for geopolymer synthesis. Due to its
low reactivity, the application of bottom ash has been
restricted. Recently a few paper reported the combined
use of fly ash and bottom ash for making geopolymer
concrete.2–5 The use of fly ash and bottom ash for making
alternative of building materials6 can reduce the carbon
footprint. Bottom ash is used as a replacement of sand in
building materials. 7 It is a source material for
*Corresponding author; e-mail: deepe9dra@gmail.com
1
CSIR-National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur – 831 007, India
milled to a proper fineness. Some reported results
suggested that the strength of fly ash geopolymer is higher
than the strength of bottom ash geopolymer.7–10
The objective of the present work is to use fly ash as
reactive material to produce geopolymer binder, and
bottom ash as replacement of sand. Granulated blast
furnace slag (GBFS) has been added to improve the
reactivity of geopolymer. The focus of the study is to see
the role of Si/Al ratio and alkali concentration on the
geopolymerization behaviour. Conduction calorimetry
has been carried out to monitor the progress of
geopolymerization. The reaction product has been
identified using XRD and SEM-EDAX analyses. Attempt
has been made to relate the structure with properties.
Experimental
Materials
Fly ash and bottom ash used in this study were
collected from Tata Power, Jojobera plant, Jharkhand.
To improve the rate of geopolymerization, granulated
blast furnace slag (GBFS) obtained from Tata Steel,
Jamshedpur, was used. Chemical compositions of fly ash,
bottom ash and GBFS are given in Table I. Fly ash was
mainly aluminosilicate in nature with SiO 2/Al2O3 ratio
1.736. The major oxides (SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3) of fly ash
and bottom ash were more than 75%. Chemical
characteristics revealed that the fly ash belonged to class
F fly ash (ASTM C 618). Fly ash was used as feedstock to
form aluminosilicate gel during geopolymerization whereas
bottom ash was used as filler material to replace sand in
the mortar. GBFS was milled in a ball mill for 2 h to get the

VOL. 73 (2) APRIL – JUNE 2014 143

 Table I : Chemical composition of fly ash, bottom ash and GBFS

Oxides SiO 2 Al2O 3 Fe2O 3 CaO MgO Na2O K2 O P2 O 5 MnO LOI

FA 51.06 29.71 9.60 2.14 0.75 0.56 0.04 – – 0.60

BA 51.71 16.20 13.7 3.61 1.56 0.39 0.05 – – 4.04
GBFS 32.97 17.97 0.72 35.08 10.31 – – 0.06 0.46 0.58

desirable particle size. The particle size distributions of fly
ash and GBFS were determined by laser particle size
analyser (Mastersizer 2000, Malvern, UK) and the results
are given in Fig. 1. Since bottom ash was coarser, sieve
analysis (IS-460-1962*) was carried out and the results
are given in Table II. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions
were used as alkali activators. The solution was prepared
in such a way that Na2O should be 4%, 6% and 8% by
weight of the total solid content. Sodium silicate, with
composition Na2O 14.7%, SiO2 29.4% and H2O 55.9%,
was also used for the study.
VOLUME (%)
Raw Material Characterization
The physical properties of raw materials are presented
in Table III. The specific gravity of fly ash was 1.97 and
the characteristic particle diameters d10, d50 and d90 were
2.54, 25.2 and 89.79 m respectively. Figure 2 shows XRD
patterns of fly ash and bottom ash. The major peaks
identified in both the ashes are quartz and mullite. In fly
ash, a hump is observed between 20o and 40º, which
indicates the presence of glassy phase. The XRD pattern
of GBFS is also included in the same figure. The only
crystalline phase formed in GBFS is gehlinite. Sodium
silicate solution with 14.7% Na2O, 29.4% SiO2 and 55.9%
H2O, and 4, 6 and 8% NaOH solutions were used as
alkaline activators.

INTENSITY (a.u.)

PARTICLE DIAMETER (m)

Fig. 1 – Particle size distribution of FA and GBFS

Table II : Fineness of bottom ash

2 (degree)

Sieve no. Mesh size Retained wt (%) Fig. 2 – Mineral compositions of fly ash, bottom ash and GBFS

+229  +50# 22.6

Mix Proportion
–229 , +149  –50#, +100# 34.9 Fly ash, bottom ash and GBFS were mixed with various
–149 ,+74  –100#, +200# 25.7 proportions as given in Table IV. NaOH solution was
prepared at least 24 h before use. Alkaline activator was
–74 , +44  –200#, +325# 7.5
prepared using different ratios of the prepared NaOH
–44  –325# 8.1 solution and Na2SiO3 solution. A total 9 mix proportions

Table III : Physical properties of the raw materials

Samples Colour form Plasticity Specific gravity Particle size d50 (m)

FA Gray Powder Non plastic 1.97 25.20

BA Dark gray Granular Non plastic 1.95 —

GBFS Light gray Granular Non plastic 2.88 8.83

144 TRANSACTIONS OF THE INDIAN CERAMIC SOCIETY

 Table IV : Batch compositions (1000 g)

Mix no. Fly ash (%) Bottom ash (%) GBFS (%) NaOH (%) Na2SiO3 (%) Si/Al ratio Water (%)

A 50 30 16 4 NA 2 36
B 48 30 16 6 NA 2 36
C 46 30 16 8 NA 2 36
D 50 30 16 4 28.043 2.5 17.5
E 48 30 16 6 26.453 2.5 17.5
F 46 30 16 8 24.874 2.5 17.5
G 50 30 16 4 44.835 3 7.5
H 48 30 16 6 43.041 3 7.5
I 46 30 16 8 41.248 3 7.5

were made. The Si/Al ratio of each mix was varied in the (a)
ratio of 2:1, 2.5:1 and 3:1 by changing the proportion of
Na2SiO3. Samples were vibro-cast in 43 mm diameter

dq/dt (mW)
cylindrical mould. The samples, after casting, were kept
at 60oC for 24 h. The samples were demoulded after heat
curing and kept in sealed condition at ambient temperature
for different durations. Compressive strength of the
samples were determined on 3, 7 and 28 days using
automatic compression testing machine (AIMIL
COMPTEST 2000, India). TIME (h)

Geopolymer Characterization (b)

The phase present in raw materials and products were

analysed by powder X-ray diffraction technique using
dq/dt (mW)

CuK radiation with Fe filter (X-ray BRUKER diffractometer,

model: D8 Discover). The morphological characterization
of the fractured surfaces was done by a NOVA scanning
electron microscope (FEI-430, NOVA) with an EDAX
attachment for X-ray microanalysis. The flexural strength
was measured by three point bending load method using
TIME (h)
Rihale’s testing machine (Fransis Klein Co. Ltd, USA).
Isothermal conduction calorimeter was used to monitor (c)
the reaction phases of geopolymerization of the raw
material mixture. Isothermal conduction calorimeter was
dq/dt (mW)

used at two different temperatures, 27o and 55oC. 3.5 mL

activator solution and 7 g solid mixture of the raw materials
were used throughout the study. All the samples were
mixed outside the calorimeter and then loaded into the
calorimeter.

Results and Discussion TIME (h)

Figures 3(a, b, c) and 4(a, b, c) show the heat evolution
curves obtained by isothermal conduction calorimetry (ICC)
of the samples done at 27oC for 17 h, and at 55oC for 20 h
respectively. In all these cases, the first peak (which
appears more like a straight line) in the beginning
corresponds to the wetting and partial dissolution of glassy
content followed by small induction period as a
consequence of low reactivity.11, 12 The second exothermic
Fig. 3 – Study on reactivity of geopolymers with: (a) Si/Al ratio 2,
(b) Si/Al ratio 2.5, (c) Si/Al ratio 3 at 27oC through isothermal
conduction calorimetry
peak after induction period may be associated with
dissolution-precipitation reactions followed by
geopolymerization.12–14

VOL. 73 (2) APRIL – JUNE 2014 145

 (a)

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
(a)

dq/dt (mW)

(MPa)
ALKALI (%)
TIME (h)

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
(b)
(b)

(MPa)
dq/dt (mW)

ALKALI (%)
TIME (h)
(c)

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
(c)

(MPa)
dq/dt (mW)

ALKALI (%)

TIME (h)
Fig. 5 – Compressive strength results of samples with:
Fig. 4 – Study on reactivity of geopolymers with: (a) Si/Al ratio 2, (a) Si/Al ratio 2, (b) Si/Al ratio 2.5, (c) Si/Al ratio 3
(b) Si/Al ratio 2.5, (c) Si/Al ratio 3 at 55oC through isothermal
conduction calorimetry
Table V : Flexural strength for Si/Al ratio 3

The peak intensity increased at 55 oC due to the

combined effect of temperature conditions and NaOH Sample no. G (4% NaOH) H (6% NaOH) I (8% NaOH)
percentage, which accelerated the geopolymerization
reactions. All the experimental results show that an Flexural strength 20.562 MPa 14.968 MPa 9.148 MPa
increase in Si/Al ratio and NaOH addition leads to increase
in peak intensities. In Figs. 3 and 4 the maximum rate
(dq/dt) of reaction was found when Si/Al ratio was 3 and more, which resulted into higher compressive strength but
NaOH was 8%. lower flexural strength.

Compressive Strength XRD Analysis

Figure 5(a, b and c) shows the variation in compressive
strength with respect to curing time. In all the cases,
compressive strength increased with increase in Si/Al ratio
and with increase in NaOH per cent. The samples with
higher compressive strength (samples G, H and I) were
subjected to flexural strength testing and the results are
presented in Table V. It is interesting to note that the flexural
strength slightly decreased with the increase in alkali
content. This is in contrast to the previous reported results.
However, this can be explained that with increase in alkali
content, the formation of 3D framework structure15 was
Figure 6 shows XRD graphs of G, H and I. Major peaks
of qurartz and mullite are observed which were derived
from parent fly ash and bottom ash. The products have
been formed due to the reaction between reactive glassy
fraction of fly ash and GBFS. The hump between 10o and
30º indicates the presence of low crystalline phases.
Furthermore, under the same scan conditions, this hump
is more pronounced in the geopolymer with higher NaOH
concentration. As such the geopolymer made with higher
NaOH content possesses higher strength. Duxson et al.16
also reported that higher concentration of reactive Si in

146 TRANSACTIONS OF THE INDIAN CERAMIC SOCIETY

 INTENSITY (a.u.)

2 (degree) Fig. 7c – Porous geopolymer phase, reaction products and

dense gel phase
Fig. 6 – XRD patterns of the geopolymer samples
Table VI : Summary of microstructural features

the geopolymerization process typically lead to a higher

compressive strength. With increase in NaOH per cent, Fig. Morphological character EDAX Remarks
the peak intensity of crystalline phases got decreased. no. result
This is probably due to the enhanced dissolution of
7a Needle shaped microstructure Si:Al = 6.89 Presence of ASH
crystalline peaks in higher alkali concentration.
radial towards the centre and Ca:Si = – gel phase with
geopolymer gel phase Na:Si = 0.02 Na in structure
SEM and EDAX Analyses
Figures 7a-7c show the SEM images of geopolymer 7b Short prismatic tubular Si:Al = 1.20 Presence of ASH
samples and their characteristics are given in Table VI. structure Ca:Si = 0.02 gel phase with
The compactness of the microstructure improved with Na:Si = 0.03 Na in structure
increasing Si/Al ratio which may be described by the
7c Porous geopolymer phase, – –
reaction products and dense
3.9 gel phase

3.1
formation of greater amount of calcium aluminosilicate gel.
2.4 EDAX study revealed that most common gel phases were
KCnt

present as ASH (aluminium silicate hydrate) and CSH

1.6 S
(calcium silicate hydrate) with Na in the structure.
O

0.8 Al
Conclusions
Na

C
Fe
S
Geopolymerization behaviour of fly ash and bottom ash
Ti
0.0 were studied with addition of granulated blast furnace slag.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
It was observed that fly ash has reactivity with alkaline
ENERGY (keV)
solution, whereas bottom ash was inert. Addition of
Fig. 7a – Needle shaped microstructure radial towards the centre granulated blast furnace slag enhanced the rate of
and geopolymer gel phase geopolymerization by precipitation of CSH gel. The rate
of geopolymerization was found to depend on the following
2.1 three parameters: (a) curing temperature, (b) Si:Al ratio
and (c) alkali concentration. The strength development
1.7 was influenced by the formation of compact microstructure
with reinforcement of gel structure with unreacted grains.
1.3
Geopolymer samples with GBFS showed co-existence of
KCnt

Al ASH and CSH gels. Based on compressive strength data,

0.8
compositions C and D can be used for brick making where
0.4
O
the desired strength is 7 MPa, composition E for M20 grade
Mg
Na
Fe Ti
concrete, F, G and H for M25 grade concrete, and
C S Ca
0.0 composition I for M35 grade concrete. In addition to
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 suitable mechanical properties, it is assumed that the
ENERGY (keV)
building products, such as brick and concrete, will be more
Fig. 7b – Partially reacted and dissolved cenosphere, compact sustainable in terms of environmental performance,
and smooth surface economic viability and potential for waste utilization.

VOL. 73 (2) APRIL – JUNE 2014 147

Acknowledgements: The authors want to cordially acknowledge
the Director, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology,
Ranchi and the Direc tor, National Metallurgical Laboratory,
Jamshedpur for their kind permission to publish this paper. The fly
ash, bottom ash and GBFS used in this study were received from
Tata Power Plant, Jojobera, Jharkhand (India) and Tata Steel,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (India); this is gratefully acknowledged.
Authors are also grateful to Mr S. K. Nath for his valuable suggestions
during the study.
References
1. J. Davidovits, “Geopolymer Properties and Chemistry,”
pp. 25-48 in: 1st European Conference on Soft Minerallurgy,
Geopolymer’88 Compiegne, France (1988).
2. A. Fernandez, A. Palmo and M. Crido, Cem. Concr. Res.,
35, 1204-1209 (2005).
3. J. W. Phair, J. D. Smith and J. S. J. Vandeventer, Mater.
Lett., 57, 4356-4367 (2003).
4. D. Hadjito, S. E. Wallah, D. M. J. Samajouw and B. V.
Rangan, “Brief Review of Development of Geopolymer
Cement,” invited paper pres ented at G eorge Hoff
Symposium, American Concrete Institute, Los Vegas, USA,
25 May (2004).
5. P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat and V. Sirivivatnanon, Cem.
Concr. Comp., 29, 224-229 (2007).
148
6. A. Sathonsaowaphak, P. Chindaprasirt and K. Pimraksa,
J. Hazard. Mater., 168, 44-50 (2009).
7. Y.-T. Kim and T.-H. Do, Engg. Geol., 139-140, 85-91 (2012).
8. V. Sata, A. Sathonsaowaphak and P. Chindaprasirt, Cem.
Concr. Comp., 34, 700-708 (2012).
9. S. Mas chio, G. Tonello, L. Piani and E. Furlani,
Chemosphere, 85, 666-671 (2011).
10. R. Siddique, P. Aggarwal and Y. Aggarwal, Constr. Build.
Mater., 29, 73-81 (2012).
11. P. Duxson, A. Fernandez-Jimenez, J. L. Provis, G. C. Lukey,
A. Palomo and J. S. J. van Deventer, J. Mater. Sci., 42,
2917-2933 (2007).
12. C. Chen, Q. Li, L. Shen and J. Zhai, Environ. Technol., 33,
1313-1321 (2012).
13. S. Kumar and R. Kumar, Ceram. Int., 37, 533-541 (2011).
14. S. Kumar, R. Kumar, T. C. Alex, A. Bandopadhyay and
S. P. Mehrotra, Adv. Appl. Ceram., 106, 120-127 (2007).
15. J. Davidovits, J. Therm. Anal., 37, 1633-1656 (1991).
16. P. Duxson, J. L. Provis, G. C. Lukey, S. W. Mallicoat, W. M.
Kriven and J . S. J . van Deventer, Colloid. Surf. A:
Physicochem. Eng. Asp., 269, 47-58 (2005).
TRANSACTIONS OF THE INDIAN CERAMIC SOCIETY