Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A newly developed self-compacting geopolymer concrete under ambient

condition
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman ⇑, Riyadh Al-Ameri
School of Engineering, Deakin University-Waurn Ponds Campus, Geelong, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 Geopolymer binders with single solid

alkali activator used to produce self-
compacting geopolymer concrete.
 The suitability of two different alkali
activators were studied to produce
ambient cured self-compacting
geopolymer concrete.
 The microstructural properties of
newly developed self-compacting
geopolymer concrete is studied.
 Effect of water/binder ratio to the
strength based performance were
primarily assessed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The exponential development of infrastructure has created an urgent need for sustainable construction
Received 17 September 2020 material with lower carbon emission. Recent studies have explored the suitability of geopolymer con-
Received in revised form 2 November 2020 crete as an alternative sustainable construction material, but the high curing temperature and need for
Accepted 22 November 2020
chemical activators have inhibited the widespread application of the same. This study reports on the
development of a novel self-compacting geopolymer concrete by use of single alkali activator under
ambient curing as a new construction material. Eight different concrete mixes containing fly ash, slag
Keywords:
and micro fly ash were examined for their workability, mechanical and microstructural properties. The
Self-compacting
Geopolymer concrete
newly developed self-compacting geopolymer concrete with zero cement, zero superplasticizers cured
Fly ash under ambient conditions achieved 40 MPa after 28 days of curing which is comparable to that of an
Slag M40 grade conventional concrete.
Compressive strength Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction contributing to environmental benefits. Researchers also explore

Construction sector is identified as a major source of carbon
emissions [1,2] and it is projected that by 2056, the construction
sector would produce 6 GT of cement per annum [2]. Thus,
research on sustainable construction materials, mainly geopolymer
concrete, is gaining greater attention [3–5] due to the use of
industrial waste products like fly ash, slag as binder materials
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: skrahman@deakin.edu.au (S.K. Rahman), r.alameri@deakin.
edu.au (R. Al-Ameri).
the development of ambient cured flowable geopolymer concrete
combining the properties of Self-compacting concrete developed
by Okamura in the 1980s [6–10]. The use of SCC which flows under
self-weight ensures no noise in the construction site, better com-
paction and faster rate of construction [9,10]. An attempt was done
by Gesoğlu, et al. [11] and Ashtiani, et al. [12] to develop SCC of
100 MPa using ternary, binary binders including fly ash as admix-
ture adopting the EFNARC[10] guidelines. A recent study con-
ducted by Huseien and Shah [13] produced an SCC, resistant to
sulphate attacks using 60/40 fly ash/slag ratio [12–14].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121822
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri
Even though geopolymer concrete possesses superior strength,
the need for high curing temperatures, usage and storage of high
alkali solutions needs to be addressed [1–4,14,15] to widen the
application of geopolymer concrete beyond the prefabricated struc-
tures. The liquid activator solutions also need to be prepared at
least 24 h before casting and are highly corrosive raising safety con-
cerns [4,16–18] when used for in-situ applications. The geopolymer
concrete made by mixing solid binders and activators separately
before addition of water [19] overcomes the handling issues of con-
ventional geopolymer concrete. Studies by Hardjito and Rangan
[21,52], Neupane [22] reported the modulus of elasticity to be in
the range of 30–35 GPa similar to that of OPC of the grade M40
[20,21]. Another study by Rafeet, et al. [23] produced three different
classes of concrete of 35 MPa, 50 MPa and 70 MPa strength varying
binder volume and water content. Apart from the studies reported
above, there is a research lacuna in development of self-compacting
geopolymer concrete with lack of proper guidelines for mix design
[9,19,23–27]. Also, the mechanical properties and performance of
geopolymer concrete needs to be gauged against that of conven-
tional concrete for industry acceptance. The current study aims to
develop self-compacting ambient cured geopolymer concrete
incorporating 5% micro fly ash and limiting the use of solid alkali
activators to less than 20% of the binder content. The performance
of the self-compacting geopolymer concrete (SCGC) containing zero
superplasticiser is confined to mechanical and microstructural
properties. To the authors’ knowledge, not many studies have
investigated the self-compactness of properties of geopolymer con-
crete without using superplasticizers. Kashani et al. [8] has con-
ducted a study on developing self-compacting concrete by using
finer binder materials however, the study does not comment on
mechanical properties of the mix other than compressive strength.
The current study tests the fresh and hardened properties of ambi-
ent cured alkali-activated SCGC made using fly ash, slag, along with
micro fly ash as precursors without the use of superplasticisers. This
study will be an addition to the knowledge on standard mix-design
for producing self-compacting geopolymer concrete under ambient
conditions. There are not many studies reporting the development
of self-compacting geopolymer concrete using single solid alkali
activator (sodium metasilicate) along with combination of finer
binder materials to account for the flowability [8,49,50]. Also, the
reported studies have not holistically studied the workability prop-
erties and strength parameters of varying binder contents [48–50]
leaving a gap in the field of study. The use of finer binder materials
offering better flowability and use of solid alkali activators makes
this study unique against other reported studies on self-
compacting mixes of geopolymer concrete. This study is also a con-
tribution to the formulation of standard mix design for geopolymer
concrete possessing self-compacting properties.
The current experimental study selects the best performing
geopolymer concrete mix out of eight different mix combinations
of alkali activator content and water/solids ratio under ambient
curing conditions. The study has been conducted in two stages,
in the first stage, four mix compositions using sodium metasilicate
pentahydrate activator with varying water/solids ratio is cast and
studied for the fresh and 7 day strength properties. In the second
stage, the other four mix compositions using anhydrous sodium
activator with varying water/solids ratio is studied for the worka-
bility and mechanical properties.
2. Materials
2.1. Binder materials
In the study by Kashani et al. [8] hardened geopolymer concrete
of 30 MPa strength was produced by use of Class F fly ash (AS
2
Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822
3582.1 Grade I fly ash), slag and micro fly ash (AS 3582.1 Special
Grade fly ash). The Grade I fly ash as per AS 3582.1:2016 is similar
to the Class F Fly Ash of ACI C 618 recommendations and contains
low calcium content. Similarly, the Grade II fly ash as per AS
3582.1:2016 is equivalent to Class C Fly Ash of ACI C 618 require-
ments with high calcium content. In another study by Rafeet, et al.
[22] finer binder materials (like fly ash, slag) were used to attain
better packing, workability and increased strength. Most of the
researchers report the fly ash and slag to provide better strength
when used at 60:40 ratio, it is also seen that addition of even finer
binder materials like micro silica, micro fly ash a small percentages
offer better packing with less voids [8]. Micro Fly ash also known as
ultrafine fly ash consists of the smallest fine spherical particles that
are found to reduce the water demand and lower the drying
shrinkage along with providing better packing and reduction of
air voids [8,41–43,49]. Most commonly marketed as Microash in
Australia by the Fly Ash Australia, this special grade combustion
by product conforms to the requirements of AS 3582.1 (Special
Grade Fly Ash) [8,28]. This highly reactive pozzolanic aluminosili-
cate with a smaller size of 3.5 mm and spherical size improves
the binder efficiency offering increased workability, reduced water
demand, increased strength and durability [8,41–43].
Hence, Fly Ash, Slag and Micro Fly Ash with different weight
percentages were used as binder materials to achieve better bind-
ing and packing properties in this study. The binder properties and
chemical composition tabulated in Tables 1 and 2 respectively
detail the properties of the binder materials adopted in this study.
2.2. Alkali activators
In the study by Bong, et al. [18] sodium hydroxide, sodium sil-
icate, sodium metasilicate are found to be best suited as alkali acti-
vators [3,14,19]. But the use of these highly corrosive alkaline
activators presents handling and storage issues. Also, some studies
report better geopolymerisation for powdered sodium metasilicate
anhydrous and pentahydrate [3,7,18,19]. Powdered alkali activa-
tors are of ease to use providing better geopolymerisation as
reported in literature [17–19]. This study also assesses the perfor-
mance of two dry alkali activators, wherein out of eight mix com-
positions, four mix compositions used solid anhydrous sodium
metasilicate pentahydrate (Anhy.Na2SiO3
5H2O) from Chem-
Supply with the following composition Na2O: 28 wt% 30.5 wt%,
SiO2: 27 wt% 29 wt%, water: 43 wt%. The other four mixes
adopted Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate (Anhy.Na2SiO3) powder
of composition Na2O:46%, SiO2: 50 wt% and 4 wt% water sourced
from Redox Pty Ltd as alkali activator.
2.3. Aggregates
The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete
(EFNARC Guidelines) [10] prefers the usage of coarse aggregates
up to 50% of the total aggregates and 28% to 30% of the total vol-
ume of the mix with size limited to 20 mm to reduce the friction.
Also, the increase in fine aggregates will aid in achieving the
required fluidity and cohesiveness. The studies by Kashani, et al.
[8] reports the use of fine aggregates to coarse aggregates at a ratio
of 0.53:0.47 to achieve self –compactness without compromising
on the required strength. Hence, this study also adopts aggregates
procured from Boral Construction at the ratio of fine and coarse
aggregates of 0.53: 0.47 for all the concrete mixes.
3. Mixing, Casting, and curing
The experimental investigation consists of eight different mix
compositions containing varying alkali activator and water
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822

Table 1
Material Properties of Binder Materials.

Material* Material Properties

Fineness (Passing through 45 mm Loss on Moisture SO3 Available Relative Chloride ion
Sieve) ignition content content Alkali Density content
Fly ash 88% 1.0% 0.1% 0.2% – – –
Micro fly ash 99% 0.7% 0.01% 0.2% 0.2% 2.35 0.001%
Slag 97% – – – – 2.86 –
Ground Granulated Blast 97% – – – – 2.86 –
Furnace Slag

*Notes-Material sources- 1. Fly Ash- Cement Australia, 2.MicroFlyAsh- Fly Ash Australia Pty. Limited., Bayswater Power Plant, New South Wales, 3.Slag- Independent
Cements, 4. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag -Ecocem

Table 2
Chemical Composition (percentage by weight) of Fly Ash, Slag and Micro Fly Ash.

Chemical Composition Fly Ash (%) Slag (Ecocem Pty Ltd) (%) Slag (Independent Cement & Lime Pty Ltd) (%) Micro Fly Ash (%)
SiO2 65.75 31.35 35.19 63.09
CaO – 47.84 41.47 –
Al2O3 32.87 12.07 13.66 32.26
MgO – 4.17 6.32 –
K2O – 0.43 – 0.83
MnO – 0.67 – –
SO3 – 1.58 2.43 –
V2O5 – 0.20 –
TiO2 1.38 1.89 0.73 1.67
Na2O – – – 0.41
P2O5 – – – 0.62
FeO – – – 1.12

content. The self-compactness of the geopolymer concrete highly
depends on the water/binder ratio and the effectiveness of the
alkali activator since no superplasticisers are used to aid the fluid-
ity. The water/binder ratio is varied from 0.4 to 0. 5, since beyond
these two limits the mix gets too plastic or too fluidic leading to
segregation as reported in the literature. The numbering scheme
followed contains mixes numbered as M1 to M8 where M1-first
mix, M2- second mix and so on. The mix composition details of
each mix in their weight proportions are detailed in Table 3 below:
All the mixing, casting and curing processes were conducted
under an ambient temperature of 23 ± 2 °C in the laboratory facil-
ity of Deakin University-Waurn Ponds Campus, Geelong. A total of
112 cylindrical specimens of 200 mm height and 100 mm diameter
were cast to study the various mechanical properties of the SCGC
mixes. The aluminosilicate rich binder materials along with the
alkali activator were mixed with the fine aggregates and coarse
aggregates in dry form for an average of four minutes in a pan
mixer [29–31]. Later, water is added to the dry mix and the mixing
is continued for another 6–8 min with a rest period of two minutes
to account for the thixotropic setting [7,9,12,32]. The self-
compacting concrete mix is found to require more mixing time
compared to the conventional concrete mixes as reported in the lit-
erature [7,10,12]. Due to the self-compacting property, all geopoly-
mer concrete specimens were poured directly without need of
compaction into the moulds coated with LanoForm release agent
after conducting slump flow, T500 (Time for 500 mm slump spread
in seconds) and J-Ring tests as per the EFNARC guidelines and AS
1012.3.5:2015 Standards [10,35].
Due to the lack of standards and guidelines for geopolymer con-
crete mixes, a comparison is made against conventional concrete
where 65% of strength is attained in the first 7-days of curing. To
this reason, for the first batch of mixes M1 to M4, six samples were
cast for each mix to study the 7-day compressive strength and ten-
sile strength. Similarly, after 28-days the strength attained is com-
pared with that of gain of strength of conventional concrete
[4,7,11,16,17,33]. For the mixes M5 to M8, 12 samples each were
cast to study the 7-day and 28-day compressive strength and ten-
sile strength were tested after conducting workability tests (Figs. 1
and 2).
After the demolding, all the specimens were sealed in plastic
bags and kept in the environmental chamber for at 23 ± 2 °C and
50% Relative Humidity in the Structures Laboratory of the Deakin
University, Waurn Ponds Campus-Victoria, Australia for ambient
curing. The environmental chamber helped to maintain the tem-
perate zone conditions in which the state of Victoria falls as per
the AS3600:2018 Standards.
4. Tests on fresh geopolymer concrete
The workability tests include Slump flow test, T500 test and J-
Ring test. The mechanical properties of the mix have been assessed
through Compressive strength test, tensile strength test, and mod-

Table 3
Mix Proportions of Self-Compacting Geopolymer concrete under investigation.

Sl.No: Mix Slag Content (kg/m3) Alkali Activator (kg/m3) Fine Aggregate Content (kg/m3) Slag Content in Binder (%) Fly Ash/Slag Al/Bi Water/Binder
1 M1 290 77 615 40 1.5 0.1 0.5
2 M2 290 154 615 40 1.5 0.2 0.5
3 M3 290 154 615 40 1.5 0.2 0.5
4 M4 360 154 615 50 1 0.2 0.5
5 M5 360 96 763 40 1.5 0.1 0.5
6 M6 360 96 763 40 1.5 0.1 0.4
7 M7 360 96 763 40 1.5 0.1 0.43
8 M8 360 96 763 40 1.5 0.1 0.45

3
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri
Fig. 1. Freshly poured self-compacting geopolymer concrete and hardened self-
compacting geopolymer concrete samples.
Fig. 2. Curing of demolded specimens in the environmental chamber.
ulus of elasticity test. Finally, a microstructural analysis has been
conducted to study the microstructure of the newly developed
self-compacting geopolymer concrete.
The workability properties of all the mixes in the current study
are checked against the requirements of the EFNARC guidelines
and the Australian standards AS1012.3.5:2015- Methods of testing
Concrete [10,35]. Since there are no specific guidelines for geopoly-
mer concrete, the workability values are compared with those of
conventional concrete with Ordinary Portland cement. The three
major workability properties namely: filling ability, passing ability
and segregation resistance of all the mixes are assessed in this
work.
4.1. Slump flow test
The slump flow test has been conducted according to the Aus-
tralian Standard-Method of Testing Concrete, AS1012.3.5:2015
guidelines [10,35] using the slump cone apparatus. Once, the con-
crete stops flowing, the average of the largest two diameters of the
spread of geopolymer concrete gives the slump flow [9] (Fig. 3).
The Australian codes consider concrete to be self-compacting if
the slump flow exceeds 500 mm spread value [35]. The slump flow
is an indicator of the ability of the conventional self-compacting
concrete to fill the formwork under its weight as per the EFNARC
Guidelines and for conventional SCC the range is 650 mm to
800 mm [10,32]. The slump values of all mixes are graphically
depicted in Fig. 4 below:
The slump spread was below 850 mm for all nine mixes with
M1 and M2 exhibiting mild segregation. The mix M5 andM6 exhib-
ited thixotropic setting with quick setting after the slump test,
with a low slump spread of 650 mm and 675 mm respectively.
4
Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822
Fig. 3. Slump flow test done in conjunction with the J-ring test.
Fig. 4. Mix number vs Slump Flow.
The thixotropic setting of self-compacting concrete has to be
accounted for by the addition of water content [6,7,11].
4.2. T500 Test
The T500 test has been conducted as per the EFNARC and
AS1012.3.5:2015 guidelines [10,32,35] is also carried out using
the slump cone apparatus with a stopwatch. The stopwatch records
the time taken for the slump to reach 500 mm diameter of the base
plate of slump cone and is defined as T500 [10,32,35]. A conventional
concrete with a high viscosity may continue to creep forward over
an extended time and vice-versa [6,7,12]. The mixes with mild seg-
regation reported T500 value less than 3 s while M8 performed well
with T500 giving 4.34 s as shown below. The mixes with segregation
flowed too quickly whereas the mixes M6 and M7 took longer to
reach the 500 mm spread showing loss of fluidity. The optimum
slump flow and passing ability determines the suitability of the
mix for self-compacting concrete purposes and it is found that
the mix M8 satisfied the conditions (Fig. 5).
4.3. J-Ring Test
As per the Australian Standard AS 1012.3.5:2015, the J ring test
simulates the flow of SCC through reinforcement [10,35]. The
EFNARC guidelines stipulate 0 mm to 10 mm as the typical range
of J-Ring passing ability for a Self-compacting Concrete [10].The
J- ring Tests were conducted only for the mixes M5, M6, M7 and
M8 since they performed well in terms of the slump values. The
J-Ring tests results for these mix proportions are given below in
Fig. 6:
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri
Fig. 5. Mix number vs T500 value.
Fig. 6. Water/solids vs J Ring value.
After all the workability tests, the best performing mix M8
remained self-compacting for more than 1 h and thirty minutes
and met the requirements of conventional self-compacting con-
crete [9,26]. The mixes M5, M6 and M7 lost its fluidity and became
rigid and was difficult to be moulded after one hour.
4.4. Initial and final setting time of geopolymer mortar
initial and final setting time test of the self-compacting
geopolymer mortar was carried out separately by preparing sam-
ples as per the AS 2350.4–2006 [35] standard procedures for
cement mortar samples using the Vicat’s Apparatus (AS 2350.4–
2006 [35]). The geopolymer mortar corresponds to the geopolymer
containing all the binder materials, fine aggregates and water con-
tent in the designed ratios except the coarse aggregates. The pen-
etration readings were taken at regular intervals of 15 min until
the needle of the diameter of 1.13 mm penetrates less than
25 mm (AS 2350.4–2006 [36]) (Fig. 7).
An indication of the setting time will help understand and
extrapolate the time required for the geopolymer concrete to
harden and retain its shape even after removal of formwork. The
mixes M1 to M4 showed poor workability with bleeding and seg-
regation and hence is obvious to report longer setting times and
hence were not considered for the testing. The setting time calcu-
lation has been conducted only for the mixes M5, M6, M7 and M8
since they performed well in terms of workability properties. The
mix proportions of the geopolymer mortar is given in Table 5
below: (Fig. 8)
It has been widely reported that the initial setting time of
geopolymer concrete is between 10 and 60 min [4,5,8,11,14,22-
25,36] with higher water content leading to increased setting time
[7,21,52]. The mix with 0.45 water/binder ratio gave an optimum
initial setting time of 140 min and the final setting time reported
was 8h50m.
5. Tests on hardened geopolymer concrete
The mechanical properties including compressive strength, ten-
sile strength, modulus of elasticity and density are assessed in the
current investigation along with microstructural analysis using
SEM.
5
Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822
Fig. 7. Initial and final setting time using Vicat’s Apparatus.
Table 4
Workability Properties of Optimum Mix M8.
Tests Unit Obtained Result EFNARC Guidelines [10]
Slump Flow Test Mm 700 650–800
T500 Sec 4.34 2–5
J ring Test Mm 7 0–10
5.1. Compressive strength
Compressive strength was measured using a 3000 kN-
compression testing machine with a loading rate of 0.33 MPa/
Sec, at the Structures Engineering Laboratory at Deakin University,
conforming to the Australian Standard -AS 1012.9:2014 [38]. The
two parallel surfaces of the samples were flattened by grinding
the samples before applying the load. Three samples per mix were
tested after 7-day and the 28-day. Compressive strength were
assessed for M5 to M8 due to lower 7d strength for other mixes.
The mix M1 failed due to high voids and 60/40 fly ash /slag (M2)
gave better compressive strength than M3 and M4. The failure
plane in the geopolymer mix at 7 day test was sharply through
the paste indicating the need for more bonding between the paste
and aggregates. But after 28 days, the failure was evenly dis-
tributed showing better bonding and strength [3,7,8] (Figs. 9a–11).
5.2. Indirect tensile strength
The indirect tensile strength was measured using a testing
machine with a loading rate of 785 N/S conforming to the Aus-
tralian Standards, AS 1012.10:2000 [39]. The 28-day nominal ten-
sile strength of the mixes 5 to 8 only were studied since the other
mixes have a lower strength than the targeted values after 7 days.
For the SCGC specimens, the tensile strength remained at 6% of the
compressive strength [39]. The large amount of fines offers less
tensile strength and none of the specimens reported premature
cracks [3,7,18] (Figs. 12a–14).
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822

Table 5
Mix proportion of SCGC mortar.

Sl. No Mix Fly Ash (grams) Slag Micro Fly Ash (grams) Sodium Metasilicate Activator Fine Aggregate Water/Binder
Number (grams) (grams) (grams) ratio
1 M5 180 135 45 36 286 0.5
2 M6 180 135 45 36 286 0.4
3 M7 180 135 45 36 286 0.43
4 M8 180 135 45 36 286 0.45

Fig. 8. Water/solids vs Setting Time.

Fig. 10. 7d Compressive strength of SCGC specimens.

Fig. 11. 28d Compressive strength of SCGC specimens.

Fig. 9a. Compression testing machine and Compressive strength test specimen.

Fig. 9b. Self-compacting Geopolymer concrete failure under compression.

6
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822

Fig. 12a. Universal testing machine with the tensile test specimen.

Fig. 12b. Self-compacting Geopolymer concrete failure under tension.

Fig. 13. 7d Tensile strength of SCGC specimens.

Fig. 14. 28d Tensile strength of SCGC specimens.

not considered for 28d studies. The self-compacting geopolymer

5.3. Density and modulus of elasticity
The density of the SCGC samples measured after the 7-day and
28-day curing periods are depicted in Tables 6 and 7 below. The
mixes containing sodium metasilicate pentahydrate performed
poorly in terms of strength and workability properties and became
porous with visible voids after 7 days of ambient cured hence were
concrete reports a smaller density in the range of 2100 kg/m3 to
2200 kg/m3 compared to ordinary cement concrete of similar
strengths. The normal concrete of M40 grade offers density in
the range of 2200 kg/m3 to 2400 kg/m3 and the current mix gives
similar under ambient curing. The geopolymer concrete under heat
curing is also reported to have similar values of density showing
that the newly developed mix offers similar strength with better

7
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822

Table 6
Density values of Concrete after 7 days of curing.

Sl. No Mix Number Fly Ash/Slag ratio Alkali/binder ratio Water/solids ratio Density (kg/m3)
1 M1 60/40 0.1 0.5 1921
2 M2 60/40 0.2 0.5 2072
3 M3 50/50 0.2 0.5 1930
4 M4 40/60 0.2 0.5 2019
5 M5 60/40 0.1 0.5 2104
6 M6 60/40 0.1 0.4 2228
7 M7 60/40 0.1 0.43 2112
8 M8 60/40 0.1 0.45 2254

Table 7
Density values of Concrete after 28 days of curing.

Sl. No Mix Number Fly Ash/Slag ratio Alkali/binder ratio Water/solids ratio Density (kg/m3)
1 M5 60/40 0.1 0.5 1925
2 M6 60/40 0.1 0.4 2162
3 M7 60/40 0.1 0.43 2164
4 M8 60/40 0.1 0.45 2246

Fig. 15. Universal testing machine and Modulus of Elasticity test specimen.

Fig. 16. Effect of water/binder ratio on compressive strength. Fig. 17. Effect of water/binder ratio on tensile strength.

energy efficiency. Also, similar to normal self-compacting concrete,
the lower values of density of the geopolymer concrete mixes are
due to the higher fines content and less workability as seen in
Table 4 about workability properties [20,21,34,43–48]. In this
regard, the self-compacting geopolymer concrete and self-
compacting cement concrete behaves identically due to a higher
percentage of finer materials and both follow the same European
Guidelines of production [3,10] (Fig. 15)
The modulus of elasticity test was conducted only for the mix
number 8, since it gave an optimum performance in all the other
workability tests. The modulus of elasticity test was conducted fol-
lowing the AS 1012.17–1997 (R2014) guidelines [51]. The compan-
ion cylinders gave an average compressive strength of 40 MPa at
28 days and the average modulus of elasticity of 15 GPa
[4,14,22,40]. The modulus of elasticity values provide an introspec-
tion of the stiffness of the specimen. A large number of studies on
normal geopolymer concrete, self-compacting geopolymer con-
crete and super workable geopolymer concrete has reported lower
values of modulus of elasticity for the concrete samples in compar-
ison to conventional concrete of similar strength [20,21,34]. Major-

8
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri
Fig. 18. Development of compressive strength.
ity of the hypothesis attribute the lowered values to the quality
and amount of coarse aggregates used. The study by Ng et al.
[45] on geopolymer mortar of 1900 kg/m3 density and compres-
sive strength of 80 to 85 MPa reported modulus of elasticity of
19 GPa [45]. In another study by Nath et al. [34], the geopolymer
concrete under 28 days of ambient curing conditions reported an
elastic modulus that is 25%-30% lesser than conventional cement
concrete. An overview of the available literature on the modulus
of elasticity of geopolymer concrete reports lowered values despite
the curing methods adopted [44-48]. However, more long term
studies are warranted to formulate the reason behind the lowered
modulus of elasticity in the geopolymer concrete [46–48]. Similar
to the self-compacting concrete made with cement, the higher
paste volume in the geopolymer concrete attributes to higher
deformation and therefore lower stiffness and lower modulus of
elasticity [20,21,34]. Hence, the results obtained in this study fol-
lows the similar nature of existing literature data, and the higher
fines content, lowered coarse aggregate can be attributed as a pos-
sible cause of lowered values.
6. Key test observations
6.1. Effect of Water/Solids ratio
One of the major observation from this investigation is that for
higher water/binder ratio, the compressive strength is lower due to
segregation as depicted in Fig. 16. Also, low water/binder ratio gave
better compressive strength but reduced workability
[11,13,14,36,37] confirming the available results from the litera-
ture. Similar trend was shown for the tensile properties as well
with tensile strength decreasing with increase in water/binder
ratio as seen in Fig. 17.
Fig. 19. JSM-IT300 SEM set up for microstructural analysis of geopolymer concrete with specimen holder.
9
Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822
Fig. 20. SEM of 1-Slag (Independent Cements), 2-Slag (Ecocem), 3- Fly Ash (Cement
Australia) and 4- Micro Fly Ash (Fly Ash Australia) at 1000x magnification.
6.2. Development of compressive strength over time
The development of full compressive strength is also being
investigated as an ongoing experiment for up to 12 months, the
development of compressive strength of the optimised mix M8 is
depicted in the Fig. 18 below for a period of up to 56 days. From
the trend shown in the graphical representation, the compressive
strength of SCGC is similar to that of conventional ordinary Port-
land cement concrete. At 7 days of ambient curing, the average
compressive strength is observed to be 65% of the 28-d compres-
sive strength similar to that of conventional cement concrete. At
28-days, the strength gain is similar to that of cement concrete
specimens, where it can be safely assumed to have developed
about 90% or more strength in comparison with the results given
after 56 days. Also, after 56 days of curing the average compressive
strength of SCGC increased by 6% of the 28d strength to 45 MPa.It
is to be noted that unlike the heat-cured geopolymer concrete
reporting 90% of strength after 3 days [18,20,24], the newly devel-
oped self-compacting ambient cured geopolymer concrete follows
a similar trend of normal cement concrete making it easier for civil
engineering professionals to assess the strength development
pattern.
7. Microstructural analysis
The effect of varying water content and the fly Ash /Slag ratio on
the microstructure of the Self-compacting geopolymer concrete
has been investigated using the Scanning Electron Microscopy
(SEM). Before the SEM analysis is conducted for the cured concrete
samples, the SEM images of the aluminosilicate sources are also
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822

Fig. 21. Microstructure SCGC-Mix-1 with 0.5 w/b ratio, 60/40 Fly Ash/slag ratio @ 100x and 230x magnifications.

Fig. 22. SEM images of microstructure SCGC-Mix-8 with 0.45 w/b ratio, 60/40 Fly Ash/slag ratio @ 100x and 230x magnifications.

taken to check for any unreacted species in the concrete. The SEM
was carried out in the Materials testing lab facility at the Deakin
University, Waurn Ponds Campus, Geelong. The JEOL JSM-IT300,
a Scanning Electron Microscope, is used for studying the
microstructural properties of the hardened geopolymer concrete
specimens (Fig. 19).
Before SEM analysis, the SCGC samples are finished and pol-
ished with sandpaper and oven-dried for 24 h at a temperature
of 60 °C. The oven-dried specimens are then mounted on a stub
and painted with carbon painted and made ready for carbon/Gold
coating depending on the analysis. The carbon-coated samples are
subjected to EDS analysis and imaging is done. The microstructural
images of the binder precursors slag (1, 2), fly ash (3) and micro fly
ash (4) is depicted in Fig. 20 at a magnification of 1000x. A compar-
ison of the poor performing mix M1 and best performing mix M8
can be seen in Fig. 21 and Fig. 22 respectively at 100x and 230x
magnification. It can be seen that the mix M1 had a porous struc-
ture with cracks and unreacted fly ash species, while the sample
M8 possess fewer cracks and has well-reacted binder materials
to form a solid framework.
It can be seen from the EDS spectrum and SEM micrographs in
the Fig. 23 that the M8 with optimum alkali/binder ratio and
water/binder ratio leads to a more compact and less porous struc-
ture with fully reacted binder materials. The SCGC specimens with
higher water/binder ratio did not form a perfectly packed structure
and there were numerous cracks and unreacted binder species as
seen in the mix M1 leading to poor structural performance.
Whereas, the SCGC specimens with optimum water/binder ratio
offered compact packing with less voids and less number of unre-
acted species offering better strength.

10
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri
Fig. 23. Spectrums for EDS analysis of the M8 mix, chemical composition of the ambient cured self –compacting geopolymer mix M8.
8. Conclusion
From the available literature, it is inarguable that geopolymer
concrete is a successful replacement for conventional cement
concrete, however, the scope needs to be widened for the devel-
opment and use of high-performance self-compacting geopoly-
mer concrete. This study assesses the workability, mechanical
and microstructural properties of a newly developed ambient
cured self-compacting geopolymer concrete containing fly ash,
slag and micro fly ash as binder materials. The successful mix
of self-compacting and ambient curing nature was obtained after
developing and testing eight mix proportions of geopolymer
concrete containing varying percentages of fly ash/slag ratio,
alkali activator/binder ratio and water/binder ratio. This helped
in verifying the role of Fly ash/slag composition and effect of
water on the geopolymeric binder materials. The eight mix
designs comprising two different solid alkali activators varied
at 10% and 20%, and water /solids ratio fixed at 0.4, 0.43, 0.45
and 0.5 are experimentally investigated in the laboratory. The
results point out the development of an industry-ready geopoly-
mer concrete that is self-compacting in nature and can be cured
without the need for high temperatures. This development can
be adopted for in-situ concrete applications and the performance
of the same under dense reinforcements needs further investiga-
tion. From the reported results on eight mixes of geopolymer
concrete, the mix M8 with Fly Ash/slag in the ratio of 60/40
with a water/solids content of 0.45 performed better. It can be
concluded that:
11
Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822
 A new mix of self-compacting geopolymer concrete has been
developed which has a reduced amount of alkali activator and
no superplasticisers.
 The fly ash/ slag ratio affects the setting time of the mix, where
an increase in slag content decreases the setting time.
 The water/binder ratio is very effective and should be main-
tained at the stipulated ratio of 0.45 to attain a workable mix.
 The optimum mix contained a binder of 960 kg/m3 and sodium
metasilicate alkali of 96 kg/m3 reporting a 28-day average com-
pressive strength of 40 MPa and tensile strength of 3 MPa.
 The modulus of elasticity on the 28-day test have an average
value of 15GPa while the unit weight was in the range of
2200 kg/m3.
 The optimised mix maintains the workability requirements for
up to ninety minutes after the mixing which makes it a poten-
tial candidate for general construction purposes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Authors would like to acknowledge the support of Deakin
University to carry out the present study. Moreover, the assis-
Sherin Khadeeja Rahman and R. Al-Ameri
tances of Mr. Lube Veljanoski and Dr.Muhammed Ikramul Kabir
during the experimental phase of the study are gratefully acknowl-
edged. The support from Fly Ash Australia (Fly Ash, Micro Fly Ash),
Independent Cements (Slag) in providing binder materials are
thankfully acknowledged.
References
[1] G. Fang, W.K. Ho, W. Tu, M. Zhang, Workability and mechanical properties of
alkali-activated fly ash-slag concrete cured at ambient temperature, Constr.
Build. Mater. 172 (2018) 476–487, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.04.008.
[2] F. Pacheco-Torgal, Z. Abdollahnejad, S. Miraldo, M. Kheradmand, Alkali-
activated cement-based binders (AACBs) as durable and cost-competitive
low-CO2 binder materials: some shortcomings that need to be addressed,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2017, pp. 195–216.
[3] G.M. Zannerni, K.P. Fattah, A.K. Al-Tamimi, Ambient-cured geopolymer
concrete with single alkali activator, Sustainable Mater.Technol. 23 (2020)
e00131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2019.e00131.
[4] M.N.S. Hadi, H. Zhang, S. Parkinson, Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes
and concretes cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength,
setting time and workability, J. Build. Eng. 23 (2019) 301–313, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.006.
[5] S. Kumar, R. Kumar, Geopolymer: cement for low carbon economy, Indian
Concr J 88 (2014) 29–37.
[6] F. Aslani, S. Nejadi, Mechanical characteristics of self-compacting concrete
with and without fibres, Mag. Concr. Res. 65 (10) (2013) 608–622, https://doi.
org/10.1680/macr.12.00153.
[7] R.B. Ardalan, Z.N. Emamzadeh, H. Rasekh, A. Joshaghani, B. Samali, Physical and
mechanical properties of polymer modified self-compacting concrete (SCC)
using natural and recycled aggregates, J. Sustainable Cement-Based Materials 9
(1) (2020) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2019.1666060.
[8] A. Kashani, T.D. Ngo, P. Mendis, The effects of precursors on rheology and self-
compactness of geopolymer concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 71 (11) (2019) 557–
566, https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00495.
[9] Y.J. Patel, N. Shah, Development of self-compacting geopolymer concrete as a
sustainable construction material, Sustainable Environ. Res. 28 (6) (2018) 412–
421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2018.08.004.
[10] EFNARC, S, Guidelines for self-compacting concrete, London, UK: Association
House 32 (2002) 34.
[11] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, E. Özbay, Properties of self-compacting concretes
made with binary, ternary, and quaternary cementitious blends of fly ash,
blast furnace slag, and silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (5) (2009) 1847–
1854, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.09.015.
[12] M. Soleymani Ashtiani, A.N. Scott, R.P. Dhakal, Mechanical and fresh properties
of high-strength self-compacting concrete containing class C fly ash, Constr.
Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1217–1224, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.06.015.
[13] G.F. Huseien, K.W. Shah, Durability and life cycle evaluation of self-compacting
concrete containing fly ash as GBFS replacement with alkali activation, Constr.
Build. Mater. 235 (2020) 117458, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.117458.
[14] Kriven, W.M., Sankar, K. and Al-Chaar, G.K., University of Illinois and US
Secretary of Army, 2019. Flowable slag-fly ash binders for construction or
repair. U.S. Patent Application 16/255,131.
[15] M. Askarian, Z. Tao, G. Adam, B. Samali, Mechanical properties of ambient
cured one-part hybrid OPC-geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 186
(2018) 330–337, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.160.
[16] C.K. Tennakoon, 2016. Assessment of properties of ambient cured geopolymer
concrete for construction applications (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. thesis,
Swinburne University of Technology).
[17] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition, Constr.
Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 163–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080.
[18] B. Nematollahi, J. Sanjayan, F.U.A. Shaikh, Synthesis of heat and ambient cured
one-part geopolymer mixes with different grades of sodium silicate, Ceram.
Int. 41 (4) (2015) 5696–5704, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.12.154.
[19] S.H. Bong, B. Nematollahi, A. Nazari, M. Xia, J. Sanjayan, Efficiency of Different
Superplasticizers and Retarders on Properties of ‘One-Part’Fly Ash-Slag
Blended Geopolymers with Different Activators, Materials 12 (20) (2019)
3410, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12203410.
[20] M. Askarian, Z. Tao, B. Samali, G. Adam, R. Shuaibu, Mix composition and
characterisation of one-part geopolymers with different activators, Constr. Build.
Mater. 225 (2019) 526–537, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.083.
[21] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, Fly Ash-Based
Geopolymer Concrete, Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 6 (1) (2005) 77–86, https://doi.
org/10.1080/13287982.2005.11464946.
[22] K. Neupane, Investigation on modulus of elasticity of powder-activated
geopolymer concrete, Int. J. Struct. Eng. 7 (3) (2016) 262–278, https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.2016.077720.
[23] A. Rafeet, R. Vinai, M. Soutsos, W. Sha, Guidelines for mix proportioning of fly
ash/GGBS based alkali activated concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017)
130–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.036.
12
Construction and Building Materials 267 (2021) 121822
[24] M.S. Reddy, P. Dinakar, B.H. Rao, Mix design development of fly ash and ground
granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete, J. Build. Eng. 20
(2018) 712–722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.010.
[25] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Geopolymer concrete: A
review of some recent developments, Constr. Build. Mater. 85 (2015) 78–90,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036.
[26] T. Luukkonen, Z. Abdollahnejad, J. Yliniemi, P. Kinnunen, M. Illikainen, One-
part alkali-activated materials: A review, Cem. Concr. Res. 103 (2018) 21–34,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.10.001.
[27] N. Su, K.-C. Hsu, H.-W. Chai, A simple mix design method for self-compacting
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (12) (2001) 1799–1807, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0008-8846(01)00566-X.
[28] AS/NZS 3582.1:2016 : Supplementary cementitious materials - Fly ash.
[29] ASTM C618-19 : Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete
[30] F.N. Okoye, J. Durgaprasad, N.B. Singh, Effect of silica fume on the mechanical
properties of fly ash based-geopolymer concrete, Ceram. Int. 42 (2) (2016)
3000–3006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.10.084.
[31] A. Motorwala, V. Shah, R. Kammula, P. Nannapaneni, D.B. Raijiwala, 2013.
Alkali activated fly-ash based geopolymer concrete. International journal of
emerging technology and advanced engineering, 3(1), pp.159-166.D.
Ravikumar, S. Peethamparan and N. Neithalath, Cement and Concrete
Composites, 2010, 32, 399-410.
[32] D. Ravikumar, S. Peethamparan, N. Neithalath, Structure and strength of NaOH
activated concretes containing fly ash or GGBFS as the sole binder, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 32 (6) (2010) 399–410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2010.03.007.
[33] Concrete, S.C., 2005. The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete.
BIBM, et al, 22.
[34] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured
blended low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 130
(2017) 22–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034.
[35] AS1012.3.5:2015- Methods of testing Concrete
[36] AS/NZS 2350.3:2006 Australia, S., 2006. Methods of testing portland, blended
and masonry cements-Length change of cement mortars exposed to sulfate
solution.
[37] Albitar, M., 2016. Mechanical, Durability and Structural Evaluation of
Geopolymer Concretes (Doctoral dissertation).
[38] AS 1012.14:2018 : Methods of testing concrete - Method for securing and
testing cores from hardened concrete for compressive strength and mass per
unit volume.
[39] AS 1012.10-2000 (R2014) : Methods of testing concrete - Determination of
indirect tensile strength of concrete cylinders (Brasil or splitting test)
[40] M. Soutsos, A.P. Boyle, R. Vinai, A. Hadjierakleous, S.J. Barnett, Factors
influencing the compressive strength of fly ash based geopolymers, Constr.
Build. Mater. 110 (2016) 355–368, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.11.045.
[41] L. Krishnaraj, P.T. Ravichandran, Characterisation of ultra-fine fly ash as
sustainable cementitious material for masonry construction, Ain Shams Eng. J.
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.008.
[42] P. Kara De Maeijer, B. Craeye, R. Snellings, H. Kazemi-Kamyab, M. Loots, K.
Janssens, G. Nuyts, Effect of ultra-fine fly ash on concrete performance and
durability, Constr. Build. Mater. 263 (2020) 120493, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2020.120493.
[43] J. Zhang, H. Tan, M. Bao, X. Liu, Z. Luo, P. Wang, Low carbon cementitious
materials: Sodium sulfate activated ultra-fine slag/fly ash blends at ambient
temperature, J. Cleaner Prod. 280 (2021) 124363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124363.
[44] K.H. Khayat G. De Schutter eds Mechanical properties of self-
compactingconcrete: State-of-the-art report of the RILEM technical
committee 228-MPS on mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete
Vol. 14 2014 Springer Science & Business Media
[45] Tian Sing Ng,2011. An Investigation Into The Development Of High
Performance Geopolymer Concrete, (Doctoral Dissertation)
[46] P. Azarsa, R. Gupta, Comparative Study Involving Effect of Curing Regime on
Elastic Modulus of Geopolymer Concrete, Buildings 10 (6) (2020) 101, https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings10060101.
[47] R.R. Bellum, K. Muniraj, S.R.C. Madduru, Investigation on modulus of elasticity
of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag blended geopolymer concrete,
Mater. Today:. Proc. 27 (2020) 718–723, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2019.11.299.
[48] M. Nili, H. Sasanipour, F. Aslani, The effect of fine and coarse recycled
aggregates on fresh and mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete,
Materials 12 (7) (2019) 1120, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12071120.
[49] G. Saini, U. Vattipalli, Assessing properties of alkali activated GGBS based self-
compacting geopolymer concrete using nano-silica, Case Stud. Constr. Mater.
12 (2020) e00352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00352.
[50] M.E. Gülsßan, R. Alzeebaree, A.A. Rasheed, A. Nisß, A.E. Kurtoğlu, Development of
fly ash/slag based self-compacting geopolymer concrete using nano-silica and
steel fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 271–283, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.03.228.
[51] AS 1012.17-1997 (R2014), Methods of testing concrete Determination of the
static chord modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of concrete specimens.
[52] Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D.M., Rangan, B.V., et al., On the
development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. , 101(6), pp.467- 472., ACI
Mater. J. 101 (6) (2004) 467–472.