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

net/publication/316566650

Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Composites

Article  in  Materials Today: Proceedings · December 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.175

CITATIONS READS

14 3,411

2 authors:

Kolli Ramujee Potharaju Malasani

VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology GITAM University
20 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geopolymer concrete- Mechanical performance, durability, sustainability and Implementation challenges View project

Strength and durability studies of multi blended concretes containing fly ash and silica fume View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kolli Ramujee on 10 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

5th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016)

Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Composites

Kolli.Ramujeea, M.PothaRajub
a
Professor, VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Tahnology,Bachupally,Hyderabad-500090, India
b
Professor of Civil Engineering,GITAM University,Rushikonda,Vishakapatnam-530045,India

Abstract

The increasing demand of environment friendly construction has been the driving force for developing
sustainable and economical building materials. The critical aspects influencing the development are
performance of the materials under different and special user conditions, economic aspects as well as
environmental impact aspects. Cement is an energy consuming and high green house gas emitting
product. Geopolymers are gaining increased interest as binders with low CO2-emission in comparison to
Portland cement. In the present investigation, the mechanical properties of flyash based geopolymer
concrete(GPC) were studied. Experimentally measured values of the compressive strength and split
tensile strength of GPC specimens made from low, medium and higher grades compared with reference to
the control mixes(OPC).The regression model analysis was carried out to study the relationship between
the Compressive strength and Split tensile strength and It was found that the mechanical behaviour of
GPC is similar to that of ordinary Portland cement(OPC) concrete.

©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials
Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016).

Keywords:Geopolymers; OPC concrete;class-F flyash;Alkaline actvators; Strength,Correlation

1. Introduction

Increasing emphasis on the environmental impacts of construction materials such as Portland cement has provided
immense thrust in recent years to the increased utilization of waste and by-product materials in concretes. Activation
of aluminosilicate materials such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and metakaolin using alkaline solutions to produce

2214-7853©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials Processing and
Characterization (ICMPC 2016).
2938 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945

binders free of Portland cement is a major advancement towards increasing the beneficial use of industrial waste
products and reducing the adverse impacts of cement production. These alkali-activated binder systems appear in the
vast available body of literature in a variety of names: alkali-activated cement [1] (predominantly used for binders
containing large amounts of calcium such as slags), geopolymer [2–6], inorganic polymer [7], hydroceramic, or low
temperature aluminosilicate glass [8]. They are sometimes called polysialates also because of the polymeric
silicon–oxygen–aluminum framework [9].In general, concretes made using alkali activation of the starting
aluminosilicate material do not contain Portland cement at all, and hence they are referred to generically as cement-
free binder concretes in this study. The concretes containing alkali-aluminosilicate gel as the binder has been shown
to have high compressive strengths, and resistance to fire, and chemical attack [10–13]. The starting material and
activating agent type and concentration are the most important parameters that influence the properties of the alkali-
activated end product [14,15]. The production of cement-free binders requires a starting material containing
aluminum and silicon species that are soluble in highly alkaline solutions. Previous studies have shown that the
amount of vitreous silica and alumina present in the starting material plays a significant role in activation reactions
and the properties of the reaction product [10,16]. The presence of calcium oxide in the source material also
influences the properties, especially because of the formation of more than one reaction product [17]. Sodium
hydroxide and sodium silicate are the more commonly used alkaline activating agents [18–20] even though few
studies have also been carried out with potassium hydroxide or sodium carbonate as the activating agent [13].In the
present investigation, Geopolymer concrete is manufactured using source materials that are rich in silica and
alumina. While the cement-based concrete utilizes the formation of calcium-silica hydrates (CSHs) for matrix
formation and strength, geopolymers involve the chemical reaction of alumino-silicate oxides with alkali
polysilicates yielding polymeric Si–O–Al bonds.

2.0 Source materials and mixture proportions

2.1. Materials used

In this experimental work, fly ash is used as the source material to make geopolymer paste as the binder, to produce
concrete. The manufacture of geopolymer concrete is carried out using the usual concrete technology methods. The
role and influence of aggregates are considered to be same as in the Portland cement concrete.The mass of
combined aggregates may be taken to be between 75% and 80% of the mass of the Geopolymer concrete.
Sodium-based activators were chosen because they were cheaper than Potassium-based activators. The sodium
hydroxide was used, in flake or pellet form. It is recommended that the alkaline liquid is prepared by mixing both
the solutions together at least 24 hours prior to use. The mass of NaOH solids in a solution varied depending onthe
concentration of the solution expressed in terms of Molarity, M. The concentration of sodium hydroxide solution
(NaOH) liquid measured in terms of Molarity(M), in the range of 8 to 16 M. The mass of water is the major
component in both the alkaline solutions. In order to improve the workability, high performance Polycarboxylic
based super plasticizer purchased from BASF under trade name GLENIUM B233 has been added to the mixture.
The primary difference between Geopolymer concrete and Portland cement concrete is the binder. The silicon and
aluminium oxides in the low –calcium fly ash reacts with the alkaline liquid to form the geopolymer paste that binds
the loose coarse and fine aggregates and other unreacted materials to form the geopolymer concrete. As in the case
of Portland cement concrete the coarse and fine aggregates occupy about 75% to 80% of the mass of Geopolymer
concrete. This component of Geopolymer concrete mixtures can be designed using the tools currently available for
Portland cement concrete. The compressive strength and workability of geopolymer concrete are influenced by the
proportions and properties of the constituent materials that make the geopolymer paste.

2.2 Mixture Proportions

The mix proportions for Geopolymer concretes of three grades namely G20,G40 & G60 were arrived based on the
 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju /Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945 2939

trial mixes carried out by the author in the laboratory and for control mix the corresponding grades were taken in
equivalent mix proportions of geopolymer concrete[21][22]. the details of properties of materials ( table 1to 5) and
the the mix proportions for GPC of three grades((shown in table .6 ) and the control mix proportions were given in
table7.

Table 1. Chemical composition of flyash(%mass)

Oxides Percentage
SiO2 60.54
Al203 26.20
Fe2O3 5.87
CaO 1.91
MgO 0.38
K2O+Na2O 1.02
SO3 0.23
Loss on ignition 2.0

Table 2. Properties of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

Property Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate

Specific gravity 2.78 2.63

Water absorption 0.50% 1%
Fineness modulus 7.21 2.40
Bulk density Kg/m3 1675 1570
Source Crushed granite stone River sand

Table 3. Properties of Sodium silicate solution

Property Value

Specific gravity 1.6

Molar mass (gr/mol) 122.06
Na2O ( by mass) 14.70%
SiO2 ( by mass) 29.40%
Weight of solids (by mass) 44.1%
Water ( by mass)
Weight ratio (SiO2 to Na2O) 55.90%
Molar ratio
2.00
2.06
2940 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945

Table 4. Properties of Sodium hydroxide(NaOH)

Property value

Molar mass 40 gr/mol

Appearance White solid
Density 2.1gr/cc
Melting point 3180C
Boiling point 13900C
Amount of heat 266 cal/gr
liberatedhen dissolved
in water

Table 5. Properties of Cement

Property Value

Standard consistency 32%

Initial setting time 115 min
Final setting time 240 min
Specific gravity 3.10
Soundness 1mm
Compressive strength
(MPa)
7 days 40.1
28 days 56.0

Table 6. Mix proportions for various grades of Geopolymer concrete

Grade of GPC G20 G40 G60

Fly ash (kg/m3) 327 408.9

Fine Aggregate (kg/m3) 672 394.3 554.0
Coarse Aggregate 646.8
(kg/m3) 1201.2
1248 1294.0
NaOH(kg/m3)
(M) Concentration 54.33( 8M) 45.06(16M) 40.89(16M)
Na2SiO3(kg/m3) 108.67 112.64 102.22
Extra water (kg/m3) --
22 --
Super plasticizer 6
----- 6
(GLENIUM)(kg/m3)
Ratio of Mixture 1:1.64:3.04
1:2.05:3.81 1:1.35:3.16
proportions
Liquid/binder ratio 0.50 0.40 0.35
Water/geopolymer
Solids ratio 0.31 0.158
Workability 0.21
(Slump) 100 mm 50mm
50mm
 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju /Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945 2941

Table 7.Mix proportions of OPC Conventional concrete expressed as Equivalent Proportions of GPC

Grade of concrete M20 M40 M60

Cement (kg/m3) 327 394.3 408.9

Fine Aggregate(kg/m3) 672 646.8 554.0
Coarse
Aggregate(kg/m3) 1248 1201.2 1294.0
Water(kg/m3) 163 157.7 143.11
SP(kg/m3) 2 4 6
Mix Proportion 1:2.05:3.81 1:1.64:3.04 1:1.35:3.16
W/C ratio 0.50 0.40 0.35

2.2 Specimen preparation

The sodium hydroxide flakes were dissolved in distilled water to make a solution with a desired concentration at
least one day prior to use. The fly ash and the aggregates were first mixed together in a 80 litre pan mixer shown in
fig.1 for about three minutes. The sodium hydroxide and the sodium silicate solutions were mixed together and then
added to the dry materials and mixed for about four minutes shon in fig.2, then the super plasticizer of required
dosage was added. Even though after addition of super plasticizer, the required slump is not achieved ,then the extra
water was added to the mix.After mixing , the slump of the fresh geopolymer concrete was determined in
accordance with slump test [27]. After determination of slump , the fresh concrete was cast into the mould. The
specimens were compacted with three layer placing and tamping using a rod. This was followed by an additional
vibration of 10 seconds using a vibrating table.

Fig.1 Pan mixer used for mixing GPC Fig.2 addition of Alkaline liquids to the Mix

2.3. Curing regime

The specimens were wrapped with thin vinyl sheet to avoid loss of water due to evaporation, All the specimens
were then transferred to an oven set at a temperature of 60°C and stored for 24 hours. After curing ,the specimens
were allowed to cool in air ,demoulded and kept in open until the day of testing. Both types of heat curing and
2942 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945

ambient curing were adopted. In case of heat curing shown in fig.3, the specimens were cured in an oven and in
ambient curing the specimens were left to air for required period. For each grade of Geopolymer concrete mix about
7 mix proportions were considered and the mix which exhibited the required compressive strength consistently at 28
days under both curing conditions was adopted for further investigations.

Fig.3 Hot Air Oven for curing GPC Fig.4 Computerized 100 T UTM for testing

2.4.Strength tests

The compressive strength and split tensile strength tests on GPC concretes for G20,G40 and G60 grades and their
counterparts i.e control mixes have been carried out[25] shown in fig.4.A summary of the mechanical properties
measured for each of the sample is presented in the Table No.8.

3.0 Results

Table: 8 Mechanical properties of Geopolymer concrete & OPC concrete

S. Mix Compressive Split
N designatonStrength Tensile strength
o (MPa) (MPa)
Heat cured specimens @ 28 days
1 MH2G20 30.4 1.97
2 31.2 2.34
3 32.4 2.68
4 MH2G40 50.0 3.02
5 49.69 2.98
6 52.28 3.45
7 MH2G60 71.2 4.20
8 70.6 4.20
9 71.4 4.60
Control mix water cured @ 28 days
10 M1M20 27.5 2.21
11 M1M40 48.8 3.54
12 M1M60 68.6 4.52
 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju /Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945 2943

4.0 Discussions

The cube compressive strength ranged from 30.4Mpa to 71.4Mpa for GPC specimens under heat cured conditions
are shown in Table 8.,where as for control mix the results varied from 27.5Mpa to 68.6Mpa is also shown in table 8.
The split tensile strength values for GPC for heat cured were shown in the table 8.It has been widely reported that
splitting tensile strength can be estimated from compressive strength of concrete through various empirical relations
proposed by different concrete institutes and researchers.

These empirical relations can be summarized by the following general equation:

fts = A(fck)B

where fts is splitting tensile strength, MPa; fck iscompressive strength, MPa; A and B are regression coefficients.
A Regression model analysis was carried out using MATLAB software for analyzing the results between the
compressive strength and split tensile strength .

Correlation between the split tensile strength (fts) and compressive strength of GPC is also analysed by regression
analysis was shown in fig.3, by regression analysis the following empirical relation can be expressed as

fst = 0.08 fcs0.92

with R2of this proposed relation as 0.80 suggests variability among the relation may be due to various factor which
were affecting the properties of GPC with heat curing and ambient curing condtions.

However , the relationship was supported by the following empirical formula suggested by ACI318-99 , Fig. 5,

fst = 0.095 fcs0.89

Fig.5 Relationship between compressive strength and split tensile strength

2944 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945

5.0 Conclusions

Based on the applicability evaluation and empirical relations to GPC and the regression analysis on experimental
data of mechanical properties of Geopolymer Concrete , the following conclusions can be drawn.

1) The GPC attains its target strength much faster under heat cured condition compared to ambient cured
condition..
2) The GPC under heat cured condition exhibited almost same split tensile strength as that of corresponding
strengths of OPC concrete.
3) The Relationship between Split tensile strength and compressive strength of GPC can be expressed using
regression model analysis that resembles that given by ACI-318-99 for Ordinary concrete.
4) Mechanical behavior of Geopolymer concrete is similar to that of OPC concrete.
5) Geopolymer concrete exhibits some of the characteristics required for an Engineered material based on its
mechanical properties and behavior.

References

[1] Palomo A, de la Fuente JIL. Alkali-activated cementitious materials: alternative matrices for the
immobilization ofhazardous wastes. Part I. Stabilization of boron. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:281–8.[2] Davidovits J.
Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal 1991;37:1633–56.[3] van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL,
Duxson P, Lukey GC. Reaction mechanism in geopolymeric conversionof inorganic waste to useful products. J
Hazard Mater 2007;139:506–13. [4] Yunsheng Z, Wei S,
Qianli C, Lin C. Synthesis and heavy metal immobilization behavior of slag geopolymer. J Hazard Mater
2007;143:206–13.[5] Sun W, Zhang YS, Lin W, Liu ZY. In situ monitoring of the hydration process of K-PS
geopolymer cement with ESEM. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:935–40.[6] Wang H, Li H, Yan F. Synthesis and
mechanical properties of metakaolinite based geopolymer. Coll Surf A: Physicochemical Eng Aspects 2005;268:1–
6.[7] Sofi M, van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA, Lukey GC. Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes,
(IPCs). Cem Concr Res 2007;37:251–7.
[8] Rahier H, Van mele S, Wastiels J. Low-temperature synthesized aluminosilicateglasses. Part II. Rheological
transformations during low-temperature cure andhigh-temperature properties of a model compound. J Mater
Sci 1996;31:80–5.
[9] Alvarez-Ayuso E, Querol X, Plana F, Alastuey A, Moreno N, Izquierdo M, et al.Environmental, physical and
structural characterization of geopolymermatrixes synthesized from coal (co-)combustion fly ashes. J Hazard
Mater2008;154:175–83.
[10] Duxson P, Provis JL, Luckey GC, Mallicoat SW, Kriven WM, van Deventer JSJ.understanding the
relationship between geopolymer composition, microstructure and mechanical properties. J Coll surf A:
Physiochem EngAspects 2005;269:47–58.
[11] Bakharev T. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem Concr Res2005;35:658–70.
[12] Bakharev T. Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesiumsulfate solutions. Cem Concr Res
2005;35:1233–46.
[13] Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG. Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures.
Cem Concr Compos 2008;30:986–91.
[14] Criado M, Fernandez Jimenez A, de la Torre A, Aranda MAG, Palomo A. An XRDstudy of the effect of
SiO2/Na2O ratio on the alkali activation of fly ash. CemConcr Res 2007;37:671–9.
[15] van Jaarsveld JGS, van Deventer JSJ, Lukey G. The characterization of sourcematerials in fly ash-based
geopolymers. Mater Lett 2003;57:1272–80.
 Kolli.Ramujee and M.PothaRaju /Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 2937–2945 2945

[16] Silva PD, Crenstil KS, Sirivivatnanon V. Kinetics of geopolymerization: role ofAl2O3 and SiO2. Cem Concr
Res 2007;37:512–8.
[17] Temuujin J, van Riessen A, Williams R. Influence of calcium compounds on themechanical properties of fly
ash geopolymer pastes. J Hazard Mater 2009..
[18] Hardjito D, Rangan BV. Development and properties of low-calcium fly ashbasedgeopolymer concrete.
Curtin research report..
[19] Yang KH, Song JK, Ashour AF, Lee ET. Properties of cementless mortarsactivated by sodium silicate.
Constr Build Mater 2009;22:1981–9.
[20] Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K. Workability and strength oflignite bottom ash
geopolymer mortar. J Hazard Mater 2009.
[21] Kolli Ramujee, Potharaju M, Development of mix design for low calcium based geopolymer concrete
in Ordinary,standard & highstrength grades , Indian concrete institute Journal , vol 14, issue no 29-34.
[22] Kolli Ramujee, Potharaju M, Development of Low calcium fly ash based Geopolymer concrete , International
Journal of Engineering and Tchnology,2014 , vol 6,No 1,pp 1-4.
[23] Kolli Ramujee, Potharaju M, Permeability and abrasion resistance of geopolymer concrete, Indian Concrete
journal, Vol 88,No 12,pp34-43, Dec 2014.
[24]Kolli Ramujee , Potharaju.M, Performance characteristics of Geopolymer concrete, Indian concrete institute
Journal(ICI),vol no 16, issue no 1, pp 30-36-.April-June,2015.
[25] Kolli Ramujee , Potharaju M,Abrasion resistance of geopolymer concrete composites, procedia materials
science,
Vol 6,2014, pp 1961-1966.
[26].IS-2386-1963,“Method of test for Aggregate concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[27].IS: 383-1970, “Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from the natural sources for concrete”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[28].IS: 4031 – 1988, “Method for physical tests for hydratedcement”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[29]. IS: 516-1959(Reaffirmed 1999) edition 1.2(1991-07), “Method of test for strength of Concrete”, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi 2002.

View publication stats