ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 116-M112

Development of Ground-Granulated Blast-Furnace

Slag‑Dolomite Geopolymer Concrete
by Saranya P, Praveen Nagarajan, and A. P. Shashikala

Development of geopolymer concrete (GPC) with industrial Table 1—Chemical composition of GGBS,
by-products is a solution to the disposal of the industrial wastes, dolomite, and OPC
thus making the concreting process sustainable. This paper focuses
on the development of GPC using ground-granulated blast-furnace Chemical
CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO LOI
composition, %
slag (GGBS) and dolomite (by-product from rock crushing plant)
as source materials. Strength properties of slag-based GPC are Cement 61.53 20.36 4.31 5.98 1.36 6.46
studied with different proportions of dolomite. It is observed that the GGBS 38.9 33.5 10.68 2.35 9.45 5.12
addition of dolomite into slag-based GPC reduces the setting time,
enhances workability, and rapidly improves the early-age strength. Dolomite 35.58 20.78 8.54 2.45 20.58 12.07
Addition of dolomite into slag GPC also improves the durability
properties, such as high resistance towards water absorption, sorp- Table 2—Physical properties of GGBS, dolomite,
tivity, marine attack, and chemical attack. and OPC
Blaine’s fineness,
Keywords: dolomite; durability; geopolymer concrete; ground-granulated
Physical properties Color Specific gravity cm2/g
blast-furnace slag (GGBS); strength.
OPC Gray 3.14 2435
INTRODUCTION GGBS Offwhite 2.9 4032
Cement manufacturing industries are one of the reasons Dolomite White 2.85 3500
for global warming in terms of generation of high quantity
of greenhouse gases.1 With the rising concern on global of raw materials and emits a large amount of greenhouse
warming, there is a lot of ongoing research on the use of other gases. Therefore, it is critical to reduce the consumption of
cementitious materials as a substitute for cement, which will cement to save our planet. Alkali-activated and geopoly-
reduce carbon footprint.2 This has led to the development of meric binders are used as an alternative to cement. Here,
geopolymer concrete (GPC) by Davidovits in 1978, where GGBS (by-product from steel industry) and dolomite
industrial by-products were used for complete replacement (by-product from rock crushing plant) are used to develop
of cement. High strength, durability, and less carbon foot- geopolymer concrete. Effective use of GGBS and dolomite
print are the main advantages of sustainable GPC.3-5 For the into concrete can reduce the use of cement and thereby mini-
development of GPC, industrial by-products such as fly ash, mize its disposal problems. GPC is a quick setting concrete,
ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), and metaka- which can reduce the construction time. Ambient curing of
olin were used.6 GPC reduces the workforce required for construction.
GGBS is obtained as a by-product from the iron and steel
industry and has similar chemical composition as that of MATERIALS USED
cement. It reacts with water at a slow rate of hydration and GGBS and dolomite
is activated by an alkali solution to produce high strength.7-9 GGBS and dolomite are the source materials used for the
Incorporating GGBS reduces the cost of concrete construc- production of GPC. GGBS and dolomite are the by-products
tion and also the problem of its disposal. Dolomite, which from steel industries and rock crushing plant, respectively.
is a by-product from rock crushing plants, is reported to Chemical and physical properties of GGBS and dolomite are
be used in self-consolidating concrete.10-12 As of now, the given in Tables 1 and 2.
effects of dolomite in GPC have not been reported.
In this study, effects of dolomite on strength properties of Aggregate
GGBS GPC were investigated. Studies have been conducted by Aggregates satisfying IS 2386(3)-196313 were used in
varying the proportion of GGBS and dolomite on fresh and hard- this study. Locally available river sand passing through
ened properties of GPC. Durability properties of GGBS-dolo- a 1.18 mm sieve and coarse aggregate of maximum size
mite GPC were compared with conventional cement concrete. 12  mm was used. Water absorption for fine and coarse
Addition of dolomite into GGBS GPC decreases the cost of
concrete and reduces the environmental impact. ACI Materials Journal, V. 116, No. 6, November 2019.
MS No. M-2018-507, doi: 10.14359/51716981, received November 26, 2018, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
Cement, a significant component of concrete, is highly obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
energy intensive, as its manufacture consumes huge volumes is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Materials Journal/November 2019 235

aggregates was obtained as 1.4% and 0.93%, respectively.
Fineness moduli of fine and coarse aggregates were 2.75 and
6.8, respectively.
Alkaline solution
Combination of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate
were used as the alkaline medium. Sodium hydroxide was
in pellets form having a purity of 97% and sodium silicate
in solution form composed of SiO2 (27.2%), Na2O (8.9%),
and H2O (63.9%). Sodium hydroxide pellets were dissolved
in water 1 day before casting because it is an exothermic
reaction. Sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide were mixed
together at the time of casting.14
Fig. 1—Effects of NaOH/Na2CO3 on compressive strength
of GPC.
High-range water-reducing admixtures
Sulfonated naphthalene-based high-range water-reducing
admixtures conforming to IS:9103-199915 with a specific
gravity of 1.2 was added to improve the workability.
MIXTURE PROPORTIONING OF GPC
There are no standard mixture design guidelines available
for GGBS GPC under ambient curing condition. Mixture
proportion was done based on a trial-and-error basis for
GPC. Different parameters such as proportions of sodium
hydroxide to sodium silicate (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3), amount
of binder content (350, 400, and 450 kg/m3), solution-to-
binder ratio (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8), and molarity of solu-
tion (8M, 10 M, 12M, 14M, and 16M) were considered.
Sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio was varied
from 1 to 3, and their effect on compressive strength was
studied (Fig. 1) by keeping binder content (350 kg/m3),
solution-to-binder content ratio (0.4), and concentration of
NaOH (8 M) as constants. Optimum ratio between sodium
hydroxide to sodium silicate was 1:2.5, beyond which
compressive strength was found to decrease. By varying
the binder content from 350 to 400 kg/m3, the compressive
strength was found to increase as shown in Table 3. Beyond
400 kg/m3, there was a reduction in compressive strength,
which remains constant beyond that. Therefore, 400 kg/m3
was chosen as the optimum binder content to get maximum
compressive strength. As the solution-binder ratio increases,
compressive strength was found to decrease as shown in
Table 3. Maximum compressive strength was obtained at
the solution-to-binder ratio 0.4. When the solution-to-binder
ratio was 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6, the slump was measured as 40, 65,
and 100 mm, respectively. Therefore, for heavily reinforced

Table 3—Effect of different parameters on strength of GPC

Solution/binder
Molarity 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Binder content: 350 kg/m3
8 81.26 71.12 58.84 45.01 38.12
10 87.42 75.32 60.15 51.26 41.46
12 94.41 81.22 69.53 57.58 49.46
14 94.15 83.51 70.25 58.24 48.13
16 92.32 80.21 67.53 54.22 46.26
Binder content: 400 kg/m3

8 86.12 72.46 59.54 48.29 40.26

10 90.55 77.12 64.46 53.25 44.66
12 96.21 83.59 71.57 60.26 50.15
14 95.69 82.12 71.25 60.13 51.25
16 95.45 83.13 70.96 58.54 49.55
Binder content: 450 kg/m3
8 83.58 72.52 57.12 48.01 39.26
10 90.45 74.21 62.35 52.26 43.25
12 93.32 83.12 75.43 59.13 50.92
14 95.15 81.25 70.25 59.24 53.22
16 94.12 81.21 69.13 59.55 48.24

236 ACI Materials Journal/November 2019

sections such as beams, slabs, columns, and so on, the solu- EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
tion-to-binder ratio should be more than 0.5 for satisfying Preparation of GGBS-dolomite specimens
IS-456 2000 medium workability requirements. Hence, the GGBS-dolomite mortar and concrete specimens were
solution-to-binder ratio was taken as 0.6. As the concentra- prepared for studying the effects of dolomite on GGBS GPC.
tion of solution increases, compressive strength increases up GGBS was replaced with dolomite in different proportions
to 12 M, beyond which it decreases (Table 3). as given in Table 5.
The mixture proportion of GPC and conventional cement
concrete to get a compressive strength of 60 N/mm2 is shown Setting time
in Table 4. Setting time of binder was found as per IS 4031 Part IV16
Table 4—Mixture proportioning of GPC and using a Vicat apparatus and given in Table 6 for different
OPC concrete proportions of GGBS and dolomite.
Initial setting time for 100% GGBS was obtained as
Quantity, kg/m3 47 minutes, which is 27% more than OPC. Replacement of
Sl. No Material GPC OPC concrete GGBS with dolomite reduces the initial setting time. When
1 Binder content/cement 400 556 GGBS and dolomite become 50:50, the setting time was
reduced by 16% less than OPC. Final setting time of GGBS
2 Alkaline solution/water 240 158
geopolymer binder is four times less than OPC.17 Addition
3 Fine aggregate 646 698 of dolomite into GGBS GPC can effectively participate to
4 Coarse aggregate 1021.5 1067 accelerate the setting time due to the high calcium content.18
5 High-range water-reducing admixture 6 6
Workability of GPC
Table 5—Proportions of GGBS (G), dolomite (D), Slump test was conducted as per IS 1199:195919 to deter-
and OPC mine the workability of fresh concrete and the results are
given in Table 7.
Mixture GGBS Dolomite Cement
GGBS GPC has 14% more slump than OPC concrete.
G100:D0 100 0 0 As the percentage of dolomite increases, workability also
G90:D10 90 10 0 increases. Thirty-eight percent more slump value was
observed in G50:D50 than that of G100:D0. The slag
G80:D20 80 20 0
particle, which has irregular shape, leads to the low work-
G70:D30 70 30 0 ability of GGBS GPC. Addition of dolomite into GGBS GPC
G60:D40 60 40 0 increases the workability due to its large surface area.20,21
G50:D50 50 50 0
Compressive strength
OPC100 0 0 100
GGBS, fine aggregate, and coarse aggregate were mixed
in a pan mixer under dry condition and mixed with solu-
Table 6—Setting time of OPC and GPC concrete
tion and high-range water-reducing admixture for 3 minutes.
Mixture Initial setting time, minutes Final setting time, minutes Homogeneity was ensured by checking the uniform color
G100:D0 47 62 of the mixture. GPC was filled in each mold in three layers
G90:D10 44 58 and compacted on a vibrating table. All the specimens were
demolded after 24 hours and cured under ambient condition
G80:D20 42 53
(25 to 28°C).
G70:D30 36 47 A compressive strength test was performed on 150 x 150 x
G60:D40 34 46 150 mm cube concrete specimens. Specimens cast with
G50:D50 32 41
various proportions of GGBS and dolomite were tested at
1, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 56 days of curing as per the procedure
OPC100 37 265

Table 7—Compressive strength of GGBS-dolomite GPC

Compressive strength, N/mm2
Mixture Slump, mm 1-day 3-day 7-day 28-day 56-day
G100:D0 120 42.5 57 62.8 64.5 67.8
G90:D10 132 47.5 65 67.5 68.4 69
G80:D20 145 50.4 65 69.5 70 72
G70:D30 155 53.0 63 71 72.5 73.6
G60:D40 160 45.2 52 64 65.7 68.2
G50:D50 166 30.5 48.5 58 60.4 64
OPC100 105 15.7 23.5 35.6 71.5 73

ACI Materials Journal/November 2019 237

specified in IS 516:1959.22 Table 7 compares the compres-
sive strength attained by different mixtures at different ages
of curing. The variation of compressive strength of GPC for
different mixtures is shown that the addition of dolomite up
to 30% increases the compressive strength and decreases
thereafter. The optimum percentage of GGBS and dolomite
was obtained as 70:30 in terms of strength. Ambient curing
provided 95% of the compressive strength of GPC within
7 days. In the case of OPC, the strength gaining process
was completed after 28 days of curing in water. Hence,
it is possible to develop GPC with strength equal to the
28-day strength of OPC concrete within 7 days. Polymer-
ization is a faster process compared to the hydration process.
Therefore, compressive strength does not vary much after
7 days.23,24 Dolomite, which is a calcium-bearing material,
also promotes quick polymerization process.25
Split tensile and flexural strength test
Split tensile strength test on concrete was performed on
300 mm long and 150 mm diameter concrete cylinder spec-
imens at 28 days of curing as per the procedure specified in
IS 5816:1999.26 The hardened concrete specimen was then
placed on the compression testing machine. From Table 8,
it is observed that the split tensile strength of cylinders cast
with GGBS100:D0 is more than that of OPC100 by 5% and
with replacement of 30% GGBS with dolomite increases
split tensile strength by 14%.
The flexural strength is obtained by testing beams having
size 150 x 150 x 500 mm under symmetrical two-point
loading according to IS 516:1959.22 Flexural strength
of G100:D0, G90:D10, G80:D20, G70:D30, G60:D40,
G50:D50, and OPC100 mixture shown in Table 8. It is
observed that the flexural strength of GGBS100:D0 is more
than that of OPC100 by 4%, with replacement of 30% GGBS
with dolomite flexural strength is found to increase by 16%.
Effect of curing temperature
Table 9 shows the compressive strength of GPC at 28 days
under ambient and oven curing. Early-age strength (1 day)
was observed more in oven curing than under ambient curing.
During oven curing, only a 3 to 4% increase in compressive
strength is observed than that of ambient curing at the age
of 28 days.17,27 Figure 2 shows the appearance of specimens
subjected to oven and ambient curing.
MICROSTRUCTURAL STUDIES
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM analysis)
SEM images of geopolymer concrete and ordinary port-
land cement are shown in Fig. 3 (A—unreacted or partially
reacted slag; B—micro cracks; C—pores; D—aggregate;
E—aluminosilicate gel; F—CSH; and G—AFt).
Normally aluminosilicate gel was observed in GPC, while
in OPC, C-S-H will be formed. Coexistence of both C-S-H
gel and geopolymer gel is observed in the aforementioned
images and this influences the high strength of concrete.28,29
Calcium precipitates were observed to be scattered on
the surface.
Smooth surfaces were observed in G100:D0. As the
percentage of GGBS increases, smoothness of the surface
increased due to its fineness. A lower number of pores was
observed in G100:D0 and G90:D10 mixtures. Many unre-
acted/partially reacted particles were observed in G60:D40
and G50:D50 mixtures, leading to the low strength of the
mixtures. G80:D20, G70:D30, and G60:D40 were found to
be denser than cement concrete. Interfacial transition zones
(ITZ) were observed in conventional concrete. Formation of
amorphous aluminosilicate gel was observed along with the

Table 8—Comparison of split tensile and flexural

strength of GPC and OPC
Mixture Split tensile strength, N/mm2 Flexural strength, N/mm2
G100:D0 5.35 6.42
G90:D10 5.4 6.59
G80:D20 5.8 6.76
G70:D30 5.8 7.15
G60:D40 5.57 6.83
G50:D50 4.71 6.22
OPC100 5.1 6.17
Fig. 2—Oven- and ambient-cured specimens after 1 day.
Table 9—Effect of curing temperature on compressive strength of concrete
Compressive strength, N/mm2 (1 day) Compressive strength, N/mm2 (28 day)
Mixture Ambient, 28°C Oven, (80°C, 24 hours) Ambient, 28°C Oven, (80°C, 24 hours)
G100:D0 42.5 62.54 64.5 66.43
G90:D10 47.5 65.10 66.4 68.72
G80:D20 50.4 66.45 70 72.66
G70:D30 53.0 69.15 72.5 74.82
G60:D40 45.2 63.45 65.7 68.26
G50:D50 30.5 61.06 60.4 66.36

238 ACI Materials Journal/November 2019


Fig. 3(a) and (b)—SEM images of: (i) G100:D00; (ii)
G90:D10; (iii) G80:D20; (iv) G70:G30; (v) G60:40; (vi)
G50:D50; and (vii) OPC100.
ACI Materials Journal/November 2019
Fig. 4—XRD analysis of OPC and GPC concrete (1-C4AHx,
2-C-S-H, 3-Quartz 4-Kaolinite).
addition of dolomite. More aluminosilicate gel precipitate
was observed in G90:D10, G80:D20, and G70:D30 mixtures.
Dense microstructure with fewer cracks and more aluminos-
ilicate gel are the reason for high strength of G70:D30.
X-ray diffraction (XRD)
XRD patterns of all mixtures ((i) G100:D0, (ii) G90:D10,
(iii) G80:D20, (iv) G70:D30, (v) G60:D40, (vi) G50:D50,
and (vii) OPC100) after 28 days of curing are shown in
Fig. 4.
Major halo peaks are observed in the range of 28 to
32 degrees in all mixtures. Calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H)
and calcium aluminate oxide (carbonate) hydroxide
(C4AHx) are dominant in G70:D30, G80:D20, and G90:D10
mixtures. Coexistence of these bonds gives higher strength
for these mixtures. Both CSH and C4AHx exist only when
a moderate amount of dolomite is present and while only
C4AHx was observed in G100:D0,G60:D40 and G50:D50
mixtures. Quartz, kaolinite, and C-S-H are observed in
OPC100. Normally, C-S-H and aluminosilicate gel are the
strength providing phases for GPC. Because the dolomite
contains magnesium, hydrotalcite double-layered hydroxide
is formed during gel nucleation and is the reason for high
strength of GGBS-dolomite GPC.29,30
TEST FOR DURABILITY
Water absorption and effective porosity
Water absorption test was conducted as per ASTM C642-
8231 using 100 x 100 x 100 mm cubes. Cubes were first
oven dried at 100°C for 24 hours up to a constant weight
and immersed in water. Weight of the cube was measured
at regular intervals to get the water absorption capacity of
the concrete. Initial water absorption was obtained after
30 minutes and saturated water absorption after 120 hours
of immersion in water. The quantity of water that is removed
while drying the saturated specimen gives the effective
porosity of concrete.
239
Table 10—Water absorption and porosity of GPC and OPC concrete
Weight after 30 Weight after 120 Initial water Final water Volume of void, Average effective
Mixture Initial weight, kg minutes, kg hours, kg absorption, % absorption, % m3 porosity, %
G100:D0 2.62 2.645 2.675 0.954 2.09 55 5.5
G90:D10 2.63 2.653 2.68 0.874 1.91 50 5
G80:D20 2.62 2.641 2.65 0.802 1.14 30 3
G70:D30 2.61 2.629 2.64 0.728 1.15 30 3
G60:D40 2.64 2.66 2.67 0.776 1.13 30 3
G50:D50 2.67 2.69 2.75 0.749 2.23 80 8
OPC100 2.491 2.525 2.628 1.36 5.49 137 13.7

Table 11—Sorptivity of GPC

Mixture Sorptivity (cm/min1/2) × 10–3
G100:D0 2.45
G90:D10 2.34
G80:D20 2.13
G70:D30 2.14
G60:D40 2.12
G50:D50 2.18
OPC100 6.56

Fig. 5—Test setup for sorptivity.
From Table 10, it is observed that G100:D0 has 2.63 times
less water absorption than OPC concrete. Replacement of
GGBS with dolomite (30%) decreases water absorption by
1.82 times than that of G100:D0. G70:D30 mixture has less
initial water absorption compared to others.
The porosity of G100:D0 is 2.5 times less than that of OPC
concrete. Addition of dolomite into GPC reduces porosity
of concrete. G60:D40, G70:D30, and G80:D20 mixtures
have less sorptivity compared to others, which is 4.57 times
less than OPC100. Reduced water absorption and porosity
of GGBS-dolomite GPC is due to the dense microstructure
compared to OPC concrete.
Sorptivity
Sorptivity refers to the rate of water absorption through
capillary pores. It is measured as per ASTM C1585-1332
using cylinder specimens with a diameter of 150 mm and
height of 50 mm. These specimens were kept in an oven
for 24 hours and then cooled for the same time. The cooled
specimens were sealed on all sides (except the bottom)
using insulation tape (Fig. 5). Cumulative volume of water
absorption was measured at regular time intervals. The slope
of the graph of volume of water absorption and square root
of time gives the sorptivity of concrete (Table 11).
It was found that the G100:D0 mixture has 2.68 times
less sorptivity than OPC concrete. Addition of dolomite
(up to 40%) into GGBS GPC reduces sorptivity by 13.5%.
Addition of dolomite makes the concrete denser than that of
GGBS GPC.
Acid attack
Cube specimens with a size of 100 x 100 x 100 mm
were used for the study.33,34 Specimens were oven dried for
24 hours and weighed. They were immersed in 3% sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) solution.34 Weight loss and loss in compres-
sive strength were measured after 180 days and is shown in
Table 12. G100:D0 has 4.62 times and 29% less compressive
strength and weight loss than OPC concrete. Replacement of
GGBS with dolomite (30%) decreases compressive strength
loss 11.11% than that of G100:D0. GPC specimens showed
high resistance towards acid solution than OPC concrete.
OPC specimens showed surface erosion when they are
exposed to H2SO4 solution due to decalcification of C-S-H
gel (Fig. 6). Due to the presence of C4AHx bond in GPC
along with C-S-H, surface erosion to GPC specimen is less.34
Sulfate attack
An oven-dried (24 hours) cube specimen with a size of 100 x
100 x 100 mm were immersed in a 3% sodium sulfate solu-
tion for 180 days.34 Solutions were agitated every day and were
changed once a month for providing uniformity to the mixture.
Loss in weight and compressive strength were measured after
90 days and 180 days and are shown in Table 12.
G100:D0 has 2.62 times less weight loss than OPC
concrete. GGBS-dolomite GPC showed reduced weight loss
of 2.36 times less than that of G100:D0. There is not much
difference observed in the visual appearance of specimens
subjected to sulfate attack.
Chloride diffusion test
Chloride diffusion test was conducted as per ASTM
C1556-11a.35 Cylindrical specimens with a diameter of
100 mm and height of 200 mm were immersed in 3.5% NaCl
solution for 180 days. Specimens were split in a compression

240 ACI Materials Journal/November 2019

Table 12—Acid and sulfate resistance of concrete
Acid attack (after 180 days) Sulfate attack (after 180 days)
Mixture Weight loss, % Compressive strength loss, % Weight loss, % Compressive strength loss, %
G100:D0 1.21 10.5 0.26 6.45
G90:D10 1.51 10.6 0.20 6.28
G80:D20 1.32 9.51 0.18 6.15
G70:D30 1.47 9.45 0.12 6.18
G60:D40 1.46 9.40 0.11 6.17
G50:D50 1.58 11.58 0.11 6.78
OPC100 35.64 48.56 0.68 20.45

Table 13—Bulk diffusion coefficients of GPC and

OPC concrete
Mixture Depth of chloride penetration, cm Diffusion coefficients, m2/s
G100:D0 1.3 6.79 × 10–13
G90:D10 1.4 7.88 × 10 –13
G80:D20 1.4 7.88 × 10–13
G70:D30 1.4 7.88 × 10–13
G60:D40 1.3 6.79 × 10–13
G50:D50 1.4 7.88 × 10–13
OPC100 2.7 2.93 × 10–12

testing machine, 0.1M AgNO3 (silver nitrate) solution

was sprayed on the surface of the split surface. The reac-
tion between silver nitrate and sodium chloride leads to the
formation of white precipitate on the split surface of the
specimens. Diffusion coefficients were calculated from the
following equation Fig. 6—Specimens after exposed to sulfuric acid solution.

X D = 4 Dt (1)

where XD is the depth of chloride penetration in cm; D is the

diffusion coefficients; and t is the duration of exposure.
Split surfaces of cylindrical specimens were shown in
Fig. 7. The presence of white precipitate refers to the chlo-
ride penetration. From Table 13, OPC concrete was found
to have two times more chloride penetration than GPC.
Replacement of GGBS with dolomite does not bring any
difference in chloride penetration.
Marine attack
Resistance of concrete to seawater was found out by using
100 x 100 x 100 mm cubes.34 Artificial marine water with
composition shown in Table 14 was prepared in the labo-
ratory as per the procedure given in ASTM D1141. Three
specimens of each mixture were kept in marine water as well
as ordinary water, and their appearance after 180 days of
curing is shown in Fig. 8.
Loss of weight and percentage reduction in compressive
strength were found and tabulated in Table 15.
G100:D0 has 8.6 times less weight loss than that of OPC
concrete during marine water attack. 2.52 times compressive
strength loss was also observed for OPC concrete than that
of GPC.
Fig. 7—Split specimens after 180 days of curing.
CONCLUSIONS
GGBS-dolomite GPC has advanced engineering and dura-
bility characteristics. The following conclusions are made
from the aforementioned study.
1. Final setting time of GGBS GPC is four times less than
OPC concrete. Addition of dolomite increases the amount of
calcium content, which accelerates the setting mechanism
of GPC.
2. GGBS-dolomite GPC has 38% more slump than GGBS
GPC. The slag particle, which has irregular shape, leads to
the low workability of GGBS GPC. Addition of dolomite
into GGBS GPC increases the workability due to its large
surface area.

ACI Materials Journal/November 2019 241

Table 14—Composition of marine water
Stock solution 1 Stock solution 2
Composition MgCl2·6H2O CaCl2 SrCl2 KCl KBr NaF H3BO3 NaHCO3
Concentration, g/L 555 57.9 2.1 69.5 10.0 2.1 2.7 20.1

Table 15—Marine water resistance of GGBS- Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India; and his PhD from National
Institute of Technology Calicut. His research interests include reinforced
dolomite GPC and prestressed concrete, bridge engineering, and structural reliability.
Mixture Weight loss, % Compressive strength loss, %
ACI member A. P. Shashikala is a Professor at National Institute of Tech-
G100:D0 0.95 10.24 nology Calicut. She received her BTech from University of Calicut, Malap-
puram, India; her MSc (Engg) in structural engineering from University of
G90:D10 0.92 9.84 Calicut; and her PhD from Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
G80:D20 0.94 9.80
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
G70:D30 0.92 9.81 The authors thankfully acknowledge the financial support provided
G60:D40 1.45 9.64 by Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment
(TDAP/01/2017/KSCSTE), Kerala, India.
G50:D50 1.89 10.85
OPC100 8.21 25.78 REFERENCES
1. Li, C.; Gong, X. Z.; Cui, S. P.; Wang, Z. H.; Zheng, Y.; and Chi, B. C.,
“CO2 Emissions due to Cement Manufacture,” Materials Science Forum,
V. 685, 2011, pp. 181-187. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.685.181
2. Davidovits, J., “Global Warming Impact on the Cement and Aggre-
gates Industries,” World Resource Review, V. 6, No. 2, 1994, pp. 263-278.
3. Davidovits, J., “Geopolymers: Inorganic Polymeric New Materials,”
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, V. 37, No. 8, 1991, pp. 1633-
1656. doi: 10.1007/BF01912193
4. Juenger, M. C. G., and Winnefeld, F., “Advances in Alternative
Cementitious Binders,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 41, No. 12,
2011, pp. 1232-1243. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.012
5. Duxson, P.; Provis, J. L.; Lukey, G. C.; and van Deventer, J. S. J.,
“The Role of Inorganic Polymer Technology in the Development of ‘Green
Concrete’,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 37, No. 12, 2007, pp. 1590-
1597. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018
Fig. 8—Specimens after exposed to marine water solution. 6. Li, Z.; Ding, Z.; and Zhang, Y., “Development of Sustainable Cemen-
titious Materials,” Proceedings of International Workshop on Sustainable
3. GGBS GPC developed 95% of the compressive strength Development and Concrete Technology, Beijing, China, 2004, pp. 55-76.
within 7 days of ambient curing. It is observed that 40% of 7. Nath, P., and Sarker, P. K., “Effect of GGBFS on Setting, Workability
the compressive strength attained within 1 day due to quick and Early Strength Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Cured in
Ambient Condition,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 66, 2014,
polymerization process. pp. 163-171. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
4. Addition of dolomite up to 30% increases the compres- 8. Deb, P. S.; Nath, P.; and Sarker, P. K., “The Effects of Ground Granu-
sive strength due to the presence of both C-S-H and C4AHx lated Blast-Furnace Slag Blending with Fly Ash and Activator Content on
the Workability and Strength Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Cured at
bonds. The optimum percentage of GGBS and dolomite to Ambient Temperature,,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 66, 2014,
get the maximum compressive strength is obtained as 70:30. pp. 163-171.
5. Water absorption and sorptivity of GGBS GPC is found 9. Habert, G.; D’Espinose De Lacaillerie, J. B.; and Roussel, N., “An
Environmental Evaluation of Geopolymer Based Concrete Production:
to reduce by half when compared to OPC concrete. Addition Reviewing Current Research Trends,” Journal of Cleaner Production,
of dolomite (up to 40%) into GGBS GPC reduces sorptivity V. 19, No. 11, 2011, pp. 1229-1238. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012
by 13.5%. 10. Barbhuiya, S., “Effects of Fly Ash and Dolomite Powder on the Prop-
erties of Self-Compacting Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials,
6. GGBS-dolomite GPC showed better resistance towards V. 25, No. 8, 2011, pp. 3301-3305. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.018
acid, sulfate, marine attack, and penetration of chloride. 11. Galí, S.; Ayora, C.; Alfonso, P.; Tauler, E.; and Labrador, M.,
Thus, GGBS-dolomite GPC in the proportion of 70:30 can “Kinetics of Dolomite-Portlandite Reaction: Application to Portland
Cement Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 31, No. 6, 2001,
be used for quick construction purposes. In this particular pp. 933-939. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00499-9
proportion, higher-strength properties are observed due to 12. Vaitkevičius, V.; Stuopys, A.; and Ivanauskas, E., “Preconditions
the presence of both C-S-H and C4AHx bonds. It can also be for the Application of Petrasiunai Quarry Dolomite Screenings and Dolo-
mite Powder in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete Mixes/Petra-
used in marine structures due to its high resistance toward siunu dolomito atsiju ir dolomitmilciu tinkamumo iprastinio sunkiojo ir
seawater. susitankinancio betono misiniuose prielaidos,” Engineering Structures and
Technologies, V. 2, No. 4, 2010, pp. 138-145. doi: 10.3846/skt.2010.18
13. IS 2386(Part III)-1963: Methods of Test for Aggregate for Concrete
AUTHOR BIOS Part 3—Specific Gravity, Density, Voids, Absorption and Bulking, Bureau
Saranya P is a Research Scholar at the Structural Engineering Division, of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 17 pp.
National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kerala, India. She received her 14. Hardjito, D.; Wallah, S. E.; Sumajouw, D. M.; and Rangan, B. V.,
BTech from the College of Engineering, Trikaripur, Kerala, and her MTech “On the Development of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete,” ACI Mate-
from Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India. Her research interests rials Journal, V. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp. 467-472.
include cementitious materials and geopolymer concrete. 15. IS 9103-1999, “Specification for Concrete Admixtures,” Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, pp .2-3.
Praveen Nagarajan is an Associate Professor at the Structural Engi- 16. IS 4031-1988, Methods of Physical Tests for Hydraulic Cement,
neering Division, National Institute of Technology Calicut. He received his Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, p. 1.
BTech from National Institute of Technology Calicut; his MTech from Indian

242 ACI Materials Journal/November 2019

 17. Hadi, M. N.; Farhan, N. A.; and Sheikh, M. N., “Design of
Geopolymer Concrete with GGBFS at Ambient Curing Condition Using
Taguchi Method,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 140, 2017,
pp. 424-431. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.131
18. Topark-Ngarm, P.; Chindaprasirt, P.; and Sata, V., “Setting Time,
Strength, and Bond of High-Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete,”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 27, No. 7, 2015,
p. 04014198 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001157
19. IS 1199-1959, “Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Concrete,”
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, pp. 8-10.
20. Jamkar, S. S.; Ghugal, Y. M.; and Patankar, S. V., “Effect of Fly
Ash Fineness on Workability and Compressive Strength of Geopolymer
Concrete,” Indian Concrete Journal, 2013, pp. 57-62.
21. Salih, M. A.; Farzadnia, N.; Abang Ali, , A. A.; and Demirboga, R.,
“Development of High Strength Alkali Activated Binder Using Palm Oil Fuel
Ash and GGBS at Ambient Temperature,” Construction and Building Mate-
rials, V. 93, 2015, pp. 289-300. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.119
22. IS 513-1959, “Methods of Test for Strength of Concrete,” Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, p. 11.
23. Deb, P. S.; Nath, P.; and Sarker, P. K., “The Effects of Ground Gran-
ulated Blast-Furnace Slag Blending with Fly Ash and Activator Content on
the Workability and Strength Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Cured at
Ambient Temperature,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 62, 2014,
pp. 32-39.
24. Hardjito, D.; Wallah, S. E.; Sumajouw, D. M.; and Rangan, B. V.,
“On the Development of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete,” ACI Mate-
rials Journal, V. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp. 467-472.
25. Nath, P.; Sarker, P. K.; and Rangan, V. B., “Early Age Properties
of Low-Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Suitable for Ambient
Curing,” Procedia Engineering, V. 125, 2015, pp. 601-607. doi: 10.1016/j.
proeng.2015.11.077
ACI Materials Journal/November 2019
26. IS 5816-1999, “Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete—Method of
Test,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, p. 3.
27. Collins, F., and Sanjayan, J. G., “Microcracking and Strength Devel-
opment of Alkali Activated Slag Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Compos-
ites, V. 23, No. 4-5, 2001, pp. 345-352. doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(01)00003-8
28. Yip, C. K.; Lukey, G. C.; and Van Deventer, J. S. J., “The Coexistence
of Geopolymeric Gel and Calcium Silicate Hydrate at the Early Stage of
Alkaline Activation,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 35, No. 9, 2005,
pp. 1688-1697. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.042
29. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Labrincha, J.; Leonelli, C.; Palomo, A.; and
Chindaprasit, P., eds., Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and
Concretes, Elsevier, 2014.
30. Provis, J. L., and Bernal, S. A., “Geopolymers and Related Alka-
li-Activated Materials,” Annual Review of Materials Research, V. 44, No. 1,
2014, pp. 299-327. doi: 10.1146/annurev-matsci-070813-113515
31. ASTM C642-13, “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity,
Absorption and Voids in Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 1-3.
32. ASTM C1585-13, “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Rate
of Absorption of Water by Hydraulic Cement Concrete,” ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 6 pp.
33. Sathia, R.; Babu, K. G.; and Santhanam, M., “Durability Study of
Low Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete,” Proceedings of the 3rd ACF
International Conference-ACF/VCA.
34. Ganesan, N., and Abraham, R., and DeepaRaj, S., “Durability Char-
acteristics of Steel Fibre Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete,” Construc-
tion and Building Materials, V. 93, 2015, pp. 471-476. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.06.014
35. ASTM C1556-11a, “Standard Test Method for Determining the
Apparent Chloride Diffusion Coefficient of Cementitious Mixture by Bulk
Diffusion,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, pp. 2-3.
243
APPLY FOR
ACI Foundation
Research Grants
The ACI Foundation annually funds research projects with grants
up to $50,000. The Foundation seeks to advance the concrete
industry through the funding of concrete research projects that
further the knowledge and sustainability of concrete materials,
construction, and structures.

• Topics are encouraged from all areas of concrete research;

• A letter of support of the research concept by an ACI Technical
Committee is required;
• Industry partnering and project cost sharing are encouraged;
• Principal investigators must follow the ACI Foundation’s
published Concrete Research Council Grant Proposal Guide.

The Foundation will begin accepting proposals at the end of

August through December 1. Applications are submitted online
at concreteresearchcouncil.org.