Technical Paper
Tian Sing Ng*
Stephen J. Foster
Development of a mix design methodology
for high-performance geopolymer mortars
This paper presents the development of a mix design method for
geopolymer mortar mixes with a principal focus on compressive
strength. The method is based on the hypothesis that the overall
strength of geopolymer mortar depends on the strength of the
geopolymer binder materials, the packing density of the aggre-
gates in the mortar and the amount of geopolymer binder. First,
the strength of the binder was evaluated experimentally. Fly ash
obtained from two different sources and ground granulated blast-
furnace slag were used as the main ingredients in the production
of the geopolymer binder. Correlation between the packing densi-
ty of the aggregates in the mortar and their influence on the
binder demand and compressive strength were investigated. Fi-
nally, a conceptual framework for a geopolymer mortar mix de-
sign approach is proposed. In addition to describing the mortar
mix design methodology in a rational way, it is hypothesized that
the approach can also be extended to the development of a
geopolymer concrete mix.
Keywords: Geopolymer mortar, Fly ash, mix design, Compressive strength
1 Introduction
Over the last two decades, geopolymer concretes have
emerged as novel engineering materials with the potential
to become a substantial element in an environmentally
sustainable construction and building products industry
[1, 2]. Geopolymer is a material resulting from the reaction
of a material rich in silica and alumina with an alkaline so-
lution. Industrial waste materials such as fly ash and blast-
furnace slag are commonly used as the source of alumi-
nosilicate for the manufacture of geopolymer concrete due
to the low cost and wide availability of these materials.
Concrete made from geopolymer has also been found to
be more durable than Portland cement concrete and pos-
sesses excellent engineering properties [3, 4]. Numerous
parametric studies, including those of Palomo et al. [5], Xu
and van Deventer [6], Xie and Xi [7], Fernández-Jiménez
and Palomo [8, 9] and many others, have been undertaken
to investigate the impact of alkaline solution and alumi-
nosilicate material on the strength and durability of
geopolymer. Provis et al. [10] investigated the correlation
* Corresponding author: tian.ng@unsw.edu.au
Submitted for review: 27 July 2012
Revised: 25 November 2012
Accepted for publication: 30 December 2012
148 © 2013 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201200018
between the mechanical properties of fly ash-based
geopolymer with different activating solution composi-
tions and liquid-to-solid ratios, whereas Steinerova [11] op-
timized the compressive and flexural strengths, elastic
modulus and frost resistance of metakaolinite-based
geopolymer mortar by varying the geopolymer binder-to-
filler ratio. Despite the great deal of research into geopoly-
mer technology, a rational mix design method for geopoly-
mer mortar and concrete is lacking. Although Provis et al.
[12] and van Deventer et al. [13] prophesied about the use
of particle technology for optimizing and designing the
properties of geopolymer binder and concrete, no method-
ical study was carried out. At present, geopolymer mortar
and concrete are produced via a heuristic trial-and-error
mix proportioning approach such as that of Hardjito and
Rangan [14], Fernández-Jiménez et al. [15] and Lukey et al.
[16]. This study is intended to set the baseline for further
studies that will contribute to the industrial application of
geopolymer technologies by developing a framework for
designing mixes for geopolymer mortars and concretes.
2 Geopolymer mortar and concrete as two-phase
materials
Like conventional Portland cement mortar and concrete,
geopolymer mortar and concrete can be treated as two-
phase materials consisting of geopolymer binder and filler
or aggregate. The properties and characteristics of
geopolymer mortar and concrete depend on their compo-
nent materials and the interaction between them (Fig. 1).
For instance, the compressive strength and the failure of
geopolymer mortar and concrete are governed by the
weakest part of its component materials. Through careful
proportioning of the constituents, it is hypothesized that
geopolymer mortar and concrete can be tailored and opti-
mized to achieve some specified combination of engineer-
ing properties, durability and rheology. By establishing the
geopolymer binder strength, a filler packing density calcu-
lation and filler-to-binder ratio can be applied as a tool for
geopolymer mortar and concrete mix design. Compressive
strength is considered to be the most important property
as the quality of concrete is often judged by its strength. As
this paper describes the first stage in the development of a
framework for geopolymer mortar mix design, the com-
pressive strength is selected as the benchmarking parame-
ter.
 T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars

Material Behaviour of
Geopolymer Concrete

Filler Binder

Particle Liquid
Packing Characteristic Wall Effect Energy Aluminosilicate Curing
Interlock Activator
Source
Mixing
Solid Fluid Elasticity Temperature
Process Friction Water
Fly Ash
Surface Duration
Size Density Vibration Particle Sodium Oxide
Properties Slag
Intensity Interaction Humidity
Density Viscosity Forces Silica

Geometry

Elasticity

Surface
Properties

Fig. 1. Factors influencing the material behaviour of geopolymer mortar and concrete

2.1 Strength of geopolymer binder
Fly ash, the main aluminosilicate material in geopolymer
mortar, has an extremely complex mineralogy, morpholo-
gy and composition. The reactivity of fly ash depends up-
on the nature and proportion of the glass phase present
[17]. For a given type and source of coal, the reactivity of
fly ash is generally determined by the operating tempera-
ture within the combustion process. Fly ash obtained from
different sources as well as different batches of ash from
the same source exhibit various concentrations of crys-
talline and glassy constituents and reactivity [8, 18].
Hence, to quantify the strength properties of fly ash from
different sources, laboratory tests are needed.
the mixture and lead to a reduction in strength. To
achieve a balance between the aggregate packing density,
the paste volumetric content and the effect on compres-
sive strength, de Larrard and Belloc [21] introduced the
Maximum Paste Thickness (MPT) concept. In this con-
cept, the distance between the maximum size aggregate
and its adjacent aggregate particle can be determined as
MPT = Dmax 3 g * / g − 1 (1)
where
g aggregate volume in a unit volume of concrete
g* packing density of the aggregate particles
Dmax maximum aggregate size in the granular mix, in mm

2.2 Relations between geopolymer paste, aggregate
volume and aggregate packing density
Fillers or aggregate particles generally occupy up to
50–80 % of the overall volume of mortar and concrete.
The packing density of filler and the filler-to-binder volu-
metric ratio have a great influence on the performance of
the concrete mix [19]. When multi-sized aggregates are
used, the smaller aggregate particles fill the gaps between
the larger ones, leading to a smaller volume of void space
and improving the packing density. It was this observation
that led Kennedy [20] to introduce the “Excess Paste The-
ory” and suggest that in concrete, as a mixture of aggre-
gate and cement paste, it is the paste in excess of that
needed to fill the voids between the aggregate particles
that disperses the particles and lubricates the mixture. A
higher aggregate packing density leads to a reduced paste
demand (the amount needed to fill the voids) and thus a
higher volume of excess paste is available to lubricate the
mix and improve its workability. However, an excess in the
amount of paste can decrease the dimensional stability of
In this research, the MPT concept developed for Portland
cement concretes is introduced for the development of
geopolymer mortar mixes. To this end, the design of the
aggregate packing density relationship, together with the
paste volume, and the influence on the compressive
strength of the geopolymer mortar are studied.
3 Experimental programme
The experimental programme was undertaken in two
stages:
1) establishing the strength of the geopolymer binder, and
2) determining the relationship between the bond of the
binder and the aggregate and the aggregate packing
density.
3.1 Strength of geopolymer binder
A comprehensive testing programme was undertaken us-
ing fly ash (FA) from Eraring Power Station in New South

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 149

T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars

Table 1. Chemical composition of fly ash and slag (% by mass) 100

FA

Percent Passing by Mass (%)

Element FA HPA GGBFS HPA
80 GGBFS
SiO2 66.56 45.14 31.52
Al2O3 22.47 33.32 12.22 60
FeO3 3.54 11.99 1.14
CaO 1.64 4.13 44.53
K2O 1.75 0.13 0.33 40
Na2O 0.58 0.07 0.21
MgO 0.65 1.37 4.62 20
MnO 0.06 0.23 0.36
P2O5 0.11 0.56 0.02
0
TiO2 0.88 2.19 1.03 1 10 100 1000
SO3 0.1 0.48 3.24 Particle Size (µ m)
LOI* 1.66 0.41 0.79
Fig. 2. Particle size distributions for FA, HPA and GGBFS

Wales, Australia, Kaolite high-performance ash (HPA)
from Callide Power Station in Queensland, Australia, and
ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) supplied by
Blue Circle Southern Cement Australia. The chemical
compositions of the FA, HPA and GGBFS are presented
in Table 1, and the grading curves for the FA, HPA and
GGBFS are shown in Fig. 2. The aim of the experimental
programme was to investigate the effect of blending differ-
ent types of aluminosilicate materials. Fifteen series of
geopolymer binder were manufactured and cast as
100 mm diameter x 200 mm high cylinder specimens and
tested for their compressive strength. Table 2 presents the
details of the mix proportions of the geopolymer binder
mixes. The mixes were divided into three categories: non-
blended mixes (B1 to B3), double blended mixes (B4 to
B12) and triple blended mixes (B13 to B15).
The geopolymer binder was manufactured using a
Hobart mixer. The alkaline solution was made from a mix-
ture of 12 molar (M) sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution
and sodium silicate solution with Na2O = 14.7 %, SiO2 =
29.4 % and H2O = 55.9 % by mass. A constant mass ratio
of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution
of 2.5 was used and the mass ratio of alkaline solution to
aluminosilicate material was 0.55. The alkaline solution
was gradually added to the mixer and the mixture mixed
for 5 min. For double and triple blended mixes, the alumi-
nosilicate materials were mixed dry for about 3 min prior
to adding the alkaline solution.
3.2 Strength of geopolymer mortar
In this study, discrete element modelling (DEM) with the
aid of the Habanera Discrete Element Simulator
(HADES) software package, the successor to the SPACE
program developed by Stroeven [22], was utilized to esti-
mate the packing densities of different aggregate particle
size distributions. How the relationship of aggregate pack-
ing density and the amount of binder influence the com-
pressive strength of the geopolymer mortar were then es-
tablished.

Table 2. Geopolymer binder mix designs B1 to B15 and their properties

Mix design No. % by mass ρm (kg/m3) fcm (MPa)

FA HPA GGBFS

B1 100.0 0.0 0.0 1680 59.0

B2 0.0 100.0 0.0 1800 53.6
B3 0.0 0.0 100.0 – –
B4 73.4 26.6 0.0 1740 58.5
B5 26.6 73.4 0.0 1820 56.3
B6 46.6 53.4 0.0 1740 57.8
B7 0.0 73.4 26.6 1830 60.0
B8 0.0 26.6 73.4 1850 77.8
B9 0.0 46.6 53.4 1900 77.2
B10 73.4 0.0 26.6 1940 76.7
B11 26.6 0.0 73.4 1990 74.3
B12 46.6 0.0 53.4 1960 71.2
B13 33.3 33.3 33.3 1890 76.9
B14 50.0 25.0 25.0 1810 76.5
B15 70.0 15.0 15.0 1870 81.9

150 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

 T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars

100 dvi
mi = Fi (N) (2)
dt
80
dω i
Ii = Ti (N) (3)
dt
% Passing

60
where
vi translational velocity, in m/s
40 S1 - Packing Density = 0.70 ωi angular velocity, in rad/s
S2 - Packing Density = 0.725
S3 - Packing Density = 0.75
Ii moment of inertia of particle i, in m4
20 S4 - Packing Density = 0.775 Fi, Ti total forces and torque (in N and Nm) respectively
S5 - Packing Density = 0.80 acting on particle i
0
0.1 1 10 In Eq. 2, mi = ριVi, where ρι is the density in kg/m and Vi
Particle size (mm) is volume in m3 of particle i.
In this study, the forces imposed on particle i by par-
ticle j include the gravitational force, the normal and tan-
Fig. 3. Grading curves for aggregate mixtures S1 to S5
gential contact forces and the drag force. The torques aris-
ing from tangential forces and/or rolling friction due to
vj the elastic hysteresis losses or viscous dissipation between
colliding particles are also included. Electrostatic and van
der Waals forces are not considered because they are only
ωj j noticeable when the particles can come sufficiently close
together [24], and that is not the case in this study.
Fijt The contact mechanics between two particles i and j
can be calculated according to Hertz-Mindlin contact the-
FD,ij ory as presented by Mindlin and Deresiewicz [25]. The
Hertz contact model is used to simulate the normal con-
tact between two spheres and is given by

ωi i 4 
k fcn,ij =  E′R′1/2 δ n3/2
,ij  n (N)
(4)
T ij 3 
vi where
h E’ elastic modulus of the two particles, in N/m2
δdn,ij displacement between particles i and j in the normal
direction, in m
Fijn mi g n unit vector in the normal direction for particle i
R’ contact radius of curvature in m, which can be calcu-
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the forces and torques exerted on particle i lated using

Ri R j
R′ = (m) (5)
Ri + R j
All the aggregate mixtures had particle sizes ranging
from 0.15 to 4.75 mm. The aggregate particle distributions where Ri and Rj are the radii (in m) of particles i and j re-
were engineered for five different packing densities, i.e. spectively.
packing densities of 0.7, 0.725, 0.75, 0.775 and 0.8. Fig. 3
shows the particle size distributions of the five aggregate The Mindlin model is used to simulate the shear or tan-
mixtures studied (mixes S1 to S5). gential contact between two spheres and is given by
In the DEM, a total of 54 × 103 particles were used to
represent the overall particle mixture in each analysis.   3/2  
  δ t,ij  
The DEM simulations assumed the sand particles to be fct,ij = µ fcn,ij 1 − 1 −  t (N) (6)
spherical in shape and Stroeven [22] found that the pack-   δ max  

ing density obtained from such DEM simulations differed    
only slightly from the experimental equivalents. The simu-
lation uses an explicit numerical scheme in which the mo- where
tion of individual particles and their interaction with each µ coefficient of friction
other is traced. The motion is governed by the contact δt,ij displacement between particles i and j in the tangen-
forces and torques, shown in Fig. 4 [23]. The displacement tial direction, in m
of particle i of radius Ri and mass mi in a time step can be t unit vector in the tangential direction for particle i
computed based on Newton’s Second Law of Motion and δmax maximum tangential displacement beyond which
is given by gross sliding occurs, in m

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 151

T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars
When particles have the same mechanical properties such
as Poisson’s ratio γ and elastic modulus E, then δmax and
E’ are given by
2-γ
δ max = δ n,ij
( )
(m)
2 1-γ
E
E′ = (N/m 2 )
( )
2 1-γ 2
The gravitational force is taken as the product of the mass
of the particles and the acceleration due to gravity. The
drag force is induced by the homogeneous medium in
which the bodies are dispersed. The total drag force on a
single body is equal to the sum of the individual drag
forces that act on the surface segments of the body. It is
assumed that the particle moves through a fluid at rela-
tively slow speeds where there is no turbulence. The force
that acts on a single surface segment is defined by Stokes’
Law and is given by
FD = 6πµd Rv
where
FD drag force vector
µd dynamic viscosity of the fluid, in Pa.s
v relative velocity vector of the particle body with re-
spect to the fluid, in m/s
The calculations performed in the DEM simulation alter-
nate between the application of laws of motion and the
force-displacement law at the contacts. The laws of mo-
tion are used to calculate the movement of particles as a
result of the contact and body forces applied to them. As a
consequence, the particles move and colloid with neigh-
bouring particles. Afterwards, the force-displacement law
is used to find the new contact forces between colliding
particles from the movement/displacement. The dynamic
packing process proceeds until all particles reach their sta-
ble positions with an essentially zero velocity as a result of
the damping effect for energy dissipation.
In Eqs. (2) to (9), the particle density ρ was deter-
mined using AS 1289.3.5.2 [26] as 2650 kg/m3, the elastic
modulus E was taken to be 1.05 × 1012 N/m2 based on
Dutta and Penumadu [27], and Poisson’s ratio γ was taken
to be 0.3. The dynamic viscosity of the mixture corre-
sponded to a value of 0.5  Pa.s. The DEM densification
simulations were all performed under identical conditions.
The DEM was undertaken in two stages. In Stage I,
the particles are randomly generated in a three-dimen-
sional space based on the predefined particle size distribu-
tion. Afterwards, the boundaries of the space are de-
creased incrementally in order to densify the aggregate
mixture. This simulation was completed when the packing
density of the system reached 0.5, which is the point at
which 50 % of the space volume is occupied by the parti-
cles. In stage  II, compression was applied to the space
boundaries and the average stress sustained in the parti-
cles and the packing density were monitored. The densifi-
cation process was continued until an accelerated in-
crease in the average stress sustained in the particles was
observed, indicating that the maximum packing density
152 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2
Packing Density
y = 0.8
80
(7)
(8)
Fig. 5. Packing process of 54 × 103 aggregate mixture with particle size
ranging from 0.15 to 4.75 mm using DEM
had been reached and any further application of external
(9) compression is resisted by the particles. Fig. 5 shows an
example of the stage II DEM simulation. Note that al-
though the particles shown in Fig. 5 are spherical, they are
represented graphically using plane surfaces in the figure.
In the laboratory experiments, Nepean sand and
Sydney sand were sieved and proportioned to engineer the
particle distribution of aggregate mixtures S1 to S5. Eigh-
teen geopolymer mortar mixes were manufactured, cast
and tested using S1 to S5 aggregate mixtures but with
varying geopolymer binder content. Table 3 presents the
geopolymer mortar mix compositions. The proportions of
binder ingredients were FA 70 %, GGBFS 20 % and HPA
10 % by mass. The alkaline solution was prepared as pre-
viously and the ratio of alkaline solution to aluminosili-
cate material was 0.55.
The fly ash and sands were mixed dry in a pan mixer
for about 5 min. Afterwards, the alkaline solution was
added gradually and the product mixed for an additional
15 min. Lastly, GGBFS was introduced gradually and mix-
ing continued for a further 5 min. The GGBFS was added
during the wet mixing rather than the dry mixing in order
to prevent rapid hardening of the mixture and to allow for
sufficient workable time for casting. As for the binder
specimens, the fresh geopolymer mortar was then cast in
100 mm diameter × 200 mm high cylinders.
4 Experimental results and discussion
After casting, both geopolymer binder and mortar speci-
mens were sealed to prevent excessive loss of moisture
and left in an ambient laboratory environment for one day
to allow full setting. After 24 h, the specimens were de-
moulded and cured in a 90  oC water bath for a further 7
days. After that, the specimens were left in the laboratory
environment until testing. All the cylinders were ground
flat on both ends, weighed and measured before determin-
ing the compressive strength fcm in MPa (see Table 2). The
cylinders were tested in a compression testing machine at
a load rate of 20 MPa/min in accordance with AS 1012.9
[28], and the results for each mix are taken as the average
of two compression tests.
 T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars

Table 3. Properties of geopolymer mortar mixes M1 to M18 with FA 70 %, GGBFS 20 % and HPA 10 % by mass

Mix design No. Aggregate Proportion by volume ρm (kg/m3) fcm (MPa)

mixture No.
Aggregate Binder

M1 S1 0.70 0.30 2220 73.4

M2 S1 0.65 0.35 2100 77.3
M3 S1 0.60 0.40 2210 78.9
M4 S1 0.55 0.45 1960 77.0
M5 S2 0.675 0.325 2160 76.7
M6 S2 0.625 0.375 2020 80.4
M7 S2 0.575 0.425 2190 78.0
M8 S3 0.70 0.30 2220 76.4
M9 S3 0.65 0.35 2240 80.1
M10 S3 0.60 0.40 2180 78.5
M11 S3 0.55 0.45 1990 75.8
M12 S4 0.675 0.325 2230 80.3
M13 S4 0.625 0.375 2170 77.3
M14 S4 0.575 0.425 2180 75.3
M15 S5 0.70 0.30 2080 79.9
M16 S5 0.65 0.35 2080 76.8
M17 S5 0.60 0.40 2080 74.3
M18 S5 0.55 0.45 1990 72.6

4.1 Strength of geopolymer binder
The results of the compressive strength test for the
geopolymer binder are presented in Table 2. For mix B3,
which contained GGBFS only, a difficulty was encoun-
tered during the casting as the mixture hardened rapidly
and had little workable time. For those cylinders cast suc-
cessfully, excessive shrinkage cracks were noted around
the specimens upon demoulding. Therefore, the mixture
was excluded from the experiment as the mix design was
not feasible, and the shrinkage cracks mean that the re-
sults obtained are not representative.
Fig. 6 shows how blending two different aluminosili-
cate materials influences the strength: FA and HPA (Fig.
6a), FA and GGBFS (Fig. 6b), and HPA and GGBFS (Fig.
6c). When either FA or HPA was combined with GGBFS,
the compressive strength of the geopolymer binder im-
proved with an optimum FA to a total aluminosilicate ma-
terial volumetric ratio of 0.25–0.75 for the FA-GGBFS mix
and 0.25–0.50 for the HPA-GGBFS mix. With no GGBFS
in the mix, the observed strength is considerably lower.
For the HPA-GGBFS blended mix, the compressive
strength increased with the addition of GGBFS, at least
within the experimental range. This strength improvement
is likely due to the presence of calcium in the binder. This
finding is consistent with that of research by others. For
example, Yip et al. [29] found that in a binder that con-
tained soluble calcium, both geopolymer and calcium sili-
cate hydrate (C-S-H) gels were present and the coexistence
of the two gels was associated with an increase in com-
pressive strength through micro-aggregate interaction be-
tween the aluminosilicate materials and calcium source
materials. Li and Liu [30] suggested that the addition of
slag accelerates the rate of reaction, decreases the binding
energy, reduces the porosity of the geopolymer structure
and improves the compressive strength.
For the triple blended mixes, the influence of blend-
ing is shown in the ternary diagram presented in Fig. 7. By
blending three different types of aluminosilicate material
it was evident that the compressive strength of the
geopolymer binder can be improved, and this improve-
ment was greater than that of double blended mixes. In
the experiments, the maximum strength of 81.9 MPa was
obtained from mix B15 with FA 75 %, GGBFS 15 % and
HPA 15 % by mass.
4.2 Strength of geopolymer mortar
The properties of the different geopolymer mortar mix de-
signs are presented in Table 3. The effect of the aggregate
packing density and the binder on the compressive
strength of geopolymer mortar is plotted in Fig. 8. It was
found that there is an optimal balance between the binder
content and aggregate packing density in order to achieve
the maximum strength. If the volume of binder is kept
constant, the mortar compressive strength increases with
the packing density of the aggregate. However, beyond the
optimal balance between paste content and aggregate
packing density, the strength decreases. By way of an ex-
ample, Fig. 9 presents the relationship between the com-
pressive strength of geopolymer mortar and the aggregate
packing density for a geopolymer binder volumetric ratio
of 0.35.
Evidence of the significant effect of the binder con-
tent on the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar is
shown in Fig. 10. Using the MPT concept proposed by de
Larrard and Belloc (1997), at MPT = 0 mm, the binder, in
theory, only fills the gaps between the aggregate skeleton.
As the binder content increases, so the MPT increases and
the compressive strength, too. However, as the binder con-
tent increases and once the MPT reaches its optimum lev-
el, at MPT  = 0.5  mm in this study, the compressive

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 153

T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars

85 85
80
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Experimental data 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
60 60
55 55
Experimental data
50 50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ratio of FA / (FA + HPA) Ratio of FA / (FA + GGBFS)

(a) (b)

85
80
Compressive Strength (MPa)

75
70
65
60
55 Experimental data
50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ratio of HPA / (HPA + GGBFS)

(c)

Fig. 6. Compressive strengths of double blended mixes: (a) FA-HPA, (b) FA-GGBFS, and (c) HPA-GGBFS

0.80

77 76 75
Packing Density of Aggregate

78
79

0.78
80
0.76
78
79

79 77
0.74

80
0.72
76
77

78

79

0.70
0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44
Geopolymer Binder Volumetric Content

Fig. 7. Ternary compressive strength diagram for FA, HPA and GGBFS Fig. 8. Compressive strength contours (in MPa) for packing density versus
binder volumetric ratio

strength begins to decrease due to the dimensional insta- demonstrate that for a given compressive strength,
bility of the mortar. geopolymer mortar can be manufactured using a number
of mix compositions: either by a mix with high aggregate
5 Towards the development of a rational mix packing density but low binder content, or a mix with low
design approach aggregate packing density but higher binder content. For
instance, manufacturing a geopolymer mortar with
It can be seen from this study that the binder had a ceiling 80 MPa compressive strength can be realized with either
effect on the strength of the geopolymer mortar; the com- an aggregate mixture with packing density of 0.78 and a
pressive strength obtained for the geopolymer mortar is binder content of 0.33 (volumetric ratio), or an aggregate
less than that of the geopolymer binder. Figs. 8 to 10 mixture with packing density of 0.72 and a binder content

154 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

 T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars

82
82
Experimental Data
Compressive Strength (MPa)

81

Compressive Strength (MPa)

80
80
78
79
76
78

77 74

76 72
0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Aggregate Packing Density MPT (mm)

Fig. 9. Relationship between compressive strength and aggregate packing Fig. 10. Relationship between compressive strength and maximum paste
density for a geopolymer binder volumetric ratio of 0.35 thickness (MPT)

of 0.38. Where different strength solutions are possible, Notation

the mortar mix proportion can be designed for the desired
workability and durability at the lowest possible cost. Dmax maximum aggregate size in granular mix, in mm
E elastic modulus of particle, in N/m2
6 Conclusions E’ elastic modulus of the two particles, in N/m2
FD force vector of drag, in N
A conceptual mix design approach for geopolymer mortar Fi total forces acting on particle i, in N
has been introduced. The findings of this study suggest fcm compressive strength, in MPa
that geopolymer mortar can be tailored to achieve a spe- fcn,ij normal contact force between particles i and j, in N
cific strength through deliberate control of the mortar fct,ij tangential contact force between particles i and j,
constituents. By establishing the binder properties, the re- in N
lationship between binder-to-aggregate content and aggre- g aggregate volume in a unit volume of concrete
gate packing density can be used as a tool for designing g* packing density of aggregate particles
geopolymer mortar mixes. Ii moment of inertia of particle i, in m4
A fundamental understanding of aluminosilicate mi mass of particle i, in kg
chemistry is vital for achieving and producing high-quali- MPT distance between maximum size aggregate and its
ty, cost-effective geopolymer concrete. Due to the com- adjacent aggregate particle, in mm
plexity and wide variability of the chemical structure of n unit vector in normal direction
aluminosilicate waste materials, there is, however, no easy Ri, Ri radius of particle i and j respectively, in m
way of determining the properties of the binder apart from R’ contact radius of curvature, in m
experimental trials. However, the packing density of the Ti total torque acting on particle i, in Nm
aggregate mixture can be estimated using mathematical t unit vector in tangential direction
models or software, such as discrete element modelling v relative velocity vector of the particle body with re-
(DEM) software packages. spect to the fluid, in m/s
When designing a geopolymer mortar, a balance is vi, translational velocity of particle i, in m/s
needed between the packing density and the binder con- Vi volume of particle i, in m
tent in order to achieve a sustainable, durable and eco- δdn,ij displacement between particles i and j in normal di-
nomical geopolymer mortar. This study focused principal- rection, in m
ly on the compressive strength with regard to particle δt,ij displacement between particles i and j in tangential
packing. Models for determining the mechanical and rhe- direction, in m
ological properties of geopolymer mortar such as elastic δmax maximum tangential displacement beyond which
modulus, workability, setting time, thermal coefficient, gross sliding occurs, in m
creep and shrinkage effects and durability characteristics ρ particle density, in kg/m3
due to variations in the paste content, aggregate type and ρm binder or mortar density, in kg/m3
packing density may also be tailored or designed using a γ Poisson’s ratio
similar approach to that presented in this paper, and fur- µ coefficient of friction
ther research is needed in this regard. µd dynamic viscosity of fluid, in Pa.s
ωi angular velocity of particle i, in rad/s

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 155

T. S. Ng/S. J. Foster · Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars
References
1. Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G.
C., Palomo, A., van Deventer, J. S. J.: Geopolymer technolo-
gy: The current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science,
2007, 42, No. 9, pp. 2917–2933.
2. Ng, T. S., Voo, Y. L., Foster, S. J.: Sustainability with ultra-
high-performance and geopolymer concrete construction.
In: Innovative Materials and Techniques in Concrete Con-
struction: ACES Workshop (ed. Fardis, M. N.), Springer,
Dordrecht, 2012, pp. 81–100.
3. Rangan, B. V.: Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Research
Report GC4. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Aus-
tralia, 2008.
4. Ng, T. S.: An investigation into the development of high-per-
formance geopolymer concrete. PhD thesis, School of Civil
& Environmental Engineering, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2011.
5. Palomo, A., Grutzeck, M. W., Blanco, M. T.: Alkali-activated
fly ashes: A cement for the future. Cement and Concrete Re-
search, 1999, 29, No. 8, pp. 1323–1329.
6. Xu, H., van Deventer, J. S. J.: The geopolymerisation of alu-
minosilicate minerals. International Journal of Mineral Pro-
cessing, 2000, 59, No. 3, pp. 247–266.
7. Xie, Z., Xi, Y.: Hardening mechanisms of an alkaline-acti-
vated class F fly ash. Cement and Concrete Research, 2001,
31, No. 9, pp. 1245–1249.
8. Fernandez-Jimenez, A., Palomo, A.: Characterisation of fly
ashes. Potential reactivity as alkaline cements. Fuel, 2003,
82, No. 18, pp. 2259–2265.
9. Fernández-Jiménez, A., Palomo, A.: Composition and mi-
crostructure of alkali-activated fly ash binder: effect of the
activator. Cement and Concrete Research, 2005, 35, pp.
1984–1992.
10. Provis, J. L., Yong, C. Z., Duxson, P., van Deventer, J. S. J.:
Correlating mechanical and thermal properties of sodium
silicate-fly ash geopolymers. Colloids and Surfaces A –
Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2008, 336, No.
1–3, pp. 57–63.
11. Steinerova, M.: Mechanical properties of geopolymer mor-
tars in relation to their porous structure. Ceramics – Silikáty,
2011, 55, No. 4, pp. 362–372.
12. Provis, J. L., Duxson, P., van Deventer, J. S. J.: The role of
particle technology in developing sustainable construction
materials. Advanced Powder Technology, 2010, 21, pp. 2–7.
13. Van Deventer, J. S. J., Provis, J. L., Duxson, P.: Technical and
commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement.
Minerals Engineering, 2012, 29, pp. 89–104.
14. Hardjito, D., Rangan, B. V.: Development and properties of
low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Research
Report GC 1, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Aus-
tralia, 2005.
15. Fernández-Jiménez, A. M., Palomo, A., López-Hombrados,
C.: Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash. ACI
Materials Journal, 2006, 103, No. 2, pp. 106–112.
16. Lukey, G. C., Mendis, P. A., van Deventer, J. S. J., Sofi, M.:
Advances in inorganic polymer concrete technology. In:
Concrete Mix Design, Quality Control and Specification (ed.
Day, K. W.), 3rd ed., Routledge, London, Appendix A, 2006.
17. Hemmings, R. T., Berry, E. E.: On the glass in coal fly ashes:
recent advances. In: Materials Research Society Symposia
Proc. (eds.: McCarthy, G. J., Berry, E. E., Majko, R. M.), Uni-
versity of California, 1988, vol. 113, pp. 3–38.
156 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2
18. Van Jaarsveld, J. G. S., van Deventer, J. S. J., Lukey, G. C.:
The characterization of source materials in fly ash-based
geopolymers. Materials Letters, 2003, 57, No. 7, pp.
1272–1280.
19. Powers, T. C.: Properties of fresh concrete, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1968.
20. Kennedy, C. T.: The design of concrete mixes. ACI Journal
Proceedings, 1940, 36, No. 2, pp. 373–400.
21. De Larrard, F., Belloc. A.: The influence of aggregate on the
compressive strength of normal and high-strength concrete.
ACI Materials Journal, 1997, 94, No. 5, pp. 417–426.
22. Stroeven, M.: Discrete Numerical Modelling of Composite
Materials – application to cementitious materials, PhD the-
sis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technol-
ogy, 1999.
23. Cundall, P. A., Strack, O. D. L.: A discrete numerical model
for granular assemblies. Geotechnique, 1979, 29, pp. 47–65.
24. Visser, J.: Van der Waals and other cohesive forces affecting
powder fluidization. Powder Technology, 1989, 58, pp. 1–10.
25. Mindlin, R. D., Deresiewicz, H.: Elastic spheres in contact
under varying oblique forces. American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers – Transactions – Journal of Applied Mechan-
ics, 1953, 20, pp. 327–344.
26. AS 1289.3.5.1: Methods of testing soils for engineering pur-
poses – Determination of the soil particle density of a soil –
Standard method, Standards Association of Australia, 2006.
27. Dutta, A. K., Penumadu, D.: Hardness and Modulus of Indi-
vidual Sand Particles using Nanoindentation. Proc. of Geo-
Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics, American Society
of Civil Engineers, 2007.
28. AS 1012.9: Methods of testing concrete: determination of
the compressive strength of concrete specimens, Standards
Association of Australia, 1999.
29. Yip, C. K., Lukey, G. C., van Deventer, J. S. J.: The coexis-
tence of geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrate at the
early stage of alkaline activation. Cement and Concrete Re-
search, 2005, 35, pp. 1688–1697.
30. Li, Z., Liu, S.: Influence of slag as additive on compressive
strength of fly ash-based geopolymer. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 2010, 19, No. 6, pp. 2–7.
Tian Sing Ng
Research Associate, Centre for Infrastructure
Engineering & Safety, School of Civil &
Environmental Engineering,
The University of New South Wales, Australia
UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Phone: +61 2 9385 5029
Fax: +61 2 9385 9747
Email: tian.ng@unsw.edu.au
Stephen J. Foster
Professor and Head of School,
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
The University of New South Wales, Australia
UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.