Effect Of Super Plasticizer On Alkali Activated Ground

Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Concrete In Ambient

Curing Condition For Sustainable Environment
K. Naga Rajesh1, P. Markendaya Raju2, Kapileswar Mishra3
1. Research Scholar, CUTM, Odisha, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GMRIT, Rajam, rajeshkanta@gmail.com
2. Corresponding Author, Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, MVGR College of Engineering (A), Vizianagaram,
markandeyaraju@yahoo.com
3. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Centurion University of Technology & Management, Bhubaneswar,
kapileswar.mishra@cutm.ac.in

ABSTRACT
Concrete is the most widely used construction material due to its mechanical and durability
properties. Due to the use of ordinary Portland cement in concrete production, CO 2 emissions
from cement leading to the environment pollution. The objective of the current study is to
minimize the cement content in the concrete production, in this regard, cement is replaced with
ground granulated blast furnace slag, alkaline solution is used for alkali activation to develop
geopolymeriziation process and this type of concrete produced is called as alkali activated slag
based geopolymer concrete. Most of the research works is related to heat cured flyash based
geopolymer concrete and very less works on ambient cured. The present work is one such
alternative method in producing ambient cured ground granulated blast furnace slag geopolymer
concrete. The compressive strength of ambient cured slag based geopolymer concrete with and
without superplasticizer is 5.5% and 8.7% higher than ordinary portalnd cement concrete
respectively.

KEYWORDS
Geopolymer concrete, Ambient cured geopolymer concrete, Slag based geopolymer concrete,
superplasticizer geopolymer concrete, sustainable concrete.

1 INTRODUCTION clinker used in the manufacturing process of

Concrete is a mixture of cement, suitably Portland cement is an artificial material made at
graded sand, coarse aggregate and water. higher temperatures. The clinker
Concrete is the next widely used material than manufacturing is responsible for environmental
water, as this material offers greater properties issues concern emits cement kiln dust
in mechanical and durability criteria and also particulates (CKD) and gases like nitrogen
the production of concrete is low cost with good oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and carbon
rigidity. Due to rapid growth in dioxide (CO2). The calcination and combustion
industrialization and urbanization, there is a process of clinker manufacturing emissions is
huge demand for concrete on the other hand, the estimated to a total of 0.94 ton CO2 per ton of
clinker (Environmental Protection Agency,
2010 [1]; US Geological Survey, 2005 [2]). hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate
Presently, the entire world is looking for (Na2SiO3) solution (Shi, C., Jiménez, A. F.,
reducing environment polluting agents viz. and Palomo, A., 2011 [7]). However,
greenhouse gases i.e., CO2, in this regard, conventional concrete (CC) and GPC are
construction sector has been concentrated in manufactured with and without
utilizing industrial wastes i.e., fly ash (FA), superplasticizers to study its effect on concrete
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), fresh and hardened properties.
bottom ash (BA), rice husk ash (RHA), silica
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
fume (SF), metakaolin (MK), etc., in the
2.1 Materials
manufacturing of alternatives to cement and
In the current study, materials used are cement,
also to produce blended cements and alkaline
GGBS, sand, coarse aggregate, water,
cements (Vinita Vishwakarma and D.
superplsticizers and Alkaline (NaOH &
Ramachandran, 2018 [3]; K. M. Liew et al.,
Na2SiO3) solution.
2017 [4]). Among the various sustainable
2.1.1 Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
binders, geopolymer cement is one such
OPC used is in the preparation of conventional
promising material and production of same
concrete mix (CM) is of 53 grade. The OPC is
emits only 20% of CO2 per ton of Portland
tested for its mechanical properties as per (IS
cement emissions (J. Davidovits, 2013 [5]).
455:1989 [8]) and the results are given in Table
Currently, in the research field, these are known
1.
as supplementary cementitious materials
2.1.2 GGBS
(SCM’s) or 21st century new cements or clinker
GGBS is obtained by quenching molten iron
less binding materials (S.-A. Murtazaev et al,
slag (a by- product of iron and steel-making)
2018 [6])
from a blast furnace in water or steam, to
In order to enhance the fresh and hardened produce a glassy, granular product that is then
properties of conventional concrete, mineral dried and grounded into a fine powder. The
admixtures, chemical admixtures may be mixed GGBS is tested for its mechanical properties as
in it. The mineral admixtures like FA, GGBS, per (IS 455:1989 [8] and IS 10289-1987 [9])
etc., and chemical admixtures like and the results are given in Table 1.
superplasticizers, plasticizers, etc., are
Table 1 Mechanical Properties of Supplemetary Cementitious
available in the market. In the present study,
Materials
GGBS is used as a full replacement of cement Finenes
Supplemeta Normal Specifi
s Soundne
in the manufacturing of concrete i.e., ry
Modulu
consistenc
ss (mm)
c
Cementitiou y (%) gravity
s (%)
geopolymer concrete (GPC). The GPC is s Materials
Cement 3.24 34 2 3.07
developed by alkali activation of alkali
GGBS 0.14 32 4 2.32
solution, its performance is primarily depends
on the dosage alkali solution made of sodium
2.1.2 Fine aggregate
The fine aggregate or sand used in all types of
concere mix is obtained locally in Rajam,
Srikakulam (district), India. Sand size is less
than 4.36 mm and the mechanical properties of
same are done as per (IS 2720(Part 3):1980
[10]; IS 2386(Part 3):1963 [11]; IS 2386(Part
1):1963 [12]). The specific gravity of sand is
2.69 and 1.42% water abosorption.
2.1.3 Coarse aggregate
The coarse aggregate used in all types of
concrete mix are 20 mm and less than 10 mm
and the mechanical properties of same are done
as per (IS 2720(Part 3):1980 [10]; IS
2386(Part 3):1963 [11]; IS 2386(Part 1):1963
[12]). The specific gravity of 20 mm and 10 mm
coarse aggregate are 2.66 and 2.7 respectively
and 0.1% water abosorption for both sizes of
coarse aggregates.
2.1.4 Superplasticizer
The superplasticizer used in this study was a
dark brown liquid based on lignosulphonates
which mixes readily with water and therefore
disperses evenly and improves the workability
of all types of mixes (IS 2645-2003, [13]).
2.1.5 Alkaline solution
The alkaline solution used was prepared from
the combination of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)
and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The NaOH (in
flakes form-99% purity) solution was prepared
with concentration 13 moarity (M) with tap
water and Na2SiO3 solution with Na2O = 12%,
SiO2 = 30%, and water = 57% by mass) and the
ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH kept as 1.0
(Patankar, S. V., 2014 [14]). The mixing of
solution in GPC helps in activating the
geopolymerization process which contributes
to the strength of GPC (Davidovits J., 1999
[15]; Davidovits J., 2008 [16]).
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Flow Chart
GGBS
Sand and Coarse Aggregate
Alkaline Solution (NaOH+Na2SiO3)+ Superplasticizer
Geopolymer
Concrete
Fig.1 Flowchart-Wet Mixing Methodology
2.2.2 Mixing Methodology
The ingredients as shown in fig. 1 are mixed
one by one in an electric drum concrete mixer.
Initially, coarse aggregates, sand and GGBS are
mixed in the dry state for three minutes. Sodium
hydroxide solution of 13 molarity and sodium
silicate solution of required quantity are
prepared and mix with the dry ingredients for
four minutes. After ensuring homogeneous
mix, Naphthalene based superplasticizer was
added and mixing continued for further 3
minutes or add if any extra water required and
mix thoroughly for three to four minutes to
ensure homogeneous mix. It was found that the
fresh GGBS geopolymer concrete was vicious,
cohesive and dark in colour (Nath, P., and
Sarker, P. K., 2014 [17]). The mix is poured in
cube moulds of 150 mm side and cast in three
layers. Each layer is well compacted by
tamping rod. All cubes are placed on table
vibrator and vibrated for two minutes for 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
proper compaction of concrete. After To determine the compressive strength of all
compaction of concrete, the top surface was types of mixes, 9 GPC specimens and 9 CM
levelled by using the trowel. After casting, the specimen cubes of size 150 x 150 x 150 mm
specimens are covered with a polythene film were cast and compacted on the vibration table.
and kept under ambient temperature for a The 9 GPC specimens are covered with
period of 24 hours. After the concrete was polythene sheet to prevent loss of moisture
hardened, the cubes were demoulded. Later, the present in the specimens. The specimens are
specimens were left to ambient temperature kept for curing under ambient temperature (23
curing until testing.. The GPC mixes without ± 2oC, RH 60%) and left undisturbed until the
superplasticizer is named as GPC1 and with day of test as shown in fig. 2. On the otherhand
superplasticizer as GPC2. Both the mixes are 9 CM specimens are kept for curing in water
completely replaced the cement with GGBS and left undisturbed until the day of test.
and the mix proportions of all types of GPC
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
mixes are shown in table 2. On the otherhand,
4.1 Compressive strength of CM and GPC
control mix of M30 grade concrete was made of
The compressive strength of all types of mixes
ordinary Portland cement, fine aggregates
i.e., CM1, CM2, GPC1 and GPC2 are
coarse aggregates, water and with and without
compared and measured for various curing
superplasticizer. The water to cement (w:c)
periods of 3, 7, and 28 days using compression
ratio was set at 0.35. The control mixes without
testing machine of 200 T and the values
superplasticizer is named as CM1 and with
obtained are shown in table 3. On the day of
superplasticizer as CM2.
testing, GPC specimens were removed from
polythene sheet and surfaces are cleaned in
order to remove dirt and loose materials.
Similarly, CM specimens of particular
curing period are removed from water and
Fig.2 Polythene sheet wrapped - GPC specimens with and
without Superplasticizer kept under Ambient Curing cleaned for dirt materials. Among the
Table 2 Details of Mix Proportion for GPC compressive strength of mixes CM1 and GPC1
Tot at all cuirng days, GPC1 showed better than
E
Coa al
G xt
M Na Na2 rse wat Supe CM1. The compressive strength of GPC1 at 28
G Sa ra
ix O Si agg er rplast
B nd w
ID H O3 rega (W/ icizer
S
te GP
at days curing is 5% higher than CM1. Addition
er
B)
G
of superplasticizer has not shown any major
75 66 11
P 43 75. 126
C 0
.2
25
8.8
4.18
95 .3 effect on the strength parameter. However,
5 2 3
1 -
G
GPC2 compressive strength at 28 days curing is
P 40 55 129 90.1 22
C 8
41 103
4 4 3 .5
6 8% higher than CM2. Based on the comparison,
2
GPC1 & GPC2 compressive strength values are
slightly higher than CM1 & CM2. From the fig.
3 and 4, it is observed that all the types of mixes
achieved higher compressive strength at 28
days curing, infact, GPC1 is 30%, GPC2 is
34.3% higher than than target mix, which
indicates that GGBS can be effectively utilized
as replacement
(BehzadNematollahi and Jay Sanjayan, 2014
[18]).
Table. 3 Compressive Strength of all types mixes (N/mm )
Mix Id 3 days
4.2 Elastic modulus of CM and GPC
Elastic modulus is an important parameter in
the structural concrete design and it measures
the material elastic deformation resistance
against the applied force. The elastic modulus
of all types of mixes based on the compressive
strength values at 28 days are calculated using
of cement the eq. 1 recommened by IS 456:2000 [19] and
also eq. 2 proposed by (Nath, P., and Sarker,
P. K. 2017 [20]) are shown in table 4. However
2
eq. 1 is recommened for moist cured ordinary
7 days 28 days Portland cement (OPC) concrete (𝐸𝑐), but eq.

CM1 19.28 27.70 39.01 2 is proposed for ambient cured geopolymer

CM2 18.30 27.31 39.02 concrete (𝐸𝑐𝑗, 𝑎). For all types of mixes, the
GPC1 20.30 28.47 41.16 elastic modulus increased with the increase
GPC2 21.13 28.52 42.44
in the compressive strength. It is observed
that, elastic modulus of CM is lesser than that
46.00 41.16 of GPC mixes. From the results, it is witnessed
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

41.00 39.01
Target Strength = 31.6
36.00
N/mm2
that modulus of elasticity calculated based on
31.00 27.70 28.47
26.00 eq. 1 are over estimated when compared with
19.28 20.30
21.00 eq. 2. It indicates that, ambient cured GGBS
16.00
3d 7d 28d based geopolymer concrete with and without
Age of Curing (Days)
superplasticizer are significantly in good
CM1 GPC1
agreement with the control mix concrete with
and without superplasticizer (R2 = 1) as shown
Fig. 3 Compressive Strength of Control mix and Geopolymer
concrete without superplasticizer in fig. 5.
46.00 42.44
𝐸𝑐 = 5000√𝑓𝑐𝑘 (1)
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

41.00 39.02

36.00 Target Strength = 31.6 𝐸𝑐𝑗, 𝑎 = 3510√𝑓𝑐 (2)

N/mm2 Where fck and fc are the characteristic strength
31.00
27.31 28.52
26.00 of concrete mix at 28 days.
21.13
21.00 18.30 Table 4 Elastic Modulus of all types of mixes
Elastic Modulus (kN/mm2)
16.00 Compressive
3d 7d 28d Mix ID strength 28 days Nath, P et al
Age of Curing (Days) (N/mm2) IS 456:2000 - 2017

CM1 39.01 31229 21922.75

CM2 GPC2
CM2 39.02 31231.6 21924.61
GPC1 41.16 32076.3 22517.56
Fig. 4 Compressive Strength of Control mix and Geopolymer
GPC2 42.44 32574.7 22867.44
concrete with superplasticizer
 35000
Elastic Modulus Based on IS 456:2000,
30000
25000
20000
(kN/mm2)
15000
10000
5000
0
38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00
Compressive strength - 28 days (N/mm2)
Linear (Elastic Modulus Based on IS 456:2000,
kN/mm2)
Linear (Pradipnath, et al-2017)
Fig. 5 Compressive strength and Elastic modulus of all types of
mixes
5 CONCLUSION
From the present study on moisture cured
control mix & ambient cured GGBS based
geopolymer concrete
superplasticizer, the conclusion summary is
given below.
1. The compressive strength values of GPC
mixes without superplasticizer (GPC1) are
significantly higher than control mix
without superplasticizer (CM1).
2. The compressive strength values of GPC
mixes with superplasticizer (GPC2) are
significantly higher than control mix with
superplasticizer (CM2).
3. The 28 day compressive strength of GPC1
is 5.5% higher than CM1 and GPC2 is 8.7%
higher than CM2.
4. The modulus of elasticity of GPC1 and
GPC2 is slightly higher than CM1 and
CM2 respectively.
Thus, GGBS based geopolymer concrete is the
good alternative for OPC concrete. GPC is a
cost saving alternative concrete as it eliminates
complex manufacturing process of OPC,
reduction in CO2 emissions and also eliminates
y = 392.39x + 15923 water or moist curing.
R² = 1
y = 275.46x + 11178 SCOPE OF FURTHER STUDY
R² = 1
To investigate the effect of various admixtures
in Geopolymer Concrete and also to conduct
durability studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge
the support of Professor Markandeya Raju and
Professor Kapileswar Mishra. The author also
acknowledges the UG students Mr. Aravindh
and team for work support.
REFERENCES
1. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),
with and without Available and Emerging Technologies for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
the Portland Cement Industry, Washington
D.C., (2010)
2. USGS (US Geological Survey),
Background Facts and Issues Concerning
Cement and Cement Data, Reston, VA,
(2005)
3. Vinita Vishwakarma and D.
Ramachandran, Green Concrete mix using
solid waste and nanoparticles as
alternatives – A review, Construction and
Building Materials, 162, 96–103 (2018)
4. K. M. Liew, A. O. Sojobi and L. W. Zhang,
Green concrete: Prospects and challenges,
Construction and Building Materials, 156,
1063–1095 (2017)
5. J. Davidovits, (2013), Geopolymer Cement
a review, published in Geopolymer Science
and Technics, Technical Paper #21,
Geopolymer Institute Library,
www.geopolymer.org.
6. S.-A. Murtazaev, M. Sh. Salamanova, Z.
Kh. Ismailova, V.Kh. Khadissov and Z. A.
Tulaev, The Use of Highly Active
Additives for the Production of Clinkerless
Binders, Advances in Engineering
Research, 177, Conference: Proceedings of
the International Symposium “Engineering
and Earth Sciences: Applied and
 Fundamental Research” (ISEES 2018) 18. BehzadNematollahi, Jay Sanjayan (2014)
DOI: 10.2991/isees-18.2018.68 ‘Effect of different superplasticizers and
7. Shi, C., Jiménez, A. F., & Palomo, A. activator combinations on workability and
(2011). New cements for the 21st century: strength of fly ash based geopolymer’ -
The pursuit of an alternative to Portland Elsiever (Materials and Design) Vol .5,
cement. Cement and Concrete Research, No.57,pp.667 – 672.
41(7), 750–763. 19. IS 456:2000. Plain and reinforced concrete
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.016 code of practice. New Delhi: Bureau of
8. IS 455:1989, Reaffirmed 1995. Portland Indian Standards.
Slag Cement – Specification, New Delhi: 20. Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2017). Flexural
Bureau of Indian Standards strength and elastic modulus of ambient-
9. IS 10289:1987, Reaffirmed 1999. cured blended low-calcium fly ash
Specification for Granulated Slag for the geopolymer concrete. Construction and
Manufacture of Portland Slag Cement, Building Materials, 130, 22–31.
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034
10. IS 2720(Part 3):1980, Reaffirmed 2002.
Methods of test for aggregates for—
specification. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards
11. IS 2386(Part 3):1963. Methods of test for
aggregates for concrete: Part 3 Specific
gravity, density, voids, absorption and
bulking. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards
12. IS 2386(Part 1):1963. Methods of test for
aggregates for concrete: Part 1 Particle size
and shape. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards
13. IS 2645 (2003), Reaffirmed 2005, Integral
Waterproofing Compounds for Cement
Mortar and Concrete –Specification, New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards
14. Patankar, S. V., Ghugal, Y. M., & Jamkar,
S. S. (2014). Mix Design of Fly Ash Based
Geopolymer Concrete. Advances in
Structural Engineering, 1619–1634.
doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2187-6_123
15. Davidovits J. Chemistry of geopolymeric
systems, terminology. Geopolymer ‘99
international conference, 1999, France.
16. Davidovits J. GEOPOLYMER chemistry
and applications, 2nd ed.; 2008.
17. Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2014). Effect of
GGBFS on setting, workability and early
strength properties of fly ash geopolymer
concrete cured in ambient condition.
Construction and Building Materials, 66,
163–171.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080