ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 114-M31
Investigating Strength Properties of Geopolymer Concrete
with Quarry Dust
by A. Muthadhi and V. Dhivya
To address the environmental constraints due to cement produc-
tion and sand scarcity, strength properties of high-calcium fly ash
(CFA)-based geopolymer concrete with quarry dust as fine aggre-
gate is explored in this paper. River sand was replaced with quarry
dust from 0 to 100% by mass. Sodium hydroxide solution with 8M
and 14M concentration, alkaline liquid-to-fly ash ratios of 0.50
and 0.60, and three curing regimes—oven curing, ambient curing,
and external exposure curing—were used. The results indicated
that geopolymer concrete achieved comparably equal strength
to that of the reference concrete mixture at a 100% quarry dust
level. External exposure and ambient curing can be practiced to
attain comparable strength properties of geopolymer concrete with
quarry dust as fine aggregate. Experimental values of split tensile
strength of geopolymer concrete with quarry dust follows good
relations with various empirical equations.
Keywords: Class C fly ash; compressive strength; geopolymer concrete;
quarry dust.
INTRODUCTION
In the 1970s, a new type of binder, known as geopolymer
binder, produced from source materials rich in silica and
alumina activated by alkaline solution with the help of
elevated temperature, was shown to be capable of producing
sustainable binders.1-5 Typical geopolymer raw mate-
rials are natural or industrial by-products such as fly ash,
metakaoline, slags,6-9 and natural pozzolans.10,11 Exhaus-
tive research has been conducted on geopolymer concrete
produced with fly ash due its abundant availability around
the world.7-9,12-15 Fly ash is classified into Class C (high-
calcium) and Class F (low-calcium) types, depending on its
coal source and method of production.7-9
It has been reported that low-calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete mixtures exhibit similar mechan-
ical properties as well as high thermal and acid resistance
to concretes with portland cement.12-17 In India, approxi-
mately 8 million tonnes (17 billion lb) of Class C fly ash
was produced from lignite power plants in 2015. This fly ash
contained relatively high calcium content—typically 16 to
29% by weight. According to previous research, high-cal-
cium fly ash-based geopolymer paste/mortar developed
good strength and performance properties.18,19 However, the
setting time of geopolymer concrete was reduced (reported
as approximately 28 to 58 minutes) due to the presence of
calcium.20 However, the addition of high concentrations
of NaOH solution increases the setting time by controlling
the leaching of calcium ions.21 Additionally, using a high
concentration of sodium hydroxide solution, leaching of
silica and alumina was enhanced, thus resulting in high
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017
TECHNICAL PAPER
strength. Significant quantities of calcium content in fly ash
could interfere with the polymerization process and may
alter the microstructure. Particle size, calcium content, alkali
metal content, amorphous content, morphology, and origin
of fly ash may affect the properties of geopolymers.18,19
The type of source material, alkaline liquid-to-fly ash
ratio, concentration of sodium hydroxide, alkaline solution
ratio, curing conditions, admixtures, and type of aggregates
are some of the factors that influence fresh and hardened
properties of geopolymer concrete.22 Geopolymer mortar
using high-fineness Class C fly ash attained a high strength
of 86 MPa (12,470 psi).23 Previous researchers have pointed
out that calcium was viewed as a contaminant in the activa-
tion of low-calcium fly ashes, and thus resulted in a decrease
in strength and a reduced rate of reaction.24,25 Other studies
concluded that calcium content has a significant influence
on the fresh and hardened properties of geopolymer concrete
and may lead to the formation of calcium silicate hydrate
(C-S-H) compounds in addition to the geopolymer gel prod-
ucts, enhancing the mechanical strength of the hardened
matrix.18-23
River sand has been the most popular choice as fine
aggregate for concrete in the past, but continuous use of
this material has led to the depletion of natural resources,
causing environmental concerns. Recently, the use of river
sand from river beds was banned in some regions of India
as it leads to the lowering of the water table, which in turn
affects agriculture. In such situations, the quarry dust can be
an economic alternative to the river sand.26 Granite fines,
often called quarry or rock dust, is a residue obtained from
the various process of crushed rock aggregate production
such as extraction, crushing, and screening, and possesses
particle sizes less than 4.75 mm (0.19 in.).27
It has been reported that addition of quarry dust decreases
the workability of the concrete due to the absorption of the
water by the quarry dust; consequently, the cement content
for given workability and strength requirements has to be
increased.26,27 The decrease in workability by the addition
of quarry dust can be compensated for by the addition of fly
ash.28 Incorporation of quarry dust above 40% requires high
dosages of high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA)
for similar fresh properties.29-31 Concrete made with 40%
ACI Materials Journal, V. 114, No. 3, May-June 2017.
MS No. M-2015-330.R2, doi: 10.14359/51689674, received September 20, 2016,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is 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 is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
355
partial replacement of quarry dust attained higher strength Table 1—Properties of fly ash (Class C)
than reference concrete mixtures. Comparable strength was Properties Test results
achieved in concrete mixtures made with quarry dust as fine
Physical properties
aggregate in place of river sand up to 100% replacement.32-34
Literature review revealed that properties of high-calcium Specific gravity 2.53
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with quarry dust as fine Fineness: material passing on 75 µm
84
aggregate were not explored fully so far. This paper evalu- sieve, %
ates the strength development in high-calcium fly ash-based Color Gray
geopolymer mixtures with quarry dust as fine aggregate by
Chemical composition, %
varying NaOH concentration as well as alkaline liquid-to-fly
ash ratios for various curing regimes. SiO2 35.62
Al2O3 32.23
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Fe2O3 8.48
Due to the manufacture of ordinary portland cement
TiO2 1.65
(OPC), CO2 emission is likely to rise by approximately
40% from the current levels in 2020.35 Globally, the current CaO 17.12
research needs are those focused on waste utilization and MgO 2.49
sustainable environment. In India, where coal is a major Na2O 0.91
source of electrical energy, many thermal power stations
K2O 0.10
are expected to be commissioned in the near future. The
coal being made available to thermal power stations has Loss on ignition 0.93
ash content (approximately 32%), a result of which a large
volume of fly ash is produced. Total fly ash production in Table 2—Physical properties of aggregates
India is approximately 186 million tonnes (410 billion lb) Coarse
during 2015, of which only approximately 56% was used Properties River sand Quarry dust aggregate
effectively.36 Fly ash-based geopolymers have attracted Specific gravity 2.61 2.51 2.69
more attention since the 1990s. On the other hand, the
Fineness modulus 2.62 2.01 8.92
depleting of securable river sand deposits a concomitant
price increase and in certain situations, the quarry dust can Bulk density, kg/m3 1720 1880 1569
(lb/ft3) (107.33) (117.31) (97.90)
be an economical alternative to river sand that gives addi-
tional benefit to concrete.24 Production of calcium fly ash Water absorption, % 0.42 0.65 0.73
(CFA)-based geopolymer concrete with quarry dust results
in environmentally friendly substitutes for cement and river in good grading and dense particle packing. A sodium sili-
sand. Limited research work has been done on CFA-based cate solution, A53 Grade, with SiO2 to Na2O ratio by mass
geopolymer concrete with quarry dust. Hence, this research of approximately 2.0 (Na2O = 14.7%; SiO2 = 29.4%; and
work was focused on the behavior of quarry dust as fine water = 55.9%) and the sodium hydroxide of 97 to 98%
aggregate in CFA-based geopolymer concrete. purity, in pellet form, was used. To maintain the degree of
workability of fresh concrete, sulfonated naphthalene-based
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES HRWRA was used. The HRWRA was a dark brown solution
Materials used containing 42% solids.
Fly ash, obtained from a thermal power plant in Tamil-
nadu, India, was used as the source material. It was classi- Mixture proportions and specimen preparation
fied as Class C fly ash having both pozzolanic and binding The mixture proportions of the geopolymer concrete
properties. The properties of fly ash were determined in mixtures used as variable were as follows: fly ash content =
accordance with IS 1727-196737 and presented in Table 1. 300 and 600 kg/m3 (18.72 and 37.44 lb/ft3); alkaline solution
The total percentage of silicon dioxide, aluminium oxide, to fly ash ratios of 0.50 and 0.60; and 8M and 14M concen-
and iron oxide was found to be 76.33. Locally available river tration of sodium hydroxide solution. Replacement of quarry
sand was used as natural fine aggregate. Quarry dust was dust was varied from 0 to 100% with mass of river sand.
collected from granite stone quarries located in Thiruvakarai, Modified guidelines based on IS 10262-2009, developed by
Tamilnadu, India. Quarry dust was used as an alternate fine Anuradha et al.,40 was followed for the mixture design of
aggregate in place of river sand. Crushed granite stone aggre- geopolymer concrete mixtures. Mixture proportioning was
gate of 20 mm (0.78 in.) maximum size was used as coarse done for the M20 grade of concrete with a target cube strength
aggregate. The physical properties of aggregates were deter- of 26 MPa (3773 psi); details are presented in Table 3. In
mined in accordance with IS 2386 (Part-III)-196338 and are total, 24 geopolymer concrete mixtures were proportioned
presented in Table 2. River sand and quarry dust used as fine in this research work. In each mixture series, twelve 100 mm
aggregates conform to Zones II and III as per IS 383-1970,39 (3.9 in.) cube specimens, three 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.)
respectively. From Table 2, it can be inferred that quarry dust cylinders, and 500 x 100 x 100 mm (20 x 4 x 4 in.) beam
is finer than natural river sand. A combination of quarry dust specimens were cast. In total, 540 concrete cube specimens,
and river sand in various proportions are expected to result 108 cylinder specimens, and 108 beam specimens were cast

356 ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017

Table 3—Mixture proportions per m3 and slump values of geopolymer concrete
Alkaline Sodium Sodium Fine aggregate, kg/m3 (lb/ft3)
solution to fly hydroxide silicate Coarse
S. Fly ash, kg/ ash ratio (by solution, kg/m3 solution, Quarry aggregate, HRWA, % Slump,
No. m3 (lb/ft3) mass) (lb/ft3) kg/m3 (lb/ft3) dust, % River sand Quarry dust kg/m3 (lb/ft3) by mass mm (in.)
1. 300 (18.72) 0.60 51.40 (3.20) 129 (8.04) 0 681 (42.49) 0 1684 (105.08) 0.2 75 (2.95)
2. 300 (18.72) 0.60 51.40 (3.20) 129 (8.04) 20 544.8 (34.01) 136.2 (8.50) 1684 (105.08) 0.30 85 (3.34)
3. 300 (18.72) 0.60 51.40 (3.20) 129 (8.04) 40 408.6 (25.50) 272.4 (17.00) 1684 (105.08) 0.50 80 (3.14)
4. 300 (18.72) 0.60 51.40 (3.20) 129 (8.04) 60 272.4 (17.00) 408.6 (25.50) 1684 (105.08) 0.70 85 (3.34)
5. 300 (18.72) 0.60 51.40 (3.20) 129 (8.04) 80 136.2 (8.50) 544.8 (34.01) 1684 (105.08) 0.80 75 (2.95)
6. 300 (18.72) 0.60 51.40 (3.20) 129 (8.04) 100 0 681 (42.49) 1684 (105.08) 1.10 75 (2.95)
7. 600 (37.45) 0.50 89.14 (5.56) 223 (13.91) 0 572 (35.69) 0 1087 (67.83) 0.20 80 (3.14)
8. 600 (37.45) 0.50 89.14 (5.56) 223 (13.91) 20 457.6 (28.56) 114.4 (7.14) 1087 (67.83) 0.40 85 (3.34)
9. 600 (37.45) 0.50 89.14 (5.56) 223 (13.91) 40 343.2 (21.42) 228.8 (14.28) 1087 (67.83) 0.50 75 (2.95)
10. 600 (37.45) 0.50 89.14 (5.56) 223 (13.91) 60 228.8 (14.28) 343.2 (21.42) 1087 (67.83) 0.70 75 (2.95)
11. 600 (37.45) 0.50 89.14 (5.56) 223 (13.91) 80 114.2 (7.14) 457.6 (28.56) 1087 (67.83) 0.90 80 (3.14)
12. 600 (37.45) 0.50 89.14 (5.56) 223 (13.91) 100 0 572 (35.69) 1087 (67.83) 1.20 75 (2.95)

to study the strength properties of geopolymer concrete at
various ages.
Casting and curing
In the laboratory, fine aggregates and fly ash were first
mixed together in the laboratory-type pan mixer thoroughly
to have homogeneity, and then coarse aggregate in a satu-
rated surface-dry (SSD) condition was added and thoroughly
mixed. The sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide
solution were mixed together at least 1 day prior to eliminate
the rapid setting of geopolymer specimens due to the exces-
sive heat evolved. Then, a permissible quantity of HRWRA
(based on trial mixtures for required workability) was placed
into a prepared alkaline solution and stirred with the help of
stirrer for 2 minutes to achieve homogeneity. The alkaline liquid-
HRWRA solution was then added to the dry materials and mixing
continued until homogenous mixture was obtained. The fresh
concrete was then transferred immediately into molds, consol-
idated with a table vibrator, and was cured immediately.
After 2 hours of delay time, three types of curing—ambient,
oven, and external exposure curing, were adopted. The delay
time was the time after the casting of concrete, and it allows
concrete to be finished and reach initial setting before being
transported to the curing oven or curing rack.20 In ambient
curing, geopolymer concrete specimens were kept at ambient
laboratory conditions (30 ± 2°C [86 ± 3.6°F]). In oven curing,
the specimens in the cube molds were covered by vinyl sheets
and kept in an oven at 60 ± 2°C (140 ± 3.6°F) for 24 hours,
followed by ambient curing until the age of testing. In external
exposure curing, the specimens were covered with gunny
bags and exposed to heat rays of sunlight at a temperature of
approximately 35 ± 2°C (95 ± 3.6°F).
TESTS CONDUCTED
Strength tests
Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete specimens
was determined at 7, 14, 28, and 60 days. At appropriate
ages, three specimens exposed to various curing condi-
tions were tested in accordance with IS 516-195941 using
a 3000 kN (674.4 kip) compression testing machine. Three
cylinders and beam specimens were tested to determine the
split tensile strength and flexural strength of geopolymer
concrete at 28 days.
SEM analysis
Geopolymer concrete samples were examined using a
scanning electron microscope operated at 15 kV. At 28 days,
geopolymer concrete samples were immersed in pure
acetone to stop the hydration, and then dried at 60°C (140°F)
to a constant weight. A dehydrated sample was fractured into
smaller pieces and mounted on copper plates with industrial
glue and carbon sputter coated under vacuum using an ion
sputter unit prior to analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Properties of fresh concrete
Workability test—The workability of the fresh concrete was
measured by means of the conventional slump test as per IS
1199-1989.42 It was decided to maintain a medium degree of
workability by maintaining slump in the range of 75 to 100
mm (3 to 4 in.). Based on the trial mixtures, HRWRA was
adjusted in each mixture to achieve slump for a medium
degree of workability (Table 3). It was found that dosage of
HRWRA increases with the increase in replacement of quarry
dust. In all geopolymer concrete mixtures, the desired work-
ability was attained by varying the dosage of HRWRA from
0.20 to 1.3% by mass. The maximum dosage of HRWRA
used was 1.3% by mass at 100% quarry dust level. This is in
good agreement with Ho et al.29 and Sahu et al.30
Compressive strength
The effect of various parameters, such as replacement
of quarry dust, curing conditions, concentration of sodium
hydroxide solution, and alkaline solution to fly ash ratio on
compressive strength, are discussed in this section.

ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017 357

Fig. 1—Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete at 28
and 60 days for various replacements of quarry dust. (Note:
1 psi = 0.0069 MPa.)
Replacement of quarry dust—Compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete was found to be increased with an
increase in replacement of river sand with quarry dust up
to 80% in ambient curing conditions (Fig. 1). At oven and
external exposure curing, compressive strength was found
to increase only with up to 60% replacement of sand with
quarry dust. At an 80% replacement level, compressive
strength decreased. When sand was fully replaced with
quarry dust, compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
was comparably equal or marginally less than reference
concrete mixtures, depending on curing conditions. The
maximum increase in compressive strength was attained
at 60% replacement level of river sand with quarry dust—
by approximately 28% and 33% of reference concrete for
8M and 14M, respectively. It can also be inferred that small
particles of quarry dust improved the particle packing and,
hence, enhanced the compressive strength in geopolymer
concrete. The aforementioned trend was the same for all
mixtures, irrespective of variables adopted in this study.
Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete was increased
by approximately 1.15, 1.12, 1.23, 1.27, and 1.19 times for
20 to 100% replacement levels of river sand with quarry
dust at 8M. Whereas at 14M, the compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete increased by approximately 0.91, 1.02,
1.33, 0.80, and 1.14 times for 20 to 100% replacement level
of sand with quarry dust.
Curing conditions—At ambient curing, compressive strength
was found to increase with age of geopolymer concrete
(Fig. 2). Compressive strength achieved at 28 days was higher
at ambient curing when compared to other curing conditions.
Compressive strength attained at 7 days was very low due to
insufficient heat supplied during this duration. After 28 days,
the increase in compressive strength was marginal. A maximum
compressive strength of approximately 28.2 MPa (4093 psi)
was attained at 28 days in ambient curing.
358
Fig. 2—Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete with age
at various curing conditions for 8M concentration at 0.50 alka-
line solution to fly ash ratio. (Note: 1 psi = 0.0069 MPa.)
In oven curing, compressive strength development at early
ages was higher when compared to ambient curing. A maximum
compressive strength of approximately 26.7 MPa (3875 psi)
was attained in almost 7 days. The gain in strength after
14 days was marginal (if any gain at all). This may be due to
the insufficient development of three-dimensional geopoly-
meric aluminosilicate network caused by the presence of
calcium in aluminosilicate network.43
In external exposure curing, a maximum compressive
strength of approximately 32.1 MPa (4659 psi) was attained
at 28 days. An increase in compressive strength at external
exposure curing was approximately 17% and 8% when
compared to ambient and oven curing, respectively. In
external exposure curing, specimens were subjected to sunlight
at a temperature of approximately 35 ± 2°C (95 ± 3.6°F) during
day hours consistently (for approximately 6 hours) until the
age of testing. The continuous supply of heat to specimens
kept under external exposure curing resulted in higher
compressive strength at 7 and 14 days. Continuous exposure
of specimens to heat of sunlight during the daytime results
in dehydration and may break the geopolymer matrix gel.
A decrease in the rate of increase in compressive strength
was noticed after 14 days of curing at external exposure
conditions. Compressive strength attained at 28 days was
slightly lower/equivalent than at 14 days at external expo-
sure curing, depending on sodium hydroxide molarity,
quarry dust level, and alkaline solution to fly ash ratio. In
oven curing, specimens were subjected to a temperature of
60 ± 2°C (140 ± 3.6°F) for a period of 24 hours, followed
by ambient curing until the age of testing; hence, the gain in
compressive strength was less when compared to external
exposure curing.
Compressive strength begins to decrease after 28 days at
external exposure curing. Prolonged curing under sunlight
may break down the granular structure of geopolymer
matrix and thus can result in dehydration and excessive
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017
Fig. 3—Effect of molarity on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete at various curing conditions. (Note: 1 psi = 0.0069 MPa.)
shrinkage due to contraction of gel, which does not trans-
form into more semi-crystalline form.43 Test results reveal
that heat generated during the exposure of sunlight was
sufficient for the dissolution of Si and Al from source
materials. External exposure curing can also be practiced
for geopolymer concrete for attaining appreciable strength.
At all curing conditions, the gain in compressive strength
after 28 days was marginal. The aforementioned trend was
the same for all curing conditions irrespective of replace-
ment of river sand with quarry dust.
Many researchers revealed that water curing cannot be
recommended for geopolymer concrete, as the geopoly-
meric reaction was assisted by heat. However, it was also
reported that both geopolymeric gel and C-S-H gel were
formed due to polymerization and hydration reaction in
high-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.18 Hence,
some of the typical geopolymer concrete specimens were
subjected to water curing, and compressive strength was
determined at 28 days. A maximum compressive strength of
approximately 20 MPa (2903 psi) was attained at 28 days
for geopolymer concrete without quarry dust (Fig. 1). It
was noticed that alkaline activator was leached out of the
geopolymer concrete specimens subjected to water curing
and, hence, the compressive strength attained at almost all
conditions was not appreciable.
Concentration of NaOH solution—Figure 3 shows that
the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete increased
with an increase in the the concentration of NaOH solu-
tion. Compressive strength at 14M concentration of sodium
hydroxide solution was higher than 8M concentration for
all curing conditions at an alkaline solution-to-fly ash ratio
of 0.5. An increase in compressive strength at 28 days was
approximately 58% at 14M when compared to 8M. In the
geopolymerization process, strong alkalis are required to
activate the silicon and aluminum present in the fly ash to
allow the glassy structure to partially or totally dissolve and
then transform into a highly compacted composite.44
The solubility of alumina-silicate increases with
increasing NaOH concentration and alkaline solution-to-fly
ash ratio. The influence of NaOH concentration on compres-
sive strength was reduced and the above trend was changed
at an alkaline solution-to-fly ash ratio of 0.60. At early ages
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017
up to 14 days, concentration of sodium hydroxide solution
has a marginal influence on compressive strength. At later
ages, there was a decrease in compressive strength at certain
curing conditions. The decrease in compressive strength at
28 days was approximately 26% in 14M when compared
to 8M. The same trend is followed for all percentages of
replacement of quarry dust and curing conditions.
Lee and Van Deventer44 revealed that higher alkaline
content in the geopolymers promoted greater solid dissolu-
tion, but excess hydroxide ion concentration caused alumino-
silicate gel precipitation in the early stages, hindering further
geopolymerization. An increase in congealing of silica prin-
cipally reduced the dissolution for the high concentration of
NaOH.45 Alonso and Palomo46 also reported that high acti-
vator concentrations increased the pH in the liquid phase.
Consequently, anionic forms of silicate were favored, and
polymerization was delayed. The resulting pH level was not
conducive to stable molecular forms and it was more diffi-
cult to form the coagulated structure, thus resulting in lower
rates of polymer formation.
Alkaline solution-to-fly ash ratio—The alkaline solution-
to-fly ash ratio has a considerable effect on the compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete (Fig. 3). At 8M, an increase
in compressive strength of geopolymer concrete was approx-
imately 42% at an alkaline solution-to-fly ash ratio of 0.60
when compared to 0.50. Further, an increase in the compres-
sive strength of geopolymer concrete at a ratio of 0.60 for
various replacement of quarry dust varied from 16% to 45%
when compared to a ratio of 0.50. At 14M, when the alkaline
solution-to-fly ash ratio is increased, compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete did not change significantly. Compres-
sive strength of geopolymer concrete was almost same/
marginally decreased when alkaline solution-to-fly ash ratio
was increased at 14M. A compressive strength of approxi-
mately 32.1 MPa (4659 psi) was obtained when the alkaline
solution-to-fly ash ratio was 0.50 and the concentration of
NaOH solution was 14M.
Splitting tensile strength
The results of average splitting tensile strength of
geopolymer concrete varied from 1.47 to 3.54 MPa (213.2 to
504.7 psi) (Table 4). In general, the splitting tensile strength
359
Table 4—Splitting tensile strength and flexural strength of geopolymer concrete at 14M for various curing
conditions
Split tensile strength at 28 days, MPa Flexural strength at 28 days, MPa
Alkaline solution to fly ash ratio Alkaline solution to fly ash ratio
Replacement of quarry
Curing condition dust with sand, % 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.60
0 2.67 2.81 3.07 3.18
20 2.42 2.68 3.20 3.58
40 2.71 2.91 3.36 3.63
Ambient curing
60 2.69 2.75 3.43 3.68
80 2.62 2.83 3.49 3.70
100 2.59 2.92 3.52 3.77
0 3.23 3.48 4.68 4.81
20 2.78 2.96 4.35 4.56
40 3.37 3.19 4.42 4.63
Oven curing
60 3.01 3.25 4.57 4.69
80 3.16 3.36 4.63 4.72
100 3.09 3.54 4.65 4.85
0 2.20 2.41 3.19 3.42
20 1.47 2.10 2.76 2.97
40 1.95 2.18 2.84 3.10
External exposure curing
60 2.16 2.36 2.95 3.38
80 2.25 2.49 2.83 3.41
100 2.31 2.54 3.20 3.56

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.

was affected by alkaline solution-to-fly ash ratio, curing
conditions, and replacement of quarry dust—similar to
compressive strength. A maximum splitting tensile strength
of approximately 3.54 MPa (504.7 psi) was obtained for
geopolymer concrete specimens subjected to oven curing at
an alkaline solution to fly ash ratio of 0.60 at 100% quarry
dust level. Incorporation of quarry dust as fine aggregate
had a marginal influence on the split tensile strength of
geopolymer concrete at ambient and oven curing condi-
tions. Many researchers described the relationship between
the splitting tensile strength and compressive strength of
concrete using Eq. (1)
fct = k(fck)n
where k and n are constants obtained from regression
analysis of experimental data.20 Topark-Ngarm et al.20 and
Ryu et al.47 suggested Eq. (2) and (3) for calculating split-
ting tensile strength of high-calcium fly ash and low calci-
um-based geopolymer concrete, respectively. ACI 318-0848
suggests Eq. (4) for calculating splitting tensile strength of
normal concrete. Splitting tensile strength follows good rela-
tion with compressive strength and this is in good agreement
with Topark-Ngarm et al.20
fct = 0.45(fck)0.57
fct = 0.17(fck)0.75
fct = 0.56(fck)0.5 (4)
where fct is splitting tensile strength (MPa); and fck is
compressive strength (MPa). Figure 4 shows the plot of split-
ting tensile strength calculated using these equations against
the experimental data obtained from compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete. It can be inferred that splitting tensile
strength was higher than those reported by Ryu et al.47 for
low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. In the geopolymer
system with the presence of a high-calcium compound, it
was suggested that voids in aluminosilicate matrix were
filled with C-S-H products, resulting in a low-porosity
geopolymer paste with increased strength.49 The splitting
(1) tensile strength obtained in this study for ambient and oven
curing conditions was found to match closely with strengths
obtained using Eq. (2) developed for high-calcium fly ash
concrete. Further, the results obtained from ACI 318-08
were higher than that of results of this experimental work
because Eq. (4) overestimates the strength values.50
Flexural strength
In general, flexural strength was varied from 2.83 to
4.85 MPa (410.45 to 703.43 psi) (Table 4). The test results
show that flexural strength was higher at an alkaline solution-
to-fly ash ratio of 0.60 for oven curing conditions, as
(2) expected. Almost all concrete mixtures exceeded the
minimum 28-day flexural strength requirement (3.13 MPa
(3) [453.96 psi]) of IS 456-2000 specifications for normal-

360 ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017

Fig. 4—Correlation between splitting tensile strength and
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete. (Note: 1 psi =
0.0069 MPa.)
Fig. 5—SEM image pattern of geopolymer concrete at 8M
for ambient curing.
strength portland-cement concrete. At external expo-
sure curing conditions, some of the mixtures did not met
the minimum flexural strength requirement of 3.13 MPa
(453.96 psi) as per IS specifications. It was found that flex-
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017
Fig. 6—SEM image pattern of geopolymer concrete at 8M
for oven curing.
ural strength obtained was higher than those obtained from
empirical relation recommended in IS specifications for
normal portland-cement concrete. This was due to a strong
interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between geopolymer paste
and aggregate reported by Ryu et al.47
SEM analysis
SEM images of geopolymer concrete are shown in Fig. 5,
6, and 7. In general, the matrix consists of irregular fly ash
grains of different sizes and are primarily made up of the reac-
tion products, resulting from the alkali activation (Fig. 5(a)).
The presence of C-S-H gel was also identified through SEM
morphology from their fibrous to irregular grains forming
reticular network (Fig. 6(a)). Thus, sodium aluminosilicate
matrix due to alkali activation of fly ash coexisted with
C-S-H formation due to hydration of calcium in fly ash. In
some portions, unreacted particles coexisted with small fly
ash particles that already reacted with the alkaline liquid
(Fig. 5(b)). At oven curing, some spherical particles were
partially covered with the reaction products, indicating the
reduced rate of reaction after 14 days can also be identified
(Fig. 6(b)). At ambient curing, a considerable number of
361

Fig. 7—SEM image pattern of geopolymer concrete for 8M
at external exposure curing.
unreacted spheres, as well as the presence of pores in the
matrix, indicated an incomplete reaction and, thus, resulted
in lower compressive strength compared to other curing
conditions. At external exposure curing, particle clusters
were seen on the surface of small fly ash particles and indi-
cate active participation in the polymerization reaction; the
structure seems to be more compact (Fig. 7(a) and 7(b)).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the test results, the following conclusions are
drawn:
1. A compressive strength of approximately 32 MPa
(4644 psi) was achieved when geopolymer concrete with
Class C fly ash was activated at external exposure curing
with the alkaline solution to fly ash ratio of 0.50.
2. External exposure curing can be practiced for field
applications of geopolymer concrete for a period of up to
14 days. A decrease in compressive strength was noticed for
geopolymer concrete specimens subjected to external expo-
sure curing after 28 days.
362
3. Compressive strength development in geopolymer concrete
specimens at oven and external exposure curing was comparable.
4. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete was
marginally increased when the alkaline solution to fly ash
ratio was increased from 0.50 to 0.60.
5. The rate of increase in compressive strength was higher
at 60% replacement of sand with quarry dust.
6. Splitting tensile strength of geopolymer concrete
was affected by variables such as curing conditions, alka-
line solution to fly ash ratio, and replacement of river sand
with quarry dust, similar to that of compressive strength.
The splitting tensile strength obtained from experimental
data was found to match closely with that predicted from
an empirical model20 specified for high-calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete.
7. Replacement of sand with quarry dust up to 100% can
be practiced for the production of geopolymer concrete with
Class C fly ash because there is a comparable achievement
of strength with the reference mixture.
AUTHOR BIOS
A. Muthadhi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering at Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, India. Her
research interests include alternate materials for sustainable construction,
and conventional and nonconventional materials in concrete.
V. Dhivya is an Assistant Professor at St. Peter’s College of Engineering
and Technology, Chennai, India. Her research interests include geopolymer
concrete and waste utilization in concrete.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Principal and Head of Civil Engi-
neering, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, India, for their
unflinching support to carry out this research work.
REFERENCES
1. Sata, V.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; and Kiattikomol, K., “Influence of
Pozzolan from Various By-Product Materials on Mechanical Properties
of High-Strength Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 21,
No. 7, 2007, pp. 1589-1598. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.09.011
2. Chindaprasirt, P.; Chareerat, T.; and Sirivivatnanon, V., “Workability
and Strength of Coarse High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 29, No. 3, 2007, pp. 224-229. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2006.11.002
3. Tangchirapat, W.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; and Chindaprasirt, P., “Use of
Palm Oil Fuel Ash as a Supplementary Cementitious Material for Producing
High-Strength Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 23,
No. 7, 2009, pp. 2641-2646. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.01.008
4. Palomo, A.; Grutzeck, M. W.; and Blanco, M. T., “Alkali-Activated
Fly Ashes—A Cement for the Future,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 29, No. 8, 1999, pp. 1323-1329. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00243-9
5. Davidovits, J., “Geopolymer Chemistry and Properties,” Proceedings
of the First European Conference on Soft Mineralogy, J. Davidovits and
E. J. Orlinsl, eds., The Geopolymer Institute, Compiegne, France, 1988,
pp. 25-48.
6. Duxson, P.; Mallicoat, S. W.; Lukey, G. C.; Kriven, W. M.; and van
Deventer, J. S. J., “The Effect of Alkali and Si/Al Ratio on the Development
of Mechanical Properties of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymers,” Colloids
and Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, V. 292, No. 1,
2007, pp. 8-20. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.05.044
7. Swanepoel, J. C., and Strydom, C. A., “Utilisation of Fly Ash in a
Geopolymeric Material,” Applied Geochemistry, V. 17, No. 8, 2002,
pp. 1143-1148. doi: 10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00005-7
8. Fernandez-Jimenez, A., and Palomo, A., “Composition and Micro-
structure of Alkali Activated Fly Ash Binder: Effect of the Activator,”
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 35, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1984-1992. doi:
10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.03.003
9. Fernandez-Jimenez, A., and Palomo, A., “Characterization of Fly
Ashes. Potential Reactivity as Alkaline Cements,” Fuel, V. 82, No. 18,
2003, pp. 2259-2265. doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00194-7
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017
 10. Bondar, S.; Lynsdale, C. J.; Milestone, N. B.; Hassani, N.; and
Ramezanianpour, A. A., “Effect of Type, Form, and Dosage of Activa-
tors on Strength of Alkali-Activated Natural Pozzolans,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 33, No. 2, 2011, pp. 251-260. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2010.10.021
11. Tchakoute, H. K.; Elimbi, A.; Yanne, E.; and Djangang, C. N., “Utiliza-
tion of Volcanic Ashes for the Production of Geopolymers Cured at Ambient
Temperature,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 38, 2013, pp. 75-81. doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.010
12. Yip, C. K., and Van Deventer, J. S. J., “Microanalysis of
Calcium Silicate Hydrate Gel Formed within a Geopolymer Binder,”
Journal of Materials Science, V. 38, No. 18, 2003, pp. 3851-3860. doi:
10.1023/A:1025904905176
13. Wang, S. D.; Scrivener, K. L.; and Pratt, P. L., “Factors Affecting the
Strength of Alkali Activated Slag,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 24,
No. 6, 1994, pp. 1033-1043. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(94)90026-4
14. Memon, F. A.; Nuruddin, M. F.; Demie, S.; and Shafiq, N., “Effect
of Curing Conditions on Strength of Fly Ash-Based Self-Compacting
Geopolymer Concrete,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Tech-
nology, V. 56, 2011, pp. 80-89.
15. Bakharev, T., “Geopolymeric Materials Prepared Using Class F Fly
Ash and Elevated Temperature Curing,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 35, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1224-1232. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.06.031
16. Roy, D. M.; Arjunan, P.; and Silsbee, M. R., “Effect of Silica
Fume, Metakaolin, and Low-Calcium Fly Ash on Chemical Resistance of
Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 31, No. 12, 2001, pp. 1809-
1813. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00548-8
17. Kong, D. L. Y.; Sanjayan, J. G.; and Sagoe-Crentsil, K., “Comparative
Performance of Geopolymers Made with Metakaolin and Fly Ash after Expo-
sure to Elevated Temperatures,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 37, No. 12,
2007, pp. 1583-1589. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.021
18. Guo, X.; Shi, H.; and Dick, W. A., “Compressive Strength and
Microstructural Characteristics of Class C Fly Ash Geopolymer,” Cement
and Concrete Composites, V. 32, No. 2, 2010, pp. 142-147. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2009.11.003
19. Temuujin, J.; Van Riessen, A.; and Williams, R., “Influence of
Calcium Compounds on the Mechanical Properties of Fly Ash Geo-polymer
Paste,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, V. 167, No. 1-3, 2009, pp. 82-88.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.12.121
20. 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,
pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001157
21. Hanjitsuwan, S.; Hunpratub, S.; Thongbai, P.; Maensiri, S.; Sata,
V.; and Chindaprasirt, P., “Effects of NaOH Concentrations on Physical
and Electrical Properties of High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Paste,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 45, 2014, pp. 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2013.09.012
22. Sathonsaowaphak, A.; Chindaprasirt, P.; and Pimraksa, K., “Work-
ability and Strength of Lignite Bottom Ash Geopolymer Mortar,” Journal
of Hazardous Materials, V. 168, No. 1, 2009, pp. 44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2009.01.120
23. Chindaprasirt, P.; Chareerat, T.; Hatanaka, S.; and Cao, T., “High-
Strength Geopolymer Using Fine High-Calcium Fly Ash,” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 23, No. 3, 2011, pp. 264-270.
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000161
24. Yip, C. K., and Van Deventer, J. S. J., “Microanalysis of
Calcium Silicate Hydrate Gel Formed within a Geopolymer Binder,”
Journal of Materials Science, V. 38, No. 18, 2003, pp. 3851-3860. doi:
10.1023/A:1025904905176
25. Wang, S. D.; Scrivener, K. L.; and Pratt, P. L., “Factors Affecting the
Strength of Alkali Activated Slag,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 24,
No. 6, 1994, pp. 1033-1043. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(94)90026-4
26. Saghafi, B.; Al Nageim, H.; and Atherton, W., “Mechanical Behavior
of a New Base Material Containing High Volumes of Limestone Waste
Dust, PFA, and APC Residues,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
neering, ASCE, V. 25, No. 4, 2013, pp. 450-461. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0000517
27. Rame Gowda, M.; Narasimhan, M. C.; and Karisiddappa, “Develop-
ment and Study of Strength of Self-Compacting Mortar Mixes Using Local
Materials,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 23, No. 5,
2011, pp. 525-532. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000202
28. Rama Raju, M. V.; Vivek, K. V.; Siva Shankar Reddy, T.; and
Srinivas Reddy, P., “Study of Properties of SCC Using ‘Quarry Dust’ and
‘Fly Ash’,” International Journal of Engineering Sciences Research, V. 02,
No. 04, 2011, pp. 323-332.
ACI Materials Journal/May-June 2017
29. Ho, D. W. S.; Sheinn, A. M. M.; Ng, C. C.; and Tam, C. T., “The Use
of Quarry Dust for SCC Applications,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 32, No. 4, 2002, pp. 505-511. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00726-8
30. Sahu, A. K.; Kumar, S.; and Sachan, A. K., “Crushed Stone Waste as
Fine Aggregate for Concrete,” Indian Concrete Journal, V. 77, No. 3, Jan.
2003, pp. 45-48.
31. Krishnamoorthi, A., and Mohan Kumar, G., “Preliminary Studies
on Three-Dimensional Characteristics of Quarry Dust Concrete,” Inter-
national Journal of Applied Engineering Research, V. 7, No. 13, 2012,
pp. 1479-1492.
32. Rao, P., and Kumar, V. G., “Investigation on Concrete with Stone
Crusher Dust as Fine Aggregate,” Indian Concrete Journal, V. 78, No. 8,
Aug. 2008, pp. 66-69.
33. Krishnamoorthi, A.; Venkatakrishnaiah, R.; and Narayanan, A.,
“Study of Fly Ash Based Concrete with Quarry Dust as a Partial Replace-
ment to Sand,” Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Recent
Trends in Concrete Composites for Structural Systems, Department of Civil
Engineering, Kongu Engineering College, Erode, Tamilnadu, India, Mar.
2007, pp. 337-339.
34. Sivakumar, A., and Prakash, M., “Characteristic Studies on the
Mechanical Properties of Quarry Dust Addition in Conventional Concrete,”
Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology, V. 2, No. 10,
Oct. 2011, pp. 218-235.
35. “Climate Action Tracker,” http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/
india.html. (last accessed May 15, 2017)
36. Haque, M. E., “Indian Fly-Ash: Production and Consumption
Scenario,” International Journal of Waste Resources, V. 3, No. 1, 2013,
pp. 22-25. doi: 10.12777/ijwr.3.1.2013.22-25
37. IS 1727-1967, “Methods of Test for Pozzolanic Materials,” Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1967, pp. 1-49.
38. IS 2386 (Part III)-1963, “Indian Standard Methods of Test for Aggre-
gate for Concrete,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1963,
pp. 6-13.
39. IS 383-1970, “Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for
Concrete,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1970, pp. 5-11.
40. Anuradha, R.; Sreevidyaa, V.; Venkatasubramanian, R.; and Rangan,
B. V., “Modified Guidelines for Geopolymer Concrete Mix Design Using
Indian Standard,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 13, No. 3, Jan.
2012, pp. 353-364.
41. IS 516-1959, “Method of Test for Strength of Concrete,” Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1959, pp. 1-24.
42. IS, 1199-1999, “Method of Sampling and Analysis of Concrete,”
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 1-45.
43. Nuruddin, M. F.; Kusbiantoro, A.; Qazi, S.; and Shafiq, N., “Compres-
sive Strength and Interfacial Transition Zone Characteristic of Geo-Polymer
Concrete with Different Cast In-Situ Curing Sonditions,” World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, V. 73, 2011, pp. 892-895.
44. Lee, W. K. W., and Van Deventer, J. S. J., “The Effects of Inorganic Salt
Contamination on the Strength and Durability of Geopolymers,” Colloids and
Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, V. 211, No. 2-3, 2002,
pp. 115-126. doi: 10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00239-X
45. Sathonsaowaphak, A.; Chindaprasirt, P.; and Pimraksa, K., “Work-
ability and Strength of Lignite Bottom Ash Geopolymer Mortar,” Journal
of Hazardous Materials, V. 168, No. 1, 2009, pp. 44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2009.01.120
46. Alonso, S., and Palomo, A., “Alkaline Activation of Metakaolin and
Calcium Hydroxide Mixtures: Influence of Temperature, Activator Concen-
tration and Solids Ratio,” Materials Letters, V. 47, No. 1-2, 2001, pp. 55-62.
doi: 10.1016/S0167-577X(00)00212-3
47. Ryu, G. S.; Lee, Y. B.; Koh, K. T.; and Chung, Y. S., “The Mechanical
Properties of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete with Alkaline Activa-
tors,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 47, 2013, pp. 409-418. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.069
48. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
49. Hanjitsuwan, S.; Hunpratub, S.; Thongbai, P.; Maensiri, S.; Sata,
V.; and Chindaprasirt, P., “Effects of NaOH Concentrations on Physical
and Electrical Properties of High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Paste,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 45, 2014, pp. 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2013.09.012
50. Arioglu, N.; Girgin, Z. C.; and Arioglu, E., “Evaluation of Ratio
between Splitting Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength for Concretes
up to 120 MPa and Its Application in Strength Criteria,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 103, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, pp. 18-24.
363
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.