Sustainable Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction

Edited by Chantawarangul, K., Suanpaga, W., Yazdani, S., Vimonsatit, V., and Singh, A.
Copyright © 2014 ISEC Press
ISBN: 978-0-9960437-0-0

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH BASED

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE WITH ADDITION OF
GGBS
V. BHIKSHMA and T. NAVEENKUMAR
Dept of Civil Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad,
India

Concrete plays an important role in the construction industry worldwide. New

technology has made for easier development of new types of construction and
alternative materials in the concrete area. Cement is the major component in the
production of concrete, but its manufacture causes environmental issues and thus there
is a need for alternative materials. Geopolymer concrete is a new type of material with
that potential, commonly formed by alkali activation of industrial alumina silicate
byproducts, such as fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). For this
paper, mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete with fly ash and GGBS cured
under ambient temperatures were studied. Five different grades of concrete were
considered. The results were encouraging: The workability of the geopolymer concrete
was similar to that of conventional concrete. Experimental results of flexural and
splitting tensile strength revealed insignificant variation compared to conventional
concrete. The mechanical properties of fly ash and GGBS-based geopolymer concrete
were comparable with conventional concrete.
Keywords: Ground granulated blast furnace slag, Geopolymerization, Ambient curing,
Concrete strength.

1 INTRODUCTION
Cement is the major integral constituent in the production of traditional concrete. The
cement industry accounts for a considerable share for CO2 emissions due to cement’s
high environmental carbon footprint (a measure of the amount of CO2 released through
combustion, and expressed as tons of carbon emitted per annum (Flower and Sanjayan
2007)). Technology is paving the way worldwide to reduce the carbon footprint by
using less or no Portland cement. Utilization of industrial waste material such as fly
ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), silica fume etc., as a replacement
will lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It will also reduce the
embodied energy (Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish, 2003) in the concrete and
minimize the land required to dispose the industrial wastes.
Consequently, geopolymer concrete has become a core area for exploring
alternative solutions to conventional concrete. The term geopolymer was introduced in
the year 1991 (Davidovits 1991), and studies have established an excellent sustainable
concrete. Geopolymer concrete is produced without cement, with basic ingredients of
fly ash and GGBS. Geopolymerization is the process of inorganic alumina silicate

451
452 Chantawarangul, K., Suanpaga, W., Yazdani, S., Vimonsatit, V., and Singh, A. (Eds.)

polymeric gel resulting from reaction of amorphous alumina silicates with alkali
hydroxide and silicate solutions. Fly ash is a pozzolanic material rich in Silica (Si) and
Alumina (Al). When these compounds are activated by highly-alkaline solutions and
soluble silicates liquids under elevated temperature curing, they yield binders Si-O-Al
(geopolymers) similar to C-S-H bonds in conventional concrete. Since it requires
temperature curing of about 60°C for 24 hours to achieve the required strength, it is
impractical. To overcome this issue, research has been emphasized on the use of GGBS
for partial replacement of fly ash. GGBS, which contains a substantial amount of
calcium, imparts heat for hydration required for geopolymerization process. Thus
geopolymer concrete with fly ash and GGBS shows encouraging results without
temperature curing.

2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
It is necessary to make geopolymer concrete because it has enormous potential
applications for the concrete industry. This study examines the performance of
geopolymer concrete as a structural grade for concrete application, aiming for the
optimal percentage replacement of GGBS to meet target strength of different grades of
concrete (M20, M30, M40, M50, and M60). A comprehensive assessment of
mechanical properties has been evaluated for making geopolymer concrete as a
structural-grade concrete.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW
Amdbily et al. (2011) studied geopolymer concrete under ambient temperature curing.
In their experimental programme, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) was
used as partial replacement for fly ash. The replacement ratios were 25%, 50%, 75%,
and 100%. Ganapathi et al. (2012) made similar observations, finding that as the
percentage of GGBS increases, the compressive strength also increases. Pradeep et al.
(2012) studied the percentage of binder, i.e., fly ash + GGBS, at 23%, 26%, 27% 29%
and 31%. Bhikshma and Naveenkumar (2013) studied the compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete for various replacements of GGBS (10% to 45% for various
molarities 8M, 12M, 16M) under ambient curing temperature (27°C), and obtained the
strengths in the range of 21-72 MPa.

4 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS
In the present investigation different grades of concrete i.e., M20, M30, M40, M50 and
M60 have been considered. Based on the previous studies, the percentage replacements
of GGBS at 9%, 20%, 27.5%, 38% and 43% were fixed and considered for the above
concrete grades. The fly ash used was a low-calcium fly ash. The silica and alumina
constitutes about 85% of the total mass, and its ratio is about 1.5. Properties of fly ash
and GGBS are presented in Table 1.
Locally-available clean river sand was used as a fine aggregate (fineness modulus
2.65, specific gravity 2.62) confirming to Zone II of IS: 383-1970. Similarly well-
graded coarse aggregates of 4.75 mm to 20 mm were used. A mixture of sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) was used as an alkali activator.
 Sustainable Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction 453

Table 1. Properties of Fly Ash and GGBS.

Percentage by Mass
S. No Characteristics
Fly Ash GGBS

1 Loss on ignition 1.90 2.10

2 Silica, Sio2 52.16 42.32
3 Alumina,Al2O3 36.93 15.66
4 Calcium, CaO 4.67 34.53
5 Iron, Fe2O3 4.23 3.68

Sodium hydroxide was in the form of pellets having a purity of 98%. Commercial-
grade sodium silicate having Na2O 13%-15% and SiO2 28% -34% were used. To
improve the workability, polycarboxyl ether-based high performance super plasticizer
i.e., Glenium B233 (BASF Chemicals India), was used. The dosage of super plasticizer
was taken as 0.5% by mass of fly ash and GGBS.
Based on the mix design guidelines proposed by Hardjito and Rangan (2005),
several trial mixes were conducted. Finally, a standard design mix was adopted. In the
mix design, combined coarse and fine aggregates were used as 70% of total mass
concrete. The molarity of sodium hydroxide was 8M. The alkaline activator to binder
(Fly ash + GGBS) ratio was kept constant at 0.5. Also the ratio of sodium silicate to
sodium hydroxide solution was taken as 2.5. The mix proportions are presented in
Table 2:

Table 2. Mix Proportions of geopolymer concrete (kg/m3).

Grade Fly Na2O NaOH

of Molarity GGBS Ash GGBS F.A C.A SiO2 Pellets Water
Concrete (M) (%)
M20 8 9.0 437 43 740 915 171 18 51
M30 8 20.0 384 96 749 926 171 18 51
M40 8 27.5 348 132 756 933 171 18 51
M50 8 38.0 298 182 763 943 171 18 51
M60 8 43.0 274 206 767 948 171 18 51

The sodium silicate solution and the sodium hydroxide solution were mixed
together prior to 24 hours of casting. A standard mixing method was adopted for
making geopolymer concrete. The fine and coarse aggregates in a saturated surface dry
condition were first mixed with the fly ash and GGBS for about 2 to 3 minutes.
Afterward, the alkaline solution was added to the dry materials and the mixing
continued for another four minutes. The workability was measured by means of
conventional slump test and compaction factor tests. Immediately after mixing, the
fresh concrete was transferred into molds. Standard 30 cubes (150 mm x 150 mm x 150
454 Chantawarangul, K., Suanpaga, W., Yazdani, S., Vimonsatit, V., and Singh, A. (Eds.)

mm), 30 cylinders (150 mm diameter and 300 mm length) and 15 prisms (100 mm x
100 mm x 500 mm) were considered. After 24 hours, specimens were de-molded and
kept to air dry at 27°C in the laboratory. Cube compressive strength at 7 and 28 days
were determined. Further, splitting tensile and flexure strength were obtained at age of
28 days. Tests were carried as per provision laid in IS 516 and IS 5816.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Compressive Strength
Compressive strengths for 7 and 28 days obtained were in the range of 16 MPa to 52
MPa and 28 MPa to 71 MPa respectively. The results are presented in Table 3.
Further, it was observed that compressive strength at 7 days is about 60-70% of 28
days, on par with conventional concrete. Results revealed that the rate of gain in
strength development was increased with the increase in GGBS content. This may be
due to the increased heat of hydration available due to the addition of GGBS in the
geopolymerization process, resulting in early strength development. Density results
were the same as that of conventional concrete. Further, an increase in the percentage
of GGBS results in a denser microstructure of concrete.

Table 3. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete.

Grade Compressive Strength

GGBS Density
of (N/mm2)
(%) (kg/m3)
Concrete 7 Days 28 Days
M20 9.0 2212 16.00 28.33
M30 20.0 2231 24.37 40.40
M40 27.5 2265 32.97 50.46
M50 38.0 2309 41.94 59.90
M60 43.0 2343 51.57 71.07

5.2 Splitting Tensile and Flexural Strength

The results are presented in Table 4. The 28-day test results of splitting tensile
strengths are in the range of 1.9-4.2 MPa for grades M20-M60 respectively. The results
are about 7% to 9% of the compressive strength. Similarly, flexural strength results
obtained are in the range of 3.0-5.5 MPa. Flexural strength is measured as a fraction of
compressive strength. Flexural strength fraction (k) obtained is presented in Table 5,
compared with various country specifications. Further, the percentage of split tensile
strength with respect to the characteristic compressive strength is marginally lower than
the values suggested as in case of conventional concrete. These shortfalls in splitting
tensile and flexural strengths may be due to the dry curing of geopolymer concrete, as
opposed to moist curing in the case of conventional concrete.
 Sustainable Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction 455

Table 4. Test results of splitting tensile and flexural strength.

Splitting Flexural
Grade
GGBS Tensile Strength
of
(%) Strength (N/mm2)
Concrete
(N/mm2)
M20 9.0 1.88 3.01
M30 20.0 2.55 3.67
M40 27.5 3.11 4.27
M50 38.0 3.63 4.93
M60 43.0 4.24 5.43

Table 5. Comparison of flexural strength for different specifications.

Grade Experimental Theoretical Values (N/mm2) Fraction

of Results 'k' = fct
Concrete (N/mm2) /√fck
IS 456-2000 ACI 318 Canadian
fct = 0.7*√fck fct = 0.62*√fck fct = 0.60*√fck
M20 2.93 3.13 2.77 2.68 0.656
M30 3.67 3.83 3.40 3.29 0.669
M40 4.27 4.43 3.92 3.79 0.675
M50 4.93 4.95 4.38 4.24 0.698
M60 5.43 5.42 4.80 4.80 0.701
* fct = Flexural strength, fck = Characteristic Compressive strength, k = Constant(Fraction)

6 CONCLUSIONS
 The average density of fly ash and GGBS-based geopolymer concrete was the
same as that of ordinary Portland cement concrete.
 The workability of the geopolymer concrete observed was similar to that of
conventional concrete.
 The 28-day compressive strength results were more than the values
recommended by IS 456-2000.
 The experimental results of flexural and splitting tensile strength revealed
insignificant variation compared to conventional concrete.
 Mechanical properties of fly ash and GGBS-based geopolymer concrete were
comparable with conventional concrete.
456 Chantawarangul, K., Suanpaga, W., Yazdani, S., Vimonsatit, V., and Singh, A. (Eds.)

References
Ambily, P. S., Madheswaran, C. K., Sharmial, S., and Muthaiah, S., Experimental and analytical
investigations on shear behavior of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams, International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, 673-88, September, 2011.
Bhikshma, V., and Naveenkumar, T., Strength characteristics of fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete with addition of GGBS, ICEAS, 1192-1199, International Conference on
Engineering and Applied Science, Osaka, Japan, 7-9, November, 2013.
Davidovits, J., Geopolymer: Inorganic polymers new materials, Journal of Thermal analysis,
37, 1633-56, 1991.
Flower, D. J. M, and Sanjayan, J. G., Greenhouse gas emissions due to concrete manufacture,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(5), 282-8, 2007.
Ganapathi Naidu, P., Prasad, A. S. S. N, Adiseshu, S., and Satyanarayana, P. V. V., A study on
strength properties of geopolymer concrete with addition of GGBS, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Development, Issue 4, Vol. 2, 19-28, July, 2012.
Hardjito, D., and Rangan, B. V., Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete, Research Report GC-1, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of
Technology, Perth, Australia, 2005.
Pradeep, J., Sanjay, R., and Aswath, M. U., Experimental study on flexural behavior of fly ash
and GGBS-based geopolymer concrete beams in bending. International Journal of
Emerging trends in Engineering and Development, Issue 2, Vol. 6, September, 2012.
Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., and Jagadish, K. S., Embodied energy of common and alternative
building technologies, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 35, 129-137, 2003.