ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BHRC) VOL. 17, NO.

1 (2016)
PAGES 127-135

STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH AND GGBS BASED

GEO POLYMER CONCRETE

J. Guru Jawahar and G. Mounika

Department of Civil Engineering, Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences,
Tirupati, India

Received: 10 May 2015; Accepted: 20 August 2015

ABSTRACT

The second most consumed product in the world is Cement. It contributes nearly 7% of the
global carbon dioxide emission. Geopolymer concrete (GPC) is becoming a special type of
more eco-friendly concrete alternative to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete. This
project mainly aims at the study of effect of class F fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBS) on the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete (GPC) at
different replacement levels (FA50-GGBS50, FA25-GGBS75, FA0-GGBS100) using
Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions as alkaline activator.
Specimens were cast and cured for different curing periods at ambient room temperature to
determine the GPC mechanical properties viz. compressive, splitting tensile and flexural
strength. Test results reveal that increase in GGBS replacement enhanced the mechanical
properties of GPC at all ages at ambient room temperature.

Keywords: Geopolymer concrete; Fly ash, GGBS; compressive strength; splitting tensile
strength; flexure strength.

1. INTRODUCTION
Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world and Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) is the major ingredient used in concrete. The production of cement releases
large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that significantly contributes to
greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that one ton of CO2 is released into the atmosphere
for every ton of OPC produced [1]. In view of this, there is a need to develop sustainable
alternatives to conventional cement utilizing the cementitious properties of industrial by-
products such as fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag [2-4]. On the other side,
the abundance and availability of class F fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace
slag (GGBS) worldwide create opportunity to utilize these by-products, as partial


E-mail address of the corresponding author: [email protected] (J. Guru Jawahar)
128 J. Guru Jawahar and G. Mounika

replacement or as performance enhancer for OPC.

Davidovits developed a binder called geo-polymer to describe an alternative cementitious
material which has ceramic-like properties. Geo-polymer technology is one of the new
technologies attempted to reduce the use of Portland cement in concrete. Geopolymers are
environmental friendly materials that do not emit green house gases during polymerisation
process. Geopolymer can be produced by combining a pozzolanic compound or
aluminosilicate source material with highly alkaline solutions [5]. Geopolymers are made
from source materials with silicon (Si) and Aluminium (Al) content and thus cement can be
completely replaced by marginal materials such as fly ash and ground granulated blast
furnace slag which is rich in silica and alumina [6 & 7]. Fly ash and GGBS reacts with
alkaline solutions to form a cementitious material which does not emit carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere and enhances the mechanical properties of the geo-polymer concrete.
Davidovits proposed that binders could also be produced by polymeric reaction of
alkaline liquids with the silicon and the aluminium in source materials or by-product
materials such as fly ash and rice husk ash. Portland cement is still the main binder in
concrete construction prompting a search for more environmental friendly materials.
Furthermore, it has been reported that the durability of ordinary Portland cement concrete is
under examination, as many concrete structures especially those built in corrosive
environments start to deteriorate after 20 to 30 years, even though they have been designed
for more than 50 years of service life [1]. Palomo and Grutzeck reported that type of alkaline
liquid affects the mechanical properties of GPC [7]. Palomo and Femandez-Jimenez [8]
concluded that both curing temperature and curing time affects the compressive strength of
GPC mixes. Gourley [9] stated that low calcium class F fly ash is more preferable thatn high
calcium class C fly ash in the manufacturing of GPC. Bhikshma et al. [10] revealed that a
compressive strength of 30 MPa achieved in fly ash based GPC by providing alkaline
solution to fly ash ratio of 0.5 at 16 molarity of sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Sujatha et al.
[11] observed that geopolymer concrete columns exhibited high load carrying capacity,
stiffness and ductility until failure. Anuradha et al. [12] noted that tensile strength of GPC
made with river sand is higher than that of GPC made with manufactured sand. Vijai et al.
[13] developed an expression to predict 28-day compressive strength, splitting tensile
strength and flexural strength of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete composites.

2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
2.1 Materials
Our objective was to determine the effect of fly ash and GGBS on the mechanical properties
of geopolymer concrete after various curing periods at ambient room temperature. In this
respect, FA and GGBS were used as binders whose chemical and physical properties are
tabulated in Table 1. According to ASTM C 618 [14], class F fly ash produced from
Rayalaseema Thermal Power Plant (RTPP), Muddanur, A.P and GGBS produced from the
Vizag steel plant, A.P were used in the manufacturing of GPC.
 STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH AND GGBS BASED 129

Table 1: Chemical Composition and Physical Properties of Cement

Particulars Class F fly ash GGBS
Chemical composition
% Silica(SiO2) 65.6 30.61
% Alumina(Al2O3) 28.0 16.24
% Iron Oxide(Fe2O3) 3.0 0.584
% Lime(CaO) 1.0 34.48
% Magnesia(MgO) 1.0 6.79
% Titanium Oxide (TiO2) 0.5 -
% Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 0.2 1.85
Loss on Ignition 0.29 2.1
Physical properties
Specific gravity 2.24 2.86
Fineness (m2/Kg) 360 400

The alkaline liquid used was a combination of sodium silicate solution and sodium
hydroxide solution. The sodium silicate solution (Na2O= 13.7%, SiO2=29.4%, and
water=55.9% by mass) was purchased from a local supplier. The sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
in flakes or pellets from with 97%-98% purity was also purchased from a local supplier. The
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution was prepared with a concentration of 10 M. The sodium
silicate solution and the sodium hydroxide solution were mixed together one day before
prior to use.
Crushed granite stones of size 20 mm and 10 mm were used as coarse aggregate and river
sand was used as fine aggregate. The bulk specific gravity in oven dry condition and water
absorption of the coarse aggregate 20 mm and 10mm were 2.58 and 0.3%, respectively. The
bulk specific gravity in oven dry condition and water absorption of the sand were 2.62 and
1%, respectively [15].

2.2 Test methods

Compressive strength test was conducted on the cubical specimens for all the mixes after 7,
14, 28, 56 and 112 days of curing as per IS 516 [16]. Three cubical specimens of size 150
mm x 150 mm x 150 mm were cast and tested for each age and each mix. Splitting tensile
strength (STS) test was conducted on the specimens for all the mixes after 28, 56and 112
days of curing as per IS 5816 [17]. Three cylindrical specimens of size 150 mm x 300 mm
were cast and tested for each age and each mix. Flexural strength test was conducted on the
specimens for all the mixes after 28, 56 and 112 days of curing periods as per IS 516 [16].
Three concrete beam specimens of size 100 mm x 100 mm x 500 mm were cast and tested
for each age and each mix. All the test specimens were kept at ambient room temperature for
all curing periods.
130 J. Guru Jawahar and G. Mounika

3. MIX DESIGN

Based on the limited past research on GPC, the following proportions were selected for the
constituents of the mixtures [18]. The following scenario describes the GPC mix design of the
present study:
Assume that normal-density aggregates in SSD (Saturated surface Dry) condition are to be
used and the unit-weight of concrete is 2400 kg/m3. In this study, take the mass of combined
aggregates as 77% of the total mass of concrete, i.e. 0.77x2400=1848 kg/m3. The coarse and fine
(combined) aggregates may be selected to match the standard grading curves used in the design
of Portland cement concrete mixtures. For instance, the coarse aggregates (70%) may comprise
776 kg/m3 (60%) of 20 mm aggregates, 518 kg/m3 (40%) of 10 mm aggregates, and 554 kg/m3
(30%) of fine aggregate to meet the requirements of standard grading curves. The adjusted
values of coarse and fine aggregates are 774 kg/m3 of 20 mm aggregates, 516 kg/m3 of 10 mm
aggregates and 549 kg/m3 (30%) of fine aggregate, after considering the water absorption values
of coarse and fine aggregates.
The mass of geopolymer binders (fly ash and GGBS) and the alkaline liquid = 2400 – 1848 =
552 kg/m3. Take the alkaline liquid-to-fly ash+GGBS ratio by mass as 0.35; the mass of fly ash
+ GGBS = 552/ (1+0.35) = 409 kg/m3 and the mass of alkaline liquid = 552 – 409 = 143 kg/m3.
Take the ratio of sodium silicate(Na2SiO3) solution-to-sodium hydroxide(NaOH) solution by
mass as 2.5; the mass of sodium hydroxide (NaOH)solution = 144/ (1+2.5) = 41 kg/m3; the mass
of sodium silicate solution = 143 – 41 =102 kg/m3. The sodium hydroxide solids (NaOH) is
mixed with water to make a solution with a concentration of 10 Molar. This solution comprises
40% of NaOH solids and 60% water, by mass.
For the trial mixture, water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass is calculated as follows: In
sodium silicate solution, water = 0.559x102 = 57 kg, and solids = 102 – 57 = 45 kg. In sodium
hydroxide solution, solids = 0.40x41 = 16 kg, and water = 41 – 16 = 25 kg. Therefore, total mass
of water = 57+25 = 82 kg, and the mass of geopolymer solids = 409 (i.e. mass of fly ash and
GGBS) + 45 + 16 = 470 kg. Hence, the water-to-geopolymer solids ratio by mass = 82/470 =
0.17. Extra water of 55 litres is calculated on trial basis to get adequate workability. The
geopolymer concrete mixture proportions are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: GPC mix proportions

Mass (kg/m3)
Materials
FA50-GGBS50 FA25-GGBS75 FA0-GGBS100
20 mm 776 776 776
Coarse aggregate
10 mm 517 517 517
Fine aggregate 554 554 554
Fly ash (Class F) 204.5 102 0
GGBS 204.5 307 409
Sodium silicate solution 102 102 102
Sodium hydroxide solution 41 (10M) 41 (10M) 41 (10M)
Extra water 55 55 55
Alkaline solution/ (FA+GGBS)
0.35 0.35 0.35
(by weight)
Water/ geopolymer solids
0.29 0.29 0.29
(by weight)
 STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH AND GGBS BASED 131

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Compressive strength

Table 3 shows the compressive strength of GPC mixes with different proportions of fly ash
and GGBS (FA50-GGBS50; FA25-GGBS75; FA0-GGBS100) at different curing periods.

Table 3: Compressive strength of GPC

Mix type
Mechanical property Age (days) FA50- FA25- FA0-
GGBS50 GGBS75 GGBS100
7 40 44.4 52.4
Compressive strength, 14 46.5 48.2 56.2
f’c (MPa) 28 53.5 55.5 58.6
56 63 74 83
112 65 77 87

It was observed that there was a significant increase in compressive strength with the
increase in percentage of GGBS from 50% to 100% in all curing periods as shown in Fig. 1.
It can be concluded that the increase in GGBS replacement level enhances strength
improvement in geopolymers. The GPC with 100% GGBS sample exhibited compressive
strength values of 52.4 MPa, 56.2 MPa, 58.2 MPa, 83 MPa and 87 MPa after 7, 14, 28, 56
and 112 days of curing respectively at ambient room temperature as shown in Table 3.

Figure 1. Compressive strength versus age

132 J. Guru Jawahar and G. Mounika

4.2 Splitting tensile strength

Table 4 shows the splitting tensile strength (STS) of GPC mixes with different proportions
of fly ash and GGBS (FA50-GGBS50; FA25-GGBS75; FA0-GGBS100) at different curing
periods. It was observed that there was a significant increase in splitting tensile strength with
the increase in percentage of GGBS from 50% to 100% in all curing periods as shown in
Fig. 2. It can be concluded that the increase in GGBS replacement level improves the
microstructure of GPC thus leads to enhancement of splitting tensile strength of GPC. The
GPC with 100% GGBS sample exhibited splitting tensile strength values of 3.54 MPa, 3.83
MPa and 4.12 MPa after 28, 56 and 112 days of curing respectively at ambient room
temperature as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Splitting tensile strength of GPC

Mix type
Mechanical property Age (days) FA50- FA25- FA0-
GGBS50 GGBS75 GGBS100
28 3.25 3.39 3.54
Splitting tensile strength, fct (MPa) 56 3.38 3.52 3.83
112 3.52 3.89 4.12

Figure 2. Splitting tensile strength versus age

4.3 Flexural strength

Table 5 shows the flexural strength of GPC mixes with different proportions of fly ash and
GGBS (FA50-GGBS50; FA25-GGBS75; FA0-GGBS100) at different curing periods.
 STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH AND GGBS BASED 133

Table 5: Flexural strength of GPC

Mix type
Mechanical property Age (days) FA50- FA25- FA0-
GGBS50 GGBS75 GGBS100
28 5.35 5.51 5.76
Flexural strength, fcr (MPa) 56 5.92 6.16 6.34
112 6.42 6.68 7.12

It was observed that there was a significant increase in flexural strength with the increase
in percentage of GGBS from 50% to 100% in all curing periods as shown in Fig. 3. It can be
concluded that the increase in GGBS replacement level refines the pore structure of GPC
thus improves the flexural strength of GPC. The GPC with 100% GGBS sample exhibited
splitting tensile strength values of 5.76 MPa, 6.34 MPa and 7.12 MPa after 28, 56 and 112
days of curing respectively at ambient room temperature as shown in Table 5.

Figure 3. Flexural strength versus age

From the results it is revealed that GGBS and FA blended GPC mixes attained enhanced
mechanical properties at ambient room temperature curing itself without the need of heat
curing as in the case of only FA based GPC mixes Siddique [19 & 20]. Because, the bonding
of geopolymer paste and aggregates is so strong that tends to increase the mechanical
properties of GPC.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this experimental investigation, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
GGBS blended FA based GPC mixes attained enhanced mechanical properties at ambient
134 J. Guru Jawahar and G. Mounika

room temperature curing itself without the need of heat curing as in the case of only FA
based GPC mixes.
The increase in GGBS replacement in GPC mixes enhanced the mechanical properties at
ambient room temperature curing at all ages.
Keeping in view of savings in natural resources, sustainability, environment, production
cost, maintenance cost and all other GPC properties, it can be recommended as an
innovative construction material for the use of constructions.

REFERENCES

1. Davidovits J. Geopolymers: man-made geosynthesis andthe resulting development of

very early high strength cement, Journal of Materials Education, 16(1994) 91-139.
2. Nath P, Sarker PK. Effect of GGBS on setting, workability and early strength properties
of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition, Construction Building
Materials, 66(2014) 163-71.
3. Sarker PK, Kelly S, Yao Z. Effect of exposure on cracking, spalling and residual
strength of fly ash geopolymer concrete, Materials and Design, 63(2014) 584-92.
4. Deb P, Nath P, Sarker PK. The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending
with fly ash and activator content on the workability and strength properties of
geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature, Materials and Design, 62(2014) 32-9.
5. Davidovits J. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, Journal of Thermal
Analysis, 37(1991) 1633-56.
6. Davidovits J. Global warming impact on the cement andaggregate industries, World
Resource Review, 6(1994) 263-78.
7. Palomo SA, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT. Alkali-activated fly ashes – A cement for the
future, Cement and Concrete Research, 29(1999) 1323-9.
8. Palomo SA, Femandez-Jimenez A. Alkaline activation of fly ashes: NMR study of the
reaction products, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 87(2004) 1141-5.
9. Gourley JT. Geopolymers, opportunities for environmentally friendly construction
materials, conference, adaptive materials for a modern society, Sydney, Institute of
Materials Engineering Australia, Nos. 15-26, 49(2003) 1455-61.
10. Bhikshma V, Koti reddy M, Srinivas Rao T. An experimental investigation on
properties of geopolymer concrete (no cement concrete), Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 13(2012) 841-53.
11. Sujatha T, Kannapiran K, Nagan S. Strength assessment of heat cured geopolymer
concrete slender column, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(2012) 635-46.
12. Anuradha R, Sreevidya V, Venkatasubramani R, Rangan BV. Modified guidelines for
geopolymer concrete mix design using indian standard, Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 13(2012) 353-64.
 STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH AND GGBS BASED 135

13. Vijai K, Kumutha R, Vishnuram BG. Effect of inclusion of steel fibres on the properties
of geopolymer concrete composites, Asian Journal of Civil engineering, 13(2012) 377-85.
14. ASTM C 618: Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural
pozzolan for use in concrete, 2003.
15. IS 2386. Methods of test for aggregates for concrete. Part III - Specific gravity, Density,
Voids, Absorption and Bulking, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1963.
16. IS 516. Methods of tests for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India, 1991.
17. IS 5816. Splitting tensile strength of concrete method of test, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, 1999.
18. Hardjito D, Rangan BV. Development and Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based
Geopolymer Concrete. Research Report GC1, Perth, Australia: Faculty of Engineering,
Curtin University of Technology, 2005.
19. Siddiqui KS. Strength and Durability of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-based Geopolymer
Concrete, Final Year Honours Dissertation, The University of Western Australia, Perth,
2007.
20. Sreenivasulu C, Ramakrishnaiah A, Guru Jawahar J. Mechanical Properties of
Geopolymer Concrete Using Granite Slurry as Sand Replacement, International Journal
of Advances in Engineering and Technology, 8(2015) 83-91.