See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323987487

Experimental Study of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete

Article · March 2018

DOI: 10.23953/cloud.ijaese.344

CITATIONS READS

2 904

1 author:

Amer Hassan
Aligarh Muslim University
8 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geopolymer Concrete View project

Optimization of Base Isolation Parameters View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amer Hassan on 24 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cloud Publications
International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering
2018, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 635-648
ISSN: 2320–3609, Crossref: 10.23953/cloud.ijaese.344
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____
Research Article

Experimental Study of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete

Amer Hassan

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar
Pradesh, 202002, India

Publication Date: 22 March 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23953/cloud.ijaese.344

Copyright © 2018. Amer Hassan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.

Abstract This paper presents the results of an experimental study carried out to examine the
performance of fly ash based Geopolymer concrete. Geopolymer concrete includes coarse
aggregate, fine aggregate, alkaline liquid, fly ash and water. The alkaline liquid is a combination of
sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide. To make alkaline liquid solution, sodium hydroxide solids
were mixed with the water about 5 minutes. Then, the sodium hydroxide solution was mixed with the
sodium silicate. This liquid was prepared one day before of mixing day. The fly ash Based
Geopolymer concrete is more environmentally friendly and the potential to replace OPC concrete in
many applications such as precast units. Geopolymer technology does not only contribute to the
reduction of greenhouse gas emission but also reduced disposal cost of industrial waste.
Keywords Compressive strength; Fly ash; Geopolymer; Split tensile strength

1. Introduction

Fly ash Based Geopolymer Concrete is a new technology in the world, which reduced Ordinary
Portland Cement (OPC) consumption and safe the atmosphere from the environmental pollution. Fly
ash Based Geopolymer concrete is use for pre-stress concrete in the construction (Zhang et al.,
2016). Fly ash Based Geopolymer Concrete, an inorganic polymer, has emerged as a viable low
cost and greener substitute for PC-based concrete, with good properties such as high compressive
strength, low creep, superior acid resistance, and low shrinkage (Wang et al., 2015; Yadollahi et al.,
2015).

Geopolymer binds the loose fine aggregates, coarse aggregates, and other uncreated materials
together to form the Geopolymer concrete. It is an alkaline liquid with the silicon and aluminum
oxides in source material of geological origin, like GGBS, met kaolin (calcined kaolin) or industrial by
product material such as Fly ash and rich husk ash (Khatib, 2008; Perná et al., 2014; Ramujee and
Potharaju, 2014; Shadnia et al., 2015).

It not only generates less CO2 than PC, but also reuses industrial by-products of alumina-silicate
composition to produce added value construction material product. It has been reported that coal
combustion production (CCP) constitution the nation’s second largest waste stream after municipal
solid waste. About 130 megaton (MT) of CP were produced in 2011 and 56.57 MT (43.50%) of 130
MT were utilized. The main types of CCPs are fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas
desulfurization material. About 59.9 MTs of total CCP were categorized as fly ash. About 22 MT
 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

(38.35%) of fly ash were used, and the rest was disposed of in landfills or surface impoundment,
which are lined with compacted clay soil, a plastic sheet, or both. Utilization of fly ash in geopolymer
concrete replaces PC and assist in producing a green construction material (Alyamac et al., 2017;
Kuenzel and Vandeperre, 2014; Liew et al., 2016; Mehta and Siddique, 2016).

The identification a family of amorphous alkaline or alkaline–silicate activated aluminous silicate

binds of composition M2O.mAl2O3.nSiO2, usually with m ≈ 1 and 2 ≤ n ≤ 6(M usually is Na or K) this
broadly termed “inorganic polymer” In the synthesis of geopolymer (Committee, 2008; Fang and
Kayali, 2013).

Geopolymer based material are attractive because having excellent mechanical properties, high
early strength, freeze thaw resistance, low chloride diffusion rate, resistance thermal stability and fire
resistance, can be achieved (Fang and Kayali, 2013; Kuenzel et al., 2013; Liew et al., 2016).

Due to their lower calcium content, they are more resistant to acid attack than Portland cement-
based material. In addition, geopolymer based material are great interest because of the reduced
energy requirement for their manufacturing (Bani Ardalan et al., 2017; Committee, 2008; Liew et al.,
2016).

In fact, the reaction pathway requires either GGBS or raw silica aluminates so that greenhouse gas
emission can be reduced up to 80% in comparison to traditional cement-based material. In fact,
even if, natural aggregate is substituted by sustainable artificial ones, manufactured by using
industrial waste, the emission of CO2 in concrete industry is mainly linked to the use of Ordinary
Portland Cement as a binder. Geopolymer can made from Fly ash, GGBS, calcined kaolin (met
kaolin). Geopolymer have received considerable attention from scientists worldwide, because of
their low cost, excellent mechanical and physical properties, low energy consumption and reduced
“greenhouse emissions” at the elaboration process and Geopolymer can used as a binder instead
Portland Cement past, to produce concrete. Concrete based on fly ash and GGBS geopolymer have
been synthesized and characterized however, limited research can be found in current literature
regarding concrete based on fly ash and GGBS geopolymer’s (Bani Ardalan et al., 2017; Mehta and
Siddique, 2016).

While geopolymer concrete appears to be the super concrete to take the place of traditional Portland
concrete, there are some disadvantages such as:

Difficult to create: Geopolymer Concrete requires special handling needs and is extremely difficult to
create. It requires the use of chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide, that can be harmful to humans
(Khatib, 2008; Perná et al., 2014).

Pre-mix only: Geopolymer concrete is sold only as a pre-cast or pre-mix material due to the dangers
associated with creating it (Papa et al., 2015).

Geopolymerization process is sensitive: This field of study has been proven inconclusive and
extremely volatile. Uniformity is lacking.

While the idea of geopolymer concrete seem ideal and could be the best thing to come along since
Portland concrete, there are still too many unstable issues that can cause major hiccups in the
mixing and application process of the concrete (Nikolić et al., 2015; Ogundiran and Kumar, 2015).

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 636

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

2. Historical Development of Geopolymer Concrete

Davidovits was the first one who introduced the term of geopolymer in 1978 to represent the mineral
polymers resulting from geochemistry. Geopolymer are the alkali alumina silicate binders formed by
the alkali silicate activation of alumina silicate materials.

They were mostly synthesized from silicon and aluminum materials of geological origin. However,
nowadays, geopolymers are manufactured from secondary raw materials such as fly ash and slag.

The use of fly ash has vary a low cost compared to potential ecological benefit and other source
(Mehta and Siddique, 2016; Naskar and Chakraborty, 2016).

Geopolymer concrete has emerged as a new engineering material with the potential to form an
important contributor towards environmentally sustainable construction and building products
industry. Geopolymers are alkali-activated alumina silicates, with a much lower carbon dioxide
emission than ordinary Portland cements (OPC) (Kuenzel et al., 2013; Kuenzel and Vandeperre,
2014; Medri et al., 2015).

Industrial alumina silicates waste materials such as coal ash and blast furnace slag are activated by
alkali to form geopolymers. As reported by Duxson et al., geopolymers demonstrate improved
strength and chemical properties in addition to many other characteristics, which are potentially
valuable. Depending on the selected raw material and processing conditions, geopolymer concrete
exhibit a variety of diverse properties, including high compressive strength, low shrinkage, fast or
slow setting, acid resistance, fire resistance and vary low thermal conductivity (Ferone et al., 2013;
Gao et al., 2013; Gharzouni et al., 2016; Hashimoto et al., 2015).

Geopolymer concrete is constructed using common the usual concrete technology methods. The
geopolymer paste binds loose aggregates and un-reacted materials together to form geopolymer
concrete. The concrete can be produced with or without the use of concrete admixtures. The
aggregates occupy 75-80% by mass of geopolymer concrete (Da Silva and De Brito, 2015; Bani
Ardalan et al., 2017).

Geopolymeric material made from coal ash can have better chemical and mechanical properties
than Ordinary Portland Cement product. Early researches have shown that geopolymers can be
produced cheaply and can be made when naturally occurring materials are mixed with NaOH, sand,
water (Alyamac et al., 2017; Committee, 2008; Liew et al., 2016).

3. Objective of the Work

The objectives of work are as follows:

1. To develop a mixture proportioning process to manufacture Fly ash based Geopolymer

concrete without OPC.
2. To reduce the usage of Ordinary Portland Cement and to improve usage of waste material.
3. To study the compressive and split tensile strength of Fly ash based Geopolymer concrete.
4. To attain high strength of fly ash based geopolymer concrete addition with GGBS.

4. Material and Methodology

These are the properties required to estimate the quality and condition of the material that are using
in this study such as, Cement, GGBS, Alkaline Solution, Fly ash, Sand, Coarse aggregate, Water.

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 637

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

4.1. Mix Design of Normal Concrete

In this study “Birla Uttam OPC 43 Grade”, cement used and having specific gravity of OPC is 3.14.
Coarse sand used as fine aggregates and having particle size less than 4.75 mm and having
specific gravity 2.55. Machine crushed angular stone is use as a coarse aggregate, having particle
size 20mm and having specific gravity 2.72. In this study, Normal plasticizer used to have specific
gravity 1.03. The local potable water used in design mix of normal concrete.

In this study M40 grade of concrete is design, the mix design of M40 grade according to Indian
standard IS Code: 10262-2009.

Figure 1: Sample of GGBS

Figure 2: Sample of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 638

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

3
4.1.1. Design Mix Procedure of Normal Concrete for 1 m

Step-1: Determination of Target Mean Strength

Fct = Fck+1.65*S, Fct = target mean strength, Fck= characteristic strength, S = standard deviation,
2
Standard deviation (S) for M40 grade of concrete = 5 N/mm . Then Fct = 40+1.65×5, Fct = 48.25
2
N/mm

Step-2: Determination of Water Cement Ratio

Maximum W/C ratio for M 40 concrete = 0.45, so we assume W/C = 0.40, 0.40< 0.45 so ok.

Step-3: Determination of Water Content

We know that maximum water content for 25-50 mm slump=186 litter, and for every increase in 25
mm slump have to increase 3% of total water.

Calculation for 100 mm slump, water content = 186+186*6/100 = 197.16 litter. However, we have to
use .5% superplasticizer of total cement then water reduced up to 20%, so water content
=197.16*0.80 = 157.73 litter

Step-4: Determination of Cement Content

3
We know that W/C = 0.40, then C = W/0.40, so cement content C = 157.73/0.40 = 394.32 kg/m >
3
360 kg/m (ok).

Step-5: Determination Volume of Material

3
Now we have to design for 1m , volume of cement = mass/ (specific gravity*1000) = 394.32/
3
(3.15*1000) = 0.125 m , here sp. Gravity of cement = 3.15

Volume of water = 157.73/ (1*1000), here sp. Gravity of water = 1.0, volume of Superplasticizer =
3
394.32*.5/ (100*1000*1.03) = .00191 m

3
Volume of all aggregate = 1-(0.125+0.157 +.00191) = 0.716 m

Step-6: Determination Weight of Material

3
Mass of coarse aggregate = 0.716*0.60*2.72*1000 = 1168.66 kg/m , here sp. Gravity of coarse
3
aggregate = 2.72, mass of fine aggregate = 0.716*0.40*2.5*1000 = 716 kg/m , here sp. Gravity of
3
fine aggregate = 2.5. The quantity of each material in the normal concrete for 1 kg/m & 1 cube & 1
cylinder is given in Table 1.

3
Table 1: Material calculation of normal concrete for 1 kg/m , 1 cube and 1 cylinder

Quantity
Material 3
1 kg/m 1 Cube 1 Cylinder
3
Cement 394.32 kg/m 1.33 kg 2.085 kg
3
Fine aggregate 716 kg/m 2.41 kg 3.787 kg
3
Coarse aggregate 1168.66 kg/m 3.94 kg 6.18 kg
3
Water 157.73 litter/m 0.53 litter 0.83 litter
3
Superplasticizer 1.97 kg/m 6.64 gram 10.42 gram

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 639

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

4.2. Mix Design of FBGC

In this study, “Dadri NTPC’s fly ash” used which having specific gravity 2.5, sodium silicate, and
sodium hydroxide used for alkaline solution. In this study A53 grade Sodium silicate is used and the
chemical composition of Sodium silicate is Na2=23.3% and SiO3=20.8% and water = 55.9% by the
mass. The Sodium hydroxide solids were a technical grade in flaks with specific gravity is 2.13 and
98% purity and 16M concentration is used. Coarse sand used as a fine aggregate which have
particle size less than 4.75 mm and having specific gravity 2.5. Machine crushed angular stone used
as a coarse aggregate having size 20mm & specific gravity 2.72. The normal superplasticizer used
which Sp. Gravity 1.03.

3
4.2.1. Design Mix Procedure of FBGC for 1 m

3
We know that Density of concrete = 2400 kg/m . Total Mass of combined aggregates = 716+1168.66
3 3
= 1884.66 kg/m . Total mass of Flyash and Alkaline = 2400-1884.66 = 515.34 kg/m . Let us take
Alkaline to fly ash ratio = 0.40

3 3
Mass of Flyash = 515.34/ (1+0.40) = 368.1 kg/m , mass of Alkaline solution = 147.24 kg/m . Let us
3
consider ratio of NaOH to Na2SiO3 = 2.5, mass of NaOH = 147.24/ (1+2.5) = 42.068 kg/m , mass of
3
Na2SiO3 = 105.171 kg/m

Step-1: Calculation of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

In this study 98% pure sodium hydroxide, 16M concentration is used. The specific gravity of NaOH is
2.13 and 56.25% water and 43.75% solid. The NaOH have flacks form. Mass of NaOH solid =
3 3
43.75*42.068/100 = 18.40 kg/m , mass of water in NaOH = 23.67 kg/m

Step-2: Calculation of Sodium Silicate (Na2SiO3)

In this study A-53 grade sodium silicate is used, Na 2O = 23.3% and SiO2 = 20.8% and 55.9 % water,
3 3
mass of water = 55.9*105.171/100 = 58.79 kg/m , mass of solid = 46.381 kg/m . Total Mass of solid
3
= Flyash + NaOH + Na2SiO3 = 368.1+18.40+46.381 = 432.88 kg/m . Total Mass of water =
3
23.67+58.79 = 82.46 kg/m , ratio of water to geopolymer solid = 82.46/432.88 = 0.19. The material
3
calculation for FBGC in 1 kg/m & 1 cube & 1 cylinder is given in Table 2.

3
Table 2: Calculation of material for FBGC in 1 kg/m , 1 cube and 1 cylinder

Quantity
Material 3
1 kg/m 1 Cube 1 Cylinder
3
Flyash 368.1 kg/m 1.24 kg 1.947 kg
3
Coarse sand 716 kg/m 2.41 kg 3.787 kg
3
Coarse aggregate 1168.66 kg/m 3.94 kg 6.18 kg
3
NaOH 18.40 kg/m 62.1 gram 53.36 gram
3
Water 23.67 litter/m 79.88 ml 125.21 ml
3
Na2SiO3 46.38 kg/m 156.53 gram 245.35 gram
3
Water 58.89 litter/m 198.75 ml 311.52 ml
3
Superplasticizer 1.97 kg/m 256 ml 402.04 ml
3
Extra water 76 litter/m 6.64 gram 10.42 gram

4.3. Casting Procedure and Curing of FBGC

Geopolymer concrete includes coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, alkaline liquid, fly ash and water.
The coarse aggregate, coarse sand, flyash and alkaline solution are quantified before mixing.

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 640

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

Alkaline liquid is a combination of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide. To make alkaline liquid
solution, sodium hydroxide solids were mixed with the water about 5 minutes. Then, the sodium
hydroxide solution was mixed with the sodium silicate. This liquid was prepared one day before of
mixing day. According to Davidovits, the alkaline liquid should be mixed first, and it would make the
polymerization easier.

The three steps of mixing procedure:

Step 1: All solids are mixed together about three minutes after quantifying by mixer machine. The
amount used is determined by the amount required for the number of specimens needed.

Step 2: The alkali liquid, which is prepared one day before, is poured over the solids. Then they are
mixed together for about four minutes.

Step 3: The fresh Flyash based geopolymer concrete is cast and compacted into the molds. After
completing this step, the specimens are kept for dry and after 48 hours the specimen to demold and
kept for two types of currying such as ambient curing and hot air oven. In the hot air oven curing, the
0 0 0
specimen place to kept in oven for 24 hours at different temperatures at 60 C, 80 C, 100 C for 24
hours than the specimen to remove from the oven and kept at room temperature till then to be test
as per IS 516:1979 in the compressive testing machine of capacity 2000 KN for obtaining ultimate
load of the specimen. The total number of mix is given in Table 3 and specific gravity for used
materials are given in Table 4.

Table 3: Sieve analysis of coarse and fine aggregates

Percentage Passing %
Sieve size (mm)
Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
40 mm 100 100
20 mm 95.17 100
10 mm 1.21 100
4.75 mm 0 88.23
2.36 mm 0 76.79
1.18 mm 0 61.68
600µ 0 41.68
300 µ 0 25.02
150µ 0 6.13
PAN 0 0

Table 4: Specific gravity for used materials

Alkaline Coarse
Material OPC GGBS Flyash Sand Superplasticizer
solution aggregate
Specific
gravity 3150 2900 2130 2500 2990 2720 1030
3
(kg/m )

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 641

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

3
Table 5: Mix proportions of concrete (Kg/m )

FBGC, hot oven curing at

FBGC, hot oven curing at

FBGC, hot oven curing at

FBGC an ambient curing

hot oven curing at 80%

hot oven curing at 80%

FBGC with 40% GGBS,

FBGC with 60% GGBS,

Normal concrete mix
Mix description

100 C
60 C

80 C

o
o

o
Mix ID M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Cement 394.32 - - - - - -
Fine aggregate 716 716 716 716 716 716 716
Coarse aggregate 1168.6 1168.6 1168.6 1168.6 1168.6 1168.6 1168.6
Water 157.73 - - - - - -
Superplasticizer 1.97 - - - - - -
Water to cement ration 0.40 - - - - - -
Flyash - 368.1 368.1 368.1 368.1 220.86 147.24
NaOH solution - 42.07 42.07 42.07 42.07 42.07 42.07
Molarity of NaOH - 16M 16M 16M 16M 16M 16M
Na2SiO3 solution - 105.27 105.27 105.27 105.27 105.27 105.27
Curing period (hours) - - 24 24 24 24 24
oC oC oC oC oC
Temperature - Room 60 80 100 80 80
Curing type Normal Ambient Hot oven curing - -
Water/geopolymer solid ratio - 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Alkaline/Binder ratio - 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Superplasticizer in % of binder - 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
3
Extra water (liter/m ) - 76 76 76 76 76 76
GGBS - - - - - 147.24 220.86
% of GGBS - - - - - 40 60
Number of cube 9 36 36 36 36 18 18
Number of cylinder 6 16 16 16 16 8 8

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 642

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

126 126 126 126

126
124
122
119
Slump (mm)
120
118 116
115
116
114
112
110
108
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Mix ID

Figure 3: Variation of slump for different mixes (mm)

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Workability Test on Fresh Concrete

Workability of concrete is the amount of work to produced full compaction of fresh concrete. The
workability of concrete is also affected by the maximum size of the coarse aggregate to be used in
the mixture. The slump test, which is commonly, used method of measuring the workability of
concrete. The slump value of trial mix is given in Table 6 & Figure 3. The normal concrete has slump
value of 116mm and FBGC has slump value of 126mm. Addition of the GGBS (40% & 60%) in
FBGC, the slump value 119 mm and 115mm respectively. The results show that addition of GGBS
decrease the workability of Geopolymer concrete.

7 days 14 days 28 days

70
Compressive strength (MPa)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Mix ID

Figure 4: Compressive strength of cubes at 7 days, 14 days and 28 days for different mixes (N/mm)

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 643

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

5.2. Test on Hardened Concrete

In this study, there are two types of test is done on hardened concrete, namely, compressive
strength of concrete and split-tensile strength.

7 days 28 days

6
Split tensile strenght (N/mm)

0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Mix ID

Figure 5: Split-tensile strength of cylinders at 7 days and 28 days for different mixes (N/mm)

5.2.1. Compressive Strength Test

The result of compressive strength of cube at 7 days, 14 days and 28 days is give in Table 6 &
Figure 4. The compressive strength of normal concrete cube at 7days is 32.25 MPa and FBGC in
o o
ambient curing is 19.10 MPa. Compressive strength of hot oven curing at temperature of 60 C, 80 C
o o
& 100 C are 29.65 MPa, 31.44 MPa, 30.20 MP respectively. FBGC at 80 C shows maximum
strength as comparison to other concrete mix. Addition of GGBS 40% & 60% with the replacement
o
of flyash, the compressive strength increases up to 29.10% and 42.97% at 80 C temperature in hot
oven curing.

The compressive strength of normal concrete cube at 14days is 38.28 MPa and FBGC in ambient
o o o
curing is 23.06 MPa. Compressive strength of hot oven curing at temperature of 60 C, 80 C & 100 C
o
are 35.08MPa, 37.77 MPa and 36.19MP respectively. FBGC at 80 C shows maximum strength as
comparison to other concrete mix. Addition of GGBS 40% & 60% with the replacement of flyash, the
o
compressive strength increases up to 27% and 44.21% at 80 C temperature in hot oven curing
compressive.

The compressive strength of normal concrete cube at 28 days is 49.86 MPa and FBGC in ambient
o o o
curing is 30.67 MPa. Compressive strength of hot oven curing at temperature of 60 C, 80 C & 100 C
o
are 41.63 MPa, 44.84 MPa and 42.03MP respectively. FBGC at 80 C shows maximum strength as
comparison to other concrete mix. Addition of GGBS 40% & 60% with the replacement of flyash, the
o
compressive strength increases up to 25.75% and 42.10% at 80 C temperature in hot oven curing
compressive.

5.2.2. Split Tensile Strength Test

Test result of split tensile strength of cylinder at 7 days & 28 days are given in Table 6 & Figure 5.
The split tensile strength of normal concrete cylinder at 7 days is 3.54 MPa and FBGC in ambient

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 644

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

o o o
curing is 1.96 MPa. Split tensile strength of hot oven curing at temperature of 60 C, 80 C & 100 C
o
are 3.13 MPa, 3.35 MPa and 3.21MP respectively. FBGC at 80 C shows maximum strength as
comparison to other concrete mix. Addition of GGBS 40% & 60% with the replacement of flyash, the
o
split tensile strength increases up to 28.44% and 46.86% at 80 C temperature in hot oven curing
compressive.

The split tensile strength of normal concrete cylinder at 28 days is 4.97 MPa and FBGC in ambient
o o o
curing is 2.26 MPa. Split tensile strength of hot oven curing at temperature of 60 C, 80 C & 100 C
o
are 4.48 MPa, 4.81 MPa and 4.56 MP respectively. FBGC at 80 C shows maximum strength as
comparison to other concrete mix. Addition of GGBS 40% & 60% with the replacement of flyash, the
o
split tensile strength increases up to 16.83% and 24.11 at 80 C temperature in hot oven curing
compressive.

Table 6: Compressive strength of cubes at 7 days, 14 days and 28 days, as well as split-tensile of cylinder at 7
days and 28 days

2 2
Compressive strength (N/mm ) Split Tensile strength (N/mm )
Mix ID Slump (mm)
7 days 14 days 28 days 7 days 28 days
M1 116 32.25 38.28 49.86 3.54 4.97
M2 126 19.10 23.06 30.67 1.96 2.26
M3 126 29.65 35.08 41.63 3.13 4.48
M4 126 31.44 37.77 44.84 3.35 4.81
M5 126 30.20 36.19 42.03 3.21 4.56
M6 119 40.59 47.97 56.39 4.30 5.62
M7 115 44.95 54.47 63.72 4.92 5.97

6. Conclusion

The Flyash Based Geopolymer concrete is more environmentally friendly and the potential to
replace OPC concrete in many applications such as precast units. Geopolymer technology does not
only contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emission but also reduced disposal cost of
industrial waste.

 The compressive and split tensile strength of hot oven curing geopolymer concrete is much
higher than that of ambient curing concrete. At Ambient curing, the compressive & Split tensile
strength increase as age of concrete increase.
 The compressive strength of geopolymer concrete increase with increased with hot oven
o
temperature up to optimum 80 C for 24 hours. It achieved desired strength upto 44.84 MPa at
o
80 C Beyond which this temperature the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
decreases.
 The split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete increase with increased with hot oven
o
temperature up to optimum 80 C for 24 hours. It achieved desired strength up to 4.81 MPa at
o
80 C. Beyond which the tensile strength decreases.

If 40% and 60% fly ash replaced with GGBS in geopolymer concrete, compressive & split tensile
o
strength increases at 80 C temperature in hot oven curing than the FBGC.

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 645

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

References

Alyamac, K.E., Ghafari, E. and Ince, R. 2017. Development of eco-efficient self-compacting concrete
with waste marble powder using the response surface method. J. Clean. Prod., 144, pp.192-202.

Bani Ardalan, R., Joshaghani, A. and Hooton, R.D. 2017. Workability retention and compressive
strength of self-compacting concrete incorporating pumice powder and silica fume. Constr. Build.
Mater., 134, pp.116-122.

Committee, R.T. 2008. Final report of RILEM TC 205-DSC: durability of self-compacting concrete.
Mater. Struct., 41, pp.225-233.

Da Silva, P.R. and De Brito, J. 2015. Experimental study of the porosity and microstructure of self-
compacting concrete (SCC) with binary and ternary mixes of fly ash and limestone filler. Constr.
Build. Mater., 86, pp.101-112.

Fang, Y. and Kayali, O. 2013. The fate of water in fly ash-based geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater.,
39, pp.89-94.

Ferone, C., Roviello, G., Colangelo, F., Cioffi, R. and Tarallo, O. 2013. Novel hybrid organic-
geopolymer materials. Appl. Clay Sci., 73, pp.42-50.

Gao, X.X., Michaud, P., Joussein, E. and Rossignol, S. 2013. Behavior of metakaolin-based
potassium geopolymers in acidic solutions. J. Non. Cryst. Solids, 380, pp.95-102.

Gharzouni, A., Vidal, L., Essaidi, N., Joussein, E. and Rossignol, S. 2016. Recycling of geopolymer
waste: Influence on geopolymer formation and mechanical properties. Mater. Des., 94, pp.221-229.

Hashimoto, S., Takeda, H., Honda, S., Iwamoto, Y. 2015. Novel coloring of geopolymer products
using a copper solution immersion method. Constr. Build. Mater., 88, pp.143-148.

Khatib, J.M., 2008. Performance of self-compacting concrete containing fly ash. Constr. Build.
Mater., 22, pp.1963-1971.

Kuenzel, C., Neville, T.P., Donatello, S., Vandeperre, L., Boccaccini, A.R. and Cheeseman, C.R.
2013. Influence of metakaolin characteristics on the mechanical properties of geopolymers. Appl.
Clay Sci., pp.83, 84, 308-314.

Kuenzel, C. and Vandeperre, L. 2014. Influence of sand on the mechanical properties of metakaolin
geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater., 66, pp.442-446.

Liew, Y.M., Heah, C.Y., Mohd Mustafa, A.B. and Kamarudin, H. 2016. Structure and properties of
clay-based geopolymer cements: A review. Prog. Mater. Sci., 83, pp.595-629.

Medri, V., Papa, E., Mazzocchi, M., Laghi, L., Morganti, M., Francisconi, J. and Landi, E. 2015.
Production and characterization of lightweight vermiculite/geopolymer-based panels. Mater. Des.,
85, pp.266-274.

Mehta, A. and Siddique, R. 2016. An overview of geopolymers derived from industrial by-products.
Constr. Build. Mater., 127, pp.183-198.

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 646

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

Naskar, S. and Chakraborty, A.K. 2016. Effect of nano materials in geopolymer concrete. Perspect.
Sci., 8, pp.273-275.

Nikolić, V., Komljenović, M., Baščarević, Z., Marjanović, N., Miladinović, Z. and Petrović, R. 2015.
The influence of fly ash characteristics and reaction conditions on strength and structure of
geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater., 94, pp.361-370.

Ogundiran, M.B. and Kumar, S. 2015. Synthesis and characterisation of geopolymer from Nigerian
Clay. Appl. Clay Sci., 108, pp.173-181.

Papa, E., Medri, V., Benito, P., Vaccari, A., Bugani, S., Jaroszewicz, J., Swieszkowski, W. and
Landi, E. 2015. Synthesis of porous hierarchical geopolymer monoliths by ice-templating.
Microporous Mesoporous Mater., 215, pp.206-214.

Perná, I., Hanzlíček, T. and Šupová, M. 2014. The identification of geopolymer affinity in specific
cases of clay materials. Appl. Clay Sci., 102, pp.213-219.

Ramujee, K. and Potharaju, M. 2014. Abrasion resistance of geopolymer composites. Procedia

Mater. Sci., 6, pp.1961-1966.

Shadnia, R., Zhang, L. and Li, P. 2015. Experimental study of geopolymer mortar with incorporated
PCM. Constr. Build. Mater., 84, pp.95-102.

Wang, K., He, Y., Song, X. and Cui, X. 2015. Effects of the metakaolin-based geopolymer on high-
temperature performances of geopolymer/PVC composite materials. Appl. Clay Sci., 114, pp.586-
592.

Yadollahi, M.M., Benli, A. and Demirboʇa, R. 2015. The effects of silica modulus and aging on
compressive strength of pumice-based geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater., 94, pp.767-
774.

Zhang, Z.H., Zhu, H.J., Zhou, C.H. and Wang, H. 2016. Geopolymer from kaolin in China: An
overview. Appl. Clay Sci., 119, pp.31-41.

IS: 383. 1970. Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.

IS: 10262. 1982 (Reaffirmed 2004). Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design, Bureau of
Indian Standard, New Delhi.

IS: 10262. 2009: Recommended guidelines for concrete mix proportion, Bureau of Indian Standard,
and New Delhi.

IS: 12269. 2013: Specification for 43 Grade ordinary Portland cement, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi.

IS: 2386 (Part I, III). 1963. Methods of test for aggregates for concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi.

IS: 4031 (Part 4, 5 and 6). 1988. Methods of physical teats for hydraulic cement, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi.

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 647

 IJAESE– An Open Access Journal (ISSN: 2320 – 3609)

IS: 456. 2000: Code of practice – plain and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard, New
Delhi.

IS: 516. 1959 (Reaffirmed 2004). Methods of test for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi.

IS: 9103. 1999 (Reaffirmed 2004). Concrete admixtures - specifications, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi.

IS: 516. 1969 (Reaffirmed 2006). Methods of test for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi.

International Journal of Advanced Earth Science and Engineering 648

View publication stats