sustainability

Article
Corrosion Evaluation of Geopolymer Concrete Made with Fly
Ash and Bottom Ash
Priyanka Morla, Rishi Gupta * , Peiman Azarsa and Ashutosh Sharma

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada; [email protected] (P.M.);
[email protected] (P.A.); [email protected] (A.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Environmental pollution caused by CO2 releasing from the production of cement is a
great challenge for the construction industry and has triggered exploration into more sustainable
alternatives. Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) is a potential sustainable solution that does not involve
the use of cement as a binder. GPC is produced by mixing the alumino-silicate source materials
such as fly-ash with alkali activators such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) and potassium silicate
(K2 SiO3 ). Unlike Ordinary Portland Concrete (OPC), the characteristics of GPC depend on the
precursor materials and therefore vary for different mixes. Consequently, corrosion behavior needs
to be evaluated separately for individual mixes. This has narrowed the scope of existing published
work on corrosion behavior of GPC. In this study, GPC and OPC specimens were prepared and
exposed to accelerated corrosion exposure. Half-cell potential and linear polarization resistance were
used to evaluate the corrosion rate in GPC and OPC. Under accelerated conditions, the corrosion
rate of the GPC specimens was between 10 µm/year and 20 µm/year exhibiting a moderate to high
rate of corrosion. Meanwhile, the corrosion rate of the OPC specimens was between 40 µm/year
and 60 µm/year indicating a very high corrosion activity. It can be concluded that GPC has a higher
resistance to chloride-induced corrosion; with a low corrosion rate and lower mass loss percentage,
compared to OPC.






Keywords: sustainability; geopolymer concrete; bottom-ash; fly-ash; half-cell potential; linear polar-
Citation: Morla, P.; Gupta, R.; Azarsa,
P.; Sharma, A. Corrosion Evaluation
ization resistance
of Geopolymer Concrete Made with
Fly Ash and Bottom Ash.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010398
1. Introduction
Green economy, biocarbon economy, and low-carbon economy are some of the terms
Received: 5 December 2020 that indicate the global efforts for decarbonization [1]. The onus is on the mitigation policies
Accepted: 30 December 2020 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The year 2017 recorded the highest inclination
Published: 4 January 2021 of the order of 32.5 Gt. carbon-dioxide emissions [2] out of which 39–28% is from the
building and construction sector and 11% is from building materials and transport activities.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- The construction industry is a carbon-intensive sector, consuming significant amounts
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai- of energy, products, and services of different sectors, which is greatly challenging the
ms in published maps and institutio-
sustainable growth [3,4]. In the entire spectrum of the construction industry, the production
nal affiliations.
of cement alone produces the largest amount of carbon dioxide and is the 2nd largest source
of CO2 emissions worldwide. Henceforth, the global environmental impact of cement
production has resulted in increased momentum of research for sustainable alternatives.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- The utilization of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM’s) such as fly ash, Rice
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. husk ash, GGBS, etc. as partial replacement of cement is being extensively explored.
This article is an open access article Their potential for enhancing the binder characteristics and reduction of environmental
distributed under the terms and con- impact has been well recognized [5].
ditions of the Creative Commons At- The exploration of a sustainable solution for a two-faced problem, i.e., reduction of
tribution (CC BY) license (https:// CO2 emissions and industrial waste management, has led to the development of alkali-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ activated concrete known as geopolymer concrete. The term ‘geopolymer’ was first used
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010398 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 2 of 16

in Davidovit’s work on the formation of polymeric Si-O-Al bonds from the chemical reac-
tion of alkali silicates with aluminosilicate precursors [6]. As per the Duxson model [7],
the process of polymerization involves three steps: (1) the dissolution of aluminosilicate
materials and the release of silicate and aluminate monomers[Si(OH)4 ]− and [Al(OH)4 ]− ;
(2) Initial gels(mono cross-linked systems) are being produced by co-sharing of oxygen
atoms from the reactive silicate and aluminate monomers, the process being known as
condensation; (3) In the last stage the initial gels are converted into the geopolymers gels
and the process is known as polycondensation. Different industrial waste materials such
as fly ash, metallurgical slag, metakaolin, mining wastes, silica fume etc. could be used
as source materials for geopolymerisation. Although, the reactivity depends upon their
physical, chemical and morphological properties but a stable geopolymer requires the
source material to possess the following characteristics: (1) highly amorphous; (2) enough
reactive glassy content; (3) low-water demand; (4) ability to release aluminium easily.
A more detailed model for geopolymerisation given by Provis [8], discusses the synthesis
of geopolymer and zeolites by the polymerization of metakaolin and fly ash. The model
explores the different silicate oligomers for their inclusion in the alkali solution. The respec-
tive oligomers polymerize into geopolymer fragments and aluminosilicate nuclei. Finally,
the geopolymer gels and zeolites are formed by the polycondensation of the remaining
silicate monomers. Both microstructural and the chemical properties of geopolymers with
different source materials will vary greatly despite their physical properties might appear
to be similar. Alkali activators, an important constituent of polymerization, are used to
activate the aluminosilicates materials. The most commonly used alkali activators are
sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium silicate, and potassium silicates [7].
After lime and Portland cement, geopolymer could be considered as the third-generation
cement. Geopolymers can be modified by correctly selecting the raw materials and optimizing
the design mix. The characteristics of geopolymer concrete have been reported to be better
than normal concrete. Since the input materials for the geopolymer mix could be different,
therefore the final products of hydration are different from those produced in the hydration
of cement [9,10]. The liquid-solid ratio, SiO2 /Al2 O3 , R2 O/Al2 O3 , SiO2 /R2 O ratio majorly
impacts the properties of geopolymer pastes. Numerous authors have suggested that an
amorphous structure of geopolymer will result in better mechanical properties [9,11–13]. This is
primarily due to the refinement of pores by the dissolution of particles and the formation
of products. The reduced porosity improved the strength of the paste [11]. Along with mix-
ingredients, curing conditions greatly impact the characteristics of geopolymer concrete [14–19].
Curing of geopolymer concrete can be done in three ways: (1) Heat curing; (2) Steam curing;
(3) Ambient curing. The curing temperatures required for the consummation of polymerization
ranges between 40–85 ◦ C. For achieving the desired mechanical and durability characteristics,
adequate curing of geopolymer concrete is required [18].
The strength of the matrix depends upon the microstructure of materials used for its
production and significantly influences the permeability of the matrix. The formation of
geopolymers from polymeric sodium aluminosilicate hydrate gel (N-A-S-H) differentiates
it from normal concrete made from calcium silicate hydrate gel (C-S-H) [11]. Further,
the low calcium content of Geopolymer concrete from that of normal concrete reduces
the durability issues significantly. Hence, a differential durability behavior (design life
and performance) of geopolymer concrete structures should be expected from that of
normal concrete. durability Steel corrosion is one of the major issues that has impacted
the long-term performance of structures made with normal concrete [20,21]. Ingress of
chlorides inside concrete damages the pseudo passive layer that protects the steel from
corrosion [22]. Some reports stated [23] that improving the quality of GPC can prevent
the corrosion of the reinforcement bar. Tennakoon et al. [24] performed long-term tests
on corrosion of steel rebar in fly-ash-based GPC and slag-based GPC. The results of their
study showed that the chloride diffusion coefficient is less in fly-ash and slag GPC than
that of OPC concrete. Tennakoon et al. [24] have also concluded that the embedded
rebar in fly-ash and slag-based GPC has a higher resistance to corrosion than a rebar in
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 3 of 16

OPC. Reddy et al. [25] experimented on the durability of reinforced GPC in the marine
environment. Reddy et al. [26] evaluated the corrosion-based durability of low calcium
fly-ash-based GPC using beams that are centrally reinforced, made with 8M and 14M
concentrations sodium-based solutions. The experimental results proved that GPC has
better corrosion resistance performance compared to OPC. Regarding the corrosion of
reinforcement in GPC, the literature is relatively limited; there are a few work reported on
corrosion resistance evaluation of steel rebar in fly-ash based GPC [27,28].
From a safety perspective, it is essential to perform routine assessments of concrete
to identify the damages in the areas with critical levels of corrosion [22]. There are many
destructive methods for corrosion assessment of GPC structure, which requires material
samples to be taken from the structure. In this regard, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
methods must be deployed for testing without destroying the structure [29,30]. The only
standardized test methods for corrosion monitoring is the half-cell potential technique
given by [31]. Hence, measurement of steel corrosion in GPC using two NDT methods,
half-cell potential and linear polarization resistance, can be an effective indicator of steel
reinforcement corrosion rate. In one of the studies, researchers have used half-cell potential
and linear polarization resistance method to experimentally study the corrosion rate of
steel rebar in GPC produced from three types of fly-ashes over 540 days of exposure to 3%
sodium chloride (NaCl) solution [32]. The corrosion rate values for these GPCs ranged
from 0.55 to 1.65 µA/cm2 where these findings were almost equal to conventional concrete
(0.65–1.20 µA/cm2 ). In another study, it was stated that half-cell potential values for
the passivated reinforcement in GPC (ranging between −100 to −200 mV) is moderately
similar to the OPC mortar results [33].
Due to different precursor materials such as fly ash, Metakaolin, granulated blast
furnace slag, etc., the hydration of cement and the polymerization process in geopolymer
vary significantly. As a result, the characteristics of geopolymer concrete such as the mi-
crostructure, mechanical behavior, and durability vary considerably. Hence, it is important
to evaluate the overall characteristics of a precursor based geopolymer concrete before it
can be used for construction. Several studies have reported the use of fly ash as a precursor
and bottom ash as a replacement of fine aggregates for developing geopolymer concrete.
However, corrosion evaluation of geopolymer concrete made with both fly ash and bottom
ash precursor material has been rarely reported. The focus of this paper is to develop
a sustainable fly-ash based geopolymer concrete with a 50% replacement of bottom ash.
Further, the durability behavior of the matrix in terms of resistance to chloride-induced
corrosion in comparison with ordinary concrete is also investigated. Two non-destructive
techniques i.e., Half-cell potential and Linear Polarization resistance, have been employed
to study the corrosion behavior.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Precursor Material
Three classes of fly-ash (class N, F, C) are desired for use in GPC mix design. In the
production of K-based GPC, class F fly-ash as a pozzolanic material was obtained from
Lafarge Cement, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Bottom-ash used in this study was also supplied
by Lafarge Cement, Vancouver, BC, Canada. This bottom-ash was obtained from the
pulverized coal combustion. The major components in bottom-ash are Silicon Oxide (SiO2 ),
Aluminum Oxide (Al2 O3 ), and Iron Oxide (Fe2 O3 ). Magnesium Oxide (MgO), Calcium
Oxide (CaO), Sodium Oxide (Na2 O), and Potassium Oxide (K2 O) are also detected and are
present in small quantities. The chemical composition of both fly-ash and bottom-ash are
shown in Table 1.

2.2. Alkali Activator

A combination of K2 SiO3 and KOH was used as the alkaline activator. KOH was
obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Ontario (Canada) with >85% purity in ACS grade. This was
supplied in flakes form. The KOH solution was prepared by dissolving the flakes in water.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 4 of 16

The mass of KOH solids in a solution varies depending on the concentration of the solution
expressed in terms of a molar, M. The concentration of KOH used was 12 Molar. The KOH
solution was prepared 24 h in advance of use by dissolving measured KOH pellets in the
required amount of tap water.

Table 1. Chemical composition of by-products.

Compound Fly-Ash (%) Bottom-Ash (%)

SiO2 47.1 60.11
Al2 O3 17.4 14.35
Fe2 O3 5.7 5.92
CaO 14 10.40
MgO 5.4 4.49
SO3 0.8 0.10
Na2 O N/A 2.232
K2 O N/A 1.766
TiO2 N/A 0.892
P2 O5 N/A 0.200
Mn2 O3 N/A 0.093

K2 SiO3 powder (AgSil16H) was obtained from PQ Corporation, Philadelphia (USA)

was used in this project. Based on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) provided by the
company, the chemical composition of the K2 SiO3 powder was K2 O = 32.4%, SiO2 = 52.8%,
and water weight percentage of 14.8%.

2.3. Ordinary Portland Cement

Type 1 Portland cement was used for the manufacture of the control mix concrete.
The control concrete mix was designed to have a target strength of 35 MPa similar to that
of GPC.

2.4. Aggregates
Fine aggregates and coarse aggregates used were obtained from a quarry in British
Columbia with a relative dry density of 2.671 and 2.713 respectively, and a water absorption
ratio of 0.79% and 0.69% respectively. The local aggregates comprising 12.5 mm were used
as coarse aggregates in GPC and the aggregates comprising 12.5 mm and 6.5 mm were
used in OPC; the fine aggregates used in both OPC and GPC were medium-coarse sand
which was suitable for multipurpose use including concrete mixtures.

3. Method of Casting and Curing

3.1. Specimen Dimensions
In this study, the mix proportion and curing method of GPC build on previous work
done in the Facility for Innovative Materials and Infrastructure Monitoring (FIMIM) by the
authors [34–36]. Three specimens of RC beams of dimensions 152 mm × 152 mm × 533 mm
were cast using GPC (named as GPC-1, GPC-2, GPC-3) and the other three were made with
OPC (named as OPC-1, OPC-2, and OPC-3). A reinforcing steel rebar of diameter 12.5 mm
was also embedded inside the concrete beam.

3.2. Specimen Preparation

The alkali solution was prepared 24 h before casting day. Then, the solid constituents
of GPC, i.e., the aggregates, fly-ash, and bottom-ash were first mixed in the dry condition in
a rotary drum mixer for about 1 min. Next, the alkali solution was added to the solids and
mixed for about 3 min, followed by a 3 minutes’ rest period, then followed by 2 min of final
mixing. The mixture was placed into molds and vibrated using a table vibrator for 30 s to
discharge air bubbles to the surface. Then, the molds were covered with a plastic sheet in a
lab environment (approximate relative humidity range of 45% to 70% and approximate
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 5 of 16

temperature range of 5 ◦ C to 15 ◦ C); demolded after 24 h. GPC beams were placed into
a tray filled with water and were then kept in an oven at a temperature of 80 ◦ C for 24 h.
After that, the specimens were cured at ambient temperature for 28 days.
The mix proportions of GPC beams (obtained from previous work performed by
authors) and OPC beams are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 2. Mix design of GPC.

Material Content (kg/m3 )

Fly-ash 194
Bottom-ash 194
Coarse aggregates 1170
Sand 630
KOH (12M) 85.16
K2 SiO3 125.74

Table 3. Mix proportion of OPC.

Material Content (kg/m3 )

Cement 400
Sand 660
12.5 mm aggregate 701
6.5 mm aggregate 467
Water 160

To prepare the OPC beams, the dry ingredients such as cement, sand, and coarse
aggregates were mixed for about 2 min and the water was added slowly until the concrete
was uniform and workable. After compaction on a vibrator table, each beam was labeled
and then covered with a plastic sheet to prevent evaporation and kept overnight in the
laboratory at ambient temperature. The OPC samples were de-molded and stored in a
water tank at 23 ± 2 ◦ C for 28 days. Further, a steel rebar of nominal diameter 12.5 mm and
length 650 mm was embedded in concrete in such a way that 100 mm of the total length
remained exposed. Commercially available hot rolled steel reinforcing bars with a yield
strength of 400 MPa were used. The rebar was protruded so that a connection could be
made for impressed current corrosion. The embedded rebar was corrosion-free during
casting. After rolling, the rebar was kept in oil. Thereafter, acetone was used to clean the
rebar of oil before embedding it into the concrete. The rebar was weighed to the accuracy
of 1 g. To prevent the crevice corrosion at the steel-concrete interface and to serve as a bond
breaker, the rebar was wrapped with Teflon tape. The protruded 100 mm length of the
rebar was epoxy coated to protect from the corrosive environment.

4. Methodology
After 28 days, when GPC and OPC samples cured in ambient temperature and water
tank respectively, beams were placed in a chloride solution for 28 days. This helps to
keep the initial D.C. power to a manageably low value. Figure 1 is a schematic of the
accelerated corrosion test setup in 5% NaCl solution used in this work. As can be seen in
Figure 1, the corrosion tank was filled with chloride solution that would allow each beam
to be partially immersed. After that, the extended side of the rebar acting as an anode
was connected to a 30 V power supply. A stainless-steel rod was used to act as a cathode.
The D.C. power supply was turned on and set to 30 V electrical potential. This voltage was
chosen based on work conducted by [26] to make the steel rebar as anodes, accelerate the
corrosion process, and decrease the test period time.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 6 of 16

Figure 1. Schematic test set-up of accelerated corrosion exposure to OPC and GPC specimens.

Once the testing procedure started, current readings were taken every 24 h. A rise
in the current indicated the beginning of the corrosion process, and eventually the start
of the formation of cracks in the beams. Once the beams reached a high current value,
there were visible signs of corrosion and cracking of beams and the beams were considered
to be failed. The time taken to initiate the corrosion in the rebar in GPC was higher than
that of OPC concrete. The beams were removed from the chloride water and left to air dry
for 24 h. After that, the beams were tested for the rate of corrosion using Linear Potential
Resistance. The final step involved splitting the OPC and GPC beams to recover the rebar
and to determine the effects of corrosion on the rebar by measuring the mass loss of the
steel rebar in each beam.

4.1. Half-Cell Potential

Half Cell Potential (HCP) is an effective method that has been used by many re-
searchers across the world [37–39]. Further [31] provides the guidelines for predicting
corrosion activity (Table 4). It is a method of assessing the invisible corrosion of reinforced
concrete without destructing the samples. HCP provides information about the probability
of corrosion. Table 4 gives the guide for evaluation of corrosion activity versus a standard
copper/copper sulfate half-cell.

Table 4. Predicting corrosion using Cu/CuSO4 half-cell [31]

Corrosion Risk Half-Cell Potential (Versus Cu/CuSO4 )

Severe Corrosion Less than −500 mV
High Corrosion Risk (90% probability) Between −500 mV & −350 mV
Medium corrosion risk (50% probability) Between −350 mV & −200 mV
Low Corrosion Risk (10% probability) Higher than −200 mV

Figure 2 indicates a schematic of the HCP measurement setup. In accordance with [31],
a digital voltmeter is used to read the potential difference values between the external
reference electrode and the reinforced steel rebar. In this study, copper/copper sulphate
was used as a reference electrode. If the surface of the concrete is too dry, pre-wetting
is required. A pre-wetted sponge is used to ensure proper surface contact between the
concrete surface and the tip of the half-cell electrode.
For a consistent reading, a centerline with a pre-defined equal spacing of three measur-
ing points at a 175 mm distance was marked on the surface of the concrete. The potential
values for these three points were recorded from the voltmeter for both OPC and GPC
beams.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 7 of 16

Figure 2. Schematic test set-up of the HCP measurements of OPC and GPC specimens.

4.2. Linear Polarization Resistance

The Linear Polarization Resistance (LPR) method is a non-destructive testing method
used to measure the corrosion rate. The data graph obtained from the instrument can be
used to calculate the corrosion rate. Polarization resistance measurements are an accurate
and rapid technique to measure the rate of corrosion. Typical values relating corrosion
measurements to predicted corrosion penetration are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Values of corrosion measurements [40].

Corrosion Current Corrosion

Rate of Polarisation Resistance
Density ICORR Penetration p
Corrosion RP (Ω cm2 )
(µA/cm2 ) (µm/Year)
Very high 2.5–0.25 10–100 100–1000
High 25–2.5 1–10 10–100
Low/moderate 250–25 0.1–1 1–10
Passive >250 <0.1 <1

After the specimens were removed from the chloride water and left to air dry for
24 h, the LPR test was performed. The specimens were supported on a wooden surface.
To conduct the LPR test, Gamry Instruments Reference 600+ potentiostat was used. The cell
cable was connected to a reference electrode, counter electrode, rebar, and ground. If the
surface of the concrete was too dry, samples were pre-wetted. A pre-wetted sponge
was used to ensure proper surface contact between the concrete surface and the tip of
the reference electrode. The equipment was connected to a computer to read the data
graph. A complete setup of the Gamry potentiostat is shown in Figure 3. The Gamry
Echem Analyst software was used to run the experiment. This is a single program that
runs data-analysis for all types of experiments such as DC corrosions, EIS, and physical
electrochemistry. Before running the software, the experimental setup values are entered
manually (Table 6).
Same as the HCP technique, a centerline with a pre-defined equal spacing of three
measuring points at 175 mm distance was marked on the surface of the concrete to obtain a
set of reliable test values. The LPR data graphs for these three points were recorded in the
computer for both OPC and GPC beams. The values shown in Table 6 were used in the
LPR measurement:
B value is often taken as 25 mV for active corrosion state and 50 mV for passive
conditions [41]. Ew is the equivalent weight of the corroding metal.
The corrosion rate can be computed by using the corrosion current (ICORR ) generated
by the flow of electrons from anode to cathode. By applying the modified version of
Faraday’s law, the following equation can be generated
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 8 of 16

   
ICORR = 106 B /R p µA/cm2 (1)

where Rp is the polarization resistance of a corroding electrode and is defined as the slope
of potential versus current density plot. The dimension of Rp is ohm-cm2 .
B is the Stern-Geary coefficient and the Stern-Geary coefficient is given by

B = ba bc /[2.303(ba + bc )] (2)

where ba and bc are the anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes.

The corrosion rate in µm per year is given by

CR = 3.27 · ICORR · ( Ew /ρ) (3)

where: ICORR = Corrosion current density in µA/cm2 , Ew = Equivalent weight of the

corroding metal, ρ = density of the corroding metal in g/cm3 .

Figure 3. Gamry potentiostat set-up for linear polarisation measurements.

Table 6. Values input in the software.

Ew Density (ρ) B
27.92 7.85 g/cm2 25 mV

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Compressive Strength
As aforementioned, this section builds on the previous work on the effect of the curing
regime on compressive strength of GPC performed by authors [34–36]. To maintain brevity,
this previous work is briefly described here. Authors used steam curing and dry curing
methods to accelerate curing of cylindrical GPC specimens (of size (100 mm × 200 mm)
at five different temperatures including ambient, 30 ◦ C, 45 ◦ C, 60 ◦ C, 80 ◦ C. According to
the previous results, the highest compressive strength (35 MPa at an age of 28 days) was
obtained at a temperature of 80 ◦ C of steam curing for the abovementioned mix proportion,
possibly due to the full and uniform internal curing of steam cured specimens. Hence,
in the present study, the cylindrical GPC and OPC specimens were steam cured and were
tested at 7 and 28 days. A minimum of three GPC and three OPC specimens were used
in this test. The average compressive strength of GPC specimens at 7 and 28 days was
26.65 MPa and 31.70 MPa respectively.
For the OPC, the average strength of the three samples was 26.93 MPa and 33.67 MPa
at 7 and 28 days respectively. As the age was increased from 7 to 28 days, the compressive
strength of GPC and OPC samples increased by 18.95% and 25.03% times respectively. It can
be concluded from the results that GPC steam cured at 80 ◦ C for 24 h developed almost an
equal strength as the OPC samples cured for 28 days. More importantly, these two mixes
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 9 of 16

were considered comparable for the rest of the research conducted in this work. The mix
proportion selected after compression testing of GPC cylindrical samples was used for the
production of GPC beams. Also, it should be noted that failed OPC specimens exhibited
cracked paste and aggregate interface whereas the GPC exhibited plain surfaces of failure.
This further indicates that the bond formed between the binder and the aggregates was
stronger than OPC specimens. Figure 4 shows the compressive strength of GPC and OPC
at age of 7 and 28 days.

Figure 4. 28th-day compressive strength of GPC and OPC.

5.2. NDT Evaluation

5.2.1. Visual Inspection
The accelerated corrosion test was terminated at 300 h and the beams were removed
from the chloride solution tank. Figure 5a,b shows the corroded OPC and GPC specimens
after nearly 200 h of the test. The OPC beams started to show signs of rusting after 60 h
of accelerated corrosion exposure. On the other hand, the GPC beams showed no signs
of rust for the same period. The brown rust stain seen on OPC beams was the first visual
evidence of corrosion in the embedded steel. At this stage, it was also observed that
corrosion products were floating on the surface of the chloride solution. After nearly 200 h,
a crack was observed in the OPC beams. From this point onwards, the crack propagated
longitudinally parallel to the length of the bar. After 300 h of corrosion exposure, along with
a horizontal crack, a vertical crack was also observed which became wider under flexure.
On the other hand, there were no cracks observed in the GPC beams indicating better
corrosion resistance when compared to OPC beams. GPC specimens exhibited superior
durability characteristics than OPC specimens.

Figure 5. (a) OPC beam after 200 h of accelerated corrosion exposure, (b) GPC beam after 200 h accelerated corrosion
exposure.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 10 of 16

5.2.2. HCP Analysis

Before performing the accelerated corrosion test, the initial HCP readings on day
1 were taken from the voltmeter for both OPC and GPC beams. There were three mea-
surement points on each specimen, and the potential values for these three points were
recorded and then averaged. These readings were taken on alternate days until the test
reached 300 h. Figure 6 represents the average HCP values of GPC and OPC specimens.
The corrosion process is divided into three stages of propagation i.e., from first 0–3 days as
stage 1, from 4 to 8 days as stage 2, and 8 to 13 days as stage 3. From Figure 6, it is evident
that GPC samples exhibited passivity in stage 1 whereas OPC samples exhibited 50%
corrosion likelihood with its potential values ranging from −100 mV to −230 mV. Figure 6
also includes the [31] standard for evaluation of corrosion activity. Stage 2 indicates that
while GPC samples indicate the minimal likelihood of corrosion activity, the OPC samples
still indicate a 50% likelihood of corrosion with its potential values ranging from −250 to
−300 mV. Further in Stage 3, GPC samples exhibit a 90% probability of corrosion on day 13
while OPC samples exhibit the same on the 7th day. This clearly distinguishes the fact that
GPC offers better resistance to chloride induced-damage than OPC. It can be seen that the
drop in potential from day 0 to 3 is very less as it falls after the 4th day. This is attributed to
the fact that a layer of rust gets developed around the rebar that protects it from corrosion
progression for a while. As corrosion products build-up, iron ions easily diffuse through
the layer of rust and results in a sharp drop of corrosion potential and quick progression of
corrosion. Although, the HCP measurements cannot be directly related to corrosion rate it
surely signifies the trend of corrosion progression. Furthermore, it indicates that the rate at
which chlorides come in contact with a steel bar in case OPC is far lesser in GPC, indicating
extra passivation provided by GPC [26,42,43].

Figure 6. Variation of Half−Cell potential measurements with time for OPC and GPC specimens.

5.2.3. LPR Analysis

The LPR technique is used for accurately measuring the corrosion rates of the spec-
imens and the results are tabulated in Table 7. The corrosion rate is calculated by using
the equations discussed in Section 2. The experiments are conducted for GPC specimens
and OPC specimens using Gamry potentiostat. The average LPR values of three GPC and
three OPC specimens are shown in Figure 7a,b. It can be seen that the recorded half-cell
potential of GPC showed higher average values ranging from −380 mV to −415 mV than
OPC (−427 mV to −470 mV). The average LPR of GPC decreased by −8.32% when Im (A)
changed from 20 µA to −20 µA whereas the average LPR of OPC decreased −9.9% at the
same Im (A) range.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 11 of 16

Table 7. LPR resistance test results.

Corrosion
Corrosion Rate Corrosion
S.NO. Specimen Current ICORR
(µm/Year) Condition
(µA/cm2 )
1. GPC 1 0.9113 10.598 Moderate
2. GPC 2 1.2303 14.308 High
3. GPC 3 1.7429 20.270 High
4. OPC 1 4.9214 57.233 Very high
5. OPC 2 4.1010 47.696 Very high
6. OPC 3 5.0471 58.698 Very high

Figure 7. (a,b) Mean linear polarisation values for OPC and GPC samples exposed to corrosion.

Based on the LPR measurements, Figure 7a,b has been categorized into passive,
low moderate, high, and very high risks, as per [44]. From Figure 8, it is evident that the
corrosion rate of the GPC specimens is between 10 µm/year and 20 µm/year. This indicates
that these specimens have a moderate to high rate of corrosion. No cracks were observed on
the surface of the GPC specimen, but micro-cracks may have occurred in the surrounding
areas of the bar due to the corrosion products that was built up inside, which might
have allowed some chloride ions to penetrate the vicinity of the bar. As compared to this,
the corrosion rate of the OPC specimens is between 40 µm/year and 60 µm/year, indicating
a very high risk of corrosion.

Figure 8. Corroded GPC and OPC specimens after 200 h of accelerated corrosion exposure.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 12 of 16

6. Destructive Tests
6.1. Mass Loss Measurements
The corrosion assessment of steel bars used in the reinforced concrete can also be done
by mass loss measurements [26,45]. The initial mass of each rebar is recorded before the
casting procedure. After the corrosion exposure was completed, the beams were completely
broken to extract the entire rebar (Figure 8).
The rebars were cleaned with deionized water and a metal brush was used to remove
the corrosion products from the rebars. The steel rebars visually showed critical corrosion
damage for the OPC beams, while the rebars from the GPC beams showed less damage
compared to OPC beams. The rebars extracted from the beams were weighed and recorded
as the final mass. Then the percentage of mass loss was calculated for rebars both in OPC
and GPC beams as per [46].
Table 8 shows the percentage mass loss of three GPC and three OPC specimens.
The percentage mass loss for the GPC beams was 3.13%, 4.13%, and 5.16% respectively,
whereas, for the OPC beams it is significantly higher at 21.80%, 16.73%, and 19.52% re-
spectively. The OPC beams showed significant mass loss due to the early crack formation
which allows the chloride ions to penetrate quickly into the concrete and increase the rate
of corrosion.

Table 8. Mass loss in rebar in GPC and PCC.

Specimen Initial Mass (gms) Final Mass (gms) Mass Loss (%)
GPC 1 944.5 914.9 3.13
GPC 2 945.5 906.4 4.13
GPC 3 941.9 894.5 5.16
OPC 1 941.9 756.8 21.80
OPC 2 944.3 786.3 16.73
OPC 3 943.7 759.4 19.52

This finding is in good agreement with those obtained in previous studies [24,45,47].
Several factors such as low permeability, high alkalinity, improved microstructure ma-
trix, etc. significantly enhance the corrosion resistance of GPC to aggressive exposure to
chlorides.

6.2. Residual Flexural Strength

Corrosion of reinforcement affects the load-carrying capacity of any RC structure
as it reduces the cross-section of rebar that ultimately results in cracking and spalling
of concrete. Therefore, it is imperative to study the residual strength of structures after
corrosion-induced damage has been taken place. This provides an in-depth- understanding
and insight into the kind of rehabilitation measures that could be utilized for restoring the
integrity of the structure. After HCP and LPR testing, the specimens were tested in flexure
under 3-point loading using an MTI-K testing machine as per [48]. The residual flexural
strength values are given in Table 9. From Table 9, it can be observed that the GPC beam
specimens exhibit improved flexural behavior than those of OPC specimens. Hence, it can
be ascertained that under similar corroding exposure, the load-carrying capacity of GPC
remains intact for a longer period.

Table 9. Residual Flexural Strength test values.

Specimen Residual Flexural Strength (in MPa)

GPC-1 5.1
GPC-2 4.8
GPC-3 4.4
OPC-1 3.9
OPC-2 3.7
OPC-3 3.65
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 13 of 16

7. Discussion
Table 10 gives the average values of 7 & 28-day compressive strength, mass-loss,
corrosion current and corrosion rate, and average flexural residual strength for all tested
GPC as well as OPC samples. There is no significant variation of compressive strength
values but there is a significant influence of corrosion exposure on OPC and fly ash based
GPC with additions of bottom ash. Normally, the compressive strength values of fly ash
based GPC is 5–7% higher than those of OPC [49], the similar values could be attributed to
the addition of bottom ash and its replacement with fly ash itself. The larger particle size
of bottom ash will have some effect on the densification of the matrix and consequently,
the loss of compressive strength is observed. The various parameters such as pore size,
connectivity of pores, shrinkage and movement cracks, chemical characteristics i.e., the
chloride binding capacity, alkalinity [50,51] largely control the dynamics of corrosion of steel
in concrete. The durability of a mix majorly depends upon its mineralogical constituents
and microstructure [52]; the difference between the reaction products of OPC and GPC
could significantly alter their characteristics. Despite the addition of bottom ash, the GPC
mix has exhibited significant corrosion resistance than the OPC samples. GPC samples
exhibited 78% less mass-loss, 72% lower corrosion rate and 73% lesser corrosion current
density. Further, the residual flexural strength is 21% higher than those of OPC samples.
The corrosion-resistant behavior of GPC is probably because of the refinement of pore
structures as an outcome of polycondensation reaction and therefore, the filler effect. This
further reduces the porosity of the GPC mix as the presence of KOH aids in leaching of Si
and Al from fly ash improving the polycondensation and the matrix. The densification of
the GPC matrix with reduced permeability and improved strength will restrict the ingress
of chloride ions into the steel-concrete ecosystem. This reduces the chloride-diffusion rate
in GPC mix as compared to OPC mix which is directly evident from the reduced corrosion
current (ICORR ) and corrosion rate as well. The reduced mass-loss and less influence of
corrosion exposure on GPC could also be attributed to the reduced availability of free
chlorides and therefore, increased chloride binding capacity. The slope obtained from the
regression of HCP measured values suggests that the rate of drop in potential was much
higher for OPC samples than GPC samples. In a study [42], researchers have also suggested
lesser HCP for fly ash based GPC than ordinary concrete. Previous studies have shown
that GPC undergoes lesser deterioration due to corrosion exposure and the time of failure
is prolonged for more than 3.5 times than the OPC [47]. In addition to the denser matrix
due to the presence of fly ash and bottom ash than that of OPC, the presence of alkaline
activators significantly improves the electrical resistance due to the increased availability
of ions [32,47,52]. From Table 10, a clear correlation between all the evaluated corrosion
parameters suggests GPC offers enhanced resistance to chloride-induced corrosion.

Table 10. Average Test results.

Avg.7day Avg.28day Average Average Average

Average
Specimen Com- Com- Corro- Corro- Residual Slope of
Mass-
Details pressive pressive sion sion Flexural HCP
Loss
Strength Strength Rate Current Strength
OPC 26.93 33.67 19.52 54.54 4.689 3.81 28.6
GPC 26.65 34.22 4.14 15.06 1.294 4.86 20.4
%age
−1.03 1.6 −78 −72 −73 21
Diff

8. Conclusions
The primary aim of this study was to experimentally study the corrosion resistance of
sustainable bottom-ash and fly-ash based reinforced GPC, compared to OPC. The study
has shown a promise to the use of a combination of fly ash and bottom ash as precursor
materials for developing GPC by analyzing the test results, the following conclusions can
be drawn.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 14 of 16

• The geopolymerised fly ash and bottom ash based concrete exhibited more homo-
geneity and superior aggregate-binder bond than OPC. Additionally, the compressive
strength of both GPC and OPC were comparable.
• The drop in the HCP readings indicated a much-delayed depassivation of GPC sam-
ples than those of OPC samples. It also indicated a lower permeability, high alkalinity
of GPC specimens in aggressive corrosive environments.
• GPC demonstrated lower values for corrosion rate compared to OPC because GPC
has a moderate to high rate (between 10 µm/year and 20 µm/year). Whereas OPC
showed a higher rate of corrosion (40 µm/year and 60 µm/year). The longer service
life of GPC in aggressive environments can be inferred from OPC.
• Visual investigations suggested that cracking in OPC started after 60 h of accelerated
corrosion exposure. Both horizontal and vertical cracks were observed in the OPC
whereas no crack was observed in GPC until the end of corrosion exposure. From
the drop in potential values, it can be ascertained that there was a development of
micro-cracks in geopolymer concrete also.
• OPC showed higher average mass loss (19.15%) compared to GPC (4.14%). This is
primarily due to the lower chloride penetrability due to better microstructure provided
by finer fly ash particles and also the higher electrical resistance provided by available
ions in GPC
• This study has shown a few properties of GPC to enable its use as a sustainable
building material. GPC possesses a higher resistance to the corrosive activity of salt
solutions compared to OPC.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.G. and P.M.; methodology, P.A.; software, A.S.; val-
idation, P.A., and P.M., formal analysis, A.S.; investigation, P.M. and P.A.; resources, R.G.; data
curation, A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A.; writing—review and editing, R.G. and A.S.;
visualization, P.A.; supervision, R.G.; project administration, R.G.; funding acquisition, R.G. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Funding in part by India-Canada IMPACTS Centre of Excellence and Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the continuation of research and
other manuscripts that are in process.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to express their appreciation to Matt Dalkie, technical service
engineer at Lafarge Cement Company, and staff in the mechanical and civil engineering department at
the University of Victoria for their participation in the discussion and support during the experiment
phase.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Holmgren, S.; Pever, M.; Fischer, K. Constructing Low-Carbon Futures? Competing Storylines in the Estonian Energy Sector’s
Translation of EU Energy Goals. Energy Policy 2019, 135, 111063. [CrossRef]
2. Huang, L.; Krigsvoll, G.; Johansen, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Carbon Emission of Global Construction Sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2018, 81, 1906–1916. [CrossRef]
3. Hung, C.C.W.; Hsu, S.-C.; Cheng, K.-L. Quantifying City-Scale Carbon Emissions of the Construction Sector Based on Multi-
Regional Input-Output Analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 75–85. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, X.; Wang, F. Hybrid Input-Output Analysis for Life-Cycle Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions of China’s Building
Sector. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 188–197. [CrossRef]
5. Aleem, M.A.; Arumairaj, P.D. Geopolymer Concrete–a Review. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2012, 1, 118–122. [CrossRef]
6. Davidovits, J. Geopolymers. J. Therm. Anal. 1991, 37, 1633–1656. [CrossRef]
7. Duxson, P.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Provis, J.L.; Lukey, G.C.; Palomo, A.; van Deventer, J.S.J. Geopolymer Technology: The
Current State of the Art. J. Mater. Sci. 2007, 42, 2917–2933. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 15 of 16

8. Provis, J.L. Modelling the Formation of Geopolymers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2006.
9. Van Deventer, J.S.J.; Provis, J.L.; Duxson, P.; Lukey, G.C. Reaction Mechanisms in the Geopolymeric Conversion of Inorganic
Waste to Useful Products. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 139, 506–513. [CrossRef]
10. Provis, J.L.; Duxson, P.; Van Deventer, J.S.J.; Lukey, G.C. The Role of Mathematical Modelling and Gel Chemistry in Advancing
Geopolymer Technology. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2005, 83, 853–860. [CrossRef]
11. De Vargas, A.S.; Dal Molin, D.C.; Vilela, A.C.; Da Silva, F.J.; Pavao, B.; Veit, H. The Effects of Na2O/SiO2 Molar Ratio, Curing
Temperature and Age on Compressive Strength, Morphology and Microstructure of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash-Based Geopolymers.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 653–660. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, B.; MacKenzie, K.J.; Brown, I.W. Crystalline Phase Formation in Metakaolinite Geopolymers Activated with NaOH and
Sodium Silicate. J. Mater. Sci. 2009, 44, 4668–4676. [CrossRef]
13. Van Jaarsveld, J.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. Effect of the Alkali Metal Activator on the Properties of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymers. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 3932–3941. [CrossRef]
14. Heah, C.Y.; Kamarudin, H.; Bakri, A.M.M.A.; Binhussain, M.; Luqman, M.; Nizar, I.K.; Ruzaidi, C.M.; Liew, Y.M. Effect of Curing
Profile on Kaolin-Based Geopolymers. Phys. Procedia 2011, 22, 305–311. [CrossRef]
15. Rovnaník, P. Effect of Curing Temperature on the Development of Hard Structure of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2010, 24, 1176–1183. [CrossRef]
16. Kani, E.N.; Allahverdi, A. Effects of Curing Time and Temperature on Strength Development of Inorganic Polymeric Binder
Based on Natural Pozzolan. J. Mater. Sci. 2009, 44, 3088–3097. [CrossRef]
17. Perera, D.S.; Uchida, O.; Vance, E.R.; Finnie, K.S. Influence of Curing Schedule on the Integrity of Geopolymers. J. Mater. Sci.
2007, 42, 3099–3106. [CrossRef]
18. Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S.; van Deventer, J.S.J.; Lukey, G.C. The Effect of Composition and Temperature on the Properties of Fly Ash-
and Kaolinite-Based Geopolymers. Chem. Eng. J. 2002, 89, 63–73. [CrossRef]
19. Palomo, A.; Grutzeck, M.W.; Blanco, M.T. Alkali-Activated Fly Ashes: A Cement for the Future. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29,
1323–1329. [CrossRef]
20. Sharma, A.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, S.; Mukherjee, A. Ultrasonic Guided Waves for Monitoring Corrosion of FRP Wrapped Concrete
Structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 690–702. [CrossRef]
21. Sharma, A.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, S.; Mukherjee, A. Monitoring Invisible Corrosion in Concrete Using a Combination of Wave
Propagation Techniques. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018, 90, 89–99. [CrossRef]
22. Hong, S.; Lai, W.-L.; Helmerich, R. Experimental Monitoring of Chloride-Induced Reinforcement Corrosion and Chloride
Contamination in Concrete with Ground-Penetrating Radar. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2015, 11, 15–26. [CrossRef]
23. Asmara, Y.P.; Siregar, J.P.; Tezara, C.; Nurlisa, W.; Jamiluddin, J. Long Term Corrosion Experiment of Steel Rebar in Fly Ash-Based
Geopolymer Concrete in NaCl Solution. Int. J. Corros. 2016, 2016. [CrossRef]
24. Tennakoon, C.; Shayan, A.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Xu, A. Chloride Ingress and Steel Corrosion in Geopolymer Concrete Based on Long
Term Tests. Mater. Des. 2017, 116, 287–299. [CrossRef]
25. Reddy, M.S.; Dinakar, P.; Rao, B.H. Mix Design Development of Fly Ash and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Based
Geopolymer Concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 20, 712–722. [CrossRef]
26. Reddy, D.V.; Edouard, J.-B.; Sobhan, K. Durability of Fly Ash–Based Geopolymer Structural Concrete in the Marine Environment.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 781–787. [CrossRef]
27. Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K. Effect of GGBFS on Setting, Workability and Early Strength Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete
Cured in Ambient Condition. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 163–171. [CrossRef]
28. Olivia, M. Durability Related Properties of Low Calcium Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, Curtin University,
Perth, Australia, 2011.
29. Carino, N.J. Nondestructive Techniques to Investigate Corrosion Status in Concrete Structures. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 1999, 13,
96–106. [CrossRef]
30. Zaki, A.; Chai, H.K.; Aggelis, D.G.; Alver, N. Non-Destructive Evaluation for Corrosion Monitoring in Concrete: A Review and
Capability of Acoustic Emission Technique. Sensors 2015, 15, 19069–19101. [CrossRef]
31. ASTM. C876-91(1999). Standard Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete (Withdrawn 2008); ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1999.
32. Gunasekara, C.; Law, D.; Bhuiyan, S.; Setunge, S.; Ward, L. Chloride Induced Corrosion in Different Fly Ash Based Geopolymer
Concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 200, 502–513. [CrossRef]
33. Miranda, J.M.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; González, J.A.; Palomo, A. Corrosion Resistance in Activated Fly Ash Mortars. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2005, 35, 1210–1217. [CrossRef]
34. Gupta, R.; Rathod, H.M. Current State of K-Based Geopolymer Cements Cured at Ambient Temperature. Emerg. Mater. Res. 2015,
4, 125–129. [CrossRef]
35. Belforti, F.; Azarsa, P.; Gupta, R.; Dave, U. Effect of Freeze-Thaw on K-Based Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) and Portland Cement
Concrete (PCC). In Proceedings of the Technology Drivers: Engine for Growth: Proceedings of the 6th Nirma University
International Conference on Engineering (NUiCONE 2017), Ahmedabad, India, 23–25 November 2017; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2018; p. 65.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 398 16 of 16

36. Yang, C. Prediction of the Compressive Strength from Resonant Frequency for Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete; University
of Victoria: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017.
37. Gadve, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Malhotra, S.N. Corrosion of Steel Reinforcements Embedded in FRP Wrapped Concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2009, 23, 153–161. [CrossRef]
38. Pradhan, B.; Bhattacharjee, B. Half-Cell Potential as an Indicator of Chloride-Induced Rebar Corrosion Initiation in RC. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2009, 21, 543–552. [CrossRef]
39. Leelalerkiet, V.; Kyung, J.-W.; Ohtsu, M.; Yokota, M. Analysis of Half-Cell Potential Measurement for Corrosion of Reinforced
Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2004, 18, 155–162. [CrossRef]
40. Millard, S.G.; Gowers, K.R.; Gill, J.S. Reinforcement corrosion assessment using linear polarisation techniques. In Evaluation and
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design; Malhotra, V.M., Ed.; American Concrete Institute: Detroit, MI, USA,
1991; pp. 373–394.
41. Rodríguez, G.R.; Aperador, W. Remote Monitoring Technique for Evaluation of Corrosion on Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Non-Destr. Test. 2016. [CrossRef]
42. Olivia, M.; Nikraz, H. Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Designed by Taguchi Method. Mater. Design. (1980–2015) 2012,
36, 191–198. [CrossRef]
43. Kupwade-Patil, K.; Allouche, E.N. Examination of Chloride-Induced Corrosion in Reinforced Geopolymer Concretes. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1465–1476. [CrossRef]
44. Andrade, C.; Alonso, C. Corrosion Rate Monitoring in the Laboratory and On-Site. Constr. Build. Mater. 1996, 10, 315–328.
[CrossRef]
45. Shaikh, F.U. Effects of Alkali Solutions on Corrosion Durability of Geopolymer Concrete. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2014, 2, 109.
[CrossRef]
46. ASTM. C694-90a(2016), Standard Test Method for Weight Loss (Mass Loss) of Sheet Steel During Immersion in Sulfuric Acid Solution;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
47. Reddy, D.V.; Edouard, J.B.; Sobhan, K.; Tipnis, A. Experimental Evaluation of the Durability of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer
Concrete in the Marine Environment. In Proceedings of the 9th Latin American & Caribbean Conference, Medellin, Colombia,
3–5 August 2011; pp. 3–5.
48. ASTM. C78/C78M-18, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading); ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
49. Al-Azzawi, M.; Yu, T.; Hadi, M.N.S. Factors Affecting the Bond Strength Between the Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete and
Steel Reinforcement. Structures 2018, 14, 262–272. [CrossRef]
50. Austin, S.A.; Lyons, R.; Ing, M.J. Electrochemical Behavior of Steel-Reinforced Concrete During Accelerated Corrosion Testing.
CORROSION 2004, 60, 203–212. [CrossRef]
51. Bertolini, L. Steel Corrosion and Service Life of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2008, 4, 123–137.
[CrossRef]
52. Alanazi, H.; Yang, M.; Zhang, D.; Gao, Z. (Jerry) Early Strength and Durability of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Mag.
Concr. Res. 2016, 69, 46–54. [CrossRef]