Sustainability 14 15063 v2

sustainability
Article
Performance of Self-Compacted Geopolymer Concrete
Containing Fly Ash and Slag as Binders
Aryan Far H. Sherwani 1,2, * , Khaleel H. Younis 3,4 , Ralf W. Arndt 2, * and Kypros Pilakoutas 5
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Soran University, Soran 44008, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Fachhochschule Erfurt-University of Applied Sciences,
99084 Erfurt, Germany
3 Department of Surveying and Road Construction, Erbil Technology College, Erbil Polytechnic University,
Erbil 44001, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
4 Civil Engineering Department, Tishk International University, Erbil 44001, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
5 Civil and Structural Engineering Department, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.F.H.S.); [email protected] (R.W.A.);
Tel.: +964-7504522250 (A.F.H.S.)
Abstract: Geopolymers can replace cement and help reduce the environmental impact of concrete con-
struction, but research is needed to ensure their mechanical properties, durability and practicability.
The aim of this investigation is to examine the influence of ground granulated blast furnace slag (slag)
content on the performance, at the fresh and hardened states, of fly ash (FA) based self-compacted
geopolymer concrete (SCGC). For this purpose, four SCGC mixtures containing 450 kg/m3 of total
binder were examined. The alkaline-to-binder ratio was 0.5 for all mixes. FA was substituted with
slag at 0%, 30%, 50%, and 100% of the total binder content. The fresh properties in terms of flowability,
passing ability, viscosity, and segregation resistance, as well as the mechanical properties in terms
of compressive strength and splitting tensile strength, were quantified. The durability behavior of
Citation: Sherwani, A.F.H.;
SCGC was also studied to determine sorptivity and long-term free drying shrinkage. The results
Younis, K.H.; Arndt, R.W.;
Pilakoutas, K. Performance of
confirm that slag adversely affects the workability of SCGC mixtures except for the resistance to sieve
Self-Compacted Geopolymer segregation. Performance of SCGC in hardened states is in general enhanced with slag inclusion but
Concrete Containing Fly Ash and at increased shrinkage strain. Predictions of splitting tensile strength were made using the ACI 318,
Slag as Binders. Sustainability 2022, ACI 363, Eurocode CEB-FIB, and Lee and Lee models. The ACI 363 and Eurocode CEB-FIB models
14, 15063. https://doi.org/10.3390/ were found to be inaccurate, except for the 30% slag mix. Predicted values obtained from the Lee and
su142215063 Lee model were very close to the actual values of the FA-based SCGC mix. The results of this work
Academic Editor: Ahmed
could lead to more sustainable concretes using geopolymers instead of OPC.
Salih Mohammed
Keywords: self-compacted geopolymer concrete (SCGC); slag/fly ash; fresh properties; mechanical
Received: 2 August 2022 properties; empirical equation; sorptivity; long-term free drying shrinkage
Accepted: 1 September 2022
Published: 14 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil- Industrialization, urbanization, and population growth are the main drivers of environ-
iations.
mental pollution and climate change and the construction industry is a major contributor.
To accommodate infrastructure development, the current worldwide concrete consumption
per person exceeds one cubic meter per annum [1]. Increasing demand for concrete using
ordinary Portland cement (OPC) is responsible for environmental pollution, depletion
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of natural resources and the emission of substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (6–7% of
This article is an open access article
worldwide emissions) [2,3]. Geopolymer concrete that can be made using other indus-
distributed under the terms and trial wastes may help the concrete industry reduce its environmental impact and carbon
conditions of the Creative Commons emissions in an economical manner [4].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The term "geopolymer," was first coined in 1978 by Davidovits [5]. The polymeriza-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tion process involves an aluminosilicate source material including silica (Si) and alumina
4.0/). (Al) and an alkaline liquid, leading to an amorphous structure. Due to its environmental
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215063 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063 2 of 29
credentials, geopolymer concrete has gained popularity and attracts the interest of many
scientists. Geopolymer raw materials do not require a large energy input because they are
not calcined at high temperatures, a prerequisite for producing cement raw materials. It has
been established that the production of geopolymers emits five to six times less carbon diox-
ide than Portland cement [6]. In addition, geopolymer concrete offers similar or superior
fresh and mechanical properties compared to conventional concrete [7]. This type of con-
crete is affected by many mixed proportion parameters as well as curing conditions [8–10].
Furthermore, this type of concrete reduces energy consumption, waste disposal, and con-
struction costs [10]. To synthesize geopolymers, it is desirable to combine fly ash (FA)
with some other high silica sources, such as slag, rice husk ash, silica fume, etc. [11]. Li
et al. [12] observed that slag, a by-product of iron production from blast furnace, containing
calcium, magnesium silicates, and aluminosilicates, is another candidate waste product
available worldwide in huge quantities. The production of one ton of slag emits just 70 kg
of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), which is only 7% of the CO2 emitted during cement production.
However, the use of slag in FA-based geopolymers decreases setting time and workability.
Nonetheless, the calcium oxide (CaO) of slag forms calcium-silicate-hydrates (C-S-H) with
alumino-silicate gel, which boosts the mechanical characteristics of concrete [13–17]. The
substitution of slag with FA thus improves the initial setting time of geopolymer paste [18].
It was reported that the inclusion of slag leads to the reduction of the fresh state properties
of SCGC, whilst improving the hardened state properties [19].
Self-compacted concrete (SCC) was introduced to provide optimum compaction and
to help place concrete in confined spaces [20–22]. The fundamental aspects of SCC are flow,
filling, and passage ability that can resist segregation [23]. Self-compacted geopolymer
concrete (SCGC) is an innovation that would provide both environmental and practical
benefits [24,25]. The fresh SCGC must comply with specifications recommended by the
European Federation of National Associations Representing for Concrete (EFNARC) [26].
Currently, few investigations were conducted into SCGC, hence there is a need for further
research to verify the efficacy of SCGC in both its fresh and hardened form and to develop
materials for practical applications. To reduce costs and enhance the workability and
mechanical properties of concrete, supplementary cementitious materials such as FA and
slag are currently widely used in concrete [27].
Drying shrinkage is another important characteristic of concrete that needs to be
examined, as it is critical for the durability and long-term serviceability of concrete struc-
tures [28]. Restrained drying shrinkage can cause cracking, and while it may not necessarily
compromise the structural integrity of reinforced concrete structures, it may cause serious
durability issues [29]. Research shows that drying shrinkage of oven-cured geopolymer
concrete is often relatively low compared to conventional concrete. As reported by Wallah
and Rangan [30], the majority of the water generated during the chemical reaction in FA-
based geopolymer concrete may evaporate during the curing phase. As a result, the excess
water in the hardened concrete’s micropores is minimal, and thus the drying shrinkage is
very limited. Other researchers also confirm that conventionally cured geopolymer concrete
made from FA has good engineering performance and low drying shrinkage [31,32]. How-
ever, Wang et al. [33] showed that slag-based geopolymer concretes activated with sodium
silicate might result in higher shrinkage strains than OPC concrete due to the development
of silica-rich gel. For this reason, the long-term free drying shrinkage of FA-based SCGC
made with/without slag needs to be examined.
Details of the binder type used and investigated properties of previous research on
plain SCGC made with/without FA and slag are summarized in Table 1. Details of the
current investigation are also displayed at the bottom of Table 1.
Table 1. Details of binder type used and examined properties of SCGC in the previous research and
current study.
Mechanical Durability
Refs Binder Type Fresh Properties Others
Properties Properties
Slump, T500 and Compressive,
FA (100,75,50,25,0%) Statistical Evaluation,
[34] V-funnel flow time, splitting, fracture -
slag (0,25,50,75,100%) correlation
L-box height parameters
FA (50%), slag (50%), NS Statistical Evaluation,
[35] 1 (5–10 kg/m3 ) V-funnel flow time, fracture parameters, -
correlation
L-box height bond strength,
Rapid chloride and
Slump, T500 and
water permeability,
V-funnel flow time,
[36] FA (25%), slag (75%) Compressive Sorptivity, Abrasion,
L-box and J-ring height,
Acid and sulphate
U-box
attack, shrinkage
[37] slag,NS (9–10 kg/m3 ) V-funnel flow time, and flexural, bond Sorptivity XRD
J-ring height strength
Rapid chloride
permeability,
Slump, T500 flow time,
[38] FA (Class F & C) Compressive Sorptivity, Acid and SEM
L-box height, U-box
sulphate attack,
corrosion
Slump, T500 and
FA (100%), slag (100,95,85, Compressive,
[4] V-funnel flow time, Sorptivity SEM
75%), RHA 2 (5, 15, 25%) splitting, flexural
L-box and J-ring height
Slump, T500 and
FA (100%), slag (100,95,85, Compressive,
[39] V-funnel flow time, - SEM
75%), RHA (5, 15, 25%) splitting, flexural
Slump, V-funnel flow Compressive,
[40] FA Water absorption
time, L-box height splitting
Slump, T500 and
[24] FA V-funnel flow time, Compressive - -
Slump, T500 and
Slump, T500 and
[42] FA V-funnel flow time, Compressive - SEM
Slump, T500 and
FA (100,80,60,40,20,0%) Compressive,
[43] V-funnel flow time, - -
, slag (100,80,60,40,20,0%) splitting, flexural
L-box height
Slump, T500 and
V-funnel flow time,
[25] FA Compressive - -
L-box and J-ring height,
sieve segregation
FA (100,95,90,85,80%) MK Slump, T500 and
3 (5,10,15,20%) GSA 4 Compressive,
[44] V-funnel flow time, Water permeability -
splitting, flexural
(5,10,15,20%) L-box and J-ring height
[45] MK - Flexural strength Water absorption SEM
Carbonation depth,
Slump, T500 and
Compressive, drying shrinkage,
[46] slag V-funnel flow time, SEM
splitting, flexural acid resistance, water
L-box height
absorption,
[47] FA V-funnel flow time, splitting, flexural - -
J-ring height strength
Slump, T500 and
[48] FA (50%), slag (50%) V-funnel flow time, Compressive - -
L-box height
FA (100–70%), Slump, T500 and Compressive,
[49] slag (10,20,30%), V-funnel flow time, splitting, flexural - -
SF 5 (5,10,15%) L-box height, U-box strength
Compressive,
Slump, T500 and
splitting, fracture
[50] Slag (100, 98%), NS (2%) V-funnel flow time, - -
parameters, modulus
L-box height
of elasticity
Table 1. Cont.
Mechanical Durability
Refs Binder Type Fresh Properties Others
Properties Properties
Slump, T500 and
Slump, T500 and
FA (100,90,80,70%), MK Compressive,
[52] V-funnel flow time, - -
(10,20,30%) splitting, flexural
L-box height
[32] FA (100,90%), SF (10%) - - Shrinkage -
Slag Slump, T500 and
Compressive, XRD, SEM,
[53] (100,70,60,50,40,30%)FA V-funnel flow time, -
splitting, flexural correlation, modeling
(30,40,50,60,70%) L-box and J-ring height
Slump and J-ring flow,
Sorptivity,
T500 , TJ500, and
The current FA (100,70,50,0%) Compressive, long-term free drying Correlation, an
V-funnel flow time,
study slag (0,30,50,100%) splitting shrinkage, long-term empirical equation
mass loss
sieve segregation
Where 1 NS is nano-silica, 2 RHA is rice husk ash, 3 MK is metakaolin, 4 GSA is groundnut shell ash, 5 SF is
silica fume.
Studies on the influence of slag content on fresh, mechanical, and durability behaviors, as
well as mechanical property predictive models, are limited. The study presented here aims at
filling these gaps by examining the impact of slag inclusion on the various fresh, mechanical,
and durability properties of FA-based SCGC specimens. Slump flow, T500 , J-ring flow, TJ500 ,
J-ring height, L-box, V-funnel, and sieve segregation resistance are the fresh property tests to
be used in this work. In terms of mechanical properties, both the compressive and splitting
tensile strength will be determined. In terms of durability, sorptivity and long-term free drying
shrinkage will be investigated. Correlations between different properties will be attempted
and comparisons with existing predictive models made.
2. Materials
Class F fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (slag) were utilized as a
binder. Their chemical and physical features are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Chemical and physical features of FA and slag in the presented study.
Specific Loss on
Component % CaO SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 MgO Various Blain Fineness (cm2 /g)
Gravity Ignition
FA 4.0 56 24 7.0 2.0 7.0 2.28 3.0 3098
Slag 40 36 11 0.4 7.6 5.0 2.80 2.3 4250
The alkaline activator utilized in this study was a blend of sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 )
and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The alkaline/binder ratio was kept at 0.5 in this study, the
molarity (M) constant at 12, and the Na2 SiO3 /NaOH ratio at 2.5 [34]. The mass of Na2 SiO3
used in the production of SCGC was 45% dry (of which 15% was Na2 O and 30% SiO2 ) and
55% water content. The NaOH was 99% pure. The NaOH solution was made by dissolving
solid NaOH pellets in water, targeting at 12 M molarity.
Coarse and fine natural aggregates used in this study were gravel and sand, respec-
tively. The physical features of the used aggregates are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Physical features of gravel and sand in the presented study.
Type of FA Size (mm) Specific Gravity Water Absorption (%)

Gravel 4–16 2.70 0.5
Sand 0–4 2.66 0.8
Standard BS EN 933-1+ A1 2005 [54] BS EN 1097-6:2013 [55] BS EN 1097-6:2013 [55]
The superplasticizer (SP) used was MC Power flow evo 502, a SP based on poly-
carboxylate ether that meets the standards of EN 934-2: T3.1/3.2. It is a fifth generation
MC-superplasticizer with improved rheological properties. It is yellow in color and has
a density of 1.03 kg/m3 . Tap water content was maintained at 40 kg/m3 throughout
the research.
3. Mixing Procedure
Four SCGC mixtures were prepared with 450 kg/m3 total binder content [35]. Different
amounts of slag were used to make these combinations, while the other parts remained
constant. Slag was used in this study to replace the FA at 0%, 30%, 50%, and 100%
replacement levels. Table 4 shows the detailed mix proportions. In the following mix codes,
G% denotes the slag percentage used.
Table 4. Mix proportions of SCGC in the presented study.
Binder Slag Gravel Sand Molarity Water

Mix Code FA (%) Alkaline/Binder SP (%)
(kg/m3 ) (%) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (M) (kg/m3 )
G0 100 0
G30 70 30
450 800 825 0.5 12 7 40
G50 50 50
G100 100 100
3.1. Mixing and Casting

A comparable mixing process was employed to attain consistency and homogeneity in
each mixture. In the first phase, the dry ingredients, including aggregates (gravel and sand),
and binder (FA and slag), were blended for approximately 2 min in an electric concrete
mixer with a 75-L capacity. After properly blending the dry ingredients, the blended liquids
of alkaline activator and water were fed to the mixer and wet mixed for two more minutes.
The superplasticizer was added to the wet batch, and mixing proceeded for an extra two
minutes. After the mixing process was completed, SCGC mixtures were tested in their
fresh state, and then samples for hardened state characteristics were cast. Before placing
the concrete into the molds, the fresh concrete was re-mixed in the mixer for thirty seconds
to ensure the homogeneity of the mixture.
3.2. Curing Method

The samples were kept for 24 h in the laboratory [56] prior to being oven-cured at
85 ◦ C for 24 h, except for the shrinkage tests. It should be noted that the SCGC specimens
made with 100% FA (G0) did not harden enough after 24 h due to the low content of CaO,
which is considered the main compound that affects the initial setting time of concrete.
Slag can be added to the FA-based SCGC to enhance the setting time [34]. Therefore, in
this study, the geopolymer concrete specimens were subjected to heat-curing after one day
without being removed from the molds. After oven curing, the hardened samples were
stored at ambient temperature until the testing date.
4. Testing Procedure
4.1. Fresh Properties
The flowability of the SCGC mixtures were evaluated using slump flow, J-ring flow,
and V-funnel tests, passing-ability was assessed through the use of the L-box and J-ring
height tests, and viscosity was evaluated via V-funnel, T500 mm , and TJ500 mm , according
to the EFNARC recommendations [57]. Segregation resistance was measured via a sieve
segregation test [58]. The J-ring test is a combination test to assess the filling-and-passing-
ability of the freshly mixed SCGC through a restricted and congested area without blocking.
During this test, J-ring flow diameter, TJ500 mm, and J-ring height were calculated.
Figure 1 shows photos of the fresh tests conducted in this study. Flow diameters in
the x and y directions were monitored in the slump flow and J-ring flow tests, and the
T500 mm and TJ500 mm flow times at which the flow diameter reached 500 mm were also
recorded. The J-ring height, or passing ability (PJ), which refers to the blocking of fresh
concrete through congested reinforcement bars, was measured once the concrete flow had
stopped moving. Then, in the center of the J-ring, the straight rod was placed with its flat
side down and to measure the distance (in mm) between the lower edge of the rod and
the concrete surface (ho). Following that, the height (mm) of four spots outside the J-ring,
two along the x-axis (hx1, hx2) and two along the y-axis (hy1, hy2) were measured. The
following equation was used to determine the PJ value in mm:
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW hx1 + hx2 + hy1 + hy2 7 of 31
PJ = − ho (1)
4
Figure1.
Figure 1. Fresh test apparatus:
apparatus: (a)
(a)slump
slumptest,
test,(b)
(b)J-ring
J-ringtest,
test,(c)(c)V-funnel
V-funneltest, (d)(d)
test, L-box test,
L-box and
test, (e)
and
sieve
(e) segregation
sieve test.
segregation test.
Table
The 5 Displays
V-funnel testthe upper completely
involves and lower bounds thatV-shaped
filling the EFNARC section
has established for the
with concrete,
allowing
performancethe concrete
of SCC to discharge,
mixtures and recording
in their fresh statethe discharge time. The concrete viscosity
[57].
in its fresh condition can be assessed indirectly using the V-funnel flow time and T500 mm
Table
test 5. Fresh test assessment
measurements, as well asfollowing the EFNARC
the V-funnel and TJ500guidelines.
mm test records. The SCGC’s passing-
ability (PA) between tiny gaps of bars was determined by means of the L-box test by
Flowability Classes
dividing the horizontal section’s concrete height by the vertical section’s height after the
Classesconcrete flow has stopped. The sieve Slump Flow andtest
segregation J-Ring
was Flow Diameter
conducted using(mm)
a sieve having
Slump flow (SF) 1 550–650
5 mm holes, a 300 mm diameter, and a 30 mm height. After finishing the mixing process,
Slump flow (SF) 2
approximately 5 kg of the fresh concrete was placed 660–750
in a plastic container and set aside
for 153 min. The pan was then weighed dry (mp ). After
Slump flow (SF) that, a sieve and pan were placed
760–850
on the scale and approximately 4.8
Viscosity Classeskg of fresh SCGC was carefully placed at half a meter
Class height, and the weight was recorded
T500 (sec) (m ). After two
s TJ500 (sec) minutes, theV-Funnel
sieve wastime
carefully
(sec) lifted,
and the amount of concrete that had passed through the 5 mm holes and remained in
Viscosity (VS1/VF1) ≤2 ≤2 ≤8
the pan were weighed (mps ). The sieve segregation index (SI) was calculated using the
Viscosity (VS2/VF2) >2 and ≤5 >2 and ≤6 9 to 25
following equation:
Passing ability
m ps − m p ∗ 100
Classes SI, % = (2)
ms J-Ring passing ability
Passing-ability (PJ) 1 ≤10 mm
Passing-ability (PJ) 2 ≥10, 20 mm
Classes L-Box height ratio
Passing-ability (PA) 1 ≥0.8 with two rebar
Table 5 Displays the upper and lower bounds that EFNARC has established for the
performance of SCC mixtures in their fresh state [57].
Table 5. Fresh test assessment following the EFNARC guidelines.
Flowability Classes
Classes Slump Flow and J-Ring Flow Diameter (mm)
Viscosity Classes
Class T500 (sec) TJ500 (sec) V-Funnel time (sec)
Viscosity (VS1/VF1) ≤2 ≤2 ≤8
Viscosity (VS2/VF2) >2 and ≤5 >2 and ≤6 9 to 25
Passing ability
Classes J-Ring passing ability
Passing-ability (PJ) 1 ≤10 mm
Passing-ability (PJ) 2 ≥10, 20 mm
Classes L-Box height ratio
Passing-ability (PA) 1 ≥0.8 with two rebar
Passing-ability (PA) 2 ≥0.8 with three rebar
Segregation resistance [58]
Classes Sieve segregation resistance (%)
SI 1 ≤20%
SI 2 ≤15%
4.2. Mechanical Properties

The compressive strength of hardened SCGC specimens was obtained at 7 and 28 days
of age from three 100 mm cube according to BS EN 12390 [59]. The splitting tensile strength
was determined according to BS EN 12390-6 [60] using the average of three cylindrical
samples of Ø150 × 300 mm at 28 days of age.
4.3. Correlation between Splitting Tensile and Compressive Strength

Normally, there is a good correlation between the mechanical properties of concrete
(compressive strength, elastic modulus and tensile/flexural/splitting strength). Hence,
the 28 day splitting tensile strength can be predicted from the compressive strength using
empirical equations proposed by ACI 318-11 [61], ACI 363R-10 [62], CEB-FIB [63], and
Lee and Lee [64], as tabulated in Table 6. The empirical equations provided by codes and
literature are based on the cylindrical compressive strength values fć in MPa. As cubes
were tested in this study the following conversion equation was used [65]:
fć = 0.8 × fcu (3)
where 0.8 is the conversion factor.

28 day splitting tensile strength can be predicted from the compressive strength using
empirical equations proposed by ACI 318-11 [61], ACI 363R-10 [62], CEB-FIB [63], and Lee
and Lee [64], as tabulated in Table 6. The empirical equations provided by codes and lit-
erature are based on the cylindrical compressive strength values fć in MPa. As cubes were
tested in this study the following conversion equation was used [65]:
fć = 0.8 × fcu (3)
where 0.8 is the conversion factor.
Table 6. ACI predictive equations for the splitting tensile strength of concrete.
Table 6. ACI predictive equations for the splitting tensile strength of concrete.
Property Standard Equation
Property Standard Equation
p
ACI 318 [61] f t = 0.56 f (4)
ACI 318 [61] 𝑓p= 0.56 𝑓ć (4)
f t = 0.59 f (5)
ACI 363 [62] 𝑓 = 0.59 𝑓ć (5)
Splitting Tensile Strength, ft (MPa) ACI 363 [62] for 21 MPa < fć < 83 MPa
Splitting Tensile Strength, ft (MPa) for 21 MPa < fć < 83 MPa
2
CEB-FIB
CEB-FIB[63]
[63] f t = 0.3 f 3 (6) (6)
p𝑓 = 0.3𝑓ć
Lee
Leeand Lee
and [64][64]
Lee f t = 0.45𝑓 =f 0.45 𝑓 (7) (7)
ć
4.4. Durability Properties

4.4.1. Capillary Water
4.4.1. Capillary Water Absorption
Absorption (Sorptivity)
(Sorptivity)
The
The rate
rate of
of water
water absorption
absorption per
per unit
unit area
area was
was measured
measured fromfrom the
the capillary
capillary water
water
absorption
absorption of
ofthree
three100
100mmmmcubes.
cubes.After
After2828days, thethe
days, specimens’
specimens' sides were
sides taped
were to prevent
taped to pre-
water absorption
vent water fromfrom
absorption the sides. The The
the sides. specimens werewere
specimens thenthen
placed on aon
placed tray andand
a tray rested on
rested
knife-edge supports to obtain a depth of water immersion of 2.0 mm, in
on knife-edge supports to obtain a depth of water immersion of 2.0 mm, in accordance accordance with
BS ENBS13057
with [66] (see
EN 13057 [66]Figure 2). The2).
(see Figure mass
Theresulting from water
mass resulting fromabsorption from thefrom
water absorption bottom
the
surface
bottom surface was determined over time (0 min, 12 min, 30 min, 60 min, 120 min, and
was determined over time (0 min, 12 min, 30 min, 60 min, 120 min, 240 min, 240
1440
min, min). Themin).
and 1440 waterThe uptake
waterwas determined
uptake by plotting
was determined bythe weightthe
plotting gain per unit
weight gainarea
per
against
unit area against the square root of time, and the slope of the best fit line was usedthe
the square root of time, and the slope of the best fit line was used to calculate to
Sorptivity coefficient
calculate the Sorptivity(index) [67,68].
coefficient (index) [67,68].
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Capillary absorption test:
Capillary absorption test: (a)
(a) specimen
specimen set
set up,
up, (b) schematic representation
(b) schematic representation of
of specimens.
specimens.
4.4.2. Free Drying Shrinkage

To quantify drying shrinkage and mass loss of SCGC, two 100 × 100 × 300 mm prisms
were used for the G0 and G50 mixes according to ASTM C 157 [69]. After casting, the
prisms were left at ambient conditions for 24 h, then exposed to oven curing at 40 ◦ C for
three days [70]. Following curing, the prisms were demolded, and demec points were
glued to the specimens at a gauge length of 200 mm mid-height on two sides (see Figure 3).
The change in length was determined by a dial gauge extensometer, with a strain accuracy
of 5 µε (see Figure 4). Initial measurements of length and weight were carefully recorded.
The prisms were then placed in a controlled climate chamber and subjected to a drying
condition (22 ± 2 ◦ C and 50 ± 2% relative humidity (RH)). Measurements of length and
weight were taken over a period of a year; every 24 h for the first week, four times a week
for the later three weeks, once per week for the second month, once per two weeks for the
prisms were left at ambient conditions for 24 h, then exposed to oven curing at 40 °C for
glued to the specimens at a gauge length of 200 mm mid-height on two sides (see Figure
glued to the specimens at a gauge length of 200 mm mid-height on two sides (see Figure
3). The change in length was determined by a dial gauge extensometer, with a strain ac-
3). The change in length was determined by a dial gauge extensometer, with a strain ac-
curacy of 5 με (see Figure 4). Initial measurements of length and weight were carefully
curacy of 5 με (see Figure 4). Initial measurements of length and weight were carefully
recorded. The prisms were then placed in a controlled climate chamber and subjected to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063 recorded. The prisms were then placed in a controlled climate chamber and subjected to
9 of 29
a drying condition (22 ± 2 °C and 50 ± 2% relative humidity (RH)). Measurements of length
a drying condition (22 ± 2 °C and 50 ± 2% relative humidity (RH)). Measurements of length
and weight were taken over a period of a year; every 24 h for the first week, four times a
and weight were taken over a period of a year; every 24 h for the first week, four times a
week for the later three weeks, once per week for the second month, once per two weeks
weekmonth,
third for the laterthen
three weeks, once per week for the second month, onceand
per12
two weeks
for the third and
month, and once peronce
then monthperfor the long-term
month periods
for the long-term (six, nine,
periods months).
(six, nine, and 12
for
The the third
valuesThemonth,
were and
averaged then once per month for the long-term periods (six, nine, and 12
months). values were for the twofor
averaged samples.
the two samples.
months). The values were averaged for the two samples.
Figure3.3.Free
Figure Freedrying
dryingshrinkage
shrinkage test:
test: (a)(a) prisms
prisms are are placed
placed in a in a controlled
controlled climate
climate chamber,
chamber, (b) ge-
(b) geometry
Figure
ometry 3.
ofFree
the drying shrinkage test: (a) prisms are placed in a controlled climate chamber, (b) ge-
specimens.
of the specimens.
ometry of the specimens.
Figure 4. Free drying shrinkage measurement: (a) specimen measurement, (b) strain gauge measure-
ment device developed by BAM.
5. Result and Discussion

5.1. Fresh Properties
The impact of utilizing slag as a binder on the performance of FA based SCGC mixes
was investigated, and the results were compared with the limits of EFNARC [57]. The
results of the fresh properties of SCGC mixtures with various slag contents are presented in
Table 7 and Figures 5–18.
The slump flow diameter values of the produced geopolymer concrete in mm with
respect to the slag content are shown in Figure 5. The slump values range from 788 to 680
mm, showing a systematic decrease with the increase in slag content. This is because slag
binders have a larger specific surface area than FA binders, which demands a higher quan-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063 tity of mixing water, thereby diminishing the workability of the freshly mixed concrete. 10 of 29
The slump flow values for the produced SCGCs of the mixes, including 0% and 30%
slag content are in the range of the SF3 class, and the mixes containing 50% and 100% slag
Fresh
Table 7.in
content the test results
range of the
of the SF2SCGC
class in
of the presented
EFNARC study.
limits. Based on the EFNARC limitations
[57], the SF2 class can be used for constructions with complex geometries, vertical appli-
Slump J-Ring
cations, and filling beneath TJ500 V-Funnel Segregation
Mix Code Slag (%) T500 (s) the formwork. However,
PJ (mm) SCGC in the SF3 class provides
L-Box a
(mm) (mm) (sec) (s) Index (%)
better surface finish than SCGC in the SF2 class. On the other hand, controlling segrega-
G0 0 788 780 is more difficult
tion resistance 2.12 2.42
in the 0.0
SF3 class. Previous 7.5 recorded
studies 1.00values between
28.7
G30 30 775 760 2.31 2.71 1.0 10.3 0.99 22.4
755 and 650 mm for the blended fly ash and slag blended SCGC [34]. Moreover, the results
G50 50 750 738 2.94 3.31 2.7 12.0 0.96 18.4
G100 100 align with the
680 665BS EN 12350-8
4.10 standard 4.43 [71] which
7.1specifies 17.1
that slump values
0.84 should have
11.4
an average diameter greater than 600 mm.
SF3
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 788 11 of 31
775
Slump flow diameter (mm)
750
760
5.1.2. T500 mm Slump Flow Time
SF2
Figure 6 shows the influence of slag on the T500 mm slump flow680
time, in which time is
measured up to the point at which the flow diameter of the freshly mixed concrete reaches
660
500 mm. In the results of T500, it can be observed that by increasing the slag content, the
slump flow time is increased. The recorded T500 mm slump flow in this study was between
SF1
2.12 and 4.10 s. T500 mm meet the requirements of the EFNARC specifications [57] and the
BS EN 12350-8 standard (less than 6 s) [71].
560
To examine the correlation between these two tests, the inverse linear relationship
0 30 50 100
between flow time and flow diameter data is depicted in Figure 7. The R-square value of
Slag content (%)
0.993 shows a strong correlation between the T500 and Slump flow diameter values of the
Figure
Figure5.
mixes 5.Influence
Influenceof
conducted ofslag
in slagcontent
this contenton
study. onthe
theslump
slumpresults.
results.
4.5
T500 mm slump flow time (sec)
4.10
4
3.5
2.94
3
2.5 2.31
2.12
2
0 30 50 100
Slag content (%)
Figure
Figure6.
6.Influence
Influenceof
ofslag
slagcontent
contenton
onthe
theT500
T500mm
mm flow
flow time.
time.
5
T500 mm slump flow time(sec)
4
y = -0.0185x + 16.701
R² = 0.993
3
1
650 700 750 800
Figure 7. Correlation between T500 mm slump flow time and slump flow diameter.
2.5 2.31
T50
2.12
2
0 30 50 100
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063
Slag content (%) 11 of 29
Figure 6. Influence of slag content on the T500 mm flow time.
T500 mm slump flow time(sec)

4
y = -0.0185x + 16.701
R² = 0.993
3
Sustainability
Sustainability 2022,
2022, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12
12 of
of 31
31
slump
slump flow
flow diameter
diameter is
is found
found in
in Figure
Figure 9.
9. From
From the
the figure,
figure, the
the R-square
R-square isis 0.997,
0.997, indicating
indicating
1 relationship
aa strong
strong relationship between
between J-ring-and-slump
J-ring-and-slump flow flow diameter
diameter outcomes.
outcomes. ThisThis means
means that
that
both 650 are
both results
results are proportional
proportional700
to
to the
the slag content.750
slag content. Safiuddin
Safiuddin etet al. [72],800
al. [72], who
who studied
studied the
the
fresh
fresh properties
properties of
of SCC
SCC andSlump
and flow diameter
achieved
achieved 0.998(mm)
aa 0.998 correlation
correlation coefficient
coefficient between
between J-ring
J-ring and
and
slump
slump flow
flow diameter,
diameter, also
also confirmed
confirmed this
this result.
result.
Figure
Figure7.7.Correlation
Correlationbetween
betweenTT500500
mm slump
mm flow
slump time
flow and
time slump
and flow
slump diameter.
flow diameter.
5.1.3. J-Ring Flow Diameter

J-Ring flow diameter (mm)
The J-ring flow diameter test is used to determine the flow spread of the fresh mixed
SF3
780
780
SCC as it flows through the J-ring. In this test, the J-ring flow diameter in mm for the
760
760
various slag
760
760 content is evaluated, as shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that the J-ring flow
diameter decreases with the increase in slag content. 738
738 The J-ring results ranged between
SF2
780 and 665 mm for the slag contents of 0% and 100%, respectively. The mixes of the SCGC
can be classified into the SF3 class when the slag content ratio ranges 665 between (0 to 30%)
665
and the SF2
660
660 class when the slag content ratio exceeds 30% up to 100%. The test values are
within the EFNARC limits [57]. Furthermore, the linear correlation between J-ring and
SF1
560
560
00 30
30 50
50 100
100
Slag
Slag content
content (%)
(%)
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Influence
Influence of
of slag
slag content
content on
on the
the J-ring
J-ring flow
flow diameter.
diameter.
800
800
J-ring flow diameter (mm)
yy == 1.0408x
1.0408x -- 42.993
42.993
R²
R² == 0.997
0.997
750
750
700
700
650
650
650
650 700
700 750
750 800
800
Slump
Slump flow
flow diameter
diameter (mm)
(mm)
Figure
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Correlation between
9. Correlation
Correlation between J-ring
between J-ring and
J-ring and slump
and slump flow
slump flow diameter.
flow diameter.
diameter.
5.1.4.
5.1.4. TJ
TJ500 mm Flow
500 mm Flow Time
Time
The
The TJ TJ500 mm flow
500 mm flow time
time outcomes
outcomes of of the
the SCGC
SCGC withwith different
different slag
slag content
content are
are shown
shown
in Table 7 and Figure 10. The flow time measured for the TJ
in Table 7 and Figure 10. The flow time measured for the TJ500 mm test varies between 2.42
500 mm test varies between 2.42
and
and 4.43
4.43 s.s. According
According to to EFNARC
EFNARC specifications
specifications andand guidelines
guidelines [57],
[57], the
the TJ
TJ500 mm of
500 mm of SCC
SCC
typically
typically takes
takes between
between 22 and
and 66 sec.
sec. Hence,
Hence, thethe TJ
TJ500 mm values
500 mm values areare within
within aa satisfactory
satisfactory
range.
range. The
The influence
influence of of slag
slag content
content on on the
the TJ
TJ500 mm of
500 mm of SCGC
SCGC is is obvious
obvious from
from Figure10,
Figure10, andand
the
the TJ
TJ500 mm results
500 mm results decreased
decreased with
with the
the increase
increase inin slag
slag content.
content. Moreover,
Moreover, the the correlation
correlation
coefficient
coefficient (R-square)
(R-square) for for the
the TJ
TJ500 mm slump
500mm slump flow
flow time
time and
and J-ring
J-ring flow
flow diameter
diameter isis depicted
depicted
Sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14,
2022, 14, x15063
14, x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 1312of
13 of 31
of 31
29
5
4.43
TJ500 mm flow time (sec)

4
3.31
3 2.71
2.42
2
0 30 50 100
Slag content (%)
Figure
Figure 10. Influence
Influence of
of slag
slag content on the TJ500 mm flow
mm flow
500 mm
500 time.
time.
5
4
y = -0.0176x + 16.184
R² = 0.989
2
650 700 750 800
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW J-Ring flow diamete (mm) 14 of 31
Figure
Figure 11. Correlation
Correlation between TJ500
500 mm
500 mm
mmslump
slumpflow
flowtime
timeand
andJ-ring
J-ringflow
flowdiameter.
diameter.
5.1.5.10.0
J-Ring Passing-Ability
J-ring passing-ability PJ (mm)
The J-ring passing ability values with respect to slag content are illustrated in Figure
12. It can be seen that the passing-ability increases with the inclusion
7.1 of slag. The test val-
7.5
ues were located between 0.0 and 7.1 mm for the slag content of 0% and 100%, respec-
tively. According to the EFNARC specifications [57], the J-ring passing-ability for values
PJ 1
smaller5.0than 10 mm is classed as PJ 1. Therefore, the PJ values are typically in the range of

PJ 1 class for the mixes in the study, with values less than 10 mm, which indicates good
passing ability. 2.7
2.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0 30 50 100
Slag content (%)
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Influence
Influence of
of slag
slag content
content on
on the
the J-ring
J-ring passing-ability.
passing-ability.
5.1.6. V-Funnel Flow Time

The discharge time from the V-funnel flow time test is comparable to the slump flow
test results, as depicted in Figure 13. The test values increase with increasing slag content.
The EFNARC requirements [57] specify viscosity classes based on V-funnel, T500 mm slump,
and TJ500 mm slump flow time test results, as can be seen in Table 7. In addition, the viscosity
class variations between V-funnel vs. T500 mm are illustrated in Figure 14. According to the
test findings, all mixtures belong to the VS2/VF2 viscosity category, except for the mix
created without slag (G0), which is within the VS1/VF1 viscosity class based on the V-
an inadequate smooth surface texture and may be susceptible to SCGC mix flow stoppage.
The results show that increasing the slag level increases the flow duration, which is ad-
vantageous for avoiding segregation and bleeding but may result in insufficient filling
ability. The EN 12350-9 [73] standard also specifies that the V-funnel outcome should be
less than 15 sec to ensure adequate filling capacity. Likewise, as illustrated in Figure 15, a
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063 similar trend can be observed for the viscosity class variances between V-funnel and 13 TJ
of 500
29
mm flow time data.
18 17.1
V-funnel flow time (sec)

15
12.0
12
10.3
9
7.5
6
0 30 50 100
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Slag content (%) 15 of 31
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 31
Figure 13. Influence of slag content on the V-funnel
V-funnel flow
flow time.
time.
30
30
25
25
(sec)
VS2/VF2
time(sec)
20
VS2/VF2
20
flowtime
15
15
V-funnelflow
10
V-funnel
10
55 VS1/VF1
VS1/VF1
00
00 11 22 flow time33(sec) 44 55
TT500
500 mm flow
mm time (sec)
Figure 14.
Figure14. Viscosity class
Viscosityclass
14.Viscosity variation
classvariation with
variationwith V-funnel
withV-funnel and
and TT
V-funneland 500 mm. .
T500
Figure 500mm.
mm
30
30
25
25
VS2/VF2
(sec)
VS2/VF2
time(sec)
20
20
flowtime
15
15
V-funnelflow
10
V-funnel
10
55 VS1/VF1
VS1/VF1
00
00 11 22 33 44 55 66
TJ 500 mm flow time (sec)
Figure 15. Viscosity class variation with V-funnel and TJ500 mm.
Figure
Figure15.
15.Viscosity
Viscosityclass
classvariation
variationwith
withV-funnel
V-funneland
and TJ
TJ500 mm.
500 mm .
5.1.7. L-Box
5.1.7. L-Box Height
Height Ratio
Ratio
The L-box
The L-box test
test determines
determines thethe mixes’
mixes’ capacity
capacity toto pass
pass through
through three-bar
three-bar restricted
restricted
openings. The test values of SCGC mixtures should be between 0.8
openings. The test values of SCGC mixtures should be between 0.8 and 1.0 to confirm and 1.0 to confirm
certain passing abilities according to the EFNARC guidelines [57] and
certain passing abilities according to the EFNARC guidelines [57] and the EN12350-10 the EN12350-10
standard [71].
standard [71]. From
From thethe test
test results
results presented
presented in
in Figure
Figure 16,
16, itit is
is feasible
feasible to
to ascertain
ascertain that
that
all mixtures possess an appropriate passing capacity (passing-ability > 0.8),
all mixtures possess an appropriate passing capacity (passing-ability > 0.8), and the L-box and the L-box
values are
values are classified
classified in
in the
the class
class of
of passing
passing ability
ability 2.
2. The
The highest
highest passing
passing ability
ability of
of 1.00
1.00 is
is
L-box height
PA 2
2022, 14,
14, 15063
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 14
ofof3129
Sustainability 0.84
0.80 1.00
1.00 0.99
0 30 50 100
Slag content (%)
0.96
L-box height ratio

Figure 16. Influence of slag content on the L-box height ratio.
5.1.8. Sieve Segregation
PA 2
The segregation index (%) is depicted in Figure 17. With increased slag content, the
segregation index begins to diminish. This is due to the fact that slag has a larger specific
surface area than FA. The test values achieved in the mixes mentioned above range from
0.84
11.4% to 28.7%. Based on BS EN12350-11 [58], the segregation index should be lower than
20%. This means that the mixes with 0% and 30% slag content are out of the allowable
range, whereas the mixes with 50% and 100% slag content satisfy the SI 1 and SI 2 classes,
0.80
respectively. Figure 18 depicts the relationship with both the segregation index and the
slump flow diameter.0 30 that the segregation
It can be seen 50 index and100
slump flow of the SCC
Slag content (%)
mixtures have a significant linear relationship. The correlation coefficient R-square value
is 0.90, 16.
Figure indicating
Influenceaof
Influence significant
of slag correlation.
slag content
content on
on the
the L-box
L-boxheight
heightratio.
ratio.
5.1.8.30Sieve Segregation
28.7
Segregation index (%)
surface
25 area than FA. The test values achieved in the mixes mentioned above range from
22.4
range,
20 whereas the mixes with 50% and 100% slag content satisfy the SI 1 and SI 2 classes,
respectively. Figure 18 depicts the relationship with 18.4 both the segregation index and the
SI 1
slump flow diameter. It can be seen that the segregation index and slump flow of the SCC
mixtures have a significant linear relationship. The correlation coefficient R-square value
15
is 0.90, indicating a significant correlation.
SI 2
11.4
30
10 28.7
0 30 50 100
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Slag content (%) 17 of 31
index (%)
25
Figure
Figure17.
17.Influence
Influenceof
ofslag
slagcontent on
onthe
content22.4 thesegregation
segregation index.
index.
30
20
Segregation
18.4
y = 0.1429x - 86.706
SI 1
(%)
R² = 0.90
20
Segregation index
15
SI 2
11.4
10
0 30 50 100
Slag content (%)
Figure017. Influence of slag content on the segregation index.
650 700 750 800
Figure
Figure 18.
18. Correlation
Correlation between
between segregation
segregation index
index and
and slump
slump flow
flow diameter.
5.1.1.
5.2. Slump Flow
Mechanical Diameter
Properties
The slump
Table flow
8 shows diameter
the values
results for the of the produced
different geopolymer
mechanical concrete
properties. in mmspeci-
The SCGC with
respect to the slag content are shown in Figure 5. The slump values range from
mens were cured at 85 °C for 24 h and then kept at room temperature until they reached788 to
28 days of age. As expected, increasing the slag content of the geopolymer concrete was
found to enhance the compressive strength [34].
Table 8. Hardened properties of SCGC in the presented study.

680 mm, showing a systematic decrease with the increase in slag content. This is because
slag binders have a larger specific surface area than FA binders, which demands a higher
quantity of mixing water, thereby diminishing the workability of the freshly mixed concrete.
The slump flow values for the produced SCGCs of the mixes, including 0% and 30%
slag content are in the range of the SF3 class, and the mixes containing 50% and 100%
slag content in the range of the SF2 class of EFNARC limits. Based on the EFNARC
limitations [57], the SF2 class can be used for constructions with complex geometries,
vertical applications, and filling beneath the formwork. However, SCGC in the SF3 class
provides a better surface finish than SCGC in the SF2 class. On the other hand, controlling
segregation resistance is more difficult in the SF3 class. Previous studies recorded values
between 755 and 650 mm for the blended fly ash and slag blended SCGC [34]. Moreover,
the results align with the BS EN 12350-8 standard [71] which specifies that slump values
should have an average diameter greater than 600 mm.
5.1.2. T500 mm Slump Flow Time

Figure 6 shows the influence of slag on the T500 mm slump flow time, in which time is
measured up to the point at which the flow diameter of the freshly mixed concrete reaches
500 mm. In the results of T500 , it can be observed that by increasing the slag content, the
slump flow time is increased. The recorded T500 mm slump flow in this study was between
2.12 and 4.10 s. T500 mm meet the requirements of the EFNARC specifications [57] and the
BS EN 12350-8 standard (less than 6 s) [71].
To examine the correlation between these two tests, the inverse linear relationship
between flow time and flow diameter data is depicted in Figure 7. The R-square value of
0.993 shows a strong correlation between the T500 and Slump flow diameter values of the
mixes conducted in this study.
5.1.3. J-Ring Flow Diameter

The J-ring flow diameter test is used to determine the flow spread of the fresh mixed
SCC as it flows through the J-ring. In this test, the J-ring flow diameter in mm for the
various slag content is evaluated, as shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that the J-ring flow
diameter decreases with the increase in slag content. The J-ring results ranged between 780
and 665 mm for the slag contents of 0% and 100%, respectively. The mixes of the SCGC
can be classified into the SF3 class when the slag content ratio ranges between (0 to 30%)
and the SF2 class when the slag content ratio exceeds 30% up to 100%. The test values are
within the EFNARC limits [57]. Furthermore, the linear correlation between J-ring and
slump flow diameter is found in Figure 9. From the figure, the R-square is 0.997, indicating
a strong relationship between J-ring-and-slump flow diameter outcomes. This means that
both results are proportional to the slag content. Safiuddin et al. [72], who studied the fresh
properties of SCC and achieved a 0.998 correlation coefficient between J-ring and slump
flow diameter, also confirmed this result.
5.1.4. TJ500 mm Flow Time

The TJ500 mm flow time outcomes of the SCGC with different slag content are shown
in Table 7 and Figure 10. The flow time measured for the TJ500 mm test varies between 2.42
and 4.43 s. According to EFNARC specifications and guidelines [57], the TJ500 mm of SCC
typically takes between 2 and 6 sec. Hence, the TJ500 mm values are within a satisfactory
range. The influence of slag content on the TJ500 mm of SCGC is obvious from Figure 10, and
the TJ500 mm results decreased with the increase in slag content. Moreover, the correlation
coefficient (R-square) for the TJ500 mm slump flow time and J-ring flow diameter is depicted
in Figure 11. The R2 of 0.989 shows a very strong relationship between TJ500 mm flow time
via J-ring flow diameter. As expected, there is an inverse linear relationship between the
two measurements.
5.1.5. J-Ring Passing-Ability

The J-ring passing ability values with respect to slag content are illustrated in Figure 12.
It can be seen that the passing-ability increases with the inclusion of slag. The test values were
located between 0.0 and 7.1 mm for the slag content of 0% and 100%, respectively. According
to the EFNARC specifications [57], the J-ring passing-ability for values smaller than 10 mm is
classed as PJ 1. Therefore, the PJ values are typically in the range of PJ 1 class for the mixes in
the study, with values less than 10 mm, which indicates good passing ability.
5.1.6. V-Funnel Flow Time

The discharge time from the V-funnel flow time test is comparable to the slump flow
test results, as depicted in Figure 13. The test values increase with increasing slag content.
The EFNARC requirements [57] specify viscosity classes based on V-funnel, T500 mm slump,
and TJ500 mm slump flow time test results, as can be seen in Table 7. In addition, the viscosity
class variations between V-funnel vs. T500 mm are illustrated in Figure 14. According to
the test findings, all mixtures belong to the VS2/VF2 viscosity category, except for the
mix created without slag (G0), which is within the VS1/VF1 viscosity class based on the
V-funnel results, whereas the G0 is classified as VS2/VF2 referring to the T500 mm outcomes.
According to EFNARC, the VS1/VF1 viscosity category has a high filling capacity, even
with dense reinforcements, with a tendency to bleeding and segregation. The viscosity
class VS2/VF2 offers excellent resistance to segregation. However, the VS2/VF2 class
has an inadequate smooth surface texture and may be susceptible to SCGC mix flow
stoppage. The results show that increasing the slag level increases the flow duration, which
is advantageous for avoiding segregation and bleeding but may result in insufficient filling
ability. The EN 12350-9 [73] standard also specifies that the V-funnel outcome should be
less than 15 sec to ensure adequate filling capacity. Likewise, as illustrated in Figure 15,
a similar trend can be observed for the viscosity class variances between V-funnel and
TJ500 mm flow time data.
5.1.7. L-Box Height Ratio

The L-box test determines the mixes’ capacity to pass through three-bar restricted open-
ings. The test values of SCGC mixtures should be between 0.8 and 1.0 to confirm certain
passing abilities according to the EFNARC guidelines [57] and the EN12350-10 standard [71].
From the test results presented in Figure 16, it is feasible to ascertain that all mixtures possess
an appropriate passing capacity (passing-ability > 0.8), and the L-box values are classified in
the class of passing ability 2. The highest passing ability of 1.00 is for the mixes without slag
content. Then, the L-box values decrease as the slag content increases.
5.1.8. Sieve Segregation

surface area than FA. The test values achieved in the mixes mentioned above range from
range, whereas the mixes with 50% and 100% slag content satisfy the SI 1 and SI 2 classes,
respectively. Figure 18 depicts the relationship with both the segregation index and the
slump flow diameter. It can be seen that the segregation index and slump flow of the SCC
mixtures have a significant linear relationship. The correlation coefficient R-square value is
0.90, indicating a significant correlation.
5.2. Mechanical Properties

Table 8 shows the results for the different mechanical properties. The SCGC specimens
were cured at 85 ◦ C for 24 h and then kept at room temperature until they reached 28 days
of age. As expected, increasing the slag content of the geopolymer concrete was found to
enhance the compressive strength [34].
Table 8. Hardened properties of SCGC in the presented study.
Compressive (MPa)
Mix Code Slag Content (%) Splitting Tensile (MPa)
7 Days 28 Days
G0 0 38.70 44.21 2.51
G30
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 58.17 65.72 4.31 18 of 31
G50 50 76.63 81.67 5.35
G100 100 80.92 85.10 5.60
5.2.1.
5.2.1. Compressive
Compressive Strength
Strength (f(fcu
cu)
)
Figure
Figure 19 shows the impact of
19 shows the impact of the
the slag
slag content
content onon the
the compressive
compressive strength
strength ofof SCGC.
SCGC.
The FA-based geopolymer concrete mixes yield the lowest strength
The FA-based geopolymer concrete mixes yield the lowest strength values, whereas the values, whereas the
inclusion of slag significantly increases the compressive strength of SCGC.
inclusion of slag significantly increases the compressive strength of SCGC. The compressive The compres-
sive strength
strength of theofseven-day-old
the seven-day-old specimens
specimens were were between
between 38.7–80.9
38.7–80.9 MPa forMPa thefor
G0the
andG0G100
and
G100 mixtures,
mixtures, respectively.
respectively. These findings
These findings are lineare
withline with by
a study a study by Al-Rawi
Al-Rawi and Tayşiand[34].Tayşi
The
[34]. The compressive
strength values at values
28 daysatare28 very
daysclose
are very closeattoseven
to those thosedays
at seven days
of age. of
This
age.
may This may
be due tobethedue to early
high the high
ageearly age development
development rate of geopolymer
rate of geopolymer concreteconcrete due
due to heat
to heat compared
curing curing compared to normal
to normal concrete, concrete, as hasreported
as has been been reported by previous
by previous studiesstudies
[74]. [74].
7 days 28 days
95
Compressive strength (MPa)
85.10
81.67
80.92
75 76.63
65.72
55 58.17
44.21
38.71
35
0 30 50 100
Slag content (%)
Figure 19. Influence of slag content on the compressive strength at
at seven
seven and
and 28
28 days.
days.
Figure 20
Figure 20 shows
showsthe thepercentage
percentagerelative
relativeincrease
increase inin
compressive
strength for for
thethevarious
var-
slag content compared to the mix without slag. At 7 days, the
ious slag content compared to the mix without slag. At 7 days, the improvement inimprovement in strength of
SCGC was 98.0% and 109.0%, for the slag contents 50%, and 100%,
strength of SCGC was 98.0% and 109.0%, for the slag contents 50%, and 100%, respec- respectively. The results
confirmThe
tively. thatresults
the biggest increase
confirm in strength
that the biggest comes
increase with the replacement
in strength comes withof 50% theslag.
replace-
mentTheof 50%effect of slag, FA, and blended FA and slag binders on the compressive strength
slag.
of OPCTheand geopolymer
effect of slag, FA,mortars was also
and blended FA andexamined by Chi
slag binders on and Huang [75]. strength
the compressive The re-
sults showed that the compressive strength of geopolymer mortars
of OPC and geopolymer mortars was also examined by Chi and Huang [75]. The results (excluding FA-based
geopolymer
showed that mortars) was higher
the compressive than that
strength of ordinarymortars
of geopolymer Portland(excluding
cement mortars.
FA-based During
geo-
X-Ray Diffraction tests, specimens containing 100% FA reveal a low
polymer mortars) was higher than that of ordinary Portland cement mortars. During X- rate of reactive calcium,
resulting
Ray in a low
Diffraction level
tests, of C-S-H.
specimens As a result,
containing 100%specimens
FA reveal made
a lowofrate
FA-based geopolymer
of reactive calcium,
have lower
resulting in mechanical
a low level of properties
C-S-H. As [75]. Previous
a result, researchmade
specimens on FA of and slag mixtures
FA-based geopolymer also
found that strength increased with increasing slag content [76–79].
have lower mechanical properties [75]. Previous research on FA and slag mixtures also This is due to an in-
crease in calcium content in the mix with an increase in slag concentration.
found that strength increased with increasing slag content [76–79]. This is due to an in- Ismail and
Bernal in
crease [80] observed
calcium that calcium-rich
content in the mix with pastes
an typically
increase in formslaga concentration.
C-S-H gel, which forms
Ismail and a
dense structure and increases strength. Nevertheless, as Si increases
Bernal [80] observed that calcium-rich pastes typically form a C-S-H gel, which forms a and calcium decreases,
the Sodium-Alumino-Silicate-Hydrate
dense structure and increases strength. (N-A-S-H) gel forms,
Nevertheless, as Siresulting
increasesin aand
losscalcium
of strength.
de-
The compressive strength increases with slag content after seven
creases, the Sodium-Alumino-Silicate-Hydrate (N-A-S-H) gel forms, resulting in a loss ofand 28 days of curing.
strength. The compressive strength increases with slag content after seven and 28 days of
curing. Furthermore, the presence of CaO in slag encourages the hydration process, so a
100% slag content mixture has more compressive strength [81].
Furthermore, the presence of CaO in slag encourages the hydration process, so a 100% slag
content mixture has more compressive strength [81].
7 days 28 days
120
in compressive
7 days 28 days 109.0
120 98.0
in compressive
109.0 92.5
90 98.0 84.7
92.5
strength
strength 90 84.7
increase
60 50.3 48.7
increase
60 50.3 48.7
Percent
30
Percent
30
0
50
0 30 100
30 Slag content
50 (%) 100
Slag content
Figure 20. Percent increase in compressive strength(%)
vs. slag content.
Figure 20. Percent
Figure 20. Percentincrease
increasein in
compressive vs. slag
strength vs. content.
slag content.
5.2.2. Splitting Tensile Strength (ft)
5.2.2. Splitting Tensile Strength (ft )
5.2.2. Figure
Splitting 21 Tensile Strength
demonstrates the(fttest
) values of splitting tensile strength (ft), while Figure
Figure 21 demonstrates the test values of splitting tensile strength (ft ), while Figure 22
22 shows
Figure the21relative increase.the
demonstrates It can be observed that increasing the slag (fcontent increases
shows the relative increase. It can betest values
observed ofincreasing
that splitting tensile
the strength
slag content t), while
increases the Figure
the
22 splitting
shows
splitting the tensile.
relative
tensile. The maximum
increase.
The maximum It canofvalue
value be of splitting
observed
splitting achieved
that increasing
achieved inthe
in this study this study
slag
was wasfor
content
5.60 MPa 5.60 MPa
increases
for
the the slag-based
the splitting
slag-based geopolymer
tensile. The maximum
geopolymer concrete.
concrete. Thevalue The increase
of splitting
increase was
achieved
was 71.7%, 71.7%,
113.1%,in and 113.1%,
this123.1% and
study was 123.1%
5.60 MPa
for the for
the
G30,
for G30,
theG50, G50,
slag-basedand geopolymer
and G100 G100 mixes.
mixes. It was
It was also also
found
concrete. found
that
The the that was
theinincrease
increase
increase splitting in splitting
values
71.7%, 113.1%, was values
123.1%was
and123% for
123%
for the for the
SCGC SCGC
mixes mixes
having having
100% slag 100% slag
content. content.
the G30, G50, and G100 mixes. It was also found that the increase in splitting values was
123% for the SCGC mixes having 100% slag content.
6.0
5.60
6.0 5.35
(Mpa)
5.60
5.35
(Mpa)
strength
4.31
strength
4.31
4.0
tensile
4.0
tensile
Splitting
2.51
Splitting
2.51
2.0
2.0 0 30 50 100
0 Slag
30 content (%)50 100
21.Influence
Figure 21.
Figure Influenceofof
slag content
slag on the
content on compressive strength
the compressive
Slag content (%)
at 28 days.
strength at 28 days.
Figure 21. Influence of slag content on the compressive strength at 28 days.
Sustainability2022,
Sustainability 14,x15063
2022,14, FOR PEER REVIEW 2019ofof31
29
150
Percent increase in splitting

123.1
113.1
150
tensile strength
Percent increase in splitting
100 123.1
113.1
71.7
tensile strength
100
50 71.7
50
0
30 50 100
Slag content (%)
0
Figure 22. Percent increase
30 in splitting tensile50strength. 100
Slag content (%)
The 28-day failure surface of the SCGC specimens is shown in Figure 23. Coarse ag-
Figure
Figure 22. Percent
22.isPercent increase
increase ininsplitting
splitting tensile
tensilethe strength.
strength.
gregate equally distributed all across specimens and does not segregate, except for
the mix made with 100% FA, where a sign of segregation can be seen near the top casting
The28-day
The 28-dayfailure
failuresurface
surface ofofthetheSCGC SCGC specimens
specimens is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 23. Coarse
23. Coarse ag-
side of the specimens. It is clear from Figures 23 (b and c), that for the mixes made with
aggregate
gregate is equally
is equally distributed
distributed allall across
across thethe specimens
specimens andanddoesdoesnot
notsegregate,
segregate,exceptexceptfor for
slag,
the mixthemade
failure
with surface
100% of
FA,SCGC
where specimens
a sign of mostly wentcan
segregation through
be seen the
neargeopolymer
the top paste
casting
the mix made with 100% FA, where a sign of segregation can be seen near the top casting
matrix
side andspecimens.
the aggregates.isHowever, inFigure
the FA-based geopolymer concrete mix (Seeslag,
Fig-
side ofofthe
the specimens. It It clear
is clear from
from Figures 2323b,c,
(b and that
c), for
thattheformixes
the mixes made with
made with
ure 23a),
the failure the failure
surface path
of SCGC propagated
specimens through
mostly the interfacial
went went through transition
the geopolymer zone and geopoly-
paste matrix
slag, the failure surface of SCGC specimens mostly through the geopolymer paste
merthe
and paste matrix and
aggregates. rarely in
However, through
the FA-basedthe aggregates.
geopolymer This highlights
concrete mix the Figure
(See disparity 23a),in
matrix and the aggregates. However, in the FA-based geopolymer concrete mix (See Fig-
strength
the failure of geopolymer pastes of FAthe and slag-based mixes. According to Shen et al.paste [82],
ure 23a), thepath propagated
failure through
path propagated through interfacial transition
the interfacial zone andzone
transition geopolymer
and geopoly-
the
matrixsurface's
andmatrixroughness
rarelyand through and broken aggregates directly correlate with the splitting tensile
mer paste rarelythe aggregates.
through This highlights
the aggregates. the disparity
This highlights theindisparity
strengthin of
strength. When
geopolymer pastestheofroughness
FA and is increased
slag-based and According
mixes. more aggregates to Shen were
et cracked,
al. [82], thethe tensile
surface’s
strength of geopolymer pastes of FA and slag-based mixes. According to Shen et al. [82],
splitting strength
roughness is higher [82]. The correlation between the splitting tensile and compres-
the surface'sand broken
roughness aggregates
and broken directly
aggregates correlate with correlate
directly the splitting
withtensile strength.
the splitting When
tensile
sive
the strength
roughness in
is FA-based
increased SCGC
and more with various
aggregates slag
were content
cracked, is illustrated
the tensile in Figure
splitting 24. It is
strength
strength. When the roughness is increased and more aggregates were cracked, the tensile
isobvious
splitting
that
[82].an
higherstrength Theincrease
is higher
in compressive
correlation between
[82]. The
strength
the
correlation splitting typically
between tensile results in a corresponding
and compressive
the splitting tensile andstrength
compres-
sub-
in
sequent increase
FA-based SCGC in tensile
with various strength
slag [34]. Despite
content is the usage
illustrated in of slag
Figure 24. binder,
It is the R-Square
obvious that an
sive strength in FA-based SCGC with various slag content is illustrated in Figure 24. It is
value ofin0.994
increase indicatesstrength
compressive that thetypically
splittingresults and compressive
in a corresponding strength values are
subsequent strongly
increase in
obvious that an increase in compressive strength typically results in a corresponding sub-
correlated with a direct linear relationship. For the results
tensile strength [34]. Despite the usage of slag binder, the R-Square value of 0.994 indicatespresented in Figure 24, the fol-
sequent increase in tensile strength [34]. Despite the usage of slag binder, the R-Square
lowing
that correlation
the splitting andbetween
compressive splitting
strength tensile strength
values and compressive
are strongly correlated with strength was
a direct
value of 0.994 indicates that the splitting and compressive strength values are strongly
found:relationship. For the results presented in Figure 24, the following correlation between
linear
correlated with a direct linear relationship. For the results presented in Figure 24, the fol-
splitting tensile strength and compressive strength1.225 was found:
lowing correlation between splitting tensile ft = 0.025f
strength
cu and compressive strength was (8)
1.225
found: f t = 0.025f cu (8)
where ft is the splitting tensile strength (MPa) and fcu is the cube compressive strength
(MPa)ft is the splitting tensile strength (MPa)
where and cufcu1.225
ft = 0.025f is the cube compressive strength (MPa). (8)
where ft is the splitting tensile strength (MPa) and fcu is the cube compressive strength
(MPa)
Figure 23. Failure path of splitting tensile strength test; (a) G0 (0% slag content), (b) G30 (30% slag
content), and (c) G50 (50% slag content).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063 Figure 23. Failure path of splitting tensile strength test; (a) G0 (0% slag content), (b)20G30
of 29(30% slag
content), and (c) G50 (50% slag content).
6.0
Splitting tensile strength (MPa)

5.0
ft= 0.025fcu1.225
R² = 0.994
4.0
3.0
2.0
35 50 65 80 95
Figure 24.Correlation
Figure 24. Correlation between
between splitting
splitting tensile
tensile and compressive
and compressive strength.
strength.
5.3. Prediction of Splitting Tensile Strength

5.3. Prediction of Splitting Tensile Strength
Though predictive equations for tensile strength exist for normal concrete, there is a
Though
lack of predictive
equations equations
for geopolymer andfor tensile strength
self-compacted exist forconcrete.
geopolymer normal concrete, there is a
The results
lack
from of equations
this study arefor geopolymer
compared andresults
with the self-compacted geopolymer
calculated from proposedconcrete.
equationsThe
by results
from
ACI 318-11 [61], ACI 363R-10 [62], Eurocode CEB-FIB [63], and Lee and Lee [64]. All the by ACI
this study are compared with the results calculated from proposed equations
318-11 [61],
empirical ACI 363R-10
models presented[62],
aboveEurocode CEB-FIBfor
were developed [63], and concrete,
normal Lee and except
Lee [64].
forAll
the the em-
model proposed
pirical by Lee and
models presented Lee, which
above proposed for
were developed forFA and slag
normal blendedexcept
concrete, geopolymer
for the model
concrete. Figure
proposed by Lee25and
andLee,
Tablewhich
9 show the actualfor
proposed and
FApredicted
and slag28-day
blendedmechanical values
geopolymer concrete.
using Equations (4)–(7) in Table 6 and a proposed model (Equation (8)).
Figure 25 and Table 9 show the actual and predicted 28-day mechanical values using
Equations (4)–(7) in Table 6 and a proposed model (Equation (8)).
6.0
Table 9. Actual and predicted mechanical properties of SCGC recommended by ACI 318-11 [61],
Splitting tensile strength (MPa)
ACI 363R-10 [62], European code CEB-FIB [63], Lee and Lee [64], and self-developed model.
5.0
Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa)
Slag Content
Mix Code Actual Proposed Model
(%) ACI 318 ACI 363 CEB−FIP Lee and Lee
Result (Equation (8))
4.0
G0 0 2.51 3.33 3.51 3.23 2.68 2.55
G30 30 4.31 4.06 4.28 4.21 3.26 4.14
G50 50 5.35 4.53 4.77 4.87 3.64 5.41
3.0
G100 100 5.60 4.62 4.87
ft (Actual) 5.00 3.71
ft (ACI 318) 5.68
ft (ACI 363) CEB− FIP
Splitting Tensile Strength (ft) Lee and Lee Proposed Model
2.0
Figure 25 compares
0 the splitting
30 tensile results
50 obtained from
100this investigation ver-
sus predicted outcomes by ACI 318-11 [61], ACI 363R-10 [62], Eurocode CEB-FIB [63], Lee
Slag content (%)
and Lee [64], and the proposed model (Equation (8)). For the reference mix G0, the tensile
strength
Figure isActual
close
25.Actual
Figure25. andtopredicted
and the model
predicted thattensile
splitting
splittingLee and Leevalues.
strength
tensile proposed,
strength values. while the predicted values by
ACI models and CEB-FIB provide overestimates. However, surprisingly, the tensile
strength predicted by Lee and Lee does not increase much with the compressive strength.
The same can be said for the other predictions as well. This is because the splitting tensile
strength in this study grows faster than the compressive strength. This is reflected in
Equation 8 by the exponent of the compressive strength being higher than 1. This result is
surprising, and indicates a more fundamental property of slag that enhances the tensile
Table 9. Actual and predicted mechanical properties of SCGC recommended by ACI 318-11 [61], ACI
363R-10 [62], European code CEB-FIB [63], Lee and Lee [64], and self-developed model.
Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa)

Mix Code Slag Content (%) Proposed Model
Actual Result ACI 318 ACI 363 CEB−FIP Lee and Lee
(Equation (8))
G0 0 2.51 3.33 3.51 3.23 2.68 2.55
G30 30 4.31 4.06 4.28 4.21 3.26 4.14
G50 50 5.35 4.53 4.77 4.87 3.64 5.41
G100 100 5.60 4.62 4.87 5.00 3.71 5.68
Splitting Tensile Strength (ft )

Figure 25 compares the splitting tensile results obtained from this investigation versus
predicted outcomes by ACI 318-11 [61], ACI 363R-10 [62], Eurocode CEB-FIB [63], Lee and
Lee [64], and the proposed model (Equation (8)). For the reference mix G0, the tensile
strength is close to the model that Lee and Lee proposed, while the predicted values by ACI
models and CEB-FIB provide overestimates. However, surprisingly, the tensile strength
predicted by Lee and Lee does not increase much with the compressive strength. The same
can be said for the other predictions as well. This is because the splitting tensile strength in
this study grows faster than the compressive strength. This is reflected in Equation 8 by the
exponent of the compressive strength being higher than 1. This result is surprising, and
indicates a more fundamental property of slag that enhances the tensile strength, possibly
via the penetration of hydration products into the ITZ and aggregates themselves. This
clearly requires further investigation.
The actual splitting tensile results of 70% FA and 30% slag mix are very similar to
those predicted by ACI 318, ACI 363, and Eurocode CEB-FIB, but the proposed equations
by Lee and Lee underestimate them. For instance, the experimental values were 5.8%, 0.7%,
2.3%, and 24.3% higher than the predicted values proposed by ACI 318, ACI 363, Eurocode
CEB-FIB, and Lee and Lee, respectively, for the mix of 30% slag content. Using 50% and
100% slag content, the above variations between actual and predicted models become
higher. However, ACI 363 and Eurocode CEB-FIB are the closest to the real values for G50
and G100 mixtures, which range between 9.0 and 13% lower than what was predicted.
Faridmehr et al. [53] investigated SCGC made with the combined use of FA and slag.
They also found that the proposed relationship by ACI 318 between compressive and
splitting tensile strength does not correctly estimate the splitting tensile values of SCGC.
Consequently, the above findings might help researchers predict the splitting tensile values
of FA-based SCGC mixes made with or without slag with respect to the experimental
compressive strength values, but to reach more decisive conclusions, more investigations
and analysis are needed.
5.4. Durability Properties

Table 10 shows the capillary water absorption, free drying shrinkage, and mass loss
results. The results indicate that increasing slag content reduces mass loss and capillary
absorption but increases drying shrinkage.
Table 10. Results of durability properties of SCGC.
Free Drying Shrinkage after 365 Days

Mix Code Slag Content (%) Capillary Absorption(mm/min0.5 )
Max. Shrinkage (Microstrain) Max. Mass Loss (g)
G0 0 0.0513 104 201
G30 30 0.0377 ——- ——-
G50 50 0.0291 175 115
G100 100 0.0242 ——- ——-
5.4.1. Capillary Water Absorption (Sorptivity)

5.4.1. Capillary Water Absorption (Sorptivity)
Capillary water absorption tests determine SCGC's ability to absorb water from a
singleCapillary waterThis
surface [83]. absorption tests determine
index properly assessesSCGC’s ability of
the quality to the
absorb water surface
concrete from a layer,
single surface [83]. This index properly assesses the quality of the concrete surface layer,
which controls reinforcement corrosion [83]. The lower the sorptivity, the more durable
which controls reinforcement corrosion [83]. The lower the sorptivity, the more durable the
the concrete
concrete is the
is and andbetter
the better it performs
it performs in environment.
in a harsh a harsh environment.
The 28-day The 28-day
capillary capillary
water
water
absorption coefficient for various slag contents is plotted in Figure 26. The relative decreaserelative
absorption coefficient for various slag contents is plotted in Figure 26. The
decrease in capillary
in capillary absorptionabsorption coefficient
coefficient is presented is
in presented
Figure 27. in Figure 27.
0.06
Capillary absorption coefficient
0.0513
0.05
(mm/min0.5)
0.04 0.0377
0.0291
0.03
0.0242
0.02
0 30 50 100
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of
Slag content (%)
Figure
Figure26. Influence of
26. Influence ofslag
slagcontent
contentonon
thethe
capillary water
capillary absorption
water after 28
absorption days.
after 28 days.
From 0the test results, a systematic decrease can be detected due to increased slag
Percent decrease in capillary
content. With the increasing of the slag content from 0 to 100%, a reduction in sorptivity
of 52.83% is recorded. The trends observed in the results are in line with results by other
-15such as Shaikh [84], who found that geopolymer concrete displays lower sorp-
water absorption
researchers
tivity than normal concrete. Patel and Shah [4] studied blended FA and slag-based SCGC
incorporating
-30
rice husk ash cured in ambient conditions. They reported that higher sorp-
-26.51
tivity is achieved by FA-based geopolymer concrete. The values of capillary suction for all
SCGC specimens were in a range of 0.069–0.136 mm/min0.5. According to recent research
on the effects
-45 of mineral admixtures on the characteristics of geopolymer concrete by
-43.27
Jindal et al. [85], raising the slag replacement ratio reduces the percentage of water ab-
sorption. Furthermore, permeability is determined by pore size distribution -52.83 and structure.
The pores' -60continuity influences water absorption. Geopolymer gel formation fills pores
in the microstructure of30the geopolymer concrete, 50 changing the 100
pore configuration and
densifying the microstructure. As theSlag age content
develops (%)
from 1 day to 28 days, the pores are
gradually filled up by the production of geopolymer and C-S-H gels [4]. In geopolymer
Figure 27. Percent decrease in capillary water absorption.
concrete,
Figure 27. the slagdecrease
Percent binder provides thewater
in capillary C-S-H gel formation, which holds CaO oxide in the
absorption.
chemical
From composition, resulting
the test results, in enhanced
a systematic decreasestrength.
can be detected due to increased slag
5.4.2. Drying
content. WithShrinkage andofMass
the increasing Loss
the slag content from 0 to 100%, a reduction in sorptivity
of 52.83% is recorded. The trends observed in the results are in line with results by other
Curing is a key factor in evaluating the free drying shrinkage of concrete. It was p
researchers such as Shaikh [84], who found that geopolymer concrete displays lower
viously reported
sorptivity that concrete.
than normal the shrinkage of Shah
Patel and geopolymers
[4] studiedisblended
highlyFA dependent on the curi
and slag-based
regime and liquid/binder
SCGC incorporating rice husk ratio
ash [86].
curedAdditionally, the shrinkage
in ambient conditions. of geopolymer
They reported that higher mortar
a sorptivity
low temperature
is achieved(40 °C) is very
by FA-based high compared
geopolymer to those
concrete. The valuescured at a higher
of capillary temperatu
suction for
all SCGC specimens were in a range of 0.069–0.136 mm/min 0.5 . According to recent research
(60 °C) [86]. Furthermore, the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete improv
with increasing curing temperature. The fib MC 2010 and B4 models both predict shrin
age based on the compressive strength [87]. For the above reasons, the effect of the curi
condition and compressive strength on the shrinkage of geopolymer concrete is of gr
importance. Setting time and strength development of low-calcium FA-based geopolym
on the effects of mineral admixtures on the characteristics of geopolymer concrete by Jindal

et al. [85], raising the slag replacement ratio reduces the percentage of water absorption.
Furthermore, permeability is determined by pore size distribution and structure. The
pores’ continuity influences water absorption. Geopolymer gel formation fills pores in the
microstructure of the geopolymer concrete, changing the pore configuration and densifying
the microstructure. As the age develops from 1 day to 28 days, the pores are gradually
filled up by the production of geopolymer and C-S-H gels [4]. In geopolymer concrete,
the slag binder provides the C-S-H gel formation, which holds CaO oxide in the chemical
composition, resulting in enhanced strength.
5.4.2. Drying Shrinkage and Mass Loss

Curing is a key factor in evaluating the free drying shrinkage of concrete. It was
previously reported that the shrinkage of geopolymers is highly dependent on the curing
regime and liquid/binder ratio [86]. Additionally, the shrinkage of geopolymer mortar at
a low temperature (40 ◦ C) is very high compared to those cured at a higher temperature
(60 ◦ C) [86]. Furthermore, the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete improves with
increasing curing temperature. The fib MC 2010 and B4 models both predict shrinkage
based on the compressive strength [87]. For the above reasons, the effect of the curing
condition and compressive strength on the shrinkage of geopolymer concrete is of great
importance. Setting time and strength development of low-calcium FA-based geopoly-
mer concrete is very low compared to blended FA and slag-based geopolymer concrete.
Therefore, apart from the other parameters, different curing conditions were investigated
in this study: (1) curing at an elevated temperature (85 ◦ C), and (2) the prisms are cast for
a free drying shrinkage test cured in an oven at a low temperature (40 ◦ C) for three days.
Figure 28 shows the compressive strength of 100 mm cubical specimens of the SCGC mixes
cured at 40 ◦ C for three days. The compressive strengths were enhanced by increasing slag
content from 0% to 50%. A similar trend was reported in the previous sections of this paper.
60
55.0
45
30
22.6
15
0
G0 G50
Slag content (%)
Figure
Figure Compressive
28.28. strength
Compressive of SCGC
strength specimens
of SCGC specimens at 40 ◦at
curedcured C for three
40 °C fordays.
three days.
Free Drying Shrinkage
Concrete drying shrinkage is characterized as a volumetric change as a result of
concrete drying. Initially, free water is lost, resulting in minimal to no shrinkage. As the
concrete continues to dry, the absorbed water is removed. Hydrostatic tension holds this
adsorbed water in tiny capillaries. Tensile stresses are created when this water is lost,
causing the concrete to shrink. The shrinkage caused by such a water loss is substantially
more than the shrinkage caused by free water loss [88]. Drying shrinkage is a long-term
process that depends on the water-cement ratio, hydration process, curing condition,
adsorbed water in tiny capillaries. Tensile stresses are created when this water is lost,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063 causing the concrete to shrink. The shrinkage caused by such a water loss is substantially 24 of 29
more than the shrinkage caused by free water loss [88]. Drying shrinkage is a long-term
process that depends on the water-cement ratio, hydration process, curing condition,
moisture content,
moisture content,drying
dryinginterval,
interval,aggregate
aggregateproperties,
properties,additives,
additives,and and chemical
chemical proper-
properties
of the cement [89–91]. Typical curves of free drying shrinkage vs. drying time for thefor
ties of the cement [89–91]. Typical curves of free drying shrinkage vs. drying time SCGCthe
SCGC with
mixes mixesandwith and without
without the inclusion
the inclusion of slagofare
slaggiven
are given in Figure
in Figure 29. Regardless
29. Regardless of theof
the slag
slag content,
content, a sharp
a sharp increase
increase in in
thethe free
free dryingshrinkage
drying shrinkagetest testmeasurements
measurementsis is noticed
drying time; then, the curve becomes flat. The inclusion of slag in SCGC
up to 90 days of drying
results in higher shrinkage values. The values of drying shrinkage at 365 days were 104
and 175 microstrain for the mix codes of G0 and G50, respectively. These values are lower
than for OPC concrete. However, in a different study [70], it was reported that the drying
shrinkage ofof FA-based
FA-basedgeopolymer
geopolymerconcreteconcretecured
curedininambient
ambient conditions
conditions reduces
reduceswith the
with
addition
the of slag,
addition andand
of slag, the the
six-month
six-month shrinkage of geopolymer
shrinkage of geopolymer concrete mixes
concrete ranged
mixes rangedbe-
between
tween 482482andand722722 microstrain.
microstrain. Moreover,
Moreover, geopolymer
geopolymer concrete
concrete attained
attained lower
lower values
values of
of shrinkage
shrinkage compared
compared toto ordinaryconcrete
ordinary concreteforforcomparable
comparablecompressive
compressivestrength
strength values.
values.
Additionally,
Additionally,itithas
hasbeen
beenreported
reported that
thatthethe
drying
dryingshrinkage
shrinkage strains of geopolymer
strains of geopolymer concrete
con-
cured via oven
crete cured are generally
via oven less than
are generally less those concrete
than those curedcured
concrete at ambient conditions
at ambient [92].
conditions
Furthermore, it wasitreported
[92]. Furthermore, that low-calcium
was reported bindersbinders
that low-calcium are lessare
reactive than high-calcium
less reactive than high-
binders. In alkali-activated
calcium binders. mixtures,
In alkali-activated class Fclass
mixtures, fly ash
F flyreduced the shrinkage
ash reduced of concrete
the shrinkage of con-
compared to class
crete compared to C fly ash
class C flyand
ashslag
andbinders [93,94].
slag binders [93,94].
210
G0 G50
180
Drying shrinkage (microstrain)
150
120
90
60
30
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Drying shrinkage (days)

Figure
Figure 29. Drying shrinkage
29. Drying shrinkage strain
strain development
development of
of SCGC.
SCGC.
Mass Loss
Mass Loss
The results of mass loss versus drying time are plotted in Figure 30. SCGC incorpo-
The results of mass loss versus drying time are plotted in Figure 30. SCGC incorpo-
rating slag displayed a lower mass loss than the mix made with 100% FA. At 365 days,
rating slag displayed a lower mass loss than the mix made with 100% FA. At 365 days, the
the mass losses of the mixes made of 0% and 50% slag were 201 g and 115 g, respectively.
mass losses of the mixes made of 0% and 50% slag were 201 g and 115 g, respectively.
According to previous studies, there might not be a direct relationship between drying
According to previous studies, there might not be a direct relationship between drying
shrinkage and SCC’s mass loss measurements. The mass loss indicator alone cannot pro-
shrinkage and SCC's mass loss measurements. The mass loss indicator alone cannot pro-
vide substantial information on the variation in the drying shrinkage of concrete [95], as a
vide substantial
number of other information on the drying
variables influence variation in the drying
shrinkage shrinkage
in addition of concrete
to mass [95],The
loss [90,91]. as
a number of other variables influence drying shrinkage in addition to mass loss [90,91].
obtained behavior is contrary to expectations and there are no available studies regarding
The property,
this obtained hence
behavior is work
more contrary to expectations
is required and there are no available studies re-
in this direction.
garding this property, hence more work is required in this direction.
Sustainability
Sustainability2022,
2022,14,
14,x15063
FOR PEER REVIEW 26 25
ofof3129
250
G0 G50
200
Mass loss (gram)

150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Drying time (days)
Figure
Figure30.
30.Mass
Massloss
lossvariations
variationsofofSCGC.
SCGC.
6.6.Conclusions
Conclusions
Basedon
Based onthe
thefindings,
findings,the
thefollowing
followingconclusions
conclusionscan
canbe
bedrawn
drawnononthe
theimpact
impactofofslag
slag
content on the fresh and hardened qualities of SCGC containing
content on the fresh and hardened qualities of SCGC containing FA: FA:
1.1. Slag
Slaginclusion
inclusionhas has aa negative
negative impact
impacton onthe
theflowability
flowability ofof
SCGC
SCGC in terms
in termsof slump flow
of slump
and J-ring flow diameter. The slump and J-ring flow values
flow and J-ring flow diameter. The slump and J-ring flow values decrease by increas- decrease by increasing
thethe
ing slag
slaginin
thethemixes,
mixes,butbutthis
thisisisstill
stillwithin
within EFNARC’s acceptable limits.
EFNARC's acceptable limits.This
Thismay
may
be due to the morphology, lower specific surface area, and lesser reactivity of the FA
be due to the morphology, lower specific surface area, and lesser reactivity of the FA
binder compared to slag.
binder compared to slag.
2. T , TJ500 , and V-funnel flow times increase with the increase in slag replacement
2. T500500
, TJ500, and V-funnel flow times increase with the increase in slag replacement lev-
levels. The relationship of V-funnel via T500 and V-funnel via TJ500 also indicates
els. The relationship of V-funnel via T500 and V-funnel via TJ500 also indicates that
that slag-rich SCGCs mixtures belong to the viscosity class (VS2/VF2) as defined by
slag-rich SCGCs mixtures belong to the viscosity class (VS2/VF2) as defined by
EFNARC. It can also be concluded that this kind of concrete might help improve
EFNARC. It can also be concluded that this kind of concrete might help improve re-
resistance to segregation or reduce pressure on the formwork.
sistance to segregation or reduce pressure on the formwork.
3. Slag leads to a reduction in the passing-ability of fresh concrete.
3. Slag leads to a reduction in the passing-ability of fresh concrete.
4. Slag has a significant impact on the segregation resistance of SCGC mixes. The
4. Slag has a significant impact on the segregation resistance of SCGC mixes. The allow-
allowable range of segregation index (%) is attained when the usage of slag exceeds
able
30%range
of theoftotal
segregation index (%) is attained when the usage of slag exceeds 30%
binder content.
5. of the total binder content.
The low-calcium content of FA binders delays hardening, and using slag in geopoly-
5. The merlow-calcium
concrete mixes content of FAaccelerate
can help binders delays
strength hardening,
gain. and using slag in geopol-
6. ymer concrete mixes can help accelerate strength gain.
The utilization of slag results in a considerable increase in compressive and splitting
6. The utilization
tensile strength.of slag results in
The highest a considerable
relative benefit isincrease
observed inatcompressive and splitting
50% replacement.
7. tensile strength. The highest relative benefit is observed at
The splitting tensile strength was found to increase faster than the compressive50% replacement.
7. The splitting
strength, tensile astrength
indicating potentialwas found to of
enhancement increase
the ITZ.faster
A new than the compressive
predictive equation is
strength,
proposed indicating
for these amixes.
potential enhancement of the ITZ. A new predictive equation
8. isBased
proposedon theforsorptivity
these mixes.test, a higher slag content enhances the durability of SCGC. By
8. Based on the sorptivity
utilizing slag, SCGA specimens test, a higher slag content
can achieve a higherenhances the durability
rate of resistance of SCGC.
to absorption. As
Bythe percentage of slag climbed from 0% to 100%, the sorptivity value declined absorp-
utilizing slag, SCGA specimens can achieve a higher rate of resistance to to 48.5%.
9. tion. As theSCGC
FA-based percentage
madeof slagorclimbed
with withoutfrom slag0% to 100%,
exhibits lowthe sorptivity
free value declined
drying shrinkage. SCGC
tomade
48.5%. with 100% FA displays lower shrinkage strains than the mix made with 50%
9. FA-based
FA and 50% SCGC slagmade
due with
to theorlower
without slag exhibits
reactivity of the FA lowbinder
free drying shrinkage.
compared SCGC
to slag. After
made withof100%
one year FA displays
exposing sampleslower shrinkage
to drying strains
conditions, than
the freethe mix shrinkage
drying made withvalues50%
FAofand
SCGC 50% slag due to
specimens cured at 40 ◦reactivity
the lower C were 104 ofand
the FA175binder compared
microstrain to G0
for the slag. After
and G50
one year of exposing
mixes, respectively. samples to drying conditions, the free drying shrinkage values
10. ofFully
SCGC specimens
FA-based SCGCcured at 40 °C show
specimens were 104 andmass
greater 175 microstrain
loss than the formix
thewith
G0 and50%G50
slag
mixes, respectively.
content. Therefore, it may be inferred that the mass loss parameter does not provide
sufficient information about the variety in free drying shrinkage results.
7. Recommendations
It is recommended to investigate the influence of slag content on the durability perfor-
mance of FA-based SCGC; specifically, gas permeability and rapid chloride permeability.
In addition, further studies are needed on the long-term free drying shrinkage and mass
loss. Furthermore, restrained shrinkage could be a topic of interest to the researchers.
Investigating the microstructure of the FA-based SCGC with various slag content is also
important to justify the behavior of the mechanical strength and durability of such mixes.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y., R.W.A. and K.P.; methodology, A.F.H.S.,
K.H.Y., R.W.A. and K.P; software, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A.; validation, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y., R.W.A.
and K.P.; formal analysis, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A.; investigation, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A.;
resources, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A.; data curation, A.F.H.S. and K.H.Y.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A.; writing—review and editing, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y., R.W.A. and
K.P.; visualization, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y., R.W.A. and K.P.; supervision, K.H.Y., R.W.A. and K.P.; project
administration, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A.; funding acquisition, A.F.H.S., K.H.Y. and R.W.A. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Soran University and Erbil Polytechnical
University especially Bashdar A. Abdulla for supporting this research and the University of Applied
Sciences Erfurt for their hospitality as well as administrative and practical support, especially Cornelia
Witter from FHE International Office and Wolfgang Hezel from FHE Concrete laboratory.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
FA, Fly Ash; Slag, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag; SCC, Self-Compacted Concrete; SCGC,
Self-Compacted Geopolymer Concrete; ACI, American Concrete Institute; CEB-FIB, Constructions
Électriques de Beaucourt-International Federation for Structural Concrete; OPC, Ordinary Portland
Cement; Si, Silica; AL, Alumina; CaO, Calcium Oxide; CO2 , Carbon Dioxide; C-S-H, Calcium-Silicate-
Hydrates; N-A-S-H, Sodium-Alumino-Silicate-Hydrate; NS, Nano-Silica; RHA, Rice Husk Ash; MK,
Metakaolin; GSA, Groundnut Shell Ash; SF, Silica Fume; Na2 SiO3 , Sodium Silicate; NaOH, Sodium
Hydroxide; Na2 O, Sodium Oxide; SiO2 , Silicon Dioxide; BS EN, British and European Standard Spec-
ifications; SP, Superplasticizer; EFNARC, European Federation of National Associations Representing
for Concrete; PJ, J-ring Passing-ability; PA, L-box Passing-ability; SI, Sieve Segregation Index; fcu ,
Cubical Compressive Strength; fć , Cylindrical Compressive Strength; RH, Relative Humidity.
References
1. Antiohos, S.K.; Tapali, J.G.; Zervaki, M.; Sousa-Coutinho, J.; Tsimas, S.; Papadakis, V.G. Low Embodied Energy Cement Containing
Untreated RHA: A Strength Development and Durability Study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 49, 455–463. [CrossRef]
2. Prasittisopin, L.; Trejo, D. Hydration and Phase Formation of Blended Cementitious Systems Incorporating Chemically Trans-
formed Rice Husk Ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 59, 100–106. [CrossRef]
3. Aprianti, E.; Shafigh, P.; Bahri, S.; Farahani, J.N. Supplementary Cementitious Materials Origin from Agricultural Wastes—A
Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 74, 176–187. [CrossRef]
4. Patel, Y.J.; Shah, N. Enhancement of the Properties of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Based Self Compacting Geopolymer
Concrete by Incorporating Rice Husk Ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 171, 654–662. [CrossRef]
5. Rangan, B.V. Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete; Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2010.
6. Davidovits, J. Geopolymer CHemistry and Applications, 3rd ed.; Geopolymer Institute: Saint-Quentin, France, 2011.
7. Ahmed, H.U.; Mahmood, L.J.; Muhammad, M.A.; Faraj, R.H.; Qaidi, S.M.; Sor, N.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mohammed, A.A.
Geopolymer Concrete as a Cleaner Construction Material: An Overview on Materials and Structural Performances. Clean. Mater.
2022, 5, 100111. [CrossRef]
8. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Faraj, R.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Mohammed, A.A. Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete
Modified with Nano-Silica: Experimental and Modeling Investigations. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01036. [CrossRef]
9. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Faraj, R.H.; Hamah Sor, N.; Mohammed, A.A. Compressive Strength of
Geopolymer Concrete Composites: A Systematic Comprehensive Review, Analysis and Modeling. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022,
26, 1–46. [CrossRef]
10. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.A.S.; Rafiq, S.; Mohammed, A.A.S.; Mosavi, A.; Sor, N.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A.A. Compressive Strength of
Sustainable Geopolymer Concrete Composites: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13502. [CrossRef]
11. Wongpa, J.; Kiattikomol, K.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; Chindaprasirt, P. Compressive Strength, Modulus of Elasticity, and Water
Permeability of Inorganic Polymer Concrete. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 4748–4754. [CrossRef]
12. Li, C.; Sun, H.; Li, L. A Review: The Comparison between Alkali-Activated Slag (Si + Ca) and Metakaolin (Si + Al) Cements. Cem.
Concr. Res. 2010, 40, 1341–1349. [CrossRef]
13. Chindaprasirt, P.; De Silva, P.; Sagoe-Crentsil, K.; Hanjitsuwan, S. Effect of SiO2 and Al2 O3 on the Setting and Hardening of High
Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Systems. J. Mater. Sci. 2012, 47, 4876–4883. [CrossRef]
14. Mehta, A.; Williams, V.; Parajuli, B. Child with Dysuria and/or Hematuria. Indian J. Pediatr. 2017, 84, 792–798. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15. Saha, S.; Rajasekaran, C. Enhancement of the Properties of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Paste by Incorporating Ground Granulated
Blast Furnace Slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 146, 615–620. [CrossRef]
16. Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K.; Rangan, V.B. Early Age Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Suitable for Ambient
Curing. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 601–607. [CrossRef]
17. 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]
18. Hadi, M.N.S.; Farhan, N.A.; Sheikh, M.N. Design of Geopolymer Concrete with GGBFS at Ambient Curing Condition Using
Taguchi Method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 140, 424–431. [CrossRef]
19. Sherwani, A.F.H.; Younis, K.H.; Arndt, R.W. Fresh, Mechanical, and Durability Behavior of Fly Ash-Based Self Compacted
Geopolymer Concrete: Effect of Slag Content and Various Curing Conditions. Polymers 2022, 14, 3209. [CrossRef]
20. Okamura, H.; Ouchi, M. Self Compacting Concrete—Research Paper. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2003, 1, 5–15. [CrossRef]
21. Faraj, R.H.; Ali, H.F.H.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Hassan, B.R.; Karim, H. Use of Recycled Plastic in Self-Compacting Concrete: A
Comprehensive Review on Fresh and Mechanical Properties. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101283. [CrossRef]
22. Faraj, R.H.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Daraei, A. Mechanical, Fracture and Durability Properties of Self-Compacting High Strength
Concrete Containing Recycled Polypropylene Plastic Particles. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100808. [CrossRef]
23. Faraj, R.H.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Jafer, L.H.; Ibrahim, D.F. Rheological Behavior and Fresh Properties of Self-Compacting High
Strength Concrete Containing Recycled PP Particles with Fly Ash and Silica Fume Blended. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 34, 101667.
[CrossRef]
24. Memon, F.A.; Nuruddin, F.; Shafiq, N.; Fareed Ahmed, M.; Nuruddin, M.F.; Shafiq, N. Compressive Strength and Workability
Characteristics of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2011,
74, 8–14.
25. Younis, K.H.; Salihi, K.; Mohammedameen, A.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Alzeebaree, R. Factors Affecting the Characteristics of Self-
Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 856, 012028. [CrossRef]
26. Astuti, P.; Afriansya, R.; Anisa, E.A.; Randisyah, J. Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Utilizing Fly
Ash. AIP Conf. Proc. 2022, 2453, 020028. [CrossRef]
27. Nazari, A.; Torgal, F.; Cevik, A.; Sanjayan, J. Compressive Strength of Tungsten Mine Waste- and Metakaolin-Based Geopolymers.
Ceram. Int. 2014, 40, 6053–6062. [CrossRef]
28. Gilbert, R.I. Creep and Shrinkage Models for High Strength Concrete—Proposals for Inclusion in AS3600. Aust. J. Struct. Eng.
2002, 4, 95–106. [CrossRef]
29. Srishaila, J.M.; Ahamed, P.U.; Vishwanath, K.N.; Prakash, P. Experimental Study on Workability and Strength Characteristics of
Fly Ash and GGBS Based Self-Compacting Geo Polymer Concrete. Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev. 2014, 10, 68–77.
30. Wallah, S.E.; Rangan, B.V. Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete: Long-Term Properties; Curtin University of Technology:
Perth, Australia, 2006.
31. Olivia, M.; Nikraz, H. Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Designed by Taguchi Method. Mater. Des. 2012, 36, 191–198.
[CrossRef]
32. Nuruddin, M.F.; Memon, F.A.; Shafiq, N.; Demie, S. Drying Shrinkage of Fly Ash-Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete.
Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 567, 362–368. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, S.-D.; Pu, X.-C.; Scrivener, K.L.; Pratt, P.L. Alkali-Activated Slag Cement and Concrete: A Review of Properties and
Problems. Adv. Cem. Res. 1995, 7, 93–102. [CrossRef]
34. Al-Rawi, S.; Tayşi, N. Performance of Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete with and without GGBFS and Steel Fiber. Adv.
Concr. Constr. 2018, 6, 323–344. [CrossRef]
35. Gülşan, M.E.; Alzeebaree, R.; Rasheed, A.A.; Niş, A.; Kurtoğlu, A.E. Development of Fly Ash/Slag Based Self-Compacting
Geopolymer Concrete Using Nano-Silica and Steel Fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 271–283. [CrossRef]
36. Nagaraj, V.K.; Babu, D.L.V. Assessing the Performance of Molarity and Alkaline Activator Ratio on Engineering Properties of
Self-Compacting Alkaline Activated Concrete at Ambient Temperature. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 20, 137–155. [CrossRef]
37. Saini, G.; Vattipalli, U. Assessing Properties of Alkali Activated GGBS Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using
Nano-Silica. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 12, e00352. [CrossRef]
38. Ganeshan, M.; Venkataraman, S. Durability and Microstructural Studies on Fly Ash Blended Self-Compacting Geopolymer
Concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2019, 25, 2074–2088. [CrossRef]
39. Patel, Y.J.; Shah, N. Development of Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete as a Sustainable Construction Material. Sustain.
Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 412–421. [CrossRef]
40. Manjunath, R.; Ranganath, R.V. Performance Evaluation of Fly-Ash Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Mixes. IOP
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 561, 012006. [CrossRef]
41. Nuruddin, M.F.; Demie, S.; Shafiq, N. Effect of Mix Composition on Workability and Compressive Strength of Self-Compacting
Geopolymer Concrete. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 38, 1196–1203. [CrossRef]
42. Demie, S.; Nuruddin, M.F.; Shafiq, N. Effects of Micro-Structure Characteristics of Interfacial Transition Zone on the Compressive
Strength of Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 41, 91–98. [CrossRef]
43. Reddy, K.M.; Kumar, G.N. Experimental Study on Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2017, 4, 953–957.
44. Bheel, N.; Awoyera, P.; Tafsirojjaman, T.; Hamah Sor, N.; sohu, S. Synergic Effect of Metakaolin and Groundnut Shell Ash on the
Behavior of Fly Ash-Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 311, 125327. [CrossRef]
45. Kamseu, E.; Ponzoni, C.; Tippayasam, C.; Taurino, R.; Chaysuwan, D.; Sglavo, V.M.; Thavorniti, P.; Leonelli, C. Self-Compacting
Geopolymer Concretes: Effects of Addition of Aluminosilicate-Rich Fines. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 5, 211–221. [CrossRef]
46. Muttashar, H.L.; Ariffin, M.A.M.; Hussein, M.N.; Hussin, M.W.; Ishaq, S. Bin Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete with Spend
Garnet as Sand Replacement. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 15, 85–94. [CrossRef]
47. Nurudin, M.F.; Memon, F.A.; Nuruddin, M.F.; Memon, F.A.; Nurudin, M.F.; Memon, F.A. Properties of Self-Compacting
Geopolymer Concrete. Mater. Sci. Forum 2015, 803, 99–109. [CrossRef]
48. Sashidhar, C.; Guru Jawahar, J.; Neelima, C.; Pavan Kumar, D. Preliminary Studies on Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete
Using Manufactured Sand. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 17, 277–288.
49. Ushaa, T.G.; Anuradha, R.; Venkatasubramani, G.S. Performance of Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Containing Different Mineral
Admixtures; NISCAIR-CSIR: New Delhi, India, 2015; Volume 22.
50. Eren, N.A.; Alzeebaree, R.; Çevik, A.; Niş, A.; Mohammedameen, A.; Gülşan, M.E. Fresh and Hardened State Performance of
Self-Compacting Slag Based Alkali Activated Concrete Using Nanosilica and Steel Fiber. J. Compos. Mater. 2021, 55, 4125–4139.
[CrossRef]
51. Memon, F.A.; Nuruddin, M.F.; Demie, S.; Shafiq, N. Effect of Superplasticizer and Extra Water on Workability and Compressive
Strength of Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 4, 407–414.
52. Arun, B.R.; Nagaraja, P.S.; Srishaila, J.M. An Effect of NaOH Molarity on Fly Ash—Metakaolin-Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer
Concrete; Springer: Singapore, 2019; Volume 25, ISBN 9789811333170.
53. Faridmehr, I.; Nehdi, M.L.; Huseien, G.F.; Baghban, M.H.; Sam, A.R.M.; Algaifi, H.A. Experimental and Informational Modeling
Study of Sustainable Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7444. [CrossRef]
54. BS EN 933-1+A1 2005; Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates—Part 1: Determination of Particle Size Distribution—Sieving
Method. BSI Standards Publication: London, UK, 2008.
55. BS EN 1097-6; Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates—Part 6: Determination of Particle Density and Water
Absorption. BSI Standards Publication: London, UK, 2013.
56. Sata, V.; Wongsa, A.; Chindaprasirt, P. Properties of Pervious Geopolymer Concrete Using Recycled Aggregates. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2013, 42, 33–39. [CrossRef]
57. EFNARC. The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete. Eur. Guidel. Self Compact. Concr. 2005, 22, 63.
58. BS EN 12350-11; Testing Fresh Concrete—Part 11: Self-Compacting Concrete—Sieve Segregation Test. BSI Standards Publication:
London, UK, 2010.
59. BS EN 12390-3; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. BSI Standards Publication: London,
UK, 2009.
60. BS EN 12390-6:2000; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 6: Tensile Splitting Strength of Test Specimens. BSI Standards Publication:
London, UK, 1993.
61. ACI 318M-11; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Concrete Institute: Farmington
Hills, MI, USA, 2011.
62. ACI 363 R-10; Report on High-Strength Concrete. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA„ 2010.
63. Comité Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code; Thomas Telford Publishing: London, UK, 1993;
ISBN 978-0-7277-3944-5.
64. Lee, N.K.; Lee, H.K. Setting and Mechanical Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash/Slag Concrete Manufactured at Room
Temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1201–1209. [CrossRef]
65. İpek, S.; Ayodele, O.A.; Mermerdaş, K. Influence of Artificial Aggregate on Mechanical Properties, Fracture Parameters and Bond
Strength of Concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 238, 117756. [CrossRef]
66. BS EN 13057; Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures—Test Methods—Determination of
Resistance of Capillary Absorption. BSI Standards Publication: London, UK, 2002.
67. Khatib, J.M.; Mangat, P.S. Absorption Characteristics of Concrete as a Function of Location Relative to Casting Position. Cem.
Concr. Res. 1995, 25, 999–1010. [CrossRef]
68. Khatib, J.M.; Clay, R.M. Absorption Characteristics of Metakaolin Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 19–29. [CrossRef]
69. ASTM:C157/C157M-08; Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete. ASTM Interna-
tional: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008; Volume 8, pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
70. Deb, P.S.; Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K. Drying Shrinkage of Slag Blended Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Cured at Room Temperature.
Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 594–600. [CrossRef]
71. BS EN 12350-8; Testing Self Compacting Concrete: Slump Flow Test. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2010; pp. 5–8.
72. Mohammed, N.; Sarsam, K.; Hussien, M. The Influence of Recycled Concrete Aggregate on the Properties of Concrete. MATEC
Web Conf. 2018, 162, 02020. [CrossRef]
73. BS EN 12350-9; Testing Fresh Concrete Self-Compacting Concrete. V-Funnel Test. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2010.
74. Akgaoglu, T.; Qubukguoglu, B.; Awad, A. A Critical Review of Slag and Fly-Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Comput. Concr.
2019, 24, 453–458. [CrossRef]
75. Chi, M.; Huang, R. Binding Mechanism and Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash/Slag Mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013,
40, 291–298. [CrossRef]
76. Puertas, F.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.; Alonso, S.; Vázquez, T.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.; Alonso, S.; Vázquez, T.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.;
Alonso, S.; Vázquez, T. Alkali-Activated Fly Ash/Slag Cements: Strength Behaviour and Hydration Products. Cem. Concr. Res.
2000, 30, 1625–1632. [CrossRef]
77. Qiu, J.; Zhao, Y.; Xing, J.; Sun, X. Fly Ash/Blast Furnace Slag-Based Geopolymer as a Potential Binder for Mine Backfilling: Effect
of Binder Type and Activator Concentration. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 2019, 2028109. [CrossRef]
78. Wang, W.C.; Wang, H.Y.; Lo, M.H. The Fresh and Engineering Properties of Alkali Activated Slag as a Function of Fly Ash
Replacement and Alkali Concentration. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 224–229. [CrossRef]
79. Sasui, S.; Kim, G.; Nam, J.; Koyama, T.; Chansomsak, S. Strength and Microstructure of Class-C Fly Ash and GGBS Blend
Geopolymer Activated in NaOH & NaOH + Na2 SiO3 . Materials 2020, 13, 59. [CrossRef]
80. Ismail, I.; Bernal, S.A.; Provis, J.L.; San Nicolas, R.; Hamdan, S.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. Modification of Phase Evolution in
Alkali-Activated Blast Furnace Slag by the Incorporation of Fly Ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 45, 125–135. [CrossRef]
81. Samantasinghar, S.; Singh, S.P. Effect of Synthesis Parameters on Compressive Strength of Fly Ash-Slag Blended Geopolymer.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 170, 225–234. [CrossRef]
82. Shen, Q.; Chen, W.; Liu, C.; Zou, W.; Pan, L. The Tensile Strength and Damage Characteristic of Two Types of Concrete and Their
Interface. Materials 2020, 13, 16. [CrossRef]
83. Atewi, Y.R.; Hasan, M.F.; Güneyisi, E. Fracture and Permeability Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete
with and without Nanosilica. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 226, 993–1005. [CrossRef]
84. Shaikh, F.U.A. Effects of Alkali Solutions on Corrosion Durability of Geopolymer Concrete. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2014, 2, 109–123.
[CrossRef]
85. Jindal, B.B.; Jangra, P.; Garg, A. Effects of Ultra Fine Slag as Mineral Admixture on the Compressive Strength, Water Absorption
and Permeability of Rice Husk Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 32, 871–877. [CrossRef]
86. Ridtirud, C.; Chindaprasirt, P.; Pimraksa, K. Factors Affecting the Shrinkage of Fly Ash Geopolymers. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater.
2011, 18, 100–104. [CrossRef]
87. Caron, R.; Patel, R.A.; Dehn, F. Extension of the Fib MC 2010 for Basic and Drying Shrinkage of Alkali-Activated Slag Concretes.
Struct. Concr. 2022, 1–14. [CrossRef]
88. Neville, A.M. Concrete: Neville’s Insights and Issues; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, England, 2006; ISBN 0727734687.
89. Shh, S.P.; Krguller, M.E.; Sarigaphuti, M. Effects of Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures on Restrained Shrinkage Cracking of
Concrete. ACI Mater. J. 1992, 89, 289–295. [CrossRef]
90. Wiegrink, K.; Surendra, P.; Shah, S.M. Shrinkage Cracking of High-Strength Concrete. ACI Mater. J. 1996, 93, 409–415. [CrossRef]
91. Gesoğlu, M.; Ozturan, T.; Güneyisi, E.; Gesoglu, M.; Özturan, T.; Güneyisi, E.; Gesoğlu, M.; Ozturan, T.; Güneyisi, E. Shrinkage
Cracking of Lightweight Concrete Made with Cold-Bonded Fly Ash Aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1121–1130. [CrossRef]
92. Brito, M.E.; Case, E.; Kriven, W.M.; Salem, J.; Zhu, D. (Eds.) Developments in Porous, Biological and Geopolymer Ceramics.
In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites, Daytona Beach, FL, USA, 21–26
January 2007; Volume 28.
93. Hossain, D.S.; Strength, K.M.A. Shrinkage and Early Age Characteristics of One-Part Alkali-Activated Binders with High-Calcium
Industrial Wastes, Solid Reagents and Fibers. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 315.
94. Adesina, A.; Das, S. Drying Shrinkage and Permeability Properties of Fibre Reinforced Alkali-Activated Composites. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 119076. [CrossRef]
95. Öz, H.Ö.; Gesoglu, M.; Güneyisi, E.; Sor, N.H. Self-Consolidating Concretes Made with Cold-Bonded Fly Ash Lightweight
Aggregates. ACI Mater. J. 2017, 114, 385–395. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 14 15063 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 15063 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 15063 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15063. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215063 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 3. Physical features of gravel and sand in the presented study.

Type of FA Size (mm) Specific Gravity Water Absorption (%)

Table 4. Mix proportions of SCGC in the presented study.

Binder Slag Gravel Sand Molarity Water

3.1. Mixing and Casting

3.2. Curing Method

Table 5. Fresh test assessment following the EFNARC guidelines.

4.2. Mechanical Properties

4.3. Correlation between Splitting Tensile and Compressive Strength

fć = 0.8 × fcu (3)

where 0.8 is the conversion factor.

4.4. Durability Properties

4.4.2. Free Drying Shrinkage

5. Result and Discussion

T500 mm slump flow time(sec)

5.1.3. J-Ring Flow Diameter

TJ500 mm flow time (sec)

smaller5.0than 10 mm is classed as PJ 1. Therefore, the PJ values are typically in the range of

5.1.6. V-Funnel Flow Time

V-funnel flow time (sec)

L-box height ratio

5.1.8. Sieve Segregation

Table 8. Hardened properties of SCGC in the presented study.

5.1.2. T500 mm Slump Flow Time

5.1.3. J-Ring Flow Diameter

5.1.4. TJ500 mm Flow Time

5.1.5. J-Ring Passing-Ability

5.1.6. V-Funnel Flow Time

5.1.7. L-Box Height Ratio

5.1.8. Sieve Segregation

5.2. Mechanical Properties

Table 8. Hardened properties of SCGC in the presented study.

Percent increase in splitting

Splitting tensile strength (MPa)

5.3. Prediction of Splitting Tensile Strength

Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa)

Splitting Tensile Strength (ft )

5.4. Durability Properties

Table 10. Results of durability properties of SCGC.

Free Drying Shrinkage after 365 Days

5.4.1. Capillary Water Absorption (Sorptivity)

on the effects of mineral admixtures on the characteristics of geopolymer concrete by Jindal

5.4.2. Drying Shrinkage and Mass Loss

Drying shrinkage (days)

Mass loss (gram)

You might also like