Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Review
h i g h l i g h t s
g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t
An overview of geopolymer is
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 26 November 2013
Received in revised form 16 February 2015
Accepted 4 March 2015
Available online 31 March 2015
Keywords:
Geopolymer concrete
Activator
Bond strength
Compressive strength
Durability
a b s t r a c t
An overview of advances in geopolymers formed by the alkaline activation of aluminosilicates is presented alongwith opportunities for their use in building construction. The properties of mortars/concrete
made from geopolymeric binders are discussed with respect to fresh and hardened states, interfacial
transition zone between aggregate and geopolymer, bond with steel reinforcing bars and resistance to
elevated temperature. The durability of geopolymer pastes and concrete is highlighted in terms of their
deterioration in various aggressive environments. R&D works carried out on heat and ambient cured
geopolymers at CSIR-CBRI are briey outlined alongwith the product developments. Research ndings
revealed that geopolymer concrete exhibited comparative properties to that of OPC concrete which
has potential to be used in civil engineering applications.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An overview of geopolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Constituents effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
C-S-H phase effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Effect of admixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.
Curing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geopolymer mortars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geopolymer concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: singhb122000@yahoo.com (B. Singh).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036
0950-0618/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
79
79
80
80
80
81
81
81
5.
6.
7.
4.1.
Fresh and hardened properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Interfacial transition zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Bond between reinforcing bars and geopolymer concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.
Fire behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Durability studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.
Alkali-silica reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.
Effect of acid attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.
Effect of sulphate attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.
Carbonation and permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.
Corrosion of steel reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research and development at CSIR-CBRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
The concrete industry faces challenges to meet the growing
demand of Portland cement due to limited reserves of limestone,
slow manufacturing growth and increasing carbon taxes. It is
reported that the requirement of cement in India is likely to touch
550 million tonnes by 2020 with a shortfall of 230 million tonnes (58%) and the demand for cement has been constantly
increasing due to increased infra-structural activities of the country [1]. One effort to combat shortfall is the development of alternate binders to Portland cement aiming at to reduce the
environmental impact of construction, use of greater proportion
of waste pozzolan, and also to improve concrete performance.
Search for several alternatives such as alkali-activated cement, calcium sulphoaluminate cement, magnesium oxy carbonate cement
(carbon negative cement), supersulphated cement etc. are being
made with the advantages of Portland cement [2]. As the family
of the alkali-activated cement is growing, the alkaline cement is
classied based on a phase composition of the hydration products:
R-A-S-H (R = Na+ or K+) in the aluminosilicate based systems and RC-A-S-H in the alkali-activated slag or alkaline Portland cements
[3]. In recent years, geopolymer has attracted considerable attention among these binders because of its early compressive
strength, low permeability, good chemical resistance and excellent
re resistance behaviour [49]. Because of these advantageous
properties, the geopolymer is a promising candidate as an alternative to ordinary Portland cement for developing various sustainable products in making building materials, concrete, re
resistant coatings, bre reinforced composites and waste
immobilization solutions for the chemical and nuclear industries.
79
81
83
83
84
84
84
85
85
86
86
86
88
88
88
2
2. An overview of geopolymers
Geopolymer is considered as the third generation cement after
lime and ordinary Portland cement. The term geopolymer is
generically used to describe a amorphous alkali aluminosilicate
which is also commonly used for to as inorganic polymers,
alkali-activated cements, geocements, alkali-bonded ceramics, hydroceramics etc. Despite this variety of nomenclature,
these terms all describe materials synthesized utilising the same
chemistry [4]. It essentially consists of a repeating unit of sialate
monomer (SiOAlO). A variety of aluminosilicate materials
such as kaolinite, feldspar and industrial solid residues such as
y ash, metallurgical slag, mining wastes etc. have been used as
solid raw materials in the geopolymerization technology. The
reactivity of these aluminosilicate sources depends on their chemical make-up, mineralogical composition, morphology, neness and
glassy phase content. The main criteria for developing stable
geopolymer are that the source materials should be highly
80
respectively. Amongst the commercial superplasticizers, the naphthalene based superplasticizer was effective when single activator
was used rendering 136% increase in relative slump without any
decrease in compressive strength. Modied polycarboxylate based
superplasticizer was efcient one when multi-compound activator
was used with a decrease in compressive strength of 29% [24].
However, retarding effect of polycarboxylate based superplasticizer was also reported in y ash/slag blended system though
the improvement in workability was signicant compared to naphthalene based superplasticizer [25].
2.4. Curing conditions
Several attempts [2631] have been made to study the effect of
different curing conditions on the properties of geopolymer pastes.
The curing temperatures were reported in the range between 40 C
and 85 C for complete geoplymerisation reactions. Palomo et al.
[26] studied curing of alkali activated y ash (0.25 and 0.30 liquid/solid ratio) at 65 C and 85 C. They indicated that the compressive strength of geopolymers (812 M) cured at 85 C for
24 h was much higher than those cured at 65 C. The rise of
strength was much smaller when curing time was extended after
24 h. Perera et al. [27] studied the curing of metakaolin-based
geopolymers under ambient (2123 C) and heat conditions (40
60 C) with a controlled relative humidity (RH) for 24 h and found
that curing at 30% RH was preferable to that at 70% RH. Heah et al.
[28] concluded that the curing of metakaolin-based geopolymers
at ambient temperature was not feasible while increase in temperature (40 C, 60 C, 80 C, 100 C) favored the strength gain after
13 days. However, curing at higher temperature for a longer period of time caused failure of samples at a later age due to the thermolysis of SiOAlO bond. Rovnanik [29] reported that curing
of metakaolin based geopolymer at elevated temperature (40
80 C) accelerated the strength development but in 28 days, the
mechanical properties deteriorated in comparison with results
obtained for an ambient or slightly decreased temperature.
Ebrahim and Ali [30] prepared three mixes with different formulations and cured hydrothermally at different temperatures
(45, 65, 85 C) and time (520 h) after 1 and 7 days of procuring.
Longer procuring at room temperature, before the application of
heat is benecial for higher strength development. In general, adequate curing of geopolymeric materials is required to achieve optimal mechanical and durability performance to maintain their
structural integrity [31].
81
3. Geopolymer mortars
4. Geopolymer concrete
Various studies [3240] were conducted on ow and mechanical properties of geopolymer mortars because of their more relevant applications in building construction. The properties of
mortars were optimised with respect to initial ow, aggregate-binder ratio, activator-binder ratio and activator molarity.
Chindaprasirt et al. [32] reported that the compressive strength
of class C y ash-based geopolymer mortar was 52 MPa when
cured at 70 C for 3 days using sand-y ash ratio of 2.75 at workable ow of 135 5%. Prolonged curing at high temperatures led
to the reduction in the compressive strength because of weakening
of microstructure and increased porosity due to the loss of moisture. In another attempt [33], they produced geopolymer mortar
with a compressive strength of 86 MPa at 28 days with the help
of air classied class C y ash (4500 cm2/g neness) activated with
sodium silicate and NaOH (10 M) at 1:1 mass ratio. The dimensional change in terms of drying shrinkage (161 106 mm/
mm) was insignicant when compared with the Portland cement
mortar (700850 106 mm/mm). The geopolymer mortars
82
Table 1
Typical properties of geopolymer concrete mixes.
Density
(kg/m3)
Molarity
(M)
Slump
(mm)
CS
(MPa)
STS
(MPa)
FS
(MPa)
MOE
(GPa)
Poissons
ratio
Activator/
binder
ratio
Curing
temperature
and time
23302430
NR
21472408
18902371
18762555
1016
8 & 12.5
NR
14
8
60215
NR
NR
100150
NR
3080
2943.5
4756.5
1080
65.177.9
3.746
NR
2.84.1
NR
2.85.1
512
6.86
4.96.2
2.246.41
NR
2331
10.718.4
2339
1.942
11.241.2
0.120.16
NR
0.230.26
0.080.22
0.150.19
0.350.4
0.4 & 0.55
0.450.59
0.40.94
0.40.65
6080 C for 24 h
85 C for 20 h
23 C till testing
60 C for 72 h
60 C for 24 h
CS: compressive strength; STS: splitting tensile strength; FS: exural strength; MOE: modulus of elasticity; NR: not reported.
varied from 100 to 250 mm (activator strength: 814 M). The optimum strength was obtained at 0.18 water-geopolymer solid ratio
cured at 90 C. As the water-geopolymer solids ratio increased,
the compressive strength of GPC decreased analogous to the well
known relationship between compressive strength and water-cement ratio for OPC concrete. The compressive strength of GPC
remained unchanged with the age when tested after 24 h curing
at elevated temperature. Fernandez-Jimenez et al. [45] made y
ash-based geopolymer concrete with a compressive strength of
45 MPa at 0.55 liquid/solid ratio cured at 85 C for 20 h. The development of high early strength in GPC was explained by its compact
microstructure, formation of adequate reaction products, smaller
mean size of the pores and good aggregate-paste bond. They
observed that GPC has a much lower modulus of elasticity
(18.4 GPa) than the OPC concrete (30.3 GPa). Olivia and Nikraz
[46] proportioned y ash-based geopolymer concrete mix with a
compressive strength of 55 MPa at 28 days and cured at different
temperatures in the range of 6075 C. The hardened mix had
higher tensile and exural strengths, produced less expansion
and showed modulus of elasticity that were 1529% lower than
that of OPC concrete mix. The drying shrinkage (0.025%) of GPC
was less than the OPC concrete (0.09%) after 12 weeks. The minimal shrinkage of GPC may also be due to the signicant resistance
offered by its zeolitic microstructure towards drying loss of the
water incorporated during casting [45].
Several attempts [4753] have also been made to establish
correlations within the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete. It was reported that the experimental splitting tensile
strength of y ash-based GPC was higher than the OPC concrete
(Fig. 3). The increased strength is accounted for a denser interfacial
zone established between the aggregate and geopolymer paste.
The modulus of elasticity increased as the compressive strength
of GPC increased. The modulus of elasticity of GPC was found to
be lower than the values predicted by ACI guidelines for OPC concrete. So et al. [48] studied the engineering properties of y ash/
slag-based GPC. The splitting tensile strength and exural strength
of GPC were comparable to those models presented by the
Australian Standard (AS 3600) for OPC concrete. Although, the difference between splitting tensile and exural strength of GPC
mixes has been found to be approximately 2 MPa, similarities
between the strength gain was apparent. Diaz-Loya et al. [49] prop
posed the equation fr = 0.69 fc0 MPa for correlation between the
exural strength (fr) and compressive strength and the equation
p
Ec = 580 fc MPa for correlation between elastic modulus (Ec)
and compressive strength of GPC (fc = compressive strength).
When compared with the typical Poissons ratio value of OPC concrete (0.150.22), the values of GPC appeared to reside toward the
low end of range (0.080.22). Ryu et al. [50] suggested a model for
relationship between compressive strength and splitting tensile
strength (fsp = 0.17 (f0 c)3/4) for y ash-based GPC. Bondar et al.
[51] reported a relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity
and compressive strength of GPC. They found that GPC showed a
lower ultrasonic pulse velocity than the OPC concrete even those
83
FESEM analysis of ITZ in the y ash-based self compacting geopolymer concrete with varying superplasticizer dosages. They reported
that relatively a loose and porous ITZ was found at low superplasticizer dosages (3%) whereas a dense ITZ was found between
the aggregate and geopolymer paste at higher dosage (7%). They
also found that the compressive strength increased with decrease
in the thickness of ITZ and this relationship depends on the superplasticizer dosage.
4.3. Bond between reinforcing bars and geopolymer concrete
The transfer of forces across the interface between concrete and
reinforcing steel bar is of fundamental importance in the structural
design [60]. Bond stresses in the reinforced concrete arise from two
distinct situations. The rst is anchorage or development where
bars are terminated. The second is exural bond or the change of
force along a bar due to a change in bending moment along the
member. The bond strength of reinforcing bars with concrete is
governed by several factors such as the strength of the concrete,
the thickness of the concrete surrounding the reinforcing bar, the
connement of the concrete due to transverse reinforcement and
the bar geometry. Generally, the bond strength between the
reinforcing bar and matrix increases with increasing steel bar
diameter and compressive strength of GPC (Fig. 4). There is a
greater amount of slip for larger size rebars in GPC.
Sarker [61] found that the bond strength of y ash-based GPC
increased with the increase of concrete cover-bar diameter ratio
(1.713.62) and the concrete compressive strength (2529 MPa).
He also observed that GPC has higher bond strength than the
OPC concrete because of higher splitting tensile strength and dense
interfacial transition zone between the aggregate and geopolymer
paste. Bond-slip behaviour [45] of GPC showed that the embedded
steel bar of 8 mm dia broke before slipping and concrete cracking
whereas the bar embedded in OPC concrete slipped. For
16 mm bar, GPC failed by matrix cracking while the bars in OPC
concrete were again observed to slip. So et al. [62] reported that
the values of bond strength of steel bars in y ash-based GPC were
comparable in both beam-end as well as direct pullout specimen
tests. The normalised bond strength increased with a reduction
in rebar size. The bond strength tested according to AS 3600, ACI
318-02 and EC2 recommendations showed that these Codes are
applicable and also safe to predict the developmental length for
GPC.
Attempts were also made to study behaviour of reinforced y
ash-based GPC beams and columns with respect to longitudinal
tensile reinforcement ratio and concrete compressive strength as
test variables [6366]. Sumajouw et al. [63] reported that the
exural capacity of beams increased with the increase in tensile
reinforcement (0.642.69%) but the effect of concrete compressive
strength was marginal. The ductility index increased signicantly
for beams having longitudinal reinforcement ratio less than 2%.
They also studied the strength of reinforced GPC slender columns
with respect to the compressive strength of concrete, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio and load eccentricity. The design provisions
mentioned in the Standards for OPC concrete can be used for
designing geopolymer concrete columns also. Dattatreya et al.
[64] found that the load carrying capacity of reinforced slag-based
GPC beams was 17.7% more than the Portland pozzolana cement
concrete beams at 2.68% tension reinforcement. Yost et al. [65]
indicated that loaddeection behaviour of GPC beam was identical to OPC beam. The maximum strain obtained for under-reinforced beam was less than 3000 microstrains which is generally
assumed for design work. The predicted neutral axis depth was
15% less than the experimentally achieved value for GPC. The
Whitneys stress block for strength calculation was found applicable for GPC also. Ng et al. [66] investigated potential use of steel
84
Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) causes gradual but severe deterioration of hardened Portland cement concrete in terms of its
strength loss, cracking, volume expansion etc. It involves the reaction between the hydroxyl ion in the pore solution within the concrete matrix and reactive silica of the aggregate. In general terms,
the reactions will proceed in stages, with the rst stage being the
hydrolysis of reactive silica by hydroxyl ions to form alkali-silica
gel and a later secondary overlapping stage being the absorption
of water by the gel, which will result in increase of volume [72].
In general, concrete has good property with respect to re resistance. However, it is known that the residual strength of OPC concrete after ring between 800 C and 1000 C does not exceed 20
30% normally because of dehydration and destruction of C-S-H &
other crystalline hydrates, aggregate types, permeability etc. Fire
introduces high temperature gradient and as a result, the hot layer
tends to separate and spall from the cooler interior layer of the
body [67]. Contrary to this, geopolymers possess good re resistance at elevated temperature because of the existence of highly
distributed nano-pores in the ceramic like microstructure that
allows physically and chemically bonded water to migrate and
evaporate without damaging the aluminosilicate network [4].
During re, several events such as evaporation of water adsorbed
by N-A-S-H gel, formation of anhydrous products, crystallization
of stable anhydrous phases and melting (sintering) leading to
destruction generally occurred. The phase transformation of
geopolymers during re is depicted below.
In geopolymer concrete, the un-utilised alkali after geopolymerization of aluminosilicates is expected to react with the silica of the
aggregates causing disruption of their siloxane bridges. It is
reported that geopolymer mortars using aggregates of different
reactivities expanded less than the corresponding Portland cement
mortars [73]. The geopolymer mortars appeared to be sound without any surface cracking. The cause of expansion in slag-based
geopolymer mortars is the formation of sodium calcium silicate
hydrate reaction product with rosette-type morphology [74].
Contrary to this, there was no signicant expansion in y ashbased geopolymer mortars. The formation of crystalline zeolites
was very slow and since these minerals are usually found in the
gaps of the matrix, the existence of stress that might generate
cracking is unlikely [75]. Geopolymer mortar bars made with y
ash/slag blends expanded less than 0.1% limit prescribed in ASTM
C1260-07 after 16 days (Fig. 5). At 90 days exposure, these mortars
failed to meet the specied criteria. Increasing slag content in y
ash/slag mix increased the expansion of resulting systems [76].
ASR has also been claimed to be helpful in providing a strong bond
at the paste-aggregate interface, thus enhancing the tensile
strength of GPC [8]. Patil et al. [73] indicated that sandstone, quartz
and limestone aggregates in geopolymer concrete were not prone
5. Durability studies
One of the major problems associated with OPC concrete is its
long term durability which had always been an issue against
aggressive environments. The deterioration of concrete is usually
assessed for sulphate attack, chloride induced corrosion, atmospheric
85
5
Wallah and Rangan [41] found that the reduction in compressive strength of y ash-based GPC in 0.5% H2SO4 solution was
20% after 12 months exposure. This value was 52% and 65%
respectively when samples exposed to 1% and 2% H2SO4 solution.
Pitting and erosion on the surface of the concrete were also
observed. The loss in strength of concrete is mainly due to the
degradation in the geopolymer matrix rather than the aggregate.
They concluded that the acid resistance of GPC was superior to
OPC concrete. Arifn et al. [79] exposed GPC made with a blend
of pulverized fuel ash and palm oil fuel ash in 2% solution of sulphuric acid for 18 months. The weight loss in GPC was 8% while
OPC concrete exhibited 20% weight loss. The strength reduction
in GPC was 35% in 18 months as against 68% strength loss in OPC
concrete after 30 days and was severely deteriorated after
18 months. The C-S-H could have severe deleterious effect on
OPC concrete while N-A-S-H gel appeared to have little effect on
the structure of GPC. Sathia et al. [80] reported the weight loss in
concrete samples was less than 5% after 3 months exposure in 3%
H2SO4 solution. Bakharev et al. [81] found that slag-based GPC
(40 MPa) exhibited 33% reduction in strength compared to 47%
in OPC concrete when exposed in acetic acid solution (pH 4) for
12 months. The slag particles and low calcium C-S-H with average
Ca/Si ratio of 1 were more stable in the acid solution than the constituents of the OPC pastes. During immersion in 2% H2SO4 solution, the strength loss was 11% compared to 36.2% for OPC
concrete.
86
87
Fig. 7a. Light weight y ash-based geopolymer concrete sheets using EPS beads and in-situ foaming [85].
Fig. 7c. Fly ash-based geopolymer solid and hollow blocks [85].
elasticity showed that the elastic modulus was lower (17%) than
the one predicted by Ivan Diaz-Loya et al. for GPC and also the values obtained with ACI guidelines. As expected, the bond strength of
steel bar embedded in GPC increased with increasing steel bar
diameter and compressive strength of concrete. It was noted that
the bond strength between geopolymer paste and reinforcing bars
was found to be higher than the OPC concrete [47].
Light weight geopolymer concrete was proportioned with the
help of y ash, activators, expanded polystyrene beads (EPS up
to 3 wt% or 91 vol%), admixtures and ne & coarse aggregates
(Fig. 7(a)). It was noted that a decrease in the strength was more
when larger size of EPS beads (<4.75 mm) were added in the mortars probably due to their less surface area/volume ratio. By adding
coarse aggregate, the compressive strength (18 MPa) and density
(1500 and 1840 kg/m3) of EPS geopolymer concrete, comply the
minimum specied criteria of ACI 213R-03 guidelines for structural light weight concrete (compressive strength, 17 MPa; density
11201920 kg/m3). To meet the requirement of insulation concrete, the addition of 20% coarse aggregate (10 mm maximum size)
into EPS/geopolymer mix exceeds its compressive strength
88
Fig. 8. Fire test of y ash-based geopolymers as per BS 476 showing surface of very low spread of ame [90].
Acknowledgements
This paper forms part of a Supra Institutional Project of CSIR
R&D program (Govt. of India) and is published with the permission
of Director, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee.
Authors are also thankful to Ms. Sarika Sharma, Mr. Ankur Singh,
Mr. Rakesh Paswan and Mr. Md. Reyazur Rahman for their help
during the work.
References
[1] http://www.worldcement.com/news/cement/articles/Cement_India_demand_
price_capacity_160.aspx#.UoIUv3DItSk, 12 November 2013.
[2] Shi C, Fernandez-Jiminez A, Palomo A. New cements for the 21st century: the
pursuits of an alternative to Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:86579.
[3] Krivenko PV, Kovalachuk GYu. Directed synthesis of alkaline aluminosilicate
minerals in a geocement matrix. J Mater Sci 2007;42:294453.
89
[38] Brough AR, Atkinson A. Sodium silicate-based alkali-activated slag mortars Part
I. Strength, hydration and microstructure. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:86579.
[39] Yang KH, Song JK, Lee KS, Ashour AF. Flow and compressive strength of alkaliactivated mortars. ACI Mater J 2009;106:508.
[40] Yang KH, Song JK. Workability loss and compressive strength development of
cementless mortars activated by combination of sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 2009;21:11927.
[41] Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. On the development of y
ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2004;101:46772.
[42] Laskar AI, Bhattacharjee R. Rheology of y ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI
Mater J 2011;108:53642.
[43] Montes C, Allouche EN. Rheological behaviour of y ash-based geopolymers.
STP 1566 on Geopolymer Binder Systems 2013, ASTM: p. 7284.
[44] Palacios M, Banll Phillip FG, Puertas F. Rheology and setting of alkaliactivated slag pastes and mortars: effect of organic admixture. ACI Mater J
2008;105:1408.
[45] Fernandez-Jiminez AM, Palomo A, Lopez-Hombrados C. Engineering properties
of alkali-activated y ash concrete. ACI Mater J 2006;103:10612.
[46] Olivia M, Nikraz H. Properties of y ash geopolymer concrete designed by
taguchi method. Mater Des 2012;36:1918.
[47] Singh A. Engineering properties of reinforced geopolymer concrete [B. Tech
project report]. Roorkee, India. CSIR-Central Building Research Institute; 2012.
[48] So M, Van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA, Lukey GC. Engineering properties of
inorganic polymer concretes. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:2517.
[49] Diaz-Loya EI, Allouche EN, Vaidya S. Mechanical properties of y ash-based
geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2011;108:3006.
[50] Ryu GS, Lee YB, Koh KT, Chung YS. The mechanical properties of y ash-based
geopolymer concrete with alkaline activators. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:40918.
[51] Bondar D, Lynsdale CY, Milestone NB, Hassani N, Ramezanianpour AA.
Engineering properties of alkali-activated natural pozzolan concrete. ACI
Mater J 2011;108:6472.
[52] Yost JR, Radlinska A, Ernst S, Salera M. Structural behavior of alkali activated
y ash concrete. Part 1: mixture design, material properties and sample
fabrication. Mater Struct 2012;46:43547.
[53] Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Rangan BV. Fracture properties of geopolymer paste and
concrete. Mag Concr Res 2011;63:76377.
[54] Sarker PK, Haque R, Ramgolam KV. Fracture properties of heat cured y ashbased geopolymer concrete. Mater Des 2013;44:5806.
[55] Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM. Concrete: microstructure, properties and
materials. USA: The McGraw Hill companies, Inc.; 2006.
[56] Lee WKW, Van Deventure JSJ. The interface between natural siliceous
aggregates and geopolymers. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:195206.
[57] Lee WKW, Van Deventure JSJ. Chemical interactions between siliceous
aggregates and low-Ca alkali-activated cements. Cem Concr Res
2007;37:84455.
[58] Zhang YS, Sun W, Li JZ. Hydration process of interfacial transition in potassium
polysialate (K-PSDS) geopolymer concrete. Mag Concr Res 2005;57:338.
[59] Demie S, Nuruddin MF, Shaq N. Effects of micro-structure characteristics of
interfacial transition zone on the compressive strength of self-compacting
geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:918.
[60] ACI 408R-03. Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in tension.
[61] Sarker PK. Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in y ash-based
geopolymer concrete. Mater Struct 2011;44:102130.
[62] So M, Van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA, Lukey GC. Bond performance of
reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPCs). J Mater Sci
2007;42:310716.
[63] Sumajouw DMJ, Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Rangan BV. Fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete: study of slender reinforced columns. J Mater Sci 2007;42:312430.
[64] Dattatreya JK, Rajamane NP, Ambily PS. Structural behaviour of reinforced
geopolymer concrete beams and columns. CSIR-SERC Research Report RR6;2009.
[65] Yost JR, Radlinska A, Ernst S, Salera M. Structural behaviour of alkali activated
y ash concrete. Part 2: structural testing and experimental ndings. Mater
Struct 2012;46:44962.
[66] Ng TS, Amin A, Foster SJ. The behaviour of steel-bre-reinforced geopolymer
concrete beams in shear. Mag Concr Res 2013;65:30818.
[67] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. India: Dorling Kindersley
Publishing, Inc.; 1997.
[68] Kong DLK, Sanjayan JG, Crentsil KS. Comparative performance of geopolymers
made with metakaolin and y ash after exposure to elevated temperature.
Cem Concr Res 2007;37:15839.
[69] Kong DLK, Sanjayan JG, Crentsil KS. Factors affecting the performance of
metakaolin geopolymers exposed to elevated temperatures. J Mater Sci
2008;43:82431.
[70] Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG. Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer paste,
mortar and concrete. Cem Concr Res 2010;40:3349.
[71] Zhao R, Sanjayan JG. Geopolymer and Portland cement concretes in simulated
re. Mag Concr Res 2011;63:16373.
[72] Swamy RN, editor. The alkali-silica reaction in concrete. UK: Blackie and Sons
Limited; 1992.
[73] Patil KK, Allouche EN. Impact of alkali silica reaction on y ash-based
geopolymer concrete. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 2013;25:1319.
[74] Fernandez-Jimenez A, Puertas F. The alkali-silica reaction in alkali-activated
granulated slag mortars with reactive aggregate. Cem Concr Res
2002;32:101924.
90