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

net/publication/349043983

Performance of Rice Husk Ash-Based Sustainable Geopolymer Concrete with

Ultra-Fine Slag and Corn Cob Ash

Article in Construction and Building Materials · February 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122526

CITATIONS READS

48 592

7 authors, including:

Saloni Arora Parveen Jangra

Southern Cross University Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal
17 PUBLICATIONS 354 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 998 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thong Pham Yee Yan Lim

University of South Australia 75 PUBLICATIONS 1,996 CITATIONS
184 PUBLICATIONS 4,766 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

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

Mechanical and microstructural characterisation of rice husk ash geopolymer including alccofine. View project

F-EIR Conference 2021 — Environment Concerns and its Remediation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Parveen Jangra on 02 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Performance of Rice Husk Ash-Based Sustainable Geopolymer
Concrete with Ultra-Fine Slag and Corn Cob Ash
Salonia, Parveenb*, Thong M. Phamc, Yee Yan Lima, S.S. Pradhand, Jatine, Jatin Kumare
a
School of Environment, Science & Engineering, SCU, Lismore, NSW, Australia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, DCRUST Murthal-131039, Haryana, India.
c
Center for Infrastructural Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.
d
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Agartala, Tripura, India.
e
Department of Civil Engineering, MDU, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

Email Id Correspondence author: separveenjangra@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper presents the first scientific attempt to develop and study the performance of rice husk
ash (RHA) and ultra-fine slag (UFS) based sustainable geopolymer concrete with different ratio
of corn cob ash (CCA). NaOH (8M) and Na2SiO3 were employed as alkaline activators. CCA acted
mainly as amorphous silica and was utilised as a substitute for RHA. The effects of different CCA
contents (0%, 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% by RHA mass) on the performance of geopolymer concrete
in terms of fresh, hardened and durability properties have been evaluated. Different characteristics,
i.e. density, air content, workability, compressive, flexural and split tensile strengths, Young’s
modulus of elasticity were investigated. Meanwhile, the durability performance was also evaluated
by using different methods such as rapid chloride penetration test, chloride conductivity test, water
sorptivity test and DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) water permeability test. The outcomes
of this research have shown that UFS and CCA improved the compressive strength by 14-15%.
They significantly improved the polymerisation and thus enhanced the strength and durability of
sustainable geopolymer concrete. Furthermore, CCA and UFS acted as micro fillers and increased
the CaO as well as SiO2 contents which enhanced the densification. Additionally, the development
of hydration products in the matrix, enhanced the pore structure and thus the strength. This study
revealed that CCA (up to 6%) can be utilised as a substitute binder to produce sustainable
geopolymer concrete, and has the potential to replace conventional concrete for structural
applications.

Keywords: Corn cob ash, drying shrinkage, electrical resistivity, concrete strength, ultra-fine slag.

Abbreviations:

1
 1. BD - Bulk density
2. CSH - Calcium silicate hydrate
3. CASH - Calcium aluminate silicate hydrate
4. CCA - Corn cob ash
5. ER – Electrical resistivity
6. MOE – Modulus of elasticity
7. NASH – Sodium aluminate silicate hydrate
8. RHA - Rice husk ash
9. SEM - Scanning electron microscopy
10. UFS – Ultra-fine slag
11. WR - Wenner four-probe resistivity
12. XRD - X-ray diffraction.

1. Introduction
Apart from supplementary cementitious materials and admixtures, cement, water, and aggregates
are generally used to produce the most common construction material, i.e. concrete [1]. Current
practices which are adopted in producing the concrete ingredients, have considerable consumption
of energy and high release of greenhouse gases due to enourmous volume of concrete produced
worldwide [2]. Approximately 0.65-0.85 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced per ton of
cement production [3]. Accordingly, researchers are looking forward to reducing the massive CO2
emission, energy consumption and natural resources, in order to develop sustainable and green
concrete [4]. Meanwhile, by-products from the industries like fly ash (FA), blast furnace slag
(BFS), RHA, glass powder (GP), CCA and agricultural wastes, are posing great disposal and
dumping problems [5]. Therefore, utilisation of these by-products will decrease the need of
landfills and the pressure on municipal committees [6].

Geopolymer concrete is generally produced using waste materials from industries and activated
using alkaline solutions [7] like sodium silicate (Na2SiO3), potassium hydroxide (KOH) and
sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Recently, researchers focus on using waste-based activators instead of
alkaline activators in the geopolymer concrete in order to further minimise the CO2 footprints [8–
10]. Recent advancements in the field of geopolymer concrete [11] showed that it appears to be a
green construction material due to the fact that it utilises industrial by-products [12] and reduces

2
the energy requirements as well as the efforts required for waste disposal [13]. Furthermore, CO2
imprints of the sustainable geopolymers are about 9% lesser than ordinary Portland cement-based
concrete [14]. In addition, the strength and durability performance of sustainable geopolymer
concrete is comparable to conventional concrete [15]. A range of studies have been done on
geopolymer concrete, like the inclusion to concrete mixes [16], repair and retrofitting of materials
and fireproofing of structures [17]. Remarkable results, principally in the field of pavements [18],
masonry structures [19], reinforced geopolymer composites [20] and repair materials [21] have
been achieved. Therefore, sustainable geopolymer/green concrete can be adopted as an alternative
building as well as construction material.

Apart from ultra-fine slag (UFS), this investigation considered two waste materials, namely RHA
and CCA, for different reasons as discussed below:

• Every year, an average of 20 million tons of paddy, 24 million tons of rice husk and
approximately 4.4 million tons of RHA are produced in India [22]. Worldwide, around
22% of the 648.9 million tons of rice cultivated annually, constitutes of RHA [23].
• Approximately, 1070 and 26 million tons of corn are produced worldwide and in India,
respectively. Accordingly, 170-190 kgs of corn cob waste are generated from 1,000 kg of
corn production [24].
• The physical properties and chemical characteristics shows that utilization of RHA and
CCA may be helpful in the production of geopolymer concrete. For instance, the CaO
(13%) present in the CCA will help in developing the CSH and CASH gels along with
NASH products, similar investigations have not been investigated earlier.
• There is global concern about the reduction in natural resources due to boost up in
population, urbanisation, development, and clearance of the abovementioned by-products.
The reutilisation of wastes for valuable purposes is not only environmentally friendly but
also cost effective [25].

Previous studies have shown that the utilisation of RHA and CCA has conclusive impacts on the
OPC based concrete [24]. Both RHA and CCA both have approximately 70% of the combined
content of SiO2 and CaO [6]. Previous studies on the RHA-based geopolymer concrete revealed
that RHA can be used by employing a mixture of NaOH and Na2SiO3 [26] as activators.

3
Furthermore, CCA and slag based sustainable geopolymer concrete showed good long-term
performance, and thus can be utilised as structural members or non-load bearing concrete [27].

Since the last two decades, significant amount of research works have been done on the
geopolymer concrete using different industrial by-products and waste. However, geopolymer
concrete made of RHA, UFS and CCA is yet to be studied. The novelty of this investigation is to
explore the combined effects of RHA, UFS and CCA on the properties of geopolymer concrete.
This study aimed to figure out both the positive and negative effects of CCA on properties of fresh
and hardened geopolymer concrete, i.e. the workability, compressive, flexural and split tensile
strengths and modulus of elasticity. In addition, XRD, SEM and EDS techniques were used to
study the microstructural characteristics. Finally, potential structural applications of the proposed
material are also suggested.

2. Experimental program
2.1 Materials
2.1.1 Water
Tap water with total alkalinity and pH of 65.8 mg/l and 8.05, respectively, was used in the mixes.
The above values of total alkalinity and pH were within prescribed limits to produce the
geopolymer concrete. Also, sulphate and chloride ions were not detected in the tap water [28].

2.1.2 RHA, UFS and CCA

Siliceous RHA and CCA were procured from a local supplier from New Delhi, India. These ashes
were produced by using a typical furnace which is able to maintain the temperature as well as time
of combustion. Furthermore, these ashes were ground to achieve the desirable particle sizes. Zain
et al. [29] and Siddique et al. [30] mentioned the detailed description on production of ashes for
utilizing as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete. UFS (which is a by product from
steel industry) was procured from Ambuja cement limited, Mumbai and used to increase the
performance of concrete in terms of fresh and hardened state. The physical and chemical properties
of RHA, CCA and UFS are summarised in Table 1. Fig. 1 depicts the SEM image of RHA, CCA
and UFS, respectively. The SEM images of RHA and CCA show irregular particles’ shape and
size, e.g. SEM image of UFS shows spherical particle shape while XRD patterns demonstrate the
presence of cristobalite, calcite, and sylvite products. The particle size distribution analyses of
RHA, CCA and UFS are depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively.

4
Table 1: Chemical composition and physical properties of processed RHA, CCA and UFS.
Physical and chemical properties Rice husk ash Corn cob ash Ultra-fine slag
Specific Gravity 2.26 2.18 2.70
Mean particle size (d50) μm 11.86 28.23 4.4
BET, Specific surface area m2/kg 910.60 653.20 1200
SiO2(%) 86.20 37.27 38.87
K2O (%) 4.60 15.00 -
P2O5 (%) 2.43 - -
CaO (%) 1.10 13.00 32.20
MgO (%) 0.77 7.35 6.20
Fe2O3 (%) 0.43 1.19 1.20
Al2O3 (%) 0.46 2.37 21.40
MnO (%) 0.11 - -
SO3(%) - 1.32 0.13
Loss on Ignition(%) 3.90 22.50 -
- Not measured.

(a) Rice husk ash (b) Corn cob ash

5
 (c) UFS
Fig. 1: SEM images of (a) RHA, (b) CCA and (c) UFS.

Fig. 2: X-ray diffraction pattern of RHA, CCA and UFS.

6
 100
90
80
70
Percentage passing

60
50
40
RHA
30
20 CCA
10 UFS
0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000
Particle size (mm)

Fig. 3: Particle size distribution analysis of RHA, CCA and UFS .

2.1.3 Aggregates
Coarse and fine aggregates according to IS 383 - 1970 [31] and IS 2386 – 1963 [32], respectively,
were locally sorted. Table 2 presents the physical properties of the fine and coarse aggregates while
Fig. 4. shows the grading curves of the aggregates.

Table 2: Aggregate properties.

Property Fine Aggregates Coarse Aggregates

Specific Gravity 2.61 2.67

Fineness Modulus 2.95 7.11

Water Absorption 1.52 % 0.90 %

Max size (mm) 20 4.75

7
 14mm
10mm
Cumulative % passing

7mm

Cumulative % finer
Cum % finer
IS min range
IS max range

1 10 100 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm) Log sieve opening (mm)
(a) Coarse aggregate (b) Fine aggregate
Fig. 4: Grading curve of (a) Coarse aggregates (b) Fine aggregates.

2.1.4 Alkaline solution and superplasticiser

In this study, commercially available Na2SiO3 (specific gravity, ratio of SiO2/Na2O, density ratio
and total solids content by mass% were 1.46, 2.1, 1.48 and 48 gm/cm3, respectively) and sodium
hydroxide (with 96% purity) in the form of pellets were used in the mixes. Alkaline activator
solution (a mixture of 8M Na2SiO3 and NaOH) was prepared one day prior to the final mixing of
concrete ingredients. The alkaline solution is viscous in nature and therefore, Sikka made-
naphthalene sulfonate based superplasticiser according to IS 9103:1999 [33] was used in this
study.
2.2 Design mix of geopolymer concrete
A total of six blends were arranged using different combinations of the three binders, i.e. RHA,
CCA and UFS. Alkali activator (Na2SiO3 and NaOH plus extra water including superplasticiser)
to binder (RHA, CCA and UFS) ratio was taken as 0.35, and Na2SiO3 to NaOH ratio was 2.5. Mix
design procedure reported by Parveen et al. [34] was used for the final calculation of different
ingredients as tabulated in Table 3. Furthermore, the effects of adding CCA on the performance of
geopolymer concrete were evaluated.
Table 3: Mix design for geopolymer concrete (kg/m3).

8
 Rice Corn Total
Fine Coarse Ultra-fine Cob NaOH Na2SiO3
Mixture Husk Alkaline Super -
Aggregate Aggregate Slag Ash [kg/m3] [kg/m3]
Ash Solution plasticizer
S1-R 508 1186 400.0 - - 180.0 51.42 128.5 8.0
S2-R-U 508 1186 360.0 40 - 180.0 51.42 128.5 8.0
S3-R-U-C3 508 1186 349.2 40 10.8 180.0 51.42 128.5 8.0
S4-R-U-C6 508 1186 338.4 40 21.6 180.0 51.42 128.5 8.0
S5-R-U-C9 508 1186 327.6 40 32.4 180.0 51.42 128.5 8.0
S6-R-U-C12 508 1186 316.8 40 43.2 180.0 51.42 128.5 8.0

2.3 Casting and curing

Firstly, aggregates (in saturated surface dry condition) were mixed (for 4-5 minutes) in the mixer,
and then all three binders (RHA, CCA and UFS) were dry mixed (for about 3-4 minutes) together.
The alkaline activator solution was then added in the mixer along with extra water and
superplasticiser. Cubes (size-150 mm), cylinders (size-150 x 300 mm) and beams (size-100 x 100
x 500 mm) were cast and compacted using vibrating table for 1-2 minutes. All samples were heat
cured at 60o C for 24 hours and then kept at room temperature till final testing.
2.4 Experimental methods
To study the properties of fresh geopolymer concrete, three different tests were performed, namely
slump flow test; density, yield and air content tests; and initial setting time (IST). The tests were
in agreement with ASTM C143 [35], ASTM C138 [36] and ASTM C403 [37], respectively.
Compressive, split tensile and flexural strength tests were performed on hardened geopolymer
concrete in agreement with ASTM C39 [38], ASTM C496 [39] and ASTM C293 [40],
respectively. Additionally, elastic modulus and drying shrinkage (DS) tests were performed in
agreement in turn with ASTM C469 [41] and ASTM C157 [42]. Permeability of the geopolymer
concrete was measured using the rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT) and water absorption
test (WAT), in accordance with ASTM C1202 [43] and BS 1881-122 [44], respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Fresh geopolymer concrete
3.1.1 Density
The variation in the densities of the six mixes was from 2,430 to 2,185 kg/m3 as tabulated in Table
4. The average density of Mixes S1-R, S2-R-U, S3-R-U-C3, S4-R-U-C6, S5-R-U-C9 and S6-R-
U-C12 concrete was 2,395, 2,430, 2,365, 2,310, 2,255 and 2,185 kg/m3, respectively. Mix S2-R-

9
U concrete has approximately 2% higher density than Mix S1-R. UFS increased the density of the
mix because the specific gravity of the UFS was more than RHA (2.7 vs 2.26). Also, UFS has a
larger surface area and smaller particle size, which might have filled more pores. Furthermore, the
addition of CCA into the mixes decreased the density values from 2430 (S2-R-U) to 2,185 kg/m3
(S6-R-U-C12), which is approximately 12%. RHA and CCA have high water requirements, and
therefore they were responsible for the lower fresh density of the concrete. In a study conducted
by Pinto j. et al., they developed the light weight concrete by using CCA and they observed similar
outcomes, in which the addition of CCA resulted in lower density and lower compressive strength
[45].

Table 4: Density of fresh geopolymer concrete.

Mixes
S1-R S2-R-U S3-R-U-C3 S4-R-U-C6 S5-R-U-C9 S6-R-U-
C12
2,394.61 2,430.53 2,365.04 2,310.11 2,255.56 2,394.63
2,394.54 2,429.72 2,364.25 2,308.13 2,253.86 2,394.59
Density [kg/m3]

2,395.42 2,430.36 2,364.83 2,307.18 2,253.53 2,395.45

2,395.76 2,431.17 2,365.95 2,307.92 2,254.31 2,395.71
2,393.48 2,429.42 2,363.32 2,306.22 2,252.79 2,393.43
Average values
2,394.76 2,430.24 2,364.68 2,307.91 2,254.01 2,394.76
Standard deviation
0.89 0.69 0.97 1.44 1.03 0.89

3.1.2 Air content

Air content values are tabulated in Table 5. The use of UFS in Mix S1-R-U resulted in a decrease
in the air content (7.14%) compared with the Mix S1-R with 0% UFS. However, the air content
increased for all the mixes with CCA. The corresponding value of air content for the mixes S3-R-
U-C3, S4-R-U-C6, S5-R-U-C9 and S6-R-U-C12 concrete was 1.55, 1.60, 1.75 and 1.90,
respectively. This increase in the air content is attributed to larger particle size and irregular shape
of the CCA. Furthermore, water demands of the RHA and CCA particles are high and can lead to
inhomogeneous mix. Therefore, pre-saturated ash should be used when preparing the mixes. It is
noted that the results of air content are not available in the existing literature for comparison with
the outcomes of this study.

10
 Table 5: Air content of fresh geopolymer concrete.
Mixes
S1-R S2-R-U S3-R-U-C3 S4-R-U-C6 S5-R-U-C9 S6-R-U-C12
1.52 1.48 1.53 1.55 1.75 1.92
1.55 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.69 1.88
Air Content [%]

1.62 1.37 1.65 1.67 1.76 2.06

1.48 1.52 1.53 1.55 1.71 1.91
1.61 1.44 1.64 1.66 1.86 2.06
Average values
1.56 1.47 1.58 1.60 1.75 1.97
Standard deviation
0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09

3.1.3 Workability
The slump values in terms of time are shown in Fig. 5. The slump values varied between 65 to 150
mm. Mixes S2-R-U (150 mm at 0 minute) and S6-R-U-C12 (65 mm at 80 minutes) represented
the maximum and minimum values of the slump, respectively. A noticeable decrease in slump
values was observed with the increase in CCA percentage. Accordingly, the initial slump values
of Mixes S3-R-U-C3, S4-R-U-C6, S5-R-U-C9 and S6-R-U-C12 were 3%, 13%, 16% and 28%,
respectively, lesser than that of Mix S1-R.
The irregular shape and high water demand of RHA and CCA lead to the decrease in slump values.
Meanwhile, the spherical and small particle size of UFS enhanced the slump values. Therefore, it
is suggested that saturated RHA and CCA should be used if higher slump values are desirable.
Furthermore, the superplasticiser amount can be increased to improve workability performance.
Parveen et al. [3] showed that workability can be improved by using UFS. According to Jindal et
al. [46], UFS and RHA particles combined with the lubricating effect of alkaline solution enhanced
the slump values. The decrease in slump values with time and with the increase in CCA
percentages may be due to high molarity of NaOH solution and limited pozzolanic activity of CCA
[47,48].

11
 Fig. 5: Slump values of different mixes at different periods.

3.2 Compressive strength

The compressive strength of all the samples was determined at the age of 7, 28 and 56 days,
respectively. The compressive strengths obtained at 7 and 28 days were 38.75, 52.95, 48.45, 43.29,
37.65 and 32.75 MPa; and, 43.79, 59.83, 54.75, 48.92, 42.54 and 37.01 MPa for S1-R, S2-R-U,
S3-R-U-C3, S4-R-U-C6, S5-R-U-C9 and S6-R-U-C12 mixes, respectively. The corresponding
compressive strengths at 56 days were 46.85, 64.02, 58.58, 52.34, 45.52 and 39.60 MPa,
respectively. It is interesting that the compressive strength of mix S2-R-U was greater than other
mixes at all the age periods as depicted in Fig. 6. Although, marginal reduction in the compressive
strength values were observed when mix S3-R-U-C3 was compared with mix S2-R-U. The
decrease in strength was more pronounced when the percentage of CCA increased, for instance, at

12
the age of 7 days the percentage reduction in compressive strength of mix S6-R-U-C12 was
approximately 38-39%, when compared with mix S2-R-U.

Also, the compressive strength increased with time, for example, an increment of approximately
12-14% and 5-7% was noticed when the compressive strength at the age of 7 and 28 days, 28 and
56 days were compared, respectively. The strength improvement was less pronounced at greater
age period, and it may be due to the fact that CCA diluted the polymerisation effect. However,
UFS enhanced the strength, and in some cases, the strength of UFS and CCA-based geopolymer
concrete was comparable to the RHA-based geopolymer concrete. This may be due to the effect
of the formation of calcium silicate gel into the matrix [49–51]. It can be concluded from the results
that the same grade of geopolymer concrete (like S1-R) can be produced by using S5-R-U-C9
design mix. Although, the study on the CCA-based geopolymer concrete has not been reported so
far, the results of this study were in agreement with the previous studies based on the UFS [6,51].
Furthermore, the effect of CCA on the geopolymer concrete was similar to its effects on
conventional concrete [52,53]. The strength gain behaviour of geopolymer concrete was not
similar to conventional concrete due to the fact that geopolymer concrete achieves maximum
strength at the age of 7 days when heat curing is adopted. Meanwhile, in this study, conventional
concrete was not developed, and results from the existing literature were referred for comparison.

13
 Fig. 6: Compressive strength of different mixes at the age of 7, 28 and 56 days.

3.3 Split tensile strength

Fig. 7 depicts the split tensile strength of the sustainable geopolymer concrete at the age of 7, 28
and 56 days, respectively. All the mixes exhibited the split tensile strength in the range of 3.25 to
4.75 MPa at all days. The highest value of the split tensile strength was observed for mix S2-R-U;
however, the values decreased with the increase in CCA percentages into the matrix. The lowest
value of the split tensile strength was observed for mix S6-R-U-C12 at 7 days, and the trend of
strength values was similar to that obtained for the compressive strength. In addition, it was
interesting to note that aggregates broken into pieces during testing, and thus it shows high-level
of bonding between the geopolymeric paste and the aggregates. Chemical bonding between the
ingredients, formation of sodium aluminate silicate hydrate and calcium silicate hydration products

14
might have been the reason for adequate strength. Adesanya et al. [54] and Parveen et al. [55]
previously reported that the use of high silious and calcium based materials in the production of
geopolymer concrete led to an increase in the compressive and split tensile strengths while the
specific gravity plays an important role in the strength development.

Fig. 7: Split tensile strength of different mixes at the age of 7, 28 and 56 days.

3.4 Flexural strength

The flexural strength of the geopolymer concrete is influenced by the CCA and the UFS. Fig. 8
represents the flexural strength values of different mixes at 7, 28 and 56 days, respectively. The
flexural strength of the sustainable geopolymer concrete follows a similar trend as that obtained
from the compressive and split tensile strength tests. The best results were obtained for the mix

15
S2-R-U, i.e. 5.09, 5.76 and 6.16 MPa at 7, 28 and 56 days, respectively. The percentage decrease
in the flexural strength after incorporating the CCA into the matrix were 20-25% of its maximum
strength at all ages. Furthermore, the percentage increase in the flexural strength after adding UFS
were 11-14% and 17-20% of its 7 days strength for all the specimens. It is a well-known fact that
the tensile properties of geopolymer concrete are greater than conventional concrete [56].
Although, CCA addition decreased the flexural strength, but reasonable values were obtained for
S4-R-U-C6 mix specimens. Pranav et al. [57] studied the properties of CCA based concrete with
replacement of cement up to 20%. The optimum replacement ratio was found to be at 10%. Nath
et al. [58] compared the mechanical properties of GPC with different additives and corresponding
OPC, and concluded that flexural strength of GPC cured at ambient temperature mostly followed
similar development trend as that of flexural strength of OPC concrete. Hardjito et al. [59] and
Diaz et al. [60] also proved in their studies that when compared with OPC, GPC of similar grade
exhibited higher flexural strength OPC. Furthermore, this was consistent for both heat cured and
ambient cured GPC’s. The reported trend was similar to the current study.

16
 Fig. 8: Flexural strength of different mixes at the age of 7, 28 and 56 days.

3.5 Modulus of elasticity

The average modulus of elasticity (MOE) of all the mixes was measured at the ages of 7 and 28
days as shown in Fig. 9. The MOE of the reference GPC (mix S1_R) varied from 28.38-30.93 GPa
and 30.41-32.95 GPa at the age of 7 and 28 days, respectively. The utilization of ultrafine slag
enhanced the values for MOE, for example mix S2-R-U showed a value of 38.67 GPa in
comparison to S1-R which had 32.95 GPa. However, when CCA was incorporated in the mix, a
decreasing trend in the MOE values was observed. Although, there was a mariginal difference in
between the values of the MOE when mixes S5-R-U-C9 (32.56 GPa) and S1-R (32.95 GPa) were
compared. The results suggest that the mix with approximately 6% CCA and 10% ultrafine slag

17
yielded comparable MOE to that of GPC. The minimum MOE was observed for mix S6-R-U-C12
(28.38 GPa at 7 days) while S2-R-U exhibitted the maximum MOE (38.67 GPa at 28 days).

Luhar et al. [56] reported that the MOE of GPC depends upon geopolymeric microstructure, and
not on the aggregate size. The CCA addition reduced the density of concrete, and therefore lower
values of MOE were obtained with higher CCA content. Additionally, high CCA content might
have affected the rigidity properties of the sustainable GPC and in turn, led to lower MOE. The
MOE of the GPC mixes was slightly lower (range 4.90-4.97*√fc, GPa) than that of conventional
concrete (5.0*√fc, in GPa, where fc is the 28-day compressive strength) [61] with the same strength
at the age of 7 days, after 28 days it was equivalent or on the higher side. Similar observations
have been reported in the literature, where the MOE of GPC varied from 20-31.50 GPa
(compressive strength varied from 24.0 to 61.5 MPa) and that for OPC concrete ranged from 18-
27.50 GPa (compressive strength varied from 25.4 to 56.9 MPa) [56]. The results in this study are
compared to those reported by different studies in the literature as shown in Table 6. The MOE of
GPC depends upon the various factors like, density, paste, types of aggregates, curing methods
and compressive strength, therefore, a variation can be observed for MOE values. It is also worth
noting that the significant variation of the MOE within the margin of ±20% from the mean value
is common and acceptable as recommended in Australia standard 1012.14:2018 [62]. Joseph et al.
[63] studied the performance of GPC at elevated temperature and reported high values of MOE’s
(42.36-59.06 GPa). Furthermore, results of this investigation were closely related to the results
obtained from the equation predicted by ACI 318 [64]. Ultrafine slag enhanced the microstructure
of the GPC, thus a higher range of modulus of elasticity was obtained in this investigation, and
comparable to those in the previous studies, given a similar strength.

Table 6: Comparison of the MOE from this study and other studies

Elasticity of modulus (GPa)

For OPC For GPC

ACI CEB-FIP Diaz-
Compressive AS Code Model Loya Hardjito Nath
strength 3600 318-14 Code Current et al. et al. et al.
(MPa) [65] [64] [66] study [60] [67] [58]
37.01 31.17 30.65 28.27 30.42 26.38 21.77 21.35
42.54 29.59 30.01 29.61 32.57 25.83 22.96 22.89

18
 43.79 32.67 33.34 29.90 32.95 28.69 23.21 23.23
48.92 31.92 33.34 31.02 34.97 28.69 24.23 24.55
54.75 34.22 36.58 32.21 36.92 31.48 25.33 25.97
59.83 36.62 39.85 33.18 38.68 34.29 26.24 27.15

Fig. 9: Modulus of elasticity of different mixes at the age of 7 and 28 days.

3.6 Chloride based durability tests

Rapid chloride penetration test was performed on the specimens, and it was observed that for
sample S1-R the values were 2875 Coulombs and 2730 Coulombs at 28 and 56 days, respectively.
The addition of UFS significantly reduced the values to 1750 Coulombs and 1663 Coulombs (Mix
S2-R-U), at 28 and 56 days, respectively. As a result, it can be concluded that mixes had moderate

19
resistance against chloride ion penetration [68] as shown in Fig. 10. The electrical conductance of
the samples was further decreased when RHA was replaced with CCA. A reduction of
approximately 70, 74, 76 and 79% were observed when samples S2-R-U, S3-R-U-C3, S4-R-U-
C6, S5-R-U-C9 and S6-R-U-C120 were compared with S1-R mix, respectively. This trend at the
age of 56 days was the same, and therefore it can be concluded that CCA blended samples have
better durability as more resistance was offered by the samples at all ages. Further, it falls under
“very low” permeability concrete as per standards [68]. The primary reasons behind its very low
permeability were: (a) silica present in the RHA and CCA were reactive and lowered down the
pore solution conductivity, and (b) calcium present in the UFS enhanced the pore structure by
lowering the pore conductivity. Similar trends were reported in the previous studies based on
geopolymer concrete [55,69] where sugar cane ash and RHA were utilized.

20
 Fig. 10: Total charge passed for different mixes at the age of 28 and 56 days.

Chloride conductivity index (CCI) of different mixes were measured at the age of 28 and 56 days,
respectively, and shown in Fig. 11. The CCI indices of sustainable geopolymer concrete with CCA
were lower than the reference samples with 0% CCA. For instance, a reduction of approximately
35% was observed when sample S6-R-U-C120 was compared with S1-R, and at the age of 28
days. Although CCI indices of all the specimens were lower at 56 days when compared with 28
days CCI indices, the trend was similar to that obtained at the age of 28 days. This observation
indicated that lower permeability of the samples was due to the effects of polymeric and hydration
products. To analyse the effects of CCA on geopolymer concrete properties, a comparison of CCA
and RCPT results at the age of 56 days was employed and the outcome is shown in Fig. 12. It is
worth noting that CCI results agree well with the trends observed in RCPT. Excellent pozzolanic
reactivity of UFS and CCA enhanced the pore structure and was responsible for better durability
in terms of chloride resistance penetration.

21
Fig. 11: Chloride conductivity index for different mixes at the age of 28 and 56 days.

22
 Fig. 12: Comparison of RCPT and CCI at the age of 56 days.

3.7 Water-based durability test

The results of the water penetration depth for all the samples were measured at the age of 28 and
56 days (see Fig.13). It was observed that mixture S1-R had a higher depth of water penetration
(i.e. 8.12 cm and 7.80 cm) when compared with S2-R-U mix (i.e. 7.01 cm and 6.82 cm) at the age
of 28 and 56 days, respectively. However, when the percentage of CCA increased, water
penetration decreases for all the samples and at all ages, as depicted in Fig. 13. A decrease of
approximately 12-14% and 46-48% in the water penetration depth was measured when UFS was
added, and CCA percentages increased from 3% to 12%, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that
CCA percentage governs the performance of the geopolymer concrete in terms of durability

23
properties. Also, the presence of UFS helped in reducing the depth of water penetration, which
provides further resistance against aggressive environments [70]. Furthermore, the higher values
of water penetration depth for the samples without CCA, may be attributed to the higher curing
temperature since the ambient curing condition has been suggested in standards. UFS improved
the pore structure, and its finer size fills up the voids, which further helped in reducing the water
penetration depth values as also reported in the previous study [71].

Fig. 13: Depth of penetration for different mixes at the age of 28 and 56 days.

24
In the water sorptivity tests, conditioned specimens were placed on wedges or rollers (placed at
the bottom of a tray) and calcium hydroxide solution was poured into the tray up to a level of 2
mm above the bottom surface of the specimens. The specimens were removed periodically for
mass measurement, and the surface was gently wiped with a moist paper towel to achieve saturated
surface dry condition on the exposed face. Mass of the specimen was measured on a balance with
an accuracy of 0.01 g. The sorptivity index was calculated as the average of the water sorptivity
of at least three tested specimens in this study. Water sorptivity index is the resistance offered
against water movement by capillary suction through the exposed surface of the specimens. Since
the pore structures and curing period influenced the sorptivity index, therefore it were determined
for all the specimens at the age of 56 days. Results of the sorptivity tests shown in Fig.14 indicates
that marginal difference was observed in the values of all the mixes. Water sorptivity index varied
from 8.75 to 9.95, and the lowest value was obtained from mix S2-R-U. Water sorptivity index is
greatly affected by surface characteristics rather than permeability [72,73], and this would have
been the reason for the indifferent performance of the CCA, and UFS sustainable geopolymer
concretes. Sorptivity index has a wide range of classification, starting from less than 6 to greater
than 15 [74]. The higher initial water absorption shows higher sorptivity value as reported by the
previous study [75]. The addition of CCA at higher percentage increased the sorptivity index
values, and it may be due to the fact that surface characteristics such as pore geometry and pore
volume of the specimens were highly influenced by the CCA content [74].

25
 Fig. 14: Sorptivity index for different mixes at the age of 56 days.

Next, the comparison of water penetration depth and sorptivity index was carried out and
represented in Fig. 15. The results of water penetration and sorptivity reveal a little bit different
trend of water movement in the hardened concrete surface as this phenomenon was also observed
in the previous study [72]. RHA content affects the structural compatibility by hindering the
polymeric reaction. As a result, it enhances the capillary suction [76] due to the smaller particle
with higher surface area (RHA, slag) [75] which is higher in both depth of water penetration and
sorptivity tests.

26
 Fig. 15: Comparison of sorptivity index and depth of penetration for different mixes at 56 days
curing.

3.8 Electrical resistivity test

The electrical resistivity is related to the properties of the pore solution that provides a pathway
for conductive ions, and it leads to the erosion of harmful ions in concrete [77]. The electrical
resistivity test results with the addition of different percentage of CCA at 28 and 56 days of curing
are shown in Fig.16. Substitution of UFS in RHA-based geopolymer concrete (S2-R-U)
significantly improved the resistivity, achieving 26.88 kΩ cm and 25.13 kΩ cm at the ages of 28
and 56 days, respectively, and reduces penetrability with lower corrosion compared to the other
samples. The lowest electrical resistivity values were observed for S6-R-U-C12 as 9.56 kΩ cm

27
and 8.89 kΩ cm, at 28 and 56 days, respectively. Besides, the results show that with an increase in
CCA content from 3-12% in geopolymer concrete, the electrical resistivity and corrosion values
showed a decreasing trend. The present study also found that the electrical resistivity decreased
substantially with increase in curing age, from 28 days to 56 days.

Fig. 16: Electrical resistivity for different mixes at the age of 28 and 56 days.

A comparative study was conducted between electrical resistivity and chloride conductivity at 56
days of age, as shown in Fig. 17. A substantial reduction in the resistivity of concrete with respect

28
to the reduction of the chloride conductivity index within the specimen is observed. It is more
likely that the risk of corrosion increases in the specimen when the percentage of CCA replacement
increases from 3-12%, such as S1-R-U-C3, S1-R-U-C6, S1-R-U-C9 and S1-R-U-C12 in
geopolymer concrete, compared with the specimen containing only RHA and RHA with UFS
material. The use of S1-R and S6-R-U-C12 is more vulnerable to corrosion as compared to the
other mixes.

Fig. 17: Comparison between electrical resistivity and chloride conductivity at the age of 56
days.

29
3.9 Drying shrinkage
The change in length with respect to curing age is depicted in Fig. 18. At the initial stage, the rate
of drying shrinkage was comparatively higher than as observed at later ages. Furthermore, the
difference between the drying shrinkage values of all the samples was not significant. There was
insignificant difference in the observed values of drying shrinkage due to the addition of CCA into
the matrix. The addition of UFS increased the drying shrinkage values. The outcomes of this study
agree with the study done by other researchers [74,78]. It can be concluded from this study that
UFS plays a prominent role to change the pore structure by improving the polymerisation process.
The formation of products like CSH, CASH, and NASH has been confirmed in the earlier studies
which improved the structure [21]. The drying shrinkage values acquired in this study were also
well below the limits (800 microstrain for moist cured concrete and between 730 to 788 microstrain
for steam cured concrete) as recommended in the report of ACI 209 committee [79].

Fig. 18: Drying shrinkage of different mixes of sustainable geopolymer concrete.

30
4. Conclusions
In this study, the performance of sustainable geopolymer concrete with CCA and UFS partially
replacing RHA was investigated. Six mixes were prepared to study its mechanical properties and
durability. The main conclusions are drawn as follows:

• Sustainable geopolymer concrete incorporating UFS showed better mechanical and

durability properties than RHA based geopolymer concrete at all ages. The outcomes
showed that the properties of geopolymer can be enhanced by incorporating UFS.
• Geopolymer concrete incorporated UFS and CCA showed a slight decrease in the
compressive, split tensile and flexural strengths as compared to that of UFS and RHA-
based geopolymer concrete. Meanwhile, the durability properties were enhanced with the
addition of CCA.
• The experimental results indicated that CCA can be incorporated in RHA geopolymer
concrete, and the same grade of geopolymer concrete targeting 48 MPa compressive
strength can be produced with up to 6% replacement of RHA by CCA.
• The durability performance of sustainable geopolymer concrete with UFS and CCA against
chloride and water penetration was studied with four different methods. Higher levels of
CCA was found to significantly increase chloride resistance.
• The water penetration decreased by 48% with 12% replacement level; however, the
marginal deviation was observed with the water sorptivity tests.
• The surface resistivity of CCA and UFS blended sustainable geopolymer concrete was
higher when compared with RHA based geopolymer concrete (Mix 1), and it was due to
excellent performance of the UFS and CCA into the geopolymer matrix.
• CCI reduced by approximately 35% with CCA incorporation at the age of 28 days,
indicating lower susceptibility to corrosion.
• The drying shrinkage of RHA based geopolymer concrete was somewhat similar to the
CCA, and UFS blended sustainable geopolymer concrete.

The detailed investigation of the strength and durability properties suggest that CCA can be used
as RHA substitution (up to 6%) to produce sustainable and good quality geopolymer concrete.

31
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Raicon Labs Private Limited, Haryana, India for giving support to test

the samples in their laboratory. The financial support from Small Grant, Curtin University is

greatly appreciated.

References
[1] P.J.M. Monteiro, S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, Towards sustainable concrete, Nat. Mater. 16 (2017)
698–699. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4930.

[2] P. Van Den Heede, N. De Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of
traditional and “green” concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 34 (2012) 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.004.

[3] Parveen, D. Singhal, M.T. Junaid, B.B. Jindal, A. Mehta, Mechanical and microstructural
properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete incorporating alccofine at ambient curing, Constr.
Build. Mater. 180 (2018) 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.286.

[4] T. Hillman, A. Ramaswami, Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for
eight U.S. cities, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 1902–1910. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9024194.

[5] X. Guo, H. Shi, W.A. Dick, Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly
ash geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Compos. 32 (2010) 142–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.11.003.

[6] Parveen, B.B. Jindal, M.T. Junaid, Saloni, Mechanical and microstructural study of rice husk ash
geopolymer paste with ultrafine slag, Adv. Concr. Constr. 8 (2019) 217–223.
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2019.8.3.217.

[7] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers, J. Therm. Anal. 37 (1991) 1633–1656.

https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01912193.

[8] A. Passuello, E.D. Rodríguez, E. Hirt, M. Longhi, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, A.P. Kirchheim,
Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint of geopolymers using
waste-derived activators, J. Clean. Prod. 166 (2017) 680–689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007.

[9] J.C.B. Moraes, A. Font, L. Soriano, J.L. Akasaki, M.M. Tashima, J. Monzó, M. V. Borrachero, J.
Payá, New use of sugar cane straw ash in alkali-activated materials: A silica source for the
preparation of the alkaline activator, Constr. Build. Mater. 171 (2018) 611–621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.230.

[10] S.A. Ahmed, M.E.A. Metwally, S.E. Zakey, Utilizing industrial waste-water as alkali activator in
sand-cement kiln dust bricks, Constr. Build. Mater. 182 (2018) 284–289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.129.

[11] B.B. Jindal, D. Singhal, S.K. Sharma, Parveen, Suitability of Ambient-Cured Alccofine added
Low-Calcium Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 10 (2017) 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i12/110428.

32
[12] J. Temuujin, A. Van Riessen, K.J.D. MacKenzie, Preparation and characterisation of fly ash based
geopolymer mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 1906–1910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.012.

[13] J.L. Provis, Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: Why, how, and what?, Mater.
Struct. Constr. 47 (2014) 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0211-5.

[14] L.K. Turner, F.G. Collins, Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between
geopolymer and OPC cement concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 125–130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023.

[15] A. Wang, Y. Zheng, Z. Zhang, K. Liu, Y. Li, L. Shi, D. Sun, The Durability of Alkali-Activated
Materials in Comparison with Ordinary Portland Cements and Concretes: A Review, Engineering.
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.08.019.

[16] S.A. Zareei, F. Ameri, N. Bahrami, Microstructure, strength, and durability of eco-friendly
concretes containing sugarcane bagasse ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 184 (2018) 258–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.153.

[17] E. Vasconcelos, S. Fernandes, J.L. Barroso De Aguiar, F. Pacheco-Torgal, Concrete retrofitting

using metakaolin geopolymer mortars and CFRP, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 3213–3221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.006.

[18] I. Phummiphan, S. Horpibulsuk, R. Rachan, A. Arulrajah, S.L. Shen, P. Chindaprasirt, High

calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast furnace slag blends as a
pavement base material, J. Hazard. Mater. 341 (2018) 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.067.

[19] A. Arulrajah, T.A. Kua, S. Horpibulsuk, C. Phetchuay, C. Suksiripattanapong, Y.J. Du, Strength
and microstructure evaluation of recycled glass-fly ash geopolymer as low-carbon masonry units,
Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.123.

[20] T. Phoo-Ngernkham, V. Sata, S. Hanjitsuwan, C. Ridtirud, S. Hatanaka, P. Chindaprasirt, High

calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar containing Portland cement for use as repair material, Constr.
Build. Mater. 98 (2015) 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.139.

[21] Saloni, Parveen, T.M. Pham, Enhanced properties of high-silica rice husk ash-based geopolymer
paste by incorporating basalt fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118422.

[22] A.N. Swaminathen, Indian rice husk ash - Improving the strength and durability of concrete: A
review, in: 2013 Int. Conf. Curr. Trends Eng. Technol. ICCTET 2013, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCTET.2013.6675903.

[23] R. Pode, Potential applications of rice husk ash waste from rice husk biomass power plant, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.051.

[24] K. Singh, J. Singh, S. Kumar, A Sustainable Environmental Study on Corn Cob Ash Subjected To
Elevated Temperature, Curr. World Environ. 13 (2018) 144–150.
https://doi.org/10.12944/cwe.13.1.13.

[25] Dhirendra Singhal, Parveen, Atul Garg, Behaviour of Fly Ash based Geopolymer Concrete in
Fresh State, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 10 (2017) 1–4.

33
 https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i31/113890.

[26] D.G. Nair, A. Fraaij, A.A.K. Klaassen, A.P.M. Kentgens, A structural investigation relating to the
pozzolanic activity of rice husk ashes, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 861–869.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.10.004.

[27] S. Oyebisi, J. Akinmusuru, A. Ede, O. Ofuyatan, G. Mark, J. Oluwafemi, 14 Molar Concentrations

of Alkali-Activated Geopolymer Concrete, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 413 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/413/1/012065.

[28] IS 456, Concrete, Plain and Reinforced, Bur. Indian Stand. Dehli. (2000) 1–114.

[29] M.F.M. Zain, M.N. Islam, F. Mahmud, M. Jamil, Production of rice husk ash for use in concrete
as a supplementary cementitious material, Constr. Build. Mater. (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.07.003.

[30] Waste and Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Concrete, 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1016/c2016-0-04037-8.

[31] IS 383, Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete - Specification, Bur. Indian Satandards. (2016).

[32] Bureau of Indian Standard, Method of Test for aggregate for concrete., IS 2386 ( Part III) - 1963.
(1963).

[33] IS 9103 : 1999, Specification for Concrete Admixtures, Bur. Indian Stand. Dehli. (1999) 1–22.

[34] Parveen, D. Singhal, Development of mix design method for geopolymer concrete, Adv. Concr.
Constr. 5 (2017) 377–390. https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2017.5.4.377.

[35] ASTM C143/C143M, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, Astm
C143. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1520/C0143.

[36] Astm:C138/C138M-13, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric), ASTM Int. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1520/C0138.

[37] Astm C403/C403M-99, Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by
Penetration Resistance, Annu. B. ASTM Stand. (1999).

[38] ASTM, C39-05 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens, ASTM Int. (2008).

[39] ASTM C496, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens, ASTM Int. i (2011) 5. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0496.

[40] American Society of Testing and Materials, C293 - 15 Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using
Simple Beam With Center-Point Loading), ASTM Int. (2015) 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0293.

[41] ASTM C469, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of
Concrete in Compression, ASTM Int. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1520/C0469.

[42] ASTM:C157/C157M-08, Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-
Cement Mortar and Concrete, ASTM Int. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1520/C0157_C0157M-08.

[43] ASTM C1202, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist

34
 Chloride Ion Penetration, Am. Soc. Test. Mater. (2012) 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1520/C1202-12.2.

[44] BS 1881-122, Testing concrete - Part 122 : Method for determination of water absorption, BSI -
Br. Stand. Inst. (2011).

[45] J. Pinto, B. Vieira, H. Pereira, C. Jacinto, P. Vilela, A. Paiva, S. Pereira, V.M.C.F. Cunha, H.
Varum, Corn cob lightweight concrete for non-structural applications, Constr. Build. Mater. 34
(2012) 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.043.

[46] B.B. Jindal, D. Singhal, S.K. Sharma, D.K. Ashish, Parveen, Improving compressive strength of
low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete with alccofine, Adv. Concr. Constr. 5 (2017) 17–29.
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2017.5.1.17.

[47] P. Suraneni, J. Weiss, Examining the pozzolanicity of supplementary cementitious materials using
isothermal calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis, Cem. Concr. Compos. 83 (2017) 273–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.07.009.

[48] P. Suraneni, A. Hajibabaee, S. Ramanathan, Y. Wang, J. Weiss, New insights from reactivity
testing of supplementary cementitious materials, Cem. Concr. Compos. 103 (2019) 331–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.05.017.

[49] Saloni, A. Singh, V. Sandhu, Jatin, Parveen, Effects of alccofine and curing conditions on
properties of low calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Mater. Today Proc. (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.763.

[50] B. Bhushan Jindal, P. Jangra, A. Garg, 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.219.

[51] Parveen, A. Mehta, Saloni, Effect of ultra-fine slag on mechanical and permeability properties of
Metakaolin-based sustainable geopolymer concrete, Adv. Concr. Constr. 7 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2019.7.4.231.

[52] M. Shakouri, C.L. Exstrom, S. Ramanathan, P. Suraneni, Hydration, strength, and durability of
cementitious materials incorporating untreated corn cob ash, Constr. Build. Mater. (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118171.

[53] S. Oyebisi, A. Ede, F. Olutoge, S. Ogbiye, Evaluation of reactivity indexes and durability
properties of slag-based geopolymer concrete incorporating corn cob ash, Constr. Build. Mater.
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119604.

[54] D.A. Adesanya, A.A. Raheem, A study of the workability and compressive strength characteristics
of corn cob ash blended cement concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 311–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.12.004.

[55] B.B. Jindal, D. Singhal, S. Sharma, Parveen, Enhancing mechanical and durability properties of
geopolymer concrete with mineral admixture, Comput. Concr. 21 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2018.21.3.345.

[56] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, I. Luhar, Development of rubberized geopolymer concrete: Strength and
durability studies, Constr. Build. Mater. (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.185.

[57] P.H. Desai, Experimental Study on Corn Cob Ash Powder As Partial Replacement of Cement in

35
 Concrete, (2018) 724–728.

[58] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured blended low-calcium
fly ash geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034.

[59] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, On the development of fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete, ACI Mater. J. (2004). https://doi.org/10.14359/13485.

[60] E.I. Diaz-Loya, E.N. Allouche, S. Vaidya, Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based geopolymer
concrete, ACI Mater. J. (2011). https://doi.org/10.14359/51682495.

[61] IS 456, IS 456 : 2000 - Plain and reinforced concrete - code and practice, Bur. Indian Stand.
(2000).

[62] S. AS 1012.14:2018; Australia, Methods of testing concrete Method 14 : Method for securing and
testing cores from hardened concrete for compressive strength, Facilities. (1991).

[63] B. Joseph, G. Mathew, Influence of aggregate content on the behavior of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete, Sci. Iran. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.07.006.

[64] ACI 318-14, ACI 318-14 - Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, 2014.

[65] A.S.A. 3600, Australian Standard AS 3600 Concrete structures, 2009.

[66] C. CEB-FIP, Model Code 1990, Com. Euro-International Du Beton, Paris. (1991).

[67] D. Hardjito, B.V. Rangan, Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete, Res. Rep. GC. (2005) 94.

[68] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete ’ s Ability to Resist Chloride,
C 1202-07. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1520/C1202-10.2.

[69] A. Mehta, R. Siddique, Sustainable geopolymer concrete using ground granulated blast furnace
slag and rice husk ash: Strength and permeability properties, J. Clean. Prod. 205 (2018) 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.313.

[70] S. Bernal, R. De Gutierrez, S. Delvasto, E. Rodriguez, Performance of an alkali-activated slag

concrete reinforced with steel fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 208–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.10.027.

[71] Parveen, B.B. Jindal, M.T. Junaid, Saloni, Mechanical and microstructural study of rice husk ash
geopolymer paste with ultrafine slag, Adv. Concr. Constr. 8 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2019.8.3.217.

[72] M. Albitar, M.S. Mohamed Ali, P. Visintin, M. Drechsler, Durability evaluation of geopolymer
and conventional concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 374–385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056.

[73] C.S. Thunuguntla, T.D. Gunneswara Rao, Effect of mix design parameters on mechanical and
durability properties of alkali activated slag concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 193 (2018) 173–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.189.

[74] A. Bahurudeen, D. Kanraj, V. Gokul Dev, M. Santhanam, Performance evaluation of sugarcane

36
 bagasse ash blended cement in concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 59 (2015) 77–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.03.004.

[75] M.M. Hossain, M.R. Karim, M.M. A Elahi, M.F. Mohd Zain, Water absorption and sorptivity of
alkali-activated ternary blended composite binder, J. Build. Eng. 31 (2020) 101370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101370.

[76] R.P. Venkatesan, K.C. Pazhani, Strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete made
with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Black Rice Husk Ash, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20
(2016) 2384–2391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0564-0.

[77] S. Keke, P. Xiaoqin, W. Shuping, Z. Lu, Design method for the mix proportion of geopolymer
concrete based on the paste thickness of coated aggregate, J. Clean. Prod. 232 (2019) 508–517.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.254.

[78] M.O. Yusuf, M.A. Megat Johari, Z.A. Ahmad, M. Maslehuddin, Shrinkage and strength of
alkaline activated ground steel slag/ultrafine palm oil fuel ash pastes and mortars, Mater. Des.
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.06.062.

[79] ACI Committee 209, Report on factors affecting Shrinkage and creep of hardened concrete, Am.
Concr. Inst. (2005).

37

View publication stats