Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICAMME-2018
Role of Superplasticizer on GGBS based Geopolymer Concrete
under ambient curing
Jithendra Ca*, Elavenil. Sa
aSchool of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT University, Chennai-600127, India.

Abstract

Increase in the dosage of superplasticizer can have a significant effect on workability and strength properties of
Geopolymer concrete in ambient curing. This paper evaluates the influence of different superplasticizer doage on
workability and strength properties of GGBS based Geopolymer concrete. In this study, Geopolymer concrete was
made up of 100% GGBS, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio of 2.5, Alkaline to Binder ratio of 0.5,
superplasticizer (2% to 6%) and the concentration of sodium hydroxide of 12M. Significant increase in workability
and slight decrease in strength was observed with increase in superplasticizer under ambient curing. The
combination of 6% superplasticizer and 12M NaOH concentration of GGBS based Geopolymer concrete was
advisable for precast construction under ambient curing.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Advances in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering,
ICAMME-2018.
Keywords: GGBS based Geopolymer concrete;, workability; compressive strength; split tensile strength; ambient curing

1. Introduction

Geopolymer concrete is a trending concrete material which becoming an alternative material to Ordinary
Portland Cement. In OPC concrete, cement is the primary binder to pack the aggregates together. Approximately,
manufacturing of cement is releasing one ton of CO2 for every one ton of cement making [1, 2]. In global, it was
noted that almost 7% of total CO2 emission releases in to the atmosphere by cement industries [3]. In 2014 the
consumption of cement in the world was 3.7 billion meteric tonnes [4] and 4.7 billion meteric tonnes by 2020 with
an annual growth considered as 4% of cement consumption [5]. The raw material needs for cement manufacturing
are non-renewable and depleting at a rapid rate. At the same time, commercial and agro waste with cementitious
properties abundantly but usually dumped into useful lands [6]. Many attempts have been made, to use the
alternative material for OPC. The development of zero % OPC concrete became as the trending task. Geopolymer
concrete as an alternative material to OPC concrete was started a few decades ago and recently achieved popularity
as building material. Geopolymer concrete is made up of industrial waste materials (fly ash, GGBS, silicafume and
rice husk ash) with help of Alkaline Activator Solution (AAS). The activator solution plays a major role in
polymerization process. The selection of source of aluminosilicate materials is based on cost and application.

∗ Corresponding author
E-mail address:jithendrareddy.chennur@gmail.com

2214-7853 © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Advances in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering,
ICAMME-2018.
 Jithendra C and Elavenil S / Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154 149

Most of the earlier researcher published on fly ash based geopolymer concrete under heat curing. In ambient
curing, fly ash based geopolymer concrete achieved less strength as compared to heat curing. Ambient curing is
economical when compared to heat curing. The fly ash based geopolymer concrete behavior was investigated in the
available literature. Partha et al. describes that the workability of fly ash based geopolymer concrete decreased due
to increase of GGBS content. It was mainly due to because of accelerated reaction of calcium and angular shape of
slag. The workability also decreased with reducing the alkaline solution to binder ratio from 0.4 to 0.35 [7]. Xie and
Togay investigated the behavior of low calcium flyash and bottom ash based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient
condition. The test results showed that the ambient temperature cured coal ash-primarily based GPCs produced
higher drying shrinkage compared to that of OPCs due to the huge amount of unreacted coal ash particles inside the
hardened GPC structure that consequences from a lower degree of geopolymerization when coal ash-based totally
GPC is cured at ambient temperature [8]. Pradip and prabir investigated on workability and setting of geopolymer
concrete with upto 30% replacement of fly ash with GGBS. The test results showed that the workability and setting
time reduced with increase of GGBS content and decrease of NaOH concentration [9]. Deb et al. examined on
effects of nano silica on strength properties under ambient curing. It was founded that, the nano silica helps to
increase the dense microstructure and better interlocking morphology [10]. Faiz examined on mechanical and
durability properties fly ash geopolymer concrete using recycled aggregates. It was founded that the durability
properties are affected by RCA but however, better than OPC [11]. Amer et al. experimented on high strength of
geopolymer concrete using oil palm shell ash and GGBS at ambient curing. The test results showed that, The CSH
gel had been shifted to CASH gel with higher crystallinty gel was formed and 50% of OPFA replaced by GGBS
produced 92 Mpa in ambient curing [12].
The effort to make geopolymer concrete as economical, ambient curing method is better than other curing
methods. The inclusion of GGBS had given better results in ambient curing condition. Hadi et al. explained that the
geopolymer concrete with 100% GGBS had improved high early strength. The setting time increased and
compressive strength was partially reduced due to addition of supplementary materials (FA, MK and SF)[13]. Omer
et al. investigated on relationship between compressive strength and UPV of GGBS based geopolymer mortars in
heat curing method. The test results showed that, the characteristic strength properties increased with increase of
sodium silicate content. The strength properties had reduced with increase of temperature [14]. Venkatesan and
Pazhani examined on strength and durability properties GC with GGBS and black rice husk ash. It was founded that
the decreases in sorptivity abouth 47% with 10% BRHA and 43% with 20% BRHA as compared to control mix. It
also founded that the mix with 10% BRHA showed good resistance against chloride permeability [6].
The main aim of the study is to improve the workability and strength properties of GGBS based geopolymer
concrete under ambient curing condition. The geopolymer concrete is made up of 100% GGBS with help of sodium
based activator. Sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio of 2.5, alkaline activator solution to binder ratio of 0.5,
superplasticizer dosage (2% to 6%) and water content of 14%. The workability and strength properties of GGBS
based geopolymer concrete is identified using normal slump cone test, compressive strength test and split tensile
strength test.

2. Materials

In this study geopolymer concrete were manufactured with 100% ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). The
GGBS were supplied by JSW cement Chennai. The chemical compositions of GGBS: Cao – 37.34%, Al2O3 –
14.42%, Fe2O3 – 1.11%, SiO2 – 37.73% and specific gravity of GGBS is 2.84. Coarse aggregate with a maximum
aggregate size of 12 mm and the natural river sand as the fine aggregate were used in this study. The specific gravity
of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate is 2.7 and 2.08. The combination of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate
was used as an alkaline activator. The sodium hydroxide flakes was dissolved in water to produce sodium hydroxide
solution with 12M concentrations. Sodium hydroxide flakes was supplied by Sunshine chemical Chennai. The
chemical composition of NaOH: Na2O – 15.75%, SiO2 - 35.24%, molar ratio of 1:2.31 and total solids as 51.03%.
150 Jithendra C and Elavenil S / Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154

Sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3) was supplied by Kiran Global Chem. Pvt. Ltd. Chennai. High range water
reducers (commercially available Glenium 8233) supplied by BASF Chennai were used to improve the workability
of the geopolymer concrete.

3. Mix design

For this study, five mixtures with different dosages of superplasticizer were prepared. The alkaline to binder ratio
for all the mixes was maintained at 0.5 and the total GGBS content was fixed at 400 kg/m3. To obtain the better
workability characteristics, a water content of 14% and superplasticizer dosage of (2% - 6%) by mass of the binder
were used.The mixture designation and the quantities of various materials for the concrete mixes are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Mix proportions of Geopolymer Concrete

GGBS C. Agg F. Agg SH SS SP Extra Water
Mix ID
3 3 3 3 3 3
kg/m kg/m kg/m kg/m kg/m kg/m kg/m3
M0 400 990 810 57.1 143 8 56

M1 400 990 810 57.1 143 12 56

M2 400 990 810 57.1 143 16 56

M3 400 990 810 57.1 143 20 56

M4 400 990 810 57.1 143 24 56

C. Agg – Coarse Aggregate, F. Agg – Fine Aggregate, SH – Sodium Hydroxide, SS - Sodium Silicate, SP - Superplasticizer

4. Preparation of test specimens

Firstly, Geopolymer concrete specimens were manufactured by mixing the dry material in a pan mixer and then
alkaline activator solution (SS/SH) were added to the dry mix. Finally, water and superplasticizer were added to the
mix. The procedure of the mixing geopolymer concrete was followed as per Rangan [15]. The dry materials were
mixed for about 2 min and then half of the amount of alkaline activator was added into the pan and mixed for about
2 min. The remaining amount of alkaline activator with water and superplasticizer were poured into the pan mixer
and mixed for approximately 6 min until the ingredients were well combined and homogeneous. In this study, the
fresh concrete properties studied using slump test as shown in Fig.1. The steel moulds size of 100*100*100 mm for
compressive strength and 100*200 mm cylinders were casted for split tensile strength. The specimens were vibrated
for 10 seconds. The specimens were placed in the laboratory at an ambient condition (220C – 250C±2) for 24 h.
After one day, demoulded and tested for compressive strength (Fig .2) and split tensile strength.

5. Results and Discussion

The most important part of geopolymer concrete is workability and compressive strength. Therefore, the workability
and compressive strength behavior of GGBS based geopolymer concrete in ambient curing were discussed in detail.
Moreover, the results of the workability and strength properties are determined and presented in Table 2. For each
mix, three identical specimens were tested and considered the average value of the three specimens. The
experiments were performed on GGBS based geopolymer concrete under ambient curing condition with curing
period of 3 and 28 days with different dosages of superplasticizer.
 Jithendra C and Elavenil S / Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154 151

Fig. 1 Slump test setup

Fig. 2. Compressive strength test set up

Table 2. Fresh and strength properties of GGBS based Geopolymer Concrete

Compressive strength (Mpa) Split Tensile Strength (Mpa)

Mix ID Slump (mm)
3 Days 28 Days 28 Days
M0 135 58.32 89.6 3.5
M1 140 57 89.2 3.42
M2 155 56.24 88.7 3.36
M3 175 54.2 86.11 3.2
M4 190 52.33 84.1 3.19

5.1. Workability properties

The effects of the different percentages of superplasticizer on the fresh concrete of geopolymer concrete are
represented in Fig.1. It can be seen that the slump value of mixes is increases with increasing of percentage of
superplasticizer. The control mix M0 is made up of 100% GGBS, alkaline to binder ratio of 0.5 and superplasticizer
152 Jithendra C and Elavenil S / Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154

dosage of 2%. The GGBS based geopolymer concrete had been examined with varying superplasticizer doages as
shown in Fig.3. Mix M1 with 3% of superplasticizer was achieved 140 mm slump. Mix M2 with 4% of
superplasticizer was achieved 155 mm slump. Mix M3 with 5% was achieved 175 mm and Mix M4 with 6% was
achieved 190 mm. The effect of increasing the superplasticizer dosage leads to increase in slump values. The mix
M1, M2, M3, M4 resulted in increase slump of 3.7%, 14.8%, 29.6%, and 40.7% as compared to mix M0.

Fig. 3. Workability properties of geopolymer concrete

5.2. Compressive strength properties

The compressive strength developments of the GGBS based geopolymer concrete with 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% and 6%
of superplasticizer are shown in Fig. 4. The results of mixers are average value of three identical specimens of each.
It can been from Fig. 4 that the increase of superplasticizer percentage leads decrease in strength. The compressive
strength of mix M0 with 2% of superplasticizer had achieved 58.32 Mpa on 3 day test and 89.6 Mpa on 28 day test.
The compressive strength of mix M1 with 3% of superplasticizer had achieved 57 Mpa on 3 day test and 89.2 Mpa
on 28 days test. The compressive strength of mix M2 with 4% superplasticizer had achieved 56.24 Mpa on 3 day
test and 89.2 on 28 day test. The compressive strength of mix M3 with 5% superplasticizer had achieved 54.2 Mpa
on 3 day test and 86.11 on 28 day test. The compressive strength of mix M4 with 6% superplasticizer had achieved
52.33 and 84.1 Mpa on 28 day test. The compressive strength of the mix proportions as compared M1, M2, M3 and
M4 with M0.

Fig. 4. Compressive strength properties of concrete

 Jithendra C and Elavenil S / Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154 153

The compressive strength of mixes M1, M2, M3 and M4 with 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% had slight decrease in
strength (0.4%, 1%, 3.8% and 6.1%) as compared to mix M0 with 2% superplasticizer. It is concluded that, the
compressive strength properties of mixes were slightly decreased with increasing the superplasticizer. Hadi et al
[13]. experimented with 100% GGBS with different quantities using Taguchi method. The study shows that the mix
TM4 with GGBS of 450 kg/m3, Al/B of 0.35 and 14M had achieved 61.25 Mpa of 28 days strength was lesser than
the mix M4 (Fig. 4) with 84.1 Mpa in ambient curing. Prasanna et al [6]. investigated with 100% GGBS with 8M
had achieved 69.28 MPa was lesser than the mix M4 (Fig. 4) with 84.1 Mpa in ambient curing. Nath et al. [9]
describes that increases the GGBS (30%) content in fly ash based geopolymer concrete leads to increase in strength
with increase of NaOH concentration. Firstly, constructional concrete qualified with good workability properties.
Among all the mixes M4 achieved both good workability and strength properties.

5.3. Split Tensile Strength

The effect of superplasticiczer on GGBS based geopolymer concrete is shown in Fig. 5. The mix M0 with 2% of
superplasticizer had obtained 3.5 Mpa. The mix M1, M2, M3 and M4 with 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% had obtained 3.42
Mpa, 3.36 Mpa, 3.2 Mpa and 3.19 Mpa. The split tensile strength decreased with increase of superplasticizer as
similar to compressive strength as shown in Fig. 4. The mix M1 had decrease the strength rate of 2.3%, the mix M2
reduced the strength rate of 4%, the mix M3 reduced the strength rate of 8.5% and the mix M4 reduced the strength
rate of 8.85% as compared with the mix M0. Prasanna et al., Nath et al. evaluated that the early strength was
increased with increase of GGBS content. The geopolymerization increases with inclusion of GGBS in ambient
curing [6, 13].

Fig. 5. Split tensile strength properties of concrete

6. Conclusions

The effect of superplasticizer on the workability and strength properties of ambient cured geopolymer concrete were
investigated. The following conclusions are drawn from the results performed in this study: Increase in
superplasticizer percentage leads to increase in workability and slight decrease in strength. The mix’s M1, M2, M3
and M4 with 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% had achieved 3.7% to 40.7% slump values as compared to mix M0 with 2%
superplasticizer. However, strength properties of M1, M2, M3 and M4 are slight decreased 0.4% to 6.1% as
compared to mix M0. The present study helps to improve the workability and strength properties of GGBS based
geopolymer concrete in ambient curing.
154 Jithendra C and Elavenil S / Materials Today: Proceedings 18 (2019) 148–154

Acknowledgement

Authors acknowledge the Vellore Institute of Technology University for financial support and research facilities.
My sincere thanks to Dean of SMBS Dr. K. Janardhan Reddy and all VIT faculty members for their support.

References

[1] J. Davidovits, False Values on CO2 Emission For Geopolymer Cement/Concrete published In Scientific Papers,
Geopolymer Inst. Libr. Tech. Pap. 24 (2015) 1–9.
[2] J. Davidovits, Environmentally Driven Geopolymer Cement Applications, Geopolymer 2002 Conf. (2002) 1–9.
[3] B.C. McLellan, R.P. Williams, J. Lay, A. Van Riessen, G.D. Corder, Costs and carbon emissions for
geopolymer concrete pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement, 19(9) (2011) 1080-1090.
[4] M. Reed, W. Lokuge, W. Karunasena, Fibre-reinforced geopolymer concrete with ambient curing for in situ
applications, J. Mater. Sci. 49 (12) (2014) 4297-4304.
[5] M. T. Junaid, O. Kayali, A. Khennane, J. Black, A mix design procedure for low calcium alkali activated fly
ash based concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 79 (2015) 301-310.
[6] 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, 20 (2016) 2384–2391.
[7] P.S. Deb, P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash and
activator content on the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete cured at ambient
temperature, Mater. Des. 62 (2014) 32–39.
[8] T. Xie, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based geopolymer concrete cured at
ambient temperature, Ceram. Int. 41 (2015) 5945–5958.
[9] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash
geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition, Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 163–171.
[10] P.S. Deb, P.K. Sarker, S. Barbhuiya, Effects of nano-silica on the strength development of geopolymer cured at
room temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 675–683.
[11] F.U.A. Shaikh, Mechanical and durability properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled coarse
aggregates, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. (2016).
[12] M. Amer, N. Farzadnia, A. Abdullah, A. Ali, R. Demirboga, Development of high strength alkali activated
binder using palm oil fuel ash and GGBS at ambient temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 289–300.
[13] M.N.S. Hadi, N.A. Farhan, M.N. Sheikh, Design of geopolymer concrete with GGBFS at ambient curing
condition using Taguchi method, Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 424–431.
[14] S. Abdi, R. Demirboga, W.H. Khushefati, Relationship between compressive strength and UPV of GGBFS
based geopolymer mortars exposed to elevated temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 189–195.
[15] D. Hardjito, B.V. Rangan, Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Res.
Rep. GC. (2005) 94. http://www.geopolymer.org/fichiers_pdf/curtin-flyash-GP-concrete-report.pdf.