Received: 1 June 2019 Revised: 4 August 2019 Accepted: 2 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201900201

TECHNICAL PAPER

Siliceous fly ash and blast furnace slag based geopolymer

concrete under ambient temperature curing condition

Sourav K. Das1,2 | Sandeep Shrivastava2

1
Department of Civil Engineering,
Manipal University Jaipur, Jaipur, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering,
Malaviya National Institute of
Technology, Jaipur, India
Correspondence
Sourav K. Das, Department of Civil
Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur,
Jaipur, India.
Email: d13.sourav@gmail.com
Abstract
Abundance of industrial by-products along with its disposal issues and exploitation
of the natural resource of limestone for cement production creates a huge problem
throughout the globe. Geopolymer technology could be a worthy solution to these
problems by producing concrete utilizing industrial by-products and resisting the
exploration of the natural source of limestone and limiting the greenhouse gas emis-
sion. This article presents the observations achieved by replacing siliceous fly ash
with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). Different mix proportions were
prepared to measure the mechanical strength. GGBFS was added in replacement
of fly ash in different percentages from 0% to 30%. Two different types of molarity of
NaOH solution was used to observe the effect of molarity with the addition
of GGBFS. By-product binders were mixed with alkaline solution by keeping the
ratio of mixing of Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) to sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution
equals to 1.5. Slump cone test, compressive and flexural test was conducted to exam-
ine the workability and mechanical strength, respectively. Microstructural analysis
was conducted to understand the surface morphology and minerology. Current
study shows that with the inclusion of GGBFS to siliceous fly ash based geopolymer
concrete compressive and flexural strength equals to 43.61 and 5.45 MPa, respec-
tively, can be achieved at ambient condition which may be feasible for cast-in situ
applications.

KEYWORDS
ambient temperature curing, fly ash, geopolymer concrete, GGBFS, Na2SiO3, NaOH

1 | INTRODUCTION cement (OPC) increases with the increase in the demand

of cement concrete. It is well known that each ton of
Cement concrete is the most utilized material in the OPC production generates approximately 0.9 ton of car-
world next to water amounting approximating 1 m3 of bon dioxide (CO2)2 which enhance the global warming
concrete/person/year.1 Utilization of ordinary Portland by emitting the major greenhouse gas CO2 and also leads

Abbreviations: AM, alkali mixture; CA, coarse aggregate; C-A-S-H, calcium aluminosilicate hydrate; C-S-H, calcium silicate hydrate; CV, crushing
value; EDXA, energy dispersive X-ray analysis; FA, fine aggregate; GGBFS, ground granulated blast furnace slag; IV, impact value; M, molar; N-A-S-H,
sodium aluminosilicate hydrate; OPC, ordinary Portland cement; PPC, Portland Pozzolana cement; PSC, Portland slag cement; SEM, scanning electron
microscope; SG, specific gravity; WA, water absorption.

Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
authors’ closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.

Structural Concrete. 2020;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2020 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA

to the annihilation of the natural availability of lime- −sialate-disiloxo).14 Silicon-oxo-aluminate is abbreviated

stone. Moreover, almost 7% of the world CO2 emissions as sialate and the bonding in between silicon and oxygen
come from global OPC production units.3 Manufacturing atom is mentioned as siloxo. The chemical reaction and
of cement required huge energy consumption as the molecular framework behind geopolymerization are
required temperature for the calcination of limestone is shown in Figure 1a,b.
almost 1,400 C. For the calcination of limestone, huge The alkalination process is ambiguous and it is
amount of fossil fuel also is consumed and releases CO2 to mostly governed by the elemental proportions of the
the environment which amounts to almost 1 ton for each base material and the alkali solution.15 Fly ash, an
ton of cement manufacturing.1,4,5 So, cement manufactur- industrial by-product which is a good source of amor-
ing not only depletes the natural source of limestone but phous silica and alumina, has proved itself to be a good
also fossil fuel. binder for geopolymerization. Fly ash available in India is
Therefore, to deal with this huge emission of CO2 gas mostly low calcium siliceous fly ash which is utilized to
new alternative to OPC has to be introduced. The blend- make geopolymer concrete resulted in good compressive
ing of OPC with fly ash and GGBFS resulted into the strength, flexural strength, chemical attack, and fire resis-
manufacturing of Portland Pozzolana cement (PPC) and tance.16,17 Promising results were shown when 10–16 M
Portland slag cement (PSC), respectively. Though the fly NaOH solution being used and the ratio of fly ash to alkali
ash utilization in OPC as per Indian Standards is fixed to solution lies in between 2.5 and 3.3.18
a maximum limit of 35%,6 but as per 2016–2017 report by Mostly researchers followed heat curing with or with-
Central Electricity Authority, India, fly ash utilization in out controlled humidity for a period of 24–48 hr. Techni-
different applications has reached 63%7 and the rest was cally initial heat curing enhances the speed of the
dumped in landfill sites. This indicates that the utiliza- polymerization process, but various constraints are avail-
tion of fly ash is improving and widely spread in different able to apply heat curing. This appears to be a big chal-
sectors. However, the dumping is creating a huge envi- lenge for cast-in situ manufacturing of concrete by
ronmental hazard. These problems crave the interest of geopolymerization, as the practicability of heat curing for
researchers to find an alternative cementitious material a huge structure is questionable. Although it is only pos-
which solve the issue of utilization of industrial by- sible at laboratory level or may be to precast members.
products along with minimizing the emission of CO2 and In the present study, authors aim is to explore the
depletion of fossil fuel. effect exerted on the parameters governing the nature of
The concept of an alternative cementitious binder named
as “Geopolymer” was introduced by Prof. J. Davidovits in
1978.8 It can be defined as a molecule of minerals that are
linked with covalent bonds. In the alkaline environment, the
aluminosilicates go through a rapid chemical reaction and
produce a three-dimensional (3D) polymeric chain by
geopolymerization.9 Although it happens in the presence of
alkaline medium but it is not an alkali-activated material.10
Alkali does not activate the binders to attain an active state
rather than it helps in creating a covalent bond between sil-
ica, alumina, and alkali by sharing their electrons. In the
alkaline environment, binders go through alkalination.
Although geopolymerization involves a long process but the
steps involved for the final geopolymeric reactions can be
summarized as follows. Initially, the Si (available quartz in
the fly ash11) and Al gets transferred from the base materials
in which they were present in solid form and later into
aqueous form,12 which is conveyed as depolymerization
of silicates and aluminosilicates. Then the formation of
monomers takes place by gel formation of oligo-sialates.
Finally, to form the geopolymeric structure, the mono-
mers are shaped by transforming to polymers by reticula-
tion, networking, and solidification.13 Different types of F I G U R E 1 (a) Computer molecular graphics of different
polymers were formed during the whole geopolymeric polymeric structures and related framework and (b) chemical
reaction phase which are poly (−sialate, −sialate-siloxo, reaction behind geopolymerization
DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA
concrete when ambient temperature curing was taken
into consideration. To introduce ambient temperature
curing authors partially replace siliceous fly ash by
GGBFS and studied its influence to optimize the mix
proportions. To investigate the fresh properties work-
ability test was conducted; compressive and flexural test
was conducted to explore the mechanical properties;
and finally, water penetration test was conducted to
examine the depth of water penetration. Furthermore,
the microstructure of the binders was examined by scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive
X-ray analysis (EDXA).
2 | EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1 | Materials used
2.1.1 | Fly ash
Mostly the coal available in India is of bituminous/
anthracite nature, which when gets combusted pro-
duces a very low percentage of CaO containing fly ash
typically called Class F fly ash according to ASTM C
618.19 For this study, the fly ash was obtained from a
nearby vendor located at Jaipur, Rajasthan. After
EDXA analysis as reported in Table 3, it was observed
that the fly ash is of Class F grade with a very low per-
centage of CaO. The obtained fly ash had some per-
centage of bottom ash with bigger particle size, so the
obtained material was sieved through a 90-μm sieve
and the pass-through particles were used for experi-
mentation purpose.
FIGURE 2 Sieve analysis of fine aggregate
3
2.1.2 | Ground granulated blast
furnace slag
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) was bought
from a vendor from Delhi, India. The calcium content of
GGBFS was found to be 22.9% and shown in Table 3. Spe-
cific gravity was 2.96 and its color was off-white.
2.1.3 | Alkaline mixture
Mixture of two types of alkaline solution was used for
this study. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was of laboratory
grade with a purity of 98% in pellet form, manufacturer
was Loba Chemie Pvt. Ltd. Sodium hydroxide solution
was prepared for dissolving the pellets in water. Another
alkali solution was sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3
[aq]) which was of commercial grade obtained from a
nearby vendor. Chemical analysis of the solution was
provided by the manufacturer which is as follows:
Na2O = 8.40%, SiO2 = 27.22% and H2O = 64.38%. Both of
the solution was mixed in a certain ratio to get the alka-
line mixture which will be used for experiment.
2.1.4 | Aggregates
Both the coarse aggregate (CA) and fine aggregate (FA)
which was of gravel origin was obtained from a local ven-
dor. Coarse aggregates was in saturated surface dry (SSD)
condition. A ratio of 1:1 (20 and 10 mm) was used in this
study. From the sieve analysis of FA (Figure 2), it was
found that it comes under zone-II gradation. Specifications
like water absorption (WA), specific gravity (SG), impact
value (IV), and crushing value (CV) of CA were tabulated
in Table 1.
2.2 | Geopolymer chemistry
Geopolymer are the product of the poly condensation
and 3D networking of polymers formed by dissolving alu-
minosilicates into alkaline solutions.20,21 The most prefera-
ble aluminosilicate sources were fly ash and GGBFS
because of their high SiO2 and Al2O3 contents. Alkaline
mediums were either Na or K based. Between Na and K-
based alkaline solution, investigation shows that Na-based
alkaline solution is much effective than K-based solution
by dissolving higher amount of Si4+ and Al3+ ions from
aluminosilicates.22 This dissolution of aluminosilicates
developed the geopolymeric sialate tetrahedral bond
(Figure 1a). Some researchers investigate and comes to an
agreement that the dissolvent of Si4+ and Al3+ ions from
4 DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA

TABLE 1 Specifications of aggregates

Specifications Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate BIS code Limiting value

Specific gravity 2.65 2.67 IS:2386(Part-3)-1997 –
Water absorption 0.43% 0.98% IS:2386(Part-3)-1997 <2%
Crushing value 8.7 – IS:2386(Part-4)-1997 <30%
Impact value 15.04 – IS:2386(Part-4)-1997 <30%

TABLE 2 Design mix details

Fine Coarse Na2SiO3 NaOH

Fly ash GGBFS aggregate aggregate solution solution Molarity of Curing
Sl. No (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) NaOH solution process AM/Fly ash
1 500 00 623 1,016 105 70
2 450 50 647 1,056 94.5 63
3 400 100 671 1,095 84 56 14
4 350 150 696 1,135 73.5 49 Ambient 0.35
temperature
5 500 00 623 1,016 105 70
6 450 50 647 1,056 94.5 63 16
7 400 100 671 1,095 84 56
8 350 150 696 1,135 73.5 49

Abbreviation: AM, alkaline mixture ratio.

aluminosilicates into alkaline solution improves the
mechanical strength of the system by forming C-S-H, C-A-
S-H, and N-A-S-H gel.23,24 Although Prof Davidovits10
strongly disagree the concept of C-A-S-H and N-A-S-H as
the primary compound to enhance the properties associ-
ated with geopolymer products. He demonstrates that cal-
cium or sodium hydrates are soluble in water and will not
form any polymer to bind the materials in the system. Prof
Davidovits observation finds an agreement with Liu
et al.25 They reported that the produced geopolymer is not
primarily comprise of C-S-H or N-A-S-H or C-A-S-H as the
backbone of geopolymer chemistry. Although higher
amount of CaO in the base material like GGBFS can leads
to the development of C-A-S-H and C-S-H gel26 but they
will coexist with geopolymer in the system.27 Combination
of polymers and hydrates can improve the properties of
the end product with respect to different parameters.27–29
(Part-1)-1997.30 The particle size distribution curve for
FA is shown in Figure 2. Water absorption was calculated
for both FA (0.98 wt%) and CA (0.43 wt%) as per IS: 2386
(Part-3)-1997.
2.3.2 | Workability
Workability of fresh concrete mixes was measured
according to slump cone test as per IS: 1199–1959.31 The
cone having a dimension of 10 and 20 cm for upper and
base diameter, respectively, with a height of 30 cm. The
cone was filled with concrete in three equal layers. A
tamping rod of 16 mm diameter and 60 cm long was used
to give 25 blows to each layer of concrete for proper com-
paction. Three trial mixes were made for each mix pro-
portions and the workability were reported by taking the
average of three test results.

2.3 | Methodology
2.3.3 | Preparation of alkaline solution
2.3.1 | Particle size distribution and and casting
water absorption
As suggested by Hardjito and Rangan,18 NaOH (aq) solu-
The particle size distribution of the FA was carried out tion of 14 and 16 M was prepared 24 hr prior to experi-
using a mechanical sieving machine according to IS:2386 mentation and before mixing with sodium silicate
DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA
F I G U R E 3 Scanning electron microscopic image of the siliceous fly ash (a) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (b) and EDXA for
fly ash (c) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (d)
solution (SiO2/Na2O equals to 3.24 [approx.], water con-
tent ≈ 65%). Ratio of sodium hydroxide solution to
sodium silicate solution by weight was kept equals to 1.5.
Trial mixing was conducted by the following process:
Fly ash, GGBFS, and aggregates were mixed properly in a
mechanical pan mixer for 3 min to get a homogeneous
dry mixture followed by pouring the alkaline solution
into the dry mixture and mixing it for another 5 min to
get a uniform mixture.32 Fresh concrete mixture was then
filled into the IS specified cube mold in three equal layer
by tamping each layer with 35 blows using a 16 mm
diameter metal rod. Compaction was done by vibrating
the molds on a table vibrator for 30 s. After casting,
molds were kept at a temperature of 20 C for 24 hr. After
24 hr, all the specimens were demolded and kept at an
ambient condition for curing time of 3, 7, and 28 days.
2.3.4 | Curing process
Till 24 hr of casting all the samples were kept in a con-
trolled temperature of 20 C but after demolding, test
specimens were subjected to ambient temperature for the
curing time of 3, 7, and 28 days. The average temperature
5
variation for each 24 hr span was 13–15 C with a maxi-
mum temperature of 40 C ± 2 C to a minimum of 20 C
± 2 C. Test specimens were subjected to the mentioned
temperature variation for the entire curing time.
2.3.5 | Compressive and flexural
strength measurement
Compressive and flexural strength test was carried out in
accordance with IS: 516-1959. Cube mold of size 15 cm
× 15 cm × 15 cm was utilized for compressive strength
test. Servo universal testing machine (FIE UTES-100
HGFL) was used for the study. Test results were shown in
Figures 5–8 which were the average of three measure-
ments. Measurements were taken at a loading rate of
140 kg cm−2 min−1. Maximum load resisted by the sam-
ple to its mean surface area was used to calculate the
compressive strength.
For flexural test, beam size of 15 cm × 15 cm × 70 cm
was used for experimentation with a loading rate of
400 kg/min whereas the extreme fiber stress increases at
the rate of 7 kg cm−2 min−1. Flexural strength is
expressed as modulus of rupture fb. Where,
6 DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA

T A B L E 3 Atom percentage and ratios of different elements in

fly ash and GGBFS

Atom percentage and ratios Fly ash GGBFS

Na (%) 0.52 0.18
Al (%) 16.84 7.88
Si (%) 15.61 10.39
Ca (%) 0.86 22.89
Fe (%) 0.27 0.05
Mg (%) 0.46 3.50
Zn (%) 0.15 0.00
Na/Al 0.03 0.02
Si/Al 0.93 1.32
Ca/Al 0.05 2.90

p×l FIGURE 4 Workability of different mixes

fb =
b × d2

For a is greater than 20.0 cm for 15.0 cm specimen, or

3p × a
fb =
b × d2

For a is less than 20.0 cm but greater than 17.0 cm for

15.0 cm specimen, where “a” equals to the distance
between the line of fracture and the nearer support, mea-
sured on the center line of the tensile side of the speci-
men, in cm, and p, l, b, and d are maximum load applied
to the specimen in kg, supported length of the specimen
in cm, width of the specimen measure in cm, and depth
measured in cm at the point of failure, respectively.

2.3.6 | Water penetration test

Water penetration test was conducted according to
IS:3085-1965.33 Test specimens at the age of 28 days
were taken for test where a standard test water pres-
sure of 3.5 kg/cm2 was applied for 72 hr through a noz-
zle at the center of the cube specimen and the vertical
sides of the cubes were coated with wax. After 72 hr all
the samples were divided into two pieces along the face
subjected to water pressure to examine the depth of
water penetration.
2.4 | Mix design procedure
Eight different trial mixes (Table 2) were design by
changing the molarity of the NaOH solution to evaluate
the mechanical properties of fresh and hardened
F I G U R E 5 Compressive strength of four different mixes for
16 M NaOH solution
geopolymer concrete. The ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH solu-
tion was kept fixed at 1.5 throughout the study. GGBFS
to total binder ratio was changed (10, 20, and 30%;
Table 2) to observe the effect of the presence of GGBFS
along with the change in the molarity of NaOH solution.
SiO2 to Na2O ratio was 3.24 in the Na2SiO3 solution
which was provided by the manufacturer. The ratio of
alkali mixture (AM) to fly ash was kept 0.35 after con-
ducting several trial mixes to obtain moderate workabil-
ity, where the mixture starts losing its plasticity after
30–45 min. Reference was taken to design the mix pro-
portion from a previously published work of Nath and
DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA 7

F I G U R E 6 Compressive strength of four different mixes for F I G U R E 7 Compressive strength comparison at 28 days for
14 M NaOH solution four different mixes for different molarity

Sarkar.15 Detailed mix design is shown in Table 2. Molar-

ity of NaOH solution for this study was taken as 14 and
16 M to observe the influence of molarity of NaOH solu-
tion on the early and later mechanical strength. Water
content of the NaOH solution for each 1,000 g solution of
14 M and 16 M, was 641 and 610 g, respectively.

3 | MICROSTRUCTURAL
A N A LY S I S

Microstructural analysis was conducted to observe the

size, shape pattern, and chemical composition of fly ash
and GGBFS. Under microstructural analysis SEM and
EDXA analysis were performed.

3.1 | SEM and EDXA analysis

The SEM images show that the fly ash particles were hav-
ing an irregular shape pattern and formed clusters.
Although the shape of the fly ash particle in most of
the research papers reported as spherical34,35 but in this
study the shape pattern was found irregular as shown in
Figure 3a. GGBFS had shown an angular shape Figure 3b.
As shown in Table 3, the calcium content of GGBFS is
much higher than the fly ash which in turn helps in
the binding of the materials by the Si-O-Al-O geopolymer
chain along with the hydrated product calcium silicate
hydrate (C-S-H)36 gel during the reaction process. Si/Al
ratio plays an important role in the process of geopoly-
merization. Higher ratio values resulted in higher mechan-
ical strength.37
F I G U R E 8 Flexural strength (MPa) of four different mixes at
16 and 14 M NaOH solution
4 | RESULTS A ND DISCUSSION
4.1 | Measurement of workability
The variation of workability for the different mixes was
shown in Figure 4. Results show that the slump value
reduced with the increment in the GGBFS content,
which can also be testified from previous literature.15 The
maximum workability (slump value) was equal to 75 mm
for mix no. 5. Least variation in workability value was
encountered for mix no. 1, 2, 5, and 6 which were having
less amount of GGBFS content.
8 DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA
Although throughout the process of GPC casting no
extra water was added other than the water present in
the alkaline solution and the quantity of GGBFS gets
increased which led to low workability32 of the trial
mixes. The reason for low workability can be attributed
from the SEM analysis Figure 3a,b where the shape of fly
ash was irregular and GGBFS was angular. Shapes of
both binders decreased the workability due to high inter-
locking between particles. From Figure 3a,b, it was also
observed that in the current study the fly ash particles
were also not purely spherical rather than irregular in
shape which in turn decreased the workability with the
angular shape GGBFS content. Also, the presence of
higher amount of CaO in GGBFS leads to hydration and
the generation of C-A-S-H/C-S-H gel27,28,36 which helps
in faster setting and decreasing workability.
4.2 | Compressive and flexural strength
Figure 5 shows the change in the compressive strength
with the percentage replacement of fly ash with GGBFS.
Comparing in between the compressive strength incre-
ment, increment in GGBFS content resulted into the
3 days compressive strength increment of 99, 135, and
140% with respect to the mixture with 100% fly ash con-
tent. Percentage wise increment in compressive strength
at the age of 7 and 28 days time interval in comparison
with the 100% fly ash content mixture were 80, 82, and
136% and 13, 20, and 67%, respectively, for each 10%
increment in the GGBFS content. Mix-8 attains the maxi-
mum compressive strength of 43.61 MPa with 30%
GGBFS inclusion at ambient temperature curing with
16 M NaOH solution. Figure 5 also shows that the early
3 days strength is not high due to polymerization, as
compared to heat curing in previously published litera-
tures.16,18 Later strength shows a good increase due to
the formation of polymers. Consequently, due to the
presence of CaO in the GGBFS, C-S-H gel formed by
hydration and imparts good bonding38 in addition to the
Si-O-Al-O polymers formations.39
Figure 6 shows the change in the compressive
strength with 14 M NaOH solution. Comparing Figure 5
and Figure 6, it was observed that with the increment in
the molarity of the NaOH solution there was a slight
increment of 20, −8, 3, and 13% for 0–30% GGBFS con-
tent at the age of 28 days. Interestingly the mixture with
10% GGBFS content had resulted into less compressive
F I G U R E 9 Water
penetration depth for different
molar mixture for Mix 8
DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA
strength for the 16 M mixture in comparison with the
14 M mixture. Other comparison shows higher compres-
sive strength for 16 M mixture than 14 M mixture. Incre-
ment was more visible for 0% GGBFS content was may
be for the geopolymerization effect only. However, for
other mixes, with increased GGBFS content shows very
slight increment in the later compressive strength com-
paring in between 14 and 16 M may be due to the com-
bined effect of polymerization and hydration. Hydration
of CaO present in the GGBFS led to a stable compressive
strength without getting much effect from the molarity of
NaOH solution. It shows that the inclusion of GGBFS up
to 30% will lead to higher compressive strength but less
effected by the molarity of the NaOH solution if 14 and
16 M NaOH solutions were used.
Figure 7 shows the compressive strength at 28 days
time with different molarity and GGBFS percentage. The
increment in the compressive strength for 16 M NaOH
solution mixtures follows a continue increment but for
the mixes with 14 M NaOH this phenomenon was irregu-
lar. This could be for higher molarity more amount of Al
atoms will be present to receive one electron from the Na
atom and stabilize itself and resulted into good quantity
of formations of sialate bond.40–42
Flexural strength at the age of 28 days was reported
in Figure 8. Flexural strengths observed for 16 and 14 M
NaOH mix were almost 13, 12, 14, and 12.50% and
11, 8, 12, and 12.50% of their respective compressive
strength for 0–30% GGBFS content mixture. Comparing
the 28 days flexural strength, 16 M solution mixtures
reported 40, 42, 16, and 14% higher than the 14 M solu-
tion mixes. Observing the flexural strength it can be con-
cluded that the molarity of NaOH solution does not have
any substantial effect on the flexural strength with the
addition of GGBFS content but consequently, when 100%
fly ash was used as binder it affects the flexural strength
due to the prominent effect of geopolymer.
4.3 | Water penetration test
For water penetration test, GPC of 16, 14, 12, and 10 M
NaOH solution and with 30% GGBFS content were taken
into consideration to observe the effect of the molarity of
NaOH solution on the depth of water penetration. Water
penetration depth for different molar solution of NaOH
was shown in Figure 9. With the decrease in the molarity
of NaOH solution, the water penetration was found to
get increased because of the increment in the porosity in
the mixes. A maximum penetration depth of 28 mm was
observed for the 10 M mix which was having the least
molarity of NaOH solution among all the mixes taken for
the water penetration test. Least depth of penetration
9
was noted as 21.5 mm for 16 M mixture. This clearly
shows that the depth of penetration of water is contrari-
wise relational to the molarity of sodium hydroxide solu-
tion due to the densely packed polymer.
5 | CONCLUSION
This study evaluates the effect of GGBFS, as an addition
to class F siliceous fly ash up to 30%, eight different mixes
were designed and experimental program was carried
out. Sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio was kept
1.5. Two different molarity of NaOH solution was used
and the mechanical strength results were compared and
analyzed. For water permeability test, four different
mixes with four different molar solution of NaOH were
experimented. Ambient temperature curing was followed
for the test specimens. Results obtained from this study
are concluded below:
• With the increment in the molarity of NaOH solution,
improvement in both compressive and flexural
strength was observed. Maximum up to 30% replace-
ment of fly ash by GGBFS achieved compressive
strength of 43.61 and 38.54 MPa and flexural strength
of 5.45 and 4.78 MPa for 16 and 14 M NaOH solution,
respectively.
• Increasing the amount of fly ash replacement by
GGBFS up to 30% improve the compressive and flex-
ural strength in ambient temperature curing with the
presence of CaO where strength generation attributed
by both polymerization and hydration. Inclusion of
GGBFS has shown a steady rate of increment in the
mechanical strength.
• Depth of water penetration reduces with higher molar
NaOH mixture.
Finally, it can be concluded that siliceous fly ash and
GGBFS based geopolymer concrete can be utilized for
cast-in situ construction work at an optimum mix propor-
tion of the binders and the alkaline mixture at ambient
temperature. It will also help in the declination of CO2
content in the atmosphere by reducing the production of
Portland cement as well as save the degradation of envi-
ronment by consuming the waste materials produced
from industries rather than dumping them into landfill
sites.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Author would like to recognize the support extended by
Manipal University Jaipur for using there lab supplies,
Materials Research Centre, Malaviya National Institute
of Technology, Jaipur for the help in conducting the
10
micro structural analysis and Mr Vishnu Sharma, UG
student, Manipal University Jaipur for helping in making
the samples.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None declared.
ORCID
Sourav K. Das https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1255-1750
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Gartner E. Industrially interesting approaches to ‘low-CO2’
cements. Cem Concr Res. 2004;34(9):1489–1498.
2. Imbabi MS, Carrigan C, Mckenna S. Trends and developments
in green cement and concrete technology. Int J Sustain Built
Environ. 2013;1(2012):194–216.
3. Akbari H, Heller T, Shin S, et al. Geopolymer-based concrete to
reduce carbon footprint of the construction industry. Miner
Eng. 2013;65(12):57–62.
4. Turner LK, Collins FG. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e)
emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC
cement concrete. Construct Build Mater. 2013;43:125–130.
5. Toniolo N, Boccaccini AR. Fly ash-based geopolymers con-
taining added silicate waste. A review. Ceram Int. 2017;43(17):
14545–14551.
6. BIS:1489(Part-1)-1991. Portland-Pozzola Cement specification.
New Delhi, India: BIS, 1991.
7. Central Electricity Authority. Report on Fly ash generation at
coal/lignite based thermal power stations and its utilization in
the country for the year 2016–17. New Delhi: Central Electric-
ity Authority, 2017.
8. Davidovits J. Properties of geopolymer cements. Proceedings
First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and
Concretes. Scientific Research Institute on Binders and
Materials, Kiev State Technical University: Kiev, Ukraine,
1994; p. 131–149.
9. Mustafa Al Bakri AM, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Nizar IK,
Mastura WIW. Mechanism and chemical reaction of Fly ash
Geopolymer cement—A review. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(5):
1689–1699.
10. Davidovits J. Why alkali-activated materials (AAM) are not
geopolymers?. Saint-Quentin, France: Geopolymer Institute,
2018.
11. Niibori Y, Chida T, Tochiyama O. Dissolution rates of amor-
phous silica in highly Alakline solution. J Nucl Sci Technol.
2000;37(4):349–357.
12. Dimas D, Giannopoulou I, Panias D. Polymerization in sodium
silicate solutions: A fundamental process in geopolymerization
technology. J Mater Sci. 2009;44(14):3719–3730.
13. Abdel-Gawwad HA, Abo-El-Enein SA. A novel method to pro-
duce dry geopolymer cement powder. HBRC J. 2016;12(1):
13–24.
14. Heah CY, Hamarudin H, Mustafa Al Bakri AM, et al. Study on
solids-to-liquid and alkaline activator ratios on kaolin-based
geopolymers. Construct Build Mater. 2012;35:912–922.
15. Nath P, Sarker PK. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and
early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured
in ambient condition. Construct Build Mater. 2014;66:163–171.
DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA
16. Mehta A, Siddique R. Sulfuric acid resistance of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete. Construct Build Mater. 2017;146:136–143.
17. Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. Fly ash-
based Geopolymer concrete. Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering. 2005;6(1):77–86.
18. Hardjito D, Rangan BV. Development and properties of low-
calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Perth: Curtin Uni-
versity of Technology, 2005.
19. ASTM C618. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or
calcined natural pozzolan for use. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International, 2007.
20. Van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P. Technical and commer-
cial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner
Eng. 2012;29:89–104.
21. Van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P, Brice DG. Chemical
research and climate change as drivers in the commercial
adoption of alkali activated materials. Waste Biomass Valori.
2010;1(1):145–155.
22. Pilehvar S, Cao VD, Szczotok AM, et al. Physical and mechani-
cal properties of fly ash and slag geopolymer concrete con-
taining different types of micro-encapsulated phase change
materials. Construct Build Mater. 2018;173:28–39.
23. Phoo-ngernkham T, Maegawa A, Mishima N, Hatanaka S,
Chindaprasirt P. Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium sili-
cate solutions on compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–
GBFS geopolymer. Construct Build Mater. 2015;91:1–8.
24. Ismail I, Bernal SA, Provis JL, San Nicolas R, Hamdan S, Van
Deventer JSJ. Modification of phase evolution in alkali-
activated blast furnace slag by the incorporation of fly ash.
Cem Concr Compos. 2014;45:125–135.
25. Liu J, Fang Y, and Kayali O. Study on the disposition of water
in Fly ash-based Geopolymers using ATR–IR. In 5th Interna-
tional Conference on Durability of Concrete Structures, June
30–July 1, 2016, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong
Province, China pp. 163–170.
26. Diaz EI, Allouche EN, Eklund S. Factors affecting the suitabil-
ity of fly ash as source material for geopolymers. Fuel. 2010;89
(5):992–996.
27. Kumar S, Kumar R, Mehrotra SP. Influence of granulated blast
furnace slag on the reaction, structure and properties of fly ash
based geopolymer. J Mater Sci. 2010;45(3):607–615.
28. Koenig A, Herrmann A, Overmann S, Dehn F. Resistance of
alkali-activated binders to organic acid attack: Assessment of
evaluation criteria and damage mechanisms. Construct Build
Mater. 2017;151:405–413.
29. Elyamany HE, Abd Elmoaty AEM, Elshaboury AM. Magne-
sium sulfate resistance of geopolymer mortar. Construct Build
Mater. 2018;184:111–127.
30. BIS:2386-1963. Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete.
BIS 2386 (Part I)-1963, vol. Part I, no. UDC 691.322:620.1. New
Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards, 1997;p. 1–21.
31. BIS-1199. Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete. New
Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards, 1959.
32. Aliabdo AA, Abd Elmoaty AEM, Salem HA. Effect of water
addition, plasticizer and alkaline solution constitution on fly
ash based geopolymer concrete performance. Construct Build
Mater. 2016;121:694–703.
33. BIS:3085-1965. Permeability of cement mortar and concrete.
New Delhi, India: BIS, 1997.
DAS AND SHRIVASTAVA 11

34. Guo X, Shi H, Dick WA. Compressive strength and microstruc- AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
tural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer. Cem Concr
Compos. 2010;32(2):142–147.
35. Subramaniam KVL, Bhagath Singh GVP. Characterization of
Sourav K. Das
Indian fly ashes using different experimental techniques. Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Concr J. 2018;92(3):10–23. Manipal University Jaipur
36. Li X, Ma X, Zhang S, Zheng E. Mechanical properties and Jaipur, India
microstructure of class C fly ash-based geopolymer paste and Email: d13.sourav@gmail.com
mortar. Materials (Basel). 2013;6(4):1485–1495.
37. Thokchom S, Mandal KK, Ghosh S. Effect of Si/Al ratio on per-
formance of Fly ash Geopolymers at elevated temperature.
Arab J Sci Eng. 2012;37(4):977–989.
38. Nath P, Sarker P. Geopolymer concrete for ambient curing con- Sandeep Shrivastava
dition. In proceedings of Australasian structural engineering Department of Civil Engineering
conference 2012: The past, present and future of structural engi-
Malaviya National Institute of Tech-
neering. Barton, ACT: Engineers Australia, 2012; p. 225–232.
nology
39. Das SK. Parametric study of flyash based geopolymer concrete.
Int J Eng Technol. 2018;7(2.31):196. Jaipur, India
40. Al Bakri AMM, Kamarudin H, Abdulkareem OAKA, Email: sshrivastava.ce@mnit.ac.in
Ruzaidi CM, Rafiza AR, Norazian MN. Optimization of alka-
line activator/fly ASH ratio on the compressive strength of
manufacturing fly ASH-BASED Geopolymer. Appl Mech
Mater. 2011;110–116(9):734–739.
41. Al Bakri AMM, Kamarudin H, Khairul Nizar I, Bnhussain M,
Zarina Y, Rafiza AR. Correlation between Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio
and Fly ash/alkaline activator ratio to the strength of Geo-
How to cite this article: Das SK, Shrivastava S.
polymer. Adv Mater Res. 2011;341–342:189–193. Siliceous fly ash and blast furnace slag based
42. Abdullah MMA, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Khairul Nizar I, geopolymer concrete under ambient temperature
Rafiza AR, Zarina Y. The relationship of NaOH molarity, curing condition. Structural Concrete. 2020;1–11.
Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, fly ash/alkaline activator ratio, and cur- https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900201
ing temperature to the strength of Fly ash-based Geopolymer.
Adv Mater Res. 2011;328–330:1475–1482.