RESEARCH ARTICLE

EFFICACY OF BINDER RATIO, ALKALINE SOLUTION RATIO,

MOLARITIES ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF FLY ASH BASED
GEOPOLYMER MORTAR
I.V.Ranga Ramanujam1, K. Ramachandra Reddy2 and N.Venkata Ramana3
1
Research Scholar – Anurag University, Hyderabad, India.500088.
2
Professor, Anurag University, Hyderabad, India.500088
3
Advisor-TUIPL and Associate Professor – UBDT College of Engineering, Davangere,
Karnataka,India.577004

ABSTRACT
Experimental investigations are focused on behaviors of liquid to binder ratios, NaOH molarities, and
alkaline ratios on strength properties of geopolymer mortars. The liquid binder ratios used in the study
are 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45, and the NaOH solution molarities are 8M, 10M, 12M, 14M, 16M, and 18M along
with alkaline solution ratios of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3. By considering the different parameters total 72 mix
trials are complied. For the investigations, manufacture sand and fly ash were used for the different
combination of mixes. According to the results of the experimental investigations, the mix containing
14M performed better than the other mixtures in terms of compressive strength. The ideal mixture
produced specimens with LB ratios of 0.45, alkaline ratios of 2.5, and 14M which exhibited a maximum
strength of 36.08 MPa.

Keywords: Geopolymer mortar, fly ash, manufacture sand, compressive strength

INTRODUCTION
Geopolymer concrete is the most current technological development in the construction industry.
Geopolymer concrete has been developed as an alternative to replacing cement with different mineral
admixtures, binder materials, and alkaline activators, as a result of research conducted over the past few
decades to identify alternative, useful, economically feasible, and environmentally benign materials for
use in construction. The outcomes of these attempts to discover alternative, practical, affordable, and
ecologically friendly materials for use in construction. Geopolymers are inorganic polymeric materials
that are chemically very similar to zeolites .They are composed of base materials containing aluminium
and silicon which are activated by mixing alkaline solution which serves as a binder. Geopolymer
concrete is produced by alkali activating aluminosilicate materials, such as fly ash, granulated blast
furnace slag, pond ash, palm oil volcanic ash, etc. using alkali activators such water glass, potassium
hydroxide, and sodium hydroxide. Studies employing m-sand were conducted on geopolymer concrete by
Abdul Aleem M.I et al. (2013)[1]. It is shown that by using m-sand instead of regular concrete, critical
parameters like compressive strength, split strength, and flexure improved. By adjusting sodium
hydroxide in the range of 8 to 12M at room temperature, C.Sashidhar et al. (2015) [29] tested
selfcompacting geo-polymer concrete consisting of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag.
According to reports, using manufacture sand in place of natural sand has no negative impact.
Geopolymer concrete with m-sand was explored by R Janani et al. (2015) [15] In comparison to
geopolymer concrete with natural sand, the results showed an increase in compressive strength, flexure
and tensile strength of 9 percent, 10 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. J. Gomathi et al. (2016) [12]
conducted research to determine the viability of using manufactured sand in geopolymer concrete. The
research discovered that when manufactured sand was substituted for natural sand in a 75 percent ratio,
the highest values of compressive strength and split tensile strength were noted.S.Nagajothi and
S.Elavenil (2016) [20] used manufactured sand in place of natural sand and low calcium flyash as a
binding ingredient. Compressive and tensile strength were reported to rise as m-sand proportions
increased, leading to the conclusion that natural sand might be completely substituted by manufactured
sand. The characteristics of freshly mixed and hardened geopolymer mortar were reviewed by Zhang P et
al (2018) [37]. It was claimed that the geopolymer showed promising futures in terms of improved
characteristics and its use as an eco-friendly building material. According to the study, the geopolymer
mortar had better workability, setting time, compressive strength, tensile strength, elastic characteristics,
flexure strength, resistance to acid attack, and resistance to temperature increase than cement mortar. A
DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
784
RESEARCH ARTICLE
study conducted by Jindal, B.B. (2019) [16] suggested, adding mineral admixture improves the
geopolymer mortar properties. The study found that slag increases the compressive strength and
durability of geopolymer mortar and decreases the duration of the initial and final setting time. The
workability would be hampered since more water would be needed. After curing at room temperature,
addition of nano-silica accelerates the rate at which the silica and alumina phase dissolve, improving
mechanical characteristics and durability. Naghizadeh, A et al,(2018) [21] suggested a mix design that
addressed a wide range of important mix parameters. For this, a range of sodium hydroxide (SH)
concentrations, binder types, and sodium hydroxide molarities were suggested. Saravanan.S. et al (2019)
[28] worked on the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete with manufactured sand. According to
the findings, when river sand is completely replaced with m-sand under hot curing conditions, the strength
rose by around 10%. Mallika G.S.et al (2020) [17] reviewed the performance of geopolymer composites.
According to the study, geopolymer materials outperform cement-based materials in terms of acid and
shrinkage resistance. Flexure strength, compression strength, and workability all improved as sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) level increased. While the compressive strength increased with an increase in the
sodium hydroxide/fly ash ratio initially and then dropped over time, it increased with an increase in the
sodium silicate/fly ash ratio.

In order to reduce the dependency on natural resources like cement and river sand in conventional
concrete, significant research was conducted. Studies were conducted using manufacture sand as a
substitute to natural sand. It is well known that using manufactured sand offers benefits due to the
issues of diminishing supply of natural sand, the restriction or regulation of sand mining by the
appropriate authorities from time to time, and the varied physical and chemical properties of river sand
which would change the characteristics of concrete. The improved physical and durability properties of
concrete have encouraged the use of manufactured sand. Research has been done on the use of
manufacture sand in partial or full quantities as a replacement for natural sand . Based on the previous
studies, using manufactured sand enhances the strength characteristics of geopolymer mortar when
compared to river sand. The current experimental work evaluates the effects of various components,
such as the ratio of liquid binder to alkaline solution, molarity of sodium hydroxide solution, alkaline ratio
on the performance of geopolymer mortar with flyash and manufactured sand.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1 Materials
In the current investigation, flyash from the Rayalaseema Thermal Power Plant (RTPP), Muddunur,
Cuddapah, was finalised. Fly ash has specific gravity of 2.24 and a fineness 362m2/kg. Table 1 is a list
of flyash's chemical components. manufactured sand from local source is utilized. The sand's specific
gravity is 2.67, and gradation conforms with IS 383's requirements for Zone II. Analytical grade NH pellets
(97 percent pure) were melted in water to create a solution with various concentrations for the
experiment. In Tables 2 and 3, respectively, the chemical constituents of sodium hydroxide and sodium
silicate are provided. For flowability,admixture SP430 is is used.The percentage of admixture is 1.5

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
785
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Table 1:Composition of Flyash

CaO MgO SO3 K 2O LOI
SiO2 Fe2O3 Al2O3 Na2O
(% by (% by (% by (% by (% by
(% by wt.) (% by wt.) (% by wt.) (% by wt.)
wt.) wt.) wt.) wt.) wt.)
Fly ash 64.6 2.8 27.8 0.97 0.92 0.18 - - 0.27

Table 2:Composition of NaOH

Chemical Sodium
Carbonate Chloride Sulphate Phosphate Iron Lead
Composition Hydroxide

percentage 97 2 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.005 0.001

Table 3:Composition of Sodium Silicate

Na2O SiO2
Ratio of Na2O:SiO2 Total Solid % Water Content %
(%) (%)

14.3 29.8 1:2.12 44.1 55.9

2.2 Mix Design

The following parameters are used for the trial mixes for geopolymer mortar. Alkaline Solution Ratio: 1.5,
2.0, 2.5, and 3.0; Liquid to Binder Ratio: 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45; Molarity of NaOH Solution: 8, 10, 12, 14, 16,
and 18 There have been a total of 72 mix trials done. Table 4 provides the mix's proportions.

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
786
 RESEARCH ARTICLE
Table 4: Mix constituents of geopolymer mortar

LB Ratio 0.35
Materia
ls AL Ratio 1.5 AL Ratio 2.0 AL Ratio 2.5 AL Ratio 3.0
(Kg/m3 Na2 NaOH Water Na2 NaO Water Na2 NaO Water Na2 NaO Water
) Fly Sio3 Sio3 H Sio3 H Sio3 H
Sand ash
8M 44.71 17.73 106.5 49.68 104.5 103.0 92.43
3 14.77 2 53.22 12.66 9 55.89 20.65
10M 44.71 21.20 103.0 49.68 101.6
6 17.67 2 53.22 15.15 100.6 55.89 13.25 99.83
12M 1448. 482.7 44.71 24.39 99.87 49.68
27 6 20.33 98.96 53.22 17.42 98.33 55.89 15.24 97.84
14 M 44.71 27.33 96.93 49.68 22.77 96.52 53.22 19.52 96.23 55.89 17.08 96
16M 44.71 30.04 94.22 49.68 25.03 94.26 53.22 21.46 94.29 55.89 18.77 94.31
18M 44.71 33.04 91.22 49.68 27.53 91.76 53.22 23.6 92.15 55.89 20.65 92.43
LB Ratio 0.40
Materia
ls AL Ratio 1.5 AL Ratio 2.0 AL Ratio 2.5 AL Ratio 3.0
(Kg/m3 Sand
Na2 NaOH Water Na2Si NaO Water Na2 NaO Water Na2 NaO Water
) Fly Sio3 o3 H Sio3 H Sio3 H
ash
8M 120.3 118.0 116.4
50.52 20.03 6 56.13 16.69 9 60.13 14.31 7 63.14 23.33 104.44
10M 116.4 114.8 113.6
50.52 23.95 4 56.13 19.96 2 60.13 17.11 7 63.14 14.97 112.8
12M 112.8 111.8 111.0
1431. 477.2 50.52 27.56 3 56.13 22.97 1 60.13 19.69 9 63.14 17.23 110.54
14 M 81 7 109.5 109.0 108.7
50.52 30.87 2 56.13 25.73 5 60.13 22.05 3 63.14 19.3 108.47
16M 106.4 106.5
50.52 33.93 6 56.13 28.28 106.5 60.13 24.24 4 63.14 21.21 106.56
18M 103.0 103.6 104.1
50.52 37.32 7 56.13 31.11 7 60.13 26.66 2 63.14 23.33 104.44
LB Ratio 0.45
Materia
ls AL Ratio 1.5 AL Ratio 2.0 AL Ratio 2.5 AL Ratio 3.0
(Kg/m3 Na2 NaOH Water Na2Si NaO Water Na2 NaO Water Na2 NaO Water
) Fly Sio3 o3 H Sio3 H Sio3 H
Sand ash
8M 133.8 131.3 129.5
56.19 22.28 9 62.43 18.57 6 66.9 15.91 5 70.24 25.95 116.17
10M 129.5 127.7 126.4
56.19 26.65 2 62.43 22.21 2 66.9 19.03 3 70.24 16.65 125.47
12M 125.5 124.3 123.5
1415. 471.9 56.19 30.65 2 62.43 25.55 8 66.9 21.9 6 70.24 19.16 122.96
14 M 73 1 121.8 121.3 120.9
56.19 34.34 3 62.43 28.62 1 66.9 24.53 3 70.24 21.46 120.66
16M 118.4 118.4
56.19 37.75 2 62.43 31.46 7 66.9 26.96 118.5 70.24 23.59 118.53
18M 114.6 115.3
56.19 41.52 5 62.43 34.6 3 66.9 29.66 115.8 70.24 25.95 116.17

METHODOLOGY
Alkali activators include sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide pellets (97 percent purity). By
diluting NaOH pellets with water, the alkali activator solution was prepared. The solution was allowed to
cool to room temperature for 24 hours before combining with sodium silicate. Pan mixer was used to mix
geopolymer mortar samples. Before adding the superplasticizer and water to the alkali activator solution,
the binder material was added. Alkaline activator solution is added to the binder in the mixer, which is
then spun for five minutes. Sand is added and mixer run for 3 minutes thus a total mixing time of 13
minutes. In order to test the compressive strength for the current experiment, 216 specimens with
dimensions of 70.50mmx70.50 mmx70.50 mm were cast.
All of the specimens were demoulded twenty hours after they were cast. The cube specimens were
stored at ambient temperature for curing up to test day.The tests to determine the 28-day strength were
DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
787
 RESEARCH ARTICLE
conducted using a compression testing equipment with a 2000KN capability. Compressive strength of
three cubes on average was determined.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this investigation, the compressive strength values for mortar specimens are evaluated. Table 5
lists the compressive strength test results of fly ash geopolymer mortar for different liquid binder ratios,
alkali solution ratio & molarities and detailed discussion presented below.

a) Alkali Liquid to Binder Ratio (LB Ratio)

Figure (1) to (3) show the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar containing flyash with various
liquid binder ratios. Fig..(3) shows when the LB ratio is 0.45, the maximum compressive strength is 36.08
MPa whereas fig (1) shows the maximum compressive strength for liquid binder ratio of 0.35 is 30.39
MPa. When compared to LB ratio of 0.35, the strength is up 19% for LB ratio of 0.45. Sathia et al., (2008)
[25] studied the durability parameters with low calcium flyash geopolymer concrete. The alkali solution
ratio was fixed at 1.5, and NaOH molarity of 16M, the activator solution to flyash ratio was between 0.4
and 0.5. It was determined that increase of flyash presence improved the average compressive strength
of geopolymer mortar. Sathonsaowaphak et al. (2009) [30] carried out tests with liquid-binder ratio with
range 0.325 – 0.709 and alkali solution ratio of 0.4,0.67,1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. and NaOH molarity of 5M,7.5M,
10M, 12.5M and 15M. The researchers have mentioned that mortar with liquid binder ratio 0.429 -0.709
showed high compressive strength of 42.0MPa – 52.0 MPa. D.Ravikumar et al.(2010) [26], using activator
binder ratio of 0.4,0.5 and 0.6 and concentration of activating agent 4M,6M and 8M NaOH solution carried
out studies. It was reported that with the increase of activator to binder ratio the compressive strength
decreases. This conclusion is quite contrary to the results other researchers have reported. Abdullah
M.M.A., et al. (2011) [2] studied effects of relationship of sodium hydroxide molarity, alkaline ratio, fly
ash/alkaline activator ratio, and curing temperature to the strength of fly ash-based geopolymer. The
ratios of flyash to alkaline activator are 0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5 and 3.0. The alkaline solution ratios were
0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5 and 3.0. The researchers have reported compressive strength upto 70.27 MPa at 7 day
for flyash to alkaline activator ratio of 2.0 and alkaline solution ratio of 2.5. Rangan B.V., (2014) [23]
suggested that the alkaline liquid to flyash ratio by mass to be in the range of 0.30 to 0.45 whereas the
concentration of sodium hydroxide solution range be between 8M to 16M. It was concluded that the
strength of geopolymer increases with increase in ratio of liquid binder.Studies were conducted by
Elyamany et al. (2018) [9] using the binders flyash, GGBS, and silica fume. Alkali solution to binder ratios
of 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, and 0.50 were used to prepare the specimens while keeping alkaline solution ratio 2.0.
According to the studies, the compressive strength falls when the alkali solution to binder ratio rises for
NaOH solutions with a molarity of 16M. By maintaining the sodium hydroxide molarity of 14M as
constant and varying the sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5, Hadi et al.
(2019) [13] conducted experiments using GGBFS, Flyash. According to the paper, specimens with an
alkali solution to binder ratio of 0.40 exhibited better strengths than those with a ratio of 0.45 or 0.5. The
current experiments findings are consistent with the other investigations mentioned above. The
specimens with liquid to binder ratio of 0.45 has achieved maximum values of strength. This is due to the
increase in flyash content, the larger interparticle distance and little particle interface resulted in more
strength. Further, the mix undergoes higher complete compaction leading to voids reduction and gain in
strength.

Table 5 : Average Compressive Strength (MPa) of Fly-ash Mortar with different Liquid Binder Ratio, Alkaline
Solution Ratio & Molarity

Varying Liquid Binder Ratio

Molarity 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.35 0.4 0.45
8 18.98 17.16 18.51 18.73 18.57 18.61 18.88 18.45 32.76 18.88 19.10 32.55
10 17.55 18.29 18.39 19.65 18.06 18.59 18.27 18.73 30.39 18.16 17.65 27.90
12 19.78 18.98 18.92 18.71 18.04 20.22 18.47 18.47 27.47 18.63 20.27 24.10
DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
788
 RESEARCH ARTICLE
14 18.33 18.53 24.84 30.39 30.59 26.41 18.71 18.31 36.08 18.24 20.53 29.27
16 18.33 18.59 35.39 18.98 20.94 29.00 18.96 18.47 22.47 18.80 23.47 31.47
18 18.37 16.96 18.49 18.53 28.45 31.45 18.73 19.24 22.49 19.00 18.88 33.39
Al. Ratio 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

AL RATIO 1.5 AL RATIO 2.0 AL RATIO 2.5 AL RATIO 3.0

40.00
Compressive Strength (MPa)

30.00

20.00

10.00
8 10 12 14 16 18
Molarity

Figure 1: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for LB Ratio 0.35 .

AL RATIO 1.5 AL RATIO 2.0 AL RATIO 2.5 AL RATIO 3.0

40
Compressive Strength (MPa)

30

20

10
8 10 12 14 16 18
Molarity

Figure 2: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for LB Ratio 0.40

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
789
RESEARCH ARTICLE

AL RATIO 1.5 AL RATIO 2.0 AL RATIO 2.5 AL RATIO 3.0

40

Compressive Strength (MPa)

30

20

10
8 10 12 14 16 18
Molarity

Figure 3: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for LB Ratio 0.45

b) Ratio of Sodium Silicate to Sodium Hydroxide Solution (Alkaline Ratio)

Figures (4) to (7) shows the geopolymer mortar's compressive strength for varied alkaline solution ratios
when mixed with fly ash. The highest and minimum compressive strengths are shown in Figure. (4) at
35.39 MPa and 16.96 MPa, respectively, with matching liquid-binder ratios of 0.45 and 0.40 for an alkaline
ratio of 1.5. Fig. (5) displays the maximum and minimum compressive strengths at liquid-binder ratios of
0.45 and 0.40 for an alkaline ratio of 2.0, respectively. Figure. (6) displays the highest and minimum
compressive strengths for liquid-binder ratios of 0.45 and 0.35 for an alkaline ratio of 2.5, respectively, of
36.08 MPa and 18.27 MPa. The compressive strength of 33.39 MPa and 17.65 MPa at an alkaline ratio of
3.0 is shown in Figure (7) with LB ratio of 0.45 and 0.40, respectively. In comparison to specimens with
alkaline ratios of 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0, the specimens with an alkaline ratio of 2.5 showed more compressive
strength values. Harjito et al.(2005) [14] showed that a sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio of 2.5
with 8M and 14M sodium hydroxide solution gave compressive strengths of 57MPa and 67 Mpa
respectively. The researchers concluded that a higher alkaline ratio enhances compressive strength The
sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio in the test solutions used by P.Chindaprasirt et al. (2006) [6]
was 0.67, 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0, with concentrations of 10, 15, and 20. According to the experiments, mortars
with alkaline solution ratios of 0.67 and 1.0 have significantly higher compressive strengths than mortars
with ratios 1.5 and 3.0. This is completely different with the outcome of the geopolymer mortar with little
calcium fly ash. The larger concentration of solution and increased calcium percentage would have had
an impact on the mixture's pH conditions, lowering the compressive strength for higher alkali ratios. The
ideal sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio, according to Santhonsawaphok et al., (2009) [30] is 1.5,
which results in a maximum compressive strength of 48MPa. The researchers came to the conclusion
that the compressive strengths decreases as the ratios of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide rises
above 1.5. The alkaline ratios utilized by Abdullah M.M.A., et al. (2011) [2] were 0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5, and 3.0.
The study found that specimens with an alkali ratio of 2.5 showed maximum compressive strength, which
was 70.27 MPa. Sukmak et al. (2013) [32] looked at how flyash geopolymer bricks' compressive strength
was impacted by the proportions of liquid alkaline activator to fly ash and alkaline ratio. The results
showed that, in contrast to the ratios of 0.4, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.3, 0.7 was the optimal alkaline solution ratio.
The likely cause of the decrease in strength values was precipitation of dissolved Si and Al during the
early phases of the polycondensation process. Morsy et al. (2014) [19] examined the impact of sodium
silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios of 0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0, and 2.5 while maintaining 2.5 as the liquid binder for
all the mixes. According to the researchers, compressive increases with an increase in the alkaline ratio
up to 1.0 and decreases beyond 1.0. Fang Guohao (2018) [11] conducted studies on the strength
DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
790
RESEARCH ARTICLE
characteristics of concrete with alkali-activated fly ash and slag and room-temperature curing. The
researchers discovered that the optimal mixtures had a liquid binder ratio of 0.4, sodium hydroxide
molarity of 10M, and SS/SH ratios of 1.5–2.5 based on the results from workability, setting time, and
compressive strength. According to the current experimentation carried , the specimens with alkaline
solution ratio of 2.5 exhibited greater compressive strength, the results were less favourable for an
alkaline solution ratio of 3.0. Increase sodium content helps charge the balancing ions, increasing
compressive strength. This increase in alkaline ratio also increases sodium content. Beyond this addition
of silicate material would prevent evaporation of water and formation of structure,resulting in reduction
of strength. It is clear from the results that the ratio of alkali liquid affects the mortar strength.
Compressive strength increases with increases in alkali liquid ratio.

LB=0.35 LB=0.40 LB=0.45

40.00
Compressive Strength (MPa)

30.00

20.00

10.00
8M 10M 12M 14M 16M 18M
Molarity

Figure 4: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for Alkaline solution ratio 1.5

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
791
RESEARCH ARTICLE

LB=0.35 LB=0.40 LB=0.45

40.00

Compressive Strength (MPa)

30.00

20.00

10.00
8M 10M 12M 14M 16M 18M
Molarity

Figure 5: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for Alkaline solution ratio 2.0

LB=0.35 LB=0.40 LB=0.45

40.00
Compressive Strength ( MPa)

30.00

20.00

10.00
8M 10M 12M 14M 16M 18M
Molarity

Figure 6: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for Alkaline solution ratio 2.5

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
792
RESEARCH ARTICLE

LB=0.35 LB=0.40 LB=0.45

40.00

Compressive Strength MPa

30.00

20.00

10.00
8M 10M 12M 14M 16M 18M
Molarity

Figure 7: Molarity vs Compressive Strength (MPa) for Alkaline solution ratio 3.0

c) Effect of Molarity of NaOH Solution (M).

Figures (8) to (13) show the compressive strength values for specimens with 8M, 10M, 12M, 14M, 16M,
and 18M with different liquid to binder ratios and alkaline solution ratios. Using an 8M NaOH solution, the
results are shown in Figure.(8), where the maximum compressive strength is 32.76 MPa for LB ratio of
0.45 and an alkali liquid ratio of 2.5 and the minimum compressive strength is 17.16 MPa for a LB ratio of
0.4 and an alkaline liquid ratio of 1.5. The findings with 10M NaOH solution are shown in Figure (9). The
highest compressive strength is obtained at a LB ratio of 0.45 and an alkaline liquid ratio of 2.5, and the
minimum compressive strength is obtained at a LB ratio of 0.35 and an alkaline liquid ratio of 1.5. As
shown in Figure (10), when 12M NaOH is used as the alkaline liquid, the maximum compressive strength
is obtained at a liquid binder ratio of 0.45 and an alkaline liquid ratio of 2.5, while the minimum
compressive strength is obtained at a LB ratio of 0.40 and an alkaline liquid ratio of 2.0. The findings of
14M NaOH solution are shown in Figure.11, where the highest compressive strength is obtained at a LB
ratio of 0.45 and an alkaline liquid ratio of 2.5, and the minimum compressive strength is produced at a
liquid-binder ratio of 0.35 and a liquid ratio of 3.0. With a 16M NaOH concentration, the results are shown
in Figure 12, where the maximum compressive strength is obtained at a LB ratio of 0.45 and an alkaline
liquid ratio of 1.5, and the minimum compressive strength is obtained at a liquid binder ratio of 0.35 and
an alkaline liquid ratio of 1.5. With 18M NaOH concentration, the results are shown in Figure (13). The
maximum compressive strength is 33.39 MPa when the LB ratio is 0.45 and the alkaline liquid ratio is 3.0,
and the lowest compressive strength is 16.96 MPa when the liquid binder ratio is 0.40 and the liquid ratio
is 1.5. Tests were conducted by Sathonsaowaphak et al. (2009) [30] using NaOH solutions with varied
molarities (5M, 7.5M, 10M, 12.5M, and 15M). The researchers came to the conclusion that increased
alkali solution ratios and high NaOH concentrations improved strength. The compressive strength of
ground fly ash that had been cured at room temperature while increasing the NaOH concentration from
4.5M to 16.5M were studied by Somna et al. (2011) [31]. According to the study, compressive strength
increases as the molarity of sodium hydroxide rises up to 14M, after which it starts to decline. According
to Abdullah M.M.A et al. (2011) [2], specimens' compressive strength rose from 6M to 12M solution. After
12M, there was a trend toward decreasing compressive strength for 14M and 16M. Studies on the impact
of NaOH content and heat level on flyash geopolymer mortars conducted by Pattankar et al (2014) [24].
The samples' sodium hydroxide concentrations were 2,91, 5,6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15, respectively.
DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
793
RESEARCH ARTICLE
According to reports, the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar increases as sodium hydroxide
concentration rises. The specimens with 11.01 M had strong characteristics. The blend of 8.10M,
according to the researchers, is sufficient to produce strength. By altering the alkali activator
concentration, Singh et al. (2016) [35] examined the effects of alkali activator concentration on the
compressive strength and drying shrinkage of geopolymer concrete with fly ash and slag. A 2:1 mixture
of fly ash and GGBS was employed in the tests, and the alkaline ratio was 2.5. The molarities of the
specimens' sodium hydroxide are 10M, 12M, 14M, and 16M. The findings suggested that compressive
strength rises with sodium hydroxide concentration. The ideal sodium hydroxide molarity was determined
to be 14M. Saha et al. (2016) [27] performed tests utilizing concentrations of 6M, 8M, 10M, 12M, 14M,
and 16M NaOH solution. According to the study, the ideal sodium hydroxide concentration was 14M,
giving a compressive strength of 50.5Mpa and an SS/SH ratio of 1.5. The specimens with a 14M NaOH
concentration had the highest compressive strength, measuring 36.08 MPa, according to the results of
the current experiment. When compared to specimens with maximum strengths of 8M (32.76 MPa) and
18M, the mortar 14M demonstrated increases in compressive strength of 10% and 8%. (33.39 MPa).The
compressive strength increased as the concentration of sodium hydroxide increases from 8M to 14M.
This is due to the presence of additional Na ions in the mixture, which will hasten the process of
geopolymerization by balancing the charges and aiding in the creation of an alumino-silicate network.
Additionally, it has been discovered that compressive strength declines when sodium hydroxide
concentration rises past 14M. Due to the presence of too many hydroxide ions at greater NaOH
concentration, alumina silica gel precipitates at young ages which decreased the strength.

AL 1.5 LB 0.35 AL 1.5 LB 0.4 AL 1.5 LB 0.45 AL 2 LB 0.35

AL 2 LB 0.45 AL 2.5 LB 0.35 AL 2.5 LB 0.45 AL 2 LB 0.4
AL 2.5 LB 0.4 AL 3. LB 0.35 AL 3 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.45

40.00

32.76 32.55
Compressive Strength (MPa)

30.00

20.00
18.98 18.51 18.73 18.61 18.88 18.57 18.45 18.88 19.10
17.16

10.00

0.00
8M
Molarity of NaOH Solution -8M

Figure 8: Molarity vs Compressive Strength for 8M NaOH solution

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
794
RESEARCH ARTICLE

AL 1.5 LB 0.35 AL 1.5 LB 0.40 AL 1.5 LB 0.45 AL 2.0 LB 0.35

AL 2.0 LB 0.45 AL2.5 LB 0.35 AL 2.5 LB 0.45 AL 2.0 LB 0.40
AL 2.5 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.35 AL 3 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.45

40.00

30.39
Compressive Strength (MPa)

30.00 27.90

19.65
20.00 17.55 18.29 18.39
18.59 18.27 18.06 18.73 18.16 17.65

10.00

0.00
10M
Molarity of NaOH Solution - 10M

Figure 9:Molarity vs Compressive Strength for 10M NaOH solution

AL 1.5 LB 0.35 AL 1.5 LB 0.4 AL 1.5 LB 0.45 AL 2 LB 0.35

AL 2 LB 0.45 AL 2.5 LB 0.35 AL 2.5 LB 0.45 AL 2,LB 0.40
AL 2.5 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.35 AL 3 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.45
40.00
Compressive Strength ( MPa)

30.00 27.47
24.10
19.78 18.98 18.92 18.71 20.22 20.27
20.00 18.47 18.04 18.47 18.63

10.00

0.00
12M

Molarity of NaOH Solution - 12M

Figure 10: Molarity vs Compressive Strength for 12M NaOH solution

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
795
RESEARCH ARTICLE

AL 1.5 LB 0.35 AL 1.5 LB 0.4 AL 1.5 LB 0.45 AL 2 LB 0.35

AL 2 LB 0.4 AL 2 LB 0.45 AL 2.5 LB 0.35 AL 2.5 LB 0.4
AL 2.5 LB 0.45 AL 3 LB 0.35 AL 3 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.45

40.00
36.08

30.39 30.59
Compressive Strength ( MPa)

29.27
30.00
26.41
24.84

20.53
20.00 18.33 18.53 18.71 18.31 18.24

10.00

0.00
14M
Molarity of NaOH Solution -14M

Figure 11: Molarity vs Compressive Strength for 14M NaOH solution

AL 1.5 LB 0.35 AL 1.5 LB 0.4 AL 1.5 LB 0.45 AL 2 LB 0.35

AL 2 LB 0.4 AL 2 LB 0.45 AL 2.5 LB 0.35 AL 2.5 LB 0.4
AL 2.5 LB 0.45 AL 3 LB 0.35 AL 3 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.45

40.00
35.39

31.47
Compressive Strength ( MPa)

29.00
30.00

23.47
22.47
20.94
18.33 18.59 18.98 18.96 18.47 18.80
20.00

10.00

0.00
16M
Molarity of NaOH Solution
Figure 12: Molarity vs Compressive Strength for16M NaOH solution

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
796
RESEARCH ARTICLE

AL 1.5 LB 0.35 AL 1.5 LB 0.4 AL 1.5 LB 0.45 AL 2 LB 0.35

AL 2 LB 0.4 AL 2 LB 0.45 AL 2.5 LB 0.35 AL 2.5 LB 0.4
AL 2.5 LB 0.45 AL 3 LB 0.35 AL 3 LB 0.4 AL 3 LB 0.45

40.00

33.39
31.45
Compressive Strength ( MPa)

30.00 28.45

22.49

20.00 18.37 18.49 18.53 18.73 19.24 19.00 18.88

16.96

10.00

0.00
18M
Molarity of NaOH Solution

Figure 13: Molarity vs Compressive Strength for 18M NaOH solution

CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions from the aforementioned experimental programme are as follows.

 The strength of the geopolymer mortar increases as liquid binder ratio rises, and it also increase
with rise in alkaline solution ratio . The optimum range is 2.0 to 2.5.
 The maximum compressive strength for mortar specimen when the LB ratio is 0.45 is 36.08 MPa
showed 19% increase in comparision with the mortar of LB ratio 0.35 which is 30.39 MPa.
 The strength of geopolymer mortar is affected by the sodium hydroxide concentration. The
mortar with molarity of 14M showed higher strength compared to other molarities of
8M,10M,12M,16M and 18M which is 10 %,19%, 31%,61% and 60% respectively.
 The ideal mixture produced specimens with LB ratios of 0.45, alkaline ratios of 2.5, and 14M
which exhibited a maximum strength of 36.08 MPa.

REFERENCES
[1] M,I,Abdul Aleem, P.D.Arum Airaj, Pollution free geopolymer concrete with M-Sand, Poll Res 32(2):
139 – 144 (2013).
[2] M.M.A. Abdullah, H. Kamarudin, H. Mohammed, I. Khairul Nizar, A.R. Rafiza, Y. Zarina, The
relationship of NaOH molarity, Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, fly ash/alkaline activator ratio, and curing
temperature to the strength of fly ash-based geopolymer, Adv. Mater. Res. 328–330 (2011) 1475–
1482. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/ AMR.328-330.1475.
[3] Y.H.M. Amran, R. Alyousef, H. Alabduljabbar, M. El-Zeadani, Clean production and properties of
geopolymer concrete; A review, J. Clean. Prod. 251 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119679.

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
797
RESEARCH ARTICLE
[4] V.F.F. Barbosa, K.J.D. MacKenzie, C. Thaumaturgo, Synthesis and characterisation of materials
based on inorganic polymers of alumina and silica: Sodium polysialate polymers, Int. J. Inorg.
Mater. 2 (2000) 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1466-6049(00)00041-6.
[5] D. Bondar, Q. Ma, M. Soutsos, M. Basheer, J.L. Provis, S. Nanukuttan, Alkali activated slag
concretes designed for a desired slump, strength and chloride diffusivity, Constr. Build. Mater. 190
(2018) 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.124.
[6] P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat, V. Sirivivatnanon., Workability and strength of coarse high calcium
fly ash geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 224–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.002.
[7] P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat, S. Hatanaka, T. Cao, High-Strength Geopolymer Using Fine High-
Calcium Fly Ash, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (2011) 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-
5533.0000161.
[8] P. Cong, Y. Cheng, Advances in geopolymer materials: A comprehensive review, J. Traffic Transp.
Eng. (English Ed. 8 (2021) 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jtte.2021.03.004.
[9] H.E. Elyamany, A.E.M. Abd Elmoaty, A.M. Elshaboury, Setting time and 7-day strength of
geopolymer mortar with various binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 187 (2018) 974–983.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.025.
[10] A. Gholampour, V.D. Ho, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Ambient-cured geopolymer mortars prepared with
waste-based sands: Mechanical and durability-related properties and microstructure, Compos.
Part B Eng. 160 (2019) 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb. 2018.12.057.
[11] G. Fang, W.K. Ho, W. Tu, M. Zhang, Workability and mechanical properties of alkali-activated fly
ash-slag concrete cured at ambient temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 172 (2018) 476–487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.008.
[12] J.Gomathi, J.Doraikannan. Study on geopolymer concrete using manufacture sand, International
Journal of advanced research trends in engineering & technology.(2016).
[13] M.N.S. Hadi, H. Zhang, S. Parkinson, Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and concretes
cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time and workability, J. Build.
Eng. 23 (2019) 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jobe.2019.02.006.
[14] D. Hardjito, B. V Rangan, Development and Properties of Low-calcium Fly Ash Based Geopolymer
LOW-CALCIUM FLY ASH-BASED GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE By Faculty of Engineering Curtin
University of Technology, Aust. Univ. Technol. Perth. (2005) 48.
[15] R.Janani,A.Revathi,Experimental study of geopolymer concrete with manufacture
sand,International journal of science, engineering and technology research (IJSETR), vol 4. Issue
4,April 2015, 1054-1057.
[16] B.B. Jindal., Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete with mineral
admixtures: A review, Constr. Build. Mater. 227 (2019) 116644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.025.
[17] G.S. Mallika, S. Somasundaram, K.A. Ramasamy, A review on recent development in geopolymer
composites, AIP Conf. Proc. 2240 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0011080.
[18] G.S. Manjunath, C. Giridhar, M. Jadhav, Compressive Strength Development in Ambient Cured Geo-
polymer Mortar, Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 04 (2011) 20410419.
[19] M.S. Morsy, S.H. Alsayed, Y. Al-Salloum, T. Almusallam, Effect of Sodium Silicate to Sodium
Hydroxide Ratios on Strength and Microstructure of Fly Ash Geopolymer Binder, Arab. J. Sci. Eng.
39 (2014) 4333–4339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1093-8.
[20] S.Nagajothi, S.Elavenil, Strength assessment of geopolymer concrete using M-Sand,
Int.J.Chem.Sci 14(S1), 2016, 115-126,ISSN 0972-768X.
[21] A. Naghizadeh., S.O. Ekolu., Method for comprehensive mix design of fly ash geopolymer mortars,
Constr. Build. Mater. 202 (2019) 704–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2018.12.185.
[22] A. Naghizadeh, S.O. Ekolu, Sixth International Conference on Durability of Concrete Structures
Paper Number ICC-P05 Effect of Mix Parameters on Strength of Geopolymer Mortars-
Experimental Study, (2018) 315–320.
[23] B.V.Rangan, Geopolymer concrete for environmental protection,The Indian Concrete Journal,April
2014,Vol. 88,Issue 4, PP 41-48,50-59.

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
798
RESEARCH ARTICLE
[24] S. V. Patankar, Y.M. Ghugal, S.S. Jamkar, Effect of Concentration of Sodium Hydroxide and Degree
of Heat Curing on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Mortar, Indian J. Mater. Sci. 2014 (2014) 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/938789.
[25] R.Sathia.- Scholar, K.G. Babu-, Durability Study of Low Calcium Fly Ash, J. Artic. (2008) 1153–
1159.
[26] D. Ravikumar, S. Peethamparan, N. Neithalath, Structure and strength of NaOH activated
concretes containing fly ash or GGBFS as the sole binder, Cem. Concr. Compos.32(2010) 399–
410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.03.007.
[27] S.Saha,C. Rajasekaran., Enhancement of the properties of fly ash based geopolymer paste by
incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag, Constr. Build.Mater.146(2017)615–620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04. 139.
[28] S. Saravanan, S. Nagajothi, S. Elavenil, Investigation oncompressive strength development of
geopolymer concrete using manufactured sand, Mater. Today Proc. 18 (2019) 114–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.284.
[29] C.Sashidhar, J Guru Jawahar, C .Neelima, D. Pavan Kumar, Fresh & strength properties of self
compacting concrete using manufactured sand, International Journal of Chemtech Research, Vol
8, no 7, 183-190,2015.
[30] A. Sathonsaowaphak, P. Chindaprasirt, K. Pimraksa., Workability and strength of lignite bottom
ash geopolymer mortar, J. Hazard. Mater. 168 (2009) 44–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.120.
[31] K.Somna, Jaturapitakkul.C,Kajitvichyanukul.P, Chindaprasirt.P, NaOH -activated ground fly ash
geopolymer cured at ambient temperature,Fuel 90 (2011) 2118-2124.
[32] Sukmak.P,S.Horpibulsuk,Shen.S-L, Strength development in clay-fly ash geopolymer, Construction
and building materials,40 (2013),566-574.
[33] Specification of coarse and fine aggregate from natural sources for concrete,Bureau of Indian
Standard,IS 383:1970.
[34] Methods of physical tests for hydraulic cement, IS 4031,Part 6: Determination of compressive
strength of hydraulic cement (other than masonry cement).
[35] B.Singh,G.Ishwarya,M.Gupta, S.K.Bhattacharya, Geopolymer Concrete : A review of some recent
developments, Constr. Build. Mater. 85 (2015) 78–90.
[36] Shaise K. John, Yashida Nadir, K. Girija,Effect of source materials, additives on the mechanical
properties and durability of fly ash and fly ash-slag geopolymer mortar: A review,Constr. Build.
Mat. 280(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat. 2021.122443.
[37] P. Zhang, Y. Zheng, K. Wang, J. Zhang, A review on properties of fresh and hardened geopolymer
mortar, Compos. Part B Eng. 152 (2018) 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compositesb.2018.06.031.

DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.7034973
JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ISSN:1006-3080)
VOL.65 ISS. 3 2022
799