GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

L.D.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
AHMEDABAD

A
UDP Project
On
GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

A Report is submitted to
Gujarat Technological University
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in
Civil Engineering
B. E. IV, Semester – VIII
2017-2018

Submitted by:
Sr. Name of student Enrollment No.
1 JEMISH NAVADIYA 140280106060
2 BHAVIN JAGANI 140280106036
3 VIJAY GINOYA 140280106029
4 KISHAN KOTADIA 140280106047

Guided By

Prof. P. G. Patel
(Civil Engineering Department)
 Acknowledgment:

Simply to acknowledge the help verbally is not the complete way of

expressing the feelings. Even though the words, if brought from bottom of the
heart, can serve the purpose to a considerable extent .this is also a small effort for
the same.

First of all, I am humbly expressing thanks to my respected guide Prof

P.G. Patel Sir, Professor, Civil Engineering Department , L D College of
Engineering, Ahmedabad. for his valuable time and constant help given to us. He
encourages us to express our ideas freely and gave valuable suggestion during
the implementation of project work. It was a great learning experience right from
searching for the topic for my dissertation phase.

Finally, I am indebted to my parents, who encouraged me and provided the

moral support and all my friends who have directly or indirectly helped me
during this work.

Sr. Name of student Enrollment No.

1 JEMISH NAVADIYA 140280106060
2 BHAVIN JAGANI 140280106036
3 VIJAY GINOYA 140280106029
4 KISHAN KOTADIA 140280106047
 L D COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

2017-18

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that work embodied in this report entitled “GEOPOLYMER

CONCRETE ” was carried out by (4th year CIVIL) at L.D College of Engineering,
Ahmedabad (GTU code 028) for partial fulfilment of B.E degree to be awarded by Gujarat
Technological University. This research work has been carried out under my supervision.

Date:- / /2018

________________ ________________ _________________

External Head of Guided by,
Faculty Department (Prof. P. G. Patel)
INDEX
1. Introduction

2. Geopolymer technology

3. Application of Geopolymer concrete

4. Limitation of Geopolymer concrete

5. Material characteristics

6. Observations of testing
 Aggregate crushing value
 Aggregate impact value

7. Cost comparison

8. Mix Design of Geopolymer concrete

9. Production Methodology
10. Strength Studies
11. Conclusion Of Strength Properties Of M60 GPC

12. Literature reviews

 Abstract
This thesis presents an innovative approach towards the development
of a green concretes, the geopolymers an environmental friendly
construction/repairing materials. The Study based on the use of fly ash in
synthesizing cement free geopolymer and subsequent study on the
durability of geopolymer concrete. The geopolymers manufactured by
geopolymerization between class F fly ash (FA), with alkali activator fluid
(Sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide). The optimum compressive
strength was obtained at curing temperature of 60°C for 48 hrs. The
geopolymer concretes (GPC) consist of an of alumino-silicates as the
binder whereas the conventional concretes have Portland cement (P-C)
generated C-S-H gel. The newly synthesized geopolymer then subjected to
durability studies under different aggressive chemical environment with
particular reference to the effect of Acid, Sulphates and Chloride salt sand
compare the effect with ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
INTRODUCTION

Concrete is widely used construction materials; it is usually associated with

Portland cement as the main component for making concrete. With the over
growing urbanization and industrialization the infrastructural development
responsible for huge amount of utilization of concrete as a construction material.
It is estimated that the production of cementwill increase from about from 1.5
billion tons in 1995 to 2.5 billion tons in 2015.
Concrete is used globally to build buildings, bridges, roads, runways, sidewalks,
and dams.
Cement is necessary for construction activity, so it is tightly linked to the
global economy. Cement production is growing by 2.5% annually, and is
expected to rise from 2.55 billion tons in 2006 to 3.7-4.4 billion tons by 2050.
Cement manufacturing is highly energy – and – emissions intensive
because of the extreme heat required to produce it. Producing a ton of cement
requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and
generates nearly a ton of CO2. Given its high emissions and critical importance to
society, cement is an obvious place to look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Coal-based thermal power plants all over the world face serious problems
of handling and disposal of the ash produced. The high ash content (30–50%) of
the coal in India makes this problem more complex. Safe disposal of the ash
without adversely affecting the environment is also big challenge. Hence
attempts are being made to utilize this fly ash rather than dump it. The coal ash
can be utilized in bulk in geotechnical engineering applications such as
construction of embankments, as a backfill material, and as a sub-base material
.Fly ash is a by-product of electricity generating plant using coal as fuel.
During combustion of powdered coal in modern power plants, as coal passes
through the high temperature zone in the furnaces, the volatile matter and carbon
are burned off, whereas most mineral impurities, such as clay, quartz and
feldspar, will melt at high temperature. The fused matter is quickly transported to
lower temperatures zones, where it solidifies as spherical particles of glass. Some
of the mineral matter agglomerates to form bottom ash, but most of it flies out
with the flue gas stream and thus is called fly ash.
The ash is subsequently removed from gas by electrostatic precipitators.
The fly ash is a waste product and coal based thermal power plants all over the
world face serious problem of handling and disposal of ash produced. Hence
attempts are being made to utilize this fly ash rather than dump it
 In 1978, Davidovits proposed that binders could be produced by a
polymeric reaction of alkaline liquids with the silicon and the aluminium in
source materials of geological origin or by-product materials such as fly ash and
rice husk ash. He termed these binders as geopolymers. Palomo et al suggested
that pozzolans such as blast furnace slag might be activated using alkaline liquids
to form a binder and hence totally replace the use of OPC in concrete. In this
scheme, the main contents to be activated are silicon and calcium in the blast
furnace slag.

In this respect, the geopolymer technology proposed by Davidovits shows

considerable promise for application in concrete industry as an alternative binder
to the Portland cement and has generated lot of interest among engineers.

This Chapter is presented a brief review of the Geopolymer terminology

and chemistry of geopolymers, and past studies on geopolymers. Additional
review of geopolymer technology is available elsewhere.

Geopolymer Technology:
The term ‘geopolymer’ was first introduced by Davidoviests in 1978 to
describe a family of mineral binders with chemical composition similar to
zeolites but with an amorphous microstructure. He also suggested the use of the
term ‘poly(sialate)’ and NaOH for the chemical designation of geopolymers
based on silico.

It relies on minimally processed natural materials or industrial byproducts

to significantly reduce its carbon foot content, while also being very resistant to
many of the durabil¬ity issues that can plague conventional concrete. However,
the development of this material is still in its infancy, and a number of
advancements are still needed. This TechBrief briefly describes geopolymer
concrete materials and explores some of their strengths, weaknesses, and
potentialapplications.
Properties of Geopolymer concrete:

 Greater corrosion resistance.

 Higher fire resistance.
 High compressive and tensile strength.
 Rapid strength gain lower shrinkage.
 Greenhouse gas reduction potential as much as 90 percent compared with
OPC.
 Combine waste products into useful products.

Advantages of Geopolymer technology:

 cutting the words carbon content.
 The price of fly-ash is low.
 Fire proof
 Low permeability
 Eco friendly

Disadvantages:
 Geoplymer process is sensitive
 Mix design is complicated

Application of Geopolymer concrete:

 Pre-cast concrete production like railway sleepers, electric power poles,
parking tiles etc.
 Marine structure due to resistance against chemical attacks.
The exposure of the geopolymer materials to the NaCl solution
resulted in the consistent increase in the compressive strength. almost no
corrosion product could be found on the surface of the geopolymer.
 waste containments (Fly ash).
 Geopolymer concrete is used at BRISBANE WEST WELLCAMP
AIRPORT, TOOWOOMBA, AUSTRALIA.
Limitation of Geopolymer concrete:
 The cost of production, construction problem, mix design complexity etc
are reasons for not welcomed to this types of concrete.
 There is a safety risk associated with the high alkalinity of the activating
solution, and high alkalinity also requires more processing, resulting in
increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas generation.
 Geopolymer systems have been proposed most are difficult to work with
and require great care in their production.
 The polymerization reaction is very sensitive in very temperature and
usually requires that the geopolymer concrete be cured at elevated
temperature under a strictly controlled temperature regime.
 It depends on many factories including chemical and mineralogical
composition uniformity in case of fly ash geopolymer absence of long term
durability data, requirement of extra chemist for alkaline liquid preparation
for a producing that lead more expends.
 Chemical composition and particle size distribution of fly ash produced are
not consistently uniform. so not able to predict the strength.
 Standard mix design for Geopolymer concrete is not available this is also a
drawback. it is difficult to handling alkaline solution.

Materials Characteristics:

1. Fly ash:
 Fly ash is a alumino silicate source material used for the synthesis of
geopolymer binder. class f fly ash obtained from the silos of Raichur
thermal power station, karnataka was used for the experimental work. the
percentage of fly ash passing through 45 micron IS sieve was found to be
95%.
 Specific gravity value should be 2.40.
 Blaine fineness value should be 439 m2/kg.
2. Ground granulated blast furnace slag:
 Ground granulated blast furnace slag(GGBS) is a byproduct of steel
industry .
 Blast furnace slag is define as the non-metallic product consisting
essentially of calcium silicates and other bases that is developed in a
molten condition simultaneously with iron in blast furnace.
 About 10% of mass binders was replaced by GGBS.

3. Alkaline liquids:
 Sodium silicate get and sodium hydroxide solutions used for fly activation.
Sodium hydroxide solution of 8, 12 & 14 molar was prepared by mixing
the pellets with water.
 the mass of NaOH solids ina solution varied depending on the
concentration of the solution expressed in terms of molar, m. for instance,
NaOH solution with a concentration of 8M consisted of 8*40=320gm of
NaOH solids per liter of solution, where 40 is the molecular weight of
NaOH.
 The sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide solution were mixed 24hrs prior
to usage.

4. Super plasticizer:
 super plasticizer are capable of reducing water contents by about 30%.
 It is to be noted that full efficiency of super plasticizer can be got only
when it is added to a mix that as initial slump of 20 to 30mm.
 For the present investigation , a super plasticizer namely CONPLAST SP
430 has been used for obtains workable concrete at low a/m ratio.
Observation of testing:
Observation table : Aggregate crushing value

Sr. Weight of the sample Weight of Aggregate Remarks

(gm) aggregates crushing value
(A) passing (B/A) X 100
thro’2.36m IS
sieve (gm) (B)

1 2670 530 19.85%

Observation table : Aggregate impact value

Sr. Weight of the Wt. of Weight Aggregate Remarks
No. sample (A) fraction retained on impact
passing 2.36mm IS value (B/A)
through sieve (C) X 100
2.36mm IS
sieve
(B)
1 349 60 289 17.19%
2 349 51 298 14.61%

Cost comparison:
Cost of production 1m3 of OPC concrete.
Material Rate in Unit M30 M50
Rs. Quantity Amount(Rs.) Quantity Amount(Rs.)
(kg) (kg)
Cement 420 50kg 350 2940 450 3780
F.A. 800 MT 642 514 425 340
C.A. 650 MT 1270 826 1381 898
Super 200 Kg 7.5 1500 8 1600
plasticizer
Total Rs. 5780/- Rs. 6618/-
Cost of production 1m3 of GPC concrete.
Material Rate in Unit M30 M50
Rs. Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
(kg) (Rs.) (kg) (Rs.)
Fly ash 100 MT 514 51 514 51
GGBFS 1.5 Kg 514 771 514 771
River sand 800 MT 420 336 420 336
Foundry sand 100 MT 420 51 420 51

C.A. 650 MT 840 294 840 294

NaOH flakes 25 Kg 7.1 177.5 13.3 332.5
Na2SiO3 solution 25 Kg 103 2575 137.14 3428.5
Cost of electricity 600 600
Total Rs. 5883.5/- Rs. 5864/-

Based on above table the cost of OPC is higher than GPC at higher Grades.
and the cost of production of GPC is more than OPC at low grades. that why we
can't afford GPC in regular construction.

Geopolymer concrete mix design

Data required
a) Characteristic compressive strength required at age of
24 hours at the temperature of 100ºC = 60MPa
b) Maximum size of aggregate (angular) = 20mm
c) Specific gravity of fly ash = 2.3
d) Specific gravity of coarse aggregate = 2.837
e) Specific gravity of fine aggregate = 3.428
f) Sand conforming = zone III
g) Specific gravity of NaOH = 1.47
h) Specific gravity of Na2Sio3 = 1.6

Step 1: Selection of fly ash to the compressive ratio

After so many research and from graph of fly ash content to compressive
stress assume amount of flyash required for M60 grade = 450Kg/m3.
Step 2: Selection of alkaline liquid ration
As per the cpmpessive strength of concrete M60 grade ratio of alkaline
liquid to flyash is assume 0.6 .
The amount of Alkaline liquid = 0.60 x flyash content
=0.60x450
= 270 Kg/m3

Sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio accordance to compressive Strength

Compressive strength Sodium hydroxide Sodium silicate
15 1 3
20 1 2.5
30 1 2.5
60 1 2.5

Amount of Sodium Hydroxide Solution = 77.2 kg/m3

Amount of Sodium silicate Solution = 193 Kg/m3
Step 3: Selection of water content
The maximum water content to add extra is 0.06 Water to flyash ratio. The
minimum water content to be added extra is 0.02 water to flyash ratio.
According to workability extra water can be added this is due to flyash is
arrived from various plant which have different properties in absorption of water
in order to match extra water is added.
Amount of water add extra 0.05 to water flyash ratio = 0.05x450
= 22.5 kg/m3.
Step 4: Sand content per cubic meter of concrete
Nominal size of coarse aggregate Sand as percentage of total
aggregate by absolute volume
10mm 40 %
20mm 35%
Step 5: Estimate of Air content
Nominal size of coarse aggregate Entrapped Air as percentage of
volume of concrete
10mm 3%
20mm 2%

Step 6: Determination of aggregate content

From table, for the specified maximum size of aggregate of 20 mm, the amount
of entrapped air in the wet concrete is 2 %. Taking this into account and applying
the following equations:
V = [SO/SSO + S/SS + F/SF + Fa/P*SFa] * [1/1000] and
V = [SO/SSO + S/SS + F/SF + Fa/(1-P)*SCa] * [1/1000]
where,
V = Absolute volume of fresh concrete, which is equal to gross volume
minus the volume of entrapped air.
S = Sodium Silicate Solution (kg) per m 3 of concrete.
SO = Sodium Hydroxide Solution (kg) per m 3 of concrete
F = Weight of Flyash (kg) per of m 3 of concrete
SF = Specific gravity of Flyash
P = Ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate by absolute volume
Fa , Ca = Total masses of fine aggregate and coarse aggregate (kg) per m
of concrete respectively
SFa , SCa = Specific gravity of saturated surface dry fine aggregate and
coarse aggregate respectively.
Ss = Specific gravity of Sodium Silicate solution.
Sso = Specific gravity of Sodium hydroxide solution.
Fine aggregate content:
0.98= {(77.2 /1.47) + (193 /1.6) + (450.0 / 2.3) +
(1/(0.35))(Fa / 3.428) } * (1/1000)
Fa = 733.3kg /m3
Coarse aggregate content:
0.98 = {(77.2/1.47) + (193 /1.6) + (450.0 / 2.3) +
(1/(1-0.35))(Ca / 2.837) } * (1/1000)
Ca = 1127.68 kg /m3
Mix proportion:
M1 M2
Flyash 450 Kg/m3 450 Kg/m3
Fine Aggregate 733 Kg/m3 733 Kg/m3
Coarse Aggregate 1127.68 Kg/m3 1127.68 Kg/m3
NaOH 77.2 Kg/m3 (14 M) 77.2 Kg/m3 (16 M)
Na2SiO3 193 Kg/m3 193 Kg/m3
Extra Water 22.5 Kg/m3 22.5 Kg/m3

Production Methodology
Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete using low calcium (ASTM Class F)
requires trial and error process was used. The focus of the study is to identify the
salient parameters that influence the mix proportions and the properties of GPC.
The current practice used in the manufacture and testing of Normal concrete was
followed.
In order to simplify the development process compressive strength is
selected as the benchmark parameter. This is not unusual because compressive
strength has an intrinsic importance in the structural design of concrete
structures.
SPECIMEN PREPARATION
Six cubical moulds of size 150mm, two cylindrical moulds of size
150×300mm were used to prepare specimen of GPC.
MIXING
Geopolymer Concrete Fly ash and aggregates were mixed dry in the 100
kg capacity pan mixer for 3 minutes. The alkaline solution that was 77 prepared
one day prior with super plasticizer and extra water were added into the blend
and mixed for 4 minutes.
Test on Fresh Concrete
The fresh fly ash-based geopolymer concrete was light in colour and shiny
in appearance . The mixtures were usually cohesive. The workability of both
geopolymer and traditionally vibrated concrete were measured by means of the
conventional slump test.

Slum = 190 mm
Casting

The fresh concrete was then cast into standard cylindrical moulds and cubes
which was compacted using vibrating table.

Curing
After demoulding GPC specimens were then transferred to a steam curing
chamber, having a temperature of 60°C inside the chamber for 24 hours. A boiler
was used to produce the steam, which was let in to the chamber. At the end of the
curing regime, the specimens were allowed to cool in air, kept in open till the day
of testing.
STRENGTH STUDIES
Compressive Strength
The GPC and Normal concrete specimens were tested for 7, 14 and 28
days compressive strength as per IS 516: 1959 [127]. The specimens were
cleaned and weight of each specimen were recorded. After which the specimen
was kept in compression testing machine and loaded till fail.
Days Mix Load applied Compressive
strength
7 M1 1490 KN 66.22 N/mm2
7 M2 1520 KN 67.55 N/mm2

Split Tensile Strength

The GPC cylindrical specimens were tested for 28 days split tensile
strength as per IS 5816: 1999 [128] using compression testing machine. The test
consists of applying compressive line loads along the opposite generators of a
concrete cylinder placed with its axis horizontal between the plattens. The
magnitude of the tensile stress is given by 2P/πDL, where P is the applied load
causing splitting of the specimen, where D and L are the diameter and length of
the cylinder respectively.
CONCLUSIONS OF STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF M60
GPC
Compressive strength
• GPC is around 62% more than OPC in 7 days but at 28 days the strength
difference between GPC and Normal concrete is only 5%. Hence GPC is
attaining early strength but the improvement of strength after 7days is less.

Split Tensile Strength

• Tensile strength of GPC is 20% less than Normal concrete.
• Rapid development of tensile strength is achieved.
It is true that geopolymer concrete which performs better in compressive
strength should have performed in a better way also in split tensile strength as
available in the literature. More tests are required to throw light on this so that
split tensile strength can be correlated with the corresponding compressive
strength.
Literature review:
Van Jaarsveld et. al. (2003) reported that the particle size, calcium content,
alkali metal content, amorphous content, and morphology and origin of the fly
ash affected the properties of geopolymers. It was also revealed that the calcium
content in fly ash played a significant role in strength development and final
compressive strength as the higher the calcium content resulted in faster strength
development and higher compressive strength.

Fernández-Jiménez & Palomo, (2003) said that in order to obtain the optimal
binding properties of the material, fly ash as a source material should have low
calcium content and other characteristics such as unburned material lower than
5%, Fe2O3 content not higher than 10%, 40-50% of reactive silica content, 80-

Gourley (2003) also stated that the presence of calcium in fly ash in significant
quantities could interfere with the polymerisation setting rate and alters the
microstructure. Therefore, it appears that the use of Low Calcium (ASTM Class
F) fly ash is more preferable than High Calcium (ASTM Class C) fly ash as a
source material to make geopolymers.

Phair and Van Deventer (2001; 2002), Van Jaarsveld (2002a; 2002b) and
Bakharev (2005a; 2005b; 2005c) also presented studies on fly ash as the source
material to make geopolymers. Davidovits (2005) reported results of his
preliminary study on fly ash-based geopolymer as a part of a EU sponsored
project entitled ‘Understanding and mastering coal fired ashes geopolymerisation
process in order turn potential into profit’ , known under the acronym of
GEOASH.
 REFERENCES:

http://www.primaryinfo.com/projects/geopolymer-cement.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolymers
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif10014/hif10014.pdf
http://www.geopolymer.org/applications/geopolymer-cement/
http://seminarsprojects.net/Threadgeopolymerconcrete
IS 456(2000) Plain and reinforced concrete - code of practice.
Modified guidelines for geopolymer concrete mix design using indian standard
indian Journal of Science and technology