Soft Matter

PAPER

Cite this: Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 1134

Flow properties of MK-based geopolymer pastes. A

comparative study with standard Portland cement
pastes
Aurelie Favier,ab Julie Hot,a Guillaume Habert,b Nicolas Roussela
and Jean-Baptiste d'Espinose de Lacailleriecd
Geopolymers are presented in many studies as alternatives to ordinary Portland cement. Previous studies
have focused on their chemical and mechanical properties, their microstructures and their potential
applications, but very few have focussed on their rheological behaviour. Our work highlights the
fundamental dierences in the ow properties, which exist between geopolymers made from metakaolin
and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). We show that colloidal interactions between metakaolin particles
are negligible and that hydrodynamic eects control the rheological behaviour. Metakaolin-based

Received 10th July 2013

Accepted 11th November 2013

geopolymers can then be described as Newtonian uids with the viscosity controlled mainly by the high
viscosity of the suspending alkaline silicate solution and not by the contribution of direct contacts
between metakaolin grains. This fundamental dierence between geopolymers and OPC implies that

DOI: 10.1039/c3sm51889b

developments made in cement technology to improve rheological behaviour such as plasticizers will not

www.rsc.org/softmatter

be ecient for geopolymers and that new research directions need to be explored.

1. Introduction
The fundamentals behind the visco-elastic properties of
concentrated solid suspensions have been a subject of study for
many years.1 Beyond scientic curiosity, this interest has been
driven by the prevalence of concentrated suspensions in many
industrial formulations. Among them, the cementitious paste
used to cast concrete in the building industry is arguably by far
the most used today in volume.2 As a consequence, the so
matter properties of fresh Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
pastes have been the subject of particular attention since the
late 80's.3 It so happens that OPC pastes and OPC-based
concrete, despite being common and seemingly dull construction materials, actually hide a complex and challenging rheological behaviour that has only been grasped by combining the
knowledge of three disciplines: colloidal physics, inorganic
chemistry and uid mechanics.4
Indeed, signicant practical advances such as the development of self-compacting concretes5 able to ow under the sole
eect of gravity, high-mechanical strength concretes6 able to
ow while having a solid volume fraction higher than 90% or
bre-reinforced concretes7,8 able to ow while containing
elongated rigid steel bres were only possible because of
fundamental questioning of granular paste rheology.9
a

IFSTTAR, Universite Paris Est, France

Institute for Construction and Infrastructure Management, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

SIMM, UMR CNRS 7615, ESPCI ParisTech, France

Institute for Building Materials, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

1134 | Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141

Fresh behaviour of cementitious suspensions such as

concrete, cement pastes and grouts may be approximated over a
limited range of shear rates by using a simple linear Bingham
model.3,6,10
s s0 hp gc

(1)

where s is the shear stress and g_ is the shear rate. From a

practical point of view, this approximation of the fresh concrete
paste behaviour with a Bingham model considerably simplies
the work as only two empirical parameters need to be determined to fully describe the rheological behaviour in the usual
range of industrial shear rates: the plastic yield stress s0 and the
plastic viscosity hp. These two parameters are shown to be
controlled by the competition between three major types of
interactions:11,12 colloidal interactions due to electrostatic and
van der Waals forces between particles, viscous forces in the
interstitial liquid squeezed between cement particles, and
direct contact forces.
In cement pastes, van der Waals colloidal forces dominate
hydrodynamic forces (both viscous and inertial) in the low
strain rate regime (i.e. less than several tens of s1) and give
rise to a shear thinning macroscopic behaviour. In the most
extreme cases, a viscosity inversely proportional to the shear
rate can be measured. At an intermediate strain rate (i.e.
around 100 s1), hydrodynamic viscous forces oen dominate
and can be at the origin of a plateau in viscosity. Finally, in the
case of highly concentrated systems (i.e. for shear rates of the
order of a couple hundreds s1 or higher), particle inertia
dominates the high strain rate response and may lead to shear

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Paper

thickening. In the case of deocculated highly concentrated

systems, a viscosity almost proportional to the shear rate can
even be measured. The transitions between these regimes are
governed by critical strain rates that depend on the cement
particle average size, the uid viscosity which can be modied
by polymer admixtures, the cement density, and the intensity
of the van der Waals forces, which can be controlled by
adsorbing polymers.13 However, the industrial success of
concrete raises new issues beyond its engineering properties.
Indeed, its environmental impacts, albeit low per unit of mass,
are leveraged by its massive consumption. For example,
concrete production is responsible for 5 to 10% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions.1416 As a consequence, since the last
decade, a growing interest in alternative binders has grown.
Examples are sulfo-aluminate and magnesia cement.17 Geopolymers, which are based on the chemistry of alkali-activated
inorganic binders, are also considered as a highly potential
solution to reduce CO2 emissions in the eld of construction
materials.18,19 These binders are obtained by reaction of an
activated silica-alumina with an alkali silicate solution. In
order to develop a building material that could be used as a
cement replacement for specic applications, the understanding of the fundamentals at stake behind its fresh rheological behaviour is, as it was the case in cementitious systems,
primordial. Some studies on geopolymers based on industrial
wastes such as y ashes from the coal industry or blast furnace
slags from the steel industry20,21 showed that similarly to
cement pastes, these materials display visco-plastic behaviour.
Criado et al.22 and Palacios et al.23,24 studied the eect of
commercial rheology modifying polymers used in cement
applications on geopolymers obtained by alkali-activation of y
ashes and slags. They showed that these plasticizers have a low
eciency in an alkali-activated system due to the fact that
superplasticizers such as polycarboxylates are altered aer long
exposure in a highly alkaline environment.25 However, recent
studies have identied PCE resistant in mild alkali activation
systems (0.5% NaOH),26 which could then be also more stable
in a highly alkaline environment.
In this study, we focus on a simpler model system where a
pure aluminosilicate phase is used and dissolved in a sodium
silicate solution in order to highlight the fundamentals of the
rheological behaviour of a fresh geopolymer. This model system
presents the interest of having a relatively simple chemistry
where Si, Al and Na are the predominant ions. Finally, in order
to address the potential use of these geopolymers as replacements for Portland cement, we conduct a comparative study
between these geopolymer mixtures and standard OPC pastes.
As the rst approximation,27,28 we assume that fresh geopolymer pastes can be viewed as suspensions of particles
(metakaolin) in a continuous uid (sodium silicate solution).
In that sense, the physics which govern their rheological
behaviour is similar to that of a cement paste and grasped by
the physics of concentrated suspensions of rigid particles.29
Below, we will focus on two main parameters, the yield stress
and the viscosity, and evaluate through detailed rheological
measurements the main types of interactions that are
controlling them.

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Soft Matter

2.

Experimental procedure

2.1. Material preparation

Geopolymer pastes were prepared by mixing a sodium silicate
solution with metakaolin (MK) particles. The chosen MK for
this research is Argical M-1000 from AGS Min
eraux (France). Its
BET specic surface area is equal to 17 m2 g1 and the average
diameter in mass is approximately 10 mm. The alkaline solutions were prepared from a commercial sodium silicate solution
with a SiO2/Na2O molar ratio of 3.2 and 65 wt% of water (VWR
International, France), sodium hydroxide pellets (Merck KGaA,
Germany) and distilled water. They were prepared by mixing an
appropriate amount of NaOH, commercial sodium silicate
solution and distilled water in a plastic bottle, which was
subsequently closed to avoid evaporation and carbonation. The
solutions were then allowed to cool for 24 h. Numerous studies
have shown that Si/Al close to 2 and Na2O/Al2O3 between 1 and
1.2 are the best molar ratios for structural applications30,31 and
development of mechanical properties.
Thus, geopolymer pastes were prepared by adding to an
alkaline solution with a H2O/Na2O molar ratio of 15 and a
constant SiO2/Na2O molar ratio of 1.15 the amount of MK
necessary to reach a Si/Al ratio of 1.8. The volume fraction of MK
is 0.3. The suspension was then mechanically mixed with a
stirrer for 5 minutes before immediate testing. The mass of MK
was adjusted relatively to the alkaline solution in order to
provide the ratio given in Table 1.
Furthermore, to better dene the rheological behaviour of
the interstitial phase, additional sodium silicate solutions of
various molar ratios (0.6 # SiO2/Na2O # 2 and 10 # H2O/Na2O
# 20) were studied independently of the geopolymer paste
preparation. They were obtained by dissolving silica (silica gel
60, 0.0630.2 mm from Merck KGaA, Germany) in an aqueous
solution of NaOH prepared by dissolving NaOH pellets in
distilled water.
Portland cement pastes were prepared by mechanically
mixing cement powder (CEM I type cement from Lafarge Le
Havre) with water (the water/cement ratio (W/C) between 0.35
and 0.5 and f between 0.39 and 0.47) for 2 minutes. This range
of solid concentrations was selected because it allows for the
formation of a paste that remains stable under the eect of
gravity.32 In contrast to the industrial practice, most of these
cementitious systems were prepared without any rheology
modifying polymers in order to keep the system simple enough
to be compared with the geopolymer paste. However, in order to
include this aspect in the present study, some cement pastes
were also prepared with an addition of a commercial polycarboxylic ether13 (Tempo 12, Sika technology) typical of the
organic polymers used in the construction industry. The polymer dosage was in the typical range of industrial dosages (i.e.
0.5% of the mass of cement).

2.2. Rheological measurements

The rheological measurements were carried out with a C-VOR
Bohlin rheometer equipped with a vane geometry for the
geopolymer and Portland cement mixtures and parallel plate

Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141 | 1135

Soft Matter
Table 1

Paper

Chemical composition given in molar ratios of the geopolymer paste

Geopolymer paste

SiO2/Na2O (solution)

H2O/Na2O (solution)

Si/Al (MK + solution)

Na2O/Al2O3 (MK + solution)

1.15

15

1.8

geometry for the solutions. When pastes were tested, an initial

oscillatory pre-shear with a rate of 100 s1 was applied for 60 s
prior to each test to ensure that all samples were in the same
reference state of stress and strain.

3.

Results and discussion

3.1. Macroscopic ow curves

As already stated, depending on their formulation, cement
suspensions can display in steady state ow a large variety of
behaviours, going from Newtonian (constant apparent viscosity)
to shear thinning (decreasing apparent viscosity with the shear
rate) or shear thickening (increasing apparent viscosity with the
shear rate).12,33
Fig. 1 shows the typical rheological behaviour which can be
obtained by modifying the solid volume fraction of a cement
paste as well as by adding a rheology-modifying poly-carboxylic
ether polymer. Here, a typical cement paste is meant to correspond to a water cement ratio of 0.35 related to a solid volume
fraction of f 0.48. It illustrates the rheological behaviour of
pastes used for standard concrete application32 whereas the
paste with W/C 0.4 (f 0.44) illustrates the behaviour of very
uid products such as grouts for soil injections.
Fig. 2 shows the viscosity of a typical MK geopolymer in
comparison with the viscosity of a typical cement paste with
W/C 0.35. In the loglog scale, such as the one in Fig. 2, the
colloidal contribution can be represented by a slope-1 whereas
the viscous contribution can be represented by a horizontal
line. These respective contributions are plotted as dotted lines
in Fig. 2 for cement pastes.
When comparing the ow curve for the typical cement paste
with the one for a MK-based geopolymer, we observed quite
signicant dierences. The viscosity of the geopolymer paste
was lower than that of the cement paste at low shear rates and
higher at high shear rates. Furthermore, it was almost shear rate
independent. This meant that the viscous contribution

Apparent viscosity as a function of shear rate for cement pastes

(SP superplasticizer) relative to dierent applications.

Fig. 1

1136 | Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141

Fig. 2 Apparent viscosity as a function of shear rate for geopolymer

paste (f 0.3 and f/fmax  0.7) and cement paste (f 0.47 and f/fmax
 0.7). Dotted curves describe the theoretical colloidal contribution
change according to the inverse of the shear rate and theoretical
viscous contribution independent of the shear rate.12

dominated over the contributions of both the colloidal interactions and particle inertia over a larger range of shear rates
than in the case of cement pastes.
3.2. Evaluation of the colloidal contribution to the yield
stress
We then extrapolated the yield stress s0 from shear stress
measurements in the low shear rate range. In Fig. 3, the
evolution of shear stress for cement paste, geopolymer and
geopolymer constitutive silicate solutions is shown as a function of shear rate. Table 2 gives the estimated values of shear
stresses. Obviously, compared to the cement and MK suspensions, the silicate solution could be considered as a purely
viscous uid as its yield stress is between one and two orders of
magnitude lower than that of the cement paste (Fig. 3). The
yield stress could be fully neglected compared to the contribution of viscous dissipation to the shear stress. The viscosity of
the silicate solution being almost constant, it behaved similarly
to the interstitial water in the cement paste also shown in Fig. 3
and can be described as a Newtonian uid.
Moreover, we measured the onset of ow as a function of the
shear strain for both the standard OPC paste and MK paste
using a vane test procedure.34 Let us recall that in this test, the
sample is sheared at a very low shear rate and the evolution of
stress with shear strain is recorded. Fig. 4 shows the result of
this vane test for cement and geopolymer pastes.
Fig. 4a shows results typical of a cement suspension. It
displays two characteristic critical strains. The rst one is

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Paper

Soft Matter

Shear stress as a function of shear rate for geopolymer (H2O/Na2O 15; f 0.3), cement paste (W/C 0.35 and f 0.47), the geopolymer suspending uid (silicate solution) and the cement suspending uid.

Fig. 3

Table 2 Estimated yield stress values for the geopolymer, cement

paste, geopolymer suspending uid (silicate solution) and cement
suspending uid

Yield stress
Geopolymer paste
Standard cement paste
Sodium silicate solution
Cement interstitial uid

2 Pa
20 Pa
0.01 Pa
0.001 Pa

around 103 whereas the second one is between 102 and 101.
Recent studies have shown that the peak associated with the
smallest critical strain nds its origin in the breaking of
the calcium silicate hydrates (CSH) percolating between the
cement grains. The second peak nds its origin in the collapse
of the colloidal interaction network.35 Above this second critical
strain, the system is considered to be owing. In the geopolymer
system though, we observed only one peak (Fig. 4b). It was
located between 102 and 101. This suggests that only one type
of interaction between particles is involved, and that once the
particles have moved suciently far from their initial positions,
this interaction vanishes and the ow starts. Recently, Favier
et al.36 have shown that the elastic modulus observed in the MKbased geopolymer is due to the formation of an inter-grain gel at
a very early stage and is not due to colloidal interactions
between grains. They observed that the critical strain of a geopolymer (as shown in Fig. 4b) is controlled by the critical strain
of an inter-grain aluminosilicate gel. As a consequence, geopolymer pastes seem to have their yield stress controlled solely
by the percolation of an aluminosilicate gel between MK particles, and no colloidal interactions between MK particles are
involved.
Furthermore, as already observed above, geopolymers have a
yield stress far lower (<0.1 Pa) than that of typical cement paste
(>10 Pa). This suggests that the attraction between CSH is
much stronger than the cohesion of the early aluminosilicate
gel produced in the early stages of the geopolymeric reaction.
From these dierences, an important practical consequence
can be anticipated. As the role of cement rheology modifying
industrial admixtures is to reduce the yield stress by minimizing colloidal interactions between particles, such admixtures would be of no eect for geopolymer pastes since their
yield stress is not related to colloidal interactions but to the
percolation of the early reaction products.
3.3. Evaluation and comparison of the viscosities of fresh
cement and geopolymer pastes

Fig. 4 Vane test experiments (a) for the standard cement paste plotted
from (N. Roussel et al. 2012) (W/C 0.4 and f 0.44) after 20 minutes
and (b) for the geopolymer paste (H2O/Na2O 15, f 0.3) after 10
minutes at room temperature.

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

From a theoretical point of view, geopolymer pastes can be

considered as suspensions of rigid MK grains in a suspending
sodium silicate Newtonian solution. Their viscosities can be

Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141 | 1137

Soft Matter

Paper

predicted using empirical expressions such as the Krieger

Dougherty relationship.37 The general form of these relationships can be written as:
n

f
h h0  1 
(2)
fmax
with
n h  fmax
where h0 is the solution viscosity, f is the solid volume fraction,
[h] is the intrinsic viscosity, and fmax is the dense packing
fraction. The viscosity of the paste is therefore controlled by two
parameters depending respectively on the suspending interstitial liquid and on packing properties of the grains. Below, these
two contributions are studied separately.
3.3.1. Evaluation of the interstitial liquid contribution. In a
MK-based geopolymer, the sodium silicate solution, which can
be considered as the liquid phase, has a composition that is
determined through two molar ratios: H2O/Na2O and SiO2/
Na2O. It is known from studies on water glass that these ratios
strongly inuence the viscosity of the solution.27,38 In Fig. 5, the
viscosities of dierent sodium silicate solutions are presented.
This gure conrms that the sodium silicate solutions used
for geopolymer formulations are Newtonian uids39 but with a
viscosity which is 10 to 100 times higher than the viscosity of
f
water. As a consequence, for a similar
(i.e. for a similar
fmax
jamming of the system), the viscous dissipation in geopolymer
pastes is expected to be 10 to 100 times higher than that
f
measured in a standard cement paste of similar
ratio.
fmax

Fig. 5 Viscosity as a function of shear rate at 20  C (a) for dierent

H2O/Na2O silicate solutions (SiO2/Na2O 1.06) (b) for dierent SiO2/
Na2O silicate solutions (H2O/Na2O 16).

1138 | Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141

3.3.2. Evaluation of the solid fraction contribution. To

isolate the contribution of the solid fraction to the viscosity, we
consider here the relative viscosity, which is the ratio between
the eective viscosity of the geopolymer and the viscosity of the
sodium silicate solution. In this way, one can focus exclusively
on the solid fraction contribution as shown in eqn (2). This
relative viscosity is shown in Fig. 6 for cement and geopolymer
pastes with varying solid volume fractions.
Fig. 6 shows that the relative viscosity diverges as the solid
volume fraction f approaches the one corresponding to the
maximum packing fraction. The exact value of this maximum
packing fraction was dicult to measure as, to the best of our
knowledge, no appropriate procedure has been developed for
that purpose.29 The results of Fig. 6, however, suggest that the
MK powder has a lower fmax in the range of 0.50.6 (i.e. lower
packing properties) in comparison with deocculated cement
powder (in the range of 0.60.7). This could be rationalized by
the fact that MK grains have a plate shape, which is very deleterious for ow and for packing properties.40 As a consequence,
for the same solid volume fraction, the grain contribution to the
viscosity is expected to be much higher for geopolymers than for
cement paste. However, it is interesting to note that when
chemical ratios of Al2O3/SiO2, Na2O/Al2O3 and H2O/Na2O are
selected to provide optimal strength properties to the hardened
geopolymer, the volume fraction of MK introduced in the
sodium silicate solution remains limited (around 0.25)
compared to the one used in typical cement pastes (>0.4). As a
consequence, even if MK's fmax is small, the limited volume of
solid grains in the suspension will reduce the grain contribution to the macroscopic viscosity of the mixture.
Another aspect of rigid grain contribution to the macroscopic rheological behaviour of a suspension lies in the direct
frictional contacts between particles. In Fig. 7 this point is
highlighted by plotting for both cement and geopolymer pastes
the ratio between normal and shear stress when both materials
are sheared at 100 s1. This comparison is made at identical
f/fmax, which in terms of contact contribution is a far more
relevant parameter than f. The normal to shear stress ratio is

Fig. 6 The relative viscosity as a function of the solid fraction for a

geopolymer paste (H2O/Na2O 15) and a deocculated cement paste
with 0.5% superplasticizer (SP).

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Paper

Soft Matter

Fig. 7 Ratio between normal stress and shear stress as a function of

time for geopolymer paste (H2O/Na2O 15, f 0.3 f/fmax  0.7) and
for a standard cement paste (f 0.47 and f/fmax  0.7) at room
temperature at 100 s1.

oen considered in the literature as a good indicator of the

contribution of frictional direct contacts between non-deformable grains. In geopolymer pastes, this ratio is one hundred
times lower than that commonly measured in the case of
cement pastes, which conrms the fact that very low to no grain
contribution can be measured. This, moreover, suggests that
even if some temporary contacts do occur between MK grains,
there does not exist any percolated sustained contact network
within the system. As a consequence, from the point of view of
rheology, a geopolymer paste, in strong contrast to a cement
paste, does not behave as a granular suspension since its
viscosity is nearly exclusively controlled by the viscosity of the
interstitial uid h0 and not by the details of the direct frictional
contacts between inclusions.

4. Conclusions and perspectives

In this study, it is shown that:
- Colloidal interactions between MK grains suspended in an
alkaline silicate solution are negligible and only low energy
interactions between grains in the presence of an interstitial gel
are at the origin of the small yield stress of the suspension.
- Hydrodynamic viscous dissipation in the Newtonian highly
viscous sodium silicate solution is the dominating mechanism
at the origin of the macroscopic viscosity of the suspension.
- Direct frictional contact contribution can be neglected as
despite the fact that the maximum packing fraction of a MK
powder is low, in a geopolymer the standard solid volume
fraction needed to achieve adequate hardened properties
f
maintains the
ratio in the semi-dilute regime.
fmax
Table 3

Geopolymers can therefore be seen as a semi-dilute

suspension of non-Brownian, non-colloidal non-deformable
particles in a highly viscous Newtonian uid.
The summary of the comparison of this system with standard cement pastes is presented in Table 3.
The technical options to alter the rheology of the mixture will
then be completely dierent from those used for cement.
(1) Grains and interfaces: In cement paste, the most
commonly used technique to control the rheology is the use of
deocculating agents.4144 They actually reduce the magnitude
of the attractive colloidal interactions between cement particles
by being selectively adsorbed on the surface of the cement
grains in order to create a steric eect.11 For our model system of
pure MK-based geopolymers, this action is of no interest as no
colloidal interaction between grains of MK exists. The only weak
interaction, responsible for the small elastic modulus at the
early stage, is the dissolution and precipitation reaction of
alumina silicate gel between grains.36 Reducing the precipitation of this gel would prevent the polymerisation reaction,
which in turn would delay setting.
Polymer admixtures can also impact the rheology though
other physical means. First, the polymers adsorbed on the
grains can create bridging forces that are attractive forces, but
this eect increases the viscosity and the yield stress of the
system. Also, polymers that are not adsorbed remain in the pore
solution and can cause an increase of its viscosity. They then
create lubrication forces between the grains, but this is not
necessary in model geopolymer systems as direct contact eects
are very limited. Polymers in solution can also induce depletion
forces. Depletion forces are mainly attractive, but the occurrence of repulsive depletion forces has also been reported.45
However, the high signicance of these repulsive depletion
forces in cement pastes is still under discussion and, furthermore, are limited to the case of large polymers which also have
the eect of increasing the viscosity of the interstitial uid.
Consequently, we do not expect the use of traditional
admixtures to reduce the viscosity of model MK based
geopolymers.
As a word of caution, it must be understood nevertheless that
these conclusions cannot be extrapolated to y-ash and slag
based geopolymers in which some colloidal interactions can
exist due to the presence of calcium.
(2) Liquid viscosity: As discussed above, the only parameter
which controls the properties of the geopolymer is the viscosity
of the alkaline solution. This viscosity is controlled by the
chemical proportions of species in the solution, which are
imposed in order to achieve adequate hardened properties. As a
consequence, ratios are constrained to 10 to 20 for H2O/Na2O

Summary of dierent contributions

Yield stress

Solution viscosity

Solid fraction

MK-based geopolymer paste

Near 0 Pa weak particle interactions

10 to 100 times higher than water

Typical cement paste

Near 1020 Pa van der Waals

attractive interactions

Water 0.001 Pa s

f  0.20.3, fmax  0.50.6 for usual

geopolymers
f  0.40.5, fmax  0.60.7

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141 | 1139

Soft Matter

Fig. 8 Viscosity of silicate solution depending on the cation for a

formulation H2O/Na2O 20 and SiO2/M+2O 1.6 at 20  C (M+ K+ or
Na+).

Paper

selected. The presence of Ca (expected for y-ash or slag based

geopolymers) could dramatically change the chemistry of the
system and the interaction forces between particles. The
presence of divalent cations can result in attractive ion correlation forces such as the one present between CSH particles50,51 whereas monovalent cations only induce repulsive
forces.52,53 We might then expect to enhance the colloidal
interactions between grains as well. In that case, the use of
plasticizers would be of certain interest as long as the chemical
stability of the organic plasticizer can be ensured in alkaline
solutions.25

References

Range of evolution of shear stress with the shear rate for the
geopolymer and OPC formulation range.

Fig. 9

and 1 to 2 for SiO2/Na2O.4648 However, one option which has not

been studied here is to change the nature of the alkali ion.27
Actually, changing from sodium to potassium silicate reduces
the viscosity by 5 for an equivalent formulation (Fig. 8).
It would then be possible to produce geopolymers with a
lower viscosity when potassium ions are used instead of
sodium.46 However, replacing sodium with potassium increases
signicantly the price of the mixture, thus limiting its applications to niche applications such as re or acid resistant
ceramics48 or nuclear waste containment.46
If no changes of alkali are made, in Fig. 9, we show the
rheological behaviour limit we can meet when formulating a
geopolymer binder with adequate hardened properties and
compare it with the range of OPC formulations. Due to its
rheological behaviour, the MK-based geopolymer does not seem
suitable as a binder in mortar or adhesive applications where a
high yield stress is needed49 or in applications requiring fast
ows such as pumping or spraying because of its high viscosity.
Applications where it could be substituted for cement are selfcompacting or self-levelling applications such as oor screed
where a low yield stress allows the material to ow and spread
under its own weight while the high viscosity improves the
stability of the coarse inclusions during casting.
Once again, as a word of caution before generalizing the
results of the present study, it is important to note that the
mechanisms governing the formation of an alumina-silicate
gel at an early stage are strongly dependent on the chemical
composition of the mixture and therefore the precursor

1140 | Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141

1 P. Coussot, So Matter, 2007, 3, 528540.

2 M. Schneider, M. Romer, M. Tschudin and H. Bolio, Cem.
Concr. Res., 2011, 41, 642650.
3 G. H. Tattersall and P. F. G. Banll, The rheology of fresh
concrete, Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, 1983.
4 N. Roussel, Understanding the Rheology of Concrete,
Woodhead Pub Ltd, 2012.
5 J. Yammine, M. Chaouche, M. Guerinet, M. Moranville and
N. Roussel, Cem. Concr. Res., 2008, 38, 890896.
6 F. de Larrard and T. Sedran, Cem. Concr. Res., 2002, 32, 1699
1704.
7 P. Rossi, Cem. Concr. Compos., 1992, 14, 316.
8 L. Martinie, P. Rossi and N. Roussel, Cem. Concr. Res., 2010,
40, 226234.
9 P. Coussot, L. Tocquer, C. Lanos and G. Ovarlez, J. NonNewtonian Fluid Mech., 2009, 158, 8590.
10 C. Hu and F. de Larrard, Cem. Concr. Res., 1996, 26, 283294.
11 R. J. Flatt, Mater. Struct., 2004, 37, 289300.
12 N. Roussel, A. Lematre, R. J. Flatt and P. Coussot, Cem.
Concr. Res., 2010, 40, 7784.
13 R. J. Flatt, I. Schober, E. Raphael, C. Plassard and
E. Lesniewska, Langmuir, 2009, 25, 845855.
14 P. Capros, N. Kouvaritakis and L. Mantzos, Economic
Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction Objectives for
Climate Change Top-down Analysis of Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction Possibilities in the EU, European
commission, 2001.
15 P. Friedlingstein, R. A. Houghton, G. Marland, J. Hackler,
T. A. Boden, T. J. Conway, J. G. Canadell, M. R. Raupach,
P. Ciais and C. Le Qu
er
e, Nat. Geosci., 2010, 3, 811812.
16 UNSTATS, United Nations Stat. Div., Springer, 2010.
17 R. J. Flatt, N. Roussel and C. R. Cheeseman, J. Eur. Ceram.
Soc., 2012, 32, 27872798.
18 C. Shi, A. F. Jim
enez and A. Palomo, Cem. Concr. Res., 2011,
41, 750763.
19 E. M. Gartner and D. E. Macphee, Cem. Concr. Res., 2011, 41,
736749.
20 A. Palomo, P. F. G. Banll, A. Fern
andez-Jim
enez and
D. S. Swi, Adv. Cem. Res., 2005, 17, 143151.
21 M. Palacios, P. F. G. Banll and F. Puertas, ACI Mater. J.,
2008.
22 M. Criado, A. Palomo, A. Fern
andez-Jim
enez and
P. F. G. Banll, Rheol. Acta, 2009, 48, 447455.

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Paper

23 M. Palacios, Y. F. Houst, P. Bowen and F. Puertas, Cem.

Concr. Res., 2009, 39, 670677.
24 M. Palacios and F. Puertas, Cem. Concr. Res., 2005, 35, 1358
1367.
25 M. Palacios and F. Puertas, Mater. Constr, 2010, 54, 6586.
26 D. Marchon, U. Sulser, A. Eberhardt and R. J. Flatt, So
Matter, 2013, 9, 1071910728.
27 A. Bourlon, PhD thesis, Universit
e Pierre et Marie Curie, 2010.
28 A. J. G. Bourlon, J.-B. d' Espinose, E. Lecolier and
D. Pasquier, ACI- Twelh Int. Conf. Recent Adv. Concr.
Technol. Sustain. Issues, 2012, SP-289, pp. 19.
29 P. Coussot, Rheometry of pastes, suspensions, and granular
materials, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (N.J.), 2005.
30 P. Duxson, J. L. Provis, G. C. Lukey, S. W. Mallicoat,
W. M. Kriven and J. S. J. van Deventer, Colloids Surf., A,
2005, 269, 4758.
31 M. Rowles and B. O'Connor, J. Mater. Chem., 2003, 13, 1161
1165.
32 A. Perrot, T. Lecompte, H. Kheli, C. Brumaud, J. Hot and
N. Roussel, Cem. Concr. Res., 2012, 42, 937944.
33 P. Coussot and C. Ancey, Phys. Rev. E: Stat. Phys., Plasmas,
Fluids, Relat. Interdiscip. Top., 1999, 59, 44454457.
34 H. A. Barnes and Q. D. Nguyen, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech.,
2001, 98, 114.
35 N. Roussel, G. Ovarlez, S. Garrault and C. Brumaud, Cem.
Concr. Res., 2012, 42, 148157.
36 A. Favier, G. Habert, J. B. d' Espinose de Lacaillerie and
N. Roussel, Cem. Concr. Res., 2013, 48, 916.
37 I. M. Krieger and T. J. Dougherty, Trans. Soc. Rheol., 1959, 3,
137152.

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014

Soft Matter

38 J. G. Vail, Soluble silicates: their properties and uses, Reinhold,

1952.
39 A. Bourlon, L. Barr
e, J.-B. d'Espinose de Lacaillerie, D. Frot,
E. L
ecollier and D. Pasquier, So Matter, 2013, submitted.
40 H. Had, PhD thesis, Universit
e Paris-Est, 2012.
41 P.-C. Atcin, S. Jiang, B. Kim, P. Nkinamubanzi and N. Petrov,
Bull. Lab. Ponts Chaussees, 2001.
42 S. K. Agarwal, I. Masood and S. K. Malhotra, Constr. Build.
Mater., 2000, 14, 253259.
43 P.-C. Atcin, S. L. Sarkar, M. Regourd and D. Volant, Cem.
Concr. Res., 1987, 17, 995999.
44 C. Jolicoeur and M.-A. Simard, Cem. Concr. Compos., 1998,
20, 87101.
45 R. I. Feigin and D. H. Napper, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 1980,
75, 525541.
46 J. Davidovits, Geopolymer chemistry and applications,
Geopolymer Institute, 2008.
47 F. Pacheco-torgal, S. Jalali, J. Labrincha and V. John, EcoEcient Concrete, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013.
48 J. L. Provis and J. S. J. Van Deventer, Geopolymers structure,
processing,
properties
and
industrial
applications,
Woodhead, CRC Press, Oxford, Boca Raton, FL, 2009.
49 C. Brumaud, PhD thesis, Universit
e de Paris Est, 2011.
50 M. Yang, C. M. Neubauer and H. M. Jennings, Adv. Cem.
Based Mater., 1997, 5, 17.
51 R. J.-M. Pellenq and H. Van Damme, MRS Bull., 2004, 29,
319323.
52 G. Lu and K. Wang, ACI Mater. J., 2010, 107, 1219.
53 R. J.-M. Pellenq, J. M. Caillol and A. Delville, J. Phys. Chem. B,
1997, 101, 85848594.

Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 11341141 | 1141