Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 471476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Durability characteristics of steel bre reinforced geopolymer concrete

N. Ganesan a,1, Ruby Abraham b, S. Deepa Raj b,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Calicut, Kerala, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum, Kerala, India

h i g h l i g h t s

 Studied the durability characteristics of geopolymer concrete (GPC).

 Studied the effect of bre addition on the durability characteristics of GPC.
 Compared the durability characteristics of GPC with conventional concrete of same grade (CC).

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Escalation in the cost of repair and rehabilitation of concrete structures which develop distress much earlier
Received 23 February 2015 than the design service life has turned the focus on the durability aspect of concrete. This paper presents the
Received in revised form 4 May 2015 result of an experimental study conducted to evaluate the durability characteristics of plain and bre rein-
Accepted 8 June 2015
forced geopolymer concrete and its comparison with Portland cement based conventional concrete. The
durability parameters considered in this study include water absorption, abrasion resistance, resistance
to chemical attack, effect of alternate wetting and drying and resistance against chloride ions. Test results
Keywords:
revealed that plain and bre reinforced geopolymer concrete possesses superior durability characteristics
Bulk diffusion
Durability
than conventional concrete of the same grade with respect to most of the durability parameters.
Fibre 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sorptivity

1. Introduction strength by polymerisation while CC achieves strength by hydra-

The binding material in conventional concrete (CC) is Portland
cement. The process of cement production is highly energy and
resource intensive. For producing 1 tonne cement, about 1.5 tonnes
of raw materials are required and the production of 1 tonne of
cement liberates nearly 1 tonne of CO2 to the atmosphere [1].
Reduction of this green house gas is a major issue from the sustain-
ability point of view [2]. Also concrete structures made of conven-
tional concrete are less durable under certain environmental
conditions [3]. In this respect, Geopolymer technology introduced
by Davidovits [4] provides an alternative binder to concrete.
Geopolymers are inorganic aluminosilicate polymers produced by
alkali activation of materials which are rich in alumina and silica.
The usage of geopolymer materials results in environmental and
economic benets due to the utilisation of waste materials pro-
duced from various industries [5,6]. Concrete made using geopoly-
mers as binders is called geopolymer concrete (GPC). GPC gains its
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 04712539280.
E-mail addresses: ganesan@nitc.ac.in (N. Ganesan), DeepaAjayan@yahoo.com
(S. Deepa Raj).
1
Tel.: +91 04952286204.
tion of Portland cement [7].
Durability is an important aspect of concrete due to its funda-
mental relationship with the serviceability life of the structure.
Concrete structures must be able to resist the mechanical actions,
physical and chemical aggressions they are subjected to during
their expected service life. Studies conducted by Bakharev [5,6]
revealed that geopolymer concrete has very good sulphate and acid
resistance. Rajamane et al. [8] studied the chloride ion penetrabil-
ity of GPC and CC and reported that both GPC and CC possess low
chloride ion penetrability. Sathia et al. [9] studied the absorption
characteristics and resistance of GPC to acid attack and found that
it has better durability characteristics. No study seems to have
been done so far to evaluate the resistance of GPC to marine attack
under alternate wetting and drying condition. Incorporating ran-
domly distributed short discrete steel bres to concrete mix
improved the tensile properties and post cracking behaviour of
concrete and provided better structural integrity to concrete. The
inuence of bres on the durability characteristics of GPC was
not studied so far. Considering this gap in the literature, an attempt
has been made in this study to investigate the durability character-
istics of GPC, SFRGPC and its comparison with CC and steel bre
reinforced conventional concrete (SFRC).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.014
0950-0618/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
472 N. Ganesan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 471476
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Constituent materials
Low calcium y ash with calcium oxide of 2.14% and silica (SiO2) of 64.84% and
average size of particles less than 45 l was used as the source material for produc-
ing geopolymer binder. A mixture of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide solution
was chosen as the alkaline liquid to activate the source material. Sodium silicate
solution with SiO2 to Na2O ratio by mass of 2 (Na2O = 14.7%, SiO2 = 29.4%) and
water = 55.9% by mass were used for the study. The sodium hydroxide solids in pel-
lets form with 9798% purity were mixed with water to make a solution of 10 M
concentration. Coarse aggregate (CA) of 20 mm nominal size with neness modulus
of 7.1, and specic gravity of 2.86 was used for the study. Locally available river
sand as ne aggregate (FA) conforming to zone II as per IS: 383-1970 [10] with
specic gravity of 2.8 and neness modulus of 2.6 was used for preparing GPC
and CC. A naphthalene based superplasticizer was used to impart workability to
the mix. Hooked end steel bres of diameter 0.5 mm and 30 mm length with an
aspect ratio of 60 were also used.
2.2. Mix design
Geopolymer concrete mix of grade M30 was designed based on the guidelines
given by Rangan [1]. Steel bre reinforced GPC mixes were also developed by vary-
ing the bre content, superplasticizer and water dosage. The volume fractions of
steel bres used were 0.25% (19.32 kg/m3), 0.50% (38.64 kg/m3), 0.75%
(57.96 kg/m3) and 1% (78.28 kg/m3). M30 grade CC was developed as per the guide-
lines given in IS 10262-2009 [11]. Mix proportions for GPC, SFRGPC, CC and SFRC are
shown in Table 1.
2.3. Preparation of test specimens
The aggregates in saturated surface dry condition were mixed in a laboratory
pan mixer with y ash for 2 min. Steel bres were added to the mix in small quan-
tities at regular intervals and mixing was continued for two more minutes. After
this the alkaline solutions, super plasticiser and extra water were added to the
dry materials and mixed for 4 min. After mixing, slump and compacting factor of
fresh concrete were determined. In order to determine the hardened properties,
standard cubes of size 150 mm, cylinders of diameter 150 mm and height
300 mm and prisms of size 100 mm  100 mm  500 mm were prepared. For dura-
bility testing, specimens like cubes of size 100 mm, cylinders of 100 mm  200 mm,
100 mm  50 mm and tiles of size 70.07 mm  70.07 mm  25 mm were prepared.
After casting, the moulds were covered with plastic sheets to prevent moisture loss.
The covered specimens were given a rest period of one day and then placed in the
oven and cured at 60 C for 24 h [1,2]. After curing, the specimens were removed
from the chamber and left to air-dry at room temperature for 24 h before demould-
ing. The test specimens were then left in the laboratory ambient conditions for
28 days. Conventional concrete specimens were demoulded after 24 h of casting
and kept immersed in water for 28 days. Fresh and hardened properties of all the
developed mixes are given in Table 2. Referring to Table 2, it may be noted that,
in general, the fresh properties such as slump and compacting factor decrease with
the addition of bres marginally. However this reduction did not affect the mini-
mum values of workability parameters. In the case of hardened properties, in gen-
eral, the addition of bres improves the properties such as compressive strength,
split tensile strength, exural strength and modulus of elasticity. However this
improvement was more signicant in the case of split tensile strength, exural
strength and modulus of elasticity.
3. Test for durability
The tests carried out to study the durability characteristics
included the microstructure related properties such as saturated
water absorption (SWA), effective porosity, sorptivity, coefcient
of absorption, abrasion resistance test, resistance to chemical
attack, alternate wetting and drying test and rapid chloride ion
penetrability test.
3.1. Test for saturated water absorption (SWA) and effective porosity
The SWA and effective porosity were determined by drying the
cube specimens (100 mm size) in an oven at a temperature of
105 C to constant weight (W1) and then immersing in water after
cooling to room temperature. These tests were done according to
ASTM C 642-82 [12]. The specimens were taken out of water at reg-
ular intervals of time and weighed. The specimens were weighed
after 30 min (W2) and 120 h (W3) of immersion. The difference
between the measured weight and oven dried weight expressed
as fractional percentage of the oven dried weight gives the water
absorption. The initial absorption value at 30 min for GPC,
SFRGPC, CC and SFRC was compared with the recommendations
given by the Concrete Society [13]. The water absorption at the
end of 120 h was taken as the saturated water absorption. The
results of the test are given in Table 3. From these results, it can
be seen that the absorption values of GPC, SFRGPC, CC and SFRC
were lower than the limit of 3% specied for good concrete [13].
Absorption values for GPC were found to be lower than that of CC.
This may be due to the difference in microstructure of GPC and
CC and the absence of interfacial transition zone in GPC [7]. These
ndings are similar to those obtained by Sathia et al. [9] in the case
of GPC and CC. However the effect of addition of steel bres to GPC
was not carried out by other researchers. In the present investiga-
tion it is noted that initial absorption of water and saturated water
absorption are comparatively less in the case of SFRGPC than that of
GPC and CC specimens. This may be due to the random distribution
of small, short, discrete steel bres that try to stitch most of the
micro cracks and thereby reducing the continuous voids to a mini-
mum. This improves the microstructure of SFRGPC and makes the
concrete more denser than those without bres.
The effective porosity denotes the quantity of water that can be
removed by drying the saturated specimen. The initial dry weight
of 100 mm cube samples was noted (W1) and the cubes were kept
immersed in water for 120 h. The nal weight (W3) after immers-
ing in water was noted and from the difference between the two
weights the volume of voids was calculated. The effective porosity
of all the specimens was calculated as the ratio of volume of voids
to the bulk volume of specimen and is shown in Table 3. From the
test results it was observed that the effective porosity of GPC was
nearly one third of that of CC.
3.2. Sorptivity
Sorptivity measures the rate of penetration of water into pores
in concrete by capillary action. The test was done according to
ASTM C 642-82 [12]. The cube samples of size 100 mm were oven
dried for 24 h and then cooled for 24 h. The sides of the cubes were
sealed using an insulation tape. The initial mass of the sample was
taken and was immersed to a depth of 510 mm in water. The gain
in mass was measured at regular intervals of 30 min over a period
of 2 h. The cumulative volume of water that has penetrated per
unit surface of exposure q is plotted against the square root of
time of exposure. The resulting graph could be approximated by
a straight line. The slope of this straight line is the measure of
movement of water through capillary pores and is called sorptivity.
The results of the sorptivity test are given in Table 4. From the table
it can be observed that sorptivity values of GPC were less than that
of CC. This may be due to the better microstructure of GPC. Test
results revealed that addition of bres improved the sorptivity of
both GPC and CC. From Tables 3 and 4, it was observed that the
addition of bres improved the microstructure related durability
characteristics of both GPC and CC. This may be due to the reason
that, at lower volume fraction of bres, concrete ows around the
bres and the bres bridge across the micro cracks reducing inter-
connecting voids to a minimum. This may have resulted in a dense
concrete. The above said reasons could have resulted in a less por-
ous concrete, which in turn improved its microstructure.
3.3. Abrasion resistance test
Abrasion resistance of concrete can be dened as its ability to
resist being worn away by rubbing. Tile samples of face area
50 cm2 and thickness 2.5 cm were used for the test according to
IS 1237 [14]. The abrasion system consists of a steel disc having
 N. Ganesan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 471476 473

Table 1
Mix proportions.

Mix Steel bre Fly ash Sodium silicate solution Sodium hydroxide solution CA FA Water SP Cement
(%) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
GPC 0.00 408 103 41 1248 600 14.5 10.2 0
SFRGPC1 0.25 408 103 41 1248 600 16 10.2 0
SFRGPC2 0.5 408 103 41 1248 600 16 14.5 0
SFRGPC3 0.75 408 103 41 1248 600 18 14.5 0
SFRGPC4 1.00 408 103 41 1248 600 18 16.0 0
CC 0.00 0 0 0 1266 598 192 0.0 360
SFRC2 0.5 0 0 0 1266 598 192 4.0 360

Table 2
Fresh and hardened properties.

Mix Slump Compacting factor Compressive strength Split tensile strength Modulus of elasticity Flexural strength
(mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
GPC 123 0.90 37.00 3.56 38148.87 4.10
SFRGPC1 95 0.88 38.40 3.80 39124.30 4.32
SFRGPC2 80 0.80 41.20 4.20 40156.85 4.57
SFRGPC3 78 0.80 42.50 4.50 40896.68 4.88
SFRGPC4 75 0.79 43.80 4.90 41025.36 5.10
CC 128 0.92 35.00 3.15 26678.23 3.77
SFRC2 90 0.86 39.50 3.60 30149.43 4.20

Table 3
Results of saturated water absorption and effective porosity.

Mix W1 W2 W3 Initial absorption Saturated water absorption Concrete quality as per Volume of Average value of effective
W 1 W 2 100 W 1 W 3 100 CEB [7] void porosity
W1 W1
(kg) (kg) (kg) (%) (%) (cm3) (%)
GPC 2.438 2.468 2.509 1.23 2.91 Good 71 7.1
SFRGPC1 2.436 2.463 2.506 1.10 2.87 Good 72 7.2
SFRGPC2 2.416 2.436 2.479 0.81 2.63 Good 68 7.0
SFRGPC3 2.456 2.476 2.518 0.82 2.50 Good 69 6.9
SFRGPC4 2.460 2.479 2.515 0.78 2.40 Good 67 6.7
CC 2.391 2.435 2.584 1.83 8.10 Good 193 19.3
SFRC2 2.412 2.451 2.590 1.60 7.40 Good 178 17.8

Table 4
Results of sorptivity test.

Mix Cumulative weight of water penetrated in grams after Cumulative volume of water penetrated/surface area of Sorptivity (cm/min1/2)
immersing in water for exposure (cm)
30 min 60 min 90 min 120 min 30 min 60 min 90 min 120 min 103
GPC 4.00 5.67 6.00 6.67 0.04 0.057 0.060 0.067 2.85
SFRGPC1 2.43 3.12 4.10 6.00 0.024 0.030 0.040 0.05 2.74
SFRGPC2 2.40 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.024 0.030 0.040 0.045 2.21
SFRGPC3 1.60 2.10 2.91 4.00 0.019 0.020 0.0290 0.040 2.21
SFRGPC4 1.30 2.60 2.90 3.31 0.013 0.026 0.029 0.033 2.11
CC 9.0 10.67 14.67 16.33 0.090 0.107 0.147 0.163 7.69
SFRC2 8.5 9.67 12.67 14.93 0.085 0.097 0.127 0.149 6.75

a diameter of 750 mm and rotating at a speed of 30 1 cycle/min, a
counter and a lever which could apply a load of 300 3 N on the
specimens. Abrasive dust (corundum aluminium Oxide Al2O3) of
20 0.5 g was rst spread over the disc. The specimens were then
placed in the holding device and the load was applied to the spec-
imen and the disc was rotated for four periods and each period was
equal to 22 cycles. After that, the surfaces of the disc and the sam-
ple were cleaned and 20 g fresh corundum powder was added and
the procedure was repeated for 20 periods (total 440 cycles) by
rotating the sample 90 in each period. Weight of the specimens
after 440 cycles of revolution was taken and the percentage loss
in weight was calculated. Loss in thickness which is a measure of
wear (t) of the specimens was calculated by Eq. (1) [14]. Table 5
shows the percentage weight loss and average wear of all the
tested specimens.
 
W 0  W 01
t 0 V 1
W A
W0 = initial weight of the specimen, W 01 = nal weight of the
specimen.
V = initial volume of the specimen, A = surface area of specimen.
As per IS 1237, the wear shall not exceed 3.5 mm for general
purpose ooring tile and shall not exceed 2 mm for heavy duty
oor tiles. The average wear of all the specimens was found to be
474 N. Ganesan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 471476

Table 5 Table 6
Results of abrasion resistance test. Results of acid resistance and sulphate resistance test.

Mix Initial Final % Average % reduction in Mix Acid attack Sulphate attack
weight weight weight wear in wear with respect
% % loss in % % loss in
(kg) (kg) loss mm to CC
weight compressive weight compressive
GPC 0.846 0.844 0.24 0.171 27.50 loss strength loss strength
SFRGPC1 0.881 0.879 0.18 0.091 61.40
GPC 1.825 20.01 0.310 12.59
SFRGPC2 0.872 0.871 0.12 0.087 63.13
SFRGPC1 2.137 19.99 0.311 12.98
SFRGPC3 0.879 0.878 0.09 0.075 68.20
SFRGPC2 2.175 19.89 0.295 13.17
SFRGPC4 0.891 0.890 0.05 0.063 73.30
SFRGPC3 2.240 18.82 0.313 11.27
CC 0.894 0.891 0.33 0.236
SFRGPC4 2.221 17.73 0.325 10.98
SFRC2 0.904 0.901 0.33 0.216 8.00
CC 27.100 40.08 0.456 31.28
SFRC2 26.120 40.50 0.480 34.41

within the limit. Compared to CC GPC specimens performed well in

abrasion and the average wear suffered by GPC was 27% less than
that of CC; also bre addition enhanced the abrasion resistance of
both GPC and CC. The reason for this may be due to the increased
density of SFRGPC specimens as explained in the previous section.
3.4. Resistance to chemical attack
The resistance to chemical attack of test specimens was
assessed by conducting acid resistance test and sulphate resistance
test. After 28 days of casting the 100 mm cube specimens were
oven dried at 100 C for 24 h and weighed. Out of the nine cube
specimens of each mix, three were considered as control speci-
mens for nding the loss in compressive strength. Three specimens
from each mix were immersed in 3% sulphuric acid (H2SO4) solu-
tion for 180 days [9,15] and the remaining three were immersed
in 3% sodium sulphate solution after noting their initial weights.
The solutions were kept at laboratory ambient condition and were
agitated every day to maintain uniformity and were changed every
month. After 180 days the specimens were taken out and their dry
weights were noted. Their visual appearance, loss in weight and
compressive strengths were then examined. The visual appearance
of the specimens after soaking in 3% of sulphuric acid solution for
6 months revealed that there was not much change in appearance
for GPC specimens. But CC specimens exposed to H2SO4 solution
had undergone surface erosion. Because of the decalcication of
CSH gel, the CC surface became soft and got removed thus
exposing the interior layers to deterioration. Since the calcium con-
tent in the y ash used was very low for the GPC specimens
exposed to H2SO4, the formation of calcium sulphate was lesser
in quantity which made it more resistant to H2SO4. The results of
acid resistance test are shown in Table 6. Maximum weight loss
suffered by GPC was 2.2% whereas for CC it was 27%. The maximum
loss in compressive strength of GPC specimens was only 20% and
for CC it was 41%. The visual appearance of the test specimens after
soaking in 3% sodium sulphate solution for 6 months revealed that
there was no change in the appearance of the specimens compared
to the condition before they were exposed. There was no sign of
surface erosion, cracking or spalling. The results of sulphate attack
test are shown in Table 6. From the table it can be seen that plain
and bre reinforced GPC and CC specimens suffer negligible weight
loss. It can also be seen that the loss in compressive strength of
plain and bre reinforced GPC specimens was less than 20%,
whereas for CC specimens it was almost 35%.
3.5. Alternate wetting and drying test
This test was carried out to study the effect of sea water on the
durability characteristics of both GPC and CC. The specimens tested
were cubes of size 100 mm. Out of the nine cube specimens cast in
each mix, three were used for nding initial compressive strength
and three specimens were kept immersed in marine water pre-
pared in the laboratory and were subjected to 90 cycles of alternate
wetting and drying [16]. The remaining three specimens from each
mix were immersed in ordinary water for 180 days. After 180 days
the weights of specimens kept in marine water (Wm) and weight of
specimens kept in ordinary water (W0) were taken. The percentage
loss in weight was calculated by using Eq. (3), which represents the
extent of marine attack. The nal compressive strength of speci-
mens kept in marine water was determined and the percentage
reduction in compressive strength was calculated. The composi-
tion of marine water prepared in the laboratory as per ASTM
D1141 [16] is given in Table 7. The loss in weight and % reduction
in compressive strength of all the tested specimens are shown in
Table 8
 
W0  Wm
% loss in weight 100 2
W0
Test results revealed that GPC and SFRGPC specimens suffered
negligible weight loss and less than 15% reduction in compressive
strength whereas for CC and SFRC the maximum reduction in com-
pressive strength was 23% when subjected to marine attack. This
indicated that GPC has more resistance to marine attack under
alternate wetting and drying condition and the addition of bres
has no adverse effect on it.
3.6. Bulk Diffusion Test
In this test the apparent chloride diffusion coefcient of hard-
ened cementitious materials is determined. ASTM C 1556 [17] pro-
vides a method for nding the apparent chloride diffusion
coefcient, which is the controlling parameter for chloride ion
migration in saturated pore systems. Cylindrical specimens of
100 mm diameter and 200 mm height were used for the test. The
specimens after 28 days of curing were kept immersed in 3.5%
sodium chloride solution (NaCl) for 35 days. The specimens were
then split by loading in a compression testing machine similar to
split tensile test. The split surface was sprayed with 0.1 M AgNo3
(silver nitrate) solution to measure the depth of salt penetration
by difference in colour of portions of concrete with and without
the presence of chloride ions. Fig. 1 shows the appearance of GPC
and CC specimens after the application of AgNo3 solution. A white
precipitation was formed up to the penetrated depth. From the
depth of chloride penetration, the diffusion coefcient can be cal-
culated by Eq. (3) as given in [17].
p
XD 4 Dt 3
where,
XD = depth of chloride penetration in cm.
D = diffusion coefcient.
t = duration of exposure (35 days).
The values of diffusion coefcient for all the specimens were
calculated and are given in Table 8. The test results revealed that
chloride diffusion coefcient of both GPC and CC was comparable.
 N. Ganesan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 471476 475

Table 7
Composition of marine water [16].

Composition Sodium chloride Magnesium chloride Sodium sulphate Calcium chloride Potassium chloride
Concentration (g/l) 24.53 5.2 4.09 1.16 0.695

Table 8
Percentage loss in weight and compressive strength due to marine attack.

Mix Weight of specimen cured in Weight of specimens subjected to % loss in Initial compressive Final compressive % loss in
ordinary water (kg) marine attack (kg) weight strength (N/mm2) strength (N/mm2) compressive
strength
GPC 2.391 2.366 1.006 34 29 14.7
SFRGPC1 2.405 2.381 1.001 36.5 32 12.32
SFRGPC2 2.393 2.370 0.995 38.3 33.1 13.50
SFRGPC3 2.412 2.405 0.983 38.5 33.90 11.95
SFRGPC4 2.424 2.414 0.973 39.35 35.00 11.05
CC 2.452 2.334 5.45 37 29.00 21.62
SFRC2 2.490 2.362 5.038 39.5 30.32 23.24

Table 9
Results of Bulk Diffusion Test and RCPT.

Mix Depth of Diffusion Charge Chloride ion

chloride coefcient passed penetrability as per
penetration ASTM
(cm) (m2/s) (C)
GPC 2.45 1.24  1011 1321 Low
SFRGPC1 2.42 1.21  1011 1445 Low
SFRGPC2 2.39 1.18  1011 1392 Low
SFRGPC3 2.36 1.15  1011 1566 Low
SFRGPC4 2.22 1.02  1011 1762 Low
CC 2.49 1.28  1011 1764 Low
SFRC2 2.47 1.26  1011 1423 Low

GPC CC
ASTM C 1202 [18] were compared with the test results and are
Fig. 1. Specimens after Bulk Diffusion Test.
given in Table 9. From the table it can be seen that the chloride
ion penetrability of both plain and bre reinforced GPC and CC
was graded low as per ASTM C1202, which indicates that the addi-
tion of bres have no adverse effect on chloride resistance of GPC
and CC. These ndings are similar to those obtained by Rajamane
et al. [8] in the case of GPC and CC.

4. Conclusions

Durability characteristics of plain and bre reinforced geopoly-

mer concrete and conventional concrete were assessed in terms of
water absorption, porosity, sorptivity, abrasion resistance, resis-
tance to chemical attack, resistance to alternate wetting and drying
and chloride ion penetrability. From the test results, the following
conclusions were drawn.

 Microstructure related properties such as water absorption,

Fig. 2. Test set up for Rapid Chloride Permeability Test.
3.7. Rapid chloride penetrability test (RCPT)
The test was done according to ASTM C 1202-97 [18]. In this
method 60 V DC was applied across the opposite faces of
100 mm diameter  50 mm thick concrete specimens. The test
set up is shown in Fig. 2. Six specimens were prepared from each
mix. One face of each specimen was exposed to 3% NaCl solution
and the other face was exposed to 0.3 M NaOH solution. The dura-
tion of experiment was 6 h. The current between the electrodes
was monitored at 30 min intervals of time. The total charge passed
through the specimen indicated the chloride ion penetrability of
the concrete. The chloride ion penetrability limits suggested by
effective porosity, and sorptivity of GPC were found to be lower
than that of CC and the addition of less quantity of steel bres
further improved these characteristics of GPC.
 Abrasion resistance of GPC specimens was found to be higher
than those of CC. The average wears of GPC specimens were
27.5% less than that of CC specimens. The average wear of
SFRGPC specimens was almost 65% less than that of CC
specimens.
 Chloride diffusion coefcient of both GPC and CC was almost
equal.
 GPC Specimens show excellent resistance to acid and sulphate
attack and suffered less than 2% weight loss when exposed to
3% H2SO4 solution for 6 months. Corresponding weight loss for
CC specimens was 27%. Both GPC and CC specimens suffer less
than 1% weight loss when subjected to sulphate attack.
476 N. Ganesan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 471476
 The loss in mass and compressive strength of both GPC and CC
specimens were less than 5% and 20% respectively when sub-
jected to alternate wetting and drying conditions in marine
environment.
 Chloride ion penetrability of both GPC and CC is almost same.
 From the study conducted it can be concluded that GPC possess
better durability characteristics than conventional concrete of
same grade and the addition of bres improved the durability
characteristics of GPC further.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Kerala State Council for
Science Technology and Environment (KSCSTE) for providing nan-
cial assistance to this work and the College of Engineering
Trivandrum and National Institute of Technology Calicut for sup-
porting the work.
References
[1] Rangan BV. Studies on low calcium y ash based geopolymer concrete. Indian
Concr J 2006:917.
[2] Hardjito Djwantoro, Wallah Steenie E, Dody MJ, Sumajouw DMJ, Vijaya Rangan
B. On the development and properties of low calcium y ash geopolymer
concrete. ACI Mater J 2004;101:46772.
[3] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.
[4] Davidovits J, High alkali cements for 21st century concretes in concrete
technology past, present and future. Proceedings of V. Mohan Malhotra
symposium, ACI SP 144;1994;383397.
[5] Bakharev T. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem Concr Res
2005;35(4):65870.
[6] Bakhrev T. Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium
sulphate solutions. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:123346.
[7] Frantisek S, Lubomir K, Jiri N, Zdenek B. Microstructure of geopolymer
materials based on y ash. Ceram-Silik 2006;50:20815.
[8] Rajamane NP, Nataraja MC, Lakshmanan N, Dattatreya JK. Rapid chloride
permeability test on geopolymer and Portland cement. Indian Concr J
2011:216.
[9] Sathia R, Ganesh Babu, Manu Santhanam, Durability study of low calcium y
ash geopolymer concrete, The 3rd ACF international conference, 2008;1153
1159.
[10] IS: 383-1970 (Reafrmed on). Specications for coarse and ne aggregate from
natural sources for concrete. New Delhi: BIS; 2002.
[11] IS: 10262 standard code of practice for recommended guidelines for concrete
mix design. New Delhi: BIS.
[12] ASTM C 642, standard test method for specic gravity, absorption and voids in
hardened concrete, Annual Book of ASTM standards, vol. 4.02; 1994.
[13] CEB-FIP, Diagnosis and assessment of concrete structures-state of art report,
CEB Bulletin; 1989, 83.
[14] IS 1237-2012, Cement concrete ooring tiles, 2nd revision, New Delhi: BIS.
[15] ASTM C 452-02, Standard test method for potential expansion of Portland-
cement mortars exposed to sulphate. ASTM International, United States; 2002.
[16] Ganesan N, Indira PV, Santhoshkumar PT. Durability aspects of steel bre
reinforced self compacting concrete. Indian Concr J 2006:317.
[17] ASTM C 1556-04, Standard test method for determining the apparent chloride
diffusion coefcient of cementitious mixture by bulk diffusion.
[18] ASTM C 1202-05, Standard test method for electrical indication of concretes
ability to resist chloride ion penetration.