Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Effect of water addition, plasticizer and alkaline solution constitution

on fly ash based geopolymer concrete performance
Ali A. Aliabdo a,, Abd Elmoaty M. Abd Elmoaty a, Hazem A. Salem b
a
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt
b
Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

Additional water improves workability up to 200% but reduces other properties by 27%.

Admixture improves workability up to 115% but reduces other properties by 25%.

The optimum molarity of NaOH solution and solution to fly ash ratio are 16 M and 0.40.

Increasing NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio has negative effect on GPC properties.

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

Article history: Using fly ash based geopolymer concrete (GPC) instead of portland cement concrete, partially or totally,
Received 5 April 2016 can reduce CO2 emissions released during OPC production, which requires burning large quantities of fuel
Received in revised form 29 May 2016 result in significant CO2 emissions. Development of GPC became a major concern to widen its usage. This
Accepted 14 June 2016
paper is a study of the influence of additional water content, plasticizer content, sodium hydroxide solu-
Available online 21 June 2016
tion molarity, alkaline solution to fly ash ratio and sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio on fly ash
based GPC. The studied properties of fly ash based GPC was workability, compressive strength, splitting
Keywords:
tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, absorption, and porosity. The results showed that, generally,
Geopolymer concrete
Fly ash
increasing additional water content increased workability, but decreased other fly ash based GPC prop-
Additional water erties and the optimum additional water content was found to be 30 kg/m3 which has slight effect on
Chemical admixture geopolymer properties. The increase of plasticizer content up to 10.5 kg/m3 had acceptable effects on
Molarity GPC properties due to improved workability. The optimum molarity of sodium hydroxide solution was
Alkaline solution found to be 16 M. GPC properties was significantly affected by alkaline solution to fly ash ratio and
0.40 was expected to be the optimum ratio. Increasing sodium hydroxide solution to sodium silicate solu-
tion ratio reduces geopolymer concrete properties; nevertheless, low ratio is not economic due to sodium
silicate solution cost.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The geopolymer cement can contribute effectively to reduce
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) industry in the future. Provis
et al. [1] emphasized that alkali-activated binders are not intrinsi-
cally or fundamentally low-CO2 unless designed effectively to
achieve such performance, but when mix design and raw materials
selection are carried out with a view towards optimization of envi-
ronmental performance, the outcomes can result in very significant
savings. The use of geopolymer technology not only has the poten-
tial to substantially reduces the CO2 emissions by the cement
Corresponding author at: Gamal Abd El-Naser st., Alexandria 21526, Egypt.
E-mail address: dr_aliabdo@yahoo.com (A.A. Aliabdo).
industries, but also utilizes the waste materials such as fly ash. It
is to be noted that fly ash, one of the sources for making geopoly-
mer binders, is available abundantly worldwide, and yet its usage
to date is very limited [2]. Previous study published in the scientific
literature indicated that fly ash based mixtures released 45% less
CO2 than an average Portland cement concrete mixture [3].
The name Geo-polymer was coined by Prof. J. Davidovits in
1978 who found that the polymerization process involves a fast
chemical reaction under alkaline conditions on Si-Al minerals, that
results in 3D polymeric chain and ring structure consisting of
Si-O-Al-O bonds. The main concept behind this geopolymer is
the polymerization of the Si-O-Al-O bond which develops when
Al-Si source materials like fly ash is mixed with alkaline activating
solution (NaOH or KOH solution with Na2SiO3 or K2SiO3). The

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.062
0950-0618/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703 695

geopolymer can be in the form of -Si-O-Al-O- or Si-O-Al-O-Si-O- concentrates on the effect of water addition, chemical admixture
or Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-Si-O-. (plasticizer) and the alkaline solution constitution on the workabil-
The schematic formation of geopolymer material can be shown ity and mechanical properties of fly ash based GPC to achieve more
as described by Eqs. (1) and (2) [46]: development in GPC industry.

The last term in Eq. (2) reveals that water is released during the 2. Materials and experimental program
chemical reaction that occurs in the formation of geopolymers.
2.1. Materials
This water, expelled from the geopolymer matrix during the curing
and further drying periods, leaves behind nano-pores in the matrix, Any material that contains aluminum silicate of proper composition in amor-
which enhances the performance of geopolymers. The water in a phous form is a potential source material for the manufacture of geo-polymer bin-
geopolymer mixture, therefore, plays no role in the chemical reac- der. Geopolymer concrete consists of geopolymer cement paste and aggregates.
Several mineral and industrial by-product materials have been investigated in the
tion that takes place; it merely provides workability to the mixture
past. The calcined source materials such as fly ash, slag, calcined kaolin demon-
during handling. strated a higher compressive strength when compared to non-calcined materials
There are two main constituents of geopolymers, namely the [20]. This section discusses in detail the used materials for producing fly ash based
source materials and the alkaline liquids. The source materials geopolymer concrete.
for geopolymers based on alumina-silicate should be rich in sil-
icon (Si) and aluminum (Al). These could be natural minerals 2.1.1. Fly ash
such as kaolinite, clays, etc., whose empirical formula contains In this study fly ash (ASTM Class F) was used as the main source material for
Si, Al, and oxygen (O) [7]. Alternatively, by-product materials aluminosilicates, the geopolymer binder. Specific gravity of the fly ash was 2.2
and 95% of fly ash was passing through the 45 lm sieve. The chemical composition
such as fly ash, silica fume, slag, rice-husk ash, red mud, etc
as determined by chemical analysis is presented in Table 1.
could be used as source materials. The choice of the source
materials for making geopolymers depends on factors such as
2.1.2. Aggregates
availability, cost, type of application, and specific demand of
Natural siliceous sand with fineness modulus of 2.45 and pink limestone of
the end users. Geopolymers are formed when alumino- 9.5 mm nominal maximum size, were used as natural aggregates. Table 2 presents
silicates, such as fly ashes, dissolve in a strong alkaline solution, the physical properties of the aggregates, and the sieve analysis is presented in
reorganize and precipitate in a hardened state [8]. Fly ash suit- Table 3.
able for use in geopolymer consists mostly of glassy, hollow,
spherical particles, which are cenospheres (thin walled hollow 2.1.3. Alkaline solution
spheres) [9]. A mixture of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solutions
It is to be noted that the nanostructure of geoplymers is were used as the activator solution. Sodium hydroxide solution of desired concen-
tration was prepared by mixing 9798% pure NaOH pellets with tap water. Sodium
strongly dependent on the available calcium content of precursors;
silicate solution was obtained from a local commercial producer. The chemical
a high-calcium system such as alkali-activated blast furnace slag is properties of sodium silicate is shown in Table 4. The densities of sodium hydroxide
dominated by a calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (CASH) gel solution and the total alkaline solution was about 1.15 and 1.5 g/cm3.
with a tobermorite-like structure [10,11], while low calcium sys-
tems such as those based on metakaolin or fly ash tend to generate 2.1.4. Admixture
an alkali aluminosilicate (NASH) gel with a highly crosslinked, High range water reducer naphthalene-based admixture (ASTM Type F) was
disordered pseudo-zeolitic structure [10,12,13]. These gels can used to improve the workability.
coexist in binders based on blends of high-calcium and low-
calcium precursors [1415].
Table 1
Geopolymer concrete showed good properties such as high The chemical composition of fly ash.
compressive strength, low creep, good acid resistance and low
Chemical constituent Content, mass%
shrinkage [16]. Compressive strength is an essential property for
geopolymer concrete where it also depends on curing time and Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 62.30
curing temperature for geopolymer concrete. When the curing Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 2.10
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 28.10
time and temperature increase, the compressive strength also Calcium oxide (CaO) 0.50
increases with curing temperature in the range of 60 to 90 C, Magnesium oxide (MgO) 1.00
between 24 and 72 h [17]. Sulfur trioxide (SO3) 0.40
Limited efforts have been made to study the effect of adding Na2O 0.50
K2O 1.00
water and chemical admixture during the production of GPC in
Loss on ignition (LOI) 2.50
addition to the NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio [18,19]. So, this work
696 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703

Table 2
Physical properties of the used aggregates in geopolymer concrete.

Properties Natural Aggregate Limits

(According to
Coarse Agg. Fine Agg.
Egyptian standard
Crushed pink limestone Sand
specifications)
(N.M.S = 9.5 mm)
Specific gravity (SSD) 2.5 2.67
Unit weight (t/m3) 1.45 1.62
Water absorption (%) 1.9 1.3 62.5 for coarse agg. and
62.0 for fine agg.
Materials finer than 200 sieve by washing (%) 1.4 2.5 63.0
Fineness modulus 2.45

Table 3 were 10, 20, 30 and 35 kg per cubic meter of concrete. The (ASTM Type F) admixture
Sieve analysis of the aggregates. contents were 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10.5 kg per cubic meter of concrete. The alkaline solu-
tion molarities were 12, 16 and 18 M and the alkaline solution to fly ash ratios were
ASTM designation, mm Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate 0.3, 0.35, 0.4 and 0.45. Finally, the sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratios were
(mass% passing) (mass% passing) set at 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5. The fly ash content was chosen as 400 kg/m3. Curing temper-
Test Limits Percentage Limits ature and curing period of all mixes was 50 C for 48 h. Table 5 presents the mixes
results according to passing by according to proportions of fly ash based geopolymer mixes, and the related parameters.
ASTM C33 weight (%) ASTM C33
1/200 , 12.5 mm 100 100 100 100
3/800 , 9.5 mm 100 90100 100 100 2.3. Mixing, sample preparation and curing
NO.4, 4.75 mm 30 2055 96.1 95100
NO.8, 2.36 mm 6 530 91.9 80100 Geopolymer mixing process includes four main steps. These steps are activator
NO.16, 1.18 mm 3 010 83.2 5085 solution preparation, dry mixing of solid materials (aggregate, and fly ash), mixing
NO.30, 600 lm 59.7 2560 liquid components (activator, extra water and superplasticizer) and finally mixing
NO.50, 300 lm 19.7 530 all components in the mechanical mixer.
NO.100, 150 lm 4.2 010 To prepare the activator solution (first step), sodium hydroxide solution with
NO.200, 75 lm 0.20 certain molarity (12, 16, and 18) was prepared by mixing 9798% pure NaOH pellets
with tap water. A 16 M NaOH solution contains 16 * 40 g = 640 g of NaOH solids per
litre of the solution, where 40 is the molecular weight of NaOH. The mass of NaOH
solids was measured as 444 g per kg of NaOH solution with a concentration of 16 M.
Adding NaOH and sodium silicate solutions results in exothermic reaction and,
Table 4 therefore, generates high temperature. Various methods have been proposed in
Sodium silicate liquid specifications. the related literature to overcome the problem of temperature rise. Some investiga-
tors premix the alkali solutions and wait till it reaches the ambient temperature
Item Specifications before adding into the dry mix [2124], and others [25,26] recommend adding
Color Colorless the alkali solutions during dry mixing itself. In the present study, the alkaline solu-
Density g/cm3 1.45:1.55 tion was first prepared by thoroughly mixing the NaOH and Na2SiO3 solutions 24 h
Total solids content, by mass% 42:47 prior to use and reached temperature of 25 2 C. The activator contents are given
as percentage of fly ash content with sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratios of
(0.3, 0.4 and 0.5). During dry mixing (second step), coarse and fine aggregates in
saturated surface dry condition were well mixed with fly ash in a pan mixer. In
2.2. Test parameters the third step naphthalene based high range water reducing admixture (to improve
the workability of the mixture) and additional water was added to the alkaline liq-
The effects of additional water content, chemical admixture content, sodium uid and were thoroughly mixed. Finally, the liquid mixture was added to the dry
hydroxide solution molarity, alkaline solution to fly ash ratio and sodium hydroxide mix and the whole mixture was mixed together for 5 min and the temperature of
to sodium silicate ratio were studied in this work. The additional water contents the mixtures was 27 2 C.

Table 5
mix proportions of fly ash based geopolymer concretes.

Mix Fly ash Coarse Agg Sand Alkaline Add. Admix. Solution NaOH to Molarity Note
No. content content content solution (kg/m3) water (kg/m3) to fly ash Na2Sio3
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) Na2SiO3 NaOH (kg/m3) ratio ratio

1 400 875 875 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 16 400 kg fly ash Effect of additional
2 400 880 880 100 40 30 10.5 0.35 0.40 16 content 48 h heat water content
3 400 895 895 100 40 20 10.5 0.35 0.40 16 curing at 50 C
4 400 910 910 100 40 10 10.5 0.35 0.40 16
1 400 875 875 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 16 Effect of chemical
5 400 880 880 100 40 35 7.5 0.35 0.40 16 admixture content
6 400 885 885 100 40 35 5 0.35 0.40 16
7 400 887 887 100 40 35 2.5 0.35 0.40 16
8 400 875 875 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 18 Effect of sodium
1 400 875 875 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 16 hydroxide molarity
9 400 875 875 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 12
10 400 840 840 128.5 51.5 35 10.5 0.45 0.40 16 Effect of solution to
11 400 860 860 114 46 35 10.5 0.4 0.40 16 fly ash ratio
1 400 875 875 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 16
12 400 895 895 85.5 34.5 35 10.5 0.30 0.40 16
13 400 875 875 107.5 32.5 35 10.5 0.35 0.30 16 Effect of sodium
1 400 830 830 100 40 35 10.5 0.35 0.40 16 hydroxide to sodium
14 400 875 875 93 47 35 47 0.35 0.50 16 silicate ratio
 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703 697

Table 6
Summary of the tests performed and the relevant standards.

Properties Specifications Specimen dimensions Age of testing

Workability ASTM C 143/C 143M Cone with the 200 mm base in diameter, the top
100 mm in diameter, and the height 300 mm
Compressive strength BS 1881: Part 3 Cubes: 100 * 100 * 100 mm 7, 28 days
Tensile strength ASTM C 496 96 Cylinder D = 75 mm and L = 150 mm 28 days
Modulus of elasticity ASTM C 469 94 Cylinder D = 100 mm and L = 200 mm 28 days
Absorption ASTM C 642 06 Cubes 70 * 70 * 70 mm 28 days
Porosity ASTM D 7063/D 7063M 11 Cubes 70 * 70 * 70 mm 28 days

The main problem during mixing process was that the alkaline solution need to
be prepared 24 h prior the mixing. This problem makes the usage of fly ash based
GPC limited and more suitable for precasting concretes. Also, the problem of tem-
perature rise during alkaline solution preparation.
After the mixing process, the fly ash based geopolymer concrete mixtures were
placed in the molds to obtain specimens for different tests. The specimens were
then vibrated using a vibrating table for 2 min to release any residual air bubbles.
The molds were stored in the room temperature of 2023 C leaving the top surface
exposed to air. The samples were de-molded 24 h after casting and then cured
within a hot air oven for 48 h at 50 C and were then kept at ambient temperature
until testing.
can be seen that the concrete workability is influenced significantly
by the additional water content where the increase of additional
water content improves the concrete workability. From the test
result, the increase in GPC slump is 66.7%, 165.6% and 200.0% for
geopolymer concrete with 20, 30, and 35 kg/m3 additional water
content compared with concrete mix with 10 kg/m3 additional
water.
This improvement in workability is apparently due to the
increase of free water which has no role in chemical reaction.

2.4. Testing

Series of tests were performed to determine the workability and mechanical

properties of fly ash based GPC. Table 6 presents the relevant specifications, speci-
mens dimensions and the age of testing for each test.
3. Test results and discussions
Different concrete mixes of fly ash based GPC were designed to
study the effect of additional water, plasticizer, molarity of NaOH
solution, alkaline solution to fly ash ratio and NaOH to Na2SiO3
ratio on the workability, compressive strength, splitting tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity, absorption and porosity. The fly
ash content was set at 400 kg/m3. The curing temperature and cur-
3.1.2. Compressive strength
The effect of additional water content during mixing of fly ash
based GPC on compressive strength is shown in Fig. 2. From this
figure, it can be observed that the increase of additional water con-
tent decreases the concrete compressive strength, the reduction
being not more than 10.0% up to 30 kg/m3 additional water. The
reduction in 28-day concrete compressive strength due to use of
7 days compressive strength (Mpa) 28 days compressive strength (Mpa)
40
Compressive strength (MPa)

35
ing period of all mixes was 50 C for 48 h. The following sections 30
discuss in details the results and discussion of the parameters
25
studied in this work.
20
3.1. Effect of additional water 15

10
This section discusses the effect of additional water content on
fly ash based GPC properties. The solution to fly ash ratio, NaOH 5
solution molarity, NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio and admixture content
0
were kept constant at 0.35, 16 M, 0.4 and 10.5 kg per cubic meter 10 20 30 35
of the mixture. Additional Water (kg water/m3 concrete)

Fig. 2. Effect of additional water on fly ash based GPC compressive strength.
3.1.1. Workability
The effect of additional water content during mixing process on
fly ash based GPC workability is shown in Fig. 1. From this figure, it
4.0

3.5
28 days Tensile strength(MPa)

100
90 3.0
80
2.5
70
60 2.0
Slump (mm)

50
1.5
40
30 1.0
20
0.5
10
0 0.0
10 20 30 35 10 20 30 35
Additional Water (kg water/m3 concrete) Additional Water (kg water/m3 concrete)

Fig. 1. Effect of additional water content on fly ash based GPC slump. Fig. 3. Effect of additional water content on fly ash based GPC tensile strength.
698 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703

25 water content beyond which the increases in absorption and

porosity were 11.8% and 13.8% for 35 kg/m3 additional water con-
28 days Modulus of elasticity (GPa)

20 tent compared with concrete mix with 10 kg/m3 additional water.

Based on previous study, it may be concluded that the reduction
in mechanical properties such as compressive strength, tensile
15
strength, modulus of elasticity and the increase in absorption
and porosity as a result of increasing additional water content
10 could be due to the increase of voids resulting from the increase
of water content which has no role in chemical reaction. Excess
5 water also diluted the liquid and thus slowed down the dissolution
and reaction of the geopolymer. Similar reduction in strength and
improve in workability with the increase in extra water was
0
10 20 30 35 reported [19].
Additional Water (kg water/m3 concrete)

Fig. 4. Effect of additional water content on modulus of elasticity of fly ash based
GPC.
35 kg/m3 is 24.0% compared to that of concrete mix with 10 kg/m3
additional water content.
3.1.3. Tensile strength
The effect of additional water content on fly ash based GPC 28-
day tensile strength is shown in Fig. 3. From this figure, it can be
observed that the fly ash based GPC tensile strength is more
affected by water addition than is the compressive strength. The
reduction in 28-day tensile strength of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete is 7.9%, 21.0% and 27.6% for 20, 30, and 35 kg/m3 addi-
tional water contents compared with that of the mix with 10 kg/
m3 additional water content.
3.1.4. Static modulus of elasticity
Fig. 4 reveals the effect of additional water on 28-day geopoly-
mer concrete modulus of elasticity. From this figure it is clear that
the increase of additional water content has no significant effect on
the modulus of elasticity. From the test result, the reduction in 28-
day modulus of elasticity is 2.2%, 4.0% and 10.9% for fly ash based
geopolymer concrete with 20, 30 and 35 kg/m3 additional water
3.2. Effect of admixture content (plasticizer)
This section discusses the effect of used naphthalene-based
Type F chemical admixture according to ASTM on fly ash based
geopolymer concrete properties. The solution to fly ash ratio, NaOH
solution molarity, NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio and additional water con-
tent were kept constant at 0.35,16 M, 0.4 and 35 kg per cubic meter
of the mixture.
3.2.1. Workability
The effect of using Type F (high range water reducer) chemical
admixture is shown in Fig. 5. From this figure, it is obvious that
admixture has a significant effect on slump. The usage of high con-
tent admixture achieves higher slump values compared with those
of mixes using low admixture content. From the test result, the
increase in fly ash based GPC slump is 50.0%, 90.5% and 114.5%
100
90
80
70
Slump (mm)

60
content compared with concrete mix with 10 kg/m3 additional 50
water. 40
30
3.1.5. Water absorption and porosity 20
Table 6 summarize the water absorption and porosity test
10
results according to ASTM C642-06 and ASTM D7063/D7063M-11.
0
The effect of additional water content on 28-day absorption and 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.5
porosity is presented in Table 7. From this table, it can be observed Chemical admixture content (kg/m3)
that the use of additional water has insignificant effect on fly ash
based GPC absorption and porosity up to 30 kg/m3 additional Fig. 5. Effect of chemical admixture content on fly ash based GPC slump.

Table 7
water absorption and porosity test results for different parameters.

Factor Additional water (kg/m3) Effect of (sol/fly ash) mass ratio

10 20 30 35 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Water absorption% 4.74 4.96 5.04 5.30 5.80 5.30 5.09 5.15
Porosity% 9.80 10.22 10.40 11.15 12.00 11.15 10.51 10.65

Factor Admixture (kg/m3) (Naoh/Na2SiO3) mass ratio

2.5 5 7.5 10.5 0.30 0.40 0.50
Water absorption% 5.03 5.08 5.17 5.30 4.85 5.30 5.40
Porosity% 10.4 10.45 11.03 11.15 10.02 11.15 11.30
Factor NaOH molarity
12 M 16 M 18 M
Water absorption% 5.60 5.30 5.52
Porosity% 11.60 11.15 11.40
 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703 699

for fly ash based GPC with 5, 7.5 and 10.5 kg/m3 admixture content 3.2.4. Static modulus of elasticity
compared with concrete mix with 2.5 kg/m3 admixture content. Fig. 8 shows the influence of chemical admixture dose on 28-
day modulus of elasticity. From this figure, it is obvious that the
dose of chemical admixture has insignificant influence on 28-day
3.2.2. Compressive strength
static modulus of elasticity. The reduction in 28-day modulus of
The effect of chemical admixture content on GPC compressive
elasticity is 0.5%, 3.7% and 7.2% for fly ash based GPC with 5, 7.5
strength after 7 and 28 days is shown in Fig. 6. From this figure
and 10.5 kg/m3 chemical admixture content compared with that
it is obvious that, using low chemical admixture content yields
of the mix with 2.5 kg/m3 chemical admixture content.
higher compressive strength compared to high chemical admixture
content. Generally, the use of chemical admixture content up to
3.2.5. Water absorption and porosity
7.5 kg/m3 has insignificant effect on 28 days GPC compressive
The effect of chemical admixture content on 28-day fly ash
strength. For example, the reduction in fly ash based GPC compres-
based GPC absorption and porosity is presented in Table 7. It is
sive strength is 4.2%, 8.6%, and 24.0% for geopolymer concrete with
obvious that there are insignificant increases in both of the absorp-
5, 7.5, and 10.5 kg/m3 admixture content compared with concrete
tion and the porosity. The 28-day test results show that the
mix with 2.5 kg/m3 chemical admixture content.
increase in fly ash based geopolymer concrete absorption is 1.0%,
2.8% and 5.4%, and the increase in porosity is 0.4%, 6.1%, and 7.2%
3.2.3. Tensile strength for 5, 7.5 and 10.5 kg/m3 chemical admixture contents compared
The effect of chemical admixture content on fly ash based GPC with that of the mix with 2.5 kg/m3 chemical admixture content.
tensile strength after 28 days is shown in Fig. 7. From this figure, The reduction in fly ash based GPC properties observed in com-
it is obvious that low chemical admixture dose yields higher tensile pressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and the
strength compared with high chemical admixture doses and this increase in absorption and porosity as a result of increasing chem-
negative effect of increasing chemical admixture content is more ical admixture content may be due to increasing voids in the struc-
pronounced than test results of concrete compressive strength. ture. The same reduction in strength and improve in workability
From the test result, the reduction in fly ash based GPC tensile with the increase in admixture (plasticizer) content was reported
strength is 8.6%, 15.7% and 21.4% for geopolymer concrete with [19].
5, 7.5 and 10.5 kg/m3 chemical admixture content compared with
concrete mix with chemical admixture content 2.5 kg/m3. 3.3. Effect of sodium hydroxide molarity

This section discusses the effect of sodium hydroxide solution

7 days compressive strength (Mpa) 28 days compressive strength (Mpa) molarity on fly ash based GPC properties. The solution to fly ash
35
ratio, NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio, chemical admixture content and
Compressive strength (MPa)

30
additional water content were kept constant at 0.35, 0.4, 10.5 kg
per cubic meter of the mixture and 35 kg water/m3 concrete.
25

20 3.3.1. Workability
Fig. 9 shows the effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity
15
on fly ash based GPC workability. From this figure, it is clear that
10
the increase of sodium hydroxide solution molarity reduces the
slump. From the test results, the reduction in slump is 10.5%, and
5 20.0% for 16 M and 18 M sodium hydroxide solution, respectively,
0
compared to that of the mix with 12 M sodium hydroxide solution.
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.5
Chemical admixture content (kg/m 3) 3.3.2. Compressive strength
The effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on cube fly
Fig. 6. Effect of chemical admixture content on fly ash based GPC compressive
ash based GPC compressive strength after 7, and 28 days is shown
strength.
in Fig. 10. From this figure, it is obvious that sodium hydroxide

25
4.0
28 days Modulus of elascity (GPa)

3.5 20
28 days Tensile strength (MPa)

3.0
15
2.5

2.0 10

1.5
5
1.0

0.5 0
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.5
0.0 Chemical admixture content (kg/m3)
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.5
Chemical admixture content (kg/m3) Fig. 8. Effect of chemical admixture content on modulus of elasticity of fly ash
based GPC.
Fig. 7. Effect of chemical admixture content on fly ash based GPC tensile strength.
700 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703

120 3.0

100 2.5

28 days Tensile strength (MPa)

80 2.0
Slump (mm)

60
1.5

40
1.0

20
0.5

0
12 16 18 0.0
NaOH solution molarity 12 16 18
NaOH solution molarity
Fig. 9. Effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on fly ash based GPC slump.
Fig. 11. Effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on tensile strength of fly ash
based GPC.

7 days 28 days
30
Compressive strength (MPa)

25 25

20

28 days Modulus of elascity(GPa)

20
15

15
10

5 10

0
12 16 18 5
NaOH solution molarity

Fig. 10. Effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on fly ash based GPC 0
compressive strength. 12 16 18
NaOH solution molarity

solution molarity has a noticeable effect on concrete compressive
strength where the increase in molarity from 12 to 16 M enhances
7-day and 28-day geopolymer concrete compressive strengths. The
observed optimum molarity for 48 h of curing at 50 C is 16 M.
Increasing sodium solution molarity from 16 M to 18 M reduces
7-day and 28-day compressive strengths. For example, the increase
in 28-day cube GPC compressive strength is 45.7%, and 9.10% for
GPC with 16 and 18 M sodium hydroxide solutions, respectively,
compared with concrete mix with 12 M sodium hydroxide
solution.
3.3.3. Tensile strength
The effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on GPC 28-
day tensile strength is shown in Fig. 11. From this figure, it is clear
that increase in sodium hydroxide solution molarity improves 28-
day tensile strength but this effect reverses above 16 M. The
observed optimum molarity for 48 h of curing at 50 C is 16 M as
observed in the compressive strength results. This behavior agrees
with compressive strength results. For example, the increase in 28-
day tensile strength is 44.7%, and 2% for GPC with 16 and 18 M
sodium hydroxide solution, respectively, compared with that of
the mix with 12 M sodium hydroxide solution.
3.3.4. Modulus of elasticity
Fig. 12 reveals the effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity
on 28-day fly ash based GPC modulus of elasticity. From test result,
it can be observed that 16 M is the optimum molarity for sodium
hydroxide solution used in fly ash based GPC cured at 50 C for
48 h which representing the highest value of modulus of elasticity
and the significant rate of increasing achieved from 12 M to 16 M.
Fig. 12. Effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on modulus of elasticity of fly
ash based GPC.
The increase in modulus of elasticity is 41.1%, and 33.7% for GPC
with 16 and 18 M sodium hydroxide solution, respectively, com-
pared with the mix with 12 M sodium hydroxide solution.
3.3.5. Water absorption and porosity
The effect of sodium hydroxide solution molarity on 28-day
absorption and porosity is shown in Table 7. From this results, it
is clear that the sodium hydroxide solution molarity has insignifi-
cant role in concrete absorption and porosity, but generally, the
increase in molarity from 12 M to 18 M decrease water absorption,
and porosity. From test results, the reduction in fly ash based
geopolymer concrete absorption is 5.4%, and 1.4% for mixes with
16 and 18 M sodium hydroxide solution, respectively, compared
with the mix with 12 M sodium hydroxide solution. For porosity
the reduction percentages are 3.9% and 1.7% for fly ash based
GPC with 16 and 18 M sodium hydroxide solutions, respectively,
compared with that of the mix with 12 M sodium hydroxide
solution.
The improvement in GPC properties as a result of increasing
molarity up to 16 M agrees with those obtained by Hardjito [2]
and Raijiwala [26]. The highest values being achieved at 16 M
which agrees with those reported by Mandal [27]. The strength
increased with the increase in NaOH concentration mainly through
the leaching out of silica and alumina with the high concentration
of NaOH [28]. Beyond 16 M GPC properties decreases due to a
lower rate of polymerization taking place resulting in a decreased
strength.
 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703 701

3.4. Effect of alkaline solution to fly ash ratio
This section discusses the effect of alkaline solution to fly ash
ratio on fly ash based GPC properties. The molarity of NaOH solu-
tion, NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio, chemical admixture content and addi-
tional water content were kept constant at 16 M, 0.4, 10.5 kg per
cubic meter of the mixture and 35 kg water/m3 concrete.
3.4.1. Workability
Fig. 13 shows the effect of alkaline solution to fly ash ratio on fly
ash based GPC workability. From this figure, it is obvious that alka-
line solution to fly ash ratio plays an important role on the slump
values of fly ash based GPC. The increase in alkaline solution to fly
ash ratio results in an increase in the slump values. The increase in
fly ash based GPC slump is 28.5%, 71.4% and 114.3% for geopolymer
concrete mixes with 0.35, 0.40 and 0.45 solution to fly ash ratio,
respectively, compared with the mix with 0.30 solution to fly ash
ratio.
3.4.2. Compressive strength
Fig. 14 shows the effect of alkaline solution to fly ash ratio on fly
ash based GPC 7- and 28-day compressive strengths. From this fig-
ure, it is clear that the increase of solution to fly ash ratio up to 0.40
increases the compressive strength, then the effect reverses. The
increases in GPC compressive strengths were 52.2%, 77.8%, and
67.8% for mixes with 0.35, 0.40 and 0.45 solution to fly ash ratio,
respectively, as compared with that of mix with 0.30 solution to
fly ash ratio.
3.4.3. Tensile strength
The effect of alkaline solution to fly ash ratio on 28-day tensile
strength of fly ash based GPC is shown in Fig. 15. The increase in
solution to fly ash ratio yields high tensile strength, matching with
the trend of compressive strength test results. Also the increase in
the tensile strength is almost proportional to the increase in alka-
line solution to fly ash ratio up to 0.4 beyond which a decrease
occurs. The increase of GPC tensile strength is 49.5%, 60.3%, and
52.2% for 0.35, 0.40 and 0.45 solution to fly ash ratio, respectively,
compared with the mix with 0.30 solution to fly ash ratio.
3.4.4. Modulus of elasticity
The effect of alkaline solution to fly ash ratio on fly ash based
GPC modulus of elasticity after 28 days is shown in Fig. 16. It can
be seen that the alkaline solution to fly ash ratio has an effect on
the 28-day modulus of elasticity similar to those on compressive
and tensile strengths. The increase in the modulus of elasticity is
17.5%, 25.8%, and 22.3% for the mixes with 0.35, 0.40 and 0.45 solu-
tion to fly ash ratio, respectively, compared with the mix with 0.30
solution to fly ash ratio.
3.4.5. Water absorption and porosity
Table 6 presents the effect of alkaline solution to fly ash ratio on
fly ash based GPC 28-ady absorption and porosity. It can be seen
that the increase in alkaline solution to fly ash ratio reduces
absorption and porosity. From test results, the reduction in absorp-
tion was 8.6%, 12.2% and 11.2% for GPC mixes with 0.35, 0.40 and
0.45 solution to fly ash ratio, respectively, compared with the
mix with 0.30 solution to fly ash ratio. Also, the reduction in

160
3.5
140
3.0
28 days Tensile strength (MPa)

120
2.5
100
Slump (mm)

2.0
80

60 1.5

40 1.0

20 0.5

0 0.0
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
(Solution /Fly ash) ratio
(Solution /Fly ash) ratio
Fig. 13. Effect of solution to fly ash ratio on fly ash based GPC slump.
Fig. 15. Effect of solution to fly ash ratio on tensile strength of fly ash GPC.

7 days 28 days 25
35
28 days Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
Compressive strength (MPa)

30 20

25
15
20

15 10

10
5
5
0
0 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 (Solution /Fly ash) ratio
(Soluon /Fly ash) rao
Fig. 16. Effect of solution to fly ash ratio on modulus of elasticity of fly ash based
Fig. 14. Effect of solution to fly ash ratio on fly ash based GPC compressive strength. GPC.
702 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703

porosity was 7.1%, 12.4% and 11.3% for 0.35, 0.40 and 0.45 solution
to fly ash ratio, respectively, compared with the mix with 0.30
solution to fly ash ratio.
The improvement in GPC properties as a result of increasing
alkaline solution to fly ash ratio agrees with Hardjito [2] and Sathia
[29]. The increasing in the alkaline activator content (Alkaline acti-
vator/Fly ash ratio) increases the Si species content, because the
alkaline activator contained sodium silicate (more Si species),
increases the SiO2/Al2O3 ratio and also increases the GPC strength
because increases the SiO2/Al2O3 ratio result in more Si-O-Si bonds
which are stronger in comparison with Si-O-Al [30].
3.5. Effect of sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio
This section discusses the effect of sodium hydroxide to sodium
silicate ratio on fly ash based GPC properties. The solution to fly ash
ratio, NaOH solution molarity, chemical admixture content and
additional water content were kept constant of 0.35, 16 M,
10.5 kg per cubic meter of the mixture and 35 kg water/m3
concrete.
3.5.1. Workability
Fig. 17 shows the effect of sodium hydroxide solution to sodium
silicate solution ratio on fly ash based GPC workability. From this
figure, it is obvious that NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio has a pronounced
effect on fly ash based GPC initial slump. The increase in NaOH
to Na2SiO3 ratio results in an increase in slump. The increase in
slump is 28.6% and 57.1% for mixes with 0.40 and 0.50 NaOH to
Na2SiO3 ratios, respectively, as compared with that mix with 0.30
sodium hydroxide solution to sodium silicate ratio.
3.5.2. Compressive strength
The effect of sodium hydroxide solution to sodium silicate solu-
tion ratio on fly ash based GPC compressive strength at the age of 7
and 28 days is shown in Fig. 18. From this figure, it is obvious that
sodium hydroxide solution to sodium silicate solution ratio has a
significant effect on fly ash based GPC compressive strength where
the increase in this ratio decreases the compressive strength. The
decrease in cube GPC compressive strength after 28 days is 22.5%
and 29.5% for GPC mixes with 0.40 and 0.50 NaOH to Na2SiO3
ratios, respectively, compared with 0.3 sodium hydroxide solution
to sodium silicate ratio. This trend is the same after 7 and 28 days.
3.5.3. Tensile strength
The effect of sodium hydroxide solution to sodium silicate solu-
tion ratio on 28-day tensile strength is shown in Fig. 19. From this
figure, it is clear that increase in NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio reduces 28-
day tensile strength. The reduction in 28-day tensile strength is
10.1% and 20.5% for mixes with 0.40 and 0.50 NaOH to Na2SiO3
ratios, respectively, compared with the mix with 0.30 sodium
hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio.
3.5.4. Modulus of elasticity
Fig. 20 reveals the effect of sodium hydroxide solution to
sodium silicate solution ratio on the 28-day modulus of elastic-

3.5
120
28 days Tensile strength(MPa)

3.0
100
2.5
80
2.0
Slump (mm)

60
1.5
40
1.0
20
0.5
0
0.30 0.40 0.50 0.0
(NaOH/Na2SiO3) ratio 0.30 0.40 0.50
(NaOH/Na2SiO3) ratio
Fig. 17. Effect of sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio on fly ash based GPC
slump. Fig. 19. Effect of sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio on tensile strength of fly
ash based GPC.

7 days compressive strength (Mpa) 28 days compressive strength (Mpa)

40
25
Compressive strength (MPa)

35
28 days Modulus of elasticity(GPa)

30 20

25
15
20

15 10

10
5
5

0 0
0.30 0.40 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.50
(NaOH/Na2SiO3) ratio (NaOH/Na2SiO3) ratio

Fig. 18. Effect of sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio on fly ash based GPC Fig. 20. Effect of sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio on modulus of elasticity
compressive strength. of fly ash based GPC.
 A.A. Aliabdo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 121 (2016) 694703
ity. From test results, it can be observed that low sodium
hydroxide solution to sodium silicate solution ratios yields high
values for modulus of elasticity. The reduction in the modulus
of elasticity is 3.3% and 6.8% for GPC mixes with 0.40 and
0.50 NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratios, respectively, compared with that
of the mix with 0.30 sodium hydroxide solution to sodium sil-
icate ratio.
3.5.5. Water absorption and porosity
The effect of NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio on fly ash based GPC
absorption and porosity at the age of 28 days is presented in
Table 7. The results clearly show that an increase in sodium
hydroxide solution to sodium silicate solution ratio significantly
increases water absorption and porosity. The increase in fly ash
based GPC absorption is 9.3% and 11.3% for GPC mixes with 0.40
and 0.50 NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratios, respectively, compared to the
mix with 0.30 sodium hydroxide solution to sodium silicate ratio.
The relative increase in porosity is 11.2% and 12.8% for GPC mixes
with 0.4 and 0.5 NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratios, respectively, compared
with the mix with 0.30 sodium hydroxide solution to sodium sili-
cate ratio.
The same decrease in workability of the mixes with the
decrease in NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio was reported [19]. This was
expected since sodium silicate was more viscous than sodium
hydroxide. Also, the increase in strength with the decrease in
NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio was reported [19]. The improvement in
GPC strength as a result of decreasing NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio
may be due to sodium silicate improving the polymerization pro-
cess leading to reaction products with more Si and, hence, higher
mechanical strength [31].
4. Conclusion
From the present study the following conclusions were
obtained.
Increasing additional water content up to 35 kg/m3 increase
workability of fly ash based GPC up to 200%. However, increas-
ing additional water reduces fly ash based GPC properties up to
27%. The optimum additional water content could be 30 kg/m3
which has slight unfavorable effect on the properties of fly ash
based GPC.
Increasing chemical admixture content improves GPC workabil-
ity up to 115%. Although, it improves workability it results in
slight increases in water absorption and porosity, and decrease
in compressive and tensile strength and modulus of elasticity.
The increase in porosity due to the increase in high range water
reducing admixture might be due to some air entraining effect
of the high range water reducer.
Increasing sodium hydroxide molarity up to 16 M improves fly
ash based GPC properties. Beyond 16 M the desirable properties
decreases due to a lower rate of polymerization taking place
due to the high NaOH concentration resulting in decreased
properties.
Increasing alkaline solution to fly ash ratio improves fly ash
based GPC properties. The optimum alkaline solution to fly
ash ratio is 0.40.
Decreasing NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio has favorable effect on fly ash
based GPC properties. The optimum NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio for
the constituent materials used in this work could be 0.40.
More researches are needed to overcome the problems of
needed period to prepare alkaline solution to use in the mixing
process and the temperature rise during alkaline solution
preparation.
703
References
[1] J.L. Provis, A. Palomo, C. Shi, Advances in understanding alkali-activated
materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 78 (2015) 110125.
[2] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, On the development of
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, ACI Mater. J.-Am. Concr. Inst. 101 (6)
(2004) 467472.
[3] Y. Yao, Y. Li, X. Liu, H. Sun, S. Jiang, C. Feng, Performance and energy calculation
on a green cementitious material composed of coal refuse, Clean Technol.
Environ. Policy 16 (2) (2014) 281290.
[4] J. Davidovits, High-alkali cements for 21st century concretes Concrete
Technology Past, Present and Future, ACI Special Publication 144 (1994)
383398.
[5] J.G.S. Van Jaarsveld, J.S.J. Van Deventer, L. Lorenzen, The potential use of
geopolymeric materials to immobilise toxic metals: Part I. Theory and
applications, Miner. Eng. 10 (7) (1997) 659669.
[6] N. Van Chanh, B.D. Trung, D. Van Tuan, Recent research geopolymer concrete,
in: The 3rd ACF International Conference-ACF/VCA, Vietnam, 2008, pp. 1113.
[7] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers of the first generation: SILIFACE-Process, in:
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Geopolymer, vol. 88,
1988, p. 4967.
[8] B. Tempest, O. Sanusi, J. Gergely, V. Ogunro, D. Weggel, Compressive strength
and embodied energy optimization of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, in:
World of Coal Ash WOCA Conference, 2009.
[9] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry & Application, Institute Gopolymr, 16
rule Galilee. F-02100 Saint-Quentin, France, 2008.
[10] J.L. Provis (Ed.), Alkali Activated Materials, Springer, 2014.
[11] I.G. Richardson, A.R. Brough, G.W. Groves, C.M. Dobson, The characterization of
hardened alkali-activated blast-furnace slag pastes and the nature of the
calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) phase, Cem. Concr. Res. 24 (5) (1994) 813829.
[12] J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, J.S. van Deventer, Do geopolymers actually contain
nanocrystalline zeolites? A reexamination of existing results, Chem. Mater. 17
(12) (2005) 30753085.
[13] A. Palomo, F.P. Glasser, Chemically-bonded cementitious materials based on
metakaolin, Brit. Ceram. Trans. J. 91 (4) (1992) 107112.
[14] S.A. Bernal, E.D. Rodriguez, R.M. de Gutirrez, M. Gordillo, J.L. Provis,
Mechanical and thermal characterisation of geopolymers based on silicate-
activated metakaolin/slag blends, J. Mater. Sci. 46 (16) (2011) 54775486.
[15] C.K. Yip, G.C. Lukey, J.S.J. Van Deventer, The coexistence of geopolymeric gel
and calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation, Cem.
Concr. Res. 35 (9) (2005) 16881697.
[16] I. Garca-Lodeiro, A. Palomo, A. Fernndez-Jimnez, Alkaliaggregate reaction
in activated fly ash systems, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (2) (2007) 175183.
[17] N. Van Chanh, B.D. Trung, D. Van Tuan, Recent research geopolymer concrete,
in: The 3rd ACF International Conference-ACF/VCA, Vietnam, 2008, pp. 1113.
[18] P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat, V. Sirivivatnanon, Workability and strength of
coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Cement Concr. Compos. 29 (3) (2007)
224229.
[19] A. Sathonsaowaphak, P. Chindaprasirt, K. Pimraksa, Workability and strength of
lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar, J. Hazard. Mater. 168 (1) (2009) 4450.
[20] V.F. Barbosa, K.J. MacKenzie, C. Thaumaturgo, Synthesis and characterisation
of materials based on inorganic polymers of alumina and silica: sodium
polysialate polymers, Int. J. Inorg. Mater. 2 (4) (2000) 309317.
[21] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, B.V. Rangan, Research into engineering properties of
geopolymer concrete, in: International Conference Geopolymer 2002Turn
Potential to Profit, Melbourne, Australia, 2002.
[22] D. Wang, W. Zhou, H. Lu, L. Wang, Effect of activator and curing mode on fly
ash-based geopolymers, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol.-Mater. Sci. Ed. 24 (5) (2009)
711715.
[23] Z. Li, S. Liu, Influence of slag as additive on compressive strength of fly ash-
based geopolymer, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (6) (2007) 470474.
[24] D.L. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, Factors affecting the performance of
metakaolin geopolymers exposed to elevated temperatures, J. Mater. Sci. 43
(3) (2008) 824831.
[25] D.L. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer paste,
mortar and concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2) (2010) 334339.
[26] D.B. Raijiwala, H.S. Patil, Geopolymer concrete: a concrete of the next decade,
Concr. Solutions 2011 (2011) 1925.
[27] A.M. Al Bakri, H. Kamarudin, M. Bnhussain, I.K. Nizar, A.R. Rafiza, Y. Zarina, The
processing, characterization, and properties of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci 30 (2012) 9097.
[28] P. Chindaprasirt, C. Jaturapitakkul, W. Chalee, U. Rattanasak, Comparative
study on the characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash geopolymers, Waste
Manage. 29 (2) (2009) 539543.
[29] R. Sathia, K.G. Babu, M. Santhanam, Durability study of low calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete., in: In Proceedings of the 3rd ACF International
Conference-ACF/VCA, 2008.
[30] M. Al Bakri, A. Mohd, H. Kamarudin, O.A. Abdulkareem, R. Ghazali, C. Mohd, A.
R. Rafiza, M.N. Norazian, Optimization of alkaline activator/fly ash ratio on the
compressive strength of manufacturing fly ash-based geopolymer, Applied
Mechanics and Materials, vol. 110, 2012, pp. 734739.
[31] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Castro-Gomes, S. Jalali, Alkali-activated binders: a review.
Part 2. About materials and binders manufacture, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (7)
(2008) 13151322.