Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Lightweight geopolymer concrete containing aggregate from recycle

lightweight block
Patcharapol Posi a, Chaiyapong Teerachanwit a, Chatchai Tanutong a, Suttikait Limkamoltip a,
Surasit Lertnimoolchai b, Vanchai Sata a, Prinya Chindaprasirt a,⇑
a
Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
b
Concrete Precision Unit, Udornthani 41000, Thailand

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

Article history: In this research, the properties of lightweight geopolymer concrete containing aggregate from recycle
Received 10 April 2013 lightweight block were studied. The recycle block was crushed and classified as fine, medium and coarse
Accepted 2 June 2013 aggregates. The compressive strength and density with various liquid alkaline/ash ratios, sodium silicate/
Available online 15 June 2013
NaOH ratios, NaOH concentrations, aggregate/ash ratios and curing temperatures were tested. In addi-
tion, porosity, water absorption, and modulus of elasticity were determined. Results showed that the
Keywords: lightweight geopolymer blocks with satisfactory strength and density could be made. The 28-day com-
Lightweight geopolymer concrete
pressive strength of 1.0–16.0 MPa, density of 860–1400 kg/m3, water absorption of 10–31% and porosity
Lightweight aggregate
Recycle block
of 12–34%, and modulus of elasticity of 2.9–9.9 GPa were obtained. It can be used as lightweight geopoly-
Compressive strength mer concrete for wall and partition.
Density Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The manufacturing of Portland cement results in the release of a

The construction of building and structures in Thailand and
many countries relies heavily on the Portland cement products.
The structural members are usually made of reinforced concrete.
The walls and panels are also Portland cement based products.
The problems of the size and weight of reinforced concrete mem-
bers and wall panels are of great concern [1]. In order to reduce
the weight, lightweight structural concrete and normal lightweight
concrete in the form of lightweight concrete block or wall using
cast-in-place lightweight concrete have been developed. The pur-
pose is to reduce the dead load of structure which also results in
smaller and lighter structures and reduced cost of construction.
Lightweight concrete made with natural or artificial lightweight
aggregates are available in many parts of the world. It can be used
in producing concrete in a wide range of unit weights and suitable
strengths for various applications including internal and external
walls, inner leaves of roof decks and floors [2,3]. The production
of lightweight aggregate concrete has been expanding, and now in-
cludes all types of no-fines concrete of low density of 300–1200 kg/
m3 for block production and of medium density of 1000–2000 kg/
m3 for structural concrete. The production of all types of concrete
is normally based on the availability of lightweight aggregate, and
cost dictates the use of lightweight aggregate concrete in place of
normal-weight concrete [2].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 8 1871 9588.
E-mail address: prinya@kku.ac.th (P. Chindaprasirt).
large amount of carbondioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. Up to
13,500 tons per year or accounted to 7% of the green house gas pro-
duced annually [4]. Therefore, the other form of cementitious
materials termed geopolymer was developed. It is made from
starting materials containing silicon and aluminum which are acti-
vated in a high alkali solution. The starting material is usually
based on class F fly ash and sometime called alkali-activated fly
ash cement [5–9]. High calcium fly ash (class F) is also suitable
for use as source materials [10,11].
The use of lightweight concrete block is increasing and its waste
also increases from the damage of blocks from manufacturing,
transportation and handling. The increased used especially for
the housing industries also indicate the amount of lightweight
block to be recycled.
This research aims to study the properties of lightweight geo-
polymer concrete made of lightweight aggregate from recycle
block. The knowledge would be beneficial to future applications
of the materials and construction industry.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
Materials used in this research consisted of lignite fly ash from
Mae Moh power station in the north of Thailand, sodium silicate
with 15.32% Na2O, 32.87% SiO2, and 51.8% water, and sodium

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.001
 P. Posi et al. / Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586 581

2.3. Details of mixing

NaOH solution and fly ash were firstly mixed for 5 min in a pan
mixer. Sodium silicate solution was then added and mixing was
done for another 5 min until the mixture was uniform. The aggre-
gate was added next and mixing was done for 1.5 min. The fresh
lightweight geopolymer concretes were placed into 50 mm cube
molds in accordance with ASTM:C109, into 100 mm cube molds,
and 150  300 mm cylindrical molds in accordance with
ASTM:C39. The specimens were covered damp cloth and plastic
sheet to prevent moisture loss and placed in a 25 °C controlled
Fig. 1. Coarse, medium and fine recycle aggregates.
room for 1 h [10]. The specimens were then transferred to oven
curing for 48 h. Finally, the specimens were demolded and
wrapped again with plastic sheet and stored in a 25 °C controlled
Table 1
room.
Physical properties of materials.

Materials Fly ash FA MA CA 2.4. Details of test

Specific gravity 2.52 2.61 1.96 1.42
Median particle size (lm) 18.6 – – – 2.4.1. Density and compressive strength
Particle size (mm) – 0.001–1.18 1.18–4.75 4.75–12.5
The density was determined at the ages of 28 days using the
Fineness modulus – 1.75 3.90 5.74
Density (kg/m3) – 720 390 360 compressive strength specimens as described in ASTM:C138. The
Water absorption (%) – 56 68 76 density was measured. After the density determination, the cube
specimens were tested to determine the compressive strength in
accordance with ASTM:C109. The reported density and compres-
hydroxide (NaOH) of three concentrations of 5, 10, and 15 M and sive strengths were the average of three samples.
recycle lightweight block (RLB). RLBs were crushed and classified
as fine aggregate (FA), medium aggregate (MA) and coarse aggre- 2.4.2. Water absorption and porosity
gate (CA) with particle sizes ranging between 0.001 and 1.18, The cube specimens of series E were tested for porosity and
1.18–4.75, 4.75–12.5 mm, respectively as shown in Fig 1. Chemical water absorption at the age of 28 days in accordance with
compositions of fly ash were determined using X-ray fluorescence ASTM:C642. The porosity was calculated using Eq. (1) and the
(XRF) are shown in Table 2 and its X-ray diffraction (XRD) is shown water absorption was calculated using Eq. (2).
in Fig. 2. The fly ash consisted of a high content of 45.23% SiO2, Porosityð%Þ ¼ ðC  AÞ=ðC  DÞ ð1Þ
19.94% Al2O3, 13.15% Fe2O3, and 15.5% Ca0 with the loss on ignition
(LOI) 0.87%. It was, therefore, a class F in accordance which Absorptionð%Þ ¼ ½ðB  AÞ=A  100 ð2Þ
ASTM:C618. The XRD analysis showed mainly amorphous phase
with the peaks of crystals of magnetite, magnesioferrite, dachiar- where A is the mass of oven – dry sample in air (g), B is mass of sur-
dite, and calcium aluminum oxide. The physical properties of face – dry sample in air after immersion (g), C is mass of surface –
materials are shown in Table 1. The fly ash was 48% retained on dry sample in air after immersion and boiling (g), and D is apparent
sieve No. 325 (45 lm) with mean particle sized of 18.6 lm and mass of sample in water after immersion and boiling (g)
Blaine finenesses of 2409 cm2/g. It consists of mainly spherical par-
ticles with smooth surface as shown in Fig. 3. 2.4.3. Modulus of elasticity
The cylinder specimens of series E were tested for the chord
modulus at the age of 28 days in accordance with ASTM:C469.
2.2. Mix proportion The reported results were the average of two samples.

2.2.1. Aggregate gradation

To study the effect of aggregate gradation, the FA and MA por-
tions were varied and the CA portion was kept constant at 30%. The
effect of the change in the small aggregate portion is larger than
that of the large portion [12]. A total of three aggregate gradations
with FA:MA:CA ratios of 0:70:30 (0F), 30:40:30 (30F), and 70:0:30
(70F) were used.
2.2.2. Mix compositions
Five series of mixes were used to test the effects of liquid alka-
line/ash ratios (series A), sodium silicate/NaOH ratios (series B),
concentration of NaOH (series C), temperature of curing (series
D), and aggregate/ash ratios (series E). The details of mixes are
shown in Table 3.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Compressive strength and density
3.1.1. Liquid alkaline/ash ratio
The results of compressive strength of lightweight geopolymer
concrete series A with varies liquid alkaline/ash ratios are shown
in Fig. 4a. The optimum compressive strength was at L/A ratio of
2.4. At low L/A ratios of 2.0 and 2.2, the mix was difficult to mix
and compact due to the low liquid content [13]. The increase in
the L/A ratio at this range increased the compressive strength of
the geopolymer. However, when the L/A ratio increased from 2.4
to 2.8, the compressive strength decreased due to the excess liquid
and bleeding in a similar manner to Portland cement concrete [14–

Table 2
Chemical composition of materials (by weight).

Chemical compositions (%) SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO K2O TiO2 Na2O P2O5 MgO LOI
Fly ash 45.23 19.95 13.15 15.50 2.15 0.39 0.52 0.81 2.02 0.88
582 P. Posi et al. / Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586

14
0F 30F 70F

Compressive strength (MPa)

12

10

0
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Fig. 2. XRD patterns of fly ash. A-magnetite: Fe3O4; C-magnesioferrite: Fe2MgO4; D-
Liquid alkaline/ash ratios
dachiardite: Na1.1K.7Ca1.7Al5.2Si18.8O48 (H2O)12.7; N-calcium aluminum oxide:
CaAl2O4. (a) Compressive strength
1600
0F 30F 70F

1200

Density (kg/m3)
800

400

0
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Liquid alkline/ash ratios
(b) Density
Fig. 4. Compressive strength and density at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer
Fig. 3. SEM of fly ash. concrete series A at various L/A ratios.

geopolymer concretes with L/A ratios of 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, and 2.8,
Table 3 and with 30F aggregate were 1099, 1131, 1252, 1237, and
Weight ratios of geopolymer lightweight concrete mixes. 1389 kg/m3, respectively. The increase was due to the reduced
Series L/A ratio NS/NaOH ratio NaOH Temp. of Aggregate/ ash which was low in density.
(M) curing (°C) ash ratio Similarly, the density also increased with the increasing amount
A 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 1.0 10 60 2.2 of FA. The densities of 0F, 30F, and 70F mixes with L/A ratio of 2.2
2.6, 2.8 were 948, 1132, and 1336 kg/m3, respectively. The density of FA
B 2.2 0.33, 0.67, 1.00, 10 60 2.2 was high at 720 kg/m3 compared with the lower values of MA
1.50, 3.00
and CA of 390 and 360 kg/m3, respectively (Table 1) and thus the
C 2.2 1.0 5, 10, 60 2.2
15 use of a higher amount of FA resulted in geopolymer with higher
D 2.2 1.0 10 25, 40, 60 2.2 density.
E 2.2 1.0 10 60 2.0, 2.2, 2.4,
2.6
3.1.2. Sodium silicate/NaOH ratio
The effects of compressive strength of lightweight geopolymer
concrete with varies NS/NaOH ratios are shown in Fig. 5a. The com-
16]. For example, the 28-day compressive strengths of 70F series A pressive strength increased with the increasing of NS/NaOH ratios.
mixes with L/A ratios of 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, and 2.8 were 7.0, 11.0, Similar increases in strength were reported with NS/NaOH ratio up
12.7, 6.2, and 4.8 MPa, respectively. to 1.50, however, the increased in NS/NaOH ratio beyond this value
With regards to aggregate sizes, the compressive strengths of resulted in a reduction in strength due to difficulties in compaction
mixes with the high amount of FA were higher than those with of the mixes as the mix was too stiff with the low liquid/ash ratio of
the low amount of FA. For example, the 28-day compressive 0.6 [13]. For this study, the strength increased even with the NS/
strengths of L/A ratio of 2.2 mixes with 0F, 30F, and 70F aggregates NaOH ratio of 3.0. The increase in strength at this NS/NaOH ratio
were 2.0, 4.4, and 11.0 MPa, respectively. The use of FA aggregate was possible as a result of high liquid/ash ratio of 2.2 which made
with high surface area resulted in the better bonding of matrix the mix workable and compactable. For example, the 28-day com-
and aggregate than that of CA and led to an increase in strength pressive strength of samples with NS/NaOH ratios of 0.33, 0.67,
[17]. For the density, the results of lightweight geopolymer con- 1.00, 1.50, and 3.00 were 7.6, 9.7, 10.5, 12.9, and 15.4 MPa, respec-
crete with various L/A ratios are shown in Fig. 4b. The increased tively. The NS/NaOH ratios also affected the pH conditions and the
in L/A ratios resulted in lightweight geopolymer concrete with a strength development of geopolymer [10]. The densities of light-
slightly increase in density. For example, the density of lightweight weight geopolymer concrete with various NS/NaOH ratios were
 P. Posi et al. / Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586 583

18 12
0F 30F 70F 0F 30F 70F
16

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

10
14
12 8
10
6
8
6 4
4
2
2
0 0
0.33 0.67 1.00 1.50 3.00 5 10 15
Sodium siligate/NaOH ratios Concentration of NaOH
(a) Compressive strength (a) Compressive strength
1600 1600
0F 30F 70F 0F 30F 70F

1200 1200
Density (kg/m3)

Density (kg/m3)
800 800

400 400

0 0
0.33 0.67 1.00 1.50 3.00 5 10 15
Liquid alkline/ash ratios Concentration of NaOH
(b) Density (b) Density
Fig. 5. Compressive strength and density at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer Fig. 6. Compressive strength and density at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer
concrete series B at various NS/NaOH ratios. concrete series C at various concentrations of NaOH solution.

not very different as shown in Fig. 5b. This was due to the amount
of liquid in the mixes was the same and the change in the liquid
density was small.
3.1.3. Concentration of NaOH solution
The results of the compressive strength of lightweight geopoly-
mer concrete with various concentrations of NaOH solution are
shown in Fig. 6a. The optimum concentration of NaOH solution
was 10 M and the maximum strength of 10.5 MPa was obtained.
An increased the concentration of NaOH solution from 5 M to
10 M resulted in the increasing compressive strength. However,
an increased the concentration of NaOH solution from 10 to 15 M
resulted in a decrease in the compressive strength. At high concen-
tration of NaOH, excessive hydroxide ions caused aluminosilicate
gel precipitation at the very early stages. Consequently, compres-
sive strength of geopolymer were lower [18–20]. For example,
the 28-day compressive strength of 70F mixes with concentration
of NaOH solution of 5, 10, and 15 M were 9.2, 10.5, and 4.7 MPa,
respectively.
The densities of lightweight geopolymer concretes with various
concentrations of NaOH solution were similar as shown in Fig. 6b.
The densities were not affected by the concentrations of NaOH
solution as the densities of the liquid in the mixes were similar
with various concentrations of NaOH solution.
3.1.4. Temperature of curing
The results of compressive strength of lightweight geopolymer
concrete with various temperatures of curing are shown in
Fig. 7a. The compressive strength increased with the increasing
temperature of curing. For example, the 28-day compressive
strength of 70F mixes with temperature of curing of 25, 40, and
60 °C were 6.6, 9.4, and 10.5 MPa, respectively. The increase in
temperature of curing to 60 °C enhanced the geopolymerization
and increased the strength of geopolymer [10,21–23]. The results
of densities of lightweight geopolymer concrete with various tem-
peratures of curing are shown in Fig. 7b. The densities of light-
weight concrete, however, decreased with the increase in
temperature of curing due to the increased geopolymerization
and the loss of moisture from the sample [8]. For example, the
28-day densities of 0F mixes with temperatures of curing of 25,
40, and 60 °C were 984, 975, and 861 kg/m3, respectively.
3.1.5. Aggregate/ash ratio
The results of compressive strength of lightweight geopolymer
concrete with various aggregate/ash ratios are shown in Fig. 8a.
The compressive strength significantly decreased with the increas-
ing aggregate/ash ratios. For example, the 28-day compressive
strength of 70F mixes with aggregate/ash ratios of 2.0, 2.2, 2.4,
and 2.6 were 13.5, 10.5, 7.5, and 4.9 MPa, respectively. The light-
weight aggregate is normally weaker than the geopolymer matrix
and its increased amount reduced the strength of lightweight con-
crete [24–26]. The results of densities of lightweight geopolymer
concrete with various aggregate/ash ratios are shown in Fig. 8b.
The increasing the amount of lightweight aggregate resulted in
density reductions due to the lighter weight aggregate. When
lightweight aggregate was inserted into the matrices, the porosi-
ties of concrete increased and densities decreased [27]. For exam-
ple, the 28-day densities of 30F mix with aggregate/ash ratios of
2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 were 1219, 1131, 1090, and 1037 kg/m3,
respectively.
584 P. Posi et al. / Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586

12 16
0F 30F 70F 0F 30F 70F
14

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

10
12
8
10

6 8

6
4
4
2
2

0 0
25 40 60 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Temp of curing (°C) Aggregate/ash ratios
(a) Compressive strength (a) Compressive strength
1600 1600
0F 30F 70F 0F 30F 70F

1200 1200

Density (kg/m3)
Density (kg/m3)

800 800

400 400

0 0
25 40 60 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Temp of curing (°C) Aggregate/ash ratios
(b) Density (b) Density
Fig. 7. Compressive strength and density at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer Fig. 8. Compressive strength and density at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer
concrete series D at various temperatures of curing. concrete series E at various aggregate/ash ratios.

3.2. Water absorption and porosity

35
0F 30F 70F
The result of water absorption of lightweight geopolymer con- 30
crete with various aggregate/ash ratios are shown in Fig. 9. The
Water absorption (%)

water absorption slightly increased with the increase in the 25

amount of aggregate/ash ratios. For example, the water absorption
at 28 day of 0F mixes with aggregate/ash ratios of 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 20
2.6 were 30.13%, 30.70%, 31.40%, and 32.15%, respectively. The re-
15
sults of porosity were similar to those of water absorption as
shown in Fig. 10. The porosity values increased with the increasing 10
aggregate/ash ratios.
With regard to amount of fine aggregate, the water absorption 5
decreased with the increasing amount of fine aggregate. This was
0
due to the fine aggregate filled the voids in the matrices and thus 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
reduced the porosity. This also resulted in a low water absorption Aggregate/ash ratios
concrete [12].
Fig. 9. Water absorption at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer concrete.

3.3. Modulus of elasticity

The results of modulus of elasticity of lightweight geopolymer
concrete with various aggregate/ash ratios are shown in Fig. 11.
The modulus of elasticity of lightweight concrete showed a similar
pattern to those of strength with various aggregate/ash ratios. The
optimum density was at aggregate/ash ratio of 2.2 whereas the
optimum strength was at a slightly higher aggregate/ash ratio of
2.4. The initial increase in the volume of lightweight aggregate de-
creased the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
[12,25,28]. For example, the modulii of elasticity of 70F mixes of
aggregate/ash ratios of 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 were 7.0, 9.9, 9.2,
and 4.5 GPa, respectively. The increase in amount of fine aggregate
also resulted in the increase in modulus of elasticity due to the
small aggregates filled the pore in matrices which made the con-
crete more compact and stronger than that with large aggregate.
3.4. Relationship of compressive strength, density, and modulus of
elasticity
The relationships between compressive strength and density of
lightweight concrete with various aggregate/ash ratios were pre-
sented by Eq. (3) and shown Fig. 12. The compressive strength in-
 P. Posi et al. / Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586 585

40 60
0F 30F 70F 0F 30F 70F
35

Modulus of elasticity (GPa)

50
30
40
Porosity (%)

25

20 30
ACI 318 , E = 4.73fc' 0.5
15 20 E = 1.1673fc' 0.8673
2
10 R = 0.673
10
5

0 0
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Aggregate/ash ratios fc' 0.5 (MPa)

Fig. 10. Porosity at 28 days of lightweight geopolymer concrete. Fig. 13. Relationship of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of
lightweight geopolymer concrete.

12 stantially lower than that of ACI 318 for normal concrete [12,16].
0F 30F 70F The trends of the relationship of the modulus of elasticity and
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

10 the square root of compressive strength were similar. The results

showed the same trend as that of other research [29].
8
E ¼ 1:1673fc00:8673 ð4Þ
6
where E is modulus of elasticity (GPa) and fc0 is compressive
strength (MPa).
4

2 4. Conclusion

0 Based on the obtained data, the following conclusion can be

2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 draw.
Aggregate/ash ratios

Fig. 11. Modulus of elasticity at 28 days of lightweight concrete.

(1) The recycle lightweight block (RLC) could be used as light-
weight aggregate for making lightweight geopolymer con-
crete. The compressive strength increased with the
increasing NS/NaOH ratio and temperature of curing but
16 decreased with the increasing aggregate/ash ratio. The opti-
0F 30F 70F
Compressive strength (MPa)

14 mum L/A ratio was 2.4 and NaOH concentration was 10 M

12 for maximum compressive strength.
fc' = 0.3326e 0.0043w (2) The density of lightweight geopolymer concrete increased
10
R2 = 0.981 with the increasing L/A ratio and decreased with the increas-
8 ing temperature of curing and aggregate/ash ratio. In addi-
6 tion, NS/NaOH ratio and concentration of NaOH did not
have a significant effect on the density of lightweight geo-
4
polymer concrete.
2 (3) The aggregate/ash ratios had significant effect on the proper-
0 ties of lightweight geopolymer concrete. The increase in the
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
aggregate portion increased the water adsorption capacity
Density (kg/m3) and the porosity of the geopolymer block. The increase in
Fig. 12. Relationship of compressive strength and density of lightweight geopoly- aggregate/ash ratio also increased with compressive
mer concrete. strength, density, and modulus of elasticity of the
geopolymers.
creased with the increasing density of lightweight geopolymer (4) The results showed that the lightweight geopolymer con-
concrete [11]. crete with 28-day compressive strength of 1.0–16.0 MPa
and density of 860–1400 kg/m3 could be made. It can be
fc0 ¼ 0:3326e0:0043w ð3Þ
used as lightweight geopolymer concrete for masonry wall
where fc0
is compressive strength of lightweight geopolymer con- and partitions.
crete (MPa) and w is density of lightweight geopolymer concrete
(kg/m3).
The relationship between modulus of elasticity and compres- Acknowledgement
sive strength of lightweight geopolymer concrete is shown in
Fig. 13. The modulus of elasticity tended to increase linearly to This work was supported by the Higher Education Research
the square root of compressive strength. The relationship could Promotion and National Research University Project of Thailand,
be predicted in the form shown in Eq. (4). The results indicated Office of the Higher Education Commission, through the Advanced
the modulus of elasticity between 2.9 and 9.9 GPa which is sub- Functional Materials Cluster of Khon Kaen University AFM-2553-
586 P. Posi et al. / Materials and Design 52 (2013) 580–586
Ph.d-01, and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under the TRF Se-
nior Research Scholar, Grant No. RTA5480004.
References
[1] Nadim Hassoum M. Structural concrete, theory and design. Upper Sandle River,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc; 2002.
[2] Chandra SBL. Lightweight aggregate concrete: science, technology and
application. Norwich, New York, USA: William Andrew Publishing; 2002.
_
[3] Ilker Bekir T. Semi lightweight concretes produced by volcanic slags. Cem
Concr Res 1997;27:15–21.
[4] Malhotra VM. Introduction: sustainable development and concrete
technology. Concr Int 2002;24:22.
[5] Palomo A, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT. Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for
the future. Cem Concr Res 1999;29:1323–9.
[6] Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. On the development of fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2004;101:467–72.
[7] Swanepoel JC, Strydom CA. Utilisation of fly ash in a geopolymeric material.
Appl Geochem 2002;17:1143–8.
[8] Bakharev T. Geopolymeric materials prepared using class F fly ash and elevated
temperature curing. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:1224–32.
[9] Fernández-Jiménez A, Palomo A, Criado M. Microstructure development of
alkali-activated fly ash cement: a descriptive model. Cem Concr Res
2005;35:1204–9.
[10] Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, Sirivivatnanon V. Workability and strength of
coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29:224–9.
[11] Tho-in T, Sata V, Chindaprasirt P, Jaturapitakkul C. Previous high-calcium fly
ash geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2012;30:366–71.
[12] Ünal O, Uygunoğlu T, Yildiz A. Investigation of properties of low-strength
lightweight concrete for thermal insulation. Build Environ 2007;42:584–90.
[13] Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K. Workability and strength of
lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. J Hazard Mater 2009;168:44–50.
[14] Rols S, Ambroise J, Péra J. Effects of different viscosity agents on the properties
of self-leveling concrete. Cem Concr Res 1999;29:261–6.
[15] Kharita MH, Yousef S, AlNassar M. The effect of the initial water to cement
ratio on shielding properties of ordinary concrete. Prog Nucl Energy
2010;52:491–3.
[16] Wongpa J, Kiattikomol K, Jaturapitakkul C, Chindaprasirt P. Compressive
strength, modulus of elasticity, and water permeability of inorganic polymer
concrete. Mater Des 2010;31:4748–54.
[17] Husem M. The effects of bond strengths between lightweight and ordinary
aggregate–mortar, aggregate–cement paste on the mechanical properties of
concrete. Mater Sci Eng, A 2003;363:152–8.
[18] Somna K, Jaturapitakkul C, Kajitvichyanukul P, Chindaprasirt P. NaOH-
activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel
2011;90:2118–24.
[19] Lee WKW, van Deventer JSJ. The effects of inorganic salt contamination on the
strength and durability of geopolymers. Colloids Surface A 2002;211:115–26.
[20] Pimraksa K, Chindaprasirt P, Rungchet A, Sagoe-Crentsil K, Sato T. Lightweight
geopolymer made of highly porous siliceous materials with various Na2O/
Al2O3 and SiO2/Al2O3 ratios. Mater Sci Eng, A 2011;528:6616–23.
[21] Lee S, Seo M-D, Kim Y-J, Park H-H, Kim T-N, Hwang Y, et al. Unburned carbon
removal effect on compressive strength development in a honeycomb
briquette ash-based geopolymer. Int J Miner Process 2010;97:20–5.
[22] Joseph B, Mathew G. Influence of aggregate content on the behavior of fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Scien Iranica 2012;19:1188–94.
[23] Olivia M, Nikraz H. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
Taguchi method. Mater Des 2012;36:191–8.
[24] Xu Y, Jiang L, Xu J, Li Y. Mechanical properties of expanded polystyrene
lightweight aggregate concrete and brick. Constr Build Mater 2012;27:32–8.
[25] Yang C-C, Huang R. Approximate strength of lightweight aggregate using
micromechanics method. Adv Cem Mater 1998;7:133–8.
[26] Kockal NU, Ozturan T. Strength and elastic properties of structural lightweight
concretes. Mater Des 2011;32:2396–403.
[27] Al-Jabri KS, Hago AW, Al-Nuaimi AS, Al-Saidy AH. Concrete blocks for thermal
insulation in hot climate. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:1472–9.
[28] Cui HZ, Lo TY, Memon SA, Xing F, Shi X. Analytical model for compressive
strength, elastic modulus and peak strain of structural lightweight aggregate
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2012;36:1036–43.
[29] Chindaprasirt P. Influence of load history on the properties of concrete. PhD
thesis, The University of New South Wales; 1980.