GEOPOLYMER

The term geopolymer was firstly applied to describe a family of alkaline Aluminosilicate binders formed by the alkali activation of

alumino silicate minerals.

Geopolymer technology was introduced by Prof: Joseph Davidovits in 1978.

The formation of geopolymeric materials is the result of a complicated heterogeneous chemical reaction occurring between Al-Si materials and strongly alkaline silicate solutions.

Constituents of Geopolymer Concrete

Source materials

Materials which are rich in aluminum and silica can be used as source material.

Ex: Fly ash, GGBS, Silica fumes, Rice husk ash etc..

Alkaline liquids
The most commonly used alkaline liquids are combinations of sodium

hydroxide with sodium silicate or potassium hydroxide with potassium silicate.

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

The oxides of silicon and aluminium present

in the source

material reacts with alkaline liquids to form Geopolymer paste

which binds the coarse and fine aggregate to form Geopolymer

concrete.

In present experimental work, Geopolymer concrete prepared by using fly ash and GGBS as source material

Alkaline solution prepared by using Sodium hydroxide flakes and sodium silicate solution (14M).

GEOPOLYMERIZATION

Geopolymerization can transfer large scale alumino-silicate wastes into valueadded geopolymeric products with sound mechanical strength and high acid, fire and bacterial resistance

General Properties of Geopolymer concrete

The average density of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete is similar to that of OPC concrete.(Hardjito & Rangan B.V.)

The slump increases with increase in water content (Hardjito &

Rangan B.V.) Higher the mixing time (up to 20 minutes) higher would be the compressive strength. (Hardjito and Rangan.B.V) The effective curing period of 24hours with temperature of 60C

produces higher compressive strength of geopolymer concrete. The

temperature beyond the 60 C wouldn't find any significant increase in strength. (Hardjito & Rangan B.V.)

 Alkali-activated fly ash mortars, regardless of the type of activator

used, are generally more durable than OPC mortars (P. Chindaprasirt; T. Chareerat; S. Hatanaka; and T. CaoIn)
The optimal temperature duration of curing at 65C for GPC was 20

hours beyond which the strength increase was marginal. (Ranganath, R.V., and Mohammed Saleh)
The ratio of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution

was varied from 0.5 to 4.5. The maximum strength was obtained

when the ratio was 2.5 at one, three and seven days. (Ranganath, R.V.,
and Mohammed Saleh)

Structural properties of Geopolymer concrete

The Poissons ratio of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with

compressive strength in the range of 20 to 35 MPa falls between 0.12 and 0.25. These values are similar to those of OPC concrete. (Uma.K, Anuradha.R and Venkatasubramani.R )
The indirect tensile strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete is a

fraction of the compressive strength, as in the case of Portland cement concrete. (M. D.J. Sumajouw and B. V. Rangan)
As the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio increased, the flexural

capacity of the beams increased significantly. (Sumajouw &

Rangan.B.V).
The flexural property and crack pattern is similar to portland cement

concrete (Sumajouw & Rangan.B.V).

 The crack patterns and failure modes observed for RGPC beams

were found to be similar to the RPCC beams. The total number of the flexural cracks developed was almost same for all the beams. (Dattatreya, Rajamane, Sabitha, Ambily, and M.C. Nataraja)
The crack widths, crack spacing and no. of cracks were comparable

for both RPCC and RGPC beams. (Dattatreya, Rajamane, Sabitha,

Ambily, and M.C. Nataraja)

The measured deflections of beams and the predicted deflections

using ANSYS 12.0 show fair agreement. (Uma.K, Anuradha.R and Venkatasubramani.R )

AIM OF THE RESEARCH

The present study deals with the preparation of geopolymer concrete using fly ash and GGBS.

To study the influence of binder content on compressive strength,

density & workability of GPC.

To study the optimum usage of GGBS along with fly ash to develop GPC

To determine the compressive strength of GPC cubes and selecting the

value of optimum fck

Based on the above results the study was conducted on reinforced geopolymer concrete beam for the optimum mix.

OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

Casting of geopolymer concrete cubes, cylinders and prisms for the optimum value of fck Testing for compressive strength, split tensile strength &flexural strength from cubes, cylinders and prisms specimens. Casting of six simply supported RGPC beams for the optimum value with longitudinal tensile reinforcement as the variable.

To study the flexural behaviour, crack patterns, surface strain measurement and load deflection behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams under two point loading.

Materials required for developing GPC

Fly ash

GGBS
Coarse aggregate

Fine aggregate
Sodium hydroxide Sodium silicate Super plasticizer

Physical and chemical properties of fly ash

Class F fly ash is used in this experiment is brought from RTPS Karnataka.
Sl No 1 Description Values Physical property Specific gravity Fineness (Blains air permeability) m2/Kg 2.10 -----------Requirement as per 3812:2003

480

320

Chemical properties 3 4 5 SiO2 (% by mass) ) (Minimum) SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 (% by mass) (Minimum) 61.98 94.24 0.79 35 70 5

Mg O (% by mass) (Maximum)
Total sulphur as sulphur trioxide SO3 (% by mass) (Maximum) LOI (% by mass) (Maximum)

6
7

0.14
0.31

3
5

Physical and chemical composition of GGBS

GGBS used for the experimental work is brought from RMC plant of ultratech in Bangalore.

Sl No

Description Physical Composition

Values

Sl No 1

Description

Values

Chemical Composition
SiO2 (silicon dioxide) Al2O3 (Aluminum oxide) CaO (Calcium oxide) Mg O (Magnesium oxide) 33.78% 17.08% 39.87% 7.10% 2.10 480 2.9 % 2 3 4

1 2 3

Specific gravity Fineness (Blains air permeability) m2/Kg Wet sieve analysis % retained on (45)

Coarse aggregate

The locally available crushed granite of 20mm down size was used as the coarse aggregate.

Specific gravity of coarse aggregate = 2.64

Water absorption = 0.27 %

Fine aggregate

Locally available clean river sand was used as fine aggregate Fineness modules of fine aggregate = 3.07

Specific gravity = 2.62

Fine aggregate test confirm to Zone-II as per IS :383-1970

Sodium hydroxide

For this experiment sodium hydroxide is used in the form of flakes.

Sodium silicate

Commercially

available sodium silicate was

used for

the

experimental work with water content of 39.42% gravity of 1.61.

and specific

Super plasticizer

Conplast SP 430 (FOSROC chemicals)

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE MIX DESIGN PARAMETERS

Wet density of geopolymer concrete- 2400 Kg/m3

Sodium silicate/ Sodium hydroxide- 2.5

Total water content- 140 Kg/m3

Water content in Sodium silicate- 39.42 %

Sodium hydroxide used- 14 Molar Amount of binder used- 23 to 29% Proportion of Coarse to fine aggregate =56%: 44%

Percentage variation of Fly ash and GGBS in the total binder content
DESIGN PARAMETERS The wet density of geopolymer concrete Ratio of Sodium silicate to Sodium Hydroxide solution VALUE 2400 2.5 UNIT Kg/m3 Constant Exp.. work Constant Constant Constant Constant Variable Variable Variable Constant Constant Constant Constant

The water content Chosen for Mix

The water content in Sodium silicate Amount of Binder used (Fly ash & GGBS) Fly ash percentage GGBS percentage Coarse aggregate percentage Fine aggregate percentage Molarity of prepared Alkaline solution Dosage of super plasticizer

140
39.42% 23% to 29% 100% to 70% 0% to 30% 56% 44% 14M 2%

Litres
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Molarity Percentage

Total

water content - 140 lit/m3

MIX DESIGN OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

29% Binder is used Binder Content = 2098.26*0.29= 608.49 kg/m3 For 75% of Fly ash =0.75* 608.49 =456.37 kg/m3 For 25% of GGBS=0.25* 608.49 =152.12 kg/m3 The proportion of coarse aggregate to fine aggregate based on least void content Therefore Coarse aggregate = 0.56*1490= 834.4 kg/m3 Fine aggregate = 0.44*1490 = 655.6 kg/m3 And also 2% of super plasticizer (Conplast SP 430) was used The final proportions for one cubic meter of Geopolymer concrete
Particulars Kg/m3 Ratio Fly ash 456.38 1 GGBS 152.12 0.33 C.A 834.4 1.83 F.A 655.6 1.44 NaoH 86.21 0.19 Na2Sio3 215.53 2% 0.47 153 Super plasticizer dosage Dosage ml

Mix proportions
Total Binder content Kg/m3

Proportion of Binder
Fly ash 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Fly ash
Kg/m3 482.6 458.47 434.34 410.21 386.08 361.95 337.25

GGBS
Kg/m3

Fine Aggregate Kg/m3

Coarse Aggregate Kg/m3

Alkali Solution(kg/m3)
NaOH 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 Na2Sio3 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53

23%

0 710.89 904.77 24.13 710.89 904.77 48.26 710.89 904.77 72.39 710.89 904.77 96.52 710.89 904.77 120.65 710.89 904.77 144.78 710.89 904.77 Geopolymer concrete 140 liter mix GGBS Kg/m3 0 26.23 52.46 78.69 104.92 131.15 157.38 Fine Aggregate Kg/m3 692.41 692.41 692.41 692.41 692.41 692.41 692.41 Coarse Aggregate Kg/m3 881.25 881.25 881.25 881.25 881.25 881.25 881.25

Total Binder content Kg/m3

Proportion of Binder Fly ash 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Fly ash Kg/m3 524.6 498.37 472.14 445.91 419.68 393.45 367.22

Alkali Solution(kg/m3) NaOH 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 Na2Sio3 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53

25%

Geopolymer concrete 140 liter mix

Total Binder content Kg/m3

Proportion of Binder Fly ash 100% 95% 90% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20%

Fly ash Kg/m3 566.5 538.175 509.85 481.525 453.2 424.875 396.55

GGBS Kg/m3 0 28.325 56.65 84.975 113.3 141.625 169.95

Fine Aggregate Kg/m3 673.97 673.97 673.97 673.97 673.97 673.97 673.97

Coarse Aggregate Kg/m3 857.79 857.79 857.79 857.79 857.79 857.79 857.79

Alkali Solution(kg/m3) NaOH 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 Na2Sio3 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53

27%

85% 80%

75%
70%

25%
30%

86.21
86.21

215.53
215.53

Geopolymer concrete 140 liter mix Fine Aggregate Kg/m3 655.50 655.50 Coarse Aggregate Kg/m3 834.27 834.27

Total Binder content Kg/m3

Proportion of Binder Fly ash 100% 95% 90% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Fly ash Kg/m3 608.49 578.066

GGBS Kg/m3 0 30.425

Alkali Solution(kg/m3) NaOH 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 86.21 Na2Sio3 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53 215.53

547.641
517.217

60.85
91.274

655.50
655.50

834.27
834.27

29%

85% 80% 75% 70%

486.792
456.368 425.943

121.698
152.123 182.547

655.50
655.50 655.50

834.27
834.27 834.27

Geopolymer concrete 140 liter mix

PREPARATION OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Preparation of Alkaline solution
Sodium hydroxide solution was added with sodium silicate solution one day before the mixing of concrete.

 Mixing
First aggregates and binder ( fly ash and GGBS) are mixed in tilting drum mixer for about 3 minutes.

Then alkaline liquid is added to the dry mix and mixing is continued
for about 4 minutes.

TESTS ON FRESH GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Workability test Slump test
Workability tests are conducted according to IS:1199-1959.

Workability test results for 140 lit mix

Total Binder content 23% Proportion of Binder Fly ash 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 216 210 203 195 187 180 170 Slump mm Slump mm Total Binder content 25% Proportion of Binder Fly ash 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 211 202 196 190 182 174 165 Slump mm Slump mm

Total Binder content 27% Proportion of Binder Fly ash 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Total Binder content 29% Proportion of Binder Fly ash GGBS 0% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25%

203 195 188 180 172 164

100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75%

195 188 183 176 170 157

70%

30%

158

70%

30%

150

Slump test
250 200 Slump mm Slump mm 150 100 50 0 100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30 variation of fly ash to GGBS 250 200 150

100
50

0
100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30

Variation of fly ash to GGBS

Effect of 23% binder content on slump value

250 200 Slump mm 150 100 50 Slump mm 250 200

Effect of 25% binder content on slump value

150
100

50
0 100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30 Variation of fly ash to GGBS

0
100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30 Variation of fly ash to GGBS

Effect of 27% binder content on slump value

Effect of 29% binder content on slump value

Casting of specimens
Cube (150mmx150mmx150mm): 90 Nos Prism (100mmx100mmx500mm) :9 Nos

Cylinder (150mmx300mm) :9 Nos

The fresh geopolymer concrete was cast into moulds immediately

after mixing.

Compaction is achieved by giving sixty manual strokes for each layer by using tamping rod.

Rest period and Curing

After casting, all the specimens were covered using plastic cover to avoid the quick evaporation of water.

One days rest period was given for initial hardening of specimen. After one day, specimens were kept in HACC (Hot air curing

chamber) and cured at 600 C for 24 hours.

After heat curing, specimens were kept in room temperature until the date of testing.

Detailed arrangement of HACC

Circuit diagram of HACC

The main features of HACC

Economical compared with Steam curing chamber.

Less maintenance.
Easy to carry, dismantle and install.

Specimen casting can done inside the chamber.

Chamber can place over the specimens.

Temperature source can place in any direction.

Uniformity in the temperature in all the direction.

Casting of specimens

Temperature checking in HACC

Curing in HACC

Following tests were conducted on the harden geopolymer concrete

1. 2. 3.

Compressive strength test Split tensile strength test Flexural strength test

Tests are conducted according to the IS: 516-1959 All the specimens were tested after 7th day from the date of casting the specimen.

Compression strength

Flexural strength

Split tensile Strength

23% binder content compressive strength

Binder content Variation of fly ash to GGBS % Fly ash GGBS 2328 23% 100 0 2288 2297 2316 23% 95 05 2348 2308 2308 23% 90 10 2316 2347 2270 23% 85 15 2334 2310 2346 23% 80 20 2390 2358 2374 23% 75 25 2344 640 690 720 950 900 880 1000 970 1040 1050 1160 1140 1180 1290 1200 1410 1310 Density Kg/m3 Load in KN

Rest period- 1 Day

Compressive strength N/mm2 27.9 30.08 31.39 41.42 39.24 38.37 43.6 42.29 45.34 45.78 50.58 49.70 51.45 56.24 52.32 61.48 57.12 59.15 53.34 48.68 43.74 39.67 29.79 Average compressive strength N/mm2

2345
2293 23% 70 30 2289 2348

1350
1100 1180 1250

58.86
47.96 51.45 54.50 51.30

25% binder content compressive strength

Variation of fly ash to GGBS %
Binder content Fly ash GGBS Density Kg/m3 Load in KN

Rest period- 1 Day

Average Compressive strength N/mm2 compressive strength N/mm2

2297

740

32.26

25%

100

2288
2285 2265

830
780 1010 820 1070 1080 1050 1040 1220 1200 1100 1460 1330

36.19
34.08 44.04 35.75 46.65 47.09 45.78 45.34 53.19 52.32 47.96 63.66 57.99

34.18

25%

95

05

2256 2266 2286

41.42

25%

90

10

2278 2331 2308

46.07

25%

85

15

2324 2307 2335

51.16

25%

80

20

2330

58.86

2315
2320 25% 75 25 2351 2322 2375 25% 70 30 2327

1300
1340 1560 1490 1430 1210

56.68
58.42 68.02 64.96 62.35 52.76 56.54 63.81

27% binder content compressive strength

Binder content Variation of fly ash to GGBS %
Fly ash GGBS

Rest period- 1 Day

Load in KN Compressive
strength N/mm2

Density
Kg/m3

Average compressive
strength N/mm2

2216 27% 100 0 2297 2270 2327 27% 95 05 2317 2316 2359 27% 90 10 2372 2346

830 900 920 1100 1050 980 1070 1260 1080

36.19 39.24 40.11 47.96 45.78 42.73 46.65 54.94 47.09 49.56 45.49 38.51

2267
27% 85 15 2281 2276 2260 27% 80 20 2306 2274 2262 27% 75 25 2297 2334 2312 27% 70 30 2341

1200
1320 1280 1360 1520 1430 1490 1540 1590 1390 1480

52.38
57.55 55.81 59.30 66.27 62.35 64.96 67.14 69.32 60.60 64.53 60.17 67.85 62.67 55.52

2309

1270

55.37

29% binder content compressive strength

Variation of fly ash to GGBS % Binder content Fly ash GGBS Density Kg/m3 Load in KN

Rest period- 1 Day

Compressive strength N/mm2 Average compressive strength N/mm2

2320

1000

43.60

29%

100

2319
2316 2286

900
960 1170 1100 1190 1230 1190 1270 1410 1220 1320 1490 1450 1470 1620 1560 1600

39.24
41.85 51.01 47.96 51.88 53.63 51.88 55.37 61.48 53.19 57.55 64.96 63.22 64.09 70.63 68.02 69.76

41.56

29%

95

05

2246 2346 2259

50.28

29%

90

10

2260 2282 2253

53.63

29%

85

15

2245 2273 2335

57.41

29%

80

20

2302 2296 2394

64.09

29%

75

25

2352 2372

69.47

2356
29% 70 30 2351 2320

1490
1440 1390

64.96
62.78 60.60 62.78

Variation of compressive strength for varying % of fly ash & GGBS

Compressive strength N/mm2 Compressive Strength N/mm2
70

23% Binder Content

70 60 50 40 30 20

25% Binder Content

60
50 40 30 20 10 0 100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30

10
0 100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30

variation of fly ash to GGBS ratio

variation of fly ash to GGBS ratio

80

27%binder Content
Compressive Strength N/mm2

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100;0

29% Binder Content

Compressive Strength N/mm2

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100;0 95;5 90;10 85;15 80;20 75;25 70;30

95;5

90;10

85;15

80;20

75;25

70;30

variation of fly ash to GGBS ratio

variation of fly ash to GGBS ratio

80

70

Compressive strength N/mm2

60 50 40 30 20 10

0
23% 25% 27% 29%

Binder Content

Effect of binder content on compressive strength

Based on the higher compressive strength 29% binder content i.e., (75:25) mix were selected for the split tensile strength and flexural strength test.

Split tensile strength of cylindrical specimens

Total Binder 29% Load P Fly ash GGBS Mix Casted (kN) Split tensile strength fct=2P/ld (N/mm2) 280 Before casting 75% 25% of beam 300 250 Casted along 4.77 3.98 260 4.14
4.46

Average split tensile strength (N/mm2)

4.46

75%

25%
with beam

290
270 300 Casted along

4.62
4.29 4.77 4.93 5.25

4.30

75%

25% with beam

310 330

4.98

Flexural strength of prism specimens

Total Binder 29% Fly ash GGBS 15 Before casting of 75% 25% beam 11 16 Casted along 14 6.0 5.6 4.4 5.33 Mix Casted Load P (kN) Flexural strength fcr=PL/bd2 (N/mm2) Average Flexural strength (N/mm2)

6.4
4.8 5.6 6.4 6.0 4.8 5.73 5.60

75%

25%
with beam

12
14 16 Casted along

75%

25% with beam

15 12

Based on the higher compressive strength i.e., optimum fck was selected

and same mix is used for casting beam specimens.

Geometry and reinforcement arrangement

Beam details
Mix used Beam 29%Binder Beam Dimension Reinforcement Compression Tension Tensile Reinforcement ratio (%)

B1,B2,B3
B4,B5,B6

75:25
75:25

125X200X1300
125X200X1300

2#8
2#8

2 # 10
2 # 12

0.75
1.08

Form work for casting the beam specimen

Casting of beams

Beams curing in HACC

Beams after curing in HACC

Schematic diagram for flexure test on beam

Photographic view of the test specimen before testing

Demec gauge reading

Beam after testing

Crack patterns of -B1,B2 and B3 beams

Crack patterns of B4,B5 and B6 beams

Cracking moment of test beams

Theoretical Cracking Moment at moment first crack Mr=(fcr x Mc (kN-m) Igr/Yt) (kN-m)

Beam

% of tensile Reinforcement

compressive strength fck (N/mm2)

Modulus of rupture (N/mm2) fcr= 0.7fck

Ratio Mc/Mr

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

0.75 0.75 0.75 1.08 1.08 1.08

69.17

5.82

8.82

4.85

1.82

69.17 69.17 69.17

69.17 69.17

5.82 5.82 5.82

5.82 5.82

9.2 9.2 9.2

11.12 11.50

4.85 4.85 4.85

4.85 4.85

1.89 1.89 1.89

2.29 2.37

Effect of tensile reinforcement ratio on the cracking moment of beams

12

Moment at first crack (Mc)

10

0 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.08 1.08 1.08

Percentage of tensile reinforcement

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B1

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B2

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B3

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B4

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B5

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B6

Load versus mid span deflection of beams-B1,B2,B3

Deflection of test beam

Tested Mid span deflection at service load s(mm)
Maximum Deflection as per IS :456:2000 =le/250 (mm)

Beam

% of tensile service load Ps Reinforcement (kN)

B1

0.75

72

4.602

4.6

B2

0.75

72

4.603

4.6

B3

0.75

84

4.550

4.6

Load versus mid span deflection of beams-B4,B5,B6

Deflection of test beam

Tested Mid span deflection at service load s(mm) Maximum Deflection as per IS :456:2000 =le/250 (mm)

Beam

% of tensile service load Ps Reinforcement (kN)

B4

1.08

92

4.578

4.6

B5

1.08

104

4.993

4.6

B6

1.08

100

5.030

4.6

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam B1

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam B2

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam B3

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam B4

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam B5

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam B6

Surface strain at service load of RGPC Beams

Beam designation Working load Surface strain Compression B1 B2 B3 B4 72 72 84 92 0.00858 0.000260 0.000651 0.000411 Tension 0.00372 0.001329 0.001103 0.001111

B5
B6

104
100

0.000595
0.000742

0.002042
0.001751

Flexural capacity of test Beams

Beam % of tensile Reinforcement
0.75 1.08

compressive strength fck (N/mm2)

69.17 69.17

Mid span deflection at failure(mm)

17.125 16.780

Theoretical ultimate moment Muc

9.0 12.74

Tested ultimate moment Mut

22.10 28.49

B1,B2,B3
B4,B5,B6

Effect of Tensile reinforcement ratio on the ultimate moment of beams

The average density of geopolymer concrete is very similar to that of normal conventional concrete.

The slump value of the fresh geopolymer concrete decreases with

the increase in total binder content of the mixture.

The experimental investigation have shown that using Fly ash along with GGBS as source material, it is possible to produce geopolymer concrete of compressive strengths (7 days) in the range of 44-70 N/mm2.

GGBS as a source materials results in early initial strength and it makes possible to de-mould the specimens very early. This is an important applications of geopolymer concrete in the industry.

As the total binder content increases the compressive strength also increases.

By using 25% GGBS (75% fly ash) in the total binder content

The early strength development of geopolymer concrete under

HACC conditions showed better strength properties.

Reinforced geopolymer concrete beams crack pattern shows most of the cracks in the pure bending zone and all the beams failed in flexure.

As per IS 456:2000 provision, the maximum strain at working

load should not exceed 0.0035. The maximum strain in all the geopolymer concrete beams is well within this range.

The experimental crack load is much higher than the calculated

crack loads for all the six beams tested.

The flexural capacity of the beam increases with the increase in longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio, the tested ultimate moment capacity of beams were found 2.4 times more than theoretical ultimate moment capacity.

The experimental value of the ultimate load is much higher than the calculated load for all the geopolymer concrete beams.

The further study on the geopolymer concrete can be focused on trying with different water content of the mix. For finding the optimum percentage of binder content.

A detailed cost analysis can be done to determine the financial

and environmental impact on the production of GPC.

Investigation has to be made with the use of different fibers in reinforced geopolymer concrete.

The work has to be carried out on the long term properties of the

geopolymer concrete.

The geopolymer concrete containing proportionate mixture of

GGBS and fly ash has to be studied under ambient curing conditions.

The study can be conducted using 100% GGBS for the manufacture of geopolymer concrete under ambient curing

conditions which could be an important practical application.

Investigation has to be made on the shear behavior of geopolymer concrete beams.

The study can be conducted on geopolymer concrete slabs.

References
Hardjito, D. and Rangan, B.V. (2005). "Development and Properties of

low calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete." Research report GC 1, Curtin University of technology Perth, Australia.
Wallah, S.E., and Rangan, B.V. (2006). "Low calcium fly ash based

Geopolymer concrete: Long term properties." Research report GC2, Curtin University of technology Perth, Australia.
Sumajouw, M.D.J., and Rangan, B.V. (2006). "Low calcium fly ash

based Geopolymer concrete: Reinforced beams and columns." Research report GC 3, Curtin University of technology Perth, Australia.
Balaguru, P.N., Kurtz, s., and Jon Rudoph. (1997). "Geopolymer for

repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beams." Rutgers the state University of new jersey, USA.