THESIS

“DURABILITY PARAMETERS OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE USING

GGBFS”

SUBMITTED BY
SANKET DHANANI (PT401314)

GUIDED BY
PROF. AANAL SHAH
PROFESSOR,
CEPT UNIVERSITY

M.TECH PROGRAMME IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN

CEPT UNIVERSITY,
AHMEDABAD-380009.

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2|Page
INDEX
Sr.No. Title
1 Certificate
2 Acknowledgement
3 List of Tables
4 List of Notations
5 List of Figures

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Research objectives 2
1.3 Scope of work 3
1.4 Purpose of study 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Slag 6
2.2 Technical Papers 7
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3.1 General 13
3.2 Material Used for Experimental Work 14
3.3 Apparatus Used for Experimental Work 15
3.4 Mix Proportion 16
3.5 Test Procedure 17
3.6 Experimental Programme 18
3.7 Mixing,Casting,Curing and Ponding of Cubes
3.8 Testing Of concrete
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Introduction 19
4.2 Test Results 20
4.3 Observation 21
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
5.1 SUMMARY 22
5.2 FUTURE SCOPE 23

3|Page
Sr.No. List of Tables…………………………………………………..……Pg.No.
1 Total number of cubes……………………………..……...…………….2
2 Total number of cylinders………………………..………...…………....2
3 Properties of cement……………………………………….…………....12
4 Properties of fly-ash…………………………………………………….13
5 Properties of Alccofine…………………………………….……………14
6 Properties of marble dust………………………………….…………….15
7 Slump test results………………………………………………………..16
8 Compressive strength test results for 150mm cubes for
Different proportions of concrete………………………………….…….25
9 Split tensile test results for 150dia cylinders for
Different proportions of concrete…………………………………….….26
10 Durability test results for 150mm cubes cured in
Alkaline solution for different mix proportions of
Concrete…………………………………………………………………27
11 Durability test results for 150mm cubes cured in
Acidic solution for different mix proportions of
Concrete………………………………………………………………....27

4|Page
List of Notations
M Molarity Of Solution
M1 Mix Proportion
W/C Water-Cement Ratio
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
CTM Compressive Testing Machine
CA Coarse Aggregate
FA Fine Aggregate
BRHA Black Rice Husk Ash
GGBS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

5|Page
List of Figures

Figure 1 Concrete Mixer ...........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2 Slump Cone .................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3 CTM Machine............................................................................................................ 20
Figure 4 Table Vibrator ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5 Moulds for Cubes and Cylinders ..............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 6 Curing Tank ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 7 Compressive Testing of Cube ................................................................................... 21
Figure 8 Split Tensile Test ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 9 Salt Cured Cube After Testing ................................................................................ 22
Figure 10 Cube After Acid Curing ......................................................................................... 23
Figure 11 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Cube for different Mix Proportions of
Concrete ........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 12 Comparison of Tensile Strength of Cylinders for different Mix Proportions of
Concrete ........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 13 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Cubes for different Mix Proportions
of Concrete for Durability Tests .................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6|Page
CHAPTER: 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
Portland Cement is currently the most widely used material in the construction industry .It is
a fine powder produced by heating materials in a kiln .It mainly consists of silicates and aluminates
in its chemical composition.This cement when mixed with water, sand and aggregates produces
Portland Cement Concrete.This Concrete is used nowadays in the construction industry with the
fact that it is even cheaper than water. For manufacturing of 1 ton of Cement approximately 1 Ton
of CO2 is released as per the environmental reports which is not good from environmental point of
view.Several studies have been done to reduce the usage of Portland Cement and find its
alternatives.The studies suggested the usage of Fly-Ash , Slag, Rice Husk and Metakaolin as
Pozzolanic Materials to partially replace the cement.

A new binder material named as “geopolymer” was introduced by Joseph Davidovits in 1978
with an amorphous chemical microstructure. Geopolymers consist of a polymeric Si–O–Al
framework, similar to zeolites. The main difference to zeolite is geopolymers are amorphous
instead of crystalline. The first geopolymer cement developed in the 1980s was of the type
(K,Na,Ca)-poly(sialate) (or slag-based geopolymer cement) and resulted from the research
developments carried out by Joseph Davidovits and J.L. Sawyer at Lone Star Industries.The main
benefit of Geopolymer is that it does not require water for formation of bond which is the case in
Cement based Concrete.In cement based concrete C-S-H Gel is formed where as in geopolymers
bonding is formed by polycondensation reaction which occurs between silica and alumina
providing a strong bond.Geopolymers consists of 2 main constituents i.e Source Material and
Alkaline Solution.The source material to be used for making geopolymer concrete should have
high silica and alumina content.Materials such as Fly-Ash,GGBFS(Ground Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag),Rice Husk ,Metakaolin,etc can be used as these materials as they have high silica
and alumina content.Alkaline solution consists of Alkali Silicates and Alkali Hydroxides .Alkaline
solution plays a role of an activator for bonding between Si and Al in Source material.

7|Page
1.2 Research Objectives
The main objective of this research is to evaluate the durability parameters of GGBFS
based Geopolymer Concrete as compared to Fly-Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete and Ordinary
Portland Cement Concrete.It includes study of GGBFS based Geopolymer concrete of different
molarities under different curing and ponding condition and its comparison with Fly-Ash Based
Geopolymer Concrete and Ordinary Portland Cement Based Concrete.

1.3 Scope Of Work

Scope Of Work Involves the following :

1) Preparation of different concrete mix using Slag

2) Use of different Molarity of NaOH Solution and curing them at ambient temperature and
oven curing at 50ᴼ C for Slag and 60ᴼ C for Fly-Ash.
3) Ponding of cubes in H2SO4 and NaCl solution with alternate wetting and drying condition
for durability parameters.
4) Testing of cubes for Loss/Gain in compressive strength at 28 and 56 days.

8|Page
 Table-1 Total No of GGBFS Based Geopolymer Cubes .

Durability Test
Molarity Curing 28 Days/56 Days
Condition
Normal Salt Ponding Acid Ponding

2M Ambient 6 6 6
Oven 6 6 6

4M Ambient 6 6 6
Oven 6 6 6

8M Ambient 6 6 6
Oven 6 6 6

Where,

M = Molarity Of Solution (2M ,4M and 8M)

Total Number of Specimen Cubes Casted = 108

9|Page
 Table-2 Total No of OPC Based Cubes:

Durability Test

Mix Curing 28 Days 56 Days

Proportion Condition

Normal Salt Acid Normal Salt Acid

Ponding Ponding Ponding Ponding

M1 Ambient 3 3 3 3 3 3

Where ,

M1 =Mix Proportion used in making of geopolymer concrete

1.4 Purpose of Study

Continuous increasing demand of cement from the construction industry has led to
a huge production of it . It is said that for manufacture of 1 Ton of cement 1 ton of CO2 is produced
which ultimately is not good from environmental sustainaibility point of view.Materials Like Fly
Ash and Slag are waste produced from power plants and iron industries.Using these materials for
making of concrete can definitely help in reducing CO2 emissions.Fly-Ash based Geopolymer
concrete needs higher degree of curing to gain early strength which may be not practical at site
always .Studies on GGBFS ased Geopolymer concrete indicate that slag needs lower temperature
for curing as compared to fly-ash.

Thus the aim of this study is to study the effect of GGBFS based Geopolymer with
almost similar practical conditions of site and check its durability parameters.

10 | P a g e
CHAPTER: 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Slag
Slag is a left over by-product obtained from a raw ore of metal .It is usually produced
alongside steel from b;ast furnace or electric arc furnace.The major components of slag include
MgO,SiO2,CaO,FeO,Al2O3 with lesser amounts of manganese and phosphorous in it.Slag has no
risk of alkali aggregate reaction.The advantages of using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
is its increasing strength over longer period of time,low rate of heat of hydration when it reacts
with water as compared to Ordinary portlad cement and high chemical durability .

Advantages
1. It has high resistance to seawater and to chemicals, and can improve durability.
2. It has a low chloride ion diffusion coefficient (resists rebar corrosion).
3. It can reduce alkali-aggregate reaction.
4. Its strength increases over time.
2.2 What is Geopolymer ?
Geopolymer concrete is a new material that does not need the presence of Portland
cement as a binder instead activating the source materials such as fly-ash ,slag,rice
husk,metakaolin etc. that are rich in Silicon and Aluminium using high alkaline liquids
produces the binder required to manufacture the concrete .
Davidovits coined the term geopolymer in 1978 to represent a range of materials
with high silica and alumina content used with an alkaline solution to form a binding property.
The alkaline material is usually NaOH or KOH .The source material is usually rich with silica
and alumina i.e mostly Fly-Ash or Slag .The silicate rich material is a monomer which
undergoes polymerization reaction and forms poly-sialate silo and further forms poly-sialate
disoloxo.

11 | P a g e
 This -Si-O-Al-O- bond is formed by reaction of source material with alkaline
solution which is termed as geopolymer .
2.2 Technical Papers
2.2.1 “GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE, AN EARTH FRIENDLY CONCRETE, VERY
PROMISING IN THE INDUSTRY” By : T.V. Srinivas Murthy and Dr. Ajeet Kumar Rai
(INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY)

Experimetal Work :
In this project report the details of GGBS based geopolymer material properties, mix design
and comparing the hardened concrete properties such as compressive strength, split tensile
strength, Flexural strength of concrete with conventional concrete was made.
Conclusion :
1. The details of geopolymer material properties, mix design and the comparisons of the harden
concrete properties such as compressive strength, split tensile strength, Flexural strength of
concrete with conventional concrete are studied.
2. The test results show that the use of GGBS based geopolymer concrete increases in compressive
strength by 13.82% as compared with conventional concrete.
3. The test results show that the use of GGBS based geopolymer concrete increases in Split tensile
strength by 18.23% as compared with conventional concrete.
4. The test results shows that the use of GGBS based geopolymer concrete increases in Flexural
strength by 30.19% as compared with conventional concrete.

12 | P a g e
 2.2.2 “STUDY OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS AND DURABILITY
OF SLAG BASED GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE” By : Vipul Nakum
(CEPT UNIVERSITY)

Experimental Work :
In this Project concrete cubes were tested for their Compressive Strength at 3,7,14,21,28
and 90 Days .Concrete Cylinders were tested for Split Tensile And Modulous Of Elasticity at
28 days with different curing condition.
Conclusion :
1. Result shows that the compressive strength is increased by 5-10% with the increase in the
concentration (molarity) of sodium hydroxide.
2. Compared to oven cured and ambient temperature cured, oven cured specimens gives 5-
6% higher compressive strength at 28 days but ambient temperature curing is convenient
for practical conditions.
3. Geopolymer concrete has excellent properties within both acid and salt environments.
Comparing to Portland cement, the production of geopolymer has a relative higher
strength.

2.2.3 “Strength and Durability characteristics of Geopolymer concrete

using GGBS and RHA” By : S.Subburaj, S.Ravikumar, V.ajith(VV College
of Engineering, Tisayanvilai, Tutucorin)

Experimental Work :
In this project Black Rice Husk Ash was replaced in varying amounts i.e in amount of
10%,20% and 30% replacing GGBS in geopolymer concrete.GGBS was kept as a primary
binder in geopolymer concrete.The cubes were then oven cured at 60ᴼC for 48 hours and
then specimens were taken out and cured under room temperature till the time of testing.The
cubes were tested at 3,7 and 28 days from day of casting.

13 | P a g e
 Conclusion :
1. There is increase in compressive strength if the curing time increases. The percentage
of increase in strength is approximately 16 to 20 for the curing time of 3days to
28days.

2. Replacement of BRHA in GGBS decreases the compressive strength. Because of the

unburnt carbon content present in BRHA, decreases the compressive strength.
(S.Subburaj)

2.2.4 “EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

BY USING GGBS” By: Paras S.Pithadiya, Abhay V. Nakum(PG Student,
Marwadi Education Foundation, Gujarat and India Assistant Professor,
Civil Engineering Department, Marwadi Education Foundation, Gujarat,
India)

Experimental Work :
The objective of the present work is to study the effect of GGBS in fly ash based
Geopolymer concrete and to study the Effect of Oven Curing and Ambient room
temperature curing on them. And By replacing fly ash from 0 to 100% with GGBS and
inspecting the Fresh Properties and Hardened Concrete properties at 7 days. The casted
cube will be cured at normal room temperature and at 70ᴼC Oven heat provision for 24
hours and to ascertain the behavior of concrete mixed with GGBS, thereby examining the
changes of properties like Strength and Durability.
Conclusion :
1. It should be noted that with the variation in the perameters such as Na2SiO3/ NaOH
Ratio, Molarity of NaOH, Curing temperature, Curing time makes the Variation in the
Strength.
2. Replacement of Flyash by GGBS increases the Strength gradually without Oven curing
provision. However oven cured Cubes shows higher Compressive and tensile strength
than that of ambient temperature cured cubes. (Paras S.Pithadiya and Abhay V.
Nakum, 2015)

14 | P a g e
CHAPTER: 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

3.1 General

This chapter shows the process of the development of the Geopolymer concrete for strength
and durability aspects in various molar concentration of 2M,4M and 8M .For the development of
mix proportion of Slag Based Geopolymer concrete trial and error method was done
initially.Currently the most optimal mix proportion data as obtained from numerous tests has been
used for the study. The effect of GGBFS based Geopolymer Concrete is evaluated by measuring
its variation in compressive strength when immersed in Sodium Chloride(NaCl) and Sulphuric
Acid(H2SO4) solution of 5% and 3.5% concentration respectively.In order to minimize the effect
due to aggregates the aggregates used in the study was brought from one source only.

15 | P a g e
 3.2 Material used for experimental work:

3.2.1 Slag

The slag used for experiment was obtained from COUNTO Microfine products pvt.Ltd,
Goa.The chemical composition of slag and cement is shown below :

Properties Slag Portland Cement

SiO2 35.2 % 25 %
Al2O3 21.4 % 7%
Fe2O3 3% 0.5 %
CaO 31.2 % 62 %
MgO 8.4 % 3.5 %
SO3 0.8 % 2.5 %
Table 3 : Chemical Properties Comparison Between GGBFS and Portland
Cement

3.2.2 Alkaline Liquid

Alkaline Liquid is generally a mixture of Alkali silicates, alkali hydroxides and water .Here
for the study of Slag bas ed geopolymer concrete Sodium Silicate(Na2SiO3) was used as an alkali
silicate and Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) was used as alkali hydroxide .Sodium based solutions were
chosen as these solutions are easy available in market and economical as compared to potassium
based solutions. Sodium Hydroxide was mixed with water as per the molar concentration a day
before the preparation of concrete cubes as there is a large amount of heat energy liberation when
mixed with water .The mixture is properly stirred .
NaOH(s) + H2O(l) → NaOH(aq) + H2O(aq)
Na2SiO3(l) + NaOH(aq) → Na4SiO4(aq) + H2O(aq)

16 | P a g e
Sodium Hydroxide were in the form of solid flakes (98 % purity)and were obtained from a local
retailer in Ahmedabad .Sodium Silicate was in semi solid form and was obtained from retailer in
Kheda .Sodium Silicate is mixed with Sodium Hydroxide just some minutes before casting of the
cubes .The Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) is mixed into water and stirred for 5 to 10 minutes for
completely dissolving in water.This Sodium Silicate(Na2SiO3) reacts with aqueous Sodium
Hydroxide(NaOH) to from Sodium Ortho Silicate(Na4SiO4). The ratio of sodium silicate to sodium
hydroxide was kept consistent at 1.5 . Three different molar concentrations i.e 2,4 and 8 M of
Sodium Hydroxide were made .Here the molarity indicates the amount of Sodium Hydroxide
flakes needed in grams to prepare one litre of solution i.e for a 2 M solution the amount of NaOH
flakes needed would be 2 X 40 = 80grams ,for 4M it would be 4 x 40 =160 and for 8M it would
be 8 x 40 = 320 grams where 40 is the molecular weight of NaOH.Thus for preparing 8M solution
it would need 320 grams of NaOH flakes in preparing 1 litre solution.
The chemical and physical properties of the Sodium Silicate is shown in table below.

Table 4: Properties of Sodium Silicate

Chemical Analysis Data:
Oxides % Weight
Na2O
SiO2
Water

Physical Analysis Data:

No Test Test Result
1 Specific Gravity 1.66 g/cc

17 | P a g e
 Figure 5 : Mixing NaOH Flakes in water Figure 6 : Mixing NaOH Solution with
Na2SiO3

Figure 7 : NaOH Flakes

3.2.3 Aggregates

Aggregates used in general concrete practice were used .Coarse and fine aggregates used
for casting of cubes were in surface dry condition in accordance with (IS-383, 1970).Prior to using
coarse and fine aggregates they were sieved on sieve sizes of 10 and 20mm .Sand used for casting
of cubes was also sieved on sieve on 2.36 mm size. In order to minimize the effect of the properties
of the aggregates on the properties of slag based geo-polymer, the study used aggregates from only
one source.

18 | P a g e
3.2.4 Water

Water available in the laboratory was used for preparation of NaOH aqueous solution.For
improving the workability very little amount of water was added to dry coarse aggregate while
preparing concrete mix.

19 | P a g e
3.3 Apparatus used for experimental work:

3.3.1 Concrete Mixer

A concrete mixer is a device that homogeneously combines pozzolanic material such as
Fly-Ash/Slagalongwith aggregates and water to form concrete. A typical concrete mixer uses a
revolving drum to mix the components . An alternative to a machine is mixing concrete by hand.

Capacity: 𝟑⁄𝟒 Bag of Cement

3.3.2 Compression Testing Machine

Compression Testing Machine is used for conducting compressive strength test on
hardened concrete. The compression test is carried out on specimens cubical or cylindrical in
shape. The cube specimen is of the size 15 x 15 x 15 cm. The bearing surfaces of the testing
machine shall be wiped clean and any loose sand or other material removed from the surfaces of
the specimen which are to be in contact with the compression plates. In the case of cubes, the
specimen shall be placed in the machine in such a manner that the load shall be applied to opposite
sides of the cubes as cast, that is, not to the top and bottom. The axis of the specimen shall be
carefully aligned with the centre of thrust of the spherically seated platen. No packing shall be
used between the faces of the test specimen and the steel plate of the testing machine. As the
spherically seated block is brought to bear on the specimen, the movable portion shall be rotated
gently by hand so that uniform seating may be obtained. The load shall be applied without shock
and increased continuously at a rate of approximately 140 kg/sq cm/min until the resistance of the
specimen to the increasing load breaks down and no greater load can be sustained. The maximum
load applied to the specimen shall then be recorded and the appearance of the concrete and any
unusual features in the type of failure shall be noted. (IS-516, 1959)

Capacity: 2000 kN
Least Count: 5 kN

20 | P a g e
3.3.5 Moulds
Metal moulds, preferably steel or cast iron, thick enough to prevent distortion is
required.. The interior surfaces of the mould are required to be coated with oil to
prevent adhesion of concrete.
Cubic Mould Size: 15 x 15 x 15 cm

3.4 Test Procedure:

3.4.1 Compressive Strength:

Compression tests were conducted to investigate the ultimate strength of geopolymer
concrete with. Compression tests were conducted on 150mm x150mm x 150mm
concrete cubes after 28 and 56 Days of casting. The tests were done on Compressive
Testing Machine (CTM).

The compressive strength of a sample was calculated

using,
𝐏
𝐂=
𝐀
Where,
C = Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
P = Total load on specimen at point of failure (N)
A =Area of the specimen (mm2)

Figure 1: Compressive
Testing of Cube

21 | P a g e
3.4.2 Durability Test:
3.4.2.1 Salt Ponding Test:
Chloride attack is particularly important because it primarily causes corrosion of reinforcement.
To evaluate the chloride resistance of concrete Salt Ponding Test has been used. In involves the
ponding of salt concrete cube specimens into salt solution. After curing of specimen for 28days
in atmosphere, the specimen were submerged into 3.5% NaCl solution in a tank for 28 and 56 days
with alternative wetting and drying .Every
Morning the cubes were taken out of the tank
and every evening the cubes were kept back
inside the tank Every 2 weeks the chloride
solution was renewed .

After 28 and 56 days the specimens were

removed and weighted and tested for
compressive strength in CTM Machine.

Figure 2 GGBFS based Salt Cured Cube

3.4.3.2 Acid Attack Test:

The effect of different exposure condition will be different on concrete. To study the effect of
exposure to acidic environment, specimen were immersed in 5% of solution of Sulphuric Acid
(H2SO4), after curing for 28 days in atmosphere, for 28 and 56 days. The acidic solution is
refreshed after 2 weeks with the same solution.

22 | P a g e
 Figure 3 Cube After Acid Curing
After 28 and 56 days the specimen is removed weighted and tested for compressive strength in
CTM machine.

3.5 Experimental Programme :

This experiment studies the durability parameters of Slag based Geopolymer Concrete
and its comparison with Fly-Ash based Geopolymer concrete and OPC based concrete. For
making of Slag based Geopolymer Concrete Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag(GGBFS) ,
Sodium Silicate(Na2SiO3),Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) ,Coarse Aggregates,Fine Aggregates ,
Sand and water is used.

23 | P a g e
 Three different molarity solutions were made for making of slag based geopolymer
concrete i.e 2M ,4M and 8M with a constant ratio of Alkaline solution to slag of 0.55.The cubes
were cured in 2 ways .
1. Ambient Curing
2. Oven Curing
For a particular molarity equal number of cubes were casted for ambient and oven
curing.The cubes were oven cured at 50ᴼ C whereas the ambient cured cubes are the ones that
were kept at room temperature .Below is the work flow showing the cubes casted for durability
parameters.

Slag Based 2M , 4M & Curing Condition

8M
Geopolymer -Ambient
concentration
Cubes of NaOH -Oven

Ponding Condition
Cubes for
Cubes for -Salt
Compression
Durability Test
Test -Acid

24 | P a g e
3.6 Mixture Proportion :

As there is no codal provision for mix design of geopolymer concrete the constituents are
selected on the based on past research work .The Mix Proportions are given in the table below :
Ingredient Unit

Source Material 425 kg/m3

Fine Aggregates 505 kg/m3
Coarse Aggregates
1. 20 mm 663 kg/m3
2. 10 mm 442 kg/m3
Alkaline Solution /Source Material ratio 0.55
Sodium Silicate /NaOH Solution ratio 1.5

3.7 Mixing, Casting,Curing and Ponding of Cubes

For mixing of Geopolymer Concrete a rotating drum of ¾ bag of capacity was used .All
the proportions for mixing of concrete were kept constant except the molarity of the solution.First
of all a dry mix was prepared consisting of coarse aggregates,fine aggregates,sand and slag/Fly-
Ash .Alkaline solution containing NaOH and Na2SiO3 is mixed at the time of casting itself.This is
done at the time of casting to avoid the crystallization of the solution which can affect the bonding
of geopolymer concrete. The dry mix is the then rotated in the concrete mixer for about 5 minutes
. Proper mixing is done for another 5 minutes for a proper wet mix.
After mixing the concrete is poured into moulds of 150x150x150 mm size .Each mould
was filled in three layers with 25 tampings in each layer with a rod.The filled mould was then
vibrated on the vibrating table for proper compaction .After casting the moulds were kept in the
laboratory for 24 hours and then demoulded .The cubes were demoulded after 24 hours of
casting.The Alkaline solution is then added into the mixer. The fresh GGBFS concrete is brownish
in colour with a very smooth surface.
For curing of concrete half of the cubes were placed in oven at 50ᴼ C for 24 hours and half
were kept in direct sunlight .After Curing the cubes for 28 days the cubes were ponded into H2SO4
and NaCl solution for durability parameter.The cubes were placed in 3.5% concentration of NaCl
and 5% concentration of H2SO4 solution.

25 | P a g e
 Figure 9 : Dry Mix

Figure 10 : Initial stage of GGBFS based concrete cubes

26 | P a g e
 Figure 11 : Ambient Curing of GGBFS Based Figure 12 : Oven Curing of GGBFS based
Cube Cube

27 | P a g e
 3.8 Testing Of Concrete :
3.8.1 Compressive Strength Test :
Compression tests were conducted to investigate the ultimate strength of slag based
geopolymer with various molar concentrations. Compression tests were conducted on three
150x150x150 mm concrete cubes after 28 Days and 56 Days of casting. These tests were
performed using 2000 KN capacity of compressive testing machine.
The testing procedures were according to the Indian Standard Code IS: 516 - 1959. The
dimensions of the specimens to nearest 0.1mm and their weight were noted before testing. The
load was applied without shock and increased continuously at a rate of approximately 140
Kg/cm2/min. until the resistance of the specimen to the increasing load breaks down and no greater
load can be sustained. The maximum load applied to the specimen was then recorded and the
appearance of concrete and any unusual features in the type of failure was noted.The Compressive
Strength was calculated using the below formula :

𝑃
𝐶=
𝐴
Where ,
C= Compressive Strength of cube(N/mm2)
P =Peak Load Value in (N)
A= Area of Cube (mm2)

3.8.2 Salt Ponding Test :

This test method is used evaluate the chloride resistance of concrete. It involves the
ponding of concrete cubes in salt solution of 3.5% concentration.After casting, the specimens were
submerged into 3.5 % NaCl solution in a container for 28 and 56 days with alternate wetting and
drying condition i.e the cubes were taken out of the container every morning and they were kept
inside the container every evening.Every 2 weeks the chloride solution was renewed and the
container was kept closed all the time to prevent evaporation.After 28 and 56 days the specimens
were removed from the container and then it was weighted and tested for compressive strength in
CTM. The testing procedures were according to the Indian Standard Code IS: 516 - 1959.

28 | P a g e
3.8.3 Acid Ponding Test :

To study the effects of exposure to acidic environment, specimens were immersed in 5 %

solution of Sulphuric acid after curing for 28 and 56 days. After casting, the specimens were
submerged into 5 % H2SO4 solution in a container for 28 and 56 days with alternate wetting and
drying condition i.e the cubes were taken out of the container every morning and they were kept
inside the container every evening.The acid solution was refreshed after 2 weeks. After 28 and 56
days the specimens were removed from the container and then it was weighted and tested for
compressive strength in CTM. The testing procedures were according to the Indian Standard Code
IS: 516 - 1959.

29 | P a g e
CHAPTER: 4 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction :
This chapter includes the test results of the Slag Based Geopolymer cubes that were tested
.A total of 108 cubes were tested out of which 36 cubes were tested for their compressive strength
and the rest 72 were tested to check for durability parameters.A comparison between Fly-Ash
based geopolymer of same molarity and OPC based cube of same Mix Proportion has been made
further in this chapter.A comparative study showing the weight loss between the regular cubes and
the cubes immersed in Acidic and Salt Solution has also been made .

4.2 Experimental results and discussion:

The results of compressive strengths for different molar concentration of Slag Based
Geopolymer Concrete at the age of 28th and 56th day are as shown in below table,

28 Days 8.78%
60 57
6.81% 8.69% 52
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

50 46
44
41 42
40

30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity(M)

Ambient Oven

Figure 9 : 28 Days Cube test results for Regular Slag Based Concrete Cubes

30 | P a g e
 56 Days
7.1%
70
63.5
59
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
60 8.5%
3.4%
50 47
42.5 44 43
40

30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity(M)

Ambient Oven

Figure 10 : 56 Days Cube test results for Regular Slag Based Concrete Cubes

65
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

60

55

50

45

40
Days (D)
35
28 Days 56 Days
Ambient Curing(2 M) 41 42.5
Oven Curing(2 M) 44 44
Ambient Curing(4 M) 42 43
Oven Curing(4 M) 46 47
Ambient Curing(8 M) 52 59
Oven Curing(8M) 57 63.5

From the graph above following points were concluded :

1. There is very minute change in compressive strength at 28th and 56th day(approximately 8
%) for ambient and oven cured cubes of 2M.
2. The change in compressive strength between 2M and 4M is also not much(approximately
5%) for both ambient and oven curing.

31 | P a g e
 3. Increase in strength at 56th day from 28th day can be seen for cubes of 8M in ambient and
oven curing both.
4. The increase in strength for 2M and 4M is minor as compared to increase in strength in
8M for both ambient and oven cured condition.The strength increases by approximately
28% at 28th day and 33% at 56th day for ambient cured cubes when molarity is increased
from 2 to 8.
5. The strength increases by approximately 33% at 28th day and 31% at 56th day for oven
cured cubes when molarity is increased from 2 to 8.

28 Days Result of Salt Ponded Cubes 8.33%

70
17.65% 14.42% 60
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

60 55
51 52
50 44.5
42
40

30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity (M)

Ambient Curing(Salt Ponding) Oven Curing(Salt Ponding)

Figure 11 : 28 Days Cube test result comparison for Salt Ponded Slag Based Concrete Cubes
with Ambient and Oven Curing

32 | P a g e
 70

Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

65
60
55
50
45
40
Days(D)
35
28 Days 56 Days
Ambient Curing (2 M) 42 46
Oven Curing (2 M) 51 49
Ambient Curing (4 M) 44.5 50.5
Oven Curing (4 M) 52 55
Ambient Curing (8 M) 55 62
Oven Curing (8 M) 60 65.5

From the graph above following points were concluded :

1. There is a considerable increase in compressive strength between ambient cured and oven
cured cubes of 2M ,4M and 8M.
2. The increase is approximately 18% at 2M and it reduces to 8% at 8M at 28th day.There is
increase in compressive strength at 56th day also but the change in increase of
compressive strength is approximately 5% for 2M,4M and 8M after 28th day.
3. The compressive strength increases as the molarity increases.
4. Compressive strength for oven cured cubes is more as compared to ambient cured cubes.

33 | P a g e
 56 Days Result of Salt Ponded Cubes 5.34%
70 65.5
8.18% 62
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
60 55
6.12%
49 50.5
50 46

40

30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M

Molarity (M)

Ambient Curing(Salt Ponding) Oven Curing(Salt Ponding)

Figure 12 : 56 Days Cube test result comparison for Salt Ponded Slag Based Concrete Cubes
with Ambient and Oven Curing

28 Days Result Of Acid Ponded Cubes

4.88%
45 41
39
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

40
3.85% 10.35%
35
29
30 26 26
25
25
20
15
10
5
0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity(M)

Ambient (Acid Ponding) Oven(Acid Ponding)

Figure 13 : 28 Days Cube test result comparison for Acid Ponded Slag Based Concrete Cubes
with Ambient and Oven Curing

34 | P a g e
 55

Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

50

45

40

35

30

25
28 Days 56 Days
Ambient Curing (2 M) 26 29
Oven Curing (2 M) 25 27
Ambient Curing (4 M) 29 34.5
Oven Curing (4 M) 26 36.5
Ambient Curing (8 M) 41 42
Oven Curing (8 M) 39 50

Days (D)

From the graph above following points were concluded :

1. Compressive strength of Oven cured cubes decreases more as compared to ambient cured
cubes at 28th day while the effect of ove curing reduces at 56th day.
2. Change in the compressive strength is between 2M and 4M is not more but the change in
compressive strength at 8M as compared to 2 and 4M can be seen at 28th day.
3. For cubes cured at oven temperature the compressive strength is more as compared to
ambient cured for 4M and 8M while it is less for 2M.

35 | P a g e
 56 Days Result Of Acid Ponded Cubes
Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 60 16%
50
50
6.89% 5.48% 42
40 36.5
34.5
29
30 27

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity (M)

Ambient(Acid Ponding) Oven (Acid Ponding)

Figure 14 : 56 Days Cube test result comparison for Acid Ponded Slag Based Concrete Cubes
with Ambient and Oven Curing

28 Days Comparison Between Normal and Salt Ponded Cubes

70
5%
13.73% 11.54% 5.45% 60
60 57
55
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

2.4% 51 5.62% 52 52
50 44.5 46
44
41 42 42
40

30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity (M)
Ambient(Normal) Ambient(Salt Ponding) Oven(Normal) Oven(Salt Ponding)

Figure 15 : 28 Days Cube test result comparison between Regular Slag Based Concrete and
Cubes ponded in NaOH solution

36 | P a g e
From the graph above following points were concluded :
1. There is not much change in compressive strength in ambient cured cubes of 2M ,4M and
8M when ponded in NaOH solution but there is good amount of increase in compressive
strength of oven cured cubes of 2M and 4 M .This change is seen less in 8M as compared
to 2M and 4M cubes.
2. The compressive strength of cubes ponded in NaOH Solution is more as compared to the
cubes which are not ponded .
3. The increase in compressive strength of the cubes ponded in NaOH solution which were
Oven cured is more as compared to the ambient cured cubes.
4. The amount of increase in compressive strength of NaOH ponded cubes decreases as
molarity increases where as it increases for ambient cured cubes.

28 Days Comparison Between Normal and Acid Ponded

Cubes 31.58%
43.48% 21.16%
60 36.58% 43.18% 30.95% 57
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

52
50 44 46
41 42 41 39
40
29
30 26 25 26

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity(M)

Ambient (Normal) Ambient(Acid Ponding) Oven(Normal) Oven(Acid Ponding)

Figure 16 : 28 Days Cube test result comparison between Regular Slag Based Concrete and
Cubes ponded in H2SO4 solution
From the graph above following points were concluded :
1. There strength decreases considerably as compared to ambient cured and oven cured
cubes .
2. The strength reduction in oven cured cubes is more as compared to ambient cured cubes.
3. For ambient cured cubes ponded in H2SO4 solution there is reduction in percentage of
decrease in compressive strength as the molarity increases from 2 to 8 .
4. In case of Oven cured cubes there is not much reduction in percentage decrease in
compressive strength for 2and 4M but it decreases when we move from 4M to 8M .

37 | P a g e
 56 Days Comparison Between Normal and Salt Ponded
Cubes
7.6% 10.2% 16.83% 14.54% 4.84% 3.05%
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

70
62 63.5 65.5
59
60 55
49 50.5
50 46 47
42.5 44 42
40

30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity(M)

Ambient(Normal) Ambient(Salt Ponding) Oven(Normal) Oven(Salt Ponding)

Figure 17 : 56 Days Cube test result comparison between Regular Slag Based Concrete and
Cubes ponded in NaOH solution
From the graph above following points were concluded :
1. The compressive strength increases as the molarity increases for ambient and oven cured
cubes .
2. The compressive strength is more of oven cured cubes as compared to ambient cured
cubes.

38 | P a g e
 56 Days Comparison Between Normal and Acid Ponded
Cubes 21.26%
31.76% 38.64% 17.86% 28.81%
22.34%
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

70 63.5
59
60
50
50 47
42.5 44 42 42
40 34.5 36.5
29 27
30

20

10

0
2M 4M 8M
Molarity(M)

Ambient(Normal) Ambient(Acid Ponding) Oven(Normal) Oven(Acid Ponding)

Figure 18 : 56 Days Cube test result comparison between Regular Slag Based Concrete and
Cubes ponded in H2SO4 solution
From the graph above following points were concluded :
1. There is reduction in compressive strength of cubes ponded in H2SO4 solution as
compared to normal ambient and oven cured cubes.
2. There is a decrease in percentage reduction of compressive strength of Oven cured cubes
as the molarity increases .
3. The reduction in compressive strength of H2SO4 ponded cubes is more at 2M while it
while it is less at 4M and 8M

39 | P a g e
CHAPTER: 5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

5.1 Summary & Conclusion

 The present study was carried out for M25 Grade concrete mix with
replacement of cement with different proportions of MD (10%, 15%, 20%,
25%, and 30%) and 5% of Alccofine.
 The study clearly reveals that cement replacement by 10%, 15%, and 20% of
MD achieves required strength at 7 days.
 At 28th day required strength gain was possible in 10%, 15% and 20%
replacement of cement with MD.
 From compressive strength tests it can be concluded that the best proportion
of UMD is 10% with 28 days of curing.
 From this experiment it is clear that percentage MD replacement with cement
can be increased up to 25% with added Alccofine at 28 days of curing which
is suggested 10% by the several literature.
 In Durability aspect there is no significant weight loss is observed. And
compressive strength loss is about average 15%.

5.2 Future Scope

 One can extend the work in this area by taking concrete grade other than M25
and by taking MD from the different region.

40 | P a g e
  The properties studied in this experimental work were compressive strength,
tensile strength and Durability of concrete. Other properties such as Flexural
strength, Modulus of Elasticity, Abrasion resistance etc… can also be studied
in detail.

Appendix A

Compressive Strength of Normal cubes at 28 days

Cube Curing Peak Compressive Average Compressive

No. Molarity Condition Load(kN) Strength(N/mm2) Strength(N/mm2)

1 953.5 42.38
2 Ambient 856 38.04 40.90
3 951.5 42.29
2M
1 1028 45.69
2 Oven 934.5 41.53 43.52
3 975 43.33

1 883 39.24
2 Ambient 954.5 42.42 41.76
3 981 43.60
4M
1 1017.5 45.22
2 Oven 1027.5 45.67 45.83
3 1048.5 46.60

1 1211.5 53.84
2 Ambient 1150 51.11 52.48
3 1180.6 52.47
8M
1 1265 56.22
2 Oven 1298.5 57.71 56.86
3 1274.5 56.64

41 | P a g e
 Compressive Strength of H2SO4 Ponded cubes at 28 days

Cube Curing Peak Compressive Average Compressive

No. Molarity Condition Load(kN) Strength(N/mm2) Strength(N/mm2)

1 521.5 23.18
2 Ambient 625 27.78 25.87
3 600 26.67
2M
1 534 23.73
2 Oven 579 25.73 24.56
3 545 24.22

1 683 30.36
2 Ambient 696 30.93 29.21
3 593 26.36
4M
1 623.5 27.71
2 Oven 600.5 26.69 26.43
3 560 24.89

1 972 43.20
2 Ambient 963.5 42.82 40.84
3 821.5 36.51
8M
1 1021.5 45.40
2 Oven 794.5 35.31 39.12
3 824.5 36.64

42 | P a g e
 Compressive Strength of NaOH Ponded cubes at 28 days

Cube Curing Peak Compressive Average Compressive

No. Molarity Condition Load(kN) Strength(N/mm2) Strength(N/mm2)

1 1027.5 45.67
2 Ambient 940.5 41.80 41.90
3 860 38.22
2M
1 1065.5 47.36
2 Oven 1305 58.00 50.76
3 1056 46.93

1 978 43.47
2 Ambient 924 41.07 44.23
3 1083.5 48.16
4M
1 1153 51.24
2 Oven 1169.5 51.98 51.86
3 1178 52.36

1 1345 59.78
2 Ambient 1216.5 54.07 54.84
3 1140 50.67
8M
1 1250 55.56
2 Oven 1449 64.40 59.98
3 1349.5 59.98

43 | P a g e
 Compressive Strength of Normal cubes at 56 days

Cube Curing Peak Compressive Average Compressive

No. Molarity Condition Load(kN) Strength(N/mm2) Strength(N/mm2)

1 989 43.96
2 Ambient 934.5 41.53 42.42
3 940 41.78
2M
1 1028 45.69
2 Oven 981.5 43.62 44.02
3 962 42.76

1 945 42.00
2 Ambient 954.5 42.42 42.67
3 981 43.60
4M
1 1058 47.02
2 Oven 1027.5 45.67 46.99
3 1086.5 48.29

1 1298 57.69
2 Ambient 1256 55.82 58.44
3 1391 61.82
8M
1 1428.5 63.49
2 Oven 1321 58.71 63.44
3 1533 68.13

44 | P a g e
 Compressive Strength of H2SO4 Ponded cubes at 56 days

Cube Curing Peak Compressive Average Compressive

No. Molarity Condition Load(kN) Strength(N/mm2) Strength(N/mm2)

1 444.5 19.76
2 Ambient 721.5 32.07 28.39
3 750 33.33
2M
1 622 27.64
2 Oven 477.5 21.22 26.83
3 711.5 31.62

1 796.5 35.40
2 Ambient 769 34.18 34.15
3 739.5 32.87
4M
1 794.5 35.31
2 Oven 742.5 33.00 36.48
3 925.5 41.13

1 991 44.04
2 Ambient 854.5 37.98 41.98
3 988 43.91
8M
1 989 43.96
2 Oven 1297 57.64 49.73
3 1071 47.60

45 | P a g e
 Compressive Strength of NaOH Ponded cubes at 56 days

Cube Curing Peak Compressive Average Compressive

No. Molarity Condition Load(kN) Strength(N/mm2) Strength(N/mm2)

1 899.5 39.98
2 Ambient 1002.5 44.56 46.04
3 1205.5 53.58
2M
1 1301.5 57.84
2 Oven 1100 48.89 48.91
3 900 40.00

1 1006.5 44.73
2 Ambient 1179.5 52.42 50.16
3 1200 53.33
4M
1 1242 55.20
2 Oven 1199 53.29 55.01
3 1272 56.53

1 1399.5 62.20
2 Ambient 1365.5 60.69 62.05
3 1423.5 63.27
8M
1 1499.5 66.64
2 Oven 1478 65.69 65.24
3 1426.5 63.40

Appendix B

Mix Design for M25 Grade of cement as per IS10262:2009

Stipulation For Proportioning

Grade of Concrete M25

Type of Cement OPC53
Maximum Nominal size of Aggregate 20 mm
Minimum Cement Content 300 kg/m3
Maximum W/C Ratio 0.5

46 | P a g e
 Workability 75 mm
Exposure Condition Moderate
Method of Placing Hand
Degree of Supervision Good
Type of Aggregate Crushed Annular
Maximum Cement Content 450 kg/m3
Chemical Admixture Type None

Test Data For Material

Specific Gravity of Cement 3.15
Chemical Admixture None
S.G. of Coarse Aggregate 2.66
S.G. of Fine Aggregate 2.6
Water Absorption of Coarse Aggregate 0.7
Water Absorption of Fine Aggregate 1.0

Target Strength For Mix Proportioning

Adopted W/C Ratio 0.5
Maximum Water Content 186 lit
Estimated Water Content for 75mm Slump 193 lit
Reduction in Water Content For Plasticizer 175 lit

Calculation of Cement Content

Adopted W/C Ratio 0.5
Cement Content 350 kg/m3

Proportion of Volume of Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate

Estimated Volume of Coarse aggregate 0.6
Estimated Volume of Fine aggregate 0.4
Correction in volume of Coarse aggregate 0.01
Corrected volume of Coarse aggregate 0.61
Volume of Fine aggregate 0.39

Final Mix Calculation

Volume of Concrete 1 m3
Volume of Cement 0.111 m3
Volume of Water 0.193 m3
47 | P a g e
 Volume of Admixture 0.005183
Volume of Aggregate 0.69 m3
Mass of Coarse Aggregate 1121 kg
Mass of Fine Aggregate 700 kg

Appendix C

Mix proportion for M25 Grade of concrete

Mix Proportion
M0 M10 M15 M20 M25 M30
Marble Dust % 0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Cement kg/m3 280 239.4 226.1 212.8 199.5 186.2
Marble Dust kg/m3 - 33.25 49.87 66.5 83.12 99.75
Fly-Ash kg/m3 70 59.85 56.52 53.2 49.87 46.5
Water Liters 193 193 193 193 193 193
Alccofine kg/m3 - 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5
48 | P a g e
 Kapachi kg/m3 672.6 672.6 672.6 672.6 672.6 672.6
Grit kg/m3 448.4 448.4 448.4 448.4 448.4 448.4
FA kg/m3 700 700 700 700 700 700

Appendix D

Cost Analysis
 Considering, Cement – ₹310 / 50 Kg
Sand – ₹900 /Ton
Fly-Ash – ₹100 / 25 kg
Grit – ₹850 /Ton
Aggregate – ₹1250 / Ton
Alccofine – ₹600 /25 Kg

49 | P a g e
 Waste MD – N.A.
 Calculating Prices of 1 m3 from mix design which are as follows:

For M25 Grade of Concrete

Proportion Of Price(₹) Variation
WMD (%)
0% 3867.89 --
10% 3995.57 +3.30
15% 3873.19 +0.13
20% 3857.25 -0.27
25% 3841.27 -0.68
30% 3825.33 -1.1

References

Research Papers:
1. “Partial Replacement of Cement with Marble Dust Powder” By Prof.
P.A.Shirule, Ataur Rahman, Rakesh D. Gupta (International Journal of
Advanced Engineering Research and Studies).
2. “Properties of Cement and Mortar Incorporating Marble Dust and Crushed
Brick” By Tanver Kavas, Asim Olgun (Department of Ceramic Engineering,
Afyonkocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey, December 12,2007).

50 | P a g e
 3. “Effect of Marble Powder with and without Silica Fume on Mechanical
Properties of Concrete” By V.M.Shelke, Prof. P.Y.Pawde, Dr.
R.R.Shrivastava (IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering,
Volume-1, May 2012).
4. “Utilization of Waste Marble Dust as an Additive in Cement Production”
(Elsevier, Construction and Building Material, Vol 31/2010/4039-4042).
5. “The Effect of the Using Waste Marble Dust as Fine Sand on the Mechanical
Properties of the Concrete” By Bahar Demirel (International Journal of the
Physical Science, 18 August, 2010).
6. “Influence of Marble Powder/Granules in Concrete Mix” By Baboo Rai,
Naushad H, Abhishek Kr, Tabin Rushad, Duggal S.K. (International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering, Volume-1, No 4, 2011).
7. “Recovery and Reuse of Marble Powder By-Product” By G. Marras,
N.Careddu, C. Internicola, G. Siotto (Global Stone Congress,2010).

IS Codes:

1. IS: 456-2000 Plain and reinforced concrete code practice © BIS/2000.

2. IS: 10262-2009 Concrete Mix Proportioning-Guidelines © BIS/1988.
3. SP: 23 Handbook on Concrete Mixes © BIS/1982.
4. IS: 516-1959 Methods of Tests for Strength of Concrete © BIS/2002.
5. IS: 1199-1959 Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Concrete © BIS/1998.

Books:

1. Concrete Technology. By M.S.Shetty © S.Chand & Company Ltd. /2005.

51 | P a g e
 2. Properties of Concrete. By A.M.Neville © Longman Scientific &
Technical/1991

52 | P a g e