Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment and prediction of the mechanical properties of ternary geopolymer concrete

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper utilized granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), fly ash (FA), and zeolite powder (ZP) as the binders of ternary geopolymer concrete (TGC) activated with sodium silicate solution. The effects of alkali content (AC) and alkaline activator modulus (AAM) on the compressive strength, flexural tensile strength and elastic modulus of TGC were tested and the SEM micrographs were investigated. The experimental results were then compared with the predictions based on models of mechanical properties, and the amended models of TGC were proposed taking account of the effects of AC and AAM. The results indicated that increasing AC and reducing AAM which were in the specific ranges (5% to 7% and 1.1 to 1.5, respectively) had positive effects on the mechanical properties of TGC. In addition, the flexural tensile strength of TGC was 27.7% higher than that of OPC at the same compressive strength, while the elastic modulus of TGC was 25.8% lower than that of OPC. Appropriate prediction models with the R2 of 0.945 and 0.987 for predicting flexural tensile strength and elastic modulus using compressive strength, respectively, were proposed. Fitting models, considering the effects of AC and AAM, were also proposed to predict the mechanical properties of TGC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andrew R M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth System Science Data, 2018, 10(1): 195–217

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cong P, Mei L. Using silica fume for improvement of fly ash/slag based geopolymer activated with calcium carbide residue and gypsum. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 275(9): 122171

    Google Scholar 

  3. Liu Y W, Shi C J, Zhang Z H, Li N. An overview on the reuse of waste glasses in alkali-activated materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019, 144: 297–309

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rashad A M, Khafaga S A, Gharieb M. Valorization of fly ash as an additive for electric arc furnace slag geopolymer cement. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 294(2): 123570

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davidovits J. Geopolymers: Ceramic-like inorganic polymers. Journal of Ceramic Science and Technology, 2017, 8: 335–350

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rahman S S, Khattak M J. Roller compacted geopolymer concrete using recycled concrete aggregate. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 283: 122624

    Google Scholar 

  7. Montemor M F, Cunha M P, Ferreira M G, Simões A M. Corrosion behaviour of rebars in fly ash mortar exposed to carbon dioxide and chlorides. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2002, 24(1): 45–53

    Google Scholar 

  8. Petlitckaia S, Gharzouni A, Hyvernaud E, Texier-Mandoki N, Bourbon X, Rossignol S. Influence of the nature and amount of carbonate additions on the thermal behavior of geopolymers: A model for prediction of shrinkage. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 296: 123752

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ren J, Zhang L, San R. Degradation of alkali-activated slag and fly ash mortars under different aggressive acid conditions. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2021, 33(7): 04021140

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ren J, Sun H, Li Q, Li Z, Ling L, Zhang X, Wang Y, Xing F. Experimental comparisons between one-part and normal (two-part) alkali-activated slag binders. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 309: 125177

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang S, Qi X, Guo S, Ren J, Chen J, Chi B, Wang X. Effect of a novel hybrid TiO2-graphene composite on enhancing mechanical and durability characteristics of alkali-activated slag mortar. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 275: 122154

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jindal B B, Alomayri T, Hasan A, Kaze C R. Geopolymer concrete with metakaolin for sustainability: A comprehensive review on raw material’s properties, synthesis, performance, and potential application. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2022, 1–26

  13. Qin Y, Chen X, Li B, Guo Y, Niu Z, Xia T, Meng W, Zhou M. Study on the mechanical properties and microstructure of chitosan reinforced metakaolin-based geopolymer. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 271: 121522

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yousef R I, El-Eswed B, Alshaaer M, Khalili F, Khoury H. The influence of using Jordanian natural zeolite on the adsorption, physical, and mechanical properties of geopolymers products. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 165(1–3): 379–387

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nath S K, Kumar S. Influence of iron making slags on strength and microstructure of fly ash geopolymer. Construction & Building Materials, 2013, 38: 924–930

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dehghani A, Aslani F, Ghaebi Panah N. Effects of initial sio2/al2o3 molar ratio and slag on fly ash-based ambient cured geopolymer properties. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 293(7): 123527

    Google Scholar 

  17. Li C, Sun H, Li L. Reply to the discussion by John Provis of the review paper “A review: The comparison between alkali-activated slag (Si+Ca) and metakaolin (Si+Al) cements”. Cement and Concrete Research, 2010, 40(12): 1768

    Google Scholar 

  18. Phoo-Ngernkham T, Maegawa A, Mishima N, Hatanaka S, Chindaprasirt P. Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions on compressive and shear bond strengths of FA-GBFS geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, 2015, 91: 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wu Y, Lu B, Bai T, Wang H, Du F, Zhang Y, Cai L, Jiang C, Wang W. Geopolymer, green alkali activated cementitious material: synthesis, applications and challenges. Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 224: 930–949

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nath P, Sarker P K. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 66: 163–171

    Google Scholar 

  21. Collins F, Sanjayan J. Workability and mechanical properties of alkali activated slag concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 1999, 29(3): 455–458

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ehsan M, Tang W, Cui H. Chloride diffusion and acid resistance of concrete containing zeolite and tuff as partial replacements of cement and sand. Materials (Basel), 2017, 10(4): 372

    Google Scholar 

  23. Özen S, Alam B. Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of natural zeolite-based geopolymer. Periodica Polytechnica. Civil Engineering, 2017, 62(1): 64–71

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rafeet A, Vinai R, Soutsos M, Sha W. Effects of slag substitution on physical and mechanical properties of fly ash-based alkali activated binders (AABS). Cement and Concrete Research, 2019, 122: 118–135

    Google Scholar 

  25. Villa C, Pecina E T, Torres R, Gomez L. Geopolymer synthesis using alkaline activation of natural zeolite. Construction & Building Materials, 2010, 24(11): 2084–2090

    Google Scholar 

  26. Poon C S, Lam L, Kou S C, Lin Z S. A study on the hydration rate of natural zeolite blended cement pastes. Construction & Building Materials, 1999, 13(8): 427–432

    Google Scholar 

  27. Perraki T, Kontori E, Tsivilis S, Kakali G. The effect of zeolite on the properties and hydration of blended cements. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2010, 32(2): 128–133

    Google Scholar 

  28. Celerier H, Jouin J, Mathivet V, Tessier-Doyen N, Rossignol S. Composition and properties of phosphoric acid-based geopolymers. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2018, 493: 94–98

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rodríguez E D, Bernal S A, Provis J L, Paya J, Monzo J M, Borrachero M V. Effect of nanosilica-based activators on the performance of an alkali-activated fly ash binder. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2013, 35(1): 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  30. Brew D, Mackenzie K. Geopolymer synthesis using silica fume and sodium aluminate. Journal of Materials Science, 2007, 42(11): 3990–3993

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vinai R, Soutsos M. Production of sodium silicate powder from waste glass cullet for alkali activation of alternative binders. Cement and Concrete Research, 2019, 116: 45–56

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ren J, Zhang L, Walkley B, Black J R, San Nicolas R. Degradation resistance of different cementitious materials to phosphoric acid attack at early stage. Cement and Concrete Research, 2022, 151: 106606

    Google Scholar 

  33. Davidovits, Joseph. Geopolymer Cement: A Review 2013. Technical Papers 21. 2013

  34. Ghafoor M T, Khan Q S, Qazi A U, Sheikh M N, Hadi M. Influence of alkaline activators on the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 273(4): 121752

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kaya M, Uysal M, Yilmaz K, Atiş C D. Behaviour of geopolymer mortars after exposure to elevated temperatures. Materials Science—Medziagotyra, 2018, 24(4): 428–436

    Google Scholar 

  36. Atabey İ İ, Karahan O, Bilim C, Atiş C D. The influence of activator type and quantity on the transport properties of class F fly ash geopolymer. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 264: 120268

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chindaprasirt P, Chalee W. Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on chloride penetration and steel corrosion of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete under marine site. Construction and Building Materials, 2014, 63: 303–310

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cho Y K, Yoo S W, Jung S H, Lee K M, Kwon S J. Effect of Na2O content, SiO2/Na2O molar ratio, and curing conditions on the compressive strength of FA-based geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, 2017, 145: 253–260

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fernández-Jiménez A, Palomo A. Composition and microstructure of alkali activated fly ash binder: Effect of the activator. Cement and Concrete Research, 2005, 35(10): 1984–1992

    Google Scholar 

  40. Criado M, Fernández-Jiménez A, Palomo A, Sobrados I, Sanz J. Effect of the SiO2/Na2O ratio on the alkali activation of fly ash. Part II: 29Si MAS-NMR Survey. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2008, 109(1–3): 525–534

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shahmansouri A A, Nematzadeh M, Behnood A. Mechanical properties of ggbfs-based geopolymer concrete incorporating natural zeolite and silica fume with an optimum design using response surface method. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 36: 102138

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ismail I, Bernal S A, Provis J L, San Nicolas R, Brice D G, Kilcullen A R, Hamdan S, van Deventer J S J. Influence of fly ash on the water and chloride permeability of alkali-activated slag mortars and concretes. Construction & Building Materials, 2013, 48: 1187–1201

    Google Scholar 

  43. Deb P S, Nath P, Sarker P K. The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash and activator content on the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Materials and Design, 2014, 62: 32–39

    Google Scholar 

  44. El-Hassan H, Elkholy S. Enhancing the performance of Alkali-Activated Slag-Fly ash blended concrete through hybrid steel fiber reinforcement. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 311: 125313

    Google Scholar 

  45. Valipour M, Yekkalar M, Shekarchi M, Panahi S. Environmental assessment of green concrete containing natural zeolite on the global warming index in marine environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014, 65: 418–423

    Google Scholar 

  46. Canpolat F, Yılmaz K, Köse M M, Sümer M, Yurdusev M A. Use of zeolite, coal bottom ash and fly ash as replacement materials in cement production. Cement and Concrete Research, 2004, 34(5): 731–735

    Google Scholar 

  47. Aiken T A, Kwasny J, Sha W, Tong K T. Mechanical and durability properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete with increasing slag content. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 301: 124330

    Google Scholar 

  48. Prusty J K, Pradhan B. Multi-response optimization using taguchi-grey relational analysis for composition of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 241: 118049

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sabet F A, Libre N A, Shekarchi M. Mechanical and durability properties of self consolidating high performance concrete incorporating natural zeolite, silica fume and fly ash. Construction & Building Materials, 2013, 44: 175–184

    Google Scholar 

  50. GBT 50081-2019. Standard For Test Methods of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Beijing: General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, 2019 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  51. AS 3600-2009. Concrete Structures. Sydney: Standards Australia, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nath P, Sarker P K. Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured blended low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2017, 130: 22–31

    Google Scholar 

  53. Waqas R M, Butt F, Zhu X, Jiang T, Tufail R F. A Comprehensive study on the factors affecting the workability and mechanical properties of ambient cured fly ash and slag based geopolymer concrete. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2021, 11(18): 8722

    Google Scholar 

  54. CEB-FIP. Model Code. Lausanne: Comite Euro-International Du Beton, 1990, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lee N K, Lee H K. Setting and mechanical properties of alkali-activated fly ash/slag concrete manufactured at room temperature. Construction & Building Materials, 2013, 47: 1201–1209

    Google Scholar 

  56. Russell H G, Anderson A R, Banning J O, Cantor I G, Carrasquillo R L, Cook J E, Frantz G C, Hester W T, Saucier K L, Aitcin P C, Anderson F D. State-of-the-Art Report on High Strength Concrete. ACI Committee 363. 1984

  57. CEB-FIP. Bullettin d’information 213/214 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. London: Thomas Telford: 1993

    Google Scholar 

  58. Norwegian Council for Building Standardization. Concrete Structures Design Rules NS 3473. Oslo: Norwegian Concrete Association, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ahmadi-Nedushan B. Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength concrete using ANFIS and optimal nonlinear regression models. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 36: 665–673

    Google Scholar 

  60. Olivia M, Nikraz H. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method. Materials & Design, 2012, 36: 191–198

    Google Scholar 

  61. Farooq F, Jin X, Faisal Javed M, Akbar A, Izhar Shah M, Aslam F, Alyousef R. Geopolymer concrete as sustainable material: A state of the art review. Construction & Building Materials, 2021, 306: 124762

    Google Scholar 

  62. Farhan K Z, Johari M A M, Demirboğa R. Assessment of important parameters involved in the synthesis of geopolymer composites: A review. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 264: 120276

    Google Scholar 

  63. Jindal B B. Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete with mineral admixtures: A review. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 227: 116644

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2572021BJ01) and Heilongjiang Province Postdoctoral Foundation of China (No. LBH-Z20036).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China

    Jinliang Liu, Wei Zhao, Xincheng Su & Xuefeng Xie

Authors
  1. Jinliang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xincheng Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuefeng Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinliang Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Zhao, W., Su, X. et al. Assessment and prediction of the mechanical properties of ternary geopolymer concrete. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 16, 1436–1452 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0889-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0889-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation