Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 5599–5604 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICMDA 2016

Geopolymer binder: A veritable alternative to

Portland cement

F.N.Okoye
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal Polytechnic, Oko, Nigeria

Abstract

This paper presents the progress made on the research carried out on Geopolymer concrete using available local raw
materials. The aim was to find alternative to Ordinary Portland cement(OPC) which has attracted a lot of criticisms due to
inherent danger associated with its production. It is established fact that the production of OPC is characterised with high
emission of carbon dioxide due to calcination of lime stone and combustion of fossil fuel, coupled with high energy demand
associated with its production. This has generated a global concern and call for alternative binder to conventional Portland
cement, which will be environmentally friendly. It is on this bases that a new type of binder known as "Geopolymer" was
discovered as a suitable substitute to Portland cement which is environmentally friendly. It uses low energy in its production,
emits less carbon dioxide and has high mechanical and durability properties which are not found in conventional Portland
cement. Moreover, the utilisation of local raw materials like fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume etc which are activated with
alkali made it veritable alternative building material. Many research scholars used fly ash as the only source material for
geopolymer concrete. In this paper, silica fume and kaolin were blended to produce geopolymer concrete and their mechanical
properties of were investigated and compared with OPC concrete. The alkali activators used were sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide. Grade 30 OPC concrete designated as PCC in this experiment was designed and used as control. From the result, the
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete was higher than OPC concrete. Blending silica fume and kaolin increased the
compressive strength. Moreover, the tensile and flexural strengths increased more than the control.

© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIFUNCTIONAL
MATERIALS FOR DEVICE APPLICATIONS(ICMDA-2016).

Keywords: Geopolymer; Sodium hydroxide; Sodium silicate; Compressive strength.

*Corresponding author
Email Address: okoyefrancis2012@gmail.com

2214-7853 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIFUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
FOR DEVICE APPLICATIONS(ICMDA-2016).
5600 F.N.Okoye/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 5599–5604

1. Introduction

Concrete is one of the major components of building and other engineering construction materials which is
widely used construction materials globally[1]. It is a composite material composed of coarse granular material e.g.
aggregate, embedded in a hard matrix of material (cement or binder) that fills the space among the aggregate
particles and glues them together [2]. High compressive strength is one of the most important properties of concrete
that made its demand very competitive. The ability of concrete to be formed into a desired shape made it a unique
construction material. Unfortunately, these important qualities of concrete are marred by dangerous emission of high
volume of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Every year, the concrete industry produces approximately 12
billion tonnes of concrete and uses about 1.6 billion tones of Portland cement (PC) worldwide [3]. This prompted
the search for alternative construction material that is environmentally friendly.

However, the need to conserve our environment has necessitated the campaign on the reduction or total
elimination of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in the atmosphere. Ironically, most of emissions are man made
through industrial emissions especially in developed nations and in some cases among the developing nations. In
2006, the United Nations in an effort to save our environment organized a tree planting campaign so as to make our
environment green. The purpose of which is to shield our environment and humans from direct rays from the sun
because of ozone layer depletion. Since then, various researches has been going on to find a way of reducing carbon
dioxide emission in the air. The result was discovery of a new alternative binder known as "Geopolymer binder"
which has higher strength and durability coupled with its environmental friendliness [4]. Geopolymer is produced
by reaction of organic waste materials rich in aluminium silicates with alkali [5]. The aluminium silicate materials
are majorly found in fly ash, silica fume, Kaolin blast furnace slag etc, while Sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide
are the alkali used. Many research scholars concentrated on the use of fly ash as source material for geopolymer
concrete [14-20]. Hence, in this paper, different industrial waste materials such as silica fume and kaolin were
blended to produce geopolymer concrete.

2. Experimental program

2.1. Materials

Class F low calcium fly ash which conforms to ASTM C 618 was used in this research study. The fly ash
was collected from Ready Mix Concrete (RMC), at Surajpur, Greater Noida, Utter pradesh, India. Silica fume was
obtained from Counto microfine products Pvt. Ltd, Pissurlem industrial estate, Pissurlem, Sattari, Gao, India, and
conforming to BS EN 13263-1. Commercially available kaolin was used. Grade 30 Ordinary Portland cement was
used as control. The chemical compositions of the binders are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Chemical composition of binders

Chemical composition (%) OPC Silica fume K
Loss of ignition 0.38 2.10 13.97
Silicon Oxide (SiO2) 19.11 93.67 45.3
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 64.79 0.31 0.05
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.81 0.84 0.25
Phosphate (P305) 0.18 - -
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.09 0.4 0.27
Potassium Oxide (K2O) 2.17 1.10 0.44
Manganese Oxide (MnO) 0.19 0.84 -
Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 4.78 0.83 38.38
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 3.10 1.30 0.3
Sulphur trioxide(SO3) 3.0 0.16 -

The coarse aggregates used were 20mm and 10mm which were obtained from quarry depot at Surajpur,
Utter Pradesh, India. Fine aggregate used was river sand obtained from construction site at Sharda University.
Grading of both aggregates was done as prescribed in BS EN 12620 : 2002 as shown in Fig. 1.
 F.N.Okoye/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 5599–5604 5601

Fig. 1 Grading curve of 20mm and 10mm coarse aggregates and sand

Sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate were used as alkali activators. The sodium hydroxide is
commercially available in pellets and flakes, but for purposes of this research, pellets with 98% purity were used.
Commercially available sodium silicate solution was also used.

2.2. Mix proportion

The NaOH with concentration of 14M and sodium silicate were mixed together in the ratios of 1:2.5 by
weight and left for 24 hours to allow for geopolymerisation. Fly ash, Silica fume and kaolin were mixed together in
different proportions to make geopolymer binder. The total mass of coarse and fine aggregates was taken as 75% of
the whole mixture. The super plasticisers used were Polycarboxylate ester (Chryso-730) which was mixed with the
alkali solution to improve workability. Fine aggregate was kept constant at 554Kg/m3. Detailed mix proportion of
geopolymer concrete is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Mix proportion

Mix No Coarse Agreegate OPC Silica Kaolin SS NaOH(14M) SP Alkali W/S

20 mm 10 mm Fume
PCC 862 431 300 0 0 - - 4.0 - 0.3
GP1 862 431 0 120 280 113 45 4.0 0.4 0.2
GP2 862 431 0 80 320 113 45 4.0 0.4 0.2
GP3 862 431 0 40 360 113 45 4.0 0.4 0.2

PCC= Portland cement concrete, SS=Sodium Silicate, SP= Superplasticiser, Alk/K= Alkali-kaolin ash ratio, w/s= Water-solid ratio,
NaOH= Sodium hydroxide

2.3 Slump test

The workability of fresh geopolymer concrete was investigated using slump cone test as per BS EN 12350-
2:2000 standard.

2.4. Casting of geopolymer concrete

Casting of geopolymer concrete was done as per OPC concrete. The mixture was cast in a 100mm x100mm
x 100mm rectangular box for compressive strength and compacted with 20mm tamping rod. Immediately after
removal from the mixer, workability was measured using slump cone as in the case of OPC concrete.
5602 F.N.Okoye/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 5599–5604

The tensile and flexural tests were performed with 150mm diameter cylindrical moulds and effective height
of 300mm as per ASTM C 496-90 requirement and beam mould of 100mm x 100mm x 500mm in compliance with
EN 12390-51997 requirement respectively.

2.5 Curing and testing of geopolymer specimens

The concrete specimens were demoulded after 48 hours and cured in oven at 100oC for 72 hours. The
specimens were left at room temperature until the day of testing. The compressive strength for the cubes was tested
in 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days respectively while the specimens for tensile and flexural tests were left for 28 days before
testing.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Workability

Slump test was used to determine the workability of geopolymer concrete. The result showed that the
workability of OPC concrete was higher than geopolymer concrete as shown in Fig.2.

Fig 2. Slump of geopolymer concrete in relation to control

The decrease in workability of fresh GPC may be due to addition of kaolin, which increased the viscosity
of the composite mixture, thereby making compaction difficult. Moreover, addition of alkali solution in GPC
contribute to poor workability. When alkali is mixed with source materials, the composite mixture becomes sticky
and hard to compact, which inhibit fluidity of concrete and subsequent reduction in slump. Nevertheless, adequate
compaction was still achieved. Poor workability of geopolymer concrete was also reported by other research
scholars [21-22] .

3.2. Compressive strength

Figure 3 shows the result of compressive strength of geopolymer concrete in relation to control. The result
showed that the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete is higher than the control. Geopolymer mixtures GP1
and GP2 show higher performance in strength than OPC concrete.
 F.N.Okoye/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 5599–5604 5603

Fig 3. Compressive strength of kaolin/Silica fume geopolymer concrete

The strengths of GP3 is lower than the control at all ages. This is due to decrease in the ratio of
aluminiumsilicate in the mixture due to reduction of silica fume. It is noticed that as the proportion of silica fume
increased, the strength also increased. This is clearly noticed in GP2 and GP3 where the ratio of S.F was decreased
which resulted in decrease ib compressive strength. However, it is important to note that reduction in strength of
GP2 and GP3was not entirely on proportion of silica fume; it can also be attributed to high viscosity and incoherent
mixtures containing high proportion of kaolin which made compaction difficult, resulting in heterogeneity of the
mixture and loss of strength. In these design mixtures, silica fume played a significant role in strength development.
Fine particle size of silica fume increase its dense structure, making the composite mixture more homogeneous
thereby increasing the geopolymerisation and increase in strength.

3.4. Flexural strength

Figure 4 shows the flexural strength of geopolymer concrete in relation to control. The strength followed
the pattern of compressive strength but in decreasing proportion.

Fig 4. Flexural strength of geopolymer concrete in relation to control

Geopolymer concrete mixtures GP1 and GP2 show higher flexural strength than OPC concrete. The
flexural strength of GP1, GP2 and GP3 are 6.5N/mm2 and 6.3N/mm2 and 5.2N/mm2 respectively, while that of
PCC (M30 concrete) is 5.8N/mm2. The percentage increase in relation to control shows that geopolymer concrete
GP1 and GP2 are 12% and 8.6% more than that of control while GP3 is 6.9% less than control. The higher flexural
strength of geopolymer concrete may also be as a result of fine particle distribution of fly silica fume and kaolin,
5604 F.N.Okoye/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 5599–5604

which increased the density of the matrix, reducing porosity and bridging the space between the ITZ of the
aggregate and binder thereby increasing the strength.

3.5. Tensile strength

Figure 5. shows the tensile strength of geopolymer in relation to control. As in compressive strength, the
tensile strength of geopolymer concrete is higher than the control in all the mixtures.

Fig 5. Tensile strength of geopolymer concrete in relation to control

The tensile strengths of GP1 and GP2 are 9% and 5.5% more than the strength of the control mixtures
while GP3 is 2% less than the control. Meanwhile, the differences in the tensile strengths of various mixtures of
geopolymer is due to variations in the ratios of Si/Al present during polymerisation reaction mechanisms.

4. Conclusions

A veritable alternative to OPC concrete was discovered in Geopolymer concrete through this investigation.
Workability of geopolymer concrete was low as compared to control. This was due to mixture of kaolin and alkali
which increased the viscosity. Addition of super plasticiser improved workability and strength. Geopolymer
concrete GP1 and GP2 show higher compressive strength than the control in all ages. The flexural and tensile
strengths also recorded higher strength more than control. Moreover, increase in ratio of silica fume in the mixture
increased the strength.

References

[1] Alaa M. Rashad, Construction and Building Materials 41 (2013) 303–318

[2] Li. Zongjin, Advanced Concrete Technology’, 2011, 624
[3] V.M.Malhotra, P.K. Metha, High performance, high volume FA concrete, 2nd edu. Ottawa (ONT): Supplementary Cementing Materials for
Sustainable Development, 2005.
[4] F.N. Okoye, J. Durgaprasad, N.B. Singh, Ceramic International, 42(2)( 2016)3000-3006.
[5] F.G.M. Aredes, T.M.B. Campos, J.P.B. Machado, K.K. Sakane, G.P Thim, D.D Brunelli, Ceram. Int. 41(2015)7302-7311.
[6] P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat, V. Sirivivatnanon, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29(2007) 224-229.