Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
DOI 10.1617/s11527-014-0268-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Long term durability properties of class F fly ash
geopolymer concrete
David W. Law • Andi Arham Adam • Thomas K. Molyneaux
Indubhushan Patnaikuni • Arie Wardhono
Received: 9 August 2013 / Accepted: 7 February 2014 / Published online: 19 February 2014
Ó RILEM 2014
Abstract The environmental impact from the pro-
duction of cement has prompted research into the
development of concretes using 100 % replacement
materials activated by alkali solutions. This paper
reports the assessment of a number of key durability
parameters for geopolymer concrete made from fly ash
activated with sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide.
Properties investigated have included workability,
compressive strength, water sorptivity, carbonation,
chloride diffusion and rapid chloride permeability.
Microstructure studies have been conducted using
D. W. Law (&)  T. K. Molyneaux  I. Patnaikuni 
A. Wardhono
School of Civil, Environmental and Chemical
Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000,
Australia
e-mail: david.law@rmit.edu.au
T. K. Molyneaux
e-mail: tom.molyneaux@rmit.edu.au
I. Patnaikuni
e-mail: indu.patnaikuni@rmit.edu.au
A. Wardhono
e-mail: arie.wardhono@rmit.edu.au
A. A. Adam
Department of Civil Engineering, Tadulako University,
Palu, Indonesia
e-mail: adam.arham@gmail.com
A. Wardhono
Department of Civil Engineering, State University of
Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
•
scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive
X-ray spectroscopy. The results showed that both the
geopolymer concretes with activator modulus 1.00
and 1.25 gave durability parameters comparable to
Ordinary Portland and blended cement concretes of
similar strength, while the geopolymer concrete with
an activator modulus of 0.75 displayed lower durabil-
ity performance. However, there is a concern over the
long term performance of the geopolymer concretes
with activator modulus of 1.00 and 1.25 when
considering chloride induced corrosion of reinforcing
steel due to the initial pH and long term chloride
diffusion coefficient.
Keywords Geopolymers  Durability 
Microstructure  Permeability  Carbonation 
Chloride
1 Introduction
It is widely known that the production of Portland
cement consumes considerable energy and at the same
time contributes a large volume of CO2 to the
atmosphere. The calcination of CaCO3 to produce
1 ton of ordinary Portland Cement (PC) releases
0.53 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and if the
energy source used in the production of PC is carbon
fuel then another 0.45 tons of CO2 are produced [33].
Therefore the production of 1 ton of PC produces
722
approximately 1 ton of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Increased environmental concerns coupled with
increased development and use of concrete in con-
struction has prompted a search for more environ-
mentally friendly materials.
A possible alternative is the use of alkali-activated
binder using industrial by-products containing silicate
materials [25, 40]. One of the most common industrial
by-products used as binder materials is fly ash (FA).
FA has been widely used as a pozzolanic material to
enhance the physical, chemical and mechanical prop-
erties of cements and concretes. It has been estimated
that the energy requirement of geopolymers is 60 %
less than that of PC [34].
Previous research has shown that it is possible to
use 100 % FA as the binder by activating it with an
alkali component, such as; caustic alkalis, silicate
salts, and non silicate salts of weak acids [9, 48].
Activation of FA involves using a highly alkaline
solution. This reaction forms an inorganic binder
through a polymerization process [14, 19]. The term
‘‘Geopolymeric’’ is used to characterise this type of
reaction. The geopolymeric reaction differentiates
geopolymers from other types of alkali activated
materials (such as; alkali activated slag).
Research has shown that geopolymer concrete can
achieve comparable strengths to Ordinary Portland
(OP) and blended cement concretes [10, 26, 27, 30, 39,
41, 49]. Durability studies have investigated acid
attack [11, 46], sulphate attack [12] and fire resistance
[32], while Miranda has investigated the chloride
resistance of geopolymer mortar specimens [35]. The
research has shown that geopolymer concrete has the
potential to be a suitable alternative material to OP and
blended cement concretes. However, the long term
durability of the material has yet to be established,
particularly with reference to the protection of rein-
forcing steel.
In a normal exposure environment with proper
design and production, concrete made with PC can be
a durable material. However, it has been long recog-
nized that traditional concrete can suffer from deteri-
oration due to the attack from aggressive agents such
as chloride and acidic gases such as CO2 that initiate
corrosion in the reinforcing steel. In order to be a
successful alternative to PC and blended cement
concretes, geopolymer concrete must show similar
durability properties and be able to resist attack from
these aggressive agents. This paper reports a set of
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
Table 1 Chemical composition of class F fly ash
Component Percentage
SiO2 49.45
Al2O3 29.61
Fe2O3 10.72
CaO 3.47
MgO 1.3
K2O 0.54
Na2O 0.31
TiO2 1.76
P2O5 0.53
Mn2O3 0.17
SO3 0.27
LOI 1.45
experiments analysing the strength gain and durability
properties of geopolymer concrete.
2 Materials and methodology
A range of geopolymer concrete and mortar specimens
were cast varying the mix composition and activator
modulus. Testing included compressive strength,
sorptivity, chloride diffusion, rapid chloride perme-
ability and carbonation. In addition, scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray
analysis were also undertaken.
The FA used to manufacture the geopolymer
concrete was a low calcium FA (class F fly ash)
conforming to AS 3582.1-1998 [4], Table 1. The
fineness of the FA had 86.82 % passing a 45 lm sieve.
The SO3 is less than 1 % which should ensure high
volume stability which is desirable for good durability.
The alkaline activator used in this study was a sodium
silicate based solution containing sodium silicate
solution (wt. ratio: Na2O/SiO2 = 2) and 10 M sodium
hydroxide. The chemical composition of the sodium
silicate solution by mass was Na2O = 14.7 %,
SiO2 = 29.4 % and water = 55.9 %.
The blended sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide
solutions are characterized by the activator modulus
(Ms), which is defined as the mass ratio of SiO2 to
Na2O; and the dosage, corresponding to the percentage
Na2O. The adopted nomenclature for the specimens
was GX-Y, where X is dosage and Y is Ms, i.e. G7.5-
1.0 for a 7.5 % dosage and a 1.0 activator modulus.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
Table 2 Mix proportion of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete
Mix Fly ash (kg) Aggregate (kg)
Sand (7 mm) (10 mm)
G7.5-0.75 1,050 1,728 763 1,528
G7.5-1.00 1,030 1,728 763 1,528
G7.5-1.25 1,016 1,728 763 1,528
Quantities for kg/m3
Different dosage and activator modulus are
achieved by varying the ratio of sodium silicate and
sodium hydroxide. The sodium hydroxide solution
was prepared in a fume cupboard by dissolving
sodium hydroxide pellets in deionised water at least
1 day prior to mixing.
Both coarse and fine aggregate were prepared in
accordance with AS 1141.5-2000 [5]. The moisture
condition of the aggregate was in a saturated surface
dry condition. The fine aggregate was river sand in
uncrushed form. The coarse aggregate was crushed
basalt aggregate with a specific gravity of 2.99.
The mix design was based on previous tests on
mortar specimens [3]. The total aggregate in the
concrete was kept to 64 % of the entire mixture by
volume for all mixes. The ratio of ingredients
(cementitious materials, chemical activator, aggre-
gate, and water) was calculated based on the absolute
volume method [37], as a result, the total weight of
binder and water was varied to keep the volume of
material and water/binder or water/solid ratio con-
stant. Table 2 summarizes the mix details for the
geopolymer concrete.
The concrete mix was designed to provide a 28 day
compressive strength of 40 MPa. This target strength
was chosen to replicate the strength for standard site
concrete as specified in AS 3600. To achieve this
target strength a 7.5 % Na2O dosage was selected. The
water in the mix was taken as the sum of water
contained in the sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide
and added water. The solid is taken as the sum of FA,
the solid in the sodium silicate solution and the sodium
oxide pellets. Liquid sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide were blended in different proportions,
providing an activator modulus (Ms) ranging from
0.75 to 1.25. In general class F fly ash based
geopolymer concretes exhibit longer setting times
and slower strength development at room temperature
[50], with curing generally being between 60 and
723
Activator (kg) Added water (kg) w/b
Na2SiO3 (liquid) NaOH (10 M)
198 209 88 0.34
262 165 84 0.32
324 123 79 0.32
90 °C. This temperature can be reduced by using high
calcium (class C) FA [27] or by adding calcium
compound [49] as the higher calcium content can
produce C–S–H which can be cured at room temper-
ature. As these experiments used a 100 % class F fly
ash, a curing temperature of 90 °C was adopted [3].
The slump test was undertaken in accordance with
Australian Standard AS 1012.1-1993 [6]. Compres-
sive strength tests were performed with a loading rate
of 20 MPa/min according to AS 1012.9-1999. Sorp-
tivity tests were undertaken with 100 mm diameter
and 50 mm height specimens in accordance with
ASTM C1585-04 [7]. The sides of the specimens were
coated with epoxy to allow free water movement only
through the bottom face (unidirectional flow). The
results were plotted against the square root of the time
to obtain a slope of the best fit straight line. According
to Hall [28], the penetration of water under capillary
action (sorptivity, S) can be modeled by:
I ¼ A þ St1=2 ð1Þ
where I is the cumulative absorbed volume after time
t per unit area of inflow surface, I = Dw/ar, Dw being
the increase in weight, a the cross-sectional area and
r the density of water.
Chloride diffusion tests were based on AASHTO
T259 [1] and rapid chloride permeability testing
(RCPT) was performed according to ASTM C1202-
07 [8] and AASHTO T277 [2]. Accelerated carbon-
ation tests were undertaken in a purpose built carbon-
ation chamber, Fig. 1 at a CO2 concentration of 5 %, a
temperature of 20 ± 1 °C and a relative humidity of
70 ± 1 % for 28 days. The CO2 concentration was
correlated relative to the O2 concentration in the
chamber. Testing for carbonation depth was under-
taken using Phenolphthalein indicator. Pore water
from mortar samples was obtained using a purpose
built pore press. The pH was measured electronically
using a pH electrode.
724
Fig. 1 Schematic of
accelerated carbonation
chamber
The microstructure was observed using SEM imag-
ing employing both secondary and backscatter electron
detectors. To prepare the samples for SEM analysis the
specimens were cut using a diamond saw to a size of
2–4 mm in height and 5–10 mm in diameter. The
samples were subsequently gold coated for imaging.
Samples were mounted on the SEM sample stage with
conductive, double-sided carbon tape. A total of 3
samples were investigated for each mix.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Material properties
The FA-based geopolymer displayed a very high
slump with all mixes giving a slump in excess of
200 mm. This is attributed to the spherical shape of FA
particles combined with the lubricating effect of
sodium silicate solution increasing the flowability.
The high slump across the mix types was not crucial
as the basic requirements were that the fresh concrete
did not segregate when vibrated and little bleeding
occurred, both of which requirements were fulfilled by
the geopolymer concrete. Following heat curing the
geopolymer mix produced a concrete of comparable
appearance to a standard OP concrete.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
The strengths of the FA-based geopolymer concrete
are shown in Table 3. There was a significant increase
in strength between MS = 0.75 and 1.0. However,
there was only a small further increase to the
MS = 1.25 concrete. This is attributed to an increase
in the alkali modulus leading to an increase in soluble
silicates and consequently an increase in the reaction
rate. The proposed reaction mechanism for geopoly-
merisation is a multistage process [23] consisting of
five stages: (1) dissolution, (2) speciation equilibrium,
(3) gelation, (4) reorganization, and (5) polymeriza-
tion and hardening. The dissolution process starts with
an attack on the FA particles by alkaline solution [24].
As a result the reaction product is generated both
inside and outside the shell of the FA particle sphere
until the ash particle is completely or almost com-
pletely consumed. At the same time, precipitations of
reaction products occur as the alkaline solution
penetrates the larger sphere and fills up the interior
space with reaction product, forming a dense matrix.
Due to the precipitation of reaction products, some
portions of smaller particles are covered with the
products providing crust which prevents contact with
the alkaline solution resulting in unreacted FA parti-
cles. The increase in strength observed between
MS = 0.75 and MS = 1.0 is attributed to an increase
in the dissolution process, thus resulting in a higher
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731 725

Table 3 Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete 2.5

G7.5-0.75 (56 days)
Mix Compressive strength (MPa) G7.5-1 (56 days)
2.0
G7.5-1.25 (56 days)
7 days 28 days 90 days G7.5-0.75 (90 days)

i (mm3/mm2)
1.5 G7.5-1 (90 days)
G7.5-0.75 39.1 ± 3.5 44.4 ± 3.4 46.1 ± 2.1 G7.5-1.25 (90 days)
G7.5-1.00 51.3 ± 5.2 53.3 ± 2.6 53.6 ± 5.5
1.0
G7.5-1.25 52.5 ± 4.6 56.9 ± 3.3 57.3 ± 2.0

0.5

reaction rate and in fewer unreacted FA particles. The

relatively small variation between MS = 1.0 and 1.25, 0.0
0 5 10 15 20
suggests that little further dissolution of the FA arises 1/2 1/2
t (min )
from the increase in activator modulus. This would
indicate that either all the FA has been dissolved once Fig. 2 Absorption (i) versus square root of time for geopolymer
a MS = 1.0 has been reached, or that the increase does concrete at 56 and 90 days
not result in any further dissolution of the protective
crust on the FA particles. Thus the formation of the Table 4 Sorptivity correlation parameters
[Mz(AlO2)x(SiO2)ynMOHmH2O] gel, the dominant
Mix Sorptivity parameters
step in formation of an amorphous structure of
geopolymers, which relies on the extent of dissolution 56 days 90 days
of alumino-silicate materials, reaches a limiting value Si (mm/min1/2) R Si (mm/min1/2) R
as the activator modulus increases above 1.0.
G7.5-0.75 0.101 0.996 0.101 0.997
As would be expected with heat curing there was only
G7.5-1 0.078 0.996 0.075 0.998
a small increase in strength from 28 to 90 days for all the
specimens, irrespective of activator modulus. Both the G7.5-1.25 0.071 0.997 0.066 0.998
MS = 1.0 and 1.25 concretes achieved a strength in
excess of 50 MPa at 28 days. The compressive The increase in activator modulus from 1.0 to 1.25
strengths observed are in agreement with those observed showed little change in the sorptivity values. These
by other authors using class F fly ash [10, 26, 41, 43]. changes are consistent with those for the strength data,
which also showed an improvement in performance
3.2 Sorptivity from MS 0.75 to 1.0, but little further improvement
from MS 1.0 to 1.25. This improvement can be
The sorptivity curve of the geopolymer concretes at 56 accounted for by an increase in the SiO2 content and
and 90 days are given in Fig. 2. The results show a increased dissolution of the FA, which results in a
non-linearity in the initial stages, which is in agreement higher rate of reaction, leading to a denser structure
with previous research [22], which found that the with a reduction in the porosity of the geopolymer
sorptivity curve of geopolymer concrete was less linear concrete. The correlation coefficients, R, of all the
compared to that of OP and blended cement concretes. sorptivity data exceed 0.98. Overall the sorptivity
During the setting period the geopolymer concrete parameters of the geopolymer concretes are compara-
exhibited an increased degree of bleeding compared to ble to those of OP and blended cement concretes of
the OP concretes. This would be expected to result in similar strengths [22, 38].
high quantities of cement paste at the surface. This high
concentration of cement paste is hypothesised as 3.3 Chloride diffusion
leading to a rapid saturation of the outer paste layer.
Once this layer is saturated the area of absorption is The results are presented in Table 5. The apparent
reduced due to the presence of aggregates. The level of diffusion coefficient (Da) and surface concentration
bleeding was higher in the specimens with an MS of (Cs) were calculated by plotting the chloride profiles
0.75, which corresponds to the highest value of and determining the best fitted curve using Fick’s 2nd
sorptivity, Table 4, and the least linear plot. Law of Diffusion [18].
726
Table 5 Apparent chloride diffusion coefficient and surface
chloride value
Mix Cs (%) Da 9 10-11 m2/s
G7.5-0.75 0.16 3.1
G7.5-1 0.17 3.1
G7.5-1.25 0.14 3.7
The geopolymer specimens display a similar diffu-
sion coefficient for all activator moduli. The diffusion
coefficients of the FA geopolymer concretes are
comparable with those for OP and blended cement
concretes, indeed being in the lower range of values
reported in the literature [13, 17]. This data would
indicate a high level of resistance to chloride ingress
for geopolymer concretes. However, one factor that
should be taken into account when considering long
term performance is that OP and to a greater extent
blended cement concretes show a reduction in the
chloride diffusion coefficient with time. This is
represented as the maturity factor, m [13]. This
improved performance is attributed to on going
hydration of the concrete with time. For geopolymer
concrete, which is produced by heat curing, little if any
further reaction will take place, illustrated by a
minimal increase in compressive strength with time
when compared to OP and blended cement concretes
cured at ambient temperatures. Hence, it may be
expected that little improvement in the diffusion
coefficient will occur over time when compared with
OP and blended cement concretes. This would mean
that the chloride diffusion coefficient after 20 years
would be similar to that observed in these tests. Thus at
20 years the diffusion coefficients for geopolymer
concretes may be higher than those for OP and blended
cement concretes.
RCPT were undertaken on the geopolymer speci-
mens. However, rapid heating of the specimens was
observed, Table 6, with all specimens reaching 60 °C
before the conclusion of the test. The flow of electric
current through a conductor generates heat which will
in turn increase the mobility of the ions that carry the
current, which will itself raise the total current flow
producing more heat in a cyclic process. Given the
rapid rises in temperature observed it can no longer be
assumed that Ohm’s law (V = IR) applies, which is
the basic principle of the RCPT method. Hence the
RCPT is assessed as not giving data which can be used
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
Table 6 Rapid chloride permeability test data
Mix Solution temperature °C Duration (Min)
Initial Final
G7.5-0.75 26.1 60 60
G7.5-1 25.1 60 200
G7.5-1.25 22.4 60 270
to evaluate the performance of geopolymer concrete.
The RCPT is often used as a standard test to assess the
chloride resistance of concrete in severe exposure
conditions. The heating observed in these tests indi-
cates that the RCPT should not be applied as a method
for assessing the chloride resistance of geopolymer
concretes and an alternative method should be used to
assess their performance such as the Nord tests NT
BUILD 433.
3.4 Carbonation
The geopolymer concrete displayed no clear border
between the coloured and colourless area when
sprayed with phenolphthalein indicator. There was a
graduation in colour as the outer part was lighter in
colour compared to the inner part. In this case the
carbonation ‘front’ was not clear, as such it is not
possible to measure accurately the penetration depth
using a phenolphthalein indicator. Even after full
carbonation, some light pink colour was found in the
outer part of the specimens.
When compared to carbonated OP and blended
concrete the overall colour of non-carbonated geo-
polymer concrete was lighter than that observed in
uncontaminated OP or blended cement concretes. This
suggests that the pH of the pore solution of the
carbonated geopolymer concrete was lower and the
pH was not significantly affected by the CO2. The
colouring observed is in agreement with Davidovits
who stated that the pH of geopolymer concrete is in the
region 11.5–12.5 and that the carbonation products of
geopolymer concrete have a minimum pH of 10–10.5
which is much higher than the pH from the calcium
carbonate which can have a pH lower than 9 [20].
In order to asses the pH of the geopolymer material
mortar specimens using a dosage and Ms the same as
the concrete specimens, together with those with a
dosage of 15 % used in previous mortar tests were
investigated [3], Table 7. The pore water was obtained
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731 727

Table 7 Mix proportion of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar produced. The OP cements produce Ca(OH)2 and
Mix Fly Fine Activator (kg) Added
C–S–H gel, while the geopolymers produced
ash sand water [Mz(AlO2)x(SiO2)ynMOHmH2O] gel. The pH of
(kg) (kg) Na2SiO3 NaOH (kg) fresh, OP and blended concrete, is above 13 and that
(liquid) (15 M)
of carbonated concrete below 9 [29], due to the
G7.5-0.75 0.523 1.440 0.128 0.101 0.082 formation of calcium carbonate.
G7.5-1.0 0.522 1.431 0.124 0.133 0.064 In the fresh OP cement concrete the Ca(OH)2 and
G7.5-1.25 0.521 1.438 0.167 0.046 0.108 C–S–H gel provide buffering to maintain the pH above
G15-1 0.505 1.388 0.193 0.148 0.046 13. In the geopolymer concrete the [Mz(AlO2)x
G15-1.25 0.500 1.376 0.255 0.117 0.033 (SiO2)ynMOHmH2O] will not provide a similar
G15-1.5 0.496 1.364 0.316 0.087 0.020 buffering. The pH from the mortars indicate that
3 following the geopolymeric reaction a pH in the pore
Quantities for kg/m
solution of around 12 for all geopolymer mortars is
achieved despite the variation in hydroxyl ion
Table 8 Carbonation data for geopolymer mortar specimens, concentrations in the initial mix. This would
pH
indicate that there is no buffering by the [Mz(AlO2)x
Mix pH (SiO2)ynMOHmH2O] comparable to that provided
0 days 3 days 7 days 28 days by the C–S–H gel. Rather the pH of the geopolymers
produced is controlled by the sodium hydroxide from
G7.5-0.75 11.86 11.88 11.01 10.88 the activator that is contained in the pore solution. A
G7.5-1.0 11.94 11.91 11.35 10.46 number of factors are hypothesised as controlling this
G7.5-1.25 11.73 11.71 11.39 10.73 pH, including the pH of the activator, the degree of
G15-1 11.96 11.97 11.50 11.05 reaction that occurs and hence the residual activator
G15-1.25 11.99 11.88 11.50 11.00 remaining and the chemical composition of the binder
G15-1.5 11.97 11.98 11.77 11.23 material, which will determine the composition of the
geopolymeric material produced.
In the geopolymer concrete the carbonation is
from the mortar specimens using a pore press and the hypothesised as the reaction of the sodium hydroxide
pH was tested at different time periods until full with CO2 forming sodium carbonate hydrates. The
carbonation of the specimens had been achieved after result of this is only a minimal reduction of pH to a value
28 days exposure. Spraying with phenolphthalein of approximately pH 11. The geopolymer mortars with
gave similar colours to that obtained for the concrete the lower dosage (7.5 %) having a slightly lower final
specimens. The results are given in Table 8. pH than those with the higher dosage (15 %).
The mortar specimens all had an initial pH of These results are comparable with those reported
between 11.75 and 12, with little variation between the for alkali activated slag concretes which have not
G7.5 or G15 mixes. However, higher initial pH values shown any detrimental effects due to carbonation [21,
have also been reported depending on the activator pH 44] and that final a pH of between 10 and 12, could be
and the raw materials used [36, 42, 45]. The pH expected [15].
reduced slowly with time until full carbonation was Given the results from the concrete and mortar
achieved after 28 days. At 3 days no discernable specimens, coupled with other reported results sug-
difference in pH was detectable, by 7 days a reduction gests that a final pH in the region of pH 11 can be
in pH was clearly measured and by 28 days the G7.5 expected for geoploymer concrete. This is a value that
specimens had a pH in the range 10.4–10.9 and the could provide protection to reinforcing steel following
G15 in the range 11–11.25. These results show a carbonation.
similar initial pH to that reported by Davidovits,
though the final pH is higher than that reported [20]. 3.5 Microstructure
The variation in the initial and final pH recorded for
the mortars compared with that of OP and blended The microstructure of all three geopolymer concrete
cements is attributed to the difference in the materials mixes were similar, Fig. 3. All the geopolymer
728 Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731

Fig. 3 Microstructure of the three geopolymer concrete mixes

specimens contained both unreacted FA and silica.

Some particles of FA were also found to have been
partially dissolved by alkali Fig. 4. The most distinc-
tive difference in the microstructure was a denser pore
structure as the modulus increased. Analysis of the
number of unreacted grains in each sample noted a
slight decrease in the number of unreacted FA parti-
cles, with an increase activator modulus, while the
number of partially reacted grains observed remained
similar as the activator modulus increased. This would
indicate that there is an additional dissolution of the FA
due to the increase in activator modulus but that the
increase does not result in any further dissolution of the
protective crust on the FA particles. The decrease in the
number of unreacted FA particles was more pro-
nounced between the G7.5-0.75 to G7.5-1 mixes, than
from the G7.5-1 to the G7.5-1.25 mixes.
Fig. 4 Partially dissolved fly ash grain
According to Steveson and Sagoe-Crentsil [47],
unreacted components in FA-based geopolymer
binder make up a significant proportion of the total 3.6 Long term durability
volume of the binder. These components are compos-
ites, hence the strength of the unreacted particles, the The compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete
interface between them and geopolymer matrix is is in excess of the specified minimum strength in AS
expected to have a significant bearing on the overall 3600 for the design of concrete structures in exposure
strength of the material. The reduction in the number categories A1 and A2 and B1 and B2. This indicates
of unreacted particles of FA as the activator modulus that from a structural perspective the use of geopoly-
increases would explain the higher strength and lower mer concrete is a feasible alternative to OP and
sorptivity observed. blended concretes used at present.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
However, the long term durability of reinforced
concrete is dependent upon the protection of reinforc-
ing steel in concrete which is provided by the passive
layer formed on the steel surface due to the high pH in
OP and blended cement concretes [16]. It is the
breaking down of this layer by carbonation or
chlorides that results in the corrosion of the reinforce-
ment. Thus the initial pH would be expected to have a
significant factor in the chloride induced corrosion of
reinforcing steel. The Cl/OH ratio is regarded as one of
the controlling factors in the initiation of corrosion
[31]. The pH produced following carbonation will also
be a significant factor in the long term durability of
geopolymer concrete.
The data obtained suggests that carbonation of
geopolymers may not be as potentially deleterious as
carbonation of OP and blended cement concretes as
the pH remains at a level that can provide protection to
the reinforcing steel. However, for chloride induced
attack the long term protection provided by geopoly-
mer concrete may be lower than for OP and blended
cement concretes. The lower initial pH may lead to a
lower concentration of chloride ions being required at
the rebar to initiate corrosion and, as discussed, the
long term chloride diffusion coefficient may be higher
than for OP and blended cement concretes. To
determine this effect more clearly longer term testing
of geopolymer samples is required to determine what
the maturity factor is for geopolymer concrete.
4 Conclusions
There is a significant increase in strength from the
MS = 0.75 to the MS = 1.0 and 1.25 concrete which
is attributed to an increase in the dissolution of the FA
grains and a resultant increase in the reaction rate.
Minimal variation in strength is observed between the
MS = 1.0 and 1.25 concretes and little increase in
strength is observed for any of the geopolymer
concretes with time, which is attributed to the heat
curing.
The geopolymer concretes display a non-linearity
in the sorptivity data in the initial stages compared to
OP and blended cement concretes. This non linearity
is hypothesized as being due to an increased bleeding
in geopolymer concretes giving a cement rich surface
layer allowing higher initial absorption. The sorptivity
values of the geopolymer concretes are comparable to
729
similar strength OP and blended cement concretes.
The MS = 0.75 gave the highest sorptivity value while
the MS = 1.0 and 1.25 gave similar values.
The apparent chloride diffusion values were similar
for all the geopolymer concretes. The values were
favorably comparable to similar OP and blended
cement concretes, though due to the heat curing there
may be no long term reduction in the diffusion
coefficient for geopolymer concretes, as compared to
OP and blended cement concretes. The RCPT results
in rapid heating in geopolymer concrete.
Carbonation testing indicated that the initial pH of
geopolymer concrete is less than that of OP and
blended cement concretes but is higher after carbon-
ation. The final pH after carbonation may be sufficient
to provide protection for reinforcing steel in carbon-
ated geopolymer concrete.
SEM analysis showed a denser pore structure with
increasing activator modulus, consistent with the
durability test results.
The durability test program indicates that both the
MS = 1.0 and 1.25 geopolymer concretes gave dura-
bility parameters comparable to OP and blended
cement concretes of similar strength. However, con-
cern exists over the long term performance when
considering chloride induced corrosion of reinforcing
steel due to the lower initial pH and potentially
constant chloride diffusion coefficient.
Due to the different composition of the geopolymer
concrete compared to OP and blended concretes the
direct application of the current standards and dura-
bility test methods is not considered appropriate and
before the use of geopolymer concrete is adopted the
development of a specific standard accounting for the
mix design and testing of the long term performance is
recommended.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their thanks
to PQ Australia for the supply of materials for the research
project, and Cement Australia Ltd for providing the FA. The
authors also wish to acknowledge the facilities, and the scientific
and technical assistance, of the Australian Microscopy &
Microanalysis Research Facility at the RMIT Microscopy &
Microanalysis Facility, at RMIT University.
References
1. AASHTO (2005a) Standard method of test for resistance of
concrete to chloride ion penetration’’, T259. American
Association of State Highway Transport Officials, Wash-
ington DC
730
2. AASHTO (2005b) Standard method of test for rapid
determination of the chloride permeability of concrete’’
T277. American Association of State Highway Transport
Officials, Washington DC
3. Adam AA, Patnaikuni I, Law DW, Molyneaux TCK (2007)
Strength of mortar containing activated slag and fly ash. In:
Proceedings of the 23rd biennial conference of the Concrete
Institute of Australia. Adelaide, Australia, pp 353–358
4. AS (1998) Supplementary cementitious materials for use
with portland and blended cement—fly ash. AS 3582.1-
1998, Standards Australia
5. AS (2000) Methods for sampling and testing aggregates—
particle density and water absorption of fine aggregate. AS
1141.5-2000, Standards Australia
6. AS (1993) Methods of testing concrete—Sampling of fresh
concrete. AS 1012.1-1993, Standards Australia
7. ASTM (2004) Standard test method for measurement of rate
of absorption of water by hydraulic-cement concretes.
ASTM C1585-04. ASTM, West Conshohocken
8. ASTM (2004) Standard test method for electrical indication
of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration.
C1202-10, ASTM, West Conshohocken
9. Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, Cheng Y-B (1999) Alkali acti-
vation of Australian slag cements. Cem Concr Res 29(1):
113–120
10. Bakharev T (2005) Geopolymeric materials prepared using
class F fly ash and elevated temperature curing. Cem Concr
Res 35(6):1224–1232
11. Bakharev T (2005) Resistance of geopolymer materials to
acid attack. Cem Concr Res 32(3):658–670
12. Bakharev T (2005) Durability of geopolymer materials in
sodium and magnesium sulphate solutions. Cem Concr Res
35(6):1233–1246
13. Bamforth P, Pocock D (2000) Design for durability of
reinforced concrete exposed to chlorides. Workshop on
structures with a service life of 100 years or more, 6th
international conference on deterioration and repair of
reinforced concrete in the Arabian Gulf, Bahrain
14. Barbosa VFF, MacKenzie KJD, Thaumaturgo C (2000)
Synthesis and characterisation of materials based on inor-
ganic polymers of alumina and silica: sodium polysialate
polymers. Int J Inorg Mater 2(4):309–317
15. Bernal SA, Provis JL, Brice DG, Kilcullen A, Duxon D, van
Deventer JSJ (2012) Accelerated carbonation testing of
alkali-activated binders significantly underestimates service
life: the role of pore solution chemistry’. Cem Concr Res
42(10):1317–1326
16. Broomfield JP (2007) Corrosion of steel in concrete, 2nd
edn. Taylor and Francis, London and New York
17. Cairns JJ, Law D W (2003) Prediction of the ultimate state
of degradation of reinforced concrete structures. In: Pro-
ceedings of the integrated lifetime engineering of buildings
and civil infrastructures, Kuopio, Finland
18. Crank J (1975) The mathematics of diffusion, 2nd edn.
Clarendon Press, Oxford
19. Davidovits J (1994) Properties of geopolymer cements. In:
Proceedings of the first international conference on alkaline
cements and concretes. Kiev State Technical University,
Kiev, Ukraine, pp 131–149
20. Davidovits J (2005) Geopolymer chemistry and sustainable
development. The poly(sialate) trminology: a very useful
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
and simple model for the promotion and understanding of
green-chemistry. In: Davidovits J (ed) Proceedings of geo-
polymer, green chemistry and sustainable development
solutions. Institut Géopolymère, Saint-Quentin, pp 9–15
21. Deja J (2002) Carbonation aspects of alkali activated slag
mortars and concretes. Silic Ind 67(1):37–42
22. DeSouza SJ (1996) Test methods for the evaluation of the
durability of covercrete. M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada
23. Duxson P, Lukey G, van Deventer J (2007) Physical evo-
lution of Na-geopolymer derived from metakaolin upto
1,000 °C. J Mater Sci 42(9):3044–3054
24. Fernandez-Jimenez A, Palomo A, Criado M (2005) Micro-
structure development of alkali-activated fly ash cement: a
descriptive model. Cem Concr Res 35(6):1204–1209
25. Gjorv OE (1989) Alkali activation of a Norwegian granu-
lated blast furnace slag. In: Proc. third international con-
ference on FA, silica fume, slag, and natural Pozzolans in
concrete, Trondheim, Norway, pp 1501–1518
26. Gruskovnjak A, Lothenbach B, Holzer L, Figi R, Winnefeld
F (2006) Hydration of alkali-activated slag: comparison
with ordinary Portland cement. Adv Cem Res 18(3):
119–128
27. Guo X, Shi H, Dick WA (2010) Compressive strength and
microstructural characteristics of class C FA geopolymer.
Cem Concr Comp 32(2):142–147
28. Hall C (1989) Water sorptivity of mortars and concretes: a
review. Mag Conc Res 41(147):51–61
29. Ho DWS, Lewis RK (1987) Carbonation of concrete and its
prediction. Cem Concr Res 17(3):489–504
30. van Jaarsveld JGS, van Deventer JSJ (1999) Effect of alkali
metal activator on the properties of Fly-Ash based geo-
polymer. Ind Eng Chem Res 38:3932–3941
31. Kayyali OA, Haque MN (1995) The Cl-/OH- ratio in
chloride contaminated concrete—a most important crite-
rion. Mag Concr Res 47(172):235–242
32. Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG (2010) Effect of elevated tem-
peratures on geopolymer paste, mortar and concrete. Cem
Concr Res 40(2):334–339
33. Lawrence CD (2003) The production of low-energy
cements. Lea’s chemistry of cement and concrete, 4th edn.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 421–470
34. Li Z, Ding Z, Zhang Y (2004) Development of sustainable
cementitious materials. In: Proceedings of international
workshop on sustainable development and concrete tech-
nology, Beijing, China, pp 55–76
35. Miranda JM, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Gonxales JA, Palomo
A (2005) Corrosion resistance in activated FA mortars. Cem
Concr Res 35(6):1210–1217
36. Lloyd RR, Provis JL, van Deventer JSJ (2010) Pore solution
composition and alkali diffusion in inorganic polymer
cement. Cem Concr Res 40(9):1386–1392
37. Neville AM (1996) Properties of concrete, 4th edn. Wiley,
New York
38. Olivia M, Nikraz H, Sarker P (2008) Improvements in the
strength and water penetrability of low calcium FA based
geopolymer concrete. In: Proceedings of the third ACF
international conference, Vietnam, 2008
39. Palomo A, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT (1999) Alkali-acti-
vated fly ashes: a cement for the future. Cem Concr Res
29(8):1323–1329
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:721–731
40. Philleo RE (1989) Slag or other supplementary materials?
In: Proceedings of the third international conference on FA,
silica fume, slag, and natural Pozzolans in concrete,
Trondheim, Norway, pp 1197–1208
41. Provis JL, Yong CY, Duxson P, van Deventer JSJ (2009)
Correlating mechanical and thermal properties of sodium
silicate-fly ash geopolymers. Colloid Surf A 336(1-3):57–63
42. Puertas F, Fernández-Jiménez A, Blanco-Varela MT (2004)
Pore solution in alkali-activated slag cement pastes. Rela-
tion to the composition and structure of calcium silicate
hydrate. Cem Concr Res 34:139–148
43. Rangan VB (2008) Studies on fly ash A-based geopolymer
concrete. Malays Constr Res J 3(2):1–20
44. Shi C, Krivenko PV, Roy DM (2006) Alkali activated
cement concretes. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon
45. Song S, Jennings HM (1999) Pore solution chemistry of
alkali-activated ground granulated blast-furnace slag’. Cem
Concr Res 29:159–170
46. Song X, Munn R, Marosszeky M, Brungs M (2005) Dura-
bility of fly ash based geopolymer concrete against
731
sulphuric acid attack. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on durability of building materials and compo-
nents, Lyon, France, pp 369–375
47. Steveson M, Sagoe-Crentsil K (2005) Relationships
between composition, structure and strength of inorganic
polymers. J Mater Sci 40(16):4247–4259
48. Talling B, Brandstetr J (1989) Present state and future of
alkali-activated slag concretes. In: Proceedings of the third
international conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag, and
natural Pozzolans in concrete, Trondheim, Norway,
pp 1519–1545
49. Temuujin J, van Riessen A, Williams R (2009) Influence of
calcium compounds on the mechanical properties of FA
geopolymer pastes. J Hazard Mater 167(1–3):82–88
50. Winnefeld F, Leemann A, Lucuk M, Svoboda P, Neuroth M
(2010) Assessment of phase formation in alkali activated
low and high calcium fly ashes in building materials. Constr
Build Mater 24(6):1086–1093