Mechanical Performance Comparisons of Flyash and GGBFS Concrete Proportions in Ambient Temperature with Conventional Concrete

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3728755/v1

By reacting alkaline solution with silicon, alumina, calcium products and forms the Geopolymer concrete. A number of experiments were conducted by heat curing to find the suitable proportion of Flyash and GGBSto get the desired strength with conventional concrete. Here By conducting short-term and long-term tests, efforts to find the most suitable proportion of Flyash and GGBFS give the closest strength results to conventional concrete in ambient temperature. In this study, using GPC (geopolymer concrete) mixes of 75%:25%, 70%:30%, 65%:35%, and 60%:40% (Flyash: GGBS) and M20 grade concrete, here conducted mechanical and durability tests.

Civil Engineering

Geopolymer concrete

Flyash

GGBFS

Alkaline liquid

ambient temperature curing

Cement concrete is known as a basic ingredient in the construction industry. The manufacture of concrete has as its main ingredients cement, sand, aggregate, and water, but the manufacturing of cement produces a lot of carbon dioxide. There are two main draw backs in its sustainability. [1]Cement production and continue usages in structural industries “it clearly indicates the likely impact on global warming indices”. [2].Davidovits in 1988presented the some binder solutions make reaction with silica and aluminium in a source material of industrial by such as Flyash and GGBFS”[3–4]. The Geopolymer concretes results from the reaction of source ingredients that is rich in silica, alumina, and calcium with binder solution. The main change between OPC and GPC is entire remove cement with industrial by products with chemicals for binding instead of water [5]. By Product disposal is a main issue in today's industry, and reutilization is the subject of extensive research. As developing countries produce more by products, efforts are being made to replace ordinary Portland cement with another material with the same strength and mechanical behaviour to produce a more environmentally friendly type of concrete [6]. Millions of tons of industrial by products, for example Flyash, GGBS, are used, reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the environment. [7–8].

The ingredients used for production geopolymer concrete are class F-Flyash, GGBFS, artificial sand, coarse aggregate, NaOH solution, Na₂SiO₃ solution, water, and super plasticizer.

2.1 Flyash

In this investigation work, class F Flyash (ASTM 618) [9] was gained from a “combustion power plant Raichur KA. The in gradients details of Flyash are in Table 1.0 [10]

2.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)

From JSW steel Bellary Karnataka brought GGBS. It has near white colour and a Bulk density of 1200 Kg/m³. The chemical and ingredients details of GGBS are detailed Table 1.0[10].

Table 1.0

detailing of Flyash as well as GGBS.
Chemical Properties	Loi	SiO2	Al₂O3	Fe₂O3	CaO	MgO	Na₂O	K₂O	TiO₂	Mn₂O3	SO₃
Flyash	0.76	62.10	27.44	4.57	0.83	0.55	0.04	1.17	1.09	0.04	0.40
GGBFS	2.1	43.4	12.5	0.82	40.3	0.75	0.26	0.35	0.5	0.14	0.34

2.3 Fine Aggregates (FA)

In the present research, artificial sand zone II was used as FA, and the specified experimental results were taken as per IS 383:1970 [11]. Artificial FA having a Sg (relative density) of 2.61 and a Fm (fineness modulus) of 2.69 is obtained.

2.4 Coarse aggregate

In the current research, locally available crushed stone aggregate of 12mm was used, and various tests were taken as per IS 383:1970 [12]. Coarse aggregate having a Sg of 2.66 and a Fm of 7.0are taken for all mix calculations.

2.5 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)

The NaOH is existing in white powder or fragments shape. In this research NaOH pellets is used.

2.6 Sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃)

Na₂SiO₃ is available like liquid glass form and it is also available in gel form.

2.7 Water

In the current work, regular river water is used and it satisfies as per IS 456:2000 [13].

2.8 Super plasticizer

Dr. Fixit Pidicrete CF 205 solution is used to increase workability and it is easy pump able.

Calculation of molarity of NaOH. [20]

M = (gm. solute or molecular mass)/solution volume

For 1 litre of water, 10M = 40x10 = 400gms

In a 2:1 ratio, Na₂SiO₃and NaOH are used.

The GPC is totally distinct from that of CC. The design is made using the available guidelines [14, 15]. In this study, four different binder material mixtures are used and all proportions are kept at 10 molar of NaOH. The mixes are designated as M1, M2, M3, and M4 for proportions of Flyash and GGBFS of 75%:25%, 70%:30%, 65%:35% and 60%:40% throughout the research work. The F/B ratio was taken 0.55 by keeping the binding solution to binder ratio constant. Extra water content of 2.088 kg/m3 and SP added of 2% by weight of the binding material were also used to achieve the required fresh properties of GPC. The GPC mix and CC designations and details are given in Tables2.0 and 3.0.

Table 2.0

Mix design of GPC (All quantities in terms of Kg/m³)
Mix	F/B	Flyash	GGBFS	AS	CA	Molarity	NaOH	Na₂SiO₃	Additional water	SP (%)
M1	0.55	236.25	78.75	712.52	1322.191	10	15.52	49.81	2.088	2
M2	0.55	220.50	94.50	712.52	1322.191	10	15.52	49.81	2.088	2
M3	0.55	204.75	110.25	712.52	1322.191	10	15.52	49.81	2.088	2
M4	0.55	189.00	126.00	712.52	1322.191	10	15.52	49.81	2.088	2

Table 3.0

Mix design of CC M20 grade concrete.(All quantities in terms of Kg/m³)
Materials	Content
Cement	315
Artificial Sand(FA)	821
Coarse Aggregate(CA)	1110
Water	157.6
Superplastizer(SP)	3.465
W/C	0.5

4.1 Mixing and Testing of GPC and CC

In the present research, it is proposed to recognize suitable mix proportion from different grades of geo-polymer concrete by the experimental process. An Indian Standard Code, IS10262, is used for mix design. The test cubes and cylinders will be cast using mix proportions. [16]

After arriving at the final mix design, three cubes and three cylinders of CC and twelve cubes and twelve cylinders of GPC are cast. Then, CC cubes are placed for 28 days in water. In addition, the GPC cubes are kept at laboratory temperature. The CC proportions for cube molding were 1:1.5:3 (M20) by mass (cement: FA: CA), with a W/C of 0.5 for CC and 0.55 for GPC. In the current research, binder solutions are considered binders for GPC. NaOH and Na₂SiO₃are diluted together to form the binder solution. Both NaOH solution and Na₂SiO₃are mixed together to form an alkaline/binder solution. This solution is then used for GPC[17]

This section discusses the effect of GPC with different proportions of binders, which gives better and more suitable strength with respect to CC used in construction industries.

Table 4.0

Mix design of Conventional M20 grade concrete.
Mix NO.	Molarity	Puc N/mm2	Pust N/mm2	Acid Attack Test % of weight loss	RCPT* Charge Passed in coulombs
CC	--	31.6	3.55	1%	2837
M1	10	40.85	3.40	0.36%	2956
M2	10	49.89	3.52	0.30%	2915
M3	10	55.46	3.58	0.28%	2842
M4	10	64.76	3.66	0.30%	2875
(RCPT- Rapid Chloride Penetration Test)

5.1 Compressive strength test of CC and Geopolymer mixes

By conducting this test it represent the strength behaviour in CC and GPC. This work compares the CC strength of M20 grade with the best combination to replace cement by mix M2, which is 70%:30% (Flyash: GGBFS). The comparative observed values are detailed in Fig. 1.0, and its values are from Table 4.0. The maximum strength was observed by increasing the quantity of GGBFS due to increases in the viscosity of the mix. [18].

5.2 Split Tensile Strength Test of CC and GPC.

Figure 2.0 represents the experimental reports of the split tensile strength test; also, the values are drawn from the experiment and Table 4.0. It provides results on split tensile strength, which is not significantly different from CC with different proportions of binders.

5.3 Acid attack test of CC and GPC

Acid tests were carried out according to ASTM G20-8 to determine the weight loss of different types of concrete. Acid test experimental reports are detailed in Table 5.

5.4 RCPTof CC and Geopolymer mixes

The work carried out according ASTM–C 1202–97 [19]. Test results of RCPT for several types of concrete are detailed in Table 4.0 and Fig. 4.0. The reports of the experiment work this comparative study demonstrates that conventional and geopolymer concrete behave similar.

According to this research work, the following points are observed:

The compressive strength (Puc) of GPC raises with the addition of GGBS in this study, but the workability decreases. Hence, keeping all these in mind, the proportion of 70%:30% (Flyash and GGBFS) is a comparative replacement of M20-grade conventional concrete.
The split tensile strength(Pust) of GPC slightly varying results by addition of GGBS in different proportion,
Similar results were found after acid attack tests on geopolymer concrete for different variations of GGBFS, but when compared to conventional concrete, the results were better.
The RCPT tests on geopolymer concrete and conventional concrete yielded nearly identical results in terms of charge passed in coulombs.
After conducting overall experimental work and workability factor analysis, the proportion of 70%:30% (Flyash and GGBFS) is better for replacement of M20-grade conventional concrete.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

N a Lloyd Geopolymer concrete with flyash second international conference western austrelia.
“Naik T. Sustainability of concrete construction practice periodicalstru. Des.constr. 2008;13(2):98-103”.
“Duxson P, et al. Geopolymer technology is current state of the art. J. Mater sci 2007;42(9);2917-33”.
Davidovits.J.“GeopolymerChemistryandApplication”, ISBN-978251482050, Saint-QuenitinFrance,2008.
“Ganapati Naidu et al. A study on strength Properties of geopolymer concrete with addition” of GGBFS.IJERD. PP19-28.
Lateef N. Assietal. “Investigation of early compressive strength of fly based geopolymer concrete Mater”sci 2016;112;807-815.
Yi-Fang Cao. “Effect of calcium aluminate cement on geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature”. Construction and building materials 191(2018) 242-252.
PradipNath,” Effect of GGBFS on setting workability and early strength properties of flyash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition”.Const. and building mater. 66(2014)163-171.
ASTMC618:2003. “Standard specification for coal flyash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete”.
Dattatreya J k et al. “Flexural behavior of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams”. IJCSE 2011, 138-151.
“Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural source for concrete, IS383:1970, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi India”.
“Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural source for concrete, IS383:1970, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi India”.
“Plain and Reinforced concrete code for practice, IS456:2000,Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi India”.
HardijitoD,Wallah SE, Rangan BV. “Study on engineering properties of flyash based geopolymer concrete”, journal of the Australasian Ceramic Society,38(2002), PP.44-47.
Subhash V. Patankar, Yuwaraj M. Ghugal and Sanjay S. Jamkar. “Mix design of Flyash based geopolymer concrete”. Springer India 2015 advance structural engineering DOI10.1007/978-81-322-2187-6-123.
P. Ukesh Praveen1, Dr. J. Guru Jawahar, K. SaiAbhinav, C. Sashidharmechanical properties of fly ash and ggbs blended geo polymer concrete using different fine aggregates(june 2016) (IRJET Journal)
P. Somiyadevi, A. Aruna, “Durability Performance of Geopolymer Concrete under Sulphate and Acid” ExposureApril 2012 (IJESC journal).
SapnaRathod, Girish“A Comparative Study on Strength and Durability Aspects of fly ash- GGBS based Geopolymer Concrete over” (December 2011) (IJERT journal)
Neetu Singh, Sameer Vyas, R.P.Pathak, Pankaj Sharma, N.V.Mahure, S.L. Gupta “Effect of Aggressive Chemical Environment on Durability of Green Geopolymer Concrete”October 2013 (IJEIT journal)

Table 5 is not available with this version.

The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: The compressive strength (Puc) of GPC raises with the addition of GGBS in this study, but the workability decreases. Hence, keeping all these in mind, the proportion of 70%:30% (Flyash and GGBFS) is a comparative replacement of M20-grade conventional concrete. The split tensile strength(Pust) of GPC slightly varying results by addition of GGBS in different proportion, Similar results were found after acid attack tests on geopolymer concrete for different variations of GGBFS, but when compared to conventional concrete, the results were better. The RCPT tests on geopolymer concrete and conventional concrete yielded nearly identical results in terms of charge passed in coulombs. After conducting overall experimental work and workability factor analysis, the proportion of 70%:30% (Flyash and GGBFS) is better for replacement of M20-grade conventional concrete.

Mechanical Performance Comparisons of Flyash and GGBFS Concrete Proportions in Ambient Temperature with Conventional Concrete

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 MATERIALS

2.1 Flyash

2.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)

2.3 Fine Aggregates (FA)

2.4 Coarse aggregate

2.5 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)

2.6 Sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃)

2.7 Water

2.8 Super plasticizer

3.0 Preparation of alkaline Solution

4.0 MIX-DESIGN OF GPC

4.1 Mixing and Testing of GPC and CC

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Compressive strength test of CC and Geopolymer mixes

5.2 Split Tensile Strength Test of CC and GPC.

5.3 Acid attack test of CC and GPC

5.4 RCPTof CC and Geopolymer mixes

CONCLUSIONS

DECLARATIONS

REFERENCES

Table

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1

Mechanical Performance Comparisons of Flyash and GGBFS Concrete Proportions in Ambient Temperature with Conventional Concrete

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 MATERIALS

2.1 Flyash

2.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)

2.3 Fine Aggregates (FA)

2.4 Coarse aggregate

2.5 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)

2.6 Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)

2.7 Water

2.8 Super plasticizer

3.0 Preparation of alkaline Solution

4.0 MIX-DESIGN OF GPC

4.1 Mixing and Testing of GPC and CC

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Compressive strength test of CC and Geopolymer mixes

5.2 Split Tensile Strength Test of CC and GPC.

5.3 Acid attack test of CC and GPC

5.4 RCPTof CC and Geopolymer mixes

CONCLUSIONS

DECLARATIONS

REFERENCES

Table

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1

2.6 Sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃)