Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Construction and Building Materials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat Review Geopolymer concrete: A review of some recent developments B. Singh ⇑, Ishwarya G., M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee 247667, India h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t An overview of geopolymer is Conversion of fly ash into geopolymers/concrete. presented alongwith its processing parameters. The hardened properties and durability of geopolymer concrete are discussed. The design guidelines for OPC concrete are applicable to geopolymer concrete also. Geopolymeric building products developed at CSIR-CBRI are highlighted. Ambient cured single component geopolymer may enhance its wider use in the field. a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 26 November 2013 Received in revised form 16 February 2015 Accepted 4 March 2015 Available online 31 March 2015 Keywords: Geopolymer concrete Activator Bond strength Compressive strength Durability a b s t r a c t An overview of advances in geopolymers formed by the alkaline activation of aluminosilicates is presented alongwith opportunities for their use in building construction. The properties of mortars/concrete made from geopolymeric binders are discussed with respect to fresh and hardened states, interfacial transition zone between aggregate and geopolymer, bond with steel reinforcing bars and resistance to elevated temperature. The durability of geopolymer pastes and concrete is highlighted in terms of their deterioration in various aggressive environments. R&D works carried out on heat and ambient cured geopolymers at CSIR-CBRI are briefly outlined alongwith the product developments. Research findings revealed that geopolymer concrete exhibited comparative properties to that of OPC concrete which has potential to be used in civil engineering applications. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 An overview of geopolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.1. Constituents effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.2. C-S-H phase effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.3. Effect of admixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.4. Curing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Geopolymer mortars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Geopolymer concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: singhb122000@yahoo.com (B. Singh). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036 0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 5. 6. 7. 79 4.1. Fresh and hardened properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.2. Interfacial transition zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.3. Bond between reinforcing bars and geopolymer concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.4. Fire behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Durability studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5.1. Alkali-silica reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5.2. Effect of acid attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.3. Effect of sulphate attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.4. Carbonation and permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5.5. Corrosion of steel reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Research and development at CSIR-CBRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1. Introduction The concrete industry faces challenges to meet the growing demand of Portland cement due to limited reserves of limestone, slow manufacturing growth and increasing carbon taxes. It is reported that the requirement of cement in India is likely to touch 550 million tonnes by 2020 with a shortfall of 230 million tonnes (58%) and the demand for cement has been constantly increasing due to increased infra-structural activities of the country [1]. One effort to combat shortfall is the development of alternate binders to Portland cement aiming at to reduce the environmental impact of construction, use of greater proportion of waste pozzolan, and also to improve concrete performance. Search for several alternatives such as alkali-activated cement, calcium sulphoaluminate cement, magnesium oxy carbonate cement (carbon negative cement), supersulphated cement etc. are being made with the advantages of Portland cement [2]. As the family of the alkali-activated cement is growing, the alkaline cement is classified based on a phase composition of the hydration products: R-A-S-H (R = Na+ or K+) in the aluminosilicate based systems and RC-A-S-H in the alkali-activated slag or alkaline Portland cements [3]. In recent years, geopolymer has attracted considerable attention among these binders because of its early compressive strength, low permeability, good chemical resistance and excellent fire resistance behaviour [4–9]. Because of these advantageous properties, the geopolymer is a promising candidate as an alternative to ordinary Portland cement for developing various sustainable products in making building materials, concrete, fire resistant coatings, fibre reinforced composites and waste immobilization solutions for the chemical and nuclear industries. amorphous and possess sufficient reactive glassy content, low water demand and be able to release aluminium easily. The alkaline activators such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) and potassium silicate (K2SiO3) are used to activate aluminosilicate materials. Compared to NaOH, KOH showed a greater level of alkalinity. But in reality, it has been found that NaOH possesses greater capacity to liberate silicate and aluminate monomers [4]. The properties of geopolymers can be optimised by proper selection of raw materials, correct mix and processing design to suit a particular application [4]. Viewing the importance of the subject, a collaborative project sponsored by the European Commission – BRITE was undertaken jointly by France, Spain and Italy on development of ‘‘Cost-effective geopolymeric cement for innocuous stabilization of toxic elements (GEOCISTEM)’’. The project was aimed at manufacturing geopolymeric cement by replacing potassium silicate with cheaper alkaline volcanic tuffs [9]. Geopolymers are synthesized by the reaction of a solid aluminosilicate powder with alkali hydroxide/alkali silicate [8]. A schematic representation on formation of fly ash-based geopolymers/concrete is shown in Fig. 1. Under highly alkaline conditions, polymerisation takes place when reactive aluminosilicates are rapidly dissolved and free [SiO4] and [AlO4] tetrahedral units are released in solution. The tetrahedral units are alternatively linked to polymeric precursor by sharing oxygen atom, thus forming polymeric Si–O–Al–O bonds. The following reactions occur during geopolymerisation [7]. ðSi2 O5 Al2 O2 Þn þ H2 O þ OH ! SiðOHÞ4 þ AlðOHÞ4 ð1Þ ð2Þ 2. An overview of geopolymers Geopolymer is considered as the third generation cement after lime and ordinary Portland cement. The term ‘‘geopolymer’’ is generically used to describe a amorphous alkali aluminosilicate which is also commonly used for to as ‘‘inorganic polymers’’, ‘‘alkali-activated cements’’, ‘‘geocements’’, ‘‘alkali-bonded ceramics’’, ‘‘hydroceramics’’ etc. Despite this variety of nomenclature, these terms all describe materials synthesized utilising the same chemistry [4]. It essentially consists of a repeating unit of sialate monomer (–Si–O–Al–O–). A variety of aluminosilicate materials such as kaolinite, feldspar and industrial solid residues such as fly ash, metallurgical slag, mining wastes etc. have been used as solid raw materials in the geopolymerization technology. The reactivity of these aluminosilicate sources depends on their chemical make-up, mineralogical composition, morphology, fineness and glassy phase content. The main criteria for developing stable geopolymer are that the source materials should be highly This process releases water that is normally consumed during dissolution. The water, expelled from geopolymer during the reaction provides workability to the mixture during handling. This is in contrast to the chemical reaction of water in Portland cement mixture during the hydration process. It is reported that the hydration products of metakaolin/fly ash activation are zeolite type: sodium aluminosilicate hydrate gels with different Si/Al ratio whereas the major phase produced in slag activation is calcium silicate hydrate with a low Ca/Si ratio. Though many physical properties of geopolymers prepared from various aluminosilicate sources may appear to be similar, their microstructures and chemical properties vary to a large extent. The metakaolin-based geopolymer has an advantage that it can be manufactured consistently, with predictable properties both during the preparation and development. However, its plate-shaped particles lead to rheological problems, increasing the complexity of processing as well as the water demand of the system [6]. Contrary to this, the fly ash-based 80 B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 Fig. 1. Conversion of fly ash into geopolymers/concrete. particles and formation of reaction products (Fig. 2). The reduced porosity enhanced the strength of geopolymer pastes [13]. Typically, the optimum geopolymer strength was reported with SiO2/Al2O3 ratio in the range of 3.0–3.8 and Na2O/Al2O3 ratio of 1 [14,15]. Changes in SiO2/Al2O3 ratio beyond this range have been found to result in low strength. The setting time of geopolymer pastes increased with increasing SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of the initial mixture. 2.2. C-S-H phase effect Fig. 2. Pore size distribution of fly ash-based geopolymer pastes at different activator dosages [13]. geopolymer is generally more durable and stronger than that of metakaolin-based geopolymer [4]. The slag-based geopolymer is considered to have high early strength and greater acid resistance than those of metakaolin and fly ash-based systems. 2.1. Constituents effect The most important factors affecting the properties of geopolymer pastes are: SiO2/Al2O3 ratio, R2O/Al2O3 ratio, SiO2/R2O ratio (R = Na+ or K+) and liquid–solid ratio. The majority of research concluded that an amorphous structure of geopolymers is preferable in order to achieve desired mechanical strength [10–15]. The relationship between the compressive strength and SiO2/R2O ratio showed that an increase in alkali content or decrease in silicate content increases the compressive strength of geopolymers attributable to the formation of aluminosilicate network structures [10,11]. Geopolymer activated with NaOH alone with Si/Na of 4/4 or less formed the crystalline zeolite (Na96Al96Sr96O384216H2O) but at a ratio >4/4, nanosized crystals of another zeolite (Na6[AlSiO4]64H2O) were formed [12]. The addition of even small amount of sodium silicate to the NaOH significantly reduces crystallite formation due to templating function of silicate units. At low activator dosage (18%), the pores developed in the fly ash-based paste were larger and exhibited wider distributions (19.8– 2342 A) whereas at higher activator dosage (30%), the pores were smaller and showed a narrow distribution (19.8–1155 A) mainly due to the pore refinement as a result of more dissolution of The effect of C-S-H phase on the geopolymerization of aluminosilicates has been studied with a view to know its role in early age strength [16–22]. In metakaoin/slag blends, both C-S-H phase and aluminosilicate gel (N-A-S-H) co-exist in the paste [16] as similar to NaOH activated high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer [17] which are responsible for the strength increase. The little dissolution of calcium occurs in the case of adding natural calcium silicate minerals at lower alkalinity, resulting in less C-S-H gel formation and subsequent strength reduction of geopolymer pastes [18]. In the case of fly ash/slag blends, the reaction at 27 °C is dominated by the slag activation, whereas the reaction at 60 °C is due to combined activation of fly ash and slag. The improvement in compressive strength of pastes with slag addition is attributed to its compactness of the microstructure [19]. The initiation of hardening in fly ash/slag geopolymer made with potassium silicate and potassium hydroxide was due to C-S-H/CA-S-H formation and the hardening continues due to a rapid formation of a C-A-S-H, K-A-S-H and (Ca, K)-A-S-H depending on the availability of calcium ions and pH of the system. A slower dissolution rate of calcium ions effectively increased the compressive strength as rapid geopolymerization continues for a longer duration [20]. The low pH and limited calcium ion environment facilitate the polymerisation reaction between silicate and aluminate species in high calcium fly ash-based geopolymers producing NA-S-H gel [21]. Guo et al. [22] reported 63.4 MPa compressive strength of class C fly ash-based geopolymer paste showing the role of calcium participation in the strength development. 2.3. Effect of admixtures Kusbiantora et al. [23] reported from their studies that admixtures such as sucrose and citric acid which act as retarder in OPC have different mechanism in fly ash-based geopolymers. Sucrose acted as a retarder since it is absorbed by Ca, Al and Fe ions to form insoluble metal complexes. On the other hand, citric acid acted as an accelerator reducing the setting time by 9 and 16 min B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 respectively. Amongst the commercial superplasticizers, the naphthalene based superplasticizer was effective when single activator was used rendering 136% increase in relative slump without any decrease in compressive strength. Modified polycarboxylate based superplasticizer was efficient one when multi-compound activator was used with a decrease in compressive strength of 29% [24]. However, retarding effect of polycarboxylate based superplasticizer was also reported in fly ash/slag blended system though the improvement in workability was significant compared to naphthalene based superplasticizer [25]. 2.4. Curing conditions Several attempts [26–31] have been made to study the effect of different curing conditions on the properties of geopolymer pastes. The curing temperatures were reported in the range between 40 °C and 85 °C for complete geoplymerisation reactions. Palomo et al. [26] studied curing of alkali activated fly ash (0.25 and 0.30 liquid/solid ratio) at 65 °C and 85 °C. They indicated that the compressive strength of geopolymers (8–12 M) cured at 85 °C for 24 h was much higher than those cured at 65 °C. The rise of strength was much smaller when curing time was extended after 24 h. Perera et al. [27] studied the curing of metakaolin-based geopolymers under ambient (21–23 °C) and heat conditions (40– 60 °C) with a controlled relative humidity (RH) for 24 h and found that curing at 30% RH was preferable to that at 70% RH. Heah et al. [28] concluded that the curing of metakaolin-based geopolymers at ambient temperature was not feasible while increase in temperature (40 °C, 60 °C, 80 °C, 100 °C) favored the strength gain after 1–3 days. However, curing at higher temperature for a longer period of time caused failure of samples at a later age due to the thermolysis of –Si–O–Al–O– bond. Rovnanik [29] reported that curing of metakaolin based geopolymer at elevated temperature (40– 80 °C) accelerated the strength development but in 28 days, the mechanical properties deteriorated in comparison with results obtained for an ambient or slightly decreased temperature. Ebrahim and Ali [30] prepared three mixes with different formulations and cured hydrothermally at different temperatures (45, 65, 85 °C) and time (5–20 h) after 1 and 7 days of procuring. Longer procuring at room temperature, before the application of heat is beneficial for higher strength development. In general, adequate curing of geopolymeric materials is required to achieve optimal mechanical and durability performance to maintain their structural integrity [31]. 81 (14 M activator solution) with 10–30 wt% aggregate exhibited an acceptable flowability, while the mortars containing 40 & 50 wt% aggregate were stiff and difficult to pack in the mould. Increasing aggregate content in the mortar mixes leads to insufficient activator for complete geopolymerization of fly ash/slag. The activator may also be utilised for wetting of aggregate leaving less availability for dissolution of these fly ash or slag particles. The compressive strength of geopolymer mortars with high level of aggregate can be achieved by optimising the amount of activator dosage [34]. Khandelwal et al. [35] summarised that the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of fly ash-based geopolymer mortars increased logarithmically with the increase of strain rate. These engineering properties of geopolymer mortars compared favourably with those predicted by Standards/Codes for concrete mixtures. When bottom ash was used, the geopolymer mortars exhibited a low compressive strength (20 MPa). With 10% replacement of sand by bottom ash, the mix exhibited a comparable compressive strength to those made with sand only. The increase in strength (50–100%) of bottom ash mortar was also reported when the specimens were exposed at 800 °C probably due to activation of bottom ash [36]. When lignite bottom ash was ground to a mean particle size of 15.7 lm (3% retained on sieve No. 325), the compressive strength of mortars activated with sodium hydroxide/sodium silicate was 24–58 MPa [37]. Brough and Atkinson [38] prepared geopolymer mortars using slag, sand and activator in a ratio of 1:2.33:0.5. At water-to-total solid ratio of 0.42, the mortar gained strength of 40 MPa. The sodium silicate activated mortars exhibited higher compressive strength with low levels of porosity at the interface while KOH activated mortars were highly porous in the interfacial zone giving low compressive strength values. Yang et al. [39,40] found that the flow of alkali-activated mortars increased with the increase of water-binder ratio and decrease of aggregate-binder ratio. When the aggregate-binder ratio was larger than 2.5, the flow of mortars decreased sharply. They also found that slag-based geopolymer mortars exhibited much higher compressive strength but exhibited slightly less flow than the fly ash-based geopolymer mortars for the same mixing condition. The poor compressive strength of fly ash-based mortars cured at low temperatures is attributed to the presence of unreacted fly ash particles and large number of voids. As the aggregate-binder ratio increased, the compressive strength increased up to a ratio of 2.5 which indicated that the threshold of aggregates in geopolymer mortars were slightly lower than OPC mortars. The shrinkage strain of alkali-activated mortars was also found to be lower than the OPC mortars. 3. Geopolymer mortars 4. Geopolymer concrete Various studies [32–40] were conducted on flow and mechanical properties of geopolymer mortars because of their more relevant applications in building construction. The properties of mortars were optimised with respect to initial flow, aggregate-binder ratio, activator-binder ratio and activator molarity. Chindaprasirt et al. [32] reported that the compressive strength of class C fly ash-based geopolymer mortar was 52 MPa when cured at 70 °C for 3 days using sand-fly ash ratio of 2.75 at workable flow of 135 ± 5%. Prolonged curing at high temperatures led to the reduction in the compressive strength because of weakening of microstructure and increased porosity due to the loss of moisture. In another attempt [33], they produced geopolymer mortar with a compressive strength of 86 MPa at 28 days with the help of air classified class C fly ash (4500 cm2/g fineness) activated with sodium silicate and NaOH (10 M) at 1:1 mass ratio. The dimensional change in terms of drying shrinkage (1–61 106 mm/ mm) was insignificant when compared with the Portland cement mortar (700–850 106 mm/mm). The geopolymer mortars 4.1. Fresh and hardened properties Various mix proportioning of geopolymer concrete (GPC) were reported with target strength up to 80 MPa. The typical properties of geopolymer concrete mixes used by the various authors (41, 45, 48, 49, 53) are summarised in Table 1. The properties of mixes were studied with respect to water-geopolymer solid ratio, activator strength, water/Na2O ratio, curing time, curing temperature, and age hardening. The slump of mixes varied depending on the molarity of activator, workability aids and extra water added to the mix [41]. The rheological parameters such as yield stress and plastic viscosity were attempted over slump test of concrete to assess its workability loss and flow behaviour. Yield stress gives initial resistance to flow arose from the friction among the solid particles while plastic viscosity governs the flow after it is initiated resulting from viscous dissipation due to the movement of water in the sheared material. Laskar & Bhattacharjee [42] studied the 82 B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 Table 1 Typical properties of geopolymer concrete mixes. Hardjito et al. [41] Jimenez et al. [45] Sofi et al. [48] Diaz-loya et al. [49] Pan et al. [53] Density (kg/m3) Molarity (M) Slump (mm) CS (MPa) STS (MPa) FS (MPa) MOE (GPa) Poisson’s ratio Activator/ binder ratio Curing temperature and time 2330–2430 NR 2147–2408 1890–2371 1876–2555 10–16 8 & 12.5 NR 14 8 60–215 NR NR 100–150 NR 30–80 29–43.5 47–56.5 10–80 65.1–77.9 3.74–6 NR 2.8–4.1 NR 2.8–5.1 5–12 6.86 4.9–6.2 2.24–6.41 NR 23–31 10.7–18.4 23–39 1.9–42 11.2–41.2 0.12–0.16 NR 0.23–0.26 0.08–0.22 0.15–0.19 0.35–0.4 0.4 & 0.55 0.45–0.59 0.4–0.94 0.4–0.65 60–80 °C for 24 h 85 °C for 20 h 23 °C till testing 60 °C for 72 h 60 °C for 24 h CS: compressive strength; STS: splitting tensile strength; FS: flexural strength; MOE: modulus of elasticity; NR: not reported. rheology of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with slump varying from 25 mm to flowing concrete with 1–20 M activator strength. They found that the yield stress and plastic viscosity were affected by the molar strength of the sodium hydroxide solution and the ratio of silicate to hydroxide solution. The setting time of geopolymer concrete was reported up to 120 min. Like Portland cement pastes and mortars, geopolymers also behave like Bingham fluid and have a history dependent rheological profile, i.e., geopolymers may be kept in a fluid form, if subjected to constant shearing for a certain period of time before initial setting starts [43]. The setting could be enhanced up to 180 min with the use of naphthalene based admixture and extended mixing time especially in the case of slag-based geopolymer which has the potential for a wide range of technological applications [44]. Hardjito et al. [41] produced fly ash-based GPC with the compressive strength ranging between 30 and 80 MPa with the slump Fig. 3. Correlations within the mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. (a) Splitting tensile strength vs compressive strength. (b) Modulus of elasticity vs compressive strength [47]. varied from 100 to 250 mm (activator strength: 8–14 M). The optimum strength was obtained at 0.18 water-geopolymer solid ratio cured at 90 °C. As the water-geopolymer solids ratio increased, the compressive strength of GPC decreased analogous to the well known relationship between compressive strength and water-cement ratio for OPC concrete. The compressive strength of GPC remained unchanged with the age when tested after 24 h curing at elevated temperature. Fernandez-Jimenez et al. [45] made fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with a compressive strength of 45 MPa at 0.55 liquid/solid ratio cured at 85 °C for 20 h. The development of high early strength in GPC was explained by its compact microstructure, formation of adequate reaction products, smaller mean size of the pores and good aggregate-paste bond. They observed that GPC has a much lower modulus of elasticity (18.4 GPa) than the OPC concrete (30.3 GPa). Olivia and Nikraz [46] proportioned fly ash-based geopolymer concrete mix with a compressive strength of 55 MPa at 28 days and cured at different temperatures in the range of 60–75 °C. The hardened mix had higher tensile and flexural strengths, produced less expansion and showed modulus of elasticity that were 15–29% lower than that of OPC concrete mix. The drying shrinkage (0.025%) of GPC was less than the OPC concrete (0.09%) after 12 weeks. The minimal shrinkage of GPC may also be due to the significant resistance offered by its zeolitic microstructure towards drying loss of the water incorporated during casting [45]. Several attempts [47–53] have also been made to establish correlations within the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete. It was reported that the experimental splitting tensile strength of fly ash-based GPC was higher than the OPC concrete (Fig. 3). The increased strength is accounted for a denser interfacial zone established between the aggregate and geopolymer paste. The modulus of elasticity increased as the compressive strength of GPC increased. The modulus of elasticity of GPC was found to be lower than the values predicted by ACI guidelines for OPC concrete. Sofi et al. [48] studied the engineering properties of fly ash/ slag-based GPC. The splitting tensile strength and flexural strength of GPC were comparable to those models presented by the Australian Standard (AS 3600) for OPC concrete. Although, the difference between splitting tensile and flexural strength of GPC mixes has been found to be approximately 2 MPa, similarities between the strength gain was apparent. Diaz-Loya et al. [49] prop posed the equation ‘‘fr = 0.69 fc0 MPa’’ for correlation between the flexural strength (fr) and compressive strength and the equation p ‘‘Ec = 580 fc MPa’’ for correlation between elastic modulus (Ec) and compressive strength of GPC (fc = compressive strength). When compared with the typical Poisson’s ratio value of OPC concrete (0.15–0.22), the values of GPC appeared to reside toward the low end of range (0.08–0.22). Ryu et al. [50] suggested a model for relationship between compressive strength and splitting tensile strength (fsp = 0.17 (f0 c)3/4) for fly ash-based GPC. Bondar et al. [51] reported a relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength of GPC. They found that GPC showed a lower ultrasonic pulse velocity than the OPC concrete even those B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 with the same or higher compressive strength. It was also reported [52,53] that GPC was brittle as compared to its OPC counterpart due to the highly cross-linked framework. The fracture energy of GPC was also low because of its higher bond with aggregates as compared to OPC concrete [54]. 4.2. Interfacial transition zone It is well known that the interfacial zone (ITZ) between aggregate and matrix is the weakest link in OPC concrete at which micro-cracks usually first develop under loads [55]. Investigation of this zone is very crucial since it is known to have different microstructure from the bulk of the hardened paste. The high porosity of ITZ allows the easier penetration of external agents such as chlorides, oxygen, sulphates, etc. into concrete structure. Contrary to this, ITZ of GPC has been identified as being dense and much less microstructurally distinct from the bulk of binder region [56,57]. The stronger ITZ contributes to higher splitting tensile strength, bond strength and durability of the GPC. Lee and Deventer [56,57] discussed interface between the natural siliceous aggregates and paste in GPC using kaolin and albite as precursors. The increase in concentration of the activating solution increased the binding capacity of the gel with natural aggregates. The presence of chloride salts decreased the interfacial bonding strength between the paste and aggregate probably by causing gel crystallisation near the aggregate surfaces which resulted in debonding. In another attempt, they found that the addition of 0.5 M soluble silicate into an activating solution (10 M NaOH and 2.5 M sodium silicate) facilitates the formation of an aluminiumenriched aluminosilicate surface onto the aggregates through accelerated Si-preferential dissolution of kaolin and albite. The surface formed during albite leaching was found to possess a similar Si/Al ratio to the real interface between a silicious aggregate and fly ash/metakaolin geopolymer paste activated with 10 M NaOH solution. Without soluble silicates, no deposited aluminosilicate interface was observed. This suggested that both high concentration of alkali and soluble silicate are essential for the formation of a strong interface between silicious aggregates and geopolymer pastes. Zhang et al. [58] reported that at the beginning, there were many large voids in the fresh ITZ in potassium poly(sialate) geopolymer concrete. As hydration proceeded, these voids were completely filled with the hydration products. At this stage, the difference in the microstructure between the ITZ and matrix was hardly distinguishable. The contents of K/Al and Si/Al in the ITZ were higher than those in the matrix. Demei et al. [59] presented Fig. 4. Bond strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete as a function of steel bar diameter [47]. 83 FESEM analysis of ITZ in the fly ash-based self compacting geopolymer concrete with varying superplasticizer dosages. They reported that relatively a loose and porous ITZ was found at low superplasticizer dosages (3%) whereas a dense ITZ was found between the aggregate and geopolymer paste at higher dosage (7%). They also found that the compressive strength increased with decrease in the thickness of ITZ and this relationship depends on the superplasticizer dosage. 4.3. Bond between reinforcing bars and geopolymer concrete The transfer of forces across the interface between concrete and reinforcing steel bar is of fundamental importance in the structural design [60]. Bond stresses in the reinforced concrete arise from two distinct situations. The first is anchorage or development where bars are terminated. The second is flexural bond or the change of force along a bar due to a change in bending moment along the member. The bond strength of reinforcing bars with concrete is governed by several factors such as the strength of the concrete, the thickness of the concrete surrounding the reinforcing bar, the confinement of the concrete due to transverse reinforcement and the bar geometry. Generally, the bond strength between the reinforcing bar and matrix increases with increasing steel bar diameter and compressive strength of GPC (Fig. 4). There is a greater amount of slip for larger size rebars in GPC. Sarker [61] found that the bond strength of fly ash-based GPC increased with the increase of concrete cover-bar diameter ratio (1.71–3.62) and the concrete compressive strength (25–29 MPa). He also observed that GPC has higher bond strength than the OPC concrete because of higher splitting tensile strength and dense interfacial transition zone between the aggregate and geopolymer paste. Bond-slip behaviour [45] of GPC showed that the embedded steel bar of 8 mm dia broke before slipping and concrete cracking whereas the bar embedded in OPC concrete slipped. For 16 mm bar, GPC failed by matrix cracking while the bars in OPC concrete were again observed to slip. Sofi et al. [62] reported that the values of bond strength of steel bars in fly ash-based GPC were comparable in both beam-end as well as direct pullout specimen tests. The normalised bond strength increased with a reduction in rebar size. The bond strength tested according to AS 3600, ACI 318-02 and EC2 recommendations showed that these Codes are applicable and also safe to predict the developmental length for GPC. Attempts were also made to study behaviour of reinforced fly ash-based GPC beams and columns with respect to longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio and concrete compressive strength as test variables [63–66]. Sumajouw et al. [63] reported that the flexural capacity of beams increased with the increase in tensile reinforcement (0.64–2.69%) but the effect of concrete compressive strength was marginal. The ductility index increased significantly for beams having longitudinal reinforcement ratio less than 2%. They also studied the strength of reinforced GPC slender columns with respect to the compressive strength of concrete, longitudinal reinforcement ratio and load eccentricity. The design provisions mentioned in the Standards for OPC concrete can be used for designing geopolymer concrete columns also. Dattatreya et al. [64] found that the load carrying capacity of reinforced slag-based GPC beams was 17.7% more than the Portland pozzolana cement concrete beams at 2.68% tension reinforcement. Yost et al. [65] indicated that load–deflection behaviour of GPC beam was identical to OPC beam. The maximum strain obtained for under-reinforced beam was less than 3000 microstrains which is generally assumed for design work. The predicted neutral axis depth was 15% less than the experimentally achieved value for GPC. The Whitney’s stress block for strength calculation was found applicable for GPC also. Ng et al. [66] investigated potential use of steel 84 B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 fibres (up to 1.5 wt%) to replace conventional shear reinforcement in GPC beams of 2250 mm span length. They found that the increase in fibre volume led to an increase in the cracking load and the ultimate shear strength. A good correlation of test data was observed with the predictive fib Model Code 2010. carbonation, alkali-silica reaction and freeze–thaw attack. In view of this, several studies are being carried out to understand the behaviour of geopolymers exposed to these conditions. 4.4. Fire behaviour Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) causes gradual but severe deterioration of hardened Portland cement concrete in terms of its strength loss, cracking, volume expansion etc. It involves the reaction between the hydroxyl ion in the pore solution within the concrete matrix and reactive silica of the aggregate. In general terms, the reactions will proceed in stages, with the first stage being the hydrolysis of reactive silica by hydroxyl ions to form alkali-silica gel and a later secondary overlapping stage being the absorption of water by the gel, which will result in increase of volume [72]. In general, concrete has good property with respect to fire resistance. However, it is known that the residual strength of OPC concrete after firing between 800 °C and 1000 °C does not exceed 20– 30% normally because of dehydration and destruction of C-S-H & other crystalline hydrates, aggregate types, permeability etc. Fire introduces high temperature gradient and as a result, the hot layer tends to separate and spall from the cooler interior layer of the body [67]. Contrary to this, geopolymers possess good fire resistance at elevated temperature because of the existence of highly distributed nano-pores in the ceramic like microstructure that allows physically and chemically bonded water to migrate and evaporate without damaging the aluminosilicate network [4]. During fire, several events such as evaporation of water adsorbed by N-A-S-H gel, formation of anhydrous products, crystallization of stable anhydrous phases and melting (sintering) leading to destruction generally occurred. The phase transformation of geopolymers during fire is depicted below. Kong et al. [68] found that the residual strength of fly ash-based geopolymer pastes increased by 6% after exposure to 800 °C, whereas the strength of metakaolin-based geopolymer pastes was reduced by 34%. During heating, the high permeability of fly ashbased geopolymer provides the escape route for moisture in the matrix, thereby decreasing the damage. The strength increase is also partly attributed to the sintering reaction of unreacted fly ash particles. Geopolymer pastes made with metakaolin and potassium based activator showed an enhanced post-elevated temperature performance compared to sodium based activator system. The strength deterioration reduced with increasing Si/Al ratio (>1.5) [69]. Aggregate size larger than 10 mm resulted in good strength performance in both ambient and elevated temperature (800 °C). The strength loss in fly ash-based geopolymer concrete at elevated temperatures is attributed to thermal mismatch between the geopolymer paste and aggregate [70]. No spalling was reported in the samples by Zhao and Sanjayan [71] when fly ash-based GPC with compressive strength ranging from 40 to 100 MPa was exposed to 850 °C. They also found that at the same strength level, GPC possessed higher spalling resistance under fire than the OPC concrete due to its increased porosity. 5.1. Alkali-silica reaction (i) Acid-based reaction H0:38 SiO2:19 þ 0:38NaOH ! Na0:38 SiO2:19 þ 0:38H2 O ð3Þ (ii) Attack of the siloxane bridges and disintegration of the silica 2 Na0:38 SiO2:19 þ 1:62NaOH ! 2Na2þ þ H2 SiO4 ð4Þ In geopolymer concrete, the un-utilised alkali after geopolymerization of aluminosilicates is expected to react with the silica of the aggregates causing disruption of their siloxane bridges. It is reported that geopolymer mortars using aggregates of different reactivities expanded less than the corresponding Portland cement mortars [73]. The geopolymer mortars appeared to be sound without any surface cracking. The cause of expansion in slag-based geopolymer mortars is the formation of sodium calcium silicate hydrate reaction product with rosette-type morphology [74]. Contrary to this, there was no significant expansion in fly ashbased geopolymer mortars. The formation of crystalline zeolites was very slow and since these minerals are usually found in the gaps of the matrix, the existence of stress that might generate cracking is unlikely [75]. Geopolymer mortar bars made with fly ash/slag blends expanded less than 0.1% limit prescribed in ASTM C1260-07 after 16 days (Fig. 5). At 90 days exposure, these mortars failed to meet the specified criteria. Increasing slag content in fly ash/slag mix increased the expansion of resulting systems [76]. ASR has also been claimed to be helpful in providing a strong bond at the paste-aggregate interface, thus enhancing the tensile strength of GPC [8]. Patil et al. [73] indicated that sandstone, quartz and limestone aggregates in geopolymer concrete were not prone 5. Durability studies One of the major problems associated with OPC concrete is its long term durability which had always been an issue against aggressive environments. The deterioration of concrete is usually assessed for sulphate attack, chloride induced corrosion, atmospheric Fig. 5. Alkali-silica reaction in various geopolymer and OPC mortars under an accelerated condition (1 M NaOH) at 80 °C [76]. B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 85 to ASR. During accelerated mortar bar test, a slight expansion was noticed because of re-initiation of the geopolymerization process of unreacted fly ash particles leading to lower porosity and higher strength. The lower sensitivity of reactive aggregates in GPC provides economic advantages in areas where high quality deposits of aggregates have been depleted. 5.2. Effect of acid attack The acid resistance of geopolymer pastes/concrete was studied by several authors [77–84]. The extent of degradation depends on the concentration of acid solution and period of exposure. Davidovits et al. [8] indicated that metakaolin-based geopolymer pastes showed only 7% mass loss when sample was immersed in 5% H2SO4 for 30 days. It was also reported that fly ash-based geopolymer pastes retained a dense microstructure after 3 months exposure in HNO3. Temuujin et al. [77] concluded that acid and alkaline resistance of fly ash-based geopolymer strongly depend on its mineralogical composition. High solubility of Al, Si and Fe ions was obtained in both strong alkali and acid solutions. The performance of fly ash-based geopolymer pastes when exposed to 5% acetic acid and 5% H2SO4 solutions was superior to ordinary Portland cement pastes. The deterioration in pastes was connected to depolymerisation of the aluminosilicate network and formation of zeolites [78]. ð5Þ Wallah and Rangan [41] found that the reduction in compressive strength of fly ash-based GPC in 0.5% H2SO4 solution was 20% after 12 months exposure. This value was 52% and 65% respectively when samples exposed to 1% and 2% H2SO4 solution. Pitting and erosion on the surface of the concrete were also observed. The loss in strength of concrete is mainly due to the degradation in the geopolymer matrix rather than the aggregate. They concluded that the acid resistance of GPC was superior to OPC concrete. Ariffin et al. [79] exposed GPC made with a blend of pulverized fuel ash and palm oil fuel ash in 2% solution of sulphuric acid for 18 months. The weight loss in GPC was 8% while OPC concrete exhibited 20% weight loss. The strength reduction in GPC was 35% in 18 months as against 68% strength loss in OPC concrete after 30 days and was severely deteriorated after 18 months. The C-S-H could have severe deleterious effect on OPC concrete while N-A-S-H gel appeared to have little effect on the structure of GPC. Sathia et al. [80] reported the weight loss in concrete samples was less than 5% after 3 months exposure in 3% H2SO4 solution. Bakharev et al. [81] found that slag-based GPC (40 MPa) exhibited 33% reduction in strength compared to 47% in OPC concrete when exposed in acetic acid solution (pH 4) for 12 months. The slag particles and low calcium C-S-H with average Ca/Si ratio of 1 were more stable in the acid solution than the constituents of the OPC pastes. During immersion in 2% H2SO4 solution, the strength loss was 11% compared to 36.2% for OPC concrete. Fig. 6. Atomic force microscope images of fly ash-based geopolymer exposed under sulphate after 4 months [86]. 5.3. Effect of sulphate attack Fly ash-based geopolymer pastes did not deteriorate significantly, under the influence of water, sodium sulphate (4.4%) and ASTM sea water [82]. Only some fluctuations in flexural strength were observed between 7 days and 3 months exposures. The least strength change was observed in the pastes exposed in the 5% Na2SO4 and 5% MgSO4 solutions while most significant deterioration was observed in the 5% mixed sulphate solution 86 B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 (Na2SO4 + MgSO4) after 5 months exposure [83]. In fly ash/slag system, the extensive physical deterioration of pastes was observed during immersion in MgSO4 solution after 3 months exposure but not in Na2SO4 solution. The calcium sulphate dihydrate formed in paste was identified as being particularly damaging to the materials in MgSO4 [84]. Atomic force microscopic images of fly ash-based geopolymer pastes exposed to sulphate environment are shown in Fig. 6. In the case of Na2SO4 solution, only exposition of grains was clearly visible while in MgSO4 solution, both exposition of grains and dissolved aluminosilicate matrix were observed showing severity of MgSO4 attack [85]. The deterioration is considered mainly due to the destruction of aluminosilicate skeleton, liberation of silicic acid, leaching of sodium ion etc. [86]. These reactions seem to have significant effect on the mechanical strength. The geopolymer prepared with NaOH activator had the best performance over those made with a synergistically used sodium silicate and NaOH/KOH activators, which is attributed to its stable cross-linked aluminosilicate polymer structure. Several attempts [41,87] have been made to study sulphate resistance of GPC. The deterioration in concrete was evaluated in terms of its visual appearance, weight loss and change in compressive strength. Hardjito et al. [41] observed that there was no significant effect of 5% Na2SO4 solution in the compressive strength, the weight loss and the dimension of fly ash-based GPC after 3 months exposure. Rajamane et al. [87] reported sulphate resistance of fly ash-based GPC for 3 months in 5% Na2SO4 and 5% MgSO4 solutions. The weight loss in samples was 2.4% only. There was 2–29% loss of compressive strength as compared to 9– 38% in the OPC concrete. The deterioration of OPC concrete can be attributed to the formation of expansive gypsum and ettringite which can cause expansion, cracking and spalling in the concrete. Contrary to this, GPC in general do not contain Ca(OH)2 and monosulphoaluminate in the matrix to cause expansion. 5.4. Carbonation and permeability Bernal et al. [88] studied slag/metakaolin-based GPC (w/b ratio 0.47) under an accelerated carbonation test using CO2 concentration of 3.0 ± 0.2% at 20 °C for 28 days. They found that the compressive strength decreased monotonically as the carbonation proceeds. The relationship between the pore volume and extent of carbonation was much more similar with samples with different percentages of metakaolin contrary to the slag-based samples. This suggested that porosity is not the only parameter controlling the strength loss of the carbonated binder. There must be a convoluting effect due to the binder gel chemistry, which determines the residual level of strength after an accelerated carbonation. Olivia and Nikraz [46] reported lower water permeability (2.46–4.67 1011 m/s) of GPC (activator-fly ash ratio, 0.30–0.40 cured at 60 °C for 24 h) than the OPC concrete due to its denser paste and smaller pore inter-connectivity. They also reported that the water-geopolymer solids ratio was the most influential parameter that affects the properties of GPC. Bondar et al. [51] studied the oxygen and chloride permeability of alkali-activated concrete made with the Iranian natural pozzolan (Taftan andesite and Shahindej dacite). They concluded that alkali-activated natural pozzalona concrete has 10–35% lower oxygen permeability at normal curing conditions for 90 days compared with the OPC concrete. The rapid chloride permeability test gave high values for the alkali-activated concrete. This is probably due to the very high alkali ion concentration in the pore solution promoting higher electrical conductivity in the GPC. This effect seems to reduce with age due to a change in the porosity of the GPC microstructure. 5.5. Corrosion of steel reinforcement Corrosion potential is a technique used to detect the state of reinforcement without disturbing the structures. This is important because the intensity of corrosion of steel in concrete is generally known only after the concrete has cracked or disrupted. Various studies [46,80,89] were reported to estimate the corrosion potential of steel within the GPC as per ASTM C876. Olivia and Nikraz [46] reported that the half cell potential of GPC was lower than the specified value of 404 mV mentioned in the Standard for severe corrosion after 91 days. Sathia et al. [80] also reported corrosion potential up to 300 mV which showed a probable corrosion indication due to the lower pH of concrete during the half-cell potential measurement. Accelerated corrosion results showed that GPC mixes exhibited low level corrosion activity and time to failure that were 3.86–5.70 times longer than those of the OPC concrete. Under impressed voltage, a crack appeared suddenly in the concrete when time to failure was reached and this was followed immediately by high current reading. The large amounts of fly ash and alkaline activators in the GPC mix increased the availability of ions that can produce high electrical resistance at high impressed voltage. This enhanced the cathodic reaction and reduces the rate of corrosion, which in turn, reduces the tensile stress of the specimens, thus decreasing the risk of cracking and clearly extending the time to failure [46]. Reddy et al. [89] compared the durability of GPC with that of OPC concrete exposed to marine environment for a period of 21 days. The initial corrosion current measured for GPC (71–91 mA) was much lower than that of OPC concrete (772 mA). The OPC specimens initially recorded decrease in the current but later started increasing while the GPC current never showed significant increase. 6. Research and development at CSIR-CBRI A systematic R&D work is initiated at CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee on the development of heat and ambient cured geopolymers using fly ash, slag and other aluminosilicates as precursors. In view of variability in the constituents of fly ash, the property optimisation of geopolymeric pastes was carried out as a function of activator concentration and its dosage, water-geopolymer solid ratio, curing time and curing temperature [13]. Geopolymerisation reaction, thermal stability, identification of bond linkages and microstructural features were analysed by various techniques such as quasi isothermal DSC, TGA, FTIR and FESEM. The durability of geopolymer pastes/mortars was also studied in terms of alkali-silica reaction and also in acidic and sulphate environments for 4 months [76,86]. The suitability of these geopolymer pastes was assessed in making various geopolymeric products such as mortars & concrete, bricks, solid & hollow blocks, insulation concrete, foam, sandwich composites and temperature resistant coatings (Fig. 7(a–c)). Attempt was also made to utilise lime sludge, a waste from paper industry with the geopolymeric binders for making paving blocks. Fly ash-based GPC mixes were made with the compressive strength of 25–55 MPa using absolute volume method adopted for OPC concrete mixes. The strength of GPC increased with decreasing water-geopolymer solid ratio as it is said analogous to the water-cement ratio of the OPC concrete. The compressive strength increased with increasing molarity of the activator (10– 16 M) probably due to the formation of stable aluminosilicate networks following the dissolution of silica and alumina in the solution from the fly ash. It was found that the splitting tensile strength of GPC was more than those of predicted values as per ACI 318 guideline and other existing empirical equations. A trend line curve between the compressive strength and modulus of B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 87 Fig. 7a. Light weight fly ash-based geopolymer concrete sheets using EPS beads and in-situ foaming [85]. Fig. 7b. Fly ash-based geopolymer bricks [85]. Fig. 7c. Fly ash-based geopolymer solid and hollow blocks [85]. elasticity showed that the elastic modulus was lower (17%) than the one predicted by Ivan Diaz-Loya et al. for GPC and also the values obtained with ACI guidelines. As expected, the bond strength of steel bar embedded in GPC increased with increasing steel bar diameter and compressive strength of concrete. It was noted that the bond strength between geopolymer paste and reinforcing bars was found to be higher than the OPC concrete [47]. Light weight geopolymer concrete was proportioned with the help of fly ash, activators, expanded polystyrene beads (EPS – up to 3 wt% or 91 vol%), admixtures and fine & coarse aggregates (Fig. 7(a)). It was noted that a decrease in the strength was more when larger size of EPS beads (<4.75 mm) were added in the mortars probably due to their less surface area/volume ratio. By adding coarse aggregate, the compressive strength (18 MPa) and density (1500 and 1840 kg/m3) of EPS geopolymer concrete, comply the minimum specified criteria of ACI 213R-03 guidelines for structural light weight concrete (compressive strength, 17 MPa; density 1120–1920 kg/m3). To meet the requirement of insulation concrete, the addition of 20% coarse aggregate (10 mm maximum size) into EPS/geopolymer mix exceeds its compressive strength 88 B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 Fig. 8. Fire test of fly ash-based geopolymers as per BS 476 showing surface of very low spread of flame [90]. (15 MPa) as specified (13.1 MPa) in ASTM C 90. Regarding fire performance, the samples were non-ignitable and exhibited Class I-very low spread of flame as per BS EN-476 part 7 (Fig. 8). It was noted that the fire propagation index of the samples was <3 exhibiting no support to fire growth. Flammability data obtained from a cone calorimeter showed that the insulation concrete had insignificant heat release rate (9.63 kW/m2) and effective heat of combustion (3.75 MJ/kg). The thermal conductivity of insulation concrete was found in the range of 0.427–0.852 W/mK. It was concluded that light weight concrete can be engineered by proper selection of variables in making insulating materials for use in buildings [90]. A geopolymer foam composition has been developed using fly ash, activator, filler, surfactant, buffer and strengthening agent. It sets at room temperature within 2 h and completely cured after 24 h. The density of foam was lying in the range of 600–800 kg/ m3. It can be easily prepared by a simple mixing followed by pouring into mould. SEM examination revealed that pores in the samples were uniformly distributed. The flammability test carried out by a cone calorimeter showed that the total heat released, mass loss, smoke release and CO/CO2 yield were insignificant. It resists against fire between 700 °C and 800 °C. The foam can be used as a core material in the sandwich and insulation panels [85]. Geopolymer bricks of size 230 115 75 mm were produced using fly ash-based pastes, coarse fly ash and natural sand (Fig. 7(b)). The bricks were cured at 80 °C for 2 h. The bricks were obtained with density ranged between 1920 and 2100 kg/m3, water absorption, 10–15% and dry compressive strength, 12– 25 MPa depending on activator concentration. These bricks can be easily jointed with ordinary cement mortars [85]. The solid geopolymer blocks of size 300 200 150 mm were produced on a machine using coarse aggregate (1180 kg/m3), fine aggregate (296 kg/m3), flyash (494 kg/m3), activator (111 kg/m3) and water (55.55 kg/m3). The properties of blocks are: density, 2100 kg/m3; compressive strength, 9.87 MPa; water absorption (24 h), <10%; drying shrinkage, <1%. The hollow blocks of size 400 300 200 mm were also produced on a block making machine. The properties of blocks are: density, 1200 kg/m3; compressive strength, 5 MPa; net weight, 20 kg. It was noted that the cost of solid and hollow geopolymer blocks was about 15% and 10% higher than the OPC concrete blocks (Fig. 7(c)). 7. Conclusions Based on the discussions, it is concluded that geopolymer concrete has considerable potential to be used as a construction material in several applications. A number of key properties have been investigated and very high strengths have been attained. The design provisions mentioned in ACI guidelines and other National Code for OPC concrete are reported to be applicable for geopolymer concrete also. The production of ready mixed geopolymer concrete can be achieved which represents the successful implementation of a technically very challenging product. However, it presents significant scientific challenges associated with the need for a better understanding of the setting reactions involved, the relationship between mix design characteristics, the short and long term mechanical properties and overall durability. Although, significant progress was made, there is an immense need to work out generalisation of water-geopolymer solids ratio, bond between reinforcement and geopolymer paste, structural behaviour of reinforced GPC members, corrosion of reinforcement in geopolymer concrete etc. An appropriate code of practice for geopolymers and their products need to be formulated based on research data and field data for mass adaptation by the users. It is felt that the widespread uptake of geopolymer technology is hindered by a number of factors, in particular issues to do with a lack of long term-durability data. In this relatively new research field, there are also difficulties in compliance with regulatory standard, specifically those defining chemical composition in cement. Conventionally, geopolymer binders require heat curing, high pH and also have difficulty in field handling. Therefore, efforts are needed to develop a room temperature cured one component geopolymer system using solid activators instead of alkaline solutions in view of its wider acceptance in the field. Acknowledgements This paper forms part of a Supra Institutional Project of CSIR R&D program (Govt. of India) and is published with the permission of Director, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee. Authors are also thankful to Ms. Sarika Sharma, Mr. Ankur Singh, Mr. Rakesh Paswan and Mr. Md. Reyazur Rahman for their help during the work. References [1] http://www.worldcement.com/news/cement/articles/Cement_India_demand_ price_capacity_160.aspx#.UoIUv3DItSk, 12 November 2013. [2] Shi C, Fernandez-Jiminez A, Palomo A. New cements for the 21st century: the pursuits of an alternative to Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:865–79. [3] Krivenko PV, Kovalachuk GYu. Directed synthesis of alkaline aluminosilicate minerals in a geocement matrix. J Mater Sci 2007;42:2944–53. B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 [4] Duxon P, Fernandez-Jiminez A, Provis JL, Luckey GC, Palomo A, Van Deventure JSJ. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J Mater Sci 2007;42:2917–33. [5] Provis JL, VanDeventer JSJ, editors. Geopolymers, structure, processing, properties and application. UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2009. [6] Li C, Sun H, Li L. A review: the comparison between alkali-activated slag (Si+Ca) and metakaolin (Si+Al) cements. Cem Concr Res 2010;40:1341–9. [7] Komnitsas KA. Potential of geopolymer technology towards green buildings and sustainable cities. In: International conference on green buildings and sustainable cities, procedia engineering, vol. 21; 2011: p.1023–32. [8] Davidovits J. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal 1991;37:1633–56. [9] Davidovits J, Buzzi L, Rocher P, Marini DGC, Tocco S. Geopolymeric cement based on low cost geologic materials – geocistem. In: second international conference geopolymer 99, France; 1999. [10] Van Jaarsveld J, Van Deventure J. Effect of alkali metal activators on the properties of fly ash-based geopolymer. Ind Eng Chem Res 1999;38:3932. [11] Xu H, Van Deventure JSV. Geopolymerisation of multiple minerals. Min. Eng. 2002;15:1131–9. [12] Zhang B, MacKenzie KJD, Brown IWM. Crystalline phase formation in metakaolinite geopolymers activated with NaOH and sodium silicate. J Mater Sci 2009;44:4668–76. [13] Ishwarya G. Development of geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature [M. Tech thesis]. Roorkee, India: CSIR-Central Building Research Institute (AcSIR); 2013. [14] Silva PD, Crenstil KS, Sirivivatnanon V. Kinetics of geopolymerization: role of Al2O3 and SiO2. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:512–8. [15] de Vargas AS, DalMolin DCC, Vilela ACV, da Silva FJ, Pavão B, Veit H. The effects of Na2O/SiO2 molar ratio, curing temperature and age on compressive strength, morphology and microstructure of alkali-activated fly ash-based geopolymers. Cem Concr Comp 2011;33:653–60. [16] Yip CK, Luckey GC, Provis JL, van Deventure JSV. The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:1688–97. [17] Somna K, Jaturapitakkul C, Kajitvichyanukul P, Chindaprasirt P. NaOHactivated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel 2011;90:2118–24. [18] Yip CK, Luckey GC, Provis JL, van Deventure JSV. Effect of calcium silicate sources on geopolymerisation. Cem Concr Res 2008;38:554–64. [19] Kumar S, Kumar R, Melhotra SP. Influence of granulated blast furnace slag on the reaction, structure and properties of fly ash-based geopolymer. J Mater Sci 2010;45:607–15. [20] Puligilla S, Mondal P. Role of slag in microstructural development and hardening of fly ash-slag geopolymer. Cem Concr Res 2013;43:70–80. [21] Chindaprasirt P, Silva PD, Crentsil KS, Hanjitsuwan S. Effect of SiO2 and Al2O3 on the setting and hardening of high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer systems. J Mater Sci 2012;47:4876–83. [22] Guo X, Shi H, Dick WA. Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly geopolymer. Cem Concr Comp 2010;32:142–7. [23] Kusbiantoro A, Ibrahim MS, Muthusamy K, Alias A. Development of sucrose and citric acid as natural based admixture for fly ash based geopolymer. Proc Environ Sci 2013;17:596–602. [24] Nemotallahi B, Sanjayan JG. Effect of different superplasticizer and activator combinations on workability and strength of fly ash based geopolymer. Mater Des 2014;57. 667-67. [25] Jang JG, Lee NK, Lee HK. Fresh and hardened properties of alkali-activated fly ash/slag pastes with superplasticizers. Constr Build Mater 2014;50:169–76. [26] Palomo A, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT. Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for the future. Cem Concr Res 1999;29:1323–9. [27] Perera DS, Uchida O, Vance ER, Finnie KS. Influence of curing schedule on the integrity of geopolymer. J Mater Sci 2007;42:3099–106. [28] Heah CY, Kamarudin H, Al Bakri AMM, Binhussain M, Luqman M, Nizar IK, et al. Effect of curing profile on Kaolin-based geopolymers. Phys Procedia 2011;22:305–11. [29] Rovnanik P. Effect of curing temperature on the development of hard structure of metakaolin-based geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1176–83. [30] Kani EN, Allahverdi A. Effects of curing time and temperature on strength development of inorganic polymeric binder based on natural pozzolan. J Mater Sci 2009;44:3088–97. [31] Van Jaarsveld JGS, Van Deventer JSJ, Lukey GC. The effect of composition and temperature on the properties of fly ash and kaolinite based geopolymers. Chem Eng J 2002;89:63–73. [32] Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, Sirivivatnanon V. Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cem Concr Comp 2007;29:224–9. [33] Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, Hatanaka S, Cao T. High strength geopolymer using fine high-calcium fly ash. J Mater Civ Eng 2011;23:264–70. [34] Temuujin J, van Riessen A, Mackenzie. Preparation and characterisation of fly ash-based geopolymer mortars. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1906–10. [35] Khandelwal M, Ranjith PG, Pan Z, Sanjayan JG. Effect of strain rate on strength properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer mortar under dry condition. Arabian J Geosci 2013;6:2383–9. [36] Hardjito D, Fung SS. Fly ash-based geopolymer mortar incorporating bottom ash. Mode Appl Sci 2010;4:44–52. [37] Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K. Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. J Hazard Mater 2009;168:44–50. 89 [38] Brough AR, Atkinson A. Sodium silicate-based alkali-activated slag mortars Part I. Strength, hydration and microstructure. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:865–79. [39] Yang KH, Song JK, Lee KS, Ashour AF. Flow and compressive strength of alkaliactivated mortars. ACI Mater J 2009;106:50–8. [40] Yang KH, Song JK. Workability loss and compressive strength development of cementless mortars activated by combination of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 2009;21:119–27. [41] Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2004;101:467–72. [42] Laskar AI, Bhattacharjee R. Rheology of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2011;108:536–42. [43] Montes C, Allouche EN. Rheological behaviour of fly ash-based geopolymers. STP 1566 on Geopolymer Binder Systems 2013, ASTM: p. 72–84. [44] Palacios M, Banfill Phillip FG, Puertas F. Rheology and setting of alkaliactivated slag pastes and mortars: effect of organic admixture. ACI Mater J 2008;105:140–8. [45] Fernandez-Jiminez AM, Palomo A, Lopez-Hombrados C. Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater J 2006;103:106–12. [46] Olivia M, Nikraz H. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by taguchi method. Mater Des 2012;36:191–8. [47] Singh A. Engineering properties of reinforced geopolymer concrete [B. Tech project report]. Roorkee, India. CSIR-Central Building Research Institute; 2012. [48] Sofi M, Van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA, Lukey GC. Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:251–7. [49] Diaz-Loya EI, Allouche EN, Vaidya S. Mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2011;108:300–6. [50] Ryu GS, Lee YB, Koh KT, Chung YS. The mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with alkaline activators. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:409–18. [51] Bondar D, Lynsdale CY, Milestone NB, Hassani N, Ramezanianpour AA. Engineering properties of alkali-activated natural pozzolan concrete. ACI Mater J 2011;108:64–72. [52] Yost JR, Radlinska A, Ernst S, Salera M. Structural behavior of alkali activated fly ash concrete. Part 1: mixture design, material properties and sample fabrication. Mater Struct 2012;46:435–47. [53] Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Rangan BV. Fracture properties of geopolymer paste and concrete. Mag Concr Res 2011;63:763–77. [54] Sarker PK, Haque R, Ramgolam KV. Fracture properties of heat cured fly ashbased geopolymer concrete. Mater Des 2013;44:580–6. [55] Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM. Concrete: microstructure, properties and materials. USA: The McGraw Hill companies, Inc.; 2006. [56] Lee WKW, Van Deventure JSJ. The interface between natural siliceous aggregates and geopolymers. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:195–206. [57] Lee WKW, Van Deventure JSJ. Chemical interactions between siliceous aggregates and low-Ca alkali-activated cements. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:844–55. [58] Zhang YS, Sun W, Li JZ. Hydration process of interfacial transition in potassium polysialate (K-PSDS) geopolymer concrete. Mag Concr Res 2005;57:33–8. [59] Demie S, Nuruddin MF, Shafiq N. Effects of micro-structure characteristics of interfacial transition zone on the compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:91–8. [60] ACI 408R-03. Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in tension. [61] Sarker PK. Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Mater Struct 2011;44:1021–30. [62] Sofi M, Van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA, Lukey GC. Bond performance of reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPCs). J Mater Sci 2007;42:3107–16. [63] Sumajouw DMJ, Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Rangan BV. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: study of slender reinforced columns. J Mater Sci 2007;42:3124–30. [64] Dattatreya JK, Rajamane NP, Ambily PS. Structural behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams and columns. CSIR-SERC Research Report RR6;2009. [65] Yost JR, Radlinska A, Ernst S, Salera M. Structural behaviour of alkali activated fly ash concrete. Part 2: structural testing and experimental findings. Mater Struct 2012;46:449–62. [66] Ng TS, Amin A, Foster SJ. The behaviour of steel-fibre-reinforced geopolymer concrete beams in shear. Mag Concr Res 2013;65:308–18. [67] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. India: Dorling Kindersley Publishing, Inc.; 1997. [68] Kong DLK, Sanjayan JG, Crentsil KS. Comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperature. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:1583–9. [69] Kong DLK, Sanjayan JG, Crentsil KS. Factors affecting the performance of metakaolin geopolymers exposed to elevated temperatures. J Mater Sci 2008;43:824–31. [70] Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG. Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer paste, mortar and concrete. Cem Concr Res 2010;40:334–9. [71] Zhao R, Sanjayan JG. Geopolymer and Portland cement concretes in simulated fire. Mag Concr Res 2011;63:163–73. [72] Swamy RN, editor. The alkali-silica reaction in concrete. UK: Blackie and Sons Limited; 1992. [73] Patil KK, Allouche EN. Impact of alkali silica reaction on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 2013;25:131–9. [74] Fernandez-Jimenez A, Puertas F. The alkali-silica reaction in alkali-activated granulated slag mortars with reactive aggregate. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:1019–24. 90 B. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 85 (2015) 78–90 [75] Garcia-Lodeiro I, Palomo A, Fernandez-Jimenez A. The alkali-aggregate reaction in alkali activated fly ash mortars. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:175–83. [76] Singh B, Ishwarya G, Gupta M, Bhattacharyya SK. Performance evaluation of geopolymer concrete through alkali-silica reaction. In: Advances in chemically activated materials, Changsha, China; Jun 1–3, 2014. [77] Temuujin J, Minjigmaa A, Lee M. Characterisation of class F fly ash geopolymer pastes immersed in acid and alkaline solutions. Cem Concr Comp 2011;33:1086–91. [78] Bakharev T. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:658–70. [79] Ariffin MAM, Bhutta MAR, Hussin MW, Mohd Tahir M, Aziah N. Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;43:80–6. [80] Sathia R, Ganesh Babu K, Santhanam M. Durability study of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. In: 3rd ACF international conference, Ho chi minh city, Vietnam; 2008. [81] Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, Cheng Y-B. Resistance of alkali-activated slag concrete to acid attack. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:1607–11. [82] Fernandez-Jimenez A, Garcia-Lodeiro I, Palomo A. Durability of alkali-activated fly ash cementitious material. J Mater Sci 2009;42:3055–65. [83] Bakharev T. Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:1233–46. [84] Ismail I, Bernal SA, Provis JL, Hamdan S, van Deventer JSJ. Microstructural changes in alkali activated fly ash/slag geopolymers with sulphate exposure. Mater Struct 2013;46:361–73. [85] Bhattacharyya SK, Singh B. High performance materials and construction technologies for sustainable built space. Supra Institutional Project Report (SIP 29), CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India; 2012. [86] Singh B, Sharma S, Gupta M, Bhattacharyya SK. Performance of fly ash-based geopolymer pastes under chemical environment. In: International conference on advances in construction materials through science and engineering, Hong Kong; 5–7 September, 2011. [87] Rajamane NP, Natraja MC, Dattatreya JK, Lakshmanan N, Sabitha D. Sulphate resistance and eco-friendliness of geopolymer concretes. Ind Concr J 2012;86:13–21. [88] Bernal SA, Gutierrez RM, Provis JL. Engineering and durability properties of concrete based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/metakaolin blends. Constr Build Mater 2012;33:99–108. [89] Reddy DV, Edouard JB, Sobhan K, Tipni A. Experimental evaluation of the durability of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete in the marine environment. In: 9th Latin American and Caribbean conference on engineering for a smart planet, innovation, information technology and computational tools for sustainable development Colombia, Australia; 2011. [90] Singh B, Gupta M, Chauhan M, Bhattacharyya SK. Lightweight geopolymer concrete with EPS. In: CIB World Building Congress 2013, Brisbane, Australia; 5–9 May, 2013.