Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JANUARY 2012
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.4 Objectives 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.4 Geopolymers 12
2.5.4 Aggregates 18
2.5.6 Water 24
3 METHODOLOGY 49
3.1 Introduction 49
3.2.3 Aggregates 52
3.5 Curing 71
4.1 Introduction 83
5.1 Summary 98
REFERENCES 106
xii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
D, d cross-sectional dimension
F Maximum load
L Length
M Molar
T Time of traverse
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
resources. The concern about environmental issues is becoming more important and
ignoring is not the solution any more.
industries, for instance, fly ash, silica fume, slag, rice-husk ash, and red mud could
also be applied in geopolymers as the source material.
The interest in the use of fly ash‐based geopolymer concretes has increased
since 2000 due to the environmentally sustainable option of using an industrial waste
to form a useful material. In the 1970s, Joseph Davidovits a French material scientist
applied the term Geopolymer for the first time, although similar materials had been
developed in the former Soviet Union since the 1950s with a different name as "soil
cements". The development of geopolymer concrete mix design has been carried out
previously at Curtin University, Western Australia. Hardjito and Rangan (2005)
investigated the effects of aspects such as alkaline parameters, water content and
curing conditions in “Development and Properties of Low‐Calcium Fly Ash‐Based
Geopolymer Concrete”. According to their studies, geopolymers are practically
shapeless to semi-crystalline three-dimensional alumino-silicate polymers similar to
zeolites. Geopolymers are composed of polymeric silicon-oxygen-aluminium
framework with silicon and aluminium tetrahedral alternately linked together in three
direction by sharing all the oxygen atoms. The negative charge created by aluminium
is balanced by the presence of positive ions such as Na+, K+, and Ca+. The empirical
formula of these mineral polymers is Mn [-(SiO2) z-AlO2] n·wH2O, where M is an
alkali cation such as potassium or sodium, the symbol - indicates the presence of a
bond, z is 1, 2 or 3, and n is the degree of polymerization. Geopolymerisation is an
exothermic process which consists of dissolution, transportation or orientation and
polycondensation. In Malaysia, few researches were conducted on geopolymer
concrete. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) as a pioneer in advanced civil
engineering materials is researching on the geopolymer concrete due to its
environmentally friendly aspects and its high performances.
4
More and more amounts of cement are manufacturing all around the world
which imposes a negative impact on our living environment. Due to absence of
cement in geopolymers mixture, many researchers believe that the geopolymer
concrete will be the future concrete. Several by-products have been tested to produce
geopolymer binders with high performances and finally, fly ash was introduced as
the choice material for this purpose due to its high availability and its low cost.
Although, fly ash will considerably solve problems associated with cement
production, still the enormous consumption of natural resources for construction has
not been solved.
1.4 Objectives
(i) Studying the short term properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete such
as workability, density and water absorption
(ii) Probing the relation between velocity of ultrasonic in geopolymer concrete its
compressive strength
(iii) Finding the suitable percentage of fine aggregates that can be replaced with
bottom ash without significant drop in compressive strength
(iv) Investigating compressive strength development of geopolymer concrete
containing bottom ash in ambient curing condition
(v) Exploring the effect of adding bottom ash on the tensile splitting strength
(vi) Finding the effect of adding bottom ash on the flexural strength of
geopolymer concrete containing bottom ash
This project report is investigating the short term properties of low calcium
fly ash based geopolymer concrete containing bottom ash and tests mixtures with
various percentages of bottom ash as fine aggregates replacement in order to find
their strength properties and will not be involved with the durability aspects of
geopolymer concrete. This research is only about geopolymer concrete and
geopolymer mortar will not be covered by this project. This study focused on
applicability of proposed methods to product concrete with adequate compressive
strength that can be used as structural components. Ambient curing was selected as
the method of curing which can find suitability of geopolymer concrete containing
bottom ash in real structural works.
6
Lack of adequate standards for fly ash and bottom ash and existence of
different materials with different compositions may lead to different results and
conclusions. In fact, source material with different chemical composition may cause
different properties in geopolymer which is a problem in comparing the results from
the researches from all around the world. Event small dosage of difference in fly ash
and bottom ash composition may produce large differences in results of one study to
another one.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
A brief review about its durability properties against sulfates and acids and its
behavior in high temperature will be performed, to show the advantages of
geopolymer concrete versus OPC concrete which has fewer advantages and imposes
much environmental pollution to the Earth.
8
The need for truly sustainable options for 21st century is one of the most
important challenges facing the global community. Sustain is defined as to maintain
and to continue a process going on, and sustainability means that life on our planet
can be sustained for the foreseeable future. Since the environment is certainly the
most critical concern, and a civil engineer follows sustainability rules to do not
impact any negative effect on the environment. Therefore, the term sustainable has
come to be equivalent with environmentally friendly and “green technology.”
The raw materials (aggregates and water) required for concrete are amongst
the most abundant materials on the Earth and many countries are self-
sufficient in these materials. It can be made on the site and there is no need
to deliver materials so it would reduce the economical and environmental
costs of the project. The main raw material for manufacturing cement is
limestone and it is the most abundant mineral on the earth.
By-products from other industries, for instance, fly ash, ground granulated
blast-furnace slag (GGBS) may be utilized as replacing cementitious
materials or even recycled aggregates in concrete that can reduce
environmental impacts of concrete manufacturing.
Many manufacturers reuse concrete waste and at the end of its service life,
the materials from a concrete and masonry structures can be crushed and be
reused as hardcore or aggregate.
Concrete saves energy by reflecting light due to its naturally brighter and
more reflective than asphalt. Furthermore, light-colored paving materials help
reduce the heat-island effect.
Figure 2.1: CO2 emissions in the BAU scenario (Szabo et al. 2003)
Damtoft et al. (2008) reported that using Portland cement has a significant
impact on the environment and suggested techniques by which these environmental
impacts of manufacturing concrete can be reduced:
02
Damtoft et al. (2008) concluded that the use of blended cements in industry
will directly reduce the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by means of replacing
volumes of OPC. Unfortunately, not very much information about blended cement is
available. Although results showed significant increase in properties of concrete with
blended cement, few researches were conducted on blast furnace slag or fly ash
based blended cement.
2.4 Geopolymers
construction and repairing of infrastructures and also in precast industry, due to high
early strength, rapid and controllable setting time and durability aspect (Raijiwala
and Patil, 2011).
A geopolymer binder can take three different basic forms as list below
(Sumajouw & Rangan, 2005):
Poly (sialate), which has [-Si-O-Al-O-] as the repeating unit.
Poly (sialate-siloxo), which has [-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-] as the repeating unit.
Poly (sialate-disiloxo), which has [-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-Si-O-] as the repeating
unit.
04
A wide range of minerals and industrial by-products materials were topics for
many researches in order to determine materials that are suitable for the manufacture
of geopolymers. Availability, price, application and demand of the users are the main
factors in the process of the selection of source materials. The source materials found
to be suitable include natural minerals such as metakaolin, clays, etc which contains
Si, Al and oxygen in their chemical composition. By-product from other industries
such as fly ash, silica fume, slag, rice-husk ash red mud, etc could be utilized
alternatively as the source materials (Wallah & Rangan, 2006).
2002), Metakaolin (Davidovits 1999; Barbosa et al. 2000; Teixeira-Pinto et al. 2002),
natural Al-Si minerals (Xu and van Deventer 2000), mixture of calcined mineral and
non-calcined materials (Xu and van Deventer 2002), fly ash and kaolinite-based
geopolymer (Swanepoel and Strydom 2002; van Jaarsveld et al. 2002), and mixture
of granulated blast furnace slag and metakaolin (Cheng and Chiu 2003) can be
highlighted.
Davidovits (1999) found that calcined materials such as fly ash and slag
produced much higher compressive strength in comparison with those made from
non-calcined materials such as metakaolin clays. However, it was reported in order
to a large development in compressive strength and reduction in reaction time
calcined and non-calcined materials can be used together.
removal system. Most of the ash has to be disposed on an open area near the power
station or by grounding both the ash and mixing it with water and pumping into
artificial lagoon or dumping yards and this leads to many serious environmental
problems. Annually, China produces about 100 million tones fly ash and Europe
produces 50 million tons of it. A small quantity of it is utilized as an additive to
cement and concrete, while the greater part is disposed of on dumps. Hardjito (2005)
reported that fly ash particles diameter ranges from less than 1µm up to 150µm
which were finer than OPC. The oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron and calcium are
available in its chemical composition. Other metal oxides present in small amounts
are magnesium, potassium sodium, and titanium and sulphur oxides. Composition of
fly ash is influenced by the type coal which is derived from. Generally, Fly ash and
slag are known as suitable by-product materials for geopolymers production.
Between these two, high reactivity which comes from finer particles makes Fly ash
as the better option. Possession of finer particles has another benefit, filling the voids
in the concrete will create denser and more durable concrete, and on the other hand,
by means of round shape of fly ash the workability of fresh concrete will be
improved. Amorphous content, morphology and the source of fly ash can be
mentioned as the other factors that affect the properties of geopolymers which have
fly ash as source material in their mixture.
ASTM has introduced to types of fly ash which are class F and class C.
Gourley (2003) concluded that low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash had better
performance than high-calcium (ASTM Class C) fly ash as a source material in
geopolymers probably due to interfering of existence of calcium in high quantities
with the polymerization process. Low-calcium fly ash is more advantageous than
slag in production of geopolymer (Hardjito, 2005).
Figure 2.2: Fly ash figures before and after alkaline activation (Nguyen,
2009).
While van Jaarsveld et al (2003) claimed that the fly ash that had higher CaO
content in its composition developed higher compressive strength in the early ages. It
may properly cause by the development of calcium-aluminate-hydrate and other
calcium compounds in the geopolymer.
08
2.5.4 Aggregates
Normally the aggregates account for 70-77% of it the volume of concrete and
it is mined separately as coarse and fine aggregates. In fact, by-products of other
industries such as recycled concrete, bottom ash and slag might be used as aggregate
in concrete. Aggregates are usually storage by various sizes and sorted to be utilized
09
later for satisfaction of the grading requirements. To mention this process negative
impact, it is possible to state the production of wastes such as dust and water which
neither of them is principally damage the environment. Meanwhile, the dust may be
utilized in some other processes.
Normal concrete aggregates consist of sand and a range of sizes and shapes of
gravel or rocks. But it seems an increasing interest in substituting alternative
aggregate materials, largely using recycled materials and a new trend to use bottom
ash. Several materials such as blast furnace slag or various solid wastes including
fiberglass materials, plastics, paper and wood products are available as aggregate
substitutes, but not many researches were conducted on replacement of bottom ash
with sand in concrete which is the major aim of this study. This is essential to
distinguish the differences between cement and aggregate in view of the fact that
some materials have behavior like both cementitious material and aggregate (such as
certain GGBS and bottom ash). Although aggregate normally accounts for 70-77%
of the concrete volume, researches have shown that aggregate plays an important role
in concrete workability, strength, durability and stability. Furthermore, aggregate part
significantly influences the cost of the concrete mixture to make it economical.
Why do we still use natural aggregates? Lack of adequate and reliable data on
aggregate substitutes makes it nearly impossible to use it in concrete. More
investigation must be conducted in order to account new sources of aggregate
suitable to design dense and durable recycled aggregate concretes.
Glass aggregate in concrete may lead to some problem by reason of the alkali
silica reaction (ASR) between the cement paste and the glass aggregate, which
weakens the concrete and decreases its durability as time passes on. Thus, further
researches are needed prior to waste glass cullet can be utilized in structural concrete
applications.
b) Sand: aggregate mainly passing a 5.0 mm BS 410 test sieve and containing
no more coarser material than is permitted for the various gradations in this
specification.
It is expected that production of bottom ash will grow in the world. However,
there is no official report about the exact amount of coal ash production in Malaysia
due to the new technology of generating electricity with coal-fired system. In
Malaysia, there are six electric power plants with coal-fired system to generate
electricity. TNB imports high quality coal from Indonesia, Australia and also China
(Mahmud, 2003). Annas (2005) reported that coal utilization in Malaysia started in
1988 with consumption of 1.5 million ton coal per year and in 2001, the rate sharply
raised to 2.50 million tons coal per year. Tajuddin (2010) mentioned that the
dramatic increase followed to 20 million tons in 2008. Leo-Moggie (2002) estimated
that this amount will be reach to more than 25 million tons in 2011. To prevent fly
22
ash and dust from hovering in the environment, they installed electrostatic recipients
for trapping ash and dust. However, another waste material disposes in the bottom of
the furnaces is known as bottom ash which is in coarse shape, porous, glassy,
granular, grayish. Properties of bottom ash depend on the type of furnace and the
source of coal. Normally, after a process of combustion, 80% of coal will become in
form of fly ash and remain will be bottom ash. Quo et al. (2009) reported Taiwan
Power Company produces about 1.35 million tons of fly ash and 0.35 million tons of
bottom ash annually.
Few researches have been conducted on bottom ash, for example, as fine
aggregate in concrete (Ghafoori and Bucholc, 1997) or as fine aggregate in asphaltic
concrete (Churchill and Amirkhanian, 1999). However, good results were obtained
when bottom ash was used as fine aggregate in roller-compacted concrete (Ghafoori
and Cai, 1998). Bottom ash has large particles and porous surface which required
extra water to provide adequate workability and consequently reduced the
compressive strength. Bottom ash retained water by absorption, into and onto its
porous surface and irregular surface (Kasemchaisiri and Tangtermsirikul 2007).
Berg (1998), Jaturapitakkul and Cheerarot (2003) and Saikia et al. (2008)
reported the successful utilization of bottom ash as fine aggregate in producing
lightweight concrete masonry and as cement replacement in structural and masonry
works. The strength and drying shrinkage of concretes with different percentages of
replacement of furnace bottom ash (FBA) with sand were studied at fixed water–
cement ratio and fixed slump ranges (Bai et al, 2005). They found that, at a fixed
water–cement ratio, the compressive strength and the drying shrinkage decreased
with the increase in the FBA sand content. Kasemchaisiri et al. (2008) tested the
mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) incorporating bottom ash
as partial sand replacement. They claimed that 10% replacement by weight of total
fine aggregate showed better durability, chloride penetration, carbonation depth and
drying shrinkage in comparison with control SCC mix. Hiroshi et al (2008) presented
that the artificial light-weight aggregate made from coal ash and shale fine powder
produced high-performance aggregate which possessed lightness, high strength and
23
high water retentivity. Another test was elaborated on mixes of ordinary sand,
bottom ash and mixes having equal natural sand and bottom ash contents. Mixtures
were designed by use super plasticizer. They found that the required mixing water
increased in case of usage of bottom ash in the concrete and also addition of bottom
ash did not considerably affect the entrapped air content and setting time of fresh
concrete. Since samples with bottom ash, either fully bottom ash replacement or
partially, required higher water, showed lower compressive strength properties than
those samples with 100% natural sand (Swamy et al., 1983).
For all the mixtures the compressive, tensile splitting and flexural
strengths of samples were continued to enhance as they aged.
At 90 days, mixes containing 30% and 40% bottom ash, gained the
compressive strength equal to 108% and 105% of compressive
strength of normal concrete at 28 days and achieved the flexural
24
2.5.6 Water
The mixing water in concrete is normal tap water without any other process.
It is mentioned in BS EN 1008:2002 (Mixing water for concrete - Specification for
sampling, testing and assessing the suitability of water, including water recovered
from processes in the concrete industry, as mixing water for concrete) that " the
quality of the mixing water for production of concrete can influence the setting time,
the strength development of concrete and the protection of the reinforcement against
corrosion. When assessing the suitability of water of unknown quality for the
production of concrete, both the composition of the water and the application of the
concrete to be produced should be considered". Generally, the suitability of water for
the production of concrete depends upon its origin.
concrete industry, water from underground sources or natural surface water and
industrial waste water should be tested before utilization in concrete. Sea water or
brackish water and Sewage water must not be used in reinforced concrete.
They also are known as high range water reducers. Pirazzolli (2005) defined
them as linear polymers containing sulfuric acid groups attached to the polymer
backbone at regular intervals. Most of the commercially available formulations
belong to one of these four families:
Van Jaarsveld et al (1998) presented the use of the mass ratio of the solution
to the powder of 0.39. They used 57% fly ash with 15% kaolin or calcined kaolin and
the alkaline liquid was a combination of 3.5% sodium silicate, 20% water and 4%
sodium or potassium hydroxide in their invetigation. Specimen size was of 50x50x50
mm. When they utilized fly ash and builders’ waste, the compressive strength of 75
MPa was achieved.
Barbosa et al (2000) followed the former work of Davidovits (1982) and used
calcined kaolin. According to their results, the optimal composition was the ratio of
Na2O/SiO2 = 0.25; H2O/Na2O =10.0, SiO2/Al2O3 = 3.3. A thin polyethylene film was
used as moulds.
Hardjito and Rangan (2005) found that for consistent results the ratio of
sodium silicate‐to‐sodium hydroxide ratio should be 2.5. They used the ratio of
alkaline solution‐to‐fly ash at about 0.35. Upon investigation of the affects of the
21
concentration of the sodium hydroxide solution, they realized that with higher
molarity of the sodium hydroxide solution, higher compressive strength can be
achieved. In their research work they used a range of molarity of the solution
between 8 molars to 14 molars. Liu et al. (2010) investigated the use of bauxite
residues in geopolymer concrete. In the production of unsintered construction and
building products, they suggested that the optimal proportions of raw materials can
be as below:
This composition has been used to produce building materials that has
reached the 1st grade of Chinese standards for a brick (Liu et al. 2010).
Figure 2.3: Fresh geopolymer concrete paste (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005)
Cheng and Chiu (2003) also tested the effect of curing on geopolymer paste.
In fact, they mixed KOH and metakaolin for ten minutes, and then sodium silicate
and ground blast furnace slag were added and mixed for five minutes. It was reported
that setting was occurred in ambient conditions in a short period of time. However,
curing temperature and curing time have been reported to be significant parameters
in determination of the properties of the geopolymers, similar to that exists in
production of conventional concrete. Palomo et al. (1999) acknowledged that
increase in curing temperature of geopolymers caused higher compressive strength.
small drying shrinkage. Furthermore, they claimed that available concrete technology
to the date was sufficient for production of geopolymer concrete structural members.
Drying shrinkage is the decrease in volume of concrete and caused by the loss
of water during the drying process and this type of shrinkage, the drying shrinkage,
comprises the largest part of the total long-term shrinkage.
Neville (2000) found that the aggregate part rolling a considerable influence
on the formation of shrinkage in concrete. Generally, higher aggregate content,
higher modulus and rougher surface aggregates will cause smaller shrinkage, while
higher water-cement ratio produces concrete with higher shrinkage. At higher
degrees of relative humidity, the shrinkage would be smaller. It is found that an
enlargement in the volume of concrete member will significantly decrease the level
of shrinkage due to requirement of further time for shrinkage to arrive at the interior
layers of the concrete (de Larrard et. al., 1994).
34
Vijai et al. (2010) investigated the density and compressive strength of fly ash
based geopolymer concrete by testing samples in ambient condition and heat-curing
at 60oC for 24 hours. They finally concluded that densities were in a range of 2251 to
2400 kg/m3 which were to some extent equal to the conventional concrete density.
There was a direct relation between the age of the geopolymer concrete and its
density. The average density of fly ash based geopolymer concrete is close to OPC
concrete density. In another investigation by Lloyd and Rangan (2010) on
geopolymer concrete with different aggregate types and grading, they found density
at 28 days for mixtures which were cured for 24 hours at 60oC was 2360 ±60 kg/m3.
35
Olivia and Nikraz (2011) conducted a research on low calcium fly ash geopolymer
concrete and reported that density of samples were in the range of 2248 to 2315
Kg/m3. Hardjito and Rangan (2005) reported that the density of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete depended on the unit mass of aggregate and the density of the
low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete ranged between 2330 to 2430 kg/m3.
A correlation is set up and showed in Figure 2.5 with the data obtained from
earlier experimental studies which are produced on specimens having dissimilar
concrete mixture ratios.
with acceptable accuracy from the longitudinal pulse velocity alone - supplementary
tests are needed. It also shows that the supplementary tests should measure material
characteristics of the concrete. That is, one approach for improvement is the use of
multivariable formulas. Preliminary tests demonstrate that the consideration of the
age of concrete as a supplement to the longitudinal pulse velocity does produce
improvement in the strength estimation. It is encouraging that not only the analysis
of past results but also preliminary tests seems to support the proposed approaches
(Popovics, 2001).
having lower absorption rate compared to normal concretes, and also decreasing with
increasing strength.
Vijai et al. (2010) also reported the heat curing would produce higher
compressive strength than curing under ambient conditions. The compressive
strength of heat-cured fly ash based geopolymer concrete did not improve
considerably after 7 days.
Temuujin, van Riessen and Williams (2009) tested the use of calcium based
additives into geopolymer pastes. To increase the gain of compressive strength and
accelerate the ambient curing (on average at 20°C) of the paste both calcium
hydroxide and calcium oxide were substituted into geopolymer pastes for fly ash.
Specimens were heat-cured at 70°C. They found that the addition of calcium
compounds enhanced the mechanical properties of geopolymers cured at ambient
temperatures, but decreased the strength of samples cured under elevated
temperatures. According to their studies, the addition of calcium hydroxide (Ca
(OH)2) improved the ambient curing strength more than calcium oxide (CaO) due to
involving of the calcium hydroxide with the reaction process in geopolymers. The
use of calcium hydroxide would appear to present incomplete hydration of the
product as it reacts with the alkaline solution in the formation of calcium hydroxide.
Specimens with CaO added presented compressive strengths approximately 20%
lower than those with calcium hydroxide. It is suggested that the lower compressive
strength in the pastes that is cured under elevated temperatures is due to the water
evaporation within the mix, exhibited by lower density and higher porosity. At
elevated temperatures, the presence of calcium prevented the formation of three
dimensional geopolymer networks due to the rapid dissolution of the paste.
Therefore, it reduced mechanical properties of the final product. Under ambient
conditions, it was established that by increasing the calcium compound of the
mixture, the compressive strength would be increased. With a 3% addition of
calcium hydroxide the compressive strength of 29 MPa compared to a geopolymer
paste with no calcium additive which exhibited strength of 12 MPa. In comparison,
geopolymer with a calcium hydroxide inclusion of 1% and 2% showed strength of 24
MPa and 28 MPa respectively (Temuujin, van Riessen and Williams, 2009).
40
Drechsler et al. (2005), Hardjito (2004) presented the use of super plasticizers
or increment in water contents improve the workability of the geopolymer concrete
which resulted in high slumps up to 240mm with excellent strength and without any
aggregate segregation.
Figure 2.7: Room temperature setting for geopolymer concrete and Portland
cements concrete (Davidovits, 1991)
Figures 2.6 and 2.7 illustrate that the compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete is in a direct relation with curing time and curing temperature. In other
words, increase in curing time and curing temperature would yield higher
compressive strength.
According to Harjito and Rangan (2005) report, similar to OPC concrete the
tensile strength splitting of geopolymer concrete was only a fraction of the
compressive strength. In fact, the tensile strength of fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete was larger than the values recommends by the Standards Australia (2001)
which is ft = 0.4√ and Neville (2000) that it is ft = 0.3 (fc)2/3 for OPC concrete.
2.9.7 Factor Affecting the Relation Between Tensile and Compressive Strength
Factors that influence the relation between compressive and tensile strengths
are:
44
a) Aggregate
The relation between the tensile strength and compressive strength depends
on the type of coarse aggregate used, except in high strength concrete, because the
properties of aggregate, especially its shape and surface texture, affect the ultimate
strength in compression very much less than the strength in tension or cracking load
in compression. In experimental concrete, entirely smooth coarse aggregate led to
lower compressive strength, typically by 10 percent, than when roughened. It seems
that the properties of fine aggregate also influence the ft/fc´ ratio. The ratio is
furthermore affected by the grading of aggregate. This is probably due to the
different magnitude of the wall effect in beams and in compression specimens: there
surface/volume ratios are dissimilar so that different quantities of mortar are required
for full compaction.
b) Age
Age is also a factor in the relation between ft and fc, beyond about one
month, the tensile strength increases more slowly than the compressive strength. So
the ft/fc decreases with time.
c) Curing
d) Air-Entrainment
Air-entrainment affects the ft/fc ratio because the pressure of air lowers the
compressive strength of concrete more than the tensile strength, particularly in the
case of rich and strong mixes. The influence of incomplete compaction is similar to
that of entrained air.
e) Light-weight concrete
f) Method of Test
Many advantages were mentioned above; still geopolymer concrete has not
been successfully marketed as a modern and sustainable binder. In fact, the main
reason is that large cement companies are against the change from what they are
professional in to what they have to learn and find it risky. From the construction
industries point of view, ‘green cement’ has yet to establish itself as a viable,
recognised or proven technology (Duxson et al., 2007).
The author estimates that in the near future the global environmental rules in
regards to CO2 productions will impose the OPC companies to be adjusted to more
sustainable standards and without any doubt one of the answers shall be geopolymer
products.
Dehghan, Hussin and Falahati (2011) investigated the issues that prevent
geopolymer concrete to be marketed and be used in the structural works. They
reported that complexity in the procedure of manufacturing geopolymer binder is the
main barrier against their mass production. In addition to this, lack of standard and
lack of skilled labours have ceased their introduction to the market.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In this project the compressive and tensile and flexural strengths were the
main aspects of the investigation. To familiarize with the short-term strength
51
development of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, tests were conducted at 7, 14 and
28 days after casting.
Methods and standards for manufacturing and testing of OPC concrete were
followed in the production of geopolymer concrete. Meanwhile, it could help with a
relevant comparison between the two products. Aggregates proportion as an
important factor in properties of concrete was fixed at 70% by weight within the mix
and its size, moisture content, shape and fineness modulus were observed carefully in
order to investigate the effect of replacement of bottom ash and the aggregates were
used only from one source.
Dry low calcium fly ash was provided from Kapar power station, Malaysia.
Ten bags of fly ash with average weight of 20 kg were obtained from the Kapar
power station’s ash silo and stored in a dry and cool storage. Figure3.1. shows the
process of collecting, delivering and storing the fly ash.
50
Figure 3.1: Process of collecting, delivering and storing the fly ash
For chemical analysis, fly ash was sieved to particle size less than 75μm and
sent to Allied chemists laboratory SDN. BHD. The chemical composition of fly ash
is given in table 3.1.
SiO2 46.7
Al2O3 35.9
Fe2O3 5.0
CaO 3.92
MgO 0.84
Na2O 0.58
K2O 0.5
P2O5 0.383
LOI 1.0
52
3.2.3 Aggregates
aggregates and sand were soaked separately in clean water, and then distributed on a
plastic sheet until their surface become dry. SSD condition for geopolymer concrete
must be prepared to avoid the absorption of the alkaline solution by the aggregates
which reduce the polymerization of the fly ash. This process was very time
consuming and aggregates were prepared in more than 10 days. During preparation
room temperature, thickness of aggregate layers and volume of aggregates were
different, thus at the end of the process of preparing SSD condition, all bags were
combined together to make them uniform.
Figure 3.3: SSD condition preparation for sand and coarse aggregates
Sieve analyses on the natural sand were carried out based on BS 812-
103.1:1985. It was discovered that the optimum proportion was a combination with
50% of each of them. Following BS. 882:1992: Table5, there are lower limit and
upper limit for passing percentages for all-in aggregates through each sieve.
54
100
100 95
90
80
Percentage passing ( % )
70 65
60
50
50 Combination
40
40 Lower limit
30
30 30 Upper limit
20 15 20
8 15
10 10
5
0 0
150 300 600 1.18 2.36 5 10
BS. Sieve sizes
As it can be seen, combination of 50% coarse aggregate with 50% sand met
the requirement for standard grading curves of BS 882:1992.
55
SSD bulk specific gravity of sand which is the ratio of the weight in air of a
unit volume of aggregate, including the weight of water within the voids to the
weight in air of an equal volume of gas-free distilled water was measured in
accordance with ASTM C 128 – 01” Standard Test Method for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate’’ with use of 500 gr
SSD sand. Figure3.5 shows the process of preparation of sample to calculate SSD
bulk specific gravity.
After drying the sample at 110oC and weighting the dried sample, SSD bulk
specific gravity of sand was measured as 2.47 and its dry bulk specific density was
2.41.
ASTM C 29/C 29M - 97’’ Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit
Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate’’ was selected as the code of practice to measure
dry and SSD bulk density of sand. Sand was filled in the cylinder at three layers and
for each layer 25 strokes was used for rodding. Figure3.6 illustrates the process of
preparing the sand for dry bulk density. Dry bulk density was calculated as 1641
Kg/m3 and its SSD bulk density was calculated with use of absorption (2.7 %) to be
1685Kg/m3.
Void content was measured according to ASTM C 29/C 29M - 97, density of
water was reported in this standard in26.7oC as 996.6Kg/m3. Thus, void content of
normal sand was 31.3 %.
Bottom ash was obtained from Tanjung Bin power station, Johor, Malaysia.
Ten bags with average weight of 20 kg were delivered from Tanjung Bin power
51
station’s ash pond to UTM laboratory and stored in a safe place. Figure3.7 shows the
Tanjung Bin power stations’ bottom ash pond.
To find bottom ash chemical composition, a sample of bottom ash which was
sieved through sieve 75μm was sent to ALLIED CHEMISTS LABROTARRY SDN.
BHD for chemical analysis and result from this analysis is tabulated in Table3.3.
SiO2 45
Al2O3 30
Fe2O3 11
CaO 8.4
MgO <0.1
Na2O <0.1
K2O 0.9
P2O5 <0.1
LOI 27.4
58
Since bottom ash was selected as a replacement for sand, its size gradation
was also a major parameter. Thus, sieve analysis was elaborated for it to find out its
grading curve which is presented in Table3.4 and Figure3.8. Sieve test on bottom ash
was carried out based on BS 812-103.1:1985. Bottom ash had large particles even
larger than 20mm, to make it a suitable substitute for sand, initially, it was sieved
through sieve 5mm to become in the same range with sand.
10 100 100 -
75 6.4 - -
According to BS. 882:1992, the grading of the sand shall comply with the
overall limits given in Table3.8. Additionally, not more than one in ten consecutive
samples shall have a grading outside the limits for any one of the gradations C, M or
F.
59
Passing percentage ( % )
70
70 64.4
60 60
50 49 Bottom ash
40 38.8 Lower limit
30 30 Upper limit
26.6
20 15
15
10 12.2
5
0 0
150 300 600 1.18 2.36 5 10
BS. Sieve
The fineness modulus of bottom ash was calculated based on the results of
bottom ash sieve analysis which was tabulated in Table3.4. The fineness modulus
was measured by summation of the cumulative percentage retained on the sieve
series of 150, 300, 600μm, 1.18, 2.36 and 5.0 mm. The calculated fineness modulus
of bottom ash was 3.25 which showed coarser nature of this material.
Bottom ash was also prepared in saturated surface dry (SSD) condition. This
process was performed about one month before the casting with a similar method for
sand. For preparation of bottom ash, it was sieved through sieve 5mm which lead to
upper limit grading as it is for sand. Figure 3.9 shows the method of soaking bottom
ash in water which took 24 hours. As it can be seen in the photo, after filling the
bucket with water, large air bubbles released which showed bottom ash has a porous
nature.
61
During discharging the extra water, BS sieve 75μm was used. According the
literature, this process of washing was named as washing the bottom ash and the
produced was named as washed bottom ash (WBA). The process was continued by
distributing the wet bottom ash on plastic sheets to become in surface dry mode.
Figure3.10 shows drying process of bottom ash for SSD condition. The left material
is natural sand and the right one is bottom ash which was darker than natural sand.
Figure 3.10: Drying process of bottom ash and sand for SSD condition
60
SSD bulk specific gravity of washed bottom ash was also measured in
accordance with ASTM C 128 – 01” Standard Test Method for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate’’ with use of 500 gr
SSD bottom ash. Figure3.11 shows the process of preparation of bottom ash for SSD
bulk specific test.
Figure 3.11: Preparation of bottom ash for SSD bulk specific test
After drying the sample at 110oC and weighting the dried sample, SSD bulk
specific gravity of bottom ash was measured as 1.74.
ASTM C 29/C 29M – 97’’ Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit
Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate’’ was selected as the code of practice to measure
dry and SSD bulk density of sand. Sand was filled in the cylinder at three layers and
62
for each layer 25 strokes was used for rodding. Figure3.12 illustrates the process of
preparing the sand for SSD bulk density. Dry bulk density was calculated as
957.7kg/m3 and its SSD bulk density was calculated with use of absorption (10.81
%) to be 1061.2 kg/m3.
Void content was measured according to ASTM C 29/C 29M – 97, density of
water was reported in this standard in 26.7oC as 996.6kg/m3. Thus, void content of
bottom ash was 44.7 %.
Exploring the setting time in order to prevent flash set in the mixer
Mix proportions, method of mixing and casting were based on the results of
trial mixes which were discussed below:
According to the literature which was reported in Chapter 2 and also results
based on trial mixes, a brief review on the type, size and content of constituents of
the final mix designs were presented:
Low calcium fly ash was obtained from Kapar power station, Malaysia
Bottom ash was attained from Tanjung Bin power station, Johor, Malaysia
70% of the weight of the mixtures was aggregates in the size of 10 mm and
sand
705kg/m3 (2350 – 1645 = 705 kg/m3). As it was mentioned, the alkaline liquid/ fly
ash ratio by mass was taken as 0.4. Therefore, the mass of fly ash became 503 kg/m3
which is (705/ (1+0.4) =503 kg/m3) and the mass of alkaline liquid was 202 kg/m3
according to (705 - 503 = 202 kg/m3). In this project, the ratio of sodium silicate
solution/sodium hydroxide solution by mass was selected as 2.5; the mass of sodium
hydroxide solution = 202/ (1+2.5) = 58 kg/m3, while the mass of sodium silicate
solution was equal to 144 kg/m3 that (202 – 58 =144 kg/m3). Commercially available
super plasticizer with amount of approximately 2% of mass of fly ash,
503 × (2/100) = 10 kg/m3was added into the mixture to assist the placement of fresh
concrete. Water was also added to mixtures to improve the workability and produce a
desirable moderate slump value.
It was decided to fix the slump value of all mixtures to a specific amount to
compare the strengths of them. According to the BS EN: 206-1:2000, class S2 with
80mm slump value was the target. These proportions were tabulated in Table3.5 as
below:
Super plasticizer 10 10 10 10
Nine cubes for 7, 14 and 28 days compressive strength were casted. Six
200×100mm cylinders were prepared for tensile splitting strength test at the age of
7-day and 28-day, meanwhile six 100×100×500mm prisms were also prepared for
calculation of flexural strength at the age of 7-day and 28-day and one extra prism to
measure water absorption Detailed calculation for required amount of concreting is
tabulated in Table3.6 which must be prepared four times.
No. of
3 3 3 1
specimens
At first, all dry constituents such as aggregates, fly ash and bottom ash
(except for the first mixture) were combined for about 5 minutes. Then, the alkaline
solution was inserted into the dry mix gradually. Mixing was continued until
formation of a homogenous combined paste which was about another 5±1 minutes. It
was observed from trial mixes that addition of 2% of the weight of fly ash as super
plasticizer would not provide the workability solely, thus extra water was added to
mixes for providing slump value of 80-90 mm. Figure3.16 shows mixing the
geopolymer concrete in the pan mixer.
69
It was observed that geopolymer concrete physical shape was different from
OPC concrete. In fact, fresh geopolymer concrete was very dark and shiny and had
an extremely sticky and cohesive nature and pouring geopolymer concrete needed
more time and energy due to the difficulty of moving. Figur3.17 demonstrates fresh
geopolymer concrete containing 20% bottom ash.
For the first step in the casting stage, moulds were prepared for concreting by
lubricating with a polymeric wax. For the use of geopolymer concrete, the usual
grease or oil is not suitable and a polymeric mould releaser material must be used.
11
The next step was performed by filling the half of moulds with the prepared
paste. The compaction process was performed by twenty five manual strokes per
layer as well as ten seconds of vibration on vibration table to vanish the air bubbles
and for the next layer the same procedure was utilized. Figure3.18 and Figure3.19
shows the cubes and prisms on the vibration table. The duration and type of vibration
was chosen in accordance with preliminary experiments.
3.5 Curing
After 3 days of curing in indoor temperature, the moulds of Mix0, Mix20 and
Mix40 were opened. After 3 days, these mixtures were set and it was applicable to
move, but Mix60 moulds were opened on the 4th day after casting since it needed
more time to harden. Thus, all moulds were removed and striped samples were put in
a safe corner with indoor temperature of 28oC and average humidity of 85%.
Figure3.21 shows the geopolymer concrete containing 0% bottom ash at the age of
7days, and Figure3.22 is one set of samples for each strength test, while Figure3.23
shows Mix20, Mix40 and Mix60 at various ages.
12
After finishing all preliminary tests on trial mixtures which were more than
10 mix designs and also performing tests on the raw materials to acquire information
about their physical properties and chemical compositions, conclusive tests on
strength properties of the final samples were elaborated. Methods of testing were
mentioned as below:
and expressed in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3). For determination of volume,
dimension of the cubes were measured and cubes were weighted as-received in air.
Figure3.24. shows the process of weighting by balance in indoor temperature.
Figure 3.25: Checking the accuracy of UPV test apparatus with reference bar
Before starting the measurement, center of cube faces were marked. Green
grease was used as couplant for both transmitters. For each face three measurements
were conducted and for each cube two faces were tested for velocity of ultrasonic
pulses. The process of measurement was shown in Figure3.26.
The process was followed by averaging the three values of each face and
reported as velocity of ultrasonic pulses for the geopolymer concrete at the age of 7,
14 and 28days. Electronic timing circuits enable the transit time T of the pulse to be
measured. The ultrasonic pulse velocity V (m/s) was calculated according to BS.
1881: Part 203:1986:
(3.1)
where
After removal from the oven, the cores were put in an airtight vessel for 24
hours to cool. The process was followed by weighting the specimens and then they
were immersed in water tank for 30 minutes with its longitudinal axis horizontal and
at a depth such that there was 25 mm of water over the top of the specimens. Process
of immersion is presented in Figure3.28.
Then, they brought out the water tank and wiped with a cloth and again they
were weighted. The increase in mass resulting from immersion expressed as a
percentage of the mass of the dry specimen for water absorption of geopolymer
concrete. Results of water absorption were checked with the assessment criteria of
CEB (1989) which was presented in Table3.7.
Compressive strength test was elaborated based on BS. 1881: Part116: 1983
by means of three 100x100x100 mm geopolymer concrete cubes. Sizes on the
19
specimens were measured to calculate their cross-sectional area. In the next step,
load was applied without shock and continuously at a nominal rate of 0.3 N/ (mm² .s)
which was in the range that the standard suggested. Figure3.29 shows the process of
loading by hydraulic strength machine.
The tensile splitting strength test was performed based on BS. 1881: 117:
1983 on three 200x100 mm cylinders at 7 and 28 days after casting. Since the
cylinder was fully covered by steel loading surfaces, no extra plate was used and
loading with pace rate of 0.02 N/ (mm2.s). Method placing the cylinders in the
machine was presented in Figure3.30.
81
where
F is the maximum load (in N);
L is the length of the specimen as shown (in mm);
d is the cross-sectional dimension of the specimen (in mm).
The tensile splitting strength was expressed to the nearest 0.05 N/mm².
BS. 1881: Part 118: 1983 was selected as code of practice to measure flexural
strength of geopolymer concrete containing different percentages of bottom ash as
replacement of sand. To measure the flexural strength of geopolymer concrete,
100×100×500mm prisms were tested with pace rate of 0.06 N/ (mm².s). Figure3.31
shows the arrangement of supports and loading rolls on a geopolymer concrete prism
in the flexural strength test machine.
80
The flexural strength of geopolymer concrete fcf (N/mm²) was calculated by:
(3.3)
Where
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, it is going to report and discuss about the results which were
achieved in accordance with the methods that were mentioned in the previous
chapter. For each item, three specimens were tested and mean value of the data are
plotted in figures and tables to analyze. The standard deviations are calculated on the
test results as the error bar. Significant observations and occurrences are reported
with discussion about the possible reasons.
It was observed that by increase in the amount of bottom ash in the mixture,
workability improved without requirement to extra water in Mix40 and Mix60.
According to investigations which were stated in Chapter 3, moisture contents of
natural sand and bottom ash were 2.7% and 10.81%, respectively. Table4.1 shows
the difference of mixing water in each mixture as the sum of moisture content of
sand and bottom ash plus the extra water which was added to mixture to improve the
workability to a moderate slump.
As it can be seen in Table4.1, with the increase in bottom ash, the mixing
water in the mixture increased. In fact, absorption of bottom ash was 4 times more
than natural sand. Moisture highly retained into and onto the bottom ash due to the
high porosity and irregular surface. According to literature about usage of bottom ash
in normal concrete, the same behaviour was reported.
84
To compare physical properties bottom ash and sand, tests were conducted on
these two materials and results are presented in Table4.2.
Bottom ash had a higher fineness modulus in comparison with natural sand,
which shows it was coarser than sand. By investigations on bulk specific gravity and
also bulk density of bottom ash it was discovered that bottom ash was lighter and had
a higher void content than normal sand. This can reduce the unit weight of the end
product and consequently may deduct the strength properties.
85
Densities of all the four mixtures were calculated at the age of 7, 14 and
28days to investigate variation on the density by time and also understanding how
replacement of bottom ash would affect the density. Meanwhile, physical shapes of
the end products were similar except Mix60 which needed more time to harden and it
was not physically stable like the other samples. Table4.3 shows the densities Mix0,
Mix20, Mix40 and Mix60 at age of 7, 14 and 28days.
2250
2230
2210
2190
Density (kg/m3)
2170
Mix0
2150
Mix20
2130
Mix40
2110
Mix60
2090
2070
2050
7 14 28
Age ( Days )
Figure 4.1: The influence of adding bottom ash on density of the mixtures
Direct UPV as a non-destructive test was conducted and mean values for each
mixture are shown in Table4.4 and Figure4.2.
81
Table 4.4: Result of UPV test for mixtures with different proportions of
bottom ash
4500
Velocity of ultrasonic pulses vs. Age
Velocity of ultrasonic pulses (m/s)
4000
3500
Mix0
Mix20
3000
Mix40
Mix60
2500
2000
7 14 28
Age ( Days )
2260
2240
2220
2200
Density ( kg/m3)
2180
2160
2140
2120
2100
2080
2060
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Velocity of ultrasonic pulses ( m/s )
As it can be seen in the above figure, with the increase in density, pulses
velocity increased inside the geopolymer concrete specimens.
89
Water absorption for all the four mixtures were measured at the age of 28-day
and were corrected by correction factor of 1.09 since their lengths were 100mm and
results are presented in Table4.5.
Table 4.5: Corrected water absorption rate for the four mixtures
Mixture Water absorption (%) Quality in Accordance
with CEB 1989
45
Compressive strength
40
Compressive strength (MPa)
35
30
25 Mix0
20 Mix20
Mix40
15
Mix60
10
0
7 14 28
Age ( Days )
In all the mixture, with increase in the period of curing the compressive
strength improved. For Mix0, it increased from 24.5 MPa at 7-day to 37.5 MPa at 28-
day, and for Mix20, it increase from 16MPa to 26.5 MPa. With 20% replacement of
sand, 30% of 28-day compressive strength decreased. In other words, by 7% change
in the whole mass of geopolymer concrete, 30% of 28 days compressive strength
decreased.
100
90
80
70
60
50 28 days
40 7 days
30
20
10
0
Mix0 Mix20 Mix40 Mix60
At 7-day, mixture without bottom ash gained 65% of its 28-day compressive
strength, while this ratio decreased to 61% for Mix20. However, with higher bottom
content, the ratio increased to 70% and 79% for Mix40 and Mix60, respectively.
Results from testing cylinders and prisms for indirect tensile splitting strength
of geopolymer concrete are categorized in Table4.7 and explained by Figure 4.6.
4
Tensile splitting strength
According to results from section 4.8 and 4.9, ratio of tensile splitting
strength to compressive strength of geopolymer concrete with different proportions
of bottom ash was calculated at the age of 7-day and 28-day.
94
15
13
12
7
11
28
10
8
Mix0 Mix20 Mix40 Mix60
Mixture
Flexural strength of Mix0, Mix20, Mix40 and Mix60 were calculated and
mentioned in Table4.9 and discussion was conducted by Figure4.8.
8
Flexural strength
7
According to results from section 4.8 and 4.10, ratio of flexural strength to
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete with different proportions of bottom
ash was calculated at the age of 7-day and 28-day.
91
25
5.1 Summary
This chapter presents a summary of the research work and also the major
observations and conclusions from the conducted results. The main aim of this study
was to investigate the effect of using bottom ash in geopolymer concrete as a
replacement for natural sand and find applicability of using geopolymer concrete
containing bottom ash in structural works. After production of many trial mixes and
also following the works of other researchers in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), a mix design was achieved for geopolymer concrete without any bottom ash
and then investigations were elaborated by replacing partials of sand with bottom ash
and influences of this parameter was monitored in terms of workability, density,
water absorption, velocity of ultrasonic, compressive strength, tensile splitting
strength and also flexural strength. The two material (geopolymer concrete with and
without bottom ash) differed by more than just replacement of sand and it was found
that bottom ash which absorbed more water in its pores significantly reduced the
extra water. The magnitude was occurred in Mix60 which there was no need to extra
water. In order to maintain constant approaches between the mixtures, consideration
was taken about material preparation, ratio of alkaline liquid-to-fly ash, ratio of
sodium silicate-to-sodium hydroxide, workability, mixing procedures, compaction,
99
storage and curing condition to keep them constant for all the mixtures. Thus, for all
of the mixtures the dry mixing was 5minutes and wet mixing was 5±1min. The
process of compaction was performed both with tamper and vibration table and then
the samples were cured at ambient condition.
One of the most difficult tasks in the process of making the samples was
mould preparation. Since normal oil is not suitable for making geopolymer concrete,
after each time casting, internal surfaces of the moulds were not smooth and
011
hardworking was required to prepare the mould for the next casting. It is highly
recommended to use new moulds with smooth surface to avoid waste of time.
It was observed that five days after the mixing of the alkaline solution
consisting of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate crystallization was started and on
the sixth day after mixing large solid particles were appeared in the solution. With a
sudden movement of the container the hardening was speeded up. Prepared alkaline
solution shall not be used after 3 days of mixing, unless it was tested by a trial mix.
After adding 20, 40 and 60 bottom ash into the mixture, no visual outcome
was observed during the mixing process. The only occurrence was the decrease in
the requirement of extra water with the increase of bottom ash in the mixtures.
Mix60 kept one day more than other mixtures in moulds, since the samples were not
completely set. After striping the moulds, the surface of Mix0 samples were smooth
and surface voids were not intensive. While, for Mix20, Mix40 and Mix60 intensive
small voids were observed on the surface of the samples. Sample Mix20, Mix40 and
Mix60 are presented in Figure5.1.
010
5.3 Conclusions
After performing the tests on the four mixtures with various percentages of
bottom ash, the following conclusions are drawn:
amounts of bottom ash in the mixture and also age of the mixture, which
shows good behaviour of bottom ash geopolymer concrete in tension.
5.4 Recommendations
REFERENCES
Damtoft, J. S., Lukasik, J., Herfort, D., Sorrentino, D., and Gartner, E. M. (2008).
Sustainable development and climate change initiatives. Cement and
Concrete Research. 38(2), pp. 115-127.
Davidovitsm, J. (1991). Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials. Journal of
Thermal Analysis, Vol.37,pp.1633-1656.
Davidovits, J. (1999). Chemistry of Geopolymeric Systems, Terminology.
Geopolymer. International Conference, France.
Davidovits, J. (2002). Personal Communication on the Process of Making of
Geopolymer Concrete.
De Larrard, F. (1994). "Design of a Rheometer for fluid concretes", Proceedings,
International RILEM workshop on Special Concretes: Workability and
Mixing, P.J.M. Bartos Ed., E & FN SPON, pp. 201-208.
Dehghan, A.N., Hussin, M.W, and Falahati, N. (2011). Introduction of geopolymers
into Worldwide Markets: Simplifying the Complex Manufacturing Procedure.
In proceedings of Consilience - The Journal of Sustainable Development,
Columbia University, United stated of America.
Gilbert, R. I. (2002). Creep and Shrinkage Models For High Strength Concrete –
Proposals for Inclusion in As3600, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, Institution of Engineers, Australia 4(2), pp. 95–106.
Gourley, J. T. (2003). Geopolymers: opportunities for environmentally friendly
construction materials. Conference on Adaptive materials for a modern
society, Sydney, Institute of Materials Engineering, Australia.
Hardjito, D. and Fung, S. S. (2010). Parametric Study on the Properties of
Geopolymer Mortar Incorporating Bottom Ash, Concrete Research letters,
Vol. 1 (3), pp. 115-124.
Hardjito, D. and Rangan, B. V. (2005). Development and Properties of Low-Calcium
Fly-Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete., Research report GC1, Australia,
Perth: Curtin University of Technology, 103 s.
Hiroshi, K. (2008). Development of Artificial High Strength Light Weight Aggregate
made from Coal Ash expanding Shale Powder. Journal of structural and
construction engineering, pp. 1425 -1432.
Huang, W.H. (1990). The Use of Bottom Ash in Highway Embankment and
Pavement Construction. Dissertation abstracts International, 51-09B
Hussin, M.W, Dehghan, A.N. and Ariffin, M.A.M. (2011). Cement free concrete for
future sustainable construction industries. International seminar on the
application of science and mathematics. Malaysia.
Jaturapitakkul C. and Cheerarot R. (2003). Development of Bottom Ash as
Pozzolanic Material. ASCE. 0899-1561(2003)15:1-(48)
Johnson, G. (2007). Geopolymer concrete and method of preparation and casting,
United States Patent Application Publication 0125272 A1.
Kasemchaisiri, R. and Tangtermsirikul, S. (2007). A Method to Determine Water
Retainability of Porous Fine Aggregate for Design and Quality Control of
Fresh Concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 21(6), pp. 1322-1334.
Leo-Moggie, A. (2002). Keynote address. Eighth APEC coal flow seminar/nineth
APEC clean fossil energy technical seminar/fourth APEC coal trade,
investment, liberalization and facilitation workshop, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Liu, W., Yang, J., and Xiao, B. (2009). Review on treatment and utilization of
bauxite residues in China. International Journal of mineral processing. Vol.
93, No. 3-4.
019
Marland, G., Boden, T., Andres, R. J. (2000). Carbon Dioxide Information Center,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States of
America.
Malhotra, V. M. (2002). Introduction: sustainable development and concrete
technology, Concrete. Int. 24 (2002), p. 22.
McCaffrey, R. (2002). Climate Change and the Cement Industry. Global Cement and
Lime Magazine (Environmental Special Issue, pp. 15-19.
Mehta, P.K. (1998). Role of pozzolanic and cmentitious materials in sustainable
development of the cement industry. In V. M. Malhotra (ed), 6th
CANMENT/ACI international conference of fly ash, silica fume, slag and
natural pozzolans in concrete, pp. 1-20.
Neville, A.M. (2000). Properties of Concrete. Longman scientific and Technical.
ORNL (2006). National CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement
manufacturing, and gas flaring, pp. 1751-2003.
Olivia, M. and Nikraz, H. R. (2011). Strength and Water Penetrability of Fly ash
based Geopolymer Concrete. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences. Vol. 6, No. 7.
World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987). Our Common
Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, World Commission on Environment and Development,
Oxford University Press.
Pacheco-Torgal, F., Gomes, J.P, and Jalali, S. (2007). Investigations about the Effect
of Aggregates on Strength and Microstructure of Geopolymeric Mine Waste
Mud Binders. Cement and Concrete Research 37, pp. 933–941.
Palomo, A., Grutzeck, M. W. and Blanco, M.T. (1999). Alkali-Activated Fly Ashes,
A Cement for the Future. Cement and Concrete Research 29(8): pp.
1323-1329.
Pirazzoli, I., Alesiani, M., Capuani, S., Maraviglia, B., Giorgi, R., Ridi, F., and
Baglioni, P. (2005). The influence of superplasticizers on the first steps of
tricalcium silicate hydration studied by NMR techniques. Magnetic
Resonance Imaging.
Lih-Wen, Q. (2009). A Study on the Replacement of Fine Aggregate by Coal-fired
Bottom Ash in Concrete, Submitted for consideration in the 2009world of
coal ash conference, may 4-7.
001
Tajuddin, A. (2010). Energy Forum 2010: Securing a Sustainable Energy Future for
Malaysia, 9th August 2010, Kuala Lumpur.
Teixeira-Pinto, A., Fernandes, P. and Jalali, S. (2002). Geopolymer Manufacture and
Application - Main problems When Using Concrete Technology.
Geopolymers 2002 International Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Siloxo
Pty. Ltd.
Temuujin, J., van Riessen, A. and Williams, R. (2009). Influence of calcium
compounds on the mechanical properties of fly ash geopolymer pastes,
Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 167, no. 1-3, published online 7
January 2009.
Tharmaratnam, K and Tan, B.S. (1990). Attenuation of ultrasonic pulse in cement
mortar, Cem. Concr. Res. 20, pp. 335-345.
Van Jaarsveld, J. G. S., Van Deventer, J. S. J. and Lukey, G.C. (2003). The
Characterisation of Source Materials in Fly Ash-based Geopolymers.
Materials Letters 57(7), pp. 1272-1280.
Van Jaarsveld, J. G. S., van Deventer, J. S. J. and Lorenzen, L. (1998). Factors
Affecting the Immobilization of Metals in Geopolymerized Fly Ash.
Metallurgical and Material Transactions B 29B (1), pp. 283-291.
Vijai, K., Kumutha, R. and Vishnuram, B. G. (2010). Effect of types of curing on
strength of geopolymer concrete. International Journal of the Physical
Sciences Vol. 5(9), pp. 1419–1423, ISSN 1992-1950.
Wallah, S.E. (2009). Drying Shrinkage of Heat-Cured Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer
Concrete. Modern Appl. Sci., 3: 12.
Wallah, S.E. and Rangan, B.V. (2006). Low calcium fly ash based geopolymer
concrete: Long term properties, Research report GC2, Curtin University of
Technology, Australia.
Whitehurst, E. (1951). Soniscope tests concrete structures, J Am concrete Institute.
47, pp. 433-444.
Xu, H. and Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2000). The Geopolymerisation of Alumino-
Silicate Minerals. International Journal of Mineral Processing 59(3), pp.
247-266.
Xu, H. and van Deventer, J. S. J. (2002). Geopolymerisation of Multiple Minerals.
Minerals Engineering 15(12), pp. 1131-1139.