EIJCSE5028

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 5, No 3, 2015
© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Review article ISSN 0976 – 4399
Received on August 2014 Published on February 2015 296
Possible materials for producing Geopolymer concrete and its performance
with and without Fibre addition- A State of the art review
Alwis deva kirupa J P1
, Sakthieswaran N2
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ponjesly College of Engineering,
Nagercoil, India
2- Department of Civil Engineering, Regional center of Anna University, Tirunelveli, India
adkjp.civil@gmail.com
doi: 10.6088/ijcser.2014050028
ABSTRACT
Global warming is one of the most pronounced terms in this present century. Hence reducing
the greenhouse gas emissions, which is the reason behind global warming, is the need of the
hour and so efforts are urgently underway all over the world to develop environmentally
friendly construction materials, which make minimum utility of fast dwindling natural
resources and help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Five to eight percent of the world’s
manmade Greenhouse gas emissions are from the Cement industry itself. It is an established
fact that the green house gas emissions are reduced by 80% in Geopolymer concrete vis-a-vis
the conventional Portland cement manufacturing, as it does not involve carbonate burns. In
this connection, Geopolymers are showing great potential and several researchers have
critically examined the various aspects of their viability as binder system. Considerable
research has been carried out on development of Geopolymer concretes (GPCs), which
involve heat curing. A few studies have been reported on the use of such GPCs for structural
applications. Thus Geopolymer based Concrete is highly environment friendly and the same
time it can be made as high performance concrete. This paper presents a review of the
literature, outlining the various research approaches undertaken in an effort to check the
feasibility of geopolymer to Civil Engineering applications. The findings of these varying
approaches are compared, and the different strategies employed are compiled and discussed.
It is expected that this review will provide a key step in advancing the understanding of this
innovative construction material.
Key Words : Geopolymerisation, Fly Ash, Red Mud, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace slag
(GGBS), Activator Solution.
1. Introduction
Ordinary Portland cement has been a binder for Civil Engineering tasks for a long time. But
at present, there are many new issues branching from its ever increasing use. Cement
production consumes huge quantities of virgin materials, is energy-intensive, and leads to
high emission of the greenhouse gas CO2, which is the main reason behind Global warming.
Again, Sulphur dioxide emission also can be very high, depending upon the type of fuel used.
Installation of new cement plants is becoming increasingly capital-intensive. Finally, many
cement concrete structures have exhibited early distress and problems, which has an adverse
effect on the resource productivity of the industry. To overcome all such limitations, a new
cementitious composite called “Geopolymer” is evolved. The name geopolymer was coined
by a French Professor Davidovits in 1978 to represent a broad range of materials
characterized by networks of inorganic molecules. It is a type of inorganic polymer
composite, which has recently emerged as a prospective binding material based on novel

Possible materials for producing Geopolymer concrete and its performance with and without Fibre addition-
A State of the art review
Alwis deva kirupa J P and Sakthieswaran N
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 297
Volume 5 Issue 3 2015
utilization of engineering materials. The geo-polymeric concretes are commonly formed by
alkali activation of industrial aluminosilicate waste materials such as fly ash (FA), Ground
Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS), etc and have very small footprints of greenhouse
gases when compared to traditional concretes. They can be designed as high strength concrete
too. Main advantages of geopolymers are their chemical stability, resistance to the sulphate
corrosion and long lasting strength. Because of possible realization of even superior chemical
and mechanical properties compared to Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) based concrete
mixes, and higher cost effectiveness, GPC mixes based on FA and GGBS are being discussed
for their potential application in concrete industry including structural concreting, precast
panels and ready-mixes.
2. Materials that can be generally used
Most common materials other than that used for Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete (OPCC)
used in production of Geopolymer concrete (GPC) are
1. Fly Ash
2. Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS)
3. Red Mud
4. Microsilica
5. Metakaolin
6. Rice Hush Ash (RHA)
7. Activator Solution
2.1 Fly Ash
Fly ash is a product (waste) of burning finely ground coal to heat a boiler to produce
electricity. It is removed from the plant exhaust gases primarily by electrostatic precipitators
or bag houses and secondarily by scrubber systems. Physically, fly ash is a very fine,
powdery material, composed mostly of silica. Fly ash is generally light tan in color and
consists mostly of silt-sized and clay-sized glassy spheres. They are generally spherical in
shape and range in size from 0.5 µm to 100 µm. They consist mostly of SiO2, which is
present in two forms: amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is
sharp, pointed and hazardous. Three classes of fly ash are defined by ASTM C 618; Class N
fly ash, Class F fly ash, and Class C fly ash. The chief difference between these classes is the
amount of calcium, silica, alumina, and iron content in the ash.
2.2 Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS)
Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag is obtained by quenching molten iron slag from a blast
furnace in water or steam, to produce a glassy, granular product that is then dried and ground
into a fine powder. The main components of blast furnace slag are CaO (30-50%), SiO2 (28-
38%), Al2O3 (8-24%), and MgO (1-18%). In general, increasing the CaO content of the slag
results in raised slag basicity and an increase in compressive strength. The MgO and Al2O3
content show the same trend up to respectively 10-12% and 14%, beyond which no further
improvement can be obtained. GGBS has now effectively replaced sulfate-resisting Portland
cement (SRPC) on the market for sulfate resistance because of its superior performance and
greatly reduced cost compared to SRPC.
2.3 Red Mud

Red mud is the major industrial waste produced by the Bayer process for the extraction of
alumina from bauxite ores, one of the oldest large-scale industries in the world. It is
characterized by strong alkalinity even with a high water content (up to 95%), owing to the
presence of an excessive amount of dissolved sodium hydroxide used to extract silicates and
alumina. The red colour is caused by the oxidized iron present, which can make up to 60% of
the mass of the red mud. In addition to iron, the other dominant particles include silica,
unleached residual aluminium, and titanium oxide. Disposal becomes a huge problem due to
the presence of high pH, heavy metals and radioactivity. Therefore, new technologies
utilizing red mud as a raw material for manufacturing high added-value products are urgently
needed, besides the use in production of GPC.
Figure 1: Fly Ash Figure 2: Mixture of GGBS and Red Mud
2.4 Microsilica
Silica fume, also known as microsilica, is an amorphous (non-crystalline) polymorph
of silicon dioxide, silica. It is an ultrafine powder collected as a by-product of the silicon and
ferrosilicon alloy production and consists of spherical particles with an average particle
diameter of 150 mm. Colour varies from dark black to almost white. The main field of
application is as pozzolanic material for high performance concrete. It is sometimes confused
with fumed silica (also known as pyrogenic silica). However, the production process, particle
characteristics and fields of application of fumed silica are all different from those of silica
fume. Silica fume is an ultrafine material with spherical particles less than 1 µm in diameter,
the average being about 0.15 µm. This makes it approximately 100 times smaller than the
average cement particle. The specific gravity of silica fume is generally in the range of 2.2 to
2.3.
2.5 Metakaolin (Kaolinite)
Kaolinite is a clay mineral with the chemical composition Al2Si2O5(OH)4, which means each
particle has one tetrahedral silica layer and one octahedral alumina layer. It is a soft, earthy,
usually white mineral, produced by the chemical weathering of aluminum silicate minerals
like feldspar. Rocks that are rich in kaolinite are known as china clay, white clay, or kaolin.

Kaolin is a fine, white, clay mineral that has been traditionally used in the manufacture of
porcelain. Metakaolin is a dehydroxylated form of the clay mineral kaolinite in the
temperature range of 500-800°C. It is a highly pozzolanic and reactive material.
Figure 3 : Microsilica
Figure 4: Metakaoline
2.6 Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
Rice husk, also called rice hull, is the hard protecting covering of grains of rice, which is a
by-product generally obtained from milling process of rice crop. The RHA is generated after
burning the rice husk in the boiler, which is collected from the particulate collection
equipment attached upstream to the stack of rice-fired boilers. For the transition from rice
husk to RHA, the quantity of RHA generated is about 20% of the processed rice husk. The
RHA is highly porous and lightweight with a very high external surface area and contains
silica in high content (usually 90 - 95 wt.%). At present, the most common method of
disposal of RHA is dumping on waste land, thus creating an environmental hazard through
pollution and land dereliction problems. Since the amount of RHA generated is in plenty
annually, an effective way of disposal of RHA is needed urgently.
2.7 Activator Solution

The most common alkaline liquid used in geopolymerisation is a combination of sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium silicate or potassium silicate.
Figure 5: Rice Husk Ash
2.7.1 Sodium Silicate
Sodium silicate is the common name for a compound sodium metasilicate, Na2SiO3, also
known as waterglass or liquid glass. It is available in aqueous solution and in solid form and
is used in cements, passive fire protection, refractories, textile and lumber processing, and
automobiles. Sodium carbonate and silicon dioxide react when molten to form sodium
silicate and carbon dioxide.
Na2CO3 + SiO2 → Na2SiO3 + CO2
Formula: Na2SiO3
IUPAC ID: Sodium metasilicate
2.7.2 Sodium Hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, or lye, is an inorganic compound with
the chemical formula NaOH. It is a white solid and
highly caustic metallic base and alkali salt which is available in pellets, flakes, granules.
Sodium hydroxide is soluble in water, ethanol and methanol. This alkali is deliquescent and
readily absorbs moisture and carbon dioxide in air. It is used in many industries, in the
manufacture of pulp and paper, textiles, drinking water, soaps and detergents and as a drain
cleaner. Similar to the hydration of sulphuric acid, dissolution of solid sodium hydroxide in
water is a highly exothermic reaction in which a large amount of heat is liberated, posing a
threat to safety through the possibility of splashing. The resulting solution is usually
colourless and odorless with slippery feeling upon contact in common with other alkalis.
Since the geo-polymer concrete is a homogenous materials and its main process to activate
the sodium silicate, pellet form is preferred.

Figure 6: Sodium Hydroxide Figure 7: Pellet form Figure 8: Flakes form
3. Review consequences
Based on the review, following fallouts are derived. They are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Compilation of Review Results
Sl
no
Author
and Year
Results and Discussions
1 Supraja V,
Kanta Rao M
2010
GGBS obtained from Vizag steel plant in Andhra Pradesh; NaOH flakes
(commercial grade); Na2SiO3; Coarse aggregate of size 12mm and
20mm; Locally available river sand are the materials used.
Portland cement is fully replaced with GGBS.
Trial mix is adopted by assuming the density of GPC as 2440 kg/m3.
Liquid to binder ratio is assumed as 0.30.
It is observed that compressive strength increased with the increase in the
molarity of sodium hydroxide (9M).
Comparing hot air oven curing and curing by direct sun light, oven cured
specimens gives higher compressive strength.
2 Boskovic
Ivana, et al;
January 2013
NaOH and Na2SiO3 are mixed before 48 hours of GPC production.
Concentration of NaOH varies as 3M, 7M and 10 M; Content of OPC is
4-15% weight.
All the specimens were prepared using the constant value of two
components within the liquid phase L: L (Na2O nSiO2: NaOH) =2.5.
Results indicate the possibility of use of red mud as a good initial
material for geopolymer preparation.
The compressive strength results are within the range of 10.2 MPa to
17.2 MPa under the specified conditions of raw mixture preparation.
SEM analysis confirms the homogeneity of samples. The detection of
amorphous phase is quite hard.
3 Jian He, et
al;
December
2012
A new type of geopolymer composite was synthesized from two
industrial wastes, red mud (RM) and rice husk ash (RHA) and
Metakaolin, a low cost material.
In 1st
combination (Red Mud+Fly ash), 1.5 M sodium trisilicate is stirred
for 15 minutes to ensure dissolution whereas in 2nd
mixture (Metakaolin
based), NaOH is dissolved in deionized water to get a concentration of
6.50-7.80 M. 3rd
combination (Rice Husk Ash+Red Mud) consisted of
NaOH with a molarity of 2M, 4M, 6M with a solution-solid ratio of 1.2.
Higher RHA/RM ratios generally lead to higher strength, stiffness, and

ductility, but excessive RHA may cause the opposite effect.
Effect of raw material mix ratio compressive strength, Young’s modulus,
and failure strain are all enhanced while the Si/Al ratio increases from
1.68 to 2.80.
The compressive strength ranges from 3.2 to 20.5 MPa for the
synthesized geopolymers with nominal Si/Al ratios of 1.68–3.35, which
is comparable to most Portland cements.
A few barriers, such as long curing duration make it practically difficult.
4 Sanjay R, et
al
Sep 2012
Absolute Volume Method was adopted for mix proportioning. Ratio of
NaOH and Na2SiO3 is fixed as 2.5. Binder content accounts in the range
of 23% to 29%. Water content is fixed as 140 lit. 2% by weight of
Superplasticizer is added for desired workability.
Maximum compressive strength of 56.24 Mpa was obtained for 27%
binder content and 12M NaOH.
Addition of 10% GGBS by mass increased compressive strength by 23%.
It decreased by 10-15% compared to conventional aggregates due to
addition of recycled aggregates.
Maximum Split Tensile strength of 3.25 Mpa was obtained for 29%
binder content and 12M NaOH.
Maximum flexural strength of 3.73 Mpa was obtained for 27% binder
content and 12M NaOH.
5 More Pratap
Kishanrao
May 2013
50% of Fly Ash and 50% GGBS forms the binder material. Analytical
grade of NaOH flakes with 97% purity; Commercial grade of Na2SiO3;
Coarse aggregate-less than 10 mm and Superplasticizer is used.
It is observed that weight losses in specimens gradually increase in all
mixes with increase in temperature upto 500o
C.
It is observed that residual Compressive strength coefficient of
specimens exposed to 200o
C is slightly higher than cubes tested at room
temperature while with further increase, there is loss in Compressive
strength gradually.
Hence it is concluded that higher temperature curing is not required in all
cases of GPC.
6 Dattatreya J
K, et al.
2011
FAB series comprises of 75% Fly Ash and 25% GGBS and GGB again
comprises of 3 types of mix designated as GGB 1(100% GGBS+0%Fly
Ash), GGB 2(75% GGBS+25%Fly Ash) and GGB3 (50%
GGBS+50%Fly Ash); Reinforcement – HYSD bars of diameter 8 (for
stirrups),12 and 16 mm; Superplasticer – (Conplast SP – 430) are
involved.
GGB 1 showed a maximum load carrying capacity of 90.60 KN which is
more than Reinforced Portland Cement Concrete (RPCC) beams. In case
of Fly Ash series, deflection was about 41-72% more than RPCC,
whereas in case of GGBS series, the difference was much less due to
their high compressive strength and hence higher Modulus of elasticity
(E).
In general, there was no major difference in failure modes and crack
pattern of all three types of mixes.
7 Ng T.S, Htut
T.N.S &
Foster S. J.
Ratio of NaOH to Na2SiO3 is fixed as 1:2.5 by mass in case of GPC.
Sand is mixed with cement in the ratio 3:1 along with water cement ratio
of 0.4 regarding OCM (Ordinary cement mortar). Superplasticizer is
mixed along with water binder ratio of 0.22 for RPC (Reactive powder

2010 Concrete).
Snubbing effect dominates the highly inclined fibres for mode I (uniaxial
tension) and negatively inclined fibres for mode II (direct tension).
Fibres at high inclination angles potentially fracture and consequently
result in brittle response.
GPC possessed compressive strength higher than conventional mortar
but pullout efficiency of GPC was lower due to its lower elastic modulus.
8 Susan, et al
November
2006
Mix is proportioned to comply with the standards of ACI. Solution
modulus (SiO2/Na2O) is fixed as 2.4. The aggregate content is selected as
55% of CA and 45% of FA. Water binder ratio is 0.45. Steel fibres are
added at the rate of 40kg/m3
in OPCC and 120 kg/m3
in AASC.
Compressive strength loss was seen due to incorporation of steel. But
compressive strength increased in AASC samples than OPC in absence
of fibres.
Splitting tensile strength increases with age and amount of fibre added at
a rate of 37.70% at 7 days and 23.7% at 28 days. But in OPC, it
decreases at early ages. GPC has shown 32% increase compared to
control mix.
Modulus of rupture (MOR) increases with increase in age and fiber
content. AASC 3(120kg/m3
of steel fibres) mix presented high MOR
(8.86 Mpa) at 28 days.
By increasing fibre content, increase in load capacity, toughness (three
times higher) and crack strength is obtained.
9 Mira
Vukcevic, et
al
2013
Activator solution is prepared 48 hours prior to GPC production.
Concentration of NaOH is varied as 3, 7, 10 mol dm-3
. Red Mud is
substituted with Metakaolin at a proportion of 4, 8 and 15% by mass. The
cited ingredients are mixed to form a fine, thick pulp.
Highest density values were obtained with low percentage of Metakaolin
which shows RM is a very dense component.
Compressive Strength increase with NaOH concentration upto 7 M and it
decreases with 10 M.
Compressive strength also increases with increase in level of substitution
of RM upto 15%.
With NaOH concentration of 7 M and 10% RM substitution, MK-RM
based GPC developed satisfactory strength.
10 Gokulram H,
Anuradha
March 2013
Mixtures were prepared with alkaline liquid to binder ratio by mass value
is 0.45 for mix id M1, M2, M3 and 0.55 for mix id M4, M5.
Polypropylene fibres were added to the mix in the volume fraction of
0.25% volume of concrete. Two kinds of systems were consider in this
study using 100% replacement of cement by ASTM class F Fly ash (FA)
and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and 100% replacement
of natural sand by Manufactured sand.
100% Replacement of cement by GGBS in Polypropylene Fibre
Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete (PFRGC) shows better Compressive
strength, Split Tensile strength and Flexural strength when compared to
100% replacement of fly ash (FA).
The mechanical properties obtained for different binder composition of
FA and GGBS incorporated with 0.25% of Polypropylene Fibre agrees
well.
The usage of Polypropylene Fibre in Geopolymer synthesis suggests an

approach to further enhancing the environment benefits and solving the
problems of large shrinkage and high brittleness.
11 Brock
William
Tomkins
October
2011.
The concretes under investigation include fly-ash based geopolymer
concrete (FAGC) and red-mud based geopolymer concrete (RMGC). The
chemical resistance tests involve sodium hydroxide and sulphuric acid at
20○
C and 90○
C.
A slump of 200mm is maintained in all mixes.
Results indicated that OPC experienced some strength deterioration in
both an acid environment (-24.9 to -25.6%) and an alkaline environment
(-2.2 to -13.3%).
FAGC was found to have better acid resistance (+3.8 to -17.6%) and
even experienced strength enhancement in sodium hydroxide (+29.1 to
+55.7%).
Interestingly, RMGC exhibited a strength increase of 52.4% in sulphuric
acid while also displaying strength enhancement of +50.5% in sodium
hydroxide.
12 Ambily P.S,
et al
2012
A high volume FA based GPC mix with 80% fly ash and 20% GGBS
and liquid binder ratio of 0.6 were employed for all the beams.
Potassium hydroxide and potassium silicate solution was used as the
alkali activator system.
After a series of trial mixes on geopolymer concrete, the volume of steel
fibres was fixed as 0.75.
The first crack appeared only after 60 KN in case of the beams with
fibres in comparison to the 40 KN in case of beams without fibres.
The deflection at failure ranges from 10 to 15 mm for reinforced GPC
without fibre while the corresponding deflection for GPC beams with
fibre is 15 to 20 mm.
The incorporation of steel fibres improves the ductility and energy
absorption characteristics of geopolymer concretes.
GPC mixes can be developed using potassium compounds in lieu of
normally used sodium compounds.
13 Ganapati
Naidu P, et
al.
July 2012
Sodium silicate (103 kg/m3) and sodium hydroxide of 8 molarity
(41kg/m3) solutions were used as alkalis in all 5 different mixes.
Total aggregate content is assumed as 77% of entire concrete mix by
mass. Ratio of alkaline liquid to binder ratio is fixed as 0.40. Ratio of
Na2SiO3 to NaOH is fixed as 2.50.
Setting times of concrete are reduced with increase in slag content.
28.57% replacement of fly ash with slag, achieved a maximum
compressive strength of 57MPa for 28 days.
The same mix shown 43.56 MPa (25% loss) after exposure of 500°C for
2 hours.
Tensile strength of GPC increases continuously up to 28 days with
increase in percentage of slag (GGBS) to flyash.
14 Adam A.A,
et al.
2010
A w/b ratio of 0.5 was used to prepare all blended GGBS-OPC and
control concrete.
The proportions of GGBS were 30%, 50%, and 70% of the total binder.
A water/solid ratio of 0.45 was used for AAS and 0.29 for geopolymer
concrete.
Liquid sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide were blended in different
proportions providing an alkali modulus (AM) ranging from 0.75 to 1.25.

In general, the 28-days compressive strengths of the AAS and FA
geopolymer concretes are comparable with that of 100% OPC concrete
and blended OPC-GGBS concretes.
The AM of the activator has a significant influence on the strength
ofAASand FA-based geopolymer concrete up toAM = 1, beyond this
level the influence reduced.
Results indicate that the alkali modulus has a major effect on sorptivity
of both AAS and geopolymer, however no significant effects of the alkali
modulus on carbonation were observed on AAS concrete.
The sorptivity of blended concrete reduced but the carbonation increased
as the replacement level increased.
15 Rajamane
NP et al.
(2012)
GPC is prepared from GGBS, a powder from grinding the by-product of
slag waste from blast furnace of steel plants. For comparison,
conventional cement, Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) containing Fly
Ash was considered.
To achieve simultaneous acidic and sulphate attack, sulphuric acid is
used for durability studies.
Test data indicate that, on exposure to 2% and 10% sulphuric acid, the
losses in weight, thickness and strength of GPC are significantly much
less than those for Portland Pozzolana Cement concrete (PPCC).
At the end of 90 days, PPCC and OPCC specimens were found to be in
deteriorated state with almost complete loss of integrity. But the GPC
specimens had almost maintained their integrity with minor visible
distress seen on surface.
16 Neetu Singh
et al.
(2013)
The geoploymers are manufactured by geopolymerization between class
F fly ash (FA), with alkali activator fluid (Sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide).
The optimum compressive strength was obtained at curing temperature
of 1200
C for 72 hrs.
The newly synthesized geopolymer then subjected to durability studies
under different aggressive chemical environment with particular
reference to the effect of Acid, Sulphates, and Chloride salts and
compared with ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
It was observed that fly ash-based geopolymer concrete has an excellent
resistance to acid and sulphate attack when compared to conventional
concrete. The better performance of geopolymeric materials than that of
Portland cement concrete in acidic environment might be attributed to
the lower calcium content of the source material.
There is no damage to the surface of test specimens after exposure to
sodium sulfate solution and no significant change in the mass and the
compressive strength of test specimens up to 90 days.
4. Conclusion
From the review done, following conclusions are evolved
1. Al-Si minerals are more soluble in sodium based activators compared to Potassium
based activators.
2. Silica in Na2SiO3 plays important role in GPC since it is the initiator of
Geopolymerisation.

3. Blending of Alkaline activators 24 hours prior to concreting enhance polymerization
process and prevents bleeding and segregation.
4. Combination of high hydroxide concentration and low silicate concentration generally
lower density values.
5. In general, compressive strength increases with increase in molarity of NaOH except
RHA based GPC.
6. Heat released during curing of Fly Ash based GPC is much less(40o
C) when
compared to typical concrete(65 to 70o
C).This makes it an advantage over OPCC for
large structures like Dams, weirs and tanks.
7. Water has no hardening or weakening effect on GPC.
8. Micro silica can be added at a rate of 5-15% by weight of cement while Red Mud can
be used upto 30%.
9. Fly Ash and GGBS can be used upto 100% in GPC.
10. GPC mix will become less fluid with increasing mixing time.
11. Metakaolin based GPC shows high compressive strength due to high fraction of pure
geopolymer binder and less micro pores and micro cracks.
5. References
1. Abishek H N and M U Aswanth (2012), Strength studies of Red Mud based
Geopolymer concrete, International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Development, 6(2), pp 10-32.
2. Adam A.A, et al. (2010), Strength, sorptivity and carbonation of geopolymer concrete,
Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction,
Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 563-568.
3. Ambily P S, Madheswaran C K, Lakhsmanan N, Dattatreya J K, Jaffer Sathik S A
(2012), Experimental studies on Shear behaviour of reinforced Geopolymer concrete
thin webbed T-beams with and without fibres, International Journal Of Civil And
Structural Engineering, 3(1), pp 128-140.
4. Boskovic Ivana, Vukcevic Mira, Krgovic Milun, Ivanovic Mileta and Zejak Radomir
(2013), The Influence of Raw Mixture and Activators Characteristics on Red-Mud
based Geopolymers, Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment, 17 (1), pp 34-
40.
5. Brock William Tomkins, (2011), Chemical Resistance of Geopolymer Concrete
against H2SO4 & NaOH, A dissertation submitted to Faculty of Engineering and
Surveying, University of Southern Queensland.
6. Dattatreya J K, Rajamane N P, Sabitha D, Ambily P S and Nataraja M C, (2011),
Flexural behaviour of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beams, International Journal of
Civil And Structural Engineering, 2(1), pp 138-159.
7. Ganapati Naidu, Prasad A S S N, Adiseshu S and Satayanarayana P V V (2012), A
Study on Strength Properties of Geopolymer Concrete with Addition of GGBS,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 2(4), pp 19-28.

8. Gokulram H, Anuradha R (2013), Strength Studies on Polypropylene Fibre
Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete using M-Sand, International Journal of Emerging
Trends in Engineering and Development, 2, pp 242-250.
9. Jian He (2012), Synthesis and Characterization of Geopolymers for infrastructural
Applications, A Dissertion Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State
University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
10. Mira Vuk evi, Danka Turovi, Milun Krgovi, Ivana Bo kovi, Mileta Ivanovi and
Radomir Zejak (2013), Utilization of Geopolymerization For obtaining Construction
Materials Based on Red Mud, Professional article, pp 99-104.
1. More Pratap Kishanrao (2013), Design of Geopolymer Concrete, International
Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(5), pp
1841-1844.
11. Neetu Singh, Sameer Vyas, R.P Pathak, Pankaj Sharma N.V, Mahure, S.L (2013)
Effect of Aggressive Chemical Environment on Durability of Green Geopolymer
Concrete, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT);
3(4), pp 277-284
12. Ng T S, Htut T N S and Foster S J (2010), Mode I and II fracture behaviour of steel
fibre reinforced high strength geopolymer concrete: an experimental investigation,
Korea Concrete Institute, pp 1501-1511.
13. Rajamane NP, Nataraja MC, Lakshmanan N, Dattatreya J K, Sabitha D (2012)
“Sulphuric Acid resistant eco-friendly concrete from Geopolymerisation of blast
furnace slag” Indian Journal of Engineering and Material Sciences, 19, pp 357-367.
14. Sanjay R, et al (2012), An Experimental study on flexural behavior of reinforced
geopolymer concrete beams with recycled aggregates in Bending, International
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and development, 6(2), pp 186-199.
15. Supraja V, Kanta Rao M, Experimental study on Geo-Polymer concrete incorporating
GGBS, International Journal of Electronics, Communication & Soft Computing
Science and Engineering, 2(2), pp 11-15.
16. Susan, Bernal, Ruby, De Gutierrez, Silvio, Delvastro, Erich and Rodriguez (2006),
Performance of Geopolymer Concrete Reinforced With Steel Fibres, IIBCC 10th
international Inorganic bonded Fiber composites conference, Sao Paulo–Brazil, pp
156-167.

EIJCSE5028

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to EIJCSE5028

Similar to EIJCSE5028 (20)

EIJCSE5028