Setting Time, Strength, and Bond of High-Calcium

Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete

Pattanapong Topark-Ngarm 1; Prinya Chindaprasirt 2; and Vanchai Sata 3

Abstract: In this paper, setting time, strength and bond of high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete were investigated. The high-calcium fly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ash was from Mae Moh power plant in northern Thailand. Both sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide solution were used as alkali
activators in every mix. Sodium hydroxide solution with 10 M, 15 M, and 20 M concentrations, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios
of 1.0 and 2.0, alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio of 0.5 and two curing regimes viz., heat curing at 60
2°C for 24 h and room temperature curing
at 23
2°C were used. The results indicated that fresh geopolymer concrete had short setting time of 28–58 min due to the presence of
high calcium content of fly ash. In general, strengths and modulus of elasticity increased with the increase in NaOH concentration.
For compressive strength, the optimum Na2 O content was around 12% of fly ash. The high-strength geopolymer concrete with 28-day
compressive strength of 54.4 MPa was obtained for mix with 15M NaOH. The modulii of elasticity of geopolymer concrete were related
to the compressive strengths and comparable to those of portland cement concrete. The tensile splitting strength and bond strength were also
related to the compressive strength and the values were higher than those of portland cement concrete. In particular, the bond strengths were
significantly higher than those given by the current design code. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001157. © 2014 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: High-calcium fly ash; Geopolymer concrete; Mechanical properties; Bond strength.

Introduction
The global production of portland cement (PC) increases every year
and has shown no sign of slowing down (USGS 2013). Large
amount of natural resources such as limestone, fossil fuels, electric-
ity, and natural gas are required in PC production. High tempera-
tures are required in the production of PC, and this has resulted in a
larger amount of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission into the atmos-
phere. In Thailand, approximately 33 million tons of portland
cement were produced in 2012 (USGS 2013).
In an effort to reduce the growth of PC consumption, alternative
pozzolanic materials such as fly ash, slag, palm oil fuel ash, bagasse
ash, and rice husk ash are used as alternative cementitious materials
to replace part of portland cement (Chindaprasirt et al. 2007c;
Sata et al. 2007; Tangchirapat et al. 2009). These materials are by-
products from industrial processes and thus require less energy to
produce compared to PC production. These pozzolanic materials
contain rich silica (SiO2 ) and alumina (Al2 O3 ) and can also be used
to produce geo-binder when mixed with alkaline solutions. Geopol-
ymers or “chains or networks of mineral molecules linked with co-
valent bonds” can be produced from aluminosilicate, an inorganic
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Khon Kaen Univ., Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand. E-mail: p.toparkngarm@
gmail.com
2
Professor, Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development
Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen
Univ., Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand (corresponding author). E-mail:
prinya@kku.ac.th
3
Assisstant Professor, Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Develop-
ment Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon
Kaen Univ., Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand. E-mail: vancsa@kku.ac.th
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 6, 2014; approved on
July 1, 2014; published online on August 19, 2014. Discussion period open
until January 19, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014198(7)/$25.00.
material rich in SiO2 and Al2 O3 , activated by alkaline solution such
as sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) and
sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 ) solution with the help of elevated tem-
perature (Davidovits 2008). Geopolymers, in general, exhibit good
mechanical properties, high durability, and strength maintenance in
extreme conditions such as elevated temperatures, high corrosion,
and high radiation (Binici 2013; Kong and Sanjayan 2008; Sata
et al. 2012; Sufian Badar et al. 2014).
Fly ash is commonly used to produce geopolymers due to its
availability around the world. Fly ash is classified as either class C
or class F according to its chemical composition. It has been shown
that low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concretes (LCGC) have
similar mechanical properties to concretes produced with PC
(Hardjito and Rangan 2005). In Thailand, approximately three
million tons of fly ash is produced from lignite coal-fired Mae
Moh power station in Lampang province. This fly ash contains
relatively high calcium oxide content, typically around 12–25% by
weight. According to previous researches, geopolymer paste and
mortar produced from high-calcium fly ash exhibited good strength
and durability (Chindaprasirt et al. 2010; Chindaprasirt et al. 2007c;
Wongpa et al. 2010). Rattanasak and Chindaprasirt (2009) reported
that leaching of silica and alumina was enhanced at high concen-
tration of NaOH and thus a high strength geopolymer was normally
obtained with a high concentration NaOH solution.
One of the problems with high-calcium fly ash is the fast setting
due to the presence of calcium and the formation of calcium silicate
hydrate and/or calcium aluminate silicate hydrate (Chindaprasirt
et al. 2012). The use of high NaOH concentration in the high-
calcium fly ash geopolymer can prolong the setting by limiting the
leaching of calcium and allows normal geopolymerization process
to control the setting of paste (Hanjitsuwan et al. 2014).
In the utilization of geopolymer concrete, the reinforcement is
an important aspect (Esfahani and Rangan 1998). Since concrete is
weak in tension, bond strength between rebar and concrete is thus a
critical strength to transfer externally applied load from concrete to
rebar. Sarker (2011) and Sofi et al. (2007a) indicated that bond

© ASCE 04014198-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198

 strengths between low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete and Table 1. Mixing Proportion of Geopolymer Concrete by Weight (kg=m3 )
reinforcement were higher than those with the PC system. This Aggregate
is supported by the work of Songpiriyakij et al. (2011), which Fly NaOH Sodium Na2 O
Mixes Coarse Fine ash (Molar) silicate (moles=m3 )
reported that high-calcium geopolymer paste had higher bond
strength at 3 days than that of traditional epoxy agent. S=H 1-10M 1091 588 414 104 (10M) 104 682.9
Fresh and hardened properties of geopolymer concrete are af- S=H 1-15M 1091 588 414 104 (15M) 104 831.7
fected by several factors such as alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio, S=H 1-20M 1091 588 414 104 (20M) 104 965.5
NaOH concentration, ratio of alkaline solutions, curing conditions, S=H 2-10M 1091 588 414 69 (10M) 138 637.7
S=H 2-15M 1091 588 414 69 (15M) 138 736.4
and admixtures (Sathonsaowaphak et al. 2009). A number of re-
S=H 2-20M 1091 588 414 69 (20M) 138 825.2
ports (Hardjito and Rangan 2005; Rangan et al. 2006b) on the prop-
erties of geopolymer concrete and the effects the factors previously
mentioned were based on low-calcium fly ash. In this research,
fresh properties, and strengths including bond strength of high- and initial molar ratios of starting materials. Total moles of Na2 O
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete (HCGC) were investigated. were calculated from Na2 O in fly ash, sodium hydroxide, and
sodium silicate solutions.

Experimental Details Mixing Procedure

Materials
Fly Ash
High-calcium fly ash (FA) from Mae Moh power station in
Lampang province, Thailand was used in this study. The fly ash
was greyish-brown color and consisted of 45.23% SiO2 , 19.95%
Al2 O3 , 13.15% Fe2 O3 , and 15.51% CaO, which was analyzed us-
ing X-ray fluorescence (XRF). The particles were mainly spherical
with median particle size of 57 microns as determined by Particle
Size Analyzer Laser model Mastersizer S (Malvern Instruments
and 38% was retained on 45 μm sieve. The fly ash was a high-
calcium fly ash according to the chemical composition requirement
per ASTM C618 (ASTM 2008a).
Aggregate
Commercially available limestone with maximum size of 20 mm
and specific gravity of 2.65 in saturated surface dry (SSD) condi-
tions was used as coarse aggregate. For fine aggregate, river sand
with specific gravity of 2.58 and fineness modulus of 2.9 in SSD
conditions was used.
The mixing procedure was adopted from previous researches
on high-calcium geopolymer mortar (Chindaprasirt et al. 2010;
Rattanasak and Chindaprasirt 2009). The geopolymer concretes
were mixed in a 23
2° C controlled room. The procedure started
by mixing fly ash with NaOH solution for 5 min. Coarse and fine
aggregates were then added to the mixer and mixed for another
5 min. Sodium silicate solution was then added to the mixture
and mixing was continued for additional 5 min.
Casting of Specimens
For compressive strength and splitting tensile strength tests, geo-
polymer concrete was cast into 100 × 200 mm cylindrical steel
molds in accordance with ASTM C192 (ASTM 2007). For the
modulus of elasticity test, geopolymer concrete was cast into 150 ×
300 mm cylindrical steel molds. For the pullout bond test, geopol-
ymer concrete was cast into 100 × 150 mm cylindrical steel molds
with rebar placed vertically at the center. A 10-mm-thick acrylic
circular plate with a hole cut at the center was placed inside
the steel mold to help align the rebar. The specimen was cast
upside-down to ensure smooth contact surface between concrete
and bearing plate.

Alkaline Solutions Curing of Specimens

For alkali activated solutions, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and
sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 ) with 15.32% Na2 O, 32.87% SiO2 ,
and 51.81% H2 O were used. For the NaOH solution, NaOH pellets
were mixed with distilled water and stirred until all the pellets
were completely dissolved. The solution was then left for 24 h
before use.
Rebar
The steel bar used in this experiment was DB16 SD 40 with cross-
sectional area of 201 mm2 and perimeter of 50.3 mm. The rebar
conformed to ASTM A615 grade 60 [A615/A615M-09b (ASTM
2009a)]. The average yield strength and ultimate strength were
520 MPa and 650 MPa, respectively.
Mix Proportions, Mixing Procedure, Casting and
Curing Details
Mix Design
The combined aggregate was 73% of total weight of the mix. The
ratio of coarse aggregate to fine aggregate was 65∶35 and the alkali
liquid to fly ash (L∶A) ratio by weight was fixed at 0.5 for all mixes.
The concentrations of NaOH were 10 M, 15 M, and 20 M and two
sodium silicate to NaOH ratios (S∶H) by weight of 1.0 and 2.0 were
used. Table 1 shows the mix proportions of geopolymer concrete
Two types of curing conditions were used in this study. The first
was oven curing at 60
2°C for 24 h after a 2 h delay time. The
delay time was the time after the casting of concrete. The delay time
allows concrete to be finished and reach initial setting before trans-
portation to the curing oven or curing rack. The second curing con-
dition was in a 23
2°C controlled room. All concrete cylinders
were removed from the molds after 24 h curing and wrapped with
a vinyl sheet and cured in a 23
2°C controlled room until testing.
Testing of Specimens
Slump Flow and Setting Time
A slump flow test was performed on a plastic sheet placed on flat
wooden board according to ASTM C1611 (ASTM 2009b) within
5 min after mixing. The reported slump flow values were the aver-
age of four diagonal measurements. The setting time of geopolymer
concrete was measured according to ASTM C807 (ASTM 2008b)
using mortar collected from fresh concrete by passing fresh con-
crete through a #4 sieve to remove coarse aggregate. The setting
time was measured from the time the fly ash made a contact with
NaOH solution until the penetration of a 2 mm diameter needle was
less than 10 mm. The reported setting time results were the average
of two specimens.

© ASCE 04014198-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198

 Compressive Strength and Splitting Tensile Strength
The concrete cylinders for compressive strength test were capped at
both ends to ensure smooth surfaces. Concrete cylinders were
tested for compressive strength according to ASTM C39 (ASTM
2001) at the ages of 7 and 28 days. The reported results were the
average of three concrete samples. The splitting tensile strengths of
concrete at 7 and 28 days were tested according to ASTM C496
(ASTM 2010).
Modulus of Elasticity
The modulus of elasticity was determined at the age of 28 days
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
using 150 × 300 mm concrete cylinders in accordance with ASTM
C469 (ASTM 2002). The reported results were the average of three
concrete samples.
Bond Strength
The bond strength between geopolymer concrete and reinforcement
was tested at the age of 7 days in accordance with ASTM C234
(ASTM 2000). The reported results were the average of three con-
crete samples.
Results and Discussions
Slump Flow and Setting Time
Fresh characteristics, slump flow, and setting time of concrete
with different mix designs are shown in Table 2. Flows of fresh con-
crete were 470–620 mm. For the mixes with high NaOH content
(S∶H ¼ 1), the flow values decreased with the increase in NaOH
concentrations. The flow values of mixes with 10, 15, and 20 M
NaOH were 580, 560, and 470 mm, respectively. The increase in
NaOH concentration increased the viscosity and leaching of silica
and alumina from fly ash particles and thus reduced the workability
(Rattanasak et al. 2011). For the mixes with low NaOH content
(S∶H ¼ 2), the flow values (500–530 mm) remained relatively un-
affected with the change in NaOH concentration. In this system, the
amount of NaOH was low and thus the effect of NaOH on flow was
less than that of the former system.
The setting times of concrete were 28–68 min and were also
influenced by S∶H ratio. The setting times of geopolymer mortar
in this research were relatively short compared to those of geopol-
ymer concrete produced from low-calcium fly ash (Hardjito and
Rangan 2005). The short setting time of HCGC was associated with
the high calcium content of the system (Rattanasak et al. 2011). For
mixes with high NaOH content (S∶H ¼ 1), the setting times de-
creased with the increase in the NaOH concentrations. The setting
times of mixes with 10, 15, and 20 M NaOH were 50, 36, and
28 min, respectively. At high NaOH concentrations, setting was
controlled by normal geopolymerization (Chindaprasirt et al. 2012).
At high NaOH concentrations, the dissolution of Si4þ and Al3þ ions
Table 2. Flow and Setting Time of Geopolymer Concrete
Mixes Flow (mm) Setting time (min)
S∶H 1-10M 580 50
S∶H 1-15M 560 36
S∶H 1-20M 470 28
S∶H 2-10M 500 52
S∶H 2-15M 550 68
S∶H 2-20M 530 58
© ASCE 04014198-3
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198
from fly ash increased (Rattanasak and Chindaprasirt 2009), which
improved the geopolymerization and thus shortened the setting
time. For the mixes with low NaOH (S∶H ¼ 2), the setting times
were slightly increased with the increase in NaOH concentrations.
At low NaOH content, setting was controlled by the presence of
calcium, and the high NaOH concentrations hindered the dissolu-
tion of calcium to the system and thus setting was slightly delayed
(Chindaprasirt et al. 2012).
Compressive Strength
The results of compressive strength of HCGC are shown in
Table 3. The compressive strengths of HCGC at 7 and 28 days were
19.9–42.9 MPa and 32.6–54.4 MPa, respectively. It was clear that
high curing temperature influenced the early strength of HCGCs.
For HCGCs cured at high temperature, the compressive strength
increased rapidly until 7 days and continued at slower rate to
28 days. This characteristic of HCGC is similar to the strength gain
of high strength concrete reported by the American Concrete Insti-
tute (ACI) in ACI 363R-92 (ACI 1997).
The compressive strengths increased with the increase in NaOH
concentration. At high NaOH concentrations, the leaching of
alumina and silica was enhanced and this resulted in increased
geopolymerization, and thus the strength increased (Rattanasak
and Chindaprasirt 2009). For the mix series with S∶H ratio of 1.0,
the high NaOH concentration of 20 M resulted in a reduction of
strength, which were in line with other researches (Chindaprasirt
et al. 2007b; Hardjito and Rangan 2005; Temuujin et al. 2009;
Wongpa et al. 2010). The reduction of strength at high NaOH con-
centration was due to the high concentration of hydroxide ions
(OH─), which caused aluminosilicate gel precipitation at the early
stage of development (Somna et al. 2011).
HCGC continued to gain strength after temperature curing. On
the other hand, for low-calcium fly ash cured at high temperature,
the strength gain after curing is not large (Rangan et al. 2006a). The
presence of calcium also contributed to the strength gain after some
temperature curing (Chindaprasirt et al. 2012; Dombrowski et al.
2007; García-Lodeiro et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; Temuujin et al.
2009). For high temperature curing at 60°C, the hydration was ac-
celerated and the moisture was consumed. The strength gain at later
age was therefore not large. For curing at 25°C, HCGC continued to
gain strength from 7 to 28 days due to continued hydration and the
availability of H2 O.
Fig. 1 shows the plot of 7 and 28 days compressive strengths
against mass ratio of Na2 O to fly ash in the matrix. The optimum
compressive strengths were obtained with total mass proportion of
Na2 O to fly ash of approximately 12% for both curing regimes. The
result in this study was in line with that reported by Guo et al.
(2010) on geopolymer produced with class C fly ash. The 28 days
compressive strength of HCGC could be expressed as function of
total moles of Na2 O as shown in Eqs. (1) and (2) with R2 equal to
0.82 and 0.84.
For 25°C curing
0
fc28 ¼ −1.13ðMNa2 O Þ2 þ 28.1ðMNa2 O Þ − 130 ð1Þ
For 60°C for 24 h curing
0
fc28 ¼ −1.27ðMNa2 O Þ2 þ 31.2ðMNa2 O Þ − 140 ð2Þ
0
where f c28 = the 28-day compressive strength; and M Na2 O = mass
proportion of Na2 O to fly ash (%) of starting material.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 3. Properties of Geopolymer Concrete
Compressive strength Tensile strength
γ 7d 28d 7d 28d Ec uc
3
Mixes Curing (kg=m ) MPa (Std.) MPa (Std.) MPa (Std.) MPa (Std.) MPa (Std.) MPa (Std.)
S∶H 1-10M Room 2,409 19.89 (0.81) 39.67 (1.12) 2.11 (0.23) 3.87 (0.29) 30,400 (1200) 9.04 (0.31)
Oven 2,432 40.73 (3.01) 46.67 (5.56) 2.80 (0.09) 4.15 (0.05) 31,000 (2000) 13.41 (0.66)
S∶H 1-15M Room 2,417 22.30 (1.74) 45.34 (2.13) 2.77 (0.18) 4.36 (0.24) 34,800 (600) 8.73 (0.36)
Oven 2,447 42.91 (4.94) 54.40 (2.79) 3.59 (0.25) 4.91 (0.48) 37,800 (1800) 13.57 (0.53)
S∶H 1-20M Room 2,439 20.50 (0.89) 37.64 (2.57) 2.48 (0.22) 3.96 (0.46) 38,400 (2800) 10.05 (0.59)
Oven 2,450 41.20 (10.15) 43.42 (3.77) 3.73 (0.39) 4.43 (0.46) 38,000 (4200) 14.59 (0.86)
S∶H 2-10M Room 2,384 21.27 (2.29) 33.80 (2.10) 2.55 (0.19) 3.07 (0.43) 23,400 (2600) 7.85 (0.59)
Oven 2,393 37.69 (3.70) 40.09 (3.15) 3.52 (0.42) 3.62 (0.18) 24,200 (1200) 13.83 (0.20)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S∶H 2-15M Room 2,403 22.99 (4.24) 39.02 (0.29) 3.02 (0.19) 3.47 (0.12) 26,800 (800) 10.39 (0.06)
Oven 2,412 38.85 (4.78) 48.18 (3.58) 3.59 (0.50) 4.03 (0.73) 31,000 (2200) 14.47 (0.44)
S∶H 2-20M Room 2,421 23.06 (0.63) 46.69 (1.17) 3.15 (0.04) 3.84 (0.24) 35,400 (2600) 8.80 (0.58)
Oven 2,409 39.27 (4.74) 49.50 (1.43) 3.92 (0.08) 3.99 (0.27) 31,800 (1200) 14.13 (1.16)
Note: Std. = standard deviation.

Fig. 1. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete versus total Fig. 2. Splitting tensile strength of geopolymer concrete versus com-
content of Na2 O (%) pressive strength

Splitting Tensile Strength
The results of splitting tensile strength are shown in Table 3. The
splitting tensile strength of HCGC at 7 and 28 days were 2.11–3.92
and 3.07–4.91 MPa. In general, the average splitting tensile
strengths of concrete were affected by the concrete’s mix propor-
tions, a finding similar to that for compressive strength. It appears
that the splitting tensile strength at 7 days for the series with S∶H
ratio of 1 was generally lower than that of the series with S∶H ratio
of 2. The strength continued to gain at the higher rate up to 28 days.
This was true for both curing regimes.
Fig. 2 shows the plot of splitting tensile strength against the
square root of compressive strength. The splitting tensile strength
of concrete increased with increasing compressive strength. The
mean splitting tensile strengths in this experiment were between
6.9 and 13.7% of its mean compressive strength, which was similar
to those of PC of 8–14% (Sagoe-Crenstil et al. 2001). A number of
researchers described the relationship between the splitting tensile
strength and compressive strength of concrete using Eq. (3)
fct ¼ kðfc0 Þn
where k and n are constants obtained from a regression analysis
of experimental data. Ryu et al. (2013) suggested Eq. (4) for the
calculation of splitting tensile strength of low-calcium fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete. ACI 318-08 (ACI 2008) and ACI
363R-92 (ACI 1997) suggest Eqs. (5) and (6) for the calculation
of splitting tensile strengths of normal and high-strength concretes,
respectively
fct ¼ 0.17ðf c0 Þ0.75 ð4Þ
fct ¼ 0.56ðf c0 Þ0.5 ð5Þ
fct ¼ 0.59ðf c0 Þ0.5 ð6Þ
where f ct = splitting tensile strength (MPa); and f c0 = compressive
strength (MPa).
These equations are plotted along with experimental data as
shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that splitting tensile strengths of
HCGC in this study were generally higher than those reported by
Sofi et al. (2007b) and those obtained from Eq. (5) for low-calcium
fly ash geopolymer concrete. This was due to strong interfacial
transition zone (ITZ) between geopolymer paste and aggregate re-
ported by several authors (Chen et al. 2013; Lee and van Deventer
ð3Þ 2004; Ryu et al. 2013; Temuujin et al. 2010). Lee and van Deventer
(2004) reported that geopolymer produced with high hydroxide
content and higher silicate solution tended to have higher ITZ
strength due to lower porosity in geopolymer paste. In the geopol-
ymer system with the presence of high calcium compound, it was
suggested that voids in aluminosilicate matrix were filled with

© ASCE 04014198-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198

 calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) products, resulting in a low porosity
geopolymer paste with increased strength (Hanjitsuwan et al.
2014). The splitting tensile strength results in this study were gen-
erally higher than the strengths calculated using standard design
codes. However, it was reported that the equation given in ACI
318-08 (ACI 2008) generally overestimated the splitting tensile
strength of high compressive strength concrete (Arioglu et al.
2006). The splitting tensile strengths of HCGC in this study were
related to the compressive strengths as shown in Eq. (7) with R2
equal to 0.77
f ct ¼ 0.45ðfc0 Þ0.57 ð7Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Modulus of Elasticity
The results for the modulus of elasticity are shown in Table 3. The
values were 23,400–41,000 MPa. The concrete with S∶H ratio of 1
showed higher modulus of elasticity values than those with S∶H
ratio of 2. Fig. 3 shows the plot of modulus of elasticity against
Na2 O content. It can be concluded that modulus of elasticity in-
creased with increasing amounts of Na2 O. Similar to compressive
strength development, with S∶H ratio of 1, high content of the so-
dium hydroxide solution enhanced the leaching of silica and alu-
mina ions, hence a higher degree of geopolymerization was
obtained. The relationship between modulus of elasticity and
Na2 O is shown in Eq. (8) with R2 ¼ 0.79
Ec ¼ 2,700ðMNa2 O Þ þ 400 ð8Þ
The results of modulus of elasticity were plotted against the
square root of compressive strength as shown in Fig. 4. It can
be seen that the modulus of elasticity of concrete generally in-
creased as compressive strength increased, which was similar to
the current design code, ACI 318-08 (ACI 2008) and alternative
equation for high strength concrete ACI 363R-92 (ACI 1997) as
shown in Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively. In fact, the results of this
investigation were between those given by the two codes. It is
widely known that the modulus of elasticity of concrete depends
on mix proportion, properties of the aggregates, and the curing con-
ditions of the concrete. Several researchers (Hardjito and Rangan
2005; Sofi et al. 2007b; Yost et al. 2013) reported on geopolymer
concrete with a lower modulus of elasticity when compared to those
calculations using a normal concrete equation, with the exception
of Joseph and Mathew (2012) who reported a higher modulus of
elasticity. It can be seen that the results in this study were close to
the values calculated with the ACI 363R-92 (ACI 1997) equation as
Fig. 3. Modulus of elasticity of geopolymer concrete total content of
Na2 O (%)
© ASCE 04014198-5
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198
Fig. 4. Modulus of elasticity of geopolymer concrete versus square
root of compressive strength
follows and in line with other reports on low-calcium geopolymer
concretes
Ec ¼ 0.043ðwc Þ1.5 ðfc0 Þ0.5 ð9Þ
Ec ¼ 3,320ðf c0 Þ0.5 þ 6,900ðwc =2,320Þ1.5 ð10Þ
Bond Strength
The results for bond strength between HCGC and rebar are shown
in Table 3. The bond strengths were 8.73–14.59 MPa. All speci-
mens in this experiment failed by concrete rupture and thus the
ultimate bond strength was reached. In general, the bond strength
of the HCGC was related to the compressive strength of the con-
crete. Many equations have been proposed to estimate bond
strength between deformed bar and concrete as shown below.
Orangun et al. (1977) proposed Eq. (11) for normal concrete
without transverse reinforcement, which is the basis for current
development length calculation in ACI 318 [ACI 408R-03
(ACI 2003)] as follows:
uc ¼ ð0.101 þ 0.268cmin =db þ 4.4db =ld Þðf c0 Þ0.5 ð11Þ
where uc = ultimate bond strength (MPa); cmin = minimum con-
crete cover (mm); db = nominal bar diameter (mm); ld = develop-
ment length (mm); and f c0 = compressive strength (MPa). Esfahani
and Rangan (1998) suggested that bond strength between reinforc-
ing steel and concrete was related to splitting tensile strength of
concrete and proposed Eq. (12) as follows:
uc ¼ 4.9½ðcmin =db þ 0.5Þ=ðcmin =db þ 3.6Þðf ct Þ ð12Þ
where f ct = tensile strength of concrete taken as 0.55ðfc0 Þ0.5 (MPa);
and fc0 = compressive strength (MPa) less than 50 MPa. Hadi
(2008) proposed Eq. (13) for bond strength between high strength
steel and high strength concrete based on the pullout test as follows:
uc ¼ 0.083045ð22.8 þ 0.208cmin =db − 38.212db =ld Þðfc0 Þ0.5
ð13Þ
The bond strengths in this study can be written as shown in
Eq. (14) with R2 ¼ 0.85 to obtain
uc ¼ 2.12ðfc0 Þ0.5 ð14Þ
Fig. 5 shows a plot of bond strength of geopolymer concrete
against the square root of compressive strength along with the re-
sults of LCGC (Chang et al. 2009; Sofi et al. 2007a). The bond
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Ultimate bond strength between rebar and geopolymer concrete
versus square root of compressive strength
strengths of the HCGC and reinforcing bar were significantly
higher than those found in Orangun et al. (1977), Esfahani and
Rangan (1998), and Hadi (2008). In fact, Eq. (14) from this inves-
tigation gave the bond strengths nearly double the values of those
obtained using Eq. (11) from Orangun et al. (1977). The high bond
strength was due to the relatively high splitting tensile strength as
reported by several authors on bond strength between deformed bar
and LCGC (Sarker 2011; Sofi et al. 2007a). The high splitting ten-
sile strength was related to ITZ strength and was also influenced by
the amount Na2 O and Na2 SiO3 . The NaOH concentration played
an important role in bond strength. Songpiriyakij et al. (2011) re-
ported the bond strength of 4.41 and 6.38 MPa of fly ash geopol-
ymer paste activated with NaOH concentrations of 10 and 18 molar.
This was due to the leaching ability of silica and alumina in high
alkaline solution, as stated in previous sections.
For the bond strength of low-calcium fly ash concrete, the re-
sults of Sofi et al. (2007a) were from pullout test and results of
Chang et al. (2009) were from a splice-beam test. In general,
splice-beam tests give more realistic bond behavior between rebar
and concrete while the pullout test is simple to set up and can be
used for comparison purposes [ACI 408R-03 (ACI 2003)]. The
bond strengths from the pullout test reported by Sofi et al.
(2007a) were also high but slightly lower than the bond strengths
obtained in this study. The superior bond strength characteristics of
the HCGC was due to the good ITZ characteristics of geopolymer
matrix and may be due in part to the presence of calcium
and additional calcium silicate hydrate. This aspect needs further
investigation.
Conclusion
Based on the obtained data in this experiment, the following
conclusions can be made. The results in this study indicated that
high-calcium fly ash was suitable to use in producing high strength
geopolymer concrete with high bond strength between concrete and
rebar. The fresh concrete had short setting time of 28–58 min due to
the presence of high calcium content in the system. For compres-
sive strength, curing at 60°C for 24 h accelerated the strength de-
velopment as indicated by the high 7-day compressive strengths.
The strength of HCGC continued to develop with time similar
to portland cement concrete, which was due to the presence of
calcium and the formation of additional calcium silicate hydrate.
The compressive strength of HCGC was related to the NaOH con-
centration and the Na2 O content. The optimum Na2 O content was
© ASCE 04014198-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198
approximately 12% by weight of fly ash. Optimum compressive
strength of 54.4 MPa was obtained for the mix with 15 M NaOH.
The splitting tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of HCGC
were related to the compressive strength. The splitting tensile
strengths of HCGC were relatively high in terms of percentage
of compressive strength, which was probably due to the strong in-
terfacial zone of the aggregate and the high calcium geopolymer
matrix. The bond strengths between HCGC and rebar were signifi-
cantly higher than those of normal portland cement concrete given
by the current ACI 318 design code. There was also an indication
that the bond strength of HCGC was slightly higher than that of the
low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Thailand Research
Fund (TRF) under the TRF Senior Research Scholar, Grant No.
RTA5480004. It was also supported by the Higher Education
Research Promotion and National Research University Project
of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission, through
the Advanced Functional Materials Cluster of Khon Kaen Univer-
sity AFM-2554-Ph.D. 54402.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1997). “State-of-the-art report on high-
strength concrete.” 363R-92, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2003). “Bond and development of
straight reinforcing bars in tension.” 408R-03, Farmington Hills, MI, 56.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary.” 318-08,
Farmington Hills, MI.
Arioglu, N., Girgin, Z. C., and Arioglu, E. (2006). “Evaluation of ratio
between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength for
concretes up to 120 MPa and its application in strength criteria.”
ACI Mater. J., 103(1), 18–24.
ASTM. (2000). “Standard specification for comparing concrete on
basis of the bond developed with reinforcing steel.” C234, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2001). “Standard test method for compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens.” C39, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2002). “Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity
and poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression.” C469, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory.” C192, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008a). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or
calcined natural pozzolan for use in cement.” C618, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008b). “Standard test methods for time of setting of hydraulic
cement mortar by modified vicat needle.” C807, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009a). “Standard specification for deformed and plain
carbon-steel bars for concrete reinforcement.” A615/A615M-09b, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009b). “Standard test methods for slump flow of self-
consolidating concrete.” C1611, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens.” C496, West Conshohocken, PA.
Binici, H. (2013). “Engineering properties of geopolymer incorporating
slag, fly ash, silica sand and pumice.” Adv. Civ. Environ. Eng.,
1(3), 108–123.
Chang, E. H., Sarker, P., Lloyd, N., and Rangan, B. V. (2009). “Bond
behaviour of reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer concrete beams.”
24th Biennial Conf. of the Concrete Institute of Australia, R. I. Gilbert,
ed., Concrete Institute of Australia, Luna Park, Sydney, 10.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Chen, X., Wu, S., and Zhou, J. (2013). “Influence of porosity on compres-
sive and tensile strength of cement mortar.” Constr. Build. Mater., 40,
869–874.
Chindaprasirt, P., Chareerat, T., Hatanaka, S., and Cao, T. (2010). “High-
strength geopolymer using fine high-calcium fly ash.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000161, 264–270.
Chindaprasirt, P., Chareerat, T., and Sirivivatnanon, V. (2007a). “Workabil-
ity and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer.” Cem.
Concr. Compos., 29(3), 224–229.
Chindaprasirt, P., Chotithanorm, C., Cao, H. T., and Sirivivatnanon, V.
(2007b). “Influence of fly ash fineness on the chloride penetration of
concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 21(2), 356–361.
Chindaprasirt, P., Homwuttiwong, S., and Jaturapitakkul, C. (2007c).
“Strength and water permeability of concrete containing palm oil fuel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universiteit Delft on 11/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ash and rice husk-bark ash.” Constr. Build. Mater., 21(7), 1492–1499.
Chindaprasirt, P., De Silva, P., Sagoe-Crentsil, K., and Hanjitsuwan, S.
(2012). “Effect of SiO2 and Al2 O3 on the setting and hardening of high
calcium fly ash-based geopolymer systems.” J. Mater. Sci., 47(12),
4876–4883.
Davidovits, J. (2008). Geopolymer chemistry and application, 2nd Ed.,
Institute Geopolymer, Saint-Quentin, France.
Dombrowski, K., Buchwald, A., and Weil, M. (2007). “The influence of
calcium content on the structure and thermal performance of fly ash
based geopolymers.” J. Mater. Sci., 42(9), 3033–3043.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (1998). “Bond between normal strength
and high-strength concrete (HSC) and reinforcing bars in splices in
beams.” ACI Struct. J., 9.
García-Lodeiro, I., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Palomo, A., and MacPhee,
D. E. (2010). “Effect of calcium additions on N-A-S-H cementitious
gels.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 93(7), 1934–1940.
Guo, X., Shi, H., and Dick, W. A. (2010). “Compressive strength and
microstructural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer.” Cem.
Concr. Compos., 32(2), 142–147.
Hadi, M. N. S. (2008). “Bond of high strength concrete with high strength
reinforcing steel.” Open Civ. Eng. J., 2, 5.
Hanjitsuwan, S., Hunpratub, S., Thongbai, P., Maensiri, S., Sata, V., and
Chindaprasirt, P. (2014). “Effects of NaOH concentrations on physical
and electrical properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer paste.”
Cem. Concr. Compos., 45, 9–14.
Hardjito, D., and Rangan, B. V. (2005). Development and properties
of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Curtin Univ. of
Technology, Perth, Australia.
Joseph, B., and Mathew, G. (2012). “Influence of aggregate content on
the behavior of fly ash based geopolymer concrete.” Sci. Iran., 19(5),
1188–1194.
Kong, D. L. Y., and Sanjayan, J. G. (2008). “Damage behavior of geopol-
ymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures.” Cem. Concr.
Compos., 30(10), 986–991.
Lee, W. K. W., and van Deventer, J. S. J. (2004). “The interface between
natural siliceous aggregates and geopolymers.” Cem. Concr. Res.,
34(2), 195–206.
Orangun, C. O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J. E. (1977). “A reevaluation of test
data on development length and splices.” ACI J., 74(3), 114–122.
Rangan, B. V., Hardjito, D., Wallah, S. E., and Sumajouw, D. M. J. (2006a).
“Properties and applications of fly ash-based concrete.” Mater. Forum,
30, 170–175.
Rangan, B. V., Wallah, S., Sumajouw, D., and Hardjito, D. (2006b). “Heat-
cured, low-calcium, fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.” Indian Concr.
J., 80(6), 47–52.
© ASCE 04014198-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(7): 04014198
Rattanasak, U., and Chindaprasirt, P. (2009). “Influence of NaOH solution
on the synthesis of fly ash geopolymer.” Miner. Eng., 22(12),
1073–1078.
Rattanasak, U., Pankhet, K., and Chindaprasirt, P. (2011). “Effect of chemi-
cal admixtures on properties of high-calcium fly ash geopolymer.” Int.
J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 18(3), 364–369.
Ryu, G. S., Lee, Y. B., Koh, K. T., and Chung, Y. S. (2013). “The mechani-
cal properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with alkaline
activators.” Constr. Build. Mater., 47, 409–418.
Sagoe-Crenstil, K. K., Brown, T., and Taylor, A. H. (2001). “Performance
of concrete made with commercially produced coarse recycled concrete
aggregate.” Cem. Concr. Res., 31(5), 707–712.
Sarker, P. K. (2011). “Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete.” Mater. Struct./Mater. Constr., 44(5),
1021–1030.
Sata, V., Jaturapitakkul, C., and Kiattikomol, K. (2007). “Influence of poz-
zolan from various by-product materials on mechanical properties of
high-strength concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 21(7), 1589–1598.
Sata, V., Sathonsaowaphak, A., and Chindaprasirt, P. (2012). “Resistance
of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid
attack.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 34(5), 700–708.
Sathonsaowaphak, A., Chindaprasirt, P., and Pimraksa, K. (2009).
“Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar.”
J. Hazard. Mater., 168(1), 44–50.
Sofi, M., Deventer, J. S. J., Mendis, P. A., and Lukey, G. C. (2007a). “Bond
performance of reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPC).”
J. Mater. Sci., 42(9), 3107–3116.
Sofi, M., van Deventer, J. S. J., Mendis, P. A., and Lukey, G. C. (2007b).
“Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs).” Cem.
Concr. Res., 37(2), 251–257.
Somna, K., Jaturapitakkul, C., Kajitvichyanukul, P., and Chindaprasirt, P.
(2011). “NaOH-activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient
temperature.” Fuel, 90(6), 2118–2124.
Songpiriyakij, S., Pulngern, T., Pungpremtrakul, P., and Jaturapitakkul, C.
(2011). “Anchorage of steel bars in concrete by geopolymer paste.”
Mater. Des., 32(5), 3021–3028.
Sufian Badar, M., Kupwade-Patil, K., Bernal, S. A., Provis, J. L., and
Allouche, E. N. (2014). “Corrosion of steel bars induced by accelerated
carbonation in low and high calcium fly ash geopolymer concretes.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 61, 79–89.
Tangchirapat, W., Jaturapitakkul, C., and Chindaprasirt, P. (2009). “Use of
palm oil fuel ash as a supplementary cementitious material for produc-
ing high-strength concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 23(7), 2641–2646.
Temuujin, J., van Riessen, A., and MacKenzie, K. J. D. (2010). “Prepara-
tion and characterisation of fly ash based geopolymer mortars.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 24(10), 1906–1910.
Temuujin, J., van Riessen, A., and Williams, R. (2009). “Influence of cal-
cium compounds on the mechanical properties of fly ash geopolymer
pastes.” J. Hazard. Mater., 167(1–3), 82–88.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2013). “U.S. geological survey, mineral
commodity summaries.” Reston, VA, 38.
Wongpa, J., Kiattikomol, K., Jaturapitakkul, C., and Chindaprasirt, P.
(2010). “Compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, and water per-
meability of inorganic polymer concrete.” Mater. Des., 31(10),
4748–4754.
Yost, J. R., RadliÑska, A., Ernst, S., and Salera, M. (2013). “Structural
behavior of alkali activated fly ash concrete. Part 1: Mixture design,
material properties and sample fabrication.” Mater. Struct., 46(3),
435–447.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.