Submitted:
31 May 2024
Posted:
04 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials
2.1. Mix Design
3. Experimental Work
3.1. Preparation of Mixes
5. Fresh Properties of SCGC
5.1. Relative Slump and T50 Slump Flow


5.2. V Funnel Test and V Funnel Test at T5
5.3. L Box Test
5.4. J-Ring Test
4. The Compressive Strength of Concrete Forecast with an ANN
6. Mechanical Properties
6.1. Compressive Strength


6.2. Split Tensile Strength of SCGC
6.3. Flexural Strength of the SCGC
7. Microstructural Analysis Tests
7.1. SEM
7.2. Characterization Techniques
7.2.1. XRD Analysis

7.2.2. FTIR Analysis

7.2.3. SEM-EDX Analysis


Conclusion
- Fresh property tests were performed on all nine ENFAC mixtures. These parameters satisfy the flowability, passing ability, and segregation resistance requirements.
- The slump flow decreases as the molarity of SCGC 8 M increases to 10 M and 12 M. Compared to those of the SCGC1 and SCGC2 groups, the workability decreases by nearly 0.87%, 1.05% and 0.94%, respectively. When comparing SCGC1 to SCGC3, the reductions are 1.91%, 2.27%, and 1.15%, respectively.
- Increasing the silica fume content and decreasing the ultrafine GGBS content in the mixtures reduced the workability by an average of 2.79% and 4.92%, respectively.
- When the molarity of SCGC 8 M is increased to 10 M and 12 M, the compressive strength of the concrete improves. Compared to those of the SCGC1 and SCGC2 groups, the compressive strengths of the SCGC1 and SCGC2 groups improved by approximately 13.4%, 17.5%, and 7.3%, respectively. When comparing SCGC1 to SCGC3, the percentages increase to 14.7%, 13.6%, and 11.5%, respectively.
- The increased amount of C-S-H gel, together with the decreased porosity, strengthens the connection between the cementitious matrix and the aggregates. This enhanced interfacial transition zone (ITZ) contributes to increased load transfer and, as a result, greater flexural strength.
- The increased ultrafine content and chemical+l compounds used in concrete influence its strength and lead to the formation of large crystals of calcium hydroxide, which weakens the ITZ.
- The SEM images demonstrated that SCGC-3 with 12 M performed better according to the microstructural examination. A well-graded grain-packed void-free concrete with a significant degree of primary and secondary C-S-H gel formation was found.
- When more than 15% silica fume is added, it causes a balling effect, which in turn decreases the mechanical qualities of the concrete mix and decreases its workability. An additive with silica fume is not inexpensive. The continued utility of increasing percentages may become less economical after a particular threshold.
Acknowledgements
Funding
Data availability statement
References
- Aiken, T. A., Kwasny, J., Sha, W., & Soutsos, M. N. (2018). Effect of slag content and activator dosage on the resistance of fly ash geopolymer binders to sulfuric acid attack. Cement and Concrete Research, 111, 23-40.
- Aliques-Granero, J. , Tognonvi, M. T., & Tagnit-Hamou, A. (2019). Durability study of AAMs: Sulfate attack resistance. Construction and Building Materials, 229, 117100.
- Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1970). IS 383. Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete. Manak Bhavan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marc.3, New Delhi.
- Chaudhury, R. , Sharma, U., Thapliyal, P. C., & Singh, L. P. (2023). Low-CO2 emission strategies to achieve net zero targets in the cement sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137466.
- Chindaprasirt, P. , & Chalee, W. (2014). Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on chloride penetration and steel corrosion of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete under marine site. Construction and Building Materials, 63, 303–310. [CrossRef]
- Deb, P. S. , Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2014). The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash and activator content on the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Materials & Design, 62, 32–39. [CrossRef]
- Demie, S. , Nuruddin, F. M., & Shafiq, N. (2013). Effects of microstructure characteristics of interfacial transition zone on the compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 41, 91–98. [CrossRef]
- EFNARC. (2005). Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. Farnham: Association House.
- Ganeshan, M. , Sreevidya, V., Nirubanchakravarthy, L., & Sindhu, G. (2017). Use of Portland cement to improve the properties of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 10(8), 88.
- Ganeshan, M. , Sreevidya, V., Sindhu, G., Keerthi, G., Kavin, R., Naveen, K., & Ramanathan, M. (2018). Effect of fly ash blending on self-compacting geopolymers for maintaining sustainability in construction. Ecology, Environment & Conservation, 24 (1), 299–305.
- Gourley, J. T. (2003). Geopolymers: Opportunities for environmentally friendly construction materials, the materials conference: Adaptive materials for a modern society, Sydney.
- Guneyisi, E. , & Gesoglu, M. (2008). A study on durability properties of high-performance concretes incorporating high replacement levels of slag. Materials and Structures, 41, 479–493.
- Hardjito, D. , & Vijaya Rangan, B. (2005). Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, research report GC 1, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Austalia.
- Jeyaseela, J. , & Vishnuram, B. G. (2015). Study on workability and durability characteristics of self-compacting geopolymer concrete composites. International Journal of Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science, 3(1), 1246–1256.
- Kannapiran, K. (2012). Durability and flexural behavior of fly ash based geopolymer concrete beam (Ph. D. Thesis) Anna University, Chennai, India, pp. 72–90, 2012.
- Lahoti, M. , Tan, K. H., & Yang, E. H. (2019). A critical review of geopolymer properties for structural fire-resistance applications. Construction and Building Materials, 221, 514-526.
- Liu, Y., Su, P., Li, M., You, Z., & Zhao, M. (2020). Review on evolution and evaluation of asphalt pavement structures and materials. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 7(5), 573-599.
- Lavanya, G., & Jegan, J. (2015). Durability study on high calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2015, 1. doi:10.1155/2015/731056. [CrossRef]
- Memon, F. A. , Nuruddin, F. M., & Shafiq, N. (2011). Compressive strength and workability characteristics of low-calcium fly ash-based self-compacting geopolymer concrete. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 5(2), 64–70.
- Memon, F. A. , Nuruddin, F. M., & Shafiq, N. (2013). Effect of silica fume on the fresh and hardened properties of fly ash-based self-compacting geopolymer concrete. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy, and Materials, 20(2), 205–213. [CrossRef]
- Memon, F. A. , Nuruddin, F. M., Demie, S., & Shafiq, N. (2011a). Effect of curing conditions on strength of fly ash- based self-compacting geopolymer concrete. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 5, 678–681.
- Memon, F. A. , Nuruddin, F. M., Demie, S., & Shafiq, N. (2011b). Effect of superplasticizer and NaOH molarity on workability, compressive strength and microstructure properties of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 5(2), 122–129.
- Memon, F. A. , Nuruddin, M. F., Khan, S., Ayub, T., & Shafiq, N. (2013). Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on fresh properties and compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 8, 44–56.
- Muthadhi, A., Vanjinathan, J., & Durai, D. (2016). Experimental investigations on geopolymer concrete based on Class C Fly Ash. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(5), 1–5.
- Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2015). Use of OPC to improve the setting and early strength properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature. Cement and Concrete Composites, 55, 205–214.
- Nuruddin, M. F. (2011). Effect of mix composition on workability and compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38(11), 1196–1203.
- OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com.
- Palomo, A. , Grutzeck, M. W., & Blanco, M. T. (1999). Alkali-activated fly ashes, a cement for the future. Cement and Concrete Research, 29(8), 1323–1329. [CrossRef]
- Pattanapong, T. , Chindaprasirt, P., & Sata, V. (2015). Setting time, strength, and bond of high-calcium fly ash geo- polymer concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(7), 1–7.
- Phoongernkham, T. , Chindaprasirt, P., Sata, V., Pangdaeng, S., & Sinsiri, T. (2013). Properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer paste with portland cement as an additive. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy, and Materials, 20(2), 214–220. [CrossRef]
- Phoongernkham, T. , Maegawa, A., Mishima, N., Hatanaka, S., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2015). Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions on compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–GBFS geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, 91, 1–8.
- Prasanna Venkatesan, R. , & Chinnaraj, P. K. (2015). Geopolymer concrete with ground granulated blast furnace slag and black rice husk ash. Grad-evinar, 67(8), 741–748.
- Rattanasak, U. , Pankhet, K., Chindaprasirt, P., & Sata, V. (2011). Effect of chemical admixtures on properties of high-calcium fly ash geopolymer. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy, and Materials, 18(3), 364–369. [CrossRef]
- Statista Inc. Global Cement Production from 1990 to 2030 Statista, Inc., New York (2018).
- Shill, S. K. , Al-Deen, S., Ashraf, M., & Hutchison, W. (2020). Resistance of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar to both chemicals and high thermal cycles simultaneously. Construction and Building Materials, 239, 117886.
- Skender, Z. , Bali, A., & Kettab, R. (2021). Self-compacting concrete (SCC) behaviour incorporating limestone fines as cement and sand replacement. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 25(10), 1852-1873.
- Shafiq, I. , Azreen, M., & Hussin, M. W. (2017). Sulfuric acid resistant of self compacted geopolymer concrete con- taining slag and ceramic waste, MATEC Web of Conferences, 97.
- Sukmak, P., P. , De Silva, Horpibulsuk, S., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2015). Sulfate resistance of clay-portland cement and clay high-calcium fly ash geopolymer. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(5), 1–11.
- Tennakoon, C. K. (2015). Assessment of properties of ambient cured geopolymer concrete for construction applications (Ph.D. Thesis). Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia.
- Thaarrini, J. , & Venkatasubramani, R. (2016). Properties of foundry sand, ground granulated blast furnace slag and bot- tom ash based geopolymers under ambient conditions. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 60(2), 159–168.
- Ushaa, T. G. , Anuradha, R., & Venkatasubramani, G. S. (2015). Performance of self-compacting geopolymer concrete containing different mineral admixtures. International Journal of Materials and Engineering Sciences, 22, 471–481.
- Vijaya Rangan, B. (2014). Geopolymer concrete for environmental protection. The Indian Concrete Journal, 88(4), 41–48.
- Vafaei, M. , Allahverdi, A., Dong, P., & Bassim, N. (2018). Acid attack on geopolymer cement mortar based on waste-glass powder and calcium aluminate cement at mild concentration. Construction and Building Materials, 193, 363-372.







| Mix Groups | Designation | Molarities | Fly Ash | Ultra Fine GGBS | Silica Fume |
| SCGC1 | M1 | 8 M | 50% | 45% | 5% |
| M2 | 10 M | 50% | 45% | 5% | |
| M3 | 12 M | 50% | 45% | 5% | |
| SCGC2 | M4 | 8 M | 50% | 40% | 10% |
| M5 | 10 M | 50% | 40% | 10% | |
| M6 | 12 M | 50% | 40% | 10% | |
| SCGC 3 | M7 | 8 M | 50% | 35% | 15% |
| M8 | 10 M | 50% | 35% | 15% | |
| M9 | 12 M | 50% | 35% | 15% |
|
Materials (kg/m3) |
Maximum | Minimum | Mean | Deviation |
| Fly ash | 180 | 200 | 194 | 8.09 |
| GGBS | 140 | 188 | 168 | 17.4 |
| Silica fume | 20 | 60 | 38 | 16.3 |
| Glass fibre | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.98 | 0.216 |
| Extra Water | 36 | 48 | 46.6 | 3.53 |
| NaOH | 29.1 | 43.7 | 37.4 | 5.53 |
| Na2SiO3 | 55.2 | 82.8 | 70.9 | 10.5 |
| Superplasticizer | 0 | 1 | 0.96 | 0.197 |
| Coarse Aggregate | 1268 | 1168 | 1196 | 49.4 |
| Fine Aggregate | 546 | 816 | 699 | 118 |
| Concrete compressive strength (MPa) | 36.6 | 43.2 | 39.6 | 2.14 |


Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).