‫ح ٰم ِن ال ّـََِّرـ‬

‫ح ْي ِم‬ ‫ب ِْس ِم اهللِ ال ّـَّ َْرـ‬

FINAL YEAR PROJECT

PRESENTATION
PROJECT
COMPERISON BETWEEN ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE AND GEO-POLYMER
TITTLE:
CONCRETE
GROUP NO. : 03
GROUP MEMBERS:
NAME REGISTRATION # CLASS # SECTION
Muhammad Saad 17PWCIV4919 121 C
Muhammad Aqeel 17PWCIV49 115 C
Jadoon
Muhammad Arsalan 17PWCIV4889 108 C
Muhammad Osama Fayaz 17PWCIV4869 100 C

SUPER-VISOR: Dr. Awais Ahmad

CO-SUPERVISOR: Dr. Rizwan
Presentation Outline:
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Problem Statement
• Objectives
• Methodology
a) Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete
b) Geo-polymer Concrete
• Results and Comparison
• References
INTRODUCTION:
• Concrete has a dominant role in the modern construction engineering, as second the most-used
material in the world after water.[1]
• Concrete serves as a critical component for constructing the infrastructure necessary for the
social and economic development around the globe.[2]
• Global cement production has increased from 0.94 billion tons in 1970 to 2.284 billion tons in
2005 to 4.05 billion tons in 2017.[3]
• Though, Cement critical component of construction industry, also have negative environmental
impact, is third-largest contributor of CO2 emissions. [1, 2]
• The construction industry consumes 40–75% of new materials extracted from natural resources,
therefore, alternative of cement or cement replacement is necessary, for reserving natural
resources and mitigating natural resources.
Limestone
Marl Chalk

NATURAL RESOUIRSES USED IN CEMENT PRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW:

• Many studies were conducted to find out materials that can partially or Fully replace Portland
cements in concrete [3].
• It was discovered that environmentally friendly waste or by product materials can effectively
substitute the cement without compromising its properties.
• Those waste materials were obtained from agricultural, industrial and municipal waste used in
concrete production as either a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) or pozzolans.
• The modern construction composites, namely geopolymer concrete (GPC), has gained maximum
traction in the past few years.
• The GPC exhibit better strength and durability performance and acclaimed as an alternative of
cement-based concrete [4]
• The application of GPC is still limited as standard mix design is not available till date [5].
• Hence, the rational mix design for the GPC has remained an area of the detailed study.
• Mix design of GPC is more complicated as it depends upon numerous variables [6].
• In our study Fly As, GGBS and Alkaline Activators (NaOH, Na2SiO3), along with Course Aggregate
and Fine aggregate has been used.
• The concentration of sodium hydroxide NaOH and its ratio with sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) [7],
temperature for curing [8], liquid to binder content [9], the concentration of Al and Si in
constituents [10] influences the mechanical properties of GPC.
• The variation of the chemical compositions and proportions of the constituents also influences
the mix design of GPC.
• Theoretically, polymerization between the silica (Si) and alumina (Al) rich materials, can be done
by using an alkaline solution. [11]
• The initial research works had revealed the need for external heat to generate the polymerization
process in the freshly mixed GPC, many authors have tried to minimize this requirement. For
instance, incorporation of grounded granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), along with the fly ash
(FA), can accelerate the polymerization process and liberates heat due to the presence of CaO
content in GGBFS
• The inclusion of slag significantly affects the workability and setting time of the concrete.
• The research works have reported that the addition of GGBFS reduces the workability of mix, and
it also reduces the setting time of the GPC [12] .
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
• Cement production consume about 3/4th of its raw materials extracted from natural resources,
therefore, causing depletion of natural resources.
• Similarly, cement after hydration in concrete emits CO2 , causing environmental issues.
• Though, Attempts have been made to replace the cement by another materials without
compromising its properties.
• Optimum quantity of waste materials to replace cement in concrete
OBJECTIVE:

Objectives of this study are following;

1. To find the optimum quantity of Fly ash and slag for Geo-polymer concrete
2. To study the durability of Geo-polymer concrete.
3. To compare the compressive strength of Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete (OPC) and Geo-
Polymer Concrete(GPC)
METHODOLOGY:

• OPC was casted First with different proportions.

• GPC was then Casted with same proportions.
• Compression Tests were conducted.
• Results of OPC and GPC were then compared.
 a) ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (OPC)

For achieving the objectives for OPC, following steps were adopted;
• Materials Properties
• Mix Ratio’s
• Sample Casting
• Sample testing
• Results
a) ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (OPC)

I. Materials Properties:
 Sieve analysis:
Fineness Modulus OF Fine Aggregate
= 2.25
 Maximum size of Course Aggregate
= 1”

Gradation Sieve set

 Gradation Curve of Fine Aggregate Gradation curve of Course Aggregate
120
120
100
100
80 80
% passing

%Passing
60 60
40
40
20
20
0
0
Sieve # Sieve#
 Specific Gravity .& Water Absorption of Course Aggregates
Specific gravity of coarse aggregate = 2.69
Absorption capacity = 0.54 %.

 Specific Gravity & Water Absorption of Fine Aggregates

Specific gravity of Fine aggregate = 2.7
Absorption capacity = 1.5 %
 Dry-Roded Bulk Density of Course Aggregate
= 1607.2kg/m3
Specific Gravity of Course Aggregate
 Specific Gravity of cement
=3.17

Le-Chatelier Flask
II. Mix Ratio’s: ( ACI-211)
1st Mix:

2nd Mix:
 3rd Mix:

III. Sample Casting:

Number of samples = 6 per Mix
Total Number of samples = 18
Curing Period = 7 days & 14 days
Type of Mold = Small
Molds
Concrete Mix Sampling Curing
IV. Sample testing :
• Compression Test has been conducted on 7-days and 14 days.
• These tests were conducted under UTM.
V. Results
7-Days Strength
14-Days Strength
b) GEO-POLYMER CONCRETE (GPC)

For achieving the objectives set for GPC, following steps were adopted;
• Materials Properties
• Mix Ratio’s
• Sample Casting
• Sample testing
• Results
I. Material Properties:

a) Fly Ash

Fly Ash
b) Blast Furnace Slag

Blast Furnace Slag

c) Alkaline Activator
1)NaOH
2) Na₂SiO₃
 II. Mix Design:

In order to achieve one of the objective, Comparison between OPC and GPC, mix design of GPC and Proportion
of constituents were kept same as OPC. Following changes were done for GPC
• 12M solution of NaOH was Prepared
• NaOH and Na2SiO3 were added to form One solution by ratio of 1:1 and was kept for 24 hours before
adding it to mix.
• Cement was completely Replaced by Fly ash and Slag (by ratio 1:1) as an cementitious material
• Water was not added.
• It was not target to achieve any slump
1st Mix:
2nd Mix:

3rd Mix:
III. Sample Casting:
Number of samples = 6 per Mix
Total Number of samples = 18
Curing Period = 7 days & 14 days (Heat curing)
Type of Mold = Small

Mold Mix Slump

Cylinder Demolding And Curing
IV. Sample Testing
• Compression Tests have been conducted on 7-days and 14 days.
• These tests were conducted under UTM.

GPC testing
V. Results
7-Days Strength
14-Days Strength
RESULTS AND COMPARISON:

7-Days STRENGTH
1969
2000 1860.34 1865.95
1785.45
1800 1670.87
1595.58
1600 1453.3
1357.4 1401.4
OBTAINED STRENGTH

1400
1200
1000 926
835 795 812.37 834.48
745.65
800
605.3
537
600 466.7
400
200
0
1500 1500 1500 2500 2500 2500 3500 3500 3500
DESIGNED STRENGTH

OPC GPC
 14-Days STRENGTH
3000 2780.34 2698.62
2568.41
2500
2226.79
2068.99
1963.79
1853
Obtained strength

2000 1760 1805.3

1500 1270.64
1129.21 1203.63 1165 1187.5
1091
1000 723.12 747.31
678.4

500

0
1500 1500 1500 2500 2500 2500 3500 3500 3500
Designed strength

OPC GPC
REFEREANCES:

[1]. “Using waste materials and by-products to produce concrete paving Blocks”, Eshmaiel Ganjian.
et.al, 2015, Construction and Building Materials 77 (2015) 270–275. [
2]. “High volume Portland cement replacement”, Chinyere O. Nwankwo. et.al, 2020, Construction
and Building Materials 260 (2020) 120445.
[3]. “Effect of ultra-fine fly ash on concrete performance and durability”, Patricia Kara De Maeijer.
et.al, 2020, Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120493.
[4] A.M. Bakri, H. Kamarudin, M. Binhussain, I.K. Nizar, A.R. Rafiza, Y. Zarina, Comparison of
geopolymer fly ash and ordinary portland cement to the strength of concrete, Adv. Sci. Lett. 19 (12)
(2013) 3592–3595.
[5] Li, N., Shi, C., Zhang, Z., Wang, H. and Liu, Y., 2019. A review on mixture design methods for
geopolymer concrete. Composites Part B: Engineering, p.107490.
[6] M.N. Hadi, H. Zhang, S. Parkinson, Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and concretes
cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time and workability, Journal of
Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301– 313.
[7] Patankar, S.V., Ghugal, Y.M. and Jamkar, S.S., 2015. Mix design of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete. In Advances in Structural Engineering
[8] A. Hassan, M. Arif, M. Shariq, Effect of curing condition on the mechanical properties of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete, SN Applied Sciences 1 (12) (2019) 1694.
[9] Y. Ling, K. Wang, X. Wang, S. Hua, Effects of mix design parameters on heat of geopolymerisation,
set time, and compressive strength of high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Constr. Build. Mater. 228
(2019) 116763.
[10] P. Duxson, S.W. Mallicot, G.C. Lukey, W.M. Kriven, J.S.J. van Deventer, The effect of alkali and
Si/Al ratio on the development of mechanical properties of metakaolin- based geopolymers,
Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 292 (2007) 8–20.
[11] Türkmen, _ I.I.M., Gül, R., Çel [idot] k, C. and Dem [idot] rbog˘a, R., 2003. Determination by the
Taguchi method of optimum conditions for mechanical properties of high strength concrete with
admixtures of silica fume and blast furnace slag. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems,
20(2), pp.105-118
[12] C. Shi, A.F. Jiménez, A. Palomo, New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit of an alternative
to Portland cement, Cement and concrete research. 41 (7) (2011 Jul 1) 750–763.