Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and concretes cured in ambient T

condition based on compressive strength, setting time and workability
Muhammad N.S. Hadi , Haiqiu Zhang, Shelley Parkinson
⁎

School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this study, the effects of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) content, alkaline solution to binder (Al/
Geopolymer pastes Bi) mass ratio, sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution (SS/SH) mass ratio, and additional water to
Geopolymer concretes binder (Aw/Bi) mass ratio on the compressive strength, setting time and workability of geopolymer pastes were
Fly ash studied. A series of mini-size specimen compression tests, setting time tests and mini-slump tests were conducted
Ground granulated blast furnace slag
at ambient condition (23 ± 2 °C). The GGBFS and Class F fly ash (FA) were used as aluminosilicate source. The
Optimum mix design
alkaline activator was a blend of sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide solution. Additional water was
added to improve the workability and prolong the setting time. Based on the test results of compressive strength,
setting time and workability, the optimum mix design was found to have GGBFS content of 40%, Al/Bi ratio of
0.5, SS/SH ratio of 2.0, and Aw/Bi ratio of 0.15. It was found that the properties of the geopolymer paste under
optimum mix design were better than those of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) pastes. After that, the geopo-
lymer concrete tests based on optimum mix design of geopolymer paste were conducted, in comparison with
OPC concrete tests. It was found that the properties of geopolymer concrete were also better than the properties
of OPC concrete. It is worth noting that this relatively simple and fast test methodology to obtain the optimum
mix design of geopolymer concrete can help engineers save time and labour. Lastly, new mathematical models
were proposed to predict the properties of geopolymer pastes, which showed high accuracy.

1. Introduction material for geopolymer materials due to its wide availability as well as
pertinent silica and alumina composition [9]. However, the challenge is
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is the main construction material that the Class F fly ash-based geopolymer materials need to be cured at
and is made by firing a mix of clay and limestone at temperatures above a high temperature. To cure it at ambient temperature, slag is usually
1300 °C [1]. The process of manufacturing OPC produces a great added, especially ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)
amount of greenhouse gas and it adversely affects the environment. It is [6,7,9,12–14]. The incorporation of GGBFS in mix can greatly increase
estimated that the production of one tonne of OPC can emit one tonne the CaO content in geopolymer materials, which was found to have a
of CO2 [2]. However, geopolymer materials (pastes, mortars and con- significant effect on the properties of geopolymer materials. With the
cretes) have been proven to have comparable properties to OPC ma- increase of CaO content, the compressive strength of geopolymer ma-
terials (pastes, mortars and concretes) [1,3,4], and they can be made by terials increases and the setting time decreases [9,12,15,16].
activating industrial by-products, such as slag and fly ash, with alkaline On the other hand, the blend of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solution
solution [5–7]. Hence, geopolymer materials have a great potential to and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution are commonly used as the al-
replace OPC materials and can significantly reduce the emission of CO2 kaline activator for geopolymer materials. It was found that the sodium
[1,8]. silicate (Na2SiO3) solution to sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution (SS/
The source of aluminosilicate and alkaline activator are important SH) mass ratio has a significant effect on the properties of geopolymer
ingredients of the geopolymer materials. Although the polymerization materials. However, different optimum SS/SH ratios were reported by
process of geopolymer materials is still ambiguous, it was found that the different researchers, which may have been caused by varying com-
mechanical properties of the geopolymer materials are influenced sig- ponents of alkaline solution (Al) and binder (Bi) used in their studies, as
nificantly by the chemical composition of source materials and alkaline well as varying Al/Bi mass ratios. Nath and Sarker [9] found the best
activators [9–11]. Class F fly ash (FA) has been recognized as a suitable SS/SH ratio for compressive strength is 1.5 based on geopolymer

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.N.S. Hadi), [email protected] (H. Zhang), [email protected] (S. Parkinson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.006
Received 7 November 2018; Received in revised form 8 February 2019; Accepted 8 February 2019
Available online 10 February 2019
2352-7102/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

mortar and concrete tests, where the Al/Bi ratio was set as 0.45. Morsy Table 1
et al. [17] conducted a series of geopolymer mortar tests with Al/Bi Chemical compositions (mass%) for ground granulated blast furnace slag
ratio of 0.4 and reported that the optimum SS/SH ratio was 2. Bakri (GGBFS) [26], Fly ash (FA) [27].
[18] conducted a series of fly-ash based geopolymer paste tests, and the Component GGBFS (%) [24] FA (%) [25]
specimens were cured at an elevated temperature. The results showed
that the optimum value of SS/SH ratio varied with the change of Al/Bi SiO2 32.4 62.2
Al2O3 14.96 27.5
ratio. Hence, the optimum SS/SH ratio for compressive strength may
Fe2O3 0.83 3.92
fluctuate, and needs to be identified depending on different alkaline CaO 40.7 2.27
solution (Al) and binder (Bi) materials, as well as Al/Bi mass ratios. MgO 5.99 1.05
Most of the studies that sought the optimum mix design of geopo- K2O 0.29 1.24
Na2O 0.42 0.52
lymer materials were based on the compressive strength alone [19–22].
TiO2 0.84 0.16
For example, Kupaei et al. [22] presented the experimental results of fly P2O5 0.38 0.30
ash based oil palm shell geopolymer lightweight concrete and the op- Mn2O3 0.40 0.09
timum mix proportion was proposed based on compressive strength SO3 2.74 –
alone. Hadi et al. [13] applied the Taguchi method to find the optimum
mix design but this method only considered the parameters that influ-
ence the compressive strength. However, the setting time and work- can have better or equivalent performance than that of OPC pastes. For
ability should also be taken into account for the optimum mix design to setting time, the AS 3792 [29] was used to judge if the setting time of
ensure it can work in practice. The setting time tests can be carried out geopolymer pastes can meet the requirements of setting times for Type
by using Vicat apparatus [23]. To assess the workability of geopolymer GP cement.
paste, mini-slump tests have been used in some studies [18,24,25]. It
has been proven that this test method can effectively measure the 2.2. Mix proportions
workability of pastes and mortars. The common dimensions of the mini-
slump cone are: top diameter 19 mm, bottom diameter 38 mm, and Twenty-eight mixes of geopolymer pastes were designed to study
height 57 mm [18,24,25]. the effects of four factors on the compressive strength, setting time and
In this study, the effects of GGBFS content, Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH ratio workability of geopolymer pastes. These four factors are GGBFS content
and Aw/Bi ratio, on the compressive strength, setting time, workability (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%), SS/SH ratio (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5), Al/Bi ratio
of geopolymer pastes were investigated by applying a series of geopo- (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7) and Aw/Bi ratio (0.09, 0.12, 0.15).
lymer paste tests. The optimum mix proportion was found based on A labelling system was designed to clearly show the mix proportions
compressive strength, setting time and workability. At the same time, of geopolymer pastes. Each mix was assigned nine characters. Although
the properties of geopolymer pastes were compared to those of OPC the name of mix is extensive, the labelling system is easy to understand.
pastes and the possibility of replacing OPC by geopolymer binder was This labelling system includes abbreviations for the four variable
discussed. After that, the geopolymer concrete specimens made at the parameters. The first two letters ‘Gx’ represents GGBFS content. It
optimum mix design and OPC concrete specimens were conducted. The means the GGBFS content is x%. For example, ‘G40’ means the binder
aim of these concrete tests is to verify that this optimum mix design of comprised 40% GGBFS. The following two letters “Sy” represents SS/SH
geopolymer paste can be applied into concrete. There is a need for this ratio, where the SS/SH ratio is y. For example, ‘S2.5’ indicates a SS/SH
study as it proposes a simple method for determining the optimum mix ratio of 2.5. The third component ‘Az’ represents the Al/Bi ratio, where
design of geopolymer concrete by first determining the optimum mix the Al/Bi ratio is z. For example, ‘A.5’ means an Al/Bi ratio of 0.5. The
design of geopolymer pastes. This relatively simple and fast test final component ‘Ws’ refers to the Aw/Bi ratio, where Aw/Bi ratio is s.
methodology to obtain the optimum mix design of geopolymer concrete For example, ‘W.09’ signifies an Aw/Bi ratio of 0.09.
can help engineers save time and labour. Lastly, new mathematical There were three series of geopolymer paste tests in this study. In
models were proposed to predict the properties of geopolymer pastes, the first series, the effect of GGBFS content on the properties of geo-
which showed high accuracy. polymer pastes were investigated. The values of GGBFS contents of 0%,
10%, 20%, 30%, 40% were chosen. The values of Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH
2. Experimental programme for geopolymer pastes ratio, Aw/Bi ratio were kept constant at 0.5, 2.5 and 0.15, respectively.
The detailed mix design can be seen in Table 2.
2.1. Materials In the second series of geopolymer paste tests, the effects of Al/Bi
ratios and SS/SH ratios were investigated. The values of Al/Bi ratios of
In this study, GGBFS and Class F FA were used as aluminosilicate 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and the values of SS/SH ratios of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5
sources. The GGBFS was supplied by the Australasian Slag Association were used. The GGBFS content and Aw/Bi ratio were kept at 40% and
[26] and Class F FA was provided by Eraring Power Station Australia 0.15, respectively. The detailed mix proportions are shown in Table 3.
[27]. The FA was classified as Class F according to AS 3582.1 [28]. The In this study, the mutual influence of these two factors were in-
chemical compositions of GGBFS [26] and FA [27] are shown in vestigated together, in comparison with other studies which in-
Table 1. vestigated them separately [9,17].
Sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide solution were The third series of geopolymer paste tests investigated the effects of
blended together as alkaline activator. Solid granulated caustic soda Aw/Bi ratio. This is because when GGBFS content was high in the
was dissolved in water to make sodium hydroxide solution. The con- geopolymer binder, additional water had to be added to increase the
centration of sodium hydroxide solution was kept constant (14 M) for setting time and improve the workability [13,30,31]. The Aw/Bi ratio
all mixes. Sodium silicate solution was provided by a local commercial has been proven to have significant effect on the properties of geopo-
producer. The mass ratio of SiO2 to Na2O of the sodium silicate was lymer materials [13,30,31]. Hadi et al. [13] used 0.12 for the value of
2.02 with chemical compositions of 29.6% SiO2 and 14.7% Na2O. Aw/Bi. In this study, the values of the Aw/Bi ratios of 0.09, 0.12 and
The OPC paste tests were conducted as comparative experiments. In 0.15 were used. As mixes having Aw/Bi ratio of 0.15 were the same as
this study, Type general purpose (GP) cement, which is in accordance Mixes G4-S25-A4-W.15, G4-S25-A5-W.15, G4-S25-A6-W.15, G4-S25-
with AS 3972 [29], was mixed with water to make OPC paste samples. A7-W.15 in Table 3, their testing results were shared in both parts. The
Both the compressive strength and workability of the OPC pastes were details of mix designs are shown in Table 4.
compared with those of geopolymer pastes to see if the latter material In this study, Type general purpose (GP) cement based on AS 3972

302
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Table 2
The mix designs for the effect of GGBFS content.
Mix GGBFS (kg/m3) Fly ash (kg/m3) GGBFS Content (%) Al/Bi SS/SH Aw/Bi

G0-S2.5-A.5-W.15 0 1061 0 0.5 2.5 0.15

G10-S2.5-A.5-W.15 107 966 10 0.5 2.5 0.15
G20-S2.5-A.5-W.15 217 868 20 0.5 2.5 0.15
G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15 329 768 30 0.5 2.5 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15a 444 666 40 0.5 2.5 0.15

a
The same mix in Tables 3 and 4.

[29], which is one type of ordinary Portland cement (OPC), was used to 2.4. Testing methods
conduct OPC paste and OPC concrete tests. A few trial mixes were
conducted and it was found that when the w/c ratio was 0.3, the The compressive strengths of OPC pastes and geopolymer pastes
workability of OPC pastes was very low. It was difficult to cast OPC were determined at the age of 7 days and 28 days. The average of three
pastes properly into the mould. When the w/c ratio was 0.7, the pro- cylinders tested under compression was taken as the nominal com-
blem of bleeding of OPC pastes was very obvious. Hence, w/c ratios of pressive strength. This test was done by using the Avery compression
0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 were used in this study. The mix design of OPC mixes machine of 1800 kN loading capacity in the High Bay laboratory at the
are shown in Table 5. The labels used for these OPC paste tests are University of Wollongong, Australia (shown in Fig. 3(a)).
OPC.4, OPC.5 and OPC.6 referring to OPC and the w/c ratios. Initial and final setting times of OPC pastes and geopolymer pastes
were measured from the start of mixing. The procedure was in ac-
cordance with AS 2350.4 [23] by using Vicat apparatus [23] (shown in
2.3. Mixing, casting and curing
Fig. 3(b)). All setting time tests were conducted under an ambient
temperature of 23 ± 2 °C.
All tests were conducted under an ambient temperature of
The workability of OPC pastes and geopolymer pastes was assessed
23 ± 2 °C. The sodium hydroxide solution and sodium silicate solution
by the mini-slump tests, which were similar to previous studies
were mixed together for about 1 h before mixing with aluminosilicate
[18,24,25,33]. The mini-slump mould was made by using 3D print
source. A twenty Quart Hobart mixer [32] (shown in Fig. 1) was used to
technology (shown in Fig. 3(c)). The dimensions of the mould are: top
dry mix the FA and GGBFS for 2 min.
diameter 19 mm, bottom diameter 38 mm, and height 57 mm. The
Afterwards, alkaline activator was added and mixed for 1 min. In
mould was placed firmly on a flat and horizontal plastic sheet. Then, it
this study, the concentration of sodium hydroxide solution was rela-
was filled with geopolymer paste and compacted with a small rod. The
tively high (14 M) and the chemical reaction between aluminosilicate
mould was removed vertically ensuring minimal lateral disturbance.
materials (FA and GGBFS) and alkaline activators was relatively fast. In
From the moment of adding alkaline activator into binder, the mini-
addition, the paste test scale was small and it is easy to mix paste
slump test was conducted at 15 min intervals. Mini-slump tests were
homogeneously. Therefore, a relatively short mixing time was adequate
conducted for every mix at 15 min, 30 min, 45 min and 60 min. The
to mix the paste properly. After mixing with alkaline activators, extra
diameter of hardened base was measured at five locations and the
water was poured into the mixer for another 2 min until the mix became
average value was used to calculate the area [25].
well mixed and homogeneous.
In this study, plastic moulds of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height
were used for casting the geopolymer pastes (shown in Fig. 2) to de- 2.5. Results and discussion
termine the compressive strength. Six samples were cast for each mix,
three of them for 7-day compressive strength and three for 28-day 2.5.1. General
compressive strength. The samples were kept in the laboratory at an Totally, four series of paste tests were conducted, including one
ambient condition (23 ± 2 °C) for 24 h and demoulded. Afterwards, series of OPC paste tests and three series of geopolymer paste tests. The
these specimens were cured at an ambient condition for 7 days or 28 setting time of geopolymer pastes were compared with the specified
days. values in AS 3972 [29] for Type GP cement. In AS 3972 [29], the

Table 3
The mix designs for the effects of Al/Bi ratio and SS/SH ratio.
Mix GGBFS (kg/m3) Fly ash (kg/m3) GGBFS Content (%) Al/Bi SS/SH Aw/Bi

G40-S1.0-A.4-W.15 477 715 40 0.4 1.0 0.15

G40-S1.5-A.4-W.15 478 718 40 0.4 1.5 0.15
G40-S2.0-A.4-W.15 479 719 40 0.4 2.0 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15a 480 720 40 0.4 2.5 0.15
G40-S1.0-A.5-W.15 441 661 40 0.5 1.0 0.15
G40-S1.5-A.5-W.15 442 663 40 0.5 1.5 0.15
G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15 443 664 40 0.5 2.0 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15b 444 666 40 0.5 2.5 0.15
G40-S1.0-A.6-W.15 410 615 40 0.6 1.0 0.15
G40-S1.5-A.6-W.15 411 617 40 0.6 1.5 0.15
G40-S2.0-A.6-W.15 412 618 40 0.6 2.0 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.15a 413 620 40 0.6 2.5 0.15
G40-S1.0-A.7-W.15 383 574 40 0.7 1.0 0.15
G40-S1.5-A.7-W.15 384 576 40 0.7 1.5 0.15
G40-S2.0-A.7-W.15 385 578 40 0.7 2.0 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.15a 386 579 40 0.7 2.5 0.15

a
The same mixes in Table 4.
b
The same mix in Tables 2 and 4.

303
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Table 4
The mix designs for the effect of Aw/Bi ratio.
Mix GGBFS (kg/m3) Fly Ash (kg/m3) GGBFS Content (%) Al/Bi SS/SH Aw/Bi

G40-S2.5-A.4-W.09 517 776 40 0.4 2.5 0.09

G40-S2.5-A.5-W.09 476 714 40 0.5 2.5 0.09
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.09 440 661 40 0.6 2.5 0.09
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.09 410 615 40 0.7 2.5 0.09
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.12 498 747 40 0.4 2.5 0.12
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.12 459 689 40 0.5 2.5 0.12
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.12 426 639 40 0.6 2.5 0.12
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.12 397 596 40 0.7 2.5 0.12
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15a 480 720 40 0.4 2.5 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15b 444 666 40 0.5 2.5 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.15a 413 620 40 0.6 2.5 0.15
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.15a 386 579 40 0.7 2.5 0.15

a
The same mixes in Table 3.
b
The same mix in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 5
The mix designs for OPC paste.
Mix w/c Cement (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3)

OPC.4 0.4 1389 556

OPC.5 0.5 1220 610
OPC.6 0.6 1087 652

Fig. 2. The mini-size specimens cast in the mini-size moulds. (a) Compression
testing machine (b) Vicat apparatus. (c) Mini-slump cone diagram (d) Mini-
slump cone photo.

three OPC mixes, the 7-day compressive strength was about 60% of the
28-day compressive strength.
From Table 6, it can be seen that the setting times of OPC pastes
increased with the increase of water content. Mix OPC.4 achieved in-
itial setting time of 220 min. The initial setting times of Mixes OPC.5
and OPC.6 increased to 275 min and 332 min, respectively. The dif-
ference between initial and final setting time for OPC.4 was 122 min
and those of Mixes OPC.5 and OPC.6 increased by 20% and 48%, re-
spectively, as compared to Mix OPC.4.
Mix OPC.4 had the lowest mini-slump base area. The mini-slump
base areas of Mixes OPC.5 and OPC.6 were about 35% and 110% higher
than that of Mix OPC.4 at 15 min, 30 min, 45 min and 60 min. However,
for the three OPC mixes, the differences of mini-slump base area be-
Fig. 1. Twenty Quart Hobart Mixer. tween 15 min and 60 min were only around 1 × 103 mm2.

minimum initial setting time for Type GP cement is specified as 45 min 2.5.3. Effect of GGBFS content
and the maximum final setting time is specified as 360 min. All testing Mixes in Table 2 were designed with increasing the amount of
results of 7-day and 28-day compressive strength, initial and final set- GGBFS to investigate its effect on the properties of geopolymer pastes.
ting times, and mini-slump base area are summarised in Table 6. All mixes in Table 2 were mixed with the same Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH ratio,
and Aw/Bi ratio. The testing results of compressive strength, setting
time and mini-slump base areas are shown in Figs. 4–6, respectively.
2.5.2. Results of OPC The compressive strength development of geopolymer pastes with
The compressive strength, setting time and mini-slump areas of the increase of GGBFS content are presented in Fig. 4. It is found that
three OPC mixes are shown in Table 6. It can be found that the highest Mix G0-S25-A5-W.15, which has no slag, reacted slowly to develop
28-day compressive strength was achieved by Mix OPC.4, reaching compressive strength at ambient condition. The 28-day compressive
45.7 MPa. With the increase of the water content, the compressive strength of Mix G0-S2.5-A.5-W.15 was only 12.4 MPa. However, when
strength decreased significantly. The 28-day compressive strength of GGBFS was added, the compressive strength increased significantly. At
Mixes OPC.5 and OPC.6 reduced by 20% and 32%, respectively. For the 28 days, the geopolymer paste mixes having 10% (G10-S2.5-A.5-W.15),

304
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Fig. 3. Testing devices: (a) Compression testing machine; (b) Vicat apparatus; (c) Mini-slump cone diagram; (d) Mini-slump cone picture.

20% (G20-S2.5-A.5-W.15), 30% (G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15) and 40% (G40- 60% of the 28-day compressive strength. On the other hand, compared
S2.5-A.5-W.15) GGBFS of total binder achieved 98%, 169%, 253% and with the highest 28-day compressive strength of OPC mixes (OPC.4,
293% higher compressive strength than that of Mix G0-S2.5-A.5-W.15, 45.7 MPa), only Mix G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15 had higher 28-day compres-
respectively. This trend is similar to those of many other research stu- sive strength (47.9 MPa).
dies [9,13]. The reason for this trend is that the microstructure of Fig. 5 shows the initial and final setting times of geopolymer pastes
geopolymer pastes containing higher amount of GGBFS was denser due with different contents of GGBFS. For Mix G0-S2.5-A.5-W.15 with no
to increasing formation of C-S-H gel [12]. The variation of 7-day GGBFS, the initial and final setting times, was more than 20 h and 25 h,
compressive strength had a similar trend to 28-day compressive respectively. However, when GGBFS was incorporated in the mixes,
strength. But the values of 7-day compressive strength were around both initial and final setting times decreased significantly. The initial

305
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Table 6
Results of OPC paste mixes and geopolymer paste mixes.
Mix 7-day compressive strength 28-day compressive strength Initial setting time Final setting time Mini-slump base area (103 mm2)
(MPa) (MPa) (mins) (mins)
15 mins 30 mins 45 mins 60 mins

OPC.4 27.5 45.7 220 342 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.7

OPC.5 21.3 36.5 275 421 4.7 4.3 4.1 3.8
OPC.6 18.7 31.2 332 513 7.1 6.9 6.4 6.1
G0-S2.5-A.5-W.15 5.6 12.4 1220 1507 32.2 31.4 31.6 30.8
G10-S2.5-A.5-W.15 14.8 24.6 324 468 29.1 26.8 24.3 22.4
G20-S2.5-A.5-W.15 22.4 33.3 207 285 27.4 22.8 21.4 18.5
G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15 25.1 43.8 119 195 24.3 18.6 15.4 13.5
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15a 28.0 47.9 66 123 22.3 14.6 10.2 7.1
G40-S1.0-A.4-W.15 22.7 37.7 76 124 16.1 11.8 5.4 –
G40-S1.5-A.4-W.15 27.0 43.0 58 106 15.4 9.7 3.8 –
G40-S2.0-A.4-W.15 30.0 51.3 50 82 14.8 8.2 – –
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15a 29.5 49.7 41 69 14.3 7.1 – –
G40-S1.0-A.5-W.15 20.9 34.6 106 202 25.4 22.8 17.1 13.7
G40-S1.5-A.5-W.15 26.5 41.4 91 168 24.8 19.8 14.2 11.4
G40-S2.0-A.5-W0.15 28.4 48.7 85 137 23.1 17.2 12.4 9.7
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15a 28.0 47.9 66 123 22.3 14.6 10.2 7.1
G40-S1.0-A.6-W.15 15.3 26.5 140 267 29.7 26.3 23.8 21.4
G40-S1.5-A.6-W.15 19.2 33.1 118 222 28.9 25.1 21.5 16.3
G40-S2.0-A.6-W.15 22.3 40.4 103 189 27.5 23.7 19.4 14.4
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.15a 21.1 37.5 92 175 26.3 21.5 17.0 13.2
G40-S1.0-A.7-W.15 10.7 17.5 176 301 34.8 32.1 29.6 26.7
G40-S1.5-A.7-W.15 11.0 21.7 149 255 33.1 29.3 26.5 24.1
G40-S2.0-A.7-W.15 13.4 25.0 127 233 31.8 28.1 25.4 22.7
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.15a 13.0 23.4 109 201 30.6 26.4 22.8 19.4
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.09 32.3 59.4 28 39 8.1 – – –
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.09 31.9 57.6 45 86 12.5 3.7 – –
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.09 25.3 48.0 69 133 18.2 11.3 4.1 –
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.09 16.6 38.9 89 169 20.5 14.6 8.3 3.6
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.12 30.0 54.5 33 58 11.4 3.6 – –
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.12 29.0 51.8 59 111 16.8 9.1 3.4 –
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.12 22.6 43.6 79 152 21.4 15.8 11.1 5.6
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.12 13.2 30.9 99 181 25.3 20.1 15.8 9.6
G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15a 29.5 49.7 41 69 14.3 7.1 – –
G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15a 28.0 47.9 66 123 22.3 14.6 10.2 7.1
G40-S2.5-A.6-W.15a 21.1 37.5 92 175 26.3 21.5 17.0 13.2
G40-S2.5-A.7-W.15a 13.0 23.4 109 201 30.6 26.4 22.8 19.4

Mix G4-S20-A5-W2 marked in bold is the optimum mix proportion.

a
The same mixes in Tables 3 and 4.

setting time of Mix G10-S2.5-A.5-W.15 decreased by 73% even with a A.5-W.15, G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15 and G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15 increased to
10% addition of GGBFS in the binder. As for Mixes G20-S2.5-A.5-W.15, 6.7 × 103 mm2, 8.9 × 103 mm2, 10.8 × 103 mm2 and 15.2 × 103 mm2,
G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15 and G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15, the initial setting time respectively. In other words, with the increase of GGBFS content, the
decreased with the increase of GGBFS content, by 83%, 90%, and 95% mini-slump base area decreased more rapidly. This is due to the fact
compared with that of Mix G0-S2.5-A.5-W.15, respectively. The varia- that the polymerization processes is accelerated with the increase of
tion of final setting time had a similar trend to that of initial setting GGBFS content [9]. Within 60 min, the workability of all geopolymer
time. Furthermore, the difference between initial and final setting times paste mixes in Fig. 6 was better than those of OPC pastes. However, for
reduced with the increase of GGBFS content. Such difference of Mix all OPC paste mixes, the base areas remained stable from 15 min to
G10-S2.5-A.5-W.15 was 144 min which reduced to 78 min, 76 min and 60 min.
57 min for Mixes G20-S2.5-A.5-W.15, G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15 and G40-
S2.5-A.5-W.15, respectively. These results proved the fact that in-
creasing the GGBFS content can greatly accelerate the setting of geo- 2.5.4. Effect of Al/Bi ratio and SS/SH ratio
polymer pastes [9,13]. Since the minimum initial setting time allowed In this section, the effects of both alkaline solution to binder mass
for Type GP cement is 45 min and the maximum final setting time is (Al/Bi) ratio and sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide mass (SS/SH)
360 min according to AS 3792 [29], it can be found that Mixes G20- ratio on the properties of geopolymer pastes were investigated by the
S2.5-A.5-W.15, G30-S2.5-A.5-W.15 and G40-S2.5-A.5-W.15 met this mixes shown in Table 3. The effect of Al/Bi ratio on the optimum SS/SH
requirement. ratio was also investigated.
Fig. 6 shows the effect of GGBFS content on mini-slump testing Fig. 7 shows the compressive strength development of geopolymer
results of geopolymer pastes and the results of three OPC mixes are also pastes due to the increases of Al/Bi ratios and SS/SH ratios. Every four
included. It can be seen that the mini-slump base areas of geopolymer mixes, which had the same SS/SH ratio but different Al/Bi ratios, are
pastes decreased significantly with the increase of GGBFS content. The drawn into one curve. It can be seen that with the increase of Al/Bi
relationship between mini-slump base area and time is nearly linear. It ratio, the compressive strengths of each curve decreased significantly.
can also be found that the difference of base areas between 15 min and On the other hand, it is found that the four specimens of SS/SH of 2.0
60 min became larger with the increase of GGBFS content. For Mix G0- achieved the highest 28-day compressive strength compared with those
S2.5-A.5-W.15, the difference of base area between 15 min and 60 min of other SS/SH ratios. Hence in this study, the optimum SS/SH ratio was
was 1.4 × 103 mm2, and those of Mixes G10-S2.5-A.5-W.15, G20-S2.5- 2.0 for all Al/Bi ratios. However, the 28-day compressive strength curve
of SS/SH of 2.5 was slightly lower than the curve of SS/SH of 2.0. The

306
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Fig. 7. Effect of alkaline solution to binder (Al/Bi) ratio and sodium silicate
solution to sodium hydroxide solution (SS/SH) ratio on compressive strength of
Fig. 4. Effect of GGBFS content on the compressive strength of geopolymer geopolymer paste.
pastes.
more silicate is added, since excess sodium silicate hinders water eva-
poration and structure formation [17]. The variation of 7-day com-
pressive strength in this section had a similar trend to that of 28-day
compressive strength. In addition, compared to the OPC mixes, it can be
seen that Mixes G40-S2.0-A.4-W.15, G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15 had higher 7-
day and 28-day compressive strength than those of all OPC mixes.
The initial and final setting times were influenced significantly by
the Al/Bi ratio and SS/SH ratio as shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that
the relationships between the Al/Bi ratio and the initial and final setting
times are nearly linear. With the increase of Al/Bi ratio, the initial and
final setting times increased significantly. The final setting times in-
creased by around 75% compared to initial setting times. This is due to
the fact that excess alkaline solution increase the amount of water in the
mix which hindered geopolymerization [36]. On the other hand, it was
found that initial and final setting times decreased when the SS/SH
ratio increased. This is because when the amount of soluble silica is
increased, the polymerization processes is accelerated to some extent
[9]. In addition, it is noted that all mixes in Fig. 8 met the requirement
of final setting time stated in AS 3972 [29] for comparison. The initial
Fig. 5. Effect of GGBFS content on the initial and final setting times of geo- setting time requirement was met by all of the mixes, except Mix G4-
polymer pastes. S25-A4-W.15.
Fig. 9 shows the results of mini-slump tests influenced by Al/Bi
ratios and SS/SH ratios, and the results of OPC mixes are also included
for comparison. From Fig. 9(a), it is noted that over 30 min, the pastes

Fig. 6. Effect of GGBFS content on mini-slump tests of geopolymer pastes.

lowest 28-day compressive strength was achieved when the SS/SH was
equal to 1.0. This is due to the fact that a rise in the silica content leads Fig. 8. Effect of alkaline solution to binder (Al/Bi) ratio and sodium silicate
to more densely packed, polymerised gels with excellent mechanical solution to sodium hydroxide solution (SS/SH) ratio on initial and final setting
properties [34,35]. However, the compressive strength drops when times of geopolymer pastes.

307
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Fig. 9. Effect of alkaline solution to binder (Al/Bi) ratio and sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution (SS/SH) ratio on mini-slump tests of geopolymer
pastes.

of Mixes G40-S2.0-A.4-W.15 and G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15 became too stiff to used here for studying the influence of additional water here.
be cast into mini-slump cone. Over 45 min, the pastes of Mixes G40- As shown in Fig. 10, the 7-day and 28-day compressive strength of
S1.0-A.4-W.15 and G40-S1.5-A.4-W.15 could not be cast into the mini- geopolymer pastes reduced when more additional water was added.
slump mould. In Fig. 9(b) (c) (d), it can be seen that all mixes can be Mixes with Aw/Bi of 0.09 had the highest 7-day and 28-day compres-
cast into the mould in 60 min and had higher mini-slump base areas sive strength.
than those of all OPC mixes. It is found that with the increase of SS/SH Fig. 11 indicates that initial and final setting times of geopolymer
ratio, the mini-slump base areas decrease to some extent. This is be- pastes increased with the increase of Aw/Bi ratio. However, the three
cause the viscosity of sodium silicate solution is much higher than water Mixes G40-S2.5-A.4-W.09, G40-S2.5-A.4-W.12 and G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15
and sodium hydroxide solution [9]. The viscosity would increase with with Al/Bi ratio of 0.4 did not meet the requirement of setting times for
the rise of SS/SH ratio. From Fig. 9, it can also be concluded that with Type GP cement as stated in AS 3972 [29], because their initial setting
the increase of Al/Bi ratio, the mini-slump base areas increase sig- times were lower than the minimum required value of 45 min. The
nificantly. This is because the increase of liquid content can improve initial and final setting times of other geopolymer paste mixes in Fig. 11
the workability of geopolymer pastes [9]. were considered satisfactory based on AS 3972 [29] (presented in
Section 2.5.1).
Fig. 12 shows the effect of additional water on the workability
2.5.5. Effect of Additional Water
which was measured in the mini-slump tests. It is found that increasing
Although some studies have proven that the additional water has
the additional water can lead to larger mini-slump base area. It is also
negative effects on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
noted that some geopolymer pastes suffered flash setting. The paste of
[11,13,30], sometimes additional water has to be used to improve
Mix G40-S2.5-A.4-W.09 (Fig. 12(a)) could only be cast at 15 min. The
workability and prolong setting times [13,30], especially for geopo-
geopolymer paste of Mixes G40-S2.5-A.4-W.12 (Fig. 12(a)), G40-S2.5-
lymer concrete containing slag. In this study, the amount of additional
A.4-W.15 (Fig. 12(a)) and G40-S2.5-A.5-W.09 (Fig. 12(b)) could be cast
water was controlled by the additional water to binder (Aw/Bi) ratio.
before 30 min. The paste of Mix G40-S2.5-A.6-W.09 could be cast be-
Mixes which investigate the effect of additional water were presented in
fore 45 min.
Table 4. Test results under Aw/Bi of 0.15 obtained in Section 2.5.4 were

308
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

mixes (Fig. 7). Hence, the geopolymer paste under optimum mix design
is suitable to replace OPC pastes.

3. Experimental programme for geopolymer concrete and OPC

concrete

The geopolymer concrete tests based on optimum mix design of

geopolymer paste (Mix G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15) was conducted. The OPC
concrete tests were also carried out as references. The aim of these
concrete tests was to verify whether this optimum mix design of geo-
polymer paste can be applied into geopolymer concrete.
The mix of geopolymer concrete with optimum mix design was
named as “GC”, and its mix design was shown in Table 7. For the OPC
concrete, w/c ratios of 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 were adopted and the mixes
were named as OC.4, OC.5 and OC.6. The mix designs of OPC concrete
were shown in Table 8.
Fig. 10. Effect of additional water/binder ratio (Aw/Bi) on compressive A Lightburn 65 l mixer was used to mix the concrete. Six concrete
strength of geopolymer pastes. cylinders (100 mm × 200 mm) were cast for each mix of concrete. The
mixing procedures for geopolymer concrete were same as those of
geopolymer paste. Due to the small scale concrete tests, 2 min was
adequate to mix dry materials homogeneously (GGBFS, FA, coarse ag-
gregate and sand), and a total of 3 min was adequate to mix dry ma-
terials with alkaline activators and extra water homogeneously. These
mixing times may need to be increased when mixing larger quantities of
geopolymer concrete.
The 7-day and 28-day compressive strength tests and slump tests of
geopolymer concrete and OPC concrete were conducted, and the results
are shown in Table 9. It can be found that the 28-day compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete was higher than those of OPC con-
crete. At the same time, the slump of geopolymer concrete with the
optimum mix design is larger than those of OPC concrete. Hence, the
mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete under optimum mix
design are better than those of OPC concrete. In other words, the op-
timum mix design of geopolymer paste is suitable for the geopolymer
concrete.
Fig. 11. Effect of additional water/binder (Aw/Bi) ratio on initial and final
setting times of geopolymer pastes.
4. The mathematical regression model

2.5.6. Optimum mix design Numerous studies have used multivariable regression models to
In this study, three requirements were proposed to define the op- predict the properties of paste, mortar and concrete with excellent re-
timum mix design of geopolymer pastes: (1) the workability (assessed sults [14,37–40]. Some of these studies applied multivariable power
by mini-slump test results) of geopolymer pastes is same as or better equation to predict the properties of concrete [14,37,38]. In this study,
than that of OPC pastes at 60 min after mixing; (2) the initial and final a new form of mathematical multivariable regression model was pro-
setting times of geopolymer paste satisfy the requirement of setting posed, which was similar to multivariable power equation. However,
times for Type GP cement in AS 3792 [29]; (3) on the basis of satisfying here the polynomial equations was used to replace the power equations.
the first two requirements, the compressive strength of geopolymer
paste is the highest. Among all geopolymer paste mixes, Mix G40-S2.0- 4.1. 28-day compressive strength prediction model
A.5-W.15 was determined as the optimum mix design.
The 28-day compressive strength of Mix G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15 was The procedure of proposing the 28-day compressive strength pre-
48.7 MPa. It is found that two mixes shown in Fig. 7 and five mixes diction model can be divided into four steps. The first step only con-
shown in Fig. 10 had higher 28-day compressive strength than that of siders one factor. Then, each step after the first step considers one more
Mix G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15. However, their mini-slump tests (shown in factor. The final model considered four factors, including GGBFS con-
Figs. 9(a) and 12(a) and (b)) indicated that they failed to be cast at tent, Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH ratio and Aw/Bi ratio. The multivariable re-
60 min after mixing. In other words, their workability did not meet the gression models was proposed by using the CFTOOL box built in Matlab
first requirement of optimum mix design. In addition, the mini-slump R2016b [41].
base area of Mix G40-S2.0-A5-W.15 was higher than those of all OPC Firstly, the factor of GGBFS content was considered. According to
mixes (Fig. 9(b)) within 60 min. Mix G40-S2.0-A5-W.15 achieved the the GGBFS content shown in Table 2 and 28-day compressive strength
highest compressive strength among the geopolymer pastes which meet results shown in Fig. 4, the polynomial regression equation was pro-
the first requirement of optimum mix design. At the same time, the posed as follows:
initial and final setting times of Mix G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15 were 85 min
and 137 min, which meet the setting time requirement in AS 3792 [29] f1 = F1 (CG ) = 0.01 × (CG )2 + 1.3 × CG + 12.4 (1)
(presented in Section 2.5.1). In conclusion, geopolymer paste of Mix
where CG is the value of GGBFS content; F1 is the polynomial regression
G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15 is the optimum mix.
equation considering the effect of GGBFS content; f1 is the predicted 28-
On the other hand, it was found that the 28-day compressive
day compressive strength considering the effect of GGBFS content. The
strength of Mix G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15 was higher than those of all OPC
predicted results are shown in Fig. 13(a). It can be seen that the

309
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Fig. 12. Effect of additional water/binder (Aw/Bi) ratio on mini-slump tests of geopolymer pastes. (a) Predicted results by using Eq. (1) (b) Predicted results by using
Eqs. (2) and (4). (c) Predicted results by using Eq. (6) (d) Performance of Eq. (6) for all mixes.

predicted results matched well with the experimental results. Table 8

After that, the factor of Al/Bi ratios was considered. The polynomial The mix designs for OPC concrete.
regression equation was proposed based on the mix proportions and 28- Mix OPC (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) Sand (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3)
day compressive strength of Mixes G40-S2.5-A.4-W.15, G40-S2.5-A.5-
W.15, G40-S2.5-A.6-W.15, and G40-S2.5-A.7-W.15 shown in Table 3 OC.4 400 1157 752 160
and Fig. 7. This equation has the following form: OC.5 400 1092 709 200
OC.6 400 1027 667 240
f2 = F2 (Al/Bi) × F1 (CG ) (2)

F2 (Al/ Bi ) = 6.4 × (Al/ Bi )2 + 5.2 × (Al/Bi) (3)

in Table 3 and the 28-day compressive strength results shown in Fig. 7.
where F2 is the polynomial regression equation considering the effect of This equation has the following form:
Al/Bi; f2 is the predicted 28-day compressive strength considering the f3 = F3 (SS /SH ) × F2 (Al/ Bi ) × F1 (CG ) (4)
effects of GGBFS content and Al/Bi. The predicted results are shown in
Fig. 13(b). It can be found that the predicted results matched well with F3 (SS / SH ) = 0.3 × (SS / SH )3 + 1.4 × (SS /SH ) 2 1.8 × (SS / SH )
the experimental results. In addition, when the Al/Bi is equal to 0.5, the
+ 1.4375 (5)
value of F2 is 1 and Eq. (2) is equal to Eq. (1). This means that Eq. (2)
can also be used to predict the test results predicted by Eq. (1). where F3 is the polynomial regression equation considering the effect of
Next, the factor of SS/SH ratios was considered. The polynomial SS/SH ratio; f3 is the predicted 28-day compressive strength considering
regression equation was proposed based on the mix proportions shown the effects of GGBFS content, Al/Bi ratio and SS/SH ratio. The predicted

Table 7
The mix design for geopolymer concrete.
Mix GGBFS (kg/m3) Fly ash (kg/m3) Coarse Aggregate (kg/m3) Sand (kg/m3) SS (kg/m3) SH (kg/m3) AW (kg/m3)

GC 160 240 1039 675 133.3 66.7 60

310
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

Table 9 Aw/Bi ratio; f4 is the predicted 28-day compressive strength con-

Results of Geopolymer Concrete and OPC Concrete. sidering the effects of GGBFS content, Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH ratio and Aw/
Mix 7-day 28-day Slump (mm) Bi ratio. The predicted results are shown in Fig. 13(c). It can be found
compressive compressive that the predicted results matched well with the experimental results. In
strength strength 15 mins 30 mins 45 mins 60 mins addition, when the Aw/Bi is equal to 0.15, the value of F4 is 1 and Eq.
(MPa) (MPa) (6) is equal to Eq. (4). This means Eq. (6) can also be used to predict the
GC 29.1 49.2 112 101 89 70
test results predicted by Eqs. (1), (2) and (4). Eq. (6) is the final pre-
OC.4 28.5 46.6 43 41 37 35 diction model for 28-day compressive strength of geopolymer paste.
OC.5 21.9 38.1 58 55 51 47 To evaluate the performance of prediction model, Eq. (6) was used
OC.6 19.1 33.5 73 70 65 63 to calculate all the mixes shown in Tables 2–4. The comparison between
predicted results by using Eq. (6) and experimental results are shown in
Fig. 13(d). It was found that the value of correlation coefficient was
results are shown in Fig. 13(b). It can be found that the predicted results
0.983, which means this mathematical model can predict the 28-day
matched well with the experimental results. In addition, when the SS/
compressive strength with very high accuracy due to the selection of
SH is equal to 2.5, the value of F3 is 1 and Eq. (4) is equal to Eq. (2). This
appropriate equations.
means the Eq. (4) can also be used to predict the test results predicted
by Eqs. (1) and (2).
4.2. Initial setting time model
Finally, the factor of Aw/Bi ratios was considered. According to the
mix proportions shown in Table 4 and the 28-day compressive strength
The procedure of proposing the initial setting time prediction model
results shown in Fig. 10, the polynomial regression equation was pro-
was similar to that of 28-day compressive strength. The final prediction
posed as follows:
model are shown as follows:
f4 = F4 (Aw /Bi) × F3 (SS / SH ) × F2 (Al/ Bi) × F1 (CG ) (6) s4 = S4 (Aw / Bi) × S3 (SS /SH ) × S2 (Al/Bi) × S1 (CG ) (8)
F4 (Aw /Bi) = 22.22 × (Aw/ Bi )2 + 2 × (Aw/ Bi ) + 1.2 (7) 4800
S1 (CG ) = CG
where F4 is the polynomial regression equation considering the effect of CG + 4 (9)

Fig. 13. Predicted results of 28-day compressive strength.

311
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

S2 (Al/ Bi ) = 3.5 × (Al/Bi) 0.75 (10) mini slump test results at 15 min, considering the effects of GGBFS
content, Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH ratio and Aw/Bi ratio, respectively; the R1,
S3 (SS / SH ) = 0.4 × (SS / SH ) + 2 (11)
R2, R3, and R4 are the polynomial regression equations for the slope of
S4 (Aw/ Bi ) = 4.5 × (Aw/ Bi ) + 0.325 (12) mini slump test results versus time, considering the effects of GGBFS
content, Al/Bi ratio, SS/SH ratio and Aw/Bi ratio, respectively; t is the
where S1 is the non-linear regression equation for initial setting time time after mixing; and w4 is the predicted mini slump test results.
considering the effect of GGBFS content; S2 is the polynomial regression The performance of Eq. (13) was shown in Fig. 15. It was found that
equation for initial setting time considering the effect of Al/Bi ratio; S3 the value of correlation coefficient was 0.985, which means Eq. (13)
is the polynomial regression equation for initial setting time con- can predict the initial setting time with very high accuracy due to the
sidering the effect of SS/SH ratio; S4 is the polynomial regression selection of appropriate equations.
equation for initial setting time considering the effect of Aw/Bi ratio;
and s4 is the predicted initial setting time. 5. Conclusion
The performance of Eq. (8) is shown in Fig. 14. It was found that the
value of correlation coefficient was 0.999, which means Eq. (8) can Twenty-eight geopolymer paste mixes and three OPC paste mixes
predict the initial setting time with very high accuracy due to the se- were examined to investigate the effects of GGBFS content, alkaline
lection of appropriate equations. solution/binder (Al/Bi) mass ratio and sodium silicate solution/sodium
In addition, according to the test results shown in Table 6, it was hydroxide solution (SS/SH) mass ratio, additional water/binder (Aw/
found that the final setting times were approximately twice the initial Bi) mass ratio on the properties of geopolymer paste. The testing results
setting times. Therefore, the predicted final setting times can be ob- of geopolymer paste are compared with those of the ordinary Portland
tained through multiplying initial setting times by two. cement (OPC) pastes. The results can be summarised as follows:

4.3. Mini slump test model ▪ With the increase of GGBFS content in geopolymer pastes, the
compressive strength increased significantly but the setting times
The procedure of proposing the mini slump test prediction model and workability reduced sharply. Also, increasing the GGBFS con-
was similar to that of 28-day compressive strength model. However, the tent led to faster decrease rate of the mini-slump base area.
effect of the time after mixing should be considered. The final predic- ▪ The increase of Al/Bi ratio resulted in a decrease of the compressive
tion model was proposed as follows: strength, but increases of workability and setting times.
w4 = W4 (Aw / Bi) × W3 (SS / SH ) × W2 (Al/ Bi) × W1 (CG ) ▪ When the SS/SH ratio increased from 1.0 to 2, the compressive
strength increased. However, when the SS/SH ratio increased from
R 4 (Aw /Bi) × R3 (SS / SH ) × R2 (Al/Bi) × R1 (CG ) × (t 15) (13)
2.0 to 2.5, the compressive strength decreased. The optimum SS/SH
W1 (CG ) = 0.25 × CG + 32 (14) ratio was 2 for all Al/Bi ratios (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7). In addition, the
increase of SS/SH ratio resulted in the decrease of initial and final
W2 (Al/Bi) = 2.4 × (Al/ Bi 0.27) (15) setting times and mini-slump base area.
▪ When increasing the Aw/Bi ratio, the compressive strength reduced
W3 (SS / SH ) = 0.09 × (SS / SH ) + 1.22 (16)
but the initial and final setting times and workability increased.
W4 (Aw / Bi) = 6.3 × (Aw /Bi) + 0.055 (17) ▪ The optimum mix was found to have GGBFS content of 40%, Al/Bi
ratio of 0.5, SS/SH ratio of 2.0, and Aw/Bi ratio of 0.15, from 28
R1 (CG ) = 0.007 × CG 0.05 (18) geopolymer paste mixes. It achieved not only high compressive
strength, but also enough setting times and workability. Also, the
R2 (Al/Bi) = 7.4 × (Al/ Bi) 2 10.3 × (Al/Bi) + 4.3 (19)
geopolymer paste under the optimum mix design is suitable to re-
R3 (SS / SH ) = 0.18 × (SS / SH ) + 0.55 (20) place OPC pastes.
▪ The geopolymer concrete tests based on optimum mix design of
R 4 (Aw /Bi) = 9.4 × (Aw/ Bi ) + 2.41 (21) geopolymer paste (G40-S2.0-A.5-W.15) was conducted. The OPC
where W1, W2, W3, and W4 are the polynomial regression equations for concrete samples were also carried out as references. It was found

Fig. 14. Performance of Eq. (8) for predicting initial setting time of geopolymer Fig. 15. Performance of Eq. (13) for predicting mini slump test results of
paste. geopolymer paste.

312
M.N.S. Hadi, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 23 (2019) 301–313

that the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete under op- (2017) 424–431.
timum mix design are better than those of OPC concrete. [14] H. El-Hassan, N. Ismail, Effect of process parameters on the performance of fly ash/
GGBS blended geopolymer composites, J. Sustain. Cem. Based Mater. 7 (2) (2018)
▪ The multivariable regression models based on polynomial equations 122–140.
were proposed to predict the 28-day compressive strength, initial [15] E. Diaz, E. Allouche, S. Eklund, Factors affecting the suitability of fly ash as source
setting times and mini slump test results. It was found that the material for geopolymers, Fuel 89 (5) (2010) 992–996.
[16] N. Ismail, H. El-Hassan, Development and characterization of fly ash–slag blended
predicted results were in good agreement with the experimental geopolymer mortar and lightweight concrete, J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 30 (4) (2018)
results. 04018029.
It is worth noting that the present study presented a relatively [17] M. Morsy, S. Alsayed, Y. Al-Salloum, T. Almusallam, Effect of sodium silicate to
sodium hydroxide ratios on strength and microstructure of fly ash geopolymer
simple and fast test methodology to obtain the optimum mix design binder, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39 (6) (2014) 4333–4339.
of geopolymer paste and concrete. At first, a series of small scale [18] D.L. Kantro, Influence of water-reducing admixtures on properties of cement
geopolymer paste tests were conducted to find the optimum mix paste—a miniature slump test, Cem. Concr. Aggreg. 2 (2) (1980) 95–102.
[19] M. Ohno, V.C. Li, An integrated design method of engineered geopolymer compo-
design. Then the geopolymer concrete tests based on this optimum
site, Cem. Concr. Compos. 88 (2018) 73–85.
mix design were carried out, which is used to ensure this optimum [20] M.A. Aleem, P. Arumairaj, Optimum mix for the geopolymer concrete, Indian J. Sci.
mix design can also be applied to concrete. This method can help Technol. 5 (3) (2012) 2299–2301.
engineers save a large amount of time and labour. [21] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Castro-Gomes, S. Jalali, Investigations on mix design of
tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (9) (2008)
1939–1949.
Acknowledgements [22] R.H. Kupaei, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z.B. Jumaat, H. Nikraz, Mix design for fly ash
based oil palm shell geopolymer lightweight concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 43
(2013) 490–496.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Ritchie [23] AS 2350.4-2006, Methods of testing portland, blended and masonry cements,
Mclean for his help in carrying out the experiments. The authors thank Standards Australia, 2006.
the Australasian Slag Association for providing GGBFS and Eraring [24] F. Collins, J. Sanjayan, Early age strength and workability of slag pastes activated
by sodium silicates, Mag. Concr. Res. 53 (5) (2001) 321–326.
power station for providing fly ash. The second author acknowledges [25] F. Collins, J. Lambert, W.H. Duan, The influences of admixtures on the dispersion,
the China Scholarship Council and the University of Wollongong, workability, and strength of carbon nanotube–OPC paste mixtures, Cem. Concr.
Australia for supporting his Ph.D. scholarship. Compos. 34 (2) (2012) 201–207.
[26] Australasian Slag Association, 41-47 Five Islands Road, Port Kembla, NSW,
Australia, accessed on June: 〈http://www.asa-inc.org.au/products/ground-
References granulated-blast-furnace-slag〉.
[27] Eraring power station, Australia, 227 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
accessed on June: 〈https://www.originenergy.com.au/about/who-we-are/what-
[1] A. Shayan, Specification of geopolymer concrete: general guide, Austroads, 287
we-do/generation.html〉, 2018.
Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2016.
[28] AS 3582.1-2016, Supplementary cementitious materials Part 1: Fly ash, Standards
[2] J. Davidovits, High-Alkali Cements for 21st Century Concretes, Special Publication,
Australia, 2016.
ACI. USA, 1994, pp. 383–398.
[29] AS 3972–2010, General purpose and blended cements, Standards Australia, 2010.
[3] P. Topark-Ngarm, P. Chindaprasirt, V. Sata, Setting time, strength, and bond of
[30] A. Wardhono, D.W. Law, A. Strano, The strength of alkali-activated slag/fly ash
high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 27 (7) (2014)
mortar blends at ambient temperature, Procedia Eng. 125 (2015) 650–656.
04014198.
[31] P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat, V. Sirivivatnanon, Workability and strength of
[4] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Labrincha, C. Leonelli, A. Palomo, P. Chindaprasit, Handbook
coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (3) (2007)
of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes, Elsevier, Woodhead
224–229.
Publishing, 2014 eBook ISBN: 9781782422884 Hardcover ISBN: 9781782422761.
[32] Hobart Corporation, 701 South Ridge Avenue, Troy, Ohio, USA, accessed on
[5] T. Gourley, P. Duxson, S. Setunge, N. Lloyd, M. Dechsler, W. South, Recommended
June:2018. 〈https://www.hobartcorp.com/products/food-prep/mixers/legacy-
practice: geopolymer concrete, Concrete institute of Australia, 53 Walker Street,
countertop-mixer〉, .
North Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2011.
[33] F. Collins, J. Sanjayan, Early age strength and workability of slag pastes activated
[6] V.K. Nagaraj, D.L.V. Babu, Assessing the performance of molarity and alkaline ac-
by NaOH and Na2CO3, Cem. Concr. Res. 28 (5) (1998) 655–664.
tivator ratio on engineering properties of self-compacting alkaline activated con-
[34] A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, Characterisation of fly ashes, Potential React.
crete at ambient temperature, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018) 137–155.
Alkaline Cements☆. Fuel 82 (18) (2003) 2259–2265.
[7] M.S. Reddy, P. Dinakar, B.H. Rao, Mix design development of fly ash and ground
[35] F. Puertas, M. Palacios, H. Manzano, J. Dolado, A. Rico, J. Rodríguez, A model for
granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018)
the CASH gel formed in alkali-activated slag cements, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 31 (12)
712–722.
(2011) 2043–2056.
[8] K.-H. Yang, J.-K. Song, K.-I. Song, Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated
[36] C. Ruiz-Santaquiteria, J. Skibsted, A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, Alkaline so-
concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 39 (2013) 265–272.
lution/binder ratio as a determining factor in the alkaline activation of alumino-
[9] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
silicates, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (9) (2012) 1242–1251.
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition, Constr. Build.
[37] G. Kheder, A. Al Gabban, S. Abid, Mathematical model for the prediction of cement
Mater. 66 (2014) 163–171.
compressive strength at the ages of 7 and 28 days within 24 h, Mater. Struct. 36 (10)
[10] P. Duxson, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J. Van
(2003) 693.
Deventer, Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (9)
[38] M.F.M. Zain, S.M. Abd, Multiple regression model for compressive strength pre-
(2007) 2917–2933.
diction of high performance concrete, J. Appl. Sci. 9 (1) (2009) 155–160.
[11] S. Wallah, B.V. Rangan, Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: Long-term
[39] J. Sobhani, M. Najimi, A.R. Pourkhorshidi, T. Parhizkar, Prediction of the com-
properties, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth,
pressive strength of no-slump concrete: a comparative study of regression, neural
Australia, 2006.
network and ANFIS models, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (5) (2010) 709–718.
[12] S. Kumar, R. Kumar, S. Mehrotra, Influence of granulated blast furnace slag on the
[40] U. Atici, Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture concrete using multi-
reaction, structure and properties of fly ash based geopolymer, J. Mater. Sci. 45 (3)
variable regression analysis and an artificial neural network, Expert Syst. Appl. 38
(2010) 607–615.
(8) (2011) 9609–9618.
[13] M.N.S. Hadi, N.A. Farhan, M.N. Sheikh, Design of geopolymer concrete with GGBFS
[41] MATLAB R2016b, The Math Works, Natick, MA, 2016.
at ambient curing condition using Taguchi method, Constr. Build. Mater. 140

313