Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Comparative study on mechanical properties of conventional

and geo-polymer concrete with recycled coarse aggregate
Avinash Ojha ⇑, Lokesh Gupta
Department of Civil Engineering, Sir Padampat Singhania University, Udaipur 313601, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the most consumed materials on planet Earth is concrete. With the surge in environmental con-
Received 15 March 2020 cerns, researchers are searching for new alternate material. Utilization of polymer-based binder material
Received in revised form 10 April 2020 would be an eventual option in civil infrastructural works since traditional cement production is extre-
Accepted 29 April 2020
mely energy-intensive. Replacement of coarse aggregates in the geopolymer concrete with recycled
Available online xxxx
coarse aggregate from demolition sites has the potential to reap financial as well as environmental ben-
efits over conventional concrete with natural coarse aggregates. This study aims to ascertain the impact
Keywords:
of recycled aggregates on mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete and to see whether
Geopolymer concrete
Fly ash
it can be utilized in place of conventional concrete. The result of the experimental investigation depicts
Recycled aggregates the acceptable performance of the geopolymer concrete over conventional concrete. Although the com-
Conventional concrete pressive strength and splitting strength of geopolymer concrete remains less than the conventional con-
Compressive Strength crete, they are well within the permissible range. Based on test results in this study geopolymer concrete
can be a suitable alternative of conventional concrete.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering.

1. Introduction that of conventional aggregate concrete [7]. Galvin and Lloyd con-
cluded in their study the rise in shrinkage as the proportion of
The construction industry is the second largest industry in India recycled aggregate increases but were well within the prescribed
after the agricultural industry [1]. Concrete is one of the most uti- limits as per AS3600 [8]. Geopolymer concrete is an apt replace-
lized materials on earth because of its outstanding durability and ment of conventional concrete and environment-friendly too. Nat-
ability to mould in the desired shape [1–3]. Geopolymeric based ural resources are scarce and its over-exploitation by some
binder is also a cementing material. It is prepared by an intimate companies and individuals posed a grave danger to the ecosystem
mixture of aluminosilicate and NaOH solution [4]. Malhotra and and the environment in principle [9]. Safiuddin et al. examined the
Mehta, reports portland cement (PC) is utilized as the binder for utilization of recycled coarse aggregate partially or fully into the
manufacturing concrete. The environmental hazards associated concrete. They predominantly studied the physical, mechanical,
with the manufacturing of the OPC are not unknown. Since it con- durability and chemical properties. They also identified the gaps
tributes 5% total CO2 produced in the world which is one of the pri- which needed to be explored [10,11]. Zhen et. al. study shows that
mary gases responsible for global warming [5,6]. At the same time, the Poisson’s ratio, young’s modulus and compressive strength,
over-exploitation of traditional coarse aggregate aggravates its reduces as the water-cement ratio of geopolymer concrete with
availability. Recycled aggregates from demolition sites can solve recycled coarse aggregate increases. When the minimum water-
the problem of scarcity of natural aggregates and can be utilized cement ratio is utilized the geopolymer concrete shows better
for concrete production by replacing conventional aggregates. Life properties (mechanical) than the ordinary Portland concrete. The
cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was utilized to gauge the author also suggests that no well developed interfacial transition
environmental impact of recycled aggregate by (ISO, 2006) and zone (ITZ) was found between new geopolymeric paste and old
outlined the impact was slightly larger for recycled aggregate than cement paste [12]. Peem et. al. reports that in geopolymer concrete
recycled coarse aggregate provide high compressive strength
⇑ Corresponding author. between 30.6 and 38.4 MPa which are slightly less than the same
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ojha). concrete with crushed limestone coarse aggregate. Also,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.811
2214-7853/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering.

Please cite this article as: A. Ojha and L. Gupta, Comparative study on mechanical properties of conventional and geo-polymer concrete with recycled
coarse aggregate, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.811
2 A. Ojha, L. Gupta / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

of the concrete than the OPC based one. After 28 days geopolymer
slag concrete achieved approximately 2.0 N/mm2 more strength
than the OPC bases concrete. Similarly, GPC based slag concrete
with recycled aggregate achieved nearly 0.6 N/mm2 more tensile
strength and 5% more flexural strength than the ordinary portland
cement-based slag concrete [15–17]. Liu at el. in their research
study utilized both fine and coarse recycled aggregates to produce
a new kind of concrete (green) with geopolymer (fly ash-based).
After conducting various testing’s on the new concrete the author
received a reduction in values of the Poisson’s ratio, Young’s mod-
ulus and compressive strength [12]. Nuaklong et al. measured the
effects on the properties of geopolymer concrete with recycled
coarse aggregate (100%) obtained from crushing laboratory sam-
ples on the addition of metakaolin. In geopolymer binders, meta-
kaolin was partially replaced with high calcium fly ash. The
Fig. 1. Mixing and casting of geopolymer concrete.
results revealed that the concrete with metakaolin showed acid
resistance, porosity, better strength and water absorption [13]. Vis-
intin, et al. in its paper utilized a recently found segmental
approach (mechanics based) forecasting reinforced concrete beams
shear capacity which is applied to geopolymer concrete beam
(without stirrups). The results are astounding out of total eight
tests on reinforced geopolymer concrete beam (without stirrups)
shows low levels of confinement. On the other hand, direct shear
test results show properties related to shear-friction fall within
the range of shear-friction properties of Portland concrete
[18,21]. Various authors have found the flexural strength of con-
crete with recycled aggregate lesser with respect to concrete with

Table 1
Physical properties of natural and recycled coarse aggregates.

S. No. Characteristics Coarse Aggregate Type

Fig. 2. Test Setup. Natural aggregates Recycled aggregates

1 Specific Gravity 2.6 2.5
compressive strength escalates with the surge in molarities of the 2 Bulk Density 1755 kg/m3 1613.8 kg/m3
solutions [13,20]. Shaikh FAU reports the decrease in tensile (indi- 3 Fineness Modulus 6.3 6.7
rect) strength, compressive strength and modulus of elasticity with
an increase in recycled coarse aggregates in geopolymer concrete Table 2
after 28 days. Durability properties such as sorptivity, water Test results of natural and recycled coarse aggregates.

absorption and the volume of permeable voids of geopolymer con- S. No. Characteristics Coarse Aggregate Type
crete were badly affected with the rise in recycled coarse aggregate Natural aggregates Recycled aggregates
[14]. Nella SK and Gone P report slump value of recycled coarse
1 Impact 19% 23%
aggregate-based geopolymer slag concrete (GPC) slightly less than 2 Crushing 24% 30%
the ordinary Portland cement (OPC) based slag concrete with nat- 3 Los Angeles Abrasion 25% 34%
ural coarse aggregate. The author also obtained high early strength

Fig. 3. Test results.

Please cite this article as: A. Ojha and L. Gupta, Comparative study on mechanical properties of conventional and geo-polymer concrete with recycled
coarse aggregate, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.811
 A. Ojha, L. Gupta / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 3 12269: 1987. The maximum nominal size of coarse aggregates

Conventional concrete with natural coarse aggregates (CC) M-25. was 20 mm, and the sieve specifications conform to Table 2 of IS
S. No. Material Value (kg/m3) 383:1970. Mixing, and casting, of the conventional concrete (CC)
1 Cement 320 and geopolymer concrete (GC) have been done conforming to con-
2 Fine aggregate (River sand) 751 ventional practices as shown in Fig. 1. The materials required are
3 Natural coarse aggregate 1356 tabulated below in Table 3.
4 Water 140 Based on the design mix [2] for GC-25 in line with IS 456:2000
5 Water cement ratio 0.45
and IS 10262:2009, the mix ratio has been arrived at 1:1.14:2.49
(flyash:sand:aggregate) with an alkaline-flyash ratio of 0.3 as
Table 4 shown in Table 4 and specimen GC-25 has been casted with the
Geopolymer concrete with natural coarse aggregates (GC) GC-25. help of Test setup as show in Fig. 2. Compressive strength test
S. No. Material Value (kg/m3) for hardened concrete is carried out at 28 days as per IS
1 Fly ash 320
456:2000; and the cube moulds of 150 mm size, is utilized.
2 Fine aggregate (River sand) 751 First, the ingredients, such as fly ash, sand, coarse aggregate, are
3 Natural coarse aggregate 1155 also added and mixed thoroughly, then subsequently, the required
4 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 140 amount of alkaline solution (10 Molar) is added. This mix is cast
5 Sodium silicate (Na2Sio3) Alkaline grade) 0.45
into required moulds and after 72 h of setting, it is demoulded.
6 Sodium silicate & sodium hydroxide ratio 1.5
After demoulding, the cube is transferred to the oven, where it is
heated [14,20] at 65 degree temperature for the next 24 h. In the
natural coarse aggregates although there are few exceptions which end, the heated cubes were taken out after the mentioned time
state otherwise [11,16,19,22]. and cooled at ambient temperature for 28 days.
So, the crux of above-limited studies is that geopolymer con-
crete with recycled aggregate can be a potential solution to con-
ventional concrete. This will eliminate all environmental 4. Result
problems caused by concrete production. With this background,
the present study aims to prepare geopolymer concrete using recy- The average strength compressive and split tensile for conven-
cled aggregates and compare its various properties with conven- tional concrete (CC) M-25 with natural coarse aggregates came out
tional concrete. to be 30.3 MPa and 3.4 MPa respectively. Whereas, for conven-
tional concrete with recycled aggregates concrete (CCR) M-25 it
is 28.2 MPa and 2.8 MPa respectively as shown in Table 5 and
2. Objectives of the study
Fig. 3. On the other hand, average strength compressive and split
tensile for geopolymer concrete (GC) GC-25 with natural coarse
The objectives of this study are to prepare geopolymer concrete
aggregates came out to be 28.8 MPa and 3.1 MPa respectively.
by replacing natural coarse aggregates with recycled coarse aggre-
And, the compressive and split tensile strength for geopolymer
gates and determine its impact on various mechanical properties.
concrete with recycled aggregates (GCR) GC-25 are 26.4 MPa and
2.24 MPa as depicted in Table 5.
3. Experimental investigation

3.1. Materials 5. Discussion and conclusion

For achieving the above-stated objectives recycled crushed The present study is aimed to prepare geopolymer concrete by
coarse aggregates are utilized with having a maximum size of replacing natural coarse aggregates with recycled coarse aggre-
20 mm. These aggregated are obtained from construction demoli- gates and determine its impact on various mechanical properties.
tion sites. Both types of coarse aggregates natural and recycled Based on the limited study carried out, the following conclusion
are tested as per Indian Standards (IS) IS:383-1970 and their differ- are drawn-
ent properties are tabulated below in Tables 1 and 2. In the present
study class-F fly ash having specific gravity 2.18 is used to make  The average compressive strength for conventional concrete
the geopolymer concrete in addition to chemicals i.e. sodium with natural coarse aggregates (CC) M-25 tested is 30.3 MPa
hydroxide pellets (97% purity) and sodium silicates (Alkaline as can be observed from Fig. 3. Whereas, the average cube-
grade). compressive strength for geopolymeric concrete with natural
coarse aggregates (GC-25) specimen came out to be slightly less
3.2. Concrete mix production and curing at 28.8 MPa.
 Split tensile strength for conventional concrete with natural
In this study, M-25 conventional concrete mix has been utilized coarse aggregates (CC) (M-25) is 3.4 MPa and for geopolymeric
with OPC 43 Grade with a specific gravity of 2.6, satisfying IS concrete (GC-25) specimen is 3.1 MPa.

Table 5
Test results of conventional concrete (M-25) and geopolymer concrete (GC-25) with natural and recycled coarse aggregates.

S. Characteristics Conventional Concrete Type Geopolymer Concrete Type

No.
With Natural aggregates (CC) With Recycled aggregates (CCR) With Natural aggregates (GC) With Recycled aggregates (GCR)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 Average compressive 30.30 28.20 28.80 26.40
strength
2 Split tensile strength 3.4 2.92 3.10 2.24
3 Flexural Strength 3.58 3.1 3.36 2.94

Please cite this article as: A. Ojha and L. Gupta, Comparative study on mechanical properties of conventional and geo-polymer concrete with recycled
coarse aggregate, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.811
4 A. Ojha, L. Gupta / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

 The drop in all three strength (compressive, splitting and flexu- References
ral) in geopolymer concrete can be due to weak Inter-
transitional zone (ITZ). The same trend is observed in recycled [1] A. Ojha, V. Chouhan, L. Gupta, S. Goswami, AIP Conf. Proc. 2204 (1) (2020)
020005.
coarse aggregates versions of all three types of concretes (con- [2] S.V. Patankar, Y.M. Ghugal, S.S. Jamkar, Adv. Str. Eng. (2015) 1619–1634.
ventional and geopolymer) the reason may be attributed to [3] A. Ojha, L. Gupta, Urb. Challen. Emerg. Econ. (2018) 552–557.
the weak bond between recycled coarse aggregates with other [4] J. Davidovit, ed. Geo. Gre. Chem. Sust. Dev. Sol. Proc. Wor. Cong. Geop. 2005.
[5] V.M. Malhotra, P.K. Mehta, Suppl. Cem. Mat. Sust. Dev. (2002) 101.
materials in the matrix and weak ITZs. [6] H. Akbari, R. Mensah-Biney, J. Simms, Wor. Coa. Ash. Conf. (2015) 5–7.
[7] S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, Ignjatović, Nat. Rec. Agg. Con., Was.
Overall, the drop in strength in both types of concrete with Manag. (2010) 2255–2264.
[8] B. Galvin, N. Lloyd, Flya. Bas. Geo. Con. Rec. Conc. Agg. Proc. Conc. Conf., The
recycled coarse aggregates is not significant and within the limits,
Conc. Inst. Aus., (2011).
hence we can utilize the geopolymer concrete with recycled coarse [9] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Const. Build. Mat. 85
aggregates. (2015) 78–90.
[10] M. Safiuddin, U.J. Alengaram, M.M. Rahman, M.A. Salam, M.Z. Jumaat, J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. (2013) 796–810.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [11] M. Kalaivani, ARPN J. Eng. App. Sci. 10 (2015) 4838–4841.
[12] Z. Liu, C.S. Cai, H. Peng, F. Fan, J. Mat. Civ. Eng. (2016) 0401–6077.
[13] P. Nuaklong, S. Vanchai, C. Prinya, J. Cle. Prod. (2016) 2300–2307.
Avinash Ojha: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, [14] F.U.A. Shaikh, Int. J. Sust. Bui. Env. (2016) 277–287.
Data curation, Writing - original draft, Supervision, Project admin- [15] L. Gupta, G. Suresh, Int. Cong. Exhi. Sust. Civi. Infrast.: Innov. Infrast. Geotech.
istration. Lokesh Gupta: Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, (2017) 249–261.
[16] Kumar, N. Shiva, G. Punneshwar, J. Int. Emerg. Tren. Eng. Res. (2018).
Writing - review & editing, Visualization.
[17] L. Gupta, A. Bellary, Mat. Tod. Proc. 5 (1) (2018) 2074–2081.
[18] P. Visintin, M.S. Mohamed Ali, M. Albitar, W. Lucas, Cons. Buil. Mat. (2017) 10–
Declaration of Competing Interest 21.
[19] L. Gupta, G. Suresh, Ind. High. 4 (2016) 44.
[20] P. Nuaklong, S. Vanchai, C. Prinya, Const. Bui. Mat. (2017) 365–373.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [21] L. Gupta, A. Patil, A. Ojha, Int. J. Res. Eng. Tech. 5 (3) (2016) 32–36.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared [22] L. Gupta, R. Kumar, Int. Cong. Exhi. Sust. Civi. Infrast.: Innov. Infrast. Geotech.
to influence the work reported in this paper. (2018) 124–134.

Please cite this article as: A. Ojha and L. Gupta, Comparative study on mechanical properties of conventional and geo-polymer concrete with recycled
coarse aggregate, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.811