ABSTRACT

This study involves using ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), rice husk ash (RHA)
as the main materials along with the addition of coconut fiber in different percentages and it
is activated using the sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide as the alkali activators. Trial tests
were performed and the optimum proportion of ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS)
and rice husk ash (RHA) was found and blended in the proportion 90:10 while the coconut
fiber (CF) content ranged from 0.1% to 0.5% by weight to investigate the performance of
Coconut fiber (CF) on strength and durability parameters. The Specimen is of size 50X50X50
mm cubes and 50 mm X 100 mm cylinder were casted and cured at ambient temperature for
28 Days. The cured specimens were then tested for bulk density, apparent porosity, water
absorption,compressive strength, split tensile strength and Ultrasonic pulse velocity. Addition
of coconut fiber content up to 0.2% shows good results both in compressive strength as well
as split tensile strength at the age of 28 days. Microstructural and mineralogical changes were
studied using Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
(EDAX) and X-Ray diffraction (XRD) on the blended geopolymer specimens. The EDAX
analysis depicted sodium, aluminium, silica, and calcium as major elements which confirmed
the presence of NASH (sodium alumino - silicate hydrate ) and CSH (calcium silicate
hydrate) in the blended geoplymer. A study on durability of the blended geopolymer
specimens were also done using 10% sulphuric acid. Test such as Visual appearance, change
in mass, Residual compressive strength and crackscope were made on geopolymer specimens
when exposed to 10% Sulphuric Acid solution for a period of 12 weeks (90days) were also
performed. As the period of exposure increases the OPC specimen loses its original size and
gets dissolved completely in the sulphuric acid while all the blended geopolymer specimens
with addition different coconut fiber % only the corner parts gets deteriorated. The blended
geopolymer specimens gain mass upto 3% till 90 Days (12 weeks) . When observed through
the microscope, OPC and GR CF 0% specimens started showing crack surfaces from 30 Days
on exposure to 10% sulphuric acid while addition of coconut fibers in different precentages
remained intact. The residual compressive strength after exposure in 10% sulphuric solution
in 90 Days was found to be as high as to for all the blended geopolymer specimens which
shows blended geopolymer with the addition of coconut fiber upto 0.2% is a promising as a
sustainable material, high compressive strength and more durable even after addition in 10%
sulphuric acid solution when compared to OPC specimens.

1
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Geopolymer 10
1.2 Types of geopolymer 11
1.3 Geopolymerization 11
1.4 Adavantage of geopolymer 11
1.5 Objectives 12
1.6 Organization of the thesis 12

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE
REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Literature Rieview 13-15

CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM
3.1 Introduction 16
3.2 Materials Used
3.2.1 Ordinary Portland cement 16
3.2.2 Ground granulated blast furnace slag 16-17
3.2.3 Coconut fiber 17-18
3.2.4 Rice husk ash 18-19
3.2.5 Alkali activator solution 19-20
3.2.6 Optimum proportion of GGBS and RHA 21
3.2.7 Preparation of alkali activator solution 22
3.2.8 water 22
3.2.9 Manufacturing process of blended geopolymer 22-25
specimen
3.3 Manufacturing process of OPC specimen 25-27
3.4 Test to be conducted on the specimens 27-28
3.4.1 Bulk density 28
3.4.2 Apparent porosity 29
3.4.3 Water Absorption 29-30
3.5 Destructive Test
3.5.1 Compressive strength test 30-31
3.5.2Split tensile strength test 31-32
3.6 Non-destructive test
3.6.1 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test 32-33
2
 3.7 Flow measurement test 33-34

3.8 Setting time 34-35

3.9 Microstructural properties
3.9.1 Scanning electron microscopy(SEM) and EDAX 35-36
(Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis)
3.9.2 X – ray diffraction (XRD) 37
3.10 Durability Test 38-39
3.10.1 Visual Apperance 39
3.10.1 Change of mass of the blended geopolymer and 40
OPC specimens
3.10.2 Residual compressive strength of the blended 40-41
geopolymer and OPC specimens
3.10.3 Crack scope 41

CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS
AND
DISSCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Test results
4.2.1 Bulk density 42
4.2.2 Apparent porosity 42-43
4.2.3 Water Absorption 43-44
4.3 Destructive Test
4.3.1 Compressive strength test 44-45
4.3.2 Split tensile strength test 45-46
4.4 Non-destructive test
4.4.1 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test 47
4.5 Flow measurement test 48-49
4.6 Setting time 49-50
4.7 Microstructural properties
4.7.1 Scanning electron microscopy(SEM) and Energy 50-54
Dispersive X-Ray Analysis(EDAX)
4.7.2 X – ray diffraction (XRD) 55
4.8 Durability Test
4.8.1 Visual Apperance 56-60
4.8.2 Change of mass of the blended geopolymer and 31-62
OPC specimens
4.8.3 Residual compressive strength of the blended 62-64
geopolymer and OPC specimens
4.8.4 Crack scope 65-71

CHAPTER 5
5.1Conclusion 72
Reference 73-74
Appendix-A 75-76
Appendix-B 77

3
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Environmental pollution caused from production of cement have become a major issue
nowadays. Developing a eco-friendly sustainable construction material such as geoploymer.
Is the pleasant way to lessen the usage of cement that can affect the surroundings.
“Geopolymer” was coined by Davidovits in the year 1978. He proposed that alkaline liquids
can be used to react with Silicon (Si) and Aluminium (Al) present in a source material origin
or byproducts like fly ash (FA), ground granulated blast-furnace slag(GGBS), and rice husk
ash (RHA) from industries to produce binder.
This study involves using GGBS, RHA as the main materials along with the addition of
coconut fiber in different percentages and it is activated using the sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide as the alkali activators. The type of alkaline activator used played a considerable
role in affecting the binding and properties i.e., compressive and split tensile strength.
Sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate used in combination has been proven best alkaline
activator. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) is a byproduct from manufacturing
of iron and steel-making. Blast-furnace slag is formed in the processes of iron manufacture
from iron ore, combustion residue of coke, and fluxes such as limestone or serpentine and
other materials. Rice husk, when burnt, is found to contain a very high percentage of silica,
which is one of the main constituents in producing geopolymer. With proper burning and
grinding, the amorphous reactive rice husk ash (RHA) could be produced and used as
pozzolana. The SiO2 rich RHA can also be used to adjust the SiO 2 content of the geopolymer.
The compressive strength and split tensile strength of the geopolymer properties are
improved by addition coconut fiber. Coconut fiber being the most ductile among all natural
fibers and it is potential to be utilized as reinforcement substantial in concrete. The
fundamental favorable circumstances of natural fibers are that they are low expense,
biodegradable, non-abrasive and there will be no distress with wellbeing and safety. Natural
fibers are eco-friendly materials which produce less greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants.

1.2 Geopolymer
Geopolymer cement concrete is made from utilization of waste materials such as fly ash and
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). Fly ash is the waste product generated from
thermal power plant and ground granulate blast furnace slag is generated as waste material in
steel plant.The main constituent of geopolymers source of silicon and aluminium which are
provided by thermally activated natural materials (e.g. kaolinite) or industrial byproducts
(e.g. fly ash or slag) and an alkaline activating solution which polymerizes these materials
into molecular chains and networks to create hardened binder.

4
1.3 Types Of Geopolymer
 Slag based geopolymer
- Slag is a mixture of metal oxides and silicon dioxide.
- A transparent by-product material formed in the processing of melting iron ore.

 Rock based geopolymer –

- The slag based geopolymer replaced by natural rock forming minerals forms this
geopolymer.
- Feldspar and quartz are natural rock forming minerals.

 Fly ash based geopolymer –

- Improves workability and increase compressive strength –
- class F fly ash used commonly
 Alkali activated geopolymer: Heat curing at 60 to 80˚C is done. Into 1:2
aluminosilicate gel fly ash particles are embedded.
 Slag based geopolymer: It contains silicate, blast furnace slag and fly ash 17

 Ferro-silicate based geopolymer

- same properties as that of rock based geopolymers
- -has a red colour
- -high iron oxide content

1.4 Geopolymerization

Geopolymerization is the process of transforming aluminosilicate raw materials into

covalently bonded 3D network consisting [Si-O-Al-O]n bonds.The term geoploymerization
also refers to geosynthesis, i.e. systhesis of chemically integrated minerals.The term
geopolymerization reaction results in the formation of viscous cementitious slurry which
upon hardening forms strong, durable and compact geopolymeric material. The inorganic
geopolymers are prepared by using raw materialswhich contains reactive silica and alumina
in their structure. E.g. fly ash and the alkaline activator solution containing sodium hydroxide
and sodium silicate. Conveniently we termed this process of developing geopolymer as
geopolymerization technology. Geopolymers can be prepared by utilization of different
aluminosilicate source such as red mud, blast furnance slag, kaolinite, rice husk ash etc.

1.5 Advantages Of Geopolymer

 High compressive strength
 Tensile strength.
 Low drying shrinkage.
 Resistant to heat and cold.
 Chemical resistant.

5
6
1.6 Objectives
1. To study on blended geopolymer specimen using GGBS (ground granulated blast-
furnace slag) and RHA (rice husk ash) with Coconut fiber (CF) was conducted to
investigate the performance of Coconut fiber (CF) on strength and durability
parameters such as: (GR CF 0% + GR CF 0.1% + GR CF 0.2% + GR CF 0.3% + GR
CF 0.4% + GR CF 0.5% ).
2. To reduce the emission of Carbon dioxide during the production of cement
3. Proper utilization of waste materials from industries such as Rice hush ash (RHA),
silica-fume and GGBS etc.

1.7 Organization Of the Thesis

This thesis is organised as follows, Chapter 2 consist of the various reviews of the related
literatures on blended GGBS composite, Rice Husk Ash (RHA) and Geopolymer composite
etc. In Chapter 3 details of experimental programs are presented which includes materials
used, manufacturing process of blended GGBS composite and test to be conducted on the
specimens. Chapter 4 shows the detailed result of the experimental investigation. And chapter
gives the conclusion of study.

7
 Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter deals about the reviews of various literatures related to the study of the thesis.
From various journals and reviews by various authors and scholars has been studied and
given their results and conclusion of their research respectively for the better understanding
for this thesis.

2.2 Literature Survey

1.2.1 Physical properities –

Ankur Mehta, Rafat Siddique et.al.[1] Found that the development of geopolymer concrete
using GGBS and RHA with high 3-day compressive strength of approximately 60 MPa,
which can replace the conventional cement concrete and thus reduce carbon
dioxide emissions. Also, the increase in compressive and split tensile strength, and reduction
in chloride permeability and sorptivity was observed with the inclusion of RHA up to 15% at
all ages. Beyond this optimum content of 15%, RHA inclusion showed negative results

1.2.2 Mechanical properties –

Prasanna Venkatesan Ramani et.al[2] found that addition of BRHA beyond 10 % had a
retarding effect on the compressive strength. At up to 20 % replacement, the target strength
was surpassed and compressive strength as high as 51 MPa was reached at 28 days. The split
tensile and flexural strengths showed a trend similar to that of the compressive strength with
respect to the BRHA proportion.

B.Prabu, A. Shalini and J. S. Kishore Kumar et.al[3] RHA blended concrete can improve
the compressive strength and helps in enhancing the early age mechanical properties as well
as long-term strength properties of cement concrete. Partial replacement of cement with RHA
reduces the water penetration into concrete by capillary action.

Saraswati Verma, Mayank Kumar et.al.[4] concluded that the decrease in compressive
strength, split strength and flexural strength for the mixes containing other than 10% RHA
may be attributed to the increase in un-reactive silica content from RHA (which is highly rich
in silica), which might have led to inappropriate SiO 2/Al2O3 ratio thus, creating a repulsive
effect on strength values. The optimum value of SiO2/Al2O3 ratio among the mixes
containing RHA is found to be 2.79 corresponding to 10% replacement level.

R. Ramya Swetha , Dr. G. Venkata Ramana , K. Anusha Hadassa et.al.[5] The

workability of RH concretes have decreased when compared with ordinary concrete. The
compressive strengths of concrete mix with 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%, weight
replacement of cement with RH, cured in fresh water for 7, 28 and 60days have reached the
target mean strength. The compressive strengths of concrete with 0%, 5%,10%,15% and
20%, weight replacement of cement with RH, cured at different concentrations of 1%,3%,5%
H2So4 solution for 7, 28 and 60 days indicate that at 5% replacement there will be increase in
8
strength and it extended till 10% replacement and then decreased its strength, noticed at 15%
and 20% replacements .

2.2.3 Coconut fiber Properties –

Mahapara Abbass, Digvijay Singh, Gyanendra Singh et.al.[6] concluded that adding of
coconut fiber upto 0.2%, the strength properties increased, where the point of consideration
28 Days compressive strength and flexural strength in terms of percentage was more
significant than 7 Days strength due to the low heat source material used.

Anthony Nkem Ede and Joshua Olaoluwa Agbede et.al[7] it was found that coconut fiber
content in the excess of 0.75% reduces the workability and drastically weakens the
compressive and flexural strength. The presence of coconut fiber significantly improves the
toughness and the ductility behavior of concrete. The test results have shown that coconut
fiber at 0.5% content is optimal for enhancing the rheological and mechanical properties of
concrete.

Anthony Liu et.al.[8] concluded that the Compressive strength can increase upto 24% when
compared to plain concrete. It increase only with 7.5 cm long fibers having 2% to 3% fibre
content. Split tensile strength first increases and then slightly reduces with increase fibre
length. In the case of 1% fibres, Split tensile strength increases with fibre length. Coconut
fibre reinforced concrete with 5% fibre content and 5 cm long fibres has the highest
toughness index of 10.1.

Kshitija nadgouda et.al.[9] investigated by taking 3%, 5%, and 7 %, compressive strength
of concrete goes on decreasing with an increase in the fibre content of the concrete mix.
Flexural strength of concrete goes on increasing with an increase in the fibre content. It was
found that at 1% and 2% fibre content there was increase in tensile strength of concrete.

2.2.4 Microstructural properties –

Shalini Annadurai, Kumutha Rathinam and Vijai Kanagarajan et.al.[10] concluded that
the Test results exhibit that the substitution of 30% of RHA in the geopolymer mix shows
better mechanical, durability and microstructural properties. RHA geopolymer concrete’s
bond strength was higher compared to other mixes due to good friction caused by RHA’s
higher fineness.

Apriany Saludung, Yuko Ogawa,and Kenji Kawai et.al.[11] experimental study shows the
effect of the addition of GGBS on the compressive strength and microstructure of
geopolymer paste was investigated. It was found that the presence of GGBS in the mixes
significantly increased the compressive strength of geopolymer paste specimens. The highest
compressive strength was found at 60% of fly ash replacement by GGBS. The SEM
micrograph and XRD result show that the formation of C-S-H gel becomes prominent as
GGBS increases. However, too much formation of C-S-H may harm the structure of the
specimen at high temperatures due to decomposition.

Nongthombam Shyamananda Singh, Suresh Thokchom and Rama Debbarma et.al.[12]

found that the effects of elevated temperature exposure on RHA geopolymer specimens were
9
studied. The effect of varying the silicon/aluminium ratio from 1·5 to 3·5 was also
highlighted. The colour of the specimens changed from grey to white as the temperature was
increased from ambient temperature to 900°C. No cracks were observed in all the specimens
below 300°C. The cracks that developed in the temperature range 300–900°C were mainly
due to the evaporation of the water. The initial compressive strength increased with an
increase in the silicon/aluminium ratio up to 2, beyond which there was a decrease in
strength. Residual weight, volumetric shrinkage and residual compressive strength showed
rapid decrease up to 300°C. XRD analysis showed the main constituents of RHA geopolymer
to be quartz, cristobalite and gibbsite.

2.2.5 Durability–

T. Sravani and P. V. Ramani et.al.[13] concluded that GPC made with GGBS and BRHA
could perform remarkably well in the durability criteria. The addition of BRHA improves the
durability of GPC. After 90 days of exposure to H2SO4, the weight and strength losses of
GPR1 and GPR2 were 12 and 9% lesser than control GP specimens. However, beyond 20%
BRHA proportion, the specimens performed poorly in all the tests owing to poor structural
compatibility from inappropriate silica–alumina ratio. It can be concluded that GPC can be
highly useful as an alternative durable construction material.

Suresh Thokchom , Partha Ghosh and Somnath Ghosh et.al.[15] Found that Geopolymer
mortar specimens manufactured from fly ash with alkaline activators were structurally intact
and did not show any recognizable change in colour after 18 weeks exposure in 10% sulfuric
acid solution. Exposed surfaces revealed a corroded structure when observed through an
optical microscope and it progressed with time of exposure. Geopolymer samples almost lost
its alkalinity within 15 weeks in 10% sulfuric acid solution. The weight loss results obtained
in the study showed better performance than OPC counterparts which were reported to gain
weight with heavily corroded structure.

2.3 Summary –
From the literature review on the various research articles related to blended GBBS, Rice
husk ash with addition of coconut fiber geopolymer, it had shown to be a good alternative to
cement which reduces the harmful effects of using cement. By considering such factors such
as materials used, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio, molarity of sodium hydroxide,
alkali to binder ratio, curing period etc., shows blended GBBS, Rice husk ash with addition
of coconut fiber geopolymer possessed excellent mechanical and durability properties for
both in short as well as long term used.

10
 Chapter 3

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses about the various materials used in the preparation of the specimens
for this experimental investigation. The details of various materials used such as their
physical properties and chemical properties are also discussed in this chapter. It also presents
the step by step procedure of the manufacturing process of blended geopolymer i.e. GGBS
(Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag) AND RHA (Rice Husk Ash) WITH COCONUT
FIBER activated using alkaline solution for the production of eco-friendly geopolymer is
presented and manufacturing process of OPC Grade 43. Further, the details of specimens
casted, the tests conducted are provided in this chapter.

All the experimental work has been conducted at the Concrete Laboratory of Civil
Engineering Department, Manipur Institute Of Technology, Takyelpat, Imphal, India.

3.2 Materials Used

3.2.1 Ordinary Portland Cement

The ordinary Portland cement used in the experiment was OPC Grade-43, namely and was
purchased from the local market.

Fig 3.1 –OPC Grade 43

3.2.2 Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)

The GGBS was obtained from Quality Polytech, Baikampady Industrial Area Mangalore,
India. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-product of iron manufacturing
industry. Adding GGBS in geopolymer , the setting becomes quick, strength achievement is
higher and suitable for ambient curing[2]. GGBS is a glassy, granular, non- metallic material
consisting essentially of silicates and aluminates of calcium and other bases. The chemical
composition of GGBS used in the experimental program is given in Table:3.1 and
Figure :3.1shows XRF data the GGBS for the manufacture of alkali activated composites
tested in Guahati University . The main composition of GGBS is SiO2 (34.17), Al2O3 (18.09),
Mn3O4(13.50) and CaO (35.08)
11
 Fig 3.2 - Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS)

Table 3.1 XRF data of GGBS Sample

COMPOUNDS COMPOSITIONS(%)
SiO2 34.17
Al2O3 18.09
Fe2O3(T) 0.48
Mn3O4 13.50
MgO 8.06
CaO 35.08
Na2O 0.12
K2O 0.62
TiO2 0.02
P2O5 0.78
SO3 0.83
LOI 0.40

3.2.3 Coconut Fiber (CF)

Coconut Fiber in the form of coconut ropes was collected from the local market and was cut
into 20mm previous studies used the length of coconut fiber in the range of 15mm to 30mm
in the required size using a scissor[6]. Natural fibre can be used as fibre reinforcement , these
fibres are tough, ductile among the natural fibres.when compared to artificial fibers natural
fibers are cheap and easily available. Addition of natural fiber has been of great interest in the
field of construction materials.

12
 Fig 3.3 – Coconut Fiber

3.3.4 Rice Husk Ash (RHA)

Rice husk Ash (RHA) is a agricultural waste, by-product of paddy grown as a staple food as
rice is consumed worldwide. Rice husk ash is silica-rich more than 90% of ash contains silica
with pozzolanic properties. Rice husk Ash (RHA) was obtained from Kolkata, India. RHA
samples were obtained after burning at a temperature of 650–700°C for 1 h, collected and
stored in airtight containers. RHA passing through 180 mm and with a Blaine specific surface
area of 6890 cm2 /g was used in the study. The amount of RHA produced through husk’s
burning process depends on burning temperature weather amorphous or crystalline ash is
produced. Higher the temperature, RHA will be crystalline and if lower there is an increase in
carbon content[12]. The Rice Husk Ash (RHA) used is shown in figure 3.3 and the chemical
composition of Rice Husk Ash (RHA) is given in table 3.2.

Fig 3.4 – RHA( Rice Husk Ash)

13
 Table 3.2 Chemical Composition of Rice Husk Ash Sample

CHEMICAL COMPOSTION % WEIGHT

SiO2 92.19
Al2O3 0.09
Fe2O3 0.10
TiO2 0.71
MgO 0.41
K2O 0.05
Na2O 1.64
SO3 0.41
CaO 0.09
P2O5 0.01
LOI 4.14

3.3.5 Alkali Activator Solutions

The alkali activator solutions that are used in this study is a combination of sodium silicate
solution and sodium hydroxide solution and were obtained from Bharat Trading Corporation,
Guwahati and they are:

a). Sodium Silicate Solutions:

Fig 3.5 - Sodium Silicate Solution

14
 Table 3.3 Properties Of Sodium Silicate Solution
COMPOUNDS COMPOSITION %
1. Total Solids 45
2. Water Insoluble 0.65
3. SiO2 30.65
4. Na2O 14.15
5. H20 55.2

b). Sodium Hydroxide Flakes:

The sodium hydroxide is available in flakes with purity of 97% -98%. According to the
required concentration in molars, sodium hydroxide is added in water to make solution.

Fig 3.6 Sodium Hydroxide Flakes

Table 3.4 Properties Of Sodium Hydroxide Flakes

COMPONDS COMPOSITION %
1. Na2O 77.5
2. H20 22.5
3. Total Solids 77.5

15
3.3.6 Optimum proportion for GGBS and Rice husk ash –
The Blended geopolymer properties was significantly affected by alkaline solution to Rice
husk ash ratio. Few Trial mix has been done and the optimal Strength of the blended
geopolymer i.e. shown in table 3.5 and compared in terms of compressive strength at 28
Days. Sodium hydroxide flakes and Sodium silicate solution were mixed in required
quantities so as to result in the desired Na 2O content of 2.84 % and Sufficient water was
added to give water to rice husk ash ratio in the activator solution as 0.46. As increase in the
ratio of rice husk ask, the mixing of the materials becomes hard since Rice husk Ash is
voluminous as well as the compressive strength decreases when increase in addition of rice
husk ash.

Table 3.5 Trial Test for finding optimum proportion for

GGBS and Rice husk ash

28day compressive
Sample Na2O (%) Water/Rice husk ash strength ( Mpa)
G 90%
RHA 10% 2.84 0.46 107
G 80%
RHA 20% 2.84 0.40 95
G 70%
RHA 30% 2.84 0.46 55
G 60%
RHA 40% 2.84 0.46 45
G 50%
RHA 50% 2.84 0.46 47

Fig 3.7 Specimen tested for 28 Days compressive Strength

16
3.3.7 Preparation Of Alkaline Activator Solution –

The alkali activating solution used in the manufacture of blended GGBS composite is a
mixture of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate which proves to be the best performance
in alkali activated binders. Hence, in the present investigation, a combination of sodium
hydroxide flakes and sodium silicate solution is use as the alkaline activator, sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) flakes has a chemical composition of Na 2O = 77.5% and H2O = 22.5%.
Sodium silicate soltion (Na2SiO3) has a chemical composition of Na2O = 14.15%, SiO2 =
30.65% and water (H2O) = 55.2%. The alkaline activator solution was prepared by mixing
the NaOH and water in a glass beaker depending on the desired Na 2O content of the
activator to make sodium hydroxide solution of molarity 12M. It is then mixed with the
required amount of sodium silicate solution for desired SiO 2 content. The resulting activator
solution is left in ambient temperature for one day before using in the preparation of the the
blended geopolymer mix.

3.3.8 Water –
Water available tap water in the laboratory is being used for casting all the specimens.

3.3 Manufacturing Process Of Blended Geoploymer –

The specimens were prepared by mixing Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)
with the alkali activators which was prepared beforehand. The mixture is a heterogeneous
slurry and dark grey in colour.The following steps described the manufacturing process of
GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag) AND RHA (Rice Husk Ash) with Coconut
Fiber (CF) activated using alkaline solution for the production of eco-friendly geoploymer
is presented:

1. For the preparation of activator solution, initially sodium hydroxide flakes and water
of the required quantity as per the calculation are mixed in a glass beaker. When
sodium hydroxide flakes get completely dissolved in the water, the required amount
of sodium silicate solution is added into the solution. The resulting activator solution
is lest in ambient temperature for one day before using in the preparation of specimen
mix.

17
 Fig 3.8 Dry Mix Of GGBS and RHA sample

2. Required amount of GGBS, Rice Husk Ash (RHA) and Coconut fiber(CF) are mixed
thoroughly in dry condition.

Fig 3.9 Hand Mixing Of the Dry sample

3. Then all the required materials is with the activator solution for around 10 minutes to
get the homogenous Slurry as shown in fig 3.10.

18
 Fig 3.10 Hand Mixing Of the wet sample

4. The specimen mixed is then transferred to a mould of 50X50X50 mm cubes and

50X100 mm cylinders and vibrated for 2-3 minutes on vibrating table to remove any
entrapped air as shown in fig 3.11.

Fig 3.11 Mix Filled Moulds

5. After 24 hours, the specimens are removed from the moulds for ambient temperature
for a period of 7 Days , 14 Days and 28 Days.
6. Keeping the specimens at a dry place in ambient temperature until testing.
19
 Table 3.6 Specimen Details

GGBS% RHA% CF%

90 10 0
90 10 0.1
90 10 0.2
90 10 0.3
90 10 0.4
90 10 0.5

The details of specimen are provided a table 3.6 while figure shows curing of casted
specimens in ambient temperature.

Fig 3.12 Curing Of Specimens in Ambient Temperature

3.4 Manufacturing Process Of OPC –

For comparison to the blended geopolymer the following process is followed -

20
 1. Mix the cement on a
watertight none-absorbent
platform until the mixture is
thoroughly blended and is of
uniform color.

Fig 3.13 OPC Grade 43 sample

2. mix the cement until it is

uniformly distributed
throughout the batch.
3. Add water and mix it until the
concrete appears to be
homogeneous and of
the desired consistency.

Fig 3.14 Hand Mixing Of the Specimen

4. Clean the mounds and apply oil.

5. Fill the concrete in the molds in layers approximately 5 cm thick.
6. Compact each layer with not less than 35 strokes per layer using a
tamping rod (steel bar 16mm diameter and 60cm long, bullet-pointed
at lower end).

21
 Fig 3.15 Mix Filled Mould

7. Level the top surface and smoothen it with a trowel.

8. After 24 hours, the specimens are removed from the moulds for ambient temperature
for a period of 28 Days.
9. Keeping the specimens at a dry place in ambient temperature until testing.

Fig 3.16 Curing Of Specimens in Ambient Temperature

3.5 Test conducted to be on

the blended geopolymer and
OPC specimen -
The main purpose purpose of performing
various test on the specimen is to
investigate the various engineering properties
of the specimen manufacture using
alkali activator solution. The test
follows relevant Indian standard codes of
practice. Table 3.7 shows the list of various tests to be conducted.

22
 Table 3.7 List of test to be conducted on the Blended Geopolymer

Specimen Type Size of the No. of Specimen Test

specimen (mm)
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Bulk density
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Apparent porosity
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Water absorption
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Sorptivity
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Compressive
strength
Cylinder 50 X 100 18 Split tensile
strength
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Ultrasonic pilse
velocity
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 18 Loss of mass
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 72 Residual strength

Table 3.8 List of test to be conducted for OPC Grade 43

Specimen Type Size of the No. of Specimen Test

specimen (mm)
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Bulk density
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Apparent porosity
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Water absorption
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Sorptivity
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Compressive
strength
Cylinder 50 X 100 3 Split tensile
strength
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Ultrasonic pilse
velocity
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 3 Loss of mass
Cube 50 X 50 X 50 10 Residual strength

3.6.1 Bulk Density -

Bulk density is density of the specimen is determined for 28 Days for OPC and geopolymer
specimens. Bulk density is defined as the dry weight of the specimen per unit volume of the
specimen (50mm cube). It indicates the percentage of voids present in the specimen which
effects the performance of the specimen.
Following procedure is followed during the test:-

23
i. The specimens are dried in a ventilated oven for 24hrs at a temperature of 100oc.
ii. Weight of the dried specimens are measured and recorded as Wd.
Wd
Bulk Density = Mass/Volume¿
50∗50∗50

Fig 3.17 Ventilated Oven

3.6.2 Apparent Porosity –

The Apparent Porosity is determined for 7 Days, 14 Days and 28 Days for OPC and
geopolymer specimens. Apparent porosity is the ratio of the mass bone tissue in a specimen
to the bulk volume of the specimen.
For the test, the following protocol was followed :
i. The specimens are oven dried for 24 hrs at 105˚C in a ventilated oven.
ii. The oven dried specimens are weight and recorded as “Wd”.
iii. After that, the specimens are immersed in water for 24 hrs.
iv. The specimens are then removed from the water, specimens are suspended inside
water by a fine wire and their weight is recorded as
“Wi”.
v. The specimens are then wiped dry and their weight
is calculated as “Ws” in a saturated surface dry
state.

The apparent porosity of the specimens are determined

using the relationship given below-

Ws−Wd
Apparent porosity(%) ¿ x100
Ws−Wi

24
 Fig 3.18 Data recording the immersed weight

3.6.3 Water Absorption –

Water Absorption test is done to check the durability of the blended GGBS (Ground
Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag) AND RHA (Rice Husk Ash) WITH COCONUT FIBER(CF)
composites. For the water absorption test, After measuring the weight of 7 Day old
specimens, they were oven dried at 105˚C for 24 hrs and immersed in water. After removing
the specimens from the water and wiped them clean, they were immediately weighed in a
saturated surface dry (SSD) state to see if there was an increase in the weight. Similarily for
14 Day and 28 Day specimen was also measured.
Ws−Wd
Water Absorption (%) ¿ ∗100
Wd

Where, Ws= Saturated Weight

25
Fig 3.19 Water Absorption Test

3.6.4 Destructive Test –

1. Compressive Strength

Compressive Strength is determined for OPC and geopolymer specimens was measured by
subjecting them to a compression testing machine with a capacity of 2000 KN. Three similar
specimens were examined in each example according to ASTM C -109-02, with the average
values being reported as compressive strength. Compressive Strength or compression
strength is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to reduce size.
Fig presents the compression test of a typical compressive strength testing machine.

Load (obtained)
Compressive Strength ¿
Cross−Sectional Area

26
 Fig 3.20 Compression Testing Machine

2. Split Tensile Strength –

Split Tensile Strength is determined for 28 Days for OPC and blended GGBS (Ground
Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag) AND RHA (Rice Husk Ash) WITH COCONUT FIBER(CF)
(3 Cylinders)specimens was measured by subjecting them to a compression testing machine
with a capacity of 2000 KN. Three similar specimens were examined in each example
according to ASTM C -109-02, with the average values being reported as Split Tensile
strength.
The splitting tensile Strength of the specimen is calculated as follows:

T = 2P/ALD
Where, T = Splitting tensile strength
P = Maximum applied load
L = Length
D = Diameter

Fig 3.21 Split Tensile Strength Test Mould

3.6.5 Non – Destructive Test

1. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

Ultrasonic pulse velocity test on concrete is an in-situ, non-destructive test to assess the
homogeneity and integrity of concrete. With ultrasonic pulse velocity test on concrete, the
following can be assessed:

27
  Qualitative assessment of the strength of concrete, its gradation in different location
of structural members and plotting the same.
 Any discontinuity in cross-section like cracks, cover concrete delamination etc.
 Depth of surface cracks
 To check the quality of
concrete also defects within
concrete by passing
electronic waves through
the concrete.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test
consists of measuring
travel time, T of ultrasonic
pulse of 50 to 50kHz, produced by
an electro-acoustical transducer,
held in contact with one surface of
the concrete member under test and
receiving the same by a similar transducer I contact with the surface of the other end. Higher
the elastic modulus, density and integrity of the concrete, higher is the pulse velocity. The
ultrasonic pulse velocity depends on the density and elastic properties of the materials being
tested. In general, the velocity is increased with increased moisture content, the influence
being more marked for lower quality concrete. Figure shows the various method of
propagation and receiving pulses. Ultrasonic pulse velocity Setup is shown in figure

Fig 3.22 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Setup

28
The velocity criterion for concrete quality
grading as per IS 1331 (Part1): 1992 is
reproduced in table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Velocity criterion
for concrete quality grading as
per IS 1331(Part1): 1992

SL NO. Pulse Velocity km/s Concrete Quality

Grading
1 4.5 Excellent
2 3.5 – 4.0 Good
3 3.0 – 3.5 Medium
4 3 Doubtful

3.6.6 Flow Measurement Test –

Flow measurement test were conducted in accordance with ASTM C1437 – 13 in order to
evaluate the workability of the geopolymer composites. For this measurement, the
geopolymer paste specimens were prepare by with the same mix design . After 5 minutes of
mixing, the paste was poured into the lubricated conical mould (Top Diameter = 70mm,
Bottom Diameter 100mm, Height = 50mm) in two equal layer and tamped 20 times for
compaction. After a minute, the truncated cone was lifted up and immediately the specimen
was tamped 25 times in 15 seconds. The flow (S) is the result of the increase in base diameter
of the paste (D), expressed as a percentage of the original based Bottom Diameter (Do) by the
following equation:
S = ¿) X 100

Fig 3.23 Flow Measurement Apparatus

29
3.6.7 Setting Time –

Setting Time Test is performed adjacent to air

based on ASTM C191 – 13. However, this test
had to be optimized by covering the surface of
the geoploymer samples with a thin layer of
engine oil to avoid the evaporation of water and
fast hardening of the crust adjacent to hot air.
The sample was kept in 65˚C Oven. The
penetration of Vicat needle was recorded
every 10 minutes.

1. Initial Settling Time of GGBS –

Attach the initial setting time needle in the
Vicat’s apparatus.
 Keep a corner of the non-porous plate on
the base of the equipment and allow the
needle to rest on the plate as. Record the
initial reading from the Vicat’s scale in mm.
 Bring the test block under the needle. Lower the needle gently (abutting the top use of
the rod against dash pot) until it comes in contact with the surface of the test block and
quickly release allowing it to penetrate into the test block. Record the final reading from
the Vicat’s scale in mm.
 Repeat this procedure until the difference between the initial and final reading becomes
5±0.5 mm. the elapsing time between when the water is added to the GGBS and the time
at which the above mentioned condition is obtained shall be reported as the initial setting
time.
2. Final Setting Time for GGBS -
 Replace the needle of the Vicat’s apparatus by the needle with an annular attachment.
 The cement shall be considered the finally set, when upon applying the needle gently to
the surface of the test block. The needle makes an impression there on which the annular
attachment fails to make an impression on the test block.
 The elapsing time between when water is added to the GGBS and the time at which the
needle makes an impression on the surface of the test block, while the annular
attachment fails to do so shall be reported as the final setting time.

30
 Fig 3.24 Setting Time Apparatus

3.6.8 Microstructure Properties -

1. Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-Ray

Analysis (EDAX) –

SEM provides detailed high resolution images of the sample by rastering a focussed electron
beam across the surface and detecting secondary or backscattered electron signal. An Energy
Dispersive X-Ray Analyzer (EDX or EDA) is also used to provide elemental identification
and quantitative compositional information.SEM provides images with magnifications up to
~X50,000 allowing sub micron-scale features to be seen i.e. well beyond the range of optical
microscopes. The Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-Ray
Analysis (EDAX) was done on the physics department of Manipur University, Canchipur.
The blended geopolymer samples after compression strength test on 28 Days i.e residual
fragments was used for the analysis.

31
 Fig 3.25 Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis
(EDAX) testing machine

 Rapid, high resolution imaging with identification of elements present

 Spatially resolved quantitative EDX (EDA) analysis of user defined areas on sample
surface
 Characterization of particulates and defects
 Examination of grain structure and segregation effects
 Coating thickness measurement using cross sectional imaging of polished sections.

Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) is the
best known and most widely-used of the surface analytical techniques. High resolution
images of surface topography, with excellent depth of field, are produced using a highly-
focused, scanning (primary) electron beam. The primary electrons enter a surface with an
energy of 0.5 – 30 kV and generate many low energy secondary electrons. The intensity of
these secondary electrons is largely governed by the surface topography of the sample. An
image of the sample surface can thus be constructed by measuring secondary electron
intensity as a function of the position of the scanning primary electron beam. High spatial
resolution is possible because the primary electron beam can be focused to a very small spot
(<10 nm). High sensitivity to topographic features on the outermost surface (< 5 nm) is
achieved when using a primary electron beam with an energy of < 1 kV.In addition to low
energy secondary electrons, backscattered electrons and X-rays are generated by primary
electron bombardment. The intensity of backscattered electrons can be correlated to the
atomic number of the element within the sampling volume. Hence, some qualitative
elemental information can be obtained. The analysis of characteristic X-rays (EDX or EDS
analysis) emitted from the sample gives more quantitative elemental information. Such X-ray
analysis can be confined to analytical volumes as small as 1 cubic micron. SEM,
accompanied by X-ray analysis, is considered a relatively rapid, inexpensive, and basically
non-destructive approach to surface analysis. It is often used to survey surface analytical
problems before proceeding to techniques that are more surface-sensitive and specialized.

2. X- Ray Diffraction(XRD) –

X-ray diffraction (XRD) is one of the most important non-destructive instruments used to
analyze all kinds of matter ranging from fluids, to powders and crystals. Crystals are regular
arrays of atoms, and X-rays can be considered waves of electromagnetic radiation. Atoms
scatter X-ray waves, primarily via the atoms’ electrons . X-ray radiation demonstrates a
wavelength that is of the order of the usual interatomic spacing that exists in crystalline
solids, and thus is used to determine the crystal domain size and the structure of nano
materials. XRD is a unique method for the determination of the crystallinity of different
compounds. From research to fabrication and engineering, XRD is an indispensable
technique for material characterization and quality control. XRD is used for:

32
 Identification of crystalline material (utilized for regulatory purposes or during
development).
 Identification of various polymorphic forms (fingerprints).
 Distinguishing between amorphous and crystalline material.
 Quantification of the percentage crystallinity of samples.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) test was done on the physics department of Manipur University,
Canchipur. The blended geopolymer samples after compression strength test on 28 Days i.e
residual fragments was used for the analysis, the residual fragments were grind into powder
form and stored in plastic tight wrappers and send to the physics department for futher
testing.

Fig 3.26 X- Ray Diffraction(XRD)

Testing Machine

(wavelength λ ∼
In XRD, collimated X-ray
0.5–2Å) radiation is
allowed to fall on a sample in powder
form and is diffracted by the
crystalline phases in the sample.
Bragg's law (λ = 2d sin θ,
where d is the spacing between
atomic planes in the crystalline phase)
helps to understand the crystalline phases present in the sample. The intensity of the
diffracted X-rays is measured as a function of the diffraction angle 2θ and the specimen's
orientation. The obtained pattern from XRD helps to identify the various crystalline phases
and to study their internal structural properties thoroughly. An XRD pattern reveals
information about the various phases present in the crystalline composition under study and
also gives information about particle/crystal size, crystallinity of the sample, solid solution,
stress, and texture . XRD also helps to determine concentration profiles, film thicknesses,
defects, and atomic arrangements in amorphous as well as crystalline materials .
33
3.6.9 Durability Test –
The response of blended geopolymer in sulphuric acid environment was studied by
immersing the specimens in 10 % solution of sulphuric acid for a period of 12 weeks[14]. At
an age of 28 days, 90 blended geopolymer cubes from each mix were immersed in 10%
sulphuric acid solution. Three cubes were weighed for mass change for each percentage of
fiber i.e 18 cubes and they were used for long-term visual observation, 72 cubes of different
percentage of coconut fibers were crushed for residual compressive strength after being
immersed in acid for 1,7,15,30, 60 and 90 days.

Fig 3.27 Preparation

of Suphuric Acid Solution

The acid concentration

was monitored and Stirred weekly. The volume of acid solution was kept as four times the
volume of specimens immersed and stirred every week. Before the sulfuric acid resistance
test, all the blended geopolymer specimens were polished manually on surface using
sandpaper to clean up the grease. Then, geopolymer were kept on the top and bottom face to
ensure that only their side faces were exposed to the acid solution[13]. To simulate the actual
working environment, all the specimens were immersed in the sulfuric acid solution with pH
= 1 .The whole cycle lasted for 90 days.

34
 Fig 3.28 Fig Blended Geopolymer and OPC grade 43 are Immersed in the
Sulphuric Acid Solution

1.Visual Appearance –
The visual appearance of the blended geopolymer specimens when immersed in 10% sulphuric
acid solution is captured in images at different time periods of 1,7,15,30 and 60 days .

Fig 3.29 blended geopolymer and OPC specimens when immersed in 10% Sulphuric acid
solution

35
2. Evolution of mass of the blended geopolymer and OPC

The Loss of mass of blended geopolymer specimens in different soaking periods in 10

sulphuric acid solution was calculated by the formula:

W = ¿) X 100%

Where, W = loss of mass rate

mo = Mass before the immersion in the sulphuric acid
m1 = Mass after the immersion in the sulphuric acid

The time points of measurement 1, 7, 15, 30 and 60 Days.

Fig 3.30 Loss of mass test

3. Evolution of Compression Strength Test of the blended geopolymer

and OPC –
At the time periods of 1,7,15,30 and 60 days , the cubes of each blended geopolymer was
tested in an compression testing machine to check whether there is an increase in strength or
decrease in strength after immersed in the 10$ sulphuric solution.

36
 Fig 3.31 Residual Compression Strength Test of the specimens

4. Crack Scope –

The purpose crackscope CS-100 can be used for accurate measurement of the width of
surface opening cracks as well as measurement of the depth of surface holes or irregularities.
The crackscope was used for the blended geopolymer specimens when immersed in 10%
sulphuric acid solution is captured in images at different time periods of 1and 60 days

Principle –
The crackscope is a small size, lightweight and conveniently portable microscope with a 25X
magnification. It has a built-in scale for crack width measurement and another scale on the
focusing adjustment ring for depth indication.

Resolution –
The magnification of the CrackScope is 25 times. The built-in 3-mm scale has a least division
of 0.05 mm, allowing the width of cracks to be estimated within ±0.025 mm. Depth
measurement is achieved by focusing at the bottom of a depression and then focusing at the
perimeter of the depression. By reading the scale engraved on the focusing ring and the
needle of the lens barrel, depths can be measured with an accuracy of ±0.05 mm.

Fig 3.32 Crackscope

37
 Chapter 4
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the result obtained from the experimental test are presented and discussed in
detail. In addition, effects of some properties on the addition different percentages of fibers
on the specimens are studied.

4.2 Test Results -

4.2.1 Bulk Density
The Bulk density of the specimens are presented in figure 4.1 of the bulk density . The bulk
density decreases with increase in the addition of coconut fibers % in the blended
geopolymer. The blended geopolymer without the addition of coconut fibers % (GR CF 0%)
i.e. has a bulk density of 16.86 KN/m3 while OPC Grade 43 has a bulk density of 17.22
KN/m3. The highest bulk density is obtained at blended geopolymer with the addition of
0.2% coconut fibers (GR CF 0.2%) i.e. 18.05 KN/m3. The bulk density could also affect the
other properties such as water absorption, porosity and compressive strength.

28 Days
20

17.68 18.05
18 17.22 17.16 17.26 17.4
16.86
16
Bulk Density ( KN/m3)

14

12

10

0
OPC GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%

Fig 4.1 Graphical Representation of Bulk Density

4.2.2 Apparent Porosity

The apparent porosity of the specimens are presented in the in the figure 4. From the results
obtained OPC grade 43 has the apparent porosity of 32.25 while compared to the c blended
geopolymer without the addition of coconut fibers % (GR CF 0%) has apparent porosity of

38
19.28 and among the blended geopolymer GR CF 0.2% has the maximum apparent porosity
of 21.53. All the blended geopolymer specimens shows lower apparent porosity when
compared to OPC grade 43, which might render better properties and influence all the other
properties such as water absorption, bulk density and compressive strength. Lower in the
apparent porosity results in higher compressive strength.

28 Days
35
32.25

30

25
Apparent Porosity %

21.53
20 19.28 18.81 19.38
17.83 17.42

15

10

0
OPC GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%

Fig 4.2 Graphical Representation of Apparent porosity

4.2.3 Water Absorption

The water absorption of the specimen are presented in the figure 4.3. From the reults obtained
below OPC grade 43 has the maximum water absorption of 19.48 while compared to the
blended geopolymer without the addition of coconut fibers % (GR CF 0%) has water
absorption of 11.45 and among the blended geopolymer GR CF 0.2% has the maximum
water absorption of 12.72. Higher the water absorption specimen are more porous in nature
and rough surface. Specimens with lower water absorption results in lower mechanical
strength due to compact nature of its microstructure.

39
 28 Days

20 19.48

Water Absorption %
15
12.72
11.94 12.04
11.45
10.65 10.95
10

0
OPC GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%

Fig 4.3
Graphical Representation Water Absorption

4.2.4 Destructive Test –

1. Compressive Strength

The compressive strength of the specimens are presented in figure 4.4. The Compressive
strength without the addition of coconut fibers (GR CF 0%) has a Strength of 39 N/mm2
while OPC Grade 43 has a Strength of 38 N/mm2. The maximum compressive strength at 28
Days among the specimens is obtained at GR CF 0.2% with a value of 54 N/mm 2.All
blended geopolymer specimens shows a very good compressive strength when compared to
OPC, which shows blended geopolymer with the addition of coconut fibers % is a
promising as a sustainable material. The compressive strength is noticed to be related to
their respective bulk densities. Specimens with higher bulk density generally exhibits higher
compressive strength.

Fig 4.4

Compression Testing of Blended geopolymer specimen

40
 7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
60
54 53
50

Compressive Strength Test (N/mm2)

48
44 44 44 44 44
42
40 39 39
37 38 36 36
38 38
34 34 35

30

20
17.3

10

0
OPC GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%

Fig 4.5 Graphical Representation of Compressive Strength

2. Split Tensile Strength

The cylindrical specimens of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm length was tested to determine the
split tensile strength of the OPC Grade 43 and blended geopolymers with or without the
addition of coconut fibers % and the results obtained are shown in figure 4.6. The Split
tensile strength without the addition of coconut fibers (GR CF 0%) has a Strength of 4.2
N/mm2 while OPC Grade 43 has a Strength of 3.8 N/mm2. The maximum Split tensile
strength at 28 Days among the specimens is obtained at GR CF 0.2% yields the highest split
tensile strength of 5.5 N/mm2 among the other blended geopolymer with or without the
addition of coconut fibers% specimens. It can be also observed that specimen GR CF 0.2%
perform the best in terms of split tensile strength among the blended geopolymer specimens.

28Days
6
5.5
Split Tensile Strength Test (N/mm2)

5 4.8 4.8
4.4
4.2
4
4

3.16
3

0
OPC GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%

Fig4.6 Graphical Representation of Split tensile strength

41
42
 4.2.5
Non-

Destructive Test –

1. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

Fig 4.7 Split Tensile of blended geopolymer Specimen

43
The ultrasonic pulse velocity test of the specimens were performed and the results obtained
are shown in Table 4.6 which shows the quality grading of the blended geopolymer. The
OPC Grade 43 shows medium quality while all the blended geopolymers Specimen with or
without the addition of coconut fibers shows good quality. The maximum pulse velocity is
found at the addition of 0.2% coconut fiber (GR CF 0.2%) specimen. Even after addition of
0.5 % coconut fiber (GR CF 0.5%), the quality of the specimen remained good.

Table 4.6 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

Velocity Quality
Specimen ( 28 Days) Distance Travelled (mm) (mm) Grading
OPC 50 3.15 Medium
GR CF 0%
50 3.55 Good
GR CF 0.1%
50 3.54 Good
GR CF 0.2%
50 3.73 Good
GR CF 0.3%
50 3.63 Good
GR CF 0.4%
50 3.65 Good
GR CF 0.5% 50 3.66 Good

Fig 4.8 UPV testing of blended geopolymer Specimen

4.2.5 Flow Measurement Test –

44
The workability of blended geopolymer was performed using flow table test according to
ASTM C1437 ranging from 105 – 115%. The flow diameter of mini slump is defined as the
diameter of blended geopolymer that measured after spreading. The flow diameter was
measured immediately after completing mixing of the blended geopolymer.This test was
designed to study the effect of the properties on workability of blended geopolymer mixFlow
is a combination of several proportion including plasticity, consistency and cohesion. Plasticity
and cohesions are difficult to measure in site. However, consistency is frequently used as the
measure of the workability.

Fig 4.9 Flow Measurement Test

45
 Flow %

120 117.5

107.5 107.5
102.5
100
100
90.5

Flow % 80

60 57.5

40

20

0
OPC GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%

Fig 4.10
Graphical Representation of Flow

Fresh density of blended geopolymer was conducted directly after mixing. The measured
density was for the all mixtures. All the flows were achieved within the prescribed limits
except OPC Grade 43 paste shows very stiff worakability while the blended geopolymers
with or without the addition of coconut fibers shows high workability.

4.2.6 Setting Time –

5Fig. 1 shows the

setting time
measurement of
geopolymer pastes at
various curing
6temperature. The
measurement results
clearly show that the
46
 setting time is
influenced significantly
7by the curing
temperature. In other
words, the curing
temperature is
important in the
setting and
8hardening of the
geopolymer pastes [7,
16]. At room
temperature, the
geopolymer pastes set
very
9slowly. The
geopolymer pastes
47
 reached its initial and
final setting at 923
minutes and 1200
minutes,
10 respectively. As the
curing temperature
increased, both initial
and final setting times
decreased [17].
11 This was probably
due to the
acceleration of the
geopolymerization
reaction in presence
of heat.

48
12 However, the
geopolymer pastes,
generally, can be
handled up to 78
minutes in the
temperature
13 ranging from 40°C
to 100°C. The initial
setting times of the
cured geopolymer
pastes at 40°C,
14 60°C, 80°C and
100°C were 637
minutes, 337 minutes,
165 minutes and 79
minutes, respectively.
49
15 At 795 minutes, the
geopolymer pastes
cured at 40°C
hardened. On the other
hand, the geopolymer
16 pastes set at 420
minutes at 60°C and at
165 minutes at 80°C.
At curing temperature
of 100°C, the
17 geopolymer pastes
set very fast where the
paste hardened in 120
minutes
18 Fig. 1 shows the
setting time
50
 measurement of
geopolymer pastes at
various curing
19 temperature. The
measurement results
clearly show that the
setting time is
influenced significantly
20 by the curing
temperature. In other
words, the curing
temperature is
important in the
setting and
21 hardening of the
geopolymer pastes [7,
51
 16]. At room
temperature, the
geopolymer pastes set
very
22 slowly. The
geopolymer pastes
reached its initial and
final setting at 923
minutes and 1200
minutes,
23 respectively. As the
curing temperature
increased, both initial
and final setting times
decreased [17].

52
24 This was probably
due to the
acceleration of the
geopolymerization
reaction in presence
of heat.
25 However, the
geopolymer pastes,
generally, can be
handled up to 78
minutes in the
temperature
26 ranging from 40°C
to 100°C. The initial
setting times of the

53
 cured geopolymer
pastes at 40°C,
27 60°C, 80°C and
100°C were 637
minutes, 337 minutes,
165 minutes and 79
minutes, respectively.
28 At 795 minutes, the
geopolymer pastes
cured at 40°C
hardened. On the other
hand, the geopolymer
29 pastes set at 420
minutes at 60°C and at
165 minutes at 80°C.

54
 At curing temperature
of 100°C, the
30 geopolymer pastes
set very fast where the
paste hardened in 120
minutes
31 Fig. 1 shows the
setting time
measurement of
geopolymer pastes at
various curing
32 temperature. The
measurement results
clearly show that the
setting time is
influenced significantly
55
33 by the curing
temperature. In other
words, the curing
temperature is
important in the
setting and
34 hardening of the
geopolymer pastes [7,
16]. At room
temperature, the
geopolymer pastes set
very
35 slowly. The
geopolymer pastes
reached its initial and
final setting at 923
56
 minutes and 1200
minutes,
36 respectively. As the
curing temperature
increased, both initial
and final setting times
decreased [17].
37 This was probably
due to the
acceleration of the
geopolymerization
reaction in presence
of heat.
38 However, the
geopolymer pastes,
generally, can be
57
 handled up to 78
minutes in the
temperature
39 ranging from 40°C
to 100°C. The initial
setting times of the
cured geopolymer
pastes at 40°C,
40 60°C, 80°C and
100°C were 637
minutes, 337 minutes,
165 minutes and 79
minutes, respectively.
41 At 795 minutes, the
geopolymer pastes
cured at 40°C
58
 hardened. On the other
hand, the geopolymer
42 pastes set at 420
minutes at 60°C and at
165 minutes at 80°C.
At curing temperature
of 100°C, the
43 geopolymer pastes
set very fast where the
paste hardened in 120
minutes
The Setting time of the blended geopolymer is tested at room temperature using vicat’s
apparatus and are presented in the figure 4.12. Setting time of the blended geopolymer helps
to understand the time required for transport, placing and compacting the blended

geopolymer. Initial setting time and the final setting time helps to understand the

workable time of the blended geopolymer.

59
 Initial Setting Time
Final Setting Time

200 195

171
162

Setting Time (minutes)

150

112
100 92
77
63 61
53
50 47 46
41

Fig 4.11
Initial 0
and
Final GR CF 0 GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
Setting 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Time Test

44

shows the setting time measurement of geopolymer pastes at various curing

45 temperature.
46 he setting time measurement of geopolymer pastes at various curing
60
 47

temperature.

Fig 4.12 Graphical Representation of Initial and final setting time

From the above figure 4.12, the initial setting time without the addition of coconut fibers
(GR CF 0%) has a initial setting time of 63 minutes while OPC Grade 43 has a initial setting
time of 30 minutes.The minimum initial setting time is obtained at blended geopolymer with
the addition of 0.2% coconut fibers (GR CF 0.5%) i.e. 41 minutes.Similarly, The final setting
time without the addition of coconut fibers (GR CF 0%) has a initial setting time of 195
minutes while OPC Grade 43 has a initial setting time of 300 minutes.The minimum final
setting time is obtained at blended geopolymer with the addition of 0.2% coconut fibers (GR
CF 0.2%) i.e. 92 minutes. The initial setting and final setting time with addition of coconut
fibers when compared to without the addition of coconut fibers (GR CF 0%) and OPC Grade
43 decreases with increase in the addition of coconut fibers % in the blended geopolymer.

4.2.8 Microstructure Properties –

1. Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM) and Energy Dispersive X –Ray
Analysis(EDAX)
The Properties such as water absorption and porosity depend on the microstructure. SEM
images and EDAX graph for Blended Geopolymer specimens are shown below. In the EDX
measurement, focused was made on different areas and the corresponding peaks are shown in
Figure . It was taken to detect the chemical composition of the materials used in the
experimental study.

(a) (b)

61
 Fig

4.13 (a) SEM image obtained with GR

CF 0% at the magnification of 160×;
(b) EDAX graph obtained with GR CF 0%

The above fig 4.2.13 (a) shows a dense micrograph with small amount of pore spaces, voids,
and cracks of the blender geopolymer.These cracks can either be caused by shrinkage due to
induced by the compression loading. The voids can be due to the air bubbles that may have
intruded during the time of initial mixing or they can also be the previous water-filled pores
which then left as voids after evaporation caused by temperature curing. However, in any of
the cases, the presence of cracks and voids decrements the strength characteristics of the
blended geopolmer.

(a)
(b)

Fig
4.14 (a) SEM image obtained with GR
CF 0.1% at the magnification of 160×;(b) EDAX graph obtained with GR CF 0.1%

(a) (b)
62
Fig 4.15 (a) SEM image obtained with
GR CF 0.2% at the magnification of
160×;(b) EDAX graph obtained with GR CF 0.2%

(a) (b)

Fig 4.16 (a) SEM image obtained with

GR CF 0.3% at the magnification of 160×;(b) EDAX graph obtained with GR CF 0.3%

63
 (a) (b)

Fig 4.17 (a) SEM image obtained with GR CF 0.4% at the magnification of 200×;(b)
EDAX graph obtained with GR CF 0.4% and EDAX result.

(a) (b)

Fig 4.18 (a) SEM image obtained with GR CF 0.5% at the magnification of 200×;(b)
EDAX graph obtained with GR CF 0.5%

From the above SEM images, a large number of flocculent and small particles of gelatinous
substances can be seen, and oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and calcium are also used as the main
elements in the EDAX. The details of the Six EDAX spectra values measured weight percent
for GGBS and Rice husk ash with different

% of coconut fibers are listed in the tables

4.7 given below :

Table 4.7 Chemical Composition of the blended geopolymer

GR CF
GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF GR CF
Elemen 0.2%
0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%
t Weight
Weight Weight% Weight% Weight% Weight%
%
C 6.92 5.25 9.84 0 9.81 7.65
O 31.1 32.92 31.82 33.21 3040 31.93
Na 11.72 11.9 13.73 12.19 11.99 12.43
Mg 2.5 2.93 2.57 3.32 2.6 3.22
Al 7.3 6.39 6.64 7.46 6.34 6.77

64
 Si 20.77 20.36 16.44 23.09 19.28 20.78
P 0.99 1.54 0.61 1.01 0.55 0.53
Si 0.5 0.29 0.36 0 0.17 27
K 1.02 0.81 0.63 0.48 0.69 0.6
Ca 14.62 14.89 14.79 17.3 14.49 13.84
Ti 0.45 0.79 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.28
Mn 0.9 0.72 0.65 0.36 0.95 0.68
Fe 0.58 0.61 0.52 0.36 0.62 0.4
Co 0.25 0.4 0.52 0 0.54 0.43
Cu 0.4 0.2 0.45 0 0.46 0.2
V 0 0 0 0.63 0 0

From the above SEM image, a large number of flocculent and small particles of gelatinous
substances can be seen, and oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and calcium are also used as the main
elements in the EDAX .The EDAX analysis depicted sodium, aluminium, silica, and calcium
as major elements which confirmed the presence of NASH (sodium alumino-sulphate) and
CSH (calcium silica hydrate) in the blended geoplymer. This coexistence of NASH with CSH
and CASH regulates the strength and permeability properties[10]. The microstructure is more
compact and dense due to the coexistence of calcium hydration products such as CASH, CSH
(caused by the reaction of calcium with the additional silica obtained from RHA) with the
polymerization product NASH[11].

65
 GR CF 0.5%
GR CF 0.4%
Q GR CF 0.3%
GR CF 0.2%
CASH GR CF 0.1%
GR CF 0%
G
Q
CASH
G
Q
CASH
2. X- G Ray
Q
CASH
G
Q
CASH
G
Q CASH
G

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2 theta(degrees)

Diffraction(XRD) –

Fig 4.19 X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns for all the blended geopolymer specimens
after 28 Days ambient curing

X-ray diffraction (XRD) test was performed on the blended geopolymers with or without the
addition of coconut fibers. All the minerals obtained from the X-ray diffraction (XRD) on the
blended geopolymers specimens such as Silicon oxide, calcium Aluminium silicate, calcium
aluminate, calcium silicate, aluminium silicate, aluminium iron, aluminium oxide, iron and
aluminium silicate are all hard minerals which results in the development of strength after 28
Days. The raw materials are blended well in which geopolmerization reaction takes place that
is why all the above minerals are obtained, C-A-S-H gel is also formed due to
geopolmerization reaction which is also shown in the SEM results obtained. The unreactive

66
particles are very little as compared to the base material i.e. the blended geopolymer which is
shown in X-ray diffraction (XRD) result as well as found in SEM results obtained.

Table 4.8 Minerals formed in the XRD Test

Sl.No Mineral Name Compound Chemical Peak Position

Name Formula
1. Partheite Calcium Ca3 Al2(SiO4)3 33.80˚
Aluminium
Silicate
2. Krotite Calcium CaAl2O4 30.01˚
Aluminate
3. Quartz Silicon Oxide SiO2 29.72˚
4. Gibbsite Aluminium Al2O3 66.763˚
Oxide
5. Allophane Aluminium Al2O3.2SiO23H20 26.99˚
Silicate Hydrate

67
4.2.9 Durability Test –

1.Visual Appearance –
The visual appearance variation of Blended Geopolymer specimens and OPC Grade 43
specimens when Exposed in 10% sulfuric acid solution were captured in images for 1 day, 7
days, 15 days ,30 days, 60 days and 90 days. The surfaces of all specimens were smooth and
flat before the specimens were exposed in the acid solutions. After weeks of exposure in the
10% sulphuric acid solution the corner parts of of blended geopolymer specimen with
addition of coconut fibers becomes detoriated over time while OPC Grade 43 specimens the
size changes from 7 days i.e the original = 5 X 5 cm, after immersed in 10% acid solution
size = 3.5X3.5. At age of 60 days the OPC Grade 43 specimen were completely dissolved in
the acid solution and also the blended geopolymer specimens without the addition of coconut
fibers losses its original size when compared to other blended geopolymer
specimens .Therefore, this shows blended geopolymer specimens with addition of coconut
fibers with different percentage shows longer durability when compared to OPC Grade 43
specimen and also the blended geopolymer specimens without the addition of coconut fibers.

1. OPC Grade 43 -

1 Days
7 Days 15 Days

30 Days 60Days

68
2. GR CF 0% -

Days 7 Days 15 Days

30 Days 60 Days 90 Days

3. GR CF 0.1% -

1 Days 7 Days 15 Days

69
 30 Days 60 Days
90 Days

4. GR CF 0.2% -

1 Days 7 Days 15 Days

30 Days 60 Days 90 Days

5. GR CF 0.3% -

70
1 Days 7 Days 15 Days

30 Days 60 Days 90 Days

6.

GR CF 0.4% -

1 Days 7 Days 15 Days

30 Days 60 Days 90 Days

7. GR CF 0.5% -
71
 1 Days 7 Days 15 Days

30 Days 60 Days 90 Days

2. Change of mass of the blended geopolymer and OPC

The
blended
OPC
GR CF 0%
GR CF 0.1%
GR CF 0.2%
0 GR CF 0.3%
GR CF 0.4%
GR CF 0.5%

-20
Change of Mass (%)

-40

-60

-80

-100

0 20 40 60 80 100
Days

geopolymer cubes of 50X50X50 mm were cast

and tested for acid resistance after 28 days. On the day of the testing, the specimens of 3
cubes of each series were taken out, cleaned and measured the initial weight before immersed
in water for 3 days. After 3 days the cubes are removed from the water and weight of each
blended geopolymer specimen was taken.Then, the specimen were exposed in 10% sulphuric
acid for further testing. Fig 4.20 shows the evolution of mass rate of all blended geopolymer
when exposed to the sulfuric acid solution for 1,7, 15, 30, 60 and 90 Days with OPC and fig
72
4.21 shows the evolution of mass rate of all blended geopolymer when exposed to the sulfuric
acid solution for 1,7, 15, 30, 60 and 90 Days without OPC.

Fig 4.20 Graphical representation of Change of mass with OPC when exposed in
10%Sulfuric Acid Solution

73
 GR CF 0%
GR CF 0.1%
7 GR CF 0.2%
GR CF 0.3%
GR CF 0.4% Fig
6 GR CF 0.5%

5
Change of Mass %

-1
0 20 40 60 80 100
A (Days)

4.21 Graphical representation of Change of mass without OPC when exposed in

10%Sulfuric Acid Solution

OPC Grade 43 undergoes loss of mass upto 100% after 60 Days i.e 8 Weeks whereas the
blended geopolymer specimens undergoes gain in mass as the period of exposure becomes
longer from 0 to 90 Days as shown in fig. GR CF 0% shows the maximum gain in mass upto
3.73% on the 90th day. The gain in mass of the blended geopolymer Specimen maybe
deposition of gypsum and formation of polymerization products when geopolymer specimen
specimen reacts with sulphuric acid. In highly acidic environment, gypsum played the role of
protective layer preventing further deterioration.

3. Residual compressive Strength of the blended geopolymer and

OPC –
The fig 4.22 shows the graphical representation of the OPC and blended geopolymer
specimens with or without the addition of coconut fibers% which reveals the residual of
compressive strength for blended geopolymer after exposure to the 10% sulfuric acid
solution. Initially, the compressive strengths of 28 Days before immersion in 10% sulphuric
acid solution of blended geopolymer will be greater. It is attributed to the fact that the
formation of geopolymeric gel depends on the concentration of alkali OH ion, but low NaOH
concentration weakens the chemical reaction and reduces the compressive strength of
blended Geopolymer Fig 4.22 shows the residual compressive of strength of all blended
geopolymer when exposed to the sulfuric acid solution for 1,7, 15, 30 ,60 and 90 Days.

74
 60
OPC
GR CF 0%
40 GR CF 0.1 %

Residual compressive Strength (%)

GR CF 0.2 %
GR CF 0.3 %
GR CF 0.4%
20 GR CF 0.5%

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

0 20 40 60 80 100
Days

Fig 4.22 Graphical representation of residual compressive Strength of the blended

geopolymer with OPC

GR CF 0 %
50
B (Residual compressive strength (%))

GR CF 0.1 %
GR CF 0.2 %
GR CF 0.3 %
GR CF 0.4 %
GR CF 0.5 %
40

30

20

10

0 20 40 60 80 100
Days

Fig 4.23 Graphical representation of residual compressive Strength of the blended

geopolymer without OPC

75
The immersion in the acid medium results in the strength reduction for all the OPC and
blended geopolymer specimens with or without the addition of coconut fibers%. It was
observed that as the coconut fibre content increases, the loss in compressive strength reduces
significantly. After immersed in 10% sulphuric acid solution i.e. 60 Days(20 weeks) the
evolution of Compressive strength without the addition of coconut fibers (GR CF 0%) has a
Strength of 32 N/mm2 while OPC Grade 43 has a Strength of 0 N/mm2. The maximum
compressive strength after immersed in 10% sulphuric acid solution among the specimens is
obtained at GR CF 0.2% with a value of 48 N/mm 2. When compared to before immersed in
10% sulphuric acid solution at 28 Days compressive strength without the addition of
coconut fibers (GR CF 0%) has a Strength of 39 N/mm2 while OPC Grade 43 has a Strength
of 39 N/mm2 and with the addition of coconut fibers (GR CF 0.2%) has a Strength of 54
N/mm2 decreases after immersed in the 10% sulphuric acid solution.All blended geopolymer
specimens with or without the addition of coconut fibers% still shows a very good
compressive strength when compared to OPC, which shows blended geopolymer with the
addition of coconut fibers % is a promising as a sustainable material , high compressive
strength and more durable even after addition in 10% sulphuric acid solution.

Fig 4.24 Compression Testing of Blended geopolymer when exposed in 10% sulphuric
acid solution

76
4. Crack Scope –
After exposure in 10% sulphuric solution, the blended geopolymer specimens showed no
signs of disintegration. Within few weeks of exposure, OPC and blended geopolymer
specimens without addition of coconut fibers show signs of crack surface.When observed
through the microscope, GR CF 0% which started showing crack surface from 30 Days i.e,
after 4 weeks of exposure in 10% sulphuric acid , the crack is of size 0.1 mm (10 DIV = 0.2
mm) while the other the blended geopolymers with the addition of different percentages of
coconut fibers shows no sign of crack surfaces.

(a) (b)

Fig 4.25 Crackscope images of the OPC Grade 43 specimens (a) 0 Days (Before
Exposure) (b) 30 Days (After Exposure)

(a) (b)

77
 (c) (d)

Fig 4.26 Crackscope images of the blended geopolymer (a) GR CF 0% (Before

Exposure) (b) 30 Days GR CF 0% (After Exposure) (c) 60 Days GR CF 0% (After
Exposure) (d) 90 Days GR CF 0% (After Exposure)

78
 (a)
(b)

(c) (d)

Fig 4.27 Crackscope images of the blended geopolymer (a) GR CF 0.1% (Before
Exposure) (b) 30 Days GR CF 0.1% (After Exposure) (c) 60 Days GR CF 0.1% (After
Exposure) (d) 90 Days GR CF 0.1% (After Exposure)

(a) (b)

79
 (c) (d)

Fig 4.28 Crackscope images of the blended geopolymer (a) GR CF 0.2% (Before
Exposure) (b) 30 Days GR CF 0.2% (After Exposure) (c) 60 Days GR CF 0.2% (After
Exposure) (d) 90 Days GR CF 0.2% (After Exposure)

(a) (b)

80
 (c)
(d)

Fig 4.29 Crackscope images of the blended geopolymer (a) GR CF 0.3% (Before
Exposure) (b) 30 Days GR CF 0.3% (After Exposure) (c) 60 Days GR CF 0.3% (After
Exposure) (d) 90 Days GR CF 0.3% (After Exposure)

(a) (b)

81
 (c) (d)

Fig 4.30 Crackscope images of the blended geopolymer (a) GR CF 0.4% (Before
Exposure) (b) 30 Days GR CF 0.4% (After Exposure) (c) 60 Days GR CF 0.4% (After
Exposure) (d) 90 Days GR CF 0.4% (After Exposure)

(a)
(b)

82
 (c) (d)

Fig 4.31 Crackscope images of the blended geopolymer (a) GR CF 0.5% (Before
Exposure) (b) 30 Days GR CF 0.5% (After Exposure) (c) 60 Days GR CF 0.5% (After
Exposure) (d) 90 Days GR CF 0.5% (After Exposure)

83
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Based on results obtained, following conclusions are drawn:

1. The highest bulk density is obtained at blended geopolymer with the addition of 0.2%
coconut fibers (GR CF 0.2%) i.e. 18.05 KN/m3 as well as in apparent porosity of 21.53 and
water absorption of 12.72 when compared to without addition of coconut fibers GR CF 0%
and OPC Grade 43 specimens.

2. The maximum compressive strength of 54 N/mm 2 was achieved with GR CF 0.2% at 28

days and also the maximum split tensile strength was achieved with GR CF 0.2% at 28 days
with the strength of 5.5 N/mm2 when compared to without addition of coconut fibers GR CF
05 and OPC Grade 43 specimens. which shows blended geopolymer with the addition of
coconut fibers % is a promising as a sustainable material.

3. The UPV results of OPC Grade 43 is found to be of medium quality and all the blended
geopolymer specimens with or without the addition of coconut fibers shows Good quality.

4.From the flow measurement test results obtained, all the blended geopolymer specimens
with or without the addition of coconut fibers has high workability as compared to OPC
grade 43.

5. The microstructural properties shows the coconut fiber distribution is regular which
reduces the cracks when compared tp GR CF 0% and the coexistence of C-A-S-H, C-S-H
and N-A-S-H. and from the XRD results obtained the minerals found like Quartz etc are of
hard minerals.The raw materials are blended well in which geopolmerization reaction takes
place that is why all the above minerals are obtained, C-A-S-H gel is also formed due to
geopolmerization reaction which is also shown in the SEM results obtained

6. In the durability test, after 60 Days (20 weeks) immersion in 10% sulphuric acid the OPC
Grade 43 loses its original before 30Days and all the edges of the blended geopolymer
becomes deteriorated when the duration period is longer. The gain in mass of the blended
geopolymer Specimen maybe due to deposition of gypsum and formation of polymerization
products when geopolymer specimen reacts with sulphuric acid. The Result obtained crack
on the crackscope of the blended geopolymer GR CF 0% i.e, GBBS 90% RHA10% without
the addition of coconut fiber, the crack is of size 0.1 mm (10 DIV = 0.2 mm) while the other
figure shows no sign of crack surface of the blended geopolymers without the addition of
different percentages of coconut fibers.

The results obtained in the present study will likely be of much significance for developing
eco-friendly geopolymer using GGBS (ground granulated blast-furnace slag) and RHA (rice
husk ash) with coconut fiber in future studies. This study opens the scope of evaluating
strength as durability properties .

84
Reference -
1. Ankur Mehta , Rafat Siddique,” Sustainable geopolymer concrete using ground
granulated blast furnace slag and rice husk ash: strength and permeability properties”.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2018 Vol.205 pp.49-57 ref.27
2. Prasanna Venkatesan Ramani, “Geopolymer concrete with ground granulated blast
furnace slag and black rice husk ash”. Građevinar 8/2015.
3. B.Prabu, A. Shalini and J. S. Kishore Kumar, “Rice Husk Ash Based Geopolymer
Concrete – A Review”. Chemical Science Review and Letters ISSN 2278-6783 2014.
4. Saraswati Verma , Mayank Kumar,” Behaviour of Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash Based
Geopolymer Concrete”. Key Engineering Materials Submitted: 2018-04-19 ISSN: 1662-
9795, Vol. 775, pp 596-602
5. R. Ramya Swetha , Dr. G. Venkata Ramana , K. Anusha Hadassa, “Experimental study
on concrete with rice husk ash under sulphuric ACID solutions”. International Journal of
Engineering & Technology, 7 (4.5) (2018) 522-525.
6. Mahapara Abbass, Digvijay Singh, Gyanendra Singh,”Properties of hybrid geopolymer
concrete prepared using rice husk ash, fly ash and GGBS with coconut fiber”
7. Anthony Nkem Ede and Joshua Olaoluwa Agbede,” Use of Coconut Husk Fiber for
Improved Compressive and Flexural Strength of Concrete”. International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 2, February-2015 968 ISSN 2229-
5518
8. Ali Majid, Anthony Liu, HouSou, Nawawi Chouw, “Mechanical and Dynamic Properties
Of Coconut Fibre Reinforced Concrete.” Construction and building Materials. Reed
Business Information, Inc (US). 2012. High Beam Research. 5sep. 2013.
9. Kshitija nadgouda (2015) “ Coconut fibre reinforcement concrete”. International Journal
of Mechanical And Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092,Volume- 3, Issue-1(Jan.-
2015).
10. Shalini Annadurai, Kumutha Rathinam and Vijai Kanagarajan, “Development of eco-
friendly concrete produced with Rice Husk Ash (RHA) based geopolymer”. Advances in
Concrete Construction, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2020) 139-147.
11. Apriany Saludung, Yuko Ogawa , and Kenji Kawai1, “Microstructure and mechanical
properties of FA/GGBS-based geopolymer”. MATEC Web of Conferences 195, 01013
(2018).
12. Nongthombam Shyamananda Singh, Suresh Thokchom and Rama Debbarma,
“Characteristics of rice husk ash–sodium aluminate geopolymer at elevated
temperature”. Emerging Materials Research Volume 9 Issue 1 2020.9:155-162.
13. Tata Sravani and Prasanna Venkatesan Raman “Durability Properties of Geopolymer
Concrete Containing Ground-Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Black Rice Husk Ash”.
J. Jayaprakash et al. (eds.), Advances in Construction Materials and Structures, Lecture
Notes in Civil Engineering 111 2021.
14. Suresh Thokchom , Partha Ghosh and Somnath Ghosh, “RESISTANCE OF FLY ASH
BASED GEOPOLYMER MORTARS IN SULFURIC ACID”. ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied SciencesVOL. 4, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 1819-6608.

85
15. R. Ramya Swetha , Dr. G. Venkata Ramana , K. Anusha Hadassa, “Experimental study
on concrete with rice husk ash under sulphuric ACID solutions”. International Journal of
Engineering & Technology, 7 (4.5) (2018) 522-525.
16. Jerrin Emmanuel, “Experimental Investigation of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash
based Geopolymer Concrete”. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 (2016).
17. X. J. Songa , M. Marosszekya , M. Brungsb , R. Munna, “Durability of fly ash based
Geopolymer concrete against sulphuric acid attack”. 10DBMC International Conference
On Durability of Building Materials and Components LYON [France] 17-20 April 2005.
18. Vajja. Balakrishna , Chappa. Damodar Naidu, “EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON FIBER
REINFORCED CONCRETE BY USING POZZOLANAS”. International Journal For
Technological Research In Engineering Volume 5, Issue 8, April-2018 ISSN (Online):
2347 – 4718.
19. Chitra Shijagurumayum , Thokchom Suresh, “Study on the Performance of Natural
Fibres Reinforced Alkali Activated Composites”. SAMRIDDHI Volume 13, Special
Issue 2, 2021 Print ISSN : 2229-7111.
20. Suresh Thokchom, Partha Ghosh and Somnath Ghosh, “EFFECT OF WATER
ABSORPTION, POROSITY AND SORPTIVITY ON DURABILITY OF
GEOPOLYMER MORTARS”. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
VOL. 4, NO. 7, SEPTEMBER 2009 ISSN 1819-6608.
21. Krishnendu Banerjee, Ankush Banik , Surosrita Pal, D. Dutta, Dr. T. G. Biswas, “ Study
of Geopolymer Paste Considering Equivalent Silicate Modulus”. National Conference on
Research Initiative in Science and Technology – 2K16 1 |Page Camellia School of
Engineering & Technology OSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-
JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X.

APPENDIX – A

86
 Specimen Calculation for constituemts of activator solution
For activator solution having a Na2O of 13.89% and SiO2 of 11.803% by weight of
GGBS
i. Composition of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) flakes
Na2O = 77.5%
Water (H2O) =22.5%

ii. Composition of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solution

Na2O = 14.5%
Water (H2O) =55.2%
SiO2 =30.65%

iii. Required quantity of Na2O and SiO2 for 1000 g of RHA

Na2O =13.89% of weight of GGBS
13.89
= X 1000
100
= 138.9g

SiO2 = 11.803% of weight of RHA

11.803
= X 1000
100
= 118.03g

iv. Quantity of Na2SiO; required to get 90g of SiO2

118.03 X 100
=
30.65

= 385.09g

v. Quantity of Na2O available in Na2Si3

14.15 x 385.09
=
100
= 54.49g

vi. Quantity of Na2O required from NaOH flakes

= Total Na2O required – Na2O obtained from Na2SiO3
= 138.9 – 54.49
= 84.41g

vii. Quantity of NaOH flakes required

100 x 84.41
=
77.5
= 108.9g

87
viii. Water available in NaOH flakes and Na2SiO3 solution
= water available in (NaOH flakes + Na2SiO3 solution)
( 22.5 x 108.9 ) +(55.2 X 385.09)
=
100
= 242.59g

ix. Total water required per 1000g of GGBS

Water to GGBS ratio = 0.46
Hence, total quantity of water required = 0.46 X1000 = 460g

x. Extra water to be added

= Total water required – Available water in NaOH flakes and Na2SiO3
= 460 – 242.59
= 217.41g

xi. Summary of activator solution constituents for 1000g of GGBS

NaOH flakes = 108.9g
Na2SiO3 = 385.09 g
Extra Water = 217.41g

xii. Molarity Of NaOH solution

Weight of NaOH
=
Volume of water X molecular weight of NaOH

108.9 X 1000
=
217.41 X 40

= 12M

88
 APPENDIX – B
10% Concentration of sulphuric Acid can be prepared using the following equation:

C1V1 =C2V2

Where C1 is the concentration of the bottle =98%

C2 is the concentration that is to be prepared = 10%

V2 is the volume of water that is to be prepared = 100 ml

V1 volume of acid to be found = ?

1000
From the above relation, V1 = = 10.20 ml
98

So, 10.20 ml of sulphuric acid is taken and dilute it up to 100 ml to get 10 concentration of
sulphuric acid.

89