EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON MECHANICAL

PROPERTIES OF GEOPOLYMER MORTARS FOR REPAIR

APPLICATIONS:IMPACT OF BINDER TO SAND RATIO
AN PROJECT WORK REPORT

Submitted by

K.BALAHARIHARAN (2020101008)
M.P.GANESHPANDIAN (2020101012)
S.HARIHARAN (2020101015)
C.MAHALINGAM (2020101320)

In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

Of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in

CIVIL ENGINEERING

SETHU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

( An Autonomous Institution )

Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai

PULLOOR, KARIAPATTI – 626 115

MARCH 2024.

i
 SETHU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
An Autonomous Institution

Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this Project Work report titled “EXPERIMENTAL

INVESTIGATION ON MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
GEOPOLYMER MORTARS FOR REPAIR APPLICATIONS:IMPACT OF
BINDER TO SAND RATIO” is the bonafide work of K.BALAHARIHARAN
(2020101008), M.P.GANESHPANDIAN (2020101012), S.HARIHARAN
(2020101015), C.MAHALINGAM (2020101320) who underwent the
internship under by Supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

Dr.K.ARUMUGAM M.E., Ph.D Mr.P.RAJESWARAN M.E.,

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering

Sethu Institute of Technology Sethu Institute of Technology

Kariapatti, Virudhunagar – 626 115 Kariapatti, Virudhunagar – 626 115

Submitted for the Project work Viva Voce Examination held on

…………………..

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, we acknowledge the almighty for being with us
throughout this venture and furnishing this Project fruitfully.

We are grateful to Mr.S.Mohammed Jaleel B.A.,B.L., Chairman, Sethu

Institute of Technology for helping us in making this project a grand success.

We are in debt to Dr.A.Senthil Kumar M.E., Ph.D., Professor and

Advisor, Sethu Institute of Technology for the ample facilities made available
to accomplish our project.,

We are in debt to Dr.G.D.Sivakumar M.E., Ph.D., Principal, Sethu

Institute of Technology for the ample facilities made available to accomplish
our project.,

We whole heartedly thank Dr.K.Arumugam M.E., Ph.D Head of the

Department, Department of Civil Engineering, for providing the necessary
infrastructural facilities and the encouragement given during the entire course
of study.

We extend our hearty thanks to Mr.P.Rajeswaran M.E., Assistant

Professor for his support and encouragement.

We also thank everyone who directly and indirectly helped us in making

this project a successful one.

iii
 ABSTRACT

❖ Deterioration of concrete structures made with ordinary Port land cement (OPC) as
a binder is inevitable, and this requires repair or rehabilitation using appropriate repair
materials. A strong and highly adhesive repair material is very important in order to
ascertain the safety of damaged concrete structures. The existing repair materials,
especially those that utilized conventional OPC-based materials, appear to require a
certain curing condition, which prior studies have revealed to result in a weak link
between the repair material and the repaired structures.

❖ The physical and mechanical properties of the Geo polymer mortars were assessed in
addition to their performance as a repair material in terms of their bonding
characteristics to conventional concrete. Findings from this study revealed that Geo
polymer mortar with a binder- to-sand ratio of 1:2 exhibited the highest bonding
Strength In addition, Geo polymer mortars with a binder-to-sand ratio of 1:3 to 4:1
exhibited better bonding Strength compared to when past was used.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO TITLE PAGE NO

ACKNOWLDEGEMENT iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Objectives 1

1.3 Scope of the project 1

1.4 Uses of mortar 2

1.5 Application of mortar 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3

2.1 General 3

2.2 Literature review on mortar 3

3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 6

3.1 Methodology 6

3.2 Materials used 7

3.2.1 GGBS 7

3.2.2 Fly ash 8

v
 3.2.3 Fine aggregate 8

3.2.4 Alkaline activators 9

3.3 Mix proportion 9

3.3.1 Mix Design 1:1 10

3.3.2 Mix Design 1:2 10

3.3.3 Mix Design 1:3 11

3.3.4 Mix Design 3:1 11

3.3.5 Mixing of mortar 12

3.3.6 Preparation of test specimens 12

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14

4.1 Density 14

4.2 Compressive Strength 15

4.3 Water Absorption 18

4.4 Flexural Strength 20

5 CONCLUSION 23

REFERENCES 24

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE NO

3.1 Specification of GGBS 7

3.2 Mix Proportion 12

3.3 Identification of Cubes 13

4.1 Density 14

4.2 7 days Compressive strength 16

4.3 28 days Compressive strength 17

4.4 Water Absorption 19

4.5 Flexural strength 22

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE NO

3.1 GGBS 7

3.2 Fly ash 8

3.3 Fine Aggregates 8

3.4 Alkaline Liquid 9

3.5 Mortar Cube Specimens 13

4.1 Density 15

4.2 Testing of Compressive Strength 15

4.3 7 days Compressive strength 16

4.4 28 days Compressive strength 17

4.5 Water Absorption Test 18

4.6 Water Absorption 19

4.7 Casting of Prism Specimen 20

4.8 Demoulding of Prism Specimens 20

4.9 Testing of Prism Specimens 21

4.10 Flexural Strength 22

viii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Many industrial-wastes/clays, such as ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), fly

ash (FA) are employed in developing geopolymeric materials used in the construction sector.
Accordingly, this work aims to find a green approach to benefit from the synergistic impacts of the
precursors in developing ternary-blended geopolymers (TBGs; GGBFS/FA/BKD ) having
multifunctional engineering applications. Five mixes were prepared: the control specimen (100 %
GGBFS, S0) and the others contained different portions from GGBFS, FA, a. All mixes were
cured in high humidity for up to 28-days... The ratio of binder to sand and Na2SiO3/NaOH is taken
as 1:1,1:2,1:3 and 3:1 and 2 respectively.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

➢ To study the properties of geopolymer binders by complete replacement of cement with

ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), fly ash (FA),

➢ To arrive the mix proportion for geo polymeric binders.

➢ To Study the fresh and hardened properties of geo polymeric binders.

➢ The Geopolymer mortar specimens were tested for density, compressive strength, flexural
strength, and water absorption.

➢ To Compare the properties of geopolymeric binders prepared with varies binder ratio

1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The present investigation involves studying the individual properties of geopolymeric binder with
and without addition of ceramic powder.

➢ The compressive strength for various mix proportion of geopolymeric binders were
investigated.
➢ The flexural strength of geopolymeric binders were investigated.

1
1.4 USES OF MORTAR

➢ To bind the building units such as bricks, stones into a solid mass.
➢ To carry out pointing and plaster work on exposed surfaces of masonry.
➢ To form an even and soft bedding layer for building units.
➢ To form joints of pipes.
➢ To improve the general appearance of a structure.
➢ To distribute uniformly the super incumbent weight from the upper layer to the
lower layer of bricks or stones.

1.5 APPLICATIONS OF MORTAR

According to the nature of application, the mortars are classified into the following
categories.

1. Bricklaying mortars
2. Finishing mortars
3. Repair Works

2
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
In recent times, researchers in the field of material engineering have devoted special
attention to the waste minimization practices, pollution prevention, and sustainable development.
The development of environment-friendly production processes has been a major focus. Despite
this, large volumes of industrial solid wastes are generated worldwide every day and the volume
will still continue to increase. One of the industrial wastes usually generated burning of coal. Fly
ash is a product of controlled burning of coal. Fly ash contains appreciable amount of active silica
(SiO2) and other refractory oxides such as Alumina (Al2O3) and Iron oxide (Fe2O3). It also contains
small amount of alkalis and other trace elements. The chemical composition of Fly ash varies,
depending on the variety, geographic location and climate.

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON MORTAR

P. Rajeswaran, Dr.R. Kumutha*and Dr.K. Vijai(2016) In this research, efforts have been made
to use ceramic waste powder instead of cement along with other industrial waste materials such as
Fly ash and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) to prepare geo polymeric binder.The
parameter considered in this study is the proportion of binder components (Fly ash, GGBS and
Ceramic Powder).The Compressive strength of mortar cubes was determined at 7 and 28 days. It
can be concluded that, as the percentage of the Ceramic waste powder increases, the Compressive
strength, Bond strength and Flexural strength of the geo polymeric binder decreases when
compared to conventional binder.

Amitkumar D. Raval, Dr.Indrajit N. Patel, Prof. Jayeshkumar Pitroda(2016) Ceramic waste

is one of the most active research areas that encompass a number of disciplines including civil
engineering and construction materials In this research study the (OPC) cement has been replaced
by ceramic waste powder accordingly in the range of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% 40%, & 50% by weight
of M-20 grade concrete. Keeping all this view, the aim of the investigation is to study the behavior
of concrete while replacing the ceramic waste with different proportions in concrete

R.Logaraja, I.Asfar Nowsath, ,R.Hezekiah john Philip(2016) Geopolymer concrete utilizes an

alternate material including Red Mud and Rice Husk Ash as binding material in place of cement.
This Red mud and Rice husk ash reacts with alkaline solution Sodium Hydroxide ( NaOH) and

3
Sodium Silicate (Na2SiO3) to form a gel which binds the fine and coarse aggregates. In this
experimental carry-on replacement of cement with red mud and rice husk ash in various
percentages like (0% &90%,20% &80%,30%&70%) An attempt has been made to find out an
optimum mix for the Geopolymer mortar.To determine the compressive strength of geopolymer
mortar at 28days. This paper has focused on a study on geopolymer ferrocement flat panel in
sunlight curing to eliminate oven curing.
Revathi S, Kumutha R and Vijai K (2015) experimentally investigated on effect of groundnut
husk ash as fine aggregate in mortar. This paper highlights feasibility study on groundnut husk ash
as an alternative material for conventional fine aggregate. For this investigation mortar mixes were
prepared by replacing conventional fine aggregate with groundnut husk ash in percentages of 0,
10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60. The test results show that the percentage of the groundnut husk ash
increases the compressive strength of the mortar decreases. The water absorption and sorptivity
value increases as the percentage of groundnut husk ash is increased.

Ponnapati. Manogna and M.Sri Lakshmi (2015) experimentally studied on tile powder as partial
replacement of cement in concrete. This paper presents the experimental investigation of the
behaviour of concrete with partial replacement of tile powder in cement in the range of 0%, 10%,
20%, 30%, 40% & 50% by weight for M30 grade of concrete. In this investigation the following
tests are carried out (i.e.) compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength for 7, 28
and 56 days. The test results shows that the compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural
strengths are achieved up to 30% replacement of cement with tile powder. The compressive
strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength of M30 grade concrete increases when the
cement is replaced with tile powder up to 30% and further replacement of cement with tile powder
decreases the strength gradually. Tile powder concrete has increased durability performance.

Jayajothi P, Kumutha R and Vijai K (2014) experimentally investigated on the properties of Fly
ash and GGBS based geopolymeric binder. This paper study on the individual properties of the
mortar such as Compressive strength, setting time, flow, density, flexural strength and water
absorption was determined as per relevant Indian and ASTM standards. The various combinations
of fly ash and GGBS considered are 90% & 10%, 80% & 20%, 70% & 30%. The results of
geopolymer mortars are high when compared with conventional mortars in terms of compressive
strength and flexural strength. The compressive strength, flexural strength and density of mortar
increased with increases in GGBS content.

4
Amitkumar D.Raval and Dr. Indrajit N.Patel (2013) experimentally investigated on effective
replacement of cement for establishing sustainable concrete. In this research study the cement has
been replaced by ceramic waste powder in the range of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% & 50% by
weight of M20 grade concrete. For this investigation on strength of concrete and optimum
percentage of the partial replacement by replacing cement via 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% & 50%
ceramic waste. The test results show that the compressive strength of M20 grade concrete increases
when the replacement of cement with ceramic powder up to 30% replaces by weight of cement
and further replacement of cement with ceramic powder decreases the compressive strength

Amitkumar D. Raval, Dr. Indrajit N.Patel and Jayeshkumar Pitroda (2012) experimentally
studied the re-use of ceramic industry wastes for the elaboration of eco-efficient concrete. In this
research study the cement has been replaced by ceramic waste in the range of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%,
40% & 50% by weight for M-30 grade concrete. The concrete samples tested and tests were carried
out to evaluate the compressive strength for 7, 14 and 28 days. The results show that the
compressive strength of M30 grade concrete increases when the replacement of cement with
ceramic powder up to 40% by weight of cement and further replacement of cement with ceramic
powder decreases the compressive strength. Utilization of ceramic waste and its application for the
sustainable development of the construction industry is the most efficient solution.

Shweta Mane and Jadhav H.S (2012) experimentally investigated of geopolymer mortar and
concrete under high temperature. This paper highlights the feasibility study on the effect of
elevated temperatures on geopolymer mortar and concrete for different types of coarse and fine
aggregates. In this investigation identifies that the geopolymer concrete gives better performance
than OPC concrete, in both ambient and elevated temperatures. The loss of compressive strength
and weight due to thermal changes is less in geopolymer concrete as compared to OPC concrete.
The fly ash based geopolymer mortar has better compressive strength (81% more for natural sand
and 89% more for crushed sand) than the OPC mortar. Fly ash based Geopolymer concrete shows
good fire resistance and shows less reduction in compressive strength than the general OPC
concrete, without causing spalling.

5
 CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 METHODOLOGY

Collection Of Materials

Testing material
Properties

Arriving mix proportions

Preparation Of moulds

Casting

Self Curing

Testing

Result and Discussion

6
3.2 MATERIALS USED
3.2.1GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURANCE SLAG

GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag) is a by- product of iron manufacturing

which is used as a cementitious material used in concrete. GGBS is obtained by the heating of iron
ore, limestone and coke at a temperature about 15000C. The process is carried out in a blast
furnace. It is obtained by quenching molten iron slag from a blast furnace in water or steam, then
dried and ground into a fine powder. GGBS can be used as a partial replacement of OPC cement
in concrete production at batching plants. GGBS is used to make durable concrete structures in
combination with ordinary Portland cement and/or other pozzolanic materials.

Fig 3.1 GGBS

Specification Of GGBS

S.No Characteristics Requirement As per Test Result

BS:6699
1. Fineness(m/Kg) 275(min) 390
2. Specific gravity 2.85
3. Particle size(cumulative%) 45 Micron 97.10
4. Insoluble Residue (% 1.5 (Max) 0.49
5. Magnesia. Content (%) 14.0 (Max) 7.73
6. Sulphide Sulphur (%) 2.00 (Max) 0.50
7. Sulphite Content (%) 2.50 (Max) 0.38
8. Loss On Ignition (%) 3.00 (Max) 0.26
9. Manganese Content (%) 2.00 (Max) 0.12
10. Chloride content (%) 0.10 (Max) 0.009

Table 3.1 Specification of GGBS

7
3.2.2 FLY ASH
➢ Fly ash is the fine powder formed from the minerals matter in coal, consisting of the non
combustible matter in coal and a small amount of carbon that remains from incomplete
combustion.
➢ Fly ash is generated from coal-fire electric and steam generating plants.

Fig 3.2 Fly Ash

3.2.3 FINE AGGREGATE

➢ Fine aggregate is obtained from. This is an artificial type of sand formed by crushing large
hard stones, mainly rocks or granite.
➢ The fine aggregate sieved on standard sieve. The fine aggregate passed over 4.75 mm are
used as shown in Fig 3.6.
➢ The sand should be free from any pebbles or vegetation and should be mixed thoroughly
preventing formation of lumps.

Fig 3.3 Fine aggregate

8
3.2.4 ALKALINE LIQUID

➢ Alkaline liquid is the combination of Sodium hydroxide(NaOH), Distilled water and

Sodium Sillicate(Na2SiO3).
➢ The ratio of Alkaline liquid to binder Is 0.45.
➢ The ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH is2.

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)

The sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is available in solid state by means of pellets and flakes. This
present investigation the commercial grade sodium hydroxide in flakes form with 98% purity and
8 molar concentrations were used.

Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)

Sodium silicate also known as “water glass” or “liquid glass”, is well-known due to wide
commercial and industrial applications. It is mostly composed of oxygen-silicon polymer backbone
lodging water in molecular matrix pores. Sodium silicate products are manufactured as solids or
thick liquids, depending on proposed use. In this study the sodium silicate 2 with gel form is used.

Fig 3.4 Alkaline Liquid

3.3 MIX PROPORTION

The density of mortar is 2100 kg/m³. The ratio of binder to fine aggregate is mixed as
1:1,1:2,1:3 and3 :1. By assuming the alkaline liquid to binder ratios as 0.45 and by knowing the
density of mortar the amount of binder, fine aggregate and quantity of alkaline liquids were
determined. The molarity of sodium hydroxide concentration is kept as 8M. The different
parameters considered in this study are proportion of binder components, ratio of Na2SiO3/NaOH
and alkaline liquid to binder ratio. The proportion of binder components (i.e.) the various

9
percentages of fly ash, GGBS is taken as 80%, 20% respectively. The ratio of Na2SiO3/NaOH
solutions is taken as 2.5. Extra water was added 20% by weight of cementitious material to get
desirable workability for the all the mixes. The details of the mix proportions are as shown in Table
3.2.

3.3.1 MIX DESIGN 1:1

Design Of Mortar = 2100 Kg/M3

Ratio Of Binder To Fine Aggregates = 1:1

Ratio Alkaline Liquid To Binder = 0.45

Ratio Of Na2SiO3 To NaOH = 2

CALCULATION

Mass Of Fly Ash = 2100/(2+0.45) = 857.14 Kg/M3

Mass Of Fine Aggregates = 1×857.14 = 857.14 Kg/M3

Mass Of Alkaline Liquid = Fly Ash × 0.45 = 857.14 ×0.45 = 385.71 Kg/M3

Mass Of NaOH = 385.71/(1+2) = 128.57 Kg/M3

Mass Of Na2siO3 = 128.57 × 2 = 257.14 Kg/M3

3.3.2 MIX DESIGN 1:2

Design Of Mortar = 2100 Kg/M3

Ratio Of Binder To Fine Aggregates = 1:2

Ratio Alkaline Liquid To Binder = 0.45

Ratio Of Na2SiO3 To NaOH = 2

CALCULATION

Mass Of Fly Ash = 2100/(3+0.45) = 606.69 Kg/M3

Mass Of Fine Aggregates = 2×606.69 = 1217.39 Kg/M3

Mass Of Alkaline Liquid = Fly Ash × 0.45 = 608.69×0.45 = 273.91 Kg/M3

Mass Of NaOH = 273.91 /(1+2) = 91.30 Kg/M3

10
Mass Of Na2siO3 = 91.30 × 2 = 182.6 Kg/M3

3.3.3 MIX DESIGN 1:3

Design Of Mortar = 2100 Kg/M3

Ratio Of Binder To Fine Aggregates = 1:3

Ratio Alkaline Liquid To Binder = 0.45

Ratio Of Na2SiO3 To NaOH =2

CALCULATION

Mass Of Fly Ash = 2100/(4+0.45) = 471.91 Kg/M3

Mass Of Fine Aggregates = 3×471.91 = 1415.73 Kg/M3

Mass Of Alkaline Liquid = Fly Ash × 0.45 = 471.91 ×0.45 = 212.35 Kg/M3

Mass Of NaOH = 212.35 /(1+2) = 70.78 Kg/M3

Mass Of Na2siO3 = 70.78 × 2 = 141.56 Kg/M3

3.3.4 MIX DESIGN 3:1

Design Of Mortar = 2100 Kg/M3

Ratio Of Binder To Fine Aggregates = 3:1

Ratio Alkaline Liquid To Binder = 0.45

Ratio Of Na2SiO3 To NaOH = 2

CALCULATION

Mass Of Fly Ash = 2100/(4+0.45) * 3 = 1415.73 Kg/M3

Mass Of Fine Aggregates = 1×471.91 = 471.91 Kg/M3

Mass Of Alkaline Liquid = Fly Ash × 0.45 = 1415.73 ×0.45 =637.07 Kg/M3

Mass Of NaOH = 637.07 /(3+2) = 127.41 Kg/M3

Mass Of Na2siO3 = 127.41 × 2 = 254.82 Kg/M3

11
 Table 3.2 Mix Proportion

MIX Proportion Fly Ash GGBS Fine NaOH Na2SiO3 Alkaline

ID Binder of binders Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Aggregates Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Solution
Ratio
Kg/m3 Kg/m3
CB 1:1 F80G20 2.592 0.648 3.24 0.4907 0.98 1.470

CG1 1:2 F80G20 1.856 0.464 4.64 0.348 0.696 1.044

CG2 1:3 F80G20 1.44 0.360 5.4 0.270 0.540 0.81

CG3 3:1 F80G20 4.32 1.08 1.80 0.486 0.972 1.458

3.3.5 Mixing of mortar

To prepare 8 molarity concentration of sodium hydroxide solution, 320 grams (molarity x
molecular weight) of sodium hydroxide flakes was dissolved in distilled water and makeup was
done to one litre. The sodium hydroxide solution thus prepared is mixed with sodium silicate
solution one day before mixing the mortar to get the desired alkaline solution. Distilled water is
used to dissolve the sodium hydroxide flakes to avoid the effect of contaminants in the mixing
water. The sand, fly ash, GGBS were dry mixed before adding the alkaline solution.

3.3.6 Preparation of test specimens

Compressive strength and density was found out using mortar cubes of standard size 70.7
mm x 70.7 mm x 70.7 mm. Totally 36 mortar cubes were cast with 9cubes for each mix ratio. Out
of 36 mortar cubes 12 cubes were used to find the average density, compressive strength, water
absorption. Before subjecting the specimens to compression test, each specimen was weighed to
find out the density. The requirement of cubes are classified given in table 3.3.

12
 Fig 3.5 Mortar cubes made with different mix proportion

Table3.3 Identification of cubes

MIX Proportion No of specimens Total

ID of Binders Number
Binder
7Days 28 Days Water of
Ratio Compressive Compressive Absorption specimens
test test test
For ratio

CB 1:1 F80 G20 3 3 3 9

CG1 1:2 F80 G20 3 3 3 9

CG2 1:3 F80 G20 3 3 3 9

CG3 3:1 F80 G20 3 3 3 9

Total 12 12 12 36

13
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 DENSITY
➢ Density of mortar cubes is calculated by dividing the mass by the volume of mortar
cube. The density of mortar cube specimens for various mix proportions are given
in Table 4.1.
➢ Density of geopolymer mortar varies from 2032 - 2122 kg/m3. Density values of
mortar cube specimens are shows the Fig 4.1.
➢ It was seen that, density values decreases, with an Variation in Ratio Of Binder To
Fine Aggregates .
➢ Density values are below 2100 kg/m3 when the Sand binder varies.

Table 4.1 Density

Dry Wt of Mortar Density Average

Mix Binder Proportion Specimens (kg) (kg/m3)
Ratio of binders Density
ID
(kg/m3)
1 2 3 1 2 3
CB 1:1 F80G20
0.740 0.750 0.760 2093.98 2122.28 2150.57 2122.27

CG1 1:2 F80G20

0.735 0.740 0.735 2079.83 2093.98 2079.83 2084.54
1:3 F80G20
CG2 0.720 0.730 0.730 2037.39 2065.68 2065.68 2056.25
3:1 F80G20
CG3 0.715 0.720 0.710 2023.24 2065.68 2009.09 2032.67

14
 2200

2122.27

2100 2084.54
DENSITY Kg/m3

2056.25
2032.67

2000

1900
1:1 F80 G20 1:2 F80 G20 1:3 F80 G20 3:1 F80 G20
MIX ID

Fig 4.1 Density of mortar cube specimens

4.2 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

The compressive strength is the ratio of the maximum load to the surface area of mortar
cube. Three cubes were tested for each mix ratio and the average of three specimens is taken as the
compressive strength it was tested by Compression Testing Machine of Capacity 2000 kN. The
specimens were subjected to a compressive force at the rate of 132 kN per minute. The geopolymer
mortars were tested for compressive strength at the age of 7 days and 28 days.

The test results of compressive strength of mortar cubes at 7 days and 28 days are given in
Table 4.2 & 4.3. Fig 4.2 shows the mortar cube specimens testing .

Fig 4.2 Testing of compressive strength of mortar cube specimens

15
 Table 4.2 7Days compressive strength of mortar cube specimens

Ultimate Load (kN) Compressive Strength Average

Mix Binder Proportion (N/mm²) Compressive
ID Ratio of binders Strength
1 2 3 1 2 3
(N/mm²)
CB 1:1 F80G20 98.6 97.3 98.9 19.72 19.46 19.78 19.65
GB1 1:2 F80G20
93.1 92.9 92.8 18.82 18.95 18.56 18.71
1:3 F80G20
GB2 90.7 92.0 90.3 18.14 18.40 18.06 18.20

GB3 3:1 F80G20 87.2 86.9 87.6 17.44 17.38 17.52 17.44

Fig 4.3 7Days compressive strength of mortar cube specimens

25
Compressive Strength N/ mm2

19.65
20 18.71 18.2
17.44

15

10

0
1:1 F80 G20 1:2 F80 G20 1:3 F80 G20 3:1 F80 G20
MIX ID

16
 Table 4.3 28 Days compressive strength of mortar cube specimens

Ultimate Load (kN) Compressive Strength Average

Mix Binder Proportion (N/mm²) Compressive
ID Ratio of binders Strength
1 2 3 1 2 3
(N/mm²)
CB 1:1 F80G20 175.2 183.4 170.2 35.05 36.69 34.05 35.26

GB1 1:2 F80G20

169.8 168.0 171.9 33..97 33.61 34.39 33.99
1:3 F80G20
GB2 159.9 162.2 155.5 31.98 32.44 31.10 31.84
3:1 F80G20
GB3 139.3 145.8 141.2 27.86 29.16 28.24 28.42

Fig 4.4 28Days compressive strength of mortar cube specimens

40
35.26
33.99
31.84
Compressive Strength N/mm2

30 28.42

20

10

0
1:1 F80 G20 1:2 F80 G20 1:3 F80 G20 3:1 F80 G20
MIX ID

17
4.3 WATER ABSORPTION
Water absorption was measured using cube specimens of size 70.7 mm x 70.7 mm x 70.7 mm.
Water absorption test are carried out as per BIS: 2185-2005. The dry weight of mortar cube was
measured and noted as weight (W1). Then dry mortar cubes were completely immersed in water at
room temperature for 24 hours. After 24 hours the mortar cubes are removed from the water and
the water is allowed to drain for 1 min by placing on a wire mesh, removing visible surface water
with a damp cloth. Then this saturated weight was measured and noted as wet weight (W2). Fig
4.5. shows the mortar cube specimens during water absorption test.

The values of saturated water absorption of the mortar specimens at 28 days were found out and
tabulated in the table 4.4. The water absorption values for geopolymer mortar ranges from 2.8% -
5.1%.From the test results, it was found that for specimens of Common binder the water absorption
values are comparatively lower as compared to Geopolymeric binders.

It was also observed that, water absorption increases with Variation in Ratio Of Binder To Fine
Aggregates. It is observed that specimens made with Na2SiO3 / NaOH ratio of 2 and 1:3 addition
specimens shows the maximum water absorption of 5.1%.

Fig 4.5 Water absorption of mortar cube specimens

18
 Table 4.4 Water Absorption of mortar cube specimens

Water Average
Dry Weight Wet Weight
Mix Binder Absorption water
(kg) (kg)
ID Ratio (%) absorption
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 (%)
CB 1:1 0.740 0.750 0.760 0.765 0.770 0.780 3.3 2.6 2.6 2.8
CG1 1:2 0.720 0.730 0.730 0.745 0.755 0.760 3.4 3.4 4.1 3.6
CG2 1:3 0.715 0.720 0.710 0.750 0.745 0.740 4.8 3.4 4.2 4.1
CG3 3:1 0.705 0.715 0.700 0.745 0.750 0.735 5.6 4.8 5 5.1

Fig 4.6 Water absorption of mortar cube specimens

5.1
Compressive Strength N/mm2

4.1
4 3.6

3 2.8

0
1:1 F80 G20 1:2 F80 G20 1:3 F80 G20 3:1 F80 G20
MIX ID

19
4.5 FLEXURAL STRENGTH
Flexural strength is determined by testing the prisms in bending according to ASTM
standard. Flexural strength was obtained using 160 mm x 40 mm x 40 mm prismatic specimens.
Three prism specimens were tested for each mix ratio and the average of three specimens is taken
as the flexural strength it was tested by Flexural Testing Machine of Capacity 100 kN. Totally 12
number of prisms were cast and tested after 28 days. Prisms were subjected to single point loading.
Fig 4.7 & 4.8shows the casting and demoulding prism specimens.

Flexural Strength (fbt) = 3PL/2bd2

where,
P = Load at failure
L = Prism span between supports
d = Depth of prism
b = Width of prism

Fig 4.7 Fig 4.8

Casting of prism specimens Prism specimens after demoulding

20
 Fig 4.9 Testing of prism specimen

Flexural strength of ambient cured geopolymer mortar ranges from 1.7 – 3.4 N/mm2 The maximum
flexural strength of 3.4 N/mm2 is obtained for the mix 1:1 and the minimum flexural strength of
1.7 N/mm2 is obtained for the mix 1:3 for an alkaline liquid to binder ratio of 0.45. Flexural strength
decreases with an Variation in Ratio Of Binder To Fine Aggregates.

21
 Table 4.5 Flexural strength of prism specimens

Flexural
Ultimate Load
Strength Average
(kN)
Mix Binder Proportion (N/mm²) Flexural
ID Ratio of binders Strength
1 2 3 1 2
3
(N/mm²)

CB 1:1 F80G20 1.1 1.2 1.4 3.0 3.3 3.9 3.4

CG1 1:2 F80G20

1.0 0.9 1.1 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.7
1:3 F80G20
CG2 0.8 0.6 0.9 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.1
3:1 F80G20
CG3 0.7 0.5 0.6 2.0 1.4 1.7 1.7

Fig 4.10Flexural strength of prism specimens

4
3.4
3.5
Compressive strength N/mm2

3 2.7
2.5
2.1
2 1.7
1.5
1
0.5
0
1:1 F80 G20 1:2 F80 G20 1:3 F80 G20 3:1 F80 G20
MIX ID

22
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
• The density of mortar cube specimens is within the range of 1933 - 2122 kg/m3. Density
values are higher for higher Na2SiO3 / NaOH ratio and also for rich binder to sand ratios.
Density values decreases with increase in Brick kiln dust content. Geopolymer mortar cube
specimens having higher density results in high strength.
• The compressive strength of geopolymer mortar decreases with increases in quantity of
Brick kiln dust content. The geopolymer mortar cube specimen made of F80 G20 C0 produces
the maximum strength of all the mortar specimens.
• The water absorption of mortar cube specimens is within the range of 2.8 – 5.5%. The water
absorption value increases as the percentage of Brick kiln dust is increased. As the age of
mortar increases, water absorption of mortar also decreases for all the mixes.
• Flexural strength of prism specimens ranges from 0.9 – 3.4 N/mm2. As the percentage of
the Brick kiln dust increases, the flexural strength of the geopolymer mortar decreases.
• The compressive strength, flexural strength decreases when the quantity of Brick kiln dust
increases.
• The geo polymeric binder prepared using 1:2 mix proportion attained a minimum
compressive strength of 24.94 N/mm2 . These geopolymeric binder is applicable in inner
plastering work of chimney and cooling tower, bedding joints, lining of pipe and fittings,
repair of defective or damaged area of linings, damp proof course, reinforced brick work
and pointing work.
• Utilization of Brick Kiln Dust as a replacement material for cement is a possible alternative
solution for the safe disposal of Brick kiln dust wates.

23
 REFERENCES

[1] P.Rajeswaran, Dr.R.Kumutha and Dr.K.Vijai (2016), “Compressive Strength of Ceramic

Waste Based Geopolymeric Binder” International Journal of Advanced Research, Volume
4, pp 657-663.

[2] Ponnapati. Manogana, M.Sri Lakshmi (2015), “Tile Powder as Partial Replacement of
Cement in Concrete” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology,
Volume 02, pp 75-77.

[3] S.Revathi, Dr.R.Kumutha and Dr.K.Vijai (2015), “Effect of Groundnut Husk Ash as Fine
Aggregate in Mortar” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering
and Technology, Volume 4, pp 1314 – 1320.

[4] Hardik Patel, Dr. N. K. Arora and R.Vaniya (2015) “The Study of Ceramic Waste Materials
as Partial Replacement of Cement” International Journal for Scientific Research and
Development, Volume 3, pp 863-865.

[5] Abdullah Anwar, Sabih Ahmad and S.Mohd (2015), “Salvage of Ceramic Waste and
Marble Dust for the Refinement of Sustainable Concrete” International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, Volume 6, pp 79-92.

[6] P.Jayajothi, R.Kumutha, and K.Vijai (2014), “Properties of Fly Ash and GGBS Based
Geopolymeric Binder” Chemical Science Review and Letters, Volume 2(6), pp 470-479.

[7] M.R.Mostafa, F.A.Nasser and I.Saraya (2014), “Eco-Friendly Cement from Ceramic Waste
Geopolymerisation” International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social
Sciences, Volume 2, pp 195-210.

[8] Aalok D. Sakalkale, G.D. Dhawale and R.S. Kedar (2014) “Experimental Study on Use of
Waste Marble Dust in Concrete” International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications, Volume 4, pp 44-50.

[9] Amitkumar D.Raval, Indrajit N.Patel and Jayeshkumar Pitroda (2013), “Use of Ceramic
Powder as a Partial Replacement of Cement” International Journal of Innovative
Technology and Exploring Engineering, Volume 3, pp 1-4.

[10] Amitkumar D.Raval, Indrajit N.Patel and Jayeshkumar Pitroda (2013), “Effective
Replacement of Cement for Establishing Sustainable Concrete” International Journal of
Engineering Trends and Technology, Volume 4, pp 2324-2329.
24
[11] Amitkumar D.Raval, Indrajit N.Patel and Jayeshkumar Pitroda (2013), “Re-Use of Ceramic
Industry Waste for the Elaboration of Eco-Efficient Concrete” International Journal of
Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, Volume 2, ISSN 2249-8974, pp 231-233.

[12] Beemamol U.S, Nizad. A and Nazeer. M (2013) “Investigation on Cement Mortar Using
Ceramic Tailing Sand as Fine Aggregate” American Journal of Engineering Research,
Volume 3, pp 28-33.

[13] Hiroshi Higashiyama, Fumio Yagishita and Masanori Sano (2012) “Compressive Strength
and Resistance to Chloride Penetration of Mortars Using Ceramic Waste as Fine
Aggregate” International Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Volume 26, pp
96-101.

[14] Shweta Mane, H.S.Jadhav (2012), “Investigation of Geopolymer Mortar and Concrete
under High Temperature” International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 12, pp 384-390.

[15] S.Thokchom, P.Ghosh and S.Ghosh (2010) “Performance of Fly ash Based Geopolymer
Mortars in Sulphate Solution” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review,
Volume 3(1), pp 36-40.

[16] Fernando Pacheco, Torgal and Said Jalali (2010) “Compressive Strength and Durability
Properties of Ceramic Wastes based Concrete” International Journal of Materials and
Structures, Volume 2, pp 24-37.

[17] B.V.Rangan, Pan, Zhu and Sanjayan (2009) “An Investigation of the Mechanisms for
Strength Gain or Loss of Geopolymer Mortar after Exposure to Elevated Temperature”
Journal of Material Science, Volume 144, pp 1873-1880.

[18] M.Z.Tsen, Djwantoro Hardjito (2008) “Strength and Thermal Stability of Fly ash Based
Geopolymer Mortar” The 3rd International Conference, ACF/VCA, pp 144-150.

[19] IS: 4031 (Part 4) - 1988, Methods of Physical Test for Hydraulic cement, Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS), New Delhi.

[20] IS 383 -1970, Specifications for Coarse and Fine Aggregate from natural sources for
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi.

25