Influence of Aluminosilicate for the Prediction of Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete – Artificial Neural Network

Abstract

In this paper, details and results of experimental and predictive studies carried out to determine the mechanical properties of Aluminosilicate materials like Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash (FA) based geopolymer concrete specimens are presented and discussed. The major parameters considered in the experimental study are the percentages of GGBS and Fly ash and the percentage of manufactured sand (m-sand) used to replace conventional river sand used in the production of geopolymer concrete. Sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions were used as the activator in the production of geopolymer concrete. The mechanical properties of the geopolymer concrete determined were the compressive strength, split-tensile strength and flexural strength. The test results showed that the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete improved with increase in the percentage use of GGBS. Also, it was observed from the test results that increase in the percentage use of m-sand increased the mechanical properties of the geopolymer concrete up to an optimum dosage beyond which reduction in the mechanical properties was observed. The predicted mechanical properties of the geopolymer concrete using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was found to be in good agreement with the test results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Sakulich AR (2011) Reinforced geopolymer composites for enhanced material greenness and durability. Sustain Cities Soc 1:195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Neupane K (2016) Fly ash and GGBFS based powder-activated geopolymer binders: a viable sustainable alternative of Portland cement in concrete industry. Mech Mater 103:110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2016.09.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Davidovits J (1991) Geopolymers-inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal Calorim 37(8):1633–1656

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kong LY, Daniel SJG (2008) Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures. Cem Concr Compos – Accepted manuscript 30:986–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.08.001

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mehta A, Siddique R (2016) An overview of geopolymers derived from industrial by-products. Constr Build Mater 127:183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.136

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Al Bakiri AMM, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Rafiza AR, Zarina Y (2012) Effect of Na2SiO3/NaOH ratios and naoh molarities on compressive strength of fly-ash-based geopolymer. ACI Mater J 109(5):503–508

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Manjunath GS, Radhakrishna GC, Jadhav M (2011) Compressive strength development in ambient cured geo-polymer mortar. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4(6):830–834

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pavithra P, Srinivasula Reddy M, Dinakar P, Hanumantha Rao B, Satpathy BK, Mohanty AN (2016) A mix design procedure for geopolymer concrete with fly ash. J Clean Prod 133:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.041

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Reddy MS, Dinakar P, Rao BH (2018) Mix design development of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete. J Build Eng – Accepted manuscript 20:712–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nath P, Sarker PK (2014) Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Constr Build Mater 66:163–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Fernandez-Jiminez AM, Palomo A, Lopez-Hombrados C (2006) Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater J 103(2):106–112

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw MJ, Rangan BV (2004) On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 101(6):467–472

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Diaz-Loya EI, Allouche EN, Vaidya S (2011) Mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 108(3):300–306

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sofi M, van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA, Lukey GC (2007) Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs). Engineering Properties of Inorganic Polymer Concretes Cement Concrete Res 37(2):251–257

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rafeet A, Vinai R, Soutsos M, Sha W (2017) Guidelines for mix proportioning of fly ash/GGBS based alkali activated concretes. Constr Build Mater 147:130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.036

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Soutsos M, Boyle AP, Vinai R, Hadjierakleous A, Barnett SJ (2016) Factors influencing the compressive strength of fly ash based geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 110:355–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.045

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Aguilar AR, Escalante-Garcia JI, Gorokhovsky A, Burciaga-Diaz O, Almanza-Robles M (2007) Mortars of inorganic polymers based metakaolin: effect of chemical composition and temperature on compressive strength. Proceedings of IX Latin American Congress of Pathology and XI Congress of Quality Control in the Construction, Quito, Ecuador

  18. 18.

    Bakharev T (2005) Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions. Cem Concr Res 35:1233–1246

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Burciaga-Diaz O (2007) Inorganic polymers based on metakaolin, thermal and chemical resistance as a function of the chemical composition. Ceramic Engineering Cinvestav

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Vijaya Rangan B (2004) On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 6:467–472

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kong DLY, Sanjayan JG (2008) Damage behaviour of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures. Cem Concr Compos 30:986–991

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Salvador V, Lange DAJ, Roesler R (2005) Evaluation, testing and comparison between crushed manufactured sand and natural sand. University of Illinois

  23. 23.

    Kim JK, Lee CS, Park CK, Eo SH (1997) The fracture characteristics of crushed limestone sand concrete. Cem Concr Res 27(11):1719–1729

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Nanthagopalan P, Santhanam M (2011) Fresh and hardened properties of selfcompacting concrete produced with manufactured sand. Cem Concr Compos 33(3):353–358

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gonçalves JP, Tavares LM, Toledo Filho RD, Fairbairn EMR, Cunha ER (2007) Comparison of natural and manufactured fine aggregates in cement mortars. Cem Concr Compos 37(6):924–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Aleem MIA, Arumairaj PD, Vairam S (2013) Chemical formulation of geopolymer concrete with m-sand. Int J Res Civ Eng, Archi Des 1(2):54–60

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Janani R, Revathi A (2015) Experimental study of geopolymer concrete with manufactured sand. Int J Sci Eng Technol Res 4(4):1054–1057

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Zhou M (2003) Intelligent systems technology and applications CRC press LLC, Washington DC

  29. 29.

    Chopra P (2014) Regression models for the prediction of compressive strength of concrete with & without fly ash Int J Latest Trends Eng Technol (IJLTET 3 (4) 400–406

  30. 30.

    Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (1986) Parallel distributed processing: exploration in the microstructure of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Raghu Prasad BK, Eskandari H, Venkatarama Reddy BV (2009) Prediction of compressive strength of SCC and HPC with high volume fly ash using ANN. Constr Build Mater 23:117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vidivelli B, Jayaranjini A (2016) Prediction of compressive strength of high performance concrete containing industrial by products using artificial neural networks. Int J Civ Eng Technol 7(2):302–314

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Jamalaldin S, Hakim S, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Jameel M (2011) Application of artificial neural networks to predict compressive strength of high strength concrete. Int J of Phys Sci 6(5):975–981

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Chopra P, Sharma RK, Kumar M (2016) Prediction of compressive strength of concrete using artificial neural network and genetic programming. Adv Mater Sci Eng Article ID:7648467

  35. 35.

    Nazari A (2012a) Artificial neural networks to prediction compressive strength of geopolymers with seeded waste ashes. Neural Comput & Applic 23(2):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-0931-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Nazari A (2012b) Artificial neural networks application to predict the compressive damage of lightweight geopolymer. Neural Comput & Applic 23(2):507–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-0945-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Riahi S, Nazari A (2012) Prediction the effects of nanoparticles on early age compressive strength of ash-based geopolymers by artificial neural networks. Neural Comput & Applic 31:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1085-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ali N, Torgal PF (2013) Predicting compressive strength of different geopolymers by artificial neural networks. Ceram Int 39:2247–2257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Yadollahi MM, Benli A, Demirboga R (2015) Prediction of compressive strength of geopolymer composites using an artificial neural network. Mater Res Innov 19(6):453–458

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kong X, Khambadkone AM (2009) Modeling of a PEM fuel-cell stack for dynamic and steady-state operation using ANN-based sub-models. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 56(12):4903–4914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Anderson JA (1983) Cognitive and psychological computation with neural models. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics SMC-13(5):799–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Shafigh P, Jumaat MZ, Mahmud HB, Alengaram UJ (2013b) Oil palm shell lightweight concrete containing high volum ground granulated blast furnace slag. Constr Build Mater 40:231–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Mo KH, Johnson Alengaram U, Jumaat MZ, Liu MYJ, Lim J (2016) Assessing some durability properties of sustainable lightweight oil palm shell concrete incorporating slag and manufactured sand. J Clean Prod 112:763–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ravikumar D, Peethamparam S, Neithalath N (2010) Structure and strength of NaOH activated concrete containing fly ash or GGBFS as the sole binder. Cem Concr Compos 32:399–410

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledging Dr.S.Elavenil for her fabulous guidance and greater support for valuable suggestions on time. The author also acknowledges sincere thanks to the laboratory staffs of Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai for their kind support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Nagajothi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagajothi, S., Elavenil, S. Influence of Aluminosilicate for the Prediction of Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete – Artificial Neural Network. Silicon 12, 1011–1021 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-019-00203-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geopolymer concrete
  • Aluminosilicate materials
  • Alkali activated solutions
  • Artificial neural network