Performance of GGBFS and silica fume on self compacting geopolymer concrete using partial replacements of R-Sand

Abstract

Experimental analysis has been carried out to determine the mechanical behaviour of self-compacting geopolymer concrete beams using silica fume and GGBFS under two point loading condition. In this study, evaluate the effect of M sand on self-compacting geopolymer concrete. First phase, fly ash is replaced with 10 % of silica fume (Mix S1-S5) and second phase, the fly ash is replaced by 30 % of GGBFS (Mix G6-G10). The 12 M molarity of sodium hydroxide is used. Alkaline liquid to binder by mass is 0.33 and sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate solution is 1.25 is maintained for all the mix. Fine aggregate (River sand) is replaced with manufacturing sand (M sand) is varies from 0 % to 100 % with an increment of 25 %. Super plasticizer Glenium B233 is added to enhance the properties of concrete. Researcher implement EFNARC guidelines for Self compacting concrete. Age of curing of concrete is for 48 h of heat curing later on ambient curing by 28 days. Fresh properties of concrete mix were measured by slump flow test, T50cm slump flow, V-funnel test, L-box test and U-box test and harden properties are measured by compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength. Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete such as compressive, split and flexural strength of S5 is 37.56 MPa, 4.5 MPa and 4.58 MPa which is higher than S1 to S2. Compressive strength of G10 is 12.08 %, 10.23 %, 7.26 %, 2.52 % higher than the G6, G7, G8 and G9 respectively. Researcher tested totally 10 numbers of beams with 10 different mixes under flexural loading condition. Three LVDT were mounted, two under loading point and one at middle, to measure the deflection. Load vs deflection of beam is carefully measured. Ultimate load of S5 and G10 is 24 kN and 21 kN, respectively. Experimental load carrying capacity beam is compared with numerical analysis. Nonlinear finite element software ANSYS carried out the numerical analysis and based on the basic properties from experimental investigation, is used to measure the numerical behaviour. Variation of ultimate load of experimental obtains vs numerical analysis is not less than 0.88. Finally, it concluded that the numerical values are good agreement with experimental results.