Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Comparative study on synthesis and properties of geopolymer fine

aggregate from fly ashes
Sethu Parvathy S, Anil Kumar Sharma ⇑, K.B. Anand
Department of Civil Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India

h i g h l i g h t s

An attempt to utilise fly ash for the synthesis of artificial fine aggregate.

Class C fly ash geopolymer fine aggregate (C-GFA) and class F fly ash geopolymer fine aggregate (F-GFA) were synthesised.

Concrete utilizing C-GFA and F-GFA are satisfactory for structural applications.

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

Article history: The growing demand for river sand has caused rapid depletion of this natural resource, and hence it is
Received 15 June 2018 necessary to find an alternative to replace natural river sand. In this aspect, few recent studies have
Received in revised form 20 October 2018 shown the potential of using geopolymerization reactions to produce fine aggregates using class F fly
Accepted 23 November 2018
ash (FFA) to replace natural sand. In this study, an attempt has been made to utilise waste coal ash (class
C and class F fly ash) to produce artificial fine aggregate by using geopolymerization reactions. The
physical properties of both class C fly ash geopolymer fine aggregate (C-GFA) and class F fly ash geopoly-
Keywords:
mer fine aggregate (F-GFA) were compared with the properties of natural sand and manufactured sand
Geopolymerization
Geopolymer fine aggregate (GFA)
(M-sand). The mortar specimen using C-GFA and F-GFA gained a strength of 83% and 75% of 28-day com-
Fly ash pressive strength of natural sand mortar cubes and 89.01% and 81% of M-sand mortar cubes respectively.
Concrete The concrete specimen using C-GFA and F-GFA gained 80.24% and 75% of 28 days compressive strength of
Sustainability natural sand concrete cubes and 83.9% and 77% of M-sand concrete cubes respectively. This study shows
that both C-GFA and F-GFA can be used to synthesize alternative fine aggregates to natural sand and
M-sand that are used in construction activities.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The building industry is considered to be one of the most rapidly
growing industrial sectors of the world and the increase in con-
struction activities result in exploitation and depletion of natural
river sand. According to the UNEP report [1] global use of aggre-
gates can be estimated at 25.9 billion to 29.6 billion tonnes a year.
Owing to increased environmental concerns as well as diminishing
natural resources, geopolymer fine aggregates has been identified
as a valuable alternative for natural aggregates [2,3].
At present, about 170 million tonnes of fly ash is generated from
155 existing coal-based thermal power plants in India but only
about 40% of the fly ash is utilised for various applications such
as brick making, road construction, for manufacture of cement
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ak_sharma@cb.amrita.edu (A.K. Sharma).
and asbestos and the rest is dumped into landfills (Central Electric-
ity Authority 2016–17 [4]). In order to reduce the health hazards
caused by the disposal of coal ash (both fly ash and bottom ash),
one of the most effective methods is to convert them into value-
added construction materials like aggregates [5]. Use of waste
materials such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag and bottom
ash as replacement materials in concrete is a commonly adopted
practice in the construction industry. In a recent study by Bilir
et al. [6], fine aggregate was partially replaced with fly ash,
granulated blast furnace slag and bottom ash in order to produce
environmentally friendly ‘‘green concrete”, with sufficient abrasion
resistance and strength to be used as a structural concrete. A
similar study was conducted by Tekin et al. [7] where waste
materials such as marble aggregates, marble dust and fly ash was
used for replacing natural aggregates in concrete. This concrete
offered better workability, lower cost and sufficient durability to
be used as a structural concrete. Extensive research has been done

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.231
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
360 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367

on geopolymers as an alternative to OPC as they offer good binding
properties when used in mortar and concrete, they are proved to
have good resistance against acid, fire and sulphate attack [8,9].
Geopolymer technology is capable of reducing the CO2 emission
to the atmosphere caused by the cement and aggregates industries
by about 80% and thereby reducing global warming [10]. Various
researchers attempted the complete replacement of natural river
sand with fly ash, but studies show that complete replacement of
aggregate with fly ash is considered to be unfeasible. By the study
conducted by Bilir et al. [11], a reduction in compressive strength
and workability has been observed when natural sand was com-
pletely replaced with fly ash. The study suggests that the reduction
could be due to the increase in fly ash content and large surface
area of fly ash per unit volume, resulting in weak bonding between
fly ash and cement paste. Another study conducted by Rajamane
et al. [12] observed that fly ash has the potential to replace natural
sand up to 60% without affecting the workability and strength
properties. Fly ash is also used as filler in concrete, in the study
conducted by Jakub et al. [13] and a reduction in compressive
strength was observed when the fly ash filler content was above
70% of the weight of total mixture. According to this study, 60%
is the optimum fly ash filler content required to achieve sufficient
compressive strength. These studies showed the potential of using
fly ash as a partial replacement material for fine aggregate in con-
crete. The optimum content of fly ash required for replacement of
fine aggregate in concrete is still undetermined, Parvati et al. [14]
reported 40% is optimum, Siddique et al. [15] reported 50% is opti-
mum, whilst Rajamane et al.[12]; Joseph and Ramaamurthy [16]
reported 60% is the optimum fly ash required.
Geopolymer technology has beguiled the researchers with its
wide range of application since its first discovery by Joseph Davi-
dovits in late 1970 s. Geopolymers are inorganic alumino-silicate
network having SiAOAAlAO bonds in polymeric form, which are
formed by dispersion of a precursor material such as fly ash or
metakaolin (which has silica and alumina) in an alkaline solution
which contains reagents such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and
sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) and
potassium silicate (K2SiO3) [9]. Chanh et al. [17] has suggested
the following reaction mechanism for the formation of geopolymer
material as shown in Eqs. (1) and (2).
synthesised geopolymer fly ash sand was reduced considerably
when compared to the previous study [2]. The properties of the
synthesized geopolymer fly ash sand were similar to the properties
of natural sand.
The previous studies focussed on the use of class F fly ash only.
In this study an attempt has been made to:

Determine the feasibility of using class C fly ash (CFA) for the
synthesis of fine aggregate by using geopolymerization
reactions.

Compare the properties of synthesised class C fly ash geopoly-
mer fine aggregate (C-GFA) and class F fly ash geopolymer fine
aggregate (F-GFA) with natural sand and M-sand.

Determine the effect of using both C-GFA and F-GFA on mortar
and concrete.
2. Materials
Geopolymer fine aggregates were prepared using CFA obtained from Neyveli
Thermal power plant and FFA obtained from Mettur Thermal power plant both
located in Tamil Nadu, India. The physical properties of the material such as specific
gravity as per IS 1727 (1967) [19], particle size distribution as per IS 2720 part IV
[20] is given in Fig. 1 and is tabulated in Table 1.
The various oxide proportions of CFA and FFA is given in Table 2. On the basis of
CaO content the fly ashes were identified as Class C fly ash (CFA) and Class F fly ash
(FFA) according to ASTM C618 [21], CaO content in CFA = 32.86% and in
FFA = 10.19%.
Pellet form sodium hydroxide was used in this investigation is of pellet form.
The chemical composition as provided by the manufacturer is shown in Table 3.
The other materials that were required for this study viz., 53 grade cement con-
forming to IS 12269: 2013[22], water, natural river sand and manufactured sand
(M-sand) were procured locally.
3. Experimental program
Preliminary investigations were done to find the optimum
quantity of geopolymer solution required for CFA and FFA for the
synthesis of artificial fine aggregates using geopolymerization

ð1Þ

ð2Þ
The reaction product is mainly an amorphous alumino-silicate
glass phase built up of interlinked SiO4 4 and AlO54 tetrahedron
forming a 3D-structure [18]. The study conducted by Rao et al.
Fig. 1. Particle size analysis of CFA and FFA.
[2] suggested complete replacement of natural river sand in con-
crete with class F fly ash by utilizing geopolymerization reactions.
Aggregate properties such as specific gravity, particle size distribu-
Table 1
tion, pH, and frictional angle were determined and were compared
Physical properties of class CFA and class FFA.
with natural river sand and M-sand. The surface topography as
well as composition of the geopolymer fly ash sand was deter- Physical properties CFA FFA

mined by using SEM imaging and XRD. The compressive strength Specific gravity 2.61 2.18
of mortar using synthesised fly ash geopolymer sand was com- Colour Grey Light Grey
Particle size distribution 9–400 mm 10–300 mm
pared with mortar made with natural river sand. In a recent study
Median particle size 34 mm 38 mm
conducted by Agrawal et al. [3] in which the curing duration of the
 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367 361

Table 2
Oxide proportion of CFA and FFA.

Oxide Proportion %
CFA FFA
CaO 32.86 10.19
SiO2 21.23 56.52
Al2O3 25.16 22.52
MgO 4.95 3.16
Fe2O3 4.86 5.78
Na2O 0.43 0.48
SO3 9.28 –
TiO2 0.95 0.86
Loss on ignition 0.03 0.08
Total 99.75 99.59
Fig. 3. Optimisation of geopolymer solution for FFA.

Table 3
Chemical composition of sodium hydroxide. strength was attained by the cube at 10 M NaOH and Na2SiO3/
Min Assay 98% NaOH ratio of 1.5 and for FFA 10 M NaOH and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio
Carbonate (Na2CO3) 1.0% of 2. These values were selected as the optimum values for
Chloride (Cl) 0.01% preparing geopolymer solution. Increase in alkali concentration
Sulphate (SO2) 0.003% results in enhanced geopolymerization reactions which in turn
Lead (Pb) 0.001%
Iron (Fe) 0.001%
increases the compressive strength of the mortar specimen, but
Potassium (K) 0.1% according to earlier researches excess hydroxide ion concentration
Zinc (Zn) 0.02% causes aluminosilicate gel precipitation and this hinders the
geopolymerization reaction which leads to lower compressive
strength. This reaction might be the reason for the decrease in
compressive strength beyond 10 M NaOH concentration.
reactions. With the optimised values larger quantities of both types
of geopolymer fine aggregate was produced and the various tests
were conducted. 3.2. Synthesis of geopolymer fly ash fine aggregate

3.1. Optimisation of geopolymer solution
The first step in synthesis of geopolymer fine aggregate (GFA)
was to determine the quantity of NaOH and Na2SiO3 required for
the preparation of geopolymer solution (mixture of NaOH and Na2-
SiO3 solution). For this purpose it is necessary to optimise the
amount of NaOH and Na2SiO3 solution. In order to optimise the
solution, cubes of 70.6  70.6  70.6 mm were cast of fly ash and
geopolymer solution mixture, by varying the molarity of NaOH
from 6 M to 12 M and the ratio of Na2SiO3/NaOH from 0.5 to 2.5
respectively by following an earlier study [3]. Fly ash to geopoly-
mer solution ratio for CFA was kept 1.75:1 and for FFA was kept
3:1 throughout the experiment. Heat curing duration was chosen
as 1 h at 100 °C. The compressive strength of the cubes tested after
curing the cube in ambient temperature for 1 day are shown in
Figs. 2 and 3. It is observed that, for CFA maximum compressive
Fig. 2. Optimisation of geopolymer solution for CFA.
C-GFA was prepared by mixing CFA with optimum amount of
geopolymer solution (10 M NaOH and Na2SiO3/NaOH = 1.5) for
10 min in the proportion 1.75:1 to produce a dry mix. This mix
was sieved through sieves ranging from 4.75 mm to 0.075 mm to
produce fine aggregates having size and shape similar to that of
natural sand. Similarly, F-GFA was produced by mixing FFA with
an optimum quantity of geopolymer solution (10 M NaOH and
Na2SiO3/NaOH = 2) for 10 min in the proportion 3:1 is shown in
Fig. 4.
Both C-GFA and F-GFA particles were heated at 100 °C for 1 h
and were kept at ambient temperature for one day. Physical prop-
erties such as specific gravity, particle size distribution, pH and
frictional angle were determined. Tests such as soundness test,
alkali-silica reaction test (ASR test) were conducted on both types
of fly ash geopolymer fine aggregate. X-ray Diffraction method
(XRD) was used for the mineralogical studies of C-GFA and F-GFA
and microstructural imaging of the material was done by using
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) analysis. In this study, Bruker
D8 Advance X-ray Diffractometer was used for the mineralogical
study of the material. The sample was finely ground to powder
form prior to XRD test. The tube conditions were set at 40 kV
and 40 mA. The XRD patterns were obtained from intensity
(counts) and angle (2h), with an angle ranging from 10° to 90° (step
size 0.02° 2h and speed 2°/min). The various minerals present in
the material were identified by using X-Pert High Score software
by inputting the intensity and 2h values. SEM analysis gives the
surface topography of the material. The SEM images were obtained
using Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM) by
Carl Zeiss Micrography ltd.
The effects of using 100% of geopolymer fine aggregates (C-GFA
and F-GFA) in mortar and concrete was determined by compres-
sive strength tests. Comparison of these strengths was done with
mortar and concrete proportioned using river sand and M-sand,
and the same has been discussed in the next section.
362 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367

Fig. 4. Synthesised (a) C-GFA and (b) F-GFA.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Physical properties of geopolymer fine aggregate

The physical properties of C-GFA and F-GFA such as specific

gravity, pH, water absorption, particle size distribution and fric-
tional angle has been tabulated in Table 4.
Specific gravity test was conducted as per IS 2386 (part 3): 1963
[23]. The specific gravity of C-GFA and F-GFA was found out to be
2.40 and 2.45 respectively. These values are less compared to those
of natural river sand and M-sand (Table 4), which makes it lighter
in weight. An earlier study [3] also characterised F-GFA as lighter in
weight compared to natural sand. There was an increase in specific
gravity for FFA after the geopolymerization process. The low speci-
fic gravity of the FFA could be due to the presence of hollow parti-
cles, such as cenospheres or plerospheres. During the
geopolymerization process Si-O-Al-O bonds are formed which
increases the specific gravity of F-GFA compared to that of FFA Fig. 5. Particle size distribution curves of C-GFA, F-GFA, natural sand and M-sand.
[24]. There was a reduction in specific gravity of CFA after the
geopolymerization process, which could be due to the utilisation
of calcium during the geopolymerization process [24,25]. The The figure shows that the C-GFA and F-GFA belong to zone I as
water absorption of C-GFA and F-GFA was determined as per IS per IS 383: 2016 [26]. The coefficient of uniformity Cu and the coef-
383: 2016 [26], and was found out to be 6.05% and 5.51% respec- ficient of curvature Cc was determined as per IS 2386 (part 1): 1963
tively which is higher than the water absorption of natural river [28] and is tabulated in Table. 4. It is observed that natural sand,
sand and M-sand (water absorption of 1.03% and 0.982% respec- M-sand, class C-GFA and F-GFA were poorly graded (SP) (according
tively). This explains the porous nature of synthesised C-GFA and to IS 1498: 1970 [29] for well-graded sand Cu > 6 and Cc = 1–3).
F-GFA. The pH value (as per IS 2720 (part 26) [27]) of C-GFA and Both C-GFA and F-GFA has similar curves, and the curves over-
F-GFA was found out to be 12.6 and 12.7 respectively which is lapped one another in the figure, which indicates that both C-
higher than that of natural sand and M-sand (pH of 8.12 and GFA and F-GFA has particles of similar gradation, Rao et al. [2]
10.09 respectively), higher pH value indicates alkaline nature of and Agrawal et al. [3] also graded F-GFA as poorly graded.
C-GFA and F-GFA. Frictional angle is necessary to understand the type of particles
The particle size distribution was determined by sieve analysis. as well as the packing of the aggregate, direct shear test was used
C-GFA and F-GFA were identified to be coarser in nature as they to determine the internal frictional angle of the sand. The frictional
have fineness modulus of 3.033 and 3.027 respectively (fineness properties were determined as per IS: 2720 part (Part 13) [30].
modulus between 2.9 and 3.2) IS 2386 (Part 1):1963 [28]. Fig. 5 Fig. 6 gives the failure envelops of C-GFA, F-GFA, natural sand
represent the grain size distribution of C-GFA, class F-GFA, natural and M-sand.
sand and M-sand. C-GFA and F-GFA have a frictional angle of 36° and 39° respec-
tively, which is very close to the natural sand and M-sand which
has a frictional angle of 38° and 39° respectively, according to
Table 4 Das et al. [31] 27° indicates loosely packed rounded grains and
Aggregate properties. 45° indicates densely packed angular grains. It shows that C-GFA
Parameter C-GFA F-GFA Natural sand M-sand contains more of rounded grains while F-GFA, natural sand and
M-sand contains more of angular shaped particles, (Angularity
Specific Gravity 2.40 2.45 2.65 2.64
pH 12.6 12.7 8.12 10.09 increases with increase in internal friction angle [32]). U.S Agrawal
Water absorption 6.05% 5.51% 1.03% 0.982% et al. [3] achieved a frictional angle of 42° for F-GFA, which indi-
Cc 1.14 1.30 0.8962 0.833 cates that F-GFA contains more of angular particles compared to
Cu 4.13 4.44 1.66 2.88
the rounded grain F-GFA particles characterised by Rao et al. [2]
Frictional angle 36° 39° 38° 39°
which has a frictional angle of 35.5°.
 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367
Fig. 6. Direct shear test on C-GFA, F-GFA, Natural sand and M-sand.
Soundness of geopolymer fine aggregates was determined
according to IS 2386 (part 5): 1986 [33]. Soundness test of an
aggregate determines the resistance of the aggregate under severe
weathering conditions. In this test, the aggregates were subjected
to repeated wetting and drying for a number of cycles (usually 5
cycles). C-GFA and F-GFA were subjected to 5 cycles by immersing
it into saturated sodium sulphate solution for 16 h and then drying
in an oven at 110 °C for 4 h. An average weight reduction of 7% and
6% was obtained for C-GFA and F-GFA based on 5 cycles. It was
observed to be within the limits recommended by IS 383:2016
[26] (less than 10% loss after 5 cycles). Thus, both C-GFA and
F-GFA has comparable soundness value and can resist volume
changes when subjected to weathering action.
The alkali from the cement can react with siliceous content
from the fine or coarse aggregates which results in alkali-silica
reaction. Hence, it is necessary to perform this test to determine
the reactivity of aggregates.
In order to determine the alkali-silica reaction, mortar bars are
prepared by mixing both C-GFA and F-GFA with cement as per
ASTM C1260 [34]. These bars were immersed in 1 M NaOH solution
and kept at 80 °C for a period of 14 days. The percentage of expan-
sion of the bars after 14 days was determined. The bars exposed
ASR test is shown in Fig. 7.
The average expansion of the C-GFA and F-GFA was observed to
be 0.04% and 0.05% which was less than the limit given by IS 383:
2016 [26] (expansions less than 0.1% after 16 days indicates
innocuous behaviour). In case of geopolymers, a cementitious bin-
der is formed by utilising the alkali from the chemical reaction and
thus decreasing the expansion, in this case, the main reaction
product was calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) with low Na and Al
Fig. 7. Class C-GFA and F-GFA mortar bars (a) before ASR and (b) after ASR.
363
content [18,35]. C-GFA and F-GFA with pH level as high as 12.6
and 12.7 did not undergo any ASR reaction. But from visual exam-
ination, change in colour of the surface layer due to white chemical
precipitate along with surface cracks was observed in both C-GFA
and F-GFA bars.
4.1.1. Mineralogical and microstructural studies
Fig. 8 shows the XRD diffraction peaks of CFA and C-GFA, quartz
and mullite are the major crystalline minerals which are observed
in fly ashes. However, the peak of hematite is also observed along
with quartz and mullite [36].
In case of diffraction patterns of CFA, the intensity of quartz at
2h = 50° reduced significantly and thereby a new CSH phase is
observed in diffraction patterns of C-GFA, which indicates the reac-
tion of quartz in the alkaline solution. A broad hump is also seen
between 2h = 20° to 40° which usually represents amorphous sili-
cates in geopolymers [37]. These amorphous phases are difficult to
characterize [38]. This indicates that some of the silica has been
utilized for geopolymerization reactions. The observed peak at
2h = 50° was relatively lower than that of CFA which may be due
to geopolymerization reactions. This shows the progress of the
reactions to form geopolymer.
Fig. 9 shows the XRD diffraction patterns of F-GFA. Presence of
silica, quartz and alumina can be seen in both class C and F fly
ashes. It can be observed from the figure that the formation of
C-S-H in F-GFA is lower compared to C-GFA. It is also observed that
the prevailing reaction product is amorphous in nature. However, a
minor amount of crystalline phases are also seen in the sample
[39]. When fly ash is mixed with an alkaline solution containing
NaOH and Na2SiO3, it releases the silicon and aluminium ions into
the solution, which results in the formation of SiAOAAlAO bonds.
It is considered to be a strong binder and imparts strength to the
geopolymer material [9,35]. The XRD patterns of C-GFA and
F-GFA show that the intensity of the parent minerals decreased
after the geopolymerization process, but it indicates that these
minerals were not completely dissolved in the alkaline solution
[40]. Sharp peaks of quartz can be seen in the XRD patterns of
C-GFA and F-GFA which was inherited from the parent fly
ash proves that the involvement of crystalline phase was less
compared to amorphous phase [41].
Fig. 8. XRD diffraction peaks of CFA and C-GFA.
364 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367
Fig. 9. XRD diffraction patterns of FFA and F-GFA.
Fig. 10 shows the SEM micrographs of C-GFA, the micrographs
are arranged in the increasing order of their magnification ranging
from 500 X to 5 KX. From the micrographs, it can be observed that
C-GFA and F-GFA are porous in nature and the particles are irreg-
ular in shape. The irregular particles seen on the SEM images were
quartz, unburned coal and agglomerates while the regularly
shaped particles were mostly spheres such as cenospheres and
plerospheres [42]. The porous nature and cracks might have con-
tributed to increased water absorption. The SEM analysis did not
show a homogenous microstructure, however, a continuous matrix
Fig. 10. SEM analysis of C-GFA.
with fly ash particles and pores were found to be embedded within
the microstructure. The fly ash particles were combined due to the
cementations reactions which provided a dense microstructure. In
a similar study on NaOH activated geopolymers, Somna et al. [36]
had also observed similar kind of microstructure in their geopoly-
meric samples. It is also interesting to observe the fly ash particles
coated with the cementitious products serving as nucleation sites
for further reactions.
In case of micrographs of F-GFA as shown in Fig. 10, the homo-
geneity of the microstructure was quite less than that of C-GFA.
From the micrographs, the presence of unreacted fly ash particles
is also identified i.e., fly ash particles that are unutilized during
geopolymerization reactions. An interlocking network of fly ash
particles is observed which is supposed to provide strength to
the GFA. Some of the fly ash particles are also seen to act as a nucle-
ation site for further chemical reactions. Studies were done by
Agrawal et al. [3] also observed similar results and it is reported
that these unreacted fly ash particles could act as fillers and also
contribute in increasing strength of mortar and concrete.
From Fig. 11 at 5 KX magnification, it can be observed that fly
ash particles that have undergone geopolymerization co-exist with
some unreacted fly ash spheres and also with particles that are
partially covered with reaction products [43]. The heterogeneity
of both C-GFA and F-GFA was mainly due to the heterogeneity of
parent fly ash.
4.2. Compressive strength of mortar and concrete
The effect of using C-GFA and F-GFA was determined by con-
ducting compression tests on the mortar and concrete cubes
according to IS 2386 (Part 6), IS 2250-1981 [44,45]. The results
were compared with the compressive strength of mortar and
concrete prepared with river sand and M-sand. The 28-day
 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367
Fig. 11. SEM analysis of F-GFA.
compressive strength was determined by casting six mortar cubes
(3 using C-GFA and 3F-GFA) of size 70.7  70.7  70.7 mm. To pre-
pare mortar cubes C-GFA and F-GFA were mixed with cement and
water in 1:3 proportion by volume, with w/c ratio of 0.7 for C-GFA
and 0.6 for F-GFA to achieve a flow of 100 ± 5 mm. The slight
increase in w/c ratio of C-GFA could be due to the higher water
absorption (6.05%) caused by the presence of cracks along with
the pores. Similarly, mortar cubes were prepared using natural
river sand and M-sand in 1:3 proportion and w/c ratio of 0.45 to
achieve a flow of 110 ± 5 (IS 4031 (Part 7) [46]). C-GFA, F-GFA, nat-
ural sand and M-sand mortar cubes were cured for 28 days. The
average 28-day compressive strength of C-GFA mortar and F-GFA
mortar is given in Fig. 12. Similar results were reported by Agrawal
Fig. 12. Compressive strength results of mortar cube.
365
et al. [3] for class F fly ash, they reported a compressive strength of
22.406 MPa for class F fly ash GFA and 23.94 MPa for natural sand.
The compressive strength of C-GFA and F-GFA mortar were 83%
and 75% of natural sand and 89.01% and 81% of M-sand respec-
tively. According to Bilir et al. [11] the compressive strength of
mortar reduced by 73.1% when natural river sand was replaced
completely with class F fly ash which is lower than the values
obtained in this study. Temuujin et al. [47] varied weight ratio of
the binder to sand aggregate from 9 to 1, and sand was replaced
up to 50%. Geopolymer mortars with 50% aggregate replacement
were stiff and difficult to work with but the compressive strength
did not undergo much deviation (strength deviation of 33%) from
10% replacement level.
The compressive strength of C-GFA and F-GFA concrete (cubes
of 10 cm size) was determined after 28 days. Concrete was propor-
tioned for M20, the mix design based on IS 10262: 2009 [48] and
SP: 23-1982 [49]. As the water absorption of geopolymer fine
aggregate is more, both C-GFA and F-GFA was pre-wetted for
15 min before using in concrete in saturated surface dry condition.
Later, it was mixed with cement, coarse aggregate and water with
w/c of 0.5 to achieve a slump of 55 mm; six cubes were cast (3
using class C fly ash GFA and 3 using class F fly ash GFA) and were
cured for 28 days. The average compressive strength of C-GFA and
F-GFA mortar is given in Fig. 13.
The average 28 day compressive strength of C-GFA and F-GFA
were 80.24% and 75% of natural sand and 83.9% and 77% of M-
sand respectively. Previous studies [10–14] showed that replace-
ment of fine aggregate with fly ash is possible only up to 60%. In
the study conducted by Siddique et al. [15] the strength of concrete
increased with increase in fly ash percentage, but the rate of
increase in strength decreased at higher per cent replacement, par-
ticularly between 40 and 50% replacement level. A study by Lam
et al. [50], also suggested that when fly ash was used as a binder
in concrete, the aggregate quantity was reduced with the increase
366 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367
Fig. 13. Compressive strength results of the concrete cube.
in the binder. The replacement of cement ranged from 0 to 55%. At
the replacement level of 55%, the strength of concrete reduced by
44% when compared to normal concrete. In both C-GFA and F-
GFA the unreacted fly ash particles will react with lime released
during the hydration process and this imparts higher strength to
both mortar and concrete.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results obtained from this study of geopolymeriz-
ing fly ash (class C and class F) into fine aggregates and using as an
alternative to natural river sand and M-sand, the following conclu-
sions can be made.

The physical properties such as specific gravity, particle size
analysis, direct shear test, soundness test and ASR tests pro-
vided comparable results with natural sand and M-sand.

Water absorption of both C-GFA and F-GFA (6.05% and 5.51%
respectively) was higher compared to natural sand and
M-sand (1.033% and 0.982% respectively). The aggregates are
considered to be porous in nature. The SEM images exhibited
the presence of pores on both C-GFA and F-GFA.

In the XRD patterns of C-GFA and F-GFA, the presence of amor-
phous phase was predominant than the crystalline phase and it
was also identified that the parent mineral did not undergo
complete dissolution after the geopolymerization.

SEM images revealed the porous nature of C-GFA and F-GFA.
Presence of unreacted fly ash particles was also identified.

Introduction of both C-GFA and F-GFA in mortar and concrete
reduces the compressive strength when compared to natural
sand and M-sand but meets the required strength to be used
as a structural material.
Both C-GFA and F-GFA can be used as a complete replacement
material for natural sand and M-sand in mortar and concrete.
C-GFA and F-GFA are lighter in weight compared to river sand
and M-sand. These light weight aggregates can be used for the
manufacture of concrete blocks, construction of partition walls
and panel walls as well as for the heat insulation on roofs. These
aggregates are cheaper compared to conventional light weight
aggregates and it is environment friendly. However, the water
absorption of C-GFA and F-GFA was found to be high. Further stud-
ies are needed to reduce the water absorption through different
processes for synthesis. It is quite possible with future works that
this technique can be implemented to an industrial scale.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Environmental Alert
Service (GEAS), Nairobi, Kenya, Report: Sand, Rarer than One Thinks, March
2014.
[2] Sudhakar M. Rao, Indra Prasad Acharya, Synthesis and characterization of fly
ash geopolymer sand, Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2014) 912–917.
[3] U.S. Agrawal, S.P. Wanjari, D.N. Naresh, Characteristic study of geopolymer fly
ash sand as a replacement to natural river sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 150
(2017) 681–688.
[4] Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi, 2017, Report on Fly ash Generation at
Coal/Lignite Based Thermal Power Stations and its Utilisation in the Country
for the Year 2016–2017.
[5] Sreekesh U. Menon, Kalpathy Balakrishnan Anand, Anil Kumar Sharma,
Performance evaluation of alkali-activated coal ash aggregate in concrete,
Waste Resour. Manage. 171 (1) (2018) 4–13.
[6] Turhan Bilir, Isa Yüksel, Ilker Bekir Topcu, Osman Gencel, Effects of Bottom ash
and granulated blast furnace slag as fine aggregate on abrasion resistance of
concrete, Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater., DE GRUYTER (2015) 1–9.
[7] Ilker Tekina, Muhammed Yasin Durgunb, Osman Gencelb, Turhan Bilir, Witold
Brostowd, Haley E. Hagg Loblandd, Concretes with synthetic aggregates for
sustainability, Constr. Build. Mater. 133 (2017) 425–432.
[8] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, fourth ed., vol. 4,
Institut Géopolymère, 2015, pp. 1–620.
[9] P. Duxson, A. Fernández-Jimnénez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J.S.J. van
Deventer, Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, Mater. Sci. 42
(2007) 2917–2933.
[10] B.V. Rangan, Fly, ash-based geopolymer concrete, in: Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Geopolymer Cement and Concrete, 2010, pp. 68–
106. December.
[11] T. Bilir, O. Gencel, I. Bekir, Properties of mortars with fly ash as fine aggregate,
Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 782–789.
[12] N.P. Rajamane, P.S. Ambily, Fly ash as a sand replacement material in concrete-
a study, Indian Concr. J. 87 (7) (2013).
[13] Jakub Hodul, Rostislav Drochytka, Jana Hodna, Experimental verification of
utilisation of fly ash from the flue gas denitrification process as a filler to epoxy
patching mortar, 18th International Conference on Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction of Buildings (CRRB 2016), Procedia Engineering, vol. 195,
2017, pp. 134–141.
[14] V.K. Parvati, K.B. Prakash, Feasibility study of fly ash as a replacement for fine
aggregate in concrete and its behaviour under sustained elevated temperature,
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4 (5) (2013) 87–90.
[15] R. Siddique, Effect of fine aggregate replacement with class f fly ash on the
abrasion resistance of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (11) (2003) 1877–1881.
[16] G. Joseph, K. Ramamurthy, Influence of fly ash on strength and sorption
characteristics of cold bonded fly ash aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
23 (2009) 1862–1870.
[17] Nguyen Van Chanh, Bui Dang Trung, Dang Van Tuan, Recent research
geopolymer concrete, The 3rd ACF International Conference-ACF/VCA,
Vietnam, vol. 18, 2008, pp. 235–241.
[18] N. Lloyd, B.V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete: a review of development and
opportunities, 36th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, Article
No.: 100035037, CI-Premier Pte Ltd, 2010.
[19] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Method of Test for Pozzolanic Materials, IS
1727, New Delhi, India, 1967.
[20] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Methods of test for soils: Grain size analysis,
IS 2720 Part 4, New Delhi, India, 1985.
[21] ASTM, Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural
Pozzolan for use in Concrete, C618, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008.
[22] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Specification for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland
cement, IS 12269, New Delhi, India, 2013.
[23] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Method of Test for Aggregate for Concrete –
Specific Gravity, Density, Voids Absorption and Bulking. IS 2386 (Part-3), New
Delhi, India, 1963.
[24] A. Palomo, M.W. Grutzeck, M.T. Blanco, Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for
the future, Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (1999) 1323–1329.
[25] Zarina Yahya, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah, Kamarudin Hussin, Khairul
Nizar Ismail, Rafiza Abd Razak, Andrei Victor Sandu, Effect of solids-to-liquids,
Na2SiO3-to-NaOH and curing temperature on the palm oil boiler ash (Si + Ca)
geopolymerization system, Materials 8 (2015) 2227–2242.
[26] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregate
From Natural Sources for Concrete, IS 383 New Delhi, India, 2016.
[27] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Method of Test for Soils: Determination of pH
Value, IS 2720 (part 26), New Delhi, India, 1987.
[28] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Method of Test for Aggregate for Concrete,
Particle Size and Shape, IS 2386 (Part-1), New Delhi, India, 1963.
[29] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Classification and Identification of Soils for
General Engineering Purposes, IS 1498, New Delhi, India, 1970.
[30] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Methods of Test for Soils-Direct Shear Test, IS
2720 (Part 13), New Delhi, India, 1986.
 S. Parvathy S et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 359–367
[31] B.M. Das, Khalid Sobhan, Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, eighth ed.,
Cengage Learning, Stamford, USA, 2012.
[32] Gye-Chun Cho, J. Dodds, J. Carlos Santamarina, Particle shape effects on
packing density, stiffness and strength: natural and crushed sands, Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (2006) 591–602.
[33] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Method of Test for Aggregate for Concrete –
Soundness, IS 2386 (Part-5), New Delhi, India, 1963.
[34] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (mortar-
bar-method), C1260, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001.
[35] A. Palomo, A.F. Jiménez, Alkaline activation, procedure for transforming fly ash
into new materials. Part 1: applications, in: Proceedings World Coal Ash, 2011,
pp. 1–14.
[36] Kiatsuda Somna, Chai Jaturapitakkul, Puangrat Kajitvichyanukul, Prinya
Chindaprasirt, NaOH-activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient
temperature, Fuel (2011) 2118–2124.
[37] Mohamed E. Sultana, Salah A. Abo-El-Eneinb, Ahmed Z. Sayeda, Tarek M. EL-
Sokkaryc, Hamdy A. Hammada, Incorporation of cement bypass flue dust in fly
ash and blast furnace slag-based geopolymer, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 8
(2018) 315–322.
[38] Gaurav Nagalia, Yeonho Park, Ali Abolmaali, Pranesh Aswath, Compressive
strength and microstructural properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (12) (2016) 1–11.
[39] G. Kovalchuck, A. Fernandez Jimenez, A. Palomo, Alkali activated fly ash: effect
of thermal curing conditions on mechanical and microstructural development-
Part II, Fuel 86 (2007) 315–322.
367
[40] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm. Anal.
37 (1991) 1633–1656.
[41] Jian He, Yuxin Jie, Jianhong Zhang, Yuzhen Yu, Guoping Zhang, Synthesis and
characterization of red mud and rice husk ash based geopolymer composites,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 37 (2013) 108–118.
[42] M. Komljenovic, Z. Bascarevic, V. Bradic, Mechanical and microstructural
properties of alkali activated fly ash geopolymers, J. Hazard. Mater. 181 (2010)
35–42.
[43] T. Bakharev, Geopolymeric materials prepared using class F fly ash and
elevated temperature curing, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 1224–1232.
[44] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Method of Test for Aggregate for Concrete –
Measuring Mortar Making Properties of Fine aggregate, IS 2386 (Part-6), New
Delhi, India, 1963.
[45] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Code of Practice and Preparation and Use of
Masonry Mortars, IS 2250, New Delhi, India, 1981.
[46] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Methods of Physical Tests for Hydraulic
Cement, IS 4031 (Part 7), New Delhi, India, 1988.
[47] J. Temuujin, A. van Riessen, K.J.D. MacKenzie, Preperation and characterisation
of geopolymer mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 1906–1910.
[48] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Concrete Mix Proportioning Guidelines, IS
10262: 2009, New Delhi, India.
[49] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Handbook on concrete Mixes, SP: 23-1982,
New Delhi, India.
[50] L. Lam, Y.L. Wong, C.S. Poon, Effect of fly ash and silica fume on compressive
and fracture behaviours of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 28 (1998) 271–283.