Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete with Alternative Materials

Vinod Sasalatti, Research Scholar, & Radhakrishna, Professor and Head, Dept of Civil Engg, R V College of Engineering, Bengaluru (affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)

Concrete is considered the world’s most versatile, durable and reliable construction material, next only to water. It is the most consumed material requiring large quantity of cement, fine aggregates, course aggregates and water. Constituents of concrete can be replaced partially or fully with alternate materials to make geopolymer concrete. This article focuses on sustainable geopolymer technology of making concrete using industrial wastes ie, Class F fly ash, GGBS, Metakaolin and Bagasse ash, M-sand, Pond ash, Recycled aggregates and Recycled water and their effects on mechanical properties. The combination of these materials has yielded interesting and encouragable results.

Concrete, a composite material is the second most consumed in the world after water and is a versatile material that can be molded into almost any shape [1]. Manufacture of cement involves high energy consumption and emits greater amount of CO2 during production [2]. Extraction of natural sand (sand) from river beds results in loss of vegetation on river banks and lowers ground water table [3]. Ecological imbalance, increased cost of transportation and construction are caused by use of cement, sand and coarse aggregates. Extensive use of traditional materials of cement concrete (CC) results in their faster depletion and cause several disadvantages and affects the environment. It is important to address the problems effectively by finding alternate materials to reduce or completely replace traditional materials to save the environment [4]. Some of the alternative materials that can be used as replacement of cement, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate are fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), bagasse ash, rice husk ash, coconut shell, M-sand, foundry sand, pond ash, blast furnace slag, recycled aggregates and recycled water etc. In this study geopolymer concrete is prepared by replacing the ingredients ie, binder, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water with alternative materials.

Geopolymer acts as a binder to bind the aggregates in geopolymer concrete (GPC). It is formed when silica and alumina present in base material are activated by combination of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide solution at high alkanility. Geopolymer concrete has better sulphate resistance, acid resistance and undergoes less creep [5]. Bagasse ash (BA) is the by-product of sugar refining industry and is a pazzolonic material with 85-90 % of silica and alumina [6]. Slag sand (SS) is a by-product produced in the process of iron making in blast furnace which is mildly alkaline and doesn’t pose risk of corrosion to steel in concrete and also reduces cost of concrete [7]. Recycled aggregates (RA) are produced from crushing the concrete waste of demolished buildings to a required size.

A study has revealed that, compressive strength of geopolymer concrete increases with increase in concentration of sodium hydroxide in terms of molarity, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio, curing temperature and curing time. [8, 9]. Optimum compressive strength was achieved for sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio of 2.5 and molarity of 12M. Increase in molarity decreases workability of geopolymer concrete [10, 11, 12]. Also, workability increases with increase in fly ash content and alkaline-binder ratio in geopolymer concrete [13]. Improved workability was noticed when M-sand was used in geopolymer concrete [14, 15]. Compressive and split tensile strengths decrease with increase in fly ash content [10, 16]. Increased replacement of bagasse ash in concrete resulted in decreased workability and compressive strength [17]. The properties of geopolymer concrete improved when sand is replaced with M-sand up to the level of 60 % [18]. Increased replacement of sand by pond ash decreased the compressive strength but increased flexural strength at the optimum replacement of 20 - 30 % [19, 20]. Maximum compressive strength was achieved at 25 to 50 % replacement of sand with slag sand [21]. With increased replacement of coarse aggregate by recycled aggregate, decrease in compressive, split tensile and flexural strengths was observed [22]. The properties of geopolyers with specific combinations of flyash, baggase ash and GGBS are not much reported in the literature. The present research is an approach to find possible alternative materials for making geopolymer concrete as an alternative to cement concrete. Alkaline solution of 12 M with sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio 1.25:1 and fly ash to GGBS ratio of 80:20 are considered for making geopolymer concrete based on the referred literature [8, 9]. Objective of the study is to characterize the materials, check their suitability for making geopolymer concrete and to study the workability and mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete using alternative materials.

Materials and Methods
Flyash and pond ash (PA), GGBS, slag sand (SS) and bagasse ash (BA) were procured from RTPS, Shaktinagar, Raichur, Jindal Steel works, Bellary and Mandya respectively in Karnataka, India. Commercially available sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate and metakaolin (MK) were used. Natural sand (NS) was procured from Kaveri river bed. Coarse aggregate and M-sand (MS) were procured from Ramnagar. All the materials were characterised for physical properties.

Particle size distribution curves for sand, M-sand, Pond ash and Slag sandFigure 1: Particle size distribution curves for sand, M-sand, Pond ash and Slag sand

Physical properties of flyash, GGBS, bagasse ash, metakaolin and aggregates are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Mix combinations of binders, fine aggregates and coarse aggregates and particle size distribution curves for natural sand, M-sand, slag sand, pond ash are shown in Table 3 and Figure 1 respectively.

Table 1. Physical properties of Fly ash, GGBS, Bagasse Ash and Metakaolin
Ingredient / Property Fly ash GGBS Bagasse ash Metakaolin
Specific Gravity 2.3 2.9 2.0 2.6
Residue on 45µ in percentage 0.5 0.5 2.0 0

Table 2. Physical properties of aggregates
Ingradient/ Property Natural Sand M- sand Pond ash Slag sand Coarse aggregate Recycled aggregate
Specific Gravity 2.59 2.5 2.33 2.53 2.62 2.3
Water absorption (%) 0.9 1.8 2 1.2 0.5 3
Grading Zone III II I II - -

Table 3. Mix Combinations of binders, fine aggregates and coarse aggregates
Sample ID Binder Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Fluid/ Binder ratio Slump     (mm)
CC Cement Sand Natural 0.45 90
GPC-NS 80%Flyash+ 20%GGBS Sand Natural 0.45 110
GPC-SS 80%Flyash+ 20%GGBS Slag sand Natural 0.45 85
GPC-MS 80%Flyash+ 20%GGBS M-sand Natural 0.45 0
GPC-PA 80%Flyash+ 20%GGBS Pond Ash Natural 0.45 0
GPC-BA 75%Flyash+ 20%GGBS + 5%Bagasse ash Sand Natural 0.45 20
GPC-MK 75%Flyash+20%GGBS+ 5%Metakaolin Sand Natural 0.45 40
GPC-RA 80%Flyash+ 20%GGBS Sand Recycled 0.45 0

Cement concrete and geopolymer concrete samples with alternative fine aggregates were prepared for binder, fine aggregate and course aggregate in 1:1:2 proportions with fluid-binder ratio of 0.45. The binder was a combination of flyash and GGBS with 80:20 ratio. Alkaline solution of 12 M with sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio of 1.25:1 was considered. Workability of concrete samples in fresh state using slump-cone test and mechanical properties were analysed by replacing fly ash content in the binder with 5% bagasse ash and 5% metakaolin.

Geopolymer concrete was used to cast cubes of size 150x150x150mm and beams of size 100x100x500mm to determine compressive strength and flexural strength respectively as per IS Codes. L-shaped specimens were cast by inserting a wooden block of size 90x60mm in cross section and 150mm in height in 150x150x150mm cube mold. They were tested for shear strength by a method proposed by Baruah and Talukdar [23]. Cylinders of size 150x300 mm were cast to determine split tensile strength. The course aggregate was replaced with recycled aggregate. Modulus of Elasticity was also determined.

Results and discussion
Table 4 and Figure 2 give the compressive strength of cement concrete and geopolymer concrete with alternative binders. The reduction in strength of geopolymer concrete was observed when 80 % fly ash was replaced with 75 % fly ash and 5 % bagasse or 5 % metakaolin. The reduction in strength is 1.7 % and 3.5 % respectively. With respect cement concrete the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete was found 28 % lesser. As per earlier studies, similar results were achieved when cement was replaced with 5 % alternative binders such as bagasse ash and metakaolin in cement concrete [17, 24].

Compressive strength of CC and GPC with different bindersFigure 2: Compressive strength of CC and GPC with different binders

Table 4. Compressive strength of cement concrete and geopolymer concretes with alternative binders.
Sample ID 28 days Compressive strength (in MPa) Remarks
CC 32.1 Not Applicable
GPC 23.1 28 % less than CC
GPC-BA 22.7 29 % less than CC and 1.7% less than GPC
GPC-MK 22.3 31 % less than CC and 3.5% less than GPC

Table 5 shows the density and compressive strength of geopolymer concrete with alternative fine aggregates. The variation in density was found to be not considerable between cement concrete and geoplymer concrete with different aggregates. The compressive strength of cement concrete after 3 days and 7 days was more compared to geopolymer concrete with alternative fine aggregates. This low early strength of geopolymer concrete is due to slower polymerization during initial stages. There is a gradual increase in compressive strength of geopolymer concrete for fine aggregates ie., from pond ash to natural sand to slag sand and M-sand.

Table 5. Density and compressive strength of CC and GPC with alternative fine aggregates
Sample ID Density after 28 days in Kg/m3 Compressive strength in MPa
3 days 7 days 28 days
CC 23.25 14.67 22.6 32.10
GPC-NS 22.67 2.31 3.3 23.11
GPC-MS 22.64 2.48 4.09 25.33
GPC-SS 22.81 2.52 3.82 24.70
GPC-PA 22.38 2.50 3.7 21.04

Table 6 shows the compressive strength of cement concrete and geopolymer concrete with coarse aggregates and recycled aggregates. There was 26 % reduction in strength when recycled aggregate was used with cement concrete as compared to cement concrete with natural aggregate. Reduction in strength was 29 % for geopolymer concrete compared to cement concrete both using recycled aggregate. This is due to higher water absorption by recycled aggregates in concrete [25, 26].

Table 6. Compressive strength of CC and GPC with recycled coarse aggregates
Sample ID 28 days Compressive  strength in MPa Remarks
CC 32.0 Not applicable
CC-RA 23.5 26 %  less than CC
GPC-RA 16.6 48 % less than CC 29 %  less than CC-RA

Split tensile strength for cement concrete was around 10 % of compressive strength and same was observed for geopolymer concrete with various fine aggregates. Table 7 gives Split tensile strength of cement concrete and geopolymer concrete with alternative fine aggregates. Split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete was found maximum and minimum for M-sand and pond ash respectively.

Table 7. Split tensile strength of CC and GPC with alternative fine aggregates
Sample ID Split tensile strength in MPa Remarks
CC 3.49 Not applicable
GPC-NS 2.45 30%  less than CC
GPC-MS 2.82 19%  less than CC & 15%  more than GPC-NS
GPC-SS 2.58 26%  less than CC  & 5%  more than GPC-NS
GPC-PA 2.17 38%  less than CC & 11%  less than GPC-NS

Table 8 shows flexural strength of cement concrete and geopolymer concrete with alternative fine aggregates. According to IS 456:2000, flexural strength should be 0.7√fck which is equal to 3.5 MPa for M 25 grade concrete. The flexural strength obtained for concrete with various combinations was more than 3.5 MPa. Geopolymer concrete with M-sand and pond ash showed highest and lowest flexural strength respectively.

Table 8. Flexural strength of CC and GPC with alternative fine aggregates
Sample ID Flexural strength in MPa Remarks
CC 4.44 NA
GPC-NS 4.06 8.5%  less than CC
GPC-MS 4.22 5% less than CC & 4% more than GPC-NS
GPC-SS 4.14 6.8% less than CC & 2% more than GPC-NS
GPC-PA 3.77 15% less than CC & 7% less than GPC-NS

Table 9 shows shear strength of cement concrete and geopolymer concrete with alternative aggregates. Geopolymer concrete has good shear strength and the strength values obtained are similar to earlier study [23]. Geopolymer concrete with M-sand has higher shear strength compared to geopolymer concrete with slag sand and pond ash.

Table 9. Shear strength of CC and GPC with alternative fine aggregates
Sample ID Shear strength in MPa Remarks
CC 9.5  
GPC-NS 7.81 17.8%  less than CC
GPC-MS 8.67 8.7% less than CC & 11% more than GPC-NS
GPC-SS 7.25 23% less than CC & 7% less than GPC-NS
GPC-PA 6.85 27.8% less than CC & 12.3% less than GPC-NS

Variation of Modulus of Elasticity is shown in Figure 3. Among Geopolymer concrete with various fine aggregates, geopolymer concrete with M-sand has maximum modulus of elasticity than with natural sand, slag sand and pond ash.

Modulus of Elasticity of GPC with various aggregatesFigure 3: Modulus of Elasticity of GPC with various aggregates

Following conclusions are drawn by the study on cement concrete and geopolymer concrete with alternative materials:

Slump value for geopolymer concrete with natural sand is more than cement concrete.

Workability of geopolymer concrete decreases when alternative binders such as bagasse ash and metakolin are used even in small percentages. The workability of geopolymer concrete is better with natural sand and slag sand among the various fine aggregates.

Compressive, split tensile, flexural and shear strengths of geopolymer concrete with M-sand and slag sand are higher than the geopolymer concrete with natural sand and pond ash.

Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete with recycled aggregates is very low compared to geopolymer concrete with natural aggregates.

Air cured geopolymer concrete with various fine aggregates and alternative binders at lower replacement levels can be used as structural concrete and total sustainability can be achieved.

The authors would like to thank the authorities of R V College of Engineering, Bengaluru, for their support and encouragement.

  1. Sunil Kumar, R and Ramesh, V., “Study on Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete”, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, Vol. 3, Issue 1, Sep 2015, pp 384-388.
  2. Gautam L, Prema Apeksha Kanojia and Jain S. K., “Performance of Coconut Shell as Coarse Aggregate in Concrete: A Review”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 2, Issue 04, July 2015, pp 1096-1100.
  3. Vipul Naidu, P. and Pawan Kumar Pandey, “Replacement of Cement in Concrete”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Development, ISSN 2249-3131 Vol. 4, Number 1, 2014, pp 92-98.
  4. Subramani, T. and Ramesh, K.S., “Experimental Study on Partial Replacement of Cement with Fly Ash and Complete Replacement of Sand with M sand”, International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM), Vol. 4, Issue 5, May 2015, pp 313-322.
  5. Sonali, K., Gadpalliwar, Deotale, R. S. and Abhijeet, R. Narde, “To Study the Partial Replacement of Cement by GGBS & RHA and Natural Sand by Quarry Sand In Concrete”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), Vol. 11, Issue 2, Ver. II, Mar- Apr. 2014, pp 69-77.
  6. Ushaa, T. G., Anuradha, R., Venkatasubramani. G. S., “Performance of self-compacting geopolymer concrete containing different mineral admixtures”, Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, Vol. 22, August 2015, pp. 473-481.
  7. Bagwan, K. M. and Dr. Kulkarni, S. S., “A Study of Characteristic and Use of Pond Ash for Construction”, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 4, Issue 6, June 2014, pp 835-840.
  8. Sujata, D. Nandagawali and Dhamge, N. R., “Study of Blast Furnace Slag for Improving Mechanical Property of Concrete”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Vol. 3, Issue 4, July 2014, pp 473-477.
  9. Rajini. B and Narasimha, Rao, A.V., “Mechanical properties of a Geopolymer Concrete with Fly ash and GGBS as source materials”, International Journals of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 9, September 2014, pp 15944- 15953.
  10. Ravi Kumar, V. and Mani, P., “An Experimental Study on Fly ash Based Geopolymer Concrete”, International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology, Nov. 2015, pp 240-246.
  11. Manoj Kumar Manugunta and Naveena Kanaboyana., “Experimental Studies on Strength characteristics of 12M Geopolymer Mortar Based on Flyash and GGBS”, International Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 5, May 2015, pp 2911- 2919.
  12. Mohammed Areeb Qidwai, Abid Alam, Imran Alam, “The Effect Of Molarity on Geopolymer Concrete”, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, Apr-Jun 2015, pp 9-12.
  13. Shaik Jabiulla and Neeraja D., “Performance Evaluation of Metakaolin And Flyash Based Geo Polymer Concrete”, International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering Vol. 2, Issue 7, March 2015, pp 1309- 1312.
  14. Chandan Kumar ., Krishna Murari., Sharma, C. R., “Performance Of Geopolymer Concrete At Elevated Temperature And Against Aggressive Chemical Environment”, International Journals Of Innovative Research In Science, Engineering And Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 6, June 2014, pp 13366- 13373.
  15. Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, M., and Vamsi Krishna Reddy, S., “Geopolymer Binder By Using Fly Ash”, International Journal Of Advanced Scientific And Technical Research, Vol. 3, Issue 4, May-June 2014, pp 891-896.
  16. Khalid Bashir., “Fly Ash Based Geo Polymer Concrete”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 2014, pp 19-23.
  17. Srinivasan R and Sathiya K., “Experimental study on Bagasse ash in Concrete”, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Vol. 5, 2010, pp 60-66.
  18. Parthiban, K. and Vaithianathan, S., “Effect of Kaolin Content and Alkaline Concentration on the Strength Development of Geopolymer Concrete”, International Journal of ChemTech Research, Vol. 8, No.4, 2015, pp 1730-1734.
  19. Krishnan,L., Karthikeyan,S., Nathiya,S. and Suganya, K., “Geopolymer Concrete An Eco Friendly Construction Material”, International Journal of Research In Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 11, Jun 2014, pp 164-167.
  20. Srinivas, K.S., Prathap Kumar, M.T. and Prema Kumar, W. P., “Comparative Performance of Geopolymer Concrete Exposed To Acidic Environment”, Vol. 4, Issue 4, May 2015, pp 27-31.
  21. Vignesh, P and Vivek, K., “An Experimental Investigation on Strength Parameters of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete with GGBS”, Vol. 2, Issue 2, May 2015, pp 135 -142.
  22. Rohit Zende and Mamatha, A., “Study On Fly Ash and GGBS Based Geopolymer Concrete under Ambient Curing”, Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, Vol. 2, Issue 7, July 2015, pp 3082- 3087.
  23. Baruah, P. and Talukdar, S., “A Comparative study of Compressive, Flexural, Tensile and Shear strength of concrete with fibers of different origins”, Indian Concrete Journal, July 2007, pp 17-24.
  24. Yogesh, R., Suryawanshi Amar, G., Kadam Sagar, S. Ghogare, Ramrao G. Ingale, and Priyanka L. Patil,” Experimental Study on Compressive Strength of Concrete by Using Metakaolin”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, May 2015, pp 235-239.
  25. Fathei Ramadan Salehlamein, Mochamad Solikin and Srisunarjono., “Effect of Recycled Coarse Aggregate on Concrete Properties”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 1, January 2015, pp 19060-19068.
  26. Manjunath, M. and Prakash, K.B., “Effect of replacement of natural aggregates by recycled aggregates derived from field demolished concrete on the workability and strength characteristics of concrete”, International journal of environmental sciences, Vol. 6, 2015, pp 119-128.

Concrete Rheology - Unveiling the Secrets of Concrete
Concrete is a heterogeneous composite complex material, and its hardened property is influenced by its fresh property. Concrete today has transformed into an advanced type with new and innovative ingredients added - either singly or in

Read more ...

ICRETE: Making Concrete Economical
ICRETE offers many benefits apart from reducing cement content and giving high grades saving to ready-mix concrete companies; it helps reduce shrinkage and permeability in concrete slabs, increases the durability of concrete, and also works

Read more ...

UltraTech Cement to implement Coolbrook’s RotoDynamic HeaterTM revolutionary technology for industrial electrification
UltraTech Cement Limited, India’s largest cement and ready-mix concrete (RMC) company, and Coolbrook, a transformational technology and engineering company, will jointly develop a project to implement Coolbrook’s RotoDynamic HeaterTM (RDH)

Read more ...

Plastic Shrinkage and Cracks in Concrete
Plastic shrinkage cracking occurs when fresh concrete is subjected to a very rapid loss of moisture. It is caused by a combination of factors such as air and concrete temperature, relative humidity, and wind velocity at the surface of concrete. These can cause

Read more ...

Mechanised way of plastering with spray Plaster Machine
This paper covers the research work carried out on cement plastering process for internal and external building wall by using spray plastering machine. Objective of study is to experiment and compare the plastering activity by conventional way and

Read more ...

Construction Defects Investigation & Remedies
In recent years, the speed of construction has increased very fast; buildings which used to take 3-5 years are now getting completed in 1-2 years. There is a race to complete projects faster, but due to this speedy construction, the quality of construction is often

Read more ...

Challenges in usage of Hydrogen in Cement Industry
With its zero-emission characteristics, hydrogen has become a promising decarbonization path for the cement industry. While there are several issues that need to be resolved in the use of hydrogen, there are also many advantages, so much so that the growth

Read more ...

Enhancing Corrosion Resistance of Steel Bars in Reinforced Concrete Structures
Reinforced concrete is a composite material which is made using concrete and steel bars. Concrete takes the compressive forces and steel bar takes tensile forces. Concrete around the steel bar protects it from corrosion by providing an alkaline environment

Read more ...

Moving toward workability retention to rheology retention with low viscosity concrete technology
Amol Patil, Sr. Specialist - General Manager (Admixture and Specialty Products), Master Builders Solutions (India), and Nilotpol KAR, Managing Director, Master Builders Solutions (South Asia), present a paper on the concept of low viscosity concrete in

Read more ...

Cement industry innovating eco-friendly packaging
Cement companies are constantly innovating to meet global sustainability standards and improve logistics, shelf life, and utility of cement, while reducing wastage. Thei aim is to reduce their environmental impact without compromising their product

Read more ...

IIT Madras uses Solar Thermal Energy to Recycle Waste concrete
Researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras have developed a treatment process using solar thermal energy to recycle construction and demolition debris. Waste concrete from demolition was heated using solar radiation to produce recycled concrete

Read more ...

Textile Reinforced Concrete - A Novel Construction Material of the Future
As a new-age innovative building material, TRC is especially suited for maintenance of existing structures, for manufacturing new lightweight precast members, or as a secondary building material to aid the main building material. Textile Reinforced Concrete

Read more ...

Technological Innovation for Use of Bottom Ash by-product of Thermal Power Plants in the Production of Concrete
The day is not far for the adoption of this innovative, eco-friendly, and cost-effective bottom ash – concrete process technology by construction agencies undertaking road/infrastructure project works, real estate developers, ready mix concrete (RMC) operators

Read more ...

Headed Bars in Concrete Construction
Using headed bars instead of hooked bars offer several advantages like requirement of reduced development length, less congestion, ease of transport and fixing at site, better concrete consolidation, and better performance under seismic loads.

Read more ...

Sustainability of Cement Concrete - Research Experience at CRRI on Sustainability of Concrete from Materials Perspective
It can be said that ever since the publication of the document of World Commission on Environment and Development [1], the focus of the world has diverted towards sustainability. Gro Harlem Bruntland [1] defined sustainable development as “development

Read more ...

Shrinkage, Creep, Crack-Width, Deflection in Concrete
The effects of shrinkage, creep, crack-width, and deflection in concrete are often ignored by designers while designing structural members. These effects, if not considered in some special cases such as long span slabs or long cantilevers, may become very

Read more ...

Concrete Relief Shelve Walls - An Innovative Method of Earth Retention
Relief shelve walls are a unique concept that use only conventional construction materials like PCC / RCC / steel reinforcements, and work on a completely different fundamental to resist the lateral load caused due to soil. Information on the various dimensions

Read more ...

Carbon Neutrality in Cement Industry A Global Perspective
Increasing energy costs, overcapacity, and environmental pollution are the top concerns of the cement industry, which is one of the major contributors to CO2 emissions. Dr S B Hegde, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Jain College of Engineering

Read more ...

Finnish company Betolar expands to Indian concrete markets with a cement-free concrete solution
Betolar, a Finnish start-up, and innovator of geopolymer concrete solution Geoprime®, has expanded its operations to Europe and Asian markets including India, Vietnam and Indonesia. Betolar’s innovation Geoprime® is the next-generation, low carbon

Read more ...

Why Fly Ash Bricks Are Better Than Clay/Red Bricks
It is estimated that in India each million clay bricks consume about 200 tons of coal and emit around 270 tons of CO2; on the other hand, with fly ash bricks production in an energy-free route, there are no emissions. Dr. N. Subramanian, Consulting

Read more ...