9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

SPECIFICATION AND USE OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Fred Andrews-Phaedonos,VicRoads, Australia
ABSTRACT
Geopolymer concrete consists of similar ingredients as conventional concrete except that the cement is
wholly replaced by industry by-products such as slag and fly ash and the chemical reaction is promoted
by a concentrated solution of alk;ali-based chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate
instead of the conventional hydration reaction. This makes geopolymer concrete a more environmentally
sustainable product as it reduces carbon emissions by some 40 % to 80 % whilst maintaining the
structural properties of conventional concrete. Whilst conventional concrete is characterised by the
formation of calcium silicate hydrates (CSH), geopolymer concrete is characterised by an aluminosilicate
(Si-O-Al-O) based microstructure. Although a significant amount of research has been undertaken in
Australia over the past 10 to 20 years particularly in Victoria and Western Australia the take up of this
technology from laboratory controlled production to on-site field work has been relatively slow. However,
in more recent times, the need to reduce the carbon foot print in the construction sector is helping with the
marketing, manufacture and supply of geopolymer concrete in some parts of Australia, particularly for
lower risk applications.
A number of barriers have been suggested as impediments to the wider acceptance of geopolymer
concrete including technical, standardisation and regulatory barriers. However, use and monitoring of
geopolymer concrete by VicRoads over the past five years has culminated in the definition of geopolymer
concrete and inclusion in a number of standard VicRoads specifications, including general paving,
reinforced concrete pipes and concrete pits. It is considered that the inclusion of geopolymer concrete in
such specifications has assisted in the take up of geopolymer concrete in various commercial applications
in Victoria including foundations, slabs and precast panels, and has acted as a precursor to its
introduction into other areas of Australia. In general the use, monitoring and specification of geopolymer
concrete by VicRoads are considered to provide at least one pathway for increased use of low carbon
geopolymer concrete in Australia. This paper describes the evolution of geopolymer concrete from a trial
material to its inclusion in a number of standard VicRoads specifications, through to commercial
production and its use on more significant structures.

INTRODUCTION
Geopolymer concrete was first introduced into VicRoads as part of trial applications in 2009, namely, the
in-situ construction of landscape retaining walls at a bridge site [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], the manufacture and
installation of 180 precast footway panels across a bridge and construction of a significant length of
footpath. Following satisfactory monitoring of the performance of these applications geopolymer concrete
was defined and incorporated into the standard VicRoads specification Section 703 General Paving
Works in 2010 [6] as an equivalent product to Portland cement concrete. This was followed by the
construction of approximately 2 km in length of footpath and bicycle path, kerb and channel, maintenance
strip for wire rope safety barriers and guard rail, a shared user path, other general paving works and nofines geopolymer concrete on major projects, achieving significant reductions in CO 2 emissions.
A 450 metre long structural reinforced geopolymer concrete retaining wall which doubles as a raised
planter bed to improve soil conditions for tree planting was constructed on the M80 Western Ring Road
[7]. This project is the first full scale structural application for VicRoads (since the original trial structural
applications of the landscape retaining walls and footway panels) and considered to be the first major insitu construction on a major infrastructure project in Australia.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

This work was followed by the review of steel reinforced geopolymer concrete pipes manufactured by a
major pipe manufacturer, including the associated test data which demonstrated compliance with the
requirements of AS 4058 and standard VicRoads specification Section 701 Underground stormwater
drains [8].
As a result of the above work four standard VicRoads specifications have been amended to incorporate
provisions for the use of geopolymer concrete as follows:

Section 703 General Concrete Paving, geopolymer concrete defined and specified for use in kerb
and channel, joint user paths, footpaths, driveways and other surfacing, as an equivalent product to
conventional concrete for strength grades 20 MPa to 32 MPa

Section 701- Underground stormwater drains, geopolymer concrete for use in the manufacture of
Steel Reinforced Concrete Pipes as an equivalent product to conventional concrete pipes

Section 705 - Drainage Pits, geopolymer concrete for use in the construction of both precast and
in-situ drainage pits [9]

Section 711 - Wire Rope Safety Barriers, geopolymer concrete for use in the construction of anchor
blocks, post footings, maintenance strips and other associated concrete works [10].

At this stage use of geopolymer concrete in lower risk structural applications with respect to the
requirements of Section 610 Structural Concrete [11] may be considered on a job by job basis.

SALMON STREET BRIDGE OVER THE WEST GATE FREEWAYPRECAST GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE PANELS
A total of 180 precast footway units based on a required equivalence to a concrete grade of VR470/55 as
set out in Section 610 were manufactured and installed at the Salmon Street Bridge in 2009 [12] (Fig. 1).
The full scale production and installation of the 180 units was completed within the same timeframe as
achieved by conventional type concrete.

Figure 1: Geopolymer concrete footway panels and footpath on Salmon Street Bridge.
The in-service performance of the precast footway geopolymer panels has been visually monitored for
over 5 years since installation. In general the precast geopolymer panels are performing satisfactorily with
the surface finish looking good. The concrete colour as expected has changed to a light grey colour
(resembling an off-white colour) given the fact that the slag component within the concrete mix would
change colour from green following mixing and placement as a result of exposure to the environment. Its
off-white colour is blending more with the rest of the bridge and its surrounding environment.
However, out of a total of 180 units some eight of them were characterised by minor cracking of less than
0.15 mm. It is considered that this cracking would have been there since manufacture and installation

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

rather than in-service. Previous monitoring over the past five years identified the same cracking with no
noticeable change or increase in the length or width of cracking detected. Structurally the precast
footway geopolymer panels are considered to be performing very satisfactory without an evidence of
distress.

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS AT SWAN STREET

BRIDGE
Construction of two in-situ geopolymer concrete landscape retaining walls at the Swan Street Bridge over
the Yarra River [1, 2, 3, 4, 5,13] (Fig. 2) in 2009 was undertaken utilising conventional techniques for
formwork construction, concrete placement by pumping, compaction with a poker vibrator, finishing and
curing with polyethylene plastic.
In order to monitor the long term performance of the geopolymer concrete and enable monitoring of the
corrosion state of the reinforcing steel, three MnO 2 half-cell reference electrodes were also installed at the
centre of each of the in-situ walls adjacent to the steel reinforcement at three different levels along the
height of both the upstream (U/S) and downstream (D/S) walls (Fig. 2).
Initial measurement of the potentials of the steel reinforcement against the reference electrodes
commenced a few weeks after construction in 2009, and subsequently monitored on a regular basis. The
measurements reveal that the half-cell potentials of the steel reinforcement became less negative with
time [5] (Fig. 3), and have gradually stabilised at a level of -250 mV to -350 mV (CSE). Based on
conventional criteria, it is unlikely that corrosion is taking place. At present, the middle and bottom parts
of the U/S wall show slightly more negative potentials (-350mV) than its upper parts and the D/S wall (250mV), most likely affected by the accumulation of moisture behind this part of the U/S wall due to
gardening activities. The potential at mid-height and bottom of the U/S wall (-350mV) has been more or
less stable over the past five years. Generally potentials may become even more positive, at least in
some areas of wing walls, indicating that the corrosion risk is not significant at present.
This is in agreement with results of very low penetrability to chloride ions (ASTM C1202) and very low
chloride diffusion coefficient determent using the Nordtest Method NT Build 443. It should be noted
however, that the VPV (volume of permeable voids) values to AS 1012.21 did not comply with the
criterion of a maximum value of 16%, for structural concrete of VR400/40 grade as set out in Section 610
[11]. Nevertheless, it is argued that the higher VPV is not due to larger interconnected pore volume, but
due to additional loss of water from the gel-like materials included in the geopolymer. It is likely that an
excess amount of sodium silicate (which releases water as part of the chemical reaction) was used in the
geopolymer formulation, which was not fully assimilated into the geopolymer binder and caused the high
VPV. It is considered that further refinement of the geopolymer concrete mix design with the use of
compatible water reducers and superplasticisers to reduce the amount of water in the mix will significantly
reduce the VPV of the geopolymer concrete.

Figure 2: Finished painted geopolymer concrete wall and installed reference electrodes.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 3: Half-cell potentials of retaining walls of western abutment of Swan Street Bridge.

CONSTRUCTION OF FOOTPATH AND BICYCLE PATHS AND NOFINES GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Significant lengths of footpath and bicycle path were constructed using 25 MPa geopolymer concrete in
accordance with the geopolymer concrete requirements of Section 703. These footpaths including Brady
Street, South Melbourne and Kings Road, Taylors Lakes (Fig 4) have been subject to ongoing visual
monitoring since construction and considered to be performing in a very satisfactory manner without any
detected cracking or other defects.

Figure 4: Construction of footpath and bicycle path.

No-fines geopolymer concrete has also been used on the M80 Western Ring Road Project as a granular
back fill filter material to act as a B4 filter for subsurface drainage in accordance with the requirements of
standard VicRoads specification Section 702 Subsurface Drainage (Fig 5).

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 5: No-fines geopolymer concrete used as a granular back fill filter material.

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE WALL, M80 WESTERN RING ROAD AND

PRECAST FOOTWAY DECK PLANKS, LONGFORD BRIDGE
This 450 metre long structural reinforced concrete retaining wall at the M80 Western Ring Road, was
constructed utilising geopolymer concrete with a required equivalence to a concrete grade of VR400/40
as set out in Section 610 [11] (Fig 6). The structural features of the wall have been designed to
complement the road network, challenge conventional concepts of the use of geopolymer concrete, and
promote the use of innovative materials. All requirements of Section 610 were satisfied by the
geopolymer concrete with the exception of the VPV requirements which were found to slightly exceed the
specified requirements, for the same reasons as identified with the Swan Street Bridge retaining walls.
This structural wall is the first full scale structural application for VicRoads following the successful
monitoring of the original trial structural applications of the landscape retaining walls and footway panels
undertaken in 2009, and considered to be the first major in-situ construction on a major infrastructure
project in Australia.
The chevron or zig-zag landscape retaining wall is near vertical and is also designed to double up as
raised planter beds to improve soil conditions for tree planting. These beds will be filled with soil and
mulched for native tree planting, which will complement the local councils street tree strategy. The aim is
to improve amenity along the exposed north facing batters which currently consist of poor grass cover
and where planting is difficult to establish. As evidence that geopolymer concrete can be used as an
equivalent product to Portland cement based concrete it cannot escape the attention of graffiti vandalism
(Fig 6).
Two trial synthetic fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete (FRGC) precast footway deck planks (2.5 m x 2.8
m x 150 mm thick, also steel reinforced, grade VR400/40 equivalent) were also manufactured and
installed in March 2014 on the pedestrian bridge over Long Waterhole near Longford in eastern Victoria,
as part of long term monitoring of in-situ performance (Fig 6). Steel reinforced geopolymer concrete
samples with variable concrete cover were also made for future monitoring.

Figure 6: Landscape retaining geopolymer structural concrete wall and footway deck planks.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE PIPES

Following previous development work, and more recent testing and assessment full scale production of
steel reinforced concrete pipes has commenced by a Victorian pipe manufacturer as part of a fully
integrated and automated operation, which facilitates the production of complying geopolymer pipes with
equivalent performance to Portland cement based pipe, as prescribe in AS/NZS 4058 and Section 701
[14, 15]. Geopolymer pipes are shown in Fig. 7.
Proof and ultimate load testing and water absorption results shown in Table 1 and Table 2 demonstrate
that geopolymer concrete pipes are as good as conventional cement based pipes and are in compliance
with the requirements of AS/NZS 4058. In addition, the VPV test results shown in Table 2 demonstrate
that the VPV value of both the geopolymer and conventional concrete mixes comply with the
requirements of VPV for concrete cores as specified in Section 610 for structural concrete. This was
achieved through the use of a more refined geopolymer concrete mix design suitable for an accelerated
pipe manufacturing environment. Proof and ultimate load testing is shown in Fig. 7.
The technical performance of geopolymer pipes is further complimented by additional features which also
apply to conventional pipes, as covered by AS/NZS 4058 including:

Low water/cementitious material ratio

High cementitious material content

High compaction

Very tight dimensional tolerances.

Following the satisfactory testing and assessment and review of actual products, geopolymer concrete
pipes have been introduced into Section 701 as equivalent products to conventional cement based pipes.
Table 1: Proof and Ultimate Load
Pipe Type

First
crack
kN/m

Proof
Load
kN/m

Geopolymer Pipes

65

85

AS/NZS4058
Min. Proof
Requirement
kN/m

Ultimate
Load
kN/m
125

30 - 50
Conventional Pipes

55

AS/NZS4058
Minimum Ultimate
Requirement
kN/m

45 - 80

80
120

Table 2: Average Absorption and VPV Values

Pipe Type

Average
Absorption %

AS/NZS4058
Max Allowable %

VPV
%

Maximum VPV Values

at 28 days, (%) for
core, Section 610

Geopolymer

5.5 5.8

15.0 15.5

15

rounded down

Conventional

5.0 5.5

11.5 12.5

15

rounded down

As a result of the acceptable test results a range of diameters and classes ranging from 375 mm to 750
mm of geopolymer concrete pipes were subsequently supplied and installed at the Princess Highway

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Duplication at Winchelsea in south western Victoria (Fig. 8), in accordance with the requirements of
Section 701. The VicRoads acceptance of geopolymer pipes has also resulted in other installations
including drainage works in Harley Street, City of Greater Bendigo and Bendigo Airport in Victoria.

Figure 7: Geopolymer concrete pipes stored and tested following manufactured.

Figure 8: Geopolymer concrete pipes stored on site and during installation.

GEOPOLYMER STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WALLS AT DUDLEY

STREET RAILWAY BRIDGE
The construction of structural reinforced soil and post and panel walls at Dudley Street Bridge in
Melbourne which is part of the Regional Rail Link works, proceeded following review and acceptance of
the geopolymer concrete mix design in accordance with the VicRoads concrete mix design registration
procedures for compliance with Section 610 [16].
The geopolymer concrete mix design for these panels was based on a required equivalence to a concrete
grade of VR400/40 as set out in Section 610. The confidence to proceed with these structural works was
based on previous successful use by VicRoads at Swan Street Bridge, M80 Western Ring Road, Salmon
Street Bridge and the provision of geopolymer concrete into VicRoads standard specifications.
The two metre wide precast panels are characterised by a variable height of between two to four metres,
with some two thirds of the panels exhibiting a rough textured finish with the remainder having a flat
surface finish (Fig. 9).
The panels are fully manufactured to the requirements of Section 610 including concrete manufacture,
handling, placement compaction, finishing and curing. In addition, the subsequent lifting of the finished
products from the moulds, storage, transporting and on site handling and erection are no different to
conventional concrete.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 9: Geopolymer retaining concrete panels for Dudley street bridge.

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE USED IN OTHER APPLICATIONS

Following the initial VicRoads trials and provision of geopolymer concrete in Section 703 use of
geopolymer concrete steadily increased in general paving and commercial applications. Such
applications include significant amounts of footpath, kerb and channel, footings and associated paving
works in local areas (Fig 10). At least one local council is looking to follow the VicRoads lead and
officially allow the use of geopolymer concrete as part of their general concrete paving requirements.
Commercial construction includes a library building which utilised precast panels. The panels are around
9m high and 3m wide, with a strength grade of 40 MPa and were sand blasted to expose the quartz
pebble. The panels were manufactured with a rebate in them to remove the need for window frames [15,
16]. On site geopolymer concrete work for this site included footings and general paving. Upcoming
potential projects include multi-storey residential buildings which are looking to utilise significant amounts
of geopolymer concrete as part of their green construction.
VicTrack Access, a State owned enterprise allows the use of 32 MPa geopolymer concrete for the
construction of protection post and marker post footings in VicTrack Access specification TS-SP-013
Issue 3G with reference to Section 703, as part of their desire to take advantage of its sustainability
credentials including low embodied carbon.

Figure 10: Building constructed with precast geopolymer concrete and general paving.

PROVISION OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE IN VICROADS STANDARD

SPECIFICATIONS
Section 703 General concrete paving

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Geopolymer concrete has been introduced into Section 703 on the basis that Portland cement concrete
and geopolymer binder concrete are equivalent products. This was the first specification with geopolymer
concrete provisions. In order to facilitate the compliant use of this type of concrete a number of
definitions relating to the material components have been introduced as follows:

Alkaline Component: Combinations of alkali and alkali earth containing salts, minerals and glasses

Cementitious Material: Portland cement or a mixture of Portland cement with one or more of Fly
Ash, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBF Slag), or Amorphous Silica complying with the
requirements of AS 3582.1, AS 3582.2 and AS 3582.3 respectively

Geopolymer Binder: Binder containing greater than 80% Fly Ash, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace
Slag (GGBF Slag) or Amorphous Silica complying with the requirements of AS 3582.1, AS 3582.2
and AS 3582.3 respectively, metakaolin and up to 20% alkaline components

Geopolymer Concrete: Concrete which comprises geopolymer binder, aggregates, water and
admixtures.

The minimum compressive strength requirements for each grade of geopolymer binder concrete are
consistent with normal class Portland cement concrete and they cover 20 MPa, 25 MPa and 32 MPa.
The general construction requirements including the placing, compaction, finishing, curing and sampling
and testing of geopolymer concrete is the same as conventional concrete. However, due to the greater
susceptibility of geopolymer concrete to unsatisfactory practices compared to conventional concrete, the
general manufacturing and delivery practices for geopolymer concrete as stated in Section 703 are more
in line with the more stringent requirements of Section 610.

Section 701 Underground stormwater drains

Given that geopolymer concrete and its various components have been specified and defined in Section
703, Section 701 cross-references to those requirements. In order to capture the requirements of Section
703 concrete pipes have been defined as follows:

Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipes: pipes manufactured from Portland cement-based concrete or
geopolymer binder-based concrete as specified in Section 703. In the context of the manufacture of
reinforced concrete pipes, Portland cement concrete and geopolymer binder concrete are equivalent
products.

Geopolymer binder-based precast reinforced concrete pipes are required to comply with the requirements
of AS 4058 and Section 701, except that the concrete used must comply with the requirements of
Section 703 for geopolymer concrete with compressive strengths appropriate to the nominated load class
performance requirements as stated in AS 4058.

Section 705 Drainage pits

Geopolymer binder-based concrete as defined in Section 703 may be used for the construction of
drainage pits provided the supply of geopolymer concrete and construction comply with the requirements
of Section 610 and satisfy the concrete grade requirements as stated in Section 705, namely,

Drainage pits reinforced with steel reinforcement minimum concrete grade VR330/32

Precast drainage pits using fibre reinforcement minimum concrete grade VR450/50.

Concrete mix designs must be registered in accordance with the requirements of Section 610, and reregistered on an annual basis, unless mix components change prior to the expiry of registration.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Section 711 Wire Rope Safety Barrier (WRSB)

Geopolymer binder-based concrete must comply with the requirements of Section 703 and
manufactured to comply with the minimum 28 day compressive strength requirements for each strength
grade ranging from 20 MPa to 32 MPa as stated in Section 711.
The strength grades of geopolymer concrete which are to be used in the construction of anchor blocks,
post footings, maintenance strips and other associated concrete works are specifically identified.

PROPERTIES OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Geopolymer concrete used on VicRoads works and other associated projects has been able to comply
with the various property requirements of Section 703 and Section 610 including compressive strength,
the required strength development (for timely formwork removal and lifting from moulds in the case of
precast components) and drying shrinkage (375 to 730 microstrain < 750 microstrain at 56 days) [1, 2,
3]. The only property that has difficulty with compliance is the VPV values which exceed the maximum
allowable limits as specified in Section 610, although the VPV of one concrete mix used for geopolymer
pipes demonstrated compliance with the maximum VPV requirements of Table 610.061, due to the
refinement of the mix design to facilitate the manufacturing requirements (refer Section 6).
Test data reported for similar proprietary geopolymer concretes by Aldred and Day [17] suggests that
geopolymer concretes in general tend to have higher tensile (4.5 MPa for 32 MPa and 6.0 MPa for 40
MPa mixes ) and flexural strength (6.2 MPa for 32 MPa and 6.6 MPa for 40 MPa mixes) relative to the
compressive strength compared to Portland cement based concrete. In addition, Aldred and Day report
that for similar proprietary geopolymer concretes the elastic modulus (31.8 GPa for 32 MPa and 38.5 GPa
for 40 MPa mixes) is comparable to Portland cement based concrete, whereas the Poissons ratio of 0.20
to 0.24 is slightly higher than would be expected for Portland cement based systems.
Wallah [18] reported that fly ash-based geopolymer concrete undergoes low creep, with specific creep
-6
after one year loading, ranging from 15 to 29 x 10 / MPa for the corresponding compressive strength of
40 to 67 MPa and as with Portland cement based concrete, specific creep decreases as the compressive
strength increases. The creep coefficient after one year of loading for fly ash based geopolymer concrete
with compressive strength of 40 to 57 MPa was found to be around 0.6 to 0.7, while for geopolymer
concrete with compressive strength of 67 MPa this value is around 0.4 to 0.5. These values were found to
be around 50% of the values predicted for Portland cement based concrete.
With regards to the higher VPV in geopolymer concrete Shayan, Xu and Andrews-Phaedonos [3, 4] argue
that the higher VPV is not due to larger interconnected pore volume, but due to additional loss of water
from the gel-like materials present in the geopolymer concrete. It is likely that as part of the desire to
achieve the required mechanical properties, excess amounts of sodium silicate are used in the
geopolymer formulation. These excess amounts of sodium silicate do not fully assimilate into the
geopolymer binder and remain as a hydrous gel, which loses water during the drying phase of the VPV
test and cause the value of the VPV to appear high. This is consistent with large amounts of watersoluble alkali found in the geopolymer concrete and further confirmed by SEM/EDX examination.
Shayan, Xu and Andrews-Phaedonos further suggest that this argument is in agreement with the very low
chloride penetrability results (ASTM C1202) and very low chloride diffusion coefficient, determined for the
Swan Street Bridge geopolymer concrete using the NT Build 443 test method.
Shayan, Xu and Andrews-Phaedonos also suggest that a further possibility is that the relatively large
amount of water used in the proprietary geopolymer concrete mix [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] actually resulted in
sodium silicate gel deposited in capillary pores, such that they did not allow transport of chloride ions,
yielding a low chloride diffusion coefficient. Use of a suitable super-plasticiser would have reduced the
amount of water in the concrete mix and resulted in a lower value of VPV.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

10

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Shayan, Xu and Andrews-Phaedonos conclude that the implication of this finding is that correct amounts
of sodium silicate activator should be used in geopolymer concrete formulations such that free alkali is not
available to cause AAR in the presence of reactive aggregate. Also, compatible superplasticisers should
be used for better workability and to reduce the amount of water in the mix, which would result in
acceptable values of VPV.

SUMMARY
A significant amount of chemical and technical research has taken place into geopolymer concrete both
locally and overseas, as part of a desire to take advantage of its sustainability credentials including low
embodied carbon. It is considered that the initial VicRoads trials some five years ago of both lower risk
structural and general paving applications have served as the major impetus for significant progress in
the commercialisation of geopolymer concrete both in Victoria and other parts of Australia. As a result of
this initial work geopolymer concrete has been used in other lower risk structural applications such as
retaining walls, precast reinforced soil panels, precast building panels, concrete pipes, precast reinforced
concrete beams, footings and slabs, footpaths, joint user paths, kerb and channel, no-fines concrete and
other general paving applications.
This progress has been greatly aided by the provision for geopolymer concrete as an equivalent product
to conventional concrete in the VicRoads standard specification Section 703 for general concrete paving
in 2010, followed by its introduction into Section 701 for reinforced concrete pipes, Section 705 for
drainage pits and Section 711 for concrete works associated with wire rope safety barriers. In addition,
use of geopolymer concrete in lower risk structural applications may be considered on a job by job basis
with respect to the requirements of Section 610 for structural concrete.
As a result of these geopolymer concrete specification initiatives another Victorian state owned
enterprise, VicTrack Access, has allowed the use of 32 MPa geopolymer concrete for the construction of
protection post and marker post footings in their specification TS-SP-013 Issue 3G with reference to
Section 703.
It is considered that the definition and provision of geopolymer concrete in VicRoads standard
specifications serves to overcome the barriers created by the unfamiliarity of this new material and the
entrenched use of conventional concrete over the decades. It further provides the confidence and
pathway required by designers, contractors and asset owners and managers to specify and use low
carbon geopolymer concrete.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank VicRoads for permission to publish this paper. The views expressed in this
paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of VicRoads.

REFERENCES
1. Andrews-Phaedonos, F. 2011. Geopolymer green concrete: reducing the carbon footprint. The
VicRoads experience. 8th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, October 2011.
2. Andrews-Phaedonos, A. (2012), Reducing the carbon footprint The VicRoads experience,
Concrete in Australia, Vol.38, No.1, pp.40-48.
3. Shayan, A, Xu, A & Andrews-Phaedonos, F. (2013), Field application of geopolymer concrete: a
th
measure towards reducing carbon dioxide emission 26 Biennial Conference, Concrete Institute of
Australia, October, Gold Coast, Australia.
4. Shayan, A, Xu, A & Andrews-Phaedonos, F. (2014), Investigation of a geopolymer concrete used in
th
retaining walls of a bridge, 36 ICMA Conference, Milan, Italy.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

11

9th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

5. Shayan, A and Xu, A, ARRB Group (2014), Monitoring Measurements of geopolymer concrete,
Swan Street Bridge 2013- 2014, Contract Report No. 007919
6. VicRoads Standard Specification (2013), Section 703 General concrete paving.
7. Structural reinforced concrete landscape retaining wall M80 Western Ring Road, Sunshine Ave to
Furlong Road (2013), VicRoads Intranet and Exchange.
8. VicRoads Standard Specification (2013), Section 701 Underground stormwater drains.
9. VicRoads Standard Specification (2013), Section 705 Drainage pits.
10. VicRoads Standard Specification (2013), Section 711 Wire Rope Safety Barrier.
11. VicRoads Standard Specification (2013), Section 610 Structural Concrete.
12. Andrews-Phaedonos, F. "Monitoring of Salmon Street Bridge Precast Geopolymer Concrete Footway
Panels", VicRoads Internal Report, 2013
13. Andrews-Phaedonos, F. Shayan, A, Xu, A. (2013), Use of Corrosion Monitoring Sensors to Monitor
th
the In-Situ Performance and Intervention needs in Reinforced Concrete Structures 26 Biennial
Conference, Concrete Institute of Australia, October, Gold Coast, Australia.
14. Communication with RCPA Pty Ltd.
15. Communication with Zeobond Pty Ltd.
16. Communication with ACM Pty Ltd.
17. Aldred, J & Day, J. (2012), Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional concrete?,
th
37 Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, August, Singapore
18. Wallah, S.E. (2010) Creep Behaviour of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete/Civil Engineering
Dimension (CED), Vol. 12, No. 2, September, pp. 7378.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Fred Andrews-Phaedonos is the Principal Engineer-Concrete Technology at VicRoads and is a Past
President of the Concrete Institute of Australia. He is also the Chairman of the Australian Technical
Infrastructure Committee (ATIC). He has worked for VicRoads for 37 years, mainly in the bridge and
concrete related areas. He has been a technical specialist for many years in the areas of concrete
technology, concrete durability, precast, repair, rehabilitation and protection of concrete structures and
Lead Auditor in all aspects of construction. He has a great interest in emerging and innovation
technologies. He is an active member of several Standards Australia, AUSTROADS, ACI and FIB
technical committees and has been involved in the organising of international conferences. He served as
Chairman of the Technical Committee for the Concrete Institute of Australia Conference, Concrete
2005.He is the author and co-author of many published papers.
Copyright Licence Agreement
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 9th Austroads Bridge Conference, granting ARRB the
non-exclusive right to:
publish the work in printed format
publish the work in electronic format
publish the work online.
The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and research data in their own
future works
The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works submitted, including clearing all
third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from their respective institutions or employers before
submission, where necessary.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

12