Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Properties of fresh and hardened fly ash/slag based geopolymer

concrete: A review
Peng Zhang a, Zhen Gao a, *, Juan Wang a, **, Jinjun Guo a, Shaowei Hu a, b, Yifeng Ling c
a
School of Water Conservancy Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450001, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400045, China
c
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, United States

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

Article history: Geopolymers are recognized as a potentially viable alternative binder to ordinary Portland cement (OPC),
Received 14 March 2020 for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and achieving efficient waste recycling. Among the raw materials
Received in revised form of geopolymers, fly ash (FA) and ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) have been preferentially
15 April 2020
applied to geopolymer concrete (GPC) owing to their availability and high silica and alumina contents.
Accepted 18 May 2020
Available online 3 June 2020
The FA/GGBFS-based GPC provides a clean technology option for sustainable development. Therefore, the
specific review of FA/GGBFS-based GPC used to replace traditional concrete has become extremely
Handling editor: Baoshan Huang imperative because the related study results on the FA/GGBFS-based GPC can promote the further study
and application of this green construction material. In the present review, the reaction mechanism of
Keywords: geopolymers, as well as the properties and durability of fresh and hardened FA/GGBFS-based GPC, are
Geopolymer concrete discussed. In addition, the latest data on the FA/GGBFS-based GPC are presented. The GPC has excellent
Fly ash/slag properties and a wide range of application prospects. However, there are obstacles to its large-scale
Fresh properties applications in engineering and industry. Consequently, scholars and engineers must perform further
Mechanical properties
research to provide a complete set of theory and engineering applications of FA/GGBFS-based GPC
Durability
system.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Reaction mechanism of geopolymer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Properties of fresh GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Setting time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Properties of hardened GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Split tensile strength and flexural strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Bond properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Fracture behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Durability of GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Acid resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Carbonation resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Freezeethaw resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. High-temperature resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhangpeng@zzu.edu.cn (P. Zhang), gz12faafr@126.com
(Z. Gao), wangjuan@zzu.edu.cn (J. Wang), guojinjun@zzu.edu.cn (J. Guo),
hushaowei@cqu.edu.cn (S. Hu), yling@iastate.edu (Y. Ling).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122389
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389

5.5. Opportunities and challenges for FA/GGBFS-based GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1. Introduction activators include sodium silicate (Na2SiO3, SS) and sodium hy-
droxide (NaOH, SH). Fig. 1 shows the process flow for the produc-
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) has always been an indis- tion of GPC. The advantage of GPC is that cement (which is used in
pensable material in the construction of large-scale hydraulic traditional concrete) is replaced with industrial waste. The GPC can
structures. It is a hydraulic cementitious material comprising a utilize industrial by-products as its raw materials and have huge
calcareous material, an appropriate amount of gypsum, and a possibility to improve the sustainability (Bajpai et al., 2020). To
prescribed mixed material. The OPCC is strong and has excellent date, FA and GGBFS have been preferentially applied to GPC owing
frost resistance. However, the production of OPC requires a large to their wide availability and high contents of silica (SiO2) and
amount of resources, incurs significant energy consumption alumina (Al2O3) (Puertas et al., 2011). Fig. 2 presents the compo-
(L€
ammlein et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2019), and leads to considerable sitions of OPC, FA and GGBFS respectively (Yang et al., 2016). As is
CO2 emissions (Zhang et al., 2018a). Peng et al. (2012) reported that shown in Table 1, the chemical composition of GGBFS is signifi-
0.66e0.82 kg of carbon emission was generated during the pro- cantly different from that of FA (Krivenko et al., 2014). Thus, the
duction of 1 kg of OPC, accounting for 5e7% of the global anthro- properties of GPC produced using different binding materials are
pogenic CO2 emissions. In the past few decades, several scholars distinct. The principal reaction products of FA/GGBFS-based GPC
have conducted extensive research on energy-efficient and sus- include calcium silicate hydrate (CeSeH gel), calcium aluminosil-
tainable building materials. Compared with OPC, geopolymers are icate hydrate (C-A-S-H gel), and sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-
produced using aluminosilicate-rich natural minerals and indus- A-S-H gel) (Zhuang et al., 2016).
trial waste as the primary raw materials, rather than relying on the A detailed literature review was conducted to obtain mix pro-
calcination of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). CaCO3 is the dominant portions of FA/GGBFS-based GPC and they were presented in
source of CO2 emissions in the production of OPC (Kupwade-Patil Table 2. The mix proportions can be obtained directly from the
and Allouche, 2012). Therefore, the adoption of geopolymers can literatures or calculated based on the literatures. All the experi-
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 73% and energy consumption mental studies listed in Table 2 have utilized the FA and the GGBFS.
by 43% (Meyer, 2009). It can be concluded that geopolymer binders It can be seen that each group is composed of different amounts of
will be a potentially viable alternative to OPC for the production of materials, and the influence of materials on the strength of GPC can
concrete (Juenger et al., 2011). be observed. The effect of all mix designs shown in Table 2 on the
Geopolymer concrete (GPC) is a promising ecofriendly building properties of FA/GGBFS-based GPC will be further analyzed in
material. Geopolymers are the products of polymerization re- subsequent sections.
actions of aluminosilicate-rich materials and alkali activators. The FA-based GPC has exhibited excellent mechanical properties
sources of these raw materials vary, e.g., fly ash (FA), ground- and durability after high-temperature curing. Generally, activation
granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and metakaolin. The of FA requires a curing temperature of 60e85
C because the
reactivity of FA is inadequate for it to be activated by alkaline ac-
tivators at the ambient temperature (Junaid et al., 2014), the

Fig. 1. Production of GPC. Fig. 2. Binder gel compositions of geopolymers and OPC.
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389 3

Table 1
Chemical constituents: OPC, FA, and GGBFS (Yang et al., 2016; Krivenko et al., 2014).

Constituent Chemical composition (mass %)

Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO SiO2

OP 21.33 5.80 2.57 2.41 OP 21.33 5.80 2.57 2.41

FA 50.94 24.56 13.25 0.03 FA 50.94 24.56 13.25 0.03
GGBFS 40.0 5.91 0.32 0.50 GGBFS 40.0 5.91 0.32 0.50

Table 2
Some common mix proportions of FA/GGBFS-based GPC.

Ref. FA (Kg/m3) GGBFS (Kg/m3) Aggregates Alkaline NaOH molarity (M) Water (Kg/m3) curing temperature (
C) Strength (MPa)
(Kg/m3) activator (Kg/
m3)

Coarse Fine NaOH

Na2SiO3 Nuaklong et al. 450 1150 500 108 162 8

(2016)
24 24 40.0
450 1150 500 108 162 12 24 24 41.4
450 1150 500 108 162 16 24 24 38.4
Puertas et al. (2018) 357.0 1067.0 711.3 23.0 10 177.75 24 60.0
357.0 1276.3 563.0 42.5 10 145.0 24 62.0
Hadi et al. (2017) 0 500 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 59.5
50 450 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 59.0
100 400 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 58.2
150 350 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 49.2
200 300 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 42.5
250 250 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 40.9
300 200 1115 600 50 125 12 24 24 35.9
Noushini et al. (2020) 349.2 38.8 1221.2 620.8 194.0 12 13.3 23 41.7
349.2 38.8 1221.2 620.8 194.0 12 13.3 60 50.0
349.2 38.8 1221.2 620.8 194.0 12 13.3 75 62.3
349.2 38.8 1221.2 620.8 194.0 12 13.3 90 60.7
Nath and Sarker (2014) 400 0 1209 651 45.7 114.3 14 22 22 26.7
360 40 1209 651 45.7 114.3 14 22 22 34.6
320 80 1209 651 45.7 114.3 14 22 22 45.6
280 120 1209 651 45.7 114.3 14 22 22 54.8
Bernal et al. (2011) 300 990 990 111 25 25 50.0
400 885 885 148 25 25 67.8
500 780 780 185 25 25 74.4
Ding and Bai (2018) 420 1041 694 11 117 24 24 69.9
Farhan et al. (2018) 225 225 1164 627 45 112.5 14 24 24 41.1
Azzawi et al. (2018) 300 1323 623 72 108 24 24 39.0
400 1164 548 80 160 24 24 47.0
500 1005 475 100 200 24 24 62.0
Ding et al. (2018) 200 200 1068 712 12 74 24 24 50.0
300 100 1068 712 12 74 24 24 51.3
400 0 1068 712 12 74 24 24 63.4
Okoye et al. (2017) 400 1293 554 45 113 14 100 100 33.5

samples are filled with incompletely reacted gels in the process of
reaction, which makes the polymerization cannot be reacted fully.
(Somna et al., 2011). It was found that GGBFS could improve the
properties of FA-based GPC under ambient-temperature curing
conditions, possibly owing to the presence of CaO in the GGBFS
(Puligilla and Mondal, 2013). Thus, the use of FA/GGBFS-based GPC
can save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, and facilitate waste recy-
cling. Additionally, FA/GGBFS-based GPC has excellent mechanical
properties (Ding et al., 2016; Razak et al., 2014), freezeethaw
resistance (Ferdous et al., 2015), corrosion resistance (Ariffin
et al., 2013), high-temperature resistance (Khater, 2014), and
outstanding interfacial bond properties and other unique charac-
teristics (Moon et al., 2014).
The FA/GGBFS-based GPC has been studied by many scholars
and engineers, which poses the excellent properties. However,
there is no the review of the properties and durability of FA/GGBFS-
based GPC. In order to better sum up the relevant content to pro-
mote the application and further research of FA/GGBFS-based GPC,
the specific review of the FA/GGBFS- based GPC used to replace the
OPCC is highly imperative. This paper summarizes the research and
development of FA/GGBFS-based GPC with regard to several as-
pects, such as the reaction mechanism, workability, mechanical
properties and durability. It focuses on the reaction mechanism of
geopolymers, Properties of fresh GPC, Properties of hardened GPC
and durability. It details the workability, Setting time, strength
properties, fracture behavior, acid resistance, carbonation resis-
tance, freeze-thaw resistance and high-temperature resistance of
FA/GGBFS-based GPC, and presents the problems faced by GPC
technology.
2. Reaction mechanism of geopolymer
A geopolymer is a three-dimensional zeolite-like network
structure comprising silicon-oxygen (SieO) and aluminum-oxygen
(AleO) tetrahedral (Davidovits and Cordi, 1979; Davidovits, 1989).
Several studies have been performed on the reaction mechanism of
geopolymers via the dissolution of the silicon and aluminum ma-
terials in a highly alkaline environment (Li et al., 2019). The reaction
4 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
mechanism of geopolymer is related to the preparation technology,
the amount of alkali activator and the chemical composition of raw
materials (Rees et al., 2008). Because of the multiple components in
the liquid phase, all the reactions occur simultaneously and affect
each other (Zhang et al., 2011). Therefore, the geological polymer-
ization reaction processes are more complex than the hydration of
OPC. Davidovits suggested that the structure of a geopolymer is as
follows:
Mn ½ðSiO2 ÞZ  AlO2 n ,wH2 O
where, M is an alkali metal cation; n represents the degree of
polycondensation; w represents the number of chemically bound
water molecules; z represents the silicon-to-aluminum ratio (Si/Al),
which is 1, 2, or 3. The structures of the geopolymer are divided into
three types according to the Z value: single silicon-aluminum (Gel
1, Si/Al ¼ 1), double silicon-aluminum (Gel 2, Si/Al ¼ 2), and triple
silicon-aluminum (Gel 3, Si/Al ¼ 3). These structures are illustrated
in Fig. 3.
The hardening of geopolymer materials involves breaking and
recombining the SieO and AleO bonds under the action of an
alkaline activator. The model was pioneered by Davidovits (1991).
The reaction process mainly involves the following four steps. (ⅰ)
Dissolution: The SieO and AleO bonds are broken in the alumi-
nosilicate materials under the action of the alkali activator, and the
SieO and AleO tetrahedral monomers are released. (ⅱ) Diffusion:
The dissolved SieO and AleO tetrahedral monomers diffuse into
the reaction system. According to the principle of chemical equi-
librium, the silicon and aluminum concentrations decrease on the
particle surface owing to the diffusion, and the dissolution process
continues. (ⅲ) Polycondensation: SieO and AleO tetrahedra form
amorphous -Si-O-Al-O- structures or zeolite crystals through
polymerization. (ⅳ) Hardening: a dehydration reaction occurs,
forming a hardened geopolymer with high mechanical strength.
These steps are performed simultaneously. However, only the
leading step is different during the reaction process. For geo-
polymer materials with different raw materials, the polymerization
mechanisms are not exactly the same, but they essentially conform
to the foregoing reaction process.
According to the conceptual model (Glukhovsky, 2011), acti-
vated silico-aluminous cementitious materials form geopolymers
under the action of alkaline activators. The model divides the
polymerization reactions into deconstruction, gel formation, poly-
condensation, and crystallization. As is shown in Fig. 4, there are
five types of reaction processes for the geopolymer in the Glu-
khovsky model. In contrast to the Davidovits model, the poly-
condensation process is divided into the two processes of gelation
and reconstitution. Gelation involves dehydration to produce an
oligomeric gel when the aluminosilicate is in a saturated state, and
reconstitution involves the rearrangement of the oligomeric gels.
The gels are dehydrated and condensed, gradually forming the
Fig. 3. Geopolymer structures according to Davidovits (1989).
(1)
Fig. 4. Conceptual model for geopolymerization (Glukhovsky, 2011).
three-dimensional network structure of the geopolymer.
The role and existence form of water in geopolymer are related
to the way of geopolymerization. Qualitative analysis indicates that
water is released in the process of reaction (Hardjito et al., 2005).
The evaporated water left discontinuous nanopores, improving the
performance of the geopolymer. Thus, water plays no role in the
chemical reaction processes, and it simply enhances the work-
ability of the mixture during production. This differs from the hy-
dration of OPCC, where water is involved in a chemical reaction. In
addition to the aforementioned models, many scholars have
investigated the reaction mechanism of geopolymers, such as
alkaline activation (Fernandez et al., 2006, 2008), SS/SH ratio(-
Duxson et al., 2005) alkali cations on aluminum (Liew et al., 2016)
and interfacial bond mechanism between fibers and geopolymer
composite (Ranjbar et al., 2016), which propels the geopolymer
models more reasonable and complete.
3. Properties of fresh GPC
3.1. Workability
An alkaline solution (NaOH, Na2SiO3) is used as a liquid
component in GPC. Owing to the high viscosity of waterglass
(Na2SiO3 solution, WG), the mixture is sticky (Krivenko et al., 2014;
Li et al., 2018). Therefore, the rheology of GPC differs from that of
OPCC.
The influence of each component on the workability of FA/
GGBFS-based GPC must be analyzed. The effects of alkaline solu-
tions with concentrations of 35%, 40%, and 45% on the performance
of GGBFS-based GPC were analyzed, the results indicated that the
slump of the GPC was maximized when the alkaline-solution
concentration was 45% (Nath and Sarker, 2014). However,
increasing the SH concentration reduced the slump of the GPC
(Nuaklong et al., 2016), possibly because it led to the penetration of
more SiO2 and Al2O3, accelerating the geopolymer reaction
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389 5

processes and improving the stiffness of the system.

The SS/SH ratio significantly affected the workability of FA-
based GPC, and different SS/SH ratios can cause unstable varia-
tions in the workability of GPC (Nath and Sarker, 2015). The vis-
cosity of the GPC increased with SS/SH. Generally, the slump of the
GPC decreased with an increase in the Na2SiO3 content. Hardjito
(2005) indicated that H2O/Na2O was suitable for FA-based GPC in
the range of 10e14. This was confirmed by Prasittisopin and
Sereewatthanawut (2018). Additionally, the slump increased
owing to the free water in the superplasticizer. This increase can be
expressed by a linear regression of the data, which yields the
follows:

slump ¼ 2112ðw : bÞ þ 1275ðsp : bÞ  61 (2)

where,w : b represents the water-to-binder ratio, and sp : b repre-

sents the superplasticizer-to-binder ratio.
Puertas et al. (2018) used two mixing protocols to prepare OPCC
and GGBFS-based GPC (Fig. 5). Protocol 1 principally considered the
Fig. 6. Slump values for OPCC and GPC (Puertas et al., 2018).
stability and mechanical properties of the concrete according to
RILEM TC 247-DTA, and Protocol 2 had a longer mixing time, ac-
cording to previous rheological studies of geopolymer concrete Rao, 2017). This may have been due to the high calcium content
(Tuinukuafe et al., 2019) and mortar (Puertas et al., 2014; Alonso in the GGBFS, which accelerated the reaction process of the geo-
et al., 2017). The slump values of OPCC and GPC with WG acti- polymers by forming an amorphous CaeAleSi gel. This was
vated and NaOH activated (Fig. 6) indicate that the slump of GPC confirmed by Cheah et al. (2017).
(particularly with WG activated) was greater than that of OPCC. It
was also observed that the mixing time affected the slump, and
longer periods reduced the workability of the concrete. In partic- 3.2. Setting time
ular, the workability of the GPC exhibited a large decline, and it
could not be measured after 30 min. Protocol 2 had a beneficial The setting time of GPC is a vital technical parameter in the
effect on the concrete and maintained the workability. process of construction (Won et al., 2009), It is divided into initial
For GPC mixed with FA and GGBFS cementitious materials, some setting time and final setting time, which play a significant role in
results revealed that replacing part of the FA with GGBFS reduced construction. The initial setting time should not be too short, and
the slump value of the GPC (Laskar and Talukdar, 2017; Venu and the final setting time should not be too long (Embong et al., 2016).

Fig. 5. Mixing protocols for OPCC and GPC (Puertas et al., 2018).
6 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389

However, FA/GGBFS-based GPC has the characteristic of rapid
hardening; thus, it is necessary to investigate the relationship be-
tween the setting time and the influencing factors. A mechanism
analysis is also necessary.
As is shown in Fig. 7, the initial and final setting time of FA-based
GPC both decreased with the increasing GGBFS and OPC contents,
and they increased when the content of the alkali activator
increased. With the other mixing variables unchanged, increasing
the SS/SH ratio can reduce the setting time (Nath and Sarker, 2014,
2015). Hanjitsuwan et al. (2014) investigated the effect of the SH
concentration on GPC. As is shown in Table 3, the initial and final
setting times of the GPC increased with the SH concentration. This
is because the leaching of SiO2 and Al2O3 is slow at a low SH con-
centration (Rattanasak and Chindaprasirt, 2009), and the leaching
of Ca2þ into the solution continues; thus, the solution contains a
large amount of calcium. The amount of calcium is sufficient to
precipitate and participate in the hydration reaction to form a
CeSeH gel, reducing the setting time of the mixture (Alonso and
Palomo, 2001; Chindaprasirt et al., 2012).
The setting times of GPC samples with different proportions of
FA (replacing GGBFS) were examined by Hadi et al. (2017). The
proportion of GGBFS replaced with FA ranged from 10% to 60%. As is
shown in Table 3, the setting time of the GPC increased with the
addition of FA, which is explained as follows. (ⅰ) FA particles
improve the fluidity of each component of the mixture owing to
their smooth spherical shape, and the setting time of GPC is
extended. (ii) FA cannot form geopolymers immediately at ambient
temperature; thus, a longer setting time is required within a
reasonable range (Nath and Sarker, 2015; Go €rhan and Kürklü,
2014).
There are many factors affecting the workability and setting
time of GPC. Due to different raw materials and curing conditions,
the optimal mix proportion proposed varies (Kastiukas et al., 2020).
Moreover, the workability of the prepared GPC fluctuates greatly.
Therefore, the preparation of GPC with relatively stable perfor-
mance is the key problem to be solved in the application of GPC.
different thermal curing methods. Fig. 8 showed the 28-
d compressive strength of GPC samples at ambient temperature
and after thermal curing. The curing temperature significantly
affected the compressive strength of the FA-based GPC. In the cured
samples, the initial growth rate of the compressive strength
increased with the curing temperature and duration, and the
optimal compressive strength was obtained at 75
C (Noushini
et al., 2020). This may be because higher curing temperatures and
longer durations led to the formation of more reaction products;
thus, with the proper curing temperature, more metal ions were
incorporated into the geopolymer matrix, and the concentration of
metal ions decreased. Noushini et al. investigated the leaching of
alkali metals by measuring the pH values of hardened geopolymer
paste, as is shown in Table 4. The results indicated that the pH
values of geopolymers subjected to thermal curing were lower than
those of geopolymers subjected to ambient-temperature curing.
The excessive alkalinity in the case of ambient-temperature curing
suggests a lower degree of polymerization of the samples, as well as
reduced formation of the reaction product. Therefore, the
compressive strength of the GPC subjected to ambient-temperature
curing was lower (Zhang et al., 2014).
FA-based GPC exhibited the optimal compressive strength with
ambient-temperature curing when a suitable mix proportion was
used (Nath and Sarker, 2014). The effects of different alkaline-
solution contents and the SS/SH ratio on GPC samples are pre-
sented in Fig. 9. The molar ratios and water-to-solid ratios (w/s) of
the mixtures are presented in Table 5. The Na2O/SiO2 ratio
increased as the SS/SH ratio decreased. A higher Na2O/SiO2 ratio
corresponded to a higher compressive strength of the samples. This
Table 3
Effect of NaOH concentration and FA content on the setting time (Hanjitsuwan et al.,
2014; Hadi et al., 2017).
Content Initial setting time Final setting time
(min) (min)

NaOH concentration 8 30 130

4. Properties of hardened GPC (molar) 10 55 160
12 75 202
4.1. Compressive strength 15 100 238
FA/(FA þ GGBFS) (%) 0 25 56
10 30 66
The compressive strength significantly affects the structural 20 35 68
stability and safety. The compressive strength of FA/GGBFS-based 30 45 78
GPC is affected by the curing conditions and the raw materials 40 60 83
(Hansen et al., 2018; Le et al., 2017). 50 66 92
60 76 105
Noushini et al. prepared low-calcium FA-based GPC using 12

Fig. 7. Effects of different phases on the setting time of FA-based GPC (Nath and Sarker, 2014, 2015).
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389 7

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of ambient and heat-cured samples (Noushini et al., 2020).

Table 4 polymerization process and increased the amount of oligomeriza-

PH values of hardened geopolymer paste (Noushini et al., 2020). tion reaction products (Ruiz et al., 2012). Although the Si/Al to the
Curing pH of values of leaching solutions total binder increased when the alkali-activator content increased,
3d 7d 28 d
the w/s was the key factor affecting the compressive strength. The
results indicated that the alkaline-solution content in the geo-
OPC-23C 12.71 12.72 12.72
polymer mixture was a significant parameter for ensuring adequate
GPC-23C 12.64 12.5 12.29
GPC-60C-8h 12.29 12.27 12.15 compressive strength without affecting the workability and setting
GPC-60C-12h 12.2 12.18 12.14 time.
GPC-60C-18h 12.17 12.14 12.12 Prasittisopin and Sereewatthanawut (2018) examined the effect
GPC-60C-24h 12.16 12.14 11.98
of sp : b on the compressive strength of OPCC and FA-based GPC.
GPC-75C-8h 12.15 12.1 11.98
GPC-75C-12h 12.1 12.06 11.96
The results indicated that the superplasticizer could increase the
GPC-75C-18h 12.08 12.02 11.91 compressive strength of the OPCC; however, the compressive
GPC-75C-24 12.07 12 11.9 strength of the GPC decreased with an increase in sp : b. Similar
GPC-90C-8h 12.15 12.08 11.98 results were reported by AlBakri et al. (2012). By referring to pre-
GPC-90C-12h 12.09 12.05 11.96
vious studies, researchers can avoid the impact of superplasticizers
GPC-90C-18h 12.05 12.02 11.9
GPC-90C-24h 12.04 12.02 11.88 on GPC when conducting related experiments in the future.
Therefore, these works contribute to prospective experiments.
Bernal evaluated the compressive strength of GPC with different
slag contents and used the compressive strength of OPCC as a
reference for comparison. The compressive strength of GPC and
OPCC samples with different slag contents are presented in Fig. 10.
The strength increased with the binder content (slag for GPC,
cement for OPCC). Regardless of the binder content, the GPC had a
higher compressive strength than the OPCC (Bernal et al., 2011).
Therefore, the GPC samples had excellent mechanical properties.
The polymerization of GPC was controlled by the dissolution and
precipitation processes. When the pH value was increased, the slag
diffusion-controlled reaction processes of GPC were faster than the
hydration reaction of OPC, and the GPC had a higher compressive
strength in the early curing period. The hydration products for the
OPCC were primarily calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), CeSeH gel, and
ettringite (AFt), and those for the GGBFS-based GPC included geo-
polymer gel and CeSeH gel (Fig. 11) (Chen et al., 2019). Comparing
Fig. 11(a) and (b) reveal that the structure of the GGBFS-based GPC
was denser than that of the OPCC, which explains the higher
strength of the GPC. Fig. 11(c) and (d) showed scanning electron
Fig. 9. Effect of the alkaline activator content (A) and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio (R) on the
microscopy (SEM) images of the interfacial transition zones (ITZ) in
compressive strength of the samples (Nath and Sarker, 2014). the OPCC and GPC samples. The ITZ of GPC was highly dense and
uniform, and the particle roughness enhanced the mechanical
integrity of GPC (Pasupathy et al., 2017; Mehta and Siddique, 2017a)
may have been due to the increase in the amount of Na2O in the and recycled GPC (Shi et al., 2012). Notably, the microstructure of
mixture, which enhanced the mechanical properties of the geo- the GPC differed from that of the OPCC, and the ITZ was the weakest
polymers (Chi and Huang, 2013). The strength decreased as the part of the OPCC and had a high porosity. This explains why the ITZ
alkaline-solution content increased, owing to the high w/s of the of GPC had higher bond strength than that of OPCC (Lee and Van,
mixture with a high liquid content, which hindered the 2007).
8 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389

Table 5
Criticalmolar ratios and w/s values for the samples (Nath and Sarker, 2014).

Designation Alkaline activator content (%) Na2SiO3/NaOH Molar ratio Water/solid

Na2O/SiO2 H2O/Na2O Si/Al

A35 35 2.5 0.11 11.67 1.77 0.18

A40/R2.5 40 2.5 0.12 11.75 1.80 0.2
A45 45 2.5 0.13 11.80 1.84 0.22
R1.5 40 1.5 0.14 10.63 1.76 0.20
R2.0 40 2.0 0.13 11.25 1.78 0.20

GPC was primarily due to the ability of the fibers to transmit stress
and load. Nevertheless, increasing the fiber content cannot
continuously enhance the compressive strength of GPC (Ding and
Bai, 2018). This is consistent with previous studies on steel fiber-
reinforced concrete (Song and Hwang, 2004) and may be due to
excessive fibers making the mixing difficult, which adversely af-
fects the workability and uniformity.
Many studies have been performed to enhance the mechanical
properties of GPC. The incorporation of nano-silica (NS) improved
the compressive strength of GPC (Ibrahim et al., 2018), as is shown
in Fig. 13. The compressive strength of the GPC was maximized with
the incorporation of 5% NS. This was explained as follows: (1) the
NS had a strong pozzolanic activity, it enhanced the conversion of
raw materials into CeSeH gel and C(N)-A-S-H gel; (2) the NS par-
ticles had filling and nucleation effects. However, the incorporation
of 7.5% NS reduced the compressive strength of GPC, possibly owing
to the accumulation of nanoparticles in the geopolymer structure
(Yip and Deventer, 2003; Yip et al., 2005).
Fig. 10. Effect of the slag content on the compressive strength for GPC and OPCC
(Bernal et al., 2011).
4.2. Split tensile strength and flexural strength

As is shown in Fig. 12, basalt fiber significantly increased the
compressive strength of GPC. With the increasing fiber content, the
compressive strength first increased and then decreased. The
optimal basalt fiber content was 2.0%. Additionally, there was little
difference in the compressive strength of the GPC between the
curing durations of 7 and 28 d, in contrast to the case of OPCC. The
compressive strength of OPCC increased with the curing duration
(Ronad et al., 2016). The increase in the compressive strength of the
The split tensile strength and flexural strength of concrete are
important mechanical properties. The split tensile strength is
related to the initiation and expansion of cracks in the concrete
structure, the shearing and anchoring of bars, and other phenom-
ena. The flexural strength indicates the ability of beams to resist
bending and destruction.
The effects of the GGBFS content on the split tensile strength
and flexural strength of FA-based GPC were examined by Fang et al.
(2018). As is shown in Fig. 14, a higher GGBFS content yielded a

Fig. 11. SEM images of the binders and ITZs of OPCC and GPC, after 28 d (Chen et al., Fig. 12. Compressive strength of GPCs with the incorporation of basalt fiber at 7 and
2019). 28 d (Ronad et al., 2016).
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
Fig. 13. Effect of the NS content on the compressive strength of samples (Ibrahim et al.,
2018).
higher split tensile strength and flexural strength of the GPC. This
was attributed to the high activity of GGBFS, which promoted the
formation of C-A-S-H gel and N-A-S-H gel, accelerating the reaction
process (Kumar et al., 2010).
Fig. 15 shows the effects of the SH content and slag content on
the 28-d strength of GPC cured at 27
C (Singhal et al., 2018). The
trend of the flexural strength of the specimens is consistent with
that of the split tensile strength. The strength increased with the SH
concentration and slag content. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis
results for FA-based GPC cured for 28 d at ambient temperature are
presented in Fig. 16. Detailed information regarding the crystal
phase was obtained. In addition to sharp diffraction peaks, amor-
phous states were detected. For all the samples, diffraction peaks of
quartz were clearly observed. All the other reflections can be clearly
observed in Fig. 16, corresponding to mullites, merwinites, and
CeSeH gels. The proportion of amorphous silicate compounds was
high in the GPC prepared with an 8 mol. % SH solution. Thus, with a
higher concentration of the alkaline solution, the GPC had a higher
Fig. 14. Split tensile strength and flexural strength of GPC with respect to the slag
content at 28 d (Fang et al., 2018).
9
Fig. 15. Split tensile strength and flexural strength of GPC with respect to the slag
content and molarity at 28 d (Singhal et al., 2018).
crystallinity, and the strength was higher (Mehta and Siddique,
2017b).
Wongsa et al. tested the split tensile strength of FA-based GPC
using SS/SH ratios of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 and alkaline solution-to-FA
ratios of 0.70, 0.75, and 0.80. The results are presented in Fig. 17.
The split tensile strength of the GPC decreased with the increasing
SS/SH ratio, and the GPC exhibited excellent mechanical properties
when the alkali activator-to-FA ratio was 0.7 (Wongsa et al., 2016).
In general, the different types of strengths of concrete are closely
related. With regard to OPCC, various codes and standards are
available for predicting the split tensile strength (Bhanja and
Sengupta, 2005) and flexural strength according to the compres-
sive strength. These relationships are based on extensive data
regarding different engineering properties, which have been
collected for decades (ACI Committee 318, 2011; Darwin et al.,
Fig. 16. XRD patterns of GPC specimens with different molarities at 28 d (Singhal et al.,
2018).
10 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389

2016). However, the polymerization process of GPC differs from the

hydration reaction process of traditional concrete. Many scholars
have investigated compressive strength of GPC, split tensile
strength (Sofi et al., 2007), flexural strength (Diaz et al., 2011), and
the relationships among the strengths of GPC cured at ambient
temperature (Lee and Lee, 2013; Phoongernkham et al., 2014) and
calculation formulas of mechanical parameters have been proposed
(Nath and Sarker, 2017), as is shown in Figs. 18 and 19. These for-
mulas are useful for further research.

4.3. Bond properties

The bearing capacity and performance of reinforced concrete

depend on the strength of the bond between the concrete and the
bars. The interaction between the concrete and bars is composed of
three independent parts: chemical adhesion, friction, and me-
chanical occlusion (Dahou et al., 2016). The bond strength of GPC is
affected by many factors, and scholars have evaluated the bonding
properties of reinforced GPC. The behavior of the bond stress to
free-end slip is divided into three stages, as is shown in Fig. 20
Fig. 18. Correlation between the split tensile strength ðfst Þ and the compressive
(Farhan et al., 2018). In the first stage, the bond stresseslip strength ðfc Þ of GPC at 28 d.
response increased linearly. In the second stage, the bond
stresseslip response was highly nonlinear. In the final stage, the
specimens reached the maximum bonding stress, and longitudinal
cracks appeared.
Fig. 21 presents the bond strength of GPC to bars with different
SS/SH ratios and FA contents. As the SS/SH ratio increased from 1.5
to 2.5, the GPC bond strength increased. Additionally, with the
increasing FA content, the bond strength between the GPC and the
bars increased (Azzawi et al., 2018).
The bonding between glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars and
GPC was evaluated via a direct pullout test. The relationship be-
tween the average bonding stress of GPC and the bar diameter is
shown in Fig. 22. The failure of the specimens was due to the
pullout of the bars, and an increase in the diameter of bars reduced
the peak bond stress (Maranan et al., 2015).
Adak examined the effects of different curing conditions and
types of reinforcement on the bonding properties of low-calcium
FA-based modified GPC (Adak and Mandal, 2019). The bond
strengths of GPC and OPCC with deformed steel bars and mild steel
bars after 28-day presented in Fig. 23. Here, GPC I represents the

Fig. 19. Correlation between the flexural strength ðft Þ and the compressive strength
ðfc Þ of GPC at 28 d.

Fig. 17. Split tensile strength of GPC with different SS/SH and binder/FA ratios at 28 d
(Wongsa et al., 2016). Fig. 20. General behavior of bond stress versus slip (Farhan et al., 2018).
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
Fig. 21. Bond strength of GPC with different FA contents and SS/SH ratios (Azzawi
et al., 2018).
thermal activation of the FA and the alkaline solution for 45 min at
60
C before casting, and GPC II represents the thermal curing of the
specimens at 60
C for 48 h after casting. The specimens were kept
at the ambient temperature prior to the testing. The results indi-
cated that the bond strengths for GPC I and II were higher than that
of the OPCC, for both deformed steel bars and mild steel bars. GPC I
exhibited superior bonding behavior to GPC II. The failure of the
samples was caused by the pullout of the steel bars. As expected,
during the loading process, the slip of the mild steel bars was
greater than that of the deformed steel bars. The mechanical
strength and durability of GPC I were better than those of the
traditional heat-cured GPC (GPC II) and OPCC. The early thermal
activation of GPC I accelerated the homogeneous and smooth
polymerization of FA, facilitating the amorphous-to-crystalline
transition of FA in the geopolymer matrix.
Fig. 22. Average bond stress versus bar diameter for GPC specimens (Maranan et al.,
2015).
11
4.4. Fracture behavior
The fracture behavior of concrete is affected by the material
properties, such as the mixing composition, and type of aggregate.
For geopolymers to be used as substitutes for cement, their prop-
erties should be extensively studied to ensure their applicability in
structures where the fracture behaviors are crucial (Pan et al., 2011;
Wang et al., 2019).
Rao et al. examined the fracture behavior of GPC and performed
a pre-notched three-point bending test with notch depth/beam
depth (a0/h) ratios of 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 and different curing condi-
tions (in direct sunlight and in an oven at 60
C for 24 h) (Rao et al.,
2015). The size parameters of the samples are presented in Fig. 24,
and the experimental results are shown in Fig. 25. Compared with
GPC cured at the ambient temperature, the GPC samples cured at
60
C for 24 h exhibited better structural properties with regard to
the fracture parameters. The results indicated that the energy of the
GPC cured at 60
C was nearly 50% higher than that of the GPC
cured at the ambient temperature.
The effects of the material parameters, such as the alkali-
solution concentration, alkali-activator modulus, and FA/GGBFS
and liquid-to-binder ratios, on the fracture performance of FA/
GGBFS-based GPC were investigated by Ding et al. (2018). The
complete loadedisplacement (P-D) curve reflected the failure
behavior of the GPC. The average P-D curve for the GPC beams is
shown in Fig. 26.
The peak load and fracture energy of the beams were calculated,
and the fracture parameters are presented in Fig. 27. The peak load
and fracture energy increased as the alkali concentration and slag/
FA ratio increased, and the trends were similar, as is shown in
Fig. 27(a) and (c). As the modulus of the alkali activator increased,
the peak load of the beams increased slightly, and the fracture
energy increased significantly. The fracture energy of the beams
increased with an increase in the alkali-activator modulus. The
beams exhibited excellent ductile behavior at Ms ¼ 2.0, as is shown
in Fig. 27(b). However, the peak load and fracture energy of the
beams decreased as the liquid-to-binder ratio increased, as is
shown in Fig. 27(d).
Ding and Bai (2018) also evaluated the average fracture energy
of steel fiber-reinforced GPC beams, as is shown in Table 6. The
energy-absorption capacity of the GPC beams was significantly
improved with the incorporation of the fibers. The steel fibers were
pulled out of the matrix, which was consistent with a previous
study (Lin et al., 2008). The fibers have the function of cracking and
toughening, and the geopolymer binder has a uniform micro-
structure and excellent binding performance with fibers (Castel and
Foster, 2015), the incorporation of fibers can significantly increase
the fracture energy of GPC (Aydın and Baradan, 2013).
Geopolymer has the advantages of rapid hardening and excel-
lent strength, however, its high shrinkage rate limits further
development (Qian et al., 2020). Therefore, it is urgent to find a way
to improve the shrinkage. Otherwise, it is the focus of future work
to study the basic mechanical property index of GPC similar to
OPCC, establish the full stress-strain curve equation, and adjust the
shrinkage and creep model applicable to GPC.
5. Durability of GPC
5.1. Acid resistance
In general, the damage to the cement binder under acid attack is
mainly caused by the reaction of calcium compounds with the acid
solution, which generates tensile stress and induces cracking of the
cement binder system. However, FA/GGBFS-based GPC has excel-
lent acid resistance. This is attributed to the low water absorption
12 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
Fig. 23. Bond stresseslip curves of GPC and OPCC with and (Adak and Mandal, 2019).
Fig. 24. Schematic of the specimen used for the three-point bending test.
Fig. 25. Fracture test results for different types of concrete (Rao et al., 2015).
and calcium content of the geopolymer, which result in less soluble
compounds (Fernando and Said, 2011).
The long-term durability of GGBFS-based GPC in a corrosive
environment (5% sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solution) was examined by
Manjunath et al. (2019). As is shown in Fig. 28(a), the weight loss of
OPCC was approximately 75% at 56 d, and the degradation loss was
100% after the OPCC was exposed to an H2SO4 solution for 103 d.
Fig. 26. P-D curves of slag/FA-based GPC beams (Ding et al., 2018).
However, the weight loss of the GGBFS-based GPC was <10% after it
was exposed to the H2SO4 solution for 365 d. The corresponding
loss of the compressive strength is shown in Fig. 28(b) (Fernando
et al., 2010). The compressive-strength loss of the GPC after 365 d
of exposure to the H2SO4 solution (36.4%e39.1%) was significantly
smaller than that of the OPCC (almost 90%) after 90 d of exposure.
These results indicate that all the GPC samples had better corrosion
resistance than the OPCC. The excellent acid resistance of GPC may
have been due to the decalcification of the C-A-S-H gel in the ma-
trix. The significant reductions of the weight loss and compressive-
strength loss may have been due to the dense microstructure and
splendid pore structure, which resulted in low penetration of the
acid solution, providing less opportunity for further reactions
(Bakharev et al., 2003).
Fig. 29 showed the effect of a 2% H2SO4 solution on the dura-
bility of FA-based GPC and OPCC over 90 d (Okoye et al., 2017). The
appearance of the sample indicated that the GPC containing 20%
SiO2fume in the acid solution was not deteriorated and that the
surface was not corroded. However, the OPCC exhibited surface
corrosion and edge breakage. Among the samples tested, the OPCC
exhibited the largest weight loss and compressive-strength loss in
the H2SO4 solution. The GPC with 20% silicon fume instead of FA
exhibited the smallest weight loss and compressive-strength loss,
as is shown in Fig. 30. The poor performance of the OPCC was due to
the reactions of the Ca(OH)2 and CeSeH gels with the acid solution.
The OPCC was susceptible to acid attack because of the CeSeH gel.
The formation of the N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H gels rendered the GPC
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389 13

Fig. 27. Effects of different parameters on the peak load and fracture energy of GPC (Ding et al., 2018).

Table 6 highly resistant to acid attack. The FA and SiO2 fume contained a
Fracture energy for plain and steel fiber-reinforced GPC (Ding and Bai, 2018). large amount of aluminosilicate in the GPC, which reacted with
GPC-SF0 GPC-SF1.0 GPC-SF1.5 GPC-SF2.0 Ca(OH)2 to produce a stable C-A-S-H gel and filled the pores to a
Fracture energy, GF (N/m) 207.4 4884.5 6626.3 6203.8
considerable extent, reducing the weight loss (Aydın et al., 2007).
203 3717.3 4874 5037.4 The effects of an H2SO4 solution on the microstructures of FA-
213.6 4102 5626.6 5048 based GPC and OPCC were investigated by Gu et al. (2018). The
207.4 3996.8 6373.9 5731.3 ITZ of the OPCC before the acid attack exhibited close contact be-
Average GF (N/m) 207.9 4175.1 5875.2 5505.1
tween the aggregate and the matrix (Fig. 31(a)). Gypsum crystals
K 1 20.1 28.2 26.5
were formed near the ITZ after 142 d of erosion in the H2SO4
Note: The steel fiber contents were 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 vol%.

Fig. 28. Weight loss and compressive strength of GPC and OPC exposed to 5% H2SO4 for different durations Manjunath et al. (2019).
14 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389

Fig. 29. Visual appearance of four blocks of samples exposed to 5% H2SO4 for 90 d (Okoye et al., 2017).

solution (Fig. 31(b)). The porous properties of gypsum reduced the
strength of the ITZ, which was consistent with a previous report
(Alexander et al., 2013). The ITZ of the GPC samples before the acid
attack exhibited a tight connection. As is shown in Fig. 32, the
morphologies of the ITZs of GPC samples before and after immer-
sion in the H2SO4 solution were not significantly different, indi-
cating that the ITZ in the GPC had better acid resistance than that in
the OPCC. Provis and van Deventer (2009) observed a similar
phenomenon.
Additionally, through XRD analysis, Gu found that the chemical
composition of the OPCC was significantly changed after the acid
attack. However, the degradation process of the GPC was slow in
the initial stage. Crystalline gypsum was detected in the samples
attacked in the H2SO4 solution for 14 weeks, which retained most of
their original properties after the 142 d of acid attack. Owing to the
extremely low calcium content in class F FA, the gypsum was
possibly formed by the reaction between CaCO3 in the coarse
aggregate of limestone and H2SO4 solution.
5.2. Carbonation resistance
The carbonation of OPCC is a chemical reaction between
Ca(OH)2 and CO2 penetrating the interior of concrete, which results
in the production of CaCO3. The penetration of CO2 reduces the PH
of the concrete, which reduces the carbonation and eliminates the
protective alkaline layer around the steel bars. This is the main
reason for the corrosion of steel bars in concrete. The carbonation
mechanism of GPC differs from that of traditional concrete. For
high-calcium GPC, owing to the lack of Ca(OH)2 in the polymeri-
zation products, the CO2 in the GPC directly reacts with the C-A-S-H
gel, producing CaCO3. For low-calcium GPC, because the primary
product is a N-A-S-H gel without a decalcification process, the
primary process of carbonation is the transformation of the pore
solution from high-alkalinity to high-Na2CO3 concentration, and
the microstructure of the matrix changes slightly.
Bernal (2011) and Behfarnia (2017) examined the factors
affecting the carbonation of GPC (Table 7 and Fig. 33). As the
alkaline solution/slag (AS/S) ratio increased, the alkalinity of the

Fig. 30. Weight loss and compressive-strength loss of GPC and OPCC exposed to 2% H2SO4 for different durations (Okoye et al., 2017).
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389 15

Fig. 31. ITZ change of OPCC samples Gu et al. (2018).

Fig. 32. ITZ change of GPC samples Gu et al. (2018).

solution increased, which caused the alkalinity of the GPC to
decrease slowly and reduced the carbonation depth. This is similar
to the findings of Bernal (2015). However, only the slag content was
increased. As is shown in Fig. 33, both GPC and OPCC exhibited a
smaller carbonation depth with an increase in the slag content, but
the carbonation depth of OPCC was smaller than that of the GPC
(Bernal et al., 2011). During the exposure of GPC samples to CO2, the
principal reaction product was the carbonate compound, which
was produced by carbonation of the alkaline pore solution and the
C-A-S-H gel.
Fig. 34 showed the effects of water curing and plastic-cover
curing on the carbonation depth of GGBFS-based GPC. Carboniza-
tion performance of water-cured samples was more excellent than
the plastic cover curing. This may be because the chemical reaction
of the binder required water, and the gel was not formed uniformly
in the matrix when water was scarce, resulting in a low perme-
ability resistance of the CO2. However, increasing the proportion of
micro-silica can significantly improve the carbonization perfor-
mance. Micro-silica had the advantages of small size, aggregate
function and volcanic ash properties, the replacement of the GGBFS
with micro-silica had a positive effect on the carbonation depth of
GPC samples (Leemann et al., 2015). The difference in the effects of
micro-silica on the performance of GPC and OPCC may be caused by
the different chemical compositions of GGBFS and OPC.
5.3. Freezeethaw resistance
Damage due to freezing significantly affects the performance of
GPC, posing a threat to the durability and safety of GPC structures.
Pilehvar et al. (2019) examined the effect of the freezing conditions
on the properties of OPCC and FA/GGBFS-based GPC containing
microcapsule phase-change materials (MPCMs), as is shown in
Fig. 35. The results indicated that the GPC had a better freeze
resistance than the OPCC. With the addition of MPCMs, the strength
of all the samples decreased to <2.5% after 28 d of freezeethaw
cycles. Thus, the MPCM had distinct frost resistance, which is
attributed to the microcapsules providing free space when the
water froze, which reduced the stress caused by frost.
Cai et al. (2017) used fractal theory to investigate the fracture of
GGBFS-based GPC during freezeethaw cycling. The freezeethaw
damage area was calculated using the crack distribution. As is
shown in Fig. 36, the fractal dimension had an excellent linear
relationship with the fracture toughness. Therefore, the fracture
toughening of the GPC was reflected by the fractal dimension. The
experimental results in Fig. 37 indicate that with increasing
freezeethaw cycles, the fractal dimension increased, and the
16 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
Table 7
Carbonation-depth values for GPC and OPCC (mm).
Mix Carbonation depth (14 d)
OPCC 4.93
S40 7.34
S45 7.09
S50 6.87
S55 6.8
Note: Ratio of S40 to AS/S ¼ 0.4.
Fig. 33. Carbonation changes for GPC and OPCC (Bernal et al., 2011).
Fig. 34. Carbonation depth of GPC after 28 d of accelerated carbonation (Leemann
et al., 2015).
fracture toughness of the GPC decreased. Additionally, the fractal
dimension decreased when the slag/activator solution (S/A) ratio or
slag content increased, indicating that increasing the S/A ratio or
slag content can improve the toughening of GPC.
Shahrajabian and Behfamia (2018) examined the influence of NS
particles on the compressive strength of GGBFS-based GPC under
freezeethaw cycling, as is shown in Fig. 38(a). The graph shows the
effect of the NS content on the compressive strength of the GPC. The
NS significantly affected the compressive strength of the GPC under
different freezeethaw conditions. Compared with the samples
without NS, the samples with NS exhibited a higher compressive
strength under the freezeethaw condition. Fig. 38(b) shows the
mass loss of GPC according to the NS content. The GPC samples
experienced mass loss during the freezeethaw cycles, because of
the damage to the edge of the specimens. The results indicated that
adding 3% NS to the GPC significantly reduced the mass loss of the
specimens.
Carbonation depth (28 d) dGPC/dOPCC (14 d) dGPC/dOPCC (28 d)
6.12 1 1
8.93 1.49 1.46
8.71 1.44 1.42
8.13 1.39 1.33
7.78 1.38 1.27
5.4. High-temperature resistance
The geopolymer is a three-dimensional zeolite-like network
structure that requires a higher temperature than hardened cement
to be destroyed (San et al., 2014). Therefore, GPC exhibits an
excellent high-temperature resistance. Through the test, it can be
known that GPC can withstand the high temperature of at least
800e1000
C(Nuaklong et al., 2020). Fig. 39 shows the change in
the compressive strength for OPCC, FA/GGBFS-based GPC, and FA/
OPC-based GPC exposed to temperatures ranging from 25 to
1100
C (Saavedra and Gutie rrez, 2017). The results indicate that at
the ambient temperature, the strength decreased in the following
order: FA/GGBFS-based GPC, OPCC, and FA/OPC-based GPC. For all
the specimens, the strength decreased with an increase in the
exposure temperature. However, the decline rate of the GPC was
lower than that of the OPC, indicating that the GPC had an excellent
high-temperature resistance.
The bond performance of reinforced GPC embedded with plain
steel bars (GPC-1) and ribbed steel bars (GPC-2) were evaluated by
Zhang et al. (2018b). Fig. 40 presents the relationship between the
bond strength of the GPC specimens and the temperature. As is
shown, for all the samples, the bond strength changed slightly
when the temperature was below 300
C. However, the bond
strength of the samples was significantly reduced when the tem-
perature exceeded 300
C, possibly owing to the change in the
structure of the geopolymer caused by the high temperature, as
well as the thermal incompatibility of the geopolymer and the
aggregate. This trend is consistent with the compressive strength
and split tensile strength of GPC. The results indicated that 300
C
was the critical value for a large change in the bond strength of the
samples.
As is shown in Fig. 40, the bond strength of GPC with ribbed
steel bars at the ambient temperature was more than twice that of
GPC with plain steel bars, and the degradation rate of GPC-1 was
higher than that of GPC-2. The bonding between the geopolymer
and the plain steel bars mainly involved chemical adhesion and
friction. With an increase in the exposure temperature, the GPC was
severely deteriorated, which resulted in deformation and in-
compatibility between the geopolymer and the plain steel bars,
reducing the friction (Zhang et al., 2016). Therefore, the bonding
mechanism explains why the plain steel bars exhibited a lower
pullout resistance than the ribbed steel bars. For the samples with
ribbed steel bars, the mechanical occlusion between the geo-
polymer and the steel bars had a dominant effect on the bond
strength. Therefore, the GPC-2 samples exhibited slower degrada-
tion of the bond strength.
Fig. 41(a) and (b) show classical bond stresseslip curves for
specimens with plain steel bars and ribbed steel bars, respectively,
at different temperatures. All the specimens failed owing to the
pullout of the steel bars. The bond stress of GPC with ribbed steel
bars was superior to that of GPC with plain steel bars. The bond
stress of the GPC-2 samples decreased significantly when the
temperature exceeded 300
C, and the bond stress of the GPC with
plain steel bars decreased more uniformly with the increasing
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389 17

Fig. 35. Effect of MPCMs on the compressive strength (Pilehvar et al., 2019).

temperature (Zhang et al., 2018b).

Due to the high alkali concentration in the pores of FA/GGBFS-
based GPC, alkalis precipitate on the surface with the evaporation
of water in the process of condensation and hardening, frost on the
surface, and affect the durability of GPC (Maiti et al., 2020). In
particular, it affects the interface bonding properties of blocks.
Therefore, how to fix the alkali metal ions in the reaction products
to prevent the migration with water vapor is also a major problem.

5.5. Opportunities and challenges for FA/GGBFS-based GPC

Studies on the reaction mechanism and workability of FA/

Fig. 36. Fracture toughness vs. fractal dimension (Cai et al., 2017).
GGBFS-based GPC have achieved tremendous progress. FA/
GGBFS-based GPC is ecofriendly with regard to production and
application, mainly because of the low CO2 emissions and the small
amount of water needed owing to the high FA content. The per-
formance of GPC is excellent without a superplasticizer (which is
expensive compared with concrete and increases the CO2 emis-
sions). Additionally, geopolymer technology provides opportunities
for recycling industrial waste, and this waste cannot be used in

Fig. 37. S/A ratio and slag content vs. fractal dimension for GPC (Cai et al., 2017).
18 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
Fig. 38. Compressive strength and mass loss of GPC exposed to freezeethaw cycles (Shahrajabian and Behfamia, 2018).
Fig. 39. Compressive strength of OPCC and GPC after exposure to high temperatures
rrez, 2017).
(Saavedra and Gutie
OPCC production. The foregoing factors satisfy the societal
requirement of sustainable development. Additionally, FA/GGBFS-
based GPC has broad application prospects because of its many
excellent characteristics, such as its shrinkage, corrosion resistance,
and high-temperature resistance.
Although the aforementioned factors have promoted the
development of FA/GGBFS-based GPC technology, GPC is seldom
used in large-scale engineering projects. There are obstacles for
achieving industrial application, which are summarized as follows:
 Published researched has confirmed the excellent properties of
FA/GGBFS-based GPC. However, geopolymers have different raw
materials, and a large investment is required for the formulation
and certification of the raw materials. Although the changes of
the raw materials are taken into account in the mix design, there
are difficulties in the process of implementation.
 There are various codes and standards for traditional concrete.
These relationships among strengths are based on extensive
data regarding different engineering properties and have been
Fig. 40. Bond strength of GPC with plain and ribbed steel bars.
developed for decades. Compared with traditional concrete, GPC
has been studied less extensively, and the quantitative data on
its durability and mechanical properties are lacking.
 Although GPC has excellent compressive strength, its tensile
strength is weak, and brittle failure occurs easily. A toughening
effect can be achieved by using a fiber-reinforced material to
obtain the necessary mechanical and thermal properties for a
specific application.
 The construction and manufacturing industries are conservative
with regard to the adoption of new products. In developed
countries, there are very specific standards for the performance
of the binder. Therefore, products such as GPC may not be
completely acceptable, because GPC does not fully satisfy the
regulatory standards, particularly with regard to the rheology
and chemical composition. This can be a significant obstacle to
the adoption of GPC.
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
Fig. 41. Bond stresseslip curves for GPC reinforced with steel bars (Zhang et al., 2018b).
 Geopolymers can satisfy and exceed most of the existing per-
formance standards in building applications, particularly when
acid resistance and heat resistance are required. However, the
high shrinkage rate can only be improved by changing the
curing conditions and using appropriate raw materials.
6. Conclusions
The reaction mechanism of geopolymers, the workability, me-
chanical properties and durability of fresh and hardened FA/GGBFS-
based GPC were reviewed. Based on the review results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
 Because of the main raw materials used in GPC are industrial
wastes, such as FA and GGBFS, the application of GPC can reduce
CO2 emissions, facilitate waste recycling and promote the sus-
tainable development of society. Therefore, the FA/GGBFS-based
GPC could be utilized potentially as a replacement for OPC.
However, this will only occur when there is an effective raw
material supply chain.
 The reaction mechanism of the FA/GGBFS geopolymer material
involves the breaking and recombining of the SieO and AleO
bonds under the action of an alkaline activator, which results
in the production of a hardened geopolymer with excellent
mechanical properties and durability.
 The rheology of GPC differs from that of OPCC. Owing to the high
viscosity of the Na2SiO3 solution, the slump of GPC decreases
with an increase in the Na2SiO3 content. The SS/SH ratio, NaOH
concentration, and FA/GGBFS ratio affect the workability, initial
setting time, and final setting time of GPC. Additionally, the
workability of GPC with different mix proportions fluctuates
greatly. Therefore, the preparation technique of GPC with stable
workability is the key problem in the promotion of GPC
applications.
 The effects of different phases on the mechanical properties of
FA/GGBFS-based GPC were discussed. Comparisons indicated
that FA/GGBFS-based GPC has better mechanical properties than
OPCC. SEM revealed that the structure of the geopolymer is
denser than that of OPC. XRD analysis indicated that GPC has a
high crystallinity and that the ITZ of GPC is denser than that of
OPCC. However, the ITZ is the weakest part of OPCC. The FA/
GGBFS-based GPC poses desirable mechanical and structural
properties that make it an ideal choice for the construction
industry.
 It can be indicated that FA/GGBFS-based GPC had a smaller
strength loss and mass loss than OPCC after acid attack, sug-
gesting that GPC has excellent acid resistance. However, the
carbonation resistance of GPC is lower than that of OPCC. The
structure of GPC is similar to that of zeolite because GPC is an
19
alkali-activated material. Therefore, FA/GGBFS-based GPC has
excellent freezeethaw resistance and high-temperature resis-
tance. However, more investigations on the behavior at elevated
temperature and the deterioration caused by environmental
factors of FA/GGBFS-based GPC are required.
The properties of FA/GGBFS-based GPC depend on the chemical
composition of the binders, curing conditions, casting processes,
and environmental conditions. The review provides a foundation
for understanding the effects of known parameters on the me-
chanical properties and durability of fresh and hardened FA/GGBFS-
based GPC.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests in this
paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
received from State Key Laboratory of High Performance Civil En-
gineering Materials (No. 2016CEM011), National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51678534, 51979251), Program for Inno-
vative Research Team (in Science and Technology) in University of
Henan Province of China (No. 20IRTSTHN009), Changjiang River
Scientific Research Institute (CRSRI) Open Research Program (No.
CKWV2018477/KY) and Open Projects Funds of Dike Safety and
Disaster Prevention Engineering Technology Research Center of
Chinese Ministry of Water Resources (No. 2018006).
References
ACI Committee 318, 2011. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary. American Concrete Instute, Farmington Hills.
Adak, D., Mandal, S., 2019. Strength and durability performance of fly ashebased
process-modified geopolymer concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31, 04019174.
AlBakri, A.M., Kamarudin, H., Bnhussain, M., Nizar, I.K., Rafiza, A., Zarina, Y., 2012.
The processing, characterization, and properties of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 30, 90e97.
Alexander, M., Bertron, A., Belie, N., 2013. Performance of Cement-Based Materials
in Aggressive Aqueous Environments. Springer, Netherlands.
Alonso, M., Gismera, S., Blanco, M., Lanzo n, M., Puertas, F., 2017. Alkali-activated
mortars: workability and rheological behaviour. Construct. Build. Mater. 145,
576e587.
Alonso, S., Palomo, A., 2001. Calorimetric study of alkaline activation of calcium
hydroxideemetakaolin solid mixtures. Cement Concr. Res. 31, 25e30.
Ariffin, M., Bhutta, M., Hussin, M., Tahir, M.M., Aziah, N., 2013. Sulfuric acid resis-
tance of blended ash geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 43, 80e86.
Aydın, S., Baradan, B., 2013. The effect of fiber properties on high performance
alkali-activated slag/silica fume mortars. Compos. B Eng. 45, 63e69.
iter, H., Baradan, B., 2007. Sulfuric acid resistance of high-
Aydın, S., Yazıcı, H., Yig
volume fly ash concrete. Build. Environ. 42, 717e721.
Azzawi, M., Yu, T., Hadi, M.N., 2018. Factors affecting the bond strength between the
20 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete and steel reinforcement. Structure 262e272.
Bajpai, R., Choudhary, K., Srivastava, A., Sangwan, K.S., Singh, M., 2020. Environ-
mental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer con-
crete. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120147.
Bakharev, T., Sanjayan, J.G., Cheng, Y.B., 2003. Resistance of alkali-activated slag
concrete to acid attack. Cement Concr. Res. 33, 1607e1611.
Behfarnia, K., Rostami, M., 2017. An assessment on parameters affecting the
carbonation of alkali-activated slag concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 157, 1e9.
Bernal, S.A., 2015. Effect of the activator dose on the compressive strength and
accelerated carbonation resistance of alkali silicate-activated slag/metakaolin
blended materials. Construct. Build. Mater. 98, 217e226.
Bernal, S.A., Gutie rrez, R.M., Pedraza, A.L., Provis, J.L., Rodriguez, E.D., Delvasto, S.,
2011. Effect of binder content on the performance of alkali-activated slag con-
cretes. Cement Concr. Res. 41, 1e8.
Bhanja, S., Sengupta, B., 2005. Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of
concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 35, 743e747.
Cai, W., Cen, G., Wang, H., 2017. Fracture surface fractal characteristics of alkali-alag
concrete under freeze-thaw cycles. Ann. Mater. Sci. Eng. 3, 1e9.
Castel, A., Foster, S.J., 2015. Bond strength between blended slag and Class F fly ash
geopolymer concrete with steel reinforcement. Cement Concr. Res. 72, 48e53.
Cheah, C.B., Samsudin, M.H., Ramli, M., Part, W.K., Tan, L.E., 2017. The use of high
calcium wood ash in the preparation of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
and Pulverized Fly Ash geopolymers: a complete microstructural and me-
chanical characterization. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 114e123.
Chen, X., Guo, Y., Ding, S., Zhang, H., Xia, F., Wang, J., Zhou, M.K., 2019. Utilization of
red mud in geopolymer-based pervious concrete with function of adsorption of
heavy metal ions. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 789e800.
Chi, M., Huang, R., 2013. Binding mechanism and properties of alkali-activated fly
ash/slag mortars. Construct. Build. Mater. 40, 291e298.
Chindaprasirt, P., Silva, P., Sagoe, K., Hanjitsuwan, S., 2012. Effect of SiO2 and Al2O3
on the setting and hardening of high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer sys-
tems. J. Mater. Sci. 47, 4876e4883.
Dahou, Z., Castel, A., Noushini, A., 2016. Prediction of the steel-concrete bond
strength from the compressive strength of Portland cement and geopolymer
concretes. Construct. Build. Mater. 119, 329e342.
Darwin, D., Dolan, C.W., Nilson, A.H., 2016. Design of Concrete Structures. McGraw-
Hill Education.
Davidovits, J., Cordi, S., 1979. Synthesis of new high temperature geo-polymers for
reinforced plastics/composites. SPE PACTEC 79, 151e154.
Davidovits, J., 1989. Geopolymers and geopolymeric materials. J. Therm. Anal. Cal-
orim. 35, 429e441.
Davidovits, J., 1991. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm.
Anal. Calorim. 37, 1633e1656.
Diaz, E.I., Allouche, E.N., Vaidya, S., 2011. Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based
geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater. J. 108, 300.
Ding, Y., Bai, Y.L., 2018. Fracture properties and softening curves of steel fiber-
reinforced slag-based geopolymer mortar and concrete. Materials 11, 1445.
Ding, Y., Dai, J.G., Shi, C.J., 2016. Mechanical properties of alkali-activated concrete: a
state-of-the-art review. Construct. Build. Mater. 127, 68e79.
Ding, Y., Shi, C.J., Li, N., 2018. Fracture properties of slag/fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete cured in ambient temperature. Construct. Build. Mater. 190, 787e795.
Duxson, P., Lukey, G., Separovic, F., Van, J., 2005. Effect of alkali cations on aluminum
incorporation in geopolymeric gels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 44, 832e839.
Embong, R., Kusbiantoro, A., Shafiq, N., Nuruddin, M.F., 2016. Strength and micro-
structural properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete containing high-
calcium and water-absorptive aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 816e822.
Fang, G., Ho, W.K., Tu, W., Zhang, M., 2018. Workability and mechanical properties of
alkali-activated fly ash-slag concrete cured at ambient temperature. Construct.
Build. Mater. 172, 476e487.
Farhan, N.A., Sheikh, M.N., Hadi, M.N., 2018. Experimental investigation on the ef-
fect of corrosion on the bond between reinforcing steel bars and fibre rein-
forced geopolymer concrete. Structure 251e261.
Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Khennane, A., Kayali, O., 2015. Geopolymer concrete-filled
pultruded composite beamseconcrete mix design and application. Cement
Concr. Compos. 58, 1e13.
Ferna ndez, A., Palomo, A., Vazquez, T., Vallepu, R., Terai, T., Ikeda, K., 2008. Alkaline
activation of blends of metakaolin and calcium aluminate. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 91,
1231e1236.
Ferna ndez, A., Palomo, A., Sobrados, I., Sanz, J., 2006. The role played by the reactive
alumina content in the alkaline activation of fly ashes. Microporous Meso-
porous Mater. 91, 111e119.
Fernando, P.T., Joa ~o, C.G., Said, J., 2010. Durability and environmental performance
of alkali-activated tungsten mine waste mud mortars. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22,
897e904.
Fernando, P.T., Said, J., 2011. Resistance to acid attack, abrasion and leaching
behavior of alkali-activated mine waste binders. Mater. Struct. 44, 487e498.
Glukhovsky, V., 2011. New cements for the 21st century: the pursuit of an alter-
native to Portland cement. Cement Concr. Res. 41, 750e763.
Go€rhan, G., Kürklü, G., 2014. The influence of the NaOH solution on the properties of
the fly ash-based geopolymer mortar cured at different temperatures. Compos.
B Eng. 58, 371e377.
Gu, L., Visintin, P., Bennett, T., 2018. Evaluation of accelerated degradation test
methods for cementitious composites subject to sulfuric acid attack; applica-
tion to conventional and alkali-activated concretes. Cement Concr. Compos. 87,
187e204.
Hadi, M.N., Farhan, N.A., Sheikh, M.N., 2017. Design of geopolymer concrete with
GGBFS at ambient curing condition using Taguchi method. Construct. Build.
Mater. 140, 424e431.
Hanjitsuwan, S., Hunpratub, S., Thongbai, P., Maensiri, S., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P.,
2014. Effects of NaOH concentrations on physical and electrical properties of
high calcium fly ash geopolymer paste. Cement Concr. Compos. 45, 9e14.
Hansen, S.G., Lauridsen, J.T., Hoang, L.C., 2018. Experimental and statistical inves-
tigation of the compressive strength anisotropy in structural concrete. Cement
Concr. Res. 107, 304e316.
Hardjito, D., 2005. Studies of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Curtin University.
Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D.M., Rangan, B.V., 2005. Fly ash-based geo-
polymer concrete. Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 6, 77e86.
Ibrahim, M., Johari, M.A., Rahman, M.K., Maslehuddin, M., Mohamed, H.D., 2018.
Enhancing the engineering properties and microstructure of room temperature
cured alkali activated natural pozzolan based concrete utilizing nanosilica.
Construct. Build. Mater. 189, 352e365.
Juenger, M., Winnefeld, F., Provis, J.L., Ideker, J., 2011. Advances in alternative
cementitious binders. Cement Concr. Res. 41, 1232e1243.
Junaid, M.T., Khennane, A., Kayali, O., Sadaoui, A., Picard, D., Fafard, M., 2014. Aspects
of the deformational behaviour of alkali activated fly ash concrete at elevated
temperatures. Cement Concr. Res. 60, 24e29.
Kastiukas, G., Ruan, S., Liang, S., Zhou, X., 2020. Development of precast geopolymer
concrete via oven and microwave radiation curing with an environmental
assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120290.
Khater, H.M., 2014. Studying the effect of thermal and acid exposure on alkali
activated slag geopolymer. Adv. Cement Res. 26, 1e9.
Krivenko, P., Drochytka, R., Gelevera, A., Kavalerova, E., 2014. Mechanism of pre-
venting the alkalieaggregate reaction in alkali activated cement concretes.
Cement Concr. Compos. 45, 157e165.
Kumar, S., Kumar, R., Mehrotra, S., 2010. Influence of granulated blast furnace slag
on the reaction, structure and properties of fly ash based geopolymer. J. Mater.
Sci. 45, 607e615.
Kupwade-Patil, K., Allouche, E.N., 2012. Impact of alkali silica reaction on fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25, 131e139.
L€
ammlein, T.D., Messina, F., Wyrzykowski, M., Terrasi, G.P., Lura, P., 2019. Low
clinker high performance concretes and their potential in CFRP-prestressed
structural elements. Cement Concr. Compos. 100, 130e138.
Laskar, S.M., Talukdar, S., 2017. Preparation and tests for workability, compressive
and bond strength of ultra-fine slag based geopolymer as concrete repairing
agent. Construct. Build. Mater. 154, 176e190.
Leemann, A., Nygaard, P., Kaufmann, J., Loser, R., 2015. Relation between carbon-
ation resistance, mix design and exposure of mortar and concrete. Cement
Concr. Compos. 62, 33e43.
Lee, N., Lee, H.K., 2013. Setting and mechanical properties of alkali-activated fly ash/
slag concrete manufactured at room temperature. Construct. Build. Mater. 47,
1201e1209.
Lee, W., Van, J., 2007. Chemical interactions between siliceous aggregates and low-
Ca alkali-activated cements. Cement Concr. Res. 37, 844e855.
Le, H.T., Poh, L.H., Wang, S., Zhang, M.H., 2017. Critical parameters for the
compressive strength of high-strength concrete. Cement Concr. Compos. 82,
202e216.
Li, N., Shi, C.J., Zhang, Z.H., Zhu, D.J., Hwang, H.J., Zhu, Y.H., Sun, T.J., 2018. A mixture
proportioning method for the development of performance-based alkali-acti-
vated slag-based concrete. Cement Concr. Compos. 93, 163e174.
Li, Z., Zhang, S., Zuo, Y., Chen, W., Ye, G., 2019. Chemical deformation of metakaolin
based geopolymer. Cement Concr. Res. 120, 108e118.
Liew, Y.M., Heah, C.Y., Kamarudin, H., 2016. Structure and properties of clay-based
geopolymer cements: a review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 83, 595e629.
Lin, T., Jia, D., He, P., Wang, M., Liang, D., 2008. Effects of fiber length on mechanical
properties and fracture behavior of short carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer
matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. 497, 181e185.
Maiti, M., Sarkar, M., Maiti, S., Malik, M.A., Xu, S., 2020. Modification of geopolymer
with size controlled TiO2 nanoparticle for enhanced durability and catalytic dye
degradation under UV light. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120183.
Manjunath, R., Narasimhan, M.C., Umesha, K., 2019. Studies on high performance
alkali activated slag concrete mixes subjected to aggressive environments and
sustained elevated temperatures. Construct. Build. Mater. 229, 116887.
Maranan, G., Manalo, A., Karunasena, K., Benmokrane, B., 2015. Bond stress-slip
behavior: case of GFRP bars in geopolymer concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27,
04014116.
Mehta, A., Siddique, R., 2017a. Properties of low-calcium fly ash based geopolymer
concrete incorporating OPC as partial replacement of fly ash. Construct. Build.
Mater. 150, 792e807.
Mehta, A., Siddique, R., 2017b. Strength, permeability and micro-structural char-
acteristics of low-calcium fly ash based geopolymers. Construct. Build. Mater.
141, 325e334.
Meyer, C., 2009. The greening of the concrete industry. Cement Concr. Compos. 31,
601e605.
Moon, J., Bae, S., Celik, K., Yoon, S., Kim, K.H., Kim, K.S., Monteiro, P.J.M., 2014.
Characterization of natural pozzolan-based geopolymeric binders. Cement
Concr. Compos. 53, 97e104.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2014. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition.
Construct. Build. Mater. 66, 163e171.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2015. Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength
 P. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020) 122389
properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temper-
ature. Cement Concr. Compos. 55, 205e214.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2017. Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured
blended low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 130,
22e31.
Noushini, A., Castel, A., Aldred, J., Rawal, A., 2020. Chloride diffusion resistance and
chloride binding capacity of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Cement Concr.
Compos. 105, 103290.
Nuaklong, P., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P., 2016. Influence of recycled aggregate on fly
ash geopolymer concrete properties. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2300e2307.
Nuaklong, P., Jongvivatsakul, P., Pothisiri, T., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P., 2020. Influ-
ence of rice husk ash on mechanical properties and fire resistance of recycled
aggregate high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119797.
Okoye, F.N., Prakash, S., Singh, N.B., 2017. Durability of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete in the presence of silica fume. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 1062e1067.
Pan, Z., Sanjayan, J.G., Rangan, B.V., 2011. Fracture properties of geopolymer paste
and concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 63, 763e771.
Pasupathy, K., Berndt, M., Sanjayan, J., Rajeev, P., Cheema, D.S., 2017. Durability of
low-calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete culvert in a saline environment.
Cement Concr. Res. 100, 297e310.
Peng, J.X., Huang, L., Zhao, Y.B., Chen, P., Zeng, L., 2012. Modeling of carbon dioxide
measurement on cement plants. Adv. Mater. Res. 610e613, 2120e2128.
Phoongernkham, T., Chindaprasirt, P., Sata, V., Hanjitsuwan, S., Hatanaka, S., 2014.
The effect of adding nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 on properties of high calcium fly
ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Mater. Des. 58e65.
Pilehvar, S., Szczotok, A.M., Rodríguez, J.F., Valentini, L., Lanzo n, M., Pamies, R.,
Kjoniksen, A.L., 2019. Effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the mechanical behavior of
geopolymer concrete and Portland cement concrete containing micro-
encapsulated phase change materials. Construct. Build. Mater. 200, 94e103.
Prasittisopin, L., Sereewatthanawut, I., 2018. Effects of seeding nucleation agent on
geopolymerization process of fly-ash geopolymer. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 12,
16e25.
Provis, J.L., Deventer, J.S., 2009. Geopolymers: Structures, Processing, Properties and
Industrial Applications. Springer, Netherlands.
Puertas, F., Gonza lez, B., Gonza lez, I., Alonso, M., Torres, M., Rojo, G., Martinez-
Abella, F., 2018. Alkali-activated slag concrete: fresh and hardened behaviour.
Cement Concr. Compos. 85, 22e31.
Puertas, F., Palacios, M., Manzano, H., Dolado, J., Rico, A., Rodríguez, J., 2011. A model
for the CASH gel formed in alkali-activated slag cements. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 31,
2043e2056.
Puertas, F., Varga, C., Alonso, M.M., 2014. Rheology of alkali-activated slag pastes.
Effect of the nature and concentration of the activating solution. Cement Concr.
Compos. 53, 279e288.
Puligilla, S., Mondal, P., 2013. Role of slag in microstructural development and
hardening of fly ash-slag geopolymer. Cement Concr. Res. 43, 70e80.
Qian, L., Wang, Y., Alrefaei, Y., Dai, J., 2020. Experimental study on full-volume fly
ash geopolymer mortars: sintered fly ash versus sand as fine aggregates.
J. Clean. Prod., 121445
Ranjbar, N., Talebian, S., Mehrali, M., Kuenzel, C., Metselaar, H.S.C., Jumaat, M.Z.,
2016. Mechanisms of interfacial bond in steel and polypropylene fiber rein-
forced geopolymer composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 122, 73e81.
Rao, G., Tippabhotla, D., Alfrite, P., Mallikarjuna, G., Andal, M., 2015. Fracture pa-
rameters of fly ash and GGBS based geopolymer concrete. Appl. Mech. Mater.
764e765, 1090e1094.
Rattanasak, U., Chindaprasirt, P., 2009. Influence of NaOH solution on the synthesis
of fly ash geopolymer. Miner. Eng. 22, 1073e1078.
Razak, A., Nooriza, S., Nuruddin, M., 2014. The effects of alkali silica reaction (ASR)
towards fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Appl. Mech. Mater. 699, 271e276.
Rees, C.A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Deventer, J.S., 2008. The mechanism of geo-
polymer gel formation investigated through seeded nucleation. Colloids Surf., A
318, 97e105.
Ronad, A., Karikatti, V., Dyavanal, S., 2016. A study on mechanical properties of
geopolymer concrete reinforced with basalt fiber. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 5,
474e478.
Ruiz, C., Skibsted, J., Ferna ndez, A., Palomo, A., 2012. Alkaline solution/binder ratio
21
as a determining factor in the alkaline activation of aluminosilicates. Cement
Concr. Res. 42, 1242e1251.
Saavedra, W.G., Gutie rrez, R.M., 2017. Performance of geopolymer concrete
composed of fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. Construct. Build.
Mater. 154, 229e235.
San, R., Bernal, S.A., Gutie rrez, R.M., Deventer, J.S., Provis, J.L., 2014. Distinctive
microstructural features of aged sodium silicate-activated slag concretes.
Cement Concr. Res. 65, 41e51.
Shahrajabian, F., Behfarnia, K., 2018. The effects of nano particles on freeze and thaw
resistance of alkali-activated slag concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 176,
172e178.
Shi, X., Collins, F.G., Zhao, X.L., Wang, Q., 2012. Mechanical properties and micro-
structure analysis of fly ash geopolymeric recycled concrete. J. Hazard Mater.
237, 20e29.
Singhal, D., Junaid, M.T., Jindal, B.B., Mehta, A., 2018. Mechanical and microstruc-
tural properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete incorporating alccofine at
ambient curing. Construct. Build. Mater. 180, 298e307.
Sofi, M., Van, J., Mendis, P., Lukey, G., 2007. Engineering properties of inorganic
polymer concretes (IPCs). Cement Concr. Res. 37, 251e257.
Somna, K., Jaturapitakkul, C., Kajitvichyanukul, P., Chindaprasirt, P., 2011. NaOH-
activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel 90,
2118e2124.
Song, P., Hwang, S., 2004. Mechanical properties of high-strength steel fiber-
reinforced concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 18, 669e673.
Tuinukuafe, A., Kaub, T., Weiss, C.A., Allison, P.G., Thompson, G.B., Amirkhanian, A.,
2019. Atom probe tomography of an alkali activated fly ash concrete. Cement
Concr. Res. 121, 37e41.
Venu, M., Rao, T.G., 2017. Tie-confinement aspects of fly ash-GGBS based geo-
polymer concrete short columns. Construct. Build. Mater. 151, 28e35.
Wang, Y., Hu, S., He, Z., 2019. Mechanical and fracture properties of fly ash geo-
polymer concrete addictive with calcium aluminate cement. Materials 12, 2982.
Won, J.P., Kim, J.H., Park, C.G., Kang, J.W., Kim, H.Y., 2009. Shrinkage cracking of
styrene butadiene polymeric emulsion-modified concrete using rapid-hard-
ening cement. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 112, 2229e2234.
Wongsa, A., Zaetang, Y., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P., 2016. Properties of lightweight fly
ash geopolymer concrete containing bottom ash as aggregates. Construct. Build.
Mater. 111, 637e643.
Xie, N., Dang, Y., Shi, X., 2019. New insights into how MgCl2 deteriorates Portland
cement concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 120, 244e255.
Yang, K., Yang, C., Magee, B., Nanukuttan, S., Ye, J., 2016. Establishment of a pre-
conditioning regime for air permeability and sorptivity of alkali-activated slag
concrete. Cement Concr. Compos. 73, 19e28.
Yip, C.K., Deventer, J.S., 2003. Microanalysis of calcium silicate hydrate gel formed
within a geopolymeric binder. J. Mater. Sci. 38, 3851e3860.
Yip, C.K., Lukey, G., Deventer, J.S., 2005. The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and
calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cement Concr.
Res. 35, 1688e1697.
Zhang, H.Y., Kodur, V., Wu, B., Cao, L., Wang, F., 2016. Thermal behavior and me-
chanical properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temper-
atures. Construct. Build. Mater. 109, 17e24.
Zhang, P., Zheng, Y.X., Wang, K.J., Zhang, J.P., 2018a. A review on properties of fresh
and hardened geopolymer mortar. Compos. B Eng. 152, 79e95.
Zhang, H.Y., Kodur, V., Wu, B., Yan, J., Yuan, Z.S., 2018b. Effect of temperature on
bond characteristics of geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 163,
277e285.
Zhang, Y.J., Li, H.H., Wang, Y.C., Xu, D.L., 2011. Geopolymer microstructure and hy-
dration mechanism of alkali-activated fly ash-based geopolymer. Adv. Mater.
Res. 374, 1481e1484.
Zhang, Z., Provis, J.L., Reid, A., Wang, H., 2014. Fly ash-based geopolymers: the
relationship between composition, pore structure and efflorescence. Cement
Concr. Res. 64, 30e41.
Zhuang, X.Y., Chen, L., Komarneni, S., Zhou, C.H., Tong, D.S., Yang, H.M., Yu, W.H.,
Wang, H., 2016. Fly ash-based geopolymer: clean production, properties and
applications. J. Clean. Prod. 125, 253e267.