`

Introduction: India is the second biggest producer of cement on the planet. No wonder, India's
cement industry is a fundamental piece of its economy, giving work to in excess of a million people,
directly or indirectly. Indian market size of cement production capacity is 502 million tons per year
2018.The expected capacity addition increase of 20 million tons per year in 2019. Nowadays many
attempt have been carried out in construction industry in order to reduce carbon footprint which is
highly generate from construction materials. Many research community try to identify green product
and technology, which supports the concept of sustainable development and green materials. Ordinary
Portland cement is the one of the highly consumed material in worldwide and it also generate the large
amount of carbon di oxide while its production (Maholtra, 2002). Around 7% of carbon di oxide
emission globally generates while production of cement through clinker process which is highly
responsible for global climate change (Shi et.al 2011).

Growing industrialization is also responsible for the release of waste by-products such as fly ash, rice
husk ash, ground granulated blast furnace slags, which are pozzolanic in nature .Environmentally
compatible dumping of these waste materials requires suitable techniques. The world earth summits
also warned cement industry to switch over from Portland cement to a greener alternative binder with
desirable structural as well as durability properties so that the increased emission of greenhouse gases
to the atmosphere can be controlled.

Researchers globally explored the ancient construction materials and found that geopolymer materials
were used in Egyptians pyramids during 2630 BCE–2611 BCE . In this quest, Joseph Davidovits, a
French material scientist proposed a term ‘geopolymer’ to represent a broad range of materials
characterized by chains or networks of inorganic molecules and also pointed out the possibility of its
use as a binder material in concrete. The special features of the geopolymer, such as the development
of high early strength and better resistance to chemical attacks fascinated the scientific community.
Geopolymer materials require raw materials which are rich in silicon (Si) and aluminum (Al) and
alkaline activator solutions. The binding properties of these materials are obtained by the process of
polymerization which primarily differentiates them from the conventional cement based binder
materials. Geopolymeric materials don’t require cement as a binder which emits greenhouse gases, so
it makes it an environmentally friendly material.

`
`

Concrete is a significant material in the field of construction, which consists of components such as
cement, aggregates, water. The demand for the components of concrete can never be satisfied and is
expected to increase in the coming future. However, there is various environmental issue associated
with the components. For instance, the cement industry is acclaimed to be the second-largest
contributor to greenhouse gas emission [1]. Moreover, cement production is expected to reach 4380
million tons by 2050 [2]. One ton of cement production leads to 0.85-1 tons of CO2 [3]. With the
urgency to calm down the global crisis due to the greenhouse gas emission, there is a need for replacing
these environment unfriendly materials and consider some other replacement materials in place of
cement, which is the motive of this research to present a supplementary cementitious material.

Previous research suggests that the industrial by-products can use as the supplementary material, which
can part in saving the earth bit by bit as every individual must contribute with whatever possible in his
hand to save the planet. The industrial by-products in present times are used to prepare an alkali-
activated cement called geopolymer concrete. This geopolymer concrete is sustainable and economical
binder as it produced from the industrial remains, which disposed on the land without proper treatment.
To name a few industrial by-products fly ash, granulated ground blasts, furnaces slag, fumes can
replace the cement in concrete.

Geopolymer concrete is the alkali-activated aluminosilicate material wherein alkaline chemicals used
as binding material. Depending on the material used in curing conditions to prepare the geopolymer
concrete, the geopolymerisation is different for those produced in hydration of OPC [4].

There are various alternatives for cement present and already used. One such is Low-calcium fly ash
(class F), which is a Cementous material suitable for geopolymer concrete. Much research has been
conducted on the heat curing on the mechanical and durability properties, which resulted in similar or
superior to that of OPC concrete. In order to cure at ambient temperature, some admixtures added to
geopolymer concrete.

Moreover, the availability of the excellent quality of aggregate is also declining. To overcome this
shortage many researchers examined to use rubber waste products as the replacement for natural
aggregates. Furthermore, this study solves two problems altogether. The enormous amount of vehicle
industry development leads to large amount of scrap tire and also environmental issues called black
pollution. As it is a non-biodegradable material there is a need to reuse the scrap tire to develop

`
`

sustainable material. That is, it produces an alternative for the natural aggregates and recycles the
disposed rubber, which is home to various diseases and destruction to the land resource. -To
complement this fact, the studies have shown the use of rubber aggregates decreases the compressive
strength due to its elasticity and flexibility. Also, the properties such as ductility, impact resistance and
energy dissipation capacity increases.

Another such possible aggregate is copper slag, which exhibits similar pozzolanic properties because
of low CaO content. It is metallurgical waste-producing during copper extraction. Around 2.2 tons of
copper slag is produced in a year by copper production and 24.6 million tons in the world. Alone in
Asian continent, 7.26 million tons/ annum of copper slag is being generated [5]. The studies mentioned
that the specific gravity of the copper slag lies between 3.4-3.8.

Steel is used as the tension member in concrete as it is weak in tension and high in compression.
However, the material has been costly for repair or rehabilitation due to corrosion of concrete.
Therefore, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars which are highly tensile and high corrosion
resistance.

he use of a geopolymer can be further accepted if the cost of production is reasonably competitive,
more reliable data is needed, and their establishment for design is a prerequisite for its acceptance [5].

`
`

Problem statement:

 The cement industry is acclaimed to be the second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas

emission.
 There is challenge to reduce the CO 2 product and to manage the pollution.
 One of the major cause of high production of cement is climate change.
 The large amount of industrial waste generate every year.

Research gap:

 There has been very minimal work done in geoplymer mortar.

 To strengthening of geopolymer mortar what are others various material can be used.
 Alkaline activators also increase and decrease the strength of geopolymer mortar it’s depend
upon the concentration of alkaline activators.

Research objectives:

 To develop a fly ash based alkali mortar using marble dust as replacement of fine aggregate.
 To study the mechanical properties of geopolymer mortar.
 To study the durability and micro-structured characteristics of geopolymer mortar.
 To study the rheology test of geopolymer mortar.
Reuse the industrial waste in construction sector is substantially raised the sustainable technology.

`
`

Review and status of Research and Development in the subject:

Year Aims Analysis Major

of technique/procedure findings/Limitations
publi
Study shed

 Geopolyme  Compressive  Addition of

r based on strength for metakaolin &
alkaline various molar OPC promote the
Geopolymer activation ratios dissolution of
based on of concrete Morphology & several
concrete waste structure of pastes crystalline phases
demolished demolition in CDW
 XRD
waste[1]. 2016 investigated
 SEM
 Evaluation Mechanical &  Low -calcium fly
of chloride transport properties ash-based
diffusion geopolymer is
 Compressive
resistance not suitable for
strength
of low- application with
 Static chord
Chloride calcium fly chloride-related
modulus of
diffusion ash-based durability
elasticity
resistance and geopolymer concerns
 Water
the chloride concrete
absorption
binding
 The apparent
capacity of fly
volume of
ash-based
permeable
geopolymer
voids
concrete[2]. 2019
 Sorptivity

`
`

 Surface
resistivity test
Microstructural
analysis

 SEM
 EDS
 XRD
 MAS NMR
 NT Build
chloride
migration
 ASTM C1556
bulk diffusion
test
 Free & bound
chloride
measurements
 Chloride
binding
experiments
 Apparent
chloride
diffusion
coefficient
 Performanc  Compressive  weight increased
Sulfate e of strength due to the
resistance of geopolymer  pH of solution formation of
ferrochrome concrete  change in gypsum &
2015
slag based exposed to length ettringite

`
`

geopolymer sulfate  change in  length decrease

concrete[3]. attack weight  Compressive
 visual strength
appearance decreased
 The result  Visual  Weight reduced
of nano- appearance is very less
silica on the  Weight change compared to
severe  Compressive OPC can be
short-term strength negligible
durability  Split tensile  The decrease in
of fly ash- strength strengths with the
based  Flexural chemical
geopolymer strength environment in
concrete  Fracture order of Sulfuric
Effect of
performance acid >
nano-silica on
magnesium
the chemical
sulfate> seawater
durability and
 The use of nano-
mechanical
silica extends the
performance
life span of the
of fly ash-
structure under
based
the severe
geopolymer
chemical
concrete[4]. 2018
environment
Experimental  The  Compressive  Both
and numerical mechanical strength experimental &
investigation properties  Flexural test numerical results
of the blast of novel  Numerical the advantaged of
resistance high- modeling (LS- using steel wire
2019
capacity of performanc DYNA) mesh reinforced

`
`

high- e alkali- geopolymer

performance activated concrete to resist
geopolymer geopolymer high TNT blasts
concrete concrete  In the future,
panels[5]. under both more study on
static & the characterize
dynamic the material
loads were performance of
studied the proposed
geopolymer
concrete
conducted
 Evaluation  Workability of  Asses the
of flash geopolymer durability of
Formulation
metakaolin concrete flash metakaolin
and
geopolymer  Compressive based
performance
as an strength geopolymer
of flash
effective  Porosity & concrete
metakaolin
binder to mechanical
geopolymer
replace properties
concrete[6]. 2016
OPC
 Corrosion  Compressive  Higher corrosion
of strength rate than PC
Chloride
reinforceme  LPR for  Corrosion
induced
nt in corrosion rate products in the
corrosion in
geopolymer  XRD form of hematite,
different fly
concrete  FTIR akageneite, and
ash-based
manufactur absorption lepidocrocite
geopolymer
ed from spectrometry
concretes[7]. 2018
three  SEM

`
`

different
low calcium
fly ashes
The  Evaluates  Compressive  Need to evaluate
improvement the volcanic strength the geopolymer
of mechanical, tuff-based  FT resistance mortar properties
physical, and geopolymer  UPV here they just
durability concrete  Relative done for concrete
characteristics with the dynamic
of volcanic addition of modulus of
tuff based nano-silica, elasticity
geopolymer micro silica  SEM
concrete by and styrene-  Water
using nano- Butadiene absorption
silica, micro latex at  Density
silica and different
 Bulk density &
styrene- rates apparent
butadiene
porosity
latex additives

at different
ratios[8]. 2018

Influence of  Geopolyme  Compressive  Increase in

different r concrete strength SS/SH ratio

monomer with  Water increases in

ratios and metakaolin absorption compressive

recycled as  Specific strength

concrete aluminosilic electrical  SEM analysis

aggregate on ate source resistivity shows there is a
mechanical and recycle  RCPT significant
2019
properties and aggregate  SEM increase in

`
`

durability of as the density &

geopolymer replacement uniformity of
concretes[9]. of natural polymer products
aggregates  The study also
shows the
feasibility of the
geopolymer with
these products
 The study  Compressive  This concrete
includes the strength shows superiority
investigatio  Flexural in the context of
n of strength all parameters
strength &  Split tensile
Development durability strength
of rubberized of  Modulus of
geopolymer rubberized elasticity
concrete: geopolymer  Abrasion
Strength and concrete resistance
durability
 Pull off
studies[10]. 2019
strength test
 Utilization  Compressive  This concrete
of waste tire strength shows
rubber in  Splitting superiorit*y in
geopolymer tensile strength context of all
Performance
concrete as  Flexural parameters
of geopolymer
a tensile test (3-
concrete
substitution point loading
containing
for natural test)
recycled
aggregates  Impact
rubber[11]. 2019
resistance test

`
`

under drop
weight test
 Impact
resistance
under flexural
loading
Comparative  Influence of  Workability  Decrease in
study of inclusion of  Absorption workability
geopolymer waste  Compressive  Strength
and alkali- foundry strength increased
activated slag sand  SEM
concrete  EDS
comprising  Environmental
waste foundry impact
sand[12]. 2019 analysis

 Concrete  Compressive  Results show that

was strength the complete
produced  Flexural replacement of
using strength the river sand is
Impact of geopolymer  Split tensile accepted
replacement fly ash sand strength
of natural in place of  Rapid chloride
river sand natural river permeability
with sand test
geopolymer
 Rapid chloride
fly ash sand
migration test
on hardened
 Accelerated
properties of
carbonation
concrete[13]. 2019
test

`
`

 Drying
shrinkage test
 SEM
 Investigatio  Workability  Improvement of
Mechanical
n on  Setting time mechanical
properties and
geopolymer  SEM properties due to
microstructure
concrete  EDS the formation of
analysis of
using fly new crystalline
FA-GGBS-
ash, GGBS, phases
HMNS based
high
geopolymer
magnesium
concrete[14]. 2019
nickel slag
 The  NMR analysis  Improvement of
A study on the
durability test strength
characteristics
of  Compressive continuous with
and
geopolymer strength test an increase in the
microstructure
concrete  RCPT curing period
s of
after nine observed
GGBS/FA
months of
based
the indoor
geopolymer
and outdoor
paste and
curing
concrete[15]. 2019
period

Mechanical  Mechanical  Compressive  Compared to

properties and properties strength OPC it has more
durability of and  Acid exposure resistance to
unconfined durability  Visual sulphuric acid
and confined of inspection  Both confined
geopolymer geopolymer  Change in and unconfined
2019
concrete with concrete weight stress-strain

`
`

fiber- exposed to  Ductility relationship is

reinforced sulfuric response almost identical
polymers acid attack  Failure modes
exposed to under static analysis
sulphuric and cyclic  SEM
acid[16]. loading

 The thermal  Thermal  Observed that

Thermal and
and performance LECA and GP-L-
structural
structural experiment PCM slabs
performance
performanc  Thermal exhibit lower
of geopolymer
es of LECA transmittance heat
concrete
and GP-L- measurement transmission,
containing
PCM slabs  Compressive represented by
phase change
described strength lower maximum
material
experiment surface
encapsulated
temperature
in expanded
 Strength also
clay 2019
decreased
 Flexural  Material  The hybrid
Flexural
behavior of properties reinforcement
behavior of
geopolymer  Four-point system with
geopolymer
concrete static bending GFRP-steel has
concrete
beams test more
beams
longitudinal  Mode of effectiveness
longitudinally
ly failure compared to
reinforced
reinforced  Crack pattern solely GFRP
with GFRP
with a & propagation
and steel
hybrid of  Load-
reinforcement
GFRP and deflection
[17]. 2019
steel bar behavior

`
`

 Load-bearing
capacity
 Mid-span
deflection
 Ductility and
energy
absorption
 Reinforcement
strains

 This study  Analytical  For determining

aim is to stress-strain the flexural
determine curves for capacity of GPC
the new set geopolymer beams the current
of stress concrete code is still valid
block  Derivation of  In heated cured
parameters rectangular GPC the column
for GPC stress-block capacity is
parameters similar to OPC
 Analytical  For ambient
solution of the cured condition
stress-block the K3 value
equation should be
Rectangular
 The flexural reduced to 0.7
stress- block
capacity of  The proposed
parameters of
beams rectangular
fly ash and
 Strength of stress-block
slag based
columns under parameter gives
geopolymer
axial load and better estimates
concrete[18]. 2019
bending

`
`

of the column
capacities
 The ambient
cured GPC is
more brittle &
exhibit a higher
strength loss in
the column than
in OPC. More
test needs to
conducted to
determine the
correlation
between
compressive
strength of real
column &
cylinder strength
 Novel  Shrinkage  The future work
Flexural strengthenin performance of should focus on
performance g technique FRGC determining the
of reinforced is proposed  Strengthening actual interface
concrete using with extra RC properties and
beams additional layer and the existing
strengthened high- investigation design models to
with fiber- performanc of the effect of taken in to
reinforced e fiber- corrosion account to
geopolymer reinforced  Accelerated improve
concrete geopolymer corrosion characteristics of
2019
under concrete testing by FRGC-to-

`
`

accelerated and jacket induced concrete

corrosion[19]. reinforceme current interfaces
nts with technique
steel bars -
 The flow  Flow  The control of
properties properties material fluidity
of a  Thixotropy and green
printable and viscosity strength are
one-part recovery essential in 3D
geopolymer  Compressive printing
mix were strength  The focus should
developed,  3D concrete be on the more
which could printing in-depth
be extruded  Load bearing understanding of
through the capacity the reaction
Synthesis and
nozzle of a  Microstructura mechanism to
characterizatio
3D printer l improve the
n of one-part
and stacked characteristics mechanical
geopolymers
together (XRD and performance of
for extrusion-
without FESEM) the prepared
based 3D
deforming sample
concrete
the bottom
printing[20]. 2019
layers
Use of  A study on  Workability  For a better
geopolymer the  Setting time understanding of
concrete for a mechanical  Heat of mechanical
cleaner and properties hydration behavior of GPC,
sustainable and  Compressive the
environment- microstruct strength microstructure/
2019
A review of ure

`
`

mechanical  Tensile nanostructure and

properties and strength chemistry of
microstructure  Elastic geopolymers to
[21]. modulus investigate.

 Fracture
properties
 Shrinkage
 Chemical
resistance
 The resistance
of seawater
attack and
sulfate attack
 Acid attack
 Thermal
resistance and
high
temperature
 Microstructure
analysis of
geopolymer
concrete

Design  Mix  Apparent  Water to

method for the proportion density metakaolin
mix of the  Compressive obtained
proportion of geopolymer strength according to the
geopolymer concrete  Sulfate attack minimum water
concrete was resistance requirement
based on the proposed  Electrical method of
2019
paste based on resistance metakaolin paste

`
`

thickness of the paste  Pore structure  The compressive

coated thickness of strength, the
aggregate[22]. coated sulfate attack
aggregates coefficient and
and the the electrical
close resistivity of
packing geopolymer
theory concrete
increased with
the increasing of
paste thickness of
coated aggregate
 Mechanical  3-point  Slump
properties bending characteristics
of a precast  Secant are similar
beam of modulus of compared to CCP
Physical non-
reinforced elasticity Ultimate load
linearity of
cement  Compressive carrying capacity
precast
concrete strength is high in CCG
reinforced
 Flexural strength
geopolymer
increased with
concrete
increase in
beams[23]. 2019
reinforcement
Optimum mix  The effect  Effect of  When SS/SH
design of of materials GGBS ratio increased
geopolymer on the  Effect of Al/Bi from 1 to 2 the
pastes and properties ratio and compressive
concrete cured of concrete SS/SH ratio strength
in ambient studied in increased
2019
condition detail

`
`

based on  Effect of  Increase in

compressive additional GGBS content
strength, water results in a
setting time,  Compressive decrease in
Workability[2 strength workability but
4].  Workability increase in
 Mathematical compressive
regression strength
model  Increase in Al/Bi
 Initial setting ratio results in an
time model increase in

 Mini slump workability but

test model the reduction of

compressive
strength
 Functions  Properties of  It concludes that
of different geopolymer in the use of
nanomateria the presence of nanomaterial
ls in CNT such as results in the
modifying tensile effective results
the strength, on the concrete
properties young’s
of modulus,
Effect of
geopolymer flexural
nanomaterials
concrete toughness,
on the
fracture energy
properties of
 Properties in
geopolymer
the presence of
mortars and
reduced
concrete[25]. 2018
graphene oxide

`
`

 Nano silica
properties on
geopolymer
concrete
 Effect of nano
clay on the
durability of
flax fabric
reinforced
geopolymer
nanocomposite
s
 Anti-microbial
efficiency of
nano-silver
silica modified
geopolymer
mortar
 Structural  Mechanical  Better
performanc strength mechanical,
e in terms  Bond-behavior flexural strength
of bond between and bond
strength, concrete and strength observed
Structural
flexural reinforcement in nano-silica
performance
strength, bars modified fly ash
of nano-silica
microstruct  Flexural geopolymer
modified fly
ural strength concrete under
ash-based
behavior analysis of ambient
geopolymer
has reinforced temperature
concrete[26]. 2016
evaluated

`
`

concrete  Fly ash-based

beams geopolymer
 Microstructura requires heat
l analysis activation of
 Statistical different
analysis+ temperature
 An  Water  It observed that
experimenta absorption geopolymer
l study  Density recycled
conducted  Los Angeles aggregates reused
to abrasion test as it has low
investigate  Effects of size water absorption
the of RCA capacity and high
recyclabilit  Compressive bulk density
y of GPC strength  The reduction in

 Flexural compressive

strength strength was only

 Modulus of 10-15 % when

elasticity compared to
natural
Recycling of
aggregates
geopolymer
whereas it is 25-
concrete[27]. 2015
30% for OPC

Factors  Factors  Bond strength  The bond

affecting the affecting test strength and
bond strength the bond  Compressive brittleness are
between the strength of strength test increase with an
fly ash-based fly ash-  SEM analysis increase in fly
geopolymer based  The relation ash content
2018
concrete and between bond

`
`

steel geopolymer strength &  Whereas growth

reinforcement observed compressive in alkaline
[28]. strength solution results in
 Effect of the reduction of
materials on bond strength
the bond  Increase in water
strength content also
results in a
reduction of bond
strength
 Performanc  Weight loss  GPC has more
e of  Permeable durability to
geopolymer porosity test chemical attack
concrete  Sorptivity compared to
with class-F  Compressive OPC
fly ash or strength
blended fly degradation
Durability ash and  Flexural
evaluation of granulated strength
geopolymer smelter slag degradation
and
 Split tensile
conventional
strength
concretes[29]. 2017
degradation
 Experiment  Failure modes  Tension stiffness
Evaluation of al study on  Tension- mechanism of the
tension - the stiffness test GPC is almost
stiffening, geopolymer similar to OPC
crack spacing concrete  Provisions
and crack prisms developed for
2017
width of tested under OPC concrete

`
`

geopolymer uniaxial can be modified

concrete [30]. tension to for GPC to
investigate predict its
the tension- behavior
stiffening
effect on
the
deformation
and crack
width
 Influence of  Workability  Addition of
fly ash  Compressive cement leads to
Effect of content, strength improve the
cement additional  Flexural significance
addition, PCC, except for
strength
Solution alkaline  Split tensile workability
resting time, solution strength
and curing resting  Modulus of
characteristics time, curing elasticity
on fly ash- period and  Absorption
based curing  Thermal
geopolymer temperature gravimetric
concrete on fly ash- analysis
performance[3 based GPC (TGA)
1]. 2016

A novel  Investigates  Material  Overall repair

corrosion- the properties effect is showing
resistant corrosion  Mechanical good
repair protection properties improvement in
2018
technique for performanc stiffness &

`
`

existing e of  Stress-strain ultimate capacity

reinforced polyvinyl tests & corrosion
concrete alcohol  Load- resistance of RC
elements fiber deflection test beam
using reinforced  Corrosion  Future work
polyvinyl geopolymer acceleration & should focus on
alcohol fiber concrete as mass loss the efficiency of
reinforced a repair measurements PVAFRGC
concrete material  Mode of repair layer in
geopolymer failure promoting
concrete[32].  A crack durability

pattern of improvement at

initial & various corrosion

repaired RC levels

 The load
capacity of
fixed RC
specimen
 Interface slip
measurements

 Investigatio  Weight change  The performance

n on the  Compressive of GPC exposed
durability strength for more than one
of GPC  XRD year is better than
Sulfuric acid
using mixed  FTIR OPC
resistance of
ash of  TGA
blended ash
pulverized  SEM
geopolymer
fuel ash &
concrete[33]. 2013
palm oil

`
`

fuel ash
when
exposed to
2% sulfuric
acid for 18
months
 Influence of  Workability  Inclusion of OPC
one-part  Setting time reduces
hybrid OPC  Compressive workability but
geopolymer strength tests increase in
concrete  Microstructura compressive
where solid l analysis strength at an
potassium early age due to
carbonate its quick reaction
as the of OPC with
primary alkali activators
activator 
and OPC as
a source of
silicate and
polysilicate
Mechanical
blended
properties of
with
ambient cured
geopolymer
one-part
raw
hybrid OPC
materials in
geopolymer
different
concrete[34]. 2018
proportion
Effect of  Effect of  SEM  There is a
2018
source and particle size  Absorption decrease in

`
`

particle size distribution  Density compressive

distribution on and fly ash  Permeability strength with
the source on  Void ratio increase in the
mechanical mechanical  Compressive size of fly ash
and and strength particles
microstructura microstruct  The particle  Their relationship
l properties of ural size developed
fly ash-based properties distribution of between the
geopolymer on GPC fly ash compressive
concrete[35]. strength and
average particle
size distribution
for McMeekin
fly ash
 To access  Carbon  The carbonation
the effect of dioxide binders remained
alkali exposure rather highly
concentratio conditions alkaline during
n in the  SEM & EDS the carbonation
activator analysis test which is
and the  Identification similar to
The passivity
Carbon of carbonation predicted values
of embedded
dioxide products
reinforcement
concentratio  Compressive
in carbonated
n on the pH strength
low-calcium
drop and  pH profile &
fly ash-based
passivity of carbonation
geopolymer
reinforceme depth
concrete[36]. 2017
nt

`
`

 Electrochemic
al
measurements

 Investigatio  Workability  CAC addition

n of tests leads to strength
mechanical  Mechanical development
properties preparation  The flexural
of fly ash- tests strength of
Effect of
based  Microstructura geopolymer
calcium
geopolymer l analysis underestimated
aluminate
cured at  Modulus of by AS3600 and
cement on
ambient elasticity ACI318
geopolymer
temperature
concrete cured
with CAC
at ambient
as an extra
temperature[3
source of Al
7]. 2018
and Ca
 The  Numerical  The energy
utilization method efficiency of
Thermal of GPC  Effect of solar buildings was
analysis of microencap radiation found to increase
geopolymer sulated  Influence of at higher levels
concrete phase concrete wall of MPCM
containing change thickness addition and for
microencapsul material in  Effect of thicker concrete
ated phase building at outdoor walls
change different temperature  When the
materials for curing outdoor
2019
building temperature is

`
`

applications[3 conditions higher than the

8]. investigated indoor
temperature,
increasing the
maximum solar
radiation causes a
higher power
consumption, a
lower power
reduction, and
accordingly a
reduced energy
efficiency of the
buildings
 Investigatio  Adsorption  It is feasible to
n of red  Compressive employ a red
Utilization of mud as the strength mud for
red mud in filter  Flexural manufacturing of
geopolymer material in strength GPC previous
based geopolymer  Void ratio with the function
pervious pervious  Permeability of rainwater
concrete with concrete  Water purification
the function of purification
adsorption of characteristics
heavy metal  Mechanism
ions[39]. analysis
 Heavy metal
2018
adsorption

`
`

Material :

Low-calcium processed fly ash from thermal power plant was used as source material in the proposed
mix proportioning method. The laboratory grade sodium hydroxide in flake form (97.8 percent purity)
and sodium silicate (50.72 percent solids) solutions are used as alkaline activators.

Geopolymer:

The term 'geopolymer' was designed in the 1970's by Prof. Joseph Davidovits and the French analysts
and applied to a class of source materials combined by the response of a soluble arrangement with an
alumino-silicate powder (Davidovits, 1991a).

The improvement of geopolymer cement is a significant advance towards the generation of

ecologically inviting concrete. Geopolymer can be orchestrated by poly-condensation response of geo-
polymeric antecedent and salt poly-silicates known as geo-polymerization process.

Geo-polymerization is a geo-synthesis response that artificially incorporates minerals that relys upon
the capacity of the aluminium particle 6-overlap or 4-crease coordination to instigate crystallo-
graphical and compound changes in a silica spine.

The empirical formula of geopolymer resultant product is:

Mn [– (SiO2)z – AlO2 –]n •wH2O (2.7)

where M is an alkaline element such as sodium (Na+) or potassium (K+), z is Si/Al ratio which varies
from 1, 2, 3 or higher, n is the degree of polymerization and “–” indicates the presence of bonding
(Davidovits, 1991). The ratio of Si/Al results in different properties of geopolymer, however, the low
ratio of Si/Al ≤ 3 has been widely used to obtain 3-dimensional cross-link networks as cement and
ceramics [21].

Fly ash

Fly ash is the secondary product of coal production power plant where pulverized coal is consumed
for electricity generation. It consists of aluminous and siliceous material, and termed as pozzolana due
to its tendency to undergo chemical reaction with calcium hydroxide to obtain cementitious
compounds. Fly ash that contains high amounts of Al2O3 and SiO2 but less than 10% CaO obtained

`
`

from anthracite and bituminous coals which comes under Class F fly ash whereas class C fly ash have
self-hardening traits due to the presence of calcium oxide (CaO) content more than 10%(Headwaters,
2005).

The similar were gathered from the Ready Mix Concrete plant at Phagwara. The collected fly ash is
of category of low calcium and examined against specific gravity according to IS 1727-1697. The
elemental composition based on energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX) is performed and
recorded. Fly ash shows glassy, spherical sphere of sleek and smooth surface based on scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) analysis.

Alkaline Activator

Sodium based alkaline activators are used in the current investigation. Single activator either of sodium
hydroxide or of sodium silicate alone is not as clearly seen as being successful. So, the combination of
sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions is used to activate geopolymer concrete based on fly
ash. The compressive strength of geopolymer concrete is observed to increase with increased
concentration of sodium hydroxide solution and or sodium silicate solution with increased fresh mix
viscosity. As the concentration of sodium hydroxide solution in terms of molarity (M) increases, the
concrete becomes more brittle with an increased compressive strength. Second, the sodium hydroxide
solid costs are high, and preparation is very caustic. Similarly, extra water is required to achieve the
desired degree of workability which ultimately reduces the concentration of sodium hydroxide
solution. So the sodium hydroxide concentration was maintained at 13 M while the sodium silicate
solution concentration contains 16.37% Na2O, 34.35% SiO2 and 49.72% H2O as alkaline solutions.
Similarly, the mass-to-mass ratio of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide was maintained at to which
set cubes within 24 h after casting and yields fairly good compressive strength results[40].

We purchased sodium silicate from chemical shop near Jalandhar in liquid form and we also purchased
sodium hydroxide in flaky form around 100 kg. And we mix together according to our mix design to
make alkaline solution.

`
`

Copper slag

The recent study explore the likelihood of introducing cooper slag in geopolymer concrete as partial
replacing the fine aggregate at standard and oven air curing constraints has been analyzed. The
various proportion of cooper slag with fine aggregate mix is studied for its strength upgradation and
properties enhancement (K.Mahendran and N. Arunachelam, 2016).

Cooper slag for the experiment is collected from the cooper extraction plant by smelting process in
Jodhpur. These are the impurities termed as slag remains on the top of the molten metal snuff out
with the help of water in the form of angular granules(Al-Jabriet al., 2011).

Examine geopolymer binder created from copper mine tailings (MT) and low-calcium slag (SG) for
potential applications in street development. The examination deliberately researched the impacts of
water-to-strong proportion (w/s), SG content (0%, 25%, and half), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) focus
(5, 10 and 15 M), and the proportion of sodium silicate (SS) to sodium hydroxide (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, and
1.5) on the unconfined compressive quality (UCS) of incorporated geopolymer fastener examples.
Examining electron microscopy (SEM), vitality dispersive X-beam spectroscopy (EDS) and X-beam
diffraction (XRD) investigations were likewise performed to portray the microstructure and stage
piece of the geopolymer examples. The outcomes show that the consideration of SG improves UCS
and diminishes the underlying water content required for accomplishing a specific usefulness of the
geopolymer glue. Temperature significantly affects the mechanical properties of geopolymer. The Fe
from SG likewise takes an interest in the eopolymerization procedure. It is imperative to consider the
impact of Fe in the geopolymer response when SG is incorporated (Manjarrez et al., 2019).

To manage the contamination made and better use copper slag, another controlled low strength
filling material (CLSFM) was suggested for the copper slag from a mine in Africa .The filling cost of
utilizing CLSFM is proportional to that of cement, just as the strategy is increasingly biological and
complies with the nearby government condition arrangement. So as to contemplate the impacting
elements of this material, symmetrical test strategy and information representation were utilized in
the method, which make it conceivable to watch the impact of multifaceted composite activity on
copper slag and the ideal proportion. The slag powder must be completely hydrated when it arrives at
certain fineness, and the particles bigger than 60 μm are inactive particles, which have no beneficial
outcome on the quality. The copper slag slurry tests were set up as indicated by the enhanced

`
`

proportion, and afterward the UCS of 7 d and 28 d were resolved. The objective of proportion
advancement is a mine in Zambia, Africa, which requires 0.5MPa of inlay strength.The CLSFM was
set up by blending the enacted copper slag with the crude copper slag (the mass division of complete
solids in each test was 70 %). The trial results show that mechanical actuation and soluble base
excitation can adequately enact the copper slag. Minute investigation shows that the primary
hydration result of CLSFM, C-S-H, makes the copper slag cementitious, and improves its auxiliary
quality (Wentao et al., 2019).

Aggregate : The size of aggregate we used in this experiment ,which is having size of 10mm.
And the aggregate, we obtain from near RMC plant Phagwaga. The specific gravity of aggregate is
obtained from lab test is 2..64. Geopolymer concrete workability is also affected by gradations Of a
fine aggregate. So, on the basis of fine gradation,In the proposed mix proportioning, aggregate, fine
to total aggregate ratio is selected.

Methodology :

Preparation of Geopolymer concrete mix: Geopolymer concrete preparation is similar to

cement concrete preparation. In dry conditions two types of coarse aggregates, sand and fly ash were
mixed. Then add prepared sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate mixture solution along with extra
water based on the water-to-geopolymer binder ratio and thoroughly mix for 3–4 min to give
homogeneous mixture.

The fresh Geopolymer concrete based on fly ash was found to be viscous, dark on color and
cohesive. Having made the homogeneous mix, the workability fresh geopolymer concrete was
measured by flow table apparatus as per IS 5512-1983 and IS 1727-1967. Concrete cubes of side 150
mm are casted in three layers. Each layer is well compacted by tamping rod of diameter 16 mm.

`
`

Physical properties of fly ash and sand:

Physical properties Copper Slag Sand

Partical Shape Irregular Irregular

Specific Gravity 3.80 2.52

Water Absorption 0.20% 0.95%

Fineness Modulus 2.80 2.60

Grading of fine aggregate

IS Sieve Sand Copper Slag

Size (mm) ( % passing) ( % passing)

4.75 100 98.6

2.36 97 97.4

1.18 95 72.5

0.6 74.8 45.3

0.3 50.5 5.2

0.15 18.7 0.3

The alkaline activator used in this study is a combination of the ratio 1:2.5 of sodium hydroxide and
sodium silicate. 14 M solution of sodium hydroxide is prepared by dissolving the sodium hydroxide
flakes in distilled water Single day before use. For this function, the sodium silicate is supplied by
the local supplier having the ratio of Na2 to SiO2 of 2:1.

`
`

Mix Proportion

The mix proportion for the sample is achieved by keeping as constant the volume of fly ash and
coarse aggregate. The sodium hydroxide to sodium silicate ratio is taken as 1:2.5 and the alkaline
liquid to fly ash ratio is kept as 0.4. A 4% dosage of the super plasticiser Conplast SP430 (sulphoned
naphthalene formaldehyde condensate) in compliance with IS: 9103-1999 and ASTM C-494 was
applied to the mix to boost the concrete 's workability. The sand is replaced by its weight with a 10
% increase in each mixture and the mixing ratio.

Mix proportion

Mix ID M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9

Material 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70% 80%

Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3

Copper 0 60.5 113.3 180.7 240.9 309.4 370.8 425.5 495.4

Slag

Fine agg. 615.2 553.8 489.4 427.4 368.2 307.5 250.4 180.4 125.6

NaOH 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Na2SiO3 130.6 130.6 130.6 130.6 130.6 130.6 130.6 130.6 130.6

The quantity of fly ash used is 465 Kg/m3

And the quantity of course aggregate used is 1145 Kg/m3

`
`

Specimen Preparation:

The prepared sodium silicate and the sodium hydroxide are premixed. The dry aggregate and fly ash
are mixed in a pan mixture for about 3 minutes .The Premixed Alkaline Activator and Super
Plasticizer are added The dry mixed materials are then mixed for about five minutes and then
transferred to the mold in 3 layers, each layer is compacted for Ten seconds by a table vibrator to
eliminate air voids and the surface is levelled. The specimens are then sealed off with a polyvinyl
sheet to prevent water loss due to evaporation. The specimens shall be left as a rest time in the room
temperature for a day. After the rest time is complete, the specimens are demolished and cured for 24
hours at 60 ° C and the remaining cube specimens are left to cure under ambient conditions.

Results and Discussion:

The copper slag appearance looks like black and glassy with a specific gravity of 3.80 . That is higher
than the specific gravity of sand 2.52 .Water absorption of copper slag is 20% as compared to sand
which is having water absorption of 95% . In the table above, an elementary analysis preformed for
copper slag, sand and fly ash reveals that Si is higher in copper slag relative to sand. The presence of
Al in copper slag is also noted to be higher compared with both fly ash and sand. In copper slag the
presence of Si and Al slag may lead to enhancement of the concrete strength as the percentage of
copper slag replacement increases. During the testing of slump, it was found that the workability is
high if we add super plasticizer. Without adding of plasticizer the workability is low due to less water
content. The compressive strength of cubes checks in after 3 rd day, 7th day, 14th day and 28th day. And
in many researcher observe that increasing the percentage of copper slag also increasing the
compressive strength. And it was observed that after 28 th days the higher percentage water absorption
reduce due to copper slag.

`
`

Conclusion:

The amounts of copper slag significantly affect the performance of geopolymer concrete. The strength
of geopolymer concrete with copper slag as a fine aggregate is compared to control concrete found to
be 1.35 and 1.51 times higher strength when healed in ambient and oven healing. t is found that in the
geopolymer concrete the percentage of copper slag has been increased, and the compressive strength
has also been increased. The highest compressive strength geopolymer concrete found that 59.83.
When cured in oven and ambient condition, there is a small variance found in the concrete density.
Compared with the ambient healing state, water absorption of the oven cured geopolymer concrete is
found to be low. The geopolymer concrete microstructure reveals the homogeneity of the geopolymer
concrete, and fly ash dissolution is also observed on the surfaces of the specimen.

`
`

References:
[1] A. Vásquez, V. Cárdenas, R. A. Robayo, and R. M. De Gutiérrez, “Geopolymer based on
concrete demolition waste,” pp. 2–8, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.apt.2016.03.029.

[2] A. Noushini, A. Castel, J. Aldred, and A. Rawal, “Chloride diffusion resistance and chloride
binding capacity of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos., 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.04.006.

[3] G. Concrete, F. Kantarci, F. Kantarci, F. Slag, and B. Geopolymer, “Author ’ s Accepted

Manuscript,” 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.09.058.

[4] A. Çevik, R. Alzeebaree, A. Niş, and M. E. Gülşan, “Author ’ s Accepted Manuscript

EFFECT OF NANO-SILICA ON THE CHEMICAL DURABILITY AND Reference : To
appear in : Ceramics International,” Ceram. Int., 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.04.009.

[5] K. H. Mo, U. J. Alengaram, and M. Z. Jumaat, “Structural performance of reinforced

geopolymer concrete members: A review,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 120, pp. 251–264,
2016, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.088.

[6] P. Raphaëlle and C. Martin, “Formulation and performance of flash metakaolin geopolymer
concretes,” vol. 120, pp. 150–160, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.061.

[7] C. Gunasekara, D. Law, S. Bhuiyan, S. Setunge, and L. Ward, “Chloride induced corrosion in
different fly ash based geopolymer concretes,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 200, pp. 502–513,
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.168.

[8] E. Ekinci, F. Kantarci, and M. B. Karakoç, “The improvement of mechanical , physical and
durability characteristics of volcanic tuff based geopolymer concrete by using nano silica ,
micro silica and Styrene-Butadiene Latex additives at different ratios,” vol. 201, pp. 257–267,
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.204.

[9] M. Koushkbaghi, P. Alipour, B. Tahmouresi, E. Mohseni, and A. Saradar, “Influence of

different monomer ratios and recycled concrete aggregate on mechanical properties and
durability of geopolymer concretes,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 205, pp. 519–528, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.174.

`
`

[10] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, and I. Luhar, “Development of rubberized geopolymer concrete :

Strength and durability studies,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 204, pp. 740–753, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.185.

[11] A. M. Aly, M. S. El-Feky, M. Kohail, and E. S. A. R. Nasr, “Performance of geopolymer

concrete containing recycled rubber,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 207, pp. 136–144, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.121.

[12] B. Bhardwaj and P. Kumar, “Comparative study of geopolymer and alkali activated slag
concrete comprising waste foundry sand,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 209, pp. 555–565, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.107.

[13] U. S. Agrawal, S. P. Wanjari, and D. N. Naresh, “Impact of replacement of natural river sand
with geopolymer fly ash sand on hardened properties of concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol.
209, pp. 499–507, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.134.

[14] A. Bouaissi, L. Li, M. Mustafa, A. Bakri, and Q. Bui, “Mechanical properties and
microstructure analysis of FA-GGBS-HMNS based geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build.
Mater., vol. 210, pp. 198–209, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.202.

[15] W. Lee, J. Wang, Y. Ding, and T. Cheng, “A study on the characteristics and microstructures
of GGBS / FA based geopolymer paste and concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 211, pp.
807–813, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.291.

[16] R. Alzeebaree, A. Çevik, B. Nematollahi, J. Sanjayan, A. Mohammedameen, and M. E.

Gülşan, “Mechanical properties and durability of unconfined and confined geopolymer
concrete with fiber reinforced polymers exposed to sulfuric acid,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol.
215, pp. 1015–1032, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.165.

[17] G. B. Maranan, A. C. Manalo, B. Benmokrane, W. Karunasena, P. Mendis, and T. Q. Nguyen,

“Flexural behavior of geopolymer-concrete beams longitudinally reinforced with GFRP and
steel hybrid reinforcements,” Eng. Struct., vol. 182, no. December 2018, pp. 141–152, 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.073.

[18] T. T. Tran, T. M. Pham, and H. Hao, “Rectangular Stress-block Parameters for Fly-ash and

`
`

Slag Based Geopolymer Concrete,” Structures, vol. 19, no. November 2018, pp. 143–155,
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2019.01.006.

[19] M. H. Al-majidi, A. P. Lampropoulos, A. B. Cundy, O. T. Tsioulou, and S. Alrekabi,

“Flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with fi bre reinforced
geopolymer concrete under accelerated corrosion,” Structures, vol. 19, no. February, pp. 394–
410, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2019.02.005.

[20] B. Panda, G. V. P. B. Singh, C. Unluer, and M. J. Tan, “Synthesis and characterization of one-
part geopolymers for extrusion based 3D concrete printing,” J. Clean. Prod., 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.185.

[21] A. Hassan, M. Arif, and M. Shariq, “Use of Geopolymer Concrete for a Cleaner and
Sustainable Environment – Corresponding author : Amer Hassan,” J. Clean. Prod., 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051.

[22] S. Keke, P. Xiaoqin, W. Shuping, and Z. Lu, “Design method for the mix proportion of
geopolymer concrete based on the paste thickness of coated aggregate,” J. Clean. Prod., 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.254.

[23] E. C. Mounzer, F. A. I. Darwish, and F. J. Silva, “Physical nonlinearity of precast reinforced

geopolymer concrete beams,” Integr. Med. Res., no. x x, pp. 1–9, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.01.016.

[24] M. N. S. Hadi and H. Zhang, “Author ’ s Accepted Manuscript,” J. Build. Eng., 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.006.

[25] N. B. Singh, S. K. Saxena, and M. Kumar, “ScienceDirect Effect of nanomaterials on the

properties of geopolymer mortars and concrete,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 9035–
9040, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.10.018.

[26] D. Adak, M. Sarkar, and S. Mandal, “Structural performance of nano-silica modified fly-ash
based geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 135, pp. 430–439, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.111.

[27] A. Akbarnezhad, M. Huan, S. Mesgari, and A. Castel, “Recycling of geopolymer concrete,”

`
`

Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 101, pp. 152–158, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.037.

[28] M. Al-azzawi, T. Yu, and M. N. S. Hadi, “Factors Affecting the Bond Strength Between the
Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete and Steel Reinforcement,” Structures, no. 2017, p.
#pagerange#, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2018.03.010.

[29] M. Albitar, M. S. Mohamed Ali, P. Visintin, and M. Drechsler, “Durability evaluation of

geopolymer and conventional concretes,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 136, pp. 374–385, 2017,
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056.

[30] M. Albitar, M. S. M. Ali, and P. Visintin, “Evaluation of tension-stiffening , crack spacing and
crack width of geopolymer concretes,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 160, pp. 408–414, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.085.

[31] A. A. Aliabdo, A. Elmoaty, M. A. Elmoaty, and H. A. Salem, “Effect of cement addition ,

solution resting time and curing characteristics on fly ash based geopolymer concrete
performance,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 123, pp. 581–593, 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.043.

[32] M. H. Al-majidi, A. P. Lampropoulos, A. B. Cundy, and O. T. Tsioulou, “A novel corrosion

resistant repair technique for existing reinforced concrete ( RC ) elements using polyvinyl
alcohol fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete ( PVAFRGC ),” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 164,
pp. 603–619, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.213.

[33] M. A. M. Ariffin, M. A. R. Bhutta, M. W. Hussin, M. M. Tahir, and N. Aziah, “Sulfuric acid

resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 43, pp. 80–86,
2013, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.018.

[34] M. Askarian, Z. Tao, G. Adam, and B. Samali, “Mechanical properties of ambient cured one-
part hybrid OPC-geopolymer concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 186, pp. 330–337, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.160.

[35] L. N. Assi, E. Eddie, and P. Ziehl, “Effect of source and particle size distribution on the
mechanical and microstructural properties of fly Ash-Based geopolymer concrete,” Constr.
Build. Mater., vol. 167, pp. 372–380, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.193.

`
`

[36] M. Babaee, M. S. H. Khan, and A. Castel, “Passivity of embedded reinforcement in

carbonated low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos., 2017,
doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.10.001.

[37] Y. Cao, Z. Tao, Z. Pan, and R. Wuhrer, “Effect of calcium aluminate cement on geopolymer
concrete cured at ambient temperature,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 191, pp. 242–252, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.204.

[38] V. Duy et al., “Thermal analysis of geopolymer concrete walls containing microencapsulated
phase change materials for building applications,” Sol. Energy, vol. 178, no. December 2018,
pp. 295–307, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.039.

[39] X. Chen et al., “Utilization of Red Mud in Geopolymer-based Pervious Concrete with
Function of Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions,” J. Clean. Prod., 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.263.

[40] A. C. Ayachit, P. B. Nikam, S. N. Pise, A. D. Shah, and H. Vinayak, “MIX DESIGN OF

FLY-ASH BASED GEOPOLYMER,” vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 381–385, 2016.

`
`

42