See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331656886

Use of Geopolymer Concrete for a Cleaner and Sustainable Environment – A

Review of Mechanical Properties and Microstructure

Article  in  Journal of Cleaner Production · March 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051

CITATIONS READS

67 4,619

3 authors:

Amer Hassan Mohammed Arif

Aligarh Muslim University Qassim University
15 PUBLICATIONS   119 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   202 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohd Shariq
Aligarh Muslim University
41 PUBLICATIONS   372 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance Analysis of Base Isolation & Fixed Base Buildings View project

Optimization of Base Isolation Parameters View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amer Hassan on 22 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and sustainable environment

e A review of mechanical properties and microstructure
Amer Hassan a, *, Mohammed Arif b, M. Shariq c
a
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Zakir Husain College of Engineering & Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim University, Buraidah, 51452, Saudi Arabia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Zakir Husain College of Engineering & Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, India

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

Article history: Geopolymer concrete (GPC) has been researched during the past few decades as an alternative to sus-
Received 23 October 2018 tainable construction materials, which can minimize CO2 emission for its use of industry by-products.
Received in revised form Past researches on GPC show that it can be suitable for the structural applications, with a workable
26 February 2019
slump, and comparable grade of strength to ordinary Portland cement concrete. In this review paper, the
Accepted 5 March 2019
Available online 11 March 2019
mix design, mechanical properties, durability and microstructure of GPC have been discussed to figure
out and report the last data and information regarding geopolymer concrete. In addition to that, the
microstructure of GPC and OPC concrete have been investigated to understand the internal structure of
Keywords:
Geopolymer concrete
GPC and evaluate its engineering properties such as strength and durability etc. Review of literature
Mix design revealed that the production of geopolymer concrete requires great care and correct material compo-
Mechanical properties sition. During the activation process in making the geopolymer, high alkalinity also requires safety risk
Durability and enhanced energy consumption and generation of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the production of
Microstructure GPC is also affected by the curing time and curing temperature. Therefore, there is an urgent need to
develop user-friendly design geopolymer concrete procedure/code that can be used in a variety of
construction areas. In summary, this literature review offers guidance for civil engineers and industrial
community in future researches regarding geopolymer concrete.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705
1.1. Mix design procedure, proportion and production of GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707
2. Properties of fresh GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708
2.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708
2.2. Setting time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708
2.3. Heat of hydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
3. Properties of hardened GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
3.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
3.2. Tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
3.3. Elastic modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
3.4. Fracture properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
3.5. Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
4. Durability of GPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
4.1. Chemical resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
4.2. Resistance of seawater attack and sulphate attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716
4.3. Acid attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ameralburay@gmail.com (A. Hassan), marifamu@gmail.com
(M. Arif), mshariqdce@gmail.com (M. Shariq).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728 705

4.4. Thermal resistance and high temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

4.5. Microstructure of geopolymer concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
4.6. Microstructure of metakaolin geopolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
4.7. Microstructure of fly ash geopolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
4.8. Differences in microstructure of GPC and OPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720
4.9. Applications and reinforced structural elements of geopolymer concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
4.10. Concrete pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
4.11. Structural elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
4.12. Heat resistant pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
4.13. Toxic metal immobilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
4.14. Sub-aqueous seawater applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
5. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

Abbreviations GPM Geopolymer mortar

HCFA High calcium fly ash
AAM Alkali-activated materials IPC Inorganic polymer cement
ASR Alkali silica reaction LCFA Low calcium fly ash
BFS Blast furnace slag LITS Load-induced thermal strain
CE Cement Equivalent MIP Mercury intrusion porosimetry
CS Compressive Strength MK Metakaolin
FA Fly ash MWCN Multi-wall carbon nanotubes
FAN Geopolymer concrete activated with NaOH solution OPC Ordinary Portland cement
FASS Geopolymer concrete activated with Sodium Silicate OPCC Ordinary Portland cement concrete
solution POFA Palm oil fuel ash
FTS Free thermal strain RH Relative humidity
GGBFS Ground granulated blast furnace slag SCM Supplement cementitious materials
GP Geopolymer TTC Transitional thermal creep
GPC Geopolymer concrete W Water

1. Introduction solution (Bakharev et al., 1999a,b). Moreover, sodium hydroxide

was preferred in the production of alkali-activation of fly ash
The term ‘geopolymer’ was invented in the 1970's by Prof. Jo- (Fareed et al., 2011). Similar to OPC concrete, aggregates can be
seph Davidovits and the French researchers and applied to a class of added into geopolymer to produce GPC. Investigations on GPC have
source materials synthesized by the reaction of an alkaline solution revealed that it has equal or superior properties than OPC concrete.
with an aluminosilicate powder (Davidovits, 1991a). There are a GPC can achieve strength comparable to OPC concrete in normal
few different names when it comes to describe geopolymer, for strength grade as well as GPC is a good fire resistant material
example, inorganic polymer and alkali-activated materials (AAM), (Cheng and Chiu, 2003), and it has a better performance in resisting
due to the wide range of formulations. Some argued that geo- sulphate attack (Bakharev et al., 2002) and chloride (Byfors et al.,
polymer be referred to as alkali-activated binders with precursors, 1989; Ismail et al., 2013).
which had low calcium content, like low-calcium fly ash (LCFA) and GPC can provide several environmental advantages also. The
calcined clays (Davidovits, 1991b; Duxson et al., 2007). This would utilization of GPC can reduce CO2 emission up to 80% compared to
create confusion, and thus only one name, geopolymer, is used in OPC concrete by using industrial by-product waste materials such
this review. as GGBFS and fly ash (FA) as a total replacement of OPC. Fig. 1 shows
Besides the precursors, another major component of geo- the production of geopolymer concrete using waste materials and
polymer is the alkali activator. The common alkali activator can be alkaline solution. The strength of GPC lies in the usage of waste
sodium or potassium hydroxides, silicates, carbonates or a mixture materials instead of virgin materials. The GPC is gaining acceptance

ndez-
of those, which are soluble in water (Byfors et al., 1989; Ferna in the construction industry since it ensures sustainability as shown
Jime
nez et al., 1999; Shi and Day, 1996). To obtain good perfor- in Fig. 2 (Duxson et al., 2007a,b,c). It was also found that GGBFS
mance of the final product, the coupling of precursor and alkali production consumed less energy than production of OPC in the
activator needs to be considered. Some precursors will react pref- same amount (Roy and Idorn, 1982). Although GPC is an extremely
erentially or work efficiently with a certain type of activator than powerful alternative as a sustainable material, the present appli-
the others, due to the difference in chemistry. For example, sodium cation on buildings and other structural components is limited due
silicate solution would provide better activation to ground granu- to lack of structural design standards and codes (Kumar et al., 2018).
lated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) than other types of alkaline acti- More investigations on long-term behaviour and durability are
vators. Experimental tests showed that high early strength can be required for commercialization of GPC (Duxson et al., 2007a,b,c).
gained with mass ratio of SiO2/Na2O ¼ 0.75 of sodium silicate The reactions series between alkali sources and the solid
706 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
Fig. 1. Production of geopolymer.
precursors can be called as alkali activation or geopolymerisation.
Duxson et al. (2007) proposed a conceptual model for this reaction
as shown in Fig. 3. Initially after the contact between the precursor
and the alkali activator, the amorphous components (aluminates
and silicates) of the precursor dissolve. Then the aluminates and
silicates inter-react to form an aluminosilicate gel. This gel is first
formed as an aluminium-rich gel (Gel 1), since the reactive
aluminium dissolves more rapidly than the silicon. When more
silicon dissolves in the later stage, the gel structure is reorganised to
form the zeolite precursor gel (Gel 2). This gel is more stable than
the previous form since Si-O bonds are stronger than Al-O bonds.
These reorganisation processes keep going and result in formation
of some crystallised zeolite. Therefore, the gel bond together and
form a solid mass similar to the hydration of OPC.
Douglas et al. (1991) conducted tests on five GPC mixtures
activated by sodium silicate and found that GPC can provide
satisfactory workability and strength properties. The mechanical
strengths of GPC were influenced by a range of factors. Generally,
the most significant effect on the development of mechanical
strength is from the nature of an alkali activator, concentration of
the activator and curing temperature (Puertas et al., 2000).
The workability and strength development can be influenced by
the type and dosage of activator. A study by Collins and Sanjayan
(1998) showed that slag-based geopolymer mortar (GPM) acti-
vated by NaOH and Na2CO3 achieved high early strength compared
to OPC mortar (OPCM), but the 28-day strength was lower. Slag-
based GPC activated by a high concentration of liquid sodium sili-
cates presented considerably higher shrinkage than OPCC.
Bath cured slag-based GPC at ambient temperature showed
higher early strength than OPCC (Collins and Sanjayan, 2002). The
fly ash-based GPC exhibits low strength and the slow strength is
accomplished when cured at the room temperature. Heat curing of
GPC improves the geopolymerisation process, and subsequently
the mechanical properties of GPC. The long duration of heat curing
and high temperature can increase the strength of fly ash-based
GPC (Mustafa et al., 2012; Adam and Horianto, 2014; Collins and
Sanjayan, 2002; Va
zquez, 2000). Although heat curing can accel-
erate strength gain for slag-based GPC in early age, it leads to a
lower strength at a later age than the specimens cured at room
temperature. This is due to the fast rate of reaction, which caused
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
Fig. 2. Schematic of the usefulness of GPC in sustainable construction.
Fig. 3. A descriptive model of geopolymerisation.
inhomogeneity of microstructure, localization of reaction product
near slag grains and coarse pore structures. These reaction products
formed a barrier for further reaction, so it results in slow strength
growth in later ages (Bakharev et al., 1999a,b). Therefore, heat
curing is not necessary for slag-based GPC. In addition, fly ash-
based geopolymers had highly stable structures than the
metakaolin-based geopolymers (Kong et al., 2008). Bakharev et al.
(2000) studied the performance of slag-based GPC with various
admixtures and found that the admixtures for geopolymer concrete
707
may have significant side effects, such as an increase in shrinkage
and strength loss. These effects would be due to the reaction be-
tween the admixtures and activators.
Fig. 4 gives the basic difference between OPC concrete and GPC
and shows that the GPC is superior to OPC concrete especially in
term of durability and sustainability.
1.1. Mix design procedure, proportion and production of GPC
Till date, many of the mix design parameters of geopolymer
concrete (GPC) affect it's compressive strength, such as SiO2/Al2O3,
added water, temperature curing, molarity of NaOH and Na2O/
Al2O3 ratio of fly ash (FA) as shown in Table 1. Hardjito and Rangan
(2005) studied the effect of liquid to solid ratio of GPC on the
compressive strength of GPC. Pimraksa et al. (2011) presented that
a higher molarity of NaOH increases the geopolymerisation reac-
tion at an early stage and results in a higher compressive strength.
Moreover, Mustafa et al. (2012) and Songpiriyakij et al. (2010) re-
ported that the ratio of Na2SO3/NaOH has a fundamental influence
on the strength development of GPC, while research studies of
Hardjito and Rangan (2005), Olivia and Nikraz (2012a,b), Wallah
and Hardjito (2005), Sumajouw and Rangan (2006), Lee et al.
(2014), Kuenzel et al. (2013), Zhang et al. (2016), Joseph (2015),
Ramujee and Potharaju (2017), Collins and Sanjayan (1998)
showed that the curing time and curing temperature also have a
significant influence on the mechanical properties of GPC.
The development of a standard code for GPC is still in the
experimental stage. June et al. (2010), Ferdous et al. (2015) and
Anuradha et al. (2012) who proposed various procedures to
accomplish mix proportions of GPC. Lokuge et al. (2018) showed
that unlike OPC concrete, the development of the mix proportion of
GPC is more difficult due to a range of parameters being involved in
the matrix of geopolymer concrete.
All the experimental studies listed in Table 1 have utilized the
low-calcium fly ash (LCFA). The percentage of the Fe2O3 is about
10e20% by mass, while the CaO proportion was less than 5% by
mass Mehta and Siddique (2017), Pavithra et al. (2016) and Pilehvar
et al. (2018). The studies on particle size distribution of fly ash
showed that 79% of the particles of fly ash were smaller than 50 mm
(Wallah and Rangan, 2006).
Sand and coarse aggregates used in the production of OPC
concrete may be well used for GPC production (Wallah and Hardjito
(2005); Wallah and Rangan, 2006). The alkaline liquid can be made
from a mixture of NaOH solution and Na2SiO3 solution. The
aluminium oxides and silicon composed about 80% by mass, with
ratio by atom of silicon to aluminium z2 for LCFA. The concen-
tration range of sodium hydroxide solution can be between 16
Molar and 8 Molar. Note that the main component in the alkaline
liquid is the water mass. The binder is the basic variance between
GPC and OPC concrete. The geopolymer paste is produced by re-
action of SiO2 and Al2O3 in the fly ash (FA) with the alkaline acti-
vator solution that binds unreacted materials together to the GPC
(Davidovits, 1991a). Similar to OPC concrete, the sand and gravels
take up approximately 75e80% of the GPC mass. This constituent of
GPC mixtures can be calculated by the tools presently available for
OPCC (Davidovits, 2008). Science et al. (2018) proposed an
approach ‘Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline-MARS’ for mix
design of GPC with a target strength at 28 days. This method de-
pends on the developed contour plots between various parameters
that affect the compressive strength of GPC. The mix design of
geopolymer concrete can be achieved by the procedure explained
in the flowchart as shown in Fig. 5.
The workability and the compressive strength of GPC are
affected by the proportions and characteristics of the essential
materials used for production of GPC. Wallah and Hardjito (2005)
708 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
Fig. 4. Performance comparison between OPC concrete and GPC.
reported that higher concentration of NaOH solution results in
higher compressive strength of GPC. That also observed that an
increase in the ratio of Na2SiO3 solution to NaOH solution by mass
results in higher compressive strength of GPC and stated that the
workability of the GPC can be improved by adding superplasticiser,
up to 4% of fly ash by mass; but that it may influence on the
compressive strength of GPC. They also reported that the work-
ability of GPC increases when the water content is increased.
2. Properties of fresh GPC
2.1. Workability
Chindaprasirt et al. (2007) investigated the workability and
strength of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. The experimental
results showed that the slump value of GPC is in the range of
115e135 mm and depends on the ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH and the
concentration of NaOH. If the levels of alkali-soluble calcium are
low, slump loss of GPC produced in case of low calcium fly ash or
slag is observed to be equal or less than that of OPC concrete.
Bleeding of GPC is also found to be lower than that of OPC concrete.
Suitable workability is observed when the ratio by mass of liquid to
geopolymer solids is more than 0.22 and low water absorption
aggregates are used. Rangan and Hardjito (2005) observed that the
workability can be increased with the use of a naphthalene based
super plasticizer (SP). The recommended quantity of liquid naph-
thalene SP (44% solids solution) is around 2e4% of the mass of fly
ash. Umniati et al. (2017) reported that the increase of Fly Ash/sand
ratio leads to increase the workable flow of the GPC, and the
cohesiveness and slump ability of the GPC increases with the in-
crease of the SiO2/Na2O ratio in the sodium silicate solution.
Shadnia et al. (2015) found that the workability of GPC increases
when the molarity of NaOH is decreased with varying ratios of
alkaline activator solution to fly ash. Similar results were reported
by Lokuge et al. (2018) and Mehta et al. (2017) who found that the
increase of NaOH molarity resulted in decreased slump value of
GPC. Mehta and Siddique (2016) reported the effect of alkali acti-
vator liquid type on the flow of GPC. Their findings showed that
NaOH as alkaline activator alone, without sodium hydroxide, can
significantly reduce the slump value of the geopolymer concrete,
which may be attributed to the high viscosity of Na2SiO3.
Ramujee and Potharaju (2017) reported that the workability of
GPC is governed by various factors. Figs. 6e8 demonstrate how
these factors viz. alkaline solution/Fly Ash ratio, the Fly Ash fine-
ness, the ratio of Na2SiO3 solution to NaOH and Liquid/Fly Ash ratio
significantly affect the workability of GPC.
Mehta and Siddique (2017) studied the workability of geo-
polymer paste as well as GPC at various molarity of NaOH with
different SiO2/Al2O3 ratios by mass as shown in Fig. 9. It is observed
that the concentration of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) significantly
affects the workability of geopolymer concrete, due to an increment
of the solids on the alkaline activator solution when the concen-
tration of NaOH increases.
2.2. Setting time
The term setting time is used to describe the allowed time for
casting, compacting and transporting of concrete. The Vicat needle
device is used to determine the setting time of concrete according
to ASTM Standard C807-08 (2008) and BRITISH STANDARDS
INSTITUTION (2009). In geopolymer concrete production, alkaline
activator/Fly Ash ratio and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio nearly have no
impact on setting time (Jumrat et al., 2011). However, Antoni et al.
(2017) found that the setting time of geopolymer concrete is gov-
erned by concentration of NaOH. They reported that NaOH molarity
reduction can effectively delay the setting time of GPC. Similar
findings have been reported by Phoo ngernkham et al. (2016).
Fig. 10 shows that the setting time can be decreased when the
molarity of NaOH increases. Malkawi et al. (2016) reported that the
quantity of Na in the sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3) has a
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728 709

Table 1
Mix design of geopolymer concrete.

Reference study Fly ash (kg/m3) Aggregates Alkaline Added water NaOH Solid (%) in Heat curing Strength (MPa)
(kg/m3) activator (kg/m3) molarity (M) Na2SiO3
(kg/m3)

Coarse Fine NaOH Na2SiO3 SiO2 Na2O Time (hrs) T( C)

(Fareed et al., 2011) 400 950 850 57.0 143 80 12 29.43 14.26 24 70 22.6
400 950 850 57.0 143 60 12 24 70 37.3
400 950 850 57.0 143 48 12 48 60 44.8
400 950 850 57.0 143 40 12 24 70 53.5
Zhuang et al. (2016) 400 1222 658 40.0 100 0.0 14 30.7 11.4 72 20e23 25.0
400 1222 658 56.0 84 0.0 14 20e23 27.0
Hardjito and Rangan (2005) 408 1294 554 41.0 103 21.3 14 29.4 14.7 24 30 32.0
408 1294 554 41.0 103 10.7 14 24 30 35.0
408 1294 554 51.5 103 16.5 14 24 60 36.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 20.7 14 4 90 37.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 26.5 16 24 60 40.0
408 1294 554 41.0 103 16.5 14 24 60 40.0
408 1294 554 51.5 103 16.5 14 24 60 41.0
408 1294 554 51.5 103 16.5 14 24 60 41.0
408 1294 554 51.5 103 16.5 14 24 60 42.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 14.4 12 24 60 42.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 17.6 14 24 60 43.0
408 1294 554 41.0 103 0.0 14 24 60 44.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 7.5 10 24 60 45.0
408 1201 647 55.4 103 0.0 8.0 24 75 44.0
476 1294 554 48.0 120 0.0 8.0 24 60 57.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 0.0 8.0 24 60 63.0
476 1294 554 48.0 120 0.0 14 24 60 68.0
408 1201 647 41.0 103 0.0 14 24 90 89.0
Nuaklong et al. (2016) 408 1246 554 41.0 103 20 8.0 31.5 12.6 18 60 29.0
408 1080 554 41.0 103 20 8.0 18 60 29.0
408 1243 554 41.0 103 20 8.0 18 60 25.0
Rangan (2010) 408 1232 616 48.0 103 0.0 14 29.4 14.7 24 60 28.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 21.3 14 24 60 32.0
408 1232 616 55.4 103 0.0 8.0 24 60 33.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 10.6 14 24 60 35.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 20.7 14 29.4 14.7 24 60 45.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 26.5 16 24 60 48.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 14.4 12 24 60 51.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 7.5 10 24 60 52.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 0.0 8.0 24 60 55.0
408 1232 616 41.0 103 0.0 14 24 60 66.8
420.6 1032.0 555.7 37.6 80.1 113.6 10 24 60 33.8
Kong, and Sanjayan (2010) 350 1200 645 41.0 103 35 8.0 29.4 14.7 24 80 20.0
Joseph and Mathew (2012) 365.2 1118.0 602.0 34.3 73.0 103.5 10 34.64 16.27 24 100 35.3
254.5 1290.0 694.7 22.8 48.5 68.7 10 24 100 36.8
309.9 1204.0 648.4 27.7 59.0 83.7 10 24 100 42.0
400.0 1265.0 540.0 42.3 105.7 24.3 16 24 100 44.0
405.0 1235.0 545.0 52.9 132.4 28.0 16 24 100 46.0
380.0 1233.0 540.0 56.5 141.3 14.6 16 24 100 49.0
400.0 1356.0 535.0 51.5 128.6 12.7 16 24 100 52.0
420.0 1125.0 750.0 40.0 100.0 0.0 16 24 100 70.5
Kusbiantoro et al. (2012) 350 1200 645 41.0 103 35 8.0 29.4 14.7 24 60 48.0
408 1294 554 41.0 103 22.5 14 24 60 36.0
(June et al., 2010) 408 1294 554 41.0 103 0.0 8.0 29.4 14.7 24e96 60 56.0
400 950 850 57.0 144 48 12 24e96 60 48.5
Nuruddin et al. (2011) 400 1209 651 45.7 114.3 0.0 12 29.4 14.7 24e96 60e90 26.0
Nath and Sarker (2015) 428.6 1177.0 623.0 68.6 102.9 28.5 14 30.7 11.4 72 20e23 28.6
Olivia and Nikraz (2012) 394.3 1201.0 647.0 52.6 105.1 21.5 14 29.4 14.7 24 60 29.7
408.9 1177.0 623.0 57.2 85.9 24.5 14 24 75 35.7
480.0 1153.0 599.0 56.0 112.0 23.7 14 12 70 37.1
444.4 1177.0 623.0 44.4 111.1 18.6 14 24 60 38.7
498.5 1153.0 599.0 59.8 89.7 26.5 14 24 60 39.9
461.5 1177.0 623.0 46.2 92.3 18.6 14 24 75 42.5
462.9 1153.0 599.0 52.9 132.2 21.2 14 24 75 49.6
424.6 1177.0 623.0 36.4 91.0 16.0 14 12 70 54.9
406.0 1194.0 643.0 41.0 102.0 26.8 14 12 70 37.0
Rahman and Sarker (2011) 404 1195 640 41.0 102 20 16 29.4 14.7 24 60 50.0
408 1294 554 41.0 103 22.5 16 24 60 45.0
Hardjito and Rangan (2014) 408 1294 554 41.0 103 0.0 8.0 29.4 14.7 4e96 60 58.0
408 1201 647 62.0 93 4.0 14 4e96 60 32.0
710 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Fig. 7. Effect of alkaline solution/fly ash ratio on the slump value of GPC (Jeyasehar
et al., 2013).

et al., 2014).
Fig. 8. Effect of Na2SO3/NaOH ratio on the slump value of GPC (Perna

Fig. 5. Flowchart for the mix design procedure of geopolymer concrete.

significant role on the setting time of GPC. Moreover, the initial and
final setting time of GPC can be decreased by increasing the content
of GGBFS. Musaddiq Laskar and Talukdar (2017) concluded that the

Fig. 9. Workability of GPC at a various SiO2/Al2O3 ratio by mass (Mehta and Siddique,
2017).

GPC produced by using NaOH only for making an alkaline activator

solution, can significantly delay the setting time as compared to the
GPC using composition of NaOH and Na2SiO3 as activator solution.
Al-Majidi et al. (2016) found that the use of GGBFS with Fly Ash for
GPC production has a considerable influence in term of setting time
Fig. 6. Effect of the fineness of fly ash on the slump value of GPC (Science et al., 2018).
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728 711

the OPC concrete due to geopolymerisation between the alkaline

solution and fly ash (Zhang et al. (2016)). Figs. 13e15 show that the
temperature of GPC increases with increase of sodium silicate/fly
ash ratio and sodium hydroxide/fly ash ratio, while the temperature

Fig. 10. Effect of NaOH molarity on setting time of GPC (Umniati et al., 2017).

Fig. 13. Effect of Na2SiO3/fly ash ratio on the temperature of fresh GPC (Shekhovtsova
and E P Kearsley, 2014).

Fig. 11. Effect of GGBS content on setting time of GPC (Pilehvar et al., 2018).

of GPC as shown in Fig. 11. Furthermore, it can be seen in Fig. 12, that
the use of nano silica significantly affects the setting time of GPC. It
can also be concluded that the setting time increment starts at 4% of
nano-silica dose.
Fig. 14. Effect of NaOH/fly ash ratio on the temperature of fresh GPC (Shekhovtsova
and E P Kearsley, 2014).
2.3. Heat of hydration

The surface temperature of GPC is slightly higher than that of

Fig. 15. Effect of sand/fly ash ratio on the temperature of fresh GPC (Shekhovtsova and
Fig. 12. Effect of nano-silica on setting time of GPC (Naskar and Chakraborty, 2016). E P Kearsley, 2014).
712 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
decreases with increasing content of fine aggregate/fly ash ratio
(Shekhovtsova and E P Kearsley, 2014). Brough and Atkinson (2002)
measured the external temperature of geopolymer concrete
directly after casting the matrix of GPC, using the infrared ther-
mometer and repeated the temperature measurement again after 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 24 h separately. The experimental results show
that GPC attains higher temperature during mixing only and
sometimes after casting the temperature decreases. Almuhsin et al.
(2018) reported that the surface temperature of GPC ranged from
32 to 54  C.
In can be concluded that the fly ash based geopolymer concrete
does not show an exothermic reaction during the first 25 h from
casting at room temperature, whilst metakaolin based geopolymer
material shows a direct relationship between the exothermic re-
action and the compressive strength development (Rangan and
Hardjito, 2005).
3. Properties of hardened GPC
3.1. Compressive strength
The behaviour of concrete in compression is usually expressed
by compressive strength, the strength development with age and
the shape of the stress-strain relationship represented by the initial
elastic modulus, peak stress, strain at the peak stress and a
parameter representing the descending part of the stress-strain
curve or the ultimate concrete strain. Collins and Sanjayan (1999)
observed that alkali-activated slag concrete has compressive
strength comparable to OPC concrete. Wallah and Rangan (2006)
reported that the mode failure and behaviour of geopolymer con-
crete based fly ash is almost similar to that of OPC concrete and the
strain of GPC at the peak stress is around 24  104 to 26  104.
Compressive strength development of GPC is significantly
affected by particle size distribution, source material such as fly ash
and the adopted curing regime (Assi et al., 2018). Heat cured LCFA
based geopolymer concrete gains the full compressive strength
after one day with no further increase in compressive strength with
time. Indeed almost 90% of this final strength is developed within a
few hours if cured at 80e90  C. However, geopolymer concrete
cured in the ambient environment gains strength with time as
observed with OPC concrete. All curing regimes (ambient temper-
ature or higher temperatures) produce similar long term strength
results (Rangan, 2008) and the curing temperature merely alters
the time to reach the ultimate compressive strength of the partic-
ular mixture under investigation.
Water to geopolymer solids ratio has been observed to have an
inverse relationship with the compressive strength of concrete
similar to that observed between water/cement ratio and strength
of OPC concrete. Geopolymer solids are calculated as the sum of the
mass of binder, the mass of sodium silicate solids and the mass of
sodium hydroxide solids. Ng and Foster (2008) reported that in a
geopolymer mix with fly ash and slag, the ratio of slag to fly ash by
mass is 35:65 for optimum compressive strength, but this ratio
depends on the reactivity of the particular fly ash and slag used.
Some highly reactive very fine fly ashes do not need slag addition to
achieve high target strengths (Assi et al., 2016).
Various Source materials used for GPC production and their
proportioning have a significant effect on the mechanical proper-
ties of geopolymer concrete. Ismail et al. (2013) observed early
compressive strength of GPC using metakaolin and palm oil fuel ash
as a raw material in the production of GPC with various ratios of
NaOH and Na2SiO3 solution. Al-mashhadani et al. (2018) found that
the composition of palm oil fuel ash (POFA) particle shapes and
surface area of POFA have a significant effect on the compressive
strength of the GPC. Results of both researchers indicated that any
increment in the ratio of (Al/Si) greater than 2 can delay the geo-
polymerisation process and reduce the early compressive strength
of GPC. Petermann and Saeed (2012) found that it is possible to
achieve a good compressive strength using POFA and GGBFS with
metakaolin in production of GPC with appropriate proportions.
Naskar and Chakraborty (2016) conducted a series of experiments
to study the development of high compressive strength of GPC. The
authors accomplished 66 MPa compressive strength by 30% of POFA
and 70% of GGBFS mix proportion. Perna
et al. (2014) reported that
the maximum compressive strength of GPC using metakaolin can
be achieved by increasing NaOH concentration and the curing time.
Bhowmick and Ghosh (2012) reported the results of compres-
sive strength of GPC by using different SiO2/N2O ratio and water/fly
ash ratio. The results showed that the influence of SiO2/N2O ratio on
compressive strength of GPC is totally different as compared to the
influence Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio. As can be seen in Fig. 16, the ratio of
Na2SiO3/NaOH has a significant effect on the compressive strength
of geopolymer concrete. In Fig. 16 (a) and (c), when Na2SiO3/NaOH
ratio is 1 or 2, the compressive strength of GPC decreases with the
increase of Na2SiO3 molar ratio, however in Fig. 16 (b) the
compressive strength of GPC increases at Na2SiO3/NaOH molar
ratio ¼ 1.5, while there is no significant increase in the compressive
strength of GPC when the Na2SiO3/NaOH molar ratio ¼ 2.5, as
shown in Fig. 16 (d) (Thaarrini and Ramasamy, 2015).
The effect of ratios of NaOH/fly ash, Na2SiO3/fly ash and sand/fly
ash on the compressive strength of GPC are shown in Figs. 17e19
(Kotwal et al., 2015). In Fig. 17, the compressive strength of GPC
increases when the ratio of Na2SiO3/Fly Ash ratio is increased. An
increase in NaOH/fly ash ratio up to the 0.10, results in higher
compressive strength level. A total of three ratios lager than 0.100
were used, which are 0.125, 0.150 and 0.175. These results indicate
that when the NaOH/fly ash ratio exceeds 0.10, the compressive
strength of GPC decreases. Excessive OH ions accelerated disso-
lution but decreased polycondensation, causing the binder to pre-
cipitate early and loose strength. It can be seen from Fig. 19, that
maximum compressive strength of 38 MPa is found when the sand/
fly ash ratio is 2.0, however, the compressive strength decreases
when sand/fly ash ratio is greater than 2.0.
Moreover, Fig. 20 shows that the compressive strength of GPC
increases with the increase of binder/sand ratio from 0.25 to 0.5.
The compressive strength of GPC decreases if the binder/sand ratio
is more than 0.5 (Wazien et al., 2016).
3.2. Tensile strength
Geopolymer concrete is found to perform very well under the
compressive strength tests. However, it's performance under ten-
sile loads is governed by the initiation of cracks in the concrete
mass. Lee et al. (2017) reported the experimental test results of the
tensile strength of GPC. Fig. 21 shows the tensile strength of GPC at
7, 14 and 28 days. A gradual reduction in the tensile strength is
observed with increase in the ratio of sand/fly ash. Zhuang et al.
(2016) reported the comparison between design strength of ACI
standard code and experimental test results of geopolymer con-
crete tensile strength. They found that the splitting tensile strength
of GPC possibly matches the design values given by the ACI
standard.
Zhang et al. (2016) reported that the geopolymer concrete per-
formed better in term of tensile strength than the OPC concrete.
Adak and Sarkar (2014) reported that the addition of 5e6% nano
silica improved the tensile strength of GPC with normal curing. Al-
Majidi et al. (2016) reported the experimental results of GPC uti-
lizing GGBFS and fly ash. The results showed that use of GGBFS in
the matrix of GPC had a positive influence on the direct tensile
strength of GPC. Fig. 22 shows the effect of GGBFS on the tensile
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
strength of GPC, where it can be observed that the increase of the
slag dosage up to 30%, leads to an increase in the tensile strength of
GPC.
The literature review clearly reveals that the tensile strength of
GPC is superior to that of OPC concrete with the same compressive
strength (Collins and Sanjayan, 1998; Rangan, 2008). Table 2 shows
the mixture proportions of eleven GPC and two OPC concrete mixes
produced with various proportions and additive percentages of
GGBFS, OPC, Calcium Hydroxide (CH) by Nath and Sarker (2017) for
studying the flexural strength of fly ash based GPC cured at ambient
temperature. Fig. 23 shows the flexural strength of GPC with
various additives such as (GGBFS, OPC and CH) as explained in
Table 2. From Fig. 23, it can be seen that the flexural strength of fly
ash-based GPC is significantly influenced by the type of additive
used with fly ash. The addition of OPC with fly ash improves the
flexural strength of GPC as compared to GGBFS and Calcium Hy-
droxide additives.
3.3. Elastic modulus
The elastic modulus is a mechanical property which describes
the stiffness of materials used for concrete production. In geo-
polymer concrete, the matrix is expected to be denser and as a
(a) Na2SiO3 /NaOH ratio = 1
(c) Na2SiO3 /NaOH ratio = 2
Fig. 16. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete at various Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio (Thaarrini and Ramasamy, 2015).
713
result, the elastic modulus is expected to be greater compared to
OPC concrete with similar coarse aggregate. However, more
experimental work is needed to confirm this or prove the opposite.
In most published work, it is observed that for a given compressive
strength of concrete, the geopolymer concrete has a lower elastic
modulus than an OPC concrete (Hardjito and Rangan, 2005; Sofi
et al., 2007a,b).
Table 3 reported the experimental results of elastic modulus at
different curing conditions, and that can guide the researchers to
select the suitable curing condition for target elastic modulus
required which can give satisfying results.
Haq et al. (2016) reported the experimental results of various
GPC specimens utilizing bottom ash (BA) as a source material by
using different strengths of alkali activator. The results of test
specimens are shown in Fig. 24. It is observed that the Young's
modulus of elasticity of various GPC samples increases with the
increase in NaOH solution content in the matrix of GPC. Ban et al.
(2017) reported the test results of fly ash-based GPC using high
calcium wood ash (HCWA) at different curing time as shown in
Fig. 25. It can be seen that the elastic modulus of GPC decreases up
to 100% HCWA replacement level, indicating a weak internal
structure of mixes specially beyond 70% of high calcium wood ash.
(b) Na2SiO3 /NaOH ratio = 1.5
(d) Na2SiO3 /NaOH ratio = 2.5
714 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Fig. 20. Effect of the binder/sand ratio on compressive strength of GPC (Wazien et al.,
2016).

Fig. 17. Effect of Na2SiO3/fly ash ratio on the compressive strength of GPC (Kotwal
et al., 2015).
3.4. Fracture properties

The fracture of concrete is one of its fundamental mechanical

properties due to its significant role in the cracks development of
the concrete structural elements. The interaction mode between
the adhesive and aggregates significantly controls the fracture
mechanics of the structural elements. Consequently, it is very
important to consider the fracture mechanics mode of GPC during
testing of the concrete for ensuring the safety of structures. Phoo-
ngernkham et al. (2016) assessed fracture characteristics of high
calcium fly ash (HCFA) based geopolymer concrete with partial fly
ash replaced by OPC. The author reported the relationship between
sodium hydroxide molarity (6, 10 and 14 NaOH concentration) and
fracture energy of GPC with various replacements of OPC as shown
in Figs. 26 and 27. It can be seen that an increase in the strength of
NaOH molarity up to 14M increases the fracture energy. The same
results are obtained when the cement replacement ratio is also
increased. Khalid et al. (2015) reported an experimental investi-
gation of GPC to portray the bond behaviour between concrete and
fiber reinforced polymers (FRP). They concluded that the test setup
Fig. 18. Effect of NaOH/fly ash ratio on the compressive strength of GPC (Kotwal et al.,
2015).
is valuable for the comparison of various bonded interfaces as true
interfacial failure was observed, however, the interfacial fracture
energy showed sensitivity to the notch depth.

Fig. 19. Effect of fine aggregates/fly ash ratio on the compressive strength of GPC Fig. 21. Experimental results of tensile strength of GPC at different sand/fly ash ratio
(Kotwal et al., 2015). (Lee et al., 2017).
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728 715

Fig. 23. Flexural strength of GPC and OPC concrete at 28 and 90 days with respect to
Fig. 22. Effect of slag dosage on the tensile strength of GPC (Al-Majidi et al., 2016).
compressive strength (Nath and Sarker, 2017).

3.5. Shrinkage
Drying shrinkage is an essential parameter that should be
considered for long service time of structural elements, due to its
significant role in the development of cracks of hardened concrete.
Therefore, low drying shrinkage of the hardened GPC is desirable.
Tchakoute Kouamo et al. (2013) reported the effect of the meta-
kaolin (MK) content on the linear shrinkage of volcanic ash-based
GPC as shown in Fig. 28. It can be seen that the linear shrinkage
of the GPC specimens increases with age. The GPC specimens
containing higher dosage of MK show much lower linear shrinkage
than the specimens containing lower dosage of MK because at high
dosage of MK the resulting gel is much thicker. The same findings
were reported by Al-mashhadani et al. (2018).
Clausi et al. (2016) reported the results of drying shrinkage tests
on GPC. They concluded that the drying shrinkage GPC can be
reduced with an addition of dry waste paper sludge. From Fig. 29, it
can be observed that the strain in GPC due to drying shrinkage
decreases steadily depending upon the growth of multi-wall car-
bon nanotubes (MWCNT). Khater and Abd El Gawaad (2016) re-
ported that the existence of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in GPC
enhanced the resulting amorphous geopolymer framework with an
obvious decrease in the drying shrinkage particularly by adding
0.1% of MWCNT. Any further increase in WCNT addition leads to
increase in the drying shrinkage. Sumesh et al. (2017) studied the
shrinkage of GPC by adding different content ratios of MK and
GGBFS. They found that the optimum proportion of GPC for the
lowest drying shrinkage was 25e30% of MK and 70e75% of GGBFS
after 28 days curing.
4. Durability of GPC
4.1. Chemical resistance
The failure mode of the structural elements may transpire under
physical or chemical processes, specifically when the elements are
endangered to destructive environmental effects (Pasupathy et al.,
2017). The durability of materials has a substantial effect on the
design of life, safety and mechanical behaviour of these materials.
In this literature review, the chemical processes related to inorganic
polymer cement (IPC) are emphasized. Taking into consideration
that the strength of the structural elements is exactly related to the
microstructure and nano-structure configuration of the materials
used for the production of geopolymer concrete (Davidovits, 2008,
2013; Gao et al., 2013; Lyon et al., 1996). Since the big problems of
the durability of OPC concrete are correlated to the presence of
calcium oxide in the concrete gel. Therefore, the behaviour of GPC
towards a chemical attack is totally different due to low-calcium
content in the GPC matrix. The effect of high calcium content in
the concrete is due to its interaction with the chemical solutions
(Assi et al., 2018; Fareed et al., 2011; Kurtz and Rudolph, 1997;
Nuaklong et al., 2018a).
Nuaklong et al. (2018b) studied alkaline inorganic polymer

Table 2
Mixture proportions of GPC and OPC concrete (kg/m3) (Nath and Sarker, 2017).

Label of mixture Coarse Sand Fly ash Additive Na2SO3 NaOH Water SP (water/solid)

GP1 1209 651.0 400 0.0 114.3 45.7 0.0 0.00 0.202
GP2 1209 651.0 360 40.0a 114.3 45.7 0.0 0.00 0.202
GP3 1209 651.0 340 60.0a 114.3 45.7 0.0 0.00 0.202
GP4 1218 655.9 400 0.0 100.0 40.0 0.0 6.00 0.180
GP5 1218 655.9 360 40.0a 100.0 40.0 6.0 6.00 0.193
GP6 1209 651.0 376 24.0b 114.3 45.7 0.0 0.00 0.202
GP7 1209 651.0 368 32.0b 114.3 45.7 0.0 3.92 0.202
GP8 1218 655.9 376 24.0b 100.0 40.0 6.0 6.00 0.193
GP9 1209 651.0 392 8.0c 114.3 45.7 0.0 0.00 0.202
GP10 1209 651.0 388 12.0c 114.3 45.7 0.0 0.00 0.202
GP11 1218 655.9 392 8.0c 40.0 40.0 6.0 6.00 0.193
OPC1 799 921.4 e 387.9b e e 213.4 0.00 0.550
OPC2 1136 612.3 e 428.3b e e 157.2 0.00 0.367
a
GGBFS.
b
OPC.
c
Calcium hydroxide, SP: Super-plasticizer.
716 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Table 3
Elastic modulus of GPC reported in the different literature under various curing conditions.

Author Sample fc(MPa) Ec(GPa) Curing

Fernandez-Jimenez et al. (2006) MIX1 32.00 11.7 85  C for 20 h

MIX2 34.00 13.4
MIX3 43.50 18.4
MIX4 39.50 15.8
(Diaz-Loya and Allouche EN, 2011) G1 40.35 28.6 60  C for 72 h
G2 43.38 25.6
Olivia, M. and Nikraz (2012) A7 56.49 25.3 70  C for 12 h
A4 56.24 26.9 75  C for 24 h
Topark-ngarm et al. (2014) U1-4 54.00 29.7 60  C for 24 h
U1-6 52.40 28.9
Nath and Sarker (2017) A35 S00 32.50 19.8 18e23  C after casting to test date
A35 S10 33.30 19.2
A40 C02 42.00 22.4
A40 C03 41.50 21.6
A40 S15 53.30 25.2
A40 P06 52.10 26.2

Fig. 24. Influence of NaOH content on Yong's modulus of GPC (Haq et al., 2016).

Fig. 26. Fracture energy of geopolymer mortar (Phoo-ngernkham et al., 2016).

well the behaviour of geopolymer concrete under aggressive en-

Fig. 25. Elastic modulus of GPC at various contents of high calcium wood ash (Ban
et al., 2017).
vironments. Albitar et al. (2017a,b) and Mehta et al. (2017) under-
took an experimental study to investigate the behaviour of GPC
exposed to 5% sodium sulphate, 5% sodium chloride, 5% sodium
sulphate þ 3% sulphuric acid and 5% magnesium sulphate. They
reported that OPC concrete has lower absorption of water than
glass powder and fly ash geopolymer concrete, however, OPC
concrete suffers more deterioration than GPC when both are
exposed to sulphuric acid, while the OPC concrete performed better
than geopolymer concrete during the test of sodium sulphate
resistance.

4.2. Resistance of seawater attack and sulphate attack

cement durability under various cases: specially, the cement per-
formance in different aggressive environments acidic solutions,
Johansen (2011) reported that the internal configuration of the
sodium sulphate, ASTM seawater, and deionized water, frost attack,
aluminosilicate gel components significantly governs the durability
the resistance of fire and elevated temperature, alkali-silica
of fly ash based geopolymer concrete in extreme environments (5%
induced reaction etc. For a realistic estimation of the performance
Na2SO4 solution and 5% MgSO4 solution). As can be seen in Fig. 30,
of GPC, various parameters such as compressive strength, weight
the compressive strength of GPC and OPC concrete, exposed to 5%
loss, volume differences, changes in the microstructure of materials
of Na2SO4 and MgSO4 shows some fluctuations and that may be
and the behaviour of attack must be well understood. Earlier in-
related to the transition of alkaline from the geopolymer into so-
vestigators have concluded that the performance of GPC in terms of
lution. The test results of GPC prepared with sodium hydroxide
durability is better than that of OPC concrete. However, the dura-
when compared to those prepared with sodium-silicate activator
bility of these materials needs more investigation to understand
are more crystalline. The geopolymer concrete activated with NaOH
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
Fig. 27. Fracture toughness of geopolymer mortar (Phoo-ngernkham et al., 2016).
Fig. 28. Effect of metakaolin on linear shrinkage of GPC (Tchakoute Kouamo et al.,
2013).
solution only performed better than OPC concrete (Johansen, 2011).
Criado et al. (2007) reported that the strength and durability of GPC
increased over the time regardless of the type of chemical solution
in which the samples were submerged as shown in Fig. 31.
Adam (2009) studied the durability properties of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete. The study opened a new understanding of
the strength and the durability of GPC in terms of carbonation and
chloride resistance as well as the influence of Na2O dosage on the
compressive strength of GPC samples. Both the Na2O dosage and
the activator modulus are significant parameters for production of
GPC. It is found that fly ash based geopolymer concrete exhibits
strength comparable to OPC concrete. However, the durability
properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete are observed to be
better in terms of carbonation and chloride resistance than the OPC
concrete.
4.3. Acid attack
Johansen (2011) studied the durability of fly ash based geo-
polymer concrete with alkaline activators exposed to sulphuric
717
Fig. 29. Effect of paper sludge content on drying shrinkage of GPC (Al-mashhadani
et al., 2018).
acids (pH ¼ 0.8) and 5% acetic solutions (pH ¼ 2.4). The perfor-
mance of fly ash activated with NaOH solution (FAN) was found to
be better than specimens of fly ash activated with Na2SiO3 solution
(FASS), as can be seen in Fig. 32. The damage was related to the
liberation of depolymerisation of silicic acid with aluminosilicate
polymers, K and Na cations replaced by Hþ or H3Oþ, and geo-
polymer structure dealumination. The extra geopolymer concrete
specimens tested with NaOH showed more stability in the acetic
acid solutions and sulphuric aggressive environment than geo-
polymer concrete specimens tested with an activator of sodium
silicate.
Geopolymer interaction with acetic acid can lead to replacement
of the (K, Na) cation in the geopolymer framework by H3Oþ or Hþ.
However, the behaviour of GPC with sulphuric acid leads to a
straight attack on the structure of geopolymer concrete and its
framework. Therefore, the bonds of Si-O-Al will get damaged due to
this attack (Johansen, 2011). Hardjito et al. (2004) showed that the
fly ash based geopolymer concrete exhibited erosion by pitting on
the specimen surface immersed in the H2SO4 solution, for 360 days,
with 2% concentration. Also, a substantial reduction in the spec-
imen strength was observed and a smaller loss in compressive
strength was shown when the samples were immersed in the 1%
and 0.5% concentration of sulphuric acid.
Okoye et al. (2017) reported that the mechanism of acid attack
on geopolymer concrete is very similar in nature and depends on
the acid strength, concentration of the activator used, exposure
time in addition to the mineralogical composition and physico-
chemical properties of the products. It may be concluded that the
fly ash based geopolymer concrete activated by sodium hydroxide
solution has the greatest acid resistance. Furthermore, the dura-
bility of GPC is better than OPC concrete. Shadnia et al. (2015) re-
ported that the performance of GPC containing silicates activator
towards resistance of sulphuric acid or carbon dioxide is very good
which may be attributed to Na tendency to produce hydrated salts
with these acids.
4.4. Thermal resistance and high temperature
In general, the fire resistance of GPC, when compared with the
OPC concrete, is far superior. The GPC melts at about 1200  C with
no signs of spalling (Zhang et al., 2015). However, there is a lack of
detailed information and studies regarding the behaviour of GPC at
718 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Fig. 30. Compressive strength of fly ash activated with sodium silicate solution and
NaOH, and OPC specimens, exposed to 5% of Na2SO4 and MgSO4 (Johansen, 2011). (a)

elevated temperatures, therefore more researches are required to

fill this gap (Fan et al., 2018). Singh et al. (2015) reported that
geopolymer concrete has excellent fire resistance. The research
work carried out by Kong and Sanjayan (2010) shows that there is a
significant incompatibility between the expansion of some coarse
aggregate and the geopolymer matrix under elevated tempera-
tures. They have shown that the geopolymer matrix contracts by
about 1% whilst some aggregates expand up to about 2.5% at 800  C.
Consequently, some strength loss has been observed in some
geopolymer concretes at such elevated temperatures. This in-
compatibility in thermal behaviour could have a significant effect
on the fire resistance of some geopolymer concrete and requires
further experimental investigations.
Breau et al. (2011), Junaid et al. (2014) and Manalo et al. (2015)
studied the behaviour of the GPC at elevated temperature. They
found that the GPC has better resistance to fire and high temper-
(b)
atures as compared with OPC mortars or concrete. Wan Mastura
et al. (2013) reported that properties of GPC produced using po- Fig. 31. Mechanical strength of fly ash mortars (a) NaOH-activated, and (b) water
tassium silicates, sodium silicate, and metakaolin showed a good glass-activated (Criado et al., 2007).
heat resistance and thermal stability up to1400  C. Wang et al.
(2015) reported that the thermal resistance of GPC decreases
with increase in the amount of water and sodium silicate when
exposed to fire. They also found that the ‘potassium silicate’ geo-
polymers have very high thermal stability up to 1400  C.
Mathew and Joseph (2018) found that fly ash based geopolymer
concrete activated by alkaline solution containing potassium shows
better thermal resistance than those activated with sodium-
containing alkaline. Fly ash based geopolymer concrete activated
with sodium containing activators produced more shrinkage,
cracking and significant loss of strength at 800  C as compared to
those activated with potassium, which was attributed to the in-
crease of the average pore size (Saavedra and Gutie
rrez, 2017).
Fan et al. (2018) prepared two mixtures of GPC and OPCC (GPC1
and OPC1) for fire-resistant test specimens. The mix proportions of
specimens are given in Table 4. The comparison of the influence of
elevated temperature on compressive and tensile strengths is given
Fig. 32. Effect of the sulphuric acid solution and acetic acid solution on compressive
in Fig. 33. It can be seen that the reduction of compressive and strength of alkali activated fly ash and OPC (Johansen, 2011).
tensile strengths of GPC1 and OPC1 concretes, are similar. The
degradation rates of splitting tensile and compressive strengths
were higher when the temperature exceeds 300  C and the the undesirable effect of a large amount of iron existing in the
degradation of splitting tensile strength was higher than the chemical composition of fly ash.
compressive strength.
Bakharev (2006), Okoye (2017) and Prachasaree et al. (2014)
reported that geopolymer concrete using Class-F fly ash are not 4.5. Microstructure of geopolymer concrete
appropriate for refractory applications because of significant
changes in strength and high shrinkage, which were possibly due to Myers et al. (2013) reported that the microstructure of geo-
polymers varies with the type of precursors used. The cross-linked
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728 719

Table 4
Mix proportions of GPC and OPC concrete (kg/m3) (Fan et al., 2018).

Concrete Type Alkaline activator MK FA OPC Water Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Super-plasticizer

GPC1 417 219 219 e e 616 1434 e

OPC1 e e e 468 145 702 1076 1

structures of geopolymer results from the geopolymeristaion.

Provis et al. (2013) proposed the cross-linked substituted tober-
morite model (CSTM) for C-A-SeH gel, which described the solid
phases in geopolymer as a mixture of 14, 11 and 9 Å tobermorite
structures, which included cross-linked and non-cross-linked
tobermorites. The CSTM only allowed for Al substitution in
bridging sites and did not allow single vacancies in the combined
bridging sites. An illustration is shown in Fig. 34.
In fly ash based geopolymer concrete, the primary reaction
product is an alkaline silico-aluminate gel containing Si and Al
tetrahedral randomly distributed and cross-linked. When sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) is used as an activator to this type of geopolymer,
the produced gel is known as N-A-SeH gel (Puertas et al., 2011).
Furthermore, experiments done by Garcia-Lodeiro et al. (2011a,b)
showed that in the presence of Ca, N-A- S-H would transform to
C-A-SeH at high pH until available Ca was exhausted. Criado et al.
(2008) studied the nanostructure of N-A-SeH gel and proposed
Fig. 33. Strength retention ratio of GPC and OPC after exposure to high temperatures
that it was an amorphous gel consisting of a polymeric, cross-linked
(Fan et al., 2018).
aluminosilicate network similar to C-A-SeH gel. The N-A-SeH gel
comprised two types of Si-O bonds, which were the bridge and
terminal bonds. They found that the nature of this gel was influ- 4.7. Microstructure of fly ash geopolymers
enced by the activator and curing method. When there was more
soluble silica in the system, more bridge bonds were formed. The microstructure and chemistry of fly ash based geopolymer
Moreover, when it was under thermal curing, the structure became concrete is governed by the mineral composition of the initial fly
more orderly with a predominance of bridge bonds over terminal ash, the particle size distribution, activator type and some other
bonds, and hence more stable. variables. Keane et al. (2006), Mehta and Monteiro (2006) and van
Deventer et al. (2015) presented the microstructure of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete in light of reaction time and the type of
4.6. Microstructure of metakaolin geopolymers
activator used. Fig. 38 (a) shows the scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) images of the original fly ash. It can be seen that different
Metakaolin is a comparatively complex material, being pro-
sizes of spherical vitreous particles series (lengths ranging from 10
duced by calcination of kaolinite clay at temperatures ranging from
to 20 mm) and some of these spheres may hold other particles of
500 to 800  C depending on crystallinity of the precursor clay and
smaller size in their interiors. Fig. 38 (b) and 38 (c) illustrate the
the purity (Badogiannis et al., 2005; granizo and Blanco, 1998). The
variations detected in the microstructure of fly ash activated with
metakaolin structure seems unorganized to x-ray analysis as shown
alkaline solution. Sodium silicate solution is the main product of
in Fig. 35, although it is subsequent by the hydroxyl group removal
reaction resulting from the attack that combines with the gel
from the layered kaolinite structure as shown by electron diffrac-
produced by other particles during precipitation.
tion in Fig. 36 (Lee et al., 2003). Al-mashhadani et al. (2018) re-
Similar to the models presented by Weir et al. (1990) for
ported that the sources of metakaolin utilized in production of GPC
explaining the microstructure of OPC concrete and its hydration
plays a significant role in the mechanical properties of GPC and its
process, Fern
andez-Jime
nez and Palomo (2005) presented a model
microstructure.
to explain the reaction occurring during geopolymerisation phase
Comprehensive analysis of the metakaolin geopolymers
of fly ash. The model of the geopolymerisation process of fly ash is
microstructure has been reported by many investigators (chmücker
shown in Fig. 39. In the beginning, the chemical attack starts at
and MacKenzie, 2005; Duxson, 2006; Kriven et al., 2003; Lloyd,
single point on the particle surface and then develops to produce a
2008; Zhang et al., 2007). The significance of the study of micro-
bigger hole as shown in Fig. 39 (a), unlike small particles, whether
structure of geopolymers is that the compressive strength of the
hollow or partly filled with other yet smaller ashes, to bi-directional
binder is obviously connected to its composition (Duxson et al.,
alkaline attack as shown in Fig. 39(b) (Brouwers and van eijk, 2002).
2007a,b,c). The geopolymer binder pore plays an extremely sig-
Subsequently, reaction form is produced both inside and outside
nificant role in its durability performance (Lloyd, 2008). Scanning
the shell of the sphere, until the particle of ash is totally or almost
electron microscopy (SEM) images as shown in Fig. 37 prove that
totally consumed as shown in Fig. 39(c).
the binder structure of geopolymer concrete is disconnected at low
Furthermore, the procedures presented are not similar
silica content and when more silica is applied, comparatively ho-
throughout the gel and could change from point to point for the
mogeneous binder is seen (van Deventer et al., 2007).
same specimen, depending upon the source material and the type
It can be fairly concluded that for a better understanding of the
of alkaline activator used. Some important findings with regard to
mechanical behaviour of metakaolin, the chemistry and structure
the microstructure of fly ash based geopolymer concrete have been
of metakaolin must be understood. Therefore, the interaction
presented, however, the comparison between studies has been
analysis between the metakaolin disordered structure and the
often limited because of differences in experimental approaches.
alkaline activator must be thoroughly undertaken.
720 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Fig. 34. Illustration of constraints in CSTM (Myers, R.J et al., 2013).

Fig. 36. Cu Ka diffractogram of an industry metakaolin (Zhang et al., 2007).

4.8. Differences in microstructure of GPC and OPC

Because of the cross-linked feature mentioned above, hardened

geopolymer has a denser microstructure than hardened OPC. The
C-A-SeH matrix chains in geopolymer system were found longer
than the C-S-H gel chains in OPC system, due to the substitution of
Alþ þ
3 for Si4 in bridging positions. C-A-SeH gels had lower Ca/Si ratio
and higher Al/Si ratio than C-S-H, and it was indicative of the co-
existence of tobermorite 1.4 nm, with a chain length of 11 nm,
and tobermorite 1.1 nm, with a chain length of 14 nm tetrahedra. It
was found that Young's modulus was 77.3 and 49.9 GPa, for typical
tobermorite 1.1 nm and tobermorite 1.4 nm, respectively. This
would be because of the higher interlayer cohesion presented by
the bonding between bridging tetrahedral of conservative layers
(Puertas et al., 2011). Fig. 40 shows a ternary plot of the gel
composition of GPC and OPC. When the gel compositions of GPC
and OPC systems are compared, the main difference observed is the
fact that C-S-H forming in OPC concrete has a lower Al and higher
Ca content than the C-A-SeH forming in slag-based geopolymer.
When fly ash is presented in the system of geopolymer, N-(C)-A-
SeH can be identified with low Ca content, but pure N-A-SeH is
only stable at pH lower than 12 (Garcia-Lodeiro et al., 2011a,b; van
Deventer et al., 2015).
Microstructure analysis of pore characteristic with the tech-
niques, such as mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) and gas
adsorption, revealed that the pore size of slag-based geopolymer
concrete showed more mesopores (pore size < 50 nm) and also
lower porosity than those of OPC. A comparison of pore size dis-
tribution of slag-based geopolymer paste (GPP) and OPC paste
(OPCP) is shown in Fig. 41. Most of the pores in OPCP were
distributed in the range between 10 and 100 nm, whilst most of the
pores in GPP were below 20 nm (Collins and Sanjayan, 2000;

Fig. 37. Microstructures of geopolymers produced with mole ratios SiO2/Na2O (a ¼ 0.5,
b ¼ 1.0, c ¼ 1.5, d ¼ 2.0 and e ¼ 2.5) (van Deventer et al., 2007).

Garboczi, 1990; Ha€kkinen, 1993a). It was also found that when

Fig. 35. Kaolinite layers structure (Davidovits, 2008).
SCM such as slag and silica fume was used in OPCC, the pozzolanic
reaction forms a denser microstructure resulting in high strength
and low permeability (Mokhtarzadeh, 2000; Roy and Idorn, 1982).
A study carried out by Aligizaki (2006) revealed that porosity can
help in understanding the behaviour and properties of GPC and
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728 721

mechanical strength, adherence to reinforcements/aggregates and

economic benefit as an industrial by-product material. Compres-
sive strength values over 60 MPa within 26 h and high resistance to
sulfates and various acids allow geopolymer concrete to replace
OPC concrete for a variety of industrial applications and commercial
use.

4.10. Concrete pipes

The use of GPC for commercial sewer piping is a viable choice

from the basis of their inherent resistance to acidic sulfates and
products. Sulphuric acid is generated in conventional sewer sys-
tems through the breakdown of hydrogen sulfide by aerobic bac-
teria in the system and is the significant factor in structural
deterioration and corrosion of the piping networks over time.
Approximately 45% of the damage to OPC concrete pipes can be
attributed to corrosion by biogenies sulphuric acid attack as a result
of long flow periods and insufficient ventilation of wastewater
(Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A. and Puertas, 2002). An additional concern
regarding concrete longevity is acidic soil in the area of installation.
Acidic sulphate soil contains naturally-occurring iron sulfides,
mineral iron pyrite (FeS2) or sulfide oxidation products and main-
tain pH levels between 1 and 4 which cause major damage to OPC-
based concretes. The aggressive acidic environments produced in
acid sulphate soils have a serious impact on steel infrastructure and
concrete and can lead to structural weakness and eventual failure
(Wallah and Rangan, 2006). GPC products are aptly suited to
withstand the rigors of a sulphate environment and would offer an
economic alternative to currently employed materials and the is-
sues associated with regular repair of the piping networks.

4.11. Structural elements

Research has been conducted to better understand the

Fig. 38. SEM figures: (a) normal FA; (b) FA activated with 8M NaOH for 20 h at 85  C;
(c) FA activated with sodium silicate (Keane et al., 2006; Mehta and Monteiro, 2006;
van Deventer et al., 2015).

OPC since it gave an indication of the density of the microstructure,

presence of micro cracks, the rate of diffusion of pore solution.

4.9. Applications and reinforced structural elements of geopolymer

concrete

Geopolymer concrete (GPC) possess a high potential for use in

commercial applications due to their enhanced durability, chemical
ndez-Jime
Fig. 39. A descriptive model of alkali-activated of fly ash (Ferna
nez et al.,
and thermal resistance properties, rapid development of 2005).
722 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
Fig. 40. Ternary plot of binder gel compositions of geopolymer (noted as AA100S
AA50S/50FA) and OPC (noted as 100OPC) (Puertas et al., 2011).
properties and mechanics of GPC and their potential for use as
structural elements for construction. At this time, OPC is the
preferred concrete material for construction, however its con-
sumption of virgin materials and energy portend the introduction
of GPC into the industry. The increasing worldwide production of
OPC to meet structure developments indicates that concrete will
continue to be the selected material for construction in the future
(Sumajouw et al., 2007). A motivation for research into GPC is an
attempt to develop an environmentally friendly concrete out of
industrial by-products that would be capable of equaling or
exceeding the mechanics and durability of traditional PCC products.
In this light, much research has been conducted to determine the
applicability of structural elements of GPC instead of OPC concrete-
based structures.
The load capacity of GPC columns is influenced by load
Fig. 41. Pore size distribution of GPC and OPC at 28 days age (Aligizaki, 2006).
eccentricity, concrete compressive strength values and longitudinal
reinforcement ratios (Puertas and Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, 2003).
Decreased eccentricity loading, and reinforcement ratio increases
favor an increase in overall column load capacity.
Wallah and Rangan (2006) studied the failure mode and flexure
of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams, the beam specimens are
shown in Fig. 42. The experimental results showed that the rein-
forced GPC beam performed better than reinforced OPC concrete in
term of cracks and failure load (see Fig. 43). From the perspective of
material longevity in harsh environments and large operating
loads, geopolymer concretes are viably sound as they possess high
compressive strength, experience very minor dry shrinkage and
creep and maintain excellent resistance to sulphate attack and
acidic immersion.
Failure loading of columns with smaller load eccentricity, higher
strength and greater reinforcement ratios produced sudden,
explosive fractures with short post-peak behaviour with cracking
widely opened near failure. The failure zones were generally
located between mid-height and up to 25 cm above or below col-
umn the mid-height axis as shown in Fig. 44. From Fig. 45, it can be
seen that the maximum capacity was observed to be 1559 kN with
15 mm eccentricity applied to columns produced using 66 MPa
compressive strength and 8N12 bars at a 2.95 reinforcement ratio
(Puertas and Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, 2003).
The parameters that affect the performance of GPC are sum-
marized and tabulated in Table 5. From Table 5, it can be seen that
all the testing variables has been tested for FA-based geopolymer
concrete. It also can be seen that most of the past research studied
mix design, ratio between activators and aluminosilicates and ef-
fect of additional fibers as variables during GPC testing. However,
the effects of different types of aluminosilicate which is an
important parameter have not been commonly tested.
Table 6 concludes the ratio of test-to-prediction of the GPC
structural elements using various practices codes. Considering the
relatively high test-to-prediction ratios, in order to produce a more
economic structural design for GPC structures, there are chances in
research to either develop another design method for GPC struc-
tures or govern the design variables meant specifically for GPC.
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
Fig. 42. Geopolymer Beams after demolding (Wallah and Rangan, 2006).
Fig. 43. Crack Patterns and Failure Mode of geopolymer concrete beams (Ombres,
2011).
4.12. Heat resistant pavement
The thermal capacity observed in geopolymer concretes make it
a viable possibility for heat resistant pavement applications.
Pozzolan-based geopolymer cement do not readily decompose
when exposed to high temperatures and appear to be more
structurally stable under such conditions than OPC concrete (Provis
and Van Deventer, 2009). GPC utilizes more and stores less water
from solution during particle reaction, and therefore, prevent aged
dry shrinkage and strength degradation due to rapid water loss
under extreme heat. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete retain
their mechanical properties up to 600  C, because their structural
deterioration under these harsh conditions is much less pro-
nounced than in OPC (Park and Kang, 2006). In addition, flexural
plasticity is observed in geopolymer concrete above 500  C, where
OPC concrete become brittle and degrade. Its ability to remain
dimensionally stable under extreme temperatures arises from a
propensity for the material to recrystallize available
723
Fig. 44. Faliure of geopolymer concrete columns after testing (Rahman and Sarker
(2011)).
Fig. 45. Effects of geopolymer column load eccentricity (Xp et al., 2012).
hydroxysodalites into heat resistant minerals such as nepheline
(NaAlSiO4), albite and other anhydrous aluminosilicates to aid in
heat resistance (Park and Kang, 2006).
4.13. Toxic metal immobilization
Geopolymer concrete possess a high potential for toxic metal
immobilization due to their inherently dense microstructural
development. Low permeability is one of the properties that favors
the use of these materials as immobilization systems for metals
(Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez and Puertas, 1997). The geopolymer network
encapsulates the metal elements either physically by trapping
them in voided pore space in the solid matrix or chemically via
charge balance with available anions in the atomic framework.
Fig. 46 represents the capabilities inherent within geopolymers to
immobilize these hazardous metal elements.
Research testing by Luna et al. (2007) concluded that the char-
acteristics of leachability of GPC could not be related to its
compressive strength, however all GPC specimens tested showed
excellent immobilization of selected metals (Pb, Cd, Cr, Zn). Sam-
ples prepared with a mixture of sodium silicate (NaSiO2) and po-
tassium hydroxide (KOH) yielded the best results for these metals.
Conversely, specimens containing kaolin and metakaolin exhibited
excessive leaching and are not recommended for toxic metal
encapsulation. Additional research is required to safely introduce
geopolymers as materials for metal immobilization; however, the
potential for such application is present.
724 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728

Table 5
Testing variables and methods of GPC structural elements.

Reference Concrete type Method Testing variables

Ganesan et al. (2015) Fly ash Cylinder, Beam Proportion of steel fiber
Foster et al. (2013) Fly ash Cylinder, Beam Proportion of steel fiber
Wallah and Rangan (2006) Fly ash Beam, Column Reinforcement ratio
Sumajouw (2006) Fly ash Beam, Column Reinforcement ratio
Yost et al. (2013b) Fly ash Beam, Column Reinforcement ratio
Rahman and Sarker (2011) Fly ash Beam, Column Reinforcement ratio
Sumajouw (2006) Fly ash Beam, Column Concrete compressive strength
Sujatha et al. (2012) Fly ash Beam, Column Concrete compressive strength
Ombres (2011) Fly ash Beam FA/slag ratio
(Parthiban and Saravana Raja Mohan, 2017) Fly ash Beam Proportion of recycled aggregates
Visintin et al. (2017) Fly ash Beam Shear span ratio
Rahman and Sarker (2011) Fly ash Column Load eccentricities
Albitar et al. (2017) Fly ash Column Load eccentricities
Simo~es et al. (2017) Fly ash Column Aspect ratio
Nagan and Karthiyaini (2014) Fly ash Column Effect of confinement
Albitar et al. (2017) Fly ash Column Slenderness ratio
Rajendran and Soundarapandian (2013) Fly ash Slab Volume fraction of reinforcement
Nagan and Mohana (2014) Fly ash Slab Volume fraction of reinforcement
Rajendran and Soundarapandian (2013) Fly ash Slab Type of reinforcement
Nagan and Mohana (2014) Fly ash Slab Type of reinforcement

Table 6
Summary of test to prediction ratio of GPC structural elements.

No. Experiment test Practice Test description Ratio of test-to- Variables

code prediction

1 Sumajouw (2006) AS 3600 Flexural strength of reinforced GPC beam 1.11 Tensile reinforcement ratio and Concrete
strength
2 Yost et al. (2013a) ACI 318 Flexural strength of reinforced GPC beam 1.26 FA/slag ratio in binder
3 Sofi et al. (2007) ACI 02 Concrete-steel bond strength of beam end specimen 1.56e2.01 FA/slag ratio in binder and type of fly ash (FA)
EC 2 2.18e2.80
AS 3600 1.51e1.98
4 Xiao (2013) ACI 318 Concrete-steel bond strength of splice specimen 1.70 Concrete strength, splice length and cover/bar
diameter ratio
5 (Parthiban and Saravana Raja ACI 318 Flexural strength of reinforced recycled aggregate 1.10 Replacement of Coarse aggregate level
Mohan, 2017) GPC beam
6 Mo et al. (2017) ACI 318 Shear strength of reinforced GPC beam 2.55 Ratio of tensile and transverse reinforcements
AS 3600 1.70
7 Saikia et al. (2007) ACI Flexural strength of over-reinforced GPC beam with 1.34 Tensile reinforcement ratio and straight and
440.1R GFRP reinforcement 1.24 headed GFRP bars
CSA S806
8 Sumajouw et al. (2007) ACI 318 Reinforced GPC slender column under axial loading 1.11 Concrete strength, longitudinal reinforcement
AS 3600 1.03 ratio and load eccentricity
9 Rahman and Sarker (2011) AS 3600 Reinforced GPC column under bi-axial bending and 1.18 Concrete strength and load eccentricity
axial loading
10 Ganesan et al. (2013) ACI 318 Reinforced GPC wall under axial loading 1.46 Aspect ratio and slenderness ratio

4.14. Sub-aqueous seawater applications
The sulphate resistance characteristic of GPC makes it a main
option for subaqueous marine applications. Mortars and concretes
produced with alkali-activated metakaolin perform very stably
when immersed in aggressive solutions of various types (deionized
water, seawater, sodium sulphate solution and sulphuric acid)
(García-Lodeiro et al., 2007). It is the ordering of the aluminosilicate
gel that denoted each geopolymer's ability to tolerate aggressive
environments; sodium hydroxide activated geopolymers are more
crystalline than those prepared with sodium silicates and therefore
are more stable and resistant to these harsh environments (Fan
et al., 2018).

5. Concluding remarks

From the findings of the previous studies that investigated the

mechanical properties and microstructure of GPC. The conclusions
are summarized as follows:

 For many purposes, there is an increasing demand for new

materials that have low CO2 emissions connected with their

ndez-Jime
Fig. 46. Geopolymer toxic metal encapsulation potential (Ferna
nez et al., production. So, geopolymer concrete could possibly be utilized
2006). potentially as a replacement for OPC, however, this will only
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
occur when both an efficient supply chain for raw materials and
a supply network for the products are in place. The recent
market in this regard is encouraging, but it will take time to
place GPC as a saleable commodity available on a global basis.
 The GPC possesses all desirable mechanical and structural
properties that make it an ideal choice for the construction
industry
 The strength and durability properties of GPC have been
reviewed and it can be concluded that the performance of GPC is
excellent in terms of chemical and fire resistance as compared to
OPC concrete. However, more investigations on the behaviour of
GPC at elevated temperature and deterioration due to environ-
mental effects are required.
 GPC produced from the industrial plant should be tested for long
term creep and shrinkage properties, since it can be different
from the results of the test specimens produced in the labora-
tory. It is also recommended that more creep tests be carried out
on different mix design and conditions in order to expand the
database of creep of GPC.
 For a better understanding of mechanical behaviour of GPC, the
microstructure/nanostructure and chemistry of geopolymers
must be well investigated.
References
Adak, Sarkar, Mandal, 2014. Effect of nano-silica on strength and durability of fly ash
based geopolymer mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.07.093.
Adam, A.A., 2009. Strength and durability properties of alkali activated slag and fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete. Chem. Eng.
Adam, A.A., Horianto, 2014. The effect of temperature and duration of curing on the
strength of fly ash based geopolymer mortar. In: Procedia Engineering, vol. 95.
Elsevier Ltd, pp. 410e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.199.
Al-Majidi, M.H., Lampropoulos, A., Cundy, A., Meikle, S., 2016. Development of
geopolymer mortar under ambient temperature for in situ applications. Constr.
Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.085.
Al-mashhadani, M.M., Canpolat, O., Aygo €rmez, Y., Uysal, M., Erdem, S., 2018. Me-
chanical and microstructural characterization of fiber reinforced fly ash based
geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 167, 505e513. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.061.
Albitar Ali, M., Visintin, Drechsler, 2017a. Durability evaluation of geopolymer and
conventional concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 136, 374e385. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056.
Albitar, M., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Visintin, P., 2017b. Experimental study on fly ash and
lead smelter slag-based geopolymer concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mater.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.014.
Aligizaki, K.K., 2006. Pore Structure of Cement-Based Materials. Taylor & Franics,
New York.
Almuhsin, B., Al-Attar, T., Hasan, Q., 2018. Effect of discontinuous curing and
ambient temperature on the compressive strength development of fly ash
based Geopolymer concrete. MATEC Web Conf 162, 1e7. https://doi.org/10.
1051/matecconf/201816202026.
Antoni Satria, J., Sugiarto, A., Hardjito, D., 2017. Effect of variability of fly ash ob-
tained from the same source on the characteristics of geopolymer. In: MATEC
Web Conf. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20179701026.
Anuradha, R., Sreevidya, V., Venkatasubramani, R., Rangan, B.V., 2012. Modified
guidelines for geopolymer concrete mix design using Indian standard. Asian J.
Civ. Eng. 13 (3), 353e364.
Assi, L., Ghahari, S.A., Deaver, E.E., Leaphart, D., Ziehl, P., 2016. Improvement of the
early and final compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete at
ambient conditions. Constr. Build. Mater. 123, 806e813. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.07.069.
Assi, L.N., Eddie Deaver, E., Ziehl, P., 2018. Effect of source and particle size distri-
bution on the mechanical and microstructural properties of fly Ash-Based
geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 167, 372e380. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.193.
ASTM Standard C807 08, 2008. Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of Hy-
draulic Cement Mortar by Modified Vicat Needle. ASTM Int. Conshohocken. PA.
https://doi.org/10.1520/C0807-08.2.
Badogiannis, E., Kakali, g., Tsivilis, S., 2005. Metakaolin as supplementary cemen-
titious material. optimization of kaolin to metakaolin conversion. J. Therm.
Anal. Calorim. 81, 457e462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-005-0806-3.
Bakharev, T., 2006. Thermal behaviour of geopolymers prepared using class F fly ash
and elevated temperature curing. Cement Concr. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2006.03.022.
Bakharev, T., Sanjayan, J.G., Cheng, Y.-B., 1999a. Alkali activation of Australian slag
cements. Cement Concr. Res. 29, 113e120.
725
Bakharev, T., Sanjayan, J.G., Cheng, Y.B., 1999b. Effect of elevated temperature curing
on properties of alkali-activated slag concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 29,
1619e1625.
Bakharev, T., Sanjayan, J.G., Cheng, Y.B., 2000. Effect of admixtures on properties of
alkali-activated slag concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 30, 1367e1374.
Bakharev, T., Sanjayan, J.G., Cheng, Y.B., 2002. Sulfate attack on alkali-activated slag
concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 32, 211e216.
Ban, Ken, Ramli, 2017. Mechanical and durability performance of novel self-
activating geopolymer mortars. Procedia Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.proeng.2017.01.374.
Bhowmick, A., Ghosh, S., 2012. Effect of synthesizing parameters on workability and
compressive strength of Fly ash based Geopolymer mortar. Int. J. Struct. Civ.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.6088/ijcser.201203013016.
Breau, C., Cunjak, R.A., Peake, S.J., 2011. Behaviour during elevated water temper-
atures: can physiology explain movement of juvenile Atlantic salmon to cool
water? J. Anim. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01828.x.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, 2009. BS EN 12390-2:2009. Test. Hardened
Concr. Part 2 Mak. Curing Specimens Strength Tests.
Brough, A.R., Atkinson, A., 2002. Sodium silicate-based, alkali- activated slag mor-
tars: Part I. Strength, hydration and microstructure. Cement Concr. Res. 32,
865e879.
Brouwers, H.J.H., van eijk, r. J., 2002. Fly ash reactivity: extension and application of
a shrinking core model and thermodynamic approach. J. Mater. Sci. 10,
2129e2141.
Byfors, K., et al., 1989. Durability of concrete made with alkali activated slag. In:
Malhotra, V.M. (Ed.), 3rd International Conference Proceedings Fly Ash, Silica
Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Trondheim, Norway,
pp. 1429e1466.
Cheng, T.W., Chiu, J.P., 2003. Fire-resistant geopolymer produce by granulated blast
furnace slag. Miner. Eng. 16, 205e210.
Chindaprasirt, P., Chareerat, T., Sirivivatnanon, V., 2007. Workability and strength of
coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cement Concr. Compos. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.002.
chmücker, M., MacKenzie, K.J.D., 2005. Microstructure of sodium polysialate siloxo
geopolymer. Ceram. Int. 31, 433e437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ceramint.2004.
06.006.
Clausi, M., Tarantino, S.C., Magnani, L.L., Riccardi, M.P., Tedeschi, C., Zema, M., 2016.
Metakaolin as a precursor of materials for applications in Cultural Heritage:
geopolymer-based mortars with ornamental stone aggregates. Appl. Clay Sci.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2016.08.009.
Collins, F., Sanjayan, J.G., 1998. Early age strength and workability of slag pastes
activated by NaOH and Na2Co3. Cement Concr. Res. 28, 655e664.
Collins, F., Sanjayan, J.G., 1999. Strength and shrinkage properties of alkali-activated
slag concrete containing porous coarse aggregate. Cement Concr. Res. 29,
607e610.
Collins, F., Sanjayan, J.G., 2000. Effect of pore size distribution on drying shrinking of
alkali-activated slag concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 30, 1401e1406.
Collins, F., Sanjayan, J.G., 2002. Development of novel alkali activated slag (AAS)
binders to achieve high early strength concrete for construction use. Aust. Civ.
Eng. Trans. 44, 91e102.
Criado, M., Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., Palomo, A., 2007a. Alkali activation of fly ash:
effect of the SiO2/Na2O ratio. Part I: FTIR study. Microporous Mesoporous
Mater. 106, 180e191.
Criado, m., Fern
andez-Jime
nez, A., de la Torre, A.G., Aranda, m.A.G., P, A., 2007b. An
Xrd study of the effect of the Sio2/na2O ratio on the alkali activation of fly ash.
Cem. Concr. 37, 671e679.
Criado, M., et al., 2008. Effect of the SiO2/Na2O ratio on the alkali activation of fly
ash. Part II: 29Si MAS-NMR Survey. Microporous and Mesoporous 109,
525e534.
Davidovits, J., 1991a. Geopolymers e inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm.
Anal. 37, 1633e1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01912193.
Davidovits, J., 1991b. Geopolymers - inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm.
Anal. 37, 1633e1656.
Davidovits, J., 2008. Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications. Institut Ge
opolyme re,
saint-Quentin, France.
Davidovits, J., 2013. Eopolymer Ement 1e11.
Diaz-Loya, E.I., Allouche EN, V.S., 2011. Mechanical properties of fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater. J. 108, 300e306.
Douglas, E., Bilodeau, A., Brandstetr, J., Malhotra, V.M., 1991. Alkali activated ground
granulated blast-furnace slag concrete: preliminary investigation. Cement
Concr. Res. 21, 101e108.
Duxson, P., 2006. University of Melbourne. PhD Thesis.
Duxson, P., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., van, D., 2007a. The role of inorganic polymer
technology in the development of ‘green concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 37,
1590e1597.
Duxson, P., et al., 2007b. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art.
J. Mater. Sci. 42, 2917e2933.
Duxson, P., Mallicoat, S.W., Lukey, G.C., Kriven, W.M., van Deventer, J.S.J., 2007c. The
effect of alkali and Si/Al ratio on the development of mechanical properties of
metakaolin-based geopolymers. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.05.044.
Fan, F., Liu, Z., Xu, G., Peng, H., Cai, C.S., 2018. Mechanical and thermal properties of
fly ash based geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 160, 66e81. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.023.
Fareed, Fadhil, Nasir, M., 2011. Compressive strength and workability characteristics
726 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
of low-calcium fly ash-based self-compacting geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Civil,
Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 5, 64e70.
Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Khennane, A., Kayali, O., 2015. Geopolymer concrete-filled
pultruded composite beams - concrete mix design and application. Cement
Concr. Compos. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.12.012.
Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., Palomo, A., C. m., 2005. Microstructure development of
alkali-activated fly ash cement. A descriptive model. Cem. Concr. 35,
1204e1209.
Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., Puertas, F., 1997. alkali-activated slag cements: kinetic
studies. Cement Concr. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00040-9.
Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., Puertas, F., 2002. The alkaliesilica reaction in alkali-
activated granulated slag mortars with reactive aggregate. Cement Concr. Res.
32, 1019e1024.
Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., Palomo, J.G., Puertas, F., 1999. Alkali- activated slag mortars:
mechanical strength behaviour. Cement Concr. Res. 29, 1313e1321.
Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., Palomo, A., Criado, M., 2005. Microstructure development of
alkali-activated fly ash cement: a descriptive model. Cement Concr. Res. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.08.021.
Fernandez-Jimenez, A.M., Palomo, A., H, C.L., 2006. Engineering properties of alkali-
activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater. J. 103, 106e112 https://doi.org/112. https://
doi.org/10.14359/15261.
Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A.M., Palomo, A., Lo
pez-Hombrados, C., 2006. Engineering
properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater. J. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0958-9465(02)00059-8.
Foster, S.J., Ng, T.S., Amin, A., 2013. The behaviour of steel-fibre-reinforced geo-
polymer concrete beams in shear. Mag. Concr. Res. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1680/macr.12.00081.
Ganesan, N., Indira, P.V., Santhakumar, A., 2013. Prediction of ultimate strength of
reinforced geopolymer concrete wall panels in one-way action. Constr. Build.
Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.090.
Ganesan, N., Abraham, R., Deepa Raj, S., 2015. Durability characteristics of steel fibre
reinforced geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.06.014.
Gao, X.X., Michaud, P., Joussein, E., Rossignol, S., 2013. Behavior of metakaolin-based
potassium geopolymers in acidic solutions. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 380, 95e102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2013.09.002.
Garboczi, E.J., 1990. Permeability, diffusivity, and microstructural parameters: a
critical review. Cement Concr. Res. 20, 591e601. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-
8846(90)90101-3.
García-Lodeiro, I., Palomo, A., Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., 2007. Alkali-aggregate reac-
tion in activated fly ash systems. Cement Concr. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2006.11.002.
Garcia-Lodeiro, I., Palomo, A., Fern
andez-Jime
nez, A., Macphee, D.E., 2011a.
Compatibility studies between N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H gels. Study in the ternary
diagram Na2OeCaOeAl2O3eSiO2eH2O. Cement Concr. Res. 41, 923e931.
Garcia-Lodeiro, I., Palomo, A., Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., MacPhee, D.E., 2011b.
Compatibility studies between N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H gels. Study in the ternary
diagram Na2O-CaO-Al2O3-SiO2-H2O. Cement Concr. Res. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cemconres.2011.05.006.
granizo, M.L., Blanco, M.T., 1998. Alkaline activation of metakaolin e an isothermal
conduction calorimetry study. J. Therm. Anal. 52, 957e965. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1010176321136.
Ha€kkinen, T., 1993a. The influence of slag content on the microstructure, perme-
ability and mechanical properties of concrete Part 1 Microstructural studies and
basic mechanical properties. Cement Concr. Res. 23, 407e421.
Haq, E.U., Padmanabhan, S.K., Zubair, M., Ali, L., Licciulli, A., 2016. Intumescence
behaviour of bottom ash based geopolymer mortar through microwave irra-
diation e as affected by alkali activation. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.135.
Hardjito, D., Rangan, B.V., 2005. Development and properties of low-calcium fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete. Res. Rep. GC 94.
Hardjito, D., Rangan, B.V., 2014. Geopolymer concrete for environmental protection.
Res. Rep. GC. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.74839.
Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D., Rangan, B.V., 2004a. Fly ash based geo-
polymer concrete, construction material for sustainable development.’. In:
Concrete World: Engineering & Materials. American Concrete Institute, India.
Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw DMJ, R.B., 2004b. The development of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater. J. 101, 467e472.
Ismail, I., et al., 2013. Influence of fly ash on the water and chloride permeability of
alkali-activated slag mortars and concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 48, 1187e1201.
Jeyasehar, A.C., Salahuddin, M., Thirugnanasambandam, S., 2013. Development of
Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete Precast Elements.
Johansen, I.L., 2011 (Chapter 2) 29e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-42470-
9.50010-6.
Joseph, 2015. Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete Exposed to Elevated Temperatures
Doctor of Philosophy.
Joseph, B., Mathew, G., 2012. Influence of Aggregate Content on the Behavior of Fly
Ash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Sci. Iran. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.
07.006.
Jumrat, S., Chatveera, B., Rattanadecho, P., 2011. Dielectric properties and temper-
ature profile of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2010.11.020.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.01.
026.
June, J., Politecnica, U., Lloyd, N. a., Rangan, B.V., Chong, L.F., James, S.P., Poon, K.Y.,
Warren, A.D., 2010. Geopolymer concrete with fly ash. Second Int. Conf. Sustain.
Constr. Mater. Technol.
Khalid, H.R., Ha, S.K., Park, S.M., Kim, G.M., Lee, H.K., 2015. Interfacial bond behavior
of FRP fabrics bonded to fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortar. Compos. Struct.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.070.
Khater, H.M., Abd El Gawaad, H.A., 2016. Characterization of alkali activated geo-
polymer mortar doped with MWCNT. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.121.
Kong, D.L.Y., Sanjayan, J.G., 2010. Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer
paste, mortar and concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 40, 334e339.
Kong, D.L.Y., Sanjayan, J.G., Sagoe-Crentsil, K., 2008. Factors affecting the perfor-
mance of metakaolin geopolymers exposed to elevated temperatures. J. Mater.
Sci. 43, 824e831.
Kotwal, A.R., Kim, Y.J., Hu, J., Sriraman, V., 2015. Characterization and early age
physical properties of ambient cured geopolymer mortar based on class C fly
ash. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-014-0085-0.
Kriven, W.M., Bell, J.L., gordon, M., 2003. Microstructure and microchemistry of
fully-reacted geopolymers and geopolymer matrix composites. Ceram. Trans.
153, 227e250.
Kuenzel, C., Neville, T.P., Donatello, S., Vandeperre, L., Boccaccini, A.R.,
Cheeseman, C.R., 2013. Influence of metakaolin characteristics on the me-
chanical properties of geopolymers. Appl. Clay Sci. 83 (84), 308e314. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2013.08.023.
Kumar, H., Prasad, R., Srivastava, A., Vashista, M., Khan, M.Z., 2018. Utilisation of
Industrial waste (Fly ash) in synthesis of copperbased surface composite
through friction stir processing route for wear applications. J. Clean. Prod.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.029.
Kurtz, S., Rudolph, J., 1997. GEOPOLYMER for Repair and rehabitlitation of reinforced
concrete beams. Ge
opolyme
re.
Kusbiantoro, A., Nuruddin, M.F., Shafiq, N., Qazi, S.A., 2012. The effect of microwave
incinerated rice husk ash on the compressive and bond strength of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.06.064.
Lee, S., Kim, Y.J., Moon, H.S., 2003. Energy-filtering transmission electron micro-
scopy (EF-TEM) study of a modulated structure in metakaolinite, represented
by a 14 Å modulation. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 86, 174e176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1151-2916.2003.tb03297.x.
Lee, N.K., Jang, J.G., Lee, H.K., 2014. Shrinkage characteristics of alkali-activated fly
ash/slag paste and mortar at early ages. Cement Concr. Compos. 53, 239e248.
Lee, B., Kim, G., Kim, R., Cho, B., Lee, S., Chon, C.M., 2017. Strength development
properties of geopolymer paste and mortar with respect to amorphous Si/Al
ratio of fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.
06.078.
Lloyd, r. r., 2008. university of Melbourne. PhD Thesis.
Lokuge, W., Wilson, A., Gunasekara, C., Law, D.W., Setunge, S., 2018. Design of fly ash
geopolymer concrete mix proportions using Multivariate Adaptive Regression
Spline model. Constr. Build. Mater. 166, 472e481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.01.175.
Luna, Y., Querol, X., Antenucci, D., Jdid, E.-A., Ferna
ndez, C., Vale, J., 2007. Immo-
bilization of a Metallurgical Waste Using Fly Ash-Based Geopolymers. World
coal ash.
Lyon, R.E., Sorathia, U., Balaguru, P.N., Foden, A., Davidovits, J., Davidovics, M., 1996.
Fire response of geopolymer structural composites. Proc. First Int. Conf. Fiber
Compos. Infrastruct. (ICCI ’96, 972e981.
Malkawi, A.B., Nuruddin, M.F., Fauzi, A., Almattarneh, H., Mohammed, B.S., 2016.
Effects of alkaline solution on properties of the HCFA geopolymer mortars. In:
Procedia Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.581.
Manalo, A.C., Wani, E., Zukarnain, N.A., Karunasena, W., Lau, K.T., 2015. Effects of
alkali treatment and elevated temperature on the mechanical properties of
bamboo fibre-polyester composites. Compos. B Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2015.05.033.
Mathew, G., Joseph, B., 2018. Flexural behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams
exposed to elevated temperatures. J. Build. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.
2017.09.009.
Mehta, P.K., Monteiro, P.J.M., 2006. Concrete : Microstructure, Properties, and Ma-
terials. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mehta, A., Siddique, R., 2016. An overview of geopolymers derived from industrial
by-products. Constr. Build. Mater. 127, 183e198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.09.136.
Mehta, A., Siddique, R., 2017. Properties of low-calcium fly ash based geopolymer
concrete incorporating OPC as partial replacement of fly ash. Constr. Build.
Mater. 150, 792e807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.067.
Mehta, A., Siddique, R., Singh, B.P., Aggoun, S., Łago
d, G., Barnat-Hunek, D., 2017.
Influence of various parameters on strength and absorption properties of fly ash
based geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method. Constr. Build. Mater.
150, 817e824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.066.
Mo, K.H., Yeoh, K.H., Bashar, I.I., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., 2017. Shear behaviour
and mechanical properties of steel fibre-reinforced cement-based and geo-
polymer oil palm shell lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.017.
Mokhtarzadeh, A., F, 2000. Time-dependent properties of high-strength concrete
with consideration for precast applications. ACI Mater. J. 97, 263e271.
Musaddiq Laskar, S., Talukdar, S., 2017. Development of ultrafine slag-based
 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
geopolymer mortar for use as repairing mortar. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001824.
Mustafa, A.M., Bakri, A., Kamarudin, H., Bnhussain, M., Nizar, I.K., Rafiza, A.R.,
Zarina, Y., 2012. The processing, characterization, and properties of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci.
Myers, R.J., Bernal, S.A., San Nicolas, R., Provis, J.L., 2013. Generalized structural
description of calcium-sodium aluminosilicate hydrate gels: the cross-linked
substituted tobermorite model. Langmuir 29, 5294e5306.
Nagan, S., Karthiyaini, S., 2014. A study on load carrying capacity of fly ash based
polymer concrete columns strengthened using double layer GFRP wrapping.
Ann. Mater. Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/312139.
Nagan, S., Mohana, R., 2014. Behaviour of geopolymer ferrocement slabs subjected
to impact. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. - Trans. Civ. Eng. 38 (C1þ), 223e233.
Naskar, S., Chakraborty, A.K., 2016. Effect of nano materials in geopolymer concrete.
Perspect. Sci. 8, 273e275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.04.049.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2015. Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength
properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temper-
ature. Cement Concr. Compos. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.08.
008.
Nath, P., Sarker, P.K., 2017. Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured
blended low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 130,
22e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034.
Ng, T.S., Foster, S.J., 2008. Development of high performance geopolymer concrete.
In: Futures in Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Proceedings of the 20th
ACMSM. Toowoomba.
Nuaklong, P., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P., 2016. Influence of recycled aggregate on fly
ash geopolymer concrete properties. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.10.109.
Nuaklong, P., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P., 2018a. Properties of metakaolin-high cal-
cium fly ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled aggregate from crushed
concrete specimens. Constr. Build. Mater. 161, 365e373. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.11.152.
Nuaklong, P., Sata, V., Wongsa, A., Srinavin, K., Chindaprasirt, P., 2018b. Recycled
aggregate high calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete with inclusion of OPC and
nano-SiO2. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.
123.
Nuruddin, M.F., Qazi, S.A., Kusbiantoro, A., Shafiq, N., 2011. Utilisation of waste
material in geopolymeric concrete. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Constr. Mater. https://
doi.org/10.1680/coma.2011.164.6.315.
Okoye, F.N., 2017. Geopolymer binder: a veritable alternative to Portland cement. In:
Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.06.017.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.02.176.
Olivia, M., Nikraz, H., 2012a. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
Taguchi method. Mater. Des. 36, 191e198.
Olivia, M., Nikraz, H., 2012b. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
Taguchi method. Mater. Des. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.10.036.
Ombres, L., 2011. Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
a cement based high strength composite material. Compos. Struct. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.07.008.
Park, S.S., Kang, H.Y., 2006. Strength and microscopic characteristics of alkali-
activated fly ash-cement. Kor. J. Chem. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02706736.
Parthiban, K., Saravana Raja Mohan, K., 2017. Influence of recycled concrete ag-
gregates on the engineering and durability properties of alkali activated slag
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.
050.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.07.
010.
Pavithra, P., Srinivasula Reddy, M., Dinakar, P., Hanumantha Rao, B., Satpathy, B.K.,
Mohanty, A.N., 2016. A mix design procedure for geopolymer concrete with fly
ash. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 117e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.041.
Pern
a, I., Hanzlí 
cek, T., Supova
, M., 2014. The identification of geopolymer affinity in
specific cases of clay materials. Appl. Clay Sci. 102, 213e219. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.clay.2014.09.042.
Petermann, J.C., Saeed, A., 2012. Alkali-activated geopolymers: a literature review.
Air Force Res. Lab. 1e99.
Phoo-ngernkham, T., Sata, V., Hanjitsuwan, S., Ridtirud, C., Hatanaka, S.,
Chindaprasirt, P., 2016. Compressive strength, bending and fracture character-
istics of high calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar containing Portland cement
cured at ambient temperature. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13369-015-1906-4.
Pilehvar, S., Cao, V.D., Szczotok, A.M., Carmona, M., Valentini, L., Lanzo
n, M.,
Pamies, R., Kjøniksen, A.L., 2018. Physical and mechanical properties of fly ash
and slag geopolymer concrete containing different types of micro-encapsulated
phase change materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 173, 28e39. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.016.
Prachasaree, W., Limkatanyu, S., Hawa, A., Samakrattakit, A., 2014. Development of
equivalent stress block parameters for fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete.
Arabian J. Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1447-2.
Provis, J.L., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2009. Geopolymers: Structures, Processing, Prop-
erties and Industrial Applications, Geopolymers: Structures, Processing,
727
Properties and Industrial Applications. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845696382.
Puertas, F., Ferna
ndez-Jime
nez, A., 2003. Mineralogical and microstructural char-
acterisation of alkali-activated fly ash/slag pastes. Cement Concr. Compos.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00059-8.
Puertas, F., Martínez-Ramírez, S., Alonso, S., V
azquez, T., 2000. Alkali-activated fly
ash/slag cements. Strength behaviour and hydration products. Cement Concr.
Res. 30, 1625e1632.
Puertas, F., et al., 2011. A model for the C-A-S-H gel formed in alkali- activated slag
cements. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 31, 2043e2056.
Rahman, M., Sarker, P., 2011a. Geopolymer concrete columns under combined axial
load and biaxial bending. In: Proceedings of the CONCRETE Conference. The
Concrete Institute of Australia.
Rahman, M.M., Sarker, P.K., 2011b. Geopolymer concrete columns under combined
axial load and biaxial bending ingredients. In: Concrete 2011, Perth, Australia.
Rajendran, M., Soundarapandian, N., 2013. An experimental investigation on the
flexural behavior of geopolymer ferrocement slabs. J. Eng. Technol. 3, 97.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-8580.113047.
Ramujee, K., Potharaju, M., 2017. Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete
composites. Mater. Today Proc. 4, 2937e2945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.
2017.02.175.
Rangan, B.V., 2008. Studies on fly-ash based geopolymer concrete. Malaysian
Constr. Res. J. 3.
Rangan, B.V., 2010. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Proc. Int. Work. Geopolymer
Cem. Concr 68e106. December 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-
0523-8.
Rangan, B., Hardjito, D., 2005. Studies on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete.
Geopolymer, Saint.
Roy, D.M., Idorn, G.M., 1982. Hydration, structure, and properties of blast furnace
slag cements, mortar, and concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 79, 444e457.
Saikia, B., Kumar, P., Thomas, J., Rao, K.S.N., Ramaswamy, A., 2007. Strength and
serviceability performance of beams reinforced with GFRP bars in flexure.
Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.021.
Science, M., Isan, T., Isan, T., 2018. A Mix Design Procedure for Alkali-Activated High
Calcium Fly Ash Concrete Cured at Ambient Temperature 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2018/2460403.
Shadnia, R., Zhang, L., Li, P., 2015. Experimental study of geopolymer mortar with
incorporated PCM. Constr. Build. Mater. 84, 95e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.03.066.
Shekhovtsova, J., E P Kearsley, M.K., 2014. Effect of activator dosage, water-to-
binder-solids ratio, temperature and duration of elevated temperature curing
on the compressive strength of alkali-activated fly ash cement pastes. J. South
African Inst. Civ. Eng. 56, 44e52.
Shi, C., Day, R.L., 1996. Some factors affecting early hydration of alkali-slag cements.
Cement Concr. Res. 26.
Simo~ es, T., Costa, H., Dias-da-Costa, D., Júlio, E., 2017. Influence of fibres on the
mechanical behaviour of fibre reinforced concrete matrixes. Constr. Build.
Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.104.
Singh, B., Ishwarya, G., Gupta, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., 2015. Geopolymer concrete: a
review of some recent developments. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036.
Sofi, M., Deventer, J.S.J., Mendis, P.A., Lukey, G.C., 2007a. Bond performance of
reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPC). J. Mater. Sci. 42,
3107e3116.
Sofi, M., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Mendis, P.A., Lukey, G.C., 2007b. Bond performance of
reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPC). J. Mater. Sci. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10853-006-0534-5.
Songpiriyakij, S., Kubprasit, T., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chindaprasirt, P., 2010. Compres-
sive strength and degree of reaction of biomass- and fly ash-based geopolymer.
Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.09.002.
Sujatha, T., Kannapiran, K., Nagan, S., 2012. Strength assessment of heat cured
geopolymer concrete slender column. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 13 (5), 635e646.
M, D.J., Sumajouw, B.V.R., 2006. Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer Concrete :
reinforced beams and columns. Concrete. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2011.12.046.
Sumajouw, M.D.J., Rangan, B.V., 2006. Low-calcium fly ASH-BASED geopolymer
CONCRETE : REINFORCED beams and columns by curtin university of technol-
ogy. Res. Rep. GC 3, 1e120.
Sumajouw, D.M.J., Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Rangan, B.V., 2007. Fly ash-based geo-
polymer concrete: study of slender reinforced columns. J. Mater. Sci. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10853-006-0523-8.
Sumesh, M., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., Mo, K.H., Alnahhal, M.F., 2017. Incorpo-
ration of nano-materials in cement composite and geopolymer based paste and
mortar e a review. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2017.04.206.
Tchakoute Kouamo, H., Mbey, J.A., Elimbi, A., Kenne Diffo, B.B., Njopwouo, D., 2013.
Synthesis of volcanic ash-based geopolymer mortars by fusion method: effects
of adding metakaolin to fused volcanic ash. Ceram. Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ceramint.2012.08.003.
Thaarrini, J., Ramasamy, V., 2015. Feasibility studies on compressive strength of
ground coal ash geopolymer mortar. R
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. https://doi.
org/10.3311/PPci.7696.
Topark-ngarm, P., Chindaprasirt, P., Sata, V., 2014. Setting time , strength , and bond
of high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27, 1e7. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001157.
Umniati, B.S., Risdanareni, P., Zein, F.T.Z., 2017. Workability enhancement of
728 A. Hassan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 223 (2019) 704e728
geopolymer concrete through the use of retarder. AIP Conf. Proc. 1887 https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.5003516.
Valencia Saavedra, W.G., Mejía de Gutie
rrez, R., 2017. Performance of geopolymer
concrete composed of fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. Constr.
Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.208.
van Deventer, J.S.J., Provis, J.L., Duxson, P., Lukey, G.C., 2007. Reaction mechanisms in
the geopolymeric conversion of inorganic waste to useful products. J. Hazard
Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.02.044.
van Deventer, J.S., et al., 2015. Microstructure and durability of alkali- activated
materials as key parameters for standardization. J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 4,
116e128.
Visintin, P., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Albitar, M., Lucas, W., 2017. Shear behaviour of
geopolymer concrete beams without stirrups. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.010.
Wallah, S.E., Rangan, B.V., 2006. Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete:
Long-Term Properties. Curtin University of Technology, Perth , Australia. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Wallah, S.E., Hardjito, D.S.D.M.J., R.B.V., 2005. Performance of fly ash-based geo-
polymer concrete under sulphate and acid exposure’. Geopolymer Proc
153e156.
Wan Mastura, W.I., Kamarudin, H., Nizar, I.K., Al Bakri, A.M.M., 2013. Mechanical
performances of fly ash geopolymer bricks. Adv. Sci. Lett. https://doi.org/10.
1166/asl.2013.4679.
Wang, Yan, Ling, X., Min, X., 2015. Effects of the metakaolin-based geopolymer on
high-temperature performances of geopolymer/PVC composite materials. Appl.
Clay Sci. 114, 586e592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.07.008.
Wazien, A.Z.W., Abdullah, M.M.A.B., Abd Razak, R., Rozainy, M.A.Z.M.R.,
Tahir, M.F.M., 2016. Strength and density of geopolymer mortar cured at
ambient temperature for use as repair material. In: IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/133/1/
View publication stats
012042.
Weir, A.J., Abrams, G., Adolphsen, C.E., 1990. A reanalysis of B 0-B 0 mixing in e þe -
annihilation at 29 GeV. Phys. Lett. Sect. B Nucl. Elem. Part. High-Energy Phys.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(90)90447-E.
Xiao, J., 2013. Recycling in China: an overview of study on recycled aggregate
concrete. In: Progress of Recycling in the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.074.

ska, A., Ernst, S., Salera, M., 2013a. Structural behavior of alkali
Yost, J.R., Radlin
activated fly ash concrete. Part .Mixture design, material properties and sample
fabrication. Mater. Struct. Constr. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9919-x.

ska, A., Ernst, S., Salera, M., Martignetti, N.J., 2013b. Structural
Yost, J.R., Radlin
behavior of alkali activated fly ash concrete. Part .Structural testing and
experimental findings. Mater. Struct. Constr. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-
012-9985-0.
Zhang, Y., sun, W., Li, Z., 2007. Preparation and microstructure of K-PsDs geo-
polymeric binder. Colloids Surfaces A e Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 302, 473e482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2007.03.031.
Zhang, Z., Provis, J.L., Reid, A., Wang, H., 2015. Mechanical, thermal insulation,
thermal resistance and acoustic absorption properties of geopolymer foam
concrete. Cement Concr. Compos. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.
03.013.
Zhang, H.Y., Kodur, V., Wu, B., Cao, L., Wang, F., 2016a. Thermal behavior and me-
chanical properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temper-
atures. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.043.
Zhang, Z.H., Zhu, H.J., Zhou, C.H., Wang, H., 2016b. Geopolymer from kaolin in
China: an overview. Appl. Clay Sci. 119, 31e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.
2015.04.023.
̄
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.019.