Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Optimization of production parameters of geopolymer mortar and

concrete: A comprehensive experimental study
_
Fatih Kantarcı ⇑, Ibrahim Türkmen, Enes Ekinci
_
Department of Civil Engineering, Inönü University, Malatya, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

 A comprehensive experimental study was conducted to optimize production parameters.

 The compressive strength of GPM samples increased with increasing SH concentration.
 A significant improvement in mechanical and microstructural properties was obtained.
 Higher a/b ratio led to higher compressive strength and UPV values.

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

Article history: Geopolymers are a new type of material offered as an alternative to traditional Portland cement.
Received 1 April 2019 Geopolymers, produced by activation of natural and waste pozzolans with alkali activators such as
Received in revised form 16 August 2019 NaOH (SH) and Na2O
3SiO2 (SS) solutions, have been widely supported and investigated due to environ-
Accepted 19 August 2019
mental and economic advantages. In this study, a detailed experimental program was conducted to inves-
tigate the influence of activator type, activator concentration and curing temperature on mechanical and
microstructural properties of volcanic tuff based geopolymer mortar (GPM) and concrete (GPC) samples.
Keywords:
A total of 1080 GPM and GPC samples were produced and a number of parameters were investigated with
Geopolymer
Silica module
360 combinations. Maximum compressive strength was obtained as 37.09 MPa in 90-day samples in
NaOH concentration which the SH concentration was 16 M, activator/binder (a/b) ratio was 0.45 and the curing temperature
Compressive strength was 120 °C. As a result of optimization of the production parameters, a considerable development in
Ultrasonic pulse velocity mechanical and microstructural properties of GPM and GPC samples was obtained. Experimental results
demonstrated that alkali activation with sole SH bring about superior characteristics compared to alkali
activation with SH + SS. Higher a/b ratio led to higher UPV values because of more dense and compact
microstructure resulting from increase in gopolymerization reactions. This is also supported by compres-
sive strength and microstructure findings.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction production in the next few years [10,11]. Cement production

Concrete is a frequently preferred construction material which
is used in many fields and applications such as buildings, roads,
tunnels, bridges, dams and harbors [1,2]. Portland cement is the
main component of concrete. Portland cement is a leading building
material all over the world with an annual production capacity of 4
billion tons and a growth rate of 4% [3]. The amount of CO2 emitted
from production of Portland cement is nearly 1 ton for 1 ton of
cement [4–6]. It is expressed in some studies that about 7% of total
CO2 emissions originate from production of cement [6–9]. It is
predicted that 17% of total CO2 emissions will come from cement
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fatih.kantarci@inonu.edu.tr (F. Kantarcı).
requires a significant amount of energy due to the burning of lime-
stone and fossil fuels at high temperatures (1400–1500 °C). In
addition, structures designed with normal Portland cement for
50 years service life can be destroyed under the effect of aggressive
environments in 20–30 years [12,13].
The implementation of new and the improvement of current
technologies moving towards more sustainable and energy-
saving solutions has emerged as a significant issue in discussions
on climate change and mitigation strategies [14]. The construction
industry also tends to this direction [15,16]. Scientists have been
making effort to overcome environmental and economic problems
caused from cement production. Geopolymers emerging as a result
of these efforts were originally proposed by French researcher
Davidovits in 1978 for aluminosilicate-based inorganic polymers.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116770
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770
Geopolymers are semi-crystalline three-dimensional polymers
synthesized by activation of high alkali solution with raw material
rich in silicon and aluminum [17]. Geopolymers have been exten-
sively discussed and supported as the current and future keystone
of sustainable cement binder systems [18–23]. The polymerization
reactions initiate with the dissolution of silicon and aluminium
from the raw materials in alkaline condition. The dissolved ions
react to synthesize silicate and aluminate monomers which are
converted to a poly (alumino-silicate) structure with intercon-
nected SiO4 and AlO4 tetrahedral. The hardening of geopolymer is
a result of poly-condensation of hydrolysed aluminate and silicate
species [24,25]. Geopolymer concrete (GPC) technology has been
applied in various applications such as ready mixed concrete, rein-
forced concrete, concrete pipes, lightweight concrete. The con-
sumption of GPC, which is used in Australia by 40000 m3 in
2013, is increasing over time [26]. Similarly, Rafeet et al. [27] sta-
ted that GPC is used commercially in Europe, America, Australia
and India. Geopolymers decrease CO2 emissions from cement pro-
duction by 80% [8] and provides 60% energy savings compared to
Portland cement [10,28,29]. Furthermore, because the hydration
of geopolymer does not form products such as C3A and Ca(OH)2,
the durability properties of GPC samples are expected to be better
than those produced by Portland cement [30].
Engineering properties of geopolymers depend on raw materi-
als, alkali activator type and alkali activator content, curing param-
eters, water content and mixing parameters [25]. The mixtures of
sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide with sodium silicate
or potassium silicate are generally used as alkali activator in pro-
duction of geopolymers [25,31–34]. Since KOH is more expensive
than NaOH (SH), most studies have been conducted by using a
mixture of Na2O.3SiO2 (SS) and SH as the activator solution [25].
There are also studies conducted with single alkali activator
[13,34–36]. The alkali activator solution plays a vital role in initiat-
ing the polymerization reactions. High alkaline condition is neces-
sary to increase the surface hydrolysis of the aluminosilicate
particles present in the raw material [37,38].
Curing processes means treatment such as temperature, humid-
ity and air circulation applied during setting and hardening of
geopolymers. Thermal curing accelerates the dissolution of silica
and alumina based materials and then assists in the polycondensa-
tion process. However, depending on the raw material, the poly-
merization may be inhibited after a threshold temperature and
heat treatment time which adversely affects the mechanical prop-
erties of the geopolymers [39–42]. This threshold temperature is
higher in some fly ash and volcanic ash based geopolymers, but
usually does not exceed 100 °C [43–47]. It was stated in previous
studies that geopolymers required heat treatment in order to
achieve similar or higher compressive strength values compared
to Portland cement [39,42,48–50].
Volcanic tuffs are amorphous natural pozzolanic materials hav-
ing high SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 content. Aluminosilicate-based min-
erals such as volcanic tuff and volcanic ash are dissolved in alkaline
conditions by the effect of OH ions after grinding to fine particle
size less than 45 mm. In case of presence of catalyst in the environ-
ment, three dimensional covalent bond structures occur [51].
Djobo et al. [52] stated that the studies on durability of volcanic
ash-based geopolymers were inadequate and stressed that new
studies should be conducted for common applications. The asses-
ment of volcanic tuff reserves, which are abundant in central Ana-
tolia, in production of geopolymer will provide economic and
environmental benefits. The aim of this study is to investigate
the influence of activator type, activator concentration and curing
temperature on mechanical and microstructural properties of
volcanic tuff based geopolymer mortar (GPM) and GPC. As a result
of optimization of the production parameters, a considerable
development in mechanical and microstructural properties of
GPM and GPC samples was obtained.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Volcanic tuff was supplied from Nevsßehir (Central Anatolia, Turkey). The vol-
canic tuffs, which are shown in Fig. 1, are used as natural stones in facade and floor
coverings. The volcanic tuff was initially dried at 105 °C until constant weight. Then,
dried volcanic tuff was ground to particle size less than 45 lm to increase the reac-
tivity of raw material. The chemical composition of volcanic tuff was determined by
X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis conducted at ÜSKIM _ laboratory in Kahraman-
_
marasß Sütçü Imam University. The chemical composition of volcanic tuff is given
in Table 1, and also X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis is shown in Fig. 2. The specific
gravity of volcanic tuff was determined as 2.38.
The alkali activators used in production of geopolymer are SH and SS solutions.
Some physical and chemical properties of alkali activators are given in Table 2.
Maximum grain size was chosen as 8 mm as a result of the trial design and the frac-
tions of 0/2, 2/4 and 4/8 mm of the river aggregate were used in production of GPM
and GPC samples (Fig. 3). Physical properties of river aggregates are given in Table 3.
Tap water in accordance with TS EN 1008 [53] was used to prepare SH solutions at
different concentrations (10, 12, 14 and 16 M). Microstructure studies on GPM and
GPC samples were carried out with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray
_
powder diffraction (XRD) analysis at IBTAM _
in Inönü University. After mechanical
testing, fractured geopolymer concrete pieces were taken from the sample and
were covered by a very thin gold palladium of 10–15 nm thickness to produce an
electrically conductive surface. SEM images at different scales were taken by sec-
ondary electron detector under high vacuum with LEO-EVO 40 brand SEM device.
The geopolymer mortar and concrete samples were ground to homogeneous pow-
der before XRD analysis, and the individual crystalline phases were identified with
the help of data base of Rigaku RadB-Dmax II brand XRD device.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Mixture types and experimental parameters
The ground volcanic tuff was activated with two type of alkali activators such as
SH + SS and SH solutions. The variable parameters of the alkali activators were
determined as silica module (Ms) for SH + SS solution and SH concentration for
SH solution. Ms of mortar and concrete mixtures were 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0 and
0.6, 0.8, respectively. SH concentration in the mixtures activated with SH + SS solu-
tion was chosen to be constant 10 M. The Ms is SiO2/Na2O ratio by weight in alkali
activator solution. SH concentrations of mortar and concrete mixtures activated
with SH solutions were determined as 10, 12, 14 and 16 M. Activator/binder (a/b)
ratio was also investigated (see Table 4). A total of 1080 GPM and GPC samples were
produced and a number of parameters were investigated with 360 combinations.
The average of 3 samples was taken into consideration for each data. Production
parameters and curing temperatures of GPM and GPC mixtures are given in Table 4.
2.2.2. Mixture proportions
Mixture proportions of GPM were calculated for two different a/b ratios such as
0.35 and 0.45. GPM samples were prepared at volcanic tuff:alkali activator solution:
sand ratios of 1:0.35:2 and 1:0.45:2 by weight. The superplasticizer was used as a
weight percentage in relation to the volcanic tuff (see Table 5). The volcanic tuff
dosage of GPC samples was chosen as 500 kg/m3 for all mixtures. The amounts of
SH and SS solutions were calculated according to a/b ratios determined as
Fig. 1. Volcanic tuff reserves.
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 3

Table 1
Chemical composition of volcanic tuff.

Oxide SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO BaO P2O5 K2O TiO2 SO3
Content (%) 77.22 18.89 1.77 0.27 0.09 0.39 0.91 0.25 0.21

Fig. 2. XRD analysis of volcanic tuff.

Table 2 Table 3
Some physical and chemical properties of alkali activators. Physical properties of river aggregates.

SH SS River aggregates
Molecular formula NaOH Na2O.3SiO2 0–2 mm 2–4 mm 4–8 mm
Molecular mass (g/mol) 40.00 242.23
Dry specific gravity 2.34 2.45 2.50
Color White Gel (Colorless)
Saturated surface dry specific gravity 2.40 2.50 2.55
pH 13 12
Water absorption (24-h) (%) 2.60 2.00 1.90
Density (g/cm3) 2.13 1.39
Na2O content (%) – 8.90
SiO2 content (%) – 27.50
H2O content (%) – 63.60 minum foil to prevent evaporation of alkali activator solution in the mixture. Koval-
chuk et al. [56] reported that curing in covered molds is more beneficial for strength
development than dry curing and steam curing. Covered molds stop water evapo-
ration from geopolymer providing a water media to exchange silicon and alu-
0.50 and 0.60. The volumes of volcanic tuffs and activators were subtracted from
minium ions within the synthesis [25]. Samples were exposed to curing for 72 h
the value of 1 m3 then amounts of aggregates were found. The amounts of materials
at temperatures showed in Table 4. At the end of first 24 h of curing, specimens
used for production of 1 m3 of GPC are given in Table 6.
were found to provide sufficient hardening and were removed from the molds.
Then, samples were again exposed to curing for remaining 48 h. After curing pro-
2.2.3. Mixing, placing and curing conditions cess was completed, they were kept in laboratory conditions until the test day.
The production of the GPM and GPC samples were initially initiated by prepa-
ration of the alkali activator solutions. SH solutions with the determined concentra-
tions were prepared one day in advance and kept in laboratory conditions in order 2.2.4. Experimental tests
to prevent evaporation of the alkali activators by heat. The SH and SS solutions were Compressive strength (3, 7, 28 and 90-day) of GPM and GPC samples alkali acti-
mixed at the ratios indicated in Tables 5 and 6. The volcanic tuff and aggregate were vated with SH + SS and SH solutions were determined according to TS EN 12390-3
also mixed in a separate mixer for 5 min. After the homogeneous mixing of the [57]. Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) was determined according to ASTM C 597-16
solids was achieved, the alkali activator solution was slowly added, followed by [58]. The average of 3 samples was taken into consideration for each data. Addition-
stirring for another 5 min. This mixing process was proposed by various researchers ally, microstructural investigations were performed on samples with (Scanning
as the optimum method [13,54,55]. Fresh GPM and GPC mixtures were cast into Electron Microscopy) SEM and XRD analyses. Flowchart of the experimental process
50x50x50 mm steel molds. The surface of molds was covered with nylon or alu- is given in Figs. 4 and 5.

Fig. 3. River aggregates.

4 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

Table 4
Experimental parameters of GPM and GPC mixtures.

Mixture type Alkali activator type Variable parameters of activator Curing temperature, (°C)
SH concentration, (M) Ms a/b ratio
GPM SH + SS solution – 0.6 0.35 90
0.7 0.45 105
0.8 120
0.9
1.0
SH solution 10 – 0.35 90
12 0.45 120
14 150
16
GPC SH + SS solution – 0.6 0.50 90
0.8 0.60 105
120
SH solution 10 – 0.50 90
12 0.60 120
14 150
16

Table 5
Mixture proportions of GPM samples.

Alkali activator type Variable parameters Mixture proportions of alkali Total alkali activator a/b ratio Volcanic Sand (g) *SP
of activator activators solution (g) tuff (g)
Ms SH conc. (M) SS solution (g) SH solution (g)
SH + SS solution 0.6 – 100 83.37 183.37 0.35 523.91 1047.82 4
0.45 407.49 814.98 2
0.7 – 100 68.64 168.64 0.35 481.83 963.66 4
0.45 374.75 749.50 2
0.8 – 100 57.51 157.51 0.35 450.03 900.06 4
0.45 350.02 700.04 2
0.9 – 100 48.90 148.90 0.35 425.43 850.86 4
0.45 330.89 661.78 2
1.0 – 100 42 142 0.35 405.71 811.42 4
0.45 315.55 631.10 2
SH solution – 10 – 1400 1400 0.35 4000 8000 3
0.45 3111.11 6222.22 1.5
– 12 – 1480 1480 0.35 4228.57 8457.14 3
0.45 3288.89 6577.78 1.5
– 14 – 1560 1560 0.35 4457.14 8914.28 3
0.45 3466.67 6933.33 1.5
– 16 – 1640 1640 0.35 4685.71 9371.42 3
0.45 3644.44 7288.88 1.5

*SP: Superplasticizer, percent by weight of the volcanic tuff.

Table 6
Mixture proportions of GPC samples.

Mixture properties Concrete components, (kg/m3) Theoretical unit

weight (kg/m3)
Alkali activator Variable a/b Volcanic Alkali activators Aggregates SP
type parameters of ratio tuff
Total alkali Mixture proportions of
activator
activator alkali activators
solution
Ms SH conc. (M) SS solution SH solution 0–2 mm 2–4 mm 4–8 mm
SH + SS solution 0.6 – 0.5 500 250 136.34 113.66 616.20 356.60 436.48 – 2159.28
0.6 500 300 163.60 136.40 574.18 332.28 406.71 – 2113.17
0.8 – 0.5 500 250 158.70 91.30 619.34 358.43 438.70 – 2166.47
0.6 500 300 190.46 109.54 577.94 334.45 409.38 – 2121.77
SH solution – 10 0.5 500 250 – 250 597.19 345.60 423.02 10 2125.81
0.6 500 300 – 300 551.40 319.10 390.58 – 2061.08
– 12 0.5 500 250 – 250 602.74 348.80 426.95 10 2138.49
0.6 500 300 – 300 558.05 322.95 395.28 – 2076.28
– 14 0.5 500 250 – 250 607.70 351.68 430.47 10 2149.85
0.6 500 300 – 300 564 326.38 399.48 – 2089.86
– 16 0.5 500 250 – 250 612.19 354.28 433.63 10 2160.10
0.6 500 300 – 300 569.38 329.50 403.31 – 2102.19
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 5

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the experimental process of GPM.

Fig. 5. Flowchart of the experimental process of GPC.

3. Result and discussion 3.1.1.1. Alkali activation with SH + SS solution. 3, 7, 28 and 90-day
compressive strength values of volcanic tuff based GPM samples
3.1. GPM samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution are given in Figs. 6–9.
Ms, curing temperature and a/b ratio significantly affected the
3.1.1. Compressive strength of GPM compressive strength. Considering the effect of a/b ratio it was
Alkali activation process was provided with two types of alkali found that GPM samples having 0.45 a/b ratio exhibited higher
activators such as SH + SS and SH solutions. compressive strength than 0.35. As the age of the sample
6 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

Compressive strength, (MPa)

12

C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 6. 3-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution.

21
Compressive strength, (MPa)

12

C
C
C

Sample characteristics

Fig. 7. 7-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

12
C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 8. 28-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution.
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 7

Compressive strength, (MPa)

12 C
C
C

Sample characteristics

Fig. 9. 90-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution.

21
Compressive strength, (MPa)

12

C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 10. 3-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH solution.

21
Compressive strength, (MPa)

12
C
C
C

Sample characteristics

Fig. 11. 7-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH solution.
8 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

Compressive strength, (MPa)

12 C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 12. 28-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH solution.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 13. 90-day compressive strength of GPM samples alkali activated with SH solution.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

Compressive strength, (MPa)

- -
21

22

11

UPV, (m/s)
UPV, (m/s)
Fig. 14. The relationship between compressive strength and UPV values of GPM
Fig. 15. The relationship between compressive strength and UPV values of GPM
samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution.
samples alkali activated with SH solution.

increased, the compressive strength also increased in all mixtures centration over time. Chi [59] stated that Ms has a significant effect
due to ongoing polymerization reactions. Additionally, it was seen on the compressive strength of geopolymers. The compressive
that the samples received a significant proportion of the 90-day strength of GPM samples with Ms 0.6 and 0.8 was higher in all
compressive strength in 3 days. Then the speed of gaining strength age groups. However, there was no direct relationship between
gradually decreased. This shows that high activator concentration Ms and compressive strength. As to curing temperature, close com-
accelerates geopolymerization reactions in the first days, but the pressive strength values were obtained at the same Ms, sample age
rate of strength gain decreases due to the decrease in activator con- and a/b ratio. Maximum compressive strength was obtained as
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 9

Pore
UVTP
Crystalline phase

Pore Pore

Pores

Fig. 16. SEM images at different scales from 28-day sample in which Ms was 0.6, curing temperature was 105 °C and a/b ratio was 0.45.

Crystalline phase

Pores

Crystalline phase

Pore

Pore

Aluminosilicate
gel

Fig. 17. SEM images at different scales from 28-day sample in which SH concentration was 16 M, curing temperature was 120 °C and a/b ratio was 0.45.

25.83 MPa in 90-day samples in which the Ms was 0.6, a/b ratio
was 0.45 and the curing temperature was 105 °C. Similarly, in
the study conducted by Djobo et al. [52], maximum compressive
strength of GPM samples produced by alkali activation of volcanic
ash with SH + SS solution was obtained as 37.9 MPa.
3.1.1.2. Alkali activation with SH solution. 3, 7, 28 and 90-day com-
pressive strength values of GPM samples alkali activated with SH
solution are given in Figs. 10–13.
A significant development in compressive strength of GPM sam-
ples was obtained with modification of experimental parameters
10 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

such as SH concentration, a/b ratio and curing temperature. There
was also a considerable increase in compressive strength from
3 days to 90 days because of slow progress of the polymerization
reactions. Kürklü [60] stated that a/b ratio has important effect
on the compressive strength of GPMs. GPM samples with
0.45 a/b ratio exhibited higher compressive strength than 0.35.
This may be due to fact that the high a/b may cause fully activated
volcanic tuff.
It was observed that the compressive strength of mortar sam-
ples increased with increasing SH concentration. Similarly, Balczár
et al. [61] investigated effect of SH concentration ranging from 4 M
to 18 M on compressive strength of metakaolin based GPMs. As a
result of experimental studies, they stated that as the SH concen-
tration increased, a significant improvement in compressive
strength was observed. Increasing SH concentration increases the
alkalinity of the medium. As a result, it becomes easier to dissolve
the alumina and silica bonds in the raw material and to increase
polymerization reactions [42]. The increase in compressive
strength with increasing SH concentration was confirmed by many
researchers [35,41,61–66]. Maximum compressive strength was
obtained as 37.09 MPa in 90-day samples in which the SH concen-
tration was 16 M, a/b ratio was 0.45 and the curing temperature
was 120 °C. A significant increase in compressive strength was
obtained after modification of activator type, a/b ratio and curing
temperature parameters. The compressive strength values
obtained from Nevsßehir volcanic tuff are higher than those (maxi-

Fig. 18. XRD analysis of sample in which Ms was 0.6, curing temperature was 150 °C and a/b ratio was 0.45.

Fig. 19. XRD analysis of sample in which SH concentration was 16 M, curing temperature was 90 °C and a/b ratio was 0.45.
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 11
Compressive strength, (MPa)

Compressive strength, (MPa)

12

12

C C
C
C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Sample characteristics
Fig. 23. 90-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH + SS
Fig. 20. 3-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH + SS
solution.
solution.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

This is due to the fact that the higher a/b ratio creates a more dense
12 and compact microstructure. UPV values obtained from volcanic
tuff based GPM samples are supported by previous studies [68,69].

C
3.1.3. Microstructural investigations of GPM
C 3.1.3.1. SEM images of GPM. SEM analysis of GPM mixtures were
C conducted on samples where the maximum compressive strength
was obtained for both alkali activator types (SH + SS and SH solu-
tions). SEM images taken at different scales from 28-day samples
are given in Figs. 16 and 17.
GPM samples alkali activated with SH solution had a dense and
Sample characteristics compact microstructure. This may be due to the increase in poly-
merization reactions resulting from increase in amount of SH
Fig. 21. 7-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH + SS [70]. Similarly, Chi [59] stated that dense microstructure was
solution.
caused by an amorphous aluminosilicate structure resulting from
polymerization reactions. Zhou et al. [71] stated that samples with
more dense microstructure had higher compressive strength.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

Djobo et al. [52] found a dense microstructure in their study con-

ducted on volcanic ash based GPMs and stated that this was in
accordance with compressive strength. Pores with different diam-
12
eters were detected in samples alkali activated with SH + SS solu-
tion (see Fig. 16). The pores identified in microstructure of GPMs
C
C
have been reported in a previous study [61]. Unreacted volcanic
C tuff particles (UVTP) were also determined in SEM images.

3.1.3.2. XRD analysis of GPM. XRD analysis of GPM mixtures were

Sample characteristics
Fig. 22. 28-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH + SS
solution.
mum 12.6 MPa) produced by alkali activation of Cameroon vol-
canic ash by Ndjock et al. [67].
3.1.2. Relationship between compressive strength and UPV of GPM
UPV measurements were performed on 28-day samples for
both alkali activation processes. The relationship between com-
pressive strength and UPV values of GPM samples is given in
Figs. 14 and 15.
A good correlation was obtained between compressive strength
and UPV values (R2 = 0.8836 and R2 = 0.9548). UPV values were
found to be increased as the compressive strength increased. Sam-
ples produced at ratio of 0.45 a/b were found to have higher UPV
value than the ratio of 0.35 a/b for both alkali activation process.
conducted on 28-day samples where the maximum compressive
strength was obtained and results are shown Figs. 18 and 19.
Quartz (SiO2), kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4), nacrite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4),
albite (Na(Si3Al)O8) and kyanite (Al2SiO5) minerals were detected
in samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution. Quartz (SiO2),
nacrite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) and albite (Na(Si3Al)O8) minerals were
detected in samples alkali activated with SH solution. Albite and
kyanite minerals having crystal structure were determined in the
mortar samples differently from the raw material. Kyanite is an
aluminosilicate mineral formed as a result of geopolymerization
reactions.
3.2. GPC samples
3.2.1. Compressive strength of GPC
GPC samples were produced from alkali activation of volcanic
tuff with SH + SS and SH solutions.
3.2.1.1. Alkali activation with SH + SS solution. 3, 7, 28 and 90-day
compressive strength values of volcanic tuff based GPC samples
are shown in Figs. 20–23.
12 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

Compressive strength, (MPa)

12

C
C
C

Sample characteristics

Fig. 24. 3-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH solution.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

12
C
C
C

Sample characteristics

Fig. 25. 7-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH solution.
Compressive strength, (MPa)

C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 26. 28-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH solution.
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 13

Compressive strength, (MPa)

12 C
C
C

Sample characteristics
Fig. 27. 90-day compressive strength of GPC samples alkali activated with SH solution.

tions. Because of the evaporation of alkali solution at high temper-

atures, the compressive strength of the samples cured at 120 °C
Compressive strength, (MPa)

- was lower. It was stated in the study conducted by Haddad and

Alshbuol [30] on Jordan natural pozzolan that the curing process
above 120 °C adversely affects the mechanical strength of GPC.

12 3.2.1.2. Alkali activation with SH solution. 3, 7, 28 and 90-day com-

11 pressive strength values of GPC samples alkali activated with SH
solution are given in Figs. 24–27.
There was a considerable development in mechanical proper-
ties of GPC samples after modification of production parameters
UPV, (m/s) such as activator characteristics and curing temperature. Compres-
sive strength increased with the increase in sample age due to
Fig. 28. The relationship between compressive strength and UPV values of GPC ongoing polymerization reactions. GPC samples having 0.60 a/b
samples alkali activated with SH + SS solution. ratio showed higher compressive strength than 0.50. Compressive
strength of samples cured at 150 °C was lower. Curing process
adversely affects the development of strength as it causes moisture
Compressive strength, (MPa)

loss after a certain temperature [73]. Maximum compressive

- strength was obtained as 25.70 MPa in 90-day samples in which
22
the SH concentration was 12 M, a/b ratio was 0.60 and the curing
temperature was 90 °C. It is also an economic advantage that SH
solution is cheaper compared to SS solution [74]. Optimum alkali
activator was obtained as 12 M SH solution in some previous stud-
ies [30,40]. Additionally, optimum curing temperatures were
12 determined as 80–90 °C [41,75].

3.2.2. Relationship between compressive strength and UPV of GPC

UPV, (m/s) The relationship between compressive strength and UPV values
of GPC samples is given in Figs. 28 and 29.
Fig. 29. The relationship between compressive strength and UPV values of GPC
samples alkali activated with SH solution.
There was a good correlation between compressive strength
and UPV values of GPC samples (R2 = 0.8961 and R2 = 0.9186). This
correlation is supported by some previos studies [76,77]. UPV val-
Maximum compressive strength was obtained as 17.10 MPa in ues obtained from volcanic tuff based GPC samples were found to
90-day samples in which the Ms was 0.8, a/b ratio was 0.60 and be lower than the values obtained in previous studies [76–78]. This
the curing temperature was 105 °C. As the sample age increased, may be due to the low density and porous structure of volcanic
the compressive strength of all sample groups increased. The tuff. UPV values increased as the compressive strength increased.
increase in compressive strength can be explained by the increas- Samples produced at ratio of 0.60 a/b were found to have higher
ing amount of reaction products [72]. Considering the influence of UPV value than the ratio of 0.50 a/b for both alkali activator type.
a/b ratio it was found that GPC samples having 0.60 a/b ratio This may be due to the fact that the higher a/b ratio creates a more
exhibited higher compressive strength than 0.50. This may be alkaline condition for gopolymerization reactions.
due to the fact that the workability of the concrete mixtures having
ratio of 0.60 a/b was higher, it was easy to cast into molds and 3.2.3. Microstructural investigations of GPC
homogenous structure was obtained. The higher a/b also increased 3.2.3.1. SEM images of GPC. SEM analysis of GPC mixtures were con-
the content of alkali caused increase in geopolymerisation reac- ducted on samples where the maximum compressive strength was
14 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770

Aluminosilicate gel

Pores
Aluminosilicate Pores
gel

UVTP
Crack
Crack

Fig 30. SEM images at different scales from 28-day sample in which Ms was 0.8, curing temperature was 90 °C and a/b ratio was 0.60.

Aluminosilicate
gel

Pores Aluminosilicate gel

Pores

Pore
Cracks
Pore Pore

Pore

Aluminosilicate gel Cracks

Aluminosilicate gel

Fig. 31. SEM images at different scales from 28-day sample in which SH concentration was 12 M, curing temperature was 90 °C and a/b ratio was 0.60.

obtained for both alkali activation processes. SEM images taken at occured due to thermal curing was determined in less connected
different scales from 28-day samples are given in Figs. 30 and 31. and more convoluted form. However, a significant crack formation
When SEM images were examined, dense gel structures were was observed in the GPC sample activated with SH + SS solution.
determined for both alkali activativation processes. Pore network These cracks are thought to be effective on compressive strength.
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770 15

Fig. 32. XRD analysis of sample in which Ms was 0.8, curing temperature was 90 °C and a/b ratio was 0.60.

Fig. 33. XRD analysis of sample in which SH concentration was 12 M, curing temperature was 90 °C and a/b ratio was 0.60.

Similarly, Wardhono et al. [79] have identified cracks which have
been scattered throughout the gel matrix in the microstructure
of GPC samples. They stated that this was due to drying and water
evaporation due to thermal curing. Amof gels images detected in
SEM images were reported in previous studies [80,81].
3.2.3.2. XRD analysis of GPC. XRD analysis of GPC mixtures were
conducted on 28-day samples where the maximum compressive
strength was obtained and results are shown Figs. 32 and 33.
Alkali activator type did not changed mineral type of resulting
GPC samples. Quartz (SiO2), kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4), nacrite (Al2-
Si2O5(OH)4) and kyanite (Al2SiO5) minerals were detected in both
GPC. The kyanite mineral having crystal structure was determined
in the concrete samples differently from the raw material. Kyanite
is an aluminosilicate mineral formed as a result of geopolymeriza-
tion reactions.
4. Conclusions
This paper presents detailed experimental findings focusing on
optimization of production parameters such as activator type, acti-
vator concentration, a/b ratio and curing process.
The following conclusions were derived based on the experi-
mental investigation of volcanic tuff based GPM and GPC:
1) A significant development in compressive strength of GPM
and GPC samples was obtained with modification of experi-
mental parameters such as activator concentration, a/b ratio
and curing temperature.
2) The compressive strength of GPM samples increased with
increasing SH concentration.
3) GPM samples having 0.45 a/b ratio exhibited higher com-
pressive strength than 0.35.
16 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770
4) GPC samples having 0.60 a/b ratio showed higher compres-
sive strength than 0.50.
5) Because of the evaporation of alkali solution, the compres-
sive strength of the samples cured at high temperatures
was lower. Additionally, curing process at high temperature
may cause break down the gel structure of geopolymer due
to excessive shrinkage.
6) A good correlation was obtained between compressive
strength and UPV values. This will promote the use of non-
destructive methods in geopolymer binders. UPV values
were found to be increased as the compressive strength
increased. Also, higher a/b ratio led to higher UPV values.
7) GPM and GPC samples alkali activated with SH solution had
a dense and compact microstructure.
8) The albite and kyanite minerals having crystal structure
were determined in GPM and GPC samples differently from
the raw material.
In future works, it may be attempted to develop a general
guideline conteining the production parameters and testing meth-
ods of geopolymers. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the
development of chemical or mineral admixtures, which allow the
geopolymers to harden under laboratory conditions for on-site
applications.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the Inonu University for their finan-
cial support for the project (2017-818).
References
[1] T. Blaszczynski, M. Krol, Usage of green concrete technology in civil
engineering, Procedia Eng. 122 (2015) 296–301.
[2] W.T. Choate, Energy and Emission Reduction Opportunities for the Cement
Industry, Report: Industrial Technological Program, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy, USA, 2003.
[3] USGS. United States Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries –
Cement 2014. https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2014/mcs2014.
pdf.
[4] J. Davidovits, High-alkali cements for 21st century concretes, ACI Spec. Publ.
144 (1994) 383–398.
[5] V.M. Malhotra, Making concrete ‘‘greener” with fly ash, Concr. Int. 21 (5)
(1999) 61–66.
[6] R. Kajaste, M. Hurme, Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions-
management options and abatement cost, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 4041–
4052.
[7] C. Meyer, The greening of the concrete industry, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (8)
(2009) 601–605.
[8] X.S. Shi, Q.Y. Wang, X.L. Zhao, F. Collins, Discussion on properties and
microstructure of geopolymer concrete containing fly ash and recycled
aggregate, Adv. Mater. Res. 450–451 (2012) 1577–1583.
[9] S.E. Wallah, B.V. Rangan, Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete:
Long-Term Properties. Research Report GC2, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, 2006.
[10] S.M.A. El-Gamal, F.A. Selim, Utilization of some industrial wastes for eco-
friendly cement production, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 12 (2017) 9–17.
[11] O.M. Damilola, Syntheses, characterization and binding strength of
geopolymers: a review, Int. J. Mater. Sci. Appl. 2 (6) (2013) 185–193.
[12] P.K. Mehta, R.W. Burrows, Building durable structures in the 21st century,
Indian Concr. J. 75 (7) (2001) 437–443.
[13] D. Hardjito, Studies on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete Doctor of
Philosophy Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, 2005.
[14] G.C. Unruh, Understanding carbon lock-in, Energy Policy 28 (12) (2000) 817–
830.
[15] F. Pacheco-Torgal, L.A. Labrincha, The future of construction materials research
and the seventh UN Millennium Development Goal: a few insights, Constr.
Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 729–737.
[16] U. Dewald, M. Achternbosch, Why more sustainable cements failed so far?
Disruptive innovations and their barriers in a basic industry, Environ.
Innovation Societal Trans. 19 (2016) 15–30.
[17] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm. Anal.
37 (8) (1991) 1633–1656.
[18] J.L. Provis, S.A. Bernal, Geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials,
Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 44 (2014) 299–327.
[19] J.L. Provis, A. Palomo, C. Shi, Advances in understanding alkali-activated
materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 78 (2015) 110–125.
[20] J.L. Provis, J.S.J. van Deventer, Alkali Activated Materials: State of the Art Report
RILEM TC 224-AAM, Springer/RILEM, Dordrecht, 2014.
[21] C. Shi, J. Qian, High performance cementing materials from industrial slags-a
review, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 29 (3) (2000) 195–207.
[22] C. Shi, A. Fernandez-Jimenez, A. Palomo, New cements for the 21st century: the
pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (7) (2011)
750–763.
[23] C. Shi, P.V. Krivenko, D.M. Roy, Alkali-activated Cements and Concretes, Taylor
& Francis, Abingdon, 2006.
[24] P. De Silva, K. Sagoe-Crenstil, V. Sirivivatnanon, Kinetics of geopolymerization:
role of Al2O3 and SiO2, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (4) (2007) 512–518.
[25] C.K. Tennakoon, Assessment of Properties of Ambient Cured Geopolymer
Concrete for Construction Applications Doctor of Philosophy Thesis,
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, 2016.
[26] J.L. Provis, Alkali-activated materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 114 (2018) 40–48.
[27] A. Rafeet, R. Vinai, M. Soutsos, W. Sha, Guidelines for mix proportioning of fly
ash/GGBS based alkali activated concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017)
130–142.
[28] D.C. Comrie, J. Davidovits, Long Term Durability of Hazardous Toxic and
Nuclear Waste Disposals, Geopolymer88; First European Conference on Soft
Mineralurgy, 1988.
[29] J. Davidovits, D.C. Comrie, J.H. Paterson, D.J. Ritcey, Geopolymeric concretes for
environmental protection, Concr. Int. 12 (7) (1990) 30–40.
[30] R.H. Haddad, O. Alshbuol, Production of geopolymer concrete using natural
pozzolan: a parametric study, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (1) (2016) 699–707.
[31] W.K.W. Lee, J.S.J. van Deventer, The effect of ionic contaminants on the early-
age properties of alkali-activated fly ash-based cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 32
(4) (2002) 577–584.
[32] W.K.W. Lee, J.S.J. van Deventer, Chemical interactions between siliceous
aggregates and low-Ca alkali-activated cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (2007)
844–855.
[33] J. Davidovits, Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, terminology, in: Proc.
Geopolymer ’99 International Conference, June 30–July 2, Saint-Quentin, 1999,
pp. 9–40.
[34] A. Palomo, M.W. Grutzek, M.T. Blanco, Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for
the future, Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (8) (1999) 1323–1329.
[35] G. Görhan, G. Kürklü, The influence of the NaOH solution on the properties of
the fly ash-based geopolymer mortar cured at different temperatures, Compos.
Part B 58 (2014) 371–377.
[36] A. Teixeira-Pinto, P. Fernandes, S. Jalali, Geopolymer manufacture and
application-main problems when using concrete technology, Proc.
Geopolymers 2002 International Conference, 2002.
[37] A.S. De Vargas, D.C.C. Dal Molin, A.C.F. Vilela, F.J. Da Silva, B. Pavao, H. Veit, The
effects of Na2O/SiO2 molar ratio, curing temperature and age on compressive
strength, morphology and microstructure of alkali-activated fly ash-based
geopolymers, Cem. Concr. Compos 33 (6) (2011) 653–660.
[38] H. Mingyu, Z. Xiaomin, L. Fumei, Alkali-activated fly ash-based geopolymers
with zeolite or bentonite as additives, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (10) (2009)
762–768.
[39] J. He, Y. Jie, J. Zhang, Y. Yu, G. Zhang, Synthesis and characterization of red mud
and rice husk ash-based geopolymer composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 37
(2013) 108–118.
[40] A. Nazari, A. Bagheri, S. Riahi, Properties of geopolymer with seeded fly ash and
rice husk bark ash, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (24) (2011) 7395–7401.
[41] S. Ahmari, L. Zhang, Production of eco-friendly bricks from copper mine
tailings through geopolymerization, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 323–331.
[42] P.W. Ken, M. Ramli, C.C. Ban, An overview on the influence of various factors
on the properties of geopolymer concrete derived from industrial by-products,
Constr. Build. Mater. 77 (2015) 370–395.
[43] A. Fernandez-Jimenez, A. Palomo, Characterisation of fly ashes. Potential
reactivity as alkaline cements, Fuel 82 (18) (2003) 2259–2265.
[44] P.N. Lemougna, K.J.D. MacKenzie, U.F.C. Melo, Synthesis and thermal
properties of inorganic polymers (geopolymers) for structural and refractory
applications from volcanic ash, Ceram. Int. 37 (8) (2011) 3011–3018.
[45] C. Suksiripattanapong, S. Horpibulsuk, P. Chanprasert, P. Sukmak, A. Arulrajah,
Compressive strength development in fly ash geopolymer masonry units
manufactured from water treatment sludge, Constr. Build. Mater. 82 (2015)
20–30.
[46] F.N. Okoye, J. Durgaprasad, N.B. Singh, Mechanical properties of alkali
activated fly ash/Kaolin based geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 98
(2015) 685–691.
[47] P.N. Lemougna, K. Wang, Q. Tang, U.C. Melo, X. Cui, Recent developments on
inorganic polymers synthesis and applications, Ceram. Int. 42 (14) (2016)
15142–15159.
[48] A. Islam, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, I.I. Bashar, The development of
compressive strength of ground granulated blast furnace slag-palm oil fuel
ash-fly ash based geopolymer mortar, Mater. Des. 56 (2014) 833–841.
 F. Kantarcı et al. / Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116770
[49] N. Ranjbar, M. Mehrali, A. Behnia, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, Compressive
strength and microstructural analysis of fly ash/palm oil fuel ash based
geopolymer mortar, Mater. Des. 59 (2014) 532–539.
[50] G.S. Ryu, Y.B. Lee, K.T. Koh, Y.S. Chung, The mechanical properties of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete with alkaline activators, Constr. Build. Mater. 47
(2013) 409–418.
[51] A.F. Gualtieri, L. Veratti, A. Tucci, L. Esposito, Recycling of the product of
thermal inertization of cement-asbestos in geopolymers, Constr. Build. Mater.
31 (2012) 47–51.
[52] J.N.Y. Djobo, A. Elimbi, H.K. Tchakoute, S. Kumar, Mechanical properties and
durability of volcanic ash based geopolymer mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 124
(2016) 606–614.
[53] TS EN 1008, Mixing Water for Concrete-Specifications for Sampling, Testing
and Assessing the Suitability of Water, Including Water Recovered from
Processes in the Concrete Industry, as Mixing Water for Concrete, Turkish
Standards Institution, Ankara-Turkey, 2003.
[54] F.N. Okoye, S. Prakash, N.B. Singh, Durability of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete in the presence of silica fume, J. Cleaner Prod. 149
(2017) 1062–1067.
[55] S.A. Omer, R. Demirboga, W.H. Khushefati, Relationship between compressive
strength and UPV of GGBFS based geopolymer mortars exposed to elevated
temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 189–195.
[56] G. Kovalchuk, A. Fernandez-Jimenez, A. Palomo, Alkali-activated fly ash: effect
of thermal curing conditions on mechanical and microstructural
development–part II, Fuel 86 (3) (2007) 315–322.
[57] TS EN 12390-3, Testing Hardened Concrete – Part 3: Compressive Strength of
Test Specimens, Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara-Turkey, 2010.
[58] ASTM C597-16, Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[59] M. Chi, Effects of modulus ratio and dosage of alkali-activated solution on the
properties and micro-structural characteristics of alkali-activated fly ash
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 99 (2015) 128–136.
[60] G. Kürklü, The effect of high temperature on the design of blast furnace slag
and coarse fly ash-based geopolymer mortar, Compos. Part B 92 (2016) 9–18.
[61] I. Balczár, T. Korim, A. Dobrádi, Correlation of strength to apparent porosity of
geopolymers-understanding through variations of setting time, Constr. Build.
Mater. 93 (2015) 983–988.
[62] D. Adak, M. Sarkar, S. Mandal, Effect of nano-silica on strength and durability
of fly ash based geopolymer mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 453–459.
[63] T.W. Swaddle, J. Salerno, P.A. Tregloan, Aqueous aluminates, silicates, and
aluminosilicates, Chem. Soc. Rev. 23 (1994) 319–325.
[64] A. Blum, A. Lasaga, Role of surface speciation in the low-temperature
dissolution of minerals, Nature 331 (1988) 431–433.
[65] K. Somna, C. Jaturapitakkul, P. Kajitvichyanukul, P. Chindaprasirt, NaOH
activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature, Fuel 90
(6) (2011) 2118–2124.
17
[66] A. Sathonsaowaphak, P. Chindaprasirt, K. Pimraksa, Workability and strength
of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar, J. Hazard. Mater. 168 (1) (2009) 44–
50.
[67] B.I.D.L. Ndjock, A. Elimbi, M. Cyr, Rational utilization of volcanic ashes based on
factors affecting their alkaline activation, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 463 (2017) 31–39.
[68] R. Ghosh, S.P. Sagar, A. Kumar, S.K. Gupta, S. Kumar, Estimation of geopolymer
concrete strength from ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) using high power
pulser, J. Build. Eng. 16 (2018) 39–44.
[69] F. Colangelo, R. Cioffi, G. Roviello, I. Capasso, D. Caputo, P. Aprea, B. Liguori, C.
Ferone, Thermal cycling stability of fly ash based geopolymer mortars,
Compos. Part B 129 (2017) 11–17.
[70] S. Hanjitsuwan, S. Hunpratub, P. Thongbai, S. Maensiri, V. Sata, P.
Chindaprasirt, Effects of NaOH concentrations on physical and electrical
properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer paste, Cem. Concr. Compos. 45
(2014) 9–14.
[71] W. Zhou, C. Yan, P. Duan, Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, X. Qiu, D. Li, A comparative study of
high- and low-Al2O3 fly ash based-geopolymers: the role of mix proportion
factors and curing temperature, Mater. Des. 95 (2016) 63–74.
[72] Y.K. Cho, S.W. Yoo, S.H. Jung, K.M. Lee, S.J. Kwon, Effect of Na2O content, SiO2/
Na2O molar ratio, and curing conditions on the compressive strength of FA-
based geopolymer, Constr. Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 253–260.
[73] B. Joseph, Behavıour of Geopolymer Concrete Exposed to Elevated
Temperatures Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Cochin University of Science and
Technology, Kerala, 2015.
[74] A.A. Aliabdo, A.E.M.A. Elmoaty, H.A. Salem, Effect of water addition, plasticizer
and alkaline solution constitution on fly ash based geopolymer concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 121 (2016) 694–703.
[75] A. Rajarajeswari, G. Dhinakaran, Compressive strength of GGBFS based GPC
under thermal curing, Constr. Build. Mater. 126 (2016) 552–559.
[76] M.M. Yadollahi, A. Benli, R. Demirboğa, The effects of silica modulus and aging
on compressive strength of pumice-based geopolymer composites, Constr.
Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 767–774.
[77] A. Noushini, A. Castel, The effect of heat-curing on transport properties of low-
calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 112 (2016)
464–477.
[78] A. Gümüsß, Effect of Thermal Curıng Process on Geopolymer Concrete
Properties Master Thesis, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, 2016.
[79] A. Wardhono, C. Gunasekara, D.W. Law, S. Setunge, Comparison of long term
performance between alkali activated slag and fly ash geopolymer concretes,
Constr. Build. Mater. 143 (2017) 272–279.
[80] Y.S. Zhang, W. Sun, J.Z. Li, Hydration process of interfacial transition in
potassium polysialate (K-PSDS) geopolymer concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 57
(2005) 33–38.
[81] B. Singh, M.R. Rahman, R. Paswan, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Effect of activator
concentration on the strength, ITZ and drying shrinkage of fly ash/slag
geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 118 (2016) 171–179.