1 s2.0 S2352710222001176 Main

Journal of Building Engineering 50 (2022) 104104
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
Properties of geopolymers sourced from construction and

demolition waste: A review
Musab Alhawat a, *, Ashraf Ashour a, Gurkan Yildirim a, b, Alper Aldemir b,
Mustafa Sahmaran b
a
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Informatics, University of Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Geopolymers have been recognised as a viable replacement to ordinary Portland cement (OPC),
Geopolymer concrete providing a cleaner solution since it can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as
Mechanical properties accomplishing effective waste recycling. Construction and demolition waste (CDW) has been
Construction and demolition waste (CDW) recently identified as raw materials for geopolymers due to its availability and high contents of
Mix design silica and alumina. This paper aimed at reviewing the current state-of-the-art on the geopolymer
Sodium silicate
paste, mortar, and concrete production and their properties, with special attention paid to geo
Life cycle assessment
polymers incorporating CDWs. The review covers brief assessment of using CDWs in concrete, the
mix design of geopolymer mixtures in addition to identification of the main factors influencing
the performance of geopolymer containing CDW. The most recent data related to the mechanical
and durability properties of CDW-based geopolymers are presented, while the cost and envi
ronmental impacts of using recycled materials in producing geopolymer concretes are also dis
cussed. Geopolymer concretes have a vast range of possible applications, however, there are still
several barriers facing commercialisation of geopolymers in construction industry. The review
indicated that it is possible to produce geopolymer concretes from CDW-based materials with
properties comparable to OPC-based ones; however, the selection of proper material composition
should be carefully considered, especially under normal curing conditions.
1. Introduction
Concrete is the most used material in the construction sector, reaching approximately 30 billion tonnes of annual global con
sumption levels [1], depleting large quantities of ordinary Portland cement (OPC), which is the fundamental binder used to produce
conventional concrete. However, the production of cement is associated with serious harmful environmental issues such as intensive
consumption of natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions. 1.5 tons of raw materials are approximately needed to produce one
ton of cement, which directly generatesaround 0.55 tons of CO2, while the combustion of fuels produces almost 0.4 tons of CO2,
releasing a total of 0.8–1.0 tons of CO2 emissions [2]. According to Madlool et al. [3], the cement industry is also linked to consuming a
significant amount of fossil fuels, representing proximately 12–15% of industrial energy. Globally, it is estimated that the manufacture
of OPC generates around 1.35 billion tons of greenhouse gases every year, representing 6–9% of the global greenhouse gas emissions
[4], which is mainly caused due to the combustion of fuel in the furnace, de-carbonation of limestone, and consumption of electrical
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.m.a.alhawat@bradford.ac.uk (M. Alhawat).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104104
Received 16 December 2021; Received in revised form 12 January 2022; Accepted 22 January 2022
Available online 28 January 2022
2352-7102/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Alhawat et al. Journal of Building Engineering 50 (2022) 104104
energy. Several chemical processes occur during the calcination of calcium carbonate; however, Equation (1), below, describes the
main reactions that occur during the calcination of limestone and aluminosilicate materials [5,6].
5CaCO3 + 2SiO2 → (3CaO, SiO2)(2CaO, SiO2) + 5CO2 (1)
Over the past three decades, there has been a growing awareness of the environmental concerns associated with the manufacturing
of ordinary concrete, which has driven the researchers and cement industry to search for other methods to produce green sustainable
materials. More recently, the World Green Building Council (WGBC) (2019) has published the strategies and guidelines for designing
sustainable buildings and infrastructures with a plan to reach 40% lower carbon footprints by 2030, while the target is to attain zero
CO2 emissions by 2050. The main suggested actions are associated with using alternative fuels, capturing carbon dioxide and
enhancing energy efficiency inside the furnace, replacing cement with nanoparticles and developing low-impact green concrete
products and technology. Accordingly, geopolymers, which belong to the last option, have appeared as one of the most successful
alternatives to OPC-based binders/materials. This is not only related to geopolymers’ favourable environmental impact of reducing the
energy consumption [7], and using waste materials, but also due to their superior mechanical and durability characteristics accom
panied by the high potential of cost reduction [8], along with the excellent resistance against acids and high temperature [9,10]. Using
geopolymers as a OPC substitute can also reduce the overall CO2 footprint compared to traditional concrete. However, the rate of
reduced emissions is widely varied as stated in previous assessments, ranging from 9% [11], to 26–45% [12], and reaching up to
around 80% [13]. These huge differences are mainly associated with some key factors including transportation emissions, which are
mainly linked to the availability and proximity of raw materials, concrete mixture compositions, activator type/quantity needed and
production method used, and high-temperature curing.
Geopolymers are referred to the family of alkali-activated materials, and can be produced by polymerizing different types of
aluminosilicate precursors through activation processes using highly alkaline liquids and soluble silicates [14,15]. The precursors can
originate from natural sources (e.g., clay and kaolinite) [16] or from by-products such as fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace
slag (GGFBS), which are no longer classified as waste materials due to their widespread and successful utilisation in the concrete
industry as separate pozzolanic materials. These precursors can be singly used or mixed with each other. Hence, increasing attention is
being paid to seeking other resources that can be successfully used in geopolymers to mitigate the huge demand for by-products.
On the other hand, there is an urgent need to find novel approaches to reuse the massive quantities of waste materials, resulting
from construction and demolition practices. It is reported that more than 800 million tons of CDW are annually generated in EU
countries [17]. Literature studies have explored the feasibility of incorporating CDW in producing sustainable concretes with satis
factory mechanical and durability performance [18–22]. However, the majority of these studies have mainly concentrated on utilising
CDWs as a replacement to natural aggregates.
Recycling and re-using CDWs as geopolymer sources can offer a sustainable solution for reducing their ecological impact and
decreasing OPC demand. More recent studies [23–26] showed an excellent opportunity for CDWs to be used as aluminosilicate source
materials for geopolymer binders. This is especially important considering the massive quantities of fine silt particles that are rich in
crystalline aluminosilicates, resulting from demolishing of structures. However, the target of developing a high-sustainability
CDW-based geopolymers with sufficient mechanical, fresh, and structural properties has not been completely investigated. Limit
edly available research in the literature has only focused on quantifying the materials utilised for producing paste and mortar as well as
testing their mechanical and microstructural properties [27,28], whilst no significant work has been found on CDW-based geopolymer
concrete. Based on the available findings, it is possible to attain sufficient mechanical properties by using CDW-based constituents
solely, while better performance can be achieved by combining CDWs with low quantities of OPC (up to 30%), reaching up to 102 MPa
compressive strength at 28 days [29]. However, the most successful findings were achieved under high-temperature curing (higher
than 60 ◦ C) [30–32], since it can enhance the precursors’ reactivity and facilitate the geopolymerization process [33], limiting their
environmental benefits and in-situ applications.
This paper reviews the current studies related to geopolymer pastes, mortars and concretes, with particular emphasis on CDW-
based ones. The paper initially presents a brief assessment of the use of CDW in concrete, with more attention on incorporating
CDW-based materials in geopolymers as fine/coarse aggregates and precursors, followed by the principles of geopolymerization
process and the mixture design of geopolymers in addition to identification of the main factors influencing the performance of CDW-
based geopolymers. Then, the most recent data related to the fresh, mechanical and durability properties of CDW-based geopolymers
are presented along with the life cycle assessment of using waste materials in geopolymers in terms of cost and environmental aspects.
Finally, the barriers and challenges to industry adoption are highlighted with a view on the way forward for future research.
2. Technical feasibility of using CDWs in concrete

Despite the extensive researches conducted on the feasibility of employing CDWs in concrete industry, the current use of CDWs is
still limited to low-tech applications such as bases/subbases in road construction and masonry products, while the remaining is being
landfilled [34]. It is also recommended that the replacement of natural aggregates by crushed concrete aggregates is to be limited to
30% for structural purposes to maintain the absorption capacity of aggregates less than 5% [35–37]. Similarly, other investigations
[38–40] suggested the replacement ratio to be limited to 25%, since no clear changes were observed in concrete properties even under
severe conditions compared to that made with natural aggregates. On the other hand, the use of 100% recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) could reduce the mechanical properties of concrete by 10–30%, while the absorption capacity might be doubled compared to
normal concrete [41,42]. In recent years, different techniques have been suggested to improve the quality of CDW-based aggregates
such as mechanical grinding [43], pre-soaking in acid solutions [44], polymer emulsion [45] and accelerated carbonation [46]. The
2
principle of all such techniques, in fact, is mainly based on either, removing the weak layer of adhered mortar or modifying and
strengthening the old mortar. Despite the efficiency of these techniques in improving the quality of recycled aggregates, some barriers,
especially those related to economic reasons, are still preventing the widespread reuse to be a realistic option. Many countries are still
commercialising since adequate taxes accounting for the environmental impact of its extraction are not implemented. Furthermore,
some recycling plants are not highly motivated to improve the quality of recycled aggregates [47]. Several national existing speci
fications and standards (e.g., RILEM, 1994; NEN-5905, 2010; WBTC, 2002; EHE-08 DIN D, 2002) allow the use of recycled aggregates
in producing concrete [48–52]. While some countries like Spain and China, only allow limited of recycled aggregates and require
concretes to be produced with at least 90% of natural aggregates with attached mortars [49,50], other countries such as the
Netherlands and Germany include the use of mixed recycled aggregates for producing concretes in their specifications with variable
proportions of crushed concrete, bricks, ceramics and asphalt [51,52]. In Spain, Annex 15 of the Code for Structural Concrete (EHE-08)
allows the use of recycled aggregates in concrete as long as the water absorption value does not exceed 7%. In fact, the main concrete
codes of practice, for example, Eurocode 2 (2008) and ACI-318 (2014) did not include any clause for structural members with recycled
aggregate concrete [53,54]. It should also be considered that the environmental and economic benefits of utilising recycled aggregates
are greatly affected by the location of demolition sites and the cost of transportation [55].
On the other hand, some other studies highlighted the improper properties caused by the low quality of fine waste grains, which are
mainly correlated to their low bulk density and specific gravity in addition to the higher porosity, abrasion loss and water absorption,
subsequently leading to low mechanical and durability properties [56,57]. However, the results obtained from other studies suggested
that up to 50% weight replacement of natural sand by CDW-based fine particles might have insignificant effects on the concrete
characteristics [58]. On the other hand, the use of CDW constituents without any treatment as a substitution for either fine or coarse
aggregates is not advisable, and it can highly negatively affect the properties of concrete due to expected high increments in porosity
and water absorption accompanied by a density drop [59,60]. According to Sata and Chindaprasirt [61], CDWs can be utilised as
aggregates in geopolymer concretes with possibly enhanced characteristics such as thermal insulation and low density; however, a
slight reduction in durability and mechanical properties would be expected, similar to the case of conventional concrete.
Recently, the effects of CDW-based fine particles used in geopolymer mortars as an alternative to natural sand have been inves
tigated [62]. The findings illustrated that the partial use of such aggregates could lead to even higher flexural and compressive
strengths compared to natural sand since a denser geopolymer is formed at paste-aggregate interfaces. However, the full inclusion of
CDW-based aggregates as a substitution to natural sand in geopolymer mixtures should be avoided, especially under aggressive
conditions due to highly increased absorption capacity of CDW-based mixtures. Therefore, it is recommended not to exceed 25% of
recycled fine aggregate in concrete mixtures as a replacement to natural sand to obtain mechanical properties comparable to those
with natural aggregates [63]. During the crushing process, a considerable amount of fine powder is generated, accounting for
approximately 15–20% of total waste concrete [64]. Studies conducted on the use of this powder as a partial replacement to cement are
limited in number. Kim and Choi [65] found that adding concrete waste powders to geopolymer mortar had a significant detrimental
impact on the fluidity and compressive strength, and it is preferable not to exceed 15% as a replacement rate. In a recent study, Ma
et al. [66] highlighted that using up to 30% CDW powder in conventional concrete instead of OPC can facilitate the hydration process
and minimise the permeability and porosity, while the higher ratios could lead to significantly negative effects, especially on properties
like frost resistance and chloride ion permeability. Schoon et al. [67] highlighted the viability of partially employing fine powder from
recycled concrete as an alternative source for producing Portland cement clinker. The waste hydrated cement obtained from the
separation of fine recycled aggregate would be of significant importance in the chain of the cement industry. This is mainly attributed
to the presence of inorganic substances forming after the drying process, which have almost similar chemical compositions found in the
raw clinker and its use in replacing natural quarried minerals, reducing the consumption of raw materials. However, the quantity of
waste hydrated cement used as a raw powder in producing Portland cement clinker is limited by the chemical composition of waste,
particularly the CaO/SiO2 ratio [68]. Nevertheless, these approaches have not addressed the problem of CO2 emissions in a funda
mental way, and they still represent significant environmental risks due to the low potential rate of use of CDW-based powders in
conventional concrete. Such powder is mostly composed of hydrated cement rubble, unhydrated cement particles, fine powder of
aggregates/bricks, which can meet the fundamental characteristics of geopolymer source materials considering their aluminosilicate
compositions.
3. Geopolymerization process
Geopolymers can be considered as alkali-activated binders or amorphous alkali aluminosilicates [19]. During the geo
polymerization process, inorganic compounds are generated after several complex chemical reactions between the aluminosilicate
oxides in highly alkaline environments to form three-dimensional polymeric Si–O–Al–O chains as the main alkaline aluminosilicate
gel. Several investigations have been made on the chemical reactions of geopolymers [69–71]. Geopolymerization mechanism is
highly dependent on the nature of alkaline activator as well as the chemical composition of precursors. Due to numerous components
available in the liquid phase, all reactions take place at the same time and affect each other [72]. Thus, geopolymerization mechanism
can be stated to be more complex than OPC hydration. According to Davidovits [69], geopolymerization consists mostly of four phases.
The alkaline activator firstly breaks Al–O and Si–O bonds in the aluminosilicate precursors, releasing Al–O and Si–O tetrahedral
monomers (dissolution), before being diffused in the reaction system (diffusion). According to the concept of chemical equilibrium, the
concentrations of silicon and aluminum drop on the particle surface due to diffusion, while the dissolving process proceeds. In the next
stage (polycondensation), Al–O and Si–O tetrahedral units are converted into amorphous -Si-O-Al-O-structures or even zeolite crystals
during the polymerization. Finally, the dehydration process takes place, resulting in a hardened geopolymer with mechanical strength
3
Fig. 1. Final gels formed based on the chemical compositions of the precursors [75].
(hardening). It should be noted that the geopolymerization process for geopolymer materials sourced from varying raw materials are
not identical, although they fundamentally follow the aforementioned reaction sequence. Similar geopolymerization mechanisms
were suggested by De Silva et al. [70], with three main stages. The initial stage, termed as the dissolution stage, which involves
dissolving alumina and silicate in the precursors, forming SiO4 and AlO4. Therefore, only precursors with aluminosilicate content can
be used to produce geopolymer [70]. In the second stage (agglomeration), the condensation process starts when the dissolved in
gredients react with each other as well as with alkali cations (K+ or Na+). Geopolymerization occurs in the last stage by
poly-condensation of such dissolved ingredients, consequently forming a three-dimensional aluminosilicate (Si–O–Al–O) structure in
an amorphous to semi-crystalline form as given in Equations (2) and (3), below [72,73].
(Si2O5Al2O2)n + H2O + OH− → Si(OH)4 + Al(OH)4- (2)
Si(OH)4 + Al(OH)4- → (Si –O– Al– O)n + 4H2O (3)
Unlike the model of Davidovits, the conceptual model presented by Glukhovsky [71] divided geopolymerization processes into
deconstruction, gels formation, poly-condensation, and crystallization steps to eventually produce a 3D network structure of geo
polymer. The main difference compared to the model of Davidovits seems to be the polycondensation process that is separated into two
steps, namely gelation, and reconstitution. Gelation requires de-hydration to generate oligomeric gels when aluminosilicates are
saturated, whilst reconstitution covers the rearranging of the oligomeric gels. It is worth noting that water plays no role in geo
polymerization reactions, and it simply improves the workability of the mixtures, in contrast to the hydration process of OPC-based
concrete [69,72].
As exhibited in Fig. 1, the formation of the final gel is highly dependent on the nature of aluminosilicates as well as the activator
used. Calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (C-A-S-H) gel is the main product formed in the presence of precursors with high-calcium
content such as GGBFS and class C fly ash, which is similar to calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) gel formed through the hydration
of OPC. However, amorphous aluminosilicate gels (N,K-A-S-H) are formed as a result of the geopolymerization of precursors with low
CaO/SiO2 ratios, such as clay and class F fly ash. According to Garcia-Lodeiro et al. [74], the stability of N-A-S-H structure is heavily
affected by pH alkalinity. At low alkalinity, sodium is partially replaced by calcium, resulting in the formation of C-(N)-A-S-H gel.
When the pH exceeds 12, the presence of CaO destabilises the N-A-S-H, resulting in the formation of the C-A-S-H type phase. The nature
of the alkaline solution can also affect the structure of the final gel, since different atoms of Al and Si can be found in the hydroxide or
silicate used [75]. Although potassium hydroxide provides higher alkalinity, sodium hydroxide has shown a higher capacity to dissolve
silicate and aluminate species [76,77].
4. Mixture design of geopolymers

To date, there is no standard method for the mix design of geopolymers; however, several mix designs have been experimented by
the researchers during the last decade [78,79]. In contrast to OPC-based concrete, development of mix proportions for geopolymer
concretes is more complex due to higher number of ingredients involved in the matrix [72]. The approaches documented in the
literature so far have been categorised into three groups based on design principles, namely target strength approach,
performance-based approach, and statistically factorial model approach. The majority of these mix designs are mainly based on the
trial and error approach due to the large number of parameters involved in the geopolymer concrete production. In the mix design
methodology for geopolymer concrete proposed by Rangan et al. [80], the density of geopolymer concrete was considered to be
2400 kg/m3, which cannot always be reliable because of the many possible types and amounts of components used, while the total
content of aggregates was set to 80%. This approach does not account for the specific gravity of the materials used. Anuradha et al. [79]
proposed a design approach for several grades of geopolymer concretes based on Indian standards. The activator solution content used
was found to be excessive for the predicted strength. In this method, precursors’ content and activator solution to precursors ratio were
chosen based on the desired strength, while the fine aggregates were kept constant. Later, Ferdous et al. [78] modified the mix design
4
Fig. 2. The target strength mix design method for geopolymer mixture [84].
of geopolymer concrete to cover densities, air contents, specific gravities of components, workability and compressive strength.
However, the main challenge that emerged with this process was the determination of the alkaline activator to binder ratio. Pavithra
et al. [81] suggested a relationship between water-binder ratio (W/B) and compressive strength by fixing the activator content,
allowing the design of mixtures to be more flexible in terms of activator content and desired strength, while the aggregate content was
calculated by using the grading curve of combined aggregates. Moreover, Li et al. [82] suggested guidelines for selecting the pro
portions of geopolymer mixtures with a strength of 40–80 MPa. In their technique, the principles of compact packing of aggregates and
Taguchi method were adopted. In concrete design, the main targets are mostly workability and compressive strength; hence, these
targets are used to determine the contents of precursors, activators, aggregates and water. In conventional concrete, the workability
and strength can be modified by water content (water-binder ratio [W/B]) and binder content (paste-aggregate ratio) [83]. Similarly,
the binder in the geopolymer system is formed as a result of alkaline activation reactions [84], and thus, the type, quantity, and
concentration of alkaline solution used need to be considered. In geopolymer concrete, alkaline solution is a costly component, and
from the economic point of view, the amount of alkaline solution should be minimised, while maintaining the desired workability and
strength [81]. The flow chart in Fig. 2 summarises the overall mixture design process for geopolymer concrete (GPC) as suggested by Li
et al. [84]. The alkaline activator-to-binder ratio (AL/B) can initially be selected, using the relationship between W/B and the desired
compressive strength described in ACI 211.1 [85] for conventional concrete. Similar to the W/B ratio in concrete, AL/B represents the
total mass of alkaline solutions to the mass of precursors; however, the compressive strength of geopolymer is often higher than that of
conventional concrete at the same AL/B ratio. Then, the amount of binder can be calculated according to one of three methods, namely
fixed water content, fixed binder content, and fixed paste content. The constant water content is governed by the aggregate size and
5
Table 1
Chemical composition ranges for different aluminosilicate materials [7,24,25,31,96,99–107].
Composition (wt. %) BW CW TW GW FA-C FA-F GGBFS MK OPC
SiO2 53–70 23–42 57–70 70–75 35–47 38–65 26–40 45–61 16–25
Al2O3 11–20 4.0–10 10–18 1.0–2.5 15–20 24–50 5–17 32–52 2.9–5.1
CaO 0.5–11 20–31 2.9–8.7 8–12 20.96 0.7–5.2 34–54 0.02–0.1 60–66
Na2O 0.2–2.5 0.6–1.7 0.5–1.4 11–15 4.0–4.9 0.05–0.9 0.03–0.5 0.15–0.25 0.2–0.4
MgO 1.1–5.2 1.5–8.4 0.42–3.1 0.15–1 4.5–5.0 0.3–1.8 4.0–10.9 0.03–0.4 1.5–1.8
Mn2O3 0.05–0.15 0–0.1 0.06–0.2 0–0.1 0.03–0.1 0.0–0.7 0.3–0.6 0.0–0.1 0.3–0.45
Fe2O3 5.5–8.2 2.9–12 1.1–5.2 0.15–1 5.0–6.1 2.0–13 0.6–2.0 0.35–2.6 4.0–8.2
K2O 2–4.5.0 0.7–2.3 1.1–2.3 0.08–2 0.5–0.9 0.1–3.0 0.05–1.0 0.2–1.3 0.05–0.1
TiO2 0.8–1.1 0.2–0.3 0.8–1.5 0.07 1.0–1.9 0.5–2.0 0.3–0.6 0.8–2.0 0.2–0.3
Loss on ignition 0.4–2.0 0.7–8.2 1.6–2.1 0.2–1.2 0.25–1.5 0.03–7.7 0.02–2.05 0.5–2.4 0.5–2.0
Note: BW = bricks waste; CW = concrete waste, TW = tile waste; GW = glass waste; FA-C = class C fly ash; FA-F = class F fly ash; MK = metakaolin, OPC=Ordinary
Portland cement.
required workability based on ACI 211.1 standard [85] for cement-based concrete. According to Reddy et al. [86], 200 kg/m3 alkaline
solution can be sufficient to provide satisfactory workability for geopolymer mixtures. Moreover, the constant binder content is
typically selected based on available research and does not consider aggregate characteristics. For example, Junaid et al. [87] indicated
that 360–420 kg/m3 of fly ash (FA) content can be used to produce geopolymer with good strength (25–60 MPa), whilst Ferdous et al.
[78] suggested some relationships to select FA content according to AL/B and compressive strength. However, using different sources
of precursors materials can affect the findings, especially CDW-based materials, which require modification of binder content. The
quantity of aggregates can be determined based on the absolute volume method. Sing et al. [88] suggested a relationship between the
packing density of aggregates, binder content and compressive strength in geopolymer mortars, which might be applied for geo
polymer concrete. The packing fraction technique uses volumetric proportioning of fine and coarse aggregates based on optimising the
best particle gradation curve obtained. The principle of this approach is to choose a particle size distribution that can fill the gaps
between small and big particles with the paste, which, in turn, can improve the workability and compressive strength at early ages
[84–89]. Statistical modelling approaches such as the Taguchi technique might also be applied for designing geopolymer concretes,
considering the main parameters in geopolymers. The Taguchi technique employs a factorial design approach that needs the use of
orthogonal arrays of experimental designs with many variables. Orthogonal arrays are mainly used to minimise the uncontrollable
factors during design; thus such technique might be used to assess a single property by maximising the interaction of various factors
[90,91]. However, this approach is restricted to certain levels and cannot always be applied, and hence a large database is required in
order to develop this method.
It can be concluded that although some methods are suggested, further developments on these methods are still needed, consid
ering the variations of the materials used (e.g., CDW) and other influencing parameters. It should be noted that testing at the age of 28
days is not always ideal for determining the final properties of geopolymers due to the variations of the materials used. For instance,
the activated mixtures based on slag and metakaolin can reach their ultimate strength sooner than 28 days, whilst the fly ash based
mixtures continue developing strength even after the 28-day testing period [92].
5. Mechanical properties of CDW-based geopolymers

5.1. Main parameters affecting CDW-based geopolymers
In this section, the main parameters affecting the synthesis of geopolymers are identified and discussed, especially their influence
on compressive strength. In fact, the mechanical and microstructural properties of geopolymers can be influenced by different pa
rameters, which could be directly linked to three main factors; the source of precursors, the activator used and curing conditions [93].
The nature of precursors has a significant impact on the geopolymerization reactions, including the chemical composition, the possible
pozzolanic activity of precursors and the distribution of their particles, which can vary greatly, resulting in considerable changes in the
characteristics obtained. Meanwhile, geopolymer structure can also be affected by the different aspects of alkaline activators, namely
hydroxide concentration, silicate-to-sodium ratio, and the ratio between the precursors and activators. Furthermore, the method and
period applied for curing also strongly affect the structure of geopolymers. Therefore, the effect of various parameters on the per
formance of geopolymer mixtures will be discussed in the following section.
5.1.1. Effect of precursor

5.1.1.1. Source of aluminosilicates. Significant progress has been made in the field of geopolymer research, particularly in the presence
of common materials used (i.e., supplementary cementitious materials [SCM]) as precursors [94]. According to Van Jaarsveld et al.
[95], any aluminosilicate material with possible pozzolanic capability might be utilised as a source material (precursor) for geo
polymers. Therefore, in the last few years, investigations have been carried out on the inclusion of CDWs as aluminosilicate sources in
alkali-activated mixes [96]. The results obtained from the relatively limited studies in this area indicated the high possibility of
benefiting from such waste materials (e.g., brick, ceramic tile, concrete and glass) since they have high contents of main components
required for the geopolymerization process, such as silica, calcium and aluminium. However, there are still significant challenges for
synthesising geopolymers from such materials. Moreover, the properties obtained from such geopolymers can greatly vary based on
the composition of the materials used. While some studies focused on using a single source of CDW [96,97], others investigated the
6
Fig. 3. Effect of inclusion of SCMs on the compressive strength of CDW-based geopolymers [25].
performance of mixed CDW-based components with different levels of replacement or even without any component separation to
simulate the realistic cases [27,98]. Geopolymers produced from waste bricks and ceramic powder exhibited much higher mechanical
characteristics in comparison to that containing only waste concrete, reaching compressive strength of 58 MPa after 7 days of heat
curing [31], however, recycled glass showed relatively low enhancement in strength [98]. The variations in the performance of
CDW-based geopolymers can be ascribed to the varying levels of chemical compositions of precursors, particularly silica, alumina,
calcium, iron and magnesium. The ranges of the chemical composition of aluminosilicate precursors (including CDW-based ones)
collected from different investigations [7,24,25,31,96,99–107] are presented in Table 1. It can be noted that the high quantity of SiO2
can be found in both bricks and tiles (50–70%) with less amount of Al2O3 (10–20%), compared to concrete waste with SiO2 range of
only 23–42% of and Al2O3 of 4–10% available in concrete waste. Therefore, the high contents of Al and Si ions can be easily stabilised
during the activation process and subsequently participate in forming Si–O–Al bonds [31]. On the other hand, only waste concrete
contains a sufficient quantity of CaO, while other CDWs (e.g., bricks and tiles) have only low ratios of calcium. The presence of the high
content of CaO in waste concrete is mostly linked to the drop of concrete strength as it consumes a large part of NaOH solution [94,
108]. Thus, balancing the main elements (i.e., SiO2, Na2O, Al2O3 and CaO) is crucial for the geopolymerization process to attain an
ideal geopolymer synthesis.
5.1.1.2. Addition of supplementary cementitious materials. Considering the chemical compositions of CDWs, additional sources of
precursors such as OPC [102,109], GGBFS [24], metakaolin and fly ash [110] can be incorporated to aid in producing denser and
stronger geopolymers. For instance, if bricks are used as a precursor, GGBFS can be recommended to be added to cover the CaO
shortage, while in the case of use of concrete waste, metakaolin or fly ash inclusion can nourish the results as they contain high
quantities of SiO. The activation process of CDW is exceedingly slow, resulting in decreased/no strength growth at early ages most
probably due to lower calcium concentration and crystalline form. Some relevant studies [111] reported that the use of waste bricks as
precursors did not exhibit any strength development at early ages, while the compressive strength was clearly improved when waste
bricks were combined with GGBFS as also reported by Rakihmova et al. [106] who suggested that bricks waste can be used in mixture
with GGBFS up to 60%. This can be justified since GGBFS acts as a source of calcium, providing substantial quantities of Ca2+, Si4+ and
Al3+ to be leached out during the activation process, resulting in a rapid enhancement in strength. In a recent study, Mahmoodi et al.
[25] investigated the influence of the most common types of SCMs (i.e., FA-C, FA-F, GGBFS and metakaolin [MK]) on the compressive
strength of geopolymer binders made from waste concrete and bricks under ambient conditions. CDW powder in the mixtures was
partially replaced by abovementioned SCMs (15%, 30% and 45%) and confirmed that the inclusion of varying percentages of SCMs
leads to a significant enhancement in the compressive strengths of all mixtures tested, compared to mixtures with no SCM substitution
(Fig. 3). However, the use of GGBFS (45%) showed an outstanding enhancement rate (almost 208%) at 28 days, whilst using the same
replacement level with MK, FA-C and FA-F led to 80%, 45% and 33% improvements in strength, respectively. This can be due to that
the balanced levels of Si/Al and Na/Si with sufficient OH− and Na+ contents may have provided an improved breakage of the bonds as
Si–O–Si, Al–O–Si, Al–O–Al, and Ca–O, which were available in waste concrete/bricks and GGBFS [112]. Therefore, further amorphous
C-A-S-H, C–S–H and N-A-S-H would be formed.
It is also stated that during the geopolymerization process, lower concentrations of alkaline activators are needed for calcium-rich
precursors. For instance, Krivenko and Kavalerova [113] found that activator concentration between 5 and 20% is needed to activate
the binder made with fly ash and metakaolin, while only 2–8% could be sufficient to activate GGBFS-based geopolymers that are rich in
calcium. Calcium found in GGBFS can adjust sodium aluminosilicate gel (N-A-S-H) by partially substituting sodium ions with calcium,
in turn, contributing to the formation of C-(N)-A-S-H gels. The latter can improve the stiffness of the geopolymer mixture, especially at
room temperature [114]. The presence of free calcium ions during geopolymerization may also accelerate the dissolution of
7
Fig. 4. Effect of particle size of precursors on the compressive strength of geopolymers [31].
aluminosilicates, increasing the heat of hydration and subsequently, enhancing the strength development of geopolymers [115].
Adding calcium oxide in the form of calcium hydroxide into mixtures as an additive can also effectively enhance the durability and
strength of geopolymers as it can improve the low reactivity of aluminosilicates available in waste materials as well as accelerate the
setting process [116]. However, there is a general agreement that a material containing more than 20% CaO is not favourable for
synthesising geopolymers owing to its rapid setting.
It is important to note that the predominant products of geopolymers prepared from clay-originated CDWs such as red clay bricks,
hollow bricks and roof tiles are N-A-S-H gels with zeolite-like structures, whereas sodium silicate gels mainly forms in glass-based
geopolymers [98]. Similarly, the main product from high-calcium precursors (e.g., GGBFS) is the C-A-S-H gels, which are similar to
that formed during the hydration of OPC (C–S–H). However, using low-calcium precursors such as calcined clays and FA-F mainly
results in the formation of amorphous N-A-S-H gels in 3D structures [25,75].
5.1.1.3. Fineness of particles. Besides the nature of precursors, the fineness of its particles plays a crucial role in determining the
characteristics of geopolymers. Finer particles of precursors could offer higher reactivity and stronger geopolymerization, which, in
turn, helps in producing stronger paste with a denser microstructure. This is mainly associated with the higher specific surface area
achieved in finer source materials, accelerating the reaction rate since the process of dissolution occurs faster, leading to a shorter
setting time and earlier development of strength. However, the improvements in mechanical and durability performances can only be
obtained by the balance between higher water requirement and fineness of source materials. As stated by Komnitsas [31], the
compressive strength of geopolymers can be substantially improved when the sizes of CDW-based particles are lower than 150 μm and
D50 is less than 15 μm. As exhibited in Fig. 4, the compressive strength of tile-based geopolymers activated by 10M-NaOH is increased
by more than 50% when the particle size decreased from 477 μm to 140 μm [31]. Similar observations were reported on samples
prepared with bricks, when the particle size reduced to from 350 μm to 140 μm, the compressive strength reached around 35 MPa. The
strength of geopolymers made from waste concrete was doubled when the finer particles (190 μm) were used instead of coarser ones
(400 μm). According to Hue et al. [107], only particles that are smaller than 125 μm can be alkali activated due to their higher
reactivity, whilst others [24,117,118] highly recommended that the particle size of CDW-based ingredients should be finer than 75 μm
to be used as precursors.
5.1.2. Effect of alkaline activator

Alkaline activator plays a crucial role in the geopolymerization process, especially at the initial stages. Performance of geopolymers
is significantly affected by many parameters linked to the activator, such as the reactivity of the activator (which is related to the type/
composition), the concentration used for activating the binder, and the ratio between the activators and binder, as discussed below.
5.1.2.1. Type of activator. Alkaline activators are primarily used as a solution prepared by the soluble alkali elements in the form of
hydroxide or silicate or a combination of both. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) dissolved in water is commonly used for dissolving the
agents in the precursors either alone or mixed with sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) to form the alkaline solution [119,120]. Na2SiO3 can
further help in enhancing the compressive strength and accelerating the geopolymerization process [121]. This mainly occurs as the
polycondensation process proceeds much faster when soluble sodium silicate is coupled with alkaline hydroxides rather than using
alkaline hydroxides alone [31,122]. Precursors can also be activated by sodium carbonate, potassium silicate and potassium hydroxide
[123], however, the relatively higher cost of such activators could be one of the main reasons behind the limitation of their use,
compared to those prepared by sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate. In comparison to sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide can
provide more alkalinity to the mixtures; however, sodium hydroxide is more commonly preferred in practice as it has better ability to
8
Fig. 5. Ternary diagram for the major oxides found in silica-rich waste source materials [132].
Fig. 6. Relationship between the NaOH concentration and compressive strength of geopolymers.
release aluminate and silicate monomers [124]. The use of alkaline activator solutions is considered one of the main practical limi
tations of geopolymers due to their high cost and carbon footprint associated with their production process, especially in the case of
sodium silicate [125]. Notably, the production of sodium silicate requires significant energy for melting sodium carbonate with silica
sand in the furnace at temperatures ranging from 1400 to 1500 ◦ C [126]. To enhance the commercial viability of geopolymers, it is
critical to minimise the costs associated with the production of activators while retaining their environmental friendliness and per
formance. More recently, alternative activator solutions have been synthesised from silica-rich waste materials including bottom ash
[127], rice husk ash [126], glass waste [128] and precipitated silica [129]. The silica extracted from such sources and dissolved in
alkaline solutions showed the possibility of reducing footprint emissions by up to about 50% compared to those generated from the
commercial ones [130,131]. However, the performance of such activators can vary widely based on some key factors, including the
amorphous silica content, extraction method and particle size. To aid in understanding the chemical composition of diverse silica-rich
wastes, Alnahhal et al. [132] developed a ternary diagram to illustrate the main oxides of various silica-rich wastes utilised in the
9
Fig. 7. Influence of sodium silicate-to-sodium hydroxide ratio on the compressive strength of CDW-based geopolymers.
literature, as presented in Fig. 5.

It can be inferred that the combination of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide seems the most effective way that can be used to
activate geopolymer mixtures derived from CDWs; however, adopting alternative activators produced from waste materials can be
highly beneficial for cost and energy savings.
5.1.2.2. Concentration of hydroxide solution. Sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide are mainly used to dissolve the atoms of Al
and Si, and their concentration, which is mostly expressed in terms of molarity, is another factor to be considered. Generally, a highly
alkaline medium is required for hydrolyzing the aluminosilicate particles. The mechanical properties of geopolymers improve with
increasing hydroxide concentrations, yet, this improvement is not consistent, which implies for the presence of an optimal alkali
concentration range and is likely associated with the higher degree of leaching of silica and alumina [133]. The poor performance at
low concentrations of NaOH is mainly related to the insufficient alkalinity of the system, causing a decrease in the dissolution rate of
silica and alumina in the CDW-based precursors, which in turn negatively affects the geopolymerization reaction degree. As the
concentration of sodium hydroxide solution rises, more OH− ions come into contact with CDW-based particles, increasing the dis
solving rate of Si and Al, in addition to enhancing the concentration of Al4+ and Si3+ in the activator used. These dissolved atoms
interreact with each other to generate aluminosilicate oligomers, which are then dehydrated and condensed to produce aluminosilicate
gels, leading to higher stiffness and strength [31]. However, the exceptionally high molarity in the solution may lead to the dissolving
of the aluminosilicate oligomers, which can, then, be transformed into aluminate and silicate molecules, reducing the content of
oligomers in the liquid phase and impeding the polycondensation process [107]. Furthermore, the high alkalinity of the activator could
enhance the possibility of adsorbing Na+ on the precoursors’ surface, interacting with Al–OH and Si–OH, reducing the adhesion
between the solid insoluble particles and aluminosilicate gel in the system, and eventually diminishing the final strength of the
geopolymer matrix [134]. Using high molarity-NaOH could also increase the possibility of shrinkage, especially for mixtures with the
low W/B ratio. The possible reason for the reduction in strength might be linked to the high viscosity of the activator solution, hin
dering the leaching of Al and Si atoms. Thus, the ratio of alkaline activators in the mixture needs to be carefully considered during the
mixture design of geopolymers. Fig. 6 shows the effect of varying concentrations of sodium hydroxide on the compressive strength of
CDW-based geopolymers. It can be noted that the increase of NaOH molarity can significantly promote the strength of geopolymer
mixtures, however, the excess sodium hydroxide may adversely affect the mechanical strength of geopolymers. It may be deduced that
although the molarity of sodium hydroxide can be defined for each type of CDW material based on the reactivity of its particles, the
best performance mostly can be achieved with molarity ranging from 8 to 12 M.
5.1.2.3. Ratio of silicate to hydroxide. The use of mixture of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide in geopolymers led to better me
chanical and durability characteristics, compared to those containing sodium hydroxide alone, since the structure of geopolymers
activated by sodium hydroxide is quite different from those activated by the combination of both [135]. The use of hydroxides solely
can only be helpful in disassembling the Al and Si ions in the precursors, whilst the inclusion of sodium silicate promotes the
condensation process [106,136]. As explained by Duxson et al. [13], the existence of sodium silicate causes an increment in the soluble
silica (Si–O–) content, providing the ideal conditions for the formation of CDW-based geopolymer structure. Besides, sodium silicate
can ensure a better interface between the gel matrix and unreacted particles, improving the mechanical performances of the alumi
nosilicate binders [71]. On the other hand, the excess quantity of silicates in geopolymer mixtures can hinder the geopolymerization
process. Thus, it should be pointed out that the optimal amount of soluble silicate can vary based on the components of the mixture.
Different optimum ratios of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide were reported; however, the majority of the available studies
10
Fig. 8. Effect of SiO2/Al2O3 and Na2O/SiO2 ratios on the flowability of CDW-based geopolymers [101].
conducted on compressive strength of CDW-based geopolymer [107,122,137] indicated that the optimum ratio of Na2SiO3/NaOH
ratio would be in the range of 1.0–2.0 as illustrated in Fig. 7.
5.1.3. Effect of curing conditions

Curing condition and duration are among the most important parameters during the whole geopolymerization process due to their
role in optimising the quality of geopolymers [107]. Different curing conditions have been studied to determine the ideal conditions to
produce geopolymers with mechanical and durability performances comparable to OPC. To maximise the potential of polymerizing
CDW-based precursors, curing conditions as steam curing, saline water, room temperature, and autoclave have been reported in the
literature [25,103,138]. Providing an effective geopolymerization with CDWs under ambient conditions without SCM/OPC substi
tution is still an issue under investigation. However, the most intriguing findings on waste-based geopolymers were obtained under
high-temperature curing (60–110 ◦ C) [30,139–142], limiting their applications to the production of precast structural elements.
Thermal treatment offers faster dissolution of silica and alumina species in addition to accelerating the degree and rate of
poly-condensation, leading to production of stronger gels at early ages, and thus making the mixtures stronger and denser. Though
increased curing temperatures can efficiently enhance the mechanical characteristics of geopolymers within a specific range, exposure
to very high temperatures or extending the period of curing can adversely influence the characteristics of geopolymers. This mainly
occurs due to the loss of humidity needed for the polymerization, since part of the water required for polymerization process could be
readily evaporated, preventing the formation of the final gels [143,144] and leading to the formation of cracks and drying shrinkage
[145]. This can be supported by the results obtained from the model suggested by Palomo et al. [114], who reported that the strength
of geopolymers almost doubled when the temperature increased from 45 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C, whereas only 15% strength gain was achieved by
increasing the temperature from 65 ◦ C to 85 ◦ C. Within this context, previous studies indicated that geopolymers based on low-calcium
fly ash could give excellent mechanical performances under elevated temperature curing, while under ambient conditions strength
development remained relatively lower [146,147].
5.1.4. Chemical compositions of precursors and alkaline activators

In the geopolymerization process, the molar ratio of oxides (SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, CaO) or their atomic ratio can be used as a con
trolling factor for determining the content of precursor and alkaline activator. Generally, the high content of Si has a strong influence
on the formation of large amounts of alkaline aluminosilicate gels [148], whereas the amount of Al in the precursor determines the
network formation and chemical structure [149]. Since the roles of Si and Al in synthesising geopolymers are interrelated, the ratio of
Si/Al is utilised to express the relationship between the activators and precursors. The ideal Si/Al ratio refers to the molar quantities of
SiO2 and Al2O3 in the system, which can greatly vary, depending on the reactive characteristics and compositions present in the
activators and precursors. According to Vásquez et al. [102], the optimal ratios of SiO2/Al2O3 for CDW-based geopolymer system cured
at room temperature is 10.0, whilst it was reported 10.5 and 8 for the binary systems containing 30% OPC and 10% MK, respectively.
The Si content in the matrix determines whether the condensation occurs at Al–Si or Si–Si in geopolymerization caused by
poly-condensation of hydrolysed Al and Si atoms. Condensation occurs primarily between Al–Si species at low Si/Al ratios, resulting in
poly (sialate) polymer structure; however, as the Si/Al ratio rises, more Si species are produced due to hydrolysis of SiO2, resulting in
oligomeric silicates. Increasing these ratios provide the production of denser geopolymer gels, which binds the unreacted particles and
directly enhances the strength performance.
11
Fig. 9. Effect of different SP types on the workability of geopolymers [152].
6. Fresh properties of CDW-based geopolymers

6.1. Workability and flowability
Fresh properties of geopolymers (i.e., workability, stability and flowability) are generally worse than that of normal concrete owing
to the highly viscous silicate mixture components. The workability of CDW-based geopolymers is dependent on the source of
aluminosilicate, while the influence of alkaline liquid concentration and the ratio of silicate-to-hydroxide seems more influential [26].
Wong et al. [101] found that the flowability of geopolymer matrix decreased with higher quantities of brick powder at all concen
trations of sodium hydroxide tested due to the presence of unreacted particles of waste bricks with porous surface, resulting in rapid
absorbing of water from the mixture and reducing the free water in the fresh mix [105]. The irregular shape of CDW-based particles
may also cause a reduction in workability [24]. It is reported that higher flowability can be achieved by increasing the quantities of
waste concrete powder rather than bricks waste [26]. This might be attributed to the variation in the physical and chemical char
acteristics of the two materials as concrete waste has a smaller surface area compared to waste bricks, and thus extra water is needed
for the unreacted particles of waste bricks, causing a change in the fresh properties of the mixes. However, as shown in Fig. 8, Wong
et al. [101] indicated that the flowability of CDW-based geopolymers is mostly affected by the change in Na2O/SiO2 and SiO2/Al2O3
ratios rather than the content of the precursors used. This enhancement is probably due to the high content of soluble silica, causing
faster dissolution, and resulting in more plastic and workable mixtures [150]. The high contents of Na2O with increasing Na2O/SiO2
ratios in CDW-based geopolymers may contribute to the production of larger quantities of OH/hydroxyl groups, which in turn cause
breaking of siloxo (SAO-Si) and sialate (Si–O–Al) bonds in CDW-based precursors [140], leading to greater dissolution and flow rate
[150]. Increasing the silicate-to-hydroxide ratio can also lead to decrease in the slump of the matrix, especially at the ratio of 2.5 [151].
6.1.1. Effect of superplasticizers

The type of superplasticizers employed has also a variable impact on the fresh properties of geopolymers. Alerfaei et al. [152]
assessed the influence of different types of commercial superplasticizers (SP) (i.e., melamine (MS), polycarboxylate (PS) and naph
thalene (NS)) on the fresh behaviour of geopolymers using a constant ratio (1.0%, by weight) with all mixtures. As presented in Fig. 9,
the findings revealed the effectiveness of all superplasticizers used in improving the workability, reaching up to almost 250%
enhancement in slump rate without a notable decrease in compressive strength, although PS exhibited the most plasticizing effect
compared to others. Nevertheless, different results were reported in another study [153] for the same types of SP, concluding that only
PS was beneficial, attaining almost 46% enhancement in slump, whereas the other ones tested (i.e., MS and NS) achieved only 8% and
3% higher slump rate, respectively, with a slight reduction in strength in comparison to control mixtures. The superior performance of
PS is likely due to its steric hindrance and electrostatic repulsion [154]. It is also stated that adding 1.5–3.0% naphthalene-based SP to
geopolymers could be the optimum amount to enhance the workability [155], whilst other types of SP, namely polyacrylate copol
ymer, and vinyl-copolymer, did not provide any workability or strength improvement [156].
6.2. Setting time

The setting time is a crucial factor for in-situ applications, since it determines the time available for transport, placement, and
compacting of geopolymers. Using higher concentrations of sodium hydroxide can clearly reduce both the initial and final setting time
of CDW-based geopolymer mixtures, which is directly related to increase in the heat of hydration as well as acceleration of the process
of dissolution and polymerization, leading to a shorter setting time [150]. This may also be attributed to increased Na content in the
mixture, since the ratios of Si and Na would be changed with the changes in the NaOH molarity [157]. Accordingly, it is highly
recommended to prepare NaOH solution with the required molarity one day prior to mixing with aluminosilicate precursors by dis
solving NaOH flakes in water to ensure the completion of chemical reactions [158–160]. The setting time of mixes produced from CDW
is found to be delayed with higher contents of sodium silicate, giving longer time for Al and Si to be dissolved to enhance geo
polymerization process [70,103]. Incorporating GGBFS, MK and OPC into CDW-based geopolymers can significantly accelerate the
initial and final setting of the geopolymerization process. This is mostly owing to the presence of higher quantities of Ca2+ ions in the
matrix, leading them to be reacted with aluminosilicates and Na+ ions more at higher alkaline concentrations, forming N-A-S-H gels,
which in turn converts into C-A-S-H gels [161], resulting in accelerated process of coagulation and condensation, and hence reduced
12
Fig. 10. Ion concentration of Si4+ versus dissolution time for CDW-based geopolymers at varying NaOH molarities [107].
setting time [162]. Faster setting of geopolymers incorporated with GGBFS and MK is also related to the virtual characteristics such as
the size and shape of the particles. In fact, the grains of MK and GGBFS mostly have finer particles and more angular shapes compared
to those extracted from CDWs. Therefore, it is recommended to use these calcium-rich products in producing CDW-based geopolymers
to accelerate the delayed setting, especially under ambient temperatures. However, the use of high contents of GGBFS in the mixture
can significantly reduce the setting time, especially over 50%, causing difficulties in the handling of the mixtures [163]. The disso
lution of CDW-based geopolymers is greatly influenced by the variations in alkaline molarity. Huo et al. [107] found that the pre
cipitation of Si4+ in geopolymers produced from concrete waste accelerated with the higher concentrations of NaOH. As it can be seen
from Fig. 10, the average participation level of Si4+ ions for the molarities of 10, 14 and 18 M was higher than 130 mg/l, which, in fact,
was considerably higher than that reported for 6 M. The low concentration of NaOH solution (6 M) was unsufficient for dissolving the
silicate and aluminate species in CDWs, hindering the rate of geopolymerization reactions. By increasing the concentration of alkaline
solution, more OH− ions come into contact with the surface of CDW-based particles, increasing the rate of dissolution of the Si–Al
phase and the concentration of Al4+ and Si3+ in the liquid phase, which in turn collide with each other to produce aluminosilicate gels.
However, the highest concentration (18 M) did not lead to better results, which is attributed to the delay in the mobility of ions, caused
due thickening of alkaline activator, preventing further ions from leaching out [164]. Thus, it can be stated that using either low
concentration (6 M) or high concentration (18 M) of alkaline solution is not favourable for hydrolyzing and precipitating Si4+ ions from
the solid aluminosilicate precursors. The findings also indicated that the precipitation of Si4+ in CDW-based geopolymers reached the
maximum after approximately 10 min for all NaOH concentrations used, while it tended to be stable after around 20 min for all NaOH
concentrations.
In terms of rheology, the aluminosilicate precursor has also a significant influence on the temporal development of yield stress and
plastic viscosity. Rovnaník and Rakhimov [116] found that the geopolymers made with brick powder exhibited the lowest rheological
performances in terms of both yield stress and plastic viscosity, while the use of MK caused a gradual increase in the yield stress. This
can be attributed to the higher reactivity of MK since it is mainly composed of amorphous deformed aluminium structure; hence,
allowing it to be quickly dissolved and instantaneous gelation of aluminosilicate oligomers. According to Kashani et al. [165], alkali
hydroxides produce a substantial rise in the yield stress of an alkali-activated paste, whilst sodium silicate causes a reduction in the
yield stress because of the deflocculating and plasticizing effects of silicate ions. The temporal development of yield stress and plastic
viscosity are significantly affected by the type of precursors used. Using large quantities of CDW-based powders in geopolymer
mixtures caused almost negligible changes in the viscosity, leading to more delay in the yield stress due to reduced presence of reactive
amorphous phases [166].
7. Durability properties of CDW-based geopolymers

7.1. Exposure to high temperature
Geopolymers generally exhibit better resistance to high temperatures than OPC-based mixtures [161]. It is stated that geopolymers
can easily withstand elevated temperatures between 800 and 1000 ◦ C without any deterioration [167]. Limited information is
available on the mechanical characteristic of CDW-based geopolymers after exposure to high temperature conditions (i.e., thermal
stability). Fig. 11 presents the stability of geopolymer pastes sourced from CDW-based ingredients under various levels of elevated
13
Fig. 11. Resistance of CDW-based geopolymers to high temperature exposure.
temperature ranging between 400 and 800 ◦ C as reported in previous studies [31,168]. As can be noted, there is a gradual decrease in
the compressive strength of all tested samples with the increase in temperature. The reduction due to increased levels of temperature is
mainly attributed to increased porosity and shrinkage of the mixture accompanied by the weight loss, causing the reorganisation of
Si–Al bonds, and consequently leading to the development of microcracks [169]. Thermal instability in geopolymers is influenced by
the source of CDW-based materials [170]. As can be also observed from Fig. 11, the geopolymers made by bricks showed high
resistance to decomposition compared to those made by concrete and tiles, which is likely associated with the formation of extra
crystalline phases under heating due to greater amount of Al2O3 content in the bricks.
7.2. Acid resistance

Detrimental effects of acids on geopolymers mainly occur as a result of the interactions between the acid solutions and calcium
compounds, which cause tensile stress cracking of the matrix. Vafaei and Allahverdi [171] investigated the performance of geopolymer
mortars prepared by the use of waste bricks and GGBFS, compared to two types of cement mortars, namely OPC and high alumina
cement under acid attack (sulfuric and hydrochloric acids) for six months. The results showed that OPC mortar exhibited significant
degradation under both acidic solutions due to high calcium concentration. This was mainly because H+ ions found in the acid so
lutions led to the breakdown of calcium aluminate hydrate, which was the fundamental binder in the mortar. Compared to CDW-based
geopolymer mortars, more severe damage was observed on the mixtures prepared by high alumina cement exposed to both acidic
liquids. Geopolymer specimens exhibited a better resistance against hydrochloric acid attack, yet, only minor damages were observed
for mixtures exposed to sulfuric acid (Fig. 12).
8. Life cycle assessment

McLellan et al. [12] performed a life cycle study on the traditional geopolymer constituents based on costs in Australian market,
considering three main issues; the impact of energy used, greenhouse footprints and cost. The study estimated that geopolymers could
minimise the unfavourable emissions between 44 and 64% compared to OPC-based concrete, but this is highly affected by the
transportation distance required for the geopolymer production, resulting in few cases, which cause even higher polluting emissions by
up to 14%. In another study, the environmental impact of different types of alkaline solutions (i.e., sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate,
sodium hydroxide, and a combination of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate) used in activating waste hybrid bricks with small
quantities of OPC [96]. The environmental impact was identified by the global warming potential values (GWP) (expressed in kg.CO2.
eq/MPa) and calculated based on the life cycle analysis of mixtures, considering two influencing factors; the content of OPC and the
quantity of activator used. The results indicated that the inclusion of small amounts of OPC by up to 30% would produce eco-efficient
geopolymer with compressive strength up to 102 MPa and potentially reduce the global warming by up to 73%. In terms of activators
used, the results demonstrated that, although sodium hydroxide exhibited the highest volume of CO2 footprint (1.6010 kg.CO2.eq for
each kg used), sodium silicate with a lower rate per kilogram (0.9260 kg.CO2.eq per kg) contributed to the highest pollution rate, since
more quantities are used to produce geopolymers with similar properties. On the other hand, the exposure to sodium carbonate and
sodium sulfate led to only 0.0098 and 0.2212 kg.CO2.eq per each kg utilised, respectively. The results also illustrated that the use of
waste bricks could help in reducing GWP values by up to 77%. In another comprehensive study [172], the environmental and
14
Fig. 12. Acid resistance of geopolymer mortar in comparison with cement mortars [171].
functional aspects of bricks-based geopolymer activated by a mixture of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate were assessed. The
environmental impact was examined by analysing carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption associated with the geopolymer
production. The combined environmental and functional aspects were expressed in terms of the energy consumption efficiency and
carbon dioxide emission efficiency index per one MPa. As depicted in Fig. 13, the findings indicated that the inclusion of 70% of waste
bricks in geopolymer provided compatible strength to OPC paste, while 45% on energy and 72% on greenhouse gas emissions can be
saved. This is mainly owing to using low quantities of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate as their detrimental impacts on the
environment were more significant, as shown in Table 2. Higher energy consumptions and CO2 footprints, 63% and 81%, respectively,
could be saved, but lower mechanical performances were obtained.
Lloyd and Rangan [173] stated that even after accounting for the cost of the alkaline solution required to produce the geopolymer
binder, geopolymer concrete is predicted to be 10–30% cheaper than similar concrete prepared from OPC. Accordingly, geopolymers
would be expected to be more affordable when CDW-based materials are used as precursors. In a recent study [174], a comprehensive
cost analysis on the manufacturing of geopolymer bricks was calculated by using various formulations of bricks (GWB1-5) made by
waste bricks and GGBFS, and compared with the geopolymers made by clay (GC) and fired bricks (FB) to determine the economic
15
Fig. 13. Comparison of consumed energy and CO2 emissions [172].
Table 2
Energy consumption and CO2 emissions for the CDW-based components [172].
Constituent Energy consumption (MJ/t) CO2 emissions (kg/t)
Portland cement 2986 829

Sodium silicate - pure 5462 1514
Sodium hydroxide - pure 6965 1930
Waste brick powder 135 28
Mixing 21 12
Fig. 14. The cost of producing one metric tonne of brick and relative compressive strength of geopolymer [174].
viability of producing geopolymers at the industrial scale. The cost of producing a metric tonne of bricks and all manufacturing stages
of geopolymer bricks were calculated using the brickworks model from the French market. The findings shown in Fig. 14 indicate that
geopolymer bricks manufactured from waste bricks could achieve double compressive strength with the same manufacturing cost used
for the traditional bricks. They also confirmed that the sodium silicate used in producing a metric tonne of geopolymer is the most
16
dominant factor in terms of cost of ingredients.
9. Current challenges for industrial applications

Geopolymer technology is gaining popularity as a practical approach to create more environmentally friendly building materials
and to address waste management concerns. Commercially, geopolymer technology has been recently developed and applied in some
practical engineering projects. However, below are few challenges facing the wide-spread applications of geopolymer concretes (with
special emphasis on the CDW-based ones) in the construction sector:
- The variations of CDW properties, as depicted in Table 3, result in variant geopolymer characteristics. Therefore, different trial
mixes with various concentrations of alkaline activators are needed to achieve the target performance for each source. However,
developing a more efficient waste management system focusing on upscaling of CDW rather than the current practice of down
cycling may help in eliminating the effect of this variability.
- The majority of the available investigations used either high dosages of chemical activators, thermal curing treatment or both to
produce CDW-based geopolymers having comparable properties to those with OPC. Such requirements increase the production cost
or make on-site casting impractical.
- High energy required to produce the commonly used activators such as sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate is another obstacle
facing the widespread use of geopolymers. According to Ref. [11], almost 60% of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from geo
polymer concrete are associated with the production of alkaline activators.
- While the utilisation of high concentrations of activators might enhance the mechanical properties of geopolymers, increased
alkalinity can cause some difficulties for the mixtures at fresh state during handling, which necessitates higher contents of
superplasticizers.
- Another aspect to be considered in terms of the development of geopolymer concretes is the possibility of efflorescence formation,
which can be identified as the formation of salt on the surface of concrete. This phenomenon may occur in geopolymers due to the
high content and concentration of alkaline activators. However, the incidence of efflorescence can be minimised by increasing the
content of silica and alumina in the mixtures.
10. Conclusions
The current paper reviewed the fundamental factors that have major influences on the properties of geopolymers produced with
CDW-based materials. Moreover, the main barriers and challenges faced in implementing geopolymers and the steps required to
overcome these issues are also discussed. Following conclusions were drawn:
• Although a few methods for the mix design of geopolymers have been suggested, the trial and error approach is still the most
common one due to large number of parameters involved in geopolymer mix design.
• The use of CDW-based materials rich in silica and alumina, such as bricks and ceramics, resulted in better mechanical performances
than waste concrete; however, superior performance can be achieved by using different sources of CDW-based materials if the
proportions of the activators and heat curing are.
• Higher compressive strengths can be obtained with finer fractions of CDWs, especially if the particle sizes are smaller than 75 μm,
while applying thermal curing in temperature range of 60–90 ◦ C can significantly accelerate geopolymerization, improving the
mechanical performance and durability.
• Geopolymers with only CDW-based fractions as the binder phase exhibited poor mechanical performance under ambient tem
perature curing, whilst the inclusion of SCMs such as GGBFS and MK in CDW-based geopolymers can improve the mechanical
performance with consideration of the influence of other factors such as the decrease in workability. Hence, it seems an essential
factor to use either heat treatment or adding SCM materials for proper synthesis CDW-based geopolymers with acceptable
properties.
• The higher concentration of sodium hydroxide can help improve the mechanical properties of geopolymers; however, the best
possible performances seem to be obtained with molarity range of 8–12 M.
• The use of alkaline activators composed of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide has been reported as the most effective activators
for enhancing the mechanical properties of CDW-based geopolymer matrices, with a recommended sodium silicate-to-sodium
hydroxide ratio between 1.0 and 2.0.
• The inclusion of higher ratios of sodium silicate decreases the workability of fresh mixtures owing to the high viscosity of Na2SiO3,
whilst increasing the concentration of NaOH can prolong the setting time of geopolymers. The concentration of sodium hydroxide
and the amount of CDW-based materials used also influence the workability and the initial and final setting time of geopolymer
mixtures.
17
M. Alhawat et al.
Table 3
Summary of CDWs used as aluminosilicate precursors in the synthesis of geopolymers.
Reference Mix Type Aluminosilicates Activators Curing conditions C.S (MPa) Remarks
CDWs SCMs Type Molarity SS/

NaOH
[107] paste concrete - NaOH, SS 6, 10, 12, 14, 14 0.5, 1, 20–90 ◦ C for 4, 12, 24, 14.3 The optimal NaOH concentration was 14 M, with SS/NaOH
18 1.5, 2, 48 and 72 h ratio of 1.5.
2.5
[98] binder clay brick, - NaOH 12.4, 14.9, 12 - 50, 65, 75, 85, 95, 105, up to 47 Hollow brick was the most effective CDW, followed by red
hollow brick, 18.6 115, clay brick and roof tile, while glass showed the lowest
roof tile, glass. 125 ◦ C strength.
[175] paste/ CDW-Mix 0, 20% OPC NaOH 6, 10, 11.65 - room temperature for 8.5–18.5 The compressive strength of CDW-based binders activated by
mortar and 24 h Na2SO4 is greater than those activated by NaOH binders at all
Na2SO4 ages.
[176] paste concrete FA-F NaOH, SS 5, 10 10 1, 2 80 ◦ C 7–34.5 The addition of waste concrete up to 50% led to increased
compressive strength for the FA-based geopolymer binders.
[177] paste bricks MK NaOH, SS - 1.4 4 h room temperature, 10–27 Using more waste bricks caused more delay in the yield stress,
then 20 h at 40 ◦ C while using more than 50% of MK led to decreasing the
viscosity of mixes owing to the fast dissolution of MK
particles.
18
[71] paste bricks, concrete - NaOH, SS 12 12 1.0, 1.5 95% RH for 24h, then 10–40 Waste bricks were more reactive during geopolymerzation
soaked in water compared to waste concrete. Increasing the NaOH molarity
led to a significant change in the final setting time of mixtures.
[178] mortar concrete MK, SF NaOH, SS 10 10 1.0 room temperature for 7–27 High polymerization of MK and SF enhanced the low quality
24 h of ITZ in waste concrete-based geopolymers.
[179] paste concrete MK Ca(OH)2, 12 12 1.0 (a) Soaked in water. 1.5–27 Adding calcium hydroxide enhanced the microstructural and
NOH, SS (b) 40 ◦ C/100RH. (c) mechanical properties of CDW-based mixtures. Si/Al ratios
80 ◦ C for 24 h between 3 and 3.8 led to the best properties.
[161] paste ceramic - NaOH, 14 14 2.5 60 ◦ C/95% RH for 24h 26–71 Geopolymers prepared from waste ceramic showed a
SS, KOH reduction in strength after heating at 100 ◦ C for 2 h, while
more increments in temperature until 1000 ◦ C led to
increased strength.

[140] mortar brick - NaOH, SS 10, 12 12 1.5, 2 65 ◦ C/100% RH for 7 21–42 Lower Na concentration and more water content are required
days for waste brick compared to porcelain.
[141] mortar brick, porcelain - NaOH, SS 6, 8,10 10 2.0 65 ◦ C/95% RH 4–50 Higher concentrations of alkaline solution led to better
properties.
[180] paste Bricks, ceramic, GGBFS SS, Na2 6, 8, 10, 12, 10 0.75, 1.5 16h of steam curing, 2–140 The properties of final gels are affected by the nature of alkali
tile CO3 14 then room solution, precursors and grinding methods.
temperature with 95%
RH
(continued on next page)
M. Alhawat et al.
Table 3 (continued )

NaOH
[30] paste concrete, brick, SS, KOH 8, 10, 12 12 1.5 room temperature for 3–55 Marine sediments can be partially used with tile and brick for
tile 24h then 60, 80 and producing geopolymers.
90 ◦ C
[31] paste concrete, brick, NaOH, SS 10,12 12 2.0 room temperature for 3–57 Tile and brick showed better mechanical properties
tile 24h then 60, 80 and (50–57 MPa) compared to waste concrete owing to high
90 ◦ C contents of Si and Al. The best performance achieved at 8 and
10 M and at curing temperature of 80–90 ◦ C.
[32] paste clay brick 20–80% NaOH, SS 8 8 2.5 room temperature 3–83 Ambient conditions were insufficient for completing
GGBFS geopolymerization process, reaching 10 MPa as the maximum
strength. The addition of GGBFS to brick-based geopolymer
clearly improved the main characteristics of geopolymers.
[180] paste brick FA NaOH, SS 12 12 1.0 21/50% RH 5–65 The mixture of 50% FA and 50% waste brick showed the best
performance.
[181] mortar ceramic, and - NaOH 6 6 - 24h room 19–48 Ceramic showed better mechanical properties in comparison
clay brick temperature, followed to clay brick due to good bonding of ceramic particles in the
by 40 ◦ C/100% RH matrix.
[182] paste brick, tile, 0–70% NaOH, SS 8, 10, 12 10 - 80 ◦ C for 24h before 2.5–76 The best results obtained by tiles, then bricks, while low
19
concrete, red GGBS curing at room strengths were found in waste concrete based geopolymers. It
mud temperature 7days. is important to balance Si/Ca and Si/Al ratios.
[102] paste concrete 0–30% MK, NaOH, SS 10 10 1.5 (a) room temperature 3–55 The addition of OPC and MK to waste concrete enhanced
OPC (b) 70 C◦ for 24 h, then geopolymerization process.
90% RH
[183] paste brick 0, 20% OPC NaOH, SS 12 12 - (a) room temperature 54–102 The use of 20% OPC led to acquirement of paste with double
(b) 70 ◦ C for 24h strength compared to that produced without OPC, and the use
(c) 70 ◦ C for 48h of hybrid sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide contributed
to the achievement of strengths more than 7 times of that
using sodium hydroxide alone.
[184] mortar bricks, ceramic 5% Ca NaOH, SS 12 12 - 65 ◦ C for 3 days 23–53 The behaviour of the mortar was substantially influenced by
(OH)2 the curing temperature selected.

[29] paste brick, concrete, 0–30% OPC NaOH/ 14 14 - (a) room temperature 7–102 NaOH + Na2SiO3 showed much better results than NaOH
glass NaOH + (b) 70 ◦ C for 24h, then alone. Using bricks and waste concrete showed good
SS chamber with 90% mechanical properties.
RH.
(continued on next page)
M. Alhawat et al.
Table 3 (continued )

NaOH
[139] mortar bricks - NaOH, SS 10 10 0.8–2.2 90 ◦ C for 5 days 16- 36 The flowability of mixtures rose with increasing Na2O
concentrations. More pronounced crystal peaks were
observed with increasing bricks in the mixes.
[172] paste bricks OPC NaOH, SS 6, 8 8 - room temperature 10.3–52 The mixture of 70% bricks and 30% OPC exhibited the best
combined performance in terms of environmental impact and
compressive strength.
[24] mortar Bricks, ceramic 0–50% NaOH, SS 12 12 1.0 room temperature 24–93 The high contents of calcium oxide in GGBS significantly
GBGS densified the CDW-based geopolymer matrix.
[28] mortar concrete, 0–50% MK, NaOH, SS 14 14 1.5 room temperature 18 In comparison to OPC-based paste, geopolymers may save
bricks, ceramic, energy up to 45%, and could minimise the greenhouse gas
glass emissions up to 72%.
[25] paste concrete, FA-F, FA-C, NaOH, SS 10 10 - 50, 75, 100 ◦ C 25–58 The flowability rose with increasing the ratios of Na2O/SiO2
bricks, MK, GBGFS and SiO2/Al2O3, whilst setting time shortened with increasing
Na2O/SiO2 and prolonged with higher SiO2/Al2O3.
[99] paste Clay bricks, - NaOH 10, 15, 19 15 - 95, 105, 115, 125 ◦ C 10- 80 Hollow bricks showed the best findings. The main products
20
roof tile, hollow for 1, 2, 3 days were N-A-S-H gels.

bricks
[75] mortar, Mixed CDWs OPC NaOH, SS - - - room temperature up to 43.9 The inclusion of 10% OPC in CDW-based geopolymer led to
concrete achieving concrete with 33.9 MPa.
[122] mortar bricks FA-C NaOH, SS 6, 8, 10 10 1.5, 2, room temperature Up to The addition of brick powder significantly reduced the
2.5 44.2 flowability of geopolymer mixes.
[185] mortar ceramic NaOH, SS 10 10 2.5 60, 75, 90, 105 ◦ C 22.2–27.9 The optimal mortar was achieved with solution-to-binder
ratio of 0.6 and under 90 ◦ C heat curing.
[105] paste concrete FA NaOH 10, 14, 18 14 1.5 50 ◦ C for 24 h 10–39 Using FA up to 75% as a replacement to bricks in geopolymer
can profoundly improve the mechanical properties and the
microstructure of the matrix.
[138] paste Mixed CDWs 0–55% NaOH, SS 2,4,6,8,10,12 6–12 1.1, 1.6, room temperature 6–70 GGBS remarkably enhanced the strength of CDW-based

GGBFS 1.9 geopolymer at low alkali concentrations (less than 10 M),
while no improvement was reported at higher molarity (12 M
or more) in the mixes containing GGBFS more than 25%.
[175] paste/ Mixed CDWs 0–20% OPC NaOH, 2, 6, 10, - - room temperature 12–16.5 Better findings obtained with sodium sulfate in comparison to
mortar Na2SO4 11.65 NaOH at all testing ages.
Table 4
Description of the main factors affecting CDW-based geopolymers [186–191].
• Naphthalene-based superplasticizers are the most advisable high-range water-reducing admixtures for geopolymer systems acti
vated solely by NaOH, whilst polycarboxylate-based plasticizers showed the best plasticizing effect amongst other commercial
superplasticizers available for geopolymer systems activated by both sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide.
In order to address the challenges identified in this review paper, the following strategies and future research needs are proposed:
• There is a lack of studies on the production of CDW-based geopolymer concretes as it can be noted from Table 4, since the previous
works mainly focused on the paste and mortar mixtures.
21
• Further investigations should be made on producing more cost-effective, environmentally friendly activators, preferably manu
factured from waste materials (e.g., waste sodic and waste glass).
• While the inclusion of CDW-based materials in producing geopolymer mixtures can greatly reduce the negative environmental
footprint based on some influencing factors such as transportation and mix design, the nature and amount of the alkaline activator
used are the most dominant factors that need to be considered in terms of cost.
• Issues related to the cost and environmental impact of current activators used in producing geopolymers are still the main chal
lenges that need to be addressed for making real-time and large-scale applications widespread.
• There is an urgent need to standardize methods, specifications, and guidelines for the mix design of geopolymers based on the
divergent characteristics of aluminosilicate precursors and activators used.
• More research is required on synthesising high performance geopolymers with minimal dosages of chemical activators as well as
under ambient curing conditions, without any heat treatment. These steps can significantly contribute to producing sustainable
products with highly reduced costs.
• Further research is needed on the application of advanced analytical models that can help understand the geopolymerization ki
netics, formation of geopolymeric gels based on the source materials used and identifying the key parameters of designing the
mixture to be fabricated.
• More studies on the life cycle assessment of the potential geopolymer mixtures should be conducted to reflect the real economic and
environmental benefits obtained from geopolymers compared to conventional concrete.
• More research is still needed in terms of the durability of geopolymers, particularly in the topics related to shrinkage, freeze-thaw
resistance and chloride-induced corrosion along with the long-term durability properties of CDW-based geopolymers.
• Investigations on the structural performance of CDW-based geopolymers are very limited. In fact, only two research papers are
currently available in the literature, investigating the flexural and shear behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams under ambient
conditions using the four-point-bending test [99,192].
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Newton Prize 2020, UK-Turkey award, grant reference number NP2020PB\100026, funded by the
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. With thanks to our delivery partners, the British Council, UK and the Scientific
and Technological Research Council, Turkey. For further information, please visit www.newton-gcrf.org/newton-fund/newton-prize/.
References
[1] P.J. Monteiro, S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, Towards sustainable concrete, Nat. Mater. 16 (7) (2017) 698–699.
[2] J. Wei, K. Cen, Empirical assessing cement CO2 emissions based on China’s economic and social development during 2001–2030, Sci. Total Environ. 653
(2019) 200–211.
[3] N.A. Madlool, R. Saidur, M.S. Hossain, N.A. Rahim, A critical review on energy use and savings in the cement industries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4)
(2011) 2042–2060.
[4] J.F. Xie, Y.X. Huang, W.W. Li, X.N. Song, L. Xiong, H.Q. Yu, Efficient electrochemical CO2 reduction on a unique chrysanthemum-like Cu nanoflower electrode
and direct observation of carbon deposite, Electrochim. Acta 139 (2014) 137–144.
[5] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 37 (8) (1991) 1633–1656.
[6] J.X. Peng, L. Huang, Y.B. Zhao, P. Chen, L. Zeng, Modeling of carbon dioxide measurement on cement plants, Adv. Mater. Res. 610 (2013) 2120–2128.
[7] O.H. Zinkaah, A. Araba, M. Alhawat, Performance of ACI code for predicting the flexural capacity and deflection of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams, in:
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1090, IOP Publishing, 2021. No. 1, p. 012067.
[8] Y.M. Amran, R. Alyousef, H. Alabduljabbar, M. El-Zeadani, Clean production and properties of geopolymer concrete; A review, J. Clean. Prod. 251 (2020)
119679.
[9] K. Neupane, D. Chalmers, P. Kidd, High-strength geopolymer concrete—properties, advantages and challenges, Adv. Mater. 7 (2) (2018) 15–25.
[10] X. Jiang, R. Xiao, M. Zhang, W. Hu, Y. Bai, B. Huang, A laboratory investigation of steel to fly ash-based geopolymer paste bonding behavior after exposure to
elevated temperatures, Construct. Build. Mater. 254 (2020) 119267.
[11] L.K. Turner, F.G. Collins, Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete, Construct. Build. Mater.
43 (2013) 125–130.
[12] B.C. McLellan, R.P. Williams, J. Lay, A. Van Riessen, G.D. Corder, Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland
cement, J. Clean. Prod. 19 (9–10) (2011) 1080–1090.
[13] P. Duxson, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J.S. van Deventer, Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci. 42
(9) (2007) 2917–2933.
[14] M. Lahoti, P. Narang, K.H. Tan, E.H. Yang, Mix design factors and strength prediction of metakaolin-based geopolymer, Ceram. Int. 43 (14) (2017), 2017,
11433-1144.
[15] M. Rostami, K. Behfarnia, The effect of silica fume on durability of alkali activated slag concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 262–268.
[16] B.V. Rangan, Design and manufacture of flyash-based geopolymer concrete, Concr. Aus. 34 (2) (2008) 37–43.
[17] X. Chen, Y. Guo, S. Ding, H. Zhang, F. Xia, J. Wang, M. Zhou, Utilization of red mud in geopolymer-based pervious concrete with function of adsorption of
heavy metal ions, J. Clean. Prod. 207 (2019) 789–800.
[18] M. Alhawat, A. Ashour, A. El-Khoja, Properties of concrete incorporating different nano silica particles, Mater. Res. Innovat. 24 (3) (2020) 133–144.
[19] N. Singh, S.P. Singh, Carbonation resistance and microstructural analysis of low and high volume fly ash self compacting concrete containing recycled concrete
aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 127 (2016) 828–842.
[20] V.W. Tam, M. Soomro, A.C.J. Evangelista, A review of recycled aggregate in concrete applications (2000–2017), Construct. Build. Mater. 172 (2018) 272–292.
[21] M. Alhawat, A. Ashour, Bond strength between corroded steel and recycled aggregate concrete incorporating nano silica, Construct. Build. Mater. 237 (2020)
117441.
22
[22] S.M.S. Kazmi, M.J. Munir, Y.F. Wu, I. Patnaikuni, Y. Zhou, F. Xing, Effect of different aggregate treatment techniques on the freeze-thaw and sulfate resistance
of recycled aggregate concrete, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 178 (2020) 103126.
[23] S. Dadsetan, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, M. Sahmaran, Construction and demolition waste in geopolymer concrete technology: a review, Mag. Concr. Res. 71 (23)
(2019) 1232–1252.
[24] C.L. Hwang, M.D. Yehualaw, D.H. Vo, T.P. Huynh, A. Largo, Performance evaluation of alkali activated mortar containing high volume of waste brick powder
blended with ground granulated blast furnace slag cured at ambient temperature, Construct. Build. Mater. 223 (2019) 657–667.
[25] O. Mahmoodi, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, S. Dadsetan, M. Sahmaran, Development of ceramic tile waste geopolymer binders based on pre-targeted chemical ratios
and ambient curing, Construct. Build. Mater. 258 (2020) 120297.
[26] O. Mahmoodi, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, S. Dadsetan, M. Sahmaran, Optimization of brick waste-based geopolymer binders at ambient temperature and pre-
targeted chemical parameters, J. Clean. Prod. 268 (2020) 122285.
[27] G. Yıldırım, A. Kul, E. Özçelikci, M. Şahmaran, A. Aldemir, D. Figueira, A. Ashour, Development of alkali-activated binders from recycled mixed masonry-
originated waste, J. Build. Eng. 33 (2021) 101690.
[28] J. Tan, et al., Development of eco-friendly geopolymers with ground mixed recycled aggregates and slag, J. Clean. Prod. 256 (2020) 120369.
[29] R.A. Robayo-Salazar, J.F. Rivera, R.M. de Gutiérrez, Alkali-activated building materials made with recycled construction and demolition wastes, Construct.
Build. Mater. 149 (2017) 130–138.
[30] K. Komnitsas, D. Zaharaki, Co-utilization of construction and demolition with industrial wastes for the production of geopolymer, in: Inter. Conference on
Industrial Waste & Wastewater Treatment & Valorization, 2015, pp. 21–23.
[31] K. Komnitsas, et al., Effect of synthesis parameters on the quality of construction and demolition wastes (CDW) geopolymers, Adv. Powder Technol. 26 (2)
(2015) 368–376.
[32] M.F. Zawrah, R.A. Gado, N. Feltin, S. Ducourtieux, L. Devoille, Recycling and utilization assessment of waste fired clay bricks (Grog) with granulated blast-
furnace slag for geopolymer production, Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 103 (2016) 237–251.
[33] K. Ramujee, M. Potharaju, Abrasion resistance of geopolymer composites, Procedia Mater. Sci. 6 (2014) 1961–1966.
[34] A. Barbudo, A.P. Galvín, F. Agrela, J. Ayuso, J.R. Jiménez, Correlation analysis between sulphate content and leaching of sulphates in recycled aggregates from
construction and demolition wastes, J. Waste Manag. 32 (6) (2012) 1229–1235.
[35] C. Scientific, HB 155–2002: Guide to the Use of Recycled Concrete and Masonry Materials, 2002.
[36] S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete, J. Waste Manag.
30 (11) (2010) 2255–2264.
[37] M. Etxeberria, E. Vázquez, A. Marí, M. Barra, Influence of amount of recycled coarse aggregates and production process on properties of recycled aggregate
concrete, Cement Concr. Res. 37 (5) (2007) 735–742.
[38] M. Alhawat, A. Ashour, Bond strength between corroded steel reinforcement and recycled aggregate concrete, Structures 19 (2019) 369–385.
[39] T. Ozbakkaloglu, A. Gholampour, T. Xie, Mechanical and durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete: effect of recycled aggregate properties and
content, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2) (2018), 04017275.
[40] A.A.M. Ali, R.S. Zidan, T.W. Ahmed, Evaluation of high-strength concrete made with recycled aggregate under effect of well water, Case Stud. Constr. Mater.
12 (2020), 00338.
[41] M. Joseph, L. Boehme, Z. Sierens, L. Vandewalle, Water absorption variability of recycled concrete aggregates, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (11) (2015) 592–597,
2015.
[42] D. Xuan, B. Zhan, C.S. Poon, Durability of recycled aggregate concrete prepared with carbonated recycled concrete aggregates, Cement Concr. Compos. 84
(2017) 214–221.
[43] K. Yanagibashi, Y. Toshio, I. Takashi, T. Daijiro, Y. Masaru, A. Kazuaki, A new concrete recycling process for coarse aggregate to be used concrete structure, in:
RILEM International Symposium on Environment-Conscious Materials and Systems for Sustainable Development, 2004, pp. 137–143, 2004.
[44] H. Katkhuda, N. Shatarat, Improving the mechanical properties of recycled concrete aggregate using chopped basalt fibers and acid treatment, Construct.
Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 328–335.
[45] V. Spaeth, A.D. Tegguer, Improvement of recycled concrete aggregate properties by polymer treatments. I, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2 (2) (2013) 143–152.
[46] L.W. Zhang, A.O. Sojobi, V.K.R. Kodur, K.M. Liew, Effective utilization and recycling of mixed recycled aggregates for a greener environment, J. Clean. Prod.
236 (2019) 117600.
[47] J. De Brito, J. Ferreira, J. Pacheco, D. Soares, M. Guerreiro, Structural, material, mechanical and durability properties and behaviour of recycled aggregates
concrete, J. Build. Eng. 6 (2016) 1–16.
[48] R.I.L.E.M. Recommendation, Specifications for concrete with recycled aggregates, Mater. Struct. 27 (9) (1994) 557–559.
[49] B. EN, 12620: 2002+ A1: Aggregates for Concrete, Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2008.
[50] EHE-08, 2008 EHE-08, Structural Concrete Instruction, Ministry of Development, Madrid, 2008, 318 2014.
[51] WBTC, WBTC No. 12/2002: Specifications Facilitating the Use of Recycled Aggregates, 2002.
[52] D. DIN, Aggregates for Concrete and Mortar—Part 100: Recycled Aggregates, 2002, 4226-100.
[53] EN-1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN): Brussels,
Belgium, p.259.
[54] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14): an ACI Standard; Commentary on Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14), ACI, 2014.
[55] A. Braga, Comparative Analysis of the Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Recycled Aggregate Concrete, 2014.
[56] H. Higashiyama, F. Yagishita, M. Sano, O. Takahashi, Compressive strength and resistance to chloride penetration of mortars using ceramic waste as fine
aggregate, Construct. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 96–101.
[57] J.R. Jiménez, J. Ayuso, M. López, J.M. Fernández, J.M.C.L. De Brito, Use of fine recycled aggregates from ceramic waste in masonry mortar manufacturing,
Construct. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 679–690.
[58] A. Halicka, P. Ogrodnik, B. Zegardlo, Using ceramic sanitary ware waste as concrete aggregate, Construct. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 295–305.
[59] B. Cantero, I.F. Sáez del Bosque, A. Matías, M.I. Sánchez de Rojas, C. Medina, Effect of Recycled Aggregate on Performance of Granular Skeleton, ACI, 2020.
[60] G. Silva, S. Kim, B. Bertolotti, J. Nakamatsu, R. Aguilar, Optimization of a reinforced geopolymer composite using natural fibers and construction wastes,
Construct. Build. Mater. 258 (2020) 119697.
[61] V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Use of construction and demolition waste (CDW) for alkali-activated or geopolymer concrete, in: Advances in Construction and
Demolition Waste Recycling, 2020, pp. 385–403.
[62] A. De Rossi, M.J. Ribeiro, J.A. Labrincha, R.M. Novais, D. Hotza, R.F.P.M. Moreira, Effect of the particle size range of construction and demolition waste on the
fresh and hardened-state properties of fly ash-based geopolymer mortars with total replacement of sand, Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 129 (2019) 130–137.
[63] P. Nuaklong, P. Jongvivatsakul, T. Pothisiri, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Influence of rice husk ash on mechanical properties and fire resistance of recycled
aggregate high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 252 (2020) 119797.
[64] C. Shi, Z. Wu, Z. Cao, T.C. Ling, J. Zheng, Performance of mortar prepared with recycled concrete aggregate enhanced by CO2 and pozzolan slurry, Cement
Concr. Compos. 86 (2018) 130–138.
[65] Y.J. Kim, Y.W. Choi, Utilization of waste concrete powder as a substitution material for cement, Construct. Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 500–504.
[66] Z. Ma, W. Li, H. Wu, C. Cao, Chloride permeability of concrete mixed with activity recycled powder obtained from C&D waste, Construct. Build. Mater. 199
(2019) 652–663.
[67] J. Schoon, K. De Buysser, I. Van Driessche, N. De Belie, Fines extracted from recycled concrete as alternative raw material for Portland cement clinker
production, Cement Concr. Compos. 58 (2015) 70–80.
23
[68] D. Gastaldi, F. Canonico, L. Capelli, L. Buzzi, E. Boccaleri, S. Irico, An investigation on the recycling of hydrated cement from concrete demolition waste,
Cement Concr. Compos. 61 (2015) 29–35.
[69] J. Geopolymers Davidovits, Inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 37 (8) (1991) 1633–1656.
[70] P. De Silva, K. Sagoe-Crenstil, V. Sirivivatnanon, Kinetics of geopolymerization: role of Al2O3 and SiO2, Cement Concr. Res. 37 (4) (2007) 512–518.
[71] V. Glukhovsky, New cements for the 21st century: the pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement, Cement Concr. 41 (2011) 750–763.
[72] P. Zhang, Z. Gao, J. Wang, J. Guo, S. Hu, Y. Ling, Properties of fresh and hardened fly ash/slag based geopolymer concrete: a review, J. Clean. Prod. 270 (2020)
122389.
[73] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments, Construct. Build. Mater. 85 (2015) 78–90.
[74] García-Lodeiro, I., Fernández-Jiménez, A. and Palomo, A. Variation in hybrid cements over time. Alkaline activation of fly ash–portland cement blends.
Cement Concr. Res., 52,.112-122.
[75] C. Lampris, R. Lupo, C.R. Cheeseman, Geopolymerisation of silt generated from construction and demolition waste washing plants, J. Waste Manag. 29 (1)
(2009) 368–373.
[76] P. Duxson, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, S.W. Mallicoat, W.M. Kriven, J.S. Van Deventer, Understanding the relationship between geopolymer composition,
microstructure and mechanical properties, Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 269 (1–3) (2005) 47–58.
[77] R.A. Robayo-Salazar, W. Valencia-Saavedra, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling—as both binder and aggregates—in
alkali-activated materials: a novel Re-use concept, Sustainability 12 (14) (2020) 5775.
[78] W. Ferdous, A. Manalo, A. Khennane, O. Kayali, Geopolymer concrete-filled pultruded composite beams–concrete mix design and application, Cement Concr.
Compos. 58 (2015) 1–13.
[79] R. Anuradha, V. Sreevidya, R. Venkatasubramani, B.V. Rangan, Modified Guidelines for Geopolymer Concrete Mix Design Using Indian Standard, 2012.
[80] B.V. Rangan, Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete, 2008.
[81] P.E. Pavithra, M.S. Reddy, P. Dinakar, B.H. Rao, B.K. Satpathy, A.N. Mohanty, A mix design procedure for geopolymer concrete with fly ash, J. Clean. Prod.
133 (2016) 117–125.
[82] N. Li, C. Shi, Z. Zhang, D. Zhu, H.-J. Hwang, Y. Zhu, et al., A mixture proportioning method for the development of performance-based alkali-activated slag-
basedconcrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 93 (2018) 163–174.
[83] A.M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, 1995, p. 4.
[84] N. Li, C. Shi, Z. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Liu, A review on mixture design methods for geopolymer concrete, Compos. B Eng. 178 (2019) 107490.
[85] American Concrete Institute. Committee 211, Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete, ACI, 1991.
[86] M.S. Reddy, P. Dinakar, B.H. Rao, Mix design development of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete, J. Build. Eng. 20
(2018) 712–722.
[87] M.T. Junaid, O. Kayali, A. Khennane, J. Black, A mix design procedure for low calciumalkali activated fly ash-based concretes, Construct. Build. Mater. 79
(2015) 301–310.
[88] N.T. Sing, J. FS, Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance geopolymer mortars, Struct. Concr. 14 (2) (2013) 148–156.
[89] D. Bondar, S. Nanukuttan, J.L. Provis, M. Soutsos, Efficient mix design of alkali activated slag concretes based on packing fraction of ingredients and paste
thickness, J. Clean. Prod. 218 (2019) 438–449.
[90] A.M. Araba, Z.A. Memon, M. Alhawat, M. Ali, A. Milad, Estimation at completion in civil engineering projects: review of regression and soft computing models,
Knowl. Base Syst. 2 (2) (2021) 1–12.
[91] C. Jithendra, S. Elavenil, Effects of silica fume on workability and compressive strength properties of aluminosilicate based flowable geopolymer mortar under
ambient curing, Silicon 12 (8) (2020) 1965–1974.
[92] J.L. Provis, Alkali-activated materials, Cement Concr. Res. 114 (2018) 40–48.
[93] X. Chen, Z. Niu, J. Wang, G.R. Zhu, M. Zhou, Effect of sodium polyacrylate on mechanical properties and microstructure of metakaolin-based geopolymer with
different SiO2/Al2O3 ratio, Cerâmica 44 (15) (2018) 18173–18180.
[94] O.H. Zinkaah, A. Al-Rifaie, M.M. Alhawat, Predictability of existing standard codes for the flexural strength of beams produced from alkali-activated concrete,
AIP Conf. Proc. 2404 (2021), 080031.
[95] J.G.S. Van Jaarsveld, J.S.J. Van Deventer, L. Lorenzen, The potential use of geopolymeric materials to immobilise toxic metals: Part I. Theory and applications,
Miner. Eng. 10 (7) (1997) 659–669.
[96] O. Mahmoodi, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, S. Dadsetan, M. Sahmaran, Development of normal and very high strength geopolymer binders based on concrete waste at
ambient environment, J. Clean. Prod. 279 (2021) 123436.
[97] R.A. Robayo-Salazar, J.F. Rivera, R.M. de Gutiérrez, Alkali-activated building materials made with recycled construction and demolition wastes, Construct.
Build. Mater. 149 (2017) 130–138.
[98] H. Ulugöl, A. Kul, G. Yıldırım, M. Şahmaran, A. Aldemir, D. Figueira, A. Ashour, Mechanical and microstructural characterization of geopolymers from
assorted construction and demolition waste-based masonry and glass, J. Clean. Prod. 280 (2021) 124358.
[99] Ş. Akduman, O. Kocaer, A. Aldemir, M. Şahmaran, G. Yıldırım, H. Almahmood, A. Ashour, Experimental investigations on the structural behaviour of
reinforced geopolymer beams produced from recycled construction materials, J. Build. Eng. (2021) 102776.
[100] S. Dadsetan, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, M. Sahmaran, Construction and demolition waste in geopolymer concrete technology: a review, Mag. Concr. Res. 71 (23)
(2019) 1232–1252.
[101] C.L. Wong, K.H. Mo, U.J. Alengaram, S.P. Yap, Mechanical strength and permeation properties of high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer containing recycled
brick powder, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) 101655.
[102] A. Vásquez, V. Cárdenas, R.A. Robayo, R.M. de Gutiérrez, Geopolymer based on concrete demolition waste, Adv. Powder Technol. 27 (4) (2016) 1173–1179.
[103] S. Ahmari, L. Zhang, Production of eco-friendly bricks from copper mine tailings through geopolymerization, Construct. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 323–331.
[104] S. Ahmari, L. Zhang, Utilization of cement kiln dust (CKD) to enhance mine tailings-based geopolymer bricks, Construct. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 1002–1011.
[105] W. Chen, Z. Zhu, Utilization of fly ash to enhance ground waste concrete-based geopolymer, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2018).
[106] D. Ravikumar, N. Neithalath, Effects of activator characteristics on the reaction product formation in slag binders activated using alkali silicate powder and
NaOH, Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (7) (2012) 809–818.
[107] W. Huo, Z. Zhu, W. Chen, J. Zhang, Z. Kang, S. Pu, Y. Wan, Effect of synthesis parameters on the development of unconfined compressive strength of recycled
waste concrete powder-based geopolymers, Construct. Build. Mater. 292 (2021) 123264.
[108] W.K. Part, M. Ramli, C.B. Cheah, An overview on the influence of various factors on the properties of geopolymer concrete derived from industrial by-products,
[109] L.M. Murillo, S. Delvasto, M. Gordillo, A study of a hybrid binder based on alkali-activated ceramic tile wastes and portland cement, in: Sustainable and
Nonconventional Construction Materials Using Inorganic Bonded Fiber Composites, 2017, pp. 291–311.
[110] M. Bassani, L. Tefa, A. Russo, P. Palmero, Alkali-activation of recycled construction and demolition waste aggregate with no added binder, Construct. Build.
Mater. 205 (2019) 398–413.
[111] M. Tuyan, Ö. Andiç-Çakir, K. Ramyar, Effect of alkali activator concentration and curing condition on strength and microstructure of waste clay brick powder-
based geopolymer, Compos. B Eng. 135 (2018) 242–252.
[112] M. Sitarz, I. Hager, M. Choińska, Evolution of mechanical properties with time of fly-ash-based geopolymer mortars under the effect of granulated ground blast
furnace slag addition, Energies 13 (5) (2020) 1135.
[113] P. Krivenko, E. Kavalerova, Performance of alkali-activated cements-perspective ways for carbon dioxide emissions reduction, in: 3rd International Symposium
“Non-traditional Cement & Concrete “, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic, 2008, pp. 389–399.
[114] I. García-Lodeiro, A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, D.E. Macphee, Effect of calcium additions on N–A–S–H cementitious gels, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 93 (7)
(2010) 1934–1940.
24
[115] S. Puligilla, P. Mondal, Role of slag in microstructural development and hardening of fly ash-slag geopolymer, Cement Concr. Res. 43 (2013) 70–80, 2013.
[116] N.R. Rakhimova, R.Z. Rakhimov, Reaction products, structure and properties of alkali-activated metakaolin cements incorporated with supplementary
materials–a review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 8 (1) (2019) 1522–1531.
[117] S. Ahmari, X. Ren, V. Toufigh, L. Zhang, Production of geopolymeric binder from blended waste concrete powder and fly ash, Construct. Build. Mater. 35
(2012) 718–729.
[118] M. Vafaei, A. Allahverdi, Strength development and acid resistance of geopolymer based on waste clay brick powder and phosphorous slag, Struct. Concr. 20
(5) (2019) 1596–1606.
[119] M. Gougazeh, Geopolymers from Jordanian metakaolin: influence of chemical and mineralogical compositions on the development of mechanical properties,
Jordan J 7 (2) (2019) 236–257.
[120] P.U.P.U.T. Risdanareni, J.J. Ekaputri, M.M. Al Bakri Abdullah, Effect of alkaline activator ratio to mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete with trass as
filler, Appl. Mech. Mater. 754 (2015) 406–412.
[121] K. Parthiban, K. Saravanarajamohan, S. Shobana, A.A. Bhaskar, Effect of replacement of slag on the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete, Int. J. Eng. Technol. 5 (3) (2013) 2555–2559.
[122] C.L. Wong, K.H. Mo, U.J. Alengaram, S.P. Yap, Mechanical strength and permeation properties of high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer containing recycled
brick powder, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) 101655.
[123] N. Lloyd, V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete with fly ash, in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and
Technologies, 2010, pp. 1493–1504.
[124] B.B. Jindal, Feasibility study of ambient cured geopolymer concrete–A review, Adv. Concr. Constr. 6 (4) (2018) 387.
[125] T. Luukkonen, Z. Abdollahnejad, J. Yliniemi, P. Kinnunen, M. Illikainen, Comparison of alkali and silica sources in one-part alkali-activated blast furnace slag
mortar, J. Clean. Prod. 187 (2018) 171–179.
[126] E. Kamseu, L.B. à Moungam, M. Cannio, N. Billong, D. Chaysuwan, U.C. Melo, C. Leonelli, Substitution of sodium silicate with rice husk ash-NaOH solution in
metakaolin based geopolymer cement concerning reduction in global warming, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 3050–3060, 22.
[127] I.S. del Bosque, J.M. Medina, M. Frías, M.S. de Rojas, C. Medina, Use of biomass-fired power plant bottom ash as an addition in new blended cements: effect on
the structure of the CSH gel formed during hydration, Construct. Build. Mater. 228 (2019) 117081.
[128] R. Vinai, M. Soutsos, Production of sodium silicate powder from waste glass cullet for alkali activation of alternative binders, Cement Concr. Res. 116 (2019)
45–56.
[129] A. Poulesquen, F. Frizon, D. Lambertin, Rheological behavior of alkali-activated metakaolin during geopolymerization, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 357 (21) (2011)
3565–3571, 2011.
[130] A. Passuello, E.D. Rodríguez, E. Hirt, M. Longhi, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, A.P. Kirchheim, Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental
footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators, Clean. Prod. 166 (2017) 680–689.
[131] M.H. Samarakoon, P.G. Ranjith, W.H. Duan, V.R.S. De Silva, Properties of one-part fly ash/slag-based binders activated by thermally-treated waste glass/NaOH
blends: a comparative study, Cement Concr. Compos. 112 (2020) 103679.
[132] M.F. Alnahhal, T. Kim, A. Hajimohammadi, Waste-derived Activators for Alkali-Activated Materials: A Review, Cem Concr Compos., 2021, p. 103980.
[133] 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, C Cem. Concr. Compos. 45 (2014) 9–14.
[134] D. Panias, I.P. Giannopoulou, T. Perraki, Effect of synthesis parameters on the mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymers, Colloids Surf., A 301 (1–3)
(2007) 246–254.
[135] S. Akçaözoğlu, C. Ulu, Recycling of waste PET granules as aggregate in alkali-activated blast furnace slag/metakaolin blends, Construct. Build. Mater. 58
(2014) 31–37.
[136] S. Kumar, D.P. Sahoo, S.K. Nath, T.C. Alex, R. Kumar, From grey waste to green geopolymer, Sci. Cult. 78 (2012) 511–516.
[137] M.M.A. Abdullah, K. Hussin, M. Bnhussain, K.N. Ismail, W.M.W. Ibrahim, Mechanism and chemical reaction of fly ash geopolymer cement-a review, Int. J. Pure
Appl. Sci. Technol. 6 (1) (2011) 35–44.
[138] T.H. Tan, K.H. Mo, T.C. Ling, S.H. Lai, Current development of geopolymer as alternative adsorbent for heavy metal removal, Environ. Technol. 18 (2020)
100684.
[139] M. Tuyan, Ö. Andiç-Çakir, K. Ramyar, Effect of alkali activator concentration and curing condition on strength and microstructure of waste clay brick powder-
based geopolymer, Compos. B. 135 (2018) 242–252.
[140] L. Reig, M.M. Tashima, L. Soriano, M.V. Borrachero, J. Monzó, J. Payá, Alkaline activation of ceramic waste materials, Waste Biomass Valorization 4 (4) (2013)
729–736.
[141] L. Reig, M.M. Tashima, M.V. Borrachero, J. Monzó, C.R. Cheeseman, J. Payá, Properties and microstructure of alkali-activated red clay brick waste, Construct.
Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 98–106.
[142] G. Silva, D. Castañeda, S. Kim, A. Castañeda, B. Bertolotti, L. Ortega-San-Martin, J. Nakamatsu, R. Aguilar, Analysis of the production conditions of geopolymer
matrices from natural pozzolana and fired clay brick wastes, Construct. Build. Mater. 215 (2019) 633–643.
[143] M.H. Al-Majidi, A. Lampropoulos, A. Cundy, S. Meikle, Development of geopolymer mortar under ambient temperature for in situ applications, Construct.
Build. Mater. 120 (2016) 198–211.
[144] A. Hassan, M. Arif, M. Shariq, Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and sustainable environment–A review of mechanical properties and microstructure, J.
Clean. Prod. 223 (2019) 704–728.
[145] L. Biondi, M. Perry, C. Vlachakis, Z. Wu, A. Hamilton, J. McAlorum, Ambient cured fly ash geopolymer coatings for concrete, Materials 12 (6) (2019) 923.
[146] M.F. Nurruddin, H. Sani, B.S. Mohammed, I. Shaaban, Methods of curing geopolymer concrete: a review, Int. J. Adv. Appl. 5 (1) (2018) 31–36.
[147] K. Neupane, Fly ash and GGBFS based powder-activated geopolymer binders: a viable sustainable alternative of portland cement in concrete industry, Appl.
Mech. Mater. 103 (2016) 110–122.
[148] October L. Weng, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, T. Brown, Speciation and hydrolysis kinetics of aluminates in inorganic polymer systems, in: International Conference
Proceedings of Geopolymer. Melbourne, Australia, 2020.
[149] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Cement. A Review, vol. 21, Geopolymer Institute, 2013, pp. 1–11. Technical papers.
[150] M. Najimi, N. Ghafoori, M. Sharbaf, Alkali-activated natural pozzolan/slag mortars: a parametric study, Construct. Build. Mater. 164 (2018) 625–643.
[151] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature,
Cement Concr. Compos. 55 (2015) 205–214.
[152] Y. Alrefaei, Y.S. Wang, J.G. Dai, The effectiveness of different superplasticizers in ambient cured one-part alkali activated pastes, Cement Concr. Compos. 97
(2019) 166–174.
[153] B. Nematollahi, J. Sanjayan, Effect of different superplasticizers and activator combinations on workability and strength of fly ash based geopolymer, Mater.
Des. 57 (2014) 667–672.
[154] P. Chindaprasirt, P. De Silva, S. Hanjitsuwan, Effect of high-speed mixing on properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer paste, Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 39 (8)
(2014) 6001–6007.
[155] F.A. Memon, et al., Effect of superplasticizer and extra water on workability and compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete, Res. J. Appl.
Sci. 4 (5) (2012) 407–414.
[156] F. Puertas, M. Palacios, J.L. Provis, Admixtures, in: Alkali Activated Materials, 2014, pp. 145–156.
[157] A.B. Malkawi, M.F. Nuruddin, A. Fauzi, H. Almattarneh, B.S. Mohammed, Effects of alkaline solution on properties of the HCFA geopolymer mortars, Procedia
Eng. 148 (2016) 710–717.
[158] F.A. Memon, M.F. Nuruddin, S. Khan, N. Shafiq, T. Ayub, Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on fresh properties and compressive strength of self-
compacting geopolymer concrete, J. Eng. Sci. Technol. An Int. 8 (1) (2013) 44–56.
25
[159] G.F. Huseien, M. Ismail, N.H.A. Khalid, M.W. Hussin, J. Mirza, Compressive strength and microstructure of assorted wastes incorporated geopolymer mortars:
effect of solution molarity, Alex. Eng. J. 57 (4) (2018) 3375–3386.
[160] Z. Safari, R. Kurda, B. Al-Hadad, F. Mahmood, M. Tapan, Mechanical characteristics of pumice-based geopolymer paste, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162 (2020)
105055.
[161] Z. Sun, H. Cui, H. An, D. Tao, Y. Xu, J. Zhai, Q. Li, Synthesis and thermal behavior of geopolymer-type material from waste ceramic, Construct. Build. Mater. 49
(2013) 281–328.
[162] A.A. Siyal, K.A. Azizli, Z. Man, H. Ullah, Effects of parameters on the setting time of fly ash based geopolymers using Taguchi method, Procedia Eng. 148
(2016) 302–307.
[163] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition,
[164] S. Samantasinghar, S.P. Singh, Effect of synthesis parameters on compressive strength of fly ash-slag blended geopolymer, Construct. Build. Mater. 170 (2018)
225–234.
[165] A. Kashani, J.L. Provis, J.S.J. van Deventer, G.G. Qiao, Rheological Behaviour of Alkali-Activated Binders, 2014.
[166] P. Rovnaník, P. Rovnanikova, M. Vyšvařil, S. Grzeszczyk, E. Janowska-Renkas, Rheological properties and microstructure of binary waste red brick powder/
metakaolin geopolymer, Construct. Build. Mater. 188 (2018) 924–933.
[167] P. Nuaklong, P. Jongvivatsakul, T. Pothisiri, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Influence of rice husk ash on mechanical properties and fire resistance of recycled
aggregate high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, Clean. Prod. 252 (2020) 119797.
[168] D. Zaharaki, M. Galetakis, K. Komnitsas, Valorization of construction and demolition (C&D) and industrial wastes through alkali activation, Construct. Build.
Mater. 121 (2016) 686–693.
[169] P.N. Lemougna, K.J. MacKenzie, U.C. Melo, Synthesis and thermal properties of inorganic polymers (geopolymers) for structural and refractory applications
from volcanic ash, Cerâmica 37 (8) (2011) 3011–3018.
[170] Z. Pan, J.G. Sanjayan, B.V. Rangan, An investigation of the mechanisms for strength gain or loss of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperature,
J. Mater. Sci. 44 (7) (2009) 1873–1880.
[171] M. Vafaei, A. Allahverdi, P. Dong, N. Bassim, M. Mahinroosta, Resistance of red clay brick waste/phosphorus slag-based geopolymer mortar to acid solutions of
mild concentration, J J. Build. Eng. 34 (2021) 102066.
[172] J. Fořt, E. Vejmelková, D. Koňáková, N. Alblová, M. Čáchová, M. Keppert, P. Rovnaníková, R. Černý, Application of waste brick powder in alkali activated
aluminosilicates: functional and environmental aspects, Clean. Prod. 194 (2018) 714–725.
[173] N.A. Lloyd, B.V. August. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete: a review of development and opportunities, in: 35th Conference on Our World in Concrete and
Structures, 2010, pp. 25–27.
[174] N. Youssef, Z. Lafhaj, C. Chapiseau, Economic analysis of geopolymer brick manufacturing: a French case study, Sustainability 12 (18) (2020) 7403.
[175] M.A. Villaquirán-Caicedo, R.M. de Gutiérrez, Comparison of different activators for alkaline activation of construction and demolition wastes, Construct. Build.
Mater. 281 (2021) 122599.
[176] S. Ahmari, X. Ren, V. Toufigh, L. Zhang, Production of geopolymeric binder from blended waste concrete powder and fly ash, Construct. Build. Mater. 35
(2012) 718–729.
[177] P. Rovnaník, P. Rovnanikova, M. Vyšvařil, S. Grzeszczyk, E. Janowska-Renkas, Rheological properties and microstructure of binary waste red brick powder/
metakaolin geopolymer, Construct. Build. Mater. 188 (2018) 924–933.
[178] Z.X. Yang, N.R. Ha, M.S. Jang, K.H. Hwang, Geopolymer concrete fabricated by waste concrete sludge with silica fume, MSF 620 (2009) 791–794.
[179] H.M. Khater, Effect of calcium on geopolymerization of aluminosilicate wastes, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (1) (2012) 92–101.
[180] P. Rovnaník, B. Řezník, P. Rovnaníková, Blended alkali-activated fly ash/brick powder materials, Procedia Eng. 151 (2016) 108–113.
[181] H.M. Khater, A.M. El Nagar, M. Ezzat, Optimization of alkali activated grog/ceramic wastes geopolymer bricks, Optimization 5 (1) (2016).
[182] D. Zaharaki, M. Galetakis, K. Komnitsas, Valorization of construction and demolition (C&D) and industrial wastes through alkali activation, Construct. Build.
Mater. 121 (2016) 686–693.
[183] R.A. Robayo, A. Mulford, J. Munera, R.M. de Gutiérrez, Alternative cements based on alkali-activated red clay brick waste, Construct. Build. Mater. 128 (2016)
163–169.
[184] L. Reig, M.A. Sanz, M.V. Borrachero, J. Monzó, L. Soriano, J. Payá, Compressive strength and microstructure of alkali-activated mortars with high ceramic
waste content, Cerâmica 43 (16) (2017) 13622–13634.
[185] P. Shoaei, H.R. Musaeei, F. Mirlohi, F. Ameri, N. Bahrami, Waste ceramic powder-based geopolymer mortars: effect of curing temperature and alkaline
solution-to-binder ratio, Construct. Build. Mater. 227 (2019) 116686.
[186] A. Allahverdi, E. Najafi Kani, Construction wastes as raw materials for geopolymer binders, Int. J. Civ. Eng. 7 (3) (2009) 154–160.
[187] M. Panizza, M. Natali, E. Garbin, S. Tamburini, M. Secco, Assessment of geopolymers with Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) aggregates as a building
material, Construct. Build. Mater. 181 (2018) 119–133.
[188] O. Mahmoodi, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, S. Dadsetan, M. Sahmaran, Development of optimized binary ceramic tile and concrete wastes geopolymer binders for in-
situ applications, J. Build. Eng. (2021) 102906.
[189] A. Pathak, V.K. Jha, Geopolymer synthesis from demolished concrete wastes, J. Univ. Grants Comm. 7 (1) (2018) 1–13.
[190] D. Kioupis, A. Skaropoulou, S. Tsivilis, G. Kakali, Valorization of brick and glass cdws for the development of geopolymers containing more than 80% of wastes,
Minerals 10 (8) (2020) 672.
[191] Y. Ge, Y. Yuan, K. Wang, Y. He, X. Cui, Preparation of geopolymer-based inorganic membrane for removing Ni2+ from wastewater, J. Hazard Mater. 299
(2015) 711–718.
[192] A. Aldemir, S. Akduman, O. Kocaer, R. Aktepe, M. Sahmaran, G. Yildirim, A. Ashour, Shear behaviour of reinforced construction and demolition waste-based
geopolymer concrete beams, J. Build. Eng. 47 (2022) 103861.
26

1 s2.0 S2352710222001176 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2352710222001176 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering 50 (2022) 104104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

Properties of geopolymers sourced from construction and

5CaCO3 + 2SiO2 → (3CaO, SiO2)(2CaO, SiO2) + 5CO2 (1)

2. Technical feasibility of using CDWs in concrete

(Si2O5Al2O2)n + H2O + OH− → Si(OH)4 + Al(OH)4- (2)

Si(OH)4 + Al(OH)4- → (Si –O– Al– O)n + 4H2O (3)

4. Mixture design of geopolymers

Composition (wt. %) BW CW TW GW FA-C FA-F GGBFS MK OPC

5. Mechanical properties of CDW-based geopolymers

5.1.1. Effect of precursor

5.1.2. Effect of alkaline activator

literature, as presented in Fig. 5.

5.1.3. Effect of curing conditions

5.1.4. Chemical compositions of precursors and alkaline activators

Fig. 9. Effect of different SP types on the workability of geopolymers [152].

6. Fresh properties of CDW-based geopolymers

6.1.1. Effect of superplasticizers

6.2. Setting time

7. Durability properties of CDW-based geopolymers

Fig. 11. Resistance of CDW-based geopolymers to high temperature exposure.

7.2. Acid resistance

8. Life cycle assessment

Fig. 13. Comparison of consumed energy and CO2 emissions [172].

Constituent Energy consumption (MJ/t) CO2 emissions (kg/t)

Portland cement 2986 829

dominant factor in terms of cost of ingredients.

9. Current challenges for industrial applications

CDWs SCMs Type Molarity SS/

Journal of Building Engineering 50 (2022) 104104

CDWs SCMs Type Molarity SS/

Journal of Building Engineering 50 (2022) 104104

CDWs SCMs Type Molarity SS/

roof tile, hollow for 1, 2, 3 days were N-A-S-H gels.

Journal of Building Engineering 50 (2022) 104104

Declaration of competing interest

You might also like