Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Review

A review on material mix proportion and strength influence parameters of

geopolymer concrete: Application of ANN model for GPC
strength prediction
Sagar Paruthi a, Asif Husain a, Pervez Alam b, Afzal Husain Khan c, *, Mohd Abul Hasan d,
Hassan M. Magbool c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri, J&K, India
c
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Jazan University, PO Box. 706, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
d
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Concrete is a combination of cement, sand, aggregate, and water. Cement manufacturing causes the generation of
Alkaline activator various gases, mainly greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere. This CO2 is the leading cause of global
FlyAsh warming, so it becomes essential to find a replacement for cement in the construction industry and use more eco-
Artificial Neural Network
friendly construction materials. Geopolymer concrete (GPC) has been growing in the last few decades due to
Ground Granulated Blast furnace slag
Alccofine
several advantages, including improved strength, durability properties, and eco-friendly nature. The GPC consists
of silica and alumina in large amounts with an alkaline solution. Due to the use of the alkaline solution to activate
geopolymerisation reaction, it is called alkaline activated concrete (AAC). Herein, we reviewed the GPC material,
mix proportion, strength influence parameters, and strength prediction method. In addition, an Artificial Neural
Network (ANN) is proposed to predict the compressive strength of GPC incorporating various materials. The
predicted results using varying machine learning tools such as ANN, GEP, DNN, ResNet, GEP etc., demonstrate
the accuracy and performance evaluation of the model. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop and employ
machine learning tools to predict the strength parameters of GPC for various construction works. In summary,
this literature review provides a direction to engineers involved in a wide range in the construction industry
using GPC.

1. Introduction
Concrete is extensively used nowadays, which results in an incre­
ment in the use of cement as binding material. Cement is being used at
an ever-increasing rate worldwide [1,2]. Almost all of this concrete is
manufactured using Portland cement [3], and over 2.8 billion tons of
cement are produced every year worldwide [4] due to the massive rise in
the infrastructure industry, i.e., 3 % annually [5]. It is well known that
cement manufacturing requires lots of energy, approximately 5 million
BTU to produce cement clinker near about 1 ton only [6–8].
In cement manufacturing, many harmful gases are being produced,
which cause the greenhouse effect and climate change [9–11]. When we
produce about 1 ton of cement, it becomes the reason for releasing
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere nearly 1 ton every year [9–13].
Portland cement production is responsible for the emission of half of the
carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere because calcinations being
done with the limestone, while the remaining is because of the com­
bustion being done with fossil fuel [14]. Due to the excessive demand for
concrete, an effort toward alternate binder concrete must be made [15].
It also helps reduce cracks formation due to shrinkage, which consid­
erably occurs when we use cement in excess [16,17]. It is well known
that several natural resources are being used in the concrete industry as
an alternate binder [18]. One of the supplementary materials acts as a
novel binder usually known as ’geopolymer’, which is a significant
replacement for cement in the construction industry [19,20].
When we combine alumino-silicate source material and alkaline
solution for activation after reaction, the precipitate is formed. It comes
into a hardened state, i.e., GPC, which has lower carbon prints on the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: amuafzal@gmail.com (A. Husain Khan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129253
Received 4 June 2022; Received in revised form 18 September 2022; Accepted 19 September 2022
Available online 1 October 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Paruthi et al.
environment [1,21–23]. In the formation of GPC, a network of alumina
and silicate which has the formula Mn[-(SiO2)z-AlO2]n⋅wH2O is formed.
In this formula, n and M represent how much polycondensation is done
or the degree of polycondensation and monovalent cation (K+, Na+),
respectively [23]. Due to the mixing of alumina and silicate with an
alkaline solution, it is also termed aluminosilicate polymer [24,25]. As
we all know, geopolymer comprises two main constituents, out of which
one is an activator and the second is source material. This source ma­
terial consists mainly of alumina and silica [4]. So, we can say that the
material with alumina and silica in excess can be worked out as source
material [26,27]. Various source materials are available for GPC,
including fly ash, rice husk, red mud, silica fumes and blast furnace slag
[4]. Apart from this, some zeolitic material like metakaolin which is
available in nature, is used as a source material because it has a signif­
icant composition of chemicals required with an amorphous structure
[28]. Out of the above source material, GGBFS and FA are widely used in
GPC because of the availability of silica and alumina in their composi­
tion [29,30], which also help in reducing the problem of disposing of
these industrial byproducts to a great extent [28,31,32]. Many re­
searchers conclude that GPC using alkali-activated fly ash is becoming a
better alternative with excellent strength properties and a green sub­
stitute for OPC in the construction industry [11,19,33–36]. It is effective
in physical properties like compressive strength [37], under adverse
condition such as acid resistance [38–40], heat resistance [41] and
sulphate attack [42] which makes it best suited and versatile alternative
as a binder in construction and repair material and also some time it is
provided with silica fumes which is byproduct from ferrosilicon alloy
[43]. In past few years it was observed that geopolymer technology
could help in reduction of emission of CO2 in the atmosphere which is
caused by cement industry by 80 % and produce green binder [44,45].
Fly ash-based GPC gives an additional advantage in terms of the
environment as in Australia production of this source material in the
year 2007 was near about 14.5 million tones and out of which 2.3
million tons were used in the manufacturing of concrete either by
complete replacement of OPC or by partial replacement [5].
The phase composition of Metakaolin geopolymer binder modified
Fig. 1. Ternary diagram showing the phase of Metakaolin geopolymer binder modified by calcium silicate and calcium hydroxide 6% by wt. [46].
2
Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253
by calcium silicate and calcium hydroxide 6 % by weight is shown by the
Ternary diagram in Fig. 1 [46]. Therefore, the properties are achieved
due to the inclusion of binding material. Calcium aluminosilicate hy­
drate (C-A–S–H) gel and calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) gel are
formed during the production of GPC [47], and the GPC is produced
with the help of using a simple mixing procedure shown in Fig. 2 [48]. In
the literature, it was observed that step by step design procedure of mix
proportion is not discussed on GPC. Also, a comparison of different
source materials and alkaline activators of GPC and factors affecting the
strength of geopolymer concrete has limited literature, so a details study
on these parameters is required. Machine learning is very much used for
the strength prediction of cement concrete, but the use of machine
learning for the strength prediction of geopolymer concrete has limited
literature. This review offers an overview of different types of materials
used in GPC, as well as suitability of the material as per available con­
ditions in the laboratories to know the strength influence parameters.
Another aim of this study is to provide design steps for calculating mix
design procedures in detail and a comparison of mix proportions
designed by previous researchers. Finally, the study discusses the
application of artificial intelligence in the strength prediction of
concrete.
2. Review methodology
We have used databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and
Web of Science. The adapted keywords were “geopolymer”, “geo­
polymer concrete”, “superplasticizers”, “concrete composites” “aggre­
gate”, and strength parameters such as “compressive strength” “flexural
strength” “splitting tensile strength”. Furthermore, other strings like
“mix design”, “slump” “durability,” “sustainability”, “curing”, “water
content”, “artificial neural network”, “alkaline activators”, “micro­
structure properties”, “morphology”, “mineralogical properties” “me­
chanical properties”, and “thermal properties” etc., and various
structural behaviors including “stiffness”, “shear stress” and “thermal
stresses” “flexural stresses” are also included. Utilizing these searches,
we reviewed the literature published from 2000 to 2022. In addition, we
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Fig. 2. Production of GPC [48].

have selected proper English language articles that will increase the
Table 1
scientific values of this study.
Fly Ash Physical Properties [6] and Chemical composition [58].
Chemical composition % by weight Physical properties
3. GPC production
SiO2 57.95 Fineness 522 m2/kg
Al2O3 31.78 Specific gravity 2.2
Geopolymers are produced using a variety of precursor materials
Fe2O3 4.30 Residue on 45μ sieve 25 %
such as fly ash (FA), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), Ca2O 1.2
cement kiln dust (CKD), volcanic pumice dust (VPD), sugarcane bagasse MgO 0.5
ash (SCBA), palm oil fuel ash (POFA), rice husk ash (RHA), silica fume Na2O 1.29
(SF), metakaolin, and other silica and aluminum-rich materials. The K2O 0.3
SO3 0.08
following sections present a detailed explanation of some precursor LOI 2.6
materials.

3.1.2. Ground Granulated Blast furnace slag (GGBS)

3.1. Precursor
3.1.1. Fly ash
Fly ash is an excellent powder form, resulting from the powdered
coal combined with coal spread on the ground and traveling to the place
where fine particles are removed [6,49]. Fly ash is available in two
types: Class F, generally known as low calcium. The other is Class C,
which contains high calcium content [50]. These two researchers refer
to the use of Class F fly ash because excess calcium content causes
interference in the polymerization process and alters the microstructure
[51,52].
In terms of composition, fly ash primarily consists of silica, calcium,
alumina, iron, and magnesium [53]. It is finer than lime and cement, and
spherical in shape, with a diameter ranging from 1micrometer to 150 µm
[54]. The specific gravity of fly ash is usually 2.3 [55]. Due to its glassy
nature, spherical shape, and hollow structure, fly ash has become the
best-suited source material for GPC [56,57]. The Fly ash properties [6]
and the chemical composition [58] are shown below in Table 1.
Steel industry gives the residue with non-metallic properties con­
taining mainly calcium, silica, and alkane in a molten state called as
Blast furnace slag [6]. Sometimes GGBS is used as source material in
developing GPC, giving adequate strength and moment results [42].
Compared with fly ash, when we use GGBS, it reduces the slump value
because of the high content of calcium [59,60], which results in the
formation of Ca-Al-Si gel and increases the geopolymerization [61,62].
3.1.3. Cement kiln dust (CKD)
During cement production, fly dust is obtained in kilns known as
cement kiln dust (CKD) [63,64]. It is used as an activator for various
industrial wastes such as GGBS [65]. It was observed that compressive
strength after 28 days is increased by 2 MPa compared to control con­
crete after adding 5 % of CKD in concrete [66]. After adding cement kiln
dust, a significant decrease in concrete electric resistivity is achieved
[66].

3
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

3.1.4. Volcanic pumice dust (VPD) Table 3

Very fine dust from the residue of crushed pumice, having a diameter Physical properties and comparison [42,63,80,81].
64.1 µm is known volcanic pumice dust (VPD) [67]. The negative impact S. No. Descriptions Fly ash OPC GGBS
of hot weather on concrete is very much used by the inclusion of 10 % 2
1 Fineness (m /kg) 400 310 408
VPD [68]. Sulphate resistance is achieved significantly in concrete when 2 Normal Consistency (%) – 30 –
fly ash is used in combination with volcanic pumice dust [69]. It is also 3 Setting Time(minutes)
observed that flexural and splitting tensile strength is increased signif­ a) Initial – 58 –
icantly after the addition of VPD in concrete while decrease in b) Final – 110 –
4 Specific gravity 2.1 3.2 3.2
compressive strength and workability is observed [70]. The flexural 5 Compressive Strength
strength of GPC increases when we replace fly ash with volcanic pumice 1d 17.2
powder in combination with propylene fibers, but it decreases the slump 3d 68* 38.6
of concrete [71]. The optimum strength is achieved when we replace fly 7d 72* 44.1 89**
28d 58.5 88*
ash with 10 % of volcanic pumice powder and 0.5 % of polypropylene
fibers in GPC [71]. *The pozzolanic activity index (%) of cement-fly ash mix as per ASTM C-1240
A comparison of the composition of FA, GGBS, cement kiln dust ** The slag activity index as per ASTM C-989
(CKD), volcanic pumice dust (VPD), ordinary Portland cement (OPC) is
shown in Table 2 [63,72–74]. Fly Ash /GGBS is generally taken as 2:1 in 3.2.2. Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)
combination [75,76]. Using this combination, aggregate maximum It is another basic solution available in a liquid state with different
crushing strength of 22.8 MPa was obtained [77]. The composition of concentrations, also termed glassy water [95]. One of the most used
aluminosilicate sources (% by weight as oxides) has been studied by grades of sodium silicate by the researcher is A53 grade because it has a
several researchers with the help of XRD method [63,75,78,79], and the significant ratio of Silicon dioxide and sodium dioxide, i.e., 2, which has
comparison of physical properties of cement and other source material is near about 30 % of SiO2 and 15 % of Na2O, and the remaining is water
shown in Table 3 [42,63,80,81]. [6,75]. For most of the GPC, the significant ratio of silica and sodium
content of Na2SiO3 is approximately equal to 2, giving better strength
3.1.5. e. Alccofine powder [95]. The parameters and properties of Na2SiO3 are given below in
Alccofine is slag based cementitious material having higher reac­ Table 7 [95,99,100].
tivity with high glass content obtained from specially processed
controlled granulation [82]. It is obtained from GGBS with fineness of
12000 cm2/g and has unique chemistry [83–89]. Pore filling and 3.3. Other constituents
workability of GPC is improved even at low water content after incor­
porating Alccofine 1203 as a ternary blender [88]. It produces high 3.3.1. Aggregate
strength performance GPC when used either as a replacement of source The aggregate function within green concrete is like the aggregate
material or addition of source material [86,87]. The chemical compo­ working in Portland concrete. A binder holds the aggregates during
sition and physical properties of Alccofine is shown in Table 4 and 5, pouring and provides volume stability to the concrete after curing [101].
respectively. The factors that affect the selection of aggregate in GPC are normal
concrete-like grading and angularity of aggregate [4]. Also, the pro­
cedure used in the grading is similar to that of cement concrete [102].
3.2. Alkaline solution Many researchers prefer to choose aggregate in saturated surface dry
conditions [14]. As per the Australian and Indian standards, the satu­
3.2.1. Sodium hydroxide rated surface dry condition is when there is no loss of water during
It is convenient to use this alkaline in flake form, having 94 % to 96 % concreting, no water is absorbed by the aggregates, and no wet surface
purity [95]. The alkaline solution is available in different concentra­ where it is placed [5]. The different characteristic test is performed on
tions, i.e., 8 M, 10 M, 12 M, 14 M, and 16 M, in which 8 Molar means granite, and it is found to meet the standards and is suitable for use as an
NaOH has 320 g of NaOH pellets in every liter of solution, in which aggregate [103]. When we crush the granite in a particular shape, like a
molecular weight of NaOH is 40 g [6]. Mortar strength made by poly­ cubical shape, and provide edges, it is termed M− Sand and is suitable for
merization increases with a maximum concentration of NaOH [14]. application after washing [95]. This M− sand is being used interna­
Alkaline solution NaOH becomes the reason for greatly extended tionally, meeting the standards very well, and is widely used in GPC
dissolution than the KOH solution [54]. Also, geopolymer material ex­ [75]. The two important properties of aggregate i.e., fineness modulus
hibits better zeolitic properties with NaOH solution rather than KOH and specific gravity are considerably being achieved by granite aggre­
solution [51]. Apart from this, one more reason for using NaOH over gate upto 6.9 and 2.5 respectively, meeting the Indian standards very
KOH is because NaOH activator is less costly than KOH activator well [50]. So, it is concluded that there is no special type of aggregate
[76,96]. The basic solution for polymerization activation was made by used in the GPC, it is like the aggregates used in OPC [2]. The beam’s
mixing NaOH in 1 L flask and distilled water, resulting in an alkaline stiffness and shear stress in flexure are significantly affected by the
concentration of used molarity [15]. The properties of NaOH are given coarse aggregate incorporation with a maximum size of 19 mm [8]. The
below in Table 6 [96–98]. grading of aggregates significantly affects the compressive strength of

Table 2
Chemical composition of fly ash, GGBS, Cement kiln dust (CKD), volcanic pumice dust (VPD) and Ordinary Portland cement OPC [63,72–74].
Sample SiO2 Fe2O3 CaO Al2O3 MgO K2 O Na2O SO3 P2O5 TiO2 LOIa

FA (%) 49 12.5 2.79 27.25 0.89 0.46 0.32 0.38 0.98 1.54 0.64
GGBS (%) 32.46 0.61 43.1 14.3 3.94 0.33 0.24 4.58 0.02 0.55 0.09
VPD (%) 44.50 4.33 12.52 17.59 6.94 1.07 2.58 0.34 0.64 1.62 1.61
CKD (%) 16.87 2.68 55.98 5.91 0.93 1.79 0.14 9.23 – – 3.70
OPC (%) 21.01 3.2 64.89 4.68 0.81 1.17 0.09 3.66 0.08 0.22 0.48
a
Loss on ignition FA Fly: Ash, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, CKD: Cement Kiln Dust, VPD: Volcanic Pumice Dust, SCBA: Sugarcane Bagasse Ash,
POFA: Palm Oil Fuel Ash, RHA: Rice Husk Ash, SF: Silica Fume, OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement.

4
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Table 4
Chemical composition (%) of Alccofine 1203.
Reference SiO2 Fe2O3 CaO Al2O3 MgO K2O Na2O SO3 P2O5 TiO2 LOIa

[90] 35.3 2.20 35.20 26.4 – – – 0.90 – – –

[82] 21–23 3.8–4.4 61–64 5–5.6 0.8 – – 2–2.4 – – –
[91] 30–35 1.2–2.5 30–36 20–22 4–8 0–0.7 0–0.5 0.1 – – –
[92] 35.30 1.20 32.20 21.40 6.20 – – 0.13 – – –
[88] 36.5 1.18 32.2 21.5 6.1 – – 1.2 – – –
[93] 32.84 2.5 36.10 22 4 – 0.34 0.3 – – –
[94] 37.53 0.92 29.46 24.57 5.23 0.61 0.032 0.18 – – 0.58
a
Loss on ignition.

to prevent corrosion [42]. Because in portable water or raw water,

Table 5
pollutants and contaminants are present, which may influence NaOH
Physical properties of Alccofine 1203.
properties [50]. The quantity of water, i.e., its mass, plays a vital role in
References [82] [90] [91] [92] forming an activator solution, which affects the strength of GPC [96]. If
Specific gravity 2.9 2.7 2.86 2.7 we cured the concrete with conventional water curing, it results in
Specific surface area (m2/kg)Bulk Density 1200 1200 1200 1200 reduced strength due to dilution of alkaline solution [106].
(kg/m3) 680 - - 680

3.3.3. Super plasticizers

Superplasticizer is used as a water-reducing agent, and melamine is
Table 6 the best-suited superplasticizer used for GPC [96]. Using water-reducing
Properties of Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)[96–98]. agents can reduce the chance of aggregate segregation to a great extent,
Parameters Properties and concrete workability is also improved [54]. Superplasticizers are
Molar Mass 40 g/mol
available in different grades in the market based on their chemical
Appearance Pellets white in color composition, and researchers generally prefer naphthalene formalde­
Melting Point 320 ◦ C hyde condensate and sulfonated melamine formaldehyde condensate
Amount of heat liberated 270 calories/g [54].
Boiling Point 1400 ◦ C
Density 2 g/cm3
Storage Any airtight container 3.3.4. Nanomaterials
Nanomaterials are available in three forms, i.e., nanoparticles, nano
fibers, and nano flakes [107]. Nano silica, nano alumina oxide, and nano
titanium dioxide come under nanoparticle, carbon nano tubes comes
Table 7
Properties of sodium silicate [95,99,100].
under nano fibers, and graphene oxide is available in nano flakes forms
[108–115]. It is reported that the mechanical strength of GPC is
Parameters Properties
enhanced by adding a small amount of micro silica along with nano­
Chemical Formula % By weight material [116]. Various kinds of nanomaterials were used in GPC such as
SiO2 15 % nano silica (SiO2), nano alumina (Al2O3), nano TiO2, nano clay, gra­
Na2O 32 %
H2O 53 %
phene, graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (rGO), carbon
Boiling Point 100 ◦ C nano tubes (CNT), carbon nano fiber (CNF) [116–120]. The percentage
Molecular Weight 184 gm of a nanomaterial used in GPC is shown in Fig. 3[107], and the XRF
Color Yellow result of various oxides such as nano silica, micro silica, nano clay, nano
Appearance Jelly liquid
metakaolin is shown in Table 9.
Specific Gravity 1.5

4. GPC Strength-Influencing parameters

concrete if other factors like fly ash ratio and alkaline concentration
remain constant [36,104,105]. It is observed that for the finer aggregate,
river sand is used [6], whereas, for coarse aggregate, granite having a
density of 2.6 ton/m3 and dolerite with a density of near 2.63 ton/m3
have a grading of 7 mm, 10 mm, and 20 mm is used [4]. The aggregate
properties are shown below in the Table 8 [96].
3.3.2. Water
Due to the chemical reaction during concreting, it is important to use
distilled water to prepare NaOH [6]. Even many researchers also prefer
the use of distilled water during reinforced concrete structures in order
There are many factors or parameters responsible for the change in
strength and durability of GPC. Still, in OPC, there is only one factor, i.e.,
the water-cement ratio, which mainly influences the strength of con­
crete. The durability and strength of concrete are mainly influenced by
the composition of its ingredients like the ratio of mass between water
and geopolymer solids, basic solution to source material content ratio,
Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, activator solution concentration, type of source
material and percentage of nano material used. It is also noted that
curing time and temperature also influence concrete strength. A sum­
mary of the selected articles on parameters that affect the GPC strength
is shown in Tables 10, and 11.

Table 8 4.1. Water to geopolymer solid ratio (W:GPS)

Coarse and Fine aggregate Properties [96].
Property Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate During designing GPC with low calcium fly ash, one factor affecting
Bulk Density 1670 kg/m3 1580 kg/m3 the strength is the water to solid ratio(W: GPS) [102], which every
Fineness modulus 7.12 2.5 researcher is now using. The W means the total amount of water,
Water Absorption 0.6 % 1.2 % including water required during the dissolution of NaOH pellets and
Specific gravity 2.8 2.6 mixing all the ingredients before pouring [135]. Observation of many
Source Granite stone River sand
kinds of research shows that when to fly ash content increases, strength

5
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Fig 3. Percentage of nanomaterials based on nanoparticles [as silica (SiO2), alumina oxide (Al2O3) and titanium dioxide (TiO2)], graphene [as Graphene oxide (GO),
reduced graphene oxide (rGO)], fibers as Carbon nanotube (CNT), Carbon nanofibers (CNF) used in GPC in previous research [107].

Table 9
XRF results of various nanomaterials and micro silica.
Oxides SiO2 SO3 Fe2O3 CaO K2O Al2O3 MgO Na2O LOI Reference

NS (%) 92 0.80 – 0.70 0.25 – – – 2.42 [116]

MS (%) 90.82 0.28 – 0.90 0.15 – – 2.05 [116]
NC (%) 61.24 1.61 – 0.16 – 20.89 0.22 0.71 13.12 [117]
MS (%) 85 1.3 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 2.5 1.3 2.8 [118]
NS (%) 95 0.02 – – – 0.03 – 0.5 0.15 [118]
NS (%) 99.79 – – – – – – – 0.21 [119]
NS (%) 99.65 – 0.012 0.005 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.25 [120]
NMK (%) 45.5 – 0.2 0.01 0.03 37 0.02 0.03 12.5 [120]

NS: Nano Silica, MS: Micro Silica, NC: Nano Clay, NMK: Nano Metakaolin

increases and decreases for all W: GPS ratios at every stage [96]. The
strength of alkaline activated concrete enhances when W: GPS ratio by
mass decreases sand. On the other hand, workability decreases
[4,102,135]. It happens similarly in geopolymer mortar, the strength
starts decreasing with increasing W:GPS ratio [14]. In 2012, author
investigated that the strength increases when the W:GPS ratio is<0.27
[2]. Some specifications of W:GPS are given below in Table 12 [4].
Comparison of different W: GPS and compressive strength are shown in
Table 13.
4.2. Alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio (AL:FA)
Another factor followed by the W: GPS ratio that influences GPC
properties is the AL:FA ratio. An alkaline activator may be ready to use
after mixing NaOH and Na2SiO3 under ambient temperature [95].
During the preparation of NaOH solution excess amount of heat comes
out due to the polymerization reaction, so it is better to prepare this
alkaline solution 1 day before being used in concrete [102]. It is found
that there is an excellent connection between the above two factors. It
observes better strength with an increase in Al: FA ratio [2], but in some
cases, it shows that many researchers kept this ratio constant [139], so
more investigation is required into this factor before giving any
conclusion. Results of tests show that with a higher value of Al: FA ratio,
the strength of GPC decreases [96], and we take this ratio to near about
0.4 for achieving a significant strength [14,140] because in the past
research, strength obtained after performing the test with different
values of this ratio increasing up to 0.45 gives a better result but after
this strength value starts decreasing [50]. Effect of AL:FA on strength of
GPC is shown in Table 14.
4.3. The ratio of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide (Na2SiO3: NaOH)
Na2SiO3:NaOH solution ratio also affects the above two ratios, and it
performs an optimum role in the solution properties of the activator of
GPC for binding all ingredients [2]. The compressive strength ultimately
increases when this ratio is increased, which is proven by researchers
around the globe [86,139]. So, if the percentage (%) mass of Na2SiO3 is
kept more than the percentage (%) mass of NaOH, the strength is
increased simultaneously [23]. The test results show that the consis­
tency changed when the ratio changed, and this ratio varied from 1.5 to
2.5; with an increase in the ratio, the slump value also decreased slightly
[72]. The value of this ratio is kept up to 2.5 for sustainable concrete
[5,58,144]. The activator solutions were 24 h before preparing the mix
[54,102]. The strength variation was not significant when we varied the
ratio of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide with a constant alkaline
activator (40 % of total binder) and GGBS content (10 % of total binder)
in the mixture [72]. However, the mix with a ratio of Na2SiO3/NaOH
nearly to 1.5 achieved slightly greater value of strength than the mixes
with a higher activator ratio of 2 and 2.5 [145]. Effect of Na2SiO3: NaOH
on compressive strength of concrete is shown in Table 15.
4.4. The concentration of alkaline solution
The parameter that considerably affects the alkaline solution’s con­
tent is the concentration of an alkaline solution [2]. The higher strength
is obtained using an alkaline solution of a higher concentration, and this
concentration is measured in terms of its molarity [14,152]. The liquid
gel of NaOH is prepared by dissolving its flakes into the water one day
before use because an exothermic reaction occurs during polymerization
[5]. The NaOH flakes are available in the market in different molarity
from 8 Molarity to 16 Molarity [6], so the mass of the alkaline solution is
measured only in terms of its concentration, that is, molarity in gm [96],
and we can determine the solid mass in 1 L solution by its concentration
like 320 gm of solids is required if the concentration is 8 M of NaOH
because its molecular weight is 40 gm [6,54]. Similarly, sodium hy­
droxide has a 16 Molarity concentration, and the mass of the flakes is

6
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Table 10 concentrations for different grades of GPC [6]. The alkaline concentra­
Summary of the selected articles on strength influence parameter of GPC. tion also affects the residual strength, especially under the thermal or
Geopolymer Curing Curing Compressive References heated load [144], in which higher molarity of NaOH is observed
Type Time Temperature Strength (MPa) [154,155]. One study shows that the content of calcium becomes the
(days) (◦ C) reason for the flash set [156] and in that case, Sodium hydroxide
100GGBFS 28 90 65 [121] (NaOH) having a 10 M concentration gives better thermal endurance
100FA 28 60 45 [122] [58]. It is found that an increase in the concentration of activator more
75FA/ 28 60 33 than 10 M causes the slowing of polymerization because of ion mobility,
25GGBFS 28 60 48
50FA/
which ultimately becomes the reason for falling its flexural strength
50GGBFS
100FA 28 100 33.5 [123] Table 12
100FA 28 120 50 [124]
Specifications for GPC [4].
100FA 28 110 55 [125]
100FA 28 75 32.5 [126] W:GPS ratio Workability Design compressive strength (MPa)
100FA 28 60 30.4 [127]
0.16 Very Stiff 60
100FA 28 25 0.872 [128]
0.18 Stiff 50
100FA 28 60 2.6
0.20 Moderate 40
100FA 28 80 30.95
0.22 High 35
100FA 28 60 55 [8]
0.24 Very High 30
100FA 7 60 45 [2]
100FA 7 80 50
75FA/ 28 23 41.7 [57]
25GGBFS 28 60 50.0 Table 13
75FA/ 28 75 62.3
Comparison of different W: GPS and compressive strength.
25GGBFS 28 90 60.7
75FA/ Geopolymer type W: GPS 28 days-Compressive Reference
25GGBFS ratio Strength (MPa)
75FA/
Metakaolin based 0.38 58.5 [136]
25GGBFS
GPC 0.42 40.3
100FA/5AF 28 27 45 [129]
0.46 33.4
100FA/ 28 27 55
0.50 24.8
10AF
0.54 17
95FA/5AF 28 27 33 [90]
Fly Ash based GPC 0.31 30.4 [137]
90FA/10AF 28 27 43
0.21 50
95FA/5AF 28 90 52
0.158 71.4
90FA/10AF 28 90 73
Fly Ash based GPC 0.4 66.23 [29]
0.5 56.42
FA Fly: Ash, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, AF: Alccofine 0.6 49.58
Fly Ash based GPC 0.45 35.2 [119]
Fly Ash based GPC 0.26 30 [138]
640 gm in a solution of 1 L [153], so we can easily calculate the mass of 0.3 26
solids of NaOH by using molecular mass [102]. 0.34 20
It is recommended by the researchers that 8 M, 16 M, and 32 M

Table 11
Summary of Chemical activators and effects on GPC compressive strength.
Geopolymer Chemical Activator Compressive Findings References
Type Activator/ (FA NaOH SS/SH strength (MPa)
þ GGBS) molarity (M) ratio
ratio

100FA 0.40 8 2.5 40.45 Higher apparent porosity and lower strength are achieved by [122]
75FA/25GGBFS 0.40 8 2.5 33.4 increasing fly ash content.
50FA/50 0.40 8 2.5 48.25
GGBFS
100GGBFS 0.40 10 2.5 60 If we increase the coarse aggregate and activator content, results [130]
in an increment in GPC strength.
90FA/10GGBFS 0.40 12 2.5 50 Compressive strength is increased up to a specific limit by [57]
increasing the curing temperature.
50FA/50GGBFS 0.35 14 2.5 41.1 A change in molarity of alkaline activator results in a change in [131]
compressive strength.
100FA 0.40 16 2.5 40 Slag based GPC gives significant strength at ambient temperature. [132]
100FA 0.40 14 2.0 42 Decrease in SS/SH ratio result into increase in concrete strength. [72]
70FA/30GGBFS 0.40 14 1.5 50
100FA 0.25 12 2.5 23 Use of superplasticizer is recommended for GPC. [133]
100FA 0.40 16 2.5 50 If the alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio increases, the concrete [96]
strength decreases.
100FA 0.40 14 2.5 30.95 Increase in molarity results into increase in GPC strength. [54]
100FA 0.50 12 2.5 32 Above a specific limit increase in activator to fly ash ratio results in [2]
a decrease in compressive strength.
100FA 0.40 16 2.5 13 Maximum compressive strength is achieved when we use the value [4]
of activator to fly ash ration 0.40.
90FA/10GGBFS 0.40 14 1.5 33 A decrease in setting time and increase in compressive strength is [134]
90FA/10GGBFS 0.40 14 2.0 31 observed when we add slag content in fly ash-based GPC.
70FA/30GGBFS 0.40 14 2.5 55

FA: Fly Ash, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

7
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Table 14 4.5. Curing temperature

Effect of Al:FA on strength of GPC.
Type of AL:FA 28 days-Compressive strength References The other factor that affects the GPC strength is the temperature
concrete ratio (MPa) during concrete curing. The results of one test represent that mechanical
100FA GPC 0.11 41 [141] strength is mainly obtained when GPC is cured at 80 ◦ C temperature [6].
0.14 46 Previous research shows that cubes undergoing curing at 120 ◦ C tem­
0.19 56 perature for 72 h obtained maximum compressive strength up to 36.5
MPa because activation of GPC is not completed with heating at a
100FA GPC 0.40 33.2 [142]
100FA GPC 0.30 16 [143]
temperature of 65 ◦ C, 70 ◦ C, and 80 ◦ C for 24 h [14]. But many re­
0.35 27 searchers conclude that strength is increased significantly at higher
0.40 32 temperatures but not more than 80 ◦ C because, beyond this, there is a
0.45 30 drop in the strength of concrete [54]. It is also proven by the researchers
100FA GPC 0.40 24 [134]
that we can also do steam curing [162] during the concreting of un­
90FA/ 0.40 32
10GGBS 0.40 42 dersized size culverts, and the result shows that enough strength is ob­
80FA/ tained when steam curing at 80 ◦ C is done for 4 h and further achieves
20GGBS maximum strength when this curing is done for 20 h [5].
FA: Fly Ash, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag We can cure the sample in the ambient environment [4,163]. How­
ever, a significant strength is not achieved ambient environment. In
addition, the geopolymerisation process is relatively slow under
Table 15 ambient curing conditions, resulting in slow settlement and a slow gain
Effect of Na2SiO3: NaOH on compressive strength of concrete. in strength [8,135]. On the other hand, the fly ash/slag based self-
GPC Na2SiO3: NaOH 28-days Compressive strength Reference compacting GPC is alkaline activated at a higher temperature; simulta­
Type ratio (MPa) neously improves fresh and hardened state performance under heat
100FA 0.5 55 [146]
curing [163]. In a precast structure where early strength gain is
1.0 62 important, heat curing is done to achieve the early gain of strength [4].
1.5 51 In 2011, a study found that trapped heat can also be used during GPC
2.0 49 production for mass pour applications (termed self-cure GPC) without
2.5 44
external heat [164]. It was observed that heat curing at 60 ◦ C gives an
100FA 5 26.7 [147] instant gain in strength in 1 day [8,102]. Besides, mechanical strength
100FA 2.5 45 [148] and stiffness properties are also achieved by curing at a temperature of
100FA 1 61.2 [149] around 60 ◦ C [8]. Several test results reported that curing at high tem­
1.5 74.1 peratures provides treatment with the supply of medium moisture until
2.0 74.4
100FA 1 59.2 [150]
complete geopolymerization takes place [35,157,165].
100SCBA 2.5 29 [151]
4.6. Curing time
FA: Fly Ash, SCBA: Sugarcane Bagasse Ash

Along with temperature, curing time also affects the strength of GPC
[157]. It might be due to different source materials, i.e., high purity [96]. It was noticed that the samples were treated under a curing tem­
metakaolin [14]. Many results show that a pellet of NaOH with a con­ perature of 60 ◦ C for 1 day and at the ambient environment for the rest
centration of 16 M gives better compressive strength than the gel of of the days giving adequate compressive strength and 100 % advance­
NaOH. Since the pellet dissolves prior to concreting, thereby its solid­ ment of durability is attained after 28 days [96] and when we cured at
–liquid state is not workable [95]. Effect of concentration of sodium 120 ◦ C for 72 h attains the maximum strength [58]. Introduction of 24-
hydroxide on compressive and tensile strength of concrete is shown in hour rest time before heated curing, or we can say that introduction of a
Table 16. rest day expands the compressive power for all grades of materials [5].
Experiments have revealed that a postponement, in the beginning, to
preserve heat for 5 days does not bring about any decline in the
compressive power of the concrete [4]. In fact, postponement in the
Table 16 beginning significantly enlarges the durability and strength of GPC
Effect of concentration of sodium hydroxide on compressive and tensile strength [139]. Experiments have enquired about time that time use gives
of concrete. strength increment significantly. It also indicated that the concrete
GPC Molarity of 28-days Tensile Reference compressive strength enhances considerably when the curing period
Type NaOH (M) Compressive strength increases from 1 h to 24 h [102,139]. Therefore, all the geopolymer
strength (MPa) (MPa) trials gain stability and shape of solid structure within 1 day after
100FA 8 14 2.5 [158] placing in an oven for heat curing [166]. Under a high temperature, GPC
12 28 strength does not get affected due to an increase in curing time [167].
16 48 1.9 Table 17 summarizes the effect of curing time (hours) and curing tem­
perature (◦ C) on the compressive strength of GPC.
2.1

100FA 8 44.87 - [159] 4.7. Alccofine content

10 49.28 -
12 51.52 -
It was observed that GPC requires heat curing due to which it has
14 50.46 -
100FA 8 17.52 1.33 [160] limited application [172–175] but strength can be improved at ambient
10 30.97 2.86 curing after the incorporation of Alccofine powder in it
100FA 8 32.36 3.27 [161] [92,129,176–179]. The effect of the percentage of Alccofine incorpo­
12 37.25 4.00 ration in the form of either addition or replacement of source material is
16 40.21 4.32
shown in Table 18.

8
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Table 17
Effect of curing time (hours) and curing Temperature (◦ C) on compressive strength of GPC.
GPC Type Curing Time (hours) Curing Temperature (◦ C) Compressive Strength (MPa) Reference

50FA/50GGBS 12 80 38.71 [168]

24 80 50.22
12 90 67.91
24 90 66.91
12 100 57.21
24 100 47.24
100FA 24 60 43 [169]
24 70 53
24 80 49
24 90 48
100FA 48 50 25 [170]
48 70 48
48 90 45
100FA 48 60 28 [171]

Table 18
Effect of the percentage of Alccofine on the strength of concrete.
GPC Type Alccofine (%) 28-days Compressive strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Reference

100FA/0AF 0 25 3.2 2.9 [90]

95FA/5AF 5 32 4.3 3.2
90FA/10AF 10 42 4.9 4.1
100FA/0AF 0 44 – – [180]
100FA/5AF 5 52
100FA/10AF 10 73
100FA/0AF 10 47.5 3.8 4.2 [92]

50FA/50GGBS/0AF 0 58.5 – – [88]

45FA/50GGBS/5AF 5 62
40FA/50GGBS/10AF 10 69.1
35FA/50GGBS/15AF 15 72.5
50FA/45GGBS/5AF 5 67.5
50FA/40GGBS/10AF 10 61.6
50FA/40GGBS/15AF 15 55.4

35FA/60GGBS/5AF 5 40.2 1.15 0.92 [181]

40FA/50GGBS/10AF 10 42.2 4.4 3.48 [182183,184]
100FA/0AF 0 44.4 4.78 3.2
100FA/5AF 5 52.6 5.2 3.5
100FA/10AF 10 72.4 6.10 3.7
100FA/0AF 0 32 0.25 0.15 [93]
90FA/10AF 10 35.5 0.75 0.30
80FA/20AF 20 37 1.0 0.70
70FA/30AF 30 39 1.15 0.85
60FA/40AF 40 41 1.60 0.95
50FA/50AF 50 41.5 2.0 1.10
60C/30GGBS/10AF 10 33.8 4.9 3.8 [185]

FA: Fly: Ash, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, AF: Alccofine

4.8. Water content
In enhancing polymeric binder properties, water content plays an
exceptionally important role [138,186]. In addition, sufficient water is
also required to achieve the desired workability [187]. However, adding
water in excess quantity may cause the leaching of soluble components
and makes it away from the zone of reaction, which means water content
also influences the polymerization [188].
4.9. Influence of nanomaterials on GPC
The photocatalytic performance depends on the matrix, and the
adsorption ability of GPC is decreased by the addition of nano TiO2
[189]. Higher mechanical strength is achieved by adding around 1 % of
nano TiO2 and Al2O3, [190]. Furthermore, the durability property of
fiber reinforced GPC is much improved by using nano clay in concrete
due to an increase in pozzolanic reaction [191,192]. Matrix density and
matrix adhesion are very much improved and enhanced the mechanical
property by producing the geopolymer gel in excess [193]. Sheet form of
carbon atom with hexagonal shape which is further rolled in the shape of
a cylinder is known as carbon nano tubes [194]. In GPC, carbon nano
tubes (CNT) are used as reinforcement and help in enhancing the tensile
strength of concrete [189,195]. Nano silica is generally white in color
with high surface area, virtuous dispersion and also known as silica
powder [196–200]. Silica content in nano silica is about 90–98 % [201].
The setting time of concrete decreases with the increase of nano silica
because the addition of nano silica increases the reaction rate [189]. It
also provides a great bond strength to GPC by stopping crack formation
in the sliding surface [202]. It was observed that 80 % of compressive
strength is achieved by the addition of nano silica about 0.75 % in 7 days
[190]. Effect of nanomaterials incorporating varying nano content (%)
on compressive strength [199,201,205], fracture toughness [200],
cohesion and bleeding resistance [163], pore structure [203], mechan­
ical strength [203], durability [187], sorptivity and water absorbtion
[205] were reported for GPC.

9
S. Paruthi et al.
5. Properties of GPC
The elasticity of GPC at the hardened stage and its behavior under
the loading is also the same [204,205]. In a place where the temperature
is high and heat resistance is required, concrete with low calcium fly ash
is used, providing excellent heat resistance [206]. GPC can retain its
stability in terms of dimensions even at extremely high temperatures
[207,208]. It gains high compressive strength during high thermal
conditions, and GPC becomes a durable material by resisting thermal
stresses [209,210]. GPC has a great defense against harmful chemicals
and exhibits in hostile conditions where the strength and durability of
OPC are not achieved to a great extent [4]. Deterioration of concrete is
observed in corrosive environments during its service life, but in GPC,
which resists the sulfate attack, it can provide strength during its entire
life without deterioration [211]. Sewerage pipe-like structure where
chemicals or acid resistance is required GPC works better than OPC
under slight shrinkage [37]. Use of silica fume and steel fibers in the GPC
increase the mechanical properties concrete significantly [212].
The nature and failure system of beams and columns made with GPC
are the same as RCC [213,214]. The bonding features of the steel in GPC
are experimentally studied, and results show that it can be equivalent to
or better than concrete made with cement [204,205,215,216]. There
was excessive growth in the strength of GPC when oven cured at high
temperature, although curing at the room temperature environment
happens in GPC [37]. The formation and patterns of cracks and the
modes of failure noticed for reinforced beams with GPC were the same as
the Reinforced cement concrete beams [217]. GPC precast culverts also
have significant properties that meet the standards [162,218].
6. Microstructure analysis
Several studies do the microstructure analysis of GPC to obtain a
mineral composition and particle size distribution of source material
and the effect of activator on source material [219–221]. Fig. 4 illus­
trates the Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images of fly ash (a),
SEM image of fly ash after reaction with sodium hydroxide is shown in
(b), and SEM image of fly ash after reaction with sodium silicate is
shown in (c) [222]. It can be seen that due to a high concentration of
alkaline solution, a spherical-shaped structure is formed in fly ash GPC
Fig. 4. SEM images of (a) Fly ash, (b) Fly ash with NaOH, (c) Fly ash with Na2SiO3 [222].
10
Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253
[222]. Besides, microstructural investigation of silica fume in fly ash-
based GPC showed densified particles [223]. Thakur et., al found the
interface between gel and sand particles was expected to enhance the
compressive strength [224]. According to results reported by Nagajothi
and Elavenil, the Fly ash is usually spherical, GGBS is irregular and,
M− Sand is angular as shown in Fig. 5 [225]. It is evident that the par­
ticles of Alccofine are irregular in shape with sharp edges that may in­
fluence other particles of smaller size [94]. Consequently, the aggregate
cement matrix interface of GPC samples with Alccofine does not indicate
cracking nor alkali-silica reaction [92]. Fig. 5(iv) shows the SEM image
of Alccofine. Nevertheless, the comparison across investigations has
frequently been constrained by variations in experimental methodolo­
gies, resulting in some significant findings regarding the microstructure
of GPC.
7. Artificial neural network (ANN)
Studying concrete strength by testing in the laboratory is very time-
consuming and costly [226,227]. Even geopolymer influences many
factors, making it difficult to have accurate strength [228]. Hence, we
require a numerical model, i.e., soft computing methods, to achieve this
purpose [229–232]. The literature reviews used to exhibit various
techniques like neuro-fuzzy, artificial neural networks (ANN), and
nature-inspired algorithms [233–237]. Besides, there are many AI
techniques, including fuzzy logic [45,227,238], metaheuristic algo­
rithms [239], and gene expression programming (GEP) [236,240–244].
ANN is widely used for GPC strength prediction [238,239,245–249].
Artificial Intelligence is also used for high-performance concrete
strength prediction [226,250]. Many researchers used AI to identify the
structural damage [251], to predict the resistance rating of fire in a
structure made of wood [252], prediction of steel fiber reinforced con­
crete shear strength [253], and also for predicting the efficiency of
wastewater treatment plant [254]. A summary of the selected article on
the artificial intelligence approach for GPC strength prediction is shown
in Table 19. The multi-layer ANN model for GPC strength prediction is
shown in Fig. 6 [255]. ANN model is also used to predict the strength
incorporated by silica fumes and natural zeolite [256]. It was observed
that after using three different machine learning approaches that is
ResNet, deep neural network and ANN in prediction of reinforced GPC.
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Fig. 5. SEM of i) Fly Ash, ii) GGBS, iii) M− Sand [225], and iv) Alccofine 1203 [94].

Table 19
Summary of the selected article on the prediction of the strength of GPC.
Model used Compressive strength (MPa) RMSE R2 MAE References

Experimental Predictive

ANN 38.84 37.5 2.423 0.851 1.989 [249]

ANFIS 36.5 39.8 2.265 0.879 1.655 [249]
ANN 40.87 40.62 0.094 – 0.042 [258]
ANN 51.75 55.13 2.180 0.960 – [256]
GEP 51 53.72 3.080 0.919 – [256]
DNN 54.5 54.2 1.823 0.970 1.114 [259]
ResNet 53.2 53.9 1.268 0.985 0.553 [259]
GEP 51.75 55.30 3.297 0.940 2.766 [256]
ANN 38 31.5 8.970 0.704 – [259]

Fig. 6. The multi-layer ANN model for GPC strength prediction [255].

On comparing, ANN shows the promising result with value of R2 = content is required to produce GPC [260]. The product is formed by
0.937, lowest RMSE = 1.987 and MAPE = 6.6 values [257]. activating the source material due to the addition of an alkaline solution
having the same features and characteristics as OPC [261], and this
8. GPC modified with Alumina-silica mechanism is done in stages as follows [262]:

Polycondensation of source material and alkali in which silicate

11
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

a) Alumina and silica are available in rich quantities in source material
mixed in an aqueous solution, which is alkaline, mainly strong so­
dium hydroxide resulting in the dissolution of Si and Al as shown in
the FTIR study [263].
b) Geopolymer precursors are formed, having polymeric bonds of Si-O-
Si, Si-O-Al [264].
c) The 3-dimensional framework of aluminosilicate is formed by poly­
condensation of precursor [265].
d) A strong bond is formed during the geopolymeric framework be­
tween the solid source material and reactive filling material, and
finally, after settling and hardening, a solid polymeric structure is
produced [266].
9. Design proportion for mixture of GPC
GPC has been designed using the same method already in action in
the design of OPC for many years [96], i.e., either the American method
or British method or the method developed by the researcher in their
research [264]. Accordingly, several mix design approaches for GPC
have been offered. Lloyd and Rangan (2010) were the first to suggest a
mix design approach for geopolymer concrete based on fly ash [5].
Later, another investigation on geopolymer has shown to be suitable to
replace OPC as a binder in concrete by conducting Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) studies [267,268]. As a result, scientists are continually modifying
geopolymer mix designs using eco-friendly materials with lower acti­
vator consumption while keeping physical and chemical properties.
Authors recently investigated the performance of GPC based on Eco-
friendly geopolymer concrete based on metakaolin and ceramics sani­
taryware wastes, glass powder slag, pumice-fly ash [269–271]. The main
component of concrete, i.e., aggregate, which makes it more durable,
contains a maximum volume of 75 %-80 % of the total volume of con­
crete [50]. Based on the previous experimental investigation, the mix
proportion of different GPC is shown in Table 20 and summary of the
selected articles on properties of GPC is shown in Table 21. The design
steps used in the selection of the appropriate mixing percentage of
various components in GPC is done as follows:
a. Aggregate Weight.
Mass of Fine and Coarse aggregate in total is taken as 76 % of mass of
concrete.
= 0.76 × 2400 = 1824 kg/m3.
Coarse aggregate = 70 % of total aggregate [50].
= 0.70 × 1824 = 1276.8 Kg/m3.
Fine aggregate = 30 % of total aggregate.
= 0.30 × 1824 = 547.2 kg/m3.
b. Weight of Fly Ash.
After aggregate mass, mass of remaining components.
= 2400 – 1824 = 576 kg/m3.
Ratio of Alkaline Solution: Fly ash.
= 0.25 to 0.30[6].
= 0.25 [Assume].
Mass of Fly Ash = 576/(1 + 0.25) = 460.8 kg/m3.
c. Weight of Basic Solution.

Table 20
Mix proportion of different GPC.
Ref. FA (Kg/m3) GGBFS (Kg/m3) AF (Kg/m3) CoAg (Kg/m3) FiAg (Kg/m3) NaOH (Kg/m3) Na2SiO3 (Kg/m3) Water (Kg/m3) Fck’28 (MPa)

[272] 520 0 0 1050 760 25 31.2 240 38

520 0 0 1050 760 30 41.6 240 43
520 0 0 1050 760 45 52 240 56
[57] 349.2 38.8 0 1221.2 620.8 194 (12 M) 0 13.3 41.7
[273] 0 420 0 1041 694 11 117 24 69.9
[131] 225 225 0 1164 627 45(14 M) 112.5 24 41.1
[274] 300 0 0 1323 623 72 108 24 39
[275] 200 200 0 1068 712 12 74 24 50
300 200 0 1068 712 12 74 24 51.3
400 100 0 1068 712 12 74 24 63.4
[276] 0 357 0 1067 711.3 23(10 M) 0 177.75 60
0 357 0 1276.3 563 42.5(10 M) 0 145 62
[134] 360 40 0 1209 651 40 100 22 44
320 80 0 1209 651 45.7 114.3 22 46
280 120 0 1209 651 45.7 114.3 22 57
[96] 327 0 0 1248 672 54.3(8 M) 108.67 24 30.4
394.3 0 0 1201.2 646.8 45.1(16 M) 112.64 24 50
408.9 0 0 1294 554 40.8(16 M) 102.22 24 71.2
[277] 364.9 0 0 1049.5 613 52.7 184.5 36.5 21
419.7 0 0 1018 608.1 68.5 171.1 44.2 25
483.7 0 0 882.2 652.1 89.8 224.6 14.2 33
[4] 360 0 0 1140 485 305(14 M) 90 15 37.5
360 0 0 1140 485 305(14 M) 90 12 45.4
[278] 360 0 0 1140 485 305(14 M) 90 9 53.9
400 0 40 1264 540 52.58 131.45 27.07 41.2
400 0 60 1264 540 52.58 131.45 27.07 42.5
400 0 80 1264 540 52.58 131.45 27.07 43.2
[90] 380 0 20 1181 506 51.42 128.5 32 33.5
360 0 40 1178 505 51.42 128.5 36 42.5
[91] 304 0 76 1081 787 43.4 152 24 33.51
284 0 71 1081 787 50.6 177 24 34.83
[180] 400 0 20 1265 540 52.58 131.45 27.07 52
400 0 40 1265 540 52.58 131.45 27.07 73
[88] 157.6 175.1 17.5 1204 769.8 45 112 35.2 62
140.6 175.1 35 1204 769.8 45 112 35.2 69.1
175.1 157.6 17.5 1204 769.8 45 112 35.2 67.5
175.1 140.6 35 1204 769.8 45 112 35.2 61.6

[93] 333 0 37 1110 740 50 135 30 38

296 0 74 1110 740 50 135 30 40.5
259 0 111 1110 740 50 135 30 44

FA: Fly: Ash, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, AF: Alccofine, Fck’28: 28-day compressive cylinder strength

12
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

Table 21
Summary of selected articles on properties of GPC.
Geopolymer Density Molarity Slump Compressive Splitting Flexural Mod of Curing Curing References
type (kg/m3) (M) (mm) strength (MPa) Tensile strength elasticity Time Temperature
strength (MPa) (MPa) (Days) (◦ C)
(MPa)

100FA 2248.1 12 – 40.45 – – – 28 60 [279]

75FA/25GGBS 2265.4 12 – 33.4 – – – 28 60
50FA/50 GGBS 2286.1 12 – 48.25 – – – 28 60
100FA 2250 12 – 36.50 – – – 3 120 [134]
100FA 1855.70 10 50 17.80 1.16 2.98 – 28 100 [280]
80FA/20 2173.59 10 89 12.21 1.56 2.75 – 28 100
Bentonite
70FA/ 30 2077.14 10 80 14.66 1.45 3.01 – 28 100
Metakaolin
70FA/30GGBS 2116.14 10 85 17.80 1.23 3.78 – 28 100
100FA 2343.8 14 – 25 2.86 – – 28 60 [277]
75FA/25GGBS 2244.2 14 82 17 3.62 4.03 24.9 28 80 [103]
100GGBS – 10 – 58.6 3.54 5.76 – 28 80 [281]
25FA/75GGBS – 10 – 55.5 3.39 5.51 – 28 80
50FA/50GGBS – 10 – 53.5 3.25 5.35 – 28 80
100FA 2380 14 130 46.4 3.7 – – 28 80 [4]
100FA 2360 14 200 55.8 4.9 – – 28 80
100FA 2370 14 235 63.1 5.5 – – 28 80

Mass of Basic Solution = 0.25 × 460.8 = 115.2 kg/m3.
d. Mass of Sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate and its
concentration.
Ratio Na2SiO3/NaOH = 2.5 [50].
Mass of NaOH = 115.2/(1 + 2.5) = 32.91 kg/m3.
Mass of Na2SiO3 = 115.2–32.91 = 82.29 kg/m3.
Calculating the concentration of NaOH.
Mass of 12 M NaOH solution = 12 × 40 = 480 gm.
Because molecular weight of NaOH = 40 gm.
So, 40 gm of flakes of NaOH is required in 1 Litre of water, so the
solution becomes.
= 1000 + 480 mL = 1480 mL.
In 1480 mL solution flakes added having mass = 0.480 kg.
In 92.16 mL solution flakes added having mass = (0.480 × 32.91)/
1.480 = 10.67 kg/m3.
e. Mass of Water in NaOH and Na2SiO3 solution.
Mass of water in NaOH = 32.91 – 10.67 = 22.24 kg/m3.
Mass of water in Na2SiO3 = 56 % of Na2SiO3 sol.
= 0.56 × 82.29 = 46.08 kg/m3.
10. Conclusion and future prospects
This review comprehends the scientific insights of precursors, mix
proportion, strength influence parameter, and method of predicting the
strength of GPC. On the basis of the through literature studies, the
following conclusion can be enumerated:
• GPC produced from numerous waste materials exhibits the potential
to replace traditional concrete.
• It was observed that cement kiln dust (industrial by-product) is used
as an activator. For instance, adding 5 % cement kiln dust as an
activator, increased the strength of GPC by 2 MPa while decreasing
in electric resistivity was also observed.
• Due to the different mineralogical and chemical properties of the
precursors and activators, there is no uniform mix design methods
that can be applied for the production of GPC.
• It was observed that the strength of GPC is very much affected by the
activator concentration and sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide ratio.
According to this thorough study, a ratio of sodium silicate/sodium
hydroxide ranges 1.5–2.5 possesses highest strength (max at 2.5). In
fly ash-based, GPC maximum compressive strength up to 71.2 MPa
are achieved at 16 molarity NaOH and in slag-based geopolymer
concrete maximum compressive strength up to 69.9 is achieved at 12
molarity NaOH solution. The mechanical strength of geopolymer
concrete is significantly increased after incorporating Alccofine upto
15 % in GPC.
• The split and flexural strength of GPC have been reviewed and it can
be concluded that the performance of GPC using 100 % blast furnace
slag as source material gives better flexural strength up to 5.76 MPa
with 10 M NaOH solution but after incorporation of Alccofine in fly
ash upto 10 % gives the highest flexural strength up to 6.10 MPa. In
addition, the split tensile strength of GPC is increased with an in­
crease in the molarity of NaOH solution. However, more in­
vestigations on the effect of combined source materials on strength
parameters are required.
• Curing temperature and time of heat curing also affect the strength of
GPC. It was observed that strength is significantly increased with an
increase in temperature up to 90 ◦ C but further increase in temper­
ature results in a decrease in concrete strength. The highest
compressive strength in GPC (50 %FA/50 %GGBS) up to 67.91 MPa
and 66.91 MPa is achieved after 12 h and 24 h heat curing at 90 ◦ C
respectively. But in the case of fly ash-based, GPC maximum strength
up to 53 MPa is achieved at 70 ◦ C cured for 24 h.
• Water to geopolymer solid ratio also affects the strength of GPC. A
decrease in the water to geopolymer ratio results in an increase in the
strength of concrete and the highest strength up to 71.4 MPa is
achieved at 0.158 ratios in fly ash-based GPC.
• The ratio of Alccofine and blast furnace addition in fly ash-based GPC
play a significant role in the high strength performance of concrete. A
35FA/50GGBS/15AF ratio (fly ash, blast furnace slag, and Alccofine)
exhibits a rise in strength up to 73 MPa.
• The use of nanomaterials plays a significant role in increasing the
mechanical strength of GPC and the highest strength is achieved after
the addition of 1 % nano TiO2 and Al2O3. Due to the availability of
silica up to 90–98 % in nano silica setting time of concrete is
decreased after incorporation of nano silica and it was observed that
80 % of compressive strength is achieved in 7 days after the addition
of nano silica upto 0.75 %.
• It is found that the ANN technique is mainly used method for GPC
strength prediction. This review tells us that the ANN model gives a
significant idea about the strength with a minimum error percentage.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

13
S. Paruthi et al. Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253

the work reported in this paper. [30] F. Puertas, et al., A model for the CASH gel formed in alkali-activated slag
cements, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 31 (12) (2011) 2043–2056.
[31] Nema, D., Compaction and strength characteristics of Lime activated flyash with GGBS
Data availability as an admixture. 2017.
[32] A.L. Murmu, N. Dhole, A. Patel, Stabilisation of black cotton soil for subgrade
No data was used for the research described in the article. application using fly ash geopolymer, Road Materials and Pavement Design 21 (3)
(2020) 867–885.
[33] D. Panias, I. Giannopoulou, Development of inorganic polymeric materials based
Acknowledgment on fired coal fly ash, Acta Metallurgica Slovaca 12 (12) (2006) 321–327.
[34] R. Bajpai, et al., Environmental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based
geopolymer concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 254 (2020), 120147.
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific [35] M. Abid, et al., High temperature and residual properties of reactive powder
Research at King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for concrete–A review, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 339–351.
[36] Bhaskar, M.U. and J. Nagraj, Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Using
funding this work through Large Groups RGP.2/43/43
Silica Fume for M60 Grade.
[37] Wallah, S. and B.V. Rangan, Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: long-
References term properties. 2006.
[38] N. Singh, et al., Effect of aggressive chemical environment on durability of green
geopolymer concrete, Inter. J. Eng. Innovative Tech. (IJEIT) 3 (4) (2013)
[1] I. Amer, et al., Evaluation of using cement in Alkali-activated slag concrete,
277–284.
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 9 (05) (2020)
[39] S. Thokchom, P. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, Acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer
245–248.
mortars, Inter. J. Recent Trends in Eng. 1 (6) (2009) 36.
[2] J.R. Black, Mix design process for alkaline-activated class F fly ash geopolymer
[40] P. Dinakar, K. Babu, M. Santhanam, Durability properties of high volume fly ash
concrete The UNSW Canberra at ADFA, Journal of Undergraduate Engineering
self compacting concretes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (10) (2008) 880–886.
Research 5 (1) (2012).
[41] J.P. Davidovits, of geopolymer cements. in First international conference on
[3] H.A. Bengar, et al., Impact of elevated temperatures on the structural
alkaline cements and concretes., Kiev State Technical University, Scientific
performance of recycled rubber concrete: Experimental and mathematical
Research Institute on, Ukraine, 1994.
modeling, Constr. Build. Mater. 255 (2020), 119374.
[42] N. Rajamane, et al., Sulphate resistance and eco-friendliness of geopolymer
[4] N. Lloyd, B.V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete: a review of development and
concretes, Indian Concrete Journal 86 (1) (2012) 13.
opportunities. In the ProceedIngs of 35th conference on our world In concrete and
[43] A. Toghroli, et al., Evaluating the use of recycled concrete aggregate and
structures, SIngapore Concrete Institute, 2010.
pozzolanic additives in fiber-reinforced pervious concrete with industrial and
[5] N. Lloyd, V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete with fly ash, UWM Center for By-
recycled fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 252 (2020), 118997.
Products Utilization, 2010.
[44] D. Hardjito, and S, Wallah, Study on engineering properties of fly ash-based
[6] P. Alekhya, S. Aravindan, Experimental investigations on geopolymer concrete,
geopolymer concrete, 2002.
Int J Civ Eng Technol (IJCIET) 5 (4) (2014) 01–09.
[45] G. Kastiukas, et al., Development of precast geopolymer concrete via oven and
[7] I. Tekin, et al., Recycling zeolitic tuff and marble waste in the production of eco-
microwave radiation curing with an environmental assessment, J. Cleaner Prod.
friendly geopolymer concretes, J. Cleaner Prod. 268 (2020), 122298.
255 (2020), 120290.
[8] J.R. Yost, et al., Structural behavior of alkali activated fly ash concrete. Part 1:
[46] J.N.Y. Djobo, D. Stephan, The reaction of calcium during the formation of
mixture design, material properties and sample fabrication, Mater. Struct. 46 (3)
metakaolin phosphate geopolymer binder, Cem. Concr. Res. (2022), 106840.
(2013) 435–447.
[47] X.Y. Zhuang, et al., Fly ash-based geopolymer: clean production, properties and
[9] J. Davidovits, Soft Mineralurgy and Geopolymers, the Université de Technologie.
applications, J. Cleaner Prod. 125 (2016) 253–267.
Compiègne, France, 1988.
[48] P. Zhang, et al., Properties of fresh and hardened fly ash/slag based geopolymer
[10] V. Malhotra, Making concrete“ greener” with fly ash, Concr. Int. 21 (5) (1999)
concrete: A review, J. Cleaner Prod. 270 (2020), 122389.
61–66.
[49] L.N. Assi, et al., Review of availability of source materials for geopolymer/
[11] V. Malhotra, Introduction,, sustainable development and concrete technology,
sustainable concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 263 (2020), 121477.
Concr. Int. 24 (7) (2002).
[50] J. Dafedar, Y. Desai, Stability of composite and sandwich struts by mixed
[12] V. Malhotra, Role of supplementary cementing materials and superplasticizers in
formulation, J. Eng. Mech. 130 (7) (2004) 762–770.
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and Smart Materials, Chennai, India, 2004.
[51] J. Dafedar, Y. Desai, A. Mufti, Stability of sandwich plates by mixed, higher-order
[13] O.A. Mayhoub, et al., The influence of ingredients on the properties of reactive
analytical formulation, Int. J. Solids Struct. 40 (17) (2003) 4501–4517.
powder concrete: A review, Ain Shams Eng. J. (2020).
[52] Y. Yuan, et al., Frost resistance of fiber-reinforced blended slag and Class F fly
[14] D. Hardjito, C.C. Cheak, C.H.L. Ing, Strength and setting times of low calcium fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete under the coupling effect of freeze-thaw cycling
ash-based geopolymer mortar, Modern applied science 2 (4) (2008) 3–11.
and axial compressive loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 250 (2020), 118831.
[15] A. Al Bakri, et al., Nano geopolymer for sustainable concrete using fly ash
[53] B. Joseph, G. Mathew, Interface shear strength of fly ash based geopolymer
synthesized by high energy ball milling. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans
concrete, Annals of the Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara 11 (3) (2013) 105.
Tech Publ, 2013.
[54] A. Motorwala, et al., Alkali activated fly-ash based geopolymer concrete, Inter. J.
[16] A.M. El-Tair, et al., Improving The Microstructure And The Strength Of Alkali
emerging technology and advanced engineering 3 (1) (2013) 159–166.
Activated Slag Mortar Under Ambient Temperature, Int J Sci Technol Res 9
[55] T. Ushaa, R. Anuradha, and G, Venkatasubramani, Performance of self-
(2020) 1092–1099.
compacting geopolymer concrete containing different mineral admixtures, 2015.
[17] A.M. El-Tair, et al., Improving the reactivity of clay nano-partciles in high
[56] S. Kumar, et al., Effect of mechanically activated fly ash on the properties of
strength mortars through indirect sonication method, Int J Sci Technol Res 9
geopolymer cement. in Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Geopolymer, 2005.
(2020) 1045–1054.
[57] A. Noushini, et al., Chloride diffusion resistance and chloride binding capacity of
[18] P.K. Mehta, Greening of the concrete industry for sustainable development,
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 105 (2020), 103290.
Concr. Int. 24 (7) (2002) 23–28.
[58] S. Vyas, et al., Behaviour of Alkali Activated Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete on
[19] S. Çelikten, M. Sarıdemir, İ.Ö. Deneme, Mechanical and microstructural
Thermal Activation. International Journal of Civil, Eng. Technol. 5 (4) (2014).
properties of alkali-activated slag and slag+ fly ash mortars exposed to high
[59] S.M. Laskar, S. Talukdar, Preparation and tests for workability, compressive and
temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 217 (2019) 50–61.
bond strength of ultra-fine slag based geopolymer as concrete repairing agent,
[20] C.-K. Ma, A.Z. Awang, W. Omar, Structural and material performance of
Constr. Build. Mater. 154 (2017) 176–190.
geopolymer concrete: A review, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 90–102.
[60] M. Venu, T.G. Rao, Tie-confinement aspects of fly ash-GGBS based geopolymer
[21] C. Jiang, et al., A review on geopolymer in potential coating application: Materials,
concrete short columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 151 (2017) 28–35.
preparation and basic properties. Journal of Building, Engineering (2020), 101734.
[61] C.B. Cheah, et al., The use of high calcium wood ash in the preparation of Ground
[22] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm. Anal.
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Pulverized Fly Ash geopolymers: A complete
Calorim. 37 (8) (1991) 1633–1656.
microstructural and mechanical characterization, J. Cleaner Prod. 156 (2017)
[23] P. Duxson, et al., Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater.
114–123.
Sci. 42 (9) (2007) 2917–2933.
[62] A.B. Moradikhou, A. Esparham, M.J. Avanaki, Physical & mechanical properties
[24] T. Bakharev, Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium
of fiber reinforced metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
sulfate solutions, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6) (2005) 1233–1246.
251 (2020), 118965.
[25] K. Vijai, R. Kumutha, and B, Vishnuram, Properties of glass fibre reinforced
[63] A.M. Zeyad, et al., Production of geopolymer concrete by utilizing volcanic
geopolymer concrete composites, 2012.
pumice dust, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022) e00802.
[26] Shaikh, S.H. and D. Dafedar, Experimental Investigation on Ferro-Geopolymer Flat
[64] M. Maslehuddin, et al., Usage of cement kiln dust in cement products–research
Panel.
review and preliminary investigations, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (12) (2008)
[27] N. Asim, et al., Emerging sustainable solutions for depollution: geopolymers,
2369–2375.
Constr. Build. Mater. 199 (2019) 540–548.
[65] R. Siddique, A. Rajor, Use of cement kiln dust in cement concrete and its leachate
[28] S.H. Sanni, R. Khadiranaikar, Performance of geopolymer concrete under severe
characteristics, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 61 (2012) 59–68.
environmental conditions, Inter. J. civil and structural Eng. 3 (2) (2012) 396.
[66] M. Maslehuddin, et al., Properties of cement kiln dust concrete, Constr. Build.
[29] M.S. Reddy, P. Dinakar, B.H. Rao, Mix design development of fly ash and ground
Mater. 23 (6) (2009) 2357–2361.
granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018)
712–722.

14
S. Paruthi et al.
[67] A.M. Zeyad, A. Almalki, Role of particle size of natural pozzolanic materials of
volcanic pumice: flow properties, strength, and permeability, Arabian J. Geosci.
14 (2) (2021) 1–11.
[68] A.M. Zeyad, et al., Performance of high-strength green concrete under the
influence of curing methods, volcanic pumice dust, and hot weather, Archives of
Civil and Mechanical Eng. 22 (3) (2022) 1–26.
[69] N. Kabay, et al., Properties of concrete with pumice powder and fly ash as cement
replacement materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 85 (2015) 1–8.
[70] A.S. Alqarni, A comprehensive review on properties of sustainable concrete using
volcanic pumice powder ash as a supplementary cementitious material, Constr.
Build. Mater. 323 (2022), 126533.
[71] A.M. Zeyad, A.H. Khan, B.A. Tayeh, Durability and strength characteristics of
high-strength concrete incorporated with volcanic pumice powder and
polypropylene fibers, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (1) (2020) 806–818.
[72] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Geopolymer concrete for ambient curing condition.
Proceedings of the Australasian structural engineering conference (ASEC 2012),
Jul 11-13 (2012). Perth, Western Australia: Engineers Australia, Curtin Research
Publications, 2012.
[73] R.R. Bellum, et al., Investigation on performance enhancement of fly ash-GGBFS
based graphene geopolymer concrete, Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020),
101659.
[74] T.T. Nguyen, C.I. Goodier, S.A. Austin, Factors affecting the slump and strength
development of geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 261 (2020), 119945.
[75] L.E. Gordon, J.L. Provis, J.S. van Deventer, Durability of fly ash/GGBFS based
geopolymers exposed to carbon capture solvents, Adv. Appl. Ceram. 110 (8)
(2011) 446–452.
[76] M. Sandanayake, et al., Sustainable criterion selection framework for green
building materials–An optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete,
Sustainable Mater.Technol. 25 (2020) e00178.
[77] M.M.A.B. Abdullah, et al., Fly ash-based geopolymer lightweight concrete using
foaming agent, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13 (6) (2012) 7186–7198.
[78] H. Zhang, et al., Deterioration of ambient-cured and heat-cured fly ash
geopolymer concrete by high temperature exposure and prediction of its residual
compressive strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 262 (2020), 120924.
[79] G.M. Zannerni, K.P. Fattah, A.K. Al-Tamimi, Ambient-cured geopolymer concrete
with single alkali activator, Sustainable Mater.Technol. 23 (2020) e00131.
[80] C.R. Meesala, N.K. Verma, S. Kumar, Critical review on fly-ash based geopolymer
concrete, Structural Concrete 21 (3) (2020) 1013–1028.
[81] M. Kalaivani, et al., Performance evaluation of fly ash/slag based geopolymer
concrete beams with addition of lime, Mater. Today:. Proc. 27 (2020) 652–656.
[82] P.N. Reddy, J.A. Naqash, Effect of alccofine on mechanical and durability index
properties of green concrete, Int. J. Eng 32 (6) (2019) 813–819.
[83] S. Kavitha, T.F. Kala, Evaluation of strength behavior of self-compacting concrete
using alccofine and GGBS as partial replacement of cement, Indian J. Science and
technology 9 (22) (2016) 1–5.
[84] A. Parmar, et al., Effect of alccofine and fly ash addition on the durability of high
performance concrete, J. Eng. Res. Technol 3 (1) (2014) 1600–1605.
[85] M. Pawar, A. Saoji, Effect of alccofine on self compacting concrete, International
Journal of Engineering and Science 2 (6) (2013) 05–09.
[86] B.B. Jindal, et al., Improving compressive strength of low calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete with alccofine, Advances in concrete construction 5 (1)
(2017) 017.
[87] D. Singhal, B.B. Jindal, Preparation of geopolymer concrete (GPC) using high-
silica rice husk ash (RHA) incorporating alccofine, Advanced Science,
Engineering and Medicine 9 (5) (2017) 370–376.
[88] K. Srinivasreddy, S. Balamurugan, Effect of Alccofine 1203 on Setting Times and
Strength of Ternary Blended Geopolymer Mixes with Msand Cured at Ambient
Temperature, Rev. Rom. Mater. 49 (4) (2019) 527–534.
[89] S.R. Kuun Reddy, S. Bala Murugan, Experimental and microstructural assessment of
ternary blended geopolymer concrete with different Na2SiO3-to-NaOH volume ratios.
Innovative Infrastructure, Solutions 5 (1) (2020) 1–14.
[90] A. Singh, V. Sandhu, Effects of alccofine and curing conditions on properties of
low calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Mater. Today:. Proc. 32 (2020)
620–625.
[91] V. Chandrakanth, S. Koniki, Comparative studies on strength properties of flyash
based geopolymer concrete incorporating ggbs and alccofine subjected to
elevated temperature. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
IOP Publishing, 2021.
[92] D. Singhal, et al., Mechanical and microstructural properties of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete incorporating alccofine at ambient curing, Constr. Build.
Mater. 180 (2018) 298–307.
[93] V. Ramesh, K. Srikanth, Comparison of mechanical properties of flyash-GGBS
based GPC and flyash-alccofine based GPC with different concentrations of
alkaline activators. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
IOP Publishing, 2021.
[94] B. Sagar, S. mvn,, Mechanical and microstructure characterization of Alccofine
based high strength concrete, Silicon 14 (3) (2022) 795–813.
[95] Anuradha, R., et al., Modified guidelines for geopolymer concrete mix design using
Indian standard. 2012.
[96] K. Ramujee, M. Potharaju, Development of mix design for low calcium based
geopolymer concrete in low, medium and higher grades-Indian scenario, Journal
of Civil engineering and technology 1 (1) (2013) 15–25.
[97] S. Top, et al., Properties of fly ash-based lightweight geopolymer concrete
prepared using pumice and expanded perlite as aggregates, J. Mol. Struct. 1202
(2020), 127236.
15
Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253
[98] S.M. Mustakim, et al., Improvement in fresh, mechanical and microstructural
properties of fly ash-blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete by addition of
nano and micro silica, Silicon (2020) 1–14.
[99] M. Padmakar, B. Barhmaiah, M.L. Priyanka, Characteristic compressive strength
of a geo polymer concrete, Mater. Today:. Proc. 37 (2021) 2219–2222.
[100] K. Srinivas, et al., Effect of alkaline activators on strength properties of
metakaolin and fly ash based geopolymer concrete, JCR 7 (13) (2020)
2194–2204.
[101] Neville, A.M. and J.J. Brooks, Concrete technology. 1987: Longman Scientific &
Technical England.
[102] Rangan, B.V., Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. 2008.
[103] P.S. Ambily, et al., Development of ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete,
Mag. Concr. Res. 66 (2) (2014) 82–89.
[104] H. Xu, G. Lukey, J. Van Deventer, The activation of class C-, class F-fly ash and
blast furnace slag using geopolymerisation, Special Publication 221 (2004)
797–820.
[105] A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, Activation of fly ashes: A general view, Special
Publication 221 (2004) 351–366.
[106] M. El-Feky, et al., Effect of microwave curing as compared with conventional
regimes on the performance of alkali activated slag pastes, Constr. Build. Mater.
233 (2020), 117268.
[107] Z. Xu, et al., Research progress on key problems of nanomaterials-modified
geopolymer concrete, Nanotechnology Reviews 10 (1) (2021) 779–792.
[108] B. Szczepanik, Photocatalytic degradation of organic contaminants over clay-
TiO2 nanocomposites: A review, Appl. Clay Sci. 141 (2017) 227–239.
[109] R. Ismael, et al., Influence of nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 additions on steel-to-
concrete bonding, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 1080–1092.
[110] M.O. Braganca, et al., Performance of Portland cement concretes with 1% nano-
Fe3O4 addition: Electrochemical stability under chloride and sulfate
environments, Constr. Build. Mater. 117 (2016) 152–162.
[111] A. Khaloo, M.H. Mobini, P. Hosseini, Influence of different types of nano-SiO2
particles on properties of high-performance concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 113
(2016) 188–201.
[112] W. Li, et al., Effects of nano-silica and nano-limestone on flowability and
mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance concrete matrix, Constr. Build.
Mater. 95 (2015) 366–374.
[113] F. Vazinram, M. Jalal, M.Y. Foroushani, Effect of nano ZnO2 and lime water
curing on strength and water absorption of concrete, Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol.
50 (3–4) (2015) 356–365.
[114] S.W. Supit, F.U. Shaikh, Effect of nano-CaCO3 on compressive strength
development of high volume fly ash mortars and concretes, J. Adv. Concr.
Technol. 12 (6) (2014) 178–186.
[115] M. Morsy, S. Alsayed, M. Aqel, Hybrid effect of carbon nanotube and nano-clay on
physico-mechanical properties of cement mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (1)
(2011) 145–149.
[116] F. Kantarci, İ. Türkmen, E. Ekinci, Improving elevated temperature performance
of geopolymer concrete utilizing nano-silica, micro-silica and styrene-butadiene
latex, Constr. Build. Mater. 286 (2021), 122980.
[117] M.A. Kotop, et al., Engineering properties of geopolymer concrete incorporating
hybrid nano-materials, Ain Shams Eng. J. 12 (4) (2021) 3641–3647.
[118] A.Y. Wani, M. Bhandari, Effect of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, Silica
Fume and Nano Silica on the Strength & Durability Properties of Concrete: A
Contemporary Review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
IOP Publishing, 2021.
[119] A. Çevik, et al., Effect of nano-silica on the chemical durability and mechanical
performance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Ceram. Int. 44 (11) (2018)
12253–12264.
[120] E. Rabiaa, et al., Developing geopolymer concrete properties by using
nanomaterials and steel fibers, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020 (2020).
[121] O.A. Mayhoub, et al., Properties of slag based geopolymer reactive powder
concrete, Ain Shams Eng. J. 12 (1) (2021) 99–105.
[122] K. Pasupathy, J. Sanjayan, P. Rajeev, Evaluation of alkalinity changes and
carbonation of geopolymer concrete exposed to wetting and drying, Journal of
Building Engineering 35 (2021), 102029.
[123] F.N. Okoye, S. Prakash, N.B. Singh, Durability of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete in the presence of silica fume, J. Cleaner Prod. 149 (2017) 1062–1067.
[124] S. Vyas, et al., Strength and durability performance of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete using nano silica, International Journal of Engineering Science
Technologies 4 (2) (2020) 1–12.
[125] M. Priyanka, M. Karthikeyan, M.S.R. Chand, Development of mix proportions of
geopolymer lightweight aggregate concrete with LECA, Mater. Today:. Proc. 27
(2020) 958–962.
[126] A. Al Bakri, et al., Review on Processing of low calcium fly ash geopolymer
concrete, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7 (5) (2013) 342–349.
[127] E. Chidhambar, Y. Manjunath, Experimental investigation on geopolymer
concrete subjected to elevated temperature, Int. J. Adv. Res. Ideas Innov. Technol
5 (2019) 290–296.
[128] Shilar, F.A., Overview on Fly Ash Based Geopolymer-A Review. i-Manager’s Journal
on Structural Engineering, 2021. 10(1): p. 40.
[129] B.B. Jindal, et al., Strength and permeation properties of alccofine activated low
calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, Computers and Concrete 20 (6) (2017)
683–688.
[130] K. Pasupathy, et al., Durability performance of precast fly ash–based geopolymer
concrete under atmospheric exposure conditions, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (3)
(2018) 04018007.
S. Paruthi et al.
[131] N.A. Farhan, M.N. Sheikh, M.N. Hadi, Experimental investigation on the effect of
corrosion on the bond between reinforcing steel bars and fibre reinforced
geopolymer concrete. Structures, Elsevier, 2018.
[132] P. Nuaklong, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Influence of recycled aggregate on fly ash
geopolymer concrete properties, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 2300–2307.
[133] N. Gupta, et al., Mechanical and durability properties of geopolymer concrete
composite at varying superplasticizer dosage, Mater. Today:. Proc. 44 (2021)
12–16.
[134] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition, Constr.
Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 163–171.
[135] Olivia, M. and H. Nikraz, Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
Taguchi method. Materials & Design (1980-2015), 2012. 36: p. 191-198.
[136] A. Albidah, et al., Characteristics of metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete for
different mix design parameters, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 10 (2021) 84–98.
[137] K. Ramujee, M. PothaRaju, Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete
composites, Mater. Today:. Proc. 4 (2) (2017) 2937–2945.
[138] P.R. Vora, U.V. Dave, Parametric studies on compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete, Procedia Eng. 51 (2013) 210–219.
[139] Hardjito, D. and B.V. Rangan, Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete. 2005.
[140] Y.M. Amran, et al., Clean production and properties of geopolymer concrete, A
review. Journal of Cleaner Production 251 (2020), 119679.
[141] S.J. Chithambaram, et al., Effect of parameters on the compressive strength of fly
ash based geopolymer concrete, Structural Concrete 19 (4) (2018) 1202–1209.
[142] K. Vijai, R. Kumutha, B. Vishnuram, Effect of types of curing on strength of
geopolymer concrete, International journal of physical sciences 5 (9) (2010)
1419–1423.
[143] A.A. Aliabdo, M. Abd Elmoaty, H.A. Salem, Effect of water addition, plasticizer
and alkaline solution constitution on fly ash based geopolymer concrete
performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 121 (2016) 694–703.
[144] A.M. Rashad, S.R. Zeedan, The effect of activator concentration on the residual
strength of alkali-activated fly ash pastes subjected to thermal load, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (7) (2011) 3098–3107.
[145] E.F. Pires, et al., Physical nonlinearity of precast reinforced geopolymer concrete
beams, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 8 (2) (2019) 2083–2091.
[146] M. Morsy, et al., Effect of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios on strength
and microstructure of fly ash geopolymer binder, Arabian journal for science and
engineering 39 (6) (2014) 4333–4339.
[147] M.C. Bignozzi, et al., Room temperature alkali activation of fly ash: The effect of
Na2O/SiO2 ratio, Constr. Build. Mater. 69 (2014) 262–270.
[148] S.V. Joshi, M. Kadu, Role of alkaline activator in development of eco-friendly fly
ash based geo polymer concrete, International Journal of Environmental Science
and Development 3 (5) (2012) 417.
[149] A.B. Malkawi, et al., Effects of alkaline solution on properties of the HCFA
geopolymer mortars, Procedia Eng. 148 (2016) 710–717.
[150] U. Rattanasak, P. Chindaprasirt, Influence of NaOH solution on the synthesis of fly
ash geopolymer, Miner. Eng. 22 (12) (2009) 1073–1078.
[151] A. Akbar, et al., Sugarcane bagasse ash-based engineered geopolymer mortar
incorporating propylene fibers, Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021),
101492.
[152] D. Adak, S. Mandal, Strength and durability performance of fly ash–based
process-modified geopolymer concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (9) (2019)
04019174.
[153] D. Hardjito, et al., On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete,
Materials Journal 101 (6) (2004) 467–472.
[154] S. Ahmari, et al., Production of geopolymeric binder from blended waste concrete
powder and fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 718–729.
[155] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Castro-Gomes, S. Jalali, Adhesion characterization of
tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder. Influence of OPC concrete substrate
surface treatment, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (3) (2008) 154–161.
[156] S. Alehyen, M. Achouri, M. Taibi, Characterization, microstructure and properties
of fly ash-based geopolymer, J. Mater. Environ. Sci 8 (5) (2017) 1783–1796.
[157] S. Alonso, A. Palomo, Alkaline activation of metakaolin and calcium hydroxide
mixtures: influence of temperature, activator concentration and solids ratio,
Mater. Lett. 47 (1–2) (2001) 55–62.
[158] A. Mishra, et al., Effect of concentration of alkaline liquid and curing time on
strength and water absorption of geopolymer concrete, ARPN Journal of
engineering and Applied Sciences 3 (1) (2008) 14–18.
[159] F.A. Memon, et al., Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on fresh properties
and compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete, Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology 8 (1) (2013) 44–56.
[160] Risdanareni, P., J.J. Ekaputri, and M.M. Al Bakri Abdullah. Effect of alkaline
activator ratio to mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete with trass as filler. in
Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2015. Trans Tech Publ.
[161] R.K. Tabassum, A. Khadwal, F. Ash, Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on
various properties of geopolymer concrete, International Journal of Engineering
and Technical Research 3 (2015) 28–32.
[162] K. Siddiqui, Strength and durability of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.
Final Year Honours Dissertation, The University of Western Australia, Perth,
2007.
[163] M.E. Gülşan, et al., Development of fly ash/slag based self-compacting
geopolymer concrete using nano-silica and steel fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 211
(2019) 271–283.
[164] S. Vaidya, E. Diaz, E. Allouche, Experimental evaluation of self-cure geopolymer
concrete for mass pour applications, World of Coal Ash (WOCA) (2011).
16
Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253
[165] L. Chen, et al., Mechanical property, sorptivity and microstructure of steam-cured
concrete incorporated with the combination of metakaolin-limestone, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 11 (2019) e00267.
[166] C.Y. Heah, et al., Kaolin-based geopolymers with various NaOH concentrations,
Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 20 (3) (2013) 313–322.
[167] I.M. Daniel, et al., Engineering mechanics of composite materials, Vol. 1994,
Oxford University Press, New York, 2006.
[168] M.R. Nagral, T. Ostwal, M.V. Chitawadagi, Effect of curing temperature and
curing hours on the properties of geo-polymer concrete, International Journal of
Computational Engineering Research 4 (9) (2014) 1–11.
[169] F.A. Memon, et al., Effect of curing conditions on strength of fly ash-based self-
compacting geopolymer concrete, International Journal of Civil and
Environmental Engineering 5 (8) (2011) 342–345.
[170] A.A. Aliabdo, M. Abd Elmoaty, H.A. Salem, Effect of cement addition, solution
resting time and curing characteristics on fly ash based geopolymer concrete
performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 123 (2016) 581–593.
[171] M. Verma, N. Dev, Effect of liquid to binder ratio and curing temperature on the
engineering properties of the geopolymer concrete, Silicon 14 (4) (2022)
1743–1757.
[172] M. Chi, Mechnical strength and durability of alkali-activated fly ash/slag
concrete, J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 24 (5) (2016) 7.
[173] S.A. Bernal, R.M. De Gutiérrez, J.L. Provis, Engineering and durability properties
of concretes based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/metakaolin
blends, Constr. Build. Mater. 33 (2012) 99–108.
[174] Parveen, A.S. and D. Singhal. Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete: A
state of the art report. in Proceedings of the 5th Asia and Pacific Young
Researchers and Graduate Symposium, Jaipur, India. 2013.
[175] A.S. Parveen, A. Sharma, Structural behaviour of fibrous concrete using
polypropylene fibres, International Journal of Modern Engineering Research 3 (3)
(2013) 1279–1282.
[176] Huiskes, D., et al., Design and performance evaluation of ultra-lightweight alkali
activated concrete. Performance of admixture and secondary minerals in alkali
activated concrete. 85.
[177] T. Ayub, S.U. Khan, F.A. Memon, Mechanical characteristics of hardened concrete
with different mineral admixtures: a review, The Scientific World Journal 2014
(2014).
[178] R.H. Kupaei, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z.B. Jumaat, A review on fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete, Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering 13 (2) (2013)
1–6.
[179] G. Manjunatha, et al., Strength characteristics of open air cured geopolymer
concrete, Trans. Indian Ceram. Soc. 73 (2) (2014) 149–156.
[180] B.B. Jindal, A. Anand, A. Badal, Development of high strength fly ash based
geopolymer concrete with alccofine, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering 12 (2) (2016) 55–58.
[181] L. Nishanth, N.N. Patil, Experimental evaluation on workability and strength
characteristics of self-consolidating geopolymer concrete based on GGBFS, flyash
and alccofine, Mater. Today:. Proc. 59 (2022) 51–57.
[182] K. Srinivas Reddy, S. Bala Murugan, A Study on Strength Properties and Cost
Analysis of Industrial Byproduct-Based Ternary Blended Geopolymer Concrete, in
Emerging Technologies for, Agric. Environ. Springer (2020) 95–106.
[183] B.B. Jindal, et al., Predicting relationship between mechanical properties of low
calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Trans. Indian Ceram. Soc. 76 (4)
(2017) 258–265.
[184] B.B. Jindal, et al., Enhancing mechanical and durability properties of geopolymer
concrete with mineral admixture, Computers and concrete 21 (3) (2018)
345–353.
[185] S. Kavitha, T.F. Kala, Effect of bamboo fiber in self compacting concrete partially
replacing cement with GGBS and Alccofine, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology 8 (3) (2017) 158–166.
[186] S.V. Patankar, S.S. Jamkar, Y.M. Ghugal, Effect of water-to-geopolymer binder
ratio on the production of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Int. J. Adv. Technol.
Civ. Eng 2 (1) (2013) 79–83.
[187] M.F. Nuruddin, S. Demie, N. Shafiq, Effect of mix composition on workability and
compressive strength of self-compacting geopolymer concrete, Can. J. Civ. Eng.
38 (11) (2011) 1196–1203.
[188] V.F.F. Barbosa, K.J. MacKenzie, C. Thaumaturgo, Synthesis and characterisation of
sodium polysialate inorganic polymer based on alumina and silica. in Geopolymer’99
International Conference, France. (1999).
[189] N. Singh, S. Saxena, M. Kumar, Effect of nanomaterials on the properties of
geopolymer mortars and concrete, Mater. Today:. Proc. 5 (3) (2018) 9035–9040.
[190] S. Naskar, A.K. Chakraborty, Effect of nano materials in geopolymer concrete,
Perspect. Sci. 8 (2016) 273–275.
[191] B. Mahboubi, Z. Guo, H. Wu, Evaluation of durability behavior of geopolymer
concrete containing Nano-silica and Nano-clay additives in acidic media, Journal
of civil Engineering and Materials Application 3 (3) (2019) 163–171.
[192] N. Hamed, et al., Effect of nano-clay de-agglomeration on mechanical properties
of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 205 (2019) 245–256.
[193] J.A. Abdalla, et al., Influence of nano-TiO2, nano-Fe2O3, nanoclay and nano-
CaCO3 on the properties of cement/geopolymer concrete, Cleaner Materials
(2022), 100061.
[194] M. El-Feky, et al., Nano-fibrillated cellulose as a green alternative to carbon
nanotubes in nano reinforced cement composites, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor.
Eng 8 (2019) 484–491.
[195] K.J. MacKenzie, M.J. Bolton, Electrical and mechanical properties of
aluminosilicate inorganic polymer composites with carbon nanotubes, J. Mater.
Sci. 44 (11) (2009) 2851–2857.
S. Paruthi et al.
[196] K.J. Rao, K. Keerthi, S. Vasam, Acid resistance of quaternary blended recycled
aggregate concrete, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 8 (2018) 423–433.
[197] K. Vinothini, R. Elangovan, R. Vinoth, Experimental investigation on
strengthening of concrete by partial replacement of nano and micro silica,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 9 (7) (2018) 422–429.
[198] Z. Junwei, L. Shijie, P. Hongjian, Experimental investigation of multiscale hybrid
fibres on the mechanical properties of high-performance concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 299 (2021), 123895.
[199] W.M. Shaban, et al., Properties of recycled concrete aggregates strengthened by
different types of pozzolan slurry, Constr. Build. Mater. 216 (2019) 632–647.
[200] J. Bernal, et al., Fresh and mechanical behavior of a self-compacting concrete
with additions of nano-silica, silica fume and ternary mixtures, Constr. Build.
Mater. 160 (2018) 196–210.
[201] A.N. Guleria, S. Salhotra, Effects of silica fume (micro silica or nano silica) on
mechanical properties of concrete: A review, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol 7 (4) (2016)
345–357.
[202] A. Nazari, S. Riahi, The effects of Cr2O3 nanoparticles on strength assessments
and water permeability of concrete in different curing media, Mater. Sci. Eng., A
528 (3) (2011) 1173–1182.
[203] J.M. Their, M. Özakça, Developing geopolymer concrete by using cold-bonded fly
ash aggregate, nano-silica, and steel fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 180 (2018)
12–22.
[204] Chang, E.H., Shear and bond behaviour of reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete beams. 2009, Curtin University.
[205] M. Sofi, et al., Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs), Cem.
Concr. Res. 37 (2) (2007) 251–257.
[206] M.U. Maguesvari, V. Narasimha, Development of Environmental Friendly Material-
Porous Concrete. Journal of Selected Areas in Microelectronics (JSAM),
Singaporean Journal of Scientific Research (SJSR) 6 (1) (2014) 36–42.
[207] F.A. Turkey, et al., A review–Behaviour of geopolymer concrete to high
temperature, Mater. Today:. Proc. (2021).
[208] B.A. Tayeh, et al., Effect of air agent on mechanical properties and microstructure
of lightweight geopolymer concrete under high temperature, Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. 16 (2022) e00951.
[209] S. Luhar, D. Nicolaides, I. Luhar, Fire resistance behaviour of geopolymer
concrete: an overview, Buildings 11 (3) (2021) 82.
[210] L.S. Wong, Durability Performance of Geopolymer Concrete: A Review, Polymers
14 (5) (2022) 868.
[211] P.K. Mehta, Durability-Critical issues for the future, Concr. Int. 19 (7) (1997)
27–33.
[212] A.M. Saba, et al., Strength and flexural behavior of steel fiber and silica fume
incorporated self-compacting concrete, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 12 (2021)
1380–1390.
[213] I.-S. Yoon, C.-H. Chang, Effect of Chloride on Electrical Resistivity in Carbonated
and Non-Carbonated Concrete, Applied Sciences 10 (18) (2020) 6272.
[214] D. Sumajouw, et al., Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: study of slender
reinforced columns, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (9) (2007) 3124–3130.
[215] S. Kim, et al., Durability of slag waste incorporated steel fiber-reinforced concrete
in marine environment, Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021), 101641.
[216] P.K. Sarker, Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete, Mater. Struct. 44 (5) (2011) 1021–1030.
[217] K. Harish, J. Dattatreya, M. Neelamegam, Effect of fiber addition, heat treatment,
and preset pressure on mechanical properties of ultra-high-strength mortars,
Transp. Res. Rec. 2240 (1) (2011) 59–69.
[218] D. Cheema, N. Lloyd, B.V. Rangan, Durability of geopolymer concrete box
culverts-A green alternative, CI Premier Pty Ltd., 2009.
[219] A. Hassan, M. Arif, M. Shariq, Influence of microstructure of geopolymer concrete
on its mechanical properties—a review, Advances in Sustainable Construction
Materials and Geotechnical Engineering (2020) 119–129.
[220] P.K. Mehta, P.J. Monteiro, P. Concrete-Microstructure, Materials, PJM, United
States, McGrawHill, 2006, pp. 85–86.
[221] R. Embong, et al., Strength and microstructural properties of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete containing high-calcium and water-absorptive aggregate,
J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 816–822.
[222] A. Bouaissi, et al., Mechanical properties and microstructure analysis of FA-GGBS-
HMNS based geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 210 (2019) 198–209.
[223] S.K. Das, et al., Fresh, strength and microstructure properties of geopolymer
concrete incorporating lime and silica fume as replacement of fly ash, Journal of
Building Engineering 32 (2020), 101780.
[224] R.N. Thakur, S. Ghosh, Effect of mix composition on compressive strength and
microstructure of fly ash based geopolymer composites, ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences 4 (4) (2009) 68–74.
[225] S. Nagajothi, S. Elavenil, Effect of GGBS Addition on reactivity and microstructure
properties of ambient cured fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Silicon 13 (2)
(2021) 507–516.
[226] T.T. Nguyen, K. Dinh, An artificial intelligence approach for concrete hardened
property estimation, Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering
(STCE)-HUCE 14 (2) (2020) 40–52.
[227] E.M. Golafshani, A. Behnood, M. Arashpour, Predicting the compressive strength
of normal and High-Performance Concretes using ANN and ANFIS hybridized
with Grey Wolf Optimizer, Constr. Build. Mater. 232 (2020), 117266.
[228] A.A. Shahmansouri, H. Akbarzadeh Bengar, S. Ghanbari, Experimental investigation
and predictive modeling of compressive strength of pozzolanic geopolymer concrete
using gene expression programming. Journal of Concrete, Structures and Materials 5
(1) (2020) 92–117.
17
Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253
[229] R. Biswas, et al., Efficient soft computing techniques for the prediction of
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete, Computers and Concrete 28 (2)
(2021) 221–232.
[230] Q. Wang, et al., Application of Soft Computing Techniques to Predict the Strength
of Geopolymer Composites, Polymers 14 (6) (2022) 1074.
[231] H.U. Ahmed, A.A. Mohammed, A. Mohammed, Soft computing models to predict
the compressive strength of GGBS/FA-geopolymer concrete, PLoS ONE 17 (5)
(2022) e0265846.
[232] K. Yaswanth, J. Revathy, P. Gajalakshmi, Soft computing techniques for the
prediction and analysis of compressive strength of alkali-activated Alumino-
silicate based strain-hardening Geopolymer composites, Silicon 14 (5) (2022)
1985–2008.
[233] E.M. Golafshani, A. Behnood, Estimating the optimal mix design of silica fume
concrete using biogeography-based programming, Cem. Concr. Compos. 96
(2019) 95–105.
[234] M. Shahnewaz, A. Rteil, M.S. Alam, Shear strength of reinforced concrete deep
beams–A review with improved model by genetic algorithm and reliability
analysis. Structures, Elsevier, 2020.
[235] A. Vinothkumar, M. Kalaivani, P. Easwaran, Development of Fly ash-GGBS based
Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete: a Review, International Research Journal
of Multidisciplinary Technovation (2019) 373–377.
[236] A.A. Shahmansouri, H.A. Bengar, E. Jahani, Predicting compressive strength and
electrical resistivity of eco-friendly concrete containing natural zeolite via GEP
algorithm, Constr. Build. Mater. 229 (2019), 116883.
[237] M. Ahmadi, et al., New empirical approach for determining nominal shear
capacity of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 234
(2020), 117293.
[238] H. Naderpour, et al., A new proposed approach for moment capacity estimation of
ferrocement members using Group Method of Data Handling, Engineering Science
and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2) (2020) 382–391.
[239] A. Behnood, E.M. Golafshani, Machine learning study of the mechanical
properties of concretes containing waste foundry sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 243
(2020), 118152.
[240] S.A. Emamian, H. Eskandari-Naddaf, Genetic programming based formulation for
compressive and flexural strength of cement mortar containing nano and micro
silica after freeze and thaw cycles, Constr. Build. Mater. 241 (2020), 118027.
[241] A.A. Shahmansouri, H.A. Bengar, S. Ghanbari, Compressive strength prediction of
eco-efficient GGBS-based geopolymer concrete using GEP method, Journal of
Building Engineering 31 (2020), 101326.
[242] B.S.R. Yeddula, S. Karthiyaini, Experimental investigations and GEP modelling of
compressive strength of ferrosialate based geopolymer mortars, Constr. Build.
Mater. 236 (2020), 117602.
[243] S. Mahdinia, H. Eskandari-Naddaf, R. Shadnia, Effect of cement strength class on
the prediction of compressive strength of cement mortar using GEP method,
Constr. Build. Mater. 198 (2019) 27–41.
[244] J. Thomas, N.N. Thaickavil, P. Wilson, Strength and durability of concrete
containing recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Building Engineering 19
(2018) 349–365.
[245] S. Nagajothi, S. Elavenil, Influence of aluminosilicate for the prediction of
mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete–artificial neural network, Silicon
(2019) 1–11.
[246] M. Mirmozaffari, et al., A novel artificial intelligent approach: comparison of
machine learning tools and algorithms based on optimization DEA Malmquist
productivity index for eco-efficiency evaluation, Int. J. Energy Sect. Manage.
(2021).
[247] S. Arora, B. Singh, B. Bhardwaj, Strength performance of recycled aggregate
concretes containing mineral admixtures and their performance prediction
through various modeling techniques, Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019),
100741.
[248] M. Koçer, M. Öztürk, M.H. Arslan, Determination of moment, shear and ductility
capacities of spiral columns using an artificial neural network, Journal of Building
Engineering 26 (2019), 100878.
[249] D.V. Dao, et al., Artificial intelligence approaches for prediction of compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete, Materials 12 (6) (2019) 983.
[250] T.T. Nguyen, et al., Compressive Strength Evaluation of Fiber-Reinforced High-
Strength Self-Compacting Concrete with Artificial Intelligence, Advances in Civil
Engineering 2020 (2020).
[251] T.V. Hung, V.Q. Viet, D. Van Thuat, A deep learning-based procedure for
estimation of ultimate load carrying of steel trusses using advanced analysis,
Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering (STCE)-NUCE 13 (3)
(2019) 113–123.
[252] P.T. Tung, P.T. Hung, Predicting fire resistance ratings of timber structures using
artificial neural networks, Journal of Science and Technology in Civil Engineering
(STCE)-NUCE 14 (2) (2020) 28–39.
[253] K. Prasad, A.K. Gorai, P. Goyal, Development of ANFIS models for air quality
forecasting and input optimization for reducing the computational cost and time,
Atmos. Environ. 128 (2016) 246–262.
[254] E. Hong, et al., ANFIS based Modelling of dewatering performance and polymer
dose optimization in a wastewater treatment plant, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 6 (2)
(2018) 1957–1968.
[255] M.-C. Kang, D.-Y. Yoo, R. Gupta, Machine learning-based prediction for
compressive and flexural strengths of steel fiber-reinforced concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 266 (2021), 121117.
[256] A.A. Shahmansouri, et al., Artificial neural network model to predict the
compressive strength of eco-friendly geopolymer concrete incorporating silica
fume and natural zeolite, J. Cleaner Prod. 279 (2021), 123697.
S. Paruthi et al.
[257] A.T. Huynh, et al., A machine learning-assisted numerical predictor for
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete based on experimental data and
sensitivity analysis, Applied Sciences 10 (21) (2020) 7726.
[258] S. Nagajothi, S. Elavenil, Influence of aluminosilicate for the prediction of
mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete–artificial neural network, Silicon
12 (5) (2020) 1011–1021.
[259] T.T. Pham, et al., A neural network approach for predicting hardened property of
geopolymer concrete, GEOMATE Journal 19 (74) (2020) 176–184.
[260] M.M.A.B. Abdullah, et al., Fly ash porous material using geopolymerization
process for high temperature exposure, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13 (4) (2012) 4388–4395.
[261] S. Inti, M. Sharma, V. Tandon, Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and
rice husk ash (RHA) uses in the production of geopolymer concrete, Geo-Chicago
(2016, 2016,) 621–632.
[262] H. Xu, J. Van Deventer, The geopolymerisation of alumino-silicate minerals, Int.
J. Miner. Process. 59 (3) (2000) 247–266.
[263] S. Katara, et al., Surface modification of fly ash by thermal activation: a DR/FTIR
study, International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2013)
299–307.
[264] S.E. Wallah, Drying shrinkage of heat-cured fly ash-based geopolymer concrete,
Modern Applied Science 3 (12) (2009) 14–21.
[265] E.I. Diaz-Loya, E.N. Allouche, S. Vaidya, Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based
geopolymer concrete, ACI Mater. J. 108 (3) (2011) 300.
[266] D.V. Dao, et al., Prediction of compressive strength of geopolymer concrete using
entirely steel slag aggregates: Novel hybrid artificial intelligence approaches,
Applied Sciences 9 (6) (2019) 1113.
[267] J. Shi, et al., A quantitative analysis method of greenhouse gas emission for
mechanical product remanufacturing based on Petri net, Adv. Prod. Eng. Manage.
13 (4) (2018) 442.
[268] S.H. Teh, et al., Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from
cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia, J. Cleaner Prod. 152
(2017) 312–320.
[269] D. Allaoui, et al., Eco-friendly geopolymer concrete based on metakaolin and
ceramics sanitaryware wastes, Ceram. Int. (2022).
18
Construction and Building Materials 356 (2022) 129253
[270] A.N. Derinpinar, M.B. Karakoç, A. Özcan, Performance of glass powder
substituted slag based geopolymer concretes under high temperature, Constr.
Build. Mater. 331 (2022), 127318.
[271] Y. Haddaji, et al., Microstructure and flexural performances of glass fibers
reinforced phosphate sludge based geopolymers at elevated temperatures, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022) e00928.
[272] T.M. Pham, Enhanced properties of high-silica rice husk ash-based geopolymer
paste by incorporating basalt fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 245 (2020), 118422.
[273] Y. Ding, Y.-L. Bai, Fracture properties and softening curves of steel fiber-
reinforced slag-based geopolymer mortar and concrete, Materials 11 (8) (2018)
1445.
[274] M. Al-Azzawi, T. Yu, M.N. Hadi, Factors affecting the bond strength between the
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete and steel reinforcement. Structures, Elsevier,
2018.
[275] Y. Ding, C.-J. Shi, N. Li, Fracture properties of slag/fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete cured in ambient temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 190 (2018)
787–795.
[276] K. Neupane, D. Chalmers, P. Kidd, High-strength geopolymer concrete-properties,
advantages and challenges, Advances in Materials 7 (2) (2018) 15–25.
[277] K. Uma, R. Anuradha, R. Venkatasubramani, Experimental investigation and
analytical modeling of reinforced geopolymer concrete beam, International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 2 (3) (2012) 808.
[278] P. Goyal, et al., Experimental study: Alccofine as strength enhancer for
geopolymer concrete, International journal of advance research, ideas and
innovations in technology 5 (2019) 227–231.
[279] K. Pasupathy, S. Ramakrishnan, J. Sanjayan, Enhancing the mechanical and
thermal properties of aerated geopolymer concrete using porous lightweight
aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 264 (2020), 120713.
[280] P. Gomathi, A. Sivakumar, Synthesis of geopolymer based class-F fly ash
aggregates and its composite properties in concrete, Archives of civil engineering
60 (1) (2014).
[281] J.G. Jawahar, G. Mounika, Strength properties of fly ash and GGBS based
geopolymer concrete, Asian J. Civ. Eng 17 (1) (2016) 127–135.