buildings
Article
Effects of Superplasticizer and Water–Binder Ratio
on Mechanical Properties of One-Part Alkali-Activated
Geopolymer Concrete
Thanh-Tung Pham 1 , Ngoc-Linh Nguyen 1 , Tuan-Trung Nguyen 1 , Trung-Tu Nguyen 2 and Thai-Hoan Pham 1, *
Citation: Pham, T.-T.; Nguyen, N.-L.;
Nguyen, T.-T.; Nguyen, T.-T.; Pham,
T.-H. Effects of Superplasticizer and
Water–Binder Ratio on Mechanical
Properties of One-Part
Alkali-Activated Geopolymer
Concrete. Buildings 2023, 13, 1835.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings13071835
Academic Editor: Jan Fořt
Received: 28 June 2023
Revised: 13 July 2023
Accepted: 16 July 2023
Published: 20 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071835
1 Faculty of Building and Industrial Construction, Hanoi University of Civil Engineering, Hanoi 12400, Vietnam;
tungpt@huce.edu.vn (T.-T.P.); linhnn@huce.edu.vn (N.-L.N.); trungnt2@huce.edu.vn (T.-T.N.)
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372, USA; nttu@crimson.ua.edu
* Correspondence: hoanpt@huce.edu.vn; Tel.: +84-904939887
Abstract: This study presents an investigation of the mix proportion and mechanical properties
of one-part alkali-activated geopolymer concrete (GPC). The procedure for determining the mix
proportion of one-part alkali-activated GPC, which uses a solid alkali activator in crystal form, is
proposed. The proposed procedure was applied to a series of mixed proportions of GPC with different
amounts of solid crystalline alkali activator (AA), water (W), and superplasticizer (SP), using the
ratio between them to the total amount of binder (B, fly ash, and granulated blast furnace slag) by
weight in order to evaluate their effect on the workability and compressive strength of the GPC. The
slump, compressive and tensile strength, and elastic modulus of the one-part alkali-activated GPC
were tested in various ways. The test results showed that solid crystalline alkali activators, water,
and superplasticizers have significant effects on both the workability and compressive strength of
GPC. The amount of one-part alkali activator should not exceed 12.0% of the total binder amount by
weight (AA/B = 0.12) in order not to lose the workability of GPC. The minimum W–B ratio should be
at least 0.43 to ensure the workability of the sample when no superplasticizer is added. An amount
of 2.5% can be considered as the upper bound when using superplasticizer-based polysilicate for
GPC. In addition, the elastic modulus and various types of tensile strength values of the one-part
alkali-activated GPC were evaluated and compared with that predicted from compressive strength
using equations given by two common ACI and Eurocode2 codes for ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) concrete. Modifications of the equations showing the relationships between splitting tensile
strength and compressive strength, as well as between elastic modulus and compressive strength and
the development of compressive strength under the time provided by ACI and Eurocode2 for OPC
concrete, were also made for one-part alkali-activated GPC.
Keywords: geopolymer concrete; crystalline alkali activator; fly ash; GBFS; workability; mechanical
properties
1. Introduction
The large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emitted from industrial activities every year
is one of the causes of global warming. The cement industry accounts for 5–7% of the total
CO2 emitted, and this number will continue to increase rapidly in the near future due to
the increasing demand for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) [1]. Therefore, the research
towards the development and manufacture of new environmentally friendly alternatives
to OPC is essential and has interested scientists in recent times. Geopolymer (GP) is one of
the new types of binder with many advantages and has the potential to replace ordinary
Portland cement, especially in concrete fabrication, with a new concrete called geopolymer
concrete (GPC) [2]. GPC was studied as early as 1908; important studies of Glukhovsky [3],
Krivenko [4], and Davidovits [5] followed in which the concept of “geopolymer binder” was
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 2 of 21

officially introduced by Davidovits [5], providing the basic theory of this type of concrete.
The basic theory of GPC has been the subject of numerous studies carried out to investigate
its crystal structure as well as its mechanical and microstructural properties [6,7]. For instance,
Kim et al. [7] pointed out that GPC completely meets the technical requirements of the main
mechanical properties, similar to OPC. Moreover, GPC has more outstanding features, such
as high fire resistance and corrosion resistance in aggressive environments [8–10] and thermal
conductivity [11–13]. Concerning the application of GPC to building, this material was used
in Mariupol, Ukraine, in the 1960s to build two nine-story residential buildings, while the
first residential building made of alkali-activated concrete without any Portland cement
was built in 1989 in Lieptsk, in the Russian Federation, and has 20 floors [14].
As indicated by Davidovits [15], the two main components needed for making GPC
are rich aluminate (Al) and silicate (Si) materials and an alkali-activator (AA) source to
create an alkaline environment. Sources of rich Al and Si materials for GPC production
are usually by-products from steel mills and thermal power plants, such as fly ash (FA),
granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), silica fume (SF), and red mud. There have been a
number of studies on the influence of these raw materials on the behavior and performance
of GPC [16–24]. For example, Davidovits [21] and Hajjaji et al. [16] manufactured GPC
that had a compressive strength of up to 80 MPa when heat cured by using only FA as the
source material for GPC. Other investigations pointed out that replacing a part of FA by
GBFS and SF in GPC leads to several advantages, such as decreased setting time, increased
workability, compressive strength of GPC, and notably, that GPC can be cured at room
temperature to achieve high intensity when using GBFS. On the other hand, the alkali
activators commonly used to create an alkaline environment during the polymerization
reaction are NaOH and KOH; however, these strong alkalis are often combined with liquid
glass solutions to avoid danger and to achieve easy GPC manufacture [25].
Currently, there are two commonly used types of activators: liquid and solid crys-
talline. A liquid activator is made by dissolving pure NaOH crystals into water to form
a NaOH (alkaline) solution and then mixing it with sodium hydroxide (SH) liquid glass.
This type of activator has been widely used due to the ease of making AA solutions from
available popular materials. The effects of liquid activator characteristics, such as the
molar concentration of NaOH solution and the ratio NaOH/Na2 SiO3 , on the workability,
compressive strength, and some other mechanical properties of GPC have been investi-
gated [26,27]. However, liquid activator has some disadvantages, such as being suitable
only for precast concrete structures, because the AA solution needs to be prepared long
before proceeding to manufacture GPC, and there is a high level of danger in direct contact
with strong alkaline solutions during GPC fabrication.
Recently, solid crystalline AA has been more widely used because of its many ad-
vantages in making GPC, such as convenience in the manufacturing process (similar to
cement), easy transportation, and suitability for on-site construction. The current common
fabrication of solid crystalline AA (so-called one-part alkali activator) involves heating the
solid silicate (SiO3 2− ) raw material and the alkali (Na+ ) source at a high temperature before
the one-part alkali-activated geopolymer paste is mixed by adding aggregates, additional
alumina and/or silica sources, additives, and fiber following the procedure shown in
Figure 1 [28]. In this procedure, the ratio of SiO2 /Na2 O is normally fixed depending on the
manufacturer. As indicated by Hajimohammadi et al. [29] and Nematollahi et al. [30], this
ratio can be ranged from 0.93 to 3.32. Similar to liquid AA, using solid crystalline AA for
GPC is also affected by many factors, such as the Al2 O3 /SiO2 ratio of the source material,
FA/GBFS, AA/B (binder), and H2 O/B ratios. However, due to the fixed SiO2 /Na2 O
ratio of the solid AA, the amount of water (H2 O/Na2 O) thus greatly affects the alkali
concentration, influencing GPC’s compressive strength. In addition, the type and amount
of superplasticizer (SP) is one of the important factors in reducing the amount of water
used and ensuring workability during GPC fabrication [30].
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 superplasticizer (SP) is one of the important factors in reducing the amount of3 of
water
21 used
and ensuring workability during GPC fabrication [30].

1. Fabrication
Figure 1.
Figure Fabricationofofone-part
one-partalkali-activated geopolymer
alkali-activated paste paste
geopolymer from solid
fromAA.
solid AA.

In this study, the mixed proportion procedure of GPC using solid crystalline AA
In this study, the mixed proportion procedure of GPC using solid crystalline AA (so-
(so-called one-part alkali-activated GPC) is proposed. The workability and mechanical
called one-part
properties alkali-activated
of one-part GPC)
alkali-activated is proposed.
GPC TheAA/B,
with different workability
H2 O/Naand mechanical prop-
2 O, W/B, and
erties of one-part
SP ratios alkali-activated
are investigated. GPC with
The relationship different
between AA/B, H2strength
compressive O/Na2O,and W/B, and SP ratios
different
are investigated.
types The relationship
of tensile strength, between
as well as between compressive
compressive strength
strength and modulus
and elastic differentoftypes of
tensile
GPC, isstrength, as well as between compressive strength and elastic modulus of GPC, is
also evaluated.
also evaluated.
2. Experimental Program
2.1. Materials
2. Experimental Program
The fly ash (FA) used in this study is F-class, which was collected, dried, and packed
2.1.
fromMaterials
a local thermal power plant in Vietnam (Figure 2a). The granulated blast furnace
The flywas
slag (GBFS) ash finely
(FA) used in this
ground, study
dried, andispacked
F-class, which
from was
a local collected,
steel factory dried, and packed
in Vietnam
(Figure
from a 2b).
localBoth materials
thermal powerwereplant
testedinfor chemical(Figure
Vietnam composition and particle
2a). The size before
granulated blast furnace
being(GBFS)
slag used. The
wasanalysis results ofdried,
finely ground, the flyand
ashpacked
and blast furnace
from slagsteel
a local samples showed
factory in Vietnam
that these materials satisfy the requirements of EN 196-1 [31]. Table 1 lists the physical
(Figure 2b). Both materials were tested for chemical composition and particle size before
properties and chemical composition, while Figure 3 presents the XRD analysis results of
being used. The analysis results of the fly ash and blast furnace slag samples showed that
the FA and GBFS.
these materials satisfy the requirements of EN 196-1 [31]. Table 1 lists the physical prop-
erties
Table 1.and chemical
Properties of flycomposition, while
ash and granulated Figure
blast furnace3slag.
presents the XRD analysis results of the
FA and GBFS.
FA GBFS
Physical properties
Density (kg/m3 ) 2240 2910
Surface area (cm2 /g) 3400 (Blaine) 5220 (Blaine)
Chemical composition (%)
SiO2 58.70 35.02
Al2 O3 22.87 13.56
Fe2 O3 7.31 1.41
CaO 0.98 38.6
MgO 0.85 8.18
Na2 O 0.33 0.31
K2 O 3.6 0.80
TiO2 1.35 0.23
MKN 3.53 1.89
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Fly ash and
Crystalline granulated
hydrated blast
sodium furnace
silicate slag:
salt (a) fly
with ash; (b)of
a density granulated blast
2410 kg/m furnace
3 and the slag.
SiO2 /Na2 O composition ratio by mass of 2.1 was used as a one-part alkali-activator. The
image and XRD analysis result of solid crystalline one-part alkali-activator are shown in
Figure 4. Crushed stone with a grain size of 5–10 mm and river sand were used as the coarse
and fine aggregate materials. The physical properties of stone and sand are presented
in Table 2.
 from a local thermal power plant in Vietnam (Figure 2a). The granulated blast furnace
slag (GBFS) was finely ground, dried, and packed from a local steel factory in Vietnam
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
(Figure 2b). Both materials were tested for chemical composition and particle size before
being used. The analysis results of the fly ash and blast furnace slag samples showed that
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835
these materials satisfy the requirements of EN 196-1 [31]. Table 1 lists the physical prop-
4 of 21
erties and chemical composition, while Figure 3 presents the XRD analysis results of the
FA and GBFS.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. XRD analysis results of fly ash and granulated blast furnace slag: (a) fly ash; (b) granulated
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW blast furnace slag. 4 of 21
(a) (b)
Figure
1.2.
Figure
Table 2. Fly
Fly ash
ash and
Propertiesand granulated
granulated
of fly blast
blast furnace
furnace
ash and granulated slag:
slag:
blast (a)
(a) fly
furnace ash;
ash; (b)
flyslag. (b) granulated
granulated blast
blast furnace
furnace slag.
slag.

FA GBFS
Physical properties
Density (kg/m3) 2240 2910
Surface area (cm2/g) 3400 (Blaine) 5220 (Blaine)
Chemical composition (%)
SiO2 58.70 35.02
Al2O3 22.87 13.56
Fe2O3 7.31 1.41
CaO 0.98 38.6
MgO 0.85 8.18
(a) (b)
Na2O 0.33 0.31
FigureFigure
3. XRD
K2O3.analysis resultsresults
XRD analysis of fly ash and
of fly granulated
ash and3.6 blast furnace
granulated slag: (a)
blast furnace fly0.80
slag: ash;fly
(a) (b)ash;
granulated
(b) granulated
blast furnace
TiO
blast slag.
furnace
2 slag. 1.35 0.23
MKN
Table 2. Properties of stone and sand. 3.53 1.89
Table 1. Properties of fly ash and granulated blast furnace slag.

Crystalline hydrated sodium FA silicate salt with a Stone

density of 2410 kg/m
GBFS Sand3 and the

SiO 2/Na
Physical 2Oincomposition
dry conditionratio
properties
Density (kg/m by) mass of 2.1 was used as2730
3 a one-part alkali-activator.
2630 The
image and
Density XRD
at
Density (kg/m ) analysis
surface
3 dry result
saturation of solid
(kg/m
2240
3 )crystalline one-part
2760alkali-activator
2910 are
2650shown in
3)
Figure 4. Crushed
Volumetric mass
Surface area (cm /g)2 instone
the with
compacteda grain
state size
(kg/mof
3400 (Blaine) 5–10 mm and
1586river sand were1700
5220 (Blaine) used as the
Porosity
coarse andinfine
compacted
aggregatestatematerials.
(%) 42.9 of stone and sand
The physical properties 35.0 are pre-
Chemical composition
Surface dry (%)
saturated water absorption (%) 0.84 0.75
sented in Table 2.
SiO2 58.70 35.02
Al2O3 22.87 13.56
Fe2O3 7.31 1.41
CaO 0.98 38.6
MgO 0.85 8.18
Na2O 0.33 0.31
K2O 3.6 0.80
TiO2 1.35 0.23
MKN 3.53 1.89

Crystalline hydrated sodium silicate salt with a density of 2410 kg/m3 and the
SiO2/Na2O composition ratio by mass of 2.1 was used as a one-part alkali-activator. The
image and XRD analysis result of solid crystalline one-part alkali-activator are shown in
Figure 4. Crushed stone(a)with a grain size of 5–10 mm and river sand (b) were used as the
coarse and4.fine
Figure
Figure 4.(a) aggregate
(a)Solid materials.
Solidcrystalline
crystalline The physical
alkali-activator;
alkali-activator;(b) properties
(b)XRD
XRDanalysis of stone
analysisresult
result and sand are pre-
ofofalkali-activator.
alkali-activator.
sented in Table 2.
For GPC in this study, a ROADCON-SSA3000 based on active polyethylene gly-
col methacrylate was used as a superplasticizer (SP) to ensure compliance with ASTM
C494/C494M D and G standards [32].
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 5 of 21

2.2. Mix Proportion

There are some principles for the determination of mixed proportion of GPC; however,
they mainly focus on GPC using liquid activators. The composition ratios for GPC using fly
ash source materials and liquid activators were given by Davidovits [5] such as the liquid
activators/binder ratio from 0.3 to 0.45, sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide ratio from 2.0
to 2.5, and the water–binder ratio from 0.16 to 0.24 with an important assumption that the
density of GPC is 2400 kg/m3 . The mix proportion then needs to be adjusted as the density
is highly dependent on the type of aggregate used. The instructions for calculating the mix
proportion of GPC using a solid crystalline alkali-activator are quite few. For simplicity and
ease of application, the calculation of the mixed proportion of GPC in this study is based
on the paste thickness of coated aggregate and the close bulk packing theory [33], together
with some adjustments to make it suitable for solid crystalline one-part alkali-activator. The
procedure for determining the mix proportion of GPC using a solid crystalline one-part
alkali-activator consists of the following steps:
Step 1. Determining the optimal aggregate ratio.
The optimal fill between the used aggregates is determined based on the particle
distribution curve of each aggregate type. According to the method given in ASTM
C29 [34], the ratio between sand and (sand + stone) can be specified to be 0.39 from the
particle distribution curve of sand and stone using Equation (1) as:

X = α1 x1 + α2 x2 + α3 x3 + α4 x1 x2 + α5 x2 x3 + α6 x1 x3 + α7 x1 x2 (1)

where X is the bulking density of combined (sand + stone) aggregate (in kg/m3 ), αi is the
interaction coefficient of aggregate, and xi is the mass fraction of aggregates with different
size (in %).
Step 2. Determining the paste thickness of coated aggregate.
The paste thickness of coated aggregate or the amount of mortar used is determined
based on the principle of absolute total volume or by calculating the amount of mortar
from the total area of aggregate using Equation (2) as:

Vp = t·( β s Ms As + β g Mg A g ) + Vb (2)

where Vp is the total volume of mortar required (the unit volume of the geopolymer paste);
t is the paste thickness that was homogeneously coated on the surface of an aggregate (in
µm); βs and βg are the correction coefficients, which were introduced to reduce the sharp
errors of aggregate between the ideal sphere and the real sharp and were taken as 1.05 and
1.12 for river sand and coarse aggregate, respectively [33]; Ms and Mg are the mass of the
fine and coarse aggregates (in kg), respectively; As and Ag are the specific surface area of
fine and coarse aggregates (in m2 /kg), respectively; and Vb is the mortar volume between
aggregate particles, which is calculated as follows:

Ms ρs
Vb = (1 − , ) (3)
ρs ρs
0
In Equation (3), ρs and ρs are the packing density and apparent density of aggregates,
respectively (in kg/m3 ). From the volume of paste thickness of coated aggregate, the
amount used of source materials, including FA and GBFS, can be calculated. In this study,
the total amount used of FA and GBFS was determined to be 400 kg/(m3 GPC).
Step 3. Determining aluminum and silicate source ratio.
Currently, there are many sources of Aluminum and Silicate that are used for GPC,
such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag, metakaolin, and red mud. However, it has
been suggested that FA and GBFS should be used for one-part alkali-activated GPC [25].
Using granulated blast furnace slag plays an important role in early age formation and does
not require heat curing for GPC. At the same time, the use of fly ash plays an important
role in long-term age formation and in saline environments [16]. The ratio of SiO2 /Al2 O3
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 6 of 21

from the source materials for liquid activators is about 3.3 to 4.5, while for dry activators is
about 0.75 to 6.02 [21]. The selection of the ratio between FA and GBFS has been carried
out to evaluate the influence on workability and properties of GPC [17,18]. In this study,
the ratio of FA-GBFS of 1:3 was chosen with the expectation that the GPC does not need
heat curing and the strength at an early age of GPC can be improved.
Step 4. Determining the amount of one-part alkali-activator.
Determining the amount of liquid activator is said to be quite complicated due to
the need to determine the type of sodium hydroxide with different molar concentrations
and different amounts of water. However, for solid crystalline one-part alkali-activator,
the ratio of Na2 O/SiO2 is usually fixed by suppliers, together with the crystalline form,
leading to no need to recalculate the amount of water in the solution when fabricating GPC
with different grades. Therefore, when calculating the amount of solid crystalline one-part
alkali-activator, it just needs to choose the required amount of Na2 O to be used to create an
alkaline environment to break Al-O and Si-O connections in the source materials (the total
amount of FA and GBFS).
In this study, the solid alkali-activator (AA) with the fixed SiO2 /Na2 O ratio of 2.1 was
used, and the ratio of solid AA to the source materials (FA + GBFS) was chosen to be 4%,
6%, 8%, 10%, and 12% by weight for the investigation.
Step 5. Determining the amount of water.
Unlike liquid activators, when the amount used of water greatly affects the work-
ability and compressive strength of GPC, the amount used of water influences the pH
level in GPC using the solid crystalline one-part alkali-activator with a fixed SiO2 /Na2 O
ratio of 2.1. Therefore, the H2 O/Na2 O ratio is one of the important ratios when using a
crystalline activator. In this study, the water-binder (W/B) ratio from 0.43 to 0.52 and the
H2 O/Na2 O ratio from 12.6 to 27.9 were investigated to evaluate the effect of these ratios on
the workability and compressive strength of GPC.
Step 6. Determining the amount of superplasticizer.
Additives to reduce water or superplasticizers are normally used to increase workabil-
ity as well as to reduce the amount of water used to improve the compressive strength of
concrete. For conventional OPC concrete, additives based on lignosulfonates, naphthalene,
melamine-based, and polycarboxylates are commonly used. However, some superplas-
ticizers may lead to rapid hardening of GPC. As indicated [20,25,26], superplasticizers
based on naphthalene and polycarboxylate sources can be used for GPC. In this study,
the superplasticizer based on polyethylene glycol methacrylate was used. The content of
superplasticizer by weight of 1%, 1.5%, and 2% (SP/B) was used to evaluate the effect of
this additive on the workability and compressive strength of GPC.
The procedure for calculating the mix proportion of one-part alkali-activated GPC is
summarized as shown in Figure 5. Following the proposed procedure, a series of mixed
proportions of one-part alkali-activated GPC paste for the investigation is denoted with
specific codes and provided in Table 3. The labels “AA”, “W”, and “SP” represent the solid
alkali-activator, water, and superplasticizer, respectively. The first number, “0.04”, “0.06”,
“0.08”, “0.1”, and “0.12”, refers to the ratio of solid AA to the total binder (FA + GBFS)
by weight (AA/B). The second number, “0.37”, “0.39”, “0.41”, “0.43”, “0.45”, “0.48”,
and “0.52”, refers to the ratio of water to the total binder (FA + GBFS) by weight (W/B).
The third number (1.0–2.5) is the percentage of the superplasticizer to the total binder
(FA + GBFS) weight (SP/B). It is noted that the H2 O/Na2 O ratio was also changed according
to the change of (AA/B) or (W/B). The series of mixed proportions was also divided into
two groups, A and B. The mix proportions in group A were designed to investigate the
effect of the AA/B ratio, whereas the ones in group B were designed to evaluate the effect
of the W/B ratio on the workability and mechanical properties of GPC. For these purposes,
the W/B ratio in group A was fixed at 0.45, while the AA/B ratio in group B was kept
unchanged at 0.08.
 + GBFS) weight (SP/B). It is noted that the H2O/Na2O ratio was also changed according to
the change of (AA/B) or (W/B). The series of mixed proportions was also divided into two
groups, A and B. The mix proportions in group A were designed to investigate the effect
of the AA/B ratio, whereas the ones in group B were designed to evaluate the effect of the
W/B ratio on the workability and mechanical properties of GPC. For these purposes, the
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 7 of 21
W/B ratio in group A was fixed at 0.45, while the AA/B ratio in group B was kept un-
changed at 0.08.

Figure5.5.Procedure
Figure Procedurefor
forcalculating
calculatingthe
themix
mixproportion
proportionof
ofone-part
one-partalkali-activated
alkali-activatedGPC.
GPC.

Table3.3.Mix
Table Mixproportions
proportionsofofone-part
one-partalkali-activated
alkali-activatedGPC.
GPC.

FAFA GBFS
GBFS Sand
Sand
Stone
Stone AAAA Ratio Ratio
Group
Group Specimens
Specimens WW
(l)(l)
(kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) AA/B
AA/B
W/B
W/B
HH2O/Na 2O SP
2 O/Na2 O SP
AA0.04-W0.45 100 300 640 1220 16 180 0.04 0.45 27.90 0
AA0.04-W0.45 100 300 640 1220 16 180 0.04 0.45 27.90 0
AA0.06-W0.45
AA0.06-W0.45 100
100 300300 640640 1220
1220 24 24 180180 0.060.06 0.45
0.45 19.90
19.90 0 0
A A AA0.08-W0.45
AA0.08-W0.45 100
100 300300 640640 1220
1220 32 32 180180 0.080.08 0.45
0.45 17.44
17.44 0 0
AA0.10-W0.45
AA0.10-W0.45 100
100 300300 640640 1220
1220 40 40 180180 0.100.10 0.45
0.45 12.60
12.60 0 0
AA0.12-W0.45 100 300 640 1220 48 180 0.12 0.45 10.80 0
AA0.12-W0.45 100 300 640 1220 48 180 0.12 0.45 10.80 0
B AA0.08-W0.52
AA0.08-W0.52 100
100 300300 640640 1220
1220 32 32 208208 0.080.08 0.52
0.52 23.09
23.09 0 0
AA0.08-W0.48 100 300 640 1220 32 192 0.08 0.48 21.31 0
AA0.08-W0.45 100 300 640 1220 32 180 0.08 0.45 17.44 0
AA0.08-W0.43 100 300 640 1220 32 172 0.08 0.43 16.66 0
AA0.08-W0.43-SP1.0 100 300 640 1220 32 172 0.08 0.43 16.66 1.0
B AA0.08-W0.41-SP1.0 100 300 640 1220 32 164 0.08 0.41 15.12 1.0
AA0.08-W0.41-SP1.5 100 300 640 1220 32 164 0.08 0.41 15.12 1.5
AA0.08-W0.39-SP1.5 100 300 640 1220 32 156 0.08 0.39 13.96 1.5
AA0.08-W0.39-SP2.0 100 300 640 1220 32 156 0.08 0.39 13.96 2.0
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.0 100 300 640 1220 32 148 0.08 0.37 12.15 2.0
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.5 100 300 640 1220 32 148 0.08 0.37 12.15 2.5

2.3. Experimental Details

One-part alkali-activated GPC was produced at room temperature as follows: First,
the aggregate composition was quantified. The dry fly ash, blast furnace slag, sand, and
solid alkali-activator were mixed for 2 min and then activated by adding 70% water. An
 AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.0 100 300 640 1220 32 148 0.08 0.37 12.15 2.0
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.5 100 300 640 1220 32 148 0.08 0.37 12.15 2.5

2.3. Experimental Details

Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 8 of 21
One-part alkali-activated GPC was produced at room temperature as follows: First,
the aggregate composition was quantified. The dry fly ash, blast furnace slag, sand, and
solid alkali-activator were mixed for 2 min and then activated by adding 70% water. An
additional
additionaltwo-minute
two-minutemixing
mixingtime
timewas
wascarried
carriedout outto tohomogenize
homogenizethe themixture.
mixture. Finally,
Finally,
the stone (coarse aggregate) and the remaining 30% water were added and
the stone (coarse aggregate) and the remaining 30% water were added and subsequently subsequently
proceeded
proceededtotomix
mixfor
foranother
anothertwo
twominutes.
minutes.
The
The workability of the GPCwas
workability of the GPC wasevaluated
evaluatedby byconducting
conductingslump
slumptests
tests for
forfresh
freshone-
one-
part alkali-activated GPC according to the ASTM C143-78 [35]. The prepared
part alkali-activated GPC according to the ASTM C143-78 [35]. The prepared fresh fresh one-part
one-
alkali-activated GPC GPC
part alkali-activated of each mixture
of each waswas
mixture castcast
intointothree 100100
three mm mm× 200
× 200mmmmcylindrical
cylindrical
molds,
molds,and
andthen
thenthe
theslump
slumptest
testwas
wascarried
carriedout,
out,asasillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure6.6.

Figure6.6.Slump
Figure Slumptest
testofofGPC.
GPC.

Forother
For othertests,
tests,the
thefresh
freshpastes
pastesofofeacheachmixture
mixturewere werecast
castinto
intothethecorresponding
corresponding
molds, and all GPC molds were covered with plastic sheets and cured
molds, and all GPC molds were covered with plastic sheets and cured in a laboratory. The in a laboratory. The
humidityand
humidity andtemperature
temperatureininthe thelaboratory
laboratorywerewerekept
keptstable
stablefor
for24
24hhuntil
untilthe
themolds
moldswere
were
removedfor
removed forall
allspecimens.
specimens.The Thespecimens
specimenswere werethen
thencontinued
continuedtotobe becovered
coveredwith withplastic
plastic
sheets
sheetsininthe
thesame
same conditions
conditions to to
avoidavoiddehydration
dehydration andandstabilize the temperature
stabilize the temperature inside the
inside
specimens
the specimensuntiluntil
the testing days.days.
the testing
Compressive
Compressivestrengthstrengthtests
testswerewereconducted
conducted using using aa universal
universal testing
testing machine
machine ac- ac-
cording to ASTM C39 [36] at 3, 7, and 28 days for all GPC mix
cording to ASTM C39 [36] at 3, 7, and 28 days for all GPC mix proportions. After the proportions. After the
compressive
compressivestrength
strengthtests,
tests,three
threemix mixproportions
proportionsthat thatshowed
showedthe thecompressive
compressivestrength
strength
ofofabout
about 30
30 MPa, 40 40 MPa,
MPa,and and50 50MPaMPawerewerechosen
chosen to to investigate
investigate thethe tensile
tensile strength
strength and
and modulus
modulus of elasticity
of elasticity as well
as well as their
as their relations
relations withwith the compressive
the compressive strength.
strength. The
The static
static modulus
modulus of elasticity
of elasticity was calculated
was calculated based based
on the on the corresponding
stress stress corresponding
to 40% to 40%ulti-
of the of
the ultimate load according to ASTM C469-10 [37]. The tensile
mate load according to ASTM C469-10 [37]. The tensile strength of GPC was investigatedstrength of GPC was in-
vestigated
through threethrough three
testing testing
types, types, including
including flexural
flexural tensile tensile strength,
strength, splitting splitting tensile
tensile strength,
dings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW strength, and axial (direct) tensile strength tests, according to
and axial (direct) tensile strength tests, according to ASTM C78-18 and ASTM C496-04ASTM C78-18 and ASTM
9 of 21
C496-04
[38,39]. [38,39].
The listThe list of testing
of testing types, thetypes, the shape
shape and sizeandofsize
theof the specimen
specimen for each
for each testing
testing type,
type, andtesting
and the the testing daypresented
day are are presented in Table
in Table 4. 4.
Table 4. Testing
Table 4. and specimen
Testing details.
and specimen details.

Specimen Shape
Specimen and
Shape and
Testing Type Testing Type DayDay
of Testing
of Testing Illustration
Illustration
Size (mm)Size (mm)

Cylinder Cylinder
Compressive strength
Compressive strength 3, 7, 28 3, 7, 28
150 × 300 150 × 300

Prism
Flexural tensile strength 7, 28
100 × 100 × 400
 Table 4.
Table 4. Testing
Testing and
and specimen
specimen details.
details.
Specimen Shape
Specimen Shape and
and
Testing Type
Testing Type Specimen
Specimen Shape and
Shape and Day of
Day of Testing
Testing Illustration
Illustration
Testing
Testing Type
Type Size (mm)
Size (mm) Day
Day of Testing
of Testing Illustration
Illustration
Size
Size (mm)
(mm)
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 9 of 21

Cylinder
Cylinder
Compressive strength
strength Cylinder
Cylinder 3, 7,
7, 28
28
Compressive
Compressive strength 150 ×× 300
300 3,
3, 7, 28
28
Compressive strength
Table 4. Cont. 150
150 3, 7,
150 ×× 300
300
Specimen Shape and
Testing Type Day of Testing Illustration
Size (mm)

Prism
Prism Prism
Flexural tensile
Flexuralstrength
tensile Prism
strength
Prism 7, 28
28 7, 28
Flexural tensile
Flexural tensile strength
tensile strength
strength 100 × 100
× 100
100 × ×
× 400
400 7,
100 × 400 7, 28
Flexural 100
100 ×× 100
100 ×× 400
400 7, 28
100

Cylinder
Cylinder
Splitting tensile strength Cylinder
Cylinder Cylinder 7, 28
28
Splitting tensile
Splitting tensile strength
Splittingstrength 150 × 300 150 × 300
tensile strength 7,
7, 28 7, 28
Splitting tensile strength 150 150 × 300
300 7, 28
150 ×× 300

Prism
Prism
Axial tensile
tensile strength
strength Prism
Prism Prism 7, 28
28
Axial
Axial tensile
tensile
Axialstrength
tensile strength 60 × 100 × 400 7,
7, 28 7, 28
Axial strength 60 × 100
60 ×× 100 ×
60 400
× 100 × 400
100 ×× 400
400 7, 28
60

Cylinder
Cylinder
Modulus of
Modulus of elasticity
elasticity Cylinder
Cylinder 7, 28
7, 28
Modulus
Modulus of elasticity
of elasticity
Modulus of elasticity 150 ×
150 × 300
300 Cylinder 7,
7, 28
28 7, 28
150
150 ×× 300
300 150 × 300

3. Experimental
3. Experimental Results
Results and and Discussions
Discussions
3.
3. Experimental Results
Experimental Results and and Discussions
Discussions
3. Experimental
The results
results ofof slump Results
slump andandand Discussionsstrength tests are summarized in Table 5,
compressive
The
The results of slump and compressive
compressive strength tests
strength tests are
are summarized
summarized in in Table
Table 5,5,
whereThe
eachresults
value ofis slump
The resultsan of and and
slump
average compressive
compressive
result from strength
strength
three testsare
tests
specimens aresummarized
for summarized
each GPC in Table
in Table
mix 5,
5, where
proportion,
where each
where each value
value isis an
an average
average result
result from
from three
three specimens
specimens for for each
each GPC
GPC mix mix proportion,
proportion,
where
together each
each
with value
value is coefficient
is
their an average
an averageresult from
result
of fromthree
variation. specimens
three
Based specimens
on the
theforexperimental
each
for GPC
eachmix
GPC proportion,
thetogether
mix proportion,
results, effects
together
together with
with
with their
their
their coefficient
coefficient
coefficient of of
of variation.
variation.
variation. Based Based
Based
on on
on
the the experimental
experimental
experimental results,results,
results,
the the
the
effects effects
effects
ofeffects
alkali-
together with their
of alkali-activator, coefficient
alkali-activator, water,
water, and of variation.
and superplasticizer Based
superplasticizer on on
on the the experimental
the workability
workability of results,
of one-part the
one-part alkali-acti-
alkali-acti-
of
of alkali-activator,
alkali-activator, water,
activator, water, and
water, and and superplasticizer
superplasticizer on
superplasticizer on theon the
the workability
workability of
workability of of one-part
one-part one-part alkali-acti-
alkali-acti-
alkali-activated GPC
of
vated GPC
GPC paste, as well as on the compressive strength of the GPC, are discussed in detail
vated
vated GPC
GPC paste,
paste,
paste, as
as well well
as well
well as on
as onasthe the compressive
oncompressive strength
the compressive
compressive strength of
of the GPC,
strength the GPC,
theare
of the are
discussed
GPC, discussed in detail
in detail below.
are discussed
discussed in detail
detail
vated
below. paste, as as on the strength of GPC, are in
below.
below.
below.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 Table 5. Test results of mean slump and compressive strength of GPC. 10 of 21

Ratio 3 Days 7 Days 28 Days

Slump
Group Specimens H2O/ SP COV f’c f’c f’c
AA/B W/B (cm) COV COV COV
Table 5. Test results
Na2O of mean
(%) slump and compressive (MPa) strength of GPC.
(MPa) (MPa)
AA0.04-W0.45 0.04 0.45 27.90 0 12.0 4.4% 10.5 7.2% 19.3 3.6% 23.6 5.7%
AA0.06-W0.45 0.06 Ratio 19.90
0.45 0 12.5 6.9% 15.6 3 Days
5.1% 7 Days2.6%
23.7 28 Days
30.4 3.2%
AGroup AA0.08-W0.45
Specimens 0.08 17.44 SP 0 Slump
0.45 H2 O/ (cm) 3.8%
11.5 COV 27.3 f’c 6.4% 33.6
f’c 3.9% f’c 38.3COV2.6%
AA/B W/B (%) COV COV
AA0.10-W0.45 0.10 0.45 Na O
12.60
2 0 12.0 5.0% (MPa) 4.4%
30.6 (MPa)
40.2 4.4% (MPa) 47.1 3.7%
AA0.04-W0.45
AA0.12-W0.45 0.04
0.12 0.45
0.45 27.90
10.80 00 1.512.0 6.7%
4.4% 10.5 7.2% 19.3N/A 3.6% 23.6 5.7%
AA0.08-W0.52
AA0.06-W0.45 0.08 0.45
0.06 0.52 19.90
23.09 00 23.012.5 3.9%
6.9% 21
15.6 4.7%5.1% 26.3
23.7 2.4%
2.6% 30.4 30.93.2% 4.4%
A
AA0.08-W0.45
AA0.08-W0.48 0.08
0.08 0.45
0.48 17.44
21.31 00 18.011.5 1.7%
3.8% 27.3
25.4 6.6%6.4% 33.6
31.9 3.9%
5.2% 38.3 36.22.6% 4.8%
AA0.10-W0.45 0.10 0.45 12.60 0 12.0 5.0% 30.6 4.4% 40.2 4.4% 47.1 3.7%
AA0.08-W0.45
AA0.12-W0.45 0.08 0.45
0.12 0.45 10.80
17.44 00 11.51.5 4.0%6.7% 27.3 3.1% 33.6
N/A 4.3% 38.3 1.8%
AA0.08-W0.43
AA0.08-W0.52 0.08 0.52
0.08 0.43 23.09
16.66 00 6.023.0 4.4%
3.9% 33.6
21 3.9%4.7% 43.5
26.3 3.4%
2.4% 30.9 49.74.4% 3.1%
AA0.08-W0.48
AA0.08-W0.43-SP1.0 0.08
0.08 0.48
0.43 21.31
16.66 1.00 1.7%
12.018.0 2.2% 25.4
33.9 3.9%6.6% 31.9
38.6 5.2%
3.9% 36.2 45.14.8% 5.7%
B AA0.08-W0.41-SP1.0
AA0.08-W0.45 0.08 0.45
0.08 0.41 17.44
15.12 1.00 7.011.5 4.3%
4.0% 35.6
27.3 1.3%3.1% 47.2
33.6 2.6%
4.3% 38.3 52.61.8% 2.7%
AA0.08-W0.43
AA0.08-W0.41-SP1.5 0.08
0.08 0.43
0.41 16.66
15.12 1.50 13.56.0 3.7%4.4% 33.6
34.9 4.2%3.9% 43.5
46.8 3.4%
4.3% 49.7 51.73.1% 3.0%
B AA0.08-W0.43-SP1.0 0.08 0.43 16.66 1.0 12.0 2.2% 33.9 3.9% 38.6 3.9% 45.1 5.7%
AA0.08-W0.39-SP1.5
AA0.08-W0.41-SP1.0 0.08
0.08 0.39
0.41 13.96
15.12 1.5
1.0 6.07.0 2.9%4.3% 36.9
35.6 4.0%1.3% 52.1
47.2 3.2%
2.6% 52.6 56.32.7% 3.1%
AA0.08-W0.41-SP1.5
AA0.08-W0.39-SP2.0 0.08
0.08 0.41
0.39 15.12
13.96 1.5
2.0 14.513.5 4.8%
3.7% 34.9
36.7 5.7%4.2% 46.8
51.6 4.3%
4.3% 51.7 55.73.0% 2.8%
AA0.08-W0.39-SP1.5 0.08 0.39 13.96 1.5 6.0 2.9% 36.9 4.0% 52.1 3.2% 56.3 3.1%
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.0
AA0.08-W0.39-SP2.0 0.08
0.08 0.37
0.39 12.15
13.96 2.0
2.0 5.014.5 2.0%
4.8% 38.7
36.7 3.9%5.7% 54.3
51.6 1.4%
4.3% 55.7 59.22.8% 1.5%
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.5
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.0 0.08 0.37
0.08 0.37 12.15
12.15 2.5
2.0 0.05.0 N/A 2.0% 38.7 3.9% 54.3N/A 1.4% 59.2 1.5%
AA0.08-W0.37-SP2.5 0.08 Coefficient
COV: 0.37 12.15 2.5
of variation. 0.0 N/A N/A
COV: Coefficient of variation.
3.1. Effects of Alkali-Activator, Water, and Superplasticizer on Workability of One-Part Alkali-
3.1. EffectsGPC
Activated of Alkali-Activator,
Paste Water, and Superplasticizer on Workability of One-Part
Alkali-Activated GPC Paste
The effect of the one-part alkali-activator was examined by changing the AA/B ratio
The effect of the one-part alkali-activator was examined by changing the AA/B ratio
from 0.04 to 0.12, while the W/B was fixed at 0.45, and no superplasticizer was used. Figure
from 0.04 to 0.12, while the W/B was fixed at 0.45, and no superplasticizer was used.
7Figure
shows7the effect
shows theofeffect
the one-part alkali-activator
of the one-part on the workability
alkali-activator of GPC paste.
on the workability of GPCAspaste.
can
be
Asseen in this
can be seenfigure,
in thiswhen
figure,thewhen
percentage of the one-part
the percentage of the alkali-activator was less than
one-part alkali-activator was
10.0% of the binder weight, the workability of the GPC paste was unaffected.
less than 10.0% of the binder weight, the workability of the GPC paste was unaffected. However,
with the alkali-activator
However, of 12.0% ofofthe
with the alkali-activator binder
12.0% amount
of the byamount
binder weight by(AA/B = 0.12),
weight (AA/Bthe =work-
0.12),
ability of the mixture decreased very quickly, leading to the inability
the workability of the mixture decreased very quickly, leading to the inability to cast to cast specimens.
The cause isThe
specimens. thatcause
the polymerization reaction is exothermic;
is that the polymerization when the amount
reaction is exothermic; when oftheactivator
amount
is
of too large, isit too
activator accelerates the evaporation
large, it accelerates time of water
the evaporation timeand immediately
of water activates
and immediately
polymerization and calcium
activates polymerization andoxide reactions
calcium oxideat the sameattime.
reactions Thesetime.
the same causes leadcauses
These to the lead
loss
of GPC’s workability, as also indicated in the previous works [26,27,40,41].
to the loss of GPC’s workability, as also indicated in the previous works [26,27,40,41].

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Effect
Effect of
of one-part
one-part alkali-activator
alkali-activator on
on the
the workability.
workability.

The
The effect
effect of
of water
water was examined by changing the W/B W/Bratio
ratiofrom
from0.43
0.43 to
to 0.52,
0.52, while
while
the
the AA/B
AA/Bwas was fixed
fixed at 0.08. Figure
Figure 88 shows
showsthe theeffect
effectofofthe
theW/B
W/Bratio
ratioononthe
the workability
workability of
of
GPCGPC paste.
paste. AsAs is seen
is seen from
from thisthis figure,
figure, thethe
W/B W/B ratio
ratio by by weight
weight hashas a significant
a significant influ-
influence
on the
ence onworkability of GPC.
the workability For the
of GPC. Forratio
the of fly of
ratio ashfly
toash
blasttofurnace slag ofslag
blast furnace 1/3of in 1/3
thisinstudy,
this
the slump
study, of GPCof
the slump paste
GPCincreased from 6 cm
paste increased fromto 23 cm to
6 cm as 23
thecmW/B
as ratio
the W/Bincreased from 0.43
ratio increased
to 0.52. Moreover, the minimum W/B ratio should be at least 0.43 to ensure the workability
and fabrication of samples when no superplasticizer is added.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Buildings 2023, 13, 1835
from 0.43 to 0.52. Moreover, the minimum W/B ratio should be at least 0.43 to ensure the
workability and fabrication of samples when no superplasticizer is added.
from 0.43 to 0.52. Moreover, the minimum W/B ratio should be at least 0.4311toofensure
21 the
workability and fabrication of samples when no superplasticizer is added.

Figure 8. Effect of W/B ratio on the workability.

The
Figure
Figure effect
8.8.Effect
Effect ofW/B
ofof
W/Bthe superplasticizer
ratio
ratio onon
thethe was observed
workability.
workability. by changing the contents of this ad
ditive’s ratio from 0 to 2.5% of the total binder by weight (SP/B), while the AA/B was fixed
The
at 0.08. effect
effectof
TheFigure the
thesuperplasticizer
9ofshows the effect of the
superplasticizer was
was observed by by
superplasticizer
observed changing
on the the
changing contents
workability
the contentsof
of this
GPC paste
of this ad
additive’s ratio from 0 to 2.5% of the total binder by weight (SP/B), while the AA/B
It is seen
ditive’s thatfrom
ratio adding 0 to superplasticizers
2.5% of the total binder can greatly
by weight improve thewhile
(SP/B), workability
the AA/B ofwas
GPC. In
fixed
was fixed at 0.08. Figure 9 shows the effect of the superplasticizer on the workability of
deed,
at 0.08. for the
Figure mix9 proportion
shows the with
effect of a W/B
the ratio of 0.43,
superplasticizer
GPC paste. It is seen that adding superplasticizers can greatly improve the workabilitythe
on slump
the of fresh
workability GPC
of increased
GPC paste
from
It is
of GPC.6 to
seen 12
that
Indeed, cmadding
when
for the
the mix amount
superplasticizers
proportion of superplasticizer
withcan greatly
a W/B was
ratio improve
of added
0.43, the
the toworkability
slumptheof mixture
fresh GPC upGPC.
of to 1.0%
In
A similar
deed, for trend
the mix was observed
proportion for
with the
a mix
W/B proportions
ratio of 0.43,
increased from 6 to 12 cm when the amount of superplasticizer was added to the mixture with
the a
slumpW/B of ratio
fresh of
GPC0.41 and 0.39
increased
when
from
up the
to 61.0%.
to 12added
Acm amount
when
similar of
the amount
trend wassuperplasticizer for theincreased
of superplasticizer
observed was from
mix proportions added1.0%to to
with a 1.5%
the and up
mixture
W/B ratio from 1.5%
of to 1.0%
0.41
to and respectively.
A 2.0%,
similar 0.39
trend when was theobserved
added
The amount
increase theof
for in superplasticizer
slump
mix increased
with an increasing
proportions fromratio
with a amount
W/B 1.0% ofto0.41
1.5%and 0.39
of superplasticizer
and
could
when frombe 1.5%
thedueadded totothe
2.0%, respectively.
instability
amount of theThe increase
commercial
of superplasticizer insuperplasticizer
slumpfrom
increased with an1.0%increasing
intohigh
1.5% amount
basic
andmedia such
from 1.5%
of
as superplasticizer
NaOH
to 2.0%, could
+ Na2SiO3 [42].
respectively. be
The In due to the
other words,
increase instability
in slump of
according the commercial
to Nematollahi
with an increasing superplasticizer
amount andofSanjayan in [30,42]
superplasticizer
high basic media such as NaOH + Na2 SiO3 [42]. In other words, according to Nematollahi
the
could superplasticizer
be due to the instabilityused in this study
of the was chemically
commercial unstable in
superplasticizer in multi-compound
high basic media such acti
and Sanjayan [30,42], the superplasticizer used in this study was chemically unstable in
vator
as NaOH (SiO +2/Na
Na 2OSiO= 32.1),
[42]. and
In it
other experienced
words, structural
according to changes
Nematollahi
multi-compound activator (SiO2 /Na2 O = 2.1), and it experienced structural changes which
which andresulted
Sanjayan in the loss
[30,42]
of
thetheir
resulted plasticizing
superplasticizer
in the loss of their characteristics.
usedplasticizing
in this study Forwasthe mix proportion
chemically
characteristics. mix with
For theunstable a W/B
in
proportion ratio
multi-compound
with of 0.37, acti
a W/B due
to the
vator low
(SiO amount
/Na O = of water,
2.1), and the
it superplasticizer
experienced just
structural exhibited
changes
ratio of 0.37, due to the low amount of water, the superplasticizer just exhibited the effect
2 2 the
whicheffect on
resultedworkability
in the a
loss
aofratio
on their of 2.0%. at However,
plasticizing
workability a ratio increasing
characteristics.
of 2.0%. Forthe
However, thesuperplasticizer
mix proportion
increasing towith
2.5%
the superplasticizer does
a W/B not does
ratio
to 2.5% improve the
of 0.37, due
not improve
workability.
to the low amountthe workability.
This value
of water, This
can bevalue
the can be considered
considered
superplasticizeras the as
upper
just thebound
upper
exhibited thebound
effectwhen
when using using
superplastia
on workability
superplasticizer-based
cizer-based
a ratio of 2.0%. polyciliate
However,polyciliate
for GPC. for GPC.the superplasticizer to 2.5% does not improve the
increasing
workability. This value can be considered as the upper bound when using superplasti
cizer-based polyciliate for GPC.

Figure9.9.Effect
Figure Effectofof superplasticizer
superplasticizer on workability.
on the the workability.

3.2. Effects of Alkali-Activator and Water on Compressive Strength of GPC

3.2. Effects
Figure of Alkali-Activator
9. Effect andon
of superplasticizer Water on Compressive Strength of GPC
the workability.
Figure 10 shows the effect of a one-part alkali-activator on the compressive strength
of GPCFigure 10 shows
at different daysthe
of effect
age. Asofcan
a one-part alkali-activator
be seen in this figure, the on the compressive
compressive strengthstrength
3.2.GPC
Effects of Alkali-Activator and Water onbe
Compressive Strength ofthe
GPC
increased with the increasing AA/B ratio. With the W/B ratio of 0.45, the compressivestrength
of at different days of age. As can seen in this figure, compressive
increased
strength at 3with
Figure days the
10 shows increasing
theby
increased effect AA/B ratio.
of 75.0%,
48.6%, and With
a one-part the W/B
alkali-activator
12.1% when ratio
the AA/B of 0.45,
on the
ratio the compressive
compressive
changed fromstrength
strength
of GPC
0.04 atatdifferent
to 0.06, 3 days
0.06 increased
days
to 0.08, and of by
age.
0.08 48.6%,can75.0%,
Asrespectively.
to 0.1, be seenand 12.1% whenthe
in corresponding
The this figure, the AA/B ratio
of thechanged
compressive
increments strength
increased with the increasing AA/B ratio. With the W/B ratio of 0.45, the compressive
strength at 3 days increased by 48.6%, 75.0%, and 12.1% when the AA/B ratio changed
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

from 0.04 to 0.06, 0.06 to 0.08, and 0.08 to 0.1, respectively. The corresponding increments
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 12 of 21
of the strength at 7 days were 22.8%, 41.8%, and 19.6%. However, the increments of com-
pressive strength at 28 days of 28.8%, 25.8%, and 23.1% were quite similar when the AA/B
ratio changed from 0.04 to 0.06, 0.06 to 0.08, and 0.08 to 0.1, respectively. These results
strength at 7 days were 22.8%, 41.8%, and 19.6%. However, the increments of compressive
indicate
strength at that the of
28 days one-part alkali-activator
28.8%, 25.8%, and 23.1% werehas aquite
significant effectthe
similar when onAA/B
the compressive
ratio
strength of GPC. The effect is relatively uniform for the strength at the
changed from 0.04 to 0.06, 0.06 to 0.08, and 0.08 to 0.1, respectively. These results indicate age of 28 days but
quite different
that the one-part for the strength
alkali-activator hasata an early age,
significant with
effect thecompressive
on the AA/B ratiostrength
from 0.04 to 0.1. The
of GPC.
effect of the
The effect one-partuniform
is relatively alkali-activator on theatcompressive
for the strength strength
the age of 28 days of GPC
but quite at 28for
different days was
the strength at an early age, with the AA/B ratio from 0.04 to 0.1. The effect
slightly decreased with the higher amount of the alkali-activator, whereas the amount of of the one-part
alkali-activator
the on thecorresponding
alkali-activator compressive strength
to AA/B of ratio
GPC at 28 days
from 0.06 was slightly
to 0.08 decreased
exhibited the highest
with the higher amount of the alkali-activator, whereas the amount of the alkali-activator
effect on the strength at 3 and 7 days. This can be explained as the pH level due to the
corresponding to AA/B ratio from 0.06 to 0.08 exhibited the highest effect on the strength
amount of Na2O in the alkali-activator in the range of 6% to 8% of total binder by weight
at 3 and 7 days. This can be explained as the pH level due to the amount of Na2 O in
is
thesufficient for theinamount
alkali-activator the range ofofAl6%
2O3 and SiO2 in fly ash and granulated blast furnace slag
to 8% of total binder by weight is sufficient for the
(FA/GBFS
amount of Al = 21:3) in this
O3 and SiO2study. It isand
in fly ash noted that using
granulated blastthe activator
furnace up to 12%= of
slag (FA/GBFS 1:3)the total
binder amount
in this study. It isby weight
noted (AA/Bthe
that using = 0.12), specimens
activator up to 12%could
of thenot bebinder
total cast due to the
amount by too-fast
setting of GPC= paste.
weight (AA/B 0.12), specimens could not be cast due to the too-fast setting of GPC paste.

Figure 10.Effect
Figure 10. Effectofofone-part
one-part alkali-activator
alkali-activator oncompressive
on the the compressive strength
strength of GPC of GPC
(W/B (W/Bby= 0.45 by
= 0.45
weight, nosuperplasticizer).
weight, no superplasticizer).

The
Theeffect
effectofofwater
water viavia
thethe
W/BW/B ratio on the
ratio on compressive
the compressive strength of GPCofatGPC
strength different
at different
days of age is displayed in Figure 11. This figure shows that the W/B
days of age is displayed in Figure 11. This figure shows that the W/B ratio has a great ratio has a great
effect on the compressive strength of GPC. For GPC with the AA/B ratio of 0.08 and
effect on the compressive strength of GPC. For GPC with the AA/B ratio of 0.08 and with-
without superplasticizer, the effect is quite similar for strength values at 3, 7, and 28 days
out superplasticizer,
but much different from thevarious
effect is quiteofsimilar
ranges for strength
W/B ratio, as shown values at 3,11a.
in Figure 7, and 28 days but
Indeed,
much different from
the compressive various
strength at 3, ranges
7, and 28 of W/B
days ratio, as shown
decreased by anin Figureof11a.
average Indeed,
9.4%, 11.4%,the com-
pressive strength at 3, 7, and 28 days decreased by an average
and 11.5% per 1% increase in the W/B ratio when the W/B ratio was between 0.43 and of 9.4%, 11.4%, and 11.5%
per
0.45,1% increase in
respectively. the W/Bthe
However, ratio when the W/B
corresponding averageratio was between
reduction 0.43
values of and 0.45, respec-
compressive
strength
tively. per 1% increase
However, in W/B ratio average
the corresponding when W/B ratio between
reduction values0.45 and 0.48 was strength
of compressive very per
low of 2.3%, 1.7%, and 1.8%, whereas higher values of 4.3%, 4.4%,
1% increase in W/B ratio when W/B ratio between 0.45 and 0.48 was very low of 2.3%,and 3.7% were observed
for mean
1.7%, andreduction values ofhigher
1.8%, whereas compressive
valuesstrength
of 4.3%,at4.4%,
3, 7, and
and283.7%
days were
per 1%observed
increase in
for mean
W/B ratio when W/B ratio between 0.48 and 0.52, respectively. Further, the compressive
reduction values of compressive strength at 3, 7, and 28 days per 1% increase in W/B ratio
strength at 3, 7, and 28 days similarly decreased by 37.5%, 39.5%, and 37.8% when the W/B
when W/B ratio between 0.48 and 0.52, respectively. Further, the compressive strength at
ratio increased from 0.43 to 0.52, respectively. This effect may be attributed to the following
3,
two7, causes.
and 28Firstly,
days similarly
reducing decreased
the amountby 37.5%,leads
of water 39.5%, and
to the 37.8% when
reduction the water,
of excess W/B ratio in-
creased from 0.43 to 0.52, respectively. This effect may be attributed
which is one of the main causes of the formation of voids in GPC. Secondly, the H2 O/Na2 O to the following two
causes. Firstly,when
ratio decreases reducing the amount
the amount of waterof water leadsleading
is reduced, to the reduction of excess
to an increasing pH water,
level. which
These
is onephenomena
of the mainlead to anofincrease
causes in the compressive
the formation of voids in strength of GPC, which
GPC. Secondly, the Hwas also 2O ratio
2O/Na
pointed out in the previous works [43–45].
decreases when the amount of water is reduced, leading to an increasing pH level. These
phenomena lead to an increase in the compressive strength of GPC, which was also
pointed out in the previous works [43–45].
When adding a superplasticizer to GPC, the effect of water via the W/B ratio on the
compressive strength of GPC on different days is still great, as shown in Figure 11b. For
instance, the compressive strength at 28 days of GPC with 1% superplasticizer decreased
 when the W/B ratio increased from 0.37 to 0.39. From these results, a part of the influence
of the superplasticizer on the compressive strength of GPC was also exhibited. With the
same W/B ratio, adding a superplasticizer can enhance the workability but reduce the
strength of GPC. For example, with a W/B ratio of 0.43, the compressive strength at 28
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 days of GPC decreased by 9.3% from 49.7 MPa to 45.1 MPa when adding 1% superplasti- 13 of 21
cizer.

(a) (b)
Figure Figure
11. Effect
11. of W/Bofratio
Effect W/Bonratio
compressive strength
on compressive of GPCof(AA/B
strength = 0.08 by
GPC (AA/B wt.):by(a)wt.):
= 0.08 without
(a) without
superplasticizer; (b) with superplasticizer.
superplasticizer; (b) with superplasticizer.

3.3. Compressive
WhenStrength
addingDevelopment
a superplasticizer under the Time of
to GPC, theOne-Part
effect ofAlkali-Activated
water via the W/B GPCratio
in on the
Comparison with OPC
compressive Concrete
strength of GPC on different days is still great, as shown in Figure 11b. For
instance,
The the compressive
compressive strength at 28under
strength development days of theGPCtimewith of OPC1% superplasticizer
concrete can be pre-decreased
dictedby 14.3%
using thefrom 52.6 MPa
equations givento 45.1 by MPa
two commonwhen thecodes, W/B ratio increased
Eurocode2 [46]from
and0.41
ACIto209R
0.43. With
[47], in1.5% superplasticizer,
which the compressive thestrength
compressive of OPC strength
concrete at 28atdayst daysofof GPC
agedecreased by 8.2% from
can be estimated
from the56.3compressive
MPa to 51.7 strength
MPa when at 28 thedays.
W/B ratio increased from 0.39 to 0.41, while the strength at
28 days of GPC with 2% superplasticizer
Eurocode2 gives the equation for the development decreased by 5.9% from
of compressive 59.2 MPa
strength to 55.7
under the MPa
when the W/B ratio
time of OPC concrete, as follows [46]: increased from 0.37 to 0.39. From these results, a part of the influence
of the superplasticizer on the compressive strength of GPC was also exhibited. With the
same W/B ratio, adding' a superplasticizer 
   28can
12

 enhance
 ' the workability but reduce the
strength of GPC. For example, f c ( ) with 
t = Exp s
a W/B 1 −
  ratio f c ( 28
 of 0.43, ) compressive strength at(4)28 days
the
   t  
 
of GPC decreased by 9.3% from 49.7 MPa to 45.1 MPa when adding 1% superplasticizer.
where f’c(t) and f’c(28) are the compressive strength at t and 28 days, respectively; s is a
constant3.3.coefficient
Compressive Strength Development
depending on the type of under the Time
cement. of One-Part
For cement classAlkali-Activated
N in OPC concrete,GPC in
Comparison with OPC Concrete
s is taken as 0.25.
In ACIThe209R, compressive
the development strength ofdevelopment
compressive strength under the time of OPCunder
development concrete
the can
timebe pre-
dicted using the equations given by two
for OPC concrete can be predicted using the following equation [47]: common codes, Eurocode2 [46] and ACI 209R [47],
in which the compressive strength of OPC concrete at t days of age can be estimated from
the compressive strength at 28 days. t
f c' ( t ) = f c' ( 28 ) (5)
Eurocode2 gives the equation forthe + tdevelopment of compressive strength under the
time of OPC concrete, as follows [46]:
where α and β are coefficients, those depend ( on the cement type and curing condition,
 1/2 !)
respectively. The constant α is set to 4 for cement type 28 I while the constant β is taken as
0.85 for moist curing in this study. f c0 (t) = Exp s 1 − f c0 (28) (4)
t
For the purpose of comparison, the relationship between compressive strength at t
days andwhere28 days of age
f’ c (t) and is normalized
f’ c (28) are the compressive to the strength strength value at at 28 days.
t and Figure
28 days, 12 shows s is a
respectively;
constant coefficient depending on the type of cement. For cement class N in OPC concrete,
s is taken as 0.25.
In ACI 209R, the development of compressive strength development under the time
for OPC concrete can be predicted using the following equation [47]:

t
f c0 (t) = f 0 (28) (5)
α + βt c

where α and β are coefficients, those depend on the cement type and curing condition,
respectively. The constant α is set to 4 for cement type I while the constant β is taken as
0.85 for moist curing in this study.
 compressive strength under the time of GPC using different W/B and no superplasticizer
are almost identical, which proves that the compressive strength development of GPC
follows a very stable trend, as well as the experimental results in this study, are highly
reliable. However, at an early age, the compressive strength values of all specimens were
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835
slightly higher than the predicted values based on Eurocode2, while they were quite much 14 of 21
higher than the ones obtained from ACI 209R for OPC concrete. It was reported in the
previous work that the fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete with specific temperature and
time-curing conditions achieves high early compressive strength due to the fast hydration
For the purpose of comparison, the relationship between compressive strength at t
reaction [40]. Moreover, the fast setting time and high early compressive strength of alka-
days and 28 days of age is normalized to the strength value at 28 days. Figure 12 shows
line-activated slag concrete due to the presence of high CaO content have also been shown
the development of normalized compressive strength under the time of GPC in the case
in many other studies [43,48–50]. The obtained results in this work are consistent with the
of without superplasticizer (Figure 12a) and with added superplasticizer (Figure 12b),
previous studies and could be used to investigate the creep and shrinkage properties of
where the strength at 28 days of GPC is taken as 1.0. The corresponding curves drawn
one-part alkali-activated GPC.
from prediction equations given by two common codes, Eurocode2 and ACI 209R, for
Concerning the stable trend and high reliability of the obtained results, a prediction
OPC concrete are also plotted. As can be seen in Figure 12a, the development curves of
equation for compressive strength development of GPC without superplasticizer is pro-
compressive strength under the time of GPC using different W/B and no superplasticizer
posed based on the original one from Eucocode2 [46], in which the constant s is taken as
are almost identical, which proves that the compressive strength development of GPC
0.175 instead of 0.25 for cement class N. The corresponding curve of the proposed equa-
follows a very stable trend, as well as the experimental results in this study, are highly
tion is also plotted in Figure 12a, showing good agreement with the experimental results
reliable. However, at an early age, the compressive strength values of all specimens were
in this study.
slightlyAdding an amount
higher than of superplasticizer
the predicted values basedtoon GPC leads to while
Eurocode2, the change of devel-
they were quite much
opmenthigher
trend than
of compressive strength under the time of GPC, as shown
the ones obtained from ACI 209R for OPC concrete. It was reportedin Figure 12b. in the
This trend is different with various amounts of added superplasticizer to GPC;
previous work that the fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete with specific temperature andhowever,
the compressive
time-curing strengths at early
conditions ages high
achieves of allearly
specimens were always
compressive strengthhigher than
due to thethe
fastpre-
hydration
dicted values based on both Eurocode2 and ACI 209R codes. The obtained results indicate
reaction [40]. Moreover, the fast setting time and high early compressive strength of alkaline-
that superplasticizer
activated slag has a significant
concrete effect
due to the on theof
presence development of compressive
high CaO content have alsostrength
been shown in
under the
many other studies [43,48–50]. The obtained results in this work areof
time of GPC, and another equation taking into account the effect superplas-
consistent with the
ticizer previous
is required for predicting
studies and couldthebecompressive strength
used to investigate development
the of GPC, which
creep and shrinkage properties of
may beone-part
conducted in future work.
alkali-activated GPC.

(a) (b)
Figure 12. Compressive
Figure strengthstrength
12. Compressive development under the
development timethe
under of time
one-part alkali-activated
of one-part GPC in GPC in
alkali-activated
comparison with that of OPC concrete according to Eurocode 2 and ACI 209R: (a) without
comparison with that of OPC concrete according to Eurocode 2 and ACI 209R: (a) without super-
superplas-
plasticizer; (b) with superplasticizer.
ticizer; (b) with superplasticizer.

Concerning the stable trend and high reliability of the obtained results, a prediction
equation for compressive strength development of GPC without superplasticizer is pro-
posed based on the original one from Eucocode2 [46], in which the constant s is taken as
0.175 instead of 0.25 for cement class N. The corresponding curve of the proposed equation
is also plotted in Figure 12a, showing good agreement with the experimental results in
this study. Adding an amount of superplasticizer to GPC leads to the change of develop-
ment trend of compressive strength under the time of GPC, as shown in Figure 12b. This
trend is different with various amounts of added superplasticizer to GPC; however, the
compressive strengths at early ages of all specimens were always higher than the predicted
values based on both Eurocode2 and ACI 209R codes. The obtained results indicate that
superplasticizer has a significant effect on the development of compressive strength under
the time of GPC, and another equation taking into account the effect of superplasticizer
is required for predicting the compressive strength development of GPC, which may be
conducted in future work.
ngs 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 15 of 21

3.4. Tensile Strengths, Modulus Elasticity, and Their Relations with Compressive Strength of
One-Part Alkali-Activated GPC
After3.4. Tensile Strengths,
compressive Modulus
strength Elasticity,
tests had beenand Their Relations
carried out,with Compressive
three Strength of
mix proportions,
One-Part Alkali-Activated GPC
AA0.06-W0.45, AA0.08-W0.45, and AA0.10-W0.45, showed the compressive strength of
After compressive strength tests had been carried out, three mix proportions, AA0.06-
about 30 MPa, 40 MPa, and 50 MPa were chosen to investigate the tensile strengths, mod-
W0.45, AA0.08-W0.45, and AA0.10-W0.45, showed the compressive strength of about
ulus of elasticity
30 MPa,as40well
MPa,asand
their
50relations
MPa werewith compressive
chosen strength
to investigate of GPC.
the tensile It should
strengths, be
modulus
noted thatofthe three chosen
elasticity as wellmix proportions
as their relations do not
with contain superplasticizers
compressive strength of GPC.inItorder
shouldtobe
be able to noted
evaluate the relationship between the tensile strengths and modulus
that the three chosen mix proportions do not contain superplasticizers in order to elasticity
with compressive
be able tostrength
evaluate of
thepure one-part
relationship alkali-activated
between the tensile GPC. Figure
strengths and 13 presents
modulus the
elasticity
results of with compressive
the mean tensile strength
strengthofofpureGPC one-part alkali-activated
from three specimensGPC. at 7Figure
and 2813dayspresents
withthe
results types,
different testing of the mean tensileflexural,
including strengthsplitting,
of GPC from andthree
axialspecimens at 7 which
tensile tests, and 28 are
days with
also
different testing types, including flexural, splitting,
summarized in Table 6, together with their coefficient of variation. and axial tensile tests, which are also
summarized in Table 6, together with their coefficient of variation.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Tensile strength
Figure 13. Tensileof GPC: (a)
strength at 7 days;
of GPC: (a) at 7(b) at 28
days; (b)days.
at 28 days.

Table
Table 6. Test 6. Test
results of results of meanstrength
mean tensile tensile strength
of GPCoffrom
GPC different
from different testing
testing types.
types.

7 Days 7 Days 28 Days28 Days

Specimens Testing
Specimens TypeTesting Type Value
Value Value
(MPa) (MPa)COV COV Value (MPa) COVCOV
(MPa)
AA0.06-W0.45 Flexural test 2.70 3.7% 3.60 4.8%
AA0.06-W0.45 Flexural test 2.70 3.7% 3.60 4.8%
Splitting test Splitting test 2.42
2.42 1.9%1.9% 3.34
3.34 3.2%
3.2%
Tensile testTensile test 1.84
1.84 9.5%9.5% 2.24
2.24 8.1%
8.1%
AA0.08-W0.45
AA0.08-W0.45 Flexural testFlexural test 3.78
3.78 2.8%2.8% 4.40
4.40 2.3%
2.3%
Splitting test 3.45 1.5% 3.98 2.7%
Splitting test Tensile test 3.45
2.39 1.5%11.6% 3.98
2.72 2.7%
3.5%
Tensile test
AA0.10-W0.45 Flexural test 2.39
4.45 11.6%3.0% 2.72
5.40 3.5%
3.2%
AA0.10-W0.45 Flexural testSplitting test 4.14
4.45 3.0%2.8% 4.70
5.40 2.8%
3.2%
Tensile test 2.81 3.4% 3.42 6.7%
Splitting
COV: Coefficient test
of variation. 4.14 2.8% 4.70 2.8%
Tensile test 2.81 3.4% 3.42 6.7%
COV: CoefficientAsofcan be seen from Figure 13, the splitting tensile strength is lower than flexural
variation.
tensile strength and higher than the value obtained from the axial (direct) tensile test for
all be
As can three mixfrom
seen proportions of GPC.
Figure 13, This trend
the splitting is similar
tensile to OPC
strength is concrete,
lower thanas reported
flexural in
common design codes such as ACI 318 [51] and Eurocode2 [46].
tensile strength and higher than the value obtained from the axial (direct) tensile test For the tensile strength
for
at 7 days, the ratio between the values obtained from flexural tests and splitting tests was
all three mix proportions of GPC. This trend is similar to OPC concrete, as reported in
in the range from 1.07 to 1.12, whereas the ratio between the values obtained from direct
common design codes such as ACI 318 [47] and Eurocode2 [43]. For the tensile strength at
tensile tests and splitting tests was in the range from 0.68 to 0.76. Similar ranges of from
7 days, the1.08
ratio between the values
to 1.15 and 0.67 obtained
to 0.73 were fromfor
observed flexural
flexuraltests andstrength/splitting
tensile splitting tests was in
tensile
the range strength
from 1.07 toand
ratio 1.12, whereas
axial (direct)the ratio
tensile between the values
strength/splitting tensileobtained fromatdirect
strength ratio 28 days,
tensile tests
respectively. These results indicate that the relationships between three types offrom
and splitting tests was in the range from 0.68 to 0.76. Similar ranges of tensile
1.08 to 1.15 and 0.67 to 0.73 were observed for flexural tensile strength/splitting tensile
strength ratio and axial (direct) tensile strength/splitting tensile strength ratio at 28 days,
respectively. These results indicate that the relationships between three types of tensile
 strength of GPC are stable and reliable. These relationships will be explored through their
relationship to the compressive strength of GPC, as detailed below.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 16 of (f
According to ACI 318, the relationship between the splitting tensile strength 21ct) and

the compressive strength (f’c) of concrete is expressed as [51]:

strength of GPC are stable and reliable. Thesef ct = 0.56 f c' MPa will be explored through their (6)
relationships
relationship to the compressive strength of GPC, as detailed below.
The flexuraltotensile
According strength
ACI 318, (fr) and the
the relationship compressive
between strength
the splitting tensile(f’c) have(fthe
strength relation-
ct ) and
ship
theas follows [47]:
compressive strength (f’c ) of concrete is expressed as [51]:
p
r = 0.62 c f c MPa
f ct =f 0.56 f 0 MPa'
(6) (7)
The flexural
According totensile strengththe
Eurocode2, (fr ) and the compressive
relationship strength
between the (f’ c ) have
mean the relationship
axial tensile strength
as follows [51]:
(fctm) and the concrete cylinder compressivep strength (fcm) is provided as following relations
f r = 0.62 f c0 MPa (7)
[46]:
According to Eurocode2, the relationship between the mean axial tensile strength (fctm )
( fck ) (fMPa
fctm = 0.3strength for  C50/60
2/3
and the concrete cylinder compressive cm ) is provided as following relations [46]: (8)

f ctm = 0.3( f ck )2/3 MPa for ≤ C50/60

f ck = ( f cm − 8 ) MPa for  C50/60 (8)
(9)

where (fck) is the characteristic f ck =cylinder

( f cm − 8compressive strength of concrete.
) MPa for ≤ C50/60 (9)
Eurocode
where 2 also
(fck ) is the gives thecylinder
characteristic association betweenstrength
compressive the axial tensile strength (fctm) and the
of concrete.
splitting tensile strength (fct,sp ) as follows:
Eurocode 2 also gives the association between the axial tensile strength (fctm ) and the
splitting tensile strength (fct,sp ) as follows:
f ctm = 0.9 f ct , sp MPa (10)
f = 0.9 f MPa (10)
The association between meanctmflexuralct,sp
tensile strength (fctm,fl) and mean axial tensile
strength is expressed as:
The association between mean flexural tensile strength (fctm,fl ) and mean axial tensile
strength is expressed as:
 h  
f ctm , fl = max
 1.6 −   f ctm; fctm  (11)
f ctm , f l = max 1.6 − h 1000f  f
ctm; ctm
 (11)
1000
where h is the total member depth in mm.
Thehrelationships
where is the total member depth
between in mm.
each type of tensile strength and compressive strength of
The relationships between each type of tensile strength and compressive strength of
concrete according to ACI 318 and Eurocode2 are drawn in Figure 14, together with the
concrete according to ACI 318 and Eurocode2 are drawn in Figure 14, together with the
corresponding experimental results in this study for GPC.
corresponding experimental results in this study for GPC.

(a) (b)

Figure 14. Cont.

Buildings 2023, 2023,
Buildings 13, x 13,
FOR PEER REVIEW
1835 17 of 21
17 of 21

(c)
Figure 14.14.
Figure Relationship
Relationshipbetween tensileand
between tensile andcompressive
compressive strengths:
strengths: (a) flexural
(a) flexural tensile
tensile strength;
strength; (b) (b)
Axial (direct) tensile strength; (c) splitting tensile strength.
Axial (direct) tensile strength; (c) splitting tensile strength.

AsAscancanbebeseen
seen in Figure14a,
in Figure 14a,the
the measured
measured flexural
flexural tensile
tensile strengths
strengths aredifferent
are quite quite differ-
from the predictions by ACI 318 but agree well with that estimated
ent from the predictions by ACI 318 but agree well with that estimated by Eurocode2. by Eurocode2. A A
good agreement between the measured axial tensile strengths and
good agreement between the measured axial tensile strengths and the predicted values the predicted values
from compressive strength based on Eurocode2 is also observed, as shown in Figure 14b.
from compressive strength based on Eurocode2 is also observed, as shown in Figure 14b.
These results confirm that the relationship between the flexural tensile strength and the
These results confirm that the relationship between the flexural tensile strength and the
compressive strength, as well as between the axial tensile strength and the compressive
compressive strength,provided
strength of concrete as well by as Eurocode2,
between the fitsaxial
well tensile
with thestrength and GPC
investigated the compressive
in this
strength of concrete provided by Eurocode2, fits well with the investigated
study. However, a good agreement is not seen for the measured splitting tensile strength GPCofin this
study.
GPC However, a good agreement
from both standards, is not
as displayed seen for
in Figure 14c.the measuredthe
Considering splitting tensile
conformity strength
of the
of equations
GPC from forboth standards,
estimating as displayed
the flexural in Figure
tensile strength 14c.axial
and the Considering the conformity
tensile strength from the of
compressive strength of concrete provided by Eurocode2 to GPC, an equation
the equations for estimating the flexural tensile strength and the axial tensile strength from for predicting
thesplitting tensile strength
compressive strength from axial tensile
of concrete strength
provided byofEurocode2
GPC is proposed,
to GPC, which is based on
an equation for pre-
the original one in Eurocode2, as follows:
dicting splitting tensile strength from axial tensile strength of GPC is proposed, which is
based on the original one in Eurocode2, as follows:
f ctm = 0.72 f ct,sp MPa (12)
f = 0.72 f MPa
From the proposed equation, splitting ctm ct , sp
tensile strength can be predicted from the (12)
compressive strength of GPC using the relationship between Equations (8) and (12), which
From the proposed equation, splitting tensile strength can be predicted from the com-
is also plotted in Figure 14c, showing good agreement with the experimental results of
pressive strength of GPC using the relationship between Equations (8) and (12), which is
splitting tensile strength of GPC.
also plotted
Figurein
15Figure
presents14c,
theshowing good
results of the meanagreement
elastic modulus with the experimental
of GPC results of split-
from three specimens
ting tensile strength of GPC.
with three different mix proportions at 7 and 28 days, which are also summarized in Table 7,
Figurewith
together 15 presents the results
their coefficient of the As
of variation. mean elastic
is seen frommodulus ofthe
this figure, GPC from
elastic three speci-
modulus
mens
at 7 with three
days of differentabout
age achieved mix 85
proportions
to 88% of the atvalues
7 andat2828days, days ofwhich are also summarized
age, demonstrating the
stable development of the modulus and the reliability of the experimental results.
in Table 7, together with their coefficient of variation. As is seen from this figure, the elastic Based
on that,at
modulus the relationship
7 days of age between
achievedelastic
aboutmodulus
85 to 88% and ofcompressive
the values atstrength
28 daysofofGPC
age,can
demon-
be conducted.
strating the stable development of the modulus and the reliability of the experimental
results. Based
Table 7. on that,
Test results the relationship
of mean elastic modulusbetween
of GPC. elastic modulus and compressive strength
of GPC can be conducted.
7 Days 28 Days
Specimens
E (GPa) COV E (GPa) COV
AA0.06-W0.45 23.4 1.0% 27.6 0.5%
AA0.08-W0.45 28.1 0.7% 32.0 0.8%
AA0.10-W0.45 32.5 0.4% 37.2 1.4%
 mens with three different mix proportions at 7 and 28 days, which are also summarized
in Table 7, together with their coefficient of variation. As is seen from this figure, the elasti
Figure
modulus15. Elastic modulus
at 7 days of ageofachieved
GPC. about 85 to 88% of the values at 28 days of age, demon
strating the stable development of the modulus and the reliability of the experimenta
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 Table 7. Test results of mean elastic modulus of GPC. 18 of 21 strength
results. Based on that, the relationship between elastic modulus and compressive
of GPC can be conducted. 7 Days 28 Days
Specimens
E (GPa) COV E (GPa) COV
AA0.06-W0.45 23.4 1.0% 27.6 0.5%
AA0.08-W0.45 28.1 0.7% 32.0 0.8%
AA0.10-W0.45 32.5 0.4% 37.2 1.4%

The elastic modulus (Ec) can be estimated from the compressive strength (f’c) of con
crete according to ACI 318 as [51]:

Ec = 4700 f c' MPa (13

According to Eurocode2, the relationship between the elastic modulus (Ec) and the
concrete cylinder compressive strength (fcm) is given as [46]:
Figure 15. Elastic modulus of GPC. 0.3
 f cm 
Ecm = where E cm inthe and Fcm instrength
GPacompressive MPa (f’ ) of (14
The elastic modulus c 
(E22
)
can
 estimated
10 be
 from c
concrete according to ACI 318 as [51]:
Figure 16 displays the curves drawnpfrom the equations for estimating elastic modu
Ec = 4700 f c0 MPa (13)
lus from the compressive strength of concrete provided by ACI 318 and Eurocode2, to
gether with thetomeasured
According Eurocode2, elastic modulus ofbetween
the relationship GPC. As theseen, although
elastic the
modulus (Etrend of the curve
c ) and the
given by ACI 318 is relatively consistent with the experimental
concrete cylinder compressive strength (fcm ) is given as [46]: results of GPC, the predic
tion equations from bothcodes do not agree well with GPC. Based on that, a modification
0.3
of the original equation f cm ACI
from 318 was
E = 22
cm where E made
in GPA
cm
toand
fit the
F experimental
in MPA
cm
results,(14)
as follows
10
Ec = 5090 f MPa
c
'
(15
Figure 16 displays the curves drawn from the equations for estimating elastic modulus
from the
Thecompressive
correspondingstrength of of
curve concrete providedequation
the modified by ACI 318 and plotted
is also Eurocode2, together
in Figure 16, show
with
ing good agreement with the experimental results of the elastic modulus ofgiven
the measured elastic modulus of GPC. As seen, although the trend of the curve GPC. How
by ACI 318 is relatively consistent with the experimental results of GPC, the prediction
ever, it is worth noting that further investigation on both the elastic modulus and
equations from both codes do not agree well with GPC. Based on that, a modification of
strengths of one-part alkali-activated GPC is necessary to suggest an appropriate equation
the original equation from ACI 318 was made to fit the experimental results, as follows:
between the splitting tensile strength as well p
as elastic modulus and compressive strength
of GPC owing to the few samples Ec and f c0 MPa
mixtures
= 5090 were conducted in this work. (15)

Figure16.
Figure 16.Relationship
Relationship between
between elastic
elastic modulus
modulus and compressive
and compressive strength.
strength.

The corresponding curve of the modified equation is also plotted in Figure 16, showing
4. Conclusions
good agreement with the experimental results of the elastic modulus of GPC. However,
This noting
it is worth study presented
that furtheran experimental
investigation investigation
on both on the evaluation
the elastic modulus of the
and strengths of worka
bility and
one-part mechanical properties
alkali-activated of one-part
GPC is necessary alkali-activated
to suggest an appropriateGPC manufactured
equation between at room
temperature.
the The strength
splitting tensile obtainedasresults
well assupport the following
elastic modulus conclusions.
and compressive strength of GPC
owing to the few samples and mixtures were conducted in this work.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 19 of 21

4. Conclusions
This study presented an experimental investigation on the evaluation of the worka-
bility and mechanical properties of one-part alkali-activated GPC manufactured at room
temperature. The obtained results support the following conclusions.
1. The amount of one-part alkali-activator less than 10.0% of the total binder amount by
weight has no influence on the workability but has a strong effect on the compressive
strength of GPC. The one-part alkali-activator should not exceed 12.0% of the total
binder amount by weight (AA/B = 0.12) in order not to lose the workability of
GPC. The effect of the one-part alkali-activator on the compressive strength of GPC
at 28 days was slightly decreased with the higher amount of the alkali-activator,
whereas the amount of the alkali-activator corresponding to AA/B ratio from 0.06 to
0.08 exhibited the highest effect on the strength at 3 and 7 days.
2. W/B ratio by weight has a significant influence on both the workability and com-
pressive strength of GPC. The workability of GPC paste reduced as the W/B ratio
increased. The compressive strength of GPC without superplasticizer decreased when
the W/B ratio increased, and this effect of the W/B ratio was quite similar for com-
pressive strength values at 3, 7, and 28 days but much different from different ranges
of W/B ratio. The change of the W/B ratio from 0.43 to 0.45 has the greatest influence
on compressive strength, and the minimum W/B ratio should be at least 0.43 to ensure
workability and sample-making when no superplasticizer is added.
3. Adding superplasticizers can greatly improve the workability of GPC but reduce
the strength of GPC. Increasing the superplasticizer up to 2.5% does not improve
the workability, and this amount can be considered as the upper bound when using
superplasticizer-based polyciliate for one-part alkali-activated GPC.
4. Compressive strengths at an early age of GPC are slightly higher than the predicted
values based on Eurocode2, while they are quite much higher than the ones obtained
from ACI 209R. The constant s that depends on the cement type should be taken
as 0.175 for cement class N in the prediction equation for the compressive strength
development under the time of one-part alkali-activated GPC according to the original
equation for OPC concrete given by Eurocode2.
5. The relationship between flexural tensile strength and compressive strength, as well
as between axial tensile strength and compressive strength provided by Eurocode2 for
OPC concrete, fits well with one-part alkali-activated GPC, whereas the ratio between
axial tensile strength and splitting tensile strength is found to be about 0.72 for GPC
instead of 0.9 as given by Eurocode2 for OPC concrete.
6. The relationship between elastic modulus and compressive strength of one-part alkali-
activated GPC is found to follow the trend given by ACI 318 for OPC concrete, but a
higher coefficient of 5090 should be used instead of 4700 in order to accurately predict
elastic modulus from compressive strength of GPC.
It is noted that the aforementioned are based on a very limited number of experiments.
Further investigation on both the elastic modulus and strengths of one-part alkali-activated
GPC is necessary.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.-T.P.; methodology, T.-T.P. and N.-L.N.; software, T.-T.N.
(Tuan-Trung Nguyen) and T.-T.N. (Trung-Tu Nguyen); validation, T.-T.P., N.-L.N., T.-T.N. (Tuan-Trung
Nguyen), T.-T.N. (Trung-Tu Nguyen) and T.-H.P.; formal analysis, T.-T.P. and T.-H.P.; investigation,
T.-T.N. (Tuan-Trung Nguyen) and T.-T.N. (Trung-Tu Nguyen); resources, T.-T.P. and N.-L.N.; data cu-
ration, T.-T.P. and T.-H.P.; writing—original draft preparation, T.-T.P. and T.-H.P.; writing—review and
editing, T.-H.P.; visualization, N.-L.N.; supervision, T.-H.P.; project administration, T.-T.P.; funding
acquisition, T.-T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam, grant
number B2022-XDA-10.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 20 of 21

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. McLellan, B.C.; Williams, R.P.; Lay, J.; van Riessen, A.; Corder, G.D. Costs and Carbon Emissions for Geopolymer Pastes in
Comparison to Ordinary Portland Cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1080–1090. [CrossRef]
2. Bernal, S.A.; Mejía de Gutiérrez, R.; Provis, J.L. Engineering and Durability Properties of Concretes Based on Alkali-Activated
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag/Metakaolin Blends. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 33, 99–108. [CrossRef]
3. Glukhovsky, V.D. Soil Silicates. Gosstroyizdat Kiev. 1959, 154. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=
Gruntosilikaty+(Soil+Silicates)&author=Glukhovsky,+V.D.&publication_year=1959 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
4. Krivenko, P. Synthesis of Cementitious Materials of the Me2O-MeO-Me2O3-SiO2-H2O System with Required Properties.
1986. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2495372416308018022&hl=vi&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5
(accessed on 15 July 2023).
5. Davidovits, J. Geopolymers: Inorganic Polymeric New Materials. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 1991, 37, 1633–1656. [CrossRef]
6. Komljenović, M.; Baščarević, Z.; Bradić, V. Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash Geopolymers.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 181, 35–42. [CrossRef]
7. Kim, Y.Y.; Lee, B.-J.; Saraswathy, V.; Kwon, S.-J. Strength and Durability Performance of Alkali-Activated Rice Husk Ash
Geopolymer Mortar. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 209584. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Aiken, T.A.; Sha, W.; Kwasny, J.; Soutsos, M.N. Resistance of Geopolymer and Portland Cement Based Systems to Silage Effluent
Attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 2017, 92, 56–65. [CrossRef]
9. Albitar, M.; Mohamed Ali, M.S.; Visintin, P.; Drechsler, M. Durability Evaluation of Geopolymer and Conventional Concretes.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 136, 374–385. [CrossRef]
10. Bakharev, T. Resistance of Geopolymer Materials to Acid Attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 658–670. [CrossRef]
11. Sagoe-Crentsil, K.; Brown, T.; Taylor, A. Drying Shrinkage and Creep Performance of Geopolymer Concrete. J. Sustain. Cem.
Mater. 2013, 2, 35–42. [CrossRef]
12. Kong, D.L.Y.; Sanjayan, J.G. Effect of Elevated Temperatures on Geopolymer Paste, Mortar and Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2010,
40, 334–339. [CrossRef]
13. Sarker, P.K.; Kelly, S.; Yao, Z. Effect of Fire Exposure on Cracking, Spalling and Residual Strength of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete.
Mater. Des. 2014, 63, 584–592. [CrossRef]
14. Almutairi, A.L.; Tayeh, B.A.; Adesina, A.; Isleem, H.F.; Zeyad, A.M. Potential Applications of Geopolymer Concrete in Construc-
tion: A Review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00733. [CrossRef]
15. Davidovits, J. Properties of Geopolymer Cements. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and
Concretes, Scientific Research Institute on Binders and Materials; Kiev State Technical University: Kiev, Ukraine, 1994; pp. 131–149.
Available online: http://www.geopolymer.org/wp-content/uploads/KIEV.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2023).
16. Hajjaji, W.; Andrejkovičová, S.; Zanelli, C.; Alshaaer, M.; Dondi, M.; Labrincha, J.A.; Rocha, F. Composition and Technological
Properties of Geopolymers Based on Metakaolin and Red Mud. Mater. Des. 2013, 52, 648–654. [CrossRef]
17. Rao, F.; Liu, Q. Geopolymerization and Its Potential Application in Mine Tailings Consolidation: A Review. Miner. Process. Extr.
Metall. Rev. 2015, 36, 399–409. [CrossRef]
18. Yang, K.-H.; Song, J.-K.; Ashour, A.F.; Lee, E.-T. Properties of Cementless Mortars Activated by Sodium Silicate. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2008, 22, 1981–1989. [CrossRef]
19. Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K. Effect of GGBFS on Setting, Workability and Early Strength Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete
Cured in Ambient Condition. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 163–171. [CrossRef]
20. Hadi, M.N.S.; Farhan, N.A.; Sheikh, M.N. Design of Geopolymer Concrete with GGBFS at Ambient Curing Condition Using
Taguchi Method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 140, 424–431. [CrossRef]
21. Davidovits, P.J. 30 Years of Successes and Failures in Geopolymer Applications. Market Trends and Potential Breakthroughs.
In Proceedings of the Geopolymer 2002 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 28–29 October 2002; pp. 1–16.
22. Poloju, K.K.; Annadurai, S.; Manchiryal, R.K.; Goriparthi, M.R.; Baskar, P.; Prabakaran, M.; Kim, J. Analysis of Rheological
Characteristic Studies of Fly-Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Buildings 2023, 13, 811. [CrossRef]
23. Shen, Q.; Li, B.; He, W.; Meng, X.; Shen, Y. Associated Effects of Sodium Chloride and Dihydrate Gypsum on the Mechanical
Performance and Hydration Properties of Slag-Based Geopolymer. Buildings 2023, 13, 1285. [CrossRef]
24. Malkawi, A.B. Effect of Aggregate on the Performance of Fly-Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Buildings 2023, 13, 769. [CrossRef]
25. Matalkah, F.; Xu, L.; Wu, W.; Soroushian, P. Mechanochemical Synthesis of One-Part Alkali Aluminosilicate Hydraulic Cement.
Mater. Struct. 2016, 50, 97. [CrossRef]
26. Hardjito, D.; Wallah, S.E.; Sumajouw, D.M.J.; Rangan, B. V Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 6,
77–86. [CrossRef]
27. Hardjito, D.; Rangan, B.V. Development and Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Res. Rep. GC 2005,
94. Available online: https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/5594 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1835 21 of 21

28. Luukkonen, T.; Abdollahnejad, Z.; Yliniemi, J.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. One-Part Alkali-Activated Materials: A Review. Cem.
Concr. Res. 2018, 103, 21–34. [CrossRef]
29. Hajimohammadi, A.; van Deventer, J.S.J. Characterisation of One-Part Geopolymer Binders Made from Fly Ash. Waste Biomass
Valorization 2017, 8, 225–233. [CrossRef]
30. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J. Effect of Superplasticizers on Workability of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer. In InCIEC 2013: Proceedings
of the International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference 2013; Hassan, R., Yusoff, M., Ismail, Z., Amin, N.M., Fadzil, M.A.,
Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2014; pp. 713–719.
31. EN 196-1; Methods of Testing Cement-Part 1: Determination of Strength. TS En-CEN: Brussel, Belgium, 2016.
32. ASTM C494/C494M; Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Type D-Water-Reducing and Retarding
Admixtures and Type G-Water-Reducing, High Range, and Retarding Admixtures. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2019.
33. Keke, S.; Xiaoqin, P.; Shuping, W.; Lu, Z. Design Method for the Mix Proportion of Geopolymer Concrete Based on the Paste
Thickness of Coated Aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 508–517. [CrossRef]
34. ASTM C29/C29M; Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
35. ASTM C143-78; Standard Test Method for Slump Of Portland Cement Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2017.
36. ASTM C39; Concrete Cylinder Compression Testing. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
37. ASTM C469/C469M-10; Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
38. ASTM C78/C78M; Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2018.
39. ASTM C496/C496M-04; Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM Interna-
tional: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
40. Hardjito, D. Studies on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Ph.D Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA,
Australia, 2005.
41. Nuruddin, M.F.; Demie, S.; Shafiq, N. Effect of Mix Composition on Workability and Compressive Strength of Self-Compacting
Geopolymer Concrete. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 38, 1196–1203. [CrossRef]
42. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J. Effect of Different Superplasticizers and Activator Combinations on Workability and Strength of Fly
Ash Based Geopolymer. Mater. Des. 2014, 57, 667–672. [CrossRef]
43. Lee, N.K.; Lee, H.K. Setting and Mechanical Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash/Slag Concrete Manufactured at Room
Temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1201–1209. [CrossRef]
44. Criado, M.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; de la Torre, A.G.; Aranda, M.A.G.; Palomo, A. An XRD Study of the Effect of the SiO2 /Na2 O
Ratio on the Alkali Activation of Fly Ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 671–679. [CrossRef]
45. Lloyd, R.R.; Provis, J.L.; van Deventer, J.S.J. Microscopy and Microanalysis of Inorganic Polymer Cements. 1: Remnant Fly Ash
Particles. J. Mater. Sci. 2009, 44, 608–619. [CrossRef]
46. EN 1992-1-1; Eurocode 2 Design of Concrete Structures Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. British Standard Institution:
London, UK, 2004.
47. ACI 209R; Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures. In ACI Manual of Concrete. Practice
Part 1: Materials and General Properties of Concrete. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1992.
48. Collins, F.; Sanjayan, J.G. Early Age Strength and Workability of Slag Pastes Activated by NaOH and Na2 CO3 . Cem. Concr. Res.
1998, 28, 655–664. [CrossRef]
49. Collins, F.; Sanjayan, J.G. Early Age Strength and Workability of Slag Pastes Activated by Sodium Silicates. Mag. Concr. Res. 2001,
53, 321–326. [CrossRef]
50. Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Puertas, F. Setting of Alkali-Activated Slag Cement. Influence of Activator Nature. Adv. Cem. Res. 2001,
13, 115–121. [CrossRef]
51. ACI CODE-318-19; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Concrete Institute: Farming-
ton Hills, MI, USA, 2019.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.