Buildings 14 00743 v3

buildings
Article
Structure and Properties Improvement by Recipe Factors of
Geopolymer Basalt Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Building
Enclosing Structures
Kirill P. Zubarev 1,2 , Evgenii M. Shcherban’ 3 , Sergey A. Stel’makh 4 , Alexey N. Beskopylny 5, * ,
Diana Elshaeva 4 , Andrei Chernil’nik 4 , Nadezhda I. Zakieva 4 , Elena V. Pimenova 6 and Alexandr A. Shilov 4
1 Department of Construction Technology and Structural Material, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St,
Moscow 117198, Russia; zubarevkirill93@mail.ru
2 Department of General and Applied Physics, National Research Moscow State University of Civil
Engineering, 26, Yaroslavskoye Shosse, Moscow 129337, Russia
3 Department of Engineering Geology, Bases, and Foundations, Don State Technical University,
Rostov-on-Don 344003, Russia; au-geen@mail.ru
4 Department of Unique Buildings and Constructions Engineering, Don State Technical University,
Gagarin Sq. 1, Rostov-on-Don 344003, Russia; sergej.stelmax@mail.ru (S.A.S.);
diana.elshaeva@yandex.ru (D.E.); chernila_a@mail.ru (A.C.); nikorani@mail.ru (N.I.Z.);
alexandr_shilov@inbox.ru (A.A.S.)
5 Department of Transport Systems, Faculty of Roads and Transport Systems, Don State Technical University,
Rostov-on-Don 344003, Russia
6 Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, Design and Arts, Don State Technical University,
Rostov-on-Don 344003, Russia; spu-57.1@donstu.ru
* Correspondence: besk-an@yandex.ru; Tel.: +7-8632738454
Abstract: The application of geopolymer concrete in buildings and structures is becoming widespread
because of its low cost and high strength characteristics. At the same time, the capabilities of geopoly-
mer concrete are not fully used, especially to strengthen flexural properties. The article examines the
Citation: Zubarev, K.P.; Shcherban’,
problems of developing an effective composition of geopolymer concrete based on ground granulated
E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Beskopylny,
blast furnace slag (GGBS) by selecting the optimal composition of the alkaline activator and the
A.N.; Elshaeva, D.; Chernil’nik, A.;
amount of basalt fiber (BF). To determine the degree of effectiveness of the proposed formulation
Zakieva, N.I.; Pimenova, E.V.; Shilov,
A.A. Structure and Properties
solutions, the characteristics of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) were determined. It has
Improvement by Recipe Factors of been investigated the most effective composition of an alkaline activator is an activator containing a
Geopolymer Basalt Fiber Reinforced NaOH solution with a molarity of 12 M. The most optimal dosage of BF is 1.5% by weight of GGBS.
Concrete for Building Enclosing The increase in compressive and flexural strength for the most effective composition of geopolymer
Structures. Buildings 2024, 14, 743. FRC 12 M/BF1.5, which combines the most effective parameters of formulation solutions, compared
https://doi.org/10.3390/ to the least effective composition 8 M/BF0 was 40.54% and 93.75%, respectively, and the decrease of
buildings14030743 water absorption was 45.75%. The obtained scientific result represents a significant empirical basis for
Academic Editor: Jan Fořt future research in the field of geopolymer FRC. The developed effective composition of geopolymer
FRC is ready for use in practical construction.
Received: 19 February 2024
Revised: 4 March 2024
Keywords: geopolymer concrete; basalt fiber; FRC; alkaline activator; granulated blast furnace slag
Accepted: 8 March 2024
Published: 9 March 2024
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Construction and building technologies are the most studied and dynamically develop-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ing areas throughout the world. At the same time, such an applied engineering knowledge
This article is an open access article as construction science is impossible without conducting preliminary fundamental research
distributed under the terms and aimed at finding the most useful and promising properties of various raw materials and
conditions of the Creative Commons
sources that can become for buildings and structures a reliable bastion of their durability in
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the future [1]. In this regard, the main task of materials scientists involved in the building
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
construction is a new recipe of building materials design, the study and development of
4.0/).
Buildings 2024, 14, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030743 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 743 2 of 21
the properties of existing materials, as well as proposals for the rationalization of currently
known materials [2,3]. The reliability and quality of building materials is not the only
area that should be developed. An essential aspect is the environmental friendliness of
the building material and its belonging to green technologies. One of the most striking
examples of recent decades in the field of green technologies is geopolymer concrete. The
relevance of geopolymer concrete is increasing every year. All over the world, scientific
research is being conducted to study the beneficial properties, as well as fundamental
dependencies in the structure formation of geopolymer concretes and materials [4,5].
The high demand for geopolymer concretes, as well as confirms the relevance of
research in this direction, their poor knowledge regarding the fundamental nature of
the formation of their properties and structure depending on the composition. From a
practical point of view, there is a serious problem with some limitations that geopolymer
concrete has, in particular in terms of mechanical and physical properties, and this results
in a poor standardization of the material and the need for additional research [6,7]. The
geopolymer itself is a construction conglomerate, which comprises various constituent
components, such as an aluminosilicate component, fine and coarse aggregate and an
alkaline activator. For the production of geopolymer concrete, a fairly large range of
different types of aluminosilicate components are used, which are mainly technogenic
waste [8–10]. For example, in works [11–14], the authors developed various compositions
of geopolymer concretes, where fly ash was used as an aluminosilicate component, and
the strengths of the composites varied from 15 MPa to 70 MPa. In studies [15–17], various
types of slag were used as a binder, and the strength of geopolymer composites varied from
40 MPa to 70 MPa. Also, in addition to the above types of aluminosilicate components,
metakaolin, microsilica and ground waste from concrete and brick waste are used for
the production of geopolymer composites [18–20]. The combination of these types of
aluminosilicate components with each other in optimal quantities makes it possible to
obtain durable composites with high mechanical characteristics [21–24].
Besides the recipe and technological factors in geopolymer concrete, the most important
role is played by the solution of already known problems that are inherent in the studied
recipe and technological parameters, which make it possible to create geopolymers with
known characteristics. The need for additional research to study the improvement of existing
compositions of geopolymer concrete is also confirmed by the wide variety of properties
that can be imparted to geopolymer concrete by changing certain parameters [25,26]. One
of the most promising types of research for opening new directions and obtaining a base
of new knowledge on the compositions, structure formation and properties of geopolymer
concretes is the development of new compositions of alkaline activators [27]. Geopolymer
concrete heavily relies on the alkaline activator, which greatly influences the characteristics
and behavior of the material. In a particular study [28], the authors examined how the molarity
of the alkaline activator impacts the durability and strength of geopolymer concrete made
from fly ash. It has been established that the most effective type of alkaline activator is a
solution with a molarity of 16 M. Similarly, in [29,30], the impact of various concentrations of
alkaline activators on the geopolymer characteristics was studied and the best compositions
of hardening activators were selected for specific types of aluminosilicates.
In terms of the closest analogues of geopolymer concrete, namely cement concrete,
the technology of fiber reinforcement is being widely developed and improved. Dispersed
fiber, called fiber, produced from various materials, be it steel, basalt, polypropylene or
other materials, is a very promising modifying additive that can significantly improve the
mechanics and physics of the properties of cement concrete [31–35]. Geopolymer concrete, as
a construction conglomerate, is no exception in terms of the prospects of reinforcing it with
fiber. For example, in a study [36], the introduction of 0.3% steel fiber into the composition
of geopolymer concrete made it possible to achieve the best compressive strength values. In
studies [37–41], reinforcing geopolymer composites with glass, polypropylene, basalt, and
steel fibers in optimal amounts improved their physical and mechanical properties. However,
the issues of geopolymer concrete, not to mention geopolymer FRC, are poorly covered
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 3 of 21
in regulatory and technical documents and currently do not allow mass production flow
construction. Moreover, from a research point of view, joint recipe and technological solutions
for varying the alkaline activator and different kinds of fibers to improve the geopolymer
concrete characteristics are even less studied [42–48]. This reveals a notable deficit in scientific
and practical understanding, specifically regarding the dependencies between the composition,
their structural features, and geopolymer properties. The deficit is related to the insufficient
understanding of how alkaline activator type and basalt fiber quantity affect things. Our goal
is to find a solution to this problem through our research.
The scientific novelty of the research lies in the identification of patterns of interde-
pendence of the compositions, structure and properties of geopolymer concrete based on
GGBS manufactured using alkaline activators of various compositions and basalt fiber.
Based on the identified scientific data, fundamental knowledge was obtained and several
practical results were identified on this basis, which were used in the applied direction and
recommendations for the construction industry. These recommendations are expressed in
specific rational formulations, dosages and other formulation parameters for obtaining the
highest quality geopolymer FRC using various types of alkaline activators.
The tasks of the research were to study the dependence of the compositions, structure
and properties of geopolymer FRC on the composition of the alkaline activator and the
amount of basalt fiber and, on the basis of this, put forward new recommendations for the
real practical construction sector.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
For the design of geopolymer FRC, a number of the following raw materials were used:
- ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) (Severstal, Cherepovets, Russia);
- quartz sand (QS) (Arkhipovskoye v., Russia);
- crushed sandstone (CrS) (Solntsedar-Don, Rostov-on-Don, Russia);
- basalt fiber (BF) (Pascal, Dzerzhinsk, Russia);
- sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (Khimprom, Novocheboksarsk, Russia);
- sodium liquid glass (Na2 O(SiO2 )n) (Kerami-NSK, Novosibirsk, Russia);
- plasticizer MasterGlenium 115 (P) (BASF Construction Systems, Moscow, Russia).
The main characteristics of the raw materials are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Attributes of raw materials.
Name of Raw Material Actual Value

Indicator
Component (Provided by the Manufacturer)
Loss on ignition, 1000 ◦ C (%) 11.38
Silicon oxide SiO2 (%) 32.15
Aluminum oxide Al2 O3 (%) 5.92
Iron oxide Fe2 O3 (%) 0.73
Calcium oxide CaO (%) 40.56
GGBS
Magnesium oxide MgO (%) 5.83
Titanium oxide TiO2 (%) 0.28
Phosphorus oxide P2 O5 (%) 0.04
Sulfur oxide total. SO3 (%) 3.11
Density (kg/m3 ) 911
Bulk density (kg/m3 ) 1415
Apparent density (kg/m3 ) 2579
The content of dust and clay
0.05
particles (%)
QS Content of clay in lumps (%) 0.08
Organic and contaminant
No
content (%)
Fineness modulus 2.07
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 4 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 4 of 21

Bulk density (kg/m3) 1415
Apparent density (kg/m3) 2579
Table 1. Cont. The content of dust and clay particles (%) 0.05
QS
Сontent of clay in lumps (%) 0.08
Name of Raw Material Actual Value
Component OrganicIndicator
and contaminant content (%)by the Manufacturer)
(Provided No
Fineness
Bulk density (kg/m3 ) modulus 1438 2.07
Apparent Bulk
density density
(kg/m3(kg/m
) 3)
2665 1438
Resistance to fragmentation
Apparent density (kg/m3) 2665
CrS 11.1
CrS (wt %)
Resistance to fragmentation (wt %) 11.1
The content of lamellar and
The acicular
contentgrains
of lamellar and acicular grains 8.0
(wt %) 8.0
(wt %)
Fiber length (mm) From 12 to 15
BF Fiber length
Density(g/cm 3) (mm) 2.6From 12 to 15
BF Density(g/cm
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) ) 3 76 2.6
Modulus of
Mass fraction of sodium elasticity (GPa) 76
99.6
NaOH Mass hydroxide
fraction of(%) sodium hydroxide (%) 99.6
NaOH
Density
Density (kg/m ) 3 (kg/m 3)
2130 2130
Mass fraction
Mass fraction of SiO2 (%) of SiO 2 (%) 33.7 33.7
Mass fraction
Mass fraction of Na2 O(%) of Na2O(%) 14.8 14.8
(Na22O(SiO
(Na O(SiO22))nn)) Mass fraction of H O (%)
Mass fraction of H2O (%)
2 51.5 51.5
Density (kg/m3 ) 1270
Density (kg/m3) 1270
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3)
Density Density 1064 1064
P
P
pH рН 5.04 5.04
The actual
The actual values
values given
given in
in the
the Table
Table 11 were
were provided
provided byby the
the manufacturers
manufacturers of of these
these
materials.
materials.
Figure 11presents
Figure presentsthe
thecharacteristics
characteristicsofofraw
rawmaterials,
materials, namely
namely thethe particle
particle size
size distri-
distribu-
bution (Figure 1a–c) and the GGBS diffraction pattern (Figure
tion (Figure 1a–c) and the GGBS diffraction pattern (Figure 1d). 1d).
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Cont.
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 5 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 5 of 21
(c) (d)
Figure 1.1. Particle
Figure Particle size
size distribution
distribution curves
curves for
for (a)
(a) sand,
sand, (b)
(b) crushed
crushed stone,
stone, (c)
(c) slag
slag and
anddiffraction
diffraction
pattern of slag (d).
pattern of slag (d).
ToToconstruct
constructsizesizedistribution
distribution curves
curves forfor sand
sand (Figure
(Figure 1a)1a)
andand crushed
crushed stone
stone (Figure
(Figure 1b)
1b) particles, sieves with cell sizes of 0.16, 0.315, 0.63, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 12.5, 20
particles, sieves with cell sizes of 0.16, 0.315, 0.63, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 12.5, 20 and 25 (mm) wereand 25 (mm) were
used. GGBS
used. GGBS was was additionally
additionally ground
ground in in aaplanetary
planetaryball ballmill
mill“Activator-4M”
“Activator-4M” for for 24
24 hh at
at
800rpm.
800 rpm.After
Afteradditional
additionalprocessing,
processing,itsitsgranulometric
granulometric composition
composition waswas determined
determined us-
using
aing a Microsizer
Microsizer model model
201C201C
(VA (VA Insalt,
Insalt, Saint Saint Petersburg,
Petersburg, Russia)
Russia) (0.2–300
(0.2–300 µm)µm) device
device andandits
its phase
phase composition,
composition, whichwhich was determined
was determined using using an ARLX’TRA
an ARLX’TRA diffractometer.
diffractometer. The
The results
results
of of granulometric
granulometric and X-ray andphase
X-rayanalysis
phase analysis
of GGBS of GGBS
particlesparticles are presented
are presented in Fig-
in Figure 1c
ure 1c
and 1d,and 1d, respectively.
respectively. AccordingAccording to the particle
to the particle size distribution
size distribution presented
presented in Figure
in Figure 1c, it
1c, it
can becanseenbethat
seenparticle
that particle sizesfrom
sizes vary vary0.1from
µm0.1to µm
93.3to 93.3The
µm. µm. Theparticle
peak peak particle distri-
distribution
bution
of 12.5%offalls
12.5%
on falls on particles
particles withofa 17.8
with a size size of
µm.17.8
Theµm. The largest
largest proportion
proportion of particles,
of particles, up to
96.0%, are in are
up to 96.0%, the in
range from 1from
the range µm 1toµm40.75 µm. X-ray
to 40.75 phasephase
µm. X-ray analysis of GGBS
analysis (Figure
of GGBS 1d)
(Figure
revealed
1d) revealedits strong amorphization.
its strong Calcite
amorphization. (olivine-Ca*)
Calcite reflections
(olivine-Ca*) are visible
reflections and anand
are visible albite
an
phase is present.
albite phase is present.
2.2.
2.2. Methods
Methods
The
Themethodology
methodologyemployed
employedto to examine
examine the
the connection
connection between
between compositions,
compositions, struc-
struc-
tures,
tures, and properties of new geopolymer FRC strictly adhered to regulatoryand
and properties of new geopolymer FRC strictly adhered to regulatory andtechnical
technical
guidelines.
guidelines. Using
Using techniques
techniques for
for geopolymer
geopolymer concrete
concrete reinforced
reinforced with
with basalt
basalt fiber,
fiber, con-
con-
sistent
sistent with the research techniques for traditional concrete with a cement binder, was
with the research techniques for traditional concrete with a cement binder, was
important in order to maintain the purity of the experiment. Test conditions, selected
important in order to maintain the purity of the experiment. Test conditions, selected com-
compositions
positions andand recipe-technological
recipe-technological parameters
parameters for manufacturing
for manufacturing geopolymer
geopolymer FRC FRC
were
were used with strict adherence to the principle of repeatability, with verification and
used with strict adherence to the principle of repeatability, with verification and manda-
mandatory verification of outlier results from the general series, as well as with the linking
tory verification of outlier results from the general series, as well as with the linking of
of each specific factor and its analysis after receiving the results.
each specific factor and its analysis after receiving the results.
In this study, 20 mixtures were developed to develop the optimal composition of
In this study, 20 mixtures were developed to develop the optimal composition of ge-
geopolymer FRC. In the compositions of concrete geopolymer mixtures, the molarity of
opolymer FRC. In the compositions of concrete geopolymer mixtures, the molarity of the
the NaOH solution in the alkaline activator and the amount of basalt fiber were varied.
NaOH solution in the alkaline activator and the amount of basalt fiber were varied. The
The experimental research program and testing scheme are presented in Figure 2, and the
experimental research program and testing scheme are presented in Figure 2, and the rec-
recipes for concrete mixtures are given in Table 2.
ipes for concrete mixtures are given in Table 2.
Buildings 2024,
Buildings 14,14,
2024, 743743 6 of 21
6 of 21
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. 2.
Figure Experimental research
Experimental program
research (a)(a)
program and testing
and scheme
testing (b).
scheme (b).
Table 2.The
Compositions
productionof of
geopolymer FRCFRC
geopolymer mixtures.
samples took place in several stages. First, 24 h
before use, a solution of a hardening activator based on liquid glass and sodium hydroxide
NaOH
Mixture GGBS was 3prepared. Liquid Na2O(SiO
glass and sodium hydroxide with 2)n,different
BF molar concentrations Waterfrom
QS (kg/m ) CrS (kg/m3) (kg/m)3/Molar P (kg/m3)
Type (kg/m3) 8 to 14 mol/L were used. Then the dosage of(kg/m )
raw materials
3 (kg/m )
was carried
3 (L/m3)
out in accordance
Concentration
with the presented recipe. To prepare these compositions in a laboratory mixer BL-10,
8 M/BF0 408 554
GGBS, sand1094 and crushed stone40 (8were
M) first mixed110dry for 60 s. Then 0 a solution 24.5 of a hardening
55
8 M/BF0.5 408 554
activator and water with a plasticizing additive dissolved in it were added to the 55
1094 40 (8 M) 110 2.0 24.5 mixture
8 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094
of dry components. 40 (8 M)
The entire 110 for 60 s,4.1
mixture was mixed and then24.5 fibers were55added
8 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094 of the weight
as a percentage 40 (8ofM)GGBS. Next,110 entire mixture 6.1was remixed 24.5 again55until it
8 M/BF2.0 408 become
554 smooth.
1094 The finished composition
40 (8 M) was loaded
110 into several
8.2 molds
24.5 and compacted
55
10 M/BF0 408 on a special1094
554 platform with40 vibrating
(10 M) mode SMZh-539-220A
110 (IMash,
0 Armavir,
24.5 Russia).55 The
10 M/BF0.5 408 compacting
554 time
1094 was 60 s. The geopolymer
40 (10 M) samples
110 were stored
2.0 in the lab
24.5 for 24 h before
55
being transferred to a regular hardening chamber for 27 days.
10 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 4.1 24.5 55
Geopolymer concrete mixtures’ workability was assessed following methodology
10 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 6.1 24.5 55
requirements [49]. Mold (cone) for preparing a test sample, made of metal resistant to
10 M/BF2.0 408 554
cement paste, 1.5 mm thick. The mold is shaped like a hollow cone with specific 55
1094 40 (10 M) 110 8.2 24.5 internal
12 M/BF0 408 554
measurements: 1094base diameter40 (12ofM) 110
200 mm, top diameter of 1000 mm, and 24.5
height of 55
300 mm.
12 M/BF0.5 408 554
The mold has 1094
two handles40 at (12
theM)
top and clamps 110at the base 2.0 for stability. 24.5
A bayonet 55with a
12 M/BF1.0 408 round cross-section,
554 1094 straight,
40 (12with
M) rounded ends,
110 made of steel, 4.1 16 mm 24.5in diameter
55 and
12 M/BF1.5 408 600 mm in length
554 1094 was used 40 to
(12distribute
M) and compact
110 the mixture
6.1 in a24.5
cone. The55 process
12 M/BF2.0 408 of
554 filling the cone
1094 involved three
40 (12 M) distinct stages,
110wherein each
8.2 stage contributed
24.5 roughly
55
14 M/BF0 408 one-third of1094
554 its height after40compaction.
(14 M) A total110
of 25 bayonet0blows were 24.5used to compact
55
each layer. The effects were uniformly distributed throughout the cross section of every
14 M/BF0.5 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 2.0 24.5 55
layer. The surface of the concrete mixture had excess removed after compacting the top
14 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 4.1
layer. Then, the cone was cautiously lifted vertically to remove it. From the moment 24.5 55 we
14 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094
started filling to when we40 (14 M) the cone, it110
removed took around6.1 150 s without 24.5 any breaks.
55 As
14 M/BF2.0 408 554
soon as the cone was removed, the settlement was measured accurately to within5510 mm.
1094 40 (14 M) 110 8.2 24.5
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 7 of 21
This measurement was defined as the difference between the mold’s height and the highest
point of the settled test sample.
Table 2. Compositions of geopolymer FRC mixtures.
NaOH
Mixture GGBS CrS Na2 O(SiO2 )n , BF Water
QS (kg/m3 ) (kg/m)3 /Molar P (kg/m3 )
Type (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (L/m3 )
Concentration
8 M/BF0 408 554 1094 40 (8 M) 110 0 24.5 55
8 M/BF0.5 408 554 1094 40 (8 M) 110 2.0 24.5 55
8 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094 40 (8 M) 110 4.1 24.5 55
8 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094 40 (8 M) 110 6.1 24.5 55
8 M/BF2.0 408 554 1094 40 (8 M) 110 8.2 24.5 55
10 M/BF0 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 0 24.5 55
10 M/BF0.5 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 2.0 24.5 55
10 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 4.1 24.5 55
10 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 6.1 24.5 55
10 M/BF2.0 408 554 1094 40 (10 M) 110 8.2 24.5 55
12 M/BF0 408 554 1094 40 (12 M) 110 0 24.5 55
12 M/BF0.5 408 554 1094 40 (12 M) 110 2.0 24.5 55
12 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094 40 (12 M) 110 4.1 24.5 55
12 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094 40 (12 M) 110 6.1 24.5 55
12 M/BF2.0 408 554 1094 40 (12 M) 110 8.2 24.5 55
14 M/BF0 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 0 24.5 55
14 M/BF0.5 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 2.0 24.5 55
14 M/BF1.0 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 4.1 24.5 55
14 M/BF1.5 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 6.1 24.5 55
14 M/BF2.0 408 554 1094 40 (14 M) 110 8.2 24.5 55
The density of the mixture was calculated in accordance with the requirements of [50].
A water-resistant metal container, capable of withstanding brief contact with cement paste,
was used to compact the concrete mixture, which had a smooth inner surface. There were
5 L of space in the container. After weighing it, the container was filled with the mixture
in two layers. The concrete mixture was compacted on a vibrating platform until there
was no excessive delamination and release of laitance. The container with its contents was
weighed and its mass was determined. The mass of the mixture was determined as the
difference in the masses of the container with the mixture and the container without the
mixture. The density was calculated by dividing the total mass by the container volume.
The method [51] was employed to determine the density of hardened geopolymer
concrete.
The methods [52–57] were used to determine the compressive and flexural strength.
Water absorption of geopolymer FRC samples was recorded in accordance with the require-
ments [58,59].
The micro-structure of the geopolymer composite was studied using ZEISS CrossBeam
340 microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany) with 500× magnification.
3. Results and Discussion

The results of determining the characteristics of fresh geopolymer concrete are pre-
sented in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows a graphical interpretation of the dependence of
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 8 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 8 of 21

the density of fresh geopolymer concrete on the composition of the alkaline activator and
the amount of basalt fiber.
Figure 3. Change in the density of fresh geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the
alkaline activator and the amount of BF.
As can be seen from Figure 3, the considered recipe solutions, namely changes in the
composition of the hardening activator and the amount of basalt fiber, do not have a nat-
ural effect on the density of fresh geopolymer concrete. When the molarity of the alkaline
activator changes, its amount in the geopolymer mixture remains unchanged, and when
the amount of fiber increases from 0% to 2%, the mass of the mixture increases slightly.
However, fibers cannot significantly affect the density of fresh geopolymer concrete due
to small dosages. Figure 4 shows the change in workability of fresh geopolymer concrete,
characterized by mixture slump, depending on the composition of the alkali activator and
Figure
the 3. Change
amount of BF.in the density of fresh geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the
Figure 3. Change in the density of fresh geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the
composition of the hardening activator and the amount of basalt fiber, do not have a nat-
ural effect on the density of fresh geopolymer concrete. When the molarity of the alkaline
However, fibers cannot significantly affect the density of fresh geopolymer concrete due
the amount of BF.
Figure 4. Change in cone slump of fresh geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the
Figure 4. Change in cone slump of fresh geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the
alkalineactivator
alkaline activatorand
andthe
theamount
amountof
ofBF.
BF.
The workability of fresh geopolymer concrete is negatively impacted by increasing
composition of the hardening activator and the amount of basalt fiber, do not have a natural
the concentration of NaOH solution in the alkaline activator composition, as shown in
effect on the density of fresh geopolymer concrete. When the molarity of the alkaline
Figure 4. The reduction in cone settlement for compositions of type 10 M/BF0, 12 M/BF0,
14 M/BF0 compared to composition of type 8 M/BF0 was 2.27%, 4.55% and 9.09%. The
introduction of fiber into the composition of geopolymer concrete also negatively affects
However, fibers cannot significantly affect the density of fresh geopolymer concrete due
the amount of BF.
The
Figure 4. workability
Change in cone of freshofgeopolymer
slump concrete
fresh geopolymer is negatively
concrete dependingimpacted by increasing
on the composition the
of the
concentration
alkaline activator of
andNaOH solution
the amount in the alkaline activator composition, as shown in Figure 4.
of BF.
The reduction in cone settlement for compositions of type 10 M/BF0, 12 M/BF0, 14 M/BF0
The workability
compared of fresh
to composition of geopolymer
type 8 M/BF0 concrete is negatively
was 2.27%, 4.55% and impacted by introduction
9.09%. The increasing
the
ofconcentration of NaOH solution
fiber into the composition in the alkaline
of geopolymer concreteactivator composition,
also negatively affects as
its shown in
workability
Figure 4. The reduction in cone settlement for compositions of type 10 M/BF0, 12 M/BF0,
14 M/BF0 compared to composition of type 8 M/BF0 was 2.27%, 4.55% and 9.09%. The
introduction of fiber into the composition of geopolymer concrete also negatively affects
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 9 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 9 of 21
its workability parameters. As the amount of fiber increases, this negative effect also in-
creases. For geopolymer
parameters. As the amount concrete of compositions
fiber increases, in this
which a NaOH
negative solution
effect also with a molar
increases. For
concentration of 8 M was used as an alkaline activator, with
geopolymer concrete compositions in which a NaOH solution with a molar concentration the introduction of BF in
amounts
of 8 M was of 0.5%,
used1.0%,as an1.5% and 2.0%,
alkaline the cone
activator, withslump decreased by
the introduction of 5.68%, 9.09%, 14.77%,
BF in amounts of 0.5%,
and 20.45%,
1.0%, 1.5%respectively.
and 2.0%, the Forcone
compositions where a NaOH
slump decreased by 5.68%,solution
9.09%, with a molar
14.77%, andconcen-
20.45%,
tration of 10 MFor
respectively. wascompositions
used, with similar
where aBF dosages,
NaOH the reduction
solution with a molar in cone settlementofwas
concentration 10 M
5.81%,
was used,10.47%,with 13.95%
similarandBF19.77%,
dosages, respectively.
the reduction Foringeopolymer
cone settlement concrete wascompositions
5.81%, 10.47%,
with
13.95%a molar
and concentration
19.77%, respectively.of NaOHFor solution of 12 M,
geopolymer the reduction
concrete compositionsin conewithsettlement
a molar
was 5.95%, 10.71%,
concentration 15.48%solution
of NaOH and 21.43%, of 12respectively.
M, the reductionFinally,in for
cone concrete
settlement compositions
was 5.95%,
with a molar
10.71%, concentration
15.48% and 21.43%, of respectively.
NaOH solution of 14for
Finally, M,concrete
the reduction in cone with
compositions slumpa molar
was
6.25%, 10.0%, 15.0%
concentration of NaOHand 21.25%,
solution respectively.
of 14 M, the reduction in cone slump was 6.25%, 10.0%,
15.0% andbe21.25%,
It can concluded respectively.
that changing the molarity of NaOH solution from 8 M to 14 M
It can beactivator
in the alkaline concluded does that changing
not the molarity
significantly affect theofdensity
NaOH of solution
geopolymer from 8mixtures,
M to 14 M
in the alkaline activator does not significantly affect the
but does affect their workability, reducing cone settlement. This is due to the fact density of geopolymer mixtures,
that
but does
higher affect theirofworkability,
concentrations sodium hydroxide reducing cone settlement.
solution accelerate the This is due
setting to theoffact
process that
fresh
higher concentrations
geopolymer concrete and of sodium
increasehydroxide
its viscosity,solution
whileaccelerate
reducing the setting process
workability of fresh
parameters
geopolymer
[60]. For example, concrete andself-compacting
in [61], increase its viscosity, while
concrete reducing
mixtures withworkability parameters
a higher content [60].
of so-
For example,
dium hydroxidein(12 [61],M)self-compacting
showed lower fluidity concretethan mixtures withwhere
mixtures a higher an content
activatorofwith
sodiuma
hydroxide (12 M) showed lower fluidity than mixtures where
lower content of sodium hydroxide (8 M) was used. Similarly, in studies [62,63], the use an activator with a lower
ofcontent
a more of sodium hydroxide
concentrated NaOH solution(8 M) was used.
in the Similarly,of
composition inalkaline
studies activators
[62,63], theimpairs
use of a
more concentrated NaOH solution in the composition of
the workability of fresh geopolymer concrete, reducing cone settlement. Dispersed rein-alkaline activators impairs the
workability of fresh geopolymer concrete, reducing cone settlement.
forcement with basalt fiber also does not significantly affect the density of fresh geopoly- Dispersed reinforce-
merment with basalt
concrete, fiber also
but reduces itsdoes not significantly
workability. affect the
As the amount of density of freshthe
BF increases, geopolymer
mixture
slump decreases more and more. The decrease in workability of fresh geopolymer slump
concrete, but reduces its workability. As the amount of BF increases, the mixture con-
decreases
crete with the more and more.ofThe
introduction decrease
fiber in workability
is explained by the factofthat
freshthegeopolymer
fibers createconcrete
additionalwith
the introduction of fiber is explained by the fact that the fibers
friction forces between the mortar part and the coarse aggregate. In addition, part of the create additional friction
forces between
solution is spent on thelubricating
mortar partthe and BF,thesocoarse aggregate.
the greater In addition,
the amount of fiber, part
theofgreater
the solution
the
is spent on lubricating the BF, so the greater the amount
amount of the solution part is spent on lubricating the fibers and the more the cone of fiber, the greater the amount
settle-
of the
ment solution[64,65].
decreases part isInspent
a study on [66],
lubricating
increasingthe the
fibers and content
weight the more of the cone 1%
BF from settlement
to 2%
decreases [64,65]. In a study [66], increasing the weight content of BF from 1% to 2% led to
led to a decrease in the slump of self-compacting geopolymer mixtures. In studies [67,68],
a decrease in the slump of self-compacting geopolymer mixtures. In studies [67,68], the
the same picture was observed, namely, with an increase in the BF content, the workability
same picture was observed, namely, with an increase in the BF content, the workability of
of the mixture decreased.
the mixture decreased.
The characteristics of hardened geopolymer concrete have been determined and the
The characteristics of hardened geopolymer concrete have been determined and the
results are as follows. The density of geopolymer concrete in Figure 5 varies with the mo-
results are as follows. The density of geopolymer concrete in Figure 5 varies with the
larity of the activator and the amount of BF.
molarity of the activator and the amount of BF.
Figure 5. Change in the density of geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the alkaline
Figure 5. Change in the density of geopolymer concrete depending on the composition of the alka-
activator and the amount of BF.
line activator and the amount of BF.
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 10 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 10 of 21
Figure55demonstrates
Figure demonstratesthatthatchanges
changesininalkaline
alkalineactivator
activatorcomposition
compositionandandBFBFdosage
dosage
within the tested ranges have minimal impact on the density of hardened
within the tested ranges have minimal impact on the density of hardened geopolymer geopolymer
concrete.This
concrete. Thisinfluence
influenceisisdifficult
difficulttotodescribe
describeasasaanatural
naturaldependence.
dependence.The Thedensity
densityvalues
values
ofofgeopolymer
geopolymerconcrete
concretesamples
samplesvaryvaryfrom
from2268
2268 kg/m toto2294
kg/m 3 3 2294kg/m
kg/m .. Figure
33 Figure66shows
showsaa
graphicaldependence
graphical dependenceofofthe thecompressive
compressivestrength
strengthofofgeopolymer
geopolymerconcrete
concreteononthe
themolarity
molarity
ofofthe
theactivator
activatorand
andthe
theamount
amountofofBF.BF.
Figure6.6.Change
Figure Changeinincompressive
compressivestrength
strengthofofgeopolymer
geopolymerconcrete
concretedepending
dependingon
onthe
thecomposition
compositionofof
the alkaline activator and the amount of BF (f cm—compressive strength).
the alkaline activator and the amount of BF (f cm —compressive strength).
Changeinincompressive
Change compressivestrength
strengthfcmfcmofof geopolymer
geopolymer concrete
concrete depending
depending on on
thethe com-
compo-
position
sition of the
of the alkaline
alkaline activator
activator andand the amount
the amount of(x
of BF BFin(xequations)
in equations)
waswas approximated
approximated by
aby a polynomial
polynomial of degree
of 3rd 3rd degree
withwith the coefficient
the coefficient R2 R2
of determination
of determination
8M
f cm = 14.82 2 x 2 − 0.866 3
R 2 0.990
= 0.990
8M
f cm = 14.82 ++ 0.5023+x1.857x
0.5023x + 1.857 − 0.866x3 , xR,2 = (1)
(1)
10M10 M 2 2 3 2
f cm f = 16.52
cm
+ 0.5643x
= 16.52 + 2.142 −
+ 0.5643+x 2.142x − 1.0 ,x 3R, R=2 0.988
x 1.0x = 0.988 (2)
(2)
12M
f cm = 18.12 + 0.6262x + 2.428x2 − 1.133x3 , R2 = 0.979 (3)
12 M
f cm = 18.12 + 0.6262 x + 2.428
14M x 2 − 1.133 x 3 , R 2 = 0.979 (3)
f cm = 17.32 + 0.6333x + 2.0x2 − 0.933x3 , R2 = 0.981 (4)
Figure 6 demonstrates 14 M
f cm that among
= 17.32 + 0.6333the
x + compositions
2.0 x 2 − 0.933 xof
3 geopolymer
, R 2 = 0.981 concrete, un- (4)
reinforced with BF, the most effective is the composition of the 12 M/BF0 type with a
Figure 6strength
compressive demonstrates
of 18.1that MPa,among
where the compositions
a NaOH solutionof with
geopolymer concrete,
a molarity of 12 Munrein-
was
used in the preparation of the alkaline activator solution. The least
forced with BF, the most effective is the composition of the 12 M/BF0 type with a compres-effective was the
8sive
M/BF0 type of
strength composition
18.1 MPa, where with aacompressive
NaOH solution strength
with of 14.8 MPa,
a molarity of where
12 M wasan NaOH
used in
solution with a molarity
the preparation of 8 Mactivator
of the alkaline was usedsolution.
as an alkaline
The leastactivator.
effectiveThe
wasincreases in com-
the 8 M/BF0 type
pressive strength
composition withofacompositions
compressive such as 10
strength ofM/BF0,
14.8 MPa,12 M/BF0,
where an14NaOH
M/BF0solution
compared toa
with
composition
molarity of 8 M M/BF0 wereas
was used 11.5%, 22.3% and
an alkaline 16.9%,The
activator. respectively.
increases Dispersed BF reinforce-
in compressive strength
ment of all four types
of compositions suchof ascompositions, where NaOH
10 M/BF0, 12 M/BF0, 14 M/BF0 solution with to
compared different molarity
composition was
8 M/BF0
used, with an amount of fibers from 0% to 2.0%, has a positive effect
were 11.5%, 22.3% and 16.9%, respectively. Dispersed BF reinforcement of all four typeson the compressive
strength of geopolymer
of compositions, where concrete. The values
NaOH solution of increases
with different in thewas
molarity strength
used, of geopolymer
with an amount
concrete
of fibers depending
from 0% to on2.0%, thehaspercentage
a positiveof dispersed
effect reinforcement
on the compressive BF areof
strength presented in
geopolymer
Table 3. Compositions
concrete. The values of 8 M/BF0,
increases10inM/BF0, 12 M/BF0
the strength and 14 M/BF0
of geopolymer weredepending
concrete taken as control
on the
percentage of dispersed reinforcement BF are presented in Table 3. Compositions 8 M/BF0,
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 11 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 11 of 21
values for assessing the effectiveness of the influence of fiber on the compressive strength
of
10geopolymer concrete.
M/BF0, 12 M/BF0 and 14 M/BF0 were taken as control values for assessing the effective-
ness of the influence of fiber on the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete.
Table 3. Values of incremental compressive strength (∆f cm ) of geopolymer concrete.
Table 3. Values of incremental compressive strength (∆fcm) of geopolymer concrete.
∆f cm (%)
BF (%) ∆fcm
Molarity of (%)
Solution NaOH
BF (%) 8M Molarity
10 Mof Solution NaOH
12 M 14 M
0 8M 0.0 10 M 0.0 12 M 0.0 14 M0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.6
0.5 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.6
1.0 9.5 9.7 9.9 9.2
1.0 9.5 9.7 9.9 9.2
1.5 1.5 14.2 14.2
14.5 14.5
14.9 14.9 13.9
13.9
2.0 2.0 10.1 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.5 10.5 10.4
10.4
Basedon
Based onthe
theincreases
increasesinincompressive
compressivestrength
strengthpresented
presentedininTable
Table3,3,ititwas
wasfound
foundthat
that
the introduction of BF in an amount from 0% to 2% has a positive effect
the introduction of BF in an amount from 0% to 2% has a positive effect on this indicator on this indicator
forall
for allcompositions.
compositions.Note
Notethat
thatfor
forall
alltypes
typesofofcompositions,
compositions,the thepeak
peakvalue
valueof ofthe
thestrength
strength
increase was
increase was observed
observed at aa BFBF amount
amountofof1.5%,1.5%,andandatat
a BF
a BFof of
2.0%, thethe
2.0%, efficiency of dis-
efficiency of
persed reinforcement
dispersed reinforcement decreased.
decreased.Accordingly,
Accordingly, thethe
useuse
of of
BFBFforfor
these compositions
these compositions of ge-
of
opolymer concrete
geopolymer concretebased
basedonon
GGBSGGBSin an
in amount
an amount of more thanthan
of more 2% is2%impractical [68]. Next,
is impractical [68].
Figure
Next, 7 demonstrates
Figure the dependence
7 demonstrates the dependence of the flexural
of the strength
flexural of geopolymer
strength of geopolymer concrete on
concrete
on the same two recipe indicators.
the same two recipe indicators.
Figure7.7.Change
Figure Changeininflexural
flexuralstrength
strengthof
ofgeopolymer
geopolymerconcrete
concretedepending
dependingon
onthe
thecomposition
compositionofofthe
the
alkalineactivator
andthe
theamount
amountofofBF
BF(R —flexuralstrength).
(Rtb—flexural strength).
tb
Changeininflexural
Change flexuralstrength
strength
RtbRtb
ofof geopolymer
geopolymer concrete
concrete depending
depending on the
on the composi-
composition
tion
of theofalkaline
the alkaline activator
activator and and the amount
the amount of(x
of BF BFin(xequations)
in equations)
waswas approximated
approximated by by
a
a polynomial
polynomial of 3rd
of 3rd degree
degree with
with thethe coefficient
coefficient of determination
of determination R2 R2
Rtb8=
Rtb8M = 1.629
M 1.629 + +0.0211x
0.0211+ 0.78852 x−2 −0.3533x
x +0.7885x 0.35333x, 3 R 2
, 2R= =0.974
0.974 (5)
(5)
Rtb10M = 1.839 + 0.0545x + 0.9086x2 −2 0.4066x3 , 3 R2 = 0.983 (6)

Rtb10 M = 1.839 + 0.0545 x + 0.9086 x − 0.4066 x , R 2 = 0.983 (6)
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 12 of 21
Rtb12M = 2.124 + 0.0731x + 1.0942x2 − 0.4866x3 , R2 = 0.975 (7)

2 3 2
Rtb14M = 2.0 − 0.1290x + 1.202x − 0.5066x , R = 0.986 (8)
The flexural strength of geopolymer concrete (Figure 7) shows a similar trend to the
compressive strength. The highest flexural strength among non-BF-reinforced geopolymer
composites was possessed by the 12 M/BF0 type composition, where a NaOH solution with
a molarity of 12 M was used as an alkaline activator, and the 8 M/BF0 type composition
had the lowest strength. The increases in compressive strength of compositions 10 M/BF0,
12 M/BF0 and 14 M/BF0 compared to composition 8 M/BF0 were 13.0%, 30.3% and 22.8%,
respectively. The flexural strength of all four compositions was also separately evaluated
to determine the impact of dispersed BF reinforcement, using NaOH solutions of varying
molarities. Table 4 presents the values of flexural strength increases based on the introduced
fiber amount.
Table 4. Values of increment in flexural strength (∆Rtb ) of geopolymer concrete.
∆Rtb (%)
BF (%) Molarity of Solution NaOH
8M 10 M 12 M 14 M
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 13.0 13.7 15.2 10.0
1.0 25.3 27.9 28.9 25.0
1.5 40.7 43.7 47.4 45.0
2.0 22.8 26.8 29.9 25.1
The best enhancement in flexural strength was observed at 1.5% BF, similar to compres-
sive strength. Importantly, the improvement in flexural strength exceeds the improvement
in compressive strength, implying superior fiber performance in the composite under
bending loads [69].
Based on the results of determining the compressive strength and flexural strength of
geopolymer composites, it was found that the use of an alkaline activator made with the
addition of NaOH solution (12 M) is most suitable for activating GGBS particles with a given
granulometry and allows obtaining the highest strength characteristics. In studies [18,70],
the use of a 12 M NaOH solution in the composition of alkaline activators used for mixing
geopolymer concrete with GGBS showed the best efficiency. The best values of strength
characteristics were recorded when 1.5% BF was added to the geopolymer concrete mixture.
The optimal amount of fibers in the geopolymer matrix makes it possible to obtain a
composite with higher compressive and flexural strength. However, an excessive amount
of BF in this case, 2% or more, leads to poor compaction and increased porosity, which will
reduce the strength properties [60]. The positive effect of basalt fiber at optimal dosages on
the strength characteristics of geopolymer composites is also confirmed by a number of the
following studies [57,58,64,65]. In general, the mechanism of action of BF at an amount of
1.5% can be explained as follows. Fibers, both at the macro and micro levels, act as a kind
of bridge and are connected to the geopolymer matrix by adhesion forces. Accordingly,
when exposed to destructive loads, cracks form in the body of the geopolymer composite
and, when approaching the fiber, additional energy is required to detach the fiber from the
matrix. Thus, the presence of fiber in the geopolymer takes on part of the destructive load,
and the composite itself does not fail brittlely, but with many small cracks branched over
the entire surface [71]. The process of destruction of geopolymer FRC with the formation of
many small cracks on its surface is presented in Figure 8.
Buildings2024,
Buildings 2024,14,
14,743
743 13 of
13 of 21
21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 13 of 21
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure8.8.Geopolymer
Figure Geopolymerfiber
fiberreinforced
reinforcedconcrete:
concrete:(a)
(a)before
beforetesting;
testing;(b)
(b)after
aftertesting.
testing.
Figure 8. Geopolymer fiber reinforced concrete: (a) before testing; (b) after testing.
Themechanics
The mechanicsof ofgeopolymer
geopolymer concrete’s concrete’s destruction
destruction are arealtered
alteredby bythetheaddition
additionof
addition of
BF,
BF, as
BF, as shown
as shown
shown in in Figure
in Figure
Figure 8. 8. When
8. When
When aa load a load
load is is applied,
is applied,
applied, the the destruction
the destruction
destruction of theof the sample
the sample occurs
sample occurs as as
follows.
follows. First, First, deformation
First, deformation
deformation of of
of thethe sample
the sample is observed,
sample is observed, and then, at a
observed, and then, at a critical load critical load value,
value,
destruction occurs
destruction occurs with with
with thethe formation
the formation
formationof of a network
ofaanetwork of
networkofofcracks cracks
crackson on all its faces.
onallallitsitsfaces. Analysis
faces.Analysis
Analysis of
of
ofthe
thethe nature
nature
nature of the
of of
thethe destruction
destruction
destruction of
of thethe
of the sample
sample
sample after
after failure
after failure
failure made
made made it possible
it possible
it possible to identify
to identify
to identify the
the
peculiarities
the peculiarities
peculiarities ofthe
of the influence
ofinfluence
the influence ofofthetheof addition
the addition
addition ofBF
of BFonon thison
of this
BF process. Theaddition
this process.
process. The addition ofBF
The addition
of BFmade
made of
itit possible
BF possible
made itto to give the
possible
give thetosample
sample
give the aa more
more
sample viscous
a more
viscous fracture
viscous
fracture pattern.
fracture
pattern. Thepattern.
The fracture mechanics
fracture mechanics
The fracture of
of
thesample
the sampleof
mechanics with fiber
thefiber
with sample haschanged
has changed
with fiber compared
has changed
compared tothe
to the twinsample
compared
twin sample without
to the twin BF.
without BF.This
sample Thiswithout
fracture
fracture
toughness
BF. This leads
fracture to increased
toughness deformability,
leads to increased which in some
deformability,
toughness leads to increased deformability, which in some cases will be a significant cases
which will
in be
some a significant
cases ad-
willad-
be
vantage.
avantage.
significant For example,
advantage. inForcase of
example, application
in case in
of non-traditional
application
For example, in case of application in non-traditional operating conditions, for in operating
non-traditional conditions,
operating for
example,
conditions,
example, infor in seismic
example,
seismic areas.
areas. The
in The
seismic nature
natureareas. of the destruction
Thedestruction
of the nature of the of the sample
of destruction
the sample of after
thethe
after the
sampleintroduc-
after
introduc-
tionintroduction
the
tion offiber
of fibershows
shows that
of that for
fiberforshowssomethat
some timefor
time after
some
after failure the
timethe
failure sample
after failure
sample continues
the sample
continues todeform
to deform
continues dueto
due to
to
the
deform fibersdue introduced
to the into
fibers it, and
introduced the mechanics
into it, and of
thethe process
mechanics
the fibers introduced into it, and the mechanics of the process makes it possible to move makes
of the it possible
process to
makesmove it
fromaabrittle
possible
from brittle
to move nature
from
nature ofadestruction
of destruction
brittle nature toaof
to amore
more ductileto
destruction
ductile one.
a more ductile one.
one.
Next,
Next, we we will
will consider
consider the the influence
influence of the
Next, we will consider the influence of the applied formulation of the
applied applied formulation
formulation solutions solutions on the
on the change
solutions on the
inchange
water in water
absorption absorption
of geopolymerof geopolymer
concrete
change in water absorption of geopolymer concrete (Figure 9). concrete
(Figure (Figure
9). 9).
Figure9.
Figure
Figure 9.9.Change
Changein
Change inwater
in waterabsorption
water absorptionof
absorption ofgeopolymer
of geopolymerconcrete
geopolymer concretedepending
concrete dependingon
depending onthe
on thecomposition
the compositionof
composition ofthe
of the
the
alkalineactivator
alkaline
activator andthe
theamount
the amountof
amount ofBF
of BF(W—water
BF (W—waterabsorption).
(W—water absorption).
absorption).
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 14 of 21
Change in water absorption W (%) of geopolymer concrete depending on the compo-

sition of the alkaline activator and the amount of BF (x in equations) was approximated by
a polynomial of 3rd degree with the coefficient of determination R2
W8M = 6.485 − 0.1043x − 1.183x2 + 0.520x3 , R2 = 0.987 (9)
W10M = 5.525 + 0.01111x − 1.231x2 + 0.526x3 , R2 = 0.976 (10)

W12M = 4.309 − 0.0397x − 0.914x2 + 0.393x3 , R2 = 0.982 (11)
W14M = 4.879 − 0.1156x − 0.8585x2 + 0.3793x3 , R2 = 0.981 (12)
Figure 9 shows that among compositions of the 8 M/BF0, 10 M/BF0, 12 M/BF0 and
14 M/BF0 types, geopolymer concrete with the alkaline activator 12 M NaOH has the
lowest water absorption. Compared to the 8 M/BF0 composition, the water absorption
of the 10 M/BF0, 12 M/BF0 and 14 M/BF0 compositions decreased by 14.37%, 33.23%
and 24.42%, respectively. Dispersed BF reinforcement of a geopolymer composite up to
1.5% inclusive helps reduce water absorption, however, with a fiber content of 2% its
effectiveness decreases. The effect of dispersed BF reinforcement on water absorption,
as in the case of strength characteristics, was assessed separately for all four types of
compositions, where NaOH solutions with different molarities were used. The differences
in water absorption of geopolymer concrete compositions depending on the amount of BF
are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Values for reducing water absorption of geopolymer concrete compositions.
Water Absorption Reduction (∆W), %

BF (%) Molarity of Solution NaOH
8M 10 M 12 M 14 M
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 5.26 5.60 5.79 5.73
1.0 10.97 11.19 11.81 11.04
1.5 17.31 18.95 19.44 18.0
2.0 12.06 12.45 13.66 12.90
Thus, experimental studies show that the lowest values of water absorption of polymer
concrete are observed in compositions reinforced with BF in an amount of 1.5%; in general,
a decrease in water absorption caused by a decrease in the introduction of BF in the optimal
amount is associated with an improvement in strength characteristics and the determination
geo-content distribution of particles in the stage of polymer concrete. composite [18,19].
Assessing the composition of the alkaline activator and dispersed reinforcement with
basalt fiber in the mechanical and physical characteristics of geopolymer composites, the
following conclusions can be drawn.
The most effective composition of the alkaline activator contains a NaOH solution
with a molarity of 12 M. The higher the molarity of the NaOH solution, the greater its
conservative activity. A high open capacity ensures the activation of a larger number of
GGBS particles, which ultimately leads to a stronger and denser composite structure [60].
The aluminosilicate component used in this case in the form of GGBS with a certain
granulometry has the best compatibility when included with an alkaline activator, where
a NaOH solution with a molarity of 12 M is used. The deterioration of the properties of
the composite when using an alkaline activator, which includes a NaOH solution with a
molarity of 14 M, is due to the fact that with these components the viscosity of the NaOH
solution of the polymer geomixture, and the geopolymer composite itself hardens faster.
All this can lead to the formation of shrinkage cavities and microcracks in the body of
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 15 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 15 of 21

solution of the polymer geomixture, and the geopolymer composite itself hardens faster.
All this can lead to the formation of shrinkage cavities and microcracks in the body of the
composite,
the composite,which subsequently
which subsequently reduces the strength
reduces and maintains
the strength the geoconcrete
and maintains poly-
the geoconcrete
mer [63].
polymer [63].
The most
The most effective
effective dosage
dosage of of basalt
basalt fiber
fiber is
is 1.5%
1.5% byby weight
weight ofof GGBS.
GGBS. Dispersed
Dispersed rein-
rein-
forcement of BF geopolymer concrete in this document is the most
forcement of BF geopolymer concrete in this document is the most justified and allows justified and allows
increasing tensile
increasing tensile and
and flexural
flexural strength,
strength, asas well
well asas reducing
reducing water
water absorption
absorption [40].
[40]. The
The
increasein
increase intensile
tensileand
andflexural
flexural strength
strength with
with dispersed
dispersed reinforcement
reinforcement is due is due tofact
to the the that
fact
that when stresses arise in the body of the geopolymer composite,
when stresses arise in the body of the geopolymer composite, it transfers the main shareit transfers the main
share
of of stressed
stressed basaltdue
basalt fibers fibers due to tangential
to tangential forces,are
forces, which which are at
retained retained
the phaseat the phase
interface.
interface. Basalt fibers have a fairly high modulation of elasticity and absorb
Basalt fibers have a fairly high modulation of elasticity and absorb the greatest part of the the greatest
part of the
stresses, stresses,
thereby thereby maximizing
maximizing the strengththe strength
of the of the[72].
composite composite [72].
When analyzing
When analyzing thethe results
results of
of experimental
experimental studies,
studies, attention
attention should
should be be paid
paid to
to the
the
microstructureof
microstructure ofgeopolymer
geopolymerconcrete
concrete(Figure
(Figure10).
10).
(a) (b)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Photographs
Photographsofofthe
themicrostructure
microstructureofof
geopolymer concrete
geopolymer with
concrete 500×
with magnification
500 (a) 8
× magnification
MBF0; (b) 12 MBF0.
(a) 8 MBF0; (b) 12 MBF0.
The SEM
The SEM analysis
analysis of of the microscopic
microscopic structure
structure of of the forming geopolymer
geopolymer composites
composites
revealed the
revealed the following
following aspects.
aspects. Firstly,
Firstly, itit should
should be be noted
noted that
that microscopic
microscopic analysis
analysis was was
carried out on specially prepared samples aimed at studying the
carried out on specially prepared samples aimed at studying the influence of the molarity influence of the molarity
of the
of thealkaline
alkaline activator
activator used used in geopolymer
in geopolymer concretes.
concretes. The special
The special samplessamples studied
studied showed
showed significant
significant differences differences
between the between
control the control composition
composition sample, manufactured
sample, manufactured using the
usingrational
least the leastalkaline
rationalactivator,
alkaline and
activator,
the best andsample,
the bestwhich
sample,was which was manufactured
manufactured with the
most rational
with the most dosage
rational of the alkaline
dosage activator.
of the alkaline TheseThese
activator. differences are expressed
differences are expressed in thein
following.
the following. Firstly, the packing
Firstly, the packingof particles in theinbest
of particles the geopolymer
best geopolymer concrete is significantly
concrete is signifi-
superior in termsinofterms
cantly superior the density of its arrangement
of the density to its counterpart
of its arrangement in the form
to its counterpart in of
thea form
controlof
composition. Secondly, the micrograins of the structure look more
a control composition. Secondly, the micrograins of the structure look more structured structured and closer to
each other, to
and closer that
eachis, the contact
other, surface
that is, of the surface
the contact grains isofinthea more
grainsperfect
is in aform,
morewhichperfectmakes
form,
itwhich
possible
makesto form a structure
it possible notaonly
to form basednot
structure on only
the particle
based on packing density,
the particle but also
packing based
density,
on
butthe
alsolocation
based on of the
these grainsof
location inthese
spacegrains
in theinconcrete
space inbody. The grains
the concrete body. ofThethe grains
forming of
geopolymer concrete have a conventional oblong shape, which
the forming geopolymer concrete have a conventional oblong shape, which can be located can be located in the form
of
in “plane-to-plane” contacts, orcontacts,
the form of “plane-to-plane” in the form or inofthe
“point-to-point” contacts. In
form of “point-to-point” this case,
contacts. we
In this
observe that in the most rational geopolymer composition, using
case, we observe that in the most rational geopolymer composition, using a rational dos- a rational dosage of an
alkaline activator, the grains are located with the best combination
age of an alkaline activator, the grains are located with the best combination of conven- of conventional planes
and sharp
tional edges.
planes andUndersharp such circumstances,
edges. at the level of SEM
Under such circumstances, analysis
at the level ofwhenSEMstudying
analysis
the microstructure, the effectiveness of the applied composition
when studying the microstructure, the effectiveness of the applied composition with an with an alkaline activator
molarity of 12 M ismolarity
alkaline activator confirmed. of 12 M is confirmed.
The experiments
The experiments carried carriedout outand
andthe theresults
results obtained
obtained made
made it possible
it possible to draw
to draw a
a par-
parallel with already known information regarding geopolymer
allel with already known information regarding geopolymer concretes [73,74]. The dis- concretes [73,74]. The
discussion
cussion of the of the results
results obtained
obtained will
will be be divided
divided into twointomain
twobranches.
main branches.
This is the This is the
research
research scientific novelty of the data obtained and practical applied novelty, defined as
the usefulness of new knowledge. In terms of the research scientific novelty of the study,
it is worth reflecting for the first time the patterns of the complex influence of two recipe
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 16 of 21
and technological factors. Firstly, this is dispersed reinforcement of geopolymer concrete

with fiber. In itself, this method is already quite effective, a proven option for changing
the characteristics and structure of geopolymer concrete, giving it a different nature of
destruction, more viscous, as well as the entire mechanics of the structure made from such
concrete. This is in good agreement with the works of other authors who used various
types of fiber in geopolymer concrete technology [36–41].
In terms of additional comprehensive research, it should be noted that the obtained
effect from the influence of a rational choice of the composition of the alkaline activator in
combination with the most effective fiber is important. Basalt fiber has proven its superiority
and such a complex recipe-technological method as the use of the most optimal composition
of an alkaline activator and the most optimal fiber, made it possible to obtain an increase in
compressive and flexural strength of 14.92% and 47.39%, respectively, in the composition
of type 12 M/BF1.5, and also a reduction in water absorption by 18.75% compared to
composition type 12 M/BF0. In comparison with the 8 M/BF0 type composition, which has
the worst characteristics, the increases in compressive and flexural strength were 40.54%
and 91.98%, and water absorption decreased by 46.21%.
It’s important to analyze the underlying research interpretation of the result. Geopoly-
mer concrete is a conglomerate that undergoes complex physical and chemical transfor-
mation s to develop a stone-like structure with a particle arrangement determined by its
physical properties. By interfering in the process of structure formation, directing and
regulating this process with recipe and technological factors, it is possible to achieve a
redistribution of the structure in terms of particle packing, making it denser. This is in good
agreement with the results of [42,60,63].
As for compressive strength, we are talking about a complex effect that arises not only
from the addition of fiber itself, but also from a change in the molarity of the activator used.
It should be noted that in its original form, as a control composition, a geopolymer concrete
composition with the lowest molarity and also without basalt fiber was used. However, in
the best composition, in addition to the rational dosage of basalt fiber, an activator with the
most rational molarity was also used. In total, these two recipe and technological aspects
made it possible to obtain a peak increase in the “compressive strength” indicator. That
is, this increase occurred not only as a result of one fiber, but as a result of the complex
effect of “fiber + activator molarity”. Therefore, this is precisely what explains such a fairly
significant increase in this indicator.
Controlling the structure of geopolymer concretes makes it possible to change the
mechanics of their work in structures from an applied point of view. The practical novelty of
the research is as follows. It turned out that the introduction of basalt fiber in combination
with the best type of alkaline activator affects the levels of micro- and macrostructure
formation of the new geopolymer FRC, changing the nature of internal stresses in concrete
when creating a load. This was well confirmed by the results of strength tests, which showed
a completely different level, and the quantitative excess of the compressive and flexural
strength of geopolymer FRC of composition 12 M/BF1.5 with the best type of alkaline
activator turned out to be 14.92% and 47.39% better than that of geopolymer composition
12 M/BF0 without fiber. Thus, having discussed the results obtained and analyzed them
from fundamental and applied points of view, we can note the clear promise of continuing
these studies in the future. We believe that the prospects for the development of this
research lie in the study of other types of fibers in geopolymer concretes, in the search for
the best combination of different types of fibers with different types of alkaline activators
and fillers of geopolymer concretes. At the same time, it is important to understand
that in each specific case there will be a specific relationship between the compositions,
structure and properties of the geopolymer FRC being created. However, our research
provides an excellent basis for future research to build on. Recommendations for the
applied construction industry consist in the proposed specific recipe and technological
recommendations for the creation of building structures, both compressed and bendable,
from new geopolymer FRC based on basalt fiber. Geopolymer concrete, as a compressible
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 17 of 21
material, will be even more effective from the introduction of fiber, but the effect will be
even more pronounced if the new geopolymer FRC is used in bendable structures. The fiber
will increase the tensile strength during bending of the concrete itself, and will also create
micro-reinforcement due to dispersed fiber, and all this can give bendable fiber geopolymer
concrete structures better load-bearing capacity when used at construction sites.
4. Conclusions
Research has been conducted on different formulation solutions to enhance geopoly-
mer concrete properties by incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag. The fresh
properties and physical and mechanical characteristics of geopolymer concrete were evalu-
ated based on the composition of the alkaline activator and dispersed reinforcement with
basalt fiber.
(1) The introduction of basalt fiber into the composition of geoplastic concrete in an
amount from 0% to 2%, as well as the use of activators of various compositions, does
not have a significant effect on the change in the density of both fresh and hardened
concrete. At the same time, the workability of the geopolymer mixture changes. A
decrease in cone settlement is observed with increasing concentration of the alkaline
activator and the amount of fiber.
(2) Increasing the molarity of NaOH solution from 8 M to 14 M has a positive effect on the
strength characteristics and water absorption of geopolymer concrete. As is known,
as the concentration of NaOH solution increases, the reactivity also increases. The
higher the reactivity, the more active the geopolymerization reaction occurs and the
more GGBS particles are activated. The most effective alkaline activator composition
for GGBS particles of this granulometry is an activator with a 12 M NaOH solution.
The strength of geopolymer concrete increased by 22% in compression and by 30% in
bending, and water absorption decreased by 33%.
(3) The introduction of basalt fiber into the composition of geopolymer concrete has a
positive effect on its properties. For all applied compositions, the best characteristics
were recorded when fibers were introduced in an amount of 1.5%. The increase in
strength was: in compression-up to 15%, in bending-up to 48%, water absorption
decreased to 20%.
(4) In the course of experimental studies, an effective composition of geopolymer FRC
based on ground granulated blast furnace slag with the following recipe was de-
veloped: GGBS—408 kg/m3 ; QS—554 kg/m3 ; CrS—1094 kg/m3 ; NaOH (12 M)—
40 kg/m3 ; Na2 O(SiO2 )n—110 kg/m3 ; BF—6.1 kg/m3 ; P—24.5 kg/m3 ; water—55 kg/m3 ).
Thus, based on the results of the study, an effective geopolymer FRC with a compres-
sive strength of 20.8 MPa, a flexural strength of 3.11 MPa and a water absorption of 3.48%
was developed. A composite with these physical and mechanical characteristics can be
used both for the manufacture of various construction products and for the manufacture
of monolithic structures on a construction site. Continuation of the research is planned in
the study of other types of fibers in geopolymer concrete, in search of the best combina-
tion of different types of fibers with different types of alkaline activators and geopolymer
concrete fillers.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.P.Z., S.A.S., E.M.S., A.N.B. and D.E.; methodology,
S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.C.; software, K.P.Z., S.A.S., E.M.S., E.V.P. and A.C.; validation, D.E., S.A.S., E.M.S.
and N.I.Z.; formal analysis, A.A.S., A.C., S.A.S. and E.M.S.; investigation, A.A.S., N.I.Z., D.E., E.V.P.,
S.A.S., E.M.S., A.N.B. and K.P.Z.; resources, D.E. and A.A.S.; data curation, A.A.S., S.A.S., E.M.S. and
A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; writing—review and editing,
S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; visualization, N.I.Z., S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; supervision, A.N.B.; project
administration, A.N.B.; funding acquisition, K.P.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 18 of 21
Funding: This publication has been supported by the RUDN University Scientific Projects Grant
System, project NO. 202248-2-000 “Study of the temperature and moisture regime of building walls
in order to reduce the thickness of the insulation”.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any data.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the administration of Don State Technical
University for their resources and financial support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Tolstykh, T.; Gamidullaeva, L.; Shmeleva, N.; Gromov, S.; Ermolenko, A. Megapolis as a Symbiosis of Socio-Economic Ecosystems:
The Role of Collaboration. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 126. [CrossRef]
2. Baqa, M.F.; Chen, F.; Lu, L.; Qureshi, S.; Tariq, A.; Wang, S.; Jing, L.; Hamza, S.; Li, Q. Monitoring and Modeling the Patterns and
Trends of Urban Growth Using Urban Sprawl Matrix and CA-Markov Model: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Land 2021, 10,
700. [CrossRef]
3. Gaidzhurov, P.P.; Volodin, V.A. Strength Calculation of the Coupling of the Floor Slab and the Monolithic Reinforced Concrete
Frame Column by the Finite Element Method. Adv. Eng. Res. 2022, 22, 306–314. [CrossRef]
4. McCaffrey, R. Climate change and the cement industry. Glob. Cem. Lime Mag. (Environ. Spec. Issue) 2002, 15, 19. Available
online: https://thegreencaiman.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/climate_change_and_the_cement_industry.pdf (accessed on 8
February 2024).
5. The State of the Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2018. WMO Greenh. Gas Bull. 2019,
15, 191536. Available online: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10100 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
6. Khan, K.; Ahmad, W.; Amin, M.N.; Nazar, S. A Scientometric-Analysis-Based Review of the Research Development on Geopoly-
mers. Polymers 2022, 14, 3676. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Castillo, H.; Collado, H.; Droguett, T.; Vesely, M.; Garrido, P.; Palma, S. State of the art of geopolymers: A review. e-Polymers 2022,
22, 108–124. [CrossRef]
8. Abdullah, M.; Qazi, A.; Khan, Q.; Kazmi, S.; Munir, M. Experimental and Analytical Investigations on Shear Performance of
Ambient-Cured Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams. Buildings 2024, 14, 204. [CrossRef]
9. Aslan, S.; Erkan, I. The Effects of Fly Ash, Blast Furnace Slag, and Limestone Powder on the Physical and Mechanical Properties
of Geopolymer Mortar. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 553. [CrossRef]
10. Volodchenko, A.A. Efficient Silicate Composites of Dense Structure using hollow microspheres and Unconventional Aluminosili-
cate Raw Materials. Constr. Mater. Prod. 2023, 6, 19–34. [CrossRef]
11. Adrian Lazarescu, A.; Hegyi, A.; Csapai, A.; Florin, P. The Influence of Different Aggregates on the Physico-Mechanical
Performance of Alkali-Activated Geopolymer Composites Produced Using Romanian Fly Ash. Materials 2024, 17, 485. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
12. Ramesh, V.; Jarghouyeh, E.; Alraeeini, A.; Al-Fakih, A. Optimisation Investigation and Bond-Slip Behaviour of High Strength
PVA-Engineered Geopolymer Composite (EGC) Cured in Ambient Temperatures. Buildings 2023, 13, 3020. [CrossRef]
13. Al Mayyahi, A.; Arunachalam, K.; Zhangabay, N.; Albayati, A. Impact of Low-Reactivity Calcined Clay on the Performance of Fly
Ash-Based Geopolymer Mortar. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13556. [CrossRef]
14. Tiyasangthong, S.; Yoosuk, P.; Krosoongnern, K.; Sakdinakorn, R.; Tabyang, W.; Phojan, W.; Suksiripattanapong, C. Stabilization
of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Using High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer as Pavement Base Material. Infrastructures 2022, 7, 117.
[CrossRef]
15. Amari, S.; Darestani, M.; Millar, G.J.; Samali, B.; Strounina, E. Engineering and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Sustainable
Zeolite-Based Geopolymer Incorporating Blast Furnace Slag. Sustainability 2024, 16, 440. [CrossRef]
16. Nguyen, Q.D.; Castel, A. Developing Geopolymer Concrete by Using Ferronickel Slag and Ground-Granulated Blast-Furnace
Slag. Ceramics 2023, 6, 1861–1878. [CrossRef]
17. Shilar, F.A.; Ganachari, S.V.; Patil, V.B.; Javed, S.; Khan, T.M.Y.; Baig, R.U. Assessment of Destructive and Nondestructive Analysis
for GGBS Based Geopolymer Concrete and Its Statistical Analysis. Polymers 2022, 14, 3132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Saini, P.; Singh, P.; Kapoor, K. Strength and Durability Properties of Geopolymer Mortar Made with Concrete Waste Powder. Eng.
Proc. 2023, 59, 129. [CrossRef]
19. Zuaiter, M.; El-Hassan, H.; El-Maaddawy, T.; El-Ariss, B. Properties of Slag-Fly Ash Blended Geopolymer Concrete Reinforced
with Hybrid Glass Fibers. Buildings 2022, 12, 1114. [CrossRef]
20. Anwar, F.H.; El-Hassan, H.; Hamouda, M.; El-Mir, A.; Mohammed, S.; Mo, K.H. Optimization of Pervious Geopolymer Concrete
Using TOPSIS-Based Taguchi Method. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8767. [CrossRef]
21. Lopes, A.; Lopes, S.; Pinto, I. Influence of Curing Temperature on the Strength of a Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer. Materials 2023,
16, 7460. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Abiodun, Y.O.; Olanrewaju, O.A.; Gbenebor, O.P.; Ochulor, E.F.; Obasa, D.V.; Adeosun, S.O. Cutting Cement Industry CO2
Emissions through Metakaolin Use in Construction. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1494. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 19 of 21
23. Arunachelam, N.; Maheswaran, J.; Chellapandian, M.; Murali, G.; Vatin, N.I. Development of High-Strength Geopolymer
Concrete Incorporating High-Volume Copper Slag and Micro Silica. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7601. [CrossRef]
24. Migunthanna, J.; Rajeev, P.; Sanjayan, J. Waste Clay Bricks as a Geopolymer Binder for Pavement Construction. Sustainability 2022,
14, 6456. [CrossRef]
25. Meskhi, B.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Shilov, A.A.; El’shaeva, D.; Shilova, K.; Karalar,
M.; Aksoylu, C.; et al. Analytical Review of Geopolymer Concrete: Retrospective and Current Issues. Materials 2023, 16, 3792.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Kabirova, A.I.; Ibragimov, R.A.; Genç, B.; Korolev, E.V.; Kiyamov, I.K.; Kiyamova, L.I. Research trends in the mechanoactivation
of clay minerals used in obtaining geopolymers. Constr. Mater. Prod. 2023, 6, 3. [CrossRef]
27. Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; El’shaeva, D.; Varavka, V. Developing Environ-
mentally Sustainable and Cost-Effective Geopolymer Concrete with Improved Characteristics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13607.
[CrossRef]
28. Khattab, S.A.; Elshikh, M.M.Y.; Elemam, W.E.; Elshami, A.A.; Youssf, O. Effect of Magnetized Water-Based Alkaline Activator on
Geopolymer Concrete Mechanical Performance and Durability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16315. [CrossRef]
29. Rehman, S.K.U.; Imtiaz, L.; Aslam, F.; Khan, M.K.; Haseeb, M.; Javed, M.F.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H. Experimental
Investigation of NaOH and KOH Mixture in SCBA-Based Geopolymer Cement Composite. Materials 2020, 13, 3437. [CrossRef]
30. Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Beskopylny, A.; Mailyan, L.; Meskhi, B. Increasing the Corrosion Resistance and Durability
of Geopolymer Concrete Structures of Agricultural Buildings Operating in Specific Conditions of Aggressive Environments of
Livestock Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1655. [CrossRef]
31. Dvorkin, L.; Konkol, J.; Marchuk, V.; Huts, A. Efficient, Fine-Grained Fly Ash Concrete Based on Metal and Basalt Fibers. Materials
2023, 16, 3969. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Wang, T.; Fan, X.; Gao, C.; Qu, C.; Liu, J.; Yu, G. The Influence of Fiber on the Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete: A
Review. Polymers 2023, 15, 827. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Beskopylny, N.; El’shaeva, D. Influence of
the Chemical Activation of Aggregates on the Properties of Lightweight Vibro-Centrifuged FRC. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 273.
[CrossRef]
34. Klyuev, A.V.; Kashapov, N.F.; Klyuev, S.V.; Lesovik, R.V.; Ageeva, M.S.; Fomina, E.V.; Ayubov, N.A. Development of alkali-
activated binders based on technogenic fibrous materials. Constr. Mater. Prod. 2023, 6, 60–73. [CrossRef]
35. Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Beskopylny, A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Dotsenko, N. Enchainment of the Coefficient of
Structural Quality of Elements in Compression and Bending by Combined Reinforcement of Concrete with Polymer Composite
Bars and Dispersed Fiber. Polymers 2021, 13, 4347. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Xu, L.; Liu, Q.; Ding, X.; Sun, S.; Sun, S. Mechanical Properties of Fiber-Reinforced Permeable Geopolymer Concrete. Materials
2023, 16, 6030. [CrossRef]
37. Shaikh, F.; Patel, A. Flexural Behavior of Hybrid PVA Fiber and AR-Glass Textile Reinforced Geopolymer Composites. Fibers
2018, 6, 2. [CrossRef]
38. Prasad, B.; Anand, N.; Kanagaraj, B.; Kiran, T.; Lubloy, E.; Naser, M.; Arumairaj, P.; Andrushia, D. Investigation on residual bond
strength and microstructure characteristics of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete at elevated temperature. Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. 2023, 19, e02526. [CrossRef]
39. Yang, Z.; Lu, F.; Zhan, X.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, H. Mechanical properties and mesoscopic damage characteristics
of basalt fibre-reinforced seawater sea-sand slag-based geopolymer concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 84, 108688. [CrossRef]
40. Wang, Z.; Bai, E.; Ren, B.; Lv, Y. Effects of temperature and basalt fiber on the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete
under impact loads of different high strain rates. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 72, 106605. [CrossRef]
41. Sadrmomtazi, A.; Rad, S. Investigating the fracture parameters of lightweight geopolymer concrete reinforced with steel and
polypropylene fibers. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2024, 129, 104223. [CrossRef]
42. Lv, C.; Shen, H.; Liu, J.; Wu, D.; Qu, E.; Liu, S. Properties of 3D Printing Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers Based on Interlayer
Bonding and Anisotropy. Materials 2022, 15, 8032. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Dhasmana, A.; Singh, S. Long-term mechanical characteristics of fibre reinforced metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete: A
review. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 93, 106–119. [CrossRef]
44. Zhong, H.; Zhang, M. Engineered geopolymer composites: A state-of-the-art review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 135, 104850.
[CrossRef]
45. Zhang, X.; Bai, C.; Qiao, Y.; Wang, X.; Jia, D.; Li, H.; Colombo, P. Porous geopolymer composites: A review. Compos. A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 2021, 150, 106629. [CrossRef]
46. Shaikh, F.U.A. Review of mechanical properties of short fibre reinforced geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43,
37–49. [CrossRef]
47. Farhan, K.Z.; Johari, M.A.M.; Demirboğa, R. Impact of fiber reinforcements on properties of geopolymer composites: A review. J.
Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102628. [CrossRef]
48. Abbas, A.-G.N.; Aziz, F.N.A.A.; Abdan, K.; Nasir, N.A.M.; Huseien, G.F. A state-of-the-art review on fibre-reinforced geopolymer
composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 330, 127187. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 20 of 21
49. GOST R 57809-2017/EN 12350-2:2009; Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 2. Slump Test. Standardinform: Moscow, Russia, 2019.
Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200157288 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
50. GOST R 57813-2017/EN 12350-6:2009; Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 6. Density. Standardinform: Moscow, Russia, 2019. Available
online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200157335 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
51. EN 12390-7:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 7: Density of Hardened Concrete. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada,
2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/811a0cf3-55e3-495a-b06e-5c302d5f2806/en-12390-7-
2019 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
52. EN 12390-1:2021; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 1: Shape, Dimensions and Other Requirements of Specimens and Moulds.
iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2021. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/d1c9ccee-2e5
a-425e-a964-961da95d2f99/en-12390-1-2021 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
53. EN 12390-2:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 2: Making and Curing Specimens for Strength Tests. iTeh Standards:
Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/ae7e6a86-1cbc-455e-8b2a-89
64be9087f9/en-12390-2-2019 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
54. EN 12390-3:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON,
Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/7eb738ef-44af-436c-ab8e-e6561571302c/en-
12390-3-2019 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
55. EN 12390-4:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 4: Compressive Strength—Specification for Testing Machines. iTeh Standards:
Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/10b1c613-819b-42d7-8f94-48
0cd37a666a/en-12390-4-2019 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
56. Ismayilova, J.J. Analysis of Stress-Strain State of a Cylinder with Variable Elasticity Moduli Based on Three-Dimensional Equations
of Elasticity Theory. Adv. Eng. Res. 2023, 23, 113–120. [CrossRef]
57. EN 12390-5:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 5: Flexural Strength of Test Specimens. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON,
Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5653c2c7-55a9-4bcb-8e13-5b1dfb0e3baf/en-12
390-5-2019 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
58. GOST 12730.3-2020; Concretes. Method of Determination of Water Absorption. Gost Standard: Moscow, Russia, 2020. Available
online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200177301 (accessed on 8 February 2024).
59. BS 1881-122:2011+A1:2020; Testing Concrete Method for Determination of Water Absorption. European Standards: Plzen,
Czech Republic, 2020. Available online: https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-1881-122-2011-a1-2020-testing-concrete-method-for-
determination-of-water-absorption/ (accessed on 22 November 2023).
60. Mohamed, O.; Zuaiter, H. Fresh Properties, Strength, and Durability of Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer and Conventional Concrete:
A Review. Polymers 2024, 16, 141. [CrossRef]
61. Sukontasukkul, P.; Intarabut, D.; Phoo-ngernkham, T.; Suksiripattanapong, C.; Zhang, H.; Chindaprasirt, P. Self-compacting steel
fibers reinforced geopolymer: Study on mechanical properties and durability against acid and chloride attacks. Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. 2023, 19, e02298. [CrossRef]
62. Puertas, F.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.; Alonso, S.; Vázquez, T. Alkali-activated fly ash/slag cements: Strength behaviour and hydration
products. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1625–1632. [CrossRef]
63. Prasad, B.; Anand, N.; Arumairaj, P.; Francis, A.; Aaron, S.; Gandla, S.; Abhilash, P. Influence of engineering fibers on fresh and
mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
64. Aisheh, Y.; Atrush, D.; Akeed, M.; Qaidi, S.; Tayeh, B. Influence of polypropylene and steel fibers on the mechanical properties of
ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01234. [CrossRef]
65. Reddy, R. Influence of steel and PP fibers on mechanical and microstructural properties of fly ash-GGBFS based geopolymer
composites. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 6808–6818. [CrossRef]
66. Heweidak, M.; Kafle, B.; Al-Ameri, R. Influence of Hybrid Basalt Fibres’ Length on Fresh and Mechanical Properties of Self-
Compacted Ambient-Cured Geopolymer Concrete. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 292. [CrossRef]
67. Annadurai, S.; Baskar, P.; Elango, K. Geopolymer concrete reinforced with basalt fibres: An experimental investigation. Mater.
Today Proc. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
68. Şahin, F.; Uysal, M.; Canpolat, O.; Aygörmez, Y.; Cosgun, T.; Dehghanpour, H. Effect of basalt fiber on metakaolin-based
geopolymer mortars containing rilem, basalt and recycled waste concrete aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 301, 124113.
[CrossRef]
69. Ziada, M.; Erdem, S.; Yosra Tammam, Y.; Serenay Kara, S.; Lezcano, R. The Effect of Basalt Fiber on Mechanical, Microstructural,
and High-Temperature Properties of Fly Ash-Based and Basalt Powder Waste-Filled Sustainable Geopolymer Mortar. Sustainability
2021, 13, 12610. [CrossRef]
70. Singh, A.; Bhadauria, S.S.; Thakare, A.A.; Kumar, A.; Mudgal, M.; Chaudhary, S. Durability assessment of mechanochemically
activated geopolymer concrete with a low molarity alkali solution. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2024, 20, e02715. [CrossRef]
71. Ranjbar, N.; Zhang, M. Fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites: A review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2000, 107, 103498. [CrossRef]
72. Heweidak, M.; Kafle, B.; Al-Ameri, R. Influence of Discrete Basalt Fibres on Shrinkage Cracking of Self-Compacting Ambient-
Cured Geopolymer Concrete. J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 202. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 743 21 of 21
73. Shcherban’, E.; Beskopylny, A.; Meskhi, B.; Stel’makh, S.; Mailyan, L.; Meskhi, B.; Shilov, A.; Pimenova, E.; El’shaeva, D. Combined
Effect of Ceramic Waste Powder Additives and PVA on the Structure and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Used for Finishing
Facades of Buildings. Materials 2023, 16, 3259. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Beskopylny, A.; Shcherban’, E.; Meskhi, B.; Stel’makh, S.; Mailyan, L.; Meskhi, B.; El’shaeva, D. The Influence of Composition and
Recipe Dosage on the Strength Characteristics of New Geopolymer Concrete with the Use of Stone Flour. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 613.
[CrossRef]
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.

Buildings 14 00743 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings 14 00743 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030743 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

2. Materials and Methods

Table 1. Attributes of raw materials.

Name of Raw Material Actual Value

Buildings 2024, 14, 743 4 of 21

Table 2. Compositions of geopolymer FRC mixtures.

3. Results and Discussion

Buildings 2024, 14, 743 8 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, 743 9 of 21

Rtb10M = 1.839 + 0.0545x + 0.9086x2 −2 0.4066x3 , 3 R2 = 0.983 (6)

Rtb12M = 2.124 + 0.0731x + 1.0942x2 − 0.4866x3 , R2 = 0.975 (7)

Table 4. Values of increment in flexural strength (∆Rtb ) of geopolymer concrete.

Change in water absorption W (%) of geopolymer concrete depending on the compo-

W8M = 6.485 − 0.1043x − 1.183x2 + 0.520x3 , R2 = 0.987 (9)

W10M = 5.525 + 0.01111x − 1.231x2 + 0.526x3 , R2 = 0.976 (10)

Table 5. Values for reducing water absorption of geopolymer concrete compositions.

Water Absorption Reduction (∆W), %

Buildings 2024, 14, 743 15 of 21

and technological factors. Firstly, this is dispersed reinforcement of geopolymer concrete

You might also like