Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Geopolymer concrete for clean and sustainable construction – A

state-of-the-art review on the mix design approaches
Mohd Asif Ansari *, Mohd Shariq, Fareed Mahdi
Department of Civil Engineering, Z.H. College of Engineering & Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

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

Keywords: This review paper attempt to offer a state-of-the-art review on the mix design approaches of geopolymer concrete
Geopolymer concrete (GPC). No mix design standards have been published yet for GPC. Three types of mix proportioning approaches
Mix design for GPC are extracted from earlier research: target strength approach, performance-based approach, and sta­
Target strength approach
tistical approaches. The contrasts, benefits, and flaws of the aforementioned techniques are addressed. Further,
Performance-based design
Statistical approaches
the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of GPC with varying mix design parameters have been reviewed to assess the
Life cycle assessment environmental benefits. Literature review revealed a scarcity of studies in the area of mix design of GPC, hence
more experimental and analytical investigations are needed. This review study will be helpful to researchers in
establishing the standards/guidelines for mix proportioning of GPC.

1. Introduction replace conventional cement [6].

Cement is a pivotal component of concrete, and a huge volume of
concrete is required for the expansion of infrastructure. On the subject of
the greenhouse effect, ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC) has a
significant impact. When viewed from an environmental standpoint, the
production of OPCC accounts for 30% of global carbon dioxide emis­
sions [1,2]. This emission fiercely impacts environmental issues and
creates global warming, ice melting, etc. [3]. However, despite its
detrimental side, cement consumption rises in construction projects
worldwide (Fig. 1). The global production of cement is shown in Fig. 2.
With a huge production of 2.1 billion metric tons (bmt), China manu­
factured most cement worldwide in 2022 [4]. India is the second-largest
producer, with 370 million metric tons of cement production [4].
Cement manufacturing in the world is predicted to rise from 3.27 bmt in
2010 to 4.83 bmt in 2030 [5]. This global challenge needs considerable
cooperation between academic research and industries to develop
alternative materials for sustainable development that eventually
Geopolymer concrete (GPC) has emerged as a potential revolution­
ary construction material that may act as an alternative to conventional
cement [7,8]. Compared to ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC),
GPC can reduce CO2 emissions in the range of 40% to 90% depending
upon the type of precursor used. For most of geopolymer concrete, the
reduction in CO2 emission is as high as up to 80–90%, including the
carbon emissions of producing alkali activators [9,10]. Therefore, the
adoption of GPC instead of OPCC significantly lowers carbon dioxide
emissions. According to Amran et al. [11], the emission of CO2 equiv­
alent for a unit volume of GPC was 9%, while it was in the range of 80%
for OPCC concrete with comparable properties. By employing various
industrial wastes like fly ash (FA) and GGBFS, GPC may bring numerous
environmental benefits.
The term Geopolymer is used to describe a family of materials pro­
duced by the interaction of an alkali activator with aluminosilicate (AS)
powder [12–14]. Prof. Joseph Davidovits first create it in 1978 [15].
Materials rich in Alumina (Al) and Silica (Si) are the source material of

Abbreviations: AAS, Alkaline activator solution; AL, Alkaline liquid; AL/B, Alkaline liquid-to-binder ratio; AL/FA, Alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio; Aw/B, Excess
water/binder; ANN, Artificial neural network; AS, Aluminosilicate; BMT, Billion metric tons; CAA, Concentration of alkali activator; FA, Fly ash; FA/TA, Fine
aggregate to total aggregate ratio; FM, Fineness modulus; GGBFS, Ground granulated blast furnace slag; GP, Geopolymer; GPC, Geopolymer concrete; GWP, Global
warming potential; LCA, Life cycle assessment; MARS, Multivariate adaptive regression splines; MPRM, Multivariable polynomial regression model; MRM, Multi­
variate regression model; Ms, Molarity ratio of SiO2/Na2O in sodium silicate; MSA, Maximum size of aggregate; N/B, Na2O/binder ratio; OPC, Ordinary Portland
cement; OPCC, Ordinary Portland cement concrete; POFA, Palm oil fuel ash; RSM, Response surface method; SL, Slag; S/N, Signal-to-noise; SF, Silica fume; SH,
Sodium hydroxide; SS, Sodium silicate; SS/SH, Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio; TA, Total aggregates; VOS, Virtual operating system; W/B, Water-to-binder ratio; W/GPS,
Water to geopolymer solid.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: asifans.amu@gmail.com (M.A. Ansari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.06.089
Received 3 January 2023; Received in revised form 31 May 2023; Accepted 17 June 2023
Available online 26 June 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Ansari et al.
GPC and act as precursors. Some common precursors of GPC are fly ash
(FA), GGBFS, and metakaolin are also used [16–20]. Under optimal
curing conditions, the precursors are triggered using strongly alkaline
solutions such as NaOH and KOH and soluble silicates (like Na2SiO3) to
form a 3D inorganic polymeric chain called geopolymer, which has
binding properties [21,22]. The development of silicate monomer
(Si–O–Al–O) is caused by the dissolving of AS powders (such as fly ash,
GGBFS, etc.) in alkaline solutions. Free tetrahedral silicon dioxide and
aluminium oxide units interact during dissolution by sharing an oxygen
atom. The workability of the mix is governed by the water released
throughout this reaction [23]. Eqs. (1)-(2) can explain the chemical
reactions involved as shown in Fig. 3.
Since GPC is high in aluminosilicates (ASs), it possesses properties
similar to cement, but they need an alkaline activation to work well.
Furthermore, due to the amorphous nature of AS, GPC develops a 3-D
polymeric structure having load-bearing capabilities. The co-existence
of C–S–H and GP gel is due to the presence of the primary calcium
source [24]. Since the cement has a naturally high alkaline content, it
reacts quickly with water [25]. On the other hand, an alkaline binder
needs an alkaline medium to activate and create a binding with the
surrounding matrix.
Because of the continual expansion of industries and population, a
significant amount of waste materials (fly ash, GGBFS, SF, rice husk ash,
palm oil fuel ash, etc.) are created and disposed of in landfills. Dis­
charging such waste products at dumpsites damages the ecology as they
are contaminant sources [26–29]. Since geopolymer composite needs
raw ingredients with a substantial aluminosilicate content, employing
the above materials in the production of GPC minimises the increasing
environmental burden [30–32]. Consumption of these waste products
will be helpful from both financial and environmental perspectives since
these types of waste are plentiful, and the demand for inexpensive
construction will continue to increase with exponential growing pop­
ulations [26,33]. Worldwide, extensive technological advancements
have been undertaken on GPC, and GPC may ultimately become the
most sustainable construction material [34–40]. Indeed, the adoption of
GPC may assist in securing the long-term survival of both OPCC and the
sustainable construction industry. Reinforced GPC structural elements
have the required mechanical properties to replace OPCC [41–47]. Al
Bakri et al. [48] revealed other benefits of GPC, including high
compressive strength, fire resistance, acid resistance, dimensional sta­
bility, and a cheaper material cost, around 10–30% less than OPCC
because of waste materials used. GPC also possesses outstanding resis­
tance to Na2SO4 and has exceptionally low drying shrinkage and creep
[49,50]. Significant cost reductions are projected in a range of structural
components [51]. Since GPC is a newer technology than OPCC, it lacks
mix proportions, design, and construction guidelines necessitating
extensive research and experimentation to reduce the GPC gap.
Fig. 1. Worldwide yearly production of cement [4].
1046
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
2. Methodology of the present work
This work utilised a scientometric-based evaluation and a complete
overview of the existing research domains in geopolymer concrete. The
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews) techniques
are used systematically for this review. The globally acknowledged
‘SCOPUS’ database is employed as a search engine in the present study.
The keyword “geopolymer concrete” was used to find relevant articles in
the Scopus database, yielding around 3,616 documents. The search re­
veals that the geopolymer concrete research has been accelerating for
more than a decade (Fig. 4). The term “mix design” was then added to
this search to narrow it down to articles focussing on the mix propor­
tioning of GPC. There were 271 items found in this search. Only journal
papers published in English were included in this search, which was
narrowed to engineering and materials science topics. This search yiel­
ded 143 results. Additionally, each abstract of the paper was carefully
examined to make sure it related to the subject being discussed. The
articles were then segregated on the basis of mix design approach used
in them. These articles were critically reviewed based on the design
parameters and the obtained results. Fig. 5 depicts the methodology
adopted for review.
Fig. 6 depicts the network and density of the frequently occurring
keywords obtained from the chosen journals linked to the mix design of
GPC. The Virtual Operating System (VOS) viewer created this network.
Academicians highly recommend the VOS viewer, an open-source tool
extensively used in many different fields [52–54]. In this network dia­
gram, the primary keywords are geopolymer, an inorganic polymer,
compressive strength, mechanical properties, durability, mix designs,
etc. From the density visualisation (Fig. 6b), it can be noticed that most
of the past researchers mainly focussed on the mechanical properties of
GPC. At the same time, the area of mix design is less explored. Hence, the
mix design methodology can be identified as a research gap in GPC. This
paper undertakes a review of the mix design approaches of geopolymer
concrete and summarises and examines the findings reported in past
literature. Three types of mix design approaches for GPC are extracted
from earlier research: target strength approach, performance-based
approach, and statistical approaches. In the statistical approaches, the
Taguchi method, multivariable polynomial regression model (MPRM),
multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model, response sur­
face method (RSM), and artificial neural network approach are used by
different authors for optimising the mix design parameters. The con­
trasts, benefits, and flaws of the aforementioned techniques are
addressed. It intends to give a scientific perspective for future research
and regulation of mix proportioning techniques to ease the imple­
mentation of GPC at the commercial level.
M.A. Ansari et al.
3. Mix design approaches
Due to a lack of a suitable mix design technique for GPC, it is seldom
used in structural applications, despite offering superior structural and
durability characteristics to OPCC [55,56]. Several academics have
looked at GPC mix design characteristics through the lens of OPCCs
because of their similarities [57,58]. However, the widely established
OPCC mix design approaches cannot be simply recreated in GPC. Among
the most essential factors influencing the properties of GPC are the
alkaline liquid-to-binder ratio (AL/B); alkali type and dose; Na2SiO3/
NaOH (SS/SH) ratio; the molarity ratio of SiO2/Na2O in sodium silicate
(Ms); and curing conditions [39,48,59–64].
In the earlier stage of GPC, mix design procedures were primarily
dependent on trial and error. In 1984, Ukraine released the first slag-
based GPC mix proportion standard [65]. Many studies on mixture
design approaches have been published in the previous decade. The first
mix design approach for FA-based GPC was suggested by Lloyd and
Rangan [16]. The density of GPC was assumed to be 2400 kg/m3 using
this approach, and the total aggregates (TA) content was fixed at 77%.
By subtracting the TA content from the density of 2400 kg/m3, the total
mass of FA and alkaline activator solution (AAS) was computed. As a
result of the AL/FA ratio, the FA content and total alkaline activator was
calculated. Additionally, individual Na2SiO3 and NaOH concentrations
were also assessed using the SS/SH ratio. Finally, the required
compressive strength and workability were calculated using the water to
geopolymer solid (W/GPS) ratio. The fundamental shortcoming of this
approach is that it ignores the specific gravity of the materials employed
and the air content. Further, it should also be noted that the molarity of
NaOH solution and SS/SH ratio was chosen to be 8 M and 2.5, respec­
tively. These values were selected on the basis of trials. However, it was
stated that any increment in them would lead to improvement in
compressive strength. The effect of quantity and fineness of fly ash was
also not considered. This gap was filled by Patankar et al. [66], who
employed the effect of fineness and quantity of FA based on the target
compressive strength. Using Indian standards, Anuradha et al. [67]
suggest a mix design approach for GPC based on FA. The FA content and
AL/FA were chosen for this approach depending on the requisite
strength while keeping the constant percentage of fine aggregates. The
proportion of fine aggregate was corrected depending on its zone. The
amount of activator utilised was excessive for the target strength.
Instead of using the traditional W/B ratio, Bondar et al. [68] used a
performance-based approach to design geopolymer concrete. The
Fig. 2. Worldwide production of cement in the year 2022 [4].
1047
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
Fig. 3. Equations (1) and (2) show the schematic development of geo­
polymer material.
samples were exposed to chlorides to determine chloride diffusion and
evaluate durability. Rao et al. [69] built effective Artificial Neural
Network (ANN) predictive models. The models were in reasonable
relation to the experimental results. Aside from these, several mix design
techniques based on existing methods have been described. According to
their design concepts, three types of GPC mix design approaches have
been extracted from earlier studies: target strength approach,
performance-based approach, and Statistical approaches.
3.1. Target strength approach
In target strength approach, the GPC mix is designed for target
compressive strength and desired workability. Different standards have
used the target strength approach in the mix design of OPCC (IS 10262
[70], ACI 211.1 [71]). Many authors utilised this approach in the design
mix of GPC, as described in Table 1. The proportioning of ingredients of
GPC, like precursors, alkaline solutions, aggregate, and water (if any),
are determined using these targets. The following stages comprise the
target strength method: (1) determination of AL/B ratio based on target
compressive strength, (2) determination of binder content based on re­
quirements, (3) determination of total aggregate quantities, (4) deter­
mination of fine aggregate to total aggregate (FA/TA) ratio based on
workability, (5) addition of admixtures based on target workability, (6)
modify the mix proportion to meet the required properties. Fig. 7
summarises the overall flow chart of the GPC mix design based on the
target strength approach.
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 4. Yearly publication trend in the field of GPC extracted from Scopus.

Fig. 5. Methodology used for the Review.

3.1.1. Alkaline liquid-to-binder ratio (AL/B)
In GPC, the parameter AL/B is used as the ratio of the total mass of
alkaline liquid to the total mass of precursor, as W/B in OPCC. In the
OPCC system, binder content and W/B ratio may be modified to alter
concrete strength and workability [82,83]. However, since the binder in
geopolymer concrete results from the alkaline activation process, the
effect of quantity, type and concentration of alkaline solution should be
considered. Hence, the AL/B becomes the most critical factor influ­
encing the compressive strength of GPC. The relation between the AL/B
ratio and the compressive strength of GPC observed by different authors
is shown in Fig. 8 and compared with the ACI curve [71] for OPCC. The
compressive strength achieved from the designed GPC mixes at the same
AL/B ratio was greater than the corresponding strengths estimated from
the strength vs. W/B ratio curve of ACI standards for OPCC, as shown in
Fig. 8. Increase in AL/B means adding more water, which lowers alkali
concentration and increases porosity as a consequence of water evapo­
ration from pores [84,85], leading to reduction in compressive strength.
This tendency is consistent with OPCC. It can be observed from Fig. 8,
that the exponential equation (in the form of y = axb ) describes the
relation between the compressive strength and AL/B. Slag (SL) based
GPC have a higher value of coefficient b as compared to SL-FA GPC and
FA-GPC. This shows that AL/B has a greater impact on SL-GPC than FA-
GPC. This has also been demonstrated in other studies [80,86].
Furthermore, the AL/B ratio regulates the quantity of liquid in the

1048
M.A. Ansari et al.
Fig. 6. Co-occurrence of keywords: (a) Network visualisation (b) Density visualisation.
mix, with lower values resulting in stronger concrete due to a higher
binder component. Thunuguntla et al. [87] reported that AL/B ratio is
the most prominent parameter influencing the strength and durability
properties of GPC after NaOH concentration. Phoo-ngernkham et al.
[79] proposed the mix proportioning for GPC made with FA as a pre­
cursor based on ACI standards and achieved the 28-day compressive
strength of 15–35 MPa. The mix proportion was then modified based on
AL/B ratio from experimental results (Fig. 9). Modified mix design
achieved the target strength. The relation between AL/B and compres­
sive strength proposed in Fig. 9 can be used for selecting the AL/B for the
target compressive strength in the mix proportioning of GPC. The AL/B
ratio (FA was used as a binder) and W/GPS were identified as the
influencing parameters of strength and workability by Junaid et al. [60].
The author revealed that AL/B directly impacts the workability of GPC.
1049
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
The author proposed graphs for the mix design of GPC based on AL/FA
and compressive strength for the desired degree of workability (Fig. 10).
3.1.2. Amount of paste
After the determination of AL/B, the amount of paste is calculated.
The paste volume is made up of the volume of the precursor, activator,
and water (if any). The amount of paste directly affects the workability
of the mix [87]. However, paste volume of 30–33% does not have a
considerable effect on compressive strength [80].
The amount of paste can be calculated by employing three ap­
proaches, i.e., fixing water content, fixing binder content, or fixing paste
content. The method of fixed water content is based on established
OPCC mix standards. They are used for GPC by different authors such as
Anuradha et al. [67] and Pavithra et al. [75] used IS 10262 [70] while
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Table 1
Summary of the research employing target strength approach in the mix design of GPC.
Author Source AL/B ratio Molarity SS/SH Curing Compressive Remark
material of NaOH Temperature strength (MPa)

Ng and FA and 0.55 12 M 2.5 90 ◦ C 59–82 MPa The approach is founded on the
Foster GGBFS assumption that the aggregate
[72] packing density and the amount of
GP binder affect the total strength of
GP composites.
Montes et al. FA 10 M,12 1,1.5,2 60 ◦ C 45–64 MPa An analytical mix design software
[73] M,14 M based on ACI 211.1 [74] was
developed based on target strength
approach that takes into account the
influencing factors of GPC.
Lloyd and FA 0.35 8M 2.5 60 ◦ C 56 MPa The density of GPC was assumed to
Rangan be 2400 kg/m3, TA content was set at
[16] 80%. However, the specific gravity
and air content of the materials used
are not considered in the mix design.
Anuradha FA 0.8,0.7,0.65,0.6,0.55,0.5,0.43,0.37, 16 M 3.5,2.5 60 ◦ C 20–33 MPa The mix design approach was
et al. modified from IS 10262 [73]. The
[67] target compressive strength was used
to calculate the FA content, and 550
kg/m3 fly ash content was acceptable
for producing the FA-based GPC of
30 MPa.
Ferdous FA 0.85 16 M 2.5 Ambient 32–64 MPa The alkaline liquid to binder ratio
et al. was the primary consideration in this
[74] concept.
Pavithra FA 0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8 16 M 1.5 60 ◦ C 28–55 MPa Fix the activator content in relation to
et al. target strength. Specific gravities of
[75] the constituent were used to
determine the fine and coarse
aggregates.
Li et al. Slag 0.35,0.4,0.45,0.5 *(Ms = *(Na2O/binder 20 ◦ C, 80 ◦ C 10–96 MPa GPC that fulfills the target strength
[76] 0,1,1.5,2) ratio = and workability was designed by
4%,5%,6%,7% combining close aggregate packing,
excess paste thickness theory, and the
Taguchi approach.
Bondar et al. GGBFS 0.45, 0.55, 0.65 – 1.5, 1.75 20 ◦ C 19–44 MPa The packing fraction of ingredients
[77] were used for mix proportioning of
GGBFS-based GPC.
Bellum et al. GGBFS 0.4 8M 2.5 Ambient 16–38 MPa Proposed mix proportioning based on
[78] a density of 2400 kg/m3 for GPC
made with slag and utilising the
corrected unit weights of fine and
coarse aggregate

Phoo-ngernkham et al. [79] and Montes et al. [73] used ACI 211.1 [71].
Reddy et al. [88] concluded that AL content of 200 kg/m3 was sufficient
to provide satisfactory workability and hence proposed that the GPC
mix’s alkaline content be kept at 200 kg/m3. The concept of fixed water
content derived from an established standard for OPCC is a coherent
guide for obtaining particular amounts of other concrete ingredients,
hence reducing trial mixes. Moreover, this kind of technique in­
corporates the maximum size of aggregate. Nevertheless, one of the
challenges is that appropriate changes are needed to every ingredient to
reach the optimum mix.
The fixed binder content method determines the quantity of binder
required based on the desired compressive strength. Researchers
commonly formulate this method for the mix proportioning of GPC
made with FA. Anuradha et al. [67] established the mix design method
for various FA-based GPC grades modified from IS 10262 [70]. The
target compressive strength was used to calculate the FA content, and for
the M30 grade of GPC, 550 kg/m3 was acceptable. Junaid et al. [90]
reported that fly ash content of 360–380 kg/m3 for 25–40 MPa,
380–420 kg/m3 for 40–55 MPa, and 420–440 kg/m3 for 50–60 MPa are
suitable. Ferdous et al. [91] proposed that FA content can be determined
using compressive strength and AL/B. At the same AL/B ratio, the
maximum compressive strength was attained at 340 kg/m3 content of
FA, as can be seen in Fig. 11. This suggests that an increased FA per­
centage in the mix does not always imply higher compressive strength.
Patankar et al. [66] proposed that the amount of fly ash can be computed
from Fig. 12 as per fineness and the desired compressive strength. The
author revealed that the compressive strength of GPC increases as the
fineness and content of FA increase. Due to inconsistencies in activation
efficiency when FA is modified, the quantity of FA utilised in various
experiments varies significantly. Some models for FA reactivity have
been created [92], but additional research is needed.
The fixed paste content method calculates paste content based on the
desired workability of geopolymer concrete. Generally, an appropriate
aggregate composition is selected, and then the necessary quantity of
paste is put into the voids of the aggregates to ensure the desired con­
sistency. The paste inside the voids of the concrete matrix is ineffective
in lubricating the mix [93]. The paste which is surplus after filling the
voids performs the function of lubrication and is called excess paste.
Hence, if the packing density is increased, the excess paste can be used to
provide workability to the mix [94–97]. For high-performance GGBFS-
based GPC, Li et al. [76] suggested a mix design method. GPC was
designed for the desired workability using the W/B and excess paste
thickness (tpaste). The correlation among GPC slump, W/B, and tpaste is
shown in Fig. 13. Based on the desired workability of GPC and the
specified W/B ratio, the optimal tpaste can be selected using Fig. 13. Some
researchers proposed the range of paste content based on the experi­
mental trials. Rangan [98] and Nawy [99] suggested a total paste con­
tent of 480–600 kg/m3 for FA-based GPC. Furthermore, various

1050
M.A. Ansari et al.
Fig. 7. Flow chart for the mix design of GPC employing the target strength approach [79–81].
empirical designs were employed in the fixed paste content method, but
additional research is needed to correlate the paste content with the
target strength.
3.1.3. Aggregate composition
Once the amount and composition of paste are known, the amount of
aggregate may then be estimated. Similar to OPCC, the grading of the
aggregate has an impact on the workability of GPC [57–59,62]. Hence,
the concepts used in OPCC may be used to determine aggregate
composition. For instance, Montes et al. [73] used ACI 211.1 [71] to
determine the aggregate composition for GPC. Pavithra et al. [75] and
Anuradha et al. [67] used IS 10262 [70] for aggregate composition,
which utilised the nominal maximum size of aggregate (MSA) and zones
of fine aggregates.
1051
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
Several researchers have used trial methods to determine the
aggregate composition and validate the results with the desired work­
ability and compressive strength. Joseph and Mathew [85] recom­
mended the total aggregate content of 70% and fine aggregate to total
aggregate ratio (FA/TA) of 0.35 for the mix proportioning of GPC, as
shown in Fig. 14. The GPC mix so designed performed better in terms of
compressive, flexural and split tensile strength as compared to OPCC.
FA/TA was proposed to be set at 0.3 by volume by Phoo-ngernkham
et al. [79] and Junaid et al. [90]. In the same context, Patankar et al.
[66] reported that FA/TA may be estimated from the fineness modulus
of sand, as shown in Fig. 15. To meet the needs of the standard grading
curve, Lloyd and Rangan [16] suggested that the aggregates might
include 15%, 20%, 35%, and 30% of 20 mm (passing), 14 mm (passing),
7 mm (passing) and fine aggregate, respectively. The combined
M.A. Ansari et al.
Fig. 8. Influence of the AL/B (or W/B for OPCC) on compressive strength [71,74,75,88,89].
Fig. 9. Design chart for target 28-day compressive strength of GPC based on
AL/B ratio [79].
aggregate’s FM was around 5.0. Ferdous et al. [74,91] recommended
blending the volumes of 15%, 35%, 20%, and 30% of 14 mm, 10 mm,
and 7 mm and fine aggregate, respectively meet the aggregates grading
criteria. Using discrete element modelling (DEM), Ng and Foster [72]
calculated the aggregate packing fraction. The optimum aggregate
composition was then developed to produce the highest aggregate
packing density possible.
3.2. Performance-based approach
Rather than adhering to the conventional W/B and mixture design
concept, a performance-based approach was recommended to deliver
significant durability and subtlety in production [100]. As discussed in
the target strength approach, the mix design is based on compressive
strength and workability. While in the performance-based approach, the
acceptance of mix design is based on various other properties that are
related to the durability of GPC, such as water permeability, water ab­
sorption, chloride migration etc. Bondar et al. [68] investigated the
permeability of chloride ions of slag-based GPC at various compressive
strengths and workability. The author revealed that the essential factors
for the mix design of GPC were Na2O percentage, molarity ratio of SiO2/
Na2O in sodium silicate (Ms), and W/B. The author proposed the
1052
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
contour plots that can be used for the mix proportioning of GPC based on
the performance approach. The range of Na2O percent and Ms can be
selected from plots, as shown in Fig. 16, for desired workability,
compressive strength, and coefficient of chloride diffusion of geo­
polymer concrete. Li et al. [76] proposed a performance-based mix
design for slag-based GPC. The purpose was to strike a balance among
workability, compressive strength, durability attributes and economic
feasibility. Firstly, utilising the principle of close packing technique and
excess paste theory, the optimum paste was calculated. Then, the
Taguchi approach was employed to determine the influence of various
mix design parameters on the fresh and hardened properties of GPC.
Finally, the mix was finalised based on the correlation between the mix
design parameters and desired properties. The steps required for the mix
proportioning of GPC based on performance-based approach is shown in
Fig. 17. Noushini and Castel [101] recommended the use of
performance-based design for the GPC exposed to marine environment.
After experimental analysis, the authors claimed that the volume of
permeable voids, sorptivity coefficient, and 28-day compressive
strength are not reliable indicators of GPC’s performance exposed to
chloride environment. The authors also proposed the revised ASTM
C1202 chloride penetrability classification for GPC, which was cali­
brated using both experimental data and from the literature. van
Deventer et al. [102] support a shift in the culture of standards from
prescriptive to performance-based, which will allow the construction
industry to embrace alternative types of cement more quickly. Distinct
testing methodologies were suggested to assess the durability of GPC.
The performance-based technique can effectively create sustainable
geopolymer concrete with specified durability attributes. However, only
a limited number of researchers used this approach for the mix
proportioning of GPC. Hence, additional prominent studies are required
in this area to establish the acceptability standards that will allow this
approach to be deployed successfully.
3.3. Statistical modelling approach
The statistical model technique defined the correlation between
several key parameters influencing the mix proportioning of GPC, such
as the quantity of binder, AL/B ratio, molarity of NaOH, FA/TA ratio,
SS/SH ratio, etc. To establish the efficient mix design, optimum values
for each parameter are derived. The different statistical methods used in
the literature are the Taguchi method, multivariate regression model
(MRM), response surface method (RSM), and artificial neural network
(ANN) approach. The different statistical methods used by researchers in
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 10. Graphs suggested for GPC mix design based on AL/FA and compressive strength for the desired degree of workability [60].

Fig. 11. Compressive strength of GPC with varied fly ash contents as a function of alkaline liquid-to-fly ash ratio [91].

the mix design of GPC are reported in Table 2.
3.3.1. Taguchi approach
The Taguchi technique is a statistical design approach that employs
orthogonal arrays for the experiment design to study a large number of
samples with fewer trials. Compared to standard experimental design
approaches, the Taguchi method for designing experiments is highly
efficient [112–114]. For optimisation, the Taguchi technique utilises a
signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. The S/N ratio assists in analysing the data
and predicts the optimal result. Olivia and Nikraz [115] analysed the

1053
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 12. Compressive strength of GPC with varied fly ash fineness as a function of fly ash content [66].

utilisation of the Taguchi approach in the mix design of GPC may save
time and effort. However, an extensive literature review is required in
advance to select the influencing parameters to get the desired
properties.

3.3.2. Multivariate regression model (MRM)

Multivariate regression models are often employed to model the
relationships between dependent and independent variables [126].
Multivariable statistical techniques can help to analyse and interpret
complex data [127]. For many years, multivariate polynomial regres­
sion (MPR) has been utilised to address a variety of civil engineering
challenges, particularly in the domains of construction materials
[128–130]. Only a limited number of studies applied these statistical
methods to optimise the mix proportioning of GPC.

3.3.2.1. Multivariable polynomial regression model (MPRM). Many re­

searchers have used multivariate regression models (MRM) to predict
the properties of OPCC [131–133]. However, only fewer studies were
conducted in past that utilise MPRM on GPC [104,105]. Based on
limited batches of experiments, Hadi et al. [104] presented the MPRM to
estimate the initial setting time (I), slump (S), and compressive strength
Fig. 13. Contours of the slump of GPC for W/B vs. tpaste [76]. (CS) of GPC made with GGBFS. AL/B, slag (SL) content, excess water/
binder (Aw/B) ratio, and SS/SH ratios were used to build the model.
Equations (3) to (5) show the predicted equations. These models were in
influence of aggregate content, AL/FA ratio, SS/SH ratio, and curing
reasonable relation with the experiment results. The proposed equations
conditions on the compressive strength of GPC by the Taguchi method
may be useful in mix proportioning of GPC based on AL/B, SL content,
for the first time. By employing their mix design, they could produce
Aw/B and SS/SH ratios for the desired workability, initial setting time
specimens with compressive strength of 55 MPa. Dave and Bhogayata
and compressive strength. After critically analysing the results, it can
[116] used the Taguchi method to propose and optimise the mix pro­
also be observed that the compressive strength of GPC improved sub­
portion of GPC based on target strength, taking into account all in­
stantially as GGBFS content increased. However, setting times and
gredients and their proportions. The influence of different parameters,
workability significantly decreased.
their amounts in relation to other factors, and their variation on the
[ ]
concrete strength can be seen in Fig. 18. The highest compressive CS = − 22.22 × (Aw /B)2 + 2 × (Aw /B) + 1.2 ×
strength may be achieved with 14M NaOH and an SS/SH ratio of 2, as [ ]
shown in Fig. 18. The experimental findings were quite close to the − 0.3 × (SS/SH)3 + 1.4 × (SS/SH)2 − 1.8 × (SS/SH) + 1.4375 ×
[ ] [ ]
intended strength levels. The research urged the implementation of a − 6.4 × (AL/B)2 + 5.2 × (AL/B) × − 0.01 × (SL)2 + 1.3 × SL + 12.4
strength-based GPC mix design and optimisation by the Taguchi tech­
nique, eliminating extensive trials [116]. Apart from this, several other (3)
authors [76,114,117–125] have employed the Taguchi approach in the [ ( ) ] [ ( ) ] [
Aw SS
mix design of GPC, and their findings are summarised in Table 3. The I = 4.5 × + 0.325 × − 0.4 × + 2 × 3.5
B SH
results suggest that the Taguchi method can be utilised to design the GPC ( ) ] [ ]
of desired properties. AL 4800
× − 0.75 × + 4− SL (4)
As there are a number of parameters which influence the properties B SL
of GPC, the target strength approach of mix design required a large
number of trial mixes in order to get the desired properties. Hence,

1054
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 14. Design chart for FA/TA ratio to achieve the target compressive strength of GPC [85].

Fig. 15. Graph used for estimating FA/TA from FM of fine aggregate [66].

[ ( ) ]
Aw
S = 6.3 × + 0.055 × [− 0.09 × (SS/SH) + 1.22] × [2.4 × (AL/B) − 0.27]×
B
[ ( ) ]
Aw (5)
[ − 0.25 × SL + 32] − − 9.4 × + 2.41 × [0.18 × (SS/SH) + 0.55]×
B
[7.4 × (AL/B)2 − 10.3 × (AL/B) + 4.3] × [ − 0.007 × SL − 0.05]

El-Hassan and Ismail [105] employed multivariable non-linear

regression analysis to correlate the compressive strength of GPC with
′
fc28 = 191.52⋅(x1 )− 0.757
⋅(x2 )1.173 ⋅(x3 )0.306 (6)
distinct parameters. Equation (6) can predict the 28-day compressive
strength of 100% GGBFS-based GPC, while equation (7) can be used for
′
fc28 = 15.19⋅(x0 )0.313 ⋅(x1 )− 0.334
⋅(x2 )− 0.15
⋅(x3 )0.069 (7)
GPC based on 50% FA and 50% GGBFS, respectively. The proposed
strength models had an inaccuracy range of − 15% to + 10%. It was also where x0 , x1 , x2 and x3 are GGBFS %, fines/binder ratio, AAS/binder
found that among the two equations, equation (7) predicted slightly ratio and SS/SH ratio, respectively.
higher values than the actual. This inconsistency may arise due to the In comparison to models like ANNs, such MPRM methods have the
inclusion of two kinds of precursors. benefit of being a representational model, which makes it easier to study

1055
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 16. Contour graphs for (a) workability, (b) compressive strength, and (c) chloride diffusion coefficient for fixed binder content of 400 kg/m3 and W/b ratio of
0.55 [68].

Fig. 17. Flow chart for the application of performance-based approach [76].

them using methods like sensitivity analysis, graphical approaches, and
variable significance ratios [134]. These qualities allow the MPRM to be
a very helpful tool to be used in the mix proportioning of GPC. However,
these techniques may give inconsistent results if fewer parameters are
taken into account. While increasing the parameters will complex the
formulation. Hence, a comprehensive and in-depth literature review is
required before selecting the influencing parameters.
3.3.2.2. Multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model. MARS is
a multivariable regression approach for modelling the relation between

1056
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Table 2
Summary of the statistical approaches employed in the design of GPC.
Approach Author Source material Year Compressive Remark
strength (MPa)

Taguchi approach Refer to Table 3

Multivariate regression Lokuge et al. FA 2018 30–55 MARS model was developed by utilising data from published literature
model [103] on GPC. The contours maps were proposed to be used for the mix
proportioning of GPC.
Hadi et al. [104] GGBFS 2019 34–61 A new of mathematical MRM, comparable to the multivariable power
equation, was presented. However, instead of using power equations,
polynomial equations were employed.
El-Hassan & Ismail FA and GGBFS 2018 67 (max.) Analytical models for GPC with 100 % GGBFS and 50% FA and 50%
[105] GGBFS were established based on the experimental findings, linking mix
design with compressive strength and workability.
Response Surface Gao et al. [106] Slag 2016 9–53 The response surface methodology was utilised to optimise the SL/GPS
Methodology (RSM) and the activator content used in slag-based GPC to achieve early
compressive strength.
Zahid et al. [107] FA 2018 45–85 RSM method was used to find the optimum mix proportion of molarity of
NaOH, NaOH/Na2SiO3 ratio, and curing temperature of GPC.
Longos et al. nickel–laterite mine 2020 1.93–22.14 The RSM approach produced GPC with the required compressive
[108] waste (NMW) and FA strength to determine the optimum proportion of NMW, AL/B ratio, and
SS/SH ratio.
Artificial Neural Dao et al. [25] FA 2019 18–74 The compressive strength of GPC was predicted using an ANN model
Network (ANN) employing Na2SiO3 solution, NaOH, FA, and water as input variables.
Approach Rao et al. [69] FA and GGBFS 2020 22–66 ANN model was developed for GPC with varied proportions of recycled
aggregates (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%), and the predictions were
efficiently associated with actual findings with minimal errors.
Ling et al. [109] FA 2021 1.3–53 Setting time, compressive strength, and heat of geopolymerisation were
predicted using an ANN model.
The prediction results were closely associated with the experimental
results.
Shahmansouri GGBFS 2021 51–90 The input variables for establishing the ANN model were age, NaOH
et al. [110] concentration, natural zeolite, silica fume, and GGBFS content. The
models were in good relation to the experimental results.
Ahmed et al. GGBFS 2022 29–35 For the purpose of predicting the compressive strength of GPC, five
[111] distinct statistical models were created. Experimental work was used to
verify the derived models. ANN model was found to be most accurate
than other models.

a target variable (generally compressive strength in case of GPC) and
many inputs parameters (such as aggregate content, AL/B ratio, SS/SH
ratio, molarity of NaOH, curing conditions etc.). MARS’ key strength is
its capacity to discover and improve the interpretability of complicated
correlations between a target variable and the input parameters.
Friedman [135] was the first to propose the MARS concept. It is a
stepwise linear regression method that works well with high-
dimensional data. The MARS method divides training data sets into
piece-wise linear segments (splines) of various gradients. The piecewise
curves are called basis functions (BFs), and they are used to create a
model that can handle both linear and non-linear behaviour of the data.
Knots are the connecting points in the MARS model. MARS uses either
global or linear regression to characterise data between two knots.
Lokuge et al. [103] propose the mix design approach for FA-based GPC
by employing the MARS model. A huge amount of mix design data such
as AL/B, NaOH molarity, SS/SH, and W/B was extracted from past
research and processed. It was found that each of the aforementioned
variables affects compressive strength. Fig. 19 shows contour plots
produced from the MARS model. With this MARS design model,
compressive strengths between 30 and 55 MPa were achieved in the
experiments. Hence, these contour maps may be used for the mix
proportioning of GPC.
From the above section, it can be concluded that the MARS model
can be effectively employed in the mix proportioning of GPC. However,
one drawback of MARS models is that they are often slower to train. The
technique analyses each frequency of each parameter for possible cut
points, which might cause computational efficiency to deteriorate.
3.3.3. Response surface methodology (RSM)
RSM model is another statistical approach that can be used to opti­
mise the mix design of GPC. Box and Wilson suggested RSM for the first
time in 1951 [136]. RSM’s goal is to optimise product performance by
modifying factor values. Experiment, modelling, and data analysis are
the three phases of RSM. Using RSM to design experiments has the
following advantages: (a) fewer trials; (b) construction of statistical
models for desired output factors; (c) assessment of the link between
variables and response; and (d) optimisation of responses for intended
limitations [137]. Fig. 20 depicts the steps involved in the RSM
approach of finding the optimum value of the target variable.
In the OPCC industry, RSM is a widely established approach for
modelling and optimising experimental outcomes [138–141]. However,
in the field of GPC, the application of RSM is still novel. Gao et al. [106]
utilised the RSM technique to optimise slag-based GPC. Three early
strength parameters were investigated: SiO2/Na2O ratio (n), the con­
centration of alkali activator (CAA), and liquid–solid ratio (LSR). After 2
or 3 h of curing, the mechanical properties were evaluated. The influ­
ence of each variable was then systematically examined using RSM.
Fig. 21 shows the effect of n, CAA, and LSR on the 2 h compressive
strength of GPC. It can be seen from Fig. 21, that n and CAA have a
considerable influence on the early strength, whereas LSR has little
impact. A strong negative correlation was observed between n and early
strength, while a positive association between CAA and early strength.
Using RSM, statistical models were built by Zahid et al. [107] to estimate
post-cracking characteristics of high-performance fibre-reinforced geo­
polymer matrix. The impact of SS/SH ratio, curing temperature, and
NaOH molarity on the target compressive strength were studied. Fig. 22
illustrates their relationship to compressive strength. Longos et al. [108]
used the RSM model to find the optimum mix of GPC having nickel­
–laterite mine waste (NMW), FA, NaOH, and SS. The finding revealed
that the mix having an AL/B ratio of 0.428%, NMW of 50.1%, and
NaOH/Na2SiO3 ratio of 0.520 achieved a maximum compressive
strength of 36.3 MPa.
From the above discussion, it can be inferred that optimisation using
RSM shortens the trial mixes and enhances the effectiveness and

1057
M.A. Ansari et al.
Fig. 18. The influence of different parameters on the compressive strength of GPC [116].
performance of the existing design methodologies. While designing ex­
periments for GPC mixes, the RSM may be used to determine any desired
value of the response from a potential variable combination of param­
eters. Hence, this design method, in conjunction with the target strength
approach, is an efficient and effective method for mix designing of GPC.
3.3.4. Artificial neural network approaches
An artificial neural network (ANN) is a robust simulation tool for
analysing data and computing the processes in the same way as the
human brain does. This machine learning technology is often used in
concrete technology to predict the properties of hardened concrete, such
as compressive strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, etc.
[142–148]. The three major layers of an ANN model are input, hidden,
and output (Fig. 23). Each input and output layer might have one or
more layers depending on the specified situation. While the hidden layer
is generally spanned for two or more layers.
Dao et al. [25] built the ANN model for the prediction of the
compressive strength of GPC. FA, NaOH, Na2SiO3 solution and water
were considered as input layers for simulation (Fig. 23). The steps for
developing an efficient ANN model are shown in Fig. 24. The mean
absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of
determination (R2) were computed to check the ANN model efficiency.
1058
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
The findings demonstrated that the ANN models have a high potential
for predicting GPC compressive strength. Ling et al. [109] developed
models for predicting the important properties of an FA-based GPC
based on its mix design parameters using an artificial neural network
(ANN). Based on the experimental results of 36, 273, and 72 GPC mixes,
correlations were developed among experimental data and the ANN
model to predict the compressive strength, setting time, and heat of
geopolymerisation, respectively. Fig. 25 shows the input and output
parameters used in the study in the form of neural network architecture.
The results demonstrate that all attributes tested have high relationships
between experimental data and ANN model predictions. It was observed
that alkaline solution concentration significantly influences compressive
strength. The author advocates the use of ANN in the mix design of GPC.
ANN was also used by Shahmansouri et al. [110] for the prediction of
age-dependent compressive strength of GGBFS-based GPC. Laboratory
test results were used to build the model based on the compressive
strength. The ANN model was built using age, NaOH concentration,
natural zeolite, silica fume, and GGBFS concentrations as input vari­
ables. The results showed a strong prediction ability by the proposed
ANN model. Ahmed et al. [111] built a multi-layered feed-forward
network using proportions, weight/bias, and numerous parameters as
inputs with compressive strength as the output of ANN. Besides ANN,
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Table 3
Summary of the levels and parameters used in the Taguchi approach for mix proportioning of GPC.
Authors Year Levels Precursor Parameters Proportions Optimum Remark

Olivia 2012 9 FA (Class F) Aggregate content 1800 1896 kg/ When introduced to sea conditions, the strength of 55 MPa
And Nikraz [115] (kg/m3) 1848 m3 (max) was achieved, having low elastic modulus and drying
1896 shrinkage.
AL/fly ash ratio 0.30 0.30
0.35
0.4
SS/SH ratio 1.5 2.5
2
2.5
Curing method 24 h (60 ◦ C) 12 h
12 h (70 ◦ C) (70 ◦ C)
24 h (75 ◦ C)
Nazari et al. [117] 2012 32 OPC Concentration of SH 5 14 M The specimen with optimum mix curing at room
(M) 8 temperature achieved the maximum compressive strength of
12 43.1 MPa.
14
Water glass to sodium 1 1.5
hydroxide ratio 1.5
2
2.5
Alkaline activator to 0.35 0.42
cement ratio 0.38
0.42
0.45
Oven curing 2 6 ◦C
temperature (◦ C) 4
6
10
Oven curing (hrs.) 25 25 hrs.
40
70
90
Water curing (days) 1 28 days
3
7
28
Riahi et al. [118] 2012 9 FA (class C) and Oven curing 25 90 ◦ C After two days of water curing, the greatest compressive
rice husk ash temperature (◦ C) 70 strength was 18.6 MPa.
(RHA) 90
Oven curing time 2 8 hrs.
(hrs.) 4
8
Concentration of SH 5 5M
(M) 8
12
Mijarsh et al. [119] 2014 25 Palm oil fuel ash Ca(OH)2 15% 20% After 7 days of ambient curing, the optimum mix obtained a
(POFA) 17.5% compressive strength of 47.27 ± 5 MPa.
20%
22.5%
25%
Silica fume (%) 2.5% 5%
3.75%
5%
6.25%
7.5%
Al(OH)3 (%) 5% 10%
6.25%
7.5%
8.75%
10%
NaOH concentration 10 M 10 M
12 M
14 M
16 M
24 M
SS/SH ratio 0.67 2.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Alkali activator to 0.46 0.47
solid material 0.47
0.48
(continued on next page)

1059
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Table 3 (continued )
Authors Year Levels Precursor Parameters Proportions Optimum Remark

0.49
0.50
Bagheri and Nazari 2014 9 FA (class F) with GBFS (%) 30 30% Oven curing temperature was the most influential parameter
[120] GGBFS 50 affecting the compressive strength. From the optimum
55 proportion, compressive strength of 69.3 MPa and 76.2 MPa
NaOH concentration 5 12 M was achieved after 2 and 7 days, respectively.
(M) 8
12
Oven curing 25 90 ◦ C
temperature (◦ C) 70
90
Oven curing (hrs.) 4 16hrs.
8
16
Panagiotopoulou 2015 16 FA (class F) Alkali to aluminium 0.50 0.85 At 70 ◦ C curing temperature for 24 h, the GPC attained the 7-
et al. [121] ratio 0.85 day compressive strength of 43.1 MPa using the optimal mix
1.20 proportion.
1.50
Alkali species, Na/ 0.00 0.00
(Na + K) 0.35
0.70
1.00
Silicon content in 0.00 1.35
activation solution 0.70
1.35
2.00
Siyal et al. [122] 2016 9 FA (Class F) Na/Al ratio 1 1.4 The optimum mix composition yielded a higher setting of
1.2 GPC. The overall impact of W/GPS was higher on the setting
1.4 of GPC.
Si/Al ratio 1.8 2.2
2.2
2.6
W/GPS 0.20 0.30
0.25
0.30
Curing Temperature 40 40 ◦ C
(◦ C) 60
80
Hadi et al. [123] 2017 9 GGBFS Binder content (kg/ 400 450 kg/ At ambient curing conditions for 7 days, the GPC attained
m3) 450 m3 the compressive strength of 60 MPa using the optimal mix
500 proportion.
AL/B ratio 0.35 0.35
0.45
0.55
SS/SH ratio 1.5 2.5
2
2.5
Mehta et al. [124] 2017 16 FA (Class F) OPC content (%) 5% 20% At 70 ◦ C curing temperature for 24 h, the compressive
10% strength of 64.39 MPa was attained by GPC in 7 days using
15% the optimal mix proportion.
20%
NaOH molarity (M) 5 15 M
10
15
20
Curing temperature 60 70 ◦ C
(◦ C) 70
80
90
Li et al. [76] 2018 16 Slag W/B ratio 0.5 – The N/B ratio is a critical factor that influences compressive
0.45 strength, while N/B and W/B ratios are critical factors
0.40 affecting the setting time of GPC. However, the W/B ratio
0.35 and tpaste are the two most important factors that influence
FA/B ratio 0 – the slump of GPC.
15%
30%
45%
Excess thickness paste 32 –
(tpaste) (µm) 40
48
56
Na2O/binder (N/B) 4% –
ratio 5%
6%
7%
(continued on next page)

1060
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Table 3 (continued )
Authors Year Levels Precursor Parameters Proportions Optimum Remark

Ms 0.5 –
1
1.5
2
Jithendra and 2020 9 FA, GGBFS and Molarity of SS 1.5 1.75 M The mix having SS molarity of 1.75 M, 50% coarse
Elavenil [114] silica fume solution (M) 1.75 aggregate, SS to binder ratio of 0.5, and 0% superplasticiser
2.0 attained a compressive strength of 47.9 MPa at 28 days and
Coarse aggregate 60% 50% slump value of 340 mm.
(%) 50%
40%
SS solution to binder 0.5 0.55
ratio 0.55
0.6
superplasticiser 0% 1%
dosages 1%
2%
Dave and Bhogayata 2020 9 FA, GGBFS and Binder Content B1* B1 The suggested mix using the Taguchi approach to attain the
[116] silica fume B2* target strength of 25 MPa displayed strong agreement with
B3* the experimental results.
Dosage of 0.5% 0.5%
superplasticiser 0.75%
1%
SS/SH ratio 2 2
2.5
3
Molar content 10 M 12 M
12 M
14 M
Prusty and Pradhan 2020 16 FA and GGBFS GGBFS replacement 15% 45% The compressive strength of GPC reported after 28 days was
[125] level (%) 30% 79.26 MPA at ambient curing conditions by following the
45% optimum mix parameters.
60%
W/GPS ratio 0.28 0.31
0.29
0.30
0.31
NaOH molarity (M) 8 14 M
10
12
14
Binder content (kg/ 375 450 kg/
m3) 400 m3
425
450
SS/SH ratio 1.5 1.5
1.75
2.0
2.25

*Mix proportion of B1 represents 60% fly ash and 10% silica fume; B2 represents 55% fly ash, 35% GGBFS, and 10% silica fume while B3 represents 40% GGBFS and
10% of silica fume.

M5Ptree, linear, non-linear, and multi-logistic regression models were
also built. Laboratory test results were conducted to verify the developed
models. Results showed that the compressive strength of GPC may be
predicted more precisely by using ANN models.
From the above discussion, it can be inferred that the ANN method
has proven to be a viable and time-efficient computational approach for
analysing the effect of different parameters on the mix proportioning of
GPC. Further, these models can be utilised to determine the optimum
mix of GPC based on desired strength. It can be suggested that the uti­
lisation of such numerical tools can save time, money, and laboratory
experimentation while designing GPC mixes. However, the formation of
statistical relationships necessitates the creation of a vast database first.
4. Life cycle assessment of GPC mixes
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is widely recognised
as a systematic approach employed in upstream and downstream pro­
cesses across various life cycle phases. Its primary purpose is to evaluate
the environmental impacts of materials. The method assesses the
ecological efficiency of a specific product system, thereby justifying the
environmental evaluation of various products throughout their lifecycle.
Furthermore, life cycle assessments aid manufacturers in reducing
environmental emissions through diverse manufacturing procedures
[149]. Numerous studies have been conducted in the past to compare
the environment impact of GPC to that of OPCC. The utilisation of GPC
within the construction sector yields a reduction in carbon emissions by
reducing the consumption of primary materials, enhancing sustainabil­
ity and economic viability [150–158].
A limited number of researches incorporated the effect of various mix
design parameters on the environmental impact of GPC. Among various
mix design parameters, the type of precursor is an essential factor that
needs to be considered while assessing the environmental impact. GPC
produced using GGBFS as a precursor performed better in terms of
reducing emissions than the GPC produced from FA [159]. A blend of FA
and GGBFS-based GPC also showed better results than GPC based on FA
alone. The superior ecological performance associated with the uti­
lisation of GGBFS can be attributed to the less requirement of alkali
activators and the absence of high-temperature curing [159]. The uti­
lisation of metakaolin-based GPC has the potential to substantially
reduce CO2 emissions by 27–45% compared to OPCC [153]. Based on

1061
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 19. Contour for the compressive strength of GPC based on various parameters [103].

Fig. 20. Steps of response surface methodology [106].

1062
M.A. Ansari et al.
Fig. 21. The effect of various factors on the compressive strength of GPC after 2 h of curing [106].
Fig. 22. Effect of (a) NaOH molarity and curing temperature and (b) Na2SiO3/NaOH and NaOH molarity on the compressive strength of GPC [107].
the performance criteria, Faridmehr et al. [160] expanded the scope of
the cradle-to-gate system to include the mechanical and durability
properties of GPC. The modified LCA was analysed on the 42 mixes of
GPC incorporating FA, GGBFS, POFA, waste ceramic powder (WCP) and
their combination. The modified LCA reduced the normalised CO2
emissions intensity within the GPC mixes that incorporated high vol­
umes of FA and GGBFS. The GPC mixes with POFA exhibit higher nor­
malised CO2 emissions due to the comparatively low compressive
strength and increased electricity demand for oven drying of POFA.
The type and source of the activator used in the manufacturing of
GPC also have an impact on the environment. The CO2 emissions of GPC
are primarily dependent on the activators, transportation, and heat-
curing processes. However, the quantity of cement used determines
the majority of the CO2 emissions in OPC concrete [161]. While
comparing the mix design parameters of GPC, such as AL/B, molarity of
NaOH and SS/SH ratio, Shi et al. [161] reported that the AL/B ratio has
the most influence on CO2, followed by SS/SH ratio and molarity of
NaOH. The molarity of 12 mol/L was suggested to achieve the maximum
1063
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
compressive strength and environmental benefits [161]. The LCA of GPC
was analysed by Salas et al. [162] with respect to the source of the NaOH
activator, ranging from laboratory to industrial scales. The findings of
the study demonstrate that GPC exhibits a 64% reduction in global
warming potential (GWP) compared to OPCC when utilising local solar
salt as the primary source of NaOH. Bajpai et al. [163] conducted cradle-
to-grave LCA of the GPC mixes to study the effect of precursors and
activators on the environment. The mixes comprised FA-GPC with NaOH
and Na2SiO3, FA-silica fume blend GPC with NaOH and Na2SiO3, and
FA-silica fume blend GPC with NaOH only. GPC activated without
Na2SiO3 and incorporating FA and silica fume exhibited the least envi­
ronmental impact, with the cost reduction per unit volume ranging from
10.87% to 17.77%. Fig. 26 depicts the impact scores of the ingredients
on the environment for OPCC and GPC mixes, respectively. As shown in
Fig. 26, alkaline activators and cement have the most adverse effect on
the environment for GPC and OPCC, respectively [163,164]. The uti­
lisation of alkali activators accounts for 74% of the overall greenhouse
gas emissions for FA-GPC [165]. The adverse effects of chemical
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 23. Architecture of the ANN model [25].

Fig. 24. Steps in the development of an efficient ANN model [25].

activators are due to distinct manufacturing procedures that are neces­
sary for each of the chemicals, resulting in a significant emission of
greenhouse gases into the environment and contamination of the sur­
rounding water system through the disposal of wastewater [166,167].
The inclusion of industrial wastes can further enhance the sustain­
ability of GPC. A cradle-to-gate LCA methodology was employed by
Munir et al. [168] to assess the environmental benefits of incorporating
industrial wastes into GPC. Ten mix designs comprising varying mixture
compositions of industrial wastes were formulated. The mixes
comprised bark boiler ash, construction and demolition waste (CDW),
metakaolin, and activators. The findings indicate that GPC with reduced
levels of Na2SiO3 and metakaolin demonstrated superior environmental
efficacy. A reduction of 10% in metakaolin content results in a 16%
decrease in the overall environmental impact, specifically in terms of
global warming. The processing and curing of GPC formulations have
been determined to have a minimal environmental impact of less than
1% [168]. Incorporating 10% rice husk ash decreases roughly 1 kg CO2-
3
eq/m in greenhouse gas emissions [165]. The use of natural volcanic
pozzolan (70%) and GGBFS (30%) was evaluated through GWP (Global
Warming Potential) and GTP (Global Temperature Change Potential) by
Robayo-Salazar et al. [169]. The mix design was conducted by absolute
volume approach in line with that of OPCC. The findings indicated that
the GPC offers a distinct environmental benefit, as its carbon footprint
(GWP) is 44.7% lower than that of OPCC, as shown in Fig. 27.
It is evident from review of LCA analysis that compared to OPCC, the
use of GPC in the construction industry reduces carbon emissions. At the

1064
M.A. Ansari et al. Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070

Fig. 25. Neural network architecture for setting time, compressive strength and peak heat [109].

Fig. 26. Scores of ingredients of OPCC and GPC on endpoint damage categories [163].

same time, sustainability and economic viability are improved. How­
ever, within the GPC, various parameters affect environmental perfor­
mance, such as precursor type, amount and concentration of activators,
and AL/B ratio. Hence, proper optimization of mix design is required to
ensure the balance between the mechanical properties and environ­
mental benefits.
5. Discussion
GPC utilises by-products of industries in its production, making it an
environmentally and ecologically friendly material. The absence of a
standard code for mix design is the primary reason for GPC’s effective
implementation in the real world. Precursor type and quantity, alkaline
liquid to binder ratio, alkali type and dose, Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio,
molarity ratio of SiO2/Na2O in sodium silicate, and curing conditions
are some of the parameters which influence the mix design of GPC. The
AL/B is the most significant factor that influences the workability and
compressive strength of GPC, this trend is in line with the W/B in OPCC.
Most of the mix design approaches proposed by authors are based on the
selection of AL/B ratio in the first step. The amount of paste is then
determined either by fixing the water content, the binder content, or the
paste content. Some researchers proposed the target mix design ac­
cording to fixed water content that considers the aggregate type, fine­
ness, gradation, and MSA. The proportions of other constituents are then

1065
M.A. Ansari et al.
Fig. 27. Projected GWP and GTP effects for GPC and OPCC over a 100-year period [169].
calculated. Nevertheless, the target strength approach is being used in
the mix proportioning of GPC and is considered as the most reliable
method for mix proportioning. However, as there are a number of
influencing parameters in GPC, this approach needs a lot more trials.
Some authors shift the approach from conventional mix design methods
based on compressive strength and workability. They advocated mix
proportioning based on the performance criteria. A performance-based
approach will contribute to increased credibility in the GPC industry.
This approach seems to be promising as performance is not only
measured in terms of compressive strength but other properties as well.
However, very few researchers have used this approach in the mix
design, and to achieve the confidence the practitioners, more prominent
research is required to explore this approach.
Due to the numerous variables, a reliable statistical approach must
be used to design the GPC of desired properties with the least number of
trials and resources possible. In statistical approaches, the Taguchi
method, multivariable polynomial regression model (MPRM), multi­
variate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model, response surface
method (RSM), and artificial neural network approaches are used by
different authors to optimise the mix design parameters. Out of the
following statistical approaches, the Taguchi approach is mainly used by
researchers to optimise the mix design. The Taguchi approach of mix
design is significantly more efficient than conventional design ap­
proaches. Taguchi’s approach employs orthogonal arrays for the
experimental design to study a large number of samples with fewer
trials. The MARS model can also be effectively employed in the mix
proportioning of GPC. However, MARS models are often slower to train.
Compared to ANN, MPRM models have the benefit of being represen­
tational models, making it easier to study them using methods like
sensitivity analysis, graphical approaches, and variable significance ra­
tios. These qualities allow the MPRM to be a very helpful tool to be used
in the mix proportioning of GPC. However, this technique may give
inconsistent results if fewer parameters are taken into account. While
increasing the parameters will result in the complex formulation. The
artificial neural network is made up of computing units that are layered
and have neurons comparable to those seen in the human brain. The
ANN has gained traction as a computational tool for modelling
complicated data involving large number of variables. Since, mix design
of GPC involves many parameters, the ANN has been proven to be a
viable computational approach for analysing the influence of these pa­
rameters on the properties of GPC.
Statistical models are appealing because, once fitted, they may be used
to make predictions considerably faster than other modelling approaches
and are thus easier to implement in software. But, proving the correlation
between essential parameters of GPC necessitates a large database.
Furthermore, an extensive literature review is required in advance to
select the influencing parameters to get the desired properties.
1066
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
Regarding the environmental assessment o GPC, it is clear that GPC
offers environmental benefits compared to OPCC by reducing the carbon
emissions. Various mix design parameters such as type of precursor, type
and amount of activator, AL/B ratio, SS/SH ratio have an impact on the
environment. Among them, the activators have the most adverse impact
on the environment. The temperature curing required for FA-GPC also
negatively impact the environment. Some authors suggested the use of
GGBFS over FA for the production of GPC due to its better mechanical
performance at ambient curing [159]. Since, GPC involves many pa­
rameters for its preparation, proper optimisation is required to balance
the mechanical properties and sustainability of GPC.
6. Conclusions and future perspectives
In the present study, design approaches employed in the mix
proportioning of GPC are reviewed. Based on the literature, three types
of approaches used in the mix proportioning of GPC have been dis­
cussed: target strength approach, performance-based approach, and
statistical approaches. The target strength approach is the most popu­
larly used by researchers in the mix proportioning of GPC, in which
concrete is designed for target compressive strength and workability.
The performance-based approach is a relatively new method for mix
proportioning of GPC in which the design is based on performance
criteria rather than compressive strength and workability. The uti­
lisation of statistical approaches in the mix design of GPC can save time,
money and labour. Out of the many statistical methods employed by
authors in the mix proportioning of GPC, Taguchi’s approach is mostly
used due to its simple applicability and efficiency. In more recent re­
searches, researchers utilised artificial neural network (ANN) due to
their ability to handle more complex data.
Despite the significant studies done in the field of GPC investigating
their mechanical properties, there is limited research available on their
mix design approaches, and a more comprehensive mix design approach
for GPC is still needed. GPC mix design and proportioning get increas­
ingly complicated as additional variables are introduced, and there is
currently no standard mix design procedure for developing GPC. While
some researchers have offered their mix design approaches, they all are
essentially reliant on trial and error. The researchers’ focus should be
shifted more toward proposing a well-defined comprehensive mix
design that incorporates all the parameters that affect the fresh and
hardened properties of GPC. LCA studies showed that the development
of GPC provides a significant potential to increase sustainability in the
construction industry by reducing the carbon emissions. However, GPC
application to real world is still limited due to the absence of standard
mix design codes. Hence, to expand its usage in a number of application
sectors and promote the cleaner technology alternative throughout the
construction industry, more significant studies on the mix design
M.A. Ansari et al.
approaches of GPC are necessary. The future research should on directed
towards the following challenges:
• Development of standard or code for the mix proportioning of GPC.
• As GPC involves many parameters, more studies should be conducted
on the mix design based on the performance approach.
• Development of numerical tools is needed to handle the complex
data involved in the mix design of GPC.
• As different types of precursors and alkali solutions can be used to
produce GPC, a common approach may not be suitable. Hence, the
suitability of different approaches for different types of GPC should
be researched.
• Environmental impact of different mix design parameters and ap­
proaches should be evaluated by conducting more LCA studies.
• Future studies should be focusses on proper optimization of mix
design to ensure the balance between the GPC properties and envi­
ronmental benefits.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Li H, Deng Q, Zhang J, Xia B, Skitmore M. Assessing the life cycle CO2 emissions
of reinforced concrete structures: Four cases from China. J Clean Prod 2019;210:
1496–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.102.
[2] Maywald C, Riesser F. Sustainability–the art of modern architecture. Procedia
Eng 2016;155:238–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.025.
[3] Hendriks CA, Worrell E, De Jager D, Blok K, Riemer P. Emission reduction of
greenhouse gases from the cement industry. InProceedings of the fourth
international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies 1998;30:939-
944. Interlaken, Austria: IEA GHG R&D Programme. 10.1016/b978-008043018-
8/50150-8.
[4] U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2022; U.S. Geological
Survey: 2540 Reston, VA, USA, 2022.
[5] Statista Research Department, “Global cement production in 1990, 2000 and
2010, with forecasts for 2020 and 2030” Statista - The Statistics Portal. Statista.
Accessed 27-04-2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/373845/global-
cement-production-forecast/.
[6] Leung DY, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of
carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;39:
426–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093.
[7] Bakri AM, Kamarudin H, Binhussain M, Nizar IK, Rafiza AR, Zarina Y.
Comparison of geopolymer fly ash and ordinary portland cement to the strength
of concrete. Adv Sci Lett 2013;19(12):3592–5. https://doi.org/10.1166/
asl.2013.5187.
[8] Abdulkareem OA, Ramli M. Optimization of alkaline activator mixing and curing
conditions for a fly ash-based geopolymer paste system. Mod Appl Sci 2015;9
(12):61. https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v9n12p61.
[9] Davidovits J. Geopolymer cement. A review. Geopolymer Institute, Technical
papers 2013;21:1-1. www.geopolymer.org.
[10] Davidovits J. False values on CO2 emission for geopolymer cement/concrete
published in scientific papers. Technical paper 2015;24:1-9. www.geopolymer.
org.
[11] Amran YM, Alyousef R, Alabduljabbar H, El-Zeadani M. Clean production and
properties of geopolymer concrete. A review. J Clean Prod 2020;251:119679.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119679.
[12] Chindaprasirt P, Chalee W. Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on chloride
penetration and steel corrosion of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete under
marine site. Constr Build Mater 2014;63:303–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.04.010.
[13] Adak D, Mandal S. Strength and durability performance of fly ash–based process-
modified geopolymer concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2019;31(9):04019174. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002793.
[14] Aslani F, Asif Z. Properties of ambient-cured normal and heavyweight
geopolymer concrete exposed to high temperatures. Mater 2019;12(5):740.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12050740.
[15] Davidovits J. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal
Calorim 1991;37(8):1633–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01912193.
1067
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
[16] Lloyd N, Rangan V. Geopolymer concrete with fly ash. InProceedings of the
Second International Conference on sustainable construction Materials and
Technologies 2010 (pp. 1493-1504). UWM Center for By-Products Utilization.
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/3540.
[17] Hassan A. Experimental study of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Int J Adv
Earth Sci Eng 2018;7(1):635–48. https://doi.org/10.23953/cloud.ijaese.344.
[18] Part WK, Ramli M, Cheah CB. An overview on the influence of various factors on
the properties of geopolymer concrete derived from industrial by-products.
Constr Build Mater 2015;77:370–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.12.065.
[19] Saha S, Rajasekaran C. Enhancement of the properties of fly ash based
geopolymer paste by incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag. Constr
Build Mater 2017;146:615–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.04.139.
[20] Moradikhou AB, Esparham A, Avanaki MJ. Physical & mechanical properties of
fiber reinforced metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2020;
251:118965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118965.
[21] Wongsa A, Siriwattanakarn A, Nuaklong P, Sata V, Sukontasukkul P,
Chindaprasirt P. Use of recycled aggregates in pressed fly ash geopolymer
concrete. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2020;39(2):e13327. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ep.13327.
[22] Wallah S, Rangan BV. Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: long-term
properties. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/34322.
[23] Komnitsas KA. Potential of geopolymer technology towards green buildings and
sustainable cities. Procedia Eng 2011;21:1023–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2011.11.2108.
[24] Yip CK, Lukey GC, Van Deventer JS. The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and
calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cem Concr Res
2005;35(9):1688–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.042.
[25] Dao DV, Ly HB, Trinh SH, Le TT, Pham BT. Artificial intelligence approaches for
prediction of compressive strength of geopolymer concrete. Mater 2019;12(6):
983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12060983.
[26] Jindal BB. Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete
with mineral admixtures: A review. Constr Build Mater 2019;227:116644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.025.
[27] Ahmad W, Ahmad A, Ostrowski KA, Aslam F, Joyklad P, Zajdel P. Application of
advanced machine learning approaches to predict the compressive strength of
concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials. Mater 2021;14(19):
5762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14195762.
[28] Alyousef R, Ahmad W, Ahmad A, Aslam F, Joyklad P, Alabduljabbar H. Potential
use of recycled plastic and rubber aggregate in cementitious materials for
sustainable construction: A review. J Clean Prod 2021;329:129736. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129736.
[29] Khan M, Ali M. Improvement in concrete behavior with fly ash, silica-fume and
coconut fibres. Constr Build Mater 2019;203:174–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.01.103.
[30] Hassan A, Arif M, Shariq M. Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and
sustainable environment–A review of mechanical properties and microstructure.
J Clean Prod 2019;223:704–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051.
[31] Hassan A, Arif M, Shariq M. Mechanical behaviour and microstructural
investigation of geopolymer concrete after exposure to elevated temperatures.
Arab J Sci Eng 2020;45:3843–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04269-9.
[32] Ahmad A, Ahmad W, Chaiyasarn K, Ostrowski KA, Aslam F, Zajdel P, et al.
Prediction of geopolymer concrete compressive strength using novel machine
learning algorithms. Polymers 2021;13(19):3389. https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym13193389.
[33] Van Deventer JS, Provis JL, Duxson P. Technical and commercial progress in the
adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner Eng 2012;29:89–104. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mineng.2011.09.009.
[34] Güngör D, Özen S. Development and characterization of clinoptilolite-,
mordenite-, and analcime-based geopolymers: A comparative study. Case Stud
Constr Mater 2021;15:e00576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00576.
[35] Podolsky Z, Liu J, Dinh H, Doh JH, Guerrieri M, Fragomeni S. State of the art on
the application of waste materials in geopolymer concrete. Case Stud Constr
Mater 2021;15:e00637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00637.
[36] Buyondo KA, Olupot PW, Kirabira JB, Yusuf AA. Optimization of production
parameters for rice husk ash-based geopolymer cement using response surface
methodology. Case Stud Constr Mater 2020;13:e00461. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cscm.2020.e00461.
[37] Refaie FA, Abbas R, Fouad FH. Sustainable construction system with Egyptian
metakaolin based geopolymer concrete sandwich panels. Case Stud Constr Mater
2020;13:e00436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00436.
[38] Suksiripattanapong C, Krosoongnern K, Thumrongvut J, Sukontasukkul P,
Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P. Properties of cellular lightweight high calcium
bottom ash-portland cement geopolymer mortar. Case Stud Constr Mater 2020;
12:e00337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00337.
[39] Saini G, Vattipalli U. Assessing properties of alkali activated GGBS based self-
compacting geopolymer concrete using nano-silica. Case Stud Constr Mater 2020;
12:e00352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00352.
[40] Sultan ME, Abo-El-Enein SA, Sayed AZ, EL-Sokkary TM, Hammad HA.
Incorporation of cement bypass flue dust in fly ash and blast furnace slag-based
geopolymer. Case Stud Constr Mater 2018;8:315–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2018.02.009.
[41] Sarker PK, Mcbeath S. Fire endurance of steel reinforced fly ash geopolymer
concrete elements. Constr Build Mater 2015;90:91–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.04.054.
M.A. Ansari et al.
[42] Yang T, Yao X, Zhang Z, Wang H. Mechanical property and structure of alkali-
activated fly ash and slag blends. J Sustain Cem-Based Mater 2012;1(4):167–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2012.752621.
[43] Sumajouw DM, Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Rangan BV. Fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete: study of slender reinforced columns. J Mater Sci 2007;42:3124–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0523-8.
[44] Sumajouw DM, Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Rangan BV. Behaviour and strength of
reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer concrete beams. InAustralian structural
engineering conference 2005 Sep (Vol. 2005, p. 453). Engineers Australia.
[45] Sarker PK. Analysis of geopolymer concrete columns. Mater Struct 2009;42:
715–24. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9415-5.
[46] Sarker PK. Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete. Mater Struct 2011;44:1021–30. https://doi.org/10.1617/
s11527-010-9683-8.
[47] Sarker PK, Haque R, Ramgolam KV. Fracture behaviour of heat cured fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Mater Des 2013;44:580–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2012.08.005.
[48] Al Bakri AM, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Nizar IK, Rafiza AR, Zarina Y. The
processing, characterization, and properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete.
Rev Adv Mater Sci 2012;30(1):90–7.
[49] Deb PS, Nath P, Sarker PK. Drying shrinkage of slag blended fly ash geopolymer
concrete cured at room temperature. Procedia Eng 2015;125:594–600. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.066.
[50] Castel A, Foster SJ, Ng T, Sanjayan JG, Gilbert RI. Creep and drying shrinkage of a
blended slag and low calcium fly ash geopolymer Concrete. Mater Struct 2016;49:
1619–28. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0599-1.
[51] Aldred J, Day J. Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional
concrete. InProceedings of the 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete &
Structures, Singapore 2012 Aug 29 (pp. 29-31). https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Nabil-Hossiney/post/.
[52] Goulden S, Erell E, Garb Y, Pearlmutter D. Green building standards as socio-
technical actors in municipal environmental policy. Build Res Inf 2017;45(4):
414–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015.1116844.
[53] Jin R, Gao S, Cheshmehzangi A, Aboagye-Nimo E. A holistic review of off-site
construction literature published between 2008 and 2018. J Clean Prod 2018;
202:1202–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.195.
[54] Yang H, Liu L, Yang W, Liu H, Ahmad W, Ahmad A, et al. A comprehensive
overview of geopolymer composites: A bibliometric analysis and literature
review. Case Stud Constr Mater 2022;16:e00830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2021.e00830.
[55] Fernández-Jiménez A, García-Lodeiro I, Palomo A. Durability of alkali-activated
fly ash cementitious materials. J Mater Sci 2007;42:3055–65. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10853-006-0584-8.
[56] Hassan A, Arif M, Shariq M. A review of properties and behaviour of reinforced
geopolymer concrete structural elements-A clean technology option for
sustainable development. J Clean Prod 2020;245:118762. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118762.
[57] Rangan BV. Concrete construction engineering handbook 2007.
[58] Diaz-Loya EI, Allouche EN, Vaidya S. Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based
geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2011;108(3):300.
[59] Diaz EI, Allouche EN, Eklund S. Factors affecting the suitability of fly ash as
source material for geopolymers. Fuel 2010;89(5):992–6. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2009.09.012.
[60] Junaid MT, Narong T, Pichai N. Reducing bleeding in mix for bored pile
application without affecting other fresh concrete properties: methodology and
procedure. InThe Tenth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering
and Construction, Bangkok, Thailand 2006 (p. 38).
[61] Hardjito D, Rangan BV. Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/5594.
[62] Kong DL, Sanjayan JG. Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to
elevated temperatures. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30(10):986–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.08.001.
[63] Songpiriyakij S, Kubprasit T, Jaturapitakkul C, Chindaprasirt P. Compressive
strength and degree of reaction of biomass-and fly ash-based geopolymer. Constr
Build Mater 2010;24(3):236–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2009.09.002.
[64] Somna K, Jaturapitakkul C, Kajitvichyanukul P, Chindaprasirt P. NaOH-activated
ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel 2011;90(6):
2118–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.018.
[65] RSN 336-84. Republican building norms for production and use of slag alkaline
binders, concretes and structures. Ukrainian Standard; 1984.
[66] Patankar SV, Ghugal YM, Jamkar SS. Mix design of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete. Adv Struct 2015;3:1619–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-
2187-6_123.
[67] Anuradha R, Sreevidya V, Venkatasubramani R, Rangan BV. Modified guidelines
for geopolymer concrete mix design using Indian standard. https://www.sid.ir/
en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=247118.
[68] Bondar D, Ma Q, Soutsos M, Basheer M, Provis JL, Nanukuttan S. Alkali activated
slag concretes designed for a desired slump, strength and chloride diffusivity.
Constr Build Mater 2018;190:191–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.09.124.
[69] Rao GM, Kumar KS, Poloju KK, Srinivasu K. An Emphasis of Geopolymer Concrete
with Single Activator and Conventional Concrete with Recycled Aggregate and
Data Analyzing using Artificial Neural Network. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng
2020;998:1–012060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/998/1/012060.
1068
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
[70] BIS: 10262-2009, “Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design.” Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[71] ACI 211.1-91. Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91). Farmington Hills, MI, USA:
American Concrete Institute.
[72] Ng TS, Foster SJ. Development of a mix design methodology for high-
performance geopolymer mortars. Struct Concr 2013;14(2):148–56. https://doi.
org/10.1002/suco.201200018.
[73] Montes C, Gomez SA, Khadka N, Allouche EN. Statistical software to improve the
accuracy of geopolymer concrete mix design and proportioning. In2013 World
Coal Ash Conference 2013 (pp. 22-25). http://www.flyash.info/2013/123-
Montes-2013.pdf.
[74] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Khennane A, Kayali O. Geopolymer concrete-filled
pultruded composite beams–concrete mix design and application. Cem Concr
Compos 2015;58:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.12.012.
[75] Pavithra P, Reddy MS, Dinakar P, Rao BH, Satpathy BK, Mohanty AN. A mix
design procedure for geopolymer concrete with fly ash. J Clean Prod 2016;133:
117–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.041.
[76] Li N, Shi C, Zhang Z, Zhu D, Hwang HJ, Zhu Y, et al. A mixture proportioning
method for the development of performance-based alkali-activated slag-based
concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2018;93:163–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2018.07.009.
[77] Bondar D, Nanukuttan S, Provis JL, Soutsos M. Efficient mix design of alkali
activated slag concretes based on packing fraction of ingredients and paste
thickness. J Clean Prod 2019;218:438–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.01.332.
[78] Bellum RR, Muniraj K, Madduru SR. Investigation on modulus of elasticity of fly
ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag blended geopolymer concrete. Mater
Today: Proc 2020;27:718–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.299.
[79] Phoo-Ngernkham T, Phiangphimai C, Damrongwiriyanupap N, Hanjitsuwan S,
Thumrongvut J, Chindaprasirt P. A mix design procedure for alkali-activated
high-calcium fly ash concrete cured at ambient temperature. Adv. Mater Sci Eng
2018; 2018.. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2460403.
[80] Rafeet A, Vinai R, Soutsos M, Sha W. Guidelines for mix proportioning of fly ash/
GGBS based alkali activated concretes. Constr Build Mater 2017;147:130–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.036.
[81] Li N, Shi C, Zhang Z, Wang H, Liu Y. A review on mixture design methods for
geopolymer concrete. Compos B Eng 2019;178:107490. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107490.
[82] Abbasi AF, Ahmad M, Wasin M. Optimization of concrete mis proportioning using
reduced factorial experimental technique. ACI Mater J 1987;84(1):55–63.
https://doi.org/10.14359/15162.
[83] Soudki KA, El-Salakawy EF, Elkum NB. Full factorial optimization of concrete mix
design for hot climates. J Mater Civ Eng 2001;13(6):427–33. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)13:6(427).
[84] Zhang Z, Wang H. Analysing the relation between pore structure and
permeability of alkali-activated concrete binders. Handbook of Alkali-Activated
Cements, Mortars and Concretes. 2015:235-64. 10.1533/9781782422884.2.235.
[85] Joseph B, Mathew G. Influence of aggregate content on the behavior of fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Sci Iran 2012;19(5):1188–94. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scient.2012.07.006.
[86] Hung CC, Chang JJ. The influence of mixture variables for the alkali-activated
slag concrete on the properties of concrete. J Mar Sci Technol 2013;21(3):1.
https://jmstt.ntou.edu.tw/journal/vol21/iss3/1.
[87] Thunuguntla CS, Rao TG. Effect of mix design parameters on mechanical and
durability properties of alkali activated slag concrete. Constr Build Mater 2018;
193:173–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.189.
[88] Reddy MS, Dinakar P, Rao BH. Mix design development of fly ash and ground
granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete. J Build Eng 2018;20:
712–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.010.
[89] Yang KH, Cho AR, Song JK. Effect of water–binder ratio on the mechanical
properties of calcium hydroxide-based alkali-activated slag concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2012;29:504–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.062.
[90] Junaid MT, Kayali O, Khennane A, Black J. A mix design procedure for low
calcium alkali activated fly ash-based concretes. Constr Build Mater 2015;79:
301–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.01.048.
[91] Ferdous MW, Kayali O, Khennane A. A detailed procedure of mix design for fly
ash based geopolymer concrete. InProceedings of the fourth Asia-Pacific
conference on FRP in structures (APFIS 2013), Melbourne, Australia 2013 Dec 11
(pp. 11-13).
[92] Zhang Z, Provis JL, Zou J, Reid A, Wang H. Toward an indexing approach to
evaluate fly ashes for geopolymer manufacture. Cem Concr Res 2016;85:163–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.04.007.
[93] Powers TC. The properties of fresh concrete. 1969.
[94] Lange F, Mörtel H, Rudert V. Dense packing of cement pastes and resulting
consequences on mortar properties. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(10):1481–8. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00189-0.
[95] Kwan AK, Wong HH. Packing density of cementitious materials: part 2—packing
and flow of OPC+ PFA+ CSF. Mater Struct 2008;41:773–84. https://doi.org/
10.1617/s11527-007-9281-6.
[96] Kwan AK, Fung WW. Packing density measurement and modelling of fine
aggregate and mortar. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31(6):349–57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.03.006.
[97] Li LG, Kwan AK. Packing density of concrete mix under dry and wet conditions.
Powder Technol 2014;253:514–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
powtec.2013.12.020.
M.A. Ansari et al.
[98] Rangan BV. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. 2008 https://espace.curtin.edu.
au/handle/20.500.11937/20680.
[99] Nawy EG. Concrete construction engineering handbook. CRC press; 2008.
10.1201/9781420007657.
[100] PD CEN/TR 16563. Principles of the equivalent durability procedure. Brussels:
CEN; 2013.
[101] Noushini A, Castel A. Performance-based criteria to assess the suitability of
geopolymer concrete in marine environments using modified ASTM C1202 and
ASTM C1556 methods. Mater Struct 2018;51(6):146. https://doi.org/10.1617/
s11527-018-1267-z.
[102] van Deventer JS, San Nicolas R, Ismail I, Bernal SA, Brice DG, Provis JL.
Microstructure and durability of alkali-activated materials as key parameters for
standardization. J Sustain Cem-Based Mater 2015;4(2):116–28. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21650373.2014.979265.
[103] Lokuge W, Wilson A, Gunasekara C, Law DW, Setunge S. Design of fly ash
geopolymer concrete mix proportions using Multivariate Adaptive Regression
Spline model. Constr Build Mater 2018;166:472–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.01.175.
[104] Hadi MN, Zhang H, Parkinson S. Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and
concretes cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time
and workability. J Build Eng 2019;23:301–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2019.02.006.
[105] El-Hassan H, Ismail N. Effect of process parameters on the performance of fly ash/
GGBS blended geopolymer composites. J Sustain Cem-Based Mater 2018;7(2):
122–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2017.1411296.
[106] Gao Y, Xu J, Luo X, Zhu J, Nie L. Experiment research on mix design and early
mechanical performance of alkali-activated slag using response surface
methodology (RSM). Ceram Int 2016;42(10):11666–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.04.076.
[107] Zahid M, Shafiq N, Isa MH, Gil L. Statistical modeling and mix design
optimization of fly ash based engineered geopolymer composite using response
surface methodology. J Clean Prod 2018;194:483–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.05.158.
[108] Longos Jr A, Tigue AA, Dollente IJ, Malenab RA, Bernardo-Arugay I, Hinode H,
et al. Optimization of the mix formulation of geopolymer using nickel-laterite
mine waste and coal fly ash. Minerals 2020 Dec 21;10(12):1144. https://doi.org/
10.3390/min10121144.
[109] Ling Y, Wang K, Wang X, Li W. Prediction of engineering properties of fly ash-
based geopolymer using artificial neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 2021;33:
85–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04662-3.
[110] Shahmansouri AA, Yazdani M, Ghanbari S, Bengar HA, Jafari A, Ghatte HF.
Artificial neural network model to predict the compressive strength of eco-
friendly geopolymer concrete incorporating silica fume and natural zeolite.
J Clean Prod 2021 Jan;10(279):123697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123697.
[111] Ahmed HU, Mohammed AS, Faraj RH, Qaidi SM, Mohammed AA. Compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete modified with nano-silica: Experimental and
modeling investigations. Case Stud Constr Mater 2022;16:e01036. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01036.
[112] Türkmen İI, Gül R, Çel [idot] k C, Dem [idot] rboğa R. Determination by the
Taguchi method of optimum conditions for mechanical properties of high
strength concrete with admixtures of silica fume and blast furnace slag. Civ Eng
Environ Syst 2003 Jun 1;20(2):105-18. 10.1080/1028660031000081527.
[113] Türkmen İ, Gül R, Çelik C. A Taguchi approach for investigation of some physical
properties of concrete produced from mineral admixtures. Build Environ 2008;43
(6):1127–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.02.005.
[114] Jithendra C, Elavenil S. Influences of parameters on slump flow and compressive
strength properties of aluminosilicate based flowable geopolymer concrete using
taguchi method. SILICON 2020 Mar;12(3):595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12633-019-00166-w.
[115] Olivia M, Nikraz H. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
Taguchi method. Mater Des (1980–2015) 2012;36:191–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2011.10.036.
[116] Dave SV, Bhogayata A. The strength oriented mix design for geopolymer concrete
using Taguchi method and Indian concrete mix design code. Constr Build Mater
2020;262:120853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120853.
[117] Nazari A, Khanmohammadi H, Amini M, Hajiallahyari H, Rahimi A. Production
geopolymers by Portland cement: designing the main parameters’ effects on
compressive strength by Taguchi method. Mater Des 2012;41:43–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.04.045.
[118] Riahi S, Nazari A, Zaarei D, Khalaj G, Bohlooli H, Kaykha MM. Compressive
strength of ash-based geopolymers at early ages designed by Taguchi method.
Mater Des 2012;37:443–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.030.
[119] Mijarsh MJ, Johari MM, Ahmad ZA. Synthesis of geopolymer from large amounts
of treated palm oil fuel ash: Application of the Taguchi method in investigating
the main parameters affecting compressive strength. Constr Build Mater 2014;52:
473–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.039.
[120] Bagheri A, Nazari A. Compressive strength of high strength class C fly ash-based
geopolymers with reactive granulated blast furnace slag aggregates designed by
Taguchi method. Mater Des (1980–2015) 2014;54:483–90. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2013.07.035.
[121] Panagiotopoulou C, Tsivilis S, Kakali G. Application of the Taguchi approach for
the composition optimization of alkali activated fly ash binders. Constr Build
Mater 2015;91:17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.005.
1069
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
[122] Siyal AA, Azizli KA, Man Z, Ullah H. Effects of parameters on the setting time of
fly ash based geopolymers using Taguchi method. Procedia Eng 2016;148:302–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.624.
[123] Hadi MN, Farhan NA, Sheikh MN. Design of geopolymer concrete with GGBFS at
ambient curing condition using Taguchi method. Constr Build Mater 2017;140:
424–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.131.
[124] Mehta A, Siddique R, Singh BP, Aggoun S, Łagód G, Barnat-Hunek D. Influence of
various parameters on strength and absorption properties of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method. Constr Build Mater 2017;150:
817–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.066.
[125] Prusty JK, Pradhan B. Multi-response optimization using Taguchi-Grey relational
analysis for composition of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag based
geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2020;241:118049. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118049.
[126] Binder JJ. On the use of the multivariate regression model in event studies.
J Account Res 1985:370–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490925.
[127] Su S, Zhi J, Lou L, Huang F, Chen X, Wu J. Spatio-temporal patterns and source
apportionment of pollution in Qiantang River (China) using neural-based
modeling and multivariate statistical techniques. Phys Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C
2011;36(9–11):379–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.03.021.
[128] Arshian AH, Morgenthal G. Probabilistic assessment of the ultimate load-bearing
capacity in laterally restrained two-way reinforced concrete slabs. Eng Struct
2017;150:52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.035.
[129] DeRousseau MA, Laftchiev E, Kasprzyk JR, Rajagopalan B, Srubar III WV.
A comparison of machine learning methods for predicting the compressive
strength of field-placed concrete. Constr Build Mater 2019;228:116661. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.042.
[130] Ouyang B, Song Y, Li Y, Wu F, Yu H, Wang Y, et al. Using machine learning to
predict concrete’s strength: Learning from small datasets. Mater Res Express
2021;3(1):015022. https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-8695/abe344.
[131] Zain M FM, M Abd S. Multiple regression model for compressive strength
prediction of high performance concrete. Res. J Appl Sci 2009;9(1):155–60. https:
//docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jas/2009/155-160.pdf.
[132] Sobhani J, Najimi M, Pourkhorshidi AR, Parhizkar T. Prediction of the
compressive strength of no-slump concrete: A comparative study of regression,
neural network and ANFIS models. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(5):709–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.037.
[133] Atici U. Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture concrete using
multivariable regression analysis and an artificial neural network. Expert Syst
Appl 2011;38(8):9609–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.156.
[134] Imran H, Al-Abdaly NM, Shamsa MH, Shatnawi A, Ibrahim M, Ostrowski KA.
Development of prediction model to predict the compressive strength of eco-
friendly concrete using multivariate polynomial regression combined with
stepwise method. Mater 2022;15(1):317. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010317.
[135] Friedman JH. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 1991;19(1):1–67.
https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176347963.
[136] Box GE, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions.
Breakthroughs in statistics: methodology and distribution 1992;270–310. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_23.
[137] Upasani RS, Banga AK. Response surface methodology to investigate the
iontophoretic delivery of tacrine hydrochloride. Pharm Res 2004;21:2293–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-004-7682-6.
[138] Khayat KH, Ghezal A, Hadriche MS. Utility of statistical models in proportioning
self-consolidating concrete. Mater Struct 2000;33:338–44. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02479705.
[139] Cihan MT, Güner A, Yüzer N. Response surfaces for compressive strength of
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:763–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.11.048.
[140] Aldahdooh MA, Bunnori NM, Johari MM. Evaluation of ultra-high-performance-
fiber reinforced concrete binder content using the response surface method. Mater
Des 2013;52:957–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.034.
[141] Mohammed BS, Achara BE, Nuruddin MF, Yaw M, Zulkefli MZ. Properties of
nano-silica-modified self-compacting engineered cementitious composites.
J Clean Prod 2017;162:1225–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.137.
[142] Akbarzadeh Bengar H, Abdollahtabar M, Shayanfar J. Predicting the ductility of
RC beams using nonlinear regression and ANN. Iran J Sci Technol – Trans Civ Eng
2016;40:297–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-016-0033-0.
[143] Naderpour H, Mirrashid M. An innovative approach for compressive strength
estimation of mortars having calcium inosilicate minerals. J Build Eng 2018;19:
205–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.012.
[144] MolaAbasi H, Saberian M, Kordnaeij A, Omer J, Li J, Kharazmi P. Predicting the
stress-strain behaviour of zeolite-cemented sand based on the unconfined
compression test using GMDH type neural network. J Adhes Sci Technol 2019;33
(9):945–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1571659.
[145] Ilkhani MH, Naderpour H, Kheyroddin A. A proposed novel approach for torsional
strength prediction of RC beams. J Build Eng 2019;25:100810. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100810.
[146] Sadowski Ł, Piechówka-Mielnik M, Widziszowski T, Gardynik A, Mackiewicz S.
Hybrid ultrasonic-neural prediction of the compressive strength of
environmentally friendly concrete screeds with high volume of waste quartz
mineral dust. J Clean Prod 2019;212:727–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.12.059.
[147] Leiva-Villacorta F, Vargas-Nordcbeck A. Neural network based model to estimate
dynamic modulus E* for mixtures in costa rica. J Soft Comput Civ Eng 2019;3(2):
1-5. 10.22115/SCCE.2019.188006.1110.
M.A. Ansari et al.
[148] Azimi-Pour M, Eskandari-Naddaf H, Pakzad A. Linear and non-linear SVM
prediction for fresh properties and compressive strength of high volume fly ash
self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 2020;230:117021. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117021.
[149] Bovea MD, Powell JC. Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate
the environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes. Waste
Manag 2016;50:151–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036.
[150] Bianco I, Tomos BA, Vinai R. Analysis of the environmental impacts of alkali-
activated concrete produced with waste glass-derived silicate activator–A LCA
study. J Clean Prod 2021;316:128383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.128383.
[151] Revathi T, Vanitha N, Jeyalakshmi R, Sundararaj B, Jegan M, Rajkumar PK.
Adoption of alkali-activated cement-based binders (geopolymers) from industrial
by-products for sustainable construction of utility buildings-A field
demonstration. J Build Eng 2022;52:104450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2022.104450.
[152] Marinković S, Dragaš J, Ignjatović I, Tošić N. Environmental assessment of green
concretes for structural use. J Clean Prod 2017;154:633–49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015.
[153] Nguyen L, Moseson AJ, Farnam Y, Spatari S. Effects of composition and
transportation logistics on environmental, energy and cost metrics for the
production of alternative cementitious binders. J Clean Prod 2018;185:628–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.247.
[154] Lin WY, Prabhakar AK, Mohan BC, Wang CH. A factorial experimental analysis of
using wood fly ash as an alkaline activator along with coal fly ash for production
of geopolymer-cementitious hybrids. Sci Total Environ 2020;718:135289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135289.
[155] Shehata N, Mohamed OA, Sayed ET, Abdelkareem MA, Olabi AG. Geopolymer
concrete as green building materials: Recent applications, sustainable
development and circular economy potentials. Sci Total Environ 2022::155577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155577.
[156] Abdulkareem M, Havukainen J, Horttanainen M. How environmentally
sustainable are fibre reinforced alkali-activated concretes? J Clean Prod 2019;
236:117601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.076.
[157] Abdulkareem M, Havukainen J, Nuortila-Jokinen J, Horttanainen M.
Environmental and economic perspective of waste-derived activators on alkali-
activated mortars. J Clean Prod 2021;280:124651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124651.
[158] Patrisia Y, Law DW, Gunasekara C, Wardhono A. Life cycle assessment of alkali-
activated concretes under marine exposure in an Australian context. Environ
1070
Structures 55 (2023) 1045–1070
Impact Assess Rev 2022;96:106813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2022.106813.
[159] Garces JI, Tan RR, Beltran AB, Ongpeng JM, Promentilla MA. Environmental life
cycle assessment of alkali-activated material with different mix designs and self-
healing agents. Chem Eng Trans 2021;88:835–40. https://doi.org/10.3303/
CET2188139.
[160] Faridmehr I, Nehdi ML, Nikoo M, Huseien GF, Ozbakkaloglu T. Life-cycle
assessment of alkali-activated materials incorporating industrial byproducts.
Mater 2021;14(9):2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092401.
[161] Shi X, Zhang C, Liang Y, Luo J, Wang X, Feng Y, et al. Life cycle assessment and
impact correlation analysis of fly ash geopolymer concrete. Mater 2021;14(23):
7375. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237375.
[162] Salas DA, Ramirez AD, Ulloa N, Baykara H, Boero AJ. Life cycle assessment of
geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2018;190:170–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123.
[163] Bajpai R, Choudhary K, Srivastava A, Sangwan KS, Singh M. Environmental
impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer concrete. J Clean
Prod 2020;254:120147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120147.
[164] Rabie M, Irshidat MR, Al-Nuaimi N. Ambient and Heat-Cured Geopolymer
Composites: Mix Design Optimization and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability
2022;14(9):4942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094942.
[165] Fernando S, Gunasekara C, Law DW, Nasvi MC, Setunge S, Dissanayake R. Life
cycle assessment and cost analysis of fly ash–rice husk ash blended alkali-
activated concrete. J Environ Manage 2021;295:113140. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113140.
[166] Yang KH, Song JK, Song KI. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated
concrete. J Clean Prod 2013;39:265–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.08.001.
[167] Fawer M, Concannon M, Rieber W. Life cycle inventories for the production of
sodium silicates. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1999;4:207–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02979498.
[168] Munir Q, Abdulkareem M, Horttanainen M, Kärki T. A comparative cradle-to-gate
life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete produced from industrial side
streams in comparison with traditional concrete. Sci Total Environ 2023;865:
161230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161230.
[169] Robayo-Salazar R, Mejía-Arcila J, de Gutiérrez RM, Martínez E. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) of an alkali-activated binary concrete based on natural volcanic
pozzolan: A comparative analysis to OPC concrete. Constr Build Mater 2018;176:
103–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.017.