Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: An

in-depth review
Mugahed Amran a, b, *, Amin Al-Fakih c, S.H. Chu d, Roman Fediuk e, Sani Haruna f,
Afonso Azevedo g, Nikolai Vatin h
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, Amran University, 9677, Amran, Yemen
c
Interdisciplinary Research Center for Construction and Building Materials, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, 31261 Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
e
Polytechnic Institute Far Eastern Federal University, 690922, Vladivostok, Russia
f
Civil Engineering Department, Bayero University, 700241 Kano, Nigeria
g
State University of the Northern Rio de Janeiro, Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000, Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, 28013-602, Brazil
h
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195251, St. Petersburg, Russia

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

Keywords: Geopolymer concretes (geocretes) are considered as eco-friendly materials for various building
Applications applications. Geocrete has high early strength, less consumption of natural resources, cost-
Alkali activator effectiveness, capacity to form different structural configurations and to remain intact for
Geocretes
extended periods without repair works. Meanwhile, geocretes have still exhibited an unstable
Carbon dioxide
Long-term durability properties
behavior over time compared to traditional cementitious composites. To overcome this disad­
Supplementary cementitious material vantage, hundreds of studies have focused on the improvement of the microstructure of geocretes
with a wide range of improved durability characteristics. Therefore, the review paper has an
objective to make available an inclusive review on the production of supplemental-cementing-
materials (SCMs), their economic returns, environmental and durability impacts, the concep­
tual model for geopolymerization, durability affecting factors, and function and long-term
durability properties of geocrete. It is concluded that geocrete demonstrated a better resistance
against aggressive environment compared to normal concrete, due to its less porous structures.
Moreover, it is found that the strength of alkali-activated concrete was found to improve in
chloride environment, unlike OPC based concrete. It is also concluded that, the presence of GGBS
and MK in alkali-activated materials reduces its alkali-silica reactivity while it is recommended to
use high calcium FA in geocrete production for durable concrete and geopolymerization. The
higher the molarity of NaOH solution for a given quantity of Na2SiO3 the faster the geo­
polymerization process and the higher the compressive strength of concrete corrosion current
than the OPC concrete. Further long-term durability studies are required to provide test methods
and validation techniques since most studies focus on the 28-day curing regime.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942, Alkharj,
Saudi Arabia.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. Amran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00661
Received 5 July 2021; Received in revised form 7 August 2021; Accepted 18 August 2021
Available online 20 August 2021
2214-5095/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

1. Introduction

Geopolymer concrete (geocrete) is an innovative and environmentally friendly-engineered material that is regarded as a potential
replacement of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) [1]. Portland cement has been used for the construction of various infrastructures like
transport infrastructure, road construction, buildings, and offshore applications [2]. Geopolymers are regarded as a subset of
alkali-activated materials. The use of a geopolymer alleviates the large emission of CO2 during the manufacturing of OPC. Geocretes
has been reported as a very durable material, which is expected to mitigate the durability issues related to traditional concretes [3].
This is achieved using natural or industrial by-products, which are minimally processed [4]. Binders of thermally activated materials or
industrial by-products generally supply silicon and aluminum. Then, an alkaline solution is employed to activate them into molecular
chains and networks, which are the main components of geocrete, sometimes referred to as inorganic polymer cement or
alkaline-activated cement [5]. Some other binder materials are metakaolin (MK) [6], fly ash (FA) [7], red mud [8], rice husk ash (RHA)
[9], silica fume ash (SFA) [10], ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) [11], and palm oil fuel ash (POFA) [12]. All these mineral
materials were used as supplemental-cementing-materials (SCMs) (Fig. 1). Because of the environmental footprint, including resource
extraction, the shift from waste material to by-product status has a significant effect (Fig. 2) [13]. Alkali-activated materials uses SCMs,
and are regarded to exhibit better durability compared to OPC based concrete [14]. This means that using geocrete can help reduce
industrial waste and quickly increase strength, making geocrete an excellent choice for quick construction [2]. Geocrete has also high
tensile strength, less brittle than OPC, and can withstand more movement compare to conventional concrete [4].
The use of geopolymer binders over OPC has two major environmental benefits: potential decreased emissions of greenhouse gasses
and the use of manufacturing by-products [10,16]. To raise environmental awareness in the production of building materials at all
levels of society, scientists and authorities must intensively monitor emissions and health hazards, especially in concrete, cement and
mud brick factories [10]. Concrete manufactured with Portland cement may become a durable material to resist environmental attacks
since OPC is still a long-lasting, practical and sustainable part of the construction. Cement and concrete is the second to water as the
earth’s most utilized product. Concrete accounts for 5–8% of whole anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, it is well
known that exposure to destructive agents such as chloride and acidified gases such as CO2, which cause damage to reinforced steel and
hence lead to structural degradation over many years [17]. Alternate binders, like geocrete, can effectively substitute OPC and blended
cement concretes for making green, robust, and sustainable concrete and shows at least comparable durability characteristics [1].
Generally, geocrete is a product of alkali activation of aluminosilicate binders such as silica fume ash (SFA). An exemplar transferal
to geocrete has been perceived in building and construction industries worldwide thanks to its crucial role in decreasing the volume of
toxins and CO2 emissions produced during cement production. This paper reviews durability characteristics of geocrete concrete.
Several researchers have attempted to substitute OPC with a more ecological-friendly concrete that applies several byproducts, which
will be systematically discussed in the subsequent subsections. Therefore, the review paper has an objective to make available an
inclusive review on the production of SCMs, their economic returns, environmental and durability impacts, the conceptual model for
geopolymerization, durability affecting factors, and function and long-term durability properties of geocrete. In addition to a sys­
tematic analysis of the literature, geocrete is actively providing insights into the prospective application and future use of geocrete
composites in the construction industry presently.

2. Pozzolana for geocrete

Natural pozzolan is a raw or calcined material that possesses pozzolanic characteristics. It is a type of aluminosilicate that can react
to a solid rock using lime at ambient temperature [18]. There are two distinct significances to the term pozzolana. The first one shows
the pyroclastic, mostly glassy and sometimes zeolitized rocks that occur both in Pozzuoli (the ancient Roman Puteoli) so around Rome
[19]. The second meaning applies to all the natural and artificial inorganic materials that toughen in water assorted with Ca(OH)₂

Fig. 1. Ternary diagram of chemical compositions of commonly-used binders (modified after [15]).

2
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

Fig. 2. Graphic indication of actual production of raw materials of SCM.

(lime) or with materials having Ca(OH)₂ such as Portland cement clinker [20]. In any incident, the findings of numerous studies have
considerably revealed that pozzolanic cement can produce concrete that shows high resistance to aggressive agents being attacked.
Previous research demonstrated that applying the alkaline solution on a concrete surface with a FA content of up to 80 % by mass of
cementitious materials increased concrete durability considerably [21]. The cementitious properties are recognized as pozzolanic
characteristics that rely entirely on the quantity of reactive SiO2 and Al2O3 in the aluminosilicate [19,22]. During the production of
Portland cement Natural pozzolan was quite often adopted as supplementary cementitious material (SCM) as a result of pozzolanic
characteristics [23]. The properties of mortar and cement paste in terms of microstructure, physical, mechanical, and durability are
therefore investigated [24]. The studies concluded that the application of volcanic ash favors the physical and mechanical properties
and electric resistivity of cement paste and mortar [25]. Another study on geocrete concrete’s durability with volcanic materials as
SCM and lightweight aggregate [26–28]. This review highlighted the possibility of developing concrete with moderate characteristics
with volcanically related materials. The use of volcanic materials as SCM improved substantially the durability of cement paste and
mortar [29]. Recently another extensive review was successfully conducted, exploring the use of volcanic ash to produce alternative
cement-based materials called alkaline activated materials and geopolymer [30]. The SCMs are commonly classified based on the
origin of pozzolanas from two subdivisions; naturally produced from grinding and artificial materials resulted from chemical and/or
structural modifications of materials originally-having no or only weak pozzolanic characteristics (Table 1).

2.1. Production of SCMs

SCMs, as shown in Fig. 3, are commonly utilized in either mixed cement powders or mixer separately to generate more sustainable
and durable binders [87]. With the efficient use of industrial by-products such as FA, GGBS, and SF [88] and recycling materials of RHA
and waste glass, SCMs are widely adopted in various construction materials owing to its pozzolanic characteristics [89]. Typically, the
liquid solution of soluble alkaline compounds is the alkaline activator. The use of sodium hydroxide (NaOH), which was melted in
purified water would be a common example in literature [90]. Often recognized as water glass is sodium silicate and refers to
Na2(SiO2)nO compounds [91]. The alkaline solution is also suitable for potassium silicates and potassium hydroxide (KOH) [38].
Therefore, the alkaline solution consists of a solution that serves as the raw material for sodium or potassium silicate and a solution for
alkaline hydroxide that serves as a dissolution agent (Table 2). The reaction of the two-part creates the binder [33]. Such alkaline
activators are highly OH-concentrated, which reacts in the geopolymerization cycle with raw materials. The type of alkaline activator
used, its material, and its composition significantly impact the resulting cementitious product. Geopolymer binders produced with
Na2SiO3 and NaOH are very distinct in their structure and composition from geopolymers produce with sodium hydroxide only [61].
Experimental findings are therefore required to select the best alkaline activator for each of the source materials utilized. For instance,
the first set of the geopolymer binder may result from the use of a mixture solution for Na2SiO3 and NaOH [92]. When the alkaline
activator is used alone as NaOH, the setting times can be prolonged to 10 h, which affect the use and cast of the finished geocrete. This

3
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

Table 1
An explanation of the materials, activators, geopolymerization curing time and temperatures.
Materials Year Activators Temperatures Refs.

GGBS slag 2001 Na2SiO3 activator, 43% H2O, 29% Dismantling after 1 day and then opened to 50 % RH and [31]
Na2O, and 28% SiO2 23 ◦ C until the age of 56 days.
Coal FA 2002 Na2SiO3, NaOH, KOH, 6H2O,CaCl2 FA was dried at 105 ◦ C and the pastes were stimulated at [32]
20 ± 0.5 ◦ C
GGBS 2003 Na2SiO3 (weight ratio sio2/ Na2O = 60 ◦ C for 240 min, then ambient temperature for 120 min [33]
3:3) and KOH
FA and Bottom ash 2007 Na2SiO3 (silica module of 2.3) 20 to 23 ◦ C at 28 days [34]
Demolition and Construction Waste NaOH and Na2SiO3 (sio2⋅Na2O) 25 ◦ C for 1 day and then stowed in a moist bath until
[35]
2008 solution of numerous mix ratios examining
Inorganic waste muck, Tungsten mine 24 M NaOH RT for 1 day and reserved at RT until examining [36]
Waste deposit from demolition and NaOH and Na2SiO3 (sio2⋅Na2O) RT, regular 25 ◦ C
2009 [37]
building waste laundry plants solution 60 ◦ C for 3 days and then RT for 4 days
FAQ Na2SiO3 (sio2⋅Na2O = 2) and 8 M 60 ◦ C in a kiln for 4 h. – 4 days [38]
FA, FBC ash and PCC 10 M NaOH and Na2SiO3 C) 105 ◦ C for 10 days and 20 h. [39]
Volcanic tuff of Blaine fineness Na2SiO3 and 50% NaOH 65 ◦ C for 2 days and then reserved at RT 80 ◦ C [40]
2010
Volcanic ash with size of particle less
NaOH/Na2SiO3 = 0.4− 15 proportions
than 200 lm, normalized zeolite 50 ◦ C and 80 % RH for 3 days [41]
by 7 M NaOH, ligand/activator = 0.6
specimen
Heat preserved andesite and dacite
ashes at 800 and 700 ◦ C and Na2SiO3, KOH, and NaOH 20, 40, 60, and 80 ◦ C [42]
crushed with less than 75 mm
Air pollution govern glass remnants 2011 Na2SiO3 (sio2 = 26.5%) Ambient temperature [37]
Volcanic-ash assorted with NaOH,
Seal smoked at 40 ◦ C for 1 day, then opened smoked at
Volcanic ash with a 400 mm mesh size water/ash = 0.21, and Na2O/SiO2 = [43]
40 ◦ C and then red for 120 h. 90 and 70 ◦ C for 1 day.
0.15–0.35
Copper mine tailings Up to 120 C for 168 h.
◦
[44]
Primary remedying 20 ◦ C for 2 days. Following
remedying at whichever 130 ◦ C or 20 ◦ C for absorption
Waste of tungsten mine 2012 NaOH and Na2SiO3 solutions [45]
of water tests. Strength tests specimens were remedied at
20 ◦ C and 80 ◦ C.
FA 60 ◦ C for 2 days [46]
27 ◦ C for days
GGBS and FA 6 M NaOH 60 ◦ C for 1 day after remedying [47]
Specimen at 27 ◦ C for either 1, 2 or 3 days
Na2SiO3 and NaOH of numerous [48,
FA and POFA 65 ◦ C for 2 days
molarities solution binder. 49]
NaOH: 2.5–7.5 % by mass of entire [50,
POFA, RHA, and GGBFS Engrossed in a remedying tank at 25 ◦ C to 28 days
optimal: 5 % 51]
Bottom FA Na2SiO3 and 8–12 M NaOH Room temperature up to 32 ◦ C for 28 days. [52]
RM and RHA NaOH solution Ambient temperature for 14 days. [9]
Consumed melted cracking promoter 2013 NaOH and Na2SiO3 40 ◦ C for 28 days [53]
FA and marble GGBS Na2SiO3 = 3.3, and 10 M NaOH Ambient temperature for 28-days [54]
Two dissimilar groups:
bottom ash, FA, and GGBFS 15 M NaOH and Na2SiO3solution At 60 ◦ C for 360 min. [55]
At 100 ◦ C for 180 min.
FA and RM 6 M NaOH 27 ± 2 ◦ C for a variety of time ages [54]
Na2O /SiO2 = 0.7− 1.4, solid/liquid =
Volcanic ash with 80 mm particle size 24 ± 3 ◦ C [56]
0.49 and 0.37, NaOH 3 and Na2SiO
Several mixes of Na2SiO3 and NaOH 60 ◦ C for 1 day and then stowed at 35 ± 2 ◦ C till
GGBFS, bottom ash and FA [57]
solutions examining
2 days at 65 ◦ C, then detached from their casts and
Bottom ash and FA Na2SiO3 and 14 NaOH solution remedied at 65 ◦ C for extra 3 days. The specimens were [58]
then remedied for further 4 days at room temperature
Aluminum making waste or GGBS Alkaline-aqueous solution 25 ◦ C room temperature for 28 days [59]
High-magnesium nickel slag Na2SiO3 and NaOH solutions 20 ◦ C in an opened fog area for 28 days [60]
A variety of remedying temperatures and periods were
RM and FA Sodium trisilicate and NaOH [60]
examined
PET waste flasks as aggregate in alkali In casts at 20 ◦ C for the initial 1 day and then reserved at
Na2SiO3 and NaOH solutions [61]
activated GGBS/MK 60 ◦ C in a moist cupboard until examined
2014
Mixtures of NaOH and sodium, in [61,
Active high-CA FA 70 ◦ C for almost 1 day
addition to NaOH merely 62]
Two conditions examined: at 65 C for 2 days and at
◦
OPS and FA NaOH and Na2SiO3 and KOH [48]
ambient temperature
FA and Bottom ash 10 M NaOH and Na2SiO3 solutions 50 ◦ C for 1 day [63]
60 ◦ C for 2 days and then ambient temperature until
GGBFS and RHA Na2SiO3 and NaOH mixture
examining [55]
GGBFS and FA Na2SiO3 and 10 M NaOH Ambient temperature for dissimilar remedying periods
GGBFS and RHA Na2SiO3 and NaOH mixture [64]
(continued on next page)

4
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

Table 1 (continued )
Materials Year Activators Temperatures Refs.

90 ◦ C for either 1 day or 2 days and then reserved at

ambient temperature
GGBFS, POFA and FA Mixture of Na2SiO3 and 12 M NaOH 65 ◦ C for 1 day and then ambient temperature (27 ◦ C, 70 [65]
solutions % RH) until examining
Non-metallic aluminum reprocessing
[66,
dross and make silicate glass Up to100 ◦ C for 1 day
NaOH and Na2SiO3 mixture 67]
assorted with MK
Fluid oil waste and MK Remedied in air-tight casts at 20 ◦ C [68]
Two situations: Ambient temperature and RH = 95%,
GGBFS and red-clay-brick waste sodium carbonate or Na2SiO3 solutions [69]
Vapor remedying: 90–95 ◦ C for 6 h
2015
Na2SiO3 and NaOH assorted with glass
FA 20 ◦ C at 99 % RH and 20 h at 85 ◦ C until examining [70]
waste
GGBFS and Sulphuric mine tailings NaOH Ambient temperature for 28 days [71]
12 M NaOH, 36
FA Reheating at 10 ◦ C/min from ambient heat to 800 ◦ C [72]
.7 % of Na2SiO3 and Na2SiO3 of 1.0
Travertine, marble and volcanic waste 40 ± 5 % RH, 22 ± 2 ◦ C and 45 ◦ C for 1 day after
1, 5 M NaOH and Na2SiO3,10 M NaOH [73]
grinded and crumpled dismantling 75 ◦ C for 1 day
2016
Alkali activation of natural ash in ball NaOH / Na2SiO3 = 2.4, Na2O /SiO2 = 27–60 ◦ C for 1 day and then remedied at ambient
[74]
mill 1.4, Fluid/ash (weight) = 0.4 temperature in a plastic bag
Basaltic tuff with size is finer than 700
10, 12, 14 M NaOH and Na2SiO3 40–120 ◦ C. [75]
m2/kg
Monoaluminium phosphate dust, MK,
2017 NaOH and Na2O solution MK an artifact of kaolin calcined at 750 C◦
[76]
SFA
All specimens were cured by in oven at 90 ◦ C for 24 h and
FA, glass fibre 2017 16 M NaOH solution [77]
natural environment
SIO2/Na2O = 3.15, H2O = 62.1 %; and Remedied for 1 day at 40 ◦ C and then room conditions
MK, biomass, FA 2018 [78]
10 M NaOH solution for 28 days.
5 min of balancing and then standardized in heat for 28
MK, and FA NaOH solution [79]
2019 days at lab ambient
FA 8 M NaOH solution 16◦ –27 ◦ C for 3 h. [7]
FA/MK 2020 Na2SiO3, NaOH, Foams All the specimens were tested within 250 ◦ C for 3 h [80]
The samples were cured in oven constantly at 70 ◦ C for
FA, silica fume 2020 12 M NaOH solution [81]
48 h
The specimens were cured in different temp. of 50, 65
POFA 2021 SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 [82]
and 80 ◦ C for 16-h
All mixtures were preserved in an ambient curing
FA, silica fume, MK 2021 8 NaOH, Na2SiO3 [83]
temperature, 28 ℃
All sample materials were recovered from the autoclave [84,
Autoclave Silicate Materials 2021 CaO–SiO2–Al2O3–H2O
at 50 ◦ C 85]
All the specimens were cured at the laboratory
FA 2021 8 NaOH, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and SiO2 [86]
temperature of 25 ◦ C

Fig. 3. General categorization outline of SCMs.

5
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

Table 2
Common alkaline activators and alumino-silicate source material [96].
Typical alkaline activator Alumino-silicate source material

- NaOH, and KOH - Calcined clays, FA, RM, RHA,

- Ca(OH)2 - GGBS, POFA, SFA, Waste glass,
- NaOH + Na2CO3 - Zeolite and copper mine tailings,
- K2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 - Pure powder of Al2O3-2SiO2 and Na2SiO3,
- Sodium silicate and other silicates

affects the final geopolymer product not only by the form but also by the contents of the alkaline activator. The conditions for acti­
vation on the final geopolymer product were also given careful attention by Rodríguez et al. [53]. They found that by using higher
alkaline material, the density and degree of geopolymerization could be increased. This is due to the higher alkaline conditions which
promote the disintegration of the AlO4 compound and enhance the connection of the enriched gels with silicone [93]. These study
findings show how complex the sort and content of alkali activators are and illustrate the fact that the widespread implementation of
geopolymerization is caused by many potential difficulties [90]. The cost of commercially manufactured alkaline-based activators like
Na2SiO3 and NaOH is another potential key factor for the broader application of geopolymers. The possibility of using recycled glass as
partial source of replacement for an alkaline activator has been explored by [70]. They have reported that the soluble silica in the
recycled glass participated in the gel geopolymerization reaction.
This research shows that the cost of alkaline activator could be cut down and more waste materials can be recycled. In order to
generate water glass, RHA was used in the application of sodium hydroxide through dissolution of the RHA and an optimal conditions
of 3 M NaOH, 80 ◦ C temperature and 3 h of heating has been documented [94]. Another teams have synthesized a FA/GGBS geo­
polymer and obtained a compressive strength of more than 60 MPa, while a life-cycle study revealed an economy of 55 per cent and a
reduction of 80 per cent in CO2 footprint [95].

3. Conceptual geopolymerization process

In the 1950s Glukhovsky suggested a holistic model in which alkaline materials containing mainly reactive alumina and silica could

Fig. 4. Process of geopolymerization [112].

6
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

be activated [97]. The Gluhhovsky method categorizes the mechanism via three different phases: (a) coagulation and destruction; (b)
condensation and coagulation; (c) crystallization and condensation [98,99]. More recently, various authors have adopted Glukhov­
sky’s theories to explain the whole process of geopolymerization and accumulated information concerning the zeolite synthesis process
[100]. Fig. 4 presents a very simplified geopolymerization reaction mechanism. The figure describes the major processes that take
place in transforming a solid source of alumino-silicate into a synthetic alkaline silicate. The potential requirement for heat treatment
and fine grinding of raw materials to change the reactivity of aluminum in the system is missing [101]. These processes are largely
combined and occur at the same time, although presented linearly. Alkaline hydrolysis (consuming water) is the dissolution of the solid
source of alumino-silicate producing aluminate and silicate [102]. Full scientific information was reported based on the available
literature in the field of alumino-silicate dissolution and weathering [103], which will not be reviewed in detail here. It is required to
understand that in geopolymerization the solution is regarded as a transfer medium of particles from the surface of which aluminum
and silicate release (possibly as monomeric) [104].
In the simplified model, surface dissolution will be assumed without a conclusive mechanical understanding of solid particle
conversion [105]. A complex silicate, aluminate and alumino-silicate mixture was formed, and the balance of speciation has been
extensively examined in these solutions [35]. Amorphous alumino-silicates are dissolved quickly with high pH, and this quickly creates
an alumino-silicate super-saturation solution. This leads to the development of gel with condensed solutions, as oligomers in the
aqueous phase form a condensed network [106]. This method removes the water that was absorbed nominally. Water thus serves as a
medium for reaction and is found in the gel pores.
The gel structure is usually bi-phasic, and both phases comprise the alumino-silicate binder and water [45]. During processing
conditions of raw material and solution composition and synthesis, the time to shape a continuous gel for the super-saturated
alumino-silicate solution varies considerably [107,108]. However, some systems never gel. These are normally diluted, and
because of the slow system response far from equilibrium, the dissolved silicon and aluminum are observed to oscillate [109]. After
gelling, the system keeps on adjusting and reordering connection of the gel structure, which is generally attributed to geopolymers, as a
result of a three-dimensional alumino-silicate network [110]. Nucleation and formation of polymer species, or dissolution of the
material of alumino-silicates, depend highly on thermodynamic and kinetic parameters, it comprises of first two steps as suggested by
Glukhovsky [111]. The stage of growth is when the core reaches a critical dimension, and crystals start to develop. The microstructure
and pores of the material are determined by these structural reorganizations processes and are crucial to determining many physical
attributes [107]. Furthermore, geopolymerization process involves the dissolution of silicate and aluminate species and poly­
condensation reactions. The geopolymerization process is illustrated in Fig. 4.

4. Key problems regarding concrete concerns

4.1. Excessive cement demand for infrastructural development

The greatest amount of construction material all over the world is concrete and Portland cement [113]. Four scenarios have been
proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [114]. These four scenarios are named and characterized as: the
A1 scenario: narrowing the income gap between developing and developed states; booming economy and slow population growth;
quick introduction of effective technologies; and high energy consumption per capita [88,115]. The B1 scenario: the income gap
between developing and developed states is decreasing but not closing; material intensities are falling; the population world is growing
low, and the economy is changing into a service and an information economy with low energy per capita [116]. The A2 Scenario: there
is no closing of the earnings gap between the developing countries; economy varies between countries, and the population is increasing
rapidly [117]. The B2 scenario: the income gap between the developing and developed states is not closing; global population and
economic growths are intermediately high [118]. Apart from the availability of raw material (limestone) and the need for large
amounts of energy in Portland cement manufacturing, the ever-rising need for cement lead to a high carbon footprint [5]. In contrast,
slag production has revealed that greenhouse emissions are up to 80 % lower than conventional Portland cement production [119].
Nevertheless, the CO2 emissions have been reduced by 80%–90% during the production of fly ash-based geocrete [32,91].

4.2. Durability issues

Durability can be defined as the ability of concrete to repel the exposure environments, for instance, to withstand weathering
action, abrasion, and chemical attack, whereas preserving its anticipated engineering characteristics, which is designed not to dete­
riorate for a long serviceability lifespan. Concrete manufactured with OPC demonstrated good durability in a mild environment [22]. It
has, however, for some time been recognized that the aggressive attacks of sulphate, chloride and acid may cause deterioration in
conventional concrete [16,120,121]. The chemical reaction in cement paste induced by the penetrated hazardous matters (that is
designated according to 40 CFR Part 302) is one of the major sources of attack; the other source is their reactions with the aggregate.
Two processes were proposed by Xie et al. [122] to regulate the chemical degradation of cemented material, the dissolution of various
phases of hydrate, and the spread of dissolved species to the interstitial fluid. Portlandite and C-S-H, which are the most important
hydration products that contribute to the binding between aggregate and paste and the strength, are susceptible to chemical attacks.
Such phenomena widely occur to OPC cement and blended cement concrete [106,123,124]. In some cases, this deterioration can be so
serious as to repair or even replace the structure [125,126].

7
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

5. Factors affecting durability of geocrete

Different concrete, such as geocrete, need different durability patterns depending on the exposure conditions and desired char­
acteristics. However, several factors affecting the durability of geocrete have been review in subsequent subsections.

5.1. Geocrete proportions

The most significant factors which affect the geopolymer pastes’ characteristics are ratios of SiO2/Al2O3, R2O/Al2O3, and SiO2/R2O
(R denotes Na+ or K+) and the ratio of liquid to solid [72,127]. Most research has indicated that an amorphous geopolymer framework
is desirable for achieving preferred mechanical strength [128]. Previous research revealed that a higher alkaline content or a lower
silicate content enhances the strength of a geopolymer on account of the development of alumino-silicate structures [129]. Geo­
polymers activating with NaOH alone formed crystalline zeolite with Si / Na of 4/4 or less, but nanosized crystals of an additional
zeolite were formed at a ratio of more than 4/4 [130]. Although small quantities of sodium silicate are introduced to NaOH and the
formation of crystallites is greatly reduced because silicate units are modelled. The pores in the FA paste at low activator dose (18 %)
were larger and wider, while at high activator dose (30 %) [131]. The pores were smaller and had a small range, primarily as a result of
the pore finish due to further partial dissolution and reaction product development. The decreased porosity improved geopolymer
pastes’ strength [132]. Typically, with SiO2/Al2O3 ratio ranged between 3.0 and 3.8 and Na2O/Al2O3 ratio ranged between 1.0, the
optimal geopolymer strength was documented [3,133]. Changes beyond this range have been found in the SiO2/Al2O3 ratio to produce
weak strength. The time of setting of geocrete paste was generally reported to be dependent on water content adsorbed by the
microcapsule, on sample viscosity, and perhaps on latent heat [134]. As a result, initial setting time increased and final setting time
with micro-encapsulated phase change materials (MPCM) concentrations was reduced [72].

5.1.1. Binder content

The role of alkali-activated binder is to create a stable skeleton configuration of concrete, and at the same time to limit CO2
emissions as well as beneficiate several wastes into useful products [107,133]. In conventional concrete OPC alone or with pozzolanic
material is a binder but in geocrete pozzolanic material like SCMs is used as a binder [3]. These pozzolanic materials are rich in Al and
Si [127]. These materials are alkali activated by NaOH or KOH solutions and other raw materials as shown in Table 3. Exhibiting that in
geocrete, the alkali activator and aluminosilicate binders like FA, GGBS or MK would react [135]. However, it is well established to be
highly susceptible to the structure of raw ingredients that bind gels on the alkali-activated frameworks is important, i.e., the reaction
material derived from alkaline activation of SCMs has been made a fundamental difference [136]. The mechanical strength is assumed
to evolve from an amorphous 3D aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gel matrix in FA-activated networks that extracts water in the
reaction medium as it hardens [98]. It is also recommended that admixtures like sucrose and citric acid function as retardants in OPC
concrete. However, these admixtures have distinct structures in FA-based Geocretes [135]. Sucrose acts as a retardant because it is
absorbed into insoluble metal complexes of Al, Ca, and Fe ions. Citric acid, on the other hand, was an accelerator that reduced the
set-up time by 9 and 16 min [137]. Naphthalene-based superplasticizer was most effective among several superplasticizers used in
geopolymer concrete.
It has been reported to increase the relative slump by 136 % without a decrease in compression strength [135]. In other findings, a
29 % loss in compressive strength has been reported when a multi-compound activator was used with modified polycarboxylate-based
superplasticizers [127]. However, the delaying effect of superplasticizer based on polycarboxylate has also been observed in the
FA/slag blending structure, although the improvement in workability in comparison to superplasticizer based on naphthalene was
significant [146]. In the final reaction products, the excluded water is available free or bound and plays a minor role in the

Table 3
Feedstock of geocrete raw materials.
Raw Categorization Specifications Source region Clean production processes Refs.
material

GGBS Crushed Steel-making, Australia Granulation, wet cooling [138]

Waste or by-
Coal-fired electricity
FA product 5− 70 % replacement Separation or collection from flue gases [46]
generators, Australia
Alumina refineries, Europe, [139,
Gibbsite Product Solution NaOH Beneficiation; Bayer process, mining
and Australia 140]
Facilities, Europe, Japan,
NaOH Product 50 % Electrolysis of brine; [141]
USA, Saudi Arabia
MK Product 5− 50 % replacement UK, China, and USA Calcination, beneficiation; mining; [6]
UAE, China, India, and Sand mining, Soda ash production or
Na2SiO3 Product 37 % solution [135]
Western Australia furnace liquor manufacturing
Specific gravity ranges between 2.2
SF India, Australia, China, Collection [142]
and 2.3
POFA Waste Or by- 5− 50 % replacement Malaysia, Indonesia Separation or collection from flue gases [143]
RM product 5 μm and 75 μm particle size Egypt, Russia, and Europe Soil or sand mining [144]
Surface area is about 50–60 m2/g91
RHA Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Separation or collection from flue gases [145]
or higher 152 m2/g.

8
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

polymerization [147]. In contrast, the main binding materials produced are crystalline C-S-H and/or C-(A)-S-H gels [148]. Different
N-A-S-H, both of the gels show a similar degree of vulnerability, as found in the OPC, to improper curing these products share, as
witnessed in the OPC, a similar degree of sensitivity to the inadequate curing [31]. Subsequently, it has been reported that the water
treatment condition for alkaline activated slag binders be fully immersed, or that humidity levels are nearly saturated [149]. In
conclusion, a higher amount of binder in geocrete concrete can make concrete sticky and give a sudden loss of workability causing a
high heat of hydration at the early age is another issue in high geocrete strength concrete that can result in thermal cracking.

5.1.2. Alkaline activator

One of the factors that influence the durability and functional characteristic is the composition and concentration of the alkaline
activator [150,110]. The alkaline solution acts as an activator for the polymerization process under high alkali condition on Si-Al
mineral resulting in a complex polymeric sequence of Si- O-Al-O bonds The main significance of geocrete technology is its capa­
bility to make high-performance binder from SCMs. A wide range of alkali activating materials have been used in the past, most
common being SS and SH either individually or in combination with varying results [151]. However, alkaline activator sourced from
combination of SS and SH resulted in better outcomes [152]. A previous study indicates that the SS/SH ratio ranged between 0.25 and
3.0 [153], while, the molarity of NaOH was as low as 4 and as high as 20 [151] in the alkaline activators. It is found that a higher SS/SH
ratio would contribute to a greater strength attributable to the availability of more Si in the system, however, beyond a certain value
the strength tends to decrease [154]. The recommended ratio of SS/SH of 2.5 was suitable for FA in achieving better fresh and
hardened characteristics of these binders [127]. As far as concentration of SH is concerned, the results of most of the previous studies
have shown that as the concentration increases so does the strength [155]. However, beyond a certain molarity of SH, for a particular
precursor material, there was a negative influence on the fresh characteristics of these binders as well as on their strength development
[131]. Besides, the strength gain in the AAB is primarily governed by the presence of SH in the alkaline activators. In one of the studies
conducted earlier, it was established that the quantity of Na2O, which determines the silica modulus of alkaline activators, had a
profound effect on the mechanical characteristics and durability of slag-based AAB [156]. Investigations were also conducted on the
mechanical performance of alkali-activated slag products to evaluate the effects of high temperatures. It is examined the heat resis­
tance effects of the alkali-activated slag (AAS) mortar, which was water-cured for 28 days from various alkaline activators and reported
a larger compressive strength and bending strength compared to OPC at high temperatures with an optimum sodium concentration of
6% by mass of slag for both NaOH and Na2CO3 activators [157]. It is utilized sodium metasilicate powder with the lime activator for
the production and analysis of AAS concrete when exposed up to 1200 ◦ C [158]. They reported that at temperatures of 200, 400, 600,
and 800 ◦ C, the compressive strength increased by 76, 73, 46, and 10 % compared to that of ambient temperature. It is evaluated the
influence of two remedying techniques (ambient curing (21 ± 2 ◦ C, 60 % RH) and elevated temperature curing at 60 ◦ C for 6 h) on
high-temperature characteristics of AAS mortars [159]. The authors findings revealed that at elevated temperature curing method the
compressive strength increased and the flexural strength decreased compared to the ambient curing method [156]. Moreover, elevated
temperature curing has advantage in decreasing mass loss at high temperatures compared to ambient curing and OPC mortars. It is
evaluated the strength of AAS mortars, regardless of the activator type, at elevated temperatures up to 1000℃ [160]. The authors’
findings were consistent with AAS strength loss trends. They concluded that the lack of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) hydration causes
the loss of strength in AAS mortars. However, there have generally been few research studies carried out to assess the co-existence
effect on heat resistance properties of AAS mortars by alkaline activator dosage and curing conditions [161]. The alkali activation
system is generally classified into AAS and geopolymer, depending on the chemistry of the structure dominating gels. The main re­
action product of AAS is calcium aluminosilicate hydrates C-A-S-H gel [148,162]. C-A-S-H differs from C-S-H (the main product of OPC
hydration) in chemical composition and structure since the penetrated Al3+ mainly exists in tetrahedral bridging sites within the
silicate chains of C-A-S-H [148]. In contrast, the alkali activation of MK and siliceous FA forms geopolymer, which is composed of
cross-linked and structurally disordered aluminosilicate gels (N-A-S-H) [163,164]. In contrast to C-A-S-H, the geopolymer is poor in
calcium [162]. Though they lack long-range crystalline order, geopolymers are reported to share the nano structural features of ze­
olites in a chemical sense [162]. By investigating the coordination of silicon and aluminum geopolymer, it is reported that the sub­
stitution of silicon by aluminum takes place inside the gel framework and the associated adverse charge is balanced by alkali cautions
[165]. In spite of the differences in composition and nanostructure between N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H, both gels are estimated to possess
excellent mechanical and physicochemical durability characteristics [107,165]. Table 4 summarizes the hydrates made with diverse
activators.

Table 4
Slag reaction products in the existence of various activators.
Nature of Activator Reaction products Remarks Refs.

Ca(OH)2 C-S-H, C4AH13 C2AH8 absent

Some Si in C3AH13, C/S in C-S-H less than in
NaOH, Na2CO3, Na silicate C-S-H, C4AH13, C2AH8, Mg(OH)2
OPC
Various: C-S-H, AFm, AFt, hydrogarnet, hydrotalcite-like Not all these phases are likely to be [166]
Cement
phase; also, vicatite, (C3S2H3) encountered in the same paste
Sulfate (e.g. gypsum, hemi-hydrate, S in slag acts to some extent as an auto-
C-S-H, AFt, Al(OH)3
phosphogypsum) activator

9
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

5.1.3. Recycled aggregate

Every year, massive amounts are produced around the world of construction and demolition waste. The waste is normally
transferred to sites or illegally dumped, and the disposal is then a serious problem for society and environment [167]. The durability
characteristic of geocrete is better than OPC concrete containing same amount and type of recycled aggregates (RCs). Reportedly, by
including geopolymers and producing RACs, the entire green process could be transformed by recycling waste and simultaneously
lowering down the CO2 emissions [168]. The recycling of such waste as an aggregate to produce new concrete can reduce the waste
problem and help preserve natural combined resources. Several studies concluded that recycled aggregates provide a good alternative
to make concrete environmentally friendly and cost-effective. It is revealed that the absorption of water of coarse RC varied between
3.5 % and 9.2 % [169], and for fine RA it ranges from 5.5%–13% [170]. These values are significantly higher than those of the natural
aggregate whose water absorption ranges from 0.5 % to 1.0 %. The abrasion resistance, using the Los Angeles test, is reduced up to 70
% in comparison with the natural aggregate [171]. It is investigated the environmental effects of recycled aggregates using the
methodology for life cycle analysis and reported that, depending on transport distances and types, the impact of aggregate production
on recycled aggregate concrete was somewhat higher than that of the natural aggregate concrete [172]. Furthermore, it is reported
that the replacement of up to 20 % of natural aggregate with recycled concrete aggregates has enabled the production of acceptable
quality concrete while preserving the durability of natural and environmental resources [173]. It is confirmed that RAC can be
considered as good eco-material [174]. It is evaluated mechanical and durability properties of the MK-and-FA-based geocrete
incorporating recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) [6]. Results revealed a significant improvement in mechanical characteristics,
abrasion resistance, permeability and porosity by partial substitution of MK with FA. Additionally, increasing the MK up to 30 % in
RCA-based geocrete resulted in improvement of compressive strength and reduction of porosity and water absorption by up to 134 %,
69 %, and 89 %. It is studied the characteristics of self-compacting concrete incorporating RCA and a reduction in strength after the
addition of RCA [175]. The interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between RCA and cement paste was found to be not more than the ITZ in
normal aggregate concrete. Moreover, the interface between cement paste aggregates is a weak link and frequently the starting point
for the development of micro or macro cracks in cementitious composites [132], as shown in Fig. 5. Although the ITZ in geocrete has
proven to be more dense and compact, it plays a vital role in concretes incorporating RCA [132]. Increased mechanical strength usually
indicates an increase of ITZ density and homogeneity at a geopolymer binder interface, which ultimately increases bond strength and
durability. It is revealed that the ITZ is porous and rather non-uniform for fresh potassium (sialates) geocrete [176].
With the increase in the age and hydration reaction, however, the interface is densified through the secondary geopolymerization
products, which enhance the bond between binder and aggregates. As a relatively new material, the composite geopolymer with
unique benefits requires more studies for better understanding and production for its large use in construction industries [139,177]. It
is generally recommended that applications of recycled materials should be propagated and developed to implement this new tech­
nology’s sustainable development strategy [95,132].

5.2. Calcium-silicate-hydrate phase

The geopolymerization of aluminosilicates was investigated to understand its role in strength at the initial age [178,179]. C-S-H is
shaped by the reaction of cement with water. The crystals are formed a few hours after the reaction between water and cement. In MK
/GGBS blends, N-A-S-H and C-S-H gels coincide in the paste [179] as analogous to the high calcium FA-based geocrete activated by
NaOH, which is accountable for the increase in strength as [131]. A small amount of calcium dissolution occurs when natural silicate
minerals have been added to lower down the alkalinity, the strength of geocrete, and the amount of C-S-H gel [180]. In FA/GGBS
blends, the GGBS activation dominates the reaction at 27 ◦ C while the reaction at 60 ◦ C is attributable to the combination of FA and
GGBS activation [110]. The increase in strengths of the pastes with GGBS incorporation is related to its microstructural compactness
[47]. The activation of FA/GGBS geopolymer hardening generated with K2SiO3 and KOH was attributable to the emergence of
C-S-H/C-A-S-H, and the toughening remains as a result of the rapid development of K-A-S-H, (Ca, K)-A-S-H and C-A-S-H relying on the
quantity of calcium ions and the pH in the system [47]. The strength properties of the geopolymer concrete have progressively

Fig. 5. Fundamental phases: (a) RA concrete; (b) traditional concrete [168].

10
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

increased with time which is accredited to the continuous geopolymerization process over a longer duration [181]. Fig. 6 shows the
likely reaction products formed when calcium is added to a geopolymeric system. The role of calcium ions in the strength growth of
geopolymer paste have also been reported by [182]. They have obtained strength of 63.4 MPa. Another studies have been conducted
on various MK/lime (calcium hydroxide) and MK-blended cement systems [106,183,184]. It is also reported that the MK activation in
the attendance of Ca(OH)2 caused rapid formation of CSH, C2ASH8 (stratlingite) and C4AH13 (tetracalcium aluminate hydrate). CSH
gel was also formed as a minor product when MK was activated in the presence of calcium hydroxide [106]. In common, some previous
research concluded that geopolymers are more durable than OPC under sulfate attack as the cross-linked aluminosilicate polymer
structure is steadier than calcium silicate hydrate gel [185]. C-S-H phases tend to react with MgSO4 solution to constitute ettringite and
gypsum, while the Na-Al-Si-H cross-linked structure of geopolymers resists sulfate corrosion [186].

5.3. Degree of compaction

The self-compacting geocrete is a unique concrete characteristic, presented in self-compacting technology, having no extra
compaction and freely flow by its self-weight, in particular, at crowded reinforcement [4,188]. Durability tests undertaken in sulphate
and marine environments have demonstrated that higher concentration of NaOH has been utilized to neutralize the adverse influences
of Class C FA in geocrete [189]. The pH and microstructural properties of clay-FA geopolymer submerged in 5 % sulphate solution have
also been studied, the outcomes of the study showed a negligible reduction in strength, while higher reduction in strength was noted
when the samples were exposed to 5 % MgSO4 solution, the high disintegration was attributed to ettringite development [190].
Numerous combinations of precursors such as F-class F FA, slag and silica fumes have been tested and resulted in good durability
results [191]. The use of sulphuric acid resistance on specimens on 28 and 42 days produced from 50 % ceramic waste and 50 % slag is
also examined, tests demonstrated that the density and compressive strength were little effected due to the immersion of acid [192]. It
is produced oven cured hybrid geopolymer compose of FA and OPC, and then exposed to acid, sulphate, and sorptivity attack testing
[193]. They have found that 5% of OPC specimens had high tolerance to acid, sulphate and sorptivity. Further, the use of MK [6], SFA
as a pozzolan and as a filler material [194–196], RHA [197], GGBS [198], and POFA [199]; have significantly improved the durability
performance of geocrete. Generally, high calcium FA is recommended to be used in geocrete for durable concrete and
geopolymerization.

5.4. Curing period

The curing temperature and time for geocrete were instructed to vary significantly based on the source of the SCMs [95,120,125].
The influence of various healing processes on geopolymer pastes has been studied by [136,159,200,201]. The curing temperatures for
complete geopolymerization reactions ranged between 40 and 85 ◦ C have been reported. It is reported that a high curing temperature
was favorable to strength [1]. It is also reported a lower relative humidity was preferred for healing MK-based geocrete [202]. It has a
higher curing temperature was preferred for strength development [200]. Some researchers have, however, indicated that the cure of
Si-O-Al-O bond at higher temperature for a longer time caused samples to fail. It is also revealed that higher strength growth at a longer
period when geopolymer samples were cured at ambient temperature [201]. In particular, sufficient curing of geopolymeric materials
is important in attaining optimum mechanical and durability performance to preserve their structural strength [203]. It generally
concludes that the geocrete applications made with low curing temperatures can give a significant lower compressive strength and this
leads to reduce its ability to withstand the effects of exposure conditions and aggressive agents.

6. Long-term durability properties of geocrete

Durability refers to the resistance of concrete to disintegration and decay. Permeability is one of the key factors affecting durability,
which can increase the rate of capillary absorption and resistance of concrete to potentially deleterious materials. By ensuring full
compaction of admixtures and adequate curing, geocrete is durable enough to withstand environmental effects. The permeability,
RoCA, and resistance to the aggressive environment (AE) of geocrete are described in the following subsections. As showed in Fig. 7,
the deterioration of RC structures possibly is categorized into three major classes; chemical deterioration, physical deterioration, and
corrosion of reinforcements.

Fig. 6. Products made from the GEOCRETE of Al2SiO5 gel + calcium source [187].

11
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

Fig. 7. Deterioration of RC [204].

6.1. Permeability

Permeability (ASTM C 1543) indicates the extent to which water and other aggressive elements can penetrate geocrete and lead to
chemical or physical attacks [205,206]. Reducing permeability can help reduce the ingress of acids into the geopolymer matrix and
subsequently improve the resistance of concrete to acid attacks [132,207]. The volume of the permeable void indicates the
permeability-related durability of concrete [208]. The adequate process of polycondensation, spherical shape, and particle size of the
alumino-silicate precursor of FA can reduce permeability by improving the consolidation of concrete [151]. The results reported an
increase in strength by 6 % when the FA was used and accounted 34 % drop in strength when the use of MK content leads to increase
permeability by allowing moisture to flow out of the matrix and subsequently reduce the amount of damage to the concrete [209].
Adding nano-particles might also minimize the gas permeability and flammability of concrete by about 20 times [210]. It is discovered
that a higher volume of liquid contributed to lower compressive strength and improved water permeability [211]. It is found that a
silane-siloxane-based water repellent material can increase the diffusion of chloride from 11 % to 17 % and cannot avoid water entry
[212]. Ideally, concrete materials must achieve low permeability by ensuring an adequate amount of cement, a sufficiently low
water–cement ratio [205], and full compaction, which in turn can be achieved by increasing the percentage of slag replacement [213],
increasing the MK content [214], incorporating limestone and SFA [195,215,216], increasing FA and RHA [133,217] and ensuring
adequate curing [213]. It is reported that geopolymer and other alkaline-activated binders have direct water and air permeability
measurements depending highly on mixed designs [218]. Furthermore, a research of FA-based geocrete reported that the values of
permeability at 24 h reduced by 47 % and 33 % than normal concrete for 60 MPa and 40 MPa strength samples, respectively [209]. In
geocrete, it is found that water content, binder content, water/binder ratio, aggregate content and curing method play a major
technique in producing a weaker matrix, contributing to higher permeability created in the geocrete matrix. For example, it is reported
that the addition of alkaline/FA ratio of 0.30 led to considerably upsurge strength and decrease porosity [219]. Also, the study found
that when the 3.50 of aggregate/binder ratio is subsidized to the great strength of the geocrete; though, to attain a stumpy porosity of
FA-based geocrete, the ratio requests to be bigger to 4.70. However, the water permeability coefficient of geocrete can be calculated as
[220].

d2 v m
Kp = , v= (1)
2ht Adρ

where

- Kp = coefficient of water permeability, m/s;

- d = depth of water penetration into concrete, m;
- v = porosity of concrete;
- h = hydraulic head of water, m;
- t = time under pressure, s;
- m = gain in mass, g;
- A = specimens’ cross-sectional area, mm2;
- ρ = water density, 1000 kg/m3.

6.2. Rate of capillary absorption

The rate of capillary absorption (RoCA, ASTM C 642) is a function related to the pore system penetrability [221] and measured by
ASTM C1585. The RoCA of AAS increases with time [222], and the RoCA of other materials increases along with their RCA contents
except when the RCA content is 15 %, which is slightly lower than that of geocrete that also contains 100 % Normal-CA [208,221]. It is
proposed that the extent of microcracking of geocrete was influenced by the content of paste, excessive binder content, and employed
curing technique for the concrete mix design, all of which can thermally induce micro-cracking at the early ages [223]. Two FA
geopolymeric mortars with NaOH molarities of 14 M and 18 M have very low RoCA of around 0.15 kg/m2. h0.5. Meanwhile, a plain
C30/37-strength class concrete achieves a RoCA of 0.251 kg/m2. h0.5 after 28 days of curing [31]. It is found that the quantity of
meso-pores (Ø<50 nm and Ø>1 μm) governs the RoCA of geocrete due to its connection to the bulk concrete via the capillary vessels

12
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

and meso-pores in Al–Si gel paste [224]. Adding a large amount of coarse particles in FA can result in low packing density and thus high
macro-porosity and RoCA of geocrete (Castel, 2016). The spaces in large capillary pores (approximately 100 nm–1000 nm) are filled
with Al–Si gels, and only one broad peak is observed in those binders with a dense pore structure [225]. The addition of pozzolanic
materials (e.g., RHA, FA, GGBS, MK, and silica fume) to SPs with low water–cement ratio can also reduce the RoCA of geocrete by
12%–80% [226]. For example, a research of GGBS/or FA-based geocrete found that the test samples exhibited a less rate of absorption
in geocrete compared to normal concrete due to that porosity of geocrete is less as FA is finer than OPC [227]. Meanwhile, another
study of FA-based geocrete samples with 50 MPa and 30 MPa strengths were found decreased the water absorption capacity by 38.38 %
and 64.9 % respectively, compared to normal concrete. But the addition of POFA with 90 % GGBS-based geocrete was recorded water
absorption of 3.57 % at 56 days, due to the substitution of 90 % GGBS in geocrete mixtures led to initiate a minimum porosity of 20.02
% in the concrete matrix [190]. However, the following equations is used to calculated water absorbed

Mi% = 100 × (mi -mo)/mo (2)

But, the absorption capacity (WAC) can be computed using:

WAC = 100 × (mmax - md)/md (3)

Where
mmax = the mass (kg) of the sample at maximum water absorption,
mi = weight (kg) of the wet sample at time ti,
mo = weight (kg) of the dry sample
md = the mass (kg) of the sample after re-drying at the end of the test

6.3. Resistance to aggressive environment

Geocrete shows excellent resistance to chemical attacks (such as sarin, gas, hydrogen, chlorine, tear gas and cyanide) and
aggressive AE (ASTM C 452) [127,207]. Increasing the clay content could reduce the surface roughness of concrete by around 20 % and
subsequently shrink its surface area exposed to AE [210]. Geocrete shows superior resistance to AEs, including immersion in sulfuric
acid, magnesium sulfate, and nitric acid. The compressive strength of this material only reveals a 12%–40% decrease when subjected to
AE, while OPC concrete reveals a 40%–65% reduction in compressive strength during the same time of exposure [205]. It is found that
FA-based geocrete shows a better resistance to AE compared with other concrete [228]. Thus, the results reported that the exposure of
geocrete to 3% sulfuric acid [151] can only lead to a 0.5 % weight reduction, while a low-calcium FA geopolymer can resist up to 10 %
sulfuric acid because of its low calcium content [229]. The addition of GGBS with CaO (30 %–50 %), SiO2 (28 %–38 %), Al2O3 (8 %–24
%), and MgO (1 %–18 %) can increase the resistance to AE of geocrete by 10 %–14 % [230]. It is reported that using 30 % RHA and 50
% amorphous silica can significantly increase the resistance to AE (e.g., sulfate attacks in marine structures) of geocrete [198].
Furthermore, study of SF/GGBS-based geocrete mortar samples soaked in 10 % sulfuric acid for 18 weeks and obtained that the
samples show no any visible change in color, but through optical microscope, it recorded a corroded matrix when it exposed for longer
period of time [209]. However, when the samples immersed in alkali content for the same period, it was found that a lose more weight
in the samples with maximum alkali content and were wholly de-alkalized by the sulfuric acid, leading to substantial remaining
strength to demonstrate the greater resistance against acid exposure [21,199,231]. Also, the results displayed no noticeable sign of
structural breakdown when the sample exposed to sulphuric acid. Another researchers found that when the FA-based geocrete was
exposed to magnesium sulphate condition for 24 weeks, fine cracks were found on a sever samples but there are no noticeable cracks
perceived on the samples, depending on the volume of sodium oxide content [225,232,233]. Meanwhile, the gain of small weight of
the samples was reported when the samples with soaked in a minimum sodium oxide content of. Even so, the geocrete samples are less
disposed to creation of alkali silica gel [234]. However, it can be concluded that geocrete demonstrated better resistance against AE
compared to normal concrete, due to its less porous structures aggressive environment

6.4. The impact of acid exposure

Many authors have examined the acid resistance of geocrete [199,235]. The deterioration of geopolymer binders depends on acid
solution concentration as presented in Fig. 8, and exposure time. Davidovits [106] revealed that geocrete made with MK lost 7% by
mass when submerged for 30 days in 5 % sulphuric acid. It is indicated that the resistance of geocrete made with FA to acid was highly
depended on the mineralogical structure [235]. The degradation in pastes was attributed to depolymerization of the aluminosilicate

Fig. 8. Mechanism of acid attack [199,235].

13
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

framework and emergence of zeolite [112]. It is identified that, after 1 year of exposure, the decreased in the strength of FA based
geocrete in 5 % H2SO4 solution was 20 % [236]. They further stated that geocrete is excellent to OPC concrete with regards to acid
resistance. It is also exposed geocrete for a period of 18 months of geocrete in 2% sulphuric acid solution [199]. Geocrete weight loss
was 8 per cent while OPC concrete reported weight loss of 20 per cent. The reduction in strength in geocrete was 35 % in 18 months,
compared to a 68 % decrease of strength of OPC concrete after 1 and 18 months was seriously degraded.
The C-S-H may have significant negative effects on OPC concrete while the N-A-S-H gel seemed to have negligible impact on
geocrete framework. It is observed a weight loss of less than 5 per cent in concrete samples after 3 months immersion in 3 % H2SO4
solution (Olivia and Nikraz, 2009). It is noted that geocrete (40 MPa) based on slag reduced the strength by 33 % compared to 47 % for
OPC concrete when subjected for 12 months in acetic acid medium [156]. In the acid solution, the GGBS particles and low calcium
C-S-H with an average Ca / Si ratio of 1 were more balanced than the components of the OPC pastes. Less than 5 % mass loss after three
months of exposure in 3% H2SO4 medium was reported [179]. The strength reduction was 11 % compared to 36.2 % for OPC concrete
when exposed to 2% H2SO4 solution as reported by [235].

6.5. Resistance to sulfate attack

Any change in the mixtures of concrete cannot diminish the materials’ performance because concrete is commonly exposed to
severe conditions, such as sulfate attacks (ASTM C 150) [237]. Geopolymers have far better resistance to sulfate attacks (RSA) than
OPC because of its alternative low-toxicity coating material [177,238]. However, very limited researches have examined the impacts
of geopolymers on enhancing the durability of concrete structures. Most specialists feature sulphate attack to the creation of extensive
ettringite (Al2O3, 3CaO, 32H2O, and 3CaSO4) and gypsum [calcium sulphate dehydrate (2H2O, CaSO4)], attributing by the extension
or moderating of concrete. It is highlighted the important role of GGBS in reducing the concentration of sulfate solution in geocrete by
4 %–6 % [239]. Geocrete immersed in a 5 % Na2SO4 solution demonstrates a lesser deterioration compared with concrete immersed in
a 5 % MgSO4 solution. Another research found of FA-based geocrete samples soaked in sulfuric acid and sodium sulfate solutions for a
period of 12 weeks [232]. The results showed a significant change in the strength, length, and mass of the samples but had no sig­
nificant influence on geocrete except in the case when the sulfate attack was in the form of sulfuric acid caused damage to the surface of
the samples. An alkali silica reaction is observed in geocrete when the alkaline ions from the cement attack the reactive silica from the
aggregates [127]. This reaction creates an alkali–silica gel that attracts water and expands, and such expansion can produce internal
cracking on the geocrete surface. The FA-based geopolymeric mortar incorporated with 2 % nano-silica [207], the RCA-based geocrete
[240], and the RHA-based geocrete [198,241] all have low exposure to sulfate and acid attacks expressed in terms of strength. It is
reported little improved strength for pastes exposed in 5% Na2SO4 and 5% MgSO4 solutions while the significant drop in strength for
samples after 5 months of exposure in the 5 % mixed sulphate solution (Na2SO4 + MgSO4) [242]. During immersion of alkali-activated
FA/GGBS pastes in MgSO4 solution for 3 months of exposure, the significant physical degradation of the pastes was observed. The
calcium sulphate dihydrate produced in paste was determined to be harmful to the MgSO4 materials [235]. In the situation of Na2SO4
solution, only grain exposure was clearly evident whereas both grain exposure and dissolved alumino-silicate matrix were observed in
MgSO4 solution, indicating the severity of MgSO4 action [186]. The degradation is regarded primarily because of the breakdown of the
alumino-silicate skeleton, the release of silicon acid, the sodium ion leaching [106]. These reactions tend to have a major mechanical
strength effect. It is found that little modifications in FA-based geocrete after 3 months of exposure to the sulphate environment [243].
It is reported that 2.4 % loss of weight, 2–29% compressive strength loss of FA-based geocrete subjected to 5 % Na2SiO4 solution for a
period of 180 days while for OPC concrete 9–38 % compressive strength loss was realized [244]. The degradation of OPC concrete is
caused by the accumulation of expansive gypsum and ettringite that may cause the concrete to swell, crack, and spall. Unlike that,
geocrete does not contain Ca(OH)2 and mono-sulpho aluminate in the matrix to cause expansion. The addition of GGBS and MK (10 %–
15 %) in geocrete admixtures can also increase the RSA of concrete and significantly reduce its alkali–silica reactivity as shown in the
following reactions [184].

–acid-based reaction

H0.38 SiO2.19 + 0.38NaOH → Na0.38 SiO2.19 + 0.38H2O

–siloxane bridges attack and silica disintegration

Na0.38 SiO2.19 + 1.62NaOH → 2Na2+ — H2SiO2+

4

In general, research using blended fuel ash-based geocrete samples found that no major changes noted after 18 months of soaking in
a 5 % Na2SO4 solution but the normal concrete specimens showed a weight reduction of about 20 % compared to a significantly smaller
4 % reduction for the samples because of the low water captivation of the geocrete binder and its little Calcium content. In geocrete, the
sulphates will not attack the geocrete harshly except in the case when chemicals were present, and the tendency of the damage in the
geocrete surface and its matrix depends on its permeability (porous).

6.6. Chloride ion penetration

Chloride ions can penetrate through the concrete pore network, potentially leading to steel reinforcement corrosion [245]. Steel
corrosion due to the penetration of chloride ions is one of the most common problems associated with concrete structural durability

14
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[246,247]. The potential of chloride ions to infiltrate the concrete must then be understood for design and quality control. Never­
theless, the infiltration of chloride ions into the concrete is a gradual process [248]. This cannot be measured specifically within a
period, which would be beneficial as a measure of quality control. It has been documented that geocrete has greater compressive
strength than concrete manufactured with OPC [249]. Nevertheless, the concentration of chloride in geocrete is greater than that of
OPC. The pH test showed that according to the rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT) geocrete has less pH than OPC concrete (Fig. 9).
Concrete porosity was discovered to affect chloride penetration and concrete pH [249]. The chloride environment can therefore often
enhance the geocrete’s compressive strength [250]. According to some earlier studies, FA-based geocrete has greater durability in
hostile conditions like sulphate, acid, and fire than Portland-based concrete [251]. Another researcher reported that a reduction in
chloride penetration was observed in NaOH-concentrated concrete due to the filler effect and polycondensation reaction [189]. It has
also been discovered that geocrete specimens produced from F-class FA displayed significantly higher chloride ion penetration
resistance compared to OPC samples, including geocrete samples prepared by Class C FA [252]. This indicates that the activation of FA
and the magnitude of the resulting geopolymerization process can play a significant role in the ability of the geocrete matrix to resist
chloride penetration. The penetration process is usually modeled by solving Fick’s second law for certain boundary conditions, which
gives the known error function Eq. (1) [253].
A
Deff = (4)
ρeff

Where;

- Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient

- A is a factor, which depends on the external ionic concentration (for 0.5 M in chlorides a value of 23.5E − 5 can be used),
- ρeff is the “effective” resistivity (in this case of concrete saturated with water).

6.7. Alkali-silica reaction

Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) makes the hardened OPC concrete to deteriorate gradually with regards to its strength reduction,
cracking, and expansion of volume [234]. This includes the hydroxyl ion reaction in the pore solution within the concrete matrix of the
aggregate, as well as reactive silica [255]. In geocrete, the unused alkali after alumino-silicate geopolymerization is required to react
with the aggregates’ silica initiating degradation of their siloxane bonds. Geopolymer mortars using aggregates with various re­
activities have allegedly grown less than the corresponding OPC mortars [256]. The expansion of GGBS-based geocrete is because of
the existence of a sodium silicate hydrate reaction product with the morphology of the rosette type [257]. Directly opposed to this,
there is no major expansion of geopolymer mortars that were based on FA. The development of crystalline zeolites was quite slow, and
as these minerals are usually found within the gaps in the matrix, it is unlikely there would be stress that could cause cracking [258].
After 16 days, the bars made from FA/slag blends extended below the 0.1 % mark recommended in ASTM C1260-07. Those mortars
failed to meet the stated requirements at 90 days of exposure. The extension of the resulting processes raised the GGBS dosage in the
FA/GGBS mix [139]. ASR has been argued to aid in finding a tight bond to the paste-aggregate interface, thereby increasing geocrete’s
tensile strength [259]. It is suggested that geocrete sandstone, quartz and calcareous aggregates are not susceptible to fibers (up to 1.5
% to substitute traditional shear reinforcement in geocrete beams [256]. They have observed that the increase in the volume of fibers
contributed to the cracking load and ultimate shear energy absorption. A strong correlation between the experimental outputs and the
forecasted fib Model Code 2010 was observed.

i. Reaction between acid and base

H0.38 SiO2.19 + 0:38NaOH ……………. Na0 38SiO2.19 + 0:38H2O

Fig. 9. Systematic setup of RCPT test [254].

15
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

ii. Siloxane-bridge attack and silica disintegration

H0.38 SiO2.19 + 0:38NaOH ……………. 2Na2+ + H2SiO42+

6.8. Carbonation resistance

Carbonation is a process of neutralization in which ambient carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts with dissolved calcium hydroxide (Ca
(OH)2) in concrete pore water, creates calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and water (H2O) [205]. Moreover, unhydrated tricalcium silicate
(C3S) and bi-calcium silicate (C3S) absorb carbon dioxide [260]. Carbonation affects the chemical composition and the concrete
microstructure, thereby naturally influencing the chemical and mechanical properties [261,262]. Carbonation is a quite sophisticated
physico-chemical process, under an accelerated carbonation study using a CO2 concentration of 3.0 ± 0.2 % at 20 ◦ C for 28 days [214]
investigated the behaviour of GGBS / MK based geocrete with a W/B ratio 0.47. They have noticed the compressive intensity
monotonically decreased as the carbonation continued. The correlation between the volume of pores and the degree of carbonation
was much more similar to specimens with different dosage of MK, as opposed to samples based on slag [263]. This revealed that
porosity is not the only variable that controls the loss of strength of the carbonated binder [52,264,265]. There should be a convoluting
effect, because of the binder gel chemistry, which determines the residual force level after accelerated carbonation. It is investigated
the oxygen and chloride permeability of alkali-activated concrete made from natural pozzolan from Iran (Taftan andesite and Sha­
hindej dacite) [266]. They reported that alkali-activated natural pozzolana concrete has 10–35 % lower oxygen permeability
compared to OPC concrete at standard healing environments for 3 months. The rapid carbonation and chloride permeability analysis
offered the alkali-activated concrete high values [121]. This is possibly because of the very high concentration of alkali ions in the pore
solution that promotes higher electrical conductivity in the geocrete [267]. In general, a change in geocrete microstructure porosity
tends to reduce the impact of carbonation with age.

6.9. Resistance to freezing and thawing

Freeze-thaw resistance is an essential factor in deciding the durability of concrete structures however most of the documented
freeze-thaw resistant research has been conducted on geopolymer materials derived from class-F FA, granulated slag, and MK [268].
Compressive strengths of the geopolymer samples subjected to 150 freeze-thaw cycles have been found to be decreased by just 30 % of
the test values not subject to freeze-thaw cycles [98]. As reported by Zhuang [125], the alkali FA triggered could resist 2.2 times the
freeze-thaw process in comparison to the Portland cement concrete with similar compressive strength. Rodríguez [197] evaluated the
influence of freezing-thaw resistance of various kinds of alkaline activator solutions, and stated that the sodium silicate activated slag
and RHA concrete were largely resistant attributable to the reduced porous structure. It is found out high compressive strength of
alkali-activated slag binders after 100 cycles of freeze-thawing resistance [162]. After 40 cycles of air-entrained freeze-thaw cycles, it is
reported a low scaling rate in alkali-activated class F FA-based geocrete [101]. Findings on weight loss and visual improvements of the
specimens demonstrated the high significant resistance to freezing cycles of the alkaline-activated FA [268]. It was further discovered
that air entraining admixtures widely used to enhance Portland cement concrete’s freeze-thaw durability did not increase the dura­
bility of FA materials enabled by alkali. The FA-based geocrete has also been reported to demonstrate superior freeze-thaw resistance,
therefore suitable RC application in extremely cold environments [269]. However, the impact of various forms of alkaline activator
solutions on freeze-thaw resistance, and they have indicated that the slag concrete enabled by sodium silicate was more durable due to
the less porous structure. It is also reported that the alkali-activated GGBS concrete can withstand up to 300 freeze-thaw cycles [270]. It
is revealed that geocrete produced with FA deteriorated within 40 freeze-thaw cycles [92]. It is evaluated the freezing resistance of
geopolymer prepared from fluidized bed combustion bottom ash with low calcium content, and the compressive strength of the test
samples decreased by 20 % after 50 freezing cycles [271]. Another study demonstrated it is possible to reuse FA on a wide scale, and
improving the freezing resistance of the FA-based geopolymers is of great significance [268]. The effect of air-training agents on the
resistance to freezing has been investigated by different researchers. It is contrasted ASTM C666 FA -based geopolymer and ordinary
Portland cement with or without air inlet for 300 freeze-thaw cycles [117]. Their findings showed that, except in ordinary Portland
cement, the air inlet did not have a considerable positive influence on the FA-based geocrete. Moreover, it revealed that the air-trained
FA-based geocrete showed slight scaling after 40 freeze-thaw cycles, while there was no scaling in the non-air trained FA-based
geocrete [272]. To sum up, there are few published studies on geopolymers’ freeze-thaw resistance. Alkali-activated slag geo­
polymer has been shown to demonstrate outstanding freeze-thaw resistance based on the available literature.

6.10. Corrosion of steel reinforcement

Several researchers have studied an impressed voltage method for the corrosion effect of embedded steel rebars in FA-based
geocrete [156,248,273]. Chloride-induced corrosion from reinforcing steel in concrete is an essential durability problem in rein­
forced concrete (RC). Better concrete corrosion resistance has always been a desirable quality to reinforce concrete. Corrosion po­
tential is a method that is used to identify the strengthening process without disrupting the structures. The severity of corrosion of the
concrete steel is usually known only after the concrete has cracked or damaged [95,189].
Different kinds of literature have documented the corrosion potential of steel within geocrete in accordance with ASTM C 876 [156,

16
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

248]. It is claimed that, after 91 days, geocrete’s half-cell potential was below the 404 mV defined in the criteria for severe corrosion
[248]. Corrosion potential of up to 300 mV has also been revealed, which indicates a probable sign of corrosion due to the lower pH of
concrete during the half-cell possible measurement [156]. Accelerated corrosion tests revealed that low-level corrosion behavior and
failure time demonstrated by geocrete mixes were 3.8–5.7 times higher than ordinary Portland cement concrete. When the point of
failure was reached a crack occurred suddenly in the concrete under the impact voltage, and a high current reading was immediately
followed. The huge amounts of FA and alkaline activators in the geocrete mix increased the supply of ions, which can create a high
electrical resistance at high impressed voltage [272]. This increases the cathodic reaction and decreases the rate of corrosion, and this
in effect decreases the tensile stress of the samples, thereby reducing the probability of cracking and considerably increasing failure
times [248]. Zhuang et al. [125] correlated geocrete’s resilience with that of OPC concrete subjected to the marine environment over a
21 days. For geocrete (71–91 mA), the projected early corrosion current was marginally lower compared to OPC concrete (772 mA).
Initially, however, OPC specimens showed a decline in the current but later started to increase, whereas the geocrete current rarely
produced a substantial increase.
It is evaluated the corrosion resistance of geopolymer mortar based on FA and corroborated comparable corrosion resistance to
cement mortar from geopolymer mortar [274]. The similar corrosion resistance of FA-based geocrete mortars was also shown by [275].
It is examined corrosion resistance in an accelerated corrosion environment of two geocrete mixes containing 14 M NaOH solution
[229]. In their analysis, improved corrosion resistance of both geocrete is recorded compared to OPC concrete of equivalent
compressive strength. The corrosion resistance of geocrete using 8 M and 14 M NaOH solution was also investigated in an accelerated
corrosion setting with a very high DC potential of 30 V, applied to a bar of 500 mm in length of 13 mm diameter [276]. They have
reported better corrosion resistance of geocrete. In their analysis, it is found that the higher the molarity of NaOH solution for a given
quantity of Na2SiO3 the faster the geopolymerization process and the higher the compressive strength of concrete corrosion current
than the OPC concrete. Furthermore, the work is still in the process of finding a better geopolymer composition to provide the best
rebar protection and to decrease the corrosion rate, which can enhance the time for the initial deterioration of concrete [273].

6.11. Fire resistance

Construction materials with advanced characteristics, such as superior fire resistance (ASTM E119), have recently become in
demand [241]. As the primary contributor to the fire resistance of concrete, the water accumulated inside a geopolymer structure is
released during the heating process to reduce the heat temperature and to form a porous microstructure [66]. A geopolymer binder was
developed in the late 70’s by a French scientist after several catastrophic fires in France [106]. Commonly used in niche applications,
magnesium-based and magnesium phosphate cement are known for their superior fire resistance and lower CO2 emissions compared
with OPC [277]. The level of resistance of fire by geocrete is relied on several considerations for instance slag, binder, room tem­
perature, caption type of alkaline liquid activator, and curing conditions. Reportedly, geocrete afforded higher resistance to fire
compared to normal concrete due to that “first reason” geocrete have no hydrate phase and specially Ca(OH)2 [277]. When normal
concrete is exposed to a higher temperature (>400 ◦ C), structural water encourages internal stresses. Besides, the Ca(OH)2 dehy­
droxylate to CaO, then the CaO usually cools down it rehydrate with changeable volume, producing a deleterious influence on the
concrete matrix. The “second reason” is that the geocrete binder commonly will not involve the retaining of water of hydration within
the phases of gel to preserve the structural reliability of the binder and the geocrete matrix acts like a ceramic. It is found that heating
MK- and FA-based geopolymers and pastes at 800 ◦ C at 28 days reduces their residual strength by 34 % and 6 % [209]. Utilizing GGBS
as a replacement for cement can also enhance the fire resistance of geocrete [278]. Using several additives, such as FA, silica fume, MK,
finely grounded pumice, polypropylene fiber, POFA, Portland pozzolana cement, and RHA, as partial substitutes for cement could as
well enhance the fire resistance of high-performance geocrete [277]. Another study showed that the extent of shrinkage of FA- and
GGBS-based geocrete is considerably greater than that of 100 % FA-based geocrete and conventional concrete [279]. Thus, FA-based
geocrete with slag substitution practiced a loss in strength when it exposed to 200− 300 ◦ C, and then resuming gaining strength at
300~400 ◦ C, and the loss of strength occurred again when exposed to elevated temperature (500 ◦ C), and finally, loss strength when
the exposure was interfaced to 800 ◦ C [280]. However, geocrete resistance to fire is concluded considerably lesser than that of the
normal concrete, depending on the chemical compositions and mineralogical characteristics. However, GGBS is a valuable source
material used as a fire resistant geopolymer product [33]. In general, it is stated that the increase in the K2O content of the geopolymer
matrix is associated with slag which further increases the setting time and the strength of the geocrete. Fig. 10 shows the phase
transformation of geocrete subjected to fire.

Fig. 10. The phase transformation of geopolymers during fire [281].

17
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

7. Practical point of view on the long-term measurement of geocrete

Weathering, abrasion, gas diffusion, and harmful liquid absorption are all factors that contribute to geocrete’s durability. Its’
durability is influenced by the materials constituents, design methods, curing regime, and mixing process for geopolymer preparation
[282,283]. It is still early stages for geopolymer concrete, which has not been subjected to extensive field testing and requires
long-term studies to determine its mechanical and durability properties, unlike normal concrete that has been fully studied and
provided a basis for design codes [284–286]. The application of geocrete as a sustainable construction material is, therefore,
incompletely understood [287]. On the other hand, due to the presence of silicate gels, geocrete is dimensionally stable at temperatures
of about 1000 ◦ C, which gives exceptional technical properties providing it superior fire resistance compared to OPC concrete [162,
288,289].
A lot of work needs to be done to improve the durability of geocrete, as only a bunch of studies have been conducted on it. Although
geocrete can be tested and validated, the regulations and standards are only designed for OPC concrete. It will be necessary to validate
existing test methods for OPC concrete before they can be used for geocrete. A sustained study of geocrete durability will lead to
updates in standards, as advances in scientific knowledge of this novel material can drive relevant authorities to adopt it, thereby
promoting its adoption and use [290]. However, the adoption and application of geocrete are gaining in popularity. Geopolymers are
currently being used as structural elements in other countries, according to a 2016 report by the Japanese government. There are 15
laboratories worldwide that are participating in RILEM’s study to identify and validate methods for testing the durability of geocrete.
Geocrete does not have a long-term track record of durability, so it is important to develop test and validation methods [290]. On the
basis of the need for cautious preparations and curing, technical challenges in certain pattern of utilisation, and supply chain con­
straints, geocrete is not expected to provide a comparable replacement for OPC concrete. In addition, even if governing agencies accept
the results of durability tests on geocrete, the ease of obtaining the raw materials for its manufacturing process will be an obstacle.
Geocrete must also overcome compliance and product confidence challenges, as the cementitious materials supply chain is based on
OPC [287]. Finally, geocrete in-situ curing regime requires materials that can reduce setting time as well as improve early strength
gain, this consider as a gap that required further studies. Further, there is a need for a mix design method that takes into account all the
variables involved in geocrete production. There is also additional long-term durability studies required due to the fact that the
majority of studies focus on the 28-day curing regime.

8. Conclusion

This paper carried out extensive review work on the long-term durability properties and behavior of geocretes, which is regarded as
an innovative building ingredient that offers an alternative to OPC. In recent decades geocrete has become more popular because it is
more ecofriendly than traditional OPC. It has an environmental and economic benefit, which includes modification of existing concrete
and manufacturing materials. Most previous studies have attempted to substitute OPC with a more ecological-friendly concrete that
applies several byproducts. Existing research findings have also addressed the influences of the various materials utilized in the
manufacture of geocrete, to the durability of the concrete performance; including the resistance of fire by the geocrete matrix. To
ensure a satisfactory placement, different prospects of workability that could control the filling and passing ability of geocrete must
carefully monitor, aiming to reduce its influence at the long-term performance. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the
findings in this work:

- It is found that a higher amount of binder in geocrete concrete can make concrete sticky and give a sudden loss of workability
causing a high heat of hydration at the early age is another issue in high geocrete strength concrete that can result in thermal
cracking.
- Unlike in OPC based concrete, the strength of alkali-activated concrete was found to improve in chloride environment. It is also
demonstrated a better resistance against aggressive environment compared to normal concrete, due to its less porous structures.
Therefore, the change in geocrete microstructure porosity tends to reduce the impact of carbonation with age.
- Alkali-activated concrete has good acid resistance. It retained almost 80 % of its strength after one year of exposure in acidic
medium. The deterioration of alkali-activated concrete depends on the concentration of the acid or sulphate in the medium.
Therefore, it is found to exhibits excellent durability properties compared with the Portland cement-based binders.
- It found that the increase in the volume of fibers contributed to the cracking load and ultimate shear energy absorption.
- It is reported that the higher the molarity of NaOH solution for a given quantity of Na2SiO3 the faster the geopolymerization process
and the higher the compressive strength of concrete corrosion current than the OPC concrete.
- The high calcium FA is recommended to be used in geocrete for durable concrete and geopolymerization. However, the presence of
GGBS and MK in alkali-activated materials reduces its alkali-silica reactivity
- Geocrete is nowadays a better replacement and construction material for field applications in the construction industries.

This work also offers several recommendations for future studies, which includes the following:

- The geopolymer composite, as a relatively new technology, with unique advantages requires more research for better under­
standing and development for its extensive use in construction industry.
- Future investigation to study the aggregate content effect and additives on the engineering characteristics of geocrete, including
durability characteristic.

18
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

- Investigation to further establish systematic leachate analysis for geocrete involving leachate analysis of recycled waste materials in
geopolymers.
- Investigations aimed at user friendly systems, particularly non-corrosive alkali activators.
- Analysis focusing on the problem of durability of geopolymer concrete, in specific to wetting-drying cycles, chloride-induced steel-
reinforcing corrosion and the establishment of acceptable standards.
- A further study is recommended to produce a better geopolymer composition, leading to provide the best rebar protection and to
decrease the corrosion rate, which can enhance the time for the initial deterioration of concrete.
- Future works must examine the use of geopolymers for enhancing the durability of concrete structures.

In addition to a systematic analysis of the literature, geocrete is actively providing insights into the prospective application and
future use of geocrete composites in the construction industry presently.

Funding

The research is also partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation as part of the World-
Class Research Center Program: Advanced Digital Technologies (contract No. 075-15-2020-934 dated 17.11.2020).

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support given by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Prince Sattam bin
Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia; the supervision by the Peter the Great Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russia,
and cooperation of the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, Amran University, Yemen, for this research.

References

[1] Y.H.M. Amran, R. Alyousef, H. Alabduljabbar, M. El-Zeadani, Clean production and properties of geopolymer concrete; a review, J. Clean. Prod. 251 (2020),
119679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119679.
[2] D. Parthiban, D.S. Vijayan, Study on stress-strain effect of reinforced metakaolin based GPC under compression, Mater. Today Proc. (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2019.10.162.
[3] V.G. Karayannis, K.G. Moustakas, A.N. Baklavaridis, A.E. Domopoulou, Sustainable ash-based geopolymers, Chem. Eng. Trans. (2018), https://doi.org/
10.3303/CET1863085.
[4] S.S. Rautray, M.R. Das, Self-compacting geo polymer concrete: an emerging material for sustainable construction, J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. (2018).
[5] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer cement. A review, n.d.
[6] P. Nuaklong, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Properties of metakaolin-high calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled aggregate from crushed
concrete specimens, Constr. Build. Mater. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.152.
[7] T. Alomayri, Experimental study of the microstructural and mechanical properties of geopolymer paste with nano material (Al2O3), J. Build. Eng. (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100788.
[8] S.G.S. Dharmendra, S. Ravat, S.V. Dave, Utilization of red mud in geopolymer concrete-a review, Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. 4 (2017).
[9] J. He, Y. Jie, J. Zhang, Y. Yu, G. Zhang, Synthesis and characterization of red mud and rice husk ash-based geopolymer composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 37
(2013) 108–118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.11.010.
[10] F.N. Okoye, S. Prakash, N.B. Singh, Durability of fly ash based geopolymer concrete in the presence of silica fume, J. Clean. Prod. (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.176.
[11] K.H. Yang, J.K. Song, K. Il Song, Assessment of CO 2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 39 (2013) 265–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.08.001.
[12] W.A. Saffuan, K. Muthusamy, N.A.M. Salleh, N. Nordin, Properties of concrete containing ground palm oil fuel ash as fine aggregate replacement, IOP Conf.
Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/264/1/012008.
[13] C. Chen, G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, A. Jullien, A. Ventura, LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral
additions in concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001.
[14] P. Van Den Heede, N. De Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and “green” concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.004.
[15] F.P. Glasser, S. Diamond, D.M. Roy, Hydration reactions in cement pastes incorporating fly ash and other pozzolanic materials, MRS Proc. (1986), https://doi.
org/10.1557/proc-86-139.
[16] K. Neupane, Fly ash and GGBFS based powder-activated geopolymer binders: a viable sustainable alternative of portland cement in concrete industry, Mech.
Mater. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2016.09.012.
[17] D.W. Law, A.A. Adam, T.K. Molyneaux, I. Patnaikuni, A. Wardhono, Long term durability properties of class F fly ash geopolymer concrete, Mater. Struct. 48
(2015) 721–731, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0268-9.
[18] R. Firdous, D. Stephan, J.N.Y. Djobo, Natural pozzolan based geopolymers: a review on mechanical, microstructural and durability characteristics, Constr.
Build. Mater. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.191.
[19] P.C. Hewlett, Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-6256-7.X5007-3.
[20] F. Massazza, Pozzolana and pozzolanic cements. Lea’s Chem. Cem. Concr., 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-075066256-7/50022-9.
[21] Antoni, O.K. Wattimena, D. Hardjito, Improving surface durability of high volume fly ash concrete with application of alkali solution, Adv. Mater. Res. (2013),
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.626.636.
[22] R. Anuradha, R. Bala Thirumal, P. Naveen John, Optimization of Molarity on workable self-compacting geopolymer concrete and strength study on SCGC by
replacing flyash with silica fume and GGBFS, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. ISSN (2014).
[23] C. Shi, P.V. Krivenko, D. Roy, Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes, 2006, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203390672.
[24] Y.L. Peng Zhang, Kexun Wang, Qingfu Li, Juan Wang, Fabrication and engineering properties of concretes based on geopolymers/alkali-activated binders - a
review, J. Clean. Prod. 258 (2020), 120896.

19
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[25] Y.L. Peng Zhang, Zhen Gao, Juan Wang, Jinjun Guo, Hu Shaowei, Properties of fresh and hardened fly ash/slag based geopolymer concrete: a review, J. Clean.
Prod. 270 (2020), 122389.
[26] M.Y.J. Liu, U.J. Alengaram, M. Santhanam, M.Z. Jumaat, K.H. Mo, Microstructural investigations of palm oil fuel ash and fly ash based binders in lightweight
aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 120 (2016) 112–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.076.
[27] P. Posi, C. Teerachanwit, C. Tanutong, S. Limkamoltip, S. Lertnimoolchai, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Lightweight geopolymer concrete containing aggregate
from recycle lightweight block, Mater. Des. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.001.
[28] S. Chandra, L. Berntsson, Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, William Andrew Publishing, Norwich, New York, 2002.
[29] Y.L. Peng Zhang, Kexun Wang, Juan Wang, Jinjun Guo, Hu Shaowei, Mechanical properties and prediction of fracture parameters of geopolymer/alkali-
activated mortar modified with PVA fiber and nano-SiO2, Ceram. Int. 46 (2020) 20027–20037.
[30] J.N.Y. Djobo, A. Elimbi, H.K. Tchakouté, S. Kumar, Volcanic ash-based geopolymer cements/concretes: the current state of the art and perspectives, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8230-8.
[31] F. Collins, J.G. Sanjayan, Microcracking and strength development of alkali activated slag concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2001), https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0958-9465(01)00003-8.
[32] W.K.W. Lee, J.S.J. Van Deventer, Structural reorganisation of class F fly ash in alkaline silicate solutions, Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. (2002),
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00237-6.
[33] T.W. Cheng, J.P. Chiu, Fire-resistant geopolymer produce by granulated blast furnace slag, Miner. Eng. (2003), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-6875(03)
00008-6.
[34] C. Freidin, Cementless pressed blocks from waste products of coal-firing power station, Constr. Build. Mater. (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2005.08.002.
[35] E. Najafi Kani, A. Allahverdi, J.L. Provis, Efflorescence control in geopolymer binders based on natural pozzolan, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 25–33,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.07.007.
[36] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J.P. Castro-Gomes, S. Jalali, Investigations of tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder: strength and microstructure, Constr. Build. Mater.
(2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.08.003.
[37] I. Kourti, A.R. Devaraj, A. Guerrero Bustos, D. Deegan, A.R. Boccaccini, C.R. Cheeseman, Geopolymers prepared from DC plasma treated air pollution control
(APC) residues glass: properties and characterisation of the binder phase, J. Hazard. Mater. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.08.081.
[38] N.A. Lloyd, B.V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete with fly ash, 2nd Int. Conf. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. (2010).
[39] P. Chindaprasirt, U. Rattanasak, Utilization of blended fluidized bed combustion (FBC) ash and pulverized coal combustion (PCC) fly ash in geopolymer, Waste
Manag. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.040.
[40] C.S.J. Shaw, A.B. Woodland, J. Hopp, N.D. Trenholm, Structure and evolution of the rockeskyllerkopf volcanic complex, West Eifel Volcanic Field, Germany,
Bull. Volcanol. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-010-0380-9.
[41] C. Villa, E.T. Pecina, R. Torres, L. Gómez, Geopolymer synthesis using alkaline activation of natural zeolite, Constr. Build. Mater. (2010), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.052.
[42] D. Bondar, C.J. Lynsdale, N.B. Milestone, N. Hassani, A.A. Ramezanianpour, Effect of heat treatment on reactivity-strength of alkali-activated natural
pozzolans, Constr. Build. Mater. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.044.
[43] P.N. Lemougna, K.J.D. MacKenzie, U.F.C. Melo, Synthesis and thermal properties of inorganic polymers (geopolymers) for structural and refractory
applications from volcanic ash, Ceram. Int. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2011.05.002.
[44] S. Ahmari, L. Zhang, Production of eco-friendly bricks from copper mine tailings through geopolymerization, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 323–331, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.048.
[45] I. Silva, J.P. Castro-Gomes, A. Albuquerque, Effect of immersion in water partially alkali-activated materials obtained of tungsten mine waste mud, Constr.
Build. Mater. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.069.
[46] T. Tho-In, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, C. Jaturapitakkul, Pervious high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2012), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.028.
[47] S.K. Nath, S. Kumar, Influence of iron making slags on strength and microstructure of fly ash geopolymer, Constr. Build. Mater. (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.070.
[48] R.H. Kupaei, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Bin Jumaat, H. Nikraz, Mix design for fly ash based oil palm shell geopolymer lightweight concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
(2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.071.
[49] Y.H. Lee, N. Chua, M. Amran, Y.Y. Lee, A.H. Kueh, R. Fediuk, N. Vatin, Y. Vasilev, Thermal Performance of Structural Lightweight Concrete Composites for
Potential Energy Saving, 2021, pp. 1–15.
[50] M.R. Karim, M.F.M. Zain, M. Jamil, F.C. Lai, Fabrication of a non-cement binder using slag, palm oil fuel ash and rice husk ash with sodium hydroxide, Constr.
Build. Mater. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.077.
[51] M. Amran, G. Murali, R. Fediuk, N. Vatin, Y. Vasilev, H. Abdelgader, Palm oil fuel ash-based eco-efficient concrete: a critical review of the short-term
properties, Materials (Basel) 14 (2021) 1–33, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14020332.
[52] S. Geetha, K. Ramamurthy, Properties of geopolymerised low-calcium bottom ash aggregate cured at ambient temperature, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2013),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.06.007.
[53] E.D. Rodríguez, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, J.D. Gehman, J.M. Monzó, J. Payá, M.V. Borrachero, Geopolymers based on spent catalyst residue from a fluid
catalytic cracking (FCC) process, Fuel (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.02.053.
[54] F. Colangelo, G. De Luca, C. Ferone, A. Mauro, Experimental and numerical analysis of thermal and hygrometric characteristics of building structures
employing recycled plastic aggregates and geopolymer concrete, Energies (2013), https://doi.org/10.3390/en6116077.
[55] B.J. Mathew, M. Sudhakar, C. Natarajan, Strength, Economic and sustainability characteristics of coal ash – GGBS based geopolymer concrete, Int. J. Comput.
Eng. Res. (2013).
[56] H.K. Tchakoute, A. Elimbi, E. Yanne, C.N. Djangang, Utilization of volcanic ashes for the production of geopolymers cured at ambient temperature, Cem.
Concr. Compos. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.010.
[57] D.K. Sinha, A. Kumar, S. Kumar, Reduction of pollution by using Fly ash, bottom ash and granulated blast furnace slag in geopolymer building materials,
J. Eng. Technol. (2013).
[58] E. Ul Haq, S. Kunjalukkal Padmanabhan, A. Licciulli, Synthesis and characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash based geopolymers-A comparative study, Ceram.
Int. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.10.012.
[59] I. Perná, T. Hanzlíček, The solidification of aluminum production waste in geopolymer matrix, J. Clean. Prod. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.04.043.
[60] T. Yang, X. Yao, Z. Zhang, Geopolymer prepared with high-magnesium nickel slag: characterization of properties and microstructure, Constr. Build. Mater.
(2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.038.
[61] S. Akçaözoǧlu, C. Ulu, Recycling of waste PET granules as aggregate in alkali-activated blast furnace slag/metakaolin blends, Constr. Build. Mater. (2014),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.011.
[62] M.A. Mosaberpanah, Y.H.M. Amran, A. Akoush, Performance investigation of palm kernel shell ash in high strength concrete production, Comput. Concr. 26
(2020) 577–585, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2020.26.6.577.
[63] K. Tzanakos, A. Mimilidou, K. Anastasiadou, A. Stratakis, E. Gidarakos, Solidification/stabilization of ash from medical waste incineration into geopolymers,
Waste Manag. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.021.
[64] O.A. Abdulkareem, A.M. Mustafa Al Bakri, H. Kamarudin, I. Khairul Nizar, A.A. Saif, Effects of elevated temperatures on the thermal behavior and mechanical
performance of fly ash geopolymer paste, mortar and lightweight concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.047.

20
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[65] A.S. Ouda, Development of high-performance heavy density concrete using different aggregates for gamma-ray shielding, Biol. Sci. 79 (2015) 48–55, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.11.009.
[66] D. BAJARE, G. BUMANIS, A. KORJAKINS, New porous material made from industrial and municipal waste for building application, Biomater. Sci. (2014),
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ms.20.3.4330.
[67] V. Loganina, K. Sergeeva, R. Fediuk, V. Uvarov, N. Vatin, Y. Vasilev, M. Amran, M. Szelag, Increase the performances of lime finishing mixes due to
modification with calcium silicate hydrates, Crystals 11 (2021) 399, https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11040399.
[68] V. Cantarel, F. Nouaille, A. Rooses, D. Lambertin, A. Poulesquen, F. Frizon, Solidification/stabilisation of liquid oil waste in metakaolin-based geopolymer,
J. Nucl. Phys. Mater. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.04.036.
[69] N.R. Rakhimova, R.Z. Rakhimov, Alkali-activated cements and mortars based on blast furnace slag and red clay brick waste, Mater. Des. (2015), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.182.
[70] M. Torres-Carrasco, F. Puertas, Waste glass in the geopolymer preparation. Mechanical and microstructural characterisation, J. Clean. Prod. (2015), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.074.
[71] J. Kiventerä, L. Golek, J. Yliniemi, V. Ferreira, J. Deja, M. Illikainen, Utilization of sulphidic tailings from gold mine as a raw material in geopolymerization,
Int. J. Miner. Process. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2016.02.012.
[72] Z. Zhang, J.L. Provis, J. Zou, A. Reid, H. Wang, Toward an indexing approach to evaluate fly ashes for geopolymer manufacture, Cem. Concr. Res. 85 (2016)
163–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.04.007.
[73] I. Tekin, Properties of NaOH activated geopolymer with marble, travertine and volcanic tuff wastes, Constr. Build. Mater. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.10.038.
[74] J.N. Yankwa Djobo, A. Elimbi, H.K. Tchakouté, S. Kumar, Mechanical activation of volcanic ash for geopolymer synthesis: effect on reaction kinetics, gel
characteristics, physical and mechanical properties, RSC Adv. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ra03667h.
[75] R.H. Haddad, O. Alshbuol, Production of geopolymer concrete using natural pozzolan: a parametric study, Constr. Build. Mater. (2016), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.011.
[76] Y.S. Wang, J.G. Dai, Z. Ding, W.T. Xu, Phosphate-based geopolymer: formation mechanism and thermal stability, Mater. Lett. (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matlet.2017.01.022.
[77] T. Sathanandam, P.O. Awoyera, V. Vijayan, K. Sathishkumar, Low carbon building: experimental insight on the use of fly ash and glass fibre for making
geopolymer concrete, Sustain. Environ. Res. 27 (2017) 146–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2017.03.005.
[78] R.M. Novais, G. Ascensão, D.M. Tobaldi, M.P. Seabra, J.A. Labrincha, Biomass fly ash geopolymer monoliths for effective methylene blue removal from
wastewaters, J. Clean. Prod. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.078.
[79] J. Aupoil, J.B. Champenois, J.B. d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, A. Poulesquen, Interplay between silicate and hydroxide ions during geopolymerization, Cem.
Concr. Res. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.09.012.
[80] X. Peng, Q. Shuai, H. Li, Q. Ding, Y. Gu, C. Cheng, Z. Xu, Fabrication and fireproofing performance of the coal fly ash-metakaolin-based geopolymer foams,
Materials (Basel) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071750.
[81] P.O. Awoyera, M.S. Kirgiz, A. Viloria, D. Ovallos-Gazabon, Estimating strength properties of geopolymer self-compacting concrete using machine learning
techniques, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 9016–9028, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.06.008.
[82] A.M. Zeyad, M.A.M. Johari, Y.R. Alharbi, A.A. Abadel, Y.H.M. Amran, B.A. Tayeh, A. Abutaleb, Influence of steam curing regimes on the properties of ultrafine
POFA-based high-strength green concrete, J. Build. Eng. 38 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102204.
[83] I. Mansouri, M. Ostovari, P.O. Awoyera, J.W. Hu, Predictive modeling of the compressive strength of bacteria-incorporated geopolymer concrete using a gene
expression programming approach, Comput. Concr. 24 (2021) 319–332, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2021.27.4.319.
[84] V. Nelubova, V. Strokova, R. Fediuk, M. Amran, N. Vatin, Y. Vasilev, Effect of an aluminosilicate disperse additive on behaviors of autoclave silicate materials,
Buildings 11 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060239.
[85] V. Lesovik, A. Volodchenko, R. Fediuk, Y.H. Mugahed Amran, Improving the hardened properties of nonautoclaved silicate materials using nanodispersed
mine waste, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (2021), 4021214, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003839.
[86] S. Haruna, B.S. Mohammed, M.M.A. Wahab, M.U. Kankia, M. Amran, A.M. Gora, Long-term strength development of fly ash-based one-part alkali-activated
binders, Materials (Basel) 14 (2021) 4160, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154160.
[87] R. Snellings, G. Mertens, J. Elsen, Supplementary cementitious materials, Rev. Min. Geochem. (2012), https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2012.74.6.
[88] T.R. Naik, Sustainability of concrete construction, Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2008)13:2(98).
[89] B. Lothenbach, K. Scrivener, R.D. Hooton, Supplementary cementitious materials, Cem. Concr. Res. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2010.12.001.
[90] C. Lampris, R. Lupo, C.R. Cheeseman, Geopolymerisation of silt generated from construction and demolition waste washing plants, Waste Manag. (2009),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.007.
[91] J.Z. Peng Zhang, Yuanxun Zheng, Kejin Wang, A review on properties of fresh and hardened geopolymer mortar, Compos. Part B Eng. 152 (2018) 79–95.
[92] J. Temuujin, A. Minjigmaa, B. Davaabal, U. Bayarzul, A. Ankhtuya, T. Jadambaa, K.J.D. Mackenzie, Utilization of radioactive high-calcium Mongolian flyash
for the preparation of alkali-activated geopolymers for safe use as construction materials, Ceram. Int. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ceramint.2014.07.157.
[93] K. Komnitsas, D. Zaharaki, Geopolymerisation: a review and prospects for the minerals industry, Miner. Eng. 20 (2007) 1261–1277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mineng.2007.07.011.
[94] K.T. Tong, R. Vinai, M.N. Soutsos, Use of Vietnamese rice husk ash for the production of sodium silicate as the activator for alkali-activated binders, J. Clean.
Prod. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.025.
[95] A. Mohajerani, D. Suter, T. Jeffrey-Bailey, T. Song, A. Arulrajah, S. Horpibulsuk, D. Law, Recycling waste materials in geopolymer concrete, Clean Technol.
Environ. Policy (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-01660-2.
[96] A. Palomo, P. Krivenko, I. Garcia-Lodeiro, E. Kavalerova, O. Maltseva, A. Fernández-Jiménez, A review on alkaline activation: new analytical perspectives,
Mater. Constr. (2014), https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2014.00314.
[97] V.D. Glukhovsky, Soil Silicates, 1959.
[98] A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, M. Criado, Microstructure development of alkali-activated fly ash cement: a descriptive model, Cem. Concr. Res. (2005),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.08.021.
[99] A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, I. Sobrados, J. Sanz, The role played by the reactive alumina content in the alkaline activation of fly ashes, Microporous
Mesoporous Mater. (2006), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2005.11.015.
[100] J.S.J. Van Deventer, Progress in the Adoption of Geopolymer Cement**this chapter is an updated version of the article: Van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P.
Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement, Miner. Eng. 29 (2012) 89–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-804524-
4.00010-5, in: Handb. Low Carbon Concr., 2017.
[101] D. Dimas, I. Giannopoulou, D. Panias, Polymerization in sodium silicate solutions: a fundamental process in geopolymerization technology, J. Mater. Sci. 44
(2009) 3719–3730, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3497-5.
[102] W. Hunnicutt, Characterization of Calcium-silicate-hydrate and Calcium-alumino-silicate-hydrate, Vasa, 2013.
[103] A.M. Mustafa Al Bakri, H. Kamarudin, M. Bnhussain, I. Khairul Nizar, A.R. Rafiza, A.M. Izzat, Chemical reactions in the geopolymerisation process using fly
ash-based geopolymer: a review, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. (2011).
[104] K. Boonserm, V. Sata, K. Pimraksa, P. Chindaprasirt, Improved geopolymerization of bottom ash by incorporating fly ash and using waste gypsum as additive,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 819–824, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.04.001.
[105] K.C. Newlands, D.E. Macphee, The reactivity of aluminosilicate glasses in cements–effects of Ca content on dissolution characteristics and surface precipitation,
Adv. Appl. Ceram. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1080/17436753.2017.1299986.

21
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[106] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, 2015.

[107] P. Duxson, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J.S.J. Van Deventer, Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci. 42
(2007) 2917–2933, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z.
[108] E. Azimi, M.M. Al Bakri Abdullah, L.Y. Ming, H.C. Yong, K. Hussin, I.H. Aziz, Processing and properties of geopolymers as thermal insulating materials: a
review, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. (2016).
[109] P. Duxson, G.C. Lukey, J.S.J. van Deventer, Thermal evolution of metakaolin geopolymers: part 1 - physical evolution, J. Non. Solids 352 (2006) 5541–5555,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.09.019.
[110] J. Payá, F. Agrela, J. Rosales, M.M. Morales, M.V. Borrachero, Application of alkali-activated industrial waste. New Trends Eco-Efficient Recycl. Concr., 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102480-5.00013-0.
[111] A. Palomo, A. Fernandez-Jimenez, Alkaline activation, procedure for transforming fly ash into new materials. Part 1: applications, Proc. World Coal Ash (….
(2011).
[112] N.B. Singh, B. Middendorf, Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: an overview, Constr. Build. Mater. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117455.
[113] E. Khankhaje, M.W. Hussin, J. Mirza, M. Rafieizonooz, M.R. Salim, H.C. Siong, M.N.M. Warid, On blended cement and geopolymer concretes containing palm
oil fuel ash, Mater. Des. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.140.
[114] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Residential and commercial buildings. Clim. Chang. 2007, 2012,
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511546013.010.
[115] S.V. Vassilev, C.G. Vassileva, A new approach for the classification of coal fly ashes based on their origin, composition, properties, and behaviour, Fuel (2007),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.11.020.
[116] C.D. Lawrence, The production of low-energy cements, Lea’s Chem. Cem. Concr. (2003), https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-075066256-7/50021-7.
[117] P. Sun, H.C. Wu, Chemical and freeze-thaw resistance of fly ash-based inorganic mortars, Fuel (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.04.070.
[118] R.K. Lattanzio, X.L. Keystone, Greenhouse gas emissions assessments in the final environmental impact statement, in: X.L. Keystone (Ed.), Pipeline Environ.
Issues, 2014.
[119] G.P.A.G. Van Zijl, F.H. Wittmann, B.H. Oh, P. Kabele, R.D. Toledo Filho, E.M.R. Fairbairn, V. Slowik, A. Ogawa, H. Hoshiro, V. Mechtcherine, F. Altmann, M.
D. Lepech, Durability of strain-hardening cement-based composites (SHCC), Mater. Struct. Constr. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9845-y.
[120] D. Khale, R. Chaudhary, Mechanism of geopolymerization and factors influencing its development: a review, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (2007) 729–746, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10853-006-0401-4.
[121] M.A. Megat Johari, A.M. Zeyad, N. Muhamad Bunnori, K.S. Ariffin, Engineering and transport properties of high-strength green concrete containing high
volume of ultrafine palm oil fuel ash, Constr. Build. Mater. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.007.
[122] S.Y. Xie, J.F. Shao, N. Burlion, Experimental study of mechanical behaviour of cement paste under compressive stress and chemical degradation, Cem. Concr.
Res. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.06.011.
[123] R. Embong, A. Kusbiantoro, N. Shafiq, M.F. Nuruddin, Strength and microstructural properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete containing high-calcium
and water-absorptive aggregate, J. Clean. Prod. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.058.
[124] M.O. Yusuf, M.A. Megat Johari, Z.A. Ahmad, M. Maslehuddin, Evolution of alkaline activated ground blast furnace slag-ultrafine palm oil fuel ash based
concrete, Mater. Des. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.09.047.
[125] X.Y. Zhuang, L. Chen, S. Komarneni, C.H. Zhou, D.S. Tong, H.M. Yang, W.H. Yu, H. Wang, Fly ash-based geopolymer: clean production, properties and
applications, J. Clean. Prod. 125 (2016) 253–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.019.
[126] K.W. Peng Zhang, Zhen Gao, Juan Wang, Numerical modeling of rebar-matrix bond behaviors of nano-SiO2 and PVA fiber reinforced geopolymer composites,
Ceram. Int. 47 (2021) 11727–11737.
[127] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments, Constr. Build. Mater. 85 (2015) 78–90,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036.
[128] A. Hassan, M. Arif, M. Shariq, Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and sustainable environment – a review of mechanical properties and microstructure,
J. Clean. Prod. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051.
[129] N.R. Rakhimova, R.Z. Rakhimov, A review on alkali-activated slag cements incorporated with supplementary materials, J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. (2014),
https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2013.876944.
[130] L. Weng, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, Dissolution processes, hydrolysis and condensation reactions during geopolymer synthesis: part I-low Si/Al ratio systems, J. Mater.
Sci. (2007), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0820-2.
[131] K. Somna, C. Jaturapitakkul, P. Kajitvichyanukul, P. Chindaprasirt, NaOH-activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature, Fuel 90 (2011)
2118–2124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.018.
[132] M. Koushkbaghi, P. Alipour, B. Tahmouresi, E. Mohseni, A. Saradar, P.K. Sarker, Influence of different monomer ratios and recycled concrete aggregate on
mechanical properties and durability of geopolymer concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.174.
[133] R. Chennur Jithendra, Geopolymer concrete with self-compacting: a review, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 8 (2017).
[134] S. Pilehvar, V.D. Cao, A.M. Szczotok, M. Carmona, L. Valentini, M. Lanzón, R. Pamies, A.L. Kjøniksen, Physical and mechanical properties of fly ash and slag
geopolymer concrete containing different types of micro-encapsulated phase change materials, Constr. Build. Mater. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.04.016.
[135] K. Naveena, H.S. Rao, A Review on Strength and Durability Studies on Geopolymer Concrete Produced With Recycled Aggregates, 2016.
[136] M.Z.N. Khan, F.U.A. Shaikh, Y. Hao, H. Hao, Effects of curing conditions and sand-to-binder ratios on compressive strength development of fly ash geopolymer,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002119.
[137] G.D. Bhavsar, K.R. Talavia, D.P.S.M.B. Amin, A.A. Parmar, Workability properties of geopolymer concrete using accelerator and silica fume as an admixture,
Int. J. Technol. Res. Eng. 8 (2014).
[138] K. Ganesh Babu, V. Sree Rama Kumar, Efficiency of GGBS in concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 1031–1036, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)
00271-4.
[139] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Performance evaluation of geopolymer concrete through Alkali-Silica Reaction, Adv. Chem. Mater.
(2014).
[140] B.C. McLellan, R.P. Williams, J. Lay, A. Van Riessen, G.D. Corder, Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland
cement, J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2011) 1080–1090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010.
[141] T. Bakharev, Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions, Cem. Concr. Res. (2005), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2004.09.002.
[142] D.D.L. Chung, Improving cement-based materials by using silica fume, J. Mater. Sci. (2002), https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013889725971.
[143] S.O. Bamaga, M.W. Hussin, M.A. Ismail, Palm oil fuel ash: promising supplementary cementing materials, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12205-013-1241-9.
[144] R.K. PARAMGURU, P.C. RATH, V.N. MISRA, Trends in red mud utilization – a review, Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 26 (2004) 1–29, https://doi.org/
10.1080/08827500490477603.
[145] G. Ye, H. Huang, N. Van Tuan, Rice husk ash. RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70606-1_8.
[146] A. Meda, F. Minelli, G.A. Plizzari, P. Riva, Shear behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete beams, Mater. Struct. Constr. (2005), https://doi.org/10.1617/
14112.
[147] M. Lizcano, A. Gonzalez, S. Basu, K. Lozano, M. Radovic, Effects of water content and chemical composition on structural properties of alkaline activated
metakaolin-based geopolymers, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05184.x.

22
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[148] F. Puertas, M. Palacios, H. Manzano, J.S. Dolado, A. Rico, J. Rodríguez, A model for the C-A-S-H gel formed in alkali-activated slag cements, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc.
(2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2011.04.036.
[149] J.G. Jang, N.K. Lee, H.K. Lee, Fresh and hardened properties of alkali-activated fly ash/slag pastes with superplasticizers, Constr. Build. Mater. (2014), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.048.
[150] M. Ibrahim, M.A. Megat Johari, M. Maslehuddin, M.K. Rahman, B.A. Salami, H.D. Mohamed, Influence of composition and concentration of alkaline activator
on the properties of natural-pozzolan based green concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.117.
[151] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Castro-Gomes, S. Jalali, Alkali-activated binders: a review. Part 2. About materials and binders manufacture, Constr. Build. Mater. (2008),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.03.019.
[152] J. Moon, S. Bae, K. Celik, S. Yoon, K.H. Kim, K.S. Kim, P.J.M. Monteiro, Characterization of natural pozzolan-based geopolymeric binders, Cem. Concr.
Compos. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.06.010.
[153] Z. Yahya, M.M.A.B. Abdullah, K. Hussin, K.N. Ismail, R.A. Razak, A.V. Sandu, Effect of solids-to-liquids, Na2SiO3-to-NaOH and curing temperature on the palm
oil boiler ash (Si + Ca) geopolymerisation system, Materials (Basel) (2015), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8052227.
[154] D. Hardjito, B.V. Rangan, Development and Properties of Low-calcium Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete, 2005.
[155] A. Nazari, A. Bagheri, S. Riahi, Properties of geopolymer with seeded fly ash and rice husk bark ash, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (2011) 7395–7401, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.msea.2011.06.027.
[156] M. Chi, Effects of dosage of alkali-activated solution and curing conditions on the properties and durability of alkali-activated slag concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.005.
[157] O. Karahan, A. Yakupoǧlu, Resistance of alkali-activated slag mortar to abrasion and fire, Adv. Cem. Res. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1680/
adcr.2011.23.6.289.
[158] M. Guerrieri, J. Sanjayan, F. Collins, Residual compressive behavior of alkali-activated concrete exposed to elevated temperatures, Fire Mater. (2009), https://
doi.org/10.1002/fam.983.
[159] H.T. Türker, M. Balçikanli, I.H. Durmuş, E. Özbay, M. Erdemir, Microstructural alteration of alkali activated slag mortars depend on exposed high temperature
level, Constr. Build. Mater. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.070.
[160] R.M. De Gutiérrez, J. Maldonado, C. Gutiérrez, Resistencia a temperaturas elevadas de escorias activadas alcalinamente, Mater. Constr. (2004), https://doi.
org/10.3989/mc.2004.v54.i276.257.
[161] D. Nasr, A.H. Pakshir, H. Ghayour, The influence of curing conditions and alkaline activator concentration on elevated temperature behavior of alkali activated
slag (AAS) mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.099.
[162] J.L. Provis, S.A. Bernal, Geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070813-
113515.
[163] S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, Durability of alkali-activated materials: progress and perspectives, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.12831.
[164] C.E. White, J.L. Provis, A. Llobet, T. Proffen, J.S.J. Van Deventer, Evolution of local structure in geopolymer gels: an in situ neutron pair distribution function
analysis, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2011.04515.x.
[165] P. Duxson, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, F. Separovic, J.S.J. Van Deventer, 29Si NMR study of structural ordering in aluminosilicate geopolymer gels, Langmuir
(2005), https://doi.org/10.1021/la047336x.
[166] Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/c2013-0-19325-7.
[167] P. Nuaklong, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Influence of recycled aggregate on fly ash geopolymer concrete properties, J. Clean. Prod. (2016), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.109.
[168] Z. Liu, C.S. Cai, H. Peng, F. Fan, Experimental study of the geopolymeric recycled aggregate concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001584.
[169] F. López-Gayarre, P. Serna, A. Domingo-Cabo, M.A. Serrano-López, C. López-Colina, Influence of recycled aggregate quality and proportioning criteria on
recycled concrete properties, Waste Manag. (2009), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.07.010.
[170] L. Evangelista, J. de Brito, Mechanical behaviour of concrete made with fine recycled concrete aggregates, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 397–401, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.12.004.
[171] C.S. Poon, C.S. Lam, The effect of aggregate-to-cement ratio and types of aggregates on the properties of pre-cast concrete blocks, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2008),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.10.005.
[172] S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete, Waste Manag.
(2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012.
[173] I. Marie, H. Quiasrawi, Closed-loop recycling of recycled concrete aggregates, J. Clean. Prod. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020.
[174] P. Wu, Y. Xu, Life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete containing fly ash, 2011 2nd Int. Conf. Mech. Autom. Control Eng. MACE 2011 - Proc.
(2011), https://doi.org/10.1109/MACE.2011.5987436.
[175] E. Mohseni, R. Saadati, N. Kordbacheh, Z.S. Parpinchi, W. Tang, Engineering and microstructural assessment of fibre-reinforced self-compacting concrete
containing recycled coarse aggregate, J. Clean. Prod. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.070.
[176] W.K.W. Lee, J.S.J. van Deventer, Chemical interactions between siliceous aggregates and low-Ca alkali-activated cements, Cem. Concr. Res. (2007), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.012.
[177] P. Chindaprasirt, U. Rattanasak, S. Taebuanhuad, Resistance to acid and sulfate solutions of microwave-assisted high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Mater.
Struct. Constr. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9907-1.
[178] P. Chindaprasirt, P. De Silva, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, S. Hanjitsuwan, Effect of SiO 2 and Al 2O 3on the setting and hardening of high calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer systems, J. Mater. Sci. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-012-6353-y.
[179] C.K. Yip, G.C. Lukey, J.S.J. Van Deventer, The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation, Cem.
Concr. Res. (2005), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.042.
[180] C.K. Yip, G.C. Lukey, J.L. Provis, J.S.J. van Deventer, Effect of calcium silicate sources on geopolymerisation, Cem. Concr. Res. (2008), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.11.001.
[181] S. Puligilla, P. Mondal, Role of slag in microstructural development and hardening of fly ash-slag geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Res. (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.10.004.
[182] X. Guo, H. Shi, W.A. Dick, Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2010), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.11.003.
[183] S.M.A. Kabir, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, A. Sharmin, A. Islam, Influence of molarity and chemical composition on the development of compressive strength
in POFA based geopolymer mortar, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015 (2015) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/647071.
[184] O.R. Kavitha, V.M. Shanthi, G.P. Arulraj, V.R. Sivakumar, Microstructural studies on eco-friendly and durable Self-compacting concrete blended with
metakaolin, Appl. Clay Sci. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2016.02.011.
[185] T. Long, Q. Wang, Z. Guan, Y. Chen, X. Shi, Deterioration and microstructural evolution of the fly ash geopolymer concrete against MgSO4 solution, Adv.
Mater. Sci. Eng. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4247217.
[186] C. Jaturapitakkul, K. Kiattikomol, W. Tangchirapat, T. Saeting, Evaluation of the sulfate resistance of concrete containing palm oil fuel ash, Constr. Build.
Mater. (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.005.
[187] T. Phoo-ngernkham, P. Chindaprasirt, V. Sata, S. Hanjitsuwan, S. Hatanaka, The effect of adding nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 on properties of high calcium fly
ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature, Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 58–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.09.049.
[188] B. Alsubari, P. Shafigh, Z. Ibrahim, M.F. Alnahhal, M.Z. Jumaat, Properties of eco-friendly self-compacting concrete containing modified treated palm oil fuel
ash, Constr. Build. Mater. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.174.

23
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[189] P. Chindaprasirt, W. Chalee, Effect of sodium hydroxide concentration on chloride penetration and steel corrosion of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete under
marine site, Constr. Build. Mater. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.010.
[190] P. Sukmak, P. De Silva, S. Horpibulsuk, P. Chindaprasirt, Sulfate resistance of clay-portland cement and clay high-calcium fly ash geopolymer, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001112.
[191] J. Thaarrini, V. Ramasamy, Properties of foundry sand, ground granulated blast furnace slag and bottom ash based geopolymers under ambient conditions,
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. (2016), https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.8014.
[192] I. Shafiq, M. Azreen, M.W. Hussin, Sulphuric acid resistant of self compacted geopolymer concrete containing slag and ceramic waste, MATEC Web Conf.
(2017), https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20179701102.
[193] J. Jeyaseela, B.G. Vishnuram, Study on workability and durability characteristics of self-compacting geopolymer concrete composites, Int. J. Adv. Technol.
Eng. Sci. (2015).
[194] R. Anuradha, R. Thirumala, P.N. John, Optimization of molarity on workable self-compacting geopolymer concrete and strength study on SCGC by replacing
fly ash with silica fume and GGBFS, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. 30 (2014).
[195] Y. Luna-Galiano, C. Leiva, C. Arenas, C. Fernández-Pereira, Fly ash based geopolymeric foams using silica fume as pore generation agent. Physical, mechanical
and acoustic properties, J. Non. Solids (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2018.07.069.
[196] H.T. Le, H.M. Ludwig, Effect of rice husk ash and other mineral admixtures on properties of self-compacting high performance concrete, Mater. Des. (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.120.
[197] G. Rodríguez De Sensale, Effect of rice-husk ash on durability of cementitious materials, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2010.07.008.
[198] B.N. Sangeetha, Effect of rice husk ash and GGBS on performance of concrete, Int. J. Eng. Res. V4 (2015) 491–495, https://doi.org/10.17577/ijertv4is120515.
[199] M.A.M. Ariffin, M.A.R. Bhutta, M.W. Hussin, M. Mohd Tahir, N. Aziah, Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
(2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.018.
[200] C.Y. Heah, H. Kamarudin, A.M. Mustafa Al Bakri, M. Binhussain, M. Luqman, I. Khairul Nizar, C.M. Ruzaidi, Y.M. Liew, Effect of curing profile on kaolin-based
geopolymers. Phys. Procedia, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.11.048.
[201] E.N. Kani, A. Allahverdi, Effects of curing time and temperature on strength development of inorganic polymeric binder based on natural pozzolan, J. Mater.
Sci. (2009), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3411-1.
[202] C. Kuenzel, L.J. Vandeperre, S. Donatello, A.R. Boccaccini, C. Cheeseman, Ambient temperature drying shrinkage and cracking in metakaolin-based
geopolymers, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05380.x.
[203] V. Sata, A. Wongsa, P. Chindaprasirt, Properties of pervious geopolymer concrete using recycled aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.046.
[204] O.B. Isgor, A Durability Model for Chloride and Carbonation Induced Steel Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Members, 2001.
[205] A. Castel, Bond between steel reinforcement and geopolymer concrete, in: handb, Low Carbon Concr. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804524-
4.00014-2.
[206] E. Kamseu, C. Ponzoni, C. Tippayasam, R. Taurino, D. Chaysuwan, V.M. Sglavo, P. Thavorniti, C. Leonelli, Self-compacting geopolymer concretes: effects of
addition of aluminosilicate-rich fines, J. Build. Eng. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.01.004.
[207] P.S. Deb, P.K. Sarker, S. Barbhuiya, Sorptivity and acid resistance of ambient-cured geopolymer mortars containing nano-silica, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.06.017.
[208] F.U.A. Shaikh, Mechanical and durability properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled coarse aggregates, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5
(2016) 277–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.05.009.
[209] D. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, Comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated
temperatures, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 1583–1589.
[210] X. Pan, Z. Shi, C. Shi, T.C. Ling, N. Li, A review on concrete surface treatment Part I: types and mechanisms, Constr. Build. Mater. (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.025.
[211] J. Wongpa, K. Kiattikomol, C. Jaturapitakkul, P. Chindaprasirt, Compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, and water permeability of inorganic polymer
concrete, Mater. Des. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.05.012.
[212] M. Medeiros, P. Helene, Efficacy of surface hydrophobic agents in reducing water and chloride ion penetration in concrete, Mater. Struct. Constr. (2008),
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9218-5.
[213] S. Chithra, G. Dhinakaran, Effect of hot water curing and hot air oven curing on admixed concrete, Int. J. Chemtech Res. 6 (2014) 1516–1523.
[214] S.A. Bernal, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, J.L. Provis, Engineering and durability properties of concretes based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/
metakaolin blends, Constr. Build. Mater. 33 (2012) 99–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.017.
[215] F. Koksal, O. Gencel, M. Kaya, Combined effect of silica fume and expanded vermiculite on properties of lightweight mortars at ambient and elevated
temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.04.021.
[216] N.K. Amudhavalli, J. Mathew, Effect of silica fume on strength and durability parameters of concrete, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Emerg. Technol. (2012).
[217] T. Hemalatha, A. Ramaswamy, A review on fly ash characteristics – towards promoting high volume utilization in developing sustainable concrete, J. Clean.
Prod. 147 (2017) 546–559, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.114.
[218] H.Y. Leong, D.E.L. Ong, J.G. Sanjayan, A. Nazari, Suitability of Sarawak and Gladstone fly ash to produce geopolymers: a physical, chemical, mechanical,
mineralogical and microstructural analysis, Ceram. Int. 42 (2016) 9613–9620, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.03.046.
[219] M. Olivia, H.R. Nikraz, Strength and water penetrability of fly ash geopolymer concrete, J. Eng. Appl. Sci. (2011).
[220] O. Valenta, The permeability and durability of concrete in aggressive conditions, Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Large Dams, Montr. (1970).
[221] V. Corinaldesi, G. Moriconi, Influence of mineral additions on the performance of 100% recycled aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2009), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.02.004.
[222] A. Wardhono, C. Gunasekara, D.W. Law, S. Setunge, Comparison of long term performance between alkali activated slag and fly ash geopolymer concretes,
Constr. Build. Mater. 143 (2017) 272–279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.153.
[223] W. Chen, H.J.H. Brouwers, The hydration of slag, part 1: reaction models for alkali-activated slag, J. Mater. Sci. (2007), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-
0873-2.
[224] C. Gunasekara, D.W. Law, S. Setunge, Long term permeation properties of different fly ash geopolymer concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 352–362,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.121.
[225] S. Thokchom, P. Ghosh, S. Ghosh, Effect of water absorption, porosity and sorptivity on durability of geopolymer mortars, J. Eng. Appl. Sci. (2009).
[226] G. Pritchard, S.D. Speake, The use of water absorption kinetic data to predict laminate property changes, Composites (1987), https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-
4361(87)90412-5.
[227] R.P. Venkatesan, K.C. Pazhani, Strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete made with ground granulated blast furnace slag and black rice husk
ash, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0564-0.
[228] A. Bakri, M. Mustafa, H. Mohammed, H. Kamarudin, I.K. Niza, Y. Zarina, Review on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete without Portland Cement, J. Eng.
Technol. Res. 3 (2011) 1–4.
[229] M. Olivia, H. Nikraz, Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete in seawater environment, Proc. 13th East Asia-Pacific Conf. Struct. Eng. Constr. EASEC 2013
(2013).
[230] J.A.D. Kirupa, N. Sakthieswaran, Possible materials for producing Geopolymer concrete and its performance with and without Fibre addition-A State of the art
review, Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 5 (2015) 296.
[231] Z. Makhloufi, E.H. Kadri, M. Bouhicha, A. Benaissa, Resistance of limestone mortars with quaternary binders to sulfuric acid solution, Constr. Build. Mater. 26
(2012) 497–504, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.050.

24
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[232] S.H. Sanni, R.B. Khadiranaikar, Performance of geopolymer concrete under severe environmental conditions, J. Int. Civ. Eng. Struct. (2012), https://doi.org/
10.6088/ijcser.201203013037.
[233] N. V, K. H, T.-B. F, S.M. M, Corrosion behaviour and crack formation mechanism of basalt fibre in sulphuric acid, Corros. Sci. 64 (2012) 1–7.
[234] F. Rajabipour, E. Giannini, C. Dunant, J.H. Ideker, M.D.A. Thomas, Alkali-silica reaction: current understanding of the reaction mechanisms and the knowledge
gaps, Cem. Concr. Res. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.024.
[235] I. Ismail, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, S. Hamdan, J.S.J. Van Deventer, Microstructural changes in alkali activated fly ash/slag geopolymers with sulfate exposure,
Mater. Struct. Constr. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9906-2.
[236] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, ACI Mater. J. (2004), https://doi.org/
10.14359/13485.
[237] ASTM International, C 150/ C150M - standard specification for Portland cement, Annu. B. ASTM Stand. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1520/C0150.
[238] Castel, bond between steel reinforced and geopolymer concrete Ch14.pdf, Handb. Low Carbon Concr., 2016, pp. 375–386.
[239] R. Chen, S. Ahmari, L. Zhang, Utilization of sweet sorghum fiber to reinforce fly ash-based geopolymer, J. Mater. Sci. 49 (2014) 2548–2558, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10853-013-7950-0.
[240] J.P. Hwang, H.B. Shim, S. Lim, K.Y. Ann, Enhancing the durability properties of concrete containing recycled aggregate by the use of pozzolanic materials,
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-1245-5.
[241] A. Castel, Bond between steel reinforced and geopolymer concrete Ch14.pdf. Handb. Low Carbon Concr., 2016, pp. 375–386.
[242] B.A. Salami, M.A. Megat Johari, Z.A. Ahmad, M. Maslehuddin, Durability performance of Palm Oil Fuel Ash-based Engineered Alkaline-activated Cementitious
Composite (POFA-EACC) mortar in sulfate environment, Constr. Build. Mater. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.048.
[243] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, Introducing fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: manufacture and engineering properties, 30th Conf.
Our World Concr. Struct. (2005).
[244] N.P. Rajamane, M.C. Nataraja, J.K. Dattatreya, N. Lakshmanan, D. Sabitha, Sulphate resistance and eco-friendliness of geopolymer concretes, Indian Concr. J.
(2012).
[245] C. Andrade, R. D’Andrea, N. Rebolledo, Chloride ion penetration in concrete: the reaction factor in the electrical resistivity model, Cem. Concr. Compos.
(2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.09.022.
[246] L. Guoping, H. Fangjian, W. Yongxian, Chloride ion penetration in stressed concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0000281.
[247] H. Yasarer, Y.M. Najjar, Characterizing the permeability of Kansas concrete mixes used in PCC pavements, Int. J. Geomech. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000362.
[248] M. Olivia, H. Nikraz, Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method, Mater. Des. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2011.10.036.
[249] L.N. Halim, J.J. Ekaputri, Triwulan, The influence of salt water on chloride penetration in geopolymer concrete, MATEC Web Conf. (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1051/matecconf/20179701002.
[250] S.Y. Megahed, A.M. Elthakeb, W.A. Mohamed, M.T. Nooman, W.H. Soufy, The impact of marine water on different types of coarse aggregate of geopolymer
concrete, J. Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. (2019), https://doi.org/10.4236/jmmce.2019.75023.
[251] H.M. Giasuddin, J.G. Sanjayan, P.G. Ranjith, Strength of geopolymer cured in saline water in ambient conditions, Fuel (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2013.01.035.
[252] K. Kupwade-Patil, E.N. Allouche, Examination of chloride-induced corrosion in reinforced geopolymer concretes, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000672.
[253] O.E. Gjørv, Vennesland, Diffusion of chloride ions from seawater into concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. (1979), https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(79)90029-2.
[254] A. Adam, Strength and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete, 2009.
[255] M. ángel Sanjuán, E. Estévez, C. Argiz, Alkali ion concentration estimations in cement paste pore solutions, Appl. Sci. (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/
app9050992.
[256] K. Kupwade-Patil, E.N. Allouche, Impact of alkali silica reaction on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000579.
[257] P. Shoaei, F. Ameri, H. Reza Musaeei, T. Ghasemi, C.B. Cheah, Glass powder as a partial precursor in Portland cement and alkali-activated slag mortar: a
comprehensive comparative study, Constr. Build. Mater. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118991.
[258] I. García-Lodeiro, A. Palomo, A. Fernández-Jiménez, Alkali-aggregate reaction in activated fly ash systems, Cem. Concr. Res. (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2006.11.002.
[259] J.D. of Geopolymer, undefined 1988, Soft mineralurgy and geopolymers, Researchgate.net. (n.d.).
[260] S. Rukzon, P. Chindaprasirt, An experimental investigation of the carbonation of blended portland cement palm oil fuel ash mortar in an indoor environment,
Indoor Built Environ. 18 (2009) 313–318, https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X09336554.
[261] B.S. Thomas, Green concrete partially comprised of rice husk ash as a supplementary cementitious material – a comprehensive review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.081.
[262] B. Šavija, M. Luković, Carbonation of cement paste: understanding, challenges, and opportunities, Constr. Build. Mater. 117 (2016) 285–301, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.138.
[263] K.K. Sideris, A.E. Savva, J. Papayianni, Sulfate resistance and carbonation of plain and blended cements, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2006), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2005.09.001.
[264] S. Rukzon, P. Chindaprasirt, R. Mahachai, Effect of grinding on chemical and physical properties of rice husk ash, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. (2009), https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1674-4799(09)60041-8.
[265] N.H.A. Khalid, M.W. Hussin, J. Mirza, N.F. Ariffin, M.A. Ismail, H.S. Lee, A. Mohamed, R.P. Jaya, Palm oil fuel ash as potential green micro-filler in polymer
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.038.
[266] D. Bondar, C.J. Lynsdale, N.B. Milestone, N. Hassani, A.A. Ramezanianpour, Engineering properties of alkali activated natural pozzolan concrete, 2nd Int. Conf.
Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. (2010), https://doi.org/10.14359/51664217.
[267] M. Sharfuddin Ahmed, O. Kayali, W. Anderson, Chloride penetration in binary and ternary blended cement concretes as measured by two different rapid
methods, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.02.005.
[268] F.N. Degirmenci, Freeze-Thaw and fire resistance of geopolymer mortar based on natural and waste pozzolans, Ceram. - Silikaty (2018), https://doi.org/
10.13168/cs.2017.0043.
[269] B. Joseph, G. Mathew, Influence of aggregate content on the behavior of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Sci. Iran. 19 (2012) 1188–1194, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scient.2012.07.006.
[270] Y. Fu, L. Cai, W. Yonggen, Freeze-thaw cycle test and damage mechanics models of alkali-activated slag concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2011), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.006.
[271] R. Slavik, V. Bednarik, M. Vondruska, A. Nemec, Preparation of geopolymer from fluidized bed combustion bottom ash, J. Mater. Process. Technol. (2008),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.09.008.
[272] R. Brooks, M. Bahadory, F. Tovia, H. Rostami, Properties of alkali-activated fly ash: high performance to lightweight, Int. J. Sustain. Eng. (2010), https://doi.
org/10.1080/19397038.2010.487162.
[273] Y.P. Asmara, J.P. Siregar, C. Tezara, W. Nurlisa, J. Jamiluddin, Long term corrosion experiment of steel rebar in fly ash-based geopolymer concrete in NaCl
solution, Int. J. Corros. Scale Inhib. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3853045.
[274] J.M. Miranda, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J.A. González, A. Palomo, Corrosion resistance in activated fly ash mortars, Cem. Concr. Res. (2005), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.07.030.

25
M. Amran et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00661

[275] D.M. Bastidas, A. Fernández-Jiménez, A. Palomo, J.A. González, A study on the passive state stability of steel embedded in activated fly ash mortars, Corros.
Sci. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2007.11.016.
[276] D.V. Reddy, J.B. Edouard, K. Sobhan, Durability of fly ash-based geopolymer structural concrete in the marine environment, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2013),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000632.
[277] L. Vickers, A. van Riessen, W.D.A. Rickard, Fire-Resistant Geopolymers, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-311-8.
[278] K.H. Mo, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, M.Y.J. Liu, J. Lim, Assessing some durability properties of sustainable lightweight oil palm shell concrete incorporating
slag and manufactured sand, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 763–770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.122.
[279] M. Ali, A. Zurisman, Performance of Geopolymer Concrete in Fire, Swinburne University of Technology, 2015.
[280] N. Ranjbar, M. Mehrali, U.J. Alengaram, H.S.C. Metselaar, M.Z. Jumaat, Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of fly ash/palm oil fuel ash based
geopolymer mortar under elevated temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. 65 (2014) 114–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.064.
[281] J. Davidovits, Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, terminology, Second Int. Conf. Geopolymer (1999) 9–40.
[282] T. Lingyu, H. Dongpo, Z. Jianing, W. Hongguang, Durability of geopolymers and geopolymer concretes: a review, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 60 (2021) 1–14,
https://doi.org/10.1515/rams-2021-0002.
[283] A. Siddika, M.R. Amin, M.A. Rayhan, M.S. Islam, M.A. Al Mamun, R. Alyousef, Y.H. Mugahed Amran, Performance of sustainable green concrete incorporated
with fly ash, rice husk ash, and stone dust, Acta Polytech. 61 (2021) 279–291, https://doi.org/10.14311/AP.2021.61.0279.
[284] J.S.J. Van Deventer, J.L. Provis, P. Duxson, Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement, Miner. Eng. 29 (2012) 89–104, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2011.09.009.
[285] A. Hassan, M. Arif, M. Shariq, A review of properties and behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete structural elements- A clean technology option for
sustainable development, J. Clean. Prod. 245 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118762.
[286] A. Mehta, R. Siddique, Sulfuric acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 146 (2017) 136–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.04.077.
[287] W.P. Zakka, N.H. Abdul Shukor Lim, M. Chau Khun, A scientometric review of geopolymer concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 280 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124353.
[288] M. Amran, S. Debbarma, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Fly ash-based eco-friendly geopolymer concrete: a critical review of the long-term durability properties, Constr.
Build. Mater. 270 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121857.
[289] Y.H.M. Amran, M.G. Soto, R. Alyousef, M. El-Zeadani, H. Alabduljabbar, V. Aune, Performance investigation of high-proportion Saudi-fly-ash-based concrete,
Results Eng. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.100118.
[290] G.J.G. Gluth, K. Arbi, S.A. Bernal, D. Bondar, A. Castel, S. Chithiraputhiran, A. Dehghan, K. Dombrowski-Daube, A. Dubey, V. Ducman, K. Peterson,
P. Pipilikaki, S.L.A. Valcke, G. Ye, Y. Zuo, J.L. Provis, RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test: carbonation and chloride penetration testing of alkali-activated
concretes, Mater. Struct. Constr. 53 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-1449-3.

26