CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Concrete and Cement Materials ResearchMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mechanical Properties of a Sustainable Low-Carbon Geopolymer Concrete Using a Pumice-Derived Sodium Silicate Solution

Open access
Oti, Jonathan, Adeleke, Blessing O., Anowie, Francis X., Kinuthia, John M., Ekwulo, Emma·2024·Materials
DOI 10.3390/ma17081792PMC PMC11051076
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A geopolymer is an inorganic amorphous cementitious material, emerging as an alternative sustainable binder for greener concrete production over Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Geopolymer concrete production promotes waste reuse since the applicable precursor materials include agricultural and industrial waste that requires disposal, helping to reduce waste in landfills and ensuring sustainable environmental protection. This study investigates the development of an environmentally friendly sodium silicate alternative (SSA) derived from pumice powder (PP) in place of a commercial Na2SiO3 solution at a 10 M concentration. Six concrete batches were produced at alkaline/precursor (A/P) ratios of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5. The geopolymer mix AF4, with an A/P ratio of 0.4, became the optimum geopolymer concrete design; however, it recorded lower compressive, tensile splitting, and flexural strengths, respectively, against the control OPC concrete. The geopolymer formulations, however, obtained 28-day-hardened concrete densities comparable to the control concrete. The 28-day compressive strength of the OPC concrete was 29.4 MPa, higher than the 18.8 MPa recorded for AF4. However, the 56-day strength of AF4 improved to 22.4 MPa, an around 19% increase compared to the 30.8 MPa achieved by the control mix on day 56, having experienced only a 5% strength increase. The low mechanical performances of the geopolymer formulation could be attributed to extra water added to the original geopolymer design to improve the workability of the geopolymer mix. Therefore, the SSA alkaline solution using PP showed some potential for developing geopolymer concrete for low-strength construction applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ma17081792

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Particle size distribution for the binder materials.
Figure 1 Particle size distribution for the binder materials.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Consistency of concrete mixes measured—slump test.
Figure 2 Consistency of concrete mixes measured—slump test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Hardened concrete density of test mix with time.
Figure 3 Hardened concrete density of test mix with time.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 UCS development of the design mixes with time.
Figure 4 UCS development of the design mixes with time.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Splitting test results for the design mixes.
Figure 5 Splitting test results for the design mixes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Maximum flexural strength for the design mixes.
Figure 6 Maximum flexural strength for the design mixes.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Oti, 2020, Durability of Concrete Containing PFA-GGBS By-Products, J. Civ. Eng. Constr., 9, 165, 10.32732/jcec.2020.9.3.165 · DOI
  2. UratanI, 2023, A Forward Looking Perspective on the Cement and Concrete Industry: Implications of Growth and Development in the Global South, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 97, 102972, 10.1016/j.erss.2023.102972 · DOI
  3. Awoyera, 2019, A Critical Review on Application of Alkali Activated Slag as a Sustainable Composite Binder, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 11, e00268
  4. Heath, 2013, The Potential for Using Geopolymer Concrete in the UK, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater., 166, 195, 10.1680/coma.12.00030 · DOI
  5. Oti, 2018, Engineering Properties of Concrete made with Pulverised Fly Ash, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng., 6, 52
  6. Zhou, 2012, Effects of PFA and GGBS on Early-Ages Engineering Properties of Portland Cement Systems, J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 10, 74, 10.3151/jact.10.74 · DOI
  7. Dhir, 1998, Impact of BS EN 450 PFA on Concrete Construction in the UK, Constr. Build. Mater., 12, 59, 10.1016/S0950-0618(97)00029-9 · DOI
  8. Swamy, R.N. (1986). Cement Replacement Materials, Surrey University Press.
  9. Singh, 2015, Geopolymer Concrete: A review of some recent developments, Constr. Build. Mater., 85, 78, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036 · DOI
  10. Krivenko, 2007, Directed Synthesis of Alkaline Aluminosilicate Minerals in a Geocement Matrix, Mater. Sci., 42, 53, 10.1007/s10853-006-0528-3 · DOI
  11. Pacheco-Torgal, F., Labrincha, J., Leonelli, C., Palomo, A., and Chindaprasit, P. (2015). Handbook of Akali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes, Woodhead Publishing Ltd. · DOI
  12. Aldred, J., and Day, J. (2012, January 29–31). Is Geopolymer Concrete a Suitable Alternative to Traditional Concrete. Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, Singapore. Available online: https://earthfriendlyconcrete.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/jaldred_jday_geopolymer-concrete_singapore-2012.pdf.
  13. Chanh, N.V., Trung, B.D., and Tuan, D.V. (2008, January 11–13). Recent Research Geopolymer Concrete. Proceedings of the 3rd ACF International Conference-ACF/VCA, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Prem-Baboo/post/Is-Seawater-suitable-for-Geopolymer-concrete/attachment/59d636d679197b80779943c7/AS%3A390575271497729%401470131809520/download/A18.pdf.
  14. Duxson, 2007, Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci., 42, 2917, 10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z · DOI · Paper page
  15. Singh, 2020, Geopolymer cement and concrete: Properties, Mater. Today Proc., 29, 743, 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.513 · DOI
  16. Shobeiri, 2021, A Comprehensive Assessment of the Global Warming Potential of Geopolymer Concrete, J. Clean. Prod., 297, 126669, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126669 · DOI
  17. Turner, 2013, Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2-e) Emissions: A Comparison Between Geopolymer and OPC Cement Concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 43, 125, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023 · DOI
  18. Duxson, 2007, The Role of Inorganic Polymer Technology in the Development of ‘Green Concrete’, Cem. Concr. Res., 37, 1590, 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018 · DOI
  19. Davidovits, 1994, Properties of Geopolymer Concrete. First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concrete, Sci. Inst. Bind. Mater., 1, 131
  20. Provis, J.L., and Van Deventer, J.S. (2014). Alkali Activated Materials State-of-the-Art Report, RILEM TC 224-AAM, Springer. · DOI
  21. Zhang, 2021, Mechanical Properties and Reaction Mechanism of One-Part Geopolymer Mortars, Constr. Build. Mater., 273, 121973, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121973 · DOI
  22. Alsalman, 2021, Energy and CO2 Emission Assessments of Alkali-Activated Concrete and Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete: A Comparative Analysis of Different Grades of Concrete, Clean. Environ. Syst., 3, 100047, 10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100047 · DOI
  23. Bajpai, 2020, Environmental Impact Assessment of Fly Ash and Silica Fume Based Geopolymer Concrete, J. Clean. Prod., 254, 120147, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120147 · DOI
  24. Amran, 2021, Long-Term Durability Properties of Geopolymer Concrete: An In-depth Review, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 15, e00661
  25. Jamieson, 2015, Comparison of Embodied Energies of Ordinary Portland Cement with Bayer-Derived Geopolymer Products, J. Clean. Prod., 99, 112, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.008 · DOI
  26. Billong, 2021, Using Silica Fume Based Activator in Sustainable Geopolymer Binder for Building Application, Constr. Build. Mater., 275, 122177, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122177 · DOI
  27. Adeleke, B.O., Kinuthia, J.M., Oti, J., and Ebailila, M. (2023). Physico-Mechanical Evaluation of Geopolymer Concrete Activated by Sodium Hydroxide and Silica Fume-Synthesised Sodium Hydroxide Solution. Materials, 16. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kamseu, 2017, Substitution of Sodium Silicate with Rice Husk Ash-NaOH Solution in Metakaolin Based Geopolymer Cement Concerning Reduction in Global Warming, J. Clean. Prod., 142, 3050, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.164 · DOI
  29. Rajan, 2021, Sustainable Development of Geopolymer Binder using Sodium Silicate Synthesized from Agricultural Waste, J. Clean. Prod., 286, 124959, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124959 · DOI
  30. Figueiredo, 2021, Producing Sodium Silicate Powder from Iron Ore Tailings for use as an Activator in One-Part Geopolymer Binders, Mater. Lett., 288, 129333, 10.1016/j.matlet.2021.129333 · DOI
  31. Tong, 2018, Use of Vietnamese Rice Husk Ash for the Production of Sodium Silicate as the Activator for Alkali-Activated Binders, J. Clean. Prod., 201, 272, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.025 · DOI
  32. Rashad, 2021, An Overview of Pumice Stone as Cementitious Material-The Best Manual for Civil Engineer, Silicon, 13, 551, 10.1007/s12633-020-00469-3 · DOI
  33. Kabay, 2021, Pumice as Precursor in Geopolymer Paste and Mortar, J. Civ. Eng. Constr., 10, 225, 10.32732/jcec.2021.10.4.225 · DOI
  34. Safari, 2020, Mechanical Characteristics of Pumice-Based Geopolymer Paste, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 162, 105055, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105055 · DOI
  35. Nematollahi, 2015, Synthesis of Heat and Ambient Cured One-Part Geopolymer Mixes with Different Grades of Sodium Silicate, Ceram. Int., 41, 5696, 10.1016/j.ceramint.2014.12.154 · DOI
  36. Tuyan, 2021, Alkali-Activated and Geopolymer Materials Developed Using Innovative Manufacturing Techniques: A Critical Review, Constr. Build. Mater., 303, 124483, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124483 · DOI
  37. Provis, J.L., and Van Deventer, J.S.J. (2013). Alkali Activated Materials: State-of-The-Art Report (RILEM TC 224-AAM), Springer. · DOI
  38. Law, 2012, Durability Assessment of Alkali Activated Slag (AAS) Concrete, Mater. Struct., 45, 1425, 10.1617/s11527-012-9842-1 · DOI
  39. Basheer, P.A.M. (2018). Durability of Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the ICDCS2018: 6th International Conference on Durability of Concrete Structures, Leeds, UK, 18–20 July 2018, Whittles Publishing.
  40. Yunsheng, 2007, Synthesis and Heavy Metal Immobilization Behaviors of Slag Based Geopolymer, J. Hazard. Mater., 143, 206, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.09.033 · DOI
  41. Bellum, 2020, Exploration of Mechanical and Durability Characteristics of Fly Ash GGBFS Based Green Geopolymer Concrete, Appl. Sci., 2, 919
  42. Collins, 1999, Workability and Mechanical Properties of Alkali Activated Slag Concrete, Cem. Concr. Res., 29, 455, 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00236-1 · DOI
  43. Nath, 2014, Effect of GGBFS on Setting, Workability and Early Strength Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Cured in Ambient Condition, Constr. Build. Mater., 66, 163, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080 · DOI
  44. Yang, 2018, Effect of Fly Ash Microsphere on the Rheology and Microstructure of Alkali Activated Fly Ash/Slag Pastes, Cem. Concr. Res., 109, 198, 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.008 · DOI
  45. Fang, 2018, Workability and Mechanical Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash-Slag Concrete Cured at Ambient Temperature, Constr. Build. Mater., 172, 476, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.008 · DOI
  46. Jia, 2022, Understanding the Workability of Alkali-Activated Phosphorus Slag Pastes: Effects of Alkali Dose and Silicate Modulus on Early-Age Hydration Reactions, Cem. Concr. Compos., 133, 104649, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104649 · DOI
  47. Nath, 2017, Flexural Strength and Elastic Modulus of Ambient-Cured Blended Low-Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 130, 22, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034 · DOI
  48. Vijai, 2010, Effect of Types of Curing on Strength of Geopolymer Concrete, Int. J. Phys. Sci., 5, 1419
  49. Li, 2013, Influence of Curing on the Strength Development of Calcium-Containing Geopolymer Mortar, Materials, 6, 5069, 10.3390/ma6115069 · DOI
  50. Aziz, 2020, Strength Development of Solely Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Glag Geopolymers, Constr. Build. Mater., 250, 118720, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118720 · DOI
  51. Haha, 2012, Influence of Slag Chemistry on the Hydration of Alkali-Activated Blast-Furnace Slag—Part II: Effect of Al2O3, Cem. Concr. Res., 42, 74, 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.08.005 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Thunuguntla, 2018, Effect of Mix Design Parameters on Mechanical and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag Concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 193, 173, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.189 · DOI
  53. Zhu, 2020, Setting Behaviours and Early-Age Microstructures of Alkali-Activated Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) from Different Regions in China, Cem. Concr. Compos., 114, 103782, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103782 · DOI
  54. Farhan, 2020, Assessment of Important Parameters Involved in the Synthesis of Geopolymer Composites: A Review, Constr. Build. Mater., 264, 120276, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120276 · DOI
  55. Sithole, 2020, Geosynthesis of Building and Construction Materials through Alkaline Activation of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, Constr. Build. Mater., 264, 120712, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120712 · DOI
  56. 2021, Investigation of the Properties of Two Different Slag-Based Geopolymer Concretes Exposed to Freeze–Thaw Cycles, Struct. Concr. J., 22, E332
  57. Provis, 2007, Geopolymerisation Kinetics. 2. Reaction Kinetic Modelling, Chem. Eng. Sci., 62, 2318, 10.1016/j.ces.2007.01.028 · DOI
  58. Cui, 2019, Effects of the n(H2O: Na2Oeq) Ratio on the Geopolymerization Process and Microstructures of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymers, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 511, 19, 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2018.12.033 · DOI
  59. Jeong, 2016, Influence of Four Additional Activators on Hydrated-Lime [Ca(OH)2] Activated Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag, Cem. Concr. Compos., 65, 1, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.10.007 · DOI
  60. Shilar, 2022, Molarity activity effect on mechanical and microstructure properties of geopolymer concrete: A review, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 16, e01014
  61. Mohamed, 2019, Factors Affecting Compressive Strength Development in Alkali-activated Slag Concrete, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 603, 042037, 10.1088/1757-899X/603/4/042037 · DOI
  62. Rangan, 2014, Geopolymer concrete for environmental protection, Indian Concr. J., 88, 41
  63. Asghar, 2023, Promoting the Green Construction: Scientometric Review on the Mechanical and Structural Performance of Geopolymer Concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 368, 130502, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130502 · DOI
  64. Thomas, 2015, Alkali-Activated Concrete: Engineering Properties and Stress–Strain Behavior, Constr. Build. Mater., 93, 49, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.04.039 · DOI
  65. Vora, 2013, Parametric Studies on Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete, Procedia Eng., 51, 210, 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.030 · DOI
  66. Gaedicke, 2016, A Method to Correlate Splitting Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete Cylinders and Cores, Constr. Build. Mater., 125, 271, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.031 · DOI
  67. Ansari, M.A., Shariq, M., and Mahdi, F. (2023). Structural behavior of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams—A review. Mater. Today Proc., in press. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 19

Metadata

Authors
Oti, J., Adeleke, B. O., Anowie, F. X., Kinuthia, J. M., & Ekwulo, E.
Affiliations
  • University of South Wales (GB)
  • Rivers State University (NG)
Corresponding author
Adeleke, Blessing O.
ORCID
Venue
Materials
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-04-13
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
1792
ISSN
1996-1944 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ma17081792
PMC
PMC11051076
OpenAlex
W4394818430
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Taith Funding
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Microbial Applications in Construction Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Keywords
geopolymer concrete, sodium silicate solution, pumice powder, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, low-carbon concrete, cement replacement, waste reuse, mechanical properties, concrete density

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanical Properties of a Sustainable Low-Carbon Geopolymer Concrete Using a Pumice-Derived Sodium Silicate Solution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ma17081792
The paper
Oti, J., Adeleke, B. O., Anowie, F. X., Kinuthia, J. M., & Ekwulo, E. (2024). Mechanical Properties of a Sustainable Low-Carbon Geopolymer Concrete Using a Pumice-Derived Sodium Silicate Solution. Materials. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17081792