Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Performance evaluation of palm oil clinker sand as replacement for

conventional sand in geopolymer mortar
Pouya Darvish a, U. Johnson Alengaram a,⇑, Yap Soon Poh a, Shaliza Ibrahim b, Sumiani Yusoff b
a
Centre for Innovative Construction Technology (CICT), Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Institute of Ocean and Earth Sciences (IOES), University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 Palm oil clinker is a potential by-

product for replacement of sand in
geopolymer.
 Comparable mechanical properties
were achieved with POC sand
geopolymer mortar.
 POC geopolymer mortar showed a
great resistance to HCl and MgSO4
solutions.
 Density reduction of about 17% was
achieved using POC as sand in
geopolymer mortar.
 The strength development of mixes
was increased with higher GGBS
content.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As a result of excessive exploitation and the growing need for conventional sand, a potential replacement
Received 28 March 2020 for sand has never been this vital to preserve the environmental ecology. This paper investigated the per-
Received in revised form 19 July 2020 formance of palm oil clinker sand (POCS), a local industrial by-product and waste as a whole sand
Accepted 20 July 2020
replacement in geopolymer mortar; a total number of 16 mixes were cast by varying the molarity of
Available online 29 August 2020
NaOH and binder. Mechanical properties, durability, and microstructural characteristics were investi-
gated. The novelty of this research lies on the use of sustainable POCS as sand replacement for conven-
Keywords:
tional mining sand; the mix design was carried out using a volume-based approach by employing the
Palm oil clinker sand
Fly ash
specific gravity of the fine aggregates. In addition, with partial replacement of the fly ash (FA) with
GGBS ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as the binder, the need for oven-curing was avoided.
Geopolymer mortar Based on the test results, the 28-day compressive strength of 53 MPa was achieved for ambient-cured
Sustainability mix with FA-GGBS (50:50) as binder and replacement of conventional sand with POCS. Geopolymer mor-
Volume-based approach tars showed higher resistance to the HCl and magnesium sulfate compared to cement mortar. XRD and
Lightweight aggregate EDX analyses showed enhanced formations of Si-O-Si and C-A-S-H bonds in GGBS incorporated mixes,
Microstructure and the presence of calcite mostly in the ambient-cured mixes resulted in stronger mechanical
properties.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The explosive growth of the world population from around 1

⇑ Corresponding author. billion in the year 1800 to an increase of 7-fold [1] since then
E-mail address: johnson@um.edu.my (U. Johnson Alengaram).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120352
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352
not only expanded our territory but the need for essential items
multiplied. This not only led to the exploitation of natural
resources for human needs but also, the acceleration of industrial-
ization of human life has led to a massive growth of greenhouse
gases. A study [2] revealed that steel and cement are the two main
commodities that lead to 90% of total greenhouse gas emissions in
reinforced-concrete structures and 7% of the total global CO2 emis-
sions were due to the production of cement [3]. Although cement
could not be replaced fully by any alternative materials for a fore-
seeable future, the emphasis on alternative sustainable materials is
gaining momentum.
During the last two decades, many developed nations have
restricted the exploitation of virgin construction materials, and this
has led many government agencies and researchers around the
globe to invest their time and resources to develop new potential,
environmentally friendly materials to minimize the usage of
cement and other conventional materials. Thus, the breakthrough
had come through the use of different materials and methodolo-
gies to find partial or complete replacements for cement and
related construction materials; the replacement materials derived
from coal operated power plant, palm oil industry, iron & steel
industries, and some other agricultural industries [4–7].
One of the alternatives for producing concrete without cement
is the geopolymer concept [8]. According to a study [9], the elimi-
nation calcination that is normally part of limestone calcination in
the production of conventional cement in geopolymer binders
could bring about a reduction of 80% in CO2 emissions. Geopoly-
mers are inorganic materials formed by the reaction process
between an aluminosilicate source and an alkaline activator solu-
tion (AAS). With the utilization of geopolymers, waste materials
and by-products can replace Portland cement, which could reduce
the disposal issue and concerns regarding the CO2 that is generated
during the production of cement. Geopolymer concrete benefits
from comparable mechanical characteristics [10] and enhanced
durability properties [11,12] compared to the cement concrete.
Various studies used different binders as an aluminosilicate source
in geopolymers; fly ash (FA) [13], metakaolin (MK) [14], ground
granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) [15], rice husk ash (RHA)
[16], palm oil clinker powder (POCP) [17], palm oil fuel ash (POFA)
[18].
The most used alkaline solutions are sodium and potassium-
based, which activate the base materials. A comparison between
potassium-based and sodium-based FA based geopolymer paste
[19] shows that sodium-based activator could achieve higher com-
pressive strengths at ambient and elevated temperatures below
400 °C compared to potassium activator. On the other hand, the
potassium activator had a better strength at the higher curing tem-
perature of 600 °C. However, the most used and effective activator
is reported to be the combination of sodium silicate and sodium
hydroxide [20].
It is imperative to highlight that the geopolymerization process
relies on the method of curing. With the increase in temperature,
the geopolymerization accelerates, and with longer curing time,
the properties of the products will be enhanced [21]. The speci-
mens are usually cured in the oven with temperature varying from
60 to 110 °C for 24 h. Among all the binders, FA is the most used
one because of its abundance and resemblance to cement in terms
of final properties. Low calcium FA (class F) is considered as a
potential binder, while high-calcium FA (class C) geopolymer con-
crete can also be used to produce high strength concrete [22]. Con-
siderable amounts of FA and bottom ash are generated in power
plants [23]; though FA is widely considered as a cement replace-
ment material, bottom ash is hardly utilized.
Geopolymers are mostly suitable for precast concrete elements
since they mostly need to be cured at temperatures higher than the
ambient. Attempts have been made to eliminate the need for oven
curing such as solar curing [24] and ambient curing [25]. However,
the outcome has not been practical widespread except for the uti-
lization of GGBS in geopolymer, which could expedite the setting
time in the ambient condition due to the high content of calcium.
Besides binders and liquids, sand is another important con-
stituent material of mortar and concrete. Sand could directly affect
the main properties of the final product and prevent the shrinkage
of the final mortar. Nevertheless, the over usage of this natural fine
aggregate has led to a substantial shortage in many countries in
Asia. Forty billion tons of sand is being used each year globally
[26], and this endangered the ecosystem and lives of millions of
creatures. Thus, finding alternative sand could minimize the
exploitation and extraction of natural sand.
According to statistics, excluding the freshwater, sand, and
gravel constitute the highest consumed raw material on the earth
[27]. Though alternative material such as manufactured sand (M-
sand) from the quarry industry is considered potential to replace
conventional sand partially, there are more materials in South East
Asia where palm oil production is very high. Palm oil industries
generate large amounts of residues such as oil palm shell (OPS),
POFA and palm oil clinker (POC). POC has been investigated for
its potential application as a sand replacement material.
The present study investigates the behaviour of palm oil clinker
sand (POCS) geopolymer mortar in terms of mechanical properties,
durability, and microstructural comparison with geopolymer mor-
tar produced using conventional mining sand (MS). The novelty of
the present research can be categorized under sustainable materi-
als through the utilization of waste POCS in geopolymer mortar
and the volume-based replacement method of the MS with the
POCS using its specific gravity. Previous studies used weight
replacement, which mostly resulted in high binder content. Fur-
thermore, the addition of GGBS enables the geopolymer mortar
to achieve the strength at ambient curing, and thus oven curing
can be eliminated. Flow test, compressive strength, ultrasonic
pulse velocity, water absorption, sorptivity, setting time, chemical
resistance tests along with the x-ray diffraction and energy disper-
sive x-ray analyses were performed to evaluate the performance of
the mixes.
2. Materials and methodology
The main components of geopolymers are the binders and alka-
line activators.
2.1. Binders
Class F Fly ash with a specific gravity of 2.4 was used as the con-
trol binder. GGBS, with a specific gravity of 2.75, was used as par-
tial replacement of FA. The chemical composition of FA and GGBS
defined by the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) test is shown in Table 1.
2.2. Fine aggregate
POCS was collected from the Sime Darby Plantation factory in
chunk form with 50–200 mm in size. It was then crushed and
sieved in the laboratory to obtain particles below 4.75 mm to be
used as sand replacement. POCS has a porous nature, and hence
it is lightweight. POC derivatives are demonstrated in Fig. 1.
The physical properties of POCS and MS are depicted in Table 2.
Sieve analysis was performed in accordance with ASTM C136/
C136M-14 [28]. Fig. 2 shows the particle size of MS and POCS
and based on British Standard 882:1992 [29], the particle sizes
for both sand fall in the well-graded aggregate category.
 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352 3

Table 1
chemical composition of binders.

Oxides SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO P2O5 K2O SO3 TiO2 MnO Na2O LOI
FA 58.3 22.5 8.0 5.2 0.9 0.4 1.8 0.6 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.4
GGBS 29.3 14.2 0.5 43.3 7.8 – 0.48 2.1 0.84 0.32 0.6 0.6

on the concentration of the activator’s concentration. Based on

the optimization and economic aspects, 10-molar NaOH was used
for the rest of FA-GGBS mixes to study the effect of FA-GGBS binary
binder and the curing conditions.

3. Experiments

3.1. Mix design

A volume-based design was carried out for the replacement of

the MS with POCS due to the porous nature of POCS. For this pur-
pose, the specific gravity of the sand was used to calculate the vol-
ume of the MS and replace it with the same volume of POCS. A total
number of 16 mixes were cast for the current study. In all the
mixes, MS was replaced by POCS, and one control mix of FA-
based geopolymer mortar with MS was used for comparison of
two types of sand. Different percentages of FA-GGBS were used
with GGBS ranging from 10 to 50 percent. The mass ratios of
sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide and AAS to binder of 1.5
Fig. 1. a) POC chunk from the factory, b) POC coarse aggregate, c) POC fine and 0.5, respectively, were used in all the mixes.
aggregate, d) POC powder. To achieve the flow of 110 ± 5 mm for all the mixes as recom-
mended by the ASTM C109/C109M-16a [30], additional water
was added to the mixes to get the desired flow. The additional
Table 2 water can provide better consistency and longer setting time, espe-
Physical properties of fine aggregates. cially for the mixes incorporating GGBS. Two different types of cur-
Physical Properties MS POCS ing were used: oven curing and ambient curing for comparison.
Researchers have suggested that curing temperature of 30 – 90℃
Particle size (mm)  4.75  4.75
Fineness modulus 3.43 3.52
[31] could be an optimum range that the reaction takes place effi-
Specific gravity 2.65 1.92 ciently while in another study [32] a minimum of 65 ℃ is recom-
Water absorption (%) 0.7 ± 0.15 3.3 ± 1 mended for the process of geopolymerization. Thus, in this
Moisture content (%) 0.2 ± 0.06 1.5 ± 0.5 research, a temperature of 65℃ was used for the oven curing to
ensure effective geopolymerization with lower temperature. The
mix proportions are shown in Table 3.

3.2. Mixing procedure

Sodium hydroxide solutions were prepared one day before the

mixing day and mixed with the sodium silicate 5 min before com-
mencing the mixing. NaOH and sodium silicate need to be stirred
and diluted thoroughly to gain a consistent result. The mixing pro-
cedure started with dry mixing the binders and sand for about
4 min, followed by wet mixing with the addition of the AAS for
another 3–4 min. The fresh mortar was then immediately cast in
50-mm molds. All the cubes were demolded after 24 h and kept
in ambient room condition to be tested at their respective age.

Fig. 2. Sieve analysis on fine aggregates.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Flow test

2.3. Alkaline activators
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) used in this study, was received in
powder form with 99% purity and then mixed with the potable
water to get the desired concentration. Different molar ratios of
NaOH from 8 to 16 were prepared to investigate the effect of the
NaOH concentration on the properties of the POCS geopolymer
mortar since the properties of the products immensely depend
One significant factor in defining the quality of the mortar and
concrete is through checking the workability. The mixture should
have sufficient workability for the transfer, placement, smooth sur-
face finish [33] and performance [34] with the minimum expendi-
ture. Thus, the flow test was performed in accordance with the
ASTM 1437-15 [35]. All the mixes were designed to ensure a flow
of 110% ± 5 is obtained, and additional water of 5–17% of the bin-
4 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352

Table 3
Mix proportions of the POCS geopolymer mortar.

ID Binder (%) Sand Molarity Curing method Sand (kg/m3) FA (kg/m3) GGBS (kg/m3) NaOH (kg/m3) Silicate (kg/m3)
GP-1 FA (1 0 0) MS 10 65 °C for 24 h 1367.2 645.3 0.0 129.1 193.6
GP-2 FA (1 0 0) POCS 8 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 645.0 0.0 129.0 193.5
GP-3 FA (1 0 0) POCS 10 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 645.0 0.0 129.0 193.5
GP-4 FA (1 0 0) POCS 12 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 645.0 0.0 129.0 193.5
GP-5 FA (1 0 0) POCS 14 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 645.0 0.0 129.0 193.5
GP-6 FA (1 0 0) POCS 16 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 645.0 0.0 129.0 193.5
GP-7 FA (90) GGBS (10) POCS 10 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 584.6 65.0 129.9 194.9
GP-8 FA (80) GGBS (20) POCS 10 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 523.4 130.9 130.9 196.3
GP-9 FA (70) GGBS (30) POCS 10 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 461.3 197.7 131.8 197.7
GP-10 FA (60) GGBS (40) POCS 10 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 398.3 265.5 132.8 199.1
GP-11 FA (50) GGBS (50) POCS 10 65 °C for 24 h 991.0 334.3 334.3 133.7 200.6
GP-12 FA (90) GGBS (10) POCS 10 Ambient 991.0 584.6 65.0 129.9 194.9
GP-13 FA (80) GGBS (20) POCS 10 Ambient 991.0 523.4 130.9 130.9 196.3
GP-14 FA (70) GGBS (30) POCS 10 Ambient 991.0 461.3 197.7 131.8 197.7
GP-15 FA (60) GGBS (40) POCS 10 Ambient 991.0 398.3 265.5 132.8 199.1
GP-16 FA (50) GGBS (50) POCS 10 Ambient 991.0 334.3 334.3 133.7 200.6

der’s weight was added for all mixes depending on the
requirement.
MS required less amount of water to produce the same amount
of flow as POCS. Due to the higher surface area of GGBS [36], the
mixes required more water compared to mixes with FA. Further,
with the increase in the concentration of the molarity of AAS, more
water was needed to achieve a flow of 110%. The workability of the
mortar decreases with an increase in the NaOH molarity [37].
Although all the mixes produced 110% of flow, as found through
visual observation, not all the mixes had the same viscosity. Also, it
is well known that due to high viscous AAS, the viscosity of fresh
geopolymer mixes was found higher compared to the cement mor-
tar for similar paste volume and flow. Moreover, the higher the
GGBS amount, the more viscous due to geopolymerization and cre-
ation of calcium aluminate silicate hydrate (C-A-S-H) gel [38]. The
additional water could, in fact, increase the workability of the
mixes if used in concrete. It is reported that the viscosity of the
geopolymer decreases with the increase in water content [39].
The results of added water and flow are shown in Table 4.
4.2. Effect of molarity
Mixes GP2 – GP6, as shown in Table 3, were designed in such a
way that the only variable among them was the molarity of NaOH.
These mixes contained FA as the only binder with POCS as a 100%
replacement for conventional MS as fine aggregate and cured in the
oven. The comparison between the POCS and MS of the same
molarity of 10 was also made in addition to the comparison among
the mixes with different molarities.
4.2.1. Compressive strength – molarity
While demolding the geopolymer cubes, it was found that the
cubes were adhering to the molds, which could be attributed to the
cohesive nature of the sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide solution
[40]. The compressive strength of the cubes was measured in accor-
dance with ASTM C109/C109M-16a [30] at the ages of 1, 7, and
28 days using three specimens and the average result is reported.
The control MS geopolymer mortar produced a 28-day strength
of 50.5 MPa with a 10-molar NaOH solution. However, with the
replacement of the MS by POCS, the 28-day strength varied from
19.8 to 41.3, with the NaOH molarity ranging from 8 to 16
(Fig. 3). As expected, the strength of the specimens increased with
an increase in the molarity of NaOH from 8 to 14 M. However,
increasing the molarity up to 16, had a negative effect on the
strength. The comparison between the compressive strengths of
the mixes with 14 and 16 M shows a reduction of about 9 MPa
for the latter. Researchers [16,37] reported that an increase in
the molarity increases the mechanical properties of the specimens
with the highest compressive strength achieved for mixes with 12
and 14 M. When the concentration of the AAS becomes higher, the
polycondensation is blocked by the acceleration in the reaction of
the silica-alumina substance [41].
Moreover, it was reported [42] that the reduction in the
strength could be attributed to the precipitation of aluminosilicate
gel caused by the redundant hydroxide ions. The optimum concen-
tration of the NaOH depends on the binder type, alkaline activator,
and curing conditions. An increase in the concentration beyond
certain molarity is not recommended as it may have deleterious
effects [43] on the properties of the concrete, not to mention its
economic aspect. With the same molarity of 10 (GP-1 and GP-3),
the mix with POCS produced a compressive strength of almost
30 MPa while MS mixture produced 50 MPa. This reduction could
be ascribed to the porous nature of the POCS with lower specific
gravity compared to MS [44].
4.2.2. Ultrasonic pulse velocity – molarity
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) test is one of the means to check
the quality of concrete in terms of uniformity, homogeneity, and

Table 4
Flow test result and additional free water.

Binder (%) Sand Mol. Free water (%) Flow (%)

FA (1 0 0) MS 10 5 110
FA (1 0 0) POCS 8 12 114
FA (1 0 0) POCS 10 12 112
FA (1 0 0) POCS 12 12 112
FA (1 0 0) POCS 14 14 110
FA (1 0 0) POCS 16 14 105
FA (90) GGBS (10) POCS 10 13 110
FA (80) GGBS (20) POCS 10 15 110
FA (70) GGBS (30) POCS 10 15 106
FA (60) GGBS (40) POCS 10 17 113
FA (50) GGBS (50) POCS 10 17 110
 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352 5

60.00 11.00
Compressive strength (Mpa)

1-day

Water Absorption (%)

50.00 10.50
7-day
40.00 28-day 10.00
30.00 9.50
20.00 9.00
10.00 8.50
0.00
8.00

Molarity of NaOH
NaOH Molarity
Fig. 5. Effect of molarity on the water absorption.
Fig. 3. Effect of molarity on the strength of POCS geopolymer mortar.

increased proportion of the sodium oxide to aluminium oxide and

determining the existence of internal voids and cracks. It is a non-
destructive test and using three cubes for UPV, the average value
was reported based on ASTM C597-16 [45]. According to the
researchers [46], a velocity of 3.66 to 4.58 km/s is classified as a
good range of UPV value. A good UPV value denies the existence
of large voids and porosities, and by maintaining the UPV in the
satisfactory range, the structural integrity could be upheld [47].
Fig. 4 shows the UPV results of the MS mortar along with the POCS
mortar with different concentrations of NaOH. The 28-day test
result of UPV of the control sample was found as 3.63, while the
range for the POCS mixes was between 2.50 and 2.97 km/s. This
decrease in comparison with the mix with MS is attributed to
the porous POCS [48]. The POCS particles possess internal and
external voids which enable the penetration of the geopolymer
paste into the outer voids of the sand particles. However, the
trapped inner voids that were not filled with the paste could con-
tribute to the lower UPV values in POCS mortar specimens. Mean-
while, according to the trend of the UPV value in relation to the
molarity of the NaOH, the mixes with higher molarities produced
higher values of UPV. Higher concentration of NaOH increases
the geopolymerization reaction, which could enhance the com-
pactness of the specimens.
4.2.3. Water absorption – molarity
Based on the result of water absorption, the porosity of the
cubes can be observed. Porosity is one of the essential properties
which affects the durability of concrete. The water absorption test
demonstrates the weight difference between the oven-dry and SSD
condition of the specimens. In this study, the water absorption test
was performed on the specimens at the age of 28 days. The results
showed a decrease in the water absorption of the specimens with
an increase in the molarity of the NaOH from 8 to 14-molar (Fig. 5).
An increase in the molarity level contributes to the geopolymeriza-
tion process and improves the dissolution of binders because of the
silica. The improved behaviour of the geopolymers with an
increase in the NaOH molarity was also observed by other
researchers [37,49]. Conversely, increasing the molarity to 16,
increased water absorption. This could be ascribed to the
decreased dissolution of the calcium, which brought about lower
hydration products [37].
4.2.4. Rate of water absorption (Sorptivity) – molarity
The water absorption rate of specimens in relation to time could
reflect the capillary sorptivity, and it is an essential factor in the
assessment of the durability. Fig. 6 shows the rate of water absorp-
tion of geopolymer mortars with different molarities of NaOH. The
test was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of ASTM
C1403 15 [50]. The results showed the same trend as the water
absorption test; the highest rate belonged to the 8-molar mix
while it decreased with the increase in the molar concentration.
For the mix of 16-molar, however, a slight increase was found com-
pared to the mix of 14-molar. The increase in the absorption rate of
the mix with 16-molar NaOH could be attributed to the excess heat
generated during the reaction that may have caused evaporation of
a portion of the water. Thus, the absorption rate was observed
slightly higher to that of the 14-molar mix. It was [51] reported
that sorptivity decreases with a higher concentration of NaOH,
and it was concluded that with higher molar concentration and
sodium silicate content, a considerable decrease in the sorptivity
level was experienced and ascribed to the denser structure of the
aluminosilicate gel.
4.2.5. Density – molarity
Table 5 shows 28-day densities with the respective NaOH
molarity of the mixes. The densities ranged from 1710 to
1754 kg/m3 for molarities of 8 to 16 using POCS. Based on the den-
sity results, it can be observed that there is a direct relationship
between the density and the molarity as the density increases with

100
Rate of absorption (g/100 cm2)

3.80 90
3.60 1-day
80
3.40 7-day
70
UPV (km/s)

3.20 28-day
3.00 60
2.80 50
2.60 40
2.40
2.20 30
2.00 20
10 8 10 12 14 16
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
NaOH Molarity Minutes

Fig. 4. Ultrasonic pulse velocity for different concentrations of NaOH. Fig. 6. Effect of NaOH molarity on the rate of water absorption.
6 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352

Table 5 the same strength as that of the MS geopolymer mortar in which

The 28-day density with respective molarity. only FA was used as the precursor.
Mix ID Detail 28-Day density (kg/m3) In contrast, the ambient-cured specimens showed higher
GP-1 M10, MS 2076.8 strength with higher quantities of GGBS. Referring to Fig. 8, when
GP-2 M8, POCS 1710.4 GGBS content was increased from 10 to 50%, the strength was
GP-3 M10, POCS 1720.1 improved, and the 28-day compressive strength was found
GP-4 M12, POCS 1719.2 53 MPa with 50% of replacement. It was reported that the GGBS
GP-5 M14, POCS 1750.6
GP-6 M16, POCS 1753.7
content has a direct relationship with compressive strength [57].
One of the main reasons could be related to the reaction heat
and the hydraulic activity generated from GGBS, which is higher
compared to that of FA [58], that leads to higher compressive
the specimens of higher molar concentrations. It is worth mention-
strength.
ing that in order to increase the concentration of the NaOH solu-
Fig. 9 compares the long-term compressive strengths of the
tion, more NaOH powder should be dissolved in the water, which
control mix (GP-1) and the ambient-cured mix with 50% of GGBS
leads to an increase in the density of the solution. As a result, the
(GP-16), which acquired the highest 28-day strength. The compar-
increased density of the AAS is one of the reasons for the rise in
ison shows different trends as the compressive strength of the con-
the density of the mixes with higher NaOH concentrations.
trol mix tends to increase with time while the other experienced a
On the other hand, the control mix, which uses MS with a
reduction of about 14% from the age of 28 to 180 days. Reduction in
molarity of 10, produced a 28-day density of 2077 kg/m3. The com-
the strength from 28 to 90 days for mixes with 20% GGBS was
parison between GP-1 and GP-3 demonstrates the reduction of the
reported by researchers [59]. The long-term strength reduction of
density of about 17% due to the whole replacement of POCS instead
the FA-GGBS mixes could primarily be ascribed to the increased
of conventional sand. Lightweight concrete could be significantly
formation of C-A-S-H gel with a more porous structure instead of
effective in reducing the overall load of the structures [52].
C-S-H gel [59].

4.3. Effect of curing condition (Oven vs ambient)
Mechanical properties and durability aspects of the geopoly-
mers are greatly affected by the curing condition [53]. Alkali-
activated materials are mostly cured at 40–80 °C for 4–48 h
[54,55]. This curing needs a tremendous amount of energy, and it
is diminishing the feasibility of utilizing the geopolymers in a wide
range of applications. On the brighter side, the incorporation of
GGBS in geopolymers enhances the strength development at the
early stages due to the presence of high calcium [56]. In the current
study, the role of GGBS in the strength development under oven
and ambient curing conditions was investigated. The oven curing
condition was done in a curing chamber with a temperature of
about 65 °C for 24 h compared with ambient curing condition of
27–32 °C with a relative humidity of about 60–70%.
4.3.2. Strength development – curing
The comparison of strength development is shown in Fig. 10 as
the percentage of 1- to 28-day strength for ambient and oven-
cured specimens. Due to the accelerated geopolymerization by
the heat generated in the oven, the specimens developed consider-
ably higher strengths within the first 24 h. The 1-day strength
development of the ambient-cured specimens had an upward
trend with the increase in GGBS content of up to 30%. For higher
GGBS percentages of 40% and 50%, there was a drop in the strength
development in which about 32% of the 28-day strength was pro-
duced in the first 24 h. One of the major issues of the FA-based
geopolymers is that the strength development requires heat curing
[60], and this could be negated by partial incorporation of GGBS.
60
Compressive strength (MPa)

1-day
50
4.3.1. Compressive strength – curing 7-day
The strength development of the oven-cured mixes at the ages 40 28-day
of 1-, 7-, and 28-day is shown in Fig. 7. It can be observed that an 30
increase in the GGBS content from 10 to 30% enhanced the com-
20
pressive strength to peak at 50 MPa. However, the addition of
GGBS beyond 30% had a negative impact as there was a reduction 10
of the strength as depicted. 0
The comparison between GP-1 and GP-9 shows that FA-GGBS-
POCS geopolymer mortar can be produced with approximately GGBS content (%)

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of the ambient-cured specimens.

60
Compressive strength (Mpa)

1-day
50 70
7-day
Compressive strength (MPa)

40 60
28-day
50
30 GP-1
40
20 30 GP-16
20
10
10
0 0

GGBS content (%) Curing age (days)

Fig. 7. Compressive strength of the oven-cured specimens. Fig. 9. Long-term compressive strength.
 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352 7

3.8
3.6 1-day
3.4 7-day
3.2

UPV (km/s)
28-day
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0

Fig. 10. Comparison of strength development as the ratio of 1-, and 28-day for
ambient and oven-cured specimens. GGBS content (%)

Fig. 12. Ultrasonic pulse velocity of ambient-cured mixes.

The incorporation of GGBS as a binder in geopolymer mixes could
enhance the strength development up to 43% in the first 24 h with-
out the need for oven curing; on the contrary, the use of FA as the 10.30

Water Absorption (%)

sole binder needs heat curing for geopolymerization and the 10.25
strength development. 10.20
10.15
4.3.3. Ultrasonic pulse velocity – curing 10.10
The 28-day UPV results of the oven and ambient-cured mixes 10.05
containing 10–50% of GGBS are demonstrated in Figs. 11, and 12,
10.00
respectively. The trend shows an improvement in the UPV values
9.95
with the increase in GGBS contents, and ambient-cured specimens
9.90
produced higher velocities than the oven-cured ones. The incorpo-
ration of the GGBS in the mixes contributed to the development of
the geopolymerization as the UPV result increased substantially GGBS content (%)
compared to the mixes without GGBS. The FA based geopolymer
recorded 2.5 km/s, but the replacement of 10–50% of FA by GGBS Fig. 13. Effect of GGBS content on water absorption of oven-cured specimens.
resulted in UPV values of 2.75–3.36 and 2.79–3.71 km/s for the
oven and ambient-cured specimens, respectively. According to
the researchers [46], UPV value of 3.71 km/s produced by the
11.50
mix with 50% GGBS could be categorized as ‘‘excellent”.
Water Absorption (%)

11.00
4.3.4. Water absorption – curing
It was reported [61] that concrete mixes with higher mechani- 10.50
cal properties would result in lower water absorption. The water
absorption of both oven (Fig. 13) and ambient-cured (Fig. 14) spec- 10.00
imens decreased gradually with the increase in GGBS contents.
9.50
However, the ambient-cured specimens experienced lower water
absorption rates, and the mix with 50% of GGBS had the lowest 9.00
value of 9.7% among all the mixes. The water absorption of
alkali-activated concrete was reported to be lower than that of
the ordinary Portland cement concrete specimens for a similar bin- GGBS content (%)
der content [62], and this was attributed [63] to the inclusion of
Fig. 14. Effect of GGBS content on water absorption of ambient-cured specimens.
finer particles of GGBS that filled the pores that diminishes the

penetration of water. The ambient-cured mixes with 30–50% of

3.6 GGBS had a water absorption of less than 10%.
3.4 1-day
7-day
3.2 4.3.5. Rate of water absorption (Sorptivity) – curing
28-day
UPV (km/s)

3.0 The rate of water absorption test was carried out to investigate
the effect of GGBS content on the sorptivity of the mortars for both
2.8 oven and ambient-cured specimens. Both the curing methods
2.6 showed almost similar trends; the rate of absorption decreased
2.4 with the increase in the GGBS contents (Figs. 15 and 16). Neverthe-
less, the oven-cured specimens with 50% of GGBS experienced an
2.2
increase in the absorption rate, and this could be due to excess heat
2.0 generated by the GGBS and the heat from the oven, which resulted
in the evaporation of the water. Thus, the water absorption of the
GGBS content (%) mix was increased.
The incorporation of GGBS could cause secondary pozzolanic
Fig. 11. Ultrasonic pulse velocity of oven-cured mixes. reactions, and this could contribute to the filling of pore structures;
8 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352

100 4.3.7. Setting time – curing

90 One of the governing factors for geopolymers is the setting time
Rate of absorption (g/100 cm2)

80 since the matters of transportation, compaction, and the pouring of

70 the concrete substantially depend on the setting time of the mix.
The setting time test procedure was carried out in accordance with
60
ASTM standard test method C807-13 [67] using the modified Vicat
50
needle. The humidity of the lab was observed 50% with 23 °C of
40
temperature for the ambient mixes and a 65 °C of temperature
30 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
for the oven mixes. The ambient-cured mixes with class-F fly ash
20 as the binder have a setting time of at least 24 h [68]. With the
10 incorporation of GGBS, however, the setting time will reduce
0 [69]. The setting time of the FA-GGBS geopolymer mortars for both
0 500 1000 1500 oven, and ambient-cured specimens was measured (Mixes GP-7 to
Minutes
GP-16) and depicted in Fig. 18. The increase in the GGBS content
Fig. 15. Effect of GGBS content on the rate of water absorption of oven-cured reduced the setting time for both curing methods and researchers
specimens.
confirmed such quick setting due to the presence of high amounts
of calcium in the GGBS that accelerates the reaction [69–71]. The
setting time of the oven-cured mixes ranged from 44 to 23 min
100
for the mixes with 10–50% of GGBS, while for the ambient-cured
90
mixes it ranged from 77 to 29 min, respectively.
Rate of absorption (g/100 cm2)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10% 20%
10
0 fate (MgSO4). Three mixes were chosen for this purpose; GP-1 rep-
0 500
Minutes
Fig. 16. Effect of GGBS content on the rate of water absorption of ambient-cured
specimens.
this enables the concrete to reduce the possibility of chemical
attack and penetration [64]. This feature enables the mixes with
GGBS to have better resistance towards water absorption.
4.3.6. Density – curing
Fig. 17 shows the 28-day density of the specimens for different
percentages of GGBS for the oven and ambient-cured conditions.
As known, the specific gravity of the GGBS is higher, and as a result,
the replacement of FA with GGBS increased the final density of the
specimens. The density of all the mixes fell within the range of
1754–1842 kg/m3, and according to the European Standard of EN
206-1 [65], the oven-dry density of 900–2000 kg/m3 is categorized
as lightweight concrete (LWC). Remarkably, most types of LWCs
utilize recycled and industrial waste materials, which could ideally
fall under sustainable and energy-efficient materials category [66].
4.4. Chemical resistivity
The durability aspect of the concrete derivatives can demon-
strate the resistance of the product towards chemical attacks and
weathering conditions. In order to examine the chemical resis-
tance, 50-mm cubes were cast and cured for 28 days prior to
30% 40% 50%
immersing those in hydrochloride acid (HCl) and magnesium sul-
1000 1500 resents the control geopolymer mortar that utilized 100% FA as
binder and MS as the fine aggregate, while the mix GP-16 contains
an equal amount of FA-GGBS (50:50) as binders and POCS as the
fine aggregate which acquired the highest mechanical properties.
Lastly, for comparison of the effect of these chemicals on geopoly-
mer mortar, a cement-based mixture with the same paste volume
was prepared and tested along with the other two mixes. These
three mixes represent MS and POCS geopolymer mortars along
with cement mortar. Three cubes were used for each period of test-
ing, and the average values of the strength and weight loss were
taken and reported.
4.4.1. Acid resistance
The procedure of the test was performed in line with ASTM
C267-01 [72] guidelines. Hydrochloric acid was used with a con-
centration of 3% to evaluate the performance of the mixes against
chemical attack. The acid solution was changed every 28 days
throughout the testing period of 180 days to ensure the effectivity
of the solvent.

90
1860 80 Ambient
1840 Oven 70 Oven
Density (kg/m3)

1820 Ambient 60
1800
Minutes

50
1780 40
1760 30
1740
20
1720
10
1700
0

GGBS content (%) GGBS content (%)

Fig. 17. Effect of GGBS on the 28-day density of the specimens. Fig. 18. Setting time of FA-GGBS mixes.
 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352
Prior to the immersion of the cubes in the acid, the weight,
dimensions, and physical appearance of the cubes were recorded
to monitor the changes that would occur due to chemical attack.
The compressive strengths of the cube specimens were tested on
28-, 56-, 90-, and 180-day after immersion. The physical appear-
ance and weight loss, however, was monitored every seven days.
The specimens were cleaned through rinsing in running water
three times, followed by a quick dry between each rinse. After-
wards, the cubes were left to dry for 2 h before the physical inspec-
tion and strength evaluation were carried out. Fig. 19 shows the
specimens after 28 days of submersion in the acid solution.
It is interesting to note from Fig. 20 that the geopolymer spec-
imens had no signs of erosion and physical damages to the surface
even after 180 days of exposure to acid. Slight discolouring, how-
ever, was noticeable on the surface for both mixes that could be
washed with a thorough cleansing. Nevertheless, the cement mor-
Fig. 19. Physical inspection after 28 days of immersion in HCl a) FA-MS geopolymer
mortar b) FA-GGBS-POCS geopolymer mortar c) cement-MS mortar.
Fig. 20. Physical inspection after 180 days of immersion in HCl a) FA-GGBS-POCS geopolymer mortar b) cement-MS mortar.
9
tar suffered from erosions, and the edges were seen severely
damaged.
The variation of the compressive strength of the specimens that
were immersed in acid is shown in Fig. 21. The POCS and MS
geopolymer mortars demonstrated a satisfactory resistivity espe-
cially during the first 90 days of immersion; the residual strength
of the specimens was found more than 60% of their initial strength;
in contrast, the cement mortar showed a very steep decline in
strength as almost 80% of strength was lost. Overall, the POCS
geopolymer mortar exhibited relatively good resistance close to
that of the control FA-MS geopolymer mortar.
Fig. 22 shows the deteriorating effect of the cement mortar after
the 180-day compression test; the discolouring effect along with
spalling of mortar even in the interior parts of the cement mortar
is very much evident. However, the FA-MS and FA-GGBS-POCS
based mortars showed excellent resistance and the interior sur-
faces had no deteriorating effect due to acid. The presence of the
alumino-silicate compound in geopolymer mortar has a better
resistance against acid attack compared to the calcium hydroxide
compound in cement mortar [11,73] and the fragility of the cement
mortar after 180 days in the HCl solution was beyond doubt
(Fig. 22).
The effect of acid on the change in dimensions in the geopoly-
mer mortars was not observed. Conversely, the cement mortar
specimens had an average reduction of 0.05 to 0.20 mm, and the
effect of acid on the corners, and the edges was evident from the
60
MS GP
50 POCS GP
Compressive strength (MPa)
OPC
40
30
20
10
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Immersion period (days)
Fig. 21. Compressive strength of the specimens after immersion in HCl.
10 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352

Fig. 22. Specimens after compression test at the age of 180 days of immersion in HCl a) FA-MS geopolymer mortar b) cement-MS mortar.

shown a sharp increase in its weight loss amounting to 15.4% dur-

18
ing the whole period of testing, and this could be attributed to the
16 MS GP
presence of calcium hydroxide [74].
POCS GP
14
OPC
12 4.4.2. Sulfate resistance
Weight loss (%)

10 Sulfate is one of the main causes of concrete corrosion and dete-

rioration that forms a new reaction with the sulfate ions in the
8 pore structure of the concrete. ASTM C1012 [75] was used as the
6 reference to test the specimens with a 5% concentration of magne-
4 sium sulfate (MgSO4) with a pH value between 6 and 8. The solu-
tion was changed every 28 days, and the compressive strength of
2
the cubes was measured at the ages of 28, 56, 90, and 180 days
0 after immersion in the sulfate solution. Fig. 24 shows the residual
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 compressive strengths, and as observed, all the mixes show a
Immersion period (days) reduction in their strength mainly after 56 days of immersion.
Geopolymer mortars outperformed the cement mortar in resisting
Fig. 23. Weight loss of specimens soaked in HCl.
against the sulfate.
The control FA-MS geopolymer mortar had the lowest reduction
55 in the strength of about 20%, followed by 30% and 40% reduction
MS GP for the POCS geopolymer and cement mortar, respectively; the
residual compressive strength of POCS geopolymer was observed
Compressive strength (MPa)

50 POCS GP
OPC 36.7 MPa after 180 days of immersion. It can be understood that
45 geopolymer mortar has a better resistance toward MgSO4 owing
to its denser matrix than the cement. However, comparison
40
between the MS and POCS geopolymer mortars shows that the sul-
35

30

25
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Immersion period (days)

Fig. 24. Compressive strength of the specimens soaked in the magnesium sulfate.

specimen, as depicted in Fig. 20. The weight loss of the specimens

during the immersion period is shown in Fig. 23 as a percentage to
their initial weight. The geopolymer specimens of mixes GP-1 (MS)
and GP-16 (POCS) experienced weight losses of 2.62 and 4.12%
after 180 days, respectively, and by observation, it is clear that
most of the weight loss happened between 28 and 90 days for
the geopolymer mortars. On the contrary, the cement mortar had Fig. 25. XRD analysis of FA and GGBS.
 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352 11

Table 6 The appearance of the specimens of all the three mixes was
Geopolymer pastes prepared for XRD analysis. observed almost intact, and the weight of the cube specimens
Mix ID Binder Curing was not reduced, and, in some cases, a slight increase was noticed
GP-1, 3 FA 65 °C for 24 h over the period of the immersion.
GP-9 70%FA 30% GGBS 65 °C for 24 h
GP-14 70%FA 30% GGBS Ambient
4.5. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis
GP-11 50%FA 50% GGBS 65 °C for 24 h
GP-16 50%FA 50% GGBS Ambient
XRD analysis was conducted to study the microstructural beha-
viour of the mixtures using PANalytical XRD equipment. Fig. 25
shows the diffraction patterns of the raw materials of FA and GGBS.
fate solution has penetrated to the inner parts of the POCS mortar
Both binders possess a hump showing an amorphous phase of the
more intensively compared to that of the MS mortar. Therefore, the
materials. However, the hump is broader for FA between 16 and 35
POCS mortar experienced a higher reduction over the period.
compared to the 23 to 38 of 2h degrees for GGBS. Quartz and Mul-
The presence of C-S-H in the cement mortar reacts with the sul-
lite are dominant in FA, which confirms a higher amount of silica,
fate, resulting in ettringite, whereas gypsum and brucite, along
while GGBS shows the presence of Calcite and Periclase of higher
with the ettringite are the products of the geopolymer mortar with
magnesia and calcium oxide contents.
the MgSO4 solution [76]. Interestingly, the majority of the strength
In order to investigate the effect of GGBS and curing in the
loss of the cement mortar specimens occurred between 90 and
geopolymerization process, selected geopolymer pastes, as shown
180 days since the trend of its reduction had a similar pattern to
in Table 6, were prepared and analyzed after 28 days.
that of the geopolymer mixes during the first three months.
Fig. 26 shows the X-ray diffraction of geopolymer pastes with
2h being between 5 and 90°. Overall, the comparison between
ambient and oven-cured mixes show identical peaks with minor
differences. This resemblance confirms the similar geopolymeriza-
tion of the mixes of FA-GGBS at ambient and oven-cured condi-
tions, and a similar outcome was reported for FA-POFA
geopolymer mortar [77]. It is understood that most crystalline
phases of the Quartz and Mullite present in raw FA, were later dis-
solved and took part in the reaction process as seen from the
diminished peaks in the paste. At 26.2 and 40.8°, the presence of
Mullite in the mix of 100% FA shows resolved in lower FA quanti-
ties. This implies that the excess phases of the Mullite were slightly
inactive in the FA paste.
Conversely, new phases of Periclase were recognized as a result
of geopolymerization in which more peaks were identified in the
mixes with higher percentages of GGBS. Calcite was another pro-
duct of the process which nevertheless was most notable in the
ambient-cured mixes incorporating GGBS. This could be ascribed
to the high values of CaO [78] present in the GGBS (Table 1) and,
consequently, might have contributed to the development of
Fig. 26. XRD analysis of geopolymer pastes. strength in the ambient-cured mixes containing GGBS [79,80].

Element Oxygen Sodium Silicon Carbon Aluminium Nitrogen

Atomic conc. 60.56 12.16 8.2 13.49 2.03 3.56

Weight conc. 55.51 16.01 13.19 9.28 3.14 2.86

Fig. 27. EDX spectrum with elemental concentrations (GP-1).

12 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352
Element Oxygen Silicon
Atomic Conc. 70.16 12.73
Weight Conc. 57.09 18.19
Fig. 28. EDX spectrum with elemental concentrations (GP-16).
4.6. Energy dispersive X-ray analyzer (EDX)
The EDX analysis was performed on the mixes GP-1 and GP-16
to characterize the chemical processes involved in the geopolymer-
ization. Figs. 27 and 28 show SEM images along with the elemental
concentrations of the chosen spots. According to the identified
components, the typical elements of GP-1 and GP-16 are O, Na,
Si, Al, and both mixes show the existence of sodium, and this is
attributed to the activator’s solution where it is the main element
[81]. Ca and Mg were also detected in mix GP-16 as these are pre-
sent in GGBS. Based on the concentrations of the elements, the Si/
Al ratios are 4.2 and 4.5 for GP-1 and GP-16, respectively. A previ-
ous study [82] revealed that an increase in Si/Al ratio results in
improved mechanical properties since more Si-O-Si bonds will
occur. On the other hand, high calcium and silicate with low alu-
minium lead to the formation of calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H)
[83,84] while higher amounts of aluminium with the same combi-
nation will create C-A-S-H products which are reported to have a
dense structure, establishing an excellent mechanical outcome
[85]. Thus, the enhanced strength of the mix GP-16 could be con-
tributed by Si-O-Si and C-A-S-H bonds.
5. Conclusion
This research concentrated on the development of geopolymer
mortar with palm oil clinker sand as the fine aggregate. Based on
the outcome of the experimental research conducted, the following
conclusions were derived:
 Increasing the molarity of the sodium hydroxide and GGBS con-
tent reduced the flowability of the geopolymer mortar.
 Study on the effect of NaOH molarity showed that with the
increase in molarity from 8 to 14, the overall performance of
the POCS geopolymer mortar, namely compressive strength,
UPV, water absorption, and the sorptivity was improved. Con-
versely, 16-molar NaOH reduced the properties.
Calcium Sodium Aluminium Magnesium
4.62 7.94 2.95 1.59
9.42 9.29 4.05 1.97
 Replacement of the MS with POCS in geopolymer mortar
reduced the density of the cubes by about 17% while the
replacement of FA with GGBS in the mixes had a slight increase
in the density.
 The highest 28-day strength obtained for the oven-cured spec-
imens was 50 MPa with 30% of GGBS, while for the ambient-
cured specimens, it was 53 MPa with 50% of GGBS. Incorpora-
tion of GGBS in the mixes contributed to the strength develop-
ment, UPV, reduction of water absorption, and sorptivity.
Further, it reduced the dependency on the oven-curing method.
The early strength development of mixes with GGBS within the
first 7-days was about 62–85% of the 28-day strength for the
ambient-cured specimens.
 The setting time of the 50% GGBS geopolymer mortar was found
about 30 min for ambient-cured mixtures, which subsequently
increased to an hour when GGBS was reduced to 30%.
 Geopolymer mortars showed higher resistance to the HCl and
magnesium sulfate compared to cement mortar as the latter
showed deterioration since the C-S-H gel present in the cement
matrix is vulnerable to chemical attacks. The residual compres-
sive strengths of POCS geopolymer mortar after 180 days of
immersion in HCl and magnesium sulfate were found as 36
and 70% of the 28-day strength, respectively.
 The X-Ray diffraction and EDX analyses showed enhanced for-
mations of Si-O-Si and C-A-S-H bonds in GGBS incorporated
mixes, and the presence of calcite mostly in the ambient-
cured mixes resulted in better mechanical properties.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pouya Darvish: Investigation, Formal analysis and Writing the
draft. U. Johnson Alengaram: Conceptualization, Visualization,
Supervision, Methodology, Writing-review & editing, Project
administration, Resources. Yap soon Poh: Software, Validation,
Supervision. Shaliza Ibrahim: Project administration, Data cura-
 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352 13

tion, Supervision. Sumiani Yusoff: Funding acquisition, Validation, [20] T. Tho-in et al., Pervious high-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 30 (2012) 366–371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.028.
Visualization.
[21] C. Ng et al., A review on microstructural study and compressive strength of
geopolymer mortar, paste and concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 550–
576, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.075.
Declaration of Competing Interest [22] P. Chindaprasirt, T. Chareerat, V. Sirivivatnanon, Workability and strength of
coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (3) (2007)
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- 224–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.002.
[23] A. Naghizadeh, S. Ekolu, Pozzolanic Materials and Waste Products for
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared Formulation of Geopolymer Cements in Developing Countries: a Review, 2017.
to influence the work reported in this paper. [24] M. Dong et al., Development of a High Strength Geopolymer by Novel Solar
Curing, Ceram. Int. 43 (14) (2017) 11233–11243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ceramint.2017.05.173.
Acknowledgement [25] A. Islam et al., Engineering properties and carbon footprint of ground
granulated blast-furnace slag-palm oil fuel ash-based structural geopolymer
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 503–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/
This research funded by University of Malaya’s RU Grant- j.conbuildmat.2015.10.026.
Faculty Programme bearing Project number GPF072A-2018 is [26] J.D. Milliman, J.P.M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment
acknowledged through this research article. The authors greatly discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, J. Geol.
100 (1992) 525–544, https://doi.org/10.1086/629606.
appreciate the continuous support and research funding by Univer- [27] United Nations Environment Programme, Sand, rarer than one thinks,
sity of Malaya. Environmental Development 11 (2014) 208–218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envdev.2014.04.001.
[28] ASTM International, ASTM C136/C136M-14, Standard Test Method for Sieve
References Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. 2014: West Conshohocken, PA.
[29] Institutions, B.S., BS 882: Specification for aggregates from natural sources for
concrete. 1992: 389 Chiswick High Road, London.
[1] K.K. Goldewijk, Three centuries of global population growth: a spatial
[30] ASTM International, ASTM C109/C109M-16a, Standard Test Method for
referenced population (density) database for 1700–2000, Popul. Environ. 26
Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm]
(4) (2005) 343–367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-005-3346-7.
Cube Specimens), West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[2] Y.L. Li et al., Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by buildings:
[31] D. Khale, R. Chaudhary, Mechanism of geopolymerization and factors
A multi-scale perspective, Build. Environ. 151 (2019) 240–250, https://doi.org/
influencing its development: a review, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (3) (2007) 729–746,
10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.11.003.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0401-4.
[3] D. Hardjito et al., On the Development of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete,
[32] C. Kuenzel, N. Ranjbar, Dissolution mechanism of fly ash to quantify the
ACI Mater. J. (2004) 467–472.
reactive aluminosilicates in geopolymerisation, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 150
[4] K.H. Mo, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, Utilization of ground granulated blast
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104421 104421.
furnace slag as partial cement replacement in lightweight oil palm shell
[33] J. Kwasny et al., Influence of rheology on the quality of surface finish of
concrete, Mater. Struct. 48 (8) (2015) 2545–2556, https://doi.org/10.1617/
cement-based mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 89 (2015) 102–109, https://doi.
s11527-014-0336-1.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.111.
[5] N. Ramappa Ramesh et al., Influence of palm oil clinker powder on the fresh
[34] M.M. Alonso et al., Alkali-activated mortars: workability and rheological
and mechanical properties of masonry mortars, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng.
behaviour, Constr. Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 576–587, https://doi.org/10.1016/
431 (8) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/431/8/082002 082002.
j.conbuildmat.2017.04.020.
[6] U.J. Alengaram, N.H. Mohottige, C. Wu, M.Z. Jumaat, Y.S. Poh, Z. Wang,
[35] ASTM International, ASTM C1437-15, Standard Test Method for Flow of
Response of oil palm shell concrete slabs subjected to quasi-static and blast
Hydraulic Cement Mortar, Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
loads, Constr. Build. Mater. 116 (2016) 391–402, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[36] A. Islam, et al., The development of compressive strength of ground granulated
j.conbuildmat.2016.04.103.
blast furnace slag-palm oil fuel ash-fly ash based geopolymer mortar. Mater.
[7] M.M. Ul Islam et al., Durability properties of sustainable concrete containing
Des. (1980-2015), 2014. 56(Supplement C): p. 833-841.DOI: https://doi.org/
high volume palm oil waste materials, J. Cleaner Prod. 137 (2016) 167–177,
10.1016/j.matdes.2013.11.080.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.061.
[37] G.F. Huseien et al., Compressive strength and microstructure of assorted
[8] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, fourth ed. vol. 171,
wastes incorporated geopolymer mortars: Effect of solution molarity,
Saint-Quentin, France, Geopolymer Institute, 2008.
Alexandria Eng. J. 57 (4) (2018) 3375–3386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[9] J. Davidovits, Global Warming Impact on the Cement and Aggregates Industry,
aej.2018.07.011.
World Resource Rev. 6 (2) (1994) 263–278.
[38] H. Ye, A. Radlińska, Shrinkage mitigation strategies in alkali-activated slag,
[10] J. Aldred, J. Day, Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional
Cem. Concr. Res. 101 (2017) 131–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
concrete?, in 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures,
cemconres.2017.08.025.
Singapore, 2012.
[39] P. Koutník et al., Low viscosity metakaolinite based geopolymer binders,
[11] M. Albitar et al., Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional
Constr. Build. Mater. 230 (2020) 116978, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 374–385, https://doi.org/
conbuildmat.2019.116978.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056.
[40] C.-K. Ma, A.Z. Awang, W. Omar, Structural and material performance of
[12] W.G. Valencia Saavedra, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Performance of geopolymer
geopolymer concrete: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 90–102,
concrete composed of fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures, Constr.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.111.
Build. Mater. 154 (2017) 229–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[41] Z. Zuhua et al., Role of water in the synthesis of calcined kaolin-based
j.conbuildmat.2017.07.208.
geopolymer, Appl. Clay Sci. 43 (2) (2009) 218–223, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[13] C. Gunasekara et al., Chloride induced corrosion in different fly ash based
j.clay.2008.09.003.
geopolymer concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 502–513, https://doi.
[42] W.K.W. Lee, J.S.J. van Deventer, The effects of inorganic salt contamination on
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.168.
the strength and durability of geopolymers, Colloids Surf., A 211 (2) (2002)
[14] R. Pouhet, M. Cyr, Formulation and performance of flash metakaolin
115–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00239-X.
geopolymer concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 120 (2016) 150–160, https://doi.
[43] S.-D. Wang, K.L. Scrivener, P.L. Pratt, Factors affecting the strength of alkali-
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.061.
activated slag, Cem. Concr. Res. 24 (6) (1994) 1033–1043, https://doi.org/
[15] Y.J. Patel, N. Shah, Enhancement of the properties of ground granulated blast
10.1016/0008-8846(94)90026-4.
furnace slag based self compacting geopolymer concrete by incorporating rice
[44] F. Abutaha, H. Abdul Razak, J. Kanadasan, Effect of palm oil clinker (POC)
husk ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 171 (2018) 654–662, https://doi.org/10.1016/
aggregates on fresh and hardened properties of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
j.conbuildmat.2018.03.166.
112 (2016) 416–423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.172.
[16] K. Kaur, J. Singh, M. Kaur, Compressive strength of rice husk ash based
[45] ASTM International, ASTM C597 – 16, Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity
geopolymer: The effect of alkaline activator, Constr. Build. Mater. 169 (2018)
Through Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
188–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.200.
[46] C.-L. Hwang et al., Manufacture and performance of lightweight aggregate
[17] M.Y.J. Liu et al., Microstructural investigations of palm oil fuel ash and fly ash
from municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash and reservoir sediment for self-
based binders in lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete, Constr.
consolidating lightweight concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (10) (2012) 1159–
Build. Mater. 120 (2016) 112–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/
1166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.07.004.
j.conbuildmat.2016.05.076.
[47] W.H. Kwan et al., Influence of the amount of recycled coarse aggregate in
[18] M.A. Salih, et al., Effect of different curing temperatures on alkali activated
concrete design and durability properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012)
palm oil fuel ash paste, Constr. Build. Mater., 2015. 94(Supplement C) 116-125,
565–573, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.059.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.052.
[48] J. Kanadasan, H.A. Razak, V. Subramaniam, Properties of high flowable mortar
[19] A. Hosan S. Haque F. Shaikh Compressive behaviour of sodium and potassium
containing high volume palm oil clinker (POC) fine for eco-friendly
activators synthetized fly ash geopolymer at elevated temperatures: A
construction, J. Cleaner Prod. 170 (2018) 1244–1259, https://doi.org/
comparative study, J. Build. Eng. 8(Supplement 2016 C): p. 123–130
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.068.
10.1016/j.jobe.2016.10.005.
14 P. Darvish et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 120352
[49] I.I. Bashar et al., The effect of variation of molarity of alkali activator and fine
aggregate content on the compressive strength of the fly ash: palm oil fuel ash
based geopolymer mortar, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014 (2014).
[50] ASTM International, ASTM C1403-15a, Standard Test Method for Rate of Water
Absorption of Masonry Mortars, 2015, West Conshohocken, PA.
[51] F.U.A. Shaikh, Effects of alkali solutions on corrosion durability of geopolymer
concrete, Adv. Concr. Constr., 2014. 2(2) 109–123, https://doi.org/10.12989/
ACC.2014.2.2.109.
[52] T. Bremner, P. Eng, Environmental aspect of concrete: Problems and solutions,
in 1st All Russian Conference on Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, 2001.
[53] A.S. de Vargas et al., The effects of Na2O/SiO2molar ratio, curing temperature
and age on compressive strength, morphology and microstructure of alkali-
activated fly ash-based geopolymers, Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (6) (2011) 653–
660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.03.006.
[54] A. Palomo, M.W. Grutzeck, M.T. Blanco, Alkali-activated fly ashes: A cement for
the future, Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (8) (1999) 1323–1329, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0008-8846(98)00243-9.
[55] J. Temuujin, R.P. Williams, A. van Riessen, Effect of mechanical activation of fly
ash on the properties of geopolymer cured at ambient temperature, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 209 (12) (2009) 5276–5280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2009.03.016.
[56] W.-H. Lee et al., A study on the characteristics and microstructures of GGBS/FA
based geopolymer paste and concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 807–
813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.291.
[57] M. Soutsos et al., Factors influencing the compressive strength of fly ash based
geopolymers, Constr. Build. Mater. 110 (2016) 355–368, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.045.
[58] W. Qiang, S. Mengxiao, W. Dengquan, Contributions of fly ash and ground
granulated blast-furnace slag to the early hydration heat of composite binder
at different curing temperatures. 2016. 28(5): p. 320-327, doi:
10.1680/jadcr.15.00077.
[59] I. Ismail et al., Influence of fly ash on the water and chloride permeability of
alkali-activated slag mortars and concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013)
1187–1201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.106.
[60] M. Kaur, J. Singh, M. Kaur, Microstructure and strength development of fly ash-
based geopolymer mortar: Role of nano-metakaolin, Constr. Build. Mater. 190
(2018) 672–679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.157.
[61] Kushal Ghosh, P. Ghosh. Effect of %Na2O and %Sio2 on Apperent Porosity And
Sorptivity of Flyash Based Geopolymer, IOSR J. Eng., 2012.
[62] S.A. Bernal et al., Effect of binder content on the performance of alkali-
activated slag concretes, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (1) (2011) 1–8, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.08.017.
[63] S.A. Bernal et al., Evolution of binder structure in sodium silicate-activated
slag-metakaolin blends, Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (1) (2011) 46–54, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.09.004.
[64] B.S. Divsholi, T.Y.D. Lim, S. Teng, Durability properties and microstructure of
ground granulated blast furnace slag cement concrete, Int. J. Concr. Struct.
Mater. 8 (2) (2014) 157–164, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-013-0063-y.
[65] European standard, EN 206-1, Concrete – Part 1: specification, performance,
production and conformity, 2000.
[66] S.-Y. Chung et al., Comparison of lightweight aggregate and foamed concrete
with the same density level using image-based characterizations, Constr.
Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 988–999, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.03.270.
[67] ASTM International, ASTM C807 13, Standard Test Method for Time of
Setting of Hydraulic Cement Mortar by Modified Vicat Needle. 2013: West
Conshohocken, PA.
[68] D. Hardjito et al., Properties of Geopolymer Concrete with Fly Ash as Source
Material: Effect of Mixture Composition, Special Publication 222 (2004) 109–
118, https://doi.org/10.14359/13308.
[69] A. Rafeet et al., Guidelines for mix proportioning of fly ash/GGBS based alkali
activated concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 130–142, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.036.
[70] H.E. Elyamany, A.E.M. Abd Elmoaty, A.M. Elshaboury, Setting time and 7-day
strength of geopolymer mortar with various binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 187
(2018) 974–983, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.025.
[71] P. Nath, P.K. Sarker, Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition Constr.
Build. Mater. 66(Supplement 2014 C), 163–171, 10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
[72] ASTM International, ASTM C267-01 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test
Methods for Chemical Resistance of Mortars, Grouts, and Monolithic
Surfacings and Polymer Concretes. 2012: West Conshohocken, PA.
[73] P. Chindaprasirt, U. Rattanasak, Characterization of the high-calcium fly ash
geopolymer mortar with hot-weather curing systems for sustainable
application, Adv. Powder Technol. 28 (9) (2017) 2317–2324, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apt.2017.06.013.
[74] Y.Y. Kim et al., Strength and durability performance of alkali-activated rice
husk ash geopolymer mortar, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014) 10, https://doi.org/
10.1155/2014/209584.
[75] ASTM International, ASTM C1012/C1012M 15, Standard Test Method for
Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution.
2015: West Conshohocken, PA.
[76] Sukmak, P., et al., Sulfate Resistance of Clay-Portland Cement and Clay High-
Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer. J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015. 27(5): pp. 04014158.
DOI: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001112.
[77] N. Ranjbar et al., Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of fly
ash/palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar, Mater. Des. 59 (2014) 532–
539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.037.
[78] A. Wongsa et al., Use of municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ash
in high calcium fly ash geopolymer matrix, J. Cleaner Prod. 148 (2017) 49–59,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.147.
[79] A. Sharmin et al., Influence of source materials and the role of oxide
composition on the performance of ternary blended sustainable geopolymer
mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 144 (2017) 608–623, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.03.178.
[80] M.O. Yusuf et al., Strength and microstructure of alkali-activated binary
blended binder containing palm oil fuel ash and ground blast-furnace slag,
Constr. Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 504–510, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.11.012.
[81] I. Kourti et al., Production of geopolymers using glass produced from DC
plasma treatment of air pollution control (APC) residues, J. Hazard. Mater. 176
(1) (2010) 704–709, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.089.
[82] P. He et al., Effects of Si/Al ratio on the structure and properties of metakaolin
based geopolymer, Ceram. Int. 42 (13) (2016) 14416–14422, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.033.
[83] M.A.M. Ariffin et al., Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 80–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.01.018.
[84] M.J.A. Mijarsh, M.A. Megat Johari, Z.A. Ahmad, Synthesis of geopolymer from
large amounts of treated palm oil fuel ash: Application of the Taguchi method
in investigating the main parameters affecting compressive strength, Constr.
Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 473–481, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.11.039.
[85] F. Puertas et al., A model for the C-A-S-H gel formed in alkali-activated slag
cements, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 31 (12) (2011) 2043–2056, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2011.04.036.