Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Properties of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete

incorporating recycled waste glass
Ahmed M. Tahwia a, Ashraf M. Heniegal b, Mohamed Abdellatief a,
Bassam A. Tayeh c, *, Mohamed Abd Elrahman a
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Suez 41522, Egypt
c
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza, P.O. Box 108, Gaza Strip, Palestine

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

Keywords: One of the advantages of geopolymer technology is the ability to recycle a variety of wastes. In
Geopolymer concrete this paper, waste glass was incorporated into ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete
Waste glass (UHPGC). Recycled waste glass replaced fine sand in various ratios in UHPGC. Several mixtures
Compressive strength
were prepared by replacing natural sand with 0 %, 7.5 %, 15 %, and 22.5 % of waste glass (WG).
Durability
Microstructure
The prepared samples were submerged in 2 % H2SO4 and 5 % MgSO4 solutions. Furthermore, the
Elevated temperature samples were subjected to high temperatures (200–800 ◦ C) for 1.5 h. The effect of the WG on
UHPGC’s flowability, strength, durability properties, and elevated temperature resistance was
examined. The experimental results demonstrate that the flowability of the mixture was increased
by glass content. Compressive strength was reduced from 126 MPa to 121 MPa for the substituted
22.5 % natural sand by WG at ambient curing. After 120 days of exposure, the strength loss of the
control mix and samples containing 22.5 % WG submerged in MgSO4 solution was found to be
5.3 % and 1.16 %, respectively. While submerged in H2SO4, the control mix and samples with
22.5 % WG lost 7.7 % and 1.83 % of their strength, respectively. Additionally, mixtures incor­
porating WG showed better thermal stability as compared to the control mixtures after high
temperature exposure. Finally, after being heated, microscopic studies showed that mixtures with
WG had less microcracks and a better transition zone between the geopolymer paste and the fine
aggregate.

1. Introduction

Due to the rapid growth of the global population and the development of high-rise structures with associated infrastructure,
Portland cement (PC) has been recognized as the world’s most utilized construction material. When exposed to harsh environments,
Portland cement concrete (PCC) deteriorates faster than its expected service life. Also, manufacturing PCs is bad for the environment
because it causes a lot of CO2 to be released into the air [1]. Mokhtar and Nasooti reported that PCC is one of the most energy-intensive
materials in the manufacturing process [2]. To address these issues, various experiments have lately been conducted to produce less
hazardous and more ecologically acceptable substitute binders. Alkali-activated binders and geopolymers are environmentally friendly
alternatives to cement [3,4].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: btayeh@iugaza.edu.ps (B.A. Tayeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01393
Received 26 June 2022; Received in revised form 6 August 2022; Accepted 10 August 2022
Available online 18 August 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 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/).
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

In alkali-activated binders (AAB), aluminosilicates (e.g., class c fly ash) are used in a moderately alkaline environment. It is
common knowledge that adding calcium compounds to AABs speeds up the dissolution process. In addition to the N-A-S-H network, C-
A-S-H hydrate production occurs, with the hydrates serving as nucleation sites to speed up condensation and improve mechanical and
durability characteristics [5,6]. Thus, the higher level of calcium leads to increasing hardening of the C-A-S-H gel phase and mini­
mizing setting time. On the other hand, low-calcium AABs, primarily involving alkali aluminosilicates, now commonly referred to as
"geopolymers" [7–9].
The geopolymer concrete (GPC) consists of aluminosilicate material, which is characterized by its fine particle sizes close to
cement, as well as containing Si and Al, which react with an alkaline solution. GGBS, low- calcium fly ash, and metakaolin are the most
common source materials for the geopolymer system [4,10]. High alkali materials, such as sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate, are
necessary for activation to ensure the integrity of the geopolymerization process. In the presence of the alkaline solution, alumino­
silicate minerals are dissolved, resulting in repeating geopolymeric Si-O-Al-O interactions in amorphous form, which is the formation
process in geopolymer technology [3,6]. The main reaction products of the geopolymerization process are composed of a
three-dimensional amorphous aluminosilicate network which is intermixed with sodium (calcium) aluminosilicate hydrate (C
(N)-A-S-H) gels. It was found that the N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H were responsible for the rapid development of the high 1-day compressive
strength of GPC, which exceeded 50 MPa [11,12].
GPC has excellent characteristics compared to PCC, particularly superior acid, shrinkage [13,14], sulfate resistance [15,16], and
high strength. According to Zhuang et al., porosity affects the migration of alkali from geopolymer composites into ion solutions and,
subsequently, influences mechanical strength and durability [17]. It was indicated that the GPC with a compact and denser structure
has good mechanical strength, resistance to chloride and acid solutions, and good efflorescence.
Because of advances in geopolymer technology, several recent studies have generated UHPGC with the same strength and high
packing density as standard UHPC. Nevertheless, UHPGC without fibers, like UHPC [18], may become brittle as strength increases. As
a result, fibers should be added to improve UHPGC ductility [19,20]. According to Lao et al. [21], the highest compressive strength of
UHPGC was observed at 222 MPa, and with larger steel fiber concentrations, the compressive strength of UHPGC increased due to the
strong modulus of steel fibers. The tensile strength of UHPGC with a higher steel fiber content was also higher (due to a larger fiber
bridging force), but the tensile strain capacity at the peak stress was reduced.
Aydin and Baradan produced high-performance alkali-activated slag and silica fume (SF) mortars with a compressive strength
exceeding 200 MPa using 2 % steel fiber dosage [22]. Liu et al. reported that the two most critical components of UHPGC are steel fiber
and SF [19,23]. It is concluded that adding 1–3 % straight steel fibers to UHPGC may significantly increase compressive strength and
flexural behavior. Nonetheless, it was thought that there was an optimal fiber dosage for the mechanical characteristics of UHPC. On
the other hand, some studies have shown that SF influences GPC but that after a certain level of SF content, the concrete is less able to
flow. Wetzel and Middendorf demonstrated that using the proper dosage of SF might increase the flowability and mechanical prop­
erties of UHPGC [24].
Unfortunately, the construction industry’s immoderate and uncontrolled use of sand has raised major concerns about natural
resource balance and aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, some studies have replaced recycled waste glass (WG) with sand, either
completely or partially. This is due to a significant volume of WG having been disposed of for many years. However, because WG is not
biodegradable, landfilling it is not environmentally friendly [25].
Ismail and Al-Hashmi reported that WG was employed as a partial replacement for sand at 10 %, 15 %, and 20 % in concrete mixes
[26]. It was observed that the samples with 20 % WG content had flexural and compressive strengths that were 10.99 % and 4.23 %
higher than the control mixture. Rashad and Abdel-Gawwad demonstrated the ability of using recycled WG as a binder with slag to
create a highly resistant geopolymer paste [27]. Slag was largely replaced with WG at weight ratios ranging from 0 % to 15 %. The
results showed that adding WG to the mix increased water absorption and decreased compressive strength. After exposure to 400 and
600 ◦ C, WG has a negative effect on the compressive strength of geopolymer paste, while it has a beneficial effect after exposure to 800
and 1000 ◦ C. As we’ve already seen, the use of WG as a fine aggregate in GPC and UHPGC is still limited and gives mixed results. Some
studies show that adding WG to the mix makes it stronger, while others show the opposite.

2. Research objective

Generally, some parameters, such as the kind of alkali activator solution (AAS), the AAS molarity, and the curing regime type, have
been found to influence the mechanical properties of UHPGC. Moreover, the existence of silica fume (SF), as well as the type and
amount of fiber, must all be considered. As a result, steel fibers and SF were utilized in this study to improve the fracture and me­
chanical characteristics of UHPGC. At the same time, the results were compared to standards and other studies that had been done
before.
On the other hand, previous research efforts have shown that WG has a great deal of potential for usage as a fine aggregate in the
fabrication of geopolymer concrete. Nevertheless, the results of available research are insufficient to indicate that WG aggregate is
effective in UHPGC mixtures. Therefore, the present study is designed to evaluate the influence of WG aggregate on the performance of
UHPGC. The fresh, mechanical, and durability properties of mixtures incorporating WG aggregate were investigated.

2
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

3. Experimental investigation

3.1. Materials

The aluminosilicate materials employed in this study were slag (GGBS) and silica fume (SF). GGBS is obtained from an iron plant
and conforms to the requirements of ASTM C989/989M-18 [28], and SF conforms to the requirements of ASTM C1240-20 [29]. The
used GGBS has a specific gravity of 2.90 and a specific surface area of 392 m2/kg. The used SF has a specific gravity of 2.30 and a
specific surface area of 19,500 m2/kg. SEM images of GGBS and SF, as shown in Fig. 1, were used to further characterize the form of the
particles. The chemical compositions of these materials are displayed in Table 1.
According to the previous studies by [30,31], better results were obtained on the geopolymer synthesized with potassium-based
activators than with silicate and sodium hydroxide solutions. Therefore, trial mixtures were performed based on different types of
the alkali activator solution (AAS) composition as follows: 1) Solutions of sodium silicate (SS) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH); 2)
Solutions of potassium silicate (PS) and potassium hydroxide (KOH); 3) Solutions of SS and KOH; 4) Solutions of NaOH and PS. So, the
combination of KOH and SS was chosen as the result of trial tests, availability, new type, and cost. It is also found that the geopolymer
synthesized with SS and KOH solutions is more stable at elevated temperatures than its sodium based AAS. Meanwhile, the mass
percentage of silicon dioxide, soda, and water in the SS solution were 27.9 %, 18.60 %, and 53.50 %, respectively.
Natural sand and recycled WG were employed as a fine aggregate to produce UHPGC mixtures. The used sand fulfils the criteria of
BS EN 12620 [32]: it has a specific gravity of 2.65, a fineness modulus of 2.10, and a water absorption of 0.48 %.
The WG was gathered from several locations around Egypt, mostly from the state glass industry in Gamasa and a few other local
industrial workshops in Mansoura. The WG aggregate has a specific gravity of 2.49 and a fineness modulus of 2.40 with a water
absorption of 0.12 %. It was found that the glass particles had lower water absorption and unit weight. While the modulus of fineness
of WG is higher than the used sand. Fig. 2 represents the micro and macro images of the WG used in this research. The glass particles
had an irregular shape and had sharp edges, but the surface was smooth. The chemical compositions of the fine aggregate are displayed
in Table 1, whereas Fig. 3 shows the particle size distribution (PSD) of used materials. Fig. 3 revealed that the WG aggregate was finer
than the used sand. However, the grading of both particles met the requirements for fine aggregate as specified in ASTM C33-07 [33].
For most UHPGC, fibers are one of the main components to achieve the required ductility behavior. Previous investigations re­
ported that the steel fiber addition led to improved mechanical properties [19,34]. Therefore, the steel fiber utilized was a straight steel
fiber with a diameter of 0.12 mm and a length of 13 mm.

3.2. Mix proportions

Table 2 shows the mix compositions of the mixtures described in this study. Based on previous research and some trial experiments,
a constant water-to-binder (W/B) ratio of 0.35 was adopted in this investigation. The effect of steel fiber content and SF on mechanical
performance was investigated using an activator with a Na2O content of 8.2 %, an activator modulus (SiO2/Na2O) of 1.5, and three
different weight ratios of SF contents (10 %, 20 %, and 25 %) for slag replacing. In addition, an aggregate-to-binder ratio of 1.33–1.35
and four different steel fiber volume fractions (0 %, 1 %, 2 %, and 3 %) were used.
To investigate the influence of WG inclusion into UHPGC, the optimum designed mixture was chosen to replace the WG with sand
by 7.5 %, 15 %, and 22.5 % (by volume), as indicated in Table 2.
Therefore, a reference mixture (25SF-0F and 25SF-3F) without and with the addition of steel fibers was determined to study the
effect of WG content on the mechanical and durability performance of UHPGC.

Fig. 1. SEM images a) GGBS and b) SF.

3
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Table 1
Chemical composition of GGBS, SF, sand and WG.
Constituents (%) GGBS SF Sand WG

SiO2 41.66 98.86 72.05 83.34

Fe2O3 1.49 0.14 2.92 –
Al2O3 13.71 0.12 5.15 –
CaO 34.53 0.12 19.79 7.28
MgO 5.53 0.20 – –
CuO – 0.35 – –
TiO2 0.58 – 0.09 –
K2O 0.97 0.21 – –
ZnO 1.04 – – –
Na2O 0.49 – – 9.38

Fig. 2. The macro and micro images of waste glass.

Fig. 3. PSD of silica fume, GGBS, WG and sand.

3.3. Specimen preparation

The sodium silicate solution to KOH solution was 3.0. The AAS solutions were prepared and kept in the lab room for one day before
the casting. Dry components were combined in a laboratory mixer at a low velocity (90 rpm) for 3 min. After that, the AAS was

4
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Table 2
Mix design for UHPGC (kg/m3).
MixID GGBS SF KOH* SS* AAS/B* ratio Fine aggregate Aggre./B* ratio F*

Sand WG

10SF-0F 780 87 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 0

10SF-1F 780 87 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 79
10SF-2F 780 87 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 158
10SF-3F 780 87 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 236
20SF-0F 693 174 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 0
20SF-1F 693 174 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 79
20SF-2F 693 174 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 158
20SF-3F 693 174 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 236
25SF-0F* 672 216 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 0
25SF-1F 672 216 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 79
25SF-2F 672 216 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 158
25SF-3F* 672 216 57 175 0.35 1170 – 1.349 236
25SF-0F-7.5G 672 216 57 175 0.35 1082 83 1.343 0
25SF-3F-7.5G 672 216 57 175 0.35 1082 83 1.343 236
25SF-0F-15G 672 216 57 175 0.35 994 166 1.337 0
25SF-3F-15G 672 216 57 175 0.35 994 166 1.337 236
25SF-0F-22.5G 672 216 57 175 0.35 906 249 1.332 0
25SF-3F-22.5G 672 216 57 175 0.35 906 249 1.332 236

SF: Silica fume - F: Steel fiber - G: waste glass - KOH: potassium hydroxide - SS: sodium silicate B: Binder (SF + GGBS).
25SF-0F* = The control mix of UHPGC without steel fiber.
25SF-3F* = The control mix of UHPGC with 3 % steel fiber.

gradually added to the mixture and blended for another 2 min. Then, the fibers were progressively added, and the mixing continued
until the fibers were distributed uniformly. After all components were incorporated, the composite was mixed at a high velocity
(182 rpm) till no fiber aggregation was detected. After mixing, all samples were cast in the molds and compacted to remove air voids
using a vibrating table. The mold samples were initially pre-cured for one day at a room temperature of 25 ± 2 ◦ C and a relative
humidity of about 60 ± 5 %. The molds were covered with plastic sheets. Following that, the samples were demolded and cured in a
heat curing oven at 80 ◦ C for 48 h.

3.4. Testing methods

3.4.1. Flow rate test

The flow rate test of the fresh UHPGC combination was performed in accordance with ASTM C1437 [35] by using a mini slump
cone. During the casting process, freshly prepared UHPGC mixture was cast uniformly into the mini slump, and the table was dropped
25 times in 15 s after the flow mold was removed.

3.4.2. Compressive strength test

Cube samples measuring 50 mm £ 50 mm £ 50 mm were cast and tested in compressive strength tests in accordance with ASTM
C39/C39M [36]. A universal testing machine with a maximum force of 2000 kN was used to test the compressive strength of UHPGC
samples. The compressive strength of UHPGC was measured at the ages of 7, 28, 90 days.

3.4.3. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test (UPV)

A UPV test was carried out on a 40 mm £ 40 mm £ 160 mm prism in accordance with ASTM C597 [37]. The speed of an ultrasonic
pulse in a UPV test depends on the density and porosity of the concrete. As a result, an indirect estimate of strength and maybe
durability is obtained. Because the air gap considerably increases the transmission time, this approach can detect voids and interior
cracks.

3.4.4. Sorptivity
Sorptivity of the UHPGC samples was evaluated in accordance with ASTM C1585-13 [38] at the age of 28 days. A concrete disc
specimen measuring 100 mm in diameter and 50 mm in height was cut from cylindrical specimens with dimensions of 100 mm in
diameter and 200 mm in height using a saw machine. The mass of two identical specimens was measured at various time intervals up to
6 h after exposure to water. Sorptivity of the samples refers to the determined water absorption rate.

3.4.5. Acid and sulfate attack test

The 50 mm cube specimens were prepared and put in a 5 % solution of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and a 2 % solution of sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) for 3, 7, 28, 56, and 120 days. Samples were weighed for their final weight. The loss in weight and the percentage strength
loss were then calculated.

5
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

3.4.6. Resistance to elevated temperatures

UHPGC samples were exposed to five different temperatures of 200 ◦ C, 300 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C, and 800 ◦ C within an electric oven
at a heating rate of 8 ◦ C/min to study elevated temperature resistance. The 50 mm cube specimens were kept inside the oven for 1.5 h
once the inside temperature reached the target temperature. After that, the samples were left inside the oven to cool naturally. Then,
the visual observation was inspected, and the residual strength was evaluated.

3.4.7. Morphological observation (SEM and EDS)

The morphological properties of the samples were observed using a Neon Dual-Beam FESEM instrument. Small pieces of specimens
were cut from the samples using an electric saw tool. To avoid charges during the imaging process, the specimens were vacuumed and
coated with 10 nm carbon. The samples were then taped to a sample holder with carbon tape and put into the SEM chamber to be
inspected.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Flow rate test

4.1.1. Effect of SF and steel fiber

Fig. 4 shows the effect of steel fiber and SF on the flowability of UHPGC. The slump value decreased when steel fiber was added, and
it decreased even more as the steel fiber content was increased, because steel fiber’s bridging action binds mixture particles together
and makes mixes denser. These findings are similar to those reported by Liu et al. [19]. They found that increasing the amount of steel
fiber in UHPGC mixes decreased the flowability and that adding 3 % fibers reduced the slump by roughly 30 % compared to the control
mix.
On the other hand, when using 10 % SF, the flowability of UHPGC was acceptable, but when using more than 10 % SF, it decreased.
The presence of SF helps to achieve the high packing density of the geopolymer binder due to the large surface area and tiny particle
size as shown in Fig. 1. In addition, the fine particles of SF can penetrate between the slag particles and densify the matrix structure, as
reported by Wetzel and Middendorf [24]. With the use of 10 % SF, the flowability of UHPGC without steel fiber reached the maximum
flow diameter (269 mm). Meanwhile, incorporating 20 % and 25 % SF reduced the slump value by around 3.4 % and 6.9 %,
respectively. Similarly, incorporating 25 % SF with 1 %, 2 %, or 3 % steel fiber reduced flowability by around 4.1 %, 8.6 %, and
17.5 %, respectively, when compared to the UHPGC with 10 % SF without steel fiber.

4.1.2. Effect of waste glass incorporation

The effect of WG aggregate on the slump flow results of the fresh UHPGC is presented in Fig. 5. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the
flowability of UHPGC gradually improved with the WG. The use of 7.5–22.5 % WG enhanced the spread diameter of the mixture by
1.3–6.8 %. The flowability enhancement is associated with the relatively high fineness modulus, low water absorption, and smoother
surface texture of glass particles than sand, as seen in Fig. 3 and mentioned in Section 3.1.

Fig. 4. Effect of the steel fiber and SF on the flowability of the UHPGC.

6
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Fig. 5. Flowability and fresh density in UHPGC containing glass aggregate.

In addition to slump flow measurements, visual appearance was assessed, and all combinations were cohesive with no segregation
or bleeding. These results show the same trend of flow with the waste glass that was also reported by previous studies [39,40].
Conversely, another study by Gholampour et al. [41] reported that the flowability of GPC decreases as WG increases. However, some
studies found that the high fineness modulus of WG aggregate increases the flow rate of the concrete due to the reduced demand for
water. As a result, the effect of the WG aggregate on the UHPGC mixtures studied in this work is consistent with earlier research [34,
42].
Fig. 5 also shows the fresh density of the prepared UHPGC mixtures. The fresh densities are in the range of 2.335–2559 kg/m3. It
was observed that the density of the concrete decreased linearly as the WG content increased. This decrease is attributed to the lower
density of waste glass compared to that of natural sand.

Fig. 6. The effect of SF and steel fiber on compressive strength.

7
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

4.2. Compressive strength

4.2.1. Effect of SF and steel fiber

Fig. 6 shows the compressive strength of the UHPGC mixtures at the age of 28 days. The minimum compressive strength of the
UHPGC (94–123 MPa) was observed when 10 % SF was used. The presence of the activator is the primary cause of UHPGC brittleness.
Therefore, SF incorporation aids in the alteration of the activator’s properties. However, adding 10 % SF to the activator has little effect
on its properties, and the compressive strength of UHPGC has decreased. Interestingly, when 25 % SF was added, the concentration of
silicate minerals in the activator increased dramatically due to the high specific surface area and activity of SF, resulting in an increase
in the activator’s activity. Therefore, the highest compressive strength (124–152 MPa) was recorded at 25 % SF inclusion.
Furthermore, the addition of steel fiber improved the compressive strength of UHPGC, and these properties were improved even
more by increasing the steel fiber concentration. The fundamental explanation for the enhancement in compressive performance with
steel fiber is their bridging role, which creates a high-strength core in the hardened concrete under compressive loading, preventing

Fig. 7. a. Compressive strengths of UHPGC containing WG at ambient curing. b. Compressive strengths of UHPGC containing WG at heat curing.

8
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

lateral expansion. Besides, combining 25 % silica fume with 0 %, 1 %, 2 %, and 3 % steel fiber increased strength by around 40.1 %,
43.6 %, 58.4 %, and 74.7 %, respectively, as compared to a mixture with 10 % SF and no steel fiber.
Similar trends in compressive strength have been found in previous studies on geopolymer concrete. They reported that increasing
the fiber concentration reduced the distance between fibers, limiting crack propagation in the samples. For example, Karimipour and
Brito [40] showed that the mechanical properties were improved by the inclusion of polypropylene and SF. Meanwhile, Liu et al. [20]
investigated the mechanical properties of UHPGC by combining steel fiber and SF, revealing that adding SF improved UHPGC’s
compressive strength. It was enhanced by about 38 % when 20 % SF was incorporated compared to the mix with 10 % SF. Conse­
quently, the results of the present investigation are in good alignment with their findings. In this study, however, the maximum
compressive strength result (152 MPa) was found when 25 % SFs were used.

Fig. 8. a) UPV test under different curing conditions, b) Relation between compressive strength and UPV at ambient curing, and c) Relation between
compressive strength and UPV at heat curing.

9
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

4.2.2. Effect of waste glass incorporation

Fig. 7a shows the compressive strengths of UHPGC mixes containing various fractions of WG after 7, 14, 28, and 90 days of ambient
curing. It was found that when the percentage of WG aggregate in the mixtures is increased, the compressive strength of the mixtures
declines significantly. The introduction of 22.5 % sand with WG aggregate reduced the 28-day compressive strength of UHPGC from
94.2 MPa to 88.1 MPa (without steel fiber) and from 126 MPa to 121 MPa (with 3 % steel fiber). Because of the smoothness of the glass
surface, there is an insufficient connection between the glass aggregate and the geopolymer matrix. Furthermore, the angularity of
glass particles may generate internal voids, which has a detrimental impact on compressive strength development. Previous studies
observed the same trend of compressive strength for glass aggregate mixtures [39,43]. According to the authors, the smooth surface of
glass aggregate decreased the bond between aggregate and binder. Nevertheless, as shown in Fig. 7a, the difference in compressive
strengths between sand and WG aggregate reduced as the age of the samples increased. For instance, at 7 and 14 days, UHPGC
containing 7.5–22.5 % WG had 5–11 % lower compressive strengths than mixtures using sand.
On the other hand, Fig. 7b demonstrates the effect of heat curing on the UHPGC. It was found that thermal curing increases the
strength of the UHPGC mixtures. The incorporation of 22.5 % WG reduced the 28-day compressive strength of UHPGC from 124 MPa
to 120 MPa (without steel fiber) and from 152 MPa to 148 MPa (with 3 % steel fiber).

4.3. UPV test

Fig. 8a shows the UPV for UHPGC under different curing regimes. The specimens cured at ambient curing attained UPV ranges of
3.6 km/s to 4.25 km/s, while the UPV for UHPGC at heat curing was in the range of 4.05 km/s to 4.75 km/s. The UPV for mixtures with
glass aggregate increases significantly at heat curing. The main reason for this improvement was additional reactions and extra
C–A–S–H formed, which densified the concrete sample and reduced the time for wave transmission. Whereas the micropores and
cracks were reduced with the incorporation of the glass particles, as indicated in SEM images (Figs. 9–16, 17a and c). These results are
in agreement with those studied by Faried et al. [42]. Besides, it can be observed that the heat curing had the highest velocity.
Therefore, the pulse velocity of the control mixture (25SF-0F) at heat curing increased by 11.2 %. Moreover, the pulse velocity of
mixtures containing 7.5–22.5 % glass aggregate was enhanced by 12.5 % up to 16.9 % compared to the control mix. Fig. 8b and c show
the relationship between the strength of UHPGC containing WG and UPV under different curing types. The pulse velocity in the sample
was affected by the glass content and curing regime. Due to the high concrete quality, it was pretty close to obtaining equations where
fc = 0.0138U + 2.4455 and fc = 0.0172U + 1.9896 under the ambient and heat curing regimes, respectively, where U represents UPV
(km/s) and fc represents compressive strength (MPa).

4.4. Sorptivity

The effect of glass aggregate on the sorptivity coefficients of the UHPGC mixtures at 28 days and 90 days of curing is shown in
Fig. 9. It is observed that the sorptivity coefficient of the control mixtures was in the range of 2.33 × 10− 2 mm/s0.5 to 2.52 × 10− 2 mm/
s0.5, respectively, and that of the mixes with waste glass was in the range of 2.01 × 10− 2 mm/s0.5 to 2.35 × 10− 2 mm/s0.5. As a result of
the findings, the sorptivity coefficient was reduced with the inclusion of WG. The use of 7.5–22.5 % WG reduced the sorptivity co­
efficients of the control mixes by roughly 6.8–20.20 % at 28 days. The positive results of glass aggregate mixtures against sorptivity are
mostly due to the minimal water absorption ability of glass particles. Furthermore, glass particles may enhance structural stability by
generating additional reaction products from reactive silica dissolution. Besides that, the results of the present study are consistent
with the results of Gholampour et al. [40], Liu et al. [44], which found that fly ash-based GPC with waste glass had significantly lower
water absorption than that of 100 % sand.

Fig. 9. Sorptivity coefficient of UHPGC with glass aggregate.

10
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Fig. 10. Gain in weight of UHPGC under immersion in 5 % MgSO4 solution.

Fig. 11. Compressive strength of UHPGC after exposed to 5 % MgSO4.

Fig. 12. UHPGC mass loss during immersion in 2 % H2SO4 solution.

4.5. Resistance to sulfate attack

4.5.1. Visual appearance and mass loss after exposure the MgSO4
The samples were submerged in a 5 % MgSO4 solution for 120 days, and the alterations in visual appearance and mass were
measured weekly. After the sulfate attack, the shape and size of the specimens remained unchanged. There was no visible deterioration

11
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Fig. 13. Compressive strength of UHPGC after exposed to 2 % H2SO4.

Fig. 14. Physical appearance of 25–3F sample at subject to high temperatures.

of sample aspects, edge degradation, cracking, or binder distortion in any of the specimens. After being removed from the solution,
white salt deposits, magnesium tri-silicate (Mg2O8Si3), and magnesium hydroxide (Mg (OH)2) formed on the surfaces of the bulk
specimens due to sulfate exposure [45]. It was observed that the mixtures containing WG produced fewer precipitates than the control
mix. The amount of salt deposits was reduced as the WG content increased from 7.5 % to 22.5 %, indicating that the interaction of
MgSO4 with the geopolymer gel was gradually diminished in the presence of waste glass.

12
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Fig. 15. Physical appearance of 25SF-3F-22.5G mix at subject to high temperatures.

Fig. 16. Residual strength of the UHPGC at high temperatures exposure.

13
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

Fig. 17. SEM images of UHPGC cured at ambient temperature and 800 ◦ C exposure.

Fig. 10 shows the influence of sulfate attack on the mass change of UHPGC samples. It is noticed that the increase in mass was most
likely owing to the production of white salt precipitates on the aspects and the juts of the specimens. The highest weight gain of 5 %
MgSO4 was found for the control mix (25SF-0F). This was attributed to the chemical reactions between the C-A-S-H gel and the sulfate.
When the percentage of WG was increased, the gain in weight gradually decreased, indicating that a higher level of WG tends to form

14
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

an extra geopolymerization reaction and bridge the microspores, providing stronger resistance to sulfate attack. For example, the mass
loss of mixtures with WG was reduced by 6.2 %, 6.8 %, and 10.2 % for 7.5 %, 15 %, and 22.5 %, respectively, at 120 days. These
results show the same trend as reported by Elyamany et al. [45], which reported an increase in weight throughout the exposure time
compared to the initial weight while subjecting geopolymer mortar to magnesium sulfate attack.

4.5.2. Residual compressive strength after exposure the MgSO4

The 28-day compressive strength of UHPGC at ambient curing before exposure to acid solution was employed as a standard to
assess loss in strength after each exposure period. Fig. 11 demonstrates the variation of compressive strength of UHPGC with glass
aggregate after being submerged in a 5 % magnesium sulfate solution. It was found that the compressive strength of UHPGC was
reduced with the exposure periods. Moreover, when waste glass increased, residual strength also increased. For example, the residual
strength of mixtures containing 7.5–22.5 % WG after 90 days of exposure was 94.5–97.50 %. This trend may be related to the positive
effect of the presence of the WG on the void ratio. The minimum strength loss (119.3 MPa) was noticed at 22.5 % of the glass
aggregate. The existence of micro cracks caused by harmful chemical reactions in the pores, as well as alkali migration from geo­
polymers into the solution inside the pores, may be responsible for the loss of strength [41,45,47].
In general, UHPGCs are durable in the sulfate solution due to the presence of SF with the slag, as it works to fill gaps due to its tiny
particles. Furthermore, it also leads to improving the microstructure by enhancing the geopolymer process and producing extra C-A-S-
H gel. On the other hand, the strength loss in all the mixtures without steel fiber ranged from 1.1 % to 5.3 %, while the mixes con­
taining steel fiber ranged from 0.9 % to 3.9 % at 90 days of exposure. These results are in line with the studies by [45,46].

4.6. Resistance to sulfuric acid attack

4.6.1. Visual appearance and mass loss after exposure to H2SO4

The effect of a 2 % H2SO4 solution for 120 days on the UHPGC samples was investigated. The UHPGC surfaces were rough and
yellowish in color. It was observed that shows that the effect of the glass aggregate is clear on acid resistance and that the color of the
samples does not change to yellow as in the control mix. This is a good indicator of the durability of mixtures containing WG. Fig. 12
shows the loss in mass of samples over time. All the mixtures showed mass loss with time of exposure. After 120 days of exposure to
H2SO4 solution, the control mix lost 3.32 % of its initial mass. The mixtures containing 7.5 % up to 22.5 % were lost, about 3.3–2.8 %,
respectively. The mixtures with 22.5 % glass aggregate had the minimum mass loss in a 2 % H2SO4 solution. This was because of the
WG, which sped up the geopolymerization process and caused more N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H to form than in the control mix. This made
the mix more resistant to acid attack than the control mix.

4.6.2. Residual compressive strength after exposure to H2SO4

Fig. 13 illustrates the residual compressive strengths of the UHPGC samples according to ASTM C-1012 [48] exposure to 2 % H2SO4
for specified periods. It can be indicated that the control mix strength loss reached 12 % and 16 % for samples without and with steel
fiber. Besides, the result illustrates that the mixtures containing glass aggregate strength loss due to acid attack, which reached 34.5 %,
29 %, and 25 % for 7.5 %, 15 %, and 22.5 %, respectively, at the age of 90 days. For example, the control mix (25–0F) had a
compressive strength of 94.0 MPa, but this was decreased to 86.70 MPa following exposure to the acid solution. At the same time, a
mixture with 15 % glass aggregate had a strength of 92.0 MPa and when exposed to acid solution, the strength was decreased to
88 MPa (a decline of 4.34 %).
Vafaei and Allahverdi found that when geopolymer samples containing WG were exposed to acid solutions, they lost very little
mass and compressive strength [49]. As a result, the inclusion of WG influenced the acid resistance of UHPGC slightly. This study
shows that the 22.5 % glass aggregate sample demonstrated the highest residual compressive strength loss after 90 days of exposure to
2 % H2SO4. Moreover, Ismail et al. demonstrated that the presence of acid solution (H+) might deroritate the alumino-silicate network
of geopolymer materials, finally leading to gel decomposition and compressive strength degradation [4].

4.7. Resistance to elevated temperature

4.7.1. Thermo-physical appearance

The thermo-physical characteristics of the mixtures containing 0 % and 22.5 % fine glass aggregate after 200 ◦ C to 800 ◦ C exposure
are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. All samples did not change significantly as the temperature increased from 27◦ to 200◦ C. The control mix
and mixtures containing 22.5 % glass aggregate had very similar morphological colors at 400–600 ◦ C, but they had converted to a
slightly darker brown color [50].
Furthermore, due to the significant evaporation of the physically bound water in samples, the dark color became noticeably lighter
than the original color at 800 ◦ C [51]. The generation of different phases in the geopolymer matrix also caused color change,
particularly at higher temperatures of 800 ◦ C. Furthermore, none of the UHPGC samples revealed any spalling or physical damage at
any point during the heat exposure. The control mix developed significant longitudinal cracks as well as transverse or pattern type
cracks on the surface after exposure at 800 ◦ C, as seen in Fig. 14. (d). On the other hand, Fig. 15.d shows that after being exposed to
800 ◦ C, the glass-containing sample has small cracks compared to the control mixture.

4.7.2. Residual compressive strength

Fig. 16 shows the residual compressive strength of UHPGC containing glass aggregate of 0 %, 7.5 %, 15 %, and 22.5 % after being

15
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

subjected to temperatures of 80–800 ◦ C. It is revealed that all UHPGC mixtures have an augmentation in the compressive strength after
exposure to heat exposure at 200 ◦ C. Therefore, the residual compressive strength of all mixtures reaches about 116–120 % after
incorporating 0–22.5 % waste glass. It is probably the further geopolymerization reaction of the slag and SF particles with the AAS that
may have prompted the rise in strength at this temperature.
Khan and Saker [38] found that after being subjected to 200 ◦ C, GPC developed more compressive strength than before as a
consequence of additional geopolymerization reactions. Besides, the residual strength of the mixes after exposure to 200 and 400 ◦ C
followed the same pattern for employing WG as was seen for the compressive strength of the mixtures evaluated after ambient
treatment, as shown in Fig. 16.
Nevertheless, after being subjected to 600 and 800 ◦ C, glass aggregate mixtures demonstrated higher residual compressive strength
than the control mixture. For example, the residual strength of the mixes containing 7.5–22.5 % waste glass was 35.8 % (35 MPa),
37.8 % (40 MPa), and 39.1 % (38 MPa), respectively, whereas the control mix’s residual compressive strength was 33.4 % after 800 C
exposure. These observations are in good accord with the findings stated by Khan and Saker [38], Tahwia et al. [34], and Ouldkhaoua
et al. [52]. Lu [46] and Yang et al. [53] reported that the coefficients of thermal expansion of glass particles are much lower than
natural sand. Therefore, the incorporation of WG can compensate for the damage to the interfacial zone between binder and fine
aggregate due to the volume change under thermal exposure.

4.8. Microstructural analysis (SEM and EDS test)

SEM images of the control mix and mixtures containing 22.5 % glass aggregate samples cured at ambient temperature and 800 ◦ C
exposure are shown in Fig. 17. The microstructure of the control mix is compact and there is strong bonding between geopolymer gel
and fine aggregate. It is well acknowledged that increasing the dissolution of source materials leads to a higher amount of C (K)-A-S-H
gel, which improves the mechanical characteristics of the concrete [50]. Besides that, the presence of glass aggregate makes the
mixture somewhat more cohesive and denser than the control mixture (Fig. 17c).
Based on the results of this study, it is evident that the addition of waste glass aggregates up to 22.5 % as a replacement for sand
enhances the durability of the UHPGC mixtures. The reasons for this improvement can be concluded as: i) strong bond strength be­
tween geopolymer paste and fine glass particles due to the pozzolanic activity of the article surface rather than natural sand, and ii) the
acceptable behavior of geopolymerization reaction under heat curing in the presence of glass aggregate.
Fig. 17b shows the control mixes’ microstructures under elevated temperatures (800 ◦ C). It can be indicated as more porous than
the control mix at room temperature. There were some cracks and pores visible, indicating a loss in compressive strength. These pores
and cracks may be caused by the released water vapor, volumetric expansion, and decomposition of N-(C)-A-S-H phases at elevated
temperatures [54].
On the other hand, Fig. 17d presents the effect of the glass aggregate on the microstructure of the UHPGC mixtures. There is a good
bond between the binder and fine aggregate. This observation is also compatible with the physical appearance of the mixtures con­
taining 22.5 % WG under 800 ◦ C (Fig. 15d). Furthermore, as compared to the microstructure of the control mix, the microstructure of
the SF25–3F-22.5G sample is more homogeneous and less porous (Fig. 17b and d).
Likewise, the elemental composition of the hardened UHPGC samples was determined by EDS analysis. Table 3 shows the EDS
elements obtained after elevated temperature for the control mix (SF25–3F) and the SF25-F3–2.5G sample. Points A and B are
determined from SEM images as shown in Fig. 17b, whilst C and D are determined in Fig. 17d. It can be indicated that the silicon (Si)
element was lower in the control mix than in the mixtures containing 22.5 % glass aggregate. Zhang et al. [55] stated that the glass
aggregate mixtures have a high intensity of Si in the EDS test after thermal exposure. The higher silicon concentration is thought to be
due to partial softening of glass particles at high temperatures, which may have helped to strengthen bonding and give somewhat
better residual strength. Yang et al. [53] found similar residual strengths. As a result, when exposed to high temperatures, the glass
aggregate mixtures had larger residual compressive strengths than the control mixture.

Table 3
EDS element findings.
Mix ID

25SF-3F (Point A) 25SF-3F (Point B) 25SF-3F-22.5G (Point C) 25SF-3F-22.5G (Point D)

Components (wt%)

O 42.7 42.7 37.4 39.2

Si 23.3 23.4 36.9 37.2
Al 6.9 6.7 3.11 3.5
Ca 7.9 6.8 5.41 5.4
Na 6.4 5.4 4.2 2.7
K 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.5
Fe 4.2 3.6 3.1 1.6
Sb 2.1 3.8 2.2 2.6
Mg 1.79 2.14 2.26 2.16

16
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

5. Conclusions

In the current study, the effect of waste glass aggregate replacing sand on the strength, durability characteristics, and resistance of
high temperatures to ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete was examined. The microstructural properties were also studied
after exposure to ambient and elevated temperatures. The following conclusions can be derived:

1. The flowability of UHPGC was improved by 1.6–4.6 % when 7.5–22.5 % of waste glass was incorporated. The increase in flow­
ability is because glass particles have a higher fineness modulus and can’t soak up as much water as sand can.
2. The compressive strength of mixtures including 0–22.5 % of glass aggregate increased even after 56 days. Also, heat curing had a
noticeable effect on the performance of UHPGC. The compressive strength went from 126 MPa to 152 MPa, which was much higher
than curing at room temperature.
3. All the samples had lost their original weight after 120 days in sulfuric acid. Samples containing 22.5 % WG lost 2.95 % of their
mass, while the control mix lost 3.3 %. According to the findings, exposure to a 2 % sulfuric acid solution is more detrimental to
geopolymer concrete than exposure to a 5 % MgSO4 solution.
4. When exposed at 200 ◦ C and 400 ◦ C, the residual compressive strength of UHPGC showed a slightly declining trend as the content
of glass aggregate increased. While, after 600 ◦ C and 800 ◦ C exposures, the residual strength increased by about 3.7 % (39.4 MPa)
up to 8 % (41 MPa) for replacing 7.5–22.5 % of glass aggregate.
5. SEM images show that the microstructure of UHPGC mixtures is related to the connection between the fine aggregate and geo­
polymer gel, which is principally responsible for the decreased compressive strength of these mixtures. Besides, at exposures of
600–800 ◦ C, glass aggregate provided a better connection with the geopolymer matrix. As a result, UHPGC, including waste glass
aggregate, performed well in high-temperature environments.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

References

[1] K. Ahmed Ali, M.I. Ahmad, Y. Yusup, Issues, impacts, and mitigations of carbon dioxide emissions in the building sector, Sustainability 12 (2020) 18, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12187427.
[2] A. Mokhtar, M. Nasooti, A decision support tool for cement industry to select energy efficiency measures, Energy Strateg. Rev. 28 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.esr.2020.100458.
[3] S.M. Qaidi, B.A. Tayeh, H.F. Isleem, A.R. de Azevedo, H.U. Ahmed, W. Emad, Sustainable utilization of red mud waste (bauxite residue) and slag for the
production of geopolymer composites: a review, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. (2022), e00994, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00994.
[4] I. Ismail, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, S. Hamdan, J.S.J.J. van Deventer, Microstructural changes in alkali activated fly ash/slag geopolymers with sulfate exposure,
Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 3, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9906-2.
[5] X. Chen, A. Sutrisno, L.J. Struble, Effects of calcium on setting mechanism of metakaolin-based geopolymer, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., vol. 101(no. 2), 2018, 〈https://
doi.org/10.1111/jace.15249〉.
[6] T. Xie, P. Visintin, X. Zhao, R. Gravina, Mix design and mechanical properties of geopolymer and alkali activated concrete: review of the state-of-the-art and the
development of a new unified approach, Constr. Build. Mater. 256 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119380.
[7] B.A. Tayeh, A. Hakamy, M. Amin, A.M. Zeyad, I.S. Agwa, Effect of air agent on mechanical properties and microstructure of lightweight geopolymer concrete
under high temperature, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022), e00951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00951.
[8] T. Xie, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Influence of coal ash properties on compressive behaviour of FA- and BA-based GPC, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (24) (2015), https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.14.00429.
[9] T. Xie, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature, Ceram. Int. 41 (4) (2015),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.01.031.
[10] M.S. Saif, M.O. El-Hariri, A.I. Sarie-Eldin, B.A. Tayeh, M.F. Farag, Impact of Ca+ content and curing condition on durability performance of metakaolin-based
geopolymer mortars, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022), e00922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00922.
[11] P. Perez-Cortes, J.I. Escalante-Garcia, Gel composition and molecular structure of alkali-activated metakaolin-limestone cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 137 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106211.
[12] A.L. Almutairi, B.A. Tayeh, A. Adesina, H.F. Isleem, A.M. Zeyad, Potential applications of geopolymer concrete in construction: a review, Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. 15 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00733.
[13] K. Sagoe-Crentsil, T. Brown, A. Taylor, Drying shrinkage and creep performance of geopolymer concrete, J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 2 (1) (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1080/21650373.2013.764963.
[14] T. Xie, C. Fang, M.S. Mohamad Ali, P. Visintin, Characterizations of autogenous and drying shrinkage of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC): an
experimental study, Cem. Concr. Compos., vol. 91, 2018, 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.05.009〉.
[15] A.M. Tahwia, G.M. Elgendy, M. Amin, Durability and microstructure of eco-efficient ultra-high-performance concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 303 (2021), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124491.
[16] A. Wang, Zheng, Zhang, Kaiwei Liu, Yan Li, Liang Shi, Daosheng Sun, The durability of alkali-activated materials in comparison with ordinary Portland cements
and concretes: a review, Engineering, vol. 6(no. 6), 2020, 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.08.019〉.
[17] Xiao Yu Zhuang, Chen Liang, Sridhar Komarneni, Chun Hui Zhou, Dong Shen Tong, Hui Min Yang, Wei Hua Yu, Hao Wang, Fly ash-based geopolymer: clean
production, properties, and applications, J. Clean. Prod. 125 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.019.
[18] C. Fang, M. Ali, T. Xie, P. Visintin, A.H. Sheikh, The influence of steel fibre properties on the shrinkage of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 242 (2020), 117993, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117993.

17
A.M. Tahwia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01393

[19] Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, C. Shi, D. Zhu, N. Li, Y. Deng, Development of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete (UHPGC): influence of steel fiber on mechanical
properties, Cem. Concr. Compos 112 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103670.
[20] Y. Liu, C. Shi, Z. Zhang, N. Li, D. Shi, Mechanical and fracture properties of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete: effects of steel fiber and silica fume,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 112 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103665.
[21] J. Lao, L. Xu, B. Huang, J. Dai, S.P. Shah, Strain-hardening ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete (UHPGC): matrix design and effect of steel fibers, vol.
30, 2022, 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coco.2022.101081〉.
[22] S. Aydin, B. Baradan, The effect of fiber properties on high performance alkali-activated slag/silica fume mortars, Compos. Part B Eng. 45 (1) (2013), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.080.
[23] Y. Jiao, Y. Zhang, M. Guo, L. Zhang, H. Ning, S. Liu, Mechanical and fracture properties of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) containing waste glass sand
as partial replacement material, J. Clean. Prod. 277 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123501.
[24] A. Wetzel, B. Middendorf, Influence of silica fume on properties of fresh and hardened ultra-high-performance concrete based on alkali-activated slag, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 100 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.03.023.
[25] Ghasan Fahim Huseien, Hussein K. Hamzah, Abdul Rahman Mohd Sam, Nur Hafizah A Khalid, Kwok Wei Shah, Dan Paul Deogrescu, Jahangir Mirza, Alkali-
activated mortars blended with glass bottle waste nano powder: environmental benefit and sustainability, J. Clean. Prod., vol. 243, 2020, 〈https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2019.118636〉.
[26] Z.Z. Ismail, E.A. AL-Hashmi, Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in concrete, Waste Manag. 29 (2) (2009), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.012.
[27] A.M. Rashad, G.M.F. Essa, H.A. Abdel-Gawwad, H.A. Abdel, An investigation of alkali-activated slag pastes containing recycled glass powder under the effect of
elevated temperatures, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (19) (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18365-7.
[28] ASTM C989/C989M-18, Standard Specification for Slag Cement for Use in Concrete and Mortars, ASTM Stand., 2018.
[29] ASTM C1240-20, Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures, ASTM Stand., 2020.
[30] P.S. Ambily, K. Ravisankar, C. Umarani, J.K. Dattatreya, N.R. Iyer, Development of ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 66 (2)
(2014), https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.13.00057.
[31] A. Hosan, S. Haque, F. Shaikh, Compressive behaviour of sodium and potassium activators synthetized fly ash geopolymer at elevated temperatures: a
comparative study, J. Build. Eng. 8 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.10.005.
[32] BS-EN 12620-02, Standards Publication Aggregates for Concrete, BSI, London, 2002.
[33] ASTM C33, Concrete Aggregates 1, ASTM Int., 2010.
[34] A.M. Tahwia, M. Abd Ellatief, A.M. Heneigel, M. Abd Elrahman, Characteristics of eco-friendly ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete incorporating waste
materials, Ceram. Int. 48 (14) (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.03.103.
[35] ASTM C1437, Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar, ASTM Int., 2007.
[36] ASTM C39/C39M, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM Stand., 2003.
[37] ASTM C597-02, Pulse Velocity Through Concrete, ASTM Stand., 2003.
[38] ASTM C1585-13, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Rate of Absorption of Water by Hydraulic Cement Concretes, ASTM Int., 2013.
[39] M.N.N. Khan, P.K. Sarker, Effect of waste glass fine aggregate on the strength, durability and high temperature resistance of alkali-activated fly ash and GGBFS
blended mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 263 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120177.
[40] A. Karimipour, J. de Brito, Influence of polypropylene fibres and silica fume on the mechanical and fracture properties of ultra-high-performance geopolymer
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 283 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122753.
[41] A. Gholampour, V.D. Ho, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Ambient-cured geopolymer mortars prepared with waste-based sands: mechanical and durability-related properties
and microstructure, Compos. Part B Eng. 160 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.057.
[42] A.S. Faried, S.A. Mostafa, B.A. Tayeh, T.A. Tawfik, Mechanical and durability properties of ultra-high-performance concrete incorporated with various nano
waste materials under different curing conditions, J. Build. Eng., vol. 43, 2021, 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102569〉.
[43] S. Dadsetan, H. Siad, M. Lachemi, M. Sahmaran, Extensive evaluation on the effect of glass powder on the rheology, strength, and microstructure of metakaolin-
based geopolymer binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 268 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121168.
[44] Y. Liu, C. Shi, Z. Zhang, N. Li, An overview on the reuse of waste glasses in alkali-activated materials, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 144 (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.007.
[45] H.E. Elyamany, A.E.M. Abd Elmoaty, A.M. Elshaboury, Magnesium sulfate resistance of geopolymer mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 184 (2018), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.212.
[46] Huai Liu, Wu Jing, Lingling Qin, Ping Duan, Zuhua Zhang, Rui Guo, Wanlin Li, Thermal stability of geopolymer modified by different silicon source materials
prepared from solid wastes, Constr. Build. Mater. 315 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125709.
[47] J.-X.X. Lu, C.S. Poon, Use of waste glass in alkali activated cement mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 160 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.11.080.
[48] ASTM C1012-04, Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution, ASTM Stand., 2004.
[49] M. Vafaei, A. Allahverdi, High strength geopolymer binder based on waste-glass powder, Adv. Powder Technol. 28 (1) (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apt.2016.09.034.
[50] R. Cai, H. Ye, Clinkerless ultra-high strength concrete based on alkali-activated slag at high temperatures, Cem. Concr. Res 145 (2021), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106465.
[51] P.K. Sarker, S. Kelly, Z. Yao, Effect of fire exposure on cracking, spalling and residual strength of fly ash geopolymer concrete, Mater. Des. 63 (2014), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.06.059.
[52] Y. Ouldkhaoua, B. Benabed, R. Abousnina, E.-H. Kadri, J. Khatib, Effect of using metakaolin as supplementary cementitious material and recycled CRT funnel
glass as fine aggregate on the durability of green self-compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 235 (2020), 117802, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117802.
[53] S. Yang, T.C. Ling, H. Cui, C.S. Poon, Influence of particle size of glass aggregates on the high temperature properties of dry-mix concrete blocks, Constr. Build.
Mater. 209 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.131.
[54] R. Cai, T. Wu, C. Fu, H. Ye, Thermal degradation of potassium-activated ternary slag-fly ash-silica fume binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 320 (2022), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126304.
[55] B. Zhang, P. He, C.S. Poon, Improving the high temperature mechanical properties of alkali activated cement (AAC) mortars using recycled glass as aggregates,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 112 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103654.

18